HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/14/02)1 o -La( 4/ t)Ati a)zS
"Good habits are as easy to form as bad ones." - Tim McCarver
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 14, 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.
0)uk3 u31A,
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
1
PROCLAMATIONS
NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK
MAY 19-25, 2002
CLOSED SESSION REPORT FOR MEETING OF APRIL 23, 2002: NO
REPORTABLE ACTIONS.
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. Letter from Roger Bacon requesting permission to discuss with Purkiss-
Rose the Surfers' Walk of Fame.
b. Letter from Matthew Cruse requesting the reconsideration of the
neighborhood watch program.
c. Letter from Neil Robertson requesting information on action taken and
number of citations issued for vehicle code noise violations.
2
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 approve the following minutes:
1) Minutes of the Regular meeting held on April 9, 2002; and,
2) Minutes of the Regular meeting held on April 23, 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 April 17, 2002.
(e) Recommendation to adopt resolutions approving the Engineer's Report for
Hermosa Beach Landscaping & Street Lighting District 2002-2003
("District") made pursuant to the requirements of Resolution No. 02-6189
and declaring the City Council's intention to order certain improvements
and to levy and collect assessments within the District for the fiscal year
beginning July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003; and setting June 11, 2002, to
accept public input on the matter of the proposed assessment. Memorandum
from Public Works Director Harold Williams dated April 22, 2002.
(f) Recommendation to award the purchase of fifty-five (55) Hubbell Sportsliter
SLS Series Fixtures Type A and B to Morgan Wholesale Electric of Downey,
California in the amount of $18,653.10 and authorize staff to issue the
appropriate purchase documents. Memorandum from Public Works Director
Harold Williams dated May 7, 2002.
(g)
Recommendation to accept the work by Damon Construction Co. for Project
No. CIP 01-168 — Manhattan Avenue Street Improvements; authorize the
Manor to sign the Notice of Completion; and, authorize staff to release
payment to Damon Construction Co. (10% retained for 35 days following
filing of Notice of Completion). Memorandum from Public Works Director
Harold Williams dated May 2, 2002.
(h) Recommendation to receive and file the Quarterly Report on Workers'
Compensation. Memorandum from Personnel Director/Risk Manager Michael
Earl dated May 8, 2002.
3
(i)
Recommendation to deny the following claims and refer them to the City's
Liability Claims Administrator. Memorandum from Personnel Director/Risk
Manager Michael Earl dated May 7, 2002.
Claimant: Jean McGreevy
Date of Loss: 04-28-02
Date Filed: 05-01-02
Claimant: Alicia Bues, Ernesto Bues
Date of Loss: 11-17-01
Date Filed: 05-02-02
(i) Recommendation to approve a pole banner program to advertise the Public
Works Commission's new "Be Street Smart Hermosa" Program to coincide
with advertising banners for Mervyn's Beach Bash and Mervyn's California.
Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated
May 6, 2002.
(k) Recommendation to accept the final sewer engineering report completed by
Berryman & Henigar; award Professional Services Agreement to Berryman
& Henigar to provide design and engineering services for Project No.
CIP 00-411 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation/Reconstruction — Target Area 1
for $81,666; authorize the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest the
agreement subject to approval by the City Attorney; appropriate $60,395 in
the 160 Sewer Fund for Project No. CIP 00-411; and, authorize the Director
of Public Works to make changes to the agreement up to $8,166.
Memorandum from Public Works Director Harold Williams dated May 1, 2002.
3. CONSENT ORDINANCES
a. ORDINANCE NO. 02-1219 — "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REGARDING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND
AMENDING THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE.
For adoption. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated
April 29, 2002.
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.
NONE
4
6. MUNICIPAL MATTERS
a. DEPLOYMENT OF POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT
PERSONNEL FOR THE FOURTH OF JULY HOLIDAY.
Memorandum from Police Chief Michael Lavin dated May 6, 2002.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Receive and file the following report on the planning and
preparations regarding the deployment of police and fire personnel
on the Fourth of July holiday, 2002; and,
2. Consider adoption of an ordinance prohibiting parties advertised to
the general public and amending the Hermosa Beach Municipal
Code.
b. REQUEST FOR SPEED HUMPS ON HILLCREST DRIVE
BETWEEN 18TH STREET AND 21ST STREET. Memorandum from
Public Works Director Harold Williams dated May 6, 2002.
RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to star
c. INSTALLATION OF SIGNS ON VALLEY PARK AVENUE SOUTH
OF 20TH STREET TO WARN MOTORISTS ABOUT AN AUTISTIC
CHILD. Memorandum from Public Works Director Harold Williams
dated May 6, 2002.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Approve the recommendation of the Public Works Commission to
approve the installation of "Autistic Child" warning signs at Valley
Park Avenue and 20th Street; or,
2. Approve the recommendation of staff to deny the request to install
"Autistic Child" warnings signs at Valley Park Avenue and 20th
Street.
d. EXEMPTION REQUEST FOR AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
BY THE PROPERTY OWNER AT 1543 GOLDEN AVENUE.
Memorandum from Public Works Director Harold Williams dated
May 8, 2002.
RECOMMENDATION: Order the property owner of 1543 Golden
Avenue, Mr. Bob Lininger, to apply for an encroachment permit.
5
e. NORTHEAST HERMOSA BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY.
Memorandum from Public Works Director Harold Williams dated
May 6, 2002. Supplemental letter/petition from Darlene Blaney dated
May 9, 2002.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Review the results of the traffic study conducted by Katz, Okitsu &
Associates;
2. Receive input from staff and the public.
3. Provide direction to staff regarding the implementation of
neighborhood traffic calming measures; and,
4. Postpone any decisions regarding the use of such measures until the
Skechers building is complete.
f. REVIEW OF RECYCLING PROGRAM; PUBLIC RECYCLING
AND TRASH CANS; ALTERNATIVE REFUSE BILLING
PROCEDURE; AND ACCEPT RECOMMENDATION TO
CONTINUE THE MANUAL COLLECTION SYSTEM UNDER
THE AGREEMENT WITH CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL
SERVICE. Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated
May 8, 2002.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That the City Council review and approve the 32 gallon recycling
containers and informational materials;
2. That the City Council approve placement of public recycling and
new trash cans throughout the City;
3. That the City Council direct staff to report back on a home
composting program in corporation with another jurisdiction;
4. That the City Council approve new procedure for Alternative billing
procedures and direct staff to return with a amendment to the
municipal code; and,
5. That the City Council accept the staff recommendation to continue
the manual collection system.
6
7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER
a. SPECIAL MEETING FOR DISCUSSION OF ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT —
THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 2002. Memorandum from City Manager
Stephen Burrell dated April 24, 2002.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council set a special meeting to
discuss the report and provide opportunity for members of the public and
the committee to comment on the report.
b. LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN'S
REQUEST FOR $750,000 FOR THE SOUTH BAY I-405 ARTERIAL
IMPROVEMENTS. Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated
May 9, 2002.
RECOMMENDATION: Consider sending letter of support for the
subject funding.
c. NO BICYCLE RIDING "A" FRAME SIGNS ON THE STRAND.
Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated May 2, 2002.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the use of No Bicycle Riding "A"
frame signs on the Strand at 13th Court and 11th Street placed in the middle
of the Strand.
8. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL
a. VACANCIES — BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
UPCOMING EXPIRATION OF TERMS. Memorandum from City
Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated May 6, 2002.
RECOMMENDATION: Direct the City Clerk to immediately advertise
and request applications from interested parties for one Civil Service Board
term that will expire July 15, 2002, with appointment to be made at the
regular Council meeting of July 9, 2002.
7
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. - " ,
a. Request from Councilmember Yoon to consider changing the timing on the
Aviation and Prospect intersection to limit the left turn movement onto
southbound Prospect during commute hours. Letter from Tim
Podczerviensky dated March 11, 2002. (Continued from meeting of
April 23, 2002)
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 April 23, 2002.
2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: 710 Pier Avenue
Negotiating Parties: City of Hermosa Beach and AT&T Compass Telecom
Under Negotiation: Lease and 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)
a. Name of Case: City of Hermosa Beach v. City of Redondo Beach
Case Number: BS075570
Anticipated Litigation: Government Code Section 54956.9(b)
b. Number of potential cases: 1
ADJOURNMENT
8
A
IS'
A
Totally
SoB
New
Different
yYouth
Sponsored
Puppet
Puppet
C
E(,:t(
Theatre
by
tat
Theatre
Show Performed
Series
the Hermosa
Series for
the Last Saturday
Producer—Maggie
the
Guild
Young
of the
Austin
Arts
Foundation
or
Month—Every
Moir
Presents
Still
Young
Month
at
Through
Heart
March
2003
Saturday, May 25th - Three Performances
`The Th V®2 S® Ekth) 12.0
Puppentrantz Company gives a Fun New Look to an Old Tale
complete with Huffing, Puffing and Lessons for the Pigs
10:OOam 11:30am 1:OOpm
Pier Avenue 2nd Story Theatre
710 Pier Ave., Hermosa Beach (at Pier Ave. & PCH)
Kid & Adult Tickets—$8
Pre -show • Post -show Activities • Books • Puppets • Displays
Featuring "Hands On" Puppet Workshops
Scholarships Available
For Tickets and Information - Call: (310) 376-1297
Scout and Youth Group Discounts
Grant Assistance—Hermosa Beach Kiwanis and the Hermosa Beach Women's Club
,
411
t4
, FROM : RALPHS SHOPPING CENTER
514.01212ING
MAY 3, 2002
PHONE NO. : 3103748997 May. 03 2002 07:41AM P2
MR_ STEVE BURRELL, CITY MANAGER
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
1315 VALLEY DRIVE
HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254
RE: SURFERS WALK OF FAME
Dear Steve:
The Volunteer Committee of the Surfers Walk of Fame would like to be heard in front of
the City Council Metting, May 14, 2002, to get permission from said City Council to
be able to discuss with Purkiss Rose, RSI on getting a vote for the placement of the
plaques on the new addition, southside of the Pier above the new Lifeguard Garage and
the Lifeguard Wamen".s Bathroom. This will be a deck approximately 60' in diameter,
wherein we would like to discuss the placement of 12 Surfers Walk of Fame Plaques.
1 met with Purkiss Rose, RSI and the representative, James Pickel and his staff,
Natalie Cousins-Robledo yesterday at my office. I directed them to the Vetter Windmill
new bronze plaque at the base of said Windmill in Greenwood Park for a comparison of
the attached Surfers Walk of Fame Plaque copies.
Please reply to confirm the above requested appearnce at the City Council Meeting,
May 14, 2002, I can be reached at (310)374-8991, and my fax number. is (310)374-8997.
Ralph's • Starbuck's • Bank of America (Kiosk) • Union Bank • McDonald's
First Federal Bank • El Polio Inks • Allstate • Fox Photo
1100 Pacific Coast Highway • Hermosa Beach • California 90254 • (310) 374-8991
.. ... ... •►o' . n..i.,nAA Rworh • (`olifnrni , Qf1777
2
la
31033c6a9d
rr,
N
00/0:/1399
SURFERS WALK OF FAME
Hap Jacobs
Charter Member
Surfers Waik of Fame
Pioneer designer of longboards and shortboards,
accomplished surfer, and South Bay -based entrepreneur
since 1950. Lifetime resident of Hermosa Beach.
Inducted June 5, 1999
2002 07:42AM P4
Pi
a
M
a
3103346x94
SURFERS WALK OF FAME
HERMOSA BEACH WAS THE ORIGINAL
WORLD LEADER OF SURFING, WITH
SURFERS WHO LOVED THE SPORT AND
CREATED THE EXCITEMENT OF RIDING
WAVES, FOR FUN AND COMPETITION, WITH
THEIR IMPROVED TECHNIQUES AND
RADICAL CHANGES IN BOARD DESIGN.
WE HONOR THESE .10 CHARTER MEMBERS
AND 15 PIONEERS OF SURFING
FROM : RALPHS SHOPPING CENTER PHONE NO. : 3103748997
•
May. 10 2002 08:38AM P1
•
•
ro'f49'
facsimile transmittal t t
ti
te'd) /cz,
Date: MAY 10, 2002
To:MR. STEVE BURRELL
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Phone: 310-318-0216
Fax; 310-376-9380 OR 310-372-6186
From: ROGER ELDON BACON
RALPHS SHOPPING CENTER
1100 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY,
SUITE E
HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254
Phone: (310) 374-8991
Fax (310) 374-8997 Pages: 2 (Including this cover):
SURFERS WALK OF FAME LETTER TO YOU DATED MAY 3, 2002
Re; (HEREIN ENCLOSED)
0 Urgent gi For Review 0 Please Comment 0 Please Reply 0 Please Recycle
Notes: HOME OF'GET OFF YOUR COUCH."
DEAR STEVE:
THANK YOU FOR MEETING WITH ME AND STEVE BACON MY SON ON THURSDAY, MAY 9, 2002
AT YOUR OFFICE REGARDING THE LOCATION OF THE SURFERS WALK OF FAME PLAQUES.
AFTER VIEWING THE 60' VIEWING DECK ADJACENT TO THE SOUTHSIDE OF THE HERMOSA
BEACH PIER, THE VOLUNTEER COMMITTEE OF THE SURFERS WALK OF FAME AND MYSELF
HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE ONLY SUITABLE PLACE FOR SAID PLAQUES IS ON THE
HERMOSA BEACH PIER_ THEREFORE, PLEASE MODIFY MY REQUEST TO APPEAR BEFORE
THE HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON MAY 14, 2002 TO DISCUSS THE
POSSIBLE PLACEMENT OF SAID PLAQUES ON THE HERMOSA BEACH PIER.
PLEASE CONFIRM THIS CHANGE IN VENUE IF IT MEETS WITH YOUR APPROVAL, I CAN
BE REACHED AT 310-374-8991, AND MY FAX NUMBER IS 310-374-8997.
SI RELY
ELDON BAC
The information cantal 7n t t'-csimlle transm.- may be protected by the sender and/or privacy laws product privileges. It Is intended only
for the use of the Indi f I named above, and the - vlleges are not Waived by virtue of this having been sent by facsimile. If the person actually
receiving this facsimile not the named recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, any use, dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication Is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication In error, please Immediately notify us by
telephone. and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service.
SUPPLEMENTAL la
IUFoRAnaTinni
FROM ! RALPHS SHOPPING CENTER • PHONE NO. : 3103748997
•
:HO)11PLN `.
07N111;.1
MAY 3, 2002
MR. STEVE BURRELL, CITY MANAGER
CITY :.OF HERMOSA BEACH
1315 VALLEY DRIVE
HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254
RE: SURFERS WALK OF FAME
Dear Steve:
•
May. 10 2002 08:38AM P2
The Volunteer Committee of the Surfers Walk of Fame would like to be heard in front of
the City Council Metting, May 14, 2002, to get permission from said City Council to
be able co discuss with Purkiss Rose, RSI on getting a vote for the placement of the
plaques on the new addition, southside of the Pier above the new Lifeguard Garage and
the Lifeguard Women`" Bathroom_ This will be a deck approximately 60' in diameter,
wherein we would like to discuss the placement of 12 Surfers Walk of Fame Plaques.
I met with Purkiss Rose, RSI and the representative, James Pickel and his staff,
Natalie Cousins-Robledo yesterday at my office. I directed them to the Vetter Windmill
new bronze plaque at the base of said Windmill in Greenwood Park for a comparison of
the attached Surfers Walk of Fame Plaque copies.
Please reply to confirm the above requested appearnce at the City Council Meeting,
May 14, 2002, I can be reached at (310)374-8991, and my fax number is (310)374-8997.
Ralph's • Starbuck's • Bank of America (Kiosk) • Union Bank • McDonald's
First Federal Bank • El Polio Inka • Allstate • Fox Photo
1100 Pacific Coast Highway • Hermosa Beach • California 90254 • (310) 374-8991
MAI�1TO Afj(1reec• P n ;Inv /S21 • T? rs 1I'1" nnn-,-i
•
r7 7T 1hW! f . Ci s C 3 ►off 371/--5 .
t-74-21 i171 ?). r- ,eeA.) C 9- 9az6 /
a q APa i oZo 2 z C�� ei 0 z ) APR 200'ty
7o C';��, , /7a y72/C .
ae_ : NCS i k 6oG2 f o -o Q7os r m -r-7 fv_
Nei G Lo r- it -o ,9 Wa- e:1,t .S';•Ns
�- '5S Co t -z - py A-f+ew4-i O 3'- > Y r10- }
&4 Citi" No / o �,�e/� 6S"/A N e is 1AGo v49aa9 "94c1-1--
eracraN-1 ? -0u-e -4a ;Ls/ Nei %�oY lra9
Co S utii 5)-5,v5s Ave�r+l' etv MoYW
,,
" e -w 9 is ►vS Ave_ De 6 NJ pos4e.p
C;4- y T G2-. 67 Q. id -.7
/4- 0 v e # 5 e4 F47,., p (A) -e_" #2)
V�-i� -�U
�1-jS 1 "3-4-e.ill ' pvas,�% A,. -Y% k -e_
A t e , o 6 -C -±5i 3 - Ca`' . - C /L J�tie. (pv
1.1-)o frte.1 6'19Se-c-Lt-fri S 11---ved O W1 o tN N
11 -x -of CL da Nv71-7
0.1, i 2 (,,9-v c1 '(i �
ol i 5 Pr,v
�,-f,A, . d -e . G��� s e v ; '- s 1(^ CON Si ,a,i
C v i t-1 rt v e.N a ^i Verk
re Ts Kr o V (5 t or'v paze LQ ee r 1/4;S -1-1 ,,`�
ky min 4-$0 CL.s
a<ye-c/-r4dir/
lb
Monday, May 13, 2002
TO: Stephen Burrell, City Manager
FROM: Michael Lavin, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Neighborhood Watch Programs
I do not believe that the Police Department has ever developed an actual neighborhood watch
program at least not in the past 20 years. We have the classification of a crime prevention
officer that is mentioned in the police officer's MOU (a premium pay position) but that is a little
different then neighborhood watch. We have had officers assigned to crime prevention but we
have not had such an assignment in several years . We have on occasion sent officers to
neighborhood meetings to talk about crime prevention and neighborhood watch issues. This
was not an established program but as requests came in for an officer or even the Chief of
Police to attend some function and speak about law enforcement issues, we have always
obliged.
The neighborhood watch signs mentioned in Matt Cruse's letter were signs that the police
department obtained back in the mid 1980's. Sgt. Tom Thompson recalled that we might have
obtained the signs through some sort of grant. The signs were then mounted around the City.
In the recent past, those signs have been taken down by Public Works because they are now
old and rusted.
The City of Manhattan Beach has had a neighborhood watch program for a number of years. In
speaking with their Chief of Police, their program is driven by local citizens. They have one
officer assigned to crime prevention and neighborhood watch with a budget of $172,973.00 (FY
01-02).
The police department has never tried to develop a neighborhood watch program. This has
been due to a lack of staffing, funding and frankly interest in the community. There might be
one phone call per year inquiring about such programs but I have never felt that there was much
sustained interest in the community. We will continue to send officers (including myself) to
speak to citizen groups that request someone to speak about law enforcement issues. The
Hermosa Beach Police Department has pretty much concentrated on the basics of police
services (patrol, traffic, and investigations). We have always placed our resources and staffing
in these basic areas. We simply have never enjoyed the luxury of having extra funding and staff
to develop specialty positions and programs.
Respectfully submitted
Michael La ief of Police
SUPPLEMENTAL 1
INFORMATION! lb
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Technical Support
Services
13%
Jail Operations
3%
Traffic
Safety
8%
2001 - 2002
Department Expenditures by Program
Asset
Forfeiture
3%
Parking
Enforcement
6%
Administration
16%
Animal Control
1%
Investigations
13%
Crime
Prevention
2%
37%
Pro • ram
1999-2000 2000-2001 2001.2002
Actual Bud • et Ado • ted
Police Administration
Patrol
Investigations
echnical Services
Crime Prevention
raffic Safety
ail Operations
Parking Enforcement
nimal Control
Asset Forfeiture
$ 1,575,899
4,154,592
1,387,149
1,239,847
141,961
865,335
308,666
657,841
113,711
134,183
$1,508,334
4,278,149
1,523,675
1,483,722
181,659
921,397
311,435
628,313
132,344
313,437
$1,904,010
4,540,309
1,554,477
1,558,434
172,973
1,031,812
314,598
644,623
144,237
327,317
Total
$10,579,814 $11,282,465 $12,192,790
• •
4102 Sworn Salaries 67,049 $ 68,890 $ 68,770 $
4103 Part-time Salaries - 9,270 9,270
4112 Overtime Sworn 7,867 6,687 7,167
4201 Group Medical 4,580 3,260 3,760
4202 Medicare 459 1,010 1,145
4212 PERS Sworn 9,728 6,950 13,395
4213 PARS Retirement Contribution - - 325
Total Salaries & Benefits 89,683 96,067 103,832
5102 Contract Personnel 20,721 22,104 22,407
5201 Office Supplies 213 310 310
5202 Memberships & Dues 491 440 445
5203 Reference Books 76 - -
5204 Conferences and Meetings 265 1,270 1,270
5205 Training 1,169 2,570 2,570
5206 Uniforms/Safety Equipment 603 900 1,050
5209 Tools & Minor Equipment 353 - -
5212 Office Equipment Maintenance 42 950 950
5217 Special Departmental Supplies 12,483 13,545 14,545
5501 Telephone 710 659 700
Total Materials & Services 37,126 42,748 44,247
5621 Information System Allocation 15,152 19,844 24,894
Total Internal Services 15,152 19,844 24,894
6141 Computer Equipment & Software - 23,000 -
Total Capital Projects & Equipment - 23,000 -
Source of Funds
General Fund 141,961 181,659
DETAIL
BUDGET
2ebi 441',
A
•
Neil D Robertson
71 Hermosa Ave
Hermosa Beach
April 30th 2002
City clerk of Hermosa Beach
Item for inclusion in the agenda of the next City council meeting:
Dear sirs,
With reference to my previous letter to the council in September of last year (attached).
At that time the then mayor and city council member were all in full agreement that traffic noise,
particularly motorcycle noise was a serious quality of life issue in Hermosa Beach and something that
could be addressed by our police force.
The mayor asked the police chief to increase enforcement of the existing laws.
I would be very interested to hear if the police chief has taken any action since and the numbers of ticket
that have been written for vehicle code noise violations.
Yours sincerely
Neil D Robertson
y\' \ CITY O. H`.
lc
• •
Neil D Robertson
71 Hermosa Ave
Hermosa Beach
City clerk of Hermosa Beach
Dear sir,
Item for inclusion in the agenda of the next City council meeting:
Request to ask HB police department to enforce existing noise laws related to motor vehicles. In particular
excessively loud motorcycles operated in the beach area.
Reference CA DMV code.
23130. (a) No person shall operate either a motor vehicle or combination of vehicles of a type subject to
registration at any time or under any condition of grade, load, acceleration, or deceleration in such a
manner as to exceed the following noise limit for the category of motor vehicle within the speed limits
specified in this section:
(b) The noise limits established by this section shall be based on a distance of 50 feet from the center of the
lane of travel within the speed limit specified in this section. The Department of the California Highway
Patrol may provide for measuring at distances other than 50 feet from the center of the lane of travel. In
such a case, the measurement shall be corrected so as to provide for measurements equivalent to the noise
limit established by this section measured at 50 feet.
Yours sincerely
Neil D Robertson
Speed limit of 35 mph or
less
Speed limit of more than
35 mph
1)
• y motor vehicle with a
anufacturer's gross vehicle weight
ating of more than 10,000 pounds
nd any combination of vehicles
owed by such h m otor vehicle
:6 dbA
'0 dbA
Speed limit of 45 mph or
less
Speed limit of more than
45 mph
1(2)
II
Any motorcycle other than a motor-
driven cycle
82 dbA
86 dbA
3)
Any other motor vehicle and any
combination of vehicles towed by 6 dbA :2 dbA
such motor vehicle
(b) The noise limits established by this section shall be based on a distance of 50 feet from the center of the
lane of travel within the speed limit specified in this section. The Department of the California Highway
Patrol may provide for measuring at distances other than 50 feet from the center of the lane of travel. In
such a case, the measurement shall be corrected so as to provide for measurements equivalent to the noise
limit established by this section measured at 50 feet.
Yours sincerely
Neil D Robertson
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL -of the City of
Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, April 9, 2002, at the hour of 7:16 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Boy Scout Troop 860 Color Guard
ROLL CALL:
Present: Edgerton, Keegan, Reviczky, Yoon, Mayor Dunbabin • =-
Absent: None
ANNOUNCEMENTS - Mayor Dunbabin proclaimed April 14 through April 20, 2002
as National Library Week in Hermosa Beach. She thanked the Librarians and the
Friends of the Library for their efforts and said she would like to see the Hermosa
Beach Library's hours extended.
CLOSED SESSION REPORT FOR MEETING OF MARCH 26, 2002 - City Attorney
Jenkins said at the March 26, 2002 Closed Session, he was directed to engage the
services of a law firm for purposes of preparing a complaint against the City of
Redondo Beach in connection with the Heart of the City plan, noting that the actual
contract would be on the Council agenda of April 23, 2002.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
1. ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
a. Letters from Al Benson regarding Hermosa Beach Municipal Code
Chapter 8.24, Noise Control.
Coming forward to address the Council at this time were:
Frank O'Leary - Redondo Beach, said he was circulating an initiative
petition to put the Heart of the City plan on the ballot; said
Hermosa was premature with initiating litigation at this time (he
was told that the City was under a deadline to file suit);
Al Benson - Hermosa Beach, spoke to his written communication
regarding loud parties and other disturbances; asked if the fines
could be stiffened, perhaps increasing with each violation (City
Manager Burrell said staff would respond to the letter) (City
Attorney Jenkins said State law set the fines for misdemeanors)
(Councilmember Reviczky requested a staff report on the
effectiveness of the City's current noise ordinance);
Shirley Cassell - Hermosa Beach, spoke of a party house next door to
her, with speakers facing the other neighbors; said two families
have moved to get away from the noise; said the fine should be
$1,000 for the first visit, rising to $5,000 or more;
Carol Brenner - Hermosa Beach, said noise had been a problem for
years; suggested a handout advising residents of what to do;
said people leave the bars and then party at someone's home;
City Council Minutes 04-09-02
Page 10794 2a(1
• •
Dave White - Hermosa Beach, referred to construction contracted by
Adelphia two weeks ago; said he and the other residents had
not been notified that their homes would be inaccessible that
day, noting that in his case, his home is also his office;
Vince Tatoo - Hermosa Beach, spoke of the noise on walk streets with
people coming home from the bars and sitting out in their front
yards making noise and disturbing. the neighbors; said, he_had
already lost a tenant due to the loud noise;
Geoff Hirsch - Hermosa Beach, spoke of the third annual Beach Cities
Relay for Life, a 24-hour fundraising event to take place July 20
and 21 at Aviation Park to benefit the American Cancer Society,
noting that $54,000 was raised last year; presented Council
members with invitations to a kick-off party hosted by Sangria
Restaurant Tuesday, April 16, from 6:30 to 8 P.M.; and
Barbara Alman - Hermosa Beach, said this was the first year she did
not plan to be in town for the 4th of July; concurred with Ms.
Cassell's suggestion to raise the fines for noise violators.
The Council advised residents to call the police when problems occur to
ensure their complaints are on record. City Manager Burrell said the noise
issue would be brought back in two steps, noting that the 4th of July issue
would be brought before the Council in May.
2. CONSENT CALENDAR:
Action: To approve the consent calendar recommendations (a) through (j),
with the exception of the following items, which were removed for discussion
in item 4, but are shown in order for clarity: (c) Reviczky, (e) Yoon, (f) Yoon,
(g) Reviczky, (i) Edgerton, and (j) Reviczky.
Motion Reviczky, second Edgerton. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
At 7:49 P.M., the order of the agenda was suspended to go to the public hearing
items, 5.a. through 5.d.
(a) RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE MEMORANDUM FROM
CITY CLERK ELAINE DOERFLING REGARDING THE MINUTES OF THE
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 4, 2002 AND THE
REGULAR MEETINGS OF MARCH 12 AND MARCH 26, 2002.
Action: To receive and file the memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling
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 NOS. 28472
THROUGH 28630, NOTING VOIDED CHECK NO. 28629, AND TO
City Council Minutes 04-09-02 Page 10795
APPROVE THE CANCELLATION OF CHECK NO. 28422 AS
RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY TREASURER.
Action: To ratify the check register, as presented.
(c) RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE TENTATIVE FUTURE
AGENDA ITEMS.
This item was removed from the consent calendar by Councilmember
Reviczky for separate discussion later in the meeting.
City Manager Burrell responded to Council questions.
Action: To receive and file the tentative future agenda items, amended to
change the second meeting in May from Thursday, May 30, back to Tuesday,
May 28, 2002.
Motion Reviczky, second Yoon. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
(d) RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE ACTION MINUTES OF
THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2002.
Action: To receive and file the action minutes of the Public Works
Commission meeting of March 20, 2002.
(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)
This item was removed from the consent calendar by Councilmember Yoon
for separate discussion later in the meeting.
Public Works Director Williams presented the staff report and responded to
Council questions.
Action: To authorize the appropriation of $55,000 from the 150 Grant Fund
for Project No. CIP 00-630, Pier Renovation — Phase III, as recommended by
staff.
Motion Yoon, second Reviczky. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION TO INSTALL SIGNS ON THE NORTH
SIDE OF GOULD AVENUE BETWEEN PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND
EL OESTE DRIVE STATING "NO PARKING — VEHICLES OVER SIX FEET
IN HEIGHT." Memorandum from Public Works Director Harold Williams
dated April 3, 2002.
City Council Minutes 04-09-02 Page 10796
• •
This item was removed from the consent calendar by Councilmember Yoon
for separate discussion later in the meeting to request staff to look at
Prospect Avenue at 21st Street to determine the need for signage there,
noting the location had been brought to his attention by a resident.
Councilmember Edgerton said he would .not participate,.in any discussion, or
action on this item because of a potential conflict of interest due to the
proximity of his office building.
Public Works Director Williams presented the staff report and responded to
Council questions, saying staff would look at the section of Prospect Avenue
referenced by Councilmember Yoon.
Action: 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 Six Feet in
Height."
Motion Yoon, second Reviczky. The motion carried, noting the absence of
Edgerton.
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT TO UNIPLAN ENGINEERING, INC. TO PROVIDE DESIGN
AND ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR CIP 00-410 (LOMA AREA SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS) AND FOR CIP 00-192 (LOMA AREA STREET
IMPROVEMENTS) IN THE AMOUNT OF $122,800; AUTHORIZE THE
APPROPRIATION OF $115,273 FROM THE 160 SEWER FUND;
AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AND THE CITY CLERK TO
ATTEST THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT SUBJECT 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.
This item was removed from the consent calendar by Councilmember
Reviczky for separate discussion later in the meeting.
Public Works Director Williams and City Manager Burrell responded to
Council questions.
Action: To:
(1) Award the Professional Services Agreement to SA Associates to
provide design and engineering services for CIP No. 00-410 and CIP
No. 00-192 in the amount of $133,000;
(2) Authorize the appropriation of $127,493 from the 160 Sewer fund;
City Council Minutes 04-09-02 Page 10797
(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 $13,300.
Motion Reviczky, second Keegan. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
(h) RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT THE WORK BY SULLY -MILLER
CONTRACTING CO. FOR PROJECT NO. CIP 00-139, HERMOSA AVENUE
STREET IMPROVEMENTS; AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR 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.
(1)
Action: To approve the staff recommendation to:
(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).
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.
This item was removed from the consent calendar by Councilmember
Edgerton for separate discussion later in the meeting.
Public Works Director Williams presented the staff report and responded to
Council questions.
Action: To approve Adopt-A-Stormdrain donations from new private
sponsors and approve the design, size, wording and placement of the Adopt-
A-Stormdrain signage, as recommended by staff.
Motion Edgerton, second Reviczky. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
(j) 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.
City Council Minutes
04=09-02 Page 10798
• i
This item was removed from the consent calendar by Councilmember
Reviczky for separate discussion later in the meeting.
Public Works Director Williams presented the staff report and responded to
Council questions.
Action: To approve the staff 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 of $124,577 required
to complete Project No. CIP 95-622, City Hall Remodel — ADA Upgrades.
Motion Reviczky, second Edgerton. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
3. CONSENT ORDINANCES - None
4. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE
DISCUSSION
Items 2(c), (e), (f), (g), (i), and (j) were heard at this time but are shown in
order for clarity.
Public comments on items removed from the Consent Calendar are shown
under the appropriate item.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
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.
Community Development Director Blumenfeld presented the staff report and
responded to Council questions.
The public hearing opened at 7:52 P.M. As no one came forward to address the
Council on this item, the public hearing closed at 7:52 P.M.
Action: To approve by minute order the Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Community
Development Block Grand (CDBG) allocation and expenditure of $5,860 for
the general administration of projects funded through the CDBG Program as
recommended by staff.
Motion Reviczky, second Edgerton. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
City Council Minutes
04-09-02 Page 10799
•
b. VACATION OF A PORTION OF EIGHTH STREET BETWEEN THE
STRAND AND HERMOSA AVENUE. Memorandum from Public Works
Director Harold Williams dated March 27, 2002.
Public Works Director Williams presented the staff report and responded to
Council questions. City Manager Burrell and City Attorney Jenkins also
responded to Council questions.
The public hearing opened at 7:55 P.M. Coming forward to address the Council on
this issue was:
Diane (last name indistinct) - Hermosa Beach, asked about the effect
of the proposed vacation.
The public hearing closed at 7:59 P.M.
Action: Mayor Dunbabin directed, with the consensus of the Council, that
the resolution be presented for adoption when the deeds are completed, as
recommended this evening by staff.
c. REVIEW AND RECONSIDERATION OF THE 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 THE' ADOPTION OF
AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1605 PACIFIC
COAST HIGHWAY, HERMOSA PAVILION. Memorandum from Community
Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated April 1, 2002.
Community Development Director Blumenfeld presented the staff report and
responded to Council questions. City Attorney Jenkins also responded to
Council questions.
The public hearing opened at 8:07 P.M. Coming forward to address the Council on
this issue were:
Jerry Wiggle - Keisker & Wiggle Architects, reviewed the proposal,
noting that the new plan incorporated valet parking service in
the parking garage, with the drop off and retrieval at the same
place; said the original drop-off area in front of the building
would be cemented in, but the deceleration lane on Pacific
Coast Highway would be retained;
Gene Shook - president of Shook Development, property owner, said it
would be dangerous to use the front of the building for valet
parking service or as a drop-off and pick-up area; said the
building should have had at least parking spaces; said they
would require employees to use tandem spaces;
City Council Minutes
04-09-02 Page 10800
• •
Kevin McGuire - commercial retail broker, said the proposal -would
work with a reasonable amount of parking, noting that tenants
liked vibrancy; said 24 -Hour Fitness was anxious to get into the - -
new facility; and
Shirley Cassell - Hermosa Beach, opposed granting a height variance;
said there would be no sales tax from the proposed fitness club
and office usage.
The public hearing closed at 9:05 P.M.
Proposed Action: To grant the height variance for the envelope of the
building to even out the height on the east side to match the height of the
existing roof.
Motion Edgerton, second Yoon. The motion failed due to the dissenting
votes of Keegan, Reviczky and Mayor Dunbabin.
Preliminary Action: To direct a redesign to the front of the building by
eliminating the proposal to extend the building forward, and instead creating
more of an entryway, and to use the valet lane for landscaping purposes.
Motion Edgerton, second Keegan. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
Action: To continue the item to the second meeting in May for the purposes
of receiving height calculations from staff and of receiving from the applicant
a redesign of the front of the building per the previous motion, with the public
hearing continued open to allow for public comment on those issues.
Motion Reviczky, second Edgerton. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
The meeting recessed at 9:42 P.M.
The meeting reconvened at 10:04 P.M.
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.
Community Development Director Blumenfeld presented the staff report and
responded to Council questions.
The public hearing opened at 10:20 P.M. As no one came forward to address the
Council, the public hearing closed at 10:20 P.M.
Action: To approve the staff report to waive full reading and introduce
Ordinance No. 02-1218, entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 17.46.152 OF
THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE FRONT YARD
City Council Minutes 04-09-02 Page 10801
REQUIREMENTS ON THROUGH LOTS BETWEEN THE STRAND AND
THE SERVICE ROAD PARALLEL TO HERMOSA AVENUE
APPROXIMATELY BETWEEN 27TH STREET AND 35TH STREET." - - - -•
Motion Edgerton, second Keegan. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
Further Action: To direct staff to study the remaining similar locations.
Motion Reviczky, second Edgerton. The motion carried by a unanimous.vote. -- -.-..
e. CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF ALOHA DAYS — AUGUST 10 AND
11, 2002. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney
dated April 1, 2002. Supplemental information from Community Resources
received April 9, 2002.
Community Resources Director Rooney presented the staff report and
responded to Council questions.
The public hearing opened at 10:22 P.M. Coming forward to address the Council on
this issue was:
Abel Ybarra - Aloha Days, said this would be the sixth annual event
and all of the proceeds this year would go to the Historical
Society to expand their facility to include the Surf Museum;
responded to Council questions.
The public hearing closed at 10:30 P.M.
Action: To approve the recommendation of the Parks, Recreation and
Community Resources Commission as amended to:
(1) Approve the request from the Aloha Days Committee to hold its annual
surf competition and "Aloha Days" Hawaiian Festival on Saturday,
August 10, and Sunday, August 11, amended to allow beach events
on both days but vendor booths on the Plaza for one day only;
(2) Approve the requested fee waivers and funding; and
(3) Approve the event contract.
Motion Yoon, second Edgerton. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
At 10:32 P.M., the order of the agenda moved to item 6.b.
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.
Public Works Director Williams presented the staff report and responded to
Council questions. City Attorney Jenkins also responded to Council
questions.
City Council Minutes 04-09-02 Page 10802
Coming forward to address the Council on this item was:
Shirley Cassell - Hermosa Beach, noted numerous lawsuits stemming
from speed bumps causing damage to cars; questioned the
proposed trial basis, saying once something is put in place it
would never be removed.
Action: To designate the intersection of Palm Drive and the west exit of
Parking Lot D as a one-way stop control, with direction to staff to erect a stop
sign at the south approach to the intersection.
Motion Reviczky, second Edgerton. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
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. Supplemental letter from James Patterson received April 9, 2002.
City Manager Burrell explained the procedure and responded to Council
questions.
Coming forward to address the Council on this item was:
Jack Williams - Manhattan Beach, representing Ein Stein's Restaurant,
spoke to the proposed changes, saying the ABC suggested the
removal of some of the conditions to simplify the license; said
the outdoor speakers are connected to the house system, which
is not used in the evening:
Action: To not oppose the ABC's recommended elimination of condition 4
that prohibits the use of an amplifying system or device on the first floor patio
and terrace level patio.
Motion Edgerton, second Yoon. The motion carried, noting the dissenting
votes of Reviczky and Mayor Dunbabin.
Further Action: To not oppose the ABC's alteration of condition 6 to require
food service only until 10 P.M.
Motion Edgerton, second Keegan. The motion carried, noting the dissenting
vote of Reviczky.
Final Action: To not oppose the ABC's elimination of condition 7 to avoid
confusion as dancing is permitted anywhere in the building, but not outside.
Motion Edgerton, second Yoon. The motion carried, noting the dissenting
vote of Reviczky.
City Manager Burrell said based on Council actions, there were no comments
to send to the ABC concerning the proposed changes.
City Council Minutes
04-09-02 Page 10803
At 11:00 P.M, the order of the agenda moved to item 7.c.
c. REVIEW OF PIER PHASE III CONTRACTS AND AMENDMENTS.
Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated April 4, 2002.
City Manager Burrell presented the staff report and responded to Council
questions. Public Works Director Williams also responded to Council
questions.
Action: To approve the Third Amendment to the Purkiss Rose -RSI contract
in the amount of $96,612, as recommended by staff.
Motion Reviczky, second Edgerton. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
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
Action: To 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, as recommended by staff.
Motion Edgerton, second Reviczky. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
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.
City Manager Burrell presented the staff report and responded to Council
questions. City Attorney Jenkins also responded to Council questions.
Proposed Action: To not take a position in support of AB2863.
Motion Yoon, second Edgerton. The motion failed, noting the dissenting
votes of Keegan, Reviczky and Mayor Dunbabin.
Action: To take a position in support of AB2863 - Housing Element Reform -
introduced at the request of the League of California Cities and the California
Association of Counties, as recommended by staff.
Motion Reviczky, second Mayor Dunbabin. The motion carried, noting the
dissenting votes of Edgerton and Yoon.
c. MEMORANDUM FROM CITY MANAGER REGARDING PUBLIC
INFORMATION CONCERNING THE CITY'S POSITION ON THE HEART OF
City Council Minutes
04-09-02 Page 10804
• •
THE CITY PLAN IN REDONDO BEACH. Memorandum from City Manager
Stephen Burrell dated April 4, 2002.
City Manager Burrell presented the staff report, distributed a draft letter, and
responded to Council questions. City Attorney Jenkins also responded to
Council questions.
•
Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: -
Chris Cagle - Redondo Beach, said he is part of a grass -root citizens
group collecting signatures for a referendum on the project to
allow the voters the opportunity to make the decision; he
announced a petition drive on Saturday at various locations;
and
Shirley Cassell - Hermosa Beach, suggested that the group set up in
front of markets and walk their neighborhoods for signatures.
Action: To direct the preparation of a letter to the editor more strongly
voicing concerns already expressed to the City of Redondo Beach with
regard to certain aspects of the Heart of the City plan.
Motion Edgerton, second Keegan. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
At 11:13 P.M., the order of the agenda returned to item 4.
8. 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
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
City Council Minutes 04-09-02 Page 10805
• •
ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION - The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the
City of Hermosa Beach adjourned on Tuesday, April 9, 2002, at the hour of 11:50 -
P.M. to a closed session.
RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION - The Closed Session convened at the hour of
11:55 P.M. At the hour of 12:25 A.M., the Closed Session adjourned,to.the.Regular, ,,, . „ .
Meeting.
ORAL ANNOUNCEMENTS - There were no decisions made requiring a public
announcement.
ADJOURNMENT - The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa
Beach adjourned on Wednesday, April 10, 2002, at the hour of 12:26 A.M. to the
Regular Meeting on Tuesday, April 23, 2002, at the hour of 7:10 P.M.
City Council Minutes
04-09-02 Page 10806
5//YA?---
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, April 23, 2002, at the hour_ of 7:13
P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Julie Oakes
ROLL CALL:
Present: Edgerton, Keegan, Reviczky, Yoon, Mayor Dunbabin
Absent: None
ANNOUNCEMENTS - Councilmember Yoon said his first town hall meeting would
take place Saturday, May 11, from 11 A.M. to 1 P.M. in Room 4 of the Community
Center. He announced the annual celebration for Eric Fonoimoana's foundation,
"Dig for Kids," on Thursday, April 25, from 7 P.M. to 1 A.M. at Sangria's Restaurant,
noting that all proceeds would benefit the foundation.
Councilmember Reviczky requested that the meeting be adjourned in memory of
Jack Wood, a former Mayor and Councilmember of Hermosa Beach, who served on
the Council from 1982 to 1986, and a long-time Hermosa resident and Rotary Club
member, who gave a lot to the community and would be missed. Councilmember
Edgerton said he was a great friend to business --a real maverick who got a lot done.
Mayor Dunbabin spoke of the plaque dedication Saturday at the Pier Plaza honoring
the Schumacher's generous donation of $1 million for the renovation of the foot of
the Pier, which should be completed in 2003. She then announced: (1) the Endless
Summer Classic Car Show Saturday, April 27, from 10 A.M. to 3 P.M. on Pier Plaza;
(2) the City's annual Dog Parade and Trick Show on the Greenbelt Sunday, May 5,
from 11 A.M. to 1 P.M.; (3) the start of the two-week run of "Driving Miss Daisy" at
the Hermosa Beach Playhouse; (4) the continued production of Late Nite Catechism
at the Pier Avenue Second Story Theatre; and (5) the start on Saturday April 27, of
the Saturday Puppet Theater with Jim Gamble at the Pier Avenue Second Story
Theatre with performances at 10 A.M., 11 A.M. and 1:30 P.M. She read an article in
the May issue of Worth magazine, which, based on two years of home selling
information, ranked Hermosa Beach as 83 on a list of 250 of the richest towns in
America, ahead of Palos Verdes Estates and Manhattan Beach.
PRESENTATIONS
PRESENTATION OF CHECK FROM THE
HERMOSA BEACH KIWANIS CLUB TO THE
HERMOSA ARTS FOUNDATION
Sam Abrams, Hermosa Beach Kiwanis Club president, thanked the City Council for
the use of the Community Center lawn for the Club's annual holiday tree lot, and
thanked the citizens for their generous support, noting that last year's event was one
of their most successful, and that the proceeds enable the Club to support the youth
City Council Minutes
04-23-02 Page 10807
a(2
t
of the community and other worthwhile causes. He said this year they would award
more than $11,000 worth of scholarships to deserving students, and also planned to
do additional refurbishment in the Community Center. He presented a $6,000 check
to Jane Stewart, Hermosa Arts Foundation president.
Ms. Stewart thanked the Kiwanis Club for the check and for all the help they provide
to the entire community. She spoke of the programs sponsored by .,,.,
since it was founded more than 16 years ago. She announced that a telethon, co-
sponsored by the Arts Foundation and Adelphia, emceed by James Blackman and
shown live on Channel 10, would take place at the Community Center on Father's
Day, June 16, noting there would be entertainment and a live auction. She invited
everyone to participate simply come to enjoy the show
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE PRESENTATION
Joe Mark, committee chair, introduced his committee members and thanked them
for their efforts during this yearlong study. He briefly discussed the study and then
showed a video presentation which summarized the findings, conclusions and
recommendations of the committee. He said it was his privilege to have been of
service and responded to Council questions.
Ron Newman, committee member, thanked Mr. Mark on behalf of the committee for
his great leadership.
The Councilmembers thanked Mr. Mark and the entire committee for their hard work
and the excellent presentation. Mayor Dunbabin said the Council would conduct
one or more special meetings to discuss the report.
SAFETY PROGRAM PROPOSAL PRESENTATION
Coming forward to address the Council on this item were:
Jean Lombardo - Public Works Commission, requested approval to
launch a safety campaign, which would include safety programs
for children, and signage, with possible IMG sponsorship and
the placement at selected locations on Hermosa Avenue, Pier
Avenue, and Pacific Coast Highway of double -sided, light -
standard banners with Mervyns on one side and the safety
message on the other; noted the goal of having the program in
place by Memorial Day;
Chris Howell - Public Works Commission, distributed background
information; spoke of the need to define the program theme and
determine a budget approach, either a fully sponsored program
with sponsor recognition or perhaps the possibility of the City
matching funds donated by residents and businesses; and
Jim Lissner - Hermosa Beach, said the agenda showed this item as a
presentation and did not reflect that any action would be taken.
City Council Minutes 04-23-02 Page 10808
Responding to Council questions, (1) City Manager Burrell said direction was
requested tonight to pursue the grant funding; (2) Community Resources Rooney
said if Mervyns agreed to support the safety program, that would be in addition to
the already promised $40,000 in non-profit donations; and (3) City Attorney Jenkins
said staff would be proceeding on its own authority and the program would come
back on a future agenda for action. .. ,T, , ItOr
Action: To allow the program planning to move forward, including the application
for grant money, with direction that the finalized, detailed program come back at a
future meeting for Council review and action.
Motion Reviczky, second Edgerton. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
CLOSED SESSION REPORT FOR MEETING OF APRIL 9, 2002: No reportable
actions.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
" 1. ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
a. Letter from Krista Capo regarding a request to install a three-way stop
at the corner of 20th Street and Valley Park Avenue.
b. Letter from John Hales, Director of the Hermosa Beach Historical
Society, requesting that the 1965 commemorative plaque be reinstalled
at the pier head.
Coming forward to address the Council at this time was:
John Hales - Hermosa Beach, representing the Historical Society,
spoke to his written communication requesting that the 1965
commemorative plaque be reinstalled at the pier head; referred
to a 1963 newspaper clipping about the building of a new pier.
Proposed Action: To agendize Mr. Hales' letter for consideration at a future
meeting.
Motion Reviczky, second Yoon. The motion was subsequently withdrawn.
Action: To direct staff to ensure that the commemorative plaque referred to
in Mr. Hales' letter is on the list for reinstallation when the plaque issue is
agendized for Council review and approval.
Motion Reviczky, second Yoon. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
Continuing to come forward to address the Council at this time were:
Roger Bacon - 1100 Pacific Coast Highway, said about $20,000 had
been collected for the proposed Surfers' Walk of Fame, and
requested that interested parties have the opportunity to provide
City Council Minutes 04-23-02 Page 10809
input on where the plaques will be located (City Manager Burrell
said the plan would come back at a future Council meeting);
Jim Lissner - Hermosa Beach, expressed concern that the monthly
police activity reports are not posted on the City's website;
spoke of an increase in crime, including assaults; requested
that consent calendar item 2(j) be pulled for discussion;
Sid Hickson - Hermosa Beach; referred to a- small structure behind his _
home, said the City directed him to remove the stove, gas line
and refrigerator, which he did; said he was then told him to
remove the bathroom, drywall and electrical; said the structure
was not used for illegal purposes and he wanted to retain it as
his quiet place, noting he has three children and his home was
less than 1,000 square feet (he was directed to talk to the City
Manager); and
Al Benson - Hermosa Beach, asked that the City's letters that are sent
to the party houses before the 4th of July define the fines,
parameters and procedures (City Manager Burrell said the issue
would be coming back at the next Council meeting).
2. CONSENT CALENDAR:
(a)
Action: To approve the consent calendar recommendations (a) through (m),
with the•exception of the following item which was removed for discussion in
item 4, but is shown in order for clarity: (j) Reviczky for Jim Lissner.
Motion Reviczky, second Keegan. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING MINUTES:
(1) Adjourned Regular meeting held on March 4, 2002;
(2) Regular meeting held on March 12, 2002; and
(3) Regular meeting held on March 26, 2002.
Action: To approve as presented the minutes of the Adjourned Regular
meeting of March 4, 2002, and the Regular meetings of March 12, 2002 and
March 26, 2002.
(b) RECOMMENDATION TO RATIFY CHECK REGISTER NO. 28631
THROUGH 28813, AND TO APPROVE THE CANCELLATION OF CHECK
NOS. 28102, 28142 AND 28601 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY
TREASURER.
Action: To ratify the check register, as presented.
(c) RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE TENTATIVE FUTURE
AGENDA ITEMS.
Action: To receive and file the tentative future agenda items, as presented.
City Council Minutes 04-23-02 Page 10810
(d) RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE MARCH 2002
FINANCIAL REPORTS:
(1) Revenue and expenditure report;
(2) City Treasurer's report; and
(3) Investment report.
Action: To receive and file the March 2002 financial reports as presented.
(e) RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THE FOLLOWING CLAIM AND REFER IT
TO THE CITY'S LIABILITY CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR. Memorandum from
Personnel Director/Risk Manager Michael Earl dated April 9, 2002.
Claimant: Joseph Mathew
Date of Loss: 10/14/01
Date Filed: 4/9/02
Action: To deny the subject claim and refer it to the City's Liability Claims
Administrator, as recommended by staff.
(f) RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE NOTICE OF CLOSED
CLAIM. Memorandum from Personnel Director/Risk Manager Michael Earl
dated April 15, 2002.
(g)
Action: To receive and file the notice of the closure of a claim filed by
Regina Taylor concerning vehicle damage.
RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE PROJECT STATUS
REPORT. Memorandum from Public Works Director Harold Williams dated
April 15, 2002.
Action: To receive and file the staff report giving the status as of March 31,
2002 of capital improvement projects that are either under design or
construction.
(h) RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF TEN (10)
MOTOROLA CDM -1550 MOBILE RADIOS FOR USE IN UNMARKED
POLICE CARS AND TWELVE (12) MOTOROLA MTS -2000 PORTABLE
RADIOS FROM THE MOTOROLA CORPORATION IN SCHAUMBURG,
ILLINOIS IN THE AMOUNT OF $28,360.56 (INCLUDES TAX AND
SHIPPING). Memorandum from Police Chief Michael Lavin dated April 23,
2002.
Action: To authorize the purchase of 10 Motorola CDM -1550 mobile radios
for use in unmarked police cars and 12 Motorola MTS -2000 portable radios
from the Motorola Corporation in Schaumburg, Illinois, as recommended by
staff.
City Council Minutes
04-23-02 Page 10811
(i) RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE ACTION MINUTES FROM
THE PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY RESOURCES ADVISORY
COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 2, 2002.
Action: To receive and file the action minutes from the April 2, 2002 meeting
of the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commiq$ion,
(j) RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE ACTION MINUTES FROM
THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 16, 2002.
This item was removed from the consent calendar by Councilmember
Reviczky at the request of Jim Lissner for separate discussion later in the
meeting.
Action: To initiate a review and reconsideration of the actions of the
Planning Commission (agenda items 9 and 10), approving the requests of
Alta -Dena and the Pitcher House.
Carried by the affirmative votes of Reviczky and Mayor Dunbabin.
Further Action: To receive and file the remaining action minutes from the
April 16, 2002 meeting of the Planning Commission.
Motion Reviczky, second Keegan. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
(k) RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE
INTERSECTION OF PALM DRIVE AND THE WEST EXIT OF PARKING
LOT D AS A ONE-WAY STOP CONTROL. Memorandum from Public Works
Director Harold Williams dated April 16, 2002
(1)
(m)
Action: To approve the staff recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 02-
6193, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING THE INTERSECTION
OF PALM DRIVE AND THE WEST EXIT OF PARKING LOT D AS A ONE-
WAY STOP CONTROL INTERSECTION."
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT
WITH COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON, LLP AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR
TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT. Memorandum from City Manager Stephen
Burrell dated April 18, 2002.
Action: To approve the Engagement Agreement with Cox, Castle &
Nicholson, LLP, and authorize the Mayor to sign the document.
RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP
#26216 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 222 AND 226
City Council Minutes
04-23-02 Page 10812
• •
SIXTH STREET. Memorandum from Community Development Director
Sol Blumenfeld dated April 17, 2002.
Action: To approve the staff recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 02-
6194, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HERMSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL
PARCEL MAP #26216 FOR A TWO -UNIT.. CONDOMINIUM PROJECT
LOCATED AT 222 AND 226 SIXTH STREET, HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA."
3. CONSENT ORDINANCES
a. ORDINANCE NO. 02-1218 — "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING 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."
Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated April 15, 2002.
City Clerk Doerfling presented the ordinance for waiver of full reading and
adoption, noting it had been introduced unanimously at the April 9, 2002
meeting.
Action: To adopt Ordinance 02-1218.
•Motion Reviczky, second Keegan. The motion carried by the following vote:
a
AYES: Edgerton, Keegan, Reviczky, Yoon, Mayor Dunbabin
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
4. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE
DISCUSSION
Item 2(j) was heard at this time but is shown in order for clarity.
Public comments on items removed from the Consent Calendar are shown
under the appropriate item.
At 8:57 P.M., the order of the agenda was moved to item 6.b.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None
6. MUNICIPAL MATTERS
City Council Minutes 04-23-02 Page 10813
a. STATISTICAL REPORT OF CRIMES AND POLICE ACTIVITY FOR 2001.
Memorandum from Police Chief Michael Lavin dated April 16, 2002.
Police Chief Lavin presented the staff report and responded to Council
questions, noting that in his opinion the recent increase was cyclical as he
was starting to see a regional upswing, adding that he would be reporting on
the July 4 issues at the next meeting. . • .�,_, 11111, ,. ,__..�_ �.
Coming forward to address the Council on this item were:
Jim Lissner - Hermosa Beach, expressed concern about increased
crime; said the City cannot have nightlife without the drugs or
without the noise; said the Council should take measures to
make the downtown more peaceful; and
Maria Glosser - former Hermosa resident, said she and her friends
enjoy the nightlife but have never used drugs or over -drank;
said she often was the designated driver.
Action: To receive and file the report, as recommended by staff.
Motion Keegan, second Edgerton. The motion carried, noting the absence of
Yoon.
b. TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF THE FIRST ALLEY SOUTH OF 21ST STREET
BETWEEN ARDMORE AVENUE AND AVA AVENUE. Memorandum from
Public Works Director Harold Williams dated April 3, 2002.
Public Works Director Williams responded to Council questions concerning
the permit process. Community Development Director Blumenfeld responded
to Council questions concerning, saying the project required no discretionary
review and adhered to all Codes. City Manager Burrell also responded to
Council question, saying the allowable fence height would be measured from
the bottom of the wall since this was a fill condition.
Coming forward to address the Council on this item were:
Tara Etley - owner of the newly constructed home, responded to
Council questions about plans to put a fence on top of the wall;
Julie Oakes - Hermosa Beach, presented background information,
saying that she initially brought the issue to the City's attention
during construction since the wall would obstruct the line of
sight from the alley, which the residents used for vehicular
access; said the City determined that it was for storm water
runoff and not wide enough to meet the definition of an alley;
Joanne Maisch - Hermosa Beach, said one of her neighbors called
Ava Avenue a cul-de-sac with no "sac" as it has no turnaround
area; said the street was narrow with parking on both sides,
which allowed only one car to pass through; said the alley had
been used as a street for years and the City acknowledged its
City Council Minutes 04-23-02 Page 10814
y
use as a street by putting a stop sign there; said closure of the
alley is unsafe because it has eliminated an escape route and
forced people to back their cars all the way down to 21st Street;
Terry Cook - Hermosa Beach, referred to a petition that was signed by
most of the neighbors to keep the alley open; said cars cannot
turn around and must make 15 -point turns to get out; said the
entire neighborhood has been inconvenienced for the retaining
wall of one house;
Michelle Waller - Hermosa Beach, said the stop sign at the bottom of
the alley at Ardmore shows that the alley was used for vehicular
traffic; questioned why the builder was given the authority by
the City to obstruct the alley; said the builder had destroyed the
alley, both aesthetically and physically, over the past year while
working on the project; requested that the alley be reopened;
Jeff Craknell - Hermosa Beach, spoke in support of opening the alley
for safety reasons; said the current situation was an accident
waiting to happen because of the cars backing down Ava; said
the alley was also a great convenience to the residents and
suggested a blind -spot mirror at the bottom to make it safer;
Jack Jenkin - Hermosa Beach, asked about the City's grading code;
Tara Etley - owner of the newly constructed home, said they followed
the law and did not mean to create an inconvenience for the
neighbors, noting that they bought the plans with the house;
said they did not object to having the alley reopened but did not
want to remove the wall; suggested a three-way stop at the
bottom of the alley at Ardmore Avenue to make it safer;
Chris Gerald - Hermosa Beach, said the wall could be altered rather
than removed; said regardless of the Public Works ruling, the
alley has a stop sign on it and therefore is a street;
Richard Chartow - Hermosa Beach, asked about a prescriptive
easement since the alley had been used continuously as an
alley; said traffic was now being diverted up the alley to
Springfield Avenue, which is already impacted by apartment
residents parking there; requested consideration of residential
parking permits for both streets;
Julie Oakes - Hermosa Beach, said she was in favor of closure of the
alley for safety reasons, noting the wall was constructed legally
and will not be removed; agreed that the closure causes an
inconvenience to the neighbors south of the alley, but said a
major problem is the lack of parking permits on the street;
suggested that the alley be barricaded in such a way that it can
be used by cars to turn around; that it be maintained as a
pedestrian accessway, and that it be done well;
Sue Fishman - Hermosa Beach, said the source of the problem
occurred years ago when the City allowed Ava Avenue to
become a dead-end street without requiring a turnaround at the
City Council Minutes
04-23-02 Page 10815
• •
end; said the City should not make a bad decision worse by
cutting off the access used by the residents for many years;
said the entire alley should be opened and designated for
access to prevent same problem at Springfield Avenue; and
Victor Winnek - Hermosa Beach, said he had recused himself from all
decisions at the Public Works Commission meeting; noted that
• the Commission had recommended that the Council reopen the
alley and direct staff to meet and confer with the property owner
to modify the wall to improve visibility.
Action: To direct staff to re -open the alley for a 60 -day trial period after the
damage to the alley has been repaired and to report back to the Council at its
July 10 meeting.
Motion Reviczky, second Keegan. The motion carried, noting the dissenting
votes of Edgerton and Mayor Dunbabin.
Further Action: To direct staff to prepare a staff report and agendize for a
future meeting consideration of granting permit parking for the residents of
Ava Avenue, Springfield Avenue and 21st Street, with notification to those
affected.
Motion Edgerton, second Keegan. The motion carried, noting the dissenting
vote of Mayor Dunbabin.
The meeting recessed at 9:50 P.M., at which time Councilmember Yoon left the
meeting.
The meeting reconvened at 10:15 P.M., at which time the order of the agenda
moved to item 6.d.
c. PROJECT NO. NON-CIP 005-01, CORONA STREET AND PROSPECT
AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENTS — STREET BARRIER, AWARD
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT. Memorandum from Public Works Director
Harold Williams dated April 11, 2002.
Public Works Director Williams presented the staff report and responded to
Council questions. City Manager Burrell also responded to Council
questions.
Action: To approve the following staff -recommended option (#1) to:
a) Award the construction contract to Palp, Inc. dba Excel Paving, in the
amount of $23,933.25;
b) Authorize an appropriation of $12,000 in the 301 Capital Improvement
Fund;
c) Authorize the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest the
construction contract subject to approval by the City Attorney; and
d) Authorize the Director of Public Works to make minor changes as
necessary within the contingency of $2,400.00.
City Council Minutes 04-23-02 Page 10816
Motion Edgerton, second Keegan. The motion carried, noting the dissenting
vote by Reviczky and the absence of Yoon.
d. REQUEST FROM MR. CHRIS CUBIC CONCERNING REQUIREMENT TO
INSTALL CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK AT 645 24TH STREET.
Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated April 18, 2002.
•
Public Works Director Williams presented the staff report and responded to
Council questions.
Coming forward to address the Council on this item was:
Chris Cubic - spoke to his request; said the area had more of a country
feel without curbs, gutters and sidewalks; requested that the
installation requirement at least be postponed until 35 percent
of the street was done; presented photos of the area.
Action: To deny the request to delete or postpone the requirement to install
curb, gutter and sidewalk.
Motion Mayor Dunbabin, second Keegan. The. motion carried, noting the
absence of Yoon.
At 10:25 P.M., the order of the agenda returned to item 6.a.
e. AMENDMENT TO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO REQUIRED STREET
IMPROVEMENTS AS A RESULT OF NEW CONSTRUCTION OR
REMODELING BY ADDING ALLEYS AS DEFINED IN THE MUNICIPAL
CODE. Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated April 18,
2002.
City Manager Burrell presented the staff report and responded to Council
questions.
Action: To approve the staff recommendation to waive full reading and
introduce by title Ordinance No. 02-1219, entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REGARDING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND AMENDING THE
HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE."
