Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04/09/02
We4e11- 6.-E? *0-1- V2-41 moo(// oa`41Kg "The income tax has made more liars out of the American people than golf has.. - Will Rogers AGENDA REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 9, 2002 Regular Session - 7:10 p.m. Closed Session - Immediately following Regular Session Hermosa Beach Community Center, Room 4 710 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach MAYOR Kathy Dunbabin MAYOR PRO TEM Sam Y. Edgerton COUNCIL MEMBERS Michael Keegan J. R. Reviczky Art Yoon CITY CLERK Elaine Doerfling CITY TREASURER John M. Workman CITY MANAGER Stephen R. Burrell CITY ATTORNEY Michael Jenkins All council meetings are open to the public. PLEASE ATTEND. The Council receives a packet with detailed information and recommendations on nearly every agenda item. Complete agenda packets are available for public inspection in the Police Department, Fire Department, Public Library, Office of the City Clerk, and the Chamber of Commerce. During the meeting, a packet is also available in the Council Chambers foyer. City Council agendas and staff reports are available for your review on the City's web site located at www.hermosabch.org CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS CLOSED SESSION REPORT FOR MEETING OF MARCH 26, 2002 1 • • PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Although the City Council values your comments, the Brown Act generally prohibits the Council from taking action on any matter not listed on the posted agenda as a business item. 1. ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Members of the public wishing to address the City Council on any items within the Council's jurisdiction, or to request the removal of an item from the consent calendar, may do so at this time. Comments on public hearing items are heard only during the public hearing. Comments from the public are limited to three minutes per speaker. Members of the audience may also speak: 1) during discussion of items removed from the Consent Calendar; 2) during Public Hearings; and, 3) during discussion of items appearing under Municipal Matters. The City Council acknowledges receipt of the written communications listed below. No action will be taken on matters raised in written communications. The Council may take action to schedule issues raised in oral and written communications for a future agenda. Citizens with comments regarding City management or departmental operations are requested to submit those comments to the City Manager. a. Letters from Al Benson regarding Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Chapter 8.24, Noise Control. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following more routine matters will be acted upon by one vote to approve with the majority consent of the City Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council member removes an item from the Consent Calendar. Items removed will be considered under Agenda Item 4, with public comment permitted at that time. (a) Recommendation to receive a file memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfline regarding the minutes of the Adjourned Regular meeting of March 4, 2002 and the Regular meetings of March 12 and March 26, 2002. (b) Recommendation to ratify check register and to approve cancellation of certain checks as recommended by the City Treasurer. (c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. (d) Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Public Works Commission meeting of March 20, 2002. 2 (e) Recommendation to authorize the appropriation of $55,000 from the 150 Grant Fund for Project No. CIP 00-630, Pier Renovation — Phase III. Memorandum from Public Works Director Harold Williams dated March 27, 2002. (f) Recommendation to approve the Public Works Commission's recommendation to install signs on the north side of Gould Avenue between Pacific Coast Highway and El Oeste Drive stating "No Parking — Vehicles Over 6 Feet in Height." Memorandum from Public Works Director Harold Williams dated April 3, 2002. (g) Recommendation to award Professional Services Agreement to Uniplan Engineering, Inc. to provide design and engineering services for CHP 00-410 and CIP 00-192 in the amount of $122,800; authorize the appropriation of $115,273 from the 160 Sewer fund; authorize the Mavor to execute and the City Clerk to attest the Professional Services Agreement subiect to approval by the City Attorney; authorize the Director of Public Works to make changes to the agreement up to $12,280. Memorandum from Public Works Director Harold Williams dated March 28, 2002. (h) Recommendation to accept the work by Sully -Miller Contracting Co. for Project No. CIP 00-139, Hermosa Avenue Street Improvements; authorize the Mavor to sign the Notice of Completion; and, authorize Staff to release payment to Sully -Miller Contracting Co. (10% retained for 35 days following filing of Notice of Completion). Memorandum from Public Works Director .Harold Williams dated April 2, 2002. (i) Recommendation to approve Adopt-A-Stormdrain donations from new private sponsors and approve the design, size, wording and placement of Adopt-A-Stormdrain signage. Memorandum from Public Works Director Harold Williams dated March 28, 2002. Recommendation to appropriate additional funding of $62,289 from the Equipment Replacement Fund and $62,288 from the Capital Improvement Fund to provide total funding required to complete Project No. CIP 95-622, City Hall Remodel — ADA Upgrades. Memorandum from Public Works Director Harold Williams dated March 28, 2002. 3. CONSENT ORDINANCES NONE 3 • • 4. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION * Public comments on items removed from the Consent Calendar. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 7:30 P.M. a. EXPENDITURE OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS FOR THE GENERAL ADMINISTRATION OF PROJECTS FUNDED THROUGH THE CDBG PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002- 2003. Memorandum from Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated March 21, 2002. RECOMMENDATION: Approve by minute order the allocation and expenditure of $5,860 of CDBG funds for general administration. b. VACATION OF A PORTION OF 8TH STREET BETWEEN THE STRAND AND HERMOSA AVENUE. Memorandum from Public Works Director Harold Williams dated March 27, 2002. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution ordering the vacation and abandonment, for public purposes, of a portion on 8th Street, between the Strand and Beach Drive, as shown on the tract of Hermosa Beach as recorded in Map Book 1, pages 25 & 26, in the Office of the Los Angeles County Recorder. c. REVIEW AND RECONSIDER OF PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PARKING PLAN FOR ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING RETAIL AND ENTERTAINMENT CENTER TO ACCOMMODATE OFFICES, A HEALTH AND FITNESS CLUB, AND RETAIL USES AND A VARIANCE TO THE 35' HEIGHT LIMIT TO ENCLOSE EXISTING DECK AREAS TO MATCH THE HEIGHT OF THE EXISTING ROOF, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1605 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, HERMOSA PAVILION. Memorandum from Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated April 1, 2002. RECOMMENDATION: To sustain the decision to approve the Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan subject to the conditions contained in the resolution, and to sustain the decision to approve the variance to enclose the upper floor deck areas and open area of the parking structure. 4 • • d. TEXT AMENDMENT FOR FRONT YARD REQUIREMENTS ON THROUGH LOTS BETWEEN THE STRAND AND THE SERVICE ROAD PARALLEL TO HERMOSA AVENUE APPROXIMATELY BETWEEN 27TH STREET AND 35TH STREET. Memorandum from Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated April 3, 2002. RECOMMENDATION: To introduce and waive full reading of ordinance amending Section 17.46.152 of the Zoning Ordinance. e. CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF ALOHA DAYS — AUGUST 10 & 11, 2002. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated April 1, 2002. RECOMMENDATION: Approve request from the Aloha Days Committee to hold their annual surf competition and "Aloha Days" Hawaiian Festival August 10 & 11, 2002; consider requests for fee waivers, funding and the second day a plaza vendors; and, approve the event contract. 6. MUNICIPAL MATTERS a. REQUEST FOR SPEED HUMPS ON ALLEY EAST OF HERMOSA AVENUE BETWEEN PIER AVENUE AND 14TH STREET. Memorandum from Public Works Director Harold Williams dated April 3, 2002. RECOMMENDATION: To approve the Public Works Commission's recommendation to install speed humps on a trial basis in the alley east of Hermosa Avenue between Pier Avenue and 14th Street. b. DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL (ABC) LETTER RECEIVED APRIL 1, 2002 REGARDING CHANGES IN EIN STEIN'S RESTAURANT AND BREWERY INC. ABC LICENSE OPERATING CONDITIONS. Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated April 4, 2002. RECOMMENDATION: Review the information and determine whether or not the City Council wishes to send a letter to ABC regarding these changes. 5 • • c. REVIEW OF PIER PHASE III CONTRACTS AND AMENDMENTS. Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated April 4, 2002. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council review the information regarding the design contract for the Pier Phase III project and approve the Third Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement between the City and Perkiss-Rose — RSI for an increase in scope of services and contract amount of $96,612; authorize the appropriation of $85,000 from the 301 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Fund; authorize the City Clerk to attest and the Mayor to execute said amendment subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney; and, authorize the Director of Public Works/City Engineer to make adjustments to the scope of work as necessary, not to exceed $9,661 as noted in the memorandum from Public Works Director Harold Williams dated March 27, 2002. 7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER a. APPOINTMENTS TO SOUTH BAY WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARD. Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated April 2, 2002 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council appoint John Workman to serve as a Board member for the term of July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003 and Janice Web, Vice -President of Cal Fed Bank to serve as a Board member for the term of July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2004. b. AB2863 — HOUSING ELEMENT REFORM — PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING ELEMENT INTRODUCED AT REQUEST OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES AND CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES. Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated April 2, 2002. RECOMMENDATION: Consider taking a position of support. c. MEMORANDUM FROM CITY MANAGER REGARDING PUBLIC INFORMATION CONCERNING THE CITY'S POSITION ON THE HEART OF THE CITY PLAN IN REDONDO BEACH. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council consider drafting a letter that expresses the City's concerns with the Heart of the City Plan. 8. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL NONE 6 S S 9. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Council members for possible future agenda items: Recommended Action: 1) Vote by Council whether to discuss this item; 2) refer to staff for a report back on a future agenda; or, 3) resolution of matter by Council action tonight. NONE ANNOUNCEMENT IN OPEN SESSION OF ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED IN CLOSED SESSION AS FOLLOWS: 1. MINUTES: Approval of minutes of Closed Session meeting held on March 26, 2002. 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL The City Council finds, based on advice from legal counsel, that discussion in open session will prejudice the position of the City in the litigation. Initiation of Litigation: Government Code Section 54956.9(c) Number of potential cases: 1 3. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Government Code Section 54957 Title: City Manager ADJOURNMENT Heat of the City plan ?ACTS: • The Heart of the City Plan allows for up to $1 BILLION dollars in new construction including nearly 3000 multifamily homes -- STACKED CONDOMINIUMS • Present zoning calls for a maximum of 28-35 units per acre. This project allows for up to 55 UNITS PER ACRE...almost DOUBLE THE PRESENT DENSITY • Up to 600,000 square feet of commercial space • Manhattan Beach traffic study shows the plan will result in approximately 29,000 additional daily trips • Your quality of live will be impacted by pollution and congestion • Redondo Beach Unified School District and city planners cannot even agree on the number of students will add to our school system • The City has to come up with $49 million dollars for the infrastructure, roads, streets, sewers, etc. • The City has to come up with $49 million dollars for the infrastructure, roads, streets, sewers, etc. And there's MORE • The City of Hermosa Beach has already filed suit against Redondo Beach claiming that project -related traffic studies were inadequate • The Heart of the City Plan changes land -use policy that is in direct conflict with many of the businesses and structures that presently exist. This puts many existing structures "out of compliance" with the plan, which will result in lots of demolition and new construction • The City has zoned such high-density housing in this area that when populated, this new development will result in a nearly 10% increase in Redondo's current population - this does not include all of the new businesses and commercial space proposed for the area • This population increase will take placed in an area much smaller than that bordered by Catalina, Herondo, Harbor Drive, and Beryl. • People have indicated concern about the load on the local schools that this plan will cause - the City has not satisfied their concerns How can you help? 1) Discuss the Heart of the City with your friends and neighbors and find how much or little is known about it. 2) Offer you support and signature when you see a volunteer collecting signatures for the referendums - but sign the referendums only once. That is, sign for only one volunteer. 3) Get involved and volunteer time to assist in this effort. At this time we really need help collecting signatures for the referendums. Please call our volunteer coordinator Ellen Allan at 310 399-1758 or contact her by Email at ellenallan@juno.com. WE ONLY HAVE UNTIL APRIL 18th, 2002! 4) Notify your District Councilperson and the Mayor what you think of the current Heart of the City Plan, and what you would like them to do about it. You may make contact your Councilperson using any of the following methods: O If you have Internet access, go to www.RedondoLife.org and use the Email Your Representative link to send an Email to your District Councilperson. Your Email will also be sent to a "Tally" destination that will keep track of Emails sent to the various Council people and the Mayor. O Hand -deliver or mail a letter to your Councilperson and Mayor Greg Hill. You may deliver the letter to the City Clerk's Office near the Police Station at Diamond and PCH, the write them at the following address: Councilman councilman's name Redondo Beach City Hall 415 Diamond Street Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Write / Email your representatives today while you're thinking about it [tifIdon't knowiho my Councilperson is? The city of Redondo Beach is divided into 5 Council Districts. These districts are numbered from 1 to 5 starting with the Hollywood Riviera area as District 1,and moving up north through Redondo Beach with northernmost Redondo Beach being district 5. A rough description of these districts and the associated councilperson is listed below. District 1 goes roughly from the southern -most reaches of Redondo Beach to along the south and west side of Camino Real and up to the south side Torrance Boulevard. Your Council - person is Gerard Bisignano - gerard.bisignano@redondo.org. District 2 goes roughly from the north side of Torrance Boulevard and north and east side of Camino Real toward the north to the almost the intersection of Anita and Prospect. Your Councilperson is Kevin Sullivan - kevin.sullivan@redondo.org. District 3 goes roughly from a bit south and west of the intersection of Anita and Prospect to a few blocks south of Grant. Your Councilperson is Mike Gin - mike.gin@redondo.org. District 4 goes roughly from a few blocks south of Grant to roughly one block north of Artesia. Your Councilperson is Kurt Schmalz - kurt.schmalz@redondo.org. District 5 goes roughly from a one block north of Artesia to the northernmost part of the city. The City Council representative for this District is John Parsons - john.parsons@redondo.org. Your Mayor, who works for everyone, is Greg Hill - greg.hill@redondo.org. In early April, the RedondoLife.org website will have page that will make it easy -to -find and easy -to -Email City Council members, the Mayor, and other significant city officials. If you also Email from our website, we will be able to track / count Emails to our City officials. Be404veOnd0 www.RedondoLife.org 4 CITIZENS FOR A VOTE ON HEART OF THE CITY Chairman Chris Cagle 310 318-3161 ccagle@southland1.com Volunteer Coordinator Ellen Allen 310 399-1758 ellenallan@juno.com Webmaster Paul Schlichting webmaster@redondolife.org WHO WE ARE: We are Redondo Beach citizens concerned about the future of our community and our quality of life. We are your neighbors, friends, clergy, business executives, home owners, teachers, shop owners, renters, students, PTA members, community volunteers - WE ARE YOU! WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO: We are dedicated to seeing that the residents of Redondo Beach be given the right to vote on the approval of the present Heart of the City Plan. We are mobilizing to launch a referendum effort to overturn resolutions ALREADY adopted by the city. We need your support and involvement !!! Your city council is moving forward with the Heart of the City project because they think the citizens of Redondo Beach are in favor of the present plan. WE DISAGREE!!! We believe you will too 6ondo Bee4r www.RedondoLife.org CITIZENS FOR A VOTE ON HEART OF THE CITY WE ONLY HAVE UNTIL APRIL 18th! PETITION CAMPAIGN IS NOW IN FULL SWING. LOOK FOR ONE OF OUR PETITION VOLUNTEERS. VISIT OUR WEBSITE AT www.RedondoLife.org FOR OUR PETITION EVENT SCHEDULE Chairman Volunteer Coordinator Chris Cagle Ellen Allan 310 318-3161 310 399-1758 ccagle@southlandl,com ellenallan@iuno com Webmaster Paul Schlichting webmaster@redondolife.org CITIZEIRIS FORA ItITE ON HEART OF THE CITY Chairman, Chris Cagle 310.318-3161 ccagle@southland1.com Volunteer Coordinator, Ellen Allan 310.399-1758 ellenallAn@juno.com Webmaster, Paul Schlichting webmaster@redondolife.org CITIZENS FOR A VOTE ON HEART OF THE CITY is a grassroots organization dedicated to seeing that the residents of the City of Redondo Beach are given the opportunity to vote on the Heart of the City plan. WHO WE ARE: We are a group of Redondo Beach citizens concerned about the future of our community and our quality of life. We are your neighbors, friends, clergy, parents, business executives, home owners, teacher, shop owners, renters, students, PTA members, community volunteers — WE ARE YOU! WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO: We are dedicated to seeing that the residents of Redondo Beach be given the right to vote on the approval of the present Heart of the City Plan. We are mobilizing to launch a referendum effort to overturn resolutions ALREADY adopted by the City. FACTS' WE ONLY HAVE UNTIL APRIL 18TH! The Heart of the City Plan allows for up to $1BILLION dollars in new construction including nearly 3000 multifamily homes — STACKED CONDOS • Present zoning calls for a maximum 28/35 units per acre. This project allows for up to 55 UNITS PER ACRE...almost DOUBLE THE PRESENT DENSITY • Up to 600,000 square feet of commercial space • Manhattan Beach traffic study shows the plan will result in approximately 29,000 additional daily trips • Your quality of life will be impacted by pollution and congestion • Redondo Beach Unified School District and city planners cannot even agree on the number of students this project will add to our school system • The City has to come up with $49 million dollars for the infrastructure, roads, streets, sewers, etc. Your city council is moving forward with the Heart of the City project because they think the citizens of Redondo Beach are in favor of the present plan. WE DISAGREE!!! WE NEED YOUR HELP! Please call Ellen Allan at: 310.399.1758 www.RedondoLife.org S +1\-Q- Ajt CV1 We think it is imperative that the residents of Redondo Beach be given the opportunity to vote on a plan that will so dramatically impact our community and our way of life. WE NEED VOLUNTEERS to help plan, organize and collect 6,000 signatures of registered Redondo Beach voters. THIS IS A CRITICAL PROJECT AS WE ONLY HAVE UNTIL APRIL 18TH!! If you can type, use a telephone, knock on doors, rally your fellow club or organization members, WE NEED YOU! We also need donations to cover attorney fees, printing, postage and other related costs. Please send a check to: CITIZENS FOR A VOTE ON HEART OF THE CITY 403 Torrance Blvd., Redondo Beach, CA 90277 i Heart Of The City? Redondo Beach... Your City Council has already approved the plan: Up to 3,000 More Housing Units Doubled Zoning Density Over 6,000 More Cars 600,000 Sq Ft of Commercial $49 Million For infrastructure & No New Schools A Billion Dollar Plan Deserves A Vote! April 18t/i Saturday, April 13 Sign The Petition District Tom Conroy at Albe t on % 1516 S. PCH ph. (310) 318-3161 Det Thum: Beverly Guss at Whole Foods. S.PCH & Beryl St ph. (310) 345-2655 District Three: Karen Kershaw at VON* 1212 Beryl St ph. (310) 374-0544 District Four: Lori Danryd at Albertson% 2115 Artesia Blvd. ph. (310) 489-5342 District Five: Hop Tarrant at Albertson's 2115 Artesia Blvd. ph. (310) 937-7790 Citizens fora vote on of the Cly famed. up of Redondo Beach Residents from WI Districts - committed to seeing thatwe should begiven lO:Q0‘co 3c:rYTh • • American ,Cancer will Society® 1 -800 -ACS -2345 • www.cancer.org 02001, American Cancer Society, Inc. 01-150M-No.7542.13-RFL The Aman Cancer Society and Honorary Chair, et. Cawdrey, cordially invite you to the "Kidz-off Party" for the 3rdAnnuaL Beach. Cities Relay For Life Tuesday, April 16, 2002 6:30 p.m.-8:00 p.m. Hosted by the Sangria Restaurant 68 Pier Ave., Hermosa Beach Complimentary hors d'oeuvres and refreshments RSVP by April 12 to Tracey Mayer American Cancer Society 310-348-0356 option 3/ext 246 or tracey.mayer a cancer.org • Amer!an Cancer Society Relay For Life r•-• D0 P Cxe 25ay... Cxe- Comsxxxitj'. Join us in the fight against cancer. RELAY r M S 4 • 4 A TEAM EVENT TO FIGHT CANCER • that IS • "Relay For Life?" It's a 24-hour Celebration of Life and Camp -Out Fund-raiser For A Cancer Cure \ ,_,,,,Nc:\\( IS/ Teams are Formed Money is Raised Cancer Survivors are shownisupport by YOU! Luminaria Ceremony _____7I Z---_,\ _7 if • • Create a Team NOW or Join One... Gather friends, family and co-workers to form a team. Decide on a name or theme for your team, register and start planning for a fun -filled day. Raise Some Money... Each team member raises money by gathering pledge donations prior to the event. Teams can also raise additional money the day of the event. Money raised helps the American Cancer Society fund research and educational programs, public policy efforts and direct services to cancer patients and their families. Then...REM Y.. . Walk Run or Rock (in a chair) Celebrate and Dedicate Your Efforts for 24 Hours (Bring Your Own Tent) When you arrive, choose your spot on the infield at Aviation Park, set up your campsite, and then let the fun begin. For 24 hours, you and your teammates will take turns walking around Aviation Park in Redondo Beach. It's a lot of fun, REALLY! It's especially festive in our "tent city" where there will be music, food, contests, awards and prizes. But, best of all, you will be a participant in one of your communities best heartfelt efforts to help those with cancer. There is NO FINISH line until we find a CURE." \-\-------\ /e aincer,,f Survivors Be our \ ,P, honored guests \Celebrate t Cancer Survivors are invited ) Life tojoin us for the opening ceremony and fun throughout the day. You are a symbol of Hope that one day our world will be free of cancer. In honor of you, the first lap symbolizes the courage survivors and their familiesi idisplay to sustain their lives. l Luminaria Ceremony In recognition of your loved ones that have been touched by cancer, you will have the opportunity to purchase and decorate a special luminaria that will be!part of the evening luminaria ceremony. Atdusk, lighted luminaries will'beplaced around the track, lighting the way for ----- walkers and runners as they continue the RELAY, throughout the night. Ilberican Cancer Socie* American Cancer Society's goal is to eliminate cancer. We are the largest private funder of cancer research in the country. Our comprehensive cancer control program includes cancer research, school and work site educational programs, public policy efforts, and direct services to cancer patients and their families. 1 In 2001, Relays / nationwide raised / $169 Million for/ cancer research, education and patient services. Tint ('\7TFsn grr3 v%' atamil -41 1��=— .��, i l L 90975147 C s� i 12 29% Administrative and fund-raising 21% National Services —Research —Program Dev. —Support Services Site Map 50% Local Services — Prevention —Detection & Treatment — Patient & Family Services AVIATION BLVD 3rd Annual Beach Cities Relay For Life Our Generous Sponsors: The Daily Breeze The Beach Reporter Sunset Printing Co., Inc. Rick's Red Oak BBQ Co. Chick-Fil-A Pacific Theatres Academy Tent and Canvas Co. For more information please call American Cancer Society 5731 West Slauson Ave., Suite 200 Culver City, CA 90230 310-348-0356 Option 3, Ext. 246 • • RELAY'll11.1 m A TEAM EVENT TO FIGHT CANCER AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY 4 4 4 0 The American Cancer Society's 3rd Annual Beach Cities Relay For Life July 20 & 21, 2002 Aviation Park Redondo Beach IS is NOT our ordinary y g1 LA' It's a 24-hour Celebration of Life and Camp -Out Fund-raiser For A Cancer Cure AMERICAN V CANCER SOCIETY A TEAM EVENT TO FIGHT CANCER Please check the opportunities you are interested in and fax or mail form to: Tracey Mayer American Cancer Society 5731 West Slauson Ave., Ste. 200 Culver City, CA 90230 Fax: 310.348.2328 310.348.0356 option 3/ext 246 tracey.mayer@cancer.org O Join the Relay Planning Committee O Form a team O Be a sponsor O Participate in Survivor Activities O I am a Survivor O Participate in Luminaria Ceremony O Registration O Logistics O Food O Make a donation O Call me about other ways I can participate in the Relay. 6297.09 z Relay For Life is a unique 24-hour event to increase cancer awareness in your community while raising much-needed funds for the American Cancer Society. Each team has at least 10 people, who take turns walking or running around a track. Participants camp out enjoying music, entertainment and food while building team spirit to help in the fight against cancer. 3rd Annual Beach Cities Relay For Life July 20 & 21, 2002 Aviation Park Yes! I wont to participate. Name: Company: Address: City: Zip: Work Phone: Home Phone: Fax: Email: There is N FI IS line until we find a L. —Original Message --- From: Alan Benson <albenson c@adelphia.net> To: sburrellkhermosabch.orq <sburrell©hermosabch.orq> Date: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 2:18 PM Subject: Would you please put this letter on the Agenda under Written Communications for the next possible City Council Meeting. Thanks, Al Benson. To: Steve Burrell City Manager City of Hermosa Beach, CA March 20, 2002 From: Alan Benson Hermosa Beach, CA Re: Would you please put this letter on the Agenda under Written Communications for the next possible City Council Meeting. City Council of Hermosa Beach, I would like to find out the opinion of the City Council of Hermosa Beach regarding the effectiveness of Chapter 8.24 Noise Control of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. Since the most recent amendments to Chapter 8.24 were passed, does the City Council feel Chapter 8.24 has been effective as intended? Does the City Manager and Chief of Police find Chapter 8.24 to be a good tool to control noise, loud parities and any other violations that Chapter 8.24 has jurisdiction over? What are the total numbers of disturbance calls that relate to Chapter 8.24 since the latest amendments to the Chapter 8.24 thru 2002? What was the disposition of those disturbance calls relating to Chapter 8.24? How many warnings? How many citations? How many arrests? Chapter 8.24.120 Additional Remedies Is it possible for the City of Hermosa Beach to declare a repeat offender a public nuisance and be subject to abatement summarily by a restraining order or injunction issued by a court of competent jurisdiction? Has this been done? 4/3/02 la • • Page 2 of 3 In the minutes of The City Council Meeting of the City of Hermosa Beach held on Tuesday, September 28, 2000. Discussion of issues relating to 4th of July activities and related noise issues. Public participation included 23 Hermosa Beach residents with various comments on the 4th of July activities and related noise issues. Of the 23 Hermosa Beach residents, noise complaints are mentioned by 12 of the residents in the public hearing. Hermosa residents in the public hearing also complained about: Parking problems 6 times Large parties 4 times The "Ironman" 4 times Needing permits for large parties or the "Ironman" 4 times Loudspeaker noise 4 times Code or Ordinance enforcement 4 times Public urination 2 times Public drunkenness 2 times Graffiti 1 time The City Council responded with two motions regarding the public hearing relating to 4th of July activities and related noise problems. Mayor Reviczky also directed staff to enforce conditional use permits for speaker noise. City Council Action: To direct staff to bring back the draft noise ordinance presented this evening with a full staff report for Council consideration at a future meeting. The motion carried. City Council Action: To direct staff to draft an ordinance or amend the City's current ordinance, as necessary, to require a permit for private parties of over 100 people. The motion carried. Mayor Reviczky directed staff to enforce the conditional use permits with regard to outdoor speakers and open windows and doors, noting that requests for outdoor speakers should go through the permit amendment process for consideration. The staff brought back a new noise ordinance prepared by the City Attorney. The last paragraph of the staff recommendation reads as follows. While it had been suggested that this ordinance deal with the issuance of party permits, staff recommends that the ordinances outlined in this measure will adequately deal with the disturbance calls commonly dealt with by the police department. After lengthy discussions, staff felt that the permit process posed certain logistical problems with not only issuing the permit but the enforcement thereof. Many citizens have the impression that a permit grants a license to break the law or provide exceptions to their activity. The permit also provides the appearance that once issued, the City has sanctioned the event. Staff recommends 4/3/02 • • Page 3 of 3 that in its incremental approach to enforcement that the provisions of this new ordinance be allowed to move forward. If necessary, the permit issue can be revisited if this ordinance does not achieve the desired objectives of reducing noises and disturbances. I would be interested in knowing how other cities in our area use the permit approval process for large private parties, gatherings or special events. The City of Hermosa Beach does require permits for use of public rights-of-way for "block parties". Also commercial groups and non -profits groups are required to file for permits to use public outdoor areas. Groups of 25 or more people that conduct a picnic, celebration, parade, service, meeting or similar activity in any public park or public building must obtain a permit the City of Hermosa Beach. One of the problems with Chapter 8.24 the new noise ordinance is that it is mainly a noise ordinance. It has very little capability to deal with large private parties especially if there are not any noise problems with the party. Chapter 8.24 does not provide any proactive control of large parties or gatherings with the issuance of party permits. Chapter 8.24 does not deal with other major impacts to Hermosa Beach by large private parties, gatherings or special events such as: The need to have exclusive use of public property The need to have exclusive use of public rights of way The impact of the parking needs on the area The impact of over flow of people, onto public property The serving and consumption of alcohol on public property The crowd control and security issues for the private party The need for portable toilets for large numbers of people The occupant load of the building holding the party Identifying the people responsible for the party I ask the City Council of Hermosa Beach to reconsider the need for the permit approval process for large private parties, gatherings or special events. I also ask the City Council to reconsider the need for the issuance of amplified sound permits for private parties. The City Council should also reconsider the current and future non-compliance of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code as it relates to large private parties, gatherings or special events. With respect, Alan Benson 4/3/02 Page 1 of 9 • • From: Alan Benson <albenson@adelphia.net> To: sburrell@hermosabch.org <sburrell@hermosabch.org> Date: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 9:16 PM Subject: Info regarding letter on Agenda of City Council Meeting for April 9, 2002. Re: Noise Ordinace Chapter 8.24 Al Benson To: Steve Burrell April 3, 2002 From: Alan Benson Hermosa Beach, CA Steve, I sent this e-mail to all City Council Members and the Chief of Police. City Council Member, I have included the following letter to Steve Burrell dated March 20, 2002. He has put this letter on the Agenda for the City Council Meeting on April 9, 2002 under Written Communications. I am concerned about the limited municipal code restrictions that The City of Hermosa Beach requires for large parties or events held at private residences in Hermosa Beach. I understand the new Noise Ordinance Chapter 8.24 has been used to some effect since it was last amended and adopted. I sure it works well in the vast majority of cases. My concerns are when Chapter 8.24 has been used to control a, "party house", and there is little or no effect on the problem. I believe you are aware of the problem that Carol Prenter has with a "party house" next to her. Carol lives at 2020 The Strand and the "party house" owner is not concerned with Carol's complaints or the New Hermosa Beach Noise Ordinance Chapter 8.24. This is an example of noise ordinance enforcement where the violations of the ordinance are not brought to a final conclusion. Carol has taken all possible means to end the situation including court action. The only result is that the owner of the "party house" knows that his current approach has worked and, should continue to work. There is another "party house" at 21st Street and The Strand. Same situation, but this "party house" creates a disturbance with parties that include DJ's with amplified sound systems on public property, consumption of alcohol on The Strand and other Chapter 8.24 violations at various times so far this year. These are two specific instances where the people violating the law do not care about the consequences of violations of law in Hermosa Beach. I feel the Police Department of Hermosa Beach should be given additional tools to deal with these types of problems. I think having more proactive control regarding these problems would be helpful. The use of permits for large private parties in Hermosa Beach could provide such control. Page 2 of 9 • . I have included a copy of a letter from Michael Lavin dated June 20, 2000. At the time Michael was a captain in the Hermosa Beach Police Department. The letter was written_in response to a letter my wife and I wrote to Kathy Dunbabin on June 5, 2000 regarding problems with motor vehicle noise and large private parties that violate the law in Hermosa Beach. I agree with the opinion of our current Chief of Police in regards to the practice of the permits for private parties. The last paragraph of the June 20, 2000 Michael Lavin letter reads as follows: I might also mention the amplified sound permit ordinance. There was a time when we issued an amplified sound permit for use on private property. Generally, if someone was going to have a live band or DJ at their home, we could issue a permit for such activity. Former council member Benz challenged this ordinance regarding its legality. Our City Prosecutor, Mr. Meersand, reviewed the ordinance and felt that it had been poorly written and advised against us using the ordinance thereafter. Since that time we have stopped issuing private property amplified sound permits. (We still issue such permits for public property use) I wish that we could have some legal review of this ordinance to dress it up to try and re -institute the practice of issuing these permits. I felt they were effective. If they had a permit and they were violating the terms of the permit, we told them to stop. We also knew who was in charge at each location and we could in essence hold the permit over their heads to make them comply. It certainly was a helpful to have a permit to work with. Respectfully submitted, Captain Michael Lavin Hermosa Beach Police Department Some of the problems with the Noise Ordinance Chapter 8.24 are these: It requires that a problem develop before action is taken It requires that the neighbors generate a 911 disturbance call It usually means the police have to deal with a bunch of angry drunks It is a noise ordinance that limits police options for large party problems It does not identify the people responsible for the large party It does nothing to proactively control large numbers of people at the party It does not take care of safety and security issues at the party It does not require portable toilets for the large crowds at the party It does not handle the parking needs for the party I am interested in getting to end results that will reduce all crime in Hermosa Beach. The path to those end results should include more significant, more costly and more unacceptable consequences for people who commit any crimes in the City of Hermosa Beach. With highest regards, Alan Benson "11 thL • • To: Steve Burrell City Manager City of Hermosa Beach, CA From: Alan Benson Hermosa Beach, CA March 20, 2002 Page 3 of 9 Re: Would you please put this letter on the Agenda under Written Communications for the next possible City Council Meeting. City Council of Hermosa Beach, I would like to find out the opinion of the City Council of Hermosa Beach regarding the effectiveness of Chapter 8.24 Noise Control of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. Since the most recent amendments to Chapter 8.24 were passed, does the City Council feel Chapter 8.24 has been effective as intended? Does the City Manager and Chief of Police find Chapter 8.24 to be a good tool to control noise, loud parities and any other violations that Chapter 8.24 has jurisdiction over? What are the total numbers of disturbance calls that relate to Chapter 8.24 since the latest amendments to the Chapter 8.24 thru 2002? What was the disposition of those disturbance calls relating to Chapter 8.24? How many warnings? How many citations? How many arrests? Chapter 8.24.120 Additional Remedies Is it possible for the City of Hermosa Beach to declare a repeat offender a public nuisance and be subject to abatement summarily by a restraining order or injunction issued by a court of competent jurisdiction? Has this been done? In the minutes of The City Council Meeting of the City of Hermosa Beach held on Tuesday, September 28, 2000. Discussion of issues relating to 4th of July activities and related noise issues. Public participation included 23 Hermosa Beach residents with various comments on the 4th of July activities and related noise issues. Of the 23 Hermosa Beach residents, noise complaints are mentioned by 12 of the residents in the public hearing. Hermosa residents in the public hearing also complained about: Parking problems 6 times Large parties 4 times The "Ironman" 4 times Page 4 of 9 • • Needing permits for large parties or the "Ironman" 4 times Loudspeaker noise 4 times Code or Ordinance enforcement 4 times Public urination 2 times Public drunkenness 2 times Graffiti 1 time The City Council responded with two motions regarding the public hearing relating to 4th of July activities and related noise problems. Mayor Reviczky also directed staff to enforce conditional use permits for speaker noise. City Council Action: To direct staff to bring back the draft noise ordinance presented this evening with a full staff report for Council consideration at a future meeting. The motion carried. City Council Action: To direct staff to draft an ordinance or amend the City's current ordinance, as necessary, to require a permit for private parties of over 100 people. The motion carried. Mayor Reviczky directed staff to enforce the conditional use permits with regard to outdoor speakers and open windows and doors, noting that requests for outdoor speakers should go through the permit amendment process for consideration. The staff brought back a new noise ordinance prepared by the City Attorney. The last paragraph of the staff recommendation reads as follows. While it had been suggested that this ordinance deal with the issuance of party permits, staff recommends that the ordinances outlined in this measure will adequately deal with the disturbance calls commonly dealt with by the police department. After lengthy discussions, staff felt that the permit process posed certain logistical problems with not only issuing the permit but the enforcement thereof. Many citizens have the impression that a permit grants a license to break the law or provide exceptions to their activity. The permit also provides the appearance that once issued, the City has sanctioned the event. Staff recommends that in its incremental approach to enforcement that the provisions of this new ordinance be allowed to move forward. If necessary, the permit issue can be revisited if this ordinance does not achieve the desired objectives of reducing noises and disturbances. I would be interested in knowing how other cities in our area use the permit approval process for large private parties, gatherings or special events. The City of Hermosa Beach does require permits for use of public rights-of-way for "block parties". Also commercial groups and non -profits groups are required to file for permits to use public outdoor areas. Groups of 25 or more people that conduct a picnic, celebration, parade, service, meeting or similar activity in any public park or public building must obtain a permit the City of Hermosa Beach. One of the problems with Chapter 8.24 the new noise ordinance is that it is mainly a noise ordinance. It has very little capability to deal with large private parties especially if there are not any noise problems with the party. Chapter 8.24 does not provide any proactive control of large parties or gatherings with the issuance of party permits. '11t/ Page 5 of 9 • • Chapter 8.24 does not deal with other major impacts to Hermosa Beach by Targe private parties, gatherings or special events such as: The need to have exclusive use of public property The need to have exclusive use of public rights of way The impact of the parking needs on the area The impact of over flow of people, onto public property The serving and consumption of alcohol on public property The crowd control and security issues for the private party The need for portable toilets for large numbers of people The occupant load of the building holding the party Identifying the people responsible for the party I ask the City Council of Hermosa Beach to reconsider the need for the permit approval process for Targe private parties, gatherings or special events. I also ask the City Council to reconsider the need for the issuance of amplified sound permits for private parties. The City Council should also reconsider the current and future non-compliance of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code as it relates to large private parties, gatherings or special events. With respect, Alan Benson To: Kathy Dunbabin June 5, 2000 Hermosa Beach City Council Member From: Alan Benson and Mary Ann Benson Hermosa Beach, CA Kathy, My wife and I have owned a home in Hermosa Beach since 1987 and we have lived in the area since 1983. I know I don't have to tell you the changes that have taken place in Hermosa Beach since that time. The vast majority of the changes have been good, but of course, our letter deals with the negative aspects of those changes in Hermosa Beach. Our main concerns are in two areas: 1. Excessive noise from motor vehicles that violate the California Vehicle Code. 2. House parties or events held at private residences that violate City of Hermosa Beach laws or State of California laws. Our attempt at a solution involves these suggestions: 1. Identify the current city and state laws that are being violated. `F/ Y! V G Page 6 of 9 • • 2. Identify what is assumed to be a private use of land, but is really a public use. 3. Evaluate the current city and state laws that are not being enforced. 4. Decide on the short-term actions to be taken by the city council or city manager to address these issues. 5. Line up support of other city council members to implement a plan. Problem 1. Excessive noise from vehicles from motor vehicles: A. I have included; CHP Bulletin no. 98-100: "Excessive Noise Enforcement for Passenger Vehicles, Light Trucks and Motorcycles. B. The bottom line of, CHP Bulletin no. 98-100, is that a police officer can cite vehicles that are not equipped with a muffler and, or, cite those vehicles that clearly emit an offensive, harsh, excessive noise. C. It is up to the citing officer's sound professional judgment to determine what is a violation of excessive noise in the California Vehicle Code. Sound testing equipment is not required. D. Thousands of these motor vehicle excessive noise citations are probably written in the State of California every year. E. What prevents us from using the statutes in Hermosa Beach? Here are specific examples of excessive noise that happen dozens of times a day, and hundreds of times a week in Hermosa Beach. These examples involve motorcycles that use the streets of Hermosa Beach and have modified the exhaust systems, so there is no muffler on the motorcycle. Or that have modified the exhaust systems with a muffler that emits an offensive, harsh or excessive noise. 1. The motorcycles in question, usually Harley Davidson's, can be cited for excessive noise by Hermosa Beach police officers by using this criteria: A. They can be heard from 3 to 4 blocks away, or 1 mile at night. Section 27201- 27206 VC- establishes the noise limits required to cite for excessive noise violations. B. Once the police officer has pulled over the individual or group and the engines have been shut off. The officer will notice the sound of numerous car alarms that have been set off by the shock waves emitted from the exhaust noise of the motorcycles. There must be some excessive noise law against creating a public disturbance. C. Some of the Harley Davidson's make no attempt at even having a loud muffler. They have totally straight pipes from the exhaust head of the engine to the end of the tail pipe. No muffler installed at all. Section 27150 VC- requires that every motor vehicle subject to registration be equipped with an adequate muffler. D. Many of these motorcycles have installed something that looks like a small muffler, but it is not. This device is an empty steel tube that has a slightly larger diameter than the tail pipe and is installed in place of the muffler. It is designed so the exhaust noise is louder than the original muffler. This design works, it is loud and against the law. Section 27151 VC- prohibits the modification of the exhaust system to amplify or increase noise emitted by the vehicle. E. It is not necessary for the police officer to measure the sound level with any sound equipment to cite the violators. If a sound test were taken, the most likely result of the test would be that the sound level easily surpasses 100 decibles. This sound level clearly violates any sane interpretation of existing laws for the workplace or public areas. Not only should this be considered a safety threat to children and adults, it is one. F. Any workplace that repeatedly allows its workers to be exposed to a sound level of 100 decibels without protection would be closed down. Therefore, in the interest 'I/ •t/ VL Page 7 of 9 • • of safety, the City of Hermosa Beach should issue all police officers with CAL - OSHA approved hearing protection. Does the general acceptance of this situation by the City of Hermosa Beach constitute an implied consent that these actions can and should continue? An added benefit of increased enforcement of these statutes may reduce the threat to public safety of drag racing and the running of stop signs in•Hermosa Beach. The people of Hermosa Beach have put up with this endless nuisance and safety hazard for years. The noise level alone is greater and much more frequent than any passenger jet flying overhead will ever be. The current situation is totally needless. We don't have to put up with it. When will we decide to enforce the current laws that are on the books? Problem 2. Private parties or special events held at private residences that violate City of Hermosa Beach laws, or State of California laws. These private house parties or events usually occur at private residences in Hermosa Beach on holidays, such as the Fourth of July or New Years Eve. These parties are characterized by these problems: A. The number of people at the party exceeds the safe capacity of the private residence. Is the house party in possible violation of the fire codes? B. People at the party; consume alcohol, while on public areas during the party. These areas include public streets, sidewalks and The Strand. C. Organizers of the party charge for admission to the party. Could this party be considered a public business or special event subject to commercial codes? D. Organizers of the party charge for alcoholic beverages at the party. Could this be in violation of the California Liquor Control laws? E. Organizers hire bands, disc jockeys, professional sound equipment, go-go girls or anything else to improve the marketability of the party. Are the organizers of the party creating a special event that requires city council approval? F. These house parties frequently have end results that include: a. Public consumption of alcohol on Hermosa Beach city streets, sidewalks, beach and The Strand. b. Public drunkenness, assaults, fighting, and vandalism. c. Excessive noise and disturbing the peace of the neighborhood. d. Use of fireworks on private property and on Hermosa Beach city streets, sidewalks, beach and The Strand. e. Broken bottles and trash that extend well beyond the property. What are the implications of these constant violations of the law? Does widespread acceptance of these violations, create an implied consent by the City of Hermosa Beach? As a result of these house parties, is there increased drug, gang or other criminal activity in Hermosa Beach? Are we living in a more dangerous and unsafe city? Would the City of Hermosa Beach be liable for damages, if injuries occurred on Hermosa Beach public property resulting from attending a private party? Consider the flagrant use of fireworks on The Strand and beach during the Fourth of July. Page 8 of 9 • • Thanks for taking the time to consider these thoughts regarding the improvement of our lives and our City of Hermosa Beach. With highest regards, Alan and Mary Ann Benson To: Chief Val Strasser Tuesday, June 20, 2000 From: Captain Michael Lavin Subject: Excessive Noise from Vehicles and Loud Party Complaints I have received the letter of Alan and Mary Ann Benson. They had expressed some concerns about excessive noise from motor vehicles and loud and disturbing parties. I conferred with Officer Wolcott and Sgt. Bohlin of our traffic bureau to get some idea as to what our enforcement efforts have been in the area of noisy cars and motorcycles. It has been a low priority enforcement effort. Sgt. Bohlin explained that in actuality, most motorcycles and well as passenger cars are in compliance. Their vehicles have factory installed mufflers that have been modified. (Though if you look at Section 27151 of the attached material provided by the Bensons, a muffler can be legally modified as long as it does not increase or amplify the noise emitted by the vehicle.) However, in the course of day to day traffic enforcement, if a traffic violator happens to have a loud, modified, or defective muffler, an additional violation can and usually is added to the citation. However, a loud muffler is a so called "fix it" ticket and once the problem has been corrected and signed off the ticket can go away and there is no fine. Sgt. Bohlin explained that it is not uncommon for a Harley Davidson owner to modify their exhaust system to make it loud. When they are caught by the police, they can easily convert the system back to it's original state for the purposes of getting the "fix it " signed off. Once the ticket has been signed off, the owner then re -modifies the exhaust system back to its desired state until caught again. Sgt. Bohlin also explained that even though an exhaust system has not been modified (or in other words, is still in factory condition) the muffler can still be loud. Another problem is that there are many motorcycle riders that ride together on weekend road trips for example. All of the motorcycles are probably legal but as a group they are noisy. However, there are not any violations. That is to say that there aren't noise violations and yes we could pay more attention to it. However, I would also suggest that when people call about such problems, giving up specific, times, locations and descriptions of vehicles can be helpful in directing patrol and traffic enforcement efforts. In regards to parties and disturbances, I know that we regularly deal with and enforce the laws dealing with such violations. The Bensons seem to indicate that the City does nothing. That is of course untrue. Loud parties and disturbances are probably one of our most common calls for service. Currently there are a number of things that we can do and that an individual homeowner can do in dealing with such problems. We do encourage people to call the police regarding disturbances and loud parties. The police are unable to act as victims of such violations. This is unfortunate but that is the way it is. If a person wants to file a complaint, we can facilitate such a complaint but the citizen has to initiate if and be Y/'+/ VG Page 9 of 9 • • willing to go to court (if it were to go that far). Many are unwilling to do this. However, when citizens call about loud parties, we do send officers and they will contact those responsible. If warranted, the officers will also leave what is called a "first response" notice. If the officers are called out again to the same location, a second response or "disturbance notice" is issued. When this occurs, the watch commander tallies up the number of minutes that the officers were involved in the call and a billing is prepared for the responsible party. Generally, a first response notice is all that is needed. Additionally, when officers show up on the scene of a loud party, they can enforce any violations of the law that they observe such as drinking in public, urinating in public, drunk driving, minors in possession, illegal parking, etc. It is difficult and legally shaky to walk into home and tell everyone to leave. I know that we do it on occasion and it probably makes good sense to do so but it is shaky at times. Of course a citizen and/or homeowner have other civil remedies against a loud and continually obnoxious neighbor. The can obtain a restraining order, they can take the neighbor to small claims court and they can also file a lawsuit. While these are valid courses of action that one can take they • are time consuming and they have other consequences as well such as retaliation by the neighbor, etc. I would only recommend such actions in hard core cases and when other alternatives have been exhausted. We do encourage neighbors to talk with one another to try and iron out differences. There is also the Dispute Resolutions Services available to try and mediate problems such as these. When there appears to be a developing party house in town, we utilize our Community Lead Sergeant and other divisions of the department to develop strategies to deal with problem houses. Generally we are successful. I might also mention the amplified sound permit ordinance. There was a time when we issued an amplified sound permit for use on private property. Generally, if someone was going to have a live band or DJ at their home, we could issue a permit for such activity.. Former council member Benz challenged this ordinance regarding its legality. Our City Prosecutor, Mr. Meersand, reviewed the ordinance and felt that it had been poorly written and advised against us using the ordinance thereafter. Since that time we have stopped issuing private property amplified sound permits. (We still issue such permits for public property use) I wish that we could have some legal review of this ordinance to dress it up to try and re -institute the practice of issuing these permits. I felt they were effective. If they had a permit and they were violating the terms of the permit, we told them to stop. We also knew who was in charge at each location and we could in essence hold the permit over their heads to make them comply. It certainly was a helpful to have a permit to work with. Respectfully submitted, Captain Michael Lavin Hermosa Beach Police Department 't/4/V4 • MEMORANDUM • TO: Mayor and Members of City Council FROM: City Clerk DATE: April 4, 2002 SUBJECT: Minutes of the March 2002 City Council meetings .