Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/09/89"It's not true that nice guys finish last. Nice guys are winners before the game even starts." -Addison Walker AGENDA REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 9, 1989 - Council Chambers, City Hall Closed Session - 6430 p.m. Regular Session - 7:30 p.m. MAYOR June Williams MAYOR PRO TEM Roger Creighton COUNCILMEMBERS Jim Rosenberger Chuck Sheldon Etta Simpson CITY CLERK Kathleen Midstokke CITY TREASURER Gary L. Brutsch CITY MANAGER Kevin B. Northcraft CITY ATTORNEY James P. Lough All Council meetings are open to the public. PLEASE ATTEND. Complete agenda materials are available for public inspection in the Police Department, Public Library and the Office of the City Clerk. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: PROCLAMATIONS: Child Passenger Safety Week, May 21-27, 1989 INTRODUCTION OF NEW EMPLOYEES AND PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES OF APPOINTMENT TO NEW POLICE OFFICERS. PRESENTATION OF PLAQUE TO CITY ATTORNEY JAMES P. LOUGH. CITIZEN COMMENTS Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any items on the Consent Calendar may do so at this time. Citizens may request to speak during Public Hearings and items appearing under Municipal Matters at the time the item is called. Citizen comments on items not on the agenda but within the Council's jurisdiction will be provided time at the end of the agenda. Please limit comments to three minutes. Citizens with comments regarding City management or departmental operations are requested to submit those comments to the City Manager. —/76,7 0.,_e:;e34.-/711e 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following routine matters will be acted upon by one vote to approve with the majority con- sent of the City Council. There will be no separate discussion of•these items unless good cause is shown by a member prior to the roll call vote. (Items removed will be onrsidered under Agenda Item 3.) A Li (a) Recoendtion to approve minutes of regular meeting of the City Council held on April 25, 1989. (b) Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants Nos. through inclusive, and cancel certain warrants per recommendation of the City Treasurer. (c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. (d) Recommendation to receive and file the April, 1989 monthly investment report. Memorandum from City Treasurer Gary L. Brutsch dated May 2, 1989. (e) Recommendation to receive and file revised 1988-89 fis- cal year end interest revenue update. Memorandum from City Treasurer Gary L. Brutsch dated May 1, 1989. (f) Recommendation to deny the following claim for damages and refer to City's Claims Administrator: 1) Joe R. Metcalf, 2752 Via Anita, Palos Verdes Es- tates, CA 90274, filed 5-1-89, alleged collision with City vehicle. Recommendation to authorize call for bids for the opera- tion of the concession stand at the end of the Hermosa Beach Fishing Pier. Memorandum from Public Works Direc- tor Anthony Antich dated April 24, 1989. (h) Recommendation to award bid for 1989 mini pick-up cab and chassis for Animal Control to Sopp Chevrolet. Memo- randum from General Services Director Joan Noon dated May 1, 1989. 0(g) (j) Recommendation to receive and file announcement of en- forcement of ban on trick skateboarding and bicycling, and to appropriate an amount not to exceed $1,900 from Prospective Expenditures to the Traffic Safety budget of Public Works for the necessary signs and signals. Memo- randum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dat- ed May 1, 1989. Recommendation to approve appropriation of $7 from the Parks & Recreation Facilities Tax Fund into CIP 89- 520 for the purchase of a portable fence for the Clark Field complex. Memorandum from Community Resources Di- rector Alana Mastrian dated May 2, 1989. - 2 - (k) (1) Recommendation to receive and file report regarding the issuance of special parking permits for press personnel. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dat- ed May 2, 1989. Use of City property for Chamber of Commerce event. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated May 4, 1989. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES. (a) ORDINANCE NO. 89-984 - ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE IV, SECTION 17-55 ET SEQ, OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ALARM SYSTEMS. For adoption. (b) ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 88-970 TO ADD A GRANDFATHER CLAUSE . For waiver of full reading and introduction. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated May 2, 1989. (C) ORDINANCE AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 19-52 TO RE- DEFINE THROUGH STREETS. For waiver of full reading and introduction. ADOPTION OF THREE RESOLUTIONS ESTABLISH- ING THROUGH STREETS, ANGLE PARKING AND SEPARATE HANDI- CAPPED PARKING ZONES. Memorandum from Public Works Di- rector Anthony Antich dated April 17, 1989. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. (Agendized at request of Mayor Williams) (a) Letter from Stephen B. Goodell, 1322 Sunset Drive, dated April 15, 1989 re. trash problem adjacent to Cher Ton Ton. (b) Letter from Brian McGoldrick, 531 Pier Ave., Space 40, dated April 26, 1989, re. Marineland Mobilehome Park. (c) Letter from Michael Pitton, Citizens Concern Group 30th Street, dated April 28, 1989, re. BMW operation. (d) Letter from Harold Cohen, La Playita Cafe, dated May 1, 1989, re. downtown building heights. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. 5. CONSIDERATION OF CONTINUATION OF ALTERNATE SCHEDULING FOR CITY HALL OPERATIONS. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dated April 17, 1989. (Con- tinued from 4/25/89 meeting.) MUNICIPAL MATTERS 3 6. PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADOPTING, RATIFYING, AND READOPTING ORDINANCE NOS. 85-804, 86-832, 86-837, 87-896, AND 88- 967 CONCERNING TAX MEASURES. For waiver of full reading and introduction. Memorandum from City Attorney James P. Lough dated April 19, 1989. 7. PLANNING STUDIES: A. OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO STUDY R-2 DENSITY STANDARDS WITH RESOLUTION OF INTENT. B. STATUS REPORT ON REQUESTED PLANNING STUDIES. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated May 2, 1989. 8. INTERPRETATION OF INTERIM ORDINANCE REGARDING HEIGHT AND VIEW BLOCKAGE. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated May 2, 1989. 9. RECOMMENDATION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR JULY 11, 1989 TO ADOPT RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH CITY POLICY FOR THE PAYMENT OF REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND GUTTERS. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated April 25, 1989. 10. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS: (Continued from 5/3/89 meeting) A. GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION AND ZONE CHANGE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY, R-2, TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL, C-3, OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR LOT 4, BLOCK 1, TRACT 6851 AND THE PRECISE PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT AT 1107 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND EN- VIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION, with resolution for adoption and ordinance for waiver of full read- ing and introduction. (Straw vote at 4/25/89 meeting - 5-0.) B. GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION FROM LOW DENSITY TO HIGH DENSITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AREA 6, WEST SIDE OF PROSPECT AVENUE, APPROXIMATELY 220 FT. SOUTH OF ARTESIA BLVD., with resolution for adoption. (Straw vote at 4/25/89 meeting - 5-0.) C. NOTE: AREA 10 WITHDRAWN AND SET FOR HEARING WITH 3RD QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND POTENTIAL ZONE CHANGE. D. GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO LOW DENSITY AND HIGH DENSITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AREA 12, NORTH SIDE OF 24TH PLACE, 90-165 FT. WEST OF PACIFIC COAST HIGH- WAY, with resolution for adoption. (Straw vote at 4/25/89 meeting - 4-0.) E. TO REPEAL THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN TO RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL, AND TO REZONE TO C-2 OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE 11. CITY COUNCIL FOR THE PRIVATELY OWNED PORTION OF BILTMORE SITE, LOCATION GENERALLY BETWEEN 13TH STREET AND 14TH STREET ON THE STRAND AND BETWEEN 14TH STREET TO 14TH COURT ALONG BEACH DRIVE AND ADOPT THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION, with resolution for adoption and ordinance for waiver of full reading and introduction. (Straw vote at 4/25/89 meeting - 5-0.) F. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CONSIDER THE LOCATION AND POLICIES REGARDING MULTI -USE CORRIDOR AND TO CON- SIDER A SPECIFIC PLAN AREA AND TO ADOPT THE EN- VIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION, with resolution for adoption. RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR• PROPOSALS FOR THE POSITION OF CITY ATTORNEY. Memorandum from Person- nel Director Robert Blackwood dated May 4, 1989. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL City Council/Planning Commission workshop. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated May 1, 1989. 14. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL (a) Request by Councilmember Creighton to televise Council meetings. Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: CITIZEN COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Citizens wishing to address the Council on items not on the agenda but within the Council's jurisdiction may do so at this time. all City ADJOURNMENT • .9 CITY HALL OPERATING HOURS MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY OPEN 7:00 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M. CLOSED FRIDAYS Where there is no vision the people perish... HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA WELCOME! By your presence in the City Council Chambers you are participating in the process of representative government. Your government welcomes your interest and hopes you will attend the City Council meetings often. It is the policy of the City Council that no discussion of new items will begin after 11:30 p.m., unless this rule is waived by the Council. The agendas are developed with the intent to have all matters covered within the time allowed. CITY VISION A less dense, more family oriented pleasant low profile, financially sound community comprised of a separate and distinct business district and residential neighborhoods that are afforded full municipal services in which the maximum costs are borne- by visitor/users; ledby a City Council which accepts a stewardship role for community resources and displays a willingness to explore innovative alternatives, and moves toward public policy leadership in attitudes of full ethical awareness. This Council is dedicated to learning from the past, and preparing Hermosa Beach for tomorrow's challenges today. ' Adopted by City Council on October 23, 1986 NOTE: There is no smoking allowed in the Council Chambers 0 y �� • TSE' HERMOSA BEACH FORM OF GOVERNMENT Hermosa Beach bas the Council -Manager form of government. with a City Manager ap- pointed by and responsible to the City Council for carrying out Council policy. The• Mayor and Council decide what is to be done.. The City Manager. operating through the entire City staff, does it. This separation of policy making and administration is considsered the most economical and efficient form of City government in the United States today. GLOSSARY The following explanations may help you to understand the • terms found on most agen- das for meetings of the Hermosa Beach City Council. • Consent Items A compilation of all routine matters to be acted upon by one vote; approval re- quires a majority affirmative vote. Any Councilmember can remove an item from this listing thereby causing that matter to be considered under the category Consent Cal- endar items Removed For Separate Discussion. Public Hearings Public Hearings are held on -certain matters as required by law. The Hearings afford the public the opportunity to appear and formally express their views regarding the matter being heard. Additionally, letters may be filed with the City.Clerk, prior to the Hearing. Hearings Hearings are held on other matters of public importance for which there is no legal requirement to conduct an advertised Public Hearing. Ordinances . An ordinance is a law that regulates government•revenues and/or public conduct. All . ordinances require two "readings". The first reading introduces the ordinance into the records. At least one week later'Council•may adopt, reject or hold over the . . ordinance to a subsequent meeting. Regular ordinances take effect 30 days after the second reading. Emergency ordinances are governed by different provisions and waive the time requirements. Written Communications The public, members of advisory boards/commissions or organizations may formally communicate to or make a request of Council by letter; said letters should be filed with the City Clerk by the Wednesday preceeding the Regular City Council meeting. Miscellaneous Items and Reports -.City Manager The City Manager coordinates departmental reports and brings items. to the attention of, or for action by the City Council. Verbal reports may be given by the City Manager regarding items not on the agenda, usually having arisen since the agenda was prepared on the preceding Wednesday. Miscellaneous Items and Reports - City Council Members of the City Council may place items on the agenda for consideration by the full Council. Other Matters - City Council These are matters that come to the attention of a Council member after publication of the Agenda. Oral Communications from the Public - Matters of an Urgency Nature Citizens wishing to address the City Council on an urgency matter not elsewhere con- sidered on the agenda may do so at this time. Parking Authority The Parking Authority is a financially separate entity, but is operated as an inte- gral part of the City government. Vehicle Parking District No. 1 The City Council also serves as the Vehicle Parking District Commission. It's pur- pose is to oversee the operation of certain downtown parking lots and otherwise pro- mote public parking in the central business•district. • Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council April 25, 1989 Regular Meeting of May 9, 1989 REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND GUTTERS Recommendation It is recommended that City Council: 1. Set a hearing on July 11, 1989 at 8:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, to adopt the attached, proposed Resolution No. 89 - setting forth City policy for the repair and maintenance of sidewalks, curbs and gutters. Background At their February 28, 1989 meeting, City Council discussed staff's report, dated February 7, 1989, assessing present sidewalk, driveway, curb and gutter damage. That report analyzed the following elements as a first step toward adopting a City policy for such repairs: Criteria for damage City-wide inventory by address of existing damage including cost Repair options Who shall pay City Council referred this matter back to staff for further study with particular emphasis on who should pay and why. A copy of this report is available for review in the office of the City Clerk. Analysis The term "sidewalk" in this report shall include curbs and gutters as defined by Section 5600 in the Street and Highway Code. Regarding financial responsibility, the State has determined that the private property owner is financially responsible for repair and maintenance of sidewalks as defined above. As listed below, this is one of three options utilized by cities. 1. City pays in full 2. Owner pays in full 3. City/Owner share (permanent or temporary) The question of who shall pay is analyzed as follows: rt 1 1. CITY PAYS IN FULL A. Cost (1) Present (2) Future B. Financial Resources (1) Present (2) Future C. Advantages D. Disadvantages 2. OWNER PAYS IN FULL A. Cost (1) Table 1 - highest, lowest, and average (2) Table 2 - cost ranges B. Financial Resources (1) INCOME Table 3 - household Table 4 - figures (2) REAL PROPERTY VALUES Advantages Disadvantages C. D. cost per location. 1980 and projected 1987 and 1992 Hermosa Beach income ranges analysis of low and high end of the Table 5 3. CITY/OWNER SHARE A. Permanent basis B. Temporary basis C. Advantages D. Disadvantages 4. SUMMARY 5. RECOMMENDATION A. CITY PAYS IN FULL 1A) Costs: (1) Present: The present inventory has been re -analyzed. Properties are grouped as shown below and the total cost including a 25% contingency for each group is as follows: Group Cost Private Property City -owned H.B. School -owned Cable TV Damage Water Utility Damage Total: $269,759 $ 3,995 $ 180 $ 42,144 * $ 411 * $316,489 City to recover these costs. $316,489 - $42,144 - $411 = $273,934 (2) Future: Annual costs will be lower since this is the first time in years that many of the locations have ever been inventoried. Trees are a major source of damage; the size and type of root system involved can effect how long the repairs will last. Staff has scheduled street tree maintenance responsibility and will have an assessment for City Council in the near future. 1B) Financial Resources: (1) Present: The City has the to draw upon: FUNDING General Fund (designated for CIP Projects) State Gas Tax following potential funding sources ESIMATED BALANCE 6/30/89 $ 384,091 $ 15,186 (2) Future: City funding for repairs could come from the same sources. However, the City funding is further drained when including future year capital improvement projects. 1C) Advantages: If the City chooses this option, there would be the following advantages: The entire repair process could be completed more quickly. Staff would have direct control over the process and timeliness of repairs. Less administrative time expended by staff than with other options. 1D) Disadvantages: Staff sees the following disadvantages of this option: (4) The total estimated cost to the public is high - over $300,000. Even excluding Cable TV and water utility -related repairs, the public's cost is estimated over $270,000. Tax dollars spent for this purpose are not available for other projects of benefit and safety to the general public. Other cities that do pay have reported that in some fiscal years, because of more urgent priorities, there was not enough money remaining in the budget to repair all inventoried damage. The City's exposure to potential liability could be increased. If not enough money is made available, the City could be held liable for repairs not performed in a timely manner. 2. OWNER PAYS IN FULL 2A) Costs: Property owners are concerned only with their repair cost which could vary from under $100 to more than $3,000. The data in Table 1 shows the total cost of all damage abutting private property and the high, low and average cost per location: 3 Table 1 ESTIMATED REPAIR COST: $ 215,807 EST. 25% CONTINGENCY: $ 53,952 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: $ 269,759 HIGHEST ESTIMATED COST: $ 3,375 (per location) LOWEST ESTIMATED COST: $ 25 (per location) AVERAGE ESTIMATED COST: $ 233 (per location) The amount and percentages of locations within several cost ranges is shown below in Table 2. COST RANGE TABLE 2 ESTIMATED NO. PERCENTAGES OF LOCATIONS (ROUNDED OFF) $ 3375 - 3000 2 .2% $ 2999 - 1500 1 .1% $ 1499 - 1000 11 1.0% $ 999 - 500 67 5.8% $ 499 - 250 171 14.8% $ 249 - 100 387 33.5% Under $100 515 44.6% TOTAL: 1,154 100.0% 2B) Financial Resources: Income and real property value are the primary financial resources of property owners. The following data is approximate since the last complete census was nearly 10 years ago (1980). (1) Income: The information in Table 3 for 1980 was obtained from the Hermosa Beach library. Current estimates are from an article on Hermosa Beach in the Real Estate Section of the Los Angeles Times published on April 23, 1989 (on file in the City Clerk's office) . TABLE 3 HERMOSA BEACH 1980 CENSUS 1988 ESTIMATE HOUSEHOLD INCOME (percentage) (percentage) Less than $15,000 29.9% 10.7% $ 15,000 - $24,999 27.0% * $ 25,000 - $34,999 19.6% * $ 35,000 - $49,999 15.0% * $ 50,000 - $74,999 5.9% 25.0% $ 75,000 + 2.6% 19.6% *These figures were unavailable from the L.A. Times as of this date. - 4 - In Table 4, the ranges in the top end have been combined. The estimated percentage of those in the high end ($50,000 to $75,000+) has increased by nearly 5 times from 1980 to the present (8.5% to 44.6%). The percentage in the low end has declined over 2.5 times from 29.9% in 1980 to 10.7% in 1988. TABLE 4 HERMOSA BEACH 1980 CENSUS 1988 ESTIMATE HOUSEHOLD INCOME (percentage) (percentage) 50,000 - 75,000+ 8.5% 44.6% 0 - $14,999 29.9% 10.7% The L.A. Times article reported that the median Hermosa Beach household income in 1988 was estimated at $45,905; the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce estimates the average family income in 1986 was $50,826. (2) Real Property Values: In the 1980 Census, the median Hermosa Beach house was valued at $148,200. The Business Section of the March 9, 1989 Easy Reader reported on South Bay real estate in general and Hermosa Beach specifically (on file in the City Clerk's office). According to figures obtained from the South Bay Board of Realtors, "Hermosa Beach home prices increased an average of 45%...last year...(while) Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach and Torrance averaged only 26%". Further, they conclude "that in the absence of a depression", no one expects a drop in prices in the foreseeable future. The South Bay Board of Realtors currently does not have information available for the first quarter in 1989. However, a summary of multiple listing sales in Hermosa Beach from January, 1989 to the present was made available by a local broker. In 1989, no property, except for condominium conversions, sold for less than $200,000. The selling price of 47 out of 53 single family residences in 1989 has exceeded $280,000. 2C) Advantages: (1) The cost to individual owners is generally low; the average cost per location is estimated to be $233 and 78% of current repairs are estimated to cost under $250 per location. (2) Owners as well as other residents would benefit from additional public projects made possible by the availability of tax dollars (3) Paying for repairs would encourage many owners to become more knowledgeable and responsible for the maintenance of sidewalks. 2D) Disadvantages: (1) Financial hardship c°buld result for some owners. (2) Initially, most time required for administration of the three 5 options. (3) Repairs will take longer because of the required notification process. 3. CITY/OWNER SHARE 3A) Permanent Basis: As noted in the February 7, 1989 report, this option was used by no city in the South Bay survey and by less than 8% of the 154 cities surveyed by the League of California Cities. It would not be cost effective. The administrative costs incurred by the City for partial owner payment could be as high as those to obtain full payment (option #2). 3B) Temporary Basis: On this basis, cost/sharing has been used by a few cities as a means to gradually prepare owners for full financial responsibility by transferring maintenance in incremental steps. 3C) Advantage: Sharing the burden could make some owners feel better. 3D) Disadvantage: The administrative costs incurred by the City for partial owner payment would be the same as those to obtain full payment. 4. SUMMARY The research does not indicate financial hardship to the majority of Hermosa Beach property owners if they were to pay for current sidewalk repairs. On the cost side, 93% of all current repairs are estimated to cost less than $500 and the average estimated cost per location is $233. Since 1980, income is estimated at $50,826 (median family) and $45,905 (median household). To these figures, must be added the considerable value of even the lowest priced Hermosa Beach property. In those instances where financial hardship would result, any one or some combination of the following remedies could be implemented. 1. Payment Waiver - Exempt by age, health, income, cost or some combination 2. Delayed Payment - Divide the total cost into 12 monthly payments 3. Lien Agreement - Utilize real property value by collecting payment only when property is sold. Finally staff believes the public recognizes that cities must prioritize spending because of limited tax dollars. In this case, the cost to the individual owner is generally low, but the total cost to the public for such repairs would be approximately $270,000. This is tax dollars, that if spent on sidewalks, will not be available to other public needs such as sewers, street repairs, etc. that will the benefit the City as a whole. 5. RECOMMENDATION Because of the research, staff concludes the following: .1. Property owners should be financially responsible for current and future maintenance and repairs of damaged sidewalks adjacent to their property, excluding damage caused by utilities and cable T.V. The utilities and cable T.V. will be billed. This conclusion follows State law which assigns the financial responsibility for maintenance and repair of sidewalks to the property owners. Alternatives: Alternatives presented by staff and available to the City are: 1. Determine that the City shall pay for all repairs currently inventoried, excluding damage caused by utilities and cable T.V., as a one-time occurrence but that City policy shall assign financial responsibility to the property owner pursuant to State law; 2. Determine that the City is 100% financially responsible for the cost of all current and future repairs; 3. Determine that the City and property owner shall share the cost of repairs, either on a temporary or permanent basis. Respectfully submitted, AnthVit trYk, 0`-1'7 ony Antic Director of Pdblic Works Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator Noted: (Please see attached comments) evin $. Nort•craft City Manager Credit: Research by Terry Bindman, Public Works Department sda2 pwadmin :tb CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM DATE: May 3, 1989 TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft m,/-€; RE: City Manager Comments on Agenda Item No. 9, Driveway, Curb and Gutter Damage Assessment The staff report properly covers the options available to the Council. Since it is a well prepared summary of those options, it is appropriate that the Council have an opportunity to review and gain insight from the information provided, especially since we are dealing with an important, long term policy decision for the community. While the Public Works Department has weighed the issues and made a reasonable recommendation, I have also reviewed this informa- tion and tend to favor a different option than that proposed by the Public Works Department. I think the Council should serious- ly consider accepting the sidewalk and curb and gutter repairs necessary in our community as a City responsibility for now and in the future, for the following reasons: (1) City practices - The League of California Cities survey re- ported in the February 28, 1989 memo to Council reflects that 73% of cities in California assume responsibility for sidewalk re- pair, and 85% assume responsibility for curbs and gutters. Our City gets a good proportion of the property tax and has some com- mercial revenue sources. There does not seem to be any substan- tial reason why our City government should not be in a position to offer the same level of services a majority of cities in Cal- ifornia provide their citizens. (2) Uniformity - If the City assumes responsibility, the main- tenance and repairs would be consistent and uniform throughout the City. The sidewalks and curbs would not be subject to the variations of attention and quality that would be likely with several thousand property owners assuming responsibility. (3) Cost - The City could contract City-wide for these repairs cost effectively and with little administrative cost. The ad- ministrative costs to charge each homeowner their proportionate share of repairs in front of their home are considerable. Indi- vidual estimates, noticing, hearings, potential of liens, protest reviews, waiver procedures, and smaller contracts all result in the possibility of tens to hundreds of thousands more in total cost for the program if it is to be funded by individual property assessments. Sidewalk, (4) Measuring benefit - With our nice weather, walking in our community is a common means of travel, resulting in well -repaired sidewalks being a community benefit as well as a benefit to the property owner in front of whom that particular sidewalk exists. It would seem difficult to explain to a property owner that he or she has to pay $200 to $1000 to repair a sidewalk that happens to need repair, especially when the adjacent property owners pay nothing by a quirk of construction or other unrelated circumstances. (5) Current taxation - As the Council is well aware, our citizenry is already being taxed a 6% Utility Users Tax currently to pay for sewers, beach patrol, and bootleg enforcement, as well as a 4% tax for purchase of the Greenbelt (which will sunset when the payment is made). With this existing commitment for addi- tional taxation to improve our community, it seems hard to ratio- nalize "going back to the well" for this comparatively small in- frastructure need. As an alternative, I would suggest that we take approximately 1% of the $30,000,000 that will be needed for sewer repair over the next 20 years and use it for sidewalk, curb and gutter repair. This will not jeopardize the sewer program, but will show immediate improvements in the quality of public facilities in our community. The only exception to this recommendation is that, where obvious damage has occurred as a result of other parties, the City should not assume the financial liability to repair that damage. If the Council wishes to pursue the Public Works option to assess repair costs to property owners, the scheduling of a public hear- ing certainly is appropriate. If there is no interest in pursu- ing that option, I think a rather controversial issue can be avoided by Council action to accept City responsibility as part of this year's budget approval/ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA TO ESTABLISH GUIDELINES REGARDING SIDEWALK, CURB AND GUTTER REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach held a public hearing on July 11, 1989 to receive written and oral testimony on this matter and made the following Findings: WHEREAS, the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code does not currently establish responsibility for repair and maintenance of sidewalks abutting private property; and WHEREAS, Sidewalks need to be maintained for public safety and the City has inventoried 100% of the sidewalks and curbs for damage. WHEREAS, The Public Works Department has used a one inch displacement as a guideline for when foreseeable risk may exist; WHEREAS, Street and Highway Code: Section 5600 "sidewalk" includes a park or parking strip maintained in the area between the property line and the street line and also includes curbing, bulkheads, retaining walls or other works for the protection of any sidewalk or of any such park or parking strip; and WHEREAS, Street and Highways Code: Chapter 22, Subsection 5610. Duty of property owners: Liability for conditions created by grantees of city permits, etc.: states, "the owners of lots or portions of lots fronting on any portion of a public street or place when that street or place is improved or if when the area between the property line of the adjacent property and the street line is maintained as a park or parking strip will maintain any sidewalk in such condition that the sidewalk will not endanger 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 persons or property and maintain it in a condition which will not interfere with the public convenience in the use of those works or areas save and except as to those conditions created or maintained in, upon, along, or in connection with such sidewalk by any person other than the owner, under and by virtue of any permit or right granted to him by law or by the City authorities in charge thereof, and such persons will be under a like duty in relations thereto. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That a general guideline is to designate the property owners as responsible for all repairs and maintenance of sidewalks as specified by state law as stated above in Section 2; and SECTION 2. The City, once noticed, will make temporary emergency repairs to alleviate a potentially hazardous condition. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this - day of July 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS 25 26 2 28 E Y ATTORNEY ares April 17, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council of April 25, 1989 PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF CONTINUATION OF ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULING FOR CITY HALL OPERATIONS RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the continuation of the current hours of operation for City Hall, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday. BACKGROUND: On October 27, 1987, the City Council authorized a change in the hours of operation for City Hall from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mon- day through Friday, to the current hours indicated above. During the period of the alternative schedule, the City Council received reports indicating the impact of the alternative schedule on sick leave and overtime utilization, as well as the results of citizen and employee surveys. Each of these factors indicated positive results of the alternative schedule. At the City Council meeting on Janauray 24, 1989, the Council received staff's recommendation to authorize the continuation of the 4/10 schedule. The Council continued the alternative schedule for an additional -90 days and directed staff to set the matter for a public hearing. ANALYSIS: A concern raised at the Council meeting of January 24th was that the number of hours that City Hall was open and available to the public had been reduced as a result of the 4/10 schedule. The - original negotiations with the impacted employee organizations took this potentiality into consideration and concessions were made. The number of holiday hours available under both the 5/8 and the 4/10 schedule was maintained at 90 hours. This was ac- complished by eliminating selected holidays for employees on the 4/10 schedule. A comparison of scheduled working hours between the two schedules indicates the following: 4/10 schedule - 199 work days X 10 hrs = 1990 work hours. 5/8 schedule - 248.75 work days X 8 hrs = 1990 work hours. Additionally, prior to the implementation of the 4/10 schedule, City Hall was closed from 12:00 - 1:00 for employee lunches. Leaving City Hall open during these hours has provided an addi- tional 199 hours that citizens can utilize city offices during the year. This has produced a 10% increase in the actual number of hours City Hall offices are available. Staff also noted the Council's concern with servicing the public when City Hall is closed because of a holiday falling on a Mon- day. To address this concern, arrangements will be made to have the directory line answered on the Fridays preceding a Monday holiday in order to direct calls of an emergency nature and to take messages for departmental action the next business day. It should also be noted that the continuation of the 4/10 schedule will have a positive impact on the City's ability to comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Commuter Program (Regulation XV). This program mandates that employers of 100 to 199 people implement a plan to reduce average vehicle ridership (AVR) commencing January 1, 1990. The institu- tion of compressed work weeks and/or flexible work hours is one of the recommended options to employers to accomplish this reduction. While the above stresses the advantages, indentified disad- vantages to the schedule should also be noted. In the January 24, 1989 report to the City Council, the City Manager noted the disadvantage of "scheduling difficulties of dealing in a business world operating on a different work schedule". This potentially could become less of a problem if more employers select alterna- tive schedules as a result of the AQMD Regulation XV. The City Manager also noted that "The 2070 reduction in trips aids in re- ducing traffic congestion, pollution emmissions, and parking problems. It is an important, governmental example of what can be done to reduce these significant urban problems". Also, while there is an advantage to the citizen who is afforded the opportunity to conduct business at City Hall during the extended hours, there will be those who are inconvenienced by the fact that City Hall is closed on Friday. The recommendation to authorize continuation of the current schedule on a continuing basis is in recognition of not only the employee support of this schedule, but also allows the City to utilize this schedule in recruitment and retention efforts. Respectfully submitted, Concur: Robert A. Blackwood Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager Personnel Director City Manager Comment: Because of the number of public hearing matters on the 4-25-89 Council agenda, the Mayor has approved opening the public hearing on this matter, hearing any requested testimony, and then con- tinuing the item for further testimony and decision at a later date. #+t*44-6.- ,j1.25/8? CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PUBUC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach will on Tuesday, April 25, 1989, hold a Public Hearing to consider continuation of altemate scheduling for City Hall Operations (Open 7:00 a.m. thru 6 p.m., Monday - Thursday, Closed Friday). SAID PUBUC HEARING 10 BE HELD at 8:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Council Chambers„ City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California. ANY AND ALS. PERSONS interested in the above matter are invited to paVticipate at -that time and place or to write to the Personnel Department prior to noon on Tuesday, April 18, 1989. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, contact the Personnel Department at 318-0230. KATHLEEN MIDSTOKKE, City Clerk, City of Hermosa Beach ER 413-89 HB -697A 4///s/a? - Ee€R dU APR 2e - SUPPLEMENTAL - IVIY _t& -- LivA7_4ettii_'7404/ _ev.✓ .q _. 14,t#ic l--- . 4444f-5 -_ To BE, ..CCPAIS--Q -Y _� � •� sr) �iCi4�✓�/✓ - fflirl,''i i S £' v' MZt T7A/,r . t Go T- /4 _� �Cdrt2Ja,lr' sT T//yfCr 7tf 4J='�/GE.$ ! /ZFi C•a=2.5E, ."/"v0_ 1_T._P—R1_Lzi__cy--E. i3 E oi✓ •4 QTY /o /*' g P,cd9A / £/f71' 52 Ek`r'Ze4 _ O.1 5-- o =- Y_Eill? 6iW/,v'& 4 itVC 5 te_- _6pA/c13 of 5-2. I 77711ZEE.-og r k✓EE-SOS. 40t../2 /512 o.✓ r-�o SYS Yom- M/G/� - / 7a i Goi✓5 /OZ.? /4 -. 7 '..5019-K/0r31' --- - _zzoAJt2i ficAj rit YS 07e d 1"F /40A/0.9 C104 //2/, YS , RL 055&?VE0 J "fa hived'( T1� 8c. ,4�. ,,u.„ - - f - ,A0 Q 1 r 1- .1 . 1 -. _- oro 0 91989 Jr -b c (;/: 7k IS du av r4'�R iL h7J/€Y( Currevc,� C l /a </ 1-4e_ ,fyour y vc�( rS T� 2 'OD scl edct le works U.e.c- we_ /a 4.e ger tS c, i 00(4 s � 4.Q Ack,tirS Gitak .Qatc-[ `ce %/ `'7�G/ �.� i 1cd j?v�-n � e�1C� � � Pa�iH ot j./.4 du. e1/4L: 4c'u A.eeci keep y - 4e Carr, t- 4o1 -cc . 7-;,14-70-q 0° 5 ger* CtcJie CUSTOMER EDUCATION To c ITy Coonc:it From Bruce Bowers Date: Subject .. C,+y G tcE %,c+tA6 1 h0,\ _ heard -4 cif" +Q ccfy �s ccnsidrin -ak c M 7- 6 . hou6 ur kr c.acnsid&-alcA ,,�ou(d r4ake t Voy d ccnduci' xess w .1ivk Q ct~E-y as .1`. O rv. r9 u irQd 'to LLV&._ In ! MV_ft 5", �lculd )i\ rc tVcrXsf t\ctt -4 C; refio(n tib cu rh",t O i cN {1out3. RECEIVtU S i ncer'oQ.(, MAY 0 9 i989 2,_e_‘,‘„,_.t,eua� SUPPLEMENTAL ITeamXerox INFORMATION IT WORKS FOR YOU RECEIVED MAY 0 91989 tgA--11,- 9- al - L (STT lti wcJ' t`L G661 -tie . /2f SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 5 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY TREASURER RE: REVISED 1988-89 FISCAL YEAR-END INTEREST REVENUE UPDATE DATE: MAY 1, 1989 Fiscal year interest revenue projections are based on best estimates of available idle cash to invest and return in investment vehicles. Utilizing these indicators I projected at mid -year that interest revenue would be $500,000.00 . This was up from $400,000.00 projected at the start of fiscal year 1988-89. I must now report that my fiscal year estimates were in error. We have been able to take advantage of a strong financial market place and idle funds in excess of original predictions. I now estimate the fiscal year 1988-89 interest revenue to be $700,000.00 or $200,000.00 over mid -year projections. ary .rutsc City Treasurer cc: City Clerk City Manager le Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council May 1, 1989 Meeting of May 9, 1989 INTRODUCTION OF NEW EMPLOYEES AND PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES OF APPOINTMENT TO NEW POLICE OFFICERS The following new employees are presented to the City Council for introduction: Elrick Kelley, General Services Officer Elrick began as a General Services Officer on March 27, 1989. Pamela Yeager, General Services Officer Pamela started working as a General Services Officer on April 10, 1989. Nicole Joon, Clerk Typist Nicole is serving as Clerk Typist for the Building Department as of February 27, 1989 Andrea Anderson, Planning Aide Andrea began work as a Planning Aide for the Planning Department on May 1, 1989. Carol Belser, Recreation Specialist Carol is serving as recreation specialist for the Community Resources Department. She was appointed on April 17, 1989. On April 21, 1989, Four Police Recruits graduated from the Police Academy and were appointed as Police Officers. Our new officers are currently participating in a fourteen week field training program. Certificates of appointment are presented to the following new Police Officers: Matthew Cahn, Lauretta Ellingson, Donald Jones, and Dean Menart. Noted: Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Director Respectfully submitted, )4.124.0,12 Jenice Silver Administrative Aide Noted: Kevin Northcraft City Manager AGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Wednesday, May 3, 1989 - Council Chambers, City Hall Regular Session - 7:30 p.m. MAYOR June Williams MAYOR PRO TEM Roger Creighton COUNCILMEMBERS Jim Rosenberger Chuck Sheldon Etta Simpson All Council meetings are open Complete agenda materials are the Police Department, Public Clerk. CITY CLERK Kathleen Midstokke CITY TREASURER Gary L. Brutsch CITY MANAGER Kevin B. Northcraft CITY ATTORNEY James P. Lough to the public. PLEASE ATTEND. available for public inspection in Library and the Office of the City PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: The following matters were continued to this date from April 25, 1989: PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS: Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 17, 1989. F. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CONSIDER THE LOCATION AND POLICIES REGARDING MULTI -USE CORRIDOR AND TO CONSIDER A SPECIFIC PLAN AREA AND TO ADOPT THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGA- TIVE DECLARATION, with resolution for adoption. ANITA TO 1ST ST. - STAFF REC. NO OBJECTIONS (P.84) MOTION JR/CS ANY OBJECTIONS TO DOING BY QUADRANT. OK 4-1 (WI -NO) MOTION CS/JR ANY OBJECTIONS S/E QUADRANT. DISCUSSION - RC OP- POSES LOTS 40, 41,42 BEING CHANGED TO COMMERCIAL. JW AGREES WITH RC. MOTION JW/JR TO ELIMINATE 42 AND 43 FROM COMMERCIAL CORRI- DOR. JR WITHDREW SECOND TO AMENDMENT. OK 3-2 (RC/JW-NO). MOTION CS/? TO TAKE NE QUADRANT BLOCK BY BLOCK MOTION TO ACCEPT 14TH TO 15TH ST. STAFF REC. OK 5-0. (PG. 105) 15TH ST. TO 16TH ST. - CS/PLANNING COMM. AREA IN DIS- PUTE SOUTH OF 15TH PLACE TO LOW DENSITY, REST OF AREA GO WITH STAFF REC. SECOND RC. OK R-1 (JW -NO) PG. 107 - STAFF REC. SO ORDERED. PG. 109 FROM 17TH TO 18TH — MOTION RC TAKE AREA FROM 17TH TO 21ST AS ONE DISCUSSION. OK 5-0 • - - "" �. � . LOTS" 'ACING -HIGHWAY- GOING TO COMMERCIAL. SECONII --ES: NO_2_3--tRC/JW/MS MOTION CS/JR TO LEAVE 17TH TO SPA. OK 5-0. AGAINS }a_ 18TH ST. COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR AND Y BETWREN "18TH AND—r9T}17---1401. SECOND :.g MOTION CS/JR TO GO STAFF REC. JW—NO). COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR. OK 3-2 (RC/ OE fi MEDI EDUM NS7'Y:'IAN MOTION CS/TO CHANGE TO COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR AND SPA. . SECOND JR. OK 3-2 20TH TO 21ST. MOTION TO MAKE MEDIUM DENSITY. 21ST. AND NORTH (PG. 117) MOTION RC/STAFF REC. THAT COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR ONLY EXTEND TO BORDEN. SECOND ES. SO ORDERED. NORTHWEST QUADRANT. MOTION JW/TO LEAVE 24TH ST. TO 24TH PLACE AS IS. STAFF REC. SO ORDERED. 24TH ST. TO 21ST ST. — (PG. 121) MOTION RC/LOTS 24 & 23 REMAIN OUT OF THE CORRIDOR, SECOND JW. NO OBJECTION,. MOTION RC/JW TO REMOVE LOTS 22, 21,20. FROM COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR. OK 3-1 (JR—NO) NOW ADDRESSING WHAT TO DO WITH THE FIVE LOTS TAKEN OUT OF COMMER— CIAL CORRIDOR. MOTION CS/REDESIGNATE THE FIVE LOTS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. SECOND RC. (CS RECORD SHOW THAT INTENTION OF MAKER TO CREATE AN SPA THAT REDUCES THE DENSITY IN MEDIUM DENSITY) OK 2-2 FAILS. MOTION RC/JW TO LEAVE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR WITH LOTS FRONTING ON PCH. FAILS 2-2. MOTION RC LEAVE AREA BETWEEN 24TH ST. AND 21ST STREET TO REST FOR NOW. NO OBJECTION. 16TH STREET TO 21ST STREET. MOTION RC/LOTS 13 AND 14 TO BE IN COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR. STAFF REC. OBJECTION JR. MOTION CS/JR — 16TH TO PIER. SO ORDERED. SOUTHWEST QUADRANT — DO BLOCK BY BLOCK NO OBJECTIONS FROM 8TH TO 6TH PAGE (128) MOTION CS/RC TO APPROVE STAFF REC. OK 5-0 MOTION RC/JR 5 LOTS SO. SIDE OF 8TH ST. MEDIUM DENSITY. OK 5-0 6TH TO 5TH ST. STAFF REC. SO ORDERED. MOTION RC/BALANCE OF PROPERTIES NOT DECIDED ON BE CARRIED OVER TO NEXT QUARTERLY AMENDMENT TO G.P. DIED LACK OF SECOND. MOTION CS/ POSTPONE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT FROM 5TH ST. SOUTH TO NEXT MTG. AND GO BACK TO 21ST STREET TONIGHT. MOTION CS/22,21,20 BE MEDIUM DENSITY, AND 23,24 BE LOW DENSITY GENERAL PLAN (23,24 BE R -1A). SECOND RC. OK 3-1 (JR—NO). MOTION LOTS FRONTING HIGHWAY BE IN COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR. RC/JW. OK 3-1 (JR—NO). STAFF REC. ON REMAINDER OF LOTS ON 24TH ST. OK 4-0. NEED A VOTE TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION AT 12:40 A.M. A. B. D. E. C. GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION AND ZONE CHANGE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY, R-2, TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL, C-3, OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR LOT 4, BLOCK 1, TRACT 6851 AND THE PRECISE PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT AT 1107 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION, with resolution for adoption and ordinance for waiver of further reading and introduction. (Straw vote at 4/25/89 meeting - 5-0.) GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION FROM LOW DENSITY TO HIGH DEN- SITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AREA 6, WEST SIDE OF PROSPECT AVENUE, APPROX. 220 FT. SOUTH OF ARTESIA BLVD., with resolution for adoption. (Straw vote at 4/25/89 meeting - 5-0.) GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO LOW DENSITY AND HIGH DENSITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AREA 12, NORTH SIDE OF 24TH PLACE, 90- 165 FT. WEST OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, with resolution for adoption. (Straw vote at 4/25/89 meeting - 4-0.) TO REPEAL THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN TO RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL, AND TO REZONE TO C-2 OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE CITY COUN- CIL FOR THE PRIVATELY OWNED PORTION OF BILTMORE SITE, LOCATION GENERALLY BETWEEN 13TH STREET AND 14TH STREET ON THE STRAND AND BETWEEN 14TH STREET TO 14TH COURT ALONG BEACH DRIVE AND ADOPT THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION, with resolution for adoption and ordinance for waiver of full reading and introduction. (Straw vote at 4/25/89 meeting - 5-0.) SUGGESTED PROCESS TO RESOLVE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION FOR AREA 10, LOCATION GENERALLY FROM THE CITY LIMIT TO THE SOUTH BETWEEN BARNEY COURT AND MEYER COURT, AND REAR OF LOTS FRONTING ON SECOND STREET TO THE NORTH. Memo- randum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated May 1, 1989. RC ABSTAINS DUE TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST. MOTION JW/? SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CHANGE THE ZONING.SECOND ES. WITHDRAW SECOND BY ES. MOTION CS SET HEARING 3RD QTR. G.P. AMENDMENT AND A POTENTIAL ZONE CHANGE.SECOND JR. OK 4-0. CITIZEN COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Citizens wishing to address the Council on items not on the agenda but within the Council's jurisdiction may do so at this time. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, April 25, 1989 at the hour of 7:30 P.M. CLOSED SESSION for Personnel and Real regarding St. Michael's Hospital site Park. Present: Creighton, Rosenberger, She Williams Absent: None PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Present: Creighton, Williams Absent: None Estate Negotiations and Marineland Mobile Home ldon, Simpson, Mayor - City Manager Kevin Northcraft Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson, Mayor PROCLAMATIONS Statewide Water Awareness Week, May 1-7, 1989 PRESENTATION CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION FOR RETIRING CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONER JOE MILLER. Mayor Williams presented the certificate to Mr. Joe Miller. CITIZEN COMMENTS - None 1. CONSENT CALENDAR (e) Action: To approve Consent Calendar recommendations (a) through (n). Motion Creighton, second Simpson. So ordered. Recommendation to approve minutes of regular meeting of the City Council held on April 11, 1989. Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants - Nos. 29597, 29715 through 29881 inclusive and noting voided warrants Nos. 29718 through 29720 inclusive and 29758 and 29772. Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. Recommendation to receive and file the March, 1989 financial reports: 1) Revenue and expenditure report; 2) City Treasurer's report. Recommendation to adopt the following resolutions re. the Hermosa Beach Street Lighting District No. 1989-1990 and setting June 13, 1989 for a public hearing: 1) Resolution approving the report of the Director of Public Works made pursuant to the requirements of Resolution 89-5240; - 1 - Minutes 4-25-89 1a 2 ) Resolution of intent to order certain street light- ing fixtures and appurtenances to be installed and maintained and electric current to be furnished for street lighting fixtures throughout the City for the fiscal year 89-90, and setting a public hearing for June 13, 1989. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated April 11, 1989. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 89-5257 entitled "A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS OF SAID CITY MADE PURSUANT TO THE REQUIRE- MENTS OF RESOLUTION NO. 89-5240 OF SAID COUNCIL." Further Action: To adopt Resolution No. 89-5258 enti- tled "A RESOLUTION DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER CER- TAIN STREET LIGHTING FIXTURES AND APPURTENANCES TO BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED AND ELECTRIC CURRENT TO BE FUR- NISHED FOR STREET LIGHTING FIXTURES THROUGHOUT THE CITY, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1989 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1990; AND APPOINTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN RELATION THERETO." Recommendation to adopt the following resolutions re. the Hermosa Beach Crossing Guard Maintenance District No. 1989-1990 and setting June 13, 1989 for a public hearing: 1) Resolution approving the report of the Director of Public Works made pursuant to the requirements of Resolution 89-5241; 2) Resolution of intent to order certain Crossing Guard services pursuant to Chapter 3.5, Articles 2,3, and 4, Sections 55530 thru 55570 of the Government Code for the fiscal year 89-90, and set- ting a public hearing for June 13, 1989. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated April 11, 1989. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 89-5259 entitled "A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS OF SAID CITY MADE PURSUANT TO THE REQUIRE- MENTS OF RESOLUTION NO. 89-5241 OF SAID COUNCIL." Further Action: To adopt Resolution No. 89-5260 enti- tled "A RESOLUTION DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER CER- TAIN CROSSING GUARD SERVICES PURSUANT TO THE "CROSSING GUARD MAINTENANCE DISTRICT ACT OF L974", CHAPTER 3.5, ARTICLES 2,3, AND 4, SECTION 55530 THROUGH 55570, OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AT CERTAIN LOCATIONS IN THE SAID CITY, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGIN- NING JULY 1, L989 THROUGH JUNE 30, L990; AND APPOINTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN RELATION THERETO." 2 r ,► Minutes 4-25-89 (g) (h) (i) Recommendation to receive and file 3rd quarter status report of Capital Improvement Projects. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated April 11, 1989. Recommendation to approve annual request by Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce for City services in conjunc- tion with their 23rd bi-annual Fiesta de las Artes May 27, 28 and 29, and September 2, 3, and 4, 1989. Action: 1) To approve the closure'of Pier Avenue from the Strand to Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Avenue from 10th Street to 14th Street, and 13th Street west of Hermosa Avenue to 20 feet east of the parking lot entrance from 6:00 A.M to 8:00 P.M. on May 27,28 and 29 and September 2,3 and 4, 1989. 2) Approve participation by local merchants in sidewalk sales on the show dates. 3) Approve assistance of Public Works in hanging the signs and banners. 4) Require the Chamber to hire a commercial clean-up company and supervise street clean-up on Saturday, Sun- day, Monday and Tuesday mornings. 5) Provide the City with a one million dollar liability rider. Recommendation to deny the following claim for damages and refer to City's Claims Administrator: 1) Frank and Betty Fouce, 2930 Strand, Hermosa Beach, filed April 11, 1989; alleged damages due to failure of City to issue a building permit. (j) Recommendation to receive and file final financial statement, 1987-88. Memorandum from Finance Administra- tor Viki Copeland dated April 17, 1989. (k) Recommendation to approve Professional Services Agree- ment for the development of a Seismic Hazard Mitigation Program. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director William Grove dated April 17, 1989. Action: To approve a Professional Services Agreement with Melvin Green & Associates, Inc. for the development of a seismic hazard mitigation program at a cost of $9,100 plus an estimated $6,520 for surveying buildings and reviewing records for a total cost of $15,620. (1) .Recommendation to approve agreement between the City of Hermosa Beach and School District regarding City main- tenance of School District portion of Valley Park. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian-Handman dated April 17, 1989. -3- Minutes 4-25-89 Action: To approve an agreement encompassing the fol- lowing conditions: The City shall maintain the physical area of the park; The City shall administer the use of that area; The City shall pay to the School District a fee of $1 annually; The City shall name the Hermosa Beach School District as an Additional Insured; The School District shall write a lease reflecting these conditions. Further Action: To appropriate $1,700 from Prospective Expenditures into Public Works, Parks Division Budget for maintenance of that portion of Valley Park for the remainder of this fiscal year. Recommendation to approve amendments and funding ap- propriations for various State grants. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian-Handman dat- ed April 17, 1989. Action: To approve amendments to the State Grants as follows: CIP 89-516 #19-0019 6th & Prospect Park: $7,958 The scope of the work shall be amended to include the installation of an irrigation system ($4,900); purchas- ing of new sod ($858), picnic tables ($1,000), aggregate trash cans ($800), and drinking fountain ($400). CIP 89-517 #76-19026 Recreation Facilities: $8,742 The scope of the work shall be amended to include the purchase of playground equipment ($8,050), and park drinking fountains ($692). CIP 89-518 #80-19019 Recreation Facilities: $12,305 The scope of the work shall be amended to include the purchase of playground equipment ($12,305). CIP 89-519 #BE -19-721 Hermosa Parks: $2,108 The scope of the work shall be amended to include the purchase of picnic tables ($2,108). Further Action: To approve a reimbursement to the State in the amount of $11,250 with said amount to be ap- propriated from the Parks & Recreation Facility Tax Fund into the Dept. of Community Resources Budget. Final Action: To approve the advancement of $31,113 from the Parks & Recreation Facility Tax Fund to the CIP accounts listed above. -4- r Minutes 4-25-89 (n) Recommendation to accept resignation of Civil Service Commissioner Joe Miller and direct City Clerk to adver- tise for applicants. Memorandum from City Clerk Kath- leen Midstokke dated April 20, 1989. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES. .< (a) ORDINANCE NO. 89-980 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FROM M-1, OPEN SPACE AND R-2 TO SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (SPA) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 603 FIRST STREET AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAPS AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. For adoption. Action: To adopt, Ordinance No. 89-980. Motion Creighton, second Rosenberger. AYES: Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson. NOES: Mayor Williams (Noting for the record that she is voting no because it increases our density by 11 units and feels it is not in accordance with Prop EE.) (b) ORDINANCE NO. 89-981 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FROM M-1 AND OPEN SPACE TO RESIDENTIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AREA NO. 4 FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 540 FIRST STREET AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAPS AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. For adoption. Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 89-981. Motion Rosenberger, second Creighton. AYES: Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson. NOES: Mayor Williams (Noting for the record that she is voting no because it increase our density by 10 units and believes it is too dense.) 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION - None 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC - None Municipal Matter Item 9 was heard at this time, but is listed in order for clarity. A recess was called at 8:14 P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 8:23 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 17, 1989. A. GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION AND ZONE CHANGE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY, R-2, TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL, C-3, OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR LOT 4, BLOCK 1, TRACT 6851 AND THE PRECISE PLAN FOR THE -5- Minutes 4-25-89 CONSTRUCTION OF A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT AT 1107 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION, with resolution for adoption and ordinance for waiver of full reading and introduction. A staff report was presented by Director Schubach. was opened. Coming forward to speak, Coast Hwy. #E - developer View Avenue, LaMirada - rep The Public Hearing were: Roger Bacon - Steve Lewis - El Pollo Loco 1100 Pacific 16700 Valley The Public Hearing was closed. Straw Vote: To approve staff recommendation. Motion Creighton, second Rosenberger. So ordered. B. GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION FROM LOW DENSITY TO HIGH DEN- SITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AREA 6, WEST SIDE OF PROSPECT AVENUE, APPROX. 220 FT. SOUTH OF ARTESIA BLVD., with resolution for adoption. A staff report was presented by Director Schubach. The Public Hearing was opened. No one coming forward to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. Straw Vote: To approve staff recommendation. Motion Rosenberger, second Creighton. So ordererd. C. GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION FROM LOW DENSITY TO MEDIUM DENSITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AREA 10, LOCATION GENERALLY FROM THE CITY LIMIT TO THE SOUTH BETWEEN BARNEY COURT AND MEYER COURT, AND REAR OF LOTS FRONTING ON SECOND STREET TO THE NORTH, with resolution for adoption. Councilmember Creighton declared an apparent conflict of interest due to owning property within 300 feet. A staff report was presented by Director Schubach. The Public Hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak were: Sam Edgerton - 1118 Second St. - Submitted a petition with 54 names opposing. Roger Gillespie - 1026 Second St. - opposed Kathryn Dienz - 1124 First St. - opposed Ruth Brand - 1231 First St. - opposed Carey Downs - 1036 Second St. - opposed Peggy Meyers - 1104 First St. - opposed Joanne Zombrava - 1118 Second St. - opposed Anna Marie Gallo - 1201 First St. - opposed Paul Leach - 1122 Second St. - opposed -6- Minutes 4-25-8S David Suess - 1246 First St. - opposed' Gerry Compton - 932 Seventh St. - opposed The Public Hearing was closed . Proposed Straw Vote: -To approve staff recommendation. Motion Rosenberger, second Sheldon. Noting the objections of Simpson and Williams, motion fails. Further Proposed Straw Vote: To leave the General Plan Low Density and send to the Planning Commission for recommendation regarding zoning. Motion Williams, second Simpson. Noting the objections of Rosenberger and Sheldon, motion fails. Proposed Further Action: To have a recess to allow the City Clerk time to check the vote on this item from De- cember 13, 1988. Motion Sheldon, second Rosenberger. There was no vote taken on this motion. A recess was called at 9:55 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 10:03 P.M. D. GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO LOW DENSITY AND HIGH DENSITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AREA 12, NORTH SIDE OF 24TH PLACE, 90- 165 FT. WEST OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, with resolution for adoption. Councilmember Simpson declared an apparent Conflict of Interest due to owning property within 300 feet. A staff report was presented by Director Schubach. The Public Hearing was opened. No one coming forward to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. Straw Vote: To approve staff recommendation. Motion Rosenberger, second Creighton. So ordered. E. TO REPEAL THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN TO RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL, AND TO REZONE THE C-2 OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE CITY COUN- CIL FOR THE PRIVATELY OWNED PORTION OF BILTMORE SITE, LOCATION GENERALLY BETWEEN 13TH STREET TO 14TH STREET ON THE STRAND AND BETWEEN 14TH STREET TO 14TH COURT ALONG BEACH DRIVE AND ADOPT THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLA- RATION, with resolution for adoption and ordinance for waiver of full reading and introduction. Staff report presented by Director Schubach. The Public Hearing was opened. No one coming forward to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. -7- Minutes 4-25-89 Straw Vote: To approve staff recommendation. Motion Sheldon, second Rosenberger. So ordered. F. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CONSIDER THE LOCATION AND POLICIES REGARDING MULTI -USE CORRIDOR AND TO CONSIDER A SPECIFIC PLAN ARIA AND TO ADOPT THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGA- TIVE DECLARATION, with resolution for adoption. The Public Hearing was opened and continued until Wednesday, May 3rd at 7:30 P.M. The final action on all the items until number 5 was continued until May 3rd. OTHER PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. TEXT AMENDMENT RE. NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION, with ordinance for introduction. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 3, 1989. (Continued from 4/11/89 meeting.) Sup- plemental memorandum from Planning Director dated April 19, 1989. Supplemental letter from Lael Stabler - 66- 18th St. dated April 25, 1989. A staff report was presented by Director Schubach. The Public Hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak were: Betty Ryan - 588- 20th St. Phyllis Carson McClellen - Circle Drive John McDuffie - 1958 Bayview Drive Cynthia A Forshada - 414 Twenty-eighth Gerry Compton - 200 Pier Avenue #9 Lael Stabler - 66 Eighteenth St. Mike Ludwig - 1831 Monterey B1. Don Rudmon - 826 Fifth St. The Public Hearing was closed. Action: To send this matter back to the Planning Commission per the discussion tonight and to seperate uses and structures. Motion Rosenberger, second Williams. AYES - Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson, Mayor Williams. NOES - None 7. EXTENSION OF THE MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AND/OR USES. For waiver of full reading and adoption. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 18, 1989. A staff report was presented by Director Schubach. -8- Minutes 4-25-89 The Public Hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak were: Lani Sacks - 519 -24th Place Ruth Brand - 1231 1st Street John McDuffie - 1958 Bayview Drive The Public Hearing was closed. Action: To waive full reading of Ordinance No. 89-983 entitled "AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING.ORDINANCE NO. 89-977, A ' MORATORIUM ON THS ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURES AND/OR USES FOR TEN MONTHS AND FIFTEEN DAYS. Motion Creighton, second Sheldon. AYES- Creighton,•Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson, Mayor Williams NOES- None Final Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 89-983. Motion Wiliams, second Simpson. AYES - Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson, Mayor Williams NOES - None 8. CONSIDERATION OF CONTINUATION OF ALTERNATE SCHEDULING FOR CITY HALL OPERATIONS. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dated April 17, 1989. Addressing the Council on this item was: Parker Herriott - not in favor of 4/10 schedule This item was continued until the meeting of May 9. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 9. REVIEW OF POLICY ON RECLASSIFICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATION TO RECLASSIFY FINANCE ADMINISTRATOR TO FINANCE DIRECTOR. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated April 19, 1989. Supplemental memorandum from City At- torney James P. Lough dated April 25, 1989. A staff report was presented by City Manager Northcraft. Addressing the Council on this item was: Wilma Burt - 1152- 7th Street - oppossing reclassification Action: That qualifying tests be added in the future, and that the five candidates presently who have been advanced in pay by being reclassified be requested to take the qualifying test. Motion Creighton, second Rosenberger. AYES - Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson, Mayor Williams NOES - None - 9 - Minutes 4-25-89 Council direction requested that staff come back at a subsequent meeting with a recommendation that be adopted as policy that would assist the employees of Hermosa Beach in letting them know that working out of clas- sification does not entitle them to any benefits, so that the employee is not mislead. Further Action: Reclassify Finance Administrator to Finance Director pet staff recommendation (with under- standing that prior action requires qualifying test). Motion Sheldon, second Rosenberger. AYES - Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson, Mayor Williams NOES - None 10. REPORT ON BILTMORE SITE OPEN SPACE INITIATIVE.' Memoran- dum from City Attorney James P. Lough and City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated April 19, 1989. Action: To authorize submission of the ordinance to the voters at the November, 1989 election, and direct the City Clerk to take the necessary steps to accomplish. Motion Rosenberger, second Creighton. So ordered. 11. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE TV, SECTION 17-55 ET SEQ, OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ALARM SYSTEMS. For waiver of full reading and introduc- tion. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wis- niewski dated April 17, 1989. Action: To waive full reading of Ordinance No. 89-984 entitled "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE TV, SECTION 17- 55 ET SEQ, OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ALARM SYSTEMS, amending Page 9, line 20 five (5) responses to three (3) responses, and line 21 fiscal year to calendar year. Motion Creighton, second Rosenberger. AYES - Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson, Mayor Williams NOES - None Final Action: To introduce Ordiance No. 89-984. Motion Creighton, second Rosenberger. So ordered. 12. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER - None 13. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) Oral report regarding recruitment and selection of interim and permanent City Attorney given by City Man- ager Northcraft. - 10 - Minutes 4-25-89 14. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: (a) Request by Councilmember Sheldon for discussion of ex- panded anti -graffiti program. (Continued from 4/11/89 meeting. Publicize a phone number (318-0214) that anyone can call re: graffiti and Public Works will respond as soon as possible; as applied to public property. 15. CITIZEN COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Ruth Brand - re: Area 10 - urgency to prevent construc- tion before issue is resolved. ADJOURNMENT The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California adjoured on Wednesday, April 26, 1989 at the hour of 12:13 A.M. to a Regular Adjourned Meeting to be held on Wednesday, May 3 at the hour of 7:30 P.M. /0,ZtAPer4g4,61564M;2 City Clerk Minutes 4-25-89 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 13:01:01 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION *** *w* CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST PAGE 0001 FOR 05/09/89 DATE 05/04/89 VND $ ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT INV/REF PO * CHK * DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP H CORE LABORATORY 02820 001-400-4205-4311 00129 $175.00 08185 29882 CHECK OCTANE/CITY YARD 04/26/89 EOUIP SERVICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE $0.00 05/03/89 VENDOR TOTAL $175.00 H SOUTH BAY CHRYSLER -PLYMOUTH 02810 001-400-2101-4311 00661 $100.44 08545 29883 RADIO CONSOLE/JEEP 04/27/89 POLICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE $0.00 05/03/89 VENDOR TOTAL $100. 44 *w* PAY CODE TOTALww******ww******w**********w***********************w*********w***w $275.44 R ADVANCE ELEVATOR 00003 001-400-4204-4201 00317 $80.00 21638 00003 2988R ELEV MAINT/MAV 89 21638 05/01/89 BLDG MAINT /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 05/04/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL w******************************************************************* $80.00 R ADVANCED ELECTRONICS 00935 001-400-2101-4307 00170 $206.25 27481-83 08528 29889 RADIO REPAIR/POLICE 81-83 04/26/89 POLICE /RADIO MAINTENANCE $112.50 05/04/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $206.25 R ROY*ALLEN SLURRY SEAL. INC 02812 115-400-8171-4201 00030 $52.024.50 001 08183 29890 PROD PMT/ASPHALT REPAIRS 001 04/19/89 CIP 85-171 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 05/04/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL ********w*w***********w*www*w***w*********************************** $52.024.50 R AMERICAN STYLE FOODS 00857 001-400-2101-4306 00643 $180.00 00043 29891 MISC CHOS/APRIL 89 04/30/89 POLICE /PRISONER MAINTENANCE $0.00 05/04/89 *w* VENDOR TOTAL*********w*w************************w******************************* $180.00 R 8 & L CRANE SERVICE 02442 105-400-2601-4309 00473 $165.00 08176 29892 CRANE SERV/ST LITES 04/19/89 STREET LIGHTING /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $165.00 05/04/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $165.00 R BANCROFT WHITNEY CO. 00802 001-400-4202-4305 00382 $44.70 157001 08164 29893 PUBLICATIONS/PUB WORKS 57001 03/03/89 PUB WKS ADMIN /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 05/04/89 0 r • FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 13.01:01 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 05/09/89 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ.N ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL ***************************MMM************************************** R BERIAN PRINTING SERVICE. INC. RECEIPTS/FINANCE 6696 PAGE 0002 DATE 05/04/89 INV/REF PO * CHK * AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $44.70 02664 001-400-1208-4305 00626 $1,118.25 04/20/89 OEN APPROP /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** *** *** *** R JIM*BLICKENSDERFER THEAT TECH/APRIL 89 R JIM*BLICKENSDERFER THEAT TECH/APRIL 89 01303 04/26/89 001-400-4601-4201 00319 $1.118.25 $399.00 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 01303 001-400-4601-4201 00320 04/19/89 $63.00 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R BOISE CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTS MISC CHOS/APRIL 89 VENDOR TOTAL 00005 001-400-1208-4305 00627 04/30/89 GEN APPROP $462.00 $1.223.85 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES R PHIL*BOUCHER WORK GUAR REFUND 74753 VENDOR TOTAL 02821 001-210-0000-2110 04/27/89 *1.223.85 6696 07371 29894 $0.00 05/04/89 07756 29895 $0.00 05/04/89 07753 29895 $0.00 05/04/89 00047 29896 $0.00 05/04/89 02847 $1.750.00 74753 08417 29897 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 05/04/89 R OARY*BRUTSCH. CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/APRIL 89 R GARY*BRUTSCH. CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/APRIL 89 R GARY*BRUTSCH. CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/APRIL 89 R GARY*BRUTSCH. CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/APRIL 89 R GARY*BRUTSCH. CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/APRIL 89 02016 04/30/89 02016 04/30/89 02016 04/30/89 02016 04/30/89 02016 04/30/89 $1.750.00 001-400-1202-4305 00217 $23.02 FINANCE ADMIN /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 001-400-2101-4305 00996 $12.57 POLICE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 001-400-2101-4306 00645 $21.59 POLICE /PRISONER MAINTENANCE 001-400-2101-4310 00179 POLICE $6.90 /MOTOR FUELS AND LURES 001-400-2101-4316 00371 $12.50 POLICE /TRAINING 08418 29898 $0.00 05/04/89 08418 29898 $0.00 05/04/89 08418 29898 $0.00 05/04/89 08418 29898 $0.00 05/04/89 08418 29898 $0.00 05/04/89 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 13:01:01 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/APRIL 89 GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/APRIL 89 OARY*BRUTSCH. CITU TREASURER PETTY CASH/APRIL 89 GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/APRIL 89 OARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/APRIL 89 GARY*BRUTSCH. CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/APRIL 89 QARV*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/APRIL 89 GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/APRIL 89 GARY*BRUTSCH. CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/APRIL 89 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 05/09/89 VND N ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN N AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ N ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 02016 001-400-2201-4309 00677 04/30/89 FIRE 02016 001-400-2201-4316 00179 04/30/89 FIRE 02016 001-400-4102-4305 00079 04/30/89 PLANNING COMM 02016 001-400-4205-4309 00363 04/30/89 EQUIP SERVICE 02016 001-400-4601-4305 00668 04/30/89 COMM RESOURCES 02016 001-400-4601-4308 00164 04/30/89 COMM RESOURCES 02016 001-400-8604-4309 00134 04/30/89 CIP 86-604 02016 110-400-3302-4310 00086 04/30/89 PARKING ENF 02016 145-400-3401-4305 00052 04/30/89 SHUTTLE/DIAL PAGE 0003 DATE 05/04/89 INV/REF PO M CHK * AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $10.02 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $5.00 /TRAINING $27.25 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $20.00 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $26.05 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES *8.04 /PROGRAM MATERIALS $50.00 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $3.00 /MOTOR FUELS AND LUDES $14.00 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $239.94 R 8SI CONSULTANTS, INC. PLAN CHECKS/BUILDING 1159 R BSI CONSULTANTS, INC. PLAN CHECKS/BUILDING 1159 R BSI CONSULTANTS, INC. PLAN CHECK/87 14TH ST 1159 R BSI CONSULTANTS, INC. PLAN CHECKS/BUILDING 1159 00630 001-400-4201-4201 00159 04/05/89 BUILDING 00630 001-400-4201-4201 00160 04/05/89 BUILDING 00630 001-400-4201-4201 00161 04/05/89 BUILDING 00630 001-400-4201-4201 00162 04/05/89 BUILDING 08418 29898 $0.00 05/04/89 08418 29898 $0.00 05/04/89 08418 29898 $0.00 05/04/89 08418 29898 $0.00 05/04/89 08418 29898 $0.00 05/04/89 08418 29898 $0.00 05/04/89 08418 29898 $0.00 05/04/89 08418 29898 $0.00 05/04/89 08418 29898 $0.00 05/04/89 $3,358.16 1159 07513 29899 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $3.086.00 05/03/89 $1,831.36 1159 07514 29899 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $1.834.00 05/04/89 $37.44 1159 07517 29899 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $38.00 05/04/89 $1,080.40 1159 07520 29899 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $1.080.00 05/04/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $6.307.36 R JAMES*BURQUE THEAT TECH/4-22-89 02544 001-400-4601-4201 00318 $47.50 04/26/89 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 07757 29900 $0.00 05/04/89 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 13.01:01 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL *** * * * R R R R R CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 05/09/89 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION BUSINESS SYSTEMS SUPPLY MAIL CART/WORD PROC SEC 51138 BUSINESS SYSTEMS SUPPLY PANASONIC TRANSCRIBER 51179 BUSINESS SYSTEMS SUPPLY CHAIRMATS/PLANNING 51137 VENDOR 00034 001-400-1208-5401 00007 04/30/89 GEN APPROP 00034 001-400-1208-5401 00008 04/30/89 GEN APPROP 00034 001-400-4101-4305 00309 04/30/89 PLANNING PAGE 0004 *l DATE 05/04/89 INV/REF PO * CHK * AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $47.50 $248.13 /EQUIP -LESS THAN *500 $241.54 /EQUIP -LESS THAN $500 $153.64 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES TOTAL******************************************************************** $643.31 CA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE, INC. PARKS MAINT/APRIL 89 CA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE, INC. PARKS MAINT/APRIL 89 VENDOR TOTAL 00599 001-400-3101-4201 00014 04/30/89 MEDIANS 00599 001-400-6101-4201 00141 04/30/89 PARKS $3,000.00 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $8.710.00 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT R CAL SURANCE ASSOCIATES. INC. BOND PREM/L. DUKE 18372 *** VENDOR TOTAL *** *** *11,710.00 151138 08003 29901 $232.99 05/03/89 151179 08004 29901 $226.80 05/03/09 151137 06085 29901 $153.85 05/04/89 00061 29902 $0.00 05/04/89 00061 29902 $0.00 05/04/89 00038 705-400-1210-4201 00032 *100.00 1018372 08240 29903 04/18/89 AUTO/PROP/BONDS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 05/04/89 R STATE OF*CALIFORNIA TUIT/SCOTT/CRAWFORD TR245 VENDOR TOTAL 02135 001-400-2201-4316 04/18/89 FIRE $100.00 00177 $215.00 /TRAINING R STATE OF*CALIFORNIA REIMB STATE GRANT -0019 VENDOR TOTAL 02819 001-400-4601-4251 00001 05/02/89 COMM RESOURCES *215. 