Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10/12/04
�.. t. CITY CLERK "Now and then it is good to pause in our pursuit of happiness and just be happy." AGENDA REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - Council Chambers, City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Regular Session - 7:10 p.m. Closed Session - Immediately following Regular Session MAYOR CITY CLERK Art Yoon Elaine Doerfling MAYOR PRO TEM CITY TREASURER J. R. Reviczky John M. Workman COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY MANAGER Sam Y. Edgerton Stephen R. Burrell Michael Keegan CITY ATTORNEY Peter Tucker Michael Jenkins All council meetings are open to the public. PLEASE ATTEND. The Council receives a packet with detailed information and recommendations on nearly every agenda item. Complete agenda packets are available for public inspection in the Police Department, Fire Department, Public Library and the Office of the City Clerk. 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 LATINO AIDS AWARENESS DAY OCTOBER 15, 2004 CLOSED SESSION REPORT FOR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2004: NO REPORTABLE ACTIONS. 1 7 • 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. NO WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 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 minutes of the regular meeting of the City Council held on September 28, 2004. (b) Recommendation to ratify check register. (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 September 15, 2004. • • (e) Recommendation to waive the $236 banner fee for the Hermosa Beach Woman's Club annual pancake breakfast on October 24, 2004. Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated October 6, 2004. (f) Recommendation to accept donations of 20 Twelve month gym memberships to be auctioned or sold and used for the Summer 2005 Concert series (will be appropriated in 2005) at an estimated value of $10,000 from 24 Hour Fitness; $90.00 in an anonymous employee donation from Wells Fargo Community Support Campaign to be used for Teen Program supplies; and, $30.00 in an anonymous employee donation from Wells Fargo Community Support Campaign to be used for Teen Program supplies. Memorandum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated October 5, 2004. (g) Recommendation to approve agreement between City of Redondo Beach and City of Hermosa Beach for Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria Tidal Shoreline Water Quality Monitoring. Memorandum from Public Works Director Richard Morgan dated October 5, 2004. (h) Recommendation to accept the Proposal of Emergency Planning Consultants. San Diego, CA, to provide the development of both a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Compliant with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and a Multi -Hazard Functional Plan compliant with the State of California Standardization Emergency Management System; and, authorize the transfer of $30,000 from the Prospective Expenditures Account to the Fire Department Contract Services Account (001-2201-4201). Memorandum from Fire Chief Russell Tingley dated October 4, 2004. 3. CONSENT ORDINANCES NONE 4. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION * Public comments on items removed from the Consent Calendar. 3 • • 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 7:30 P.M. a. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A VARIANCE TO ALLOW GREATER THAN 65% LOT COVERAGE; TO ALLOW GREATER THAN 100% INCREASE IN VALUATION WHILE MAINTAINING A NONCONFORMING FRONT YARD; AND TO ALLOW REQUIRED OPEN SPACE NOT ADJACENT TO A PRIMARY LIVING AREA AT 311 31ST STREET. Memorandum from Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated October 4, 2004. RECOMMENDATION: Deny appeal and adopt resolution. b. TEXT AMENDMENT CORRECTIONS TO SECTION 17.44-090 -- OFF-STREET PARKING LOCATION AND SECTION. 17.28.020 — M-1 PERMITTED USE LIST. Memorandum from Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated September 1, 2004. RECOMMENDATION: Waive full reading and introduce ordinance. 6. MUNICIPAL MATTERS a. CONSIDERATION OF MEASURES TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH AB939 WASTE DIVERSION MANDATE. Memorandum from Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated October 6, 2004. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Authorize staff to begin the process for joining the Los Angeles Area Regional Agency for AB 939 diversion and disposal reporting purposes. 2. Adopt the construction debris recycling resolution to divert debris to recycling facilities instead of landfill disposal. 3. Adopt resolution to establish an "Automated Recycle Toters for Commercial Businesses" program to enhance recycling by businesses. 