Motion Reviczky, second Keegan. The motion carried, noting the absence of
Yoon.
7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER
a. STATUS OF LOMA DRIVE UTILITY UNDERGROUND DISTRICT.
Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell was submitted April 23,
2002 as supplemental information.
City Council Minutes
04-23-02 Page 10817
• •
City Manager Burrell presented the staff report and responded to Council
questions, noting that Edison would not pay to move the pole.
Action: To authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with the
property owner to cover the cost of eliminating the pole on Sixth Street west
of Cypress.
Motion Keegan, second Mayor Dunbabin. ,The motion carried, noting -the
absence of Yoon.
8. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL - None
9. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL
a. Request from Councilmember Yoon to consider changing the timing on
the Aviation Boulevard and Prospect Avenue intersection to limit the
left turn movement onto southbound Prospect during commute hours.
Letter from Tim Podczerviensky dated March 11, 2002.
This item was continued to the next meeting since Councilmember Yoon was
not present.
b. Request from Councilmember Yoon to consider working with school
district to relocate the school district maintenance building on the City
Yard and direct staff to proceed with developing a site plan to
accommodate the needs of both.
City Manager Burrell spoke to the request, discussed the benefits of a space
study and, with the consensus of the Council, said staff would bring back
three to four proposals for Council consideration at the next meeting.
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
April 9, 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
City Council Minutes 04-23-02 Page 10818
• •
ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION - The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the
City of Hermosa Beach adjourned on Tuesday, April 23, 2002, at the hour of 11:15
P.M. to a closed session.
RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION - The Closed Session convened at the hour of
11:17 P.M. At the hour 11:32 P.M., the Closed Session adjourned to the Regular
Meeting.
ORAL ANNOUNCEMENTS - There were no decisions made requiring a public
announcement.
ADJOURNMENT - The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa
Beach adjourned in memory of Jack Wood on Tuesday, April 23, 2002, at the hour
of 11:33 P.M. to the Regular Meeting on Tuesday, May 14, 2002, at the hour of 7:10
P.M.
City Council Minutes 04-23-02 Page 10819
VOUCHRE2
04/18/02 07:43
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
PAGE 1
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT, ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
28814 04/18/02 000243 HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL A PAYROLL/44-1 TO 4-15-02 001.71103 nl, ,.272,81$.38
PAYROLL/4-1 TO 4-15-02 105-1103 6,368.59
PAYROLL/4-1 TO 4-15-02 109-1103 1,075.39
PAYROLL/4-1 TO 4-15-02 110-1103 31,026.77
PAYROLL/4-1 TO 4-15-02 117-1103 633.29
PAYROLL/4-1 TO 4-15-02 140-1103 40.54
PAYROLL/4-1 TO 4-15-02 145-1103 1,225.05
PAYROLL/4-1 TO 4-15-02 146-1103 1,365.87
PAYROLL/4-1 TO 4-15-02 150-1103 57.62
PAYROLL/4-1 TO 4-15-02 152-1103 14.64
PAYROLL/4-1 TO 4-15-02 160-1103 8,658.65
PAYROLL/4-1 TO 4-15-02 301-1103 400.53
PAYROLL/4-1 TO 4-15-02 705-1103 2,596.23
PAYROLL/4-1 TO 4-15-02 715-1103 5,056.83 331,338.38
TOTAL CHECKS 331,338.38
2b
i
VOUCHRE2
04/18/02 07:43
• •
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
FUND TITLE AMOUNT
001 GENERAL FUND 272,818.38
105 LIGHTG/LANDSCAPG DIST FUND 6,368.59
109 DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMENT FUND 1,075.39
110 PARKING FUND 31,026.77
117 AB939 FUND 633.29
140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT 40.54
145 PROPOSITION 'A FUND 1,225.05
146 PROPOSITION 'C FUND 1,365.87
150 GRANTS FUND 57.62
152 AIR QUALITY MGMT DIST FUND 14.64
160 SEWER FUND 8,658.65
301 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 400.53
705 INSURANCE FUND 2,596.23
715 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND 5,056.83
TOTAL 331,338.38
a
•
PAGE 2
VOUCHRE2
04/18/02 15:13
---> VOID CHECKS
CHECK NUMBERS COMMENTS
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
028846 VOID
3
PAGE 1
• •
VOUCHRE2
04/18/02 15:13
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK
NUMBER DATE
VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER NAME
28815 04/18/02 010920 MARY ACKLEY
28816 04/18/02 000935 ADVANCED ELECTRONICS
28817 04/18/02 006827 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE
TWO WAY RADIO MAINTENANCE
TWO WAYS RADIO/APR 02
RADIO MAINT/APRIL 02
SCHOOL CRSSG GD SERV
28818 04/18/02 006421 ALL STAR FIRE EQUIPMENT MOUNTING HARDWARE WRENCH
28819 04/18/02 004971 ALTEC INDUSTRIES
28820 04/18/02 005179 AT&T
28821 04/18/02 009836 MARGUERITE L. BAIERSKI
28822 04/18/02 005167 DAVE BEEMAN
28823 04/18/02 004277 OLIN BELL
28824 04/18/02 009310 ROBERT BESTE
28825 04/18/02 009104 TRACY BLENDER
HI -LIFT TRUCK
LONG DIST. CHARGES/APR 02
INSTRUCTOR PYMNT / TG -02
INSTRUCTOR PYMNT / TG -05
INSTRUCTOR PYMNT / GY-04
INSTRUCTOR PYMNT / GY-05
INSTRUCTOR PYMNT / GY-06
INSTRUCTOR PYMNT / BVL -01
INSTRUCTOR PYMNT/ SFL-01
INSTRUCTOR PYMNT / CC -01
RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND
INSTRUCTOR PYMNT / BM -01
INSTRUCTOR PYMNT / PM -01
INSTRUCTOR PYMNT / PM -02
28826 04/18/02 008522 BLUE RIDGE MEDICAL INC. MEDICAL SUPPLIES
28827 04/18/02 005935
28828 04/18/02 000016
CALIFORNIA STREET MAINT DOWNTOWN AREA CLEANING/MAR.02
PIER CLEANING / MARCH 02
UPPER PIER CLEANING/MARCH 02
PIER HEAD CLEANING/MARCH 02
MARCH 02 STREET SWEEPING
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVIC WATER USAGE/MARCH 02
WATER USAGE/MARCH 02
WATER USAGE/MARCH 02
WATER USAGE/MARCH 02
28829 04/18/02 007022 ROBERT CARSON
28830 04/18/02 010318 CFCA SO -CAL T.O.'S
28831 04/18/02 000456 CLEARS, INC.
28832 04/18/02 005595 COACH USA
2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE
MEMBERSHIP DUES / GOMEZ
MEMBERSHIP/RUTH MILLER
HUNTINGTON EXCURSION/DEC.15/02
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
105-3105
001-2101-4201
001-2101-4201
001-2201-4201
001-2102-4201
001-2201-4309
715-2601-5403
001-2101-4304
001-4601-4221
001-4601-4221
001-4601-4221
001-4601-4221
001-4601-4221
001-4601-4221
001-4601-4221
001-4601-4221
001-2111
001-4601-4221
001-4601-4221
001-4601-4221
001-2201-4309
109-3301-4201
001-6101-4201
109-3301-4201
001-6101-4201
001-3104-4201
105-2601-4303
001-6101-4303
001-4204-4303
109-3304-4303
105-3105
001-2201-4315
001-2101-4317
145-3409-4201
ITEM
AMOUNT
24.61
179.81
1,078.27
270.01
1,286.05
10.74
124,776.53
244.40
264.60
176.40
189.00
315.00
63.00
542.50
2,240.00
325.50
100.00
382.20
918.40
382.20
151.70
7,178.33
1,966.67
196.67
491.67
14,166.67
815.49
3,780.98
613.37
145.67
24.61
30.00
35.00
342.88
PAGE 2
CHECK
AMOUNT
24.61
1,528.09
1,286.05
10.74
124,776.53
244.40
1,008.00
2,782.50
325.50
100.00
1,682.80
151.70
24,000.01
5,355.51
24.61
30.00
35.00
342.88
VOUCHRE2
04/18/02 15:13
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK
NUMBER DATE
VENDOR
NUMBER
VENDOR
NAME
28833 04/18/02 006057 THE CORE GROUP
28834 04/18/02 007809 CORPORATE EXPRESS
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
NETWORK SUPPORT
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
28835 04/18/02 008359 DARE AMERICA MERCHANDIS EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS/DARE
28836 04/18/02 004689 DATA TICKET, INC.
28837 04/18/02 006100 DATA VAULT
28838 04/18/02 008242 LYNDA DESLANDES
28839 04/18/02 002778 RIA DEUERLEIN
DMV RECORD RETRIEVAL 1/3/02
OFF SITE STORAGE/MAY 02
INSTRUCTOR PYMNT / RG -02
2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE
28840 04/18/02 010909 DIVERSIFIED RISK INSURA LEE SKATE PARTY
28841 04/18/02 011034 EKLUND'S BLAST OFF
28842 04/18/02 011516 JAMES G. FISHER
28843 04/18/02 009692 MIKE FRILOT
28844 04/18/02 011504 PATRICK GALLAGHER
28845 04/18/02
005125 MARIA GHASSEMI PETTY
DOWNTOWN STEAM CLEANING/MAR 02
PLAZA CLEANING / MARCH 02
2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE
MEALS/MOTOR OFFICER SCHOOL
CITATION REFUND
CA REIMBURSE
REIMBURSE
REIMBURSE
REIMBURSE
REIMBURSE
REIMBURSE
REIMBURSE
REIMBURSE
REIMBURSE
REIMBURSE
REIMBURSE
REIMBURSE
REIMBURSE
REIMBURSE
REIMBURSE
REIMBURSE
REIMBURSE
REIMBURSE
REIMBURSE
REIMBURSE
PETTY
PETTY
PETTY
PETTY
PETTY
PETTY
PETTY
PETTY
PETTY
PETTY
PETTY
PETTY
PETTY
PETTY
PETTY
PETTY
PETTY
PETTY
PETTY
PETTY
CASH/3/8-4/15
CASH/3/8-4/15
CASH/3/8-4/15
CASH/3/8-4/15
CASH/3/8-4/15
CASH/3/8-4/15
CASH/3/8-4/15
CASH/3/8-4/15
CASH/3/8-4/15
CASH/3/8-4/15
CASH/3/8-4/15
CASH/3/8-4/15
CASH/3/8-4/15
CASH/3/8-4/15
CASH/3/8-4/15
CASH/3/8-4/15
CASH/3/8-4/15
CASH/3/8-4/15
CASH/3/8-4/15
CASH/3/8-4/15
28847 04/18/02 007115 GILLIS & ASSOCIATES ARC MARCH 02 ARCHITECTURAL FEES
MARCH 02 ENGINEERING CONSULT.
28848 04/18/02 006939 ELLEN GOETZ
2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE
5
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
PAGE 3
CHECK
AMOUNT
715-1206-4201- 6,800.00 6,800.00
001-1208-4305
001-1208-4305
001-2101-4305
110-1204-4201
715-1206-4201
001-4601-4221
105-3105
001-3897
109-3301-4201
109-3301-4201
105-3105
001-2101-4312
110-3302
001-4202-4309
001-4202-4317
001-4601-4305
001-4202-4305
001-1201-4317
001-2101-4317
001-4601-4308
001-4601-4305
001-2201-4309
001-4101-4305
001-4201-4305
001-4201-4317
001-2101-4313
001-2101-4305
001-2101-4312
001-2101-4317
715-1206-4309
001-1121-4305
001-2201-4305
001-1208-4305
001-8622-4201
001-8622-4201
105-3105
98.94
136.48
1,535.40
211.96
180.30
700.00
24.61
211.46
1,500.00
900.00
24.61
280.00
100.00
58.41
14.00
40.44
71.41
82.47
5.00
131.03
29.86
5.57
11.58
10.16
10.00
16.00
13.34
14.00
147.00
54.09
59.97
23.67
5.49-
2,480.59
625.00
24.61
235.42
1,535.40
211.96
180.30
700.00
24.61
211.46
2,400.00
24.61
280.00
100.00
792.51
3,105.59
24.61
VOUCHRE2
04/18/02 15:13
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK
NUMBER DATE
VENDOR
NUMBER
VENDOR
NAME
• •
28849 04/18/02 011510 CAMARRON HAHN
28850 04/18/02 011498 HAMPTON INN -VALENCIA/
28851 04/18/02 011514 DENNIS HARMON
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR .ALL PERIODS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
CITATION REFUND
LODGING/FRILOT 4/28-5/10/02
2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE
28852 04/18/02 004108 HAZELRIGG RISK MGMT SER REIMB. WORKER'S COMP - 4/12/02
28853 04/18/02 011515 MERRILL & LOIS HEINTZ
2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE
28854 04/18/02 011237 IDYLL MOUNTAIN INTERNET WEB PAGE SERVICE
28855 04/18/02 009657 INFOLINK SCREENING SERV EMPLOYMENT SCREENING
28856 04/18/02 011503 BRITT JOHNSON
28857 04/18/02 010376 BRITTON KARL
28858 04/18/02 011513 MIRIAM H. KING
28859 04/18/02 007736 DOLORES J. KITCHEN
28860 04/18/02 011506 HOLLY KNADLER
28861 04/18/02 008100 ROY KNOX
28862 04/18/02 010830 LA AREA FIRE MARSHALS
PERMIT REFUND
INSTRUCTOR PYMNT / GI -01
2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE
2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE
CITATION REFUND
2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE
MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL/TINGLEY
REGISTRATION / OSEKOWSKY
28863 04/18/02 007365 LEADER INDUSTRIES, INC. SIDE DOOR REPAIR
28864 04/18/02 010066 RAYMOND LEATHERS
28865 04/18/02 011512 HECTOR LEON-VELARDE
28866 04/18/02 010897 LILY PAD
28867 04/18/02 010045 MAIN STREET TOURS
28868 04/18/02 007133 ANN MATSINGER
28869 04/18/02 008457 MINOLTA BUSINESS SYSTEM
28870 04/18/02 010566 MORGAN WHOLESALE ELECTR
2001 ASSESSMENT TAX REBATE
DEPOSIT REFUND
SCHUMACHER PLAZA DEDICATION
MUSIC EXCURSION / MAR 23, 2002
MUSIC FESTIVAL/MARCH 23, 2002
2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE
COPIER USAGE - MARCH 02
COPIER USAGE - MARCH 02
COPIER USAGE - MARCH 02
COPIER USAGE - MARCH 02
COPIER USAGE - MARCH 02
BUILDING LIGHTS
DISCOUNT OFFERED
DISCOUNT OFFERED
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
110-3302 , ,,, _30,t20
001-2101-4312 772.80
105-3105 24.61
705-1217-4324 11,829.93
105-3105 24.61
715-1206-4201 460.00
001-1203-4201 107.20
110-3843 31.00
001-4601-4221 588.00
105-3105 24.61
105-3105 24.61
110-3302 50.00
105-3105 24.61
001-2201-4315
001-2201-4317
715-2201-4311
105-3105
001-2111
001-1101-4319
001-4601-4201
145-3409-4201
105-3105
001-1208-4201
001-4601-4201
001-1208-4201
001-2201-4201
110-3302-4201
001-4204-4309
001-2021
001-2022
50.00
105.00
325.98
24.61
120.00
476.30
476.00
515.00
24.61
173.56
59.17
90.72
59.17
11.83
124.51
2.34
2.34 -
PAGE 4
CHECK
AMOUNT
30.00
772.80
24.61
11,829.93
24.61
460.00
107.20
31.00
588.00
24.61
24.61
50.00
24.61
155.00
325.98
24.61
120.00
476.30
991.00
24.61
394.45
124.51
VOUCHRE2
04/18/02 15:13
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK
NUMBER DATE
VENDOR
NUMBER
VENDOR
NAME
28871 04/18/02 009854 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
28872 04/18/02 008962 NORLAB, INC.
28873 04/18/02 011517 OCEAN DINER
28874 04/18/02 004142 OFFICE DEPOT
28875 04/18/02 011505 LORENZO OTERO
28876 04/18/02 000321 PACIFIC BELL
28877 04/18/02 000519 PAK WEST
28878 04/18/02 008482 PMX MEDICAL SPECIALTY
28879 04/18/02 010847 CAROLE PRENTER
28880 04/18/02 010940 BRIGITTE AVARY PRINCE
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
PHONE CHARGES FEB 02 -MAR., 01/02
DEODORANT BLOCKS FOR SEWER
DESSERT/SCHUMACHER PLAZA DEDIC
GUEST CHAIR & COAT HANGERS
CITATION REFUND/ADMIN HEARING
COMPUTER HOOK-UP / 4/02
COMPUTER HOOK-UP / 3/02
COMPUTER HOOK-UPS/4/7-5/6/02
TRASH CAN LINERS
MEDICAL SUPPLIES/FIRE DEPT
2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE
2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE
28881 04/18/02 011468 REVA INTERNATIONAL,LTD FLARES
28882 04/18/02 003353 S.B.C.U. VISA
28883 04/18/02 009139 SECURED STORAGE
28884 04/18/02 009656 SHRED IT CALIFORNIA
28885 04/18/02 009811 WILLIAM E. SIGLER
28886 04/18/02 000113 SOUTH BAY FIRE EXTINGUI
28887 04/18/02
MEETING/ECON.REVIEW/BURRELL
RECRUITMENT AD/3/02
TRAVEL EXP LAVIN & BURRELL
STORAGE CHARGES/1ST QRT 2002
DESTRUCTION SERVICES/4/02
INSTRUCTOR PYMNT / BVL -01
EXTINGUISHER RECHARGED/3/02
000159 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDI ELECTRIC BILLING/MARCH 2002
ELECTRIC BILLING/MARCH 2002
ELECTRIC BILLING/MARCH 2002
ELECTRIC BILLING/MARCH 2002
ELECTRIC BILLING/MARCH 2002
ELECTRIC BILLING/MARCH 2002
ELECTRIC BILLING/MARCH 2002
ELECTRIC BILLING/MARCH 2002
ELECTRIC BILLING/MARCH 2002
ELECTRIC BILLING/MARCH 2002
ELECTRIC BILLING/MARCH 2002
ELECTRIC BILLING/MARCH 2002
ELECTRIC BILLING/MARCH 2002
ELECTRIC BILLING/MARCH 2002
ELECTRIC BILLING/MARCH 2002
1
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
0.01746Q1-404-,
160-3102-4309
001-1101-4319
001-2201-4305
110-3302
001-2101-4304
001-2101-4304
001-2101-4304
105-2601-4309
001-2201-4309
105-3105
105-3105
001-2201-5401
001-1101-4317
001-1203-4201
001-2101-4312
001-1121-4201
001-2101-4201
001-4601-4221
001-2201-4309
105-2601-4303
105-2601-4303
105-2601-4303
160-3102-4303
105-2601-4303
001-3104-4303
001-6101-4303
105-2601-4303
001-6101-4303
001-4204-4303
105-2601-4303
001-6101-4303
105-2601-4303
001-6101-4303
105-2601-4303
PAGE 5
ITEM CHECK
AMOUNT AMOUNT
„,„,105N15/-
870.00
,,,,„,105n15/ -
870.00
757.75
476.28
30.00
2.38
2.50
40.44 45.32
403.12 403.12
423.67 423.67
24.61 24.61
24.61 24.61
281.38 281.38
29.33
250.00
152.01 431.34
48.00 48.00
85.00 85.00
542.50 542.50
10.00 10.00
250.97
11,131.88
98.05
107.65
356.60
1,213.78
2,844.90
9.80
12.10
194.05
17.34
7,493.18
287.06
269.76
24.53
„105.19„
870.00
757.75
476.28
30.00
VOUCHRE2
04/18/02 15:13
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK
NUMBER DATE
VENDOR
NUMBER
VENDOR
NAME
28888 04/18/02 011507 TAMMY STAFFORD
• •
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
ELECTRIC
ELECTRIC
ELECTRIC
ELECTRIC
ELECTRIC
ELECTRIC
ELECTRIC
ELECTRIC
ELECTRIC
BILLING/MARCH 2002
BILLING/MARCH 2002
BILLING/MARCH 2002
BILLING/MARCH 2002
BILLING/MARCH 2002
BILLING/MARCH 2002
BILLING/MARCH 2002
BILLING/FEB 2002
BILLING/MAR 2002
CLASS REFUND
28889 04/18/02 004632 SUNSET RANCH HOLLYWOOD HORSEBACK RIDE EXCURSION
28890 04/18/02 011102 TORRANCE WHOLESALE NURS PLANTS FOR HERMOSA AVE.MEDIANS
LANDSCAPE MEDIAN PLANTERS
PLANTS FOR NOBLE PARK & CITY
LABORATORY ANALYSIS/MARCH 02
PRINTER MAINTENANCE/MAY 02
28891 04/18/02 010785 UNITED STORM WATER, INC
28892 04/18/02 004768 UPTIME COMPUTER SERVICE
28893 04/18/02 011035 US LANDSCAPES, INC.
28894 04/18/02 000015 VERIZON CALIFORNIA
28895 04/18/02 010500 XO COMMUNICATIONS
28896 04/18/02 007106 JENNIFER YAMANE
PARKS MAINTENANCE/MARCH 02
TREE TRIMMINGS-PARKS/MAR 02
TREE TRIMMINGS MEDIANS/MAR 02
EXTRA WORK / MARCH 02
DOWNTOWN TREES / MARCH 02
MAR 10 - APR 10/02 TELEPHONE
MARCH DSL CONNECTION
INSTRUCTOR PYMNT / BT -01
INSTRUCTOR PYMNT / BT -02
INSTRUCTOR PYMNT / BT -03
INSTRUCTOR PYMNT / BT -04
INSTRUCTOR PYMNT / DT -01
INSTRUCTOR PYMNT / BJ -01
INSTRUCTOR PYMNT / BJ -02
INSTRUCTOR PYMNT / BJ -03
28897 04/18/02 011474 YOUTH'S SAFETY CO.DEPT. YOUTH EDUCATION SUPPLIES
28898 04/18/02 001206 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
109-3304-4303
001-4204-4303
105-2601-4303
105-2601-4303
105-2601-4303
105-2601-4303
109-3304-4303
001-3104-4303
001-3104-4303
001-2111
001-4601-4201
105-2601-4309
105-2601-4309
001-6101-4309
160-3102-4201
715-1206-4201
001-6101-4201
001-6101-4201
105-2601-4201
001-6101-4201
109-3301-4201
001-4601-4304
715-1206-4201
001-4601-4221
001-4601-4221
001-4601-4221
001-4601-4221
001-4601-4221
001-4601-4221
001-4601-4221
001-4601-4221
001-2201-4305
SIGN PURCHASE/3/02 001-3104-4309
TOTAL CHECKS
ITEM
AMOUNT
2,657.16
18.23
28.86
218.32
22.96
30.32
60.30
385.57
123.95
55.00
245.00
259.80
276.04
121.78
305.00
641.60
11,595.00
3,000.00
675.00
1,591.00
250.00
95.34
124.00
220.50
315.00
220.50
126.00
315.00
220.50
346.50
63.00
563.48
683.31
PAGE 6
CHECK
AMOUNT
27,857.32
55.00
245.00
657.62
305.00
641.60
17,111.00
95.34
124.00
1,827.00
563.48
683.31
251,688.28
•
VOUCHRE2
04/18/02 15:13
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
FUND TITLE AMOUNT
001 GENERAL FUND 75,751.72
105 LIGHTG/LANDSCAPPG DIST FUND 15,250.68
109 DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMENT FUND 12,888.13
110 PARKING FUND 464.79
145 PROPOSITION 'A FUND 857.88
160 SEWER FUND 1,282.65
705 INSURANCE FUND 11,829.93
715 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND 133,362.50
TOTAL 251,688.28
9
VOUCHRE2
04/22/02 10:47
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
PAGE 1
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
28899 04/22/02 008175 FLEMING & ASSOCIATES LIABILITY TRUST ACCOUNT
705-1209-4324
48,525.35
48,525.35
TOTAL CHECKS 48,525.35
10
•
VOUCHRE2
04/22/02 10:47
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
FUND TITLE AMOUNT
705 INSURANCE FUND 48,525.35
TOTAL 48,525.35
II
PAGE 2
VOUCHRE2
04/25/02 17:51
---> VOID CHECKS
CHECK NUMBERS COMMENTS
• •
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
028975 VOID
IA
PAGE 1
VOUCHRE2
04/25/02 17:51
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
PAGE 2
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
28900 04/25/02 006421 ALL STAR FIRE EQUIPMENT SCOTT FACEPIECE & LENS 180-2202-5402
KEVLAR NECK STRAP 180-2202-5402
28901 04/25/02 009965 ALPHA OMEGA RESPIRATOR RESPIRATOR EQUIPMENT TESTING 001-2201-4201
28902 04/25/02 008522 BLUE RIDGE MEDICAL INC. MEDICAL SUPPLIES 001-2201-4309
28903 04/25/02 011518 DENISE BOTHE RECORDING SECRETARY FEE/MAR'02 001-4101-4201
28904 04/25/02 009141 CALIF. EMS AUTHORITY EMT -PARAMEDIC RENEWAL/MARKS 001-2201-4315
28905 04/25/02 000838 CALIFORNIA FENCE & SUPP SKATE TRACK FENCE 125-8530-4201
28906 04/25/02 008606 CAMPBELL DEVELOPMENT WORK GUARANTEE REFUND # 2989 001-2110
28907 04/25/02 011484 CCS PRESENTATION SYSTEM MULTI MEDIA PROJ.& TRAINING 001-1208-5402
28908 04/25/02 005595 COACH USA
228.79
79.21
450.00
19.50
429.00
130.00
585.00
1,600.00
4,463.25
TRANSPORT.FOR SENIOR EXCURSION 145-3409-4201 633.00
YOUTH EXCURSION TO SKATE ZONE 145-3409-4201 419.37
28909 04/25/02 000352 COAST SIGNS & GRAPHICS WORK GUARANTEE REFUND #3079 001-2110
28910 04/25/02 008906 COLOURCRAFT PRINTING IN BROCHURES FOR CPRS CONFERENCE 001-4601-4302
28911 04/25/02 009614 CONTINENTAL MAPPING SER 300' NOTICING
28912 04/25/02 007809 CORPORATE EXPRESS
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
INKJET CARTRIDGES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
28913 04/25/02 007808 CSMFO SEMINAR REGISTRATION
28914 04/25/02 000850 L. N. CURTIS
1,000.00
259.80
001-4101-4201 1,497.00
001-1208-4305
001-1208-4305
001-1208-4305
001-2101-4305
001-1208-4305
400.12
14.57
245.94
375.71
33.10
001-1202-4317 65.00
ADAPTERS 001-2201-4309 56.95
KNEE BOOTS 180-2202-5402 104.32
CREDIT FOR RETURNED ITEMS 001-2201-4309 50.23-
28915 04/25/02 011481 DAVE'S CUSTOM LOCK, KEY PHONE LINES REMOVED/COMM CRT 125-8628-4201
28916 04/25/02 000364 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FINGERPRINTING / MARCH '02 001-1203-4201
28917 04/25/02 000267 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT FEB'02 HWY MAINTENANCE 105-2601-4251
28918 04/25/02 011449 DEWEY PEST CONTROL PEST CONTROL 001-4204-4201
28919 04/25/02 008769 EDEN SYSTEMS CONSULTING TO GOLD UPGRADE 001-1202-4201
28920 04/25/02 006829 CITY OF EL SEGUNDO DISPATCH SERVICES/2ND ORTR'02 001-2101-4251
DISPATCH SERVICES/2ND QRTR'02 110-3302-4251
DISPATCH SERVICES/2ND QRTR'02 001-2201-4251
13
900.00
46.00
667.45
975.00
562.50
85,201.00
10,650.00
10,650.00
308.00
450.00
19.50
429.00
130.00
585.00
1,600.00
4,463.25
1,052.37
1,000.00
259.80
1,497.00
1,069.44
65.00
111.04
900.00
46.00
667.45
975.00
562.50
106,501.00
VOUCHRE2
04/25/02 17:51
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK
NUMBER DATE
VENDOR
NUMBER
VENDOR
NAME
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
28921 04/25/02 011485 ELECTRICAL INSPECTIONS ELECTRICAL INSPECTION/REMODEL
28922 04/25/02
001294
EXECUTIVE -SUITE SERVICE
28923 04/25/02 001962 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP.
28924 04/25/02 011531 HEIDI FERNANDEZ
28925 04/25/02 008422 FIRE INFORMATION SUPPOR
28926 04/25/02 009415 STARLA GILL
28927 04/25/02 011522 MARK HARRELSON
28928 04/25/02 006518
28929 04/25/02 004108
28930 04/25/02 000065
HAYER CONSULTANTS, INC.
HAZELRIGG RISK MGMT SER
HERMOSA BEACH CAR WASH
28931 04/25/02 011157 MICHAEL HERTICA
28932 04/25/02 001165 JOBS AVAILABLE
28933 04/25/02 006451 JOHNSON LIFT/HYSTER
28934 04/25/02 006293 KINKO'S INC.
28935 04/25/02 007859 L.A. CO METRO TRANS AUT
28936 04/25/02 011523 LA COUNTY FIREFIGHTERS
28937 04/25/02 004534 LASER IMAGING
28938 04/25/02 010677 LAWRENCE ASSOCIATES
MAR'02 JANITORIAL SERV/JAIL
MAR'02 JANITORIAL SERV/POLICE
MAR'02 JANITOR SERV./CITY HALL
MAR'02 JANITOR SERVICES
MAR'02 JANITOR SERV/CLARK BLDG
MAR'02 JANITOR SERV/COMM.CTR.
MAR'02 JANITOR SERV/CITY YARD
MAR'02 JANITOR SERV/BOWLING GR
MAR'02 JANITOR SERV/SO.PARK SC
COURIER SERVICES
COURIER SERVICES
COURIER SERVICES
CITATION REFUND
ORTRLY REPORTING/TRAINING MODU
MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
CITATION REFUND/ADMIN HEARING
TEMP. BLDG. INSPECTOR/4/1-15/02
WORKER'S COMP REIMBURS 4/19/02
CAR WASH / MARCH '02
CAR WASH / MARCH '02
CAR WASH / MARCH '02
CAR WASH / MARCH '02
ADVOCATE TRAINING/FEB-APR 2002
AD FOR CITY CLERK
MASTER CYLINDER FOR FORKLIFT
PLANS & SPECS/VALLEY PARK
PLANS & SPECS/VALLEY PARK
CREDIT FOR OVER -CHARGE
BUS PASS SALES - 4/02
REGISTRATION/GAROFANO
PRINTER SUPPLIES
CITY PLANNER/JAN102
CITY PLANNER/FEB'02
19
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
001-8622-4201
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
160-8411-4201
001-1101-4305
001-1203-4201
110-3302
001-2201-4201
001-2101-4313
110-3302
001-4201-4201
705-1217-4324
715-2101-4311
715-4201-4311
715-3302-4311
715-4202-4311
150-2110-4201
001-1203-4201
715-2601-4311
001-4202-4201
001-4202-4201
001-4202-4201
145-3403-4251
001-2201-4317
001-2101-4305
001-2114
001-2114
PAGE 3
ITEM CHECK
AMOUNT AMOUNT
560.00 560.00
750.00
1,200.00
950.00
290.00
365.00
3,750.00
325.00
195.00
55.00 7,880.00
15.33
53.73
17.17 86.23
30.00 30.00
935.00 935.00
664.30 664.30
30.00 30.00
6,030.00 6,030.00
10,745.07 10,745.07
414.80
10.85
14.85
17.80 458.30
250.00 250.00
128.80 128.80
73.09 73.09
2,937.68
1,093.22
96.84- 3,934.06
76.00 76.00
125.00 125.00
118.09 118.09
5,397.50
4,234.34 9,631.84
VOUCHRE2
04/25/02 17:51
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK
NUMBER DATE
VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER NAME
28939 04/25/02 000167 LEARNED LUMBER
• •
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
SILICA SAND
LUMBER
28940 04/25/02 002175 LIEBERT, CASSIDY WHITMO LEGAL FEES
LEGAL FEES
LEGAL FEES
28941 04/25/02 008445 LITTLE CO OF MARY HOSPI BLOOD ALCOHOL DRAW
28942 04/25/02
28943 04/25/02
28944 04/25/02
28945 04/25/02
28946 04/25/02
28947 04/25/02
28948 04/25/02
28949 04/25/02
001320 LONG BEACH UNIFORM CO.
011527 LEIGH LUPINACCI
010045 MAIN STREET TOURS
010453 TRISTAN MALABANAN
POLICE OFFICERS UNIFORMS
CITATION OVERPAYMENT REFUND
DEPOSIT/CATALINA TRIP 7/3/02
TUITION REIMBURSEMENT
007828 MANHATTAN STITCHING COM EMBROIDERY
003972 MAPLE MEDICAL GROUP INC PRE EMPLOYMENT PHYSICALS
011526 NELLA MARANON
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
160-3102-4309
001-4204-4309
001-1203-4201
001-1203-4201
001-1203-4201
001-2101-4201
001-2101-4187
110-3302
001-4601-4201
001-4202-4317
180-2202-5402
001-1203-4320
CITATION REFUND/ADMIN HEARING 110-3302
009825 MEMRAD MEDICAL GROUP,IN PATIENT SERVICES
28950 04/25/02 010333 MOBILE MINI, INC
28951 04/25/02 011525 GARY MOELLER
28952 04/25/02 011521 EDWARD MOORLACH
28953 04/25/02 011530 DONALD MULLIGAN
20'STORAGE CONTAINER
CITATION REFUND
001-2101-4201
001-3104-5402
110-3302
CITATION REFUND/ADMIN HEARING 110-3302
SOFTBALL UMPIRE 001-4601-4201
28954 04/25/02 000399 NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTIO MEMBERSHIP DUES 001-2201-4315
28955 04/25/02 003417 ORIENTAL TRADING CO. DOG PARADE ITEMS 001-4601-4308
28956 04/25/02 011524 ARMANDO OROZCO CITATION REFUND 110-3302
28957 04/25/02 000491 PACIFIC SCREEN PRINT HOODED SWEATSHIRTS W EMBLEM 001-4202-4187
28958 04/25/02 010139 PARKING CONCEPTS INC. PKG STRUCTURE OPERATIONS/3/02 109-3304-4231
LOT A OPERATOR/FY 2001-02 109-3305-4231
28959 04/25/02
28960 04/25/02
28961 04/25/02
28962 04/25/02
011520 JAMES M. PERLEY
REFUND OF NSF FEES
110-3302
011519 PUBLIC SAFETY TECHNOLOG REPLACE CK 028790/WRONG VENDOR 154-2107-5402
010157 PURKISS.ROSE-RSI
011470 QUEST PRINTING
PH.3 PIER RENOVATION/MAR'02 001-8630-4201
PAPER FOR BUSINESS LICENSES 110-1204-4305
15
ITEM
AMOUNT
35.29
74.25
55.50
51.00
999.50
70.00
474.73
5.00
200.00
105.00
110.42
736.00
30.00
191.00
1,634.58
30.00
55.00
570.00
115.00
59.30
25.00
253.05
12,151.44
11,392.45
20.00
15,200.00
500.00
198.18
PAGE 4
CHECK
AMOUNT
109.54
1,106.00
70.00
474.73
5.00
200.00
105.00
110.42
736.00
30.00
191.00
1,634.58
30.00
55.00
570.00
115.00
59.30
25.00
253.05
23,543.89
20.00
15,200.00
500.00
198.18
VOUCHRE2
04/25/02 17:51
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK
NUMBER DATE
VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER NAME
28963 04/25/02 008837 CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
2/24/02 - 3/24/02 GAS
2/24/02 - 3/2,/02 GAS
2/24/02 - 3/24/02 GAS
2/24/02 - 3/24/02 GAS
28964 04/25/02 009868 SADDLEBACK MATERIALS CO PLASTIC SAND BAGS
28965 04/25/02 010995 SAN DIEGO WEB DESIGN
28966 04/25/02 009268 SIGNS 4 SUCCESS
28967 04/25/02 009737 LESLIE SOLYMOSI
28968 04/25/02 011447 SOUTHERN ALUMINUM
28969 04/25/02 010412 STERICYCLE
28970 04/25/02 005693 TOOL CITY
28971 04/25/02 011209 UC REGENTS
WEB SITE HOSTING
ROLLER HOCKEY BANNER
BEE REMOVAL'
STAGE SKIRTING
MEDICAL SUPPLIES
REPLACE OLD FENCE
CONTINUING EDUCATION
28972 04/25/02 008097 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNI MAR'02 SAFEKEEPING FEES
28973 04/25/02 011501 VANTECH SAFETY LINE
28974 04/25/02 000015 VERIZON CALIFORNIA
SAFETY JACKETS
ACCT. 310-406-2421/MARCH 02
APRIL
MARCH
MARCH
MARCH
MARCH
MARCH
MARCH
MARCH
MARCH
MARCH
MARCH
PHONE
PHONE
PHONE
PHONE
PHONE
PHONE
PHONE
PHONE
PHONE
PHONE
PHONE
CHARGES
CHARGES/PRIVATE
CHARGES/PRIVATE
CHARGES/PRIVATE
CHARGES/PRIVATE
CHARGES/PRIVATE
CHARGES/PRIVATE
CHARGES/PRIVATE
CHARGES/PRIVATE
CHARGES/PRIVATE
LN
LN
LN
LN
LN
LN
LN
LN
LN
CHARGES/PRIVATE LN
MARCH 02 TELEPHONE CHARGES
MARCH 02 TELEPHONE CHARGES
MARCH 02 TELEPHONE CHARGES
MARCH 02 TELEPHONE CHARGES
MARCH 02 TELEPHONE CHARGES
MARCH 02 TELEPHONE CHARGES
MARCH 02 TELEPHONE CHARGES
MARCH 02 TELEPHONE CHARGES
MARCH 02 TELEPHONE CHARGES
MARCH 02 TELEPHONE CHARGES
MARCH 02 TELEPHONE CHARGES
MARCH 02 TELEPHONE CHARGES
MARCH 02 TELEPHONE CHARGES
MARCH 02 TELEPHONE CHARGES
MARCH 02 TELEPHONE CHARGES
MARCH 02 TELEPHONE CHARGES
1 l�
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
715-2201-4310
715---3102-4310-
715-4204-4310
715-4201-4310
160-3102-4309
001-2201-4304
001-4601-4308
110-3302-4201
001-4601-4308
001-2101-4201
001-4204-4309
001-2201-4201
001-1141-4201
001-4202-4187
001-2101-4304
001-4204-4321
715-1206-4304
110-3302-4304
001-2101-4304
001-4204-4321
001-2201-4304
001-4601-4304
001-4202-4304
001-4201-4304
109-3304-4304
110-1204-4304
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
ITEM
AMOUNT
238.53
24.30
8.32
4.62
851.93
30.00
163.46
85.00
896.55
70.47
377.79
1,500.00
291.67
1,149.45
41.01
42.80
285.57
64.22
1,303.24
60.65
198.63
57.28
103.02
73.22
37.01
33.12
6.20
3.10
24.79
26.34
60.42
38.73
40.28
3.10
469.40
198.30
30.98
83.66
27.89
44.93
PAGE 5
CHECK
AMOUNT
275.77
851.93
30.00
163.46
85.00
896.55
70.47
377.79
1,500.00
291.67
1,149.45
•
VOUCHRE2
04/25/02 17:51
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK
NUMBER DATE
VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER NAME
28976 04/25/02 008767 WEST GROUP
28977 04/25/02 001206 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
MARCH 02 TELEPHONE CHARGES
MARCII O2 TELEPHONE CHARGES
LONG DISTANCE PHONE CHARGES
LONG DISTANCE PHONE CHARGES
LONG DISTANCE PHONE CHARGES
LONG DISTANCE PHONE CHARGES
LONG DISTANCE PHONE CHARGES
LONG DISTANCE PHONE CHARGES
LONG DISTANCE PHONE CHARGES
LONG DISTANCE PHONE CHARGES
LONG DISTANCE PHONE CHARGES
LONG DISTANCE PHONE CHARGES
LONG DISTANCE PHONE CHARGES
LONG DISTANCE PHONE CHARGES
LONG DISTANCE PHONE CHARGES
LONG DISTANCE PHONE CHARGES
LONG DISTANCE PHONE CHARGES
LONG DISTANCE PHONE CHARGES
APRIL PHONE CHARGES
FEB '02 CHARGES
MARCH 2002 CHARGES
DRIVE RIVETS
ENGINEERING SIGNS
ORANGE CONES
TOTAL CHECKS
11
•
ACCOUNT
• NUMBER
001-4202-4304
001-4601-4304
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
001-2201-4304
153-2106-4201
153-2106-4201
001-3104-4309
001-3104-4309
001-3104-4309
ITEM
AMOUNT
312.93
178.16
9.75
4.87
38.99
43.86
95.03
60.92
63.35
4.87
735.84
311.89
48.73
131.58
43.86
70.66
492.20
280.21
32.70
94.13
15.18
351.00
321.06
992.11
PAGE 6
CHECK
AMOUNT
6,318.29
109.31
1,664.17
223,572.68
VOUCHRE2
04/25/02 17:51
• •
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
125 PARK/REC FACILITY TAX FUND
145 PROPOSITION 'A FUND
150 GRANTS FUND
153 SUPP LAW ENF SERV (SLESF)
154 CA LAW ENF EQUIP PROG (CLEEP)
160 SEWER FUND
180 FIRE PROTECTION FUND
705 INSURANCE FUND
715 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND
TOTAL
156,234.46
667.45
23,580.90
11,550.47
1,485.00
1,128.37
250.00
109.31
15,200.00
902.55
522.74
10,745.07
1,196.36
223,572.68
18
PAGE 7
VOUCHRE2
05/02/02 15:54
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
PAGE 1
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
28978 05/02/02 000243 HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL A PAYROLL/4-16 TO 4-30-02 001-1103 335,296.87
PAYROLL/4-16 TO 4-30-02 105-1103 7,980.77
PAYROLL/4-16 TO 4-30-02 109-1103 1,279.34
PAYROLL/4-16 TO 4-30-02 110-1103 39,539.94
PAYROLL/4-16 TO 4-30-02 117-1103 772.57
PAYROLL/4-16 TO 4-30-02 140-1103 1,122.34
PAYROLL/4-16 TO 4-30-02 145-1103 1,193.36
PAYROLL/4-16 TO 4-30-02 146-1103 2,337.70
PAYROLL/4-16 TO 4-30-02 150-1103 69.42
PAYROLL/4-16 TO 4-30-02 152-1103 17.58
PAYROLL/4-16 TO 4-30-02 160-1103 11,542.78
PAYROLL/4-16 TO 4-30-02 301-1103 474.10
PAYROLL/4-16 TO 4-30-02 705-1103 2,994.71
PAYROLL/4-16 TO 4-30-02 715-1103 7,636.68 412,267.16
TOTAL CHECKS 412,267.16
VOUCHRE2
05/02/02 15:54
• •
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
117 AB939 FUND
140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT
145 PROPOSITION 'A FUND
146 PROPOSITION 'C FUND
150 GRANTS FUND
152 AIR QUALITY MGMT DIST FUND
160 SEWER FUND
301 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
705 INSURANCE FUND
715 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND
TOTAL
335,296.87
7,989.77
1,279.34
39,539.94
772.57
1,122.34
1,193.36
2,337.70
69.42
17.58
11,542.78
474.10
2,994.71
7,636.68
412,267.16
go
PAGE 2
VOUCHRE2
05/02/02 16:26
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK
NUMBER DATE
VENDOR
NUMBER
VENDOR
NAME
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
28979 05/02/02 007964 321 PIER AVENUE, LLC WORK GUARANTEE REFUND# 3039
28980 05/02/02 006827 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SCHOOL CRSSG GD SERV/4/7-20
28981 05/02/02 011472 APPLE ONE
MINUTES & TRANSCRIPTION FEES
28982 05/02/02 006409 BLUE DIAMOND MATERIALS ASPHALT PURCHASE/APRIL 2002
28983 05/02/02 000835 BRADLEY'S PLASTIC BAG C PRISONER PROPERTY BAGS
28984 05/02/02 010824 KEVIN BRADY
INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT/#6752
28985 05/02/02 010339 CALIFORNIA SCIENCE CENT SUMMER CAMP EXCURSION DEPOSIT
28986 05/02/02 005469 FAYE CALLEN
28987 05/02/02 011557 CAMPBELL CUSTOM GLASS
28988 05/02/02 004257 WARREN CARTER
28989 05/02/02 000014 CHAMPION CHEVROLET
28990 05/02/02 009110 CONCEPT MARINE
28991 05/02/02 011117 CORONA CONSTRUCTORS
28992 05/02/02 007809 CORPORATE EXPRESS
28993 05/02/02 010873 COUNTY CLERK
28994 05/02/02 011544 MARIA CRACKNELL
28995 05/02/02 011537 CRYSTAL FACTORY
28996 05/02/02 011273 DE BILLO
28997 05/02/02 011355 JIMMY DE LOS SANTOS
28998 05/02/02 011553 KATHRYN B. DESTABELLE
2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE
DEDICATION PLAQUE
2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE
AUTO PART PURCHASE/APRIL 2002
AUTO PART PURCHASE/APRIL 2002
AUTO PART PURCHASE/APRIL 2002
CITY HALL REMODEL
CITY HALL REMODEL
CITY HALL REMODEL CONTRACT
CITY HALL REMODEL CONTRACT
OFFICE SUPPLIES/APRIL 02
OFFICE SUPPLIES/APRIL 2002
RETURNED MERCHANDISE/APRIL 02
OFFICE SUPPLIES/APRIL 2002
OFFICE SUPPLIES/APRIL 2002
OFFICE SUPPLIES/APRIL 02
OFFICE SUPPLY PURCHASE/4/02
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
CLASS REFUND
FRAME & NAME PLATE/DA
PRISONER MEALS/MARCH 02
PRISONER MEALS/APRIL 02
PER DIEM/5/6-11 & 5/13-16
2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE
21
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
001-2110
001-2102-4201
001-4202-4201
001-3104-4309
001-2101-4306
001-4601-4221
001-4601-4308
105-3105
001-1101-4319
105-3105
715-2201-4311
715-2201-4311
715-4206-4311
001-8622-4201
001-8622-4201
140-8622-4201
301-8622-4201
001-1208-4305
001-1208-4305
001-1208-4305
001-1208-4305
001-1208-4305
001-1208-4305
001-1208-4305
301-8171-4201
001-2111
001-2201-4305
001-2101-4306
001-2101-4306
001-2201-4317
105-3105
ITEM
AMOUNT
PAGE 1
CHECK
AMOUNT
1,600.00 1,600.00-
3,248.64 3,248.64
216.56 216.56
117.49 117.49
116.29 116.29
4,762.80 4,762.80
20.00 20.00
24.61 24.61
162.38 162.38
24.61 24.61
231.88
232.79
125.38 590.05
19,034.00
24,098.75 43,132.75
94,990.90
143,744.00 238,734.90
276.97
12.36
3.98-
3.98
1.99
459.04
183.74 934.10
25.00 25.00
45.00 45.00
353.42 353.42
209.17
251.55 460.72
500.00 500.00
24.61 24.61
VOUCHRE2
05/02/02 16:26
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK
NUMBER DATE
VENDOR
NUMBER
VENDOR
NAME
28999 05/02/02 010400 RAYMUND DIAZ
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
THEATER TECHNICIAN/3/26/02
29000 05/02/02 004394 DIVERSIFIED PHOTO SUPPL FILM PURCHASE/MARCH 02
29001 05/02/02 008098 MAY DORSETT
29002 05/02/02 010701 ECPI
2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE
FINGERPRINTS KITS
29003 05/02/02 010237 DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL
CLASS REFUND
2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE
LIABILITY ADMIN/4/1-6/31/02
29004 05/02/02 011546 CAMILLE EVERETT
29005 05/02/02 010313 PHYLLIS FILLET
29006 05/02/02 008266 FLEMING & ASSOCIATES
29007 05/02/02 007910 FOSTER-GORDON MANUFACTU PRESENTATION FOLDERS
29008 05/02/02 010766 KATHY GARCIA
29009 05/02/02 011538 CITY OF GARDEN GROVE
29010 05/02/02 010239 JENNIFER GERVAIS
29011 05/02/02 011379 BRIAN GREBBIEN
TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES
MINI-CONFERENCE/M. HALL
THEATER TECHNICIAN/3/19-4/13
PER DIEM/5/6-11 5/12-16/02
29012 05/02/02 004108 HAZELRIGG RISK MGMT SER WORKER COMP CLAIMS/4/26/02
29013 05/02/02 011535 CHRIS HENDERSHOT
29014 05/02/02 007027 ALBERT HODGES
29015 05/02/02 010056 ANASTASIA HORTON
RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND
2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE
2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE
29016 05/02/02 000781 INTERNATIONAL CONF OF B IFCI VOTING MEMBERSHIP DUES
29017 05/02/02 003373 RUSSELL WALTER JOHNSON INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT/OTL #1
29018 05/02/02 011550 NANCY KLEIN
29019 05/02/02 011534 KARA KOCAL
29020 05/02/02 009527 LA QUINTA
29021 05/02/02 007575 ISAAC LEVY
29022 05/02/02 010897 LILY PAD
CLASS REFUND
RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
001-4601-4201
001-2101-4305
105-3105
001-2101-4309
126-8507-4201
125-8507-4201
001-2111
105-3105
705-1209-4201
001-1101-4305
001-2101-4201
110-1204-4317
001-4601-4201
001-2201-4317
705-1217-4324
001-2111
105-3105
105-3105
001-4201-4315
001-4601-4221
001-2111
001-2111
LODGING/DE LOS SANTOS/GREBBIEN 001-2201-4317
2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE
CARNATIONS
29023 05/02/02 000077 LOMITA BLUEPRINT SERVIC ADHESIVE STRIPS FOR PLANS
2_
105-3105
001-4601-4308
001-4202-4305
ITEM
AMOUNT
60.00
102.84
24.61
279.50
930.27
500.92
30.00
24.61
2,437.50
491.70
290.25
50.00
452.50
500.00
6,930.39
500.00
24.61
24.61
60.00
420.00
30.00
427.00
895.40
24.61
81.19
194.74
PAGE 2
CHECK
AMOUNT
60.00
102.84
24.61
279.50
1,431.19
30.00
24.61
2,437.50
491.70
290.25
50.00
452.50
500.00
6,930.39
500.00
24.61
24.61
60.00
420.00
30.00
427.00
895.40
24.61
81.19
194.74
VOUCHRE2
05/02/02 16:26
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK
NUMBER DATE
VENDOR
NUMBER
VENDOR
NAME
• •
29024 05/02/02 011107 CITY OF LONG BEACH
29025 05/02/02 007174 EMMITT L. MANION
29026 05/02/02 011551 JANTHON MARANO
29027 05/02/02 011485 MEL NEIDITCH
29028 05/02/02 002473 SHIRLEY MEYER
29029 05/02/02 008457 MINOLTA BUSINESS SYSTEM
29030 05/02/02 011353 MAGGIE MOIRE
29031 05/02/02 011532 MICHAEL MOODY
29032 05/02/02 008091 JOSEFINA MORENO
29033 05/02/02 010566
MORGAN WHOLESALE ELECTR
29034 05/02/02 011327 KARIN MUFF
29035 05/02/02 009854 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
29036 05/02/02 010098 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
29037 05/02/02 000093 OLYMPIC AUTO CENTER
29038 05/02/02 006334 HAROLD ORMONDROYD
29039 05/02/02 004356 SHELDON OSEKOWSKY
29040 05/02/02 009734 PAVEMENT COATING CO.
29041 05/02/02 010340 PERFORMANCE PUBLISHING
29042 05/02/02 000753 HENRY R. POIRIER
29043 05/02/02 011548 ANNE PRIEST
29044 05/02/02 008364 PVP COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
DEPOSIT SUMMER CAMP EXCURSION
2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE
CLASS REFUND
ELECTRICAL INSPECTION/REMODEL
2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE
COPY USAGE/JAN 2002
COPY USAGE/JAN 2002
COPY USAGE/JAN 2002
COPY USAGE/JAN 2002
COPY USAGE/JAN 2002
RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND
RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND
2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES/4/02
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES/APRIL 02
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES/4/02
DISCOUNT OFFERED
DISCOUNT TAKEN
RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND
CELL PHONE BILLING/3/22-4/21
INSTALL CAR PHONE KIT
AUTO BODY WORK/APRIL 2002
2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE
REIMBURSMENT FOR PUBLICATIONS
STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT
STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT
ADVERTISEMENT
2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE
CLASS REFUND
HELMET & ACCESSORIES
2,3
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
001-1550
105-3105
001-2111
001-8622-4201
105-3105
001-1208-4201
001-4601-4201
001-1208-4201
001-2201-4201
110-3302-4201
001-2111
001-2111
105-3105
125-8628-4309
125-8628-4309
001-3104-4309
001-2021
001-2022
001-2111
001-2201-4304
715-2201-5403
715-2101-4311
105-3105
001-2201-4317
301-8166-4201
301-8166-4201
001-1101-4319
105-3105
001-2111
001-2101-4187
ITEM
AMOUNT
100.00
24.61
40.00
560.00
24.61
201.08
68.56
105.12
68.56
13.71
261.50
437.00
24.61
464.93
464.93
124.44
2.34
2.34-
500.00
198.29
325.60
1,029.10
24.61
109.82
39,886.56
55,430.00
1,895.00
24.61
30.00
408.46
PAGE 3
CHECK
AMOUNT
100.00
24.61
40.00
560.00
24.61
457.03
261.50
437.00
24.61
1,054.30
500.00
198.29
325.60
1,029.10
24.61
109.82
95,316.56
1,895.00
24.61
30.00
408.46
VOUCHRE2
05/02/02 16:26
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK
NUMBER DATE
VENDOR
NUMBER
VENDOR
NAME
• •
29045 05/02/02 009852 QUANTUM CONSULTING
29046 05/02/02 003282 CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
29047 05/02/02 005379 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERS
29048 05/02/02 011533 TAMMY RIGSBY
29049 05/02/02 006211 R.A. SMITH JR.
29050 05/02/02 010412 STERICYCLE
29051 05/02/02 008004 SURF CITY SKATE ZONE
29052 05/02/02 005869 T2 SYSTEMS, INC.
29053 05/02/02 011542 KRISTIN THOMAS
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
MARCH 02 INSPECTIONS
3RD QUARTER WAVE SERVICES
ST PATRICK'S DAY SHUTTLE
FAREBOX RECOVERY
LEGAL RE: CODE ENFORCEMENT
LEGAL RE: COMPACT CITY
LEGAL RE: FAA LITIGATION
LEGAL RE: COMPACT CITIES
RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND
RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND
OIL WELL MAINT/4/1-5/1/02
ANNUAL MEDICAL WASTE FEE
CAMP EXCURSION/APRIL 3 2002
8/01/02 - 7/31/03 MAINTENANCE
CLASS REFUND
29054 05/02/02 011275 TORRES CONSTRUCTION OF COMMUNITY CENTER COURTYARD
29055 05/02/02 011556 UC DAVIS EXTENSION
29056 05/02/02 011209 UC REGENTS
29057 05/02/02 001340 VERIZON
29058 05/02/02 000015 VERIZON CALIFORNIA
29059 05/02/02 003209
29060 05/02/02 011547
29061 05/02/02 011543
29062 05/02/02 011540
29063 05/02/02 011536
VERIZON WIRELESS -LA
JACQUALIN VESIS
MARY FRANCES VOLLUCCI
VICKI WALLER
DEBBIE WASTING
REGISTRATION/D. POWERS
CONTINUING EDUCATION/MAY 02
TELEPHONE LINE REPAIRS
RELOCATE NETWORK BLOCKS
PHONE BILLING/4/16-5/16/02
FAX BILLING/4/16-5/16/02
FAX BILLING/4/16-5/16/02
FAX BILLING/4/16-5/16/02
FAX BILLING/4/16-5/16/02
FAX BILLING/4/16-5/16/02
FAX BILLING/4/16-5/16/02
CELL PHONE BILLING/4/15-5/14
CLASS REFUND
CLASS REFUND
CLASS REFUND
RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
308-8183-4201
145-3401-4251
145-3401-4251
145-3854
001-1131-4201
001-1131-4201
001-1131-4201
001-1131-4201
001-2111
001-2111
001-1101-4201
001-2101-4201
001-4601-4308
715-1206-4201
001-2111
150-8628-4201
001-2201-4317
001-2201-4201
715-1206-4304
001-8622-4201
001-2101-4304
001-1101-4304
001-1121-4304
001-1132-4304
001-1141-4304
001-1202-4304
001-1203-4304
001-2101-4304
001-2111
001-2111
001-2111
001-2111
ITEM
AMOUNT
7,548.00
48,259.61
1,087.78
2,551.86-
4,310.00
586.90
358.27
39.00
402.50
97.50
200.00
25.00
217.00
7,291.25
58.00
65,343.48
395.00
1,500.00
295.00
214.00
359.98
6.41
1.10
.30
1.45
6.36
15.59
169.49
30.00
48.00
40.00
300.00
PAGE 4
CHECK
AMOUNT
7,548.00
46,795.53
5,294.17
500.00
200.00
25.00
217.00
7,291.25
58.00
65,343.48
395.00
1,500.00
509.00
391.19
169.49
30.00
48.00
40.00
300.00
V0UCHRE2
05/02/02 16:26
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
PAGE 5
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
29064 05/02/02 011541 NEIL WATANABE CLASS REFUND 001-2111 30.00 30.00
29065 05/02/02 011554 GUSTAV P. WOERNER 2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE 105-3105 24.61 24.61
29066 05/02/02 011555 KENDRICK B. WRIGHT 2001 ASSESSMENT REBATE 105-3105 24.61 24.61
TOTAL CHECKS 550,461.22
as
VOUCHRE2
05/02/02 16:26
• •
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
FUND TITLE AMOUNT
001 GENERAL FUND 75,004.95
105 LIGHTG/LANDSCAPG DISI FUND 369.15
110 PARKING FUND 63.71
125 PARK/REC FACILITY TAX FUND 1,430.78
126 4% UTILITY USERS TAX FUND 930.27
140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT 94,990.90
145 PROPOSITION 'A FUND 46,795.53
150 GRANTS FUND 65,343.48
301 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 239,085.56
308 LOMA UTIL UNDRGRND IMPROV FUND 7,548.00
705 INSURANCE FUND 9,367.89
715 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND 9,531.00
TOTAL 550,461.22
a(0
PAGE 6
VOUCHRE2
05/02/02 15:54
• •
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 ON PAGES TO 24'2 INCLUSIVE, OF THE VOUCHER REGISTER
FOR RE ACCURATE, FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE FOR
PAYMENT, AND ARE IN CONFORMANCE TO THE BUDGET.
BY
FINANCE DIREECTORR
DATE 5/19! 46/
PAGE 3
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
CANCELLATION OF CHECKS
May 7, 2002
For the Meeting of
May 14, 2002
Please consider the following request for cancellation of the checks listed below:
#28790 — 4/11/02 — Public Safety Education Technology
Acct. # 154-2107-5402
The check was made payable to the
#28921— 4/25/02 — Electrical Inspections - $560.00.
Acct. # 001-8622-4201
The check was made payable to the
#28947— 4/25/02 — Maple Medical Group Inc. - $736.00.
Acct. # 001-1203-4320
The check was made payable to the
- $15,200.00.
wrong vendor.
wrong vendor.
wrong vendor.
#28862— 4/18/02 — L.A. Area Fire Marshals - $155.00.
Acct. # 001-2201-4315 $50.00
Acct. # 001-2201-4317 $105.00
The check was issued for the wrong amount.
Concur:
Steph 1%''' . Burrell,
City Manager
•
Workman, City Treasurer
Noted for fiscal impact:
Viki Copeland, Finance Director
•
May 9, 2002
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Hermosa Beach City Council
• ico-c) 1 6- cl-rz-
Regular Meeting of
May 14, 2002
TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
, , „„
: ..... 'mA :
. t af. 2002
Public Hearing: 1605 PCH, Hermosa Pavilion -- Reconsideration of P.C.
approval of a PDP & Parking Plan for alterations to an existing retail &
entertainment center to accommodate offices, a health and fitness club, &
retail uses, & a Variance to the 35' height limit to enclose existing deck
areas to match the height of the existing roof. (cont'd from 4/9/02 C.C.)
Community Development Director
Public Hearing: 142 PCH, The Pitcher House — Reconsideration of P.C.
approval of a CUP amendment to allow on -sale general alcohol.
Community Development Director
Public Hearing: 205 Pier Ave., Alta -Dena Dairy — Reconsideration of P.C.
approval of a CUP minor amendment to change hours of operation of an
existing market with off -sale beer & wine from 7 A.M. to 10 P.M. to 8
A.M. to 12 midnight Sun. thru Thur., & to 2:A.M. Fri. & Sat.
Community Development Director
Public Hearing: 1100 The Strand, Scotty's -- Appeal of P.C. denial of a
CUP amendment to allow on -sale general alcohol; amplified live
entertainment; a take-out food service window; & 24-hour operation in
conjunction with an existing restaurant and to add bar seating in the patio
area & Neg. Dec.
Community Development Director
Recommendation to receive and file action minutes from the Planning
Commission meeting of May 21, 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
Community Resources Director
April Activity Reports
All Departments
•.. • . • .......... •
......... .. .. ......... . ............................ JIINE 1 2002
Text... .. ..................
. ..
• ...
Text Amendment for non -required off-site parking in M-1 zone.
Community Development Director
TyCom Transpacific Fiber Optic Cable Project -- Planned Dev. Permit &
PDP amendment to utilize a Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) method
of installation for the beach segment of the project in lieu of the Direct
Burial method.
Community Development Director
Public Hearing: Adoption of 2002-03 Budget
Finance Director
2c
• •
_.s//y/o
PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION
MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 2002
COMMUNITY CENTER, ROOM 4
710 PIER AVENUE
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m.
1. RoII Call
Present: Commissioners Cheatham, Howell, Koch, Lombardo, Winnek
Also Present: Harold Williams, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Richard Garland, City Traffic Engineer
Rhea Punneo, Administrative Assistant, Public Works Department
2. Flag Salute
Chairman Winnek led the flag salute.
3. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the March 20, 2002 meeting were approved with the deletion of the last line, of
the sixth paragraph, of page 12.
4. Public Comments
None.
5. Correspondence
a. Letter from Kevin & Susan O'Connor with signatures from the residents of 28th Street
regarding modifications to 28th Street at Valley Drive.
A response was sent to Mr. & Mrs. O'Connor by Harold Williams inviting them and their
neighbors to attend the upcoming City Budget Workshop on Thursday, May 23, 2002, so they
could request this project be added.
b. Letter from Robin Rogers with attached copy of a letter to the Manhattan Beach Planning
Commissioners regarding the Skechers Development for informational purposes only.
