Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/12/91AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Thursday, December 12, 1991- Council Chambers, City Hall 7:30 p.m. MAYOR Kathleen Midstokke MAYOR PRO TEM Robert Essertier COUNCILMEMBERS Robert Benz Sam Y. Edgerton Albert Wiemans CITY CLERK Elaine Doerfling CITY TREASURER Gary L. Brutsch INTERIM CITY MANAGER Steve Wisniewski CITY ATTORNEY Charles S. Vose All Council meetings are open to the public. PLEASE ATTEND. The Council receives a packet with detailed information and recommendations on nearly every agenda item. Complete agenda packets are available for public inspection in the Police Depart- ment, Public Library, the Office of the City Clerk, and the Cham- ber of Commerce. During the meeting a packet also is available in the Council foyer. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: CALL TO ORDER JOINT MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION. 1. PERMITTED USES IN THE OPEN SPACE ZONE. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated December 3, 1991. 2. LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR GREEN BELT. Memorandum from Communi- ty Resources Director Mary Rooney dated December 3, 1991. 3. JOINT MEETING FOR CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND SCHOOL DISTRICT. Memorandum from Planning Commission dated December 3, 1991. 4. BEACH DRIVE PARKING. Memorandum from Interim Public Works Director William Glickman dated December 5, 1991. 5. GREENBELT PARKING. Memorandum from Interim Public Works Director William Glickman dated December 5, 1991. CITIZEN COMMENTS Citizens wishing to address the Council may do so at this time. Please limit comments to three minutes. ADJOURNMENT December 3, 1991 For the City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting of December 12, 1991 SUBJECT: PERMIlihD USES IN THE OPEN SPACE ZONE Attached is a copy of the staff report, supplemental information, comparison chart, resolution and Planning Commission minutes regardibg amending the Open Space zone permitted use list. The Planning Commission at their November 7th meeting continued this matter, and requested that it be included as a discussion item for the joint City Council / Planning Commission meeting. p/jOnt'' 1 SS 91-3/TEXT 91-2 -- SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING THE ALLOWABLE USES IN THE OPEN SPACE DESIGNATED AREAS, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Recommended Action: To recommend approval of said test amendment and adoption of the Environmental Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach stated the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intent to study possible amendments to the General Plan & Zoning Ordinance related to allowable uses in the open space zone, referring to the 1986 vote to protect open space. He discussed text additions in 1989 and 1974 adopted provisions, and defined non -typical open - space usage and specific restrictions. He outlined the potential use reduction methods, stating Staff believes the standard applied on the OS -1 zone is too severe and recommends amendment of the use list, eliminating many restrictive facility descriptions and clarification of non -building improvements by the addition of specific types of facilities. Staff recommends Section 9.5-8 modification and elimination of some items currently on the permitted use list. He stated a question of status remains referring to government_ building, schools and utility structures located on OS -designated property, (not including protected open space areas surrounding existing school sites) which should be given a separate zoning in General Plan category. Mr. Schubach stated the proposed zoning ordinance text amendments will be consistent with the Open Space Element of the General Plan, when map changes are considered for public facilities designation, reference to public and governmental buildings can be completely removed from the open space element. He submitted a replacement copy of P.C. Resolution 91-66, which has been standardized in. presentation, noting sign size will be at the discretion of the Commission. Mr. Schubach also discussed Staff's concerns relating to the South School site. Chmn. Ketz asked if oil drilling on the South School site was a possibility, to which Mr. Schubach con- firmed, with explanation. Comm. Di Monda discussed the resolution terminology in reference to the size of signs with Mr. Schubach. Mr. Lee added the Commission may require a smaller area sign, but allow a maximum height of eight feet. Comm. Merl commented a sign plan submittal consistent with the usage and -approved- by the Commission should be included in this document, to which Comm. Di Monda agreed, adding language stating, "the sign must be made from materials compatible with the open space". Comm. Di Monda questioned. the 20% lot and space coverage which allows the footprint and parking space to the same size. Chmn. Ketz discussed the public use properties, with Mr. Schubach stating that some private use is made of some designated open -space areas. Public Hearing opened and closed by Chmn. Ketz at 10:09 p.m. Chmn. Ketz stated zoning public school non -conforming -open space should go hand-in-hand with the General Plan change making them public facilities. Comm. Merl discussed the permitted use list, noting the museums and educational facilities have been excluded. Comm. Di Monda stated park land is always under attack, with museums wanting to expand into park areas, noting he does not wish P..C..Minutes-- 11/7/91' -2- p to add educational 'facilities into the category. Chmn. Ketz felt the Commission should be handling all as one package, rather. than designating certain items as non -conforming, asking to reason for addressing this item at this time. Mr. Schubach stated this item was a priority request from City Council, suggesting the Commission might make a recommendation for continuance to allow investigation as to what City properties should be designated as other than open space. Comm. Di Monda'stated lot coverage and parking coverage, and signage, reviews by the Planning Commission should be items for discussion at the Joint Meeting. MOTION by Chmm. Ketz, seconded by Comm Marks, to continue SS 91-3/ TEXT 91-2and make this an item for discussion at the Joint Meeting to be held in December 1991. AYES: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl and Chmn. Ketz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None HEARING. FOURTHNQUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT. Mr. Schubach stated the law requires the Commission amen the Gen- eral Plan four times a year. Staff suggests the priva��e project at 64 10th StreetNbe changed from zone C-2 to.R-2 and f 6m GC to MD. MOTION by Chmm. -tz, seconded by Comm Merl, t• place the Fourth Quarter. General Plan endment on the agenda. AYES: Comms. Di onda, Marks, Merl =nd Chmn. Ketz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None STAFF ITEMS A. MEMORANDUM REGARDING TH INTERPRETA ON OF CHECK CASHING USE. Mr. Schubach stated a eed to interpret e Zoning Ordinance in regard to check cashing as a requested us- exists, stating the permitted use list �i-. not specific, stating "b- king and financial institutions". Staff queried the Police Dep tment which Mr. Schubach defined for the Commission. He stated St,fff's concern is the lack of a,specific statement stating it is a permitted use. He noted the Building Department has held applications bu not issued any permits/until an interpretation is available. Chmn. Ketz felt it is n a banking or financial institution and lacks c arable securi or service. Mr. Lee suggested the Commission no a the fact supporting the belief the stated classifications are not ap icable and direct Staff to prepare a resolution for e mmission's review and adoption. _ 3 . P.C.Minutes 11/7/91 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission /'l04 FROM: Michael Schubach, P,rann , / ;"ire for SUBJECT: Open Space Zone Text Amendment DATE: November 2, 1991 In addition to the two sections of the OS zone recommended for change in the staff report, staff would further recommend fine tuning of the entire Article 9.5. As such, please replace the previous resolution with the attached one. Also attached is a comparison chart of the proposed ordinance with the current ordinance. Also, it should be noted that the proposed changes to the text will eliminate the potential use of the South School site for the relocation of the City Yard. p/memo3 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION �0 1 2 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 1fi2 . 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 P.C. RESOLUTION 91-66 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO RECOMMEND AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT PERTAINING THE OS (OPEN SPACE) ZONE AND THE ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 7, 1991, and made the following. Findings: A. Amendment to the zoning ordinance to further restrict the potential uses allowed in the OS zone will not have a significant environmental impact; B, The Open Space zone currently permits a variety of uses which would potentially result in allowing new uses and/or the construction of new -buildings which would be inconsistent with the vote of the people in 1986 which protects the City's open space lands; C. The proposed amendments would be restrict the uses of the open space zone to park use and the only buildings allowed would be those associated with park use and recreational purposes; D. The proposed amendments clarify the development.. standards for the OS zone; NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of. Hermosa Beach, California, recommends that the zoning ordinance text be amended to restrict the permitted uses in the OS zone, as follows: SECTION 1. Amend Article 9.5 to read as follows: Section 9.5. Intent and Purpose The open space zone is intended to prohibit intensive urban development to the primary open space areas of the city which are necessary to assure permanent open space in and for • 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 public parks and recreation areas; and where such intensive urban development would adversely affect public use and natural environmental benefits. Section 9.5-1. Permitted Uses The following uses are permitted in the OS zone: Aquatic sports facilities Historic Monuments Parks Picnic facilities Playgrounds and children's recreational equipment Recreational facilities and ancillary uses (indoor and outdoor) Special events and group events authorized pursuant to Sections 2-2-1 and 22-5 of the Municipal Code Spectator seating Sports fields and courts Trails for walking, jogging, bicycling and/or skating Section 9.5-2. Development Standards The following standards for development shall apply on any parcel of land or assemblage of parcels of land in the OS zone: (1) Lot Coverage. Maximum building coverage of land area shall not exceed ten (10) percent. (2) Height. No building shall exceed-•aheight of two (2) stories or twenty-five (25) feet above existing grade, whichever is less (3) Parking Coverage. Maximum coverage of land area for off-street parking shall not exceed ten (10) percent (4) Building Setbacks. All structures shall be set back from all lot lines not less than twenty (20) feet. (5) Signs. All signs shall be monument or ground signs with a maximum height of eight (8) feet. All new signs shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to installation. b 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17.;. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (6) Landscaping. All open areas shall beattractively landscaped. Landscaped areas shall be permanently maintained with operable irrigation systems. Section 9.5-3 Precise Development Plan Required All new construction within the OS zone shall be subject to obtaining a Precise Development Plan as set forth in Article 14, Division 3. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 91-66 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 7, 1991. Christine Ketz, Chairperson Michael Schubach, Secretary Date p/persopen CURRENT ORDINANCE Sec. 9.5-1. Permitted uses. COMPARISON CHART PROPOSED ORDINANCE Section 9.5-1. Permitted Uses Primary open space comprises public and private areas devoted to recreational, leisure, cultural and aesthetic purposes, and in- cludes the following uses: (a) Public and private parks, including beach areas. (b) Educational buildings and playgrounds. (c) Recreation centers, public and private. (d) Public utility structures and corridors. (e) Riding, bicycling and hiking trails and pedestrian ways. (f) Public governmental buildings. (g) Historical monuments and areas of historical significance. (h) Public malls and plazas. - (i) Public or privately owned land when the intensive use of said land would endanger the public health, safety or gen- eral welfare, including: (1) Areas where natural topography may be so steep as to create a hazard and/or where the grading or develop- ment of the land would endanger public health or safety due to unstable geologic conditions, soil insta- bility, erosion, or flooding. (2) Areas subject to severe seismic hazards, including surface ruptures from faulting or ground shaking. (3) Areas subject to flooding or inundation from storm water. (i) Land which is substantially in its natural state; is of unique natural beauty (natural land forms, prominent features, landscapes, natural vistas) available to pub- lic access or view; or which is of particular histonc, cultural or scientific value. (k) Ocean or public water areas, said areas being restricted solely to recreation and navigation purposes. (1) Transit uses: (1) The accommodation of railroad tracks and mainte- nance of same. (2) Signals tand other operative devices). (3) The movement of rolling stock, freight, passengers. (4) Landscaping and related appurtenances. tOrd. No. N.S. 503, § 1, 12-23-74; Ord. No. 82-701, § 1, 8-24-82) The following uses are permitted in the OS zone: Aquatic sports facilities Historic Monuments Parks Picnic facilities Playgrounds and children's recreational equipment Recreational facilities and ancillary uses (indoor and outdoor) Special events and group events authorized pursuant to Sections 22-1 and 22-5 of the Municipal Code Spectator seating Sports fields and courts Trails for walking, jogging, bicycling and/or skating COMPARISON CHART CURRENT ORDINANCE Sec. 9.5-2. Lot coverage. Maximum building coverage of land area in the 0-S zone shall not exceed ten (10) percent. (Ord. No. N.S. 503, § 1, 12-23-74) Sec. 9.5-3. Height. No building shall exceed a height of two (2) stories or twenty- five (25) feet above the existing or finished grade, whichever is less. (Ord. No. N.S. 503, § 1, 12-23-74) Sec. 9.5-4. Off-street parking limitation. No more than ten (10) percent of land area shall be used for off-street parking required or not. (Ord. No. 503, § 1, 12-23-74) Sec. 9.5-5. Building setbacks. All structures shall be set back from all lot lines not less than twenty (20) feet. (Ord. No. N.S. 503, § 1, 12-23-74) Sec. 9.5-6. Signs. Total sign area shall not exceed one (1) percent of land area and shall be wall ,or ground signs only. All new signs shall be re: viewed by the improvement commission prior to their installa- tion. (Ord. No. N.S. 503, § 1, 12-23-74) Sec. 9.5-7. Landscaping. MI yard or open areas shall be attractively landscaped with the possible exception of where such areas are used for court games,. buildings or parking. All landscaped areas shall be per- manently irrigated. (Ord. No. N.S. 503, § 1, 12-23.74) Sec. 9.5-8. Planned development permit required. All new construction within an 0-S zone shall be subject to obtaining a planned development permit under procedures set forth in Article 7.5 of Zoning Ordinance No. N.S. 154, as amend- ed. Sections 9.5-2 through 9.5.7 may be waived or modified where in the opinion of the planning commission topography and/or design considerations warrant such waiver or modification. (Ord. No. N.S. 503, § 1, 12-23-74) PROPOSED ORDINANCE Section 9.5-2. Development Standards The following standards for development shall of land or assemblage of parcels of land i -n the OS (1) Lot Coverage. Maximum building coverage not exceed ten (10) percent. (2) Height. No building shall exceed a heigh or twenty-five (2'5) feet above existing less (3) Parking Coverage. Maximum coverage 'off-street parking shall not exceed ten' (4) Building Setbacks. All structures shall lot lines not less than twenty (20) feet. (5) Signs. All signs shall be monument or maximum height of eight' (8) feet. .All reviewed and approved by the Planning installation. (6) apply on any parte. zone: of land area shalt. t of two (2) stories grade, whichever is of land area fol 10) percent be set back from al) ground signs with a new signs shall be Commission prior tc. Landscaping-' All open areas shall be attractively landscaped. Landscaped areas shall be permanently_maintainec with operable irrigation systems. • Section 9.5-3 Precise Development Plan Required All new construction within the OS zone shall be subject i obtaining a Precise Development Plan as set forth in Article 1' Di -vision 3. _. . Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission SUBJECT: PURPOSE: SPECIAL STUDY 91-3 TEXT AMENDMENT 91-2 October 28, 1991 Regular Meeting of November 7, 1991 TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN REGARDS TO PERMITTED USES WITHIN THE OPEN SPACE ZONES INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council amend the list of the permitted uses within the OS zone to eliminate the potential of the construction of new buildings and uses in the OS zone by adopting the attached resolution. Further, staff recommends that certain Open Space designated areas, such as City Hall, the Community Center, the water towers and the School building be considered for a change to a Public Facilities designation as part of the Land Use Element revision. Background At their meeting of August 27, 1991 the City Council adopted a resolution of intent to "study possible amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance related to the allowable uses in the open space designated areas." The reason for this study is because of concern that the variety of uses and potential development allowed by the Open Space zone may not be consistent with the public perception of open space when they voted to protect open space in 1986. On November 7, 1989 the people of the City of Hermosa Beach voted to establish the OS -1, Restricted Open Space designgtionfor the greenbelt property. This ordinance added specific text to -the zoning ordinance to limit use of this open space to "non -building public improvements." On November 4, 1986 the people voted to "protect" certain open space designated areas of General Plan from being changed by requiring that any change to these designations be subject to a vote of the people. (See attached Exhibit A for a list of those "protected" open space designated areas; not all OS designated areas are protected by this ordinance). At that time no changes were made to the text of the Open Space Zone as contained in Article 9.5 of the Zoning Ordinance. These provisions were adopted in 1974. Analysis — ►o- The Open. Space zone states that "primary open space comprises public and private areas devoted to recreational, leisure, cultural and aesthetic purposes" and includes the following potential uses not typically associated with open space: Educational buildings and playgrounds Recreation centers, public and private Public utility structures and corridors Public governmental buildings Public malls and plazas Transit Uses However, the OS zone has specific °restrictions 'in regards to maximum lot coverage (10%), building height (25'), parking area (maximum 10% of lot area), and building setback (20' from all property lines). Therefore, the development of open space areas is already restricted. Nonetheless, it is questionable whether this broad list of uses allowing new structures and parking areas in the OS zone is appropriate for open space areas, especially those protected by the public vote in 1986. The options for reducing the potential uses would include amending the OS •designation to permit only "non -building" uses, similar to the OS -1 zone, amending the permitted use list for the OS zone to strictly limit the type of buildings, or rezoning some .additional OS property to 0S-1. Staff believes it would be too severe to use the standard applied on the OS -1 zone, as it would completely eliminate potential building of recreation facilities on OS property. Also, certain ancillary structures to parks and recreation uses may be desired for these areas in the future. Staff's recommendation, therefore, is to amend the permitted uses in the OS zone to eliminate "educational buildings," "Public Utility Structures," "Public Malls and Plazas," "Public Governmental Buildings," and "Transit Uses". Further, to clarify the allowable uses staff is proposing to change "recreation centers," to "recreation facilities and ancillary uses (outdoor and indoor). Also, to clarify what other non building improvements are allowed, staff is recommending that in addition to parks, historical monuments, and bicycle and hiking trails, that sport fields, swimming pools, picnic facilities, and playgrounds be added (see attached resolution for the complete list. of permitted uses). Additionally, staff is recommending modifying Section '9.5-8 to refer to a Precise Development Plan rather thea Planned Development Permit, and to eliminate the section that allows a waiver" from the development standards. .. — II— Staff is also recommending eliminating some additional items currently on the permitted use list (i), (j), and (k), which refer to such things as steep lands, scenic lands, historic areas, and the ocean. These are a list of lands that should, be designated as open space, not potential uses of land and do not belong on a list of permitted uses. With these recommended changes, an outstanding question remains as to the status of existing government buildings, schools, and utility structures that are located on OS designated property. Staff believes that these facilities should not be designated Open Space but should be given a separate zoning and general plan category, such as "Public Facilities". Obviously, this designation would not include any of the protected open space areas which include the playgrounds and open space areas surrounding some existing school sites. The survey of these facilities, the extent of where boundaries should be, and the regulations should be done as part of the land use element revision. In the interim these public facilities would continue to be open space designated, and would be legally nonconforming. Since these facilities are currently nonconforming to the 10% maximum coverage rule and other standards of the OS zone and, as such, could not be expanded under current rules, staff does not believe that changing the text of the OS zone would have an impact on the use or plans for existing facilities. These proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance text will be. consistent with the Open Space Element of the General Plan as permitted uses are not specifically mentioned. in the General Plan. In regards to public buildings Policy 23 speaks of "preserving" public buildings for use as community centers, and does not indicate any need for new buildings or expansion. Further, the Open Space Element states under "Policy Guidelines", in regards to school grounds, that the City "may prohibit the use of designated open space for development other than open space purposes even though sold to private ownership" . As such, it is not necessary at this time to make changes, to the text of the General Plan. When map changes are considered as part of the land use element revision for a public facilities designation, reference to public and governmental building can be removed completely from the open space element. f Michael Schubach- Planning Director Respectfully subn;itted, en Robertson Associate Planner Attachments 1. Proposed resolution 2. Exhibit A - map of protected OS areas 3. Excerpts of OS and OS -1 zone ordinances 4. City Council Resolution of Intent/Minutes 5. Letter from Mayor Midstokke _02_ p/pcsropen _--F - CITY OF IIEI UIOSA BEACH . c.;,Luff Or I.1llA VALE: 1 i'<n.4:0'CET • r=r'hibif 11111i l �. I �� I II 1.1� ..� r ; .- � L_ --- . J `_�_) � (-�--�1 f • \l1 ►1 •�1G��� r j Yl� lr'1 �� JAI--•�, 1 ~~'''-�J1- :�I • I ' I �i�iiiinii IJ- ° � (•I �� ilk i sit!��I11I(� � L. ���� 1[� 1. Valley Park 2. Pi -Centennial Park 3. Greenwood Park q. Fort Lotnof-Fun Park 5. Seaview.Park • 6. Clark Stadium (field) 7. Ingleside Park 9. 8th'Street and Valley Drive Park 10 `Ardmore Avenue "at 5th St-reet Park 11. ' IIi rmosa View School 12. Prospect Heights School 13. South School 14. Hermosa. Valley School 15. . Horth School § 9.2 HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE ARTICLE 9.2. RESERVED* Secs. 9.2-9.2.3. Reserved. . § 9.5 ARTICLE 9.5. O -S OPEN SPACE ZONEt Sec. 9.5. Intent and purpose. The 0-S zone"is intended to prohibit intensive urban develop. ment to those primary open space areas of the city which are •Editor's note—Ord. No. 82.694, adopted July 13, 1982, repealed former §§ 9.2-9.23 which pertained to an OED overlay existing development district and was derived from Ord. No. 81.679, § 3, adopted Dec. 8, 1981. tEditor's note—Ord. No. N.S. 503, § 1, adopted Dec. 23, 1974, added Art. 9.5, §§ 9.5-9.5.8, to App. A as herein set out. Additionally, it should be noted that an initiative Ord. No. 84.761, §§ 1-4, passed, approved, and adopted by the elector. ate at a special election held Nov. 6, 1984, provided that the approval of the. electorate of the city be required to modify, amend, or repeal the land use element or the open space element of the City of Hermosa Beach General Plan concerning those certain lands described in the ordinance. Subsequently, Ord. No. 86.844, §§ 1-5, passed by the electorate at the general election held Nov. 4, 1986, provided as follows: Section 1. Any proposed modification, amendment, or elimination of the Open Space designated areas of the General Plan identified in Section 2 of this ordinance and shown on Exhibit A, available in the office of the City Clerk, shall be prohibited without a vote of the electorate. Section 2. The following General Plan Open Space designated areas shall remain as such as stated in Section 1 herein: 1. Valley Park (Gould Ave. & Valley Dr.) 2. South Park /Bicentennial (4th Street) • 3. Greenwood Park (Aviation & P.C.H.) 4. Fort Lots -of -Fun Park (6th Street) • 5. Seaview Park (19th St. & Prospect) 6. Clark Stadium Recreation Center (Valley Dr. & 11th St.) 7. Ingleside Park (Ingleside and 33rd St.) 8. Moondust Park (N. of Meyer Ct. & S. of 2nd St.) 9. 