The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/22/93AGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Thursday, July 22, 1993 - Council Chambers, City Hall Closed Session - 6:30 p.m. Workshop Meeting - 7:00 p.m. MAYOR Albert Wiemans MAYOR PRO TEM Sam Y. Edgerton COUNCILMEMBERS Robert Benz Robert Essertier Kathleen Midstokke CITY CLERK Elaine Doerfling CITY TREASURER John M. Workman INTERIM CITY MANAGER Mary C. Rooney 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, Fire Department, Public Library, the Office of the City Clerk, and the Chamber of Commerce. During the meeting a packet also is available in the Council foyer. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: ADJOURNMENT TO A JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION. TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION: 1. Adult Uses a. b. c. National City adult use legal case City's adult use ordinance Amortization of nonconforming uses 2. RUDAT / Pier Improvement 3. Undergrounding Utilities 4. Planting of Median on Pacific Coast Highway CITIZEN COMMENTS Citizens wishing to address the Council on items within the Council's jurisdiction may do so at this time. Please limit comments to three minutes. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on July 22, 1993, at the hour of 7:I1 P.M. ********** start page = 82?? ********* CLOSED SESSION - the closed session was held at 6:36 -P.M. regard- ing matters of potential litigation: pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b). The closed session was recessed at 7:000)P.M. to the regular adjourned public meeting. ROLL CALL CITY COUNCIL Present: Benz, Edgerton, Essertier, Midstokke, Mayor Wiemans Absent: None PLANNING COMMISSION Present: ,,Ma-rks1 Mori, Oakes, Suard, Chairperson Di Monda Absent: -None l p e_ _ / _ 2 11;115- ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT TO A JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION. TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION: 1. Adult Uses 4-teiteA2 6111, -svixce a. National City adult use legal case 4741,41ilti/t6 a e 140:„,,,dss2 -0-tevAlik„ 020 ABs gexe5 e"" f City Council Minutes 07-22-93 Page 1 b. City's adult use ordinance c. Amortization of nonconforming u es44,tcR iC 2. RUDAT / Pier Improvement d.v4zAJ-zs, caem_key res _ c nom, dicti„ ci_f)4 3. Undergrounding (sib) _12s-17friifAs T pax i3P,___ =f- a��, � i � /no��-�f 41(-0171– n+�- N — ��.— ate - .,�� 0)Ak ao p� ez. 2.8- —sed al re/ 00/ 105,z- dus.1,014 l 1.5-A4� �S �.a. --Yeelm64JitL1Le of_ cLs-Q- C * u44A t4A- aNi41104 .rtit/t-r"04 OietK- dCZE6 &ru ,(00 /07 e r Arctft City Council Minutes 07-22-93 Page 2 640.5 4. Planting of Median on Pacific Coast Highway 30Z e� 7444 tax CITIZEN COMMENTS Citizens wishing to address the Council on items within the Council's jurisdiction may do so at this time. Please limit comments to three minutes. Sot- /t/o, 7‘YK©s Sia &anteX ji-Et &of s&162,5 11-amt-teg s2ssizit) serxt , dexPc_._ ADJOURNMENT - The Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, adjourned on Tuesday July 22, 1993, at the hour of 3 P.M. to the Regular Meeting of Tuesday, July 27, 1993, at the our of 7:00 P.M. Deputy City Clerk City Council Minutes 07-22-93 Page 3 WILLIAM B. BARR CHARLES 5. VOSE CONNIE COOKE SANDIFER JAMES DUFF MURPHY EDWARD W. LEE ROGER W. SPRINGER BETH S. BERGMAN STEVEN B. OUINTANILLA MARY L. MCMASTER LAW OFFICES OLIVER, BARR & VOSE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1000 SUNSET BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90012 12131 250-3043 MEMORANDUM TELECOPIER 1213) 482-5336 RECEIVED JUN 1 1993 TO: Michael Schubach, Director of Planning PLANNING DEPT. FROM: Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney E. wL DATE: May 27, 1993 RE: National City v. Weiner I have reviewed the following case of National City v. Weiner, 3 Ca1.4th 832 (Oct. 1992) for its application to the City and the present application by Fantasy Arcade. Issue: Does a zoning ordinance restricting placement of adult businesses that combines distance regulations and an exception for locations in certain shopping malls conform to the requirements of the First Amendment? Rule: In City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters. Inc. (1986) 475 U.S. 41, the U.S. Supreme Court established a two-part test for content -neutral time, place, and manner restrictions on protected speech. The ordinance must (1) be designed to serve a substantial government interest, and (2) allow for reasonable alternative avenues of communication. Analysis: National City attempted to regulate adult businesses by enacting an ordinance that prohibited their placement within 1500 feet of a school, public park, or other adult business, or within 1000 feet of a residential zone. Such distance restrictions did not apply if the business was located in a commercial zone and inside an enclosed shopping mall, or in an outside mall, but isolated from direct view from any public 1 C C OLIVER. BARR & VOSE street, park, school, church, or residentially zoned pl operty. The ordinance specifically did not restrict the number of adult businesses allowed in the City, the hours such business were allowed to operate, or the operation of pre-existing adult businesses. It only affects the placement of new adnit businesses. An adult business (Chuck's Bookstore) located within the city I was forced to move by redevelopment. When it reopened at a new location, National City brought an action to abate the bookstore as a violation of the placement ordinance. Evidence showed that the purpose of the ordinance was to regulate the secondary deleterious effects of adult businesses, not the content of the materials sold, thus the court determined the ordinance to be content -neutral, and properly analyzed under the Renton standard. The Court found the first prong of the Renton test to be "easily satisfied", deciding that there is a substantial government interest in decreasing urban blight and decay, and such blight and decay may result from the location of adult businesses. The Court also found that the ordinance provides reasonable alternative avenues of communications. Respondents contended that only 4.5 of the 572 acres of commercially -zoned land were outside the restricted distances (and such land was already occupied), and the availability of shopping mall spaces were illusory, since no such mall would rent space to an adult business, thus making adult businesses commercially unfeasible. The Court disagreed, stating that "[t]he inquiry for First Amendment purposes is not concerned with economic impact," and, "We decline to hold local governments responsible for the business decisions of private individuals who act for their own economic concerns without any reference to the First Amendment. The Constitution does not saddle municipalities with the task of ensuring either the popularity or economic success of adult businesses." Conclusion: National City's ordinance satisfies the two -prong Renton test, and therefore does not violate the First Amendment. Application to Hermosa Beach's situation: This case does not apply. Hermosa Beach seeks to restrict the hours that Fantasy Arcade may operate, while the National City ordinance specifically did not restrict hours of adult business operation, only placement. As such, the Court did not address the issue of restriction of operation, and so the case has limited applicability. Perhaps more important, the facts behind National City's abatement action are quite different from what Hermosa Beach could do to abate Fantasy Arcade. National 2 OLIVER. BARR & VOSE 15475 City did not bring its action against Chuck's Bookstore until Chuck's Bookstore was forced to move to a new location by redevelopment. Once Chuck's moved, it was no longer a pre-existing use. At a new location, Chuck's was subject to the restrictions of National City's ordinance since it was no longer a pre-existing use. Unless Fantasy Arcade changes location, National City does not apply to the situation with Fantasy Arcade. Regarding the contention that this case would allow a city to amortize out the Fantasy Arcade without providing a relocation area or causing taking problems, there may be some support in the case. 'The. dissentargues that the adult business in National City could have been abated as a public nuisance. There are at least two problems with this contention. First, it is only in the dissent. The majority specifically declines to decide the public nuisance issue. Second, there were facts to support the contention that there may have been a public nuisance. Used condoms and pornographic material had been found in yards by children. A child had been chased by a customer of the bookstore. Sexual acts had been observed in the alley behind the bookstore. If an adult business was run in a clean and legal manner, with adequate security and supervision, then it would escape abatement. Any attempt to abate such an establishment could only be on content -based grounds, which clearly would violate the First Amendment. 3 hies' Lit ■ Supreme Court: State justices say businesses may be forced to move even no other commercially viable site is available. The decision stems from a::_ National City case. RECEIVED MAY 1 7 1993 PLANNING DEPT. By PHILIP HAGER TIMES LEGAL AFFAIRS WRITER p_ ; ` < SAN FRANCISCO—The state Supreme'Court1on' 1, Thursday gave cities more power to restriet adult businesses, saying such establishments can be:forced to relocate whether or not there are other:;commer- ` I,� cially viable sites available. - •. �•:,�=�;� The ruling was a victory for a • coalition ',Oil 50 cities—including Los Angeles and San Diego; -that had warned that few municipalities could effectively enforce their anti -pornography zoning laws if requited ; < to guarantee economically practical alternative sites. In a 5-2 decision, the high court upheld a.Natiohal City zoning ordinance barring. adult businesses within '- 1,000 feet of residential areas or 1,500 feet of schools, : parks or other adult businesses. An exception -.permits . ;') their location in, enclosed retail malls, isolated "from ' view from the street. Operators of Chuck's Bookstore in National City, : faced with an order to relocate, challenger.:the ordinance. They contended they could not afford to.:..:.:: move to an undeveloped property and said they- were • denied rental space at three existing shopping malls. •..t ;` A state Court of Appeal struck down the ordinance' on grounds it failed to provide practical `economiQ alternatives for the bookstore. The high 'over- +': turned the appellate ruling Thursday, saying.