PWC Minutes
2d
• •
6. Items for Commission Consideration
a. Valley Park Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Study
Mr. Williams stated that Mr. Richard Garland, City Traffic Engineer, would handle this item,
they would then receive input and the Commission would provide Staff with direction. Mr.
Garland presented the item and advised that at their November 14, 2001 meeting, the Public
Works Commission considered a request to install stop signs on 20th Street at,Vall,ey, Park ..
Avenue to create a three-way stop. That stop sign request was not approved and the
Commission directed Staff to conduct a more comprehensive study of the neighborhood to
provide additional information relative to traffic patterns and circulation issues in this area.
Highlights of Mr. Garland's report include the following information:
* Nine intersections were monitored during peak morning, afternoon and late
afternoon periods.
* Less than fifty vehicles per hour passed during the busiest times of the day.
* Travel speeds were well below the legal speed limit of twenty-five miles per hour.
* There did not appear to be any extreme traffic safety or operational problems in
the neighborhood.
* There did not appear to be a cut -through problem of this area.
Public comments included the following:
Susie Berens, 555 20th Street
Ms. Berens stated that she just became aware that a stop sign was being considered and
that she has a map of where the stop signs were being considered. Ms. Berens advised that
most of the neighbors were opposed to a stop sign and that the stop sign would affect her
house the most. Because of the way the curve cuts in the middle of her driveway, there is no
place to put a stop sign and it would impede access to their driveway. She did not feel that a
stop sign would be effective in their area and that the noise of people stopping would also be
an annoyance. Ms. Berens also stated that several of her neighbors were not told about the
proposed stop sign. Ms. Berens provided documents including a map and photographs,
which were labeled 6a and given to Rhea Punneo, Administrative Assistant for the Public
Works Department.
Ken Miller, 553 20th Street
Mr. Miller indicated that he was opposed to a stop sign and was more concerned about
notification procedures since they weren't notified until today. Mr. Miller states that on
weekends and evenings there is occasional speeding and wonders about the use of speed
bumps.
Krista Capo, 1948 Valley Park Avenue
Ms. Capo stated that she is the one who initially raised the Valley Park issue. She said that
speed humps had previously been turned down, as well as safety signs and lowering the
speed limit. Ms. Capo said that the only venue left with legal recourse is a stop sign.
PWC Minutes 2 April 17, 2002
• •
Ms. Capo indicated that at 18th and Valley Park there is a stop sign which forces vehicles to
acknowledge and at least slow down, even if they do roll through the stop sign. Ms. Capo
stated that children play in the street and cross the street every day and the only thing
available to help keep her autistic son safe is a stop sign. Ms. Capo had additional
signatures from her neighbors and presented them to Rhea Punneo, Administrative Assistant
for the Public Works Department.
Commission discussion brought out the following information or comments.
* Mr. Williams apologized because notice did not go out on this issue and stated that
they usually attempt to notify everyone involved by posting the neighborhood, but
there is no legal requirement to do so.
* The general consensus of the Commission was that most neighbors were not in favor
of the stop sign and they would not support a stop sign at this time. Since the stop
sign was rejected, it was stated that the item should be disposed of.
* The issue was raised as to the use of large caution signs as seen in other cities that
indicate "Deaf Child Neighborhood" or similar circumstances. Mr. Williams stated that
such signage is not recognized in the State of California as a legal traffic control
device and have been shown not to help but to hinder the situation.
MOTION by Chairman Winnek that no further action is needed following the survey, with the
exception of additional school signs to be studied. Seconded by Commissioner Koch.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Commissioner Howell that the City directs Staff to look into
additional signage of school zone. Seconded by Commissioner Cheatham.
Motion did not pass.
•
MOTION by Chairman Winnek to install signage where possible, nothing more to be studied.
Seconded by Commissioner Koch.
Aye: Cheatham, Howell, Koch, and Winnek
Nay: Lombardo
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Additional Commission discussion brought out the following information or comments.,
* Installation on private property of a sign by Ms. Capo is permitted. Installation_of a. sign _.
on power poles or public property is not permitted. City Council has the authority to
determine what is permitted; however these types of signs are not normally allowed and
are not legally recognized — would be a departure from policy.
* The Commission favored signage as a general policy, not as an individual one, and was
concerned with the full implications involved. If this was passed on to the City Council as
a test case, it could be studied and would help the safety program.
PWC Minutes 3 April 17, 2002
• •
MOTION by Commissioner Lombardo to recommend to the City Council to approve
installation of signage for protection of autistic child in the vicinity of the intersection of 20th
Street and Valley Park Avenue. Seconded by Commissioner Cheatham.
Aye: Cheatham, Howell, Lombardo, and Winnek
Nay: Koch
Abstain: None
Absent: None
b. Northeast Hermosa Beach Traffic Study — Presentation of Findings & Recommendations
Mr. Williams stated that Joel Falter, Senior Transportation Engineer for Katz, Okitsu &
Associates would give the presentation.
Mr. Falter stated that this report was the result of the two community workshops and research
in the study area. The three primary issues raised in the first workshop and then discussed
in the second workshop were cut -through traffic, speeding, and failure to obey traffic laws.
Existing cut -through traffic was not observed to be an issue. Cut -through traffic when the
Skechers Project is'complete cannot truly be determined at this time.
Of the information extrapolated from residential input, no clear consensus was shown and it
was believed that any decision should be put on hold until Skechers is complete and the
actual impact can be observed.
Public comments included the following:
James Deutsch, 700 Block of 30th Street
Mr. Deutsch stated that the meters were at the highway, no meters were observed on the
700 Block of 30th Street and he disagrees with Mr. Falter's statement that there were meters.
Mr. Deutsch indicated that he is a retiree and is home every day and that he disagrees that
only thirty-three cars cut -through in a twenty-four hour period; he believes there are at least
thirty cars per hour. Mr. Deutsch feels there will be extreme traffic volumes from the
Skechers Project, which is anticipated to have four hundred employees. He believes the
traffic calming techniques are ridiculous and believes that street closures are feasible.
Darlene Blaney, 702 Longfellow
Ms. Blaney states that the traffic study was well done and that the calming affects can be
used but that the study doesn't answer our questions or problems. She believes that _ _..
Skechers and other Manhattan Beach projects will have an impact on 30th and Longfellow
and that with 400 parking spots a two percent increase is unrealistic. Ms. Blaney believes
that the traffic light should be removed and traffic diverted many different ways. She states
that the Mayor -Pro -Tem of Manhattan Beach has stated that the traffic light can be removed.
Ms. Blaney asks if the traffic light can be moved to Duncan and that we should get Cal Trans
to move it or take it away.
Dan Riley, 648 Longfellow
Mr. Riley believes the census took a two -fold approach and considered only the Northeast
Hermosa Beach section. He doesn't believe that they can take away the traffic signal
because the impact on Longfellow would be too great. Mr. Riley also believes that moving or
PWC Minutes 4 April 17, 2002
• •
removal of the traffic signal will be a money issue where Cal Trans is concerned. He
believes we should coordinate efforts with the City of Manhattan Beach to put demand on the
developer for the costs of any issues that arise.
Robert Wickwire, 2900 Amby Place - 32 -Year Resident
Mr. Wickwire states he is opposed to Options 1, 2 and, 3, and that he wouldn't be able to get
out of his driveway if any of these options are put in place. Mr. Wickwire does not believe
that the traffic is heavy on 30th Street and believes that we don't need to,dpapyrthing,-
states don't fix something that isn't broken.
Butch Kuflak, 666 Longfellow
Mr. Kuflak states that Longfellow is a thirty-foot wide street with parking on both sides and
that only one car can pass through at a time. Any increase in traffic would be devastating
and that while the study looked only at peak traffic hours, the real estate office works all
hours. Additionally, Skechers will be an all day operation as the project provides for some
retail.
Robin Rogers, 712 Longfellow
Ms. Rogers states she is concerned about Longfellow and that not enough attention has
been paid to Longfellow. She believes the issue is with the size of Longfellow and the ability
of only one car being able to pass at a time. Ms. Rogers feels they have been going from
meeting to meeting and told they are either to early or to late, and they just want to be heard.
Ms. Rogers states that they want support from the Commission when it is passed on to the
City Council, and that the problems need to be pushed back to the City of Manhattan Beach.
J. C. Agajanian, 2802 Tennyson Place
Mr. Agajanian states that Manhattan Beach needs to take responsibility. He believes that the
study is truthful, that he saw license plate numbers being taken, and that only a handful of
vehicles were drive through. Mr. Agajanian does not believe that anything needs to be
blocked off and that there is no problem. He indicates that he does not feel that 31 - 32 mph
on a downhill grade is speeding. Mr. Agajanian states that his opinion and the opinion of his
neighbors is that nothing needs to be done. He believes that people will complain if the
Commission does some of the items proposed and that the Commission should wait and see
what happens with Skechers.
Skip Beall, 30th Street
Mr. Beall indicates that a traffic count on 30th Street was done a year ago, a temporary
blockage was installed and then another count was done. He indicates that he submitted a
petition with seventy-five signatures and that the traffic count is wrong and he has a video,
which proves this. Mr. Beall states that twenty-five times a day cars run the signal at 30th and
Tennyson and that Remax has gotten the signal changed in favor of the flow of traffic out of
Manhattan Beach and into Hermosa Beach.
Commission discussion brought out the following information or comments.
* When the issue of speed humps was raised, Mr. Williams informed the
Commissioners that the City Council had made it very clear in their previous meeting
that they were not interested in the use of speed humps in the City of Hermosa Beach.
PWC Minutes 5 April 17, 2002
•
* It was stated that everyone affected had been noticed and that the required areas
were legally posted.
* The General Plan through the Circulation Element sets goals and policies for local
residential streets, which currently are: 2,500 vehicles per day, or hourly volumes of
200 — 300 vehicles are acceptable.
,* Mr. Williams informed the Commission that Council directed Staff to bring the traffic
study results to them on May 14th and to contact Caltrans to determine who has
jurisdiction over the traffic signal at Longfellow and Pacific Coast Highway. Staff is in
the process of doing that; the City Council will then take over the issue, and will take
action. Staff has made a request to Cal Trans for removal of the light.
* The Commission generally favored supporting the City Council in an effort to remove
the street sign and for proactive measures to be taken since the anticipated two
percent increase did not seem logical.
MOTION by Commissioner Lombardo to recommend to City Council that they relocate or
remove the traffic light at Longfellow and Sepulveda. No Second, motion died.
MOTION by Commissioner Cheatham to establish a Joint Meeting with the Manhattan Beach
Planning Commission to discuss traffic issues and to support the City Council in their efforts
to address the traffic light at Longfellow. No Second, motion died.
MOTION by Commissioner Howell for Public Works Commission to encourage and support
the approach to Cal Trans by our Staff and give priority to reducing traffic in all
neighborhoods. No Second, motion died.
MOTION by Chairman Winnek to receive and file the traffic study done by Katz, Okitsu &
Associates. Seconded by Commissioner Lombardo.
Aye: Cheatham, Howell, Koch, Lombardo, and Winnek
Nay: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
MOTION by Commissioner Howell that the Commission as an advisory Commission to the
City Council endorses their stated goal of approaching Cal Trans with a focus of relocating
signal from Longfellow to another street. No Second, motion dies.
Recessed at 9:15 p.m.
Resumed at 9:25 p.m.
7. Commissioner Reports
a. Safety Program Commissioner Lombardo and Commissioner Howell presented their
proposal for the Hermosa Beach Safety Program. They noted that Hermosa Beach
Police Chief Mike Lavin, police officers, and the Hermosa Beach School District all
support the program. Light pole flags or banners would be hung with the message "Be
PWC Minutes 6 April 17, 2002
• •
Hermosa Beach Street Smart" and would have child -like figures representing various
activities. Commissioner Lombardo indicated that immediate action need be taken, as
the safety messages would be hung along with Mervyns' Beach Bash signs and that
Mervyns would sponsor the banners. The flags will be hung from Memorial Day to Labor
Day on light poles along Hermosa Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway.
MOTION by Commissioner Koch to forward the proposal to Council and to recommend
approval of the proposed Hermosa Beach Safety Program. Seconded by Chairman
Winnek.
Aye: Cheatham, Howell, Koch, Lombardo, and Winnek
Nay: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
b. Guideline Subcommittee Commissioner Cheatham presented the report stating that they
have developed guidelines and they will bring the recommendations to the Commission
after reviewing with Staff.
8. Agenda for March Council Meetings
a. Monthly Activity Report for February — Reviewed and Filed
b. Project Status Report for February — Reviewed and Filed
Above items are presented for information purposes only.
9. Items Requested by Commissioners
Mr. Williams stated that Staff had taken an item to Council recommending the temporary
installation of speed humps on Palm Drive and advised that Council made it clear that speed
humps are not an option and ordered the installation of a stop sign on Palm Drive at the exit
of Lot D.
Mr. Williams also indicated that, at the recommendation of the City Manager, at the next City
Council meeting, Staff will request direction from Council as to what steps should be taken
with regard to Hillcrest Drive between 18th Street and 21St Street where residents had
requested speed humps. Due to Council's objections to speed humps, the survey of the
affected neighbors as motioned by the Public Works Commission at their March meeting will
not be performed.
10. Other Matters
It was stated that a good job had been performed by the Public Works Department in regards
to the slurry seals off Aviation Boulevard.
Commissioner Lombardo, with the approval of the Commission, will miss the next two
Commission meetings (May and June).
11. Public Comments
None.
PWC Minutes 7 April 17, 2002
12. Adjournment
At 9:45 p.m. Chairman Winnek adjourned to the meeting of May 15, 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 April 17,
2002.
Victor Winnek, Chairman Harold C. Williams, P.E., Secretary
Date
PWC Minutes 8 April 17, 2002
• a/2c2.;;;;:;----
April 22, 2002
Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of
The Hermosa Beach City Council May 14, 2002
HERMOSA BEACH LANDSCAPING AND STREET LIGHTING DJSTRICT
2002-2003 ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS REGARDING THE
ENGINEER'S REPORT AND SETTING JUNE 11, 2002,
FOR A PUBLIC HEARING
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council:
Adopt the attached Resolutions approving the Engineer's Report for Hermosa
Beach Landscaping & Street Lighting District 2002-2003 ("District") made
pursuant to the requirements of Resolution No. 02-6189, and
Adopt the attached resolution declaring the City Council's intention to order
certain improvements and to levy and collect assessments within the District for
the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003; and setting June
11, 2002, to accept public input on the matter of the proposed assessment.
Background:
The District provides for the maintenance and operation of the citywide street lighting
program and median and parkway landscaping. Staff conferred with the City Attorney
to determine the applicability of Proposition 218 to the City's Landscaping and Street
Lighting Assessment District. Briefly, Proposition 218 contains an exception for
existing assessments imposed exclusively to fund capital costs 'and maintenance and
operation costs for sidewalks and streets.
Based on the advice of the City Attorney, staff recommends that the City rely on this
exemption and continue to levy assessments to pay for the maintenance and operation
of street lights and median and parkway landscaping without complying with the
requirements of Proposition 218 so long as the assessments are not increased.
On February 26, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 02-6189 ordering the
preparation of a report for Hermosa Beach Landscaping and Street Lighting District
2002-2003.
Analysis:
The proposed assessment rate for fiscal year 2002-2003 is $41.45 per equivalent
dwelling unit, the same equivalent dwelling unit rate as used in fiscal year 2001-2002 to
finance those landscaping and lighting improvements located in and along streets and
2e
• •
sidewalks. The fiscal year 2002-2003 assessment rate will recover necessary funds to
continue the operation and maintenance of the City's street lighting system and
landscaping in and along the City's streets and sidewalks for one year.
Adoption of both Resolutions is necessary at this time so that a public hearing can be
held to take testimony on the assessments. The first Resolution approves the report
prepared by the Director of Public Works acting as the Assessment Engineer. Its
adoption confirms that the report has been prepared prior to the public, hearing. This
report covers matters relating to the District and is on file in the City Clerk's office.
The adoption of the second Resolution provides for the setting of a public hearing for
June 11, 2002, at 7:30 PM. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council
will be provided with a Resolution it may adopt ordering the assessments.
As mentioned earlier, all decisions will be made after the public hearing and adoption
of these Resolutions will only confirm that the report has been prepared and that the
public hearing will be held on June 11, 2002.
Alternatives:
1. Approve staff's recommendation.
2. Let the district lapse; thereby, causing a potential increase in General Fund
obligations of approximately $452,012.
Attachments: Engineer's Report
Resolution approving the District Report
Resolution setting a time and place for the public hearing
Respectfully submitted,
)419f -740'43o-4 41}ehtp-rol`'
Homayoun Behboodi
Associate Engineer Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Concur:
/d M (u) '
/Harold C. Williams, P.E.
Noted for Fiscal Impact:
Viki Copeland
Finance Director
Step en Burrell
City Manager
P:\B95\P\VPILES\CCITEMS\land & st light 2002-03 adoption 05-I4-02.doc
•
ENGINEER'S REPORT
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
LANDSCAPING AND
STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT
2002-2003
Prepared By:
Harold C. Williams, P.E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
May 2, 2002
• •
ENGINEER'S REPORT
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
LANDSCAPING AND STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT 2002-2003
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Certificate 1
Report 2
Part A - Plans and Specifications 4
Part B - Estimate of Cost 6
Part C - Assessment Roll 7
Part D - Method of Apportionment of Assessment8
Part E - Property Owner List 10
Part F - Assessment District Boundary 11
• •
City of Hermosa Beach
Landscaping and Street Lighting District 2002-2003
ENGINEER'S REPORT
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
- May 2, 2002
Page 1
LANDSCAPING AND STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT 2002-2003
The undersigned respectfully submits the enclosed report as directed by the City Council.
DATED: May 2, 2002
BY: Harold C. Williams, P.E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with Assessment Roll and Diagram
thereto attached, was filed with me on the o2'"` day of , 2002.
City Clerk, City of Hermosa Beach
Los Angeles County, California
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with Assessment Roll and
Diagram thereto attached, was approved and confirmed by the City Council of the City of Hermosa
Beach, California, on the day of , 2002.
City Clerk, City of Hermosa Beach
Los Angeles County, California
By
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Assessment Roll and Diagram were filed with the County
Auditor of the County of Los Angeles, on the day of , 2002.
City Clerk, City of Hermosa Beach
Los Angeles County, California
By
• •
City of Hermosa Beach
Landscaping and Street Lighting District 2002-2003
FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003
CITY OE HERMOSA BEACH,
May 2, 2002
Page 2
ENGINEER'S REPORT PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972, SECTION 22500 THROUGH
22679, OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE
Pursuant to Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, and in
accordance with the Resolution of Initiation adopted by the Council of the City of Hermosa Beach,
State of California, in connection with the proceedings for:
HERMOSA BEACH
LANDSCAPING AND STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT 2002-2003
Hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District" or "District", Harold C. Williams, P.E., Director of
Public Works/City Engineer, the duly appointed ENGINEER OF WORK, submit herewith the "Report"
consisting of six (6) parts as follows:
PART A
Plans and specifications for the improvements showing and describing the general nature, location
and extent of the improvements.
PART B
An estimate of the cost of the proposed improvements for FY 2002-2003, including incidental
costs and expenses in connection therewith.
PART C
An assessment of the estimated cost of the improvements on each benefited lot or parcel of
land within the Assessment District.
PART D
The method of apportionment of assessments, indicating the proposed assessment of the total
amount of the costs and expenses of the improvements upon the several lots and parcels of land
within the Assessment District, in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by such lots and
parcels.
City of Hermosa Beach
Landscaping and Street Lighting District 2002-2003
PART E
May 2, 2002
Page 3
A list of the names and addresses of the owners of real property within the Assessment bistrict, as
shown on the last equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Los Angeles.
PART F
The Diagram of the Assessment District Boundaries showing the exterior boundaries of the
Assessment District, the boundaries of any zones within the Assessment District and the lines and
dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within the Assessment District.
• •
City of Hermosa Beach
Landscaping and Street Lighting District 2002-2003
PART A
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIQNS
May 2x2002
Page 4
The facilities, which have been constructed within the City of Hermosa Beach, and those which may
be subsequently constructed, will be operated, serviced and maintained as generally described as
follows:
DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE HERMOSA BEACH
LANDSCAPING AND STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT 2002-2003
The proposed improvements for FY 2002-2003 may be generally described as the continued
maintenance and operation of streets and sidewalks within the District, including the operation,
servicing and maintenance of landscaping, lighting and appurtenant facilities that are located in and
along such streets and sidewalks, including but not limited to, personnel, electrical energy, utilities
such as water, materials, contracting services, and other items necessary for the satisfactory
operation of these services described as follows:
Street Landscaping and Appurtenant Facilities
Landscaping, planting, shrubbery, trees and appurtenant facilities, including irrigation systems,
hardscapes and fixtures in public street and sidewalk rights-of-way, including parkways and medians,
within the boundaries of the Assessment District.
Street Lighting and Appurtenant Facilities
Poles, fixtures, bulbs, conduits, equipment including guys, anchors, posts and pedestals, metering
devices and appurtenant facilities as required to provide street lighting and traffic signals in public
street and sidewalk rights-of-way, including parkways and medians, within the boundaries of the
Assessment District.
Maintenance means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance,
operation and servicing of the landscaping, lighting facilities and appurtenant facilities, including
repair, removal or replacement of all or part of any of the landscaping, lighting facilities or appurtenant
facilities; providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of the landscaping, including cultivation,
irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing and treating for disease or injury; the removal of trimmings,
rubbish, debris and other solid waste; and the cleaning, sandblasting, and painting of walls and other
improvements to remove or cover graffiti.
Servicing means the furnishing of water for the irrigation of the landscaping and the maintenance of
any of the lighting facilities or appurtenant facilities and the furnishing of electric current or energy,
gas or other illuminating agent for the lighting facilities, or for the lighting or operation of the
landscaping or appurtenant facilities.
1 •
City of Hermosa Beach
Landscaping and Street Lighting District 2002-2003
May 2, 2002
Page 5
The plans and specifications for the improvements, showing and describing the general nature,
location, and the extent of the improvements, are on file in the office of the City Clerk and are
incorporated herein by reference.
City of Hermosa Beach
Landscaping and Street Lighting District 2002-2003.
PART B
ESTIMATE OF COSTS
May 2, 2002
Page 6
LANDSCAPING AND STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT
Proposed Budget - Fiscal Year 2002-2003
The estimated cost of the operation, servicing and maintenance of the street and sidewalk
improvements for fiscal year 2002-2003, as described in Part A, are summarized herein and described
below.
Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance and Servicing
• Median & Pkwy Landscaping Maintenance and Servicing
• Lighting Maintenance and Servicing
• Tree Trimming
525,230
Administration Costs
20,372
Insurance
36,962
Assessment Proceedings Costs
2,500
Equipment Replacement
39,809
Proposed Capital Improvements
-0-
Expenditures Subtotal
624,873
Appropriation from Fund balance
(162,536)
Miscellaneous Revenues
(10,325)
Total to Assessment
452,012
Fund Balance (6/30/03)
77,123
The 1972 Act requires that a special fund be set up for the revenues and expenditures of the District.
Funds raised by assessment shall be used only for the purpose as stated herein. A contribution to the
District by the City may be made to reduce assessments, as the City Council deems appropriate. Any
balance or deficit remaining on July 1 must be carried over to the next fiscal year.
• •
City of Hermosa Beach
Landscaping and Street Lighting District 2002-2003
PART C
ASSESSMENT ROLL •
May 2, 2002
Page 7
The total proposed assessment for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 and the amount of the total proposed
assessment apportioned to each lot or parcel within the District, as shown on the latest assessment
roll at the Los Angeles County Assessor's Office, are contained in the Assessment Roll on file in the
office of the City Clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The description of each lot or parcel is part of the Los Angeles County assessment roll and this
roll is, by reference, made part of this Report.
• •
City of Hermosa Beach
Landscaping and Street Lighting District 2002-2003
PART D
METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENT
GENERAL
May 2, 2002
Page 8
Part 2, of Division 15, of the Streets and Highways Code, the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972,
permits the establishment of assessment districts by cities for the purpose of providing certain public
improvements which include operation, maintenance and servicing of street lights, traffic signals and
landscaping.
The 1972 Act requires that maintenance assessments be levied according to benefit rather than
according to assessed value. Section 22573 provides that:
"The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may
be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount
among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to
be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements."
The Act permits the designation of zones of benefit within any individual assessment district if "by
reason of variations in the nature, location, and extent of the improvements, the various areas will
receive different degrees of benefit from the improvements" (Sec. 22574) Thus, the 1972 Act requires
the levy of a true "benefit assessment" rather than a "special tax."
Exempted from the assessment would be the areas of all publicly owned property in use in the
performance of a public function. Railroad and utility rights-of-way are also exempt from assessment.
BENEFIT ANALYSIS
• Street Lighting and Traffic Signals - The proper functioning of street lighting and traffic signals is
imperative for the welfare and safety of the public and property throughout the City. Proper
operation, maintenance and servicing of the street lighting system benefits properties within the
District by providing proper illumination for ingress and egress and safe traveling at night.
Properties within the District also benefit from the proper functioning of the District's traffic signal
system. Proper operation of the street light and traffic signal systems is imperative to public
convenience, orderly traffic flow, enhanced congestion management and safety. Improved
security, fuel conservation, protection of property from crime and vandalism, and reduction of
traffic accidents, are special and direct benefits to all properties within the City; lighting benefits
are directly related to public safety and property protection and therefore increase property values.
• Median and Parkway Landscaping and Tree Trimming - Trees, landscaping, hardscaping and
appurtenant facilities, if well maintained, provide beautification, shade and enhancement of the
desirability of the surroundings, and therefore increase property value.
City of Hermosa Beach
Landscaping and Street Lighting District 2002-2003
May 2, 2002
Page 9
The City maintains trees and miscellaneous shrubbery and landscaping throughout the City. The
trees, shrubbery and landscaping are located within the public street and sidewalk rights-of-way,
including parkways and medians. These trees, shrubbery and landscaping_.proyjd_p_ar) ,ge$th.e$jcal)y,
pleasing environment, shdtie, beautification, and, according to some auth'dr1ties,' air purification' and
sound attenuation. These positive attributes increase the value of all properties throughout the City.
Therefore, all property within the District receive an overall specific and direct benefit from the
maintenance and servicing of the street median and parkway landscaping and street tree trimming
programs.
Special benefits which are received by all parcels in the City are considered to be City-wide Benefits,
and the associated costs of these special benefits are spread equally, based on Equivalent Dwelling
Units, to all parcels within the District. All properties in the District benefit from the operation,
maintenance and servicing of the street lighting, traffic signals. street median and parkway
landscaping and street tree trimming.
The degree 'of benefit to each parcel of land varies depending on its land use and the size of the
parcel. If assessments were spread on an individual parcel basis, not considering land use or parcel
size, it would not be an equitable method of spread because a single family parcel would pay the
same assessment as a 50 -unit apartment parcel or a large commercial parcel. Therefore, the method
for spreading the improvement costs, which must be based on special and direct benefit, is on an
Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) basis. The EDU method uses the residential dwelling unit as the basic
unit and compares other uses to it, as follows:
• Residential parcels are assessed based on the number of dwelling units on each parcel, where
each residential dwelling unit equals one EDU
• Non-residential parcels have been converted into EDU'S, based on engineering judgment taking
into consideration the size of the parcel and the amount of frontage along the street. Every parcel
is assessed a minimum of one (1) EDU.
There are a total of 10,905 EDU's within the Assessment District.
ASSESSMENT RATE CALCULATION
Based on a budget of $452,012, as shown in Part B of this report, the preliminary assessment rate for
FY 2002-2003 is calculated as follows:
$452,012 / 10,905 EDU's = $41.45 per EDU
The assessment for FY 2001-2002 was $41.45 per EDU.
City of Hermosa Beach
Landscaping and Street Lighting District 2002-2003
PART E
• PROPERTY OWNER L1S'T •
May 2, 2002
Page 10
A list of names and addresses of the owners of all parcels within this District is shown on the last
equalized Property Tax Roll of the Assessor of the County of Los Angeles, which by reference is
hereby made a part of this report. This list is keyed to the Assessor's Parcel Numbers as shown on
the Assessment Roll on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach.
• •
City of Hermosa Beach
Landscaping and Street Lighting District 2002-2003
PART F
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT BOUNDARY
May 2,-2002
Page 11
The boundaries of the District are coterminous with the boundaries of the City of Hermosa Beach. A
diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the District, the boundaries of any zones within the
District, and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within the District is on file in the
office of the City Clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach, and is incorporated herein by reference. The
lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel within the District are those lines and dimensions shown on
the maps of the Assessor of the County of Los Angeles for fiscal year 2002-2003. The Assessor's
maps and records are incorporated by reference herein and made part of this report.
F:\895\PWFILES\SPECS\engineers report landscape & street light dist. 02-03.doc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
•
RESOLUTION NO. 02-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S
REPORT IN CONNECTION WITH HERMOSA BEACH
LANDSCAPING AND STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT 2002-2003.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, by its
Resolution No. 02-6189, adopted February 26, 2002, ordered the Director of Public Works to
prepare and file a report in accordance with Article 4 of Chapter 1 of the Landscaping and
Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 (Section 22500, et seq.) of the Streets and Highways
Code of the State of California, in connection with the proposed maintenance and operation of
streets and sidewalks within an existing assessment district to be designated as the "Hermosa
Beach Landscaping and Street Lighting District 2002-2003", including the operation,
maintenance and servicing of landscaping, lighting and appurtenant facilities located in and along
such streets and sidewalks for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2002 and ending June 30, 2003;
and
WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works, acting as the Assessment Engineer, prepared
and filed in the office of the City Clerk a written report in accordance with Article 4 of Chapter 1
of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk presented the report of the Director of Public Works to the
City Council, and the City Council carefully examined, inspected and considered the report and is
satisfied with the report and with each and all of the items set forth therein.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The report of the Director of Public Works entitled "Engineer's Report,
Hermosa Beach Landscaping and Street Lighting District 2002-2003," which was prepared and
filed pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division
-1-
• •
15 (Section 22500, et seq.) of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, is
hereby approved as filed.
SECTION 2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. The City Clerk shall certify
to the passage and adoption of this Resolution, shall cause the original of the same to be entered
among the original resolutions of the City Council, and shall make a minute of the passage and
adoption thereof in the minutes of the City Council meeting at which the same- is passed ,and
adopted.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 14th day of May 2002.
PRESIDENT, of the City Council and MAYOR
of the City of Hermosa Beach, California
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
, CITY CLERK
, CITY ATTORNEY
F:\B95\PWFILES\RESOS\land and st light 2002-03.doc
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
. •
RESOLUTION NO. 02-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO
ORDER CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS AND TO LEVY AND COLLECT
ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE HERMOSA BEACH LANDSCAPING AND
STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT 2002-2003 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
BEGINNING JULY 1, 2002 AND ENDING JUNE 303 2003, .4ND
APPOINTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN
RELATION THERETO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The public interest and convenience require, and it is the intention of the
City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, to order certain improvements within an
existing citywide assessment district for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2002 and ending June
30, 2003, and to levy and collect assessments against properties within the assessment district for
that fiscal year.
SECTION 2. The proposed improvements are the continued maintenance and operation
of the streets and sidewalks within the assessment district including the operation, servicing and
maintenance of landscaping, lighting and appurtenant facilities that are located in and along such
streets and sidewalks.
SECTION 3. The assessment district is designated as the "Hermosa Beach Landscaping
and Street Lighting District 2002-2003." The assessment district is comprised of all of the City
of Hermosa Beach, as shown on the "MAP OF LANDSCAPING AND STREET LIGHTING
DISTRICT 2002-2003" on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
SECTION 4. The assessments to be levied and collected against the assessable lots and
parcels of land within the assessment district for fiscal year 2002-2003 are not proposed to
increase from those levied and collected in fiscal year 2001-2002.
SECTION 5. Reference is hereby made to the report prepared by the Director of Public
Works, entitled "Engineer's Report, for Hermosa Beach Landscaping and Street Lighting District
2002-2003," on file in the Office of the City Clerk, for a full and detailed description of the
- 1 -
improvements, the boundaries of the assessment district and any zones therein, and the proposed
assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the assessment district.
SECTION 6. The improvements shall be provided pursuant to the provisions of the
Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 (Section 22500, et seq.) of the
Street and Highways Code of the State of California, and in accordance with plans and
specifications on file in the office .of the City Clerk.
SECTION 7. The assessment shall be levied and collected at the same time and in the
same manner and with the same interest and penalties as general taxes of the City, which are
collected for the City by the Los Angeles County Tax Collector.
SECTION 8. Public property owned by any public agency and in use in the performance
of a public function which is included within the boundaries of the assessment district shall be
omitted and exempt from the assessment to be made to cover the costs and expenses of the
improvements.
SECTION 9. To expedite the making of the improvements, the City Council may
transfer into the "Hermosa Beach Landscaping and Street Lighting District 2002-2003 Fund,"
out of any money in the General Fund, any sums as it shall deem necessary, and the sums so
transferred shall be deemed a loan to such fund and shall be repaid in accordance with the
Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.
SECTION 10. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Tuesday, June 11, 2002, at the hour
of 7:30 PM in Room 4 of the Community Center, 710 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, California,
is appointed as the date, time and place for hearing protests to the question of approving and
confirming the levy of the proposed assessment.
SECTION 11. The City Clerk is hereby authorized, designated and directed to give
notice of the public hearing in the time, form and manner required by law.
SECTION 12. The EASY READER, a weekly newspaper of general circulation
circulated within the City, is hereby designated as the newspaper in which said notice shall be
published.
2
SECTION 13. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. The City Clerk shall
certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution, shall cause the original of the same to be
entered among the original resolutions of the City Council and shall make a minute of the passag
and adoption thereof in the minutes of the City Council meeting at which the same is passed and
adopted.
•
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 14th day of May 2002.
ATTEST:
PRESIDENT, of the City Council and MAYOR
of the City of Hermosa Beach, California
, CITY CLERK
, CITY ATTORNEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
F:\B95\PWFILES\RESOS\land & st light 2002-03 #2.doc
3
•
•
May 7, 2002
Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of
The Hermosa Beach City Council May 14, 2002
AWARD PURCHASE OF CLARK STADIUM LIGHTS
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Award the purchase of fifty-five (55) Hubbell Sportsliter SLS Series Fixtures
Type A and B to Morgan Wholesale Electric of Downey, California in the
amount of $18,653.10;
2. Authorize Staff to issue the appropriate purchase documents.
Background:
The Clark Field lighting system is over twenty-five years old. The Public Works
Department re-bulbed all the fixtures last year and has performed moderate repairs as
needed but a large percentage of the fixtures continue to fail. The increased evening
usage of the field places higher demand on this equipment which in turn increases the
number of fixture failures. In addition, nearby residents have voiced their concerns and
complaints regarding light spilling over into the neighborhood.
With the assistance of a lighting specialist who is a Hermosa Beach resident, Staff
developed specifications for this purchase. Bids were sent to seven (7) interested
distributors after publication in the Easy Reader. Three bids were received. The bid
results were as follows:
FIRM
LOCATION
AMOUNT
Morgan Wholesale Electric
Downey, CA
18,653.10
Walters Wholesale Electric
Torrance, CA
18,919.25
Inglewood Wholesale Electric
Inglewood, CA
20,706.06
Analysis:
The replacing the existing fixtures with the new style fixtures will allow for a reduction in
the number required while increasing lighting on the field and a significant reduction
(approximately 30%) in light spilling over into the surrounding neighborhoods. Future
planning for Clark Stadium would incorporate these new fixtures unless an upgrade to
the system is decided upon.
2f
Fiscal Impact:
Funding is available in CIP 99-530 Various Park Improvements (account number 125-
8530-4201).
Alternatives:
1. Award the purchase to Morgan Wholesale Electric.
2. Re -bid the items.
3. Take no action.
Respectfully submitted, Concur:
i)(\rbT--
Michael Flaherty
Public Works Superintendent Director of Public Works/City Engineer
•
arold C. Williams, P.E.
Noted for fiscal impact:
Viki Copeland
Finance Director
Concur:
Step urrell
City Manager
\\HERMOSA\VOL1\B95\PWFILES\CCITEMS\purchase Clark field lighting 5-14-02.doc
Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of
The Hermosa Beach City Council May 14, 2002
PROJECT NO. CIP 01-168 MANHATTAN AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENTS —
MANHATTAN AVENUE FROM 27T" STREET TO THE NORTH CITY LIMIT &
GREENWICH VILLAGE FROM 26T" STREET TO 27T" STREET
ACCEPTANCE
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Accept the work by Damon Construction Co. for Project No. CIP 01-168
Manhattan Avenue Street Improvements;
2. Authorize the Mayor to sign the Notice of Completion; and
3. Authorize Staff to release payment to Damon Construction Co. (10% retained
for 35 days following filing of Notice of Completion).
Background:
On September 12, 2001, City Council approved an agreement with Damon Construction Co.
to improve Manhattan Avenue from 27th Street to the north city limit and Greenwich Village
from 26th Street to 27th Street. The improvements included street resurfacing and striping,
installation 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 no additional appropriation is required.
The table below illustrates the project cost.
2g
Design
Construction
Management
Construction
Contract``amount
approved by City
Council
$48,900.00
$ 60,000.00
Contract $ 456,000.00
Contingency 50,000.00
Supplement #1 19,475.00
Contingency 2,000.00
Total $ 527,475.00
Amount Expended
$48,900.00
$ 59,981.58
$ 426,024.50
Amount Remaining
$0.00
18.42
$ 101,450.50
2g
• •
In March 2002, the reimbursement amount of $91,435.98 was received from the Caltrans for
this project. After the release of the retention, the remaining reimbursement in the amount of
$166,190.82 will be received. This brings the total reimbursement amount for this project to
$257,626.80.
Attachment: Project Location Map
Respectfully submitted,
Kenneth Kim
Assistant Engineer
Noted for Fiscal Impact:
Viki Copeland
Finance Director
Concur:
a.
'Harold C. Williams, P.E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Stephe i urr II
City Manager
F:\B95\PWFILES\CCITEMS\01-168 acceptance 5-14-02.doc
PROJECT NO. CIP 01-168
MANHATTAN AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENTS
MANHATTAN AVENUE FROM 27TH ST. TO THE NORTH CITY LIMT
& GREENWICH VILLAGE FROM 26TH ST. TO 27TH ST.
AVE.
341
-\ LONGFEIIOw AVE.
11111 1111112.11111MI
ill1131111111111M
-\ ST.
11111 301h
-\ 30th PL.
s.
gurSINNInimunisi
NV330 0I3I0Vd
DATE: 7-17-01 I
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
ATTACHMENT
•
May 8, 2002
•
City Council Meeting of -
May 14, 2002
Quarterly Report on Workers Compensation
January 2002 through March 2002
i
Recommendation
Receive and File the Quarterly Report on Workers' Compensation.
Background
This report on the City's workers' compensation program is for the period of January 1,
2002 through March 31, 2002.
Analysis
Claims expense for the first quarter of the 01/02 fiscal year was 9% lower than the
previous quarter. Claims expenses for the last fiscal year ending June 30, 2001 was also
down from the previous year as shown in the table below.
Period
Claims .Expense
FY 93/94
$308,400
FY 94/95
$535,708
FY 95/96
$535,736
FY 96/97
$492,079
FY 97/98
$608,025
FY 98/99
$521,352
FY 99/00
$589,731
FY 00/01
$447,801
FY 01/02
— First Quarter
$167,068
FY 01/02
— Second Quarter
$149,720
FY 01/02
— Third Quarter
$235,132
One of the greatest costs associated with providing workers compensation benefits is in
providing salary continuation to sworn police and fire employees while they are
temporarily disabled from their work. These benefits are provided in the Labor Code and
are commonly referred to as "4850 time". Not only must public agencies continue to pay
the full salary for police and fire employees while they are off, there are significant
overtime costs in covering those shifts for the injured worker.
2h
4
Claims expense is higher than projected due to an increase in benefits paid for lost time
injuries for public safety personnel. The number of hours lost due to work related
injuries for public safety personnel are twice what they were last fiscal year. Several
public safety employees have had significant injuries requiring surgery and extended
recovery periods. For example, two employees have had to undergo shoulder surgery
and two have had hernia surgery. In addition, two police employees in their last year of
employment have -been.offwork due to a variety of orthopedic injury claims;_, This,is,p9t
uncommon due to their long careers, the type of work they perform, and the benefits
available to them. The City has also had one non -safety employee off for an extended
period after sustaining a broken neck while at work.
The table below shows the total workers' comp. reserve for future liability on existing
claims. The reserves have increased dramatically since the City changed third party
administrators (Hazelrigg Risk Management Services). The new administrator has a
different philosophy and method for setting reserve amounts. Hazelrigg believes that the
prior administrator had significantly underestimated the future liability on the City's
claims. Specifically, the prior administrator was not setting the reserve to include the full
value of the benefits available to sworn public safety employees.
Date:
Total Workers' :_Comp. Reserve:;
June 1996
$1,130,925
June 1997
$1,266,861
June 1998
$833,161
June 1999
$770,263
June 2000
$617,124
June 2001
$945,431
September 2001
$1,081,731
December 2001
$1,100,735
March 2002
$1,078,139
The number of claims reported during the fiscal year is below the average of the prior
five years. Over the last six years an average of 37 claims were reported annually. To
date, 24 claims have been reported through March 2002. This is lower than the previous
quarters and is slightly below the average number of claims anticipated for the fiscal
year.
Cases Reported By Fiscal Year
95/96 54
96/97 36
97/98 30
98/99 47
99/00 26
00/01 31
2001/2002 24 to date
The majority of claims received continue to be from the Police Department. This is
consistent with the nature of work, consistent with the benefits available to public safety
employees, and consistent with other cities' claims.
We are nearing completion of implementing a modified duty policy that will provide
temporary modified work assignments to employees until they are released to full duty.
Cities with these policies have typically found that employees are able to return to their
usual and customary duties sooner when they remain active and involved in work. The
goal of this policy is to help reduce the amount of temporary disability and 4850 benefits
paid. The City continues to provide modified duty assignments on a limited basis in
some departments.
In addition, the Assistant Fire Chief has completed a comprehensive revision to the City's
Injury and Illness Prevention Plan, Hazard Communication Program, Exposure Control
Plan, and Occupational Exposure to Communicable Disease Plan. Once review by the
Personnel Department is complete and these programs are implemented, it is hoped that
they will improve overall employee safety and eventually have a positive effect on
workers' compensation claims costs
It is important to continue to stress that the benefits provided under workers'
compensation are mandated by state and federal legislation. Legislation in the state of
California, in particular, continues to provide increased benefits. The vast majority of
these benefit increases do not affect private business enterprises because frequently they
are specific to public safety personnel.
Respectfully submitted:
ichael arl
ersonnel &
sk Management Director
Concur:
Stephen Burrell
City Manager
t
•
Honorable Mayor and Members of
The Hermosa Beach City Council
Recommendation:
•
_ RECOMMENDATION TO DENY CLAIM
3-716
May 7, 2002
Regular. Meeting of
May 14, 2002
It is recommended that City Council deny the following claim and refer it to the
City's Liability Claims Administrator:
1. Claimant: Jean McGreevy
Date of Loss: 04-28-02
Date Filed: 05-01-02
Allegation: Negligent maintenance of public sidewalk
2. Claimant: Alicia Bues, Ernesto Bues
Date of Loss: 11-17-01
Date Filed: 05-02-02
Allegation: City did not enforce ordinances
A copy of this claim is on file in the City Clerk's office.
Respectfully Submitted,
Michae A. Earl, Director
Perso el & Risk Management
Concur:
AY/ AO
tep en R. : rrell
City Manager
2i
as of the date of presentation of this claim, is computed as follows: (please attach estimates/receipts)
PLEASE REMEMBER TO SIGN CLAIM FORM claimfm,.doc
.f
°'•
NM
.
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
►�ao;A
CLAIM REPORTING FORM FOR ALL,PERSONS OR P[ QPEfljy, -,- „, , , ,, , „ _._
FILE WITH: City Clerk's Office
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
RESERVE FOR FILING STAMP -
DEPT. NO.
0
6 *� ��� �i
jjj]]]jjjiWWW�i/'�i11 ilr
Vfl
8 MAY 0 1 2002 P. 2
L COMM
LITY0FHIMMOSANACH
03
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Claims for death, injury to person or to personal property must be filed not
later than six months after the occurrence.
(Gov. Code Sec. 911.2)
2. Claims for damages to real property must be filed not later than 1 year after
the occurrence. (Gov. Code Sec. 911.2)
3. Read entire claim form before filing.
4. See page 2 for diagram upon which to locate place of accident.
5. This claim form must be signed on page 2 at bottom.
6. Attach separate sheets, if necessary, to give full details.
Name of Claimant
J AN ("I��E ✓�
Date Of Birth Of C aim nt
/e) (/
Home Address Of Claimant
g4 -o— g -IT. FL ce
Occupation of Claimant
,/.e2_,(
Business Address of Claimant
14-4plr -t-3 -L0- CPr 9.02S--
Home Telephone Number
(3ic) 37q- —7o 07
Give address and telephone number to which you desire notices or
communications to be sent regarding this claim.
Business Telephone Number
( )
S e! M c
Claimant's Social Security No.
cf0 16 — -D4 o_.
Date of Damage/Loss/Injury
0 9--/Z'7 Z
L Time
A.M. OS P.M.
Place of Damage/Loss/Injury
/ -Z-
r
/VOR TH S I�Ew 6 L l( ` )- la ck rrvk_ --5 '- TW E /
How did damage/loss/injury occur? (Be specific) /ii%tepeci er/..2,--- P is Mr-/ _
1'.3
0 5-4 w c 116 -irtzitz., % 0--,e_ S -r ,--6._%//,_c. v
Were Police a scene? Yes ❑ No
Were Paramedics at scene? Yes ❑ No
Report No.
What particular act or omission do you claim caused the damage/loss/injury.
✓Cca -,,- 0/ iaC �. 0
Name of City employee(s) causing the damage/loss/injury:
as of the date of presentation of this claim, is computed as follows: (please attach estimates/receipts)
PLEASE REMEMBER TO SIGN CLAIM FORM claimfm,.doc
Damages incurred to date (exact):
Expenses for medical
and hospital care
Loss of earnings $
Special damages for $
General damages $
Total damages incurred to date
$
Estimated expenses for medical and hospital cate
Future expenses for medical and =_:
hospital care $
Future loss of earnings $
Other prospective special
damages $
Prospective general damages $
Total estimate prospective
damages $
WITNESSES to DAMAGE br INJURY: LIST ALL PERSONS and addresses of persons known to have information: — - - ' . „
Name 6 /7'Cyey- Address S 31 - S-7'` S tr-e2.. Phone/ c>) 3 72 5L- 7,3c >
�� u, -t z _ 1 e.rviwDe, !aeL
Name `- o 13 Address g 37 - S S1-r-e.e41- Phone (31 v) 37 /, 2 E' 7
Name Address Phone
DOCTORS and HOSPITALS:
Hospital
Doctor
Doctor
Address Date Hospitalized
Address 173 /2' a J (Y, -/D e of T eatment fz- C� Z
iv/ /
Address 3 0Lp V :tc{ 4t/ Date of Treatment 64/2i / o 2
s--0-5"
((
(2c,(! /-',vSCJ /tl,e RLCLL/
READ CAREFULLY
For all accident claims place on following diagram names of
streets, including North, East, South, and West; indicate
place of accident by "X" and showing house number or
distances to street corners. If City vehicle was involved,
designate by letter "A" location of City vehicle when you
first saw it, and by "B" location of yourself or your vehicle
when you first saw City vehicle; location of City vehicle
at time of accident by "A-1" and location of yourself or
your vehicle at the time of the accident by "B-1" and the
point of impact by "X".
NOTE: If diagrams below do not fit the situation, attach
hereto a proper diagram signed by claimant.
CURB—i
Signature of claimant or person filing on his behalf
giving relationship to Claimant:
Typed Name:
PLEASE REMEMBER TO SIGN CLAIM FORM
Date:
2
claimfrm.doc
•
Photo from Dr. Anthony Yamada
Jean McGreevy
Teeth #7,8,9
•
'J.`s�c44,r\ M` c-rcC.`cv"1
CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
To:
City of Hermosa Beach
City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA, 90254
Attn: City Clerk
Pursuant to Gov't Code § 900 et. seq., Claimants Alicia Bues
and Ernesto Bues file their claim against the City of Hermosa Beach and
the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, as well as Does 1 through
50, as follows:
1. CLAIMANTS:
Alicia Bues
Ernesto Bues
212 Prospect Avenue
Hermosa Beach, CA, 90254
2. NOTICES:
All notices concerning this claim should be sent to:
Karen A. Clark
Attorney at Law
1875 Century Park East, 7th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Tel: (310) 478-0330
Fax: (310) 477-2639
1
3. TIME OF OCCURRENCE:
February 11, 2002.
Alicia Bues and Ernesto Bues have suffered damages as a result
of the circumstances underlying this claim.
4. PLACE OF OCCURRENCE:
City of Hermosa Beach
City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA, 90254
5. DESCRIPTION OF OCCURRENCE:
The damage that is the subject of this Claim for Damages is the
wrongful denial of a request for City intervention. The wrongful denial
happened on or about February 11, 2002 when Claimants received notice
from the City of Hermosa Beach that it would not act upon Claimants
request to enforce the City ordinances, rules and regulations and the
Government Code.
On or about October 4, 2001 Claimants wrote to the City
Attorney of the City of Hermosa Beach:
[The City] has authority under Government Code Section
66499.12 to revert the property to acreage. In order for the City
to take such action, one or more of the conditions in
Government Code Section 66499.16 has to be found. At the
time of your writing in 1999, you stated that none of the
conditions of Section 66499.16 were present.
2
states:
In pertinent part, Government Code Section 66499.16,
GOV §66499.16. Subdivided real property may be -
reverted to acreage only if the legislative body finds
that:
(a) Dedications or offers of dedication to be vacated- - -
or abandoned by the reversion to acreage are
unnecessary for present or prospective public
purposes; and
(b) Either:
(1) All owners of an interest in the real property
within the subdivision have consented to reversion; or
(2) None of the improvements required to be made
have been made within two years from the date the
fmal or parcel map was filed for record, or within the
time allowed by agreement for completion of the
improvements, whichever is the later; or
(3) No lots shown on the final or parcel map
have been sold within five years from the date such
map was filed for record. (Emphasis added.)
It appears that conditions can be found today, under the
Government Code, for the City to act. For instance, the original
Parcel Map No. 23246 was filed by Lueker on August 29, 1996,
Lueker never purchased our lot as shown in such map, so under
Government Code Section 66499.16 (b)(3) the five years limit
has been exceeded.
Another action that the City may take is to act under
Government Code Section 66412. The reasoning for that, would be
to enforce City ordinances in effect as to lot size criteria. If one were
to take the new Parcel Map 23246-A as the current subdivision map,
then our lot line has been adjusted (excluded) to the boundaries in
existence prior to the filing of Lueker's unauthorized Parcel Map
23246 in August, 1996. Consequently, Lueker's existing subdivided
lot does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance, thus the City can
adjust Lueker's lot line to its pre 1996 boundaries.(A copy of Parcel
Map No. 23246-A is enclosed.)"
3
On November 17, 2001, Claimants wrote essentially the same
letter to the City Manager and the City Council. On February 11, 2002,
the City answered declining to comply with Claimants request.
Further, the City of Hermosa Beach is in violation of various
Federal and State Constitutional Provisions and various sections of the
Government Code and its own ordinances, rules and regulations as well as
a violation of the Brown Act.
The foregoing actions constitute:
• Violation of various Federal and State Constitutional
Provisions including but not limited to Due Process, Equal
Protection Clause, Racial Discrimination;
• Negligence;
• Fraud;
• Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress;
• Violation of Government Code Sections 66499.12,
66499.15, 66499.16, 66499.30 and 66499.31; and,
• Violation of City Ordinances, Rules and Regulations.
6. NAMES OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES:
Alicia Bues and Ernesto Bues do not currently know the names
of all public employees who contributed to the damage. Investigation and
Discovery continue at this time. However, the City Council for the City of
4
Hermosa Beach was responsible for the wrongful denial and for the taking
and encumbrance of Claimants property.
7. AMOUNT OF CLAIM:
Alicia Bues and Ernesto Bues claim in excess of $25,000 (the
jurisdictional minimum for a superior court action) for their damages to
date.
In addition, Alicia Bues and Ernesto Bues claim attorneys' fees,
costs, and interest.
DATED May 02, 2002
5
a""
Karen A. Clark
Attorney for Claimants
Alicia Bues and Ernesto Bues
PROOF OF PERSONAL SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I am a citizen of the United States and employed in the County aforesaid. I
am over the age of 18 and not a party to the above -entitled action; my business address is
10952 Massachusetts Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90024.
On MayZi, 2002, I served the within CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH on the interested parties in this action by depositing it in the United States Mail,
in Los Angeles, California, with first class postage, certified mail, fully prepaid thereon
to the offices of:
City of Hermosa Beach
City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA, 90254
X (State) I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.
(Federal) I declare that I am employed in the offices of a member of the bar
of this court at whose direction the service was made.
Executed MAY 22002, at Los Angeles, California.
KAREN A. CLARK
N
•
May 6, 2002
Honorable Mayor and Members of
The Hermosa Beach City Council
Regular Meeting of
May 14, 2002
APPROVAL OF "BE STREET SMART HERMOSA"
POLE BANNER / STREET SAFETY PROGRAM
SPONSORED BY MERVYN'S CALIFORIA
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve a pole banner program to advertise the Public
Works Commission's new "Be Street Smart Hermosa" Program to coincide with
advertising banners for Mervyn's Beach Bash and Mervyn's California.
Background
In previous years, IMG, on behalf of Mervyn's California, decorated Downtown
Hermosa Beach and The Strand with pole banners to advertise the Beach Bash event.
The decorative banners were well received by the merchants in the area, some of whom
made a formal request to Council to retain the banners past the event expiration.
The Public Works Commission recently decided to initiate a City wide program to
encourage more attentiveness to vehicular and pedestrian safety. One of the ideas
forwarded by the Commission subcommittee (Lombardo/Howell) was to place safety
messages on pole banners throughout the City.
At the April 23, 2002 meeting, Council listened to a presentation by Public Works
Commissioner, Jean Lombardo regarding the prospective plan to launch, the "Street Smart
Hermosa" Program that included pole banners as one component. At that time, staff
was directed to return with a formal agenda item for this program.
Analysis
At a cost of approximately $400 per pole installed, the expense of a banner project would
be considerable to the City. Since Mervyn's was planning to pay for and install pole
banners for their June event anyway, the Commissioners and staff requested that they
consider: (a) adding a safety message to their banners, (b) expanding their program to
include PCH, and (c) designing banners that would be usable after the event.
To that end, Mervyn's has agreed to pilot this effort by designing dual sided banners to
include a safety message on one side and their advertisement on the other side of certain
banner pole location.
•
2j
•
The banners are tentatively planned to be located as follows:
•
PCH (Gould to Aviation): Safety Banner & Mervyn's on each pole*
Hermosa Ave (10th —14th): 'A Safety Banner & Mervyn's &'A Beach Bash only
Strand: Beach Bash only**
Pier Avenue: 6 poles Beach Bash only**
*Street Safety Banners will remain up for the duration of the program (estimated
summer months).
* *Beach Bash Banners will be removed the week following the event as has been
customary.
The safety messages and design will be simple (Attachment A):
Be Street Smart Hermosa
Bike Safe (or Skate Safe, Drive Safe, Walk Safe, etc.)
The banners will launch the Commission's program that is projected to include other
safety education/awareness components. If this pilot effort is successful, the program
may grow to include more locations in the future.
FISCAL IMPACT: NONE
Respectfully submitted,
Mary
ney .
Co unity Resources Director
Concur:
Step l R. urrell
City Manager
Mervyn's 22701 faalai 1 eaulevare Hayward, CA 9,4541
4aa Beach Bash Light Nolo Banner pfi0599)
caau..
K l00 Illustrator &01
OUEM5M1•00 Ow 170 feet
PEMCENTAGE so some 20%
EONrs Helvetica Neue Family
mons. CMYN
ruEB
This proof la for color Indication only.
NOTE Printer is responsible for all trapping.
NFASEROTS RPEaRC 0111,111110
NAM PES ren
yjq w z ,• �
6-14:Aree. Even iPlarktiing andistuu
PAM CAMPAIGNS> BEACH BASH> ONSITE SIGNAGE
•
•
S a PEACH SLASH a OH-srrES,Sala:=•>:f;rt:Cr:aL LiGY' POLE BANNERS
SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION
2j
5/
May 1, 2002
Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of
the Hermosa Beach City Council May 14, 2002
ACCEPT FINAL SEWER REPORT FOR PROJECT NOS. CIP 00-411, 00-412, 00-413,
00-414 SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION/RECONSTRUCTION AND
APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Accept the final sewer engineering report completed by Berryman & Henigar;
2. Award Professional Services Agreement to Berryman & Henigar to provide design
and engineering services for Project No. CIP 00-411 Sanitary Sewer
Rehabilitation/Reconstruction — Target Area 1 for $81,666;
3. Authorize the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest the attached Professional
Services Agreement subject to approval by the City Attorney;
4. Appropriate $60,395 in the 160 Sewer Fund for Project No. CIP 00-411.
5. Authorize the Director of Public Works to make changes to the agreement up to
$8,166.
Background:
On May 8, 2001, City Council awarded a professional service agreement (PSA) with Berryman
& Henigar to perform Phase I of the design of Project No. CIP 00-411, 00-412, 00-413, and
°00-410 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation/Reconstruction (Target Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4). Phase
consisted of a review of the inspection data (video tapes and log reports) and an engineering
report recommending methods and materials for repair and rehabilitation of deficiencies of the
inspected sewer lines and manholes. Phase II will be a preparation of final design plans,
specifications, and cost estimates for the repair and rehabilitation construction activities. When
the PSA was awarded to Berryman & Henigar, City Council authorized Staff to review the
engineering report, negotiate the scope and fee for Phase II of design, and give direction to the
designer to proceed with Phase II, pending acceptance by City Council. See Attachment 1 for
the sample PSA including the scope of services for this second phase of design.
The engineering report is complete and available in the Public Works Department for review.
According to the preliminary budget forecasted for FY2002-03, the design for Project Nos. CIP
00-412,'00-413,'and 00-414 appear to be programmed in_subsequent.fiscal years. At this
time,`Staff recommends moving forward with Project Nb: CIP 00-411 Sanitary Sewer
Rehabilitation/Reconstruction — Target Area 1. See Attachment 2 for Location Map.
2k
• •
Analysis:
Berryman & Henigar has completed the engineering report.
The Scope of Services for the design of Project No. CIP 00-411 will consist of the following:
Phase II — Design:
Task 1.0 Preliminary Design
Subtask 1.1 Kick -Off Meeting
Subtask 1.2 Research and Data collection
Subtask 1.3 Survey Control & Support
Subtask 1.4 Preliminary Improvement Plans
Subtask 1.5 Utility Company and Other Agency Coordination
Subtask 1.6 Specifications and Cost Estimates
Subtask 1.7 Geotechnical Evaluation (Optional)
Task 2.0 Final Design
Subtask 2.1 Final Improvement Plans
Subtask 2.2 Utility Company and Other Agency Coordination
Subtask 2.3 Specifications and Cost Estimates
Task 3.0 Assistance During Contract Award
The complete Scope of Services can be found in the attached Professional Services
Agreement. Tentative dates are as follows: 1) design completion — August 2, 2002, 2) City
Council approval to go to bid — August 13, 2002, and 3) bid date — September 4, 2002.
Without a scope of construction and the required contract time, a tentative completion date
cannot be estimated.
fiscal Impact:
The budget for Project No. CIP 00-411 is as follows:
160 Sewer Funds Available $ 29,437
Design Amount $ 81,666
Contingency 8,166
Total $ 89,832
Appropriation Needed $ 60,395
Therefore, Recommendation 4 is needed at this time.
Attachments: 1. , Professional Services Agreement
2. Location Map
2
•
Respectfully submitted,
Tristan D. Malabanan
Assistant Engineer
Noted for Fiscal Impact:
Viki Copeland
Finance Director
Concur:
arold C. Williams, P.E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Concur:
Steph
City anager
\\HERMOSA\VOL1\895\PWFILES\CCITEMS\00-411 award design 5-14-02.doc
3
•
- • PSA No.
02.002
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 14th day of May, 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 Berryman & Henigar, 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
$ 81,666.00 as shown Exhibit "B" attached hereto. 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 shall be reimbursed monthly in arrears based upon the hourly
services provided. CONSULTANT shall submit invoices in triplicate and addressed to
the CITY, do the Finance Department, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-
3884.
ATTACHMENT 1
• S
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
parties.
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 or
applicant 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
During 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 to 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 shall 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.
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
r. .
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 Berryman & Henigar
ATTEST:
Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
F:\B95\PWFILES\CIP\00-411 et al\psa 5-14-02 with exhibit a (00-411).doc
6
EXHIBIT A
PART I'' : PRELIMINARY DESIGN
TASK::
TASK DESCRIPTION
OEUVEi A 3LES`
1.1
.. ....
•Kick Off Meeting
..............................
Upon receipt of Notice to Proceed, Berryman & Henigarwill schedule
a kick-off meeting with the City staff to accomplish the following
objectives:
• Establish clear lines of communication with City and project team
• Discuss major features and special requirements
• Obtain pertinent information from the City
• Review and coordinate pending projects that may have a bearing
on the alignment and/or phasing of the proposed sewers and
streets
• Discuss project design schedule and milestone dates, and adjust
schedule as deemed necessary
• Meeting agenda
• Meeting minutes
• Project schedule
1.,2
Research and Data CIIlectiofl
• Obta'n existing improvements plans, utility maps and study reports 1
for the project area.
• Work in cooperation with the City of Hermosa Beach, Los Angeles
County, utility companies and other affected governing agencies to
collect records, improvement drawings and private utility plans
• Contact Underground Service Alert for a listing of member utility
companies with utilities located within the project area and submit
written requests to affected utility companies requesting to obtain
existing and proposed plans for evaluation of their impact on the
proposed project.
• Gather existing horizontal and vertical control necessary to
establish control for the basis of topographic surveying.
• Utility company
correspondence
• Copies of all
franchise utility
facilities mapping
• Right-of-way maps,
parcel maps and
county assessors
maps
7
8
PART.I P ELI . ARYDESICIAf
TASK
NO
1ASK DESGIR[PT1QN
CEILfUIEfILES
1.3
.uR.eyinq. ::Map'ipan:q
•
•
•
•
Establish horizontal and vertical control, and locate all existing
pertinent surface features and surface indications of underground
utilities not shown on the aerial topographic map provided by the
City.
Perform design survey as necessary for the streets to be
reconstructed and to construct curb ramps where required and to
include survey of accessible underground facilities for invert
elevations, etc.
Develop 40-Scale base-sheets using AutoCAD Release 2000
showing existing utility information, field surveys, aerial
topography, surface features and culture, record centerlines, right-
of-way, easements and property lines.
