Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/28/84/�GFinn�S\ } ! jr R "THERE IS NO DISTANCE ON THIS EARTH AS FAR AWAY AS YESTERDAY." Robert Nathan AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, June 26, 1984 - Council Chambers, City Hall Closed Session - 6:00 p.m. Regular Session - 7:30 p.m. All Council meetings are open to the public. PLEASE ATTEND. It is requested that anyone who wishes to speak on any matter, please give their name and address for the record. Any complaints against the City Council, City Management, or depart- mental operationswill be submitted in writing to the City Manager for evaluation by the appropriate department head prior to submission to the City Council. Complete agenda materials are available for public inspection in the Police Department, Public Library and the Office of the City Clerk. -------------------------------------------------------------------- PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following routine matters will be acted upon by one vote to approve with the majority consent of the City Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless good cause is shown by a member prior to the roll call vote. (Items removed will be considered after Municipal Matters.) (a) Approval of Minutes: Adjourned special meeting of the City Council held on June 4, 1984. Recommended Action: To approve minutes. (b) Approval of Minutes: Regular meeting of the City Council held on June 12, 1984. Recommended Action: To approve minutes. (c) Demands & Warrants: June 26, 1984 Recommended Action: To approve Demands and Warrants Nos. through inclusive. (d) Aid to Cities funding for the Traffic Safety section of the Public Works Department. Memorandum from Public Works Director Charles Clark dated June 20, 1984. Recommended Action: To approve staff recommendation. ti Nz City Council Agenda - June 26, 1984 t� Const -.it Calendar (Continued) (e) Information on Senate Bill 1330. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dated June 14, 1984. Recommended Action: To request Mayor to send a letter of thanks to Senator Beverly and Assemblyman Felando. (f) Claim for Damages: Randy Wise, 22322 Evalyn Ave., Torrance, CA 90505, filed June 15, 1984. Recommended Action: To adopt Resolution. 2. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. STREET VACATION - 15TH STREET BETWEEN ARDMORE AND PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. Memorandum from Public Works Director Charles Clark dated June 19, 1984. 611Q� -2- Recommended Action: To deny claim and refer to this City's insurance carrier. (g) Claim for Damages: Jeanne Bohr, 453 - 31st Street, Manhattan Beach, 90266, filed June 13, 1984. Recommended Action: To deny claim and refer to this City's insurance carrier. (h) Report re. Sidewalk Sales. Memorandum from Director of Building and Safety William Grove dated June 4, 1984. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (i) Revenue Reporting: April, 1984. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (j) Expenditure Reporting: April, 1984 Recommended Action: To receive and file. (k) Building and Safety Department Activity Report: May, 1984. Memo- randum from Building & Safety Director William Grove dated June 20, 1984. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (1) City Manager Activity Report. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated June 21, 1984. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (m) Tentative Future Agenda Items. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (n) Request from South Bay Union High School Board of Trustees for Ad Hoc Meeting with Beach Cities City Councils re. funding for sports activities and potential Aviation Park. Memorandum from Gregory T. Meyer, City Manager, dated June 20, 1984. Recommended Action: To appoint Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem as repre- sentatives at ad hoc meeting. (o) Resolution approving and adopting the annual appropriations limit for FY 1984-85. Recommended Action: To adopt Resolution. 2. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. STREET VACATION - 15TH STREET BETWEEN ARDMORE AND PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. Memorandum from Public Works Director Charles Clark dated June 19, 1984. 611Q� -2- City Council Agenda - June 26, 1984 Public Hearings (Continued) � o k2 V-? ).1'_G' i 4 ('PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PARKING LOT DESIGN STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL AND MANUFACTURING USES TO INCLUDE PROVISIONS FOR COM- PACT PARKING SPACES. Memorandum from Planning Director Pamela Sapetto dated June 12, 1984. 5. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CONDOMINIUM ORDINANCE SECTION 9.5-22(2) AND (3), REMOVAL OF 25 DU/A LIMIT IN R-2 ZONES. Memo- randum from Planning Director Pamela Sapetto dated June 18, 1984. 6. PUBLIC HEARING RE. 1984-85 BUDGET. HEARINGS 7. APPLICATION TO KEEP MORE THAN TWO HOUSEHOLD PETS (THREE DOGS) AT 521 - 11TH STREET. Ms. Janell Ann Berkholz, Applicant. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dated June 4, 1984. 8. APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO KEEP MORE THAN TWO HOUSEHOLD PETS u (TWO DOGS & FIVE CATS) AT 2708 EL OESTE DRIVE. Mr. and Mrs. J. Bower, Applicants. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dated June 4, 1984. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 9. REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION OF SAFETY PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS ON THE V STRAND WALKWAY. Oral presentation by Mr. John T. Hales. 10. ORDINANCE N0, 84-751 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH WHICH ADOPTS A SPECIFIC PLAN TO REGULATE DEVELOPMENT IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA BETWEEN 15TH AND 13TH STREETS AND THE STRAND AND HERMOSA AVENUE AS INDICATED ON EXHIBIT 1 MAP AND LEGALLY DES- CRIBED IN EXHIBIT 2. Introduced June 12, 1984. For waiver of further reading and adoption. 11. I HERMOSA BEACH BILTMORE HOTEL PROPOSAL (DEVELOPERS GREENWOOD & LANGLOIS) WITH ADJACENT PARKING STRUCTURES: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. 12. RECOMMENDATION TO INCREASE STORER CABLE FRANCHISE FEES FROM 3% TO 5% EFFECTIVE OCTOBER, 1984. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dated June 20, 1984. 13. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON PROPOSAL FOR VIDEO PRODUCTION OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dated June 19, 1984. 14. ORDINANCE CREATING A PARKING FUND. For waiver of further reading and introduction. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated June 21, 1984. 15. ORDINANCE DESIGNATING CITY COUNCIL AS VEHICLE PARKING DISTRICT NO. 1 BOARD. For waiver of further reading and introduction. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory. T. Meyer dated June 26, 1984. 16. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MORATORIUM EXEMPTION AT 636 - 24TH PLACE. Letter from Mr. Steve Kaplan representing Mr. C. R. Casner. Memorandum from Building & Safety Director William Grove dated June 20, 1984. 17. BALLOT MEASURES FOR NOVEMBER, 1984 ELECTION. a. Amendment of Civil Service Ordinance re. political activities. b. Landscaping District c. Hydrocarbon recovery d. Mello -Roos -2- Citi.,. Duncil Agenda - June 26, 1984 Municipal Matters (Continued) 18. 1984-85 GENERAL REVENUE SHARING PROPOSALS. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated June 21, 1984. 19. RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO PEACE OFFICER STATUS OF RESERVE POLICE OFFICERS. Memorandum from Police Chief Frank Beeson dated June 19, 1984. 20. REQUEST FOR ENCROACHMENT PERMIT BY GOOD STUFF ON THE STRAND. Memorandum from Public Works Director Charles Clark dated June 21, 1984. 21. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS PULLED FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION.. 22. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER 23. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL a. Railroad Right -Of -way Subcommittee report b. 27th Street Subcommittee report C. Upcoming joint meeting w/School District. Memo from MSI re. financing alternatives. 24. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM PUBLIC - MATTERS OF AN URGENCY NATURE. 25. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Upcoming Vacancies - Boards and Commissions Memorandum from City Clerk dated June 20, 1984 Memorandum from Planning Director Pamela Sapetto re. Planning Commission membership reduction. ADJOURNMENT June 22, 1984 Honorable -Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of,the City Council of June 26, 1984 TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS June 28, 1984 Joint meeting with the Hermosa Beach School District Julv 10. 1984 Redraft of Agreement for Independent Contractor/Employee Planning Commission recommendation to develop a specific plan for the downtown area Hermosa Beach Sister City Association request re. Loreto Week Public hearing re. General Revenue Sharing Conditional Use Permit for liquor at Community Center RSVP contract Outside negotiator interviews starting at 6:00 p.m. City Clerk compensation for consolidated election of November 6, 1984. Report on Court fines Update on possible VPD for area in vicinity of 2nd & 3rd Sts., west of Pacific Coast Highway Change of scope for 1976 Bond Act Voting.delegate for League Annual Conference Julv 24. 1984 Proposed parking structures: Lot B and Community Center Future Items - Date not yet set Report re. City Treasurer reporting to Council on investments w/report from City Attorney (City Treasurer may file a report recommending what she sees as a vehicle for communication). Encroachment permit reviews - LaPlayita & Fat Face Fenners Falloon Report on computerization of City Treasurer trust funds, including VPD implementation Report on computerization of investment accounts, time certificates of deposit, savings accounts and special bank accounts. Im 1( ll 1` 1� 1� jr 1( ill V E 2( 21 2` 2t' I 2t" 2( 2; s 2f 2f RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF FIFTEENTH STREET, AS HEREIN PARTICULARLY DEFINED, IN SAID CITY, AS CONTEMPLATED BY RESOLUTION OF INTENTION NO. 84-4716, ADOPTED BY SAID CITY COUNCIL ON THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 1984. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF "STREET VACA- TION ACT OF 1941", BEING DIVISION 9 OF THE STREETS -AND HIGHWAYS CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, FIND, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That said City Council, after public hear- ing duly and regularly called, noticed and held, finds and determines from all evidence submitted, that the portion of Fifteenth Street within said City described by Resolution of Intention No. 84-4716 of said City Council, adopted by said Council on the 12th day of June, 1984, is unnecessary for present or prospective public street purposes. SECTION 2. That the public interest and convenience requires, and it is hereby ordered, that the portion of Fifteenth Street described as follows, to -wit: Starting at the 2" iron pipe on the south- east corner of Tract No. 9203, then westerly on a bearing of S-77° 10' W 156.64' to the point of beginning. Then westerly on bearing S-770 16' W 4001. Then southerly on a bearing of N 12° 52' W 15', then easterly on bearing S-770 10' W 400'. Then northerly on bearing N 120 52' W 15' to point of beginning. Be and the same is hereby closed up, vacated and abandoned public street purposes, all proceedings for the vacation and abandonment of said street to be taken subject to the reser- vations of permanent easements and rights-of-way as set forth in Resolution No. 84-4716. 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 9q -2- Reference is hereby made to said Resolution of Intention No. 84-4716 and to the map entitled, "Vacation of Portion of Fifteenth Street" attached hereto and on file therewith, for further particulars. SECTION 3. That the California Environmental Quality Act requires a public agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. The City of Hermosa Beach has determined that the unavoidable environmental risks of this project are acceptable when balanced against the benefits of this project. In making this determination, the following public benefits were considered: 1) The proposed project is consistent with adopted City objectives and plans and is compatible with the commercial character of the area surrounding the project and the community in general. 2) The vacation of the western three quarters of Fifteenth Street is an essential element of this project. This project will upgrade an existing deteriorated area which presently detracts from the visual appeal and economic viability of the area. 3) The Haagen Development will generate additional employment opportunities for local residents. 4) The eastern quarter of Fifteenth Street will remain open to allow access to existing businesses. The project will contain 32% more on-site parking than is required. Hence, the western three quarters of Fifteenth Street is not needed for access or parking. 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 -3- 5) The project will replace poorly secured and substandard, potentially hazardous structures with a viable commercial and entertainment center thus keeping money in the community. 6) Revenues to be generated by the proposed project will exceed those generated by existing uses and will be available to provide additional services to the residents of the City of Hermosa Beach. 