• the ordinance was a valid attempt to reduce crime :and blight in the community. .., s,,Yo��y . "The Constitution does not saddle municipalities '. with the task of ensuring either the popularity or economic success of adult businesses," Justice Armand Arabian wrote for the court majority. In dissent, Justice Stanley Mosk, joined by Justice Joyce L. Kennard, said the ordinance effectively denied bookstore operators their 1st Amendment rights by providing only an illusory right to locate in .family-oriented shopping malls that obviously would reject them as tenants. "Apparently in the [court] majority's view; [lie law may with lofty impartiality permit an adult bookstore to locate anywhere available to Saks Fifth Avenue," Mosk wrote.ate. p: j r• Linda Kaye Harter, assistant city attorney in National City, welcomed the ruling as particularly important to smaller and older communities facing .decline. "It would have been very difficult for, cities to take on the task of guaranteeing economically viable sites for adult businesses, especially •in''Sotithern California where land is scarce and expensive,",,.she . said. •c: • Norman Atkins of Beverly Hills, an attorney for Chuck's Bookstore, said the decision will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court as a violation ()Nile right of free expression. Please see COURT, A27 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 10 •`Lqs ANGELA TIMES OURT: Cities Gain More Control Over Adult Shops Cautioned fres As "This ordinance provides no re- alistic opportunity to relocate," At- kins said. "The ruling will encour- age cities to enact convoluted ordinances just like National City's that are, slanted toward prohibiting anything like adult materials to be sold.' Chuck's Beokatore was opened in 1986 by Steven D. Wiener and his sister, Patricia Sanders. The city, invoking its zoning ordinance, sought a court order forcing the store to relocate or close down. Nearby residents testified that patrons urinated in their yards and • left behind condoms . and porno- graphic material.. A local news reporter said he had observed pa- frons engaging in sex acts on the premises of the store. In. their decision Thursday, the justices noted that the U.S. Su- preme Court had given cities dis• - cretion to disperse or concentrate adult businesses so long as there were "reasonable alternative ave- nues of communication." But that did not mean cities must guarantee economic viability, the state court said. • National City's ordinance offered • a reasonable alternative by provid- ing 572 acres of commercially zoned land on which the store _ could relocate, the court said. Fur- ther, it said, there were vacant units at the malls and.evidence of only generalized opposition to the store. The court acknowledged that there might be some zoning ordi- nance mandating economic restric- tions so severe it would be uncon- stitutional. But National City's ordinance was not unduly restric- tive, the justices said. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C ORDINANCE NO.92-1075 AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS ON THE REGULATION OF ADULT BUSINESSES AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on September 22, 1992, and made the following Findings: A. The inherent nature of adult businesses are recognized as having potentially objectionable and deleterious operational characteristics; B. The regulation of adult business operations and locations is in the interest of the general public; C. Amendment to the zoning ordinance to regulate adult businesses will not have a significant environmental impact. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council, of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby ordain an amendment to the zoning ordinance text as follows, and adopts an environmental negative declaration: SECTION 1. Repeal Sections 263, 264, and 265 of the zoning ordinance and replace with the following: Sec. 284. Adult bathhouse. An establishment which provides the services of baths of all kinds, including all forms and methods ofhydrotherapy, during which a regular or substantial portion of the services performed involves the display of specified anatomical areas or the occurrence of specified sexual activities. This definition does not apply to hydrotherapy treatment practiced by, or under the supervision of a medical practitioner, medical doctor, physician, chiropractor or similar professional licensed by the State of California. An adult bathhouse is not a form of speech protected by the First Amendment and is not a permitted adult use in the City. Sec. 284.1. Adult bookstore. An establishment that has a regular or substantial portion of its stock -in -trade distinguished or characterized by - 1 - 1b 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C_ C specified sexual activities or specified anatomical areas, including, but not limited to, books, magazines, periodicals, photographs, films, motion pictures, video cassettes, slides, or other verbal or visual representations that are characterized by a depiction or description of specified sexual activities or specified anatomical areas. An adult bookstore is considered a form of written and visual speech protected by the First Amendment, and as such, is a permitted use in the C-3 zoning district only, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. Sec. 284.2. Adult business. A business establishment in which a "regular or substantial portion" of its stock -in -trade material is specifically intended for the exclusive patronage of adults and/or is precluded from selling such material to minors and/or admitting minors into the premises of the business by Section 313 et. seq. of the California Penal Code. "Regular or substantial portion" is defined as greater than twenty (20) percent of an establishment's stock -in -trade materials and/or services offered to patrons, for compensation or some form of gratuity (see Section 285.3). For the purposes of this ordinance, adult businesses shall refer only to those establishments which involve forms of written or visual speech protected by the First Amendment, specifically adult bookstores, adult cabarets, adult motion picture theaters/arcades, and adult newsracks. This definition does not include businesses primarily characterized by activities not protected by the First Amendment, which specifically refers to adult bathhouses, adult massage parlors, adult motels/hotels, outcall services, and sexual encounter establishments. Sec. 284.3. Adult cabaret. A nightclub, bar, restaurant, or similar establishment featuring live performances in which a regular or substantial portion of such performances involve the exposure of specified anatomical areas and/or the depiction or description of specified sexual activities. An adult cabaret is considered a form of visual speech protected by the First Amendment, and as such, is a permitted use in the C-3 zoning district only, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. Sec. 284.4. Adult massage. Any method of pressure on, or friction against, or stroking, kneading, rubbing, tapping, pounding, vibrating, manipulating, or stimulating the external genitalia, breasts or buttocks or the human body with the hands or with the aid of any mechanical, electrical apparatus, or other appliances 1 2 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 c or devices, with or without such supplementary aids such as rubbing alcohol, liniment, antiseptic, oil, powder, cream, lotion,ointment, or similar preparations. Sec. 284.5. Adult massage parlor. An establishment in which a regular and substantial portion of its services involves adult massages. An adult massage parlor is not a form of speech protected by the First Amendment and is not a permitted adult use in the City. Sec. 284.6. Adult motel/hotel. An establishment offering public accommodations, for any consideration or gratuity, in which a regular or substantial portion of the material and/or services provided to patrons is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on. the depiction or description of specified sexual activities or specified anatomical areas. An adult motel/hotel is not a form of speech protected by the First Amendment and is not a permitted adult use in the City. Sec. 284.7. Adult motion picture theater/arcade. An establishment in which a regular or substantial portion of its stock -in -trade material, including but not limited to films, motion pictures, video cassettes, picture viewing machines, slide projections, or similar photographic reproductions, features the exposure of specified anatomical areas or the depiction or description of specified sexual activities. An adult motion picture theater/arcade is considered a form of visual speech protected by the First Amendment, and as such, is a permitted use in the C-3 zoning district only, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. Sec. 284.8. Adult newsrack. Any coin-operated machine or device which has a regular or substantial portion of its stock -in -trade material devoted to the depiction or description of specified sexual activities or specified anatomical areas. An adult newsrack is a permitted use in the C-3 zoning district only, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. Sec. 284.9. Adult paraphernalia. Any instruments or devices that are designed for use in connection with specified sexual activities, including but not limited to the following: (1) any lotions, ointments, oils or similar preparations primarily intended to induce or enhance sexual arousal through external application; (2) any product for internal consumption that is primarily intended 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 c. c to induce or enhance sexual arousal; (3) any apparatus depicting the human body and/or specified anatomical areas intended to induce or enhance sexual arousal; and (4) any apparel primarily intended to accentuate specified anatomical areas in orderto induce or enhance sexual arousal. Adult paraphernalia is not a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. Sec. 285. Bathhouse. An establishment which provides hydrotherapy treatment practiced by, or under the supervision of a medical practitioner, medical doctor, physician, chiropractor or similar professional licensed by the State of California. If the establishment is not supervised by a licensed medical professional, it shall be defined as an adult bathhouse. Sec. 285.1. Massage parlor. An establishment where a massage, alcohol rub,fomentation, electric or magnetic treatment, or similar treatment or manipulation of the human body is administered, unless such treatment or manipulation is administered by a medical practitioner, chiropractor, acupuncturist, physical therapist, or similar professional person licensed by the State. This definition does not include an athletic club, health club, school, gymnasium, reducing salon, spa, or similar establishment where massage or similar manipulation of the human body is offered as an incidental or accessory service. Sec. 285.2. Outcall service. An establishment in which a regular or substantial portion of the services provided involves individuals leaving the premises upon request or by appointment to visit other premises for a period of time for the purpose of providing any service during which time specified anatomical areas are displayed or specified sexual activity occurs.. An outcall service is not a form of speech protected by the First Amendment and is not a permitted adult use in the City. Sec. 285.3. Regular or substantial portion. As used herein, regular or substantial portion refers to greater than twenty (20) percent of an establishment's stock -in -trade materials and/or services offered to patrons, for compensation or some form of gratuity. Sec. 285.4. R -Rated As used herein, R -Rated refers _to any materials or services which include the display of specified anatomical areas but 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 c c not the depiction or description of specified sexual activities. Sec. 285.5. Sexual encounter establishment. An establishment in which a regular or substantial portio of the materials and/or services provided involves, for any form of consideration or gratuity, public accommodation which provides a place where two or more persons ma congregate, associate, or consort for the purpose of engagin• in specified sexual activities or the exposure of specified anatomical areas. This definition does not include a establishment where a medical practitioner, psychologist, psychiatrist, or similar professional person licensedby th- State engages in sexual therapy. A sexual encounte establishment is not a form of speech protected by the Firs Amendment and is not a permitted adult use in the City. Sec. 285.6. Specified anatomical areas. As used herein, specified anatomical areas means an includes any of the following: (1) less than completely an opaquely covered human genitals, pubic region, buttocks, anus, or female breasts below a point immediately above th top of the areolae; or (2) human male genitals in a discernibly turgid state, even if completely and opaquely covered. Sec. 285.7. Specified sexual activities. As used herein, specified sexual activities means an• includes any of the following: (1) the fondling or othe erotic touching of human genitals, pubic region, buttocks, anus, or female breasts; (2) sex acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, including intercourse, oral copulation, or sodomy; (3) masturbation, actual or simulated; or (4) excretory functions as part of or in connection with any of the activities set forth in subdivisions 1 through 3 of thi paragraph. Sec. 285.8. X -Rated As used herein, X -Rated refers to any materials or service which include the depiction or description of specifie sexual activities. SECTION 2. Amend Section 10-5 of the zoning ordinance follows: Sec. 10-5. Adult businesses (over 20% of stock-in-trad consisting of materials exclusively intended for adults onl in accordance with Section 313 et. seq. of the Californi Penal Code), excluding adult newsracks. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 c c The Planning Commission shall deny, approve or approve with conditions to insure the public health, safety and welfare is protected, a conditional use permit subject to the following specific conditions. Appropriate and reasonable exceptions may be made by the Planning Commission and/or City Council for conditional use permits imposed in the amortizing of existing adult businesses and/or where not applicable. (1) The exterior walls of the establishment are located more than two hundred (200) feet from the exterior boundaries of any lot or parcel of residentially zoned property. (2) (3) The exterior walls of the establishment are located more than one thousand (1,000) feet from the exterior boundaries of any property zoned or used for school, church or park purposes. The exterior walls of the establishment are located more than one thousand (1,000) feet from the exterior boundaries of any lot or parcel of land upon -which any other such adult business establishment is located. Every establishment shall have clearly visible signs at all entrances stating "Adults Only - No Minors Permitted" or equivalent wording. All building openings, entries, and windows shall be designed or screened so that the contents may not be seen from the public sidewalk or equivalent public areas accessible to minors. (6) The public interior areas shall be fully and brightly lighted and arranged so that every portion of the premises is visible upon entrance, but shall not be viewed from outside of the premises, and so that the entire body of any patron is also visible immediately upon entrance to the premises. _ (7) The number of film or video viewing machines or booths shall not exceed one machine per thirty square feet of floor area. All adult businesses that include film or video viewing machines or booths shall provide one off-street parking space for every such machine or booth. There shall be no doors or other similar closable screens on video or film viewing booths. No alcoholic beverages shall be sold or consumed on the premises and appropriate notification of this restriction shall be displayed on the premises. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C C (10) No adult business, except large screen motion picture theaters/arcades which shall be closed at midnight, shall operate or be open to the public between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. of the following day. (11) Advertisements, displays, or other promotional materials shall not be shown or exhibited so as to be visible to the public from exterior areas, and such displays shall be considered signs. (12) No loudspeakers or sound equipment shall be used on the premises that can be discerned from exterior areas. (13) Outdoor signs or similar displays showing nude bodies, topless or bottomless female bodies, or bottomless male bodies shall be prohibited. (14) The establishment shall not adversely affect the welfare of residents and/or nearby commercial establishments. (15) No home delivery of any materials that are distinguished or characterized by the depiction or description of specified anatomical areas or specified sexual activities. SECTION 3. Repeal Section 21-8 of the Municipal Code of the City of Hermosa Beach, which is as follows: Sec. 21-8. Massage parlors, etc. (a) Permit required. No person shall engage in, conduct, manage or carry on the business of giving steam baths, electric light baths,electric tub baths, shower baths, sponge baths, sun baths, mineral baths, Russian, Swedish or Turkish baths, or giving salt glows, or conduct, manage or carryon any place where such baths are given or any public bathing place which has in connection therewith a steam room, dry hot room, plunge, shower bath or sleeping accommodations without written permit from the City Council. No person shall operate a massage parlor or give fomentation, massage, electric or magnetic treatment or alcohol rubs, or conduct, manage or carry on any place where fomentations, massage, electric or magnetic treatments or alcohol rubs are given without a written permit from the City Council. No person shall act as a masseur or masseuse without a written permit from the City Council. (b) Reserved. 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 (c) Exemption. This section shall not apply to any treatment administered in good faith in the course of the practice of any healing art or profession by any person licensed or permitted to practice any such art or profession under the provisions of the Business and Professions Code or any other law of this state. (Ord. No. 213 N.S., Section 1; Ord. No. 88-933, Section 3, 6-28-88) SECTION 4. Amend Section 8-3. C-2, Restricted commercial zone. of the zoning ordinance to remove the following from the permitted use list: "Baths, Turkish, Swedish and steam; conditional use permit required subject to Article 10 of the zoning ordinance and Section 21-8 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code;" SECTION 5. Amend Section 8-4. C-3, the zoning ordinance to permitted use list: General commercial zone. of remove the following from the "Adult book stores, conditional subject to section 10-5;" "Adult theaters, conditional subject to section 10-5;" use permit required use permit require "Videotapes, eighty (80) percent general, renting;" selling or "Videotapes, adult, selling or renting solely adul videos; conditional use permit required subject t• section 10-5;" SECTION 6. Amend Section 8-2. C-1, Neighborhood commercial zone. of the zoning ordinance to include the following o the permitted use list: "Adult paraphernalia, limited to no more than 20% o a business establishment's stock -in -trade, conditional use permit required subject to sectio 10-5.1;" "X -Rated uses and materials protected under the Firs Amendment, limited to no more than 20% of a busines establishment's stock -in -trade, conditional us permit required subject to section 10-5.1;" SECTION 7. Amend Section 8-4. C-3, General commercial zone. o the zoning ordinance to add the following to th permitted use list: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 "Adult businesses, conditional subject to section 10-5;" SECTION 8. Add Section 10-5.1 to the follows: use permit required zoning ordinance as Sec. 10-5.1 Sale of X -Rated Materials and/or Adult Paraphernalia in Business Establishments that do not meet "Adult Business" Definition. This list of conditions applies to any retail business in which some, but not greater than twenty (20) percent, of its stock -in -trade material meets the "X -Rated" and/or "Adult Paraphernalia" definitions. The Planning Commission shall deny, approve or approve with conditions to insure the public health, safety and welfare is protected, a conditional use permit subject to the following specific conditions. Appropriate and reasonable exceptions may be made by the Planning Commission and/or City Council for conditional use permits imposed in the amortizing of existing businesses and/or where not applicable. _ (1) The public interior areas shall be fully and brightly lighted and arranged so that every portion of the premises is visible immediately upon entrance and so that the entire body of any patron is also visible immediately upon entrance to the premises. (2) All stock -in -trade materials, either for sale or rental, which have exterior covers that display specified anatomical areas or specified sexual activities shall be adequately covered with an opaque material so as not to expose any display of specified anatomical areas or specified sexual activities to the general public. The area designated for adult videos shall be partitioned and screened from view, accessible only to persons eighteen years of age and over. A sign stating "Adults Only - No Minors Permitted" or equivalent wording shall be conspicuously located at the entrance to the designated adult area. The store shall be managed in a manner that anything illegal for a minor to view shall not be displayed from an area a minor could view such objects. Advertisements, displays, or other promotional exhibits of any materials depicting specified anatomical areas or specified sexual activities shall be prohibited. (3) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 c (8) The establishment shall not adversely affect the welfare of residents and/or nearby commercial establishments. No home delivery of any materials distinguished or characterized by the depiction or description of specified anatomical areas or specified sexual activities. The area designated for adult paraphernalia shall be partitioned and screened from view, accessible only to persons eighteen years of age and over. A sign stating "Adults Only - No Minors Permitted" or equivalent wording shall be conspicuously located at the entrance to the designated adult area. SECTION 9. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. SECTION 10. The City Council shall designate the City Attorney to prepare a summary of this ordinance to be published pursuant to Government Code Section 36933(c) (1) in lieu of the full text of said ordinance. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause the summary to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach. SECTION 11. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. 