- is 1/.9/0? -- The minutes of the City Council's Adjourned Regular meeting of March 4, 2002 (Goals Session) and the Regular meetings of March 12 and March 26, 2002 will not be available for approval at the April 9, 2002 meeting due to the increased workload and deadlines during the past month (FPPC annual filings and department budget preparation). These minutes will all be presented for approval at the next regular meeting of April 23, 2002. Thank you. 4114:)— Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk 2a • VOUCHRE2 03/20/02 07:32 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS • k/LY PAGE 1 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 28472 03/20/02 000243 HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL A PAYROLL/3-1 TO 3-15-02 001-1103 256,003.69 PAYROLL/3-1 TO 3-15-02 105-1103 6,344.68 PAYROLL/3-1 TO 3-15-02 109-1103 1,074.61 PAYROLL/3-1 TO 3-15-02 110-1103 30,994.28 PAYROLL/3-1 TO 3-15-02 117-1103 631.62 PAYROLL/3-1 TO 3-15-02 140-1103 244.71 PAYROLL/3-1 TO 3-15-02 145-1103 1,226.34 PAYROLL/3-1 TO 3-15-02 150-1103 54.63 PAYROLL/3-1 TO 3-15-02 152-1103 17.52 PAYROLL/3-1 TO 3-15-02 160-1103 7,967.87 PAYROLL/3-1 TO 3-15-02 301-1103 2,191.70 PAYROLL/3-1 TO 3-15-02 705-1103 2,596.25 PAYROLL/3-1 TO 3-15-02 715-1103 5,234.14 314,582.04 TOTAL CHECKS 314,582.04 2b • VOUCHRE2 03/20/02 07:32 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS FUND TITLE AMOUNT 001 GENERAL FUND 256,003.69 105 LIGHTG/LANDSCAPG DIST FUND 6,344.68 109 DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMENT FUND 1,074.61 110 PARKING FUND 30,994.28 117 AB939 FUND 631.62 140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT 244.71 145 PROPOSITION 'A FUND 1,226.34 150 GRANTS FUND 54.63 152 AIR QUALITY MGMT DIST FUND 17.52 160 SEWER FUND 7,967.87 301 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 2,191.70 705 INSURANCE FUND 2,596.25 715 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND 5,234.14 TOTAL 314,582.04 PAGE 2 VOUCHRE2 03/21/02 17:11 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME 28473 03/21/02 011402 ADIRONDAK DIRECT 28474 03/21/02 000935 ADVANCED ELECTRONICS 28475 03/21/02 006290 AIR SOURCE INDUSTRIES 28476 03/21/02 001895 HAROLD ANSCHEL 28477 03/21/02 002487 ARCH WIRELESS 28478 03/21/02 009500 AT&T 28479 03/21/02 011432 ATD-AMERICAN COMPANY 28480 03/21/02 000407 AVIATION LOCK & KEY 28481 03/21/02 011460 ALONZO BARRERA 28482 03/21/02 010276 BATTERY SYSTEMS 28483 03/21/02 006329 BERRYMAN & HENIGAR CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION 10 CHAIRS PURCHASED EQUIP MAINT/MARCH 02 MAINT PORTABLE EQUIP/MAR 02 EQUIP MAINT/MAR 02 OXYGEN TANKS /MARCH 02 WORK GUARANTEE REFUND/#10729 WORK GAURANTEE REFUND/#10728 PAGER SERVICES/JAN 2002 PAGER, SERVICES/JAN 2002 PAGER SERVICES/JAN 2002 PAGER SERVICES/JAN 2002 PAGER SERVICES/JAN 2002 LONG DISTANCE CHRG'S/MARCH 02 MARKERBOARD CABINET BALANCE DUE INVOICE 24035 CITATION REFUND BATTERY/EMERGENCY GENERATOR DESIGN & ENG/SEWER REHAB PROJS DESIGN & ENG/SEWER REHAB PROJS 28484 03/21/02 006409 BLUE DIAMOND MATERIALS EMULSION/ASPHALT PURCHASE/2/02 28485 03/21/02 006306 BNI CAL/OSHA SAFETY AMENDMENT 28486 03/21/02 000034 BUSINESS SYSTEMS CORPOR ALARM NOTICES PRINTED 28487 03/21/02 000016 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVIC WATER BILLING/1/16/02-2/14/02 WATER BILLING/1/16/02-2/14/02 WATER BILLING/1/16/02-2/14/02 WATER BILLING/1/16/02-2/14/02 WATER BILLING/12/15-1/16/02 WATER BILLING/12/15-1/16/02 WATER BILLING/12/15-1/16/02 WATER BILLING/12/15-1/16/02 28488 03/21/02 010838 CANON BUSINESS SOLUTION TONER CARTRIDGE/FAX MACHINE 28489 03/21/02 006916 JOHN L. COLOGNE 2001 ASSESSMENT. REBATE 28490 03/21/02 009110 CONCEPT MARINE CITY HALL PROJECT CONTRACT CITY HALL REMODEL ACCOUNT NUMBER 153-2106-5401 001-2101-4201 001-2101-4201 001-2201-4201 001-2201-4309 001-2110 001-2110 001-2101-4201 001-2201-4201 001-4601-4201 001-4202-4201 715-1206-4201 001-2101-4304 153-2106-5402 001-4204-4309 110-3302 001-4204-4309 160-8411-4201 160-8412-4201 001-3104-4309 001-4201-4317 001-2101-4305 105-2601-4303 001-6101-4303 001-4204-4303 109-3304-4303 105-2601-4303 001-6101-4303 001-4204-4303 109-3304-4303 001-1208-4201 105-3105 140-8622-4201 001-8622-4201 ITEM AMOUNT 1,395.91 179.81 1,078.27 270.01 134.90 1,600.00 1,600.00 63.57 14.07 14.60 35.16 2.93 248.70 583.95 100.00 100.00 86.55 1,636.50 1,360.00 188.83 45.83 123.81 803.86 3,335.86 602.30 97.10 679.40 1,877.74 504.77 59.75 194.85 24.61 777.00 16,030.40 PAGE 1 CHECK AMOUNT 1,395.91 1,528.09 134.90 3,200.00 130.33 248.70 583.95 100.00 100.00 86.55 2,996.50 188.83 45.83 123.81 7,960.78 194.85 24.61 VOUCHRE2 03/21/02 17:11 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER NAME CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION CITY HALL REMODEL 28491 03/21/02 009614 CONTINENTAL MAPPING SER 300' NOTICING 28492 03/21/02 007809 CORPORATE EXPRESS OFFICE SUPPLIES/FEB 2002 28493 03/21/02 011459 JEFF & SUZANA CORRITORI PARKING PERMIT REFUND 28494 03/21/02 008499 CRAFT COMMUNICATIONS 28495 03/21/02 008855 D & D DISPOSAL, INC. 28496 03/21/02 006100 DATA VAULT REPAIR COMPUTER LINE/PD DEAD ANIMAL DISPOSAL/FEB 02 OFF SITE STORAGE/APRIL 2002 28497 03/21/02 010772 DELL COMPUTER CORPORATI OPTIPLEX GX COMPUTER SYSTEM 28498 03/21/02 009533 DENNICK CONSTRUCTION WORK GUARANTEE DEPOSIT REFUND 28499 03/21/02 000154 DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL CA SHELTER SERVICES/FEB 2002 28500 03/21/02 008242 LYNDA DESLANDES 28501 03/21/02 000604 DIVE N' SURF 28502 03/21/02 006971 THOMAS DUNCLIFFE 28503 03/21/02 008691 EARTHLINK NETWORK 28504 03/21/02 011034 EKLUND'S BLAST OFF INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT/RG-01 HYDRO STATIC TEST 2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE INTERNET ACESS/FEB 24 -MAR 24 STEAM CLEANING/FEB 2002 28505 03/21/02 008661 EMERG SPEC PHYS MEDICAL PRISONER MEDICAL/STEIN PRISONER MEDICAL/LONG 28506 03/21/02 001294 EXECUTIVE -SUITE SERVICE JANITORIAL JANITORIAL JANITORIAL JANITORIAL JANITORIAL JANITORIAL JANITORIAL JANITORIAL JANITORIAL SERVICES/FEB 02 SERVICES/FEB 02 SERVICES/FEB 02 SERVICES/FEB 2002 SERVICES/FEB 2002 SERVICES/FEB 02 SERVICES/FEB 2002 SERVICES/FEB 02 SERVICES/FEB 02 28507 03/21/02 001962 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. EXPRESS MAIL/MAR 02 EXPRESS MAIL/MAR 02 28508 03/21/02 010709 FIRE MASTER FIRE ALARM SECURITY CHECK 28509 03/21/02 010306 MICK GAGLIA MEALS/POST CLASS 3/25-29/02 28510 03/21/02 008600 GLOBAL RENTAL CO., INC EQUIPMENT RENTAL/2/4-3/3/02 ACCOUNT NUMBER 140-8622-4201 001-4101-4201 001-2101-4305 110-3843 001-2101-4309 110-3302-4201 715-1206-4201 153-2106-5402 001-2110 110-3302-4251 001-4601-4221 001-2201-4309 105-3105 715-1206-4201 109-3301-4201 001-2101-4201 001-2101-4201 001-4204-4201 001-4204-4201 001-4204-4201 001-4204-4201 001-4204-4201 001-4204-4201 001-4204-4201 001-4204-4201 001-4204-4201 001-1201-4305 001-4202-4201 001-4204-4321 001-2101-4312 105-2601-4201 PAGE 2 ITEM CHECK AMOUNT AMOUNT 3,530.00 20,337.40 998.00 998.00 563.45 563.45 62.00 62.00 137.50 137.50 264.00 264.00 180.30 180.30 2,517.90 2,517.90 1,600.00 1,600.00 174.36 174.36 875.00 875.00 22.00 22.00 24.61 24.61 129.30 129.30 2,400.00 2,400.00 265.00 180.00 750.00 1,200.00 950.00 290.00 365.00 3,750.00 325.00 195.00 55.00 54.60 11.25 210.00 40.00 2,381.50 445.00 7,880.00 65.85 210.00 40.00 2,381.50 VOUCHRE2 03/21/02 17:11 VOUCHER/ .CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER NAME CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 28511 03/21/02 006518 HAYER CONSULTANTS, INC. TEMP BUILD INSPECT/MAR 1-15/02 001-4201-4201 28512 03/21/02 004108 HAZELRIGG RISK MGMT SER WORKER'S COMP REIMBURSE/3/15 28513 03/21/02 011237 IDYLL MOUNTAIN INTERNET WEB PAGE SERVICE/FEB 2002 28514 03/21/02 010513 JACK JANKEN 28515 03/21/02 011381 JAMES KARLOCK 28516 03/21/02 011458 JESSICA KERNAN 28517 03/21/02 008692 KIM KOMICK CONST PARKING PERMIT REFUND REIMBURSE TRAINING EXPENSE 705-1217-4324 715-1206-4201 110-3843 110-3302-4317 CITATION REFUND/ADMIN HEARING 110-3302 WORK GUARANTEE DEPOSIT REFUND 001-2110 28518 03/21/02 007859 L.A. CO METRO TRANS AUT BUS PASS SALES/MARCH 2002 28519 03/21/02 000151 L.A. CO SHERIFF'S DEPAR ARRESTEE PROCESSING FEE/1/02 28520 03/21/02 011465 LARSON & MATTHER D. 28521 03/21/02 004534 LASER IMAGING 28522 03/21/02 007036 LOIS LAWLESS CITATION REFUND TONER CARTRIDGE PURCHASE 2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE 28523 03/21/02 005129 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMOR LEGAL FEES/FEB 02 LEGAL FEES/FEB 02 28524 03/21/02 008445 LITTLE CO OF MARY HOSPI PATIENT SERVICES/CROUCIER PATIENT SERVICES/LONG LEGAL SERV/UUT AUDIT/3RD QTR MEALS/POST CLASS 3/25-29/02 DONATION/GRAD NI TE 28525 03/21/02 010681 DONALD H. MAYNOR 28526 03/21/02 007816 LANCE MCCOLGAN 28527 03/21/02 008665 MCHS GRAD NIGHT 28528 03/21/02 009825 MEMRAD MEDICAL GROUP,IN PRISONER MEDICAL/STEIN 28529 03/21/02 011455 LITTLER MENDELSON 28530 03/21/02 011466 REGAN MILLER 28531 03/21/02 008457 MINOLTA BUSINESS SYSTEM 28532 03/21/02 008335 MISAC LEGAL FEES/CIVIL SERV HEARING CITATION REFUND COPIER USAGE/FEB 02 COPIER USAGE/FEB 02 COPIER USAGE/FEB 02 COPIER USAGE/FEB 02 COPIER USAGE/FEB 02 MEMBERSHIP DUES/J. DUCKETT 28533 03/21/02 002490 NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTIO ELECTRICAL INSPECTION MANUAL 5 145-3403-4251 001-2101-4251 110-3302 001-2101-4305 105-3105 001-1203-4201 001-1203-4201 001-2101-4201 001-2101-4201 001-1202-4201 001-2101-4312 001-1101-4319 001-2101-4201 001-1203-4201 110-3302 001-1208-4201 001-4601-4201 001-1208-4201 001-2201-4201 110-3302-4201 715-1206-4315 001-4201-4317 PAGE 3 ITEM CHECK AMOUNT AMOUNT 2,640.00 2,640.00 3,429.59 3,429.59 1,102.50 1,102.50 31.00 31.00 113.15 113.15 30.00 30.00 1,600.00 1,600.00 112.00 112.00 437.52 437.52 30.00 30.00 203.63 203.63 24.61 24.61 4,464.50 3,519.79 7,984.29 35.00 232.19 267.19 1,250.00 1,250.00 40.00 40.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 191.00 191.00 962.50 962.50 25.00 25.00 179.02 61.03 93.58 61.03 12.20 406.86 120.00 120.00 79.66 79.66 VOUCHRE2 03/21/02 17:11 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER NAME CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION 28534 03/21/02 009854 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS CELL PHONES/9/01-3/02 CELL PHONE SERVICE/2/2-3/01/02 CELL PHONE SERVICE/2/2-3/01/02 28535 03/21/02 004142 OFFICE DEPOT 28536 03/21/02 011461 HEATHER OGREN 28537 03/21/02 009894 OLGUIN DEVELOPMENT 28538 03/21/02 000093 OLYMPIC AUTO CENTER 28539 03/21/02 000321 PACIFIC BELL LEATHER CHAIR INKJET CARTRIDGES CITATION REFUND/ADMIN HEARING WORK GUARANTEE DEPOSIT REFUND AUTO BODY WORK/FEB 2002 COMPUTER HOOK-UPS/MARCH 02 COMPUTER HOOK-UP/MARCH 02 COMPUTER HOOK-UPS 28540 03/21/02 000491 PACIFIC SCREEN PRINT SILK SCREEN RAIN JACKETS 28541 03/21/02 011456 ROBERT R. PARK 2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE 28542 03/21/02 007158 PEEK TRAFFIC SIGNAL RENTAL SIGNAL CABINET/FEB 02 SIGNAL MAINT/FEB 02 28543 03/21/02 009694 PICKENS FUEL CORP NATURAL GAS PURCHASE/FEB 02 28544 03/21/02 008364 PVP COMMUNICATIONS,INC.. HELMET/INSTALL COMMUNICATIONS 28545 03/21/02 009852 QUANTUM CONSULTING INSPECTIONS/LOMA/JAN 2002 INSPECTIONS JAN 02/LOMA INSPECTIONS JAN 02/LOMA 28546 03/21/02 005379 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERS LEGAL BILLING/NOV 01 28547 03/21/02 011464 AMY RIDDLE 28548 03/21/02 008737 RUHS GRAD NIGHT 28549 03/21/02 003353 S.B.C.U. VISA 28550 03/21/02 008218 DEBORAH SALAS 28551 03/21/02 009656 SHRED IT CALIFORNIA 28552 03/21/02 011457 MARSHALL SMITH CITATION REFUND/ADMIN HEARING DONATION FOR GRAD NIGHT EVENT AIRFARE/TINGLEY 03/07/02 MIN TRANSCRIPTIONS/FEB 2002 DESTRUCTION SERVICES/MAR 02 WORK GUARANTEE DEPOSIT REFUND 28553 03/21/02 000159 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDI ELECTRIC BILLING/FEB 02 28554 03/21/02 000146 SPARKLETTS DISPENSER RENTAL/FEB 02 DRINKING WATER & DISPENSER ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-4601-4304 001-4601-4304 001-4202-4304 153-2106-5401 001-2101-4305 110-3302 001-2110 715-2201-4311 001-2101-4304 001-2101-4304 001-2101-4304 001-4202-4187 105-3105 001-3104-4201 001-3104-4201 715-4204-4310 715-2101-4311 308-8183-4201 308-8183-4201 308-8183-4201 001-1131-4201 110-3302 001-1101-4319 001-2201-4317 001-4201-4201 001-2101-4201 001-2110 105-2601-4303 001-2201-4309 001-4601-4305 ITEM AMOUNT 652.92 34.99 599.43 432.98 97.40 30.00 1,600.00 348.07 2.47 2.38 40.47 324.75 24.61 600.00 127.59 15.34 482.07 12.00 3,676.00 3,275.00 504.75 30.00 1,000.00 142.50 400.00 85.00 1,600.00 23.39 1.75 92.95 PAGE 4 CHECK AMOUNT 1,287.34 530.38 30.00 1,600.00 348.07 45.32 324.75 24.61 727.59 15.34 482.07 6,963.00 504.75 30.00 1,000.00 142.50 400.00 85.00 1,600.00 23.39 94.70 VOUCHRE2 03/21/02 17:11 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER NAME CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM •DESCRIPTION 28555 03/21/02 009532 STAPLES CREDIT PLAN OFFICE SUPPLIES 28556 03/21/02 009358 SULLY -MILLER CONTRACTIN HERMOSA AVE IMPROV/ HERM AVE ST IMPROV HERM AVE ST IMPROV HERMOSA AVE IMPROV HERMOSA AVE IMPROVE 28557 03/21/02 000966 THERESIA THOMPSON 28558 03/21/02 010463 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 28559 03/21/02 000927 ROBERT & MARY TOPEK 28560 03/21/02 011463 GARY TOUGHILL 2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE ELEVATOR MAINT/MARCH 02 2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE CITATION REFUND/ADMIN HEARING 28561 03/21/02 009364 TOYS R US MONTVALE REG TOYS & GAMES YOUTH PROGRAMS TOYS & GAMES YOUTH PROGRAMS 28562 03/21/02 008207 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALE UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT/3/02 28563 03/21/02 004768 UPTIME COMPUTER SERVICE PRINTER MAINT/APRIL 02 28564 03/21/02 011035 US LANDSCAPES, INC. LANDSCAPING SERVICES/FEB 02 PALM TREE MAINT/FEB 2002 MEDIANS MAINT/FEB 2002 28565 03/21/02 011462 VALDIMIR UZOFF 28566 03/21/02 000015 VERIZON CALIFORNIA CITATION REFUND/ADMIN HEARING PHONE PHONE PHONE PHONE PHONE PHONE PHONE PHONE PHONE PHONE PHONE PHONE PHONE PHONE PHONE PHONE PHONE PHONE BILLING/FEB 02 BILLING/FEB 02 BILLING/FEB 02 BILLING/FEB 02 BILLING/FEB 02 BILLING/FEB 02 BILLING/FEB 02 BILLING/FEB 02 BILLING/FEB 02 BILLING/FEB 02 BILLING/FEB 02 BILLING/FEB 02 BILLING/FEB 02 BILLING/FEB 02 BILLING/FEB 02 BILLING/FEB 02 BILLING/MAR 02 BILLING/3/4/02-4/4/02 ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-4601-4308 120-8139-4201 146-8139-4201 150-8139-4201 301-8139-4201 301-8139-4201 105-3105 109-3301-4201 105-3105 110-3302 001-4601-4308 001-4601-4308 160-3102-4201 715-1206-4201 001-6101-4201 109-3301-4201 105-2601-4201 110-3302 001-1121-4304 001-1201-4304 001-1141-4304 001-1201-4304 001-1202-4304 001-1203-4304 715-1206-4304 001-1208-4304 001-2101-4304 001-2201-4304 110-1204-4304 110-3302-4304 001-4101-4304 001-4201-4304 001-4202-4304 001-4601-4304 001-2101-4304 001-2201-4304 28567 03/21/02 009056 VERIZON INTERNET SOLUTI E-MAIL/WEB PAGE STORAGE/FEB 02 715-1206-4201 E-MAIL/WEB PAGE STORAGE/MAR 02 715-1206-4201 7 ITEM AMOUNT 127.36 20,768.68 921.65 7,092.67 3,100.99 30,000.00 24.61 145.00 24.61 30.00 40.23 199.09 114.00 641.60 15,565.00 250.00 675.00 30.00 6.05 3.03 24.22 25.73 59.03 37.84 39.35 3.03 458.63 193.75 30.27 81.74 27.25 43.90 305.75 174.07 25.28 32.85 49.95 49.95 PAGE 5 CHECK AMOUNT 127.36 61,883.99 24.61 145.00 24.61 30.00 209.32 114.00 641.60 16,490.00 30.00 1,571.77 99.90 VOUCHRE2 03/21/02 17:11 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS PAGE 6 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 28568 03/21/02 006453 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECT 6 PHOTO CELLS 105-2601-4309 163.74 163.74 28569 03/21/02 011401 WEST COAST NETTING ROPE KIT/VOLLEYBALL LEAGUE 001-4601-5401 261.26 261.26 28570 03/21/02 010500 XO COMMUNICATIONS DSL CONNECTIONS/E-MAIL 715-1206-4201 124.00 124.00 TOTAL CHECKS 180,632.28 8 • VOUCHRE2 03/21/02 17:11 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS FUND TITLE AMOUNT 001 GENERAL FUND 105 LIGHTG/LANDSCAPG DIST FUND 109 DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMENT FUND 110 PARKING FUND 120 COUNTY GAS TAX FUND 140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT 145 PROPOSITION 'A FUND 146 PROPOSITION 'C FUND 150 GRANTS FUND 153 SUPP LAW ENF SERV (SLESF) 160 SEWER FUND 301 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 308 LOMA UTIL UNDRGRND IMPROV FUND 705 INSURANCE FUND 715 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND TOTAL 83,709.98 4,874.55 2,951.85 1,073.72 20,768.68 4,307.00 112.00 921.65 7,092.67 4,930.74 3,110.50 33,100.99 6,963.00 3,429.59 3,285.36 180,632.28 • PAGE 7 VOUCHRE2 03/28/02 16:37 ---> VOID CHECKS CHECK NUMBERS COMMENTS 028629 • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ID • PAGE 1 VOUCHRE2 03/28/02 16:37 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER NAME 28571 03/28/02 011427 AGIO SOLUTIONS/MICRO AG 28572 03/28/02 004792 PHILLIP ANTHONY 28573 03/28/02 000152 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICE 28574 03/28/02 000407 AVIATION LOCK & KEY 28575 03/28/02 009836 MARGUERITE L. BAIERSKI CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION MOBILE DATA EQUIP 2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE MATS/SHOP TOWELS MATS/SHOP TOWELS SHOP TOWELS MATS/SHOP TOWELS MATS/SHOP TOWELS MATS MATS MATS SHOP TOWELS MATS/SHOP TOWELS MATS/SHOP TOWELS MATS MATS MATS KEYS MADE/4/01 KEY MADE/MARCH 02 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT/TG-04 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT/GY-01 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT/GY-02 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT/GY-03 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT/TG-01 28576 03/28/02 007520 BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS TRNG TUITION FOR OFFICER B. SMYTH 28577 03/28/02 006409 BLUE DIAMOND MATERIALS ASPHALT & EMULSION PURCHASE 28578 03/28/02 007020 MARCELLA BRAYLEY 28579 03/28/02 003676 JEAN BRIAN 28580 03/28/02 001037 CALBO 28581 03/28/02 005935 CALIFORNIA STREET MAINT 28582 03/28/02 006914 SHIRLEY CASSELL 28583 03/28/02 011450 CLAY BELANGER PLASTERIN 28584 03/28/02 010797 CLEAN COMEDIANS 2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE 2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE MEMBERSHIP/02-03 DOWNTOWN AREA CLEANING/FEB.02 PIER CLEANING / FEB. 2002 UPPER PIER CLEANING/FEB.02 PIER HEAD CLEANING/FEB.02 CITY-WIDE ST SWEEPING/FEB. 02 2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE SANDBLAST & RESTUCCO/CLARK BLD 2ND. HALF OF DEPOSIT -3/30/02 28585 03/28/02 008070 CONCERNED WOMEN IN BUSI MEDICARE/HCFA 1500 FORMS 11 ACCOUNT NUMBER 154-2107-5402 105-3105 001-3104-4309 001-3104-4309 715-4206-4309 001-3104-4309 001-2201-4309 001-2101-4309 001-4204-4309 001-4204-4309 715-4206-4309 001-3104-4309 001-2201-4309 001-2101-4309 001-4204-4309 001-4204-4309 001-4204-4309 001-4204-4309 001-4601-4221 001-4601-4221 001-4601-4221 001-4601-4221 001-4601-4221 001-2101-4312 001-3104-4309 105-3105 105-3105 001-4201-4315 109-3301-4201 001-6101-4201 109-3301-4201 001-6101-4201 001-3104-4201 105-3105 001-4204-4201 001-4601-4308 001-1202-4305 ITEM AMOUNT 11,601.00 24.61 56.58 58.98 31.57 56.58 44.39 122.94 15.83 78.77 31.57 56.58 44.39 59.00 15.83 78.77 11.98 2.71 205.80 157.50 315.00 63.00 235.20 472.00 163.48 24.61 24.61 215.00 7,178.33 1,966.67 196.67 491.67 14,166.67 24.61 950.00 250.00 37.50 PAGE 2 CHECK AMOUNT 11,601.00 24.61 751.78 14.69 976.50 472.00 163.48 24.61 24.61 215.00 24,000.01 24.61 950.00 250.00 37.50 VOUCHRE2 03/28/02 16:37 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER NAME • • 28586 03/28/02 007809 CORPORATE EXPRESS 28587 03/28/02 007808 CSMFO 28588 03/28/02 000850 L. N. CURTIS 28589 03/28/02 009534 DELL MARKETING L.P. 28590 03/28/02 000147 THE DEVELOPMENT 28591 03/28/02 002055 ELAINE C. DOERFLING 28592 03/28/02 010239 JENNIFER GERVAIS 28593 03/28/02 006797 DAWN GNADT CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION OFFICE SUPPLIES MONROE CALCULATOR REGISTRATION/MOHLER/4/30-5/1 HOSE ADAPTERS COMPUTER PURCHASE SOFTWARE PURCHASE FILM PROCESSING/MARCH 02 FILM PROCESSING/MAR 02 REIMB. FOR BOOKS LIGHT TECH/3-4-10-02 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT/DZ-04 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT/DZ-05 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT/DZ-06 28594 03/28/02 010740 HAZELRIGG RISK MANAGEME ADMIN FEES 4TH. QTR. 02 28595 03/28/02 004108 HAZELRIGG RISK MGMT SER WORKER COMP CLAIMS/3/22/02 28596 03/28/02 007547 HDL, COREN AND CONE PROP. TAX REPORT -1ST. QTR '02 28597 03/28/02 000065 HERMOSA BEACH CAR WASH FEB. 02 CAR WASH FEB. 02 CAR WASH FEB. 02 CAR WASH FEB. 02 CAR WASH 28598 03/28/02 007028 HAZEL HOREY 2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-1208-4305 001-1202-4305 001-1202-4317 001-2201-5401 715-1206-5402 715-1206-4201 001-2101-4305 001-2101-4305 001-1121-4305 001-4601-4201 001-4601-4221 001-4601-4221 001-4601-4221 705-1217-4201 705-1217-4324 001-1202-4201 715-2101-4311 715-1202-4311 715-3302-4311 715-4202-4311 105-3105 28599 03/28/02 011237 IDYLL MOUNTAIN INTERNET WEB PAGE SERVICES/2/6-3/19/02 715-1206-4201 28600 03/28/02 011473 LUDWIG KLEIN 28601 03/28/02 011475 L.A. CO. SHERIFF COURT REPORTER - 2/02 MEMBERSHIP/RUTH MILLER 28602 03/28/02 007136 THE LAKES AT EL SEGUNDO INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT/BG-01 28603 03/28/02 004534 LASER IMAGING 28604 03/28/02 000167 LEARNED LUMBER 28605 03/28/02 011452 LEHNER/MARTIN,INC PRINTER CARTRIDGES MORTAR COLOR HELIUM TANK & RENTAL 28606 03/28/02 000077 LOMITA BLUEPRINT SERVIC GENERAL PLAN MAP PRINTED 28607 03/28/02 006944 ELEANOR MARTINEZ 2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE 12 001-1203-4201 001-2101-4317 001-4601-4221 715-1206-4309 001-3104-4309 001-4601-4308 001-4101-4201 105-3105 ITEM AMOUNT 57.98 178.61 210.00 81.78 3,974.95 21.65 51.81 49.56 184.00 250.00 38.50 77.00 133.00 6,500.00 10,141.57 1,250.00 323.80 4.95 9.90 13.80 24.61 352.50 350.00 35.00 409.50 455.44 4.61 88.22 500.00 24.61 PAGE 3 CHECK AMOUNT 236.59 210.00 81.78 3,996.60 101.37 184.00 250.00 248.50 6,500.00 10,141.57 1,250.00 352.45 24.61 352.50 350.00 35.00 409.50 455.44 4.61 88.22 500.00 24.61 VOUCHRE2 03/28/02 16:37 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER NAME 28608 03/28/02 003567 MAXIMUS 28609 03/28/02 006514 MAXIMUS CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION STATE CONTROLLERS REPORT PYMNT #1 -STATE MANDATED COSTS 28610 03/28/02 010324 MBIA MUNI SERVICES COMP 3RD. QTR. AUDIT / JAN -MARCH 28611 03/28/02 010566 MORGAN WHOLESALE ELECTR ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES DISCOUNT OFFERED DISCOUNT OFFERED 28612 03/28/02 011451 P & R PRODUCTS 28613 03/28/02 010139 PARKING CONCEPTS INC. 28614 03/28/02 008482 PMX MEDICAL SPECIALTY 28615 03/28/02 010775 HELEN PRICE 28616 03/28/02 011307 R R M DESIGN GROUP 28617 03/28/02 008837 CITY OF REDONDO BEACH 28618 03/28/02 006304 ROBERT SIMPSON 28619 03/28/02 008968 BRIAN SMYTH 28620 03/28/02 000113 SOUTH BAY FIRE EXTINGUI 28621 03/28/02 000159 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDI REFLECTIVE FLAGS FOR HELMETS PKG STRUCTURE OPER/FY 2001-02 LOT A OPERATOR/FY 2001-02 MEDICAL SUPPLIES/FIRE DEPT 2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE DESIGN SERVICE/FEB 02 FUEL FUEL FUEL FUEL FUEL FUEL FUEL FUEL FUEL PURCHASE/12/28-1/27/02 PURCHASE/12/28-1/27/02 PURCHASE/12/28-1/27/02 PURCHASE/12/28-1/27/02 PURCHASE/10/28-11/25/01 PURCHASE/10/28-11/25/01 PURCHASE/11/25-12/28/01 PURCHASE/11/25-12/28/01 PURCHASE/11/25-12/28/01 2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE REIMBURSEMENT/MEALS FIRE EXTINGUISHER ELECTRIC ELECTRIC ELECTRIC ELECTRIB ELECTRIB ELECTRIC ELECTRIC ELECTRIC ELECTRIC ELECTRIC ELECTRIC ELECTRIC ELECTRIC ELECTRIC BILLING/MARCH 2002 BILLING/MARCH 2002 BILLING/MARCH 2002 BILLING/FEB. 2002 BILLING/FEB. 2002 BILLING/FEB. 2002 BILLING/FEB. 2002 BILLING/MARCH 2002 BILLING/MARCH 2002 BILLING/FEB. 2002 BILLING/MARCH 2002 BILLING/MARCH 2002 BILLING/MARCH 2002 BILLING/FEB. 2002 13 ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-1202-4201 001-1202-4201 001-1202-4201 105-2601-4309 001-2021 001-2022 001-2201-4309 109-3304-4231 109-3305-4231 001-2201-4309 105-3105 180-8610-4201 715-2201-4310 715-3102-4310 715-4204-4310 715-1202-4310 715-2201-4310 715-4204-4310 715-2201-4310 715-4204-4310 715-1202-4310 105-3105 001-2101-4312 001-4204-4321 105-2601-4303 105-2601-4303 105-2601-4303 001-6101-4303 105-2601-4303 105-2601-4303 105-2601-4303 105-2601-4303 109-3304-4303 105-2601-4303 105-2601-4303 105-2601-4303 001-3104-4303 105-2601-4303 ITEM AMOUNT 4,650.00 2,600.00 1,250.00 306.00 5.76 5.76- 104.95 13,221.36 12,092.29 64.67 24.61 7,862.46 241.35 46.34 11.59 8.62 236.46 15.52 398.86 14.90 11.65 24.61 40.00 226.24 264.29 11,445.86 11.29 14.37 198.62 17.05 352.27 23.61 2,598.74 28.32 29.57 227.59 26.95 31.14 PAGE 4 CHECK AMOUNT 4,650.00 2,600.00 1,250.00 306.00 104.95 25,313.65 64.67 24.61 7,862.46 985.29 24.61 40.00 226.24 VOUCHRE2 03/28/02 16:37 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER NAME • S 28622 03/28/02 010232 SPICERS PAPER,INC. 28623 03/28/02 000985 RUTH STEFFEY 28624 03/28/02 010529 RUSSELL TINGLEY CITY'OF HERMOSA BEACH VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER ELECTRIC BILLING/MARCH 2002 109-3304-4303 PAPER PURCHASE/MARCH 2002 DISCOUNT OFFERED DISCOUNT TAKEN 2001 ASSESSMENT REFUND 001-1208-4305 001-2021 001-2022 105-3105 REIMB. TRAVEL EXP. - SACRAMENT 001-2201-4317 28625 03/28/02 011476 TORRANCE FIRE DEPARTMEN 2002 MEMBERSHIP DUES 28626 03/28/02 003239 RALPH TURKOLU 2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE 28627 03/28/02 008097 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNI SAFEKEEPING FEES - FEB. 02 28628 03/28/02 000015 VERIZON CALIFORNIA PHONE BILLING/MAR 10-ARPIL 10 PHONE BILLING/MAR 10-ARPIL 10 PHONE BILLING/MAR 10-ARPIL 10 PHONE BILLING/MAR 10-ARPIL 10 PHONE BILLING/MAR 10-ARPIL 10 PHONE BILLING/MAR 10-ARPIL 10 PHONE BILLING/MAR 10-ARPIL 10 PHONE BILLING/MAR 10-ARPIL 10 PHONE BILLING/MAR 10-ARPIL 10 PHONE BILLING/MAR 10-ARPIL 10 PHONE BILLING/MAR 10-ARPIL 10 PHONE BILLING/MAR 10-ARPIL 10 PHONE BILLING/MAR 10-ARPIL 10 PHONE BILLING/MAR 10-ARPIL 10 PHONE BILLING/MAR 10-ARPIL 10 PHONE BILLING/MAR 10-ARPIL 10 PHONE BILLING/MAR 10-ARPIL 10 PHONE BILLING/MAR 10-ARPIL 10 001-2201-4315 105-3105 001-1141-4201 001-1101-4304 001-1121-4304 001-1201-4304 001-1132-4304 001-1141-4304 001-1201-4304 001-1202-4304 001-1203-4304 715-1206-4304 001-1208-4304 001-2101-4304 001-2201-4304 110-1204-4304 110-3302-4304 001-4101-4304 001-4201-4304 001-4202-4304 001-4601-4304 28630 03/28/02 011469 OLARY YIM WORK GUARANTEE REFUND # 2926 001-2110 TOTAL CHECKS fy ITEM AMOUNT 60.84 1,412.06 26.58 26.58- 24.61 28.00 50.00 24.61 291.67 18.17 38.62 20.45 18.17 38.62 38.62 115.86 59.06 59.06 20.45 913.23 136.30 136.30 134.03 115.86 115.86 233.99 59.06 3,000.00 PAGE 5 CHECK AMOUNT 15,330.51 1,412.06 24.61 28.00 50.00 24.61 291.67 2,271.71 3,000.00 131,213.40 • VOUCHRE2 03/28/02 16:37 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS FUND TITLE AMOUNT 001 GENERAL FUND 40,043.62 105 LIGHTG/LANDSCAPG DIST FUND 13,181.71 109 DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMENT FUND 35,348.23 110 PARKING FUND 270.33 154 CA LAW ENF EQUIP PROG (CLEEP) 11,601.00 180 FIRE PROTECTION FUND 7,862.46 705 INSURANCE FUND 16,641.57 715 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND 6,264.48 TOTAL 131,213.40 15 S PAGE 6 VOUCHRE2 03/28/02 16:37 • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS CLAIMS VOUCHER APPROVAL • I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE DEMANDS OR CLAIMS COVERED BY THE CHECKS LISTED 9N PAGES �1 TO LSTINCLUSIVE, OF THE VOUCHER REGISTER FOR �O - . /6.=%. ARE ACCURATE, FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PAYMENT, AND ARE IN CONFORMANCE TO THE BUDGET. BY FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE 4414oa, PAGE 7 April 2, 2002 Honorable Mayor and For the Meeting of Members of the City Council April 9, 2002 CANCELLATION OF CHECKS Please consider the following request for cancellation of the check listed below: #28422 — 3/14/02 — El Segundo Chamber of Commerce - $300.00. The check was issued to the wrong payee per the vendor's billing. Concur: l /7 Steph: r . Burrell, Noted for fiscal impact: City Manager Viki Copeland, Finance Director (-6 "0-PAAA, WoviZAkt (gt( 11AAA- awit5ge-1-( t., D7o,) n M. Workman, City Treasurer April 4, 2002 • Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council 61_4t -ii -y-- 124 YL0-7 Regular Meeting of April 9, 2002 1 TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS APRIL 23 Economic Development Review Committee Presentation ..................... ................. Public Hearing: Text Amendment for non -required off-site parking. Community Development Director Recommendation to receive and file action minutes from the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission meeting of April 2, 2002 Recommendation to receive and file action minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of April 16, 2002 March Activity Reports Community Resources Director Community Development Director All Departments Y14:2 Public Hearing: Text Amendment for non -required off-site parking in M-1 zone. Community Development Director Recommendation to receive and file action minutes from the Public Works Commission meeting of April 17, 2002 Public Works Director 1/RSDA:Y BUDGET WORKSHOP Recommendation to receive and file action minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of May 15, 2002 Community Development Director Recommendation to receive and file action minutes from the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission meeting of May 7, 2002 April Activity Reports Community Resources Director All Departments 2c 4. T PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 2002 COMMUNITY CENTER, ROOM 4 710 PIER AVENUE 7:00 P.M. MINUTES OD° - The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. 1.- Roll Call Present: Commissioners Cheatham, Howell, Koch, Lombardo, Winnek Also Present: Stephen Burrell, City Manager Harold Williams, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer Michael Flaherty, Public Works Superintendent Rhea Punneo, Administrative Assistant, Public Works Department Kenneth Kim, Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department 2. Flag Salute Chairman Winnek led the flag salute. 3. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the February 20, 2002 meeting were approved as written. 4. Public Comments The meeting was opened to public comments for anyone wishing to address the Commission on other items pertaining to Public Works. Roy W. Fulwider, 1126 Cypress Street Mr. Fulwider stated that a very dangerous condition exists north of his residence on Cypress Street. He said the 8 x 8 wood timbers in front of 1305 Cypress force him to walk in the street in order to pass. Mr. Fulwider stated that the City said it can't do anything about it since the condition has existed for approximately 30 years. He stated that this hazardous condition could result in lawsuits. Mr. Fulwider also stated that thirty (30) years ago, when this situation was first allowed, it was not an issue — traffic levels have increased dramatically. Mr. Fulwider said that his attorney has advised him to notify the City by letter that should they fail to rectify this situation they will be liable for any damages or injuries he might incur. 2d • • He also stated that his attorney indicated that the City would be liable for punitive damages because he has informed them of the situation, and they have failed to do anything about it. Mr. Fulwider concluded by saying that he had called the road department regarding a gap in the pavement that he must drive over every day. After he told the road department that if he needed realignment of his vehicle, which would be very expensive, he would forward the bill to the City, they fixed the road the next day. Carol Schilz Speaking on Behalf of Leo & Nelda Schilz, 2951 La Carlita Place Ms. Schilz addressed the proposed development at 702 Marlita Place. The street is 'T' shaped -and the proposed development wants to use part of the 'T' for its own use. The Schilzs feel that this would create a hazardous situation. She said that if the development is allowed to go forward, the proposed two-story garage eliminate the Schilzs' view, which is one of the reasons they originally bought the property. They feel that their property would be devalued by the loss of the view, sun, and Tight. The proposed development would create an encroachment problem because use of the street would be necessary in order to meet the set back limits. Additionally, the proposed 5 to 6 -foot walls with ficus trees would also block the light. Discussion among the commissioners highlighted the following items: o The letter would be forwarded to the Community Development Department o If the entire section were to be vacated, parking would be lost. o If it goes to the Planning Commission, the Public Works Commission would like to be advised of the results. 5. Correspondence a. Letter from Mr. Roy W. Fulwider regarding wood timbers at 1305 Cypress Avenue. A response was sent to Mr. Fulwider by Harold Williams inviting him to attend meeting. b. Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Leo Schilz regarding proposed construction on 702 Marlita Place A response was sent to Mr. & Mrs. Schilz by Harold Williams inviting them to attend meeting. Both pieces of correspondence were addressed under item 4. Public Comments. 6. Items for Commission Consideration a. CIP 01-167 Various Street Improvements — Concrete Pavement Repair Mr. Williams presented the item. Mr. Williams indicated that the 2001-2002 budget allows $100,000`fo'r.the"`repair` of potholes in the concrete pavement at ,various Iocationse - and that Staff has already identified $125,000 worth of work. Mr. Williams stated that it was difficult to know where to stop because the streets are in such bad condition. He would like the commission to advise which locations should be done and referenced Attachment 2, which reflects by address the amount of work to be done, and the cost of such repairs. 2 • • Commission discussion brought out the following information or comments. o Project funding, while removed from the current fiscal year, was actually deferred until the next fiscal year and therefore was not available for other projects. o Mr. Williams indicated this is a specific project number (01-167) in the CIP budget and only $100,000 is allocated. o This issue would be addressed at a later time. MOTION by Chairman Winnek to follow Staff's recommendation that the Commission review and advise. Seconded by Commissioner Howell. Aye: Howell, Koch, Lombardo, and Winnek Nay: Cheatham Abstain: None Absent: None b. Request for Red Curb on Gould Avenue West of Pacific Coast Highway Between the East and West Driveways at 2615 Pacific Coast Highway Mr. Williams presented the item, recommending that rather than install red curb on Gould Avenue, they utilize Resolution 01-6163 which allows for the installation of signs that state "No Parking — Vehicles Over 6 Feet in Height." This resolution allows for the restriction of the parking of vehicles that are six feet or more in height if within 100 feet of an intersection. Commission discussion brought out the following information or comments. o Limited parking for the area had not been addressed by the Traffic Engineer in :this report and the subject could be looked at a later time. o Commissioner Cheatham said he wanted to take this opportunity to state that the Public Works Department was doing a good job of advising the public. o There was general agreement among the commissioners that the signs would be a good idea. The signs would be placed from the alley to Pacific Coast Highway. MOTION by Commissioner Lombardo to recommend to City Council that signs be installed on the north side of Gould Avenue between Pacific Coast Highway and El Oeste Drive stating "No Parking — Vehicles Over 6 Feet in Height." Seconded by Commissioner Cheatham. Aye: Cheatham, Howell, Koch, and Lombardo Nay: Winnek Abstain: None Absent: None 3 • • c. Request for Speed Humps — Alley East of Hermosa Avenue Between Pier Avenue and ,14th Street Mr. Williams presented the item noting that the report was prepared in response to a request from Steven Delk, owner of Bestie's Pub & Grill on Hermosa Avenue. He indicated that the alley is one-way and that pedestrians often walk out of the building onto the alley. The speed limit is 15 miles per hour (mph), however the speed surveys observed vehicles traveling at speeds as high as 28 mph. Mr. Williams stated that the Traffic Engineer's suggestion would be the installation of speed humps on a trial basis. He noted that speed humps are not the same as speed bumps. Speed bumps are installed in parking lots and on internal private streets and are typically 1 to 3 feet in width and 4 to 6 inches in height. Speed humps are 12 feet wide and 3 to 4 inches in height, thereby creating a gentler rolling motion for motorists instead of an abrupt jolt. Speed humps are acceptable for installation on public streets, while speed bumps are not. Commission discussion brought out the following information or comments. o There was a consensus among the commissioners with regard to the hazards in the alley. o The speed humps would include a break or opening left in the humps thereby allowing water to flow through the area. o There was no public comment to determine whether the local business owners or residents were in agreement with the request. MOTION by Commissioner Lombardo to follow Staffs recommendation to install speed .. humps in the alley east of Hermosa Avenue between Pier Avenue and 14th Street. Seconded by Chairman Winnek. Aye: Cheatham, Howell, Koch, Lombardo, and Winnek Nay: None Abstain: None Absent: None d. Request for Speed Humps — Hillcrest Drive between 18th Street and 21st Street Mr. Williams presented the item stating that input had been solicited from the residents in regards to a pavement reconstruction program for Hillcrest Drive. The input received indicated that there might be a speeding problem and that speed humps should be considered. The speed surveys showed a surge in traffic when parents were dropping off or picking up their children at the school,on Prospect Avenue and then using Hillcrest Drive. The speed profile did not reflect a significant speeding problem. 4 • • Mr. Williams stated that Staffs recommendation is to not install speed humps on Hillcrest Drive, as the reported speeding problem is not supported by the results of the speed survey. He explained that the use of speed humps is often discouraged on public streets because they may affect emergency response times for fire, police, and paramedic vehicles, and because many people consider them aesthetically undesirable. Public comments included the following: Blake Mitchell, 1910 Hillcrest Drive Mr. Mitchell stated that he was present and spoke at the last meeting. He said that the overwhelming majority of the homeowners on Hillcrest Drive wanted speed humps. Mr. Mitchell said that the ten percent of speeders represented a real hazard to children. 'He indicated that there was a crest in the middle of the street and that vehicles would slow for the crest and then speed off after the crest. Mr. Mitchell stated that in researching the speed humps which are in use in Santa Monica, emergency responders indicated that they were not concerned with response time, because they don't usually do over 40 mph. He also stated that 2/3 of the residents responded they were in favor of the speed humps. Commission discussion brought out the following information or comments. o It was suggested that the commission wait until the subcommittee working on the safety program completed their investigation to see if their program helps the speeding situation. o It was suggested that a survey of the area be done to confirm the wishes of the residents. o Tabling of the item was suggested until discussion with the Traffic Engineer could be completed. o There was a question as to where the speed humps would be located. o It was noted that Staff would do the survey. MOTION by Chairman Winnek to table Item 6d and to direct staff to do a survey of the affected neighbors. Seconded by Commissioner Lombardo. Aye:. Cheatham, Howell, Koch, Lombardo, and Winnek Nay: None Abstain: None Absent: None Project No. CIP 01-159 Hillcrest Drive Street Improvements — Hillcrest Drive and Rhodes Street from 18th Street to 21St Street and'l8th Street from Pacific Coast Highway to Prospect Avenue Mr. Williams presented the item, stating that at the January meeting a lot of discussion had taken place and that the residents of 19th Street did not want improvements, therefore 19th Street was deleted from the program. Mr. Williams noted that Staff recently went door to door to see what the people on Hillcrest Drive and Rhodes Street wanted. Saturday was not a good day as not many people were around. The residents who participated in the survey were all in favor of the improvements. Staff recommends that the improvements proceed as presented. Staff also indicated that the vibration problem needs to be addressed, but that is beyond the scope of this project. Mr. Williams stated that faulty pavement was not an issue as no pavement failure was found. There is one area where soil treatments will be taken to repair a sinkhole. He said that they couldn't guarantee that in a heavy rain, waters wouldn't pond in front of homes. Staff recommends that we proceed with project as designed. Commission discussion brought out the following information or comments. o Crack sealing would be done and plastic sheets would be put down to minimize cracks through the concrete to the asphalt. Ted Ratliff, 1819 Hillcrest Drive Mr. Ratliff stated that there is a drainage problem and settlement of debris because of the slope of the street. He indicates that another engineering firm was supposed to review the situation. Mr. Ratliff feels that the current locations of the proposed storm drain catch basins and adjustment of the finish grades of the roadways will not help him with his drainage problem. A consultant for the project indicated that they could move the drain, past Mr. Ratliff's driveway. Mr. Ratliff stated that if they move the drain that will take care of debris, but that because of the low spot it will sink back down again and that the design doesn't take that into consideration. Mr. Williams advised that the drain will be different and debris will not gather there and that they would look at that issue. t MOTION by Chairman Winnek to approve the Hillcrest Drive street improvements as recommended by Staff. Seconded by Commissioner Lombardo. Aye: Cheatham, Howell, Koch, Lombardo, and Winnek Nay: None Abstain: None Absent: None b. Temporary Closure of the First Alley South of 21st Street Between Ardmore Avenue and Ava Avenue Chairman Winnek recused himself, as he is a resident of Ava Avenue; Vice Chairman Cheatham became acting Chairman. 6 item, statingthat at the February meetingconsiderable Mr. Williams presented the y discussion took place on this issue. At that time the commission suggested that Staff do further study regarding the circulation issues on the affected streets. The Traffic Engineer reviewed the recommended length of a cul-de-sac. According to Residential Street Design and Traffic Control, the maximum recommended length for a cul-de-sac is 1,000 feet. Ava Avenue, as measured from 21st Street, is approximately 800 feet in length, which is acceptable per the guidelines. This length is further reduced by the use of the drainage swale that is used as an alley between Ava Avenue and Springfield Avenue. Mr. Williams stated that the issue was raised that closure of the alley created problems to traffic on Ava Avenue. Staff found that there was no correlation between the closure of the alley and movement up and down Ava Avenue. Traffic volumes on Ava Avenue and 21st Street are well below the acceptable capacities of local residential streets. Staff has found no circulation issue to deal with. The issue is safety vs. convenience and Staff believes safety should take precedence. It is Staffs opinion that the use of Ava Avenue and 21st Street as an access route into and out of the Ava Avenue neighborhood is a safer and more conventional alternative as compared to the use of the substandard alley/drainage swale. Staff recommends permanent closure of the alley. Mr. Williams also addressed the parking issue, which Staff did not feel was a result of the closure of the alley and is typical of residential streets in Hermosa Beach. Additionally, the sight distance problem where the alley intersects with Ardmore Avenue is another reason to recommend permanent closure of the alley to vehicular traffic. Commission discussion brought out the following information or comments. o The six-foot walls on both sides of the alley were not seen as a safety issue. o Mirrors weren't considered an option as there would be a great deal of liability if the mirrors were moved or damaged. o It was noted that CIP 02-184 was planned for 2002-03 Public comments included the following: Terry Scott, 2026 Ardmore Avenue Terry's family has owned this property since 1926. There is no parking on Ardmore Avenue and therefore they must park on Ava Avenue. They use the alley as a way to get out of the area as Ava is too small to turn around in, even one car at a time. Cars are backing all the way up to 21st Street, which are a big hazard with young children playing in the area and a hazard on 21st Street. She wonders to whose benefit is this, since it is not a benefit,to-the property.,owners. Terry Cook, 2022 Springfield Mr. Cook stated that the City had to approve the use of bricks in a neighbor's driveway, so why was this wall approved. He felt that it was not fair that one property can dictate what other people in neighborhood could do. Mr. Cook stated that it is more dangerous • • to have the alley closed. He stated that it is unfair that approval was given for huge block walls to be built right up to the street, and it is unfair to everyone else. Chris Gerald for Irene Adams, 2018 Springfield Mr. Gerald stated that this driveway (alley) has been there for thirty years and he would like to know how many accidents have occurred there. He stated that La Carlita has a similar problem and that one person is benefiting. Mr. Gerald wanted to know who owns the alley. A discussion highlighted the following: o The area under discussion is public right-of-way and would remain so. o The walls under discussion are on the south side and on private property. o An R-1 development doesn't require a hearing, plan checks or permit issuance. o There were no variances. o The alley hadn't been vacated, just closed, therefore no change of ownership. o There are at least 35 other areas in the City like this — all walk streets. Jeff DuClos, 1932 Ava Avenue Mr. DuClos stated that he is a twenty-two year resident and that the City eliminated any option of the alley remaining open by allowing the walls to be built. Mr. DuClos said that the staff report is misleading - the 10 -foot width of the alley is not the problem, the wall is the problem. Mr. DuClos said the area hadn't been cleaned up and that he slipped and fell due to debris in the alley. He wants to know if the City has responsibility foi. physical improvements to the area since their properties have been devalued by allowing the wall to be built and closure of the alley. Mr. DuClos recommends restoring to the way it was, making it more pleasant, and making it a walkway. Joanne Maisch, 640 21st Street Ms. Maisch said that at the corner of Ava Avenue and 21St Street the City has created'a huge safety issue because of cars backing all the way up the street since closure of the alleyway. She feels that the City has now caused unsafe conditions and that they are much worse than before. She would like to see the study that was performed. Diane Sylvia, 1922 Ava Avenue Mrs. Sylvia stated that she supports the comments of Mr. DuClos. She stated that her husband is a civil engineer and that he indicated that the area needs to be terraced to help drainage. Mrs. Sylvia feels the alley is ideal for pedestrians and that the area needs, to be beautified if the alley is going to remain closed. Additionally, Mrs. Sylvia would like to put on our agenda for the next meeting the proposal of closing the,2nd alley between Springfield and Ava, and address both problems at the same time. 8 Riley Suggs, 2017 Ava Avenue Mr. Suggs stated his family has owned this property since 1946 and that there has never been an accident on Ardmore Avenue and the little alley. He doesn't feel that we should beautify the walkway for the benefit of the developer's front door. Irwin Fishman, 2011 Ava Avenue and 2012 Ardmore Avenue Mr. Fishman stated that the City has said that if it has been the "common usage", we must accept it. The residents have been using the alley, so we must accept that usage. His second issue is that a cul-de-sac can be up to 1000 feet long but has a turn -around, there is no turn -around here, it is an unfinished through street. Richard Churchhouse, 2019 Springfield Mr. Churchhouse said that the City should ask the builder to eliminate the obstruction and the City should accept any litigation. He feels that the City should not use being sued as an excuse. He also said that the street only allows use of one car at a time (due to parking on both sides of the street), and that a garbage truck or moving van eliminates use entirely. He wonders why garbage pick-up can't be coordinated with street sweeping day so that parking has been eliminated on one side of the street. Since closure of the alley, the use of the other alley has now impacted Springfield and both sides of the street are full of parked vehicles, can parking permits be addressed? Mr. Churchhouse said the City fell down on their obligation that there were mitigating circumstances in this particular situation and that the wall needs to be lowered or put at a different angle. Victor Winnek, Ava Avenue Mr. Winnek stated that he was making a request to the commission that they don't vote for Alternative 3 (open the alley to one-way traffic in the eastbound direction), in that it puts his property at peril. This recommendation would make the use of his driveway and garage obsolete. Mr. Winnek stated that he didn't want the City to take away any parking in front of his house. He stated that the matter should be taken up with the homeowner/developer regarding the wall. Mr. Winnek said that the developer had been personally served with notice of this meeting last Saturday and notes that the developer is not present. Mr. Winnek said that if this is used as an easement for drainage or foot traffic, that there is no crosswalk and the commission should consider this. Gary Powell, 1940 Ava Avenue Mr. Powell stated that he is not an expert, but that he is concerned that the City has provided no workable solution except for.closing-the alley down. He stated that taxes are high in Hermosa Beach. Mr. Powell said that if the culvert is truly for drainage and can't be made into a walkway because of no crosswalks and/or stop signs, then make it a culvert so that if the developer won't change the wall, it is blocked off. He said block it and put up a chain link fence making it solely for drainage and the developer wouldn't benefit from its closure. This way no one wins including the owner of this property. 9 Commissioner Lombardo noted that during the joint workshop with the Planning Commission, there was almost nothing that could be done since everything was built to code. Further discussion brought out the following information: o Location of the door doesn't determine front or back yard, which is determined by set back. o That a new issue to close the upper section has been brought up and that needs to be addressed. o The developer used this to their advantage; Staff fulfilled their responsibility to make sure that this area was safe. o There are safety issues on both sides, whether open or closed. o It was noted that the drainage swale works and that there is a splash wall to slow the velocity of the water with it hits the Greenbelt — a very effective drainage swale as it protects homes from being flooded. It does its job by preventing the water from flowing back onto private property. o The City records indicate this is an alley. o The idea of parking permits should be pursued. This would be addressed in another arena. They are generally used in coastal zone areas only and it is a long process when talking about usage outside of these areas. o Developers may be easier to talk to than residents. MOTION by Chairman Lombardo to recommend to City Council that they talk to the developer about lowering the wall so that the alley can be reopened, and look into permit parking in the area. Seconded by Commissioner Cheatham. Aye: Cheatham, Howell, Koch, and Lombardo Nay: None Abstain: Winnek Absent: None The Commission Broke at 8:50 p.m. The Commission Resumed at 9:00 p.m. 7. Commissioner Reports a. Commissioner Howell submitted the Traffic Safety Education Subcommittee Research report. Commissioner Howell stated that he and Commissioner Lombardo met with Traffic Engineer Richard Garland to discuss Manhattan Beach's traffic safety education campaign and how it might relate to Hermosa Beach. The commissioners ..felt that the start of the summer season or September with .the,start of the school year would be an ideal time to begin the campaign. Commissioner Howell indicated that their Commissioner's Report listed a few ideas in regards to the traffic safety campaign. b. Commissioner Howell also submitted his report, Manhattan Planning Commission Approves Skechers USA Development & Traffic Plan for Longfellow/PCH. 10 • Commissioner Howell stated that he attended the March 13th Manhattan Beach Planning Commission meeting where they approved a proposed 57,000 square -foot office development of the future headquarters of Skechers USA. Manhattan Beach Planning Commission said the project was designed to discourage use of residential streets. Additionally, the traffic study, which indicated that only 2% of project -related vehicle trips would impact adjacent residential streets, was believed to be low, but the Manhattan Beach Commissioners disagreed. Residents presented a list of concerns and suggestions, but the project was approved and there will be no further discussion. c. Commissioner Cheatham stated that he attended the March 10th meeting of the Infrastructure Guideline Subcommittee. He will provide recommendations at a future time. The Economic Development Review Committee will present their report to the City Council on April 23rd, tentatively. Commissioner Cheatham stated that it was impressive, that a lot of ideas are hitting the commission. He recommended that the Commissioners attend the briefing that will be given to the City Council. 8. Agenda for February Council Meetings a. Monthly Activity Report — Not Available b. Project Status Report — Not Available Above items are presented for information purposes only. 9. Items Requested by Commissioners Copies of the General Plan were provided for all commissioners. 10.Other Matters Chairman Winnek proposed a motion, in reference to Item 6f, to recommend to the City Council that they add to the Municipal Code the definition of "alley." The purpose being to give a more complete definition of the term "alley," akin to the California Vehicle Code Section 110 which states: "An alley is any highway or roadway not exceeding twenty (20) feet in width which is primarily used for vehicular access to the abutting property." Mr. Burrell stated that it may be in the zoning code and that Community Development should be involved. Chairman Winnek again stated modify to "access of abutting properties.". Mr. Burrell said that zoning codes are very precise and we don't want inconsistencies. MOTION by Chairman Winnek to request the City Council to identify an alley. 11 • • Commissioner Cheatham suggested that they agendize until Staff can come back with. recommendation. Commissioner Howell thinks that clarity is good, but wants Staff recommendation in order to get full impact. Chairman Winnek stated that since there is no 2nd to motion, motion fails. Commissioner Cheatham recommends bringing the item back as an agenda item. Commissioner Howell would like to state that in reference to Cypress Street (5a) it is difficult to traverse and that he would like to recommend negotiating with property owner to improve the condition. Commissioner Cheatham stated that in reference to a property up from the Comedy and Magic Club, an encroachment prior to 1996 is grandfathered by ordinance and can be treated as private property. He stated the only other option was for the City to put in a sidewalk and take back the property. Commissioner Cheatham stated that we could talk to the homeowner. • Commissioner Koch asked if there is some history that allows encroachments. Mr. Burrell indicated that it had been a policy issue and that the City Council held a series of meetings and did a study on the issue. He indicated that they stopped when they had identified 4500 encroachments. He said that some of these issues would be addressed by the fixing of sidewalks and that we have seen.a narrowing of the exemptions making history not as important. Commissioner Howell stated that in reference to the Skechers Development (7b) that inter -jurisdictional traffic issues should be studied. Mr. Burrell indicated that the City doesn't have an official position on the Skechers Development, that the Heart of the City does have an official position. He also indicated that they had expressed their concerns each step of the way. Commissioner Howell stated that we could change the traffic flow on our side. Mr. Burrell said that the City Council will take appropriate response and maybe they will have to sit down with the City Council. Commissioner Howell stated that the project is designed around Longfellow, which is half as wide as Duncan and he can give a report to the City Council. 11. Public Comments None. 12 Mr. Burrell stated that the newsrack presentation would be at the beginning of the Council meeting on the 26th and that he was looking for written materials that he could give to the council members. Council will receive the information but won't take any action on it, it will be a presentation only and the City Council will make the decision. Mr. Burrell stated that the Orange County Register has three or four news racks at Rocky Cola Cafe, but they are empty. 12. Adjournment At 9:30 p.m. Chairman Winnek adjourned to the meeting of April 17, 2002. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Public Works Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of March 20, 2002. Victor Winnek, Chairman Harold C. Williams, P.E., Secretary Date 13 March 27, 2002 Honorable Mayor and Members; of Regular Meeting of The Hermosa Beach City Council April 9, 2002 PROJECT NO. CIP 00-630 PIER RENOVATION — PHASE III, AUTHORIZE THE APPROPRIATION OF $55,000 FROM THE 150 GRANT FUND Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the appropriation of $55,000 from the 150 Grant Fund. Background: At the beginning of FY 2001-02, $100,000 was budgeted in the 150 Grant Fund for Project No. CIP 00-630 Pier Renovation — Phase Ill to be spent on construction. The source of the grant is the Coastal Conservancy. Since the design process is taking longer than anticipated, construction is estimated to start in FY 2003-2004. Therefore, the $100,000 appropriation was reduced to $0 during the midyear budget review in January. In conversations with David Hayes of the Coastal Conservancy on March 27, 2002, it was disclosed that the funds assigned to the grant will revert back to the State on June 30, 2002. This information was not disclosed to the City in the agreement with the Coastal Conservancy or in any correspondence from the Coastal Conservancy. The current expiration date of the grant is April 30, 2002. The Coastal Conservancy is requesting the City submit a final reimbursement sometime in early May. Though a time extension is unlikely, Staff will continue efforts to seek approval for a time extension for the usage of the grant. The City has expended $43,752 to date from the 001 General fund for design and the purchase of two plaques. Staff estimates approximately another $10,000 may be expended by April 30,2002 for this project. The estimated total of expenditures is $53,752. Therefore, a $55,000 appropriation is needed from the 150 Grant Fund in order to transfer expenditures from the 001 General Fund so a reimbursement request can be sent to the Coastal Conservancy. Fiscal Impact: Current 001 General Fund Expenditures $ 43,752 . Estimated Future Expenditures 10,000 Total Cost $ 53,752 With approval of the recommendation, the City may save approximately $53,752 of General Fund money. With no action taken, the $100,000 Coastal Conservancy grant will expire without being able to utilize the 'grant. Respectfully submitted, Concur: aL Tristan D. Malabanan Assistant Engineer Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Director /17////reli:ii3AJJ arold C. Williams, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer Concur: Steph:l' R.: urrell City Manager F/B95/pwfiles/ccitems/00-630 Authorize Approp 04-09-02.doc _i • 4/71/Lc--e-er)11 /9fr— April 3, 2002 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of The Hermosa Beach City Council April 9, 2002 INSTALLATION OF SIGNS ON NORTH SIDE OF GOULD AVENUE BETWEEN PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND EL OESTE STATING "NO PARKING – VEHICLES OVER 6 FEET IN HEIGHT" Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve the Public Works Commission's recommendation to install signs on the north side of Gould Avenue between Pacific Coast Highway and EI Oeste Drive stating "No Parking – Vehicles Over 6 Feet in Height." Background: A letter was received from the property manager of Ocean Plaza to install red curb on the north side of Gould Avenue west of PCH between the two Ocean Plaza driveways. Please see attached site map. The reason for the request is that vehicles parked at this location create visibility problems for motorists exiting the westerly driveway out of the parking structure, particularly if the parked vehicle is a motor home. Rather than approving the request for red curb, which would eliminate three parking spaces in an area where parking is valuable, the Commission supported the Staff recommendation to install signs on the north side of Gould Avenue between PCH and El Oeste Drive stating "No Parking – Vehicles Over 6 Feet in Height."* Analysis: The attached Staff report and minutes for the March 20 Public Works Commission meeting present the analysis of the red curb request and outlines the rationale for recommending the parking restriction for over -sized vehicles instead of supporting the request for red curb. Fiscal Impact: The cost of installing the recommended parking restriction signs is estimated at about $300. Council adopted Resolution No. 01-6163 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE USE OF PARKING RESTRICTIONS WITHIN 100 FEET OF AN INTERSECTION FOR VEHICLES THAT ARE SIX FEET OR MORE IN HEIGHT on August 28, 2001. 2f • • Alternatives: 1. Approve the Public Works Commission's recommendation and direct Staff to install signs on the north side of Gould Avenue that state "No Parking — Vehicles Over 6 Feet in Height." 2. Approve the original request and direct Staff to paint red curb on the north side of Gould Avenue west of PCH between the driveways for Ocean Plaza at 2615 PCH. 3. Take no action. Attachments: 1. Site Map 2. Staff Report for PWC Meeting 3. Minutes from March 20, 2002 Public Works Commission meeting Respectfully submitted, Harold C. Williams, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer C. oJ�e e Concur: Stephek.elurrel City Manager Concur: Michael La Chief of Po F:\B95\PWFILES\CCITEMS\gould parking sign 4-9-02.doc RED CURB REQUEST ON COULD AVENUE ATTACHMENT 1 • • March 12, 2002 Honorable Chairman and Members of Regular Meeting of The Hermosa Beach Public Works Commission March 20, 2002 REQUEST FOR RED CURB ON GOULD AVENUE WEST OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY BETWEEN THE DRIVEWAYS FOR OCEAN PLAZA AT 2615 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY Recommendation It is recommended that the Commission send a recommendation to the City Council to: 1. Deny the request to install red curb on the north side of Gould Avenue west of Pacific Coast Highway between the driveways for Ocean Plaza at 2615 Pacific Coast Highway. 2. Install signs on the north side of Gould Avenue between Pacific Coast Highway and El Oeste Drive stating "No Parking — Vehicles Over 6 Feet in Height." Summary A.Ietter (see attachment 1) was received from the property manager of Ocean Plaza (GLS Building Corp.) to install red curb on the north side of Gould Avenue west of Pacific Coast Highway between the Ocean Plaza driveways. The address for Ocean Plaza is 2615 Pacific Coast Highway. The reason for the request is that vehicles parked at this location create visibility problems for motorists exiting the westerly driveway out of the parking structure of Ocean Plaza, particularly if the parked vehicle is a motor home. The length of curb between the two driveways is 60 feet, which indicates that the requested red curb would eliminate three on - street parking spaces. While the parking of standard sized vehicles at the study location was not observed to create a unique safety condition, a large vehicle such as a motor home or truck would result in a safety and visibility problem if parked at this location, as mentioned in the letter. As a measure to retain the parking spaces for standard sized vehicles and thereby avoid the possibility of shifting the parked cars to other locations, while alleviating the problems associated with the parking of motor homes or other Targe vehicles, an alternative to the requested red curb would be to post the area with signs that state "No Parking — Vehicles Over 6 Feet in Height" (per Resolution 91- 5465 Parking Restrictions within 100 feet of an intersection for vehicles that are six feet or more in height). The City of Hermosa Beach has a policy that is consistent with the California Vehicle Code that allows such restrictions within 100 feet of an intersection. The location between the two Ocean Plaza driveways is within 100 feet of the intersection of Gould Avenue and the alley immediately west of Ocean Plaza. In addition, the on -street parking area east of the easterly Ocean Plaza driveway could likewise be posted with the 6 -foot height limit because it is within 100 feet of the Gould Avenue/PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY intersection. Discussion The location under consideration 'is ,the 60 -foot 'segment of curb on the north side of Gould . Avenue between the two Ocean Plaza driveways. The easterly driveway is an entrance/exit for the surface parking lot in front of Ocean Plaza and the westerly driveway is an entrance/exit for the parking structure beneath the Ocean Plaza building. The east driveway accommodates only 6b ATTACHMENT 2 # • right turns into and out of the driveway because there is a raised median on Gould Avenue at that location. The west driveway can accommodate right and left turns into and out of the driveway because there is an opening in the median at that location. Gould Avenue at this location has two westbound travel lanes, which merge into a single lane immediately west of Ocean Plaza. Vehicles parked on the north side of Gould Avenue between the two Ocean Plaza driveways partially obstruct visibility of the westbound lanes of Gould Avenue for motorists exiting the west driveway. Also, there is a hill and a curve on Gould Avenue that limit the sight distance to the east. It was observed, however, that motorists exiting the driveway usually position themselves so that they can view the oncoming traffic between the parked vehicles. This is a typical condition for driveways in the South Bay. While the requested red curb on Gould Avenue would improve visibility, it would also eliminate three parking spaces in an area where parking is valuable. If thea parking spaces were eliminated, vehicles that are currently parked at this location would have to be parked elsewhere; e.g., further to the west on Gould Avenue or on El Oeste Drive. The red curb could potentially shift the parked vehicles to locations that would affect residential properties. Alternatives 1. Recommend that Council support Staffs recommendation to install "No Parking — Vehicles Over 6' In Height" signs rather than installing red curb. 2. Recommend that Council support the request to install red curb between the driveways on Gould Avenue. 