4. Adopt resolution establishing a "5% Commercial Trash to Transformation Facility " program to increase diversion from the commercial and industrial sector. b. ADOPTION OF TRUANCY ORDINANCE. Memorandum from Police Chief Michael Lavin dated October 5, 2004. RECOMMENDATION: Waive full reading and introduce ordinance. 4 • • 7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER a. REDONDO UNION HIGH SCHOOL CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION SPONSORSHIP. Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated October 6, 2004. RECOMMENDATION: Consider whether or not to become a sponsor and at what sponsorship level. b. COMMUNITY ENERGY PARTNERSHIP TORCHIERE LAMP TRADE-IN PROGRAM ON NOVEMBER 20, 2004. Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated October 6, 2004. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file as informational item. c. E -NEWSLETTER. Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated October 6, 2004. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council review and approve the recipient data base list use and the general guidelines for content and approval and direct the City Manager to sign the month to month service agreement; and appropriate $3,500 to cover the cost of the service contract for seven months. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE TERM OF THE CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE AGREEMENT TO APRIL 30, 2005. Memorandum from Personnel Director/Risk Manager Michael Earl dated October 7, 2004. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. 8. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL a. VACANCIES — BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS EXPIRATION OF TERMS — PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated October 6, 2004. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council schedule a meeting prior to the regular meeting of Tuesday, October 26, 2004, for the purpose of interviewing applicants, with appointments to be made that evening at the regular meeting. 5 ti • • b. PROPOSITION 68. Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated October 6, 2004. RECOMMENDATION: Determine whether or not to take a position on Proposition 68. 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 Mayor Yoon for consideration of a resolution in support of a conforming conditional use permit application for Sunshine Canyon Landfill and a letter of support. 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 September 26, 2004. 2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Government Code Section 54956.8 a. Property: 552 11`h Place, APN: 4187-020-044 Negotiating Parties: Stephen Burrell & Stephen Grossman Under Negotiation: Price & Terms of Payment b. Property: 75 14th Street, APN: 4183-003-905 Negotiating Parties: Stephen Burrell & Norma Navarro Under Negotiation: Price & Terms of Payment ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION ORAL ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT • • MEDIA RELEASE October 12, 2004 Century City Film Festival to Screen Award Winning Film that Chinese Government is Trying to Block Chinese Consulate Attempts to Stop Screening of "Sandstorm" at Houston Festival Sandstorm, a multi award-winning film based on true accounts of the ongoing persecution of millions of Falun Gong practitioners in China, will be screened at the Century City Film Festival in the historic Crest Theatre in Westwood on Friday October 29. On September 24, a Chinese consulate official in Houston made a surprise call to founder/chairman of the Houston Multicultural International Film Festival (www.hmiff.com), Stephen Allen, telling him to cancel the festival's screening of Sandstorm. When Mr. Allen refused, the consulate then called the Deputy Director of the Houston Film Commission, Alfred Cervantes, telling him to stop the screening at the festival. Mr. Cervantes also refused. Sandstorm won "Best Feature Film" in Houston. Though China is emerging as an economic superpower, Sandstorm reveals the hidden atrocities that occur under a strict no -tolerance regime. Canadian Gemini Award -Winning actor and 1st time writer/director/producer, Michael Mahonen, says he was inspired to write the script for Sandstorm in 2002 after practicing Falun Gong for a year. The film reveals the truth hidden behind the propaganda — much of which is oriented to having westerners think the movement is characterized by strange rituals that run contrary to Falun Gong's teachings. Synopsis: He Tianying is a mid-level Chinese police officer. He and his sick wife have been trapped in their home for 12 days as a result of a massive sandstorm. To make matters worse, the couple's daughter was caught in the storm and is missing, and Tianying's wife is running out of life-sustaining medicine. As