7) Project impacts upon local ambient noise levels, traffic operations at adjoining street intersections, police and fire/ life safety services, and the wastewater sewage infrastructure are predicted to be incrementally adverse, but non-significant as indicated in the Environmental Impact Report for this project. 8) Alternatives to the proposed project as described in the Final Environmental Impact Report with the exception of a public park, would not avoid unmitigated environmental effects because all alternatives would involve construction of buildings (either commercial or residential if the zoning was changed) and the concomitant traffic generation. 9) Alternatives not involving the construction of buildings of some sort described in the project would be inconsistent with adopted City objectives and plans. SECTION 4. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution, shall enter the same in the book of original resolutions of said City, shall make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records and proceedings of the City Council of said City in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is passed and Aauaoq.;y A;zO xaal0 AITD UzuaoTzlIe0 ' uouag usouzaaH 10 A4TO aq4 10 HO.&VW au4 Pu -6 Uouno0 S4TD au; So JNHQISHHd WHOJ OZ SV QRAOHddHI :ssalivI 't86T 'aunr 10 AleP ua-99 sTq; QHZdOQV Pu'e QHAOHddV `GaSSVd •-ezuaojzl-eD So a�e,.�S lsala2uV sol So aapaooaH AqunoO au; So aozllo agq. uz papaoaaa eq ol- ISTD pz�us So leas aqq aapun 131aa10 Aq.zO!aq; Aq pa:�sejj,e joaaaq; Adoo poTjTgaao t asn-eo Thus pu-e 'pal-dop-u- riQi V bo -1 -1 VA .Vil zzazllxa fir,%H 1Sb-OD 012;:)Vd • 1.v co _ r ` {Zi .4 �v yV D - _ �yffh� o � h • �•�t,r ��o��ta�r V bo -1 -1 VA June 12, 1984 HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the REGULAR MEETING of HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL June 26, 1984 AMENDING THE PARKING STANDARDS TO INCLUDE PROVISIONS FOR COMPACT PARKING SPACES Recommendation That that the City Council approve the attached ordinance amending the parking standards to include provisions for compact parking spaces, and that the City Council concur with the Planning Commission determination that there is no significant adverse environmental impact as described in the Initial Study. Background At their regular meeting of March 13, 1984, the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intention (84-4686) directing staff to consider this item. The Planning Commission considered staff's recommendation and, at their regular meeting of June 5, 1984, gave the project a negative declaration indicating that the project could not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. The Planning Commission also passed Resolution P.C. 84-16 resolving to amend the City's parking standards to include provisions for compact parking spaces. Analysis This project consists of amending the parking standards that pertain to commercial/manufacturing parking lots to include the allowance of compact parking spaces. One of the main advantages of allowing a certain percentage (30%) of compact car spaces in parking lots would be the increase in the number of available spaces per lot. A direct corollary of this is an increase in the number of cars able to park in a certain lot and hence the increased exposure for businesses served by such a lot. Although the impact of any one lot with an increased amount of spaces will be minimal, the overall effect of many lots providing such spaces may be beneficial to circulation and parking supply. r L - �-�14`1J_ � •_ ir S MR�- Z.N, -[:r �r n 1uy.�• c- n:F�,.T�L- `'9G .:f , . ti r �. u(.--5 _ _. _ 1: d1 ••/� �. y ''J,1 .c e ,/"-��•���y~'-` ,4�. �:.h f����1•-. J'��,, � S.--Yr_,t S 'Yt �}-,. �, s t'•'.. /.-� .. .f.. ,.w.ac r. S �� • ty iY y F - Y .♦ �i..e- 21' A A ti _fti � ui w��J.'���3N wl k; 1' C►� '��T c'�.�•'� �L- _- - : li - -rye. � l ��... ? _ `. •'�.. ! us.r'.� �y '��.�_ .t -.� � � -�•_.� •'� L _ �yr - �r t N �I' f�� � }� / -�I'. /�x � ,.� Y ;i r ,-�•� � k��-: r,.,r���Y Hyl sr-�yi�-J�-._ _ V _� r J Y4' ��'rS w,_~7 '':v �'?.''� ;� -ray ;�'- t,y r_ -•i r � .}rn 1'�-. ! 5j�f � *� - - if V� - ■s r 5 ��` �itiw 6'r✓ 1 ISA-[ 'C' �--L': - �= moi• 1}'!_'�- =' a�� r= rr _ __ , 1• - � _..r �'�♦ ✓�5 ..d .)�� *_ SJ. JAS -I w � - - - J Standard car stalls are approximately 82 feet by 18 feet. Compact car stalls are approximately 72 feet by 15 feet (Approximate sizes are used because these vary according to the angle of the stall.) The cities of Manhattan Beach and Santa Monica allow up to 30% of commercial parking lot spaces to be provided specifically for compact cars. In Hermosa Beach, the Vehicle Parking District has already included compact stalls in their lots. Staff recommends that the City include a restriction similar to Santa Monica's which specifies that a lot must have 20 or more stalls before the provisions for compact cars apply. The Planning Commission had expressed concern that the inclusion of compact car ` spaces might result in commercial structures being able to increase their floor area. While this is a possibility, staff does not feel that it presents a "build -out" problem. The only developments affected would be those requiring parking lots of 20 or more stalls. Such projects are not overly numerous and any possible increase in floor area would be slight. The effects of the proposed provisions will affect each project in a different manner: lot size, configuration, and number of entrances to the parking lot all have a bearing on the possible number of stalls. A copy of the current parking standards is shown in Exhibit 1. Staff recommends that these standards be amended to include the dimensions allowed for compact stalls as shown in Exhibit 2. CONCUR: Q, 9 a Gre ory T. eyer Cit Manager Kim Reardon -Crites Planning Assistant Pamela Sapetto Planning Director , v /-)A Gv^_L Bill Grove Building and Safety Director . _ _ :yy" tim �i1•"5-' r ��P�1- cc-" -1� . _'SF �`�U ,� r v _ t- -n :;'k_�;� _ -yy 1 � '•cam _ f•`T � _ _ F L _ - _��h'�. Y W t t 3a•41 ez 3 _ i ��;� �'� s S, 9'ac 1 a •, r s1 44;" '` �}Q. Y�.� j1?SSCsi�+34i 'Jti=� Yrs-h�+in1ri�KYF�:F�.�F .y .� nocxiy `ter" Or mv 47 � DLII. mw fiF rFY J � P5�i�' } a».s� c �- . r33i, `Z"��• �.- � � ... t - qq��.,, "' ; : - _. _. _ - T_a, - ..' rte• i;-rc -.��= x"�x �uti��.r� � w f`}�:*`` } Ttr_•�y. ^ 1cc rr' q' k^e�.t .lr�: 9�`i �� r t" q naafi _ _ s sy p � _ L \ .r-��z• � __ � aAS'-_.et .._ _ � - _ � - ... .i._ "' . ' __+_ _ ..� .aha~' _, y z . �a 4• 1 .� _� ��- � t� H �.- � ,�+'�v—T�xY ^scy__ s4 ,s;.. ..,,.:t^ :�.�.._ ,.+.w+P< .T._..; .'-i.ww_•`.�� :i• :.._ ;yM„"O.r. 'AKtA �s.:, _ "_ 'rc _ .N ., _ _",'wY..^ .nw�ve^'.-v.