Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/01/70g CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 AGENDA - cny cowup MEETING Tuesday, Council Chamber - 'City Hall 6:39„„p_tm PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUr 7:32.-Pe:JE September 1, 1970 • - Joint Meeting with Chamber of Commerce • Regular Meeting uyt owe: 6Dee— ovin44 rtPlP `'° 41' 51) AM1- 7 trqb, ' - Regular Meeting of August 18, 70. 1. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE - 2024 STRAND - Single-Familv Residential with TWo-Family Residential Potential to Two -Family Residential - Requested:by Alfred C. Bowman - Planning Commission Resolution P.C. 154-779, adopted August 3, 1970 approving Precise Plan *23 and recommending change of land use classification. a. Letter of protest dated August 7, 1970, from Timothy M. O'Connor, Attorney at Law, representing Mrs. Robert A. Patton, 2028 Strand. b. Proposed Ordinance - For waiver of further reading and introduction° . 'PUBLIC HEARING - WEED AND RUBBISH ABATEMENT PROGRAM, 1970 - Additional Listing - Resolution No. N. S. 2981, adopted August 18, 1970 - For certification and authorization of abatement. 3 • NON -AGENDA ITEMS AND REPORTS - City Council. 4, MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONS, BOARDS AND COMMITTEES: a. Planning Commission: Land Use Classification - 731-737-739 - 210t Street and entice A212a.elpt Area - Report and Recommendation from Plannang Coth�n by City Council, July 7, 1970. (1) Letters of Protest: Dated August 25, 1970, from Ralph L. and Jan Westphal, 706 - 24th Place; Henry J. Redo, 720 - 24th Place; Donald E. and Nell O. Nelson, 707 - 24th Place; Dated Angust 26, 1970, from Edmund L. Jucevic, 648 - 24th Place. (2) Petition of Protest - Received August 27; 1970 - Signed by 138 residents, b Board of Zoning Adjustment: Zone Variancegoperty Located at 144-148.Lyndon Street - Board of Zoning Adjustment Resolution B.Z.A. 154-27, adopted August 24, 1970 - Recommendation regarding application of Harold Margrave to erect two four -unit apartment houses, one on each lot, in lieu p of maximum allowable of two units per lot - Referred back to Ai t) .1,4 Board for review, August 4, 1970. Q9 /194 wl""14 cfr di^^4"^"" t> - (2) Zone Variance,Prp_perty_lssatilat1821 Pacific Coast Highway, and 1820 Ardmore Avenue - Board. of Zoning Adjustment Resolution B.Z.A. 154-267adopted August 24, 1970 - Recommendation regarding application of Roger L. McGee to erect 100 unit apartments with portion of garages located on sideyard property lines, said garages located more than 35 feet from rear property line - Referred back to Board for review, August 18, 1970. City Council Meeting September 1, 1970 -2- Agenda 4. MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONS BOARDS AND COMMITTEES - Continued: c. Park and Recreation Commission: (1) Over -the -Line Tournament - On the Beach - Tentative Date, September 19 and 20, 1970 - Request from David E. Letchworth, Vice President and General Manager, Hermosa Entertainment Corporation - Recommendation from Commission. Request for Reference to Commission of all matters pertaining to parks and recreational activities„, 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM PUBLIC: Petition for Closure of Portion of Tenth Street near Pacific g°""--------j--a-aiL-Y'ra- Received Auqust 27 1970 atures Planning Commission Resolution P.C. /54-780, granting Conditional. Use Permit to Mobil Oil Company to operate an automobile service station at 901 Pacific Coast Highway. . Litter Problems -. Letter dated August 22, 1970, from Mrs. Holl S. Davis, 760 Loma Drive. 6. OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONS4 a. League of California Cities - Annual League Conference in San ..October 25-28 1970 - Request for designation of voting representative and a ternate. nd b.. Allocation of State freewa construction funds - Letter dated August 15, 1970, from J. P. Bilsborough, Director of Public Works, City of Gardena requesting transmittal to Governor of support for Senate Bill No. 85, providing 60/40% formula. c. REET21142202FalPrder RERhillAtinE211321tialRLIaill2aqrights- pky:2222: railroad corporations - Letter dated August 17, 1970, from Public Utilities Commission, State of California, requesting comments. d. 8th International Surf Festival, 1970 - Letter of commendation •for Police Department.and Recreation Staff, dated August 12, 1970, from Dwight Crum, General Chairman, County Department of Beaches. 7. NON -AGENDA ITEMS FROM AUDIENCE - Fifteen -Minute Discussion Period. 8. ARDMORE AVENUE TRAFFIC CONTROL REPORT - Status Report, Administrative. Assistant Ron Bergman; Traffic Survey, Ardmore Avenue at Fifteenth and Twenty -First Streets, .chief of Police William H. Berlin, dated August 26, 1970. a. Petition for Removal of No Parkin Si ns on Ardmore Avenue Signed by 54 residents; Letter approving No Parkinq Signs - from Mrs. J. Bell, 2308 Ardmore Avenue. b. Petition Reguesmt• Ardmore Avenue be Made Into a One - !Az Street - signed by 39 residents. 9. SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 69-1 - Agreement between City of Hermosa Beach and City of Redondo Beach relating to Sewer Connection For approval and authorization of Mayor and City Clerk to sign on behalf of City. i.` City Council Meeting -• September 1, 1970 -3 - Agenda 10. ALCOHOLTC BEVERAGE LICENSF, - Application for Rumbleseat Tavern, 530 Pacific Coast Highway - On Sale Beer/Eating Place - Person -to - Person Transfer - Donal W. and Joanne Angel. 11. ZONE CHANGE - PROPERTY LOCATED AT 102 ARDMORE AVENUE - From Railroad Right of Way to Single -Family Residential with Multiple -Family Residential Potential - Introduced August 18, 1970 - for Waiver of Further Rzading and Adoption. 12, CANCELLATION OF WARRANTS - Request dated August 25, 1970, from Mary R. Stonier, City Treasurer. 13. DEMANDS AND WARRANTS. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF H EPMOSA BEACH INTER- OFFICE MEMO Honorable Mayor and TO• Members of the City Council DATE. August 24, 1970 SUBJECT: FROM- J. B. Mirassou, City Attorney There is the possibility for the following factual situation to be presented before this City Council: That a request for variance was made before the Board of Zoning Adjustment and a variance granted. Without appeal, this action would be final. An appeal was taken by an interested citizen, and duly presented to the City Council, which referred the matter back to the Board of Zoning Adjustment on a two -to -one vote, with one Councilman abstaining. If the Board of Zoning Adjustment does not reverse its position, then it could happen that three Councilmen would vote against the granting of a variance, one Councilman voting in favor of the variance, and one Council- man abstaining. As has been pointed, out in the past, this vote does not overrule the Board of Zoning Adjustment, since the Zoning Ordinance requires "the affirmative vote of 4/5ths of all of the members of the Council" to re- ject or modify the recommendations of the Board of Zoning Adjustment. Then it may come to pass that a motion would be made to approve the recommendation of the Board of Zoning Adjustment. In order for this motion to pass, it would take three a.ffirriia.tive votes of the City Council to grant the variance. Under our hypothetical situation, if none of the Councilmen changed their mind then the second motion again would not pass for a lack of gathering three votes. The ordinance as written obviously leads to confusion and absurdity. It is a basic principle of municipal law that once the City Council has taken jurisdiction of a matter, that for any variance to be granted or ordinance adopted or any favor granted such matters cannot happen if the majority of the elected representatives are against the passing of the ordinance or the granting of a variance, or etc. All of our ordinances must be interpreted in light of this over- riding principle. In the instant hypothetical situation, it follows that since the City Council has jurisdiction because of the appeal, no variance can be granted without three affirmative votes of the City Council. It is therefore my opinion that in the hypothetical situation it will take a 4/5ths vote of all members of the Council to overrule the Board of Zoning Adjustment or it will take three affirmative votes of the City Council to grant the variance. Any lesser vote will have the effect of neither granting the variance nor denying the variance, and results in a non -action of the City Council. This non -action results in the variance not being granted. RESOLUTION P.C. 154-779 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH APPROVING PRECISE PLAN #23 AND RECOMMENDING A CHANGE OF LAND USE ZONE FROM R-1 WITH R-2 POTENTIAL TO R-2 ON LOT 5, BLOCK 210 HERMOSA BEACH TRACT, KNOWN AS 2024 THE STRAND. WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach, at -a public hear- ing held August 3, 1970, considered the request of Alfred Co Bowman for a change .in land use zone from R-1 with R-2 Potential to -R-2, and approval of Precise Plan *23 as the basis therefore, on lot 5, block 21, Hermosa Beach Tract, known as 2024 the Strand; and WHEREAS, at public:. hearings held on July 6, July 20, and August 3, 1970, the Planning Commission considered the request and the proposed Precise • Plan; and WHEREAS, after due consideration, it is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the Precise Plan as submitted is an' acceptable development of the property in question; and . WHEREAS, the proposal is unique to, this site and does not or will not prejudice or establish precedents regarding development of other lots in this zon and vicinity; and WHEREAS development of the property shall be in conformance with plot plans, preliminary building plans and elevations submitted as Precise Plan *23; and WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the PIanniriTI.,Qpixn'tenithat the proposed change is necessary to effectuate the long range planning of the :area; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach hereby approves Precise Plan.#23 and recommends that the land use zone classification of the subject property be changed to R-2 two family residential zone. . Vote: Ayes: Comm. Foote, Mulfinger, Toole, Watters, Chairman Noble Noes: Comm. Stabler Absent: Comm. Collis CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 154-779 has been approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach at a regular meeting held on August 3„ 1970. DATE JOE B. NOBLE, CHAIRMAN JAMES D. COLLIS , SECRETARY PRECISE PLN •123 Being a Precise Plan approved by the Planning Commission for development of Lot 5 Block 210 Hermosa Beach Tract, known as 2024 Strand. Precise Plan #23 consists of the plot plans, preliminary floor plans and elevations submitted in support of this request, labeled "exhibit A" and dated August 3, 1970; and the following conditions: 1. That all structures will be brought up to current building code standards. 2. That at least one of the two units will be in excess of 1500 square feet in floor area: 3. That the entire building will be repainted and refurbished as needed. 4. That the single-family character of the building will be preserved as much as is physically possible. 5. That the addition will be made in such a way as to create the visual impression that the two buildings are one. a 3 'a`; x00r i ) fir`;+"° 4a A 55 t3 '. i. ! .. •.J3z. r ',F : . ..t rf't a�'.$'.t-„i.: A f.s.. ^.; 4.a la';,•�.-`3 it ...3 iAi �,. {'a t LW. ,', if si > .• i' 4 a b•.:'! vr" [(F!aFt. 1 �y1l�,�,}'myl+�i�+yt�k �(--�9 -;;O �S.F .th a .. ,. y F i °� W :.,a' .1M1�F V12 (,q f. k:'1,A s5, a�e!? <.!I t: be c+tk ? ;i. +i A3skt:;y h '.h,B dty-� stv6. Ittear ai C. C1' i t� s ' ' .° X+ ,r" < 4 '1 ip.• :t3t;rs Vit. '� t. ,zi&,; `� ` 'b'i w i kl %,t z a3f e3 �.�. j,{4gt��, Fv"+3f b�, FDa;.� -ti .n.i'{f'5: lkAt 1.: i�iL ij'�GYe,�w+bfe./ %A�8�ve7$1 yyy(( [ .• [ ��iiccVV p j. l!.k,-• .: 1 .':t.�.ei l .. .$.'n� 1'arVii'.? Fa tr:4a�?!`w 4d �K U,i hm.,i3`t m J Sa (. *azo i'si z i0a t t e $ 0 c2;..34or +ti;3: L 1- " % • �}a 'c;i zgALgivaiNcE - ORDINANCE NCILALLIM - Introduced Noveirriber 4 1969. ACTION - to waive further reading. Motion by Councilman Thelen Canried. Ayes: Councilmen Belasco, Noes: None Absent: Councilman Valentine Semnd by Mayor Valde Thelen, WiseMayor Valdes. FURTHER ACTION - to adopt Ordinance No. N. S. 370, entitled: 'MI ORDINANCE OF THE CT t OF HERMOR BEACH, CALIFORN, RECLASSIFYING CERTAIN REAL IROPERTY IN SAID CITY LOCATED BETWEEN EIGHTEENTH STREET AND' TWENTY-SECOND STREET, AND BETWEEN THE STRAND AND BEACH DRIVE, FOR ZONING FURPOSZS, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. N. S. 154p AS AMENDED, AND AMENDING ZONING MAP OF ARTICLE 3, SECTION 302 OF f -LAID ZONING ORDINASCE." Motion by Myor Valdes - Second by Councilman Carried. Ayes: Councilmen Bei.asco, Wi , Mayer Valdes Noe -et None Absent: Councilman Valentine. Pass: Couricilsen Thelon.. (Property Owner) • • . . • • • • . • • • • .1 + • • „ -.P-toolike•Orthatirsilig haln . . SUM 11. Pot aitd ottm. roslootivo tudtoof. ber4. Aj5t'Lc bmolacildifsyule frim t ' ' .or fouorthe dsmaz-J,Wel pmvzortyl. • . mitt,,,,attAsc,r. c.,21.21,41.1oz4.2 tzar? AEA..mma„itt tau; rti,4,0ot 4':1,64.41PX;i64**.. 1.111**a•*.t. ottolore• .14,14•0**Ax14..n.m..uoirovv914,kol*Mlatroawaspa.nonlararildttl**0** oaiiitleospettr 16i.4.tatolifkita, itri'sttaleded Ifivp igitital is • . • . . . . • • .41.7.,6,4**ithiiMikauqts.r.vaan*QuammeatlexnanctslitOcrown*$ ' • pas. t t , Strsat "71 *.44645ST. 1.11? tIttoio 6 Mitta matt la matritime tw:--tho Sem zottice, tod. Ursa iian Oi:efittithda some fge malt igoaT (ix e - plain moat, ilvoomrp .,0.,tvast.turipc. tht eraremaidaw zrzamt0 4.1g) ratz the Ismap. ertir G)�% & t Its!'..tettoUdaititadt,), • Tit t public .p.pocasity 426es prapotted chat/. ham Wet officially .,:detalanixt " Xmas ettambataktkaatleirelolenaottsrotnietwrorwoulaltaarraltMuMegrx:fsracrommecasimemot• • ) 01e.481.. n1,1, reAMpt3rt --on Us, Stpsea tiatle azea a,. 4 IN • onamtina. on 19 liosponOr..1909 ON4,nariOet Fiet3t, 370s. wluieki ...stemaggegt4,44;414,104*-AtttnvAtx4pgkt6..z4litm "1.14,..EM614tat .d • olaesiLti o11-2 Two.*fazilly •HissiderAtial Pototatialt, cad 43*.emeaSSINe.ra.oet4evo.K/2...e..A.Zes No 15.4 a =tended . . are..1%Cm• ‘..1,tialrkilieni;itiVOttriL*VittlittHttilidit41.1.WOMPRVan-Aud.0104,-4*.t.V..a.M.M.14•0=ASIZO/WIUMVilArdialOclb to 10 011 . a 4.r415,olvelx.41. 2* • It the prowt krapcmd roolassification MaITO suitOleTh 'oho purposai.yotmittdAu t3 leasitaaaltion tban for the imeptaas pomitted in 04 mosent olAnairige*Axin? (knewar ocapiottaw: givo maresris or your.auswar.) • Use Almost two-thirds • of tax) )gsoporty„ facing the ocoar.;„ its %meant --aintli-cemegmt.4.-..-tathe-ike-mege-tesecatzgou-cl---Asliir-ismaadtramerfal-t>41-4,44,-a separate structure. However, the site ma be mom e.dvante comely iraproved --iro-kard-4.4s-sereot-dt..- :""1 .4 • fiKkiltteteil•Mriar.KVV:t""terff'ditge'ngealk144,20$ ausment its situatious attractiveness and benmftfloont effect on its ...vettlIsetzkarof-47,41r--54.}-atur-mitavgies---01.a-sether-v.verstafb----- structure.,pr�jct4„ this' atracture would tiontain a fell two-bedrom --faavirlirlmorkinarneirriegr-4*4 aefgag--tivs,---oom-Sao-avene-svet.----- this aL.artment would moolL co fard.ly rocitt 1ibrr317/ t:tyrrindrowsrxaftvotilegwacinvinglenirwol-tiorlyruvries-utrarsture---------- / -- = •). a- 00 . tare d Ro. On whho ^c o6. .r.tiryr or higher 0, " Pi:i ,;, in ,tay Ray <r ` the ' ' +lave ei;tt .6114.1a..404? .R .ay, s��j- �y'aq.�` r�, q ��/R,�,,, �&'ip Aii s '"-n.P:6.00 o f 1;1 qiA '{ at.SYiliMOZN tiMaAYIUMNwItioxocco. rooio,roomnigRVRoouromi.YKY:AP}kRSV”.. ..„.YRWC?lootoffoeFyoomrstoo .m.m Pimattintw 4. thst voxes of them im ati bm ~ od0 ' iavol a Ott* tem axpi,rati date -00 Attat .4 a:tottinutra tee tater t tlesu ion. Tte.FIanninitOfflea maga theme are not roTAima lu tble case 1404A160YppaR-terwr!wcoeesoc R/d:,Yl,i%Cria. ._. .. _, ..:.4D'SIMPRZWESeiVOIMRT.M1,IE AiC,24IEtter21 atMW.MeWUl'# q'W-17, P0#.wW U ' mooncoortzwoonoOrbiottaorsionvocamorAnuounoWomosomeerroloompotomogsmaom ,proyerties ` Val eleasitteet, tor the al' p' tad ln.of 'i . Al el .0, :Samba.• ,carnmJrwamuneJnJJJra n '. • frerntatInaysA� ..m44191100*.C.YNT C eeorogac000ktrososeozospoointo rOgacnoviassaaw onsoO ermosJTfi eNRXEOUOTARDAKDAtItiltOto6OatOt 8,V 2 or 3 :AN 4sS6':ut Rt, RNleE:O: OM,...o. Y? .OVIONOMOOSOooseautcoonacoonmr. OArm1bu'IDordiVe'dt+YtgoAcmloe l 000 .d1 WttD41Yr6dont+, CIA'A''t8i0K1c NNal COM. olm000soovouto Xe N11133/S11401.1 • J(Wt�IpWmw BtM1LiVu 'ia'Llttn,R4 - O1OM.. +7211tN-01.1tAdR JoRoftrOkt INYY.Wtw1NoOOOlo,Pm4k`a11(IMPO1l.4R.N6+l.2*.O.O.OtwornfO MLW%WOJ*JCippob IT oaoltecepo MRJCt.sogn'.a. »ulY@MerRe +it...W W:Kt:O 0 tl6gonwpb(ua olbel' tri E%11oclit000mpateot'Ak1MVOTALOSADMOO.gRK.OPO J5CAlorortotootouo ootroo ton ,CtIV TieaaS o Com+ :frJN?tmE A[I¢7A'iretlirke . RAfu<es to:.'Ltlll OStors 6oro IDoor.ko nfoo YJsooct.ConotOOOMWSIMIZOOlo NC'.tiemt. VfX.MORIOMBo off/Ot ?Lt:P4Rt7LbP birldrOo.k000rsotooloonamoomoloAtrimasottortesoromerirstro51,01. t!i"M IJJB P4421e.7, fek4VoratorDscantIrtylorato. :,RL.00IOkCiVOY Ct'l'L*laalt.T, OgesoNo=o VCW . x=i. Wft:4Lu1fICa'@1M+ mem t4:' 411114 itkA5JFCIR tt covamOCitenora iestottiltCu`/otomV OsrAMOVA> QOKOontomarolt, RMyx.,..1 4.,0 10 Application, Zone Change, Ae C. Bowman Precise Plan .the attached plot plan aid eievattons are mine ittaeel ars the precise plan for this property. The proposal meets all zoning ordinance dave1opent re.atioIs4 ex.cs ept ° to Section 1309° The addition is more than 40 percent of gross floor area of the existing sY t ruc t' .re *hick has a non •o ern orr1 ag side yard and rem yard° STATE CALIINA' .. COUNTY O' 1,(3, A tz 31 iJ tit '43;a i.:" .1,etng thiJ7 sworn9 ciepaoo nnd coy thw. i , of x t fl ' of tho pr arty volved and that this applaaation haa uoeo prepared in oomp i.t r,,; with the rw- q iz nonts of the Hermosa nob City Plmnning ',omission am printAwd hogein end that tbb foregoing infommation t +ori ►ly cad ocrxl3.etelly„ to the best of wx ability, prooente tbi argumpt in ie?at if cC $hv..afTaient .on he ` -s bmwit xd that tbo otatonents end inforamtie' a s rot •;;.. d t 1I 3 glipoo o true and, oorr oot to the hat Of.myxncmledso and. „ Tel phone No. r°1' . w Signe' ',s fiEgit raary l ►,7-, This is to vartAgp that the temearkg cogiestion hewn teen, Imxpootod 117 ma and foam to.to efts sad ceo'ppab1 foe filing with is Marittax Dtaoh Plaant ltat Ho. 1. !a' 20 APPLICATION P . �. 30 PC. G"r ' U. 11US MAP poriS 3 m sootion 1603 of wirtancx IL, 1544 2114.2Ulre$ IR filing fee of 8/00 600 to he paid, at Sha time of filing an e fzp.iioet ot for a zoning reolamoificationo This fee lis to partly box the aes1 to the City «t the advertimingp rove ttgeti.i end handling the application thrOagh ito V riouo stave. 2. T126 APPLICATIOU P03 CHANCE OP 2OOZ want 'oo filled out completely a .th fail enamors to :;holt tguestione The r pTr1 oaiio t bo cignm4 Wore the Planning Cotamlee1on Sooretery, ora Gott ry Pt biio by one a & thm owner: Signatures ot other r re of property #ropo od to he @banged should .bo geourod where' +per+ tible. Signature* re* t3f owners of proPortY hut to ty ��My�,,[ Pproposed to ' ♦ c .ey e3 should 4 meowed ed c iom possible, Nut b eigne u c e '>'Jxo not roqu. d. 3. PWROORAPSS of tha3 proixorty involved of a sit,- lams menti to illusteete tip+ mahloote Wunder dleameion eve always holgul to 00 Oavatosim anA aro fisted .as exhibits .tb tkia &impl cat ion. then above requironsnte are Met, filo APPLICATION and MAF the.Hermam ,x:ob City Planning Coamiemion0 The Application auct be complete in o r ' rimpoots, with ALL question and domande e verodp beer the Secret/447 can receive a: 4 aottify the petition. TO Planning Commission FROM: City Planney ANALYSIS Z-70-5 Request,,; To change land u zone from R.71, with Polential to .R.-2 ariA, appyove, Pc Plan 023 at 2024 Strand. Appiicarg: Allred C lowTrzan, Z024 Strand,: History: Planning CorfffiliSSiOU i'el-j0111MRY.1,fiei establishment ok R-2 potential or Octobor 60 1969, indicating that precise pkanning was needel, and would be accez:relithed through study SO:664MS pzior to developynt3A of the area (see Fe,solution,75 Analysis: The applicant p-ropOseS to construct st,ced unit or the Strand side of the it attaching same t.0 the existing dwelitag. There code probleos which the applicant believes can be, 'resolved satisfactorily Ipithput vaytance„ A 4°6" front yard set back is sho7.fart, 5' is Acig dwellings provide 6'6" and AO" yaeds The g'equired 3" side yai-rdS are shown. The applicant feels that his ,propcSaits upedor to buildilg 8. standard, duplex, Some neighbors have expressed disagreement, /ago:malty, with this philosophy., • An impmtant question is •Whother the retention of existing oliex dwellings should be encouraged or disCouraged, This 6,,,ntim area is on: the edge O re-devekInnent. The R'- .2f:41/mg on, propefties between, Beach. drive and, Hermosa Avenuf.: could be deveRoped wilt high denSity.apartynents„ The at ,m, any legal and illegal non- conforming 115-6-5 PS'eXisting dwellings. The decisions made at this time wit/. seriously elect the entire ar.ea, Recommend: Disciuss and continue to full Commi„Won hearing, Tu:i'y 20 197O. Addendum : Applicant maintains that his house is, or can be, bought up to modern building code. This could be a line to draw between retaining old or • building anew. New plans and elevations will be -submitted. Planning Commission Minutes 7/6/70_ 7 C - Request O1 AMA:'ecl O. Bowman for a change Of land USE: .`f.C:11,,3 kmtiri R. with R-2 Potential to -2 on lot 5, 3lioc,-k. 210 Hermosa Beach Tract, known as 2024 Strand, ad app a1 of Practise Plan *23 as basis of change. City Planner Cra-ik,'fogd esplained that this was. request for a zone ckaange under a potential zone procedure in which the proposal is to Fetain the existing dwelling on the rear of the lot and bring it up to code and attach -a new structure on to the front which would create a duplex. The south building line is shown as three feet from the propezty lie6 the kont and 4c -b".. This building would project 1-1/2" beymd existing buildings Mr. 3rawford said that the iui? on a point in this ap;glication that • it is.the first such request and may become a trend setter. He added that. the deoision to approve should be based upon whether it would lo°:-,) ix3tter to encourage the retention of the existing buildings or encourage the demolition of but:Wings • and replacement with new structures. He said the decision would affect the other our blocks that were changed to R-4 potential„ He said that the staff cannot make'a recommendation. at this time because they don't feel they have sufficient information to recommend either approval or denial of the request, Public hearing openedl 8:01 p, m. Alfred 0, Bowman „ ;E.024 Strand applicant fog' the change of lind use zone „ spoke in favor of the request. He said that his propavy had a fun buildina Sot on the front,but. due to thE, change of zone to R - J. twenty'-;71vi.-- years, ago, nothing had ever been built on it. He had six point$ to make4 The City Plannfir said the property would not be rtaheto a lot split. 2 . LI.a sepnrtes t;711 t um were built,, it would have to be .1:,_.t0er forward and a solid structure so that it would tend to cut off a I. view that their' naichbors to the nwth have of C,italina. 3, His specific purpose for the addition would he a tt*.."-bf_y:comm Utz p aFtIlle at to be occupied by his son after his mali:riage„ C).," possibly his parents in the future , and would necessitate a kitchen. 4„ The plans for the addition have been done so that the hig!.-o part in the bad will not be visible from the Strand. 5. The ,Z1Krange,ment will allow for landscaping on .1i7h,:i! Strand, 6, The building which the Buildirio Department has inspected is in very good condition except for some wiring and front windcA-v and will be brought up to Mary Donahue, 2008 Strand, spoke in favor because she also owns an empty °lot on which she would like to build. • • -3-- Dick V: il'its„ 216d E.trz,nd, said he IAliaS the, in the aea t et a variance to build, and felt Mr,. Bowman's plans would be a welcome addition the aKee. Mrs. Robert h„ Patton, 2,U2.8 Stzand„ spoke in opposition to the request because she didn't acreee with adding on to an old& house as it, prolonged the Xife of the building„ although she didn't object to a separat,--.3 buI He main point was that the city should establish guidelines or criteria so that citizens will be aware of what is going to happen in the area. lvirs. Carol. 'rent er„ of 2621., Strand, also opposed the request because the did not feel it would be of public benefit to add on to ea Oirtn building. Public hearing Josed at8:19 p. m„ Comm G. Collis inqui.red about the age of the strucLve and.Mr.. BoN,vnan said. it was forty years old, nc,1 as he proposed to spend the F.'est, of, hie lde there he felt old houses should be xeserved with iictre 1mmkoa and frieridIiriets. Mr. in Pahneii', the contractor, said that a variance Wouxel be needed for the non-confonning side yard that the request had been inckikled in the application„ COMM Stabiee asked why there were no prect.se plans „ and Mr.. 13,o,,,f,man said that the expense in., &Ned in producing plans for both an addition a.nel a separate unit would be heavy. He also asked how many e;cisting lots had single family b.Jildings. so located that similar additions could be. made.„ In a di.scassion of the request., Comm.„ Foote s,uggeted. holding the matter over until the entire Commission could be present, and in order to see mace, detailed plans; 00)Itin ends felt that the COMMISS ion was only concerned with. basic content; Comm. Stabler said that he behaved the size of the lot precluded a new development. Motion, by Comm „ Collis, seconded by Comm„ Mulf.iger that the de.-.:ision be postponed a full commission is present, and that the, al:,,plicant present a preliminary plan showing the floor plan in I/8" scale,> and possiby an eliSA at ton of the two buildings and a plan of the perking „ continue until the next regular meeting of the Nanning Commission on July 21:4„ P.11F.S: Comm. Collis, Foote, lquatinger, and. Chai.Y,Than. Stabler NOES None .111SENT;. Comm „ TO03..8 V atters and Chaiman Noble., 1942 The Strand Hermosa Beach 19 July 1970 Board of Phasing Commissioners City of Rena Beate City Ftp Hermosa Rca€ C•a Ufox 90254 Gentlownnt Attn. Mr. Robert Crawford y husband and 1 ares the ounere of ,he two Strand -fronts lot on the south Cord r of 20th Street and ' h a Stra . Colonel and Ms so of 2024 The Strand, rho have and app M11oat1cn few Change of zone pending before'your boards, have shorn, us Their ' pianB toz the improve- ment and extension of their hcu e, contingent upon: your favorable act1on . on their application,' We think that9 If they arepermitted d to carry tho s. outs, they •Bormans, proposed improvements would materially aly enhance the beauty and value of the portion of Th Strand whoa we live, We are therefore happy to join with tars, ' Th nohugh and Mro Wi11 ,s in tun Ing that you tact favox. ly CSI , their n _ Aga x h tem 0 faNktoo4tos Rel with R potential to R -. Sincerely Mrs. Verna 4mg, • A iptt$r was.TUN.:91Aviey, ".-•;,942 a, • WIT uNirv,,r7 that .thig EI.arng CsknonA,v:liqopl• aPP•ii;-',30-tOn Stir ch,i,.-wce zone fitom %,01;11, ,•ogtentla'4., . op or.1%.1: 7 p C.-.B.cr,vmart,„ tho epplqaant st,t'essied y„,15F-ait 1?..c4, proposed trt• ast c..,v„)nsk;(,17-•,r,77,7',1:,•10, st7;LI;Cic.11.Te-`. .kArit..3„ Eii:41E4fia.FY RkeT.Ilat't,f. 68 - St.reet, 3p„ctice„, of, ff:..Fi„-.2,.; be•-zattsec many 110.rnes wert•li v6r,y ohnsiirtv th ,;(2)11.1'0:.,17,n to tear glom.kneFelot, Cheap but; 1\4 • Pi ;-,.trly DortBhtlxi, 2,008 Strand., s,nid tlrges; I•J•Iopegt,,..•:,F.t.n1 • t'4vdt 5C",' I0.41131, LIVI',..ir.fiSS PAZrOSKty.i",!%/4..7.11-411 rioth T¼ QCo,nr,o,:t.,, 11.84,0•S, FiAdonacle) Faiach,, 7•;,..trE,5r:f21,1,tc,•the tp..ofr, skw bcilloakrae bsler•s Sg. tYP6S' a'Z''"Ii‘anci frAlets thf73.41,:, oone esta12.1.10teci hEigifjg;(1S.,,- o thea 1de t:;;I:-:,,t.fx,:qt dens, iit r r.14;1 use;„ and that c.fij,toF.1,a shour,'„cil "i•E)I• erAtzhIttskisd, 'Tor E27, $(7.1.id sbe tllat thor.i ciamvel 2,on,44.-)t. vartall,c.es„ and :•,e..a1,7,1s 4',.3.1•„•9 `•(°-•• t,11611 sartia: 1:70Ktg„ fe*-31 That add fr,o wl-•,•13,ethtite:Kit eel; v,114-;-,6,04. Taciu f,VrfAneq-kfk.t4 Wigs „ KR,thy BT--..079t3.Vort,`13'S,acte, ask(Ni thfil deve,,c,?..r.,inT•gA rxenje.f.e.' paki.ag tnte trxformo•e,i ht, &)a2. zaki 1.1t he was not, requestiBg a Variir").;:"..