00 TR245 00245 29904 $0.00 05/04/89 $11.250.00 19-0019 /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT $11.250.00 R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 00016 001-400-3101-4303 00038 $931.59 WATER BILLINGS/APRIL 89 04/30/89 MEDIANS /UTILITIES 07769 29905 $0.00 05/04/89 00049 29906 $0.00 05/04/89 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 13:01:01 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION * * * *** * * * * * * R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE WATER BILLINGS/APRIL 89 R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE WATER BILLINGS/APRIL 89 VENDOR TOTAL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 05/09/89 VND N ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN N AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ N ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 00016 001-400-4204-4303 00307 04/30/89 BLDG MAINT 00016 001-400-6101-4303 00251 $1.913.67 04/30/89 PARKS /UTILITIES $443. 51 /UTILITIES R CELLULAR DYNAMICS COMPANY MAR CHO/ORIQ MOBILE TELE 78425 02449 001-400-2101-4304 03/27/89 POLICE PAGE 0005 DATE 05/04/89 INV/REF PO M CHK N AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 03.188.77 00370 $985.56 /TELEPHONE $985 56 VENDOR TOTAL*************************►****************************************** R CERTIFIED OFFICE EQUIPMENT 00389 001-400-2101-4305 00049 29906 $0.00 05/04/89 00049 29906 $0.00 05/04/89 178428/178425 00510 29907 $0.00 05/04/89 00995 $205.31 10712/10763 PRINTER RIBBONS/POLICE 10763 05/01/89 POLICE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES ******************************************************************** VENDOR TOTAL R THE *COPY SHOP PRINT SERV/TRAFF SFTY VENDOR TOTAL *205 31 00022 001-400-3104-4309 00231 $170.40 04/11/89 TRAFFIC SAFETY /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS R COPY SUPPORT ZONING CODES 5432 R COPY SUPPORT DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS/FP 5436 01729 04/17/89 01729 04/25/89 001-400-1131-4201 00486 $170.40 08527 29908 $0.00 05/04/89 08173 29909 $170.40 05/04/89 $1.208.88 5432 04587 29910 CITY ATTORNEY /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 001-400-1131-4305 00102 $162:09 CITY ATTORNEY /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** * * * R JAMES*CRAWFORD PER DIEM ADVANCE VENDOR TOTAL *1.370.97 02823 001-400-2201-4316 00171 $157.00 TR246 04/18/89 FIRE /TRAINING R CYCLOPS COMPANY CLEAN/VIDEO INSP SEWERS /1234 $157.00 $1.221.66 05/04/89 5436 04592 29910 $165.71 05/04/89 TR246 00246 29911 $0.00 05/04/89 01161 160-400-8406-4201 00017 $6.406.92 1232/1234 08153 29912 04/13/89 CIP 86-405 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $10.107.05 05/04/89 4 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 13.01:01 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL R THE*DAILY BREEZE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 05/09/89 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION PAGE 0006 DATE 05/04/89 INV/REF PO * CHK * AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $6,406.92 00642 001-400-1203-4201 00476 $110.40 392205-100 08219 29913 EMPLOYEE ADVERTISING 5-100 03/31/89 PERSONNEL /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 05/04/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL R DAPPER TIRE CO. MISC CHOS/APRIL 89 01390 001-400-2101-4311 00663 04/30/89 POLICE $110.40 $80.56 /AUTO MAINTENANCE *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R DATA SAFE TAPE STOR./3-12 TO 4-11 42159 00156 04/12/89 *80.56 00417 29914 $0.00 05/04/89 001-400-1206-4201 00538 $96.00 42159 00047 29915 DATA PROCESSING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT www VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION SEISMIC FEES/JAN-MAR 89 $96.00 00049 001-300-0000-3204 01555 $311.87 04/19/89 /BUILDING PERMITS *0* VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** * * * *** R DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HWY MAINT/MARCH 89 09052 R DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION H41Y MAINT/MARCH 89 09052 VENDOR TOTAL 00267 04/20/89 00267 04/20/89 *311.87 $0.00 05/04/89 07533 29916 $0.00 05/04/89 001-400-3104-4251 00018 $470.80 109052 08190 29917 TRAFFIC SAFETY /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT 105-400-2601-4251 00084 $470.79 STREET LIGHTINQ /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT R DESK CITY OFF FURN/CITY YARD 01097 001-400-4204-5401 00002 24109 03/21/89 BLDG MAINT $941.59 $0.00 05/04/89 109052 08190 29917 $0.00 05/04/89 $1,314.16 24108/24109 08139 29918 /EQUIPMENT -LESS THAN $50 $0.00 05/04/89 VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R DIEHL, EVANS AND COMPANY SEM REG/V. COPELAND $1,314.16 02818 001-400-1202-4316 00238 $50.00 05/01/89 FINANCE ADMIN /TRAININQ 07379 29919 $0.00 05/04/89 • • FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 13:01:01 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 05/09/89 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT. DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION R DIGITAL CORPORATION TUITION/G. BROWN *'* VENDOR TOTAL PAGE 0007 DATE 05/04/89 INV/REF PO 0 CHK M AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *50. 00 02801 001-400-2101-4316 00370 $595.00 04/10/89 POLICE /TRAINING R DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION INSTALL JDIC INTERFACE 03189 *** VENDOR TOTAL 00269 001-400-2101-4201 00376 03/14/89 POLICE $595.00 08518 29920 $0.00 05/03/89 $450.00 374803189 08560 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT R IRENE*DRAY DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND 74705 *** VENDOR TOTAL 00196 001-210-0000-2110 04/27/89 $450.00 29921 $0.00 05/03/89 02845 $100.00 74705 08415 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 R EASY READER EMPLOYEE ADS R EASY READER EMPLOYEE ADS *** VENDOR TOTAL * * * *** 9033 9033 00181 001-400-1203-4201 00478 04/28/89 PERSONNEL 00191 001-400-1203-4201 00479 04/28/89 PERSONNEL $100. 00 $30.00 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $131.25 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT R EMBASSY SUITE HOTEL HOTEL/SCOTT/CRAWFORD VENDOR TOTAL 02139 001-400-2201-4316 TR245 04/18/89 FIRE $161.25 00175 $291.50 /TRAINING R STEVE*ENDOM MEALS/NARC CPT TRNG VENDOR TOTAL 01034 001-400-2101-4312 00935 04/24/89 POLICE $291.50 $36.25 /TRAVEL EXPENSE . POST R F. MORTON PITT 00210 001-400-2101-4306 FINGERPRINT INK ROLLER 9899 04/21/89 POLICE $36.25 00642 $25.97 /PRISONER MAINTENANCE 29922 05/04/89 9033 08227 29923 $30.00 05/04/89 9033 08232 29923 $131.25 05/04/89 TR245 00245 29924 $0.00 05/04/89 08550 29925 $0.00 05/04/89 9899 07955 29926 $25.32 05/04/89 • FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 13 01:01 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R F. MORTON PITT PHOTO -EVIDENCE RULE *0* VENDOR TOTAL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 05/09/89 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 00210 001-400-2101-4309 9898 04/21/89 POLICE PAGE 0008 DATE 05/04/89 INV/REF PO * CHK * AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 00212 499.58 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS R FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. MAIL SERV/PLANNINQ *** VENDOR TOTAL 78988 4125 55 9898 07924 29926 *120. 15 05/04/89 01962 001-400-4101-4317 00036 $7.00 6-746-78988 06096 29927 04/25/89 PLANNINQ /CONFERENCE EXPENSE *0.00 05/04/89 R GARTH*OAINES TRAINING UNIFORM *** VENDOR TOTAL 02822 001-400-2101-4187 00245 05/03/89 POLICE 47.00 $76.84 /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE R GATES MC DONALD CONT SERV/APR-JUN 89 *0* VENDOR TOTAL *76.84 08579 29928 *0.00 05/04/89 02538 705-400-1217-4201 00045 *2,485.00 02-021441 00044 29929 21441 04/13/89 WORKERS COMP /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *0.00 05/04/89 R GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY EMERG LITES/JAIL AREA R GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY MISC CROS/APRIL 89 R GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY MISC CROS/APRIL 89 *0* VENDOR TOTAL 00058 001-400-2101-4309 00211 39677 10/21/80 POLICE 00058 001-400-4204-4309 01307 04/30/89 BLDG MAINT 00058 105-400-2601-4309 00474 04/30/89 *2, 485. 00 *396.77 39677 06865 29930 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *390.53 05/04/89 $169.81 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $192.82 STREET LIGHTING /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHAS/APRIL 89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHAS/APRIL 89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHOS/APRIL 89 00015 04/30/89 00015 04/30/89 00015 04/30/89 001-400-1101-4304 00216 4759.40 *9. 72 CITY COUNCIL /TELEPHONE 001-400-1122-4304 00032 *26.25 ELECTIONS /TELEPHONE 001-400-1131-4304 00137 *228. 17 CITY ATTORNEY /TELEPHONE 00424 29930 *0.00 05/04/89 00424 29930 *0.00 05/04/89 00425 29932 *0.00 05/04/89 00425 29932 *0.00 05/04/89 00425 29932 *0.00 05/04/89 • • 40. alb • 4111 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 13:01:01 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHCS/APRIL 89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHOS/APRIL 89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHGS/APRIL 89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHOS/APRIL 89 R R R R R R R R R R R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHOS/APRIL 89 GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHOS/APRIL 89 GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHCS/APRIL 89 GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHOS/APRIL 89 GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHAS/APRIL 89 GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHAS/APRIL 89 GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHCS/APRIL 89 GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHOS/APRIL 89 GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHAS/APRIL 89 GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHAS/APRIL 89 GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHOS/APRIL 89 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 05/09/89 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN 0 AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 00015 001-400-1141-4304 00213 $20.01 04/30/89 CITY TREASURER /TELEPHONE 00015 001-400-1201-4304 00228 $22.43 04/30/89 CITY MANAGER /TELEPHONE 00015 001-400-1202-4304 00233 $84.10 04/30/89 FINANCE ADMIN /TELEPHONE 00015 001-400-1203-4304 00231 $34.66 04/30/89 PERSONNEL /TELEPHONE 00015 001-400-1206-4304 00159 $221.59 04/30/89 DATA PROCESSING /TELEPHONE 00015 001-400-1207-4304 00126 $29.47 04/30/89 BUS LICENSE /TELEPHONE 00015 001-400-2101-4304 00371 04/30/89 POLICE 00015 001-400-2201-4304 00168 $195.91 04/30/89 FIRE /TELEPHONE 00015 001-400-2401-4304 00218 $21.05 04/30/89 ANIMAL CONTROL /TELEPHONE 00015 001-400-4101-4304 00234 $60.01 04/30/89 PLANNING /TELEPHONE 00015 001-400-4201-4304 00229 $108.97 04/30/89 BUILDING /TELEPHONE 00015 001-400-4202-4304 00234 $259.51 04/30/89 PUB WKS ADMIN /TELEPHONE 00015 001-400-4204-4321 00444 04/30/89 BLDG MAINT 00015 001-400-4601-4304 00269 $234.11 04/30/89 COMM RESOURCES /TELEPHONE 00015 001-400-6101-4304 00141 $11.22 04/30/89 PARKS /TELEPHONE $864.69 /TELEPHONE PAGE 0009 DATE 05/04/89 INV/REF PO N CHK 0 AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $18.17 /BUILDING SAFETY/SECURIT 00425 29932 $0.00 05/04/89 00425 29932 $0 00 05/04/89 00425 29932 $0 00 05/04/89 00425 29932 $0.00 05/04/89 00425 29932 $0.00 05/04/89 00425 29932 $0.00 05/04/89 00425 29932 $0.00 05/04/89 00425 29932 $0.00 05/04/89 00425 29932 $0.00 05/04/89 00425 29932 $0.00 05/04/89 00425 29932 $0.00 05/04/89 00425 29932 $0.00 05/04/89 00425 29932 $0.00 05/04/89 00425 29932 $0.00 05/04/89 00425 29932 $0.00 05/04/89 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 13:01:01 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHAS/APRIL 89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHOS/APRIL 89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHCS/APRIL 89 *** VENDOR TOTAL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 05/09/89 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 00015 110-400-3301-4304 00109 $11.19 04/30/89 VEH PKG DIST /TELEPHONE 00015 110-400-3302-4304 00233 $179.40 04/30/89 PARKING ENF /TELEPHONE 00015 145-400-3401-4304 00030 $4.16 04/30/89 DIAL A RIDE /TELEPHONE R GOLDEN WEST COMMUNITY COLLEGE NARC CPT TRNQ/S. ENDOM PAGE 0010 DATE 05/04/89 INV/REF PO * CHK * AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $2.644. 79 01982 001-400-2101-4312 00934 $20.00 04/24/89 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE . POST *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFCRS ASSOC PUBLICATIONS/V COPELAND *** VENDOR TOTAL $20.00 00059 001-400-1202-4316 00239 $39.95 05/01/89 FINANCE ADMIN /TRAINING R THE*GREAT FRAME UP PLEXI -GLASS MAP FRAMES 94038 *** VENDOR TOTAL 02811 001-400-4201-4305 00434 04/19/89 BUILDING $39.95 $442.06 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES R BARBARA*ORIMALDI & ASSOCIATES 02816 001-400-2201-4316 CPR INSTR CLASS/M. LINES 04/20/89 FIRE $442.06 00178 $85.00 /TRAINING *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R HARRIS & ASSOCIATES SERV/21ST ST VACATION www VENDOR TOTAL 02102 001-210-0000-2110 02844 03/22/89 $85.00 $4.997.93 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $4.997 93 R DOROTHY*HATANO 01420 001-400-2101-4187 00244 $76.84 TRAINING UNIFORM 05/03/89 POLICE /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 00425 29932 $0.00 05/04/89 00425 29932 $0.00 05/04/89 00425 29932 $0.00 05/04/89 08551 29933 $0.00 05/04/89 07380 29934 $0.00 05/04/89 1794038 07532 29935 $442.06 05/04/89 08315 29936 $0.00 05/04/89 08156 29937 $0.00 05/04/89 08581 29938 $0.00 05/04/89 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 13:01:01 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST PAGE 0011 FOR 05/09/89 DATE 05/04/89 PAY VENDOR NAME VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT INV/REF PO 0 CHK * DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL *********w***www***********************************************w**** $76.84 R HAWTHONE POLICE DEPARTMENT 00172 001-400-2101-4251 00263 *2,400.00 H820 00042 29939 SERV/JAN-MAR 89 H820 04/25/89 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT $0.00 05/04/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL $2.400.00 • • • R J & D ENTERPRISES 02815 170-400-2103-4201 00010 $225.00 2682 08549 29940 • DELIVER SEIZED NARC CONT 2682 04/24/89 SPEC INVESTGTNS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 05/04/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL ****www***************************w****w**www*ww****************w*** $225.00 R KANE BALLMER & BERKMAN 00130 001-400-1131-4201 00485 $474.50 06686 29941 LEGAL SERV/MARCH 89 04/11/89 CITY ATTORNEY /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 05/04/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL $474.50 R THE*KIPLINGER CALIF. LETTER 02025 001-400-1202-4316 00240 $34.00 07381 29942 PUBLICATIONS/V. COPELAND 05/01/89 FINANCE ADMIN /TRAINING $0.00 05/04/89 *0* VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $34.00 R KIWANIS CLUB OF HERMOSA BEACH 00380 001-400-4101-4315 00093 $40.00 06095 29943 APR DUES/M. SCHUBACH 04/20/89 PLANNING /MEMBERSHIP $0.00 05/04/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL************************************w***********************w******* *** $40.00 R MICHAEL*LADD 01978 001-400-1206-4201 00537 $1.459.02 018 07900 29944 CONS SERV/MARCH 89 018 03/31/89 DATA PROCESSING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 05/04/89 VENDOR TOTAL $1,459.02 R LEARNED LUMBER 00167 001-400-4205-4309 00362 PARTS TO REPAIR CRAWLER 74257 04/17/89 EQUIP SERVICE $298.63 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *w* VENDOR TOTAL**********************************************************w********* $298.63 874257 08180 29945 $297.71 05/04/89 R LOS ANGELES CO DISTRICT ATTY 00386 001-400-1131-4251 00082 $233.43 11-16 07536 29946 LEGAL SERV/NOV 88 11-16 04/19/89 CITY ATTORNEY /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT $0.00 05/04/89 • • • • • • • 0 0 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 13:01:01 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST PAGE 0012 6 FOR 05/09/89 DATE 05/04/89 VND N ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN N AMOUNT INV/REF PO k CHK M DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP r** VENDOR TOTAL****************************************************************r*** $233.43 R JAMES P.*LOUGH 00938 001-400-1131-4201 00484 $6,082.00 06688 29947 RETAINER/APRIL 89 05/01/89 CITY ATTORNEY /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0 00 05/04/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL $6.082.00 R M & W ELECTRIC 01119 001-400-8604-4309 00132 $171.25 80938 08169 29948 EXHAUST FAN MOTOR/PD 80938 04/05/89 CIP 86-604 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 05/04/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $171.25 R MAIN ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. 00426 001-400-1206-4309 00128 $124.61 65384 00435 29949 MISC CHAS/APR 89 65384 04/30/89 DATA PROCESSING /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 05/04/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL $124.61 R MICRO PUBLICATION SYSTEMS 02457 001-400-4201-4201 00163 $466.53 00461 29950 MISC CHCS/APRIL 89 04/30/89 BUILDING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 05/04/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL $466.53 R MOBIL OIL CREDIT CORPORATION 00388 001-400-2101-4310 00178 $40.01 MISC CHOS/MAR 89 03/31/89 POLICE /MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $40.01 R MOORE BUSINESS FORMS 00423 001-400-2101-4305 00994 COMPUTER PAPER/POLICE 53850 04/06/89 POLICE $325.64 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES *** VENDOR TOTAL*******************************************************************r $325.64 07378 29951 $0.00 05/04/89 51553850 08510 29952 $325.61 05/04/89 R MUNI. IMMUNITY LAW BULLETIN 02814 705-400-1209-4316 00008 $44.84 009099464 08239 29953 PUBLICATIONS/BLACKWOOD 99464 03/27/89 LIABILITY INS /TRAINING $0.00 05/04/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $44.84 R JACK*NADEL 02804 001-400-2101-4305 00993 $533.47 34239 08559 29954 D. A. R. E. SUPPLIES 34239 04/18/89 210004 POLICE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $519.18 05/04/89 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 13:01:01 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 05/09/89 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN N AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R NATIONAL CAREER WORKSHOPS 02203 001-400-4201-4316 00149 SEM REO/P. CORNEAL 04/20/89 BUILDING PAGE 0013 DATE 05/04/89 INV/REF PO 0 CHK 0 AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $533.47 $59.00 /TRAINING *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R NATIONAL PARK & REC ASSOC. DUES/A. MASTRIAN-HANDMAN *59. 00 00880 001-400-4601-4315 00049 $125.00 04/18/89 COMM RESOURCES /MEMBERSHIP *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** *** R KEVIN B.*NORTHCRAFT MON EXPENSE/APRIL 89 R KEVIN B.*NORTHCRAFT MON EXPENSE/APRIL 89 R KEVIN B. *NORTHCRAFr MON EXPENSE/APRIL 89 VENDOR TOTAL 02064 001-400-1101-4317 00316 04/30/89 CITY COUNCIL 02064 001-400-1201-4317 00179 04/30/89 CITY MANAGER 02064 001-400-1201-4317 00180 04/30/89 CITY MANAGER $125.00 $22.50 /CONFERENCE EXPENSE $7.50 /CONFERENCE EXPENSE $17.00 /CONFERENCE EXPENSE ******************************************************************** R OLYMPIC AUTO CENTER REPAIR HB UNIT 6 *** VENDOR TOTAL 00093 001-400-2101-4311 11397 04/18/89 POLICE $47.00 00662 0181.95 /AUTO MAINTENANCE R PACIFIC EQUIP & IRRIGATION EMISS CHECK/CUSHMANS 66556 00406 001-400-4205-4311 00130 04/20/89 EQUIP SERVICE *181. 95 $110.00 /AUTO MAINTENANCE *0* VENDOR TOTAL *********************************************** R PAK WEST MISC CHAS/APRIL 89 *0* VENDOR TOTAL 00519 001-400-4204-4309 01308 04/30/89 BLDG MAINT $110. 00 $90.74 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS R PARA COURSE LTD PAR COURSE SIGNS 02657 001-400-6101-4309 7910 01/30/89 PARKS *90. 74 00681 $446.00 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 07534 29955 $0.00 05/04/89 07752 29956 *0.00 05/04/89 06687 29957 $0.00 05/04/89 06687 29957 $0.00 05/04/89 06687 29957 *0.00 05/04/89 11397 08564 29958 $181.95 05/04/89 66556 07899 29959 $0.00 05/04/89 00440 29960 *0.00 05/04/89 7910 07655 29961 *446.00 05/04/89 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 13:01:01 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 05/09/89 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ N ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION www VENDOR TOTAL**********w********************************************************* * * * *w* w** R OFCR JOSEPH*PELKA GLASSES DAMAGED BY PRIS. R R R R VENDOR TOTAL PAGE 0014 DATE 05/04/89 INV/REF PO Si CHK * AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $446.00 00950 001-400-2101-4187 00243 $83.07 04/18/89 POLICE /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE PLAN SAK BLDG PLAN MAILING SACKS 10759 PLAN SAK BLDG PLAN MAILING SACKS 10621 VENDOR TOTAL 00886 001-400-4201-4305 00432 04/17/89 BUILDING 00886. 001-400-4201-4305 00433 03/30/89 BUILDING $83.07 08543 29962 $0.00 05/04/89 $45.12 10759 07535 29963 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 05/04/89 $45.12 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES PLEASURE PALATE MEALS/J. CRAWFORD PLEASURE PALATE MEALS/B. SCOTT VENDOR TOTAL $90.24 02640 001-400-2201-4316 00172 $43.00 TR246 04/18/89 FIRE /TRAINING 02640 001-400-2201-4316 00174 *43.00 TR245 04/18/89 FIRE /TRAINING R POM INCORPORATED PARKING METER KEYS *0* VENDOR TOTAL 00223 110-400-3302-4309 00539 04036 04/06/89 PARKING ENF • $86.00 10621 07526 29963 $45.12 05/04/89 TR246 00246 29964 $0.00 05/04/89 TR245 00245 29964 $0.00 05/04/89 $227.49 904036 07857 29965 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $224.93 05/04/89 R PRESENTATION PRODUCTS. INC. LETTERING MACHINE SUPP 21412 $227.49 01176 001-400-2101-4305 00992 $302.99 21261/21412 07981 29966 04/20/89 POLICE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $301.98 05/04/89 ww* VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $302.99 R RADIO SHACK MISC CHGS/APR 89 R RADIO SHACK MISC CHCS/APR 89 01429 04/30/89 01429 04/30/89 001-400-4601-4305 00667 $6.79 COMM RESOURCES /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 110-400-3302-4309 00540 $45.75 PARKING ENF /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00443 29967 $0.00 05/04/89 00443 29967 *0.00 05/04/89 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 13.01:01 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST PAGE 0015 FOR 05/09/89 DATE 05/04/89 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN M AMOUNT INV/REF PO * CHK * DATE INVC PROJ 0 ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP rrr VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $52.54 R READICARE MEDICAL GROUP -LAX 02390 001-400-1203-4320 00252 $825.00 94-22713 08235 29968 PRE -EMP PHYSICALS/MAR 89 22713 04/01/89 PERSONNEL /PRE-EMPLOYMENT EXAMS $0.00 05/04/89 rrr VENDOR TOTAL $825.00 R ED*RUZAK & ASSOCIATES 01578 115-400-8170-4201 00015 $1.062.50 89177 08181 29969 ENG SERV/040189 89177 04/01/89 CIP 87-170 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 05/04/89 rrr VENDOR TOTAL *rrr*rrr***rrr***********r*r*******rrr************rrr**rrr**rrr***** $1.062.50 R MICHAEL*SCHUBACH 00536 001-400-4101-4317 00035 $332.17 06097 29970 REIMB TRAVEL EXP 04/25/89 PLANNING /CONFERENCE EXPENSE $0.00 05/04/89 rrr VENDOR TOTAL $332.17 R BRIAN P *SCOTT 01670 001-400-2201-4316 00173 $157.00 TR245 00245 29971 PER DIEM ADVANCE TR245 04/18/89 FIRE /TRAINING $0.00 05/04/89 R BRIAN P.*SCOTT 01670 001-400-2201-4316 00176 $80.00 TR245 00245 29971 MILEAGE ADVANCE TR245 04/18/89 FIRE /TRAINING $0.00 05/04/89 rrr VENDOR TOTAL $237.00 SINCLAIR PAINT CO. MISC CHCS/APRIL 89 01399 001-400-8604-4309 00133 $81.69 00446 29972 04/30/89 CIP 86-604 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 05/04/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL $81.69 R SIR SPEEDY 00361 110-400-3302-4305 00565 $139.20 8652 07880 29973 TEMP GUEST PERMITS 8652 04/18/89 PARKING ENF /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $139.21 05/04/89 r** VENDOR TOTAL $139.20 R SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY 00114 001-400-2101-4306 00644 $142.72 00447 29974 MISC CHCS/APRIL 89 04/30/89 POLICE /PRISONER MAINTENANCE $0.00 05/04/89 eb • • • ft • r ft ft FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 13.01:01 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY MISC CHCS/APRIL 89 *** VENDOR TOTAL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 05/09/89 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 00114 001-400-2201-4309 00675 $120.96 04/30/89 FIRE PAGE 0016 DATE 05/04/89 1NV/REF PO N CHK * AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $263.68 R SO CALIF RAPID TRANSIT DISTR. 00843 145-400-3403-4251 00041 $1.419.00 BUS PASS SALES/MAR 89 46679 03/28/89 BUS PASS SUBSDY /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT r** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1.419.00 R SOUTH BAY FIRE EXTINGUISHER MISC CHOS/APRIL 89 *** VENDOR TOTAL 00113 001-400-2101-4309 00213 04/30/89 POLICE $92.66 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $92.66 R SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL COURT 00118 110-300-0000-3302 27074 $10.671.00 CITE SURCHARGE/APR 89 05/01/89 /COURT FINES/PARKING *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $10,671.00 R SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL COURT CITE COURT BAIL 00400 110-300-0000-3302 27073 04/27/89 $295.00 /COURT FINES/PARKING *** VENDOR TOTAL*********r*************************r******************************** R SOUTH BAY WELDERS MISC CHCS/MAR 89 R SOUTH BAY WELDERS MISC CHOS/MAR 89 R SOUTH BAY WELDERS MISC CHCS/MAR 89 *** VENDOR TOTAL 00018 001-400-2201-4309 00676 03/31/89 FIRE 00018 001-400-3104-4309 00232 03/31/89 TRAFFIC SAFETY 00018 105-400-2601-4309 00475 03/31/89 STREET LIGHTING $295.00 $45.69 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $82.30 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $11.25 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $139.24 R SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO. 00170 001-400-4204-4303 00306 $538.90 MON GAS BILLS/APRIL 89 04/30/89 BLDG MAINT /UTILITIES 00447 29974 $0.00 05/04/89 46679 07897 29975 $0.00 05/04/89 00448 29976 $0.00 05/04/89 07382 29977 $0.00 05/04/09 08701 29978 $0.00 05/04/89 00351 29979 $0.00 05/04/89 00351 29979 $0.00 05/04/89 00351 29979 $0.00 05/04/89 00453 29980 $0.00 05/04/89 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 13.01:01 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 05/09/89 VND N ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN N AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ N ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL *************************************** ************************►*** R SPECIALTY MAINTENANCE CO SWEEP SERV/APRIL 89 2366 R SPECIALTY MAINTENANCE CO SWEEP SERV/APRIL 89 2366 *** VENDOR TOTAL R STEVEN*STAPAKIS WORK GUAR REFUND *** VENDOR TOTAL 00115 001-400-3103-4201 00220 04/30/89 ST MAINTENANCE 00115 110-400-3301-4201 00210 04/30/89 VEH PKO DIST PAGE 0017 DATE 05/04/89 INV/REF PO N CHK N AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $538.90 $2.876.00 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $3,552 00 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 02817 001-210-0000-2110 74759 04/27/89 *6.428.00 2366 00029 29981 $0.00 05/04/89 2366 00029 29981 $0.00 05/04/89 02846 $375.00 74759 08416 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 R STATE OF CALIFORNIA FINGERPRINT APPS/MAR 89 68192 *** VENDOR TOTAL ** * 00364 001-400-2101-4251 04/27/89 POLICE *375.00 00264 $18.50 /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT R SWIFT LABORATORIES EXAM GLOVES/POLICE VENDOR TOTAL 02308 001-400-2101-4309 00210 49029 04/21/89 POLICE $18.50 $158.95 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS R MS BETTY*THOMAS TAPE COPY REFUND *** VENDOR TOTAL * * * 02813 001-300-0000-3839 75386 04/24/89 $158.95 00736 $35.00 /PHOTOCOPY CHARGES R TODD PIPE & SUPPLY MISC CHOS/APRIL 89 VENDOR TOTAL 00124 001-400-3101-4309 00023 04/30/89 MEDIANS $35.00 $58.03 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS R TODD PIPE AND SUPPLY MISC CHAS/APRIL 89 $58.03 02221 001-400-3101-4309 00022 $63.72 04/30/89 MEDIANS /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 29982 05/04/89 868192 00023 29983 $0.00 05/04/89 49029 08523 29984 $150.95 05/04/89 75386 06098 29985 $0.00 05/04/89 00457 29986 $0.00 05/04/89 04571 29987 $0.00 05/04/89 • • • • • • • • ft • • • • • • • FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 13:01:01 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION **M CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST PAGE 0018 FOR 05/09/89 DATE 05/04/89 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT INV/REF PO * CHK * • DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION • AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP • 0 R TODD PIPE AND SUPPLY 02221 001-400-6101-4309 00682 $211.00 04571 29987 MISC CHCS/APRIL 89 04/30/89 PARKS /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 05/04/89 VENDOR TOTAL ******** *************M**MIF******M************************* **** **** ** $274.72 R ULTRASYSTEMS 01331 001-202-0000-2020 00787 $3.248.80 06030 29988 PROF SERV/URB DRILL SITE 04/26/89 /ACCOUNTS PAYABLE $0.00 05/04/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL *3.248.80 R WESTERN CITY MAGAZINE 01152 001-400-1203-4201 00477 $403.00 10084/86/87 08241 29989 EMPLOYEE ADVERTISING 86/87 04/28/89 PERSONNEL /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 05/04/89 0** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $403.00 R SALLY A. *WHITE 00140 001-400-4102-4201 00203 $136.00 06099 29990 SEC SERV/4-18-89 04/25/89 PLANNING COMM /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 05/04/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $136.00 * * * R BYRON L.*WOOSLEY 02698 125-400-8508-4201 00013 $1.000.00 08125 29991 PARK IRRIGATION SYS EVAL 04/18/89 CIP 85-508 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $1.000.00 05/04/89 VENDOR TOTAL *** PAY CODE TOTAL *** TOTAL WARRANTS $1.000.00 $159,639.52 $159.914.96 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE DEMANDS OR_CLAIMS COVERED SV THE WARRANTS LISTED ON PAGE / TO INCLUSIVE OF THE WARRANT REGISTER FOR ._ ARE ACCURATE AND FU y�SS ARE A ::,:iLE FOR Pt:IA II IIILAOF: FINANCE IN 112AfOR DATE • • • r • r • • 0 • • • • • • • April 25, 1989 Honorable Mayor and For the Meeting of Members of the City Council May 9, 1989 CANCELLATION OF WARRANTS Please consider the following request for cancellation of the warrants listed below. #029645 - 4/11/89 - Ron Fox - $21.75 - Account Number 001-400- 2101-4313. Officer did not attend training. #029669 - 4/11/89 - Mercury Air Group - $9,555.50 - Account Number 001-400-4204-4309 $1,068.00, 001-141-0000-1401 $8,487.33. Two vendors combined on one warrant. Warrant was never mailed. #029769 - 4/25/89 - Digital Equipment Corp. - $1,045.00 - Account Number 001-400-3202-4316 $595.00, 001-400-2101-4201 $450.00. Two corporate divisions placed in same warrant in error. Concur: evin orthcra City Manager Gary Br sch City Treasurer Noted for fiscal impact Viki Copeland Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council May 2, 1989 City Council Meeting of May 9, 1989 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT OF INACTIVE PUBLIC DEPOSITS FOR HERMOSA BEACH Attached is a report of all Inactive Public Deposits for the month of April 1989. Respectfully submitted, /1-1,14-t-,(1 Gary Br tsch City T easurer NOTED: 44=eeKevin l4orthcrtt City Manager 1d INSTITUTION TOTAL INVESTMENT REPORT - APRIL 1989 DATE OF INVESTMENT DATE OF MATURITY INTEREST LAIF BALANCE 4/01/89 Withdrawal Investment Withdrawal Balance 4/30/89 $1,770,000.00 (100,000.00) 400,000.00 300,000.00 $2,370,000.00 CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT: Union Federal S&L Investment Union Federal S&L Investment Union Federal S&L Investment Community Bank Investment Community Bank Investment $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 4/10/89 4/25/89 9/22/88 10/27/88 3/7/89 12/8/88 1/26/89 4/4/89 9/22/89 10/1/89 3/7/90 12/8/89 7/25/89 8.45% 8.50% 8.40% 9.50% 9.00% 9.15% City National Bank Investment City National Bank Investment $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 3/30/89 4/25/89 3/23/90 4/25/90 10.30% 10.00% CORPORATE NOTES: Ford Motor Credit Co. Investment $ 500,000.00 5/19/88 5/20/93 9.10% Merrill Lynch & Co. Investment $ 500,000.00 6/30/88 1/2/90 8.35% Summit Bancorporation Investment $ 500,000.00 9/15/88 10/16/89 8.90% U.S. TREASURY NOTE: Investment $ 500,937.94 2/22/89 1/31/91 9.20% Investment $ 505,551.17 3/13/89 3/31/90 9.45% Investment $ 506,721.33 3/21/89 3/31/90 9.61% Investment $ 501,895.72 3/23/89 11/15/89 9.42% FHLMC: Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. Investment Investment $ 248,733.64 $ 249,320.88 TOTAL BALANCE $9,883,160.68 Respectfully Submitted, / 7-7-2;ta Gary Bruts City Treasurer 3/26/87 5/26/87 3/1/17 8/2/16 8.0% 9.50% Mayor and Members of the City Council CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES May 2, 1989 City Council Meeting May 9, 1989 The following claim(s) have been submitted to the City Clerk's office: Joe R. Metcalf - 2752 Via Anita, Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274, filed May 1, 1989; alleged collision with a city vehicle. Recommendation: To deny claim(s) and refer to City's Claims Administrator. Note: The above claim(s) are available for review in the office of the City Clerk. LINDARIDDLE, Deputy City Clerk Concur: 11/41447 2Y" EVIN B. NORT RAFT, City Manager if CLAIM NO.: 8C1.0s -2 LIABILITY DEPARTMENT _.. . 2 I oo CITY CLAIM REPORTING FORM FOR ALL PERSONS OR P E MAIL TO: City Clerk City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 COPIES TO: PD � MAY V 1189 OPObit Olig * Mmes* Meet 1. Claims for death, injury to persons, or to personal property, must be filed not later than six (6) months ence (Gov. Code, Sec. 911.2). 2. Claims for damages to real property must be filed not later than one (1) year after the occurrence (Gov. Code, Sec.911.2). 3. Read entire claim before filing. 4. Attach separate sheets, if necessary, to give full details. Name of Claimant (First. Last, Middle) _ Joe R. Metcalfe Age 55 Home Address of Claimant (Street, City, State, Zip) 2752 Via Anita, Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 Telephone No. (213) 378-5172 Business Address of Claimant (Street, City, State, Zip) 3601 Aviation Blvd. Suite 3300, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone No. (213)536-9870 Address to which you desire notices or communications to be sent regarding this claim: 2752 Via Anita, Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 Date of Damage/Loss/Injury March 1, 1989 Time 0716 A.M. P.M. • Place of Damage/Loss/lnjury Pacific Coast Hwy and 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, CA How did damage/loss/injury occur? (Be specific) Vehicle collision with city vehicle 1RGG469 Were Police at scene? Yes€ No0 Were Paramedics at scene? Yes XX No0 Re ort No. Hermosa Beach, p 89-00805 What particular act or omission do you claim caused the damage/loss/injury? A high speed unsafe left turn through 2 rows of traffic (waiting for signal change) into the third lane which was constantly in motion (righthand lane) in front of 'approaching vehicle causing a near hpar1—nn typl l i ci ort Name of City employee(s) causing the damage/loss/injury: Kim Eugene Mitchell Is the total amount of your claim, including the estimated amount of any prospective injury, O less than $10,000.00 If so, state the amount 0 more than $25,000.00 damage, or loss: (Superior Court Jurisdiction) N more than $10,000.00 but less than $25,000.00 (Municipal Court Jurisdiction) How was amount of claim computed? (Be specific. List doctor bills, wage rate, repair estimates, etc.). Please attach two (2) estimates. Vehicle damage $4,500 estimated; please contact: Farmers Insurance Co. 1900 Artesia Blvd 'POIBox for injury expenses to date. There was loss Redondo Beach. tf 978-1789 of work time by Martha Metcalfe. (213) 379-3610 Agent: Naomie Expenditures made because of damage/loss/injury (Date and Item). see above THIS CLAIM MUST BE SIGNED ON REVERSE SIDE. • Expenditures made because of damage/loss/injury (Date and item) Contact Farmers Insurance Company Name and address of witness(es), doctor(s), and hospital(s)• Contact: Farmers Insurance Company PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING CAREFULLY. For all vehicle damage claims, draw a diagram with the names of streets, and indicate place of incident by 'X' and by show- ing house numbers or distances to street corners. If City Vehicle was involved, designate by letter 'A' location of City Vehicle and by 'B' location of yourself or your vehicle. If Personal or property damage claim please identify location as completely as possible. N CLAIMS INVOLVING VEHICLES w $ pcH rn»c /\ A 8 1°4 Jabot - 17X (L7 jft owe S. - CLAIMS - OTHER (Please draw diagram) I HAVE READ THE FOREGOING CLAIM AND KNOW THE CONTENTS THEREOF: AND CERTIFY THAT THE SAME IS TRUE OF MY OWN KNOWLEDGE EXCEPT AS TO THOSE MATTERS WHICH ARE HEREIN STATED UPON MY INFORMATION AND BELIEF: AND AS TO THOSE MATTERS I BELIEVE IT TO BE TRUE. I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. Dated /SPK L a 7, / Signed / /( NOTE: PRESENTATION OF A FALSE CLAIM IS PUNISHABLE AS A FELONY (CAL. PEN. CODE 72). <. May 1, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council May 9, 1989 RECOMMENDATON TO AWARD THE BID FOR A MINI -PICK UP, CAB AND CHASSIS TO SOPP CHEVROLET Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council award the bid for a mini -pick up, cab and chassis, for $12,577.36 plus tax to Sopp Chevrolet. Background: As part of the 1988/89 budget, the City Council approved the appropriation of $13,000 for a new animal control truck, cab and chassis. The city published a public notice inviting bids in the Easy Reader, which appeared on 4/13 and 4/20. In addition, notices were mailed to ten vendors (see attached list). Analysis: Only one bid was received, from Sopp Chevrolet. This bid meets our specifications and basically falls within the budgeted appropriation, however with tax the tatal cost will be approximately $13,395. The department budget is under -expended overall, we should be able to transfer funds from another account to fund the deficit. J n Noon General Services Director Concur: rArf evin :. Nort -raft City Manager Noted for fiscal impact: Viki Copelan Finance Administrator 111 5801 PACIFIC BOULEVA April 20, 1989 City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Ref: Bid 1 ea Mini Pickup Dear Sirs: sALEB AND9ERVzCE sINCE 1922 (213) 588-1191 N :.PARK. CA 90255-2699 Mailing Address: Post Office Box 2099 Huntington Park, CA 90255-1387 Enclosed is our bid to you on the proposed purchase of 1 ca Mini Pickup to your specifications: 1989 S-10 Model CT10653 4.3 V-6 Engine Automatic.Transmission Air Conditioning P235 -75R15 Tires California Emmissions Solid Paint Vinyl Interior Total Price $12,577.36 The above price does not include sales tax. Delivery is within 6-8 weeks. Due to the fact that it is late in the model year, we request that you notify us if we are the successful bidder as soon as possible, so that we -can order this vehicle. Thank you, i'7kt P CAW-) Mike Ladner Fleet Manager ML/dd BID OPENING /4444/.4, PROJECT NO. BIDDERS NAME BID OPENING LOG SHEET A/47/g9 BID BOND AMOUNT OF BID ete74/0°.flet-el aLLLilth PR 71989► m ad CNf% • am d Hiroo" gla6°b• ,. • OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK r 1315 Valley Drive • Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH NOTICE INVITING BIDS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that sealed bids will be received at the office of the City Clerk, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 until Thursday, April 27, 1989 at 2:00 pm. The bids will be publicly opened and read for performing works as follows: To provide the City with a Small Size "Mini" Pick-up Truck, Cab and Chassis only; 1. 6 Cyl. 2. Extra Cab 3. On demand 4 -wheel drive 4. Air Conditioning 5. Automatic Transmission 6. Off Road Tires The City of Hermosa Beach reserves the right to reject any or all bids, to waive any irregularities in a bid, and to award the sale. The bid will be awarded to the supplier who best provides a product meeting the City's needs. Joan Noon Director of General Services Room 01, City Hall (213) 318-0257 Dated: April 4, 1989 Run Dates: April 13 April 20 LIST OF VENDORS SENT NOTICE INVITING BIDS Sparlic GMC 737 No. La Brea Blvd. Inglewood, CA 90302 Attn: V. Love Delorme Chevrolet 1175 S. La Brea Inglewood, CA 90302 Attn: Mr. Hall Sopp Chevrolet 5801 Pacific Boulevard Huntington Park, CA 90255 Attn: J. Connel Manhattan Ford 1500 N. Sepulveda Boulevard Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Attn: Susan Cummings Cormier Chevrolet 2201 E. 223rd Street Long Beach, CA Champion Chevrolet 707 N. Sepulveda Manhattan Beach, 90266 Martin Chevrolet 23505 Hawthorne Boulevard Torrance, CA South Bay Nissan 900 Pacific Coast Highway Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Attn: John Cardoza Peyton Cramer Ford 1840 S. Pacific Coast Hwy Redondo Beach, CA Gardena Nissan 1670 W. Redondo Beach Bi. Gardena, CA April 24, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council May 9, 1989 HERMOSA BEACH FISHING PIER CONCESSION LEASE Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Authorize staff to advertise for a call for bids for the operation of the concession stand at the end of the Hermosa Beach Fishing Pier and issue addenda as necessary. Background: The first lease with the present Lessee was for a term of one year starting November 1, 1983, with the City holding the option to grant one year extensions. This lease was for $1225 a month. In March 1984 the Lessee requested that the rent be reduced to $1,000 per month for the months of March, April, May and June to enable him to establish his business. The request was granted by City Council. The present pier concession lease agreement commenced on November 1, 1984 for a term of sixty (60) months and expires on October 31, 1989. When this lease was signed the average monthly rent was reduced to $800 per month with a payment schedule as follows: June through November December through May - $1,200 per month due on the 1st of the month. = $7,200 - $400 per month due on the 1st of the month. = $2,400 Present Annual Rent $9,600 Item No. 2 of this lease (dated October 9, 1984) states ..."Upon request from the Lessee the City may elect to extend the term of this lease at its discretion". A copy of this lease is available for review in the City Clerk's office. Analysis: The present Lessee has been in possession of the concession area on the fishing pier for the past six (6) years. Considering the lease is expiring this year, it is appropriate at this time to solicit for proposals and in so doing extend the opportunity for others to bid. The Lessee has been advised, that pending Council approval, the City will be advertising for a call for bids and one will be sent to him. 1 lg Proposed is a call for bids to lease the concession area for a term of three (3) years. The attached proposal outlines the City's requirements of the Lessee. Fiscal Impact: Present Annual Income Average Per Month Present Cost per Square Foot Minimum Bid Required in 1983 Recommended Minimum Bid 1989 $9,600.00 $ 800.00 $ 1.14 = $800 _ 701 sf $ 570.00 _ 701 sf = $0.81/sf $ 687.00 _ 603 sf = $1.14/sf * 701 sq included the sewer pump have access to. Actual square 603 sq. Staff's recommendation Other Comparisons: Commercial Outdoor Dining Encroachments Community Center Commercial Rental Rates Alternatives: Alternative considered by staff room which new lessee will not feet of snack/bait shop area is is to lease 603 sf only. $ 0.50/sf $ 0.74/sf $ 1.00 to $1.50/sf and available to City Council: 1. Re -negotiate lease with existing lessee, if feasible. Respectfully submitted, Merelyn r nole Adminis ative Aide Concur: An hony Antich Director of Pu•lic Works 0,5o.1 evin . Northc fraft City Manager cc: Viki Copeland, Finance Administrator pier pwadmin. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: If there is competition for this lease as we hope, the selection emphasis should be on providing maximum public services that will promote and facilitate public use of the Pier, as opposed to revenue exclusively (pursuant to the tidelands grant). 2 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL & Lease Agreement HERMOSA BEACH FISHING PIER CONCESSION LEASE The City of Hermosa Beach is requesting proposals from interested parties wishing to lease a portion of the structure at the end of the Hermosa Beach Fishing Pier. This is the area curently used as the bait and tackle shop and a snack bar. This area will hereafter be referred to as the Pier Concession area. Submittal of Proposals All proposals are to be submitted to the City of Hermosa Beach Public Works Department 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 No later than Thursday, July 6, 1989 at 2:00 p.m. and clearly marked "Pier Concession Lease Proposal". Any questions regarding this proposal may be directed to: Merelyn Vanole Public Works Department (213) 318-0222 Criteria for selection will include cost, hours of operation, services, and products offered, etc. The City of Hermosa Beach reserves the right to reject any or all bids, to waive any irregularities in a bid and to award the bid. All proposals will become a part of the City's official files without obligation to grant a contract. An award, if made, will be made to the highest and most responsible bidder. SCOPE OF THE PROPOSAL 1. Term: The term of the lease is to be thirty-six (36) months commencing November 1, 1989 and ending October 31, 1992. The City may elect to grant one year extensions at its discretion. 2. Description of Premises: The City of Hermosa Beach wants to lease approximately a 603 square foot portion of the structure at the westerly end of the Hermosa Beach Fishing Pier. This does not include live-in privileges. 3. Lease Payment: Lease payments in the sum of the amount bid and accepted by the City shall be made the first day of each month for the duration of the lease. The total amount of the lease will be based on the monthly payment (payment x 36 months) and will be set forth in the Lease Agreement upon selection of the successful bidder. In the event that a yearly extension is granted at the end of the term of this 1 lease, an adjustment in the lease payment will be negotiated. 4. Rent Deposit: Lessee agrees to deposit with the City an amount equal to first and last months rent as a deposit. 5. Use: Lessee agrees to use the Pier Concession area only for the purposes intended (bait/tackle shop and a snack bar). Lessee agrees not to use the Pier Concession area for any other purpose without the expressed written consent of the City. Lessee agrees to maintain the Pier Concession area consistent with all Building and Safety Codes, Fire Codes and Health and Safety Codes of the State of California and the City of Hermosa Beach. Lessee agrees to obtain all applicable business licenses and health licenses for the operation of the Pier Concession area. 6. Utilities: Utilities, with the exception of the Southern California Gas Company, shall be paid for by the City. 7. Insurance: Lessee shall cause to be obtained public liability, property damage and fire insurance wherein the City is named as additional insured for limits of not less that one million dollars ($1,000,000) total for public liability and for property damage for fire damage provided further that such insurance shall be subject to approval of the City Attorney of the City and with the further provision that the insuror will agree to notify the City Attorney as Agent of the City prior to any conclusion of said insurance or the lapse thereof. The insurance shall protect the City and Lessee in the event of liability arising out of Lessee's activities at the leased premises. 8. Maintenance and Condition of the Pier Concession Area Upon -Termination of the Lease: Lessee agrees to maintain the premises and to return to the City the premises upon termination of this lease in the same condition as when Lessee took possession of the premises, excepting any repairs or alterations which were approved by the City, reasonable wear and tear excepted, and does promise to pay the City upon demand the reasonable sums to repair the premises in the event of a violation of this provision. 9. Construction: Lessee is prohibited from making any alterations or performing any construction whatsoever on the premises without the prior written approval of the City. Any such approval shall include provisions to protect the City from potential liens of labor and material persons. 10. Destruction, Partial Destruction or Necessity to Repair Pier Concession Area Because of Conditions Caused by Other than Lessee: The City agrees to maintain the Pier Concession building exterior and all public areas in a good, useable and clean condition. Such maintenance includes Pier lighting and maintenance of the building roof in a leak free condition. The City, at its option, may construct or repairthe premises, whereupon this lease shall remain in 2 full force and effect except that no rent will be owing to the City during said repair of reconstruction or repair if such reconstruction or repair interferes with the tenancy created herein to the extent that the premises cannot be used for the purposes intended. Lessee shall receive fourteen (14) days advance notice of any repairs or reconstruction which will interfere with the Lessee's use of the premises unless the repairs are of any emergency nature. In the event that the City, at its sole discretion, determine not to reconstruct or repair the premises, then either party, at its option, may cause this lease to be terminated and neither party shall have any liability each to the other. 11. Hold Harmless: Each party promises to hold the other harmless from any claims, causes of actions or damages of any nature whatever arising from the use of the Pier Concession area by the party found or claimed to be liable. With the following exception, the Lessee hereby agrees to pay the City for improvements made by the City, which are of particular benefit to the Lessee's operation and which do not fall within the scope of item ten (10) of this lease regarding the City's obligation to maintain the exterior of the Pier Concession building and public areas. Lessee will pay the City any monies to which the City may become obligated because of the Lessee's use of the premises. The City will pay the Lessee any monies to which Lessee may become obligated because of the City's use of the premises. 12. Rules, Regulations and Ordinances: The Lessee agrees to comply with all applicable laws and sections of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code and all rules and regulations adopted by the City Council. 13. Workmen's Compensation Insurance: Lessee shall maintain in force during the term of this Lease worker's compensation insurance to the maximum limits on any employees of Lessee. 14. Taxes and Charges: Lessee agrees to pay when due any and all sales taxes (State Board of Equalization), fees; i.e., Hermosa Beach Business License, or charges levied by any governmental agency on or to the leasehold premises. 15. Default: Should Lessee fail to pay any monies due pursuant to this lease within three (3) days after written notice from the City or to perform any other obligation required pursuant to the terms of this within thirty (30) days after notice from the City, City may immediately cause this lease to be terminated and thereafter take any action and pursue all remedies available under the laws then existent in the State of California. 16. Notice: Any notice required to be made or given pursuant to the provisions of this lease may be either personally served upon the part or deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid: Lessor: City of Hermosa Beach City Clerk's Office 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (213) 318-0203 Lessee: Any notices so given pursuant to the provision of this paragraph will be deemed served twenty-four (24) hours after the deposit thereof in the United States mail. 16. Attorney's Fees: The parties agree that in the event any action is instituted concerning any of the provisions of this lease agreement the prevailing party may, at the discretion of the Court, be granted as an additional item of damages its attorney's fees. 17. Assignment and Subletting: Lessee may not assign or sublease all or any portion of the premises or lease without the written consent of the City, which consent may be granted or denied at the exclusive and total discretion of the City. 18. Successors: Subject to prior provisions, this lease is binding upon heirs, assignees and successors of interest of the parties. 19. Hours of Operation: Lessee agrees to provide the City with information relative to hours of operation, day of week of operation, names of employees and the emergency phone numbers of all persons involved within the Pier Concession area. -These names to be supplied by the successful bidder upon execution of the lease agreement. 20. Access to Pier Concession Area: Lessee agrees to provide access for purpose of inspection to any duly authorized representative of the City or any other governmental agency. 21. Renewal of Lease: Lessee hereby agrees to notify the City by United States mail of his desire to bid to renew this lease or to terminate this lease within ninety (90) days prior to the ending date of the term of this lease (also see item 3) . Summarize experience in operating businesses of this nature: Minimum Bid: $687 per month ($24,732 for 36 months (3 years) Lessee's Proposed Bid: $ See Item 3 Lessee's Proposed Bid in Words: (Monthly) (Total' If there is a discrepancy between numbers and words, the words shall prevail. Signature(s) Please Print Name(s) Address: Address: Telephone No.(s) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Pier Concession Lease Agreement at Hermosa Beach on the day of , 1989. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, a Municipal Lessee(s) Corporation, Lessor ATTEST: By: MAYOR CITY CLERK PPROVED AS T ATTORNEY May 1, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of May 9, 1989 RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE REPORT OF ENFORCEMENT OF BAN ON TRICK SKATEBOARDING AND BICYCLING, AND TO APPROPRIATE AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,900 FROM PROSPECTIVE EXPENDITURES RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Appropriate an amount, not to exceed $1,900, from Prospective Expenditures to pay for the necessary signs and signals needed for proper warning and enforcement. 2. Receive and file this report. BACKGROUND: There have been numerous complaints from the public regarding the danger and the problem caused by individuals performing trick riding on their skateboards and bicycles in the area known as the "Pierhead". This activity has been allowed for some time, but is clearly in violation of various subsections of Section 5-24.5 of the H.B.M.C. relating to trick riding and walk zones. ANALYSIS: Patrol personnel have been directed to begin an enforcement program aimed at reducing the number of violations involving wheeled vehicles on the sidewalks of the commercial zones and on the Strand. As such, Department Management feels that all applicable laws must be enforced in the Pierhead area as well. Enforcement is scheduled to begin on May 10, 1989. To this end, the department is working with the staff of Public Works to ensure that proper signs and signals are installed in those areas, prior to con- centrated enforcement, so that everyone will be properly notified. Additionally, notices will be distributed and local news media will be contacted to solicit their cooperation on providing notice. 1 1i Plans call for a flashing light to be installed at the Pierhead. This light will be activated along with the lights at the North and South ends of the walk zone on the Strand. The cost of this light is estimated to be $1,058. The cost of the various signs needed for proper notification is estimated to be $716. It is recommended that Council appropriate an amount, not to exceed $1,900, from Prospective Expenditures to the Traffic Safety budget of Public Works to cover the costs of the signs and signals. CONCUR: z evin 4"i . Northc raf , City Manager Viki Copeland, Finance Administrator fulltted, Steve S. Wisniewski Director of Public Safety Tony Antich, Director of Public Works h -V 2 May 2, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council May 9, 1989 APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR PORTABLE FENCING AT THE CLARK FIELD RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission the Council appropriate $7,900 from the Parks & Recreation Facility Tax Fund into CIP 89-520 for the purchase of a portable fence for the Clark Field Complex. BACKGROUND At the February 14, 1989, Council meeting, the City Council did approve this purchase but the funds to be used were the remaining funds in the Old Prospect School Grant. (See attachnent A.) Just recently the City has been notified those monies in that grant can be used only at that specific site, that is the playground at 6th and Prospect. Therefore the fence will have to be paid for from another source. ANALYSIS As indicated in the agenda item of February 14, 1989, the Commission is recommending this purchase due to the very poor condition of the existing fence. The new fence is more durable, easier to handle and can be stored in a much smaller space. Additionally, staff was able to see a demonstration of this new fence at the State Park & Recreation Conference just recently. The most impressive feature of the fence is its ability to collapse upon impact when someone runs into it. It is much more flexible than the existing one. Concur: Respectfully submitted, eits•44_7tha Alana Mastrian-Handman Director Dept. of Community Resources Noted for fiscal Imt: kevin . North a t Viki Copeland City Manager Finance Administrator 1 1 February 1, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members Attachment A (1 of 5) City Council Meeting of of the City Council February 14, 1989, APPROVAL OF STATE GRANT FUND PROJECTS RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission that the City Council approve the purchase of a portable fence to be used on the Clark field for Little League and adult Softball Leagues; father that the fence be purchased with those funds remaining in the final outstanding grant the City has with the State that was not earmarked at the last Council meeting (approx. $7,958). BACKGROUND At the last City Council meeting of Jan. 24, 1989 tne City Council approved the expenditure of the balances in the various outstanding grants the City has with the State. The Council did not act on the final grant because at that time the Commission had recommended the money be expended for the demolition of the old Prospect School. At the last Council meeting tne City Council rejected that recommendation therefore resulting in the need to approve this money for another purpose. A copy of the Jan. 24th. agenda item is attached. ANALYSIS The Commission has recommended this purcnase of the portable fence due to the very poor condition of the existing portable fence. The new fence suggested is more durable and easier to maneuver and can be stored in a much smaller space than the present fence. Should the City Council approve this project, the City must then file an amendment with the State for this grant whicn will change the scope of the project to include this purchase. It is staff's nope the State will approve this project and allow the amendment. That won't be known until the State reviews all the paperwork. Once the State approves tnese amendments staff will return to the City Council and request an appropriation for these purchases because the City must expend its own funds initially and then be reimbursed by tne State. The total appropriation will be approximately $30,000. Concur: 4 41 "Kevin B. Nortncraft City Manager Respectfully submitted, Alana Mastrian-Handman Assistant City Manager Noted for Fiscal Impact: vim: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator irr o January 18, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council RECOMMENDATION Attachment A (2 of 75-44AW',T City Council Meeting of January 24, 1989 APPROVAL OF STATE GRANT FUND PROJECTS It is recommended by the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission that the City Council approve the purchase of the following items from the remaining fund balances in the miscellaneous state grants the City is in the process of closing out: $ 1,000 park water fountains 1,000 park trasn cars 20.658 playground equipment $22,658 BACKGROUND At the last City Council meeting the City Council received and filed a report that detailed tne remaining monies in the various grants the City is closing out. That agenda item is attached for your reference. ANALYSIS Tne Commission at tneir January 4, 1989 Special Meeting decided on the above recommendation. The Commission at that same meeting also decided to recommend to the Council the demolition of the old Prospect School. The funds to be used for that demolition ($7,958) is an amount that also remains in one of the grants the City is in the process of closing out. Since the City Council rejected tne recommendation of the Commission tnere remains the $7,958 to appropriate. The Commission meets the day after this Council meeting to determine that and. will return to the City Council in February with that recommendation. Once the City Council approves tnese projects the City must file an amendment with the state for each of these grants to change the scope of each project. All of these remaining funds and all paperwork must be concluded and into tne State no later than June 30, 1989. For the past several years the City has spent very little for playground equipment and this funding provides an opportunity to fill a need without using the General Fund. Concur: Respectfully submitted, Alana Mastrian-Handman Assistant City Manager I Noted for Fiscal Impact: 0-'7.-- ,.77/---/I--- --re' 1 .....:„., .4 . ,./.:. ....e ,,, . : - / "Kevin B. Nortncraft Vika. Copeland g City Manager Finance Administrator December 28, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Attachment A (3 of 5) City Council Meeting of January 10, 1989 FINAL REPORT ON STATE GRANTS RECONCILIATION RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the City Council receive and file this report. BACKGROUND At the Council meeting of May 24, 1988, tne City Council approved an appropriation of $7,000 for a consultant to reconcile the outstanding recreation grants that were still pending with the state. Tne attached report from the consultant is the final wrap-up report regarding that work. ANALYSIS In closing out the grants the consultant was able to determine the City expended its own funds to carry out some of tnese projects and will now be reimbursed for those expenditures. The City will be receiving approximately $42,000 from the state as reimbursement funds. Additionally, tne City has some money remaining in the various grants and tnat amounts to approximately $30,000. Tne $30,000 needs to be expended and all paper work submitted to the State no later than June 30, 1989. Elsewhere on the agenda this evening, there is a recommendation before you•.to demolish tne old Prospect Avenue Scnool at Fort Lots o' Fun Park on Prospect Avenue. The funds to be used for tnat demolition. ($7,958) are a part of the $30,000 figure mentioned above. By the City Council hiring a consultant at a cost of $7,000 to close out these recreation grants, the City was able to recoup approximately $42,000 from the State and has been informed it has another $30,000 left to expend for park and recreation purposes. It appears tne City has received a very good return on that $7,000 expenditure. Concur: Kevin B. Nortncraft City Manager Respectfully submitted, L�%C.cccv Alana Mastrian-Ha`naman Assistant City Manager Noted for fiscal impact: Viki Copeland, Finance Administrator 1g Ms. Alana Mastrian Assistant City Manager Director, Development of Community Resourses City of Hermosa Beach 710 Pier Avenue Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 Attachment A (4•of".5) FG G7IES8 December 6, 1988 SUBJECT: Progress Report on State Parks & Recreation Grant Close-outs Dear Alana: City Mg. c.tric.e This letter is to provide you and the City with a brief progress report on the status of the close-out activities of the City's State Park and Recreation Grants. We started with nine projects that represented a total of $229,890.00 in funding. Of this total, the City had to establish documentation to justify the $154,364 they had already received from the State, and provide documentation to receive the $75,526.00, that is still available. Some of the projects have been completed and the close-out documents submitted to the State. The remaining projects have funding available and are being programed for expenditure by June 30, 1989. The following are the projects that have been closed -out and the documentation submitted to the State. Grant Previously Amount Project Amount Drawn -Down Due Citv BG -19-013 $12,219.00 $12,219.00 $ -0- BG-19-378 19,323.00 17,400.00 1,923.00 BG -19-553 4,765.00 4,228.50 536.50 BE -19-682 14, 238.00 t2,814.00 1,424.00 BE -19-857 1,011.00 674.00 910.00 The following are the projects that still have funds remaining and are being reprogramed for expenditures prior to June 30, 1989. With the exception of BE -19- 721, all of the projects have had funds expended. These expenditures, to date, have been compiled and will be combined with the reprogramed funds when they are spent. MARK BRIGGS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 505 N. Tustin Avenue, Suite 282, Santa Ana, California 92705 (714) 550-0390 Attachment A (.7 or D) Ms. Alana Mastrian December 6, 1988 Page Two Grant Expended Amount Remaining Project Amount To Date To Be Expended 19-0019 $57,958.00 $50,000.00 $ 7,953.00 76-19026 60,025.00 51,781.00 8.244.00 80-19019 58,243.00 45,937.00 12,306.00 BE -19-721 2,108.00 -0- 2,108.00 There is nothing else to be done under our contract until the City is ready to close-out the projects that have the remaining funds. A11 of the close-out documents have to be submitted to the State prior to June 30, 1989. Mark Briggs and Associates, Inc., has enjoyed working with you and the rest of the City staff on this project. We are pleased that we were able to come up with the documentation that will enable the City to both retain the funds received and also receive the funds still due. If you have any questions, or if problems should arise concerning the projects, please give me a call. Sincerely, BryonGK. Baron Senior Vice President BKB:ajy ✓' cc: Kevin Northcr-aft City Manager Vicki Copeland Finance Administrator Hermosa/120688 ti • i.1.4;4;,,t4 ®.A. 4#.1.A.:44‘ '3474 •a• • c' tt• •(ti`'� +'$N •• • ?I" se tr . �1 . •!,• r• • • ...`o• ti,1• v•i f. �..� rft3• �a P•�Z� -•+1. , • � _ 'L w jfgl•� w�l. •.---•c�C•-. :.Y•�.s..•n•: :.T.i•�.:J.�•.Ct-.Ni.tKind,� .�• �•hgta EACH SPORTFENCE PANEL BREAKS AWAY FROM ADJACENT PANELS AND FALLS FLAT ON PLAYER IMPACT THE SPORTFENCE BREAK—AWAY MECHANISM WILL PULL BACK IN PLACE WHEN THE DOWNED PANEL IS LIFTED EACH SPORTFENCE PANEL CAN CARRY A CUSTOM GRAPHIC BANNER MESSAGE SPORTFENCE PANELS CONNECTED TO FORM AN OUTFIELD FENCE SYSTEM 1 -- • • May 2, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council May 9, 1989 STATUS REPORT REGARDING THE ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL PARKING PERMITS FOR PRESS PERSONNEL Recommendation: Staff recommends that this report be received and filed. Background: At your regularly scheduled meeting of January 24, 1989, under Citizen Comments - Non-Agendized Items, MuntiVision's Program Director, Doug Nielsen requested a parking permit for downtown while video taping for local public access channel. The matter was referred to the City Manager. Subsequently, City Manager Northcraft assigned our staff to look into the possibility of issuing such a pass. We were unable to find any exemption for press personnel either in our Municipal Code or in the California Vehicle Code. We did find however, that Section 5008 of the C.V.C. provides for the issuance of a special license plate that could be issued to "any regularly employed or engaged as a bona fide newspaper, newsreel, or television photographer or cameraman". The special license plates display the letters "PP" enclosed by a shield. Upon further investigation, we were advised by Evelyn Roddy, Supervisor of the Public Inquiry Unit - DMV, Sacramento, that these plates were for identification only and did not exempt the vehicle owner from any parking or traffic restrictions. She further stated that this would be a matter of local rule. In addition, we sought an opinion from City Attorney Lough. In a confidential memorandum, dated April 17, 1989, Attorney Lough indicated he had reservations regarding the issuance of special parking passes under these circumstances since Section 22507 of the CVC only addresses granting preferential parking privleges to residents and merchants in a designated area. Analysis: Section 19-81 of the H.B.M.C. exempts any vehicle of a city department or public utility or cable television company franchised by the City of Hermosa Beach, while necessarily in use for construction or repair work as well as the United States Post Office while delivering mail, from parking restrictions. - 1 - lk If the City Council so chooses, they could amend this section of the code to include any vehicle which bears the special press plate, pending any legal problem or ramification. General Services Director Concur: ev n :. North• aft City Manager 2 18. CITIZEN COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS • Jim Canes'- 819 -18th Street - addressed service failure of 911 system - consultant - recommended cellular phones for backup Doug Nielsen - Program Director Channel 10 MultiVision - requested parking permit for downtown while video taping for local public access channel. Matter was referred to City Manager. ADJOURNMENT The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California adjourned on Wednesday, January 25, 1989 at the hour of 12:25•A.M. to an Adjourned Regular Meeting to be held on Tuesday, Januuary 31, 1989 at the hour of 6:30 P.M. • City Clerk - 10 - #164eeri-44) t I Minutes 1-24-89 18. CITIZEN COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Jim Canes'- 819 -18th Street - addressed service failure of 911 system - consultant - recommended cellular phones for backup Doug Nielsen - Program Director Channel 10 MultiVision - requested parking permit for downtown while video taping for local public access channel. Matter was referred to City Manager. ADJOURNMENT The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California adjourned on Wednesday, January 25, 1989 at the hour of 12:25•A.M. to an Adjourned Regular Meeting to be held on Tuesday, Januuary 31, 1989 at the hour of 6:30 P.M. • /14 City Clerk - 10 - 0/16,Lazfr/44) Minutes 1-24-89 TRIAD DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. 200 Pier Avenue, Suite 38 Hermosa Beach, California 90254 (213) 376-8849 May 4, 1989 City of Hermosa Beach City Mayor City Council Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce would like to celebrate its 78th annual installation and awards banquet on the Biltmore site July 15th, Saturday night 6:00 p.m. to 12:00 p.m. We propose to place a tent on the site and hold our banquet inside. Tickets $60.00 apiece. The public is invited. Dress: Black Tie optional. The Chamber will pay for any and all expenses associated with the event and will not require the use of the public toilets. We will however, require the barricading of Ocean Drive during the event to allow for loading and unloading of people and equipment. We will require some police protection and request you authorize the Chief of Police to negoiate for same at a fee. We also need the Public Works Department for last minute smoothing and clean up at our expense plus temporary power and water hookups are needed. As the chairman of the commitee I am available for questions which you may have. It is the Chambers intent to pay for all expenses, to invite the entire city, to have a joyous celebration and awards banquet. We request that you make the site available for us from Thrusday the 13th of July to Monday the 17th of July. If you would give us the approval in concept please authorize Mr. Norcraft to negotiate with us with regard to all of the specifics involved. nsideration. CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: To approve in concept and authorize staff to set requirements that will mitigate negative impacts on residents -y --Strand users, and City costs and liability. 1111111_'1'RIM 11 May 3, 1989 City Council Meeting May 9, 1989 Mayor and Members of the City Council ORDINANCE NO. 89-984 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ARTICLE IV, SECTION 17-55 ET SEQ, OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ALARM SYSTEMS. Submitted for adoption is Ordinance No. 89-984 relating to the above subject. At the meeting of April 25, 1989, this ordinance was introduced by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson, Mayor Williams None None None Respectfully submitted, Linda Riddle, Deputy City Concur: zrt. evin B. North a t, City Manager 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 89-984 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ARTICLE IV, SECTION 17-55 ET SEQ, OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ALARM SYSTEMS. WHEREAS, Article IV, Section 17-55 et seq, relating to alarm systems, creating a permit system and attempting to prevent the occurrence of false alarms, was adopted by the City Council as Ordinance 85-792, effective April 9, 1985; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that responding to false alarms continues to be a problem in the City in that it is time consuming, contributes to noise complaints and is dangerous for the citizens and officers of Hermosa Beach; and WHEREAS, amendments to Article IV, Section 17-55 et seq, will enable City personnel to reduce some causes of repeated false alarms and thereby conserve public safety personnel time, reduce noise violations, and protect the citizens and officers; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Article IV, Section 17-55 et seq, of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: ARTICLE IV. ALARM SYSTEMS. SECTION 17-55. PURPOSE. The purpose of this article is to establish standards and controls of the various types of intrusion, holdup, and other emergency signals from alarm systems that require public safety response or investigation, and for the businesses and persons installing and servicing said systems, in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare, and prevent false alarms. SECTION 17-55.1. DEFINITIONS 1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 For the purposes of this chapter, certain words and phrases shall be construed as set forth in this section, unless it is otherwise apparent from the context that a different meaning is intended. (a) "Alarm System" means any mechanical, electrical or elec- tronic device that is designed or used for the detection of an unauthorized entry into a building, structure, or facility, to signal the commission of an unlawful act, to signal that heat, smoke, or fire has been detected, or to signal that fire extin- guishment equipment has been activated. It specifically does not include automobile alarms or auxiliary devices installed by a telephone company or utility which is or may be utilized to re- port equipment damage or disruption of service. (b) "Audible Alarm" means a device designed to notify per- sons in the vicinity of the protected premises by emission of an audible sound to signal a need for emergency response. (c) "Direct Dial Device" means any system connected to a telephone line which upon activation, automatically dials a pre- determined telephone number and transmits a message or signal indicating the need for an emergency response. (d) "False Alarm" means an alarm signal activated by sub- scriber negligence or for any reason not of an emergency nature or when activated due to a malfunction of any segment of the alarm system and which necessitates a response by the Fire or Police Department when, in fact, no emergency exists. (e) "Chief of Police" means the Director of Public Safety of the City of Hermosa Beach. (f) "Silent Alarm" means a device for the detection of unau- thorized entry or illegal act upon the premises which does not 2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 generate an audible signal or sound on the premises when it is activated, but rather transmits a signal directly to the Public Safety Communications Center or to an alarm company central office. (g) "Permittee" means any person holding an alarm system permit issued in compliance with the regulations set forth in this chapter. (h) "Alarm company operator" means that term as defined in Section 7590.2 of the Business and Professions Code for the State of California. SECTION 17.55.2. ALARM SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS. In addition to the permit or permits required by Section 17.55.4, the following requirements and prohibitions apply to permitted alarm systems. (a) Every person maintaining an alarm system shall provide the Chief of Police with a current listing of the names, ad- dresses and telephone numbers of the persons to be notified to render service and repairs to the alarm system and additionally to secure the premises during any hour of the day or night that the alarm system is activated. The Permittee, or designee, must be able to be present at the alarm location within forty-five (45) minutes of a request by the Hermosa Beach Police Department or Communications Center. The listing required by this Section must be kept current by the person maintaining that alarm system. (b) No person shall install or maintain any audible alarm system which emits an audible sound for longer than ten (10) mi- nutes after activation. Any audible alarm that continues to emit a sound for longer than ten (10) minutes or generates more than three (3) false alarms in any twenty-four (24) hour period may be 3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 declared a nuisance by the Chief of Police, or designee. An Alarm that has been declared a nuisance under this section may be disconnected by the Chief of Police or designee. A designee may include, but is not limited to, Police Department personnel, Fire Department personnel, or other City personnel. Pursuant to this Chapter, the permittee shall be charged for all costs incurred by or reasonably borne by the City in disconnecting the nuisance. (d) All alarm systems shall be equipped with an uninterrup- tible power supply in such a manner that the failure or interrup- tion of normal electrical utility power shall not activate the alarm system. This power supply must be rechargeable and capable of at least four hours of operation. SECTION 17.55.3. REGISTRATION OF ALARM COMPANY OPERATORS. No person, individual, firm, company, association, organiza- tion, partnership, corporation or other entity shall engage in, conduct, or operate as an alarm company operator, or agent to an alarm company operator, as that term is defined in Section 7590.2 of the Business & Professions Code of the State of California, without registering its name and filing a copy of its State of California identification card and a copy of its City Business License with the Chief of Police. SECTION 17.55.4. PERMITS REQUIRED (a) It shall be unlawful for any person, individual, firm, company, association, organization, partnership, corporation or other entity to use, install or cause to be installed an alarm system on any premises within the City without having obtained an alarm system permit issued pursuant to this chapter. However, if the alarm system is installed by a licensed alarm company opera- tor, the permit may be applied for within five (5) business days 4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of when the alarm system is installed and operational. (b) A separate alarm system permit shall be required for each premises on which an alarm system is used or installed. Each alarm system must have a permit, and multiple permits are required if multiple alarm systems are installed on one premises. (c) An alarm company operator, or agent to the alarm company operator, should inform its client that an alarm system permit is required by the City and is the responsibility of the client. (d) The alarm company operator or agent shall notify the Chief of Police, or designee, each time stalled by said alarm company operator or tion shall be on a form prescribed by the notice shall be delivered to the Chief of an alarm system is in - agent. This notifica- Chief of Police. Such Police within five business days of when the alarm system operational. (e) Alarm system permits are in ownership of an alarm system, is installed (5) and non -transferable. Any change premises upon which an alarm system is operated, or business that operates an alarm system, shall require a new alarm system permit for the operation of the alarm system, issued pursuant to this chapter. The application for an alarm system permit upon the transfer of property pursuant to this subsection shall be considered as an application for a new alarm system. (f) Pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Chief of Police necessary to protect against the dangers to be eliminated by this Ordinance, the Chief of Police may allow the installation and operation of an alarm system without a permit for the pur- poses of testing such alarm system and determining its suitabili- ty for use within the City. 5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 17.55.5. PERMITS; APPLICATION: FEES. (a) Application for alarm system permits shall be made to the Police Department of the City. The Police Department shall prescribe the form of the application and request said informa- tion as it deems necessary to evaluate and act upon the applica- tion. All applications shall be submitted by the applicant under penalty of perjury. The Chief of Police, or designee, shall determine and set the conditions necessary for the installation and operation of alarm systems within the City. (b) An application for alarm system permit shall not be com- plete unless accompanied by a non-refundable fee as prescribed in Section 2-112 of the Municipal Code, titled "Public Safety Ser- vices," in order to recover costs reasonably borne in processing said application. SECTION 17.55.6. RIGHT OF INSPECTION. At the request of the Chief of Police, a City employee or agent may inspect any alarm system on the premises where it is intended to function prior to issuance of any permit for its in- stallation and operation. The purpose of the inspection or in- spections shall be to insure that the alarm system will function as designed and complies with the provisions of this chapter. SECTION 17.55.7. PERMITS: CORRECTION OF INFORMATION (a) Whenever a change occurs relating to the written infor- mation required on the permit application, the applicant or per- mittee shall give written notice of such change to the Police Department within five (5) calendar days. (b) Any changes in the information required by Section 17.55.2(a), persons to be contacted, or persons responsible for the repair and servicing of the alarm system shall be given by 6. 