Perform job walk to identify conflicts and inconsistencies.
•
Copies of all field
notes and survey
data
1:.4 :
Preliiminaryampr..ove.ment:PJans:
•
•
Develop
1"=40'
appurtenances
Plans
vertical
information
rehabilitation
removal/resurfacing,
all other
streets..
Any
to be
in the
1.5
preliminary design drawings on plan and profile sheets at
(horizontal) and 1"=4' (vertical) for the sewer system and
and at 1"=20' (horizontal) for street rehabilitation.
for sewer rehabilitation will include pipe horizontal and
location, laterals and lateral stubs, and all other pertinent
required to construct the facility. Plans for street
will include street cross section, limits of
proposed pavement structural section, and
pertinent information required to rehabilitate/reconstruct
utility relocations required by the project that are determined
the responsibility of the City, shall be designed and included
preliminary plan set.
•
Three sets of
preliminary
improvement
plans
Utility Company and Other Agency Coordination
• Submit preliminary plans to affected governing agencies and
utility companies to coordinate connections to regional
facilities, relocation of existing (conflicting) and location of new
facilities.
•
•
Copies of
transmittal letters
Review
comments
8
PRELiMINARY{3ESI �GN
TASK
NO..
1.6
Specificaticns :and Estimate
• Prepare preliminary contract documents, specifications, and
special provisions.
• Prepare a preliminary engineer's cost estimate of construction
costs.
• Preliminary
specifications
and estimate
1.7
Geotechnical Evaluation (optional)
• The 1998 Pavement Management Report will be used as the
bases for rehabilitation of street for this project. If required,
Berryman & Henigar will assist in acquiring new geotechnical
information in areas where sewer and or street is to be
reconstructed. Berryman & Henigar, as an optional task and
upon city's approval, will contract for exploration services,
drilling, logging of holes, and additional data collection.
Collected data may include shoring that was left in place,
backfill, lateral connection method, location of laterals, pipe
material, depth of cover, ground water, roots, and other
potential obstructions. The required information will be
collected and presented in a manner conducive to the
proposed construction methods.
9
�f�1St Afl £STINIA'iE
..>TASK.
TASK DESCRIPTION
Final Viewer and;Street Improvement: Plans
• Following City and other agency review of preliminary plans,
prepare final plan and profile for new sewers for the selected
alignment.
• Prepare final plans for sewer segments to be rehabilitated.
• Prepare final plans for streets to be rehabilitated.
• Submit original plan set on Mylar reproducible) signed and
sealed by RCE), along with electronic submittal of the same.
• Final improvement
plans (hardcopy)
• Reproducible set of
plans on Mylar
• Electronic copy of
plans on CD-ROM
Plans will include:
• Title, typical
sections, and
notes
• Sewer
improvement
plans and profile
sheets
• Manhole layout
and detail sheets
• Street
improvement
plans
• Typical and
special details
• Interfering utility
relocation plan
and profiles
22
Utility Company. and .Other Agency Coordination
• Submit the final plans to the all affected utility companies.
• Coordinate with utility companies to coordinate relocations (if
required).
10
TASK
NO.
...................
RT 2FINAL PLANS;: SPECIFICATIONS, AN
TASK DESCRIPTCON'
2.3
Specifications and Estimate:
• Prepare specifications and special provisions.
• Prepare a final engineer's cost estimate of construction costs.
• Provide electronic of final specifications and estimate as well
as reproducible original (signed and sealed by registered civil
engineer).
• The City will provide one boilerplate copy in digital format of
the City Standard Contract document for inclusion of the
specifications.
• Provide bid item schedule. Bid item numbers will match
numbering system for engineer's opinion of probable cost (cost
estimate).
• Provide independent check of individual quantities. Check to
be done in house by quality control engineer selected for this
project.
• Prepare unit cost justification for all items of work based on
historical bid data and contractor input.
• Prepare the engineer's opinion of probable construction cost
based on the quantities and unit cost justification.
Final specifications,
special provisions &
estimate
Quantity calculations
Electronic files in
City specified format
on CD-ROM
PHASE 3 -- ASS
ISTANCE DURING:CONTRACT AWARD
TASK.
NO.
TASK:DESCRIPTION
DELIVERABLES
3.1
Assistance During Contract Award
• Provide assistance in answering questions from bidders,
advising city staff, and providing recommendations and general
assistance throughout the bidding process.
• Advise City staff and prepare any addenda, if appropriate.
Assist City staff with tabulation of bid results, review of bids,
investigation of contractors previous work and
recommendations of award to lowest responsible contractor.
• Written
Responses to
Inquiries and
Addenda
11
EXHIBIT A (CONTINUED)
PROJECT NO. CIP 00-411 SEWER AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS -
TARGET AREA 1 - FINAL DESIGN PROJECT SCHEDULE
ID
0
Task Name
Time
Start
Finish
Ma
June
23 30 I 7
July
28
5
12
19
26
2
9
16
14
21
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
PRELIMINARY and FINAL DESIGN
NOTICE OF AWARD (Assumed)
Kick-off Meeting
Reaserch and Data Collection
Prepare Base Map
58 days
Prepare Preliminary (50%) Bid Documents
Submittal Preliminary Bid Documents (50%)
City Review (50°k) Submittal
Agency Coordination
Prepare Final (100%) Bid Documents
Submittal Final Bid Documents (100%)
City Review (100%) Submittal
Finalize Bid Documents
Submit Bid Documents for Signature
Wed 5/15/02
1 day
1 day
Fri 8/2/02
Wed 5/15/02
Wed 5/15/02
Thu 5/16/02
Thu 5/16/02
5 days
10 days
20 days
0 days
Fri 5/17/02
Thu 5/23/02
Fri 5/24/02
Thu 6/6/02
Fri 6/7/02
Thu 7/4/02
Thu 7/4/02
Thu 7/4/02
4 days
20 days
Fri 7/5/02
Fri 6/7/02
Wed 7/10/02
Thu 7/4/02
10 days
0 days
Thu 7/11/02
Wed 7/24/02
Wed 7/24/02
Wed 7/24/02
4 days
Thu 7/25/02
Tue 7/30/02
3 days
0 days
Wed 7/31/02
Fri 8/2/02
Fri 8/2/02
Fri 8/2/02
7/4
7/24
Project File: 00-41
Date: Tue 5/7/02
Task
Progress
Milestone
) Summary
•
glIEZIER111111=11111,
Review Meetings I
External Tasks 1.
Project Summary k;•;:•-•
Split
111111111111111t11111111131,1111111111
Rolled Up Split
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
DETAILED FEE PROPOSAL FOR SEWER AND STREET REPAIR/REHABILITATION FINAL DESIGN
PROJECT NO. CIP 00-411 SEWER REHABILITATION/RECONSTRUCTION - TARGET AREA 1
Target Area 1
HOURS
SUB
EXP
Total Hrs.
By Task
FEE
Task No.
DESCRIPTION
PM
PE
DE
TECH
2 -man crew
WP
Hourly Bill Rate
$160
$121
$92
$67
$200
$56
1
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
1.1
Kick-off Meeting
4
4
8
$1,124
1.2
Research and Data Collection
2
12
6
20
$2,324
1.3
Survey Control & Support
18
48
20
12
24
4
$150
126
$16,506
1.4
Sewer Preliminary Plans
16
32
16
24
$200
88
$9,712
1.5
Street Preliminary Plans
32
64
24
40
$200
360
$17,952
1.6
Agancy Coordination
2
8
4
4
18
$1,880
1.7
Sewer Specifications and Estimate
3
12
6
6
$70
27
$2,890
1.8
Street Specifications and Estimate
3
12
6
6
$70
27
$2,890
2.
FINAL DESIGN
2.1
Sewer Improvement Plans
8
24
12
16
$200
60
$6,560
2.2
Street Improvement Plans
16
40
20
24 •
$200
300
$11,048
2.3
Agancy Coordination
1
4
2
2
9
$940
2.4
Sewer Specifications and Estimate
2
6
4
4
$100
16
$1,738
2.5
Street Specifications and Estimate
2
6
4
4
$100
16
$1,738
2.6
Design Review Meetings
12
12
24
$3,372
3
CONTRACT AWARD ASSISTANCE
3.1
Assistance During Contract Award
2
2
2
2
2
10
$992
HOURS - FINAL DESIGN
- 123
286
126
118
24
32
709
Final Fee
$19,680
$34,606
$11,592
$7,906
.$4,800
$1,792
$0
$1,290
$81,666
Fee Total for Target Area 1:
$81,666
•
PROJECT NO. CIP 00-411 LOCATION MAP
• 35th Place — Palm Drive to Manhattan Avenue
• 34th Place — Palm Drive to Highland Avenue
• 31St Place — Palm Drive to Manhattan Avenue
• 29th Court — west of Morningside Drive to Ingleside Drive
• Palm Drive — 35th Place to 27th Street
• Morningside Drive — 33rd Place to Longfellow Avenue
ATTACHMENT 2
April 29, 2002
City Council Meeting
May 14, 2002
Mayor and Members
of the City Council
ORDINANCE NO. 02-1219 - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
AND AMENDING THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE."
Submitted for adoption and waiver of full reading is Ordinance No. 02-1219, relating to
the above subject.
At the meeting of April 23, 2002, the ordinance was presented to Council for
consideration and was introduced by the following vote:
AYES: Edgerton, Keegan, Reviczky, Mayor Dunbabin
NOES: None
ABSENT: Yoon
ABSTAIN: None
Noted:
Stephen re I,, Manager
Elaine Doerfling, City CI
3a
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
i •
ORDINANCE NO. 02-1219
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND AMENDING THE
HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 12.08.010 of Title 12, Chapter 12.08 of the Hermosa Beach
Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
"12.08.10 General Requirement.
Except as provided in Section 12.08.020, any owner, lessee or agent or any
other person or persons constructing or arranging for the construction of: (a)
any commercial or industrial building or residential dwelling structure, or
addition thereto, exceeding four hundred (400) square feet in floor area, or
(b) any accessory building greater than fifty percent (50%) of the square
footage of the existing main building, shall provide for the construction of
Portland cement concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks, street pavement
between the gutter and center line of the street fronting the property, and
pavement between the edge of pavement and center line of any alley
adjoining the property, in accordance with the standard specifications of the
City Engineer."
SECTION 2. Section 12.08.020 of Title 12, Chapter 12.08 of the Hermosa Beach
Municipal Code is amended by adding thereto a new paragraph D. to read as follows:
"D. Portland cement concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks and street pavement
already exist to the satisfaction of the City Engineer along all street and
alley frontages adjoining the lot or lots on which the building or dwelling is
to be constructed."
SECTION 3. Section 12.16.130 of Title 12.16 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal
Code is amended by amending the first paragraph thereof to read as follows:
"No building permit shall be issued for construction of a new residential
dwelling structure or addition thereto, exceeding four hundred (400) square
-1-
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
• •
feet in floor area, or for the remodel of an existing residential dwelling
structure valued at more than fifty percent (50%) of the replacement cost of
the existing structure, until the adjacent City right-of-way is determined to
be in accordance with City standards."
SECTION 4. Section 12.16.150 of Title 12, Chapter 12.16 of the Hermosa Beach
•
Municipal Code is amended by adding thereto a new paragraph to read as follows:
"An encroachment permit shall expire and be of no further force and effect
upon the removal of the primary building on the property."
SECTION 12. 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.
SECTION 13. 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; 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 14th day of May, 2002 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk City Attorney
-2-
t
•
Monday, May 06, 2002
Oztot ria-ia�
5-/////p._
Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular meeting of
The Hermosa Beach City Council May 14, 2002
DEPLOYMENT OF POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT
PERSONNEL FOR THE FOURTH OF JULY HOLIDAY
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Receive and file the following report on the planning and preparations regarding the
deployment of police and fire personnel on the Fourth of July holiday, 2002.
2. Consider adoption of an ordinance prohibiting parties advertised to the general public and
amending the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code.
BACKGROUND
The Fourth of July is a major holiday in Hermosa Beach. Large numbers of people come into
town to attend parties and go to the beach. The fireworks show in Redondo Beach serves as
an added attraction as people come to the beach in Hermosa to watch the Redondo show.
Traditionally, the police encounter Targe crowds with live bands at neighborhood parties. Due to
the cooperative nature of most people in town on the Fourth, officers generally achieve
cooperation and compliance through a low key, diplomatic and friendly approach.
In an effort to mitigate the undesirable effects of Targe parties, live bands and illegal fireworks
use, last year the police department deployed additional officers including Los Angeles County
Sheriff's Deputies and California Highway Patrol Officers. The objective was to display a large
police presence in the hopes of curtailing undesirable activities. The other objective was to
have sufficient officers available to properly handle large unruly crowds. The police department
felt that these objectives were achieved. The large deployment of officers was effective and
certainly established a deployment pattern for future 4th of July holidays. As a recap of last
year, officers handled a total of 433 calls for service in a 24-hour period. There were 12 arrests,
and 116 citations issued, the majority of which (81) were for the possession and consumption of
alcohol in public.
At the direction of Council, the Newport Beach and Huntington Beach Police Departments were
contacted regarding their enforcement of noise complaints. Both cities utilize a noise meter and
have implemented a complex noise ordinance around its use. Staff recommends against the
use of a noise meter. The police department explored the use of a noise meter in the 1980's
and found the use of a noise meter to be extremely complex not only in its use but in the
presentation at court. The current noise ordinance utilizes the "reasonable man" approach
which staff feels is much easier to implement and explain in court. The police department has
been utilizing the new noise ordinance for loud parties. Additionally, a sample ordinance drafted
by the City Attorney has been attached to this agenda item that specifically targets parties that
are open to the general public which either charges some sort of admission fee or for which the
party has been advertised as an open party. It is recommended that this ordinance be
considered by Council as an additional tool to be utilized in the regulation and enforcement of
6a
• •
large parties that fall into this category. The police department has encountered such parties
not only on the Fourth of July but on other occasions as well.
In the remaining weeks before the Fourth, the police and fire departments will utilize available
media resources to advertise and educate the public on the illegality of fireworks and the illegal
use of alcohol on the beach, Strand and other public areas. The local papers will be contacted
and the "Beach Beat" program on the local cable channel will be utilized. A letter to residents
regarding 'parties and alcohol use will be sent to strategic areas of the City and placed on the •
police department web site. A 4' by 30' banner will be installed at Pier Avenue and Valley Drive
from June 17 through July 8 with a public safety message prohibiting fireworks. Placards with a
"No Fireworks" message will be strategically placed throughout the City. Police officers have
been and will continue to be detailed onto the beach and Strand on a weekly basis, especially
on the weekends, to monitor and enforce alcohol violations. This early intervention will
hopefully start sending the message about the restricted use of alcohol on the beach and
Strand.
The entire police department will be mobilized to work the Fourth. Every officer that can be
deployed during the afternoon and evening hours will be. Officers of the California Highway
Patrol and deputies of the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department will once again be brought
in. The deputy sheriffs will be paired up with Hermosa Beach officers and deployed in foot
patrols along the Strand. Their objective will be to monitor party activity among the Strand
homes and alcohol possession/consumption on the Strand and beach. The CHP Officers will
be utilized for traffic control and monitoring Pacific Coast Highway.
The annual so called "Ironman competition" will probably occur this year as it has done for the
past several years. It is the intent of the police department to monitor this event as it takes
place with the aim of making sure that order is maintained and people are kept safe. This has
been our strategy for the past several years and it has been found to be very successful.
The fire department will have extra staffing commencing at 12:00 noon until midnight. Engines
11 and 12 will be fully staffed with 4 firefighters each and 2 fire investigators will work in the field
as a team. This staffing may be accomplished with regular and reserve firefighters.
The purpose of the large deployment of police officers is two -fold. First, it is desired that the
public see a large police presence. Second, this presence not only promotes a feeling of safety
but also sends the message to those individuals that wish to start problems that the police have
the resources to respond. Despite the large police presence, traditional methods of diplomacy
and courtesy will be employed in dealing with large parties. However, if a particular problem
occurs, the resources will be available to respond.
In conclusion, efforts taken in the coming weeks by the police and fire departments and a large
police presence on the Fourth itself should mitigate many of the crowd and noise issues that are
customary for this holiday. We felt that our deployment plan of last year was successful and we
will continue to refine this plan this year. The overall objective is to promote safety and for
people to enjoy themselves but not at the expense of others.
• •
FISCAL IMPACT
The projected costs for these additional deployments are as follows:
Police Department overtime costs: $20,000 (Overtime account)
Contract costs for outside law enforcement: 15,000 (COPS budget)
Fire Department banner ` 1,075 . -
No Fireworks Placards 330 _
Fire Department overtime and reserves 2,221
Projected total costs
Respectfully submitted,
MICHA
HERMOSA c7 H POLICE DEPARTMENT
CHIEF OF POLICE
RUSSELL TINGL Y, IRE CHIEF
HERMOSA BEAC FIRE DEPARTMENT
$38,626
Concur:
STEEN BURRELL
CITY MANAGER
Fiscal Impact:
Viki Copeland, Finance Director
•
Dear Resident,
With the 4th of July holiday drawing near, we in the police department are seeking the
cooperation of residents all over the City of Hermosa Beach in allowing everyone who lives here
or comes to Hermosa Beach that day to have a safe and enjoyable holiday. We understand
that the 4th of July is a great holiday for parties and having friends and family over. However,
we in the police and fire departments have some concerns about how these gatherings are
conducted. We would like to make you aware of some of the Taws and ordinances that exist.for
your safety and make some recommendations. We would ask that you take this information
into consideration if you are planning any type of party or gathering.
1. All fireworks are illegal in the City of Hermosa Beach.
2. Alcoholic beverages are not allowed on the Beach or Strand. Possession of open
containers of alcohol and consumption of alcohol in public areas is unlawful. Public areas
include public sidewalks (including the walk streets between Hermosa Avenue and the
Strand) streets and public parks. If you are serving alcohol at your gathering please keep
the alcohol on your property.
3. If you are going to have a live band at your party please be mindful of your neighbors and
the noise generated by your party. Contact your neighbors and let them know of your plans.
Give your neighbors your name and phone number to call you if they have a problem. It is
preferable that a band plays during the daytime hours rather than the evening hours. It is
preferable that a band plays inside of your residence instead of outside your residence.
Bands playing outside have a tendency to attract crowds including unwanted guests. It is
the crowd situation that concerns the police department the most. Crowds are unpredictable
and difficult to control. If crowds are blocking the Strand or other walkways, the police will
be called in and ask people to leave. If the band is too loud or is causing other problems,
the band will be shut down. You as the host will be held responsible for the conduct of your
party and you can be subject to citation, arrest, and reimbursement to the City for costs
associated with the response of police officers to your party.
4. If you decide to have a party at your residence, please make arrangements to have
adequate restroom facilities for your guests. The police department receives many
complaints of people urinating in all sorts of places around town because of inadequate
restroom facilities.
We feel that if you pay attention to these particular issues that many of the problems that
develop on the 4th of July holiday can be averted or minimized. Rest assured that a Targe
number of police officers will be deployed to enforce order. It is our desire for everyone to have
an enjoyable holiday experience but not at the expense of others. Your cooperation would be
greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Michael Lavin, Chief of Police Russell Tingley, Fire Chief
Hermosa Beach Police Department Hermosa Beach Fire Department
• •
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
PROHIBITING PARTIES ADVERTISED
TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND AMENDING
THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE
The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does ordain as follows: T
Section 1. Title 9 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code is amended by adding thereto a new
Chapter 9.28 to read as follows:
Chapter 9.28
Prohibition Against Parties Advertised and Open to the Public
Sections:
9.28.10 Parties Advertised and Open to Public Prohibited
9.28.10 Parties Advertised and Open to Public Prohibited
It shall be unlawful for any person to conduct or hold in any residence any party or dance at
which live or recorded music is provided which is open to the general public and: (1) for which
admission is charged, or, (2) for which brochures, posters, or handbills advertising the party or
dance are distributed, or other advertisement made or published, or, (3) for which a charge is
made for refreshments. This section shall not apply to functions organized for a charitable,
religious or political purpose.
PASED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2002
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
•
//>//6 --
May 6, 2002
Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of
The Hermosa Beach City Council May 14, 2002
REQUEST FOR SPEED HUMPS ON HILLCREST DRIVE BETWEEN
18TH STREET AND 21ST STREET
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council provide direction to Staff.
Summary:
Residents on Hillcrest Drive between 18th Street and 21st Street have expressed concern for
traffic safety in their neighborhood and have requested that speed humps be installed to
address their concern. At its March meeting, the Public Works Commission received a report
from Staff recommending that the Commission advise Council to deny the request. The
Commission voted to table the item and directed Staff to do a survey of the affected neighbors.
At the April 9 Council meeting, Council, in effect, denied the approval of the installation of speed
humps on a trial basis on Palm Drive between Pier Avenue and 14th Street. Further, Council
indicated that it is not interested in installing speed humps on any street in the City. This is
Staffs reason for bringing this issue to Council now.
Background:
A pavement reconstruction program for Hillcrest Drive is currently under review by the Public
Works Department and input has been solicited from the residents of this street regarding their
opinions about the program. Some of the input received indicated that there may be a speeding
problem on this street segment and that speed humps should be considered for installation.
Hillcrest Drive is a two-lane, two-way street with parking on both sides and a roadway width of
28 feet.
Discussion:
Hillcrest Drive was monitored on various occasions and speed surveys were conducted to
measure the travel speeds on Hillcrest Drive between 18th Street and 21st Street. The
observations indicate that there is a surge in traffic activity at the beginning and ending of the
school day for the school on Prospect Avenue and that some motorists drive at excessive
speeds along Hillcrest Drive. The speed profile is not, however, indicative of a significant
speeding problem.
The speed limit on Hillcrest Drive is 25 miles per hour (mph). The speed surveys indicated that
17 percent of the vehicles were traveling at speeds of 15 mph or less, that 28 percent of the
vehicles were traveling at speeds between 16 and 20 mph, that 47 percent of the vehicles were
traveling between 21 and 25 mph, that 6 percent of the vehicles were traveling between 26 and
30 mph, and that 2 percent were traveling over 30 mph. The highest speed observed was 33
mph and the 85th percentile speed was 24 mph. The 85th percentile speed is the speed at or
below which 85 percent of the vehicles are traveling. It is generally used in the traffic
6b
f
• •
engineering profession as the critical indicator of travel speeds (as opposed to the average
speed).
The speed surveys were taken during the morning and afternoon drop-off and pick-up periods
for the school. The distribution of travel speeds during these survey periods is not typically
considered to be indicative of a speeding problem on a street with a 25 mph speed limit, as the
85th percentile speed (24 mph) is below the 25 mph speed limit.
As the speed characteristics that were observed are not representative of a speeding problem,
Hillcrest Drive would not typically be considered as a candidate location for the installation of
speed humps. However, if the street pavement were to be reconstructed, the average travel
speeds may increase in the future. If the speeds were to increase substantially or if there were
strong support for speed humps among the residents of the street (e.g., documented support by
at least two-thirds of the total number of property owners) regardless of the results of the speed
survey, then the City should pursue the possibility of installing speed humps. Based on the
current information, however, the Staff recommendation is not to install speed humps on
Hillcrest Drive. The current information is that the reported speeding problem is not supported
by the results of the speed survey and that 7 out of 12 residents that responded to a
questionnaire are in favor of installing speed humps on Hillcrest Drive.
As a point of clarification, speed humps are not the same as speed bumps. Speed bumps are
typically installed in parking Tots 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 many people consider them aesthetically
undesirable.
Alternatives:
1. Send item back to Public Works Commission for further study.
2. Take no action.
Attachment: Location Map
Respectfully submitted,
NV41/61;174/
Harold C. Williams, P.E.
Concur:
Steph&5 R. Burne
Director of Public Works/City Engineer City Manager
r
Concur:
Michael Lavi
Chief of Poli
a
INS 4 -v -v, \k
Russ Tingley
Fire Chief
F:\B95\PWFILES\CCITEMS\request for speed humps 05-14-02.doc
s
'15
3,x13
\a\, •
o N1N331N3A3g
r
0
N1 331iv,
N
;113 /1 oil AI 1
m1311N301
s
k
H1 #1,3,31
S
013
1
N10/33i 3NAy O
v
sy,4
ATTACHMENT 1
4
U
gt
4.
• •
City of .2lermosa Teach
,7nter-Of five (A/femoral/Am
DATE: May 6, 2002
TO: Public Works Staff
FROM: Harold C. Williams, P.E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Staff Meeting, Tuesday, May 7, 2002
AGENDA
I. Call to Order
II. Reports
Administrative Assistant — Rhea
Senior Clerk — Nancy
Associate Engineer — Homayoun
Engineering — David
Ken
Tristan
PW Inspector — Victor
PW Superintendent — Mike
III. Director's Comments
8:00
8:00
8:45
IV. Announcements 9:05
V. Next Meeting: Tuesday, May 14, 2002
VI. Adjournment 9:15
• •
City of 2iernwsa Teach
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE OF HEARING BEFORE THE HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
TO DISCUSS RESIDENTS' REQUEST FOR SPEED HUMPS ON
HILLCREST DRIVE BETWEEN 18TH AND 21ST STREETS
WHAT'S BEING
DISCUSSED:
WHY THIS Ab:
WHERE & WHEN:
CONTACT:
A discussion of the requested speed humps for Hillcrest Drive
between 18th and 21St Streets.
A public forum will be held to give you an opportunity to talk about the
requested speed humps.
A public forum will be held at the regular City Council meeting at 7:10
p.m. or shortly thereafter, in the Community Center, Room 4, 710
Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254.
The City's contact person is Harold Williams, Director of Public
Works/City Engineer, 310/318-0211.
May 6, 2002
Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of
The Hermosa Beach City Council May 14, 2002 -
INSTALLATION OF SIGNS ON VALLEY PARK AVENUE SOUTH OF 20TH STREET TO
WARN MOTORISTS ABOUT AN AUTISTIC CHILD
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council select one of the following options:
1. Approve the recommendation of the Public Works Commission to approve the
installation of "Autistic Child" warning signs at Valley Park Avenue and 20th Street;
or
2. Approve the recommendation of Staff to deny the request to install "Autistic Child"
warning signs at Valley Park Avenue and 20th Street.
Background:
A request was received from the parent of an autistic child who lives on the west side of
Valley Park Avenue south of 20th Street for the City to install signs that would warn drivers
about the presence of the autistic child. As the request for a special sign was initially denied
by Staff, the resident then requested that stop signs be installed on 20th Street at Valley Park
Avenue to create a 3 -way stop. The request for a 3 -way stop was considered by the Public
Works Commission at their November 14, 2001 meeting and the stop signs were not
approved. The Commission instead directed Staff to conduct a more comprehensive study of
the neighborhood to provide additional information relative to traffic patterns and circulation
issues in the area. The issue was again considered at the April 17, 2002 PWC meeting. The
Commission denied the installation of a 3 -way stop or any other neighborhood traffic control
measures, but recommended that signs be installed to warn motorists of the presence of an
autistic child on Valley Park Avenue.
Analysis:
The attached minutes for the November 14, 2001 and April 17, 2002 Public Works
Commission meetings present the traffic analysis for the stop sign request and the results of
the neighborhood traffic study. The April 17 minutes indicate that the Commission
recommends the installation of special signs to warn motorists of the presence of an autistic
child. It should be noted, however, that Staff recommends against the use of such signs.
Signs such as those recommended by the Commission are not typically installed by public
agencies because they are non-standard and are not recognized by the public or the legal
profession as accepted traffic control devices. Special signs can be deceptive, are generally
ineffective toward improving safety, and could potentially result in a false sense of security for
the affected residents. The installation of such signs would, therefore, be a departure from
standard policy.
6c
•
The Caltrans "Traffic Manual" and the California Vehicle Code state that "only those official
traffic control devices that conform to the uniform standards and specifications promulgated
by the Department of Transportation shall be placed upon a street or highway." As the type
of sign requested by the resident and recommended by the Commission -does-not-conform to
the state -approved standards and specifications, the Staff recommendation is to deny the
request and not install special signs warning of the presence of an autistic child.
Alternatives:
1. Approve the Public Works Commission's recommendation.
2. Approve the Staff recommendation and deny the request to install signs.
3. Direct Staff to install stop signs on 20th Street at Valley Park Avenue to create a 3 -way
stop.
Fiscal Impact:
None.
Attachments: 1. Minutes from November 14, 2001 PWC Meeting
2. Minutes from April 17, 2002 PWC meeting
Respectfully submitted, Concur:
Richard Garland, P.E.
City Traffic Engineer
Concur:
Harold C. Williams, P.E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Stephen 4 :'! rrell
City Manager
Michael Lavi
Chief of Poli
f:\B95\PWFILES\CCITEMS\autistic child sign 5-14-02.doc
• •
MOTION by Commissioner Koch to accept the request to install stop signs at the
intersection of Ardmore Avenue and 16th Street, due to the comments from the public,
total traffic at the intersection and visibility constrains. Seconded by Commissioner
Lombardo.
Prior to the vote:
AMENDED MOTION by Vice -Chairman Cheatham that a pedestrian -activated Tight at
the intersection be installed. Amended motion failed with no second.
Original motion failed with the following vote:
Ayes: Koch, Lombardo
Noes: Cheatham, Winnek
Absent: Keegan
Abstain: None
MOTION by Vice -Chairman Cheatham to recommend that a pedestrian -activated
signal be placed at the intersection of Ardmore Avenue and 16th Street and that the
City seek grant money for its funding.
Prior to the vote:
Commissioner Koch expressed concern with receiving funding for the signal and
believed it would be difficult to receive it in a timely manner.
Motion failed with no second.
Director Williams informed that the public has the option to appeal this item to the City
Council.
b. Request for stop siqns on 20th Street at Valley Park Avenue to create a three-wav
stop
Traffic Engineer Garland gave a staff report which noted that the traffic volumes are
well below the state -recommended thresholds to warrant stop signs at the intersection
of 20th Street and Valley Park Avenue. He said there are some visibility constraints at
the intersection due to some vegetation blocking visibility and vehicles parked along
the shoulder of 20th Street. While these constraints result in restricted visibility, the
situation is not considered to constitute an accident risk because there have been no
reported accidents at this location in recent years. He said staff recommendation is for
the Commission to deny the request.
Commissioner Lombardo suggested that a signage program similar to that in effect in
the City of Manhattan Beach be developed to make people aware that there are
children present with a school nearby.
PWC Meeting Minutes
4
ATTACHMENT 1
11-14-01
•
Director Williams stated that it is not recommended to post signs in a residential area
where motorists expect to see children. He explained that the signs would give a false
sense of security to children, leading them to believe it is safe to play on the street. He
said the only signs that are legal on the street are the ones that motorists are tested on
by the DMV.
Traffic Engineer Garland explained that the signage program in the City of Manhattan
Beach is part of an educational campaign to attempt to modify driver behavior.
Krista Capo, 1948 Valley Park Avenue
Ms. Capo explained that her house is situated on the corner of 20th and Valley Park
and she informed that there are many children in the area. She said her dog was hit,
and she also said she had a "children at play" sign up but was asked to remove them.
She said that speed bumps and one side of Valley Park being completely red for better
visibility were discussed and denied. She expressed concern with the traffic and her
son being handicapped. She believed that a stop sign would help slow down the
traffic.
Gary Capo, 1948 Valley Park Avenue
Mr. Capo stated that the visibility is restricted. He said that people get frustrated on
Valley and can't get out of the area, and he expressed concern with the speeding
traffic and safety in the area.
Lynn Clemons, 838 15th Place
Ms. Clemons expressed concern with the traffic flow pattern on Valley/Ardmore for
convenience, avoiding traffic on Pacific Coast Highway. She believed that the global
concept of residential safety and the mission of Hermosa Beach should be to figure
out the best flow of traffic in the City. She also expressed concern with the Redondo
corridor coming through to Valley/Ardmore.
Betty Ryan, 20th Street
Ms. Ryan stated their neighborhood is the recipient of parents going to school in the
morning, and expressed concern with the traffic in the area. She suggested that the
Commission observe the traffic in the area. She would like to see the traffic speed
reduced.
Krista Capo, 1948 Valley Park Avenue
Ms. Capo informed that the City and School District by law are required to make her
environment safe for her child per ADA.
PWC Meeting Minutes 5 11-14-01
• •
Commissioner Winnek clarified that regarding the Redondo Beach traffic, he does not
seek to propose to turn Valley/Ardmore into a thoroughfare.
Commissioner Lombardo believed that a sign program could be established with signs
installed in private yards. She also pointed out that there are now new devices
available to slow down traffic.
Commissioner Koch requested that staff investigate the entire area rather than just the
one corner in question.
Vice -Chairman Cheatham questioned what the majority of residents are requesting.
The Commission received and filed a petition from the residents in the area.
MOTION by Commissioner Lombardo to send this item back to staff for further
investigation for improvement in the area and to implement a program, such as "Traffic
Calming in the Valley." Seconded by Commissioner Koch.
Motion carried with the following vote:
Ayes: Cheatham, Koch, Lombardo
Noes: None
Absent: Keegan
Abstain: Winnek
c. Temporary change of dates and location of Public Works Commission Meetings
Director Williams informed that due to the remodeling of City Hall, the Commission will
be meeting at the School District facilities, 1645 Valley Drive, in the Multi -Purpose
Room the 3'd Wednesday of each month.
7. Commissioners' Reports
Newsrack Subcommittee
Vice -Chairman Cheatham stated that the Committee is waiting for final input from staff on
recommended locations for the newsracks and a presentation will be brought to the next
Commission meeting.
Construction Standards Committee
Commissioner Koch informed that this would be addressed at the January meeting.
Vice -Chairman Cheatham informed that the Planning Commission will be holding
hearings on November 20, 2001 and December 5, 2001 regarding the TyCom Trans
Pacific Fiberoptic Cable Project.
PWC Meeting Minutes 6 11-14-01
• •
6. Items for Commission Consideration
a. Valley Park Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Study
Mr. Williams stated that Mr. Richard Garland, City Traffic Engineer, would handle this item,
they would then receive input and the Commission would provide Staff with direction. Mr.
Garland presented the item and advised that at their November 14, 2001 meeting, the Public
Works Commission considered a request to install stop signs on 20th Street at -Valley Park- •- -
Avenue to create a three-way stop. That stop sign request was not approved and the
Commission directed Staff to conduct a more comprehensive study of the neighborhood to
provide additional information relative to traffic patterns and circulation issues in this area.
Highlights of Mr. Garland's report include the following information:
* Nine intersections were monitored during peak morning, afternoon and late
afternoon periods.
* Less than fifty vehicles per hour passed during the busiest times of the day.
* Travel speeds were well below the legal speed limit of twenty-five miles per hour.
* There did not appear to be any extreme traffic safety or operational problems in
the neighborhood.
* There did not appear to be a cut -through problem of this area.
Public comments included the following:
Susie Berens, 555 20th Street
Ms. Berens stated that she just became aware that a stop sign was being considered and
that she has a map of where the stop signs were being considered. Ms. Berens advised that
most of the neighbors were opposed to a stop sign and that the stop sign would affect her
house the most. Because of the way the curve cuts in the middle of her driveway, there is no
place to put a stop sign and it would impede access to their driveway. She did not feel that a
stop sign would be effective in their area and that the noise of people stopping would also be
an annoyance. Ms. Berens also stated that several of her neighbors were not told about the
proposed stop sign. Ms. Berens provided documents including a map and photographs,
which were labeled 6a and given to Rhea Punneo, Administrative Assistant for the Public
Works Department.
Ken Miller, 553 20th Street
Mr. Miller indicated that he was opposed to a stop sign and was more concerned about
notification procedures since they weren't notified until today. Mr. Miller states that on
weekends and evenings there is occasional speeding and wonders about the use of speed
bumps.
Krista Capo, 1948 Valley Park Avenue
Ms. Capo stated that she is the one who initially raised the Valley Park issue. She said that
speed humps had previously been turned down, as well as safety signs and lowering the
speed limit. Ms. Capo said that the only venue left with legal recourse is a stop sign.
PWC Minutes
2
ATTACHMENT 2
April 17, 2002
•
Ms. Capo indicated that at 18th and Valley Park there is a stop sign which forces vehicles to
acknowledge and at least slow down, even if they do roll through the stop sign. Ms. Capo
stated that children play in the street and cross the street every day and the only thing
available to help keep her autistic son safe is a stop sign. Ms. Capo had additional
signatures from her neighbors and presented them to Rhea Punneo, Administrative Assistant
for the Public Works Department.
Commission discussion brought out the following information or comments.
* Mr. Williams apologized because notice did not go out on this issue and stated that
they usually attempt to notify everyone involved by posting the neighborhood, but
there is no legal requirement to do so.
* The general consensus of the Commission was that most neighbors were not in favor
of the stop sign and they would not support a stop sign at this time. Since the stop
sign was rejected, it was stated that the item should be disposed of.
* The issue was raised as to the use of large caution signs as seen in other cities that
indicate "Deaf Child Neighborhood" or similar circumstances. Mr. Williams stated that
such signage is not recognized in the State of Califomia as a legal traffic control
device and have been shown not to help but to hinder the situation.
MOTION by Chairman Winnek that no further action is needed following the survey, with the
exception of additional school signs to be studied. Seconded by Commissioner Koch.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Commissioner Howell that the City directs Staff to look into
additional signage of school zone. Seconded by Commissioner Cheatham.
Motion did not pass.
MOTION by Chairman Winnek to install signage where possible, nothing more to be studied.
Seconded by Commissioner Koch.
Aye: Cheatham, Howell, Koch, and Winnek
Nay: Lombardo
Abstain: None
Absent: None _
Additional Commission discussion brought out the following information or comments.
* Installation on private property of a sign by Ms. Capo is permitted. Installation of a sign
on power poles or public property is not permitted. City Council has the authority to
determine what is permitted; however these types of signs are not normally allowed and
are not legally recognized — would be a departure from policy.
* The Commission favored signage as a general policy, not as an individual one, and was
concemed with the full implications involved. If this was passed on to the City Council as
a test case, it could be studied and would help the safety program.
PWC Minutes 3 April 17, 2002
•
MOTION by Commissioner Lombardo to recommend to the City Council to approve
installation of signage for protection of autistic child in the vicinity of the intersection of 20th
Street and Valley Park Avenue. Seconded by Commissioner Cheatham.
Aye: Cheatham, Howell, Lombardo, and Winnek
Nay: Koch
Abstain: None
Absent: None
b. Northeast Hermosa Beach Traffic Study — Presentation of Findings & Recommendations
Mr. Williams stated that Joel Falter, Senior Transportation Engineer for Katz, Okitsu &
Associates would give the presentation.
Mr. Falter stated that this report was the result of the two community workshops and research
in the study area. The three primary issues raised in the first workshop and then discussed
in the second workshop were cut -through traffic, speeding, and failure to obey traffic laws.
Existing cut -through traffic was not observed to be an issue. Cut -through traffic when the
Skechers Project is complete cannot truly be determined at this time.
Of the information extrapolated from residential input, no clear consensus was shown and it
was believed that any decision should be put on hold until Skechers is complete and the
actual impact can be observed.
Public comments included the following:
James Deutsch, 700 Block of 30th Street
Mr. Deutsch stated that the meters were at the highway, no meters were observed on the
700 Block of 30th Street and he disagrees with Mr. Falter's statement that there were meters.
Mr. Deutsch indicated that he is a retiree and is home every day and that he disagrees that
only thirty-three cars cut -through in a twenty-four hour period; he believes there are at least
thirty cars per hour. Mr. Deutsch feels there will be extreme traffic volumes from the
Skechers Project, which is anticipated to have four hundred employees. He believes the
traffic calming techniques are ridiculous and believes that street closures are feasible.
Darlene Blaney, 702 Longfellow
Ms. Blaney states that the traffic study was well done and that the calming affects can be
used but that the study doesn't answer our questions or problems. She believes that
Skechers and other Manhattan Beach projects will have an impact on 30th and Longfellow
and that with 400 parking spots a two percent increase is unrealistic. Ms. Blaney believes
that the traffic light should be removed and traffic diverted many different ways. She states
that the Mayor -Pro -Tem of Manhattan Beach has stated that the traffic light can be removed.
Ms. Blaney asks if the traffic Tight can be moved to Duncan and that we should get Cal Trans
to move it or take it away.
Dan Riley, 648 Longfellow
PWC Minutes
4 April 17, 2002
•
May 8, 2 2002 "Gtd`-u°""
Honorable Mayor and Members of
The Hermosa Beach City Council
Regular Meeting of
May 14, 2002
EXEMPTION REQUEST FOR AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT BY THE
PROPERTY OWNER AT 1543 GOLDEN AVENUE
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council order the property owner of 1543 Golden Avenue, Mr.
Bob Lininger, to apply for an encroachment permit.
Summary:
On March 29, 2002, the Public Works Inspector noticed that the concrete path and trees were
being removed from an existing encroachment area in the public -right-of-way without a permit.
The Inspector issued a Notice to Correct stating that an Encroachment Permit is required for
new construction in the encroachment area in the public right-of-way.
On April 4, 2002, Staff received a letter from Mr. Lininger requesting a meeting to discuss his
and the City's concerns. Staff met with Mr. Lininger and subsequently received an e-mail from
him on April 18, 2002, stating that he does not agree that an Encroachment Permit and fees
should be required for his situation. He stated that he wished to present his case before the City
Council of Hermosa Beach for a ruling.
Analysis:
The Public Works Department does not require an Encroachment Permit Application for
encroachments in existence prior to May 15, 1996. Chapter 12.16, Encroachments, Section
12.16.130, Non-conformance of encroachment, paragraph 2, City of Hermosa Beach
Municipal Code, states that encroachments in existence on May 15, 1996, which do not
conform to the standards set forth in Section 12.16.080, may remain as they exist as of May 15,
1996, whether or not a valid Encroachment Permit is obtained from the City, as long as the
encroachment is not expanded, increased, or intensified. In either of the above events, the
encroachment shall be subject to receipt of an Encroachment Permit, and shall conform to the
requirements of Chapter 12.16, Encroachments, Section 12.16.080, of the Hermosa Beach
Municipal Code.
Chapter 12.16, Encroachments, Section 12.16.30, Commencement of work without permit,
of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, states that any person who commences work for
which a permit is required without first obtaining a. permit, shall stop work and apply for such
permit. The fee for the permit shall be doubled. In addition, it states that failure to stop work...
constitutes a misdemeanor and is defined in this chapter.
Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council order the property owner, Mr. Bob Lininger,
of 1543 Golden Avenue, to apply for an Encroachment Permit and comply with all it's
requirements and applicable fees.
6d
• •
Alternatives:
1. Approve Staff Recommendation.
2. Approve the owner's request.
3. Deny an Encroachment Permit and order the property owner to restore the right-of-
way.
Attachments:
1. Letter requesting that the Encroachment Permit Fee be waived.
2. Copy of e-mail requesting property owner to be heard by the City Council.
3. Existing landscape plan.
4. Proposed landscape plan.
5. Photographs of existing site.
6. Copy of Notice to Correct.
Respectfully submitted,
N� eehGDnfl-4.
Homayoun A. Behboodi
Associate Engineer Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Concur:
lbw
C4)
arold C. Williams, P.E.
eil
Stephe (
(/
City Manager
F:\695\PWFILES\CCITEMS\exemption request 1543 Golden Ave 5-14-02.doc
2
•
City of Hermosa Beach
Public Works Department
Harold C. Williams, PE
1315 Valley Dr.
Hermosa Beach, Ca 90254
Robert R Lininger Jr
710 N. Paulina Ave.
Redondo Beach, Ca 90277
H (310) 376-2178, B (310) 533-0474
RECEIVED
APR 0 4 2002
PUBLIC WORKS
April 4, 2002
Dear Mr. Williams,
I would like an opportunity to meet and discuss the public right-of-way issues that affect my property at 1543
Golden Ave. Mr. Jackson has given me a Notice to Correct on 3.29.02 stating that I need to obtain an
encroachment permit for the work that I was pursuing on the 5'-7" of property directly in front of my
property.
I feel the changes that are being proposed are very minor and would not affect the right of way concerns of
the City. In fact, the changes that I would like to make, removing painted concrete and replacing it with pave
stones and grass, will actually make any future service projects easier to perform. In addition, the appearance
of the property will be greatly enhanced delighting the other residents of the neighborhood.
Thus, I am asking that the encroachment permit and $374.00 of fees be waived. There has been no increase
in the building square footage nor is their any requirement for sidewalks on this portion of Golden Avenue.
Respectfully Submitted,
Robert R Lininger JR
Attachments: Copy of Deed
Existing Landscape Plan
Proposed Landscape Plan
Pictures of Existing Site
ATTACHMENT 1
•
• Page 1 of 1
From: Bob Lininger <boblininger@virco.com>
To: Harold C Williams (E-mail) <hwilliams@hermosabch.org>
Date: Thursday, April 18, 2002 7:05 AM
Subject: Encroachment Permit - 1543 Golden Ave
Mr. Williams,
I wanted to thank you for meeting me at my property on Golden to discuss the public access encroachment
issue. I still do not agree that the an encroachment permit and fees should be required for my situation and
would like to have an opportunity to present my case before the City Council of Hermosa Beach for a ruling.
What steps are required to engage in this procedure and what date should I plan to attend the council
meeting?
Sincerely,
Bob
Bob Lininger
Director, Contract Services Group
Virco Mgmt.Corporation
2027 Harpers Way
Torrance, Ca 90501
310 533-0474 ext 582
Fax 310 533-6019
ATTACHMENT 2
30' - PROPERTY LINES
STREET
TELEPHONE POLE
WATER METER VAULTS
PAINTED CONCRETE
SEWER
4
.4
d,
-4
-4
4
A
4
4.
4
r - .4
e
d
4 - 4
A.
n
4
EXISTING LANDSCAPING FOR 1543 GOLDEN AVE
a
DRIVE
AY
•
•
,„T-rni-unnF kIT 3
30' - PROPERTY LINES
STREET
TELEPHONE POLE
WATER METER VAULTS
PLANTS
PAVERS
MEMO ������ I f I111111111111111111111I
.111111.111111111111111111111111111
1111111111111111111111111_(11
71.11.11[1111111111111
1 1111111111111111
I�1111111111111111111
I 11111 I
� ��I�IIIIII
�����II
1 11111 11111111
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
I I I I IIIIIII1III
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
QUEE
111111111111111I1II111111111111
111 1111
11111111
1111 111
11111111
1111
GRASS
PLANTER
PROPOSED LANDSCAPING FOR 1543 GOLDEN AVE
DRIVEWAY
SEWER
•
•
ATTACHMENT 4
• SUBJECT PHOTO ADDENDUM File No. 3750
Borrower Lininger
Property Address 1543 Golden Street
City Hermosa Beach County Los Angeles State Ca.
Lender/Client Private Address Hermosa Beach Ca. 90254
Zip Code90254
FRONT OF
SUBJECT PROPERTY
Address
1543 Golden Street
Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254
REAR OF
SUBJECT PROPERTY
•
•
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
NOTICE TO CORRECT/ STOP WORK
—'Public Works -Department
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach Ca. 90254
310-318-0214
PROJECT NO.
JOB NAME:
JOB ADDRESS:
J , 1 /,7,4••.;i7.
OWNER/CONTRACTOR: . e G) A-1
INSPECTOR: /` Y `"/;'/'f DATE: �9/'
u 0-7
_S-/ "f
< y���s.; �` r
✓�'7
•
-
/
/�
� �.•� �.
I-
/
7 /
(/�A _ T 7' -• rte: s y
ATTACHMENT 6
•
Honorable Mayor and Members of
The Hermosa Beach City Council
/iv
////
May 6, 2002
Regular Meeting of
May 14, 2002
NORTHEAST HERMOSA BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Review the results of the traffic study conducted by ° Katz, Okitsu &
Associates;
2. Receive input from Staff and the public;
3. Provide direction to Staff regarding the implementation of neighborhood traffic
calming measures; and
4. Postpone any decisions regarding the use of such measures until the
Skechers building is complete.
Background:
In response to complaints about traffic problems from residents who live in the northeast
area of Hermosa Beach, the City retained a consulting firm to conduct a neighborhood
traffic study. The primary objectives of the study were to identify the concerns of the
residents, analyze traffic conditions in the area, and develop a set of traffic calming
measures that could potentially be used to improve traffic conditions.
To solicit input from the residents, community workshops were held on November 28,
2001 and on March 5, 2002. The findings were then presented to the Public Works
Commission at the April 17, 2002 meeting and additional public input was received. At
the three meetings, the consultant presented the results of the technical analysis and
described the various strategies that could potentially be implemented in the
neighborhood.
Based on the input received from the public, there is no clear consensus as to the
preferred approach for addressing the traffic issues. Some of the residents want the
City to implement aggressive traffic control/traffic calming measures such as speed
humps, one-way streets, diverters, bulges, and medians, while other residents indicate
that the traffic situation is acceptable and that no changes are necessary.
The one issue that does have a consensus is that the Skechers building currently being
developed on the east side of Sepulveda Boulevard north of Longfellow Avenue in
Manhattan Beach will result in additional traffic in the neighborhood.
Additionally, attached (Please see Attachment 3.) is a copy of the petition entitled
Request for Removal of Traffic Signal Located at Longfellow and Sepulveda which was
transmitted to Council via email.
6e
• •
Analysis:
The attached draft report prepared by Katz, Okitsu & Associates summarizes the results
of the neighborhood traffic study. The draft report documents the existing and projected
traffic volumes and the average travel speeds, and indicates that the primary concerns
expressed by the residents are speeding, cut -through traffic, and failure to stop at stop
signs. The study area is defined by Boundary Place on the north, Gould Avenue on the
south, Sepulveda Boulevard on the east, and Ardmore Avenue on the west.
The study identified a toolbox of traffic calming tools/devices that could potentially be
used for addressing the traffic concerns. The options include:
• Speed humps
• Bulges in the street
• Median islands
• Diverters
• Traffic circles
• Additional stop signs
• Turning movement restrictions
• One-way streets
• Special traffic enforcement signs
Various combinations of these options were presented to the community and the PWC
to solicit input; however, there was no consensus as to the preferred approach toward
addressing the concerns. As stated previously, the only consensus was that the
Skechers building would result in an increase in traffic volumes in the neighborhood.
The general conclusion of the study at the present time is that a traffic calming program
should not be finalized until such time that the Skechers building becomes operational
so that the actual impacts can be monitored and evaluated and that no traffic control
measures should be implemented in the interim.
An issue that was raised at the public meetings is that it may be beneficial to relocate or
remove the traffic signal that is currently in place at the intersection of Sepulveda
Boulevard and Longfellow Avenue because this signal contributes to traffic intrusion on
Longfellow Avenue. If the signal were to be relocated, the intersection of Sepulveda
Boulevard and Duncan Avenue (one block to the north) would be a possibility. As the
Sepulveda Boulevard is on the boundary of Manhattan Beach and Hermosa Beach and
is owned and operated by Caltrans, all three parties would have to concur with the
decision to remove or relocate the signal. Preliminary discussions with Caltrans
indicate that they may consider such a modification if both cities support it and if there
would be no cost to Caltrans. Preliminary discussions with Staff at the City of
Manhattan.:Beach-indicate thatthey do not initially support any change,to.the ;signal; ,..,
however; they would present the request to the appropriate commission and to the City
Council if a formal request were received from Hermosa Beach.
• •
Fiscal Impact:
The cost of implementing the traffic control/traffic calming measures cannot be
. determined until the details of the program are specified. The cost of relocating the
Sepulveda Boulevard traffic signal is approximately $150,000. The cost of removing the
existing traffic signal is approximately $50,000.
Alternatives:
1. Postpone any decision to implement neighborhood traffic control/traffic calming
measures until such time that the Skechers building is operational.
2. Direct Staff to implement one or more of the traffic control/traffic calming measures
presented in the study.
3. Direct Staff to maintain status quo.
Attachments: 1. Minutes from April 17, 2002 PWC meeting
2. Draft Northeast Hermosa Beach Neighborhood Traffic Calming Study
Conclusions and Recommendations
3. Request for Removal of Traffic Signal Located at Longfellow and
Sepulveda - Petition
Respectfully submitted,
Concur:
C.i,J�ZE
Richard Garl. d, P.E. /f'frcl /f-iarold C. Williams, P.E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
City Traffic Engineer
Concur:
Stephen
City Manager
Michael Lavi
Chief of Poli
F:\B95\PWFILES\CCITEMS\ne hermosa traffic study 5-14-02.doc
• •
MOTION by Commissioner Lombardo to recommend to the City Council to approve
installation of signage for protection of autistic child in the vicinity of the intersection of 20th
Street and Valley Park Avenue. Seconded by Commissioner Cheatham.
Aye: Cheatham, Howell, Lombardo, and Winnek
Nay: Koch
Abstain: None
Absent: None
b. Northeast Hermosa Beach Traffic Study — Presentation of Findings & Recommendations
Mr. Williams stated that Joel Falter, Senior Transportation Engineer for Katz, Okitsu &
Associates would give the presentation.
Mr. Falter stated that this report was the result of the two community workshops and research
in the study area. The three primary issues raised in the first workshop and then discussed
in the second workshop were cut -through traffic, speeding, and failure to obey traffic laws.
Existing cut -through traffic was not observed to be an issue. Cut -through traffic when the
Skechers Project is complete cannot truly be determined at this time.
Of the information extrapolated from residential input, no clear consensus was shown and it
was believed that any decision should be put on hold until Skechers is complete and the
actual impact can be observed.
Public comments included the following:
James Deutsch, 700 Block of 30th Street
Mr. Deutsch stated that the meters were at the highway, no meters were observed on the
700 Block of 30th Street and he disagrees with Mr. Falter's statement that there were meters.
Mr: Deutsch indicated that he is a retiree and is home every day and that he disagrees that
only thirty-three cars cut -through in a twenty-four hour period; he believes there are at least
thirty cars per hour. Mr. Deutsch feels there will be extreme traffic volumes from the
Skechers Project, which is anticipated to have four hundred employees. He believes the
traffic calming techniques are ridiculous and believes that street closures are feasible.
Darlene Blaney, 702 Longfellow
Ms. Blaney states that the traffic study was well done and that the calming affects can be
used but that the study doesn't answer our questions or problems. She believes that
Skechers and other Manhattan Beach projects will have an impact on 30th and Longfellow
and that with 400 parking spots a two percent increase is unrealistic. Ms. Blaney believes
that the traffic light should be removed and traffic diverted many different ways. She states
that the Mayor -Pro -Tem of Manhattan Beach has stated that the traffic light can be removed.
Ms. Blaney asks if•the traffic light,can be moved to Duncan and that we should get Cal Trans
to move it or take it away.
Dan Riley, 648 Longfellow
PWC Minutes 4
ATTACHMENT 1
April 17, 2002
• •
Mr. Riley believes the census took a two -fold approach and considered only the Northeast
Hermosa Beach section. He doesn't believe that they can take away the traffic signal
because the impact on Longfellow would be too great. Mr. Riley also believes that moving or
removal of the traffic signal will be a money issue where Cal Trans is concerned. He
believes we should coordinate efforts with the City of Manhattan Beach to put demand on the
developer for the costs of any issues that arise.
Robert Wickwire, 2900 Amby Place — 32 -Year Resident
Mr. Wickwire states he is opposed to Options 1, 2 and, 3, and that he wouldn't be able to get
out of his driveway if any of these options are put in place. Mr. Wickwire does not believe
that the traffic is heavy on 30th Street and believes that we don't need to do anything. He
states don't fix something that isn't broken.
Butch Kuflak, 666 Longfellow
Mr. Kuflak states that Longfellow is a thirty-foot wide street with parking on both sides and
that only one car can pass through at a time. Any increase in traffic would be devastating
and that while the study looked only at peak traffic hours, the real estate office works all
hours. Additionally, Skechers will be an all day operation as the project provides for some
retail.
Robin Rogers, 712 Longfellow
Ms. Rogers states she is concerned about Longfellow and that not enough attention has
been paid to Longfellow. She believes the issue is with the size of Longfellow and the ability
of only one car being able to pass at a time. Ms. Rogers feels they have been going from
meeting to meeting and told they are either to early or to late, and they just want to be heard.
Ms. Rogers states that they want support from the Commission when it is passed on to the
City Council, and that the problems need to be pushed back to the City of Manhattan Beach.
J. C. Agajanian, 2802 Tennyson Place
Mr. Agajanian states that Manhattan Beach needs to take responsibility. He believes that the
study is truthful, that he saw license plate numbers being taken, and that only a handful of
vehicles were drive through. Mr. Agajanian does not believe that anything needs to be
blocked off and that there is no problem. He indicates that he does not feel that 31 — 32 mph
on a downhill grade is speeding. Mr. Agajanian states that his opinion and the opinion of his
neighbors is that nothing needs to be done. He believes that people will complain if the
Commission does some of the items proposed and that the Commission should wait and see
what happens with Skechers.
Skip Beall, 30th Street
Mr. Beall indicates that a traffic count on 30th Street was done a year ago, a temporary
blockage was installed and,then another count was done. He indicates that he submitted a
petition with seventy-five signatures and that the traffic count is wrong and he has a video.
which proves this. Mr. Beall states that twenty-five times a day cars run the signal at 30th and
Tennyson and that Remax has gotten the signal changed in favor of the flow of traffic out of
Manhattan Beach and into Hermosa Beach.
Commission discussion brought out the following information or comments.
PWC Minutes 5
April 17, 2002
• •
* When the issue of speed humps was raised, Mr. Williams informed the
Commissioners that the City Council had made it very clear in their previous meeting
that they were not interested in the use of speed humps in the City of Hermosa Beach.
* It was stated that everyone affected had been noticed and that the required areas
were legally posted.
* The General Plan through the Circulation Element sets goals and policies for local
residential streets, which currently are: 2,500 vehicles per day, or hourly volumes of
200 — 300 vehicles are acceptable.
* Mr. Williams informed the Commission that Council directed Staff to bring the traffic
study results to them on May 14th and to contact Caltrans to determine who has
jurisdiction over the traffic signal at Longfellow and Pacific Coast Highway. Staff is in
the process of doing that; the City Council will then take over the issue, and will take
action. Staff has made a request to CaI Trans for removal of the light.
* The Commission generally favored supporting the City Council in an effort to remove
the street sign and for proactive measures to be taken since the anticipated two
percent increase did not seem logical.
MOTION by Commissioner Lombardo to recommend to City Council that they relocate or
remove the traffic light at Longfellow and Sepulveda. No Second, motion died.
MOTION by Commissioner Cheatham to establish a Joint Meeting with the Manhattan Beach
Planning Commission to discuss traffic issues and to support the City Council in their efforts
to address the traffic light at Longfellow. No Second, motion died.
MOTION by Commissioner Howell for Public Works Commission to encourage and support
the approach to CaI Trans by our Staff and give priority to reducing traffic in all
neighborhoods. No Second, motion died.
MOTION by Chairman Winnek to receive and file the traffic study done by Katz, Okitsu &
Associates. Seconded by Commissioner Lombardo.
Aye: Cheatham, Howell, Koch, Lombardo, and Winnek
Nay: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
MOTION by Commissioner Howell that the Commission as an advisory Commission to the
City Council endorses their stated goal of approaching Cal Trans with a focus of relocating
signal from Longfellow to another street. No Second, motion dies.
Recessed at 9:15•p.m.
Resumed at 9:25 p.m.
7. Commissioner Reports
a. Safety Program Commissioner Lombardo and Commissioner Howell presented their
PWC Minutes 6 April 17, 2002
• •
Page 1 of 1
From: Darlene Blaney <adb@verizon.net>
To: khdun@aol.com <khdun@aol.com>; jbrhbcc@aol.com <jbrhbcc@aol.com>;
samedgerton@aol.com <samedgerton@aol.com>; artyoon@hotmail.com
<artyoon@hotmail.com>; manbread@earthlink.net <manbread@earthlink.net>
Cc: Itcarter@earthlink.net <Itcarter@earthlink.net>; janetgalli@hotmail.com
<janetgalli@hotmail.com>; nora@ucla.edu <nora@ucla.edu>;
jb@shorewood.com <jb@shorewood.com>; kentgalli@hotmail.com
<kentgalli@hotmail.com>; jbarylski@adelphia.net <jbarylski@adelphia.net>;
JCAJr98@aol.com <JCAJr98@aol.com>; 'Nikole Lowrey'
<bnlowrey@adelphia.net>; rileyhouse2001@yahoo.com
<rileyhouse2001 @yahoo.com>; 'Rogers, Robin N' <RNRogers@directv.com>;
sloane96@aol.com <sloane96@aol.com>; 'Soledad Austin'
<soledad.austin@cshs.org>; 'Teresa' <Zzyzxeyz@aol.com>; 'John Hudgens'
<logang@gte.com>
Date: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 12:16 AM
Subject: City Council Meeting May 14
It is my understanding that at the City Council meeting on May 14 the
Council,agenda will include the findings and recommendations of NE Hermosa
Beach Neighborhood Traffic Calming Study. At a previous meeting as you may
recall, a group of the NE Hermosa residents appeared to discuss our petition
with more than 65 signatures regarding traffic generated by Manhattan Beach
businesses - mainly the approved Skechers project. Although some of us were
able to speak, the item was postponed until the Council could have the
benefit of the findings of the traffic study. It is our request that we
will be able to address this issue as well as the attached letter/petition
to Caltrans at the May 14th meeting. We would appreciate if the
letter/petition be placed on the agenda. I will provide the signed petition
to the Council via facsimile on Wednesday. Thank you for your consideration
of this request.
Alanna Darlene Blaney
702 Longfellow Avenue
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
310-374-0156 work
310-374-0956 fax
310-372-9677 home
ATTACHMENT 3
May 3, 2002
Deborah Harris
Office Chief
California Department of Transportation
120 South Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Re: Request for Removal of Traffic Signal
Located at Longfellow and Sepulveda
To Whom It May -Concern:
This letter is to request that Caltrans consider removal of the traffic signal at the intersection of
Longfellow and Sepulveda in the Cities of Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach, CA. The residents of
northeast Hermosa Beach, mainly Longfellow Avenue in Hermosa Beach, are concerned about the safety of
our street, not only because of the traffic from the existing Manhattan Beach businesses on the eastside of
Sepulveda, but particularly in light of the approved new development of Manhattan Beach businesses which
will undoubtedly negatively impact the traffic on our street.
By removing this signal, Caltrans will not only enhance the safety of Longfellow, but will also gain a
more fluid traffic flow along Sepulveda without the impediment of that signal.
Longfellow Safety Issues:
When Longfellow Avenue was created probably after the 1930's when "Valley Drive and up on the
hills started building up"*, it was designed for its residents, not for the volume of traffic it handles today and
certainly not for that additional traffic being generated by the new Manhattan Beach businesses developing on
the eastside of Sepulveda.
1) The street is only 30 feet wide.
a. With cars parked on both sides Longfellow, two cars driving in opposite directions, cannot pass
unless one is able to pull over which then creates a log jam.
b. Currently because of the width (or lack thereof), traffic now backs up southbound on Sepulveda as
cars attempt to turn westbound on Longfellow.