‘,S T"P.It a chF:roc, Publ'slc '80'0101,an, that the pux-pose of bAs apptifoatAK,,,y1 ,c,,iFas Ar-Awkle aro basis §.',,zu the, kirid cof.trirtia% that ti'M Boind fritnntis fills tho roascr8 ff•pr thls r4.,rornedlat,e o,Yassill,cattors. PacanarEent cal.tveizi Jvif:g.114.‘„I not; bqs• adoptev.1 T,A1LVA:P :Boar4 Nas a few exampiel;,, aske;'f.11 ntlin,hsiF row.43o,raes, and wits frAf..,-Incell, c.,htzt. vA76E1 /?ntr, tZatitlY CAraviqintsd sate th,al.. ar;1,;;F:it.lva‘;:, ;i5scilivDet SeCilliq'ret re-7SCgt:...I.C*,;;C):::', tAYTT'Mai`AQ,SP, f„:•`,••,„ Etr.'!;'.4.‘3 end 174cmlid Fitid op; witle.157-41-as Comm. Stabkmqu what would happen to the de -sway of the atlea if, a new unit wage added in this r.tianner. He said iliAS 'Yeeling Wcl•,-.1S that the R-2, Potential estaWished with the seeing that lack of ofg-sitgeet parking wouEd oontz•ci density and itRaa uortibining a lots,: and ,31,though the Commission ts klOt granting a varf,,,arcce, they woul,d, be vanting uve of the pl,',operty line c side,, whica woulld be hard put in the future to drzmy anyotte, else. lie did -not gesi, shOuld granted as .submitted.• Chat:en:tan NobAe said one of 'MO pus.',Joses a analyzing ti.as ages originally to change kola R!-5, to R-2 Potential was the t'emeralou.s nunthes of -pgwexties oxisting that wstm in laralii"COrevbrmity because. thw had been regone.d E956 to A Xotofpmporty otilnerss asked the ,,,93-474,1-0.13Sfrnt for Batimd theCom- missiat153 analysis; and their tes-timony, the .CoramisSion thoug;:i.t at that time tt'Aat, an R-2 potentia,.•,seaght. be wise because many of the propo:3tes were nOt built accriFdingt hezdship. As fat as: the, sideyatx1 set-battk, the PilanningCortuntaSk3/7.: has &lowed this many cases and ciac,f„occaget,..1 pmpet,:ty ownege 'to Gm-magic:1 th,e sideyard as Ion as itdidItkec.., agfect the neighbcost is a now the.gryo Eald usage. Gomm. Stabler; qt.,161•,ti.0.1,242d; that these haKdships are nctt pan o:1: the zoning adjus.tments, as they wem, not 'imposed on the propegty, but wey,:e Ceeated: by the pyoperty Olrli,01' himself,. He said if he wcqe oriAy ocnc:Eirkted wi0a the pee7 sent request, he would he enty ft ,r tt but he er,/as if:rex:lied about thu enact of this on the tote)" four-bketc, area. Chairman N'obie said the main poLa was whether wantin.c5 this, zone change wouad be. matartally detrimenTak to Mr. Bowman ovh 1.1,fiz„ Craw-, fmd suggested that the Planning.Commission, Goad determine that Lille oav cases in til.As patential zone where they wouid even coils5.,d,va vaaance from nosmal dtevelopraent stand,a5ds would be whets t partioulag. dwelling •is jatigod by the Building- Depagtment to be eitheT up to modem, building cedes Cgc capabri,e of being brought, up to rod am building codes. This would eliminate a i,arge cirgtEP o bIlFidtrtgS 4 Take each One, on, its own zne.7its., comrtto calts giwcood tetatniag some oldea• homes „ but tat a newessity fraT gui4etines as gar as planning. Comn. attcEs asked. 51 th. Commission had had EL opinion 'km the City Attarzey„ and City PilaTmer OF.reagmel said that itpS fxrdinance ha4 to be ex- moist:Al ixt such a way that the city could riot be accused ckT betng hy and capricious apprvAng pzectse plans, so Zhat ft was nevessary to build up a swiss. of precedents. �i an Noble said' thoy Must 47Qngitt.(g' zequized RaFking and the gact that any addttionto an existing building must be compatible. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COIVIMISSION HELD IN THE COUNCIL C BERS a cary HALL, HE OSA: BEACH, ON MONDAY, JULY 20, 1970, AT 7:30 P.M. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:40 p.m. by Chairman Noble. ROLL CALF Pi ese se Foote, Mulfinger„ Stabler and Chairman Noble. Motion by Come Stabler ;;. seconded by Comm. M ulfirnger to approve minutes with the cce°reet:lon in the first paragraph of Page 2, line IS to read ,R-2 instead of R -4m AYES: Comm. Oollis Foote;, Mulfinger0 Stabler NOES: None ABSTAIN: V atter s and Chairman Noble. Resolution P„ C_, l 277 Motion by Comm. Vtitters n seconded by Comm. Stabler to ap Resolution P C. /54-777. AYES: Comm Collis, Stabler; Toole Chairman Noble. NOES: None ABSTAIN: Gomm. V Comm. Iviu:*linger asked the staff to check the sign on the P Pizza Inc. building for indecent connotations. P. 7 ' City Planner Crawford reviewed the request of Mr. Alfred C. Bowman for a change of land use zone from R-1 with R-2 Potential to R-2,, saying the item was continued from the last meeting in order that the Commission could review more precise plans on the proposed remodelling. He said the opposition to this change was based primarily on reluctance to prolong the life of old but/dings„ and desire to eliminate them and replace with modern duplexes In the case in question, the building could easily be brought up to code. It is non -conforming in that it is to be three stories and abuts the property ltne:> requiring two variances if it is approved. He said that the Rat potential gives the Henning Commission a very broad range of discretion,, and tr, this case„ a choice between; preserving all older homes only some :Ade* he! s which can be brought up to metier n cods s: eliminating all older home: in c del to teal.ize R .2 potential© Motion by :©ir Foote, for zone change float R-2 AYES: OES seconded by Chairman Noble to gra r;t the request •tential to R-2 based an Pre ;tse Plan X23 . ,-,:otant Foote and C.aha nn3n Noble uOiralt, :,: .li ' Mie in er, Stabler ; `od 'tft Jitters Com m V aet°s prec d t , although M: some cr.Qerta hts to by say 7e the to , tsk to establish a ba rs„s reque t loss mecd.Y„shed to establish Motion =y °ornr „ stat f can g , addtt suggesttons tor atters„ s= c.o ddd by facts, to continueto er that the gal intone and analysis of, the r.r # order to submit c -(items „:„:`oa`t tsst rr or. the # i ants WI*, ar.d ads .°Lai: ct each ,souse that has norc c.;sm t m SIdeyard s hacks, Parkieg . Precise pias., heartngs s. ausd b perogative of P1 rt ing OM r tsslon tr stead of dec ,sion being made at stair level. The at -ea shall encompass from north side of AS h Street to south side of 2 2 r:d S t en'bl. t NOES '1 Z3 `., ? b r v Its Fo to un er, Stab l,c:> Toole . att and Chairman oble None i.L5 0.!O:aiV, SEACil .7 `i.n: k;ttdN(; C I. itS''.t YDN hu6k 30,. 1970 Mg. ta'd34 irwaT. and arTmb,c°rs of tha Comminsion You h sve bt fore youtonight . a �w�F=;ry° big decision to maketl' one that: c i i. t� eta lasting onsoque.nce in the development of the Strand. :t. am !amble to attend this important 4.t i rrd ao %Ash to take this c• t,or to i r y to exprose viewo re.garding the deve.lopw:.nt of the Strand property in ger.eiral and in perticvlar thapt.. portion of. the Strand from ISth Street to 22nd Street.-: ` reme dcaln prCeigeua: +s, ere be. ing e e'rrrtud upon this entire area., Ms a3 Planning Com- mission, m must. ha &wareof the different pressures that cause change in order thss•,t effect:Lev policies can be a ormul :Sr.ud. Let use examine the economics: pressures in this area. The principle of supply and de rld can Nil saen working masa vividly. We have a maim s9.re source, the belch, fronto t• -03.P approximately one and one half miles of lend which is in short iuppiv„ Tho &nand is great appiarent17, r, ine e the land values range from $1,200 to $1,500 per front foot., r galdlese of the zoning. Expressed sserls in terma of coot per squmte >t he prise varier£ from $ B,4.00 to $1x.00 or $ i 000. to $700,000. per sore, . teed on these l et.ird values, you would have t o asree that this could be called >a: "h i gh rent" area. The average cone corer is not dahl.o to afford to live in this area ,plc„. of coarse, property waves were s u.rl.d,ecnly towered, which Ash A romantic but highly kv. renalintic. thought. in the R-3 coned part~ na,nt of the Strand the present density permits one .clwe l l ing :;ct•. s par 600 squame t •<. r, of P.,tud. 7l° ass lead cosset wou141 be. $9,000 to $10,000 per unit. 1n order to justify there p .iris: ;s, rents s:hcottld rcann a gtprtixi. lately $320. per month minis/kin) For an No equate '«of ap artkFil a'it,'. Da the ; cnar W. n„ area from Udttlts, S',mt c+tt to .22nd, Street., no ' zoned a... i with R=2. potaatig.1, the laud COM1 per uns<t MOTO than doubles laec ctsss of the lower Mynasity, Ita motor plan shows . i units 'per ssc:.ire WillOW.Tp bare on the present use, the density appronmatoky X305 i t,f!it:is per ecru. A development in this area would have. $180500 to nn1,003 ltd cosat per unit and rents would have to he $400. per month hint • mugs. The Cann value would. be approaching ing 60 of the total vu, ue of land and duelling providad your structure could be bait for $16.00 per sequ r'e foot including financing Comta s cin is tos}tte, profit and overhead. . Trey should thte four block area be permitted t sol;.l ing s par lot? The land economy certeinly would net. dictate this type of use. ftatt :if it did? Should the planning commiosion then ass;ign a higher de ,s city to an ?'l area to juetify the price of the is ;f;;? A person uho pays $20,300 to $50,000 for an iA lot i.n another city, does rot get any g:pocbathl,. coviw. ses;t"to ,. Many y of the propert.ie;s to this em a Etre: non -conforming under t;he. present zoning be- cause the previous toning permitted more thus one dye/ling on a lot. Therefore, 1 would ezea:ouragebuilding of single family residences and allow one additionallfv=ing unit provided thatthe total value of the improve :nts are at leant equal to the lard v Blixt e Ka my opinion the minimum u single family home sdtouald be at least 1,300 to 1.,500 square feet. The second dwelling shoui ;i be at gealet 700 square feet. I do not recommend that we allow existing structures which encroach into the bide yards u leer the encroachment to to the property line on ono ride only, and further. thet the equi.vakvnt amount of side y,;<rd be provided to allow at least. S to 6 feet;,oca the opposite t.e Aide yard. A. t omoroachannt ohould be ptis:, itte if a hardship is created on the Adjacent tS1Wh off our problem in this arse is .tom result of hepheserd pIapn4 and bnilding is type of davcalepanamt itz =sat isfac tory pLos everyone pays fay, api to per tea i me 1ter.psmot j,awe esl7 a is adrar to those conditiona is po ga to sesevoklo thou lkte dills type off le fact, the sorry an unable to eNfire tt : responsibility is .th a Y,. £ $ of the final datisica. I tochap ommcuff my. obsery t isso apd opiplows1 iax 1p you Is madbimg policy est,leactgey to e,11 store p rose xt en4 oomeornad, Sts yom Sopterzbay. • ANALYSIS Z-70-5 Request: To initiate R-2 Potential at 2024 The Strand - Bowman. History: The City Planning Commission created the R-2 Potential after con- sidering the large number of non -conformities in the four subject blocks. The basic reasons for the R-2 Potential appears to have been to allow supple- mental income to support basically single family living, and to encourage re -- placement of old , substandard dwellings. This is the first request to realize the R-2 Potential in this zone. During previous hearings the Commission has expressed concern regarding: a. Setting a precedent of preserving old houses, many of which are not worth saving. b. Setting a precedent of approving variances from current building standards which might be applied to new buildings. Further analysis of the area indicates that if the Commission is inclined to approve the request as submitted it involves: a. Two "variances" or non -conformances: 0 side yard on one side, 3 (three) stories in an R-2 zone. b. An older building which can, and the applicant claims is to be brought up to modern building code standards. c. An addition to the building which incorporates portions of the old into the new so that it becomes in fact one structure. Only eight lots do not have some non-conformance in the four block area. The Commission could establish a set of "ground rules" to be applied to this area, such as; 1. Normally, new construction is to be encouraged, of essentially single thmily-home type atmosphere, with second unit intended to help support same - all units should be at least 1500 sq. ft. in area. 2. Older buildings may be converted or added to only when they can. be brought up to current building code standards, and are judged physically safe. 3. Any addition to an older building shall be done in such a way as to create the visual impression that the two structures are one. 4. The non -conforming garage structures may be retained unless it is physically .inseparable from the dwelling. 5. 0' sideyards may be allowed only under provisions of Resolution P.C. 154-717. 6. Elevations and landscape plans shall be submitted with all requests to utilize R-2 Potential in order to assure that proposals will blend with neigh- boring properties. I MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD IN TIE COUNCIL CHTIVIBERS„ CITY HALL, HERMOSP BEACH, •ON MONDI,Y, .P•UGUST 3, 1976, 7:30 P.M. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:35 p.m. by C'hairman Noble, ROLL ALL Present: Comm. Foote, Mulfinger; Stabler and . Chairman Noble Absent: Comm. Toole, Nka.tters, Collis Motion by Comm,. Stabler, seconded by Comm.. MuMager, to approve the minutes of the July 20„ 1970 meeting with the correction on page 6, urhder "Jade House Company", that Comm. Foote abstained ftrom voting. AYES: Comm. Foote, Mulfinger, Stabler, and Chairman Noble NOES: None ABSENT 00113111,, COIIiSC Toole and V atter Rtzsa P 15.4-Z,7Q Comm. Foote noted a typographical error, in paragraph two, which should be changed from non -variously to row variously. Motion by Comm- Stabler', seconded by Comm. MuHinges. to approve Resolution P.C. 1,54-778. AYES :t COMM Foote, ulfinger, Stabler, and Chairman Noble NOES,; None ABSENT: Comm, Collis, Toole and V atter City Planner Crawford Saki that this was the third hearing on M,T. Alfred Bowman's request for a change of land use :lone from R-1. With R-2 Potential to R-2 as the matter had been continued in order for the staff to prepare additional material for possible standants guidellnes to be applied in the; utitizaton. of the R»2 potential, for the p pety He said that there were only eight lots in t.:4e area which did nothave some non-conformance He suggested some "ground rules" to be applied to the area: Normally„ new construction is to be encouyaged, of essentially single family -home type atmosphere, with second unit intended to help supper same-ali units should be at least 1500 square feet in area. 2„ Olde buildings may be coveted added U7i oray when they can be, brought up to cent builfEng code stan,dauls, and are judged .physicany ,safe. • • 3. Any a,dditim,r, tc an older building shag, be done in, such a way as to cweate the visual impresstart that the twg SiEt,tctMeS are one„ That no non -conforming garage stf,ucturo may be retained unless it is physicaMly unsepalabLe &oat the 5„ 0' sideyands may be altowed only under provisions of Resolution PoCc. 1154-717. G. Elevatims and landscape plans shall be sUbMitted with all requests to utilize R-2 Potential It% Ciitier to assure that pKoposals win blend with neighboring reopeEtios. Comm. Stabler read OA analysir.4 by Comm. Collis. Public hearinc ona,ra,Rd754 ,p„Pl, Mr. Alfred Co Bowman, 2024, Stand, commented 077.4. a 2tre.,° Crawford"s suggestions: h felt that if you assume that you want to haves the appearance of single family dwelling with an addition:fa unit t be the objct, you would be unable to accompAish this with the smaller unit being 1,500 square feet. Mr° Bowman then summed up the background on his vequest: lie wished to build a large separate living P,501110 Fonloved Frorit the kitchen, and add a separate living unit vaith anIzther kitchen:, On Octobes' 6, 1969,, the Elanninc,f Connissiora had considered changing th on back to R-2 fg oat R=4, but instm.f.:1, ch.anged to R -A with R'' f?otential. At that time the Cardriat,54,0,01). said that thfo area was destined to be zon,,ed, R-2 tt the neaF ei,tture, and that each application would be consideTed separately al,:ad L.it is Keasanabk it would b approvedk, They planned to hold study sessims ZoF pc ise li.,,anning which Wouki enhance' property values. Mr. Bowman continued that in the U‘iiht of the aftliggance, ht house se,ornee to qualigy on the basiso a couk51 be blought up to code, had thre'aw,clos-Fii garages, building area in front, r.4*-,dizci beautitying, and he was flexible as to architectural featuTes. H8 said in view of these facts, he questioned the denial of h request because of the Mairman's statement: ast October, and hoKied that the Coarnuls0,011 would act favombLy at this time° Gomm. Toole ag-rived at 8:0a Comm. Waiters agrived Mr. Bowman said that he couldotpromkoR„ that 1'i ould ThervET be a tenant on his premises, ellci also that O. his application was unsuccessful, he would then submit alternate plkans„ He said he dtdn't understand the Tea CID why the Commission did not a,ppmee, his plans, and thought it could only be for one of two reasons that the Cbrftraiti•StCP11 didn't like, 1he3 plans, • or D;,) „ wished to destroy &i1 of the old, homes ihrars. Virgbala Kelsey, 1.942 Strartd,„ said that, Mr. Bowman"s house woulti not be puschased with a view of tearing it down, as there was too much land in frornt, S said did disagme with the 1,5f.)0 square •goot stipulatiorit all units in the area.. Mrs. Mary Donahue 2008 Strand, said that owners must but units ies airdpm to afford to build. She felt that they shc,)uld a4owed a parking area on, the second skand build to the line on the other, N,visich wouid give a double • garage and parking Braa. MKS r, Alfred C. Bowman commented that she was ‘.regy anxious to employ a landscape gagdener„ and also to consult TOtth the Parks SupewisoF, to establish. a beautiful garden, 1,1,a the new development. Mo. one appeared to speak in oppositkm, Public heaing closed at BgN Chairman Noble questione€. the stipulation. that all units shOuld be at )).e.last, 1,500 squam feet in. area„ asking Mr. Crawford kr his Teasoning behind it„ Mr. Crawford said it had been to provide a two family hormesite, but that upon F.eflection„ he agreed with the suggestion o the pToperty owners that the secorki unit be smaller deliberately to keep it, as a onc-family with rentaR had a great dee/. o merit. Cowan. Stab sepeated his cm:merits from, the KGVIOUS meeting that he clidn,"s; object to Mr„ Rowman.'s plans in themselves, but did not wish to set pvecedents. agmed with Mg Bowman that the Comaission had been negngent following u o their gitudy sessions of t1 area „ since it was past a the Commission's cot whym they changed t.17.,0 He also commented on Comm. Clorat s' lett to the Commission outlining his ideas on aan dasds fkr potential cleveXopment„ and said he felt the Commission should show comma over doveloping the standards. Comm. Foote said that if the or,igina intont a the Z011,0 change was that each plan should be jUdgUi Cpn ttS CwO. merite f0.t, Mr. Boviiman had done the proper thing and answeved fay the requizement. Chairman Noble said that thea Commission N.Igas aware when they received requests that there woulld be Y-K.:01.-confacnOty, and they shodd judge each request on vikethets- or not the existing propeaty ez the surgoundimg woperty • would b detiny affected by the added structure. Motori by Comm, Foot,e4 FAconded by Comm „ Too ie to approve the Precise • • Man. 03 as stated as the basis of ifmther approval, of the, zone change gar this particular pmperty, and to review Emmy presentation in this area with the perogative to approve deny or to suggest change W those other p!ans and to either approve or deny. AYES: Gomm . Foote; Olinger „ Stabler , Toole , V' a tters and Cha Noble NOES: • None ABSENT: Comm. Contri Motion by Comm. Foote, SC }Id by Gefilifin Waters that Resolution P.C. 154.-779 be adopted recommending that Lot 5 Block 2J1, First addition to Hermosa Beach Tract be changed from R --I with R-2 Potential to R'2 subject to Precise FlaD. *23 AYES: Comm. Foote, Mulfinger, Stabler, Toole, Waters and Chairman Noble NOES: None ABSENT; Comm. Collis Motion by.Cormn. Stabler, seconded by Comm. Foote„ to refer study of R-2 in this atea to 7oning Committee. Unanimous. putessaSiemzzacm 601 Pacific Cfr';ast Highway A Gowlitional Use PW1/111, iSBlied to Leigh LaRue to conduct an open ac busineSs„. subject t conditions. City Plannex. Crawgeffd explained that since this business had not oomph tvith the: original stipu.lations their Conditional, U Pennit, a public hear' - ing was being h& to cono4der whether,: the (dol Use Permit should b revokedic He reviewed various actions of the Commission during the past two years in extending the time limit to acoosnplish these requkTements, anct; said that, the applicant had again requested aa extension of time because as new Manages' would be installed who woulkl comply,' with conditions imposed. Pubic hearing opened.: 846 p.m Mrs. McEvaen„ representative for the Penis China Manufacturing Company, said that an older„ reliable Mart who has roanaged the San, Beictafaco es- tablishment, would be. managing the Hermosa awe, and she anticipated that it would be stocked with the landscaping finished ntwo weeks time. She planned to have twisted junipers ia the planters. PuhHc hearing -closed: 8:54 p.m. Wiotion by COlrilllo To4:Ae0 seconded by Ganun„ F000te„ to postpone the AUGUST J. O'CONNOR MARK w00 TIMOTHY M O'CONNOfR W. MARK WOOD LAW OFFICES O'CONNOR. 8 WOOD 040 !SOUTH i£LEt. A AV(ENUE,..SUWTC 100 ftEDON O MACH, CALIFORIV 6+0277 370-F242 776-2674 GORDON A. GOODWIN Or COUNSEL Aug sent 7 n 1970. City Counsel City of Hermosa reach C1vc Center Hermosa Reach, California Re. Application of .Alfred C. Boman is+ -r Change ,e of Zone for Premises ted,. at.2024 St ~ ;:nd, Hermosn Beach, C .iforaaL& Planning Commission Case No.. Z.-70-5 Gema. en This letter is sut it ed to. you 'on •b h 1 ff off. . client, sirs Robert:. ,..Pa matter. Please consider this i.e ter as written notice of appeal by ti's. Patton from the purported . decision :af the Plan- ning in � n ng Commission at their met ig. whic a o..curr=rd on August: 3, 1970, wherein they voted :to., grant theapplica- tion pplica-t .cn of Mr,. Boffin in 1k : above entitled 'matter. This appeal is based upon the fact that , . among other thi.nngs , the Planning,Cowmission we without power to act on Mt. Bowman's an s appi i.cati..on at its neet5m son August 3,-1970,. N© notice wasgiven to dry client or. amy other p rsons interested th this wetter and .the �F a rting Commission. had at its regular. meeti. ,g ' off ,.Y'ily 20, 1970, . voted n.ot to grant Mr. Bowman's applicet`.oh.e The Comission Voted. to .conthct further ntudy .by the PIarning, l 0 a a t nt stafff',to rrstabLish criteria for the naaf for . d v� &o >ent +off 211 property sirdIr rIyy € itu ted to that of Mr -0 i o .an" s c btendinng from the north.side tae of 18th Street to. 22nd. Street on the Strand. I nnderstand, that notice mill be ff'rwarded directly to qty c i.i.ent s who reside at the ad j otpi � propert y', 2028 tr +znd, Hermosa Beach, California, And to this office of the time'and : pace of hearing can this tier.: cot c rni .j the about : entitled 'iii/,is cc Mrs. Robert A. Very truly 'yours, • • ORDINANCE NO. N. S. AW ORDINANCE OF THE CI OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PRECISE PLAN #23 AND RECLASSIFYING CERTAIN REAL •PROPERTY IN SAID CITY LOCATED AT 2024 STRAND, FOR ZONING PURPOSES, PURSUAMT TO TIM PROVISIONS OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. N. S. 154, AS AMENDED, FROM 'R -1(R-2)" ONE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH TW0-KIM/4Y RESIDENTIAL POTENTIAL, TO TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, AND AMENDING ZONING MAP OF ARTICLE 3, SECTION 302 OF SAID ZONING ORDINAKCE, AS PETITIONED BY ALFRED C. BOWMAN., THE CITY COUNCIL OF THe CITY OP HERMOSA BEACH, CALIF0MgIA, DOES ORDAM AS FOLLOWSt SECTION 1. That after public hearing by the Planning Commission as prescribed by Zoning Ordinance No., N. S. 154, as amended, and after public hearing by the City Council as therein provided, the following real property situated in the City of Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California, that is: Lot 5, Block 21, Hermosa Beach Tract be, and the same is hereby reclassified from "R -1(R-2)" Single -Family Residentia/ with Two-Familk Residential Fotentialeto "R-2° Wo -Family Residential Oone, and the Zoning Map of Artiolo S, Section 302 of Zoning Ordinance No. N. S. 154, aG amended, be and the same is hereby amended as herein set forth, pursuant to the provipionrefor in naid Zoning Ordinance, as recommended by Planning commission Reoolutiml P.C. 154479, adopted August 3, 1970. SECTION 2 That the provisions of fteolee gl..an 423, indicating the plot plans, preliminary building plans and eleVatio for developmnt of Lot 5, Block 21, Hemmos*. Beach 'Ttallt,',knownas 2024 Strand, are - hereby approved. SF.C.TIM 3 That said City Council bca calas44 to. t,0 preffi a small area may of the area'oe district Effet1t0014, gOne hereinabove ordered to be made, which said small area, le hereunto attached, designated as Eathibit °A°, and ighOrObY referred. to and by this reference incorporated berein and made a t: h0 Said Small area map is hereby adopted ase, and Whall be amendmeat to the extent of the area shown thereon and affected thereby, o "ZOning.kap of the city of Hermosa Beach" referred to in, and whitalk.im advtgd by the provisions of Saction 302 of Article 3 of.Zoninu eg4liotkav Wo. L61, ili4„ as amended. SECTION 4 a That this ordinance sham take effect thirty days after the date of .its adoption, and prior to the expiration of fifteen days from the .passage thereof shall he published at least once in the Hermosa Beach Review, s:. weekly newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated : in the City of Hermosa Beach PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this PRESIDEgrarele City Cou nc r aonci HU OR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California APPROVED AS TO FORE-: ;, C I ATTOR Y .3".'"412- 4:47 'ON or --7740 / 'ON 1.3s41 -1S tWZre7b'"7. 74! —pl '7-f-52eY _ VWY6re r 'evty2'--0-eire` ort'.LD3renns • '0341.1 '4E..5(4JUTION NO. N.S. 2981 A RFSOLUTION 0? 74E crTy COUNC."11, OF MP CITY OP HEINOS;,. BEACH DISCLARINa THE EUSE OP CERTAIN unsAmcps IN SATD CITY AND PROVIDING Iraft.M kBATnenfr THEREM (GTNEMIAT CODE 3MTTAN 39560 ET. Sal.) SECTION:11 The City Council of the City of Hennosa eaen does herebry declare as public nuisaneos and provides for the abttvatent thereof the follmoing:. .All rdbbish refuoo, dirt and mats u1011 the pattlewo, etreet6p sidewalks or private property in sai.d city, a specie', reforonce txins hereby made to the 'following dsscribed proPerty: Strayed Harmos Daach Lot 2 Mk 1 PAc$fic Coast 41thwav. • Walter Room Co's Venable Place Lot Com at NV Cor of Lot 2 th E on N Line of rd Lot 110 ft th S on W tine of Pacifio Coast Hwy 39 5 Pt th 3 7634' W ouitted portion in A5sessorib nsp Boot.. bot 25 Scolos Tract Vac St AO an SW and Lots 1 and 2 Tracy. traCt Lott 2, 3 and 6 Lot Com at most N Car of Lot 19 TR No. 6(417 th S .76°34' 71fto Mr, Line of Lot 10 Tracy TYltet th N 1°26'. W 74.535 Pt th S 76°34' W 100 Pt th S 13° omit, ted portion in Assessors Mrap Book 16, 17, 18 and 19 Tract No. 6917. Hermose hve Fir Ada Hotiaolv', Beach 4 Blk 41 Her' Be.1„ch SE 47.5 ft of Lots 14 and 15 Blk 6 SECTION 2: The roferance herein contained refers the various streets by their commnnly known names and doett describe the property upon wtvich or in front' of which tht nuirianee erists r,y giving lot and block naraber accardinz to the official map of tiAtid 1.roperties and as more-prticularly hereinabove set forth. SECTIO 3s That the Superintondont of Streets, upon passege of this resolution, shall cause notices to he conspicuously posited as or in front of the property on or in front of which the nuisance enists in the Fa::nner and form described in Sections 59564, 39565, 39566 and 39567. . SECTION 4s That the City Council hemby orders and deci ms th hearing of ob, etztio .s by any intatreota6 pe,mon to &ny of tha pottow hereinabora sot forth shall be and iv haray r;e t for ` `mc aki , Saptvalbar 1970 gt 700 pAL in dna Council Mk:ober of Vic Ci s / of tM City y of I r ...=A Eanch, Ca ifoinic. NM% APPRZW. .