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 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 13th day of October - 1992, by following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Edgerton, Wiemans, Mayor Essertier Benz, Midstokke None None PRESIDENT_ of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach,California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO F p/ccadord CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ,I, Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk of the City of_.._._ Hermosa Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance. No. 92-1075 was duly and regularly passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach at a regular meeting held at the regular meeting place thereof on the 13th day of October, 1992, and was published in the Easy Reader on October 22, 1992. The vote was as follows: AYES: Edgerton, Wiemans, Mayor Essertier NOES: Benz, Midstokke ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None DATED: October 22, 1992 City C rk CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of e City Council FROM: Michael Schubach, Pla9nin;D'r- tor SUBJECT: "Quick" Study of Nonconf•rming Uses in the City and Sample of Manhattan Beach's Nonconforming Uses Amortization Ordinance. DATE: June 3, 1993 Attached is an example of an ordinance which requires removal of nonconforming uses after a specified time. It could be used to eliminate adult uses, but caution should be taken in focusing on only adult uses. Hermosa Beach eliminated a similar ordinance section in the early 1980's. Cities are generally not proactive in enforcing nonconforming use -- ordinance sections which require removal of uses, or structures. p/memo6 - 1 - 1C City of Hermosa Beach Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Lindsay L. Hirsh, Planning Aide Subject: Tentative List of Nonconforming Uses in the City Date: June 2, 1993 As requested, please find the attached spreadsheet listing the nonconforming uses in the City. As the data indicates the nonconformities are primarily residential units on commercially zoned lots. Other nonconforming uses are automotive uses in the M-1 zones which is curently under study. There also appears to be approximately 40 dwelling units located on C-1 designated properties. This type of use is permitted with specific conditions and a C.U.P. is required. Please refer to the table below for a summary of the attached data. Summary of Nonconforming Uses C-2 74 C-3 76 M-1 10 NONCONFORMING USES LIST PARCEL NUMBER STREET NUMBER STREET NAME ZONING CODE GP CODE LOT SQ. FT. # OF UNITS CONDITION USE COMMENTS 4187003018 69 10 CT C-2 GC 1140 1 AVERAGE SFR 4187003017 64 10 ST C-2 GC 1710 1 AVERAGE SFR 4187004010 46 11 ST C-2 GC 2850 1 AVERAGE SFR 4187003019 70 HERMOSA AVE C-2 GC 4028 1 AVERAGE SFR 4187011013 318 PIER AVE C-2 GC 5280 1 GOOD 4187011014 338 PIER AVE C-2 GC 7690 1 GOOD APTS ABOVE MORTUARY 4187004011 52 11 ST C-2 GC 2850 2 AVERAGE DUPLEX 4187004028 58 11 ST C-2 GC 2819 2 AVERAGE DUPLEX 4187004013 66 11 ST C-2 GC 2881 2 AVERAGE APTS SEA SPRITE APTS 4187002021 801-803 HERMOSA AVE C-2 GC 3373 2 GOOD DUPLEX 4187003027 58 10 CT C-2 GC 2850 3 AVERAGE TRIPLEX 63 9TH ST 4187004006 24 11 ST C-2 GC 2850 20 APTS 4183002018 30 13 ST C-2 GC 2856 1 AVERAGE SFR 4183003008 48 14 ST C-2 GC 2850 1 AVERAGE SFR 4183003009 56 14 ST C-2 GC 2850 1 AVERAGE SFR 4183003010 66 14 ST C-2 GC 2850 1 AVERAGE SFR 4183003011 68 14 ST C-2 GC 2850 1 AVERAGE SFR 4183003007 22 14 ST C-2 GC 2856 2 POOR DUPLEX 21 14TH ST 4183003020 30 14 ST C-2 GC 11510 3 AVERAGE UNITS ABOVE BUSINESS 4183013065 HERMOSA C-2 GC 4000 3 AVERAGE APTS ABOVE HARDWARE 4183013070 129 PIER AVE C-2 GC 7200 3 AVERAGE UNITS BEHIND MUSIC SHOP 4183013047 215 PIER AVE C-2 GC 7000 3 AVERAGE APTS 1343 MANHATTAN 4183013024 1306 PIER AVE C-2 GC 4280 4 AVERAGE APTS 1-4 UNITS 4183005025 89 15 ST C-2 GC 2850 5 AVERAGE APTS 1-5 UNITS 4183017025 321 PIER AVE C-2 GC 7810 12 AVERAGE APTS ABOVE COMMERCIAL 4187029007 735 8 ST C-3 GC 2520 1 GOOD SFR 4187028014 745 8 ST C-3 GC 2508 1 AVERAGE SFR 4187029005 775 8 ST 'C-3 GC 2520 1 GOOD SFR 4187026023 725 10 ST C-3 GC 19462 19 MOBIL HOME PARK 4184016050 736 GOULD AVE C-3 GC 66211 33 good condo 4185014002 1049 AVIATION BLV C-3 GC 4641 1 POOR SFR 4185015021 1214 AVIATION BLV C-3 GC 2350 1 GOOD SFR 4185016022 1220 AVIATION BLV C-3 GC 2800 1 GOOD SFR 4185016017 1225 AVIATION BLV C-3 GC 2980 1 POOR SFR 4185016018 1224 CORONA ST C-3 GC 2860 1 GOOD SFR 4185016001 1326 CORONA ST C-3 GC 3570 1 GOOD SFR PARCEL NUMBER STREET NUMBER STREET NAME ZONING CODE GP CODE LOT SQ. FT. # OF UNITS CONDITION USE COMMENTS 4185016012 1245 AVIATION BLV C-3 GC 2860 2 GOOD DUPLEX UNITS A & B 4185011003 822 14 ST C-3 GC 3727 4 POOR APT UNITS A & B 4185016015 1226 CORONA ST C-3 GC 2322 4 GOOD APT 4185016006 1251 PROSPECT AVI C-3 GC 4710 5 GOOD APTS UINTS 1-5 4188029045 615 3 ST M-1 MD 3601 1 GOOD SFR 4188029046 623 3 ST M-1 MD 3601 1 GOOD SFR 4188029044 603-613 3 ST M-1 MD 2764 2 GOOD DUPLEX 4188031013 611 4 ST M-1 MD 3640 1 GOOD SFR 4188031014 615 4 ST M-1 MD 4533 3 GOOD TRIPLEX 4188031015 635 4 ST M-1 MD 4533 2 GOOD DUPLEX 4188022020 710 2 ST SPA -7 CC 4600 1 GOOD SFR 4188031027 403 4 ST SPA -7 CC 5125 1 GOOD SFR 4188031028 731 4 ST SPA -7 CC 5125 1 AVERAGE SFR 4188029030 736 4 ST SPA -7 CC 4600 2 GOOD DUPLEX 4187033022 709 6 ST SPA -7 CC 2944 1 AVERAGE SFR 4187033021 721 6 ST SPA -7 CC 2944 1 POOR SFR 4187033023 707 6 ST SPA -7 CC 2944 2 AVERAGE DUPLEX 1/2 ADDRESS 4187032001 715-721 PCH SPA -7 CC 37150 4 4 APTS ON TOP OF RESTAUI 4184021020 2121 PCH SPA -8 CC 5750 7 good 4185008006 823 14 ST SPA -8 CC 2609 1 GOOD SFR 4185002007 1734 PCH SPA -8 CC 5500 1 AVERAGE SFR 4185002005 1738 PCH SPA -8 CC 2750 1 AVERAGE SFR 4185002006 1738 PCH SPA -8 CC 2750 1 AVERAGE SFR 4185006016 811-813 15 ST SPA -8 CC 2835 2 DUPLEX 10.68.070 C. The extent of damage or partial destruction shalt be based upon the ratio of the estimated cost of restoring the structure to its condition prior to such damage or partial destruction to the estimated cost of duplicating the entire structure as it existed prior thereto. Estimates for this purpose shall be made by or shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. D. Calculation of the extent of damage for restoration of a structurally damaged structure shall be consistent with the provisions of Section 10.68.030(E). (Ord. No. 1832, Amended, 01/17/91; Ord. No. 1838, Renumbered, 07/05/91) 10.68.060. New occupancy on a site having certain nonconforming site features. An applicant for a building permit in a C District or the IP District for occupancy of a site or structure that is nonconforming due to lack of screening of mechanical equipment, required walls or fences to screen parking, required paving for driveways, or required planting areas, shall present a schedule for elimination or substantial reduction of these nonconformities over a period not exceeding five years. The Community Development Director may require that priority be given to elimination of nonconformities that have significant adverse impacts on surrounding properties and shall not require a commitment to remove nonconformities that have minor impact and would be costly to eliminate due to the configuration of the site and the location of existing structures. (Ord. No. 1832, Amended, 01/17/91; Ord. No. 1838, Renumbered, 07/05/91) 10.68.070, Elimination of nonconforming uses and structures. A. )v'onconformine Fences or Walls. The Community Development Director shall require that a nonconforming fence or wall be removed or altered to conform to the standards of this chapter within one year of adoption of the ordinance codified in this title, or one year from the date such fence or wall becomes nonconforming, whichever date is later upon finding that the nonconforming fence or wall does not adequately serve the purposes for which it is intended or does not meet the driveway visibility standards of Section 10,64.150. B. Nonconformi:l Use when No Structure Involved. In any district the nonconforming use of land shall be discontinued within one year from the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title or 1 year from the date such use becomes nonconforming, whichever date is.later. 1. J✓xceptions. Pre-existing parking lots in R districts that serve adjacent commercial use shall not be considered nonconforming. C. NonconfQrmin Ise of a Conformin Strums. All nonconforming uses of a conforming structure shall be discontinued within the time periods specified below, unless an exception is granted pursuant to subsection (D). 1. BDistri i : Three years from the date of formal notice to the owner from the Community Development Director, or not later than 5 years from the date of adoption of the ordinance codified in this title, or 5 years from the date such use becomes nonconforming, whichever is later. 68-5 10.68.070 2. C Districts: Ten years from the date of adoption of the ordinance codified in this title or 10 years from the date such use becomes nonconforming, whichever is later. 3. P Dis rict: Ten years from the date of adoption of the ordinance codified in this title or 10 years from the date such use becomes nonconforming, whichever is later. D. Notificasion and Exception Procedures. The Com�-nunity Development Director shall determine those properties for which the use was for lawfully existing uses, permitted or conditionally permitted, in the district in which they were located prior to the date of adoption of this ordinance; and which uses were rendered nonconforming by reason of adoption of the ordinance codified in this title and the zoning map. Written notice of such nonconformance, the termination procedures and requirements of this section shall be mailed to the owner of record and to the occupant of each such property. Within 2 years of the date of mailing of such notice, any property owner, lessee with the consent of the owner, or purchaser of such property acting with the consent of the owner, may apply to have such property excepted from the provisions of this. section. 1. Application Requirements. An application for an exception from the requirements of this section shall be initiated by submitting the following materials to the Community - Development Department: a. A completed application form, signed by the property owner or authorized agent, stating the location and size of the property, the use on the date of adoption of the ordinance codified in this title, and the reasons indicating that the use is compatible with and will not be detrimental to uses designated in the General Plan for the surrounding area; b. A map of the property indicating the site of the nonconforming use and all lots within 500 feet of the boundaries of the site; and c. A list, drawn from the last equalized property tax assessment roll or records of the County Assessor's Tax Collector, showing the names and addresses of the owners of record of each lot within 500 feet of the boundaries of the site. This list shall be keyed to the map required in subsection (b) above. 2.ommi •pion Review. The Planning Commission shall hold a duly noticed public hearing within a reasonable time, foliowing the procedures established in Chapter 10.84, on each application for an exception from the termination requirements of this section. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission shat determine whether the use of the property on the date of adoption of this ordinance is compatible with and not detrimental to the land uses designated in the General Plan for the surrounding area and properties. If it so finds, it shall recommend to the City Council that the use shall be excepted from the termination provisions of this section. The Commission may recommend such conditions as it may find necessary to insure compatibility, including, but not limited to: required improvement of or modifications to existing improvements on the property; limitations on hours of operations; limitations on the nature of operations; and a specified term of years for which the exception shall be granted. 