the exhaustion and pressure mount, Tianying begins to reflect on his life persecuting those who engage in the spiritual practice of Falun Gong. As the last of the supplies run out Tianying is visited in a dream by an apparition of his daughter who helps guide him toward deeper truths and hope... Originally targeted for an audience of Chinese police officers, Sandstorm is a moving portrayal of how obedience without question can be crippling. This movie is based on first-hand accounts that have been communicated by people in China, who have risked their lives to relay this information to the outside world. WINNER: "Best Feature Film" at the Houston Multicultural Independent Film Festival "Best Feature Film" at the Independents' Film Festival, Tampa, FL "Best Feature Film" at the 27th Philafilm International Film Festival, Philadelphia "Best Feature Film" at the deadCenter Film Festival, Oklahoma City "Festival Special Prize" at the Law & Society International Film Festival, Moscow, Russia "Erase Hate/Promote Tolerance Award," Bare Bones Script -2 -Screen, Tulsa, OK • • Screening Info Westwood Crest Theatre October 29, 2004, 7:15 PM 310-551-1035 Contact: AIt,,,a-r1- 310 q1g- N�o0 Some of what people are saying: "I just wish that more people could see this because it's so, so vitally important to the cause of humanity. I really believe that strongly." -- Freelance Journalist Jonathan Zellars "I think this film is so important because of the number of people it effects and because it is a film about government abuse. And it's a film about personal freedom at a level that's unprecedented. We're talking about tens of millions of victims of government abuse. The depictions in this film of the electronic shock and the forced feeding are unbelievable. Some people would look at it and say, 'That is not happening. That couldn't possibly happen today, in 2004. It's happening. The film documents it. I think the impact of what it depicts is what's important, because its something that's continuing. It's not something that happened yesterday and then it went away." — Philafilm International Film Festival Director, Larry Smallwood Official Website: www.SandstormMovie.com FRIENDS OF THE PARK cordially invites you to its.. 2nd flmuial. ppmphins in the Park October 16,2004 JorLl6ts of fun tl:O�aiu - 1:00pm Friends of the Parks will sponsor the, Second'Annual Pumpkins in the Park at Fort Lots of Fun. Meet -new friends and neighbors as you enjoy hotdogs and a Halloween -inspired program for the kids! In addition to.having a great time, learn -more about the City plans and the recent allocation of funds for Fort. Lots of Fun improvements. COOKIE DECORATING FOR THE KIDS HOTDOGS `��- RAFFLES , PRIZES AND PUMPKINS FOR THE FAMILY • • ,.___,-,-ua-c)-(__ /0///blv MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, September 28, 2004, at the hour of 7:10 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Webelos from Pack 860 ROLL CALL: Present: Edgerton, Keegan, Reviczky, Tucker, Mayor Yoon Absent: None ANNOUNCEMENTS — Mayor Pro Tempore Reviczky spoke of the success of the Hermosa Beach Sister City Association auction of September 26, saying it was very enjoyable and raised a lot of money, which will allow the Association to pursue its many worthwhile programs. Councilmember Keegan announced a third WiFi class on Saturday, October 4, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. He then congratulated Fire Chief Russ Tingley as head of the League of California Cities Fire Chief Association. Councilmember Edgerton asked that the winner of his auction item at the Sister Cities Fundraiser contact him to make plans for their cruise on his boat. He then described a progressive dinner being held by the Hermosa Beach Education Foundation, at which, the appetizer, main course, and dessert would be held at three beautiful homes in the City. PRESENTATION Mayor Yoon presented a proclamation to Randy Fortunato, owner of the Bottle Inn, congratulating him on 30 years of success in the community. Carla Merriman, Executive Director of the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce and Visitors' Bureau also presented a plaque to Randy Fortunato. Randy Fortunato thanked Mayor Yoon and Ms. Merriman for the proclamation and plaque and said that he was grateful for the widespread, favorable reputation held by the Bottle Inn and said the restaurant also reflected well on Hermosa Beach. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: a. Letter from Roger Creighton and Paul lshikawa dated August 30, 2004. No one came forward to speak on this issue. b. Letter from Elaine Doerfling, President of the Woman's Club of Hermosa Beach, dated September 21, 2004, requesting the waiver of the $236.00 banner fee for their 14th Annual Pancake Breakfast on October 24, 2004. City Council Minutes 09-28-04 Page 11491 a • • City Manager Burrell said staff recommended approval of the request. Action: To agendize the request for the October 12, 2004, Council meeting. Motion Reviczky, second Edgerton. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. c. Letter from Redondo Union High School requesting sponsorship for their Centennial Celebration. Action: To agendize the request for the October 12, 2004, Council meeting. Motion Mayor Yoon, second Edgerton. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. There were no oral communications. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR: Action: To approve the consent calendar recommendations (a) through (I), with the exception of the following item, which was removed for discussion in item 4, but is shown in order for clarity: (g) Tucker Motion Reviczky, second Mayor Yoon. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. At 7:20 p.m., the order of the agenda was suspended to go to item 4, items removed from the consent calendar. (a) RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING MINUTES: (1) Adjourned Regular meeting held on September 14, 2004; and (2) Regular meeting held on September 14, 2004. Action: To approve as presented the City Council minutes of the Adjourned Regular meeting of September 14, 2004, and the Regular meeting of September 14, 2004. (b) RECOMMENDATION TO RATIFY THE CHECK REGISTER NOS. 37845 THROUGH 38031 AND TO APPROVE THE CANCELLATION OF CHECK NOS. 37145, 37597, AND 37987, 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 tentative future agenda items, as presented. (d) RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE AUGUST 2004 FINANCIAL REPORTS: City Council Minutes 09-28-04 Page 11492 1) Revenue and expenditure report; 2) City Treasurer's report; and, 3) Investment report. Action: To receive and file the August 2004 financial reports. (e) RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE NOTICE OF CLOSED CLAIM. Memorandum from Personnel Director/Risk Manager Michael Earl dated September 22, 2004. Action: To receive and file notice of closed claim. RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE PROJECT STATUS REPORT. Memorandum from Public Works Director Richard Morgan dated September 20, 2004. Action: To receive and file the status report of capital improvement projects that are either under design or construction as of August 31, 2004. RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE ACTION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2004. This item was removed from the consent calendar by Councilmember Tucker for separate discussion later in the meeting. Action: To review and reconsider the Planning Commission's approval of a Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51290 for an 18,000 square foot commercial building containing 54 commercial condominium units at 200 Pier Avenue (item 10 on the Planning Commission action sheet). Motion Tucker, second Yoon. Further Action: To receive and file the remainder of the action minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of September 21, 2004. Motion Tucker, second Reviczky. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. (h) RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT TO CBM CONSULTING, INC. TO PROVIDE DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR CIP NO. 04-115 STREET IMPROVEMENTS — 20TH STREET FROM VALLEY DRIVE TO POWER STREET IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,158; AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST THE PSA SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY ATTORNEY; AND, AUTHORIZE THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE AGREEMENT UP TO $2,500. Memorandum from Public Works Director Richard Morgan dated September 21, 2004. (f) (g) City Council Minutes 09-28-04 Page 11493 (i) • • Action: Approve staff recommendation to: (1) Award Professional Services Agreement to CBM Consulting, Inc. to provide design and engineering services for CIP No. 04-115 Street Improvements — 20th Street from Valley Drive to Power Street in the amount of $22,158; (2) Authorize the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest the PSA subject to approval by the City Attorney; and (3) Authorize the Director of Public Works to make changes to the agreement up to $2,500. RECOMMENDATION FOR REAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FROM 2003- 04 TO 2004-05. Memorandum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated September 21, 2004. Action: To approve the reappropriation of funds from 2003-04 to 2004-05. (j) RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE REVISED CLASS SPECIFICATIONS FOR POLICE SERVICE OFFICER SUPERVISOR AND COURT LIAISON OFFICER. Memorandum from Personnel Director/Risk Manager Michael Earl dated September 23, 2004. Action: To approve the revised class specifications for Police Service Officer Supervisor and Court Liaison Officer. (k) RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION INTERPRETING A PARTIAL 0-S OPEN SPACE ZONING DESIGNATION FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 517 AND 521-5211/2 LOMA DRIVE. Memorandum from Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated September 23, 2004. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 04- 6358, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CLARIFYING THE BOUNDARY OF THE GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE DESIGNATED AREA FOR SOUTH SCHOOL SITE, NOW KNOWN AS SOUTH PARK, AS ESTABLISHED BY PROPOSITION 0, AND THEREBY CORRECTING THE GENERAL PLAN MAP AND ZONING MAP AS THEY PERTAIN TO THE REAR PORTIONS OF THE LOTS LOCATED AT 517 AND 521-521 �/s LOMA DRIVE (LOTS 5 AND 4 OF BLOCK K, TRACT 1686)." RECOMMENDATION TO DIRECT CITY MANAGER TO SIGN LETTERS OF AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CONCERNING EXEMPTIONS FOR THE CIAC/ITCC TAX FOR TWO UNDERGROUND DISTRICTS THAT ARE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS: BAYVIEW/PALM DRIVES PROJECT AND BONNIE BRAE STREET PROJECT. Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated September 23, 2004. (I) City Council Minutes 09-28-04 Page 11494 Action: To direct the City Manager to sign Letters of Agreement with Southern California Edison concerning exemptions for the CIAC/ITCC Tax for two underground districts that are in the assessment process: Bayview/Palm Drives Project and Bonnie Brae Street Project. 3. CONSENT ORDINANCES - None 4. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION Item 2(g) 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 7:27 p.m., the order of the agenda went to item 8(a). 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING ADDING A PARKING PERMIT TO ALLOW HOLDERS THAT DO NOT LIVE IN THE PREFERENTIAL PERMIT PARKING AREA TO PARK WITHOUT PAYING METERS OR LONGER THAN THE POSTED TIME FRAME. Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated September 21, 2004. A supplemental memo from Finance Director Viki Copeland was received on September 28, 2004. City Manager Burrell presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. City Attorney Jenkins and Police Chief Lavin also responded to Council questions. The public hearing opened at 7:52 p.m. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: Carla Merriman — Executive Director of the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce and Visitors' Bureau, said the downtown business owners supported the proposal because it would bring more residents to the downtown area for dining and shopping, which would contribute to the success of their business, particularly in the non -summer months and during the week; John Hales — Hermosa Beach, gave a history of parking meters in the City, stating that he had a full page ad published in 1946 announcing the first parking meters with the intent to make money for the City and to provide nearby parking for merchants; said he supported preferential parking for residents and said he would be willing to pay a reasonable amount for a permit so that he could shop in Hermosa Beach; Vicki Garcia — Hermosa Beach, spoke in support of the proposal, noting that the cost of the permit would have to be weighed against the number of times a resident parked downtown; opposed any plan that would take City Council Minutes 09-28-04 Page 11495 • • parking from other residents; said it was unfair that someone living in the northern portion of the impacted area could drive to the south side and park for free; said that parking was difficult in all areas; and Susan Blaco — Hermosa Beach, said at one time parking permits were available for all residents and said that she had been using a cash key for parking meters at a cost of about $80 a year. The public hearing closed at 8:02 p.m. Proposed Action: To approve a permit program to enable all residents to park in the downtown area at' silver meters Monday through Friday during non -summer months. Motion Mayor Yoon. The motion died for lack of a second. Proposed Action: To approve a permit program to enable all residents to park in the downtown area at yellow meters at the same times offered to people in the impacted zone. Motion Edgerton. The motion died for lack of a second. Proposed Action: Expand cash key program to allow for a discount to residents and try to find some way to give residents an opportunity to upgrade and add to the cash keys when City Hall is closed. Motion Mayor Yoon, second Tucker. The motion was replaced with a substitute motion. Action: To direct staff to report back on a cash key program that allows for resident discounts and to explore other parking meter technology for better efficiency, including the opportunity to upgrade cash keys when City Hall is closed. Motion Yoon, second Edgerton. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. 6. MUNICIPAL MATTERS - None 7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER - None 8. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL a. RECEIVE AND FILE REPORT DETERMINING THAT THE CITY'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE REQUIRES NO 2004 AMENDMENTS. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated September 21, 2004. City Clerk Doerfling presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Action: To receive and file the report determining that the City's Conflict of Interest Code requires no 2004 amendments. Motion Reviczky, second Edgerton. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. City Council Minutes 09-28-04 Page 11496 9. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL a. REQUEST OF MAYOR YOON FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO DETERMINE WHETHER ON NOT IT WISHES TO TAKE A POSITION ON BALLOT PROPOSITIONS AND STATEWIDE REGULATIONS. Supplemental fax from County Supervisor Don Knabe received September 14, 2004. 1. Proposition 68; 2. California Air Resources Board Regulations regarding greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles; and 3. The proposed expansion of LAX City Manager Burrell responded to Council questions. Action: To take a position against the proposed expansion of LAX. Motion Keegan, second Reviczky. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Action: To agendize Proposition 68 for a future meeting. Motion Keegan, second Edgerton. So ordered with Council consensus. At 7:38 p.m., the order of the agenda went to public hearing item 5(a). 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 September 14, 2004. 2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: 552 11th Place, APN: 4187-020-044 Negotiating Parties: Stephen Burrell & Stephen Grossman Under Negotiation: Price & Terms of Payment ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION — The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach adjourned on Tuesday, September 28, 2004, at the hour of 8:37 p.m. to a closed session. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION — The Closed Session convened on Tuesday, September 28, 2004, at the hour of 8:50 p.m. At the hour of 9:00 p.m., the Closed Session adjourned to the Regular Meeting. ORAL ANNOUNCEMENTS —There were no decisions made requiring a public announcement. City Council Minutes 09-28-04 Page 11497 } ADJOURNMENT - The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach adjourned on Tuesday, September 28, 2004, at the hour of 9:01 p.m. to the regular Meeting on Tuesday, October 12, 2004, at 7:10 p.m. /04).A. City Clerk Depiiy City Clerk City Council Minutes 09-28-04 Page 11498 vchlist Check Register 09/23/2004 5:31:16PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH /6/4)-/D Page: 1 Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 38033 9/23/2004 06421 ALL STAR FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC. 90006 Battery Case 001-2201-4309 115.01 Total : 115.01 434 9/23/2004 12567 ALLIANCE STREETWORKS,INC. 136 Retention Release/CIP 02-185 • 301-2024 17,084.54 Total : 17,084.54 38035 9/23/2004 12798 ANDREWS, KEN 4601-03920 Refund Of Rental Insurance 001-3897 11.00 Total : 11.00 38036 9/23/2004 02487 ARCH WIRELESS N7896291I Pager Services/9/04 001-4601-4201 10.49 001-4202-4201 3.86 715-1206-4201 7.17 Total : 21.52 38037 9/23/2004 05179 AT&T 310-937-5959 Long Distance Charges/8/04 110-1204-4304 36.71 Total : 36.71 38038 9/23/2004 00407 AVIATION LOCK & KEY 28101 Lock Repairs/7/04 1111 001-4204-4309 65.00 28162 Zone Call & Re keyNalley Park/8/04 001-4204-4201 50.00 9147 Keys Made/8/04 001-2101-4305 16.24 Total : 131.24 38039 9/23/2004 12867 BICHLMEIER, CARY 98350 Class Refund 001-2111 65.00 Total : 65.00 38040 9/23/2004 11076 BOSSONIS, ANDRONIKI 4601-03926 Instructor Payment/#8857 & 8858 001-4601-4221 672.00 I I vchlist Check Register Page: 2 09/23/2004 5:31:16PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 38040 9/23/2004 11076 38041 9/23/2004 08183 BOSSONIS, ANDRONIKI BRIGHTON ESCROW (Continued) 4201-16189 4111 38042 9/23/2004 12100 BROWN, CHRISTOPHER KYLE 4601-03921 38043 9/23/2004 00034 BUSINESS SYSTEMS CORPORATIC 281902 281912 281925 281941 38044 9/23/2004 12622 CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING •38045 9/23/2004 10838 CANON BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 38046 38047 38048 9/23/2004 12869 9/23/2004 12111 9/23/2004 07837 CASEY, KIMBERLY CHACO, JOHN CHARLES III, WILLIAM 120502 A6881050 99308 4601-03928 2101-16204 