`: ,. TEL, Omczattilth ViSgae ra 6 INTSMI' of OA CM leoraull, cavil DaYtEl of ike eltv of 111—en : m E,trigh /e/ _ Mary A. Edg rtOn OITir CLAM APPROVED AS `a0 FORM: / / J. B. i Ur'assou CITY AT • TO: City Council PROM: Planning Commission • SUBJECT: Report and recommendation regarding land use classification of 731 - 737 - 739 - 21st Street and entire adjacent area. Discussion: Pursuant to the City Council's request the Planning Commission has studied and is continuing to study the highest and best land. use, past present and future use of the subject property. The best advice the Planning Commission could offer the applicants, the neighborhood and the City Council at its previous hearing was no change to ,high density residence at this time. The best advice we can offer at this time, following a more intensive, broader- based study is no change to high density residence at this time. The only strong indicator we have is that premature, haphazard change at this time would have serious detrimental results. It must be reemphasized that the Commission believes very strongly that the future of this entire neighborhood is in the balance. The recommendations of Exhibit A are the minimum necessary to protect and preserve the single. family homes now in existence. The Commission does not wish the assumption to become prevalent that it is dedicated to preservation of a status quo in this neighborhood. The con- sequences of unplanned and uncontrolled conversion of portions of this in- adequately designed area to a higher density can best be summed up as re- creating the trouble spots we are now trying to correct in south Hermosa. Whichever action the Council takes at this time, the Planning Commission will continue to work on this area, and find a land use pattern that will rnee'ne4 the future city and provide a safe single family neigh- berho,g11. • JOEB. NOBLE Chairman 2' • RECOMMENDATION EXHIBIT A The City Planning Commission, assembled in public hearing, and having duly and extensively considered the matter referred to it by the City Council for analysis and report, to wit: • "to refer the matter of request for zone change in relation to property loc- ated at 731-737-739 - 21st Street made by Mr.- James Pucile back to the Planning Commission, directing the Commission to study not only the sub- ject property but the entire adjacent area and to inform all interested par- ties, with a report and recommendation regarding land use classification to be returned to the City Council for their consideration within 40 days, " do hereby find the following to be their most valid judgement based on infor- mation, personal research and public testimony available. The General Plan appears to be valid, and the best. program for achieving the General Plan appears to be; a. To encourage the consolidation of properties, creatingsomesort of tax break for:large parcels (re -subdivision and recordation together with land use restriction may reduce assessed value, for exam. pie); and b. To place properties under a planned development district reg- ulation which would preclude premature development in a manner contrary to the plan; and c. To require all service streets to be developed (first) to comm- ercial or high-density standards (60 foot right of way, 40 foot pavement, curb, gutter and 10 foot sidewalk) ; and d. To encourage use which will take advantage of the slope and view; and e. To create or cause to be created a 20 foot wide alley to sep- arate multi -use or high-density area and low density area, as shown on map C of "Analysts"; and f0 To require a minimum of two off-street parking spaces be pro- vided for each unit,- no tandem except as surplus or visitor spaces, all off- street; and • g. To require all building sides exposed to view from public streets or adjoining parcels be given same archktectUral•treaiment as "fronts", avoiding three to four story blank stucco walls punctuated only by flush aluminum frame windows. . • Recormnendatton re: None Zone Change request Z-70-1 If the decision is made to change the land use zone at this time„ the change include: - -2- EXHIBIT A I. All property in the multi -use corridor between 2Ist Street and 24th Place to the same zone; and 2 An improvement district to bring all streets in the muIti-use corridor up to urban standards (40 foot pavement, curbs, gutters and side- walks) ; and 3„ A 20 foot wide aUey at the westerly boundary of said new zone and street improvement district. • • 11:S 0 is cl IQ F C f . bEk.,,r;LI 7,,.;}-1..ANGE. OF • LAND USE FAMILY 1.„'±,4.,• - 2 IF.A E I/A:HIEN:PS , the ty1itxj jociL-44isstoa of iLjermosa e, -A; hear- . ing held and aC.,, L7 it 7:36 m the C.o ,:.;;;Ialithers of City did consWev. t4e Vaguest of jam(43 F,JJA*1 for 6, ,thankje of landzoniit 16ssificativn .frma R-1 with potential to R-3 on lots 2(i, 21,, 22, lier.olos, View 1ra(...:iNo.•1•„ lod at 731, 73i, 739 alst Street, flairios.E.'eaOh, r,dirksovia"Lons..of Art tcie J3 of .City 'Otrig Ordinaiwelg. S. 154, as difiended:. rid said iie,.3-,,A•igs th followt,ng informa•tion VtoS. ev iciofv:en -rhaiostJ mis to allow de\elopAI1Oilt u an , ilding on ithe Ur'e lots, ,C3ty.•••.'4o.irig Ordiriarm3o.wou.14.i allow •••4.,,• -to thirty. -four „Inas oit.• • EI6 rtiquirtng fifty7oae off-T;Areet. parking •spaces. •••,• 2L3; ',..treet dedtrated sty fatit wide; has thirty-foot with) paV-:inc )„„irollj1;:isc.1on tis ," irite.11, side. potec..tial ,:.:Icitioi.fication was eSta).lisileti iLi of cve•nliral effort to •en' oabining th+.,:.s1.12.je,,;t lots tvith . lots fronting oa Goat hz,2 rwt beeit re6IiZ41d. . • Th ixoposid chongewoJJ leewe a. );;;:lrGe), seventy fee., wide e.,nd • O' e ninety-fiN,o icot de wth1,4.0tential na'vtitg. access only to 21134 Stree,..„ and possiOlity 'of ",„,o.,2'11,n..,‘tioi).. with a::ft Coast rh 1(S GEineral Picashows th&F, ,firezi as I. -art of a at,ditise coti - dor, It •-idicotes that ossixablzg.:2.,•of lots into larco parce15. is • 110 in:ibid.; Eld liEFLPS Rosidents of the erai:i preseWrAd etition bearing forty-two narnosH, nd representing t•we•nty-th,roo i(..erceis. in the ,.A'tEi .,protosting the rectiest* orid ddlttCii res ared to spo.Y .i the v'ef.l.',c4-.J. t to L. .)t2• were riot rtJ• 2. TJctLd. cifz,,ng 3. The .1.:lied c:onunerc fx7,r rnmty arid the twigtatorhood; co. -,sideration„ oralt s well s s t ff •it. is U* findin;:, of EL-idingSof Oa Pik 11f1 with l'Anti.toris of Lfl re.fidents in th.7.3 protestki hi tirae. 2 This type of development at the preseyat time wvuld increase 11;:r the residemts in the ere ./kt the. clrrent ti,T1Q there is no fit-yeei high dahsity resiclehes la the ire; ::t vicvsid t;:ob dettiolental Lo pro- per IL this zone change 1?:Fe.re to•ithe•we6t, Iessen the plHord (.1(4ti of 1),.0.. -Aft:: Coat Nu Ovikui.41 there iii;Ct'7.4.71.761,."` :rjr ..J01..T.titerc roperty cpf sublitanti„ul 0141:h t.ttie INTOW,THZREFOli.L.„, 13E IT RE:SOT:NED thEr, the .1:••T4 (-,::•04itiTitEiSiOn 'of Iiera-k4s,:J iieach hereby •deraes id re•c:er.:2,,m.,Ae.n.4i; a I,,•recise plan of - the u,..1 bede\.-eloped Lefore any furthsr The forogoinci was ,.....,dopted the .1"tannli. n•ao,is.;..3.i .on regliar meet.Inci h.eici of •by AYES : Gomm :JO/ sCOmTh. 14 atter , ,...nd ;6014,9 NOLS: WHIfir..ger ABSENT: Conn. Stz.lbler„ .C.:ERfIFIC.;ATION 1 hereby certify •thA the. foregoing Re30•1::itiort P. C.i. lel:,;213:1ing 11;;Caltli S iOri of the City.of 1ierwilr held on the 2f,tit of e‘„M/,Ni SAM12-7..'37.31 PUBLIC FraSsrraasS:n* - ,aWnrins SaDaOSEDe.ZOgS es ...a. teee ea. CHANGE - 731-737-739 TWENTY-FIRST STREE Resolution /1.C. 154-771 - James Fucile. R-) with C Potential to R-3 - DISCUSSION - The public hearing was declared open by Mayor Thelen, and at the request•of the Council City Planner Crawford outlined for those present the results of the hearing before the Planning Commission leading to'their. denial of this application for land use reclassification.. ?resented to the Council were an analysis of the area in question as presented to the alarming Commission, the minutes of the regular meeting of.the Planning Commission held on Monday, April 6, 1973, reports from the olice Department and Fire Department, minutes of the regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on April 23, 1970, resolution P.C. 154-771, adopted April 20. 1970, and proof of proper legal notice of this public hearing. Also before the Council were 32 letters of protest received before the agenda deadline. The City Planner then displayed two•maps showing the properties concerned as they are currently zoned, and a map pinpointing the properties of those citizens who had written letters of protest insofar as these properties were located within 333 feet of the subject nroperty. He informed the Council that the Planning Commission felt that they should go into studies of this area in order to develop a precise plan for the portion of the block in question that could then be followed, for the rest of the block. Speaking in. opposition to thealroposed zone change, citing increased Parking problems andtraffic hazards as the major cause.for protest, were Mr..H. R. Besant, 2237 Pacific Coast Highway, Mrs. H. W. McCormick, 643 - 21st Street, Roberta Nauger (sp.?), 924 - 17th Street, Hr. Francis Carney, 730.- 24th Street, Mrs. Roberta Craft, 1942 Springfield Avenue, and Dr. Richard I. S. Parker, 2110 Borden Avenue. Speaking in favor of the proposed zone change was Mr. George 'forgo realtor, 1.326 Manhattan Reach Boulevard, who outlined the points he had made in a letter delivered to the City: Council on May 17, 1970, and displayed photographs of the area in question, stating that the plan for the apartment building to be erected on this property called.for a subterranean garage giVing two parking spaces for each apartment and • expressing his opinion that the construction of a new apartment house with a two toone parking ratio would not.disturb parking in the area or add traffic flow problems. Also oresent and speaking in favor of his request was Mr. James Fucile, 1226 Third Street:, Manhattan Beach, owner of the property under diecussion. As no one else present wished to be heard,.the public hearing was then closed, and discussion followed. Councilman Wise felt that the developers should present a really precise plan due to the parking and traffic flow problems at this location before a final decision by the Council could. be reached. Councilman Valdes expreesed the opinion that the concern of the residents in. this area was justified, and that because of current scniee any development in this area would bring new challenges tc the neighborhood, adding that he would like to see..this matter referred back to the Planning Commission to study the multi -use corridor concept set forth as -a guideline in. the General Plan.. el- Minutes 5/19/70- . teeesse eee- Appeal - Prepoesadegtme chengsa- 731-737-739 21st Street (Continued) Councilman Valdes also pointed out that equal consideration must be given to the property rights of both resident owners and commercial owners. Councilman Bigo stated that he was not in favor of a change of land use for three lots in a ten lot area, but felt that something like this should be done on a large scale to avoid a form of spot zoning, and Commissioner Valentine concurred, saying that he would prefer to see the entire area considered as a whole rather than spot zoning, adding that it is becoming more and more necessary to consider the quality of what is going to be around us in the future. Mayor Thelen wished tc go on. record as being a property owner in this area, end said that he.agreed that this matter should receive large-scalsestady, In reply to a question from the.audience the City Planner stated that if this matter were referred back to the ?laming Commiseion it could be placed on their agenda for the next regular meeting to be held on June 1, 1971, and that meetings with property owners and interested parties would then be held. ACTION - to :refer theaapplivation of Mr. James Fasciae for a zone change back to the '>lanning Commiseion, without•recanmendation, and to request that the Commission study the soaing.of the entire area involved and report back to the City Council with a recommendation within a 93 -day period ifpossible •rsa complete this study in that length of time. Aotion.by Councilman Valdes - Second by Mayor Thelan icerried. pe:Ayea: .coremalmen Big°, Valdes, Valentine, Wise, Mayor Thelen. / Noesa-None . _ • liltugo APPEAL - PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE - 7 -737-739 - 21ST STPEET - P-1 with C Potential to R-3 - Resolution P.C. 154-771 - James Fucile - Referred back to Planning Commission for study and recommendation of subject property and surrounding area, May 19, 1970. DISCUSSION - At the request of the City Manager, City Planner Crawford Tlformed the Council that this matter had been taken up by the Planning Commission at their .meetings of June 1 and June 15, 1970, and that the majority of the Commission had recommended that the City Council sustain the ection of the Planning Commission denying a change of zone for subject property at this time, with the understanding that the Commission will foim a study committee to consider traffic flow and law enforcement problems in the area, utilize the 1970 Census and the planned development district, and then initiate any zone. change that they feel proves to he wise for this area as a whole. He added that in an interview with Mr. George Yorg, represent- ing Mr. James Fucile, property owner, the Commission had agreedto re -review this matter in order to eliminate any possible claim of biased or incomplete consideration, if such action were legally possible, but that the. City Attorney had now indicated that it would not be legally permissable to do so City Attorney Mirassou expressed the opinion that the Council could refer this matter back to the Planning Commission for further consideration if this were done with sufficient notice to all property owners and interested parties, and Councilman 'ligo pointed out that a member of the Planning Commission had stated that the Commission had too many other important matters before them at the present time to be able to devote the time needed for a complete study of this area, adding his own opinion that he thought that was improper. The City Attorney then pointed out that any matter referred back to the Planning Commission by the Council came under the Trovisionof the Zoning Ordinance requiring that the • Commission report back to the Council within 40 days, and that the 90 days the Council had •allowed for the study they desired would have been illegal. At the request of mayor Thelen, Planning Commissioner James D. Collis, who was present in the audience, stated that he felt the Commission could study the subject area as a whole at the direction of the Council, and Councilman Valdes wished to go. on record as knowing that the Planning Commission has a full work schedule and is at present devoting a great deal of subcommittee time to many important matters. He added that he thought the Council wanted to determine priorities, not castigate the Planning Commission. Mr. George Yorg, realtor located at 1026 Manhattan Reach Boulevard, Manhattan Beach, summarized the problems he and his client, Mr. Fucile, felt they had encountered due to the length of time since their first application for a zone variance in March, 1970, and the City Attorney advised the Council that as matters now stood they could overrule the decision of the Planning Commission to deny this zone change, concur with the decision of the Commission, refer the matter back to the Commission for further study and recommendation, or continue the public hearing now before them for a reasonable length of time. -3- Minutes 7/7/70 ACTION - to refer -me matter ox request tor aone enange In reiarlon to property located at 731-737-739 - 21st Street made by Mx. James Fucile back to the Planning Commission, directing the Commission to study not only the subject property but the entire adjacent area and to inform all interested parties, with a report and recommendation regarding land use classification to be returned to the City Council for their consideration within 40 days. Motion by Councilman Digo - Second by Councilman Valdes, Carried. Ayes: Councilmen Bigo, Valdes, Valentine, Wise, mayor Thelen. Noss: None Absent None August 1I, 1970 ANALYSIS Fuc tie Reconsideration The City Council has requested that the Planning Commission re- analyze the area adjacent to and around the Fucile property. The basis of this request appears to be to re-evaluate the General Plan, the present C -Potential zoning, and the future of the residences in the area. In the time allocated (forty days) and without being able to re- evaluate the entire north end of Pacific Coast Highway and its past plan- ning committments, it is difficult to present more than a surface examina— tion. Since we are dealing with immediate demands, however, such a cursory study may suffice to point out trends and pitfalls resulting from premature change, and some ways of avoiding or easing same. The following analysis is prepared to assist the Planning Commiss- ion in its deliberations. It is not the in-depth analysis we would prefer to provide to the Commission. Time, pressure of "brush -fire" problems and absence of support staff makes such impossible. We have suggested eight questions to be an,swered, and have tried, albeit briefly, to answer same as guides to the Commission. We suggest that each Commissioner review seine, view the properties in question, and note additional comments or questions for the staff to answer. QUESTIONS 1. What is General Plan recommendation? 2. What is current land use trend? • • -2- 3, What is current traffic pattern and load? 4. Where is stopping point for R-3 development? 50 Should Pacific Coast Highway frontage be changed? 6. Are streets adequate to serve increase in density and traffic? 7 Can streets be made adequate? 8. 'What is best progtam for achieving highest and best use? Description The study area lies between Pacific Coast Highwayand Ardmore Avenue; and between list Street and Gould Avenue. mea of most im- . mediate Concern; Lies between 21st Street and 24th.Plac The terrain is gently sloping down from Pacific Coast Highway to Ardmore i.about 10% slope), The area was developed with single family dwellings, including the Pacific Coast Highway frontage. Essentially,. the land use is still single family dwellings. The, streets are nazroluv, semi -rural, in appearance This is a fair stable area of rising home value's. Lot sizes av- erage 6,000 square feet per dweDing. Assessed values of 6,000-7,500 reflect dwelling values of $30,000 to $37„500 These appraisals„ plus field observations indicate that this area is 011E.4 of the few strongholds 0f the city"s diminishing 30-40 year old family group. The soil is sandy loam overlying beach sand. No external c-v- idence of shifting or settling has been found. The. area is officially de- ficient in street and lighting improvements. Underground facilities are • • -3- deemed adequate to handle present and anticipated future populations. 1. The General Plan indicates that a portion of:.:41e area approximately 300 feet in depth westerly of Pacific Coast Highway between 21st Street and 24th Place should he part of the multi -use corridor. The portion be- tween 24th Place and Gould is shown as high rise commercial. The re- mainder is shown as low density residential. See Map A) Multi-lidor This category recognizes the existing auto- mobile oriented commescial along Pacific Coast Highway. However, the purpose of the land use category is to provide additional. depth for develop- ment, and to allow various types of land use. High-rise construction could also be allowed within this category. The multi -use corridor category would be similar to land uses along Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles. It would include apartmert s„ shops, stores, restaurants, office buildings, service stations, auto dealers, specialty shops, bowling alleys, and other similar activities. However,- strict standards of development, in- cluding landscapirag, set -back, parking, architectural design, sign con- trols and street appearance would be enforced. "Low" Density ResidentiaJt 3,6.0 to 30.0 dwelling units per net acre. This density would also consist mostly of single --family homes. Existing single-family homes sited on Kr X 70' lots 2,100 square feet) represent a net residential density of 2008 units per net acre, which would be categorized as "low" density. Two-family dwellings would also be in this density category,. as could certain multiple -family :areas.. • • -4- This density is located in the north -central portion of the City on the Plan The General Pian shows 24th Street as a collector street ( not 21st Street, where the signal tsd. Collector street is defined as two moving •..:,.�;, lanes of traffic. It implied two parking lanes, sidewalks and street trees 2. The cur erit land use trend in the subject area is still toward single family, owner -occupied homes. (Map B) There is no trend and no apparent pressure toward commercial de- velopment. A proposed restaurant -specialty shop on 24th Place failed to mature. Subsequent inquiries have been for at best marginal enterprizes. The bowling alley is being converted to office use. The development of the Gould - Pacific Coast Highway intersection appears to be some years away and will prpbably be primarily apartments with recreation -tourist accessory uses. There are a few multi -family dwellings. These are older, low- density ow-density developments. Land ownerships are relatively large, normally about 6,000 square feet. A few collective ownerships are large, approaching half an acre. There are no alleys, the lots are deep and narrow. 3. The current traffic pattern is: a. Pacific Coast Highway is a major arterial - a state highway bordering the area and providing access into the area. The access is becoming in- creasingly limited, as the median is lengthened. No sidewalks are pro- vided. It is 74 feet wide with curbs. 9 \t p•t « 3 2 9 ®§ \kms 2 \ am, , • -5- b. Ardmore Avenue is a collector street in the process of becoming an arterial. street. it began as a local street paralleling the railroad. It is used heavily by through traffic and by city residents seeking an easier exit than Pacific Coast Highway0 or tare -city communication. The parkway is not graded,. co 24th Street and 24th Place are local streets designed to serve the abutting homes only. The pavement itself is minimal. d Porter Lane and 25th Street are narrow, steep streets serving local residents only. It is not shown on the maps, as it is felt these streets are outside the influence of re -zoning activity in the 24th -21st area. -.Pressures may develop along an improved Gould Lane for higher densities, but this would be a separate, though perhaps overlapping influence. e. 21st Street, until creation of a. signalized intersection at Pacific Coast Highway, was a local street serving abutting properties. The street is now becoming a collector street and interceptor between ArCIMOFS0 Pacific Coast Highway and Prospect. It is dedicated 60 feet wide, with 30 foot pavement, curbs and gutters, some sections of sidewalk. Traffic flows generally north and south along Ardmore Avenue and Pacific Coast High%2 ay. Cross traffic is primarily along 2Ist Street. Current traffic counts are: Pacific Coast Highway - 32,000 Ardmore - 21,000 2Ist 1320 vehicles per day (21st into and from Pacific Coast Highway') • -6- An apartment unit normally generates a minimum of four traffic movements per day, averages six. If one-half these movements use Ardmore -21st - Pacific Coast Highway route, the 275 new apartments on Ardmore will add about 825 traffic movements, to bring the new total to about 2145,an increase of about 60% above existing traffic levels. 4. A primary, in fact critical, consideration in considering the expan- sion of zones into new blocks and/or new areas is that of how and where to stop the expansion or progressive change. In the case of crossing 21st Street, there are no alleys, or natural, or man-made boundaries to stop the expansion of an R-3 zone short of 24th Street. A logical expansion, ((and current existence of commercial and high density residences on the north side of 24th Place virtually dictates) is that R-3 apartment uses will cross to 24th Place. Without some physical barrier such as an alley •;;Map C) the apartment uses will expand to Ardmore Avenue. The existing lots are large enough to be developed with four-six units. The multiple use corridor was intended to be oriented to Pactfc Coast Highway. The existing C -Potential is .predicated on orientation to Pacific Coast Highway. The orientation of multi -family dwellings to the local streets is a different set of conditions from the above. Past experience shows that unless multi -family o' commercial is or- iented to and has its access (visual and physical) from Pacific Coast High- way, the entire neighborhood will convert to apartment uses. • • -7- 5. - If the back up area to Pacific Coast Highway frontage (the C -Potential Zone) is changed,. the Pacific Coast Highway frontage should be changed to accomodate or reflect the changes. The Pacific Coast Highway frontage lots are not deep enough, nor are ownership patterns such as to facilitate deepening these lots. The area is not suitable for small shops with limited off-street parking. The lots are not adequate in size; for traffic oriented stores or businesses. They are large enough to support small apartment; complexes. The General Plan and good planning logic tie the hontage development to that: of the lots immediately to the west. To change one is to change the other. To preiend otherwise is to be guilty of wishful planning that has victimized the city in. the past. The staff's earlier recommendation that the subject pmperty could be changed included the assumption that all C • and C -Potential properties in the area would eventually change to apart- ment type development. 6,7. The streets are not now adequate to serve additioan residential den- sities. To accomodate apartment development „; 21st Street: and Place should be widened to 50' right of way with 40pavement,- curb, gutter and side- walk. Ardmore AVEIM13 must be widened to a 40' pavement with sidewalk on east side; should be widened to a 56' pavement. Pacific Coast High- way is wide enough, but sidewalks are badly needed at this time. The apartment complexes to the. south - 275 units planned or under development v,,11.1 overload the existing street system. The city has had to • • -8- eliminate parking on Ardmore to facilitate safe traffic flow. Residents on Ardmore and the developers of the new 74 unit apartment are demanding re- turn of on -street i.virking because their own facilities are not adequate. The City Capital Improvement Program anticipated re -paving - not widening -in this next year. No other street improvements are programmed in this area. An assessment district would have to be formed to accomplish the need- ed improvements. The increase Of population density on these streets without further im- provement would create serious traffic and parking problems similar to 2nd Street between Pacific Coast Highway and Ardmore which is only beginning to convert to apartments. 