2) Traffic from the building on the northwest corner exits and enters onto/from Longfellow. Although this
is currently a safety issue because of the traffic turning westbound on Longfellow from Sepulveda, this
problem will be exasperated by any additional traffic.
3) Directly beside the building on the northwest comer is a daycare center which creates its own pick-up and
drop-off traffic. Again, already a safety issue, this too will also become more of a problem with increased
traffic flows.
4) Currently there is a No U Turn sign northbound on Sepulveda at Longfellow. Those obeying that sign,
turn westbound on Longfellow and then turn around in the driveway of the building on the northwest corner
or the driveway of the residents just down from the Sepulveda/Longfellow corner directly across from the
daycare center. Backing out onto this narrow street to tum around with cars parked on either side and just
west of a signal obviously creates not only a dangerous situation for the traffic on Longfellow, but for those
children being picked -up and dropped -off at the daycare center.
5) Currently there is no left hand turn signal southbound on Sepulveda at Longfellow. It is our
understanding, however, that that is changing with the recently approved project on the northeast corner.
That left hand turn signal will more than likely result in traffic backing up southbound.onSepulveda -to turn
east onto Longfellow to enter the approved project on the northeast comer or the Remax property on the
southeast corner as they wait for the light to change. Longfellow is just south of the apex of the incline on
Sepulveda. This will create a dangerous situation on Sepulveda as cars traveling southbound will not realize
there is a back-up caused by those turning east and possibly west on Longfellow as mentioned above in 1) b
until they are on top of the back-up.
The traffic signal at Longfellow and Sepulveda currently accommodates northeast Hermosa residents
(mainly Longfellow Avenue residents), but more importantly, is and will be accommodating mostly the
Manhattan Beach businesses on the eastside of Sepulveda and those Manhattan Beach businesses approved,
but not yet built in that same area (i.e. Skechers, a 57,000 square foot Manhattan Beach revenue generating
business on the northeast corner of Longfellow and Sepulveda). While these developments are certainly
favorable economic projects for the area and certainly beneficial to Manhattan Beach's revenue, the end result
will be more traffic. As we know, traffic is drawn to traffic signals and although there will be more traffic on
Sepulveda, there will also be more traffic drawn west onto Longfellow for easy access to .Ardmore.
Longfellow does not want this additional traffic which will not only magnify our safety problems, but
will also increase the cost of maintaining our Hermosa Beach City streets. We do not want to accommodate
traffic created by revenue generating Manhattan Beach business and their Mira Costa School. Our streets
(certainly not Longfellow) were not built to accommodate this traffic.
As Longfellow residents our main concern is removal of that traffic signal for the safety of our street;
however, we would like to point out that logic might suggest if a signal is needed to accommodate those
Manhattan Beach businesses, Duncan Street, a street one block north of Longfellow and a Manhattan Beach
street, would be the ideal street for a traffic signal to accommodate their traffic for the following reasons:
1) Duncan is at the apex of the incline on Sepulveda — a safer location than just south of the apex. Traffic
would be able to see the signal as they approach and respond sooner than reaching the apex and then one
block later needing to react to traffic backed -up to turn onto Longfellow.
2) Duncan is considerably wider than Longfellow — wide enough to have lines marking the middle of the
street, wide enough that cars can stay within those lines while turning, and wide enough for cars driving in
opposite directions to easily pass even with cars parked on both sides of the street — unlike Longfellow.
3) Duncan is conveniently located to accommodate traffic going to the Manhattan Beach strip mall just north
of Duncan; the Manhattan Beach Car Wash on the southeast corner of Duncan and Sepulveda; the
Manhattan Beach residents going to Mira Costa School; Skechers (to be on the northeast corner of
Longfellow and Sepulveda; and the Manhattan Beach Remax on the southeast corner of Longfellow and
Sepulveda. Manhattan Beach school traffic, Skechers and Remax employees, clients and vendors could turn
at the proposed Manhattan Beach Duncan traffic signal from Sepulveda and travel on Kuhn (a Manhattan
Beach street) to their buildings alleviating some of the congestion on Sepulveda and diverting this Manhattan
Beach revenue generating traffic from Hermosa Beach's Longfellow to Manhattan Beach streets.
The attached petition represents the sentiments of the northeast residents of Hermosa Beach. As the
northern most street in Hermosa Beach (with the exception of the southside of Boundary which is barely
more than an alley), we, the residents, do not want the traffic and safety issues creating by the Longfellow
traffic signal that in reality mostly accommodates Manhattan Beach revenue generating businesses, their
school, and their residents. Thank you for consideration of this request. This petition will also be presented
to the City Council and Public Works Commission of Hermosa Beach. We would welcome the opportunity
to meet with you regarding this issue.
Alanna D. Blaney
702 Longfellow Avenue
Hermosa Beach, CA 90253
310-374-0156 work
310-372-0956 office
adb@verizon.net
*From the HB website
Petition Signatures
Name Name
Address Address
Signature Signature
Phone/email Phone/email
Name - Name
Address Address
Signature Signature
Phone/email Phone/email
Name Name
Address Address
Signature Signature
Phone /email Phone/email
Name Name
Address Address
Signature Signature
Phone/email Phone/email
Name Name
Address Address
Signature Signature
Phone/email Phone/email
Name Name
Address Address
Signature Signature
Phone/email Phone/email
Name Name
Address Address
Signature Signature
Phone/email Phone/email
Katz, Okitsu & Associates
Traffic Engineers and Transportation Planners
www.katzokitsu.com
•
L3 a
NE Hermosa Beach
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Study
Conclusions and Recommendations
May 7, 2002
Prepared For:
' Mr. Harold Williams, P.E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, California 90254
' Telephone: (310) 318-0211
FAX (310) 937-5015
Prepared by:
=Katz, Okitsu & Associates
Traffic Engineers and Transportation Planners
' 1055 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 300
Monterey Park, California 91754
Telephone: (323) 260-4703
FAX: (323) 260-4705
Job Number JA1319
To:
From:
Date:
•
Katz, Okitsu & Associates
Traffic Engineers and Transportation Planners
MEMORANDUM
Harold Williams, P.E.
Director of Public Works, City Engineer
City of Hermosa Beach
Joel Falter
Katz, Okitsu & Associates
May 7, 2002
RE: NE Hermosa Beach Traffic Calming Study -
Conclusions and Recommendations
PURPOSE
•
JA1319
The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize our analysis of potential neighborhood traffic
calming treatments for the Northeast Hermosa Beach Neighborhood. This memorandum
documents the study issues and perceived problems, provides a background of alternatives
examined by Katz, Okitsu & Associates, and presents our conclusions and recommendations. The
analysis provided herein is based on data collected during our field reconnaissance in the
neighborhood, our two community workshops, and a Public Works Commission Meeting.
BACKGROUND
Residents of the neighborhood in northeast Hermosa Beach, defined by Sepulveda
Boulevard/Pacific Coast Highway on the east, Ardmore Avenue on the west, Boundary Place on
the north and Gould Avenue on the south, expressed concerns to the Hermosa Beach City Council
last year regarding traffic volumes, traffic speeds and safety on their neighborhood streets.
In response to these concerns, the City of Hermosa Beach commissioned Katz, Okitsu &
Associates to assist staff and the community in developing ways to provide a comfortable, livable,
and safe residential neighborhood by managing the traffic behavior in the Northeast
Neighborhood. This was to be done via the consideration of implementing traffic calming
techniques. In order to determine which traffic calming tools should be considered, a process was
developed that included field reconnaissance, data collection (daily and peak hour traffic counts as
well as license plate data), traffic engineering analysis, and community workshops.
The following sections summarize the process undertaken to achieve the goals of the study.
NE Hermosa Beach Traffic Calming Study
Conclusions and Recommendations
May Z 2002 Katz, Okitsu & Associates 1
Eite Katz, Okitsu & Associates
Traffic Engineers and Transportation Planners
DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
The first community workshop was held on November 28, 2001. At that meeting, we discussed
the purpose of the study, the approach to the study, the tools that are generally used to provide
traffic calming, how the tools work, and which tools were being considered initially for the
neighborhood. The options that were shown to the community for consideration at that meeting
included:
• Speed Humps
• Bulges
• Chicanes
• Diverters
• Median Slow Points
• Traffic Circles/Roundabouts
• Additional Stop Signs
• Special Traffic Enforcement Signs
Participants were given the opportunity to provide comments on the desirability of these tools, as
well as others that should be considered and any other issues or concerns that they had regarding
the study. The residents wrote the comments on maps, which were affixed to the wall.
NEWLY DEVELOPED ALTERNATIVES
At the March 5, 2002 Community Workshop, we presented a summary of the issues raised at the
first meeting, complied a list of the primary issues identified by the community for further study
and presented proposed traffic calming strategies for their consideration.
The primary issues identified by area residents were:
1. Cut Through Traffic
2. Speeding
3. Failure to Obey Traffic Laws
To each issue, we presented traffic data, which used traffic observation data to test the validity of
each perceived problem. A discussion of each perceived problem follows.
Cut -Through Traffic
The data showed that during the morning peak period about 40 vehicles cut -through the
neighborhood on 30`t' Street and Long Fellow Avenue and about 44 vehicles do so during the
evening peak period.
NE Hermosa Beach Traffic Calming Study
Conclusions and Recommendations
May 7, 2002 Katz, Okitsu & Associates 2
•
WAKatz, Okitsu & Associates
Traffic Engineers and Transportation Planners
Speeding
From a speeding perspective, the speed surveys showed the 85th percentile speed to be between 30
and 32 miles per hour on Longfellow Avenue and between 29 and 32 miles per hour on 30`'' Street.
The speed limit on both of these streets is 25 miles per hour.
Traffic Regulations
Field observations conducted during both weekdays and weekends confirmed that some drivers
fail to observe stop signs, most notably on 30`' Street at Tennyson Place and Longfellow Avenue
at Tennyson Place.
PROPOSED SOLUTIONS
Five traffic -calming strategies were developed. Strategies 1, 2, and 3 have progressively more
impact on residents but also have progressively stronger impact on the problems. Strategy 4 is to
do nothing. Strategy 5 provides for less intrusive traffic calming measures than Strategies 1, 2 and
3.
Strategy 1 included peak hour turning restrictions on Ardmore Avenue at 30`' Street and
Longfellow Avenue, a median with roadway narrowing on 30`' Street and Ardmore Avenue at the
north -south alley west of Tennyson Place, speed humps on Tennyson Place, a bulge and median at
30th Street and Tennyson Place, right -turn prohibitions at Sepulveda Boulevard at Boundary Place,
special neighborhood signage, and enhanced signage and striping on Gould Avenue westbound to
better delineate the merge from two lanes to one.
Strategy 2 included everything in Strategy 1 with the addition of a full traffic diverter on
Longfellow Avenue at Tennyson Place.
Strategy 3 included everything in Strategy 1 with the addition of a half traffic diverter on 30`'
Street at Tennyson Place.
Strategy 4 does nothing.
Strategy 5 included speed humps on Tennyson Place, special neighborhood signage, and
enhanced signage and striping on Gould Avenue westbound to better delineate the merge from
two lanes to one.
NE Hermosa Beach Traffic Calming Study
Conclusions and Recommendations
May Z 2002 Katz, Okitsu & Associates 3
1 1 •
=Katz, Okitsu & Associates
' Traffic Engineers and Transportation Planners
ICONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
1 Questionnaires were handed out at the second community workshop. Thirteen written responses
were received from the community. Based on the written responses, no clear consensus was
I shown for any single alternative. Verbal comments at the second community workshop and the
comments made at the Public Works Commission meeting suggested that there was tradeoff
between effectiveness and inconvenience caused by the implementation of the proposed traffic
I calming measures. The traffic circulation restrictions caused by potential mitigation measures
would exceed the benefit of the proposed traffic calming measures. The low number of written
responses and low turnout overall would also suggest that perceived traffic issues are not of such
I significance to the community at large as to warrant the implementation of traffic calming
strategies at this time.
I Two issues did stand out at the second community workshop and the Public Works Commission
Meeting. First, residents expressed concern over the Skecher's project in Manhattan Beach and its
potential to generate impacts on the neighborhood. The second issue of concern is the future of
I the BMW dealership and how its redevelopment might impact the neighborhood. The first issue
could have been dealt with through some of the options presented to the community. The second
issue requires a specific development project to which traffic impact issues can be analyzed.
1 Recommendations
I It is recommended that the City consider proceeding with a reduced Option 5. This includes
enhanced signage and striping on Gould Avenue westbound to better delineate the merge from
two lanes to one lane. It is also recommended that the City continue to monitor the three
I primary issues raised by the community, cut -through traffic, speeding and adherence to traffic
regulations, to determine if traffic calming measures are warranted in the community at a later
date. It is recommended that a traffic count program be established in the neighborhood just prior
I to and after the opening of the Skecher's project to determine if the project has any impacts on
neighborhood traffic characteristics.
1
1
1
1
NE Hermosa Beach Traffic Calming Study
Conclusions and Recommendations
May 7, 2002 Katz, Okitsu & Associates 4
MI MI I 11111 N NM UN NM M I 1 1 E MI 1111 I OM
Public Works Commission Meeting
Northeast Hermosa Beach
Traffic Calming Study
City of Hermosa Beach
Department of
Public Works
April 17, 2002
VIA1 Katz, Okitsu & Associates
Traffic Engineers and Trans/wk., f'fanncra
11111 111111 r--- 1 N NS —— s— — NM N N 11111
First Public Meeting
NE Hermosa Beach Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Study
November 28th, 2001
Areas Covered
11
Purpose of Study
Introduction to Traffic Calming
Different Tools Available
How the Tools Work
Public Input
Public Mark -Ups of Maps
City of Hermosa.
Reach
NORTHEAST HERMOSA BEACH
TRAFFIC STUDY
NEIGHBORHOOD FORUM
WHY THIS Ab: To ionto tno roadcnts of the nonheamorfy section of
Hermosa Beach to meet with City Staff and
repravenlabses rJ the firm that was snterted tOcond,rt
the tra5te Study. The prr*e cl study area l5 bounded by
Street. in Alanhatteo Beach on the rassrih to Gould
Avenue on the south. The western botaMory is Valley
Drive. and the oastom boundary coesisto of the
eomnwrcial Weals of ManhaUan Boaeln that bo cast of
Sepirtveda Boulevard/Pacific Coast Highway.
WHERE & WHEN: A neighborhood forum tomvie* dle purpose of the
siudy and seoe*0e comments. fromthe residents wib be
hold on Wednesday, November 28.2001, in Rome of
the Comnitinity Confer *1150 p, .
If you are unable to attend the forum. you may send
your written cernnrenls to the Pubic Works DepaitneM
unid 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, November 25, 2501.
CONTACT, For mora -information obnut duo project, cahoot. Mr.
Herold Moms, MOM( of Pubic WentsiOiy
evince, at 3101018 0211.
•
Ella Katz, Okitsu & Associates
Traffic Errginrers crit Trunspora dinn Plunno'e
M EN NW NE NM NM I NIN I NM NM ON EN MN MN N ON ININ
First Public Meeting
NE Hermosa Beach Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Study
Review Purpose of Study
To address community concerns
To assist City staff in the process
To develop traffic calming solutions that
meet the needs of the community and
the City of Hermosa Beach
ESKatz, Okitsu & Associates
Trus Engineers and Transportation Planners
11111 OM Ell MN NMI INN NMI 11111 MN 1M1 IMO Mil INN Mill IIIIII IMO IMO
First Public Meeting
NE Hermosa Beach Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Study
2nd
t :r.• 2:
1stSt.
1W44i1ATT4A1
• .„
:'T'i72 .4- ,. . -7.4.'
: -•
•
:,, .74;ii—' •1-,...t"`.1,.=
T ...,. ,„.-... --tkr' .
-
'
.-•:.
4,7'4'.
--.::::A:
•
•
N M NM IIIIII 1111111 MI M E I = I I I NM MI I
First Public Meeting
NE Hermosa Beach Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Study
Study Approach
PHASE ONE
- Data Collection
- Understanding of Issues
- Forecast Future Traffic
PHASE TWO
- Identify Future Traffic Conditions
- Community Workshops
- Develop Neighborhood Traffic
Management Plan
EaKatz, Okitsu & Associates
Trade Engineers and Transportation Planners
NM M 1 = I N I OM OM I N M 111111 1 E M 1 M 1
Data Collection
Traffic Counts
MANHATTAN
BEACH
Demme Ave.
LEG
END
0 Study Intersection
❑ ADT Count Location
1,795 ADT Count
2 -day average
HERMOSA
BEACH
E NM N- M N 1 M I i I M M I 1-- 1 N
First Public Meeting
NE Hermosa Beach Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Study
What is Traffic Calming
It is a means to reduce traffic volumes, traffic speeds,
vehicle noise, and visual impacts in residential
neighborhoods.
How is this done?
By applying a set of traffic engineering "tools" that
affect the physical, psychological, visual, social and
regulatory processes of motorists and pedestrians.
i.e., We change people's habits.
Katz, Okitsu & Associates
Traffic Engineers and Transportation Planners
NE N MN EN NIII EN I NIII NM NM N NM NE MN N MN I I EN
First Public Meeting
NE Hermosa Beach Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Study
Types of Traffic Calming Tools/Devices
Toolbox options presented and
evaluated included the following:
Speed Humps
Bulges, Chicanes & Diverters
Median Slow Points
Roundabouts (Traffic Circles)
Signs — Stop Signs
Special Traffic Enforcement Signs
E.46 Katz, Okitsu & Associates
Trak Engineers aid Traansporsasio Plann ra
— INN IMO NMI OM 11111 INN NM 1 Ell IMO IMO 1 MN Ell MINI INN NM —
Community Workshop #2
NE Hermosa Beach Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Study
March 5th, 2002
Areas Covered
MIN
INN
Study Area
Last Meeting
Identification of Primary Issues
Proposed Strategies
Where Do We Go From Here
.City of.ermosn r13each.
DE►MTM04r.0r niottC woks
NORTHEAST'HERMOSA4BEACH
TRAFFIC STUDY
NEIGHBORHOOtt'FORC M
:WHY THIS Ab: To invite the residents of the roithensteny section of
Hermosa Beach to most wch Gay stmt end the Traffic,
Engineer to heir the results of the data, co4ecw
phase ob the traffic study. And to review the wide
rargo of poaitile iolutoos to the alleged .fraltic
WHERE di WHEN: Room a d the Communny Center, T10 Pier Avenue,
Herinoea, bleach, CA 00254. on Monday. March 4.
2002 at.7 00 pm.
11 you are unable to attend We forum. you may send,
your written comments to the PubFc Works Department
until 5.00 p Moodoy,March 4, 2002.
For mora Information about this pro;ecd,
Harold Williams, Director or Public Worka4CCy
Engineer at 3151"4.1&02,11
Katz, Okitsu & Associates
Traffic En, ineers and Trrrnsperrsaiion Plonrters
MIMI Mill EMI OM INN INN NMI IMO OM MINI =I =I Mil Eli Mil 101111 MI MINI OM
Workshop #2
Your
Comme
nts..
1 New stop signs at
Min.:reit/own•
Study 0-D patterns'
on Duncan Ave.
nsideraffic
diveiters at Longfellow
and Tennyson
Study npacts of
future use of BMW
dealership site
•• "
onDr
Relocate slop signs
from bongletlow/
Sepulveda to Duncan
at Sepulveda
Consider speed
humps on Longfellow
Make Longfellow
Ave. one-way
west -bound
Throat of intersection
o narnoW
New stop signs at
Ardrnore130th Street
Consider medians
along 30th Street
But do nothing which
will remove parking
HEAWOB*
•BEACH
LEGEND
Focused Neighborhood Study Area
Stop Signs
Signals
Median
No Median
One -Way Street
Other traffic management tool
.SiortLY
Mid-blOCk U -Turn
problems on 30th
due to No U-TurriS
at the signal at
Sepulveda
New developments
in Manhattan Beach
encourage out-thu
traffic on 30th and
Longelk>w - Study this
"11111.111111•116
Consider cul-de-sac
at 301tutSepultreda
(Objections to (Ms
also notedi
Consider stop signs
or traffic diverters
at 30th/Tennyson
Add speed humps
along Gould Ave..
Consider chicanes
along Gould Ave,
HERMOSA
BEACH
Id Ave 4
hru lanes between
dmore Drive and
Manila Place.
(Objections to this
also noted)
Add warning signs
about Gould Avenue
I narrowing to 2 lanes
west of Marlita Place
NE I N I I N 1 I 1 NE MN N I N N MN ININ NI
Community Workshop #2
NE Hermosa Beach Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Study
Primary Issues Raised in First Workshop
i
1. Cut Through Traffic
2. Speeding
3. Failure to Obey Traffic Laws
EGKatz, Okitsu & Associates
Trane Engineers and Trurtsperriasiin Plarrrnrs
In EN E 11110 MN M N 111111 MS 1 NM EN NB E M = N
Community Workshop #2
Issue 1: Existing Cut Through Traffic
NE Hermosa Beach Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Study
:Bounds
ill IP raIMrOaa 11111111111it4UINiwOW. ■a MOWN wit
4---. 18 (20%)
a (15%) -W".11".
-4-- 9 (30%)
Legend
Focused Study Area
AM Peak Cut Through Traffic and
direction (7:00 AM - 9:00 PM) with
percentage of total traffic
PM Peak Cut Through Traffic and
direction (4:00 PM - 6:00 PM)with
percentage of total traffic
I I I
MINI MIN NM 111111 MIN MINI MEI IIIIIII Mil IIIIII I= MIN IMO
Community Workshop #2
NE Hermosa Beach Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Study
SPEED
OOOOOO kit OOOO OOO iNIOSS O OOOO
CUT-THRU
SPEED
1 1 1
IMM NEI 11110 Mil =I all NMI IIIMI 11•11 I= MIMI NMI INN
Community Workshop #2
NE Hermosa Beach Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Study
Issue 2: Speed
What is the 85th Percentile Speed?
[� Speed surveys aim to determine the 85th percentile
speed
This is defined as:
"The speed BELOW which 85 percent of the traffic is
traveling"
The speed limit on Longfellow Avenue, 30th Street and
Tennyson Place is currently 25 mph
Eler Katz, Okitsu & Associates
Trctlic Engineers and 1run%p +.nasion Plonners
NM EN I= I= NE I= INN EN INN EN IINI NMI IIIN INN EN
Community Workshop #2
NE Hermosa Beach Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Study
32 MPH
Legend
Focused Study Area
XX MPH 85th Percentile Speed
1 1 1
M 1 1 1-- E NM N 1 1 N r M NB 1 N 1 1
Community Workshop #2
NE Hermosa Beach Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Study
I I I
11111 11111 1101 MN 1111 N 11111 IN11 111111 11111 M 11111 M 1
Community Workshop #2
NE Hermosa Beach Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Study
Issues Summary
Cut Through Traffic (2005)
Longfellow —14 vehicles in AM, 29 vehicles in PM
1 30th Street — 33 vehicles in AM, 15 vehicles In PM
Speed (85th Percentile)
Longfellow — 30 to 32 MPH
30"' Street — 29 to 32 MPH
Failure to Obey Traffic Laws
1:::1 Observed failure to stop at stop -controlled
intersections on Longfellow and 30th Street at
Tennyson
1 EN OM 1 1 MI 11111 NM MI MO NM MI MI U11 1111 MI 1 MI 111111
Community Workshop #2
NE Hermosa Beach Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Study
Solutions
5 Options were developed
ME
Options 1, 2 and 3 have progressively more impact on
residents but also have progressively stronger impact
on the problems
[1 Options 4 is Do Nothing
IIM
Options 5 is Almost Do Nothing
Remember the fact that Trade -Offs are required
between Effectiveness versus Inconvenience
NM Ell MN NU MI NM EN MIN MI 111111 11E1 NM NM NM IMO
Option 1
NE Hermosa Beach Neighborhood
C ming Study
Bulge and small
median island to
create localized
narrowing (see Fig 7)
Prohibit right -turns
from Sepulveda into
Boundary PI
• Speed limit signs
-and local speed
enforcement
PLEASE OSEY-1, • ;•
ALL TRAFFIC°LAwS:
VIOLATORS,. t.-4-
wikk BE
Prohibited Movements
Speed Limit Signs + Enforcement
Program
Speed Hump
-
Enhanced signs and ..
striping to facilitate merge
Cut Through Traffic Tool
SpeedingrSafety Tool
Traffic Laws Tool
NM NM NU NM I E N 11111 11111 N I MS N En NE EN NM
Option 1
NE Hermosa Beach Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Study
30th Street
Slows these movements
30th Street at Tennyson looking east
•
I N N N EN 1 NM E V N NM MN M NM I 1 N 11111
Option 2
NE Hermosa Beach Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Study
BEACH ° . " Full diverter
,r ,xis .See Fig. 10
Duncan
•
Median narrowing
•1..• Vsno •
°';Bot ndafy
t!.—PM ONLY
Longfellow Ave.
Bulge and small
median island to
create localized
narrowing (see Fig 7)
Prohibit right -turns
from Sepulveda into
Boundary P1.
0th St.
—, Speed limit signs
and lova speed
enforcement
f
I
•
Legend
Focused Study Area
Prohibited Movements
Speed Limit Signs + Enforcement
Program
Speed Hump
Bulge
Small Traffic Island
Full Diverter
Cut Through Traffic Tool
._i Speeding/Safety Tool
Traffic Laws Tool
Enhanced sgns'and_
striping to facilitate merge
MN NE MI all 1 ME EN ME NB M M I 0 I 1110I M M E 1
Option 2
NE Hermosa Beach Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Study
Longfellow Ave.
Full Diverter
11111 NM N M OM MI OM = 1 NM = I MO I N E I OM N
Option 3
NE Hermosa Beach Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Study
y.
Bulge and small
median''=hand to
create localized
narrowing (see Fig 7)
■«r. r
MINIM «3-«1_••.I■ ■
J i
Prohibit right -turns
from Sepulveda into
Boundary RI:
-; Speed limit signs
and local speed
enforcement
Half diverter
(see Fig 10)
F
I
Legend
Focused Study Area
Prohibited Movements
Speed Limit Signs + Enforcement
Program
Speed Hump
Bulge
Small Traffic Island
Half Diverter
Cut Through Traffic Tool
Speeding/Safety Tool
Traffic Laws Tool
HFRM,C+SA
BEACH
Porter La.
Enhanced signs and
`striping to facilitate merge
1/4
NOM -
•
mm lom u mmi um m NM di on on m m m am on m
Option 3
NE Hermosa Beach Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Study
Half Diverter
•
•
30th Street
MN N i 1 1 I-- NM N r all MI —— 1 r 1 11111
Option 4 Do Nothing
NE Hermosa Beach Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Study
Community
decides
problems not
serious enough
to warrant any
of the remedies
HERMOSA
.BEACH
•
I— MN E MI MI I 1 E MO 1 NM MN E M i E M
Option 5 Almost Do Nothing
NE Hermosa Beach Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Study
Community
decides only to
address
speeding and
enforcement
issues with
minimum
impact on
residents
I\
MANHATTAN ,`.
BEACH"_
Dclncan'Ave..
Speed Humps
r .�. bulge and small
Median:island to
create localized
naffowing(see Fig 7)
-Boundary
arAmmomn.
Lone fellow Ave.
N I ▪ 11111•11.1r
Speed limit signs
- -and coca speed
enforcement
Merida P1..
Legend
Focused Study Area
Speed Limit Signs + Enforcement
Program
1 Speed Hump
Bulge
HERMOSA
BEACH. Enhanced signs and
striping to facilitatemerge
Small Traffic island
Speeding/Safety Tool
Traffic Laws Tool
orter La.
•
111111 E EN M IIIIII NE = NM NM NM MR MI En MN NM MB =
Community Workshop #2
NE Hermosa Beach Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Study
So....
Then we heard from the neighborhood:
• They gave input on the five options.
• We discussed their concerns and issues.
• We discussed the ramifications of implementation
• We reassessed the need.
Where Do We Go From Here?
rterfK, Okitsu & Associates
4
1"ra�r`atzc 6u incrry and Trunspartanon Planings
IMO NM 1E11 =I MEI =I 1•111 11•111 ME INN MI
Comments Received
NE Hermosa Beach Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Study
Option 1
JAppNHA�yTT/V y
TAIv. S;
'Duncan Ave r
Summary of Comments
13 Responses - 4 liked Option 1
Speed Humps. -
Issues raised
•Speeding on Longfellow
• Cut —through traffic
• Not enough focus on Longfellow
• Add speed bumps on Longfellow
• Make Longfellow one-way westbound
• Suggest closing one end of some alleys
urns
la into
ns
Speeding/Safety Tool
Li Traffic Laws Tool\\\7*
w > MI t.d.
beta
•
1 1 1
NM MN NM 1 N 1 MI On M 111111 NM NE I NM NM N N 1 MI
Comments Received
NE Hermosa Beach Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Study
Option 2
MANHATTAN:,,. �1•'SL'±`- .—Speed Humps
•
• BEACH,...
•
Full tlrverber
6.1
Summary of Comments
13 Responses - 5 liked Option 2
Issues raised
• Creates problems on Gould
• Perfect solution
• Is it realistic?
• Ok if no impact on parking
• Make 30th Street one-way east
JFJ
Iywawry 'w
Traffic Laws Tool
1 1 1
NB 1 INI1 I M E I M 11111 I 11M1 N 111111 I M MN
Comments Received
NE Hermosa Beach Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Study
Option 3
ANHATTAN
`BEACHw
Summary of Comments
13 Responses - 2 liked Option 3
Issues raised
• Most traffic is local
n
• Not enough focus on Longfellow
• Worst solution — more traffic on Longfellow
• Is it realistic?
• Slow down access traffic in residential areas
• Make Ardmore one-way northbound
bpeeainglbaTery iooi
Traffic Laws Tod
i— i all ER MI i 1-- N-- I r— MB I EN
NE Hermosa Beach Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Study
•
•
Comments Received
Option 4
Comrr
decid(
problE
serioL
to war
of the
Summary of Comments
13 Responses - 4 liked Option 4
Issues raised
• Not enough focus on Longfellow
• Traffic and speed still problem on Longfellow
• Concerns about Skechers impacts
• Make Valley Drive one-way southbound
bpeea ngraare y iOOI
Traffic Laws Tool
NMI IIIIIII MIN Ili MIN NM IIIIII MIN MIN IIIIIII lin NMI EN MN MIN SIM
Comments Received
NE Hermosa Beach Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Study
Option 5
Com
decid
addrE
spee4
enfor
issue
minin
impar
resid
.MANHATTAN.
:BEACH
Summary of Comments
'Speld,Humps
13 Responses -2 liked Option 5
Issues raised
• Not enough focus on Longfellow
• Extra signs and police presence
• Need multiple speed humps on Longfellow
• Make Porter Rd one-way east from Ardmore
Speeding/Safety Tool
Traffic Laws Tool
,{1
10111111111
MN EN NM MN I 11111 111111 11111 ER NM NM OM I 1 MO 11111 1 N NE
Comments Received
NE Hermosa Beach Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Study
Other Comments
Summary of Comments
Issues raised
• Hermosa Beach should make sure Manhattan Beach does not create traffic
problems.
• Divert traffic from Longfellow at Sepulveda to Second and Gould.
• No speed humps on Tennyson — median narrowing on Longfellow is a must to
slow speeds.
• Speed humps and diverters are "overkill" — revisit after Skechers is complete.
• Put signs with ID # on Skechers vehicles.
• Need multiple speed humps on Longfellow.
• Hoped "calming" meant "diverting" traffic.
• Excessive speed seen on Longfellow — Time to be proactive.
• Some felt calming study unnecessary.
• Remove street barricades and make them one-way.
• Downhill speeding worries with young children on streets.
O MN N MI I N OM I E M M M 01111 I N V
Comments Received
NE Hermosa Beach Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Study
Overall Summary
Overall Summary of Comments
Liked
Disliked
Option 1
4
5
Option 2
5
5
Option 3
2
7
Option 4
4
6
Option 5
2
7
Satz, Okitsu & Associates
7rcOle Engineers and Transportation Planners
M NM NM NM I I- I NM I I NE N EN NM M NM EN N
Conclusions
NE Hermosa Beach Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Study
Where do we go from here?
Overall Conclusions
II No clear consensus shown.
INII
More people liked Option 2 than others.
More people disliked Options 3 and 5 than others.
Less people disliked Options 1 and 2 than others.
Perhaps hold all decisions until Skechers is
complete?
ffeAr Katz, Okitsu & Associates
TraQFc Engineers and Tiausparsasiu r Powers
Sent By: Orrick, Herrington & Sutc'ff; 310 374 0956;
May-9-02411
Page 1
Facsimile Transmission
DATE May 9, 2002
FROM
nine 111
NO. OF PAGES
(INCLUDING COVER SHEET) Air ck
Alanna Darlene Blaney 310-374-0156
TO ("'rim-.
name
Mayor Kathy Dunbabin,
Council Members:
Sam Edgerton, Art Yoon,
JR Reviczky, Michael Keegan,
City Manager Steve Burrell
City Treasurer John Workman
ItE
MESSAGE
company;flrn,
City of Hermosa Beach
Letter/Petition to Caltrans and Letter to Hermosa Beach City Council
far
310-372-M$6
Please note attached letter/petition to Caltrans and the letter to the Hermosa Beach City Council. These are
in conjunction with the petition from March with 65 resident signatures. This is to request that these terns
will be on the agenda at the May 14, 2002 City Council meeting. Thank you for your consideration of this
request.
Alanna Darlene Blaney
702 Longfellow Avenue
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
310-374-0156 office
310-372-9677 home
CIMp: ORICINAt$ TO FOLLOW BY MAIL"
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PACES, PLEASE CALL SENDERS TELEPHONE NUMBER AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE.
NOTICE TO RECIPII N U
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION I5 INTENDED TO BE SENT ONLY TO THE STATED ADDRESSEE OF THE TRANSMISSION.
IF YOU ARE NOT THE STATED ADDRESSEE, TOUR RECEIPT OF THIS TRANSMISSION WAS UNINTENDED AND INADVERTENT, AND YOU ARE HEREBY
NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION I5 STRICTLY PROHIBITED, YOU ARE ALSO
c::\I oit iS\ BI.X - FAN Coy rat P.>cr-nCx".
SUPPLEMENTAL 6 e
INFORMATION'
Sent 'By: Orrick, Herrington & Sutc]�ff; 310 374 0956;
May 3, 2002
May -9-02 12:10PM; Page 2
Submitted for the Agenda of
the City Council of Hermosa Beach
May 14, 2002
To: Mayor Kathy Dunbabin, Council Members J. R. Reviczy, San, Edgerton,
Art Yoon and Michael Keegan.
From: Alanna Darlene Blaney, Butch Kuflac, and Residents of Northeast Hermosa Beach
Re: The Northeast Hermosa Beach Traffic Study, Our Petition of March 13, 2002,
and our attached Letter/Petition to Caltrans of May 3, 2002.
As you undoubtedly recall, at an earlier City Council meeting, residents of northeast Hermosa Beach appeared
to discuss a petition with more than 65 of our northeast neighbors' signatures requesting you address the
safety and traffic concerns outlined in our petition. Although our petition had not bccn included in
community correspondence nor agendized, you wcrc kind enough to listen to a few of us. Having not had
the time to study our petition and with no knowledge of our concerns nor information to evaluate our
concerns, you wanted to first hear the conclusions of the Public Works Commission's traffic study for that
area before addressing our issues_ The results of the traffic study were scheduled to be reported to the City
Council May 14, 2002.
Some of our residents attended the Public Works Commission April 17 meeting to hear Katz, Okitsu &
Associates ("KOA") report the traffic study findings and recommendations. Although the study was done
professionally and probably as directed, unfortunately, the study was inconclusive. This was in part because
the Public Comment Card for the NE Hermosa Beach Neighborhood Traffic Calming Study was not widely
distributed and some of the residents that did receive it did not respond. The reasoning for not responding
being, the study did nor evaluate the safety of Longfellow, i.e. the back-up of traffic southbound on
Sepulveda turning west on a too narrow Longfellow Avenue, the narrowness of the street that the City
supposedly has a goal of 2500 cars a day, nor did it consider realistically thc traffic impact the projected
Manhattan Beach businesses will have on Longfellow_ It is my understanding that KOA did not analyze the
privately funded Skechers traffic study, but took the 2° increase from Skechers' traffic study. We were not
looking for traffic calming devices 'that would inconvenience our residents or limit our access to Sepulveda.
We want to travel our streets safely and freely. We were looking for ways to Limit the "through" traffic
that is generated by the Manhattan Beach Mira Costa school and current Manhattan Beach businesses as well
as the anticipated traffic to be generated by the approved Skechers project and its likely expansion.
I heard one or more Public Works Commissioners say there was no rush. "Let's wait and see if there is a
traffic problem and then. address it". Likewise the Manhattan Beach City Council promised us they would
address thc traffic issue if it develops. When it develops, it will be too late The Skechers building will be
built with entrances/exits only on Sepulveda and Longfellow - not utilizing the non -congested Kuhn Street
backing their building with access to several Manhattan Beach streets such as Duncan; thc Longfellow signal
will be accepted with a left hand turn signal; traffic patterns will be established; and Manhattan Beach will
have successfully diverted their revenue generating traffic from their streets to ours. The result being the
safety of Hermosa Beach's streets, mainly Longfellow's, will be compromised and the cost of our road
maintenance will increase.
Longfellow was built to accommodate its residents many years ago. I would venture to say that the Public
Works Commission's goal of 2500 cars per day was not the criteria when the street was created, nor is it a
realistic goal for a 30 foot wide street with cars parking on both sides of the street. Additionally, it Was not
created to accommodate the traffic generated by thc tnassivc structures being designed and built on
Sepulveda, specifically the 57,000 square foot building project on the northeast corner of Longfellow and
(;\DarleneKiiicy \h4Yfl)4w!\(.il\' (i,u u it I kno,
Sent By: Orrick, Herrington & Sutclif; 310 374 0956;
May -911 12:11 PM; Page 3
Sepulveda, nor the large building currently housing Reanax on the southeast corner of Longfellow and -
Sepulveda.
We want our Hermosa Beach City Council to be proactive and avoid the problems Manhattan Beach
businesses will cause our City. They have created their own residential traffic nightmares. The Manhattan
Beach residents behind Kuhn Street arc concerned about traffic partially because their traffic increased when -
their City blockaded the street beside Bally's Gym pushing traffic to their streets_ Marine's traffic nightmare
is partially due to the City's closure of numerous streets across from the Manhattan Beach Mall between
Valley and Marine. Streets are designed to for traffic to flow from one point to another. Closing/blockading
streets merely pushes the traffic problem from one street to another. Those same residents living on their
closed street arc now traffic on another street. The convenience of those on the closed street becomes the
inconvenience of another.
In Manhattan Beaches' quest to protect their residents from traffic, they are creating a gridlock situation on
Sepulveda and pushing their traffic onto Hermosa Beach streets. We suggest that Manhattan Bcach provide
their own access to their revenue generating businesses. If they decide a signal is needed to accommodate
their traffic to their school and businesses, we suggest they install a signal on one of their streets. If
Manhattan Beach's Planning Commission, City Council and Skechers arc correct that their businesses will not
push traffic to Longfellow, then likewise they should not be concerned that those same businesses would
push traffic west on their streets from a signal at Duncan. Let's not take that chance. Let's protect Hermosa
Beach's Longfellow from through traffic to Manhattan Beach businesses and their school by removing the
Longfellow signal.
It is our hope that will this issue will be agendized and addressed at the Hetrnosa Beach City Council meeting
May 14, 2002. We appreciate your consideration of this request.
Thank you.
cc: Harold Williams, Director of the Public Works
Hermosa Beach City Commissioners
Lombardo, Keegan, Koche, Winnek, Howell
C:\I)pvltnicHlanQV\Personal \City Council Lerter S0302a.cloc
2
Sent 'By: Orrick, Herrington & Sutc'f; 310 374 0956;
Mr. Yunus Ghausi, Senior 'fransportation Engineer
California Department of Transportation - District 7
120 S. Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012-3606
Re: Request for Removal of Traffic Signal
Located at Longfellow and Sepulveda
To Whom It May Concern:
May -94, 12:11PM; Page 4
May 3, 2002
This letter is to request that Caltrans consider removal of the traffic signal at the intersection of
Longfellow and Sepulveda in the Cities of Hermosa Beech and Manhattan Beach, CA. The residents of
northeast Hermosa Beach, mainly Longfellow Avenue in Hermosa Beach, are concerned about the safety of
our street, not only because of the traffic from the existing Manhattan Beach businesses on the eastside of
Sepulveda, but particularly in light of the approved new development of Manhattan Beach businesses which
will undoubtedly negatively impact the traffic on our street
By removing this signal, Caltrans will not only enhance thc safety of Longfellow, but will also gain a
more fluid traffic flow along Sepulveda without thc irupcditncnt of that signal.
Longfellow Safely Issues:
When Longfellow Avenue was created probably after the 1930's when "Valley Drive and up on thc
hills started building up"*, it was designed for its residents, not for the volume of traffic it handles today and
certainly nor for that additional traffic being generated by the new Manhattan Beach businesses developing on
the castside of Sepulveda.
1) The street is only 30 feet wide.
a. With cars parked on both sides Longfellow, two cars driving in opposite directions, cannot pass
unless one is able to pull over which then creates a log jam.
b. Currently because of the width (or lack thereof), traffic now backs up southbound on Sepulveda as
cars attempt to turn westbound on Longfellow.
2) Traffic from the building on the northwest corner exits and enters onto/from Longfellow. Although this
is currently a safety issue because of the traffic turtling westbound on Longfellow from Sepulveda, this
problem will be exasperated by any additional traffic.
3) Directly beside the building on the northwest corner is a daycare center which creates its own pick-up and
drop-off traffic. Again, already a safety issue, this too will also become more of a problem with increased
traffic flows.
4) Currently there is a No U Turn sign northbound on Sepulveda at Longfellow. Those obeying that sign,
turn westbound on Longfellow and then turn around in the driveway of the building on the northwest comet
or the driveway of the residents just down from the. Scpulveda/Longfellow corner directly across from the
daycare center. Backing out onto this narrow street to turn around with cars parked on either side and just
west of a signal obviously creates not only a dangerous situation for the traffic on Longfellow, but for those
children being picked -up and dropped -off at the daycare center.
5) Currently there is no left hand turn, signal southbound on Sepulveda at Longfellow. It is out
understanding, however, that that is changing with the recently approved project on the northeast corner.
That left hand turn signal will more than likely result in traffic backing up southbound on Sepulveda to turn
east onto Longfellow to enter the approved project on the northeast corner or the Rennax property on thc
southeast corner as they wait for the light to change. Longfellow is just south of the apex of thc incline on
Sepulveda. This will create a dangerous situation on Sepulveda as cars traveling southbound will not realize
there is a back-up caused by those turning east and possibly west on Longfellow as mentioned above in 1) b
until they are on top of the back-up.
C.\L)urIv eh nor\1'cwu1fal\I•Ktttdp)u ( :tilt rena1.d,i
Sent By:' Orrick, Herrington & Sutcl. f; 310 374 0956;
May -9-02 12:12PM;
•
Page 5/9
The traffic signal at Longfellow and Sepulveda currently accommodates northeast Hettnosa_rrsidents
(mainly Longfellow Avenue residents), but more importantly, is and will be accommodating mostly the
Manhattan Beach businesses on the eastside of Sepulveda and those Manhattan Beach businesses approved,
but not yet built in that same area (i,e. Skechers, a 57,000 square foot Manhattan Beach revenue generating
business on thc northeast comer of Longfellow and Sepulveda). While these developments are certainly
favorable economic projects for the area and certainly beneficial to Manhattan Beach's,seventre.rt,ht'..endreslilt___
will be more traffic. As we know, traffic is drawn to traffic signals and although there will be more traffic on
Sepulveda, there will also be more traffic drawn west onto Longfellow for easy access to Ardtnore.
Longfellow does not want this additional traffic which will not only magnify our safety problems, but
will also increase the cost of maintaining our Hermosa Beach City streets. We do not want to accommodate
traffic created by revenue generating Manhattan Beach business and their Mira Costa School_ Our streets
(certainly not Longfellow) were not built to accommodate this traffic.
As Longfellow residents our main concern is removal of that traffic signal for the safety of our street;
however, we would like to point out that logic might suggest if a signal is needed to accommodate those
Manhattan Beach businesses, Duncan Street, a street one block north of Longfellow and a Manhattan Beach
street, would be the ideal street for a traffic signal to accommodate their traffic for the following reasons:
1) Duncan is at the apex of the incline on Sepulveda — a safer location than just south of the apex. Traffic
would be able to see the signal as they approach and respond sooner than reaching the apex and then one
block later needing to react to traffic backed -up to turn onto Longfellow.
2) Duncan is considerably wider than Longfellow — wide enough to have lines marking the middle of the
street, wide enough that cars can stay within those lines while turning, and wide enough for cars driving in
opposite directions to easily pass even with cars parked on both sides of the street — unlike Longfellow.
3) Duncan is conveniently located to accommodate traffic going to the Manhattan Beach strip mall just north
of Duncan; the Manhattan Beach Car Wash on the southeast corner of Duncan and Sepulveda; the
Manhattan Beach residents going to Mira Costa School; Skechers (to be on thc northeast corner of
Longfellow and Sepulveda; and the Manhattan Beach Remax on the southeast corner of Longfellow and
Sepulveda. Manhattan Beach school traffic, Skechers and Rcmax employees, clients and vendors could turn
at the proposed Manhattan Beach Duncan traffic signal from Sepulveda and travel on Kuhn (a Manhattan
Beach street) to their buildings alleviating some of the congestion on Sepulveda and diverting this Manhattan
Beach revenue generating traffic from Hermosa Beach's Longfellow to Manhattan Beach's streets.
The attached petition represents the sentiments of thc northeast residents of Ilcrniosa Beach. As the
northern most street in Hermosa Beach (with the exception of the southside of Boundary which is barely
more than an alley), we, the residents, do not want thc traffic and safety issues creating by the Longfellow
traffic signal that in reality mostly accommodates Manhattan Beach revenue generating businesses, their
school, and their residents. Thank you for consideration of this request. This petition will also be presented
to the City Council and Public Works Comtnission of Hermosa Beach. We would welcome the opportunity
to meet with you regarding this issue.
In addition, I am including an earlier petition that was signed by more than 65 concerned residents
and was given to the Public Works/Planning Commissions and the City Councils of both Manhattan Beach
and Hermosa Beach.
Alanna Darlene Blaney
702 Longfellow Avenue
* History from FIB Webritc
(::\ 17ar1rnrtilanrv\ Persona I\ 1', Li(ion caltrai>.s1 _tiU M 12.doc
41
is.
Sent Sy: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcl; 310 374 0956;
•
Natne
Address
Sigttatu
Pho
�.rr&I 1V�reA lc
G42,.cl6 )C /4
N tithe L:-9
Address 7
Signature
Phone/email ki-eekirec ?1 ,1rei
AL -Pa
Name
Address -1 1 Lan121 ! tt) kit
Signature
Phone/em
Name
Address
Signature
Phone/email
Name
Address 41Z G9=�LW AV
Signature
Phone/email - SS -el
Name
Address
Signature
Phone/email
Name ,,, "
Address ! v"rL�tl �icAwf-
Signature Y`-�—
Phone/email 3' -q 7(,(Q ( VI_Q tLi (J l44' -
Lee
<,:I'cohun Caltrans. kK
Name
Address
Signature
May -9-02 12:12PM; Page 6/9
•
1 t4 &a I. l s
i/11 b let n5 Cel I oufAve
IL (off hot rrumic ok
Phone/email
Name
Address 7 G L-rnJG LI ,W
Signature ----,
Phone/email -679 - 3l a - j
Name ?PSlo� /it0,9S
Address /c 4/
Signature
Phone/email
Nal -net
tor--"%a-7lt�"ps
y4',
JYAJ 214grjeff/LDu/fC8406-ir
Address 729/i L, 1-kuoz/
Signa tute
Phone /c ail 0-4 %9SldP& ol'A• COM 31634-557y
Name
Address
Signature
Phone/c
Name
Address
Signature
Phone/email
tc�u1 ar -e,_
( 5 t G w
c 3
3l
Nam4JX-� ���•/�-e�Z!/
Address
Signature
i.
Phone 7y ZA.. 3
,k_46
Sent By: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcl f; 310 374 0956;
May -9-02 12:12PM; Page 7/9
•
Address
Signa ••-_
Phone/ems
Name
Tecici Co(c
Address 1 i Lon `10L-1 Ave-
Signature
V +e
Signature -0
li
Phone/email 31(- 1728
Name
teitfi lr d)4 -
Address 1 z $ Lon)-ce,Uo`4 46/4 -
Signature
Phone/email 37 b-1128
Name
Name
Address
Signatu
Phone/e
Name
Address
Signature
Phone/email
Name
Address
Signature
Phone/email
( :Prlilitn� C:at r n54liw
Name Pelle( 4/
#.4....02
Address
Signature
Phone/kin-ail
Name /td1 A V.$ I -IQ O rz
Address _ %1i_ L.
Signature
Phone/entail
N atne Clflf izfi(/ iZ
Address
Signature
Phone/email Mica _J7f 77j5
Name
Address
Signature
Phonc/cmail
Name
Address
Signature
Phone/email
Name
Address
Signature
Photic/email
•
Sent By: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcl'ff; 310 374 0956;
Name
Addrcss
Signature
Phone/email
Name
Address —74D6'2
Signature 11
Phone/email 3
Name
Address
May -9-02 12:13PM; Page 8/9
•
Signature
Phone/email
N Eune
Address
Signature
Phone/0=n
Name NIQ r I—. -el S-Vcr% Name
Address L `A- 1 1 S r4 Address
Signature*. Signature
Phone/etnan 372ci 7-1 C> Phone/email
NameName
AddressAddress
Signature
..Signalure
..z.tiatisett:OK=g4.114:WW-Ittt
Phone/email
Phone/email
Name
Address
Signature
Phone/email
Name
Address
Signature
Phone/ email
Name
Address
Signanire
Phone/ernail
Caitrarlz:.LIOC.
N arne
Address
Signature
Phone/email
Name
Address
Signature
Phone/email
Name
Address
Signature
Phone/email
Sent By: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcl-ft; 310 374 0956; May -9-02 12:13PM;
Name
Address
Signature
Petition Signatures
Phone/email 1
rrlayian
Name
Address 'r r4 LD
Signatut
Phone/email
D.
Name
Address
Signature
Phone/email
Name
Address
Signature
Phone/email
Name
Address
Signature
Phone/email
Name
Address
Signature
Phone/email
Name
Address
Signature
Phone/email
1)arlcsitiManey\Pcrsu»al\Pe! ihou Ciatrangl_501Ai dui.
•
Nage
Address
Signature
Page 9/9
Phone/email
Name
Address
Signature
Phone/email
Naive
Address
Signature
Phone/email
Name
Address
Signature
Phone/email
Name
Address
Signature
Phone/email
Name
Address
Signature
Phone/email
Name
Address
Signature
Phone/email
nt By: Orrick, Herrington & Sutclil°; 310 374 0956;
Mar -14-02 4:O9PM;_ Page 2/4
•
March 13, 2002
To: Harold Williams, Public Works Director, City of Hermosa Beach
Hermosa Beach Public Works Commission
Cc: Hermosa Beach City Council
Re: Skcchcrs USA Development/Planning Commission Meeting 3/13/02
On March 13, 2002, parts of the following memorandum were signed and faxed to May Dorsett and Eric
Haaland in the Community Development Department of the City of Manhattan Beach. That evening
approximately 14 residents of northeast Hermosa Beach attended the City of Manhattan Beach .Planning
Commission meeting. We were and are deeply concerned about the likely negative impacts of the
proposed Skechers USA development on our neighborhood. Looking at the current building design and
the orientation of building access points, it appears that the City of Manhattan Beach has and continues to
make every effort to shield its own streets from any traffic impact with little regard for Longfellow
Avenue or 30th Street in Hermosa Beach. At the meeting, we requested immediate consideration of the
following steps to accommodate this project:
(1) Relocate the current access point on Longfellow Drive to Kuhn Drive, to disperse traffic onto Kuhn,
Duncan, Longfellow and other Manhattan Beach Streets. Traffic from this project should be managed in
the jurisdiction where it is created. Skechers is an outstanding corporate citizen whose employees should
be allowed to use appropriate Manhattan Beach Streets during weekday business hours. An entrance and
exit on Kuhn would allow northbound traffic to use Duncan and southbound traffic to use Longfellow for
Sepulveda access. This step would also allow convenient use of left turn pockets at both Duncan and
Longfellow, for vehicles traveling on southbound Sepulveda - something that Skechers will need even
though Caltranshas now approved a left turn signal at Longfellow.
The current access points on northbound Sepulveda and Longfellow will almost certainly make Hermosa
streets main commuter routes to and from the project. Already, we see Skechers vans using Longfellow
frequently as they travel to and from the project site. Since Longfellow is a signalized intersection, we do
not believe the projection in Skechers traffic study that only 2% of new vehicle trips will affect our
Hermosa streets. Manhattan Beach would simply not accept this projection if Hermosa were approving a
57,000 square foot building with a widening of eastbound Longfellow and all traffic oriented to the east,
and we are disappointed that Manhattan's Planning Commission has not questioned the traffic study's
foundations.
(2) Submit a petition to Caltrans asking the agency to consider relocating the Sepulveda signal from
Longfellow to Duncan. Duncan is a much wider street and Skechers' current offices arc located at the
northwest corner or Duncan and Sepulveda. A signal at this location would also allow traffic from the car
wash and two large office buildings immediate access to Sepulveda, taking commercial traffic away from
Manhattan residential neighborhoods. The eastern portion of Duncan is wide enough that the planned
roadway widening of westbound Longfellow would not be necessary. Duncan offers excellent sight lines
and a three way stop at Ardmore.
Unlike Longfellow in Hermosa, two cars can pass safely on Duncan without one pulling to the side. Most
importantly, Duncan is in the city of Manhattan Beach, the jurisdiction where all of our area's traffic -
intensive developments are located. These developments include the Flatly's gym complex, several large
17:\Dark:m:0 anery 11:4rsemal\dkrchvn I ...Inc
ent By: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcli 310 374 0956; Mar -14-02 4:10PM; Page 3/4
office buildings, and the Manhattan Car Wash. Manhattan must do its share to accommodate -the traffic it --
creates, and we feel that moving the signal to a much safer street is a viable and fair option.=== -- :_ __:_
Neither of the above suggestions would do anything but help the Skechers operation. They are an -
outstanding company that should be integrated into our community, and we look forward to having them
as a neighbor. But we must ask the planning commission act in the interests of safety, balance and
fairness to address our concerns. Manhattan Beach has used traffic diversion tactics-ta its adhantage.en
many streets, most recently at Aviation and 2nd Street. We do not want to see this situation repeated to
the disadvantage of all neighbors, so please plan to address our concerns at your March 13 meeting.
Thank you.
1 would like to report to you, our Public Works Director and the Public Works Commission of Hermosa
Beach, that although the Manhattan Beach. Commissions heard our concerns, they said (actually one of
the Commissioners said) we are in control of our own destiny and basically said we were too late. They
asked where we were when this was being discussed, even though the project notice are extends only a
half -block into Hermosa. Manhattan's Community Development Director also said, surprisingly, that
Hermosa had the option to force westbound Longfellow traffic onto Sepulveda — which we see as an
inconvenient remedy that would only push the traffic to 30th and other east -west Hermosa streets. I ask
where has our City's Public Works Department been. We as concerned residents have petitioned and
been attending meetings since early last year. There have been petitions with recommendations for
solutions to what is a growing problem in our City particularly in northeast Hermosa and the entire South
Bay. The most recent petition, signed by both Longfellow and 30th Street residents in early 2001,
advocated moving the signal to Duncan and limiting westbound traffic for Longfellow and 30th to the
PCH. commercial zone — but this option was not included in the recent Northeast Hermosa traffic study.
In fact, our main disappointment is that the study although professional prepared featured more ideas for
medians, speed bumps and other traffic calming structures that are inappropriate for our narrow streets,
rather than steps to re-route commercial traffic through the jurisdiction where it is being created.
Arc you not also concerned that Manhattan businesses are forcing more and more traffic onto Sepulveda
and onto our City streets while protecting the residential streets of Manhattan Beach_ Not only do they
have blockades so that traffic cannot travel their streets (behind the Bally's gym complex and across from
the Manhattan Mall, for example), they have signs such as residents only — no through traffic, and left- or
right-hand turn only signs forcing traffic onto "major arteries" and protecting their residential streets. If
there, in fact, is a strong case for any one residential street which connects to Sepulveda to be closed -off -
and/or protected, then 1 say that more than likely that same reasoning would apply to all streets
connecting to Sepulveda. Imagine Sepulveda with no access to our residential streets. Then all the
traffic lights could be eliminated because there could be no turns or access from or to any residential
struts. Maybe opening the flow of traffic to all streets and positioning traffic signals at appropriate
locations (i.e. streets wide enough to accommodate the amount of traffic that automatically gravitates to
signaled streets) would help alleviate the congestion on Sepulveda and narrow streets like Longfellow and
30th.
Is it possible for our Public Works Commission to respond to Manhattan Beach and the Skeeher project
and any other project that impacts our City, its streets and the safety of our residents? 1 reiterate a
solution that was suggested numerous times since our petitions early last year. Move the Longfellow
Avenue traffic signal to Duncan — a wider, Manhattan Beach street. Let Manhattan Beach share the
traffic burden since they are, in fact, the recipients of the revenue and since they have approved many
traffic -intensive businesses between Artesia and 2nd Street that generate thousands of vehicle trips per
day. I present a suggestion from another concerned resident. It is important to determine the best solution
to the traffic problems anticipated as a result of the Skeeher project, and if that solution is to move the
Longfellow traffic signal to Duncan, then this should be done in conjunction with the Skeeher
C:\L)nrinn.Hlu,w \P ee=ouul\Sk,xhctc1.doc
2
:nt Bj': ,Orrick, Herrington & Sutcli• 310 374 0956;
Mar -14-02 4:10PM; Page 4/4
•
project:..and possibly the cost, at least in part, be subsidized by the project. This would also -take heavy
traffic from the Manhattan Car Wash off residential streets while providing a direct -and -safe -connection= --
between the Skechers' development site, its current office at Duncan & Sepulveda, and its other offices
and retail store in downtown Manhattan Beach.
So, the resolution to approve the Skechers project and traffic plan was passed tonight (March 13th) by the
'Manhattan Beach Planning Commission_ Our next step iS to write you and the local papers.' Tho'se`i fus
who arc available will attend the Hermosa Beach Public Works meeting next Wednesday to again state
our concerns and ask for your help. (Unfortunately i will be in the East.) Many of us will attend the
April 2 Manhattan Beach City Council meeting for the scheduled review of the resolution passed tonight.
We want to stall or stop the project until the true traffic impact of this project is reviewed and the best
solution to our unavoidable traffic growth problems is determined with consideration for everyone -- both
Manhattan Bcach and Hermosa Beach. Anything you can do as our Director of Public Works and as a
Commission would be appreciated. Thank you.
Concerned resident,
‘2:112n
Alanna Darlene Blaney
702 Longfellow Avenue
l )acicncdSlanrc\ Personal\ Skrchrt+ 1,doc
3
Sent Ely: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliff; 310 374 0956;
Mar -18-02 B:14PM; Page 2
• [2
as a neighbor. But we must ask the planning commission act in the interests of safety, balance and
fairness to address our concerns. Manhattan Beach has used traffic diversion tactics to its advantage on
many streets, most recently at Aviation and 2nd Street. We do not want to see this situation repeated to _
the disadvantage of all neighbors, so please plan to address our concerns at your Mareh_13_meeting.
Thank you.
All of the above concerns were mentioned at the Manhattan Beach Planning Commissioners meeting
March 13. 1 would like to report to you, our Public Works Director of Hermosa Beach and
Commissioners, that although the Manhattan Beach Commissions heard our concerns, they. said (actually_
one of the Commissioners said) we are in control of our destiny and basically said we were too late. They
asked where we were when this was being discussed. 1 ask where has our City's Public Works
Department been. We, as concerned residents, have petitioned and been attending meetings since early
last year. There have been petitions with recommendations for solutions to what is a growing problem in
our City particularly in northeast Hermosa, but really the entire South Bay. Are you not concerned that
Manhattan businesses are forcing more and more traffic onto Sepulveda and onto our City streets while
protecting the residential streets of Manhattan Beach. Not only do they have blockades so that traffic
cannot travel their streets, they have signs such as residents only — no through traffic, and left- or right-
hand turn only signs forcing traffic onto Sepulveda. and protecting their residential streets. If there, in
fact, is a strong case for any one residential street which connects to Sepulveda to be closed -off and/or
protected, then 1 say that more than likely that same reasoning would apply to all streets connecting to
Sepulveda. imagine Sepulveda with no access to our residential streets. Then all the traffic lights could
be eliminated because there could be no turns or access from or to any of our residential streets.
Is it possible for our Public Works Commission to respond to Manhattan Beach and the Skecher project
and any other project that impacts our City? 1 reiterate a solution that was suggested numerous times
since our petitions early last year. Move the Longfellow Avenue traffic signal to Duncan — a wider,
Manhattan Beach street. Let Manhattan Beach share the traffic burden since they are in fact the recipients
of the revenue. I present the suggestion from another concerned resident. It is important to determine the
best solution to the traffic problems anticipated as a result of the Skeeher project, and if that solution is to
move the Longfellow traffic signal to Duncan, then this should be done in conjunction with the Skecher
project...and possibly subsidized in part, by the project.
So, the resolution was passed tonight (March 13th) by the Manhattan Beach Planning Commission. Our
next step is to write you and the local papers. Those of us who are available will attend the Hermosa
Beach Public Works meeting next Wednesday to again state our concerns and ask for your help.
(Unfortunately 1 will be in the East.) Many of us will attend the April 2 Manhattan Beach City Council
meeting for the review of the resolution passed tonight. We want to stall or stop the project until the true
impact of this project is reviewed and the best solution to our unavoidable traffic growth problems is
determined with consideration for everyone — both Manhattan Beach and Hermosa Beach. Anything you
can do as our Director of Public Works and our City Commissioners would be appreciated. Thank you.
Concerned residents of Hermosa Beach.
Print Name Signature
ito 7o 6 I o ilC/Elco Aire H 3=- /S-7- 2,
wl ( L nr�1 ` /,� ��
Mae i yA,-,*r 4- lob CARCITA PI, 3". II- 42
G� CSA tAA u 4 !5-7 4Et(1,ARJit�4 fi - 3-a-40 4.