�i�wMwn�^+Y✓;i: ,•14•q}ie • J04oadsul 6uippnE la!y:) aya A9 Pauiwiaiap pq Iloy; suoitoijon } asayl •pasoaj:)u� si Iloas �o 41 P! II Pa:) a3 �(ow smpoi Gu�wnl :aicN C7 6u'IJDd Jo salGuV snoiJon SIN3Y43msV31N 30 31OVI Iol4uaplsaj 6uiliod punoi6japun sash 6uiln}oojnuoyq puo IolaJawwoO SNOISN3WIa 101 ON1MW spJopuo}S u6lsa4;ol 6U[IJod T ZIffIHX� _ • r'SZ 0'LI C ,SI L'81 I ,L'81 ,0'ZI Si 81 ,G'GI ,9'I1 ,8'6 •07 SZ 'o ,FI 0 S'R I 06 0 7 9 d (3) 33�030 6u'IJDd Jo salGuV snoiJon SIN3Y43msV31N 30 31OVI Iol4uaplsaj 6uiliod punoi6japun sash 6uiln}oojnuoyq puo IolaJawwoO SNOISN3WIa 101 ON1MW spJopuo}S u6lsa4;ol 6U[IJod T ZIffIHX� _ • ' EXHIBIT 2 * Parking areas of 20 or more spaces are allowed up to 30% compact spaces. Parking Lot Design Standards PARKING LOT DIMENSIONS Commercial and Manufacturing Uses C D ,I. C J TABLE OF MEASUREMENTS DEGREE (E) A STAN. COM. B STAN. COM. C STAN. COM. D STAN. COM. 90' 8.51/7.5' of / 0' 181/15' 251/20' 60' 9.81/8.7' 11.51/10.2' 19.91/16.8' 18'/14' 45' 12.01/10.6' 18.71/16.6' 18.71/15.9' 151/11' 300 17.01/15.3' 28.4'/25.4' 16.41/14.0' 11'/10' Note: Turning radius :nay be reduced if width of stall is increased. These variaticns shall be determined by the Chief Buildi,, Inspector. 3 ORDINANCE NO. jJ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,-, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE PARKING LOT DESIGN STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL AND 1 MANUFACTURING USES. - 2 WHEREAS, the City Council of Hermosa Beach held a public hearing on June 26, 1984, 3 to consider this matter; and 4 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have determined pursuant to the 5 Initial Study that this project causes no significant adverse environmental impact and 6 that a negative declaration shall be filed with the County. Recorder; and 7 WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that allowing the inclusion of compact car 8 spaces in commercial/manufacturing lots of ,20 or more stalls may have a beneficial 9 effect on business exposure and traffic circulation; and 10 WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that application of the above will 11 necessitate amending the parking lot design standards for commercial and . 12 manufacutring uses. 13 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF 14 THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 15 DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 16 Section 1. That the page pertaining to Parking Lot Design Standards for commercial 17 and manufacturing uses be replaced by Exhibit 2. 18 Section 2. That this ordinance shall take effect thirty days after the date of its 4 19 adoption. 20 Section 3. That prior to the expiration of fifteen days after the date of its adoption 21 the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy 22 Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation, published and 23 circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach. 24 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 26th day of June, 1984. 25 26 PRESIDENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL and MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH. 27 ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: 28 CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY PEIR: PROJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: ZONE: GENERAL PLAN: HB 84 - COMPACT CAR STANDARDS CITY WIDE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ALL ZONES ALL DESIGNATIONS I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project consists of amending the parking standards to allow 30% compact ca.r _stalls in parking lots of 20 stalls or more. II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This project will affect mostly commercial zones and the multi -use corridor since this is where most lots of over 20 spaces will occur. III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ANALYSIS Since the construction of the parking lots themselves will not be affected, only the striping of stalls on the lots, no direct environmental effects will be felt. Some indirect benefits may result as more people are able to park on-site, thus relieving a portion of the congestion created by people looking for parking on the street. More cars may be using the lot as a result of the increase in spaces. However, the mix of compact and standard -size cars will not create significant added stress to the lot. IV. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED This project will not have unavoidable significant impacts upon the environment. V. MITIGATION MEASURES The restrictions imposed (only 30°'5 of stalls may be compact and minimum lot size is 20 or more stalls before these spaces may be included) will prevent discrimination against large car owners. The requirements also serve as good standards to prevent v small retail uses from trying to use less space to meet their minimum parking standards. VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT . The parking standards may be left as they now exist with no provisions for compact car stalls. However, this seems like an inefficient use of parking space when compact cars are forced to park in standard stalls. VII. SHORT TERM vs. LONG TERM GOALS This project is intended to alleviate the parking shortage and circulation problems felt by the City of Hermosa Beach. While the effects of implementing this project will not be felt immediately, the long term result stemming from the increased availability of on-site parking spaces will be one of reduced congestion on -street, and more exposure for businesses served by such parking lots. . VIII. GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACT It is not anticipated that this project will have a growth -inducing impact. It is hoped that by implementation of this project the City will merely experience a more efficient distribution of cars and parking opportunities. IV. RESOURCES DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this.initial evaluation: L/ I find the proposed project COULD i+OT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARA^1ION will be prepared. Z /• I find that although the proposed project could have a sig- nificant effect on the.environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigatjoh measures described on the attached sheet have been added to the project. A ;;EG;TIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. Z I find the proposed project I.AY have a significant effect on the environ-ent, and an ENVIRONI IE'2:Tr.L IMPACT REPORT is required. Date For: (Signature) Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources: 'Codo. Reference: Sectio^s 21000-21175, Puolic Resources Code. r� r 1 HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL June 18, 1984 REGULAR MEETING of June 26, 1984 AN ENDING THE CONDOMINIUM ORDINANCE SECTION 95-22(2) & j� REMOVAL OF 25 du/a LIMIT IN R-2 ZONES i Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance. This ordinance would amend Section 9.5-22(2). The ordinance calls for rescinding Ordinance No. 81-666. At the same time it adds a section requiring that the minimum lot size for three units be 4,275 square feet. Theordinance also declares there are no significant adverse environmental impacts as a result of this project and that a negative declaration will be filed with the County Recorder. Background At their regular meeting of June 5, 1984, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and adopted Resolution P.0 84-17. (Attachment B) Analysis Section 9.5-22(2) of the Condominium Ordinance is, in part, inconsistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The inconsistency comes from Ordinance No. 81-666, which reads, "The number of units to be allowed in this zone shall be consistent with the General Plan and shall be compatible with residential uses in surrounding area; but in no case greater than 25 dwelling units per acre." There are 57 R-2 and R2B zoned lots which fall in the high density areas of the General Plan and are subject to Section 9.5-22(2) requirements and there in lies the inconsistency. These lots, under the General Plan, should be allowed a higher density than currently allowed by 9.5-22(2). Rescinding Ordinance No. 81-666 clears the inconsistency. And, if the following section is added the affected lots will be subject to the requirements as R-3 and RP zoned lots, "The minimum lot size for three units in these zones shall be 4,275 square feet. The minimum lot width shall be thirty feet as measured at the front building setback line." Staff is recommending this alternative because it has a lesser impact than other alternatives. For example, to delete the 25 du/a for R-2 and R-213 lots and allow development of three or more units on lots of 3,500 square feet would allow more intensive development for R-2 Lots than R-3 lots. To reduce the lot size required for the development of three units on R-3 lots would allow for a greater degree of development than is currently allowed. -'b�� Stacy Victory Planning Intern v Pamela Sapetto Planning Director Bill Grove Building and Safety Director CONCUR: C��,q Greg y T. ey r City Manager 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE 84 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH TO AMEND THE CONDOMINIUM ORDINANCE NO. 95-22(2) OF THE CITY ZONING CODE. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on 4-3-84, 5-15-84, and 6-1-84; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on 6-26-84; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Initial Study and has determined there are no significant adverse environmental impacts created by this project and recommends that a negative declaration be filed with the County recorder; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution of Intention P.C. 84-17 to recommend to the City Council to amend the Condominium Ordinance No. 95-22(2). WHEREAS, State Planning Law requires that issuance of building permits and subdivi- sion approvals be consistent with local General Plans; and WHEREAS, Section 9.5-22(2) of the Hermosa Beach Condominium Ordinance is not, in part, consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of Hermosa Beach does ordain as follows: Section 1. Rescind Ordinance No. 81-666 which reads, "The number of units to be ailowed in this zone shall be consistent with the General Plan and shall be compatible with residential uses in the surrounding area; but in no case greater than 25 dwelling units per acre." Section 2. ADD: "The minimum lot size for three units in R-2 zones with a General Plan designation of high-density residential, shall be 4,275 square feet. The minimum lot width shall be thirty feet as measured at the front building setback line." Section 3. That this ordinance shall take effect thirty days after the date of its adoption. Section 4. That prior to the expiration of fifteen days after the date of its adoption the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach. 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 day of 1984. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 3 A-� ' PEIR: PROJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: ZONE: GENERAL PLAN: HB 84- w, REVISION TO THE COMDOMINIUM ORDINANCE REMOVAL OF 25 du/a LIMIT IN R-2 ZONES CITY \VIDE CITY OF HER:MOSA BEACH ALL R-2 ZONES I., PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project involves rescinding Ordinance No. 81-666, which restricts R-2 and R-213 to 25 dwelling units per acre. It also involves adding the following Section: "The minimum lot for three units in these zones shall be 4,275 square feet. The minimum lot width shall be thirty feet as measured at the front building setback line." II. ENVIRO`MENTAL SETTING This project will affect R-2 and R -2B zoned lots in the high density areas of the General P!an - Land Use Element. These lots are located along Loma Drive and in the multi -use corridor along Pacific Coast Highway. There will be 57 lots affected. III. ENVIROMMENTAL I�LMPACT AND ANALYSIS Although the restriction of 25 du/a is being deleted, the addition of the minimum lot size will keep development in check. The development result will be that lots .zoned R-2 or R-213, that fall in the high density areas of the General Plan - Land Use Element will be able to develop three units if they meet minimum lot size requirements (4,725 sq. ft.). This is consistent with the General Plan which allows high density areas: 26-40 du/a. This will not affect the R-2 or R-213 lots in medium density areas -because 9.5-22 states: "Density shall not exceed that indicated in the General Plan" 1V. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS This projects results in no forseeable, adverse impacts. f V. MITIGATING MEASURES t, ,:i State` law requires zoning and subdivision approvals always be consistent with local General Plan. Currently they are in conflict. With approval this project will correct - - . the conflict. VI. ALTERNATIVES = One- option is to allow the affected lots to be rezoned to R-3 -immediately. The second option is to have the -affected lots rezoned at the time of development. it is felt that these options are not needed because the inconsistency will be sufficiently dealt with using the proposed approach. VII. SHORT TERM vs. LONG TERIM GOAL The long term goal is fulfilled in that the Hermosa Beach Condominium Ordinance will - be consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. VIII. GIROIVTH-INDUCING I\'IPACTS - - It is not anticipated that this project will have a growth -inducing impact. Because the affected R-2 and R -2B lots, according to the General Plan, have the right to build three units, the added Section will