8. The highest and best use is stilt a question. The General Plan's vision of large Wilqhirs Boulevard type of commercial -residential uses appears to be many years away. It is not impossible. The developments in El Segundo illustrate the kinds of pressures that will be felt in Hermosa' Beach. Patience and vision are needed to achieve this. The Pacific Coast Highway property owners have held their propeyties for a long time awaiting the General: Plan's maturing. If the General Plan's recommended action is still vaUd and current indications are that it is: a. Development pressures from the north. are increasing. Utile Pacific Coast Highway frontage is leftin Manhattan Beach,, • b. The bowling alley is being conveyted to office ;5nd sc,-;.thool. c. Rec;entimpgovements to Artesia and Avtation (Pier) have increased traffic flow and improved access to the hinterland. d. The large (100 unit) apartment complex planned for Pacific Coast Highway southerly of the subject area indicate increasing interest in th.e. area. The best program for achieving this plan appears to he a, To llow interim USS. which do not uire large permanent structures . b. To encourage the consolidation of properties creating some sort of tax break for large parcels (re -subdivision e,nd Eecordetion togettmr with land use restriction frequently Lowers assessed value.). c. To place properties under a. planned development district Yegulation which would preclude premature development in a manner contrary to the plan. d. To require all access to be from Pacific Coast Highway unless the service streets are developed (first) to cornmercial standards (60right o: way, 4.01, pavement, curb gutter and 10' sidewalk). e. To encourage uses which wilt mks advantage of the slope such office buildings, motels and combined commercial -resident. f Those would be little difficulty maintaining the single family area. Aitqrnatively a. A 20 foot alley (or 40 foot street) is omated els shown on Map C to separate the high density and low density uses, -10- b. The frontage streets ire improved to 40 foot pavement with curb gutter and sidewalk. c. Two off-street parking spaces are provided for each unit (no more than 1/4 tandem) plus adequate visitor' parking, all off-street. d. All building sides are treated as "fronts" avoiding 3-4 story blank stucco walls punctuated only by flush aluminum frame windows. e. A planned development district is established to insure orderly, coordinated development of individual properties. f. The Pacific Coast Highway frontage between 21st and 24th Place is changed to R-3 and made a part of said district. Recommendation If the decision is made to change the land use zone at this time, the change should include: 1. All property in the mult-use corridor between 21st and 24th Place to the same zona whether R-3 or some other zone; and 2. An improvement district to bring all streets up to wban standards (paveout, curbs, gutters and sidewalks); and 3. A 20 foot alley at tile westerly boundary of said new zone and street improvement district. --6- Planning Col -mission, • August i7 97D OommVatters took exc.eption to the quality of signs being proposedi, saying that they woedo nothing to irCiprOVe the linage of Hermosa Beach. He It that the Travovement Commission, should review the franchise businesses which do Rot confirm in, or,der to eliminate eye pollution. Motion by (.70111.fa 0 Toole, seconded by C.kITILICa M to postpone un,tiI next illeGting of Planning Commission for furth r investigation, and so that they can receive report from Police Ohief„ AYES: Gomm. Foote, Mulfinger, Toole, V, Mors an Chairman Nob/te. NOES: on ABSENT; (mrn Collis, Ste/34er Lm,Pil„qgynamy Review of Col;Iditional Use Permit relati.ve to landscaping ad use of former sexvtce bays•; for vending machines „ City Planner Crawford said this hearing vvas continu.ed from 1&t meeting to permit the applicant to replace the landscaping Which he had done, although some of it has already been stolen again„ Planters were suggested as a more permanent installation. He said the Police Chief's recommende,tion on the • subject of vending xnachimes was to deny the request because, of a tendency of juveniles to congregate after ourfew.-. Motion by -",;!orrim. Toole, sec.onded by -Comm. Mulfinger. to Keapprove the, Gon- thtoia1 USe Permit on P. C. 154-765 SUbjE7Ct to the same conditions except that review wU be in one year. • • Review of 2O)31,',An Pattern - Z ist f.-itreet, .1.4„rdmorf.j.,•2..24,th ace and Pacific Hi ig:may City Plannee 'Crawford explained the background of this review, sayingLt - originated as a request for a -change of k.one from R-1 vtvith Cpotential to R-3 on the T.coperty /mated on -r./..ist Street approximateRy 115 feet west of Pacifi3O Coast Highway known as the rucile char zone request° Me • Planning Commission denied the request for a change of zone he on their fe ling that the request was premature -and not the, kind of use expected Mien the C; -.potential, was created. They felt it would 'require considerable mol'e study -of thuzrounding area as we/I -as the. applicantproporty, Th.is decision was appealed to the City Council, 'who referred it, back, to the Planning Commis- sion for reconsi,oleration and Rong-rangs study© The Planning 301110.1iSOOVE could not do as complete a long range study as needed in thetart' a/lotted, so the • • Manning Comm s s ion P-ugust 17, 19Th • City Council asked them to do what they could within forty days Mr. Crawfoul had prepaxed a series of three 1/18 P E3 showing (a) General Plan, proposals for the area (b) Existing land use, and Plan of what is, fen is the minimum that would have to be done to the ps'openy if any change is made in the existing zone at this time. Thi traffic fkow indtc;-3tes /.1„000 cars p day on Ardmore arm', 32,op cars on - Pacific Coast Highway and 1, a20 on 21st Street, Or a tot; -21 of about 37,000 cars present, in the arca daily. He said the General Plan indicated. that e multi- use corridor should be created along Pacific CoastHighway encompassing mo- tels„ commercial, offices, large apartment buildings,and this would extend about three hundred geet back from Pacific Coast Highway on both sides How- ever the predomtnent use is single-family residential at this time. .jity Planner Jrawford suggested that if the wane is changed, there should be a physical barrier between the. new on and the single family'llouses, which could consist of, a twenty foot alley at the. zone's westerly boundary; that an improvement district should be established to bring all Stieets up to urban standards a pavement, curbs, gutters and• sidewalks „ Although the city does not intend to wtde 21st Street with city money, and will not be widening Ardmore ick7 five or SLK years „ they must be widened to accomodate twice the current traffic; flov,i. C.;ommunication from Lucile A. Pickering, owner of a lot frontina o Pacific Coast Highway, requested apartnient zoning „ including theFeinh 0t Review openedz 930 p. rn. Mr..George Yvrg, 1026 ,Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Manhattan Beach, com mented that he qwsstioned Mr„ Crawford's statements and although it ts ack- nowledged that the property involved is C-1 „ the Planning Commission could grant the precise plan which was 'preser,twl„ He ,!elt that although the alley might be useful„ he didn't think the applicant should have to.wait, and since tile apartment unit would accomodate seventy-tmo cars„ the traffic flow would not be affected that much„ He felt that the but/ding would not cater to tran- sients and was the best use of the property. • • -8- Planning Commission Pugust 17, 1.970 Mr. James Facile, applicant, said the problem shou/d be looked it objectively, that the (level:op:3M were willing to widen the street, install curbs, ,provide $400 to each unit toward the cost of sewers. He felt that the city, had invited his proposal by creating C-1 poteittial zoning, City Planner Crawford clarified the city's position by saying the property abut- ting Pacific °oast Highway was changed from 0-3 to C-1 in 1965, but the pro- perty adjacent to it was then a potential and isn't necessarily 0-1 potential, or anything other than commercial potential. Various members of the audience spoke: Mr. Ralph Mien, 2026 Ardmore- favorillg apartments. Mr. H, R. Besant„ 2207 Pacific Coast Highway - wished to see his commercial lots l'ezoned R-1, favored the alley concept„ Mr, George Mur 740 - 24th Street, opposed on grounds that his view would be eliminated and the streets, sidewalks, etc, should be improved before more strain is put on them.' Mr. Nei/ Buglevitz, 2506 Mdmore, favored the alley concept, and stated that property values do increase near apartment houses. Morgan„ 640 - 21st Street, suggested that before rezoning, the streets should be pa.4, and widened. Mr. Jeff V,rooley, 617 - 21st Street, inquired who would stand the cost of paving and was infoxined by the City Planner that. an assessment district was most probable knethod of payment by property owners. Miss Mildred walker, 740 - 24th Plac.',e, obcted to the fact that some property owners would lose the houses to the alley, and was also ccencerned with the image of the otty„ its people and environment. • Mr. H. J. Radow, 720 - 24th Place„ also was con.cemed with the loss of homes due to an alley being installed. Mr. Richard L S. Parker„ 21st and Borden.,, commented on the fact that the city should be concerned with quality instead of quantity, and the Planning Commis- sion. should weigh the decision to increase density wth this in mind Mrs. Henry Grieve„ 2314 Ardmore - concerned with accidents caused by more cars. Mr. George Yorc.; replied to th arguments of the opposition and said that the applicant would provide a street donation for improveMemts. Mr. Pucile said, that the alley would be on vacant property between 24th and 21st Stxopts. Review closed: 11:12 p. m, • • Planning COMIItSS ion August 17„ 1970 City Planner Crawford summed up the discussion by explaining that the Plan- ning Commission has not been requested to reconsider the zone change itself since tt is currently before the .t:iity Council, but to study the area and make a recommendation to the City C:iouncil on that property and the surrounding area in light of the study and testimony presented to them. Comm. Waters commented that since Hermosa Beach is second in density in the State, he felt that the Planning Commission had• more of a responsibility to the city than to the individual property owners and he couldn't recommend the zonge e also felt that nothing could be .done until the necessary services are provided. Comm. Foote was in favor of the buffer o the alley between commercial and residential. Chairman Noble said he would be completely in favor of thi.s kind o develop- ment of the areat, if the people who a,ppeared had requested it, but if the pro- perty was ezoned as requested it would create additional problems. He said he had been. on the Commission at the time of the zone change to C-1 and he didn't think they had in mind that it would be developed as an apartment area. Motion by Comm. Foote, sec coded by Comme mem to recommend to the :31.ty Council that the best program for achieving this planned development appears to be the following recommendation: The City Planning Commission, assembled io public hearing, and having duly and extensively considered the matter referred to it by the City Council for analysis and report, to wit: "to refer the matter a request for zone change in relation to property loca- ted et 731-.737-739 - 21st Street. made by MT. James Facile back to the Planning- COMIAASStOrE„ directing the Commission to study not only the sub- ject property but the entire adjacent area and to inform all -interested parties, with a report and recommendation regarding land use classification to be re- turned to the City Council for their conside7,.ation within forty days", do hereby find the following to be their most valid judgment based on information, personal res.4,arch and public testimony available. • The General Plan appears to be valid, and the best program for achieving the General Plan appears to be: • a) To ncourage the consolidation of properties, creating S011ie sort of tax -10 - Planning Corathission August 17, 1970 for large parcels (re -subdivision and recordation together with land use restriction may reduce a.ssesse-'d value, for example); and b) To place properties under 'a pla)Ined development district regulation which would preclude premature development in amanner contrary to the plan;, and c) To require a/I service streets to be developed, (fist) to commercial -or high- density standards (60 foot right of way, 40 foot pavement, curb, gutter and 10 foot sidewalk); and • d) To encourage use which will take advantage of the slope and View; and To create or cause to be created a 20 foot wide alley to separate multiuse or high-density area and iow density area, as shown on map 0 of "Analysis"; and 0 To require,,, a minimustra of two off-street parking spaces be provided for each unit, no tendem except as surplus or visitor spaces, all off-street; and g) To require all building sides exposed to view from public streets or adjoin- ing parcels be given same architectural treatmerat as "fronts% avoiding three to four story Igen!: stucco walls punctuated only by flush aluminum frame windows. Recornrnerda111iFuCUe 7one Mange reueSt Z -70 - If the decision is made to change the land use zone at this time© the change include: 1. AU property. in the multi -use corridor between 2ist Street and 24th Place to. the same zone; and 2. M improvement district to bring all streets tic's the multi-use.comidor up to urban standards (40 foot pavement, curbs, gutters and sidewalks); and 3. A twenty foot wide alley at the westerly boundary of said new zone and street improvement district. AYES: CoL1rn0 Foote Too1e V atter s and Chai man Noble. NOES: Conun, Mulfinger . . AOSENT: Comrn Coflts, Stabler • • -11- Planning Commission August I7, 1970 Comm. Mulfinger qualified his vote by saying that he felt that it was going to take five or six years to do anything, that the C:omsnission has waited too • long, that the highway, and commercial pro:ertyakeady exist and that the . apartment building belongs „ Planned Development Committee Good turnout of fifty people who discussed planned development district for south Ardmore area. Officially continued all other items: Public hearings Item 4t6 Contessa Ceramics Item .44.7 Procedural amendment Item #8 R-3 zone amendment item 013 Resolution of Record Adjournment: 1155 p m. until August 3i 1970, 730 p m„ CERTIFICATION. I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes have been approved by the . Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach at a regular meeting held on August 17, 1970. Date JOE E. NOBLE, C',HAIRmAN EXHIBIT 4184-21- 1 Quentin and Juanita Them, 11 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach 2 S Herbert Besant, 2207 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach 6 William Moffitt, 724: 24th Street, Hermosa Beach 7 Francis and Helen Carney, 730 24th Street, Hermosa Beach 8 Virgil Daggi, 17645 Palora Street, Encino 9 same as 5 10 Mary Mahony & Wilna Bradshaw, 212 Morningside Drive, Manhattan Beach 11 Lucille Pickering, P.O.B. 283, Santa Barbara 12 13 Florence Kelley„ POB. 93, Palos Verdes Estates 14 t: 15 James Fucile, 1226 tstreet, Manhattan Beach 16 17 18 Daggi Builders Inc., 17645 Palora Street, Encino 4184-22- I Daggi Builders Inc., /7646 Palora Street, Encino '2 Herbert F. Lamb, 701 21st Street, Hermosa Beach 3 • jay Nyhuis, 649 21st Street, Hermosa Beach 4 Lester Randall, 641 21st Set, Hermosa Beach 5 Charles & Peggy Walker, 633 21st Street, Hermosa Beach 6 Eleanor Tones,. 625 21st Street, Hermosa Beach 7 Jedediah Woolley III, 617 21st Street, Hermosa Beach 8 same as 1 9 Asker Bergo, 2126 Ardmore Avenue, Hermosa Beach 10 _ Edward Kirkpatrick, 2206 Ardmore Avenue, Hermosa Beach 11 Jane A. Bell, 2308 Ardmore Avenue, Hermosa Beach 12 Harold & Jetta Grieve, 432 S. Curson Avenue apt. ml, Los Angeles 13 Willis & Mary Simmons, 624 24th Street, Los Angeles 14 Erwin Bissinger, 630 24th Street, Hermosa Beach 15 Jackie R. Hancock, 636 24th Street, Hermosa Beach 16 John L. Palmersheim, 1318 Amethyst Street apt. C, Redondo Beach 17 Marjorie M. Fahringer, 648 24th Street, Hermosa Beach 4184-19- 7 Willis E.Dolabins, 644 24th Place, Hermosa Beach 8 Andrew & Cora McIntyre, 636 24th Place, Hermosa Beach 9 Theodore & Margit Ernst, 624 24th Place, Hermosa Beach 10 Marjorie L. Wing, 620 2i4th Place, Hermosa Beach 11 Fannie M. Grover, 616 24th Place,Hermosa Beach • • -2- 4184-49- 12 Robert Lillian., 2104 Strand, Manhattan. Beach • 13 Ernil & Sara Micu, 2424 Ardmore Avenue0 Hermosa Beach 14 Lawrence R. Adams, 613 24th Street, Hermosa Beach 15 George & Isabella Currie, 621 24th Street, Hermosa Beach 16 Lester & Laura Capen, 316 Wilshire Blvd., Santa Monica. 17 Marian E. Doo/ey, 631 24th Street, Hermosa Beach 18 Alvirda Davison, 307 24th Street, Hermosa Beach 19 Robert Fitzpatrick, 2441W. 254th Street, Lomita 20 Alpha M Passino, 655 24th Street, Hermosa Beach 21 Paul Schjeldahl, 701 24th Street, Hermosa Beach 22 Richard B..Ross, 711 24th Street„ Hermosa Beach, 4184-20-- 1-7 Edgar S. Frenger, 3717 Emerald Street, Torrance 8 Mildred Walker & Patricia Brown, 740 24th Place, Hermosa Beach 9 Darwin Schirmer, 730 24th Place, Hermosa Beach 10 Henry j. Rado, 720 24th Place, Hermosa Beach 11 Ramon Valenzuela, 717 24th Street, Hermosa Beach 12 Frank Ross, 725 24th Street, Hermosa Beach 13 14 same as 1-7 15 16 4184-46- 1 Emily Benatar, 2463 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach 5 Joseph & Louise Matth,ews, P.O.B. 651, Hermosa Beach 6 Lloyd Pence & Patrice Poznik, 725 24th Place, Hermosa Beach 7 Helen E. Osborne, 631 25th Street, Hermosa Beach 8 Donald and Nell Anderson, 707 24th Place, Hermosa Beach 9 Herbert C. Anderson,, 504 Yarmouth Road, Palos Verdes Estates 13 Herbert C. Setwert, 5620 Via Ramon , Palos VerdesEstates 4184-47- 4 Henry Koehler, 3909 Cathann Street, Torrance 5 Etta & Robert Simpson, 651 25th Street, Hermosa Bach 6 who. Pride & Mr. Shoemaker, 4302 Via Marina Unit B, Marina Del Rey 7 Jack McLain., 719 24th Place, Hermosa Beach 8. jack & Joan Balzer, 621 25th Street, Hermosa Beach 9 Kenneth & Barbara Strite, 611 25th Street, Hermosa Beach 10 Frank & Esther Fahr, 601 25th Street, Hermosa Beach • • -3- 4184-1.8. EXHIBIT C 1 Patric & Marion Wiley, 602 25th Street, Hermosa Beach 2 Mr. & MTs Collins, 612 25th Street, Hermosa Beach 3 Theresea A. Hall, 622 25th Street, Hermosa Beach 4 Robert F. Mason, 632 25th Street, Hermosa Beach 5 Jesse & Lucy Perez, 642 25th Street, Hermosa beach 6 Edwin L. Brandon, 652 25th Street, Hermosa Beach 7 John & Mary Jesse, 662 25th Street, Hermosa Beach 8 Richard & Frances Black, 20905 AvisAvenue, Torrance 9 C.A. Chandler, 635 24th Place, Hermosa Beach 10 11 Richard & Antoinette Greer, 629 24th Place, Hermosa Beach 12 Robert & Henrietta Oakes, 625 24th Place, Hermosa Beach 13 Raymond & Marie Waters, 615 24th Place, Hermosa Beach 14 Tony & Catherine Buono, 601 24th Place, Hermosa Beach 4184-19- 1 Henxy J. Rado, 720 24th Place, Hermosa Beach. Michael C. Rogers, 660 24th Place, Hermosa Beach 5 Joseph Risk, 656 24th Place, Hermosa Beach 6 Edmund L. Jucevic, 648 24th Place, Hermosa Beach 4184-22 18 Mitcheal Stamis, 820 9th Street, Hermosa Beach 19 jeanne F. Bader, 704 24th Street, Hermosa Beach 20 Virgil Daggi, 17645 Palora Street, Encino 4184-23 1 Ralph Boughton, 2026 ArdmoreAvenue„ Hermosa Beach 2 Mary Burke, 612 21st Street, Hermosa Beach 3 Marilyn Carruthers, 610 21st Street, Hermosa Beach 4 5 same as 1 6 7 Loren A. Sivula, 2019 Ave Avenue, Hermosa Beach 8 Riley Suggs„ 2017 Ave Avenue, Hermosa Beach • .-4- 4184-24 EXE1TMT C. 1 Merle Lewis, 2036 Springfield Avenue„ Hermosa Beach 2 Fred Brwon, 2133 W. 180th Place, Los Angeles 3 James Pucile, 1226 6th Street, Manhattan Beach 4 Patrick Fannett, 2022 Springfield Avenue, Hermosa Beach 6 Julian Friedman, 2016 Springfield Street, Hermosa Beach 5 Donald Arney, 2018 Springfield Street, Hermosa Beach 26 Michael H. Quigley, 2015 Springfield Street, Hermosa Beach 27 Clementine Sutherland, 2019 Springfield Avenue, Hermosa Beach 28 Robert H. Swain, 2033 Springfield Avenue, Hermosa Bea;',1 29 William L. Mansfield, 2040 Ava Street, Hermosa Beach 30 Hugh McCormick, 640 21st Street, Hermosa Beach 4184-25 19 Hermosa Properties, 22501 Hawthorne Boulevard, Torrance 20 Andrew Dimas, 4136 Black Point Road, Honolulu, Hawaii 96816 22 Robert Vargas, 720 2Ist Street, Hermosa Beach 706 - 24th Placm Hermosa Beach, Calif. August 25, 1970 City Council City Hall EInfm0Ott Reacb, Calif. Gentlemen: We ere extrtmely Alarmed to learn of your plans for taking developed residential property from taxpayers of thim city in ordet to build an alley from 21st Streot to 24th Plact9 300 feet west *f and parallel to Pacific CoalBt Highway. • Ve: 4re oppa,sed fLo this proposed alley because: c The steep.slope at 24th Place' is unacceptable for an alley entrance or exit in an &Kea which ie already developed. AE a matter of fact, in early. 1963 we petitioned the street residents for curbg and possibly a sidewalk.' At this time tha city hired an angineerth4. firm to provide grade levels for this improvement. Subsequently, the city ensineer informed us that because of the olopee on 24th Place and the elevations of mining Wasest it would be tmpossible to widen the *treet the necesarramountv construct curbs o.rd prOvide entrances to driveways. 2. Alievo attract undeeirabla duracte , and need oore police patrols. 3 This propoved alloy would reduce -taxable property and increase taxes for the adjacent residents, 4, This proposed alley would not benefit the residents b thi area. DOR it benefit someone else at the remidents, expense? In closing:, Ccalmissions though this through our he io notif or alleys? we did •not receive the notice about the Planning hearing Aug9 17,70 concerning this matter, even proposed alley would be alongside or possibly home„How such closer does one have to be before ied of proposed changes in ©ing Sincerely, Ralph t,'estphal an Westphal. ?,e: fljed. r ) • 720 - 24th Place Hermosa Beach, California August 25, 1970 City of Hermosa Beach City Council City Hll, Civic Center Hermosa Beach, California 902.54 Reference: City Plana/etas Analysis `1...ted August 11, 1970 Area Between 21st Str vet, Ardmore Avenue, 24th Place and Pacific Coast Highway . Gentlemen: 1 wi1i to take this opportunity to oppose any change of the present .noning pattersi of the area between 21st Street„ Ardmore Avenue, 24th Place and Pacific Coast Highway. A change to an R3 one would mean a rapid increase Of population density on these streets. Even tho proposed street improvements Toeould not be enough to meet the serious traffic and parking problems that have been forecasted (Reference 'lines 1 thru. 5 on page 6). 1 wish to hereby register prot et to the construction ®f any additional alleys or streets in this area. An alley two (2) blocks long from 21st Street to 24th Place, 300 feet west of Pacific Coast Highway is proposed. • The only purpose of this aUy Would be to provide a line of demar- cation between.sones. This could be accomplished much easier and, ckieaper by a red or blue lino on rar maps in the City Hall. ZOIZCI boundaries are, can and have been established on maps by property lines and enforced withkut having, to have physical barriers such as streets and alieys. If es treeto like 21st Street and 2,4th Place will not act as a natural barrier as indicated (referenco page 6. iirtee 9 thru 15), how does • one expect an alley twenty (20) feet wide to do the job? City of Hermosa Beach Au:gust 25, 1970 Page 2 The alley is not required or wanted, is of no va1u and a ViM3te of valuable property. It would mo.t.l.kia the condemnation of good homes and the bisecting of an existing nice, low density Why waste City rnoniem or, a project like this when it can be taed to agr eater advantage •else -where ? The alley would b detrimental alum& a definite safety hard especially at 24th Place.as it woudld break out at steepest part of the hill. The Analysis states that this is a gentle slope 10% grade. Yet the map of the SVWCE Profile .67120 of 44th Pla.ce, Re: MR 9-135, on file in fais City Illngineeen office shows that the grade is 17. 52%0 ',Chat is a Ifiteep grade,. Cars erl.tering 24th Place would become a potentW traffic And safety hazard and serioumly a.,ggraleate the *potential traffic accident situation due to the extetsive rat4 opecd that the cars are traveling down hill on 24th SACO. • Added to that serious problem. , it has been. propositi to.cut another sacy thru, an existing home down 24th Place a few lots and 71.11111 it thrt to Goad Lane. Az alley will provid, a hangont for nuisance factor„ go nowhere, be quire additional. police patr. taxed to the limit in other areas of =desirable characters, become a collection place for trash said ol whose efforts are already the city. Sincerely your a, Henry J. • DONALD E. ANDERSON NELL 0, ANDERSON 707 - 24TH PLACE HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 August 25, 1970 City of Hermosa Beach City Council City Hall, Civic Center Hermosa Beach, California 90254 CITY PLANNERS ANALYSIS DATED AUGUST 11, 1970 AREA BETWEEN 21ST STREET, ARDMORE AVENUE, 24TH PLACE AND PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY Gentlemen: We wish to comment on the recommendation d the Planning Commission as outlined on Page 10 of their analysis dated August 11, 1970 as follows: 1) REZONING OF LAND USE IN THE PROPOSED.MULTIUSE CORRIDOR • We are of the opinion that if the eastern approximate 300 feet of the area is rezoned to R3 the remaining area would eventually become R3 also. Finally the City of Hermosa Beach would end up with an apartment house s 'Urn area. The majority of apartment dwellers are more or less transient and usually do not stay long in one place. Further they ustaally work in other areas outside the city and pay little if any attention to the affairs or the governinent of the city in which they live. They have no investment and hence do not care. The homeowners do have an investment in their city and keep their property in good repair and are interested in the affairs of their city and government and are proud of it. It is our opinion that the zoning should be left in its presient form without change. The homeowner resident is the backbone of any city. 4714 CO • • City of Hermosa Beach 8/25/70 (Page 2 2) IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT-PAVEOUT, CURBS, GUTTERS AND SIDEWALKS •••••*•..• MMUFOSI*OVE.M.M..11. We refer to 24th Place from Pacific Coast Highway to Ardmore Avenue in particular and not to. the 'entire proposed improvement district in general. This is because we are familiar with Zezh Place and not with the other areas. 24th Place is a steep hill with a 17 percent plus - elope if sidewalks were installed they would be used very little. People do not want to walk tip this street as it is a strenuous task. The houses on the north side of the street are 4 to 6 ft above the level of the road and the houses on the south side of the street are 2 to 4 ft below the level of the road„ All of the above conditions present a $ifficult engineering problem in grading and paving this street. This would be true especially on the south side where' drainage would have to be planned to keep the rainwater from running into the garages, etc. We believe the idea for sidewalks, curbs, etc. for 24th Place came up about 6 years ago and was given up as a bad job due to th,. unfavorable topography that occurs in this area. 3) PROPOSED 20 FOOT ALLEY'S AT THE WESTERLY BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPOSED NEW R3 ZONE, =TENDING NORTHWARD FROM Z1ST STREET THROUGH 24TH PLACE TO THE HIGH RISE COMMERCLAL AREA NORTH OF HER MOSA VIEW TRACT NO. 2 We are of the opinion that the constriction of alleys ae proposed above which are intended as a buffer one between the new proposed R3 zone and the existing P1 one is not necessary. The proposed alley's would create hardships because some of the existing houses in the path would have to.be razed. The cost to the city for removing the existing houses would be expensive. It seems the most economical way would be to use a surveyors line for demarcation of the various zones (if rosoning is resolved). The proposed alley's would c.ompound the traffic problems ems all the east, west streets. The traffic would eventually have to travel to Pacific Coast Highway, Ardmore Avenue or Porter Lane in any case, because it has no where elze to go. City of Hermosa, Beach 8/25/70 3; Continued (Page 3 The alley's would surely not have any esthetic value to the area and could be detrimental because of the loitering of undesirables especially in the night hours. It le possible that conetaa police patrolling would 1:),e required during the slight hours. Very truly you;.: DONALD E ANDERSON DEA/1g City Council Hermosa S • Californi 648 24th Place Hermosa Beadh, California August 26, 1970 Dear Sirs, understand that the City Council q soon eider the idea of oendenning s ';AV,his in py .,:eighberhood (24th P1ko4, between Pacific Coast Ritay out Ardincre) and building au alley in their place . Whiae agree with thy' e,Aed inttion of tm city planners to keep apart- mant devolepaent confined to certain areas, wonder if the destruction of hoses ;,..n* the ©traction of ew alleys is really an appropriate smothod? Do allop actually make effective barriers? Aren't there Esny parts of Wilshire Boulevard and other similar streets uhere zoning lations alone have protected residential areas? Don't alleys serving large cemmsrelal er apartment developments usually create a now set of problems far nearby occupants of single-family dwellings, each ae 4 grantor end more constant concentration of trash, trash containers, tru.P4t1 elivery trucks, and so on? If I have a cheice,I pr4f v? to keep the commerce and its support functions on Psoific Coast Highwgy rather than funnmling it through .1ti immediate usighborhoode Porhaps the Council should permit the city planners -sufficient time to study this matter at greater depth, and not rely too much on the August 11 planning malysis, which is described by thtl author himself as a Isurface examinsIiun° and a °cursory study." Sincerely, 0,4 Edmun ! L. Jucevic • August 22, 1970 City or Hermosa Pea. -.2.h Ctty.Coun.ei) City.Hall, CI*J. Cente Hermosa Bellhs Califon -0.s 90254 CITY PLANNERS ANALYSIS DATED AUGUST 11, 1970 AREA BETWEEN 21st• STREET, ARDMOR1 AVENUE, 24th PLVE amfi PACIFIC CO H ',Offal_ • Gentlemen: vershinEreastlee.LERMKI" 1. WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE ANY CHANGE OF THE PRESENT ZONING OP THE ABOVE SUBJECT AREA. AUK? OPPOSE AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FOR THE ABOVE AREA' WHICH WOULD HAVE TO FORMED FOR DEVELOPM NT OF PAVED4i, CURBS„ OUTTEPS and SMEWALKS. . FURTHER, WE OPPOSE THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANY ADDITIONAL ALLEY 3 OR STREETS IN THIS AREA. 1 2 5 4 5 6 °,4 1 .: fa ., C s a 8. 