Petition Signatures
Street Address
E-mail Address Date
( \ Dario rcLSlartiy\Personal \ Sic Cchcra•d0,-, 2
Sent By: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliff;
111
•
Print Name
#62,-45
601P-46
70/1A/ 434o0146-17
310 374 0956; Mar -1B-02 8:14PM;
Street Address
•
E-mail Address
Page 3/5
Date
.24'1)./dh--5eA/PL. Hav1os4dirl1
Lle. A-0
.frk t
fr't ri V'
/frIgoiio
00 eiP / /A
727 Log6FaioW Mir II‘eing5.4 13F.frit.3416 .
1( A _._ L 3 /4 /0),
7A2 A-pf43 go, Sch 431
Ge cad chA
"bfay.V
/1/Ait7-od /1 1 -°"1, -IR
citgamk, :21-1
—V51 "774ys44 /6
3000 —1-v_AlpiNfonL
3m0
3)16 tcyz_
Pt e) oigo /6
6 -3P07
LM6 oig,/a6oz_
W4 3 1/7a2___
0 2_
iffc arttL.t.-2
3
0
ite
I. I
r
A4/,eddlifo& -44
tr) '11-'11r 'As
4,1 1//e4,i 44/t h
69344-I/fc.
C: \13.1r1c-nclilaney \ Vet -Rawl \ Skakliars.tl<
6 L..
3
.a. •• ••'•••••:::•4:...•••••••...- •
Sent 8y: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliff;
•
Print Name Signature
idpokt 4'1)M
310 374 0956; Mar -18-02 8:15PM;
•
Page 4/5
7?, torkic,i Lb) AL 3/7
Street Address E-mail Address 7);
7314 7E'S1 Al—tiFtick/G_ 6 4- C -424/ 6/C=,//0 3// 7/0
(9&jqLo
a t 14444, Co 1.83J-G,p1.6 3 .
6P.- 1 0 IL) -/7- oz_
3 - /7 -oz_
/4./ 1/4J
r1;
11
die(
3- /7-02_
6931 La4 /1 wE 3- 17- az
Ca3e 144,v Ave
3-17-
3111/62-
17
62)
S€..0 -VA j!rjc
Ass (c V
62_3.1! s_ _
, •
£o2 ‘i 0,1.1 It")
Co 7 looFF-L1-010 ,1AIR- 416
° FE&I,x)
1
70 -Mr,
'74111rz'</p
allirf
..111
0
S /7 0
OP
)0?_.
)17 (c--)—
&
o) --
3/0 /ex
Lyd,xJ2
cvreikir. .3
. te
omtze 6 v3 6D Ai) f-ep iiLf v
DArk1lt`1314.neV PeCit.1,0:01V•keebVti.d0C
a,
Sent By: Orrick, Herrington & Sutclift;
Print Name
310 374 0956;
Street Address
Mar -18-02 8:15PM;
•
iI A
Page 5/5
Date
713 La-) v FL.e.A.isL
So
/ e dadAK5fi V 001 l 4/y O 7 131etteZ cdud, 'Wadi
4, /17 7� -.�.� CS -7-3o lit' ,„8
C
,34§-/0
1
3'r
-' r X11 g/D
Av4k4O+A- L
g) 7Z L
cfr r' -77
f -3 a Z57.
3,) A 5'7
5- 6 raQ. ,e{ PI
Axl°'
C:\17.nlcncli lancyl,Ycrs ?rnJ\�l:ccec..Lltis
02
U5/13/ZUUZ 1Y:J7 r'AA
May 13, 2002
VIA FAX #310-372-6186
Hermosa Beach City Council
170 Pier Avenue
Community Center Room 4
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
• MARIAN D. DESSERT •
714 Longfellow Avenue
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
(310) 374-9656
RE: Northeast Hermosa Traffic c Review
Dear City Council:
Please be advised that as a homeowner on Longfellow Avenue, I object to any proposal that increases the
amount of traffic our street will get. If the City of Manhattan Beach is receiving the revenue from
Sketcher's, then they should shoulder the increased traffic that this business will most certainly cause to the
community.
It is 5:25 on Monday evening and in the time it has taken me to write this letter (less than 10 minutes) more
than 40 cars have past by my house. And the majority of them were speeding. Longfellow is already a
dangerous street for our children as well as the residents. The street is extremely narrow and driving it often
catches residents in a game of chicken with drivers that are just passing through.
Please protect our interests and help us make Longfellow a safer street on which to live_
Thanks for your support.
Sincerely,
7;-)
Marian (Molly) D. Dessert
ICJ UUl
SUPPLEMENTAL 6e
INFORMATION
RmexBusinessFinanceMB Fax:310-372-7560
Business
Finance
•
May 14 '02 (:5.
Phone: 310-303-3110
Fax: 310-372-7560
Toll Free: $O0-774-5855 ext. 3010
225 5. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 210
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
wwwf corn
FAX
[Urgent For Review Please Comment Please Review
Date: 5/14/2002
To: City Council Hermosa Beach
Company: Re: Northeast H.B. Traffic Review at 7:30 5/14/02
Phone:
Fax: 310-372-6186
From: Todd Coordt
No. of Pages (including cover): 3
....................
...0 ..............
COMMENTS : I live at 728 Longfellow Ave o•em has emphasize my support of the
rtunately, I will not be able
to attend the meeting tonight, but wanted to problem that needs to be fixed.
following letter. Longfellow is already
I ment of Sketchers will exacerbate traffic on a street that already
Future deve op
needs relief. �..........
RcJ (mooCd4
la+�� C -)e -c' {
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE This
privileged information.
this facsimile contain confidential t r pnded ged�ptent, be aware that
onthis cover page. If you are nof you have received this facsimiles
This facsimile transrrtistlon and the documents accompanying
arty
information is Intended for trio use of the e,o fvthe contentse r entity this information Is prohibited.
ane disclosure, notify s by ele Dome (800.745 9292) flmmediatelY so that we an arrangef for the retrieval of the original
in error, please notify us by telephone
gocuments at no cost to you. Thank you.
SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION
•
RmexBusinessFinanceMB Fax:310-372-7560
•
Deborah Harris
Office Chief
California Department of Transportation
120 South Spring Strtet
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Re: Request for Removal of Traffic Signal
Located at Longfellow and Sepulveda
To Whom It May Concern:
May 14 '02
May 3, 2002
:56 F. U2
This letter is to request that Caltrans consider removal of the traffic signal at the intersection of
Longfellow and Sepulveda in the Cities of Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach, CA, The residents of
northeast Hermosa Beach, mainly Longfellow Avenue in Hermosa Beach, are concerned about the safety of
our street, not only because of the traffic from the existing Manhattan Beach businesses on the eastside of
Sepulveda, bur particularly in light of the approved new development of Manhattan Beach businesses which
will undoubtedly negatively impact the traffic on our street.
By removing this signal, Caltrans will not only enhance rhe. safety of Longfellow, but will also gain a
more fluid traffic flow along Sepulveda without the impediment of that signal.
1.,_oggfellow Safety Issues:
When Longfellow Avenue was created probably after the 1930's when "Valley Drive and up on the
hills started building up"*, it was designed for its residents, not for the volume of traffic it handles today and
certainly not for that additional traffic being generated by the new Manhattan Beach businesses developing on
the eastside of Sepulveda.
1) The street is only 30 feet wide.
a. With cars parked on both sides Longfellow, two cars driving in opposite directions, cannot pass
unless one is able CO pull over which then creates a log jam.
b. Currently because of the width (or lack thereof), traffic now backs up southbound on Sepulveda as
cars attempt to turn westbound on Longfellow.
2) Traffic from the building on the northwest corner exits and enters onto/from Longfellow. Although this
is currently a safety issue because of the traffic turning westbound on Longfellow from Sepulveda, this
problem will be exasperated by any additional traffic.
3) Directly beside the building on the northwest corner is a daycare center which creates its own pick-up and
drop-off traffic. Agin, already a Safety issue, this too will also become more of a problem' with increased
traffic flows.
4) Currently there is a No U Turn sign northbound on Sepulveda at Longfellow. Those obeying that sign,
tum westbound on Longfellow and then turn around in the driveway of•thebuilding 'on. the northwest 'corner
or the driveway of the residents just down from the Sepulveda/Longfellow corner directly across from the
daycare center_ Backing out onto this narrow street to turn around with cars parked on either side and just
west of a signal obviously creates not only a dangerous situation for the traffic, on Longfellow, buut:for those
children being picked -up and dropped -off at the daycare center.
5) Currently there is no left hand turn signal southbound on Sepulveda at Longfellow. It is our
understanding, however, that that is changing with the recently approved project on the northeast comer.
That left hand turn signal will snore than likely result in traffic backing up southbound on Sepulveda. .to. turn
east onto Longfellow to enter the approved project on the northeast corner or the Remax property on the
southeast corner as they wait for the light to change. Longfellow is just south of the apex. of the incline on
Sepulveda. Ibis win create a dallSaroLla situation on Sepuk*oda aS cars tra.'clla g southbound will not realize
C:\Lhule.nr13lancr\Pcootul\1.1/4wcon Caltsansl.doc
RmexBusinessFinanceMB Fax:310-372-7560
•
May 14 '02 (:5,5 Imo. uo
•
there is a back-up caused by those turning east and possibly west on Longfellow as mentioned above in 1) b
until they are on top of the back-up.
The traffic signal at Longfellow and Sepulveda currcndy accommodates northeast Hermosa residents
(mainly Longfellow Avenue residents),, but more importantly, is and will be accommodating mostly the
Manhattan Beach businesses on the'eastside of Sepulveda and those Manhattan Beach businesses approved,
but not yet built in that same area (i.e. Skechers, a 57,000 square foot Manhattan Beach revenue generating
business on the northeast comet of Longfellow and Sepulveda). While these developments are certainly
favorable economic projects for the area and certainly beneficial to Manhattan Beach's revenue, the end result
will be more traffic. As we know, traffic is drawn to traffic signals and although there will be more traffic on
Sepulveda, there will also be more traffic drawn west onto Longfellow for easy access to Ardmore.
Longfellow does not want this additional traffic which will not only magnify our safety problems, but
will also increase the cost of maintaining our Hermosa Beach City streets. We do not want to accommodate
traffic created by re 'Venire generating—Manhattan Beach business and their Mira Costa School. Our streets
(certainly not Longfellow) were not built to accommodate this traffic.
As Longfellow residents our main concern is removal of that traffic signal for the safety of our sweet;
however, we would like to point out that logic might suggest if a signal is needed to accommodate those
Manhattan Beach businesses, Duncan Street, a street one block north of Longfellow and a Manhattan Beach
street, would be the ideal street for a traffic signal to accommodate their traffic for the following reasons:
1) Duncan is at the apex of the incline on Sepulveda — a safer location than just south of the apex. Traffic
would be able to see the signal as they approach and respond sooner than reaching the apex and then one
block later needing to react to traffic backed -up to turn onto Longfellow_
2) Duncan is considerably wider than Longfellow -- wide enough to have lines marking the middle of the
street, wide enough that cars can stay within those lines while turning, and wide enough for cars driving in
opposite directions to easily pass even with cars parked on both sides of the street — unlike Longfellow.
3) Duncan is conveniently located to accommodate traffic going to the Manhattan Beach strip mall just north
of Duncan; the Manhattan Beach Car Wash on the southeast corner of Duncan and Sepulveda; the
Manhattan Beach residents going to Mira Costa School; Skechcrs (to be on the northeast corner of
Longfellow and Sepulveda; and the Manhattan Beach Remax on the southeast corner of Longfellow and
Sepulveda. Manhattan Beach school traffic, Skechers and Remax employees, clients and vendors could turn
at the proposed Manhattan Beach Duncan traffic signal from Sepulveda and travel on Kuhn (a Manhattan
Beach street) to their buildings alleviating some of the congestion on Sepulveda and diverting this Manhattan
Beach revenue generating traffic from Hermosa Beach's Longfellow to Manhattan Beach's streets.
The attached petition represents the sentiments of the northeast residents of Hermosa Beach. As the
northern most street in Hermosa Beach (with the exception of the southside of Boundary which is barely
more than an alley), we, the residents, do not want the traffic and safety issues creating by the Longfellow
traffic signal that in reality mostly accommodates Manhattan Beach revenue generating businesses, their
school, and their residents. Thank you for consideration of this request This petition will also be presented
to the City Council and Public Works Commission of Hermosa Beach. We would welcome the opportunity
to meet with you regarding this issue.
Alanna D. Blaney
702 Longfellow Avenue
Hermosa Beach, CA 90253
310-374-0156 work
310-372-0956 office
adbQa verizon.nct
CAD:II-lend:Raney\Pvnu ittl\Petition Caltctnsi_50302_duc
STEALTH SURVEY INFO •
<700 Longfellow>
<sunny>
POSTED SPEED LIMIT: <25>
SURVEY STARTED: <2002/05/09 13:42> FILENAME: 02050913 700 LONGFELLOW
(BOTH).DAT
MIN SPEED ALLOWED <10> MAX SPEED ALLOWED <60>
TOTAL VEHICLES = 3989 MINIMUM SPEED = 11 MAXIMUM SPEED = 51
AVERAGE SPEED = 19.22 50th PERCENTILE = 19 85th PERCENTILE = 24
TEN MILE PACE = 15 to 24
END OF REPORT
SUPPLEMENTAL oe
INFORMATION
MANHATTAN_
BEACH
Duncan Ave.
Boundary PI.
•• •• Of T
Longfellow Ave.
0?,r
..
30th St.
.
ti
Manila PI.
w
j1")
HERMOSA?
BEACH
Porter La.
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
«(
oz/ogo2.l!
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
Honarable Mayor Fahey and Members of the City Council
Geoff Dolan, City Manager
Richard Thompson, Director of Community Developme
Eric Haaland, Associate Planner t4 -
April 2, 2002
Consideration of Use Permit Regarding Construction of a 3 -Story Building by
Skechers at 330 South Sepulveda Boulevard
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council RECEIVE AND FILE this report.
• DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission, at its regular meeting of March 13, 2002, APPROVED construction of
a three-story office building containing approximately 57,000 square feet of useable space and 368
parking spaces. The proposed building is maximized in size to the 30 -foot height and 57,100 square
foot floor area limits and has a modern style, however, the project includes building modulation,
projections, and substantially more than the minimum area of landscaping located within perimeter
planters.
•
The Planning Commission found the project to be in conformance with the city's requirements and
to not be detrimental to the surrounding area. The overall design was complimented for its
innovative architecture and limited visual bulk made possible by the placement of most project
parking underground. The design includes components discussed by the City Council during, review
of a previous version (November 2000) of the project including a Sepulveda driveway entrance
with a deceleration lane, and reduced bulk at the building perimeter.
The primary project issue discussed by the Planning Commission was traffic, which includes the
following points:
• The project eliminates a number of existing driveways and proposes two passenger car
driveways to be located on Sepulveda Boulevard and Longfellow Drive. The Sepulveda
1
• i
driveway, which was not included in the project in 2000, is intended to reduce reliance on
the more residential serving Longfellow Drive. A required loading area has ingress from
Kuhn Drive and egress to Longfellow Drive near the corner of those streets.
• Traffic analysis provided for the project concluded that no significant impact would result
from the project if improvements were made to Longfellow Drive off -setting the additional
load upon the adjacent traffic signal. A new left -turn lane would be provided where
Longfellow approaches the intersection.
• The Planning Commission required that a protected left turn signal for southbound
Sepulveda traffic be provided by the project as suggested in the traffic study. This would
allow for U-turns toward the Sepulveda Driveway as an alternative to using Longfellow.
Caltrans has conceptually approved this signal modification after initially responding
unfavorably (see attached letters).
• Since a concern for traffic intrusion through the adjacent residential area had been
identified, the project includes right -turn oriented driveways and prohibition of left turns on
Longfellow Drive.
• Hermosa Beach residents to the west of Sepulveda Boulevard expressed concerns (largely
after the hearing was closed — see attached letters, minutes and petition) that the measures
designedto protect Manhattan Beach residents east of the project would shift traffic their
direction. Suggestions were made to relocate a proposed driveway and existing traffic signal
away from Longfellow Drive. The Planning Commission responded that it does not expect
a large quantity of vehicles to travel west of Sepulveda on Longfellow from the project
since the vast majority �f potential destinations are located to the north, south, and east. The
applicant's unique situation having related facilities in downtown Manhattan Beach was
addressed by prohibiting business vehicles from using surrounding residential streets. The
Commission suggested that residents pursue remedies for existing traffic conditions
affecting this westerly -segment of Longfellow Drive with the corresponding agencies or
procedures. The west portion of the Longfellow/Sepulveda intersection is located in the City
of Hermosa Beach.
• The Planning Commission also required that employee parking be prohibited on
surrounding streets.
Additional conditions imposed upon the project include: restriction to general office/restaurant use,
prohibition of pole and internally illuminated signs, construction traffic restrictions, lighting
controls, and use of specimen trees. Special attention to neighbor privacy will be required for tree
installation along the rear (east) side of the site.
2
•
RESOLUTION NO. PC 02-9
•Sefl_2 The Planning Commission of the City of Manhattan Beach hereby APPROVES the
subject Use Permit application subject to the following conditions:
Site Preparation / Construction
1. * The project shall be constructed and operated in substantial compliance with the submitted
the Planning Commission on March 13, 2002. Any substantial
plans as approved by bythe Planning
deviation from the approved plans must be reviewed and approved
Commission.
n with all
2. * A Traffic Management Plan shall be submit
Poic e and Public oWo ks Departmentstprior to
other building plans, to be approved by
issuance of c permits. all phasese coonstruction, including delil provide for the very of materials and parking
agement of all construction
related traffic during all to use routes
of construction related vehicles. Construction traffic shall not be permitted
through adjacent residential areas.
All electrical, telephone, cable television system, and similar service wires and cables,
3.Ppoles, shall be installed
including the then a adjacent
ariate utility
cow tions Boulevard
utilityompliance with all applicable
underground to the app p the tilities
Building and Electrical Codes, safety regulations, and rdc ers,
ruleSo of
the Pu Public
iicUWores
Commission, the serving utilitycompany, Pc
Department.
4. During building construction of the site, the soil shall be watered in order to minimize the
impacts of dust on the surrounding area.
, etc.) shall
5. The siting of construction related equipment
(job
of site
Coomrnunity Developrn ntces, trailers, 1prior to the
be subject to the approval from the Director
issuance of any building permits.
shall be
6. * A site landscaping utilizing drought tolerant native plants submitted
and approval concurrent witthe permit application. All plants shall be identified
by the
in
d
on
on the plan k contains ta list and del riptioon of drought tolerant plants suitable for this area.
Gardenes. The current edition of the Sunset Western
hpBooky
This plan shall be prepared by a licensed/qualified individual,nrequired
rovedbbytthelaw.
Plann Plng
sizes installed shall be consistent with the landscape pla apP
roject shall be sized,
l Commissionad onro March
a in sufficient quantit es to protect residenside tial prif the vacy as required by the
Comm, and provewater features shall be prohibited from spilling
Community Development Department. Any
or spraying into the public right-of-way.
7. A low pressure or drip irrigation system shall be installed in the landscaped areas, which
shall not cause any surface run-off under normal operating The otype ions designls shall be
irrigation system shall be noted on the landscaping p Develo ment Departments.hathe
subject to the approval of the Public Works and Community P
8. Water lines, sanitary sewer laterals, grease interor
interceptors,
d mop sinks shall be installed,
modified, and maintained as required by the Public
9. * Sidewalks and driveway aprons shall be replaced or installed around the entire site pursuant
to the requirements of the Public Works Department.
10. All defective or damaged curb, gutter, street paving, and sidewalk improvements shall be
removed and replaced with standard improvements, subject to the approval of the Public
Works Department.
11. Property line clean outs shall be installed as
required by the Department of Public Works.
2
•
RESOLUTION NO. PC 02-9
12. * Backflow prevention valves shall be installed as req uired by
s threimlae Diep Department
of
Public
be
Works, and the locations and screening of any
subject to approval by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of
building permits.
13. * Enclosed parking area drains must be connected to oil water separators and drain into the
sanitary sewer system.
d in
ance with
unicipal Code
14. * Security lighting for theglaree shall be preventiondesign. Int Interior lightning within the easterly portion
requirements including g P light visible to adjacent neighbors by
of the building shall be designed to limit unnecessary gh
use of screening, timing devices, motion sensors, and other available technology.
detailed traffic improvement plan
e
15. * Prior e issuance revsof buiappro al by g rttheaCommunity Development Department, Public
provided for review and appy
Works Department, and Caltrans. All required traffic improvements shall be completed
prior to final building occupancy. The plan shall include:
• A northbound Sepulveda Boulevard turnout lane as shown on project plans subject to
design modifications by the city's traffic engineer and Caltrans..
ifications djacent to
e site to include at
• Lotlow Drive wiening and reted s bound lanes app oaching the dSepul Sepulveda hntersectionand one eastbound
leastst two we
lane...
signal modifications determined to be appropriate by the city's traffic engineer
• and Caltrans including a protected left turn signal for southbound traffic on Sepulveda
Boulevard.
16. * Prior to issuance of building permits, a plan shall be provided for review and approval by
the Community Development Department addressing appropriate traffic improvements,
trip reduction scton Management Program. Ac eptance byion to prevent the project from resuing en a
the
deficit with respect to tothe County Congesti
Metropolitan Transportation Agency, and implementation of the plan shall be required
prior to final approval of building occupancy.
Operational Restrictions
square
ot
17. * The facility shall be limited.Otthoe gusesal office use and a including medical office,c0assembly, oentertainment, ti and _
drinking establishment e uae shall be prohibited unless a use permit
manufacturing, storage, and commercial parking
amendment is approved.
18. * Parking shall be provided in conformance with the current Manhattan Beach Municipal
Code but shall include a minimum of 270 spaces regregardless
of
code
u sratios. peration shaother
obstructions to parking areas, including sure parking, dlle
subject to Community Development Department approval. No fees for use
of be parking
shall
be charged to employees or visitors of the project. Ground floor parking
d
to visitor parking and shall be appropriately marked as such.
19. A covered trash enclosure(s), with drainage connected to the sanitary sewer, and adequate
capacity shall be provided on the site subject to the specifications and approval of the Public
Works Department, Community Development Department, and City's waste contractor. A=
trash and recycling plan demonstrating diversion of at least 50% of solid waste shall be
provided as required by the Public Works Department.
20. * The facility operator shall prohibit employees from parking personal vehicles on the
surrounding public streets. Employees must park on-site or be transported to the site from
other off-street parking facilities subject to Community Development Department approval.
3
1 1
RESOLUTION NO. PC 02-9
the building shall include prohibitions against employee
lease and/or rental agreements. Prior to building permit
parking program shall be submitted for Community
val.
As a minimum, . the owner of
parking on local streets in any
issuance, a written employee
Development Department appro
•
21. * The facility operator shall prohibit left turns from the project's Longfellow Drive driveways.
Signs, driveway designs; and supervision preventing left turns shall be provided as required
by the Community Development Department.
22. * Vehicles operated by, or under the supervision of, on-site businesses shall use Sepulveda
Boulevard as a primary means of access and shall not use surrounding residentially fronted
streets for ingress or egress from the facility unless a traffic plan for such specific trips is
approved by the Community Development Department.
23. * The facility operator shall restrict delivery vehicles using the rear loading area to entering
from Kuhn Drive and exiting onto Longfellow Drive. All vehicles and deliveries shall be
prohibited from using or occupying the loading area between 9pm and 7:30am daily.
24. * All signs shall be in compliance with the City's Sign Code. Pole signs and internally
illuminated signs shall be prohibited. A sign program to be approved by the Community
Development Department shall be required for sign concepts other than that shown on the
plans reviewed by the Planning Commission.
25. Noise emanating from the site shall be in compliance with the Municipal Noise Ordinance.
26. The facility shall comply with all South Coast Air Quality Management District Regulations
and shall not transmit excessive emissions or odors across property lines.
27. The operation shall remain in compliance with all Fire and Building . occupancy
requirements at all times.
28. The management of the facility shall police the property and all areas immediately adjacent
to the business during the hours of operation to keep it free of litter.
29. * No waste water shall be permitted to be discharged from the premises subject to Public
Works Department review. Waste water and parking structure drainage shall be discharged
into the sanitary sewer system.
_ 30. * No equipment, antenna dishes, or similar items shall be located on the building roof. All
such items shall be located within the designated equipment area at the north end of the
building. The building roof shall have a gravel or comparable decorative treatment.
Procedural
31. * All provisions of the Use Permit are subject to review by the Community Development
Department 6 months after occupancy and yearly thereafter. The property owner shall
provide an analysis of traffic conditions in the surrounding area pursuant to the
specifications of the Community Development Department at the time of the first use
permit review.
32. This Use Permit shall lapse two years after its date of approval, unless implemented or
extended pursuant to 10.84.090 of the Municipal Code. -
33. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21089(b) and Fish and Game Code section
711.4(c), the project is not operative, vested or final until the required filing fees are paid.
34. The applicant agrees, as a condition of approval of this project, to pay for all reasonable
legal and expert fees and expenses of the City of Manhattan Beach, in defending any legal
4
• • _ 1
RESOLUTION NO. PC 02-9
actions associated with the approval of this project brought against the City. In the event
such a legal action is filed against the project, the City shall estimate its expenses for the
litigation. Applicant shall deposit said amount with the City or enter into an agreement
with the City to pay such expenses as they become due.
35. At any in the future, the Planning Commission or City Council may review the Use
Permit for the purposes of revocation or modification. Modification may consist of
conditions deemed reasonable to mitigate or alleviate impacts to adjacent land uses.
SECTION i. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009 and Code of Civil Procedure Section
1094.6, any action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul this decision, or
concerning any of the proceedings, acts, or determinations taken, done or made prior to such
decision or to determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition attached to this
decision shall not be maintained by any person unless the action or proceeding is commenced
within 90 days of the date of this resolution and the City Council is served within 120 days of the
date of this resolution. The City Clerk shall send a certified copy of this resolution to the
applicant, and if any, the appellant at the address of said person set forth in the record of the
proceedings and such mailing shall constitute the notice required by Code of Civil Procedure
Section 1094.6.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and
correct copy of the Resolution as adopted by the
Planning Commission at its regular meeting of March
13, 2002 and that said Resolution was adopted by the
following vote:.
AYES: Kirkpatrick, Kuch, MVIilam,
Simon, Chairman Ward
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
RIC
Secretary to the Planning Commission
THOMPSON,
arae I•schen,i
Reco 1 • g Secretary
II
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Richard Thompson, Director of Community Developme
BY: Eric Haaland, Associate Planner <ik
DATE: January 9, 2002
SUBJECT: Use Permit Regarding Construction of a 3 -Story Office
Building at 330 S. Sepulveda Blvd. (Killen AIA/Skechers USA)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission CONDUCT the Public Hearing and PROVIDE
DIRECTION.
•
APPLICANT OWNER
Pat Killen
46 11th St.
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Location
Legal Description
Area District
Skechers USA
225 Sepulveda Blvd.
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
LOCATION
1
330 S. Sepulveda Bl. at the northeast corner of
Sepulveda and Longfellow Dr. (See Site
Location Map).
Lots 8 -12, Tract 14274.
I
"Rs -1.1 1 B I T
General Plan
Zoning
Land Use
Neighboring Zoning/Land Uses
North
South (across Longfellow)
East (across Kuhn Dr.)
West (across Sepulveda)
Parcel Size:
Building Floor Area:
Height
Parking:
Landscape Area
Vehicle Access
LAND USE
General Commercial
CG, General Commercial
Existing
21,281, sq. ft.
automotive/office/restaurant
•
Proposed
57,140 sq: ft.
general office w/restaurant
CG/Car Wash
CG/Medical Office Building
RS/Single family residences
Hermosa Beach/Office Building
PROJECT DETAILS
Proposed
38,099 sq. ft. (0.87 acres)
57,140 sq. ft.
30 ft.
368 spaces
4,754 sq. ft.
1 Sepulveda dwy.
2 Longfellow dwys.
• 1 Kuhn dwy (loading)
Requirement (Staff Rec)
5,000 sq. ft. min
57,148 sq. ft. max.
30 ft. max.
202 spaces
3,048 sq. ft.
N/A
BACKGROUND
The proposed project is to construct a three-story building containing approximately 57,140 square
feet of useable space and 368 parking spaces. Office use is a permitted use in the CG zone;
however, since the building exceeds 5,000 square feet and includes a restaurant use, a use permit is
required. On November 10, 1998, the Planning Commission approved a smaller version of the
subject project. That applicant later acquired two additional parcels adjacent to the original site and
submitted an expanded project in 2000. On November 21, 2000, the City Council directed the
applicant to make modifications to the larger Planning Commission approved project. Subsequently
the site was sold to the current applicant and a completely new design has been proposed. A new
use permit application was required for the substantially revised project.
2
• t
•
•
•
• •
DISCUSSION
11
The submitted plans show three existing commercial sites to be demolished, merged, and
developed with a single building, perimeter planters, and four driveways. The primary project
driveways take access from Sepulveda Boulevard and Longfellow Drive. A separate one-way
loading area is accessed from Kuhn Drive (rear) -and exits onto Longfellow Drive. Pedestrian
entries are provided at the Sepulveda sidewalk and interior parking levels. The Sepulveda building
frontage includes three levels of office space, courtyards, a driveway, a waterfall element, and
landscape planters. Parking, loading and other service areas occupy the rear two-thirds of the
building's ground level, and four full underground levels. The two upper building levels contain the
majority of the proposed office space split into north and south sections straddling a central outdoor
courtyard feature.
The proposed building is maximized in size to the 30 -foot height and 1.5 floor area ratio limits,
however, the project includes building modulation, significant architectural features, and
landscaping located within perimeter planters. Proposed landscaping includes mature 20 to 25 foot
tall palm trees. The project employs creative architecture with prominent use of glass and metal
surfaces, and unusual shapes. Unique visual aspects of the design include a boat -shaped section
adjacent to the street corner, a triangular metal ledge forming an entry waterfall element, and two
enclosed bridges above the center courtyard. The courtyard, entry, and landscape amenities are
made possible largely by placement of most of the parking below the building.
The project conforms to the city's requirements for use, height, floor area, setbacks, landscaping,
and parking. The project issues that warrant discussion include the following:
Traffic:
The project has a thoroughly developed traffic design. The project's primary passenger car
driveway is accessed from Sepulveda Boulevard through a proposed right turn pocket consistent
with the Sepulveda Boulevard Development Guide and City Council comments during review of
the preceding proposal. This encourages access from Sepulveda by allowing cars to exit a high
volume travel lane before approaching the driveway turn. The passenger car access located on
Longfellow Drive may function as a one- or two-way driveway since vehicles have the option of
entering from Sepulveda. The applicant prefers providing the option of entering from Longfellow
rather than forcingcars to make U-turns when they approach from the north. Staff would
recommend the ingress/egress alternative for the Longfellow driveway subject to elimination of
ingress if undesirable consequences result. This could be done by the property owner through minor
modifications at any time in the future. Egress at Longfellow is proposed as a right -turn only
design. A one-way driveway is proposed for loading purposes at the southeast corner of the
building routing delivery vehicles from Kuhn Drive to Longfellow toward Sepulveda Boulevard.
The applicant has provided the attached traffic analysis addressing specific issues that may be of -
concern to the Planning Commission as follows:
3
• The project will not be detrimental to traffic flow through the adjacent signalized
Sepulveda/Longfellow intersection subject to the proposed mitigation. As mitigation, the report
recommends that the portion of Longfellow Drive abutting the project be widened to add two
westbound vehicle lanes (left and right turns) that approach the intersection to reduce the
amount of signal time devoted to east/west traffic. This would also address existing queuing
concerns mentioned by residents during review of the previous proposal.
• Vehicles entering the project will not create excessive queuing on Longfellow Drive that would
impact the Sepulveda Boulevard intersection. The provision of the Sepulveda entrance reduces
the reliance on the Longfellow entrance and westbound queuing on Longfellow that might
block that driveway will be minimized by the proposed left and right turn lanes to be added.
The city's traffic engineer has reviewed the project and traffic study, and has provided the
attached comments. His review generally supports the proposed traffic design and analysis. His
comments notably address the proposed Longfellow Drive widening and adjacent residential
traffic volumes. He does not believe that the small amount of westbound trips on Longfellow
warrant 3 lanes as proposed. He suggests that a combination through/left-turn lane and a
dedicated right -turn lane is a more appropriate solution than dedicating separate lanes to vehicles
heading in each direction. He also provides supplemental information estimating that up to a total
of 130 project related trips per day will travel easterly residential streets. This is not indicated to
be a significant impact to those streets. The Planning Commission may request more detailed
analysis of these expected traffic volumes if determined to be necessary.
Staff recommends that any project approval include a condition requiring a full traffic
improvement plan incorporating the project traffic design as accepted by the Planning
Commission, subject to approval of the Public Works Department, City Traffic Engineer, and
Caltrans.
Sepulveda Boulevard Guidelines:
The applicant has made substantial efforts to address the Sepulveda Boulevard development
guidelines. The project design aesthetically enhances Sepulveda by providing a pedestrian entrance
and primary windows adjacent to the sidewalk, while keeping parking and utility areas behind.
Signage shown -on the project plans is moderate in quantity and externally illuminated. Three wall
signs are shown, two of which have fairly unique and specific designs. Existing utility poles and
wires currently located above the abutting Sepulveda sidewalk shall be undergrounded. The project
now includes a driveway access and deceleration lane from Sepulveda Boulevard, as encouraged in
the guidelines. The submitted plans also call for points of reciprocal vehicle access along the north
wall of the building to allow possible sharing of driveways when the neighboring parcel is
redeveloped. This provision is also encouraged by the Sepulveda guidelines to reduce curb cuts on
the highway and improve on-site commercial circulation.
4
•
•
•
•
•
1[
It should be noted that the neighboring medical office site south of the project had dedicated
property for the installation of a new traffic lane in the mid 1980's. Subsequently caltrans and the
city have determined that a full lane widening to Sepulveda is not anticipated. Such dedications
have therefore not been required for more recent projects or promoted by the Sepulveda
development guidelines. The existing dedication at the neighboring property may be improved or
vacated at a later dato.
Parking:
The project requires 202 parking spaces, which reflects a ratio of one space per 300 square feet of
general office area and one space per 75 square feet of restaurant area. The project's passenger
car parking is enclosed within the building at or below street grades. The current proposal
includes 4 full levels of parking underground for a total of 368 spaces. This amount far exceeds
the code requirement and the applicant's 270 space estimate (attached) of parking necessary for
its employees. Staff suggests that a condition be imposed requiring a minimum of 270 parking
spaces be required upon any approval -in the- case that the applicant chooses not to construct all
planned parking levels. This would address concerns for heavy general office parking use, and
the possibility of some medical office tenants in the future.
A loading area for two mid-size trucks is required and provided in an unenclosed area at the
southeast corner of the building accessed from Kuhn Drive and exiting onto Longfellow Drive. A
10 -foot densely landscaped planter is provided to visually buffer this area from Kuhn Drive and
the residential area beyond. The one-way loading traffic pattern is an improvement upon the
previous design by simplifying truck movements and directing them away from residential
neighbors.
Restaurant Use:
The proposed cafe appears to be oriented toward serving on-site employees rather than a typical
restaurant use. The small size (1,001 square feet) and low -prominence location (below street
grade, away from main entry) result in an incidental restaurant operation that would have little
effect upon the surrounding area.
Congestion Management Program:
The Los Angeles County Congestion Management . Program (CMP) is a set of regulations •
requiring cities to provide improvements to countywide traffic conditions in correlation with the
amount of new development that occurs within a city. The city must complete an annual audit
comparing new development with city improvements to the circulation system. Recent projects
representing net increases in development have been broadly conditioned to assist in maintaining
city compliance with this program. This project approximately doubles the amount of existing
development credit for the site, therefore, a similar condition is included in the project resolution.
5
•
• 1
In this case, the project is located on Sepulveda Boulevard, which is one of the designated CMP
roadways. The proposed deceleration lane is expected to provide the credits necessary to offset
the debits created by the new development. Staff suggests that any project approval include a
requirement that a CMP deficit not result from the project.
Privacy:
Some residential neighbors expressed concerns with the previously submitted project that their
privacy would be lost since the upper level of the office building would have windows facing
toward the easterly residential area. The separation buffer that is provided by Kuhn Drive located
between the project and the nearest residential Staffrties is would recommend that specific attention be
eneficial in this respect compared to
many other commercial/residential boundaries.
required for tree placement at the rear of the project during plan check and construction to address
these concerns.
Lighting:
The facade of the office space facing the easterly residential properties will have a substantial
amount of glass, which will allow some interior (indirect) light to be visible to those neighbors.
This would be characteristic of most office building designs, however, staff would suggest that a
condition be imposed that limits such light by specific design, timing devices, and other available
technology.
Neighbor Comments: Staff has received no written responses to the project hearing notice. The
applicant conducted a noticed neighborhood meeting to present the project to interested neighbors,
which did not identify any project opposition. The City of Hermosa Beach was provided project
notice and plans and no comments have been received.
REQUIRED FINDINGS
In order to approve the requested use permit, findings must be made that the project: is consistent
with the zoning code and General Plan, will not be detrimental to the city or surrounding area,
and will not adversely impact or be impacted by nearby properties. These findings might be made
as follows:
• The proposed plans conform with the zoning code as reviewed and detailed in the project
staff report, and the General Plan encourages private investment in the city's commercial
areas, and encourages the use of landscaping, notches, and architectural details as provided in
this project.
• The project is in compliance with all regulations, improves existing parking and circulation
design, and provides desirable aesthetic enhancements.
6
•
•
•
•
• The project shall prevent adverse impacts to surrounding properties by including an aesthetic
rear -facing design, use of trees to protect privacy, prohibition of off-site parking, and
prohibition of eastward exiting vehicles.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the Manhattan Beach CEQA
Guidelines, the attached initial study has been prepared for the subject project, which determines
that the project will not have any significant impacts upon the environment with appropriate
conditions and mitigation, and that a negative declaration could be filed. The most sensitive
environmental issue related to this project is traffic, therefore, the submitted traffic analysis was
required. This analysis and the city traffic engineer's review of the project determined that a
significant impact would not occur based on accepted thresholds of significance. Since no
significant impacts are anticipated, an Environmental Impact Report is not required.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing, consider the
information presented, and direct staff as determined to be appropriate.
Attachments:
A. Site Location Map
C. Applicant description and info.
D. City Council Minutes excerpt, dated 11/21/00
E. Sepulveda Guidelines excerpt
- F. Traffic Analysis _.
G. CEQA Initial Study
Plans (separate)
cc: Skechers USA, Applicant
Pat Killen, Project Architect
•
Vicinity Map
330 Sepulveda Blvd.
•
•
PROJECT DESCRIPTION •
OWNER: SKECHERS, USA
PROJECT ADDRESS: 330 SOUTH SEPULVEDA MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOTS 8, 9, 10, 11 AND 12, TRACT 14274, M.B. 312-8-9
OCCUPANCY:
2
CONSTRUCTION:
ZONING :
SCOPE OF WORK:
ZONING ANALYSIS:
B / S3
Type II - 1 HOUR
CG / AREA DISTRICT 1
NEW THREE STORY OFFICE BUILDING WITH FOUR LEVEL
SUBTERRANEAN PARKING GARAGE
PROJECT TOTALS
LOT AREA:
TOTAL PROPOSED BLDG.FLOOR AREA:
ALLOWABLE OFFICE FLOOR AREA:(LOT AREA (38,099) x 1.5]
FLOOR AREAS
FIRST LEVEL SUBTERRANEAN PARKING AREA:
SECOND LEVEL SUBTERRANEAN PARKING AREA:
THIRD LEVEL SUBTERRANEAN PARKING AREA:
FOURTH LEVEL SUBTERRANEAN PARKING AREA:
GROUND FLOOR PARKING AREA:
GROUND FLOOR ENTRY AREA:
GROUND FLOOR CAFE AREA:
GROUND FLOOR OFFICE AREA:
SECOND FLOOR OFFICE AREA:
SECOND FLOOR COURTYARD AREA:
THIRD FLOOR OFFICE AREA:
TOTAL PROPOSED PARKING AREA:
TOTAL PROPOSED OFFICE AREA:
TOTAL PROPOSED COURTYARD AREA:
PARKING REQUIREMENTS
CODE REQUIREMENT - —
OFFICE AREA
SPACES REQUIRED (55,119.9 SF DIVIDED BY 300)
CAFE AREA
SPACES REQUIRED (1,001.3 SF DIVIDED BY 75)
TOTAL PARKING SPACES REQUIRED
TOTAL PARKING SPACES PROVIDED
STANDARD REQUIRED (198 x 80%)
STANDARD PROVIDED
HANDICAPPED REQUIRED
HANDICAPPED PROVIDED
LANDSCAPED AREA
LANDSCAPE AREA PROVIDED
4,754.5 SF DIVIDED BY 38,099.0 SF_ .
HEIGHT LIMIT:
108.20
99.98
102.55
+ 110.12
420.85
I(
38,099.0 SQ. FT.
57,140.0 SQ. FT.
57,148.5 SQ. FT.
32,389.5 SQ. FT.
32,389.5 SQ. FT.
32,389.5 SQ. FT.
32,389.5 SQ. FT.
17,781.2 SQ. FT.
2276.4 SQ. FT.
1,001.3 SQ. FT.
3,617.9 SQ. FT.
22,363.0 SQ. FT.
2,122.5 SQ. FT.
27,881.4 SQ. FT.
147,339.2 SO. FT.
57,140.0 SQ. FT.
2,122.4 SO. FT.
1 PER 300 SO. FT.
188 SPACES
1 PER 75 SQ. FT.
14 SPACES
202 SPACES
368 SPACES
158. SPACES
220 SPACES
8 SPACES
8 SPACES
4,754.5 SO. FT.
12.5 % OF LOT AREA
420.85 / 4 = 105.21
+ 30.00
135.21 (MAX. HEIGHT LIMIT)
• • 1
11
•
REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER 10.84.060
1. THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE USE IS IN ACCORD WITH THE
OBJECTIVES OF THIS TITLE AND THE PURPOSES OF THE DISTRICT IN
WHICH THE SITE IS LOCATED.
The project is located in Area District I with a zone designation of General
Commercial. The proposed 3 story office building has been designed to meet all
of the development standards for the area district and the zone classification. A
Conditional Use Permit is required due to the size of the property.
2. THE PROPOCHD WOULD BECATION 0F THE USE AND THE 0 FRAYED OR MAINTAINED WILL
CONDITIONSN
UNDER
E
CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN;
The Land Use Element of General Plan for the subject location is General
Commercial which encourages the placement of more intense types of
commercial activities on arterial streets. Goal 5 states that the City should
"Encourage high quality, appropriate private investment in commercial areas of
Manhattan Beach." Policy 5.1 states "The City recognizes the need for a variety
of commercial development types and has designated areas appropriate for
each. The City shall encourage development proposals which meet the intent of
these designations."
WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR
WELFARE OF PERSONS RESIDING OR WORKING IN OR ADJACENT TO
THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF SUCH USE;
The proposed project is for office use with a small cafe which is intended to serve
primarily the tenants of the office building. Pedestrian entry is provided on the
Sepulveda Blvd. frontage. Vehicular access to the parking garage is from
Sepulveda Blvd. and Longfellow both of which are oriented away from the single-
family residential neighborhood to the east which is separated from the subject
property by Kuhn Drive, a 50' wide local street. The project as designed and its
intended use is consistent with Policy 5.2 of the General Plan which requires
adequate separation and buffering from low density residential neighborhoods.
1
•
AND WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO PROPERTIES OR IMPROVEMENTS IN
THE VICINITY OR TO THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITY;
1
The proposed project is replacing a former auto dealership, a mixed use retail
center, and a restaurant most of which use Kuhn Drive for access to their parking
lots. The proposed office use is one of the least intensive uses permitted in this
zone classification. It will be oriented toward Sepulveda Blvd. with no vehicular
access from Kuhn Drive with the exception of the loading zone. Though larger in
overall size, the proposed use will have less impact on the residential
neighborhood than the current uses.
3. THE PROPOSED USE WILL COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS TITLE,
INCLUDING ANY SPECIFIC CONDITION REQUIRFED FOR THE PROPOSED
USE IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH IT WOULD BE LOCATED;
The proposed project as designed is consistent with all of the zoning standards
within Title 10.
4. THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT NOR BE ADVERSELY
IMPACTED BY NEARBY PROPERTIES. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ARE RELATED
BUT NOT NECESSARILY LIMITED TO: TRAFFIC, PARKING, NOISE, VIBRATION,
ODORS, RESIDENT SECURITY AND PERSONAL SAFETY, AND AESTHETICS,
OR CREATE DEMANDS EXCEEDING THE CAPACITY OF PUBLIC SERVICES
AND FACILITIES WHICH CANNOT BE MITIGATED.
The proposed project will not generate any adverse impacts for the reasons
stated above. In addition, as the proposed use is one which is permitted by the
General Plan, the capacity of public services and facilities has already been
determined to be adequate when the Plan was adopted. Through the use of the
Conditional Permit review, the Commission can adopt conditions which may
offset any perceived impacts by the residential community.
2
I(
December 21, 2001
Mr. Richard Thompson
Community Development Director,
City of Manhattan Beach
1400 Highland Avenue
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Re: SKECHERS Corporate Office Building
330 S. Sepulveda Boulevard
Manhattan Beach, CA
Dear Sir:
In response to a request from the Manhattan Beach Planning Division, I am
writing a brief explanation of the reason for the additional parking at the proposed project
at the above referenced property. Of the 368 parking spaces proposed, SKECHERS
anticipates the daily use of approximately 270 spaces by its employees.
SKECHERS as you may know is a wholesale and retail shoe company with
offices and stores throughout the world. The corporate headquarters of the Company is
in Manhattan Beach, California. The proposed use of this new project will enable the
company to house both our executive offices as well as our design staff. Part of the
process of designing a shoe line, much like fashion design, is to preview new product
lines as they are created. Typically, we invite buyers and representatives from major
department stores and retail chains to our facility to preview those newly created
products. Product lines and new designs are created and reviewed several times a
year, and we believe it_is_important to our company to minimize a buyer's distraction by
eliminating the need for them to search for parking. Presently these shows take place at
our downtown office facility where parking is inherently a problem.
SKECHERS has been located in the city of Manhattan Beach from the
company's inception and we look forward to the creation of this wonderful new facility,
which will enable our employees to remain.
-.
Pee' Mow
Vi e President of Real Estate
and Construction
ours,
•
•
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
•
Page 1 of
00/1003.15-18 Appeal of a Use Permit for the Construction of a 3 -Story Commercial Building a
Cafe and Subterranean Parking at 330 South Sepulveda Boulevard (Sepulveda
Investments LLC)(PC Approved. Reso. PC 00-31)
Associate Planner Eric Haaland addressed Council regarding the appeal of a use permit for a 3 -story
commercial building located at 330 South Sepulveda Boulevard. He explained, through a PowerPoint
presentation, that the proposed building: would take the place of three existing buildings (to be
demolished); the building would have -its primary driveway access on Longfellow; a separate loading
area in the rear on Kuhn Drive; and pedestrian entry on Sepulveda. He further specified that the
building would contain three levels of offices, a cafe and an interior courtyard.
Associate Planner Haaland advised Council that the major concerns of the neighbors are building bulk,
traffic and privacy. He compared the proposed building to similar size buildings in the surrounding area
confirming that it falls within the bulk/density ratio required by the City and the primary roof line is
actually 2 feet below the height limit. In regards to traffic concerns, Associate Planner Haaland stated
that both the City's Traffic Engineer and the applicant's Traffic Analyst concurred that the project
would not generate a significant amount of traffic overall. As for privacy of the neighbors, Associate
Planner Haaland informed Council that additional landscaping with attention to trees at the rear of the
complex would be added and the overall landscaping of the project exceeds the minimum by 100%.
Associate Planner Haaland reported that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was not required. The
most sensitive environmental issue related to the project was traffic and it was determined that no
significant impacts would occur.
Council held extensive discussion with Associate Planner Haaland and Traffic Engineer Richard
Garland regarding managing incoming and outgoing traffic and parking at the proposed project site.
According to Traffic Engineer Garland, the wait time for the light at the subject corner may last up to
three minutes and up to ten cars should be able to pass through per light at peak hours. Alternatives
such as a forced right turn when coming out of the Longfellow driveway and adding a right -only turn
lane to the Longfellow intersection, or moving the driveway to Sepulveda and adding a turn pocket were
discussed. Council also discussed the possibility of eliminating parking on the South side of Longfellow
thereby adding an additional lane that could be used for traffic going southbound on Sepulveda.
Patrick Killen, Project Architect, spoke on behalf of the applicants. He explained that the applicants
paid top dollar for this location and chose it because of the grade of the site. He further explained -that
the proposed building would have that Manhattan Beach character with green glass, vertical
landscaping, palm trees, trellises, canopies and a fresh air atrium.
Mr. Killen communicated his awareness that the primary concern of the project is the accessibility of the ,
building. Consequently, he stated that thirty-one visitor -parking spaces have been provided at ground
level for easy access and street parking on Sepulveda would be discouraged. He further stated that in
the packet addendum dated November 14, 2000, the left hand turns out of the parking structure would be
discouraged by the use of a 30 -degree turning angle to discourage outbound traffic from going through
residential areas.
Relating to other concerns Mr. Killen affirmed to Council that: except for the canopies and utility
cylinder, the building is two feet under the maximum allowable height; that the proposed project has
double the necessary landscaping; that the mechanical well will be placed next to the car wash, away
from neighbors; and that the trees high enough to block the view of neighbors will be put into place.
In response to Council's inquiry regarding the second business that would occupy the building, Mr.
Killen answered that it is a high tech broadband communication business.
http://public.cmb.com/agenda/2000/Ag-Min20001219/20001205-3-2.html 12/27/2001
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEe
•
For clarification sake, Mr. Killen stated that the site is currently underutilized and slated
and an office building of this type is the most benign commercial development to
residential area.
Page 2 of 5
11
for demolition
put next to a
RECESS AND RECONVENE
T- he Council recessed at 8:08 p.m. and reconvened at 8:22 p.m. with all members present.
Mayor Lilligren opened the Public Hearing at 8:23 p.m.
Chuck Liamb, Chabella Drive, commented that he felt the building was beautiful but too large and felt
that the traffic report was flawed.
Cheryle Smith, no address provided, explained that she lives one block away from the proposed site
and voiced her concern that the project is to big for the area and the surrounding streets will not be able
to handle the traffic. Also, according to her calculations, with the amount of cars that will be exiting the
parking structure, the calculations given earlier by the Traffic Engineer are an impossibility.
James Deutsch, 30th Street, Hermosa Beach, expressed his concern that the increased traffic would
drive west down Longfellow where there is a nursery school. He also stated that with the possibility of
South Bay BMW moving to Torrance or staying and expanding, there may be an even greater traffic
problem to come.
Bill Bahr, 1161 Duncan Drive, remarked that the traffic on Kuhn Drive is heavy now and the streets
are very narrow and dangerous.
Robert McIntyre, no address provided, stated that where h t land ,th onew northeast
developmentf the
proposed
wobui make
the ststreets curve and there are only 2 ways to get in and o
matters even worse.
Chris Howell, 30th Street, Hermosa Beach, urged Council to move the parking entrance to Kuhn
which would disburse traffic to either Sepulveda or Longfellow because Longfellow in Hermosa Beach
is the narrowest street in the area but is used more frequently because it has a traffic signal.
Joe Devine, 340 Kuhn, acknowledged that several things have been overlooked such as: the current
underuse of the Friendly Hills parking garage; the car wash south of Sepulveda; and the fact that visitors
will have to pay to park in the garage which will discourage people from parking inside the complex.
Irene Niemczycki, 1200 Keats Street, urged Council to opposepthe
ite project based on yaproble the
additional
also
amount of traffic that would cut through residential streets
referred to a petition that was submitted and studied by the City that would be heard next Wednesday at
the Parking and Public Improvements Commission meeting.
Pat Carney, 1161 Ronda Drive, expressed his disbelief that this project would supposedly not increase
traffic substantially. He asked that Council govern for the benefit of the citizens and consider the
Max Van Orden, 1131 Ronda Drive, voiced his concern regarding the project because of the trafficneighbors.
lained
to
problems it would add to the already major traffic problems that face stexpt because •
Council that he will not let his children walk home from school or ride their bikes on the
the area is a hazard to kids.
1
• i
•
1,m, • ih„ihlic_cmb.com/agenda/2000/Ag-Min20001219/20001205-3-2.htm1
12/27/2001
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH Page .3 of
•
•
It
Robert Lenker, Duncan Drive, recognized that Council had addressed some of the issues that would
impact 2nd Street, in regards to this project, but reemphasized that the impact would be tremendous. He
also brought it to Council's attention that while viewing some of the slides he noticed that Kuhn was
parked solid because employees of the medical center, car wash and other businesses fill Kuhn every
day.
Esther Besbris, 2nd Street, said that while she understands the impact of the surrounding
neighborhood, she believes it is inevitable that traffic wanting to go east will go back to 2nd Street. She
also referred to an article in the Times regarding the slow pace of commercial development in Santa
Monica and reduction in size of commercial developments there.
Dave Cross, Manhattan Beach, stated that it would be in everybody's best interest to get traffic on and
off of Sepulveda and provided his own data to Council regarding how many employees of neighboring
businesses use Pacific Coast Highway and how many come through residential neighborhoods to get to
work.
Don McPherson, 1014 1st Street, read a letter submitted to Council (for the record) requesting Council
to deny the project because of the adverse traffic and bulk impacts it would impose on the surrounding
area.
Robert Woodie, 1210 Keats, stated that the area has a serious traffic problem now and is concerned
that this project will make it even worse.
Mike Zarrow, no address given, expressed his concern and asked Council to consider alternatives
because he does not believe the traffic problem was significantly studied.
Vern Benson, 1155 Longfellow Drive, explained that in his 45 years in Manhattan Beach he had never
had an occasion to address Council but would like to strongly suggest that Council deny this project. He
stated that a little more traffic will make the area a whole lot worse and if people can't access the
parking they will find somewhere in the neighborhood to park.
Marjorie Bahr, Duncan Drive, expressed her opinion that the building is very attractive but too big for
the area and referred to the large number of cars from the car wash parked on Duncan and Kuhn.
Viet Ngo, Manhattan Beach resident, read aloud from a document from the City Attorney dated
January 7, 2000, regarding guidelines for the City Council to make decisions and approve land use
permits. He claimed that the City's General Plan, in regards to the housing element, has not been
updated and a review of the City's fair share of affordable housing could prevent the City from making
decisions regarding land use permits.
Lew Murez, 1140 Keats, echoed the sentiments of others believing that the project should be scaled
back and that commuter traffic going through the neighborhood will be even worse with the parking
issues mentioned.
http://public.cmb.com/agenda/2000/Ag-Min20001219/20001205-3-2.html 12/27/2001
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEoH
Page 4 of 5
I(
Bill Eisen, Spokesperson for Resident's for a Quality City, remarked that this project is not consistent
with the City's General Plan and does not comply with the small town atmosphere. He made a
comparison of traffic to that on Rosecranhone number to Residents for a Quality Cs when employees leave their office dty•gs and how traffic
comes to a halt. Mr. Eisen gave out the p
Dorothy Morski, 2nd Street, stated that in her first week in Manhattan Beach, zigzag lines were placed
on her street and she is sad to think that now there will be an increased element of traffic. She also did
not agree with how the Traffic Engineer calculated the threshold of cars.
Bill Horsfahl, Resident of Longfellow, indicated that the traffic light on Longfellow will sometimes
stay red for 5 minutes and that hhow
revamping and a new traffic study be co.
ect Beds
forward. He suggested that the project be sent back for
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tern Dougher and seconded by Councilmember Fahey to close the
Public Hearing. Hearing no objection, the Public Hearing was closed at 9:20 p.m.
Mayor Lilligren reopened the public hearing for a rebuttal from the applicant.
Mr. Patrick Killen admitted that he is not disputing the fact that this building would impact the
neighborhood but he and the applicant felt that what they had proposed was the best possible solution.
He explained that they chose to put the parking entrance on Longfellow where there is a signal and the
traffic could be controlled, as opposed to Kuhn, where there is a car wash.
Mr. Killen further explained that although the study on occupancy levels of the 225 South Sepulveda
building was done while many of the units were under construction, there were more cars than normal
due to all of the contractors.
Mr. Killen also informed Councilthat the Title Company is& working with the Escrow Company to bond
around the City's covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs).
Council held discussion with Mr. Killen regarding traffic flow in and out of the building including the
neighboring high tech company and its employees and possible solutions.
•
Mayor Lilligren closed the Public Hearing at 9:32 p.m.
Mayor Pro Tern Dougher voiced his concern regarding the traffic study indicating that it was flawed or
at least suspect and that he was not prepared to go ahead with the project until he could see a better
plan.
Councilmember Fahey concurred with Mayor Pro Tem Dougherstating
at while
she agt ees the area
neighborhood
needs revitalization she was not prepared to go forward at this time because
the aJ e
is already plagued with traffic problems and she sees no benefit to Manhattan Beach residents.
Councilmember Napolitano commented that he had many concerns regarding this project such as: the.
size of the building; open space used in the interior of the -structure and bottlenecking at the intersection.
He would also like to see the parking entrance on
theySepulveda.
He e somehenhanged that he would like to
send the project back to the developer and Y
s.
Councilmember Wilson agreed that the building is oversized and she had concerns regarding traffic, but
also agreed with Councilmember Fahey that she would like to see the site redeveloped. She also
reemphasized Mr. Killen's comment to the public that an office building is more benign than some other
http://public.cmb.com/agenda/2000/Ag-Min20001219/20001205-3-2.htm1
12/27/2001
•
•
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
proposed project.
Mayor Lilligren added that he would like to see open space on the outside rather the interior courtyard of
the building to relieve some of the bulk. In addition, he stated that he would like the architect to go back
and make some changes and would not be in favor of approving the project tonight.
Mr. Patrick Killen responded that he would revise the project based on the Council's comments for
further consideration bq the Planning. Commission at one of its future meetings.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Dougher moved to refer the project back to the Planning Commission for a
re -noticed public hearing to consider revised plans for the subject use permit for the construction of a 3-
sto commercial office buildin: at 330 South Se.ulveda Boulevard. The motion was seconded b
Councilmember Fahey and passed by a unanimous roll call vote as follows:
Ayes: Wilson, Dougher, Fahey, Napolitano and Mayor Lilligren.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Abstain: None.
Page 5 of 5
I I
http://public.cmb.com/agenda/2000/Ag-Min20001219/20001205-3-2.html 12/27/2001
• •
Sepulveda Boulevard ]Development Guidelines
I I
•
Reciprocal Access
Reciprocal vehicle access should be provided between neighboring sites
within the same block. This makes it possible to consolidate redundant curb
cuts and provide continuous circulation throughout each commercial block.
Reducing excessive numbers of curb cuts, while providing more access
alternatives for each site, improves safety, circulation, attua tiv Requirements for the
enesd, and
ercial
loc
reciprocal parking efficiency on and
around
access aremsometbmesk imposed on projects.
provision of future pro alother
Whether such access actually occurs
hbo ependshe n TThee, design, photographdbelow
characteristics of the future neighboring project.
shows an example of neighboring parking Tots joined with reciprocal access.
Reciprocal Access Example
Sepulveda Blvd
Providing access between parking lots
allows two curb cuts to be removed and
allows access to each site .from three
different streets.
•
Right -turn pockets
A right -turn deceleration pocket (and bus turnout when applicable) should be
provided at the primary vehicle access point for each block from Sepulveda
Boulevard to improve safety and circulation. Unusually long block faces
should have multiple right -turn pockets. The appropriateness of requiring
right -turn pockets will be reviewed individually foreach project. The
photograph below shows an existing right -turn pocket/bus turn -out.
Right -Turn Pocket Example
Sepulveda Blvd
Providing right -turn pocket for
Sepulveda driveway allows cars to .
slow down safely before turning into
site without slowing down traffic on
street
Driveway Throats
Driveways accessing Sepulveda Boulevard should be provided with a
protected "throat" area near the street without intersecting driveways and
parking spaces to avoid potential vehicle movement conflicts where cars are
entering a site.
Driveway Throat Example
II IIII IIIIIIII1II
throat=
Sepulveda Blvd
A protected throat area adjacent to the
Sepulveda entrance provides a safety
buffer between on-site traffic and,
traffic entering the site from the street
Sidewalk Dedication
On the west side of Sepulveda Boulevard, a 4 foot public sidewalk dedication
or easement should be provided for properties that have not already done so.
The additional 4'feet is to supplement the original 3 foot public sidewalk
width typically along the west side to achieve a minimum 7 foot wide public
sidewalk. No sidewalk dedication is presently needed on the east side of the
street The photograph below illustrates sidewalk conditions on the west side
of Sepulveda from right to left: 3 foot original public sidewalk, 4 foot sidewalk
dedication, and 10 foot building setback (measured from original property
line).
Site which
previously
dedicated 4'
Original P/L
LY£°A
Site which
hasn't yet
dedicated
IZA .Y44
!✓Y-'vi3
•
Building Orientation
Buildings, storefronts, and windows should be oriented toward Sepulveda
Boulevard when possible. Site and building designs that focus on, and
directly relate to the street create a more attractive, comfortable, and
interesting environment for the Boulevard. The photograph below shows a
building with windows and entries oriented toward the street.
Visual Aesthetics
Visually Tess desirable elements such as. Targe parking areas, parking
structures, vehicle service areas, blank walls, storage areas, and trash areas.
should be hidden, or less prominent as viewed from Sepulveda Boulevard.
The photograph below shows a site design with a building located in front to
partially hide parking and service facilities
Residential Nuisances
Extreme noise, and odor generating activities near residential boundaries
should be avoided.
�ku
r—
i
Pedestrian Access
Safe pedestrian access to buildings should be provided through parking Tots,
particularly from public sidewalks. The photo below shows a pedestrian path
to Sepulveda from a building otherwise oriented toward a parking lot.
2
Landscaping
Required landscaping should be enhanced/supplemented as follows:
1. Install landscaping in areas that would otherwise be unused pavement.
2. Use landscape planters and other decorative treatments around
buildings to avoid direct building-to-asphalt/concrete contact areas.
. Provide tree -lined landscape buffers in parking Tots along residential
boundaries.
Landscaping Example
r\
Planter
In
unused
space
Res. landscape buffer
Building pester at base of
building
rzt
Signs
Signs and sign copy should be compatible with their related buildings, and
not be crowded within their locations or backgrounds. Harsh plastic or
illuminated backgrounds should be avoided. The photo below shows
appropriate use of wall and monument signs.
Sign Example
SHOP
Sign crowded
within background
Shop
Sign compatible with
building and location
•
1(
Utility Undergrounding
It is the City's desire to underground the utilities along Sepulveda Boulevard
to enhance its appearance. The primary visible existing overhead facilities
are located at curb along the east side of the street. Major projects should
'underground' adjacent utilities. The photograph below shows a location
where utilities have been undergrounded in the foreground, and remain
overhead in the background.
•
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
MEMORANDUM
TO: Eric Haaland, Associate Planner
FROM: Richard Garland, Traffic Engineer
DATE: December 28, 2001
SUBJECT: Proposed Sketchers Office Building
330 South Sepulveda Boulevard
I have reviewed the traffic impact analysis that was prepared for the Sketchers office
building proposed at 330 Sepulveda Boulevard and submit the following comments.