68-6 10.68.070 3. Council Action. Upon receipt of the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the City Council shall consider the application within a reasonable time. The Council may, at its option, conduct a public hearing on the application. If the City Council finds that the use of the property is compatible with and not detrimental to those land uses designated in the comprehensive plan for the surrounding area and properties, it shall, by motion, except said use from the termination provisions of this section. In granting such exception, the City Council may impose such conditions as are deemed necessary to insure such compatibility, including, but not limited to, the conditions set out in subsection (D)(2). (Ord. No. 1832, Amended. 01/17/91; Ord. No. 1838, Renumbered, 07/05/91) 68-7 Please Forgive the necessary discriptive language of paragraph one of page two. For too long, the subject of the single customer has been avoided. City Council Hermosa Beach 1315 Ualley Drive Hermosa Beach CA Dear Councilmembers: July 21, 1993 During the month of July, 1993 the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission completed the Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) For both the "Tender Box" and the "Fantasy Arcade" which are located in the C-3 zone on the Pacific Coast Highway. Both pornographic shops will be issued CUPs under the City's "amortization of use" program which was mandated in 1988. Both CUPs are presently awaiting City Council review and approval. On October 13, 1992, the City Council amended the Hermosa Zoning Ordinance with the "Adult Business Ordinance" (No 92- 1075). The Ordinance declares "The inherent nature of adult businesses are recognized as having potentially objectionable and deleterious operational characteristics;" It also states, that this resolution is considered "findings" taken from open public hearings. In addition, it specifically stated that: Appropriate and reasonable exceptions may be made by the Planning Commission and/or City Council For conditional use permits imposed in the amortizing of existing adult businesses and/or where not applicable." In a letter dated March 15, 1990, the City Attorney's office concluded that "The underlying presumption, is that the City is not in a position to deny the conditional use permit to such existing uses -but can impose reasonable conditions on the continued use for public health, safety or welFare reasons." The Attorney's letter also states: "The general rule of law is that a zoning ordinance must operate uniformly and standards established under the ordinance must be applied consistently." The letter also warns that the intent of the new ordinance's can not be to terminate existing nonconforming businesses because that in effect would be taking without due process or gust compensation. 1 of 1 WrrLEMENTAI 1 INFORMATION y Councilmembers, the conditional use permits submitted to you should be amended to include each and every condition of the approved, 92-1075 adult ordinance which has a significant impact on the health, safety and welfare of your constituents. In order to disreguard mandated ordinance 92-1075, which calls for standards being applied uniformly and consistently, a finding should be made that the "condition" is unreasonable and would show intent to terminate the subject business. Obviously, requiring an existing business to move to avoid churches or distances to residential properties could be considered unreasonable and might fail the findings test. Considering that many individuals (not couples) masturbate and ejaculate on their hands, on the coins in their hands, on the walls and on the floor of poorly placed, partially enclosed, and poorly lite video viewing booths, it would surely seem to be a reasonable health and safety finding to require conformity to CUP conditions No. 6 and 8 which would require every viewing booth to be completely open, well lite and visible to any police officer immediately upon entering the establishment. Presently the Tender Box provides an employee that cleans -up the video viewing booths after each and every customer leaves. Unfortunately, the attendant isn't always present and the booths are dark and are out of immediate view and have locked doors. Light, openness and visability will also reduce the possibility of being stuck by a disgarded HIU infected needle. Considering that the experts expect that by the year 2000, 30 to 40 million people will be infected by the HIU virus and that persently one in six adults are infected with other STD infections such as herpes and genital warts, -'the council should take a hard look at the suggested conditions as approved in the City's Adult Ordinance No. 92-1075. Richard J. Sullivan 824 3rd Street Hermosa Beach CA For a better city, 2 of 2 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Preliminary ACTION PLAN July 22, 1993 Utility Undergrounding CIP 93-145 Action Items: ri-a . -93 eettLs Scheduled Completion Item Task Date 1. Meet with Southern California Edison (SCE) 7/19/93 representative 2. Request cost estimate from SCE 7/19/93 3. Joint meeting City Council and Planning 7/22/93 Commission to discuss Undergrounding issue 4. Receive cost estimate by SCE 9/06/93 5. Meet with SCE to discuss funding 9/08/93 6. Create Underground District 11/16/93 7. City Council approval of Underground 11/23/93 District PWORKS/actionl CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FY 92-93 THROUGH FY 96-97 PROGRAM AREA: PROJECT NUMBER & NAME: Street and Safety Improvements CIP 93-145 Utility Undergrounding ACCOUNT NUMBER: xxx-401-8145-4201 PROJECT LOCATION & DESCRIPTION: This project proposes to relocate all overhead electric and telephone utilities to underground on: 1. Pier Avenue from PCH to Hermosa Avenue and both sides of Pacific Coast Highway from Aviation Boulevard to Artesia Boulevard 2. Other high priority areas. PROJECT BACKGROUND & STATUS: The overhead electric and telephone utilities from the southerly City border to Aviation Boulevard were placed underground during FY 85-86. PUC, Rule 20A - Funds available from Southern California Edison may be available for this project. City funding may be required to supplement the total estimated cost. As of 12-31-89, the City's Rule 20A account had a negative balance of $669,346, with a_ 1990____ allocation of $119,643. If annual allocations stay the same, it will be over five years before further conversion work with Rule 20A funds could be considered, though planning can begin up to three years in advance. SCHEDULED FISCAL YEAR START: FY 93-94 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: $1,300,000 (unfunded) CIP/cipuu 4/28/92 (77 (7), cis® Southern California Edison Company P. O. BOX 2944 505 MAPLE AVENUE TORRANCE. CALIFORNIA 90509 ROBERT L. JENSEN AREA MANAGER HERMOSA BEACH/REDONDO BEACH/ MANHATTAN BEACH/EL SEGUNDO Mr. Rick Ferrin City Manager CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mr. Ferrin: March 29, 1993 TELEPHONE •(310) 783-9392 Enclosed please find your City's 1993 allocation amount for the replacement of electric overhead with underground facilities for the City of Hermosa Beach. The 1993 allocation is $131,574. Also enclosed is a letter from our Margo Wells to Mr. Kevin Coughlan, Chief, Energy Branch of the California Public Utilities Commission, discussing a new five-year allocation plan and the inflation factor utilized to arrive at each year's allocation. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. /cp Enclosures Sincerely, ROBERT JENSEN EXHIBIT A SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 1993 ALLOCATED AMOUNT FOR THE REPLACEMENT Or ELECTRIC OVERHEAD WITH UNDERGROUND FACILITIES, UNDER SECTION. A CF RULE NO. 20 COUNTY LOS ANGELES County Agoura Hills Alhambra Arcadia Artesia Avalon Azusa Baldwin Park Bell Bell Gardens Bellflower Beverly Hills Bradbury Calabasas Carson Cerritos Claremont Commerce Compton Covina Cudahy Culver City Diamond Bar Downey Duarte El Monte El Segundo Gardena Glendora Hawaiian Gardens Hawthorne iHermosa:Eeath7 Hidden Hills Huntington Park Industry Inglewood Irwindale La Canada/Flintridge *La Habra Heights La Mirada. -La Puente _La Verne Lakewood Lancaster Lawndale Lomita Long Beach METERS OH SOURCE 781 30,574 19,036 4,484 1,502 518 15,017 9,304 9,939 20,996 13,777 320 1,429 20,029 1,421 8,200 4,905 23,828 14,521 5,050 13,863 3,776 34,460 4,523 27,160 7,833 - 21,095 13,851 2,952 23,831 9,146 435 14,977 1,121 39,352 673 6,790 1,660 11,598 8,652 .4,122 25,535 14,204 9,343 7,247 153,126 1993 • TOTAL ALLOCATION 8,443 33,905 22,278 5,244 2,003 847 19,110 9,643 10,426 25,671 19,010 363 8,556 26,218 17,653 12,340 5,972 25,555 19,050 5,574 19,442 19,415 37,623 7,274 29,866 8,666 22,925 18,409 3,787 26,921 10,671 610 16,916 2,574 42,985 1,403 7,584 1,862 15,196 10,870 10,670 28,782 40,773 10,388 8,861 181,823 • 43,467 436,615 274,946 64,103 21,909 8,341 216,732 134,287 142,152 302,297 202,043 • 4,871 40,105 298,582 88,692 118,431 71,423 343,740 209,782 73,357 201,183 112,611 493,675 65,883 • 3'84,612 112,2411- .289,742 198,181 42,343 336,506 4:1317574v- 6,533 :13.1,-57'46,533 215,488 19,616 563,066 13,282 97,764 23,549 168,304 123,801 77,944 364,579 274,284 133,968 104,265 2,192,767 b f IJ.AFGO WELLS ��hn�CEa OF 'TARIFFS Southern California Edison Compar;y F. 0. Box Eco 22244 GFCVE AVENUE F.CsEI�.Et�, CAUFCFT.'IA sl 770 March 3, 1993 Mr. Kevin Coughlan Chief, EnergyBranch California Public Utilities Ccrissicn 505. Van Ness Avenue San.Francisco, California 94102 7ELEPP-C,E IE:E):C2.tV,5 Dear Mr. Coughlan: In accordance with Decision 73073 in Case 2209, Edison has. established its Rule 20.A allocation for overhead to underground conversions to be .$39,900,000 for 1993. The specific allocation for each city and county within Edisen's service territory is contained in Exhibit A attached hereto. . The 1593 Rule 20.A allocation is the beginning of a new five-year allocation plan (1993-1997) and was established using the sa=e criteria as in the previous five-year plan (1988-1992) . The previous five-year plan was instituted by Resolution E-3113, dated November 9, 1983. Ordering Paragraph 2 of the Resolution stated: SCE will :modify its present five year plan to include an apprc:riate inflationary factor in developing its underground budget for the year,1939 • through 1992, to ensure a budget of $31,500,000 per Year in constant dollars. The inflation factor used by Edison to arrive at the. Rule 20.A allocation each year is the Non -Labor Escalation Factor which is approved or revised by the Ccrrission in Edison's General Rate Case or Attrition Year Applications. The approved Non -Labor Escalation Factor for 1993 is 2.7k. Edison believes using the sane allocation criteria as established by Resolution E-3113 is appropriate at this tire. In a January 23, 1993 letter, Edison notified the League of . California Cities (LCC) of its intention to continue the previous five-year allocation plan for the next five years. Also, informal discussions have taken place between Edison and the LCC concerning the new five-year plan. A formal :meeting is expected to be held soon, between Edison and selected members of the LCC, before the LCC presents the plan to its full rembership. The allocations shown in Exhibit A were determined by distributing the total Rule 20.A allocation of $39,900,000 for 1993 using the approved allocation method set forth in Rule 20.A.2. If .you5have any questions concerning the Rule 20.A