3. Maintain status quo and allow unrestricted parking at this location on Gould Avenue. 4. Provide alternative direction to Staff. Attachments: 1. Letter of request 2. Location map Respectfully submitted: Richard Garlan•, P. Traffic Engineer L Concur: /'WiIliams, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer F:\B95\PWFILES\PW Commission\pwitems\red curb 2615 pch 3-20-02.doc GLS BUILDING CORP. 25550 HAWTHORNE BOULEVA•ITE 310, TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA 90505 (310) 791.3343 FAX91.6113 February 7, 2002 Harold Williams Director of Public Works 1315 Valley Dr. Hermosa Beach, Ca 90254 Dear Mr. Williams: We are the Management company for Ocean Plaza located at 2615 Pacific Coast Hwy, Hermosa Beach. We would like to request that the curb on Gould be painted red between our East and West driveways. At the present time a motor home is parked there and it creates a very dangerous situation for the tenants coming out of the drive -way from the underground parking structure when a car is parked there not to mention a motor home. When the light changes at Artesia and PCH the cars round that curve coming down Gould and a car coming out of the drive just cannot see. We would appreciate your prompt consideration in this matter as it is a real Hazard. S cerely, 1 �C VO Charlotte Stowasser. Property Manager Cs/cs cc ATTACHMENT 1 February 19, 2002 City of 2imosa 1�3. eaclt. Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 Ms. Charlotte Stowasser Property Manager GLS Building Corp. 25550 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 310 Torrance, California 90505 RE: Ocean Plaza, 2615 Pacific Coast Highway Dear Ms. Stowasser: Thank you for your letter requesting that the curb be painted red between the east and west driveways at 2615 Pacific Coast Highway due to the dangerous situation caused by large vehicles parking at that location, obscuring the view for those attempting to leave the parking structure. This matter is being forwarded to the City Traffic Engineer for investigation. It will take approximately three weeks for a report to be prepared. The report will be presented at the Public Works Commission Meeting on Wednesday, March 20, 2002. We encourage you to attend. • Thank you again for your concern for traffic safety in Hermosa Beach. Very truly yours, Harold C. Williams, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer HCW/rbp cc: R. Garland, City Traffic Engineer ti • • Commission discussion brought out the following information or comments. o Project funding, while removed from the current fiscal year, was actually deferred until the next fiscal year and therefore was not available for other projects. o Mr. Williams indicated this is a specific project number (01-167) in the CIP budget and only $100,000 is allocated. o This issue would be addressed at a later time. MOTION by Chairman Winnek to follow Staffs recommendation that the Commission review and advise. Seconded by Commissioner Howell. Aye: Howell, Koch, Lombardo, and Winnek Nay: Cheatham Abstain: None Absent: None b. Request for Red Curb on Gould Avenue West of Pacific Coast Highway Between the East and West Driveways at 2615 Pacific Coast Highway Mr. Williams presented the item, recommending that rather than install red curb on Gould Avenue, they utilize Resolution 01-6163 which allows for the installation of signs that state "No Parking — Vehicles Over 6 Feet in Height." This resolution allows for the restriction of the parking of vehicles that are six feet or more in height if within 100 feet of an intersection. Commission discussion brought out the following information or comments. o Limited parking for the area had not been addressed by the Traffic Engineer in this report and the subject could be looked at a later time. o Commissioner Cheatham said he wanted to take this opportunity to state that the Public Works Department was doing a good job of advising the public. o There was general agreement among the commissioners that the signs would be a good idea. The signs would be placed from the alley to Pacific Coast Highway. MOTION by Commissioner Lombardo to recommend to City Council that signs be installed on the north side of Gould Avenue between Pacific Coast Highway and El Oeste Drive stating "No Parking — Vehicles Over 6 Feet in Height." Seconded by Commissioner Cheatham. Aye: Cheatham, Howell, Koch, and Lombardo Nay: Winnek Abstain: None Absent: None PWC Meeting Minutes 3 ATTACHMENT 3 3-20-02 •//9/E) 5r9 March 28, 2002 Honorable Mayor and Members'of Regular Meeting of The Hermosa Beach City Council April 9, 2002 AWARD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN & ENGINEERING OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS FOR PROJECT NO. CIP 00-410 LOMA AREA SEWER IMPROVEMENTS AND PROJECT NO. CIP 00-192 LOMA • AREA STREET IMPROVEMENTS Recommendation: -It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Award Professional Services Agreement to Uniplan Engineering, Inc. to provide design and engineering services for CIP No. 00-410 and CIP No. 00-192 in the amount of $122,800; 2. Authorize the appropriation of $115,273 from the 160 Sewer fund; 3. Authorize the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest the attached Professional Services Agreement subject to approval by the City Attorney; and 4. Authorize the Director of Public Works to make changes to the agreement up to $12,280. Background: Project No. CIP 00-410 and Project No. CIP 00-192 are large sewer and street improvement projects, respectively. The Request for Proposals (RFP) for both projects were sent to eight :firms with the option to propose on either one of the projects or both. Three proposals for the sewer project and seven proposals for the street project were received on March 7, 2002. Proposals were received from the following firms: IP 00-410 Loma Area Sewer Improvements: FIRM SCOPE OF WORK SIMILAR PROJECT EXPERIENCE WORK SCHEDULE FEE 1. Uniplan Engineering, Inc. Strong Strong Strong $43,700 . 2. DGA Consultants, Inc. Strong Strong Strong $47,270 3. SA Associates Strong Strong Strong $50,500 `"' 'Survey work to be supplied by the designer'of the. -street improvement project. 2g • 1 • For Project No. CIP 00-192 Loma Area Street Improvements: FIRM SCOPE OF WORK SIMILAR PROJECT EXPERIENCE WORK SCHEDULE FEE 1. Uniplan Engineering, Inc. Strong Strong Strong $79,100 2. SA Associates Strong Strong Strong $82,500 3. CBM Consulting, Inc. Strong Very Strong Adequate $146,810 4. DGA Consultants, Inc. Strong Very Strong Strong $173,580 5. CMTS, Inc. Adequate Adequate Strong $95,250 6. AAE Inc. Adequate Weak Strong $90,600 7. CAA, Inc. Adequate Weak Adequate $71,421 The City entered into the agreement with ROX Consulting Group, Inc. on May 9, 2000 to finish plans, specifications, and cost estimates (PS&E) for Project No. CIP 00-410 Loma Area Sewer Improvements and Project No. CIP 00-192 Loma Area Street Improvements. Staff, at that time, had faith in ROX Consulting since they were the original designers retained in 1995 prior to halting the projects due to the formation of the Underground Utility District (UUD) No. 97-2. Since then, ROX Consulting has changed their project manager twice and little progress has been made. The plans for both projects are incomplete. No work was completed for the specifications. On October 3, 2001, the City terminated the Professional Services Agreement with ROX Consulting Group, Inc. dated May 9, 2000. The City Manager and the City Attorney are looking into the resolution of possible claims. Analysis: For Project No. CIP 00-410 Loma Area Sewer Improvements, all three firms showed strength in all the categories. Since all three firms are well qualified, Staff recommends Uniplan Engineering, Inc. as the most cost-effective choice for design services. For Project No. CIP 00-192 Loma Area Street Improvements, the top three firms showed strength in all the categories, except CBM Consulting, who proposes a longer time schedule. Since all three firms are well qualified, Staff recommends Uniplan Engineering, inc. as the most cost-effective choice for design services. The Scope of Services will consist of the following work for both projects: A. Review of the Design of Previous Consultant Review all plans, profiles, correspondence, and reports available for possible use to develop concept plans of the projects. 2 B. Preliminary Cost Estimates A statement of probable/construction cost meeting the City's budget will be prepared based on the concept plan. D. Design Survey Perform research to obtain horizontal and vertical controls, centerline ties, monuments, assessor's maps, ownerships, as -built utility maps, and other information. Perform topographical survey at 25' intervals with spot checking at critical locations. E. Preliminary Plans, Specifications, & Estimates (PS&E) Submit preliminary construction plans, draft technical provisions, bidding schedules, and cost estimates for City review. F. Final PS&E's Incorporate the City's draft PS&E review comments into the final plans, specifications, and estimates. Submit three (3) sets of bluelines, technical provisions, cost estimates, and bidding schedules. Upon City's approval, submit one (1) set of mylars for each project. The complete Scope of Services can be found in the attached Professional Services Agreement. Since Project CIP 00-410 Loma Area Sewer Improvements will cause necessary street improvements, the 160 Sewer fund should fund the design for both street and sewer improvements. Fiscal Impact: The cost of design will be charged as follows: Project CIP No. 00-410 Loma Area Sewer Improvements $ 43,700 Project CIP No. 00-192 Loma Area Street Improvements 79,100 Subtotal $ 122,800 Contingency 12,280 TOTAL $ 135,080 Funds available: 160 Sewer Fund (CIP 00-410) $ 19,807 Funds needed: $ 115,273 Therefore, recommendation 2 is necessary to fund the design contract for both projects. 3 • Alternatives: 1. Approve Staff's recommendation. 2. Reject proposal and send back to Staff for downscale of project. 3. Take no action. Attachments: 1. Project Location Maps 2. Professional Services Agreement Respectfully submitted, Concur: Tristan D. Malabanan -larold C. Williams, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer Assistant Engineer Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Director Concur: Ste City Manager f:\b95\pwfiles\ccitems\00-410 and 00-192 Award Design PSA.doc 4 • • PROJECT NO. CIP 00-410 LOMA AREA SEWER IMPROVEMENTS ATTACHMENT 1. • • PROJECT NO. CIP 00-410 LOMA AREA STREET IMPROVEMENTS • • PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT PROJECT NO. CIP 00-410 LOMA AREA STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND PROJECT NO. CIP 00-192 LOMA AREA STREET IMPROVEMENTS THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 9th day of April, 2002 at Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California, by and between the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, through its duly elected; qualified and acting MAYOR, hereinafter called the CITY, and Uniplan Engineering, Inc. hereinafter called the CONSULTANT. WITNESSETH: That the CONSULTANT for and in consideration of the covenants, conditions, agreements, and stipulations of the CITY herein expressed, does hereby agree to furnish to the CITY professional services and materials, as follows: ARTICLE I - Scope of Work CONSULTANT shall perform all work necessary to complete in a manner satisfactory to CITY the services set forth in the plans and specifications or the scope of work attached as Exhibit "A". ARTICLE II - Costs The CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT for all the work or any part of the work performed under this Agreement at the rates and in the manner established in the attached Bid Proposal. Total expenditure made under this contract shall not exceed the sum of $122,800. This fee includes all expenses, consisting of all incidental blueprinting, photography, travel, and miscellaneous costs, estimated to be accrued during the life of the contract. It also includes any escalation or inflation factors anticipated. No increase in fees will be allowed during the life of the contract. Any increase in contract amount or scope shall be by express written amendment approved by the CITY and CONSULTANT. The CONSULTANT will be reimbursed for costs incurred in the performance hereof as are allowable under the provisions of Part 1-14 of the Federal Procurement Regulations. ARTICLE III - Method of Payment CONSULTANT"shallbe 'reimbursed monthly in arrears based :upon -the hourly services provided. CONSULTANT shall submit invoices in triplicate and addressed to the CITY, c/o the Finance Department, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3884. ATTACHMENT 2 ARTICLE IV - Subcontracting CONSULTANT shall not be permitted to subcontract any portion of this contract without the express written consent of the CITY. ARTICLE V - Completion Date CONSULTANT shall commence work under this agreement upon execution of this agreement and shall complete the work according to the schedule submitted as part of Exhibit "A", however, the CITY's Director of Public Works may extend the completion date as required by the scope of this contract. Any contract time extension shall require the express written consent of the Director of Public Works. ARTICLE VI - Accounting Records CONSULTANT must maintain accounting records and other evidence pertaining to costs incurred which records and documents shall be kept available at the • CONSULTANT's California office during the contract period and thereafter for three years from the date of final payment of Federal funds hereunder. ARTICLE VII - Ownership of Data All data, maps, photographs, and other material collected or prepared under the contract shall become the property of the CITY. ARTICLE VIII - Termination This contract may be terminated at any time for breach and the CITY may terminate unilaterally and without cause upon seven (7) days written notice to the CONSULTANT. All work satisfactorily performed pursuant to the contract and prior to the date of termination may be claimed for reimbursement. ARTICLE IX - Assignability CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer interest in this contract without the prior written consent of the CITY. ARTICLE X - Amendment It is mutually understood and agreed that no alteration or variation of the terms of this contract, or any subcontract requiring the approval of the CITY, shall be valid unless made in writing, signed.by.the parties hereto, and approved by all necessary partie. . • 2 • • ARTICLE XI - Non -Solicitation Clause The CONSULTANT warrants that he or she has not employed or retained any company or persons, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the CONSULTANT, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, the CITY shall have the right to annul this contract without liability, or, in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. ARTICLE XII - Equal Opportunity Assurance During the performance of this contract, the CONSULTANT agrees as follows: A. The CONSULTANT will not discriminate against any employee orapplicant for employment because of race, sex, creed, color or national origin. The CONSULTANT will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, sex, creed, color or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the. following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoffs or .termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The CONSULTANT agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. B. The CONSULTANT will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees .placed by or on behalf of the CONSULTANT, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, sex, creed, color or national origin. C. The CONSULTANT will permit access to their books, records and accounts by the applicant agency, the State, the Federal Highway Administration and/or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with this nondiscrimination clause. D. In the event of the CONSULTANT's noncompliance with the nondiscrimination clauses of this contract, this contract may be canceled, terminated or suspended in whole or in part. ARTICLE XIII - Clean Air Act �.;:°<<k' $Y, , 'Durmg'the performance of this Contract, the.CONSULTANT agrees,,to comply with all applicable standards, orders, or regulations issued pursuant to the Clean Air Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.) and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) as amended. • • ARTICLE XIV - Indemnity CONSULTANT agrees oto indemnify the CITY, its officers, employees and agents against, and will hold and save each of them harmless from, any and all actions, claims, damages to persons or property, penalties, obligations or liabilities that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm, entity, corporation, political subdivision or other organization arising out of the negligent acts or intentional tortious acts, errors or omissions of CONSULTANT, its agents, employees, subcontractors, or invitees, provided for herein. CONSULTANT will defend any action or actions filed in connection with any of said claims, damages, penalties, obligations or liabilities and will pay all costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees incurred in connection herewith. CONSULTANT will. promptly pay any judgment rendered against CITY, its officers, agents or employees for any such claims, damages, penalties, obligations or liabilities. In the event CITY, its officers, agents or employees is made a party to any action or proceeding filed or prosecuted against CONSULTANT for such damages or other claims arising out of or in connection with the sole negligence of CONSULTANT hereunder, CONSULTANT agrees to pay CITY, its officers, agents, or employees, any and all costs and expenses incurred by CITY, its officers, agents or employees in such action or proceeding, including but not limited to reasonable attorney's fees. ARTICLE XV - Insurance A. Without limiting CONSULTANT',S obligations arising under ARTICLE XIV - Indemnity , CONSULTANT shall not begin work under this Agreement until it obtains policies of insurance required under this section. The insurance shall cover CONSULTANT, its agents, representatives and employees in connection with the performance of work under this Agreement, and shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. Insurance coverage shali.be as follows: Automobile Liability Insurance with minimum coverages of $500,000 for property damage, $500,000 for injury to one person/single occurrence, and $500,000 for injury to more than one person/single occurrence. ii. Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance, insuring CITY its elected and appointed officers, agents, and employees from claims for damages for personal injury, including death, as well as from claims for property damage which may arise from CONSULTANT'S actions under this Agreement, whether or not done by CONSULTANT or anyone directly or indirectly employed by CONSULTANT. Such insurance shall have a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000. iii. Worker's Compensation Insurance for all CONSULTANT'S employees to the extent required.by_the-State of,California. B. Deductibility Limits for policies referred to in subparagraphs A (i) (ii) and (iii) shall not exceed $5,000 per occurrence. 4 • • C. Additional Insured. City, its elected and appointed officers, agents, and employees shall be named as additional insureds on policies referred to in subparagraphs A (i) and (ii). D. Primary Insurance. The insurance required in paragraphs A (i) (ii) and (iv) shall be primary and not excess coverage. E. Evidence of Insurance. Consultant shall furnish CITY, prior to the execution of this Agreement, satisfactory evidence of the insurance required, issued by an insurer authorized to do business in California, and an endorsement to each such policy of insurance evidencing that each carrier is required to give CITY at least 30 .days prior written notice of the cancellation of any policy during the effective period of the Agreement. All required insurance policies are subject to approval of the City Attorney. Failure on the part of CONSULTANT to procure or maintain said insurance in full force and effect shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement or procure or renew such insurance, and pay any premiums therefor at CONSULTANT'S expense. ARTICLE XVI - Enforcement of Agreement In the event that legal action is commenced to enforce or declare the rights created under this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of costs and 'reasonable attorney's fees in the amount to be determined by the court. ARTICLE XVII - Conflicts of Interest No member of the governing body of the CITY and no other officer, employee, or agent of the CITY who exercises any functions or responsibilities in connection with the planning and carrying out of the program, shall have any personal financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement; and the CONSULTANT further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed. ARTICLE XVIII - Independent CONSULTANT The CONSULTANT is and shall at all times remain as to the CITY a wholly independent consultant. Neither the CITY nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of the CONSULTANT or any of the CONSULTANT's employees, except as herein set forth. The CONSULTANT shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are in any manner agents or employees of the CITY. ARTICLE XIX - Entire Agreement of the Parties This Agreement supersedes any and all other agreements, either oral or in writing, between the parties hereto with respect to the employment of CONSULTANT by CITY and contains all the covenants and agreements between the parties with respect such employment in any manner whatsoever. Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements, orally or otherwise, have been • • made by any party, or anyone acting on behalf of any party, which are not embodied herein, and that no other agreement or amendment hereto shall be effective unless executed in writing and signed by both CITY and CONSULTANT. ARTICLE XX - Governing Law This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, and all applicable federal statutes and regulations as amended. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year first above written. - CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CONSULTANT MAYOR: Mayor, City of Hermosa Beach Agent, Uniplan Engineering, Inc. ATTEST: Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney 6 f:\b95\cip\00-410\00-410 & 00-192 psa — design.doc Scope of Work for Loma Area Street and Sewer Improvement Projects Project No. CIP 00-192 and Project No. CIP 00-410 1. Review of the Design of Previous Consultant. With City furnishing the diskettes of previous consultant, the UNIPLAN Team will review all plans and profiles and other documents that can be used to complete the designs in collaboration with our new detailed design/survey and cultures under Item Nos. 4 and 5 below. 2. Research and Data Gathering. Attend kick-off meeting and other project meetings with City and other government agencies. 3. Cost Estimates. A statement of probable construction cost meeting the City's budget will be prepared based upon the Concept Plan. This cost estimate will be conceptual in nature but will illustrate the order of magnitude of anticipated construction costs for the street improvements and sewer rehabilitation and reconstruction. 4. Design Survey. UNIPLAN Team will perform the detailed design survey and cultures for the portion of Project No. CIP 00-192 Loma Area Street Improvements and Project No. CIP 00-410 Loma Area Sewer Rehabilitation and Reconstruction. State -of -the -practice equipment will be utilized to survey 25' interval cross-sections and the surface cultures within the right-of-way for these portions of these projects with spot checking the critical locations. At every street intersection we will extend our cross sections of 25' intervals for the side streets 50 feet beyond the BCR/ECR. The County of Los Angeles vertical datum will be used for the vertical control. All edges and corners of CC driveways shall be shown in the topo with spot elevations joining the new AC pavement design including the depth and top elevations/inverts of sewer manholes. 5. The topographic survey map will be used to create the base plans with screened background for the designs. 6. Preliminary Plans, Specifications & Estimates (PS&E). UNIPLAN will incorporate the City's comments/corrections per plan check, prepare and develop a complete set of plans, profiles and details according to the City of Hermosa Beach and County of Los Angeles Standards to obtain a readable, biddable and buildable set of documents. 6-A. Street Improvement Project Attend project kick-off meeting with City staff to establish appropriate contacts, review project approach, and identify any project concerns the City staff may have developed. • UNIPLAN will design curb and gutter in the areas that have broken curb and gutter as well as sidewalk based on the result of the detailed design survey and cultures. EXHIBIT A UNIPLAN will determine and design the roadway areas for resurfacing and possible reconstruction per field inspection and approval by the city. UNIPLAN will design this project per City of Hermosa Beach's and ADA requirements. UNIPLAN will coordinate closely with the City of Hermosa Beach to provide for necessary items required for the future development in the street improvement designs. UNIPLAN will core representative samples to determine the existing structural section and be sensitive to disturbing the existing subgrade in particular on steep grades. Per our field review, the Team recommends the following A.C. Paving Design providing the work meets your budget: 1. Loma Drive — From 6th Street to Pier Avenue -Reconstruction 2. Sunset Drive — From 6th Street to 10th Street—Reconstruction 3. Sunset Drive — From 10th Street to Pier Avenue—Resurfacing 4. Palm Drive — From 4th Street to 6th Street—Reconstruction 5. 6th Street - From Cypress Avenue to Palm Drive—Reconstruction 6. 8th Street — From Loma Drive and Ardmore Avenue -Resurfacing 7. 10th Street — From Loma Drive to Monterey Boulevard -Resurfacing 8. 11th Street — From Ardmore Avenue to Monterey Boulevard -Resurfacing 9. 16th Street — From Loma Drive to Hermosa Avenue -Reconstruction 6-8. Sewer Rehabilitation and Reconstruction The project team will identify rehabilitation and repair alternatives discussing the advantages and disadvantages along with cost for each alternative. Some alternative rehabilitation and repair methods to be looked at will include: • Bursting — This is a trenchless technology whereby if a larger pipe is needed because of hydraulic capacity, the existing pipe is fractured and expanded from the inside to allow for a larger diameter liner to be installed, thereby increasing hydraulic capacity. • Slip Lining — This is an old method whereby a new smaller pipe is pulled inside an existing pipe. • Exterior Repair — This is a method whereby the street is excavated to repair a relatively short collapsed section of pipeline. • CIPP Liner - This is an epoxy -resin -impregnated flexible tube installed by an inversion method using hydrostatic head. • Deformed/Reformed or Folded and Reformed — This method allows for repair of partially collapsed pipe without excavation of the street. Attend project kick-off meeting with City staff to establish appropriate contacts, review project approach, and. identify any project concerns the City staff may have developed. Develop and perform an inspection schedule of the sewer manholes to be joined with City staff. Contact, in writing, the effected jurisdictional agencies and utility companies to inform them of the City's plans. Request schedules for any proposed construction within the project site and as -built plans, if available, for utilities along the entire length of the proposed sewer alignments. Meet with Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD) to discuss joins to their facilities. Obtain pertinent LACSD as -built drawings to verify and detail join structures. Develop topographic base drawings from topo survey along each sewer alignment. Conduct a job walk to aid in augmenting the base sheets. Depict all gathered utility information on the base sheets. Select a tentative alignment for the replacement sewer, either parallel or in the same alignment as the existing sewer. Meet with the City staff to review the tentative alignment, sewer sizes, and that rehabilitation methods are acceptable. Meet with replacement staff to discuss and decide upon rehabilitation method(s) that will be allowed in the bids. Review available video inspection tapes and reports of the existing systems. Perform soil borings along the selected alignment to establish pavement thickness and soil types. Potholes will generally be drilled every 750 feet along the selected alignment. Upon agreement of the replacement sewer alignment, the ground line profile will be drawn and all utilities depicted on the profile. The vertical heights of the utilities will be plotted from available information. 6-C. Utility Search/Plans UNIPLAN will prepare the utility notices on City letterhead and send these to utility companies with the proposed street improvements. Upon receipt of the • s utility companies' response, UNIPLAN will update the existing utility plans and identify any poteptial conflicts. In case of any conflict, UNIPLAN will provide the possible engineering solutions to avoid the conflict. If the conflict is inevitable, a copy of the utility conflict map will be sent to the utility company to prepare the utility relocation plans. UNIPLAN will incorporate all the utility conflicts in the draft street improvement plans and prepare the draft utility plan for the City's review and comment. We suggest that potholing be performed in this task to verify the utility conflicts. 6-D. Special Provisions The UNIPLAN Team will prepare special provisions for the proposed improvements according to the latest issue of the APWA Standard Specifications (Green Book). The City's Boiler Plate will be utilized in the preparation of the specifications. 7. Final PS&E. The UNIPLAN Team will incorporate the City's draft PS&E review comments as discussed and approved at the adjudication meeting and will prepare the final plans, specifications and estimates. 8. Submittal of final PS&E for City's approval 9. Upon City's approval of the plans, one set of original mylars of the above plans will be submitted to the City. • Honorable Mayor and Members of The Hermosa Beach City Council April 9, 2002 April 2, 2002 Regular Meeting of PROJECT NO. CIP 00-139 HERMOSA AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENTS — HERMOSA AVENUE FROM 16TH STREET TO 26TH STREET AND 19TH STREET FROM HERMOSA AVENUE TO MONTEREY BOULEVARD — ACCEPTANCE Recommendation: it is recommended that the City Council: 1. Accept the work by Sully -Miller Contracting Co. for Project No. CIP 00-139 Hermosa Avenue Street Improvements; 2. Authorize the Mayor to sign the Notice of Completion; and 3. Authorize Staff to release payment to Sully -Miller Contracting Co. (10% retained for 35 days following filing of Notice of Completion). Background: On May 22, 2001, City Council approved an agreement with Sully -Miller Contracting Co. to improve Hermosa Avenue from 16th Street to 26th Street and 19th Street from Hermosa Avenue to Monterey Boulevard. The improvements included street resurfacing and striping, replacement of various concrete wheelchair ramps, driveway approaches, cross -gutter, sidewalk, curb & gutter and adjustment of utility boxes and manholes. Please see the attached project location map. The contractor has completed the work to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. Fiscal Impact: The project has been completed under budget and the remaining unexpended project balance is $58,859. No additional appropriation is required. Attachment: Project Location Map 2h Respectfully submitted, Assistant Engineer Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Cope and Concur: • Harold C. Williams, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer Finance Director City Manager F:\B95\PWFILES\CCITEMS\00-139 acceptance 4-9-02.doc • PROJECT LOCATION MA PROJECT NO. CR 00-1.39 HERMOSA AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENTS HERMOSA AVENUE FROM 16TH STREET TO 26TH STREET 19th STREET FROM HERMOSA AVENUE TO MONTEREY BOULEVARD 9 tNV300 :)Jiwd 5� ^ sr, ' I TIF1 ru DATE:' 2-15-01 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH SCALE: NOT TO SCALE • • Honorable Mayor and Members of The Hermosa Beach City Council March 28, 2002 Regular Meeting of April 9, 2002 ADOPT-A-STORMDRAIN, SPONSORSHIP, SIGNAGE, AND PLACEMENT, Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Approve Adopt A Stormdrain donations from new private sponsors. 2. Approve the design, size, wording, and placement of Adopt-A-Stormdrain signage. Executive Summary: The City Council approved the agreement and establishment of the Adopt A Stormdrain (AASD) program on November 13, 2001. Since then, one private sponsor has donated funds totaling $5,000, $4000 of which was paid to the City and $1,000 to AASD for administrative oversight. Additional sponsors are now proposing to donate a total of $18,800 to the AASD program. Background: The City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requires the City to develop programs to control the discharge of storm water contaminants from a variety of activities. Such activities include those conducted by public agencies, residents, and businesses on streets, roads, parking lots and private property that may create trash, litter, debris, oil or other materials that may be washed down the storm drains. These activities can negatively affect storm water quality and the ocean. In order to help fund storm drain pollution programs, the City contracted with AASD on November 13, 2001. Under the contract, AASD obtains donations/sponsorships from private firms to help fund City storm water pollution prevention programs. In exchange, AASD receives 20% of each donation for administrative oversight and related costs. To date, the following amounts have been pledged and received: Pledged Received (City) Received (AASD) CHEVRON $5,000 $4,000 $1,000 Totals $5,000 $4,000 $1,000 2i • • Four additional sponsors have indicated their desire to donate funds to the AASD program in Hermosa Beach. These firms and their pledged contributions are: Pledged Pledged (City) Pledged (AASD) The Roadium Open Air Market $4,800 $3,840 $ 960 Good Stuff Restaurants $4,800 $3,800 $ 960 Vintage Realty $3,200 $2,560 $ 640 Ira Fierberg, Attorney $6,000 $4,800 $1,200 Totals $18,800 $15,040 $3,760 Staff recommends that these four additional sponsors be approved as AASD sponsors and be recognized with signage in the City. Attached, as Exhibit A, is a copy of the signage locations with the corporate sponsors listed. There are five signs. ,All signs will meet City requirements of size, placement, and time schedules. Attached, as Exhibit B, is a copy of the signage design. Fiscal Impact: The AASD agreement has provided funds from private firms for use by the City to pay for various stormwater pollution prevention programs. These programs include stormdrain cleaning, public education programs, and street cleaning. If approved, the estimated revenue from this program will be $19,040. There will be no direct fiscal impact to the AASD program. Respectfully submitted, Concur: H /3eiiG.zb� Homayoun Behboodi Associate Engineer Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Director Harold C. Williams, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer Steph ell City Manager EXHIBIT A — Proposed signage locations with corporate sponsors. EXHIBIT B — Signage Design 2 • • Hermosa Beach Signage Opportunities Large Vertical Sign - $6,000 Size 4' X 21.9" 1. PCH in front of Spyder Surf East side of street Large Vertical Sign $4,800 Size 4' X 2'.9" Ira Fierberg (These signs were sold before maximum sponsorship value was determined) 1. PCH in front of Rocky Cola West side of street • Good Stuff Restaurants 2. PCH & 15th Street (1500 PCH) West side of street Roadium SmaII Vertical Sign - $5,000 Size 2' X 11.4" (Chevron's sponsorship is based on program involvement, not sign value) 1. Pier Avenue @ Valley & Ardmore South side of street Chevron (600 Pier Avenue) SmaII Vertical Sign $3,200 Size 2' X 1'.4" 1. Pier Avenue @ Valley & Ardmore North side of street Vintage Realty (600 Pier Avenue) EXHIBIT A fif4: Y• ,, St fry :yg t p t[ F 7�5. y.�' • ''V�.irY4 i-, "lit I v- iv a. .' .-YR77,4} ,.yam '.,1 F , 1r ... r F tet, y' ' llk/' Ry `'''l r3'e /.: 2 raj„4 "�; �.r ,r.. - r� +:eta `� � ;.i ft,7�"4fC 1;0- 4a„.- a ` Yt f ..I., '.d • •t' Q i• 41 i ..r •r �""e• I' T4 • .4 4.. r'T yq4 > u r a• ; f• f'* 40- 4y .t +. • .4 y"'"V ,r m a '44' 3+4- a • f .1;,t -r"4". - ,Y t - It: . i= ' • ,..Ai,- 4`ur te f ' --‘4,,,,}Ps f .tf+r f ¢{ y y•'� t f t "M1�♦ .74WA' e. ��ytstr t .� r. �. d - �t' � _' S"� tivd ' _'4,-',t$ ` t ,1e7--,,,14--?,1.?„: Yy ,. '?m} '4 fAW.L, i$ v ',, -cE fifer.,. ,, zi }., may,F {9 -:-pt/ te^i-t .r f OveL. '$!. f ' ' r it'• 4 'rixv,{ ?t• �t;-a* %' Y •�'f+. + y '"r i.4•bi `:i- 7a t`v s' e-; ty 4. Sf 41,-;',-1,,,,, ` •+ssb } }kA • • 4. J tE `4r�h.uu; „F P r 1i - k -r-• ? 3.i t`F .+ EXHIBIT B _ iy tf N TyA•_ 3 it '• yY; , r 7 s FESjS +' t"+d3' f.�,..,.�,..da,7rf ,d�..Yr�. c1 _ 5'A�S.wT .'.:.af• � �i>.' • • ESTAUR NTS Hermosa • Manhattan • Redondo • West LA. eaat io.Pced 1979 OPEN AIR MARKET !)ioisaon of Pioneer Theatres. Inc • • • FIE PERSONAL INJURY LAW 3 1 °546. • Chevron REAL ESTATE GROUP 310.545.9595 • SUS -- .080 ALUMINUM SUBSTRATE • FACE/GRAPHICS -- FULL COLOR EXTERIOR GRADE DIGITAL PRINT, LAMINATE DIRECTLY TO SUBSTRATE • MOUNTING -- MOUNT TO STANDARD EDISON LAMP POST W/ 3/4" STAINLESS STEEL STRAPPING AS REQUIRED BY ENGINEERING Motivational am, Systems Inc ❑ San Diego (619) 474.8246 ® Corona (909) 734.3970 O Las Vegas (702) 253.6470 O Livermore (925) 449-1900 O Fresno (559) 431.2502 ❑ Phoenix (602) 484-8844 O Sacramento (916) 635-0234 O Seattle (206) 575.4895 O 0 0 PROJECT ADOPT A STORM DRAIN CLIENT 5TH GEAR ADVERTISI JOB # 2-1701 - OD AE VALERIE HARDMAN DESIGNER CHRIS SAZNER ORIGINAL DATE 10-23-01 . REVISIONS SCALE 1/4"=1'-0" MAC FILE NAME (GD -3) ADOPT A DRAIN SIGN ON POST O 0 0 CLIENT APPROVAL 0 As is 0 With revision(s) Signature Date Your signature indicates final approval of this design, releasing MSI from responsibility of incorrect information. This is an original MSI design. All rights to use or reproduce in whole or in part, in any form or to fabricate or produce any likeness thereof shall remain the exclusive right of MSI. Colors shown are not true matches to final product. For exact color match, refer to actual materials being used. 0 • Honorable Mayor and Members of The Hermosa Beach City Council April 3, 2002 6.)D.g3-1 Regular Meeting of April 9, 2002 PROJECT NO. CIP 95-622 CITY HALL REMODEL – ADA UPGRADES – REQUEST FOR APPROPRIATION Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council appropriate additional funding of $124,577 from the following funds to CIP 95-622 to provide total funding required to complete the project. Equipment Replacement Fund $62,289 Capital Improvement Fund $62,288 Total $124,577 Background: On August 28, 2001, the City Council awarded the contract for Project No. CIP 95-622 City Hall Remodel – ADA Upgrades to Corona Constructors in the base bid amount of $849,648. At that time Council directed Staff to bring this item back before Council for approval of the alternates and other appropriations. On September 22, 2001, Council amended the construction contract with Corona Constructors to include alternates and increased the construction contract total to $1,125,176 plus a 10% contingency. Analysis: Construction started mid-December and has been proceeding on schedule. During the course of the construction, the City has issued three change orders due to unforeseen conditions, building code changes, design deficiencies, and efficiency. These three change orders consisted of 36 items, totaling $133,435 or 10.66% of the contract cost. These changes are categorized into five groups as follows: 1. Design Deficiencies: 2. Code Changes since Plan Check: 3. Unforeseen Existing Conditions: 4. City requested Changes: 5. Audio/visual infrastructure work changes: $22,907.00 or 1.8% of the contract cost. $17,080.00 or 1.3% of the contract cost. $53,294.45 or 4.26% of the contract cost. $30,254.35 or 2.4% of the contract cost. $9,900.00 or .79% of the contract cost. The above noted change orders provided the following enhancements: • One additional storage room • Satisfaction of all current building and safety codes • Removal of all asbestos tiles from the Council Chamber dais area beneath the existing carpet • Installation of rough conduit for the audio/visual system in Council Chambers for future use 2j r • • • Enlarged conduit size from the main distribution board to Fire Department Service to allow for future electrical Toad increases • Removal of abandoned air handler. in the mechanical room to provide storage space for the Police Department ; Information regarding these changes is attached. At this time; Staff has identified some additional items not covered in the original design, which have a budget cost of $74,759.00 or 6% of the contract. These will be beneficial to the City and will correct previously unknown deficiencies while others will benefit users. The following is a list of the additional items: 1. Run fiber optic cable from data room to Fire Department. 2. Remodel first floor employee restrooms. 3. Add exterior lights at west entry. 4. Add smoke detectors for elevator recall. 5. Add additional data and telephone outlets in the Data Processing Office. 6. Add acoustical wall treatment to Council Chamber. 7. Provide openings with fire dampers in lower floor corridor wall to provide a path for return air back to the unit. 8. Add TV light at dais and modify existing dimming switch. 9. Remodel second floor lounge area to create an office space. 10. Remove and replace termite -damaged roofing materials and treat roof for termites over east entry area. 11. Remove and replace wet roof insulation. 12. Power and telephone outlets in lower floor corridor. These additional items would bring the contract change orders total to $208,194.80 or 16.7% of the original contract cost. Also, Staff believes that an additional contingency of $41,500 should be appropriated to insure funding is available for any other changes that may become necessary. Therefore, Staff is recommending that an additional appropriation of $124,577 be approved to allow for completion of the project. Fiscal Impact: Additional funding allocations in the amount of $124,577 from the following funding sources are available. Equipment Replacement Fund $62,289 Capital Improvement Fund $62,288 Total $124,577 Staff recommends that any funds remaining after completion of the project be expended for refurbishing the first floor patio and landscaping around City Hall. Attachments: Approved change orders 2 • Respectfully submitted, Concur: HomayoL4n/Behboodi Associate Engineer Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Director • Cao (iv „ie arold C. Williams, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer Concur: Stephen 4 = r rrell City Mata -- ger F:\B95\PWFILES\CCITEMS195-622 request for appropriation 4-9-02.doc r' • Date: January 31, 2002 • CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER City of Hermosa Beach Department of Public Works Change.Order No. 1 Project No. CIP 95-622 Project Title Hermosa Beach City Hall Remodel — ADA Upgrades The changes or interpretations described and noted herein are hereby authorized. The signed original of this order is on file at the office of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. Item No. 1: (1) Reason for change: To provide additional space in the Mechanical Room located North of the West stairway on the lower floor. Contract documents did not provide for removing this unit. (2) Description of change: Per Contractor's Cost Proposal for RFQ #3 referring, to Existing / Demo Basement Plan 1, Sheet A-3.0 remove and dispose of the existing air handler, furnace, ductwork, etc. feeding the Council Chambers. Remove and cap gas line to the furnace. Remove flue and rework connection of flues from 2 existing furnaces feeding the Police Department. Remove the electrical back to the panel. This work to include the concrete housekeeping pad. (3) Change in contract cost Add $4,287.00 (4) Extension of contract if warranted 0 working days Item No. 2: (1) Reason for change: To keep all power, telephone, and data outlets that exist in the Police Department Area for future use. (2) Description of change: Per Contractor's Cost Proposal for RFQ #4, referring to Detail A, Basement Power Plan, Sheet E-2 where new offices West of the new elevator shaft encroach into the Police Department Area relocate all power, telephone, and data outlets located on existing walls in area being removed from this area to the new wall being built between these areas (3) Change in contract cost Add $822.00 (4) Extension of°contract if -warranted 0 working days.`.,. 10029/363/3102 Paget nf5 Item No. 3: (1) Reason for change: Existing asbestos floor tile found under the carpet on the podium in the Council Chamber not identified in the asbestos report to be removed. (2) Description of change: Per Contractor's Cost Proposal for RFQ #5, remove asbestos floor tile from the Podium in the Council Chamber per Section 02080, Removal of Asbestos - Containing material. (3) Change in contract cost Add $1,276.00 (4) Extension of contract if warranted 0 working days Item No. 4: (1) Reason for change: Plans indicated at West Entry removing and relocating existing gates. They were not gates. They were storefront doors. (2) Description of change: Per Contractor's Cost Proposal for Field Directions remove existing Storefront doors at West Entry and furnish and install new storefront, doors, and hardware at new location. (3) Change in contract cost Add $7,574.35 (4) Extension of contract if warranted 0 working days Item No. 5: (1) Reason of change: Cabinets and top shown in the new AV Room will not work with new equipment and we were directed to remove them from the Contract (2) Description of change: Per Contractor's Cost Proposal for RFQ #7, referring to First Floor Plan, Sheet A-3.1 7 A-4.0 and interior Elevation 15, Sheet A-9.1 delete cabinet and top shown in AV Room, Number 103. (3) Change in contract cost Credit $1,340.00 (4) Extension of contract if warranted 0 working days 10029/363/3102 Pa¢e2 of R Item No. 6: (11 Reason for change! Fxistina Se'Wer 1111A is r1PtP.riAratet1 mitt 1ntPrffrre uAtl, 117011 (2) Description of change: Per Contractor's Cost Proposal for RFQ #8, referring to New Basement floor Plan, Sheet A-3.0 replace deteriorated sewer drop and horizontal line relocating to miss new wall in Storage Room, number B105. (3) Change in contract cost Add $2,715.00 (4) Extension of contract if warranted 0 working days Item No. 7: (1) Reason for change: Joe Duckett, City Information Systems Specialist requested that a 30 - amp circuit be added to the Temporary Facilities to power an uninterrupted power supply for network back up. (2) Description of change: Per Contractor's Cost Proposal for RFQ #17 furnish and install a 30 amp. Breaker in existing modular panel and run a'R' conduit with 2 #10 and 1 #10- isolated ground to a 30 amp receptacle for a NEMA L5 -30P connector in the telephone Data room. (3) Change in contract cost Add $365.00 (4) Extension of contract if warranted 0 working days Item No. 8: (1) Reason for change: Requested by City for maintenance in corridor leading to Copy Room. (2) Description of change: Per Contractor's Cost Proposal for RFQ #9 referring to Second Floor Plan, Sheet A-3.2 remove existing Vinyl Asbestos tile in corridor East of restrooms and North of work room and furnish and install 8x8 ceramic tile and base as called for at entries to second floor offices. (3) Change in contract cost Add $1,353.00 (4) Extension of contract if warranted 0 working days 10029/363/3102 Page3 of R • Item No. 9: (1) Reason for change: The user requested an opening be provided in the wall in order to see people coming into the office. (2) Description of change: Per Contractor's Cost Proposal for RFQ #16, referring to Triple Wide Modular B, Sheet TF -2 cut a 5' opening in the South wall of Clerk/Sec. Area. Start opening 18" from the West End of the wall. Sill height to be 42" from the floor. Trim new opening. (3) Change in contract cost Add $330.00 (4) Extension of contract if warranted 0 working days Item No. 10 (1) Reason for change: To increase marginal size of transformer to feed `Existing Service No. 1" and provide protection for the feeder. (2) Description of change: Per Contractor's Cost Proposal for RFQ #1 revise 200 amp., 3P breaker in "New Main Service Board (MSB)", 3"C = 3 #410, 1 #6 G feeder, and 30 KVA transformer feeding "Existing Service No. 1" to a 175 A, 3P breaker in "New Main Service Board (MSB)", 2 'A" C, 1#6 G feeder, and 45 KVA transformer feeding "Existing Service No. 1". (3) Change in contract cost Add $240.00 (4) Extension of contract if warranted 0 working days Item No. 11 (1) Reason for change: Existing documents did not provide for the removal of 4 trees required for new service panel and extended ramp installation. Demolition of existing restrooms on the First Floor discovered existing flue and vent and water lines that required relocation requiring revision to the layout of the new restrooms. (2) Description of change: Per Contractor's Cost Proposal for Field Directions given in response to RFI # 2 remove 4 exiting trees and revise the layout of new restrooms, flue routing, and plumbing. (3) Change in contract cost Add $8,366.00 (4) Extension of contract if warranted 3 working days 10029/363/3102 Parre4 of R Item No. 12 (1) Reason for change: Enlarge'conduit size from MSB to pull box intercepting service to the Fire Department to allow for an increased panel size for future renovations being planned by the Fire Department. (2) Description of change: Per Contractor's Cost Proposal for RFQ #2 increase the size of -conduitfrom MSB -to pull -box intercepting -existingservice-to-the-FireDepartment from 2'A" to 4" conduit. (3) Change in contract cost Add $352.00 (4) Extension of contract if warranted 0 working days Item No. 13 (3) Reason for change: Existing required 1 hour wall between the Council Chamber and the exit Lobby did not extend from above the ceiling to the structure to provide a 1 hour exit envelope. Code requires a lhour exit enclosure. (4) Description of change: Per Contractor's Cost proposal for RFQ #6 referring to First floor -Plan, -Sheet A -3:1 -acrd or A-4:0 extend plaster -both -sides Df existing -stud wall from where it stops above the existing ceiling to the roof deck between Foyer, Room 100, and Council Chamber, Room 101. Provide furring around the existing tapered steel girder at this location and extend plaster both sides to the bottom of the roof sheathing. (3) Change in contract cost Add $5,403.00 (4) Extension of contract if warranted 0 working days Item No. 14 (5) Reason for change: The tenants had requested the plywood paneling and existing door be removed because of the new furniture layout and colors. (6) Description of change: Per Contractor's Cost Proposal for RFQ #10 referring to Second Floor Plan, Sheet A-3.2 remove existing door between offices on grid line 3 and fill in opening with new wall to match existing and remove existing paneling in two offices between grid lines 3 and 4. Repair existing drywall under paneling as required for paint. (3) Change in contract cost Add $698.00 (4) Extension of contract,if,warranted 0 working days 10029/363/3102 Pages of 8 Item No. 15 (1) Reason for change: Required by code to remove existing wood framing out of the new return air plenum (2) Description of change: Per Contractor's Cost Proposal for RFQ #11 provide additional framing and drywall with fire taping above the ceiling along the South wall of the second floor. (3) Change in contract cost Add $3,139.00 (4) Extension of contract if warranted 2 working days Item No. 16 (1) Reason for change: Added layer over building paper will reduce the noise level created by using only one layer of plywood. (2) Description of change: Per Contractor's Cost Proposal for RFQ #12 leave as much of the existing podium framing in the Council Chamber- and add a second layer of 3/4" plywood over 30# felt to the remainder of the podium that is being re -framed. (3) Change in contract cost Add $0.00 (4) Extension of contract if warranted 0 working days Item No. 17 (1) Reason for change: 3 existing spandrel panels above the ceiling along the South wall of the lower floor have existing vents left from existing duct work being removed. Space needs to be closed off from the exterior air coming into the return air plenum. (2) Description of change: Per Contractor's Cost Proposal for RFQ #13 remove and replace 3 spandrel panels above the windows on the lower floor with spandrel material to match existing adjacent panels. (3) Change in contract cost Add $450.00 (4) Extension of contract if warranted 0 working days 10029/363/3102 Page6 of R Item No. 18 (1) Reason for change: City requested phone and data changes made to temporary modular facilities during move in. (2) Description of change: Per Contractor's Cost Proposal per Cities field directions add phone outlets, data outlets, and relocate IDF in temporary facilities. (3) Change in contract cost Add $2,616.00 (4) Extension of contract if warranted 1 working days Item No. 19 (1) Reason for change: Existing grade sloped away causing the length of the ramp to increase in length to keep the 1 in 12 slope required to meet handicap requirements (2) Description of change: Per Contractor's Cost Proposal for response to RFI #7 extend handicap ramp on West side of building from 24 ft. long shown on plans to 47 ft. long with a 6 ft. long landing at mid point in provide a 1 in 12 slope. (3) Change in contract cost Add $8,783.00 (4) Extension of contract if warranted 3 working days Item No. 20 (1) Reason for change: Edison service drawings revise conduit size from 4" to 5" Edison Inspection required the transformer slab box to be lowered from height called for on original service drawing. City stopped work to consider service changes that caused extra cost for shoring, trench plate, and to expedite service panel delivery. (2) Description of change: Change service conduit from 4" to 5", lower transformer slab box after it was set per service drawings, extend shoring and trench plate rental, and expedite service panel delivery for Temporary Facilities. (3) Change in contract cost Add $6,395 (4) Extension of contract if warranted 1 working days 10029/363/3102 Paie7 of R • • This Change Order constitutes full and mutual. accord and satisfaction for all cost and time extensions related to this Change Order. By acceptance of this Change Order, the Contractor agrees that the Change order represents an equitable adjustment to the Contract. With the execution of the Change Order, the Contractor released the City of Hermosa Beach from any futurc home office or extended overhead claims related to the changes against the above referenced project. The specifications, where pertinent, shall apply to all changes. TOTAL CHANGE TO CONTRACT PRICE Add $53,824.35 REVISED CONTRACT $1,305,001.35 CHANGE TO CONTRACT TIME 10 working days Project Engineer, Construcfion nag- r C Contractor (L) -6j-) Agent �( %) /J erector o bli Work Engineer f City 10029/363/3102 Approved /74( 47 , 2002 Approved 6f 2002 Approved / /1 , 2002 Approved / 1 , 2002 PaQe8 of R Date: February 28, 2002 CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER City of Hermosa Beach Department of Public Works Change Order No. 2 Project No. CTP 95-622 Project Title Hermosa Beach City Hall Remodel — ADA Upgrades The changes or interpretations described and noted herein are hereby authorized. The signed original of this order is on file at the office of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. Item No. 1: (1) Reason for change: It was impossible to get the conduits from Main Disconnect to MSB and from MSB back to new services above grade along wall as called for on the drawings. Also the contract drawings did not provide a concrete pad to mount the panel and transformers on. (2) Description of change: Per Contractor's -Cost Proposal for RFQ #14 saw -cut existing paving, remove paving, excavate trench, install new conduits, backfill, and replace paving to match existing. Provide a 6" high concrete pad 38" wide by length required for transformers and panel "MSB". Submit credit and adds to revise conduit from rigid steel above grade to schedule 40 PVC underground. (3) Change in contract cost Add $11,589.00 (4) Extension of contract if warranted 3 working days Item No. 2: (1) Reason for change: Existing panel "D" on the second floor is a 30 circuit panel instead of a 42 circuit panel required. (2) Description of change: Per Contractor's Cost Proposal for RFQ #15 set a new 70 amp., 2P breaker in existing panel "D" and fed a new panel "D1" required to provide for the new circuits required. Locate the new panel on South wall of Work Room. Redirect 4, 20A, 1P circuits from existing panel "D" to new panel "D1" to provide space for new breaker to fed new panel "Dl" and run new circuits to new panel "D i ". (3) Change in contract cost Add $2,743.00 (4) Extension ofcontract if.Warranted 3 working days, 10029/432/3102 Pagel of 4 Item No. 3: (1) Reason for change: Provide an elevator pit ladder and hoist beam not covered on Contract Documents (2) Description of change: Per Contractor's Cost Proposal for RFQ #18r1 provide an elevator pit ladder and hoist beam per drawings attached to RFQ. (3) Change in contract cost Add $1,905.00 (4) Extension of contract if warranted 0 working days Item No. 4: (1) Reason for change: The City requested that an existing glass wall be replace with a solid wall. (2) Description of change: Per Contractor's Cost Proposal for RFQ #20 in Secetary's space West of grid line 3 on the Second floor remove the glass in the North wall and replace it with a drywall partition. (3) Change in contract cost Add $485.00 (4) Extension of contract if warranted 0 working days Item No. 5: (1) Reason of change: Existing corridor is required to provide a 1 hour envelope. To provide this we needed to extend the existing North wall of the Corridor on the lower floor. (2) Description of change: Per Contractor's Cost proposal for RFQ #22 remove existing wall and door across the Corridor and extend the North wall of the Corridor to the structure with 1 hour drywall construction. (3) Change in contract cost Add $1,461.00 (4) Extension of contract if warranted 0 working days 10029/432/3102 Page2 of 4 Item No. 6: (1) Reason for change: Existing hot and cold water and gas lines across Room B106 would not allow new HVAC ductwork room to get through (2) Description of change: Per Contractor's Cost Proposal for RFQ #23 reroute existing cold water, hot water, and gas line to allow space for new HVAC duct that must cross these lines. Also reroute and reconnect existing electrical conduit and circuits that were in the concrete slab removed for new Elevator pit. (3) Change in contract cost Add $2,188.00 (4) Extension of contract if warranted 0 working days Item No. 7: (1) Reason for change: The Foyer per code must provide a 1 -hour exit envelope. The plans indicated a plaster ceiling under glued on ceiling tile that did not exist. (2) Description of change: Per Contractor's Cost Proposal for RFQ #25 rl remove existing concealed spline non rated ceiling tile and install 1 Y2" main runners, hat channels and 1 -hour drywall ceiling (3) Change in contract cost Add $8,101.00 (4) Extension of contract if warranted 0 working days 10029/432/3102 Page3 of 4 • • This Change Order constitutes full and mutual accord and satisfaction for all cost and time extensions related to this Change order. By acceptance of this Change Order, the Contractor agrees that the Change Order represents an equitable adjustment to the Contract. With the execution of the Change order, the Contractor releases the City of Hermosa Beach from any future home office or extended overhead claims related to the changes against the above referenced project. The specifications, where pertinent, shall apply to all changes. TOTAL CHANGE TO CONTRACT PRICE ........................ Add $28,472.00 REVISED CONTRACT $1,279,648.00 CHANGE TO CONTRACT TIME 6 working days Attachment �2#.:: ` Approved , 2002 Project Engineer, onstructiontanager Corona Constructors Contract s r gent "rector of Public Works/City Engineer City M 10029/432/3102 Approved De v2 8 , 2002 Approved , 3/54 , 2002 Approved 3/ L9 , 2002 Page4 of 4 Date: April 1, 2002 CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER City of Hermosa Beach Department of Public Works Change Order No. 3 Project No. CEP 95-622 Project Title Hermosa Beach City Hall Remodel — ADA Upgrades The changes or interpretations described and noted herein are hereby authorized. The signed original of this order is on file at the office of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. Item No. 1: (1) Reason for change: The State Elevator code requires a hydraulic elevator to have a sump with pump to a holding tank with a high water alarm which was not provided in the contract documents (2) Description of change: Per Contractor's Cost Proposal for RFQ #19 and #19r1 provide a 24" x 24" x 3' sump with metal frame and grate per drawingACC-4 dated January 25, 2002. Provide sump pump, piping, holding tank, high water alarm, and electrical as shown on revised drawings P-1.0 and P-2.0 and revision drawings to Sheets E-1 and E-3. (3) Change in contract cost Add $17,080.00 (4) Extension of contract if warranted 6 working days Item No. 2: (1) Reason for change: Provide conduit and boxes for an AV system for the Council Chamber. The design of the AV system was not done during design. Conduit and boxes on the contract drawings do not provide what is required by the proposed design (2) Description of change: Per Contractor's Cost proposal for RFQ #32 and #32r1 delete all conduit and boxes related to the AV system shown on First Floor Power Plan, Sheet E-4. Add conduit and boxes for AV system as shown on drawings AV -0.01, AV -0.03, and AV - 1.01 through AV -1.07 and AV -6.01 through AV -6.04. Locate power outlets as shown on these drawings. Provide a recessed enclosure in the rear soffit drop as shown on AV -1.02, AV -1.06, andAV-6.04. (3) Change in contract cost Add $6,049.00 (4) Extension of contract if warranted 3 working days 10029/000/3102 Paget of 4 Item No. 3: (1) Reason of change: Plans do riot provide for full height ceramic tile and new toilet accessories (2) Description of change: Per Contractor's Cost Proposal for RFQ #24r1 revise staff restrooms as follows. Extend ceramic tile from top of wainscot to ceiling. Provide new mirror over sink, paper towel dispenser, and toilet paper dispenser to match accessories specified for new restrooms (3) Change in contract cost Credit $3,006.00 (4) Extension of contract if warranted 0 working day Item No. 4: (1) Reason for change: The City requested the space on the lower floor where the existing elevator was removed and below where the new ductwork stops be made into a storage room. (2) Description of change: Per Contractor's Cost Proposal for RFQ #28 make the existing elevator shaft on the lower floor into a storage room. Fill in existing elevator pit with fill and add a concrete slab flush with the lower floor. Install a new 3' x 7' x 1 3/4" solid core wood door, hardware, and metal frame with a 20 minute rating. Provide a 1 -hour shaft wall ceiling similar to Detail A6, Sheet A-3.4. Install the ceiling, as the new ductwork will allow. Paint the ceiling, walls, and door. Install a VCT tile floor with rubber base as specified for Storage Room B206.Relocate new wall across Corridor with Door #9 just West of the existing Fire Hose Cabinet. (3) Change in contract cost Add $4,306.00 (4) Extension of contract if warranted 0 working days Item No. 5: (1) Reason for change: The design of the AV system for the Council Chamber requires the AV Room #103 be modified to meet equipment requirements. (2) Description of change: Per Contractor's Cost Proposal for RFQ #29 revise AV Room 103 as follows. Relocate Door #17 as shown on drawing 29-1. Revise the size of the window to 5' wide by 3'-6" high. Add an 18" wide by 6'-6" high by 1 3/4" and 18" wide by 2' high by 1 3/4" solid core wood door as shown on drawings 29-1 and 29-2. Provide each access doors with butts, sound seals, and dead bolt lock. Provide a plastic laminate top at 29 33/4"clear from the floor. Paint new doors to match adjacent wall. (3) Change in contract`Add, $3,851.90 (4) • •� (4) Extension of contract if warranted 0 working days 10029/000/3102 Pa.ge2 of 4 Item No. 6: (4) Reason of change: Existing masonry wall will not allow us to install door #20 to the Women's Restroom #201 as shown to clear the lavatory. To meet handicap access requirements door 320 must be relocated. (5) Description of change: per Contractor's Cost Proposal for RFQ #30 revise Women's Restroom #201 as follows. Construct new 4" metal stud wall with plaster finish and relocate door #20 as shown on drawing #30-1. Relocate plumbing fixtures as shown on drawing #30- 2 in order to provide 44" handicap clearance as shown on drawing #30-1. Extend ceramic tile floor with ceramic tile base into this additional area and paint additional walls and ceiling. (6) Change in contract cost Credit $2,391.00 (4) Extension of contract if warranted 0 working days Item No. 7: (1) Reason for change: When we started to remove the existing roof and install our new roofing we found the existing roof insulation to be saturated with water. Since we cannot install roofing over wet insulation we removed the old insulation and requested a cost to replace it with new insulation (2) Description of change: Replace roof insulation with new insulation to match insulation removed. (3) Change in contract cost Add $8,234.45 (4) Extension of contract if warranted 0 working days Item No. 8: (1) Reason for change: The documents did not provide for new flooring in the lower floor corridor and the City requested the floor in the elevator cab be revised to from vinyl floor tile to ceramic tile. (2) Description of change: Delete VCT floor tile called for in the elevator cab and ceramic tile called for in Storage Room B-105. Add removal of existing floor covering in the Corridor. Add installing 8"x8" Grigio Granite CD 40 tile by Daltile in the Corridor, elevator cab, and elevator lobby with new rubber base. Add VCT tile and rubber base in the Corridor from the East stair well to Machine Room B-112. ,ti `` ; 'd s" Add $4 3 (3) Change in contract cost � _, � .97•, (4) Extension of contract if warranted 0 working days 10029/000/3102 Pa Qe3 of 4 Item No. 9: (1) Reason for change: The City requested the entry door to Public Works be revised to a glass storefront door to match entries to Departments on the First and second Floors. (2) Description of change: Delete Door No. 1 called for on the Door Schedule and install a 3' by 7'-10" storefront door with 2'/s" styles with aluminum storefront frame matching other storefront doors on the job. Provide door with pivots, closer, Push and Pulls, and a deadbolt lock. Provide a sign to be mounted over the door that reads, "This door to remain unlocked during business hours". (3) Change in contract cost- Add $1,825.00 (4) Extension of contract if warranted 0 working days This Change Order constitutes full and mutual accord and satisfaction for all cost and time extensions related to this Change order. By acceptance of this Change Order, the Contractor agrees that the Change Order represents an equitable adjustment to the Contract. With the execution of the Change order, the Contractor releases the City of Hermosa Beach from any future home office or extended overhead claims related to the changes against the above referenced project. The specifications, where pertinent, shall apply to all changes. TOTAL CHANGE TO CONTRACT PRICE Add $51,139.45 REVISED CONTRACT - $1,384,612.80 CHANGE TO CONTRACT TIME 9 working days Attac nts: Project Engineer, Con(truction Manager Corona Constructor Contractor Agent Director of Public Works/City Engineer City Manager Approved l , 2002 Approved , 2002 Approved , 2002 Approved , 2002 10029/000/3102 Pa.ge4 of 4 • •(-0/2-0 April 3, 2002 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council April 9, 2001 SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO 2002-2003 LOS ANGELES COUNTY URBAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM PURPOSE: 1. ALLOCATE $5,860 FROM CITY'S CDBG ALLOCATED FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 02-03 FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION OF PROJECTS FUNDED THROUGH THE CDBG PROGRAM. 2. COMPLY WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENT OF THE CDBG PROGRAM Recommendation: Approve by minute order the allocation and expenditure of $5,860 of CDBG funds for general administration. Background: Currently the City has CDBG funded project to retrofit public facilities to remove architectural barriers to the disabled and another project to retrofit the Community Theater and Center. Analysis: The general administration fund can be used for the initial development of projects that will qualify for CDBG funding and for staff's general training workshops related to CDBG programs, such as the construction compliance monitoring workshop to be held on April 15, 2002. CONCUR Sol Blume ' eld, Director Communit Development Department Steph , City Manager cdbg02-03admin Michael Schubach, City Planner APPROVED FOR FISCAL IMPACT Vicki Copeland, Finance Director 5a 'i. • Honorable Mayor and Members of The Hermosa Beach City Council April 9, 2002 April ' , 2002 Regular Meeting of A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF 8th STREET BETWEEN THE STRAND AND HERMOSA AVENUE Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve and adopt the attached City Council Resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT, FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES, OF A PORTION OF 8TH STREET, BETWEEN THE STRAND AND BEACH DRIVE, AS SHOWN ON THE TRACT OF HERMOSA BEACH AS RECORDED IN MAP BOOK 1, PAGES 25 & 26, IN THE OFFICE OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY RECORDER." Summary: On March 12, 2002, Council adopted Resolution No. 02-6191 declaring its intention to vacate a portion of 8th Street between The Strand and Beach Drive. It is time for Council to hold the public hearing and adopt the resolution ordering the vacation of a portion of 8th Street between The Strand and Beach Drive as shown on the tract of Hermosa Beach as recorded in Map Book 1, pages 25 and 26. The Fire Department, Police Department and all affected utility companies have been notified of the proposed vacation. An easement will be preserved for utilities location within the vacation area. Notices of the vacation were published and posted as required by law. In accordance with Resolution No. 02-6191, that portion of 8th Street between The Strand and Beach. Drive, as described in the attached resolution, is not needed for circulation or traffic purposes. Fiscal Impact: Since this item is considered to be a routine item of work, no additional allocation is required. Attachments: 1. Resolution No. 02-6191 2. Resolution (proposed) 3. Map Respectfully submitted, Concur: ec Alv Homayduh A. Behboodi Associate Engineer Harold C. Williams, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer Stephe R. f urr4/1 ell City Manager 5b 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 02-6191 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON, FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES, A PORTION OF EIGHTH STREET, BETWEEN THE STRAND AND BEACH DRIVE, AS SHOWN ON THE TRACT OF HERMOSA BEACH AS PER RECORDED MAP BOOK 1, PAGES 25 AND 26, IN THE OFFICE OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY RECORDER WHEREAS, that portion of the southerly twenty-two (22) feet of Eighth Street, adjacent to Lot 7, Block 8, between The Strand and Beach Drive, is unnecessary for present or prospective public street purposes, and WHEREAS, the public interest, necessity and convenience require the City Council to vacate and abandon said portion of street, and WHEREAS, said portion of street as above described is shown on the official map of the City of Hermosa Beach, at the office of the City Clerk of said City to which all parties interested are referred for particulars as to the proposed vacation and abandonment, and WHEREAS, the City Council elects to proceed in said vacation particulars as to the proposed vacation and abandonment, and WHEREAS, the City Council elects to proceed in said vacation and abandonment under Section 8300 to 8324, inclusive, of the Street and Highway Code of the State of California, as amended. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby determines that the public convenience and necessity require that an easement be retained for construction and maintenance of utility lines within the limit of the street vacation as described herein above. SECTION 2. Notice is hereby given that a public hearing shall be held on such proposed vacation on April 9, 2002, at the hour of 7:30 p.m. in Room 4 of the Community Center, 710 Pier -1- ATTACHMENT 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 • Avenue, Hermosa Beach, California, at which time any and all persons interested persons may present evidence or object to the proposed vacation. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby directs that the notice of the public hearing be published pursuant to Section 8322 of the California Streets and Highways Code and be posted conspicuously along the portion of the right-of-way on Eighth Street proposed to be vacated pursuant to Section 8323 of the California Streets and Highways Code. SECTION 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 12th day of March, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Keegan, Reviczky, Yoon, Mayor Dunbabin NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Edgerton G�^ PRESIDENT of The City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: -2- ity Attorney STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH I, Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 02-6191 was duly and regularly passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach at a Regular Meeting of said Council at the regular place thereof on March 12, 2002. The vote was as follows: AYES: Keegan, Reviczky, Yoon, Mayor Dunbabin NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Edgerton Dated: March 13, 2002 /CO x c Elaine Doerfling, City , Cl LJ • RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES A PORTION OF 8TH STREET, BETWEEN THE STRAND AND BEACH DRIVE, AS SHOWN ON THE TRACT OF HERMOSA BEACH AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1, PAGES 25 & 26, IN THE OFFICE OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY RECORDER. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach did, on the 12th day of March 2002, adopt Resolution No. 02-6191 declaring its intention to vacate that portion of the southerly twenty-two (22) feet of 8th Street, between The Strand and Beach Drive as recorded in Book 1, Pages 25 and 26, in the office of the Los Angeles County Recorder. WHEREAS, notices of said vacation have been published and posted in the time, form, and manner required by law; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the matter was held on the 9`'' day of April 2002 as prescribed by law. NOW THEREFORE be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach as follows: SECTION 1. That the following described portion of 8th Street is unnecessary for present or prospective public street purposes, and that the public interest, necessity and convenience required that the City Council of said City order the vacation and abandonment of that portion of said street. Being a portion of 8th Street as shown on Hermosa Beach Tract as per Map recorded in Book 1, Pages 25 and 26, of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder, County of Los Angeles, more fully described as follows: The southerly twenty-two (22) feet of 8th Street, adjacent to Lot 7, Block 8, between The Strand and Beach Drive. SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby determine that the public convenience and necessity requite that an easement be retained for construction and maintenance of utility lines within the limit of the street vacation as described herein above. SECTION 3. That the City Clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach shall cause a certified copy of said orderto be recorded in the office of the Recorder of the County of Los Angeles. SECTION 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. ATTACHMENT 2 • • PASSED APPROVED and ADOPTED this 9th day of April, 2002 PRESIDENT of the CITY COUNCIL and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney 2 F:\B95\PWFILES\RESOS\8th St. vacation 3-14-02.doc £ 1N3WH3V11V 0 0 0 PORTION 8TH STREET ' N TO BE VACATED - LOT 7 BLOCK 8 • G HERMOSA BEACH, M.B. 1-25-26. 1\2 ' N'LY, LINE LOT 6, BLOCK 8 HERMOSA BEACH, M.B. 1-25-26 7 TH STREET April 1, 2002 Honorable Mayor and Members of The Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of April 9, 2002 ALOHA DAYS COMMITTEE: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF "ALOHA DAYS" LONGBOARD SURF CONTEST & HAWAIIAN FESTIVAL Recommendation The Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Commission recommends that Council: 1. Approve the request from the Aloha Days Committee to hold their annual surf competition and "Aloha Days" Hawaiian Festival Saturday and Sunday, August 10 (vendor booths and beach events) and Sunday, August 11, 2002; and 2. Consider requests for: (a) fee waivers, (b) funding, and (c) the second day of Plaza vendors. 3. Approve the event contract (Attachment A). Background At the February 5, 2002 beach event workshop meeting, among other events, Council discussed Aloha Days. Council was supportive of the event as a very enjoyable community activity. Council also did not object to a two-day event (beach only) but (absent another Port Call which may or may not occur) the majority did not wish to have a second day of vendor booths. The request for Aloha Days to be held Saturday and Sunday, August 10 & 11, 2002 was reviewed at the Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Meeting on March 5th, 2002. The Commission approved the event and also supported the second day of vendor booths on the Plaza. Attachment B contains: (a) Aloha Days' proposal/request for approval, (b) event outline, (c) site plan, (d) signatures from Plaza merchants acknowledging notification of the event, (e) LA County Lifeguard written approval, (f) budget, (g) vendor solicitation letter, and (h) surf contest application. 1 Se Analysis This is the sixth year for this community event presented by the Aloha Days Committee that combines a longboard surf competition with a Hawaiian festival featuring artisans, performers and food booths. In the previous five years, Aloha Days has proven to be a wonderful community event and has been relatively low impact. Event organizers have been cooperative with all City requirements and requests. In addition, the event requires no street closures. Event organizers report that proceeds from booth spaces and entry fees will benefit the Hermosa Beach Surf Museum Fund. The recommended contract contains the same provisions as are standard with event contracts with notable differences to include: 1. Provision for ocean safety review and written approval from the LA County Lifeguards for surf competitions. 2. Requirement for Fire Chief approval of booth layout on lower Pier Avenue and the Pier. 3. Requirement that all food vendor booths erected on the pier head and pier deck areas shall have a protective flooring and/or padding to prevent marks on the pavement. 4. Requirement for professional overnight security for booths (pending Council approval of additional event day). 5. Food booths will be restricted to the Pier deck area only (no food booths permitted on the Plaza). 6. Requirement that all vendor booths, with the exception of Hermosa Beach non-profit organizations, must sell Hawaiian arts & crafts or surf themed items only. Aloha Days has requested funding from the Downtown Enhancement Fund to $2,500 to assist with the event costs. This represents a decrease from last year's request of $5,000, which was expanded to fund Port Call activities. They have also requested $2,000 in Prop A transportation funds to assist with the addition of shuttle bus service from Mira Costa High School to the event. 2 FISCAL IMPACT Fees • Daily Permit fee @ $2,047 (Cat. II) X 2 days $4,094.00* • Set Up/Tear Down fees @ $200/day 400.00* • Meter Buy-out fees @ $16.00 per meter X 30 X 2 days 960.00* • Police fees @ actual hourly rate 3,000.00 • Event staffing fee @ $200 X 2 days 400.00 • Public Works/banner fees 221.00* • Public Works/Plaza steam cleaning 800.00 • Amplification Permit 44.00* Total $9,190.00 Waiver requests/subsidy 5,779.00 Total projected fees $4,624.00 Requests for City funding • Prop A Transportation Fund $2,000.00 • Downtown Enhancement Fund $2,500.00 Total $4,500.00 *Aloha Days requests fee be waived by City Council Attachments: A. Event Contract B. Supporting Materials Respectfully submitted, Mary Dir tor, Community Resources City Manager Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Director 3 ALOHA DAYS COMMITTEE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH SPECIAL EVENT CONTRACT This contract is entered into on April 9, 2002, at Hermosa Beach, California by and between the ALOHA DAYS COMMITTEE (ADC), a non-profit organization and the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH (CITY) with regards to "ALOHA DAYS" LONGBOARD SURF CONTEST & HAWAIIAN FESTIVAL on AUGUST 10 and 11, 2002. FEES Event fees shall be waived. ADC shall pay direct costs for Police and Public Works at actual hourly rates. All predetermined fees shall be paid two weeks prior to event. All unanticipated costs incurred by the City on behalf of the event shall be paid within 15 days of receiving an invoice from CITY. LOCATION o On Beach, South of the Pier (Surf Competition) ❑ On Beach, South of the Pier (Entertainment/Awards Stage and Dressing Tent) ❑ Lower Pier Avenue (Festival and Vendor Booths — August 10 only) ❑ Parking Lot B (performer parking and event organizers staging) SECURITY ADC shall establish a command post in the immediate vicinity of the event. The command post shall be staffed at all times with one (1) representative of ADC. ADC shall provide no less than six (6) unarmed security officers. Said officers shall wear identifiable uniforms that indicate a separate identity from other event staff. A representative of the security staff shall meet with the Hermosa Beach Police Department Watch Commander prior to the event for a pre -event briefing. The private security staff shall be responsible primarily for informing spectators of CITY'S alcohol ordinance. CITY shall provide Officers for the event as follows: The Chief of Police shall determine the number of Officers necessary from the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., both days. • s CITY shall provide as many Fire/Paramedic personnel for the event as deemed necessary by the Fire Chief. ADC shall assume cost of Officers and Fire/Paramedic personnel. ADC shall be required to obtain approval from the Fire Chief of booth layout on lower Pier Avenue and the Pier. ADC shall maintain a continuous twenty foot (20') fire lane in the booth areas as specified by the Fire Chief. CITY reserves the right to amend booth locations as necessary for emergency access and fire safety purposes. CLEAN-UP ADC shall use a professional maintenance service to clean the following areas of trash on the day of the event: ❑ The Beach and Strand (impacted areas). ❑ Pier Avenue, from Hermosa Avenue to The Strand. The maintenance service shall be responsible for hauling the trash outside the CITY following the event. ADC shall be responsible for the steam cleaning of the Pier Plaza, on Pier Avenue from Hermosa Avenue to the Strand, and the Pier head itself, upper and lower levels. ADC shall be responsible to provide adequate trash receptacles at the following locations: o Beach (impacted area). o Strand (impacted area). o Pier Plaza. o And, additional trash receptacles as CITY requires. ADC shall be responsible to provide portable toilets as necessary to accommodate the event. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF BEACHES AND HARBORS SERVICES ADC shall assume all costs for any additional lifeguards each day of tournament if required by Los Angeles County Lifeguards. ADC shall be responsible to obtain written approval from the Los Angeles County lifeguards on the ocean safety conditions before the event can take place. Any cost for County services will be borne by ADC. INSURANCE At least ten (10) days prior to the event, ADC shall provide CITY a Certificate of Insurance providing personal injury and property damage liability insurance naming CITY, and County of Los Angeles, their officers, employees and agents as additional insured with a minimum coverage of 2 million combined single limit coverage. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current AM Best's rating of no less than A:VII. Said insurance shall not be canceled or altered without 30 days notice in writing to CITY and County. ADC insurers shall be primarily responsible for any and all liability resulting or arising from the performance of the contract and CITY and County and their insurers shall not be required to contribute. For insurance purposes, the event area shall be defined to include any and all areas occupied or affected by the event. ADC agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold CITY and County of Los Angeles harmless from and against any and all liability and expense, including defense costs and legal fees, caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of ADC, its agents, officers and employees, including, but not limited to, personal injury, bodily injury, death and property damage. ADVERTISING CITY shall permit street banners to be posted for the event. Cost of installation shall be borne by ADC. PARKING ADC shall be required to post temporary "No Parking" signs 24-72 hours in advance of event (as directed by CITY), and be responsible for the removal of signs on final event day. ADC shall use plastic cable ties to secure the signs. ADC shall provide barricades and cones for use at pre -approved parking lots and other areas as deemed necessary by CITY staff. At no time may ADC block emergency vehicle access. Parking privileges may be revoked at anytime by CITY. SPECIAL EVENTS CITY shall review all requests for any special events to be held as part of said event. CITY shall have the right to deny any and all requests. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS/RESPONSIBILITIES OF CITY CITY shall allow ADC the opportunity to sell concession items at Pier Plaza and Pier head per certain conditions. Merchants on lower Pier Avenue will be permitted to display wares and/or create outdoor dining areas for the duration of the event at no charge to the merchants. All vendor booths with the exception of Hermosa Beach non-profit organizations may sell Hawaiian arts and crafts and/or ADC theme items only. All food vendor booths erected in the Plaza area shall have a protective flooring and/or padding to prevent marks on the pavement. Food sales are allowed on the Pier head only. Vendor sales are prohibited on the beach. All concession items must be approved by CITY prior to event. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS/RESPONSIBILITIES OF ADC ADC shall be responsible to obtain all necessary County and State health permits as required. ADC is responsible to ensure that all relevant Health Department and CITY codes are adhered to. ADC will be required to obtain an amplification permit. Event shall be conducted in compliance with CITY Noise Ordinances. Ordinances are on file at the Department of Community Resources. ADC will be solely responsible for event management. ADC will notify all impacted residents/merchants about the competition and festival. ADC shall be responsible for posting "No Alcohol" signs prohibiting the use of alcohol on the beach and Plaza. ADC will abide by any additional policies or appropriate fees as established by CITY. CITY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO AMEND AND/OR TERMINATE THIS CONTRACT AT ANY TIME. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Mayor Date APPROVED AS TO FORM City Attorney Date DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY RESOURCES Director Date ALOHA DAYS COMMITTEE Director of Operations Date ATTEST City Clerk Date • cto • • • ' • ,.....7,7,74;k• <4.• ...... • , ,,, • 4 Attachment B LONGBOARD SURF CONTEST & HAWAIIAN FESTIVAL HERMOSA BEACH, CA February 7, 2002 • A California 501 (C) 3 Nonprofit Corporation #C2160371-EIN # 33-0862361 16410 Grevillea Ave. Lawndale, Ca. 90260 Ph. & Fax # (310) 371-5807 www.alohadays.org Email: aybarra@earthlink.net City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254 Honorable Mayor and Members of The Hermosa Beach City Council Chairman and Members of the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission Re: Request for approval of "Aloha Days" Sixth Annual Surf Contest & Hawaiian Festival. Dear Mayor, Aloha Days hopes to bring the recognition to Hermosa Beach it well deserves for once being the surfing Capital of Southern California during the 60's and 70's. Our mission is to preserve the surfing history and life style Hermosa once had. We hope that through this event we can still continue to raise funds for a surf museum in Hermosa Beach, as well as reunite the surfing community and provide a positive competitive spirit and teach the youth the respect and the love of surfing while encouraging family participation. Aloha Days is requesting approval for our Sixth Annual Aloha Days Surf Contest and Hawaiian Festival in Hermosa Beach, with a judged Surf Contest, Surfboat Rowing competition along with an Entertainment stage to be placed South of Hermosa Pier on the beach. South Pacific Arts & Crafts/Surf relateditems and Hawaiian food to be held on lower Pier Plaza and Pier Head. The Two -Day Event to be held on, August 10th & 1 2002. The interest expressed by the community, local business as well as the South Pacific Cultural Groups, Surf Clubs in California, East Coast, Hawaii and Australia is extremely positive. We are requesting approval for the following items: A Two -Day Event; Vendors and Festivities, August 10th & 11t, 2002 Event setup Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. - Event teardown Monday from 7:00 a.m. to 12noon. $2,000 Proposition "A" Transportation funds for shuttle bus services from Mira Costa H.S. to the event. (To help free up residential parking and traffic congestions). Billing for Police, Fire and Public Works services at actual hourly cost. Waiver fees: Daily permit, banner permit, amplification permit, parking and administration. Approve to utilize Parking lot (B) for our Entertainment Parking and roll off bin for trash. Approve to utilize Lower Pier Plaza, Pier Head and on the Beach South side of Pier From 6:OOAM - 7:OOPM. Both days. (See Layout) This Event has NO STREET CLOSURES. Longboard, Short board and Body board Contest just South of Hermosa Pier, Saturday & Sunday. Sixty-seven South Pacific/Surf and food vendor booths. (See layout) Entertainment stage all day on the beach just South of Hermosa Pier, Saturday and Sunday. Surfboat rowing competition between the USA and Australia, Sunday at 2:30 p.m. South side of Pier • Page 2 Event Date: Event: Location: Information booth: Event setup & teardown: Vendor Setup/teardown: Vendors: Food Vendors: Surf contest: Surfboat Rowing: Entertainment: Shuttle Busses: Insurance: Cleanliness: Promotion: February 7, 2002 Event Outline August 10th & 11th, 2002 Aloha Days Surf Contest & Hawaiian Festival. Lower Pier Plaza, Pier Head and South side of Hermosa Pier on the Beach. An information booth will be setup at the South side of Pier Head. Entertainment stage and Contest stage will begin set up on Friday 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Teardown of the stages will begin on Monday 7:00 a.m. to 12 noon. Vendors will start arriving at 6;00 am for setup. Vendors will enter on to the Plaza from 11th street & Beach Dr. (see layout) Vendors will then be escorted onto Pier Plaza one at a time, to their vendor space by the Aloha Days staff. Vendors will then unload and escorted off Plaza out to Hermosa Ave. and the Strand. Most vendors will leave their canopies and product overnight. A few vendors will teardown; those will follow the same procedures as setting up. (Overnight security will be on site all night). Teardown will begin Saturday at 6: 00 p.m. and end by 7:00 p.m. Sunday will start at 6:00 p.m. 60 South Pacific Arts & Crafts and Surf Related items, Saturday & Sunday. Open to the public at 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 4 Authentic Hawaiian food and Juice booths — 1 Popcorn booth - 1 Roasted Corn booth. Open to the public at 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Over 100 surf contestants from Southern California, Hawaii, East Coast and Australia. Contest will begin Saturday. 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (prelims) Sunday. 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (finals). International Surfboat Rowing Competition USA Vs Australia. Competition starts Sunday 2.30 p.m. to 3:30 p m. Live entertainment Hawaiian, Tahitian, Polynesian and Samoa Dancing, along with live Music. Saturday. & Sunday. Start time 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Free to the public. Hermosa Beach Local Merchant Fashion Show. Sunday. Afternoon (tentative). Aloha Days will arrange to have free shuttle and parking at Mira Costa High School. Drop off and pick up will be at Hermosa Ave. & 11th street. Start time 9:00a.m.to 6:00 p.m. on both Saturday. & Sunday. Aloha Days agrees will furnish to the City of Hermosa Beach evidence of $2 Million comprehensive general liability insurance. Aloha Days will arrange to have paid maintenance company to clean up during and after the event. Temporary trash receptacles will be placed through out the venue. Street Banners, local newspapers, Hawaiian newspapers, WebPages, and flyers throughout local and no -local businesses. 2 3 4 6 . 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 — Vendor Check -In 21 22 23 24 25 Z6 27 28 1 29 30 31 if( Beach • Sixth Annual ALOHA DAYS August 10th & llth, 2002 Event Layout Surf Contest Stage —� Non Selling —� Vendor Booths II Entertainment Stage Dressing Room —)• Bathrooms N to D Lifeguard Station > 60- Arts & Craft booths 1 ckl 0 > 6 - Food booths10x20 > 1 - hformatbn booth > 3 - Beach Booths • Grand total = 70 booths Strand Info. Booth Ef Ell El 20 ft. Hennessey's Fish Market Beach Drive Vendor Entrance CO U t0 o 0-—I Beach Club LightHouse Shirt Tails Zippy's Pizza Treasurer Chest Petrick Molloy's Aloha Sharkeez Sangria Robert's Liquor BofA 32 33 34 35 36 37 Beach .4— Food Booths Strand N� 30ft. 255. 14 Vendor Exit 1 • 15 16 17 18 19 20 60 59 68 67 68 66 PR ea sm Eil 60 49 48 47 46 45 44 38 43 39 1 42 40 41 �—Shuttle Drop off & Pick up Hermosa Avenue jrA Mermaid Poop Deck Good Stuff Beach Drive Cantina Real Pier Surf Lappert's Avanti Bakery Eaccacio ,Beach Wear High Five USA 501 Levis Spider Surf Brewski's Citi Bank Parking Lot "B" Entertainment Parking Roll off trash Bin • • 111 10th St. Lifeguard station Strand .� 0 o. 0 Beach Layout 1 Dressing room 1 Entertainment Stage 1 contest stage 3 Vendor booths ti . Surf Contest Check -In Entertainment Stage Main Contest Stage Bathrooms a CD §a ify o) 0 a) 0 w Dressing rooms LifeGuard Tower Information Booth Food Booths Strand Sixth Annual • Aloha Days August I0°` & 11", 2002 Aloha Days invites all Hermosa Beach Businesses to take part in the two-day Surf contest & Hawaiian Festival. Your business name and signature is necessary to inform the Hermosa Beach City Council that you have been notified that there will be two-day event with vendor booths on the Plaza August 101h & 111h (Saturday & Sunday) from 7:00 a.m to 6:00 p.m. Most of the vendors will leave their booths up overnight on Saturday, with paid security on site. Proceeds from this event will help establish a Surf Museum ip Hermosa Beach. Aloha Days thanks you for your support! r Name of Business Si • nature /4 1‘.. -F0 K 1?7, 0 u- 1(A -c __.___..... 7/".e..e. <1/R 1--- _____„_____L___ je/ri {ryry/.� fin/ 1v r/j i ,. /. ,r p5k .4 0! i - r 4 lam' `y j>41r..4,1A.,' / v \f1% Jj / - - %-- '* ,,, 41511"...:7-..4,,, IA qis'y?r1-1-- ''--Yiti __ _ a-' \._'-' —, si.A.g._ ----;:c--4--- 1 .41toLL& ys AiD4f5,4"<r4e,z;?-,:-7. Le3,6„...r (.. i ' ‘,(n61--- il.\--5 (.1.__ _ /`/'tel 11 {1 A California Non Corporation 601 (c) (3) #C2160371 E1N # 33-0862361 2104 Huntington Lane #D • Redondo Beach, CA. 90278 Phone & Fax (310) 372-0368 www.alohadays.org Email: aybarra@earthlink.net earthlink.net LONGE OARO SUM CONTEST i HAWAIIAN FESTIVAL H?AJSOSA BEACH, CA � e>i''�;fi. � 4* -,�v-;� �L&�; s :i:YSF ,�...?.rv'"•�7f.b iw`•e:1�:-` 'y` '�� - ;?` . � i L-•Jsi::� ::ah!v:..�;^� :t3..�+`=[v�ciKr2h 'Z'r..i{.;iv^??i.-1%irti+.:4;.` i".x' sem' `�.e$'I�;risl:^'.;sTsS. j:ci:,n }ii r'.i.. r=K� 4 �+�±t ... � ,�., fix:::.. •Y-�;.••. Feb. 7, 02 L.A. County Lifeguards Hermosa Beach Headquarters To Whom It May Concern: Aloha Days is requesting approval for our Sixth Annual in Hermosa Beach, with a judged Longboard Surf Contest and Surfboat rowing competition to be held on the South side of Hermosa Pier, and a Hawaiian Festival to be held on lower Pier Plaza. The Two Day Event to be held, August le & nth, 2002. The interest expressed by the community, local business as well as the South Pacific Cultural Groups, Surf Clubs in Southern California, Hawaii and Australia is extremely positive. Aloha Days hopes to bring the recognition to Hermosa Beach it well deserves as being the surf capital of Southern California as well as preserving the surfing history. We hope that through this event we will reunite the surfing community and provide a positive competitive spirit and teach the youths the respect and the love of surfing while encouraging family participation. Aloha Days is asking approval from the L.A. County Lifeguards to hold the Surf Contest and Surfboat rowing competition on the South Side of Hermosa Pier. The Aloha Days Corporation will pay for any cost from L.A.. County Lifeguards for services that may occur during the event. Approved by, t u/ Signat / h (cut-. — .:-- Date: 0:79-" ���VY 2002 Estithated Expenses 'City of Hermosa Bch. H.B. Police, City Staff, Steam Cleaning Pier Head $3,800.00 Office supplies Paper, Ink, Envelopes, labies, ect. Surf Contestants - 150 @ $30 $400.00 Printing Application, Flyers, Raffle tickets, Letters, ect. $425.00 Advertising Daily Breeze, Easy Reader, Beach Repoter $2,500.00 $1,200.00 Insurance Event Liability Sponsors $800.00 Entertainment South Pacific Dancers, Bands ???? $4,000.00 Secuity Parking, Event, Overnight security $5,000.00 $1,200.00 Postage Vendor/Surf Applications, Sponsorship, Bilis Papa Johns Pizza $150.00 Trophies 72 Trophies 1st -6th Longboard/Short & Boogie board $600.00 T-shirts/Hats Event T-shirts/ Hats, Stickers - Cut cost $1000.00 $4,500.00 $3,500.00 PhotographyNideo Event Pictures, Video taping $400.00 Maintainance Event Clean-up, BFI Roll off, trash recepticals $41,200.00 $1,500.00 Phone/Fax Public Relations, Event Operations $725.00 Equip./Stage Generator, Stages, Sound, Sinks, Portable bathrooms, Decorations ect. $5,500.00 Street Banners (4) overhead street Banners (2) event (2) Comercial Estimated Operating budget 2003 $1,600.00 Webpage Domain name, Account, maintainance $9,000.00 $1,400.00 Sea Sprite Hotel accommodations $1,200.00 Miscellaneous paid Judges,Travel expenses, Gas Total Estimated Trust fund $800.00 Total $29,200.00 02 Estimated Revenue Event Raffle, T-shirt/Hat Sticker sales - Incr, $1500 LY $1400 $2,900.00 Surf Contestants - 150 @ $30 $4,500.00 Vendors Booths - 62 @ $300 $18,600.00 Food Booths - 5 @ $500 $2,500.00 Total $28,500.00 Sponsors City of Hermosa Beach Sponsor & Prop A Funds ???? $5,000.00 So. Bay Toyota $5,000.00 Budwieser $2,000.00 Papa Johns Pizza $2,500.00 Quality.Inn $1,000.00 Hawthorne Savings $1,000.00 Total $12,700.00 Estimated Total Revenue $41,200.00 Estimated Total Expenses $29,200.00 Difference $12,000.00 $2500 incr. *Note: $9,500.00 will be divided as follows Estimated Operating budget 2003 $3,000.00 <25%> 2002 Estimated Trust fund $9,000.00 <75%> 2001 Museum Trust Fund , $6,650.00 2000 Museum Trust Fund $1,969.50 Total Estimated Trust fund $17,619.50 Trust Fund to date $8,619.50 201 Expenses City of Hermosa Bch. H.B. Police, City Staff, Steam Cleaning Pier Head $3,800.00 Office supplies Paper, Ink, Envelopes, Tables, ect. Surf Contestants - 150 @ $30 $400.00 Printing Application, Flyers, Raffle tickets, Letters, ect. $425.00 Advertising Daily Breeze, Easy Reader, Beach Repoter $2,500.00 $1,200.00 Insurance Event Liability Sponsors $800.00 Entertainment South Pacific Dancers, Bands -$3,800.00 $4,000.00 Secuity Parking, Event, Overnight security $5,000.00 $1,200.00 Postage Vendor/Surf Applications, Sponsorship, Bills Papa Johns Pizza $150.00 Trophies 72 Trophies 1st -6th Longboard/Short & Boogie board $600.00 T-shirts/Hats Event T-shirts/ Hats, Stickers $1,000.00 $4,500.00 PhotographyNideo Event Pictures, Video taping $400.00 Maintainance Event Clean-up, BFI Roll off, trash recepticals $39,700.00 $1,500.00 Phone/Fax Public Relations, Event Operations $725.00 Equip./Stage Generator, Stages, Sound, Sinks, Portable bathrooms, Decorations ect. $5,500.00 Street Banners (4) overhead street Banners (2) event (2) Comercial Domain name, Account, maintainance Operating budget 2002 $1,600.00 $1,400.00 Webpage Sea Sprite Hotel accommodations <70%> $1,200.00 Miscellaneous paid Judges,Travel expenses, Gas Total Trust fund $800.00 Total • $30,200.00 venue Event Raffle, T-shirt/Hat Sticker sales $1,400.00 Surf Contestants - 150 @ $30 $4,500.00 Vendors Booths - 62 @ $300 $18,600.00 Food Booths - 5 @ $500 $2,500.00 • Total - $27,000.00 Sponsors City of Hermosa Beach $5000.00 minus -$3,800.00 $1,200.00 So. Bay Toyota $5,000.00 Budwieser $2,000.00 Papa Johns Pizza $2,500.00 Quality Inn $1,000.00 Hawthorne Savings $1,000.00 Total $12,700.00 Total Revenue $39,700.00 Grand Total Expenses $30,200.00 Difference $9,500.00 `Note: $9,500.00 will be divided as follows _ Operating budget 2002 $2,850.00 <30%> 2001 Museum Trust Fund $6,650.00 <70%> 2000 Museum Trust Fund \ - $1,969.50 Total Trust fund $8,619.50 taielPtlA PA* A California Nonprofit Corporation 501 (c) (3) #C2160371 EIN # 33-0862361 LONGBOARD SURF CONTEST A HAWAIIAN FESTIVAL HERMOSA BEACH, CA 16410 Grevillea Ave. Lawndale, CA. 90260 Phone & Fax (310) 371-5807 www.alohadays.orq - Email: aybarranearthlink.net .wr:vw- ..., x......T-z�r�. a. -r... -. ... Two -Day Vendor Application ALOHA DAYS Saturday, August 10th & Sunday, August 11th 2002 "Two -Day Event" The Aloha Days Committee is excited to invite you to the 6th Annual Aloha Days Longboard Surf Contest and Hawaiian Festival at the Hermosa Beach Pier, on Saturday, August 10th and Sunday, August 11th 2002. The Aloha Days Festival will be (2) days. All vendor booths will be left up overnight and Aloha Days will provide paid professional overnight security. If vendors choose to leave merchandise in the booths, there must be "side covering" for all (4) sides of the booth for total enclosure. There will be NO one -day vendor entries. Vendors must stay for the (2) days. Show times: Saturday - 9:OOam to 6:OOpm Sunday - 9:OOam to 5:OOpm Two-day Vendor Space Fee: $300.00. The Vendor Fee is for space only. Vendor space is on a first- come basis. Vendor space: 10x10. Vendors must supply own canopy, tables, chairs, etc. The Aloha Days Longboard Surf Contest and Hawaiian Festival is a fundraiser to build a Historical Surf Museum on the Hermosa Beach Pier. The Aloha Days Committee is committed to reuniting the surfing community, provide a positive competitive spirit and teach the youth of our community the respect andlove of the sport of surfing while encouraging family "Ohana" participation. We believe it is time to reclaim our heritage and re-establish the "aloha spirit" in Hermosa Beach. We thank you for your support. Please complete & return the Vendor application on/or before July 27, 2002. The Vendor Confirmation will be sent out immediately with the vendor space number, area map and parking information. We will not accept any application after July 27, 2002. If you have any further questions, concerns or comments, please contact us @ (310) 371-5807 or e-mail aybarra(@eartitlink.net. Mahalo, Aloha Days 16410 Grevillea Ave. Lawndale, Ca. 90260 www.alohadays.org Two -Day Vendor Applicat• 6th Annual Aloha. Days Surf Contest & Hawaiian Festival Saturday - Sunday August 10th &11th 2002 Name: Bus. Name: Address: City StateZip Phone: Bus. Ph. Fax # E-mail address: California Resale # ** In order to eliminate duplication of Merchandise to be sold, please give a detailed description below: *****Evidence of liability insurance is required of each vendor for his or her business by the Insurance Company. (A Two Million Policy required by the City of Hermosa Beach and covers the streets, sidewalks, Beach venue, buildings and is paid for by Aloha Days Organization). Please attach a copy of your personal/Business liability insurance or list name of Insurance Company and Policy number If a vendor application is received and the proper information is not correct or there are any duplications of applicant, we will return your money and application within 10 working days of receipt. Our vendor booth space will be limited. Booth space is on a First come basis. (All Vendor booths must be decorated Islands/Surf style Theme). Will you be leaving your product in the booth overnight? Yes [—I No Vendor fee is set for (2) days, No one -day entries. No Exceptions! Overnight security will be provided. $300 10X10 vendor space only # of spaces requested @ $300 $ LATE FEE: $20.00 if not postmarked by July 27th, 2002 Late Fee $ All Vendors must supply own canopy, tables, chairs, etc. Total $ All displays, booths and merchandise must be in good taste and appropriate for a family event. Aloha Days reserve the right to refuse entry of any andlor all merchandise andlor vendor application. Clean up of the booth area is the responsibility of the vendor. ALL vendor booths must be set up no later than 8:30a.m. The event opens to the public at 9:OOam I have read this application completely. I understand, and agree to pay and hereby submit the fees and requirements requested to process this application. I understand that Aloha Days has the right not to accept my application and if so, I will be notified in writing and the application fee of the amount listed above will be refunded. If I accept, I will participate at my own risknd hold the City of Hermosa Beach or Aloha Days, or any of its agents, or representatives harmless of injuries, loss, damages or death. Signature: Date: Print name: Make Cashiers Check or Money Order payable to: "Aloha Days" with application to: ALOHA DAYS —16410 Grevillea Ave. Lawndale, CA 90260 Two -Day Food Vendor A!ication 6th Annual Aloha Days Longboard Surf Contest & Hawaiian Festival Saturday - Sunday August 10th &11. h 2002 Name: Bus. Name: Address: City StateZip Phone: Bus. Ph. Fax # E-mail address: California Resale # ** To eliminate duplication of Food products to be sold, please give a detailed description below: *****Evidence of liability insurance is required of each vendor for his or her business by the Insurance Company. (A Two Million Policy required by the City of Hermosa Beach and covers the streets, sidewalks, Beach venue, buildings and is paid for by Aloha Days Organization). Please attach a copy of your personal/Business liability insurance or list name of Insurance Company and Policy number If a food vendor application is received and there are duplications, we will return your money and application within 10 working days of receipt. Our vendor booth space will be limited. Booth space is on a First come basis. All Vendor booths must be decorated Islands/Surf style Theme. Vendor fee is set for (2) days, No one -day entries. No Exceptions! Ovemight security will be provided. # of spaces requested ©$ 575 $ $575. 10X20 vendor space only Stands Application Fee (Health Department). $110 $ $110 Temporary Event Food 1 Beverage if by July 27, 2002 Late Fee $ LATE FEE: $20 not postmarked Total $ All food vendors must complete the attached application for the Department of Health Services. Please retum application & Cashiers Check or Money Order payable To: Aloha Days All displays, booths and merchandise must be in good taste and appropriate for a family event. Aloha Days reserve the nght to refu entry of any and/or all merchandise andlor vendor application. Clean up of the booth area is the responsibility of the vendor. ALL vendor booths must be set up no later than 8:30a.m. The event opens to the public at 9:OOam I have read this application completely. I understand, and agree to pay and hereby submit the fees required to process this application. I understand that Aloha Days has the right not to accept my application and if so, I will be notified in writing and the application fee of the amount listed above will be refunded. If I accept, I will participate at my own risk and hold the City of Hermosa Beach or Aloha Days, or any of its agents, or representatives harmless of injuries, loss, damage or death. Signature: Date: Print name: Make Cashiers Check or Money Order payable to: "Aloha Days" Mail with application to ALOHA DAYS 16410 Grevillea Ave. Lawndale, CA 90260 SU* CONTEST & HAWAIIAN reFTIVAL A California 501 (C) 3 Non-profit Corporation www.alohadays.org - Email: aybarra@earthlink.net AUGUST 10TH & 11TH @ The Hermosa Beach Pier Location Divisions Check-in time Awards Entry Deadline SURF APPLICATION - No Phone Entries South of Hermosa Pier - Hermosa Beach (Sat. prelims — Sun. finals) This contest is open to all Men & Women surfers of Amateur status. Longboards must measure 9 feet long or 3 feet overhead. All contestants receives goodie bag + Event T-shirt. Longboards - Keil.i 17'& Under *Jr. — 1830„.* yen's31745 *Masters 46+ * Buffalo 225 lbs.+i Women Open All Ages. No board length. Shortboards — Keiki 17 & Under * Open All Ages Bodyboards - Open. All Ages. S35 per contestant— Keiki 17& under set at $25 (entry feeds non refundable). Beach entries welcome based on space„ availability only. Make checks payable to: Aloha Days 16410 Grevillea AveLawndale, Ca.'90260 Contest begins at 7.00AM sharp 6th receives plaques. spent is to give :where it is Event Schedule Sponsors: Safurda ', August 10th 7:00a.m.. Longboard, Shortboard & Bodyboard Contest (Preliminaries). 9:00a.m. Festival Free to public over 70 South Pacific & Surf Arts & Craft vendor booths, • Hawaiian food. 11:00a.m. - 5:00p.m. - Opening Ceremony —Beach Stage / South of Pier. Chanters, Hawaiian, Tahitian, Polynesian dancers, live Hawaiian bands. 11:00a.in. Tribute to South Bay's Legendary Surfer Bill Ray James Sunday, August 11th 7:00a.m. — 3:00PM.Longboard, Shortboard & Bodyboard Contest (Simi/Finals) 9:00a.m. Festival Free to public over 70 South Pacific & Surf Arts& Craft vendor booths, Hawaiian food. 12:00 Noon Main Stage: Fashion Show / Summer -Beach wear / Hermosa Beach Merchants 2:00p.m. Surf Boat Rowers Australian vs. USA South of Pier 3:30p.m. Surf Award Ceremony 4:30p.m. 6:00P.M. Live Surf Band South Bay Toyota - Papa Johns Pizza - City of Hermosa Beach Quality Inn Suites — Hawthorne Savings - E.T. Just LongBoards • • Aloha Days 2002 Surf Entry Form Name: Age as of 8/10/02 Address: City: State: Zip: Ph.: Email: Name of Club? Adult T-shirt size: XXL XL L M S Class: Longboard Shortboard Bodyboard (Add $10.00 to entry fee if entering more than one class). $35 per contestant- Keiki 17 & under set at $25 Longboard Division: Keiki 17 & Under Jr. 18-30 Men 31-45 Masters 46+ Buffalo 225 Lbs.+ Women Open all ages (Note: Women's Longboard & Shortboard may be combined do to entries) Shortboard Division: Keiki 17 & under Open all ages Bodyboard Division: Open all ages No Refunds - No Phone Entries - Contest Rules will be posted on-site Waiver In -consideration for permission to participate in the surfing activities on the above date, I RELEASE AND DISCHARGE THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, the State of California, the City of Hermosa Beach, Aloha Days Committee and their respective elected and appointed officials, agents and employees (herein referred to as "the release parties) from any and all liability, claims, rights or causes of action that I or my executor, administrator, conservator, other legal representative, beneficiaries, heirs or assigns may have for my death, and/or any injuries or damage occurring to me arising out of my surfing activities on the above dates, and more specifically my use of the premises as a surfing location, included but not•limited to loses CAUSED BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF RELEASE PARTIES AND/OR THE CONDITIONS OF THE PREMISES. I AGREE THAT I WILL NOT SUE OR MAKE CLAIM (INITIAL HERE: ). I HAVE READ THIS ENTIRE AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF MY LIABILITY, I FULLY UNDERSTAND ITS CONTENTS AND MEANING, AND I HAVE INITIALED AND SIGNED IT OF MY OWN FREE WILL ON MY BEHALF (and if applicable, as a parent/legal guardian on behalf of , a participation under 18 years of age). Sign: Print Name: Date: Guardian signature (if under 18): Guardian Print Name: Make check payable to: Aloha Days —16410 Grevillea Ave. Lawndale, Ca. 90260 i S;UPI'LEMENTAL INFORMATION FISCAL IMPACT Fees • Daily Permit fee @ $2,047 (Cat. II) X 2 days $4,094.00* • Set Up/Tear Down fees @ $200/day 400.00* • Meter Buy-out fees @ $16.00 per meter X 30 X 2 days 960.00* • Police fees @ actual hourly rate 3,000.00 • Event staffing fee @ $200 X 2 days 400.00 • Public Works/banner fees 221.00* • Public Works/Plaza steam cleaning 800.00 • Amplification Permit 44.00* Total $9919.00 Waiver requests/subsidy 5,719.00 Total projected fees $4,200.00 Requests for City funding • Prop A Transportation Fund $2,000.00 • Downtown Enhancement Fund $2,500.00 Total $4,500.00 . \ *Aloha Days requests fee be waived by City Council Attachments: A. Event Contract B. Supporting Materials Respectfully submitted, Mary Rooney Concur: Stephen R. Burrell Director, Community Resources City Manager Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Director 3 • °L -fu" -1 47//9/De' April 1, 2002 Honorable Mayor Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council April 9, 2002 SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: REQUESTS: RECONSIDERATION OF PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 01-19, PARKING PLAN 01-4, AND VARIANCE 01-4 1605 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY SHOOK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 220 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE, SUITE 110 IRVINE, CA 90025 PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR AN EXPANSION AND REMODEL TO AN EXISTING RETAIL AND ENTERTAINMENT CENTER, "THE HERMOSA PAVILION;" PARKING PLAN FOR SHARED PARKING TO ACCOMMODATE A HEALTH AND FITNESS FACILITY IN CONJUNCTION WITH OFFICE AND RETAIL USES; VARIANCE TO THE 35' HEIGHT LIMIT TO ENCLOSE THE UPPER FLOOR OPEN DECK AREAS AND TO ADD FLOOR AREA ABOVE THE OPEN AREA OF THE PARKING STRUCTURE Planning Commission Recommendation To sustain the decision to approve the Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan subject to the conditions as contained in the attached resolution, and to sustain the decision to approve the Variance to enclose the upper floor deck areas and open area of the parking structure. Project Information The applicant is proposing new construction and remodeling to expand and reconfigure the uses within the existing retail and entertainment center. The existing approved use and proposed uses are summarized as follows: Prior Approved Use Allocation Proposed Project Proposed Allocation Health and Fitness Club 44,300 Theatre (6-Plex) 26,680 SF Office 48,990 Retail and Restaurant 46,180 SF Retail 12,088 Total 72,860 SF Total 105,378 SF ZONING: GENERAL PLAN: LOT SIZE: FLOOR AREA RATIO: t SPA 8 - Specific Plan Area Commercial Corridor 79,460 Square Feet 1.25 Sc PARKING PROVIDED: 450 spaces -334 standard, 116 compact 481 (if 31 tandem spaces used) Up to 514 with valet parking ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Recommended Negative Declaration The Hermosa Pavilion was constructed in 1987. At that time the building was constructed in compliance with zoning requirements in effect at that time, which included a height limit of 45 feet. The intended use was a mix of theatre, restaurant and retail uses. The building is currently vacant, and only the theatre and a small portion of the retail and restaurant uses were occupied. At their meeting of February 19, 2002, the Planning Commission granted approval of the Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan by a 4:1 vote subject to conditions as contained in the attached Planning Commission Resolution. The project was approved based on the shared parking analysis, and the changes that increased retail square footage and reduced parking demand conflicts between the health club and office uses. The Variance was approved by a 3:2 vote based on findings as contained in the attached Planning Commission Resolution. The findings involved consideration of topography of the steeply sloping site and the reuse and utility of the existing building. The Staff Environmental Review Committee, at their meeting of January 10, 2002 considered the environmental impacts of the proposed project, and based on the initial study check -list (attached), recommended a mitigated Negative Declaration. The finding that parking and traffic impacts are less than significant was based on an amended and updated parking and traffic analysis prepared by Linscott, Law, and Greenspan. The project and allocation of space within the building has been slightly modified since the initial study, slightly increasing the square footage of each use but also increasing the parking supply by 10 spaces. These changes are minor and do not require modifying the initial study. Project History ❑ July, 1986: Conditional Use Permit and Parking Plan for shared parking were originally approved for theater, retail and office use with valet assisted parking. (Total square feet 72,860 - Theatre 26,680, retail and restaurant, 46,180) ❑ January, 1999: The Planning Commission approved a Precise Development Plan, Parking Plan for shared parking and Variance for expansion and remodel to the Hermosa Pavilion to accommodate a health and fitness center and expanded retail floor area, and to allow enclosure of the upper deck to exceed the height limit. (Total square feet 99,150 - Theatre 26,680, retail and restaurant 26,280, health club, 46,190) ❑ July, 1999: The Commission approved an amendment to above project with the theatre use eliminated and additional retail floor area. (Total square feet 108,597 — health club 44,476, retail 64,121) The project was never implemented and the Precise Development Plan expired. ❑ August, 1999: The Planning Commission approved a Variance, as amended, for the expanded enclosure of the upper deck. ❑ July, 2001: The City Council concurred with the Planning Commission and denied a project application to expand and remodel the facility under a revised development 2 • • • program with Total square feet 106,000—office 56,000, health club 45,000 and retail 5,000. The Council concurred with the Commission decision to deny a slightly larger project. ❑ The 1999 approvals for the Precise Development Plan, Parking Plan, and Variance have all expired. ❑ At their meeting of February 19, 2002 the Planning Commission approved the requested Precise Development Plan, Parking Plan, and Variance, for the new development program, which is the subject of this reconsideration. Analysis The proposed plan revision involves interior alterations and additions to remove restaurant and theaters uses and replace them with the health and fitness club, offices, and retail at the ground floor. The fitness club will include a pool and basketball court and will be similar to the "24 - Hour Fitness Club" in Costa Mesa identified as a similar facility in the applicant's parking study. The building frontage will be extended to the street edge at the ground level and the upper floor deck areas and open corridors will be enclosed. Additional floor area is proposed above the open area of the parking deck at the northwest corner of the building. PARKING Parking is projected to be satisfied with the existing supply within the parking structure due to the proposed new mix of uses with varying times of peak parking demand. The applicant has submitted a revised and updated Shared Parking Analysis (dated January 25, 2002), prepared by Linscott Law and Greenspan. The shared parking analysis demonstrates that the existing parking supply will be suaicient for the proposed mix of uses based upon peak and off-peak usage. Parking spaces within the parking structure will be striped to provide 450 parking spaces (334 standard size, and 116 compact size). If necessary, attendant assistance could be provided for parking vehicles in 31 tandem spaces and 33 parallel aisle -parking spaces, for a possible total of 514 spaces. The original project of 72,860 square feet was approved with 540 parking spaces. (474 standard and compact, and 66 valet assisted) The analysis shows that based on the City's parking requirements the proposed mix of uses results in a total aggregate parking requirement of 687 spaces (Table B). This calculation is based on net floor area, and excludes common areas/internal circulation within the office area. This calculation, however, does not take into account the peak parking requirements and hourly variation in parking demand for each individual use in a mixed-use project. Therefore, the study includes a shared demand parking analysis based on the methodology and hourly parking adjustment factors developed by the Urban Land Institute (Table C and D). The parking demand rates used for the health club are less than the code required 1 space per 100 square feet and are instead based on a study of a 24-hour fitness facility in Costa Mesa in August, 2001 (6.75 spaces required per 1000 square feet at peak times). The parking rates for the office and retail uses are based on the parking requirements in the Zoning Code (4 spaces per 1,000 square feet). The study states that the 45,000 square foot health club with similar uses in Costa Mesa generated a parking demand of 6.43 spaces per 1,000 square feet. To be more conservative a factor of 6.75 was used in the subject study. • • Parkin Tabulation: Proposed Use Allocation Code Requirement Number Peak Shared Weekday 5:00 P.M Fitness Club 44,300 SF 10 per 1000 sq. ft 443 299* Retail 12,088 SF 4 per 1000 sq. ft 48 38 Office 48,990 SF 4 per 1000 sq. ft 196 92 Total 105,378 SF 687 429 *Based on parking rate of 6.75 spaces per 1000 square feet. The City's Traffic Engineer reviewed this parking study, and found the theory and premise of the shared parking analysis acceptable, but questions the transferability of the parking demand rates found in Costa Mesa for the health club analyzed, which are less than the City's parking requirements. His conclusion is that the study is valid only if it can be confirmed that the facility used for comparison has similar membership and patronage, and is in a similar type of location where most of the patrons will drive to the facility. Staff has investigated the Costa Mesa club and found that it is a similar type of fitness club with similar amenities and very close in size to the proposed club. Both structured and surface parking is available. The location near the 405 and 55 Freeways, however, is not comparable as it is in a high employment commercial district while a residential community surrounds the proposed location. On a Thursday, February 2, 2002 staff found that the facility and the immediate area was very congested and parking was not readily available in the surface parking lot near the fitness club. However, it should be noted that parking was available on the top floor of the parking structure and in surface lots further from the club The parking demand study of the Costa Mesa facility was limited to an analysis of demand rates to be used in the ULI shared parking analysis. It is not intended to verify or support the shared parking relationships and adjustment factors developed by ULI, nor is it intended to serve as an example of how the parking relationships will work on this site. The transferability of the demand rates to this location are also limited, as described above, because the immediate surroundings differ. If anything, the demand at the Costa Mesa location would probably peak earlier in the afternoon because of its proximity to more employment sites, while here the peaks may occur later in the afternoon and evenings since the facility is closer to the patrons homes. Further information and details regarding the parking demand study of the Costa Mesa club are attached. The conclusion of the shared parking analysis for the project is that the highest shared parking demand occurs weekdays at 5:00 P.M. for the combination of uses and is projected at 429 spaces and is satisfied by the on-site supply of 450 spaces. While the supply can be increased to 514 spaces with tandem and valet assisted parallel parking behind the standard stalls the increased supply is unnecessary given the parking needs of this project. The study does indicate that these extra parking spaces could be made available during weekdays when parking demand is largely due to the office use, by the use of discount parking passes to office personnel and other employees. 