• I agree with the finding that Longfellow Drive should be widened along the project
frontage east of Sepulveda so that an additional lane can be provided in the
westbound direction. I do not, however, think that three westbound lanes are needed.
The traffic report recommends that a left -turn, through, and right -turn lane should be
provided on Longfellow. I think that a combination through/left-turn lane and a right -
turn lane would be sufficient, particularly since there are only 16 vehicles per hour
traveling straight through the intersection. If two westbound lanes were to be
provided instead of three, only the north side of Longfellow would need to be
widened (the report recommends widening on both the north and south sides).
• I agree with the finding that the traffic signal at the intersection of Sepulveda
Boulevard and Longfellow Drive should be modified to provide a southbound left -
turn phase (left -turn arrow) and that the U-turn prohibition should be eliminated.
This would require Caltrans approval.
• Lh raffic-study does riot addre-sthe issue of increased traffic volumes on the y
residential streets.east.of.the_project site; i.e., Longfellow, Kuhn, Chabela,Keats, and
(Prospect.) The project would result in an increase in traffic volumes on these streets
as some of the employees and visitors of the new office building would use these
streets as an access route. I estimate that from 10 to 15 percent of the project -
generated traffic would use these streets. This equates to approximately 85 to 130
trips per -day, 12 to 18 trips during the morning peak hour, and 14 to 21 trips during
the afternoon peak hour.
• With regard to the proposed acceleration/deceleration lane on Sepulveda Boulevard
north and south of the site access driveway, I support the idea of a deceleration/right-
turn lane south of the driveway as it would provide the opportunity for motorists to
move their vehicles out of the through travel lanes of Sepulveda while slowing down
to turn right into -the driveway: I- do not, -however, supportt the idea of providing an - -- ---
acceleration lane north of the driveway, primarily because drivers who would be
stopped at the driveway to exit onto Sepulveda could not see the oncoming
northbound traffic on Sepulveda. Also, there is not enough length for the acceleration
lane to be used properly. I suggest that the acceleration lane be eliminated.
•
• 1
• With regard to the alternative scenarios relative to the operation of the Longfellow
Drive driveway, it would be preferable to allow the driveway to have ingress and
egress movements instead of just egress movements. This would provide more
options and flexibility for drivers and thereby reduce the concentration of traffic at
the Sepulveda Boulevard driveway. It would also reduce the number of U-turns at
the. Sepulveda/Longfellow intersection.
2
•
•
•
• tAKUASSOCIATES
A Corporation
Transportation Planning
Traffic Engineering
Parking Studies
memorandum
TO: Pat Killen
FROM: Ron Hirsch
SUBJECT: Preliminary Traffic Impact Analysis
Skechers USA Office Building
330 South Sepulveda Boulevard
Manhattan Beach, Califomia
l(
DATE: November 1, 2001 REF: 1457
Kaku Associates, Inc. has completed a preliminary traffic impact analysis of the proposed
Skechers USA office building in the City of Manhattan Beach, Califomia. This memorandum
summarizes the assumptions, methodologies and results of the analysis, and provides the
supporting documentation.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The site of the proposed project is located at 330 South Sepulveda Boulevard in the City of
Manhattan Beach, at the northeast corner of Sepulveda Boulevard and Longfellow Drive, as
shown in Figure 1. The proposed development project involves the demolition of several existing
but currently vacant structures, and the construction of a new two to three story, approximately
56,121 square foot office building over the entire site. The project will provide four levels of
parking beneath the building, totaling 368 spaces.
Access to the project parking structure is proposed via two driveway locations, although two
altemative access schemes are possible. The first alternative, which is the preferred access
1453 Third Street. Suite 400
Santa Monica. CA 90401
(310) 458-9916 Fax (310) 394-7663
-ST
4
. n. to .�( r - t---— N Hs
4 a� ( b) 915TH
J =1 3 (" ST
o =
14111
11
CURTIS
-virr
,— iar;m scn�E
KAKU ASSOCIATES
FIGURE 1
PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP
•
•
•
•
• •
Pat Killen
November 1, 2001
Page 3
plan, will provide a driveway on Sepulveda Boulevard, approximately 180 feet north of
Longfellow Drive. Que to the raised median island on. Sepulveda Boulevard, this driveway will
operate as a right -turn in/right-turn out access. A new acceleration/deceleration lane along the
project frontage of Sepulveda Boulevard will be constructed to enhance driveway access to and
from Sepulveda Boulevard traffic. A second driveway will be provided on Longfellow Drive,
approximately 100 feet east of Sepulveda Boulevard.
Under the proposed access Alternative 1, the_Lo gfellow-Drive-driveway-would-provide both?
ry and' -exit to the on-site_parking structure, .although, -through _signage and/or possible,
physis esign features, exiting traffic_would_be-limited to right -turns only. An additional
service driveway will be provided as well, with entry -only access from Kuhn Drive and right -tum
exits onto Longfellow Drive, near the eastern edge of the project site. The preferred project
layout is shown in Figure 2.
Implementation of the preferred access scheme could involve the possible installation of a new
southbound left -turn phase, and removal of the existing prohibition of southbound U-turns at
Sepulveda Boulevard and Longfellow Drive, so that southbound Sepulveda Boulevard traffic
bound for the project site would be allowed to reverse direction and enter the new Sepulveda
Boulevard driveway. This signal modification would not be a prerequisite for access to the
preferred alternative, since entry access is provided at the Longfellow Drive driveway.
However, as discussed later in this document, the ability to make southbound U-turns at the
intersection is recommended to reduce the number of project -related trips on Longfellow Drive,
and address concerns regarding overall vehicular traffic levels and queuing on this local street.
Access Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative 1 in that it provides the same number of driveways
in the same locations. However, under this alternative, the Longfellow Drive parking structure
driveway would be limited to right -turn only exit movements. The proposed signal modifications
and' U-turns for southbound Sepulveda Boulevard would continue to be recommended; and in
fact would be required to allow southbound Sepulveda Boulevard project trips to access the
site, since no entry would be allowed on Longfellow Drive under this alternative.
•
•
•
•
KUHN DMC
..7(sry •!P• * t • .
S
s
•••••••..G
GE
0
0
111)
'tor
NM 1
• 11
.1
Hc •
'Ea
• NC
04.•••••0••••••••= A.) •
•••••
a"- • imr;',7..":"^". wrionarr.sil ram
1. - 1.111.121.619".
al MIN
la 1mum
!!!
••• Z=
U111
mmHg
MIN
..
NMI
1.01.0../11.6110 IOW
Lt
IIW.1111
Iffigra
/ It • • D • •-• ; u • i
•4 I
mmmmm !
rwrFAIitaiie, 1
IdI basil
fingT2-111-2-1111iiiint-'-'
.111111MMINEMMIRROMMEMEI
;"-.° -.ilaiw9L11117
at
° • gtV•krti141.
• 11-`1
•
111'
saw
0
gni
/ •
0 •
%mina
•mmois.:
/- •
•
u • Immo ,...--=-7Eirlimmitnhir
mmmmmm
imsiollftrionamokomitani-
r •
SEPULVE D A BOULEVARD'
Oil/ FIRST P1 OCOLPLAM
•
••••• 14/k• 11.0
•
• •
Pat Killen
November 1, 2001
Page 5
STUDY SCOPE
2
This preliminary traffic analysis is limited to an examination of the project's potential trip
generation and traffic impacts at the site -adjacent intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard and
Longfellow Drive. Both the moming and evening peak hours are examined in detail. Additionally,
project access concems such as on -street vehicle queues on westbound Longfellow Drive, which
could potentially disrupt site driveway access, are also examined. Further, the effects of the
recommended signal modifications at the intersection are also assessed.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
A detailed data collection effort was undertaken to develop a detailed description of the existing
operations of the study intersection, including roadway geometries and parking restrictions on
both Sepulveda Boulevard and Longfellow Drive, and the collection of new traffic count
information for both the AM and PM peak hours.
Fxisting Street System
Sepulveda Boulevard is a major north -south oriented arterial in the project area. It provides a total
of six through lanes, although on -street parking is permitted along both sides of the street during
certain times of the day, reducing the number of travel lanes. During the weekday AM peak
period (Monday_through Friday, 5:30 to 9:30 AM), on -street parking is permitted along southbound
Sepulveda Boulevard in the project vicinity, reducing the number of through travel lanes to two.
However, during this time period, parking is prohibited along northbound Sepulveda Boulevard,
allowing use of all three travel lanes. During the weekday PM peak period (Monday through
Friday, 3:00 to 7:00 PM) these conditions are reversed. In addition to the "through" lanes
described above, left -tum channelization✓ (tum pockets) are provided in both the north and -
southbound directions at Longfellow Drive.
• I
11
•
Pat Killen
November 1, 2001
Page 6
The intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard and Longfellow Drive is currently signalized, with a
standard two-phase2traffic-signal (all north -south traffic in one phase, including left -turns, and a
second phase allowing all east -west traffic moves). The signal is pre -timed and not actuated,
meaning that side street traffic must wait for the signal cycle to complete before east -west traffic is
allowed to proceed. Left -turns are allowed from Sepulveda Boulevard in both the north and
southbound directions, although no separate signal phase is provided for these moves. U-turns
are prohibited in both directions.
Longfellow Drive. is a short, local street, serving primarily residential uses. East of Sepulveda
Boulevard, the street is in the City of Manhattan Beach. The segment between Sepulveda
Boulevard and Kuhn Drive, along the project frontage, is approximately 36 feet wide, and provides
one unstriped travel lane in each direction. Parking is allowed on the south side of the street
along this section. West of Sepulveda Boulevard, the roadway changes names to Longfellow
Avenue and is within the City of Hermosa Beach. This segment is also approximately 36 feet
wide, but allows parking along both sides of the street.
Existing Traffic Volumes
Typical weekday morning and afternoon traffic volumes at the subject intersection were recently
counted t� determine the current traffic activity in the project vicinity. Sepulveda -Boulevard in the
vicinity of the project carries approximately 56,300 vehicles per day (vpd), with about 29,300 vpd
in the northbound direction and about 30,000 vpd in the southbound direction.
Unlike 'the daily traffic volumes described above, the peak hour traffic volumes on Sepulveda
Boulevard are highly directional, requiring the previously described on -street parking prohibitions
to provide sufficient capacities to accommodate the high volumes. The traffic data collected at the
_study intersection indicate a total of over 3,100 vehicles per hour (vph) northbound on Sepulveda
Boulevard during the morning peak hour (7:15 to 8:15 AM), versus approximately 900 vph in the
southbound direction. The PM peak hour (5:00 to 6:00 PM) directionalities are reversed, with over
3,000 vph southbound and only about 1,300 vph northbound.
•
•
•
• .
1 I
Pat Killen
November 1, 2001
Page 7
Traffic volumes on Longfellow Drive, east of Sepulveda Boulevard, are relatively low, and
reasonably constant during the peak hours, with about 70 to 80 vph westbound and about,60 vph
eastbound during each of the peak hours.
The AM and PM peak hour volumes at the study intersection are summarized in Figure 3. The
traffic count data sheets are attached for reference.
Fxisting 1 evels of Servirp
The peak hour traffic volumes described above and shown in Figure 3 were used to determine the
current operational characteristics for the study intersection. The "Intersection Capacity
Utilization" (ICU) methodology for signalized intersection analysis was used to determine the
intersection level of service (LOS), as preferred by the City of Manhattan Beach. LOS is a
quantitative measure used to describe the condition of traffic flows, ranging from excellent
conditions in LOS A to overloaded conditions at LOS F.
The ICU value is determined by calculating the volume -to -capacity ratio (v/c) for the "critical" lane
groups of the subject intersection, and adding a factor of 0.050 to the v/c ratio to account for such
factors as driver reaction/delay times and yellow signal phase time. Critical lane group are
determined by comparing the sum of the individual v/c calculations for "opposing" traffic moves at
an intersection, such as through traffic in one direction conflicting with or preventing left-tums from
the opposite direction. The highest sum of such opposing moves for each intersection approach
is considered the "critical" lane pair.
The resulting v/c value is assigned a corresponding level of service indicator based on the
relationship between v/c and LOS, as summarized in Table 1. Levels of service A through C are
considered to .reflect good operating conditions. Level of service_D is_generally considered the
highest acceptable operating condition, although in highly developed areas, LOS E is also
considered to provide adequate traffic flow during peak traffic periods.
•
AM
17_4
6 —►
35 —+
PM
Longfellow Dr
Longfellow Dr
11
•
HOT 70 SCALE
KAKU ASSOCIATES -" •
FIGURE 3
EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
TABLE 1
LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Level of _
Service
Volume/Capacity
Ratio (v/c)
Definition
A
< 0.600
.
EXCELLENT. No vehicle waits longer than one red
light, and no approach phase is fully used.
B
> 0.600 < 0.700
VERY GOOD. An occasional approach phase is
fully utilized; many drivers begin to feel somewhat
restricted within groups of vehicles.
C
> 0.700 < 0.800
GOOD. Occasionally drivers may have to wait
through more than one red light; backups may
develop behind tuming vehicles.
D
> 0.800 < 0.900
FAIR. Delays may be substantial during portions
of the rush hours, but enough lower volume periods
occur to permit clearing of developing lines,
preventing excessive backups.
E
> 0.900 < 1.000
POOR. Represents the most vehicles intersection
approaches can accommodate; may be long lines
of waiting vehicles through several signal cycles.
F
> 1.000
FAILURE. Backups from nearby locations or on
cross streets may restrict or prevent movement of
vehicles out of the intersectin approaches.
Tremendous delays with continuously increasing
queue lengths.
Source: Transportation Research Board, Circular No. 212, Interim Materials on Highway Capacity, 1980.
• •
Pat Killen
November 1, 2001
Page 10
1(
•
The existing AM and PM peak hour levels of service for the intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard
and Longfellow Drive are summarized in Table 2. These values -represent the highest overall
intersection traffic of the day, and are generally considered to be the most critical time periods for
traffic congestion.
TABLE 2
EXISTING (2001) INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS.
Sepulveda Blvd. and 0.773 C 0.763 C
Longfellow Drive
As shown in Table 2, the intersection currently operates at acceptable levels of service (LOS C or
better) during both the AM and PM peak hours.
PROJECT TRAFFIC
The development of the estimates for traffic generation for the proposed project involves the use
of a three step process, including estimates of peak hour traffic resulting from development of the
project, the identification of general traffic patterns and distributions for this traffic, and the
assignment of the project trips to specific travel routes to and from the site. These steps are
described in more detail in the following sections.
Project Trip Generation
The estimates of potential peak hour traffic generated by the project were developed based on trip
generation data for office projects contained in the 6th Edition of Trip Generation, published by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers. This manual provides data on average traffic generation
•
•
•
•
• •
Pat Killen
November 1, 2001
Page 11
characteristics of many different land uses, and is the current standard for developing trip
generation estimates. The trip generation rates:_ and equations used for this project are
summarized below.
General Office (ITF l and Use 710) — per 1,000 square feet
Daily Trips: Ln(T) = 0.768 Ln(A) + 3.654
AM Peak Hour Trips: Ln(T) = 0.797 Ln(A) + 1.558; I/B = 88%, 0/B = 12%
PM Peak Hour Trips: T = 1.121 (A) = 79.295; I/B = 17%, 0/B = 83%
As described previously, the proposed project consists of approximately 56,121 square feet of
office and support space. Using the trip generation rates and equations shown above, the
number of trips generated by the proposed project was estimated. The results are summarized in
Table 3. As shown in this table, the project is estimated to produce approximately 852 trips per
day, with about 118 of these trips occurring during the AM peak hour, and 142 of the trips
occurring during the' PM peak hour. No trip "credits" were assumed for the removal of the existing
uses on the project site, since they are currently vacant, and do not generate any traffic included
in the recent traffic counts.
TABLE 3
SKECHERS PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES
Size/Use
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily In Out Total In Out Total
56,121 sq. ft. Office 852 104 14 118 24 118 142
Project Trip Distribution
The next step was to determine the general geographic distribution of the traffic generated by the
project. These distribution percentages can be based on such factors as the potential residence
locations of employees and visitors to the site, the existing or future roadway and highway
network, current traffic levels, and observed travel patterns in the project vicinity. The general
• •
Pat Killen
November 1, 2001
Page 12
11
•4
geographic distributions•for the project are shown in the following table.
Project Geographic Distribution Percentages
Direction Percent
North 45%
South 30%
East 15%
West 10%
Total 100%
Prciect Traffic Assignment
Finally, the general geographic distributions shown in the preceding section were used to assign
the project trips to specific travel routes to and from the project site. These assignments were
based on the roadway network, and account for access factors such as driveway locations and
use, and street and highway tum restrictions. These trip assignments are shown in Figure 4.
As described earlier in this document, the project proposes two altemative access scenarios. The
project access routes for each -of these altematives are shown in Figure 5. Using these specific
travel patterns, the project -generated trips summarized in Table 3 were assigned to specific
moves through the study intersection. The AM and PM peak hour project traffic at Sepulveda
Boulevard and Longfellow Drive for Altemative 1 is shown in Figure 6, while the project trips for
Alternative 2 are shown in Figure 7.
WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
To estimate the traffic conditions following development of the project, the traffic volumes for each
of the two project access alternatives shown in Figures 6 and 7 were added to the existing traffic
volumes at the intersection, as shown previously in Figure 3. The resulting "With Project" traffic
projections for the Altemative 1 and Alternative 2 project conditions are shown in Figure 8 and
Figure 9, respectively. These traffic volumes form the basis for the evaluation of potential project
traffic impacts at the study location.
•
•
LC)
5%
2nd St
3%
Project
Site
Longfellow Dr
L10% Artesia BI
5%
0
NOT TO SCALE
KAKU AS SOC I AT ES —}
FIGURE 4
PROJECT DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGE
•
2
Longfellow Dr
Alternative 1 (Preferred Access)
Alternative 2
NOT TO SOkLE
KAKU ASSOCIATES
FIGURE 5
SITE ACCESS ALTERNATIVES
•
•
•
It
PM
Longfellow Dr
NOT TO SCA�
KAKU ASSOCIATES --
FIGURE
FIGURE 6
PROJECT INTERSECTION AND DRIVEWAY VOLUMES - ALTERNATIVE 1
11
AM
Duncan Av
c
t
c
PM
Longfellow Dr
FIGURE 7
•
NOT TO SCALE
KAKU ASSOCIATES -} .
PROJECT INTERSECTION AND DRIVEWAY VOLUMES - ALTERNATIVE 2
•
• • II
N 00 0-)
CO 00 CO
co
a)
57
.-8
X15
Longfellow Dr
114
9—►
18-►
t
rr) o (D
AM
m
'�— 50
16
f 78
Longfellow Dr
17
6-0-
35
t
LO
� oo
PM
NO TO SCALE
KAKU ASSOCIATES —}
FIGURE 8
WITH PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES - ALTERNATIVE 1
(SB U-TURNS; ENTRY/EXIT ON LONGFELLOW)
•
N N LC)
0000V)�
�1Ld
'_ 57
8
X15
Longfellow Dr
13 #
7—►
18
AM
Longfellow Dr
17 4
6—►
35
Lr) co
N�.
-PM
NOT TO SCALE
KAKU ASSOCIATES
FIGURE 9
WITH PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES - ALTERNATIVE 2
(SB U-TURNS; EXIT ONLY ON LONGFELLOW)
Pat Killen
November 1, 2001
Page 19
PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
3
The With Project traffic volumes shown in Figures 8 and 9 for the two project access alternatives
were analyzed using the same ICU methodologies and assumptions as described previously for
the existing conditions. The following sections describe the analysis criteria and results.
Significant Traffic Impact Criteria
The criteria used to determine the "significance" of traffic additions to the study intersection is
defined in the Los Angeles County Traffic Impact Analysis guidelines. This document identifies a
traffic impact, due to project -related traffic additions, as significant if it results in an increase of
0.020 or more when an intersection is operating at LOS D, or an increase of 0.010 or more in the
ICU value if the intersection is at LOS E or F.
With Proi ct TraffiConditions
The With Project traffic volumes were analyzed to determine the anticipated v/c ratio and LOS for
the intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard and Longfellow Drive following implementation of the
proposed Skechers project. These values were then compared against the existing, or without
project, conditions identified earlier in this report, to calculate the incremental project -related
changes in the v/c and determine the significance of the project's traffic impacts.
The results of the With Project analyses for both of the project altematives are summarized in
Table 4. As shown in this table, the intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard and Longfellow Drive is
forecast to operate at LOS D with the addition of project traffic, during both peak hours and under
both project access alternatives. Based on the significant impact criteria defined previously, both
project access alternatives would produce significant traffic impacts at the study intersection. The
supporting ICU calculations for the "With Project", as well as for the previously discussed
"Existing" conditions, are attached to this memorandum.
•
•
•
Pat Killen
November 1, 2001
Page 20
TABLE 4
INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
WITH PROJECT
Peak Existing
Intersection Hour ICU LOS
Sepulveda Blvd. AM 0.773 C
and Longfellow Dr. PM 0.763 C
Peak Existing
Intersection Hour ICU LOS
Sepulveda Blvd. AM 0.773 C
and Longfellow Dr. PM 0.763 C
MITIGATION
With Project Alternative 1
ICU LOS Impact Significant
0.823 D 0.050 YES
0.811 D 0.048 YES
With Project Alternative 2
ICU LOS Impact Significant
0.824 D
0.811 D
0.051 YES
0.048 YES
The results of the ICU analysis indicate that either of the two possible project access altematives
would produce a significant impact at the intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard and Longfellow
Drive. In order to address this potential impact, the intersection and its forecast operating
conditions were examined to identify possible measures that could be implemented to reduce or
eliminate the impact.
Previous discussions with City staffs and residents of the neighborhood to the east of the project
site have indicated that vehicular queuing has been an issue on the westbound approach of
Longfellow Drive. This approach provides only a single lane, and vehicles wishing to turn right
cannot do so if other vehicles ahead of them wish to proceed through or tum left. As vehicle
queuing could also become an issue for project access, as discussed later in this document,
Longfellow Drive was evaluated for potential solutions to both the project's significant impact, and
opportunities to address concems regarding local access.
• Longfellow Drive along the project frontage is currently dedicated to a width of 60 feet, with a
• •
1 1
Pat Killen
November 1, 2001
Page 21
roadway curb -to -curb width of approximately 36 feet. Parking is allowed along the south side of
the street between2 Sepulveda Boulevard and Kuhn Drive. Based on conversations with City
staffs, a reduction in the sidewalk width along the project frontage of Longfellow Drive from the
current 12 feet to eight feet is recommended. This reduction would allow for a four -foot widening
of Longfellow Drive. It is recommended that the same approach be applied to the southern side
of Longfellow Drive between Sepulveda Boulevard and Kuhn Drive. Therefore, the mitigation
measure described below is recommended for installation by the project to address the identified
significant traffic impact.
Sepulveda Boulevard and Longfellow Drive - Widen the north side of Longfellow Drive
along the project frontage by four feet. Remove approximately five on -street parking
spaces, and widen of the south side of Longfellow Drive by four feet. These widenings will
narrow the sidewalk to eight feet on both sides of the street, and allow for an improved
curb -to -curb street width of 44 feet. Within this width, restripe the roadway to provide a
12 -foot wide right -tum only lane, a 10 -foot through lane, and a 10 -foot left -tum lane for the
westbound approach, plus a single 12 -foot wide eastbound travel lane between Sepulveda
Boulevard and Kuhn Drive.
The effects of this proposed mitigation measure were evaluated using the same analysis
assumptions and techniques described previously, but assuming that the proposed widening and
restriping of Longfellow Drive was "in place". The results of that supplemental analysis are shown
in Table 5. As shown in this table, the proposed mitigation measure will reduce the impacts of
both project access alternatives to Tess than significant levels.
CMP CREDITS FOR IMPROVEMENTS
The proposed mitigation measure involves the implementation of improvements to a local cross
street along a CMP corridor route. Additionally, the preferred project alternative access scheme
provides traffic signal modifications to enhance localized traffic circulation.
•
•
Pat Killen
November 1, 2001
Page 22
TABLE 5
INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
WITH PROJECT PLUS MITIGATION
Peak Existing
Intersection Hour ICU LOS
Sepulveda Blvd. AM 0.773 C
and Longfellow Dr. PM 0.763 C
Peak Existing
Intersection Hour ICU LOS
Sepulveda Blvd. AM 0.773 C
and Longfellow Dr. PM 0.763 C
With Project
Alternative 1
ICU LOS Impact
0.823 D 0.050
0.811 D 0.048
With Project
Alternative 2
ICU LOS Impact
0.824 D 0.051
0.811 D 0.048
1 1
With Project Alternative 1
Plus Mitigation
ICU LOS Impact Significant
0.799 C 0.026 NO
0.795 C 0.032 NO
With Project Alternative 2
Plus Mitigation
ICU LOS Impact Significant
0.799 C 0.026 NO
0.795 C 0.032 NO
According to the current Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program Toolbox of
Strategies, neither of these improvements is eligible for CMP credits toward the City's Deficiency
Plan. Intersection improvements must take place along secondary highways or facilities of higher
designations. Improvements to collector or local streets are not eligible for CMP credits.
Additionally, traffic signal enhancements must take the form of a traffic network synchronization
system or signal surveillance and control system to be eligible for CMP credits. Addition of a
signal phase or modifications of signal timing at a single intersection are not eligible.
CMP REGIONAL IMPACT ANALYSES
The Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County (CMP) dictates that the regional
(freeway) impacts of projects be investigated if they are expected to add 150 vehicles in any
one direction to any freeway facility during either or both of the AM or PM peak hours.
Additionally, analyses of project traffic impacts on regionally -significant arterial streets are
required if the project will increase traffic volumes at any CMP Monitoring Intersection by 50 or
more vehicles during the peak hours.
• •
1 I
Pat Killen
November 1, 2001
Page 23
As shown in Table 3, the project is expected to produce fewer than 150 total trips during either
peak hour, and thezefore does not generate sufficient peak hour traffic to meet the minimum
traffic volumes necessary to require a detailed CMP freeway analysis.
The nearest CMP arterial monitoring intersection is at Sepulveda Boulevard and Rosecrans
Boulevard. A review of the project's anticipated trip generation and distribution indicate that the
project would add Tess than 50 vehicles per hour at the monitoring intersection, and no
additional analysis is warranted.
OTHER ACCESS ISSUES
Y P P P 1 g
Based on the results of the ICU analyses, ,the. ro osed- ro'ect would.. result in a�si rnficant" traff
impact at_ the adjacent.intersection-of-Sepulveda-Boulevard -and-Longfellow-Drive. However,
implementation of the proposed improvement of Longfellow Drive will reduce these impacts tc
Tess than significant levels. However, although the significant traffic impact to the stud,.
intersection can be mitigated there are other access concems for the project and the surrounding
vicinity.
The first issue involves the operations of the intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard and Longfellow
Drive. As described previously, the preferred Altemative 1 access scheme recommends that a
new southbound left -tum signal phase be implemented, and southbound U-tums allowed in order
for southbound project -oriented traffic to access the Sepulveda Boulevard driveway in addition to
the Longfellow Drive driveway. Project access Altemative 2 would require this signal modification,
as no entry access is proposed along Longfellow Drive under this scenario. The effects of this
change in signal phasing are investigated in the following section.
The second issue relates to both Altemative 1 and Altemative 2. The proposed project exhibits a
driveway on Longfellow Drive allowing right -tum only exiting under both access scenarios. This
driveway is approximately 100 feet east of the Sepulveda Boulevard intersection. As noted in a
preceding section of this report, there is some concem that, with the addition of project traffic, the
•
•
•
Pat Killen
November 1, 2001
Page 24
I 1
westbound vehicle queues on Longfellow Drive will be of sufficient length to block the project
driveway. Additional comments from the area neighbors and some City staff have noted that
"With Project" volumes could create a vehicle queue that interferes with the intersection of
Longfellow Drive and Kuhn Drive, at the project's southeast comer. Additionally, any substantial
vehicle queues could cause vehicles at the "back" of the queue to miss the green phase for east -
west traffic, and increase delays on this approach of the intersection. The proposed mitigation
improvement to the westbound approach of Longfellow Drive will provide three lanes to
accommodate westbound traffic, which should lessen the queue lengths and individual vehicle
delays for this approach. However, a detailed analysis was performed to quantify these issues.
A final concern involves the ability of the existing southbound left -turn lane to accommodate the
anticipated "With Project" traffic volumes. This left tum pocket is approximately 80 feet long plus
an approximately 60 -foot transition, and can accommodate approximately four to five vehicles. A
supplemental examination of the potential "With Project" vehicle queues in this lane was also
prepared.
The ICU analysis performed earlier was used as a tool for evaluating the significance of project -
related impacts to the study intersection. However, this methodology does not exhibit a means of
addressing changes in signal phasing or timing, nor does it allow for the computation of vehicle
queue lengths. For this reason, a supplemental analysis of the intersection was prepared using
the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 methodology, which can calculate changes in
intersection operations and delay based on different signal phasing schemes, as well as calculate
vehicular queues. The HCM methodology uses the same analysis assumptions and general
calculation process, determining a v/c ratio and assigning a LOS value based on the relationships
defined earlier in this report in Table 1.
Sepulveda Boulevard Southbound I eft -Turn Phase
The left -tum phase addition was analyzed using a comparison of the without and with project
• traffic conditions, as in the ICU analysis. However, this analysis focused on the overall operating
11
Pat en •
November 1, 2001
Page 25
conditions and vehicle delays associated with the addition of the traffic signal phase. The
supporting HCM 2090 calculations are contained in the appendix of this report.
As described earlier in this report, the installation of a new left -tum signal phase is recommended
as part of both project altematives, along with the removal of the U -tum prohibitions for
southbound Sepulveda Boulevard. Both of these measures are necessary for Alternative 2
access operations. Although the removal of the U -tum prohibitions are not required for access to
Altemative 1, the left -tum signal phase is still recommended, to enhance project access across
Sepulveda Boulevard to the site's Longfellow Drive driveway. The analysis of the effects of the
addition of the left -turn phase is the same whether or not U-tums are allowed, since the left -tum
phase would accommodate both U -tum and left -tum traffic. The HCM 2000 analysis methodology
does not distinguish between left -turn only and U -tum volumes, and optimizes the intersection
signal timings to maximize intersection efficiency based on total left -turn volumes.
The results of the HCM 2000 signal phase analysis indicate that, while v/c and vehicle delays at
the intersection would increase, as identified in the ICU analysis, the operations with the additional
left -tum phase fall within acceptable levels. The HCM 2000 "With Project" v/c ratios for project
access Alternative 1 are anticipated to be 0.83 during the AM peak hour and 0.88 during the PM
peak hour, although based on overall intersection vehicle delays, the intersection will operate at
acceptable LOS C in the morning and LOS B during the evening peak hour. Although the project
vehicular access travel patterns are somewhat different for Altemative 2, the similarity in overall
traffic volumes at the intersection, including existing Sepulveda Boulevard and Longfellow Drive
traffic, results in nearly identical results for this altemative. As a comparison, the existing HCM
2000 calculations for operations for the intersection, without project traffic and the additional left -
tum signal phase, exhibits a v/c ratio of 0.77 in the moming and 0.76 in the afternoon. The
removal of the existing U -tum prohibitions for southbound traffic will not affect the signal timings,
as the new left -turn phase will accommodate both left-tums and U-turns.
Additionally, as part of its development, the project proposes to install an acceleration/deceleration
lane on Sepulveda Boulevard along much of its frontage. The acceleration/deceleration lane will
preclude any parking currently taking place on the east side of Sepulveda Boulevard, and will
•
•
•
•
•
•
Pat Killen
November 1, 2001
Page 26
I I
provide for sufficient turning radii for U-tuming vehicles. The restricted tuming radii for potential
U-turns at this intersection, which exist because on -street parking is allowed (except during the
directional peak period parking restrictions) and limits Sepulveda Boulevard to two "receiving"
lanes for U-tums, is a primary reason such tums are not currently allowed. As described, the
installation of the project's acceleration/deceleration lane will remove on -street parking along the
east side of Sepulveda Boulevard throughout the day, providing three receiving lanes at all times.
Since no widenings will take place along the west side of Sepulveda Boulevard south of
Longfellow Avenue, the existing tum radii will still be restricted during much of the day (except
during the PM peak period parking restrictions), and the installation of a northbound left -tum
phase or allowing northbound U-tums is not recommended.
Based on the HCM 2000 analysis, the implementation of both the southbound left -turn phase and
removal of the U-turn prohibition for southbound traffic is recommended for either project access
alternative. These modifications will provide enhanced access for both the project site and other
locations along Sepulveda Boulevard, and are not expected to significantly diminish the
operations of the intersection. The intersection is anticipated to continue to operate at acceptable
LOS B or LOS C conditions with project traffic and the recommended traffic signal modifications.
Langfellow_Drimeilehicle_Queues
The same HCM 2000 analysis described above was also used to evaluate potential vehicle
queuing on the westbound approach of Longfellow Drive. As discussed earlier, area residents
currently express concerns about the length of queues, and delays incurred at the intersection
due to the single approach lane. Development of the proposed project, including the addition of
traffic to Longfellow Drive and the location of the exit driveway on this street under either
access alternative, compound those concerns.
The HCM 2000 analyses of "With Project" conditions, without the proposed widening and
restriping of Longfellow Drive, indicate that, indeed, traffic queues on this approach would
increase, and potentially block the project driveway, located approximately 100 feet east of the
l(
Pat Killen •
November 1, 2001
Page 27
intersection. Vehicle queues for the Alternative 1 access plan, which allows both entry and
right -turn exits at the Longfellow Drive access, could be as much as 113 feet during the
morning peak hour, and 133 feet during the evening peak hour. The PM peak hour queue
would reach almost to Kuhn Drive, blocking the project driveway, and potentially interfering with
traffic along Kuhn Drive. Alternative 2 vehicle queues are similar, since the queue length is
primarily a function of exiting project traffic, and both projects exhibit identical exit volumes from
the proposed Longfellow Drive driveway.
As indicated earlier in this report, it is recommended that the project install a widening and
restriping improvement to the westbound approach of Longfellow Drive at Sepulveda
Boulevard, to mitigate it's potential significant impact at this intersection. This improvement
would add two lanes to the westbound approach, and provide exclusive lanes for the left -turn,
through, and right -turn movements. These additional lanes would distribute the westbound
approach traffic, and potentially reduce the vehicle queue lengths described above.
A supplemental analysis of the effects on vehicle queue lengths was performed, again using
the HCM 2000 analysis methodology, to investigate the effects of the proposed mitigation
measure on the calculated vehicle queue lengths. This analysis indicated that, with the
recommended improvement, the maximum vehicle queues were reduced to 82 feet (for right -
turning vehicles) during the AM peak hour for both the Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 projects.
The maximum PM vehicle queues were 73 feet for both alternatives (for left -turning vehicles).
A review of the HCM 2000 worksheets contained in the appendix of this report shows that all
other approach queues were shorter than these maximums during both peak hours.
Based on these supplemental analyses, the implementation of the recommended mitigation
improvement will substantially reduce the length of vehicle queues on the westbound approach
of Longfellow Drive, and address the concerns of blockages of the project driveway or
impedance of traffic on Kuhn Drive. The results show that, particularly during the project -critical
PM peak hour, vehicle queues will not block the Longfellow Drive exit driveway with the
recommended mitigation measure in place.
•
•
Pat Killen
November 1, 2001
Page 28
Southbound Sepulveda Boulevard 1 eft -Turn I ane Capacity
2
The existing southbound left -turn pocket on Sepulveda Boulevard at Longfellow Drive is
approximately 80 feet in length, with an approximately 60 foot transition. The HCM 2000
analyses were examined to determine if this storage capacity would be sufficient to
accommodate forecast "With Project" traffic volumes. According to the calculations, the
maximum vehicle queue length for the southbound left -turn would be 55 feet, during the AM
peak hour arrival period for both project access alternatives, without the recommended
mitigation improvement to Longfellow Drive. With this measure in place, the maximum queue
length decreases slightly, to 52 feet. As discussed previously, both alternatives add a left -tum
signal phase to the intersection, allowing vehicles to more easily maneuver through opposing
traffic to turn. Whether some of these vehicles perform a U-turn move does not significantly
effect the signal phasing or intersection operations, and therefore, the results of the HCM 2000
analysis will be nearly identical for both alternatives. The results of the analysis indicate that
the existing left -turn . pocket would be of sufficient length to accommodate the future traffic
volumes at the intersection, including project traffic. This conclusion stands whether or not the
Longfellow Drive improvements are constructed.
PARKING ANALYSIS
The City of Manhattan Beach Zoning Code requires that the project provide an on-site parking
supply based upon the parking ratios shown in the following table.
Code Parking Number of
t and USP Size Requirement Rate Spaces Required
Commercial 56,121 sf 1.0 space per 300 sf 187
The project proposes to provide a total of approximately 368 spaces on-site, which will far
exceed the City Zoning Code requirement. Therefore, no parking shortages or off-site parking
overflow impacts are expected to result from the project.
Pat Killen
November 1, 2001
Page 29
CONCLUSIONS
l�
1.
The results of our analyses of the proposed 56,121 square foot Skechers USA commercial
office development indicate that the project will result in a significant impact at the site -adjacent
intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard and Longfellow Drive. This impact will occur regardless of
which of the two analyzed project access schemes are implemented. However, construction of
the recommended mitigation improvement to Longfellow Drive, which would widen Longfellow
Drive by approximately eight feet and provide exclusive left -turn, through, and right -turn lanes
for the westbound approach, will reduce the project's impacts to less than significant levels for
both access alternatives. No significant impacts are anticipated to occur on the regional
freeway or arterial street system.
The recommended mitigation measure will reduce vehicular queuing along the westbound
approach of Longfellow Drive, and reduce the potential for queues blocking the project's access
driveway on this street.
Additionally, installation of a new southbound left -turn signal phase and removal of the U-turn
prohibitions for southbound traffic on Sepulveda Boulevard at Longfellow Drive will have no
significant effects on the operations of the intersection. The existing left -turn pocket provides
sufficient capacity to accommodate the increase in traffic due to development of either
alternative of the project.
Finally, the project will provide ample on-site parking to serve the site. No parking overflow
impacts are anticipated.
Based on these conclusions, it is our opinion that all project impacts can be reduced to less
than significant levels through implementation of the recommended mitigation measures.
•
•
TO:
FROM:
BY:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
• •
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commission
Richard Thompson, Director of Community Developme
J
Eric Haaland, Associate Planner
March 13, 2002
Use Permit Regarding Construction of a 3 -Story Office
Building at 330 S. Sepulveda Blvd. (Killen.AlA/Skechers USA)
RECOMMENDATION
I I
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT the attached Resolution APPROVING
the project.
IllDISCUSSION
•
At its regular meeting of January 9, 2002, the Planning Commission conducted the subject public
hearing and voted to approve the project. Staff was directed to prepare a resolution approving the
request for a 57,000 square foot office building to include a 1,000 square foot restaurant area. The
attached resolution contains standard and project specific conditions including the following:
• Construction Traffic: Plan required for review at plan check. Routes through residential
areas prohibited.
• Overhead Utilities: Existing utility poles to be removed and all wires to be placed
underground.
• Residential Privacy Screening: Trees are required to be provided along the east side of the
project with attention to screening effectiveness
• Lighting Controls: Exterior lighting must prevent glare intrusion. Interior lighting at east
side must minimize transmission of excess light.
1
• Traffic Improvements: Traffic improvements are required including deceleration lane,
Longfellow widening, and new left turn signal from southbound Sepulveda accessing the
project. The Community Development Department has requested Caltrans to reconsider its
decision denying the protected left -turn arrow for southbound Sepulveda. Caltrans response
may be received prior to the March 13th Planning Commission meeting.
• CMP Compliance: The net increase in project trips must not result in a deficit toward the
County's congestion management plan.
• Permitted Uses: Project uses are limited to general office and a small restaurant. Medical
office, or other commercial uses, would require a use permit amendment. Using the
proposed surplus parking area for uses other than normal parking would be prohibited.
• Parking: Minimum 270 spaces required (202 by code). Parking fees prohibited. Gates or
other obstructions to parking subject to Community Development approval. Employees
must park on site.
• Traffic Controls: Left turns exiting the project onto Longfellow are prohibited. Project
commercial vehicles are prohibited from using surrounding residential streets. The rear
loading area is limited to day and early evening hours.
• Exterior Equipment: All equipment and antennas are required to be located within the
equipment well area and the building roof must have a decorative finish.
Attachments:
Resolution No. PC 02-
P.C. Minutes excerpt, dated 1/9/02
C.D. letter to Caltrans, dated 2/22/02
cc: Skechers USA, Applicant
Pat Killen, Project Architect
2
• •
RESOLUTION NO. PC 02-
•Section 7 The Planning Commission of the City of Manhattan Beach hereby APPROVES the
subject Use Permit application subject to the following conditions:
•
Site Preparation / Construction
1. * The project shall be constructed and operated in substantial compliance with the submitted
plans as approved by the Planning Commission on March 13, 2002. Any substantial
deviation from the approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Commission.
2. * A Traffic Management Plan shall be submitted in conjunction with all construction and
other building plans, to be approved by the Police and Public Works Departments prior to
issuance of building permits. The plan shall provide for the management of all construction
related traffic during all phases of construction, including delivery of materials and parking
of construction related vehicles. Construction traffic shall not be permitted to use routes
through adjacent residential areas.
3. All electrical, telephone, cable television system, and similar service wires and cables,
including the existing adjacent Sepulveda. Boulevard utility poles, shall be installed
underground to the appropriate utility connections in compliance with all applicable
Building and Electrical Codes, safety regulations, and orders, rules of the Public Utilities
Commission, the serving utility company, and specifications of the Public Works
Department.
4. During building construction of the site, the soil shall be watered in order to minimize the
impacts of dust on the surrounding area.
5. The siting of construction related equipment (job site offices, trailers, materials, etc.) shall
be subject to the approval from the Director of Community Development prior to the
issuance of any building permits.
A site landscaping plan utilizing drought tolerant native plants shall be submitted for review
and approval concurrent with the building permit application. All plants shall be identified
on the plan by the Latin and common names. The current edition of the Sunset Western
Garden Book contains a list and description of drought tolerant plants suitable for this area.
This plan shall be prepared by a licensed/qualified individual, as required by state law. Plant
sizes installed shall be consistent with the landscape plan approved by the Planning
Commission on March 13, 2002. Trees along the east side of the project shall be sized,
located, and provided in sufficient quantities to protect residential privacy as required by the
Community Development Department. Any water features shall be prohibited from spilling
or spraying into the public right-of-way.
7. A low pressure or drip irrigation system shall be installed in the landscaped areas, which
shall not cause any surface run-off under normal operating conditions. Details of the
irrigation system shall be noted on the landscaping plans. The type and design shall be
subject to the approval of the Public Works and Community Development Departments.
8. * Water lines, sanitary sewer laterals, grease interceptors, and mop sinks shall be installed,
modified, and maintained as required by the Public Works Department.
9. * Sidewalks and driveway aprons shall be replaced or installed around the entire site pursuant
to the requirements of the Public Works Department.
16. All defective or damaged curb, gutter, street paving, and sidewalk improvements shall be
removed and replaced with standard improvements, subject to the approval of the Public
Works Department.
11. Property line clean outs shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works.
2
•
RESOLUTION NO. PC 02-
12. *. Backflow prevention valves shall be installed as required by the Department of Public
Works, and the locations and screening of any such valves or similar devices shall be
subject to approval by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of
building permits.
13. * Enclosed parking area drains must be connected to oil water separators and drain into the
sanitary sewer system.
14. Security lighting for the site shall be provided in conformance with Municipal Code
requirements including glare prevention design. Interior lighting within the easterly portion
of the building shall be designed to limit unnecessary light visible to adjacent neighbors by
use of screening, timing devices, motion sensors, and other available technology.
15. * Prior to issuance of building permits, a detailed traffic improvement plan shall be
provided for review and approval by the Community Development Department, Public
Works Department, and Caltrans. All required traffic improvements shall be completed
prior to final building occupancy. The plan shall include:
• A northbound Sepulveda Boulevard turnout lane as shown on project plans subject to
design modifications by the city's traffic engineer and Caltrans. •
• Longfellow Drive widening and related modifications adjacent to the site to include at
least two westbound lanes approaching the Sepulveda intersection and one eastbound
lane.
• Traffic signal modifications determined to be appropriate by the city's traffic engineer
and Caltrans including a protected left turn signal for southbound traffic on Sepulveda
Boulevard.
16. * Prior to issuance of building permits, a plan shall be provided for review and approval by
the Community Development Department addressing appropriate traffic improvements,
trip reduction strategies, or other compensation to prevent the project from resulting in a
deficit with respect to the County Congestion Management Program. Acceptance by the
Metropolitan Transportation Agency; and implementation of the plan shall be required
prior to final approval of building occupancy.
Operational Restrictions
17. * The facility shall be limited to general office use and a 1,001 square foot eating and
drinking establishment use. Other uses including medical office, assembly, entertainment,
manufacturing, storage, and commercial parking shall be prohibited unless a use permit
amendment is approved.
18. * Parking shall be provided in conformance with the current Manhattan Beach Municipal
Code but shall include a minimum of 270 spaces regardless of code ratios. Gates or other
obstructions to parking areas, including surplus parking, during hours of operation shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval. No fees for use of parking shall
be charged to employees or visitors of the project. Ground floor parking shall be restricted
to visitor parking and shall be appropriately marked as such.
19. A covered trash enclosure(s), with drainage connected to the sanitary sewer, and adequate
capacity shall be provided on the site subject to the specifications and approval of the Public
Works Department, Community Development Department, and City's waste contractor. A
trash and recycling plan demonstrating diversion of at least 50% of solid waste shall be
provided as required by the Public Works Department.
20. * The facility operator shall prohibit employees from parking personal vehicles on the
surrounding public streets. Employees must park on-site or be transported to the site from
other off-street parking facilities subject to Community Development Department approval.
3
•
•
• •
RESOLUTION NO. PC 02 -
As a minimum, the owner of the building shall include prohibitions against employee
parking on local streets in any lease and/or rental agreements. Prior to building permit
issuance, a written employee parking program shall be submitted for Community
Development Department approval.
21. * The facility operator shall prohibit Left turns from the project's Longfellow Drive driveways.
Signs, driveway designs; and supervision preventing left turns shall be provided as required
by the Community Development Department.
22. * Vehicles operated by, or under the supervision of, on-site businesses shall use Sepulveda
Boulevard as a primary means of access and shall not use surrounding residentially fronted
streets for ingress or egress from the facility unless a traffic plan for such specific trips is
approved by the Community Development Department.
23. * The facility operator shall restrict delivery vehicles using the rear loading area to entering
from Kuhn Drive and exiting onto Longfellow Drive. All vehicles and deliveries shall be
prohibited from using or occupying the loading area between 9pnm and 7:30am daily.
24. * All signs shall be in compliance with the City's Sign Code. Pole signs and internally
illuminated signs shall be prohibited. A sign program to be approved by the Community
Development Department shall be required for sign concepts other than that shown on the
plans reviewed by the Planning Commission.
25. Noise emanating from the site shall be in compliance with the Municipal Noise Ordinance.
26. The facility shall comply with all South Coast Air Quality Management District Regulations
and shall not transmit excessive emissions or odors across property lines.
27. The operation shall remain in compliance with all Fire and Building occupancy
requirements at all times.
28. The management of the facility shall police the property and all areas immediately adjacent
to the business during the hours of operation to keep it free of litter.
29. * No waste water shall be permitted to be discharged from the premises subject to Public
Works Department review. Waste water and parking structure drainage shall be discharged
into the sanitary sewer system.
30. * No equipment, antenna dishes, or similar items shall be located on the building roof. All
such items shall be located within the designated equipment area at the north end of the
building. The building roof shall have a gravel or comparable decorative treatment.
Procedural
31. * All provisions of the Use Permit are subject to review by the Convnunity Development
Department 6 months after occupancy and yearly thereafter. The property owner shall
provide an analysis of traffic conditions in the surrounding area pursuant to the
specifications of the Community Development Department at the time of the first use
permit review.
32. This Use Permit shall lapse two years after its date of approval, unless implemented or
extended pursuant to 10.84.090 of the Municipal Code.
3i. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21089(b) and Fish and Game Code section
711.4(c), the project is not operative, vested or final until the required filing fees are paid.
34. The applicant agrees, as a condition of approval of this project, to pay for all reasonable
legal and expert fees and expenses of the City of Manhattan Beach, in defending any legal
4
• •
RESOLUTION NO. PC 02 -
actions associated with the approval of this project brought against the City. In the event
such a legal action is filed against the project, the City shall estimate its expenses for the
litigation. Applicant shall deposit said amount with the City or enter into an agreement
with the City to pay such expenses as they become due.
s
35. At any time in the future, the Planning Commission or City Council may review the Use
Permit for the purposes of revocation or modification. Modification may consist of
conditions deemed reasonable to mitigate or alleviate impacts to adjacent land uses.
SF.CTION i Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009 and Code of Civil Procedure Section
1094.6, any action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul this decision, or
concerning any of the proceedings, acts, or determinations taken, done or made prior to such
decision or to determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition attached to this
decision shall not be maintained by any person unless the action or proceeding is commenced
within 90 days of the date of this resolution and the City Council is served within 120 days of the
date of this resolution. The City Clerk shall send a certified copy of this resolution to the
applicant, and if any, the appellant at the address of said person set forth in the record of the
proceedings and such mailing shall constitute the notice required by Code of Civil Procedure
Section 1094.6.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and
correct copy of the Resolution as adopted by the
Planning Commission at its regular meeting of March
13, 2002 and that said Resolution was adopted by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
RICHARD THOMPSON,
Secretary to the Planning Commission
Sarah Boeschen,
Recording Secretary
5
• •
• 1
02/0109.4 USE PERMIT Regarding Construction of a Three -Story Office Building at
3 330 South Sepulveda Boulevard (Killen AIAJSkechers USA)
4
5 Associate Planner Eric Haaland summarized the staff report. He said that the project does
6 conform to the City:s standards. He said that a driveway from Sepulveda Boulevard has been
7 added to the previous version of the project and a deceleration lane has also been provided to
8 accommodate the driveway. He indicated that the applicant has included two-way access for the
9 parking structure at Longfellow Drive. He stated that Caltrans has recently determined that no
10 left -turn arrow phase or U-turns be permitted at the proposed left turn pocket at the intersection
11 of Sepulveda Boulevard and Lonfellow Drive. He indicated that a loading and unloading area
12 would be provided between Longfellow Drive and Kuhn Drive with one-way circulation
13 underneath the corner of the building. He said that the proposed design of both Longfellow
14 driveways orients vehicles toward Sepulveda Boulevard rather than into the easterly residential
15 area. He indicated that the applicant has provided a traffic report which indicates that traffic
16 impact from the project would not be detrimental to traffic flow on Sepulveda Boulevard,
17 provided that mitigation measures are implemented. He said that the applicant is proposing to
18 widen Longfellow Drive to provide three lanes for westbound traffic accessing Sepulveda
19 Boulevard; however, Caltrans and the City 's Traffic Engineer are recommending that only two
20 westbound lanes be provided.
21
22 Associate Planner Haaland said that the City's Traffic Engineer has also provided comments
23 regarding the traffic proposal and has determined the project would not generate a sufficient
0 24 amount of trips to significantly impact traffic. He said that staff is recommending a condition
25 that a detailed traffic improvement plan implementing the reviewed concept design be required
26 for the project that would be subject to further review by the Public Works ,Department, the
27 City's Traffic Engineer, and Caltrans. He said that the applicant has addressed the Sepulveda
28 Boulevard Guidelines in their design. He indicated that the utilities would be required to be
29 placed underground as part of the project. He said that the deceleration lane is part of the
30 Sepulveda Guidelines, and future reciprocal access is proposed between the project parking areas
31 and the adjacent carwash property. He commented that the project provides four levels of
32 underground parking, which exceeds the City's parking requirement. He said that there is a
33 small incidental restaurant use proposed, and it would not create a detrimental effect to the
34 surrounding area. He said that staff did receive one neighbor comment just before the hearing
35 which raises an issue regarding deed restrictions for the subject tract. He pointed out that deed
36 restrictions are a private issue and not a City Code requirement.
37
38 In response to a question from Commissioner Ward, Associate Planner Haaland said that since
39 the parking would be provided underground, the need for exterior security lighting is minimal.
40 He commented that exterior lighting is typically regulated by the Code and Use Permits by
41 prohibiting the spilling of light into the adjacent area. He commented that staff suggested a
42 condition be included to specify that unnecessary lighting inside the building be minimized as
43 well.
44
•
• •
1 In response to a question from Commissioner Ward, Associate Planner Haaland indicated that
2 the applicant does propose landscaping including trees at the rear of the property to address the
3 privacy of the neighbors.
4
5 In response to a question from Chairman Simon, Associate Planner Haaland indicated that the
6 applicant is proposing to provide significantly more than the required amount of parking because
7 the applicant is sensitive to parking concerns and want to be certain that any potential future
8 parking needs would be addressed.
9
10 In response to a question from Chairman Simon, Traffic Engineer Garland indicated that Caltrans
11 would support a deceleration lane for traffic corning northbound on Sepulveda Boulevard into
12 the parking structure as well as an acceleration lane from the parking structure northbound onto
13 Sepulveda Boulevard. He commented that there is not space for a standard acceleration lane
14 leaving the driveway, and his opinion is that it is preferable not to have a substandard
15 acceleration lane.
16
17 In response to a question from Chairman Simon, Traffic Engineer Garland indicated that he does
18 not feel it is necessary to have three lanes for westbound traffic on Longfellow Drive leading to
19 Sepulveda Boulevard. He indicated that he feels it is sufficient to have a lane for traffic turning
20 left and a separate wider lane for both through traffic and traffic turning right on Sepulveda
21 Boulevard. He stated that a separate through lane may encourage drivers to cut into the
22 neighborhood on the west side of Sepulveda Boulevard to avoid the heavy traffic on Sepulveda
23 Boulevard. He commented that a wider lane would allow traffic turning right to have space to
24 ease around the cars that are continuing across, which would prevent a large backup of traffic.
25
26 Associate Planner Haaland showed slides of the site and surrounding area.
27
28 Chairman Simon opened the public hearing.
29
30 Pat Killen, the architect, said that they had a neighborhood meeting in August, and there have
31 only been minor changes made to the plans since the project was introduced to the residents. He
32 said that the main concerns that were raised were regarding traffic, the scale of the building,
33 privacy issues, and open space. He said that their impression was that residents supported the
34 idea of a deceleration lane off of Sepulveda Boulevard into the project. He said that their
35 impression also was that the residents were in favor of providing access off of Longfellow Drive
36 in order to prevent drivers from entering into the adjacent neighborhood to access the building.
37 He commented that Caltrans did support the idea of a deceleration and acceleration lane off of
38 Sepulveda Boulevard but did not approve of a left turn arrow for westbound traffic on
39 Longfellow Drive to turn southbound on Sepulveda Boulevard. He commented that they do plan
40 to provide landscaping at the rear of the property to provide privacy for the adjacent neighbors.
41 He indicated that the applicant wanted to provide more parking than required to address any
42 future concern regarding parking. He commented that they decided to provide more than the
43 required amount of parking to ensure that any possible future use that may occupy the building
44 would not have to reconfigure the entire building to meet their parking requirement. He showed
45 computer generated pictures of the proposed structure and described the proposed design.
46
•
•
1 Earl Cohen, 438 Altura Way, said that no attention has been given to the impact of traffic noise
• 2 and congestion on the residents who live on the east side of Sepulveda Boulevard. He
3 commented that the project will create a large additional amount of traffic and noise that would
4 have an impact on the residents. He asked whether construction equipment would be permitted
5 on the east side of Sepulveda Boulevard. He suggested that a wall be constructed to mitigate
6 impacts for the residents to the east.
7
8 Joe Devine, 340 Kuhn Drive, said that the adjacent property owners intend to pursue the fact that
9 the project violates the CC&R's of the tract, although he realizes it is not an issue that is
10 considered by the Commission. He said that the project does not meet the required finding that it
11 would not have a detrimental effect on the surrounding properties. He said that he is concerned
12 about the size of the project and the impact it would have on traffic. He commented that the
13 applicants want a large number of parking spaces in order to accommodate the demand for all of
14 the buyers and guests who will visit the building as well as the employees. He suggested that
15 parking access be removed from Longfellow Drive and that all access be provided from
16 Sepulveda Boulevard. He said that the traffic signal on Longfellow provides the only access for
17 residents to Sepulveda Boulevard, which is already impacted by traffic generated from other
18 nearby buildings and the carwash. He commented that the proposal would also result in many
19 trucks coming through the area, which would create a great impact. He said that the City
20 Council recommended that the applicant specify the type of roofing that would be used to
21 mitigate the impact to the views of the residences located above the property. He said that he
22 would also like for a restriction on any equipment placed on the roof. He also suggested that a
23 specific landscaping plan be presented. He suggested that three lanes be provided on Longfellow
• 24 to provide a lane for right turns, a middle lane for right or left turns, and a lane for left turns.
25
26 Mr. Eisen commented that he disagrees with the initial CEQA study which determined that the
27 project would have no environmental impact and therefore no EIR would be required. He said
28 that the large scale of the project would have an impact on traffic, particularly during the evening
29 rush hour when traffic on Sepulveda Boulevard is the heaviest.
30
31 Director Thompson pointed out that the Environmental Impact Report that was required for the
32 public safety building was done in association with the proposed Metlox project.
33
34 Chris Howell, a resident of Hermosa Beach, said that he supports the project in contrast to the
35 other types of uses on Sepulveda Boulevard. He said that it will upgrade the business
36 community along the Sepulveda Corridor. He said that the report does not include an accurate
37 assessment of traffic impact. He said that no analysis has been done regarding eastbound traffic
38 on Longfellow Drive that would come from Hermosa Beach to the project. He commented that
39 Longfellow Drive is heavily utilized by the residents of Hermosa Beach who live across
40 Sepulveda Boulevard, and they are concerned about additional traffic in their neighborhood,
41 particularly during morning and evening rush hours. He said that a left turn signal or U turn
42 should be implemented for westbound traffic on Longfellow Avenue at Sepulveda Boulevard.
43
44 Bob Linker 1190 Duncan, said that Kuhn Drive is his only access to the area. He said that his
45 main concern is regarding traffic. He said that the original CC&R'S for the tract were written
0 46 with the intention of implementing projects that would not increase traffic or parking. He said
• •
1 that traffic in the mornings also should be considered. He commented that currently cars that are
2 waiting to turn on Sepulveda Boulevard are backed up on Longfellow Drive in the mornings, and
3 the situation would be worsened by the project. He commented that any access to the project
4 should be from Sepulveda Boulevard and not Longfellow Drive.
5
6 Karen Hill, 1530 Curtis Avenue, said that traffic in the area is congested in the morning hours,
7 which would be made worse by the large number of employees driving to the project. She said
8 that she is concerned about the proposed deceleration lane because it would result in traffic
9 backing up on Sepulveda Boulevard.
10
11 Mr. Killen commented that there is no way to mask the fact that the project is a large scale
12 building. He commented, however, that an office use is one of the least intrusive uses for the
13 site, and they are attempting to minimize the impacts as much as possible according to the input
14 they received at the neighborhood meeting. He commented that they want to be a good neighbor
15 and do their best to address issues of traffic and parking and provide a benefit to the community.
16
17 In response to a question from Commissioner Kirkpatrick, Mr. Killen stated that the project
18 would not necessarily cause a large backup of traffic during normal commuting hours because
19 the employees of Sketchers have staggered work schedules. He commented that the project
20 could still be viable if parking access were not provided off of Longfellow Drive, but eliminating
21 the Longfellow Drive access would result in people having to drive around the block into the
22 adjacent neighborhood in order to access the building from the entrance on Sepulveda Boulevard.
23 He said that they felt providing the access off of Longfellow Drive solves more problems than it
24 creates.
25
26 In response to a question from Commissioner Kuch, Mr. Killen stated that access to the parking
27 structure would not be gated.
28
29 Chairman Simon closed the public hearing.
30
31 Commissioner Milam said that he has heard a great deal of concern raised regarding traffic in the
32 area, and he would be concerned about eliminating the access from Longfellow Avenue. He
33 stated that he would like more information on the traffic analysis plan.
34
35 Director Thompson commented that a great deal of thought has been put into the plan from the
36 applicant and architect in order to reduce potential impacts. He indicated that the current traffic
37 analysis plan is somewhat preliminary, and it would need to be defined further before the project
38 is built. He commented that all construction vehicles would be required to access the site from
39 Sepulveda Boulevard.
40
41 Associate Planner Haaland stated that a condition would be included that a detailed traffic plan
42 be provided before plan check.
43
44 Commissioner Ward said that he would like more information regarding traffic volumes and
45 more information about the number of cars that are anticipated to come to the site during
46 different hours of the day.
I�
•
•
II
2 Commissioner Kirkpatrick said that the main issue is that the property is located adjacent to a
3 residential area. He indicated that he is concerned about the impact to traffic in the neighboring
4 streets, particularly Longfellow Drive and Kuhn Drive. He commented that his first reaction is
5 to suggest that access not be provided off of Longfellow Drive, but he recognizes the concern of
6 cars traveling through the neighborhood to access the site. He stated that he is concerned that
7 the amount of parking is excessive for the proposed use. He commented that he is concerned that
8 the large amount of parking would increase the amount of vehicle traffic to the site.
9
10 Commissioner Kuch said that if sufficient parking is not provided for the site within the parking
11 structure, people will park their cars in the street. He said that the needs of the use determines
12 the parking demand rather than the number of spaces. He stated that providing more than the
13 required amount of parking would allow flexibility for possible future uses of the site.
14
15 Commissioner Kirkpatrick commented that the Commission is considering the proposed use for
16 this project and not potential future uses.
17
18 Director Thompson said that there is often a concern with projects that not enough parking is
19 being provided, and the applicant is attempting to ensure that people will park on site and not in
20 the neighborhood. He said that more study would be necessary regarding the impact of closing
21 the access off of Longfellow Drive before such a measure would be approved.
22
23 A motion was MADE and SECONDED (Milam/Kirkpatrick) to REOPEN the public hearing.
• 24
25 AYES: Kirkpatrick, Kuch, Milam, Ward, Chairman Simon
26 NOES: None
27 ABSENT: None
28 ABSTAIN: None
29
30 Thomas Gall, Kaku Associates, commented that they mainly studied the impact of traffic on
31 Sepulveda Boulevard because the intent of the design was to direct traffic toward Sepulveda
32 Boulevard as much as possible. He said that they did consider traffic from the neighborhood that
33 would access the site in their additional analysis after the report was prepared because of input
34 provided by the City's Traffic Engineer. He said that they determined in their analysis that the
35 amount of traffic that would be generated by the site would not create a significant impact in the
36 adjacent neighborhood.
37
38 In response to a question from Commissioner Kuch, Mr. Gall indicated that their analysis was
39 generalized, and they did not receive specific input from the applicant regarding who would be
40 visiting the site and from which direction they would be traveling to access the site.