result in the affected lots administering to the s same requirements as PL -3 lots. d�� ©I "1 ©1 5' 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TT{}C 4 t i E NT tS� RESOLUTION P.C. 84-17 :, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF -THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND THE CONDOMINIUM ORDINANCE NO. 95-22(2). WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a hearing on April 3rd and June 5, 1984; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Initial Study and has determined there are no significant adverse environmental impacts created by this project and recommends that a negative declaration be filed with the County Recorder; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution of Intention P.C. 84-5 to Nord "a public hearing to consider amending Section 9.5-22(2) and (3); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on 5-15-84; and WHEREAS, State Planning Law requires that issuance of building permits and subdivi- sion approvals be consistent with local General Plans; and WHEREAS, Section 9.5-22(2) of the Hermosa Beach Condominium Ordinance is not, in part, consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the planning Commission of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve to amend Section 95-22(2) in the following manner: 1. Rescind Ordinance No. 81-666 which reads, "The number of units to be allowed in this zone shall be consistent with the General Plan and shall be compatible with residential uses in the surrounding area; but in no case greater than 25 dwelling units per acre." 2. Add: "The minimum lot size for thret units in R-2 zones with a General Plan designation of high-density residential, shall be 4,275 square feet. The minimum lot width shall be thirty feet as measured at the front building setback line." VOTE: AYES: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shaprio, Chmn. Izant NOES: None ABSENT: Comm. Strohecker CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 84-17 is a true and complete lllllll al -2Q AJ-C:LZ Z)aS `O-lTduyS IaoC uuwat-eyD llupzl u;DgdaiS '17961 `SI AEW ;o 2uTIaOW palnpa12gs AIa;ejn2?as .Tay; lie yaeag lesowJGH 10 uoissrwwoD 23u;uue1d aq; Aq uz>i-el uoTIDe ay; ;o PJO:)aJ 8Z L9 99 cz; N; 8Z ZZ t� 07, 61 81 LI JI GI K 8I �I II Oi 6 8 L 9 5 c I tAc! M SMT ti ORDI:;.1NCE ::0. 31- c3ou AN ORDINANCE O^ T11E CITY 01' ITER.`.:05.i-3EACH, CALIP^n`;IA, ..':,t' CIIAPTER 9.5 , ARTICLE III SECTIO:I CONSTRUCTION OF C0.`, -DO' CONSTRUCTION UNITS IN ME R-2 AND -7-23 ZO::= ADDING LANGUAGE THERETO RELATI::G TO THE NUMZE'R OF UNITS TC- ALL0:7ED IN TIIA'i ZONE. WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary to k 3 condominium development in character with the neighborhood 4 WHEREAS the City Council wishes to discourage th. - of the Condominium Ordinance which has allowed an excessiv. g number o3 units to be constructed that are incompatible wi- _ 7 neighborhood. - $) `:Od, TFERE ORE, THE CITY COUNC11 O-F TvE ES CITY OF HER'dOSA BEACH, CALZ.O3:iIA, DC- gl ORDAIN AS FOLL0VIS: -" 101 SECTIO? 1. That Chapter 9.5, Article ZI, Section 119.5 -22(2) shall be and is hereby amended by adding the fol L j?I sentence to read as follows: 13 "Section 9.5-22(2) R-2 and R-2B Zone. 14� ADD: 'The number of units to be allowed inthis zone shai _ 15. consistent with the General Plan and shall be compatible w IGI residential uses in the surrounding area; but -.. no case c : r; ! 7. 171 than 25 dwelling units per acre." SECTIO.1 2. That this ordinance sl:al'_ take effect - 1�J11 thirty (30) days after the date of its adept_,,... _-� - •�- •. - "- _ oOI�SECTIO:: 3. That prior to the exp_rat_on of fif= days after the date of its adoption, the City Clar'c shall ??!I this ordinance to be published in the !-er:-osa 3eac:i Revie:s -' ?y)'I weekly newspaper of general circulation, published zr.d cir ' - 91', in the City of Ilermosa Beach. - - -_ - 25:i PAECED, APPROVED :uid ADOPTED t.._s h dz!' o: Ju. i.. r. w.. •�. •..--'.a _• -ti ... ._.-. /r /', VO .// •/!^ C. .:• (._ - -) .' .. ........... - June 18, 1984 HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the REGULAR MEETING of HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL June 26, 1984 AMENDING THE CONDOMINIUM ORDINANCE SECTION 95-22(2) & (3) REMOVAL OF 25 du/a LIMIT IN R-2 ZONES Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance. This ordinance would amend Section 95-22(2). The ordinance calls for rescinding Ordinance No. 81-666. At the same time it adds a section requiring that the minimum lot size for three units be 4,275 square feet. Theordinance also declares there are no significant adverse environmental impacts as a result of this project and that a negative declaration will be filed with the County Recorder. Background At their regular meeting of June 5, 1984, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and adopted Resolution P.0 84-17. (Attachment B) Analysis Section 95-22(2) of the Condominium Ordinance is, in part, inconsistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The inconsistency comes from Ordinance No. 81-666, which reads, "The number of units to be allowed in this zone shall be consistent with the General Plan and shall be compatible with residential uses in surrounding area; but in no case greater than 25 dwelling units per acre." There are 57 R-2 and R2B zoned lots which fall in the high density areas of the General Plan and are subject to Section 9.5-22(2) requirements and there in lies the inconsistency. These lots, under the General Plan, should be allowed a higher density than currently allowed by 9.5-22(2). Rescinding Ordinance No. 81-666 clears the inconsistency. And, if the following section is added the affected lots will be subject to the .6w VIy� _,-ss r • ter_ _ - C•+�.d. • r - - F Wla t � - ter,., -_ , r .� _ - , r.. •-_ _ _ w � • �,: � _ � yam-• '� i�s, _ , � •`�_. _ •.- _ AWL !•. is ?' _=MON IrWLI .4dY _ - ` : ,i' -ice �� � nr _ - •- �� - r. > - �� b r y ii _ � • " � s } � F r��� .ems r r y "f �� • 3 • L' f � rte;' ��1�,��T��.'�7J � f .:- ?- - J'rY rL. �,' •— � � _ ++r.._ ir1-.•i..� J�•� r4.'a.� ll.� � � •. • '�� ,r- _ V- i 4-�1• • r ti ' _ --' r ?�' ' � � = i5 - - - ,�p[s - _ '-� �� � - - • - � K ' Y�-' -. - Sri y� • r �• nc. L Al i } - f • -ate � _� � - T�-� - r F'7'.- «f n. � _.� f- .�-:�•`}•Y �. a-6Jr Yk 16R requirements as R-3 and RP zoned lots, "The minimum lot size for three units in these zones shall be 4,275 square feet. The minimum lot width shall be thirty feet as measured at the front building setback line." Staff is recommending this alternative because it has a lesser impact than other alternatives. For example, to delete the 25 du/a for R-2 and R-213 lots and allow development of three or more units on lots of 3,500 square feet would allow more intensive development for R-2 Lots than R-3 lots. To reduce the lot size required for the development of three units on R-3 lots would allow for a greater degree of development than is currently allowed. St1 acy Victory Planning Intern U Pamela Sapetto Planning Director Bill Grove Building and Safety Director CONCUR: C4A,_Qq " ( Greg y T. ey r City Manager - - _ r.