1 `t - 4r' 8 91 c 4w' 10 11 12 13 14 11/46 17 18 19 20 -fes'1 ..4 Of ' � � � L'�-?:fir s7�••d�'ki "��✓w�,-6''4;x3:...' YY'• I') TQ C «446,N✓~ ( j;viA'en y'`- fes• 2 25 as 27 26 • t^z�4 nariektr664.1 44,4 410 yY �4f7�Q,P� 3: 32 it% f " :,r";? •p`.: {�. tea; LPJrE, A s� l .L 2207 -c r A q r 1 4 Celf.eelect. 6R Y syr. - t $ er.�• .�. ,s Ksr� 4w? a'- . y .100 � 91`? , 5171;43 tom`rJ r 41' lre 63, ,4r 5i cr r , 41-- y.�,yr:3 5:.�dvxn r 03 • 4e4i!4 r`,,,2--, 710 4 i, ...1 f ,`•) ,' 1 11 ' .,.• .).-;',";' ';,:// I .' / • ": , • 2 !LA' ii 1 311 ) . . / 4 511 / • 5-)z C -1,e. Cr, ,L„/ 61 t 1tvz —1r 7te•-x.„04,,e,„`,..,,,, /5;? -7,-,A 10'. 8! 9-44...z., 101 7 ..v 1,) 11 l2t.4• F41, .f.-‹ r. /// 1 0......,26,/-ttgA/2 "(.11-(,er,a--192/2 13 0,3.13(11.X /7ctryl 14 WiF, it.: 0 16 L,e 17 lett fditil • /1, 6C.&.7 18 a. 19 4/11-'5'11 20 21 2 Thrilnii) 1 d ,,,•••;) /4) e tue2 24 7 25 27 ,4" 5.-e4 28 , 29 iifier 30 31 32 L. - I Pr ‘. ---••••••—••••-• ''''rtr••••• • - • c Cr o 4. • 6 „7:0C - 610 ".'' Or47? •,-4; A4,..,,,„ , ''" ? (it. 1j L.4 ?e,it GI( ToLki, f- 7 -/i .0:2.ett21 4 x /247 c.e •-• • •!„.4 2 311 4: I z.„st,„ ) '1 A t <5.1 t... - - • . 1Th / 1101/1l/tai '47i ; 1 P. , a 61 e '... *It.46iik.VIJINA,p AMAJ:.,` , .-• - --.) i / 1; )1-- ,1'.1 x...a (/' / I:, , i.. , ,A.....1 , z / c,, ... . -,, J • I. -, „..ti,a4-4-4,..4.1"."1 # 04, . . • • ,r4.,„06:111,4-0.4,4., le' • Si -r. ;41 -ie e 11! er-fr,j-)• 12 11- 13? WO° '1 •/' I , .. 19 .. .., A ,...4.'; -4,.....;•-,... ;4, ,.% • ,/ .4?-' —..,4 ' ‘....,./ N ...,..:PA, e 4-43.4-" -• 4 A )• sYr. 6K. 44--1-k- A.;1. • t, ) 4. 1 1 d , 1 . 21 2 23 23 27 28 29 30 31 Z2 4 ••• 1 707 '24 m. 1%! Gee. ed 1 4.34 e•tr A/ asa. tte e; ,44441- / /. P "4-01 /to• • • , 601- '4'••••-:• 47. ' 4 ert 1 (/1"*H5): e5e;7 6s, ./) A e A f'ir •e1414, 4f J & 48), 0.1 . e 7o aiy .0414 r P 10 '11. 1 1, . k:'a¢,. .• k $4. ehit 20 26 27 1 28 291 i 1 / I, 7.• .,,, t', ,7„ c d,/,/ .:,/ 2.6, 1.44 , 3 • 7/2,,,..7ele.,4. • c-...' t --, 5 I ":/ft.'•?.....27.2:4*,./.. ''' ,,,p.,./4 k, A.. tfirvi ) t./ " l't't • ,tf.,.e." -71 --71.. e.- /1:.-• ," -,74C:',.- 1 : V ( ,e1 eI - • ,... 1 :. 1 a 1.4,g-i,,,,e- ,..-i \ - yoe ( 4,::,,,i„ 4.• 4,,,„ f 9 •'.'.,-,- ) ,1 ,....1 ....,i,f,..„..,_,,,,..,." ..-. it ' (.(e -'''.1-r7.741"—• '',,. '.` *I .... ,. 4,6 • 10 -1/rfr-.7 sf--10-1PpV.OPV 11 (%':e 44.•?:":177 Ar4ralf.:,650-- ...,-",...-- 12 —rA4,,,Ti,,t_ r) . i ic"--',/..< . 4. 13 ,, . 70-..,,,, ,,,./,..-c,..Z.,....,• / /..est'..A.,;,./,',.. ...- 7 14 .'41,e..... )cvre....-sr9 151 ,l0 —-- 1 ""; x,kx, 01/4-) ,..„,y:0 ''' 17 V4.., .V 4 etk-gg:40','Gif c. 4'2 r'47.6.4.74.10..47,-.A.of•i-b-• 20 21 2 2 24 25 26 28 29 // 601-•5 27- :41,4—v4; „7.42' 5' c. 3 „ix 5-0 • 4'0/67: P°1 fr• orr,g., 4,24,1701..16 0,4gZ1SP ,,•SK) /1'4R 5 fi‘61` ,$ klyic,?rot qktk,g1,:= VL dj 7Pg4f / „e. 4, Sr 02 96 ti N fj • .-t -1,-- - /S. ,C.. h •4 i3 x✓�, 0 Y -4r3 .. 1 arm i' °•y`'�'��,•S�r✓gA"��jks"�y'3v. £'}" 7g ' \ityr.eit e;) I la 1,1 pa / ' I NA Et Harold Hargrave LOCATION: 144 and 148 Lyndon TO PERMIT: Applicant to erect two 4'unit apartment houses, one on each lot, in lieu of maximum allowable of two units per Soto RESOLUTION B.Z.A. 154427 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS OF THE CITY OF HEIU4OSA BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNC 3'L CERTA O N ACTION REGARDING AN APPLICATION FOR A ZONE VARIANCE AFFECTING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 144 AND 148 LYNDON: LOTS 9 AND 10, BLOCK 42, FIRST AOD O T OON TO HERM ►SA BEACH, CAL O FORD IA, THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, there was filed with thlrb.Board, under the provisions of Ordinance N.S. 154, an application for a variance by Harold Hargrave upon property awned by applicant and located at 144 and 148 Lyndon, WHEREAS, The Board of Zoning Adjustments of the City of Hermosa Beach did on ,June 8, 1970, at a duly advertised hearing, adopt Resolution B.Z.A. 154m20, granting the application for a zone variance to permit the erection of two 4 -unit apartment houses, one cacti sac& lot, On lieu of moxlnnum asl owable of two units per lot on that property described as follows: Lots 9 and 100 Block 42, First Addition to Hermosa Beach, and WHEREAS, reconsidertion of this application has been requested by the City Counc i i of the City of Hermosa Beach, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, in view of the findings during review of this action on August 24, 1970, it is the recommendation of the Board of Zoning Adjustments that the applicant be deeded the zone variance for the following reasons: 1. The Planning Commission has determined that a general study of the area is needed and the proposed development might not be compatible to the future growth of the area. 2, The Board of Zoning Adjustments in granting this variance acted In haste without the full knowledge of the pending Improvements planned for the area and the intent of the zoning ordinance. The foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Board of Zoning Adjustments at a regular meeting held August 24, 1970, by the following vote: AYES: Comm. Ostermann, Comm. Lagan, Chairman Wi11la> s NOES: None CERTiF OCA ION O hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution B.Z.A. 154,-27 was adopted by the Board of Zoning Adjustments of the C g ty of Hermosa Beach at a regular meeting held an this 24th day of August, 1970. DATED, L.E. Ost;erwann, Se .retar .y €i Chard Was, Chairman Wagfz. NaroOd Karsrave L0CATie4: 144 and I4g Lynd PERMIT: Applicant to erect tao 4 -unit apertgent houses, one on each 1ot 8n tieu of maximum ailoweble•of two uniKs per lot. B.I.A. W.. A IMVATIOH OF T WARD OF UMW ADJUSIAMS TNE CV MIMOSA DEACP MUM A RANI VANAPCE VOUCH MULD PEMST Th FRECTIOH OF TW O 44CJIT APART- nalr MUSES, ONE Oft CACtiUTFN LgEt1 0Y tiAYIKU4 ALLOWAKE OF TWO WITS a LOV. 1400 LOTS MATat At 144 on4 14d C0004: ors 9 end iv, Kam 42. 1ST ADV4104 atERKOVI NAM.CflOT NUIVASA MUM, CALIfORNiA. T66 ETAA4 07 AUIPSIMMTE 07 Th e CfTif OF KERWOSA STACH ES RESMVI AS VOLE. : WNRRSASi,. glare was el with this board, under the provisloos *f Ordinance H.S. 154, an amilcatten for a variance by Nereid rargravm 4pna property awged by apOicant end iavated et 1.44 aid 8.443 Lyhdon UNIMiAS rho Beard 4 Zoning Adjustments o$ the City of ftreata Beach did co.; .1u4te 8, 0970, condckzt pobilc bawl v to consider this application -to penmit th4 arectlen f 4. -unit apartment houses, cao each lot. in 1101 Of ,iw.ggz' ram atta=b10 of twv4 unOtg par iot. MEWS, at svid public heA,:ring there was on the property described s resented Pittea and or testiaany Lot. 9 and lu, Oeck • ist AddWon to 4farAW14 isipach.„ fiermia)sa Beach, California. iS0g, VNEREFORI, ae 8T ?Man° that 4) view of the findiAg at said hearing, the B*16rd of Zoninv Adjustmonts does here4v.graa thi fLAIlria,ca for the followin9 masa m: 8, Vkl grvioAing of this v4rlance 011 cot bo meterieit detrimental fuip the pubik voifare t“JILEVIOuS t4 th6 property or kiprowome,tm Ia t lemadiate erez lu which the property is Ivcatod because 0'4, erection f.two oartments. Instead of. the ailowcd AnQ uaits would create & esor wasity foct*r, less overcri:1, 3*nd. traffif; probaems. • 2. Whet auch varia.pw js nacetsary fw.tho-prqservati ara4 eijoimmAt of a substeatialL property 104. • • 3. Tha sranting of such warla 40 ROW Aoc (evem,Ay aMot the comprehensiv general pion, 4. n4* limiting of those tots to ovo uaVta per Belt would be creeti4 an un- nucestary hardship sand result in being incoatistent with geaerai purpose of Of5 noning rdloonce. W4 fereteing asmiution was adepted by Om Doard'of Zoni Adjustments at a rasuler meting heid June 6, 1970. Iv thelotiow8.1 vote: AYES: C'.:J=4 Wiflimma, Com. Ostermqn* . WES: Chcirgan Mwrios VIATOSCATt herety certify that the f regoina ilesotOtIon 0.&.A. N.S, 154-20 was adapted by tha &card of Toning Adjustamts of the City of Hermosa B ech•at a regular eimting held on this iitti day of 4une, i970 MT Rtcturd Williamz,, Secretary C.VeR.M.9,,C*4.1•0 ftrean Reaves,.Chairmen 6 JPLIc RIN -- PRO1, § ,Ak' MEX � i7 WARP OP e 9NING ADJUSTMENT - RESOk:,UT.ga+.�, P, r Z r �. OTED 7h''t1Y ILL_ 19 0, GRANTING ZONE VARIANCE O HAti rRAp.4n E IN coldin wrkix PROPE T,C7 'a U AT 146-148 ILYNDON STPWR Letter dailITd Ku 10, 197d, from ilarvey Denison, 2317 First_ Court. DISCUSSION - The public hearing was opened by Mayor Tholen, and ruilding Director r3ud M. Trott outlined for the Council the public hearing held by the Board of Zoning Adjustment and their decision to approve and grant a variance to permit the erection of two four --unit apartment nt housaet , one on each lot, in lieu of the maximum allowable of two units per lot. J?r. . Kenneth ; ooick, 1007 Pacific Avenue, 4&nhattaBn Beach, contractor for Mr. Margr-i v , was prnos:lent to speak on behalf of the property owner and replied to questions from this Council regarding the set -back and curb cuts that would result from the construction as planned. Councilmen Valdes and Wise stated that they had attended a meeting held by residents and property owners in this area th order to become better acquainted with their objections to the granting of this variance, and it was their opinion that no one in the neighbm.hood objected to the construction of an apartment complex, but that they felt. that parking problems sa would result from they: intended garage facilities. Councilman Wise then brought forth a parking play, which he felt would ao1ve the problem of curb cuts by providing inside parking and ingress and egress on one driveway, and Mx. Ke nick expressed interest th studying this revied plan. It was suggested by Councilman Valdes that this hearing be continued to the neat regular meeting of the Council so that: ter. Komick could study the propos e:d r ision id perhaps reach , decision regarding its. feae bili , and he and the other meabars of the Coil would also have n opportunity to examine it before attempting to come to a decision. M . Komick pointed out that he hard had the subject t property tied up in e crew for some time, and that further delay might case problems, but that he felt th :t this near suggestion might be w3rth considering. Mr. James I untemn n: 201 North pu1v'e da Boulevard, rd,. Manhattan Basch, reel estate broker r for Mr. k*1 ars ravo, stated at& d that this property had been in escrow originally ret to clone on May 26th, .and th t Mr. Margraye. wag aa3nd rrstandaably asVnxi o ue to avoid having to wait mudh lower and had hope that this matter would be resolved thin week. Spes;iking in favor • of the ainwtment. complexi as propcmed as a mudh-needed step toward the improvement Qtr the southern portion of the city, but opposed to the parking prob/ems they felt would d n es t Prem the garaging and driveway ars set forth on the original i.r a 1. plows were mar. %Te rr ficiComb,, 167 Lyndon Street, Mr. E',' erxe'3, Von Portz, ,owner of p,r rty *n Lyndon Street, Mr. Harvey Denison, 234 Virot Court, Mr. ndbort Currie, 1.4109 Monterey Boulevard, and Mr. Seymour +G;#orsii 's, 4. M:Ont ,rey Zoulevtard. Mr. . Hu ntt sa an asked tho Mayor whether this matter a l.g t• be rest, :d at the next meeting on Duly 21, 1970 if continued to that meeting, and was informed that it would not be in order to broaise that action wmld be taken, but that every effort would be made e to avo.id nn further delay than absolutely necessary s i arry ixn reaching a 2inal de m i.e ion . oz this matter. .; True - t r continue the pari lie bearing of protest and appKs . regarding decision of Board rad of 2 nina kdjustulent to grant varianceApn groper /coated at 144-148 Lyn don Street t the e next regular' M'eeting Off: , the ° City Council on July 21, 1970, for Ftuea':fix of proposed re wis d pa ; `lb . g ftcilities. Motion by Councilman Valentine -! Second by, Councilman.Valdes. So ordered. 4Datalt adopted 'June 0, 1970 YEA.7,01 4.5i gamed Dram R lO 7, I e tYa�+. c2IO - The public ' `>if riay .w'rct VettlAVAIWN412v Gig 41;W•o , a[la i1r e� � to ai &?uS LitiMM from Mr. no ,- Lyon, f£, 1 0 t 5` . fl :itP'ot,A Covmniinwa Wise lot=w to thmt this variance vouli aff&ct only tvo pieces of prol;:Irty in this t r' x:ct . Mr. Kenwith hoick, 2„C? Pacific Afire uc , V,- Ti ;tt,nn Beath, tentative purchaer of the o ut j &&t. property then informed the emmeil that hr hmd stUUUe _{ tho revimd paean? acilit . h° a a°z ,(1e y iCtw,xcilomn Wise toed Counc , F oan Valdez) follo,71ftl their r elk ',r: . ear l mormrs of AAllacea t properties, nd th .t althonh mks, found wzz it in t c n pt it would r ul rea additional inweatment and it w ? c nc,t bfl podwilple for him to acqudre a sncrema.=E l building loan due to tho rialr 2actmc invo .. r a aeded that he had been undble to find mnv taternativo to his original par/dpg facility plFan thnt riconomically femible. Am no one eimo u ,€?Et66 to a + a `gip the p%4r<Ali e . ' s.$ +, wiio n cr�l I t o a f s 1' Z v v >Pif a 1� , hv. 1 ��:����R����e,,,,���tt ��.t,,-.,��,,������:i���c�a� �>��,9� � b�T,�t.�lp������.;.�?1�,Sf+�1��,��a����:m� �,.�2�� c�,���,�t,� t:��.���F��,��v�C y,� to 70 rgtp Gter�� fnd 4D%g'ri,h ft4"• fact thin Vuis�> 3+y !.t Aiut'htz i. Ind . 1.. ' ioc6 bin abut 7�4' MVO=ACME - t a bo d the ' a".h'cis t+ ,i�: !fi b',.' the ammi 1. is - 'f ZoningAdl'uotalent granting a tones mriance to pexemit the warstmction of two tour -unit apartmcat houses, es, e on G dot at 144-1.4D Lynam Eitrpet,, lieu 01! Iftql.rApauma:low.e of tw traits per lot. 4m,on by Councilman a,:t'nti V 33CcLItt km rr Thelon. FURTEER /d i w CUSSS.&n_%L4, G• CounaiLman Eigo mnprewod roc vpinion ttmtbecause) Councilman Valdes had boen invcilvtiva thp meting with gh z' x g property a erry 111.61 vi i'''i' was 1 nmode sl :n dti :f.R n'.,F ing t di']ir, s44; s+bd4.r, mad .S"$YGr riscussio: with e City httiboy eFw6ri3inaPk:vot4G om maeEto � tfiry�5,hold3 c i'v�?r2�':.6e th ? $ t}.! '.�3•s -a`"'+5 4 of the D'ai> rc 4:;?fi '^ a&ILb`�:' ": .'it t; F ,n "t i' me nuyo�" JSIt]:elm withdrew his mo ;,,.E..n with consent e11 t,r of tbm me> R.ti�t�fd. 6. �4+aNes HMtemEn, 2Forth cS ? SP. t .w :t ;a Bouleard, NUAlmttmn DozCh, re rs entinsi Mr. BM en ld Min.`Cgr . '' , r,, ppmoe'' ?tett O +!. 3 t of the waf e1 t 'rd? .L t '.'„ stated that o did not h U_.eve tho : mi e&Ec of ! .1 Council muA4 guaraimtee the three ''`dies 'Ilea's'"ezezt ,y wo d the _`' cl nh�', Ban :' i of reonin9 �CTXO ; - to recpen the public °£ E&rig mitasone vaTiRace vranteo by Byrd of Zoning ,a.ng 1,d j ut,.ma't for property y loc: ; d A4-140 4 + radon ' Str :et and continue to the meetin7 of August 4, 19 06 r cbrsideratsio by :4T11 COMM:1.1 s tviOt: CM tv Comeilmam Valentine - Seco �" C' t A So ordered. TMPhNh:_- PTOSTMpAPPvAL_I_VAPTANCF,O PloP17,FTY LOCAM ii -47:71-44.3 LYNDON .-S7F".:.V "oard of Zoning Adjustment !:esoluteon 1`74-20. adoptJune °, 197D - conlinued from July 7 and July 21, 1970. DISCUSSTON - 'Ile public hearing was reopened by 'ayor helen, and at his request Ir venneth xomick, 1007 Pacific Avenue, anbattan each; tentative developer of the subject property, informed the Council that there was a . time element to be coneideeed in relation to his loan commitment '4re. Komick also stated that if the financing were available at this time he would rather build one large multiple -family unit rather than two four - nit structures, but that he felt even the lesser development would lead to larger developments in this ar!a, Speaking in favoi of this variance was AT. Arthur ealchen, 1040 Aanhattan Avenue,. owner of property in the area adjacent to the subject property. The City ''ianager informed the Council that a letter of protest had been received from Hrs. Patricia A. Gazin, 17 - 7th Street and was now before them, and that the City Planning Commission, at its meeting on the previous evening had requested that the Council be informed that they had initiated a study of the area under discussion relative to implementing the General. Plan, calling attention to the fact that the General Plan shows high rise moteletourist-commercial use, that the RP Zone. deliberately does not allow apartment development on small lots, that the proposed continuous curb cut on Herondo Street could be highly detrimental to Herondo traffic, and that the Planning Commission was considering requesting a moratorium on new residential development in that specific area pending resolution ot the precise Plan. The Commission respectfully suggested that the oard of Zoning Adjustment had not had the benefit of complete knowledge of these facts when considering this request for zone variance, and requested that this item be returned to ther"-oard of Zoning Adjustment and that the Commission was ready to mt with the noard, the property owrners, and all interested citizens to discuss in depth the planning program for this area. • layor Thelen opposed the additional time lag that would result from sendiee this item back to the.Roard of Zoning Adjustment for further study, and Councilman Wise brought out the fact that the potential developer had already 4,721-itnd for two and one half months for a final decision, adding that he would not be able to vote due to the fact that the City Attorney had advised him to abbtain due to conflict of interest Councilman ,igo expressed the opinion that almost any development would be better than what had formerly been built in this area, but that improvement should not be rushed but should be considered for overall compatibility with the future improvement that would undoUbtedly take place, and Councilman Valdes stated that this particular area, because there was so much room for improvement, could and should be given careful advance consideration and that time devoted to studying its future development,before moving ahead would not be wasted for either the City or the developer_ In reply to a•question from tr. Fomick, the City lanagor informed him that the next meeting of the rdoard of Zoning AdjustMent was August 10, 1970; the Land Development Subcommittee of the Planning Commission had schedule a discussion meeting with property owners in the subject area for August 11, 1970, in the Council.Chamber, and the next meeting of the Planning Commission as a formal body would be held on August 17,'1970. '!7inutee 8/4/70 matter to the eoard of Zoning Adjustment with request 4Lor tinal recommenda- tion within 40 days. The maker and second withdrew the motion, and the public hearing was then declared closed.- Following this, the original . motion was again made and seconded, and the roll. call vote being identical, thp mot -inn was carried. Plq/70 OP/ O IEP.MOSA HACh INTIM -OFFICE HI MC Board of Zoning_Ad_tustment DATE. SUELIEC" • B.Z.A. Resolution 154-20 - Variance - 144-148 Lyndon Street vuarol•••••mrp*.M..,n. .u.svAnneur••••••••notoe.•••.•.***Ao”.eu aufeMot ,wrsn.un.,•.now*arnymn r.eravnas....1.•••••Mm.Y./Ila August 5, 1970 Office- of the City Clerk FROM. The City Council, at a continued public hearing held on. August 4 1970 considered the appeal of Harvey A. Denison, 234 First -Court, of the approval of variances for properties located at 144-148 Lyndon Street, being lots 9 and 10, Block 42, 1st Addition to - Hermosa Beach. After due consideration, the City Council determined that the variances granted should be further reviewed by the Board ot Zoning Adjustment in light of the following! 1. The Planning Commission has suggeated that its studies of this area, and the General Plan, indicate the request as • approved might he detrimental to the future growth of the • area. 2. Said Planning. Commission has scheduled a city -'property owner meeting in the Council Chamber on August 11, 1970, at 7:30 !- at which the property in question, amongothers will be discussed along with. the present and longr-range planning of the area. . tl' 3. There appears to be s difference of opinion.between the Board of Zoning Adjustment and the Planning Commission on the question of whether or not the R -P Zone's restriction against multi -unit apartments on small lots is an oversight. 4. It appears that the two 'parcels can be combined, and the need for the subject variances and previously granted parking variances eliminated. The City Council requests that -the Board of Zoning Adjustment meet with the Planning Commission to resolve the above questions and return its final recommendation to the Council within the prescribed forty -day 'period.. Copies to: Planning Commission Kenneth Komick , potential developer Harvey A. Denison Harold, Margrave, property owner James Huntsm4An, realtor MINUTES OF THE REGULAR $EETBP G OF THE BOARD OF ZOI1li$G ADJUSTMENTS HELD ON C00NCi4,. CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, HERO SA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUGUST 100 1970 Meeting called to order at 7:33 p.m. Chairman led in saute to tete Flag. Roll call: Present a Commissioner David Lagar,, Jr., Com agsslener L.E.Qstermenn, Chairman Richard Williams, and Building Director, Bud M. Trott. Absent a ion ACEMILTILUg A motion was grade by Chairmen Williams, seconded by Comm. Lag a n to approve the minutes of the meeting of August CO, 1970, as submitted. Notion carried. hiM l ie y, Secretary of the Beard„ Gran Ostermunt`c9 read Agenda item 2 as follows: , "Further review requested by the City Council of variance granted by the Board of Zoning Adjustments to Harold Margr°ave on Property at 144 and 1k8 Lyndon. App ie cant would erect two 4 -unit apartment houses, one on each lot, in Bleu of maximum allowable on two units per lot." Building Director, Bud M. Trott, read a memo to the Byrd f Zoning Adjustments from the City Clerk giving the reasons why D.E.A. Resolution 19k-20 was being red feared back to the Board for further review. MeM0 reed as follows: "The City Council, et a continued public hearing held on August 4© 1970, con- sidered the appeal of Harvey A. Denison, 234 First Court, of the approval of variances for properties located at 144e148 Lyndon Street, being Lots 9 and 10, Block 42, 1st Addition to Hermosa Beach. After due consideration, the City Council determined that the variances granted should be further reviewed by the Board of Zoning Adjustment in light of the following: 1. The Planning Commission has suggested that its studies of this area, and the Genera Plano indicate the reqs est as approved might be del,rimental to the future growth of the area. 2. Said Planning Commission has scheduled a cltyeproperty owner ming in the Council Chamber on August ll, 1970, at 7:30 p.m. at which the property in question, amort others, will be discussed along with the present and iongeraesge planning of the area. 3. There appears t4be a difference of opinion between the Board of Zoning Adjustment and the Planning Commission on the question of whether or not the R -P Zo e s restriction against multi -unit apartments on small lots Vs an oversight. 4. 6t appears that the two parcels err be combined, and the need for the subject variances and pre:aieusly granted parking variances eliminated. PAGE 2 a MINUTES GF ma BSB OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MEETING OF AUGUST 240 1970 The City Council requests eget the Beard of Zoning Adjustment meet with the Planning Commission to resolve the above questions and return its final recommendation to the Council within the prescribed forty -day period." At Mr, Tcrott's suggestion, Chairman Williams tabled Agenda Eters 2 until more members of the Planning Commission arrived. RGENbIie Secretary read Agenda item 3 as follows: "Further review requested by City Council.ofr variance decried Roger L. McGee on property located at 1821 Pacific Coast and 1820 Ardmore Street:. Applicant world erect 100 unit apartments with a portio of the garages @ f; ated p side y .rd property lines; said garages 1cated more than 39 feet from rear property line." Building Director, thud Trott® read a memo to the Board from the City Clerk exp plaisring why the B.2.A. Resolution was twang referred back to the Board for further review: Nemo read as follows: "At their regular meeting held on August 18v 1970. the City Council acted as follows: 'to refer back to the Board of Zoning Adjustment the eppl icatkon of Mr. a- L. McGee fora zone variance to gee rr i t toeation of a portion of the garages for 100 wait apartments o the.side yard property l idem with a recommendation for further study, and reconsideration of their decision as set forth in Resolution B.Z.A. 194-240 adopted July 27r 19700 As you are aware" yo>"rr final recommendation to the Council must be acted upc* within forty days after the meeting at which this notice Is placed on your agenda. During the diseaassion held by the Councilmen prior to the above actio° they suggested that the deveia pars of this property consider preparing an alternate proposed plan with w,ditlonal gust parking space, due to the lack of parking space on Ardmore Amway and Nr. D.W. Byron, representing Mr. lkCee, stated that he would give attention to this request." .!M Mr. Trott displayed a drawing of the development so the various aspects under discussion could be studied morclosely. Mr. D.W. Byron. 916 Silver Spur Road, Rolling Mills, appeared as Mr. 1 Gees representative. It was pointed out to the Board tk t two changes had been wade which should meet with their approval:. t. The 8 parking spaces for guests had been increased to 20. 2. The grade of the lot had been towered so that the t of the garages would not be over the height of a 66 block wall which is allowable ceder code. PAGE 3 MENTES OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS AUGUST 2400 1970 MEETING. The following points ware brought to the attention of the Board by the Building Director: 1. Although 180 units are allowable wable ander code on this particular property, the developers, have planned only 1000 2, if the vt r Imre is granted, the tearni , r, radl us into tths garages will be 28° which is 5° more than the minimun of 23?. 30 The minimum inside measurements required by cede Is 81.0 x 208 an garages; the measurements for the* garages in this development Is 90 sa 20n. 40 if the alar ice Is not granted and a 5' vacant space results between the side w 11 aced ,i; e back of the garages, that space will be wasted and debris will tend to collect there. Chairman i civ i ted anyone Ao wished to speak for or against the variance to come C oda'd 0 No one appeared for or against the variance. A motion was made by Comm. Lagan, seceded by Chairman 'Willins, to refer the request for variance back to the City Council with L. reconmendation to grant the variance. Notion carried by the follow! -N; vote: AYES: Comm. Os termamh Comm. 0 Latera, Chairmen Williams. NOES: None Building Director read a suggested Resolution. A motion was made by Che i r men Willem, seconded by Comm. Lag r, to adopt B.Z.A. Resolution 154 26, recommending to the City Council that the variance be granted to » .er L McGee as requested on property feted at 1821 Pacific Coast Highway area 1 ; °0 Ardmore, for the following reasons: 1. The property wi i l be graded so team ger go wei l s on the property line will react extend over six feet (6) above the adjoining property grade. 