alloca - • • 1993, please contact Dave Sturn at (818) 302-2950. Margo keds Manager of Tariffs DMS.dsn cc: Bill Gaffney, CPUC, S.F. General Telephone Company Pacific Bell • Pacific Gas & Electric Company San Diego Gas & Electric Company League of California Cities County Supervisor's Association • SOUTHERN REGION • RULE 20A MANAGEMENT REPORT RESOLUTION APPROVED STATUS 1 & 2 NO RESOLUTION STATUS 3 & 4 RESPONSIBLE 1992 ANNUAL FUNDS USED TOTAL FUNDS 1 PROJECTS 2 PROJECTS 3 RESOLUTION 4 FUTURE MANAGER BALANCE ALLOCATION 1992 REMAINING STARTED NOT STARTED PENDING PROJECTS SCOTT GOBBLE Palos Verdes Estates (352,639) 43,965 (352,639) Rancho Palos Verdes (2,303,712) 132,102 200,000 (2,503,712) Rolling Hills 57,364 8,592 57,364 1 80,000 Rolling Hills Estates 74,541 28,312 74,541 1 200,000 TOTAL (2,524,446) 212,971 200,000 (2,724,446) 0 0 1 200,000 1 80,000 0 0 WESLEY GREENWOOD Signal Hill (90,351) 52,406 300,000 (390,351) Ilawaiian Gardens 201,183 41,263 20,000 181,183 1 375,600 TOTAL 110,832 93,669 320,000 (209,168) 1 375,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 BOB JENSON El Segundo (1,396,248) 109,575 220,000 (1,616,248) 1 744,900 Ilermosa Beach 296,355 128,363 �4 -_2 96,355'"' ; 1 Manhattan Beach 599,314 204,169 599,314 1 1,814,200 Redondo Beach 831,389 386,228 831,389 3 4,328,408 1 692,300 TOTAL 330,810 828,335 220,000 110,810 6 8,887,508 1 692,300 0 0 0 0 KEITH LE FEVER • Avalon 3,050 21,361 3,000 50 Portion of L. A. 26,558 26,558 County TOTAL 29,608 21,361 3,000 26,608 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Preliminary ACTION PLAN July 22, 1993 Pacific Coast Highway Median Landscaping Action Items: PHASE ONE - PRELIMINARY DESIGN 1. Identify funding sources 2. Meet with Caltrans 3. Identify issues 4. Prepare conceptual plan PHASE TWO - ENGINEERING 1. Prepare plans and specifications 2. Secure permit from Caltrans 3. Notify affected utilities 4. City Council Meeting Approval of plans, permission to advertise to bid PHASE THREE - CONSTRUCTION 1. Open bids 2. Notice to proceed 3. Complete construction 4. Completion of inspection and acceptance/notice of completion PWORKS/action CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PUBLIC NOTICE AND AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING THURSDAY JULY 22, 1993 - 6:00 P.M. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach will on Thursday, July 22, 1993, hold a Special Meeting; --- called by Mayor Wiemans, for the purpose of a considering the following matter: FINAL APPROVAL OF BALLOT MEASURES AND OTHER RELATED ISSUES CONCERNING THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION, NOVEMBER 2„1993 SAID MEETING TO BE HELD AT 6:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact the Office of the City Manager at 318-0216 or the Office of the City Clerk at. _318-0204. ELAINE DOERFLING City Clerk Dated: July 15, 1993 July 15, 1993 Special City Council Meeting July 22, 1993 Mayor and Members of the City Council FINAL APPROVAL OF BALLOT MEASURES AND OTHER RELATED ISSUES CONCERNING THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION, NOVEMBER 2, 1993 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council review the actions taken at the meeting of July 13, 1993,,with regard to issues concerning the November 2, 1993 General Municipal Election, discuss any possible reconsiderations, and take final action on any issues in question so that the resolutions may be prepared for adoption at the July 27 meeting, which is the last regular City Council meeting prior to the County's August 6 deadline for requesting consolidation and for submittal of all resolutions. BACKGROUND: At its meeting of July 13, 1993, Council acted on several issues related to the upcoming election, including ballot measures and authorization for the filing of written arguments by certain Councilmembers. Those decisions were necessary to facilitate the preparation, in final form, of appropriate resolutions for adoption at the July 27 meeting. The Mayor has called for a special meeting of City Council to be held Thursday, July 22, at 6 p.m., to allow for another review of those items and possible reconsideration of some of the actions taken at the July 13 meeting. Because any changes regarding ballot measures would necessitate revising all of the resolutions, final preparation of those documents will be held off pending the outcome of this special meeting. The Council actions taken at the July 13 meeting are as follows: 1) To not place on this ballot the two proposed measures relating to: 1) a separate beach pathway, and 2) the deletion of obsolete sections of the Civil Service Code; 2) To place the R-3 and R -P height issue on the ballot as a mandatory rather than an advisory measure; 1 3) To approve the following wording of the ballot question for the R-3 and R -P height measure: AMENDMENT OF ZONING ORDINANCE INCREASING THE STANDARD HEIGHT LIMIT IN THE R-3 AND R -P ZONES Shall the proposed Ordinance increasing the standard height limit from 30 feet to 35 feet in R-3 and R -P zones be adopted? 4) To authorize Councilman Edgerton to file a written argument in favor of the measure, and Mayor Wiemans to file a written argument against the measure, with all Councilmembers invited to sign; 5) To hold off a decision on whether or not to provide for the filing of rebuttal arguments, pending word from the County with regard to the federal Voting Rights Act and its effect on the cost of the upcoming election; 6) To direct the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis for the ballot measure; and 7) To resolve a tie vote by lot rather than with a special runoff election. With regard to Item #1, unless Council directs otherwise at this meeting, measures for a separate beach pathway and for the deletion of obsolete sections of the Civil Service Code will not be placed on this ballot. Council's decision to not include the above two measures was, at least in part, due to the potentially high cost of translating all related documents (impartial analysis, direct and rebuttal arguments, and ordinance for mandatory measures) into five foreign languages, pursuant to the federal Voting Rights Act. Although it is still unknown which, if any, of the five foreign languages will require translation for our city, I will keep checking and, if the information is available, will advise you of the decision at the special meeting Thursday evening. With regard to Item #2, Council chose the option of placing the R-3 and R -P height issue on the ballot as a mandatory measure rather than an advisory measure. As noted in my previous memorandum, a mandatory measure becomes law if it receives a majority vote of the people and, once enacted, can only be amended or repealed by a vote of the people, unless it contains a provision stating otherwise (e.g., "This ordinance may be amended or repealed by a [majority] [4/5] [unanimous] vote of the City Council.") An advisory measure would not be binding but would provide Council 2 b with direction as to the voter sentiment on the issue and provide the opportunity for citizen input, by popular vote, on the height issue. The two alternatives suggested in my previous memorandum for ballot question wording of an advisory measure were: ADVISORY VOTE ONLY: CONSIDERATION OF INCREASING STANDARD HEIGHT LIMIT IN R-3 AND R -P ZONES Shall the standard height limit for development upon R-3 and R -P zoned property be increased from 30 to 35 feet? ADVISORY VOTE ONLY: CONSIDERATION OF KEEPING IN EFFECT THE 1992 REDUCED STANDARD HEIGHT LIMIT IN R-3 AND R -P ZONES Shall the 1992 reduction from 35 feet to 30 feet in the standard height limit for development upon R-3 and R -P zoned property remain in effect? With regard to Item #3, Council amended the ballot question wording suggested in my previous memo by adding the word "proposed" preceding the word "Ordinance," and then approved the wording in its amended form. Section 10235 of the Elections Code (attached) states in part, "The ballots used shall have printed on them the words 'Shall the ordinance (stating the nature thereof) be adopted?"' While some sections of the code pertaining to different matters state that wording "shall be substantially in the following form" or "shall approximate the following," the section of the code pertaining to ballot wording is very specific. Because of the wording of that provision and the use of the word "shall" (which means it is mandatory), it is my belief that the word "proposed," which was added by Council, should be deleted to ensure full compliance with the Elections Code. The use of the word is also unnecessary, since all ordinances are proposed until such time as they are adopted. A draft ordinance (attached) has been prepared by the Planning Department for submittal to the voters which would repeal. Ordinance No. 92-1074 and re-establish previous height standards. The title of the draft ordinance (which has not yet been reviewed by the City Attorney) calls for a re-establishment of the 35 -foot height limit, rather than an increase to the existing standard height limit. For consistency purposes, it may be appropriate to use the same wording in both the ballot question and the ordinance title, and Council may wish to obtain an opinion from the City Attorney at the special meeting in that regard. Also, since there was no Council direction to do otherwise, the draft ordinance prohibits modification, amendment or repeal of the ordinance without a vote of the people. If the ballot measure is reconsidered at the special meeting, in addition to the options for an advisory measure, the City Attorney has prepared (at the request of Councilman Edgerton, for possible consideration by Council) two ordinances (attached) for a mandatory ballot measure that would retain the existing standards. One reflects the provisions of the existing ordinances, the other is slightly modified, pursuant to suggested changes by Councilmember Edgerton. During a recent conversation with the office of the Secretary of State, I was advised that although there is no provision in the Elections Code for an initiative measure that would simply reaffirm a previous Council action or re -adopt an already existing ordinance (see attached Elections Code Section 4017), I should rely on the advice of our City Attorney and on his drafting an appropriate ordinance, with the suggestion that if such an ordinance were drafted and placed on the ballot as a measure, one of the findings (at the beginning of the ordinance) should explain Council's intention with regard to placing the matter before the voters (e.g., it is the intent of the City Council to establish the opportunity to refer the matter to the people). Council may wish to consider adding the finding suggested by the office of the Secretary of State if either of these ordinance is selected as the ballot measure. The ballot question wording suggested by the City Attorney for a measure using one of the attached draft ordinances also includes the word "proposed," in conformance with,Council's action at the last meeting, and it is recommended that the word be deleted to ensure full compliance with the Elections Code. As written by the City Attorney, the ballot question is worded as follows: MAINTENANCE OF 30 -FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT IN R-3 AND R -P ZONES Shall the proposed ordinance maintaining the current limit of 30 feet in the R-3 and R -P zones be adopted? For informational purposes, based on my understanding of the Elections Code and conversations with