-.+ �r � ti�.._ .� _ ;=� -a.r ��—'• _,• - --- - -rte - _ yam- rrrrr r_ -a � rkt - - - - �- F it y • ��� - - ' � - - - ' J - �� `J -r �__� rS�� .� - - -_ _ �. _ ~�.L--:� t•ti - 4 � � ,.y�r: •; icy J• _�^i �.:�... - - _ � �.. J . 4 = _ �` jam•,' sir L ?_ a - r- - _ •�-r r" -tia. _ SF. �-� .�Fr ' .�i c v ,` 9 • -sem!°` l ter_ r-■ -- 4 _ � �. � - rl t• ■:�..� ,� w' .f ; � �_ . � � a�� ti 5 r_ _ "r ._■a r. ,�._;,� �. ��T '1�' _ rte, - 4 � ,y_ rl '_i __r_'!r_i `'� - __ _ � f� T S - r - tii _ riaLM _ _ , � � iy � • a�� __ -� r�i. _ -�� :. i fi - - r f �. - '' --ter, i. ; � 'r�'t�r-_: - = 1i��1�r i. -'`r- - _r�'��_ _ � ��• _ � __+ fr-.- ti ;4--� ,_ . �. a' -Ff� .� •ti --tie.•aw UA r • A _ �jy 1 C tw JF ... - ' _ _ t• _ ti � -r - •� _ - ��� . � Lam. IIS_- L-tAi6 JA - 4 ��. *. -- - - T - S r' - � fir = u i . _ — _ , _' '_ '�r� ' �'� r '_�, � �; � f . Th r � 1 • �. 'L 11 ©1 5 6 7 8 91 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 271 -41I ORDINANCE 84 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH TO AMEND THE CONDOMINIUM ORDINANCE NO. 9.5-22(2) OF THE CITY ZONING CODE. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on 4-3-84, 5-15-84, and 6-1-84; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on 6-26-84; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Initial Study and has determined there are no significant adverse environmental impacts created by this project and recommends that a negative declaration be filed with the. County recorder; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution of Intention P.C. 84-17 to recommend to the City Council to amend the Condominium Ordinance No. 9.5-22(2). WHEREAS, State Planning Law requires that issuance of building permits and subdivi- sion approvals be consistent with local General Plans; and WHEREAS, Section 9.5-22(2) of the Hermosa Beach Condominium Ordinance is not, in part, consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of Hermosa Beach does ordain as follows: Section 1. Rescind Ordinance No. 81-666 which reads, "The number of units to be allowed in this zone shall be consistent with the General Plan and shall be compatible with residential uses in the surrounding area; but in no case greater than 25 dwelling units per acre." Section 2. ADD: "The minimum lot size for three units in R-2 zones with a General Plan designation of high-density residential, shall be 4,275 square feet. The minimum lot width shall be thirty feet as measured at the front building setback line." Section 3. That this ordinance shall take effect thirty days after the date of its adoption. Section 4. That prior to the expiration of fifteen days after the date of its adoption the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach. I 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 day of 1984. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: CITY CLERK APIROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY 0 PEIR: HB 84 - PROJECT: REVISION TO THE COMDOMINIUM ORDINANCE REMOVAL OF 25 du/a LIMIT IN R-2 ZONES LOCATION: CITY \VIDE APPLICANT: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH . ZONE: ALL R-2 ZONES GENERAL PLAN: I.- - PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project involves rescinding Ordinance No. 81-666, which restricts R-2 and R-213 to 25 dwelling units per acre. It also involves adding the following Section: "The minimum lot for three units in these zones shall be 4,275 square feet. The minimum lot width shall be thirty feet as measured at the front building setback line." II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This project will affect R-2 and R-213 zoned lots in the high density areas of the General Plan - Land Use Element. These lots are located along Loma Drive and in the multi -use corridor along Pacific Coast Highway. There will be 57 lots affected. III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ANALYSIS Although the restriction of 25 du/a is being deleted, the addition of the minimum lot size will keep development in check. The development result will be that lots zoned R-2 or R -2B, that fall in the high density areas of the General Plan - Land Use Element will be able to develop three units if they meet minimum lot size requirements (4,725 sq. ft.). This is consistent with the General Plan which allows high density areas: 26-40 du/a. This will not affect the R-2 or R-213 lots in medium density areas -because 9.5-22 states: "Density shall not exceed that indicated in the General Plan" IV. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS This projects results in no forseeable, adverse impacts. i 4 V. MITIGATING MEASURES State- law requires zoning and subdivision approvals always be consistent with local General Plan. Currently they are in conflict. With approval this project will correct the conflict. V1. ALTERNATIVES One, option is to allow the affected lots to be rezoned to R-3 immediately. The second option is to have the -affected lots rezoned at the time of development. it is felt that these options are not needed because the inconsistency will be sufficiently dealt with using the proposed approach. VII. SHORT TERM vs. LONG TERM GOAL The long term goal is fulfilled in that the Hermosa Beach Condominium Ordinance will be consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. VIII. GR0IVTH-INDUCING Ii1dPACTS It is not anticipated that this project will have a growth -inducing impact. Because the affected R-2 and R -2B lots, according to the General Plan, have the right to build three units, the added Section will result in the affected lots administering to the same requirements as R-3 lots. 11 2' 3 4k 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION P.C. 84-17 (ATTAC-i4 ME"T A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF .THE CITY OF HERMOSP BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND THE CONDOMINIUM ORDINANCE NO. 9.5-22(2). WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a hearing on April 3rd and June 5, 1984; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Initial Study and has determines there are no significant adverse environmental impacts created by this project anc recommends that a negative declaration be filed with the County Recorder; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution of Intention P.C. 84-5 tc hold a public hearing to consider amending Section 9.5-22(2) and (3); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on 