20 Allowing the garage walls to extend to the sideyard property lines will all,., additional turning radius® thus providing better accessibility to the garages. Granting the ' arlance should be subject to the following conditions: 10 The developer shai 1 provide a minimum of twenty (20) guest parking spaces, said spaces to be clearly identified and marked "guest perking"0 20 Garage walls shall not exceed six (6) feet above the adjoining property grade. Notion carried by the follacewing vote: AYES: Comm. 0ste rtarang, COM. Lagoa, Chairman Wiiliams, NOES: lie C6eaireen Williams, noting that a majority of the Planning Commission meebers were now present, suggested that the Board could now return to its consideration of Agenda item 2. He asked Planning Director, Robert Crawford, If he would like to present the Planning Commission's views against the variance on property at 144 and 148 Lyndon, Harold F aagra'e owner • • . PAGE 4 a MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS meams OF AUGUST 240 1970 Hr. Crawford said he would and displayed a zoning map for reference. He said he would like to clear up a miseenceptien that the Residential' Profess/anel Zane was overlooked when the Rea Zone was changed as this was not the cameo Mr. Crawf rd said that when the Re3 Zhao. w .,s changed a year egos the Planning Commi ss ion discussed the % P Zane, but decided that because the R®P Zones ware located in transitional areas, It would be better to leave the R -P Zones as is, until it is decided whether those zones shout d be changed to commercial or back to residential. o Leaving the R -P Zones as is, he said, was not an oversight, but deliberate. Kr. Crawford stated that in the eyes of the Planning Commissions any substantial development at this time, especially In the reales of email apartment buildings, would probably be a mistake. Chairman Williams asked if the developer could, according to codas build a duplex a single apartment house canal ,Pang 9 awaits if the variance Is finally denied by the City Crunch. Mr. Crawford stated that he corald. He said the emjor difference would be in the parking which would have to be entirely underground with 9 units. in that case there would be one entrance on ane street, and one exit on the other street. Chairmen asked if anyone in the audience would Bike to speak for or against the variance. Mr. Roy Lyons, $60,First Streets stated that he had decided to attend the ruing to s; k in favor of the variances but after listening to the discussions was now torn between ego views. On the one hands he said, It's too bad to have two perfectly good lots Just setting vacant; an the other hands If the Planning Commission really believes the area is going to develop as fast as they think, then it would probably be a mist ea to go ahead with an apartment building of any kirnd. He said that whatever r the decision is, however the developers should lot be left hanging. A decision should be made without undue delay In all fairness to the ewers. Hr. S. Oorsl ice, 43 a,,t greys also appeared against the variance. He said that what is g, d. for one is god f all, and if the variance is granted,. then the whole street should be opened to to anyone who wants to build. A member of the Planning Commission said the thing they ar most concerned with new Is tin4 a development such as thins would slow down top marc@ 1 devalope ,ant i + the next year or two, Re said that Hero do stands to become Ona of the pri :U;. commercial developments in <<.e South Bay area, ad wills In ail probability, bacrot only an economic asset to the City, but an area that Hermosa Beach ca point to with pride. After further discussion, i , a motion was arcade by Comm, Ostermanns seconded by Chea i sawn Williams, to recommend to the City Council that the variance be denied, • PAGE 5 - NfNUTES ei7 DaRRD OF 70MIIM ADJUSTNENVS KEETENG OF AunusT 24, 1970. Notion carried hy the foilowing vote: AVE'S: Comm. Ostermann, Comm. f.agan, Chairman Williams.' NOES: Nano Building Dire,ter, Bud Trott, read a portion of a suggestresolution.. A motion was made by Comm. Ostermann„ seconded by Comm. Lagan, to adopt B.Z.A. Resolution E54..27 which would recommend to the City Council that the variance request by Harold Hargrave on proerty at 144 and 14.8 kyndon be de led for t following reasons: t. The Planning Commission has determined that a general study of the area. is needed and the proposed development might not be compatible with.the: future growth of the 2. The Board of Zoning Adjustments, ia granting thls'verEance originaity, acted in haste without the f knowledge of the pending.improvements planned for the area and the; ;ntent of the zoning ordinance. Motion, carried by thi foilowing vote: AYES: Comm. Osterman, Comm. Lagan, Chairman Williams. NOES: None VILEMPR it was agreed, as tong as the hour was -early, and a majority of msmbers of both the B.Z.A. and the Planning Commission were present, that scms discussion would be Sn order. Mr. Crawford, flty Manning DErector, stated that he would like to bring the Ba.A. up to date CB what his Commission Is trying to do on the various zoning ordinances: Points discussed were: S. Assemblage of teasinto tomer plots. 2. Open spaces required of builders and wherelocated. 3. Efforts to lower the population density of the City. 4o Spacing between buildings bock as well as sFde and front. • 50 FeasEbIllty of making the conditional use permits hearings assignable, that is, assign some of the heargngs to the Ba.A. when the P.C. Is overloaded. 6 improve communication between the two Boards, particularly in regard to PlannEag CommissiorJs plans. 70 Notification of the Planning Commission of cases due to be heard. 80 .Pianned.development zoos. 90 Omit:Won from am InanIgng GoivessFon to the cimaA, members to attend not enty theEr general weetngsv but ghs subcomzEttec meetings 05 well. A motion to adjoarn ?ems made by Cha:irman Wiiiiams, seconded by Comm. Lassa. Notion carried. • Meeting adjourned at 049 ....ervAnew.-mr:rsomr...var*--rmneennomowava,e,r.vrrepar.....matterverstes,As.arawe-si,ermws ,S<CS-50.,Creiri.,./torti,-an,r4,111Virashr0.1,401....Rfer_naffENUrtnittereMnCIS3aMit.C." V.0E. Wtermanno %!4(retary Plemrd tAttilamsv Chairman 8 . '.i r. r,i,j i:0 ;It ..rtr5,...i • • NAME: Roger L McGee DATION: 1828 Pacific Const Highway and 1020 Ardmore Street TO PERMIT: Applicant Oa erect t00 wait apartments with a portion of the garages located on sideyard property l Ines; said garages located more than 35 feet from rear property• 1 ne B.Z.A. RESOLUTION iON 15k"26 A RESOLUTION Of THE Bt%RO OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS OF THE CfW OF HERMOSA BEACH RE6t MENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CERTAIN ACTION REGARDING AN APPLICATION FOR Z E . VARBANCE AFFECTING PROPERTY LOCATED ON 1821 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND 1820 ARDMORE0 LOTS 60 AND 170 IN BLOCK 81 OF THE SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH IN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. THEyBy�?� .RD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS- OF THE CITY OF HE`:.,,.OSA. BEACH DOES RES VE AS y 0 OfbL MS: WHEREAS, were was filed with this 8oardo under the provisions of Ordinance M.S. 1540 on application for a van vari nc.e by Roger L.B tee upon property owned by applicant and tooted at 1821 Pacific Coast Highway and 1820 Ardmore Street; Leets 60 7, and 17, in Block 81 of Second Addition to Hermosa Beach, as per cap rre» corded In Bock 3, Pages 11 and 12, . C i ty of Hermosa Beach, California. WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Adjustments Hide on July 270 1970, at a duly advere tised hearing, adopt Resolution No D.E.A. I5ite2k denying the application for acne v-;ri'ence to permit the erection of 100 unit apartments with a portion of the garages to be Iodated on the side yard property lines; said garages to be more than 35 feet from the rear property limo on that property described as fol lows: Lots 6, 70 and 170 En B l oct 81 of the Seed Addition to Hermosa Beach, 1821 Pacific Coast Highway and 1820 Ardmore Street, and Wl ;:. S, reconsideration of this application has been requested by the City Council of the City.of Hermosa Beach with a recommendation for further study and suggestion that the developer of this property consider an alternate plan to provide :ddltioeaal guest perking. NOW, THEREFE, BE IT RESOLVED that in vier of the findings during review of this action on August 24, 15700 it is the recommendation of the Board of Zoning Adjustments that the applicant be granted this zone variance with a portion of garages to be iocated an the sideyard property lines; said garages to be more than 35 feet from the rear property line for the following reasons: 1. The property will graded so the garage wal i s on the property l B nae will not extend over six feet (6) above the adjoining property grade. • 2. The applicant has agreed to provide 20 additicnei parking spaces for guest parking whichwwilt benefit the development and the adjoining properties. 3. Allowing the garage wel i s to extend to the sideyard property lines will allow additional turning radius, thus pr,,,,vlding better accessibility to the garages. The granting of ., ,.Is variance to be subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer shall provide- a minim ,f twenty (20) guest parking spaces; said spaces to be clearly identified end mmrked '"guest partbiog" 2. Garage wails shall not exceed six (6) feet above the adjoining property grade The fcreg,;6ng Resolution was adopted by the Board of Zoning Adjustments at a regular meeting held August 2ktho 1970, by the following vete: AYES: Comm. 0stermenn, Comm. t agen, Chairman WIl i lam NOES: None PAGE 2 B.Z.A. RESOLUTION 154,326 Roger L wee hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution o B.Z.A. /54-260was adapted by the Board of Zoning Ac j us toren is of the City of Hermosa Beach at a regular meeting held on this 24th day of kuust 24th, 1970, DATE LE. Ostar'm ra, • S etary Richard Williams, Chairman • ofpr:. 2 fikarpr alffka • CeaUS lat FezMU Camig ,PsTad Areirwa4 Stmnt FiR mg% VQ1104N e4-cgt thq 4ver um,/ t wikb porgFor4 gargypg gmatisd az s0,6* r@ed palwrty k4wavos UN,...Reed rawe tzt-ten 35 Imt mar pemorty info. . P.A„a,„ 4Ti.sawk?,'Pag FJ54.74% antatuslem ev ssta$ eg EWEN Aanaxann 'INC V NUM% MING KAM% A Zeg VARK4C.E Meta KWID EratTPOR V' IN Mr WiptIgril WW1 MUM IT SANWA ga WATE9 CV, E,t&U VAAM KAPOTT WAR MB E vdt. FT PM 643A4 SISFATV Mag V MUM NIIMINVG3 ef TWA CreV RF Parms% um DM &WAVE AS MIME/ dacm Pao toe z.140 gh a Tmefd „ utztkui, Oto, iY STO,eximms M4p 4M ttptkati,m thw (7) vevilamo bse &ow, Lo upS.ird preWfriy OWatg; by vtkxwt *TO &trAgmt ef!; Paggne, CA;k6z9ts iltgbozr fori ANtazm Wont LiAn adp Po Gad 1170 iei? ria.ean'A 41Y.Mra.'47,,s 67* giVataTa VlUint4, inte cap ree flook-61 Eiezat,' 3t, Pop% es,,A D2,, My e NprguAlco Rimy* e40; MN,17-400,, MOW the, bward 2imlitv itajovmnzs q.145 Me env 5t-etrom rpieekt) 480 lay,.n.0 DM Mitgia,g1; tp5.61 Nem eg Qc4M tfogz, a744,8 3 co, Emi plartzt ;.•6zve,Rik•wa tG.9 .t.Wt si,gdartilsono• whN a pletka virog..4 It* taccw.„i *P4 CWIT praParty UYtak"4', gjari4fRf4 R*1 hQ eare 6-6,asn 3:- feat er419 pcm- fewny .3.16007.filh ultd WA f7, slaRAIn '4tef5ii prolnatail twit erra itisfairMay mit %No vsvpirtv doeVilly-44 (65 Te3 ,t4m5 ; Psazat& N$%,411,„y_ti,f, 14g03 'AtiVatir6 Stemt. t of.p.g .4.06(41.1S` and • aisi D,witt &wiz, 6, 7 v eat ;To ta, irAmt 26,ze Adat; ekv '„Jmma, 11,eTeb, ppfr trav ril.D01:440 Uaut r9Wv IngaUFGE flifg rt" ttEMPLIID Oftg ite 17.0%,118eiV asid kezekig ,04 bawd a ECODE'M AOW4UittlfRar,1 df0f.!.. kMa4ltfiy dClreff Qta0 AII'VCrta. C*1' tho fat; AGA reg=w4 Airy?, ticarot tam ftw; *harm KAnt.; ge.,tarc, tleQ• Valragig5VAA (ce extrow.eVrKwy circmp • $gt.emccit covotitgks74 Viir..,;,a tc3 0,3m prometv firimtunti kioi4,--ant has nat gozT, iiadt soxia•m4 unawasrif pmterwottclt avt4 Astiorimt; ass? 63 &t.tzt?).<2,,pr,t1.5,11. prf,T,wiw p*atantm4 v„tor prvogi.ny • to dm mom IfboAlittr 4.rtog vrlo. Anre dail4f,c e,.V virw\o-OT remt$ tIvr. .T}Mft, expPE asA !L'CJ vat Ootv: Ow; Zika Vill.44$130 rotx,db watalma Ut.v mote:v.6MT ek,IA,Arihs,xigeafcrPRitsilee3 fAc ammor Cie btpmuuRontt4 gw 2ugh wkAggty mmd ta wk80.z4 W4* provATtgo gv ttk,..eftog. Ito" fo,..rvz...p.tAng ReitsOniefit fetn offop.tad atcy Eicsre, eg 1 na tOSUMMO, f:1 VA,10c4' Ittar g 9161c, W the fe ctO vit'rea: esztontmuo CARaTkc,31 f d (.1,%-n•M a Oil,' ti4Ma trgalb h daft 14 eon • t54-24 , : m . , _ , r:f:• <.a CkAT if MAN ION hsroby certify %hat We f*a qua c e bo ut P o ^+ B ,a V5/424 wag ABd ky tho Merd aff Zarthm3 Adj tvan a oti Fi4o Cali ftroam ElIgo h a e spa.guatm me tPri-s t€• Ed 64, adt eJay (f jOy, mva Ir• gMa c a., (MaQatar.ani afirrasasr+.•arnaasa401..eamt» e,<msano•=rrtsa+,,m 6sz>:mx.exstx xvoz vmo.l. "C ^NdCfJixSYd$n7.'.ID warAttrzciwato aJsminx • • f ' TC HEARING - APPnAL FROM DISMAL 'Y 110ArD OF SONIG AtimusTngwv- vARYANCE TO LOCAT'P.1 POrTTON OF GARAGFS_ON STD :1; 'ARD PPOPNZ FFTY LI - 1A2-1 PACT.FTC COAST HIG9WAY AND 1620 ARrYOR F07ENUE Letter dated July 1970, from D. W. 'lyron, representing Roger In :4c(;e7 - resolution n.Z.A. 154-24, adopted July 27, 1970. DTSCUSSION The public hearing was declared open by Aayor Thelen, and r. D. W. nyron, 916 Silver Spur Road, Polling came forward to represent 'kr. Roger L. McGee. He informed the Council that they wished to develop a 100 -unit apartment building on the property formerly occupied by the Riviera Trailer Court, and that they planned to provide 158 parking spaces, eight of 'which would be uncovered guest parking &roan. Mr. ?,yron also displayed an engineer's drawing showinp the areas where they desired to have garages on the property line, said garages to be more than 35' from the rear property lines and with block walls on the property line not to exceed six fe;,tt in height between -proposed develop- ment and adjacent property. Councilman Wine stated. that he did not think this request was unreasonable, but that he felt that there was not adequate guest parking provided, especially in view of the lack of parking space on Ardmore Avenue, and mayor Thelen concurred, noting that a development to the south of this proposed apartment building was already experiencing parking problems. Speaking from the audience were Ars. Patricia A. Gain, 17 - 7th Street, who stated that sill -would like everyone present to know that she was strongly concerned regarding the new building trend in thin% City, due to her conviction that cars and motorcycles are going to choke HOrMOSa9 Peach. She informed the Council that she opposed crowding in this City, and requested that the Council b,gar that in mind before taking any action that might add to it. • 4T. Lonnie '4orris, 306 -o 28th Street, agkad-if.this varianCe, if granteci, would create any problyis.for•fire equipment, and was told that there would be required fire:wall 'and that aU fire tnits would be open.. As no one else wished to be heard in support Of or opposition to thi appeal, th .pUblic hearing Vas th4,n• closed. During the discussion that followed, the 'Council noted that this development more then adher d to all.zoning requirements, and that a total of 100 units was planned, although 180 could be built and still h -n within the City Code. qr. lyron replied to questions from the Council reg_rding the affect upon adjacent properties, and stated that the plans as displayed to the Council were the result of several alternatz:, studies. He stated that underground parking had been considered, but that people do not like the concrete mass that results, a d th4lt landscaping could • not disguise. Councilman Valdes pointed out that the decision of the oard.of Zoning Adjustment to deny this variance was based upon the fact that the applicant had not mbown that there were exceptional or extra- ordinary circumstances or conditions appiiceble to the property involved and the applicant had not Shown that such variance was necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a stibstantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and sone, and denied to the property in question. -1- Minutes 8/16/70 AcTrau - to refer the application of nr. Roger L. neGee for zone vri4nce back. to the Soard of Zoning Adjustment, with a recommendation for further study and reconsideration of their decision. fiction by Councilman Wise - Second by kmayor Thelon. Carried. Ayes: Councilmen nigp, Wise, '4.ayor Thelen. HOOSt Councilmen Valdes, Valentine. ..Auen2mean. • edilfORRIA 90254 PHONE: 376.9454 Honorable far end Ci City of T er^mome Reach r Mayor or ` held, At th aiz meeting of Augc t 260 1970 the Parke d Rµ.creation Commie ion unanimously ovtd to taco nd to the City Cour .�. that the Over -The -Line Tournament be appy J d by that honorable body0 Oro}avid i 1o� a and re Larry D 5 i both age an d before thi u Commission and expl ined in detail the operation of thea Tournammnto They will both be in the udience t sewer any questions that the Council may here. Sinoerely Parka and Recr &Um/ 41.0 3,4'4.1.970 • ir1.)avali4 Idetctlitvx)r:V:10 %itia.cteralD9m2it 2 ?Ter A.irekitt.se • '1,;eritsasa . ?.:',i,i• JCAV:irt, Ue.toh!oortht . - . .- ..,.. • -,,,,!.',,,,,-... rhi 0 will exild iiixt or tratip,Ioite nrinvermrtion of Jnly 22 re,rtiNtin-, .:yo4r.re:.LJelt to doeiAtgat AO aver.-elleAfinig:'/IarnitilWJVit on the benotto. Otit'lottqr V4.1.011 .1;,,,rilce!lici"...0 on 411V 20T. ;1!!Isiorwarde4 to the ,....preatiatt an4 14,triiii Cti.‘1i.itzsiort, for thoir 21619,ie-1,: and aortnitlermtion. :Xoraiosioo -kf,iii15 . i, ,, 'loges/se e1 arkel anthasixtriti ,V..p(ist t'te act ivitys ,-, EM*.& it to h nerii :;t4ativity a rut • of oitr.. ',leach. ”cy. nver 0 they felt ,,,,:.„-,t,.;•-.*.40.4 Iligy :no dell .4244,Lt :Lona). infal,Lgt ii7ar re :PIViirit 7, t 1 le a De ci 7. ie ,i4fi: .€6 be ufKkie,divintrol factors .(phyoiesiti an oil' An alcoltolta $-, ..,..00rianww.)-tion) weroonnel vaq211:4trat. ,L ._,,,......r.t.mPI tm. r.ZP4 t . raireri,tad it e .,.to invite you to th nirnt . :.-..?..:,:.:01;1'2,.,.'.'•1•-•-!'",,,,.1.,,-- ,,....„..-/Li...',.f.,, . 1/41;t:144.. the' 4itg.;61171.14.0itti 1 iidAerktiiiiii for, Amt.-,utst no 1978 et 8:00 i)..-... ' ' • .f',-,:;1... ...,-, &,-4Swt Como,oil Cikapittr...Sold. yOii.'llays any Ttlest,tons rael tacM ",•rie ilit 3,Tts.1,8454o ext ..t1440.4. • , • ...Jo ea. lliiiti,444:',::',11rootor r4st City • :titievo t ft,00 colva.solon • PEER 52 voori ANo ORO'0 • 52 plEk AVENUE HERMOSA EBEACt. CALIVORNiA 90254 2 A 3 374-WiSV 4912 Mi. Jess Larez. Director Parks and Recreation City of:Rermosa Beach Civic Center Hermosa Beach, Calif. 90254 • Dear Mi. Larez: . • Would like per .on to have an Over -The -Lino Tournament the 15th and • 1..th of August on the Beach in the City of Berms Beach. Due to it becoming more popular a- sport, if possible, 1 woulA like for the Tburnamentto be co-sponsored by the City of Hermosa v4...bch and sanctioned by the Park and Recreation Dept._ Over -The -Line consists of three man teams using a bat and a twelve imh rubber ba11. Each batter p1 toward the water with the court about •. twenty.yards wide. Thal:vatting position is approximately twenty yard.s from the Beach retaintmgmall. • The Tournament woUld oenSist of abo464 teams, so woulA like to have 1" available space for six courta with at. '1t 5 yardbotween eash.court. Entry fees aro 2.00 per person and the elimination precc,es woadru the number of courts to tour on Sunday.. This spgrt has been well recieVed in this San Diego aa for.tho last. 15 to 16 years-. Last year San Diego's' Over -The -Line Thu rt was featured on "The Wide World of Sports." A Tournament wa held in Playa Del Roy in '69.and was so well recieved that they have been asked to have the Tournament-afain this year more co-operation then ever thought would utast. Hope to have at for to fivellundrei spectators without. advertising. As a Hermosa Beach businsks men„ would like to sec the City of Hermosa Beach and it's businessmen recieve the benefits that a Tournament would bring. Thank you for your time and aPpreciate any co.operatifl you can give MB . on this matter. ' Sincerely, David E. Letchworth Vice-Prtsident: General Manager HERMOSAENTERTAIMENT CORP. DIA: Pier 52 DEL:vad . . CIVIC CENTE.FJ HERMOSA REACH . August 279 1970 CALIFORNIA 96254 PRONE. 316.9454 Hoaor ;b1t Mayor and City Council City of Hermosa Foh Dear Mayor " :`. t len: We are again € ising thy: City Council that the request from the Herz 4a B achy :w ing Club recently submitted for the second c and time9 has not be : n revi;d by the Parks and Recreation Commi : s i.on. • It hes been thts policy of the t'tty of Hermosa Beach th t requests from groups :and organizAtions wishing to use or change they use ofrecreation fecilir:. s9 shall be presented to ths� Commission for their consideration and review. We are deep .y concern •d about the departure of policy regarding this rtq at t o It was unanimously agreed at tha . August 269 1970 Parke and Rte lreatio : Commission sion r etia g9 that we urge the City Council to r ter x+11 matters pertaining to Parks and Recce tion ecti.viti : s to the Commission for consideration encs recc mandeti.on to the City Council. Si.nc. raelyQ Jane Turn ,,:. Acting Chairman Parks and Re car a tion Coit l ion We the undersigned, owners of property (or representatives of property ovrners) located on 10th street, Hermosa Beach (between Ardmore and Pacific Coast Highway) do hereby petition the city council of Hermosa Beach, California, to hear, review and .:,approve the. following matter affecting our.residential street by the incorporation of a Mobil Service Station or the 900 block of Pacific. Coast Highway,' in addition to the increased traffic flown c.5uBed by this reorientation of Pior Av'c Nep i ame '...:0": c v .aAdoire : .(2,„`,2 Name _ � °' italEr ess: I.2 11 i_ ,m.. Nam -44 Narreoum p. Na Address: raoire- . Na Name Narne Address 1. Name Name ,'jv `__._«�.�= Name Name w. Address: Address: �,.�a�-.,pn.e�l ' ...R Address: ' ,Addrre ss: A.ddrress Address: ,—.Address: Na Va request 10th Street b olosed °Mobil St be impl mented AO eaf$ far thim requett are ff hems fallowoB ffio on tht eZp ant:IP:117 since the r eri flew in a WERE47 rd direati 1 net an/y r,utes but /nal 41, am well. ((Cana quamtlr, ?,“:= TA r I • th August 26, 1970 gross route . r th attiaoh root tett ;VQ4 44, Exhibit. The' Waite f the triffto $2:4 fter Ar traffic ee h. (14,.vy commara&al truen g traffic oounter in th .ALdla of t betbvcen 650 and 651 lath Str Thi torentea mn would be 2) 1h vtat 40010110n hyy th ebb ete in recent years, in thatc, the livAng an this street %Mob. 11 (pomoitay ) tar vortfloatina.)) Give lee.f glesTalem that iFte of th,4, attaithed plan. are maw 36 ya am apprerd ohildres 27% grad() tboX aro tea execs:give speed and mreat danger te these youngoterA We fe 1 that the nefetrtest theme oom itians ( teep }flh1, imoreas Iva eved) demand 0.4r CAVA tor traffic C . ate matlame e • RESOLUTION P,,C0 154-780 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO MOBIL OIL COMPANY TO OPERATE AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION AT 901 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. WHEREAS, the City Planning Cammission of Hermosa Beach at a Public hearing_ held August 17, 1970, considered the request of Mobil Oil Company for a Con- ditional Use Permit in order to construct an automobile Service Station on lots 11„ I2, I3, 14, 154. 16 and 17 of Tract 223, known as 901 Pacific Coast Highway; WHEREAS , the following required considerations were snacle, 1. Distance from residences Adjacent to rear (west) 2. The amount of off-street parking - space for adequate off-street parking. 3. Distance, from churches - 150 feet 40 Hours of operation - 6:00 a.m. -12;00 midnight 5. 'Combination of uses - service station only 6. Precautions tzken to assure compatibility of use with surrounding areas - six foot masonry rival/. • 7. Relation of use to traffic volume of streets; routes of ingress and egress - access to Pacific Coast Highway „ 9th and 10th Streets. Pacific Coast Highway is a major highway. 9th and 10th Streets • are local service streets. 8. Exterior signs e decor and landscaping - Modern design, brick facing, substantial landscaping shown on plot plan. Signs not shown. 9. Number of similar establishments in area ; three- Standard Oil, Gulf, and Union. 10. Other considerations: a. 10th Street access to Pacific Coast Highway is presently prohibited; could be changed to right turn only. b. Substantial changes could be made in electrical service. c. Landscaping plot not firm at this time. • d. Driveways currently less than ordinance allows. ;and WHEREAS, after due consideration, it is the opinion of the Planning Com- mission that the proposed use would be of benefit to the city,: that the con- struction and operation, subject to certain conditions would not be detrimental to the neighborhood; and • -2- WHEREAS „ 11 has been indicated that a citizens group of 10th Street residents is interested in further restricting the access to 10th Street from Pacific Coast Highway, and the staffs° recommendations have been discussed and are ac- . ceptable to the applicant excepting there from recommendation number 6 re- quiring that service bays have 10th Street instead of PacifiC Coast Highway; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach hereby grants the Condition -al Use Permit as requested subject to the following conditions: L That la nd s ca p in g be approved by Park. Superintendent., revised substantrally as shown on Exhibit k dated August 17, 1970. 2. That curb and sidewalk be revised at the Intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and 10th Street as shown on Exhibit A, with an SINSernent for sidewalk, purpose granted to th,. city. That electrical service be Underground from second pole.westerly on 10th Street. 4. That masonry wall exposed to public view be of brick or brick facing. 5. That no accessory business or uses be allowed without further Planning Commission approval. 6. That all other matters be as shown on Exhibit A. 7. That elevations be coordinated with Improvement Common. 8. That Permit be reviewed in one year by the Planning Coraraission, VOTE AYES: Foote Mu.flnger liVatters, Toole, Chairman Noble NOES: None ABSENT: Collis.„ Stabler CERTIFicAno N hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 154-780 has been approved by the Planning COMMiSSi011 of the, City of Hermosa Beach at a regular meeting -held on the 17th of Angust, 1970. Wsiehnre. memeterairoarcrm*Marsvalewsernometweemaernv....MM DATE TOE B. NOLE, Chairman me.M...,v.icmancommouncrawo/nnanv....sasenxern.**mre. ......*...