8th and Valley Park 10. Ardmore Ave. at 5th Street Park 11. Hermosa View School site 12. Prospect Heights School site 13. South School site Supp. No. 5-88 508 4 9.5 APPENDIX A—ZONING 4 9.5 14. Hermosa Valley School site 15. North School site Section 3. If any section or portion of this initiative ordinance is declared invalid by a court of proper jurisdiction, the remaining sections or portions are to be considered valid. Section 4. By this ordinance, Initiative Ordinance No. 84.761 (Open Space Initiative) adopted by the people on November 6, 1984, is hereby expressly repealed. Section 5. There shall be no modification, amendment or repeal of any provi- sion herein except by a vote of the people. Supp. No. 5-88 9.5.1 APPENDIX A—ZONING § 9.5.1 necessary to assure permanent open space in and for public parks and recreation areas; and where such intensive urban develop- ment would adversely affect public use and natural environmen- tal benefits. (Ord. No. N.S. 503, § 1, 12-23-74) Sec. 9.5-1. Permitted uses. Primary open space comprises public and private areas devoted to recreational, leisure, cultural and aesthetic purposes, and in- • cludes the following uses: (a) Public and private parks, including beach areas. (b) Educational buildings and playgrounds. (c) Recreation centers, public and private. (d) Public utility structures and corridors. (e) Riding, bicycling and hiking trails and pedestrian ways. (f) Public governmental buildings. (g) Historical monuments and areas of historical significance. (h) Public malls and plazas. (i) Public or privately owned land when the intensive use of said land would endanger the public health, safety or gen- eral welfare, including: (1) Areas where natural topography may be so steep as to create a hazard and/or where the grading or develop- ment of the land would endanger public health or safety due to unstable geologic conditions, soil insta- bility, erosion, or flooding. (2) Areas subject to severe seismic hazards, including surface ruptures from faulting or ground shaking. . (3) Areas subject to flooding or inundation from storm water. (j) Land which is substantially in its natural state; is of unique natural beauty (natural land forms, prominent features, landscapes, natural vistas) available to pub - Supp. No. 4-87 509 ee 4 9.5.2 HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE 4 9.5.6 lic access or view; or which is of particular histonc, cultural or scientific value. (k)- Ocean or public water areas, said areas being restricted solely to recreation and navigation purposes. (1) Transit uses: (1) The accommodation of railroad tracks and mainte- nance of same. (2). Signals (and other operative devices). (3) The movement of rolling stock, freight, passengers. (4) Landscaping and related appurtenances. (Ord. No. N.S. 503,, § 1, 12.23-74; Ord. No. 82-701, § 1, 8-24-82) Sec: 9.5-2., Lot coverage. Maximum building coverage of land area in the O -S zone shall not exceed ten (10) percent. (Ord. -No. N.S. 503, § 1, 12-23-74) Sec. 9.5-3. Height. No building shall exceed a height of two (2) stories or twenty- five (25) feet above the existing or finished grade, whichever is less. (Ord. No. N.S. 503, § 1, 12-23-74) Sec. 9.5-4. Off-street parking limitation. No more than ten (10) percent of land area shall be used. for. off-street parking required or not. (Ord. No. 503, § 1, 12-23-74) Sec. 9.5-5. Building setbacks. All structures shall be set back from all lot lines not less than twenty (20) feet. (Ord. No. N.S 503, § 1, 12-23-74) Sec. 9.5-6. Signs. Total sign area shall not exceed one (1) percent of land area and shall- be wall or ground signs only. All new signs shall be re- viewed by the improvement commission prior to their installa- tion. (Ord. No. N.S. 503, § 1, 12-23.74) Supp. No. 4-87 510 9.5.7 APPENDIX A—ZONING b 10.1 Sec. 9.5-7. Landscaping. All yard or open areas shall be attractively landscaped with the possible exception of where such areas are used for court games, buildings or parking. All landscaped areas shall be per- manently irrigated. (Ord. No. N.S. 503, § 1,.12-23.74) Sec. 9.5-8. Planned development permit required. All new construction within an O -S zone shall be subject to obtaining a planned development permit under procedures set forth in Article 7.5 of Zoning Ordinance No. N.S. 154, as amend- ed. Sections 9.5-2 through 9.5-7 may be waived or modified where in the opinion of the planning commission topography and/or design considerations warrant such waiver or modification. (Ord. No. N.S. 503, § 1, 12-23-74) ARTICLE 10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT STANDARDS' Se 10-1. General intent and purpose. The sts of conditions found within this articl: or various uses are 1 • tended to be standard conditions im : •sed on all such proposed us as specified. These condition . re not intended to - be the only con, itions imposed, and eac pecific use noted may have additional c• ditions imposed b. he planning commission and/or city council. Any additional conditi this article for all uses re 'Editor's note—Or former Art. 10, Co herein set out. Ord. No. be based on criteria found within ing a conditional use permit and/or . No. 86-865, § 1, a itional uses, §4 1000— tor to deletion, Art. 10 had been pted Dec. 16, 1986, provided that 04, be deleted and rewritten as erived from the following: Date Sec. Ord. No. Date Sec. N.S. :7 9. 7-65 3 N.S. 512 -25.75 2-4 . 308 5.16-67 3 78.581 3.: : -78 1 .S. 317 11- 7-67 4 79.615 5.22-• . 1 N.S. 331 7- 2-68 1 83-741 10-25-83 4 N.S. 355 5. 6-69 2 Secs. 1001-1003, bore no history note. Supp. No. 4-87 511 9.5.7 APPENDIX A—ZONING Sec. 9.5-7. Landscaping. yard or open areas shall be attractively landsc :•d with the pos •le exception of where such areas are ed for court games, bui ings or parking. All landscaped 2e3a74shall be per- manently irrig ted. (Ord. No. N.S. 503, . § 9.51-2 Sec. 9.5-8. Planne evelop All new construction obtaining a planne forth in Article ed. Sections in the des to evelop of Zoning 'Ord]. -2 through 9.5-7 may be nion of the planning commisst considerations warrant such waiver or o. N.S. 503, § 1, 12-23-74) ARTICLE 9.51. 0-S-1 RESTRICTED OPEN SPACE* nt permit required. an 0-S zone shall be subject to nt permit under procedures set nce No. N.S. 154, as amend- •aived or modified where topography and/or dification. (Ord. Sec. 9.51.1. Intent and purpose. The 0-S-1 zone is intended to restrict further the use of certain desent en ace in for public ed open recreation area. e to assure (Ora No. 89-1001, § 2, 11 7-89) public parks and Sec. 9.51-2. Permitted uses. Those uses permitted in. the 0-S zone, except that no structure, building or improvement shall be developed, constructed or erected unless specifically authorized as a permitted improvement herein. (Ord. No. 89-1001,.§ 2, 11-7-89) *Editor's note—Ord. No. 89.1001, adopted by the electorate of the city on Nov. 7, 1989, provided for an 0-S-1.restricted open space zone. Secs. 2-4 of such ordi- nance have been included herein as Art. 9.51, §§ 9.51-1-9.51.5, by the editor with, the concurrence of the city. Sec. 1 of such ordinance provided:, "That the property known as the Santa Fe Railroad/Greenbelt (hereinafter "Greenbelt Area") shall be preserved, in perpetuity, for parkland, and open space purposes." Secs. 5-8 of such ordinance, pertaining to validity, requiring a vote of the people for amendment, etc., conflict, and effective date, have been omitted from codifi- • cation. Supp. No. 6-90 510.1 C § 9.51-3 HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE § 9.61 Sec. 9.51-3. Permitted improvements. Improvements permitted in the 0-S-1 zone shall be as follows: (a) Only nonbuilding public improvements relating to land- scaping, beautification, erosion control and irrigation im- provements by the City of Hermosa Beach which are con- sistent with or necessary to maintain and assure permanent open space in and for public parks and recreation purposes or relating to anti -seawater intrusion wells as an existing use. (b) Improvements to only those two (2) existing parking areas located within the Greenbelt Area across from Clark Sta- dium and City Hall consistent with or necessary to main- tain and assure designated parking spaces, without ex- panding the existing parking area. Such improvements shall be of a nature and material designed to enhance and preserve the existing natural landscape. (Ord. No. 89-1001, § 2, 11-7-89) Sec. 9.51-4. Area designated. The Greenbelt Area shall be designated and zoned 0-S-1. (Ord. No. 89-1001, § 3, 11-7-89) Sec. 9.51-5. Presence of dogs restricted. It shall be unlawful for any person to suffer or permit any dog, when harbored or controlled by him, to be within the Greenbelt Area unless such dog be restrained by a substantial leash or chain and be in the charge, care, custody or control of competent person, all pursuant to Article II, section 4-8 of the Code or as said section of the Code may be amended from time to time consistent with the terms herein. (Ord. No. 89-1001, § 4, 11-7-89) ARTICLE 9.6 SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS [DIVISION 1. GENERALLY] [Secs. 9.60, 9.61. Reserved]. Supp. No. 6.90 20 510.2 . Robertson stated he would recommend landscaping. Mr. Be stated what is the depth of the landscaping is the minimum o maximum. Mr. Robertson ;.lied normally it would be 5 ft. that the plants c. survive. Mr. Grove stated to giv- landscaping or a wall or, Mr. Beck replied that he with the block wall. a ore flexibility -you can have ombination .f the two. wanted remove the chain link and go Motion by Mr. Robertso• to recommended a with mitigating mea •res to address, the traf longfellow load' •• zone only and also to encour parents to u - the alley. Also, the facility -shall weekdaysy. For the noise, landscaping shall be around the perimeter of the playground. Seconded by ojection so ordered.. ative declaration 'c make the curb on e some of the e open on r-suired Mr. .ve. No -PROJECT SS 91-3. Special study and text amendment. regarding. the allowable uses in the open space designated areas. Mr. Robertson stated this was a study. initiated by City Council to look into making the allowed uses in the open spaces zones and general plan areas more restrictive. Mr. Robertson stated that he did not see any environmental impact _. from reducing what type of building intensity would be allowed. - Mr. Grove commented on the way.the resolution of intent is drafted, saying we have the open space zone which allows a multitude of things and then an 0S1 zone restricting open space for areas like the green belt. Those kinds of limitations are not appropriate for all kinds -of open space. Mr. Robertson stated as part of the study we also will look into areas designated open space that should be a public facility designation. Mr. Grove added there should be a different type of zoning besides just open space for these kinds of uses. Mr. Robertson noted that the areas considered for change in this, study would be just the open space areas that are actually open space. Motion by Mr. Robertson to recommend a negative declaration. Second by Mr. Gengler. So ordered. Meeting Adjourned. _, 21 Staff. Rev_iew Minutes.- 1:0/3/91: 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 91-5485 A RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO STUDY POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE ALLOWABLE USES IN THE OPEN SPACE DESIGNATED AREAS WHEREAS, the City Council held a public meeting on August 27, 1991, and made the following Findings: A. The General Plan and Zoning Ordinance currently contain policies and a list of permitted uses, including structures and parking areas, allowed in the OS (Open Space) designated areas category which may not be compatible with the public's perception of open space parkland when they voted to protect open space by adoption of Ordinance No. 86-844; B. The new zoning _category of 0-S-1 (Restricted Open Space) which applies to the Greenbelt does not allow any building structure, buildings, or improvements other than related to landscaping beautification, erosion control, and irrigation; this type of designation may be appropriate for those properties in the Open Space zoning district that are designated for protection by vote of the people; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby direct staff to study possible amendments to the General „_Plan and Zoning Ordinance text to change the list of allowable uses within the OS (Open Space) zoning district and to set for public hearing before the Planning Commission. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 27th day of August, 1990, by:- ATTEST: y:- ATTEST: t62. -)//k4'004.) PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California CITY CLERK APPROVEDr/�AS TO FORM: COY d.—,/ 4! CITY ATTORNEY (b) 30, 1991. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated August - 21, 1991. Action: To. direct that the applicants for the Phanning Commission. be. scheduled for interviews with, -.-the City Council on Thursday, September 19, 199.1, at, -7:00 P.M. _in the Council Chambers, and, in the.same.-manner as the interviews were conducted last time;,(one person at a time with specific times for.each).%And, to ask Commis- sioner Stifano to attend --,the beginning of the interview meeting. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered. Vacancies - Boards and Commissions. Civil Service Board - unexpired term ending July 15, 1992. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated August. 21, 1991. • Action: ,:-To not fill the term until after the November election. Motion Mayor Midstokke, second Creighton. So ordered. 13. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: (a) Amending allowable uses in the open space zones. Memo- randum from Mayor Midstokke dated December 7, 1989, resubmitted August 22, 1991; with resolution of intent for adoption. Action: To send the item to the Planning Commission for study and adopt Resolution No. 91-5485, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO STUDY POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO THE .GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE ALLOWABLE USES IN THE OPEN SPACE DESIGNATED AREAS." Motion Mayor Midstokke, second Essertier. Proposed Substitute Motion: To send the item to the Planning Commission to study more restrictive conditions on the use of open space for new property, but not to change the uses for existing open space property. Motion Creighton, second. Sheldon. The substitute motion failed to replace the main motion due to the "no" votes of Essertier, Wiemans, and Mayor Midstokke. The main motion carried with Creighton dissenting. Mayor Midstokke reported that after the slurry seal on the pave- ment of the streets where she lives, the red line was not repain- ted on the alleys and requested that it be repainted as soon as possible. City Council Minutes 08-27-91 -- Z 3 - Page 7551 C � December 7, 1989 TO: FELLOW COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: COUNCILMEMBER MIDSTORRE RE: OPEN SPACE ALLOWABLE USES I respectfully request the my fellow colleagues consider Requesting an Opinion of the City Attorney regarding changing the allowable uses in the Open Space Zones, on those properties designated Open Space by a vote of the people. Background On November 6, 1984, and again on November 4, 1986 the electorate approved measures which require approval of the electorate to modify, amend, or repeal the land use element or the open space element of the General Plan concerning certain lands. (See - attached code section for list of lands). Attached is a copy of the allowable uses in the Open Space Zones. I am concerned that there are many allowable uses which are not compatible with the public's perception of Open Space Parklands. On November 7, 1989, there was a ballot measure passed which created a new O -S-1 Zone and applied it to the Railroad right-of-way(Copy attached). This new zone does not allow any structure, building or improvement to be made except non -building improvements related to landscaping, beautification, erosion control and irrigation improvements ... My question is: Can we impose this new O -S-1 Zone on the properties mentioned above, without going to a vote of the people? Attachments Y -,R- ci/ 771-14,. aiiv 6 Mi . _itefiele. A/6:,2_/ yz) adegtlk.,, d e - /L) d ifi, • le , , ' e/sw (2-el.'71- .47 ,, i ) 0 ei ka-v/i,enz-4--‘. fr1 d6th-' ,fic,,,6„) , !3 TO: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS DATE: 12/3/91 RE: HERMOSA VALLEY GREENBELT FROM: MARY C. ROONEY ***************************************************************** ***********************************4***************************** It has been brought to my attention that the Planning Commission had some questions about the City's tree planting program (Hermosa Beach ReLeaf) on the Greenbelt. Attached you will find the City Council agenda item from June 25, 1991 that explains the larger project called the Hermosa Valley Greenbelt Forestation Project, a part of which consists of the tree planting efforts now in progress. Planning Department staff reports that the Planning Commission had specific concerns with regards to whether or not there is a plan for these plantings and whether or not proper irrigation is provided in each case. To address the first concern (as indicated in the attached item), the West Basin Municipal Water District provided funds for and contracted with Lawrence Moss & Associates who created 40 scale renderings for the entire Greenbelt (will be available for review at the meeting). These renderings have served as a basic guide for the plantings. Prior to each planting, staff has contacted Larry Moss who has assisted us with marking areas for the trees. The second issue, irrigation, has been considered with each planting. The plants are drought tolerant and it is anticipated that after three to four years will not require irrigation. Currently, we have selected areas on the Greenbelt that are the best irrigated and/or are being serviced by volunteer tree care teams. With the original Council approval, staff was directed to return to Council with cost estimates for the temporary irrigation lines, however, staff has been discussing this with corporate donors who have expressed a willingness to fund this portion of the project. The tree planting project is a source of pride for the City and has been the focus of tremendous volunteer efforts from residents, businesses and the Tree People. At Commissioner DiMonda's suggestion, we have added a post holiday tree planting event with cooperation from the Kiwanis Club who will be selling live trees at their Community Center lot. We welcome any input the Commission has regarding this project and look forward to future plantings and to putting more "green" in the belt! Mary . :•one', Director Comm.nity Resources Dept. Honorable. Mayor and Members_ of the Hermosa Beach City Council. June 10, 1991 Regular Meeting of. June 25, 1991 HERMOSA VALLEY GREENBELT FORESTATION PROJECT. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Commission and staff that City Council approve the Hermosa Valley Greenbelt Forestation Project and that staff be' directed to return to City Council with a cost estimate for providing irrigation lines for the.. project. BACKGROUND • In examining potential improvements -for the newly acquired Hermosa Valley Greenbelt, staff developed the concept ofcreating a drought tolerant plant displayalong thelength of the park.. This idea was brought to the attention of the West Basin Municipal Water District who felt the project had substantial merit.. Funds were allocated by the Water District for the purpose of hiring landscape architects (Lawrence Moss & Associates) to lend some vision to the project by creating 40 scale renderings and by selecting appropriate planting materials for the Greenbelt (will. be presented at the meeting). These renderings have been reviewed by the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources.. Commission and they gave the project conceptual approval at their January 23, .1991 meeting. Staff madeadditional contact with the California Water Service and.BFI;'and they have indicated interest in assisting with the funding of the project. ANALYSIS In its current condition, the Hermosa Valley Greenbelt consists primarily of ice plant, acacia shrubs, clusters of.trees and native plants. For the most.par t, the Greenbelt is a sparsely landscaped park. The planting of the Hermosa Valley Greenbelt would be example of. partnership between'the'public and -private organizations•and members of the community. It would over a_period of five (5) years beginning in -January, with a projected completion ,year in 1997. a positive sector; be phased 1992 .and City staff has worked with the West Basin Municipal Water . District to'develop a planting concept concentrating on drought tolerant plants. Using this concept, plantings would be made along the entire length of the Greenbelt with special "demonstration gardens" located at key points along the way. One such location -would be the area adjacent to Hermosa Valley school which would provide identified plantings.(drought tolerant) for educational purposes. The school principal is very interested in having the' children .work on this portion of the project because it would• provide afield laboratory for the students as well:as the rest'of the community. The general focus of•the plantings will .be on, maintaining. the natural feel of -the Greenbelt as unmanicured and similar to the: .growth and look of native drought tolerant plantings Care will be taken to stagger trees by age' and :species to avoid a "planned" look and to provide a n:.interesting, pleasant and colorful. setting. Implementation Plan A necessary component of the implementation plan is funding.. Staff recommends dividing the project into components with. appropriate potential funding sources. These sources would include the City; private sector; community service clubs;. individual donors; grants and other public funds (i.e., West Basin, BFI, California Water.. Service) The anticipated breakdown of components would be as follows: Hermosa' Beach `Releaf.Projec: The^.1�_�[wf, ou d 'co linmue. - ith the C V D b l .. i V' 1' y� 1kZ . �t i► +ii �111"' L already..:: ucceasfu4l.v eZ*eaf.�effor whi`c asks i'or indfi ual donations for the urpose of tree plantings along the Greenbelt. . . n d. ! < . r' . s .:. T1r e�... �. y� A target f 200: r"ees pe ear'Wou1dd provide :.:1000 Ptrees •oyer th e. five_year_,protectmprementa on... City commi-ta en :: "' In order to show support for this partnership project,: it�would be important for the City to provide some financial support. Staff. suggests that: the C f pro ride' necessary.+,.'fun,dirig -fo"r,;;a phased irrigation plan and:. commitment .....v w.. .�.f....�.. .'.:y..,D �w i • Ei, rt.: wi.ii^ , .y •: r.,. .w ma. .... to_�prov_ide _ongn ,ng .main, enancey.for the'pro ject. The7r'r gation ; installation ;Costs are ..estimated ..to be,approximate1y ,000 to`` $5, Q00 annually.. Irrigation would be temporary {'drought tolerant plantings require wateringonly at the beginning of their growth) and could be done in sections (depending on the type of irrigation) over the five (5) year period. Maintenance costs for the Greenbelt. would increase as the plantings increased and young plants require some extra attention at the beginning. The estimate (in today's dollars) is: That forthe first five (5) years, the costs would be approximately $6,000 per year with potential cost reductions thereafter. Service... lubs ✓ :Community _Organizations These groups wouldbe approached to consider funding the educational demonstration gardens .and to participate in the "Hermosa Valley_ Greenbelt Adopt a Notch Program.".. 'Organizations will `be.`asked to' `ado"pt "a portion of .the, Greenbelt and. ,to pal' for `''" 'oin maintenance. ; Costs per 500 feet of the the���palantings or on -g 8 . Greenbelt will be determined. It is hoped that not only would the groups fund these plantings, but may; provide volunteer assistance for the initial maintenance of the sections. West, Basin Municipal Water District: The West Basin Municipal Water District has made a significant. contribution to the project by providing funds for the renderings and conceptual development. West Basin is also working on the construction of a water reclamation factory in El Segundo with. pipelines extending to Hermosa Beach for ground water recharge purposes as well as landscape irrigation. The City would continue to work with the West Basin. Municipal Water District to provide detail drawings of "key" landscape areas (i..e., demonstrationgarden intersections such as Valley/Ardmore/Pier) and to implement the planting phases. Private sector: B'FI and the California Water Service• havealready indicated interest in providing funds for this project. They and other companies would be asked to pay for, the demonstration gardens and/or design work for the project. Grants: With the shared commitment of the City and community, this project merits strong consideration for grants. Once approved, staff would investigate sources (i.e., Land and Water Conservation Grant). California Conservation Corps: Overall, the planting materials and labor are estimated to cost approximately $200,000. Cutting down on labor by utilizing the community and the California Conservation Corp (CCC), could cut the costs significantly. This kind of project matches with the CCC objectives very well and they could provide a majority of the labor. This represents an exciting new opportunity for Hermosa Beach to implement an exemplary project that would greatly enhance the beauty of the Greenbelt; would represent a cooperative effort between government and community; wouldbe environmentally responsible and responsive and would provide results that would be enjoyed by generations to come. ALTERNATIVES Other alternatives available to City Council and considered by staff 1. Fund 100% (or a lesser percentage) of this project.. 