Buliding Report Refund/# X0400288 001-3801 Instructor Payment/#9380 001-4601-4221 Total : Total : Total : MONEY ENVELOPES/POLICE DEPT/9/04 001-2101-4305 EVIDENCE ENVELOPES 001-2101-4305 FORMS PRINTED/POLICE DEPT. 001-2101-4305 NOTICE TO CORRECT/STOP WORK FORMS 001-4202-4201 Video Systems Consulting/9/04 001-2101-4201 Copier Maintenance/Aug 04 715-1208-4201 Class Refund/8946 001-2111 Instructor Payment/8919 & 8925 001-4601-4221 Total : Total : Total : Total : Total : 672.00 41.60 41.60 861.00• 861.00 139.16 180.51 458.58 155.34 933.59 1,418.75 1,418.75 70.50 70.5 65.00 65.00 168.00 168.00 Meals/Post Class/9/29-10/1/04 001-2101-4312 84.00 Page: 2 a vchlist Check Register Page: 3 09/23/2004 5:31:16PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 38048 9/23/2004 07837 CHARLES III, WILLIAM (Continued) Total : 84.00 38049 9/23/2004 00634 CHEVRON AND TEXACO CARD SE 789-819-208- Gas Card Charges/Aug 04 715-2101-4310 Total : 650 9/23/2004 05935 CLEAN STREET 40536 DOWNTOWN AREA EXTRA CLEANING/7/04 109-3301-4201 40714 DOWNTOWN AREA CLEANING/04/05 109-3301-4201 001-6101-4201 40715 CITY WIDE STREET CLEANING/04/05. 001-3104-4201 38051 9/23/2004 04715 COLEN AND LEE 1802 General& Auto Liability Claims 705-1209-4201 38052 9/23/2004 08906 COLOURCRAFT PRINTING INC 24417 2004 Fall Brochure Printed 001-4601-4302 38053 9/23/2004 09614 CONTINENTAL MAPPING SERVICE 91004 300' Noticing Services/9/04 001-4101-4201 • 38054 9/23/2004 07809 CORPORATE EXPRESS 52493020 -CM Returned Merchandise 001-1208-4305 54288745 -CM Item not Received 001-1208-4305 544488225 Office Supplies/8/04 001-1208-4305 54560685 Office Supplies/8/04 001-1208-4305 54591141 -CM Item Not Received 001-1208-4305 Total : Total : Total : Total : 262.10 262.10 • 1,960.00 8,217.39 3,039.27 15,929.42 29,146.08 1,000.00 1,000.00 5,449.31 5,449.31 2,994.00• 2,994.00 -81.85 -7.23 107.51 64.58 -1.85 Page: 3 3 vchlist Check Register Page: 4 09/23/2004 5:31:16PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 38054 9/23/2004 07809 CORPORATE EXPRESS (Continued) 54594996 Office Supplies/Aug 04 001-1208-4305 28.81 54638366 Office Supplies/8/04 • 001-1208-4305 61.94 5467957 Office Supplies/8/04 001-1208-4305 68.8. Total : 240.7 38055 9/23/2004 00147 DEVELOPMENT, THE 148374 Disposable Cameras/8/04 001-4601-4308 21.80 Total : 21.80 38056 9/23/2004 11449 DEW EY PEST CONTROL 1936585 Rodent Control/Community Center/6/04 001-2024 360.00 Total : 360.00 38057 9/23/2004 07853 EMPIRE PIPE CLEANING & EQUIP 6425 Sewer Line Maint/Aup 04 160-3102-4201 19,983.00 Total : 19,983.00 38058 9/23/2004 01962 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. 7-605-11048 Express Mail/8/04 4110 001-4601-4302 26.03 7-616-66314 Express Mail/9/04 001-2101-4305 108.3 001-1203-4201 16.2 311-8106-4201 21.95 Total : 172.57 38059 9/23/2004 01320 GALLS/LONG BEACH UNIFORM CO 620292 HOLSTERS FOR G-50 EAGLE 153-2106-5401 3,804.99 Total : 3,804.99 38060 9/23/2004 12123 GARDENA POLICE DEPARTMENT 2101-16164 Tuition/Post/L. Mccolgan/9/27-9/29/04 001-2101-4312 177.00 2101-16166 Tuition/Post R Higgins/9/27-9/29 001-2101-4312 177.00 Page: 4 Li vchlist Check Register Page: 5 09/23/2004 5:31:16PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 38060 9/23/2004 12123 GARDENA POLICE DEPARTMENT (Continued) 38061 9/23/2004 10239 GERVAIS, JENNIFER 4601-03924 062 9/23/2004 06976 GRAPHIC ART PRODUCTION INC. 128226 Theater Technican/9/02/04 001-4601-4201 Total : 354.00 Total : PARKING CITATIONS FORM & ENVELOPES 110-3302-4305 Total : 46.00 46.00 1,597.00 1,597.00 38063 9/23/2004 12868 GREGORY, DEBORAH B. 98394 Class Refund/#8799 001-2111 80.00 Total : 80.00 38064 9/23/2004 12311 GREMAUD, MARIE BAPTISTE 4601-03931 Instructor Payment/# 8994- 8999 001-4601-4221 966.00 Total : 966.00 38065 9/23/2004 12598 HAWTHORNE PAVING CO. 3841 Emergency Street Repair/11th & Ardmore 001-2024 4,740.00 Total : 4,740.00 38066 9/23/2004 06518 HAYER CONSULTANTS, INC. 2106 PLAN CHECKS/1/04-9/04 001-2024 1,425.000 2187 Plan Checks/5/04 • 001-2024 497.14 2192 PLAN CHECKS/1/04-9/04 001-2024 321.24 2194 PLAN CHECKS/1/04-9/04 001-2024 12,442.94 2196 PLAN CHECKS/1/04-9/04 001-2024 825.00 2214 PLAN CHECKS/1/04-9/04 001-4201-4201 712.50 2221 PLAN CHECKS/1/04-9/04 001-4201-4201 255.31 Page: 5 5 vchlist Check Register Page: 6 09/23/2004 5:31:16PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 38066 9/23/2004 06518 HAYER CONSULTANTS, INC. (Continued) 2254 PLAN CHECKS/1/04-9/04 001-4201-4201 709.93 Total : 17,189.06 67 9/23/2004 10740 HAZELRIGG RISK MANAGEMENTS 2001551 Claims Admin Fees/2nd Quarter/2004 705-1217-4201 6,952.50• Total : 6,952.50 38068 9/23/2004 04108 HAZELRIGG RISK MGMT SERV, IN 092004 Worker's Comp Claims 9/10 & 9/17/04 705-1217-4324 10,122.71 Total : 10,122.71 38069 9/23/2004 08673 HIGGINS, ROBERT 2101-16167 Meals/Post Class/9/27-9/29/04 