4 PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT/ S.P.A. 8 ZONE COMPLIANCE The Specific Plan Area zone includes two sets of development standards. This two tier approach was established to allow development that complies with the first tier standards as a matter of right without a Precise Development Plan. In this case, the project exceeds first tier standards for bulk (greater than 1:1 F.A.R.), and maximum size (greater than 10,000 square feet). Thus, the Precise Development Plan review is required for the project to exceed these first tier standards. Also, the plan requires a Variance, as previously granted, to exceed maximum building height. Pursuant to the specific standards of the S.P.A. 8 zone and the underlying C-3 zoning, other than the need for approval of a Parking Plan to comply with parking requirements and a Variance to comply with height, the project conforms with the S.P.A. 8 zoning requirements. As described in the previous PDP for this project, the proposed revised expansion is generally within the existing building footprint (a portion of the building entry will be reconfigured and is achieved by remodeling within the building, and enclosing some outdoor deck areas). The remodeling includes converting a large portion of existing retail and restaurant spaces for use as an office or the health and fitness club; converting the existing service loading and storage areas to a pool and basketball court; and, adding internal stairways to internally connect the three level health and fitness club. On the most visible elevations on P.C.H. and 6th Street, the building facade is to be completely remodeled. A contemporary design is proposed to replace an existing eclectic mix of rooflines and materials. The proposed design includes curved architectural features, storefront glass and standing seam arched metal roof to help articulate the building facade. These improvements are carried to the south and east building elevations. The proposed plan revisions are consistent with the previously approved project design. The new proposed plan revisions modify the central retail corridor/arcade and eliminate the escalators. The second floor retail corridor/arcade would also be modified and reduced for the office level. These changes result in a total of 30,000 square feet more of interior space than the 1987 plan. No additional building coverage, reduction of landscaping, or changes to building setbacks are proposed. The building contains only nominal landscaping on the P.C.H. frontage which is nonconforming to landscape standards of S.P.A. 8. Existing building setbacks adjacent to residential uses are 14 feet from the rear property line and 12 feet from the north side property line. The parking structure is proposed to be maintained with respect to overall parking supplies but will be improved and made more attractive with new lighting, paint, directional signing and new striping under the revised plans. Conditions of approval are included to ensure that the parking area is well lit and secure, based upon police department review of a security plan for the facility. The impact on local traffic was also evaluated by Linscott, Law and Greenspan, and it was found that the expected trip generation for the proposed project is less than half of the potential that could have been generated if the 1987 approved project was ever fully realized (2,830 total trips for the current proposal, vs. 5,733 for the approved mix of uses under the 1987 plan) The trips generated during the P.M. peak hour was found to be approximately 60% of the trips under the 1987 approved plan (278 P.M. peak hour trips for the current plan as compared to 5 476 potential under the 1987 project.). The high number of trips for the 1987 project was partially due to the expected restaurant uses that never materialized. VARIANCE In order to grant a Variance the following findings must be made: 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, limited to the physical conditions applicable to the property involved. 2. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question. 3. The granting of the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located 4. The Variance is consistent with the General Plan The project includes enclosing open deck areas located within gaps between existing enclosed spaces at the upper level originally set aside for outdoor uses (dining, open corridors). The building height is not being increased above existing roof heights at these locations. However, a Variance is required because the height limit was changed from 45 to 35 feet when the subject property was rezoned from C-3 to Specific Plan Area 8 in 1990 making most of the existing roof area over height, including the proposed enclosed spaces. The Variance is also needed to exceed the existing building height along the western side of the building. Currently the deck railing, and top of the wall of the open area of the parking structure represent the highest points of the building along this edge. The enclosure of these exterior spaces is being requested to maximize the utility of the building for the upper floor office space. The enclosure of the open decks and the open area of the parking deck that are the subject of this Variance account for approximately 12,000 square feet of new interior floor area. Discussion of findings made by the Commission: Staff believes there are two distinct parts to the Variance request: 1) The part involving enclosing existing open decks already surrounded on at least two sides by fully enclosed spaces, not increasing the height of the building; and, 2) The part involving the enclosure located along the west edge of the building which increases the building height relative to the sloping maximum height line. Each of these portions should be addressed with respect to required findings. Finding 1. The lot contains a fairly steep slope (a grade change of 20 feet between the upper portion on Pacific Coast Highway and westerly lower side) and is already significantly built -out 6 to its near maximum potential. To its highest point (measured from the sloping grade) the building measures about 40 feet at the front, and height of 45 feet at the back, even though the back portion of the building is stepped down from the highest point of the roof on the front. The building is thus currently nonconforming to the 35 -foot height limit. The original design of the building contains open deck areas on the upper level, which have not shown any economic utility since the building was completed. It was anticipated that restaurants would occupy these spaces. These areas could have been enclosed at the time of original construction if an alternate use required enclosure of these areas such as the fitness club. The combination of the site conditions and the open deck design on the upper floor of the building were found to be exceptional and extraordinary by the Planning Commission. Finding 2. The property owner is seeking to retrofit a building in order to exercise a property right to use a portion of an -existing vacant building for a viable purpose. Use of the existing upper floor deck is arguably a property right (given that the building is already in place) which would otherwise be denied by strict application of the height limit. Making this finding for the portion of the building that increases the building height is more difficult since deck areas could be maintained for the health and fitness club, and/or the total interior square footage of the health and fitness club could be reduced at this upper floor. However the applicant has argued that the proposed development program is the minimum project that can be successfully developed given the existing building configuration and the site. Finding 3. The portion of the Variance, which does not increase the existing height of the building, as it encloses gaps between existing rooflines, will clearly not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. It will negligibly effect the visual appearance of the building, and will not effect any views. Also, the enclosure of these deck areas, which could be used for outside dining under the current plan, will actually be beneficial to nearby residential uses, as it will attenuate potential noise impacts. This finding is tempered by the condition that a portion of the project will actually increase the building height and be visible from properties located to the southeast of the building. The view analysis provided by the applicant, however, shows the view impacts will not be substantial, and arguably not material. The interior clearance from floor to ceiling at the western end of the building is proposed to be 10 feet, and as high as 12 -feet, to keep a consistent roofline. As such, it would be possible to reduce the ceiling height to reduce the overall visual impact, but that would result in a less satisfactory building roof line and building architecture. Finding 4. If it is determined pursuant to Finding 3 that the proposed Variance does not result in material damage to surrounding properties, then it is also consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan. The General Plan encourages viable economic uses along the Commercial Corridor, and also encourages compatibility between commercial and residential uses. The Commission reviewed the findings shown in the staff report, discussed the original findings for 1999 project approval involving enclosure of the upper floor deck, and noted that the enclosed deck areas were not materially different from the project Variance approved previously. Based upon their review of the findings and conditions of the building and site, the Commission approved the Variance. CONCUR: Sol Blume eld, Director Communit Development Department 4,1 Stephe ►��.Tv ell City Manager en Ro • ertson Associate Planner Attachments 1. Proposed Resolution to sustain the Planning Commission decisiions. 2. P.C. Resolution for Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan 3. P.C. Resolution for Variance 3. Location Map 4. Negative Declaration & Initial Study 5. Parking and Traffic Study 6. Parking demand study of the Costa Mesa facility 7. Correspondence b95/cd/cc/pdp1605 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUSTAINING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PARKING PLAN, AS AMENDED, FOR AN EXPANSION AND REMODEL TO AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING, "THE HERMOSA PAVILION;" AND TO SUSTAIN THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO THE 35' HEIGHT LIMIT TO ENCLOSE THE UPPER FLOOR OPEN DECK AREAS AND TO ENCLOSE THE OPEN AREA ABOVE THE PARKING STRUCTURE AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1605 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve and order as follows: Section 1. Applications were filed by Shook Development Corporation owner of property at 1605 Pacific Coast Highway, known as the "Hermosa Pavilion", seeking approval of a Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan to remodel and expand an existing commercial building and to allow shared parking to accommodate a new allocation of uses within the building including a health and fitness facility, office and retail uses, seeking a Variance to the 35 -foot height limit to enclose the upper floor open deck areas and to add floor area above the open area of the parking strucure. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for a Precise Development Plan, Parking Plan and Variance on February 19, 2002, and based on the testimony and evidence, both written and oral, that was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission, approved the Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan subject to conditions as set forth in P.C. Resolution 02-8 and approved the Variance subject to conditions as set forth in P.C. Resolution 02-9. Section 3. The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to reconsider the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the Precise Development Plan, Parking Plan and Variance on April 9, 2002, and heard testimony and evidence, both written and oral, that was presented to and considered by the City Council. Section 4. After considering the decision of the Planning Commission and their record of decision, and the testimony at the public hearing, the City Council hereby sustains the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan based on the findings of the Planning Commission as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution 02-8 and subject to the conditions contained therein, which are incorporated herein by reference. Section 5. After considering the decision of the Planning Commission and their record of decision, and the testimony at the public hearing, the City Council hereby sustains 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the Variance based on the findings of the Planning Commission as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution 02-9, subject to the conditions contained therein, which are incorporated herein by reference. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 2002, PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY (0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 02-8 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PARKING PLAN, AS AMENDED, FOR AN EXPANSION AND REMODEL TO AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING, "THE HERMOSA PAVILION;" AND TO ALLOW SHARED PARKING TO ACCOMMODATE A NEW ALLOCATION OF USES WITHIN THE CENTER, INCLUDING A NEW HEALTH AND FITNESS FACILITY, OFFICES AND RETAIL AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1605 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve and order as follows: Section 1. An application was filed by Shook Development Corporation owner of property at 1605 Pacific Coast Highway, known as the "Hermosa Pavilion", seeking to amend a previously approved Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan to remodel and expand an existing commercial building and to allow shared parking to accommodate a new allocation of uses within the building including a health and fitness facility, office and retail uses. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed de novo public hearing to consider the application for a Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan amendments on February 19, 2002, at which testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission Section 3. Based on evidence received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission makes the following factual findings: 1. The Hermosa Pavilion retail and entertainment complex was originally approved in 1986, with said approval consisting of a Parking Plan for shared parking and a Conditional Use Permit for a 6-plex movie theatre (Resolution P.C. 86-40). The applicant is proposing changes to the allocation of uses summarized as follows: Prior Approved Use Allocation Proposed Project Proposed Allocation Health and Fitness Club 44,300 Theatre (6-Plex) 26,680 SF Office 48,990 Retail and Restaurant 46.180 SF Retail 12.088 Total 72,860 SF Total 105,378 SF 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 2. The existing 6 -level parking structure will be reconfigured to contain 450 parking spaces (334 standard, 116 compact size) with an additional 31 spaces if tandem parking is used and up to 514 spaces with valet assistance in the existing six -level parking structure. 3. The site is zoned S.P.A. 8 which requires a Precise Development Plan for a remodel and expansion project that exceeds 10,000 square feet and exceeds a floor areas to lot area ratio of 1:1. A Parking Plan is necessary to amend the existing approved shared parking arrangement in order to comply with the parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 4. Based on the foregoing factual findings, the Planning Commission makes the following findings pertaining to the application for a Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan Amendment: 1. The project is consistent with applicable general and specific plans, and is in compliance with the use and development requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The site is zoned S.P.A. 8, Specific Plan Area -Commercial, and the project and proposed use complies with the development standards contained therein. 3. Pursuant to Section 17.44.210 of the Zoning Ordinance, a reduction in the number of parking spaces required is acceptable due to the proposed mix of uses with varying peak hours of parking needs. Parking demand is projected to be satisfied by the supply within the parking structure due to the proposed new mix of uses with varying times of peak parking demand. The applicant has submitted a Shared Parking Analysis, prepared by Linscott Law and Greenspan (dated January 23, 2002) to demonstrate that the parking will be sufficient for the proposed mix of uses. The shared parking analysis shows that based on projected hourly parking counts the proposed fitness facility (based on a similar operation in Costa Mesa); plus projected parking needs of the office and retail uses (based on City parking requirements), that the proposed supply of 450 spaces is adequate and can be supplemented with parking management. 4. Compliance with the conditions of approval will mitigate any negative impact resulting from the issuance of the Precise Development Plan. 5. The Planning Commission concurs with the Staff Environmental Review Committee's recommendation, based on their environmental assessment/initial study, that this project will result in a less than significant impact on the environment, and therefore qualifies for a mitigated Negative Declaration. Section 5. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves the subject Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 1. The development and continued use of the property shall be in conformance with submitted plans reviewed by the Planning Commission at their meeting of February 19, 2002. Modifications to the plan shall be reviewed and may be approved by the Community Development Director. 1 2. To ensure compliance with the Parking Plan for shared parking the allocation of uses within the building shall be substantially consistent with the following allocation: Allocation(in square feet) Health and Fitness Facility (including 44,300 a basketball court and pool) Office 48,990 Retail 12,088 Total 105,378 Any change to this allocation requires amendment to the Parking Plan, and approval of the Planning Commission. 3. A parking operation plan shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Division prior to issuance of the building permit for the Health and Fitness Facility, ensuring maximum use of parking structure consistent with the Shared Parking Analysis (prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan, dated January 23, 2002), and to ensure efficient ingress and egress to and from the structure. The parking structure shall be operated in accordance with said plan. a) A minimum of 450 single use and 30 dual use (tandem) parking spaces shall be available within the structure for employees and customers of all tenants within the building, and all parking shall be available on a first come first serve basis (i.e. no assigned parking except that tandem spaces may be assigned to employees). b) The adequacy of parking supplies and the efficiency of the parking operation program shall be monitored for six -months after occupancy of the Health and Fitness Facility, and a report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department b the applicant's traffic engineer certifying adequate on-site parking is available. If supplies are found to be inadequate, the applicant shall provide valet assisted parking, and a detailed valet assistance program shall be provided to the City c) A lighting and security plan, including possible use of security personnel shall be reviewed and approved by the Police Department to ensure that the parking structure is well lit and safe for the patrons prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Architectural treatment including sign locations shall be as shown on building elevations and site and floor plans. Any modification shall require approval by the Community Development Director /3 1 5. The project shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Department and the Public Works Department. 6. Final building plans/construction drawings including site, elevation, floor plan, sections, details, signage, landscaping and irrigation, submitted for building permit issuance shall be reviewed for consistency with the plans approved by the Planning Commission and the conditions of this resolution, and approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of any Building Permit. a. The landscape plans shall include landscaping along Pacific Coast Highway and street trees and shall be consistent with the original landscape plans approved for the Hermosa Pavilion, subject to review and approval of the Community Development Director. b. Project plans shall include insulation to attenuate potential noise problems with surrounding residential uses. 7. All exterior lights shall be located and oriented in a manner to insure that neighboring residential property and public right-of-way shall not be adversely effected. 8. Bicycle racks shall be provided in conveniently accessible location to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director 9. The project and operation of the businesses shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code. 10. A Variance for exceeding the maximum height shall be required for the proposed enclosure and roofing of additional floor area. No building permits the expansion shall be issued prior to approval of a Variance by the Plannng Commission. 11. The Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan shall be recorded, and proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. 12. Each of the above Conditions of Approval is separately enforced, and if one of the Conditions of Approval is found to be invalid by a court of law, all the other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable. 13. Permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, it agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employee to attack, set aside, void or annul this permit approval, which action is brought within the applicable time period of the State Government Code. The City shall promptly notify the permittee of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any claim, action or proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall no thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. I L/ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 14. The permittee shall reimburse the City for any court and attorney's fees which the City may be required to pay as a result of any claim or action brought against the City because of this grant. Although the permittee is the real party in interest in an action, the City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of the action, but such participation shall not relieve the permittee of any obligation under this condition. 15. The subject property shall be developed, maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of this grant and any law, statute, ordinance or other regulation applicable to any development or activity on the subject property. Failure of the permittee to cease any development or activity not in full compliance shall be a violation of these conditions Section 6. This grant shall not be effective for any purposes until the permittee and the owners of the property involved have filed at the office of the Planning Division of the Community Development Department their affidavits stating that they are aware of, and agree to accept, all of the conditions of this grant. The Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan shall be recorded, and proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. Each of the above conditions is separately enforced, and if one of the conditions of approval is found to be invalid by a court of law, all the other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable. Permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, it agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employee to attack, set aside, void or annul this permit approval, which action is brought within the applicable time period of the State Government Code. The City shall promptly notify the permittee of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any claim, action or proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall no thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. The permittee shall reimburse the City for any court and attorney's fees which the City may be required to pay as a result of any claim or action brought against the City because of this grant. Although the permittee is the real party in interest in an action, the City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of the action, but such participation shall not relieve the permittee of any obligation under this condition. The subject property shall be developed, maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of this grant and any law, statute, ordinance or other regulation applicable to any development or activity on the subject property. Failure of the permittee to cease any development or activity not in full compliance shall be a violation of these conditions. 1s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 • 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 The Planning Commission may review this Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan and may amend the subject conditions or impose any new conditions if deemed necessary to mitigate detrimental effects on the neighborhood resulting from the subject use. Section 7. Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 any legal challenge to the decision of the Planning Commission, after a formal appeal to the City Council, must be made within 90 days after the final decision by the City Council. VOTE: AYES: Hoffman, Pizer, Perrotti, and Kersenboom NOES: Tucker ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 02-8 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meeting of February 19, 2002. Sam Perrotti, Chairman i9, Date pdpr1605am (6 Sol Blumen eld, Secretary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 RESOLUTION NO. 02-9 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE 35' HEIGHT LIMIT TO ENCLOSE THE UPPER FLOOR OPEN DECK AREAS AND TO ENCLOSE THE OPEN AREA ABOVE THE PARKING STRUCTURE IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXPANSION AND REMODEL TO AN EXISTING RETAIL AND ENTERTAINMENT CENTER AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1605 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY The Planning Commission does hereby resolve and order as follows: Section 1. An application was filed by Shook Development Corporation owner of property at 1605 Pacific Coast Highway, known as the "Hermosa Pavilion", seeking approval of a Variance from the maximum 35 -foot building height in the S.P.A. 8 zone to allow enclosure of existing upper floor open deck areas and to add floor area above the open portion of the parking structure. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed de novo public hearing to consider the application for a Variance on February 19, 2002, at which testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission. Section 3. Based on the evidence received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission makes the following factual findings: 1. As part of an overall remodel and expansion to an existing retail entertainment center, the applicant desires to enclose open deck areas located within gaps between existing enclosed spaces at the upper level originally set aside for outdoor uses (dining, open corridors). Since the building height is not being increased above existing roof heights at these locations, the need for the Variance is because the height limit was changed from 45 to 35 feet when the subject property was rezoned from C-3 to Specific Plan Area 8 in 1990. 2. The applicant also desires to enclose open deck areas located on the western side of the building and to add floor area above the open area of the parking structure at the southwestern corner of the building. This enclosure and added floor will exceed the existing building height since the deck railing and wall of the parking structure represent the highest point of the building along this edge. 3. The Variance is being requested in conjunction with a substantial remodel and expansion to an existing retail and entertainment center, "The Hermosa Pavilion" to accommodate a health and fitness facility, office and retail space. Section 4. Based on the foregoing factual findings, the Planning Commission makes the following findings pertaining to the application for a Variance: �7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 '16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 1. There are exceptional circumstances relating to the property due to the combination of the site conditions, and the open deck design on the upper floor of the building. The lot contains a fairly steep slope (a grade change of 20 feet between the upper portion on Pacific Coast Highway and westerly lower side) and is already significantly built -out to its near maximum potential with a height to its highest point (measured from the sloping grade) of about 40 feet at the front, and height of 45 feet at the back even though the back portion of the building is stepped down feet from the highest point of the roof on the front. The original design of the building contains open deck areas on the upper level which have not shown any economic utility since the building was completed. It was anticipated that restaurants would occupy these spaces. These areas could have been enclosed at the time of original construction if an alternate use required enclosure of these areas such as the fitness club. 2. The Variance is necessary for the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the vicinity because as the property owner is seeking to retrofit a building in order to use a portion of a largely vacant building for a viable economic purpose. This viable use that is a substantial property right (given that the building is already in place) would otherwise be denied by strict application of the height limit. 3. The requested Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity because as it permits the enclosure of gaps between existing roof lines and will negligibly effect the visual appearance of the building, and will not effect any views. Also, the enclosure of these deck areas which could be used for outside dining under the current plan will actually be beneficial to nearby residential uses as it will attenuate potential noise impacts. 4. The proposed Variance does not conflict with and is not detrimental to. the General Plan as it does not result in material damage to surrounding properties, and is also consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan. The General Plan encourages viable economic uses along the Commercial Corridor, and also encourages compatibility between commercial and residential uses. 5. The Planning Commission concurs with the Staff Environmental Review Committee's recommendation, based on their environmental assessment/initial study, that this project will result in a less than significant impact on the environment, and therefore qualifies for a mitigated Negative Declaration. Section 5. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves the subject Variance subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 1. The project shall be consistent with submitted. Any minor modifications to the plan shall be reviewed and may be approved by the Community Development Director. 2. The Variance is specifically limited to the situation and circumstances that result relative to the proposed expansion and remodeling of the existing structure and is not applicable to the development of new structures or any future expansion. 1 Section 6. Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 any legal challenge to the decision of the Planning Commission, after a formal appeal to the City Council, must be made within 90 days after the final decision by the City Council. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Pizer, Perrotti, and Kersenboom Hoffman, Tucker None None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 02-9 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meeting of February 19, 2002. Sam Perrrotti, Chairman o Blume fele, Secretary t (� (, 266Z Date �9 varr1605 ir- . si enfeld suggested that Staff would draft a standard resolution that would deal with some of the general comm - ' - _ - and the residential issues. He a • • i lc study would be done regarding general standard ' I • +'-•- -.saw; evelop a Text Amendment to be presented at the 8. PDP 01-19/PARK 01-4/VAR 01-4 -- Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan for alterations to an existing retail and entertainment center to accommodate offices, a health and fitness club, and retail uses, and a Variance to the 35' height limit to enclose existing deck areas to match the height of the existing roof, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 1605 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Pavilion. Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld corrected the zip code shown on the staff report to 92618 and on Page 1 in the Table tabulating the uses, both prior and proposed, the prior approved use should be "original approved" use. He said the proposed project contains a health club of 44,300 square feet, an office use of 48,990 square feet and retail development of about 12,088 square feet, totaling 105,378 square feet. It is located in the SPA -8 ZONE, which corresponds to C-3 uses, and there are three issues: a Variance to enclose the upper story space which exceeds the 35' height limits; a Precise Development Plan to modify existing building, and a Parking Plan to manage the parking on site. He said the plan was originally approved in 1987 and partially occupied but recently has been completely unoccupied. The discretionary permits have expired necessitating the current application. He said the applicant has prepared a parking analysis, examining a club with a similar operation in Costa Mesa, which has many of the same amenities as the proposed project. The owners retained Linscott, Law & Greenspan to prepare a parking study to assess parking impacts, and the traffic engineer has calculated that a parking ratio of 6.75 spaces per 1,000 square feet is required in order to park the project. Only 429 spaces are required to accommodate parking over peak periods by managing parking supply. The proposed parking demand will meet the supply on site in terms of what is currently available and what could be managed on site with respect to 31 additional tandem parking spaces and the use of valet services. The traffic engineer has said the shared use concept does work overall in Costa Mesa and it would work at the proposed facility as well. He said if the project is to be constructed with the full complement of over 105,000 square feet of development, it would required enclosing the upper deck space in certain areas. As every area of the roof deck is over height, this would required a Variance. When the project was last approved, there were no view issues and no compelling reasons noted by Commission not to approve a height Variance, so the Commission approved the Variance, making the four mandatory findings. As the project involves modifications to the building in excess of 1,500 square feet, it requires a Precise Development Plan. Staff believes the project is consistent with requirements for approval of a Precise Development Plan. It is consistent with the C-3 zoning and the uses are allowed. The City's traffic engineer has reviewed the Traffic Study and found it acceptable as provided in Supplemental No. 8, appended to the Staff Report. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld said the Costa Mesa Club was different in that it was a stand-alone facility. P.C. Minutes 02-19-02 20 In response to Chairman Perrotti, Director Blumenfeld said the proposed Variance request is similar to the one approved in 1999. He said the volume of the building has changed somewhat, but the areas on the roof deck are similar to those approved previously by the Commission for a Variance under the previous Precise Development Plan. Chairman Perrotti referenced on Page 5, "No additional building coverage, reduction of landscaping, or changes to building setbacks are proposed" and on Page 3, "The building frontage will be extended to the street edge at the ground level and the upper floor deck areas and open corridors will be enclosed" and so the shell of the building will not be expanded? Director Blumenfeld said the building frontage will be enclosed and eliminates the drop-off area by eliminating the escalator to get more efficiency and that would change the entry to the building. In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Director Blumenfeld said Staff asked Cal Trans to comment on the proposed project and they requested some clarifying information but no mention was made about the drop-off area, and he said he was not sure if it was an original requirement of the City or of Cal Trans. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld referenced the Page 1 table that should read "original approved use." He said this project is different because of additional retail which helps the parking demand and supply, and this project is slightly smaller than previously approved for the site. In response to Chairman Perrotti's question regarding the Table on page 17, Director Blumenfeld said the owner may be able to address the difference in project size. He said the Environmental Checklist is meant to identify environmental issues needed to be studied further and mitigated. Traffic and parking were the key issues identified and they were addressed for the current project size. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld said parking on site, rather than trip generation, was the key issue and this use, compared more favorably to the previous theater use, which generates much more traffic. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Jerry Wiggle, Keisker & Wiggle Architects, corrected the report at page 10 and said the total square footage would be 105,378. Referencing item No. 3, he said they are hoping that condition 3(d) would be included in (c), so that the Police Department would determine the extent of security measures. He said the Variance is the same as the previous one proposed in 1999 with enclosure of the decks. He said the drop-off area is illegal as it is now for ADA standards, and the island of concrete will be removed which would then open in the circulation at the front of the building. Architectural changes would be made where the sign and elevator are located now to make the main entrance to the building on the highway side. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Mr. Wiggle said that if there is a pedestrian drop-off in the front of the building, their experience has always been that they be handicapped accessible. He also P.C. Minutes 02-19-02 ai said that the current ADA parking does not meet current standards and so the solution that was brought up was to designate the spaces next to the elevator on each floor of the parking garage to be handicapped parking. Jack Greenspan, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, 234 East Colorado Boulevard, Pasadena, said the number of trips per day would be reduced by 59% between the approved plan of July 1999 and the proposed plan, and the difference between the proposed plan and when the theaters were in operation is a reduction of 50%. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Mr. Greenspan said the suggested outgoing trip volume of 42 trips in the AM hours, which are based on the ITE standard, should not create a problem in their opinion. Following discussion regarding the standard for parking demand rates, Director Blumenfeld said the parking ratio used of 6.75 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area was used by Mr. Greenspan in a shared parking analysis, which is also analogous to the facility studies in Costa Mesa. Mr. Greenspan said they studied two facilities, one in Santa Monica and the Costa Mesa facility, and the factor of 6.75 was determined by counting the number of people entering the facility. He said he thought the standard is very high. Gene Shook, President of Shook Development, 220 Technology Drive, Suite 110, Irvine, California 92618, detailed different amenities of the health club facility, specifically aerobic and cycling rooms, swimming pool area, basketball court, kids area, as they relate to the parking issue. He pointed out the differences between smaller club facilities acid the proposed facility where a larger facility will have a regular locker room and an executive locker room. He said a club with all the square footage on one floor is much more efficient. He said smaller clubs of 10,000 to 20,000 square feet usually charge between $18 and $20 monthly, a medium club charges between $35 and $45, and a higher end club can charge between $88 and $160 per month. He said changes have been done such as changing some of the uses to office uses and modifying the plan for better circulation. He explained a change to the ingress area off of 16th Street, which is anticipated, will ease maneuverability for large vehicles. He said he has been assured by 24 -Hour Fitness that their employees will be using the tandem parking spaces. He said as square footage of a project is lessened, the value and viability of the project is decreased; and therefore, the ability to get a loan to build the project is decreased. He said they need the Commission's help to approve the project and increase the square footage, although that was not presented, so the project can move forward. In response to Commissioner Kersenboom, Mr. Shook detailed timing and different approvals that would need to be obtained subsequent to Commission's approval. He also said it is impossible to obtain a loan unless a project is 70 or 80% occupied. He said other occupants are not available because of uncertainty of the timing of the approval of the project. Commissioner Pizer said he liked the presentation as it answered questions that he had in a logical manner. z 2_ P.C. Minutes 02-19-02 Bill Oughton, Director of Real Estate, 24 -Hour Fitness Center, said usage of the facility usually goes down as the square footage goes up. He said this club will be in the $69 to $89 range per month. He said development of health clubs has changed tremendously over the last five years as they now have approximately 100 clubs across the United States that are 30,000 square feet or more. Dan Wehr, Regional Vice President of 24 -Hour Fitness Center, said health clubs are usually busier in the evenings. He said they would like to see a 70,000 square foot facility in Hermosa Beach. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Mr. Oughton said the $60 to $89 range applied to the executive locker rooms with separate sauna, steam room and jacuzzi. Mr. Wehr said people who enroll usually use a facility either close to home or to work. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Mr. Oughton said the noise issue has been dealt with in the past by installing extra padding in the insulation. Mr. Wehr commented that at several of their facilities they have designated parking for their employees. He said the number of employees per shift would be approximately 20 to 25. He said parking for bicycles would be available. Jim Lissner, 2715 El Oeste, Hermosa Beach, said nobody rides their bike to the club located at Artesia Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway, and their parking lot is always jammed. He said the Commission must make four findings to grant the Variance, the first one being exceptional circumstances. He said the lot being stepped is not unusual for Hermosa Beach, and he said many commercial properties have decks and some even rent sidewalks in order to have outdoor space. He said the second finding is that they are being denied a substantial property right being enjoyed by others, but neither Vons nor the new hotel nearby have been given Variances to exceed the height limit, and there are no demonstrations that the extra interior square footage is necessary for the viability of the business. The largest tenant is giving up space to retail and office, and we have many successful gyms in town with a fraction of the space asked for here. There are no demonstrations that the gym or the offices have to have the interior space in the deck locations rather than some other place in the building. Getting a view does not justify giving a Variance. With regard to the third finding, no material harm, he spoke about the sound, which will bounce off the vertical walls that are being added. He said people's views will also be affected because of the lights, which will be on all night. The building will also block the sunlight to the apartment building next door in the early morning and late afternoon. Traffic will be increased in the night time hours as well as pollution and traffic along Ardmore Avenue. He said he hopes the project is approved without building out the deck and with a curfew on the use of the deck. Mr. Oughton said usage of the facility between 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. may be 10 people. Mr. Wehr said the people using the facility in the early morning hours are usually fire department, police department personnel, nurses, or city workers. P.C. Minutes 02-19-02 Z3 • • Gene Shook said the use in the proposed facility is less intensive at night. He said changes on the apartment side would be minimal as the wall is already in place. In response to Chairman Perrotti, Director Blumenfeld said a restaurant could be added under the C- 3 zone but, if they wanted alcohol, a Conditional Use Permit would require approval with confirmation that there was no material change in the parking demand and supply. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. In response to Commissioner Pizer, Director Blumenfeld said the Commission is approving a Parking Plan with a specific allocation of square footage for a Health and Fitness Club, and if the Commission is not comfortable with the clarity of Condition 2, it could be amended to say that this Parking Plan approval includes a Fitness Club of 44,300 square feet which includes a basketball court and a pool to address related parking demand issues. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld said the conditions of approval include Fire Department and the Public Works Departments final approval to the project plans. In response to Commissioner Pizer, Director Blumenfeld said Staff focused on parking issues, and it was important that the project was adequately secured relative to providing security personnel and security in the design and lighting in the parking structure. Chairman Perrotti discussed adding or modifying the resolution to discuss the soundproofing and the square footage correction. He said there seemed to be much more detail as to how much traffic is going to be controlled, and the parking seems to be more defined. Commissioner Pizer suggested deleting (3d) and including language in No. 6, regarding the basketball court and pool square footage. Director Blumenfeld recommended adding to Condition 2 under the allocation of 44,300 square feet, "including a basketball court and pool." Under (6b), he suggested adding "the project plans shall include insulation to attenuate noise to surrounding residential." MOTION by Commissioner Kersenboom, seconded by Chairman Pizer, to APPROVE the Precise Development Plan and the Parking Plan with modifications to Paragraph 2, adding in the information on the pool and the gym, and also paragraph (6), adding subparagraph (b) to include insulation to contain the noise, and combining paragraph (3d) into (3c). Discussion was held between the Commissioners regarding security at the project. AYES: Hoffman, Pizer, Perrotti, and Kersenboom. NOES: Tucker ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Hoffman said he has a problem making the first finding to grant the Variance. P.C. Minutes 02-19-02 G.) • • Commissioner Tucker said he was in agreement with Commissioner Hoffman and that landscaping would be lost. Commissioner Kersenboom said what is proposed is better than what is presently there, and the Variance is consistent with the prior approval findings. Commissioner Pizer said they need to look at what harm it does to the City having the property vacant for so many years. Chairman Perrotti and Commissioner Pizer said the Variance requested is quite similar to the one in 1999 and said they could make the four findings noted in the staff report as reviewed by Staff and approved previously. MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE the Variance. Commissioner Tucker said they should not take economic conditions into account, and he did not think the envelope of the building in front should change. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Pizer, Perrotti, and Kersenboom Hoffman, Tucker None None ecess taken. 9. TE ' 12-2 -- Text Amendment for front yard requirement on through lots : tween the Strand an he service road parallel to Hermosa Avenue approximate • etween 27th Street and 35t treet. Staff Recommended Actio To recommend approval of s.' : ext Amendment. Director Blumenfeld presented the staff re. • and said the Text Amendment would eliminate an inequitable development standard fo oug ots between The Strand and Hermosa Avenue north of 27th Street. Currently the = 's a requiremen •r a double front yard for those lots with their orientation to The Stran• . d along Hermosa Avenu . This Text Amendment would eliminate the extra front . d requirement and would create a with some of the s - • unding properties with a similar through lot c Strand as thei ont yard. He said the affected area of the lots contribute square fe of building area. elopment standard consistent ition which have The roximately 169 response to Commissioner Pizer, Director Blumenfeld said the proposed change reads ` he lots facing the service road located parallel to Hermosa Avenue approximately between 27th P.C. Minutes 02-19-02 zS BACKGROUND MATERIAL 0 w J -J it Jo • „4 rn 0 q 111. b J ut IE -6Z-4001 L 4 9 S133HS 747.1{ 117' n 2 y 247 11 - • • 0 w N 741!1. ff'F. e• w a • IBT" ST 4-165- 002 , 4 -75- 49 -ES -946 BVI 744.14 4690£ ON al -0 ^ 0 k )z • 25 O a O z6 N 0 2 i N O 190 SO (,) 23' '2? 0 O pt 20 BLK 10 2 K I le 17TH 4185- 002 4.45-o05 }' O) i (;), 0i z BLK. A (-) 7 °0251, t !CAL[ r • /00' ADDRESS: 1605 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY ST. 4 42 1:43z - owi 6T„ 4192 Dos ST ° 4&5- oat. ° O BLK =7. r (;'l o i.6?5.1 1 xA, ,,,•A i a' o. ONTINENTAL MAPPING SERVICE Sl90 v6N NUVS BLV. VAN NUYS, 91401 1 ACTIVITY IDENTIFICATION Location a. Address: 1605 Pacific Coast Highway b. Legal: A portion of Lot 13 & Southerly 6.24' of a portion of Lot 14, Block 81, 2nd Addition to Hermosa Beach Description Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan for alterations to an existing retail and entertainment center to accommodate offices, a health and fitness club, and retail uses, and a Variance to the 35' height limit to enclose existing deck areas to match the height of the existing roof. Sponsor a. Name: Shook Development b. Mailing Address: 220 Technology Drive, #110, Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 450-0100 NEGATIVE DECLARATION In accordance with Resolution 89-5229 of the City of Hermosa Beach, which implements the Califomia Environmental Quality Act of 1970 in Hermosa Beach, the Environmental Review Committee must make an environmental review of all private projects proposed to be undertaken within the City, and the Planning Commission must make an environmental review of all public projects proposed to be undertaken within the City, which are subject to the Environmental Quality Act. This declaration is documentation of the review and, if it becomes final, no comprehensive Environmental Impact Report is required for this project. FINDING OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE We have undertaken and completed an Environmental Impact Review of this proposed project in accordance with Resolution 89-5229 of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, and find that this project does not require a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report because, - - - : - • - - • - - • : - •• ,. - - • • •• : - - - : - - : • - - - : - • • : - - -• , it would not have a significant effect on the environment. Documentation supporting this finding is on file in the Community Development Department, Planning Division. /O/o Date o/// Finding airman, En ronmental Review Committee FINDING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION We have undertaken and completed an Environmental Impact Review of this proposed project in accordance with Resolution 89-5229 of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, and find that this project does not require a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report because, - - : - - - : - - : • - - - : - • • : - e: , it would not have a significant effect on the environment. Documentation supporting this finding is on file in the Community Development Department, Planning Division. fi /9 62t2 Date of Finding Chairman, Planning Commission FINDING OF THE CITY COUNCIL We have undertaken and completed an Environmental Impact Review of this proposed project in accordance with Resolution 89-5229 of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, and find that this project does not require a comprehensive En,ironmental Impact Report because, - - = - - : • - -e:. • • :. it would not have a significant effect on the environment. Documentation supporting this finding is on file in the Community Development Department Planning Division. Date of Finding Mayor, Hermosa Beach City Council • • Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: PDP 01-19, PARKING PLAN 01-4, VAR 01-4; HERMOSA PAVILION EXPANSION/REMODEL An expansion, remodel, and change of use of an existing commercial building to accommodate a 43,000 square foot fitness club, 48,000 square feet of office use and 11,000 square feet of retail use and a height variance to match the height of the existing roof. 2. Project Location: 1605 Pacific Coast Highway 3. Project Sponsor: ITC Real Estate Group 4. Lead Agency : City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 5. Contact Person: Ken Robertson, Associate Planner - (310) 318-0242 6. General Plan Designation: Commercial Corridor 7. Zoning: S.P.A. 8 Commercial 8. Description of Project: Alterations and remodeling of an existing structure to expand the total available square footage and to reconfigure the uses within an existing commercial building known as the Hermosa Pavilion. The existing and proposed uses are summarized as follows: Previous Use Allocation Proposed Project Allocation AMC Theatre 26,680 SF Fitness Club 42,295 Beauty Supply 920 SF Retail 10,870 Vacant(Retail 45,260 SF Office 47,785 and Rest.) Restaurant 0 72,860 SF Total 100,950 Total The project requires and Precise Development Plan for the proposed alterations and improvements and a Parking Plan for shared parking. The fitness club will span three floors of the Pavilion. Office space is proposed for the upper two floors. • • Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: Commercial uses are located to the south and across P.C.H. to the east. High density residential uses are located to the north (a multi -unit condominium building) and east (apartments and condominiums). The P.C.H. corridor is a highly traveled urban corridor, located in an urban setting, consisting of primarily strip commercial development. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.).. Cal Trans for any changes or improvements on P.C.H. L9 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. O Land Use and Planning ® Transportation/Circulation ❑ Public Services O Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities and Service Systems O Geological Problems ❑ Energy and Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics O Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources O Air Quality 0 Noise U Recreation ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERNIINATION.(To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, that there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environmental, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. i ature 1.!&14 2.0624 -Nu,_ Date s -i011/1 alkii t Printed Name For 30 o_4411 c)-(' 1(.v • • Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low income or minority community)? I -a The project expands and reconfigures and existing commercial use in a location designated for commercial use on the General Plan.. I -b Staff is not aware of any environmental plans or policies specifically related to this subject site or area, which is in an urban setting, that the proposed project would conflict with. I -c The proposed use of the property is compatible with the surrounding similar commercial uses and would be more compatible with adjacent residential uses than the existing entertainment uses. I -d The project would not affect agricultural resources or operations as neither the project site nor the surrounding uses are currently used for farming operations and the site's soils are not considered agriculturally significant. I -e The project is located within an urbanized area with a mix of uses, and the proposed expansion of the commercial use would not divide the community. Sources: City of Hermosa Beach General Plan, City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code 3t Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructures? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El II -a The proposal involves expanding and reconfiguring existing commercial uses which has no effect on housing or population. II -b The project would not induce growth in Hermosa Beach, or the regional area. The highly urbanized area. is already served by extensive infrastructure. II -c The project involves expanding and altering an existing commercial use, and will not displace any existing housing. III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides or mudflows? fJ Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? h) Expansive soil? • • Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I) Unique geologic or physical features? ❑ ❑ ❑ El III -a There are no known fault lines in the City and the locations of past epicenters do not indicate the presence offault areas in Hermosa Beach.. III -b During the life of the project it may be subject to a major earthquake, which may cause damage to the building present a hazard to occupants. Existing Building regulations such as the UBC address these seismic hazards, and City review of construction plans for compliance with all applicable regulations is considered adequate to reduce risks to less -than -significant. III -c The project involves alterations to an existing building structure, no new grading or site work is involved that could possibly induce hazards such as liquefaction. III -d There is no potential for either seiches or volcanic activity, or a tsunami at the subject site. III -e. The project involves alterations to an existing building structure, no new grading or site work is involved that could possibly create or contribute to landslides or mudflows. III -f The project involves alterations to an existing building structure, no new grading or site work is involved that could possibly create erosion or unstable soil. III g Subsidence as well as other potential geotechnical hazards will be evaluated and addressed by geotechnical studies required as part of the plan review process. It is expected that any such hazards can be addressed through routine engineering design employed in the area. III -h The potential for encountering expansive soils at the project site is considered to be low, as sandy soils, such as those characterizing the project area, are not considered expansive. III -i The project site contains no unique geologic or physical features. Sources: City or Hermosa Beach General Plan, Seismic Safety Element IV. WATER AND WATER QUALITY. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of 33 ❑ ❑ ❑IZ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? Storm water system discharges from areas for materials storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage delivery or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas? A significantly harmful increase in the flow rate or volume of storm water runoff? A significantly harmful increase in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? Storm water discharges that would significantly impair the beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefits (e.g. riparian corridors, wetland, etc.)? Harm to the biological integrity of drainage systems and water bodies? Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? 1) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? m) Impacts to groundwater quality? n) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El IV -a The project involves improvements and alterations within an existing structure, and will not have any impact on absorption rates, or drainage patterns and rates of stormwater flows, and will therefore not alter the rate, volume or quality water that drains off the site to the local storm drain system. 3iF • Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact IV -b -n There are no impacts anticipated to these items as the project involves construction within an existing structure with no anticipated changes to water or water quality impacts. V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any chance in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? V -a -d. The proposal involves improvements and alterations to an existing commercial building. The changes of usage results in a reduced number of potential automobile trips (see traffic analysis below) and therefore result in either no change or a reduction in the generation of mobile source emission. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? VI -a The project will not increase the number of trips on the surrounding arterial, collector or local streets, as compared with the existing approved uses for the building. Pursuant to the attached "Table A" dated April 10, 3S Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 2001, from the traffic study prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan traffic engineers and confirmed by the memo from the City traffic engineer a similar proposed different mix of uses results in less total vehicle trips and less trips during AM and PM peak hours. This traffic study evaluated a mix of uses with slightly different allocations than the current proposal. Since the office and fitness club portion have been reduced, and the retail portion only slightly increased the findings are still valid for this proposal. VI -b No changes in traffic patterns are anticipated or ingress and egress to the site which might present hazards. VI -c Emergency access would continue to be available to the site, it's adequacy for the expanded used of the site will be evaluated for and required to comply with fire safety and emergency access standards as part of the plan review and approval process. VI -d No additional parking facilities are proposed in conjunction with the proposed expansion and alterations. However, the applicant is proposing a mitigation program, if necessary, for employees of the facility to use 30 tandem spaces, and valet assisted parking to increase the effective supply from 451 to 504 spaces. The applicant has prepared a shared parking analysis (Parking Study Report Update, prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan, dated December 11, 2001) to demonstrate that the parking will be sufficient for the proposed mix of uses. The peak demand of 423 spaces is satisfied without the proposed valet assisted parking program. VI -e No hazards are anticipated based on the proposed configuration of proposed improvements, and because no changes to the volumes of traffic are anticipated. VI -f The proposed project will not effect any applicable policies supporting alternative transportation. VI -g The proposed project would not effect rail, waterborne, or air traffic. Sources: 1. Memorandum from City Traffic Engineer, dated 4/10/01 commenting on the Project Trip Generation Comparison prepared by Linscott Law and Greenspan 2. Parking Study Report Update- Hermosa Pavilion, Linscott Law and Greenspan dated 12/11/01 3. Parking Study Report Update- Hermosa Pavilion, Linscott Law and Greenspan dated 2/8/01 4. Parking Study Report — Hermosa Pavlion, Linscott Law and Greenspan dated 7/9/01 5. Parking and Traffic Impact Analysis, Linscott Law and Greenspan, dated 11/30/98 VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? 3 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees) ? c) Locally designed natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ VII -a -e The project site is currently developed in an urban setting,containing no significant biological resources. Further, no known endangered, threatened or rare spaces; heritage trees, or special habitats will be displaced or impacted. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful an inefficient manner? c) Results in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the and the residents of the state? ❑ DD ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ VIII -a The proposed project would be required to be constructed to comply with energy conservation standards in the State's Uniform Building Code. VIII -b The size of the project and the nature of the commercial use would not involve significant or wasteful use of non-renewable resources. Application of the existing regulations are considered adequate to ensure that non-renewable resources would not be used in an inefficient or wasteful manner. VIII -c There have been no significant amount of mineral deposits identified at this site, or in the City of Hermosa Beach. Should there be potential for encountering sub -surface oil deposits, development of the site with residential uses would not preclude or significantly effect future exploitation of these resources if it was desired. Source: City of Hermosa Beach General Plan, Conservation Element 3i Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? IX -a Construction of the project may involve the use of diesel oil, and pesticides on landscaping. The use of these substances is typical of most construction projects and the risk of accidental explosion or release is considered negligible. IX -b The size and location of the project would not interfere with City-wide emergency response and evacuation plans.. IX -c No known health hazard exist or will be created at this location. IX -d No known health hazard exist or will be created at this location or in the nearby area IX -e The area is not characterized by existing flammable brush, grass, or trees, and the project would be constructed in compliance with fire safety standards. X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ❑ Li ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El X -a The proposed new occupancy is expected only to negligibly affect the pattern and volume of existing noise levels, and construction noise will temporarily impact noise level typical for a project of this size and scale These impacts are not considered to be significant. X -b No severe noise levels are expected due to this project, or exist in the surrounding residential area. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Schools? OUZO d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ e) Other governmental services? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ XI -a -e The expansion of commercial use and change of the mix of uses will marginally change the need for all these services. This is considered to be less than significant, as most of these services are already necessary for the operation of the commercial business in the aree, and the marginal changes, should be easily accommodated by existing resources and facilities that area already available in this highly urbanized area. These impacts are also partially mitigated by various City required fees imposed on new construction, and the taxes that will be generated from this project, which contribute towards the continued provision of these services. XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? XII -a -g The expanded commercial use and change of uses within the building will marginally change the total demand and the pattern of demand of all these utilities and service systems. This is considered to be less than significant, as these utilities and service systems are already necessary for the operation of the commercial business in the surrounding area, and the marginal changes, such as need for more phone lines, possible 39 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact increases in sewer use and solid waste generation should be accommodated by existing utility and service systems that are already available in this highly urbanized area. These impacts are also partially mitigated by various City required fees imposed on new construction, and the taxes that will be generated from this project which contribute towards maintenance and upgrading of these systems-. XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ XIII -a -b The project involves improvements and alterations to an existing building and no impacts are anticipated. The changes to the roof line proposed with the Variance are to match the existing roof height, and are not expected to have less than significant view impacts based on the plans and photos submitted by the applicant. XIII -c The project may marginally increase new sources of light in the area because of its slightly greater building heights, and change the pattern of lighting. This is not expected to be significant. XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical resources? d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? XIV -a -e there are no known cultural resources associate with this project site. XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ • Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ❑ ❑ ❑ XV -a -b No impacts are anticipated given that the proposed use is comparable to the existing use. XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Supporting Information Sources. (The following are sources used and referred to in the initial study, and are incorporated herein by reference. All are available for review in the Community Development Department, Planning Division of the City of Hermosa Beach) 1. General Plan for the City of Hermosa Beach (Land Use Element revised 1994) • • Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 2. City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code XVIII. MITIGATION MEASURES c: cklt1605 01/25/02 FRI 12:59 FAX 1 6202 0941 I it ENGINEERS LLG PASADENA ENGINEERS & PLANNER'; • TRAFFIC, TRANSPORTATION, PARKING 234 Ea4 Colorado Blvd., Suite 400 • Pasadena, California 91101 Phone: 626 796-2322 • .:ax: 626 792-0941 January 25, 2002 Mr. Gene Shook ITC Real Estate Group 220 Technology Drive, Suite 110 Irvine, California 92618 R1002 Subject: Parking Study Report - Hermosa Beach Pavilion 1650 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach, California Dear Gene: Philip M. Linscott, P.E. (1924-2000) Jack M. Greenspan, P.E. William A. Law, P.E. (Rel.) Paul W. Wilkinson, P.E. John P. Keating, P.E. David S. Shender, P.E. john A. Sturman, P.E. Care M. Look4aeger, P.E. Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, is pleased to submit this parking study report in connection with the existing Hermosa Beach Pavilion building and associated parking structure at 1650 Pacific Coast Highway, in the City of Hermosa Beach, California. It is our understanding that the project as detailed in this letter report is being submitted to the City of Hermosa Beach staff for review. Based on your direction, this parking study report has been prepared to analyze the Hermosa Beach Pavilion project as described below. Summary We find that the 4)n -site parking supply of 450 standard parking spaces is sufficient to meet the projected parking demand. This is based on a shared parking analysis which takes into account the hourly variation in parking demand of the planned health club, office and retail uses. The proposed project will utilize the 450 standard parking spaces only. As a contingency, if add.tional parking spaces are needed, the 31 tandem parking spaces and the 33 parallel parking spaces will be avi:.ilable for use with attendant assistance. Based on the proposed project, the peak parking demand is expected to occur on weekdays with 429 occupied spaces at 5:00 PM. The peak parking demand is expected to occur during the week primarily as a result of the office component of the project along with the 24 -Hour Fitness facility. Costa Mesa - 714 641-1517 • San Diego - 619 299-3090 • Las Vegas - 702 451-1920 • Founded 1966 • An LG2WB Company 01/25/02 13:02 TX/RX NO.3006 P.002 Ir '2 ■ 01/25/02 FRI 13:00 FAX 1 62602 0941 LLG PASADENA _Il I.INSCC)TT LA\\S GkEE;NS1)AN ENGINEERS a003 Mr. Gene Shook ITC Real Estate Group January 25, 2002 Page Two It is anticipated that monthly parking passes will be available for the office personnel, the 24 -Hour Fitness staff and th e retail employees. As a contingency, these employees will be encouraged to park in the tandem parling spaces. The monthly passes for the tandem parking spaces are expected to be priced at a discount over the monthly passes for the standard parking spaces. Thus, it is expected that parking passe; for the tandem spaces will be purchased by office personnel, 24 -Hour Fitness staff and/or retail employees. Currently, without the tandem parking spaces, a parking surplus of 21 spaces is expected during the weekday peak parking demand. The addition of 31 tandem parking spaces on weekdays will increase the expected parking surplus to 52 spaces. Further, should the demand for the discounted monthly passes exceed the supply of tandem parking spaces, the parallel parking spaces can be utilized with additional attendant assistance. This will further increase the expected supply of available parking spaces. The addition of 33 parallel parking spaces on weekdays will increase the expected parking surplus to 85 spaces. Proposed Project The proposed project includes a total of 114,929 gross square feet of building floor area on three floors (i.e., the lower level, street level and upper level). The proposed project includes a 24 -Hour Fitness facility with a total of 44,300 net square feet split among the three levels, retail use with a total of 12,088 net square feet on the street level only and office use with a total of 48,990 net square feet ,on the upper level only. The common area comprises a total of 9,551 net square feet. The proposed project allocation is displayed on Table A, located at the rear of this letter report. A copy of the project site floor plan (all three levels), provided by Keisker & Wiggle Architects Inc., is included in Appendix A. The proposed project includes 450 standard parking spaces. If necessary, attendant assistance will be provided for parking vehicles in 31 tandem parking spaces and 33 parallel parking spaces thereby increasing the total parking supply to 481 and 514 parking spaces, respectively. However, these spaces are not currently proposed to be utilized. Trip Generation Comparison A trp generation c omparison was prepared that examined the trip generated by the previous use, the previously approved project (from July, 1999), and the proposed project. The trip generation comparison and a list of the trip generation rates are provided in Appendix B. As shown in the trip generation comparison table (i.e., Table 1), the proposed project is expected to generate fewer trips thaneither the previous use or the previously approved project. 01/25/02 13:02 TX/RX N0.3006 P.003 • 01/25/02 iI 13:00 FAX L 92 0941 LLG PASADENA L{N!SCC1 1. LAW GRE=ENS( N ENGINEERS [al 004 Mr. Gene Shook ITC Real Estate Group January 25, 2002 Page Three Code Parking Requirement The City of Hermosa Beach Code parking requirements for the proposed project are displayed on Table B. As shove n on Table B, direct application of the City Code produces a requirement of 687 parking spaces for the proposed project. However, it is recognized that the City Code parking factors represent the peak parking requirement for each individual use, and do not take into account the hourly variation in parking demand generated by each use. Further, fitness facility parking rates have typically deci eased in recent years as more facilities incorporate uses that allow fewer members per square foot (such as basketball courts and swimming pools). Thus, a fitness facility parking demand analysis is included as part of this letter report. 24 -Hour Fitness Parking Demand To determine the hourly parking demand generated by a 24 -Hour Fitness facility at the Hermosa Beach Pavilion, a >;imilar 24 -Hour Fitness facility in Costa Mesa was analyzed. A door count of the 24 -Hour Fitness facility in Costa Mesa was conducted and recorded hourly from 6:00 AM until 7:00 PM on a typical weekday in mid-August, 2001. The peak period for the Costa Mesa facility was determined to occur at 5:00 PM when 263 vehicles were parked. Based on a facility size of 45,000 square feet and including a parking circulation factor of ten percent, the parking demand ratio for the 24 -Hour Fitness facility in Costa Mesa was calculated to be 6.43 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of building floor area. The parking demand ratio calculated above is less than the City Code requirement of 10 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet and is more consistent with the typical layout of modern fitness facilities. To be conservative, a fitness facility parking demand ratio of 6.75 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet .;i.e., approximately one parking space per 150 square feet) was utilized for this parking study. Shared Parking Demand Analysis The shared parking demand analysis takes into account the hourly variation in parking demand of the planned 24 -Hour Fitness facility, the office use and the retail use. The 24 -Hour Fitness and office uses peak parking demand occurs during the week, which is analyzed in Table C. This analysis is based on the methodology and hourly parking adjustment factors developed by the Urban Land Institute (ULI), and on the 24 -Hour Fitness parking data (i.e., the parking demand ratio and the hourly parking adjustment factors) developed for the Costa Mesa facility. 01/25/02 13:02 TX/RX NO.3006 P.004 LFS 01/25/02 FRI 13:01 FAX 1 62612 0941 i 11 LINSCOT T 1r\V\' GRLAINSF\NJ E N G i N E E R 5 LLG PASADENA • 11 005 Mr. Gene Shook ITC Real Estate Group January 25, 2002 Page Four The key measures for the shared parking demand analysis are the hourly parking adjustment factors, the h ourly parking demand generated by each use, the hourly shared parking demand and the hourly parking surplus or deficiency (if any). For this analysis, the hourly parking surplus or deficiency is measured against the planned supply of 450 parking spaces (i.e., including the 450 standard parking spaces and exclud.ng the 31 tandem and 33 parallel parking spaces). As shown on Table C, the weekday peak shared parking demand for the proposed project is in the ever ing. At 5:00 PM, a need for 429 parking spaces is projected, leaving a 21 space surplus (based on a supply of 450 parking spaces). As indicated above, the 450 standard parking spaces are expected to satisfy the peak parking demand for the proposed project. However, there may be an opportunity to utilize the tandem (and if necessary the parallel) parking spaces during the week when the peak parking demand is primarily a result of the offize component. If necessary, discounted monthly parking passes for the tandem (and parallel) park ing spaces can be provided to the office personnel, 24 -Hour Fitness staff and retail employees. This will increase utilization of the tandem and parallel parking spaces thereby increasing availability of the standard parking spaces for office visitors, 24 -Hour Fitness members and retail patrons. Findings and Conclusions • Based on the shared parking analysis, we project a peak parking demand of 429 spaces for the proposed project during the week. With an on-site parking supply of 450 standard parking spices, we conclude that sufficient parking is provided to meet the projected demand for the proposed project. • The tandem and the parallel parking spaces are not required for the proposed project as the 450 standh:rd parking spaces will provide a parking supply that satisfies the weekday peak parking demand. However, attendant assistance can be provided during the week thereby increasing the parking supply to 481 spaces through the use of the tandem parking spaces. It is expected that discounted monthly parking passes can be provided to attract office personnel. 24 -Hour Fitness staff and retail employees to utilize the tandem parking spaces. If necessay, the parallel parking spaces can be utilized during the week with additional attendant assistance increasing the parking supply to 514 spaces. This will further increase the availability of the standard parking spaces for office visitors, 24 -Hour Fitness members, and retail patrons. 01/25/02 13:02 TX/RX N0.3006 P.005 u -h • 01/25/02 FRI 13:02 FAX 1 62 LI:\t:S(: (JFi I_: vv GRI:EN'SPAN ENGINEERS 2 0941 LLG PASADENA U1006 Mr. Gene Shook ITC Real Estate Group January 25, 2002 Page Five We welcome the opportunity to be of further service. Should there be any questions regarding this parking study report for the Hermosa Beach Pavilion project, please do not hesitate to call me at 626.796.2322, or contact me directly via e-mail at greenspan@llgengineers.com. Very truly yours, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers . Greenspan, P.E. ncipal JMGMSH:ci Attachments c: Mr. Richard Garland, City of Hermosa Beach Traffic Engineering Department Mr. Ken Robertson, City of Hermosa Beach Community Development Department O:VOE FILE1302413024RPT4.WPo 01/25/02 13:02 TX/RX N0.3006 P.006 to ■ 01/25/02 FRI 13:02 FAX 1 62612 0941 LLG PASADENA (t___ 1.iNSCOTT 1_,Av & GRE'ENSPrAN ENGINEERS 411007 Table A SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOCATION [1] Hermosa Beach Pavilion LOCATION 24-HOUR FITNESS GENERAL RETAIL GENERAL OFFICE COMMON AREA TOTAL r Lower Level 11,050 SF 0 SF 0 SF 1,172 SF 12,222 SF Street Level 16,181 SF 12,088 SF 0 SF 5,396 SF 33,665 SF Upper Level 17,069 SF 0 SF 48,990 SF 2,983 SF 69,042 SF TOTAL NET 44,300 SF 12,088 SF 48,990 SF 9,551 SF 114,929 SF [1] Source: Keisker F: Wiggle Architects Inc. 01/25/02 13:02 TX/RX NO.3006 P.007 1 01/25/02 FRI 13:02 FAX 1 626 2 0941 LLG PASADENA • LINECOIT LAw & GREENSP,AN ENGINEERS I j oos Table B CITY CODE PARKING REQUIREMENT [1) Hermosa Beach Pavilion oimorzuuz PROPOSED USE SIZE CODE REQUIREMENT REQUIRED PARKING 24 -Hour Fitness 44,300 SF 1 space per 100 SF 443 spaces General Retail 12,088 SF 1 space per 250 SF 48 spaces General Office 48,990 SF 1 space per 250 SF 196 spaces TOTAL 105.378 SF 687 spaces [1] Parking code requirements per City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. 01/25/02 13:02 TX/RX NO.3006 P.008 • 01/25/02 FRI 13:03 FAX 1 62602 0941 I I1 LINSCOTT GR['ENSP/\N E N (: I N.E E RS 01(25/2002 LLG PASADENA • 009 Table C WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] Hermosa Beach Pavilion LAND USE [3] 24-HOUR FITNESS [4] GENERAL RETAIL [4] GENERAL OFFICE SHARED PARKING DEMAND In PARKING SURPLUS OR DEFICIENCY SIZE [2] PARKING RATE 44.30 KSF 6.75 /KSF [5] 299 SPACES 12.09 KSF 4.00 /KSF [6] 48 SPACES 4899 KSF 4.00 /KSF [6] 196 SPACES GROSS SPACES TIME OF DAY % PEAK #OF SPACES % PEAK #OF SPACES % PEAK #OF SPACES 6:00 AM 31% 93 0% 0 3% 6 99 351 7:00 AM 31% 93 8% 4 20% 39 136 314 8:00 AM 26% 78 18% 9 63% 123 210 240 9:00 AM 32% 96 42% 20 93% 182 298 152 10:00 AM 32% 96 68% 33 100% 196 325 125 11:00 AM 40% 120 87% 42 100% 196 358 92 NOON 47% 141 97% 47 90% 176 364 86 1:00 PM 29% 87 100% 48 90% 176 311 139 2:00 PM 25% 75 97% 47 97% 190 312 138 3:00 PM 35% 105 95% 46 93% 77% 182 333 117 4:00 PM 60% 179 ' 87% 42 151 372 78 5:00 PM 100% 299 79% 38 47% 92 429 21 6:00 PM 88% 263 82% 39 23% 45 347 103 7:00 PM 81% 242 89% 43 7% 14 299 151 8:00 PM 57% 170 87% 42 7% 14 226 224 9:00 PM 39% 117 61% 29 3% 6 152 298 10:00 PM 27% 81 32% 15 3% 6 102 348 11:00 PM 0% . 0 13% 6 0% 0 6 444 MIDNIGHT 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0' 450 PARKING NEED WITH SHARED USE 429 SPACES PARKING NEED WITHOUT SHARED USE 543 SPACES NOTES: [1] Based on methodologies presented in "Shared Parking," ULI-The Urban ...and Institute, 1983. [2] Based on information provided by Keisker & Wiggle Architects Inc. [3] Based on weekday hourly parking accumulation percentages from studies by LLG, including the 24 -Hour Fitness facility in Costa Mesa. [4] Based on weekday hourly parking accumulation percentages presented n "Shared Parking," ULI-The Urban Land Institute, 1983. [5] Based on parking studies of the 24 -Hour Fitness facility in Costa Mesa by LLG. [6] Based on the City of Hermosa Beach Off -Street Parking Municipal Code. [7] Based on a proposed parking supply of 450 spaces (i.e., including 450 standard spaces and excluding 31 tandem and 33 parallel parking spaces). 01/25/02 13:02 TX/RX NO.3006 P.009 rn • 0 01/25/02 FRI 13:03FAX1 6292 0941 LLG PASADENA Ij 010 111 Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers APPENDIX A Project Site Floor Plan 01/25/02 13:02 TX/RX NO.3006 P.010 • /4/7/7/y//,......///77/ 2,/.5// // ,/ „/„///:///////,,,,. ..07,....zr...,,w7.7,5t.y„ ,, //,/ ...„//„/ /4/74„,,,,,,,,,,/,,/,.....„„ „ „<,././ „/„..., ///7.d/ �/ / / _ jam / ,..yrto. ......, j/{:' /-/ —7 �H�+' . / / ,� f, /,fi j7::/// // /r/%/'///,// f J f!,!// //,/{�.•/ r ' • * /;/, •/// 71/41/ b/ .( /2 `` / // fJ j'/i' // '/i. , �/t,//iff 1/r ' / , r e // / , F // 900£'0N Xl/XZ PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL PLAN s e r r Of .Icrtgryll.204 HERMOSA BEACH PAVILJON Pecilc Coact HiRhrrtY at lmh Street Hermosa Reach. California ... r t' SHOOK DEVELOPMRVT P IOWY't1.'DA+ • PROPOSED STREET LEVEL FLOOR PLAN • t If H ER M O S A B EA C H PAVILION Pacific Coml HermosaHighway California shorn: DEvELOPMEE r Or _ ...— — r • Lig 0 1111Ill1IIINH 11111F 1111191111 1111111 • 7-1 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN o44Jpn.aYil. �: • gya.^r�V M V ■ ••41• )painw. H.ERMOSA BEACH PAVILION t'acific Coast Millway at loth Strcet Ht rmcM 'each Callfasia SHOOK DEVELO? Mi671T 01/25/02 FR1 13:06 FA%II 1 622 0941 LLG PASADENA Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers APPENDIX B Trip Generation Comparison 01/25/02 13:02 Cc" TX/RX NO.3006 P.014 01/25/02 FRI 13:07 FAX 1 6262 0941 L_ 11 LINSCOTT L/\'v GREENSPAN ENGINEERS LLG PASADENA • Table 1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON [1] Hermosa Beach Pavilion 2-4-Jan-zeUUL LAND USE SIZE DAILY TRIP ENDS [21 AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES [2] PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES [2] VOLUMES IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL Previous Use AMC Theatre [3 26,680 GSF 2,134 3 3 6 120 51 171 Retail [4] 27,680 GLSF 1,188 17 11 28 50 54 104 Restaurant [5] 18,500 GSF 2,411 89 82 171 121 80 201 SUBTOTAL 72,860 GSF 5,733 109 96 205 291 185 476 7/99 Project (Expired) Fitness Club [6] 44,476 GSF 1,779 43 28 71 96 64 160 Retail [4] 64,121 GLSF 5,122 75 48 123 225 244 469 SUBTOTAL 108,597 GSF 6,901 118 76 194 321 308 629 Proposed Use Fitness Club [6] 44,300 GSF 1,772 43 28 71 95 64 159 Retail [4] 12,088 GLSF 519 8 5 13 22 24 46 Office [7] 48,990 GSF 539 67 9 76 12 61 73 SUBTOTAL 105,378 GSF 2,830 118 42 160 129 149 278 NET NEW TRIPS (PROPOSED USE (2,903) 9 (54) (45) (162) (36) (198) LESS PREVIOUS USE) NET NEW TRIPS (PROPOSED USE (4,071) 0 (34) (34) (192) (159) (351) LESS 7199 PROJECT) [1] Sources: ITE "Trip Generation," 6th Edition, 1997 and SANDAG "Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates," 1993. [2] Trips are one-way traffic movements, entering or leaving. [3] SANDAG Land Use RECREATION (Theaters[Muitipiex]) trip generation rates. [4] ITE Land Use Code 820 (Shopping Center) average trip generation rates. [5] ITE Land Use Code 832 (Sit -Down Restaurant) average trip generation rates. [6] SANDAG Land Use RECREATION (Racquetball/Health Club) trip generation rates_ [7] ITE Land Use Code 710 (General Office Building) average trip generation rates. 01/25/02 13:02 TX/RX NO.3006 P.015 Ij015 • 01/25/02 FRI 13:07 FAX �1 622 0941 L_INN:OTT GREENSPA,N ENGINEERS LLG PASADENA Table 2 TRIP GENERATION RATES [1] Hermosa Beach Pavilion Li 016 SOURCE CODE SANDAG OR ITE LAND USE TRIP RATE AND PERCENTAGE DAILY [2] TOTAL AM PEAK HOUR [2] PM PEAK HOUR [2] TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT SANDAG CODE RECREATION Theaters[Multiplex] 80.00 0.24 50% 50% 6.40 70% 30% RECREATION Racquetball/Health Club 40.00 1.60 60% 40% 3.60 60% 40% ITE CODE LAND USE 710 General Office Building 11.01 1.56 88% 12% 1.49 17% 83% LAND USE 820 Shopping Center 42.92 1.03 61% 39% 3.74 48% 52% LAND USE 832 Sit -Down Restaurant 130.34 9.27 52% 48% 10.86 60% 40% [1] Sources: ITE 'Trip Generation," 6th Edition, 1997 and SANDAG "Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates," 1993. [2] Daily, AM, and PM peak hour totals are trips per 1,000 SF. 01/25/02 13:02 TX/RX NO.3006 P.016 02/13/02 WED 10:34 FAX 1 6267S2 0941 LLG PASADENA L LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS • f)001 FAX COVER PAGE ENGINEERS & PLAN N ER o- iy4FicioTRANSPORTATION, PARKING 234 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 400 Pasadena, California 91101 Phone: 626.796.2322 Faa:: 626.792.0941 E-mail: hershberg@llgengineers.com FEB 1 3 2002 COM. DEV. DEPT. Costa Mesa. 714.641.1587 San Diego 619.299.3090 Date: 13Feb02 Time: 10:33 AM PST From: Micah S. Hershberg04.54 To: Mr. Ken Robertson Project: Hermosa Beach Pavilion Project Company: City of Hermosa Beach Job No. 1-013024-1 Fax No.: 310.937.6235 Hard copy: No Subject: Count Sheets Total Pages: 3 (including this cover page) MESSAGE Ken: Per your request, please find attached a copy of the travel survey prepared by LLG Engineers for the 24 -Hour Fitness Facility located in the South Coast Metro area of Coast Mesa. We have just received confirmation that this facility includes v_ pool and basketball court as well as other amenities that are expected .-- to be -included in the Hermosa Beach Pavilion facility:. Further, the facility in Costa Mesa includes 45,000 square feet of building floor area which is similar to the 44,300 square feet of building floor area proposed for the Hermosa Beach Pavilion facility. Please call either Jack Greeenspan or myself at 626.796.2322 if you have any questions or comments. Thank you. O:WOB FILEI:'0241F1-ROBE.WPD 02/13/02 10:38 TX/RX NO.3155 P.001 ■ LINSCOTT LAW L GREENSPAN ENGINEERS 0 cn cn 5(..1,7--'70•"'1,-1 D l� NgcP D(5r- CpaL --r^ ofy iJCo ! f�p'fA NAIJD�- CL1g1 n &.)ACva_ TRAVEL SURVEY 24 -Hour Fitness (South Coast Metro -Costa Mesa) Monday, August 13, 2001 1 11 .: z. I . L. 1, I1 ,.r, 1. 1, Number of Occupants Time Period Per Vehicle 06:00 AM -7 07:00 AM - 43 08:00 AM- a M I O 09:00 A 10:00 AMA( 11:00 AM -11. 12:00 PM -1 0 (Non -Auto) , lll• rwtE 1‘1-0,4 1 -PIC, 1,-,-0," 5 ff, WVA i 11 ���� '\\�� 1‘,: \)X( r .1 l"' 1 ' r� )1u% 7' V 001 � \\, 'y'N 1I1�`1 lit ` N.w�' t`T'�'�f,Vl �t{ 1+T� 1`�1 " .� it\411 . �{��� � �{��� 11ti. �Vi ,►�T� 114 114N I a6 11��'�'`(, � tyi'M,if11M7'c'1 rel fa, , ilii,t. _, LL Yrs ti Y"' I� n'+i !""' rl q £. t `M t 1114 N. 'ny �i�111e►. 1 11ri lttItiL 1. 1, I t. IT - 2 J I ��� lin 1� K1 • MIM Ill R 1 111 it 3 J I 1 4+ 23 I � m b m Question 1: How did you get to this facility today? (i.e., did you drive, bike, walk, take the bus?) w Question 2: If the answer is "drive": How many people were in the car, including yourself? ■ KO/£T/Z0 0 w C' Cl ro w ■ LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINE E R C.,AS5 A�( war,•k. 5-uei5 TRAVEL SURVEY 24 -Hour Fitness (South Coast Metro -Costa Mesa) Monday, August 13, 2001 I 1. ).LO 1,11 ,. o i ..•.• 14..• . Number of Occupants Time Period Per Vehicle 01:00 PM -2 I 02:00 PM -31 03:00 PM AT 04:00 PM- 5 05:00 PM - 6 06:00 PM -1 07:000.PM o (Non -Auto) ,.arks. j-Mt1rfL r (� 1u7�, 11 r Motu* KIM itis islA11 1114114N. TN, 1 1 mL1s 1 ksos TKI*1 tit. I ,� Z A Z PI i9 1,Fr 0,K 0 V RN , tostill rL,1,1�,�11i' KAN K NA ttmtilmillutimskiu t1L IK 1t as. ���u�l�l�l.ilil'�'1�i��S� nttst pjitk VI° , . " 2 1U1 fii 11(1' iH II 1?1tir 111wliit cf.4g. � � pAikii ifri 3 it IT) 1 r 1 rr 111 111 • ri. 4+ 1 f Question 1: How did you get to this facility today? (i.e., did you drive, bike, walk, take the bus?) Question 2: If the answer is "drive": How many people were in the car, including yourself? id30 n30 W00 -n m m ZO/Ei/Z0 r ti CTJ C C 1 24-hour Fitness Club in Costa Mesa • 4.I ✓J -at'', ��` ,IA-eg•-pe Z, /moo , e> 4-rgf `m' /6 a WC 6/ `-� g=ECEtVED rtrvt. �w-r B 1 2 2607 r//446,4 -e <=4" .7 OM. DEV. DEPT. Community Development Department Planning Division City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 IMPORTANT PUBLIC NOTICE 1605 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY THE HERMOSA PAVILION 69) JOSEPH E. BECHLER 1707 PACIFIC COAST NM' APT 505 HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254-3229 4184-02-::. 11.1:.11.....1.1.1.I..I..I..It...l.l..l.11.l:...11 11 III PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PARKNG PLAN FOR ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING RETAIL AND ENTERTAINMENT CENTER TO ACCOMMODATE OFFICES, A HEALTH AND FITNESS CLUB, AND RETAIL USES, AND A VARIANCE TO THE 35' HEIGHT LIMIT TO ENCLOSE EXISTING DECK AREAS TO MATCH THE HEIGHT OF THE EXISTING ROOF, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1605 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, HERMOSA PAVILION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach will hold a public hearing on February 19, 2002, to consider a Precise Development Pian and Parking Plan for alterations to an existing retail and entertainment center to accommodate offices, a health and fitness club, and retail uses, and a Variance to the 35' height limit to enclose existing deck areas to match the height of the existing roof, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 1605 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Pavilion, legally described as a portion of Lot 13 and southerly 6.24' of a portion of Lot 14, Block 81, Second Addition to Hermosa Beach. SAID HEARING shall be at 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Hermosa Beach Community Center, Room 4, 710 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, California. ANY AND ALL PERSONS interested are invited to participate and speak at this hearing at the above time and place. For inclusion in the agenda packet to be distributed, written comments of interested parties should be submitted to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, in care of City Hall at the above address prior to Thursday, February 14, 2002 at 12:00 noon. All written testimony by any interested party will be accepted prior to or at the scheduled time on the agenda for the matter. IF YOU CHALLENGE THIS PROJECT IN COURT, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, at, or prior to, the public hearing [Government Code Section 65009 (b) (c)]. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact the Community Development. Department, Planning Division, at (310) 318-0242. A copy of the staff report in the Planning Commission packet will be available for public review at the end of the business day on February 14, 2002 at the Hermosa Beach Police Department. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BI: enf Community rector velopment Department r"(4'/e b 2- tole ,r4v" 7V-17-1 ,b • It. :;:: :0".4111'/:11,114,411 HER 1 A OSA BEACH • • PICCEIVED MAR 0 5 2002 COM' DEV, DEPT. Keisker & Wiwi() Archttects. HERMOSA BEACH PAVILION Paean: eo.v.t iii:•Ima> at Ulth Sjc Propfted Hn. %went 1 -KV' • • • ReeteivED MAR O 5 2002 COM. DEV. DEPT. s !y HERMOSA BEACH PAVILION • HERMOSA BEACH PAVILION THE EXISTING 16TH STREET ELEVATION SHOWS THE TILE ROOF PAVILIONS IN THE AREA THAT IS PROPOSED TO BE ENCLOSED. THE VIEW FROM ABOVE SHOWS THE EXISTING ROOF AND TRELLIS SLOPING TOWARDS THE REAR. NEW ROOF WILL MATCH THE HEIGHT OF EXISTING. V HERMOSA BEACH PAVILION A VIEW OF THE EXISTING SOUTH DECK SHOWING THE TRELLIS AND TILE ROOF PAVILIONS. HEIGHT OF STEPPED TRELLIS WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE EXTERIOR EDGE AT THE RIGHT. VIEW OF THE WEST SIDE SHOWING EXISTING ROOF THAT WILL BE EXTENDED TO THE EDGE OF THE PLANTER. OPEN STAIRWAY WILL BE ENCLOSED. V HERMOSA BEACH PAVILION L VIEW FROM ABOVE OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER SHOWING THE OPEN PARKING STRUCTURE THAT WIL BE ENCLOSED. CURRENT OPENING CAUSES FLOODING IN STRUCTURE AND NOISE FOR NEIGHBORS. VIEW OF THE OPEN PARKING STRUCTURE. ROOF AT LEFT SIDE WILL BE EX- TENDED OUT TO THE EDGE OF THE BUILDING. V HERMOSA BEACH PAVILION L VIEW OF EXISTING WEST WALL ABOVE OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER SHOWING THE OPEN PARKING STRUCTURE THAT WIL BE ENCLOSED. . VIEW LOOING SOUTH OF THE OPEN PARKING STRUCTURE. PARAPET AT LEFT SIDE WILL BE EXTENDED OUT TO THE EDGE OF THE BUILDING. V HERMOSA BEACH PAVILION • 45' HEIGHT LIMIT FROM ORIGINAL APPROVAL -LCORRENI 35' HEIGHT LIMIT SECOND FLOOR EL= 121'-6" FIRST FLOOR EL= 107-0" THEATER EL= 116-6" EXISTING EAST ELEVATION (PCH) (E) HEIGHT @ NORTH ELEVATION (E) HEIGHT AT STREET (E)TILE ROOFED PAVILION (E) ROOF BEYOND (E)TILE ROOFED PAVILION (E) HEIGHT @ NORTH ELEVATION (E) HEIGHT @ NORTH ELEVATION 45' HEIGHT LIMB FROM ORIGINI1 APPROVAL ------------- BALCONY EL=136'-6" • SECOND FLOOR EL= 121-6" FIRST FLOOR SB„C 4t t.. IR' iIAtL �d a{pal Tifexs, 8323' EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION (16TH STREET) ------------------ xla 110. EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION (E) HEIGHT @ STREET ELEVATION (E) HEIGHT @ REAR THEATER WALL -(E) 45' HEGH DMR PARKING 613 EL - 11 r 35' HEIGHT LIN BALCL'NY 21 _ 133'-8' 5ECCND FLOOR EL. 121-6 FIRST FLOOR EL=107-0" (03.28' PARKING 56 R. 07-0" • 15' LIE GH i L IMII FROM GRG!NAL A✓PRC': A I. CURRENT 35' 5E1 (E) HEIGHT @ STREET ELEVATION (E) HEIGHT BEYOND & NE •::ti E'a::::; 1: SECOND FLOOR EL=121-6" PARKING 613 EL= 106-6' PARKING 58 87.51' KTCING 413 EL= 05'-6" PARKING 513 PARKING 4 EL= 05"6' 8751 EXISTING WEST ELEVATION 84.23' (E) HEIGHT AT CORNER SECOND FLOOR EL= 121-6 PARKING 6A EL= 107-6" PARKING 5A EL= 97-6' iI'ARKING 4A _ 06.-6. • RECEIVED FEB 2 s 2002 COM. DEV. DEPT. EXISTING ELEVATIONS 0 4' 8' 16' 32' January 21, 2002 veggie .1+I II x, „ ' '1 HERMOSAKeiSker BEACH PAVILION Pacific Coast Highway at 16th Street Hermosa Beach, California �\ RK^Isker & wggIe Architects, Inc. A copyright K claimed on l his unpublished nroteriol by Kakkar & Wiggle Architects, Inc. No publication or Willie. distribution Is allowed without the written permission o1 Keisker & Wiggle Architects. Inc. All rights reserved. r, 6.6 ° s 6.6 ` " " ' (949) 450-0100 -.: SHOOK DEVELOPMENT ''Ar, s.,,g,,nn,'.•.suit.no•,,..e.,,,CFm• I,. 1,0,JV4ru.r �) W r Of •• \-45' HEIGHT LIMIT FROM ORIGINAL APPROVAL CURRENT 35' HEIGHT LIMIT SECOND FLOOR EL= 121'-6" FIRST FLOOR EL= 107-0" 103.28' EXISTING EAST ELEVATION (PCH) (E) HEIGHT AT STREET (E) ROOF BEYOND N) HEIGHT ORTH @ ELEVATION (E)TILE ROOFED PAVILION (0)111.E ROOFED PAVILION (E) HEIGHT @ NORTH ELEVATION (E) HEIGHT @ NORTH ELEVATION 45 HEIGHT LIMIT FROM ORIGINAL APPROVAL BALCONY EL= 136'-6" FIRST FLOOR EL=107-0" • •I'(:ii€ €=ii `8323' EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION (16TH STREET) FIR51 FLOOR EL_ 107-0" 103.28' PARKING 58 EL= 97-O" 4;5 HEIGHT LIMIT FROM ORIGINAL APPROVAL EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION (E) HEIGHT @ STREET ELEVATION (E) HEIGHT BEYOND & NEW (E) HEIGHT @ STREET ELEVATION (E) HEIGHT @ REAR THEATER WALL (E) HEIGHT AT CORNER PARKING 4 EL. 65'-6" EXISTING WEST ELEVATION AREA OF NEW CONSTRUCTION EXISTING ELEVATIONS SHOWING NEW AREAS 0 4' 8' 16' 32' January 21, 2002 Kos' ka „Archtecl14 t. nlani ,..,tr-.. 0-.., F 4 E .-ro:OK : n,l:u.tii HERMOSA PAV BEACH I L ION Pacific Coast Highway at 16th Street Hermosa Beach, California , 0 Kekker & Wiggle Architects. Inc. A copyright is claimed on this unpublished material by Keisker & Wiggle Architect. Inc. No publication or tuhter distribution Is allowed wtthout the written permission of Ke1Sker & Wiggle Architects, Inc. All right reserved. - (949) 450-0100 -.�/ SHOOK DEVELOPMENT lerhnol gy I Mve. Suitr Ile. Irvin, CA 9361,9 • FAX: (949)4&l.W51 �N a) co Of (E) 45' HEIGHT LIMIT r 35' HEIGHT LIMIT -1/ NEW GLASS CURTAINWALL SECOND FLOOR EL= 121'-6" FIRST FLOOR 1 EL= 107-0" HEA EAST ELEVATION 1 n Tt 9i! ilii /$i. Ili 14° NEW STOREFRONT Ir 1: ISM =I®WGINE Mil ME®®P876!®®EN I®Ifsif MU. NEM MILIMilL31531EDLd ��a��A�d®sada slims 45' HEIGHT LIMIT FROM ORIGINAL APPROVAL., (E) 45' HT LIMIT BEYOND SKYLIGHT BEYOND 1 _ ___- ------------- STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF (E) AND NEW HEIGHT @ NORTH ELEVATION L1 SECOND FLOOR 35 HLK.HI LIMIT } (E) PARKING DRIVEWAY \- NEW PARKING EXIT SOUTH ELEVATION ----------------STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF -\ NEW PARKING ACCESS (16th STREET) --------------- _----- _-------- _ - ______ ____ ___ 11111 -- I10 NEW OVERHEAD DOOR =NEWSTOREFRONi__ r cA (E) TRANSFORMER 45' HEIGHT LIMIT FROM ORIGINAL APPROVAL NORTH ELEVATION (E) AND NEW HEIGHT @ STREET EIEVA)ION (E) ROOF PARAPET 11= 116-6 PARKING 68 (E) HEIGHT Or REAR THEATER WALL 1(7 111111111 (E) AND NEW HEIGHT @ STREET ELEVATION EL= 121'-6" FIRST FLOOR EL= 107-0" BALCONY EL= 133'-8" SECOND FLOOR EL=121-6" FIRST FLOOR 1L= 107-0" SECOND FLOOR EL= 121'-6" PARKING 68 EL= 106-6" PARKING 58 PARKING 46 EL= 85'-6" (E),5' HEIGHT LIMIT 35' (TIGHT LIMIT ##.1 - EL _ IOC? 6' PARKING 58 PARKING 48 EL= 85'-6" WEST ELEVATION TOP OF PARAPET EL= 134'-10" SECOND FLOOR 11=121.6" PARKING 6A EL= 107-6' PARKING 5A EL. 97-6" PARKING 4A PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 0 4' 8' IS 32' January 21, 2002 i vegge Arcl�tec: yr_, 7 r dr „ ie E TIeR l -u1- - 11 r,',,,lu.-.1-, I •., F •.1 1 w.,4s'1 ',F, HI.rt HERMOSAO S A BEACH PAVILION Pacific Coast Highway at 16th Street Hermosa Beach, California , , Arcedch. Inc. N copyrer g tis claimed A copyright h claimed on this unpublished material by Inc.No & Wiggle Artbr @fuht-0 No p000,, tbn or fuller dstribh allowed without the written permissionof Keisker & Wiggle Architects. Inc. AN rights reserved. - (949) 450-0100 -._! SHOOK DEVELOPMENT _0t TM, 1h'm,, Suite 110• Irvine, CA 961, • FA%: IY4IIVP IVMI t (1) Of • • Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council April 3, 2002 Regular Meeting of April 9, 2002 SUBJECT: TEXT AMENDMENT 02-2 TO ELIMINATE TWO FRONT YARD REQUIREMENTS ON THROUGH LOTS BETWEEN THE STRAND AND THE SERVICE ROAD PARALLEL TO HERMOSA AVENUE APPROXIMATELY BETWEEN 27m STREET AND 35TH STREET Planning Commission Recommendation To adopt the attached ordinance to amend Section 17.46.152 of the Zoning Ordinance. Background On January 15, 2002 the Planning Commission considered the problems associated with the subject properties relating to providing two front yards and directed staff to prepare a text amendment. On February 19, 2002, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the text amendment exempting through lots located on the service road parallel to Hermosa Avenue north of 27'x' Street from the requirement to provide a second front yard on Hermosa Avenue while maintaining the Strand as the required front yard. The Commission found: • The subject lots are generally smaller or have less developable area than all other Strand to Hermosa Avenue through lots. • The lots are technically not through lots as they front on a service road rather than a street. • The existing requirement makes most of the properties nonconforming given the development pattern of the area. Section 17.46.152 of the Zoning Ordinance provides the following requirements for front yards on through lots: "17.46.152 Front Yard Requirements for Through Lots. A. The required front yard on "through lots", as defined herein, shall be provided on the street frontage where the majority of the existing dwelling units on the block are fronting. B. The following list indicates frontage designated the front yard for through lots (See Page 3) Exception for The Strand/Hermosa Avenue Through Lots: New developments shall be required to provide front yards on both The Strand and Hermosa Avenue. For existing developed properties and remodeling and expansion projects thereon The Strand shall be designated the front yard. For the purposes of calculating required open space in the various residential zones, the Strand front yard area may be counted towards the open space requirement." Analysis The current double front yard requirement was codified from a previous Commission policy. The policy was intended to create a uniform setback and treat Hermosa Avenue as street frontage. However, due to the requirement to provide two front yards along the Strand and Hermosa Avenue there is an inequitable development standard for the subject lots north of 27th Street which are generally smaller than similar through lots in the area. These lots have their main orientation to the Strand for obvious reasons and are developed with garages facing Hermosa Avenue typically within 3 feet of the property line. The subject lots front on a "service road" which is similar in size to an alley and is considered an alley in the Zone Code relative to garage setbacks (Section 17.44.090). Given the current development pattern and the type of 1 5d • • "street" frontage, the front yard requirement on Hermosa Avenue unnecessarily makes most of the dwellings nonconforming to front yard requirements. In order to resolve this problem and maintain a uniform setback for through lots located on the service road parallel to Hermosa Avenue from approximately 27th Street northward, staff recommends that these lots be exempt from a required second front yard on Hermosa Avenue. These lots will still maintain the Strand as the required front yard. The exception is proposed for all development on the subject lots (new or alteration of an existing structure) whereas the existing exemption only applies to alterations to existing structures. The proposed text amendment would amend the exceptions allowed by Section 17.46.152 to alleviate the inequitable development condition of two front yards which results in an average loss of 169 square feet of building area. (Please see sketch below.) The proposed change will alleviate this condition for the 44 properties as shown on the atta hed map. CONCUR: Sol Blumenfel , D ector Community D velopment Department Stephen City Ma ger Scott Luncefor Planning Ass''tant Text Amendment 02-2 Sample Strand/Hermosa Avenue Through Lot Attachments 1. Proposed Ordinance 2. Planning Commission Minutes • • RECOMMENDED CHANGE TO TEXT Changes in bold and underlined 17.46.152 Front Yard Requirements for Through Lots. C. The required front yard on "through lots", as defined herein, shall be provided on the street frontage where the majority of the existing dwelling units on the block are fronting. D. The following list indicates which frontage is designated the front yard for various blocks with through lots: Is v*nue ant Y. • -Cate' fore Avenge pri.ngfield Street arney Court anil Meyer Court Bonnre Brae'Street and Campana Stre ��nterey Soule d and -Culper Court t t•K ifwiiL..t[+i+N.i+ Cant rey Boulevard and Lorna Drive .:.nterey Boulevard and # o i side Dr .: ......:.. rr rProvd& .......................... tva /nae r Springfield Avenue..... yarn ourt. . lldie:I1 The Strand and Hermosa Avenue rater Boulevard onterey Boulevard sraMY Boulovard Exception for The Strand/Hermosa Avenue Through Lots: New developments shall be required to provide front yards on both The Strand and Hermosa Avenue. For existing developed properties and remodeling and expansion projects thereon The Strand shall be designated the front yard. For the purposes of calculating required open space in the various residential zones, the Strand front yard area may be counted towards the open space requirement. The lots facing the service road located parallel to Hermosa Avenue approximately between 27th Street and 35th Street shall not be required to provide a front yard on Hermosa Avenue. 3 • • ORDINANCE 02 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO AMEND SECTION 17.46.152 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE FRONT YARD REQUIREMENTS ON THROUGH LOTS BETWEEN THE STRAND AND THE SERVICE ROAD PARALLEL TO HERMOSA AVENUE APPROXIMATELY BETWEEN 27TH STREET AND 35TH STREET. The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve and order as follows: Section 1. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on April 9, 2002, to consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission to amend the Zoning Ordinance regarding front yard requirements on through lots between the Strand and the service road parallel to Hermosa Avenue between 27th Street and 35th Street. Section 2. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on February 19, 2002, to consider amendments to the Zoning Ordinance regarding front yard requirements on through lots between the Strand and the service road parallel to Hermosa Avenue between 27`h Street and 35th Street, and recommended approval of the amendment as proposed by staff. Section 3. Based on the evidence considered at the public hearing, the City Council makes the following findings: 1. There is a unique and inequitable development standard created for through lots between the Strand and Hermosa Avenue, north of 27`h Street, due to the requirement to provide front yards along the Strand and Hermosa Avenue. 2. In order to maintain a uniform setback for through lots located on the service road parallel to Hermosa Avenue from approximately 27th Street northward, the subject lots should be exempt from having to provide a second front yard on Hermosa Avenue and maintain the Strand as the required front yard. 3. The subject text amendment is' exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to the general rule set forth in Section 15061(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, as there is no possibility that this modification may have a significant effect on the environment. Section 4. Based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby recommends that the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, Title 17 -Zoning, be amended as follows: 1. Amend Section 17.46.152. to read as follows: "17.46.152 Front Yard Requirements for Through Lots. A. The required front yard on "through lots", as defined herein, shall be provided on the street frontage where the majority of the existing dwelling units on the block are fronting. B. The following list indicates which frontage is designated the front yard for various blocks with through lots: Throng' Lo ts+Locited.''. Ava Aveiiueand'Ardmore Avenue. ' eeu:. FrontYardShall.Be P,ravide&On Ava Avenue J I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Ava A enue ,._9l ngfield.Street J fiCoueld. Avenue B�Caurt an Byer Court BaSprin meyrt� az3onnie Brae Street and Campana Street; Bonnie Brae Street -MontereB�,oiulevard and Curer -Court Monterey Boulevard Monterey Boulevard&and Loma Drive .Montere Boulevard E Monterey BoulevardFand Morningside Drr. 1 _ Monterrey Boulevard ,.15th Place:ando f6th St. (E. of Mira Street). 15t1%Place — J • The Strand and Hermosa Avenue .,......_ . _ .. _— __ ...... . —_ Both.The .Strand and.Herr osa Avenue (See.Exceeption.Below)..—� Exception for The Strand/Hermosa Avenue Through Lots: New developments shall be required to provide front yards on both The Strand and Hermosa Avenue. For existing developed properties and remodeling and expansion projects thereon The Strand shall be designated the front yard. For the purposes of calculating required open space in the various residential zones, the Strand front yard area may be counted towards the open space requirement. The lots facing the service road located parallel to Hermosa Avenue approximately between 27th Street and 35th Street shall not be required to provide a front yard on Hermosa Avenue." Section 5. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. Section 6. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated, in the City of Hermosa Beach in the manner provided by law. Section 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of , 2001, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney missioner Tucker said he was in agreement with Commissioner Hoffman and that landscapi woul• •e lost. Commission- Kersenboom said what is proposed is better than what is presently ther- d the Variance is consi ent with the prior approval findings. Commissioner Pizer sat • ey need to look at what harm it does to the City - aving the property vacant for so many years. Chairman Perrotti and Commissione ' izer said the Variance r- ested is quite similar to the one in 1999 and said they could make the four • dings noted in t staff report as reviewed by Staff and approved previously. MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded b ' o • issioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE the Variance. Commissioner Tucker said they sho • not take economic con• ons into account, and he did not think the envelope of the buildi : in front should change. AYES: P' .-r, Perrotti, and Kersenboom NOES: offman, Tucker ABSENT: None AB STA : None Rece taken. 9. TEXT 02-2 -- Text Amendment for front yard requirement on through lots between the Strand and the service road parallel to Hermosa Avenue approximately between 27th Street and 35th Street. Staff Recommended Action: To recommend approval of said Text Amendment. Director Blumenfeld presented the staff report and said the Text Amendment would eliminate an inequitable development standard for through lots between The Strand and Hermosa Avenue north of 27th Street. Currently there is a requirement for a double front yard for those lots with their orientation to The Strand and along Hermosa Avenue. This Text Amendment would eliminate the extra front yard requirement and would create a development standard consistent with some of the surrounding properties with a similar through lot condition which have The Strand as their front yard. He said the affected area of the lots contributes approximately 169 square feet of building area. In response to Commissioner Pizer, Director Blumenfeld said the proposed change reads "The lots facing the service road located parallel to Hermosa Avenue approximately between 27th 6 P.C. Minutes 02-19-02 . • Street and 35th Street shall not be required to provide a front yard on Hermosa Avenue," in bold and underlined in the report. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Director Blumenfeld said there would be no exemption to not provide guest parking. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to ADOPT. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Hoffman, Pizer, Perrotti, Tucker, and Kersenboom None None None Heari 10. NR 01-5 -- front and side than 50% increas 15, 2002 meeting) dition, remodel and conversion of an existing duplex rd requirements) into a single-family dwelling re valuation at 2222 Monterey Boulevard (c Staff Recommended Action: approve said request. Michael Schubach said Staff is recommendin app family house, which has an increase of 98.8% in are being removed. The only nonconformities are encroaches the side yard is 3' rather than 5' but conforming to ting in a greater tinued from January royal. is a duplex being converted to a single 1 on and more than 30% of the exterior walls front yard setback and the front porch that ese sutandards are not unusual or severe. In response to Commissioner Tucker, Di ctor Blumenfeld sai• e wall is shown as a hidden line on the drawings behind the 10' setbac me on the drawings. Chairman Perrotti opened the p Michael Lee, architect, s lic hearing. the leaning wall is behind the setback and the dotte . e is the eaves. The development is 1 : s intensive with a reduction from a duplex to a single family. In response garage will and have to •mmissioner Tucker, Mr. Lee said the drawings may be a bit misleading as . e ve the same detailing as the rest of the house. The owners are interested in the vi:w ut a deck on top of the garage. 7 P.C. Minutes 02-19-02 r • Honorable Mayor and Members of The Hermosa Beach City Council; April 3, 2002 Regular Meeting of April 9, 2002 REQUEST FOR SPEED HUMPS ON ALLEY EAST OF HERMOSA AVENUE BETWEEN PIER AVENUE AND 14TH STREET Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve the Public Works Commission's recommendation to install speed humps on a trial basis in the alley east of Hermosa Avenue between Pier Avenue and 14th Street. Background: A request was received from the owner of Bestie's Pub & Grill to install speed humps in the alley (Palm Drive) located one-half block east of Hermosa Avenue that runs from Pier Avenue to 14th Street. Please see the attached site map. The alley is 18 feet wide and is one-way in the northbound direction. The objective of request is to reduce travel speeds in the alley and thereby improve safety for pedestrians and motorists. Numerous pedestrian doors from the adjacent commercial establishments open directly onto this alley and there are numerous driveways from which vehicles back out into the alley. The Commission supported the Staff recommendation to install speed humps in the alley on a trial basis. Analysis: The attached Staff report and minutes for the March 20 Public Works Commission meeting presents the analysis of the speed hump request and outlines the rationale for recommending the use of speed humps on a trial basis at this location. The speed humps would reduce travel speeds and improve safety for motorists and pedestrians in the alley. As a point of clarification, speed humps are not the same as speed bumps. Speed bumps are typically installed in parking lots and on internal private streets and are typically 1 to 3 feet in width and 4 to 6 inches in height. Speed humps are 12 feet wide and 3 to 4 inches in height, thereby creating a gentler rolling motion for motorists instead of an abrupt jolt. It is anticipated that three to four speed humps would be appropriate for this alley. Alternatives: 1. Approve the Public Works Commission's recommendation and direct Staff to install speed humps on a trial basis in the alley east of Hermosa Avenue between, Pier Avenue and 14th Street. 2. Deny the request to install speed humps in the alley east of Hermosa Avenue. 3. Send back to Staff for further study. 6a Fiscal Impact: The cost of installing the speed humps is estimated at $1,000 per hump for a total cost of $3,000 to $4,000. Attachments: 1. Site map 2. Staff Report 3. March 20, 2002 Public Works Commission meeting minutes Respectfully submitted, arold C. Williams, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer Noted for fiscal impact: )(Lite ,LLAJ Viki Copeland Finance Director Concur: Stephen F'Burrell City Manager Concur: Michael Lav Chief of Pol 2 F:\B95\PWFILES\CCITEMS\speed hump trial 4-9-02.doc • • • .1A® _t a1O3Ai1O 2S mineka3310fti mum lisa,r imm. t a k �L�►��1OROi �PLA►��L �l� inH ATTACHMENT 1 SPEED HUMP REQUEST IN ALLEY SPEED BUMP ROAD MUMP CIO:: MAPS f • s. 1 Y • Y • ' f_ _ • . • . • . $Jy •. Source: Deed Humps and tha _nmusand Qaks Experience by J.P. Clement (September, 1982) • • • • Honorable Chairman and Members of The Hermosa Beach Public Works Commission March 12, 2002 Regular Meeting of March 20, 2002 REQUEST FOR SPEED HUMPS ON ALLEY EAST OF HERMOSA AVENUE BETWEEN PIER AVENUE AND 14TH STREET Recommendation: It is recommended that the Commission recommend to City Council to authorize Staff to install speed humps on a trial basis in the alley located one-half block east of Hermosa Avenue between Pier Avenue and 14th Street. Background: A request has been received for the City of Hermosa Beach to consider the installation of speed humps on the alley located one-half block east of Hermosa Avenue that runs from Pier Avenue on the south to 14th Street on the north. The alley is 18 feet wide and is one-way in the northbound direction. Numerous pedestrian doors from the adjacent commercial establishments open directly onto this alley and there are numerous driveways from which vehicles back out onto the alley. The objective of the request is to reduce travel speeds on the alley and thereby improve safety for pedestrians and motorists. Discussion: The alley was monitored on various occasions and a speed survey was conducted to measure the travel speeds on the alley. The observations indicate that there is a substantial amount of interaction between vehicles and pedestrians because numerous doorways access directly onto the alley from the adjacent buildings, pedestrians use the alley as a walking route, and pedestrians cross the alley while walking between parking Tots and the back doors to the commercial establishments. In addition, there are numerous driveways from which motorists back out into the alley where visibility is blocked by a wall. These activities frequently conflict with the traffic that is traveling north on the alley, much of which is using the alley as a through route from Pier Avenue to 14th Street. The speed limit on the alley is 15 miles per hour (mph). Thespeed surveys indicated that 56 percent of the vehicles were traveling at speeds of 15 mph or Tess, that 29 percent of the vehicles were traveling at speeds between 16 and 20 mph, that 12 percent of the vehicles were traveling between 21 and 25 mph, and that 3 percent were traveling,over 25 mph. The highest speed observed was,28 mph. The speed surveys were taken in the late afternoon and early evening on several days. The results indicate that a substantial proportion of the traffic is traveling at excessive speeds on this 15 - mph alley, particularly when combined with the heavy level of pedestrian activity. 6c ATTACHMENT 2 • • An action that could potentially be effective in reducing travel speeds on the alley would be the installation of speed humps. As a point of clarification, speed humps are not the same as speed bumps. Speed bumps are typically installed in parking lots and on internal private streets and are typically 1 to 3 feet in width and 4 to 6 inches in height. Speed humps are 12 feet wide and 3 to 4 inches in height, thereby creating a gentler rolling motion for motorists instead of an abrupt jolt. Speed humps are acceptable for installation on public streets, while speed bumps are not. The primary objective of speed humps is to reduce excessive travel speeds. Their use is often discouraged on public streets because they may affect emergency response times for fire, police, and paramedic vehicles and because they are considered aesthetically undesirable. These issues, however, are relatively minor for the proposed alley location. As a measure, to reduce travel speeds and improve safety for motorists and pedestrians, it is recommended that speed humps be installed on a trial basis on the alley east of Hermosa Avenue between Pier Avenue and 14th Street. Initial concept plans indicate that three to four speed humps would be appropriate; however, the exact number of speed humps and their locations would be identified if and when the use of speed humps is approved. Alternatives 1. Recommend that Council approve the request. 