2. Drop the project. 3. Change the phasing period from five. (5) years to another. period: 4. Request more information. gespec fully Submitt A) A ntho ..'Arit.ich . and Mary C ooney' �y Public Works Dir�ctor Com unity Resources Director Noted :for Fiscal Impact: (kez: ( 6ieLet 2 Viki Copeland Finance Director Concur:- irtt Kevin B. Northcrfaft City Manager cc: BFI, 'Chip Schulte California Water Service, Terry Tamble 1 priorities, and move promptly. Motion Essertier, second Creighton. So ordered. Councilmember. Essertier agreed to provide a written document that would specify the Council's direction to staff, and to bring the document back for the Council. approval at the meeting of July 09, 1991. PROPOSED HERMOSA VALLEY GREENBELT FORESTATION PROJECT. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary•Rooney and Public Works Director Anthony.Antich.dated June 10, :1991. _ _..' Director Antich presented the staff report to Council questions. Coming forward to address the Council on this matter were: Sarann Kruse - Public Affairs. Manager for the West Basin Municipal Water District, which had pro- vided .the landscape plans; stated: that the Water District planned statewide publicity on the xeroscopic garden models to be done and would_ like to be involved with the school gar- den; and, Richard Kenny Redondo Beach, suggested that Council also consider space for a bikepath on the greenbelt. y,.....,.� a. Action: To approve the recommendation from the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Commission and staff to: 1) approve the Hermosa Valley Greenbelt Foresta- tion Project; and, 2) direct staff to return to the City Council with a cost estimate for providing irrigation lines for the project. ?. Motion Essertier, second Creighton. So ordered. and responded STRAND SAFETY SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated'June 18, 1991. Director Wisniewski presented the staff report and re- sponded to Council questions. Action:. To: 1) adopt Resolution No. 91-5463, entitled,"A_ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CAL- IFORNIA, REQUESTING THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL COURT TO ENACT THE ATTACHED BAIL SCHEDULE FOR INFRACTION VIOLATIONS OF SEC- TION 5-24.5 (E) AND (EE) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE."; and, 2) receive and file this report. Motion Mayor Midstokke, second Creighton. So ordered. City Council Minutes 06-25-91. Page 7503 - CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Joint City Council, Planning Commission and School District Meeting DATE: December 3, 1991 At the November 19, 1991 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission agreed that a joint meeting annually could be beneficial. (see attached minutes). p/memo6 COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Merl noted in the 1970's, annual meetings were held between the City Council, Planning Commission and the School Districts. He noted that it appears not much contact is made between the City and the school districts. He suggested annual meetings be scheduled to discuss the effects on. each other and how to assist each other. Vice-Chmn. Marks..suggested this item be brought forward at the Joint Meeting, to which Comm. Merl agreed. -Mr. Schubach suggested a memorandum from the Commission mentioning 'this item to City Council be sent, to obtain the Council's response. Comm: Di Monda asked if a town -town study had been applied f through the Chamber of Commerce, which Mr._Schubach affirmed. Comm. DiNMonda noted the Chamber has asked for Council anCom- mission members to attend their meetings when RUDAT is discussed. However, these.meetings are held on a Thursday, 12:00 noon', making attendance difficult. He suggested a note be sent to t'fie Chamber asking if they would consider holding an occasional meeting in the evening at, perhaps, the Community Center, more Planning Commission involvement could result. Comm. Di Monda asked fofa legal opinion on whams the Commission can do with. respect to removing automotive body shops and spray painting as a permitted use within the C*fy. Mr. Lee clarified with Comm. Di Monda the parameters of his` question. Mr. Schubach stated a two-year moratorium cquld beAplaced for two years while the issue is studied. Mr. Lee suggested his Office return to the Commission with suggestions on the vehicles to be used in order to look. at further restrictions: zo in clear and more restrictive conditions for C.U.P. approva s, o concentration issue and recommendation of moratorium ,o allow a d tailed study. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Vice-Chmn.rks, seconded by Comm. Merl, to adjourn at 11:15 P.M. No objec ons; so ordered. .\ CERTIFICATION. I here• certify that the foregoing minutes are a t.ue and complete ecord of the action taken by the Planning Commiss •n of Hermosa :each at the regularly scheduled meeting of November 9, 1991. Robert B. Marks, Vice-Chairmanichael Schubach, Secretary V2.(1)/c1 I Date 14 P.C.Minutes11/.19/91 Honorable Mayor, Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council and Members of the Planning Commission December 5, 1991 Special Meeting of December 12, 1991 STATUS REPORT ON BEACH DRIVE PARKING 1. On April 16, 1991, the Planning Commission was provided a report dated March 19, 1991, pertaining to vehicle parking on pedestrian walk streets. On July 2, 1991, the Planning Commission received additional. information and made recommendations to the City Council. 3. On July 23, 1991, the City Council reviewed the recommendations from the Planning Commission. The City Council expanded the scope of the study to include all of the streets within the City where there is the possibility of illegal parking. 4. This City wide study involves a field review to determine by visual observation, street by street, of all the properties that appear to have illegal parking. 5. The staff has had a -difficult -time acquiring good data. The needed information will require approximately 200 hours of weekend overtime. This is because the illegally parked cars are only found during daylight hours on the weekends. The illegal parking is not occurring during weekday normal working hours because the illegal parked cars are at the person's workplace during the day. It is necessary for the cars to be on-site in order to photograph them. Respectfully submitted: W liam M. Glickman Interim Director of Public Works pworks/ITEMGP Concur: Steve Wisniewski Interim City Manager July 15, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 23, 1991 VEHICLE PARKING ON PEDESTRIAN WALK STREETS Recommendation: It is recommended by the Planning Commission that for the study area of along Beach Drive, the City Council: 1. Allow the open space on the walk streets to be used by the Strand corner lots for private use. 2. Establish that a maximum distance of 30' from Beach Drive shall be allowed for parking. 3. Establish that 1/3 of the public right of way is to be landscaped. 4. Require that a permanent barrier is to be installed between the landscaping and the parking. 5. Require that direct access shall be only from Beach Drive. 6. Establish that parking is for automobileuse only. 7. Require fence height within the public right of way to be limited to 36" maximum height. 8. Establish that no parking is to be allowed on the east side of Beach Drive. 9. Establish that private use is to be accomplished through either a vacation or a revocable encroachment permit. Staff Recommendation: It is recommended by staff that City Council, (1) consider the Planning Commission's recommendations for Beach Drive,. and. (2) refer back to the Planning Commission for the purpose of studying other streets and developing a consistent and uniform recommendation for all City streets. Background: This item was originally heard at the April 16,_1991, Planning commission meeting and was continued for additional information and for input from the public. At the meeting, staff provided the following information. __,_ 1. Background data 2. General Plan Review a. Open Space Element b. Circulation Element 3. Current City Code 4. Number of walk streets involved (26 total) Number of private properties on the walk streets (568 total) Number 5. 6. of locations where parking was occurring (51 total) 7. Items of Concern 8. The City of Manhattan Beach's experience 9. Six Alternatives A copy of the staff report is available in the City Clerk's office for review (17;pages). Also provided in the City Clerk's office for review are the letters received by the City on..this item (19 total)... - In addition, a copy of the Planning Commission minutes for the meeting of April.16, 1991,.is'included in the information at the City Clerk's. office (14 pages). Also available is a copy of the staff report and the Planning Commission minutes for the meeting of July 2, 1991, at the City Clerk's office for review (8epages). Analysis: At the July 9, 1991 meeting City Council directed staff to notice all properties that could be directly affected by a potential ban of parking on parkways and hand -deliver notices to those properties. As well as Beach Drive, staff should notice properties affected on Monterey, Prospect, Fifth Street, etc. The Public Works Department conducted a visual survey on Monterey, Manhattan, Prospect, Fifth, Third, and Eighth Streets and hand -delivered over 200 notices. The issue of vehicles parking on Beach Drive may be different than on the other noticed streets and it is recommended to study each area individually at the Planning Commission. Resp ctfully submitte Antho Antich , Director of Public Works Leroy Staten Acting Director, General Services General Services pworks/CCSRVPWS Michael Schubach Planning Director See attached memo Charles S. Vose City Attorney r (e'r Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager THOMAS W. STOEVER WILLIAM B. BARR CHARLES S. VOSE CONNIE COOKE SANDIFER ROGER W. SPRINGER EDWARD W. LEE HERIBERTO F. DIAZ JAMES DUFF MURPHY JANICE R. MIYAHIRA PAUL I. YOSHINAGA LAW OFFICES OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & VOSE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1000 SUNSET BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90012 (2131 250-3043 MEMORANDUM TELECO PIER (2131 482-5336 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Hermosa Beach •FROM: Cqarles S. Vose, City Attorney DATE: July 16, 1991 RE: Walk Streets - Encroachments and Public Right of Ways It is my understanding that'on the next City Council meeting agenda, various issues will be discussed concerning the legal rights and obligations of the City and adjacent property owners relating to certain walk streets within the City of Hermosa Beach. Based upon my review of the applicable facts and law concerning this issue, in general, the following three options are available to the City Council concerning this matter: 1. Vacation of those portions of the walk streets which are unnecessary for present or prospective public use (the City may control the use of the vacated area through zoning regulation). 2. Retain the entire walk streets and grant temporary encroachment permits (control of use through terms of the permit). ,. 3. Retain entire walk streets and remove all obstructions and private uses of any portion of the dedicated walk streets as a public nuisance. As part of the original subdivision map for the Hermosa Beach tract, in 1901, the Hermosa Beach Land and Water Company dedicated to the County of Los Angeles certain areas as "public thoroughfares." Upon the incorporation of the City of Hermosa Beach, these dedicated public thoroughfares were transferred to the benefit of the City. Since that date, a number of other walk streets have been dedicated, in general, on similar terms to the City of Hermosa Beach.' OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & VOSE Memo re Walk Streets —Encroachments and Public Right of Ways July 16, 1991 Page 2. In 1923, an ordinance was adopted by the City Council establishing walk streets for 17 of the previously dedicated public thoroughfares. Since that time, there has been various amendments to the regulation of the walk streets and the applicable controls are set forth in the Municipal Code. It is critical to understand that.. by ordinance or resolution, the :City Council cannot dispense with the original dedication of the areas as "public thoroughfares." The City Council may limit the manner of_ public use (prohibition of automobiles, horses, etc.). However, as long as the property is within the control of the City, it must be retained as a "public thoroughfare." As a general rule, the unlawful obstruction of a public highway or street is.a nuisance and may be abated as such whether or- not the obstruction is on the travelled portion so as actually to inhibit public use. The continuance of an obstruction cannot confer on the person maintaining it prescriptive rights,• or rights by adverse possession, as against the public. Laura.Vincent Company v. The City of Selma (1941) 43 Cal.App. 2d 473. Neither lapse of time nor consent of the abutting property owner has the effect of legalizing the public nuisance arising from an unlawful obstruction. Nerio v. Maestretti (1908) 154 Cal. 580. While the principle of estoppel and pais may, in extraordinary, unique circumstances, be invoked against. the public, the basis of estoppel would probably not be found to be present in the current circumstances. See City of Imperial. Beach v. Algert (1962) 200 Cal.App. 2d 48. If the City Council determines that those portions of the walk streets not presently being used are "unnecessary for present or prospective public use," then the areas should be vacated to the adjoining property owners. (Streets and Highways Code Section 8324) If the City Council determines that the street should be retained in its entirety for present or prospective public use, then no permanent encroachment can be allowed. Except where the use is temporary or the power has been delegated by the legislature, a municipality has no power to authorize the use of its streets for private purposes. Certain temporary obstruction of part of a street -are recognized as lawful on the ground of necessity, both by custom and judicial sanction, when they are incidental to the use for which a street is primarily intended and do not unduly interfere with ,4o a\ OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & VOSE Memo re Walk Streets - Encroachments and Public Right of Ways July 16, 1991 Page 3. the rights of the public. What is temporary and reasonable use of the streets for such purposes ordinarily is a question of fact to be determined exclusively by the legislative body. If it is determined that the. adjacent property owners have, over a period of time, obtained a permanent encroachment on ethical or moral grounds, then the City Council must conclude that those portions of the public thoroughfares are unnecessary for present or prospective public use and, therefore, must vacate the property to the adjacent property owner. If there is to. be a retention of the entire portion of .:the walk streets by the City Council, then any temporary obstruction of any portion of the walk street can only be done through a written encroachment permit issued by the City. Any authorization, whether by permit or constructive consent, to erect or maintain an obstruction in a public thoroughfare or street may be unilaterally revoked by the City and when it is revoked, further maintenance of the obstruction constitutes a public nuisance. It is my understanding that there are in excess of 500 properties that front on to walk. streets. In considering a policy to be adopted,. the City Council may restrict the type of uses to be allowed underan encroachment permit as well as the amount of landscaping, insurance and other requirements to be imposed. It is my understanding that an adjacent city have established an encroachment permit process which allows only certain types of uses and the payment of an. annual fee sufficient to cover the administrative cost of the encroachment permit program. In addition, in order to guarantee that the encroachments are considered temporary in nature', they should be reviewed on a two to five year basis. CSV:ilf May 30, 1991 Honorable Chairman and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission July 2, 1991 VEHICLE•PARKING ON PEDESTRIAN STREETS Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning. Commission: Select alternative #6 as presented to the Planning Commission on April 16, 1991. That alternative recommended a change to the existing City ordinance which prohibits ALL parking at this time. The change would allow private parking to be permitted west of Beach Drive on the walk street under a revocable encroachment permit. Background: A detailed report was presented to the Planning Commission on April 16, 1991, with six alternatives (copy attached). Additional information was requested by the Commission and the staff's responses are provided below. Also, a number of letters have been received by the City and are attached to this report. Analysis: General Questions VACATION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY The County Tax Assessor's office was contacted and the City's staff was informed, that if the 22 feet of public property with beach frontage was vacated, it would be assessed at full market value to the receiver. The City Attorney is researching whether or not the property would have to be sold at open public auction. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT REQUIREMENT The use of the encroachment permit would allow the City to retain control over the existing public property both now and in• the future. Also, there would not be any tax costs to the adjacent private property owner. However, if the City ever wanted to use the property in the future, the City would still retain the ownership of the property. Detailed Questions PARKING It appears that side by side parking is the recommended positioning and that tandem parking should not be allowed due to open space and aesthetic concerns. Because some of the houses have been constructed with more than the minimum side yard setback, it is possible to park three vehicles side by side with half or more of the third vehicle on the private property. The parking should be separated from the walk area by a 36" maximum high block wall. It is therefore recommended that because of varying widths of cars, there not be a limit of two vehicles at this time. The area recommended for parking is the thirty (30) feet adjacent to Beach Drive. ACCESS The access to the parking area shall be limited to direct access from Beach Drive only and no driving on the walk area shall be allowed. LANDSCAPING The encroachment permit requires that a minimum of one third of the public area be landscaped. This criteria should be the minimum area required to be landscaped. The requirement for landscaped area between the side of the vehicles and the walk street wall does not serve a useful purpose because the area would be too narrow to bevisible by the passing public. PARKING AREA SEPARATION The recommendation is that a positive type of separation be required to be constructed of such height that a vehicle could not be driven over or through the constructed separation., Said separation shall be located at the westerly edge of the parking area. RECREATIONAL VEHICLES It is recommended that recreational vehicles suchas R.V.s, boats and any other type of vehicle other than an automobile not be allowed within the public area. The R.V.'s can only be controlled through the use of a height restriction. Respectfully submitted, Concur: Lynn Terry Deputy City Engineer pworks/pcsrped NOT AVAILABLE FOR SIGNATURE Anthony Antich Director of Public Works Do not concur See memorandum Michael Schubach Planning Director CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael Schubach, PlAmn/' ector SUBJECT: Beach Drive parking issue DATE:. June 27, 1991 The Planning Commission has been requested to make a recommendation . In a general sense, this matter does relate to the circulation. element, but this matter is quite specific and does not have an impact on the circulation element. Nevertheless, the Planning Commission may still provide input. Through the "Team Management" process various departments . including the Building Department, General Services Department, as well as the Planning Department were requested to comment, even though the Public Works Department is directly responsible for public :right-of-ways. The matter of vacation vs encroachment permits has more of a direct relationship to the General Plan in regard to open space if the vacation process is used city-wide. The General Plan Open Space element identifies the public right-of-ways as important open space areas that need protection. Both vacationing and encroachment permits can accomplish maintaining these areas as open space. Recommendation 1. Continue to recommend as stated at the April 16th meeting; essentially, Alternative #6 with some modification.' 2. Recommend, that if the vacation process is used for implementation, the zoning ordinance be modified to prohibit intrusion of structures into these areas, and other prohibitions deemed necessary to protect these open space areas city-wide. (Specific prohibitions can be determined if and when necessary). P/beachdr 1.1 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Rue, Chinn. None None Peirce SS 91-1 -- TO EXAMINE ELIMINATING CHURCHES AS GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONE. • Recommended Action: To set for public hearing intent. Mr. Schubach stated the purpose is to create a the matter and related the issue history. Ketz A PERMITTED USE FROM THE C-3 by adopting the resolution of resolution of intent to study Public Hearing was opened by chmn. Ketz at 7:32 p.m. Ms. June Williams, Manhattan Avenue, stated her belief that a public hearing would be a waste of public money. She stated that bars and Pacific Coast Highway cesspools should be eliminated rather than churches. Ms. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, expounded on the'history of churches, stating only atheist would consider approval on this item. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:35 p.m. Chmn. Ketz stressed this item is only to be voted as to set up public hearing, with a Staff study. She felt studies initiated by the City Council and Planning scheduled which should be 'addressed prior to this issue. Comm. Rue stated the market determines C-3 church elimination is a wish move, Comm. Di Monda discussed the lack of churches. Receive and file. whether it the council Commission should be has many currently what the use should be. He did not feel advising a Receive and File procedure. taxes and the_many services provided by P-10 -- VEHICLE PARKING ON PEDESTRIAN WALK STREETS (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 4, 1991 1 MEETING). Recommended Action: To set for public hearing by adopting the resolution of intent. Chinn. Ketz stepped down from the Chair due to potential conflict of interest. Comm. Rue accepted the position of Acting Chairman. Actg. Chmn. Rue explained the recommended action was recommendation of Alternative #6 and referred to Planning Director's Memorandum. 4 P.C.Minutes 7/2/91 Mr. Schubach defined..the contents of his memorandum, stating the matter has direct/indirect relationship. to the circulation element in the General Plan. Further, how implementation is accomplished will have impact upon the open space element. They should be protected as open space' and: Staff recommends continuance of the April 16, 1991 agreement, essentially the Planning Council accept the alternative that allows west -side parking, with no east -side parking on Beach Drive with the modification to allow more than one -car depth parking with'barriers established and no parking in the front -yard areas.' Mr. Schubach stated additional recommendation is whether implementation is enforcement through vacating of. land or encroachment permit process. • If. vacation is decided upon, -additionalzoning changes are required. Mr. schubach then referred to the responsible department, Public Works Dept. Staff, Mr. Lynn Terry, for further input. Mr. Terry felt the Public Works Dept. has been able to respond to previously - asked questions appropriately and offered to answer any further questions. Comm. Marks asked about the 30' determination. Mr. Terry stated this was an alternative recommendation based upon a driveway minimum requirement of 25'. Comm. Marks stated the 30' depth might allow for 3-4 car parking. Comm. Di Monda commented upon the 200 maximum vehicle Public Works Dept. determination vs. his actual car counts of 71, 78 and 63 during the previous Saturday, Sunday and Monday. Mr. Terry agreed the actual car counts were very realistic in a normal situation, stating the purpose is to provide the best alternative possible while providing control on properties. The Planning Commission asked if the Public'Works Staff could .provide City Council with information pertaining to the number of actually -parked vehicles. Mr. Terry stated if this study is authorized, it can be completed. Comms. Di Monda, Marks and Mr. Terry established the "lack of encroachment permits at the present'time, along with an explanation as to the allowance of some modifications in the open space areas. Mr. Terry explained the water system within Hermosa Beach is owned by a private utility. company, who decides water hydrant locations, administered by the City. Comm. Rue asked the average lot length, to which.Mr. Terry responded city lots average 22''width by 80' depth. Public Hearing opened by Acting -Chairman Rue at 8:01 p.m. Mr: David Schumacher, 1612 The Strand, distributed a letter and map from MacPherson Oil Company relating to 302 The Strand, which he owns. Mr. Schumacher stated he owns the fee interest in this property of -6,386 sq. ft., not Hermosa Beach City. He stated the right-of-way easement has been abandoned by the city since it has not been used for public use. Therefore, he contends this easement reverts back to him. He questioned the charging of $.50/sq.ft. ($100 per parking space) for property owners not using the land for profit. • 5 P.C.Minutes 7/2/91 Mr. Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney, commented he probably agreed that Mr. Schumacher owned the fee interest described:on'the map, but.the public -right- of-way area is a property encumbrance which cannot be used as private property. • His_: mineral . rights.. are-unaffected.by the. encumbrance. •'Theissue before the Planning Commission is: .What is the appropriate use and .how is this use accomplished? Mr. Michael.Levitt, 2340 The .Strand, has lived in this 5.-bdrm.. house for three years with his family. The garage houses one small car. Mr. Levitt stated the corner lots are unique with characteristics not matched by other lots and may be. treated. differently.. He.•requested.pos.tponement and additional studies be conducted before establishing area and. parking restrictions. Ms. June Williams, Manhattan Avenue, stated no further parking is available on Manhattan Avenue. She. discussed previous deficit studies and asked about the difference between a dedication and an easement pertaining to the lands currently under discussion. Ms. Williams stated the use of these open land areas have been reflected in property selling prices and are considered in the property tax payments. She urged the Commission to not deny parking access in those open land areas. Mr. Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney, gave an explanation as to the differences between "dedication" and "easement". Mr. Ed,Nash, 600 The Strand, stated he agreed with most of the points made by Ms. Williams. He felt the dissatisfaction of a few has escalated this matter to its current status, in essence making a mountain out of a molehill. Mr. Nash favors either (1) keeping the status quo with the City able to require an encroachment permit and liability insurance or (2) vacate the land, deeding it to the adjacent property owner with parking and building restrictions. Mr. Schubach explained that a portion of the Planning Commissions decision was made at the April 16, 1991 meeting. Actg. Chinn. Rue explained that at that meeting the motion made and approved was to continue this item to the meeting of May 21 (which was not continued due to Public Works Dept. delays), at which time staff would provide additional information with focus on Alternative #6 and the implementation of vacation vs. encroachment. Staff was to provide details on the following. criteria: Two car maximum, no tandem parking, side-by-side parking, access from Beach Drive, separation between landscaping and parking areas, landscaping along walk streets, no allowance for recreational vehicles, appropriate depth of parking areas. Staff was also to supply information relating to the legal consequences in the event of vacation. Actg. Chinn. Rue stated Item #6, proposed by Public Works Dept., was to change the City ordinance to allow private parking on pedestrian walk streets west of Beach Drive only, requiring private use be regulated by revokable encroachment permit and parking fees be paid, no parking allowed near The strand wall. Mr. Pat Corwin, 31 8th Street, commented this issue. is personal to each resident. He stated he was concerned about preserving the beauty of the walk streets. Mr. Corwin questioned the legality of people other than residents parking in these open -space parking and the problems of unenforced laws pertaining to the open -space parking. Ms. Gloria Walker, 2040 The Strand, requested the Commission refrain from voting on the car -parking restriction at this time, pointing out the number of 6 P.C.Minutes 7/2/91 cars -accessing the area on a daily' basis. She questioned the vacation option, stating this option had not been fully explored, and requested an Environmental Impact Report. Mr. -Alfred Salido, 24th street, stated"he would be adversely impacted by the decision" to limit parking on the east side. In 1988, his attorney, wrote a letter asking definition of ownership on the property in question to which the City.Attorney did not respond. When he contacted Public Works Dept. to clean this property, the response was the area was privately owned. He has been instructed to post private "Tow -Away" signs in his area by the ,parking enforcement agency.. Mr. Salido felt.the.-same liability applied to the patios as..well.. as. the parking in.. these open -space areas,• suggesting- that the problem can be solved by banning parking, when a title change or major renovation is made: Ms. Susan Mc Farland, 25 8th Street, hopes the Commission will continue considering the problem.of implementation of the first half of the decision made several months ago. She stated' she believed this area was in the Loma parking district and parking fees should be assessed. She pointed out the similarity of parking problems and needs of both the landlocked and ocean -view properties. Ms. Viola James, 78 The Strand, a 57 -year resident, has previously bricked and walled in the disputed area with the City's permission. She described her parking facilities and her personal difficulty which would be experienced if.a change is made in her current situation. Ms. Linda Kaye, 2040 The Strand, remarked ocean -view parking isnot the same as interior -city parking. She felt peoplewill not park on the sidewalk; residents park in marked areas only. Public Hearing was closed by Actg. Chmn. Rue at 8:38 p.m. Actg. Chmn. Rue stated the commission voted to' continue this item during the last meeting, giving staff parameters and criteria to address. Staff has responded with information. Actg. Chmn. felt the information obtained during this meeting should be reviewed by the Commission and a motion defined which will be forwarded to City'Council. Comm.. Di Monda stated he still feels this area is a walk street which should be landscaped. He is not convinced that Alternative #6 would result in cars being 'put on the street. Comm. Di Monda commented on previous decisions made by the Commission, stating it appeared compromises had been made in the past through zoning and City goals. Comm. Di Monda felt Alternative #6 should be refined to. state 25', two cars, side-by-side, no tandem parking, no R.V.s, no boats, provide landscaping, etc. Comm. Marks stated front -yard parking on the east side should be disallowed, the west side should have a certain depth defined but not limiting the amount of cars, campers and boats being totally eliminated, cars illegally parked should be ticketed. Actg. Chinn. Rue said the Planning Commission has previously discussed the problem of cars parking up to The Strand wall for over five years. 7 P.C.Minutes 7/2/91 Encroachment permits for the walk street yards are required, currently_ in force. Actg. Chmn. Rue reviewed the requirements of Alternative #6, also stating that the encroachment fee to allow parking should be the only fee paid-, not to include.an additional parking fee. A limit needs to be established for" the easterly one-third of the right-of-way, 25-30' for an 80' depth property with no limit to the number of parked cars or manner of parking, while promoting landscaping and green -areas separated by permanent barriers. Landscaping will be maintained by property owners. No recreational vehicles or boats will be allowed. Fence heights and landscaping types need to be further discussed. Actg.- Chmn. Rue asked the Commissioners' thoughts regarding the landscaping requirements, to which Mr. Schubach responded this was a detail to be discussed later',dependent upon the actions to be taken. Actg. Chmn. Rue stated his - preference for encroachment rather than vacation, since with vacation the City experiences a loss of control. Mr. Schubach stated both methods are feasible in these cases, both having legal consequences which are currently being explored by the City Attorney's office. MOTION by Actg.'Chmn. Rue, seconded by Comm. Marks, to recommend the open space of the walk streets used by corner The Strand lots be for private, up to 1/3 of lot to a maximum of 30' parking be allowed, permanent barrier between landscaping and parking, direct access from Beach Drive, parking is for automobile use only, fence height is to be 36", no parking on the east side of. Beach Drive, such action shall be accomplished through a vacation or revokable encroachment permit. AYES: Comm. Marks, Actg. Chinn. Rue NOES: Comm. Di Monda ABSTAIN: Chmn. Retz ABSENT: Peirce Actg. Chmn. Rue vacated and Chmn. Ketz resumed the Chairman position. STAFF ITEMS PLANNING DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT OF MAY, 1991. Chmn. Ketz requested a copy be given to the Commission by Staff of the draft Congestion Management Plan. Comm. Di, Monda asked if the Commission's definition involvement begins at the updating of the zoning ordinance, to which Mr. Schubach responded definitions will begin during the land -use element. Receive and File. MEMORANDUM REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION LIAISON FOR JULY 9, 1991 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Chmn. Ketz stated two items will be discussed: .(1) the Lighthouse Cafe, and '(2) the Condominium conversion at 23 Barney Court. 8 P.C.Minutes 7/2/91 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 19, 1991 Regular Meeting of April 2, 1991 VEHICLE PARKING ON PEDESTRIAN WALK STREETS Recommendations It is recommended that the Planning Commission: See attached memos. Background:. The. City Manager's office has received a number of complaints about parking along the walk streets. The City Manager has also' received complaints about vehicles parking in what appears to be "front yards" but is really public right-of-way. On August 14, 1990, the City Council authorized staff and the Planning Commission to review the City's Ordinances and enforcement of parking within the setback area, with the intent to prohibit such parking. Pedestrian walk streets -within the City of Hermosa Beach, where vehicle parking is possible in the public right-of-way, for the most part are those east -west streets located west of Hermosa Avenue and east of the Strand. (See Figure 1.) The majority of these public streets are sixty ,feet in width. However, only the center sixteen feet of the street right-of-way is paved with concrete. The remaining right-of-way width is equally divided with twenty two feet of public right-of-way along each side of the walk street. This is the area where it is currently possible to park up to 200 vehicles and that the Commission will be reviewing. (See Figure 2.) Staff will provide a slide show presentation of the current parking situation. • LEGEND wALKsiREEIs 1173\ ..•••• *"." ft Ify-t Lea1f7flfl II'!]! [_,11 Miou ci 7 3 Aug_ moms AREA UNDER STUDY Figura 1 BEACH STRAND PARKING IN WHAT APPEARS rTO BE "SIDEYARD" EXISTING HOUSE EXISTING GARAGE EXISTING HOUSE EXISTING GARAGE 60' R/W BEACH DRIVE R/W ISTING kRAGE EXISTING HOUSE 22' 16' 22' rThl rTh EXISTING HOUSE EXISTING GARAGE EXIS HOt EXIT GAI PARKING IN WHAT APPEARS . TO BE ,"FRONT YARD" U ISTING RAGE EXISTING HOUSE R/W R/W Figure 2 — 6' - EXISTING HOUSE EXISTING HOUSE Analysis: The analysis is divided as follows: 1. General Plan Review 2. Current City Code 3. Number of Walk Streets Involved 4. Number of Private Properties on Walk Streets 5. Number of Locations Where Parking is Possible or gccurring 6. Items of Concern 7. Manhattan Beach's Experience 8. Alternatives 1. General Plan Review Open Space Element Philosophy: The underlying philosophy. of the Open Space and Conservation Element is to preserve and enhance the existing green areas, and to increase -the total open__ space areas within possible financial ability. Streets comprise nearly one third of the City's area, and considering the small size of private lots and minimal, yards, these streets provide much of the "elbow room" within the community. For this reason, these streets should not only be preserved but developed for maximum impact as green areas of landscaped ribbons throughout the City. Stated goals/and policies of the Open Space Element are: 1. Goal: To obtain and preserve open spaces within. the City limits of Hermosa Beach, sufficient to provide for anticipated needs of both present and future residents.. 2. Goal and policy #19: To obtain, preserve, and enhance green areas, 'such as street landscape strips, mini -parks and parkways as being necessary to the health and well being of the- community. 3. Goal: To provide room for, and adequate protection of, bikeways., pedestrian routes and trails. o1 7 • 4. Goal and policy #22: To provide for the retention and further beautification of streets as open spaces, and to encourage further use of same as pedestrian walkways, malls and plazas. Streets, when closed for whatever reason, should be retained :where practical and used for shopping malls, where zoning is appropriate or part of the bicycling and walkway system. 5. Policy #28: Streets. Any street not currently needed for vehicular access may be landscaped and used as bicycle and/or pedestrian ways. Circulation Element The Circulation Element approved by the City Council on August 14, 1990, includes City Policy No. 12 pertaining to Walk Streets. That policy states, "The City shall maintain its system of walk streets which contributes to neighborhood identity and cohesiveness and near the. beach provides a safe and attractive access system for pedestrians, which is particularly important for children•, handicapped and seniors. These walk street areas shall be landscaped and lighted and also designated as open space". 2. Current City Code City Code Section 19-61(b) states,'"No operator of any vehicle shall stop, stand, park or leave standing such vehicle...within any parkway". A parkway is defined as, "That portion of a street other then a roadway or a sidewalk". Section 29-38(2)(d) of the City Code also states that "Parking or driving on walk streets is 'strictly prohibited". Copies of the Code Sections are attached as Attachments "A" and "B". 3. Number of Walk Streets Involved There is a total of twenty five walk streets in the city. Of this number, there are six walk streets that can only be used by pedestrians and those walk streets will not enter into this. discussion any further. The location of all the walk streets is shown in Figure 1. • 4. Number of Private Properties on walk streets There is a total of 568 private properties that face or have frontage on the walk streets within the study area. (See Table "A"). The majority of those private properties have fenced off the public right-of-way and use that land as a part •of their front yards. However, only a few of these property owners have a - City permit to use the public land. Most of the property owners do not have permission from the city or insurance that protects the city from claims that could occur from within the enclosed public right-of-way. PROPERTIES AFFECTED BY EXISTING PARKING ON WALK STREET PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY 1. Number of properties along the Walk Streets, minus the properties that face the Strand. 305 2. Number of properties along the Walk Streets that do not face the Strand and do not use the public right-of-way for parking. (93.8%) 286 3. Number of properties along the Walk Streets that do not face the Strand but use the public right-of-way for parking. (6.2%) 19 4. Number of properties along the Strand 263 5.. Number of properties along the Strand that do not use the"public right-of-way for parking. (87.8%) 231 6. Number of properties along the Strand that use the public right-of-way for parking (12.2%) . • 32 Total number of properties along the walk streets and on the Strand. 568 Total number of properties the walk streets and on the that do not park on the public right-of-way. (91.0%) Total number of the walk streets that park on the right-of-way. (9.0%) along Strand 517 properties and on the public along Strand 51 TABLE "A" 9 5. Number of Locations Where Parking is Possible or Occurring There is a total of sixty nine locations where the parking of vehicles on the public walk street right-of-way is possible. Of that number, eighteen property owners have fenced or blocked off the public right-of-way so that vehicles can not be parked at • that location. At the remaining fifty one locations,' vehicles are parked on the walk street public right-of-way, resulting in approximately 200 parking spaces. Thirty two of the existing parking locations are on the-.west.side of Beach Drive and appear to -be in what would be considered the property side yard. Nineteen of the parking locations are east of Beach Drive and appear to be in'wha.t would be considered the front yard. All of these properties have garages on a public access at the rear of the property. That is the only area where vehicles should be allowed access to the property. The concern is where the property owners next to the walk, streets are using the public street right-of-way as their private additional parking area. For the location of the subject properties see Table "B" on page 9. 6. Items of Concern 1. Liability is a concern because at locations where parking is occurring there is no private insurance that protects the city. If someone was hurt within the twenty two feet of public street right-of-way, the City could be sued as the owner of the property. 2. Some of the adjacent private property owners have installed gates or chains on Beach Drive along the edge of the street pavement, at the access to the public property, and do not allow the public to use the public right-of-way. 3. Some of the adjacent private property owners have placed signs on the public right-of-way stating that all others who park there will be towed away. However, the land is public right-of-way and only theCity can have a vehicle towed away from public right-of-way. 4. The staff has been told that some of the adjacent private property owners rent out parking spaces within the public right-of-way during the summer and even year round. This activity is not approved or acknowledged by the City. The adjacent property owner also keeps the parking income for their private use if this action is taking place. .3 5. The use of the public right-of-way, along the walk streets, for parking is presently unclear. Because of the impact due to summer time parking, the city has not enforced the parking code along the walk streets.. 6. The removal of all parking from the existing locations will cause a serious adverse effect on the parking in the beach area. 7. Cars and trailers stored in the public right-of-way adversely. affect the aesthetics of the area. 8. Commercial usage by businesses is significant in some areas, especially the Sea Sprite Motel. 7. Manhattan Beach's Experience In 1969, the City of Manhattan Beach formed a Walk Street Study Committee to study and recommend solutions to the encroachments on the walk streets throughout the City. In 1970, the Committee recommended that the City vacate the walkstreet right-of-way and thereby allowing the use of the vacated property to revert to the - abutting property owner. Advantages and disadvantages derived from such vacation are:. 1. Elimination of encroachment problems 2. Elimination of City liability 3. Uniform use for all walk street residents 4. Saving of Council, Attorney and staff time 5. Assigns responsibility for maintenance 6. Increases tax base and revenue to City 7. Elimination of. present hazards and unsightly areas only if parking is removed. 8. May encourage more intense development of presently undeveloped areas without further zoning restrictions. Because of concerns about higher property taxes to the adjacent property owner, as a result of the vacated land, the issue of vacating the public right-of-way was dropped. Instead, the City of Manhattan Beach established an encroachment policy. The Director of Public Works spoke with'the tax assessor and was advised that a reassessment of the vacated land would occur should Hermosa Beach pursue vacating the land. • WALK STREETS (Locations on Public Right-of-way Where Parking is Taking Place) S.W. N.W. S.E. N.E. No. Intersection Corner Corner Corner Corner 1. Lyndon St. & Hermosa Ave. 2. 1st St. & Beach Drive 3. 3rd 4. 4th 5. 5th 6. 6th 7. 7th 8. 8th 9. 9th 10. 16th it II II II 11. 17th tt It It It 12. 18th tt It It II 13. 19th tt to It II 14. 20th it II It tt 15. 21th tt II II It 16. 23rd " !t It u` 17. 24th t' It II It 18. 25th St. & Hermosa Ave. 19. 26th tt II It II 20. 30th Pl. 1 It II 21. 30th St. & Manhattan Ave. 22. 31st 'St. tt II II 23. 33rd St. & Palm Ave. 24. Longfellow St. & Hermosa Ave 25 34th Place it It n Parking taking place (51) Parking not taking place (18) Space not available - # (31) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes . Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes # # `_ Yes 18 0 7 TABLE ttBtt • -9- /2. - Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes # # # # Yes 18 0 7 Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes • Yes tt Yes # Yes No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No Yes # # # # 12 . 5 8 13 9 8. Alternatives The alternatives considered are as follows: 1. Strict enforcement of no parking and not allow any parking on the public walk street right-of-ways. (City Goal # 6 - Review of residential zoning standards) (City Goal # 8 - Increase parking requirements) • (City Goal #10 - Enhance sense of community, improve the image of Hermosa Beach) (City Goal #17 - Improve the quality of life) Pro: The majority of property owners that live along the walk streets do not have the use of public right-of-way for their private parking use. Not allowing any parking on the public right-of-way would treat all of the private property owners equally. Con: To not allow any parking on the public right-of-way would increase the number of vehicles that need to be parked on the streets. This action would increase the parking demand on the streets in the beach area by approximately 200 vehicle spaces. 2. Change the City ordinance and allow private parking on the west side of Beach Drive only, with a city permit and parking fee of $0.50 per square foot per month with no conditions. (i.e. no landscaping, no limit on number of spaces, etc.) (City Goal # 1 - Improve the City financial picture) (City Goal # 6 - Review parking requirements) Pro: The City does allow the private use of public street property .at four locations in town and the present rate charged for that use is $.50 per square foot per month. Estimated revenue for 2 parking spaces at each location. No. of locations west of Beach Drive = 32 Each space @ 10' x 20' = 200 square feet (32 locations) x (2 spaces @ each location) x (200 S.F.) x ($0.50 per S.F.) = $6,400 per month ($6,400 per month) x (12 months) .= $76,800.annual revenue The monthly fee alternative would be self policing in that only the parking spaces really needed would be installed. No one would be willing to pay every month for a parking space that was not required. Each of the spaces should be permanently marked and the fee charged against the private property for as long as the parking space exists. Con: With only a parking permit and no other requirements, this alternative would allow preferential treatment to those pri- vate owners who own the 32 corner lots on the west side of Beach Drive. In addition to the parking permit, an encroach- ment permit should be required which would then require , landscaping, insurance and city control over the total public area. The properties on the east side of Beach Drive should not be allowed to park in the public street right-of-way because they would be parking in what is their front yard. 3. Change the city ordinance and allow only public parking with meters west of Beach Drive only. (City Goal # 1 - Improve the. City financial. picture) (City Goal # 6 - Review parking requirement) Pro: This alternative would increase the City's financial picture by providing additional parking spaces next to the Beach that would be in use most of the time. The City would receive additional parking meter income from these spaces year round. (Est. 32 x 2 x $200 = $12,800 annual revenue) The City would then control the parking which at this time is not enforced. Con: Of all the alternatives, this choice would most likely reduce the quality of, life and the aesthetics of the adjacent beach- area eacharea residences. 4. Not allow any parking and use the twenty two feet of.public right-of-way for landscaping and to beautify the beach area. (City Goal #10 - Improve image of Hermosa Beach, better public and private landscaping) (City Goal #17 - Improve the quality of life, City beautification) Pro: This alternative provides the highest quality of life by installing large landscaped areas for the benefit of all the public that lives at or uses the beach area. Also this would improve the image of the community and would have the largest beneficial effect on the aesthetics of the area.; Con: This alternative increases the demand for on the street parking and would impact an area that already has a serious parking problem. It appears that this alternative could ,add approximately 200 additional vehicles to the on -street parking situation. This would have a serious negative parking impact to the Sea Sprite Motel (west of Beach Drive and Mickey's liquor store (east of Beach Drive). 5. -Vacate the excess public right of way to the private property owners on each side of the street. (City Goal #1 - Improve the City Financial Picture) (City Goal # 6 - Review open space standards) Pro: This alternative releases the City from the responsibility for these areas. The City would also receive additional taxes from this new private property added to the Community. Con: There would be added City expenditure to accomplish a vacation (i.e. title search, deed recordation, easement reservation, etc.) A vacation has the potential of increasing the density of the City and may not be the best choice. Without changes to the zoning code, the City could lose all control over the development of these 22 foot wide areas. The open space standards and aesthetics of the area would not be regulated and the image of the community may degenerate and be degraded in the beach area. Someday the City may want or need to use the areas presently in use by the adjacent private property owners. The use of public right-of-way should instead be controlled and regulated by revocable encroachment permits. 