5-15-84; and WHEREAS, State Planning Law requires that issuance of building permits and subdivi. sion approvals be consistent with local General Plans; and WHEREAS, Section 9.5-22(2) of the Hermosa Beach Condominium Ordinance is not, in part, consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the planning Commission of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve tc amend Section 95-22(2) in the following manner: 1. Rescind Ordinance No. 81-666 which reads, "The number of units to be allowec in this zone shall be consistent with the General Plan and shall be compatible with residential uses in the surrounding area; but in no case greater than 2: dwelling units per acre." 2. Add: "The minimum lot size for three units in R-2 zones with a General Plan designation of high-density residential, shall be 4,275 square feet. The minimum lot width shall be thirty feet as measured at the front building setbaci line." VOTE: AYES: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shaprio, Chmn. Izant NOES: None ABSENT: Comm. Strohecker CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 84-17 is a true and complete aleQ Axe�wDaS lwidegS iaoC uewarey:) I;uezi uaydalS *�96i `ST AIRW Jo 2UTlaauw palnpaegs AppjnSaj .lray} Ie t{aeag esowaaH Jo uorssrWWOO 23uruu'eld ayj Aq ua>{e} uotloe ayj jo plooai 8z LZ 9Z 9z tZ 8Z 71ti TZ OZ 61 81 LI 91 5t �I 8I zI Ii OI 6 8 L 9 9 I� I C Arm ter_. :. :1 ...:.::.:..:...._.. • ORDINANCE ::0. 31- GGG AN ORDItiANCE OF THE CIT'I OF HER`:OSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, Mr CHAPTER 9.5, ARTICLE III SECTION 9.5-221(_), REGULATING TIlr CONSTRUCTION OF CONDOM INIU.M UNITS IN THE R-2 AND R-23 ZO::E ADDING LANGUAGE THERETO PELATING TO THE :IU!.IBEP. OF` UNITS TG 1 ALLOI.ED IN TIIe1'i ZONE. - 2 WHEREAS, the City Council .finds it necessary to k _ 3 condominium development in character with the neighborhood 4 WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to discourage th 5 o3 the Condominium Ordinance which has allowed an excessiv" _ g number of units to be constructed that are incompatible wi - 7 neighborhood. 0.n SI \i 0.1, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES 91 ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 101 SECTION 1. That Chapter 9,5, Article II, Section - 11� 9.5-22(2) shall be and is hereby amended by adding the fol - 1?I sentence to read as follows: - 13, "Section 9.5-22(2) R-2 and R -2B Zone. _ 141 ADD: 'The number of units to be allowed in this zone shal " 15I consistent with the General Plan and shall be compatible w 1G� residential uses in the surrounding area; but in no case g - - 171 than 25 dwelling units per acre." SECTION 2, That this ordinance shall take effect - 1q1 thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. y - 20I� I SECTION 3. That prior t t � o the exa,ration o fife _ i 21'I days after the date of its adoption, the C -,'-,y C:e_•:t shall _ 2211 this ordinance to be Published in the Hermosa 2aach Revie:-r ' )3 weekly newspaper of general circulation, published and cir 2411 in the City of Hermosa Beaeh, - _- - 25?� PASSED, APP"OVED and ADOPTED this 1- rh day of Ju: 26 +rU �w!CY^.�t:1.r.s�a^!+!.Mer'lV.rw .�r4.-e.•�•.�...y � .t+r�,2t .i -=;; .-�; ,.T•;..- �: ,... 31 ;P7a� , . D 70 rr•N... MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Thursday, June 28th, 1984 at the hour of 7:30 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Councilman DeBellis ROLL CALL Present - Barks,. Cioffi, Mayor Brutsch Absent - DeBellis, Wood The meeting was recessed at 7:40 P.M. to Hermosa Valley Middle School. The meeting reconvened at 7:50 P.M. Present - Barks, Cioffi, DeBellis, Wood, Mayor Brutsch The meeting was called to order by Leslie White of the Hermosa Beach School Board with members Gale, Reznichek, and O'Brien also present. Mr. Wood left the meeting at 9:05 P.M. COUNCIL ACTION - Invite School Board to join City in a Joint Powers Agreement for the purpose of acquiring open space and school facilities. Motion DeBellis, second Mayor Brutsch AYES - Barks, Cioffi, DeBellis, Mayor Brutsch. NOES - None ABSENT - Wood COUNCIL ACTION - To put on the Nov. 84 ballot Mello Roos dealing with acquisition of open space, school facilities, and railroad right-of- way. Motion Mayor Brutsch, second Cioffi AYES - Barks, Cioffi, DeBellis, Mayorr. Brutsch NOES - None ABSENT - Wood COUNCIL ACTION - Initiate process of rezoning of 13 lots at South School afronting Monterey Blvd. to R-3 contingent upon the failure of Mello Roos measure. Motion Mayor Brutsch, second Barks AYES - Barks, Cioffi, DeBellis, Mayor Brutsch NOES - None ABSENT - Wood COUNCIL ACTION - Exception to ban on oil drilling for South School site so that oil drilling would be allowed there if Mello Roos fails. Motion Mayor Brutsch, second Barks AYES - Barks, Cioffi, DeBellis, Mayor Brutsch NOES - None ABSENT - Wood All four moticna were presented to the School Board. SCHOOL BOARD ACTION - To accept the Joint Powers Agreement which allows the City to purchase for 3.5 million dollars all of the South School site and Seaview Parkette and which allows the District to remodel and make additions to Hermosa Valley School with a line of credit or means to begin construction immediately, with the previous deed restrictions, and including the contingency that the City Council rezone .87 acres of South School (built-up portion bordering Monterey— -1- Minutes 6-28-84 Boulevard) to R-3 zoning, zone change tro be completed from this date to become eff?ective<only upon failure Roos initiative on the Nov. ballot; subject to legal Motion Reznichek, second Gale. within 90 days \ of the Mello - advice. SCHOOL BOARD ACTION - To amend the motion to include the retention by the School District of the mineral rights for the entire South School site and that the reversionary rights be applied only to the easterly 4.51 acres'. Motion Reznichek, second O'Brien. AYES - Gale, O'Brien, Reznichek, Chairman White NOES - None COUNCIL ACTION -;Accept offer made by School Board. Motion Barks, second Mayor Brutsch AYES - Barks, Ciof.fi, DeBellis, Mayor Brutsch NOES - None ABSENT - Wood Council recessed at 11:45 P.M. to the Council Chambers at City Hall. The meeting reconvened at 11:55 P.M. COUNCIL ACTION -To have an adjourned regular meeting Thursday, July 5th, 1984,at 6:30 P.M. for the purpose of beginning the process of putting Mello -Roos on the ballot. Also, to appropriate $30,0000 for the process to be reimbursed by the proposed District. Motion DeBellis,..second Barks. So ordered by the Chair. ADJOURNMENT - The;,Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa,Beach, on a motion by the Chair, adjourned at 11:58 P.M. to a Adjourned.Regular Meeting on July.!5th, 1984 at the hour of 6:30 P.M. -2- Minutes 6-28-84