the election consultant and the office of the Secretary of State, the initiative process provides a mechanism for the repeal and/or amendment of existing laws, and for the creation of new laws -- in other words, for a change of some sort. Voters have the choice of approving that change or staying with the status quo. If the provisions of Ordinance No. 92-1074 were placed on the ballot as an initiative measure, and if it were approved by the voters, there would be no change in the City's Code and, in effect, the voters would simply have reaffirmed what already exists by Council action, except that, unless a provision is included that provides otherwise, no changes could ever be made to any portion of the ordinance without a vote of the people. If the measure failed, the status quo would be exactly what the voters rejected, since Ordinance No. 92-1074 would still be in effect, and the measure, although more costly since it included an ordinance, would have served the same purpose as an advisory measure, by providing voter sentiment on the height issue. With regard to Item #4, by Council action, Councilman Edgerton 4 would be filing a written argument in favor of a measure that would increase the height limit, and Mayor Wiemans would be filing a written argument against the measure which would return the height limit to its previous standards. Due to the lateness of the hour when this item was considered at the last meeting, there may have been some confusion with regard to this issue, and it is recommended that the currently authorized authors of the ballot measure give careful attention to this item; it may be one that is appropriate for Council reconsideration. With regard to Item #5, as noted previously, I still do not have the official requirements for our City with regard to compliance with the federal Voting Rights Act and its effect on the cost of the upcoming election. If that information is available to me at the special meeting, Council may wish to decide on this issue at that time. Otherwise, I will present the appropriate resolution for consideration and possible adoption at the July 27 regular meeting. With regard to Item #6, unless Council directs otherwise at this meeting, a resolution directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis for the ballot measure will be presented to Council for adoption at the July 27 regular meeting. With regard to Item #7, unless Council directs otherwise at this meeting, no resolution will be prepared for the conduct of a special runoff election to resolve a tie vote. Pursuant to Council action, in the event two or more persons receive an equal number of votes and are tied for an elective office, Council shall determine the tie by lot. Noted: nterim City Manager 5 Elaine Doerfling ' City clerk 102281 Repealed ¢ 10228.1. Repealed by Stats.1988, c. 8, § 85, eff. Feb. 9, 1988 Historical and Statutory Notes The repealed section, added by.Stata.1983, c. 1166, f 40, amended by Stata.1986, c. 798, ¢ 1, listed the contents of the Democratic presidential primary ballot. ELECTIONS CODE Amendment of the repealed section by Stats.1988, e. 160, ¢ 87 was subordinated to the repeal by Stats.1988, c. 8. See Historical Note under Bus. & Prof. C. § 6088. ¢ 10228.3. Repealed by Stats.1988, c. 8. § 36, eff. Feb. 9, 1988 Historical and Statutory Notes The repealed section, added by Stata.1986, c. 798, 12, related to the application of subd. (c) of 4 10228.1 (repealed). § 10230.1. Democratic presidential primary election; changes in ballot format at discretion of county clerk to accommodate limitations of voter systems or vote tabulating devices Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for the purpose of conducting the Democratic Party Presidential Primary Election, the Secretary of State may, if reasonably necessary to accommodate the limitations of a voter system or vote tabulating device, authorize the county clerks to do any or all of the following: (a) Vary the order of any office or measure listed in Section 10218 with the exception of President of the United States, United States Representative, State Senator, Member of the Assembly, and judicial offices. (b) Place any office listed in Section 10213 on a second ballot with the exception of United States Representative, State Senator, Member of the State Assembly, judicial offices, County Superinten- dent of Schools, County Board of Education Members, and county officers. (c) Place any ballot measure, other than a state measure, on a separate ballot. (Added by Stata.1988, c. 1166, § 41.) ¢ 10235. Initiative measures; ballot form The ballots used when voting upon a proposed county, city, or district ordinance submitted to the voters of the respective local government as an initiative measure pursuant to Division 5 (commenc- ing with Section 8500) shall have printed on them the words "Shall the ordinance (stating the nature thereof) be adopted?" Opposite the statement of the ordinance to be voted on, and to its right, the words "Yes" and "No" shall be printed on separate lines, with voting squares. If a voter stamps a cross (+) in the voting square after the printed word "Yes," his or her vote shall be counted in favor of the adoption of the ordinance. If he or she stamps a cross (+ in the voting square after the printed word "No," his or her vote shalle�cxtunted against its adoption. (Amended by Stats.1988, c. 756, § 6.) Historical and Statutory Notes 1983 Amendment. Made nonsubstantive changes to neutralize gender references. ¢ 10236. Referendum measures; ballot form The ballots used when voting upon a state, county, city, or district statute or ordinance referred to the voters of the respective jurisdiction as a referendum measure pursuant to Division 5 (commenc- ing with Section 8500) shall have printed on them the words "Shall the statute (or ordinance) (stating the nature thereof, including any identifying number or title) be adopted?" Opposite the statement of the statute or ordinance to be voted on and to its right, the words "Yes" and "No" shall be printed on separate lines, with voting squares. If a voter stamps a cross (+) in the voting square after the printed word "Yes," his or her vote shall be counted in favor of the adoption of the ordinance or statute. If he or she stamps a cross (+) in the voting square after the printed word "No," his or her vote shall be counted against its adoption. (Added by Stats.1983, c. 756, § 7.) Additions or charges Indicated by underlIne; deletion by asterisks • • • 96 SELECTIONS CODE Statutes 02.360, 861. C.J.S. Statutes ¢ 186 et seq. CHAPTER 3. VOTING lML ARTICI Section 10302.5. Statement of ballot title; pul 10307.5. Absentee ballots; use of fact § 10302.5. Statement of ballot title; Whenever the Attorney General pre General shall file a copy of the stateme make a copy of the statement available on any ballot. The public shall be perr Secretary of State may consolidate the examination requirements set forth i requiring any statement, or portion the Section 3576 concerning the issuance of to this section. (Added by Stats.1981, c. 77, p. 192, § 1 Statutes x320, 860. CJS. Statutes ¢ 138 et seq. § 10307.5. Absentee ballots; use of f. Notwithstanding any other provision machines may use reasonable facsimile: as absentee ballots. (Added by Stats.1978, c. 219, p. 471, § Elections x222. C.J.S. Elections ¢ 203. ARTICLE 2. Section 10324.6. Absentee ballots; use of fan § 10324.5. Absentee ballots; use of f. Notwithstanding any other provision tabulating devices may use reasonable jurisdiction as absentee ballots. (Added by Stata.1978, c. 219, p. 471, § Elections 00216.1. CJS. Elections § 210. Additions or charges Indic ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 92-1074 AND AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT TO RE-ESTABLISH THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT IN THE R-3 AND R -P ZONES AT 35 FEET WHEREAS, the City Council adopted an Ordinance No. 92-1074 on September 8, 1992, which changed the maximum standard height limit for buildings in the R-3 and R -P zones from 35 feet to 30 feet, and established conditions and design criteria for determining whether a project is allowed to exceed the height limit; WHEREAS, in order to support the general welfare of the City, and to be consistent with established development pattern, the People of Hermosa beach find that is in the best interest of -the City to re-establish the height limit at 35 feet; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Amend Section 601 of the R-3 Multiple -Family Residential Zone to read as follows: ""Sec. 601. Height No building shall exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height. Refer to Article 7.2 for additional height requirements for condominium projects located adjacent to walk streets." SECTION 2. Amend Section 701 of the R -P Residential -Professional Zone to read as follows: "Sec. 701. Height No building shall exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height. Refer to Article 7.2 for additional height requirements for condominium projects located adjacent to walk streets." SECTION 3. If any section of subsection of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable, such holding shall not affect, in any respect, the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance or any such part thereof. SECTION 4. There shall be no modification, amendment or repeal' of any provisions of this ordinance without a vote of the people. SECTION 5: Any ordinance with is adopted concurrently with this ordinance which receives less votes and is in conflict with any provisions herein, shall be repealed in its entirety and of no force and effect. SECTION 6: This ordinance shall take effect in the manner prescribed by law. Pie6-69 y 7/ QTY /.1 776 RA)&Y With respect to the wording of the measure on the ballot I suggest the following language for your review and comment: MAINTENANCE OF THIRTY FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT IN R-3 AND R -P ZONES. "SHALL THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE MAINTAINING THE CURRENT LIMIT OF 30 FEET IN THE R-3 AND R -P ZONES BE ADOPTED." g rrikvlrmFit'TS: - 0rtkev"wee Dr of Ne. / - O rcl1w,0ver Drw,ff filo ..Z d 2 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 93 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA MAINTAINING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT IN REGARDS TO THE 30 FOOT MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT IN THE R-3 AND R -P ZONES. WHEREAS, the City Council, following properly noticed public hearing and environmental review, adopted amendments to the, allowable height in the R-3 and R -P zones and made certain findings regarding: (1) Structures which are not compatible in scale or character with existing development, and in some cases result in view blockage; (2) Elimination of the disparity between height limits where R-2 zoned areas border R-3 zoned areas; and (3) Allowing for exceptions if proven to be necessary to obtain a view, and if found to be compatible with surrounding development; and WHEREAS, the citizens of Hermosa Beach desire to protect the low profile character of Hermosa Beach; and WHEREAS, the citizens desire to protect wherever possible both public and private scenic views; and WHEREAS, the citizens desire to limit the intensity of development within the City; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DO HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Amend Section 601 of the R-3 Multiple -Family Residential Zone to read as follows: Dre+ Noe.L 1 2 , 3 • 9 10 11 12 • 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 "Sec. 601. Height Intent and Purpose. 