2. Recommend that Council deny the request. 3. Send back to Staff for further study. 4. Take no action. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Letter of Request Respectfully submitted Richard Garland, Traffic Engineer 2 Concur: arold C. Williams, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer December 18, 2001 Harold C. Williams, P.E. Director of Public Works City Engineer Dear Mr. Williams, I am the new owner of Bestie's Pub & Grill, at 1332 Hermosa Avenue. I took over as of November 23, 2001. I plan on cleaning up the old restaurant and making it a fun and safe place for families and people of all ages. I am writing to you in regards to a grave concern of mine and many of my customer's, the alley way known as Palm just at the East of Bestie's. As you may know, two of my exits exit directly on to Palm without any warning to passing motorists. Cars and trucks speed down the one-way street and only slow at 14th Street. I know that a couple of years ago someone actually got hit and received a broken leg when a car hit him, as he exited from Bestie's. I am just afraid something like that may happen again, or worse. I am requesting two speed bumps to be/placed on Palm prior to each exit out of Bestie's also some painting on the ground indicating an exit from a business. I think that this will make it a much safer place. Please contact me regarding this and what I can do to make this a safer place. Steven P. Delk, owner 1332 Hermosa Ave. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (310) 318-3818 (310) 245-6084 cell ATTACHMENT 2 January 9, 2002 City o f2-igmosaTeach_ Mr. Steven Delk, Owner Bestie's Pub & Grill 1332 Hermosa Avenue Hermosa Beach CA 90254 Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 COPY Dear Mr. Delk: Thank you for your letter regarding Palm Drive and your concern for motorists in that area. Your request for speed bumps has been forwarded to the City Traffic Engineer for investigation. This investigation will take approximately six weeks; the report will be presented at the PublicY(t arks Commission meeting of March 13, 2002. Please plan on attending. Again, thank you for your concern for traffic safety in Hermosa Beach. Very truly yours, Afa-friti6,1),ef Harold C. Williams, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer HCW/rbp Cc: R. Garland, Traffic Engineer M. Flaherty, Public Works Superintendent • • c. Request for Speed Humps — Alley East of Hermosa Avenue Between Pier Avenue and 14th Street Mr. Williams presented the item noting that the report was prepared in response to a request from Steven Delk, owner of Bestie's Pub & Grill on Hermosa Avenue. He indicated that the alley is one-way and that pedestrians often walk out of the building onto the alley. The speed limit is 15 miles per hour (mph), however the speed surveys observed vehicles traveling at speeds as high as 28 mph. Mr. Williams stated that the Traffic Engineer's suggestion would be the installation of speed humps on a trial basis. He noted that speed humps are not the same as speed bumps. Speed bumps are installed in parking lots and on internal private streets and are typically 1 to 3 feet in width and 4 to 6 inches in height. Speed humps are 12 feet wide and 3 to 4 inches in height, thereby creating a gentler rolling motion for motorists instead of an abrupt jolt. Speed humps are acceptable for installation on public streets, while speed bumps are not. Commission discussion brought out the following information or comments. o There was a consensus among the commissioners with regard to the hazards in the alley. o The speed humps would include a break or opening left in the humps thereby allowing water to flow through the area. o There was no public comment to determine whether the local business owners or residents were in agreement with the request. MOTION by Commissioner Lombardo to follow Staff's recommendation to install speed humps in the alley east of Hermosa Avenue between Pier Avenue and 14th Street. Seconded by Chairman Winnek. Aye: Cheatham, Howell, Koch, Lombardo, and Winnek Nay: None Abstain: None Absent: None d. Request for Speed Humps — Hillcrest Drive between 18th Street and 21st Street Mr. Williams presented the item stating that input had been solicited from the residents in regards to a pavement reconstruction program for Hillcrest Drive. The input received indicated that there might be a speeding problem and that speed humps should be considered. The speed surveys showed a surge in traffic when parents were dropping off or picking up their children at the school on Prospect Avenue and then using Hillcrest Drive. The speed profile did not reflect`a significant speeding problem. PWC Meeting Minutes 4 3-20-02 ATTACHMENT 3 April 4, 2002 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council 41; Regular Meeting of April 9, 2002 DEPT. OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL (ABC) LETTER RECEIVED APRIL 1, 2002 REGARDING CHANGES IN EIN STEIN'S RESTAURANT AND BREWERY INC. ABC LICENSE OPERATING CONDITIONS A letter from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) is attached providing notice of further requested changes to the Ein Stein's ABC license. Also attached is a memo from the Police Chief, the CUP for Ein Stein's and a letter from Jim Lissner. Please review the information and determine whether or not the City Council wishes to send a letter to ABC regarding these changes. Respectfully submitted, Stephen R. Burrell City Manager 6b STATE OF CALIFORNIA — BUSINESS, TRANSPOR N AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL Inglewood District Office 1 Manchester Blvd., 6th Floor P.O. Box 6500 Inglewood, CA 90306 (310) 412-6311 Hermosa Beach Police Department 540 Pier Ave. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 GRAY DAVIS Governor APR 2002 March 5, 2002 Dear City Council: The Licensee has requested additional changes to their conditions to sell alcoholic beverages in your city as follows: Ein Stein's Restaurant and Brewery Inc. dba: EM Stein's Restaurant File #75-339472 1301 Manhattan Ave. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Type of alcoholic beverages sold: On- Sale General Brewpub The original modification included the following condition, condition #9 that reads: Entry to the premises shall not require an admission/cover charge or a minimum drink purchase. The licensee would also like to remove the following condition(s) #4 that reads: The use of an amplifying system or device is prohibited on the first floor patio and terrace level patio as depicted on the ABC -257 dated 5-10-00. Condition #6, the licensee would like to alter this condition to only require food service to at least 10:00 p.m. While exercising alcohol licensee privileges food service shall be in compliance with Section 23038. Condition #7: Live entertainment and/or dancing on the second floor is permitted only in the "Banquet room". I would appreciate hearing from you within the next 15 days regarding this matter. I can be reac d at (310) 412-6172. V. Brown #706 \Ic4-02i/ Investigator I Cor -h-66 f\rn:t gs CI Thursday, April 04, 2002 TO: Stephen Burrell, City Manager FROM: Michael Lavin, Chief of Police TA' SUBJECT: ABC License Modification for Ein Sfein's Restaurant and Brewery I have conferred with Sol Blumenfeld about the additional requests by Ein Stein's Restaurant and Brewery to modify their ABC license. As you know, we supported their original request to remove condition number 9 which prevented them from requiring a cover charge or minimum drink purchase. We felt that allowing their establishment to require a cover charge would enhance their operation in a positive way. Since that time, they have requested that three additional conditions be removed or modified from their ABC license. They have requested the removal of condition #4; "the use of amplifying system or device is prohibited on the first floor patio and terrace level patios." Currently condition #15 of their CUP states "amplified music in the outside seating area shall be controlled by management to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance." Their ABC license says they cannot have amplified music while their CUP says they can. The removal of condition #4 would not conflict with their CUP and condition #15 of the CUP would then become the goveming regulation. We have no objection to this request. The 'second condition to be amended is number 6 that is to reflect that food service is be offered until at least 10:00 PM. This request does not violate their CUP and we therefore do not object to this request. The last condition, the elimination of condition #7 would not violate their CUP. Their ABC license states that live entertainment and/or dancing on the second floor is permitted only in the "Banquet Room." Condition #15 of their CUP states that no live entertainment shall be permitted in the outside seating area. The elimination of condition #7 would then allow Ein Steins to have live entertainment and/or dancing anywhere on the second floor. Their CUP would still prohibit live entertainment in the outside seating area. We therefore do not object to this request. • • BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of the Application of: EIN STEINS RESTAURANT AND BREWERY INC Ein Steins Restaurant and Brewery 1301 Mai hatutn Ave Hermosa Beach. CA 90254 File: 75-339472 PETITION FOR CONDYTIQNAL jjCENSE For issuance of an On -Sale General Brew Pub License Under the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act WHEREAS. petitioner(s) has/have fled an application for the iScuance of the above -referred -to license(s) for the above-mentioned premises: and. WHEREAS. the proposed premises and/or parking lot. operated in conjunction therewith. am located within 100 feet of residence(s); and, WHEREAS. ksumice of the applied -for license without the below -described conditions would interfere with the quiet enjoyment of the property by nearby residents acrd constant grounds for rhe denial of the application under the provisions of Rule 61.4. of Chapter ! , Title 4. of the California Code of Regulations: and. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 23958 of the Basinr,s and Professions Code, the Departmem may deny an application for a license where issuance would result in or add to an undue concentration of licenses: and, WHEREAS. the proposed premises are located in Census Tract 6120.02 where these presently exists an undue concentration of licenses as defined by Section 23958.4 of the Business and Professions Code: and. WHEREAS, the pellitioner(s) stipulates) that by xenon of the aforementioned over concentration of licenses. grounds exist for denial of the applied -for beamsc(s); and, WHEREAS, the issuance of an unrestricted license would be contrary to public welfare or morals; NOW THEREFORE, the undersigned petitioner(s) dokioes hereby potition for a conditional license as follow._ to -wit: I . The exercise of alcohol license privileges past 1:00 am on Sunday through Thursday is prohibited. 2 . The exercise of alcohol license privileges on the first floor patio and terrace level patio are restricted to the hours of 7:00 am through 11:00 pm. 3. Entertainment .hall not be audible beyond the premises as depicted oa the ABC 257 dated 5-10.00. 4 . The use of an amplifying system or device is prohibited on the first floor patio and terrace level patio a• depicted on the ABC -257 dated 5-104.4. AHC -117 121(X1) / 5/z/0/ RECEIVED MAY 0 7 2001 Dept of Alcoholic Beverage Control inglewooc Office TOTAL P.O1 20'd lwL01 75.339472 FIN STEINS RESTAURANT AND BREWERY INC Page 2 • 5. The quarterly gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed the gross sales of food during the same period. Gross salcs records of food and alcohol shall be seperatety maintained on at toast a quarterly basis and made available to the Department on request. 6. Whsle exercising alCotnol license privileges food scrvic c shall be in compliance with Secatm 23038. 7 . Live entertain:n nc andJor dancing on the second floor is permitted only in the "Banquet' mom. 8. Pool or billiard tables are prohibited on the premises. 9 . Entry to the premises 51s:ill nut require au admission/cover chard or a minimum drink purchase. 10. The sale of alcoholic: beverages for consumption off the premises is strictly prohibited This petition for conditional license is made pursuant to Business and Professions Code Sections 23800-23805 and will be carried forward in any transfer. Petitioner agrees to retsina copy of this petition on the premises and produce it upon request of any peace office r. Violation of the foregoing conditions shall be grounds for the suspension or revocation of the license. DAY OF %'1 .V . 20 O 1 DATED THIS RECEIVED MAY 07Z001 Dept of Atcohotic Beverage Cartrol togtewood Ottice ARC -)T2 (2ltiO) TOTAL P.01 Section .803 - Business and Profes•ns Code Effective January 1, 1998 Section 23803: Statutes of 1997, Chapter 454: SB 609 (Karnette) Section 23803 has been amended to require the department to notify the local governing body of any petition to remove or modify conditions. The local governing body has 30 days in which to object to the modification or removal. A hearing shall be held on the objection if the department recommends approval of the petition. Section 23803 will read as follows: 23803. The department, upon its own motion or upon the petition of a licensee or a transferee who has filed an application for the transfer of the license, if it is satisfied that the grounds which caused the imposition of the conditions no longer exist, shall order their removal or modification, provided written notice is given to the local governing body of the area in which the premises are located. The local governing body has 30 days to file written objections to the removal or modification of any condition. The department may not remove or modify any condition to which an objection has been filed without holding a hearing as provided in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 11500) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. Any petition for the removal or modification of a condition pursuant to this section shall be accompanied by a fee of one hundred dollars ($100). 4111 E CU I2 Cc,kcL( s P.C. RESOLUTION 00-33 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW THE CHANGE FROM ON -SALE BEER AND WINE TO ON -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL, IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING RESTAURANT WITH LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AND OUTDOOR DINING, AT 1301 MANHATTAN AVENUE, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 16, 17& 23 TRACT 1125, AND LOTS 18 AND 19 BLOCK 34, FIRST ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT. Section 1. An application was filed by Jack and Mike Ludwig, seeking approval to change from on -sale beer and wine to on -sale general alcohol in conjunction with an existing restaurant with live entertainment, "Einsteins Restaurant and Brewery." Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed de novo public hearing to consider the application to amend the Conditional Use Permit on May 16, 2000, at which testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission. Section 3. Based on evidence received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission makes the following factual findings: 1. The proposed amendment does not alter the primary use as a restaurant; 2. The site is located in the downtown district, which already has several restaurants with on -sale general alcohol; 3. The site is zoned C-2 allowing the proposed on -sale alcohol use with a Conditional Use Permit. Section 4. Based on the foregoing factual findings, the Planning Commission makes the following findings pertaining to the application to amend the Conditional Use Permit: 1. The site is zoned C-2, and is suitable for the proposed use with the proposed amendment for on -sale alcohol; 2. The proposed use is compatible with surrounding commercial uses within the downtown district; 3. The imposition of conditions as required by this resolution will mitigate any negative impacts on nearby residential or commercial properties; 4. This project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to 15323, Class 23 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. Normal operations of existing facilities for public gatherings for which the facilities were designed, where there is a past history of the facility being used for the same kind of purpose. . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Jr" 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Section 5. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves the requested amendments to the Conditional Use Permit, subject to the following Conditions of Approval, which supersede the conditions contained in P.C. Resolution 96-10: The continued use of the restaurant shall be substantially consistent with approved plans. Modifications to any of the plans shall be reviewed and may be approved by the Community Development Director. The hours of operation shall be limited to between 7:00 A.M. and 2:00 A.M. daily outdoor dining or seating shall not be allowed later than 11:00 PM on the lower patio or later than 10:00 PM on the upper patio. No patrons shall be seated on the patios beginning an hour before these times. The hours for live entertainment shall be limited to the hours between 4:00 PM to 1:15 AM Monday through Friday, and from 9:00 AM to 1:15 AM on Saturdays and Sundays, Federal, and State holidays, Cinco De Mayo and St. Patrick's day. A minimum 6 -foot high partition (glass or other material approved by the Community Development Director) shall be installed around the perimeter of the outdoor seating areas. The business shall participate in the downtown parking validation program, providing validation forparking in public lots for no less than two hnnrs The building shall be equipped with acoustic features to maximize sound proofing which shall include the use of double -pane windows or an equivalent, and the installation of air conditioning so that windows and doors can remain closed during performances. Any additional acoustic treatment shall be provided in the interior if necessary to comply with the City's noise ordinance. _ The establishment shall not adversely effect the welfare of the residents, and/or commercial establishments nearby. The business shall provide adequate staffing, management and supervisory techniques to prevent loitering, unruliness, and boisterous activities of the patrons outside the business and in nearby public areas. The Police Chief may determine that a continuing police problem exists, and may authorize the presence of a police approved doorman and/or security personnel to eliminate the problem, and then shall submit a report to the Planning Commission, which will automatically initiate a review of this conditional use permit by the Commission. 10. The exterior of all the premises shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and maintained free of graffiti at all times. 11. During the performance of amplified live entertainment, the exterior doors and windows shall remain closed. -2- 12. Any changes to the interior layout which would alter the primary function of the business as a restaurant shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. 13 The project and operation of the business shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code. 14. Management shall be e reasonable ley 1 . 11 1 1 ' 1 11 taininginusic/entertainment volumes at 15. No live entertainment shall be permitted in t e outside seating area and the vo`o level of any amplified music ' , he outside seatin: area s a b controlled by man . gement m conlianc . wi h the noise ordinance. 16. Noise emanating from the property shall be within the limitations prescribed by the city's noise ordinance and shall not create a nuisance to surrounding residential neighborhoods, and/or commercial establishments. Noise emanating from the property shall be monitored to verify compliance with the noise ordinance in response to any complaints. Section 6. This grant shall not be effective for any purposes until the permittee and the owners of the property involved have filed a the office of the Planning Division of the Community Development Department their affidavits stating that they are aware of, and agree to accept, all of the conditions of this grant. The grant for live entertainment shall not be in effect until the acoustical study is complete and approved by the Community Development Director, and all sound proofing measures are implemented in the building pursuant to Condition Nos. 12, 14, and 16. The Conditional Use Permit Amendment shall be recorded, and proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. Each of the above conditions is separately enforced, and if one of the conditions of approval is found to be invalid by a court of law, all the other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable. Permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, it agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employee to attack, set aside, void or annul this permit approval, which action is brought within the applicabl time period of Government Code Section 65907. The City shall promptly notify the permittee of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any claim, action or proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall no thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. The permittee shall reimburse the City for any court and attorney's fees which the City may be required to pay as a result of any claim or action brought against the City because of this grant. Although the permittee is the real party in interest in an action, the City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of the action, but such participation shall not relieve the permittee of any obligation under this condition. -3- The subject property shall be developed, maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of this grant and any law, statute, ordinance or other regulation applicable to any development or activity on the subject property. Failure of the permittee to cease any development or activity not in full compliance shall be a violation of these conditions. The Planning Commission may review this Conditional Use Permit and may amend the subject conditions or impose any new conditions if deemed necessary to mitigate detrimental effects on the neighborhood resulting from the subject use. VOTE: AYES: Hoffman, Ketz, Chairman Perrotti NOES: Pizer, Schwartz ABSENT: none ABSTAIN: none CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 00-33 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, at their regular meeting of May 16, 2000. Sam Perrotti, Chairman Date 6 -do -a Cupr00-2 -4- APR -02-02 TUE 16:26 LISSNER-TBDTP • 310 3762287 • FACSIMILE COVER SHEET AND MESSAGE Total number of pages including this cover sheet 1 Date: TU 4-2-02 Time To: City Council, City of Fax: (310) 372-6186 From: James Lisener, 2715 El Fax: (310) 376-2287 Venue: Subject: Hermosa Beach Voice: (310) Oeste, Hermo6a Voice: (310) CQUNCIL MEETING OF 4-9-02 • uwt J. REQUEST BY EINSTEINe Councilmembera: •, 318-0216 Beach, CA 90254 376-4626 At your last council meeting you had before you a request Einsteins made to the ABC to delete a condition prohibiting corer charges and drink minimums. I have just received a notice from the ABC indicating that Einsteins now wishes to remove three more conditions. Ei QAae agendize Einsteins newest request. for discuseioi during your meeting of April 9. Please do not put forward to the April 23 meeting, as an April 9 airing of this matter will provide members the public who first hear of it during that council meeting the chance to utilize the 15 day comment period provided by the ABC. Sincerely, of tmoortenti The pages comprising this facsimile teanemiseion contain confidential inrormation from Jamas Lisaner_ this information is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named AY the recipient hereof. If you are not Cho intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying distribution, or use of the contents or this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify up by telephone immediately ■o that we may arrange to retrieve this transmission et no rnet to yn,. P.01 April 8, 2002 City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 RE: License Modification for Einsteins Restaurant and Bar. Dear Council Members, APR 0 t: 2002 1 urge you to deny Einsteins request to have its full liquor license further amended to remove restrictions allowing an amplifying system on the first floor and patio terrace areas, to reduce food service until 10:00 p.m. and to remove the restriction allowing live entertainment and/or dancing only in the "Banquet Room". Removing these restrictions and the previous request to allow a cover and drink minimum charge will change the nature of Einsteins business from a restaurant to an entertainment business. The downtown/pier avenue area of Hermosa Beach has one of the highest concentrations of establishments with liquor licenses in the county. The good news is that all of these establishments serve food as well as alcohol. The bad news is that charging admission and establishing a drink minimum, allowing amplified music, reducing the food service time, and allowing entertainment and/or dancing on outdoor patios means that alcohol and entertainment, not food, are the main courses on the menu. The noise and disruption to the peace and quiet of those of us who reside in this "impacted area" will only increase if these restrictions are removed from Einstein's license. We resident rely on you, our elected officials, to maintain a delicate balance between quality of life issues for residents and the needs of businesses in Hermosa Beach. This council recently directed our city attorney to prepare a lawsuit against Redondo Beach's Heart of The City Project because of the negative impact that project will have on quality of life issues for Hermosa Beach residents. Likewise, granting Einstein's request will have an equally negative impact on Hermosa Beach residents residing in this "impacted area". You will be maintaining that delicate balance between business and residents by simply enforcing present regulations and denying waivers and removal of restrictions. That is what the people elected you to do. Please include this letter of opposition when Einstein's request is placed on the agenda. Sin erely / Jame - s -fit: Paters 1068 Bayview Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (310) 379-7055 n SUPPLEMENTAL ki� INFORMATION • April 4, 2002 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of April 9, 2002 1 REVIEW OF PIER PHASE III CONTRACTS AND AMENDMENTS Recommendation: 1. That the City Council review the following information regarding the design contract for the Pier Phase III project; and 2. That the City Council approve the 3`d Amendment to the Purkiss Rose -RSI contract in the amount of $96,612.00. A separate memo from the Public Works Director is attached that details the 3rd Amendment. Background: The City Council, at its meeting of March 12, 2002, received a recommendation from staff to approve the 3`d Amendment to the professional services agreement with Purkiss Rose -RSI Landscape Architecture in the amount of$96,612.00. The purpose of the amendment was to provide funding to cover the cost of producing the construction drawings for the project approved by the City Council on January 17, 2002 and a structural analysis of the lifeguard tower. The breakdown for the 3`d Amendment is as follows: construction documents $84,250.00; structural analysis $12,362.00, for a total of $96,612.00. In reviewing the request, the City Council directed that staff review the existing contract, work produced to date and ensure that the amount set forth in the 3rd Amendment represented work that needed to be done for the project to proceed on the design approved on January 17, 2002. In order to respond to that direction, staff has reviewed all of the work produced to date, the contract, and its amendments, conceptual drawings, preliminary construction drawings produced under the September 26, 2000 approval, meeting minutes, committee meeting minutes, billing invoices, etc. Invoices were reviewed for all work performed to date. The billings were found to be consistent with the contract and the two amendments. The scope of work for each of the amendments was reviewed and found to be consistent with City Council direction. The 1st Amendment, approved October 12, 2001, covered the changes recommended by the committee working on the project and approved by the City Council on September 26, 2000. This change of scope expanded the project from the original project covered in the RFP. The 2nd Amendment covered the changes made after a series of workshops during the period beginning in January 2001. This amendment was approved on June 26, 2001 and provided funding to cover the costs for conceptual design phase only. The design team presented the revised drawing at a workshop on September 24, 2001. The design team received further direction and presented the final design to the City Council for approval at a workshop on January 17, 2002. The City Council approved the design and asked that a solution be presented on using the City Seal in the compass rose at the entrance of the pier. The 3`d Amendment will provide funding 6c • • for preparation of the construction drawing and a structural analysis of the lifeguard tower. All of this information is available for your review in my office. I have spoken with the design team and gone over the work prepared and what needs to be done to produce the construction documents and I have been assured that the proposal for the 3`d Amendment takes any usable prior work into account. After reviewing all of the material on the project, the design effort, and the changes made to reflect the community consensus involving the towers, it appears that the City has been billed correctly and that the cost for the work remaining is reasonable. I would therefore recommend that the City Council authorize the 3`d Amendment to contract. Respectfully submitted, Stephen R. Burrell City Manager 1 • • 00-630 PIER RENOVATION - PHASE III, PROJECT OVERVIEW ITEM# DATE EVENT NOTES 1 August 10, 1999 CC Meeting Item recommending contract w/ PurkissRose. CC directs Staff to negotiate a contract w/ PurkissRose. 2 October 12, 1999 CC Meeting Item recommending contract w/ PurkissRose. Continue item to October 26, 1996 meeting. 3 October 26, 1999 CC Meeting Item recommending contract w/ PurkissRose. CC directs Staff to re -issue RFP to obtain more proposals. 4 February 8, 2000 CC Meeting Item recommending contract w/ PurkissRose after sending out more than 50 RFP's and receiving only 3 proposals. CC approves agreement w/ PurkissRose for $174,500. 5 April 6, 2000 Subcommittee Meeting Through several meetings w/ the Subcommittee, the preliminary design changes from the original direction of the RFP. The scope of design changes and increases. Renderings & concepts furnished. May 23, 2000 Staff Meeting June 26, 2000 Subcommittee Meeting August 3, 2000 Subcommittee Meeting 6 September 26, 2000 CC Meeting Item to approve preliminary design including building locations, configurations, and elevations, and plaza design. CC Approves preliminary design. Prelim. design included towers for electrical & communications. Directs Subcommittee to review issues raised by CC. 7 October 10, 2000 CC Meeting Item to approve first amendment for increased scope of services for $79,345. CC approves item. Increased scope includes construction documents for the following changes/additions: 1) a women's locker room building attached to the existing lifeguard building, 2) a garage structure w/ a plaza observation deck above, 3) a totally redesigned plaza w/ multiple elevations including amphitheater seating, 4) A new restroom building to replace the existing restrooms just south of the pier, and 5) two smaller building structures (towers) on both sides of the pier entry which will house the communications (911) and electrical systems. 8 January 17, 2001 Subcommittee Meeting Continue design development. Review issues raised by CC. 4/4/02 00-630 Project Overview 03-20-02.xls Page 1 of 4 i • ITEM# DATE EVENT NOTES 9 January 30, 2001 February 13, 2001 CC Workshop CC Meeting Issues discussed: 1) possibility of walk -only zone on Strand as part of pier plaza, 2) optional ramp versus stairs from observation deck to pier, 3) placement of plaques, 4) the possibility of erecting something to simulate towers, 5) costs of furnishing a simple study model versus a full-blown model. CC decisions/directions to Staff as follows: 1) investigate ways to establish a walk -only zone on the Strand between 10th & 14th Streets, 2) report square footage costs to use the black concrete between 10th & 14th, and 11th and 13th Streets, 3) report on deleting the optional ada ramp and adding stairs and to estimated costs, and 4) prepare drawings showing all design features discussed and that all proposed materials be durable and graffiti - proof. Set next CC workshop to March 15, 2001 10 11 February 27, 2001 CC Meeting Move workshop date to March 26, 2001. 12 March 20, 2001 Submittal PurkissRose submits 50% construction drawings for review. 13 March 26, 2001 Tower Mock-ups SouthBay Scaffold erected mock-up of towers to remain for 1 week. 14 March 26, 2001 CC Workshop Issues discussed: 1) report of cost of black concrete between 11th & 13th or 10th and 14th Streets, 2) report of cost of simple study model & full study model, 3) report of cost for stairs instead of optional ramp, 4) presentation of drawings showing revisions and proposed materials for towers and restrooms. CC decisions/directions to Staff as follows: 1) return w/ alternatives costs regarding materials and locations for paving, 2) do not pursue the use of study models due to. costs, 3) approve stairs instead of optional ramp, 4) leave mock-up of the towers for 1 week for viewing & public input, 5) use wood doors for restroom & stay w/ color & material palate proposed, and 6) schedule a CC workshop to discuss the entire design concept. 4/4/02 00-630 Project Overview 03-20-02.xls Page 2 of 4 ITEM# DATE EVENT NOTES 15 April 30, 2001 • CC Workshop Excludes design consultant team. Issues discussed: 1) towers, 2) public input on various topics, 3) paving materials, 4) restrooms, and 5) Lifeguard garage rooftop treatment. CC directions/requests to Staff as follows: 1) remove towers from design, 2) eliminate planters in the circular design area, 3) use black concrete as the background color (depicted in light green in the design) in all areas except the observation deck, 4) have the architect incorporate granite in a design to see how it would work w/ other proposed materials in the center, 5) have architect submit 5 designs including the existing pattern, a compass rose, a sunburst, and 2 more ideas of their own, 6) approve individual restrooms w/ wooden doors and have architect report back on lighting and ventilation issues, 7) use black concrete and eliminate any design element in front of the bathrooms, 8) rotate the location of the sinks & showers from east to west side, 9) keep restroom roof as presented, 10) eliminate stairway at the east side of ADA ramp, but maintain other elements as proposed, including observation deck, 11) have architect include peripheral benches on the observation deck, prepare 3 designs for the observation deck, one using the Hermosa Beach logo, two new designs of their own, and select background colors, 12) eliminate proposed truck parking pad, 13) have architect prepare sketch to see if stadium stairs on the north side leading to the sand, and schedule another CC workshop w/o the consultants. Stephen Burrell notes that have met their obligations and all the requested work is outside of their current scope. 16 May 22, 2001 Staff Meeting Staff reviews CC decisions/directions, per 4/30/01 CC workshop, w/ the architect. 17 June 26, 2001 August 20, 2001 CC Meeting Subcommittee Meeting Item to approve 2nd Amendment to contract w/ PurkissRose to accommodate addition design work request by CC on 4/30/01 CC workshop. CC approves item. (Approved preliminary design is discarded and the conceptual design process must be repeated. Refer to 4/30/01 CC workshop.) Review of new conceptual drawings prior to presentation to CC. 18 4/4/02 00-630 Project Overview 03-20-02.xls Page 3 of 4 ITEM# DATE EVENT NOTES 19 September 24, 2001 CC Workshop Presentation by PurkissRose for design alternatives requested at 4/30/01 CC workshop. CC decisions/directions to Staff: 1) approve bike racks & eliminate concept #5 from consideration, 2) verify the amount of space needed for the driveway & lifeguard parking, 3) look for alternatives for housing the electrical/communications equipment that would reduce the height of the building, 4) approve compass rose as major design element, 5) approve colors presented in concept #2 for compass rose w/ brushed brass tips, 6) return w/ materials recommendations, 7) modify stairway/seating, proposed in concept #2, on north side to be flush w/ the plaza & lead down to the sand, capped w/ something less obtrusive than what is shown, & allowing for lifeguard access, 8) approve circular design for observation deck using the same material as in the plaza w/ appropriate trimming, 9) eliminate stairs connecting main plaza area w/ the observation deck & substitute w/ a mixture of seating & planters, 10) approve sunburst design in concept #1 for the restroom shower area, w/ use of regular concrete & return w/ materials recommendations for sunburst, and 11) add 3 -ft. solid semi -circular wall around shower area. 20 November 14, 2001 Staff Meeting Review project, discuss future presentation to new CC. PurkissRose should give overview of project to up -date new CC. 21 January 17, 2002 CC Workshop Presentation by PurkissRose to review project for new CC. Issues discussed: 1) removable northeast railing of observation deck, 2) City seal in compass rose, 3) revised conceptual plans requested by CC, and 4) review possible materials and costs (return w/quantities and samples). CC decisions/directions to Staff: 1) approve design w/ planter wall pulled back from the Strand, 2) approve City seal to be in center of compass rose, (designer to return w/ size & colors), 3) approve use on granite in design (return w/ cost & samples), 4) approve to proceed w/ construction documents, 5) return w/ colors, City seal, and plaque locations, and 6) work w/ Schumachers on setting up time for dedication ceremony. 22 March 12, 2002 CC Meeting Item to approve Amendment 3 for contract w/ PurkissRose. Item was not approved. Instructions to Staff to review the contract, amendments, and work furnished to verify that the City was not overcharged. 4/4/02 00-630 Project Overview 03-20-02.xls Page 4 of 4 • • March 27, 2002 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of The Hermosa Beach City Council April 9, 2002 PROJECT NO. CIP 00-630 PIER RENOVATION, PHASE III PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIRD AMENDMENT Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Approve the attached Third Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement between the City of Hermosa Beach and Purkiss•Rose — RSI for an increase in scope of services and contract amount of $96,612; 2. Authorize the appropriation of $85,000 from the 301 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Fund; 3. Authorize the City Clerk to attest and the Mayor to execute said amendment, upon approval as to form by the City Attorney; and 4. Authorize the Director of Public Works/City Engineer to make adjustments to the scope of work as necessary, not to exceed $9,661. Background: On September 26, 2000, the preliminary design was presented and approved by City Council. City Council also authorized the Purkiss•Rose — RSI to prepare construction documents and cost estimates. See Attachment 1 — September 26, 2000 Meeting Minutes. Through the design process, with numerous meetings with Staff, Los Angeles County Lifeguards, the Consultant, and the design subcommittee, and the City Council, the designer developed and submitted 50% construction drawings on March 20, 2001. As a result of the April 30, 2001 Pier Renovation — Phase III workshop, City Council gave direction to revise the design. See Attachment 2 — April 30, 2001 meeting minutes. Several additional meetings were held to review and approve revisions required as a result of deleting the towers. Attachment 6 contains minutes from several City Council meetings for the purpose of background information. On January 17, 2002, Council approved the revised design and authorized Purkiss•Rose to proceed with construction documents and cost estimates. See Attachment 3 — January 17, 2002 Meeting Minutes. Purkiss•Rose must now repeat the process of developing construction drawings with the new revised design. To accommodate the increased scope of services, $81,250 is requested plus a $3000 allowance for reproduction and delivery costs, totaling $84,250. See • Attachment 4 — Cost Breakdown for a chart displaying the estimated hours and fees for the modification and preparation of construction drawings. On September 18, 2001, Staff met with representatives from Los Angeles County Lifeguards, Purkiss•Rose, and EQE Structural Engineers (a subconsultant of Purkiss•Rose) to conduct a preliminary visual review of the Lifeguard Headquarters Tower. There was substantial deterioration observed. Upon review of pictures taken inside the building, Mr. Zack of EQE has given quotations for two different scenarios. Option 1 involves exposing and evaluating the extent of damage to the critical connections of the building and developing structural plans and details to restore the building back to original conditions (at a cost of $6,670). Option 2 involves performing a seismic analysis of the lifeguard tower for performance evaluation under the 1997 Uniform Building Codes (UBC), providing a structural engineering report including analysis methodologies used, findings, conclusions, sketches for any schematic structural retrofit per current code requirements, and a preliminary opinion of costs for implementation of the structural strengthening scheme (at a cost of $12,362). Staff transmitted the two proposals to the Community Development Department for review. Based on that department's review, Staff recommends following Option 2 to authorize a full structural analysis of the lifeguard tower under the 1997 UBC criteria. Analysis: Per Council's approval of the revised design on January 17, 2002, Purkiss•Rose must develop new construction documents. An increase of $84,250 for design services is in order. The extent of the damage to the lifeguard tower is unknown. Based on preliminary review of the lifeguard tower, Staff recommends a structural analysis of the building per 1997 UBC criteria. The cost of the structural analysis and report is $12,362. Under the terms of the existing agreement between the City and Purkiss•Rose — RSI, the City has the option of ordering additional services without changing the agreement. This must be done by written amendment approved by the City and the Consultant. Please see Attachment No. 5. The total increase in services amounts to $96,612. This Third Amendment does not include construction drawings for retrofitting the lifeguard tower. Prior to the structural analysis of the deteriorated lifeguard tower, it cannot be determined if the building will need to be retrofitted to meet the 1997 UBC or if it can be renovated to meet its original conditions. 2 • Fiscal Impact: Anticipated design costs: Third Amendment $ 96,612 Contingency $ 9,661 Subtotal $ 106,273 Funding source: Funds Available $ 21,485 Proposed Appropriation (Rec. 2) $ 85,000 Subtotal $ 106,485 Therefore, the proposed appropriation in Recommendation 2 amounting to $85,000 is needed now to accommodate the cost of Purkiss•Rose's Third Amendment Attachments: 1. September 26, 2000 Meeting Minutes 2. April 30, 2001 Meeting Minutes 3. January 17, 2002 Meeting Minutes 4. Cost Breakdown for Construction Drawings 5. Third Amendment 6. Various Meeting Minutes Respectfully submitted, Tristan D. Malabanan Concur: 1,1,e arold C. Williams, P.E. Assistant Engineer Director of Public Works/City Engineer Noted for fiscal impact: Concur: Steh SII gi Viki Copeland, Steph Director City Manager F:\B95\PWFILES\CCITEMS\00-630 PSA - Third Amendment 04-09-02.doc 4 • The meeting. reconvened at 8:43 P.M., and the order of the ';agenda was suspended to move to item 7. :.MUNICIPAL MATTERS' APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY DESIGNS FOR CIP 00-630, PIER RENOVATIONS, PHASE III. Memorandum from Public Works Director Harold_ Williams dated September 19, 2000. Public Works Director Williams presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. City Manager Burrell also responded to Council questions. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: Jim Pickel - landscape architect, Perkiss•Rose-RSI, reviewed the siteplan and presented material samples, noting that they could- use either... porcelain tiles or interlocking pavers, or a combination of both; said they were able to get more space by spreading,. the plaza over the garage; showed the proposed lighting and. -railings; and. Ron Yeo - -building •architect, ,Perkiss•Rose-RSI, reviewed 'the-= proposed restrooms and lifeguard:_ facilities; discussed ;the towers;*. showed • elevations; :1_°_ showed... display : depicting mood lighting 'at:the:-.towers, Council discussion ensued, and consensus:, was reached ;on. the following issues: 1) leave the showers located where: currently shown, adjacent:.._. to _the -Strand since showering is the last thing :people do_. -when 'leaving .the beach, _2) eliminate public pay . phones; =. 3) ;..tiles -:chosen because . of ease of maintenance; 4) eliminate :,urinals and put water:- simplify the arch. so closets in all 'bathrooms; 5) "Hermosa `Beach" can be read more . clearly,and 6) look -at ` adding a stairway'so people are -not tempted -to jump railings. Action: 1) To approve. the building locations, and Preliminary plaza configurations and elevations, design for Project No. CIP 00-630 Pier Renovation; Phase III, and authorize the landscape architect, to prepare construction documents and cost estimates, as recommended by staff, taking note of Council's comments .this evening; and 2) To direct the this subcommittee mmievenge to review the issues raised by the Council Motion Bowler, second Dunbabin. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Action: To direct the City Manager to prepare a coastal application for the project at the appropriate time. Motion Bowler, second Dunbabin The motion carried by a unanimous vote. City Council Minutes 09-26-00 Page 10356 ATTACHMENT 1 MINUTES OF E ADJOURNED REGULAR'ME N THG 0F...THE-CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Monday, April 30, 2001, at -the hour of 7:22 P.M. ,, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Rick Koenig ROLL CALL: Present: Dunbabin, Edgerton, Oakes, Reviczky, Mayor Bowler. • Absent: None Also present were: Steve Burrell, City Manager Mary Rooney, Community Resources Director Harold Williams, Public Works Director/City Engineer Tristan Malabanan, Assistant Engineer Bob Moore, Lifeguard Section Chief Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk Councilmember Dunbabin said several residents had asked her about the budget process. She requested adding to tonight's agenda the scheduling of an advertised, staff -conducted, budget information meeting to take place prior to the scheduled May 24 City Council budget workshop. City Manager Burrell said the budget would be finished on May 15, and the meeting could take place May 17, 2001. Action: - To agendize for consideration later this evening an item .concerning the scheduling of a budget information meeting to be conducted by. staff on May 17 for people interested in the budget and the budget -process, based on the finding that the item arose after the posting of the agenda and required immediate action. - Motion Dunbabin, second Oakes. .The motion carried by a unanimous vote. PIER RENOVATION = PHASE III - WORKSHOP REVIEWOF OVERALL DESIGN OF THE PIERHEAD. All design boards produced by the architect were set up by staff for.display at the meeting. 1. TOWERS - DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC INPUT REGARDING TOWER PROPOSAL Action: To remove the Pier towers, as shown in the demonstration project (mock-ups), from conceptual consideration at this time. Motion Mayor Bowler, second Dunbabin. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: John Hales - Hermosa Beach, said cylindricalshapedesha ed towrs t but would graebI said cylindrical wide enough at the bottom to house t q p onf u because they would get narrower as they go up; towers would also be consistent with the plan; City Council Minutes 04-30-01 Page 10520 1 a ATTACHMENT 2 • • Bob Moore - County Lifeguard Section Chief, said the towers had been designed to store the communications and electrical equipment 'above ground to avoid flooding; said accommodations must be considered for that equipment; Robert Bell - Hermosa Beach, spoke in support of the proposed archway; Scott Alden - Hermosa Beach, said the Pier area should not be made to look like a camival said it was nice to be able to walk to the end of the Pier now, and thought it all should be kept simple; Shirley Cassell - Hermosa Beach, said the banner and towers were not needed; suggested that nothing be built there; Rick Koenig - Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce, asked for a . • review of 'the plans acid an explanation of the proposal. Councilmember Oakes reviewed the plans on display and explained the proposal, noting the needed improvements to the beach restrooms and the lifeguard facility, including the addition of a women's locker room. Continuing to come forward to address the Council at this time were: Robert Bell requested consideration of a small building in the Pier area for use by the Historical Society, noting they could rotate historical items there for public viewing; • John Hales - requested a small, enclosed, vertical display panel,. perhaps a couple shelves, where the Historical Society could display items showing the history of the city; but.. Jill Morales - Hermosa Beach, liked. the idea .of the archway, thought it should be more omate; showed a sample of a sea -fife silhouette and submitted fliers from the artist; Pete Tucker - Hermosa Beach, said the truck pad proposed to be in front of the Mermaid Restaurant did not have:thatto trso large parkiand could be used 'for bicycle racks; suggested n the parking structure or in Lot B; Theresa Alden - Hermosa Beach, liked the idea �f a graceful should aarch; said Hermosa has a great beach and ;that asset e preserved; suggested something unobtrusive and graceful, with a more natural look, using natural materials and plants; ng stem Michael need - Hermosa he bathroom Beach, said a and perhaps could be ure extended to wass needed in the Plaza to keep the whole area clean; Gary Zimmerman - Hermosa Beach, said the low lights along the liPier Pwier much better than overhead lights but still glare problem; said the lights had a little ring around themglare o prevent glare when looking down at them, but caused a for anyone looking out at the Pier, suggested angling them to eliminate the glare; City Council Minutes • 04-30-01 Page 10521 No name given - said the metal restroom doors in Venice were all broken and required high maintenances Rick Koenig - said he liked the design; suggested a mission style roof for the lifeguard building; thought the tile design on the pierhead was too busy and that he would prefer more muted colors; said the lighting should be more "beach town" and less "space age"; John Hales - requested a small meeting area in the Plaza, a small alcove to gather people for presenting awards 'after the Sand and Strand races and other activities. 2. SELECTION OF THE PAVING MATERIALS Action: To eliminate the planters in the circular design area. • Motion Dunbabin, second. Oakes. The motion carried, noting the dissenting vote of Reviczky. "Action: To have black concrete as the background color (currently shown as light green), in all areas excluding the observation deck. Motion Mayor Bowler, second Oakes. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Proposed Action: To request that the architect integrate granite into a nice design to see how it would work with some of the proposed paving materials in the center. Motion Oakes, second Edgerton. The motion was subsequently withdrawn. Action: To ask the architect to submit five designs, including the existing pattern, a compass rose, a sunburst, and two more ideas' of their own, using thumbnail sketches only. . Motion Mayor Bowler, second Oakes. '-The motion carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting recessed at 9:35 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:55 P.M. 3. RESTROOM DOORS Proposed Action: To install wooden doors with framework that would accommodate metal doors in the future if that change was desired. Motion Reviczky, second Mayor Bowler. The motion was subsequently withdrawn. Action: To approve the proposed individual restrooms and wooden doors and have the architect report back on light and ventilation issue Motion Reviczky, second Edgerton. The motion carried, noting the dissenting vote of Dunbabin. City Council Minutes 04-30-01 Page 10522 Action: To use the black concrete and eliminate any design element in front of the restroonis. • Motion Reviczky, second Dunbabin. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Action: To rotate the location of the showers and sinks from the east side of the building to the west side. Motion Dunbabin, second Edgerton. The motion carried .by a unanimous vote. Consensus: To keep the roof of the restroom building as presented. 4. LIFEGUARD GARAGE ROOFTOP TREATMENT Action: To eliminate the stairway at the bottom of the ramp but maintain the other elements as proposed, including the observation deck. Motion Oakes, second Reviczky. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Action: To direct the architect to include peripheral benches on the observatiori deck and to prepare three designs for the observation deck, one using the Hermosa Beach logo, with the architect coming up With two design ideas of their own and selecting the backgroUnd color:• • Motion Edgerton, second Oake§. The motion carded by a unanimous vote 5. OTHER ITEMS Proposed Action: .-To keep the pierhead at the two flat levels of the_Sarne dimensions as currently exists. Motion 'Edgerton, second Duni**. The motionfailed with Oakes, Reviczky and Mayor Bowler dissenting•. Action: To eliminate the proposed truck-parking pad. • . Motion Edgerton, second Oakes. • The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Action: To request the architect to prepare a sketch to see if it would work to have stadium.stairs on thenorth side leading all the way to the sand. Motion Oakes, second Edgerton. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. City Manager Burrell noted that the consultants had met their obligations and that this would be outside of their scope of their current work. He said they would estimate how long it would take and then schedule another meeting. Consensus: To have another workshop meeting like this, with just the City Council, not the consultants. City Council Minutes 04-30-01 Page 10523 BUDGET INFORMATION MEETING1 This item was addedio the agenda earlier in this meeting. Action: To schedule a budget information meeting to be conducted. by staff for Thursday, May 17, 2001, noting that the Council was not required to attend. Motion Dunbabin, second Reviczky. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. CITIZEN COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT - The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach adjourned on Tuesday, April 30, 2001, at the hour of 10:55 P.M. to the Regular Meeting of Tuesday, May 8, 2001, at the hour of 7:10 P.M. . City Council Minutes 04-30-01 Page 10524 MINUTES OF THE AJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held inRoom4 of the Community Center on Thursday, January 17;2002, at the hour PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Councilmember Reviczky ROLL CALL: Present: Edgerton, Absent: None Also present were: Keegan, Reviczky, Yoon, Mayor Dunbabin Steve Burrell, City Manager Mary Rooney, Community Resources Director Harold Williams, Public Works Director/City Engineer Tristan Malabanan, Assistant Engineer Michael Flaherty, Public Works Supervisor Bob Moore, Lifeguard Section Chief Tracy Lizotte, Lifeguard Captain Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk ANNOUNCEMENTS - Mayor Dunbabin said the Council meeting was starting late this evening'due to the 7 P.M. ribbon cutting for the Second Storycond SShetory which opened this evening with. its production of Late Nite Catechism".. eekly performances would take place at 8 P.M. Thursday through Saturday and at 2 P.M. on Sunday. HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL PIER, PHASE III Mayor Dunbabin acknowledged the presence inthe audience -of Dr. and Mrs and Schumacher, noting their $1 million donation to the City for the Pier project, thanked them for their generosity. 1. REVIEW AND FINAL APPROVAL OF: A REVISED SCHEMATIC 'PLAN WITH NEW ELEVATIONS- AND B REVISED BUILDINGS Public Works Director Williams said tonight's workshop was a coered design of the September 24, 2001 meeting at which the Cou nsid alternatives to previous plans, gave direction and approved several designs. He said the design team would present revised plans this evening for final review and approval by the Council. d Jim Picket, Purkiss Rose -RSI, briefly reviewed the project udperes enante athe he P revised layout design plans for the central plaza area, es made and the restroom building area. ndeall d to Council questions. pursuant to previous Council direction and respo Mark Grisaffe, representing building architect Ron Yeo, also responded to Council questions_ City Council Minutes 01-17-02 Page 10723 2 ATTACHMENT 3 City Manager Burrell said the project had already gone to the Coastal Commission and would go back once the conceptual drawings are approved. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: Pete Tucker -. Hermosa Beach, expressed concern about the rail on the northeast side of the observation platform, which would also be used as a stage area, and suggested that the rail be removable to accommodate the event and entertainment usage; suggested precast contoured seats to deter skateboarding; asked about water drainage at the shower area; John Hales - Hermosa Beach, said nothing in the design identified Hermosa Beach; proposed putting the City seal in the middle of the compass rose; referred to his drawings showing both an 8 - point design and a 16 -point design; said a seal diameter of four to five foot would be in better scale to the compass rose; gave drawings to the design team; and Chris Miller -speaking on behalf would beof the roperty owner at the best observation o d00 eck er Avenue, said the pier i and questioned the need for a separate deck except for its use as a stage; said missing from the project was something that the community could use, such as a low one-story building for use by the Historical Society or as a surf museum. Proposed Action: To approve the design, amended to include the City seal in the center of the compass rose, with the size to be determined bythe design team, and to move the planter wall back from the Strand. Motion Reviczky, second Keegan. The motion was subsequently withdrawn. Action: To approve the design as shown in the drawings, with the planter wall moved back from the Strand. • Motion Reviczky, second Edgerton. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Further Action: To approve the placement of the City seal in and approval. eterof the compass rose, with the colors to come back for final rev Motion Reviczky, second Keegan. The motion carried, noting.the dissenting votes of Edgerton and Mayor Dunbabin. Mr. Pickel said the City logo was already in his computer and they would return with color overlays as well as inforhattion on the none of those issues would slow ht fixtures, bollards, and the plaque design. He pointed out t down the preparation of construction drawings. Coming forward to address the Council at said thistime and her husband were very pleased Margaret Schumacher- that the project was going forward. City Council Minutes 01-17-02 Page 10724 • 2. REVIEW AND FINAL APPROVAL OF MATERIALS Mr_ Picket presented the recommended material and color samples that were on display. In response to Council questions, he said the square footage cost for material and installation would be $7 to $8 for5 for regular $13 for granite, $3.25 to $3.90 for colored concrete, $ about $14 for stone, and $6 to $8 for mosaic tile. He said granite was one of the more durable materials. He said he would bring back quantities and various material samples. Action: To approve the use of granite in the design, with direction timaterials, o at to the design team to come back with costs and color samplesof including the cost of doing the entire edging in granite. Motion Edgerton, second Yoon. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. 4. APPROVAL TO PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS City Manager Burrell said Council approval was needed to proceed with construction drawings Mr_ Picket suggested cast bronze on the City seat, with a brushed look. Action: To grant approval to proceed with the construction documents, with direction to the design team to return with colors, the City logo and. plaque locations, etc., and with direction . to staffto work with the Schumachers on setting up•a time to have a dedication ceremony. Motion Reviczky, second Edgerton. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. CITIZEN COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT - The Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council r ofof th 16 he ity P.M. Hermosa Beach adjourned on Thursday,. January 17, 2002, at the houto the Regular Meeting of Tuesday, January 22, 2002, at the hour of 7:10 P.M., in Room 4 of the Community Center, 710 Pier Avenue. City Council Minutes 01-17-02 Page 10725 • ilinosa Beach Pier, City of Hermosa , Change order #d COST QUOTATION FOR CHANGE ORDER #4 The following chart displays the estimated hours and fees for the modification & preparation of the construction documents. This fee is based on the scope of services identified in Change Order Number Four dated February 12, 2002. Reproduction and delivery charges are not included in the above reference fees and will be billed to the City at cost. rj2ox, 41 31000) ATTACHMENT 4 purkiss rose-rsi J Phase/Task . Purkiss Rose -RSI Labor Allocation (Hours ® Average Rate) Costs (Dollars) Principal (5115/hr) Project Manager . (S85/11r) CadDraft (S65/1-ir) Clerical (S35/hr) Subconsult. Other Direct Costs Subtotal Phase III - Construction Documents Civil S 5,750.00 S 5,750.00 Electrical S 1,450.00 S 1,450.00 Landscape Architect 50 140 210 56 S 33,260.00 .Architectural S 32,500.00 5 32,500.00 Structural S 3,440.00. S 3,440.00 i Staff Review/Meetings 20 30 S 4,850.00 Subtotal 70 170 210 ' 56 S 43,140.00 S . 81,250.00 TOTAL S '81,250.00 Reproduction and delivery charges are not included in the above reference fees and will be billed to the City at cost. rj2ox, 41 31000) ATTACHMENT 4 purkiss rose-rsi • • PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIRD AMENDMENT PROJECT No. CIP 00-630 PIER RENOVATION, PHASE III THIS THIRD AMENDMENT to the Professional Services Agreement between the City of Hermosa Beach and Purkiss•Rose - RSI, made and entered into this 9th day of April 2002 at Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California by and between the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, through its duly elected, qualified and acting MAYOR, hereinafter called the CITY, and the Purkiss•Rose - RSI, Inc., hereinafter called the CONSULTANT. WHEREAS, City entered into a Professional Services Agreement with Purkiss•Rose - RSI, Inc. on February 8, 2000 for the preparation of detailed plans, specifications, cost estimates and other construction documents for architectural upgrades to the Hermosa Beach Municipal Pier; and WHEREAS, City has determined the Project No. CIP 00-630 will require additional professional services to include design services; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and terms and conditions, the parties agree as follows: 1. Article I — Scope of Work is amended to read: "CONSULTANT shall perform all work necessary to complete in a manner satisfactory to City the services set forth in the Scope of Work in attached hereto as Exhibit A and made part of this Third Amendment." 2. Article II — Costs: "The CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT for all the work or any part of the work performed under this First Amendment at the rates and in the manner established in Exhibit A. Total expenditure made after this contract shall not exceed the sum of $96,612 ($93,612 design work plus $3,000 reproduction and delivery cost allowance). This fee includes all expenses, consisting of all incidental blueprinting, photography, travel and miscellaneous costs, estimated to be accrued during the life of the contract. It also includes any escalation or inflation factors anticipated. No increase in fees will be allowed during the life of the contract. Any increase in contract amount of scope shall be by express written amendment approved by the CITY and CONSULTANT. The CONSULTANT will be reimbursed for costs incurred in the performance hereof as are allowable under the provisions of Part 1-14 of the Federal Procurement Regulations." ATTACHMENT 5 • • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the date and year first above written. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MAYOR: PURKISS•ROSE - RSI, Inc. Mayor, City of Hermosa Beach President ATTEST: Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk Vice President APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney F:\B95\PWFILES\CIP\00-630\PURKISS ROSE PSA THIRD AMENDMENT 04-09-02.DOC • • EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK: PART 1 — CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS 1. Revise and modify: a) demolition plan b) original construction details c) lifeguard water craft garage structure 2. Prepare new: a) base site plan b) construction layout site plan (horizontal control plan) c) construction details d) site amenities plan e) communications building plans including floor plans, sections, and elevations f) electrical building plans including floor plans, sections, and elevations g) electrical and lighting site plan h) electrical and lighting site plan for the new communications and electrical buildings i) structural plans for the new communications and electrical buildings j) construction cost estimates k) paving plans for the Strand directly east of the plaza projects site 3. Include two (2) additional meetings/presentations to the City Council and five (5) additional meetings with City Staff. 4. Assist the City in obtaining Coastal Commission approval of the newly revise design. PART 2 — STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF THE LIFEGUARD TOWER 1. Perform seismic analysis of the existing lifeguard tower for performance evaluation under the 1997 UBC criteria. 2. Provide a structural engineering report that describes the analysis methodologies used, findings, and conclusions. Include sketches for any schematic structural retrofit recommendations to bring the lateral force -resisting system up to current code requirements. Construction documents are not included. 3. Provide a preliminary opinion of costs for the implementation of the structural strengthening scheme. COSTS: Design services $ 81,250 Structural Analysis $ 12,362 Reproduction allowances 3,000 Total $ 96,612 This Attachment 6 contains meeting minutes for the following City Council dates: 1. January 30, 2001 2. February 13, 2001 3. February 27, 2001 4. March 26, 2001 5. September 24, 2001 ATTACHMENT 6 • City of Hermosa Beach • MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED City of Hermosa Beach, California, P.M. Page 1 of 3 • REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the held on Tuesday, January 30, 2001, at the hour of .7:35 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Public Works Superintendent Mike Flaherty ROLL CALL: Present: Dunbabin, Edgerton, Oakes, Reviczky, Mayor Bowler Absent: None PIER RENOVATION - PHASE III WORKSHOP Public Works Director Williams presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. He said the main issues for discussion and direction this evening were: (1) whether or not to create a walk -only zone on the Strand and repave the area; and (2) whether or not to construct the proposed access ramp from the lifeguard tower, noting the potentially high cost, estimated at about $80,000. He said exterior building samples would be available at the next Pier renovation meeting. Jim Pickel, consultant with Purkiss-Rose, reviewed the drawings on display and responded to Council questions. He discussed the proposed tower buildings, and said in order to meet ADA requirements a ramp must have a grade of 8.33% or less. City Manager Burrell also responded to Council questions 1. DISCUSS POSSIBILITY OF WALK -ONLY ZONE ON THE STRAND AS PART OF THE PIER PLAZA Discussion ensued with regard to the issue of imposing a walk -only zone between 10th and 14th streets rather than continuing to use signal lights. In response to Council questions, Public Works Director Williams said the walk -only zone could be accomplished with signage and enforcement, and said a different pavement treatment would signal that it was a different zone. City Manager Burrell said if the Council wanted to pursue a walk -only zone, staff would develop an enforcement program for Council review and consideration, and said if a change of pavement material were desired, a possibility would be to make it consistent with the Pier Plaza pavement. http://www.hermosabch.orgiccm13001.htm City of Hermosa Beach • • Page 2 of 3 Action: To direct staff to investigate ways to make a pedestrian -only zone on the Strand between 10th and 14th streets for consistency with the current signaled section, with the times' of day to be determined at a later date, and with direction to staff to report back to the Council on enforcement issues. Motion Reviczky, second Oakes. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Proposed Action: To repave the Strand between 10th and 14th streets with the same material that was used on the Pier Plaza. Motion Reviczky, second Oakes. The motion was subsequently withdrawn. Action: To direct staff to report back on the square footage cost of the same material that was used on the Pier Plaza, with the cost broken down for repaving the area in front of the Plaza and between 10th and 14th streets, or perhaps 11th and 13th streets. Motion Reviczky, second Edgerton. The motion carried unanimously. 2. DISCUSS OPTIONAL HANDICAP RAMP Discussion ensued with regard to the issue of having an additional handicap ramp from the lifeguard tower. Suggestions for stair access instead of the ramp were discussed —. one to have stairs facing north with access from the mezzanine area directly to the pier. 'r. Pickel said it would be possible to delete the proposed additional ramp and include He said he would review the options, including cost, and report back to the Council. 3. OTHER PROJECT -RELATED ITEMS Council discussion ensued with regard to a suggestion, to use the design of the old foot -of - the Pier structure with the archway instead of the two towers. A straw vote showed no interest in using the design of the old building, due to the dissenting votes of Oakes, Reviczky, and Mayor Bowler. Mr. Pickel responded to Council questions concerning the placement of the plaques, including two memorial plaques. City Manager Burrell said he would like othat the plan o show the plan to the donors, and asked for an enlargement of the plan. It was suggested also include a person for scale. It was requested that drawings be prepared showing the design features that had been discussed and that all of the proposed materials be durable and graffiti -proof. A majority of the Council expressed no interest in a. suggestion to eliminate the proposed planters at the base of the Plaza. J\ lifeguard representative said their tallest vehicle was 7 feet 7 inches in height and expressed concern about potentially losing a parking place. He said they were trying to keep their facility more of a compound area, with a small ramp leading to their door, but without access to their rooftop and ledges. http://www.hermosabch. org/ccm13001.htm • a. DATES FOR SPECIAL MEETINGS: PIER DESIGN REVIEW, MARCH 5, 2001 AND JOINT MEETING WITH PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION, MAY 29. 2001. Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated February 6, 2001. City Manager Burrell suggested changing the Pier Design Review meeting date to March 15 since one Councilmember and the City Clerk were unable to attend on March 5. Action: By Council consensus, the meeting dates of Thursday, March 15, 2001 at 7:10 P.M. for Pier Design Review, and Tuesday, May 29, 2001 at 7:10 P.M. for a joint meeting with the Public Works Commission, were approved. City Manager Burrell reported that he had received a request today for a joint meeting with the School Board on Monday, February 26. It was suggested that the meeting take place at 7:30 P.M. upstairs at Einstein's Restaurant. City Manager Burrell said he would confirm that meeting with the Council next week. 12. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL a. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS. Memorandum from City. Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated January 25, 2001. Action: Mayor Bowler directed, with the consensus of the Council, that the list of City Council committee assignments as presented this evening be maintained with no changes. 13. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL a. Request from Councilwoman Oakes for allocation of funds to build model towers on the Pier. Councilmember Oakes spoke to her letter. City Manager Burrell responded to Council questions. Action: To bring back as an agenda item at the next meeting, with a report from staff on costs. Motion Oakes, second Edgerton. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. ANNOUNCEMENT IN OPEN SESSION OF ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED IN CLOSED SESSION AS FOLLOWS: City Council Minutes 02-13-01 Page 10457 • Motion Oakes, second Edgerton. The motion died when the second was withdrawn. 1 Action: To direct staff to reject all bids and to return to Council with more specific issues for a new RFP. Motion Edgerton, second Oakes. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. 7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER a. SPECIAL MEETING TO CONSIDER PHASE III PIER IMPROVEMENTS. Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated February 22, 2001: City Manager Burrell presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Action: The consensus of the Council was to set the date of March 26, 2001, at the hour of 7:10 P.M. for the meeting to discuss the final design of the Pier Improvements. 8. 1 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL - None 9. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL - None ANNOUNCEMENT IN OPEN SESSION OF ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED IN CLOSED SESSION AS FOLLOWS: 1. MINUTES: Approval of minutes of Closed Session meeting held on February 13, 2001. 2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: 11th Street and The Strand Longfellow Avenue and The Strand Negotiating Parties: Stephen Burrell TyCom Under Negotiation: Price & Terms of Payment 3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - The City Council finds, based on advice from legal counsel, that discussion in open session will prejudice the position of the City in the litigation. Existing Litigation: Government Code Section 54956.9(a) City Council Minutes 02-27-01 Page 10470 City of Hermosa Beach rage 1 of 4 • • MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on.Monday, March 26, 2001, at the hour of 7:18 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Pete Tucker ROLL CALL: ,Present: Dunbabin, Edgerton, Oakes, Reviczky, Mayor Bowler Absent: None Also present were: Steve Burrell, City Manager Mary Rooney, Community Resources Director Harold Williams, Public Works Director/City Engineer Mike Flaherty, Public Works Superintendent Tristan Malabanan, Assistant Engineer Bob Moore, Lifeguard Section Chief Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk PIER RENOVATION - PHASE III WORKSHOP Public Works Director Williams said this workshop was a follow- up to the January 30 meeting and that Purkiss Rose -RSI consultant' Jim Pickel and building architect Ron Yeo would make the presentation. Mr. Pickel noted the tower mock-ups had been installed. He also suggested changing the order of some of the agenda items. 1. REPORT ON SQUARE FOOTAGE COST FOR THE BLACK TERRAZZO PAVING FOR THE PROPOSED WALK ZONE BETWEEN 10TH AND 14TH STREETS, OR 11TH AND 13TH STREETS. Mr. Pickel said he was quoted a price of $13 per square foot t to repave a Strand walk zone with the same colored concrete used for the Pier Plaza and, based on that figure, the paving costs would be: $107,250 for the area from 11th Street to 13th Street; $214,500 for the area from 10th Street to 14th Street; and $30,000 for the frontage area only. Noting that the price was based on the 8 -inch profile and epoxy -coated steel used in the Plaza area, he said perhaps a 6 -inch slab with steel would suffice the vehicle Toad on the Strand, and requested for review purposes a copy of the geotechnical work done by the City that set the standard at 8 inches. http://www.hermosabch.org/ccm32601.htm . City of Hermosa Beach Page 2 of 4 • It was the Council consensus to match what is used on the Strand, at least at the base of the Plaza, to the black concrete ,that exists on the Plaza. Further Council discussion ensued, and suggestions included getting quotes for the black concrete from other sources or using a 4- inch standard base with four inches of colored concrete on top to reduce the cost. It was the consensus of the Council to have the consultant return with information on costs and alternatives regarding materials and locations, including the possibility of using black colored concrete in the area between the restroom and the end of the Pierremodel and standard gray concrete from the edge of the restroom to 10th Street and from the edge of the construction area to 15th Street. 2. COSTS FOR A SIMPLE MODEL AND A COMPLETE MODEL. Mr. Pickel presented the costs quoted for the models, citing a cost of $12,020 for a study model and $17,100 for a presentation model. It was the consensus of the Council to not pursue either model due to their high cost, and to put the money instead toward construction costs. • - Mr. Pickel and Mr. Yeo responded to Council questions concerning the proposed towers, noting an outside measurement at the base of each tower at 11.5 by 11.5 feet. In response to concerns about sand blowing onto the Strand, Mr. Pickel said they would add a sand wall along the western edge of the parking pad, but suggested locating the wall in the sand, off -set from the edge of the paving, in the area where it would meet other design elements. 3. REVIEW OPTIONS FOR STAIRS INSTEAD OF THE OPTIONAL HANDICAP RAMP AND ALSO REPORT ON COST. Mr. Pickel reviewed the proposal to extend the lifeguard building 4.5 feet south to accommodate a stairway, noting an additional construction cost of $17,000 to do so. It was the consensus of the Council to approve the construction of a staircase at $17,000 instead of the optional handicap ramp. The meeting recessed at 8:55 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:15 P.M. 4. PREPARE DRAWINGS SHOWING DESIGN FEATURES WITH PROPOSED http://www.hermosabch.org/ccm32601.htm City of Hermosa Beach Page 3 of 4 • MATERIALS MATERIALSAMPLES. Supplemental letter from Ron Pizer received March 26, 2001, concerning the two pier entrance towers. Mr. Yeo presented the recommended materials for the proposed towers, which would house communications and electrical equipment. Discussion about the towers and their size ensued, and it was suggested that the tower mock-ups be kept in place for a week to allow adequate time for viewing and for public input. It was the consensus of the Council to postpone a decision on the proposed towers. Mr. Yeo reviewed the restroom proposal and discussed the various materials proposed, _noting that wooden doorscost more but metal doors rust out in four years and require replacement. He said the louvers in the doors would provide needed cross ventilation. There was a general Council consensus (Dunbabin dissenting) to use the proposed wood doors for the restroom and stay with the color and material palate proposed. The meeting recessed at 10:30 P.M. to allow a review of the materials on display. The meeting reconvened at 10:40 P.M. Mr. Pickel presented the proposed non- slip porcelain tiles and interlocking pavers in various colors. Action: To direct staff to schedule a Council workshop to discuss the entire design cohcept. Motion Mayor Bowler, second Oakes. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. 5. OTHER PROJECT RELATED ITEM - None CITIZEN COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT - The Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach adjourned on Monday, March 26, 2001, at the hour of 11:28 P.M. to the Regular Meeting of Tuesday, March 27, 2001, at the hour of 7:10 P.M. Home Page Agenda http://www.hermosabch.org/ccm32601.htm City ofHermosa Beach • • http ://www.hermosabch. org/ccm326O 1 .htm rage 4 OT 4 City Council Minutes September 24, 2001 - Hermosa Beach rage 1 or s • • HOMEPAGE CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Monday, September 24, 2001, at the hour of 7:13 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - John Hales ROLL CALL: Present: Dunbabin, Edgerton, Oakes, Reviczky, Mayor Bowler Absent: None Also present were: Steve Burrell, City Manager Mary Rooney, Community Resources Director Harold Williams, Public Works Director/City Engineer Tristan Malabanan, Assistant Engineer Michael Flaherty, Public Works Supervisor Bob Moore, Lifeguard Section Chief Tracy Lizotte, Lifeguard Captain Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk Mayor Bowler said the purpose of the meeting was to select the final design for Phase III of the Municipal Pier project, which encompasses the area from the Strand up to the gated area on the Pier, including the Lifeguard Station and associated buildings as well as the restroom building. CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATE DESIGN SOLUTIONS - HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL PIER, PHASE III Public Works Director Williams said this evening there would be an oral presentation by the design team for Council's consideration of the design alternatives which were on display. Jim Pickel, Purkiss Rose -RSI consultant, said the design program of the project was unchanged and still provided a plaza area with lighting, seating, pedestrian and vehicular access to the pier; a new women's lifeguard building attached to the existing lifeguard headquarter structure; an upper deck area with a parking structure below and a watercraft structure for the lifeguards; and a restroom facility just to the south of the project area, which lies between the end of Pier Avenue and the west side of the Strand. He said the changes included the layout of the hardscape patterns, the removal of the 18 -wheel trailer area just north of the plaza area, the rotation of the restroom facility to place the showers on the west side, and the building redesign and relocation of the communication and electrical room, now shown above the flood plain at the terminus of the handicap ramp landing. He then presented the five design concepts for the plaza http ://www. hermo s ab ch. orgicca10-23-01/cc09-24-01m.html April 2, 2002 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of April 9, 2002 APPOINTMENTS TO SOUTH BAY WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARD Recommendation: That the City Council appoint John Workman to serve as a Board member for the term of July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003 and Janice Web, Vice -President of Cal Fed Bank to serve as a Board member for the term of July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2004. Background: The South Bay Workforce Investment Board is made of representatives from participating cities, including Hermosa Beach. As a federal program that assists in providing training and jobs for area residents, its board members are nominated by the Chamber of Commerce (see attached letter) and appointed by the City Council. Respectfully submitted, phen ' .: urrell City Manager 7a r I • • HERMOSA BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND VISITORS BUREAU April 1, 2002 APR 0 ? 2002 Mayor and City Council City of Hermosa Beach Dear Honorable Mayor Dunbabin and Council: On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau, please accept the nomination of the following individuals to be appointed to serve on the South Bay Workforce Investment Board as representatives of Hermosa Beach private sector business: Seat 7 John Workman to serve as a Board member for the term of July 1, 2002 Through June 30, 2003. Seat 22 Janice Webb, Vice President, Cal Fed Bank, to serve as a Board member For the term of July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2004. Thank you for your acceptance of this nomination. Sincerely, Carla Merriman Executive Director Cc: Jan Vogel, Executive Director South Bay Workforce Investment Board 11539 Hawthorne Blvd. Suite 500 Hawthorne, CA 90250 1007 Hermosa Avenue • Hermosa Beach, California 90254 • (310) 376-0951 • FAX (310) 798-2594 4 • April 2, 2002 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council • 'wSe'-P,t-4''z— OA- Regular Meeting of April 9, 2002 AB2863 — HOUSING ELEMENT REFORM — PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING ELEMENT INTRODUCED AT REQUEST OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES AND CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES Recommendation: That the City Council consider taking a position of support on AB2863 which is the initial vehicle for a potential comprehensive housing element reform. Background: This legislation is in response to SB910 (Dunn), which was considered last year, which the City Council opposed. The approach being taken by the League of California Cities et al is to work to develop a comprehensive reform measure that will be workable for cities and counties. Last year's SB910 was filled with fines and penalties and threatened withholding of gas tax funds for cities and counties that did not meet the state interpretation of the law or its implementation. The bill is attached pursuant to your direction from the last meeting. Respectfully submitted, ep en R. Burrell City Manager 7b • • CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE -2001-02 REGULAR SESSION ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2863 Introduced by Assembly Members Longville and Thomson (Principal coauthor: Senator Speier) (Coauthor: Assembly Member Daucher) February 25, 2002 An act to amend Sections 65580 and 65582 of the Government Code, relating to land use. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 2863, as introduced, Longville. Land use: housing element. The Planning and Zoning Law requires a city or county to adopt a general plan for land use development that includes, among other things, a housing element. It also requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to determine the regional share of the statewide housing need, as specified, and for each council of governments to determine the existing and projected housing need for its region. Existing law includes various findings and declarations regarding the cooperative participation of government at all levels and the private sector to accomodate the housing needs of California. This bill would define residential unit and substantial compliance for purposes of the housing element requirements. This bill would make additional findings and declarations regarding regional housing needs.. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State -mandated local program: no. 99 P • • AB 2863 — 2 — The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 1 SECTION 1. It is the intent of the Legislature to enact 2 legislation that would do all of the following regarding the 3 development and adoption of local housing elements: 4 (a) Address issues involving the development of regional 5 housing need projections. 6 (b) Resolve issues and problems associated with the 7 distribution of regional housing needs within a council of 8 governments. 9 (c) Clarify and improve the housing element review process. 10 (d) Develop a neutral dispute resolution process and fair 11 enforcement alternatives to deal with disputes over questions of 12 compliance. 13 (e) Develop fiscal tools and incentives to assist local 14 governments in their efforts to encourage housing and finance the 15 infrastructure to support housing, as well as establish an ongoing 16 state commitment to funding affordable housing. 17 (f) Require state laws and policies that affect housing and land 18 use to be internally consistent. 19 (g) Establish additional legal protections to local agencies that 20 approve affordable housing and that establish local proactive 21 affordable housing policies. 22 SEC. 2. Section 65580 of the Government Code is amended 23 to read: 24 65580. The Legislature finds and declares as follows: 25 (a) The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, 26 and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living 27 environment for every Californian, including farmworkers, is a 28 priority of the highest order. 29 (b) The early attainment of this goal requires the cooperative 30 participation of government and the private sector in aneffortto 31 expand housing opportunities and accommodate the housing 32 needs of Californians of all economic levels. 33 (c) The early attainment of this goal also requires the 34 cooperative participation of government, and includes the 35 establishment of stable revenue sources for local governments, as 36 well as protection for their existing revenues, to ensure that local 37 governments have sufficient revenues to develop and maintain 38 infrastructure as well as provide needed police, fire, sanitation, 99 P -3— • AB 2863 1 water, parks, libraries and other services to both existing and 2 future residents. In addition, the early attainment of this goal 3 requires the necessary commitment of sufficient funding by the 4 state to support the development of housing that is affordable to 5 persons of low- and moderate -income housing, where the need for 6 housing exceeds the capacity of the private market acting alone, 7 and federal or local available housing resources, programs and 8 policies, to expand housing opportunities and accommodate the 9 housing needs of Californians of all economic levels. 10 (d) The provision of housing affordable to low- and 11 moderate -income households requires the cooperation of all levels 12 of government. 13 (4)- 14 )-14 (e) Local and state governments have a responsibility to use the 15 powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and 16 development of housing to make adequate provision for the 17 housing needs of all economic segments of the community. 18 (e)- 19 (0 The allocation of regional housing needs to local 20 governments is based upon projections developed for local 21 planning purposes, and represents the reasonably anticipated 22 projected demand for housing within a region based upon 23 projected population increases during the planning period. 24 (g) The Legislature recognizes, however, that regional housing 25 needs established for these planning purposes may not equal futum 26 housing production within the jurisdiction of a local government 27 or a region, due to many factors that affect housing production, 28 including: local economies, market demand, land supplies, 29 availability of adequate public infrastructure, availability of 30 public subsidies necessary to construct low and very low income 31 housing, and other factors. 32 (h) The Legislature recognizes that in carrying out this 33 responsibility, each local government also has the responsibility to 34 consider economic, environmental, and fiscal factors and 35 community goals set forth in the general plan and to cooperate with 36 other local governments and the state in addressing regional 37 housing needs. 38 (i) The Legislature also recognizes that housing for low- and 39 very low income households is difficult to develop without 40 adequate public subsidies necessary to bridge the difference 99 P • • AB 2863 — 4 — 1 between costs of land and construction and household income, and 2 that the private market acting alone, and federal or local available 3 housing resources, programs, and policies lack sufficient 4 resources to meet the statewide need. This makes it necessary for 5 the state to allocate significant permanent levels of funding to 6 address this ongoing disparity between income levels and land and 7 construction costs. 8 SEC. 3. Section 65582 of the Government Code is amended 9 to read: 10 65582. As used in this article: 11 (a) "Community," "locality," "local government," or 12 "jurisdiction" means a city, city and county, or county. 13 (b) "Council of governments" means a single or multicounty 14 council created by a joint powers agreement pursuant to Chapter 15 5 (commencing with Section 6500) of Division 1 of Title 1. 16 (c) "Department" means the Department of Housing and 17 Community Development. 18 (d) "Housing element" or "element" means the housing 19 element of the community's general plan, as required pursuant to 20 this article and subdivision (c) of Section 65302. 21 (e) "Low- and moderate -income households" means persons 22 and families of low or moderate incomes as defined by Section 23 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. 24 (P "Residential unit " shall include, but is not limited to, any of 25 the following: 26 (1) A house, an apartment, a congregate care or shared 27 housing facility consisting of a group of rooms, or a single room, 28 occupied as separate living quarters. Each separate living 29 quarters shall be considered as a separate housing unit. Separate 30 living quarters are those in which the occupants live separately 31 from any other person in the building and have direct access from 32 the outside of the building or through a common hall, without 33 regard to the type of dining facilities available. 34 (2) An independent living senior housing facility. 35 (3) A second unit, including a second unit that was originally 36 constructed without required local permits, but has been 37 recognized by the local government as a legal housing unit. 38 (4) University or college faculty and student housing units. 39 (g) "Substantial compliance" means a local housing element 40 that at a minimum meets all of the following requirements: 99 P • — 5 — AB 2863 1 (1) Identifies adequate sites to accommodate identified 2 regional housing needs. 3 (2) Contains a local program designed to accomplish the local 4 government's quantified housing objectives. 5 (3) Contains a program designed to address and where 6 appropriate and legally possible remove constraints to the 7 maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. 0 99 P AB 2863 Assembly Bill - Stat. CURRENT BILL STATUS • MEASURE : A.B. No. 2863 AUTHOR(S) Longville and Thomson (Principal coauthor: Senator Spier) (Coauthor: Daucher). TOPIC Land use: housing element. HOUSE LOCATION ASM TYPE OF BILL : Active Non -Urgency Non -Appropriations Majority Vote Required Non -State -Mandated Local Program Non -Fiscal Non -Tax Levy LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 03/18/2002 LAST HIST. ACTION Referred to Com. on L. GOV. COMM. LOCATION ASM LOCAL GOVERNMENT HEARING DATE 04/24/2002 TITLE An act to amend Sections 65580 and 65582 of the Government Code, relating to land use. Page 1 of 1 http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2851-2900/ab_2863 bill_20020319_status.html 4/2/02 AB 2863 Assembly Bill - Hist* COMPLETE BILL HISTORY BILL NUMBER : A.B. No. 2863 AUTHOR : Longville TOPIC : Land use: housing element. TYPE OF BILL : Active Non -Urgency Non -Appropriations Majority Vote Required Non -State -Mandated Local Program Non -Fiscal Non -Tax Levy • Page 1 of 1 BILL HISTORY 2002 Mar. 18 Referred to Com. on L. GOV. Feb. 26 From printer. May be heard in committee March 28. Feb. 25 Joint Rule 54 (a) suspended. Assembly Rule 49(a) suspended. Read first time. To print. http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2851-2900/ab_2863 bill_20020318_history.html 4/2/02 i April 4, 2002 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council 46-0( Regular Meeting of April 9, 2002 PUBLIC INFORMATION CONCERNING THE CITY'S POSITION ON THE HEART OF THE CITY PLAN IN REDONDO BEACH Recommendation: That the City Council consider drafting a letter that expresses the City's concerns with the Heart of the City Plan. Background: The City Council has, on several occasions, expressed its concern about certain aspects of the Heart of the City Plan to the City of Redondo Beach. It might be useful for the City Council to draft a letter and distribute a letter to our residents and Redondo Beach residents expressing the same concerns. Staff will provide some additional information on the cost of such an effort at the meeting. Respec`lly submitted, Step en R. Burrell City Manager 7c r em 4020, Dear We have decided to bring a lawsuit challenging the Heart of the City plan recently approved by the Redondo Beach City Council. We respect the right of every city to set its own course. Ordinarily, we would not question our neighboring cities' local land use decisions. The Heart of the City plan is different because it is of regional size and significance, with profound implications for the surrounding area, particularly in regard to traffic. We do not believe that impacts of this project have been adequately evaluated or mitigated, or that the reasonable concerns of the Redondo Beach Unified School District, other South Bay cities and many residents of Redondo Beach have been given meaningful consideration. This is a long-range plan; there is no reason to rush into it. We do not take this step lightly. We have encouraged Redondo's leaders to reconsider their actions, and take a closer look at the project. Unless they do, we have no choice but to ask for review by the courts. If you have any questions about our decision, feel free to contact Hermosa Beach City Hall at (310) 318-0216. Sincerely, The Hermosa Beach City Council 110 • I r-- • • "Or LONGBOARD SURE 0214ThST S HAWAIIAN runny- HERNOSA BEAM CA ofloAa (pap diad 1960 * dietmosa 'l. • DOGS ...,..4s;j1)..1„141 .vt . If„,_____.'4'1414.1'' ' k 't.,`--• --........7,z- ,. ., j F711114'€ ',.•0',X"1.1: -ti' c'''''7.1.7.1.'7'is:i ..'W"'' ---t----.1'. ' l'5'''•-it*I'li1;:"A'.1.2:'..:*-. t';17:.'....e.strl ''.:. - ,.. . . .-.1. ' ''";1114"."'. r'0* -•.1 ' 1 :' A 1 'F'Z' 41 k` l'6' ' • '' i V" ` ,. '. V 1 A ,., k 11.4.. ,,, „.....•, ,,,„ , ..- ,11,..11. -0 104 • 4 ; ,rt • '• - 7. I*Zet •111'a' 4.t• ... , - , ti •- S '••1ta... - . 2 / 2 4— ir,,... I PROPOSAL ACM Dik'n LONGBOAE& WRS CONTEST & HAWAIIAN FESTIVAL HERMOSA sEACN, CA A California 501 (C) 3 Nonprofit Corporation #C2160371-EIN # 33-0862361 16410 Grevillea Ave. Lawndale, Ca. 90260 Ph. & Fax # (310) 371-5807 www.alohadays.org Email: aybarra@earthlink.net February 7, 2002 City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254 Honorable Mayor and Members of The Hermosa Beach City Council Chairman and Members of the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission Re: Request for approval of "Aloha Days" Sixth Annual Surf Contest & Hawaiian Festival. Dear Mayor, Aloha Days hopes to bring the recognition to Hermosa Beach it well deserves for once being the surfing Capital of Southern California during the 60's and 70's. Our mission is to preserve the surfing history and life style Hermosa once had. We hope that through this event we can still continue to raise funds for a surf museum in Hermosa Beach, as well as reunite the surfing community and provide a positive competitive spirit and teach the youth the respect and the love of surfing while encouraging family participation. Aloha Days is requesting approval for our Sixth Annual Aloha Days Surf Contest and Hawaiian Festival in Hermosa Beach, with a judged Surf Contest, Surfboat Rowing competition along with an Entertainment stage to be placed South of Hermosa Pier on the beach. South Pacific Arts & Crafts/Surf related items and Hawaiian food to be held on lower Pier Plaza and Pier Head. The Two -Day Event to be held on, August 10th & 11`x`, 2002. The interest expressed by the community, local business as well as the South Pacific Cultural Groups, Surf Clubs in California, East Coast, Hawaii and Australia is extremely positive. We are requesting approval for the following items: ➢ A Two -Day Event; Vendors and Festivities, August 10th & 11`h, 2002 ➢ Event setup Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. - Event teardown Monday from 7:00 a.m. to 12noon. > $2,000 Proposition "A" Transportation funds for shuttle bus services from Mira Costa H.S. to the event. (To help free up residential parking and traffic congestions). ➢ Billing for Police, Fire and Public Works services at actual hourly cost. ➢ Waiver fees: Daily permit, banner permit, amplification permit, parking and administration. ➢ Approve to utilize Parking lot (B) for our Entertainment Parking and roll off bin for trash. ➢ Approve to utilize Lower Pier Plaza, Pier Head and on the Beach South side of Pier From 6:00AM - 7:00PM. Both days. (See Layout) This Event has NO STREET CLOSURES. ➢ Longboard, Short board and Body board Contest just South of Hermosa Pier, Saturday & Sunday. ➢ Sixty-seven South Pacific/Surf and food vendor booths. (See layout) ➢ Entertainment stage all day on the beach just South of Hermosa Pier, Saturday and Sunday. > Surfboat rowing competition between the USA and Australia, Sunday at 2:30 p.m. South side of Pier. • • Page 2 Event Date: Event: Location: Information booth: Event setup & teardown: Vendor Setup/teardown: 0 Vendors: Food Vendors: Surf contest: Surfboat Rowing: Entertainment: Shuttle Busses: Insurance: Cleanliness: • Promotion: February 7, 2002 Event Outline August 10`x` & 11th, 2002 Aloha Days Surf Contest & Hawaiian Festival. Lower Pier Plaza, Pier Head and South side of Hermosa Pier on the Beach. An information booth will be setup at the South side of Pier Head. Entertainment stage and Contest stage will begin set up on Friday 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Teardown of the stages will begin on Monday 7:00 a.m. to 12 noon. Vendors will start arriving at 6:00 am for setup. Vendors will enter on to the Plaza from 1 1th street & Beach Dr. (see layout) Vendors will then be escorted onto Pier Plaza one at a time, to their vendor space by the Aloha Days staff. Vendors will then unload and escorted off Plaza out to Hermosa Ave. and the Strand. Most vendors will leave their canopies and product overnight. A few vendors will teardown; those will follow the same procedures as setting up. (Overnight security will be on site all night). Teardown will begin Saturday at 6:00 p.m. and end by 7:00 p.m. Sunday will start at 5:00 p.m. 60 South Pacific Arts & Crafts and Surf Related items, Saturday & Sunday. Open to the public at 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 4 Authentic Hawaiian food and Juice booths - 1 Popcorn booth - 1 Roasted Corn booth. Open to the public at 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Over 100 surf contestants from Southern California, Hawaii, East Coast and Australia. Contest will begin Saturday. 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (prelims) Sunday. 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (finals). International Surfboat Rowing Competition USA Vs Australia. Competition starts Sunday 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p m. Live entertainment Hawaiian, Tahitian, Polynesian and Samoa Dancing, along with live Music. Saturday. & Sunday. Start time 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Free to the public. Hermosa Beach Local Merchant Fashion Show. Sunday. Afternoon (tentative). Aloha Days will arrange to have free shuttle and parking at Mira Costa High School. Drop off and pick up will be at Hermosa Ave. & 1 1 th street. Start time 9:00a.m.to 6:00 p.m. on both Saturday. & Sunday. Aloha Days agrees will furnish to the City of Hermosa Beach evidence of $2 Million comprehensive general liability insurance. Aloha Days will arrange to have paid maintenance company to clean up during and after the event. Temporary trash receptacles will be placed through out the venue. Street Banners, local newspapers, Hawaiian newspapers, WebPages, and flyers throughout local and no -local businesses. LAYOUT • • Beach Event Layout Sixth Annual ALOHA DAYS August 10th & llth, 2002 Surf Contest Stage —� Non Selling Vendor Booths Entertainment Stage —, Dressing Room —► Bathrooms Strand Lifeguard Station Info. Booth - > 60- Arts & Craft booths t 0x10 o 6 - Food boothsl0x20 o 1 - ntormatbn booth • 3 - Beach Booths > Grand total = 70 booths ElE I „__- Food Booths Hennessey's Fish Market i m Beach Drive Beach Club LightHouse Shirt Tails Zippy's Pizza Treasurer Chest Patrick Molloy's Aloha Sharkeez Sangria Robert's Liquor B of A 201t. h1 2 3 4 6 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 4— Vendor Check-in D 23 24 25 r 26 27 28 rt l O 0 0 D 30 D 33 34 36 38 or -37 38 39 4--- 4 Beach Strand 25 ft. 4—Shuttle Drop off & Pick up Vendor Exit i 1 Hermosa Avenue H 01 15 18 17 18 19 20 i♦ O 60 49 48 47 48 45 44 43 42 41 fi Mermaid Poop Deck Good Stuff Beach Drive Cantina Real Pier Surf Lappert's Avanti Bakery Baccacio Beach Wear High Five USA 501 Levis Spyder Surf Brewski's Citi Bank Parking Lot "B" Entertainment Parking 1Roll off trash Bin 14 th Street 10th St. Lifeguard station ./ Strand • Beach Layout 1 Dressing room 1 Entertainment Stage 1 contest stage 3 Vendor booths c Surf Contest Check -In Entertainment Stage ��► Main Contest Stage Bathrooms .4L- (1) E o O) SP LI, co Dressing rooms LifeGuard Tower Information Booth Food Booths Strand • • BUSINESSES/LIFEGUARD APPROVAL ..• m... , _ Sixth Annual Aloha Days August 10th & 1161, 2002 Aloha Days invites all Hermosa Beach Businesses to take part in the two-day Surf contest & Hawaiian Festival. Your business name and signature is necessary to inform the Hermosa Beach City Council that you have been notified that there will be two-day event with vendor booths on the Plaza August 10th & 11th (Saturday & Sunday) from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Most of the vendors will leave their booths up overnight on Saturday, with paid security on site. Proceeds fro Zs event wi1J el�p estab tga SurrMusewn /MOs Beach, Aloha Days thanks you for your support! Name of Business Signature 40 ---------- RI 1. 4—% 0 1:-0v----i-;iti-- 7%.e. 5;t,„R Peirite 3 %,111VU it.' ir, _ +-7 41 ,i 4,, 15k mrir4 1.•, --A)247 /,, ' � yVc.?;rid /'" Z; 9 ' - /..�. %im , i.\ I ii. L . JJJJJJ � /19, lo S / 4n '<.6.-- iNI0Ae 1-- --: xgz?h r L id: 1.4-66L--- _—._,-,1— ill // r7 1 1 / rf / �.._�..-. / e 1 ✓ / L M _ C� `---^3 ._.... _ __...______ c / r.. 14420% PAY5 lot GeoAW SUN COMmmST i HAWAIIAN MUM NEMHOSA UACN, CA l�;+r�4.tfint,iii'#.fr[Y�k£H�ySrz^eM1�+•�'� c�E=vt,` Feb. 7, 02 LA. County Lifeguards Hermosa Beach Headquarters A California Nonprofit Corporation 501 (c) (3) #C2160371 E1N # 33-0862361 2104 Huntington Lane #D • Redondo Beach, CA. 90278 Phone & Fax (310) 372-0358 www.alohadays.org Emat�: aybarra@sarthlink.net '-iz 4fti3.41 uxr1:40 ,%7 t V-d,+,ww`:-::1 1 a.3isss3: To Whom It May Concern: Aloha Days is requesting approval for our Sixth Annual in Hermosa Beach, with a judged Longboard Surf Contest and Surfboat rowing competition to be held on the South side of Hermosa Pier, and a Hawaiian Festival to be held on lower Pier Plaza. The Two -Day Event to be held, August 10th & 11th, 2002. The interest expressed by the community, local business as well as the South Pacific Cultural Groups, Surf Clubs in Southern California, Hawaii and Australia is extremely positive. Aloha Days hopes to bring the recognition to Hermosa Beach it well deserves as being the surf capital of Southern California as well as preserving the surfing history. We hope that through this event we will reunite the surfing community and provide a positive competitive spirit and teach the youths the respect and the love of surfing while encouraging family participation. • Aloha Days is asking approval from the L.A. County Lifeguards to hold the Surf Contest and Surfboat rowing competition on the South Side of Hermosa Pier. The Aloha Days Corporation will pay for any cost from L.A. County Lifeguards for services that may occur during the event. Approved by, C&f 1.• irhje Signet • Date: 02va'-vy 2002 ESTIMATED EXPENSE/REVENUE 2001 EXPENSE/ REVENUE REPORT 2002 Estimated Expenses City of Hermosa Bch. H.B. Police, City Staff, Steam Cleaning Pier Head $3,800.00 Office supplies Paper, Ink, Envelopes, Tables, ect. Surf Contestants - 150 @ $30 $400.00 Printing Application, Flyers, Raffle tickets, Letters, ect. $425.00 Advertising Daily Breeze, Easy Reader, Beach Repoter $2,500.00 $1,200.00 Insurance Event Liability Sponsors $800.00 Entertainment South Pacific Dancers, Bands ???? $4,000.00 Secuity Parking, Event, Overnight security $5,000.00 $1,200.00 Postage Vendor/Surf Applications, Sponsorship, Bills Papa Johns Pizza $150.00 Trophies 72 Trophies 1st -6th Longboard/Short & Boogie board $600.00 T-shirts/Hats Event T-shirts/ Hats, Stickers - Cut cost $1000.00 $4,500.00 $3,500.00 PhotographyNideo Event Pictures, Video taping $400.00 Maintainance Event Clean-up, BFI Roll off, trash recepticals $41,200.00 $1,500.00 Phone/Fax Public Relations, Event Operations $725.00 Equip./Stage Generator, Stages, Sound, Sinks, Portable bathrooms, Decorations ect. $5,500.00 Street Banners (4) overhead street Banners (2) event (2) Comercial Estimated Operating budget 2003 $1,600.00 Webpage Domain name, Account, maintainance $9,000.00 $1,400.00 Sea Sprite Hotel accommodations $1,200.00 Miscellaneous paid Judges,Travel expenses, Gas Total Estimated Trust fund $800.00 Total $29,200.00 2002 Estimated Revenue Event Raffle, T-shirt/Hat Sticker sales - Incr, $1500 LY $1400 $2,900.00 Surf Contestants - 150 @ $30 $4,500.00 Vendors Booths - 62 @ $300 $18,600.00 Food Booths - 5 @ $500 $2,500.00 Total $28,500.00 Sponsors City of Hermosa Beach Sponsor & Prop A Funds ???? $5,000.00 So. Bay Toyota $5,000.00 Budwieser $2,000.00 Papa Johns Pizza $2,500.00 Quality Inn $1,000.00 Hawthorne Savings $1,000.00 Total $12,700.00 Estimated Total Revenue $41,200.00 Estimated Total Expenses $29,200.00 Difference $12,000.00 $2500 incr. *Note: $9,500.00 will be divided as follows Estimated Operating budget 2003 $3,000.00 <25%> 2002 Estimated Trust fund $9,000.00 <75%> 2001 Museum Trust Fund $6,650.00 2000 Museum Trust Fund $1,969.50 Total Estimated Trust fund $17,619.50 Trust Fund to date $8,619.50.1 • • • 2001 Expenses City of Hermosa Bch. H.B. Police, City Staff, Steam Cleaning Pier Head $3,800.00 Office supplies Paper, Ink, Envelopes, tables, ect. Surf Contestants - 150 @ $30 $400.00 Printing Application, Flyers, Raffle tickets, Letters, ect. $425.00 Advertising Daily Breeze, Easy Reader, Beach Repoter $2,500.00 $1,200.00 Insurance Event Liability Sponsors $800.00 Entertainment South Pacific Dancers, Bands -$3,800.00 $4,000.00 Secuity Parking, Event, Overnight security $5,000.00 $1,200.00 Postage Vendor/Surf Applications, Sponsorship, Bills Papa Johns Pizza $150.00 Trophies 72 Trophies 1st -6th Longboard/Short & Boogie board $600.00 T-shirts/Hats Event T-shirts/ Hats, Stickers $1,000.00 $4,500.00 PhotographyNideo Event Pictures, Video taping $400.00 Maintainance Event Clean-up, BFI Roll off, trash recepticals $39,700.00 $1,500.00 Phone/Fax Public Relations, Event Operations $725.00 Equip./Stage Generator, Stages, Sound, Sinks, Portable bathrooms, Decorations ect. $5,500.00 Street Banners (4) overhead street Banners (2) event (2) Comercial Operating budget 2002 $1,600.00 Webpage Domain name, Account, maintainance $6,650.00 $1,400.00 Sea Sprite Hotel accommodations $1,200.00 Miscellaneous paid Judges,Travel expenses, Gas $800.00 Total $30,200.00 2001 Revenue Event Raffle, T-shirt/Hat Sticker sales $1,400.00 Surf Contestants - 150 @ $30 $4,500.00 Vendors Booths - 62 @ $300 $18,600.00 Food Booths - 5 @ $500 $2,500.00 Total $27,000.00 Sponsors City of Hermosa Beach $5000.00 minus -$3,800.00 $1,200.00 So. Bay Toyota $5,000.00 Budwieser $2,000.00 Papa Johns Pizza $2,500.00 Quality Inn $1,000.00 Hawthorne Savings $1,000.00 Total $12,700.00 Total Revenue $39,700.00 Grand Total Expenses $30,200.00 Difference $9,500.00 *Note: $9,500.00 will be divided as follows Operating budget 2002 $2,850.00 <30%> 2001 Museum Trust Fund $6,650.00 <70%> 2000 Museum Trust Fund $1,969.50 Total Trust fund $8,619.50 VENDORS & SURF APPLICATION AGM PAW LONOROARD SEW CONTEST A HAWAIIAN MLSIWAI. NERVOSA BEACH, CA A California Nonprofit Corporation 601 (c) (3) #C2160371 EIN # 33-0862361 16410 Grevillea Ave. Lawndale, CA. 90260 Phone & Fax (310) 371-5807 www.alohadays.org - Email: aybarra@earthlink.net Two -Day Vendor Application ALOHA DAYS Saturday, August 10th & Sunday, August 1 1th2002 "Two -Day Event" The Aloha Days Committee is excited to invite you to the 6th Annual Aloha Days Longboard Surf Contest and Hawaiian Festival at the Hermosa Beach Pier, on Saturday, August 10th and Sunday, August 11th 2002. The Aloha Days Festival will be (2) days. All vendor booths will be left up overnight and Aloha Days will provide paid professional overnight security. If vendors choose to leave merchandise in the booths, there must be "side covering" for all (4) sides of the booth for total enclosure. There will be NO one -day vendor entries. Vendors must stay for the (2) days. Show times: Saturday - 9:OOam to 6:OOpm Sunday - 9:OOam to 5:OOpm Two-day Vendor Space Fee: $300.00. The Vendor Fee is for space only. Vendor space is on a first- come basis. Vendor space: 10x10. Vendors must supply own canopy, tables, chairs, etc. The Aloha Days Longboard Surf Contest and Hawaiian Festival is a fundraiser to build a Historical Surf Museum on the Hermosa Beach Pier. The Aloha Days Committee is committed to reuniting the surfing community, provide a positive competitive spirit and teach the youth of our community the respect and love of the sport of surfing while encouraging family "Ohana" participation. We believe it is time to reclaim our heritage and re-establish the "aloha spirit" in Hermosa Beach. We thank you for your support. Please complete & return the Vendor application on/or before July 27, 2002. The Vendor Confirmation will be sent out immediately with the vendor space number, area map and parking information. We will not accept any application after July 27, 2002. If you have any further questions, concerns or comments, please contact us @ (310) 371-5807 or e-mail aybarra@earthlink.net. Mahalo, Aloha Days 16410 Grevillea Ave. Lawndale, Ca. 90260 www.alohadays.org Two -Day Vendor Application 6th Annual Aloha Days Surf Contest & Hawaiian Festival Saturday - Sunday August 10th &11th 2002 Name: Bus. Name: Address: City State_ Zip Phone: Bus. Ph. Fax # E-mail address: California Resale # ** In order to eliminate duplication of Merchandise to be sold, please give a detailed description below: *****Evidence of liability insurance is required of each vendor for his or her business by the Insurance Company. (A Two Million Policy required by the City of Hermosa Beach and covers the streets, sidewalks, Beach venue, buildings and is paid for by Aloha Days Organization). Please attach a copy of your personal/Business liability insurance or list name of Insurance Company and Policy number If a vendor application is received and the proper information is not correct or there are any duplications of applicant, we will return your money and application within 10 working days of receipt. Our vendor booth space will be limited. Booth space is on a First come basis. (All Vendor booths must be decorated Islands/Surf style Theme). Will you be leaving your product in the booth overnight? Yes No Vendor fee is set for (2) days, No one -day entries. No Exceptions! Overnight security will be provided. $300 10X10 vendor space only # of spaces requested LATE FEE: $20.00 if not postmarked by July 27th, 2002 All Vendors must supply own canopy, tables, chairs, etc. @ $300 $ Late Fee $ Total $ All displays, booths and merchandise must be in good taste and appropriate for a family event Aloha Days reserve the right to refuse entry of any and/or all merchandise andlor vendor application. Clean up of the booth area is the responsibility of the vendor. ALL vendor booths must be set up no later than 8:30a.m. The event opens to the public at 9:OOam I have read this application completely. I understand, and agree to pay and hereby submit the fees and requirements requested to process this application. I understand that Aloha Days has the right not to accept my application and if so, I will be notified in writing and the application fee of the amount listed above will be refunded. If I accept, I will participate at my own risk and hold the City of Hermosa Beach or Aloha Days, or any of its agents, or representatives harmless of injuries, loss, damages or death. Signature: Date: IPPrint name: Make Cashiers Check or Money Order payable to: "Aloha Days" with application to: ALOHA DAYS -16410 Grevillea Ave. Lawndale, CA 90260 • • • Two -Day Food Vendor Application 6th Annual Aloha Days Longboard Surf Contest & Hawaiian Festival Saturday - Sunday August 10th &llt" 2002 Name: Bus. Name: Address: City State_ Zip Phone: Bus. Ph. Fax # E-mail address: California Resale # ** To eliminate duplication of Food products to be sold, please give a detailed description below: *****Evidence of liability insurance is required of each vendor for his or her business by the Insurance Company. (A Two Million Policy required by the City of Hermosa Beach and covers the streets, sidewalks, Beach venue, buildings and is paid for by Aloha Days Organization). Please attach a copy of your personal/Business liability insurance or list name of Insurance Company and Policy number If a food vendor application is received and there are duplications, we will return your money and application within 10 working days of receipt. Our vendor booth space will be limited. Booth space is on a First come basis. All Vendor booths must be decorated Islands/Surf style Theme. Vendor fee is set for (2) days, No one -day entries. No Exceptions! Ovemight security will be provided. $575 10X20 vendor space only # of spaces requested @ $ 575 $ $110 Temporary Event Food 1 Beverage Stands Application Fee (Health Department). $110 $ LATE FEE: $20 if not postmarked by July 27, 2002 Late Fee $ Total $ All food vendors must complete the attached application for the Department of Health Services. Please return application & Cashiers Check or Money Order payable To: Aloha Days All displays, booths and merchandise must be in good taste and appropriate for a family event Aloha Days reserve the right to refuse entry of any andlor all merchandise and/or vendor application. Clean up of the booth area is the responsibility of the vendor. ALL vendor booths must be set up no later than 8:30a.m. The event opens to the public at 9:OOam I have read this application completely. I understand, and agree to pay and hereby submit the fees required to process this application. I understand that Aloha Days has the right not to accept my application and if so, I will be notified in writing and the application fee of the amount listed above will be refunded. If I accept, I will participate at my own risk and hold the City of Hermosa Beach or Aloha Days, or any of its agents, or representatives harmless of injuries, loss, damage or death. Signature: Date: Print name: Make Cashiers Check or Money Order payable to: "Aloha Days" Mail with application to ALOHA DAYS 16410 Grevillea Ave. Lawndale, CA 90260 Location Divisions Entry Fees Check-in time Awards Entry Deadline IT, General Info. Event Schedule SURF CONTEST & HAWAIIAN FESTIVAL A California 501 (C) 3 Non-profit Corporation www.alohadays.org - Email: aybarra@earthlink.net AUGUST 10TH & 11TH @ The Hermosa Beach Pier SURF APPLICATION - No Phone Entries South of Hermosa Pier - Hermosa Beach (Sat. prelims — Sun. finals) This contest is open to all Men & Women surfers of Amateur status. Longboards must measure 9 feet long or 3 feet overhead. All contestants receives goodie bag + Event T-shirt. Longi oard$ - Keiki 17'& Under =Jr. — 18 30.*.,Men's 31-45 *',Masters 46+ , Buffalo 225 ibs *,`Women Open Ali Ages Nohoai7d. length. Shortboards — Keiki 17 & Under * Open All Ages Bodyboards — Open. All Ages. E $35 per contestant — Keiki 17A under set at $25 (entry feeds non-refundable). Beach entries welcome based on space availability only. Make`checks payable to: Aloha Days 16410 Grevillea Ave.'Lawndale, Ca: 90260 Contest begins at 7:OOAM sharp. All -contestants must check-in at 6:30AM. is , 2nd & 3rd will receive trophies, 4th, 5th & 6th receives plaques:. Monday August 5"', 2002: 'Mail entry form to address listed above. Aloha Days is a 501 (c) 3 Non-profit Corporation. The purpose behind this event is to give respect and:recognit on to those legendary surfers. who have brought surfing 'where it is Saturday, August 10th Y: 7:00am. Longboard, Shortboard & Bodyboard Contest (Preliminaries). 9:00a.m. Festival Free to public over 70 South Pacific & Surf Arts & Craft vendor booths, Hawaiian food. 11:00a.m. - 5:OOp.m. - Opening Ceremony — Beach Stage / South of Pier. Chanters, Hawaiian, Tahitian, Polynesian dancers, live Hawaiian bands. 11:00a.m. Tribute to South Bay's Legendary Surfer Bill Ray James Sunday, August llth 7:00a.m. — 3:00PM.Longboard, Shortboard & Bodyboard Contest (Simi/Finals) 9:OOam. Festival Free to public over 70 South Pacific & Surf Arts & Craft vendor booths, Hawaiian food. 12:00 Noon Main Stage: Fashion Show / Summer -Beach wear / Hermosa Beach Merchants 2:OOp.m. Surf Boat Rowers Australian vs. USA South of Pier 3:30p.m. Surf Award Ceremony 4:30p.m. 6:OOP.M. Live Surf Band Sponsors: South Bay Toyota - Papa Johns Pizza - City of Hermosa Beach Quality Inn Suites — Hawthorne Savings - E.T. Just LongBoards Aloha Days 2002 Surf Entry Form • Name: Age as of 8/10/02 Address: City: State: Zip: Ph.: Email: Name of Club? • • Adult T-shirt size: XXL XL L M S Class: Longboard Shortboard Bodyboard (Add $10.00 to entry fee if entering more than one class). $35 per contestant — Keiki 17 & under set at $25 Longboard Division: Keiki 17 & Under Jr. 18-30 Men 31-45 Masters 46+ Buffalo 225 Lbs.+ Women Open all ages (Note: Women's Longboard & Shortboard may be combined do to entries) Shortboard Division: Keiki 17 & under Open all ages Bodyboard Division: Open all ages No Refunds - No Phone Entries - Contest Rules will be posted on-site Waiver In -consideration for permission to participate in the surfmg activities on the above date, I RELEASE AND DISCHARGE THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, the State of California, the City of Hermosa Beach, Aloha Days Committee and their respective elected and appointed officials, agents and employees (herein referred to as "the release parties) from any and all liability, claims, rights or causes of action that I or my executor, administrator, conservator, other legal representative, beneficiaries, heirs or assigns may have for my death, and/or any injuries or damage occurring to me arising out of my surfing activities on the above dates, and more specifically my use of the premises as a surfing location, included but not limited to loses CAUSED BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF RELEASE PARTIES AND/OR THE CONDITIONS OF THE PREMISES. I AGREE THAT I WILL NOT SUE OR MAKE CLAIM (INITIAL HERE: ). I HAVE READ THIS ENTIRE AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF MY LIABILITY, I FULLY UNDERSTAND ITS CONTENTS AND MEANING, AND I HAVE INITIALED AND SIGNED IT OF MY OWN FREE WILL ON MY BEHALF (and if applicable, as a parent/legal guardian on behalf of , a participation under 18 years of age). Sign: Guardian signature (if under 18): Print Name: Guardian Print Name: Date: Make check payable to: Aloha Days —16410 Grevillea Ave. Lawndale, Ca. 90260