1 the permittee, in writing, to the Chief of Police as soon as pos- 2 sible and in no event later than five (5) calendar days from such 3 change. 4 SECTION 17.55.8. TELEPHONE DEVICE PROHIBITED. 5 No person shall use any alarm system which is equipped with 6 direct dial device which, when activated, automatically dials any 7 telephone within the Fire Department, Police Department or the 8 Public Safety Communications Center. g SECTION 17.55.9. NOTIFICATION OF TESTS. 10 Permittees shall notify the Dispatcher at the Public Safety 11 Commmunications Center prior to any service, test, repair, main- 12 tenance, adjustment, alteration or installation of any alarm sys- 13 tem which would normally result in a police response. Any alarm 14 received immediately following such notification shall not con- 15 stitute a false alarm for the purposes of this chapter. 16 SECTION 17.55.10. PERMITS: REVOCATION. 17 An alarm system permit may be revoked by the Chief of Police 18 for any of the following reasons: 19 (a) Failure to observe any of the regulations, conditions of 20 the permit, or other provisions of this chapter; 21 (b) False representations knowingly made upon any applica- 22 tion or notice of change required by the provisions of this 23 chapter; 24 (c) Where the permittee fails to pay the service charges 25 billed; 26 (d) Any alarm system designated a nuisance by the Chief of 27 Police. The Chief of Police may declare an alarm system at a 28 specific location a nuisance if such alarm system actuates exces- sive false alarms, It is hereby found and determined that more 7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 than four (4) false alarms within any three (3) consecutive cal- endar month period is excessive and thereby constitutes a public nuisance. The Chief of Police shall not consider any false alarm as a nuisance alarm if such false alarm occurs within thirty (30) days of the date the alarm system is installed and operational, nor any false alarm generated by a violent act of God or nature and which was not the result of the negligence of the permittee, or permittee's agent, or a defect in the alarm system. SECTION 17.55.11. PERMITS: REVOCATION: NOTICES: EFFECTIVE DATE. (a) A written notice of revocation, stating the reason for such revocation, shall be personally served upon or mailed to the permittee by certified mail addressed to the permittee at the permittee's address shown on the application or on the latest notice of change on file with the City. In the event the notice is mailed, service shall be deemed complete upon deposit in he United States mail. The effective date of the revocation of an alarm system permit shall be fifteen (15) days after the service of notice of revocation. During such fifteen (15) day period, the permittee may show cause, in writing, to the Chief of Police why the permit should not be revoked. (b) Whenever the revocation of an alarm system permit be- comes effective, the permit shall be surrendered forthwith to the Chief of Police, and the alarm system shall forthwith be removed or deactivated. SECTION 17.55.12. PERMITS: REVOCATION: APPEALS. The action of the Chief of Police in revoking an alarm system permit may be appealed to the City Council. Written notice of such appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within fifteen 8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 (15) days following the service of the notice of revocation. SECTION 17.55.13. PERMITS: REVOCATION: APPEALS: HEARING: DETERMINATIONS. The City Council shall hear and determine such appeal at its next regular meeting held not less than seven (7) days following the filing of the notice of appeal. Written notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be served on the permittee in the same manner as provided in this chapter for the notice of revocation. A majority vote of the whole be required to reverse any revocation of an alarm service of a Council shall system permit ordered by the Chief of Police. Should the Council find that the revocation of the permit was appropriate, the permittee may be billed for all costs reasonably borne by the City in revoking the alarm system permit. SECTION 17.55.14. CHARGES FOR RESPONDING TO FALSE ALARMS, BILLINGS, EXCEPTIONS. (a) A service charge of $100 shall be paid to the City by each subscriber or permittee of response made by the Police or Fire a false alarm after the first three the same calendar year. (b) The Director of Finance shall cause to be issued a monthly bill for the unpaid service charges accrued during the billing period and any prior periods. Such bill shall be due and payable within fifteen (15) days after billing date. (c) Exceptions: No charge shall be assessed for false an alarm system, for each Department to the (3) responses are location of made during 27 alarms occasioned by disaster, power failure or other causes 28 clearly not within the control of the permittee. No charges shall be made for a false alarm occasioned by an alarm company or 9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 permittee test of the alarm system, provided that the Police Department has been notified before and after completion of said test. No charge will be assessed for false alarms that occur within thirty (30) days from the date when the alarm system was originally installed and became operational. However, the per- mittee may be charged the costs of disconnecting an alarm system declared a nuisance under Section 17.55.02(c) of this chapter regardless of the date of installation and operation. (d) The provisions of this section do not apply to any Federal, State, County or City agency, special district, or to the Hermosa Beach Police Department which may be engaged in the non-profit installation and maintenance of tactical alarm systems utilized in crime suppression. SECTION 17.55.15. FEES AND CHARGES CONSTITUTE A VALID AND SUBSISTING DEBT. (a) All fees and charges levied by the City pursuant to this chapter shall be due and payable upon presentation of a written invoice. (b) All fees and charges for such services pursuant to this chapter shall constitute a valid and subsisting debt in favor of the City and against the permittee for whom such services are rendered. If an amount remains unpaid after reasonable and prac- tical attempts have been made by the City to obtain payment, a civil action may be filed with the appropriate court for the amount due and payable, together with any penalties, any related charges and fees accrued due to non payment, and all fees and charges required to file and pursue such civil action. (c) Fees and charges shall be levied for recovering City costs for notification and collection of delinquent accounts and 10. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 in amounts established by resolution of the City Council and shall be collected as provided herein. SECTION 17.55.16. MALFUNCTION REPAIR. After any false alarm caused by a malfunction of the alarm system equipment, an alarm system permittee shall cause the alarm system to be repaired so as to eliminate such malfunction before reactivating the alarm. No permittee shall reactivate such alarm or cause the alarm to be reactivated, until such repairs have been made and the alarm is in proper operating condition. SECTION 17.55.17. MISCELLANEOUS. (a) The provision of this ordinance relating to permits and fees for installation and operation of alarm systems are ap- plicable only to those installations made after the effective date of this ordinance. (b) The provision of this ordinance relating to false alarms shall be in full effect as to all new and existing alarm systems on the date that the ordinance takes effect. (c) It shall be the obligation of the Permittee to maintain any alarm system in good repair. SECTION 17.55.18. SECTION 17.55.18. VIOLATION: PENALTY. Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or by imprisonment for a period not to exceed six (6) months, or both such fine and imprisonment. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and operation from and after thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption. SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and 11. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 adoption of this ordinance; shall cause the book of original ordinances of said of the passage and adoption thereof in which the same is passed and adopted; the same to be entered in City; shall make a minute the records of meeting at and shall within fifteen days after the passage and adoption thereof cause the published once in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper same to be of general circulation, published and circulated within said City of Hermosa Beach and which is hereby designated for that purpose. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this Day of April, 1989. PRESIDENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL, AND MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ATTEST: CITY CLERK 12. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and members of the Hermosa Beach City Council FROM: Michael Schubach, Pl.ann - Dictor SUBJECT: "Grandfather" amendment of Ordinance 88-970 to allow the construction of a Planning Commission approved condominium project at 725 9th Street DATE: May 2, 1989 Recommendation Adopt the attached ordinance revising Ordinance No. 88-970, which amended the zoning map for areas 10 and 11, so that it includes a standard "grandfather" clause in order to allow the Planning Commission approved condominium project at 725 9th Street to be constructed pursuant to the approved plans. Background The Planning Commission, at their November 15, 1988 meeting, approved a 2 -story 2 -unit condominium project at 725 9th Street. At that time the property was zoned R-3 and the plans were approved with a building height of about 33 feet. However, the applicant waited until April 3, 1989 to submit plans for building plan check, which was after the effective date of the• ordinance changing the subject property from R-3 to R-2. Consequently, even though the proposed project meets R-2 density standards it is over height. Projects of this type have been allowed through "grandfather" clauses in other cases, and staff would have placed a clause in the subject ordinance if they had been aware that this project was going to be submitted after the effective date of the ordinance. Attachments 1. Proposed Ordinance No. 89- 2. Resolution P.C. 88-96 2b r ORDINANCE NO. 89 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 88-970 TO ADD A GRANDFATHER CLAUSE. WHEREAS, the City Council has found that a Grandfather Clause is needed for a Planning Commission approved project. NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby ordain the following: 1. Add a Grandfather Clause to Ordinance No. 88-970 as follows: 113. 3. This ordinance shall not apply to any projects that have a completed building permit package on file with City prior to December 13, 1988. Said package must include a completed building permit application form, completed conceptual plans (plot plan, floor plans, elevation plans and other similar plans) and a lot survey. Projects that have submitted a completed building permit package must pursue their application in a diligent manner and must be issued within six months of the effective date of this ordinance." 2. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. 3. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law. 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1988. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: CITY CLERK T/ccorznl0 P 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION P.C. 88-96 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #20092 FOR A 2 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 725 NINTH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 19, TRACT 223. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. on November 15, 1988 to receive oral and written testimony on this matter and made the following Findings: A. The map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; B. The site is located within a General Plan/Zoning inconsistency area, however, the development is consistent with the General Plan density requirements; C. The development shall pose no threat to the public safety and welfare; D. The subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems; E. The subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; F. Design of the proposed subdivision is compatible and consistent with applicable elements of the City's General Plan; G. The project will conform to all zoning and condominium criteria and will compatible with adjacent residential properties; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map #20092 for a 2 -unit condominium project at 725 9th Street subject to the following conditions of approval: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. The proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with submitted plans; any modifications shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. 2. The project shall meet all requirements of the Condominium Ordinance. a. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions in compliance with the Condominium Ordinance shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. b. Proof of recordation of approved CC&R's shall be submitted to the Planning Director within six (6) months after City approval of the Final Map. c. Requirements of Section 7.2-6(G) shall be shown on structural plans and reviewed at the time of Building Department Plan Check. 3. There shall be compliance with all requirements of the Public Works Department and Fire Department. 4. Three (3) copies of a landscaping plan indicating size, type and quantity of plant materials shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. a. An automatic landscape sprinkler system shall be provided, and shall be shown on plans. 5. Architectural treatment shall be as shown on submitted plans; any modification are subject to approval by the Planning Director: a. Precise height shall be reviewed at the time of Building Plan Check, and plans shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Building Director. 6. Any satellite dish and/or similar equipment shall comply with the requirements of Section 1227 of the Zoning Ordinance. 7. Conduit shall be installed in each unit for cable television. 8. Automatic garage door openers shall be provided. 9. An "Acceptance of Conditions" form shall be executed and submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 10. Three (3) copies of plans, including site, elevation, floor and landscape plans, which are consistent with the conditions of approval of this Conditional Use Permit, shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to issuance of any Building Permits. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11. The Conditional Use Permit shall be null and void one and a half years from the date of approval unless Building Permits have been obtained and approval of tbe Vesting Tentative Parcel Map shall become null and void twenty-four months from the date of approval unless tbe map is finaled. The applicant may apply in writing for an extension of time to the Planning Commission prior to tbe date of expiration. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms.Ingell,Rue,Chmn.Peirce None None Comms. Edwards,Ketz CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 88-96 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meeting of November 15, 1988. es Peirce, Chairman 1Kichae Subach, Secretary g Pec_ Date T/pers725 April 17, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council May 9, 1989 UPDATE OF ALL EXISTING THROUGH STREETS, HANDICAP ZONES AND ANGLE PARKING ZONES THROUGHOUT THE CITY Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Introduce Ordinance No. 89- , of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, amending the Municipal Code Section 19-52 to redefine through streets. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 89- , of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach establishing certain streets and portions of streets throughout the City as Through Streets. 3. Adopt Resolution No. 89- , of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach establishing certain portions of streets for Angle Parking Zones. 4. Adopt Resolution No. 89- , of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, establishing residential handicapped parking zones. Background: As part of the Department's on-going review it was determined that an update of Resolution N.S. 2435 and Ordinance No. N.S. 238 is necessary. Ordinance No. N.S. 238 and Resolution N.S. 2435 defines and establishes traffic control throughout the City. City Council has authority to designate the following. Traffic Control 1. Stop Intersections 2. One-way Streets 3. Fifteen Minute Parking Zones -Streets 4. Loading Zones 5. White Zones 6. Through Streets 7. Handicap Parking, Residential 8. Authorize Angle Parking Zone 9. Truck Routes 10. Residential 11. Handicap Parking Other Areas 12. One Hour Parking Limit Zones -Streets Status of Review Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed In Progress In Progress 13. Twelve Hour Limit Parking -Streets 14. No Parking Areas 15. No Stopping Zones 16. Right-of-way Prohibited to Vehicles (Pedestrian street) 17. Recreational Parking Areas 18. Traffic Signal Locations In Progress Not Complete Not Complete Not Complete Not Complete Not Complete The other sections of Resolution N.S. 2435 and Ordinance No. N.S. 238 need additional review and as work is completed staff will present the results. Analysis: The analysis is divided into the following sections: 1. Through Streets - Angle Parking - Handicapped Parking Zones 2. Engineering Review 3. Sign Maintenance 4. Fiscal Impact 5. Summary Through Streets - Angle Parking - Handicapped Parking Zones NOTE: No NEW through streets, angle parking or handicap parking zones are teeing proposed Resolution N.S. 2435 was first approved by the City Council on July 3, 1962. This resolution is governed by Ordinance N.S. 238 which was adopted by City Council on June 6, 1962. A search of the records and files in the City revealed that the list of through streets within Resolution N.S. 2435, has never been updated. There exists no complete resolution listing all existing through streets, angle parking locations or handicap parking zones. A complete listing is necessary for the efficient operation of both office and field crews, reduced potential liability and proper upkeep of city records. 2. Engineering Review A field inventory was performed and there are three existing through streets and five streets or portions of that are angle parking zones. There are three existing residential handicapped parking spaces. A: THROUGH STREETS The City code definition of a through street needs to be updated. A through street is defined as every highway or portion thereof on which vehicular traffic is given preferential right of way, and at the entrances to which vehicular traffic from intersecting highways is required by law to yield right of way to vehicles on such through highway in obedience to either a stop sign or a yield sign, when such signs are erected. No new through streets are proposed at this time. B: ANGLE PARKING Angle parking is allowed on any of the streets or portions of streets established by resolution of the Council as angle parking zones when markings are in place indicating angle parking. C: HANDICAPPED PARKING (RESIDENTIAL) A resolution is necessary to establish curbside parking stalls for the exclusive use of disabled persons, pursuant to section 22511.7 of the California Vehicle Code. The current list has been updated. 3. Sign Maintenance No additional signage is required at this time. 4. Fiscal Impact No additional appropriation is necessary. 5. Summary - All streets were inventoried - No new through streets, angle parking zones or handicap zones are being proposed - Through streets, angle parking zones and handicap zones were evaluated for proper signage and no additional signage is required at this time Alternatives: Other alternatives available to City Council and considered by Staff: 1. Do nothing. 2. Modify the through streets, angle parking and handicapped parking zones list. 3. Return to staff for further evaluation. Respectfully submitted: .Ga'y Wh-a on Engine ring Technician Concur: Ant ony Antic Director of P blic Works Kevin B. North raft City Manager Not Available for Signature Steve Wisniewski Director of Public Safety Attachments: - Ordinance 89- , amending Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 19-52 to redifine through streets - Resolution No. 89- , 89- , and 89- , Establishing Through Streets, Angle Parking and separate Handicapped Parking Zones (to be adopted by City Council) - List and locations of residential handicapped parking stalls ty/ows 4 f 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 89 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA AMENDING HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 19-52 TO REDEFINE THROUGH STREETS WHEREAS, A review has been completed and has determined that an updated definition of through streets is necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That Municipal Code Section 19-52: Stop at Through Street or Stop Sign (a) Those streets and parts of streets established by resolution of the Council are hereby declared to be through streets for the purposes of this section. (b) The provisions of this section shall also apply at one or more entrances to the intersection as such entrances and intersections are established by resolution of the Council. (c) The provisions of this section shall apply at those highway railway grade crossings as established by resolution of the Council. Be amended to read as follows: Stop at Through Streets - Stop or Yield Signs (a) Through street or through highway. Every highway or portion thereof on which vehicular traffic is given preferential right of way, and at the entrances to which vehicular traffic from intersecting highways is required by law to yield right of way to vehicles on such through highway in obedience to either a stop sign or a yield sign, when such signs are erected. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. SECTION 3. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 1989. 1 PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING CERTAIN STREETS AS THROUGH STREETS WHEREAS, an engineering review has been performed. WHEREAS, the section titled "Stop at Through Streets" of Resolution N.S. 2435 needs updating and rewording. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That pursuant to Section No. 2 (Stop at Through Streets section of Resolution No. 2435 is hereby repealed. SECTION 2. The following are established as Through Streets in the City of Hermosa Beach: Aviation Blvd., entire Artesia Blvd., " length within this City. Pacific Coast Highway, entire length within this City. SECTION 3. This resolution shall become effective upon adoption. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of , 1989. PRESIDENT of the CITY COUNCIL and MAYOR of the City of He •sa Beach, California ATTEST: CITY CLERK ty/resoows ORM: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING "RESIDENTIAL" CURBSIDE PARKING STALLS FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF DISABLED PERSONS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 22511.7 OF THE CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE, AS HEREIN SET FORTH WHEREAS, an engineering review has been performed. WHEREAS, the handicapped parking zones needs updating. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That pursuant to Sections 22511.7 and 22511.8 of the California Vehicle Code, that the following area is established curbside parking stall and space and designated as tow -away, pursuant to the California Vehicle Code. SECTION 2. SECTION 3. Tenth Street - from 57' to west corner beginning curb and Tenth Street Manhattan Avenue - in front Avenue Hermosa Avenue - Fourth Street on 75' west of the south return, Hermosa Avenue of 915 Manhattan First parking stall south of west side of Hermosa Avenue The handicapped zones will be reviewed at the end of two years after the adoption of this resolution. This resolution shall take effect immediately. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of , 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: A PROVED AS TO 67 FO : TY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY t RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING CERTAIN STREETS OR PORTIONS OF AS ANGLE PARKING ZONES WHEREAS, an engineering review has been performed. WHEREAS, the Municipal Code Section 19-64 titled "Angle Parking", needs updating by resolution. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The following are established as Angle Parking Zones in the City of Hermosa Beach: - Bard Street, west alley north. - Bard Street, east Eleventh Place. side from Pier Avenue to the side from Pier Avenue to Coast - Eleventh Place, north side from Pacific Highway to the Community Center. - Eleventh Street, both sides from Hermosa Avenue to Beach Drive. - Thirteenth Street, both sides from Hermosa Avenue to Beach Drive. - Pier Avenue, Beach Drive north side from - Pier Avenue, south side from The Strand - Pier Avenue, south side Monterey Boulevard - Pier Avenue, north side Bayview Drive Hermosa Hermosa from Hermosa from Hermosa - Pier Avneue, both sides from Boulevard to Bard Street Avenue to Avenue to Avenue Avenue to Monterey 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 3. This resolution shall become effective upon adoption. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of , 1989. PRESIDENT of the CITY COUNCIL and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO RM: (:::' C TY ATTORNEY • ct4.1 ccxylc,k cr Jr) 5c- gR-Ge Ma v' \411 ,20 MAY 0 2 1989 411 v-leu),./1 41.‹, 'ever 'IA Cr(.' sr/75 0 -( 0-G, CA. ) -i-he ct.--( Coc,46 1 I f -±<, buy ' X --i- i ‘tr.e s 1 • e A I a ati ea 5 • --Tivt. 5 1 5 a_ / ),,e ver . zi_o_t< / cala -Ccay eplac_11, . • gel Ytex 4-- 5-te to/ , cliaL/lc;( Lc tD__ _ jou.,dR.K tic.. JA.z. ;,),J ± __:_cort 0 r 417dmore , —Th e_ Cpc.44 C: 1 ykit,_c- e a.u.are a f ecc 35 rl 4i ctc ea , efo a i‘i (77, 0 i4O&K taX)r//," r • 7d / ') i /4 - , al.4.4•1 , 4 - 0 IA'1^- q7 tek_ q IC d°1 2C F/ -i'd h_ke "ILX C C 1 4). 1-0 , /a c 7 --IL c., P o (i e fA-•.t 0 K ba_//1/ 01,4)-7 7104,)_._ .q, -eat., i E.,-; 4 toK /Jig 147 74(a.--- 6eva C (/' 0... li .1 02-2. / -- .2... / / <-1 --le/i•- , a 1.4, i , \ ;74) 14._,•_•--:_ c7/12X.- %_ __-.2-- 4 CA --of 1‹ _5 4.frela VI) 71:4 C qt -tat r4) 4, i;1 y ,q4 40 9 'I at4eg p Yec5-tVe- 7D °lei, e fa't 44° ,_ e.Aai, , 0 d 4- 0.7 / .„, ci, ci , 4 >• .1 _‘, jAe'elt- Cc? /\ e. 5/ ec;gy_ /, _ ; C 0 iq {/ / -,-z r) 7- de4evf ' _ _Ct/./1X Wv;\1}51 at' 0-f"/ OcY C i forsa .4; G',A /J - l yv I v� 04(Y VYtGt� T� ph . 11(6 (vim � �y ve r( dein /S vo4.01---/ (AA Caitkirrit."4- - one S e p rc.v-Mer _ b- r 4 c h4, /k OA G° lP , s (a Vie- - 10 pc.:4 cr- Pel li;y4.7rt 4110 Copy 4;) EtAA, c ra, CI me *iJ cY jvSc ii -4615e✓ 0 v olvvr ma,t. CA l/G .141"- _ Cil.a.ornc C( c; ; ep- /-_- 3L 11 G (j . 1 f , of .v, S (A) Dee . cT - Actuoccdei o Cale bay �L' /la 410 Oft Afloat. Mmes A Pact to End Development Gridlock ----- By MARK RYAVFC In the last few years, the development landscape in Los Angeles has changed dramatically. Today, almost without ex- ception. how we use our land and what we build triggers inter public reaction. Far too often the question la not how to build in harmony with the community but whether any building will be allowed at all. For years the city building -approval process has been like swimming upstream; today, under our uniquely Ralkanized sys- tem, we have hit fierce rapids. While many environmentalists have seen reason to cheer slower growth, this "concretization" of our land use and decision-making pro- cesses has negative consequences. In too many settings, it denies us the tools to cope with the city's many ills: traffic congestion, scarce affordable hous- ing, visual blight and lack of open space. We are also impeded from rejuvenating the basic physical elements that comprise a city --its living quarters, commercial areas, its streets and sewers. • This "concretization" of the public deci- sion-making process can be explained by the emergence of a new plurality in Los Angeles politics. The traditional decision- makers—the mayor, his appointees and the City Council—have lees power now. The press of population, running up against limited public facilities In already congest- ed ngneighborhoods, has galvanized commu- nity wth sta defeats of former Los Angeles City Councilwomen Peggy Stevenson and Pat Russell—based on anti -growth senti- ment—caused many of their council col- leagues to defer significantly to pressure groups opposing anything in their neigh- borhood, from new homeless shelters to mini -malls. In response to the loud public protests over growth issues, city elected officials greatly expanded bureaucracy that recom- mends and enforces development controls. In many instances. the staff replaced the elected official as decision -maker. On top of this came the voter -approved Proposition U in 1986, which cut the building potential of most of the city's commercial property by half. One other change finally Upped the scale of decision-making authority from devel- opers and elected officials to neighborhood groups and the bureaucrats. The city imposed campaign contribution limits in 1987,June. and last year state voters transferpassed tion 73, which prohibited the candidate to declare whtical ich race he or forced was raising money for. This lessened the role that developers, attorneys and lobby. . kits play in financing pollUcal campaigns. and and their ted d elm deco ers to increasingly deferring the only appointees certaint at and thrd those pee& who hold the deed- ood ko a particular neigh. M resolve local can- cer" the,. projects will be held hostage. n- lwillbeheldhe. t 1 e t r c jumped the curb to the rest of the city. Bt the solution is not found in blocking neo' development. In fact, our only vehicle fo renewing the city and solving our prob lems, short of new revenue sources, i private development. But to continue at tracting this private investment. we need new social contract. Under this proposed truce, propert; owners and developers would agree to full• mitigate all adverse impacts on a communi ty from a new project. The environments review mandated by the California Envi ronmental Quality Act would be the pro. cess used to objectively determine impact, and subsequent mitigation measures. 1 particularly deleterious impacts cannot be alleviated, then the project would be limited or another use could be made of the site. A commitment to abide by such process would be a substantial concessior from developers. • Coymme_fc ta 14610 )‘/Ict7 s* qr.? P. (4- .i --In re.V;ewt:/k --t-Le- c n,',erc;a/ oetc-iric ._ qlopy P•c.f,. :C)v ts-4- /... 0.5 r 47 QAce _eincYdad"frw) i_✓lto r e S I de sia. c..1. 40, S .--"f' c v ov/6/ it,,, for!), "to r_td_c.ce_ THAc, 1e j_5/J____1.(,48 _ /J ---<t, i Frain. cfS „,ter' 35 ,_ _a_-��4-tt.i.A....,:i- -ge c y . _ _ . �a7 � 7C ��/7` - /A l/P �I / o _� - � h b'fv; �-✓�_. . e Y. p_ -1._o c c., -- 69,1:4 [-v oc.- c a coy A-:• +0 i -A. __ ;-C _ _ Co a__-1-. 14 C 1 ? 4 _!1)v„ 4 . _ _ A ,‘__ 1A-rhei-i-ft,e es - f 4 L.11.5- 2 I; c .__-_1:4-is: 11_6 74 _1 . CV /Ad lab Pis/C_______ t^. ' l oma.. - 0/it, q/1 X, r :7' e ye i. i de" / 5 .46,14.&,_ -i -i -t_ _.' C -7%d - - .y _ Q r hoqfe - !re/eff. 4p/t;/ j' _' " c>' Pa f1, - _ _Co/rtrh_erc / eA/Croa c.2 / p,, } , ._1* -Z1 0 -Mei r 1,1 _e 194 _Lok-_Ao64.... __________ .. _Bec`. c is I- 4, s _ _suc4.---a 5 Ne&/ /a 7,),/ ,+/ 1ar NQ //- beacJita-rr4eCP� It - tq <cP.: es� s�P� � f�r��s - o-�' res - - - � - - -Gte _�-f LL't S 4°91) +A e L r- __C 0 9_ i s' ere c l_- . - Ne Pac-/ kas_ ...... _ ‘ f Ae / _1/.1-7,1 /_,N_. 1/4 S 71 q reet ne4., --/-c ha ait c, eteocz, L.,c47c.,/-74.- Acits Q. / f ioi Copirerc,a 1 t_.�► I._ - i .` _ - ±hi e, r y'1 f)c _51.Y rG- ,- -ate 0 rr / tL i, Lev 4-140#.-- 3U (ci'epe�I. ok. S/o e ) /4vr_1Z e a•-•1 W 501-.1k 0 4kti. p c W.I. 4:40 30 i /-:.-it-er A44 -i ti q h It a ior- 4 S me4 TG^ P or eQ - 4) 6 ell - _ -- -/ - ei j 'I 1_6:),- doe., ww /Ve7(-1 A46 0 U r e h v ; ran m8n 1, e Spec la 11 ,, Si, Cal. r• ka'efIolLeft/ S- _beer- � at ✓� � lvi/latQlsrt ese to V1 e'Ay vv o V ( d e c T•e cf O tel C is �l'otri_K_Cfre/414.s.-/t res;den 5 aeti'ec PO Y_ 0 /' ‘__L(*e__ no-/ hef);,47100( I - eKs f4_,..,;(,,e I /< deli e/ / 1 e G. ✓ea arc-- -a 1 v �l Q �--apacm( c._4. de_ �� • � p - l T e. - 4;ie Ido -1'0 h-- Q -r ror.' • -- - - -1 care --i---___ 4�----1Qeeco 04 aIc I ekce.$si'vG_ - el«•9 1 �-� /(�, /ate mit 44 f is %�e -d o`- l fiK ,,ems. L i 1= •.1= _ r1 =r'7 =F _. _1car i -ye r_rc-•, _'`r•-.-- 'r,er- mpEi a E.ea•- -.. t... April `b_ ,..,T•t w 1:,1at e. Mayor - 1 t c+ Hermosa Eeach 1--5 :lalle•'• Drive Hermosa beach. Cit 91_;254 Lie t Madame :-raver. Last ;all the cit'.: L.i Hermosa .&'edzi-t !-Es i— irmec the _t limn at i?arinel grad hob! lehfife f-•ati-k and E1SO e -r essed a de= -ire tc act as mediator between the tc_.rlants anti t.?e 1 and or.14 at th park 1 EM a r"esi deet _ria Mar t net arfd Mobi ! elle_.±are F -ark and am writing, among other t O:.flc to ._.'c'rees m.i dieca'.tief=.=tion with the r._,sw.insa inn +ha ri tv since then. , •o my :nowt e ge the _ i t manager has met with 'ausan Moss and Curtis = McCoi lum, the _iwner"e of Maririei and Mobi i ehome Park. only once in ther_ time (approximately .S mt,nthsi He met i.yi `..h tt-e rjomeawners association after- his ' eetlnd with the landlords and said that r i s meeting with t'ie owners was quite amicable and try,: had indicated to him that they might Pe very willing _o =r1 ? to the homeowners. Since that time we hae only (rear-•+ from the owners twi _e. throuch the St Clair -'rop. rtv Management Co. @.rice we were tc id that gas meter a were bez-o installed at each site and we would be charge° +'or that beiinri-,q July 1., and t -e were civen another 7. rent incre e (last s 12%) 1 t :..•eat- was More discouraging though was finding cat t the of coh our a'ier•t that the owners i -tar -e•_ in tact, urt ori 1 _ i ryas to eeli. ,aro wase 'S ado we found out that the owners eters planning to convert several spaces in the park t? F: t% r -ental _ turning the Darr: into a k.OA c;amperottnd. I wrote to f J- a city ?San?.ger- and ha' -e never oo'_te.n a reply. Another- tenant final I .i went to the •.._nailer' _ o+4=ice. was directed tc the bi±i ldlho department _n +ina11y Jot acme action. The Et. Clair Co. was told +h.at rh-iei` 'Diana vioiat_=d the zoning cedes and their clans cculd r;ot QC.r +or-...,.ard. This weeE': we t ound out t1-rrou_h a pr-ospective buyer, hat the rant for- r-ew homeowner S.rcul ri be Ci-liF a month i:1r- inQ7 ac cerad +cr- double wide=. This action makes our- mooii&hpfles tneellcable= What can the city do +or ua- Quite fr a.11•:l• . all I have experienced is inaction and ha''e heen told on se`:eral occas sicns that _'._!r complaints were tern--i-.rldlo»d complaint= an= that tr'e could not oet involved. think the city need- to marl f v a fere th3 has. Firet. what role does the cit.' want to clav in this c sp ite? [a you want =o yr_ as IT.ehlat•7rs c:r Jo you want to stay '!n1nvo:ved: 4b a! -e 7 inc.! to act i E t_ = r, ' c i n° :o r,e a mea i r•o : nc3 e e ci month=, i•c.: :-e vC-tr held aria W-' n -_C1 an _._? 1 e Cd,•L _arc not e ct si:tfeested_ seldom seen ` ecohd. what f ut ._tr-e does the cit.- see for the mtbi ' C: -r_,• -:e park' With the action t!eira taken bv the owners. St is c.ear that they Watt us '.-+UT of the pare cry they can de' eic:r_ bre General Plan cell=_ for alternative i,_w to ffliddie income hou=_-1 na for the ci'. y and Cites the per-} ac on._ of those a1 t_e.-r ti',es. f oris:. der- this, Wi th the new rete for ms to esel! =t the mar -:.et Yalue o'• my home the new owner would be _n=. ic;i ori oyer l _ . �._i, f i+1 per lionth for a nre herroom home, no ar t'j. no utilities, end no clubhouse j,i.nl' ke other parks?: My home no longer is an affordab e alternative. No one in thiel right F4i nci is goino to buy my b_ 1 eho'Te unless 1 dive it away. If the city is truly dedi_ated t•7 alterneeti':e hou_inc it must consider some ytav to curb the owners. The`;' are ci ar Vii± g unreasonable rents for new cwt rs and do noth'-r:o to upkeep t' -'s park. their discosure statement that all buyers must _ion also drives O' -:.,ere away because it states that the owners are going to •-_hanoe the use of the park in the future and the h=_sieowners Will nave no choice_ It a"eni Euooests that the prospective t_iuve= pet an offsite appraisal o+ the home before buvi dg. They do al 1 they can to destroy our pr?per'ti values_ How con the city help us to maintain what l th r•i' i = what the city fr' nts-a f + ordabl e housino a1 ternati •resp r think t ; s time for the cit./ to consider i hst i t_ t i'?c mohi 1 eho•Tie rent control. These ma:, seem like dirty words but they etre the only words that make seise right_ nr_.{-i. the owners are heartless and are intent on continuing this economic rape of _heir-. i request that the cit-' discuss inc•bi iehcine rent :ontrot et the next reoui ar cit . council ,ieetinc: in May. if you have ary acre=_tions or -.ant to discuss an','t_f- the is=_nes raised here, please feel fee to cell me at 37--25T.5. Please respond in writing before the net cit':' council ,Meeting_ Respecf ui 1 y - cc ti goer Creighton .lite R: ' enber oer- Chti_ k Sheldon Etta Simpson Kevin Er. i\4orthcraf t CITIZENS CONCERN GROUP 30TH STREET...CITIZENS CONCERN GROUP 30TH STREET. THE HONORABLE JUNE WILLIAMS MAYOR PRO TEM CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ISR KEVIN NORTHCRAFT, CITY MANAGER CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH. DEAR MADAM MAYOR: AS PROMISED EEFORE,WE LIKE TO PROVIDE YOU OUR IN FOLLOW UP TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD PROBLEMS AND UNITED US AS "CITIZENS CONCERN GROUP" AGAINST AND FOR WHICH YOU AND THE ENTIRE CITY COUNCIL ANAL 28,1989 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT CONCERNS :;HICH HAVE THE "VASEK POLAK CORP" HAVE GRASCIOU&LY ACCEPTED THE DIFFICULT POSITION OF ARBITRATOR. ONCE,AGAIN,WE WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS OUR GRATITUDE TO YOU:THE CITY COUNCIL, ISR NORTHCRAFT,AND LAST BUT NOT THE LEAST•TO ALL THE CITY PERSONNEL ':'HOSE DEDICATION IN ENFORCING OUR LAWS AND REGULATIONS HAVE DEFINITLY MADE THE DIFFERENCE AND SHOULD BE COMMENDED. ON THE LAST LETTER FROM MR NORTHCRAFT.DATED MARCH 24.1989:TWELVE CONCERNS WERE ENUMERATED.TO THOSE:WE WILL GIVE YOU,AS HONESTLY AS POSSIBLE,A CUR- RENT SITUATION AND OUR FEELINGS ABOUT /T. BUSINESS PARKING IN THE RESIDENTIAL AREA: SINCE OUR LAST MEETING HELD ON MARCH 8 TO THIS DAY AND DUE TO THE EXTREME COOPERATION OF THE VASEK POLAK MANAGEMENT TEAM:THIS SITUATION HAS BEEN COMPLETLY OBLIVIATED TO VERY FEW OCCASIONAL VIOLATIONS BY FEW RECALCITRANT EMPLOYEES AND EACH TIME:MR DENNIS SHORDER,ONE OF THE MANAGERS HAS SOLVED THE PROBLEM WITH GRACIOUS- NESS AND PROMPTNESS. 2) CAR CARRIERS (SPACE SAVER) 4 C FOR THIS VIOLATION,UNFORTUNATLY,THE CONTINUAL REFUSAL BY MR VASEK POLAK TO COMPLY TO THE CITY RESOLUTION SEND TO HIM IN DECEMBER 1988 PUT US TODAY IN A CONFRONTATIONAL SITUATION AS TO REQUEST FROM THE CITY THAT PROPER ACTION BE TAKEN TO ENSURE OUR LAWS AND ORDINANCES FOR ANY CHALLENGE OF THIS TYPE IS NOT ONLY A CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRACY AND OUR SYSTEM BUT ALSO THE RES- URGENCE OF "OLD CATTLE BARONS "POLICY" WHICH HAS NO PLACE IN OUR CITY.WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE CITY COUNCIL RESPOND TO THAT "CHALLENGE"IN A PROPER MANNER ALLOWED BY THE LAW AND HOPEFULLY WITH NO MORE TIME EXTENTION WHICH HAVE BEEN ALREADY TOO LENIENTLY AND TO OFTEN GRANTED. 3) UNLOADING VEHICULES: THIS COMPLAINT HAS BEEN TO THIS DAY SOLVED. 4) UNLOADING EQUIPMENT: THIS PROBLEM CONTINUE TO OCCUR AND COULD BE EASELY RESOLVED BY A LITTLE EFFORT FROM THE VASEK POLAK CORPORATION. 5) TEST DRIVING: WHILE THIS PROBLEM HAS CONSIDERABLY DIMINISHED IT HAS NOT COMPLE- TLY DISAPEARED AND ONCE AGAIN,PROBABLY CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO SAME RECALCITRANT SALESMEN OR MECHANICS. 6) LEFT OVER TRASHES: THIS SITUATION HAS BEEN RESOLVED WITH THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE PARKING SITUATION. 7) OBSTRUCTED VIEW 30TH ST/ PCH: THIS SITUATION HAS NOT RECEIVED PROPER ATTENTION FOR ANY ACTION HAS BEEN ATTEMPTED TO REMEDY TO THE CONTINUAL RISK OF ACCIDENT AT THIS VERY DANGEROUS CORNER. 8) WATERING: THIS SITUATION IS UNDER STUDY BY THE PUBLIC WORK DPT. 9) CATERING TRUCK: WHILE STILL OCCASIONAL,THOSE MORNING NOISES SEEMS TO HAVE DIMINISHED. 10) CAR REPAIR ON THE STREET: THOSE UNUSUAL SITUATIONS ARE NO LONGER OBSERVED OR REPORTED. 11) UNREGISTERED CARS AND PARKING ON THE SIDEWALK: A) UNREGISTERED CARS - WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT ANY VIOLATION WILL BE RESOLVED BY THE PARKING ENFORCEMENT SERVICE IF NEED MIGHT ARISE. B) PARKING ON THE SIDEWALK: IT SEEMS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION HAS BEEN UNDERSTOUD AS WELL AS THE C.U.P CONDITIONS.ONLY YESTERDAY THIS VIOLATION OCCURED AGAIN.AS SOON AS SEVERAL RESIDENTS CALLED THE PARKING ENFORCEMENT AND AFTER THEIR PROMPTE INTERVENTION,THAT SIT-UATION WAS RESOLVED. WHILE ALL PROBLEMS ARE NOT YET RESOLVED,WE4AS THE RESIDENTS OF 3OTHST ARE VERY GRATEFULL FOR THE CONSIDERATION YOU HAVE SHOWN AND THE ACTIONS YOU HAVE TAKEN TO ENSURE A BETTER LIVING CONDITION IN OUR LITTLE PART OF HERMOSA BEACH AND WHILE WE URGE YOU TO PURSUE THE SOLUTION OF ALL UNRESOLVED VIOLATIONS, WE ARE SOMEHOW PROUD THAT FOR ONCE THE MUTUAL EFFORTS OF ALL PARTIES INTERESTED SHOW THAT A CITY COUNCIL UNDER A GOOD LEADERSHIP LIVES UP TO HIS RESPONSABILITES AND THAT BUSINESS AND RESIDENTS CAN ALSOREACH A SITUATION OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE GOOD OF ALL OF US. SINCERELY YOURS, JA*Al.tJ'n MICHAEL PITTON SPOKEMAN,CITIZENS CONCERN GROUP 30TH ST. 4• CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM DATE: May 4, 1989 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Manager Kevin B. Northcraf_, �. RE: Recommended actions regarding written communications The four letters on your May 9, 1989 agenda, as requested by Mayor Williams, would otherwise have been handled, and are so recommended to be handled, as follows: (a) Letter from Steven Goodell regarding trash - refer to the Building Department for abatement. (b) Letter from Brian McGoldrick regarding Mobilehome Park - City Manager response along the lines of the letter sent in response to similar letter received from Mrs. Fraschetti as well as status report on other items mentioned in his letter. (c) Letter from Michael Pitton regarding BMW operation - advise Mr. Pitton of receipt of a copy of the letter and our apprecia- tion for his continued interest and monitoring of the situation. (d) Letter from Harold Cohen - copies to the City Council, the Planning Department, and Planning Commission, with consideration as part of the General Plan and zoning standards review scheduled for 1989. As you know, all letters addressed to the Council are copied to the Council upon receipt, and again along with the response when it has been prepared by City staff./ • Elsa Fraschetti 531 Pier Avenue, #54 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mrs. Fraschetti: Citi of Hermosa 1r3. each Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 May 4, 1989 Please accept my apology for the delay in responding to your April 3 letter. In addition to the press of business during the budget time of year, I had sent your letter to the Councilmembers for feedback whether any different response should be considered other than that sent in January of this year to another citizen who had inquired regarding rent control. The response sent in January appears to be the current continuing policy of the Council. Placing limits on the rights of property owners to rent their property and otherwise manage it has been a strong issue in various communities, though it is not a particularly strong issue in our community. As I am sure you are aware, there are philosophical differences regarding how much intervention a government should have in placing limits on the free market, property rights, and the rights of development. In our community, there has been no move- ment to increase any protection of individuals who choose to rent as their choice of a lifestyle. As most of us have been both renters and owners, there are pluses and minuses to each, and your letter certain- ly reflects some of the minuses to your choice of lifestyle. While the City has an interest in maintaining affordable housing that Marineland Mobile Home Park represents, the level of our activity must be balanced with the concern about too much government interference. with private property rights. I do hope to be able in the near future to get an idea of the competitiveness of the rates being charged by the current owner of your park, and consult with him regarding an up- date on his plans for the park and justification for his current pad fees. Beyond that, I would be less than candid to imply that more efforts would be appropriate or should be expected from City representatives. I am sorry this letter is not a more positive response to your con- cerns, but I did wish to acknowledge your letter and convey at least my interpretation of the current policy of the City. Your letter and my response will be copied to the City Council who may contact you if they wish to discuss the matter further or place it on the City Coun- cil agenda for discussion. Sincerely yours, evin B. Northcraft City Manager cc: City Council 1 April 03, 1969 City of Hermosa Beach Q ivic Center, 1315 .alley Lr. ve, hermosa Beach, Ca. 9054-3665 (To Mayor and City i;duncil) (attention Kevin) Lear Kevin: :.e would like to make a very important request and that is ---- for a reccommendation for Rent Control for Marineland t obilehome Park. Since the last time we talked our situation has gotten a lot worse and our rents are due to go up again just like clock work in July 89. many senior citizen's who are on fixed income are being forced to sell their homes if they can sell them, the reason why I say that is because we have been told by prosieotive buyers that the space rents are way too high right now and that the park is very run down, ao6 the other bad news is that the nark will olose in 5 years, at least that's what one resident was told by Park Management. we would appreciate a quick reply. Yours very truly, Marineland Mobilehome Parkomeoyy��@@i s ssocla ion Vice President Elsa Fraschetti 531 Pier avenue ,54 Hermosa Beach Ca. 90254 • J Stephen B. Goodell 1322 Sunset Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 (213) 379-1534 April 15, 1989 June Williams Mayor City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90$54-3885 Dear June: My wife, Patti Hausler, told me that you share our concern for the persistent problems we've experienced for years with trash, garbage and .junk piled at the corner of Sunset Drive and Pier Avenue. We've written to the City (copy attached), contacted many City representatives and the Health Department over the years. These individuals may have contacted the prime offender, Cher Ton Ton Restaurant, but no real solution has ever been reached. In fact, we've seen it worsen recently. Here's a brief history: My wife purchased our house in 1979. At that time, there were no trash containers on Sunset Drive adjacent to Cher Ton Ton. Then a small one appeared. Quickly it became inadequate to hold the Restaurant's refuse. It often was overfilled. the Restaurant increased the collection frequency, with some encouragement from complaints. Success begat success, and the present, large sized container replaced the junior size. As the pictures taken over recent years show, even that container often overflows. When Broasted Chicken started operations a few years ago, they placed their junior sized container next to the Restaurant's. It is also filled to capacity or overflowing by the end of a normal weekend. At the opposite end of the commercial complex is located a third container for Stimpson's 'Market. In addition to the increasing number of containers, their size, their location and the fact that they are often overfilled, these are the other problems we've faced and reported: 1. Location of the containers invite their use as urinal, with most and frequent observations during warmer times of year and on weekends. 4a 4 June Williams, Mayor April 15, 1989 Page two 2. We've witnessed a car hit and drag both containers a distance of five to 10 feet. 3. Location is a traffic hazard when cars are travelling in both directions, at a particularly difficult intersection already. 4. Used restaurant equipment is left on Sunset Drive when replaced or retired. During the last five months, equipment has remained there for up to eight weeks -- even with City warnings and our request directly to Restaurant Mangers after a few days. 5. One incident of a rat which found its way into our garage and eventually our house about three years ago. 6. Discarding refuse, particularly bottles, loudly into the steel container at 11:00 p.m. and until closing hours. 7. Airborne bacteria and smell of garbage rotting during Summer hours, to the extent we're unable to open windows because of smell and flies. As I outlined in my earlier letter, we believe there is a reasonable solution: Consolidate the three containers, relocate the larger one on the west end of the property, and enclose it. Our home is important to us, and so is the appearance of our neighborhood. In addition, this is the view from our Chamber of Commerce. I think there's a solution. How can we work together to implement it? Thanks again for your concern. .Please route this to other members of our City Council, or advise me to. Sincerely, S ep.en . Goodell P.S. Some photos are in file with my January 26, 1989 letter. I'm also enclosing some new ones, plus a sketch on the photo of the west end of the commercial property. 30 NORTH RAYMOND AVENUE SUITE 708 PASADENA, CALIF. 91103-3930 JAMES P LOUGH ATTORNEY AT LAW May 3, 1989 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM TEL: (818) 192.4728 (818) N2-4776 FAX: (818) 449-6873 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 9, 1989 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney RE: Introduction of "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, Adopting, Ratifying, and Readopting Ordinance Numbers 85-804, 86-832, 86-837, 87-896, and 88-967 Concerning Tax Measures." RECOMMENDED ACTION: To introduce the above -entitled ordinance. This ordinance is presented to the City Council to reaffirm the Council's intent regarding the above-mentioned taxes. Two recent appellate decisions have invalidated Proposition 62 which attempted to regulate the way that cities adopt general and special taxes. Adoption of this measure would re -enforce the validity of the city's taxes that were adopted by a vote of the people and also adopted during the window period covered by Proposition 62. Proposition 62 has been invalidated by two appellate courts as being unconstitutional. While such an invalidation should not affect the validity of the taxes referenced in the attached ordinance, this ordinance is being brought forward to reaffirm the Council's intent that these taxes are valid and binding and should continue in full force and effect. JPL/gp Respectfully submitt JAMES P. LOUGH, City A torney CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH cc: Kevin B. Northcraft, City Manager 35/SR0425B . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 89 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING, RATIFYING, AND READOPTING ORDINANCE NUMBERS 85-804, 86-832, 86-837, 87-896, AND 88-967 CONCERNING TAX MEASURES. WHEREAS, the citizens of the City of Hermosa Beach have confirmed the tax rates of various tax measures as set out below; WHEREAS, these confirmations were done by a vote of the people under the guidelines of statewide initiative Proposition 62 as set out in the California Government Code; WHEREAS, Proposition and two appellate courts have acted to invalidate its provisions; WHEREAS, in order to show the intent of the City that all of the affected taxes are to remain in full effect and are subject to modification, or repeal in with law, the City Council desires to adopt, ratify, the ordinances in question; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Beach, California, does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. That Ordinance No. 85-804, attached incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "A," be ratified, and readopted. Said ordinance remains in 62 has been the subject of litigation Council force and accordance and readopt Hermosa hereto and adopted, full force and effect except to the extent that it is amended or modified as set out below in Exhibits No. 88-919. /// 35/ORD30 11B11..,111111 11 -1- inclusive, and Ordinance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Section 2. That Ordinance No. 86-832, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "B," be adopted, ratified, and readopted. Said ordinance remains in full force and effect except to the extent that it is amended or modified as set out below in Exhibits "C" -"E," inclusive, and Ordinance No. 88-919. Section 3. That Ordinance No. 86-837, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "C," be adopted, ratified, and readopted. Said ordinance remains in full force and effect except to the extent that it is amended or modified as set out below in Exhibits "D," "E" and Ordinance No. 88-919. Section 4. That Ordinance No. 87-896, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "D," be adopted, ratified, and readopted. Said ordinance remains in full force and effect except to the extent that it is amended or modified as set out below in Exhibit "E" and as amended by Ordinance No. 88-919, adopted by the people. Section 5. That Ordinance No. 88-967, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "E," be adopted, ratified, and readopted. Section 6. That this ordinance, as it relates to taxes, shall take effect immediately upon adoption. Section 7. That this ordinance may be amended, repealed, or modified by the City Council in the manner provided by law. Section 8. That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause a synopsis of this ordinance to be published in the manner provided by law. /// 35/ORD30 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 16 17 1 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Section 9. That if any section, subsection or any part thereof is for any reason declared invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of the ordinance or any part thereof. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THIS DAY OF 1989. ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO ATTORNE 35/ORD30 -3- 1 PRESIDENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA June 19, 1985 City Council Meeting June 25, 1985 Mayor and Members of the City Council ORDINANCE NO. 85-804 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 30 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BY ADDING THERETO ARTICLE VI, WHICH SAID ARTICLE RELATES TO UTILITIES TAX AND DETERMINING THAT THIS ORDINANCE RELATES TAXES FOR THE USUAL AND CURRENT EXPENSES OF THE CITY. Submitted for waiver of further reading and adoption is Ordinance No. 85-804 relating to the above subject noting a change to pages 9 and 10 changing the last paragraph of SECTION 30-51 . SENIOR CITIZEN EXEMPTION, lines 27 and 28 on page 9 and lines 1 through 3 on page 10, said change being ministerial and at the request of the utilities involved. At the regular meeting of June 13, 1985, this Ordinance was introduced by the following vote: AYES: Brutsch, Cioffi, DeBellis NOES: Wood, Mayor Barks ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Concur: Kathleen Revi y, City Cler Greg yer, ity Manager 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 85-804 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 30 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BY ADDING THERETO ARTICLE VI, WHICH SAID ARTICLE RELATES TO UTILITIES TAX AND DETERMINING THAT THIS ORDINANCE RELATES TAXES FOR THE USUAL AND CURRENT EXPEN- SES OF THE CITY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 30 of the Code of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, is hereby amended by adding thereto Article VI of which said Article shall be and read as follows: ARTICLE VI UTILITIES TAX SECTION 30-43. TITLE - This Article shall be known as the Utility Tax Law of the City of Hermosa Beach. SECTION 30-44. DEFINITIONS - Except where the context other- wise requires, the definitions hereafter set forth shall govern the construction of this Part. (a) PERSON shall mean any domestic or foreign corporation, firm, association, syndicate, joint stock company, partnership of any kind, joint venture, club, Massachusetts business or common- law trust, society, individual or municipal corporation. (b) CITY shall mean the City of Hermosa Beach. (c) TELEPHONE CORPORATION, ELECTRICAL CORPORATION, GAS COR- PORATION, WATER CORPORATION AND CABLE TELEVISION CORPORATION have the same meaning, except as hereinafter provided, as defined in Sections 234, 218, 222, 241 and 215.5, respectively, of the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 81 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 , 24 25 26 27 23 Public Utilities Code of the State of California, as said sec- tions existed on January 1, 1975. "Water Corporation" shall be construed to include any organization or municipality, including but not limited to, a mutual water company, engaged in the sell- ing or supplying of water to a service user. (d) TAX ADMINISTRATOR shall mean the Finance Director of the City. (e) SERVICE SUPPLIER shall mean a person required to collect and remit a tax imposed by this Article. (f) SERVICE USER shall mean a person required to pay a tax imposed by this Article. (g) MONTH shall mean a calendar month. SECTION 30-45. CONSTITUTIONAL EXEMPTION Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed as imposing a tax upon any person when imposition of such tax upon that person would be in violation of the Constitution of the United States or that of the State of California. The Tax Administrator shall prepare a list of the persons exempt from the provisions of this Chapter by virtue of this Sec- tion and furnish a copy thereof to each service supplier. SECTION 30-46. TELEPHONE TAX (a) There is hereby imposed a tax upon every person in the City, other than a telephone corporation, using intrastate tele- phone communication services in the City. The tax imposed by this Section shall be at the rate of six percent (6%) from Oc- tober 1, 1985 to July 1, 1986, and five percent (5%) thereafter 3 4 i 1 5i 6 71 8j 9I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (to expire October 1, 1988) of all charges made for such services and shall be paid by the person paying for such services. (b) As used in this Section, the term "charge" shall not in- clude charges for services paid for by inserting coins in coin- operated telephones except that where such coin-operated tele- phone service is furnished to a person for a guaranteed amount, the amounts paid under such guarantee plus any fixed monthly or other periodic charge shall be included in the base for computing the amount of tax due; nor shall the term "charges" include charges for any type of service or equipment furnished by a ser- vice supplier subject to Public Utility regulation during any period in which the same or similar services or equipment are also available for sale or lease from persons other than a ser- vice supplier subject to Public Utility regulation; nor shall the words "telephone communication services" include land mobile ser- vices or maritime mobile services as defined in Section 2.1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as said section ex- isted on January 1, 1970. The term "telephone communication ser- vices" refers to that service which provides access to a tele- phone system and the privilege of telephone quality communication with substantially all persons having telephone stations which are part of such telephone system. The Telepnone Users Tax is intended to, and does, apply to all charges billed to a telephone account having a situs in the city, irrespective of whether a particular communication service originates and/or terminates within the City. (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection (a), the tax imposed under this Section shall not be imposed upon any person 1 2 3 4 51 61 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 for using intrastate telephone communication services to the ex- tent that the amounts paid for such services are exempt from or not subject to, the tax imposed under Division 2, Part 20 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, or the tax imposed under Section 4251 of the Internal Revenue Code. (d) The tax imposed by this section shall be collected from the service user by the person providing the intrastate telephone communication services, or the person receiving payment for such services. The amount of the tax collected in one (1) month shall be remitted to the Tax Administrator on or before the last day of the following month; or the amount of tax collected in one (1) month shall be remitted to the Tax Administrator on or before the last day of the following month; or at the option of the person required to collect and remit the tax, an estimated amount of tax collected, measured by the tax bill in the previous month, shall be remitted to the Tax Administrator on or before the last day of each month. SECTION 30-47. ELECTRICITY TAX (a) There is hereby imposed a tax upon every person in the City using electrical energy in the City. The tax imposed by this Section shall be at the rate of six percent (6%) from Oc- tober 1, 1985 to July 1, 1986, and five percent (5%) thereafter, (to expire October 1, 1988) of the charges made for such energy and shall be paid by the person paying for such energy. "Charg- es", as used in this Section shall include charges made for (1) metered energy, and (2) minimum charges for such service, includ- ing customer charges, service charges, demand charges, standby charges, and annual and monthly charges, fuel, cost adjustments, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (b) As used in this Section, the term "using electrical ener- gy" shall not be construed to include the storage of such energy by a person in a battery owned or possessed by him for use in an authomobile or other machinery or device; provided, however, that the term shall include the receiving of such energy for the pur- pose of using it in the charging of batteries. The term shall not include electricity used in water pumping by water corpora- tions; nor shall the term include the mere receiving of such en- ergy by an electrical corporation at a point within the City for resale; or the use of such energy in the production or distribu- tion of water by a public utility or a governmental agency. (c) The tax imposed in this section shall be collected from the service user by the person supplying such energy. The amount of tax collected in one (1) month shall be remitted to the Tax Administrator on or before the last day of the following month; or at the option of the person required to collect and remit the tax, an estimated amount of tax, measured by the tax billed in the previous month, shall be remitted to the Tax Administrator on or before the last day of each month. Remittance of tax may be predicated on a formula based upon the payment pattern of the supplier's customers. SECTION 30-48. GAS TAX (a) There is hereby imposed a tax upon every person in the City using gas energy. The tax imposed by this Section shall be at the rate of six percent (6%) from October 1. 1985 to July 1, 1986, and five percent (5%) thereafter, (to expire October 1, 1988) of the charges made for such gas energy and shall be paid by the person paying for such gas. "Charges" as used in this Section, shall include: (1) gas which is delivered through mains 1 2 3 i 4 5 6� 7 8 I 9 10 4 . i 12 13 14 151 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2a 25 26 27 28 or pipes, (2) minimum charges for such services, including cus- tomer charges, service charges and annual and monthly charges. (b) There shall be excluded from the base on which the tax imposed by this Section is computed (1) charges made for gas which is to be resold and delivered through mains and pipes: (2) charges made for gas used in the generation of electrical energy by an electrical corporation; or (3) charges made for gas used in the production or distribution of water by a public utility or governmental agency (4) charges made by a gas corporation for gas used and consumed in the conduct of its business; and (5) charges made for gas used in the propulsion of a motor vehicle, as that phrase is defined in the Vehicle Code of the State of California, utilizing natural gas; and (5) charges relateds to late payments and returned checks. (c) The tax imposed in this section shall be collected from the service user by the person selling the gas. The person sell- ing the gas shall, on or before the 20th of each calendar month, commencing on the 20th day of the calendar month after the effec- tive date of this part, make a return to the Tax Administrator stating the amount of taxes billed during the preceding calendar month. At the time such returns are filed, the person selling the gas shall remit tax payments to the Tax Administrator in ac- cordance with schedules established or approved by the Tax Administrator. SECTION 30-49. WATER TAX (a) There is hereby imposed a tax upon every the City, water which is delivered through mains tax imposed by this Section shall be at the rate person using, in or pipes. The of six percent i 2 II 3 II 4 for (1) metered water, (2) minimum charges for services, includ- 1 51 i (6%) from October 1, 1985 to July 1, 1986, and five percent (5%) thereafter, (to expire October 1, 1988) of the charges made for such water and shall be paid by the person paying for such water. "Charges", as used in this Section, shall include charges made 6 i 7I 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 181 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ing customer charges, ready to serve charges, standby charges, and annual and monthly charges. (b) There shall be excluded from the base on which the tax imposed by this Section is computed, charge for water which is to be resold and delivered through mains or pipes; and charges made by a municipal water department, public utility or a county or municipal water district for water used and consumed by such de- partment, utility or district. (c) The tax imposed in this section shall be collected from the service user by the person supplying the water. The amount collected in one (1) month shall be remitted to the Tax Ad- ministrator on or before the last day of the following month. SECTION 30-50. CABLE TELEVISION TAX (a) There is hereby imposed a tax upon every person in the City using cable television service. The tax imposed by this Section shall be at the rate of six percent (6%) from October 1, 1985 to July 1, 1986, and five percent (5%) thereafter, (to ex- pire October 1, 1988) of the charges made for such service and shall be paid by the person paying for such service. (b) The tax imposed in this section shall be collected from the service user by the person furnishing the cable television service. The amount collected in one (1) month shall be remitted 2! 3 4 , 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 to the Tax Administrator on or before the last day of the follow- ing month. SECTION 30-51. SENIOR CITIZEN EXEMPTION (a) The tax imposed by this Article shall not apply to any person who is: (1) Sixty-two (62) years of age or older; or (2) Who is "disabled" within the meaning of Section 416(i)(1) 1 (A) of Title 42 of the United States Code; who uses telephone, electric, gas, cable television or water services, in or upon any premises occupied by such individual, provided the combined gross income of all members of the household in which such individual resided was less than Nine Thousand Dollars ($9,000) for the cal- endar year prior to the fiscal year (July 1 through June 30) for which the exemption provided in this Article is applied for. The exemptions granted by this Section shall not eliminate the duty of the service supplier from collecting taxes from such exempt individuals or the duty of such exempt individuals for paying such taxes to the service supplier unless an exemption is applied for by the service user and granted in accordance with the provisions of Subsection (b) hereof. (b) Any service user exempt from the taxes imposed by this Article because of the provisions of Subsection (a), above, may file an application with the Finance Director for an exemption. Such application shall be made upon forms supplied by the City and shall recite facts under oath which qualify the applicant for an exemption. The City shall review all such applications and 1 21 3! 4 5 61 7 8, 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 13 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 certify as exempt those applications determined to qualify there- for and shall notify all service suppliers affected that such exemption has been approved, stating the name of the applicant, the address to which such exempt service is being supplied, the account number, if any, and such other information as may be necessary for the service supplier to remove the exempt user for its tax billing procedure. Upon receipt of such notice, the ser- vice supplier shall not be required to continue to bill any fur- ther tax imposed by this chapter from such exempt service user until further notice by the City is given. The service supplier shall eliminate such exempt service user from its tax billing procedure no later than sixty (60) days after receipt of such notice from the City. All exemptions shall continue and be renewed automatically by the City so long as the prerequisite facts supporting the initial qualificaiton for exemption shall continue; provided, however, that the exemption shall automatically terminate with any change in the service address or residence of the exempt individual; further provided such individual may, nevetheless, apply for a new exemption with each change of address or residence. Any in- dividual exempt from the tax shall notify the City within ten (10) days of any change in fact or circumstance which might dis- qualify said individual from receiving such exemption. It shall be a misdemeanor for any person to knowingly receive the benefits of the exemptions provided by this Section when the basis for such exemption either does not exist or ceases to exist. Any service supplier is authorized to bill the tax imposed by this Chapter to any new user or to any account whose name has been changed (other than by correcting a spelling error or other it 2 3 4 5' 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 similar clerical error) until the supplier receives notification of exemption as provided in Subsection (b) above. Thereupon, the supplier shall cease billing the exempt user for the tax within 60 ays as provided in Subparagraph (b) above. SECTION 30-52. REFUND OF TAXES IN EXCESS OF $1,000.00 Within ninety (90) days after the end of each calendar year any utility user who has paid utility taxes pursuant to this Or- dinance in excess of $1,000 for all utilities at any single loca- tion shall be entitled to a refund from the City of all sums paid to all utilities for all utilities at any single location shall be entitled to a refund from the City of all sums paid to all utilities for any single location in excess of $1,000. In order to secure said refund the utility user shall within ninty (90) days after December 31 of any year file a request with the City Council on forms furnished by the City. The City Council shall determine each application. The City Council shall consider each application and cause any investigation they desire to have made to be undertaken. The applicant shall furnish all information necessary in order to make such a determination and the deter- mination of the City Council on the application will be final. SECTION 30-53. DUTY FOR COLLECTION OF TAX - PROCEDURES (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 17-69 (c), 17- 70 (c), 17-71 (c), 17-72 (c), and 17-73 (c), the tax shall be collected insofar as practicable at the same time as and along with the charges made in accordance with the regular billing practices of the service supplier. Where the amount paid by a service user to a service supplier is less than the full amount of the energy charge and tax which has accrued for the billing 1 2 3 4 5 61 I 7 8 1 9I 10 i � 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 period, such amount and any subsequent payments by a service user shall be applied to the utility charge first until such charge has been fully satisfied. Any remaining balance shall be applied to taxes due. In those cases where a service user has notified the service supplier of his refusal to pay the tax imposed on said energy charges Section 30- will apply. (b) The duty to collect tax from a service user shall com- mence with the beginning of the first full regular billing period applicable to the service user where all charges normally in- cluded in such regular billing are subject to the provisions of this Ordinance. Where a person receives more than one billing, one or more being for different periods than another, the duty to collect shall arise separately for each billing. SECTION 30-54. ACTIONS TO COLLECT Any such tax received from a service user which has willfully been witheld from the Tax Administrator shall be deemed a debt owed to the City by the person required to collect and remit. Any person holding such money contrary to the provisions of this Ordinance shall be liable to an action brought in the name of the City for the recovery of such amount. SECTION 30-55. INTEREST AND PENALTY (a) Taxes collected by a service supplier which are not remitted to the Tax Administrator on or before the due dates pro- vided in this Article are delinquent. (b) Interest and Penalty provisions may be drawn consistent with other provisions of the Municipal Code. SECTION 30-56. ADDITIONAL POWER AND DUTIES OF TAX ADMINISTRATOR 21 I 31 4 5 9 1 10 11 12 1 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (a) The Tax Administsrator shall have the power and duty, and is hereby directed to enforce each and all of the provisions of this Ordinance. (b) The Tax Administrator shall have the power to adopt rules and regulations not inconsistsent with provisions of this Ordinance for the purpose of carrying out and enforcing the pay- ment, collection and remittance of the taxes herein imposed. A copy of such rules and regulations shall be on file in the Tax Administrator's office. (c) The Tax Administrator may make administrative agreements to vary the strict requirements of this Ordinance so that collec- tion of any taxes imposed here may be made in conformance with the billing procedures of a particular service supplier so long as said agreements result in collection of the tax in conformance with the general purpose and scope of this Ordinance. A copy of each such agreement shall be on file in the Tax Administrator's office. (d) The Tax Administrator shall determine the eligibility of any person who asserts a right to exemption from the taxes im- posed by this Ordinance. The Tax Administrator shall provide the service supplier with the name of any person who the Tax Ad- ministrator determines is exempt from the Tax imposed hereby, together with the address and account number to which service is supplied to any such exempt person. The Tax Administrator shall notify the service supplier of the termination of any person's right to exemption hereunder, or the change of any address to which service is supplied to any exempt person. SECTION 30-57. ASSESSMENT - ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (a) The Tax Administrator may make an assessment for taxes not remitted by a person required to remit. (b) Whenever the Tax Administrator determines that a service user has deliberately withheld the amount of the tax owed by him from the amounts remitted to a person required to collect the tax, or that a service user has refused to pay the amount of tax to such person, or whenevser the Tax Administrator deems it in the best interest of the City, he may relieve such person of the obligation to collect taxes due under this Ordinance from certain named service users for specified billing periods. (c) The service supplier shall provide the City with amounts refused and/or unpaid along with the names and addresses of the service users neglecting to pay the tax imposed under provisions of this Ordinance. Whenever the service user has failed to pay the amount of tax for a period of two or more billing periods, the service supplier shall be relieved of the obligation to col- lect taxes due. (d) The Tax Administrator shall notify the service user that he has assumed responsibility to collect the taxes due for the stated periods and demand payment of such taxes. The notice shall be served on the service user by handing it to him per- sonally or by deposit of the notice in the United States mail, postage prepaid thereon, addressed to the service user at the address to which billing was made by the person required to col- lect the tax; or, should the service user have changed his ad- dress, to his last know address. If a service user fails to remit the tax to the Tax Administrator within fifteen (15) days from the date of the service of the notice upon him, which shall �i 2f 3 1 4 I 5! 