6. Change the City ordinance to allow private parking on the pedestrian walk streets west of Beach Drive only, with the requirement that the private use be regulated by a revocable encroachment permit and that parking fees be paid. In addition, parking should be allowed only in the easterly one-third of the right-of-way with no parking allowed near the Strand wall. (City Goal #1 - Improve the City financial picture) (City Goal #6 - Review parking requirements) (City (City • Goal #10 - Enhance sense of community, improve the image of Hermosa Beach) Goal #17 - Improve the quality of life, City beautification) .s L. >5. - Pro: This alternative would provide additional revenue, reduced liability and improved aesthetics. Present requirements on encroachment permits include, (1) insurance of $500,000, (2) that the City also be additionally insured, (3) that one-third of the public right-of-way be landscaped and (4) City control. Con: This will result in a loss of parking spaces for the Sea. Sprite Motel (west of Beach Drive) and Mickey's liquor store (east of Beach Drive). Summary: a. The opinions among the various department staffs differ on this issue. A single alternative solution is difficult and a compromise alternative appears to be the best solution. b. A zoning ordinance prohibition or encroachment permit condition for the area west of Beach Drive should not allow parking in the westerly one-third of the public street right-of-way areas. c. Some encroachments are long standing and will create a hardship if removed. All current encroachments should receive active restrictions to discourage massive parking areas, storage of vehicles, driving on walk streets; and encourage landscaping, insurance protection and reduced City liability. All new encroachments should follow current permit processes. d. The vacation option needs to be evaluated,although it appears to not be the best solution. Respec fully Submitted, Lynn A. Terry Deputy City Engineer Concur: Anthony Antich Public Works Director Michael Schubach Planning Director § 19-58 HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE § 19-61 Sec. 19-61. Areas where stopping, standing, etc., prohibited; exceptions.' No operator of any vehicle shall stop, stand, park or leave standing such vehicle in any of the following places, except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in com- pliance with the direction of a police officer or other author- ized officer, or traffic sign or signal: (a) Within any divisional island unless authorized and clearly indicated with appropriate signs or markings. (b) Within any parkway. (c) On either side of any street between the projected property Iines of any public walk, public steps, streets or thoroughfare terminating at such street, when such area is indicated by appropriate signs or by red paint upon the curb surface. (d) In any area where the city traffic engineer determines that the parking or stopping of a vehicle would obstruct the flow of storm waters, thereby causing such waters to overflow or be diverted from their natural drainage course so as- to endanger or damage property, when such area is indicated by appropriate signs. (e) In any area where the city traffic engineer determines that the parking or stopping of a vehicle would constitute a traffic hazard or would endanger life or property, when such area is indicated by appropriate signs or by red paint upon the curb surface. (f) In any area established by resolution of the council as a no parking area, when such area is indicated by appropriate signs or by red paint upon the curb surface. (g) Upon, along or across any railway track in such manner as to hinder, delay or obstruct the movement of any car traveling upon such track. (h) In any area where the parking or stopping of any vehicle would constitute a traffic hazard or would endanger life or property. Attachment "A" •P ARTICLE V. ENCROACHMENTS* Sec. 29-31. Definitions. Encroachments are features normally located upon public right- of-way that serves a quasi -private use and are not normally in- tended for public use. A public sidewalk would not be definedas an encroachment as it relates to this chapter, whereas, a deck used primarily by the adjacent property owner would be defined as an encroachment. "Encroachment" means and includes any obstruction, tower, pole, pole line, pipe, wire, cable, conduit, wall, fence, balcony, deck, stand or building, or any structure or object of any kind or character which is placed in, along, under, over or across public right-of-way. Sec. 29-38. Guidelines and conditions for approval. These guidelines shall apply both to continuing and temporary encroachments; there being no permanent encroachments permitted. (1) General - a. An encroachment permit does not constitute a build- ing permit. b. Encroachments are definitely a privilege granted by the city. There is no right to an encroachment. (2) Pedestrian walk street a. •Fences may be permitted provided a thirty -six-inch maximum height is observed. To ensure visibility at corners, a thirty -six-inch maximum height is required within a distance of five (5) feet from the corner. This precludes any landscaping exceeding thirty -six -inches maximum height. b. Retaining walls of masonry, block, brick or concrete may be permitted provided the grade changes, extreme contours or other factors necessitate such structures. However, the height shall be the minimum necessary-. _ for earth retention and shall in no case exceed thirty- six (36) inches maximum. A retaining wall on public right-of-way shall not support any structure on pri- vate property. c. Decks may be permitted provided they do not exceed twelve (12) inches maximum height above the existing natural grade and do not project into the public right- of-way more than half the distance between the prop- erty line and edge of existing or future sidewalk. Deck railings are permitted provided that they are of open wood construction and that deck and railing do not exceed forty-two (42) inches maximum height. Parking or driving on walk streets is strictly prohib- ited although exceptions may be granted during con- struction only by the director of public works provided the vehicle(s) do not exceed the weight limit. Attachment "B" - /8 - CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM DATE:. March 28, 1991 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commissi n FROM: City Manager- Kevin B. Northcraft RE: Use of public right-of-way on pedestrian walk streets. ***************************************************************** Recommendation: That the staff be directed to research the pro- cess to vacate unused public right-of-way while protecting City interests through covenants. The private use of unimproved public right-of-way has existed for decades, perhaps back to the City's origins. Our attorneys indi- cate that there is a fair amount of potential liability that could result if no changes were made in our existing practice. Accordingly, any change should satisfy the following criteria: 1) Reduce or eliminate potential liability to the City, 2) Maintain and/or enhance open space in the community per the City's General Plan, 3) Resolve the uncertainty of use rights and responsibilities regarding these properties, and 4) Recognize the historical uses of the properties and the sig- nificance of preserving, these uses. Encroachment permits might appear reasonable to handle the park- ing uses along the Strand (though charging for uses that have existed for decades seems unreasonable). However, extending the encroachment concept to uses throughout the City would result in as many as 1,000. encroachment permits being required. This would result in a red'tape nightmare,,. Our attorneys advise that the concept of vacating the land is reasonable to reduce liability. It also recognizes the histori cal private uses of these properties. The concern about Poten- tial future public uses and increased density can be remedied by the nature of the vacation, and/or zoning changes. For example, the vacation can include covenants that avoid increased bulk and density, preserve utility easements, and require rededication if a future Council chooses. Current zoning then should be clarified to prohibit use of front yards for parking. While vacation may subject the property owners to review of the assessed valuation of their properties, the restrictions on the use of that property should limit that impact. If any minor as- sessment valuation change results, additional taxes based on the invase in value that the vacation causes -seem? -"reasonable. This solution would eliminate the potential liability that cur- rently exists with private uses of public right-of-way along the Strand, on the walk streets, and on existing streets''such as Mon- terey and Prospect Avenue and preserve open space. It would do so at minimum inconvenience to the existing users and clarify the ability to use these properties as they historically have been used. - le _ • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission FROM: Anthony Antich, Public Works Director Michael Schubach, Planning Director SUBJECT: Vehicle Parking on Pedestrian Walk Streets DATE: Regular Meeting of April 2, 1991 Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1. Select alternative #6 to change the'City ordinance allowing private parking on the pedestrian walk streets west of Beach Drive only, with.the requirement that the private use be regulated by a revocable encroachment permit and that parking fees be paid. In addition, parking should be allowed in only the easterly one-third of the right-of-way with no parking allowed near the. Strand wall. Michaels Schubach Anthony Antich Planning Director Public Works Di ector pwadmin/AA11 -20 - LETTERS RECEIVED PERTAINING TO WALKSTREET PARKING NAME & ADDRESS PARKING LANDSCAPING ALTERNATIVE COMMENTS City of Hermosa Beach No private walls or other encroachments allowed on Lyndon Street. Sharon Myers 21 - 10th Street. Debra Grossblah 916 - Beach Drive Ron Blond 910 1/2 - Strand Cindy, Steve Hunt 910 - Strand Do not allow park- ing. Enforce existing no park- ing rules. City should, develop land- scaped open area. #4 for no parking and only landscaped areas. Open space should be preserved and landscaped. Jon & Janice Knickerbocker Donot allow park- ing. #4 for no parking and only landscaped areas. Support City effort to lower density, preservation of open space and green areas is of the highest priority. Bill Rowe 19 - 6th Street For limited use. 2 spaces on west side of Beach Dr. No spaces on east #6 Has seen as many as 8 cars parked. on City property and has observed parking fees charged Jere Costello 17 - 19th Street For limited use. 2 spaces on west side of Beach Dr. #6 54" height limit. Guest parking only. No R.V. storage allowed. Ed Nash 600 - Strand Existing encroach- ment does not allow parking. He has 6 existing garages and would like to use the east 75% of City. property. He has approved 35% landscaping. #5 for vacation Have the City give the.`public right of way to the adjacent property owners. -He has an approved encroachment permit with landscaping and insurance. provided._ NAME & ADDRESS PARKING LANDSCAPING ALTERNATIVE COMMENTS Al & Viola James 78 - Strand No limits on east 60 feet of public area. #5 for vacation They state that they are using the public right of way with City permission. Roy & Lois Knox 99 - Hermosa Ave. "Status Quo" "Status Quo " Homeowner's Insurance would cover City:" Absentee owners are the Culprits. Jeanne English 30 - 13th St. "Status Quo" "Status Quo . Property is only 1/2 of parcel Private renting of parking and vehicle storage should not be allowed. Jacqueline Marks 702 - Strand No limits #5 for vacation Taxes are higher. Noise level is higher. Litter from beach. Leonor de Salido 26 - Fourth St. No limits Is misinformed that residents are parking on their own property. Mary Zachary 100 - Strand Parks 3 cars side by side West 60' is land - -scaped with existing wall. #5 for vacation Chuck & Gloria Walker 2040 - Strand 20' setback from Strand. No other limits. 'Landscape only west 20' #5 for vacation Has 5 cars and would have to park 3 cars on the street. . Existing -garage is not used for parking at this time, only for storage. Evelyn Stoten 16 —16th Street "Status Quo" She has 8'renters, each with a car. Wants to -Continue to use "her parking area". Thomas Allen 1602 - Strand "Status Quo" - Wants the City to do a title search. He calls the area an easement. NAME & ADDRESS PARKING ♦1 LANDSCAPING ALTERNATIVE COMMENTS Richard Greenwald 900 - Strand "Status Quo" Landscaped as existing. #5 for vacation Thelma Greenwald 840 - Strand Has 5 spaces on City property for apartments. Has parking building on next block. #5 for vacation Nest to 28 unit apartment building. Darrell Grenwald 32 - Tenth Street #5 for vacation (at 840 and 900 on Strand Moved fire hydrant for parking. Citations have been written for the last 15 years. Private flyer to affected prop- erties No restrictions. #5 for vacation Vacation would increase property values and the City could not take the property away from us. pworks/walkchrt CITY• OF ,HERMOSA BEACH CIVIC CENTER • HERMOSA BEACH • CALIFORNIA 90254 PHONE: 37.6-9454 September 8, 1965 Mr. Karl E. Raife 145 Lyndon Street Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Dear Mr. Raife: At their regular meeting of September 7th, 1965, the City Council considered your letter and the petition signed by 35 Hermosa Beach residents regarding the building of a wall at the corner of Lyndon Street and the Strand. It was the action of the Council to establish a policy in regard to, Lyndon Street of no side -yard encroachments on the public right of way. We are sure that the other citizens in this vicinity who signed the petition will be gratified to hear that the Lyndon Street walkway will not be changed. Very truly yours, '~ =�- .-4-. BONNIE BRIGHT, City Clerk City of Hermosa Beach BB:bf - 23 - TNF 1R ICTf1CR AT AF CAI IFARNI A AFACNFR May 24, 1991 Mayor Chuck Sheldon and Hermosa Beach City Council 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 RECEIVED J,UN 1 0 1991 CITY MGR. CFT CE Honorable Mayor Sheldon and Councilpersons, Many of us who have either grown up in Hermosa Beach or have been residents here for many years, greatly appreciate that you have taken the time to review illegal parking and commercial uses along the walk streets. We would like to congratulate your staff for the preparation of a most comprehensive and well done report examining this issue. It is our opinion that the City should enforce the parking code along the walk streets and that there should be no parking on the City owned walk street properties. We respectfully request that the City enforce rules against any illegal commerial activity. Cars parked on walk street front yards and on the Strand are obviously not as attractive as open space landscaping. As the underlying philosophy of the Open Space Element is to increase the total open space areas, these streets should not only be preserved but developed as attractive landscaped green areas Hermosa residents deserve t -o have these; areas as beautifully landscaped open space. Thank you for your consideration. /c/7/ Cc992 cls �S WoLrr '(o S77Wib 14.6. Qoas .›,&0 )4km/74 24'— Members of the Planning Commission Members of the Hermosa . Beach City Council 1035 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Gentlemen and Ladies: 2028 The Strand Hermosa Beach, California 9025.4 June 17, 1991 JUL 8199.1 RECEIVED Jill_ 9 1991 PUBLIC WORKS DEPT, This letter is to voice our unequivocal support for the proposal for the city to commence strict enforcement of the city provision banning all vehicle parking on parking pads located on city -owned easements on walk street and Strand properties situated immediately east and west of Beach Drive. To do otherwise at this critical juncture in the evolvement of a better city would be a gross disservice to your constituents and the lowered density goals you appear to espouse. The preservation of designated open space and green areas needs to be of the highest priority in a city whose biggest problems are high density, overcrowding, and too much asphalt and concrete. What is difficult to understand is how the city has permitted these restricted easements to be converted into unsightly parking pads where 4-8 vehicles are "housed" every night because (1) the property owner is charging for parking, (2) the garage is being used for an illegal residence, or (3) the garage is being used exclusively for storage. These parking pads blight the landscape, obstruct the view planes, and, most important add to the congested lock of the city. We hope that you will keep the best interests of the city in mind as you make this most important decision and not succumb to pressures from a small group of people who have consistently taken advantage of the lax enforcement by the city of the prescribed use of the easements in question. The forthcoming decision on your part will do much to shape the future of Hermosa Beach as the kind of city where we would all like to live. Let's hope that on an issue as important as this that the perspective of our city leaders is not overridden by special interests. If you "cave in" on this issue, we might as well forget the other city goals related to down -zoning, increased open space, reduced height limits, and improvement of overall city appearance. C Members of the Planning Commission Member of the Hermosa Beach City Council June 17, 1991 Page 2 of 2 We personally applaud the progress you have made in this regard and hope that the original intent of the easement designation will be upheld and enforced. Sincerely, Com„ Jon R. Knickerbocker Janice S. Knickerbocker RECEIVED MAY 21.1991 19 – Sixth Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 PUBUC WORKS SEPT. May 14, 1991 Planning Commission City of Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 1345 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear,Planning Commissioners: MAY 2 0 1991 We would like to commend the Planning Commission and the Hermosa Beach City Council for finally tackling the parking problems along Beach Drive and The Strand. We are in sup- port of Alternative #6, which would prohibit parking east of Beach Drive and restrict the amount of cars allowed to park along the sideyards of Strand properties. As long-time residents, we have never been able to use our front yard for parking since the previous owner fenced the area off. We were told when we purchased the house that we could never remove the fence and use it for parking since it belonged to the city and parking was prohibited in those areas. The Alternative #6 recommended by City Staff would equalize. all properties east of Beach Drive in that ALL would be prohibited from parking and, finally, this would be an enforceable code. We have also personally observed over the years, Strand property owners allowing cars to park on the city easement and then charge people monthly fees. Many times there have been as many as eight cars parked in these city -owned sideyards. We feel it is time that Hermosa Beach implement AND enforce parking restrictions in this area. Since not all walk street owners cantake advantage of parking in their front yards, why should any? Strand property owners should be accountable, too, to their walk street neighbors, who have to look at cars and the commotion they create for the people east of the Strand. Vehicles, boats, campers, etc. are all eyesores when parked in the front yards and sideyards-and we are certain that property values in Hermosa Beach suffer because this is allowed. Please vote to enfoce parking restrictions along Beach Drive and on the Strand. Sincerely, 1 Rowe (213) 379-2910 cc. C. Ketz, J. Peirce, G. Rue, R. Marks, J. DiMonda, K. Northcraft RECE110,ED May 15, 1991 NAY15 1991 81/61/01,yoRKs pEP r City of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: Strand. Walk Street Public Right Of Way Dear Sirs: We own the house at 17 19th Street. We are at the North East corner of Beach Drive and 19th Street. Use of the Public Right of Way for Parking creats an obnoxious eyesore for us. We do not think it is fair that we have to look up the tail pipe of vehicles parked on public land, when we look out our window toward the ocean. We urge you to restrict parking in the public right of way as follows: 1. Guest Parking only! No regular use of this space on a routine basis by residents. Absolutely no storage! 2. Parking restricted to two automobiles not exceeding 54" in height. No. Vans, Pick-ups or Recreation Vehicles. We think that this is a fair compromise that balances the conflicting interests in this public property. Our neighbors. are very considerate about their use of this area at present. Our concern is with future owners. Please include this letter in your agenda: (213) 538-5888 ED NASH 600 THE STRAND HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 (213) 372-8430 May 25, 1991 Christine Ketz, Chairman Hermosa Beach Planning Commission Dear Ms. Ketz: RECEIVED wi;AY 2 j 1991 PUBLIC WORKS .DEPT. MAY 2 81991 A rather controversial issue has been raised by the planning staff, apparently in response to complaints raised by residents unhappy with front yard parking in the areas east of Beach Drive at 7th and 8th streets. Unfortunately, the staff response to these complaints has been to target all City -right -of way properties west of Hermosa Avenue, including corner Strand lots, for drastic changes relative to parking and use by property owners ad- jacent to such property. I own a double corner lot at the corner of 6th and Strand on which I built a cus- tom home. in 1986. I have an encroachment permit from the City for the side yard, which.I landscaped and enclosed. Hermosa Beach is also named as an additional insured on my insurance policy in the amount of $1,000,000. Since I have 6 garages I do not generally use the side yard for parking although my caretaker, guests, or vendors do sometimes park there. Needless to say I am very dismayed at the staff's recommendation to 'greatly limit side yard parking for corner Strand lots in response to complaints about 7th and 8th Street front yard parking, a different and somewhat isolated issue. I ask you, Ms. Ketz, not to undo a precedent of some 60 years and restrict or eliminate parking on Strand corner lots. Instead, I propose that the city right- of -way be deeded to adjacent lot owners and that parking for corner Strand owners be restricted to the rear 75% of the. lot. In the case of .an. 80 foot lot parking would be restricted to the rear 60 feet. I have no problem with RV's or boats being prohibited in these side yards as they do block views owing to their high profiles and can be unsightly. In summary I ask that . you and the other commissioners recommend to the City Council that City right-of-way property be deeded to adjacent property owners and that corner Strand owners be allowed to continue to park in the rear 3/4ths of their side yards without a restriction on the number of cars. Thank you for your consideration in this most important matter. RECEIVED MAY 2J 1991 Cha.izt.ine Ketz QUBLIC WORKS ,DEPT„ James Pe Ace yeo44,zey Rue Role/..t B. Ma/.kz ao.seph D -i- l7onda Dea/. Play 28, 1997 MAY 291991 ide have laved on the co/.ne/. Lot at 78 St/.and z.ince Ma/.eh, 1934. In that 57 yeaaz with the c-i-t-iez pe/.m.i sh-ion we have main- tained the. upkeep o/ the co/.ne/. /..fight -o/ -way letween oua -tot and lit St. 'side walk.. In /.etu/.n .we have Leen .pe/.m-fitted to u -4e that zect.ion /o/. ou/. pa/.king. Kowevea, we have Leen a s.seis,sed h-ighe/. taxes /o4 this p2.iv-i/ege o/ owning a co2ne2 Lot. It has leen an -ideal •s-ituat-ion o/. aa.i-.s.ing out ,am-iey. Out ch-ied/.en have Leen al/e to have the -i/. ,''Lends he/.e without the p/.ol€em o, pa/.king on the zt/.eetz. Ou/. 19 g'tandchLeda.en ate now enjoying this same pa .v-ifege. We g/.ate/uLey .suppoat a vacation option pian /o/. co/.ne/. -eotz on the Sta-and. Ide .suppo/.t the 20 foot ietlack //.OM the St/.and- that we would landscape and ma-iitta.in. ' Ide /.eque st that you do not itezta-.Lct the numle/. oL ca/.s that we pack leh-ind that setlack & Beach D. IJ-ith a 2 ca/. pa/.k-irig../i-e�st2-ic-t-ion :it wou-ed mean that we put 4 oa mo/.e [depending on the cat size) ca/.s on the st/.eets to pa/.k. On a luny time o/ the yea/. it -is -impo.s.s-il-ee to rind a paa.k- £ng peace on the .sta-eets now within wa.Pk-ing di -tante o/ oua, home. 7.1141 would le a to/t/t lc p/.o42em with .sma.P"e ch-i-eda.en to Lug as well as leach equipment, gaoce/.Les 8 otfie/. need Please do not de.staoy out pleasant Living •s.ituat.ion that we have enjoyed /o/. mo/.e than % centu/.y. We hive wo'ked ve/.y ha/.d in the city o/ Ke, mo.a to make '-it a tettea pace to Live and a pleasant place to viz -it. Again we wish to say that we suppoat the vacation option plan with the 20 /t setlack //.om the St/.and that we would cont/.o2 8 maintain. Please - do not Limit the numlei o/ can. that we can pack on the aema-in-ing po/.t-ion o/ the .tot. fide LeLLeve this .soLut-ion would Le a 44.1/. one /oa- a22 o/ the leach t/.ont co/.ne/. Lots and would le a Less d/.ast-ic change /oz a22. Please con s Ldea- th.iz plan. c, t £r CViota aamu ce/.e2y, 78 cS'haad —2o -/ rvnoda Beach, ea 90254 La,e0.0,tAj_i/ � May 15, 1991 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission Subject: Use of city -owned side yards adjacent to Beach.Drive We have lived in Hermosa Beach for almost 50 years and in our present home (at 99 Hermosa Avenue) since we built it 39 years ago. We have our side yard bricked, fenced, and landscaped in accordance with City regulations and at considerable expense. The study by the City Engineer's Office was well done and your objectives to beautify Hermosa Beach are very worthwhile. However, in the approach being taken, we think that you are attacking the wrong enemy. It seems to us that the culprits are not the people who own and live in their homes but, rather, the absentee landlords who care very little about who they rent to or how their. property is maintained. We really can't believe that cutting down on the number of cars allowed to park in the city -owned side yards will be much of a benefit. We think that most of the owner -tenants will continue to maintain and improvetheir yards ana that most of the absentee owners and their renters will do little or nothing in this regard. . To summarize our position, we recommend retaining the "status quo" rather than adopting measures that would compound the already -awful street parking problem and open a real "can of worms" regarding the City's many public right- of-way problems. Also, in regard to the liability for any accident taking place within the side yard, our insurance agent states that this area would be treated the. same - as the sidewalk adjacent to Hermosa Avenue. In this event, as we understand, our'homeowner-s insurance would cover this whether the claim was against us or against the City. • and ii?.._,rrth[i Lois M. Knox 99 Hermosa Avenue Hermosa Beach, Calif. 