41
42 Commissioner Ward commented that it does not seem realistic that no cars would access the site
43 from the adjacent residential area to the east as indicated in the traffic report.
44
11045 Mr. Gall commented that mitigation measures to reduce traffic in the residential neighborhood
46 have been included in the design of the project, which was taken into account in the traffic study.
• •
1 He said that they did consider the backup of traffic on Longfellow Drive, which was the reason
2 for the suggestion of additional westbound lanes on Longfellow Drive. He summarized the
3 findings of the traffic analysis regarding the projected distribution of traffic to the site. He
4 commented that it is their opinion that access to the site off of Longfellow Drive would help to
5 eliminate the intrusion of traffic into the adjacent neighborhood because it would provide a more
6 direct route into the site for southbound traffic on Sepulveda Boulevard. He commented that
7 without access from Longfellow Drive, southbound traffic on Sepulveda Boulevard would be
8 forced onto the streets of the adjacent neighborhood in order to access the site.
9
10 In response to a question from Commissioner Milam, Traffic Engineer Garland suggested that
11 the City could provide a more convincing argument to Caltrans that a left turn arrow or the
12 opportunity to make a U-turn is important at the intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard and
13 Longfellow Drive.
14
15 Chairman Simon closed the public hearing.
16
17 Commissioner Kirkpatrick said that he feels that ingress from Lonfellow Drive to the site would
18 be favorable, and he could see a problem being created if people were forced to drive around
19 neighboring streets to enter the parking structure. He indicated that he is concerned regarding the
20 excessive amount of parking that would be provided.
21
22 Chairman Simon commented that he would prefer for ample parking to be provided on site to
23 eliminate the need of people visiting the building to park on the adjacent streets. He indicated
24 that he feels the design of the project is much improved from the project that was previously
25 proposed for Remax.
26
27 Commissioners Kuch and Ward said that they are pleased with the design of the proposed
28 project.
29
30 Commissioner Milam said that he supports the project. He commented that he hopes discussion
31 will continue with Caltrans regarding implementing a left turn arrow and ability for U-turns from
32 southbound Sepulveda Boulevard onto Longfellow Drive. He said that landscaping to the rear is
33 very important to provide a privacy buffer to the neighboring residents.
34
35 Commissioner Kirkpatrick indicated that he would support the condition that deciduous trees be
36 placed at the rear of the property to provide privacy for the adjacent neighbors. He suggested
37 including a condition to specify the roofing material and a condition that no mechanical
38 equipment be permitted on the roof.
39
40 Commissioner Kuch suggested including a condition to require a decorative roof, as well as a
41 condition to restrict duct work, antennas, or equipment on the roof. He also requested that a
42 center lane be provided as an option lane for westbound traffic on Longfellow Drive.
43
44 A motion was MADE and SECONDED (Ward/Kirkpatrick) to DIRECT staff to prepare a
45 Resolution to APPROVE a Use Permit regarding construction of a three-story office building at
{1
•
1 330 South Sepulveda Boulevard for the meeting of February 13, 2002, to include conditions
2 discussed by staff and the Planning Commission.
3
4 AYES: Kirkpatrick, Kuch, Milam, Ward, Chairman Simon
5 NOES: None
6 ABSENT: None.
7 ABSTAIN: None
8
9
•
• •
1 1
1 AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
2,
3 Chris Howell, a resident of 30th Street in Hermosa Beach, requested to speak regarding the
4 Sketchers project because it is not on the agenda as a public hearing. He said that several
5 Hermosa Beach residents are concerned about traffic impacts to the residents on Longfellow
6 Drive and 30th Street west of Sepulveda Boulevard. He commented that the claim of the traffic
7 study that only 2 petcent of vehicles accessing the project would use Longfellow Drive or nearby
8 residential streets is not true. He commented that currently Skechers vans are using Longfellow
9 Drive during business hours to access the site. He requested that the Commissioners examine the
10 traffic study carefully. He indicated that the orientation of the proposed access points to the
11 structure would result in Longfellow Drive becoming the main commuter access to the site. He
12 suggested that the access point be relocated from Longfellow Drive to Kuhn Drive, which would
13 help to disburse traffic and prevent traffic from backing up on Longfellow Drive. He also
14 suggested relocating the traffic signal from Longfellow Drive to Duncan Avenue. He
15 commented that Duncan is a wider street that already serves as access for the adjacent carwash
16 and two large office buildings. He commented that Duncan Avenue would be better able to
17 accommodate an increase of traffic than Longfellow Drive and is a more appropriate location for
18 access to the project.
19
20 Bill Eisen, 3514 Crest Drive, said that he feels the increase of traffic resulting from the project
21 would have a large impact the residents of Hermosa Beach. He indicated that the amount of
22 commercial development along the Sepulveda Boulevard corridor should be limited in order to
23 prevent traffic congestion from worsening. He said that all of the Sketchers employees arriving
24 and leaving at the same hour would create a large backup of traffic, and he suggested including a
25 provision that hours be staggered for employees.
26
27 John Huggins, a resident of Longfellow Drive in Hermosa Beach, commented that Kuhn Drive
28 would be a much more appropriate location for the entrance of the proposed development
29 because it is a wider street than Longfellow Drive and no residences have their main access off of
30 Kuhn Drive.
31
32 J.C. Agajanian, Jr., 2802 Tennyson Place, Hermosa Beach, said that he would like to reiterate
33 the comments of the previous speakers and said that he would also request that access for the
34 project to be located off of Kuhn Drive rather than Longfellow Drive. He stated that relocating
35 the entrance would help to prevent drivers from making dangerous maneuvers in order to access
36 the site. He indicated that they support the facility, but the residents of Longfellow Drive should
37 not have to bear all of the burden of the increased traffic.
38
39 Butch Kuflack, a resident of Longfellow Drive in Hermosa Beach, said that he also reiterates
40 the comments of the previous speakers. He indicated that the Sketchers employees would use the
41 adjacent residential streets to access the site. He commented that traffic on Longfellow Drive in
42 Hermosa Beach currently is congested and would be made worse by the project. He stated that
43 the additional traffic would also create a backup of traffic on Sepulveda Boulevard because of the
44 increased number of cars attempting to turn onto Longfellow Drive.
45
•
•
• )1
1 Darlene Blaney, 702 Longfellow Drive, pointed out that the only access point for the project
•2. westbound on Longfellow Drive. She indicated that there currently is very little traffic on Kuhn
3 Drive, and it could accommodate an increase in traffic.
4
5 Dan Riley, 648 Longfellow Drive, indicated that he concurs with the statements of the other
6 neighbors. He said that they are suggesting that the traffic signal be relocated from Longfellow
7 Drive to Duncan Avenue. He requested that the possibility of relocating the signal be considered
8 now rather than after construction of the project.
9
10 Joe Devine, 340 Kuhn Drive, indicated that Longfellow Drive is the only access for the residents
11 to the east to access Sepulveda Boulevard southbound other than Artesia Boulevard. He
12 commented that Sepulveda Boulevard currently has very heavy traffic, and the additional traffic
13 from the project would have a great impact to the residents. He commented that several other
14 businesses and offices currently have access to southbound Sepulveda Boulevard from Kuhn
15 Drive. He inquired regarding whether it is the policy of the City to make requests to Caltrans on
16 behalf of an applicant for issues such as providing a left turn pocket on Sepulveda Boulevard into
17 the project.
18
19 Chairman Ward indicated that the public hearing has already been closed regarding the issue, and
20 a traffic study was provided for the previous hearing before staff was asked to provide a draft
21 Resolution. He commented that the purpose of the issue being brought before the Commission at
22 this meeting is for approval of the draft Resolution.
23
•
• •
(1
1 BUSINESS ITEMS
2,
3 A. Adopt Resolution of Approval of Use Permit for Construction of a Three -Story
4 Office Building at 330 South Sepulveda Boulevard (Killen AIA/Skechers USA)
5
6 Director Thompson said that an extensive traffic study was completed for the project, and the
7 goal of the traffic plan was to keep traffic for the project on Sepulveda Boulevard and out of the
8 residential neighborhood. He stated that in addition to access off of Longfellow Drive, a major
9 driveway access would be located off of Sepulveda Boulevard. He commented that the project
10 previously proposed for Remax at the site included only one access point off of Longfellow
11 Drive. He indicated that the applicant initially requested a left turn phase on Sepulveda
12 Boulevard for southbound traffic onto Longfellow Drive or have the option of making a U-turn
13 and enter the project from Sepulveda Boulevard. He indicated that after reconsidering the issue,
14 Caltrans approved the proposed left turn phase. He commented that the area on Longfellow
15 Drive east of the signal is in Manhattan Beach, and the area to the west side is in Hermosa
16 Beach. He suggested that citizens petition the City of Hermosa Beach to place turn restrictions
17 to prevent traffic from traveling westbound from Longfellow Drive rather than drive on
18 Sepulveda Boulevard.
19
20 Associate Planner Eric Haaland summarized the staff report. He indicated that the Resolution
21 would require a driveway into the project off of Sepulveda Boulevard with a deceleration lane.
22 He stated that a protected left turn signal on Sepulveda Boulevard for southbound traffic to turn
23 onto Longfellow Drive has been approved by Caltrans. He said that the project would be
24 required to comply with the Congestion Management Program. He stated that staff has also
25 provided the Commission with updated sheets for the traffic study including the proposed
26 widening and restriping of Longfellow Drive. He commented that several letters were received
27 by staff from Hermosa Beach residents expressing concern regarding traffic on Longfellow
28 Drive, which have been provided to the Commissioners. He stated that a condition was included
29 requiring the applicant's commercial vehicles to only use Sepulveda Boulevard to access the site.
30 He said that relocating the traffic signal to Duncan Avenue would be a large issue that would
31 require much further review and would require Caltrans approval.
32
33 Chairman Ward asked about the possibility of providing the residents with a contact number to
34 report any violations of the applicant's commercial vehicles staying on Sepulveda Boulevard .
35
36 Commissioner Milam suggested the possibility of conditioning that the hours of employees be
37 staggered.
38
39 Associate Planner Haaland said that he is not aware of a similar condition for other uses.
40
41 Commissioner Simon stated that he identifies with the residents of Hermosa Beach regarding the
42 traffic problems on their street. He said that the traffic impacts to residents is considered equally
43 regardless of whether they are residents of Manhattan Beach or Hermosa Beach. He said that
44 there are possibly additional measures that could be taken by the City of Hermosa Beach to
45 mitigate traffic concerns which are not in the jurisdiction of Manhattan Beach. He commented
46 that he wishes he had heard the comments of the residents at the previous hearing, although he
47 does not feel it would have changed his opinion to support the project. He said that the
•
•
•
•
• •
1 resolution includes a condition that the applicant's vehicles be restricted from driving on
2 Longfellow Drive in Hermosa Beach.
3
4 Commissioner Kirkpatrick said that he would not make a distinction between residents of
5 Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach in terms of considering the traffic impact. He stated that
6 staff and the Commission did assess the traffic mitigation measures and traffic impact for the
7 entire surrounding community and not just the residents of Manhattan Beach. He indicated that
8 the traffic report was very thorough, and the effort was made to bring traffic onto Sepulveda
9 Boulevard rather than into the residential neighborhoods. He said that the design and conditions
10 would minimize the impact of traffic, and he supports the project.
11
12 Commissioner Kuch said that the process considered input from several residents. He stated that
13 the intent of the Resolution is to minimize traffic from entering the surrounding residential area.
14
15 Commissioner Milam stated that the Resolution does provide for a follow up traffic analysis
16 from the applicant if problems arise or if circumstances change.
17
18 Chairman Ward indicated that he agrees with the comments of the other Commissioners. He
19 thanked the residents from Hermosa Beach for coming to speak regarding their concern. He said
20 that the attempt was made to keep traffic on Sepulveda Boulevard, which he feels is addressed in
21 the Resolution. He commented that there is a condition included that the applicant's commercial
22 trucks not be permitted to drive on Longfellow Drive, and the residents would have the ability to
23 report any infractions of that condition. He also suggested that the residents petition the City of
24 Hermosa Beach to implement measures to prevent vehicles from proceeding westbound on
25 Longfellow Drive but rather to stay on Sepulveda Boulevard.
26
27 A motion was MADE and SECONDED (Simon/Milam) to APPROVE a Resolution of
28 Approval of Use Permit for construction of a three-story office building at 330 South Sepulveda
29 Boulevard
30
31 AYES: Kirkpatrick, Kuch, Milam, Ward, Chairman Simon
32 NOES: None
33 ABSENT: None
34 ABSTAIN: None
35
36 Director Thompson explained the 15 -day appeal period and stated that the item will be placed on
37 the City Council's Consent Calendar for their meeting of April 2, 2002.
38
39
40
11
03/12/2002 05:31 3103796050
• •
11
r'()\ c2 ca
�C� L
\04,), Dor a‘‘ c 0-G.c0 arc
3;-0{--7o t -k c -c-' 13 - e -ch oPme Y,i
2
e -o a �'�- so 1
+ t ) \ r ci,,�cSl'tr,c 44,: s c ch/
u.*0c May Gancor-,
We, fie, restaw.,,is ,76
fu,i) lArNcit
fpa
1 '
W Q o f�-
CARROLLCARTER
PAGE 01
Scf)) uvko
Nt)Lrn eo. ,
,cy\cae-s- Ok4aYN\-\ er
Co COU iY/M-cam- C e)
WC3V & & ,, -(XX12,0-� o m C
t.
__tor NV,t#10 Q.C-Sstar Soy v\o
r �Q r•e k
•
11.-LH,T1{]
MAR 1 2 2002
U1/UT/UL NVi. : vita J1V 4U4 lOOJ
1.0..0 :116 h VL. 11 eb, lil l..
STATE OFC.ALJfORNIA—aUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION, AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIS-RICT 7. 20 Q. SPRING $T.
•OS ANGELES. cA 90012.36 00
•
•
January 3, 2001
Ron Hirsch
KAKI) Associates
1453 Third Street, Suite 400
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Dear Mr. Hirsch:
GRAY °AVIS, aoremor
1' ik : 07 -LA -01 -MP 22.161
ti
Subject: Preliminary Traffic Impact Analysis for "Skechers USA Office Building".
We have reviewed the Preliminary Traffic Impact Analysis Report "Skechers USA Office Building
Project". and we agree with the report conclusion that the proposed development will rcult in a
significant impact at the intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard and Longfellow Drive.
The report proposed two access alternatives and alternative #11 is the preferred access for the state,
where the Longfellow driveway would provide both entry and exit to the on -parking structure.
The ;tom spOve the following proposed mitigation measures:
• New acceleration/deceleration lane along the project frontage of Sepulveda Boulevard as per figure
2 of the report.
• qideFthenorth and the south side of Longfellow- Drive' by foul feet, -and curb -to -curb width of 44
,:feet ; Restsiping'theroadway.to,provide a 12 -foot right -turn only'lane..a-10-footthrough lane, and —
a.10-foot-lefttturn,iane for the.westbotnd approa,ch,,plus a single 12 -foot eastbound travel between
Sepulveda -Boulevard -and Kuhn -Drive.
However, the state propose to re tripe the roadway to 18 foot through lane and a 12 foot left -turn lane
for the westbound approach, plus a single 14 foot eastbound travel lane between Sepulveda Boulevard
and Kuhn Drive. Thus, to comply with the state latest minimum requirements and standards for lane
width. Please note that parking restrictions is still necessary so that the 18 -foot lane will function as
through plus functional right -turn lane.
I0 39Gd
JAS
Z3N06 DlQfliS ZZSi9L£0t£ L0:91 Z00Z/L0/I0
V1!1+1I_UL, NUN 14;44 CAA 44u .)MY foo.)
410
RON HIRSCH
January 3, 2002
Page 2
nary legvel L¢a, iut.4110
The state du nal anutvq the following proposed mitigation measures:
• New southbound left -turn phrase. The proposed left -turn phase do not meet the guidelines
as per state "Traffic Manual" which include the followings:
1. ACCIDENTS. Five or more left -turn accidents for a particular left turn movement during
a recent 12 -month period.
2. DELAY. Left turn delay of one or more vehicles, which were waiting at the beginning of
the green interval and are still remaining in the left turn lane after at least 80% of the total
number of cycles for one hour.
3. VOLUME. At a pre -timed signal, more than two vehicles per approach per cycle for a
peak hour.
At a traffic actuated signal, 50 or more left turn vehicles per hour in one direction with the
product of the turning and conflicting through traffic during peak hour of 100,000 or more.
4. MISCELLANEOUS. Other factors that may be considered include:
a) Consistency of signal phasing with that at adjacent intersections.
b) Impaired sight distance due to horizontal or vertical sight distance.
c) Where there are a large percentage of trucks and buses.
Also, please refer to NCHRP Report 457 figure 3-5 "Guidelines for determining the potential
need for a separate left -turn phase.
Please note that the intersection Measure of Effectiveness (MOE) and Level of Service (LOS)
will worsen with protective left -tum phase due to increase in delay.
• Southbound U-turn allowed. The proposed removal of the southbound U-turn restriction is not
advisable for the following reasons:
1. Not enough gap time for such maneuver due to high opposing conflicting volume:
2. Not enough turning radius for large vehicles or trucks.
3. No protected left -turn signal phase.
4. Driver behavior and comfort - It is easier and more convenient for traffic generated by the
proposed development to make left -turn instead of U-turn movement, since Longfellow
driveway is closer and safer.
2
Z0 39Vd Z3N06 oiaas
ZZ8T9LEOTE L0:9T Z00Z/L0/T0
MVA 14. QU CNA alU aoa, I uua h ftU ,00vviauvo . +41.,4
• •
RON HIRSCII
• _ January 3, 2002
Page 3
In conclusion, we recon end the proposed acceleration/deceleration lane along the project frontage of
Sepulveda Boulevard. Also, the widening and restriping of the Longfellow Drive to 18 foot through
lane, a 12 foot left -turn lane for the westbound approach, plus a single 14 foot eastbound travel lane
between Sepulveda. Boulevard and Kuhn Drive.
Should you have any questions, please contact me or George Chammas of my staff at (213) 897-3355.
Sincerely,
•
, .E. &T.E.
nior rai pornuion Engineer
Office of Traffic Investigations
E0 39tid
3
Vga
Z3NO6 OIQf11S ZZ8I9LE0IE L0:9t Z00Z/L0/t0
•
• 1.1
5
2 X 2 TREE BOX
. ..eve lrOChA:< ^
11'0001"St' Met
; ..
RAISED R t4 ERS
LW
mzs s•0ec ca' Y+111=
•- IAMOCAK AMA
rd'
•
KUHN DRIVE
• •2x2TAEE sax
nrw';LEhuA •
1
f .�.... ... 1a'ti�.r-..mfr. /IMGfeC011uu[----71,..... .`._ ...`...I 7-.2"-- .� -.y \\
j
••. ,. - .- LAMK/MAA[A I v
�'y 11 1'l[rAy 't
.l�flKaf�_ - '•te ��••,7,1��-y�,�v:
1. ;
•
1
NEW THREE STORY OFFICE BUILDING WITFI
SUBTERRANEAN PARKING GARAGE
xlw CChwAcnn[
IRMA MICA
AMY 11 M:CAP Amos.
1B•
1.100 01 11' [
rn.
[MAWAY
MCA/l AMA
MTALAAA!Oh A'
tcwslxnAr: i
if l'C toff'/a `L A' A •
SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD
SITE.PLAN
aha• . 1.. O•
Ex?dG
RP.CRERY
61t:
tirvf KAMJC./KW,
LONGFELLOW DRIVE
12'
1
•
14'
February 22, 2002
• •
City Hall
1400 Highland Avenue Manhattan Beach, CA 90266-4795
Telephone (310) 802-5000
FAX (310) 802-5001 TDD (310) 546-3501
Mr. Yunus Ghausi, Senior Transportation Engineer
California Department of Transportation - District 7
120 S. Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012-3606
Subject: Sepulveda Boulevard (SR 1) at Longfellow Drive — Manhattan Beach
Request for Left -Turn Phase and Removal of U -Turn Prohibition
Dear Mr. Ghausi:
The City of Manhattan Beach is considering a proposal to develop a 56,120 square -foot office building
on the northwest corner of the intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard and Longfellow Drive. The
Sepulveda/Longfellow intersection has a two-phase signal and U-turns are currently prohibited at this
intersection for southbound motorists. As most of the traffic that would be accessing the proposed
office' building would pass through this intersection and since the majority of the project -generated
traffic would approach the site from the north on Sepulveda Boulevard, traffic operations and safety
would be improved if a left -turn phase were to be installed for southbound Sepulveda Boulevard and if
the existing U-turn prohibition were to be removed. These measures would improve access to the two
driveways, which are located on the east side of Sepulveda Boulevard north of Longfellow Drive and on
the north side of Longfellow Drive east of Sepulveda Boulevard, respectively.
In Section 9-01.3 of the Caltrans Traffic Manual, titled "Guidelines for Left -Turn Phases," protected left
turn phases should be considered at intersections where there are "50 or more left turning vehicles per
hour in one direction with the product of the turning and conflicting through traffic during the peak hour
of 100,000 or more." According to the traffic analysis that was prepared for the proposed office
building, the Sepulveda/Longfellow intersection would have a projected volume of 87 vehicles turning
left or making U-turns from southbound Sepulveda during the AM peak hour, while the volume of
conflicting through traffic in the northbound direction would be 3,140 vehicles per hour. The product of
87 vehicles times 3,140 vehicles is 273,180. As the left turning volume of 87 vehicles is above the
recommended threshold of 50 vehicles per hour and since the product of 273,180 is well above the
recommended threshold of 100,000, the analysis indicates that a left turn phase would be warranted at
this location. The City of Manhattan Beach is requesting, therefore, that Caltrans authorize the
modification of the Sepulveda/Longfellow traffic signal to add a left turn phase for the southbound
direction of Sepulveda Boulevard. To minimize adverse impacts to the overall operational efficiency of
the intersection, it is suggested that a protected -permissive left turn phase be considered.
Fire Department Address: 400 15th Street, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 FAX (310) 802-5201
Police Department Address: 420 15`s Street, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 FAX (310) 802-5101
Public Works Department Address: 3621 Bell Avenue, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 FAX (310) 802-5301
City of Manhattan Beach Web Site: http://www.ci.manhattan-beach.ca.us
If the requested left turn phase were to be approved and installed at the Sepulveda/Longfellow
intersection, the existing U-turn prohibition in the southbound direction would no longer be necessary.
The turning radius would be sufficient for U-turns from the existing left turn lane because there are three
northbound lanes on Sepulveda Boulevard and parking would be prohibited. It is requested, therefore,
that the existing U-turn prohibition be eliminated so that southbound motorists on Sepulveda Boulevard
would have the opportunity to make a U-turn at the intersection and proceed north to the main entrance
to the new office building on the east side of Sepulveda.
In summary, the City of Manhattan Beach is requesting that Caltrans authorize the installation of a left
turn phase for southbound Sepulveda Boulevard at the Longfellow Drive signal (possibly to operate as a
protected -permissive left turn signal) and the elimination of the existing U-turn prohibition for
southbound Sepulveda. These modifications would substantially improve access and safety at this
location and are warranted based on the projected traffic volumes.
Your prompt review and response would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please
contact Eric Haaland at 310-802-5511 or me at 310-802-5503.
Si cerely,
Rich. d Thompson
Director of Community Development
cc: Neil Miller, Public Works Director
Eric Haaland, Associate Planner
Rob Osborne, Management Analyst
•
•
STATE OF CALIFORNIA —BUSINESS, TRANSPORT ' , AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR ATION
DISTRICT 7, 120 SO. SPRING ST.
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012-3606
•
March 7, 2002
GRAY DAVIS, Governor
Richard Thompson
Director of Community Development
City Hall
1400 Highland Avenue
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266-4795
Subject: Request for installation of protected southbound left -turn phase and removal of U-turn
prohibition on Sepulveda Boulevard (SR -1) at Longfellow Drive.
Dear Mr. Thompson;
This is in response to your letter dated February 22, 2002, requesting that Caltrans authorize the
installation of a left -turn phase signal for southbound Sepulveda Boulevard at the Longfellow
Drive and the elimination of the existing U-turn prohibition for southbound Sepulveda Boulevard
in Manhattan Beach.
We have reviewed the projected traffic volume and the signal warrant study and we are pleased
to inform you that the intersection meets Volume (3) requirements. Therefore, the installation of
protected left -turn phase signal for southbound Sepulveda Boulevard at Longfellow Drive is
justified.
We have investigated the jurisdictional status of this portion of the roadway at this location in the
City of Manhattan Beach. According to the maintenance agreement between the State and the
City of Manhattan Beach, we agreed to continue maintaining the traffic signals on Sepulveda
Boulevard within the City of Manhattan Beach. Therefore, it has been determined that a permit
application with the Permit Engineering Evaluation Report (PEER) for installing a left -turn
signal and modification of the existing traffic signal to current state standards as prescribed to us
by your office, would be given a favorable consideration. However, the work must be performed
and 100% paid by the City's Developers. It is our understanding that the City's Consultants will
prepare the design plans, PEER, and the permit application for the proposed improvements.
[ECEOIill
MAR 1 2 2002 V
• S
1\
MR. RICHARD THOMPSON
March 7, 2002
Page 2
We will be happy to cooperate with the City in an investigation at this intersection to determine
the extent of improvement necessary for the safe and orderly traffic measures.
We appreciate your taking the time to give us your views and concerns. Should you have any
questions, please contact me or George Chammas, of my staff at, (213) 897-3355.
Sincerely,
I r&T.E.
for Transportation Engineer
ffice of Traffic Investigations
c: Kaku Associates
1453 Third Street, Suite 400
Santa Monica, CA 90401
•
•
03/08/2002 11;10
310376.
STUDIO 90NE2
rraac. u<
DRIVE.BEsOKINFlGw n
019
IMBED otNrftEcONWNWMoHs of THAf'F1
9NEEFt FOUND ON PGE 21 OF TRAPS(
STt3DY
03/11/2002 14:51 3103761822 Siuvlu
03%11%02 MON 14:16 FAX 3104 7883 Kaku Associates. In�
too:
•
Pat nen
March 8, 2002
Page 21
roadway curb -to -curb width of approximately 38 feet. Parking is allowed along the south side of
the street between Sepulveda Boulevard and Kuhn Drive. Based on conversations with City
staffs, a reduction in the sidewalk width along the project frontage of Longfellow Drive from the
current 12 feet to eight feet is recommended. This reduction would allow for a four -foot widening
of Longfellow Drive. It is recommended that the same approach be applied to the southern side
of Longfellow Drive between Sepulveda Boulevard and Kuhn Drive, adjacent to the Re/Max
enticing lot. Therefore, the mitigation measure described below is recommended for installation
by the project to address the Identified significant traffic impact.
• • - _ . - • .411 e , • - • : • - Widen the north side of Longfellow Drive
along the project frontage by four feet. Remove approximately five on -street parking
spaces, and widen of the south side of Longfellow Drive by four feet. These widenings will
narrow the sidewalk to eight feet or both sides of the street, and allow for an improved
curb -to -curb street width of 44 feet. Within this width, restripe the roadway to provide a
wide curb lane permitting through and right -turn movements end a single left -turn lane on
the westbound Longfellow Drive approach, plus a single eastbound travel lane between
Sepulveda Boulevard and Kuhn Drive. The westbound curb lane would be wide enough to
function as a through plus functional right -tum Zane.
The effects of this proposed mitigation measure were evaluated using the same analysis
assumptions and techniques described previously, bu: assurning that the proposed widening and
restriping of Longfellow Drive was "in place"_ The results of that supplemental analysis are shown
in Table 5. As shown in this table, the proposed mitigation measure will reduce the impacts of
both project access alternatives to less than significant levels.
CMP CREDITS FOR IMPROVEMENTS
The proposed mitigation measure involves the Implementation of improvements to a local cross
street along a CMP corridor route. Additionally, the preferred project alternative access scheme
provides traffic signal modifications to enhance localized traffic circulation.
•
03/11/2002 14:Di 31uJ101000
03/11;02 MON 14;16 FAX 310 394 7663
41
i
Eaku Associates. Inc. Q003
•
Pat Killen
March 8. 2002
Page 24
westbound vehicle queues on Longfellow Drive will be of sufficient length to block the project
driveway. Additional comments from the area neighbors and some City staff have noted that
"With Project' volumes could create a vehicle queue that interferes with the intersection of
Longfellow Drive and Kuhn Drive, at the project's southeast corner. Additionally, any substantial
vehicle queues could cause vehicles at the 'back" of the queue to miss the green phase for east -
west traffic, and increase delays on this approach of the intersection. The proposed mitigation
improvement to the westbound approach of Longfellow Drive will provide two lanes pus a de facto
right -tum lane to accommodate westbound traffic, which should lessen the queue lengths and
individual vehicle delays for this approach. However. a detailed analysis was performed to
quantify these issues.
A final concern involves the ability of the existing southbound left -turn lane to accommodate the
anticipated "With Project" traffic volumes. This left turn pocket is approximately 80 feet long plus
an approximately 60 -foot transition, and can accommodate approximately four to five vehicles. A
supplemental examination of the potential "With Project" vehicle queues in this lane was also
prepared.
The ICU analysis performed -earlier was used as a tool for evaluating the significance of project -
related impacts to the study intersection. However, this methodology does not exhibit a means of
addressing changes In signal phasing or timing, nor does It allow for the computation of vehicle
queue lengths. For this reason, a supplemental analysis of the Intersection was prepared using
the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 methodology, which can calculate changes in
intersection operations and delay based on different signal phasing schemes, as well as calculate
vehicular queues. The HCM methodology uses the same analysis assumptions and genera!
calculation process, determining a v/c ratio and assigning a LOS value based on the relationships
defined earlier in this report in Table 1.
S`epulyeds t3eulaxard Snirthhnund l rN_Tttr p Asa
The left -turn phase addition was analyzed using a comparison of the without and with project
traffic conditions, as in the ICU analysis. However, this analysis focused on the overall operating
03/11/2002 14:51 3103761822 51 uvlu 7ui'i
03:11'02 MON 14:17 FAX 3104 7863 l;f►ku A68o0.ates, Inc
�v� i�oo1
Pat Killen
March 8, 2002
Page 27
intersection. Vehicle queues for the Alternative 1 access plan, which allows both entry and
right -tum exits at-cthe Longfellow . Drive access, could be as much es 113 feet during the
morning peak hour, and 133 feet during the evening peak hour. The PM peak hour queue
would reach almost to Kuhn Drive, blocking the project driveway, and potential;y interfering with
traffic along Kuhn Drive. Alternative 2 vehicle queues are similar, since the queue length is
primarily a function of exiting project traffic, and both projects exhibit identical exit volumes from
the proposed Longfellow Drive driveway.
As indicated earlier in this report, it is recommended that the project install a widening and
restriping improvement to the westbound approach of Longfellow Drive at Sepulveda
Boulevard, to mitigate it's potential significant impact at this intersection. This improvement
would provide en exclusive left -turn lane and a wide curb lane functioning as a through lane and
a de facto right -turn lane. These additional lanes would distribute the westbound approach
traffic, and potentially reduce the vehicle queue lengths described above.
A supplemental analysis of the effects on vehicle queue lengths was performed, again using
the HCM 2000 analysis methodology, to investigate the effects of the proposed mitigation
measure on the calculated : vehicle queue lengths. This analysis indicated that, with the
recommended improvement, the maximum vehicle queues were reduced to 82 feet (for rgh?-
turning vehicles) during the AM peak hour for both the Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 projects.
The maximum PM vehicle queues were 73 feet for both alternatives (for left -turning vehicles).
A review of the HCM 2000 worksheets contained in the appendix of this report shows that all
other approach queues were shorter,than these maximums during both peak hours.
Based on these supplemental analyses, the implementation of the recommended mitigation
improvement will substantially reduce the length of vehicle queues on the westbound approach
of Longfellow Drive, and address the concerns of blockages of the project driveway or
impedance of traffic on Kuhn Drive. The results show that, particularly during the project -critical
PM peak hour, vehicle queues will not block the Longfellow Drive exit driveway with the
recommended mitigation measure in place.
\I •
•
03/11/2aet 14:31 OJUJW1W,-.
1111 03/11/02 MON 14:18 FU 310 4 7663
•
Pat Killen
March 8, 2002
Page 29
Kaku Associates. Inc. @ 005
•
CONCLUSIONS
11
The results of our analyses of the proposed 56,121 square foot Skechers USA commercial
office development indcate that the project wili'result ln.a_signifcant.impact at_the.site-adjacent ,
nters on of Sepulveda Bouleverd_and.Longfellow Drive. This Impact will occur regardless of
which of the two analyzed project access, schemes are implemented. However, construction of
the recommended mitigation improvement to Longfellow Drive, which would widen Longfellow
Drive by approximately eight feet and provide an exclusive left -tum lane and a wide curb lane
functioning as a through lane and a de facto right -tum lane on the westbound approach, will
reduce the project's impacts to less than significant levels for both access alternatives. No
significant impacts are anticipated to occur on the regional freeway or arteria; street system.
The recommended mitigation measure will reduce vehicular queuing along the westbound
approach of Longfellow Drive, and reduce the potential for queues blocking the projects access
driveway on this street.
Additionally, Installation of a new southbound left -turn signal phase and removal of the U-turn
prohibitions for southbound traffic on Sepulveda Boulevard at Longfellow Drive will have no
slgn!ficant effects on the operations of the intersection. The existing left -turn pocket provides
sufficient capacity to accommodate the increase in traffic due to development of either
alternative of the project.
Finally, the project will provide ample on-site parking to serve the site. No parking overflow
impacts are anticipated.
Based on these conclusions, it Is our opinion that all project impacts can be reduced to less
than significant,levels through implementation of the recommended mitigation measures.
ll
03/11/2002 14:51 3103761822 5iuutu �unc� ^~� X006
03 11,02 MON 14:18 FAX 310 4 7683 Kaku Associates. Inc
ll
Printed: 3/1112002
1457 ICU veraion3.xia
Project Tido: MANHATTAN BEACH SKE -CHERS OFFICE
Intersection: SEPULVEDA !IL AND LONGFELLOW OR
Deatription: EXISTING PLUS PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 1 (with mitigation)
Date/Time: AM PEAK HOUR
S
Thru Lane: 1600 vph N -S Split Phase: N
Left Lane: 1600 vph E -W Split Phase : N
Double Lt Penalty: 20 % Lost Time (% of cycle) : 5
ITS: 0 % VIC Round Off (deco.) : 3
APPROACH MVMT LANES VOLUME CAPACITY WC ICU ANALYSIS
Southbound RT 0.00 8 0 0.000 N -S(1): 0.716 '
TH 2.00 87e 3,200 0278 N -S(2): 0.284
LT 1.00 e7 1,600 0.054 • E -W(1): 0,033 '
Westbound RT 1.00 57 1,000 0,000 E -W(2): 0.012
(a] TH 1.00 8 1.600 0.005
LT 1.00 15 1,800 0,009 • WC: 0.749
Northbound RT 0.00 36 0 0.000 Loaf Time: 0.050
TH 3.00 3,140 4,800 0.662 '
LT 1.00 13 1,600 0.008
EaetRound RT 0.00 18 0 0.000 ICU: 0.799
TH 1.00 9 1,600 0.024 '
LT 0.00 11 1,600 0.007 LOS: C
Date/Tlme: PM PEAK HOUR
APPROACH MVMT LANES VOLUME CAPACITY V/C ICU ANALYSIS
Southbound RT 0.00 13 0 0,000
TH 3.00 2,993 4,800 0.626 •
LT 1.00 52 1,600 0.033
Westbound RT 1.00 50 1,800 0.000
(a] TH 1.00 16 1,800 0.010
LT 1,00 76 1,600 0.049 '
Northbound RT 0.00 16 0 0.000
TH 2.00 1,282 3,200 0.405
LT 1.00 55 1,600 0.034'
Eastbound - RT 0.00 35 0 0.000
TH 1.00 6 1,600 0.036 •
LT 0.00 17 1.600 0.011
N -S(1): 0.438
N-6(2): 0.660 •
E -W(1): 0.065
E -W(2): 0.021
VC: 0,745
Lost Time: 0.050
ICU: 0.795
LOS: C
- Denotes critical movement
[a] Note: Wide curb lane to be provided on westbound Longfellow approach would permit right turns to function as a
de facto right -him lane.
•
•
•
03'11/02 MON 11;18 FAA 310 394 7663 Saku Associates, Inc.
•
Printed: 3/11/2002
•
rib 607
1457 ICU version3.:lo
Project Title:
hrtersaction:
Description:
MANHATTAN BEACH SKE, CHERS OFFICE
SEPULVEDA IL AND LONGFELLOW DR
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 2 (with mitigation)
Pots/Time:
2.AM PEAK HOUR
Thru Lane:
1800 vph
NS Spit Phase : N
Left Lane:
1600 vph
EIV Split Phase ; N
Double Lt Penalty:
20 °%
Last Timc (% of cycle) : 5
ITS:
0 %
V/C Round Off (decs.) : 3
APPROACH
MVMT LANES
VOLUME -
CAPACITY
V/C ICU ANALYSIS
Southbound
RT 0.00
8
0
0.000
N -S(1): 0.716 '
TH 2.00
876
3,200
0.276
N -S(2): 0.284
LT 1.00
87
1,800
0.054 '
E -W(1): 0.033 '
Westbound
RT 1,0o
57
1,600
0.000
E -W(2): 0.013
(a)
TH 1.00
8
1,600
0.005
LT 1,00
15
1,600
0.009 '
V/C: 0.749
Northbound
RT 0.00
20
0
0.000
Lout Time: 0.050
TH 3.00
3,156
4,500
0.662 '
LT 1.00
13
1.600
0.008
Eastbound
RT 0.00
18
0
0.000
ICU: 0.799
TH 1.00
7
1,600
0,024 '
LT 0.00
13
1,800
0.000
LOS: C
Date/Time:
PM PEAK HOUR
APPROACH
MVMT LANES
VOLUME
CAPACITY
V/C ICU ANALYSIS
Southbound
RT 0.00
13
0
0.000
N•S(1): 0.438
TH 3.00
2,993
4,800
0.626 •
N -S(2): 0.680 •
LT 1.00
52
1,600
0.033
E -W(1); 0.086 •
Westbound
RT 1.00
50
1.600
0.000
E -W(2): 0.021
(a)
TH 1.00
18
1,800
0.010
LT 1.00
78
1,600
0.049 •
V/C: 0.745
Northbound
RT 0.00
11
0
0.000
Lost Time: 0.050
TH 2.00
1,286
3,200
0.405
LT 1.00:
55
1,600
0.034 '
Eastbound
RT 0.00
35
0
0.000
ICU: 0.706
TH 1.00
6
1,600
0.036 •
LT 0.00
17
1,600
0.011
LOS: C
• - Denotes critical movement
(a) Note: Wide curb lane to be provided on westbound Longfellow approach would permk right tums to function as a
de facto right -turn lane.
�l
May 8, 2002
Honorable Mayor and Members of
the Hermosa Beach City Council
-q//
Regular Meeting= of --
May 14, 2002
REVIEW OF RECYCLING PROGRAM; PUBLIC RECYCLING AND TRASH
CANS; ALTERNATIVE BILLING PROCEDURE; AND ACCEPT
RECOMMENDATION TO CONTINUE THE MANUAL COLLECTION
SYSTEM UNDER THE AGREEMENT WITH
CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL SERVICE.
Recommendation:
1. That the City Council review and approve the 32 gallon recycling containers and
informational materials;
2. That the City Council approve placement of public recycling and new trash cans
throughout the City;
3. That the City Council direct staff to report back on a home composting program in
corporation with another jurisdiction;
4. That the City Council approve new procedure for Alternative billing procedures and
direct staff to return with a amendment to the municipal code; and,
5. That the City Council accept the staff recommendation to continue the manual
collection system.
Background:
When the new solid waste disposal and recycling agreement was approved in September
of 2001, the City Council directed that the hauler return with a recycling information
program and new containers for recycling. In addition, the hauler and staff were to return
with a recommendation on whether or not we could use the semi -automated cart system
for residential solid waste.
The recycling information program is detailed in the attached letter and is intended to be
an ongoing program with different activities each year. The most notable change will be
the new 32 -gallon container. This will have the City of Hermosa Beaclattind the recycling
logo on it and we will mail a flyer to each resident announcing the change. It is expected
that the new containers will be available in August. Residents will be able to -keep -the ----
current boxes if they wish. The new 32 -gallon container will be available at the meeting.
CDS will also provide the schools with containers so they can operate a recycling center
in order to raise funds for school activities.
6f
• •
Collection System:
After reviewing the operation and the very tight spaces that our residents have -for -storage - --
to trash containers in the narrow streets and parking conditions, it was determined -that -the- -
manual system of collection would be the most efficient for us. As a result, there is no
need to conduct a public hearing or information effort for our residents to determine if-
they
fthey are interested in switching to the cart system. The contract with CDS would be -
modified to state that the City could consider the cart option in the future. „ _ ,,,
Alternative Billing Procedures:
The municipal code now provides that, in order for a tenant to pay for the trash service,
the property owner must file a form at City Hall and then the hauler is notified of the new
billing address and name. The application fee for this is $11.00 and this is processed in
the City Manager's office. It is proposed that the process be entirely handled by the
hauler and the fee be dropped. I suspect that the application process was designed to
make sure that the property owner was aware that if the tenant did not pay the bills that
they would be responsible for it. CDS would handle this from their customer service
center. They would collect the information and bill the tenant. The property owner
would still be on notice and this will eliminate one step for the tenant and property
owner. CDS handles this function for other cities that they serve.
Home Composting:
The contract provides for handling home composting. A number of other cities with
larger lots offer a subsidized compost container. They also offer classes that show
residents how to do home composting. It is recommended that staff be directed to look
into participating in one of the programs offered in nearby cities so that residents wishing
to participate could be offered the subsidized rate for the container and the class.
Public Recycling Containers:
It is also recommended that the City purchase and place recycling containers in all
locations that are feasible, along side the trash containers. Staff will provide a brochure
showing the containers at the meeting. There would be two containers at each location,
one for recycling and one for trash. Funds for these containers are budgeted in this fiscal
year. The containers would have the City logo on them and could be in place this
summer.
Respectfully submitted,
Stephen R. Bu ell
City Manager
•
CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL SERVICE
A Subsidiary of * REPUBLICSERVICES, INC.
May 7, 2002
Steve Burrell -
City Manager
Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Dr.
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Dear Steve:
•
1449 W. Rosecrans Ave.
Gardena, CA 90249
Telephone (562) 663-3400
Facsimile (310) 527-2987
Per our conversation regarding the continuing of the current manual residential service.
Here are some public educational materials that would be rolled out when we increase
the recycling containers from the current 18 -Gallon bucket to the new larger 32 -Gallon
recycling containers.
Instructional Flyer For New 32 Galion Container:
We will provide to all Single Family residents, and up to 4 -Unit buildings, an informative
flyer that will be mailed out with the (to be determined) billing period explaining that we
will be delivering a new larger container that will be replacing the current 18 -Gallon
bucket in the month of (to be determined). Also, the flyers will be included again upon
delivery of the new containers. The flyer for the new larger container (i.e. increased
recycling capacity for easier set -out, nicer appearance on City Streets) will address the
delivery, along with a list emphasizing the identification of recyclables that are commonly
discarded that can now be placed in the new larger container.
Magnets for Quick Reference:
Along with the above-mentioned flyers, we will have magnets made up for quick
reference with information printed on the face that will be available for (to be determined)
billing period. The information on the magnet will be the list of expectable recyclable
items and also the non-recyclables items. A second magnet explaining large item pick-
up will be available for (to be determined) billing period with our (800) 299-4898 for quick
reference.
Signs For Our Trucks Regarding Recycling Information:
We will have signs made up with recycling messages visible on both sides of our trucks,
which would be available in (to be determined). These messages will be updated on a
4 -month rotation basis. We plan on having 3 different messages for a 12 -month period.
•
CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL SERVICE
A Subsidiary of C, S' REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC.
Brochure:
•
The brochure gives the customers a handy and informative reference to- -the- various
services available to them along with contact number for any questions or requests.
This tool allows the customers to recycle with ease having the guidelines of how and
what to recycle at their fingertips.
Banners:
As per our discussions in the meeting we will have banners made up that can be
displayed over the City Streets of Hermosa Beach emphasizing the need to recycle, also
to promote recycling awareness.
Recycling Containers:
Recycling containers (96 gallons) will be make available to the Schools Districts that
would be used as collection sites for recycling fundraisers at no cost to the School
District.
Composting Containers:
We will investigate the various styles, and sizes of composting bins that are available.
The information along with our recommendation for the right composting bins that will
best fit the needs for the City of Hermosa Beach.
Earth Da
We also are looking forward to the combing of our efforts to make the next years 2003
Earth Day Celebration a meaningful and educational event for the entire City of Hermosa
Beach.
We will be delivering a sample of a 32 -gallon blue recycling container that can be put on
display. We will also have samplings of the flyer, magnets, picture of signs for trucks, &
the brochure for your approval.
If you have any questions please feel free to call me (562) 663-3551.
Sincerely,
Paul Kachirsky
General Manager
•
•
Hermosa Beach Recycles
The New Larger Bins Are Coming!!
18 Gallon Container
From
32 Gallon Container
To
PAPER
PLASTIC
GLASS
RECYCLABLES
Newspaper, Magazines, Phone
Books, Junk Mail, & Envelopes,
Cardboard Boxes, Dry Food Boxes,
Office Pa • - r, Com • uter Paper
12 345
Soda Bottles, Dry Cleaner Wrap,
Colored Plastic Containers,
Plastic Garbage, & Shopping Bags
METAL
Glass Containers
Bottles
Tin Cans
Aluminum Cans
NOT RECYCLABLES
Paper With Food On It, Paper or
Boxes With Wax, Plastic or
Foil Coating, Wet Paper,
Strin •, Plastic Ba • s
6 7
And Plastic Items With
No Triangle Symbol
Light Bulbs
Pyrex Containers
Window Glass, Mirrors,
Ceramic Glass Mu • s, Plates, etc.
Aerosol Cans, Paint Containers,
Metal Objects Other Than Cans
The list above
RECYCLABLES
can be mixed together and placed into the new larger container.
C*NSOLIDATED DISPOSAL SERVICE
A Subsidiary of s REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC.
1449 W. Rosecrans Ave. Gardena. CA 90249 Telephone (8001299-4898 Facsimile (3101 527-2987
DON'T LET YOUR RECYCLABLES GO TO WASTE!
PAPER
PLASTIC
GLASS
METALS
GREEN
WASTE
RECYCLABLE
Newspaper, magazines, phone
books, junk mall & envelopes,
cardboard boxes, dry food boxes,
office paper, computer paper
Soda bottles, dry cleaner wrap,
colored plastic containers, plastic
garbage & shopping bags
Glass contalners & bottles
Tin & aluminum cans
Grass clippings, plants, branches,
shrubs, wood
NOT RECYCLABLE
Paper with food on it. Paper or
boxes with wax, plastic or foil
coating. Wet paper, string, plastic
bags.
Plastic items with no triangle
symbol
Light bulbs, Pyrex containers,
window glass, mirrors, ceramic
mugs, plates, etc.
'Aerosol cans, paint containers,
wire, metal objects other than
cans
Treated or painted wood,
furniture, food waste, pesticides
plastic containers, rope, and
string
West Hollywood Residential Recycling Program
Questions??? CaII (323) 848-6404
April 24, 2002
Honorable Mayor and Members of
the Hermosa Beach City Council
`5////0; -
Regular Meeting of
May 14, 2002
SPECIAL MEETING FOR DISCUSSION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT — THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 2002
Recommendation:
That the City Council set a special meeting to discuss the report and provide opportunity
for members of the public and the committee to comment on the report.
Background:
The City Council, at its meeting of April 23, 2002, directed that a special meeting be set
to consider, in detail, the report, conclusions and recommendations of the Economic
Development Review Committee. The City Council meeting schedule is filled in May
and, as a result, a date in June would probably work best. Please check your calendars
for Thursday, June 27, 2002.
The background material that the committee used in compiling its report will be provided
to each of you and made available to the public prior to the special meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Step en R. Burrell
City Manager
7a
•
May 9, 2002
Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of
the Hermosa Beach City Council May 14, 2002
LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN'S
REQUEST FOR $750,000 FOR THE SOUTH BAY I-405 ARTERIAL ,
IMPROVEMENTS
Recommendation:
That the City Council consider sending the attached letter of support for the subject
funding.
Background:
A memo is attached from the South Bay Cities Council of Governments detailing the
funding request and asking that cities in the region send letters of support. A copy of the
letter to Congresswoman Harman is also attached.
Respectfully submitted,
Stephen R. Burrell
City Manager
7b
• •
South Bay Cities Council of Governments
May 2, 2002
TO: City Managers
FROM: Jacki Bacharach, SBCCOG Executive Director
RE: Letters of support for the I-405 Arterial Improvements Initiative
In partnership, the El Segundo Employers' Association and the South Bay Cities
Economic Development Partnership and the South Bay Cities Council of Governments
have asked Congresswoman Jane Harman to request $750,000 for the South Bay I-405
Arterial Improvements Initiative from the National Corridor Planning and Development
Program in the current transportation appropriation bill. The request has been submitted
It would be very helpful to the effort if your city would send a letter of support to the
Congresswoman and send a copy to me at SBCCOG. A draft letter is attached.
Thank you for your assistance.
The following is the description of the project that was submitted with the request.
$750,000
Interstate 405 is the main thoroughfare that runs North-South through my Congressional District. The
freeway carries traffic through the South Bay, linking Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) on the
north with the I-110 Freeway on the south and also provides access to the Port of Los Angeles. Along the
way are a number of regional trip generators including Hollywood Park, the beach, and a large number of
aerospace and defense firms.
Freeway and corridor improvements are critical to facilitating the movement of goods and services to LAX
and the Port, and in addressing congestion from local traffic.
On behalf of the El Segundo Employers Association, I am requesting $750,000 under the National Corridor
and Planning Development Program for I-405 Arterial Improvements Initiative. The Association is
working in conjunction with the South Bay Council of Governments and the South Bay Economic
Development Association on this Initiative, which will:
Analyze and prioritize an already developed list of needed improvements for the I-405 Corridor in the
South Bay region. The projects include signage, signalization and on-ramp and off -ramp improvements.
The Initiative will allow the cities of the South Bay to rank the projects into an integrated list of short,
medium and long-term improvements. The analysis is needed before determining how they fit into the
overall plan for short, medium and long-term improvements.
Analyze the feasibility of three particular arterial/corridor improvements: Crenshaw Blvd./182nd Street,
Inglewood Avenue, and Manchester Avenue/La Cienega Boulevard — all of which provide critical access
into and out of LAX.
May 9, 2002
Ms. Jane Harman
Congresswoman, 36th District
U. S. House of Representatives
229 Cannon House Office Building
Washington D.C. 20515
Dear Congresswoman Harman:
•
City of2lermosa rl3eacl...)
Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885
I am writing to express the City of Hermosa Beach's appreciation and strong support for
your efforts to secure $750,000 for the I-405 Arterial Improvements Initiative under the
National Corridor and Planning Development Program in the FY03 U.S. Department of
Transportation appropriations bill.
This initiative, which is a collaborative effort of the South Bay Cities Council of
Governments, the El Segundo Employers Association, and the South Bay Economic
Development Partnership, will make it possible to analyze and prioritize needed
improvements for the I-405 Corridor in the South Bay region of Los Angeles County.
These improvements are critical to reducing congestion in the Corridor and to supporting
economic development and job creation in the South Bay.
We realize that competition for these funds is very intense, but we are hopeful that your
efforts on behalf of this important initiative will be successful. Again, thank you, and
please let me know if the City of Hermosa Beach can be helpful in any way.
Sincerely,
Kathy H. Dunbabin
Mayor
KHD: rem
cc: South Bay Cities Council of Governments
i
May 2, 2002
Honorable Mayor and Members of
the Hermosa Beach City Council
Regular Meeting =of
May 14, 2002
V/D
i
NO BICYCLE RIDING "A" FRAME SIGNS ON THE STRAND
Recommendation:
1. That the City Council approve the use of No Bicycle Riding "A" frame signs on the
Strand at 13th Court and 11th Street placed in the middle of the Strand.
2. Relocate signs on poles to 11th Street and 13th Court and turn off the lights.
Background:
The Strand presently has signing and red lights that direct bicycle riders to walk their
bikes from 10th Street to 15th Street. The signs and lights have been in use for several
years. These devices are generally ignored by bike riders except at times when we have
large crowds on the Strand.
The cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach both use "A" frame signs at the
parking structure and pier on the bike path and they seem to be effective in getting riders
to walk their bikes.
The Strand paving from 11th to 13th Court will be changed as a result of the Phase III Pier
Project, creating a walk zone. The use of the "A" frame signs and painting "walk zone"
on the Strand at 11th Street and 13th Court will provide some idea of how this will work
on a trial basis. Additional bike walk zone signs on existing poles will better alert riders
to walk in this section. The police will work to inform riders and eventually start writing
citations for violations of the walk zone.
Respe fully submitted,
I
I,,
Step en R. Burrell
City Manager
7c
011 41,d)-%-;-ree-°z-
1 August 15,2001
v aRV
John T. Hales
624 8th Place
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Phone: 310/372-1510
City Council
City of Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3885
Subject: The Strand Safety Fon AU6Usr 28,2oot couucic NtEEsOJV
In mid June I reminded Mr. Harold Williams, Public Works
Director, that the faded yellow safety line and related
stenciled words on the Strand needed to be repainted for
the coming summer season.A responding letter from Public
Works assured me the repainting would be done before the
4th of July week. Today the yellow line and stenciled
words still appear worn and in some places illegible, Why?
In the red blinking lights zone flanking the Pier and
between 10th and 15th streets, when the red blinking
lights are activated, more than a few bikers ignore the
posted "Walk your bike" signs and ride through the
congested zone and particularily on summer weekends and
holidays. When one reminds a biker of such, the offending
biker may ignore on',give one the big finger or choose to
vocally foul -off and continue to ride through the red
zone. Police presence and enforcement is seldom seen.
Solutions to these problems? Repaint the yellow line and
the white stenciled words NOW, even though the summer
season(is nearing an end.
Sorrre ,oast
Our Police Department in years and on a few
weekends have posted free-standing "Walk your bike" signs
at 10th and 15th streets. Find out where these signs are
stored and use them!
Redondo Beach has similar signs posted at its Pier where
the bike traffic merges with the pier pedestrian traffic.
Interestingly, these signs note "Walk bike" ,a graphic
showing a person walking bike, "Subject to Fine" and
R.B.M.C. 4-9,802B". See enclosuresA 4 8-
r
If Hermosa Beach Municipal Code does not specifically
apply to our Strand and Pier traffic in the vicinity of
the,Pier.', consider the wording of Redondo's ordinance.
The Redondo type sign (four) should be posted on the
Strand at 11th and 14th streets, where ::.Pier Plaza
traffic meets the Strand andit the entrance to the Pier.
With a suitable ordinance our police would have the
authority to control this hazardous area. Use the two
existing signs as warnings at 10th and 15th streets.
SEE Ef-JC Los)RC
continued page two
page two, City Council/John Hales/August 15, 2001
Sign posting or not posting scheduling times would be
determined by the weather, day of the week and the
anticipated hours of activity.
I would be most willing to help set up an enforcement
procedure. It is badly needed.
Thank you for allowing me to express my thoughts of this
matter.
P. S.
The yellow centerline was installed on the Strand some
years ago. Its concept was introduced to the City Council
by John Hales.
During the four summer months it reduced the accident
rate, when -paramedics were called, -from three per months
rto one per month,, l
Accidents counted werepT7-7176-re-7Fie-re—tfib--Th-TiCa77.7
was tran"sported-by ambulance to a hospitalr-for-addit'ionai
treatment. Skinned-knee--•requiri'ng-only --a band -aide did
not count.-
FACE OF OUAY MALL
N O,
V
'MhTTE `
., .``�`k
o
•
ht M1b��
PARCEL IS It
STRUCTURE
fT.Ek,„grarTn.YT;n,T,Eir' .�
I POINT OfaE011µ1Np.-
I'•
AriLA1.1R 111111
10UMDA RY OF
TIER LEASE
WA/.Lk BIKE
•
NICIPA L
A.
MN.pF OF REDONDMOST O YHERLY BOUNDARY
CO, LEASE ARE REACH FISHERMAN*
4
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Area from which certain activities are prohibited
or restricted
fio/ /ed4»— his
ce,4-t
v -,de ir00,7k •
'Jo -ft ---(7)442-/e-
/f
r,i4 e-
/ / fz
00
0
oG P"4' B -(5-o/
m C‘ /y C.Per k'3 15' Ge
od dIied S-�S-a/
7'D)v, cwt. c/ rrs o`6«e.
E }.IGt�S v CZ E 5
Said area is depicted on the diagram set forth in this
section which is made a part of said description. (§ 1,
Ord. 2154 c.s., eff. October 8, 1975, as amended by § 1,
Ord. 2236 c.s., eff. May 31,1978)
• 4;9:8OZ Proliibite'dactivities.—>
(a)—Dogs. Dogs with or"without a leash are hereby
prohibited on any portion of the area described in this
article. Any person permitting a dog to be in said area
\ with or without a leash shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
) Bicycles. It shall be unlawful for any person to
ride a bicycle within the area described in this article;
provided, however, bicycle riding shall be permitted on
any portion of said area designated as a bicycle, path.
(c) Skateboards. It shall be unlawful for any person
\to ride or propel any skateboard or similar device (includ-
ing roller skates) along, across, upon, or within the area
described in this article.
(d) Entertainers. It shall be unlawful for any person
to conduct or furnish any entertainment on any public
portion of the area described in this article unless:
(1) Such person has in his or her possession a bona
fide lease, sublease, license, or permit consented to or
issued by the City; and
(2) Such person is within an area specifically desig-
nated by the City for entertainment activities; and
(3) Such person is conducting or furnishing entertain-
ment in compliance with all entertainment regulations
promulgated by the City Manager or his designated
representative.
For the purposes of this subsection, "entertainment"
shall mean any presentation or activity of any nature
which is designed or intended to divert, amuse, or attract
the attention of persons observing such presentation or
activity, including, but not limited to, the display of
mental or physical agility.
(e) Off -premises sales of beverages in glass bottles.
(1) Definitions. For the purposes of this subsection,
the following words and phrases shall be defined as
follows:
(i) "Glass container" shall mean any airtight sealed
device made of glass, plastic, or other materials which
container directly holds or contains liquids and which is
capable or likely to shatter when dropped or thrown upon
a solid surface.
(ii) "Sale" shall mean a commercial transaction by
any person, firm, individual, corporation, partnership, or
vendor in which transaction beverages are sold directly
to the public for a monetary consideration for the purpos-
es of off -premises consumption. "Sale" shall•not include
a transaction for the purpose of reselling.
147
R�n4& i dv (9e''
4-9.801
• (2) Sales of bottled drinks. It shall be unlawful to
sell, in the Fisherman's Wharf Area, any liquid contained
in any glass container to be consumed by a person off the
premises on which the container is sold. (§ 1, Ord. 2236
c.s., eff. May 31, 1978, as amended by § 1, Ord. 2317
c.s., eff. December 30, 1981)
Article 9. Protection of Dogs Utilized by the Police
Department
4-9.901 Interference with dogs utilized by the
Police Department prohibited.
(§ 1, Ord. 2311 c.s., eff. July 1, 1981, as repealed by
§ 1(33), Ord. 2844 c.s., eff. November 4, 1999)
Article 10. Reserved Recreation Facilities
4-9.1001 Recreational reservations and permits.
No person shall do any of the following acts on or in
a public recreational facility belonging to the City or to
a public school district in the City:
(a) Refuse and fail to surrender the possession and
use of any such recreational facility to any person or
organization who displays a City or public school district
pemnit or reservation for theuse thereof;
(b) Intentionally disturb or interfere with any organi-
zation or person with a permit or reservation who is
occupying or using any such facility; or
(c) Fail or refuse to comply with any rule for the use
of such facility posted by the City or public school dis-
trict or any law applicable to the recreational activity
being conducted thereon. (§ 1, Ord. 2363 c.s., eff. April
4, 1983)
4-9.1002 Organized play: Permits required.
(a) No person shall participate in any organized play
on any park, playing field, court or other public recre-
ational facility owned or operated by the City without
their first having been issued a permit therefor by the
Department of Recreation and Community Services.
(b) The term "organized play" as used in this section
shall mean twelve (12) or more persons engaging in a
team sport athletic contest, such as, by example and not
limitation, football, baseball, basketball, volleyball, tennis
or soccer, either as part of a league or a continuing prear-
ranged association of persons.
(c) In determining whether or not to issue such
permit, the Recreation and Parks Department shall con-
sider, among any other factors it deems relevant:
(1) The suitability of the particular facility for such
play;•
(2) The effect of such activity on the neighborhood;
(Redondo Beach 6-00)
014, 14Le, s
(2iF, tT2 DA lED 8 -t5 -O(
A stGA4
R.b v e u la to tem
LIGHT srAmTi
M E2 e
cr
r,
Mayor and Members
of the City Council
May 6, 2002
City Council Meeting
May 14, 2002
VACANCIES - BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
UPCOMING EXPIRATION OF TERMS
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council direct the City Clerk to immediately advertise and
request applications from interested parties for one Civil Service Board term that will expire July
15, 2002, with appointment to be made at the regular Council meeting of July 9, 2002.
Background:
One term on the Civil Service Board will expire July 15, 2002. Following established procedure,
this matter is being brought to the attention of Council at this time for direction with regard to
advertising the upcoming term expiration. Traditionally, Council has directed that all seats on all
boards and commissions be advertised. (None of the other boards or commissions have terms
expiring at this time - the Public Works Commission will have two expiring terms in October.)
The seat is currently held by John Wisdom, who has served on the Board since August 7, 1989,
when he was appointed to fill an unexpired term. If interested in reapplying, Mr. Wisdom would
be eligible for reappointment. Appointment will be for a four-year term ending July 15, 2006.
The vacancy will be advertised with an application -filing deadline of 6 p.m., Thursday, June 27,
giving Council the opportunity to adjourn that evening's special meeting (proposed for review of
the Economic Development Study) to an interview meeting prior to the July 9 regular meeting, if
required.
„D
Elaine Doerfling, City Cle
Noted:
Stephen ' : urrell, City Manager
8a
From: TIM PODCZERVIENSKY <skypod2000@hotmail.com>
To: artYoon@hotmail.com <artYoon@hotmail.com>
Date: Monday, March 11, 2002 7:48 PM
Subject: Traffic on Prospect
Hi Art!, Two weeks ago you said that you would discuss SHORTENING the left turn arrow
from West bound Aviation Blvd./ South bound Prospect Ave., to keep traffic on the main
roads rather than cut through our neighborhood at high speeds in the evenings
and morning hours. We would like to know where we in this community may track any
progress on this matter. Thanks Art. Tim (310) 372-8403
'i/ 10/ V4
9a