'The intent and purpose of this section • is to set a standard height limit for most projects in scale • 1 with existing development and to minimize view obstruction. However, to recognize that pre-existing development in some neighborhoods and/or clusters of lots are already predominantly built higher than the height limit, this section also allows some projects to exceed the height limit to enable property owners to enjoy the same rights to view, • sunlight, and air enjoyed by those property owners with the high buildings. This section further sets forth the conditions and design criteria for determining whether a project is allowed to exceed the height limit. (A) No building shall exceed thirty (30) feet in height unless in compliance with section 601 (B) and (C). Refer to Article 7.2 for additional height requirements for condominium projects located adjacent to walk streets. (B) The planning Commission shall hold a public hearing and may -grant or conditionally grant an exception to allow a multiple or single family building to exceed thirty (30) feet in height up to a maximum of thirty-five (35) feet in height when all of the following conditions are met to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission (subject to appeal to the City Council pursuant to Section 1435): 1) An extension above the height limit is necessary to take advantage of a scenic view over surrounding structures which are already constructed above thirty (30) feet in 2. • ' I • 1 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 height. Said structures already in excess of thirty (30) feet would otherwise significantly obstruct the proposed project's view potential; 2) A substantial number of existing buildings in the vicinity of the proposed project are already constructed to a height greater than thirty (30) feet. 3) The structural extension above 30 feet will not adversely impact the available views, and access to sunlight and air of adjacent and surrounding properties; 4) If all the above conditions are satisfied, the following design features of the portion of the building above thirty (30) feet shall also be considered by the Planning Commission'to determine if an exception should be granted: a. The style and pitch of the roof. b. The mass and bulk of the proposed structure above thirty (30) feet (in order to minimize bulk of the upper floor). c. The architectural appearance, as exhibited by the type, style, and shape of the structure and the proposed exterior materials. (C) Application and public hearing requirements for processing exceptions to the height limit shall be in accordance with procedures established by the City Council." SECTION 2. Amend Section 701 of the R -P Residential - Professional Zone in the same manner as stated above for Section 3. i e......i-.r1�•'., S �ti.rLrf aw .:hu8'w • 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 28 601 except that the section numbers shall be "701(A), (B) and (C)" SECTION 3. If any section or subsection of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable, such holding' shall not affect, in any respect, the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance or any such part.thereof. • SECTION 4. There shall be no modification, amendment or repeal of any provisions of this ordinance without a vote of the people. SECTION 5. -Any ordinance which is adopted concurrently with this ordinance which receives less votes and is in conflict with any provisions herein, shall be repealed in its entirety and of no force and effect. - SECTION 6. This ordinance shall take effect in the manner prescribed by law. . • PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 1993. 4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DRAFT NO. 2 ORDINANCE NO. 93 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA •MAINTAINING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT IN REGARDS TO THE 30 FOOT MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT IN THE R-3 AND R -P ZONES. WHEREAS, the City Council, following properly noticed public hearing and environmental review, adopted amendments to the allowable height in the R-3 and R -P zones and made certain findings regarding: (1) Structures which are not compatible in scale or character with existing development, and in some cases result in view blockage; (2) Elimination of the disparity between height limits where R-2 zoned areas border R-3 zoned areas; and (3) Allowing for exceptions if proven to be necessary to obtain a view, and if found to be compatible with surrounding development; and WHEREAS, the citizens of Hermosa Beach desire to protect the low profile character of Hermosa Beach; and WHEREAS, the citizens desire to protect wherever possible both public and private scenic views; and WHEREAS, the citizens desire to limit the intensity of development within the City; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DO HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Amend Section 601 of the R-3 Multiple -Family Residential Zone to read as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 "Sec. 601. Height Intent and Purpose. The intent and purpose of this section is to set a standard height limit for most projects in scale with existing development and to minimize view obstruction. However, to recognize that pre-existing development in some neighborhoods and/or clusters of lots are already predomi- nantly built higher than the height limit, this section also allows some projects to exceed the height limit to enable property owners to enjoy the same rights to view, sunlight, and air enjoyed by those property owners with the high buildings. This section further sets forth the conditions and design criteria for determining whether a project is allowed to exceed the height limit. (A) No building shall exceed thirty (30) feet in height unless in compliance with section 601 (B) and (C). Refer to Article 7.2 for supplemental height restrictions and requirements for condominium projects located adjacent to walk streets. (B) The planning Commission shall hold a public hearing and may grant or conditionally grant an exception to allow a multiple or single family building to exceed thirty (30) feet in height up to a maximum of thirty-five (35) feet in height when all of the following conditions are met to the satis- faction of the Planning Commission (subject to appeal to the City Council pursuant to Section 1435): 1) An extension above the height limit is necessary to take advantage of a scenic view over surrounding structures which are already constructed above thirty (30) feet in 2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 height. Said structures already in excess of thirty (30) feet would otherwise significantly obstruct the proposed project's view potential; 2) A majority of existing buildings contiguous to the proposed project are already constructed to a height greater than thirty (30) feet. 3) The structural extension above 30 feet will not adversely impact the available views, and access to sunlight and air of adjacent and surrounding properties; (C) If all the conditions of (B) above are satisfied, the following design features of the portion of the building above thirty (30) feet shall also be considered by the Planning Commission to determine if an exception should be granted: 1. The style and pitch of the, roof. 2. The mass and bulk of the proposed structure above thirty (30) feet (in order to minimize bulk of the upper floor). 3. The architectural appearance, as exhibited by the type, style, and shape of the structure and the proposed exterior materials. (D) Application and public hearing requirements for processing exceptions to the height limit shall be in accordance with procedures established by the City Council." SECTION 2. Amend Section 701 of the R -P Residential - Professional Zone in the same manner as stated above for Section 3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 601 except that the section numbers shall be "701(A), (B), (C) and (D)." SECTION 3. If any section or subsection of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable, such holding shall not affect, in any respect, the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance or any such part thereof. SECTION 4. There shall be no modification, amendment or repeal of any provisions of this ordinance without a vote of the people. SECTION 5. Any ordinance which is adopted concurrently with this ordinance which receives less votes and is in conflict with any provisions herein, shall be repealed in its entirety and of no force and effect. SECTION 6. This ordinance shall take effect in the manner prescribed by law. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 1993. 4. Div, 5 6 (Stats.1939, c. 26, p, c. 33, p. 131, § 1; 319. § 1. orporations § 455 et at to this article and the legis- inance. Neither arguments shall xi to each voter front cover, or if ;uments: :e proposed laws 'Stats.1939, c. 26, p. 959, c. 683, p. 2655, c. 33, p. 131, § 1; 9, § 1. Ch. 3 INITIATIVE Cross References Analysis of city measure, see § 5011. Analysis of measure, see § 5011. Application of this section to referendum elections. see § 4057. Arguments concerning city measures. see § 5012 et seq. Filing of petition, see § 4006. Initiative petition, see § 4001. Legislative body, defined, see Government Code § 34000. Mailing sample ballot, inclusions, see § 4018. Sample ballots. printing and distribution of. see §§ 10010, 22832. Statement by authors of argument, see § 5350. Withdrawal of ballot arguments by proponents. see § 5351. library References Municipal Corporations 0108.3. C.J.S. Municipal seq. § 4017 Corporations § 455 et § 4016. Conflicting ordinances adopted at same election If the provisions of two or more ordinances adopted at the same election conflict, the ordinance receiving the highest number of af- firmative votes shall control. (Added by Stats.1976, c. 248, § 3.) Historical Note Former § 4016, which authorized voting upon any number of proposed ordinances at the same election, enacted by Stats. 1961, c. 23, p. 637, § 4016, as amended was repealed by Stats.1976, c. 248, § 2. See, now, § 4014. Derivation: Former § 4018, enacted by Stats.1961, c. 23, p. 637, § 4018. Elec.C.1939, § 1718 (Stats.1939, c. 26, p. 96). Stats.1911, Ex.Sess., c. 33, p. 131, § 1; Stats.1915, c. 155, p. 319, § 1. Cross References Application of this section to referendum elections. see § 4057. Canvass of ballots and returns, see § 22930 et seq. Conduct of municipal elections, see § 22900 et seq. Election, defined. see § 19. Number of proposals at same election. see § 4014. Statement of result, see §§ 17089, 22933. Vote count in central place. see § 17050 et seq. Vote count in precinct. see § 17000 et seq. § 4017. Submission of proposition without petition The legislative body of the city may submit to the voters, with- out a petition therefor, a proposition for the repeal, amendment, or enactment of any ordinance, to be voted upon at any succeeding regu- lar or special city election, and if the proposition submitted receives a majority of the votes cast on it at the election, the ordinance shall be repealed, amended or enacted accordingly. A proposition may be submitted, or a special election may be called for the purpose of vot- ing on a proposition, by ordinance or resolution. (Added by Stats.1976, c. 248, § 3.) 347 •