90251 (213)372-0327 REccivED MAY 15 199 r WnRks•OFpI' June 24, 1991 To. Planning Commissioners City of Hermosa Beach Ret Vehicle Parking on Pedestrian Walk Streets JUN 2 5 .1991 I live on 1 3th Street now, and grew up at the corner of 2=3rd and - Strand. I read report dated March 1q, l 9_9.1submitted subm- tt=d by Lynn T=rry, nenu+y City Engineer. I watched the Planning Commission Meetings on April 15 and June 4 about this matter. I reed the article in t•he Easy Reader. Easy And now I have some comments to make. 1 ) It seems as though this whole matter was brought about- bacause ause of some problems at 8th Street with someone renting out parking spaces ii what t -hey thought was their "front yard", and wit -h some inconsiderate parking/horn-honking/shouting early in the morning and late atlnight-. 4. Now this has escalated tinth,= point where everyone who is parking on the public right--Cof-way, a practice which has been allowed for many decades, may lose that 'right'. 2.) It.em S of t•he March 199 report (Number of Locations Where Parking is Possible_ Occurring) contains some incorrect information. The second paragraph talks aboutt properties west and east of Beach Drive e arid then states: "All of }.hese properties have garages on a public access at t -he rear of the property". This is not- correct . At 22nd, 23rd and 24th Streets, at least, Ther,--, are garages which face the public right-of-way (not Beach Drive). The onl» access to these ogarage= is via the public ight-o,.f:-wa I 3) The March 1'=I report. makes thi.._assumption that the properties at each of the four cornersners from Beach g rive (southwest, northwest, -northeast, southeast) is owned by a single owner. This also is • not• true. At t -he southwest corner of Beach Drive and 23rd. Street there are two separate properties, owned by two o different owners. There may be of -her corners like this. Any proposed plan to limit. parking west of Beach Lrive to, only the eastern one-third of the right -of -way would be grossly unfair to the 'front' property =owner , who would not be allowed any !narking. 4) Parking is a problem in Hermosa, especially at and near the beach. Further back from the beach, there is street parking available for family members, relatives, friends, repairmen.. At the beach, we have metered parking where it is often impossible to find an empty space. Taking away the right-of-way parking would create a great hardship, putting many more cars on the already overcrowded streets. Residents will grumble and buy a permit (or several), and hope to find, a place to park. (I invite any of you that don't already have to deal with this t•a tory to find a parking place at a yellow meter, not once but every day-- how close can you get-? how many times around the block did it take you?) But what about- when the rest of the family comes to visit-? What about friends? :Where can we park t -hose extra cars? How often would you go visit someone if you could only park at a meter, and then you sit -ill had to walk a block or two? Or repairmen? Do we make them park blocks away and lug their 'equipment- back and fort -h? Make no mistake, eliminat- ing or severely limiting parking on the right-of-way would create hardships for the property owners and create a greater demand for street - parking. 5) Parkin:, on the right-of-way has been allowed for many , - many years. My family moved into our house at 23rd and Strand in 19_ , , 3S .5 a-_ years ago. (My mother still lives there.) The family across from us has been there even longer. And we have all been parking on the right-of-way all this time, wit -h no complaints fr=o:, the city or any problems with public liability. +? What about other areas in the city where the right -of -way is being used? It seems very unfair to single out t -he along a l �- +_ g Beach Drive for special action. 7) As far as solutions go, I think all sides of this issue would agree that at the very least.parking on the right: -of -way should not be rented or sold to others. And I think that most involved would agree to not use the right-of-way as a storage area for unused trailers, boats, or, cars. But beyond that, I don't think any further solution that limit -s parking will satisfy any property owners currently using the public right-of-way. This parking has been allowedfortake _ a long time. To it away now would make the limited. beach area park ing situation , w rse than it already i s . Vacating t -he right -of -way has the very real disad- vantage of raising property taxes the size of the proper- ty). r_:}ar- ty!. Charging for parking, or severely limiting the number of cars allowed to park, is unfair. You are taking awa} something thathas i- _n allowed for decades, without- problems. 8) Why not leave things a=_• they ar=, except for not allowing t -he parking spaces +-C, be rented and possibly not- allowing storage of veh- icles. I think this would satisfy the ma ority'of t-he.people involved. Sincerely, Jeanne M. En=g l i s 30 - 13th St, ##E Hermosa Beach, CA 90%54 JACQUELINE S. MARKS 702 THE STRAND HERMOSA BEACH. CA. 00234 /7•10f-14'14-477-4.0 Pte. www/,44...4 dt,e74-ei p_Tee,i 7/Aeo4 "a -c-10 ir'"D (44'1 ele r1-4Zt-e% ( , 74) ‘Lep /'#)4(' tae e cal-te -1-‘24-t , c4; 4,1 e /14€0-4/ te/-4 "d -J • V‘v, ec77 Ac-ci/o p&dae-04-2 2 a ige,,e, d-7te a, to -ea ,y)e-g Aerr-4-ed 6v04444,4t, s476 -1 -6494 -- 4044,4 -04e -Z. I 7IeP4 Ai .12/041-e--e- //cote' vie -go 7.4(7-4 4447d 71.4-a4; V5r-ii-; bse a-"-eP /7- ./e04e zef-il/Lc2, -e4 co, gr 1 /' 777P " K y ' .%-77-'4�/ % 7<-721,, 6° 7`-'7' . . ,11-77 -, rPic;e2 2e; -7' /7 7 4'7 7Y -77 rr' '97 72_,7, t 7r f7/ s.j_i U V r u n.i, J • 14A1 s 0 AM G3!11303a /if/ M'///- Ce,7777/y- J 4.• /2.47 4,,, s 7-1? .f7/, "-orz-ev 71-e_ 4-4°- I 3-- /)2g4s "4 -t -e -c-- 1/)44-A---0r-e;se-j / re4-, / �� gECEivE D MAY 5 1991 �UR1 _KS,QEp�, Z4-1 �� ms-µ- �✓ '10 ��. /iLc_e_,__ ,;) 1/44",„ ,t,e4s& Ate -rix ---04-- --4-e.. ,6-7. ),-C,e),n L -Z -e- leg-ei-la} —tleet?-, /0_,i --f? / el ---C Ag-4-L-- A-9--e4--d V- 12.(--Zt- GUS � YyC` " j -e -e -•z -e -z -x -e- ke/L__ ,e -c- J(A-4-te a24e-g I..,,��,�^J May 15, 1991 RECEIVED MAY 2 3 1991 PUike WORKS :DEPT Dear Commissioners DiMonda, Ketz, Marks, Peirce, and Rue: We gratefully welcome and support a vacation option for corner lots on The Strand. We support restrictions,, which would prohibit boats or recreational vehicles anywhere on the property. We are also volunteering to compromise, regarding the parking situation on corner lots west of Beach Drive, by proposing a 20 foot setback from The Strand. Twenty feet exceeds. average car length by four to six feet. The 20 foot setback conforms to an ordinance, which prohibits parking in the first 20 feet of the setback on one's lot. This would give a uniform look to all properties, since it would match the existing ordinance. - In the interest of a fair and practical solution for the, parking problems in Hermosa Beach, and the survival of the corner lot property owners, our only request is that you do not limit the number of cars behind the 20 foot setback. Most corner Strand lots are a maximum of 80 feet long,. The 20 foot setback would guarantee a mimimum of one fourth of the property for an expansive. vista, and would prevent vehicles parked anywhere near The Strand. The enclosed photo of our property shows the large expanse of a 20 foot setback with a landscaped area. With the proposed two car, restriction, all 'visiting friends, relatives, business associates and maintenance and repair • people, would be driven into the streets to park, when they could be parking behind the 20 foot setback. In most residential neighborhoods, homeowners have available parking in driveways, and on both sides of the street. With the purchase of the corner lot, we inherited an alley,- unavailable for parking, and metered parking, two streets away. There is no way that we could realistically survive with'a two car restriction. We bought this property because we have a big' family. There are five driving members in our family, and everyone has his or her own car. If we were allowed only two parking spaces, we would have to impact the street parking with three cars, up to 24 hours a day. This is not even feasible. Living here involves coming and going throughout the day. That can mean circling the streets for easily half an hour or more at every departure to find parking. Even then, when all the yellow pole parking is taken (which it nearly always is) we would have to put money'in meters 24 hours a day. - 2 The strain of lugging children, mall purchases, groceries, and armloads of textbooks from two streets and several blocks away, would be a terrible hardship. This does not even address inclement weather, such as the raging wind storms we get here, or the danger of picking our way home at night. This is a tremendous price to pay, when a 60 -year precedent has allowed for parking right next to the. house. We bought this property for' the safety and convenience it offered. Even if we removed everything from our , garagew e could only park one car there. Our.cars are mostly' -average size, and even two sub -compacts would be a. tight squeeze. As for the parking on most of the other corner lot residences, cars behind a 20 foot•setback are not unsightly. They are covered by at least a three foot wall. It is not necessary to mandate the number of cars allowed to park behind a 20 foot setback because after all, one can't park cars on top of each other. The number .of cars would depend on the size of.the cars, and on the size of the. lot. If residents saw "for rent" signs for parking spaces, we are wondering why they did not report those people immediately. Most of the complaints targeted front yard property in the • 7th and 8th Street areas east of Beach Drive. It is not fair to punish all Strand corner property owners because of a few isolated complaints. There was no extensive pattern of. complaints on the entire length of The Strand corner lots. . The entire community should not be made to suffer fora few acts. To show that. it is not necessary to be so extreme as to limit cars to two spaces in order to placate the.few complaining parties, please consider the following: ACTION VACATION OPTION RESTRICTIONS PROHIBITING BOATS & RV PARKING 20 FOOT SETBACK ON STRAND DO NOT RESTRICT NUMBER OF CARS BEHIND 20 FOOT SETBACK RESULT CITY NOT LIABLE, PROPERTY OWNERS RESPONSIBLE CORRECT ABUSES THAT GENERATED COMPLAINTS GIVE THE CITY A PLEASING VISUAL UNIFORMITY PREVENT ADDING TO.ALREADY OVER CROWDED .STREET PARKING, &'ALLOW HOMEOWNERS THE USE OF THE PARKING. THAT HAS BEEN ALLOWED ALL THIS TIME. 3 - The above solutions are less drastic, so as to be fair, and not unduly punish the majority of the citizenry. We deeply appreciate your taking the time to evaluate these options. Resp tfully, Chuck & Glories Walker 2040 The Strand Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 1 cuter 'z5 c.9'I ! 7 7 1 Arl,o-ch/ Zb A -e ce.-714-e; a..1 a ,f a, St. did&z-,2-4.€46e-A_ ��,/ �CC� 2-1t / - 3 ?,A— p�7c0 1,P° "i0t LITIGATION PERSONAL INJURY . CRIMINAL (DEFENSE LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS P. ALLEN III A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 120 FISHERMAN'S WHARF REDONDO BEACH. CALIFORNIA 90277 May 14, 1991 Commissioner Christine Ketz Hermosa Beach City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Re: Parking On Purported "Easement" Dear Commissioner Ketz: (213) 376-0922 (2131 772: 6505 RECEIVED MAY .151991 EUBLIC`WORKS pEPT. I am the owner of the residence located at 1602 Strand, Hermosa Beach, where I have resided for the past fourteen (14) years. My predecessorresided in said residence for forty-five (45) years. I take great pride in my residence, my neighborhood, and the City of Hermosa Beach. Understandably, I am extremely concerned about the current. controversy regarding parking vehicles on the purported City easement. The controversy catches me quite by surprise. I never imagined that there could be any dispute regarding the manner in which the subject property has been used for decades. My initial response was to conduct a search and examination of every document which has bearing on this issue and my property rights. Such an investigation would be time consuming and costly. Upon reflection, however, it seems obvious that the onus of such investigation should not be on me, but rather on the City. My predecessor and I have enjoyed the possession, occupancy, and use of the -subject property of decades, without challenge or dispute. I am in favor of maintaining the status quo. If the City intends to disrupt the status quo, I most, respectfully request that it produce all surveys, legal documents, documents affecting title to property, and legal authority, upon which it relies.. Although the presentation made at the last Planning Commission meeting was most professional and impressive, it presumed the factual and legal authority that would be necessary to support City action. This is a very complicated situation with a lengthy history, and such authority cannot be presumed. It is not my desire to challenge, threaten, or obstruct. My request is not tactical. I most sincerely and respectfully ask that you "back up" and do the necessary search for all records which affect the property rights involved. Commissioner Ketz May 14, 1991 page 2 No doubt, each and every one of the affected property owners would (perhaps, will) make this same request. It is not reasonable to presume that the "history" is the same for each of the many properties. I respectfully submit that City action cannot be accomplished by one stroke of a very broad brush. Substantial property interests are involved, and each and everyof the various properties must be individually considered. It baffles me to see us moving in a direction which so clearly aggravates one of the most sensitive issues in Hermosa Beach: parking. We are obsessed with the issue of adequate parking, and for good reason. Residents, visitors, and potential business patrons compete in their search for a parking space with agony and frustration. They necessarily circle the block like vultures. The local press and political cartoonists focus on this undeniable - problem. The Planning Commission and the City Counsel work very hard to reduce the problem and move toward adequate parking. How can we possibly consider pushing scores of vehicles from their historical "off street" parking spaces onto Hermosa Avenue and neighboring streets? Has anyone calculated the number of vehicles which would be displaced, and the environmental impact that would result? Someone has advised me that the number of potentially displaced vehicles would stretch one mile. Surely, such displacement will result in overwhelming hardship to local businesses and every resident for many blocks east of The Strand. There will necessarily be a rippling effect. The socio-economic issues and sentiments which may reasonably bear upon this matter lead in the opposite direction than what I have thus far heard. The persons who will suffer most from a restriction of parking will be our local renters.They are the ones that circle and hover in search for parking on Hermosa Avenue and neighboring streets. Owners enjoy the use of their°garages, and owners would enjoy the use of even restricted parking on the purported easement. And, we are not simply talking about Strand and Beach Drive renters, but renters on the walk streets and all the way back to Valley Drive. I would be very pleased if you could visit me at my property to examine my specific situation. Also, I urge you to consider the Strand properties at 18th Street, 19th Street, 20th Street, and similar Strand properties where the owners have accomplished a design and landscaping which appropriately balance aesthetics, efficiency, and accommodation: We have attractively landscaped the "front" one-half to two-thirds of our property (that is, the portion adjacent to The Strand). The !'back". one-third of the -39- Commissioner Ketz May 14, 1991 page 3 property has been attractively developed for appropriate parking. On my property, the parking area is bordered by a hedge which is maintained (at my expense) at a height which somewhat "screens" the vehicles from view, but does not constitute an unacceptable obstacle. Such parking areas on the properties to which I refer can accommodate four compact vehicles by tandem parking, without creating any blight whatsoever. If the City would allow two Lincoln Continentals to park in a particular area, why would it object to four Nissans parking in the same space? If we are concerned about parking near the Strand wall, then we should address that concern. But that issue might be satisfactorily resolved without stating the number of cars that can be parked on the back of the property, regardless of the depth of the property or the size of the vehicles. I respectfully suggest that the most attractively landscaped "side yards" on the Strand have been developed at tremendous expense to provide for four compact vehicles. Lastly, I respectfully submit that a very unacceptable' situation at a very specific location (8th Street) is provoking the City to take radical action which will wreck havoc for all residents and businesses west of Valley Drive. Surely, there must be a more specific solution to a specific problem. I have confidence in your ability to design and implement an appropriate specific solution. Thank you very much for your careful consideration of this matter. Again, I respectfully reiterate my request for a search and review of the historical documents which affect the subject property. Very truly yours, - LAW OFFICES -OF THOMAS P. ALLEN III A PROFES$TONAL CORPORATION TPA:nan 30 : commission. ltr Thomas P. Allen III ._ . v.. -... ...-vh,.:..+yj5,i' �aK.Jv'• : Y9.�`.+lr,f,`�.tt1lD%P May 14, 1991 To the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission: My wife and I have been in business in the city of Hermosa Beach since 1955. We always wanted to live by the beautiful beach in Hermosa. Finally several years ago, we were able to purchase the home at 900 The Strand. We are aware that you would like to beautify the front view of Hermosa along The Strand. We are in accord with this: Since we purchased our home, we have -continuously maintained and improved the landscaping in the front of our home ,and the adjacent easement. Because of our large family (including 14 grandchildren plus) and many friends,:we have used the balance of the city easement for parking -- rather than forcing them to further impact the street parking. We would like to maintain the status quo usage of the easement as it has been for 60 years. In return, we would be willing to accept a vacation of the easement by the city and be willing to accept the responsibility of additional taxes, and the liability insurance, which we have been paying anyway. This would benefit the city with additional property tax income. In"addition, since most of the homes in Hermosa Beach have some street parking area in front of them --and we don't have street parking anywhere.near--we should be permitted to continue to use the easement area behind the landscaped area for parking.; As longtime citizens of Hermosa Beach, we thank you for consideration of our desires. PT. J yst4444 B,if u-ae Mr. & Mrs. Richard M. Greenwald -.14,_ RICHARD M. GREENWALD 900 THE STRAND HERMOSA BEACH, CA 60264 (213) 376-3429 May 15, 1991 To the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach: Attention: When I purchased the 28 unit residential apartment building at 840 The Strand, it was very rundown. It was inhabited by. drug sellers and drug users. Police records show that they almost daily received an inordinate number of calls for problems in and around the building. Old junk and broken down cars were parked around the building, some of which hadn't moved in months. I cleaned the building up. I restored the interior and exterior. I rented only to nice people. Today I have a building that.is an asset to the Hermosa beachfront. With the easement and my other parking facilities, I have parking arrangements for all 28 tenants so that none have to. park on city streets.I purchased a nearby parking building at considerable cost. I park 5 cars in assigned spaces in an organized fashion on the city easement and have parking spaces nearby for the other tenants. •If the city wishes to vacate the easement. I will pay property taxes on it and I will keep it insured as I have done in the past years. This seems to be the most equitable solution in that it benefits the the city financially with increased property taxes. It does not penalize property owners that have maintained and improved the easements all these years. I will maintain the easement. I will keep it properly maintained so that it will never be an eyesore. Thank you for your consideration. LvZ4e0-4_4e/ie,t4i,-il Thelma B. Greenwald 900 The Strand 376-3429 May 15, 1991 Dear Planning Commission; .RECEIVED ,MAY j 5 1991 EUBLIC'WWORKS DEPT RE: easements at the residential house at 900 strand and the residential apartments at 840 strand. I would like to say a few words concerning the easements at these two locations.. Most importantly I feel that any decision you make concerning the easements at these two locations should apply equally to all the walk street easements throughout Hermosa Beach including the easements up on Manhattan avenue. Whether people are using the easement for their front lawn or for parking or for a spa area or for a gazebo, all easement properties should be dealt with in an equal way. If any charge is to be levied for the use of parking , the same charge should be levied to all persons using easements no matter what the easement is being used for. I do not feel you can discriminate just for the parking use. For years and years we have maintained these two areas for parking; we have carried insurance on these areas and we have policed these areas. It has been said thatthe city did not endorse the use of these easements for parking use. This is not true. The city advised us what legal terminology to use on" no parking" signs in order to tow away illegal parkers. For the last fifteen years city parking enforcement officers have written hundreds of private parking citations forillegally parked cars on these easements. A City public works employee advised us we could have a fire hydrant moved in order to make the parking more .;accessible. We obtained the proper city building department and city .fire department approval in order to move the fire hydrant and we paid approximately $3,900.00 to have it. done. If the city was not accepting the use of these two easements, why did they instruct us and help us in moving the firehydrant in order to have easier parking access? Why has the city been. citing illegal parkers on these easements all these years ? Clearly the City has encouraged .and accepted the use of these easements as •rivate .arkin• areas for man man ears. If the City would deed the easements over to us, we would be happy to have them added to our property taxes. This would also benefit the City financially. After all these years that we maintained these easements ., insured their use, policed their use, this would be the most equitable solution. Respectfully, Darrell Lee Greenwald 32 Tenth St. Hermosa -Beach, CA 90254 YOUR VOICE CAN MAKE THE DIFFERENCE!: May 14, 1991. Dear Property Owner: RECEIVED MAY 1 S 1991 b►,�'.,fr Wn9�e nFp r, The planning commission will meet on May 21, 1991 to determine the fate of our parking status. The planning commission will be considering all letters from you. However, the letters must be received in the members' review packets no later than tomorrow, Wednesday, May 15, 1991.. We urge you to encourage the planning commission to -adopt the vacation option for our properties for the following reasons:: 1. The property would forever be ours, and we would never have to worry about, the city taking it away from us now or at some time in the future. 2. It would increase property values. 3. If the property is not ours, the city can do whatever they want with it. Also, please urge the city not to restrict .the number of cars that you can park on your property. The proposed two car restriction would drive all visiting friends, relatives, - business associates, as well aw maintinance and repair people, into the streets to park. This would impact city. parking,"adding to already overcrowded conditions, when visitors could simply be parking adjacent to your house.. If you care to discuss this further, please feel free to. call me at 372-6587. Sincerely, (1 Y,L.;v G�lbri a Walker P.S. The names of the five planning commissioners are: 1. Christine Ketz 2. James Peirce 3. Geoffeey Rue 4. Robert B. Marks 5. Joseph DiMonda The City Manager is Kevin Northcraft. 