6 7 8` 9 10 14 be the date of mailing if service is not accomplished in person, a penalty of twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount of the tax set forth in the notice shall be imposed, but in no event less than five dollars ($5). The penalty shall become, for all pur- poses, a part of the tax required to be paid pursuant to the pro- visions of this Article. SECTION 30-58. RECORDS It shall be the duty of every service supplier who is re- quired to collect and remit to the City a tax imposed by the Ar- ticle, to keep and preserve, for a period of not less than three (3) years, all records as may be necessary to determine the amount of such taxes due to the City from service users supplied by such service supplier, which records the Tax Administrator shall have the right to inspect at all reasonable times. 15 16 SECTION 30-59. REFUNDS 17 18 13 20 (a) Whenever the amount of any tax has been overpaid or paid more than once or has been erroneously or illegally collected or received by the Tax Administrator under this Article, it may be refunded as provided in this Section. 22 (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this 23 section, a service supplier may claim a refund or take as credit 24 against taxes collected and remitted the amount overpaid, paid 25 26 27 23 more than once, or erroneously or illegally collected or received, when it is established that the service user from whom the tax has been collected did not owe the tax; provided however, that neither a refund nor a credit shall be allowed unless the amount of the tax so collected has either been refunded to the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 service user or credited to charges subsequently payable by the service user to the person required to collect and remit. A ser- vice supplier that has collected any amount of tax in excess of the amount of tax imposed by this Ordinance and actually due from a service user, may refund such amount to the service user and claim credit for such overpayment against the amount of tax whic is due upon any other monthly returns, provided such credit is claimed in a return dated no later than three (3) years from the date of overpayment. (c) No refund shall be paid under the provisions of this Sec- tion unless the claimant establishes his right thereto by writte records showing entitlement thereto. (d) Notwithstanding other provisions of this section, whenever a service supplier, pursuant to an order of the Califor- nia Public Utilities Commission or a court of competent jurisdic- tion, makes a refund to service users of charges for past utilit services, the taxes paid pursuant to this Ordinance on the amoun of such refunded charges shall also be refunded to service users and the service supplier shall be entitled to claim a credit for such refunded taxes against the amount of tax which is due upon the next monthly returns. In the event this Ordinance is repealed, the amounts of any refundable taxes will be borne by the City. SECTION 30-60. EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall become effective the 25th day of July, 1985. The tax imposed under this ordinance shall apply to ser- vices furnished from the beginning of the first regular billing 1 i, 2f 3! 4 51 6j 7 8I 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16I 17 18 1 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 period commencing on or after January 1, 1986 or as soon there- after as the respective utilities are physically and mechanially able to get "on line" for the imposition of charges. SECTION 30-61. JURISDICTION OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE Nothing contained in this Article is intended to conflict with the applicable rules, regulations, and tariffs of any ser- vice supplier subject to the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission of the State. In the event of any conflict, the pro- visions of such rules, regulations and tariffs shall control. SECTION 30-62. FUND AND PURPOSE All of the proceeds of the taxes levied under this Article shall be placed in the General Fund of the City and shall be uti- lized for general governmental purposes. SECTION 30-63. SEVERABILITY If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not af- fect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional. SECTION 30-64. TERMINATION DATE The provisions of this Article shall cease to be effective October 1, 1988. 1 SECTION 2. The City Council declares that this Ordinance 2 relates to taxes for the usual and current expenses of the City 3 and as such shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. 4 SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of 5 this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in the 6 manner prescribed by law. 7 8 PASSED AND APPROVED THIS day of , 1985 9 10 11 MAYOR 12 ATTEST: 13 14 15 16 CITY CLERK 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EK 4, , 71 - ORDINANCE NO. 86-832 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA AMENDING CHAPTER 30, SECTION 30-44 (f) AND SECTION 30-51 (a) TO CLARIFY THE DEFINITION OF "SERVICE USER" AND THE EXEMPTION FOR SENIOR CITIZEN RESIDENCES THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 30 of the Code of the City of Hermosa Beach, California is hereby amended as follows: SECTION 30-44 (f) "Service User" (as the beneficiary of service at the service location) shall mean a person required to pay a tax imposed by this Article. SECTION 30-51 (a) The tax imposed by this Article shall not apply to any residence in which the service user is: (1) Sixty-two (62) years of age or older; or (2) "Disabled" within the meaning of Section 416 (i) (1). (A) of Title 42 of the United States Code; who uses telephone, electric, gas, cable television or water services, in or upon any premises occupied by such individual, provided the combined gross income of all members of the household in which such in- dividual resided was less than Nine Thousand Dollars ($9,000) for the calendar year prior to the fiscal year (July 1 through June 30) for which the exemption provided in this Article is applied for. In order for a disabled person or a person sixty-two (62) years old or older to receive the exemption granted by this section, they must actually reside at the location receiving the service. Landlords shall not be allowed to use the exemp- tions granted by this section under any circumstances. In 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 addition, the exemptions shall not apply to any non-residential service locations. The exemptions granted by this Section shall not eliminate the duty of the service supplier from collecting taxes from such exempt individuals or the duty of such exempt individuals for paying such taxes to the service supplier usless an ex - exemption is applied for by the service user and granted in accordance with the provisions of Subsection (b) hereof. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in the manner prescribed by law. PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 22nd day of MAYOR April ,1986 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 hr/J/f t L 1/ • ORDINANCE NO. 86-837 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 30, SECTIONS 30 -46(A),30 -47(A) 30-48(A), 30-49(A) AND 30-50(A) BY CHANGING THE RATE OF TAX IMPOSED THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 30 of the Code of the City of Hermosa Beach is hereby amended as follows: SECTION 30-46(a) There is hereby imposed a tax upon every person in the City, other than a telephone corporation, using intrastate telephone communication services in the City. The tax imposed by this Section shall be at the rate of six percent (6%) all charges made for such service and shall be paid by the person paying for such services. SECTION 30-47(a) There is hereby imposed a tax upon every person in the City using electrical energy in the City. The tax imposed by this section shall be at the rate of six per- cent (6%) of the charges made for such energy and shill be paid by the person paying for such energy. "Charges", as used in this section shall include charges made for (1) metered energy, and (2) minimum charges for such service, including customer charges, service charges, demand charges, standby charges, and annual and' monthly charges, fuel, cost adjustments, etc. SECTION 30-48(a) There is hereby imposed a tax upon every person in the City using gas energy. The tax imposed by this section shall beat the rate of six percent (6%) of the charges made for such gas energy and shall be paid by the persons paying for such gas. "Charges" as used in this Section, shall include: (1) gas which is delivered through mains or pipes, (2) -1- . r 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 minimum charges for such services, including customer charges, service charges and annual and monthly charges. SECTION 30-49(a) There is hereby imposed a tax upon very person using, in the City, water which is delivered through wins or pipes. The tax imposed by this section shall be at the ate of six percent (6%) of the charges made for such water and hall be paid by the person paying for such water. "Charges", as sed in this Section, shall include charges made for (1) metered ater, (2) minimum charges for services, including customer barges, ready to serve charges, standby charges, and annual and onthly charges. SECTION 30-50(a) There is hereby imposed a tax upon very person in the City using cable television service. The tax imposed by this section shall be at the rate of six percent (6%) •f the charges made for such service and shall be paid by the person paying for such service. SECTION 30-04 This section is hereby repealed. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) ays after the date of its adoption. // // // // // // // 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adopt - tion of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in the manner prescibed by law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS29th DAY OF May 944.0'sP,tn/ President o the City Council, and Mayor of the City of Hermosa Beach ATTEST: PPROVED t Attorney � y -3- 1 ,1986 1 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -)r,/I/t ORDINANCE NO. 87-896 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS BY THE CITY COUNCIL, AMENDING CHAPTER 30 - TAXATION, ARTICLE VI - UTILITIES TAX BY CHANGING THE RATE OF TAX IMPOSED FROM SIX PERCENT (6%) TO TEN PERCENT (10%). THE PEOPLE OF HERMOSA BEACH DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 30, Sections 30-46(a), 30-47(a), 30 -48(a),30 -49(a) and 30-50(a) of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code are amended changing the rate of the utilities tax imposed on telephone service, electrical energy, gas energy, water and cable television service from six percent (6%) to ten percent (10%). SECTION 2. Pursuant to Government Code Section 53723, this ordinance shall only be amended by a vote of the people. SECTION 3. If any of the provisions of this ordinance are declared invalid or ineffective by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining parts or sections shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4. The increase imposed under this initiative measure shall take effect on March 1, 1988. SECTION 5. The method of collection of this tax shall remain the same as provided for under Chapter 30 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. The remaining provisions of Chapter 30, as adopted by Ordinance Nos. 85-804, 86-832 and 86-837 shall remain in full force and effect. APPROVED AS TO FORM: 4 L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ordinance No. 87-896 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE ELECTORATE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 3, 1987 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES - 1,815 NOES - 1,608 City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach TTEST: PRESIDEN of the ity lerk l÷e46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 88- 967 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE SECTION 30-52, REFUND OF UTILITY TAXES IN EXCESS OF ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS, AND AMENDING SECTION 30-55, INTEREST AND PENALTY. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach finds that taxation of utility usage should be collected in a consistent and fair manner; and WHEREAS, Section 30-52 grants any utility user who has payed in excess of one thousanD dollars ($1,000) per calendar year, for all utilities at a single location, a refund from the City in the amount excess of one thousand dollars; and WHEREAS, Section 30-55(b) permits interest and penalty provisions may be drawn on a service supplier consistent with other provisions of the Municipal Code and clarification is needed as to what other provisions; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That Section 30-52 of the Hermosa Beach City Code is now therefore repealed. SECTION 2. That Section 30-55(b) of the Hermosa Beach City Code is amended to read as follows: Interest and penalty provisions may be drawn oh a service supplier consistent with provisions in Sections 30-18 (a), (b), (c), and (d) of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. Interest and penalities due are an obligation of the service supplier. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon final passage and adoption pursuant to Government Code Section 36937(d). // // 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 // it SECTION 4. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law. SECTION 5. That the City Clerk certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 13 DAY OF December 1988. NT OF THE CITY COUNL AND MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA ATTEST: CITY CLERK PROVED AS ' • - • RM : AIPAa.J. 25 26 27 28 ATTORNE 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE N0. 88-919 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 30-62, ADDING SECTIONS 64 AND 65 TO CHAPTER 30 - TAXATION, ARTICLE VI - UTILITIES TAX, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE USE OF 4% UTILITY USERS TAX ONLY FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE A.T. & S.F. RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND PROVIDING FOR TERMINATION OF SUCH TAX. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. A new section shall be added to Chapter 30 (Taxa- tion) of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code to read as follows: 30-64. USE AND PURPOSE OF THE TAX The four percent tax upon the use of utilities imposed by this chapter shall be accounted for and used by the City of Hermosa Beach as follows: The tax shall be collected and placed in a special fund only to be used for the costs of acquisition and financing of the property commonly known as the the A.T. & S.F. Railroad Right -of -Way by the City of Hermosa Beach. SECTION 2. A new section shall be added to Chapter 30 (Taxa- tion) of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code to read as follows: 30-65. TERMINATION OF THE FOUR PERCENT SPECIAL FUND PORTION OF THE TAX. This 4% portion of the utility user tax which is a special tax and is to be used only for the purchase of the railroad right-of-way will terminate upon a finding by the Hermosa Beach City Council that the special tax is no longer necessary for its adopted purpose. After a resolution is adopted by the 1 2 3 City Council finding that the need no longer exists for the special tax fund, all monies that remain in the special fund, or are later placed in said fund, shall be used for the acquisition and maintenance of open 4 space lands for the benefit of the citizens of Hermosa 5 Beach. 6 SECTION 3. Pursuant to Government Code Section 53722, this 7 ordinance must be adopted by a two-thirds affirmative vote. Its 8 provisions may not be amended or repealed without a subsequent 9 vote of the electorate. 10 SECTION 4. Section 30-62 (Fund and Purpose) shall be amended 11 to state as follows: 12 All of the proceeds of the taxes levied under 13 this article shall be placed in the general fund 14 of the city and shall be utilized for general 15 governmental purposes except as herein set forth 16 in Sections 30-64 and 30-65. 17 SECTION 5. If any of the provisions of this ordinance are 18 declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the 19 remaining parts or sections shall remain in full force and 20 effect. 21 SECTION 6. This ordinance shall take effect in the manner 22 provided by law. 23 SECTION 7. The method of collection of the taxes imposed 24 shall remain the same as provided under Chapter 30 of the Hermosa 25 Beach Municipal Code. 26 27 APROVED AS 2 JOA/L'l , CITY ATTORNEY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ordinance No. 88-919 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE ELECTORATE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AT THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON JUNE 7, 1988. AYES - 3,954 4 • NOES - 809 PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach ATTEST: CITY CLERK Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council May 4, 1989 Regular Meeting of May 9, 1989 SUBJECT: R-2 DENSITY STANDARDS AND OPTIONS, AND POTENTIAL INTERIM ORDINANCE INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Analysis Currently the R-2 Zone allows a density of twenty five (25) units per acre. Contiguous lots which are assembled generally result in reaching closer to the maximum density allowed. Staff is intending to study the matter of lowering the allowed density in the R-2 and also the R-3 Zone in the course of revising the General Plan which is the appropriate method of changing density levels. In the interim, an ordinance limiting density on assembled lots to a maximum of two units per existing lot over 3,500 sq. ft. and on an existing lot of 5,250 sq. ft. or greater except when the Planning Commission has granted a higher density via a site plan review could be adopted; assembled lots under 3,500 sq. ft. could have one unit except with site plan review. Recommendation If the City Council desires an zoning ordinance as suggested in this report, then, direct staff to prepare a interim ordinance imposing a site plan review for density as noted above. Respectfully su CONCUR: Kevin B. North City Manager t/ccsrr2 Michae Sc ubach Planning Director May 2, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council May 9, 1989 SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON UPCOMING SPECIAL STUDIES REQUESTED BY CITY MANAGER Background The City Manager requested the status of the requested and/or mandated studies in response to several City Council inquiries. APPROXIMATE CITY COUNCIL SCHEDULED STUDIES PUBLIC HEARING DATE(S) Non -conforming structures and uses June '89 Multi -Use Corridor including needed zone changes Circulation Element Eliminate video sales in C-1 and i C-2 Zones Study of 17' parking setback Task Force Biltmore Site Recommendation Mandated Housing Element Revision of General Plan Elements including density Oil Drilling/Relocation of City Yard E.I.R. Design Review Board Height of fences and hedges Z Residential Zoning Standards - Open Space, bulk, etc. Gymnasiums in the C-2 Zone ?. Policy Statement of lot coverage July, Aug. '89 July '89 May '89 Sept. '89 May '89 Dec. '89 Mar. `90 thru Dec. '90 Sept. '89 Oct. '89 July '89 Dec. '89 June '89 July '89 ib Study parking requirements for revitali- zation of downtown (General Plan study) Mar. '90 UNSCHEDULED STUDIES - Open Space permitted use list - Adult uses - movies, vidoes, newsracks, massage parlors, etc. - Landscaping in 'R' Zones - Residential use of Public Right-of-ways - Restaurant expansion without required parking - Definition of assembly - Application fees - Property maintenance - Development fees Amortize all businesses requiring Conditional Use Permits - Grading of lots - Precise Plan development and Environmental assessment for exempt projects Respectfully ub i'ted, CONCUR: e�// Michael Schu•ach E, orthAraft Planning Director City Manager T/ccsrss May 2, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council May 9, 1989 SUBJECT: INTERPRETATION OF INTERIM ORDINANCE REGARDING HEIGHT AND VIEW BLOCKAGE INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation Staff recommends that the current interim ordinance be set for public hearing to give it its last 10 month extension and also amend it to include the R -2B zone. Analysis At the time ordinance 88-956 was adopted, the R -2B zone was not included since it did not appear to be a problem. Now that there are several areas recently rezoned to R -2B, they should be included in the moratorium. Specificly the area between Barney Court and Meyer Court and 1st Street and the City limits was once zoned R-2 and is now R -2B. It was not originally included by staff because the R-1 lots to the east sided on the R-2 (now R -2B) lots instead of fronting on. However, these lots may have some view blockage, and should also be included in the amended ordinance. Since the current ordinance ends on July 8th, amending the current ordinance without an extension would not serve any purpose. City Manager t/ccsrint .4610!%&/-4,!%' Mic ael chbuach Planning Director 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 T ORDINANCE NO. 88- 956 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO EXTEND ORDINANCE NO. 88-949 ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES IN THE R-2 ZONE THAT EXCEED TWENTY-FIVE FEET IN HEIGHT AND ARE BORDERED ON THE EAST SIDE BY R-1 ZONES. WHEREAS, the height limits for R-2 and R-1 zones are thirty and twenty-five feet, respectively; WHEREAS, the differences in these height limits can cause view blockages in R-1 zones that border on R-2 zones; WHEREAS, the view blockages caused by the close proximity between R-2 and R-1 zones can cause a loss of ocean views which thereby lowers the quality of life and prevents full enjoyment of coastal resources; WHEREAS, the City Council and Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach are currently studying the steps necessary to protect views while preserving quality of life for all persons; WHEREAS, allowing construction of residences in the R-2 zone above the height limit for R-1 would defeat the purpose of the study in -allowing view blockage to occur; WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 88-949 was adopted by the City Council of Hermosa Beach on July 26, 1988, whereupon it prohibited for a period of forty-five (45) days the issuance of Building Permits in R-2 zones, including the locations described in Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto and incorporated_ herein by reference, that increase the height of a residence or construct a residence - 1- •6 H • ;1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ca t• which exceeds the height allowed in R-1 (25 feet); WHEREAS, the City Council finds that other areas within the City exist that have differences in height limits between R-2 and R-1 and expressly make those areas part of this extension as shown in Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto; WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65858(a) provides for an urgency measure extension of ten (10) months, fifteen (15) days upon adoption by a four-fifths (4/5) vote following notice *� pursuant to Government Code Section 65090 and a public hearing; WHEREAS, Government Code Section 36937 allows this extending ordinance to take immediate effect for the preservation of public peace, health and safety, and upon a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Ordinance No. 88-949 be extended an additional ten (10) months, fifteen (15) days pursuant to Government Code Section 65858(a). Section 2. That the Planning Commission continue to study what steps are necessary totaketo protect views while preserving quality of life for all persons. Section 3. That pursuant to Government Code Section 36927, this ordinance is designed to protect the health and safety of the citizens of Hermosa Beach and becomes effective immediately upon adoption by a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council. Section 4. That this ordinance shall not apply to any projects that have a completed building permit package on file with the City prior to August 23, 1988. Said package must 1. • •. • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 c include a completed building permit application form, completed conceptual plans (plot plan, floor plan, elevation plan and similar plans), and a lot survey. Projects that have submitted a completed building permit package must pursue their application in a diligent manner and must be issued a building permit within six months of the effective date of this ordinance. Section 5. That the City Clerk certify to the passage and adoption of the ordinance, enter the same in the book of original; ordinances of said city, and make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON T ATTEST: DA OF AUGUST, 1988. DENT OF E CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA A i C ' CLERK APPROVED AS T. ATTORNEY a+nu.tuta Si • s 'V' 4011%.01 11/11 li %drltl�l'l�1...; • . 4 0S • R-► .' • R—I U►1CLA55 NJTH SCH001- .o �t•R—I 2 S,LVERSrRANO R-1 R—% R-1 R-1 HERM°58 R-1 •t 1.e uz R-1 �: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 89 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN BY CHANGING THE DESIGNATION FOR AREAS 6 AND 12 (EXPANDED) AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAPS AND ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on April 25, 1989 and made the following Findings: A. The lots in the subject Areas 6 and 12 are of sufficient size to be designated as recommended; B. Redesignating the areas will not result in a density increase; C. These amendments will bring the subject areas into General Plan/Zoning consistency; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby amend the General Plan, as shown on the attached maps, as follows: 1. Redesignate Area 6 from Low Density to High Density legally described as follows: - Lot 1, Tract 31559. 2. Redesignate Area 12 from General Commercial to High Density for lots legally described as Lots 5, 6 and 7, Block 3, Montmarie Tract, and General Commercial to Low Density for lots legally described as Lots 8 through 12 inclusive, Block 3, Montmarie Tract. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: CITY CLERK t/ccrsarea APPROVED ITY ATTO"E A EA 6 AMENDMENT 89-2 TO REDESIGNATE FROM LOW DENSITY TO HIGH DENSITY • :ARTESIA: .4 7 ;.•-v.k• 041. VIM BLVD. : 46% 40Z704 0 o.ZZme- tx .9,6802 vox-- 24-04 Vr• .90. • • 10.5-.53 C • Pen 949Wir 300 • • • s- 20 17865c •0 A so.529.* • 1 6 -; 0, s) • *i 0.6i • ®1•® • .39.011 • 0 • 4 • 25TH ST. IS AMENDMENT 89-4 AREA 12 1s 1f i 1S • • GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO LOW DENSITY 1. orr O • :4171 GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO HIGH DENSITY ..14er l 4 Are . %) 11 /0 /1 1s 24TH R-1 7 - R-3 SS 4 PL. 4 • r Location a. Address: AC'TIVi'iY tur,:�llr 11:N'11UN • Area 6 •b. Legal: Lot 1., Tract 31559 2. Description To redesignate General Plan map from Low Density to High Density 3. Sponsor a. Name: City o•f Hermosa Beach, Planning Commission b. Mailing Address: 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Phone: (213) 318-0242 • NEGATIVE DECLARATION •, In accordance with Resolution 79-4309 of the City of Hermosa beach, which in plements the California Environmental quality Act of 1970 in Hermosa Beach, the Environmental Review Committee must make an environmental review of all private projects proposed to be undertaken within the City, and the Planninc • Commission must make an environmental review of all public projects proposes to be undertaken within the City, which are subject to the Environmental quality Act. This declaration is documentation of the review and, if it be- comes final, no comprehensive Enviromnental Impact Report is required for this project. FINDING OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE _We have undertaken and completed an Environmental Impact Review of this prc posed project in accordance with Resolution 79-4309 of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, and find that this project does not require a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report because, provided the attached mitigation meas- ures arc included in the project, it would not have a significant effect on the environment. Documentation support4ng thi \finding is on file in the .Building Department. 2-9-89 Date of Finding Chairman, Envir inirita]. Review Committee FINDING OF THE PLANNING OMMISSION We have undertaken and completed an Environmental Impact Review of this pro- ject in accordance with Resolution 79-4309 of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, and find that this project does not require a comprehensive Environ- mental Impact Report because, provided the attached mitlg•ation measures aro Included in than protect, it would not have a significant effect on the en- vironment. Documentation supporting this finding is on file in the Build- ing Department. n Chain Planning Commission FINDING OF THE CITY COUNCIL We have undertaken and completed an environmental Impact Review of this pro- posed project in accordance with Resolution 70-4309 of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, and find this project does not require a comprehensive En- vironmental Impact Report because, provided the attached mitigatrion meas- ures are included in the project, it would not have a significant effect on the environment. Documentation suppo4ing this finding is on file in the Building Department. Date of Finding Mayor, Hermosa Beach City Council 1. Location a. Address: ACTIVIII lur.aAllr ILA'1'1VV • Area 12 b. Legal: Lots 5-12, Block 3., Montmarie Tract. 2. Description To redesignate General Plan from General Commercial to Low Density and High nPnci t y 3. Sponsor a. Name: City of Hermosa Beach, Planning Department b. Mailing Address: 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach,. CA 90254 Phone(213) 318-0242 NEGATIVE DECLARATION • In accordance with Resolution 79-4309 of the City of Hermosa beach, which in plements the California Environmental quality Act of 1970 in Hermosa Beach, the Environmental Review Committee must make an environmental review of all private projects proposed to be undertaken within the City, and the Planning Commission must make an environmental review of all public projects proposed to be undertaken within the City, which are subject to the Environmental quality Act. This declaration is documentation of the review and, if it be- comes final, no comprehensive Enviromnental Impact Report is required for this project. FINDING OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE .We have undertaken and completed an Environmental Impact Review of this prc posed project in accordance with Resolution 79-4309 of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, and find that this project does not require a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report because, - - - -e -e ^Ludad - ^ the ^r -e -et, it would not have a significant effect on the environment. Documentation - ' - is -- Building Department. 2-9-89 Date of Finding Chairmonmental Review Committee FINDING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION We have undertaken and completed an Environmental Impact Review of this pro- ject in accordance with Resolution 79-4309 of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, and find that this project does not require a comprehensive Environ- mental Impact Report because, provided the attached mitigation measures arc included in the project, it would not have a significant effect on the en- vironment. Documentation supporting this finding is on file in the Build- ing Department. Ite Date of Finding • ✓� 7 -& cam`— . Cha an, Planning Commission • FINDING OF THE CITY COUNCIL We have undertaken and completed an environmental Impact Review of this pro- posed project in accordance with Resolution 70-4309 of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, and find this project does not require a comprehensive En- vironmental Impact Report because, _-_ •-: the environment. Documentation Building Department. Date of Findina , it would not have a significant effect on suppor,ing this finding is on file in the Mayor, Hermosa Beach City Council CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Ken Robertson, Advanced Planner SUBJECT: Voting Matrix for Straw Votes taken at 5/3/89 Special Meeting Regarding the Multi -Use Corridor DATE: May 8, 1989 Pursuant to your request, attached herewith is a matrix of the votes taken for each area of the Multi -Use Corridor at the special meeting of May 3, 1989. This is the record of the voting as verified with the City Clerk. VOTING MATRIX (CITY COUNCIL 5/3/89 SPECIAL MEETING) Mayor Block(motion) Williams J.R. C.S. R.0 E.S. Southeast CBL -8TH (SR&PCR) NO YES YES NO YES Northeast 14 -15th (SR&PCR) YES YES YES YES YES 15 -16TH (PCR): NO YES YES YES YES 16 -17TH (SR&PCR) YES YES YES YES YES 17 -18TH (SR) YES YES YES YES YES 18 -19TH (SR) NO YES YES NO YES 19 -20TH (SR) NO YES YES NO YES 20 -21ST (MD FRONTAGE LOTS) YES NO YES YES YES N. OF 21ST (PCR) YES YES YES YES YES Northwest 24PL-24ST(SR&PCR) YES YES YES YES ABSTAIN 24 -21ST: (LD SS 24TH, CC ON PCH, MD&LD NS 21ST) YES NO YES YES ABSTAIN 21 -16TH (SR&PCR) YES NO YES YES ABSTAIN 16 -PIER (SR&PCR) YES YES YES YES ABSTAIN Southwest 8 -6th (SR&PCR) YES YES YES YES YES 6 -5TH (SR&PCR) YES YES YES YES YES SR - Staff Recommendation PCR - Planning Commission Recommendation RESOLUTION 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN BY CHANGING THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION FROM MULTI -USE CORRIDOR TO COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR FOR THE AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearings on May 3, 1989, and made the following Findings: A. The land use category of Multi -Use Corridor, established in 1966, is no longer an appropriate land use designation for the Pacific Coast Highway commercial corridor as it does not clearly convey the City's goals and objectives for development along the corridor; B. Creation of the land use category of Commercial Corridor as a designation for the Pacific Coast Highway commercial corridor is an appropriate designation as it more clearly conveys a commitment to commercial development along. Pacific Coast Highway; C. The designation of Commercial Corridor will be applied to a more focused area along the east and west side of Pacific Coast Highway than the Multi -Use Corridor designation to recognize more realistically the the limits of the depth of commercial development acceptable to the citizens of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby amend the General Plan as shown on the attached map and legally described as follows: 1. General Plan amend the subject property from Multi -Use Corridor to Commercial Corridor, legally described as follows: Southeastside: Sth City Boundary-lst St.: Lots 1-7 Trafton Heights Tract lst-2nd St.: Lots 45-51 of Tafton Heights, Lots 41-46 of Homebuilders Place 2nd -3rd St.: Lots 1-4 of Homebuilders Place, Lots 2, 4 of Mission Tract 3rd -4th St.: lots 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 of Mission Tract; Westerly 12' of Lot 12, and Lots 13, 14, 15, of Hurd's Ocean View Tract 4th -5th St.: Lots 1, 2, Portion 3 of Hurd's Ocean View Tract, Lots 17-23 of Garden View Tract 5th -6th St.: Lots 1-5 of Tract #294, Westerly 40' of Lots 11-13, and Lots 14-16 of Camino Real Tract 6th -7th St.: 2nd Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract, Block 85 portion of Lot 7 (Westerly 121.8'); Lots 17-19 of Wilson & Lind's Tract, 7th -8th St: Lots 14-16 Wilson and Lind's Tract Northeastside: 14th -15th St.: Block 1, Lots 1-3 of Hermosa Knob Hill;lots 28-30 Heffner, Fiorini, Allen Tract 15th -16th St.: Lots 1-3 Heffner, Fiorini, Allen Tract; 2nd Addition to Hermosa Beach, Block 84, West 145' Portion of Lot 5; Lots 1-3, Block 2, W.J. Smith's Tract 16th -17th St.: Lots 1, 2, Block 1, W.J. Smith's Tract; Lots 1-4, Block A, Tract #2911; Lots 1, 2, Block 2, Breckenridge Tract 17th -18th St.: Lots 1, 2, Block 1, Breckenridge Tr.; lots 24-27, Block 2, Johnson and Newmans Camino Real Tr. 18th -19th St.: Lots 1-3, P.M. 38-45; lots 26-28, B1. 1, Johnson and Newmans Camino Real Tr.; lots 1,3,4,5, Tr. 6054 19th -20th St: Lots 62-64 Tr. 2548; lots 1-3 Tr. 8476 21st -North City Boundary: Lots 1 and 2, portion of lots 3, 4, and 8, lots 9 and 10, portion lot 11, lots 20 and 21, of Tract #2143; Parcel Map 152-48-49, Lot 1 Westside: 24th -24P1.: Lots 1-10, Block 2 of Montmarie Tract, 24th -21st St.: Lots 13-19 of Hermosa View Tract #1; lot 1 Tract 38200 16th -21st St.: Portion lot 13, Portion lot 14, Block No. 81, of 2nd Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract 16th -Pier.: Lot 1 of Tract #9203; portion lot 10, Block 80, 2nd Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract; Lots 11-18, Block 80, Subdivision of Part of the Sausal Redondo Rancho Tract 6th -8th St.: Lots 1-4 of Redondo Hermosa Tract, Lots 27, 28, Block 78, 2nd Addition to Hermosa Beach, portion of Lots 1-3, Lots 4-9 of Tract #8525 5th -6th St.: Portion of Lots 24, 25, Block 78, 2nd Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract 4th -5th St.: Lots 1-4 of Koepke's Tract, Lots 1-5 of Thorne's Hillside #2 3rd -4th St.: Portion of Lots 23-28, lots 29, 56, 57 of Walter Ransom Co.'s Venable Place Tract 2nd -3rd St.: Portion of Lots 38-63, Lots 64, 65, 88 & 89 & Easterly 10' of lot 87 Walter Ransom Co.'s Venable Place Tract lst-2nd St.: Portion of Lots 90-95 of Walter Ransom Co.'s Venable Place Tract & Lots 96-99, 116-119, portion of Lots 1-6, Lots 7, 8 of Tract #5019, Lots 121-123, 141, 142 of Walter Ransom Co.'s Venable Place Tract lst-South City Boundary: Lots 143-145 of Walter Ransom Co.'s Venable Place Tract 2. General Plan amend the subject property from High Density to Commercial Corridor, legally described as follows: Southeastside: lst-2nd St.: Lots 39-44 of Trafton Heights Tract 3. General Plan amend the subject property from Low Density Residential to Commercial Corridor legally described as follows: Southeastside: lst-2nd St.: Lot 40 of Home Builders Place Tract PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: PPROVED/AS TO F ITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY -_______ -______N 3 e.. .00 *os �o Lu r . t . ✓ tel. j'• ID lD ID •LD LD II *DC ,. • •a.• jMUC TO HDAuc .o os . CLaiht MUC TO MD 1 MD HD ' MD Hn un IND LIND • 711.310.°1'! ojeAD tO 1 y MDI f .•D 301 .,, Gct ►L ;• c G fMo """"0 • EXISTING M.U.C. BOUNDARY AREA TO BE CHANGED TO "COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR" REMAINING AREA WITHIN THE M.U.C. TQ BE CHANGED•TO RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS AS NOTED (Hiyh(HD),'Mediwn(MD), or Low(LD) Density) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN BY CHANGING THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION FROM MULTI -USE CORRIDOR TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on May 3, 1989, and made the following Findings: A. The land use category of Multi -Use Corridor, established in 1966, is no longer an appropriate land use designation for certain residential portions of the Pacific Coast Highway corridor located behind commercial frontage properties and along Pacific Coast Highway; B. Residential designations consistent with the residential areas located further west or east from Pacific Coast Highway are appropriate designations as they recognize established residential areas and clearly convey a commitment to continuing the residential use and development of these areas; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby amend the General Plan as shown on the attached map and legally described as follows: 1. General Plan amend the subject properties from Multi -Use Corridor to Low Density Residential, legally described as follows: Eastside: 2nd -3rd St.: Lots 5, 6 of Home Builders Place and; lots 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20 of Mission Tract 3rd -4th St: Lots 11, 13, 15, 17, 19 of Mission Tract and lots 10, 11, and easterly 36' lot 12 Hurd's Ocean View Tract 4th -5th St.: Lots 4, 5 Hurd's Ocean View Tract, Lots 10-16 Garden View Tract 14th -15th St.: Lots 4-6, Block 1, of Hermosa Knob Hill Tract 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 15th -16th St.: Lots 4-6, Block 2, W.J. Smiths; East portion lot 5, Block 84, 2nd Addition to Hermosa Beach 16th -17th St.: Lots 5-12, Block A, Tract #2911, Lots 1-8, Block B, Tract #2911, Lots 3,6 (portion), Block 2, Breckinridge 17th -18th St.: Lots 3-5, Block 1, Breckenridge, Tract 32526; Lots i5-23, Block 2, Johnson & Newman's Camino Real Tract; lot 2, Tract 32526 18th -19th St.: Lots 19-25, Block 1, Johnson & Newman's Camino Real; Lots 6, 7, 8 of Tract #6054; lots 43-49, Tr. 2548 19th -21st St.: Lots 54-60, Easterly 15 feet of lot 61,Tract #2548, Lots 4-19 of Tract #8476 Westside: 24th St. -24 P1.: Lots 11-24, Block 2 of Montmarie, 24th St.-21stSt.: lots 5-12, Block 1 of Montmarie Tr.; lots 23 and 24 Hermosa View Tract No. 1 2. General Plan amend the subject properties from Multl-Use Corridor to Medium Density Residential, legally described as follows: Eastside: 5th -6th St.: Eastern 80' of Lots 11-13 of Camino Real Tract 6th -7th St.: 2nd Addition to Hermosa Beach Block 85, Portion of Lot 7 (Easterly 48.5' of the Western 170.3'), Lot 1 of Tract #42019, Lots 20-22 of Wilson & Lind's Tract 7th -8th St.: Lots 11, 12 of Wilson & Linda's Tract; Parcel Map 113-81-82, Lot 1 14th -15th St.: Lots 24-27 of Heffner, Fiorini and Allen Tract, 15th -16th St.: lots 4-7 of Heffner, Fiorini, and Allen Tract; Westside: 6th -8th St.: Lots 5-9 of Redondo Hermosa Tract 4th -5th St.: Lots 5-8 of Koepke's Tract;Lot 1 of Tract #26438 3rd -4th St.: Lots 30-32 of Walter Ransom Co.'s Venable Place Tract, Lot 1 of Tract #37389 2nd -3rd St.: Lots 67,68, 86 & Westerly 30' of Lot 87 of Walter Ransom Co.'s Venable Place Tract 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 i‘i,W/1/9>("42///2-2-i/o7,5ic..//. lst-Sth City Boundary: Lot 146 of Walter Ransom Co.'s Venable Place Tract 3. General Plan amend the subject properties from Multi -Use Corridor to High Density Residential, legally described as follows: Eastside: 5th -6th St.: Lot 1 of Tract #44937 Westside: 16th -21St.: Portions of lots 16-22 2nd Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract Block 81, Lot 1 of Tract #31815 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY U /' GC li et Lu c► . ► . ✓ U.. ID ID ID •carer *GC awe IIIMUC TO HD cv weft os .os I. GCI NO HD Ie MD PAD D HD ry 1►A .I, 9c.oc GC i F ' 1• 13: !IMO LIN 1"1""0, - EXISTING M.U.C. BOUNDARY AREA TO BE CHANGED TO "COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR" REMAINING AREA WITHIN THE M.U.C. TO BE CHANGED TO RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS AS NOTED (Hiyh(HD), Medium(MD), or Low(LD) Density) 1. Location a. Address: b. Legal: N/A Multi -Use. Corridor along Pacific Coast Highway 2. Description General Plan amendment changing the location of boundaries and policies regarding the Aulfii-USP Corridor and t -o c-onsidpr Spprifin Plan Fran - designation 3. Sponsor a. Name: City of £ rmosa 6aac'h b. Mailing Address: 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Phone: (213) 318-0242 NEGATIVE DECLARATION In accordance with Resolution 89-5229 of the City of Hermosa beach, which im- plements the California Environmental quality Act of 1970 in Hermosa Beach, the Environmental Review Committee must make an environmental review of all private projects proposed to be undertaken within the City, and the Planning Commission must make an environmental review of all public projects proposed to be undertaken within the City, which are subject to the Environmental quality Act. This declaration is documentation of the review and, if 'it be- comes final, no comprehensive Enviromnental Impact Report is required for this project. FINDING OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE _We have undertaken and completed an Environmental Impact Review of this pro- posed project in accordance with Resolution 89-5229 of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, and find that this project does not require a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report because, provided tho attachcd mitigation meas ures are included in the project, it would not have a significant effect on the environment. Documentation supposing this -finding is on file in the Building Department. Date of Finding Chairman Bn it nmental Review Committee FINDING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION We have undertaken and completed an Environmental Impact Review of this pro- ject in accordance with Resolution 89-5229 of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, and find that this project does not require a comprehensive Environ- mental Impact Report because, provided Liao a*ra,-haA mirigarinn measnras are i-Re-l-urded in the proje^t, it would not have a significant effect on the en- vironment. Documentation supporting this finding is on file in the Build- ing Department. Date of Finding C i'irman, Planning Commission FINDING OF THE CITY COUNCIL We have undertaken and completed an environmental Impact Review of this pro- posed project in accordance with Resolution 89-5229 of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, and find this project does not require a comprehensive En- vironmental Impact Report because, previdod the atta»h.ed mitijation meas- ures are ;n'' uded in the-ire-jo , it would not have a significant effect on . the environment. Documentation supporting this finding is on file in the Building Department. Date of Finding Mayor, Hermosa Beach City Council May 4, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council of May 9, 1989 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE POSITION OF CITY ATTORNEY RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. approve the attached Request for Proposals and authorize staff to forward same to interested parties. 2. appoint a two member sub -committee to assist staff in reviewing submitted proposals toward selecting finalists to be interviewed by the Council. 3. schedule a special meeting for June 29, 1989 to interview finalists. Analysis: The attached Request for Proposals was developed to recruit for the position of City Attorney. The proposed recruitment timeline is as follows: May 9 -June 8 --- Thur. June 8 --- Mon. June 12 --- Advertise for City Attorney services. Deadline for submitting proposals. Review of proposals/selection of finalists. June 13-16 Notification interviews. Thur. June 29 -- Special City finalists. of finalists/scheduling of Council Meeting to interview Approximately fifteen (15) firms or indivduals tifed to receive an RFP. An advertisment will Daily Journal (a legal publication) to solicit parties. have been iden- be placed in the other interested Included in the proposed RFP is a request that responses include proposals for assuming Zoning Enforcement Prosecution duties. Individuals (or firms) may respond indicating interest in provid- ing City Attorney services, Prosecution services, or both. This will allow the Council to evaluate options to the current process for prosecution of zoning violations. Respectfully sub;*+. ted, Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Director Concur: evin B. Northc aft City Manager lir .l.4 _ s. J ORNV°T City o f`�%rmosarl3eaclt.) Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254.3885 May 9, 1989 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR CITY ATTORNEY To All Interested Parties: The City of Hermosa Beach is seeking the professional services of a qualified attorney to serve as City Attorney on a part-time, contractual basis. Responsibilities will include: * Regular attendance at City Council meetings to provide legal advice and serve as counsel (second and fourth Tuesday evenings of each month). * Attendance at Planning Commission meetings to provide legal advice and serve as counsel (first and third Tuesday evenings of each month). * Part-time office hours at City Hall to provide legal advice and support to City staff (e.g. half days on Tuesdays and every other Thursday). * Representation of the City in matters of non -tort litigation. * Other legal services and meetings as needed. The City is also interested in having the City Attorney assume responsibility for Zoning Enforcement Prosecution, both civil and criminal. Respondents to this request for proposals should address this by indicating their ability to assume this responsibility. The proposed compensation for Zoning Enforcement Prosecution should be indicated separately from the City Attorney services described above. Interested persons or firms may submit proposals for either City Attorney services, Prosecution services, or both. Legal firms wishing to provide services via more than one staff member will be considered, with one responsibile individual named as City Attorney. Compensation may involve a monthly retainer for regular legal services, plus an hourly fee for additional extraordinary services (i.e. litigation research, court appearances, etc.), or a tiered hourly wage (e.g., one for routine office hours and one for litigataion, etc.) may be proposed. The current contract with the City Attorney contains the following provisions: (1) Basic Fee rate of $3,700 per month for Ordinary Legal Services up to 80 hours per month. One-third of the hours may be accomplished by paralegal staff. (2) Hours in excess of 80 are compensated at a rate of $110.00 per hour for City Attorney time and $50.00 per hour for paralegal time. (3) Compensation at the rate of $130.00 per hour is awarded for matters requiring extraordinary expertise. (4) Reimbursement for reasonable incurred expenses directly attributable to services under agreement. The City of General Law Attorney is Council. Hermosa Beach was incorporated in 1907 and is a City under the Council/Manager system. The City appointed by, and reports directly to, the City Interested parties may be considered by submitting a proposal to the City on or before June 8, 1989. The proposal should include: * An outline of general educational background and general experience in the practice of law. * An outline of experience in providing legal services to municipalities and/or other government agencies, including names of agencies and types of services provided. Emphasis should be placed on municipal planning, ballot initiative, and litigation experience. * A statement of philosophy regarding the practice of municipal law, and the City Attorney's relationship to the City Council, City Manager, and City staff. * Proposed cost of providing the services. After June 8, 1989, all proposals will be reviewed and the interviews will be conducted among the most qualified. The City Council will then make a selection. Considerations of the City Council in making a selection will include the following: * Experience in the specialized areas of municipal law. * Capacity to accomplish legal responsibilities, including any proposed "back-up" arrangements for the assigned City Attorney and availability of support from other municipal law specialists. * Past performance with municipal law clients. * Location of offices in general geographical area. * Availability of individual(s) to meet the schedule of hours described herein. Following selection, an agreement will be executed and legal services will begin on or about July 15, 1989. Please address your proposal to: Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Director 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Thank you, Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager rab/rfpcatty TO: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Michael Schubach, Pn ector SUBJECT: City Council/Planning Commission Workshop DATE: May 1, 1989 Planning Commission, at their meeting of 4/4/89, suggested that only the issues of major importance be addressed in the City Council/ Planning Commission workshops due to the staff shortage in the Planning Department, and determined that no major issues were of concern at this time. It was also suggested that the workshop be postponed until the end of June instead of May 30, 1989. Staff would therefore ask City Council's opinion regarding the date and topics. Suggestion To consider nonconforming uses and structures as the topic. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: The May 30 meeting was planned to take advantage of the occasional 5th Tuesday in a month. The Planning Director and I feel the nonconforming uses and structures, as well as possibly the time table for requested Planning studies (appearing earlier on this meeting's agenda), are sufficient topics to hold the planned meeting on May 30. 13a April 17, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council April 25, 1989 SUBJECT: 1ST QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBERS 89-1 THROUGH 89-6 AND ZONE CHANGES 89-1 AND 89-4 LOCATIONS: REFER TO ATTACHED MAPS INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL,AND/OR PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICANT FOR ZONE CHANGE: EL POLLO LOCO RESTAURANTS / ROGER BACON, PROPERTY OWNER PURPOSE: TO REDESIGNATE THE FOLLOWING AREAS AS NOTED: A) 89-1: Parking lot behind the "Der Wienerschnitzel", north side of llth Street at 1107 Pacific Coast Highway (Lot 4, Block 1, Tract 6851) from Medium Density to General Commercial. Zone change 89-1 included for consistency, and required Precise Plan included. B) 89-2: Area 6, west side of Prospect Avenue,. approximately 220' south of Artesia Boulevard (Lot 1, Tract 31559), from Low Density to Medium Density for consistency. C) 89-3: Area 10, north and south of 1st Street between Barney Court and Meyer Court (Lots 22-25 inclusive, 28-31 inclusive, and the northerly 9.71 feet of Lot 27 and southerly 10 feet of Lot 26, Traften Heights Tract) from Low Density to Medium Density for consistency. D) 89-4: Area 12, north side of 24th Place, 90-165 feet west of Pacific Coast Highway (Lots legally described as Lots 5, 6 and 7, Block 3, Montmarie Tract) from General Commercial to High Density residential and General Commercial to Low Density for the north side of 24th Place, 165-290 feet west of Pacific Coast Highway (Lots 8 through 12 inclusive, Block 3, Montmarie Tract.) E) 89-5: Biltmore Site Private Portion between 13th Street and 14th Street along the Strand (Lots 1-10 inclusive, and 30, 31, Block 14 of Hermosa Beach Tract) from Specific Plan Area to General Commercial and also Zone change 89-4 from Specific Plan Area to C-2 for General Plan/Zone Change consistency. F) 89-6: Changing the location of boundaries and Policies regarding the Multi -Use Corridor and to consider Specific Plan Area designations Background The Planning Commission adopted resolutions recommending approval of General Plan Amendments Number 89-1 through 89-5, and Zone Changes 89-1 and 89-4 at their March 21, 1989 meeting. At the April 4th meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of General Plan Amendment 89-6. Analysis Staff report and an analysis for each of the General Plan Amendments is attached. No additional .analysis is necessary, except for General Plan Amendment Number 89-6, and the additional analysis is included with the attached staff report. The additional analysis is necessary for General Plan 89-6 since the Staff's and Planning Commission's recommendations differ. Attacbments 1. Proposed ordinances with maps 2. Staff reports with analysis for amendments 89-1 through 89-5 3. Minutes of Planning Commission meeting of March 21, 1989 4. Affidavit of Public Noticing 5. Public correspondence 6. Staff report with additional analysis for amendment 89-6 7. Proposed Staff Resolution for amendment 89-6 8. Minutes of April 4, 1989 Planning Commission meeting 9. affidavit of Public Noticing 10. Public correspondence for amendment 89-6. CONCUR: Kevin 8. Nortl}c�raft City Manager t/ccsrgpam i 1 j, Michael Schubach Planning Director ti 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN BY CHANGING THE DESIGNATION TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL FOR THE AREA AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on April 25, 1989 and made the following Findings: A. State law requires consistency between the zoning and General Plan; B. Amending the General Plan from Medium Density to General Commercial will result in no significant impact since the use of the property will not change from the current use; C. The size and shape of the subject property is adequate in conjunction with the adjacent property for the General Commercial designation; the required Precise Plan merges the subject property with the adjacent lots; D. The property is zoned C -Potential, i.e. future Commercial Zoning may be acceptable; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby ordain that the General Plan be amended as shown on the attached map and as follows: 1. Redesignate from Medium Density to General Commercial the following: Lot 4, Block 1, Tract 6851. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: APPROVED 1-1/021 ITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY -3- t/ccrs1 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 89 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE TO C-3 FOR THE AREA AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on April 25, 1989 and made the following Findings: A. State law requires consistency between the zoning and General Plan; B. Rezoning the area from R-2 to C-3 will result in no significant impact since the use of the property will not change from the current use; C. The size and shape of the subject property is adequate in conjunction with the adjacent property for the General Commercial C-3 Zoning; the required Precise Plan merges the subject property with the adjacent lots; D. The property is zoned C -Potential, i.e. future Commercial Zoning may be acceptable; NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby ordain that the Zoning Map be amended as shown on the attached map and as follows: 1. Rezone from Two -Family Residential, R-2 to General Commercial, C-3 the following: Lot 4, Block 1, Tract 6851. 2. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. 3. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law. 4 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -- CONTINUED, ordinance 89- 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: c—\:\,, APPROVED A 1 CITY CLERK TY ATTORNEY l/ccor1107 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY AT 1107 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a hearing on April 25, 1989 and made the following Findings: A. The property is of adequate size and shape for the proposed use, a Drive-thru restaurant; B. A Conditional Use Permit has, been approved which will mitigate any undesireable impact from the proposed use; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby approve a Precise Plan for the property legally described as Lot 1,2,3, portions thereof and all of Lot 4, Block 1, Tract 6851, subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall be in substantial comformance with the plans submitted in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit Number 89-2. 2. There shall be strict compliance with conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit 89-2. 3. Lots 1,2,3, (Portions thereof), Block 1 of Tract 6851 shall be voluntarily merged in compliance with section 29.5-29 of the subdivision ordinance, and for all of Lot 4 a covenant recorded with the deeds with the City a party thereto prohibiting the sale, lease and/or separation of Lot 4 from Lots 1,2,3, Block 1, Tract 6851 without prior City approval shall be provided. 4. The Precise Plan shall become Null and Void after one (1) year from the Planning Commission approval date unless the Project is executed within that year, i.e. Building Permits obtained, and construction started, or unless a written request has been submitted to the Planning Commission and approved prior to the expiration date. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City o Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: ( PPROVEDA TO CORM: CITY CLERK Y ATTORNE • t AMENDMENT 89-1 ZONE CHANGE 89-1 C 1107 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (LOT'4,BLOCK 1, TRACT 6851 ONLY) PIER;. 50 50 50 41..75) 7.25 ..9 ti (1)�ti ti © o, O 4 SBLKK ti 8 60 9 //Z 8 ( Vac. ) it /738 50 20 19 18 17 167 9 15 • carr 2.J.9680t•• 'N. 'N. 'N. 'N. �. 50 N w 0 0 cc 30 eaa4 co 7 v cti1 QY/•• 44.22 A P,PKK 1* (qac.) . 1262.75 264 22 14 •13 12 50 11 21.1 10 % Por: 'n a « 60 52/7 IITH PL. % AP 314 47d.5.°' r N. 76.3d'5 IITH zoz Lj vb to cn O U �o�20Q ,• 7N 4776°' 3BSP *$ , 44T 36 38 Per: 5^ i2 oT 1 36;20to 803 o M Por. 4• 2 1.A ZO .'77°/9'.50'E. ST., v 14 TH . ST 13TH ST. FROM EDIUM DENSI 'Y, R-2, TO G ERAL COMMERCIAL, C-3 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN BY CHANGING THE DESIGNATION FOR AREAS 6, 10, AND 12 (EXPANDED) AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON' THE ATTACHED' MAPS AND ADOPTING AN' ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS', the City Council held a public hearing on April 25, 1989 and made, the following Findings: A. The lots in the subject Area 6, 10, and 12 are of sufficient size to be designated as. recommended; B. Redesignating the areas will• not result in a density increase; C. These amendments will bring the subject areas into General Plan/Zoning consistency; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby amend the General Plan, as shown on the attached, maps, as follows: 1. Redesignate Area 6 from Low Density to High Density legally described as follows: - Lot 1, Tract 31559. 2. Redesignate Area 10 from Low Density to Medium Density, legally described as follows: - Lots 22-25 inclusive, 28-31 inclusive, and the northerly 9.71 feet of Lot 27 and southerly 10 feet of Lot 26, Taften Heights Tract. 3. Redesignate. Area 12 from General Commercial to High Density for .lots legally described as Lots \5, 6 and 7, Block 3, Montmarie Tract, and General Commercial to Low Density for lots legally described as Lots 8 through 12 inclusive, Block 3, Montmarie Tract. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City •of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED flP 0 FO's .4/ TY ATTO EA AMENDMENT 89-2 TO REDESIGNATE FROM LOW DENSITY TO HIGH DENSITY q a • aj , • • • C EA1 AMENDMENT 89-3 TO REDESIGNATE FROM LOW DENISTY TO MEDIUM DENSITY 4 • AMENDMENT 89-4 AREA 12 1 25TH ST. i u so 6.1// • GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO LOW DENSITY 1. • •, GENERAL Mq r COMMERCIAL &' TO HIGH DENSITY. 1.1 24TH R-1 — l 1— - R-3 dd Jd . 4 Re 1171 Ramo BJJJ i 2A; 1715 PL. 4 w 1 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN BY CHANGING THE GENERAL PLAN TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL FOR THE AREA AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND RECOMMENDING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on April 25, 1989 and made the following Findings: A. State law requires consistency between the zoning and General Plan; B. Amending the General Plan from Specific Plan Area to the General Commercial designation will result in maintaining consistency; C. General Commercial designation will be a logical extension to the General Commercial to the south and east, and will be compatible to the Commercial -Recreation designation to the northeast; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby amend the General Plan as shown on the attached map and as follows: 1. General Plan amend the subject property from Specific Plan Area to General Commercial, legally described as follows: - Lots 1-10 inclusive, Beach Tract. and 30, 31, Block. 14 of Hermosa PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: PPROVED A: TO FORM: /ccrsspa ITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 89 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE TO C-2 FOR THE AREA AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on April 25, 1989 and made the following Findings: A. State law requires consistency between the zoning and General Plan; B. Rezoning of the subject property from Specific Plan Area to Restricted Commercial, C-2 will result in maintaining consistency; C. C-2 zoning will be a logical extension to C-2 zoning to the south and east, and will be compatible to the Commercial -Recreation designation to the northeast; •• NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach, California., does hereby ordain amending the Zoning Map as shown on the attached map and as follows: 1. Rezone the subject property from Specific Plan Area to Restricted Commercial, C-2 zone, legally described as follows: - Lots 1-10 inclusive, and 30, 31, Block 14 of Hermosa Beach Tract. 2. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. 3. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law. 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the -passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. - 13 - 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ft 25 26 27 28 --CONTINUED ordinance 89 - PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: APPROVED 11"0 FORM, i /ccorspa CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY •••••• GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT & ZONE CHANGE AREA BILTM'ORE SITE ( PRIVATELY OWNED PORTION) LD LOW DENSITY HD HIGH DENSITY OS OPEN . SPACE MUC MULTI -USE CORRIDOR 1 I I HD MD OS STRAND -/5- OS 3 a March 14, 1989 Honorable Chairman and members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 21, 1989 • SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-1, ZONE CHANGE 89-1, AND PRECISE PLAN 89-1 LOCATION: 1107 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, LOT 4 BLOCK 1, TRACT 6851 APPLICANT: STEVE LEWIS, EL POLLO LOCO REQUEST: TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONE CHANGE THE WESTERLY PORTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM MEDIUM DENSITY, R-2, C -POTENTIAL, TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL, C-3 Recommendation 1. Staff recommends adoption of attached resolution recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zoning Change. 2. Approval of the attached Resolution for a Precise Plan subject to conditions. Background At the January 3, 1989 meeting, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.) for a proposed.drive-thru restaurant. The C.U.P. was conditionally approved to require a zone change for a portion of the parking lot which was residentially zoned. Analysis The current use of the subject property is a parking lot for an existing drive-thru restaurant which will be replaced with the same use, but with a different building and food product - chickens instead of hot dogs. Staff believes, therefore, that no detrimental impact will occur. Since the Planning Commission approval of the C.U.P. for the new restaurant, staff has found no reasons that would suggest that the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change should not be approved. It should also be noted that the property is zoned C -Potential which means that the City has determined that this property could be rezoned for Commercial Use in the future. 4- icfiaef Schubach Planning Director T/pcsr1107 March 14, 1989 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 21, 1989 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR AREAS NUMBER 6, 10 AND 12 LOCATION: REFER TO ATTACHED MAPS INITATED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL PURPOSE: TO REDESIGNATE AREAS PREVIOUSLY STUDIED FOR REZONING IN ORDER TO GAIN GENERAL PLAN/ZONING CONSISTENCY Recommendation Area 6: Redesignate from Low Density to High Density. Area 10: Redesignate from Low to Medium Density. Area 12: Redesignate from General Commercial to Low and High Density. Background Area 6 At the 10/18/88 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission recommended not rezoning the subject property to R-1, but instead redesignating the property High Density Residential for consistency sake. The City Council concurred with the Planning Commission at their November 22, 1988 meeting. Area 10 At the November 15, 1988 meeting, the Planning Commission rezoned the subject area from R-2 to R -2B instead of R-1, and recommended the General Plan be amended to Medium Density for General Plan/Zoning consistency. At the December 13, 1988 meeting, the City Council concurred with the Planning Commission. Area 12 At the November 15, 1988 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended leaving the property R-3, and changing the General Plan to High Density. At the December 13, 1988 meeting, the City Council concurred with the Planning Commission. Analysis Area 6 This area consists of one 39,082 square foot lot which has already been developed to R-3 standards. An extensive analysis of this •area was prepared in conjunction with consideration to rezone this property to R-1, and it was determined to instead redesignate the property High Density (Refer to attached minutes for details). Area 10 Similarly .to Area 6 above, Area. 10 was considered for a zone change. However, in this instance, the subject area was rezoned R -2B which requires a General Plan amendment to Medium Density (Refer to attached Planning Commission minutes). Area 12 This area has been expanded to include the R-1 zoned area to the west. It would not be logical to redesignate the R-3 zoned area to High Density without redesignating the adjacent R-1 zone to Low Density. This amendment will make the General Plan/Zoning consistent. The R-3 zoned area was carefully analyzed when it was considered for rezoning and like the other areas it was determined that the General Plan should be changed instead. /7 A44;:7//// Michael Schubahc Planning Director T/pcsrarea March 15, 1989 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 21, 1989 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER 89-5, AND ZONE CHANGE NUMBER 89-2 LOCATION: PRIVATELY OWNED PORTION OF BILTMORE SITE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1-10 INCLUSIVE AND LOTS 30 AND 31, BLOCK 14, HERMOSA BEACH TRACT INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL PURPOSE: TO REPEAL THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE ZONING SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (SPA), AND CONSIDER THE PROPERTY FOR C-2 ZONING Recommendation The Planning Staff recommends redesignating and rezoning the subject property to General Commercial, C-2. Background At the November 22, 1988 City Council meeting, the City Council adopted a resolution of intent to repeal the Specific Plan Area and study rezoning to C-2. Analysis The subject property was originally designated and zoned for commercial use other than just specifically a hotel. The property was once an extension to the C-2 zone to the south and east, and continues to be a logical extension to the adjacent C-2 zoning. The General Plan designation of General Commercial is also compatible with the Commercial-Receation designation to the northeast. At this time, it is uncertain what the public owned portion of the Biltmore Site to the north will be rezoned, however, 14th Street does separate the properties and that will act as a buffer to a small extent. If the public owned portion is rezoned R-1, ideally additional buffering should be considered. Possibly converting that portion of 14th Street to walk street status; thereby prohibiting vehicle traffic; placing landscaping with a meandering sidewalk would create an effective buffer. T/pcsrspa iq �4- (( Michail Schubac Planning Director GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION AND ZONE CHANGE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY R-2 TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL C-3 OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVAL OF THE PRECISE PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1107 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (LOT 4, BLOCK 1, TRACT 6851 ONLY) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 14, 1989. At the January 3, 1989, meeting the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for a proposed drive-thru restaurant. The CUP was conditionally approved to require a zone change for a portion of the parking lot which was residentially zoned. The current use of the subject property is a parking lot for an existing drive-thru restaurant which will be replaced with the same use, but with a different building and food product; i.e., chickens instead of hot dogs. Staff believes, therefore, that no detrimental impact will occur. Since the Planning Commission approval of the CUP for the=.new restaurant, staff has found no reasons that would suggest that the general plan amendment and zone change should not be approved. Staff recommended adoption of the proposed resolution recommending approval of the general plan amendment and zone change, as well as approval of the proposed resolution for a precise plan, subject to conditions. Public Hearing opened at 10:08 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Roger Bacon, owner of 1107 Pacific Coast Highway, applicant, stated that the project is progressing well. He said that originally he had planned to move the entire currently existing Der Wienerschnitzel to another location; however, he will now move only the equipment. He said plans are moving along well, and the operator of the Der Wienerschnitzel is being apprised of developments as they occur. Mr. Bacon said the El Pollo Loco in Manhattan Beach is doing quite well; he also thinks the Hermosa Beach location will do very well. Mr. Bacon stated that the parcel in question will be used strictly for parking. Steve Lewis, representing El Pollo Loco, stated that he read staff's recommendation and he concurs with their report. Betty Ryan, 588 20th Street, asked about the left -turn pocket which has been removed from the highway and how people will enter the proposed El Pollo Loco. She asked whether the traffic will be redirected. P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 f { Mr. Bacon stated that meetings have been held with representatives from Cal Trans, and the left -turn pocket is going to be replaced in the near future. He continued by explaining the discussions which took place between him and the Cal Trans people in regard to this issue. Public Hearing closed at 10:15 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve staff's recommendation for the general plan amendment, Resolution P.C. 89-24. AYES: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution 89-25. AYES: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION FROM LOW DENSITY TO HIGH DENSITY AND• ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO AREA 6; GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION FROM LOW DENSITY TO MEDIUM DENSITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AREA 10; GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO LOW DENSITY AND HIGH DENSITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AREA 12 Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 14, 1989. Area 6 At the October 18, 1988, meeting, the Planning Commission recommended not rezoning the subject property to R-1, but instead redesignated the property high density residential for the sake of consistency. The City Council concurred with the Planning Commission at their November 22, 1988, meeting. Area 6 consists of one 39,082 square -foot lot which has already been developed to R-3 standards. An extensiveanalysis of this area. was prepared in conjunction with consideration to rezone this property to R-1, and it was determined to instead redesignate this property as high density. Public Hearing opened at 10:18 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Ken Selk, 2441 Prospect, supported the staff recommendation for this property. He said there would be significant impact to the homeowners if the property is downzoned. Public Hearing closed at 10:19 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 t C Area 10 At the November, 15, 1988, meeting, the Planning Commission rezoned the subject area from R-2 to R-28 instead of R-1 and recommended that the general plan be amended to medium density for general plan/zoning consistency. At • the December 13, 1988, meeting, the City Council concurred with the Planning Commission. Similar to Area 6, Area 10 was considered for a zone change. However, in this instance, the subject area was rezoned R -2B which requires a general plan amendment to medium density. Public Hearing opened at 10:20 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce noted that the Commission had received two letters opposing the proposed change. Eleanor Downs, owner of 1036 7th Street, questioned why the area is being rezoned from low density to medium density. She stated that people want to reduce the density because of traffic and parking problems already in the area. She stated that single- family homes will be replaced with multiple units if the area goes to medium density. Mr. Schubach clarified that a general plan amendment is being proposed, not a rezone. He said this area was previously rezoned to R -2B, which was determined to be appropriate for the area. Ken Cullin, 122 Barney Court, stated that a change to R -2B means his view will be blocked off, because the R -2B designation allows five additional feet over his R-1 zone. He noted that the streets in this area are one-way because- the traffic used to be so heavy. He has lived in this house 22 years, and it is now almost impossible to park on 1st Place, 1st Street, or Barney Court. 1st Place has driveway cuts; and most people do not park in their garages. He stressed that parking is very bad, and the employees of the telephone company create tremendous traffic jams on these small streets. Because of these reasons, he opposed the change in density. John Schneider, 111 Barney Court, has owned this property for 25 years. He agreed that the parking is very bad in the area. He said the houses had been R-2 for almost 20 years; therefore, he welcomed the fact that they are going to be rezoned back to medium density. Roger Gillespie, 1026 2nd Street, noted concern over changing from low density to a higher density. He agreed that parking is very bad; if the area goes to medium density, people will then park on 2nd Street since there. are already parking problems on 1st Street. He also noted concern over the height limits and his potential loss of view which could impact his property value. Public•Hearing closed at 10:27 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Comm. Rue stated that the density will not be increased by this change. He stated that the zoning went from R-2 to R -2B, which limits the number of units which can be built on those sites. He stated that he will support the original recommendation, explaining that he feels it is the appropriate action for this area. Comm. Edwards felt that. the only way to decrease the density is to lower the density designation; therefore, he could not support the staff recommendation. — P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 r Mr. Schubach explained that with the large size of the lots, however, the R -2B designation actually reduces the density in this area because now only a maximum of two units can be built per lot, no matter what the lot size is. Public Hearing reopened at 10:33 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Carey Downs, 1036 2nd Street, asked when the first change was made and why the residents were not noticed. He said he didn't remember ever hearing anything about this matter in the past. He did not feel the noticing procedure was correct. He said it is now too late to protest against R -2B zoning when the area should still be low density. Mr. Schubach explained that the previous zoning of R-2 was higher density. He clarified for Mr. Downs that the general plan differs from the zoning. Public Hearing closed at 10:35 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Area 12 At the November 15, 1988, meeting, the Planning Commission recommended leaving the property R-3 and changing the general plan designation. At the December 13, 1988, meeting, the City Council concurred with the Planning Commission. Area 12 has been expanded to include the R-1 zoned area to the west. It would not be logical to redesignate the R-3 zoned area to high density without redesignating the adjacent R-1 zone to low density. This amendment will make the general plan/zoning consistent. The R-3 zoned area was carefully analyzed when it was considered for rezoning and like the other areas, it was determined that the general plan should be changed instead. Area 12 consists of three lots totaling 8,119 square feet, with ten existing apartment dwellings. Apparently, this area was zoned R-3 as a buffer between the R-1 zoning to the west and the C-3 zoning to the east. Comm. Rue noted that he received a notice in the mail regarding this property; therefore, he stated he would abstain from voting on this area. Public Hearing opened and closed at 10:33 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce as no one appeared to speak on Area 12. Chmn. Peirce suggested that separate votes be taken for each of the three areas, noting that only one resolution has been prepared for Areas 6, 10, and 12. Chmn. Peirce, in response to questions from Comm. Edwards, explained what is currently on the property in Area 6. Comm. Edwards suggested, instead, that the Area 6 zoning be changed to R-1 in order to conform with the general plan. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation to redesignate Area 6 from low density to high density. AYES: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce NOES: Comm. Edwards ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None ,a3— P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation to redesignate Area 10 from low density to medium density. Comm. Edwards noted that the original staff report stated that this area appears to be borderline. He continued by reading from the minutes of the previous hearing. He felt this area is marginal; therefore, he felt the area should be R-1 and the general plan should not be changed. AYES: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce NOES: Comm. Edwards ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: . None MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation to redesignate Area 12 from. general commercial to high density on the east; and low density on the west of the block. AYES: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Peirce NOES: None ABSTAIN: Comm. Rue ABSENT: None TO REPEAL THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL, AND TO REZONE TO C-2 OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE PRIVATELY OWNED PORTION OF THE BILTMORE SITE AND TO ADOPT THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 15, 1989. At the November 22, 1988, City Council meeting, the City Council adopted a resolution of intent to repeal the Specific Plan Area and study rezoning to C-2. The subject property was originally designated and zoned for commercial use other than just specifically a hotel. The property was once an extension to the C-2 zone to the south and east, and continues to be a logical extension to the adjacent C-2 zoning. The general plan designation of general commercial is also compatible with the .commercial - recreation designation to the northeast. At this time, it is uncertain what the public -owned portion of the Biltmore Site to the north will be rezoned; however, 14th Street does separate the properties and that will act as a buffer to a small extent. If the public -owned portion is rezoned R-1, ideally, additional buffering should be considered. Possibly converting that portion of 14th Street to walk street status, thereby prohibiting vehicle traffic; and placing landscaping with a meandering sidewalk would create an effective buffer. Public Hearing opened and closed at 10:48 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce, as no one appeared to speak on this matter. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-27. Comm. Rue said he would vote against this general plan amendment, explaining that he favored a hotel at this property, as did 50 percent of the voting population. P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 C . AYES: Comms. Edwards, IngeII, Ketz, Chmn. Peirce NOES: Comm. Rue ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None —2-5— P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 . I, the undersigned, do declare under penalty of perjury that I did on the ('b day of ITU/ , deposit into the United States post:office, first class postage prepaid, a copy of the public notice attached as Exhibit "A" to each and every person attached as Exhibit "B". I warrant that the persons named on Exhibit "B" are all the persons required by applicable law to receive the public notice attached as Exhibit "A". I understand and agree that it is my responsibility to cause these public notices to be made in an accurate and timely fashion and agree to hold the City harmless against any liability whatsoever for any defect of said notice or notices. In the event an action is instituted in a court of com= petent jurisdiction which questions the legality of the public notices, then the City may in its exclusive discretion suspend all hearings or cause the cessation of any construction or of any use which was permitted as a result of a hearing which was held'in accordance with the public notice. In the event that the court declares the notice or noticing procedure to be effective, then the City may in its exclusive discretion revoke any permits granted and cause any approvals given pursuant to those public notices to be declared null and void and I agree • on.behalf of myself and my heirs, assigns or successors-in-intere: to hold the City harmless in connection therewith. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. I•have executed this declaration on this the 11) day of , 198 1 at IIermosa Beach, California. PAgez. eettlied-t-su; Edfiteece (nahie) Z'itrAtii ) r (Signature) • State 'of California ) County of Los Ange es ) SS On thise- day ppf %�� , 1989 before me, AakriAa7407.7/)/451M e, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared eVedv proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(JJ subscrbed to the within instrument and acknowledged that executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (SEA OFFICIAL SEAL KATHLEEN L. MIOSTOKKE NOTARY PUBUC • CALIFORNIA Notary Public LOS ANGELES COUNTY My Commission Expires SEPT. 29, 1992 �26— I, the undersigned, do declre. under penalty of perjury that I did on the //-/k day of �,�j�'t. 197, deposit into the United States post:office, first class postage prepaid, a copy of the public notice attached as Exhibit "A" to each and every person attached as Exhibit "B". I warrant that the persons named on Exhibit "B" are all the persons required by applicable law to receive the public notice attached as Exhibit "A". I understand and agree that it is my responsibility to cause these public notices to be made in an accurate and timely fashion and agree to hold the City harmless against any liability whatsoever for any defect of said notice or notices. In the event an action is instituted in a court of com= petent jurisdiction which questions the legality of the public notices, then the City may in its exclusive discretion suspend all hearings or cause the cessation of any construction or of any use which was permitted as a result of a hearing which was held'in accordance with the public notice. In the event -that the court declares the notice or noticing procedure to be effective, then the City may in its exclusive discretion revoke any permits granted and cause any approvals given pursuant to those public notices to be declared null and void and I agree • on behalf of myself and my heirs, assigns or successors-in-intere. to hold the City harmless in connection therewith. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. I have executed this declaration on this the f.,L4 day of • d 7.A.c.Q , 198q at IIermosa Beach, California. t ��-� - y<< - W'v - Th/16. (name) L//4ure1 (Signdt)� i46rniv,.(74}T4.C= ,4%d)6-7 . (Capacity) /41, c 't et._ 6 State 'of California ) County of Los �Anng(eles ) SS On this he �C3 Z da me, .�-ek Public, personally appeared proved to me on the basis f satfact Ty the person(s) whose name ) subscri within instrument and ac nowledged that . executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (SEAL) OFFICIAL SEAL KATHLEEN L MIDSTOKKE NOTARY PUBLIC • CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES COUNTY My Commission Expires SEPT. 29, 1992 198/, before the undecsignO...Notary idenc:f o be d to the *Vi&rlY014 Notary Public • I, the undersigned, do declare under penalty of per ur that I did on the // /4 day of `��-L 19 c� y deposit into the United States post office, first class postage prepaid, a copy of the public. notice attached as Exhibit "A" to each and every person attached as Exhibit "II". I warrant that the persons named on Exhibit "B" are all the persons required by applicable law to receive the public notice attached as Exhibit "A". I understand and agree that it is my responsibility to • cause these public notices to be made in an accurate and timely fashion and agree to hold the City harmless against any liability whatsoever for any defect of said notice or notices. In the event an action is instituted in a court of com= petent jurisdiction which questions the legality of the public notices, then the City may in its exclusive discretion suspend all hearings or cause the cessation of any construction or of any use which was permitted as a result of a hearing which was held.in accordance with the public notice. In the event that the court declares the notice or noticing procedure to be • effective, then the City may in its exclusive discretion revoke any permits granted and cause any approvals given pursuant to those public notices to be declared null and void and I agree on .behalf of myself and my heirs, assigns or successors-in-intere: to hold the City harmless in connection therewith. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. IAhave executed this declaration on this the (3 -day of , 198 C( at IIermosa Beach, California. State 'of California ) County of Los Angeles ) SS On this / day of %f� , 1981, before me, k� M dsrjxJ , the undersigne• Votary Public, personally appeared proved to me on the basis of sati.! acto the person(s) whose name() within instrument and acknowledged that executed it. WITNESS my hand and official (name) Y6' — V ( AJ G SCC '--' (Sigriatur6) --� (Capacity) tido dence o be subscrib OFFICIAL SEAL KATHLEEN L. MIDSTOKKE NOTARY PUBLIC -CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES COUNTY My Commission Expires SEPT. 29, 1992. d to the seal. -2S'- I, the undersigned, do declare under penalty of perjury that I did on the. // ff. day of it/p.ta, , 19$x{ deposit into the United States pdst:office, first class postage prepaid, a copy of the public notice attached as Exhibit "A" to' each and every person attached as Exhibit "B". 'I warrant that the persons named on Exhibit "B" are all the persons required by applicable law to receive the public notice attached as Exhibit "A". • I understand and agree that it is my responsibility to cause these public notices to be made in an accurate and timely fashion and agree to hold. the City harmless against any liability whatsoever for any defect of said notice or notices. • In the event an action is instituted in a court of com= • petent jurisdiction which questions the legality of the public notices, then the City may in its exclusive discretion suspend all hearings or cause the cessation of any construction or of any use which was permitted as a result of a hearing which was held'in accordance with the public notice. In the event that the court declares the notice or noticing procedure to be effective, then the City may in its exclusive discretion revoke any permits granted and cause any approvals given pursuant to those public notices to be declared null and void and I agree on behalf of myself and my heirs, assigns or successors-in-intere. to hold the City harmless in connection therewith. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. I• have executed this declaration on this the (3f&,, day of 198at IIermosa Beach, California. enc 06, (name) yt - y/A,C 7-(6,e / u_ (Signturef (Capacity) State 'of California ) County of Los Angeles ) SS On this he 43th day,pf , l98/% before me, i 7 r _ /r) 4S , the and rsi� No Public, personally appeared _//Al Notary proved to me on the basis_9f satls�_ Ty p fac�dviden to be the person(s) whose names subsc�i'bed to the within instrument and acknowledged that executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. • OFFICIAL SEAL KATHLEEN L. MIDSTOKKE it4tOatt, ru81.IC • CALIFORNIA LOS AiiiLLES COUNTY. My Commission Expires `SEPT. 29, 1992 • Notary Public (SEAL) � C I, the undersigned, do declare under penalty of perjury that I did on the • ( (4-t day of j. t:l. lgg c' deposit into the United States so t:office, first class postage prepaid, a copy of the public notice attached as Exhibit "A" to'each and every person attached as Exhibit "B". I warrant that the persons named on Exhibit "B" are all the persons required by applicable law to receive the public notice attached as Exhibit "A". • I understand and agree that it is my responsibility to cause these public notices to be made in an accurate and timely fashion and agree to hold.. the City harmless against any liability whatsoever for any defect of said notice or notices. • In the event an action is instituted in a court of coral, petent jurisdiction which questions the legality of the public notices, then the City may in its exclusive discretion suspend all hearings or cause the cessation of any construction or of any use which was permitted as a result of a hearing which was held.in accordance with the public notice. In the event•that the court declares the notice or noticing procedure to be effective, then the City may in its exclusive discretion revoke any permits granted and cause any approvals given pursuant to those public notices to be declared null and void and I agree on behalf of myself and my heirs, assigns or successors-in-intere. to hold the City harmless in connection therewith. 0 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is truc and correct. I•have executed this declaration on this the (3.q, day of , 1989 at IIermosa Beach, California. . tiL a t&•L'C_ .s.v 12 a0 -c C.c� C k) State, 'of California ) County of Los Angeles ) SS A!!5. On this the day of Public, personally appeared proved to me on the basis of the person(s) whose name0k) within instrument and acknowledg executed it. WITNESS my hand a me, (name u - YIN r 77»j& (Signature) • cam .0 yt 1tLL /�,«�c� (Capacity) , 1984, before undersi ned Notary sfa oaevidiTce to be subscribed to the OFFICIAL SEAL KATHLEEN L. MtDSTOKKE NOTARY PU9LIO • CALIFORNIA . LOS ANGELES COUNTY My Commission Expires SEPT. 7e'..,,,, • ed that df n ficial seal. Notary Public _30- • DATE: Mar. 14, 1989 TO: Planning Department City of.Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Dr Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 FROM: Carol Kirsch 939 1st Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 SUBJECT: General Plan Redesignation for Area 10 &8AR.I. `'~~-- � � ��� mr The proposed change for Area 10 from Low Density to Medium Density is not in the best interest of the residents in the neighborhood. Traffic on First Str. from Pacific Coast Highway east to Area 10 is already heavy for a residential street. Because of the hill'on First Street, the cars and numerous trucks that use the road usually use low, noisy gears to ascend the street. The noise from this traffic is very disturbing to the neighborhood. \ Parking is another issue to consider in allowing an increase in,the density of the area. Parking is very scarce because many of streets are narrow. Parking is only permitted on one side of the' -- street, in many cases. This makes parking for guests of residents hard to find. As a homeowner in this general area, I strongly oppose this potential change. It is not good for the neighborhood, and therefore, not good for the city. Thank you, � 962 First Street #D Hermosa Beach, California 90254 March 14, 1989 Planning Department City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, Calif. 90254 Re: Redesignation of Area 10 a,1 AR 1 5 1989 Dear Planning Department, When is enough enough? I thought the philosophy of the City Council was to move toward low density not the other way around. Your general plan map shows most of the area surrounding Area 10 is low density except for a high density section of First Street between Pacific Coast Hwy. and Meyer Court. Why on earth or in congested Hermosa Beach would you consider eliminating a low density area. The eight and nine hundred block of First Street is already too congested but since we are a high density area there's is not much we can do about it. Two years ago two small, quaint houses at 963 First St. were torn down to make room for a mammoth, towering, apartment building. Now I feel like this section of. First Street is Wall Street, west, albeit only a fraction of the height of Wall Street, east. But to add to the congestion and severe shortage of parking, and detract from the residential nature of Area ten seems ludicrous. I suggest the Planning Department take a drive through Area ten and perhaps try to park a car during evenings or weekends. Although developers are required to provide additional parking, there is never enough, especially when guests come for a visit. I, my wife, and a majority of the Cariker Hermosa View Condominium Association which I represent, strongly request that you maintain the low density status of Area ten. Sincerely, SCE 1` 47411 z Lee H. Grant, President Cariker's Hermosa View Condominium Association Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council April 18, 1989 Regular Meeting of April 25, 1989 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS CHANGING THE LOCATION OF BOUNDARIES AND POLICIES REGARDING THE MULTI -USE CORRIDOR AND TO CONSIDER SPECIFIC PLAN AREA DESIGNATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION To amend the text of the Land Use Element of the General Plan by eliminating the land use category "Multi -Use Corridor," and creating a category "Commercial Corridor" and adopting a set of policies for the establishment of Specific Plan Areas within the Commercial Corridor. This recommendation is contained in Resolution P.C. 89-28. To amend •the General Plan Map by redesignating a portion of the Multi -Use Corridor to Commercial Corridor and the remaining areas to a Residential designation as depicted on the attached map "Exhibit 1, Planning Commission Recommendation." This recommendation is contained in Resolutions P.C. 89-29 and 89-30. STAFF RECOMMENDATION To amend the text of the Land Use Element of the General Plan pursuant to the recommendation of the Planning Commission by adopting the proposed resolution. To amend the General Plan Map as depicted on "Exhibit 2, Staff Recommendation" and to adopt the proposed resolutions. BACKGROUND The recommendation of the Planning Commission differs from the recommendation of Staff in only the following four locations within the Multi -Use Corridor: 1. 15th Street to 16th Street (east side P.C.H.). Staff recommends MD Residential for area south of 15th Place, Planning Commission recommends LD. 2. 17th Street to 21st Street (frontage lots, east side of Pacific Coast Highway). The Planning Commission was unable -33- to reach an agreement for a recommendation as two members preferred Mp Residential, one member preferred HD Residential, and one preferred Commercial Corridor. As a result no recommendation was made by the Planning Commission on this area. Staff recommends Commercial Corridor. 3. 24th Street to 21st Street (west side of.P.C.H.). Planning Commission recommends a commercial designation for only the frontage lots. Staff recommends a depth of 290 feet along the north side of 21st Street. 4. 5th Street to 4th Street (west side. of P.C.H.). Planning Commission recommends not to include 731 4th Street in the Commercial Corridor. This report includes an additional analysis and explanation of the four areas noted above. Please refer to the original Planning Commission Staff Report for detailed discussion and analysis on the remaining blocks within the MUC. SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS Locating the Commercial Corridor boundary as recommended by the Planning Commission would result in a potiential increase in commercially developed acreage of 2.7 acres over the current amount of 26.7 acres within the area of the Multi -Use Corridor,` or about 10 percent. It would also result in a potential reduction of 1.8 acres under the current residential acreage of 25.9 acres, or 7 percent. Staff's recommended location would result in a potential increase of commercially developed acreage of about 20 percent and a reduction of residential land use of about 17 percent. The following is a supplemental analysis of the areas where Staff and Planning Commission recomendations differ (page numbers refer to the original PC staff report): 15TH STREET TO 16TH STREET, EAST SIDE (pages 33-35) Staff and the Planning Commission agree on the recommended depth of the Commercial Corridor for this block. However, in regards to the residential designation for the three lots on the south side of 15th Place, the Planning Commission recommends Low Density while staff recommends Medium Density. The reason for the Planning Commission's Recommendation is because of the Low Density/R-1 designation of property to the east. The reason Staff believes the area should be medium density is because of the current R-2 zoning, the existing uses on the lots (3 -unit apartment buildings) and for consistency with the Medium density designation to the south. 17TH STREET TO 21ST STREET, EAST SIDE (pages 38-45) The Planning Commission, in response to the concerns of residents who live in this area near Pacific Coast Highway, did not endorse Staff's recommendation that the frontage lots be included in the Commercial Corridor designation (with the exception of the commercial lot located on the north corner o•f 17th and P.C.H). However, the Commission could not come to agreement on whether the frontage should be designated for High Density or Medium Density. Two Commissioners preferred Medium Density, one preferred High Density, and one preferred Commercial Corridor. Several residents of this area have expressed opposition to any commercial designation along P.C.H. frontage for various reasons, including view blockage, traffic, parking, and crime. Although many of their concerns are certainly legitimate, staff feels that the commercial designation to a depth of about 100 feet is the most appropriate designation for this area as it takes advantage of the value of P.C.H. frontage, while a residential designation would provide for a use that conflicts with the noise, pollution and safety hazards associated with a major highway. Also, the current General Plan designation of MUC and zoning designation of R-3 (C) would allow the construction of multi -family structures to a height of 35 feet, the generation of additional residential traffic and parking, and would certainly increase the congestion for the area. Commercial development controlled under the provisions of a Specific Plan Area designation, however, would be' subject to requirements addressing setbacks, buffering, landscaping, architectural treatment, and height. The following is a comparison of what would be allowed under an R-3 designation and under a Commericial Corridor SPA designation. R-3 (C) ZONING CORRIDOR SPA Project none review for design, Review traffic impact Setbacks Buffering View Impact Traffic Impacts 5' rear 3' on alley not required 35' height limit no project review directed to alley, congestion at night, weekends min. 8' from res. property, plus 2' for each additional story landscaping req'd, screening set height limit, consider in project review directed to P.C.H. daytime usage Parking night, weekend provided on site, impact daytime impact Staff continues to recommend locating the commercial boundary along the rear of the frontage lots as shown on the detailed maps on pages 38-45 of the original report. 24TH STREET TO 21ST STREET, WEST SIDE (pages 50-51) The Planning Commission recommends locating the Commercial Corridor boundary along the north side of 21st at a depth of 115 feet. The current C-3 zoning goes to a depth 220 feet. The reason the Commission recommends reducing the allowed commmercial depth is because 115 feet represents the extent of the existing depth of commercial development and because of the proximity of potential commercial develpment to residents living on the south side of 24th Street. Because the lots are deep and narrow, the Planning Commission recommended a designation of Medium Density for the lots at a depth of 115' feet to 290 feet. Staff continues to recommend locating the Commercial Corridor boundary at a depth of 290 feet for the reasons noted in the original report on page 50, and those noted below. Several residents who live on 24th Street expressed their concern with staff's recommendation to locate the Commercial Corridor boundary at a depth of 290 feet along 21st Street. They expressed concern about the possible loss of views and privacy currently enjoyed because the existing commercial depth only goes to a depth of 115 feet. However, the current C-3 zoning actually extends to a depth of 220 feet because of a previous City Council approval of a hotel. Staff would like to emphasize that under the provisions of a Specific Plan any commmercial development would be required to provide buffering from the residential uses, and would be subject to the scrutiny of the Planning Commission for appropriateness for that location. The additional 70 feet of depth, should a developer wish to purchase it, would provide additional space for this type of buffering to enhance the project. Also, the additional 70 feet of property could be developed with single family residences under the provisions for residential use within the SPA giving the owner of that property both options. The following is a comparison of the impacts associated with either an R-2 or R -2B zoning recommended by the Planning Commission, a Commercial Corridor Specific Plan Area, or the current C-3 zoning. Project Review Setbacks R-2 ZONING none 5' rear CORRIDOR S.P.A. C-3 ZONING review for design, traffic impact min. 8' from res. property, plus 2' for each additional story and possibly more none 8' from res. prop. + 2' each add'l story • R-2 ZONING CORRIDOR S.P.A. C-3 ZONING Buffering not required landscaping not req'd screening req'd View Impact 30' ht. limit, no project review set ht. limit consider view in project review 45'ht.. limit, no review Traffic nights days, same, Impacts weekends directed to limited P.C.H control Parking nights provided on site same, weekends daytime impact limited oriented to P.C.H control Staff's recommendation has not changed, as an alternative, however, Council may want to consider excluding the additional 70 feet from the Commercial Corridor, and recommend its redesignation to Low or Medium Density Residential. 5TH STREET TO 4TH STREET, WEST SIDE (pages 61-62) The Planning Commission recommended not to include 731 4th Street in the Commercial Corridor, noting the concerns of the condominium owners immediately to the west, and that the depth would not be consistent with the commercial depth to thesouth if it was included. Staff's position is that 731 4th Street is an older single-family home surrounded by high density residential on one side and commercial on the other. The commercial parking area to the east could be expanded to help the businesses there, and would be a more appropriate use, given the surroundings, than an R-2 use. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS In order to implement any General Plan Amendments approved by the Council for the Multi -Use Corridor several areas of the MUC will have to be rezoned. Staff is prepared to initiate these zone changes as part of a package for all areas involved in this study area. However, the areas could be broken up into smaller areas (i.e. Southeast, Northeast, Northwest, Southwest) if the Council would rather phase the rezonings. Please note that the adoption of the General Plan Amendments will not lift the moratorium. In fact, in order to carry out the original intent of this study, it is clear that the moratorium should not be lifted until specific zoning designations and standards are enacted by the adoption of new ordinances. CONCUR: Mic ael Schubach Planning Director Kevin Nortficra,(t City Manager Ken Rdbe`ttson Advanced Planner Attachments: 1. City Council Resolutions Nos. 2. P.C. resolutions nos. 89-28, 89-29, 89-30 3. Planning Commission Minutes 3/21/89 and 4/4/89 4. P.C. staff report, 3/29/89 5. P.C. staff report - "MUC Study and Recommendations" - 3/15/89 6. City Manager memorandum 7. Correspondence 8. Affadavit of noticing / LO GC EXHIBIT 1, PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION • • CO LO LD L0 ' /,/ / • i tO MUC TO HD or MD (undecided) MUC 10 LD ILIMUC TO [-IDI MUC TO MD G c cc HD 1 4. L 0 10 $. OS • 4EAUC:A VALL SC•ock os CLANK Sefttm, M ' gl c le GC fro HDj II" L'No MM " EXISTING M.U.C. BOUNDARY AREA RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO BE CHANGED TO "COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR" REMAINING AREA WITHIN THE M.U.C. RECOMMENDED TO BE CHANGED TO RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS AS NOTED (High(HD), Medium(MD), or (4ow(LD) Density) 4. 1 10 y l0 I• • LO ..•11 •05 LO EXHIBIT 2, STAFF RECOMMENDATION LV LD •Gc CO 000000 LD 10 MUC 1 MUC TO LD MUC TO HD uc I.0 .. 10 HO Lv(' ` GC GC OS • VAS: Ey. U400L • OS • eiva � `ENrC, os CLARK CiAimm HO IND • H0 Hp GC • I I _ ;;; J J P4 f • f � MO LINO w"""" EXISTING M.U.C. BOUNDARY nS —4I • AREA RECOMMENDED BY STAFF TO BE CHANGED TO "COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR" REMAINING AREA WITHIN THE M.U.C. RECOMMENDED TO BE CHANGED TO RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS AS NOTED (Hiyh(HD), Medium(MD), or Low(LD) Density) • • EXHIBIT 3 Proposed Commercial Corridor Boundary Recommended by Planning Commission (Page 1 of 2) --q- 1" = 400 feet • r Proposed Commercial Corridor Boundary Recommended by Planning Commission (Page 2) rwEN►rrgerM STREEt 0 1 _ TwENrr fOURtH .. PLAC of 1 •r 1 TWENrY FOURTH Sr 44r(1,, T v p cm • •• • sr rwENrr i Sr v .......... r v > r -o JC In 7'1 I/1 D 1 0 /n x I C7 r e s v 0 0 st. c n v ••••• c Sr Slr►EENrN ."z sr -1(4 �v4 l/i TEENrN v J K FIiitENrN sr • .0 • v 6 I, 0 UR rCENrN 0 r NIR,EENrH sr -Lf2- 0 r v 1" = 400 feet 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION C.C. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO ELIMINATE THE LAND USE CATEGORY OF MULTI -USE CORRIDOR AND CREATE A LAND USE CATEGORY OF COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR AND TO ADOPT A STATEMENT OF POLICIES FOR THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on March 21, 1989 and made the following Findings: A. The land use category of Multi -Use Corridor, established in 1966, is no longer an appropriate land use designation for the Pacific Coast Highway commercial corridor as it does not clearly convey the City's goals and objectives for development along the corridor; B. Creation of the land use category of Commercial Corridor as a designation for the Pacific Coast Highway commercial corridor is an appropriate designation as it more clearly conveys a commitment to commercial development along Pacific Coast Highway; C. The designation of Commercial Corridor will be applied to a more focused area along the east and west side of Pacific Coast Highway than the Multi -Use Corridor designation to recognize more realistically the the limits of the depth of commercial development acceptable to the citizens of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby amendthe Text of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to eliminate the Land Use category of "Multi -Use Corridor" and create the Land Use category of "Commercial Corridor" and the following text shall be added to the Land Use Element of the General Plan: Commercial Corridor - The purpose of this land use category is to clearly define the limits of the depth of commercial development along Pacific Coast Highway and prohibit the 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 A. 24 25 26 27 28 development of new residential uses within the area with exceptions for vacant property not fronting on Pacific Coast Highway: Existing residential uses within the corridor are expressly allowed and can be improved, expanded and rebuilt to the same density, however, the transition of these uses to commercial usage is highly desirable. This category allows various tYPes of commercial land uses including retail, service, and office uses. Automotive related commercial uses would be allowed by conditional use permit only. To ensure that commercial development will be compatible with existing nearby residential uses standards for building height, parking and access, . setbacks, and landscaping will be implemented through Specific Plan Area designations Policies: 1) Existing structures used for residential purposes on a lot or parcel which is exclusively used for residential purposes are permitted to remain indefinitely, and shall be considered conforming uses, allowing said structure to be improved, rebuilt, or expanded, as long as the existing residential density is not increased. 2) Residentially developed and vacant property can only be used for commercial purposes if the property fronts on Pacific Coast Highway or is part of an assemblage of properties containing a commercial project which fronts on Pacific Coast Highway. 3) New residential projects shall be prohibited, except in the following cases: a) on currently vacant lots or parcels of land which do not front on Pacific coast Highway and which are not currently connected by ownership to lots fronting on Pacific Coast Highway and which will be developed to a density consistent with surrounding residential densities allowed by the General Plan, subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission; and, b) the improvement, expansion, or reconstruction of current residential structures which does not increase the current residential density (number of dwelling units) of the lot or parcel of land and said improvement, expansion, or reconstruction must conform to the zoning standards. 4) Height limits and the method of measurement shall be established which will minimize impacts of commercial development on scenic views and on the privacy of adjacent residences. 5) Landscaping requirements shall be established to improve the attractiveness of development along Pacific Coast Highway and to buffer interfacing or abutting residential development. 1 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6) Traffic impact studies shall be required for projects which will cause significant traffic impacts and these studies shall include proposed measures to mitigate the impacts. 7) All new commercial projects shall require Planning Commission Review to ensure compliance with the standards and policies of the Specific Plan Area, subject to City Council Appeal. 8) A list of permitted. uses shall be established which permits a broad range,of commercial and office related uses with emphasis given to uses which have the highest benefit to the community. 9) More than one SPA zone may be created for areas of the corridor based on the sub -area's unique features. 10) Orientation of all commercial development should be toward P.C.H. and not toward local residential streets. 11) Physical setbacks, and architectural treatment shall be provided where commercial and residential development abut, or interface 12) Assembled lots proposed for commercial developmet shall be merged as a condition of development. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION C.C. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN BY CHANGING THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION FROM MULTI -USE CORRIDOR TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on April 25, 1989 and made the following Findings: A. The land use category of Multi -Use Corridor, established in 1966, is no longer an appropriate land use designation for certain residential portions o'f the Pacific Coast Highway corridor located behind commercial frontage properties and along Pacific Coast Highway; B. Residential designations consistent with the residential areas located further west or east from Pacific Coast Highway are appropriate designations as they recognize established residential areas and clearly convey a commitment to continuing the residential use and development of these areas; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby amend the General Plan as shown on the attached map and legally described as follows: 1. General Plan amend the subject properties from Multi -Use Corridor to Low Density Residential, legally described as follows: Eastside: 2nd -3rd St.: Lots 5, 6.of Home Builders Place and lot 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20 of Mission Tract 3rd -4th St: Lots 11, 13, 15, 17, 19 of Mission Tract and lots 10, 11, and easterly 36' lot 12 Hurd's Ocean View Tract 4th -5th St.: Lots 4, 5 10-16 Garden View Tract 14th -15th St.: Block 1, Knob Hill Tract 15th -16th St.: Lots 4-6, Hurd's Ocean View Tract, Lots Lots 4-6, Block 1, of Hermosa Block 2, W.J. Smiths 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16th -17th St.: Lots 5-12, Block A, Tract #2911, Lots 1-8, Block B, Tract #2911, Lots 3,6 (portion), Block 2., Breckinridge 17th -18th St.: Lots 3-5, Block 1, Breckenridge, Tract 32526, Lot 1, Lots 15-23, Block 2, Johnson & Newman's Camino Real, Lots 19-25, Block 1, Johnson & Newman's Camino Real 18th -19th St.: Parcel Map 138-34, Lot 1, Lots 6, 7, 8 of Tract #6054; lots 43-49, Tr. 2548 19th -21st St.: Lots 54-61 of Tract #2548, Lots 8-19 of Tract #8476 Westside: 24th St. -24 P1.: Lots 11-24, Block 2 of Montmarie, 24th St.-21stSt.: lots 5-12., Block 1 of Montmarie 2. General Plan amend the subject properties from Multl-Use Corridor to Medium Density Residential, legally described as follows: Eastside: 5th -6th St.: Eastern 80' of Lots 11-13 of Camino Real Tract 6th -7th St.: 2nd Addition to Hermosa Beach Block 85, Portion of Lot 7 (Easterly 48.5' of the Western 170.3'), Lot 1 of Tract #42019, Lots 20-22 of Wilson & Lind's Tract 7th -8th St.: Lots 11, 12 of Wilson & Linds's Tract, Parcel Map 113-81-82, Lot 1 14th -15th St.: Lots 24-27 of Heffner, Fiorini and Allen Tract, 15th -16th St.: lots 4-7 of Heffner, Fiorini, and Allen Tract; E. portion lot 5, Block 84, 2nd Addition to Hermosa Beach Westside: 6th -8th St.: Lots 5-9 of Redondo Hermosa Tract 4th -5th St.: Lots 5-8 of Koepke's Tract, Lot 4, 5, of Thorne's Hillside Tract #2, Lot 1 of Tract #26438 3rd -4th St.: Lots 30-32 of Walter Ransom Co.'s Venable Place Tract, Lot 1 of Tract #37389 2nd -3rd St.: Lots 67,68, 86 & Westerly 30' of Lot '87 of Walter Ransom Co.'s Venable Place Tract lst-Sth City Boundary: Lot 146 of Walter Ransom Co.'s Venable Place Tract 3. General Plan amend the subject properties from Multi -Use Corridor to High Density Residential,, legally described as follows: _ 4,? 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Eastside: 5th -6th St.: Lot 1 of Tract #44937 Westside: 16th -21St.: Portions of lots 16-22 2nd Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract Block 81, Lot 1 of Tract #31815 PASSED, APPROVED,. and ADOPTED this .day of 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: CITY CLERK PPROVED Ali Tb FO CITY ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION C.C. 89-. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN BY CHANGING THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION FROM MULTI -USE CORRIDOR TO COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR FOR THE AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on March 21, 1989 and made the following Findings: A. The land use category of Multi -Use Corridor, established in 1966, is no longer an appropriate land use designation for the Pacific Coast Highway commercial corridor as it does not clearly convey the City's goals and objectives for development along the corridor; B. Creation of the land use category of Commercial Corridor as a designation for the Pacific Coast Highway commercial corridor is an appropriate designation as it more clearly conveys a commitment to commercial development along Pacific Coast Highway; C. The designation of Commercial Corridor will be applied to a more focused area along the east and west side of Pacific Coast Highway than the Multi -Use Corridor designation to recognize more realistically the the limits of the depth of commercial development acceptable to the citizens of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby amend theGeneral Plan as shown on the attached map and legally described as follows: 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. General Plan amend the subject property from Multi -Use Corridor to Commercial Corridor, legally described as follows: Southeastside: Sth City Boundary -1st St.: Lots 1-7 Trafton Heights Tract 1st -2nd St.: Lots 45-51 of Tafton Heights, Lots 41-46 of Homebuilders Place 2nd -3rd St.: Lots 1-4 o.f. Homebuilders Place, Lots 2, 4 of Mission Tract 3rd -4th St.: lots 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 of Mission Tract and Westerly 12` of Lot 12, Lots 13, 14, 15, of Hurd's Ocean View Tract 4th -5th St.: Lots 1, 2, Portion 3 of Hurd's Ocean View Tract, Lots 17-23 of Garden View Tract 5th -6th St.: Lots 1-5 of Tract #294, Westerly 40' of Lots 11-13, Lots 14-16 of Camino Real Tract 6th -7th St.: 2nd Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract, Block 85 and portion of Lot 7 (Westerly 121.8'), Lots 17-19 of Wilson & Lind's Tract, Lots 14-16 Wilson 7 Lind's Tract Northeastside: 14th -15th St.: Block 1, Lots 1-3 of Hermosa Knob Hill, lots 28-30 Heffner, Fiorine, Allen Tract 15th -16th St.: Lots 1-3 Heffner, Fiorini, Allen Tract, 2nd Addition to Hermosa Beach, Block 84, West 145' Portion of Lot 5, Lots 1-3, Block 2, W.J. Smith's Tract 16th -17th St.: Lots 1, 2, Block 1, W.J. Smith's Tract, Lots 1-4, Block A, Tract #2911, Lots 1, 2, Block 2, Breckenridge Tract 17th -18th St.: Lots 1, 2, Block 1, Breckenridge Tr.; lots 24-27, Block 2, Johnson and Newmans Camino Real Tr. 18th -19th St.: Lots 1-3, P.M. 38-45; lots 26-28, B1. 1, Johnson and Newmans Camino Real Tr.; lots 1,3,4,5, Tr. 6054 19th -21st St: Lots 62-64 Tr. 2548; lots 1-7 Tr. 8476 21st -North City Boundary: Lots 1, 2, portion 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 20, 21, of Tract #2143, Parcel Map 152-48-49, Lot Westside: 24th -24P1.: Lots 1-10, Block 2 of Montmarie Tract, 24th -21st St.: Lots 13-24 of Hermosa View Tract #1 16th -21st St.: Portion 13, Portion 14 of 2nd Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract, Block 81 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16th -Pier.: Lot 1 of Tract #9203, portion 10, 2nd Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract, Lots 11-18, Block 80, Subdivision of Part of the Sausal Redondo Rancho Tract 6th -8th St.: Lots 1-4 of Redondo Hermosa Tract, Lots 2.7., 28, Block 78, 2nd Addition to Hermosa Beach, portion of Lots 1-3, Lots 4-9 of Tract #8525 5th -6th St.: Portion of Lots 24, 25, Block 78, 2nd Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract 4th -5th St.: Lots 1-4 of Koepke's Tract, Lots 1-3 of Thorne's Hillside #2 3rd -4th St.: Portion of Lots 23-28, lots 29, 56, 57 of Walter Ransom Co.'s Venable Place Tract 2nd -3rd St.: Portion of Lots 38-63, Lots 64, 65, 88 & 89 & Easterly 10' of lot 87 Walter Ransom Co.'s Venable Place Tract lst-2nd St.: Portion of Lots 90-95 of Walter Ransom Co.'s Venable Place Tract & Lots 96-99, 116-119, portion of Lots 1-6, Lots 7, 8 of Tract #5019, Lots 11rr ",` 142 of Walter Ransom Co.'s Venable Place Tract lst-South City Boundary: Lots 143-145 of Walter Ransom Co.'s Venable Place Tract 2. General Plan amend the subject property from High Density to Commercial, legally described as follows: Southeastside: lst-2nd St.: Lots 39-44 of Trafton Heights Tract 3. General Plan amend the subject property from Low Density Residential to Commercial Corridor legally described as follows: Southeastside: lst-2nd St.: Lot 40 of Home Builders Place Tract PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: APPROVED A 0 FOR', CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission FROM: Ken Robertson, Advanced Planner SUBJECT: Matrix of your "votes" on the individual blocks of the Multi -Use Corridor DATE: April 13, 1989 Persuant to your request, attached herewith is a matrix which displays your individual "votes" made at the April 4, 1989, Planning Commission meeting for each block within the Multi -Use Corridor. As you know, these are not actually votes but were your individual preferences for the identified areas. Please review carefully prior to staff forwarding this item to City Council. • MULTI -USE -CORRIDOR VOTING MATRIX (PAGE 1 of 2) Chrmn. Comm Comm Comm Block(page) Pierce Edwards Ingell Rue Southeast CBL -1ST (14) SR SR SR SR 1ST -2ND (17) SR SR SR SR 2ND -3RD (19) SR SR SR SR 3RD -4TH (22) SR SR SR SR 4TH -5TH (24) SR SR SR SR 5TH -6TH (26) SR SR SR SR 6TH -7TH (28) SR SR SR SR 7TH -8TH (30) SR SR SR SR Northeast 14 -15TH (32) SR, LD N.14TH YES YES YES YES 15 -16TH (35): SR & LD ON N&S OF 15TH PLACE YES YES YES YES 16 -17TH (37) SR SR SR SR *17 -21ST (39,41,44): FRONTAGE LOTS MD MD CC HD BEHIND FR. LOTS SR SR SR SR N. OF 21ST (47) CC BDRY AT BORDEN YES YES YES YES Northwest 24 PL -24 ST(49) SR 24 -21ST (51) : LD SS 24TH, CC ON PCH FRONTAGE, MD N. OF 21ST YES SR YES SR •SR YES YES 21 -16TH (53) SR SR SR SR 16 -PIER (55) SR SR SR SR Southwest 8 -6th (58) SR SR SR & CC FOR SR 720 8TH ST. 6 -5TH (60) SR SR SR SR CHRM. COMM COMM COMM PIERCE EDWARDS INGELL RUE 5 -4TH (62): 731 4TH NOT IN CC YES YES YES YES BEHIND CC LOTS MD MD MD HD 4TH -3RD (64): CC/RES. BDRY SR SR SR SR BEHIND CC LOTS MD MD MD HD 3RD -2ND (66): CC/RES. BDRY SR SR SR SR BEHIND CC LOTS MD MD MD HD 2ND -1ST PL (68) SR SR .SR SR 1ST PL -1ST (70) SR SR 'SR SR & HD FOR 710 718, 720 1ST PL 1ST-S.CTY BDRY(72) SR SR SR SR *Existing commercially used lot at the southeast corner of 17th to be designated CC was agreed by all KEY SR - Staff Recommendation CC - Commercial Corridor LD - Low Density Residential MD - Medium Density Residential HD - High Density Residential 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION P.C. 89-28 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO ELIMINATE THE LAND USE CATEGORY OF MULTI -USE CORRIDOR AND. CREATE A LAND USE CATEGORY OF COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR AND TO ADOPT A STATEMENT OF POLICIES FOR THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR AND.RECOMMENDING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 21, 1989 and made the following Findings: A. The land use category of Multi -Use Corridor, established in 1966, is no longer an appropriate land use designation for the Pacific Coast Highway commercial corridor as it does not clearly convey the City's goals and objectives for development along the corridor; B. Creation of the land use category of Commercial Corridor as a designation for the Pacific Coast Highway commercial corridor is an appropriate designation as it more clearly conveys a commitment to commercial development along Pacific Coast Highway; C. The designation of Commercial Corridor will be applied to a more focused area along the east and west side of Pacific Coast Highway than the Multi -Use Corridor designation to recognize more realistically the the limits of the depth of commercial development acceptable to the citizens of the City.. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby recommend that the Text of the Land Use Element of the General Plan shall be amended to eliminate the Land Use category of "Multi -Use Corridor" and create the Land Use category of "Commercial Corridor" and the following text shall be added to the Land Use Element of the General Plan: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Commercial Corridor - The purpose of this land use category is to clearly define the limits of the depth of commercial development along Pacific Coast Highway and prohibit the developmdnt of new residential uses within the area with exceptions for vacant property not fronting on Pacific Coast Highway. Existing residential uses within the corridor are expressly allowed and can be improved, expanded and rebuilt to the same density, however, the transition of these uses to commercial usage is highly desirable. This category allows various types of commercial land uses including retail, service, and office uses. Automotive related commercial uses would be allowed by conditional use permit only. To ensure that commercial development will be compatible with existing nearby residential uses standards for building height, parking and access, setbacks, and landscaping will be implemented through Specific Plan Area, designations Policies: 1) Existing structures used for residential purposes on a lot or parcel which is exclusively used for residential purposes are permitted to remain indefinitely, and shall be considered conforming uses, allowing said structure to be improved, rebuilt, or expanded, as long as the existing residential density is not increased. 2) Residentially developed and vacant property can only be used for commercial purposes if the property fronts on Pacific Coast Highway or is part of an assemblage of properties containing a commercial project which fronts on Pacific Coast Highway. 3) New residential projects shall be prohibited, except in the following cases: a) on currently vacant lots or parcels of land which do not front on Pacific coast Highway and which are not currently connected by ownership to lots fronting on Pacific Coast Highway and which will be developed to a density consistent with surrounding residential densities allowed by the General Plan, subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission; and, b) the improvement, expansion, or reconstruction of current residential structures which does not increase the current residential density (number of dwelling units) of the lot or parcel of land and said improvement, expansion, or reconstruction must conform to the zoning standards. 4) Height limits and the method of measurement shall be established which will minimize impacts of commercial development on scenic views and on the privacy of adjacent residences. 5) Landscaping requirements shall be established to improve the attractiveness of development along Pacific. Coast Highway and to buffer interfacing or abutting residential development. 6) Traffic impact studies shall be required for projects which will cause significant traffic impacts and these studies shall include proposed measures to mitigate the impacts. 7) All new commercial projects shall require Planning Commission Review to ensure compliance with the standards and policies of the Specific Plan Area, subject to City Council. Appeal. 8) A list of permitted uses shall be established which permits a broad range of commercial and office related uses with emphasis given to uses which have the highest benefit to the community. 9) More than one SPA zone may be created for areas of the corridor based on the sub -area's unique features. 10) Orientation ofall commercial development should be toward P.C.H. and not toward local residential streets. 11) Physical setbacks, and architectural treatment shall be provided where commercial and residential development abut, or interface 12) Assembled lots proposed for commercial developmet shall be merged as a condition of development. VOTE: AYES: Comms. Edwards,Ingell,Rue,Chmn. Peirce NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm. Ketz CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 89-28 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meetin of March 21, 1989. � �2 mes Pe ce, Chairman Mic ubac , Secretary / rkft- II 8-1 Date • 1 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27. 28 RESOLUTION P.C. 89-29 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN .BY CHANGING THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION FROM MULTI -USE CORRIDOR TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND RECOMMENDING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 21, 1989 and made the following Findings: A. The land use category of Multi -Use Corridor, established in 1966, is no longer an appropriate land use designation for certain residential portions of the Pacific Coast Highway corridor located behind commercial frontage properties and along Pacific Coast Highway; B. Residential designations consistent with the residential areas located further west or east from Pacific Coast Highway are appropriate designations as they recognize established residential areas and clearly convey a commitment to continuing the residential use and development of these areas; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby recommend that the General Plan shall be amended as shown on the attached map and legally described as follows: 1. General Plan amend the subject properties from Multi -Use Corridor to Low Density Residential, legally described as follows: Eastside: 2nd -3rd St.: Lots 5, 6 of Home Builders Place and 6 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20 of Mission Tract 3rd -4th St: Lots 11, 13, 15, 17, 19 of Mission Tract and lots 10, 11, and easterly 36' lot 12 Hurd's Ocean View Tract 4th -5th St.: Lots 4, 5 Hurd's Ocean View Tract, Lots 10-16 Garden View Tract 14th -15th St.: Block 1, Lots 4-6, Block 1., of Hermosa Knob Hill Tract 15th -16th St.: Lots 4-6, Block 2, W.J. Smiths, 2nd Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract, Block 84, east portion of lot 5 16th -17th St.: Lots 5-12, Block A, Tract #2911, Lots 1-8, Block B, Tract #2911, Lots 3,6 (portion), Block 2, Breckinridge 17th -18th St.: Lots 3-5, Block 1, Breckenridge, Tract 32526, Lot 1, Lots 15-23, Block 2, Johnson & Newman's Camino Real, Lots 19-25, Block 1, Johnson & Newman's Camino Real 18th -19th St.: Parcel Map 138-34, Lot 1, Lots 6, 7, 8 of Tract #6054 19th -21st St.: Lots 54-61 of Tract #2548, Lots 8-19 of Tract #8476 Westside: 24th St. -24 P1.: Lots 11-24, Block 2 of Montmarie, Lots 5-12, Block l of Montmarie 2. General Plan amend the subject properties from Multl-Use Corridor to Medium Density Residential, legally described as follows: Eastside: 5th -6th St.: Eastern 80' of Lots 11-13 of Camino Real Tract 6th -7th St.: 2nd Addition to Hermosa Beach Block 85, Portion of Lot 7 (Easterly 48.5' of the Western 170.3'), Lot 1 of Tract #42019, Lots 20-22 of Wilson & Lind's Tract 7th -8th St.: Lots 11, 12 of Wilson & Linds's Tract, Parcel Map 113-81-82, Lot 1 14th -15th St.: Lots 24-27 of Heffner, Fiorini and Allen Tract, Lots 4-7 of Heffner, Fiorini, and Allen Tract Westside: 24St.-24P1.: Lots 20-24 of Hermosa View Tract #1 6th -8th St.: Lots 5-9 of Redondo Hermosa Tract 4th -5th St.: Lots 5-8 of Koepke's Tract, Lot 5 of Horne's Hillside Tract #2, Lot 1 of Tract #26438 3rd -4th St.: Lots 30-32 of Walter Ranson Co.'s Venable Place Tract, Lot 1 of Tract #37389 2nd -3rd St.: Lots 67,68, 86 & Westerly 30' of Lot 87 of Walter Ransom Co.'s Venable Place Tract lst-Sth City Boundary: Lot 146 of Walter Ransom Co.'s Venable Place Tract 3. General Plan amend the subject properties from Multi -Use Corridor to High Density Residential, legally described as follows: s9_ • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Eastside: 5th -6th St.: Lot 1 of Tract #44937 Westside: 16th -21St.: Portions of lots 16-22 2nd Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract Block 81, Lot 1 of Tract #31815 VOTE: AYES: Comms.Edwards,Ingell,Rue,Chmn.Peirce NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm.Ketz CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 89-29 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City. of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meeting of March 21, 1989. 4 Jam Peirce, hairman is/gel Schu ach, Secretary f A -#c 1yr7 Date 1 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION P.C. 89-30 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN BY CHANGING THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION FROM MULTI -USE CORRIDOR TO COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR FOR THE AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND RECOMMENDING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 21, 1989 and made the following Findings: A. The land use category of Multi -Use Corridor, established in 1966, is no longer an appropriate land use designation for the Pacific Coast Highway commercial corridor as it does not clearly convey the City's goals and objectives for development along the corridor; B. Creation of the land use category of Commercial Corridor as a designation for the Pacific Coast Highway commercial corridor is an appropriate designation as it more clearly conveys a commitment to commercial development along Pacific Coast Highway; C. The designation of Commercial Corridor will be applied to a more focused area along the east and west side of Pacific Coast Highway than the Multi -Use Corridor designation to recognize more realistically the the limits of the depth of commercial development acceptable to the citizens of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby recommend that the General Plan shall be amended as shown on the attached map and legally described as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. General Plan amend the subject property from Multi -Use Corridor to Commercial Corridor, legally described as follows: Southeastside: Sth City Boundary-lst St.: Lots 1-7 Trafton Heights Tract lst-2nd St.: Lots 45-51 of Tafton Heights, Lots 41-46 of Homebuilders Place 2nd -3rd St.: Lots 1-4 of Homebuilders Place, Lots 2, 4 of Mission Tract 3rd -4th St.: lots 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 of Mission Tract and Westerly 12' of Lot 12, Lots 13, 14, 15, of Hurd's Ocean View Tract 4th -5th St.: Lots 1, 2, Portion 3 of Hurd's Ocean View Tract, Lots 17-23 of Garden View Tract 5th -6th St.: Lots 1-5 of Tract #294, Westerly 40' of Lots 11-13, Lots 14-16 of Camino Real Tract 6th -7th St.: 2nd Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract, Block 85 and portion of Lot 7 (Westerly 121.8'), Lots 17-19 of Wilson & Lind's Tract, Lots 14-16 Wilson 7 Lind's Tract Northeastside: 14th -15th St.: Block 1, Lots 1-3 of Hermosa Knob Hill, lots 28-30 Heffner, Fiorine, Allen Tract • 15th -16th St.: Lots 1-3 Heffner, Fiorini, Allen Tract, 2nd Addition to Hermosa Beach, Biock 84, West 145' Portion of Lot 5, Lots 1-3, Block 2, W.J. Smith's Tract 16th -17th St.: Lots 1, 2, Block 1, W.J. Smith's Tract, Lots 1-4, Block A, Tract #2911, Lots 1, 2, Biock 2, Breckenridge Tract 21st -North City Boundary: Lots 1, 2, portion 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 20, 21, of Tract #2143, Parcel Map 152-48-49, Lot Westside: 24th -24P1.: Lots 1-10, Block 2 of Montmarie Tract, Lots 13-19 of Hermosa View Tract #1 16th -21st St.: Portion 13, Portion 14 of 2nd Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract, Block 81 16th -Pier.: Lot 1 of Tract #9203, portion 10, 2nd Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract, Lots 11-18, Block 80, Subdivision of Part of the Sausal Redondo Rancho Tract 6th -8th St.: Lots 1-4 of Redondo Hermosa Tract, Lots 27, 28, Block 78, 2nd Addition to Hermosa Beach, portion of Lots 1-3, Lots 4-9 of Tract #8525 5th -6th St.: Portion of Lots 24, 25, Block 78, 2nd Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4th -5th St.: Lots 1-4 of Koepke's Tract, Lots 1-4 of Hillside #2 3rd -4th St.: Portion of Lots 23-28, lots 29, 56, 57 of Walter Ransom Co.'s Venable Place Tract 2nd -3rd St.: Portion of Lots 38-63, Lots 64, 65, 88 & 89 & Easterly 10' of lot 87 Walter Ransom Co.'s Venable Place Tract 1st -2nd St.: Portion of Lots 90-95 of Walter Ransom Co.'s Venable Place Tract.& Lots 96-99, 116-119, portion of Lots 1-6, Lots 7, 8 of Tract #5019, Lots 121-123, 141, 142 of Walter Ransom Co.'s Venable Place Tract lst-South City Boundary: Lots 143-145 of Walter Ransom Co.'s Venable Place Tract 2. General Plan amend the subject property from High Density to Commercial, legally described as follows: Southeastside: lst-2nd St.: Lots 39-44 of Trafton Heights Tract 3. General Plan amend the subject property from Low Density Residential to Commercial Corridor legally described as follows: Southeastside: lst-2nd St.: Lot 40 of Home Builders Place Tract VOTE: AYES: Comms.Edwards,Ingell,Rue, Chmn. Peirce NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm. Ketz CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 89-30 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meetin of March 21, 1989. J es Peirce, ChairmanM chae1'Schu6ach, Secretary tic-A11cl'Pf Date .4' / Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 21, 1989 MEETING) March 29, 1989 Regular Meeting of April 4, 1989 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS CHANGING THE LOCATION OF BOUNDARIES AND POLICIES REGARDING THE MULTI -USE CORRIDOR AND TO CONSIDER SPECIFIC PLAN AREA DESIGNATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions regarding the Multi -Use -Corridor, and adopt the proposed resolutions. 1. Establish the boundary of the Pacific Coast Highway "Commercial Corridor" at the depths recommended in Exhibit "A" or at locations deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. 2. Amend the General Plan Map to redesignate areas not within the Commercial Corridor from MUC to Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, or High Density Residential, depending on the adjacent designation. 3. Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan by adopting the recommended definition for the "Commercial Corridor" and amend the General Plan Map to redesignate the area within the established boundary from MUC to Commercial Corridor 4. Adopt an Environmental Negative Declaration for the proposed General Plan Amendments. 5. Implement the General Plan changes by initiating zone changes for the residential areas outside the Commercial Corridor to classifications consistent with the adjacent residential classifications, and by adopting policies for the Specific Plan Area classifications to be applied in the Commercial Corridor. Initiate discussion on development standards and development review procedures to be applied in the Commercial Corridor Specific Plan' Areas. • 6. Consider the inclusion of existing commercial areas designated General Commercial on the General Plan Map located along Pacific Coast Highway within the Commercial Corridor. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission continued this item from the March 21, 1989 meeting to allow for further discussion of the subject on a block by block basis. In response to some of the concerns expressed at that meeting staff has. prepared a supplemental analysis. Please refer to the report prepared for the March 21, 1989 meeting for the specific .analysis and recommendations initially prepared by staff. Provided in this supplement is an explanation of the concept of allowing residential uses to continue and be improved in the Commercial Corridor Specific Plan Area, and additional information and possible alternatives regarding the proposed boundary for the following areas which were discussed at the previous meeting: 18th Street to 21st Street (east side of P.C.H.) 24th Street to 21st Street (west side of P.C.H.) 1st Place to 1st Street (west side of P.C.H.) Staff has not changed its original recommendation .for these areas. For the other areas discussed at the meeting, 15th Street to 16th Street (east side), north of 21st Street (east side), and 5th Street to 4th Street (west side) staff has no additional comments and maintains its original recommendation. ANALYSIS RESIDENTIAL USE IN THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR The proposed policies for the Commercial Corridor include a provision for the continuation and limited improvement of existing residential uses in the Specific Plan Areas. This would allow structures currently used for residential purposes on lots which are exclusively used for residential purposes to maintain a conforming status, and to be improved at their current density. Also, if the dwelling was destroyed it could be reconstructed to the same density. It would not allow these residential uses to increase density which would currently be possible for areas which are zoned R-3. Also, the policies of the Commercial Corridor give exception to vacant properties not fronting on P.C.H., and with no ownership tie to property fronting on P.C.H, to develop new residential projects at a density consistent with adjacent residential densities. The - 6C- Commission is reminded that under the provisions of the proposed SPA any new residential project other than single-family, or any new commercial project will be subject to Planning Commission review and approval. In order to clarify the policies for residential use in the Commercial.Corridor Specific Plan Areas staff recommends that the definition of "Commercial Corridor" be modified to note exceptions to the prohibition of new residential projects and that the the proposed Policies Numbers 1 and 3 for the Commercial Corridor be modified to read as follows (see pages 6-8 of the original report and the modified •resolution P.C. 89-28, attached): 1) Existing structures used for residential purposes on a lot or parcel which is exclusively.used for residential purposes are permitted to remain indefinitely, and shall be considered conforming uses, allowing said structures to be improved, rebuilt, or expanded, as long as the existing residential density is not increased. 3) New residential projects shall be prohibited, except in the following cases: a) on currently vacant lots or parcels of land which do not front on Pacific Coast Highway and which are not currently connected by ownership to lots fronting on Pacific Coast Highway and which will be developed to a density consistent with surrounding residential densities allowed by the General Plan, subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission, and; b) the improvement, expansion, or reconstruction of current residential structures which does not increase the current residential density (number of dwelling units) of the lot or parcel of land. 18TH STREET TO 21ST STREET (EAST SIDE) Several residents who live in this area near Pacific Coast Highway expressed their opposition to any commercial designation along P.C.H. frontage for various reasons, including view blockage, traffic, parking, and crime. Although many of their concerns are certainly legitimate, staff feels that the commercial designation to a depth of about 100 feet is the most appropriate designation for this area as it takes advantage of the value of P.C.H. frontage, while a residential designation would provide for a use that conflicts with the noise, pollution and safety hazards associated with a major highway. Also, the current General Plan designation of MUC and zoning designation of R-3 (C) would allow the construction of multi -family structures to a height of 35 feet, the generation of additional residential traffic and parking, and would certainly increase the congestion for the area. Commercial development controlled under the provisions of a Specific Plan Area designation, however, would be subject to requirements addressing setbacks, buffering, landscaping, architectural treatment, and height. The following is a comparison of what would be allowed under an R-3 designation and under a Commericial Corridor SPA designation. Project Review Setbacks Buffering View Impact Traffic Impacts Parking R-3 (C) ZONING none 5' rear 3' on alley not required 35' height limit no project review directed to alley, congestion at night, weekends night, weekend impact daytime impact CORRIDOR SPA review for design, traffic impact min. 8' from res. property, plus 2' for each additional story landscaping req'd, screening set height limit, consider in project review directed to P.C.H. daytime usage provided on site,. Staff continues to recommend locating the commercial boundary along the rear of the frontage lots as shown on the map on page 44 of the original report. The alternative for the Commission, if it wishes to lock in residential uses on Pacific Coast Highway frontage lots, is to change the General Plan designation from MUC to High Density residential for the frontage lots, and recommend dropping the C -potential portion of the existing R-3 zoning classification. 24TH STREET TO 21ST STREET (WEST SIDE) Several residents who live on 24th Street expressed their concern with staff's recommendation to locate the Commercial Corridor boundary at a depth of 290 feet along 21st Street. (see page 50-51 of the original report) They primarily expressed concern about the possible loss of views and privacy currently enjoyed 6� because the existing commercial depth only goes to a depth of 115 feet. As previously noted, the current C-3 zoning goes to a depth of 220 feet (previously approved for a hotel, now expired), behind which is 70 more feet of vacant property. Staff would• like to emphasize that under the provisions of a Specific Plan any commmercial development would be required to provide buffering from the residential uses, and would be subject to the scrutiny of the Planning Commission for appropriateness for that location. The additional 70 feet of depth, should a developer wish to purchase it, would provide additional space for this type of buffering to enhance the project. Also, the additional 70 feet of property could be developed with single family residences under the provisions for residential use within the SPA giving the owner of that property both options. Staff's recommendation has not changed, as an alternative, however, the Commission may want to consider excluding the additional 70 feet from the Commercial Corridor, and recommend its redesignation to Low Density Residential. 1ST PLACE TO FIRST STREET (WEST SIDE) Residents living behind existing commercial uses along both sides of 1st Place have expressed concern with staff's recommendation to include the entire MUC in the Commercial Corridor SPA. (see pages 67-70 of the report) The residents have expressed similar concerns to those noted above regarding the proximity of commercial uses to their residences. Also noted was the concern of the value of their property being dependent on the plans of the owners of the Commercial property which does front on P.C.H. Again, it should be emphasized that the existing residential properties in question, under the proposed provisions of the SPA, can be improved or rebuilt to their existing density and would be considered conforming uses. Staff believes this to be appropriate as current densities do not exceed what would be allowed under an R-2 zone. The designation of the property within the Commercial Corridor gives the owners a second option, to sell for commercial purposes. Also, any commercial expansion would be subject to the standards of the SPA requiring buffering, and the review of the Planning Commission. The SPA designation would not allow the residential property owners to build new residential units to the R-3 density. Staff continues to recommend that the Commercial Corridor boundary extend to the existing depth of the MUC for these two blocks as shown on pages 68 and 70 of the report. An alternative • would be to locate the boundary at the existing C-3 depth and to • s recommend that the R -3(C) properties be redesignated to MD Residential, and to further recommend the rezoning of these properties to R-2 consistent with the residential properties to the west. 7 K •obertson A•vanced Planner CONCUR: zi ✓, f es • - f . ichael Sc ubach Planning Director MULTI -USE CORRIDOR STUDY & RECOMMENDATIONS March 15,1_989 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 21, 1989 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS • CHANGING THE LOCATION OF BOUNDARIES AND POLICIES REGARDING THE MULTI -USE CORRIDOR AND TO .CONSIDER SPECIFIC PLAN AREA DESIGNATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions regarding the Multi -Use -Corridor, and adopt the proposed resolutions. 1. Establish the boundary of the Pacific Coast Highway "Commercial Corridor" at the depths recommended in 'Exhibit "A" and more specifically described in Part II of this report. 2. Amend the General Plan Map to redesignate areas not within the Commercial Corridor from MUC to Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, or High Density Residential, depending on the adjacent designation. 3. Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan by adopting the recommended definition for the "Commercial Corridor" and amend the General Plan Map to redesignate the area within the established boundary from MUC to Commercial Corridor 4. Adopt an Environmental Negative Declaration for the proposed General Plan Amendments. 5. Implement the General Plan changes by initiating zone changes for the residential areas outside the Commercial Corridor to classifications consistent with the adjacent residential classifications, and by adopting policies for the Specific Plan Area classifications to be applied in the Commercial Corridor. Initiate discussion on development standards and development review procedures to be applied in the Commercial Corridor Specific Plan Areas. 6. Consider the inclusion of existing commercial areas designated General Commercial on the General Plan Map - 1 - CT) • BACKGROUND On November 9, 1988, the City Council adopted a 10 -month moratorium on residential and commercial construction for portions of the Multi -Use -Corridor. The purpose of the moratorium was to give staff sufficient time to study.the various land uses within the Multi -Use Corridor and to recommend changes in the policies, regulations, and land use designations which guide development in the Corridor. The primary reason for the study is to establish clearly defined limits to commercial development along Pacific Coast Highway which are consistent with the objectives of maximizing commercial development potential while minimizing impacts of commercial encroachment into nearby residential neighborhoods. On February 23, 1989 the Staff Environmental Review Committee recommended. the adoption of a Negative Declaration for the General Plan Amendments being considered for the Multi -Use Corridor because portions of the MUC are proposed to be changed to residential designations thereby reducing the potential intensity of land usage in the area. This report summarizes the study and analysis conducted by staff and includes recommendations for each block within the Multi -Use Corridor. ANALYSIS• AREA DESCRIPTION The Pacific Coast Highway commercial corridor directly abuts Pacific Coast Highway to the east and west, extending the length of the City of Hermosa Beach. There are four commercial sectors along Pacific Coast Highway, as listed below: Multi -Use Corridor - 1st to 8th Street General Commercial - 8th to 14th Street Multi -Use Corridor - Pier Avenue to 24th Street General Commercial - Gould Avenue/Pacific Coast Highway Commercial development along Pacific Coast Highway is irregular in depth and is broken up by a stretch of residential uses between 17th Street and 21st Street. Each commercial sector has a somewhat different character in terms of types and intensity of commercial uses. For example, automotive and repair services are the predominant uses in the Multi -Use Corridor between 1st Street and 8th Street. The most common uses in the General Commercial area between 8th Street and 14th Street are retail and service businesses. The land uses in the MUC between Pier Avenue and 24th Street are a mix of retail, office, and multi -family residential, including two newer developments, Plaza Hermosa and Hermosa Pavilion. Finally, in the General Commercial area near 2 (72) Gould Avenue the primary land uses are retail and service businesses. The total length of frontage on the east side and west side of Pacific Coast Highway in the City of Hermosa Beach is about 12,600 feet. The length of P.C.H. frontage within the MUC is over 8,200 feet. Approximately 76% of this frontage (6236 feet) is developed commercially. Additionally, 52.6 acres of land are located within the Multi -Use Corridor. Approximately 26.7 acres, or 5170, of this property is developed commercially. Almost all of this development is on properties which front directly onto P.C.H. About 4470 of the MUC is, developed residentially, containing 598 dwelling units. These areas are primarily located behind commercially developed frontage lots and are often part of established residential neighborhoods which extend much deeper to the east and west. The remaining 570 of the MUC is currently vacant. A table of information containing the distribution of land uses within the MUC by block and sub -area is included in the appendix. MULTI -USE CORRIDOR DESIGNATION The Multi -Use Corridor is a land use designation that has been in effect since the City of Hermosa Beach Land Use Element was adopted in 1966. The Multi -Use Corridor is defined in the General Plan as follows: The purpose of the land use category is to provide additional depth for development, and to allow various types of land use. It would include apartments, shops, stores, restaurants, office buildings, service stations, auto dealers, specialty shops, bowling alleys, and other similar activities. However, strict standards of development, including landscaping, setback, parking, architectural design, sign controls and street appearance would be enforced. Originally, the MUC was regarded as a means of dealing with an area that, while primarily commercial, had a mix of retail, service, and low and high density residential uses. The depth of the MUC, established at about 300 feet, was thought of as a way to allocate enough land for on-site parking and to encourage the turnover of existing residences, and small retail and service uses to larger scale commercial developments. It recognized the continuing problem of traffic, parking, and access which seemed to be a deterrent to commercial success along the Highway. As part of "mixed-use" concept the MUC designation permits existing uses, particularly residential, to continue until such time that market conditions warrant a transition to commercial development. This transition of these marginal areas was further encouraged by the designation of C -potential zoning to certain properties which were vacant or residential and were perceived to have commercial development potential. Recently, the transition of C -potential properties to commercial uses has not happened as - 3 - (73) frequently as was perhaps envisioned. In fact, many of the properties have been developed with residential uses and are currently part of established residential neighborhoods. Since 1979, the Mult-Use Corridor has been the subject of several discussions aimed at determining whether or not this land use designation adequately represents the City's goals and policies regarding commercial and residential development along P.C.H. Issues discussed pertaining to the future development of the Corridor included the following: To what depth should commercial. extend? Is residential use a desirable Multiple Use Corridor? Are development standards in placewhich would ensure quality commercial development and buffering of adjacent residential uses?, if not, what should they be? After considerable research and public input it was determined in 1985 that the Multi -Use Corridor should be redefined to more clearly indicate a commitment to commercial development. More recently, however, it has become apparent that this commitment to commercial development must be moderated to include a greater sensitivity towards existing abutting residential areas threatened by the encroachment of expanded commercial development. It is staff's position that the first step toward solving the problem is to take the following sequence of actions regarding the General Plan: development be allowed to long-term use within the 1) Clearly define the maximum depth of commercial development acceptable to the City. 2) Designate existing residential areas outside the commercially defined area as Residential on the General Plan Map. 3) Designate the commercially defined area as Commercial Corridor on the General Plan Map, Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to establish a definition, and statement of development objectives for this Commercial Corridor. The remaining actions to be taken in order to implement the above changes in the General Plan are as follows: 4) Amend the zoning ordinance for the residential areas outside the commercially defined area from MUC to the adjacent residential zoning designation. 4 5) Amend the zoning ordinance to create Specific Plan Areas within the corridor (for example, one for the south portion and another for the north portion) to establish standards and review procedures for commercial development within the. corridor. PROPOSED BOUNDARY In order to determine the appropriate• depth for the boundary of the Commercial Corridor, a land use inventory and analysis was conducted•for the entire area of the MUC. The inventory was conducted to generate information regarding existing land uses, depth of existing commercial development, existing zoning, ownership, age of original construction, condition of the property, topography, and adjacent land uses. The information was compiled on a lot by lot basis, as shown in Part II of this report, and was evaluated on a block by block basis. The following criteria were used towards making a final determination on the recommended location for the boundary line for each block 1. The lots designated for commercial development should be of an adequate size and shape to accomodate commercial development of a high quality. 