•-rnamoorl,sonwrwaiovanerslearcx.......,onvellouriNnavaakrat,errenrcrrr. - TAMES D. COLLIS, Secretary • Mrs. Holland Lis 760 Lana Dr., Hermosa Beach. Aug, 22nd,19700 City Council H rmosa Beach, Calif. Dear Sirst- Last sday wept into Hermosa to pay my utility bills. After paying the bills at the stationery store 1 walked over to pay the wat45r bill,. Comin back 1 passed,the theatre and was I disgusted, 1 have never sem such a dirty sidewalk as the ong ip front of the store north of the theatre and also in front of the theatr, dirtv urine, etc. What is wrong with th* merchants in this town? Is a1 they cre for the money they make from s4Al1ng to the hippies and young people, Isn't there a law in Hermosa that the merchants have to wash off their sidewalks every mOrning. If not, why not? Also what happend to all promtses that have made to plant along the railroad in the soUth part of town? Are we in th south end just stepchildren? Several of the neighbors around hart,' have r ported tk.v house on the northeast corner of Monterey and eighth Streets. Their fence has been laying on the ground for months and it looks like a tenement but nothing hos boon done about it, I was in a etOre near the South Io,y Hospital yesterday and when'the clerk asked mo where I lived and 1 told her Hermosa she said ''Poor Bermcsa Beach, it in getting to be the s1 area of the South Bayi°. Two years ago we had our property reappraised and the texas raised more than $100, now I got a notice that the property had beam. reappraised again. .my husband passed away July 13th and pnly hope 1 won't bo tamed out of my more after being here for over 25 years. • When will it be possibla to open up 6th street and take scgd of the traTio off Eighth Street? If some of you Would like tie take a walk up Sighth Street some time and sit in our patio Sce Saturday or Sunday you will .see what I mean. I counted the cars that went by one day and there Was one every three sedonds,- Altp it there imw about noisy cars?. You should hear them tha middle of the night taking off from the stops on Loma Dr. rolalise you have been doing a. lot to help Hermosa by getting rid of soma of the eyesores in our area but to outsiders who eoue just to go on the beacth. or go out on the pair it will never leave a good impression unless you can instil some pride in the in,the marchants to clean up their sidewalks, even if it means plosping them thr, or four times e day and hoaging them off each morning. Thank you for your attertion. Lea • lle of California Cities Meg Nd Lespe ©l Cities Titre ape Orwid Peeb*cicalae Berkeley, Calif opals 9005 Aagust 13, WO TO:• The Honoreble Mayor and City. Council All Citi ee en California Gentlemen: 1109 "0" STREET SACRAMENTO 96814 (916) 444-6790 HOTELCLAREMONT BERKELEY (416) 643.063 702 HILTON CENTER 1.00 ANGELES 90017 (213) 024-4934 ete order to expedite and make more efficient the Business Seseione- at the Annual League Coeference in San Diego, October 25-28, we are asking that each City Council designate a voting representative and an alternate voting tepreeentetive. The League Constitution provides that each city is entitled to one vote.in matters affecting municipal or League policy. On infrequent occasions controversial resolutions have been handled on a voice vote basis and, of course, igt following this procedure it is.extremely difficult for .the Chairm& to determine whether a split vote actually represents the attitude of all cities. To provide an accurate .voting procedure; a voting card will be provided each tity represented at the Conference. The voting card will be made available to the city.official designated by the City Council on the basis of the information received from your city on the enclosed "voting delegate form". The card will be used for voting at the Mayers' and Council- men's Department Business Session Tuesday morning, October 27, and at the General Assembly Session Wednesday morning, October 28. If a city is represented by the Mayor or members of the City Council, it. lsdepeced that one of thees officials will be designated the voting efiel.igate.eeSimilerly, it is expected that the alternate voting delegate will come from the same group of officials. However, in those cities where the City Council will not have a regiaterpd delegate e the Conference, but will be represented by one or more city officials, one of these officials, (i.e., city manager, city attorney, city clerk, or department head) mey be designated the voting delegate or alternate for the city at the General Aseembly.Wednesday morning. It .ie requested that the enclosed "vetieg delegate form" be foreerded to the Derkeley office of the League at the earliest possible time, so that the proper recorda may be established for the Confereace. The voting dele- gate may pick ep theecity's voting card at anyteonvenient time, et Om League registration deek_et.the Commuaity COueoUree. • plc . '• r/060.00 • • if, at the cime of the Conference, it should become necessary for the voting delegate and the designated alternate to leave the Conference, the card may be transferred to another official from the city, providing this fact has beep cleared with the Credentials Committee, which will be respon- sible for distributing voting cards. This procedure suggests that the Mayor end all Councilmen from a given city should try to sit together at the Business Sessions so that there may be an exchange of points of view and a toucensus arrived at before the city's vote is cast. The Mayors' and Councilmen's Department as well ac all other Department Businesc Sessions will be held on Tuesday morning, October 27. Resolutions to be considered at the Department'Business Sessions will be available upon your arrival in San Diego. The General Business Session will .he et 9:15 a.m., Wednesday, October 28. Resolutions.cle red by the General Resolutions •. Committee at its meeting on Tuesday afternoonwill. be available to all dele- gates at any time after 8:30 a.m., Wednesday, October 243, at the registration desk at the Community Concourse. Your cooperation in returning the attached "voting delegate form" as quickly as possible will be appreciated. Sincerely, Noward Gardner Associate Director Attachment LIC WORKS DtPAR ENT 1700 WEST 132ND STREET/GARDENA. CALIFORNIA 0247/ (213) 227-0220 August 25, 1970 Office of City Clerk City Hall 'Hermosa Beach, California 90254 'Gentl Re: Sonata Bill No. 85 As you are no doubt aware, Senate Bill 8S Mills 4 ;urns) has been approved by both the Assembly and the Senate and transmitt 0 th Governor for his signature within the pat week. This bill provides that the present allocation of State freeway con- struction funds based on a 55/45% split between /.4rthern and Southern California will be changed to atAY40% formula in favor of Southern California. In essence, this means that the southern portion of the State will receive a 5% increase in freeway. construction funds to the detriment of the northern portion of the State. This bill has no. effect on gas tax revenues for counties and cities throughout California. If the Governor signs the subject bill, it will be effec- tive July 1, 1971. It is anticipated, at this late .thte, that there may cansidorable pressure placed upon the Governor's office not to sign the bill; and, if Southern California communities are interested in the increase, it might bo prudent for these jurisdictions to make their wishg, known to the Governor's office. JPSiltt Very truly yours, J. P. Dilsborough Director of Public Welt CODelltil*.K949:416 4, r. VIA:AWOL CHAtrtcsAg. A,- 'W. OATOY VoiLL.1.48.1GvM*Otte. TelOWAS MORAN. ValMati SaTtfitrOCCIN Ausist 1T 19TO • Qq -e,' AlValrlms City of Bermoma Beach 1315 WeanyiVE Hermosa Beacht CA 90254 Dear Iiiegoce Vo34esit aletnuttroteu OTATE OF CALIFORNIA LAAL2211-:-MIDEAITLE_MitiLDIMITA4MNIZIPELa gialpaimmg„si TT t_ALLatigalLAULMOITI EFLETIQUALIMMJUQUIa=QEAki_DiakILENIMPoR&IIQUa- Aportb.S% ALL. <-0141:4ura tr.o.riwati Tc) VIAS -.0101415%10h CAL irORNIA s.Aftt 54.1,,,-11t146 444..arn.ht.f.:ItIktl call? 9.4}0i 7c, pvuomis, •41%) 537. 1945 Pets no C09051 Attached is a proposed general order in the above -entitled matter prepared by the Staff for your consideration. It is desired that we receive your written comments concerning the attachod proposed provisions prior to September 30, 1970. In the absence of substantive objection, or request for public hearing, the staff may recommend the issuance of an ex parte order. Very truly yours, PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, STATE OF CALIFORNIA WILLIAM W. DUNLOP, Secretary Attachcent • Date: Files Case 9051 Subject: Proposed General Order Prohibiting Pollution of Railroad Rights -of -Way by Railroad Corporations PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA REGULATIONS PROHIBITING THE. DISCHARGE OF HUMAN WASTE FROM EQUIPMENT USED BY COMMON CARRIER RAILROADS OPERATING IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Adopted eve.. 4.10.1.0167.10943R.174. Effective IT IS ORDERED by the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California that no railroad corporation operating in the State of California shall place in operation within the State of California any new passenger car, locomotive, caboose or other equipment from and zqfterpecember 31, 1970, the design of which would provide for discharge of human waste upon a railroad right-of-way No such equipment presently in use or placed in use .on or before Peember 31,. 1970, shall be used in service subsequent to three years after the effective;date of this order unlesi it 1 .modified to prevent discharge of human waste on a railroad Tight -of -way. This order. shall become effeale - 1970.4 do: oa "VIA141g0A Jan VIT*Tlettlelul uvusJp4743 ImJeuaD 4maJD ltgivta 8SlaJauuTs sftrwiTowad suindmmo rtuoTzug unroxygoy oto avyq run aft uawl uI meaRoad aagapq ua4a uza 01. paymoj Itriton eml run an . TeAlmod t'4/ "An Josuoda-ou wen utaqpJaH Jo AT0 oAmu Q uslund s paapuT ova la °V642 IldW4:19 3SA INT1A4T0-•, pue morgenwa JTettl sertpmpe uo equallo 11/9 oltavo vy 0,184 en Joss ucv4uoaosz usolex14 sp4 puu tezwi gen jo suosjo oql 7.12no.. swan TOGUISH A4T0 • sm. ErT sluoAo jo st4142u rep aAolp C paaJwil luopTaui ouo 0U pU Allualowje ;saw polpusq 0.1.0A ep0J9 anomaoue 4ezain 6,4qTai poupmq ATOV ogulT40O JeT43 Jo 40r M. Iman all4 04 mitlyq41 InIFI SAC co-; 10Hat ArSOMIIINI11 (1161.6 dg 6-41 (SLOP*, %Id step puu 40Tu Imo pap= pJoaaJ u 6e4uoAep enoTsam pessew4Tn s4ineloeds 000°00i JaA0 s9quem) luoJejflp 9‘11 poJeque 048K wrimpTATpuT 000C Jak slotou rnjuimoolui leimu win EVA eyinereM00 1014 812AW804 jans IvuoTouJelui 'W2'I eu ':?•;;;,• • ;scam Jima 'mos ultra:Inn dtputte. 7 eawa Admen 55a. Ilaunoo Awmott4 jo ST pult ueTNI 01 /44120ab MaNnucla obtla «7 amonv L4Z03 YitiliOcIrWO .140WarA COCINCOMI 'N01141 40,74411,11GI CINVA113 LOU morn dO IMBRIVATECI sa13oxv so, o )UNCI 1 90082ffiffila crwaimexu.a TO: Honorable M yor and City Council FROM: Ron Bergman, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Ardmore Study Gentlemen: As you are well aware, the Ardmore question involves speed limits and on -street parking, on both the north and south sections. North Ardmore• This study has been completed and the results are attached for your pursual. The findings conclusively demonstrate that current speed and parking policies are correct. South Ardmore The study of this section has been complicated by the closure of Valley Drive at the south end due to the county work and will be further upset by the future closing of Ardmore next week. We felt a meaningful study would necessitate a return to normal traffic patterns and thus we request a delay in action on this question only until this aspect of the study can be completed. We have been monitoring the effects of the street closure on traffic patterns and will report on the complete findings (current and normal siPY ations) at the first meeting in October. The delay is necessary Alf Ardmore will be closed for two weeks, and the remaining period before the next Council meeting is too short to complete the normal situation studY. August 26, 1970 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: William H. Berlin, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Traffic Survey -- Ardmore Ave. at 15th & 21st Streets Honorable Sirs: A traffic count and speed survey was conducted in the 1500 block and the 2100 block Ardmore Avenue, for a period of one week between August 12 and August 18, 1970, inclusive. In order to tabulate the information obtained in the survey, four charts were prepared, one for each location and time of the survey. The information for the survey was obtained by placing an unmarked private vehicle, containing the radar unit, at 15th St., and Ardmore on the railroad right-of-way. The vehicle was placed .out of the way and there was no indication to approaching vehicles that a traffic survey was taking place. A second location, 21st and, Ardmore Avenue was also used. At 21st St. and Ardmore, the vehicle was placed off the road- way on the east side of Ardmore near a vacant lot. Once again, on- coming vehicles had no warning that the vehicle was anything other than a parked vehicle. The radar unit was used with a tape recorder unit which counted the vehicles by means of a "blip" on• the paper. This mark also recorded the speed of the vehicle. In order to insure that the radar unit was recording correct information, it was tuned and calibrated before and after each day's activity. After reviewing the data, it would appear that if a problem exists with regard to excessive speed of vehicles on Ardmore Avenue, the problem is more acute in the area of the 1800 block to the 2400 block. The time of day is an important factor, as is the day of the week. Saturday seems to be the day people drive faster and during the hours of 0800 = 1000, thirty vehicles`.exceeded the speed limit of 35 mph. The average speed of the offenders was 43 mph, but the offenders constituted less than '8% of the vehicles counted and recorded. From the results of this survey and the apparent lack of traf- fic problems on Ardmore Ave. from Pier Ave. to Gould Lane, I would not recommend any change in the "no parking" regulation and I would not suggest any additional traffic enforcement. See attached charts I, II, III and IV. LEB 71m HERMOSA BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT CONTINUATION REPORT WED 530 Aletmeese 1/09.emAreoes IAS'. SP6ed) (1) Number of vehicles: Approximate number of vehicles past survey point; in 2 hour period. (2) Average speed: Tabulation of number of vehicles past survey point. (3) Number of violators: Number' of vehicles .exceeding. 35 mph (posted maximum speed) (4) Average . speed of violators: Average speed of those vehicles .exceeding :etre,' 35mph speed li it.' (5) High Speed: Highest speed recorded or any Violator. (6) Low speed: Lowest peed recorded of any iviolato*. •MOSA BEACH POLICE DEPAR CONTINUATION REPORT Date & Time Rptd to PD August 1970 Type TRA 'IC SURVEY. itocitgrowAie 77/,',46° : o. /fie 47—/ 539r . '.4 lowS�eOD . ;. (1) Number of vehicles: Approximate number of vehicles: past survey point : in. 2 hour, period.. (2) Average speedo Tabulation of number of Vehicles past -survey point. (3) Number of violators: Number : of vehicles ; exceeding 35rnph (posted maximum speed) (4) Average speed of violators: Average speed of . those vehicles exceeding the.35mph speed limit4 (5) High Speed: Highest speed recorded of any violator, (6) Low speed: Lowest speed recorded of anyviolator,,n OSA BEACH POLICE DEPAR', :CONTINUATION REPORT Date & Time Rptd to PD August 1970 A/OrigER die VeV,C'e,e5 feeArd6e SP. ¥70 ' 4 1 5440 39g 4/J' X 6/4 d11',000t6 SP. dor Y.,eozArtIRS Low SioeeD 36 36 (1) Number or vehicles: ,Approximate nurlber ofvehicles past survey point in 2 hour. period., (2) Average speed: Tabulation of number of vehicles, past -survey point. (3) Number of violators: Number of vehicles , exceeding 35 mph (posted maximum speed) (4) Average speed of violators: Average speed of those, vehicles exceeding the 35mph .speed limit. (5) High ,,peed: Highest speed recorded of any violator. (6) Low speed: Lowest speed recorded of any violator. OSA BEACH' POLICE DEPARTM CONTINUATION REPORT idiee ZeIw .'P eo (1) Number of vehicles: Approximate number of vehicles past survey point in 2 hour period. (2) Average speed: Tabulation of number of vehicles past survey point.' (3). Number' of violators:Number of vehicles exceeding 35 mph (posted maximum speed) (4) Average speed of violators: Average speed of those vehicles exceeding the 35mph speed limit.; (5) High Speed: Highest speed recorded of any violator. (6) Low speed: Lowest speed recorded of any violator.• • TRAEMS2221221._:_ARDtIORE AgENOE NORT H OF PIER VENUE - Letter dated Jay 1 1970, protesting installation of "NO Parking" signs along est side of Ardmore Avenoe north of Pier Avenue to Gould Avenue - signed by thirty residents. DISCUSSION - ft -s. Jane Hemusek, 1834 Ardmore Avenue, steted that in her opinion the No Parking signs added to traffic problems by enabling motorists to drive much faster along ArdAlore Avenue and through the blind intersections between Pier and could Avenues. She pointed out that some residents are limited to only one parking space on their property and had park,nd their extra cars on the east side of roe Avenue, as well as having service and delivery.trucks use that side of the Avenue, and that now the closest parking available to some of the homes in this area was several blocks away. Spoaking in support of the proteSt were T. Sue Sponceley, 1920 Ardmore Avenue, 'Ir. Dan Novitske, owner of property at 1928 Ardmore, and 4r. Mike Strange, 600 - 10th Street, corner of Tenth Street and Ardmor Avenue. rn reply to questions frothe Council. City Managnor McDaniel stated that the purpose of any street is to move traffic, and that providing parking was secondary. He informed the Council that the Policai Department and the Department of Public Works felt that cars parked in this area cromted a problem not only by crowding traffic but by making it necessary for children on their way to and from school to walk on the street side of ,.,arked cars. He suggested that if traffic was now moving too fast through this area, the City would immediately increase its motorcycle speed law patrol to intlnsify enforcement in order to complete a more comprehensive and exhaustive report that might make it possible to have the speed limit lowered in that area. Councilmen.Rigo stated that the decision of the Council to have Mo ;rking signs placed on north Ardmore Avenue was the result of en engineering study over the years, and that he did not think the City should go back to studies at this point. Councilman io4e favored an effort to alter the speed limits from 35 miles per hour to 25 miles per hour, and Councilman Valdes suggested that the City consider the possibloz, vacating of certain streets throughout the City in order to provide much-needed off-street parking. ACTrOI - to refer the matter of no parki g 0 thx east:aide of* Ardmore Avenue north of Pier Avenue to the staff for a report on traffic control and parking problems, and instruct the City Traffic w.ineOr• to conduct a study' in Lelation to altering the present sped limit. '.otion by Councilman Wise - Second by Couneilnan Valdes: Carried. Ayes: Councilmen Valdes, Valentine, Wise, 'faYor Tin. Noes: Councilman Rigo. Absent: None • .• , •,•••i • 7/7/70 • Pk? 0 • A\ rAC, da Lod Aug ust. ^ 7 ) r t y DISCUSS76W—citynqo caneIreported .to the Council regarding a new development whiA'711 Woul have ip,nificant.impact upon rhr- quesion of propf.s. parking :;),n(4 :ipf.,,eregulatiOns on 'ArdMore Avenue statinq f.hrP1 the County Flood Control. Dic;fr'ict 410drequested. Closure of Valley Dri south or, Second Street on apprmdmateIY-August 15; 1970 for a your -week prninei in order to construct a major:underground structur.? in conjunction wit tunnel which they are commencing easterly under the hill as a key element in a major contraCt under the:flood control bond insu,-, and addin that this would route? all traffic twe,Mays on Ardmore Avenue. Upon completion of the Valley Drive porton Ardmore Avenue would then he elosee. ane two-way traffic routed to Vallay.Drivet was his recommlndation that appioval be given to t.mporary Posting of ,Wo Parking" signs on Ardmora Avenur. (luring the closure of Val. Ori,: and that the final report and recommendation be held averuntil:,the effects of this increased traffic flow were viewed. Protesting to Park.ine:SignS'at:any-time'for whatever purpose they were erected were :r.''t& Strange 600 - 10th Street, 4r. and Irs. Frank Hamusek, 1R34 Ardmore Avenue, qr!,. Allan JIAllet; 32 Pony Lane, Rolling Hills Estates, developer 'of a'multiple-femily residential apartment house in tha subject area, Mrs.,Sue Sotwee/my, 1920 Ardmore Avenue, Mx. Neal. BuOewicz, 2506 Ardmore•.Avenue, Kril,earty,Scruppi, 1720 Ardmiore Avenue, and Ars. e.etty IyeAn32 Pine Stritetbeltick.of pricing space for visitors and servic1/4. truolim:aa .gifetl•adfor-rdildents was brought out the major propler rtsulting frOmtll,WPaTking-P,Iling and the incr6ased peed of traffic :this theroughtar.• Minutes R/4/70 Ardmore Avenue'-PsAinz_atontinUed) In reply to questiona:from the City Council and member6 of the audience, City MAnager fioDaniel stated that. f;he recommendation of the Director of Pdblic-Works calling4or.noparkiftg'ou Ardmore Avenue from Sth Street to Gould Avenue had'beenMido-due t* the fact that traffic o Ardmore Avenue was increasing du to,intensive development in thatarea and increasing traffic On Pacifid,Coist'Highway, and that the narrow width of this street made heavy parking on busy street hanardous. He noted that the Council had decided after:lengthy .discUssion to prohibit parking only from Pier: Avenue to GOuld Avenue on Ardmore Avenue, and to hold over any action regarding Ardmore Avenue south of Pier Avenue until a .study of that area .had been made At Council meeting! folloWing thin action,.the city staff had been directed to include a.study of the results of the no parking regulations on north Ardmore Avenue, to initiate a study and report in order to request a speed limit of 25 miles per hour, to investigate traffic citations.for.parkipg on the railroad right of wvy, and to increase traffic patrol in this areanoted that this discussion.had now added a request to include a report on 1'e' feasibility of one-way traffic on this street, and requested that the Council allow him until the second meeting in SepteMber to assweble the facts required for a complete report, to follow the four-week closure of Ardmore Avenue and of Valley Drive at the request of the County Flood-ControL District. At the request of Mayor Thelen, the City. Manager agreed to present: a report in as complete a form as possible at the first.meeting n Septer4ber, and to add to this report a study of the possibility of having public parking areas at intervals along the railroad right of way. ACTION - to postpone_any action regarding parking on Wmore Avenue to ths regular meeting of Septergiber 1, 1970,, for a report from the City Tanager regarding all elements of the study requested, and to direct that all interested parties be notified of this date. *otion by Councilman Wise - Second by ayor Thelen. So ordered, FURTHER ACTIO - to direct the Department of Public Works to place temporary No Parking signs on both sides of Ardmore Avenue fro Fifth Street to the south city boundary by August 15, 1970 at the request of the County Flood Control District. motion by CounciLman Valdes - Second by,Councilmen So ordered. e •1 • eMareW,Aneem.‘,041.4.,WIN Pcr- • y r gsc. tv 53 Let t dew rs, effi9 tikstr.41 ot 4,42Ao; ',ITNy.quo C-) 711A Ccry oicar ct), Coif cromt pmeres 0Ptce r a re ify et, t„y Co 1,44t `‘v 1544dv C\ fr- . ei Et a. fliA:t Tit'4,0,1. t, kt?' tr. 4-M 19 ref k $, rh tfg otA to' 0 Li e — fl& • :• ,.egtimh-t . • • thein 6,6'6 *0 IWO A ds, 4,47 e pelka a d vs-vex-regacivaraSmWSIVMD5F3arbZur..mirr 1674ered,Zad dge4e8 h 4 4-41, evaiAteneao. gagotiz.„ e4, 64, werut, .,•,. mar., t 014 147-.6 w t fit, CIA t -- Pete t4,4 r ret SSe RA "taint" OW or ttliC Ar)telr eV Opel DOM' eha? 61, ti? .c.,,vnc.;..*Vh;m2rzagrgnmbwre..41WOrroxl.m. catwrearrioruns..• Mee All vie Awe.,40 Apipamt," 6:212:11 oatve ‘44707,3 advec Cm; bar, Me ZeAta- o‘f SC 4 tooc.,,, ,e7.-.tood1 ca te. ,., .itk Roe 4.3. c.„ coorrtur F. it,eae, ta.lp 61-448#1,2m- 04 o. 4kN,,..:'! V• k.z.itievaett., 4ffe.tv, Ow At, A, ct,,,Voie.0‘, • .e714C$ ,g6Vaeder ittogoAg.5, -4.' l'-: 'A / ,1„.„, 1 • . 4 ",:, • lAg, C). , A, " ,,, 6 . e 0,, t ., ...k w . c. . , • , ‘.7:,t: 1., IF ;7, • . CM" ‘‘,..„,-„,?:....„ 0- eirt,f,'i7-- 01.:2-' ,,,,Acv/Ag,, t , „ (I. ,t,-...,-, . rk ''';',•'" ' C.,' 1;1,' 41; .".. , • i94 • E THE UNDERSIGNED, AS. RESIDENTS OF ARDMORE AVENUE BUVSEN PEER AVENUE AND ELEVENTH AND SIXTH STREETS, INCLIJSIVE, NOT WISH TO HAVE ARDMORE AVENUE POSTED WITH A T; TME FOLLOWING REASONSt 1. HEAVIER AND FASTER TRAFFIC ON ARDMORE AVENUE. 2. INCREASED DANGER FOR PEDESTRIANS. 3. CONGESTED PARKING ON NUMBERED (SIDE) STREETS. 4. INCRWCD DANGER FOR OUR CHILDREN WHILE GOPTO MID FRO tt SCHOOL. 5. UNDUE HIAR9SHIP ON GUESTS FON /ACK OF PIOZING PLACES. 6. UNDUE HART ON RESIDENTS tnil WEDNESTAY, STREET CLEANING DAY. amo•Nrowampwaetapaoeetea....raort ADDRSS 1 e ammontalSkeL24:1. Tit/ ...ww /A 4 It:4/4044,1L( ;14 ,.• 2: agatnar.L.4-._//2 • 6. .6",../2:;, ,e( • • // 1/ trw-40.11.10•1421.1gra..111.110Ppelie. 254 rie wiforafaxts tb7d t'.. c2 f. 3 5 fth (,LLa,-a so iii,Alttne ) cwe* "1RM )(1414-a b fr tr 4 • 3 . 42. e s 101 48. t 49. 50. 1.1..teafisgravaltotift , • , atm ,.o , L970 Tat Wesley Ce NODManager rims Jan Bo Stevens. Dhector lio Waldo sagaacts Viag Restrictl Ardmore dpi me As a posting cry® X am again raising the questlep of parlang pro., hibit ,m oa Ardmore Aweeau e Thi issue e ; . x{_: a nutter of time bei the City Council but has elutes evasixamtl a gone down in defeat, Beuever. X feel it is *tin a ,�tSia a more now the residential ,r 4 -u;of Sixteenth Street, and yut to come. As traffic tis Pacific Cwt Si yr,; w.ay ins= ( it is nau Showing a definite cl i b from its 1 in 1„':; 44 more motorists aro Loaking for alternate parallel routes. Ardnare Avenue i one of these scubas its traffic use io 'lye` Det'omen 5t4 Street and 2list Street. tho curb to curb width of s only 24h te With 8 feet, of this widthken up by a parking lane it lemma only l stet lest for two oppwing traffic lanes. May a motorist has scrapped this aide- walls ideefall s against the railroad aide curb IA= meeting a largo tuck passing a pared caro and spy a breath Ire been , ld sic tom, cars swig& by each offer with only inches s bet cs tem na- t: een 2Iot and old Awe. the pavement width is tee; ;',lr 20 feet, In this area. minas n curbs. the e =,4onider it used for same car but this forces school Childgen and ether ped triana o walk out in .ehe street. X rem that all para en Ardmore Ague frost Stt h Street to Gmald Avenue be prohibited similar to to pa i restriction on Ardmore north of Gould and on Valley Drive. a th g Pier. This area ire eU residential. Far the moot parte garage facil- ities are available for al/ residents. Tho €eange is gair.k n .,; swans ° � ;resent'out s oar`` ; o ` . A ga with increased traffl and localisedincreased parliTs . vdemame. the 3is going to indrea., ..ng resoluti`f"9; has brt,4Ye$, prepared t CI Council detain to ;aain. s a; the issue and taXe a lallsr is . µ+ :; X has been rawitc with moi' Devlin without n t -a ; ;,:'. tion. sismegelys t, • 0/7 PARKING RaSTRICTIMSe ARDMORE AvgNui - Fifth Street to Gould Avenue; both sides: First Street to Fifth Street, west side only. - Recommendation from Sohn E. Stevens, Director of Pealic Worke, dated June 10, 1970. DISCUSSION - Mr. Stevens informed the Council th t due to increased traffic that would result from the construction of a large apartment house on 16th Street west of Ardmore Avenue and the increse already caused by motorists looking for an ,lternate route rather than travel Pacific Coast Highway, the traffic hazards on this street were al 0 increasing- He stated that Police Chief Berlin concurs wither t reservation with hi recommendation that parking restrictiens be get lished in the areas on Ardmore Avenue wher : the narrown%ss of thr. street cOnstantly causee collisions in a residential are Mr. Mike •Strange, 600 Tenth Street, stated that no perking refetrictions would cause parking problem for all residents in that area, and Mr. Roger Creighton, 236 Strand, suggeated that the epeed limit on Ardmore Avenue be set at 25 MPH rether than the pre,:ent 35, MPH. Min. La Donna Webb, 1750 Manhattan Avenue, uggested that the Connail consider restricted parking only during the hours of heavy traffic flow, and are. Betty Ryan. 532 Pine Street, spoke regarding h%zards c,used by inoremek4 traffic. Councilman Wise advised that no hasty ,Action be taken before re,eidenta in the area under consider4.tion were notifid, ao that they could be h ard from regarding the problems involved, and Councilman Waldeh expressed the opinion that the definite parking probleme were limitere to the area south of Pier Avenue and that perhaps action regarding eaelmer Avenue north of Pier Avenue should not b4 delayed. After further .di ion it w,s agreed to prohibit parking on Ardmore venue fro Pier Avenue to Gould Avenue on both sides, and from First Street to Pier Avtnue on -the west aide only- . ACTION - to adopt Resolution No. B. S. 296$, ontitleds '4A.RESOLUTION OF THE cm COUUCIL OF THE CITY O HERNOSA REACH, CALIFOMMIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION Z. N. S. 2435, AS AMENDED, ADDING AND DELETING CERTAIN NO 'PARKING AREAS ON ARD AVENUE." • motion by Councilman Digo - Second by Mayor Pro Tele 'Valentin 'Carried. Ayesa Councilmen Bigo, Valdes, Aayor Pro Tem Valentine. Noes: Councilman Wise. bsent: Mayor Thelon. FURTHER ACTION - to direct the staff to stud resident in the area of Ardmore Avenue souti parking epacee ueed hy of Pier -Avenue, aed the present apeed limit on this street, and report 1.