59- „--777,7,-- The meeting reconvened at 8:05 P.M. P-10 -- VEHICLE PARKING ON PEDESTRIAN WALK STREETS.. Chmn. Ketz declared a potential conflict of interest due to living in the study area.. and asked Asst. City Attorney Lee to express an opinion. Asst. City Attorney Lee stated that Chmn. Ketz had advised him that she owns property that is directly affected by this decision under the Political Reform Act and the regulations of the Fair Political Practices Committee there is a presumption of a material affect upon -the financial interests of Chmn. Ketz unless the decision that is reached would be the same for the public generally; given the fact that the number of parcels represent less than 10:g of the City area, our opinion is there is a material affect and Chmn. Ketz should not participate. At this time, Chmn. Ketz turned the meeting over to Vice Chairman Peirce; left the dais; and left the room. V. Chmn. Peirce requested a staff report. Director Schubach said that the major presentation would be given by Lynn Terry, Deputy City Engineer, for the Public Works Department, showing the problem the City had with encroachment parking on City owned easements along the east and west side of Beach Drive. He continued by suggesting two possible recommendations from staff: 1) use a conditional vacation method to return the unused City land to the public; or, 2) an encroachment permit process as currently used. • The biggest concern for the City, affecting many areas other than the walk streets, was the question of liability. Since it was City property that was being used, the Citywould be ultimately' liable .if someone were injured. . When .an encroachment permit. is issued, the City requires insurance. If this method is used for all the parcels of City owned land now being used by adjacent homeowners, there could be over 1,000 encroachment permits, each with an insurance. policy, to administer and maintain. Director Schubach suggested that tonight the Commission might wish to narrow the issue to the parking problem on the east and west sides of Beach Drive, and if time permitted, discuss how to implement the vacation or encroachment .permit question. He felt that if the Commission wished to look at some of the other areas of the City, the best decision would be to continue the matter and ask for o more thorough analysis. 11 • P.C. Minutes 4/16/91 V. Chmn. Peirce asked the Commission if there was concurrence to decide on the land use on Beach Drive tonight, then focus on the implementation if time permitted. Lynn Terry, of the Hermosa Beach Public Works Department, began the presentation with the use of a slide projector and stated the information was being given to assist the Planning Commission to review and determine how best to study the issue. Mr. Terry gave background by saying the City Manager's office has received a number of complaints about parking along the walk streets. The. City Manager has also received complaints about vehicles parking in what aPPears to be "front yards" but is really public right-of-way. On August 14, 1990, the City Council authorized staff and the Planning Commission to review the City's Ordinances andenforcement of parking within the setback area, with the intent to prohibit such parking. Pedestrian walk streets within the City of Hermosa Beach, where vehicle parking is possible in the public right-of-way, for the most part are those east -west streets located west of Hermosa Avenue and east of the Strand. The majority of these public streets are sixty feet in width. However, only the center sixteen feet of the street right-of-way is paved with concrete. The remaining right-of- way width is equally divided with twenty two feet of public right-of-way along each side of the walk street. This is the area where it is currently possible to park up to 200 vehicles and that the Commission will be reviewing. In response to a question from Comm Marks, Mr. Terry said that no cars had City permission to park on the public right-of-way. Starting with the General Plan, Mr. Terry 'continued with his analysis by explaining the Open Space Element. The underlying philosophy of the Open Space and Conservation Element is to preserve and enhance the existing green. areas, and to increase the total open space areas within possible financial ability: Streets comprise nearly one third of the City's area, and considering the small size of private lots and minimal yards, these streets provide much of the "elbow room" within the community. For this reason, these streets should not only be preserved but developed for maximum impact as green areas of landscaped ribbons throughout the City. The stated goals and policies of the Open Space Element are : 1) To obtain and preserve open spaces within the City limits of Hermosa Beach. sufficient to provide for anticipated needs of both present and future residents. 2) To obtain, preserie, and enhance green areas, such as street landscape strips, mini -parks and parkways as being necessary to the health and well being of the community. P.C. Minutes 4/16/91 3) To provide room for, and adequate protection of, bikeways, pedestrian routes and trails. 4) To provide for the retention and further beautification of streets as open spaces, and to encourage further use of same aspedestrian walkways, malls a.nd plazas. Streets, when closed for whatever reason, should be retained where practical and used for shopping malls, where zoning is appropriate or part of the bicycling and walkway system. 5) Any street not currently needed for vehicular access may be landscaped and - used as bicycle and/or pedestrian ways. The Circulation Element approved by the City Council on August 14,1990, includes a City Policy that states, The City shall maintain its system of walk streets which contributes to neighborhood identity and cohesiveness and near the beach provides a safe and attractive access system for pedestrians, which is particularly important for children, handicapped and seniors. These walk street areas shall be landscaped and lighted and also designated as open space". Mr. Terry read City Code Section 19-61(b), which states, "No operator of any vehicle shall stop, stand, park or leave standing such vehicle...within any parkway". A Parkway is defined as, That portion of a street other than a roadway or a sidewalk". Section 29- 38(2)(d) states, "Parking of driving on walk streets is strictly prohibited". Mr. Terry explained that there is a total of twenty five walk streets in the City. Of this number, there are six walk streets that can only. be used by pedestrians and those walk streets will not be discussed further. There is a total of 568 private properties that face or have frontage on the walk streets within the study area. Mr. Terry said the majority of those private properties have fenced off the public right-of-way and use that land as a part of their front yards. However, only a few of these property owners have a City permit to usethe public land. Most of the property owners do not have permission from the City or insurance that protects the City from claims that could occur from within the enclosed public right -of way. Of the 568 properties along the walk streets and on the Strand, the total number that do not park on the public right-of-way are 517 (or 91f.3); leaving 51 properties (or 9m) that use the public right-of-way for parking. Of the 51 properties, 19 are on the east side of Beach Drive and have vehicles parked in what would be considered the front yard, and 32 are on the west (or Strand) side of Beach Drive and park in what would be considered their side yard. Mr. Terry detailed the number of locations where parking is possible or occurring by saying there is a total of 69 locations where the parking of vehicles on the public walk street right-of-way is possible. Of that number, 18 property owners have fenced or blocked off the public right-of-way so that vehicles can not be parked at that location. 13 P.C. Minutes 4/16/91 At the remaining 51 locations, vehicles are parked on the walk street public right-of- way, resulting in approximately 200 parking spaces. All of these properties have garages on a public assess at the rear of the property. That is the only area where vehicles should be allowed access to the property. Mr. Terry showed slides of the properties using public street right-of-way for their private additional parking area. The concerns of the City were listed as: 1) Liability is a concern because at locations where parking is occurring there is no private insurance that protects the City. If someone was hurt within the 22 feet of public right-of-way, the City could be sued as the owner of the property. With encroachment permits; a $500,000 policy, naming the .City as additional insured is required: 2). Some of the adjacent private property owners have installed gates or chains on Beach Drive along the edge of the street pavement, at the access to the public property, and do not allow the public to use the public right -of -way. 3) Some of the adjacent private property owners have placed signs on the public right-of-way stating that all others who park there will be towed away. However, the land is public right-of-way and only the City can have a vehicle towed away from public right-of-way. 4) The staff has been told that some of the adjacent private property owners rent out parking spaces within the public right-of-way during the summer and even year round. This activity is not approved or acknowledged by the City. The adjacent property owner also keeps the parking income for their private use if this action is taking place. 5) The use of the public right-of-way, along the walk streets, for parking is presently unclear. Because of the impact due to summer time parking, the City has not enforced the parking code along the walk streets. 6) The removal of all parking from the existing locations will cause a serious adverse effect on the parking in the beach area. 7) Cars and trailers stored in the public right-of-way adversely affect the aesthetics of the area. 0) Commercial usage by businesses is significant in some areas, especially the Sea Sprite Motel. Mr. Terry explained that Manhattan Beach had a similar:problem and formed a Walk Street Study Committee in 1969, who recommended, after a year long study, that the. City vacate the walk street right-of-way and thereby allow the use of the vacated property to revert to the abutting property owners. Because of concerns about higher property taxes to the adjacent property owners, as a result of the vacated land, the issue of vacating • the land was dropped. Instead, the City of Manhattan Beach established an encroachment • policy. 14 P.C. Minutes 4/16/91 The Hermosa Beach Director of Public Works spoke with the tax assessor and was advised that a reassessment of the vacated land would occur should Hermosa Beach pursue vacating the land. Mr. Terry then listed possible alternatives, giving pro and con arguments for each: 1) Strict enforcement of no parking and not allow any parking on the public walk street right-of-ways. Pro: The majority of property owners that live along the walk streets do not have the use of public right-of-way for their private parking use. Not allowing any parking on the public right-of-way would treat all of the private property owners equally. Con: To not allow any parking on the public right-of-way would increase the number of vehicles that need to be parked on the streets. This action would in crease the parking demand on the streets in the beach area by approximately 200 vehicle spaces. •2) Change the City Ordinance and allow private parking on the west side of Beech Drive only, with a City permit and parking fee of $0.50 per square foot per month with no conditions. (i.e. no landscaping; no limit on number of spaces, etc.) Pro: The City does allow the private use of public street property at four locations in town and the present rate charged • for that use is $0.50 per square foot per month. The estimated revenue to the City would be $6,400 per month. The monthly fee would ensure that only needed parking spaces would be used, as owners would be unwilling to pay for spaces that were not used. . Con: With only a parking permit and no other requirements, this alternative would allow preferential treatment to those private owners who own the 32 corner lots on the west side of Beach Drive. In addition to the parking permit, an encroachment permit should be required which would then require landscaping, insurance and City control over the total public area. The properties on the east side of Beach Drive should not be allowed to park in the public street right-of-way because they would be parking in what is their front yard. 3) Change the City. Ordinance and allow only public parking with meters west of Beach Drive only. Pro: This alternative would increase the City's financial picture by providing additional parking spaces next to the beach that would be in use most of the time. The City would receive additional parking meter income from these spaces year round, estimated at $12,000 annual income. The City would then control the parking which at this time is not enforced: Con: Of all the alternatives, this choice would most likely reduce, the. quality of life and the aesthetics of the adjacent beach area residences. 15 P.C. Minutes 4/16/91 4) Not allow any parking and use the 22 feet of public right-of-way for landscapingand to beautify the beach area. Pro: This alternative provides the highest quality of life by installing large landscaped areas for the benefit of all the public that lives at or uses the ;beach area. Also, this would improve the image of the community and would ,have. the largest beneficial effect on the aesthetics of the area.. Con: This alternative increases the demand for on the street parking and would impact an area that already has a serious parking problem. It appears that this alternative could add approximately 200 additional vehicles to the on -street parking situation. Thais would have a serious negative parking impact to the Sea Sprite Motel and Mickey's Liquor Store. 5) Vacate the excess public right-of-way to the private property owners on each side of the street. Pro: This alternative releases the City from the responsibility .for those areas. The City would also receive additional taxes from this new private property added to the community. Con: There would be an added City expenditure to accomplish a vacation (ie. title search, deed recordation, easement reservation, etc.) A vacation has the potential of increasing the density of the City and may not be the best choice. Without changes to the zoning code, the City could lose control over the development of these 22 foot wide areas. The open space standards and aesthetics of the area would not be regulated and the image of the community may degenerate and be degraded in the beach area. Someday the City may want or need to use the areas presently in use by the adjacent private property owners. The use of public right-of-way should instead be controlled and regulated by revocable encroachment permits. 6) Change the City Ordinance to allow private parking on the pedestrian walk streets west of Beach Drive only, with the requirement that the private use be regulated by a revocable encroachment permit and that parking fees be paid. In addition, parking should be allowed only in the easterly one-third of -the right-of- way with no parking allowed near the Strand wall. Pro: This alternative would provide additional revenue, reduced liability and improved aesthetics. Present requirements on encroachment permits include, (1) insurance of $500,00; (2) that the City also be additionally insured; (3) that one- . third of the public right-of-way be landscaped; and, (4) City control. Con: This will result in a loss of parking spaces for the' Sea Sprite Motel and Mickey's Liquor Store. In summary, Mr Terry said: 16 P.C. Minutes 4/16/91 a) The opinions among the various department staffs differ on this issue. A single alternative solution is difficult and a compromise alternative appears to be the best solution. b) A zoning Ordinance prohibition or encroachment permit condition for the area west of Beach Drive should not allow parking in the westerly one-third of the public street right-of-way areas. c) Some encroachments are long standing and will create a hardship if removed. All current encroachments should receive active restrictions to discourage massive parking areas, storage of vehicles, driving on walk streets; and encourage landscaping, insurance protection and reduced City liability. All new encroachments should follow current permit processes. d) The vacation option needs to be evaluated, although it appears to not be the best solution. Mr. Terry concluded his presentation by saying that two memos were included: The first from City Manager 'Kevin rdorthcraft suggests vacation of the property, including similar public street right-of-way encroachments on Monterey and Prospect Avenue, and states, "...Our attorneys advise that the concept of vacating the land is reasonable to reduce liability. It also recognizes the historical private uses of these properties. The concern about potential future public uses and increased density can be remedied by the nature of the vacation, and/or zoning changes. For example, the vacation can include covenants that avoid increased bulk and density, preserve utility easements, and require rededication if a future Council chooses. Current zoning then should be clarified to prohibit use of front yards for parking....". The second from Public Works Director Anthony Antich and Planning Director Michael Schubach recommends, "Select alternative #6 to change the City Ordinance allowing private parking on the pedestrian walk streets west of Beach Drive only; with the requirement that the private use be regulated by a revocable encroachment permit and that parking fees be paid. In addition, parking should be allowed in onlu the easterly one- third of the right-of-way with no parking allowed near the Strand wall". In response to questions, Mr. Terry responded that there would be approximately 150 parking spaces remaining if alternative #6 where chosen; the length of the Strand lots was an average of 80 feet; and that no tandem parking had been recommended. Comm. Di Monda questioned the figure of one-third of the lot length for parking and said he would prefer a uniform amount, such as the easterly 14 to 20 feet instead. P.C. Minutes 4/16/91 The Hearing was opened at 8:47 P.M. by V. Chmn. Peirce. David Schumaker, 1612 Strand, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to state that he has owned five beachfront properties in Hermosa Beach, one of which was at 3i12 Strand, for the past 25 years and that at no time has he ever been told that the property could not be used for parking. He said that he was a real estate appraiser by profession and felt if the parking were taken away the property would lose 20N,of its market value. He urged the Commission to leave things as they were. Pat CorNin, 31 Eighth Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to complimented the City on the report; stated he was a new resident; that he and his wife had researched the area before they purchased and were pleased by the City Goals that clearly stated the desire for beautification and open space; and, were told that the City did not allow parking on the public wallk street right-of-way. He expressed concern that the City did not enforce its parking laws; felt concern for the safety of the children in the neighborhood due to the "For Rent" sign for parking on the south east corner of Beach Drive, which had four spaces rented out; and felt that any type of vehicle could be parked there if something wasn't done. He asked the City to enforce its own parking laws. Paul Shank,1838 Strand, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to say, as a 13 year resident, he felt this was a very complex issue because each street was different. He questioned the number of complaints that had been received by the City, and questioned if there had actually been a problem of liability rather than a perceived potential, which. is always present. He continued to say he felt it was unjust to charge parking fees and that the City should recognize the historical uses of the property , which included parking. He was strongly opposed to the idea of public parking because of the increase in traffic and congestion, and felt that owners could settle problems, such as the parking of recreational vehicles, among themselves. Steve Meadows, former owner of 542 Strand, Hermosa Beach, currently the architect of the project being built on the property, addressed the Commission with regard to new construction, saying he could not speak forwhat has happened in the past, but the planning process should be considered from here on out. He felt .alternative #6 was the best solution except that there should not be a charge for parking; he felt people paid a premium for corner lots and higher property tax, so therefor it was unfair to charge for parking. He did agree that parking should be limited to the eastern one-third of the lot. In response to questions, Mr. Meadows stated when he first had his plans for the property approved one year ago, he had been told the City land should be shown as open area and he could park four cars there; but he did not go ahead with the project then, so his permit ran out; when he went the second time he was told he had to enclose the area and no parking was allowed. He also responded that the title search had clearly shown that it 18 P.C. Minutes 406/91 — 52 - was City property, not part of the property that he was selling, and there was no stipulation that parking was allowed. John McFarland, 25 Eighth Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to say that he was a 50 year resident of Hermosa, and had lived on Eighth Street for 21 years,. For many of the early years, the property on the southeast corner of Beach Drive and Eighth Street was owner occupied and well maintained, then it was sold to an out of state investor who tore out the curbs and parked cars on the property, bringing in:an extra rental of $2,000 for the parking on City owned property. He expressed the opinion of Realtors, that his own property,values are substantially lower than comparable property in Manhattan Beach, due to the 1a: ity of parking enforcement in Hermosa. He said that owner occupied property wes not a problem, but usually rental property was, as it caused noise, congestion and unsightly conditions. He was concerned with the safety problem with rental parking, and felt that the City had been very lucky not to have had a serious accident. He concluded.by saying that much of the problem was the lack of garage space due to the storage of boats and household goods in garages. Jim Gierlich, .1900 Strand; Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to explain that he was a 50 year resident of Hermosa, and a 20 year property owner at that address. When he purchased the property it was advertised as having off-street parking and he had photos of the house taken in 1933 showing autos parked in the same areas as today. Some years_ ago, he continued, he needed a permit to move a fire hydrant in order to have better access to the parking area; with the assistance of the water company, he was granted the permit appro'.,al by the City, which shows implied permission, or knowledge, by the City to use the land for parking. The reason he chose that location was the safety of the walk street for his young child, and'he expressed gratitude for the barricades on Beach Drive that helps provide that safety. He felt that a beneficial solution, for both the City and the affected residents, could be found since there are so few properties involved. Tom Allen, 1602 Strand, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to commend Mr. Terry for the amount of .data in the report, and say that he, too, moved a fire hydrant for parking access, at a cost of over $10,000. At that time, he felt that he had the City's blessing and involvement in the project as the City showed him how it coul d• be done. He felt the primary issues now, are beautification and parking, and that there was no correlation between beauty and the lack of parking on a property. He mentioned examples in the slides that had been shown, that pictured an unsightly property ti^.ithout parking, and a well maintained property with parking. He disagreed with the idea that the City has liability due to owning the property, and claimed that the resident owners who maintain and exercise control of the property are primarily liable, but if the City were to take control of the right-of-ways, then the City would be primarily liable. He questioned the ability of the City to spend thousands of dollars on landscaping the property if they can not afford to fix potholes on Beach Drive. He urged the Commission not to base their decision on isolated instances of parking abuses and stated that he knew of no garages 19 P.C. Minutes 4/16/91 that were not used for parking as it was a precious commodity. in response to questions, he stated that he had done extensive landscaping and paving and had four parking spaces. Susan McFarland, 25 Eighth Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed, the Commission to thank the.Public Works Department for the report, stating that she had become involved, with this issue in 1978 when the third curb cut was made in her area for parking; in 1986 she went to the City to supply them with the information on the study and results in Manhattan Beach; tonight was the first time that a public forum had been held and she wished the City to know that this issue was a concern to the residents and users of the walk streets, which were the gateways to the beach. She said that two weeks ago she had watched a 25 year old tree removed to provide a better parking area for a renter paying $60 per month for the space. And, in her neighborhood there is one Strand property that parks 12 cars on the sides of the lot. Within a 100 foot radius there are five garages not used, two on the Strand and one that is used as a practice room for a band. She feltthat the Commission would choose alternative 06, and hoped that there was some means to have owners and renters refrain from parking extra cars in their area. She asked the Commission to set criteria for the space allowed for parking, to set a definite size limit, such as 10 by 20 feet per car; as one-third of the lot was too vague a term and could allow tandem parking on some lots. She