Dear Mr. Robertson,
Re: Handling of the Short-Term Rental Pilot Request for Public Comment
Per the attached courtesy letter from you I am requesting a copy of the draft ordinance for short-term rentals in advance of Thursday's posting.
The Notice I received (attachment) indicated that if I wished to review this ordinance prior to Friday, August 23 I could do so by contacting Mr Blumenthal.
Is that NOT the case? Why the confusion?
Well Mr Blumenthal is out of the office the last two days per his auto-reply email and his designee has not responded to my request for a draft.
I also don’t understand why the city has not made this draft-ordinance available on the web site earlier to facilitate public comment.
I know you are only required to post it a minimum of 72 hours in advance of the public hearing but how does it benefit the public by not making it available earlier?
Why always do the minimum?
Finally why were the specific properties eligible for the pilot NOT identified in the written communications from you included below.
That just makes it more difficult for the public to provide effective feedback.
Finally, the verbiage you use to identify the properties eligible for the pilot appears to be intentionally and unnecessary vague.
...[to allow short-term rentals in existing non conforming dwellings]... see attached.
What does “non-conforming” mean to the average resident?
Does “existing” include properties under construction like 5 corners or does this apply to the apartments in the area?
How are we supposed to comment on something so vague?
Once again why not post the ordinance in advance?
Why not specifically identify the eligible properties in a way that the average resident can easily understand?
Like an address or a mark on a map?
Why say you are can provide the ordinance in advance of the posting in your attached letter if you can’t or won’t?
I have requested the draft ordinance twice with no response to that question.
Do you really want a meaningful public hearing?
If so I suggest you resend the letter to all residents and include the draft ordinance, a map of the eligible properties and verbiage the average resident can understand.
I strongly recommend delaying the public hearing until this is done and waiving the 3 minute per person public comment time limit unless your goal is to suppress public comment and residents legal grounds to challenge the ordinance.
I’m referring to the last sentence in your letter. The one in fine print.
Community Development Department, Greetings...
I’ve been the owner of the apartment building at 65-67 10th Street since January 1973 and a resident of Hermosa Beach much of that time.
I am opposed to the planned motel development of 70 10th Street because it would not have adequate on-site parking to accommodate their guests. And, street parking in the vicinity of this development is virtually nonexistent.
Additionally, there will be no full-time motel attendants to mitigate their beach partier guest’s impact on the neighborhood. Our first block from the beach is zoned and is in-fact---residential.
I and others agree with our neighbor, Carol James’ letter, 14 August 2019, attached. As Carol pointed out, 10th Street is one of the few remaining through-streets to the beach. As such, and the fact this street also connects to the Plaza via Beach Drive, 10th Street is already very crowded with beach and Plaza goers.
Much appreciation for keeping, Hermosa Beach…
“THE BEST LITTLE BEACH CITY”