• -ck to the Council at the next meeting on July 7, 1970. motion by Councilman Valdes - Second by Councilmen Riee Carried, Ayes: Councilmen Bigo, Valdes, Wise, Mayor Pro Tem ialentine. Noes: None Absent: Mayor Thelen. -4- Minut‘s /I6/706k, R,q,tSOLUTZOX KO. M. S. n65 A RESOLUTION OP TEE CVAT COUVCYL OT CZTY OF HERMOSA BEACH CALIFORNIk AMENDING PEgOLUTHW NO. V. 5. 2435, Att.; AMENDED, ADDiNG ! AND DBLETINt; CERTAIN UO PAPKELV PNRE515 OR kRDMORE AVENUE. THE C1 COUrCIL, QV T1119g,3 CIT1r OP MIMOSA BEACH, CAL.IFOIZNYA. DOE8 EMMY ratf$OLVE AS roLLows: 4 SUCTIM L. Mot R000lutlem &do. W. 5. 2435. ma amended 5 I 114 end,,thi.. Dame 10 heirtby Ourther mended by deloting the foliallein el :suboection to Sectlon 4, '1;0 pmihins Azens"; , Socu.on .ARDNORE AVEWVR, PI.r. Street to cull 8 1 ' Avenue, vamt cide only." 9 SECTION 2, Mat •AleatutAolis Vo. S. B. 2435, ce anwrided, 'Alba imnd tho owe in hereby further mmcrilded by etinq thm followinT 11 ,subeoctionq to Sect;lon 4, 7m.- ParkinT Aromac'? :12 -.Section 4.34 • =MORE AVENURe Pi= Arwaue t Gould Avvfkm.ve bOth'oldloo. 13 Section 4.3a AMORE,' AVENUE° Viret Eitr et to Piel. 1:4 1 1• Avsnua, Tont 0ide cmly. 15 1 PAMED, APPROVED and ADOPTED thic 16th day cf Juae. 19701 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 87 28 29 30 31 MUTIR4T—TIEFTTEWIREEIT7 tiSTWOD FriR,C0 TEN at tho t 0,E-' Merizt"Aiss Zeec.11.; CaLt.f.ckrnin PP2OVED AB TO Mang . el= arargtkirg ,setIcatIVESMIL3r.gat 41•••r.:$X.N.v• . • • . 1 • ti , i, ; CO. Y.. C.:- VII CITY c.,P li-2RMO5P.. tEt,..CH Z1: 10 MA51? A,. Edgertca, City clg.rg: of tho Ckty of Hermoga Dtmch, ChaiVorniA, dr,.1 ilordtly cfgritify that Cho Eoreg*ing Recalmtlon 1 511 t1 Ncf. rA, S. 2965 wap. emir and K*vi.114;mLy paono6, &oprovcd gad vdepted 611 V by the Clty Comc51 t.'...1f tho City qf W,'..vrt,,f.P,.,a3c4 ;,.;,,MegV,,E''e,, t ragsapx • tl r meTitl,ng of gn:AA Clixawttl hid at Om, repAnr ffoutLnq pLava Moirmof WI li• on thc 1.0tia gty 01 414v;te„ 1 ilrivO, we ,...0 Ayml: Covv.4*Lmm ti.f1.41,o0 VT0,60g4 MPvix: giro.bm,Yeamv1A-11A. i; p 12. , , li 'iikkoi,Ent'5 Itiryar Mo.`.1.e,*..i'.. ,I re..T:TRIII; 73...M0 Yei ,x • *Is 4.4.0r,A•WalAr,"07,ririst7x11.,,. es -1314,10 Nk Ali .3. if; !tr_of mizot,z,1)42, gNrol;,?,41.f. 2,,CMIZW?,6 .,eeki7;; • • . . ' " . • • , . a" • • * • • • //C-- . ..0.42.--tifie / Z W -/C 94 ( t:.44147 71.4:4<-12.--1 r 4t44444/ Li 24 A 14-(24.-IL„f ..4fP 4_0 2:1-1L A& -I )44e „ta-42,4,-d • 4.,,.....4--4...4„/L—^"ig-/ • -.- es- "t—tati • ••••;4-1-1: ife 4-..q/x7-1„:" )10- 41 .Lere,” _es eg-•PW 'et- • /9/ )4_, iti/thi_v_ -1.---e".1„, 2. I<417;01.--4-0 dfre--441-1" / 14 C/112_4 .„( • /4"-- Z.10- 42 _44-4 Er THE WARS .g < stn RESID NT a ERMOSA EACH, WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A DMORE AVENUE MADE INTO WAY STREET. .m.rsRv�.wnn�q- � m�.mon*sscmnaan:.wa..+.. ...,..�w..mxsssrs w�,awmcaa1 -.>-.3Sk'b a 4� S CA 6 8'18 1. 4-464 C a r i f9: .. �eC�s[rfit�lbti ® 0 sactssaasesairsatanealaa asisas 7 9 2 .max satiartsantatatorieraat sant �. .L s. ARC&I>413 KaaanMruRY!AtraW 13. 1 tG ��er.�utamse 1 5 .,ruts,...,, 620 7 • • 2 aSSIGLICRtre— ,fixed" 2 lag I 'F.;ZfferiZ.7:4'..Zot;r:laret,,nt 9 • k 3 era ,-di••,n.. r w. ""' ///,.7 rfa -ms..devamsa. r .v'.d.tea P.e€aa%:7.«saA.E,ar7+�Ti`..F�*''�^'aHtE'. Revs w.1p ��frr.m=��x•�'��,,,. _ �er:.k�--1.`:�"..�[S res. ZZak'n..st;- • August 22, 1970 Mr. Francis Hopkins City Manager 415 Diamond Redondo Beach, California Dear Mr. Hopkins: Enclosed is a redraft o the propoSed joint agreement for seweragepamping services„ as we discussed last week. It reverts back to the original Redondo Beath suggestion of 7.5 mils per square foot connection charge, with no specific Hermosa Beach sharing of a new pump, and an annual rate of s10.60 per lot. Thus, the initial charge is $994.31 and the annual cost is $535e00 based on 53-1/2 lots within the district. As we discussed, you will note that the second paragraph of Section 2 has been made permissive, at Redondo°s option, so that annual costs may not automatically be increased each year. Our City Attorney has reviewed and approved this form, although Mac Brown, the assessment attorney, also wants to approve. Assuming be agrees, I plan to put it on our ::,'ouncil agenda September 1 for approval, if you concur. P11 be on vacation for two weeks, so P11 have somebody else call you in a few days and check your approval and intentions. Sincerely, 1AESLEY C. MC DANIEL City Manager CM:mm cc: John Stevens J. B. MLrassou Mac Brown Bob Crawford • • AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AND THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH RELATING TO SEWER CONNECTION THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day o nostwant.....ans=cr.irvianrart urioualcsayses.smac.r... 19 0, by and between the City of Hermosa. BeaCil, a. municipal con-AoraVen of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and the City of Redondo Beach, a tritkraCitAl corporation of the Cotinty • of Los Angeles „ and the term of this'agreement to be for a- period of (20) twenty years commencing on the day of and ending on the day. of 1990, WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City of Redondo Beach has constructed a sewer in order to dispose of tho,/age arising within its territorial boundaries;, and WHEREAS, said sewer is adequate in size and capacity to tak.e care of the sewage ,collepted within the territorial boundaries of the City of Redondo Beach as well a ewage collected within the boundaries of that part of the City of Hermosa Beach b.ereinafter desoribed; and: WHEREAS„ the City of Hermosa Beach•desires to connect a certain sewer line from said portion of its tenitory,hereinafter described, and to ditscluirge the sewage thereraom into the sewer system of the City of Redondo Beach.; and WHEREAS, the: El.W1 of the City of Hermosa Beach to be served by said connection or connections is particularly described as follows: That certa.in•area outlined on Map of A.D. No„,, 69:1_, hereto attaied and made a part hereof, and legally described as Lots 40 to 51 inclusive, Block 139, Lots 26 to 53 inclusive, Block 140 and Lots 22 to 36 inclusive, Block 143, Redondo vina Tract, a per map thereof recorded in Book 10, pages 90 and 91, of Maps op file in the office of the Recorder of Les Angeles • U.;. 17E 1. V • County. The point and place of connection between the respective sewer systems is described with paxticutarity as those Certain points marked in red and designated "Points of Connection" on Map AeD. No. 69-1 hereunto attached and made a part hereof. WHEREAS, this agreement and the performance thereof will be to the interest and advantage of both parties hereto; NOW, TTHREFORE, the City of Redondo Beach agrees that upon pay- ment to it: 1. The sum of 7.5 milts per square foot for each lot heretofore des- cribed, thus a total sum of $994.31 Dollars, said City of Hermosa Beach may connect its sewer hereinafter defined and delineated to the city of Redondo Beach sewer systee , at the place or places hereinafter designated for that purpose eand discharge into the City of Redondo Beach sewer system the sewage flowing from the area and lots served by the point of connection.. 2. In addition to the initial Payment of the lump sum of $994.31 Dollars as hereinabove set. forth as the connection charge, there shall be an annual charge of $10.00 Dollars per lot, thus a total sum of 535.00 Dollars for service against said lots hereinabove.described (being 53.5 in number) pay- able annually to the City of Redondo Beach by the City of Hermosa Beach as consideration for the uses hereinabove set forth for the twenty (20) year term, said sum being paYable on the Tenth 'day of January of each and every year following the first a.nniversary of this agreement. The above said annual charge of $535.00 bolters is based on the Redondo Beach Account No. 164 shoiking 6in expenditure of $56,774.64 for /968-1969, excluding expanded services. The annual payment rates for service may be adjusted by Redondo Beach at the end of each fiscal year period following 1970-1971, for the next succeed- ing fiscal year period, upward or downward as the case may be, in the same EWA° as the actual expenditures increased or decreased, and recorded under the Account Number of 164 in the accounts a.nd records of the City of Redondo -2- • • Beach, discozolting expanded services or other costs not relative to the Morgan Lane pump station. This agreement is subject to renewal at its !expiration, subject i:o such terms and conditions as shall be reasonable to retrnburse the City of Redondo Beach for service arid maintenance costs caused by futur6.1 use of the Redondo Beach sewer system by the City of Hermosa Beach and more particularly the area outlined in "Exhibit A" hereof and referred to above. It is further agreed that this agreement may be cancelled upon two years' written notice by either party. The City of Hermosa Beach agrees to comply with and take alt measures possible requiring all persons, firms or corporations within its territorial boundaries using salt.1 sewers to comply with any and all requirements, rules and regulations which the City of Redondo Beech has made, or may hereafter ;make by ordinance or resolution, with regard to persons, ffralS or corporztions using sewers within the territorial boundaries of the City of Redondo Beach. Neither Hermosa Beach nor any officer or employee thereof shall bo responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by Redondo Beach under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to Redondo Beach under this agree- ment. Redondo Beach shalt fully indemnify and hold Hermosa Beach harmless from any liability imposed for injury occurriiog by reason of ;anything done or omitted to be dorAe by Redondo Be'ach under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to Redondo Beach under this agreernent„ Neither Redondo Beach 110T any offioer or employee 'thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by Hermosa Beach under, or in connection with any work, authorii7, or jurisdiction delegated to Hermosa Beach under this agree- ment. Hermosa Beach shall fully indemnify and hold Redondo Beach harmless from any liability imposed for injury occurring by reason, or anything done or omitted to be done by Hermosa Beach, or inconnection with work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to Redondo Beach under this agreement. -3- • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Hermosa Beach has mused this agreement to be executed by its Mayor and attested by its City Clerk, and the City of Redondo Beach ha•s caused this agreement to be executed by its Mayor and attested by its City Clerk. the day and year first herein- bove written. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, a municipal corporation By ATTEST: nurammeetsmaxeme-,....atitgosittirestporoftdeV*Siertts City Clerk (SEAL) ATTEST: City Clerk (SE) . Approved as to form ..........,01.1043,0•WW...11.1.011[14121411111•MIONA.1•CIIMIVIOCIRUSVIARiNee City Attorney of the City of Herino Beach Mayor CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, a municipal, corporation, By Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney of the City of Redondo Beach -4 • - • •:.•-•.•• ••‘" • . • • ,• .•Ste "-• ; :•••••••••...._• • - •••• • ••• .,•••••• • • • , _ •. ,••••, • • - •• , '.•.' •• ••, •••••':••• • ;7..73 • - • .,. • 7<73 7 ; • • •:;;;;• • 4` 44 3. 44: :44 /' .4 'I' • • 4: „ , . Do not detach—Return all copies ,, Do *Write Above This Line—For Headquarters Office Only APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE(S) To: Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control 12150 Street Sacramento, Calif. 95814 (DISTRICT SERVING LOCATION) 1. NAME(S) OF LICENSE(S) FILE NO. FEE NO. <: Z,? u.+ The undersigned hereby applies for licenses described as follows, - 2. NAME(S) ' OF • APPLICANT(S) Applied under Sec. 24044 Effective Date: Effective Date: 3. TYPE(S) OF TRANSACTION(S) 4. Name of Business -131.27 4 'r3 5. Location of :Business—Number and Street AUG2U197l;®. CITY CLERK 11� HERMOSA BEACH Prtai City and Zip Code County. g 6. If Premises Licensed, Show Typeof License tX,zr 8. Mailing Address (if different from 5)—Number and Street ir„4,5ad f t :f ;+ rt* riim .£fl, (f T.54,4. ) 9. Have you ever been convicted of a felony? tit's. 10. Have you ever violated any of the provisionsrgf the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act or regulationsof the Qe0artment per- taining to the Act?110 11. Explain a "YES" answer to items 9 or 10 on an attachment which shall be deemed part of this application. 12. •Applicant agrees (a) that any manager employed in on -sale licensed premises' will have`. all thequalifications of,at licensee, .and (b) that he will not violate or cause or permit to be violated any of the provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage,Confrol Act. 13. STATE OF. CALIFORNIA ` County of ,up F ' "' '',x - Under penalty of perjury, each person whose signature appears below, certifies and says: (1) He is the applicant, or one of the applicants, or an executive • officer of the applicant corporation, named in the foregoing application, duly authorized to make this application on' its behalf; `(2)' that hehas read''the' fore- going' application and knows the contents thereof and that each and all of the statements therein made are true; (3) that no person other 'than the applicant or applicants has any direct or•indirect interest in the applicant's or applicants' business to be conducted under the license(s) for which this: application' is made; (4) that the transfer application or proposed transfer is not made to sstisfy the payment of a loan or to fulfill an agreement .,entered into more than ninety (90) days preceding the day on which the transfer application is filed with the Department or to gain or establish a preference to or' for any creditor of .transferor or to defraud or injure any creditor of transferor. 14. APPLICANt 't I, SIGN HERE --r - _- VA,. -___4 Date t,t APPLICATION BY'—TRANSFEROR 15. STATE OF ,CALIFORNIA '‘ County of, Lroz ils ",tit: a";i> Under penalty of perjury, each person whose signature appears below, certifies and says: (1) He is the licensee, or an executive officer of the,,t;orporoteIicensee, named in the foregoing transfer application, duly authorized to make this transfer -application -on its behalf; (2) that .he -hereby makes application .tosurrender all interest in the attached license(s) described below and to transfer same to the applicant and/or location indicated 'on the upper'portion', of -this; application form, if such transfer is approved by the Director; (3) that the transfer application or proposed transfer is not made to satisfy the payment' of a loan or to fulfill an agreement entered into more than ninety days preceding the day on which the transfer application is filed with the Department or to; gam. or "estat,lish a preference to or for any creditor bf transferor or to defraud or injure any creditor of transferor. Date 16. Name(s) of Licensee(s) 17. Signature(s) of Licensee(s) ia' is`tWEr r+fr. a i Itt°'t7� r. 18. License Nuinber(s) .. r1 ?Tal 13/1 Vrratfk 19. Location Number and Street ,t; i City and Zip Code Do Not Write Below This Line; For Department Use Only Attached: ❑ Recorded notice, Fiduciary papers, (OTHER) ❑ Renewal: fee of : Paid at • Office on Receipt No. COPIES MAILED': • ORDINANCE NO. U. S. 390 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORMA, RECLASSIFYING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN SAID CITY DESCRIBED AS THAT PORTION OF ABANDONED RAILROAD RIGHT OF WRY LOCATED NORTHEASTERLY OF THE INTER- SECTION OF FIRST STREET AND ARDHORE AVENUE, ANWRIWWW-AS W2 PMORE AVENUE, FOR ZONING PURPOSES, PURSUANT TO TiE PROVTSIONS OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. N. S. 1S4, AS AMENDED, FROM RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY TO "R -1(R-3)", SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENT/AL POTENTIAL, AND AMENDING ZONING MAP OP ARTICLE 3 SECTION 302 OP SAID ZONING ORDINANCE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OP HERPOS;4 BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS SECTION 1. That after public hearing by the Planning Commission as prescribed by Zoning Ordinance No. N. S. 154, as amended, and after public hearing by the City Council as therein provided, the following property situoted in the City of Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State 0 California& that is: that portion of Lots 41 and 4 of Inock TO, 2nd kddition to Hermosa Beach, 'lying between the Easterly line of Atchison, Topa and Santa Fe Railway Company spur track No. 1, per O.R. 2759-1S, and the North line of First Street and the Woot line of Ardmore Avenue Northeasterly of the inter - motion of said streste be and the same is hereby reclaosifiod from Rail:mad Right of Way to NR -1(R-3)" Single -Family Residential vith MultipIe-Family Retidential Potential, and the. Zoning rap of Article 3, Section 30 of naia 'Zoning Ordinance No. U. S. 154, as aMendedy he, and the Same is, mmenled as herein set forth, pursmnt to the provisionS therefor tn maid zoning. ordinance set forth, as recomended by..Pining CommissiwResolution P.C. 154-770, adopted Uuly 20, l970. SECTIOM 2. That said City Council haS caim1011to b*,prepared a small area map of tho area or district affected by th onz change hereinabove ordered to be made, which said small area ma? is haronnto attached, deeignated as Enhibit ele, and is bordy referred to and by this reference incorporated herein and made a pert hereof. Said small area map is hereby adopted as, and shall be an amendment to the extent of thr, area shown thereon and afUected thereby of r-7vintrg Map of the City of Hermosa Beach", referred to in, and which ta r4cpted by, thcr,' provisions of ftction 302 of Article 3 o said ticdinmec Na. W. S. of said City, as ametnded. 154;1., SECT -IOW 3. That. tWa on Ln ace shall take effect thirty clays fter the date off: its adg;ltS,on a OECTION 4. • at .. pr:: &r to the expiration of fifteen days from the passage thpreof, this crdinance shall be pUbl zhed at least once* in the Hermosa Beach Review, a wetly newsp :per of general circulation, pUblfthit4 and •circu1a e d in the City of Hermosa Beach. P&SSED0 : AlonaVED and MOPPED D tit day of SSTs AssimraT 0f this, city Cc unc , and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California APR n3+ AS IVPO s __CITY 1-ITTOP.DEY 1970. • JCT (Et4'711- 6' CAM. 424..lekcak4.41-irkeg.:e &AO - Zartsv..eft.c 4.01.04.1, sHEETo...... JOB NO. .... ------ - • 4d1"0:4 cA/AA;6...F VU-L7C - Pl.t)PoSED ZONE CHANGE rim, RA':.LPOtIP IJC9'',..0E7 WA \ Y9 rY'OULTIPLI37PTTITY rEgiblAT, POT TIL 102 AT,,oRT.: - recommended by Prattning-Kmmiseion Tesolution ad—o-pted July 20, 1970. . DTSCUSSTOY, -.ayor Thelen opened the public hearing, and at bis rust City Planner Crawford informed the Council that thig recotmendation for a change of land use c-lasSification as an outgrowth of a recent one change to multiple -family residential poteritiaX. for. adj;31cent property. He added that the property in queition tiiIgthdwn La railroad right of way, and that because theozoning ordineAce says that all properties not zoned Should no into the Single-family residential classification, the Planning Commission was requesting theLPone ebange as set forth in their resolution. • Jack Faiss, 1015 Prospect Avenue, asked if the City did not own t.his propeirty, and was informed that the•.property comer iffis tfir„ John r . Sohmolle. Questiono regarding the •atittatre fp9t4tsfo of the property and 4ts proximi.ty to a boat. yae0...• locat4 iipt*kiliit.e6: wore ,aristfered for .teir.• Myren L. Gain,. 17 ',--,;- 7tit gtatistat,' atia..t,Niti.-. Kathy r'ergstrom, 519 - 24th Place. , ,.'.3.:..:, ..:-;',1.-.. -: '...,:,:,.....1 -.::!•:..,,•,..-..,..?.:,;,..'..y-....,.:*. . Dar i rig the discussion th&t: forlowad„ CeiinOil:ithiiic'tli.fie painted out that this proccrty of 'pp°ximateLy 2500 Oqutiljp,.:,f.eat..*4s tri..tAr a corner of andther parcel of land, and Mayor Thelen. eVreb2,3044,1 the opinion that this .11'.;tt/0„.jp.iece. of ground should be made compatible' with OA surrounding tires. T n answerto a question from Councilsmil:,,Pitlo, the City Planner stated tbit even upon a pi --of .10tOrkersty''.:#tia.•;,..0641.11:,.it- *Amid be legal, dOnstrutt 'four units„ end. -the .PientiOtt,i*iteaa trith• Coltiriciistari Big() ' s ctoiment tht if this were the.ease he ii.toUld rimoqrdeltd timpthsr revision for the zoning ordinance. TinCity Clig.rli liCTION - t6 cot ivei ftilether:.leeeidirig. the propostad ordinance.- •.:•: • ••-•.-. , ''''''.:''''.''4•''''''J::::;;•':'::_;:.'''.:,'"..''''.. ..,.;..--... .. . . , ..., . . . .kA..ii, • ,‘si.;•••,•• -:,,,. • ..• , . . •• ' .. , 0. ter:red .. ,., . . . . ', : • :. ...;..•,;,:., . • ':.'..: ,.,•••••:i,!.:.::::',.'.....•-••jr,7., .. `• ..:::' • • ',.:•;'... ion 'by councilraan,I.ral9esl.r .Second •ft.40144.„' Clt.t4liiiiiZ- Ayes : ciciuSde.i.1.1rTen - .q, Val:ite...0, °Val Iiiiritille«.' '' ft • - f5itt'llx4on. :.'NOes t ..• ' .14one *Sent :', ISoile , '.:Clia 'e .;;i:. 102 Ai ors Attnt,L0:: •::(ijelintiriuk . , .. PIIPMP i• , WTOT - to introd : Orditiaacp ::1 or DIMMICE or IPA Crire-Pli• :MIMOSA:: ,.!,-MiVatt-J ...:., RSAL. PROPT,Pr. TO. Sitar/. r..!*.T..E.*. MSCPTiir,‘." kg:' q. rit " .101406r.44).... PA I VP PIG7T.-0F. WAX' LOCATD-.001-vrti".;AST.ERLY .0Z.:',.P ttekli 4 1: i PI' , rtPS 2::: .01:1:VEroEtt AM ARITICti'iti',' A17171.M7s3, rAgri...12,1644g':.•A$1,02"Arz ..gi43 •,,.. IgtMlIK:11P0.SES, PUPSUMITT TO ..0T41: PrOvie8XONS:0 SOOt0OnTR6C ..:.: -,.11W,.S.'.,,4-AS AMBNDITIV. PROM : MT L.PCthr; I' TGtiT .1V...1Xt4.,Y.., T.10,....f-1,-(c-3),.' 414.14r4,41VIWC.',..PAS.OEtreliAL r 'ill • mULTIVL-FATLY RtgtDtMtt1iIHP6780I146wA1 ': :...IgG--:.:0411A3:"!'!;i:Olvf',AV;;.7CLE ...... Carried'. '''•: '::::....';: ,' ,:::::.;..:..;',.,:Y:::......T,f,!':.,:.,,,.:-:',.:.,,..:.•-,:.. '•:..,..i,":.,:.; .,.,,r,.,:i.::.:•;V:,.•;:.-''.-i • ,......,. . . .. . 3„ SEC*::'Tokl 302 OF SA r:r SOITTIT: -0'inil.t.#4=,,13-7----• r.iotion by councilmiqn .,;76,pi,,e,..,...::.4egonti...,; Ayes: Cbuil:ctifflan..-N* ..'vwil4k1-.4titileanCink(iWito ialsent:. ' None .: .• tales! None ':* ••• ,.:''::....„.............. '.,::,...„.:„.,.,,:. .. . :,,*,,,,,.f.i.:...,,v.,.:.‘,!,...,. ..,.: . 7:17.....7..‘. ',..' • • . August 25v 1970 Honorable yor and City Council City of Hermosa 39aoh Hermosa Deaoh0 California Go tic mens The following 'warrants have been ascertained to be duplicate a Ye ntfe Your authorisation to cancel l theca is requested* *Warrant //7309 dat+sd MO. 19p 1970 1.: they amount o' $40000 parable to Title Insurance and Trust *Warrant #7636 datul Judy 75 1970 in the amort o 5 12*00 myable to the University of Southern G ;1t ornia. Very truly yau;sv NARY R* STONIER City Treasurer City of Hermosa D each FJ(RSen'G • io NON -AGENDA ITEMS - INFORMATION - With Agenda for September 1, 1970 Street Tree Contract, Aviation Boulevard - Copy of letter dated August 21, 1970 from Wesley C. McDaniel, City Manager, to Francis Hopkins, City Manager, City of Redondo Beach, Revenue Shari - Letter of information dated Augest 25( 1970, Irom Mary R. Stonier, City Treasurer, Buildapartment - Monthly Report, July, 1970. Southern California Humane Society - Animal Control Repent JW.y, 1970, Taxable Sales Transactipns in_Hermosa Beach - Comnarison of First Quarter. MEETINGS AVD OTHER EVENTse Went Basin Water Association - Thursday, August 27 - Palos Verdes Country Club - 6:30 p.m. qcapttAm_gallpsilmen's Association - Thursday, August 27 - Seats Cafe, 6:30 pm 3210 W. Sepulveda 13yu1evard, Torrance Planaipa_csgimission NoAdaye ARaust 31 Council •Chamber - 7:30 p.m. City Council - Tuesday, September 1 - Council Chamber - 6:30 p.m., C of C- 7:30 p.m. Regular RTD gity121gtion Committee - Thursday, September 3 - 8:45 p.m, League of California Cities - Board of Directors - 6:30 p.m. Rodger Young Auditorium, Is Angeles Improvement Commission - Thursday, September 3 - Couneil Chamber - 7:30 p.m, LABOR DAY HOLIDAY - Monday, September 7 Youth Adzipszy_gRuncil - Tuesday, September 8 - Cenference Room - 7:30 p.m, ADMISSION DAY HOLIDAY - Wednesday, September 9 South Ba Cities Sanitation District - Thursday, September 10 - Los Angel s - 2 p.m. II.NALsgL2e2sRis Thursdayember 10 - Council ChaMber - 7:30 p.m, ,CINNSTVOW•M Inter-qty_gishmg_emmittee - Thursday, September 10 - Lawndale 630 p.m, aoard of Zapipgagiustment - Monday, September 14 - Council Chamber - 7:30 pm ettycaxasil - Tuesday, September 15 - Council Chamber - 7:30 p.m. League of California Cities -General Membership Meetipa - Thursday, September 17 Belle 'n Beau, Monterey Park - 6:30 p.m. Louthwest_Area Planning Council - Friday, September 18 - Lobster House -4 Noon Plellnipa Commission - Monday, September 21 - Council ChaMber - 7:30 p.m, Civil Service Commission - Tuesday, September 22 - Council Chamber - 7:30 pm Park and Recreation Commission - Wednesday, September 24 - Council ChuMber 7:30 p.m° aCAG On the Move - Thursday, September 24 - Disneyland Betel - 8:45 a.m. - August 21, 197& Mr. Erancis Hopkins City Manager 415 Diamond Redondo Beach, California Dear Mr. Hopkins: Re: Street. Tree Contract, Aviation Boulevard Dear Mr. Hopkins: This letter is a confirmation of our discussion recently concerning the joint Street tree planting project budgeted by both cities on newly -widened Aviation Boulevard. As I indicated, it is my understanding that this work has been discussed - by the park directors of both cities, and agreement has been reached on species (bottiebrush) and' placating specifications. And both of us are eager to get this job done. 'cite have budgeted $5,000.60 for the work; we understand that your budgeted estimate is about double that so we're 1/2:2/3 partners. Since you hold the majority, and are probably better staffed to prepare, bid, award, arid inspect a contract, we request that Redondo Beach take on this responsibility, for which we will bear our cast share under a joint agreement. Assuming that this proposal meets with your agreement I11 ask Jess Larez to consult with Bob Atkinson:, so that we can get underway as quickly as possible. VY CM: mm cc: Tess Larez Bob Atkinson John Stevens Sincerely, V ESLEY C. MC DANIEL City Manager August 250 1970 Honorable Mayor egad City Council City of Hermosa=. Beach Hermosa Bemoh0 California The Municipal Treasurers of the United States in conference in San Francisco on Ostcbe 200 /.970 passed a resolution sup- porting Revenue Sharing* A dopy of this resolution icy being forwarded by the Municipal Tre .jai =ars Association to legislators throughout the United Statetso Very truly yours* MARY STONIER City Treasurer City of Hermosa Beach MRStnfe TAXABLE SASS TRANSACTIONS IN H RMOSA BEACH -- COMPARISON OF 1ST QUARTER (Taxable Transactions in thousands of dol arS) RETAIL OUTLETS 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1 Apparel Store 171 130 131 105 - 147 2 General Mdse. 421 366 394 364 180 3 Food Stores 434 494 503 687 730 4 Pkgdo Liquor Stores 404 400 422 488 501 411 5 Eating & Drinking Places 507 513 572 643 750 6 Drug Stores 7f 1# # Yr 7 HOMO aF' rna & Appia Stores 98 67 86 85 137 8 Bldg. Mi s„ & Farm lmpiem. 230 197 326 464 453 9 Motor Vehicle Dealers 2,091 3,021 2,889 2,113 2,582 10 Service Stations 72 71 73 73 61 11 Other Retail Sto a's 290## 368# 3311E 365# 408# 12 All Other Outlets 429 435 539 416 -425 13 TOTAL ALL OUTLETS 52147 62062 6;,366 5,803 6 374 rr Denotes totals with sales omitted (publication results or di sc1osured of confidential inZorP ,tion). Calla by truck Live animals handlitad Dead animas handled Stray doms picked up Stray dog& redeeoad Stry daps dastrayv4 , it4:4 5026 West Jefferson Boulevard Lcs Angeles, California 90016 Phone: 732-01:3 / ki? ILL - • t.,01/,. _de (etweifier MRMOSA 91FACR • ArAnal Oantrol asport jc4N,ly 1970 Warnirma for leash law violationa Wat9DMMTM4 Cr C. Czbue eocro OtZ..tf . 19A..*Arrit ErAcktra kffla-NTel..1/4 C Com' Ctuntvi tihnite,mt Tvaff,tP..4 - 'Co-PK:Ai/Um Stsmilmrplogspzecr Ravi A. ts/zolv Mitiq Z. t- Last This ,tatti • WI' Month Month o Date • &Qat Year To Date 1295- 682 129 38 18 18 230 1096 123 677 19 149 48 307 27 185 19 119 . 3 3 Citotions f,cr RealrAl 1L violations 15 40 126 % JuIy 1060 had houvy beach patrol as pt of extra pregras Mambo 254 108 27 49 24 23 236 14/ 91 7 79 45 273 A for by H. gmsa. S0311 -17N CALIFORNIA HUMAN8 SOCIETY Donald H. A rson, Operatione Mgro MAILING ADDRESS • P.O. BOX 78245 • LOS ANGELES, CALIF. St0016