also suggested that the areas be used for automobiles only, and not allow storage of RYs, boats, or long term auto storage, and that good landscaping be required, if possible with hedges that shield the areas from view. Ed Nash, 600. Strand, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to agree that the problem of noise and an unsightly car lot is not pleasant and would precipitate complaints, but he wished the Commission to consider the in -compliance, non- probl emati c properties, such as his, where parking is seldom used, landscaping is in, and $1,000,000 in liability insurance is in force. He asked that something be done about the problems, but he would object to paying for parking that was seldom used, and did not agree With the. one-third lot limit; he' felt that one'half would be better. He asked the Commission to discriminate between the problem cases and those' who were in compliance. Thelma Greenwald, 900 Strand, Hermosa Beach, and co-owner of the Sea Sprite Motel, addressed the Commission to say that six and one half years ago she purchased a 28 unit facility at Ninth Street and the Strand with 17 parking spaces, later she purchased another property simply for parking. She uses four spaces on the right-of-way for parking when her children and grandchildren come to visit and taking that parking now would be a hardship for her. Gail Corwin, 31 Eighth Street, Hermosa. Beach, addressed the Commission and remarked that there had been a lot of talk about money and property values, but when they had purchased their home they had paid a premium to live on a walk street. If they didn't 20 P.C. Minutes 4/16/91 care about noise, lack of safety for their children, and unsightly cars parked in front yards, they could have bought a home for a lot less money; they were not getting what they paid for. If nothing is done about these conditions when the process is completed., a lot more people might start parking in their front yard,because parking truly is at a premium, and many of her neighbors needed more parking.' Jerry Compton, G.W.C., Inc., addressed the Commission and .stated that he was an architect in town and had done a lot of projects that adjoin the right-of-way areas, and it needed to ,be brought out that the walk streets were not the only places in Hermosa Beach with public right-of-ways used for the sole benefit of private property owners. it was his -opinion that these areas should not be subsidized by the public, but belong to the people who use them, with property taxes paid on them. Originally the Tight -of -ways were to be streets, but they were never used for that purpose, so now they have become wide easements, unused by the City to the point where many owners think the land belongs to them. All of Monterey Boulevard has a 20 foot right-of-way on both sides of the street, in some cases the City owns the land up to the building. Whether parking is allowed, large setbacks are required, or one-third of the land is to be planted could be restricted by the zoning code. The problem with.parking. on the right -of -,^ray is that itis not private property,, it is not a front yard; if it were a front yard there. could be laws against parking in a front yard. All ares in town should be turned back to the adjacent property owners. Anthony Drewery, 1540 Strand, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and stated that most of the concerns he was going to address had already been said. But one issue brought up by Jerry Compton needed to be considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council: why single out the area west of Hermosa Avenue when there were so many other areas with public right-of-way parking? He listed: Monterey Boulevard; Palm Drive; .Bayview Drive; Circle Drive; Loma Drive; 31st Place; Valley Park; .Manhattan Avenue; Ocean Drive and probably others, as streets with right-of-way parking. He also had two questions. First, had the City Attorney reviewed the legality. of each recommendation, in particular regarding the vacation of the property, the City Attorney should render an opinion. Second, the City should obtain a title report and a litigation guarantee with regard 'to every piece of property it intends to affect by.any action. V. Chmn. Peirce responded that the Planning Commission intended to look at all the areas in the City and make their recommendations to the City Council. Eric Castleman, 336 Strand, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to say that the 'City needed beautification, and cars parked anywhere except in a garage where ugly, There should not be parking allowed on the right-of-way, it should -be kept and landscaped and turned into true open space. Beautify the. city and raise everyone's property values. 21 —ss— P.C. Minutes 4/ 1 6/9 1 Howard Longacre, 1221 seventh Place, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to say that he did not have a particular position on this question at this .time but he would like to list some observations: 1) liability insurance for an encroachment is an amendment to a policy and usually can be obtained for little or no cost; 2) regarding the barricades on Beach Drive, there should be barricades on all the streets in town; 3) Manhattan Beach property, without parking, is selling at close to three quarters of a million dollars more than comparable property in Hermosa; 4) the City needs to look into the old deeds to the property because he thought that there might be rights granted with the property to the use of the easements; 5) as a civil engineer, he knew that highways, created to fill a need, will be used and create more need; he thought the same was true of parking. Mr. Longacre then asked for a point of order to say that in his view there was a potential conflict of interest on the part of V. Chmn. Peirce, who , he believed, was a business partner of Mayor Sheldon in the ownership of property, and since Mayor Sheldon owned property in the subject area and would have to declare a conflict when it came before the City Council, Mr. Peirce should declare his business relationship with. Mayor Sheldon and step down also. George Lanz, 17 Sixteenth Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to comment that he lived on the east side of Beach Drive, and if alternative #6 were the choice of the Commission, he saw no rationale from the report given for the exclusion of the east side, and encouraged the Commission to make no such restrictions. Parking encroachment on public right-of-way appeared to be a City-wide problem, therefor it seemed logical to. examine the the problem in total and not fragment it as it was possible that a different recommendation would be found for some other part of the city. Adriana Kusion, .1920 Strand, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to present the concerns of a renter at that address for five years by stating_ that when the barricades were down on Beach Drive, it became a highway, During the summer months the teenagers would park in the alleys at 2:00 in the morning, drinking and playing their radios full blast, if public parking were allowed this would happen al) year long. She felt • taking the barricades down for public parking would increase the chance of an accident and the City's liability. The Hearing was closed at 10:00 P.M. by V. Chmn. Pei rce, • who wished to point out to the audience that this was a hearing, but not a public hearing. Responding to a question of the ultimate "deep pockets" from Comm. Rue, Asst. City Attorney Lee said that the City had the primary responsibility and liability for any injury on the property. Although the adjacent property owner would be named in a negligence suit, the City would also be named. There was a, greater risk to the City by allowing private use of the property ;without appropriate coverage,' because it did not relieve the City of its liability if the owner has made improvements. 22 -s6— P.C. Minutes 4/16/91 V. Chmn. Peirce asked if the City Council wanted the entire thing or would they accept a piece at a time? Lynn Terry said that he was not sure; because the entire number of properties Ni),as so large, staff was trying to break it down into portions that could be handled. V.Chmn. Peirce said that tonight they would just consider the land use. for Beach Drive and have the implementation researched in more detail. Asst. City Attorney Lee agreed that would be most appropriate; depending upon the. decision regarding the land use, the City Attorney's Office would review the implementation; i.e. if the decision was to allow parking, the options of encroachment or vacation could be brought back in more detail. with the various restrictions possible. In response to Comm. Di Monda's question regarding title search. Asst. City Attorney Lee answered that would depend on the land use decision and the implementation chosen. If you want to vacate the 'property then the question turns on who owns the underlying fee on the area once it is vacated. If in fact it has been conveyed over by the City, and the City has the underlying fee title to the property.. then the decision to vacate would leave the next step to sell the property. If the underlying fee belongs to the adjacent property owner, then vacation would provide automatic reversion back to the property owner. Director Schubach answered the question of the possible tax assessment increase to adjacent property• owners in the event of vacation by saying that the amount was not known.at this time, but a meeting was in the process with the tax assessor for this area to determine that question. Asst. City Attorney Lee stated that under current law the property in question is public right-of-way, and even though the City had not enforced its rights in the past it had the right to begin enforcement now of the rules within the Municipal Ordinances. In his opinion, there was no estoppel to prevent the .City from beginning enforcement actions to require parking be removed or the public right-of-way be kept open as required under the present.City Code. He continued, that in regard to whether or not there was 'some sort of prescriptive easement or prescriptive right that has accrued to' each of these property owners because of the length of time that has passed, that is an issue that our office Would have to research. Mr. Lee stated that his preliminary response would be that it would be against public policy to allow some sort of adverse possession to accrue to a private person over public property. In response to a question from Comm. Marks, Asst. City Attorney Lee responded that the City Attorney's Office represented the public in general and -the City's interest is in the benefit of the public in general. His office would not provide representation to each individual property owner who may believe 'he had a private property right in public 23 P.C. Minutes 4/16/91 walkways. IT there was an issue that the City wanted to know what its position was in regard to that issue, then the direction would come from. the Planning commission or the City Council to look into that issue, but it could not come from an individual or a group of individuals. Mr. Lee continued, that he would issue an opinion in confidentiality to the Planning Commission and/or the City Council, advising of the City's legal rights with respect to enforcement on these walkways and only in that context. Comm. Rue commented that he felt that the General Plan was the overriding document for the City. Both Open Space and Parking were very large factors in that plan, a compromise was needed here and alternative *6 seemed a decent compromise, as trying to maintain open space would be onerous on all the people who had the use of the property for many years. Therefor he would support: a two car maximum, side by side, with landscape maintained along the walk street, autos only, no RVs or boats, and maximum height for fences and landscaping. Comm. Di Monda preferred a limit of 13 to 20 feet on parking, landscape regulation stipulating no contiguous hardscape, a delineation to prevent autos from moving forward beyond a certain point, space between street and property, and a request that staff also pursue vacation proceedings. Jerry Compton suggested that parking radius be considered. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Di Honda to continue this item to the meeting of May 21, 1991, at which time staff would provide more detailed information, with the understanding that the focus was on Alternative #6 and the implementation of vacation versus encroachment. It was further understood that staff would provide more details on the follo,.ring criteria: two car maximum; side by side parking; no tandem parking allowed; access directly from Beach Drive; separation between landscaping and parking area; landscaping along the walk street separating the walk street from parking; no allowance for Recreational Vehicles such as RVs, boats or others; the purpose of parking is for automobiles only; height of fences and landscaping to be addressed; and, depth appropriate with turningradius of the alley. In addition, staff was directed to return ^rith information pertaining to the legal consequence of the possible actions and if there would be major tax consequences to the owners in the event of vacation. AYES: Comms. Rue, Di Monda, V. Chmn. Peirce NOES: Comm. Marks ABSTAIN: Chmn. Ketz ABSENT: None The meeting, recessed at 10:22 P.M. The Meeting reconvened at 10:25 P.M. P.C. Minutes 4/16/91 Honorable Mayor, Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council and Members of the Planning Commission December 5, 1991 Special Meeting Of December 12,1991 STATUS REPORT ON GREENBELT PARKING CIP 91-511 1. The conceptual design of the greenbelt parking lot was presented to the City Council on October 22, 1991. Additional information was requested relating to the parking needs. Also, the City Council requested that the project be returned to the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission for their review of all 5 conceptual designs. 2. The revised conceptual parking designs and the revised demand study data are scheduled to be provided for review by the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission at their January meeting. • 3. The P.R.C.R. Commission comments will then be forwarded for Planning Commission review during the month of February. 4. The findings and conclusions from the Planning Commission will then be forwarded to the City Council for approval during the month of March. Respectfully submitted: liam M. G ckman Concur: Steve Wisniewski Interim Director of Public Works Interim City Manager pworks/ITEMGP October 16, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council October 22, 1991 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF GREENBELT PARKING LOT CIP 91-511 Recommendation: The Public works staff recommends that the City Council review the three drawings from the consultant and the two drawings from the staff (to be provided at the meeting) and approve for construction Staff concept "B", the 130 space parking lot. Background: On February 26, 1991, the City Council authorized staff to utilize the services of Lawrence R. Moss and Associates to prepare conceptual landscape drawings for the Greenbelt parking lot. The proposed project is to construct a tree lined parking lot with landscaped areas on the railroad right-of-way., The site location is between Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue east of the existing City Hall parking lot and southerly to 11th Street. On April 24, 1991, three conceptual drawings from the consultant were presented to the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Commission for their review. During May 1991, the Public Works staff added two additional conceptual drawings to the project. On June 6, 1991, those five drawings were presented to a joint meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission for review. The project was sent back to staff for additional information. Analysis: The analysis is divided as follows: 1. The Consultant's Drawings. 2. Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Commission Review. 3. The City Staff Drawings. 4. Conceptual Design Data. 5. Visibility. 6. Landscaping. 7. Traffic Safety. 8. Pedestrian Safety. 9. Parking. 10. Overnight Parking. 11. Estimated Local Recreational Parking Demands. 1. THE CONSULTANT'S DRAWINGS Lawrence R. Moss and Associates prepared three parking concept drawings for the parking lot. Concept No. 1. - DOUBLE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE Under concept number one, 95 regular sized parking spaces (or 102 compact spaces) could be provided. The concept uses an entrance at 11th Street and a exit for vehicles across from City Hall between 11th Place and Pier Avenue. The jogging path is moved to the east. This concept is similar to that used in Manhattan Beach, just north of Manhattan Beach Boulevard. (See attached photos on Page 3) Concept No..2 - SINGLE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE This approach provides a single entrance and exit located across from 11th Place. With this parking configuration, better security can be provided. Also, overnight parking of large vehicles would be reduced by making. it difficult for them to turn around. Similar to Concept No. 1, the jogging path is. relocated to the east. Concept No..2 provides, 80 regular parking spaces (or 91 compact spaces). Concept No. 3 - MAXIMIZED LANDSCAPE AREA This concept maximizes the amount of new green area at the expense of reducing the parking area and does not comply with present City development standards. The jogging path would essentially run down the center of the Greenbelt and all parking would be located to the west of the Greenbelt similar to the parking.situation across from. Clark Stadium. With perpendicular parking it. would provide approximately 75 spaces (or 82 compact spaces). The proposed parking is old fashioned; would require a large hard surface area next to the moving vehicles on the street; allow overnight parking of R.V.'s or large trucks and removes the existing lawn, oleanders and large trees. 2. PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY RESOURCES COMMISSION REVIEW The Advisory Commission discussed the Consultant's three concepts. The choice of the Commission was Concept No. 3. The reasons given for that choice were: Maximized green area, safe path to school, visibility of City Hall, lessens hazard to parking in evening, overnight parking problem reduced, compatible with rest of Greenbelt and may be desirable to use angle parking. The Commission has'not had the opportunity to review the staff's two alternate concepts. 3. THE CITY STAFF DRAWINGS The City staff reviewed the conceptual drawings prepared by the consultant and provided two additional drawings for review. These two drawings were labeled Concept "A", with 75 parking spaces, and Concept "B",, with 130 parking_ spaces. EXISTING JOGGING PATH CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH • 4. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DATA GREENBELT PARKING LOT CIP 91-511 Notes: 1. Total width of Greenbelt area is 100 feet 2. Approved budget amount for construction is $123,887 pworks/gbpklot. CONCEPTS CONCERN #1 #2 #3 "A" "B" Number of standard parking spaces. 95 80 75 75 130 Width of parking area 60 62 32 40 55 Width of landscaped area 40 38 68 60 45 Number of access points 2 1 75 1 1 Can access be controled Yes Yes No Yes Yes Can overnight parking be controled Yes Yes No Yes Yes Can large truck park- ing be controled No Yes No Yes Yes Are parked. vehicles protected from traveling vehicles on Valley Drive Yes Yes No Yes Yes Can the existing large Eucalyptus trees be saved Yes Yes No Yes Yes Are trees provided internally within the parking area for shade No No No Yes Yes Estimated construction costs in $ 90,800 104,700 164,000 130,600 123,700 Recommended Priority By Public Works Staff 3. 4 5 2 1 Notes: 1. Total width of Greenbelt area is 100 feet 2. Approved budget amount for construction is $123,887 pworks/gbpklot. The Engineering staff, Planning staff, Police staff and Traffic Engineer have all spent time in the review of this project. The items of concern are provided in the following analysis sections. 5. VISIBILITY The staff recommends that the approved concept should provide open visibility across the Greenbelt area. This would require the existing oleanders to be trimmed to a maximum 36" height which is just high enough to cover the radiator of the parked cars. Good visibility across the Greenbelt area would also help the Police Department and provide more of an open space feeling in keeping with the intent of the Greenbelt concept. 6. LANDSCAPING The staff recommends that the maximum amount of internal and • perimeter landscaping should be installed for each concept while providing the needed parking. This can be accomplished by leaving in place the existing lawn, oleanders and large Eucalyptus trees along the east side of Valley Drive. All of the proposed concepts recommend the'existing landscaping to remain along Valley Drive except Concept No. 3. The existing dirt area used for parking can be narrowed and the existing landscaped area along the west side of Ardmore Avenue can be widened to include the jogging path. A number of additional landscaped areas can be installed between the parking spaces. By using the proper type of shade trees in these areas, it is possible to shade 20 to 30 percent of the proposed parking spaces. Additional landscaping can also be provided by allowing the front of the cara to overhang low plants in the first three feet at the front of the parking spaces. This method allows a total width of 45 feet for landscaping and.jogging as shown in Concept "B". 7. TRAFFIC SAFETY The staff recommends that,only one point of ingress andegress be provided to the proposed parking lot and that the access be located at the llth Street intersection. This access would separate the vehicles using the proposed parking lot from•the vehicles going to the parking lot at City Hall. The recommended concept also provides a landscaped area separation between the cars traveling on Valley. Drive and the parking spaces. Because Valley Drive is the through street and the vehicle speeds are higher, stop signs should be installed at the parking lot exit and for the north bound vehicles on llth Street. It is not in keeping with present standards to have vehicles backing out on to a street as shown in Concept #3. The City would not allow any private developer to install proposed new parking in that manner. 8. , PEDESTRIAN, SAFETY The City has provided a wide sidewalk for pedestrians along the west side of Valley Drive. Because of the existing narrow travel lanes and the landscaping on the east side of Valley Drive, there is no pedestrian walk area constructed along the west edge of the Greenbelt anywhere within, the City. Pedestrian crossings can be provided at the existing street intersections from the parking lot to the existing sidewalk on the west side of Valley Drive. Pedestrians using. the proposed jogging path are also protected by a landscaped area separation from the parking spaces. 9. PARKING The staff is aware of the need to provide additional parking spaces within the City. During the summer months, parking for the beach extends easterly of Pacific Coast Highway. CALTRANS has now removed some of the parking along PCH which will increase the parking problem. Also there is insufficient parking for Clark Field and the Community Center when there are large activities at those locations. The staff recommendation is to install Concept "B" with two rows of parking for 130 cars. This layout is the same as presently exists and is in keeping with the ordinance that was approved by ,the voters on November 7, 1989. Concept "A" with 75 spaces would reduce the parking area and add an additional 15 feet to the landscaping area. However, that 15 feet is much more useful to the City if it is used for parking. 10. OVERNIGHT PARKING The existing parking across from Clark Field has R.V. and other vehicles parked there overnight. This creates a Police problem at night and a cleaning problem in the mornings. With only one access, the proposed lot can be posted and controlled to not allow overnight parking and thus reduce the Police and cleaning problems. Also, large trucks are presently parking in the existing dirt parking area at night. By restricting the access to the parking lot with only one entrance., the large trucks will not be able to easily get out of the parking lot and will prefer to park somewhere else where it is easier to park. 11. ESTIMATED LOCAL RECREATIONAL PARKING DEMANDS The Community Center has '500 seats in the auditorium and over 200 seats in the gym, plus other rooms that can all be occupied at the same time. At the Clark Field site the Clark Building allows 250 persons standing and 170 persons seated. In addition, the baseball field seating can also hold 400 more persons. On hot days in the summer, the existing greenbelt parking is always full due to people using the beach. Shown on the next page is an estimate of the maximum parking demand due to local recreation needs which does not include beach parking. ESTIMATED PARKING DEMAND Community Center Clark Field Existing parking spaces tennis courts on the street at City Hall shopping ctr. =122 = 18 = 70 = 60 on Valley Drive basketball ct's at City Hall =70 =30 =70 170 270 Estimated maximum (500+200+20) ° 170+400+20) spaces needed at 1.8 = 400 1.8 = 328 1.8 persons per car Number of spaces with proposed 130 lot added (270+130) = 400 (170+130) = 300 Remaining demand for parking spaces -0- 28 Alternatives: Alternatives considered by staff in priority order and available to the City Council are : 1. Recommend Staff Concept "B". 2. Recommend Staff Concept "A" 3. Recommend, consultant's concept 4. Recommend consultant's concept 5. Recommend consultant's concept 6. Recommend some other concept. Respectfully submitted, ' ynn Terry Deputy City Engineer Concur: NOT AVAILABLE FOR SIGNATURE Michael.Schubach Planning Director pworks/ccsrgrb Concur: Not available for signature. William Glickman, Interim Director of Public Works Mary/Rooney, Director of Community Res••uces Steve Wisniewski Interim City Manager