2. The lots designated for commercial development should contain enough area and have adequate features to allow for setbacks and screening/buffering of• potential commercial uses from existing residential uses. 3. The depth of potential future commercial development should generally extend a minimum of 100 feet to a maximum of 300 feet from P.C.H. 4. Areas designated for commercial development should have available access from P.C.H. 5. Housing in good condition should not be designated for commercial development whenever possible. 6. Commercial encroachment into residential neighborhoods should be minimized. 7. Individual property ownerships should not be divided by commercial and residential land use designations. 8. The existing topography should allow for commercial development that will not significantly impact scenic views or require excessive grading. 9. The depth of the commercial area should be consistent across streets wherever possible. 5 (7s) The above criteria were used in making a judgement on the recommended location of the Commercial Corridor boundary line. A block by block analysis and recommendation is contained in the Part II of this Report. For purposes of the analysis the MUC was divided into four sub -areas: Southeast (south city boundary to 8th street, east side of P.C.H.); Northeast (14th Street to 24th Street,. east side of P.C.H.); Northwest (24th Street to Pier Avenue, west side of P.C.H.) and Southwest (8th Street to south city boundary west side of P.C.H.). The boundary recommendation is depicted Exhibit "A". A recommendation for the amended General Plan designation for the residential area outside the boundary is also included in the block by block description contained in Part II. In all cases the recommended change is from the MUC designation to a designation.consistent with. the adjacent residential designation. Locating the Commercial Corridor boundary as recommended in Exhibit "A," and described in Part II, would result in the redesignation of approximately 20.4 acres from Multi -Use Corridor to a residential designation, and the redesignation of the remaining 32.2 acres from MUC to Commercial Corridor. Although this would reduce the area of maximum commercial development allowed under the General Plan from 52.6 acres to 32.2 acres it would still allow for a potential increase in commercially developed acreage of 21 percent over the current amount of 26.7 acres. PROPOSED LAND USE ELEMENT POLICY CHANGES In order to convey a clear commitment to commercial development in the commercially defined area along P.C.H. the land use category of "Multi -Use Corridor" should be replaced by the category of "Commercial Corridor," defined as follows The purpose of the Land Use Category is to clearly define the limits of the depth for commercial development along Pacific Coast Highway and prohibit the development of new residential uses within this area. Existing residential uses within the corridor are expressly allowed, however, the transition of these uses to commercial usage is highly desirable. This category allows various types of commercial land uses including retail, service, and office uses. Automotive related commercial uses would be allowed by conditional use permit only. To ensure that commercial development will be compatible with existing nearby residential uses standards for building height, parking and access, setbacks, and landscaping will be implemented through Specific Plan Area designations. The Multi -Use Corridor designation should be deleted from the General Plan Map and replaced with the Commercial Corridor designation. 6 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CHANGES IN THE LAND USE ELEMENT Proposed zone changes for the areas within and outside of the proposed Commercial Corridor: Theresidential areas behind the boundaries of the established commercial corridor should be changed to the zoning classification of the adjacent residential neighborhood, and the C -Potential classification should be eliminated. The areas should be rezoned to R-1, R -2B, R-2, and R-3, whichever classification is consistent with the adjacent residential classification. For the area within the Commercial Corridor Specific Plan Areas (SPA) the creation of specific plan areas would provide clearly defined policies, objectives, and development standards specifically tailored to areas of the corridor. The Specific Plan would be adopted by ordinance and would amend the Zoning Ordinance. The SPA would be based on the general policy statements included in this General Plan amendment. RECOMMENDED POLICIES FOR THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA ZONES The current zoning ordinance has only a limited set of regulations on commercial development in the C-3 zone. It controls the types of uses, the amount of parking provided and the layout of parking areas, building heights, and setback/buffering adjacent to residential areas. There are currently no requirements for setbacks from the street, landscaping, traffic studies and traffic improvements, the general layout of buildings, or the appearance. Additionally, there is no provision for the review of commercial development proposals. Therefore, if a proposed development meets the basic zoning requirements and the building code, it can obtain approval. Although this may be an acceptable practice for smaller commercial projects, it is not acceptable for the larger projects to be expected along Pacific Coast Highway. Development standards and plan review procedures should be established for the Commercial Corridor Specific Plan Areas. The following are basic policy statements for the Specific Plan Areas. More detailed development standards will be developed based on the following policies: 1) Existing residential uses are permitted to continue indefinitely, and shall be allowed a limited amount of improvement and expansion as long as the residential density does not increase. 7 (7?) 1 2) Residentially developed and vacant property can only be used for commercial purposes if the property fronts on Pacific Coast Highway or is part of an assemblage of properties containing a commercial project which fronts on Pacific Coast Highway. 3) New residential projects shall be prohibited, except on vacant parcels not fronting on Pacific Coast Highway, and not connected by ownership to lots fronting on Pacific Coast Highway. Any proposed residential projects must be approved by the Planning Commission. 4) Height limits and the method of measurement shall be established which will minimize impacts of commercial development on scenic views and on the privacy of adjacent residences. 5) Landscaping requirements shall be established to improve the attractiveness of development along Pacific Coast Highway and to buffer interfacing or abutting residential development. 6) Traffic impact studies shall be required for projects which will cause significant traffic impacts and these studies shall include proposed measures to mitigate the impacts. 7) All commercial projects shall require staff review to ensure compliance with the standards and policies of the Specific Plan Area, and significant projects shall require Planning Commission review and approval, subject to City Council Appeal. 8) A list of permitted uses shall be established which permits a broad range of commercial and office related uses with emphasis given to uses which have the highest benefit to the community. 9) More than one SPA zone may be created for areas of the corridor based on the sub -area's unique features. 10) Orientation of all commercial development should be toward P.C.H. and not toward local residential streets. 11) Physical setbacks, and architectural treatment shall be provided where commercial and residential development abut, or interface. 12) Assembled lots proposed for commercial development shall be • merged as a condition of development GENERAL COMMERCIAL DESIGNATED AREAS ALONG P.C.H. In consideration of the proposed designation of a portion of the Pacific Coast Highway corridor to Commercial Corridor Specific Plan Area the question of whether or not to change the 6 • designation of the remaining portion of P.C.H. needs to be addressed. The remaining commercial areas along the corridor are currently designated General Commercial on the General Plan Map, and are zoned C-3. Some of the residential areas behind the commercial uses still maintain a C -Potential zoning classification. Continuing the Commercial Corridor Specific Plan Area designation to these commercial areas to further ensure quality commercial development and to more clearly define the depth of commercial development would be a logical extension of the proposed General Plan Amendments noted above. Staff has .not undertaken a detailed study of these areas at this time because of the priority of addressing the areas currently under moratorium. Once the land use designations and policies regarding the Multi -Use Corridor are resolved staff could direct its efforts towards similar proposals for the remaining portion of the corridor. CONCUR: Mia ael Schubach Planning Director .6% F `Ken Ro ertson Advanced Planner 4 • • EXHIBIT A Proposed Commercial Corridor Boundary (Page 1 of 2) 1" = 400 feet �l4 Proposed Commercial Corridor Boundary . (Page 2) TWENTYFIrrH STREE TWENTY FOURrH O TWENrV T- 0 sr 1 0 sr v v J x -o • v c6 m-� z N -1 . 0 • t. 1 0 1 1- 1 v I FOORrt 1 . D 0 • "'sof MI" • Ito �••-••• TWENTY v Ni 111110 c n ••••• 9 0 in 1" = 400 feet • • PART II ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EACH BLOCK WITHIN THE MUC The following information is contained in subsequent pages for each block within the MUC: 1) A narrative description of land uses and the various features within the block; 2) An analysis of the block in terms of the criteria for establishment of the commercial boundary; 3) Recommendation for the boundary; 4) A map depicting existing land uses, existing zoning designations, and the recommended commercial corridor boundary; and 5) A table of information for each address within the block. The data obtained for each parcel includes: size of the lot; the approximate date of original construction (obtained from city building records); the general condition of the structure and property (obtained from field observation); the distance of the lot from P.C.H.; the distance of the lot from existing commmercial development; a description of adjacent uses; the degree of slope (obtained from field observation); the zoning; and whether or not the use is conforming. Although not always mentioned in the narrative this information was utilized in making the recommendation for the location of the commercial corridor boundary line. The analysis of the blocks is presented in the sequence of an automobile travelling in the right lane observing to his right from south to north and returning north to south along P.C.H.. The sequence goes from south to north along the east side of P.C.H. and north to south along the west side of P.C.H. (Note: The location of the MUC boundary is defined by the edge of the shaded areas on the maps unless otherwise noted) SOUTH CITY BOUNDARY TO 1ST STREET (East Side) FRONTAGE: 170 feet DEPTH OF MUC: 240 feet DEPTH OF C-3 ZONING: 240 feet Existing development consists of the Nissan auto sales/repair business on P.C.H, a professional office building located on the south side of First Street behind the auto sales/repair business and a pump house all located within the C-3 zone. The C-3 zoning boundary is consistent with the MUC boundary and recognizes the beginning of established residential uses up the slope, which are designated for High Density residential on the General Plan Map and zoned R-P(C) and R -P. In recognition of the existing development it would not seem appropriate to extend the Commercial designation any deeper. The appropriateness of the R -P designation for the residential properties to the east should be reconsidered at a later date. RECOMMENDATION Locate the'Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary coterminous with the C-3 zoning boundary consistent with the existing MUC boundary at a depth of approximately 240 feet. • SE St. Address South City Boundar to 1st St. C9rner PCH/1st St. 824 1st St. 828 1st St. Lot• Size 45750 5560 5560 Use Com/Auto Com/Off. Pump Hse Approx. Date Cond. Const. 60's 1979 1930 Fair Good Fair Dist. from PCH 0-158 158-198 198-248 Dist. from ECB* Similar Use Adjacent Across Slope Uses Street Res/E Yes Comm. Comm. Comm. Flat Flat Flat Current Zone C-3 C-3 C-3 1ST A/68'451; l 40 0 0 IR !9 6 00 40 0B • V, 0 0 a ANITA s. 40 40 39 COMMERCIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three or more units) \ 40z5 40 2 b 40 . • 40 Jiff • 0 s•3 a • N • Z7 4 • 00 0 16 0 4 5 w 0 17 • 0 18 0 6 w 7 0 BLK. 1 30 ' ST. U: Cc it Yes No Y's m8 w 0 09 40 40 40. EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY !4 C84-) 1ST STREET TO 2ND STREET (East Side) FRONTAGE: 255 feet DEPTH OF.MUC: 260 feet, 245 feet DEPTH OF C-3 ZONING: 220 feet and 125 feet Existing development along the north side of 1st street consists of the General Telephone Exchange building and parking area which extends a total of 500 feet deep along 1st Street (260 feet of which falls within the MUC). The property is zoned C-3 for a depth of about 220 feet, zoned R-P(C) from a depth of 220 feet to 260 feet, zoned C-3 again from a depth of 260 feet to 300 feet, and zoned R -P for the remainder. The reason for this patchwork zoning is unclear. Development along the south side of 2nd Street consists of "O'Kells" furniture store and the "Pitcher House" occupying a building site, zoned C-3, which extends to a depth of 125 feet. Behind these commercial uses along 2nd street are two older residences in "poor" and "fair" condition on property zoned R -1(C). Beyond the two residences the next two lots are part of the General Telephone parking lot, zoned C-3 and R -P respectively. Again, there is not a good explanation for this patchwork zoning. Although the existing MUC boundary follows lot lines it splits the GTE parking lot and it is not in a logical location. Except for the two older houses mentioned above the uses within the MUC are commercial. Given this situation staff feels there are two options for the location of the commercial corridor boundary, as follows: 1) Along the boundary of the GTE Parking lot (500 feet deep on the north side of 1st Street and 285 feet deep on the south side of 2nd Street), or, 2) Along the current C-3 zoning line (240 feet deep approximately at rear of GTE building along the NS of 1st street, and 125 feet along the SS of 2nd Street to exclude the existing residential uses). The benefits of the first option are two -fold: it would recognize the easterly boundary of existing commercially related land uses, and would provide for potential commercial expansion along the south side of 2nd Street where the two older houses at 830 and 838 are located (these properties would potentially provide the parking area needed to convert or expand the existing commercial uses at 134 and 142 P.C.H. and if developed would be subject to standards of the Commercial Corridor SPA requiring buffering from the residential uses). However, it would be inconsistent with the commercial depths to both the south of 1st Street and to the north of 2nd Street. The second option would provide for greater consistency across streets, but would not be conducive towards the turnover, improvement, or expansion of commercial uses on the south side of 2nd street. Also the SPA standards should mitigate, i.e. buffer, the problems of commercial interfacing with residential. l5 (SS) RECOMMENDATION Locate the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary in accordance with the first option noted above along the easterly boundary of the existing GTE parking lot at a depth of 500 feet along the north side of 1st Street and a depth of 285 feet on the south side of 2nd Street. • SE St. Address Lot 1st St.- 2nd St. Size Use Approx. Dist. Dist. Similar Use Current Use. Date Cond. from from Adjacent Across Slope Zone Cont Const. PCH ECB* Uses Street ing: 102 P.C.H. 79200 Com/Off. 30/50 Fair 0-500 Res/bhd Comm. Flat 13.4 P.C.H. 5440 Comm. 1938 Fair 0-135 Res/bhd Comm. Flat 142 P.C.H. 6800 Comm. no<50 Fair 0-135 Res/bhd Comm. Flat 830 2nd St. 3600 SFR no<30 Poor 135-175 0 Com/W/S Comm. Flat 838 2nd St. 3600 SFR. no<30 Fair 175-215 40 Com/E/S SFR Flat 844 2nd St. 3600 Com/Pkg 215-255 80 Res/E/W SFR Flat • C -3/R -P Yes C-3 Yes C-3 Yes R -1C Yes R -1C Yes C-3 Yes 2ND 30 5335 X44 fl • •• N.68•as Z. • ST. /42. -743p404:to 134 hS1� (AV LW ,i i &tiff' "4/ A •:: .• ... `• 4: •:p•: . Z I'/ ',V / fr .i - �c 3 .III 0 39 A e 38 0 37 R36 135 34 33 • 32 .i 3I /11 / +�� ',,,,S7" ! . .f, 4 • //,`� /, -,r, i �/ I . r �. t•.. 11 !'J� l' �� zj 38 • • z6 q 37 .t mO .41 . , , a, r 4'm: p I . q ' 39.87 4. q i 35 40 3s q 34 at " O is -rzr av � , 1/47/4 / / rof ; /7 7 5T. • O COMMERCIAL EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL •••••• PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA EJMULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY (thcee or more units) i 7 (S 7) • 2ND STREET TO 3RD STREET (East Side) FRONTAGE: 181 feet DEPTH OF MUC: 250 feet DEPTH OF C-3 ZONING: 160 feet NS 2nd Street, 50 feet SS 3rd Street Existing development consists of "Felder's Body Shop," zoned C-3 to a depth of 160 feet, and a small 2 -story commercial/office building, zoned C-3 to a depth of only 50 feet. Behind the commercial uses are newer single-family homes, built since 1973, in mostly good condition, which are a part of a single-family neighborhood which continues up the slope to the east. These homes are on property zoned R -1(C) to the depth of the MUC (about 250 feet) while beyond the MUC boundary the zoning is R-1. The depths of the commercial uses are not particularly consistent with each other, or with the depths across the streets to the north and south. However, for the purposes of recognizing the stable nature of the existing residential neighborhoods, staff feels that the commercial corridor boundary should be consistent with the existing depth of commercial uses and the existing C-3 zoning boundary. RECOMMENDATION Locate the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary coterminous with the existing C-3 zoning boundary at depths of 160 feet and 50 feet. Amend the General Plan Map for the residential area east of the Commercial Corridor boundary from MUC to LD Residential. SE Approx. Dist. Dist. Similar Use Current Use St. Address Lot Use Date Cond. from from Adjacent Across Slope Zone Con: 2nd St.- 3rd St. Size Const. PCH ECB' Uses Street ing' '1S 2nd St. 210 P.C.H. 13960 Com/Auto 45/81 Falir 0-160 - Res/bhd Comm. Flat C-3 • Yes 835 2nd St. 3630 SFR 1976 Good 160-200 0 Com/W. SFR Flat R -1C Yes 845 2nd St. 3630 SFR 1976 Good 200-240 40 Yes Comm. Flat R -1C _ Yes SS*3rd St. 246 P.C.H. 2250 Comm. 1926 Fair 0-50 Res/bhd Comm. Flat C-3 Yes 252 P.C.H. 2250 Comm. 1926. Fair 0-50 Res/bhd Comm. Flat C-3 Yes 814 3rd St. 2230 SFR 1977 Fair 50-75 0 Yes Comm. Flat R -1C Yes 820 3rd St.• 2230 SFR 1976 Fair 75-100 25 Yes Comm. Flat R -1C Yes •824 3rd St. 2230 SFR 1976 Fair 100-125 50 Yes Comm. Flat R -1C • • Yes 832 3rd St. 2230 SFR 1984 Good 125-150 75 Yes SFR Flat R -1C Yes 834 3rd St. 2230 SFR 1984 Good 150-175 100 Yes SFR Flat R -1C Yes 840 3rd St. 2230 SFR 1973 Fair 175-200 125 Yes SFR Flat R -1G Yes 844 3rd St. 2230 SFR 1973 Fair 200-225 150 Yes SFR Flat R -1C Yes 902 3rd St. 2230 SFR Fair 225-250 175 Yes SFR Flat R -1C Yes .vC �r. 7. I a '17 r) n —7 (-) 90 8 Z5 D (/) Z46 210 90 r 7a ° 3RD • gra Sz4 13 z. S4 640 344 6107. ST N. 66 :CS E. _x D0 <0 r1 N 15 i0� JS ZS IJOi• l./d0•• t57D. 1,ZJ17+• 060-• ZZJ0II4710.• Z,ZJO•• t,»f« LJi . 4rion Lebo I'3 O I O O O O Q O Q rQ O Q O /6 J7 J8 �9 ?p Ii oy ?J c1l 22 246 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 • • • • 0 2ND e,35 345 COMMERCIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three or nate units) EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY • PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY (s9) a. !11 : is oJ o9 ao or i N. n`'= ` 7 0 8 9 10 11 • 12 13 14 15 16 17• 0 2ND e,35 345 COMMERCIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three or nate units) EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY • PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY (s9) 3RD STREET TO 4TH STREET (East Side) FRONTAGE: 202 feet DEPTH OF MUC: 250 feet DEPTH OF C-3 ZONING: 125 feet NS 3rd Street, 100 feet SS 4th Street Existing development at the north corner of 3rd Street and northward consists of three auto parts/repair businesses ("T.T. Exclusive Cars," "Creative Moter Designs," and "Auto Systems"), zoned C-3 to a depth of 125 feet. The property is under the same ownership. From this depth of 125 feet to the MUC boundary are 5 single-family homes on 25 -foot wide lots zoned R -1(C). These homes are of various ages and in fair condition, and are part of an established residential street which extends further to the east. Because of the conditon of the residential neighborhood and the 50 -foot commercial depth across 3rd street, the commercial corridor boundary for this half of the block should not be located any deeper than the existing C -3/R -1(C) boundary (125 feet). At the south corner of 4th street "Rosa's" Restaurant", a ticket outlet and a video arcade extend to a depth of 70 feet. Behind these businesses on property under the same ownership at 820 4th ' Street, extending to a depth of 112 feet, is an old nonconforming single-family home. The C-3 zoning boundary is at a depth of 100 feet, thereby splitting the residential parcel. Behind this home, within the R -1(C) zone, are three older residential structures (probably built before the 1930's) in poor to fair condition. The MUC is bounded by Ocean View Avenue at a depth of 250 feet. Given that the condition of the residential structures is not particularly good, and that Ocean View Avenue would provide somewhat of a buffer from possible commercial uses, locating the commercial boundary at the current depth of the MUC would perhaps meet the criteria for establishment of the commmercial boundary line. The other side of 4th street is in a similar situation (although the block is "broken" by an alley at a depth of 112 feet) and could also be considered for a commercial designation to the depth of Ocean View Avenue. However, staff feels that to be consistent with the depth of existing commercial development across the street, and to protect the character of an existing R-1 neighborhood, that the depth should stop at the alley (a depth of 112 feet). The commmercial designation would therefore include the entire property at 820 4th street which contains the old house which is connected by ownership to the frontage commercial property. If the option of extending the corridor to Ocean View Avenue is desirable, a policy concerning adequate buffering at the commercial and residential interface must be addressed. ZO (RG) RECOMMENDATION • Locate the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary at a depth of 125 feet for the south half of the block, coterminous with the C-3 zoning boundary, and at a depth of 112 feet for the north half of the block. Amend the General Plan Map for the residential area beyond the Corridor from MUC to LD Residential. Alternative: Extend the Commercial Corridor designation to the depth of Ocean Avenue and develop a policy for buffers at the commercial and residential interface. 11 No o o SE • Approx. Dist. Dist. Similar Use Current Use St. Address Lot Use Date Cond. from from Adjacent Across Slope Zone Conform - 3rd to 4th size Const. PCH ECB* Uses Street ing? NS '3rd St. 300 P.C.H. 21600 Comm. 40/84 Fair 0-125 Res.bhd Com/Res. Flat C-3 Yes 819 3rd St. 2250 SFR 1958 Fair 125-150 0 Comm./W. SFR Flat R -1C Yes 821 3rd St. 2250 SFR 1946 Fair 150-175 25 Yes SFR Flat R -1C - Yes 829 3rd St. 2250 SFR 1970 Fair 175-200 50 Yes SFR • Flat R -1C Yes '843 3rd St. 2250 SFR 1963 Fair 200-225 75 Yes SFR Flat R -1C Yes 847 3rd St. 2250 SFR 1963 Fair 225-250 100 Yes SFR Flat R -1C Yes SS 4th St. 344 P.C.H. 8560 Comm. 1960 Fair 0-70 Res.bhd Comm. Flat C-3 .Yes 820 4th St. 3400 SFR n<61 Poor 70-112 0 Comm./W. Comm. Flat C-3 No 822 4th St. 3390 2 Un. <1927 Poor 112-148 42 Yes SFR Flat R -1C Yes 832 4th St. 4250 SFR <1947 Fair 148-196 78 Yes SFR Flat R -1C • Yes 836 4th St. 3940 SFR 1923 Fair 196-244 126 Yes SFR Flat R -.1C Yes 59 3RD ST. 8K 4/88 a . a 3RD COMMERCIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three oc more units) EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA �ZBOUNDARY (qt) • 4TH STREET TO 5TH STREET (East Side) FRONTAGE: 342 feet DEPTH OF MUC: 244 feet DEPTH OF C-3 ZONING: 116 feet Commercial development along the P.G.H. frontage is separated from residential development to the rear by an alley parallel to P.C.H. located at a depth of 112 feet. Commercial development consists of an older small commercial center containing a liquor store and laundry at the south end, a series of commercial buldings containing a mix of repair and service businesses, and a newer small commercial center containing restaurants and a 7-11 convenience store at the north end. These properties are zoned C-3 to the depth of the alley. Additionally, there is a public parking area along the east side of the alley, zoned C-3, to a depth of an additional 20 feet. Behind the alley and up a moderate slope the residential development, zoned R -1(C), consists of mostly older single-family homes in fair condition. Although the entire area within the MUC could conceivably be developed commercially in a quality manner, with Ocean View Avenue serving as a "buffer" from residential uses, it is staff's' judgement that this should not be encouraged. The depth would not be consistent with commercial depths to the north and south, and commercial uses would significanly change the character of the Ocean View Avenue residential neighborhood which is currently in fair condition. Also, it does not seem realistic that all the lots along Ocean Avenue would be assembled by the commercial property owners to the west and, as a result, some of the lots could be commercial while others remain residential. This would definitely not be good planning. RECOMMENDATION Locate the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary coterminous with the existing C-3 zoning boundary along the alley. Amend the designation on General Plan Map for the residential area behind the alley from MUC to LD Residential. Z, (93) SE SC. Address Lot 4th St.- 5th St. Size Along P.C.H. 400 P.C.H. 422 .P.C.H. 428 430 440 442 P.C.H. P.C.H. P.C.H. P.C.H. W. side Ocean View 835 4th St.. 845 4th St. 417 Ocean View 429 Ocean View 431 Ooean View 834 5th St. 826 5th St. 11020 4350 4350 4350 4350 4350 4080 4080 8700 5340 5340 6525 2175 59 Use Comm. Comm. Comm. Comm. Comm. Comm. SFR SFR 3Units SFR SFR SFR SFR Approx. Dist. Date Cond. from Const. PCH . 1970 Fair 0-116 1960 Fair 0-116 1940 Fair 0-116 1962 Fair 0-116 1946 Fair 0-116 1982 Fair 0-116 1941 Fair 148-196 <1944 Fair 196-244 1942 Fair 128-244 n<45 Fair 128-244 1926 Fair 12.8-244 1922 Fair 128-244 no rec. Fair 128-186 44Z- 0 'o Dist. from ECB* Similar Use Adjacent Across Uses Street Res/bhd Res/bhd Res/bhd Res/bhd Res/bad Res/bhd 48 Com/W/alley 96 Yes 12 Com/W. 12 Com/W. 12 Com/W. 12, Com/W. 12 Com/W. Comm. ' N/A N/A N/A N/A Comm. Slope Flat Flat Flat Flat Flat Flat SFR Mod. SFR Mod. SFR Mod. SFR Mod. SFR Mod. MFR Mod. Comm. Mod. 5TH • • . S 76•3114! • Qj iCo 430 4TH ST. a 90 4l7 4co 0. %//A/J1��� 7.-...r "7'- 41. PY /77 i : % 44y- ir, ), • VA'A 4 i• rf % ALffilig 4' 44,9 4�7w a • 4TH • g35 $45 ST. COMMERCIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDEN`T`IAL MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three or more units) ZQ u 0 eo EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY (94•,) Current Zone C-3 C-3 C-3 C-3 C-3 C-3 R -1C R -1C R -1C R -1C R -1C R-.1 C R -1C Us, Cot inc Ye. Ye: Ye: Ye: Ye: Ye: Ye: Yes Yes ales Yes No Yes 5TH STREET TO 6TH STREET (East Side) FRONTAGE: 260 feet DEPTH OF MUC: 240-250 feet DEPTH OF C-3 ZONING: 160 feet, 120 feet Existing commercial development consists of a newer small commercial center containing a restaurant and a cleaners ("Lomeli's" and "Westway Cleaners") and an adjacent commercial building partially vacant and containing "Mobile Security", all zoned C-3 to a depth of 160 feet. Behind this, along the north side of 5th street is a 10 unit apartment building on R-3 zoned property. The remaining frontage of P.C.H. contains a series of older commercial buildings containing a mix of service and retail uses (going northward: "Adam and Eve Clothing," "Fantasy Adult Arcade," and "Chamberlin Motor Sports"). The depth of the commercial development is about 80 feet. Behind the commercial uses, which are not currently in good condition, within the C-3 zone and on the same property are 4 older single-family homes in generally poor condition (three of which are accessed from P.C.H.) to a depth of 125 feet. On the next lot (822 6th Street) wihin the R -2(C) zone is an old single family home, also in poor condition. Beyond this point are 3 single family homes which front on Gravely Court, in the R -2(C) zone, all in fair. condition. The current 160 foot depth of the C-3 zoning on the north side of 5th Street seems appropriate as it separates the commercial use from the new 10 -unit apartment which is in good condition. However, in the northern portion of the block the current C-3 boundary, at a depth of only 125 feet, could be extended. Extending the commercial depth to 160 feet to include the 822 6th street (as noted above in poor condition) would appear to be the appropriate location as it would allow commercial expansion at a greater depth which may be an incentive to the turnover and improvement of the existing commercial and residential uses. The residential area to be included, as noted above, contains older homes which do not appear to be in good condition. RECOMMENDATION Locate the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary at a depth of 160 feet for the entire block. Amend the General plan map for the residential area behind the boundary from MUC to HD Residential and MD Residential to be consistent with the designations to the east. Z5 (9s) SE ' Approx. Dist. Dist. Similar Use Current Use St. Address Lot Use ' Date Cond. from from Adjacent Across Slope Zone Conf 5th St.- 6th St. Size Const. PCH ECB* Uses Street ing? SS 5th St. 504 P.C.H. 15000 Comm. 1984 Gdod 0-160 Yes Comm. Flat C-3 Yes 518 P.C.H. 5625 Vac/Com. 1946 Fair 0-120 - Yes - Flat C-3 Yet 530 P.C.H. 5625 Comm. 1922 Fair 0-120 Yes - Flat C-3 Yes 833 5th St. 13500 10UApt. 1988 Good 160-250 0 Com/W/SFR/N SFR Mod. R-3 Yes NS'5th St. 536 P.C.H. 4440 Com/Res bhd 1922 Fr/Pr 0-120 SFR/bhd Mod. C-3 No 544 P.C.H. 4440 Com/Res bhd 1922 Pr/Pr 0-120 SFR/bhd Mod. C-3 No 588 P.C.H.• 4440 Com/Res bhd <1955 Fr/Pr 0-120 SFR/bhd Comm. Mod. C-3 No 822 6th St. 4400 SFR 1937 Poor 120-160 0 Yes 2FR Mod. R -2C' Yes 541 Gravely Ct. 2960 SFR 1952 Fair 160-240 40 MFR/S. Mod. R -2C Yes 544 Gravely Ct. 2960 SFR 1924 Fair 160-240 40 Yes Mod. R -2C Yes 549 Gravely Ct. 2960 SFR 1952 Fair 160-240 40 Yes SFR Mod. R -1C Yes 5TH ST. 90 9C 6TH °0 FZL gr. COMMERCIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL T1FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three or more units) EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY Z(' Cps) • 6TH STREET TO 7TH STREET (East Side) FRONTAGE: 270 feet DEPTH OF MUC: 240 feet DEPTH OF C-3 ZONING: 120 feet Existing development consists of a mix of service and retail commercial uses on property zoned C-3 to a depth of 120 feet. (Going northward: "Trend Imports," "JAMA,".a car wash, an art gallery/frame shop, "Ocean Ocean" surf shop, and "Rubber Stamps"). Behind the rubber stamps shop, within the C-3 zone, is an older existing single family home. The residential development located behind the frontage lots, up the moderate slope, is of various ages and types (including two new apartment buildings of 4 and 6 units which are currently nonconforming as to density) in generally fair condition. The residential properties are zoned R -2(C), and are part of a residential neighborhood which continues up the slope, zoned R -2B. Given the established residential character of the neighborhood up the slope, and that the depths of commercial development to the south and north are similar, it appears that the depth of the commercially developed frontage lots should be the extent of the commercial designation (120 feet). This would include the house at 814 7th street, which is located on the commercially developed frontage property. RECOMMENDATION Locate the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary at the rear of the frontage lots, coterminous with the existing C-3 zoning boundary, at a depth of 120 feet. Amend the General Plan Map to redesignate the residential area behind the frontage lots from MUC to MD Residential. Zi (91) SE • Approx. Dist. Dist. Similar Use Current USE St. Address Lot Use Date .Cond. from from Adjacent Across Slope Zone Cor 6th St.- 8th St. Size Const. PCH ECB* . Uses Street inE NS 6th St. 600 P.C.H. 12100 Com/Auto 1978 Fatr 0-122 Res/bhd Comm. Mod. C-3 Yet 620 P.C.N. 9600 Com/Auto 1965 Fair 0-122 Res/bhd - Mod. C-3 Yes 817 6th St. 7275 2Units 1946 Fair 122-170 0 Com/W/MFR/E SFR Mod. R -2C Yes 831 6th St. 8400 6UCon. 1982 Good 170-226 48 SFR/N SFR Mod. R -2C No SS 7th St. 638 P.C.N. 6000 Comm. <1950 Fair 0-120 2FR/bad Mod. C-3 Yes 650 P.C.N./ 814 6th St.- 4800 Com/SFR bad 45/32 Fr/Fr 120-160 SFR/bad Comm. Mod. C-3 No 824 7th St. 4800 2Unit 1958 Poor 120-160 0 • Com/W. MFR Mod. R -2C Yes 832 7th St. 4800 SFR 1928 Fair 160-200 40 MFR/E. 2FR Mod. R -2C Yes 840 7th St. 4800 4UApt. 1987 Good 200-240 80 MFR/E. 2FR Mod. R -2C No 90 >- (-4C (c Se V) ZC' 0 U a&cc 90 1 7TH •• r2I4 ;124 533+ • 4o ST. 29 '32 - w r 4'0 13 45.4 4;54.19., oe -u.4)- r- •1 I N O I aeo-1DcI 631 u 4 6TH . : ST. 7/God V, a COMMERCIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ElMULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three oc more units) • EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY .••..S PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY ( 99 • 7TH STREET TO 8TH STREET (East Side) FRONTAGE: 120 feet DEPTH OF MUC: 240 feet DEPTH OF C-3 ZONING: 120 feet Existing development consists of "JAMA Automotive" auto repair and sales business along the entire frontage, zoned C-3, to a depth of 120 feet. Behind this frontage lot, up the moderate slope, are three residentially developed "through" lots, containing 3, 2, and 2, units, in generally fair condition. The 3 -unit development, built in 1977, is currently nonconforming as to density. The residential lots are zoned R -2(C) and are adjacent to a residential neighborhood zoned R -2B that continues up the slope. Given the established residential character up the slope and the similar commercial depth to the north and south, the depth of existing commercial development should be the extent of the commercial designation. RECOMMENDATION Locate the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary at the rear of the frontage lots, coterminous with the C-3 zoning boundary, at a depth of 120 feet. Amend the General Plan Map for the residential area behind the frontage lots from MUC to MD Residential. 2°I (99) w SE Approx. Dist. Dist. Similar Use Current • Use St. Address Lot Use Date Cond. from from Adjacent Across Slope Zone - Con NS -7th St. Size Const. PCH • ECB* Uses Street ing • T00 P.C.H. 14400 Com/Auto <1960 .Fair 0-120 Res/bad Comm. Mod. C-3 Yes 821, 825 7th St. 4800 3UCon. 1977. Fair 120-160 0 Com/W. 2FR Mod. R -2C No 329 7th St. 4800 2Units 1961 Fair 160-200 40 Yes SFR Mod. R -2C Yes 339 7th St. 4800 2Units 1924 Fair 200-240 80 Yes • MFR Mod. R -2C Yes ti TM • 7TH ST. COMMERCIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three or more units) 30 EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY •••••• PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY (/VC) �.�►:.; • ....::::: • O 10 09 / to O 087 OEM '22 ) 1 6 6 S 5 a�:>>q` 4 3 :, .4 �i�jAc.. -.44471;tibi 7TH ST. COMMERCIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three or more units) 30 EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY •••••• PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY (/VC) 14TH STREET TO 15TH STREET (East Side) FRONTAGE: 210 feet DEPTH OF MUC: 291 feet DEPTH OF C-3 ZONING: 106 feet, 126 feet Existing development consists of the "Folded Wings Auto Service", zoned C-3, with a depth .of 106 feet and the "Texaco" Service Station, zoned C-3, with a depth of 126 feet. Behind these uses and up the steep slope are single family units on the north side of 14th Street, and one and two family uses on the south side of 15th Street, zoned R-2. The residential units are a mix of older and newer structures in fair to good condition. The residential lot immediately behind "Folded Wings," at°823 14th Street, is under the same ownership as "Folded Wings•." The steep slope presents a natural barrier to significantly deeper commercial expansion. The current depth of commercial development, which is recognized by the C-3 zoning, is consistent with the depths across 14th Street to the south and across 15th Street to the north. However, the depth of the "Texaco" service station is 20 feet deeper than "Folded Wings". Since the lot at 823 14th Street is under the same ownership as the frontage parcel, and is only 35 feet wide (going to a depth of 141 feet) • it could logically be included in the Commercial Corridor to allow for expansion of the "Folded Wings" business. It does not appear that any further commercial encroachment into the existing residential neighborhoods should be encouraged. RECOMMENDATION Locate the Commercial/SPA boundary at a depth of 141 feet along the north side of 14th Street to include 823 14th Street and at the existing C -3/R-2 boundary at a depth of 126 feet along the south side of 15th Street. Amend the LUP designation for the residential areas behind the boundary from MUC to LD Residential along the north side of 14th Street, and to MD residential along the south side of 15th Street. • NE • St. Address Lot 14th to 15th Size Use • Approx. Dist. Dist. Similar Use Current Use Date Cond. from from Adjacent Across Slope Zone Conform - Const. PCH ECB* Uses Street ing? NS 14th St. 1402 P.C.H. • 7897 Com/Auto 1923 Good / 0-106 SFR/bhd SFR Mod. C-3 Yes 823 14th St. 2600 SFR 1955 Fair 106-141 0 Comm./W. SFR Steep R-2 Yes 827 14th St. 3725 SFR pre/56 Fair 141-191 35 Yes SFR Steep R-2 Yes 833 14th St. 3725 SFR 1946 Good 191-241 85 Yes Sfr Steep R-2 Yes 845 14th St. 3725 SFR 1952 Fair 241-291 135 Yes SFR Steep R-2 Yes SS 15th St. 1414 P.C.H. 17010 Com/Auto 1966 Fair 0-126 SFR/bhd Com/SFR Mod/Stp R-2 Yes 830 15th S. 5670 SFR 1928 Fair .126-168 0 C to W. SFR Steep R-2 Ye 834 15th St. 5670 2 Dete 28/83 Fair 168-210 42 Yes SFR Steep R-2 Yes 840 15th St. 5670 SFR 1926? Fair 210-252 84 Yes SFR Steep R-2 Yes. 842 15th St. 5670 2 det. 1924 Good 252-294 126 Yes SFR Steep R-2 Yes *Existing Commercial Boundary I5TH • • 116 43 84o 847- S T. a e;z3 • V47 e.33 845 IN 7.5..14 14TH, • ST - v4 COMMERCIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three or more units) EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY •••••• PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY 32- (/c l) I r • 15TH STREET TO 16TH'STREET (East side PCH) FRONTAGE: 339 feet DEPTH OF MUC: 300 feet DEPTH OF C-3 ZONE: 42 feet, 84 feet, 100 feet, 150 feet The pattern of zoning and land uses inthis area necessitates dividing this discussion into two parts: 1.). The north side of 15th Street to 135 feet north of the street, and 2.) The South Side of 16th Street covering the remaining area of the block (to 204 feet south of 16th Street) 1. North Side of 15th Street to 135 feet north of the street: Existing development includes a Medical Office building (1500 P.C.H.) zoned C-3, with a depth of 42 feet at the north corner of 15th Street and a vacant parcel to its north. Behind this office along the north side of 15th Street, development includes a non -conforming duplex, in the R -1(C) zone, at a depth of 42-84 feet; a vacant parcel also within the R -1(C) zone; and a single family, two family, and two 3 -unit condominiums (under construction), zoned R-2, going eastward up the increasingly steep slope. Across 15th Street the commercial depth is 126 feet. Residential uses start from this depth on the fourth lot up the slope. Making the depth the same on the north side of the street would provide a logical and consistent commercial/residential boundary on 15th Street. Commercial development any deeper than 126 feet is restricted by the increasingly steep slope, and existing residential uses beginning at 126 feet are in generally good condition. The R-1(C)/R-2 zoning boundary is currently at the 126 foot depth. The use of the parcels currently zoned R -1(C) at a depth of 42-126 feet for new residential counstruction does not seem appropriate. Conversely, these properties appear to be appropriate for commercial development if assembled with adjacent properties which front onto P.C.H. RECOMMENDATION Locate the Commercial Corridor/SPA Boundary at the 126 foot depth coterminous with the R-1(C)/R-2 zoning boundary. Amend the LUP designation for the area east of the 126 foot depth from MUC to MD Residential. • 2. South side of 16th Street to 204 feet south: Existing land use consists of a large vacant parcel (0.45 acres), zoned C-3 and R-1, to a depth of 145 feet and the Coast Pet Clinic, zoned C-3 to a depth of 150 feet. Behind the vacant parcel, up the slope, and along the south side of 15th Place are three 3 -unit apartments zoned R-2, and behind the Pet Clinic are three one and two family homes. These residential structures, build within the last thirty years, are in fair to good condition. The slope again presents a natural barrier to commercial expansion deeper than the frontage lots. Given that the frontage lots are 145 feet and 150 feet, it would seem appropriate to locate the commercial boundary at the back of these lots. The current R-1 zoning located in the back 45.feet of the vacant parcel is not appropriate, and any residential uses that were located there have been demolished. Establishment of the boundary at the 145 and 150 depths would recognize existing development and allow for commercial development of high quality on the vacant lot, and would be somewhat consistent with the recommended 126 feet depth to the south. RECOMMENDATION Locate the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary at the back of the vacant parcels (145 feet) and behind the Coast Pet Clinic Parcel (150) feet. Amend the LUP designation for the residential area located behind the boundary line along the south side of 16th Street from MUC to LD residential, and the lots south of 15th Place to ND residential. 34- 004) • ., NE Approx. Dist. Dist. Similar Use Current Use St. Address Lot Use Date Cond. from from Adjacent Across Slope Zone Conform - 15th to 16th Size Const. PCH ECB* Uses Street ,ing? NS ' 15th St. • / 1500 P.C.H. 2835 Comm. 1970 Fair 0-42 Res/bhd Comm. Mod. C-3 Yes 1514 P.C.H.. 5670 Vac. - 0-84 Com/S. C-3 809 15th St. 2835 Dup. 1973 Fair '42-84 0 W/Com/E/Vac Comm. Steep R -1C 815 15th St. 5670 Vac. - 84-126 42 Res. Comms Steep R -1C 825 15th St. 5670 SFR 1928 Fair .126-168 84 Yes SFR Steep R-2 829 15th St. 5670 SFR 1928 Fair 168-210 126 Yes 2FR Steep R-2 835 15th St, 5670 3UCan. 1989 un/Cons. 210-252 168 Yes SFR Steep R-2 845 15th St. 5670 3UCon. 1989 un/Cons. 252-296 210 Yes SFR Steep R-2 SS 16th St. / 1530 P.C.H. 12600 Vac. 0-150 Res/bhd Mod. C -3/R-1 1550 P.C.H. 6600 Vac. 0-150 Com/N/Res/bhd Mod. C -3/R-1 1560 P.C.H. 11400 Comm. 1977 Good 0-150 Res/bhd Com. Steep C-3 Ytb 832 15th P1. 4790 3uApt. 1956 Fair 150-200 Vac/W. 2FR Steep R-2 No 836 15th P1. 5230 3uApt. 1958 Fair 200-250 Yes SFR Steep R-2 Yes 840 15th P1. 5230 3uApt. 1957 Fair 250-300 Yes 2FR Steep R-2 Yes 832 16th St, 3800 Dup. 1975 Good 150-200 0 Com/W. SFR Steep R-1• No . 836 16th ,St. 3800 SFR 1952 . Good 200-250 50 Yes SFR Steep R-1 Yes 846 16th St. 3840 Dup. 1955 Fair 250-300 100 Yes SFR Steep R-1 No Yes Yes Yes Yes COMMERCIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL a4WO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 90 • .51. MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three or more units) EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY •••••• PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY PACIFIC COAST 90 • • • 16TH STREET TO 17THsSTREET (East side of PCH) FRONTAGE: 280 feet DEPTH: 300 feet DEPTH OF C-3 ZONING: 100 feet Existing development along P.C.H. consists of a small Real Estate business (Ocean Realtors) and Kragen Autoworks on properties zoned C-3 with depths of 100 feet. Behind these frontage lots up the slope are single family homes, zoned R-1, situated along Raymond Avenue. These homes, built about 25-40 years ago, are in generally good condition. The steep slope is a natural barrier to deeper commercial development. To expand commercially beyond the frontage lots would require excessive grading. RECOMMENDATION Locate the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary line along the rear of the frontage lots at a depth of 100 feet coterminous with the existing C -3/R-1 zoning boundary. Amend the LUP designation for the residential area behind the frontage lots from MUC to LD Residential. (SEA OFFICIAL SEAL KATHLEEN L. MIDSTOKKE NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA • LOS ANGELES COUNTY MY Commission Expires SEPT. 29. 1992 I, the undersigned, do decl re,under penalty of that I did on the ' (yft. day of ��,.,, perjury deposit into the United States pos office, first 9class postage prepaid, a copy of the public notice attached as Exhibit "A" to' each and every person attached as Exhibit "B". 'I warrant that the persons named on Exhibit "B" are all the persons required by applicable law to receive the public notice attached as Exhibit "A". • I understand and agree that it is my responsibility to • cause these public notices to be made in an accurate and timely fashion and agree to hold• the City harmless against any liability whatsoever for any defect of said notice or notices. ' In the event an action is instituted in a court of com= petent jurisdiction which questions the legality of the public notices, then the City may in its exclusive discretion suspend • all hearings or cause the cessation of any construction or of any use which was permitted as a result of a hearing which was held'in accordance with the public notice. In the event -that the court declares the notice or noticing procedure to be effective, then the City may in its exclusive discretion revoke any permits granted and cause any approvals given pursuant to those public notices to be declared null and void and I agree • on .behalf of ;myself and my heirs, assigns or successors-in-intere: to hold the City harmless in connection therewith. 0 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and cor::ect. I• have executed this declaration on this the 13#6t day of /p: , 198q at IIermosa Beach, California. /12c c u— ov G / iniC- • (name) • (Signature) (Capacity) State 'of California ) County of Los Angeles ) SS • On this the =' day is f , 1987, before me, ids %P._ in)e t e undersignee.4- Notary Public, personally appeared proved to me on the basis��f sat /_facto y e idence o be the person(s) whose name(.6 subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that 57/� ecuted it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. —at 0 otary Public • M. s William A. Fifer 720 - 24th Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Mr. Michael Schubach Planning Director City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mr Schubach: APR 1 ¶: 1989 April 17, 1989 During the Planning Commission meeting on April 4 regarding the Multi -Use Corridor, several residents spoke out regarding concern that they were not being notified of meetings that impacted on their property. I would like to be added to your mailing list. I closed escrow on the new home at the above address on April 28, 1988, and started receiving mail and bills and paying taxes, both to Los Angeles County, and via my utility and cable TV bills, to the City of Hermosa Beach. We physically moved in and have been residents since May 15th, 1988. Last night my neighbor at 724 24th handed me a copy of another notice from you regarding the City Council meeting scheduled for April 25th. I did not receive any copy addressed to 720 24th Street. Please add me to your mailing list, and I recommend you inquire as to the system utilized for updating your list. Surely one year should be more than adequate time for additions and changes to be posted to your list. Sincer ly, iti William A. `ifer (vi4zewcoort,eeit-c/L k/Icz),144, &61-ct_ 7apo- MAR 1, 6 1989 22,/utefewcario(ti, ,0446"44+„ /We- rat 7/9- n1/.26/vc-C_ .6,a,a/C if Ode - v, t/(ei -Clic a-'?A‹doi-t/� ✓ altAcizo,71 ,G�.&L /z� ��dW�t,_/ iciter 0( 7P7-5 .Y" We ocvi 4tearecil 07GIJ; =&1(Ziue M9.U.(14aX /� dGNi __04OCCezZ jOaeca 4_&-. AfIff 717 — 07761 ilwv)w-tizit_ —ao8-a13 37{-0381 642 24th Street Hermosa Beach, California 90254 March 15, 1989 Planning Department City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 REF: General Plan Amendment changing the location of boundaries and policies regarding Multi -use Corridor and to consider Specific Plan Area designation and Environmental Negative Declaration. Dear Sirs: We are responding to the Public Notice sent to one of our neighbors regarding the referenced General Plan Amendment. We have no problem with the commercial zoning of the lots on PCH, but are opposed to extending the commercial zoning to the R-1 and R-2 lots in our neighborhood. Specifically, we are opposed to the City converting the lots east of and including 739 21st Street from residential to commercial zoning. The result would be to put commercial development, literally, in our own back yards, thereby detracting from our views and reducing our property values. We plan to attend the March 21st Public Hearing and add our dissenting voices to those of our neighbors. Sin rely, 4,/(Robert Byren Laurie Byren MAR 1 5 1989 VLEWS .T.tiv oi'E & (=k YAWS* ' e 'r r,V ea z!ICX)c r/ s 7z, l‘4 TWA T /34'/ /Se- ©� G.04z/v c I.,4/ Per -c/o -MIL: L6.eoi'�,� 7-i 5 /1.48z(7--- /f -I 40 7:S IV/ 770.ti r -Hc /111(e_ R0 7 /C FED 7`0 i-yI Si(/LDi,Y1711.17; i i 4'Si r); �rlJD SET 4 4C 'meq /,e�/f 4'73 of rA/ ?�//, 4 , 19.NYr/'/, i6k7 X v i54�4' SLy• rrf/� 7-reaypi4e,s, VEk y //V/%' 'T%& r ';'(",)(// /95f/ /;q3 leH .0 5 T- A/cif/105/1 SG,; 6/4 foZ V �i ?lanning Department City of Hermosa Beach - 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254' To ".Jhom it may conceen: Mr. and Mrs. Walter S. Kainz 819 Eighteenth Street Hermosa 3each, California 90254 MAR 2 01989 We object to the proposed rezoning of the Multiple Use Corridor to Commercial for the following reasons: 1. The east side of Pacific Coast Highway from 18th to 21st Streets has a long history of residential use. Changing the character of the neighborhood is not the will of the homeowners and residents. 2. The area from 18th to 21st Street is hilly and not suitable for commercial development. 3. The view lots should be preserved for residential use. L. Commercial property in the area has a long history of lying vacant. There is no need to add to the inventory glut of unused commercial development. As homeowners and longtime residents of the affected area we oppose the proposed rezoning to commercial. Sincerely, • ,- )4a, /6 1 6 Ct O,-tr' . /Y 1-- �.Z��/� C /lam.-e�-rL• � r _ ' IC( / e , .• IT f ...6:4 "(1."(---'4e.C.... A, 1....0742e ,.. ..Z...'.7'9e.....,PC., A.' :2 -e -e -e -ea.' .A2 ,L, ..? e...,:ei ? f ! -? _ 4-e - ---:c....c..-,e, .....-44: - -,,.., -c - _ _ e.)- . of. „....,, .ez „.....,,....„_ -,>-)..4„..r.-,:: et. _.e. e.• j„ • . . , , . e"--Cete.._4_4.../ •ck-74--ek- ,-C-44:-m-- -44-c---- 1'--et-L-e--.et-) ----t-et---e- -../Leeee „,,,c(.....er..,,L./ :4 -c41 --X.../ ee-X-c eA-e4.-4-44-4L-ee, .-e..--x- e,--ef-).e.-e-,4- "---e--4-e- ZdJi(----Z.• 4C/21 e e '`‘:_-_:401-h--1---,-/C-el--rfC..• .e• ez-er)e-e.--e6 d le _L4 ....eee e e:y • g`Z - edri-e-ii-- 67, (ile? • e;,_, •-••e'4•cf ( z1 ..c. --4-•<-e--46 • 2•1:" e.a-..--.7.Z.,, 46%4 2Xe. x&-e/Le'e-L-6/et.7 „ez_ .---71-1----)" ,,..e -CA -e --c e...ee .--;.1::•‘,4e_...- /0 .-%-2--c C "2--z. c./- %---1(7 ice,e0. ,-/ eL X42 C-Z:--.7C-i-- - V;;771.1-ee--4fe, e/:).- ' t- et-ci-are „..0 -Z.4 --1Z-/-1 • • "..•••••••••••..................m.1.•••••••••...... -c? e1 ecee. --etr • et--A.--r . . -202- — e -0510-7e-fe: 42/. ) (P. qf e.-41 ci.44:!-i r,. -t_ 2e-276.72e.c. -L •E 1- se 46.,5,C -e_406 - . . eee.t ei;rr-1 .4(...-0(7 tczel/ --12-j;ezL.,7,CLezL z47 -z?"" _ - 6714-7-f.ezz14-.-e= • 74- e- L /,ey* A A • ) rAneyi lvv-1,: 4 1 76):5• .3,z4z_z47 ,e.-4 647f, s;1 . • 4 e ce... -eZe • if;71 /1--/-oe -Z 01 - The report also declares that "100 feet of depth would be adequate for commercial development if some of the parcels were assembled" (19th Street to 21st Street) and "frontage lots are of adequate depth to support commercial development if assembled" (18th Street to 19th Street). There is nothing to support the conclusions regarding the requirements of commercial development in Hermosa Beach or elsewhere. The type of commercial use is not suggested, and the conclusion appears to be pure.hypothesis. The report makes no mention of the type of commercial use anticipated for the commercially zoned areas. Without this informa- tion, any calculations of parking requirements, pedestrian traffic, additional automobile traffic, crime, noise polution, litter, or depth requirements are speculative. A determination that commercial development is desirable cannot be supported without this data. Because property along Pacific Coast Highway already has high value as residential property, a simple calculation indicates that a small store could cost $1 million in land and building alone. In order to justify the expense, a high rate of customer traffic would be required. The higher the expense of the building, the higher the required sales per square foot to make the business profitable. ,The higher the sales per square foot, the greater the potential for problems with traffic, parking, noise, litter, etc. This cost consideration has not been addressed to determine if any commercial development in this area is feasible. It may well be that the only feasible commercial uses are entirely unacceptable to the community, such as high rise office buildings. The potential view blockage through commercial use is of tremendous concern to residents East of PCH. The higher height limit for structures in a commercial zone is a major reason for community opposition to commercial zoning. The report is based on speculation about potential commercial uses of many properties in the future. If the recommendation of the department must be based upon the future, then the appropriate response would be to wait until future circumstances become clear. Sincerely, Mary M. Hanson a,/i r, n 2 .1 1989 Michael Schubach, Planning Director Hermosa Beach Planning Department 1315 Valley Dr. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 841 Nineteenth St. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 March 19, 1989 2-1 1988 Re: Rezoning in the Multi -Use Corridor Dear Mr. Schubach and the Department, I wish to express my objections to the proposed rezoning of the residential areas of Pacific Coast Highway. Some of your recommendations are not supported by the findings in your report. Some of your findings are not supported by the evidence. The report bases its recommendation on the unsupported premise that transition of residential uses within the corridor to commercial use is "highly desirable." No evidence whatsoever is provided•to support this conclusion. Many aspects of the immediate environment were ignored in reaching the conclusion that commercial use would be highly desirable. In the area of 16th Street to 21st Street, the streets and alleys are narrow and winding, with limited parking and few sidewalks. Commercial use of this area, even with PCH frontage, seems highly inappropriate. The current use in this area is 100% residential. Total transition to commercial seems highly unlikely. Commercial use would generate more traffic, more parking demand, more vehicle activity, more pedestrian activity, more litter, more noise, and more crime, and the introduced combination of residential and commercial in currently residential areas would seem certain to bring conflicts. The report makes no mention of these impacts. There is currently no excess parking available in this residential portion of Pacific Coast Highway. In addition, an increase in pedestrian traffic in areas without sidewalks increases the situation where pedestrians share the road with automobiles. It is difficult for pedestrians to cross Pacific Coast Highway now. With increased commercial use, an increase in pedestrian traffic, as well as an increase in the number of automobiles turning across traffic or slowing to make right hand turns would make Pacific Coast Highway a high-speed obstacle course. Dr. Brian Carrico March 21, 1989 AMP 21 1989 ENVIRONMENT PROPOSAL - TREE PLANTING ON P.C.H. This proposal is based on similar program used in the city of Santa Monica - along Lincoln Blvd* Tree Species: Trystanias or Liquid Amber Placement Cost Assesment :40' apart 30' from corner. :Wells are cut 3' x 3' next to curb. :Exact placement is discussed with store owner to avoid sign interference (should be placed head on) :15 gallon tree $40.00 apiece :Cost of well cutting 30.00 each : Tree stake, etc. 10.00 Aprox $80.00 total per tree. Cost about $3.00 per foot. So a 50' frontage would cost business owner $150.00. Advantages Contributes to street beautification. Trees absorb noise pollution which caused a decrease in stress. Trees decrease air pollution by absorbing CO2 and CO and filtering other pollutants. Care and Maintenance Watering is needed for only the first 6 months. (If planted in the fall). Then tree roots are deep enough to reach water table. Watering can be done by a water or fire truck. Trees need to be pruned every 3 years, to control the shape of the tree. Thank you for your consideration. * Information provided by Mr. Doug Stafford, Parks Superintendent, City of Santa Monica (currently with city of Monterrey) • 21TH . EJ 0 CO[MIERCIAL SINCLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WO -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three or here units) - 19'7 - EXISTING 9'1 - EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY 11. Granted, there are apartment buildings across the street from the lots in question, but the lots would still be wonderful building sites for new homes. They would have terrific views and the lots are deep enough to allow for substantial setbacks and yards. We need to retain nice residential lots like these, not destroy them. 12. The slope on 21st Street is still substantial enough that an extraordinary amount of grading would be required if this were made•into one large commercial development. That is not in the best interests of the community or a developer. 13. Hermosa Beach from 21st Street North is a wonderful family, residential neighborhood. Please do not destroy it. 14. Finally, we do not want these five lots on 21st Street zoned commercial. We especially do not want the most westerly 2 lots changed from R-1 to commercial. Please do not do it. It would dramatically reduce the value of our properties and diminish the pleasure of living here. We love our neighborhood and want it to remain a nice residential area. Your consideration is appreciated. NAME 1 77/1-1-1.-"///, • 1 C ew yr/ 4 �itlCLt; r /)/r_At �. ADDRESS � g$ T -y-C/ �^ tis y tLz ,/ • /(. � i 4 -27/-T iX, '. - _5, /71.L 3. The heaviest foot traffic on 21st Street is children going back and forth from their homes to schools and the beach. This is the only access street between Pier and Gould with a signal at PCH. Additional commercial development here would undoubtedly increase vehicle traffic on 21st Street and thus be dangerous for the children. 4. 21st Street is too narrow to accommodate the additional traffic that would be generated by a large commercial development on these lots.' 5. Rezoning the additional two lots to commercial would encourage the construction of another huge commercial project. Hermosa Beach does not need another huge development. 6. There is a great deal of unutilized or underutilized commercial property in Hermosa Beach. That should be developed before proposing to invade residential areas. 7. We already have parking overflow from the commercial establishments on PCH. We do not need any more. 8. The depth of the commercial property between 24th Street and 24th Place is limited to 140 feet and 90 feet on the north and south halves, respectively. There is absolutely no reason to extend the commercial area in the very next block, which is also a single family residential area, to 290 or even 220 feet. The 115 foot depth of the PCH lots is plenty. At worst, the addition of the first lot on 21st Street would make a 150 foot depth which would be more than adequate for any reasonable commercial development of this property. In the interests of uniformity, the commercial development should be limited to a depth similar to that in the next block north. 9. There is a high likelihood that the homes west of the vacant R-1 lots on 21 Street will be upgraded if the entire street is left residential. It seems more likely that they will not if there is a huge commercial development on half of the block. 10. It would appear that the proposed changes would only benefit the present property owners of the lots in question. They would get their money from the developers of the commercial property. They would go away, leaving the adjacent residential property owners to suffer the consequences. This is not good for the city or its residents. March 17, 1989 Planning Department City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 'tcce4 ve 3/z I � rk,{fta Re: General Plan Amendment Changing the Location of Boundaries and Policies Regarding Multi -Use Corridor and to Consider Specific Plan Area Designation and Environmental Negative Declaration Gentlemen: We are responding to the public notice recently sent to some Hermosa Beach residents regarding the referenced General Plan Amendment. We are specifically concerned with the area described as 24th Street to 21st Street (West of PCH). We are all residents of the primarily single family residential neighborhood adjacent to the area proposed to be changed to the Commercial Corridor zone. Only the lots facing on PCH should be zoned commercial. The five lots facing on 21st Street should remain residential. As indicated in the Planning Commission report, the conditional rezoning of the first three lots on 21st Street (numbered 20,21 & 22 on the attached map) has expired. They should revert to R-1 and remain R-1. Under no circumstances should the next two lots (numbered 23 and 24) be rezoned from R-1 to commercial. Some of our reasons are as follows: 1. All of the lots on 24th Street which back up to the lots in question, have recently been upgraded with new homes. There is also a new home under construction on the lot immediately west of the lots in question. It does not make sense to place a large commercial development directly adjacent to these single family homes. 2. Expanding the commercial zone here would destroy the views of at least 8 homes -- the five houses north of the lots and the 3 apartments. Much of the value of these homes is in the views. We will lose that value and enjoyment. • I• 24THST. + 7LO 724 72u 7Aa 7.27z. 74-o 92 .92 . 23° i 9 µfRmoSA V IFw TRH( . Ilj r5 rn. B : s 0 -'59 CONDoMINouIt TRACT NO.3gzoo M. a. q-10•-15 MON 7-44 m. 8. 9_135 Lc] 1 so 0 _i6 U % 0 19 4 POT 90 e 215T COMMERCIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TIDO-FAMILY RESIDEN'PIAL MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three or nate units) — ST,. EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY 11. Granted, there are apartment buildings across the street from the lots in question, but the lots would still be wonderful building sites for new homes. They would have terrific views and the lots are deep enough to allow for substantial setbacks and yards. We need to retain nice residential lots like these, not destroy them. 12. The slope on 21st Street is still substantial enough that an extraordinary amount of grading would be required if this were made'into one large commercial development. That is not in the best interests of the community or a developer. 13. Hermosa Beach from 21st Street North is a wonderful family, residential neighborhood. Please do not destroy it. 14. Finally, we do not want these five lots on 21st Street zoned commercial. We especially do not want the most westerly 2 lots changed from R-1 to commercial. Please do not do it. It would dramatically reduce the value of our properties and diminish the pleasure of living here. We love our neighborhood and want it to remain a nice residential area. Your consideration is appreciated. (ti,ANitic/j14144;144VNA44ADDRESS (14,01- So,q- tUAW-t•IOIJ 70 P a itilt $ �a cre,'cr.:'7 4/- / T cw T CI, a c. .7q / U '-t DACI ;A.,1 k- . 7‘)-, Wea\rtIfl 1 4 /I 1////14 /1,it.1 �>•7 t 7/ - ��� .1` y � (-4 (Pt zi tC, 11C? & S y 2'l'e 5/ 3. The heaviest foot traffic on 21st Street is children going back and forth from their homes to schools and the beach. This is the only access street between Pier and Gould with a signal at PCH. Additional commercial development here would undoubtedly increase vehicle traffic on 21st Street and thus be dangerous for the children. 4. 21st Street is too narrow to accommodate the additional traffic that would be generated by a large commercial development on these lots. 5. Rezoning the additional two lots to commercial would encourage the construction of another huge commercial project. Hermosa Beach does not need another huge development. 6. There is a great deal of unutilized or underutilized commercial property in Hermosa Beach. That should be developed before proposing to invade residential areas. 7. We already have parking overflow from the commercial establishments on PCH. We do not need any more. 8. The depth of the commercial property between 24th Street and 24th Place is limited to 140 feet and 90 feet on the north and south halves, respectively. There is absolutely no reason to extend the commercial area in the very next block, which is also a single family residential area, to 290 or even 220 feet. The 115 foot depth of the PCH lots is plenty. At worst, the addition of the first lot on 21st Street would make a 150 foot depth which would be more than adequate for any reasonable commercial development of this property. In the interests of uniformity, the commercial development should be limited to a depth similar to that in the next block north. 9. There is a high likelihood that the homes west of the vacant R-1 lots on 21 Street will be upgraded if the entire street is left residential. It seems more likely that they will not if there is a huge commercial development on half of the block. 10. It would appear that the proposed changes would only benefit the present property owners of the lots in question. They would get their money from the developers of the commercial property. They would go away, leaving the adjacent residential property owners to suffer the consequences. This is not good for the city or its residents. -'LC A CAj' t, March 17, 1989 Planning Department City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: General Plan Amendment Changing the Location of Boundaries and Policies Regarding Multi -Use Corridor and to Consider Specific Plan Area Designation and Environmental Negative Declaration Gentlemen: We are responding to the public notice recently sent to some Hermosa Beach residents regarding the referenced General Plan Amendment. We are specifically concerned with the area described as 24th Street to 21st Street (West of PCH). We are all residents of the primarily single family residential neighborhood adjacent to the area proposed to be changed to the Commercial Corridor zone. Onlv,the lots facing on PCH should be zoned commercial. The five lots facing on 21st Street should remain residential. As indicated in the Planning Commission report, the conditional rezoning of the first three lots on 21st Street (numbered 20,21 & 22 on the attached map) has expired. They should revert to R-1 and remain R-1. Under no circumstances should the next two lots (numbered 23 and 24) be rezoned from R-1 to commercial. Some of our reasons are as follows: 1. All of the lots on 24th Street which back up to the lots in question, have recently been upgraded with new homes. There is also a new home under construction on the lot immediately west of the lots in question. It does not make sense to place a large commercial development directly adjacent to these single family homes. 2. Expanding the commercial zone here would destroy the views of at least 8 homes -- the five houses north of the lots and the 3 apartments. Much of the value of these homes is in the views. We will lose that value and enjoyment. �moSA i- .n.3. 10-v9 IYIJ b 1,1d ' CoNDoMIn1tuN1 1-Rfic-i WO. 3VZOO ... 01.1 rA • 6. coo-, :1 og tog ®[I 24 ty MONTMAR/eora E 641 48. 9-135 Wi biA lot. .3s 24TH 71." 724 711.< 3a 7.2)/.. 740 • ST. ft • 9e . 54 Z�c149 -� .i. /41 E D D "1..=? -1 21ST COIMIERCIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDEN'iIAL MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three or nate unit.) U w" U 1 <,., U- N N to 19 0 • Ron 90 4!76'1✓f. -7.-3,9 • ST. EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY --lg9— 6 11. Granted, there are apartment buildings across the street from the lots in question, but the lots would still be wonderful building sites for new homes. They would have terrific views and the lots are deep enough to allow for substantial setbacks and yards. We need to retain nice residential lots like these, not destroy them. 12. The slope on 21st Street is still substantial enough that an extraordinary amount of grading would be required if this were made into one large commercial development. That is not in the best interests of the community or a developer. 13. Hermosa Beach from 21st Street North is a wonderful family, residential neighborhood. Please do not destroy it. 14. Finally, we do not want these five lots on 21st Street zoned commercial. We especially do not want the most westerly 2 lots changed from R-1 to commercial. Please do not do it. It would dramatically reduce the value of our properties and diminish the pleasure of living here. We love our neighborhood and want it to remain a nice residential area. Your consideration is appreciated. jj NAME �fi G f�.,f're clu t/lL/ Cs"-Xac G1, r- ���,�,, ��--�-: . • 7 _ ADDRESS 73; ,.:2‘•//-43 i / f,rn < 7,- `(c�5Y, lr '; y t7 .s7 6 c/c)as / _,y1 1‘ Q k.� n ,-k I.> ? Vit, 7 • The heaviest foot traffic on 21st Street is children going back and forth from their homes to schools and the beach. Thi$ is the only access street between Pier and Gould with a signal at PCH. Additional commercial development here would undoubtedly increase vehicle traffic on 21st Street and thus be dangerous for the children. 4. 21st Street is too narrow to accommodate the additional traffic that would be generated by a large commercial development on these lots.' 5. Rezoning the additional two lots to commercial would encourage the construction of another huge commercial project. Hermosa Beach does not need another huge development. S. There is a great deal of unutilized or underutilized commercial property in Hermosa Beach. That should be developed before proposing to invade residential areas. 7. We already have parking overflow from the commercial establishments on PCH. We do not need any more. 9. The depth of the commercial property between 24th Street and 24th Place is limited to 140 feet and 90 feet on the north and south halves, respectively. There is absolutely no reason to extend the commercial area in the very next block, which is also a single family residential area, to 290 or even 220 feet. The 115 foot depth of the PCH lots is plenty. At worst, the addition of the first lot on 21st Street would make a 150 foot depth which would be more than adequate for any reasonable commercial development of this property. In the interests of uniformity, the commercial development should be limited to a depth similar to that in the next block north. 9. There is a high likelihood that the homes west of the vacant R-1 lots on 21 Street will be upgraded if the entire street is left residential. It seems more likely that they will not if there is a huge commercial development on half of the block. 10. It would appear that the proposed changes would only benefit the present property owners of the lots in question. They would get their money from the developers of the commercial property. They would go away, leaving the adjacent residential property owners to suffer the consequences. This is not good for the city or its residents. March 17, 1989 Planning Department City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 cicl 3121fr,Pc%i Re: General Plan Amendment Changing the Location of Boundaries and Policies Regarding Multi -Use Corridor and to Consider Specific Plan Area Designation and Environmental Negative Declaration Gentlemen: We are responding to the public notice recently sent to some Hermosa Beach residents regarding the referenced General Plan Amendment. We are specifically concerned with the area described as 24th Street to 21st Street (West of PCH). We are all residents of the primarily single family residential neighborhood adjacent to the area proposed to be changed to the Commercial Corridor zone. Only the lots facing on PCH should be zoned commercial. The five lots facing on 21st Street should remain residential. As indicated in the Planning Commission report, the conditional rezoning of the first three lots on 21st Street (numbered 20,21 & 22 on the attached map) has expired. They should revert to R-1 and remain R-1. Under no circumstances should the next two lots (numbered 23 and 24) be rezoned from R-1 to commercial. Some of our reasons are as follows: 1. All of the lots on 24th Street which back up to the lots in question, have recently been upgraded with new homes. There is also a new home under construction on the lot immediately west of the lots in question. It does not make sense to place a large commercial development directly adjacent to these single family homes. 2. Expanding the commercial zone here would destroy the views of at least 8 homes -- the five houses north of the lots and the 3 apartments. Much of the value of these homes is in the views. We will lose that value and enjoyment. r �--, Signatu e i��ai r 1 r77,i1j.411 Print Ntme S)-. Address City -PEA, t.jr,,,64t/ver, Signature 01�v� Print N me I I3'} PGH -- Address 417vvyNosec4- City S'gn 4e-a-rLia- LTNcYrs Print Name icrz ga-c( lc (_01_cue," Address City • r./dy �!' . 'C.,1)1?`LL{.� /Signature '7)O c6NY /1. 7i M M r - r" "Print Name i 1 / /i?<< �c 'zs• Y/ Address .ill /'e; :M17e3 22.0'i SV City Signature A/I.:,( --/-• Print Name 1/1 4 Address City Signature r (( Print Name cc=?' /)(d.f�, Address /%!moi City • Michael Schubach, Planning Director Hermosa Beach Planning Department 1315 Valley Dr. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: Rezoning in the Multi -Use Corridor Zr- Hermosa Beach March 21, 1989 Dear Mr. Schubach and the Department, We wish to express our objections to the proposed rezoning of the residential areas of Pacific Coast Highway. Commercial use of the currently residential areas, and increases in commercial use in the areas that currently have commercial uses, is not desirable for this community. Commercial use would generate more traffic, more -parking demand, more vehicle activity, more pedestrian activity, more litter, more noise, and more crime, and the introduced combination of residential and commercial in currently residential areas is not welcome. We also object to potential higher height limits under commercial zoning. This is a residential area and the ocean view is enjoyed by many residents East of Pacific Coast Highway. We are not willing to let our ocean views be blocked to allow the development of unwelcome commercial development. ( Signature , Signature Print Name Address / ....1• -�/..� Print Name Address City City ,"'r/. • 21st St. 6773 Comm/Rest. 200 r.C.N. 27280 Com/Off. 2212 P.C.N. 3750 Com/Auto. 2306 P.C.M. 8250 Com/Off. 1984 Fair 0-75 - Tes MFR Nod. C-3 Yes 1982Good 0-165 Res/Ohd SFR . Mod. C-3 les 1966 Fair 0-75 - TesMod. 0�-3 • Yes 1982 , Good 0-165 les Mod. C-3 Yeas *!Existing Commercial Boundary T SEE: COMMERCIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDERYIAL MO -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MUL•PI-FAMILY RCSICE" (thcoo or race c:^ o t EXISTI`:G ZONING BOUNDARY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY •^; j(3 ,4 - i ..Hope CHPL FOURSQUARE CHURCH 2420 Pacific Coast Hwy. Hermosa Bch.. CA 90254 (213) 374 -HOPE March 28, 1989 Zac Nazarian Pastor Hermosa Beach Planning Department 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 MAR 3 0 1989 Re:City Planning Meeting 3/21/89 - Multi Use Corridor study & recommendation. To Whom it may concern, I would like to take a moment to reiterate our recommendation to the planning commission. • Page 47 of the planning study portrays a map indicating alternatives. Our suggestion & also our desire, is that the Multi Use Corridor, would extend up to Rhodes street, thus including the houses on Borden street within the MUC. Some good reasons for allowing this to happen are: a. We own 3 of the 4 houses on Borden street b. There is currently a block wall running along Rhodes street, thus creating a barrier. c. The elevation on east of Rhodes is higher than the west side, thus creating a natural barrier. d. This would put Borden street right in line, with Hope Chapel to the north, which is already general commercial. I sincerely hope, that our desires, will fit into the city's plan. I appreciate your consideration. Thank you! Sincerely, Associate Pastor Adriinistrator cc: File 1C3 - March 28, 1989 WELARC INCORPORATED REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS Hermosa Beach Planning Commission City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3885 MAR 3 ©1989 Attn: Mike Schubach, Planning Director Re: General Plan Amendments to the Multi Use Corridor, Proposed Resolutions 89-28, 89-29 and 89-30 Dear Mr. Schubach: We represent the owner of the property located at 125 Pacific Coast Highly, Hermosa Beach, known as South Bay AMC -Jeep/Eagle dealership and referred to on your documents as 45 Pacific Coast Highway. This letter is to advise you that we are in complete support of the proposed General Plan Amendments to the Multi Use Corridor referenced above. We think the ordinance will be of great benefit to the City of Hermosa Beach as it will allow a more consistent development along Pacific.Cnast Highway and increase revenues to the City. In addition, we believe it will eventually increase adjacent residential property values as the overall appearances will be improved and uses will not be intermingled on the streets adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway. �;"ly, 7,1716 'times G. Wellbaum President JGW/dg 222 NORTH SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD • SUITE 1690 • EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA 90245 TEL 213.322.1690 FAX 213.322.8324 period of time. For example, there seems to be a lot of interest in mid-size hotels currently. If all our available areas were so developed, that would eliminate future areas for office or retail complexes, which may be in strong market conditions, say in the 1990s. While there are no other points of concern, I did wish to par- ticularly support the comment on Page 5, number 9, related to compatible street frontages facing each other. Where a boundary between residential andcommercial needs to be adjusted either east or west, it is probably preferable to do that mid -block. Buffers in the back of lots are probably more easily constructed. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these matters further. 'Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager KBN/ld 0 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM DATE: March 30, 1989 TO: Planning Director Michael Schubach FROM: City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft RE: Comments on draft Multi -Use Corridor study and recommendations rk' 41989 I had an opportunity this morning to do a brief review of the above noted study and wanted to provide my "first review comments". This study very positively takes a complex matter and organizes it well into areas for public policy review. The criteria pro- posed and the organization of the recommendations are commend- able, and I concur generally with them. There are just a few areas over which I have some concerns, and they may be caused by just a different interpretation than the one intended. My con- cerns are, as follows: 1) Page 7, number 1 -- it would seem preferable for nonconform- ing.uses to use the City-wide nonconforming provisions, rather than establish any different for the commercial SPA area. 2 Page 8, number 2 -- I think this provision is too restric- tive on commercial uses. Under this policy, the City public parking lot between 2nd and 3rd Streets would appear to be in violation. The ownership of the land does not extend to PCH. 3) Page 8, number 3 -- This proposed policy seems to allow new nonconforming construction, and I think we would want to prohibit this. Again, I think the City-wide provisions on nonconforming use should apply in this area as well. 4) Page 5, number 1 -- The study refers to "commercial develop- ment of high quality", but does not make any reference to studies showing depths needed for economic vitality of dif- ferent types of high quality development. For example, do industry experts recommend mid-size hotels have a certain depth from an arterial street? Without this information, we may be unknowingly deciding our future commercial uses by setting their depths now. 5. I also thought the study was to look at the City's balance of different types of commercial uses along the corridor. It would seem the design of the specific plan area could promote or discourage different types of uses so that we maintain a balanced commercial district and not one that is unbalanced simply by a market demand over a five to telik,ar• established for the R-2 standards in this neighborhood. If rezoned, it would be the first time multi -family dwelling lots will be downzoned without a mandate from the voters. He said that no guidelines have been established. He felt that the Commission should address the issue of multi -unit residential dwellings in the R-2 area. He felt that the zoning should be left as it currently is. He said that R-213. zoning will not affect the views of those set back further on the block. He said that the changes which would take place with commercial is a good reason to leave the zoning as is. He concluded by stating that he favors the idea of trees along Pacific Coast Highway. Public Hearing closed at 9:56 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. • Chmn. Peirce favored continuing this matter to the next * meeting so that additional information can be obtained. He noted that this is a very large document. If continued, each specific area can be discussed at the next meeting.. Comm. Ingell agreed that the matter should be continued because of the large size of the document. He also noted that many people did not receive noticing. He further noted that several people favored readjusting the line as shown on the maps. Chmn. Peirce stated that the City must decide whether it wants additional commercial; the only way to obtain more commercial is to rezone some of the R properties. He said that if the lots are actually counted, there are not that many. He said that the east side of the highway between 17th and 21st Street is mostly residential, and a rezone would definitely change the character of the area. Mr. Lough explained that general plan amendments occur four times per year. He noted that there are several other general plan amendments at this time. He cautioned against breaking up the amendments too much because the City Council could get them at various times, and then there could be two general plan amendments instead of just the one. He also discussed the noticing, stating that the legal requirement was only to notice in the "Easy Reader" because more than 1000 parcels were involved. He stated that the notices sent out by staff were done merely as a courtesy to those in the commercial corridor, not as a legal requirement. He therefore saw no legal concerns over the noticing. Comm. Edwards said it was made quite clear that people living in residential areas do not want commercial zoning in their neighborhood. He continued by giving background information on the moratorium. Comm. Ketz stated that, other than the area between 17th and 21st Streets, the staff proposal will protect residential areas from further encroachment of commercial use. She had concern over the area between 17th and 21st Street, since both sides of the streets appear to be residential. She felt this area should be studied further. She agreed that the hearing should be continued so that other areas can be addressed. Comm. Rue stated that the staff report was excellent. He questioned whether the entire commercial corridor can be addressed at the next hearing, stating that he would favor such a discussion. Public Hearing reopened by Chmn. Peirce. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to continue this matter to the next meeting of the Planning Commission to be held April 4, 1989. No objections; so ordered. P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 Mr. Longacre said that the people in the audience should not give credence to the document prepared by the staff; he said the document has no legitimate credence, because no good hearing was ever held to discuss whether this area should even be commercial. Mr. Longacre said that the mayor does not even understand why the moratorium is in place. He said a myth in the City is that more commercial is necessary; when actually less commercial is necessary. He said that the commercial needs to be refined. He said this is government at its worst: • Mary Hanson, 841 19th Street, discussed Pages 41, 42, 43, and 44. She stated that citizens in this area are very opposed to commercial because the area is mainly residential. She stated that it is being proposed to introduce a commercial area into an area which is totally residential. With a commercial area comes the attendant problems of traffic, parking, crime, car accidents, litter, noise, and congestion. She also noted concern over the loss of views which would occur with a commercial height limit. She stated that the very small commercial uses are not actually feasible, noting that many currently in town do not appear to be successful. She stated that the only feasible commercial use appears to be high-rise office buildings along Pacific Coast Highway. She said the residents would probably oppose any greater commercial use. She said both the east and west sides of P.C.H. from 17th to 21st Streets are almost 100 percent residential. To introduce commercial would be highly objectionable and out of the ordinary. Dr. Brian Carrico, 2306 Pacific Coast Highway, discussed his letter of March 21, 1989; regarding an environmental proposal of tree planting along Pacific Coast Highway. He discussed the placement, cost, assessments, and advantages of such a proposal. He concluded by discussing the care and maintenance of the trees. He felt that the time is right to plant trees in the City in an attempt to beautify the City. Debbie Lube, 843 3rd Street, was pleased that her area is now out of the moratorium area; she therefore asked if her area could be designated quickly. Chmn. Peirce stated that the matter must be properly noticed; therefore, no action can be taken at this time. Ms. Lube stated that people do not want more commercial land in this City; what really needs to be done is to appropriately develop what is currently zoned commercial. She did not feel that residents would agree that this proposal would be the best of two worlds, as suggested by staff, to be zoned both residential and commercial. She stated that prompt action by the City is very necessary since this is a very stressful situation for residents. Larry Rooney, 732 24th Street, stated that he would be impacted by any commercial development on 21st Street. He noted concern over his view, traffic, and parking problems. He said 21st Street cannot handle any type of commercial development. He favored keeping the commercial access on Pacific Coast Highway, not on the residential streets. Don Karosevich, 840 15th Street, stated that he did not receive a copy of the notice of this meeting, and it appears many others did not receive notice either. He said there is an error on Page 31 of the staff report because there are actually three units at 822 15th - Street. He passed out copies of a map he prepared and discussed the three -unit project at 822 15th Street. He said there are now a total of three, three -unit projects, two of which are under construction, at 15th Street. He said precedence has been well -Iff- P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 objections to allowing nothing higher than what is currently existing. He felt that people should be able to improve their property. He felt that the only appropriate use would be for residential or small offices, because there is not adequate parking for commercial uses. He favored improving property in the City; however, he opposes a reduction in the livability In the City. He suggested that height limitations be imposed and that measures be taken to reduce the density in the City. Janet Murat, 900 15th Street, which is a lot abutting the current MUC, stated that she is pleased to see commercial development being restricted further down the hill. She noted concern over views. She noted that many people favor leaving the zoning as it is, and to keep the density as low as possible. She did not favor rezoning any additional areas for commercial, noting that there are already many vacancies. ' Sean Guthrie, 710 4th Street, discussed Page 63 of the report, and agreed with the recommendation for his block in regard to the boundaries; however, he did not support the recommended general plan change from MUC to medium density residential because it would mean rezoning the property from R-3 to R-2. He said he is surrounded by R-3 properties; therefore, he noted concern over the height limits and views if he is rezoned to R-2. He said many things must be taken into account before allowing commercial so close to residential, such as setbacks, stepping of the height, landscaping, and buffering, He supports an attempt to reduce density in the City; however, every property cannot be downzoned because of the property values involved. Jack Andran, 521 Gentry Street, discussed 18th, 19th, and 20th Street, stating that 1860 P.C.H. was omitted from the property list. He continued by discussing the various zoning on the east and west sides of these streets. He said if the R-3 zoning is changed to commercial, there would then be R-1 abutting commercial which would be inappropriate. He stated that several of the properties mentioned in the report are in better condition than described. He suggested apartment use over condominiums along the highway, because apartments can support a higher density than townhomes, are more "affordable housing," and can restore the stock of dwindling apartments in the City. He said that 18th, 19th, and 20th, on both sides of those streets, should remain R-3 to buffer the R-1 to the east side; and on the west side it would be a compatible use with the large complexes currently existing there. Virgil Daggi, 17645 Polora Street, Encino, owner of Lots 23, 24, and 25 in the Hermosa View Tract, No. 1 and 2, located on the north side of 21st Street, 220 feet .southwest of Pacific Coast Highway. He said all three lots are vacant. Prior to May 14, 1984, Lots 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 were zoned R-1 with C -Potential. On that day Lots 20, 21, and 22 were changed to C -zoning, and a 50 -unit hotel and restaurant were approved. At the Planning Commission and City Council meetings, his property was discussed. Statements were made by members that to do a complete and correct job of zoning, his lots should be rezoned to either R-2 or R-3. The hotel project expired years ago; however, his property, which was adjacent to the R-1 zone, became adjacent to the commercial zone. In regard to the potential commercial zoning, there is no boulevard frontage. His property is controlled by the commercial property to the north. In all fairness, and to make his position viable, he and his wife should also have the option of R-2 or R-3 zoning. Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, discussed past opposition to a proposed development at 15th Street and the suggested moratorium along the multi -use corridor. He opposed the term "commercial corridor" as well as the term "commercial." He stated that this proposal is government at its worst. He did not favor the City screwing around with zoning. — Of — P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 in the area. She stated that the parking is already very crowded, and additional commercial uses would exacerbate the problem. Ms. McHugh favored the empty lot on 21st Street at the highway being commercial; however, what she opposed is having the commercial, come half way down 21st Street. She felt that the commercial zone should come down 21st Street only so far as the other commercial buildings have come down. Ms. McHugh concluded by, passing out petitions which have been signed by the neighbors. Rick Thompson, 2420 Pacific Coast Highway, discussed Page 47 of the staff report which addressed alternatives. He stated that he favors the alternative proposal of the MUC going down Rhodes Street as opposed to Borden Street. He said there is currently a block wall on Rhodes Street separating the houses on that street from the houses on Borden Street; also the land is higher on the east side of Rhodes and lower on the west side of Rhodes; therefore, there is a natural barrier. He said Hope Chapel owns three houses on Borden Street, and they would like to see the property included in the multi -use corridor. Richard Baughman, 701 4th Street, president of the 4th Street Homeowner's Association, discussed Page 62 of the Staff Report and stated that one area was once zoned as R-3, and it is now suggested that it be rezoned to C-3. He stated that when he purchased his townhome he had no knowledge of the multi -use corridor and was unaware of potential rezoning. He noted concern over his property value should commercial be built next to the townhouses. He said that the theater on the highway which was built next to residential was very poor planning. He stated that he would take legal action before he would let the City rezone the property to commercial. He felt that zoning should be remain as it is, stating he could see no reason to change it. Barbara Adams, owner of Lots 5, 6, and 7 on 24th Street, stated that a 300 -foot drop on 21st Street for commercial use would drop her out of the commercial corridor. She stated that her three lots were recently merged into two lots; however, she is not in the MUC because she has R-1, nonconforming property. She questioned what would happen to her property if she is surrounded by commercial property. Ian Feldon, 703 4th Street, discussed Page 62 of the Staff Report, contending that the proposal violates six out of nine of the criteria presented by staff. He suggested that the notch depicted on the map be just a straight line. Nanette McChristian, 1829 Hillcrest Drive, stated that she will soon be moving to an apartment she owns atop a flower shop at 1901 Pacific Coast Highway. She said that the property she owns is zoned MUC. As a third -generation owner of this property, she had expectations to better the property as well as to enhance the community. If the property is zoned commercial, it will only add to the many vacant stores currently along the highway. She stated that a rezone will lower her property value; also, many residents will leave because they will not be able to enhance their property. She favored leaving the current zoning i place. She stressed that there are already many vacant stores along the highway. Steve Syckenoff, 1851 Rhodes Street, has a 50 by 150 foot lot with a 2500 square foot house on it. Directly in front of his property are apartment buildings that have been there for many years. South of the apartment building is zoned R-3. Further south is residential with some office buildings. He noted concern over his view, stating that commercial zoning would allow for a higher height limit. He also noted concern over the traffic and parking problems created by the other commercial uses. He said he had no P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 Chmn. Peirce suggested that additional copies of the report be made available to the general public. Mr. Schubach stated that citizens can obtain copies of the report; however, the cost is 20 cents per page. He said, however, that copies are in the library as well as review copies at the counter of the Planning Department. Chmn. Peirce noted that this matter must also go to the City Council after it is heard at the Planning Commission level." Public Hearing opened at 8:53.P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Jan McHugh, 718 1st Place, felt that the staff report contains several inaccurate statements in regard to residences which are described in the report as "in poor condition." She said that her property is not in poor condition, nor are others which are so identified. Ms. McHugh stated that several people in the area did not receive notice of this hearing; therefore, she felt that the noticing process is somehow at fault. Ms. McHugh discussed Page 69 of the staff report, which pertains to her property. She said her properties are in the MUC, and she has made it known she and her husband want to develop the properties. She stated that she is very much against rezoning her residential property to commercial. She stated that one of the properties has been in her family for five generations, and she wants to build a home there to live in. She stated' that there is a sentimental value at issue here as well as a financial consideration. She felt it is not right to rezone people's property at random. Ms. McHugh stated that commercial properties are not doing well along the highway now. She stated that to rezone the area would not benefit the smaller commercial businesses, nor would it benefit the residences. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, opposed the proposed rezone. She disagreed with the staff report wherein it says that residences will be allowed to remain as is at the discretion of the Planning Department. She stated that this proposal is stepping on peoples' toes, and she did not like it. She stressed that the general plan can be changed to conform with the zoning, rather than changing the zoning to conform to the general plan. She urged that the Commission use caution when making these changes. Penny Smith, 724 24th Street, representing the block of 24th Street, stated that only five people on the street received a notice of this hearing. She stated that she went door-to- door to alert neighbors of the hearing. She stated that staff must do something to ensure that everyone receives the proper noticing. Ms. Smith noted concern over safety on 21st Street if the zoning is changed. She said that 21st Street is the way most children go to school, and it is a residential street. She did not favor commercial abutting residential in this area. Ms. Smith stated that many of the business on the highway have "For Lease" signs in the windows. She questioned whether the City really wants more commercial on the highway. Ms.. Smith stated that allowing a hotel in the area would be quite unacceptable, especially since the traffic is already so bad on Ardmore. She noted concern for safety P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 designation of the remaining portion of P.C.H. needs to be addressed. The remaining commercial areas along the corridor are currently designated General Commercial on the General Plan Map, and they are zoned C-3. Some of the residential areas behind the commercial uses still maintain a C -Potential zoning classification. Continuing the Commercial Corridor Specific Plan Area designation to these commercial areas to further ensure quality commercial development and to more clearly define the depth of commercial development would be a logical extension of the proposed General Plan Amendments noted above. Staff has not undertaken a detailed study of these areas at this time because of the priority of addressing the areas currently under moratorium. Once the land use designations and policies regarding the Multi -Use Corridor are resolved, staff could direct its efforts toward similar proposals for the remaining portion. of the corridor. Comm. Rue asked how residential uses along the commercial corridor would be affected. Mr. Schubach stated that residences could remain and could be improved to a limited degree; however, additional units could not be added. He said that residential uses would have the options of both residential and commercial. The intent is to retain the residential uses of those homes remaining in the corridor as residences, if desired, and to be able to improve and remodel and not be considered commercial properties. However, in the future, if those properties were obtained by a property owner that fronted on the highway, the properties could be used as commercial, with discretionary approval from the Planning Commission. In other words, the residences along the corridor actually have the best of two worlds, being able to be either residential or commercial without being' nonconforming in either case. Comm. Rue noted concern that the residences Would be forced to be commercial. Mr. Schubach stated that would not be the case; the intent is to allow residences to remain as residential and not be forced into commercial. He stated that maintaining and improving the commercial area while at the same time protecting the integrity of the residential area is the intent. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, stated that the staff proposal at this time is general; specific standards will be written into the Specific Plan Areas. At this time, staff is attempting to obtain input on the general plan and SPA in general. Mr. Schubach continued by showing the various areas as depicted on Exhibit A, "Proposed Commercial Corridor Boundary." Chmn. Peirce noted that only a few members of the community have had an opportunity to see the staff report for their specific area. He stated that, for the benefit of the audience, the Planning Commission would recess and go out into the audience so that citizens could look at their copies of the maps and staff recommendations for their particular blocks. He noted that the Commissioners would answer no questions; the break was merely for people to see the recommendations for their area. Mr. Lough stressed that the Commission members must not discuss the matter with the audience; they could merely show their copies of the staff report to interested citizens for purposes of clarification. He said if citizens had any questions during the break, they must ask staff ,but not the Commission members. Recess taken from 8:35 P.M. until 8:48 P.M. P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 standards specifically tailored to areas of the corridor. The Specific Plan would be adopted by ordinance and would amend the zoning ordinance. The SPA would be based on the general policy statements included in this general plan amendment. Recomme'hded policies for the Specific Plan Area Zones: The current zoning ordinance has only a limited set of regulations on commercial development in the C-3 zone. It controls the types of uses, the amount of parking provided, and the layout of parking areas, building heights, and setback/buffering adjacent to residential areas. There are currently no requirements for setbacks from the street, landscaping, traffic studies and traffic improvements, the general layout of •the buildings, or . the appearance. Additionally, there is no provision for the review of commercial development proposals. Therefore, .if a proposed development meets the basic zoning requirements and the building code, it can obtain approval. Although this may be an acceptable practice for smaller commercial projects, it is not acceptable for the larger projects to be expected along Pacific Coast Highway. Development standards and plan review procedures should be established for the Commercial Corridor Specific Plan Areas. The following are basic policy statements for the Specific Plan Areas. More detailed development standards will be developed based on the following policies: (1) Existing residential uses are permitted to continue indefinitely, and shall be allowed a limited amount of improvement and expansion as long as the residential density does not increase; (2) Residentially developed and vacant property can only be used for commercial purposes if the property fronts on Pacific Coast Highway or is part of an assemblage of properties containing a commercial project which fronts on Pacific Coast Highway; (3) New residential projects shall be prohibited, except on vacant parcels not fronting on Pacific Coast Highway, and not connected by ownership to lots fronting on Pacific Coast Highway. Any proposed residential projects must be approved by the Planning Commission; (4) Height limits and the method of measurement shall be established which will minimize impacts of commercial development on scenic views and on the privacy of adjacent residences; (5) Landscaping requirements shall be established to improve the attractiveness of development along Pacific Coast Highway and to buffer interfacing or abutting residential development; (6) Traffic impact studies shall be required for projects which will cause significant traffic impacts and these studies shall include proposed measures to mitigate the impacts; (7) All commercial projects shall require staff review to ensure compliance with the standards and policies of the Specific Plan Area, and significant projects shall require Planning Commission review and approval, subject to City Council appeal; (8) A list of permitted uses shall be established which permits a broad range of commercial and office related uses with emphasis given to uses which have the highest benefit to the community; (9) More than one SPA zone may be created for areas of the corridor based on the sub -area's unique features; (10) Orientation of all commercial development should be toward Pacific Coast Highway and not toward local residential streets; (11) Physical setbacks and architectural treatment shall be provided where commercial and residential development abut or interface; and (12) Assembled lots proposed for commercial development shall be merged as a condition of development. General Commercial Designated Areas Along Pacific Coast Highway: In consideration of the proposed designation of a portion of the Pacific Coast Highway corridor to Commercial Corridor Specific Plan Area, the question of whether or not to change the - P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 commercial development whenever possible; (6) commercial encroachment into residential neighborhoods should be minimized; (7) individual property ownerships should not be divided by commercial and residential land use designations; (8) the existing topography should allow for commercial development that will not significantly impact scenic views or require excessive grading; and (9) the depth of the commercial area should be consistent across streets wherever possible. The above criteria were used in making a judgment on the recommended location of the Commercial Corridor boundary line. A block by block analysis and recommendation is contained in Part II of this report. For purposes of the analysis, the• MUC was divided into four sub -areas: (1) Southeast -- south city boundary to 8th Street, east side of P.C.H.; (2) Northeast -- 14th Street to 24th Street, east side of P.C.H.; (3) Northwest -- 24th Street to Pier Avenue, west side of P.C.H.; and (4) Southwest 8th Street to south city boundary, west side of P.C.H. The boundary recommendation is depicted in Exhibit A. A recommendation for the amended general plan designation for the residential area outside the boundary is also included in the block by block description contained in Part II. In all cases the recommended change is from the MUC designation to a designation consistent with the adjacent residential designation. Locating the Commercial Corridor boundary as recommended in Exhibit A, and described in Part II, would result in the redesignation of approximately 20.4 acres from MUC to a residential designation, and the redesignation of the remaining 32.2 acres from MUC to Commercial Corridor. Although this would reduce the area of maximum commercial development allowed under the general plan from 52.6 acres to 32.2 acres, it would still allow for a potential increase in commercially developed acreage of 21 percent over the current amount of 26.7 acres. In order to convey a clear commitment to commercial development in the commercially defined area along P.C.H., the land use category of "Multi -Use Corridor" should be replaced by the category of "Commercial Corridor," which is defined as: "The purpose of the Land Use Category is to clearly define the limits of the depth for commercial development along Pacific Coast Highway and prohibit the development of new residential uses within this area. Existing residential uses within the corridor are expressly allowed; however, the transition of these uses to commercial usage is highly desirable. This category allows various types of commercial land uses including retail, service, and office uses. Automotive related commercial uses would be allowed by conditional use permit only. To ensure that commercial development will be compatible with existing nearly residential uses, standards for building height, parking and access, setbacks, and landscaping will be implemented through Specific Plan Area designations." The Multi -Use Corridor designation should be deleted from the general plan map and replaced with the Commercial Corridor designation. The proposed zone changes for the areas within and outside of the proposed Commercial Corridor: The residential areas behind the .boundaries of the established commercial corridor should be changed to the zoning classification of the adjacent residential neighborhood, and the C -Potential classification should be eliminated. The areas should be rezoned to R-1, R -2B, R-2, and R-3, whichever classification is consistent with the adjacent residential classification. For the area within the Commercial Corridor Specific Plan Areas (SPA), the creation of specific plan areas would provide clearly defined policies, objectives, and development �2 — P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 further encouraged by the designation of C -potential zoning to certain properties which were vacant or residential and were perceived to have commercial development potential. Recently, the transition of C -potential properties to commercial uses has not happened as frequently as was perhaps envisioned. In fact, many of the properties have been developed with residential uses . and are currently part of established residential neighborhoods. Since 1979 the MUC has been the subject of several discussions aimed at determining whether or not this land use designation adequately represents the City's goals and policies regarding commercial and residential development along P.C.H. Issues discussed pertaining to future development of the Corridor include: (1) To what extent should commercial development be allowed to extend? (2) Is residential use a desirable long- term use within the Multiple Use Corridor? (3) Are development standards in place which would ensure quality commercial development and buffering of adjacent residential uses? If not, what should they be? After considerable research and public input, it was determined in 1985 that the Multi - Use Corridor should be redefined to more clearly indicate a commitment to commercial development. More recently, however, it has become apparent that this commitment to commercial development must be moderated to include a greater sensitivity towards existing abutting residential areas threatened by the encroachment of expanded commercial development. It is staff's position that the first step toward solving the problem is to take the following sequence of actions regarding the general plan: (1) clearly define the maximum depth of commercial development acceptable to the City; (2) designate existing residential areas outside the commercially defined area as Residential on the General Plan Map; (3) designate the commercially defined area as Commercial Corridor on the General Plan Map, amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to establish a definition and statement of development objectives for this Commercial Corridor. The remaining actions to be taken in order to implement the above changes in the General Plan are: (4) amend the zoning ordinance for residential areas outside the commercially defined area from MUC to the adjacent residential zoning designation; and (5) amend the zoning ordinance to create Specific Plan Areas within the corridor (for example, one for the south portion and another for the north portion) to establish standards and review procedures for commercial development within the corridor. In order to determine the appropriate depth for the boundary of the Commercial Corridor, a land use inventory and analysis was conducted for the entire area of the MUC. The inventory was conducted to generate information regarding existing land uses, depth of existing commercial development, existing zoning, ownership, age of original construction, condition of the property, topography, and adjacent land uses. The information was compiled on a lot by lot basis, as shown in Part II of the report and was evaluated on a block by block basis. The following criteria were used towards making a final determination on the recommended location for the boundary line for each block: (1) the lots designated for commercial development should be of an adequate size and shape to accommodate commercial development of a high quality; (2) the lots designated for commercial development should contain enough area and have adequate features to allow for setbacks and screening/buffering of potential commercial uses from existing residential uses; (3) the depth of potential future commercial development should• generally extend a minimum of 100 feet to a maximum of 300 feet from Pacific Coast Highway; (4) areas designated for commercial development should have available access from Pacific Coast Highway; (5) housing in good condition should not be designated for –/r//— P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 l The staff report summarizes the study and analysis conducted by staff and includes recommendations for each block within the Multi -Use Corridor. The Pacific Coast Highway commercial corridor directly abuts Pacific Coast Highway to the east and west, extending' the length of the City of Hermosa Beach. There are four commercial sectors along Pacific Coast Highway: (1) Multi -Use Corridor -- 1st to 8th Street; (2) General Commercial -- 8th to 14th Street; (3) Multi -Use Corridor -- Pier Avenue to 24th Street; and (4) General Commercial — Gould Avenue/Pacific Coast Highway. Commercial development along Pacific Coast Highway is irregular in depth and is broken up by a stretch of residential uses between 17th Street and 21st Street. Each commercial sector has a somewhat different character in terms of types and intensity of commercial uses. For example, automotive and repair services are the predominant uses in the MUC between 1st Street and 8th Street. The most common uses in the general commercial area between 8th Street and 14th Street are retail and service businesses. The land uses in the MUC between Pier Avenue and 24th Street are a mix of retail, office, and multi -family residential, including two newer developments, Plaza Hermosa and Hermosa Pavilion. Finally, in the general commercial area near Gould Avenue, the primary land uses are retail and service businesses. The total length of frontage on the east side and west side of Pacific Coast Highway in the City of Hermosa Beach is about 12,600 feet. The length of P.C.H. frontage within the MUC is over 8,200 square feet. Approximately 76 percent of this frontage (6,236 feet) is developed commercially. Additionally, 52.6 acres of land are located within the MUC. Approximately 26.7 acres, or 51 percent, of this property is developed commercially. Almost all of this development is on properties which front directly onto P.C.H. About 44 percent of the MUC is developed residentially, containing 598 dwelling units. These areas are primarily located behind commercially developed frontage lots and are often part of established residential neighborhoods which extend much deeper to the east the west. The remaining 5 percent of the MUC is currently vacant. A table of information containing the distribution of land uses within the MUC by block and sub- area is included in the appendix. The Multi -Use Corridor is a land use designation that has been in effect since the City of Hermosa Beach Land Use Element was adopted in 1966. The MUC is defined in the general plan as: "The purpose of the land use category is to provide additional depth for development, and to allow various types of land use. It would include apartments, shops, stores, restaurants, office buildings, service stations, auto dealers, specialty shops, bowling alleys, and other similar activities. However; strict standards of development, including landscaping, setback, parking, architectural design, sign controls, and street appearance would be enforced." Originally, the MUC was regarded as a means of dealing with an area that, while primarily commercial, had a mix of retail, service, and low and high density residential uses. The depth of the MUC, established at about 300 feet, was thought of as a way to allocate enough land for on-site parking and to encourage the turnover of existing residences and small retail and service uses to larger scale commercial developments. It recognized the continuing problem of traffic, parking, and access which seemed to be a deterrent to commercial success along the highway. As part of a "mixed-use" concept, the MUC designation permits existing uses, particularly residential, to continue until such time that market conditions warrant a transition to commercial development. This transition of these marginal areas was f70- P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 consistent with the objectives of maximizing commercial development potential while minimizing impacts of commercial encroachment into nearby residential neighborhoods. On February 23, 1989, the Staff Environmental Review Committee recommended the adoption. of a negative declaration for the General Plan Amendments being considered for the MUC because portions of the MUC are proposed to be changed to residential designations, thereby reducing the potential intensity of land usage in the area. Mr. Schubach showed overhead transparencies depicting Exhibit A as Mr. Robertson continue¢ with the staff report. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission take the 'following actions regarding the Multi -Use Corridor and to adopt the following resolutions: (1) Establish the boundary of the Pacific Coast Highway "Commercial Corridor" at the depths recommended in Exhibit A and more specifically described in Part II of the staff report; (2) Amend the General Plan Map to redesignate areas not within the Commercial Corridor from MUC to Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, or High Density Residential, depending on the adjacent designation; (3) Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan by adopting the recommended definition for the "Commercial Corridor" and amend the General Plan Map to redesignate the area within the established boundary from MUC to Commercial Corridor; (4) Adopt an Environmental Negative Declaration for the proposed General Plan Amendments; (5) Implement the General Plan changes by initiating zone changes for the residential areas outside the Commercial Corridor to classifications consistent with the adjacent residential classifications and by adopting policies for the Specific Plan Area classifications to be applied in the Commercial Corridor. Initiate discussion on development standards and development review procedures to be applied in the Commercial Corridor Specific Plan Areas; (6) Consider the inclusion of existing commercial areas designated General .Commercial on the General Plan Map. Mr. Schubach explained that staff intends to present this item to the City Council within one month. He said that it is intended to continue with the matter as quickly as possible; therefore, zone changes for areas outside of the MUC would be presented to the Planning Commission as soon as the City Council gives their approval. Mr. Schubach continued by explaining the procedure which will be followed for these general plan amendments. In response to a question from Chmn. Peirce, he recommended that the moratorium remain in effect until after the zone changes take place. However, in areas where no zone change will occur, he said it could be recommended that the moratorium be lifted. Comm. Rue noted concern over the moratorium. He also stressed that caution should be exercised in making a decision on this area, noting that the best decision for everyone involved should be made. — [69 — P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CONSIDER THE LOCATION AND POLICIES REGARDING MULTI -USE CORRIDOR AND TO CONSIDER A SPECIFIC PLAN AREA AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Robertson, Advanced Planner, presented the staff report dated March 15, 1989. On November 9, 1988, the City Council adopted a ten-month moratorium on residential and commercial construction for portions of the Multi -Use Corridor. The purpose of the moratorium was to give staff sufficient time to study the various land uses within the MUC and to recommend changes in the policies, regulations, and land use designations which guide development in the corridor. The primary reason for the study is to establish clearly defined limits to commercial development along Pacific Coast Highway which are -- /6R"— P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 confused since they have gone through the document several times. Chmn. Peirce noted that if Comm. Ingell favors commercial, there is now a two -two split as to what this area should be. Comm. Rue noted that if only two units are allowed per lot, • it doesn't really make any difference whether it is R-2 or R-3. Comm. Edwards stated that he could not support commercial, noting that the people living there opposed it. Comm Ingell stated that he favors commercial. Chmn. Peirce suggested that the area from 17th to 21st Street be sent to the City Council with no recommendation from the Planning Commission, noting that it is a two - two tie. He noted, however, that the boundary line will remain as previously discussed. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-28, with the above noted changes for Policy 3(a), 3(b), and 7, as well as the changes made to the staff recommendations. AYES: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Peirce NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm. Ketz Recess taken from 10:45 P.M. until 10:53 P.M. During the recess, Comm. Ingell was excused by Chmn. Peirce, who explained that Comm. Ingell had to leave for a business trip. TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING HEIGHT OF HEDGES AND FENCES AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF 3/7/89) Mr. Schubach recommended that this item be continued until such time that staff can complete the necessary report, explaining that there is currently a staff shortage in the Planning Department. He stated that staff will publicly notice this text amendment again in the future, once time is available to prepare the report. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve staff's recommendation to continue this matter to an unspecified date. No objections; so ordered. HEARING OF DETERMINATION FOR LOT MERGER GROUP L.M. 89-1 (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF 3/21/89) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 14, 1989. Staff recommended merger of the subject lots. This group of lot mergers is the City's second attempt at notification of the intent to merge these subject lots. Certified mail was previously sent; however, these notices were returned because they were either unclaimed, had expired forwarding addresses, were refused, or for other various reasons. Therefore, staff has remailed the ^(67_ P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 density. In regard to lot size, he stated that the lots to the south are larger. He also felt that in Hermosa Beach people support low density; therefore, the Commission should make every effort to support low density. Comm. Ingell stated that as one travels down 15th Place, everything is low density. One must go to 15th Street to find medium density. Comm. Edwards said that the medium density to the south was acceptable; however, he felt that the areas to the north and east of 15th Place should be low density. Comm. Rue noted that the area has apartments which are over 30 years old. There is low density .in the area. For the long term, he agreed that the area should be low density. Chmn. Peirce stated that he too could support low density in that area. The Commissioners discussed the area from 18th Street to 19th Street (map on Page 41 of the staff report.) Chmn. Peirce stated that the question is whether it should be low density or high density on the west side of P.C.H. Chmn. Peirce noted there are currently some two-family residential units in the area. He stated that it could either be low or medium density; however, for the long-term use on the highway, he felt it should be high density. Comm. Edwards stated that whenever possible, he would favor low density. In this case,' he felt medium density would be a compromise with what is currently there. He therefore suggested medium density. Chmn. Peirce stated, then, that that 19th to 21st Street should be the same. He felt that since this area is on the highway, it should be high density. Comm. Ingell noted high density is across the highway. Chmn. Peirce could not support medium density in this area. Comm. Edwards noted, however, that medium density would reduce the traffic and would be compatible with what is already in the area. Comm. Rue stated that there are apartments on the west side of P.C.H. which are used extensively. He could not foresee the use on the east side. He felt that high density on the highway makes sense to him and it provides more affordable for renters. Comm. Ingell felt that if the area is zoned R-3, there will not be more apartments; there will only be more condominiums with higher density. He stated medium density would encourage two -unit homes on those lots. R-3 would encourage more, smaller units. He said he would support medium density. Chmn. Peirce stated that, even though he feels high density would be more appropriate, he would go along with the medium density recommendation for the area from 17th Street to 21st Street, except for the northeast corner of 17th Street and P.C.H., which should be medium density. Mr. Robertson noted that Comm. Ingell previously recommended commercial for that strip. Comm. Ingell clarified that he prefers commercial, explaining that he was P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 Comm. Rue stated that when the SPA is done, it should be clearly specified what the requirements are. He questioned 'whether it is appropriate to require every project to come before the Board. He said that if a project is well done and within the SPA requirements, there is no need for it to come before the Board. He 'stated that the Planning Department is qualified to review many of the projects to see whether they comply to the requirements. He stated that recycling will not be encouraged if developers must come before the Commission with every single project. Comm. Ingell felt that to have projects be heard before the Board would ensure compatibility between businesses and surrounding residential neighbors. Chmn. Peirce noted that the commercial property is adjacent to residential, and the residential concerns must be addressed; also, requiring projects to be heard before the Commission would ensure that they are within the specifications of the SPA. Comm. Edwards also had concerns; however, he felt that every project might not need to come before the Board, explaining that it is hard to predict in advance whether such approval is necessary. He stated that it is important that homeowners have an opportunity to make their concerns known when a new commercial development is being proposed. Chmn. Peirce felt it would be appropriate to require all new commercial projects on the highway to come before the Board. Comm. Edwards agreed that the proposed wording should be included. Mr. Lough explained that staff would incorporate all the changes made by the Commission tonight and then staff would return with a resolution for Commission approval. Comm. Rue asked whether the Commission will next go through a series of analyses for each area to determine what standards should be applied. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative. Comm. Edwards stated that no final decision had been reached on the area from 15th Street to 16th Street on the east side of the highway (map on Page 35 of the staff report). Chmn. Peirce felt that the area south of 15th Place should be medium density because it is already adjacent to R-2 and it is already developed with multiple units. It is also adjacent to a very intensive use on the west. Comm. Ingell noted that a matrix will be prepared by staff and presented to the Council showing how each of the Commissioners voted. He asked whether there would be a problem if some of the areas have a 2-2 tie in regard to whether an area should be low density or high density. Mr. Lough stated that general plan amendments must have three votes to be approved, no matter how many Commissioners are present. A 2-2 vote shows that a motion failed; therefore, there would be no recommendation whatsoever to the Council. Comm. Edwards felt the area should be low density. He noted there is R-2 to the south; however, there is R-1 to the north and east. He said that the density . to the east has been addressed in other areas; using that rule of thumb, this area should also then be low /65 — P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 1st Street to South City Boundary (West Side) The frontage of this area is 55 feet. Depth of the MUC is 250 feet. Depth of the C-3 zoning is 190 feet. • Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary at a depth of 190 feet. Also, to amend the General Plan Map for the residential area from MUC to medium density residential. The Commissioners all agreed with the staff•recommendation for this area. Chmn. Peirce directed staff to prepare a matrix showing how each of the Commissioners voted on the various areas, so that the City Council could refer to the information when they make their decision. Comm. Ingell discussed the proposed Resolution, P.C. 89-28. He noted a typo on Policy 3(a): "on currently vacant lots or parcels of land which do not front on Pacific Coast Highway...." Comm. Ingell discussed Policy 3: "New residential projects shall be prohibited, except in the following cases (a) on currently vacant lots or parcels of land which do not front on Pacific Coast Highway and which are not currently connected by ownership to lots fronting on Pacific Coast Highway and which will be developed to a density consistent with surrounding residential densities allowed by the General Plan, subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission..." He said that if someone did not want to develop commercially, and they owned contiguous lots, titles could just be transferred and the lots would not have to be developed commercially. Mr. Schubach stated that that is correct. He noted that this issue should be addressed at such time when standards and regulations are formulated. He stated that at this time, a general policy statement is being made, noting that one would not refer to the general plan for hard and fast rules. Rules addressing this issue should be in the zoning ordinance. Comm. Ingell continued by giving a hypothetical situation illustrating his point. Mr. Schubach agreed that the issue should be addressed in the future. Comm. Ingell discussed Policy 3 (b) and suggested additional wording: "the improvement, expansion, or reconstruction of current residential structures which does not increase the current residential density (number of dwelling units) of the lot or parcel of land; and said improvement, expansion, or reconstruction must conform to the zoning standards." Chmn. Peirce stated that, according to the zoning laws, it must conform; however, such wording could be added for clarification. Comm. Ingell discussed Policy 7: "All commercial projects shall require staff review to ensure compliance with the standards and policies of the Specific Plan Area, and significant projects shall require Planning Commission approval, subject to City Council approval." He suggested that it be reworded to state that there shall be Planning Commission approval for all new commercial projects on Pacific Coast Highway to ensure compliance with the standards and policies of the Specific Plan Area. He felt that all commercial projects on the highway should be reviewed. He wanted to encourage development which would be compatible with the surrounding residential uses. Chmn. Peirce agreed. —/6 P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 3rd Street to 2nd Street (West Side) The frontage of this area is 230 feet. Depth of the MUC is 270 feet. Depth of the C-3 zoning is 190 feet. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary at the edge of existing commercial development: 190 feet deep along the south side of 3rd Street coterminous with the C-3 zoning boundary and 200 feet deep along the north side of 2nd Street ten feet behind the C-3 zoning boundary: Also, to amend the General Plan Map for the residential areas from MUC to medium density residential to be consistent with the area to the west. The Commissioners all agreed with the staff recommendation• for this area. With the exception of Comm. Rue, the Commissioners favored the medium density recommendation. 2nd Street to lst Street (West Side) Frontage for this area is 230 feet. Depth of the MUC is 270 feet. Depth of the C-3 zoning is 270 feet and 190 feet. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary coterminous with the existing MUC boundary at a depth of 270 feet and to include policies and standards regarding buffering and requiring that commercial development be in conjunction with only the adjacent commercial uses to the east fronting on P.C.H. and further providing' conforming status to existing residential uses. The Commissioners all agreed with the staff recommendation. 1st Place to 1st Street (West Side) The frontage for this area is 232 feet. Depth of the MUC is 230 to 270 feet. Depth of the C-3 zoning is 150 feet. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary at the existing MUC boundary at a depth ranging from 230-270 feet and as in other cases to apply policies and standards regarding commercial development, buffering, and conformity of existing residential uses. Comm. Rue noted that there was strong opposition from the owner of 710, 718, and 720 lst Place to changing it to commercial; therefore, he would not favor a change to commercial. Chmn. Peirce noted, however, that according to the staff recommendation, the owner could build to the adjacent density, if so desired. So the only question is from a long- term perspective, and that owner's build -out capability would not be affected by whether it is in commercial or residential. Comm. Rue noted, however, that the adjacent properties will not remain R-3; they will be R-2. Chmn. Peirce noted that the zone would change regardless. With the exception of Comm. Rue, the other Commissioners favored staff's recommendation. /63 — P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 Comm. Rue agreed that Lot 5 should not be included in the commercial. Chmn. Peirce agreed. He directed staff to eliminate Lot 5 on 4th Street from the commercial area, and to leave the commercial in back of the parking lot at Triangle Hardware. The Commissioners favored high density for this area, based on the adjacent uses. After discussion, the Commissioners agreed that the area should actually be medium density, based on the fact that the area has gone through a number of downzonings over the past several years. Comm. Rue asked why the area wasn't designated medium density at the time the downzoning .occurred. Mr. Schubach explained that the designation was not changed at that time because the area was in the commercial corridor and there were consistency problems at that time. Chmn. Peirce stated, then, that 5th Street all the way to the south boundary of the City should be medium density. Comms. Edwards and Ingell agreed; Comm. Rue disagreed. Comm. Rue disagreed, stating that that area has been a relatively heavy area for high- density rental units. He stated that the numbers of rental properties are continually being taken away from the City. He felt that rentals are somewhat akin to low-income housing, and pushing everything to owner/occupied is not desirable. Comm. Edwards noted concern over changing density from one block to the next, stating that it will affect what can be built as well as people's property values. He noted that decisions are being made on uses which are existing, and the question becomes whether the City wants to change various areas over a period of time. He felt that if most of the units are already existing, it should be determined whether itshould be changed in the future. He noted that people have strongly expressed their desires to have low density in the City. He said that a guideline can be what exists next to certain properties when decisions are being made as to what they should be changed to. Therefore, he said he would support medium density in this area. Comm. Rue favored high density in this area. Chmn. Peirce stated that the Commission would recommend medium density south from 5th Street, with the exception of Comm. Rue, who favored high density. 4th Street to 3rd Street (West Side) The frontage of this area is 230 feet. Depth of the MUC is 270 feet. Depth of the C-3 zoning is 150 feet. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary 150 feet for the north half of the block, coterminous with the C-3 zoning boundary and at 190 feet for the south half to include the church property. Also, to amend the General Plan Map for the residential area from MUC to MD residential to be consistent with the development to the west. The Commissioners all agreed with the recommendation for this area, including the recommendation that it be medium density residential. /6,z P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 The Commissioners all agreed with the staff recommendation for this area. Chmn. Peirce noted that this area contains no residential zoning at all. 8th Street to 6th Street (West Side) The frontage of this area is 443 feet. Depth of the MUC is 290 feet. Depth of the C-3 zoning is 122 feet, 290 feet, and 170 feet. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary at a depth of 122 feet along the south side of 8th Street, coterminous with the C-3 boundary; at a depth of 290 feet in the middle of the block, coterminous with the C-3 boundary; and at a depth of 290 feet along the north side of 6th Street at the current R-P/R-2 zoning boundary. Comm. Ingell felt that the line on 8th Street should. include Lot 3, which is the C - Potential lot behind Music Plus. Comm. Rue asked about the status of Lot 3. Chmn. Peirce stated that the house is being refurbished for use as a residential rental. He noted, however, that the zoning for that lot should be left to the City Council. Comm. Inge11 felt that Lot 3 should be included. Therefore, he opposed the staff recommendation. With the exception of Comm. Ingell, the other Commissioners favored staff's recommendation. Chmn. Peirce noted that this area is already medium density. 6th Street to 5th Street (West Side) This area has frontage of 216 feet. Depth of the MUC is 290 feet. Depth of the C-3 zoning is 290 feet. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary coterminous with the existing MUC boundary and C-3 boundary at a depth of 290 feet. The Commissioners all agreed with the staff recommendation. Chmn. Peirce noted that density is not at issue for this area. 5th Street to 4th Street (West Side) The frontage of this area is 236 feet. Depth of the MUC is 290 feet. Depth of the C-3 zoning is 130 feet and 140 feet. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary at a depth of 130 feet on the north half of the block, coterminous with the C-3 zoning boundary and at a depth of 180 feet for the southern half of the block to include the residence at 731 4th Street. Also, to amend the General Plan Map for the residential area beyond the corridor from MUC to medium density residential to be consistent with the residential area to the west. Comm. Ingell disagreed with the staff recommendation, stating that testimony at the previous hearing indicated that the owner did not want to include Lot 5 on 4th Street (731. 4th Street) in the commercial area. He felt that it would make sense not to include it. • /�/ — P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 24th Street to 21st Street (West Side) Depth of the MUC is 290 feet. The C-3 depth is 88 feet on the north portion and 220 feet on the south portion. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary at a depth of 88 feet along the northern portion and at a depth of 290 feet along the southern portion. Also, to amend the LUP designation from the residential area from MUC to low density residential. Chmn. Peirce stated that the two vacant lots should be R-1; Comm. Ingell agreed. Chmn. Peirce felt that the other three lots should be either R-2 or R -2B, and the commercial boundary line should be drawn behind the perpendicular lots to Pacific Coast Highway. Comm. Ingell agreed that Lots 23 and 24 should be lopped off; he noted, however, that he had no opposition to the adjoining lots (20, 21, and 22) being R-2. Chmn. Peirce suggested that on 21st Street Lots 20, 21, and 22 be medium density and Lots 23 and 24 be low density, with the line drawn perpendicularly to the highway. Comms. Edwards, Ingell, and Rue agreed. Mr. Schubach suggested, then, that the C -Potential lots also be medium density, based on the large size of the lots and their usage in regard to the way they can be oriented if' they were to be multi -family units. The Commissioners agreed with the this suggestion by staff. (Lots 20-24 medium density.) 21st Street to 16th Street (West Side) The frontage of this area is 1341 feet. The depth of the MUC is 290 feet. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary to include only the Hermosa Pavilion property. Also, to amend the general plan map to redesignate the remaining property from MUC to high density residential. The Commissioners all agreed with the staff recommendation for this area.. Except for Comm. Ingell, who opposed high density, the Commissioners agreed with staff's density recommendation. Comm. Rue asked about the possibility of having senior citizen's housing at what is now the old hospital property, stating that such housing would be a good use. Mr. Schubach stated that the issue of senior citizen's housing is still being discussed. 16th Street to Pier Avenue The frontage of this area is 631 feet. Depth of the MUC is 547 feet. Depth of the C-3 zoning is 547 feet. Staff recommended including the entire area of the block within the Commercial Corridor/SPA, thereby locating the boundary at Ardmore Avenue. P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 coterminous with the existing R-3(C)/R-1 zoning boundary. Also, to amend the LUP designation for the residential area behind the frontage lots from MUC to low density residential. The Comrhissioners all agreed with the staff recommendation; but they agreed that the area should be medium density residential. 19th Street to 21st Street The frontage of this area is 357 feet. Depth of the MUC is 260 feet. Depth of the R - 3(C) zoning is 100 feet. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary at a depth of 100 feet along the alley and at a depth of 90 feet behind the apartment at 1906 P.C.H. coterminous with the existing R -1/R -3(C) zoning boundary. Also, to amend the LUP designation for the residential area behind the frontage lots from MUC to low density residential. North of 21st Street (East Side) The frontage of this area is 300 feet. The MUC depth is 165 feet. The depth of the C-3 zone is 165 feet. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary consistent with the existing C-3 zoning and the existing MUC boundary at a depth of 165 feet along Borden Avenue, or along Rhodes Street, at a depth of 280 feet with policies and standards ensuring commercial development in conjunction with existing development along P.C.H. and maintaining the conforming status of the four houses. The commissioners all agreed that the boundary should be along Borden Avenue. Chmn. Peirce noted that this area is already low density. Comm. Rue felt that the boundary could be moved to Rhodes Street in the future if that were ever requested, stating that such a relocation could help alleviate the parking problems in the area. However, he felt that Borden Avenue is the appropriate boundary at this time. 24th Place to 24th Street (West Side) The frontage of this area is 216 feet. The depth of the MUC is 290 feet. The depth of the C-3 zone is 140 feet on the north half and 90 feet on the south half. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary to recognize the existing depth of commercial development coterminous with the existing zoning boundary at a depth of 140 feet along the northern half and 90 feet at the southern half. Also, to amend the general plan map designation for the residential area from MUC to low density residential. The Commissioners all agreed with the staff recommendation for this area, including the recommendation that the area be low density. /$�— P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 Comm. Edwards noted that the other side of P.C.H. is multi -family residential. This area all the way to 21st Street is 'residential, other than the few commercial lots. He said there has been a great deal of input from people living in this area who desire that it. remain residential. He said that if people like living there, there is no reason to change it; however, the areas which 'are commercial should remain commercial. In this area, where there is residential across the highway, the east side of the highway can remain residential. He noted that there is always the option in the future of changing it to commercial, if so desired, or if there is a sudden influx of people wanting to have commercial. He therefore favored high density residential for this area. Comm. Rue agreed that the area should be high density. Comm. Ingell felt that P.C.H. is definitely a commercial strip, and he could not see homes on the highway, especially with the volume of traffic in the area. He stressed that P.C.H. is a commercial strip. In looking to the future, he thought it should be commercial. Chmn. Peirce stated that he favored high density residential from 17th Street to 21st Street, except the areas which are already commercial, including the northeast corner of 17th Street and P.C.H. Comm. Edwards felt that people should be allowed to develop to the current density if the area remains residential. He noted that people in the area do not want to be rezoned. Comm. Ingell disagreed, stating that the Planning Commission is making a long-term decision, and P.C.H. is a commercial corridor, not residential. Mr. Schubach stated that it could be recommended to make this area ari 'SPA, with the option of allowing people to build to the R-3 standards, if so desired. Comm. Edwards favored such an option. Comm. Ingell stated that the cities to the north and south also feel that P.C.H. is a commercial corridor. Comm. Rue agreed; however, he felt that if someone had wanted to assemble those properties and develop them along the highway, it would have been done .a long time ago. He stated that the slope and the number of small lots would make it very difficult to assemble lots in this area. To do a decent project would be quite hard. Chmn. Peirce agreed, stating that the slope is too great. Comm. Ingell noted, however, that three of the four multi -unit dwellings want to be commercial. Chmn. Peirce noted that 17th Street to 21st Street is already low density, which is the staff recommendation. 18th Street to 19th Street The frontage of this area is 355 feet. The depth of the MUC is 280-300 feet. The depth of the R -3(C) zone is 100-130 feet. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary line at the rear of the P.C.H. frontage lots at varying depths of 100 feet, 130 feet, and 105 feet. This is P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 the R-1(C)/R-2 zoning boundary. Also, to amend the LUP designation for the area east of the 126 -foot depth from MUC to MD residential. For the south side of 16th Street to 204 feet south, staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary at the back of the vacant parcels (145 feet) and behind the Coast Pet Clinic parcel 150 feet. Also, to amend the LUP designation for the residential area located behind the boundary line from MUC to MD residential. Chmn. Peirce asked for clarification of the staff recommendation as to why it is being suggested to move the southerly portion to the east (map on Page 35 of the staff report). Mr. Robertson stated that 815 15th Street is vacant, and 809 15th Street is an older two - unit structure. He stated that the recommendation is consistent with the depth to the south. Comm. Edwards stated that the density recommendations are logical, based on what is currently existing and based on the size of the lots. Comm. Rue noted that there are some new three -unit condominiums backing up to 15th Street. These units back up to what Comms. Ingell and Edwards are proposing to be low density. He felt that "adjacent" would be to the south as well as to the east. The Commissioners all agreed with the staff recommendation. The Commissioners felt that the area north of 15th Street should be medium density; the area south of 15th Place should be low density. 16th Street to 17th Street (East Side of P.C.H.) The frontage in this area is 280 feet. Depth of the MUC is 300 feet. The depth of the C- 3 zoning is 100 feet. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary line along the rear of the frontage lots at a depth of 100 feet coterminous with the existing C -3/R-1 zoning boundary. Also, to amend the LUP designation for the residential area behind the frontage lots from MUC to LD residential. The Commissioners all agreed with the staff recommendation for this area,. including the recommendation for low density residential. 17th Street to 18th Street (East Side of P.C.H.) The frontage is 186 feet for this area. Depth of the MUC is 300-330 feet. Depth of the C-3 zone is 100 feet. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary along the rear of the frontage lots at a depth of 100 feet coterminous with the existing C -3/R-1 zoning boundary. Also, to amend the LUP designation for the area behind the frontage lots from MUC to LD residential. Chmn. Peirce stated that this area could be included with the discussion of the other areas at issue (maps on Pages 39, 41, 44, and 47 of the staff report). Chmn. Peirce stated that. the question is to determine whether it is desirable to have residential or commercial on the highway. —15% P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 The Commissioners all agreed with the staff recommendation, including the recommendation that the area be medium density. 6th Street to 7th Street (East Side) The frontage of this area is 270 feet. The depth of the MUC is 240 feet. The depth of the C-3 zoning is 120 feet. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary at the rear of the frontage lots, coterminous with the existing C-3 zoning boundary, at a depth of 120 feet. Also, to amend the General Plan Map to redesignate the residential area behind the frontage lots from MUC to MD residential. The Commissioners all agreed with the staff recommendation, including the recommendation that the area be medium density. 7th Street to 8th Street (East Side) The frontage of this area is 120 feet. The depth of the MUC is 240 feet. The depth of the C-3 zoning is 120 feet. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary at the rear of the frontage lots, coterminous with the C-3 zoning boundary, at a depth of 120 feet. Also, to amend the General Plan Map for the residential area behind the frontage lots from MUC to MD residential. The Commissioners all agreed with the staff recommendation for this area, including the recommendation that the area be medium residential. 14th Street to 15th Street (East Side) The frontage of this area is 210 feet. The depth of the MUC is 291 feet. The depth of the MUC zoning is 106 feet and 126 feet. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary at a depth of 141 feet along the north side of 14th Street to include 823 14th Street and at the existing C - 3/R -2 boundary at a depth of 126 feet along the south side of 15th Street. Also, to amend the LUP designation for the residential areas behind the boundary from MUC to MD residential. Chmn. Peirce noted concern over the property at 823 14th Street. He stated that he would favor the line remaining as it currently exists. Comm. Ingell agreed, as did Comms. Edwards and Rue. The Commissioners all agreed with the staff recommendation. The Commission felt that the residential property north of 14th Street should be low density. 15th Street to 16th Street (East Side of P.C.H.) The frontage of this area is 339 feet. Depth of the MUC is 300 feet. Depth of the C-3 zone is 42 feet, 84 feet, 100 feet, and 150 feet. For the north side of 15th Street to 135 feet north of the street, staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary at the 126 -foot depth coterminous with P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 Chmn. Peirce noted that staff is suggesting this area to be R-1, low density, which it currently is. The Commissioners all agreed there should be no change. 2nd Street to 3rd Street (East Side) This area has a frontage of 181 feet. The depth of the MUC is 250 feet. The depth of C- 3 zoning is 160 feet on the north side of 2nd Street and 50 feet on the south side of 3rd Street. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary coterminous with the existing C-3 zoning boundary at depths of 160 feet and 50 feet. Also, to amend the General Plan Map for the residential area east of the commercial corridor boundary from MUC to LD residential. The Commissioners all agreed with the staff recommendation, including the recommendation for low density residential. 3rd Street to 4th Street (East Side) The frontage of this area is 202 feet. The depth of the MUC is 250 feet. The depth of the C-3 zoning is 125 feet on the north side of 3rd Street and 100 feet on the south side of 4th Street. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary at a depth of 125 feet for the south half of the block, coterminous with the C-3 zoning boundary and at a depth of 112 feet for the north half of the block. Also, to amend the General Plan Map for the residential area beyond the corridor from MUC to LD residential. As an alternative, staff recommended extending the commercial corridor designation to the depth of Ocean Avenue and to develop a policy for buffers at the commercial and residential interface. The Commissioners all agreed with the staff recommendation, including the recommendation that the area remain R-1, low density. 4th Street to 5th Street (East Side) The frontage of this area is 342 feet. The depth of the MUC is 244 feet. The depth of the C-3 zoning is 116 feet. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary coterminous with the existing C-3 zoning boundary along the alley. Also, to amend the designation on the General Plan Map for the residential area behind the alley from MUC to LD residential. The Commissioners all agreed with the staff recommendation, including the recommendation that it remain low density residential. 5th Street to 6th Street (East Side) The frontage of this area is 260 feet. The depth of the MUC is 240-250 feet. The depth of the C-3 zoning is 160 feet and 120 feet. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary at a depth of 160 feet for the entire block. Also, to amend the General Plan Map for the residential area behind the boundary from MUC to 1 -ID residential and MD residential to be consistent with the designations to the east. - 15-5-- _ P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 1st Street to 2nd Street (East Side) This area has a frontage of 255 feet. The depth of the MUC is between 245 and 260 feet. The depth of the C-3 zoning is 220 feet and 125 feet. ' Although the existing MUC boundary follows lot lines, it splits the GTE parking lot and it is not in a logical location. Except for two older houses, the uses within the MUC are commercial. Given this situation, staff feels there are two options for the location of the commercial corridor boundary: (1) Along the boundary of the GTE parking lot (500 feet deep on the north side of 1st Street and 285 feet deep on the south side of 2nd Street); or (2) Along the current C-3 zoning line (240 feet deep approximately at the rear of the•GTE building along the north side of 1st Street and 125 feet along the south side of 2nd Street to exclude the existing residential uses). The benefits of the first option are two -fold: it would recognize the easterly boundary of existing commercially related land uses and would provide for potential commercial expansion along the south side of 2nd Street where the two older houses at 830 and 838 are located (these properties would potentially provide the parking area needed to convert or expand the existing commercial uses at 134 and 142 Pacific Coast Highway and if developed would be subject to standards of the Commercial Corridor SPA requiring buffering from the residential uses). However, it would be inconsistent with the commercial depths to both the south of 1st Street and to the north of 2nd Street. The second option would provide for greater consistency across streets, but it would not be conducive towards the turnover, improvement, or expansion of commercial uses on the south side of 2nd Street. Also, the SPA standards should mitigate, i.e., buffer, the problems of commercial interfacing with residential. Staff recommended locating that Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary in accordance with the first option noted along the easterly boundary of the existing GTE parking lot at a depth of 500 feet along the north side of 1st Street and a depth of 285 feet on the south side of 2nd Street. Comm. Rue discussed an area on the map (Page 17 of the staff report) where there is a "bump up" on the north side of 1st Street, going east into the R -P area. This parcel is a fairly old, single-family dwelling. He said that the area across 1st Street is not consistent. Chmn. Peirce stated that the area is consistent, explaining that it the parking area for the General Telephone Company. Comm. Rue stated that the area, even though it is a parking lot, is not consistent across the street. He questioned whether that area should be looked at in a long-term persepctive, as to whether or not it should be in the commercial corridor. Mr. Robertson stated that the Commission could address such a use; however, staff is reflecting the current use. He said those properties facing the side streets could not become commercial. Comm. Ingell asked whether it is desirable to create nonconforming commercial uses in the City. Chmn. Peirce stated that such a situation would not be desirable. Comms. Ingell and Edwards, and Chmn. Peirce agreed with the staff recommendation for this area; Comm. Rue disagreed, stating he felt that someone in the future may want to come in and propose a commercial use at that site. They could then apply for a zone change and general plan change, if so desired. P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 Dandi Rachnighar, 1860 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach, stated that he would like to see the area remain residential, rather than commercial. He stated that changing the designation from residential to commercial will only exacerbate the traffic and noise problems in the area. He asked that the area be left as residential. Jack Andron, 521 Gentry Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that nothing in the City is constant for very long, noting that P.C.H. started out as R-1, went to R-2 and R-3, and then commercial in some areas. He stated that unfortunately, one cannot go from C-3 back to R-3. He suggested that the R-3 designation remain longer. He stated that most of the parcels in question are individually owned. He stated that residential lots going to commercial are not large enough to accommodate the required side setbacks to make commercial uses viable. Roberta Farrell, 732 24th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that the traffic on P.C.H. after 3:00 in the afternoon is very heavy; if the area is redesignated commercial and a hotel is built at 21st street, there could possibly be an additional 100 cars per day from the commercial use, whereas residential only generates about ten cars per day. Don Karosevich, 840 15th Street, Hermosa Beach, noted concern over the staff report which recommends implement the general plan changes by initiating zone changes for the residential areas outside the commercial corridor...." He asked whether zoning will be voted upon at this time. Chmn. Peirce clarified that that is merely a staff recommendation; no zone changes will be voted upon tonight. Public Hearing closed at 9:18 P.M. by Chmn Peirce. Chmn. Peirce stated that he agreed with the staff recommendation for all of the areas from 1st Street to 8th Street on the east side of the highway in the south end of town. He felt that the boundary line is drawn correctly. Chmn. Peirce suggested that each area be discussed individually. South City Boundary to lst Street (East Side) This area has a frontage of 170 feet. The depth of the MUC is 240 feet; the depth of the C-3 zoning is 240 feet. Staff recommended locating the commercial corridor/SPA boundary coterminous with the C-3 zoning boundary consistent with the existing MUC boundary at a depth of approximately 240 feet. The Commissioners all agreed with the staff recommendation for this area. The Commissioners also agreed with the staff recommendation of R -P density, which is high density. Comm. Edwards asked whether any buffers are proposed for this area. Mr. Robertson stated that no buffering is being suggested at this time. He continued by explaining that no zone changes are being proposed at this time. — t53 — P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 Mr. Longacre stated that the proposal for the multi -use corridor presents no City objectives; therefore, he did not feel it would be possible to devise an appropriate plan. He suggested that this matter be returned to the City Council with a recommendation that the moratorium be lifted and a request that the Council clearly state their objectives: He noted that this study is now also including areas of the highway not in the multi -use corridor; therefore, he questioned why the entire City is not being addressed. He said there is no citizen mandate for what is being proposed; and he felt the proposal is ill-conceived. Mr. Longacre stated that this entire matter is far too important to be left to one planner who is new to the City. Janet King, 2006 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach, was concerned over how her property could be developed if it is rezoned, whether it could be developed as R-3 or only as a single-family residence. Larry Rooney, 732 24th Street, Hermosa Beach, asked how far the commercial down 21st Street will go. He noted concern over the impacts which would be created by the staff recommendation, stating that the proposal is not reasonable and is not consistent with the entire area. Don Karosevich, 840 15th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that Page 32 of the staff report is erroneous, noting that 830 15th Street is three units on the lot, not a single-family residence as indicated in the report. He continued by discussing other properties on the street, stating that there are two three -unit lots now. He stated zoning other than R -2B would be inappropriate and would create a hodge-podge in the neighborhood. He suggested that the most practical zoning should remain R -2B in order to have consistent land utilization throughout the 16 lots included in this area. Betty Thomas, 1934 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach, stated that her family has owned the property since 1952. She stated that in 1974 a 54 -page report was prepared by the City addressing the multi -use corridor. At that time it was decided that it was not viable to change the property from 19th Street to 21st Street to commercial property because of the topography, the traffic impacts, as well as other reasons. She asked what has changed since 1974 so that the City now wants to redesignate this area as commercial. Mr. Schubach noted that in 1974 the area was designated as multi -use corridor; however, since he was not in the City at that time, he was unable to explain the rationale behind the statements contained in the report. Ms. Thomas stated that in 1974 a 300 -foot multi -use commercial zone was proposed; staff is now recommending only 100 feet. She stated that such narrow setbacks would make the property almost worthless as far as commercial property is concerned. Since homes would be left as single-family residences without potential development, they would become almost worthless. She felt that, unless the City is practicing an eminent domain policy, inverse condemnation proceedings might be in order in this case. Marianne Kanes, 817 18th Street, Hermosa Beach, asked for clarification on the recommendation in the staff report, questioning why the residential properties are being proposed for high density, rather than low or medium density. She stated that the people who live on the highway are used to the traffic and noise; therefore, she could not understand why it is being proposed to make it high density, rather than low or medium density R-1. / Z — P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 the west side of Pacific Coast Highway from 3rd Street to the south side of 5th Street. He continued by discussing the diagram, and stressed that the Commission should be fair. He asked that his zoning be left alone. He suggested that the general plan be changed to conform with the zoning, rather than changing the zoning to'conform to the general plan. He noted that most of the properties in this particular area are already developed to R-3 standards; also, it would create a more sensible transition from the medium density residential to the commercial corridor. Mr. Guthrie stated that there are ten parcels, with 46 dwelling units, in this particular three -block area. If the R-3 standards are changed, there could also be only 46 units; therefore, there would be no change in the number of units or in the density. He continued by. discussing a chart he prepared addressing density. He said that 36 out of the 46 units are owner -occupied, the remainder are rentals. Mr. Guthrie stated that not only are a majority of the R-3 units developed to the R-3 standards, but also many of the R-2 units are developed to R-3 standards, noting that the R-2 units were downzoned from R-3. He discussed a chart he ;,repared addressing the standards to which many of the units were built. He said that if the staff proposed change is recommended, he would be able to build only two units, as opposed to three; also, he would have a view loss. Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, Hermosa Beach, passed out copies to the Commissioners and read into the record a statement he prepared: "Any proposal to shift boundaries of any commercial area without computations of potential building volumes, potential traffic counts, total residences to lose views has the cart before the horse and is bad planning and contradicts the City vision adopted by the Council 23 October 1986. "Anything done regarding commercial zoning in this small city should be done only after careful study of what has been done and learned in our two larger adjoining neighboring cities of Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach. "I note Manhattan Beach has rigid parking requirements in all commercial areas. They have a 26' height limit in the commercial area by the pier, we have a 35' height limit. Theirs is 4 feet lower than surrounding residential, ours is 5 to 10 feet higher than surrounding residential in the downtown beach area. "Along P.C.H., Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach have a maximum height of 30 feet. Ours is at 45 feet (much too high in my opinion). The South Bay Galleria is 50 feet high. 9 also note the recent failure at the ballot box of the proposed downtown hotel was primarily in my view due to size. Had this hotel been fully silhouetted with poles, strings, and flags and had people recognized the true massiveness, it would have been hard pressed to get half the votes it received. 9 propose that in any proposal or resolution sent to the Council, inclusion be made of the following four items: (1) that the commercial height limit of any commercial parcel, including SPA zone, be no higher than the zoning of any residential parcel within 500 feet of said commercial parcel in any direction; (2) that any commercial project higher than 25 feet from the lowest point of its parcel, including expanded remodels, be required to have full silhouetting for four weeks prior to a public hearing for this project. This is not expensive as a percentage of cost. Silhouetting is the actual outlining of the building on the site with poles, strings, and ribbon banners; (3).that any commercial project requiring more than ten parking spaces be required to supply a professional traffic study prior to a public hearing; (4) that all hotel/motel type projects require SPA type zoning." — 0-1 — P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 in the residential area. His view would also be obstructed. He stated that when he purchased his property, it was R-1; now it is being proposed to rezone it to commercial. Chmn. Peirce noted that there can be a commercial use only if access is from the highway, not from 21st Street. Penny Smith, 724 24th Street, discussed the possibility of a hotel on her street. She continued by discussing a drawing she had prepared depicting the neighborhood and access to a hotel from the highway. She suggested that the same distance into commercial be used as is used for the other buildings on the highway. Ms. Smith continued by discussing the drawing. She suggested that the residential area be maintained as it currently exists. She asked what the • logic is in bringing the commercial use further down 21st Street. She stated that commercial would then be invading an •area which is residential on three sides. She said this would be encroachment. Mr. Schubach explained the C -Potential usage in the area being discussed by Ms. Smith. He clarified that current C-3 zoning allows a 45 -foot height limit; under staff's proposal, the height would be reduced. He stated that staff is proposing no C-3 zoning at this time; they are proposing a Specific Plan Area. Mr. Schubach explained that the logic in extending commercial down 21st Street is based on the fact that those lots were also proposed to be C -Potential in the past. Logically, staff could see no problem since the lots would act as a buffer. Staff addressed issues such as slope in order to make its determination. Ms. Smith asked whether the C -Potential has expired. Mr. Schubach stated that the precise plan has expired; and it would be necessary for the applicant to apply for a new plan if he desires to proceed with a project. He said that the C -Potential zoning has no expiration date. He confirmed that the expired precise plan was for a hotel. Ms. Smith discussed the criteria proposed by staff, stating that three out of the nine criteria significantly impact her property. She said there would be commercial encroachment into residential on three sides, the fourth side being Pacific Coast Highway. Also, there is an impact on the scenic views. The street on Page 50 of the report depicts 21st Street as not a small street; she felt this statement is in error. Ms. Smith stated that things should be discussed in terms of how it is now, rather than how things will be in the future. Ms. Smith stated that there are currently many commercial buildings along the highway, many of which are vacant; she questioned whether it is desirable to have even more commercial uses, given the current situation. Sean Guthrie, 710 4th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that he purchased an R-3 home with his sister and friend, and they each hope to build their own units on the lot in the future. He stated that he supports lower density in the City, both in residential and commercial areas, whenever it is fair to the majority of the the property owners. He noted that the more property can be developed, the more it is worth. Mr. Guthrie distributed copies of a diagram he prepared depicting the R-3 properties on P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 Staff would like to emphasize that under the provisions of a Specific Plan, any commercial development would be required to provide buffering from the residential uses and would be subject to the scrutiny of the Planning Commission for appropriateness for that location. The additional 70 feet of depth, should develop wish to purchase it, would provide additional space for this type of buffering to enhance the project. Also, an additional 70 feet of property could be developed with single-family residences under the provisions for residential use within the SPA, giving the owner of that property both options. Staff's recommendation has not changed. As an alternative, however, the Commission may want to consider excluding the additional 70 feet from the Commercial Corridor and recommend its redesignation to Low Density Residential. 1st Place to 1st Street (West Side) Residents living behind existing commercial uses along both sides of 1st Place have expressed concern with staff's recommendation to include the entire MUC in the Commercial Corridor SPA. The residents have expressed similar concerns to those noted regarding the proximity of commercial uses to their residences. Also noted was the concern of the value of their property being dependent of the plans of the owners of the commercial property which does front on P.C.H. Again, it should be emphasized that the existing residential properties in question, under the proposed provisions of the SPA, can be improved or rebuilt to their existing density and would be considered conforming uses. Staff believes this to be appropriate as Current densities do not exceed what would be allowed under an R-2 zone. The designation of the property within the Commercial Corridor gives the owners a section option, to sell for commercial purposes. Also, any commercial expansion would be subject to the standards of the SPA requiring buffering and the review of the Planning Commission. The SPA designation would. not allow the residential property owners to build new residential units to the R-3 density. Staff continues to recommend that the Commercial Corridor boundary extend to the existing depth of the MUC for these two blocks as shown on Pages 68 and 70 of the report. An alternative would be to locate the boundary at the existing C-3 depth and to recommend that the R-3 (C) properties be redesignated to MD Residential and to further recommend the rezoning of these properties to R-2, consistent with the residential properties to the west. Public Hearing opened at 8:31 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, stated that neither Manhattan Beach nor Redondo Beach is widely using the SPA; and those are the areas with which Hermosa Beach will be competing. She said that several issues at hand .are very vague, and she suggested the Commission address them. One area of concern is the east side of the highway which has a steeper grade than the west side of the highway; and the buildings will therefore overshadow the buildings to the east all the way to Prospect. She stated that the west side of P.C.H. has no upsloping lots. She stated that commercial should be limited on the east side to no more than 30 feet, including roof structures; so that structures to the east can still get sunlight. William Pheiffer, 720 24th Street, stated that he did not receive a notice; however, he has lived in his new house only about one year. He stated that 24th Street is half new houses. He opposed any commercial use next door to his home, stating that if a hotel were allowed, no matter how much buffering there is, his property value will be reduced because a hotel, with its attendant noise, traffic, and congestion would not be desirable _74 q- P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 are certainly legitimate, staff feels that the commercial designation to a depth of about 100 feet is .the most appropriate designation for this area as it takes advantage of the value of P.C.H. frontage, while a residential designation would provide for a use that conflicts with the noise, pollution, and safety hazards associated with a major highway. Also, the current General Plan designation of MUC and zoning designation of R-3 (C) would allow the construction of multi -family structures to a height of 35 feet, the generation of additional residential traffic and parking, and would certainly increase the congestion for the area. Commercial development controlled under the provisions of a Specific Plan Area designation, however, would be subject to requirements addressing setbacks, buffering, landscaping, architectural treatment, and height. The following comparison chart shows what would be allowed under an R-3 designation versus a Commercial Corridor SPA designation: R-3 (C) ZONING CORRIDOR SPA Project Review None Review for design, traffic impact Setbacks 5' rear minimum 8' from res. 3' on alley property, plus 2' for each additional story not required landscaping required, screening 35' height limit set height limit no project review consider in project review Buffering View Impact Traffic Impacts Parking directed to alley, congestion at night, weekends directed to P.C.H. daytime usage night, weekend provided on site, impact daytime impact Staff continues to recommend locating the commercial boundary along the rear of the frontage lots as shown on the map on Page 44 of the original report. The alternative for the Commission, if it wishes to lock in residential uses on Pacific Coast Highway frontage lots, is to change the General Plan designation from MUC to High Density Residential for the frontage lots and recommend dropping the C -Potential portion of the existing R-3 zoning classification. 24th Street to 21st Street (West Side) Several residents who live on 24th Street expressed their concern with staff's recommendation to locate the Commercial Corridor boundary at a depth of 290 feet along 21st Street. They primarily expressed concern about the possible loss of views and privacy currently enjoyed because the existing commercial depth only goes to a depth of 115 feet. As previously noted, the current C-3 zoning goes to a depth of 220 feet (previously approved for a hotel, now expired), behind which is 70 more feet of vacant property. P.C. Minutes 4/4/$9 regarding the proposed boundary for the following areas which were discussed at the previous meeting: 18th Street to 21st Street (east side of P.C.H.); 24th Street to 21st Street (west side of P.C.H.); and 1st Place to 1st Street (west side of P.C.H.). Staff has. not changed its original recommendation for these areas. For the other areas discussed at the meeting, 15th Street to 16th Street (east side), north of 21st Street (east side), and 5th Street to 4th Street (west side), staff has no additional comments and maintains its original recommendation. Residential Use in the Commercial Corridor: The proposed policies for the Commercial Corridor include a provision for the continuation and limited improvement of existing residential uses in the Specific Plan Areas. This would allow structures currently used for residential purposes on lots which are exclusively used for residential purposes to maintain a conforming status and to be improved at their current density. Also, if the dwelling was destroyed, it could be reconstructed to the same density. It would not allow these residential uses to increase density which would currently be possible for areas which are zoned R-3. Also, the policies of the Commercial Corridorgive exception to vacant properties not fronting on P.C.H. and with no ownership tie to property fronting on P.C.H. to develop new residential projects at a density consistent with adjacent residential densities. The Commission is reminded that under the provisions of the proposed SPA, any new residential project other than single-family or any new commercial project will be subject to Planning Commission review and approval. In order to clarify the policies for residential use in the Commercial Corridor Specific Plan Areas, staff recommends that the definition of "Commercial Corridor" be modified to note exceptions to the prohibition of new residential projects and that the proposed Policies, Numbers 1 and 3 for the Commercial Corridor, be modified to read as follows: (1) Existing structures used for residential purposes on a lot or parcel which is exclusively used for residential purposes are permitted to remain indefinitely and shall be considered conforming uses, allowing said structures to be improved, rebuilt, or expanded, as long as the existing residential density is not increased. (3) New residential projects shall be prohibited, except in the following cases: (a) On currently vacant lots or parcels of land which do not front on Pacific Coast Highway and which are not currently connected by ownership to lots fronting on Pacific Coast Highway and which will be developed to a density consistent with surrounding residential densities allowed by the General Plan, subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission and; (b) The improvement, expansion, or reconstruction of current residential structures which does not increase the current residential density (number of dwelling units) of the lot or parcel of land. 18th Street to 21st Street (East Side): Several residents who live in this area near Pacific Coast Highway expressed their opposition to any commercial designation along P.C.H. frontage for various reasons, including view blockage, traffic, parking, and crime. Although many of their concerns -1447— P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 conspicuously displayed on the front street side of the building with externally or internally lit numbers." MOTION by Comm. Inge11, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-32. AYES: Comms. Edwards, Inge11, Rue, Chmn. Peirce NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm. Ketz FIRST QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: GENERAL• PLAN AMENDMENT TO CONSIDER THE LOCATION AND POLICIES REGARDING MULTI -USE CORRIDOR AND TO CONSIDER A SPECIFIC PLAN AREA AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF 3/21/89) Mr. Robertson, advanced planner, gave the staff report dated March 29, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission take several actions regarding the Multi -Use Corridor and to adopt the proposed resolution. Actions proposed: (1) Establish the boundary of the Pacific Coast Highway "Commercial Corridor" at the depths recommended in Exhibit A or at locations deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; (2) Amend the General Plan Map to redesignate areas not within the Commercial Corridor from MUC to Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, or High Density Residential, depending on the adjacent designation; (3) Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan by adopting the recommended definition for the Commercial Corridor and amend the General Plan Map to designate the area within the established boundary from MUC to Commercial Corridor; (4) Adopt an Environmental Negative Declaration for the proposed General Plan Amendments; (5) Implement the General Plan changes by initiating zone changes for the residential areas outside the Commercial Corridor to classifications consistent with the adjacent residential classifications, and by adopting policies for the Specific Plan Area classifications to be applied in the Commercial Corridor. Initiate discussion on development standards and development review procedures to be applied in the Commercial Corridor Specific Plan Areas; (6) Consider the inclusion of existing commercial areas designated General Commercial on the General Plan Map located along Pacific Coast Highway within the Commercial Corridor. The Planning Commission continued this item from the March 21, 1989, meeting to allow for further discussion of the subject on a block -by -block basis. In response to some of the concerns expressed at that meeting, staff prepared a supplemental analysis. Provided in the supplemental information prepared by staff is an explanation of the concept of allowing residential uses to continue and be improved in the Commercial Corridor Specific Plan Area and additional information and possible alternatives /46 P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 BACKGROUND. MATER/AC Existing Commercial Existing Residential NW Ser. Prof. Auto. Total SF MF Total OUnits Vacant Total PCH Front Comm. MUC Area Retail Offc. Rel. Comm. Front. Developed 24th St. - 24th P1. 24.8 24.8 37.8 37.8 9 62.6 216 216 24th St. - 21st St. 8.5 9.5 17.9 42.2 5.7 47.9 18 21.8 88 304 254 21st St. - 16th St. 91.7 91.7 224.4 224.4 276 74.2 390 1341 345 16th St. - Pier Ave. 277 277 277 550 550 Totals NW 377.2 34.3 411.4 80 230.1 310.1 303 96 817.6 2411 1365 Acres • 8.7 0.8 9.5 1.8 5.3 7.1 2.2.. 18.8 I Percent 51% 38% 12% Existing Commercial ' Existing Residential SW Ser. Prof. Auto. Total SF MF Total OUnits Vacant Total PCH Front Comm. MUC Area Retail Offc. Rel. Comm. Front. Developed 8th St. 6th St. 102.4 3.2 105.6 20.0 20.0 15 125.6 443 443 6th St. 5th St. 62.6 62.6 0 62.6 216 216 J 5th St. 4th St. 27.5 4.3 31.8 9.5 26.9 36.4 23 68.2 236 236 4th St. 3rd St. 27.3 7.2 34.5 •• 4.6 23.0 27.6 16 62.1 230 230 3rd St. 2nd St. 30.0 14.8 44.8 • 3.5 13.8 17.3 11 62.1. 230 230 n 2nd St. 1st P1. 48.3 48.3 13.8 13.8 7 62.1 230 . 230 1st P1. 1st St. 40.8 40.8 8.7 8.7 17.4 8 58.2 232 232 u 1st St. -Border St. 2.5 12.5 4.8 4.8 8 17.3 55 55 Totals 199.7 0.0 181.2 380.9 60.1 77.2 137.3 88 518.2 1872 1872 Acres 4.6 4.2 8.7 1.4 1.8 3.2 11.9 Percent 731 27% SUMMARY OF MUC AREA (IN ACRES) SW 4.6 0.0 4.2 8.7 1.4 1.8 3.2 88 0.0 11.9 1872 1872 NW 8.7 0.8 0.0 9.5 1.8 5.3 7.1 303 2.2 18.8 2411 1365 NE 1.3 0.9 0.7 2.9 6.4 2.2 8.6 135 0.7 12.2 2027 1059 SE 2.2 1.1 2.4 5.6 . 2.5 1.6 4.1 72 0.0 9.7 1940 1940 TOTALS 16.8 2.8 7.3 26.7 -12.1 - 10.9 23.0 598 2.9 52.6 8250 6236 PERCENT 51% 44% 5% 761 • DISTRIBUTION OF EXISTING LAND USES WITHIN THE MUC (in thousands of square feet) Existing Commercial Existing Residential SE Ser. Prof. Auto. Total SF MF Total •Units Vacant Total PCH Front Comm. MUC Area Retail Offc. Rel. Comm. Front. Developed Borden to 1st St. 8.8 46.4 55.2 5.6 5.6 2 60.8 255 feet 255 feet 1st St. - 2nd St. 31.9 31.9 5.6 5.6 0 37.5 170 170 2nd St. - 3rd St. 4.5 14.4 18.9 25.2 25.2 10 44.1 181 181 3rd St. - 4th St. 5.3 14.4 19.7 23.6 3.4 27.0 10 46.7 202 202 4th St. - 5th St. 33.2 6.4 39.6 30.4 8.6 39.0 9 78.6 342 342 5th St. - 6th St. 32.1 32.1 18.4 13.5 31.9 18 64.0 260 260 6th St. - 7th St. 10.8. 21.7 32.5 4.8 25.3 30.1 16 62.6 260 260 • 7th St. - 8th St 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 7' 28.8 270 270 Totals 94.7 46.4 103.2 244.3 108.0 70.8 178.8 72 423.1 1940 1940 Acres 2.2 1.1 2.4 5.6 2.5 1.6 4.1 9.7 Percent 58% 42% Existing Commercial Existing Residential NE Ser. Prof. Auto. Total SF MF Total •Units Vacant Total PCH Front Comm. MUC Area Retail Offc. Rel. Comm. Front. Developed 14th St. 15th St. 24.9 24.9 25.2 11.3 36.5 10 61.4 210 210 15th St. 16th St. 11.4 2.8 14.2 9.3 42.7 52.0 25 29.9 96.1 339 .11143 16th St. - 17th St. 28.0 28.0 40.3 3.9 44.2 16 72.2 280 280 17th St. 18th St. 7.6 7.6, 50.5 50.5 12 58.1, 186 76 18th St. - 19th St. 5.0 5.0 66.8 26.6 93.4 40 98.4 355 50 19th St. 21st St. 0 86.0 11.6 97.6 32 97.6 357 0 N of 21st St. 6.8 35.53.7 46.0 0 0 0 0 46.0 300 • 300 Totals 58.8 38.3 28.6 125.7 278.1 96.1 374.2 135 29.9 529.8 2027 1059 Acres 1.3 0.9 0.7 2.9 6.4 2.2 • 8.6 0.7 12.2 Percent 24% 701 6% APPENDIX 13 043) Approx. Dist. Dist. Similar Use Current Us Lot Use Date Cond. from from Adjacent Across Slope Zone Conform Size Const: PCH ECB* Uses Street SS 1st St ing 7 P.C.H 12640 Comm. 1945 Fair 0-190 Res/bad Comm. Flat C-3 Yes ' 710 1st St. 9350 BUApt. 1975 Fair 190-300 Com/E. Com/Res Mod. R -3C **Yes NM Are. • 710 -- -ST:-3 COMMERCIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three or more units) 72 EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY (1 L2) 1ST STREET TO SOUTH CITY BOUNDARY (West Side) FRONTAGE: 55 feet DEPTH OF MUC: 250 feet DEPTH OF C-3 ZONING: 190 feet Existing development consists of "Coast Glass" on property zoned C-3 to a depth of 190 feet. Behind this property, extending to the full depth of the MUC and beyond is a newer 8 -unit apartment building in good condition, and beyond that is a mix of residential uses (including a vacant city owned parcel at a depth of 345 feet). Although not as deep as the recommended depth to the north across 1st Street the depth of existing commercial development seems adequate to support commercial uses. Therefore, it would seem appropriate to locate the boundary no further than the extent of the existing commercial depth of 190 feet. RECOMMENDATION Locate the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary at a depth of 190 feet. Amend the General Plan Map for the residential area from MUC to MD Residential. Approx. Dist. Dist. Similar Use Current Use Lot Use Date Cond. from from Adjacent Across Slope Zone Cor 1st P1. to Size Const. PCH ECB' Uses Street inc 45 P.C.H. 35000 Com/Auto 1976 Fair 0-150 Res/Dhd Comm. Flat C-3 Yes SS 1st Place 720 1st P1. 4080 2Units 1935 Poor 150-190 0 Com/S/E Comm. Mod. R -3C Yes 718 1st P1. 4025 2Units 1927 Fair 190-230 40 . Com/S. SFR Mod. R -3C Yes 710 1st P1. 4600 3Units 1939 Fair 230-270 80 Yes SFR Mod. R -3C Yes NS 1st• St. 719 1st St. 5865 Com/Auto Car/str Fair 150-192 Res/W. Comm. Mod. R -3C Yes 715 131. St. 4600 SFR 1929 Fair 190-230 Com/E. MFR Mod. R -3C Yes • o IST • PL. x.76.341. 71°..... !..:::7W • .aZ /17 7N ID 4I Por .p0 004,4 7 \, 3i 0.‘ /,;.e oP A.I 6.. P R. Spur Tiock No / Per O. 275 /S pj}5-1t�.., y40/44 �;zy, it///��A ST.o VA E D COMMERCIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three or nate units) EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY 7� 140 tO 1ST PLACE TO 1ST STREET (West Side) FRONTAGE: 232 feet DEPTH OF MUC: 230-270 feet DEPTH OF C-3 ZONING: 150 feet Existing development consists of the "AMC -Jeep -Eagle" auto sales and repair business on property zoned C-3 to a depth of 150 feet. Behind the auto dealership the residential uses along the south side of 1st Place, zoned R-3, down a moderate slope consist of 2 two-family units and one three-family unit in generally fair condition. Along the north side of 1st street the lot behind the auto dealership is under thesame ownership, zoned R-3, and is currently used for parking/storage of cars. The lot behind, at 715 1st Street, is an old single residence (built about 1929) in fair condition. Immediately beyond the MUC, the City owns property, currently vacant, which extends one lot deeper than the MUC boundary. Given that the existing commercial depth does not seem adequate for the commercial use (as evidenced by the use of the vacant lot for vehicle storage), and that the residential uses are older and not in particularly good condition, the extension of commercial depth should be considered for this block. In staff's judgement the logical location for the boundary would be the existing MUC boundary. This would be consistent with the depth recommended for the block to the north. Of course, as noted previously for similar situations, consideration must be given for the existing dwelling units, and for buffering where the commercial uses would interface with the residential uses. In this instance, the existing two and three unit residential uses could remain as conforming uses under the provisions of a Specific Plan Area designation since they are consistent with adjacent development to the west (i.e. the 2 -unit and 3 -unit approximate the R-2 density). RECOMMENDATION Locate the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary at the existing MUC boundary at a depth ranging from 230-270 feet and as in other cases apply policies and standards regarding commercial development, buffering, and conformity of existing residential uses. SW Approx. Dist. Dist. Similar Use St. Address Lot . Use Date Cond. from from Adjacent Across Slope 3rd St.- 1st P1. Size Const. PCH ECB' Uses Street Current Use Zone Conf. ing? Between 2nd St - 1st P1. 121 P.C.H. 48300 Com/Auto 1970 Fair 0-230 Res/bad Com/Res Flat C-3 Yes 710 2nd St. 4600 2Units 1969 Fair 230-270 0 Com/E. SFR Mod. C-3 No 725 1st P1. 4600 abnd/SFR <1913 Poor 150-190 0 Com/E. 2FR Mod. C-3 No 719 1st P1. 4600 2Units 1954 Fair 190-230 40 Com/N. 2FR Mod. R -3C Yes 709 1st P1. 4600 2Units Poor 230-270 80 Com/N. MFR Mod. R -3C Yes .1 1 1► ,., 2ND r. N 7G•34'4 • ' S T. . N •. s�zr_ I05 27 0O h 6 -A .104 3660 h O 103 __ _- 102 `00?:::� >• O 101 O:'.•: 100 •:;:: ': :: •9idr d• s.1.. V 5 .: :::ter • • � " . �� > F, y //465 d `9 1-- 49,:t. , i07 iia 8/ �' 4,to -� �AA d x h B7R 29 1 /.9 72 — F., 08 zh O III 366 33 112 40 O 113 35 04 36 115 •:::::::::::::v':•:::� } : .. >., M ...;, : .:..:; /�.i • AG, ._ 74 l, 0 % a/ 4:-/ q• 9 /•4Ar a QST 476°344 • Io 1 7t 1 7Z5 PL. COMMERCIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ElMULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three or more units) EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY • PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY ,g (/3E) >: 1-- 0 U • 2ND 90 2ND STREET TO 1ST STREET (West Side) FRONTAGE: 230 feet DEPTH OF MUC: 270 feet DEPTH OF C-3 ZONING: 270 feet, 190 feet Existing development consists of the "Vasek Polak" auto sales and service business extending to a depth of 270 feet along the south side of 2nd street and to a depth of 150 feet along the north side of 1st Street. The depth of current development is one lot short of the C-3 boundary on both streets. Both of these lots are developed with nonconforming residential structures. The lot at 710 2nd street contains a.two family residence, built about 1969, in fair condition, while the lot at 725 1st Place contains an old single-family home in poor condition (this lot is under the same ownership as Vasek Polak). The two R -3(C) lots along 1st Place, behind the house, are developed with older two-family units in fair and poor condition. The residential area to the west, beyond the MUC boundary, is developed with a mix of single-family, two family, and multi -family residences zoned R-2. The depth of C-3 zoning along the south side of 2nd Street is not consistent with the depth either across the street or to the south because of rezonings from R-3 to C-3 which occured in 1979 and 1982. The depth of actual commercial development is also deeper than the surrounding depths, but it has not reached all the way to C-3 boundary, as noted above, which was established at the MUC boundary by the rezoning in 1982. In consideration of the above, a determination has to made whether to locate the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary at the edge of existing development, at the existing C-3 zoning boundary, or at the MUC boundary line (a consistent depth of 270 feet). Although it would not be consistent with surrounding commercial depths, staff feels it would be most appropriate to locate the boundary at the MUC boundary, for two reasons. First, the existing residential uses are older, and not in particularly good condition and second, the additional commercial depth, in this instance, would allow for buffering and screening from adjacent residential uses, which is currently not provided. A 5 foot landscaped buffer is now required between residential and commercial uses, and with the proposed SPA designation the buffering would be more extensive. RECOMMENDATION Locate the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary coterminous with the existing MUC boundary at a depth of 270 feet, and include policies and standards regarding buffering and requring that commercial development be in conjunction with only the adjacent commercial uses to the east fronting on P.C.H., and further providing conforming status to existing residential uses. 47 0'3'7) SW Approx. Dist. • Dist. Similar Use,Current Usc� St. Address • Lot Use Date Cond. from from ' Adjacent Across Slope Zone Conf' 3rd St.- 1st P1. Size • Const. PCH ECB* Uses Street ing? SS 3rd St. 243 P.C.H./ / 742 3rd St. 3500 Comm. 1949 Fair 0-110 Yes Comm. Flat C-3 Yes 233 P.C.H. 2960 Comm. 1956 Fair 0-74 Yes Flat C-3 Yes 229 P.C.H. 4000 Comm. 1939 Fair 0-100 Yes Flat C-3 Yes Approx. 730 3rd 10820 Com/Pkg Fair 110-190 Res/bad Comm. Flat C-3 Yes' 720 3rd St. 4600 5UApt. 1962 Fair 190-230 0 Comm/E. MFR Flat R -3C No 710 3rd St. 4600 4UApt. 1964 Fair 230-270 40 Yes MFR Flat R -3C No NS 2nd St. 217 P.C.H. 4400 Comm. 1945 Fair 0-110 Yes Flat C-3 Yes 211 P.C.H. 4400 Comm. 1945 Fair 0-110 - Yes Flat C-3 Yes 201 P.C.H. 4400 Com/Auto 1944 Fair 0-110 Yes Comm. Flat C-3 Yes Approx. 725 2nd 4600 Com/Auto Car/str Fair 110-200 0 Res/W. Comm. Flat C-3 Yes 717 2nd St. 3450 SFR 1968 Fair 200-230 90 Com/E. Comm. Mod. R -3C Yes 715 2nd St. 4600 SFR <1942 Good 230-270 220 Yes SFR Mod. R -3C Yes L 3RD,I . SD 45 35 53.B3 .COis : _ •ti0 N N . 2a6 i 39 N . 40 ® .:�. •`® r�lS` •. i vf‘' • SHEET .2 -' : .; ..•:<r::•:.;::•::..: .:.; c , �' ;.• i% .1 ... or♦���1/ fie _ / i'VNA ` i �.1 , .. if � ,� ♦ ` 03 1 75 \ ob o 42 h • .44s0f • 1 Z,440d. ;440+ Q \ s• 50 t N 'V //948,640 PZ ^ ° ° 2502 /,Or i,:r/Or ��/,�T I��• 96 36 ` \•.a Iit'!I± • •ry4JZ01e,JZ0t ' 4,JZ0r« 4,660'•,. .�� ?\?\W1; 2p �` P� / /��� 36 SAO , '—s7./3 ?O :::;::'314:• 1 0 Nt 2:ND. 7Z ST. 4 COMMERCIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three or more units) EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY 6G, (/36) 2 -1 l 3RD STREET TO 2ND STREET (West Side) FRONTAGE: 230 feet DEPTH OF MUC: 270 feet DEPTH OF C-3 ZONING: 190 feet Existing development along P.C.H. consists of a series of connected older buildings containing a variety of service and retail businesses. (Going southward: "Brothers II Laundry," "Habash Cafe," "DJ's Bait and Tackle," "Hairs the Place," "Beach Cities Cycles," "Pacer Darts,." :'Hermosa Saloon," and a building used by Vasek Polak for storage). Behind these businesses, also within the C-3 zone, is a public parking area along the south side of 3rd Street to a depth of 190 feet, and a car storage area for Vasek Polak along the north side of 2nd Street to a depth of 200 feet. The commercial depth is consistent with the depth across 3rd Street, while it is less than the depth across 2nd Street. The residential uses located behind these areas, within the R -3(C) zone, consist of two multi -family apartment buildings (built in the early 1960's) in fair condition, along 3rd Street, and two single-family residences in fair to good condition along 2nd Street. Beyond the MUC to the west the area is developed with a mix of single-family, two-family, and multi -family residences zoned R-2. The existing depth of commercial development is adequate to support existing commercial uses, and would be deep enough to accomodate improvements and/or expansion. Also, the residential uses are in acceptable condition and should not be designated for commercial use. RECOMMENDATION Locate the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary at the edge of existing commercial development: 190 feet deep along the south side of 3rd Street coterminous with the C-3 zoning boundary, and 200 feet deep along the north side of 2nd street 10 feet behind the C-3 zoning boundary. Amend the General Plan Map for the residential areas from MUC to MD Residential to be consistent with the area to the west. SW St. Address Lot '4th St.- 3th St. Size Use Approx. Dist. Dist. Similar Use Current Use Date Cond. from ' from Adjacent Across Slope Zone Conf'- Const. P.CH ECB* Uses Street ing? SS 4th St. / 339 P.C.H./ 750 4th St. 4400 6 Comm. n/a<45 Fair 0-75 Yes Comm. Flat C-3 Yes 333 P.C.H. 4400 Comm. 1941 Fair 0-110 - Res/bhd - Flat C-3 Yes 325 P.C.H. 2250 Comm. 1927 Fair 0-110 - Res/bhd Flat C-3 Yes 746 4th St. 1050 Comm. 1981 Fair 75-110 - Res/bhd Comm. Flat C-3 Yes 736 4th St. 4600 2Units 1938 Fair 110-140 .0 Comm/E. Comm. Flat C-3 No 726 4th St. 4600 3Units 1957 Fair 140-180 40 Yes SFR Flat R -3C Yes 718 4th St. 4600 2Units 1979 Fair 180-220' 80 Yes MFR Flat R -3C Yes' 710 4th St. 4600 SFR n/a<56 Fair 220-260 120 Yes MFR Flat R -3C Yes NS 3rd St. 307 P.C.H. 3600 Comm. 1944 Fair 0-90 Yes Comm. Flat C-3 Yes 303 P•.C.H. 7200 Com/Auto 1965 Fair 0-90 - Yes Comm. Flat C-3 Yes 737 3rd St. 11500 Comm. 1968? Fair 90-190 Res/N&W Comm. Flat C -3/R -3C Yes 715 3rd St. 9200 BUCon. 1985 Good 190-270 100 Church/E MFR Flat R -3C Yes *Existing Commercial Boundary 4TH. • ST a • 736 74b 1S0 i?O 4074 4074 40 en 41 e. 36 n 36 35 SB 34 N:.. O 33 ! :3''..'�` :•d�:r.} [::• : ' `i '{.::iii .' .t Qa;is` 1:::i::.'•:2%: ', •: ?::•: } �s ►, moi. . `, NJ -a O/ N Q1 0 h Ci' 4401•' Q X40 39 X38 37 ::3c . /re • , .►� sr %4: i � i 4.I " /20 N7634Z: 2693 2633 40 �... �l � � 90 90zi 60 •n\ % 4633 46.33 %/241a � � h � 50 51'ti 52 53, z:::: '�o+.'•�?:: #'?:::?ti ,� :mak 5*:: � 0 � ,::•: ii• - ` N as 41 a5 1 as = ' 47 ' ` 48 49 ''k Z,764 �trsnOl ssoi-• ,ssew,• .. n M;;:::>;:::> 40 ;i:<••« ..;::;:>:?•:f.4::l3:?%:><?:<.`::; � fiC r, , /.±► • A ' 41`6 ,�0 60 ISO ‘• 90 9/91 3.[93 40 Ai76:94E Q 3RD. 715 • -737 ST. COMMERCIAL S• INGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL T• WO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL M• ULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three or more units) • EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY 4A- Coq) / J 90 PACIFIC COAST b 4TH STREET TO 3RD STREET (West Side) FRONTAGE: 230 feet DEPTH OF INC: 270 feet DEPTH OF C-3 ZONING: 150 feet South side 4th Street: Existing development along the P.C.H. frontage for the north half of the block, to a depth of 110 feet, consists of a series of older buildings containing a fitness club, a furniture store, a beauty salon, and a realty office. Behind these uses, also in the C-3 zone, is a nonconforming duplex in fair condition, built in the 1930's to a depth of 150 feet. Development in the R -3(C) zone behind the C-3 boundary consists of fairly new residential uses of varying densities. The commercial depth across the street is 140 feet. North side 3rd Street: Development along the P.C.H. frontage of the south half of the block consists of a retail, and auto repair business to a depth of 90 feet. Behind these frontage lots is the "New Life Church" to a depth of 190 feet. The C-3 zoning line is at a depth of 150 feet, therby splitting the church property. Behind the church is a new 8 -unit condominium within the R -3(C) .zone. The existing residential uses within the R -3(C) zone are of a good quality and should not be designated for commercial• development. However, the nonconforming residential use at 736 4th street should be in a commercial designation as its depth is consistent with the commercial depth across the street. Also, the commercial designation should be extended on the north side of 3rd street to include the entire church property (190 feet) RECOMMENDATION Locate the Commercial Corridor/SPA boudary 150 feet for the north half of the block, coterminous with the C-3 zoning boundary, and at 190 feet for the south half to include the church property. Amend the General Plan Map for the residential area from MUC to MD Residential to be consistent with the development to the west. 63 0033) :> 5th St. ?29 P.C.H. 14040 Comm. 1971 Fair 0-130 Res/bad Comm. Flat C-3 Yes (10 - 732 5th 12870 12UApt. 1986 Fair 130-250 0 Comm/E. Comm. Flat R -3C No -06 5th St. 4320 2Units 48/76 Fair 250-290 120 Yes Comm. Mod. R -3C Yes Lot Size Use Approx. • Dist. Dist. Similar Use Date Cond. from from Adjacent Across Slope Const. PCH ECB• Uses Street Current Use Zone Conf ing? •1S 4th St. %21 P.C.H. 4250 Com/Auto 1953 Poor 0-100 Yes Flat C-3 Yes 403 P.C.H. 13600 Comm. 1945 Fair 0-140 Res/bad Comm. Flat C-3 Yes ' 731 4th St. 5120 SFR n/a<49 Fair 140-180.. 0 Com E/MFR NSW 1.1FR Flat R -3C Yes• 701 - 715 4th 13952 8UCon. 1979 Good 180-290 40 Yes MFR Flat R -3C Ycs *Existing Commercial Boundary $ 5TH • •,11c •t Al 76 4TH 'Io(- 715 :731 sr • COMMERCIAL ElSINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DMULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three or more units) (_ Z. (t.3)-) EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY .•••••. PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY '1154 O J J 60 .. IO 8 0 .. 7 0 .. 6 0 »r.•}: 5 0 4 n 0 3 © ,M1' b 20 1 .aCO e6 2 ©1400014' 7J 49 1 Jf9 hC•6t 40:;i 1• p I •: Y•If .:•i 55, S3..}<}}.;.,•.¢>?�:?;,3,i'.•,�7�:h;. >' - k.''•2fk�';'� t xtG ::.:;`.:%?::<:;;>:::ogcy:•`:«# ::y 4'ij:; 44Yk;::i\;: LLam�. : ►ix� >r :::... y..;• 'f::•} : nCY t.':.' {:? � \fit}:;{ i`: }kjyrf< .a..•... •};: •::H::i%:: a.>3:;:,,;:}: +'' 1414114111111111414144111111111S\ : }k' }{vk\.}}. I.:44 !�• ti:.•`.({�Yti;., -.1416.4. �;.:::: ••. . ••'•'•: $.?r%le �••b' •'_ 41511111r. ' \ . —I 10 Y 's7.11 11 rJ : 5)6 1 33 I J9 :'6 38 ti 40 �7 17 I • SS { s5 • 1 �9 19 • SO 50 ti O 2I 610.. 7 �� A-1 A 1 1 !9 1 hti J9 Al 76 4TH 'Io(- 715 :731 sr • COMMERCIAL ElSINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DMULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three or more units) (_ Z. (t.3)-) EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY .•••••. PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY • 5TH STREET TO 4TH STREET (West Side) FRONTAGE: 236 feet DEPTH OF 4UC: 290 feet . DEPTH OF C-3 ZONING: 130 feet, 140 feet Existing development consists of a "Pizza Hut" restaurant on property zoned C-3 to a depth of 130 feet; "A & M" auto repair, "Chef 1 Bakery," and "Triangle Hardware," on property zoned C-3 to a depth of 140 feet. The residential uses behind these commercial' uses are primarily new multi -family apartments or condominiums on property zoned R -3(C). An older single-family unit in poor condition is located behind the hardware store parking area. Beyond the boundary of the MUC, to the west, the residential area is developed with a mix of one and two family units and multi -family units and is zoned R-2 (This area was rezoned from R-3 to R-2 in 1987). The existing depth of commercial development seems adequate for this block, and with the residential uses immediately to the west being fairly recently developed the commercial designation should extend no further than the existing commercial development, except for the single family dwelling located behind the parking area (at 731 4th Street) which would allow for some commercial expansion without impacting the existing neighborhood. Of course, this property could only be developed in conjuction with commercial property to the east, and otherwise should maintain a conforming status. RECOMMENDATION Locate the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary at a depth of 130 feet on the north half of the block, coterminous with the C-3 zoning boundary and at a depth of 180 feet for the southern half of the block to include the residence at 731 4th Street. Amend the General Plan Map for the residential area beyond the Corridor from MUC to MD Residential to be consistent with the residential area to the west. 4I OW SW St. Add.ress Lot 6th St.- 4th St. Size Use Approx. Dist. Dist. Similar Use Date Cond. from from Adjacent Across Slope Const. "PCH ECB* Uses' Street Current Use Zone Conf' ing? Between 6th -5th 501 P.C.H. 48490 Com/Auto 1950 Poor 0-290 Res/bhd Com/Res Flat C-3 Yes 715.5th St. 16200 Com/Auto 1977 Fair 0-290 Res/bhd MFR Flat C-3 Yes 7 s / $ 6TH •r— • 6k 4.1: Pcit ST. 07 00 :::: O /0 .• .• // drV/' ,� y O 23 i 24 ; O O0 ® 30 31/� 1 25 26 27 28 29 /-WS 78.5.9 r r y I/` 4, Ar Aro, 44) F'7..-, , 4410,.. 40 • t/ ; c>7 /9 18 /7 16 l • J4 J3 /Z a 41 40 39 38 37 38 35 34 33 32 s ✓D / J',"! 7s Il JA .... a 7e1 2e'0 o 5 /. ST. 5',1 4 `9 COMMERCIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1W0 -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three or more units) EXISTkING ZONING BOUNDARY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA. BOUNDARY (op 0030) 90 _ 90 • • • 6TH STREET TO 5TH STREET (West Side) FRONTAGE: 216 feet DEPTH OF MUC: 290 feet DEPTH OF C-3 ZONING: 290 feet The entire MUC area is developed with automotive repair businesses under two ownerships, one which encompasses the entire frontage of P.C.H and 6th Street (Mardikian Center), and the other which is at a depth of 140 to 290 feet along 5th Street (Asaka Center). Also, located at the corner of 5th Street is "Flower World." The commercial designation should include this entire area, and should be maintained at this depth to clearly discourage expansion into the residential areas behind. RECOMMMENDATION Locate the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary coterminous with the existing MUC boundary and C-3 boundary at a depth of 290 feet. S1 St. Address Lot 3th St.- 6th St. Size SS 8th St. 720 8th St. 5020 710 8th St. 5020 704 8th St. 2510 Along P.C.H. 729 P.C.H. 9270 705 P.C.H. 37150 635•P.C.H. • 37150 619 P.C.H. 3150 601 P.C.H. • 6570 '1S 6th St. 725 601 St. 5880 723 6th St. 2940 721 6th St. 2940 709 6th St. 2940 707 6th St. 2940 Use SFR 4UApt. Dup. Comm. Com.Res. Comm. Auto/Com Comm.. • Comm. Comm. 2U/det. SFR 2U/det. Approx. Dist. Date Cond. from Const. PCH Dist. from ECB■ 1923 Fair 122-188 0 1986 Good 188-254 66 1958 Good 254-287 122 1948 Fair 0-122 1940 Fr/Pr 0-290 1930 • Fair 0-290 1940 Fair 0-90 1973 Fair 0-90 Pkg lot Fair 110-170 Pkg lot Fair 170-200 1927 Poor 200-230 1958 Fair 230-260 1959 Fair 260-290 0 30 60 Similar Use Adjacent Across Slope Uses Street Comm/E. SFR Yes SFR Yes SFR Res/bhd Res/bhd Res/bhd Yes Yes Yes Res/bhd Com/E/N Com/ Com/ Current Zone Use Conf' ing? Flat R -2C Yes Flat R -2C No Flat R -2C Yes Com/SFR Flat C-3 Yes Flat C-3 Yes Flat' C-3 Yes Flat C-3 Yes Comm. Flat C-3 Yes Comm. Comm. Comm. Comm. Comm. Flat C-3 Yes• Flat SPA -2 Yes Mod. SPA -2 Yes Mod. R -P Yea Mod. R -P Yes 8TH EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY �4 D • COMMERCIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three or more units) •74,7 7c1 7zi 7z, 725 S9'. (i�8) ST. 7 r s developed with an older residential development in poor condition, Staff believes that the commercial depth should be extended to at least 230 feet to include this lot. Also, because the next two lots are already zoned R -P and front on a local street which which is highly undesirable (automotive uses are located directly across the street) these lots should also be included to a depth of 290 feet. RECOMMENDATION Locate the Commercial/SPA boundary at a depth of 122 feet along the south side of 8th Street, coterminous with the C-3 boundary; at a depth of 290 feet in the middle of the block, coterminous with the C-3 boundary; and at a depth of 290 feet along the north side of 6th Street at the current R-P/R-2 zoning boundary. 8TH STREET TO 6TH STREET (West Side) FRONTAGE: 443 feet DEPTH OF MUC: 290 feet DEPTH OF C-3 ZONING: 122 feet, 290 feet, 170 feet South side of 8th Street: Existing development consists of the "Music Plus" store, zoned C-3. to a depth of 122 feet. Behind this store on property zoned R -2(C) is an older single-family home for sale, and a new 4 -unit apartment and a duplex both in good condition. These residential uses are part of a neighborhood of single-family and two-family developments on both sides of 8th street which continue to the west. They directly abut commercially zoned vacant land to the south. The existing commercial depth seems adequate to accomodate the existing commercial use. A recent attempt to expand that depth to provide more parking was supported by the City only with stringent conditions because of the concern of residents in the 8th street neighborhood. Given this concern, the decent quality of the neighborhood, and the 50 foot commercial depth across 8th street to the north, staff feels the commercial designation should extend no further than the existing commercial depth of 122 feet. Middle of the block: Existing development consists of a series of old commercial buildings fronting on P.C.H. containing"Recycled Records," and a Thai Restaurant," which apparently have residences above, and the "Mar Vista" motel, which has rooms to the rear of the front building, and "Learned Lumber." These businesses are located on lots zoned C-3 with depth of 290 feet. In the rear of the lot containing the motel there is an old residence and a large vacant field. The 290 foot depth of commercial zoning accomodates the existing lumber yard, and would be conducive to the possible turnover or improvement of the lot containing the motel. This depth should be maintained in a commercial designation. North side of 6th Street Existing development consists of an auto supply store and the "Remax Realtors" office building on P.C.H. Behind these uses to a depth of 200 feet is an access drive and parking area for "Learned Lumber," a 2 -unit development in poor condition at 721 under the same ownership, and two older single family homes in fair condition. The C-3 zoning goes to a depth of 170 feet, followed by an SPA zone from 170 feet to 230 feet, and an R -P zone from 230 feet to 290 feet. Because the depth of existing commercial development extends to 200 feet and the next adjacent lot is under the same ownership -(c ( 124) • • NE St. Address Lot 15th to 16th Size Use • Approx. Dist. Dist. Similar Use Date Cond. from from Adjacent Across Slope Const. PCH ECB* Uses *Street 1559 P.C.H./ Plaza Hermosa 255000 Comm. 1987 Good 0-547 1437 P.C.H.. 34510 Comm. 1963 Fair 0-156 6 Current Use Zone Conform- ing? • Res/N. Com/Res Mod. C-3 Yes Yes Comm. Mod. C-3 Yes. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1WO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three or more units) EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY • PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA. BOUNDARY (( 5) I [ 16TH STREET TO PIER AVENUE FRONTAGE: 631 feet DEPTH OF MUC: 547 feet DEPTH OF C-3 ZONING: 547 feet Existing development consists of the new Plaza Hermosa shopping center on property zoned C-3 to the full depth of the MUC extending to Ardmore Avenue. Also, on a separate frontage parcel there is an "International House of Pancakes" restaurant and a "Union 76" service station to a depth of 156 feet. These developments are much older than Plaza Hermosa and do not particularly fit in with the architectural theme of the shopping center buildings. Obviously, the current depth of commercial uses should be maintained in a commercial designation. Given that the development fronts on P.C.H. and is in a very noticeable and central location, Staff feels that it should definitely be part of the Commercial Corridor/SPA. This would ensure that appropriate development would occur consistent with the standards of the commerical corridor should the older developments beimproved or replaced with newer projects. RECOMMENDATION Include the entire area of the block within the Commercial Corridor/SPA, thereby locating the boundary at Ardmore Avenue. • 1 0 U) COMMERCIAL rn El ►o SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three or more units) EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY •••••• PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY 20TH ST. 19TH ST. 18TH . ST.. 53 C,23) • 21st STREET TO 16TH STREET (West Side) FRONTAGE: 1,341 feet MUC DEPTH: 290 feet Existing development along P.C.H. moving southward consists of the Villa Marina Apartments (95 units) and Priamo's Florist, zoned R -3(C); a vacant 1.7 acre parcel (formerly St. Michaels Hospital) zoned C-3 and R -3(C); three additional apartment buildings containing about 178 units zoned R-3; a 72 -unit condominium zoned R-3; and the recently developed Hermosa Pavilion, zoned C-3. The properties are an ideal size (290 feet deep) for quality commercial development,•however, established multi -family units are not likely to recycle to commercial uses in the near future. Additionally, the vacant property is under consideration as a site for a senior citizen housing project and would appear to be an appropriate location for that use. Obviously, the Hermosa Pavilion site should be included in the Commercial Corridor. For the remaining primarily residential properties, however, the determination is not so clear. Staff's position is that these parcels are currently not appropriate for ' a commercial designation for two reasons. First, it is unrealistic to expect these existing fairly intensive land uses to recycle to commercial uses, and second, if this stretch of P.C.H. was included in the Commercial Corridor it would make it difficult to justify locating a senior citizen housing project on the hospital property. Also, the proximity of commercial property would perhaps lessen the desirability of locating a senior housing project on the hospital property. RECOMMENDATION Locate the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary to include only the Hermosa Pavilion property. Amend the General Plan Map to redesignate the remaining property from MUC to HD Residential NW Approx. Dist. Dist. Similar Use Current Use St. Address Lot Use Date Cond. from from Adjacent Across Slope Zone Conform - 21 St.to Size Const. PCH ECB' Uses Street ing? SS 21th St. / 724 21st St. 13410 20UApt. 1968 Fair 155-245 Yes SFR/Vac. Mod. R -3C No • 718 21st St. 6705 6UApt. 1961 Fair 245-290 5FR/W. Vac. Mod. R -3C No Along P.C.H. 2001 P.C.H. 86452 95UApt. 1960 Fair 0-290 Comm/S. Mod. R -3C No 1901 P.C.H. 4725 Com/Res. 1935 Poor 0-105 - MFR/sur. Mod. R -3C No 1845 P.C.H. 74240 • Vac. - 0-290 MFR/sur. Mod. C -3/R -3C 1821 P.C.H.. 37120 1000Apt. 1970 Fair 0-290 Yes Mod. R -3C No 1803 P.C.H. 18560 28UApt. 1961 Fair 0-290 Yes Mod. R -3C No 1731 P.C.H. 18560 28UApt. 1963 Fair 0-290 Yes Mod. R -3C No 1707 P.C.H. 43500 72U Condo 1971 Fair 0-290 Com/S. Mod. R-3' No 1f P.C.H. 87000 Comm. 1988 Good 0-290 - MFR/N. Mod. C-3 Yes �iZ 022 ) Dist. Dist. Similar Use • Current Use NW Approx. Zone Conform - St: Address Lot Use Date Cond. fromffroom Ad* jacent Across Slope irm- 24 St. -21 St. Size Const. SS 24th St. 2308 P.C.H.9500 COMM. 1978 Good ./ 0-90 Res/bhd Comm. Steep C-3 Yes 1954 Fair 90-165 0 Com/E. SFR Steep R-1 No 740 24th St. 8100 3U - 732 24th St. 2700 SFR 1986 Good 165-190 75 Yes SFR Steep R-1 Yes 730 24th St. 2700 SFR 1987 Good 190-215 100 Yes SFR Steep 8-1 Yes 728 24th St. 2700 SFR 1986 Good 215-240 125 Yes SFRSteep R-1 Yes •724 24th St. 2700 SFR 1986 Good 240-265 150 Yes SFR teep R_1 Yes 720 24th St. 2700 SFR 1987 Good 265-290 175 Yes SFR Steep R-1 Yes NS 21st St. Fair' 0-113- Res bad .- Mod. C-3 • Yee 2205 P.C.H. 8475 Comm. 1985FR bhd - Mod. C-3 No 2121 P.C.H. 5750 7UApt. 1971 Fair 0-115 Com W/S•• Corner PCH -21 8050Vac. - 0-115 MFR Mod. C-3 739 21st St. 6860 SFR 1924 Poor 115-150 0 Com/E. MFR Mod. C-3 No 737 21st St. 6860 SFR 1924 Poor 150-185 35 Yes MFR Mod. C-3 ' No 731 21st St. 6860 2Det. 1923 Fr/Pr 185-220 70 Yes MFR Mod. C-3 No Vacant 6860. Vac. 220-225 105 MFR Mod. R -1C Vacant 6860 Vac. 255-290 140 MFR Mod. R -1C COMMERCIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three or more units) EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY 24TH • TLS 724 7L 74o 7,2Z- 740 ST. • PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY •5.1 0il) •ST. 24TH STREET TO 21ST. STREET (West Side) MUC DEPTH: 290 feet C-3 DEPTH: 88 feet (north portion) 220 feet (south portion) Existing development along P.C.H. consists of a 2 -story office building on the south corner of 24th street, the "Numero Uno" restaurant with upstairs offices, a 7 -unit apartment building (constructed 1971) and a vacant parcel on the north corner of 21st Street. The 2 -story office building located in the north portion of the block, as well as the C-3 zoning for that parcel, extends 88 feet deep. The property directly behind is developed with primarily singly family residences on a downward slope within a single family neighborhood. This "neighborhood" is separated from the commercial corridor by a traffic barrier. The depth of the commercial uses here is the same as across 24th street. For these reasons this residential area beginning with 740 24th Street should not be included in the commercial corridor. In contrast, the southern portion of this block, which is 196 feet wide, presents a good opportunity for quality commercial expansion. The Numero Uno Restaurant, the adjacent apartment building, and the vacant property are on properties with a depth of 115 feet. Directly behind are older nonconforming single- family residences to a depth of 220 feet. All of these are in the C-3 zone which extends to 220 feet deep. Vacant property zoned R -1(C) is located behind the old homes to a depth of 290 feet. The slope is less severe here, and the property across the street is developed with large apartment buildings. 21st street is relatively wide (60 foot R -O -W), and the parcels, if assembled, could all be accessed from P.C.H. A zone change and precise plan for a hotel was previously approved for the north side of 21st street to the depth of 220 feet. The approved precise plan has now expired. Expanding the commercial depth to 290 feet may better encourage the commercial use of this area in the future. RECOMMENDATION Locate the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary at a depth of 88 feet along the northern portion and at a depth of 290 feet along the southern portion. Amend the LUP designation for the residential area from MUC to LD Residential. • • NW Approx. Dist. Dist. Similar Use Current Use St•. Address Lot Use Date Cqnd. from from Adjacent Across • Slope Z�.ne ' Conform - 24 P1.-24 St. Size Const. PCH ECB* Uses Street ing? ' SS 24th P1. 2447 P.C.H. 15120 Com/Off. 1985 Good / Res/bhd Comm. Steep C-3 Yes 740 24th P1. 4050 SFR 1952 Fair 140-178 0 Com/E. MFR Steep R-1 Yes 730 24th P1. 4050 SFR 1952 Fair 178-215 40 Yes SFR Steep 9-1 Yes 720 24th P1. 8100 SFR 1949 Fair 215-290 80 Yes SFR Steep 9-1 Yes NS 24Th St. 2401 P.C.H. 9720 Com/Off. 1977 Good Res/bhd Com/Off. Steep C-3 Yes 747 24th St. 2700 SFR 1976 Fair 90-115 0 Com/bhd/E. SFR Steep R-1 Yes 741 24th St. 2700 SFR 1976 Good 115-140 25 Com/bhd/E. SFR Steep R-1 Yes 739 24th St. 2700 SFR 1979 Good 140-165 50 Yes SFR Steep R-1 •Yes 733 24th St. 2700 SFR 1979 Good 165-190 75 Yes SFR Steep R-1 Yes 72 524th St. 5400 SFR 46/79 Fair 190-240 100 Yes SFR Steep R-1 Yes 717 24th St. 5400 SFR 1948 Fair 240-290 150 Yes SFR Steep R-1 Yes 24TH • 7Z0 '7sic 742. . . P.L III 12.5 733 731 24TH 741 • 0 ST.d -12447 = 4J COMMERCIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three or more units) EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY 49 ("9) i• A' • • • • :::::1 ' :: glk% l'''%%%%. 71N11% --..i,„.1%!+..,%%%._ . ....: 44 1!S 9• >P3`: ' •:' •TSI :i '1 \� Si•::te ':;..:a i '"�2D I: 2 ::23:::4 ' k. \��� \� :,P. P9 •:.p' \ •:•.,... .. - .... ..... ......: �$:.`� III 12.5 733 731 24TH 741 • 0 ST.d -12447 = 4J COMMERCIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three or more units) EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY 49 ("9) 4 24TH PLACE TO 24TH STREET (West Side) FRONTAGE: 216 feet DEPTH OF MUC: 290 feet DEPTH OF C-3 ZONE: 140 feet (North half) 90 feet (South half) Existing development along Pacific Coast Highway consists of two fairly new office buildings. The building on the south side of 24th Place is two stories high with 2 levels of subterranean parking (constructed in 1985) on property which extends 140 feet deep while the building on the north side of 24th Street is two stories with one level of subterranean parking (constructed 1977) on propery which extends 90 feet deep. The C-3 zoning is consistent with these depths. The residential area, zoned R-1, located behind the office buildings consists of mostly single-family residences which appear to be in good condition. The residential area slopes rather severely to the west of the developments on P.C.H. somewhat limiting commercial development/expansion potential in that direction. Because of the steep slope and the relatively young age and decent quality of the housing, the residential areas should not be designated for commercial development. The existing depth appears to be adequate to accomodate commercial development. RECOMMENDATION Locate the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary to recognize the existing depth of commercial development coterminous with the existing zoning boundary at a depth of 140 feet along the northern half and 90 feet at the southern half. Amend the General Plan Map designation for the residential area from MUC to LD residential N of 21st St. 2100 P.C.H./ 807 21st St. 6773 Comm/Rest. 2200 P.C.H. 27280 Com/Off. 2212 P.C.H. 3750 Com/Auto. 2306 P.C.H. 8250 Com/Off. '4 • 1984 Fair 0-75 1982 Good 0-165 1966 Fair 0-75 1982 Good 0-165 *Existing Commercial Boundary 9a 2212 izw • Yes Res/bad Yes N Yes • • MFR SFR •SO 22 t • 1 •. 23OrsF- 1• .4N 24 p. • 1 t•1 r v Mod. . Mod. Mod. Mod. 24T►' r0 Gf ' • 7/, Zi a• 3301x•2 fl lA+at 1.40 O VI Or n� 4 COMMERCIAL 17-7.1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 2A5C w4j MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three or more units) • ' ALTLR•NAT,VE-4j 41 EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY C,r'i) C-3 C-3 C-3 • C-3 Yes Yes Yes Yes • 1 NORTH OF 21ST STREET (East Side) FRONTAGE: 300 feet MUC DEPTH: 165 feet DEPTH OF C-3 ZONE: 165 feet Existing Commercial and Office development with C-3 zoning fill the entire subject area bounded by Borden Avenue on the East. Going northward the development consists of "Jeannette's Restaurant", the "Pacifica Plaza" office building, "Pacific Import Auto Service", and a three-story office building. The northern boundary of this area is marked by the Hope Chapel. Behind the office buildings, beyond the MUC boundary and across Borden Avenue, up the gentle slope are four single family residences zoned R-1. To the rear of the single family dwellings is Rhodes Street (20 foot width). Either Borden Avenue or Rhodes Street would make a logical boundary for the Commercial Corridor. Locating the boundary at Borden Avenue would be more consistent with the recommended boundary to the south, while locating the break at Rhodes Street would be consistent with the existing commercial depth to the north. Also, locating the boundary at Rhodes Street would provide the potential land area for a needed expansion of the parking area for the commercial uses to the west. If the four houses on Borden Avenue are included in the Corridor, a policy must be adopted limiting the commercial use of the area to a commercial use developed in conjuction with the existing commercial development to the west. Otherwise, the dwellings should be allowed to exist with a conforming status. The creation of a Specific Plan area could address this issue. RECOMMENDATION Locate the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary consistent with existing C-3 zoning and the existing MUC boundary at a depth of 165 feet along Borden Avenue, or, along Rhodes Street, at a depth of 280 feet with policies and standards ensuring commercial development in conjuction with existing development along P.C.H. and maintaining the conforming status of the four houses. di -o Ott) 6 NE Approx. Dist. Dist. Similar. Use St. Address Lot Use Date Cond. from from Adjacent Across Slope Current one Conform - 21 St.to I9""5},Size Const. PCH ECB* Uses Street ing? NS 19th St. • 1906 P.C.H. 6840 3uApt. <1940 Poor 0-90 8.21 19th St. 2280 SFR 1962 Good 90-120 825 19th St. 2280 1962 Good 120-150 829 19th St. 2280 1962 Good 150-180 835 19th St. 3800 1949 Good 180-230 841 19th St. 1900 1960 Good 230-255 849 19th St. 1900 1924 Fair 255-280 SS 20th St. 1918 P.C.H. 3700 SFR 1941 Fair 0-100 1924 P.C.N. 3700 SFR 1941 Fair 0-100 1934 P.C.H. 3850 SFR <1956 Fair 0-100 826 20th St. 3900 SFR no/rec. Good 120-160 834 20th St. 3900 SFR 1941 Fair 160-200 840 20th St. 3900 SFR 41/79 Good 200-240 850 20th St. 3900 SFR 1941 Fair 240-280 19th to 21st NS 20th St. 2006 PeC.H. 4400 SFR 1941 Fair 0-100 2014 P.C.H. 4400 SFR 1941 Fair 0-100 821 20th St. 3900 SFR 1954 Fair 120-160 831 2Oth St. 3900 SFR 1941 Fair 160-200 841 20th St. 3900 SFR 1941 Fair 200-240 849 20th St. 3900 SFR 1941 Fair 240-280 SS 21st St. 2024 P.C.H. 4400 SFR 1941 Poor 0-100 2040 P.C.H.. 4800 5UApt. 1987 Good 0-100 826 21st St. 3600 SFR 1941 Fair 120-160 832 21st St. 4000 SFR no/rec. Fair 160-200 840 21st St. 4400 SFR 1941 Fair 200-240 850 21st St. 4800 SFR 41/82 Good 240-280 Yes MFR Mod. R -3C Yes Yes SFR Mod. R-1 Yes Yes SFR Mod. R-1 Yes Yes SFR Mod. R-1 Yes Yes SFR Mod. R-1 Yes • Yes SFR Mod. R-1 Yes ' .Yes SFR Mod. R-; Yes Yes Mod. R -3C Yes Yes Mod. R -3C Yes Yes SFR Mod. R -3C Yes Yes SFR Mod. R-1 Yes Yes SFR Mod. R-1 Yes Yes SFR Mod. R-1* Yes Yes SFR Mod. R-1 Yes Yes SFR Mod. R -3C Yes Yes SFR Mod. R -3C Yes Yes SFR MOd. R-1 Yes Yes SFR Mod. R-1 Yes Yes SFR Mod. R-1 Yes Yes SFR MOd. R-1 Yes MFR/N. Mod. R -3C Yes SFR/sur. Comm. Mod. R-1 Yes MFR/W. Comm. Mod. R-1 Yes Yes Comm. Mod. R-1 Yes yes SFR Mod. R-1 Yes Yes SFR Mod. R-1 Yes 45 (/15) _1 iq 31 17-4 Ho4s, '44 k 20TH • : :•:*::::::•::::.:: • .... -•::::•:•* i::•:•::•:•R-1 ....;.:. • - •• . • . : • :. : • : • : • .::::.:::::::::: ::::::::•:.•::::::: .. •::: ::. :;:***: '''•••••• :•::.• .•:•:•:.:.:• ..., . ...... .:•::Fe•5:::::::. • 5.ir —549 . •1, 19TH COMMERCIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ElMULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three or more units) EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY a cJ PROPQSED COMMERCIAL CORRICOR/SPA BOUNDARY 44 ( /Pi-) • . - • . • . • '......• • ...1}......... *.....: . • • .1.4 . . . . . ..... 4. ' - •1, 19TH COMMERCIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ElMULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three or more units) EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY a cJ PROPQSED COMMERCIAL CORRICOR/SPA BOUNDARY 44 ( /Pi-) • s 19TH STREET TO 21ST STREET FRONTAGE: 357 feet DEPTH OF MUC: 260 feet DEPTH OF R -3(C) ZONING: 100 feet Existing development along P.C.H. consists of two residential blocks zoned R -3(C) with a depth of 90-100 feet. The residential development consists of a 3 -unit apartment, 6 single-family units (built approx. 1941) and a new 5 -unit apartment on the south corner of 21st street (constructed 1987). Behind this first row of lots are older single family homes zoned R-1 on 40 foot wide lots sloping gently uphill. The majority of these homes, although originally built more than forty years ago, have been kept in fairly good condition. The homes along the north side of 19th Street were built in the early 1960's, and are also in good condition. The front lots are separated from the deeper lots by an alley for most of the block. This alley would be the most logical rear boundary for commercial development. The 100 feet of depth would be adequate for commercial development if some of the parcels were assembled. Also, the alley would serve as additional separation and buffering of the commercial uses from the residential uses. Along the north side of 19th street there is no alley, therefore, to be consistent with the alley the depth of the commercial designation should extend no further than the back of the front lot (90 feet). RECOMMENDATION Locate the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary at a depth of 100 feet, along the alley, and at a depth of 90 feet behind the apartment at 1906 P.C.H. coterminous with the existing R -1/R -3(C) zoning boundary. Amend the LUP designation for the Residential Area behind the frontage lots from MUC to LD Residential. 43 (1,3) • NE Approx. Dist. Dist. Similar Use Current Use St. Address Lot Use Date Cond. from from Adjacent Across Slope Zone Conform- 1.8th to 19th Size Const. PCH £CB* Uses Street ing? SS 19th St. 802 19th St. 3780 2uApt. 1971 824 19th St. 1900 SFR 1985 826 19th St. 1900 SFR 1985 830 19th St. 1900 SFR 1970 834 19th St. 1900 SFR 1970 838 19th St. 1900 SFR 1970 842 19th St. 1900 SFR <1940 848 19th St. 1900 SFR 1924 0-105 105-130 130-155 155-180 180-205 205-230 230-255 255-280 4Z- (112-) Yes MFR Mod. R -3C Yes Yes SFR Mod. R-1 Yes Yes SFR Mod. R-1 Yes• Yes SFR Mod. R-1 Yes' Yes SFR Mod. R-1 Yes Yes SFR Mod. R-1 Yes Yes SFR Mod. R-1 Yes Yes SFR Mod. R-1 Yes NE • St. Address Lot 18th to 19th ' Size a Use 1824 P.C.H. 5000 Com/Res. 1830 P.C.H.. 2500 SFR 1834• P.C.H.. 6300 3uApt 1840 P.C.H.. 6300 SFR 1850•P.C.H. 6300 4uApt NS 18th St. 803 18th St. 2500 809 18th St. 2500 817 18th St. 2500 821 18th St. 3750 825 18th St. 3750 1801 Rhodes 3750 1809 Rhodes 3750 1815 Rhodes 3750 1821 Rhodes 3750 1827 Rhodes 3750 1835 Rhodes 6300 1843 Rhodes 6450 1851 Rhodes 6450 (Coat/ ) • COMMERCIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Approx. Date Const. 1951 1924 1924 <1940 1964 Dup. 1972 Dup. 1972 Dup. 1972 SFR 1971 SFR SFR 1959 SFR 1959 SFR 1959 SFR 1958 SFR 1958 SFR 1974 SFR 1977 SFR 1960 0 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three or more units) EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY Dist. Cond. from PCH Fair 0-100 Fair Fair. Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Good Good Good Good Fair 90 ./ 0-100 0-130 0-130 0-130 0-33 33-67 67-100 100-125 125-150 150-275 150-275 150-275 150-275 150-275 130-280 130-280 130-280 Dist. from ECB' Similar Adjacent Uses Res/sur. Com/S. Yes Yes Yes Com/bhd Com/bhd .Com/bhd Com/bhd Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Use Across Street MFR Slope Mod. Mod. Mod. Mod. Mod. SFR Steep SFR Steep SFR Steep SFR Steep SFR Steep SFR Steep SFR Steep SFR Steep SFR Steep SFR Steep SFR Steep SFR Steep SFR Mod. Current Use Zone Conform- ing? • R -3C No R -3C Yes R -3C Yes R -3C Yes R -3C Yes R -3C R -3C R -3C R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1 'Existing Commercial Boundary 19TH • Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes. Yes so3 Sol 8 v,' • bz 5zs • • a 4 I8TH coo • 18TH STREET TO 19TH STREET FRONTAGE: 355 feet DEPTH OF MUC: 280-300 feet DEPTH OF R -3(C) ZONE: 100-130 feet Existing development along P.C.H. is primarily residential on parcels with depths of 100-130 feet. The residential units consist of a mix of older single-family units, and old and new multi -family structures (built as recent as 1980). Some have driveways that require backing out onto P.C.H. The property at 1824 P.C.H. has a ground -level business (Lifesaver Word Processing) and a 2nd -story residence. Behind the frontage properties and up the slope, within the R-1 zone, are single family units of various ages (most built since about 1958) in generally good condition. The homes on the south side of 19th Street at 824 and 826 (a depth of 105-155 feet from P.C.H.) were constructed in 1985. The frontage lots are of adequate depth to support commercial development if assembled and should be designated accordingly. It does not appear, however, that commercial encroachment beyond the frontage lots would be appropriate here considering the slope, the age of the construction, and the quality of the existing residential neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION Locate the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary line at the rear of the P.C.H. frontage lots at varying depths of 100 feet, 130 feet, and 105 feet. This is coterminous with the existing R-3(C)/R-1 zoning boundary. Amend the LUP designation for the residential area behind the frontage lots from MUC to LD Residential. NE Approx. Dist. Dist. Similar Use Current Use St. Address Lot Use Date Cond. from from Adjacent Across Slope Zone Conform - 17th to 18th Size Const. PCH ECB* Uses Street ing? 1706 P.C.H. 7600 Comm. 1966 Fair 0-100 Res/sur Comm. Steep C-3 •Yes 829 17th St. 3800 SFR 1928 Good 100-150 0 Com/W. SFR Steep R-1 Yes 833 17th St. 3800 SFR 1962 Good 150-200 50 Yes SFR Steep R-1 Yes - •837 17th St. 3800 SFR 1969 Good 200-250 100 Yes SFR Steep R-1 Yes 845 & 909 6080 2Units 1921 Good 250-330 150 Yes SFR Steep R-1 No SS 18th St. 1734 P.C.H. 5500 SFR 1946 Fair 0-100 Com/S. - C-3 No 1738 P.C.H. 5500 SFR <1929 Fair- 0-100 Yes 2FR Steep C-3 No 826 18th St. 5500 SFR <1956 Good 100-150 Yes SFR Steet R-1 •Yes 330 18th St. 5500 SFR <1956 Poor / 150-200 Yes SFR Steep R-1 Yes 840 18th St. 5500 SFR 1945 Poor 200-250 - Yes SFR Steep R-1 Yes 846 18th St. 2750 SFR 1972 Good 250-275 Yes SFR Steep R-1 Yes 850 18th St. 2750 SFR 1973 Good 275-300 Yes SFR Steep R.-1 Yes IBTH • • ••2‘0 $30 Aletr; ST .B 346 11:5-o so 0 :17TH COMMERCIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three or more units) EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY •••••• PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY 1 • • 17TH STREET TO 18TH_STREET (East side of PCH) FRONTAGE: 186 feet DEPTH OF MUC: 300-330 feet DEPTH OF C-3 ZONE: 100 feet Existing development along F.C.H. consists of a Jewelery Store and two older single-family residences on properties zoned C-3 with depths of 100 feet. Immediately behind this first row of lots, up the slope, are single family homes zoned R-1. These homes are of various ages and types, and are generally in good condition. The residential usage of this area up the slope is consistent with surrounding neighborhoods. The two frontage lots currently developed with single family residences would require significant grading to be developed commercially. If the lots are assembled the depth of 100 feet should be adequate to support quality development, although the size of the development would be limited. The grade differential will serve as a natural buffer from the homes up the slope and should allow for the maintenance of scenic views. The continuing steepness of the slope is a natural barrier to any commercial expansion beyond the frontage lots, and the residential uses behind the frontage lots are in good condition. Therefore, the boundary should go no deeper than the depth of the frontage lots (100 feet). RECOMMENDATION Locate the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary along the rear of the frontage lots at a depth of 100 feet coterminous with the existing C -3/R-1 zoning boundary. Amend the LUP designation for the area behind the frontage lots from MUC to LD Residential. • NE St. Address . Lot 16th to 17th Size s Use 1600 P.C.H. 7600 Comm. 1630 P.C.H. 20020 Comm. WS Raymond 1601 1609 1613 1617 1623 1633 Raymond Raymond Raymond Raymond Raymond Raymond ES Raymond 1510 Raymond 1620 Raymond 1628 Raymond 1632 Raymond SS 17th St. 824 17th St. 1641 Raymond 840 17th St. 850 17th St. E LJ 2330 2330 2330 2330 2330 4660 4660 4660 3500 3500 4030 2360 2280 3160 SFR SFR SFR SFR SFR SFR SFR SFR SFR SFR SFR Dup. SFR SFR Approx. Date Const. Dist. Cond. from PCH 1962 Fair 0-100 1958 Fair / 0-100 1959 1960 1960 1958 1958 1953/78 COMMERCIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (thcee or nate units) EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY <1950 <1950 54/69 1955 PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY 1924 1950 1947 1947 Good Fair Good Good Good Good Good Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Good Fair 100-180 100-180 100-180 100-180 100-180 100-180 220-300 220-300 220-300 220-300 95-150 150-180 220-250 250-290 Dist. Similar from Adjacent ECB* Uses Res/bad Res/bad 0 Com/bhd O Com/bhd 0 Com/bhd 0 Com/bhd O Com/bhd 0 Com/bhd 120 Yes 120 Yes 120 120 Yes Yes 0 Com/W. 55 Yes Yes 125 155 Use Across • Slope Street Comm. Steep Comm. Steep SFR Steep SFR Steep SFR Steep SFR Steep SFR Steep SFR Steep SFR Steep SFR Steep SFR Steep SFR Steep SFR SFR SFR Yes SFR Steep Steep Steep Steep Current Zone Use Conform- ing? C-3 Yes C-3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes R-1 Yes R-1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes $16TH. AI (I"1) ST.` 1