001-2101-4312 24.00 Total : 24.00 38070 9/23/2004 10467 IMPERIAL RADIATOR INC. 217044 Auto Repair/9/04 715-2101-4311 421.45 Total : 421.45 38071 9/23/2004 02458 INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELECT 198362-00 Electric Supplies/8/04 301-8630-4201 208.47 • 198676-00 Electrical Supplies/Pier Head/8/04 301-8630-4201 37.15 001-2021 0.7(• 001-2022 -0.70 198700-00 Electrical Supplies/9/04 301-8630-4201 212.53 001-2021 4.00 001-2022 -4.00 Total : 458.15 38072 9/23/2004 12863 IPMA-HR 20088660 04/05 Membership Dues/Agency 001-1203-4315 299.00 Total : 299.00 38073 9/23/2004 12866 JACKSON, NADINE 98343 Class Refund/#8901 Page: 6 vchlist Check Register Page: 7 09/23/2004 5:31:16PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 38073 9/23/2004 12866 JACKSON, NADINE (Continued) 001-2111 140.00 Total : 140.00 38074 9/23/2004 12792 JONES LUMBER COMPANY INC. 00263040 STORAGE LOCKER MATERIALS 180-8610-4201 1,522.840 • Total : 1,522.84 38075 9/23/2004 12870 KASPER, GENE 99304 Class Refund/#99304 001-2111 55.00 Total : 55.00 38076 9/23/2004 06293 KINKO'S INC. 101600118998 Copies Made/7/04 001-4601-4305 65.27 101600119030 Business Card Magnets/7/04 001-4601-4305 42.21 001-4601-4308 25.00 101600119085 Poster's Printed/Sunset Concert/8/04 001-4601-4308 65.76 101600119146 Blank CD Purchase 8/04 001-4601-4305 3.19 10160p002507 Camp Supplies/8/04 001-4601-4308 7.99• Total : 209.42 4177 9/23/2004 10496 KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS 202638934 Copier Usage/Aug 04 001-4601-4201 113.00 001-1208-4201 143.93 001-2201-4201 92.47 110-3302-4201 35.60 385.00 Total : Total : 38078 9/23/2004 10930 KOSSUTH, GABOR 1202-16194 2003 Assessment Rebate 105-3105 24.61 24.61 38079 9/23/2004 12862 KUSADA, BRUCE K. 1204-16039 Citation Refund/0100053103 Page: 7 vchlist Check Register Page: 8 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 09/23/2004 5:31:16PM Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 38079 9/23/2004 12862 KUSADA, BRUCE K. (Continued) 0080 9/23/2004 11422 L.A. COUNTY PROSECUTORS ASS( 1132-16152 38081 9/23/2004 11242 LESHOWITZ, MELVIN 38082 9/23/2004 12873 LICKHALTER, LEE 38083 9/23/2004 07816 MCCOLGAN, LANCE 38084 9/23/2004 12568 MOMENI , PH.D., DAVID 9/23/2004 12736 OFFICE DEPOT • 38085 38086, 9/23/2004 12795 OFFICE TEAM 38087 9/23/2004 00093 OLYMPIC AUTO CENTER 1202-16193 898 2101-16165 May 2004 420215699 11794421 11806124 11408 110-3302 Membership Dues/Ken Meersand 001-1132-4315 2004 Assessment Rebate 105-3105 Per Diem/9/23-9/24/04 001-2201-4317 Lunches/Post Class/9/27-29/04 001-2101-4312 Inspection Services/CIP-185/May 04 301-2024 Office Supplies 001-6101-5402 Temporary Services/8/28-9/03/04 001-4601-4201 Temporary Services/9/7-9/9/04 001-4601-4201 Auto Repairs/9/04 715-2101-4311 Total : Total : Total : Total : Total : Total : Total : 10.00 10.00 125.00 125.00• 24.61 24.61 100.00 100.00 24.00 24.00 1,650.00 1,650.00 135. 135. 816.00 530.40 Total : 1,346.40 769.77 Total : 769.77 Page: 8 8 vchlist Check Register Page: 9 09/23/2004 5:31:16PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 38088 9/23/2004 09713 PIMA CORPORATION 38089 9/23/2004 11934 POWER CHEVROLET • 38090 9/23/2004 11539 PROSUM TECHNOLOGY 38091 9/23/2004 03353 S.B.C.U. VISA 38092 41093 38094 38095 38096 9/23/2004 09951 9/23/2004 00321 9/23/2004 12581 9/23/2004 09737 SANTA ANA COLLEGE SBC SIBBALD, JONATHAN SOLYMOSI, MARIE #4 123312 Release of Retention/Comm Crt ADA 140-2024 Auto Part Purchase/8/04 715-2101-4311 Total : Total : 11911 SPAM/ANTIVIRUS SOFTWARE PURCHASE 715-1206-4201 5942 7349 9399 2201-16202 248-134-9454 2101-16169 516734 9/23/2004 08812 SOUTH BAY REGIONAL PUBLIC C 1507.08 Wireless Antenna Purchase/8/04 715-1206-4305 Water Broom Purchase/9/04 160-3102-4201 Calif Performance Review Report 001-1201-4317 Registration/Marks/11 /15-19/04 001-2201-4317 Computer hook-Ups/Sept 04 001-2101-4304 10 Lunches/Post Class/Oct 04 001-2101-4312 Bee Removal/City Yard/9/04 110-3302-4201 Total : Total : Total : Total : Total : Total : 28,153.25 28,153.25 8.120 8.12 3,830.14 3,830.14 77.72 201.82 95.00 374.54 205.00 205.0 10.61 10.61 120.00 120.00 85.00 85.00 EQUIP FOR SET-UP PONTIAC GRAND PRIX 715-2101-5403 1,507.08 Page: 9 vchlist Check Register Page: 10 09/23/2004 5:31:16PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 38096 9/23/2004 08812 • SOUTH BAY REGIONAL PUBLIC C (Continued) 200405042 200405076 200405077 200405093 38097 9/23/2004 12865 TOWN & COUNTRY 38098 9/23/2004 00123 TRIANGLE HARDWARE 200405098 2101-16205 Aug 2004 38099 9/23/2004 08207 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT 951-808-8100 38100 9/23/2004 11035 US LANDSCAPES, INC. SET UP/2004 TRAILBLAZER 715-2101-5403 LABOR TO SET UP FORD CROWN VICTORIA 715-2101-5403 LABOR TO SET- UP FORD CROWN VICTORIA 715-2101-5403 DISPATCH SERVICES/2ND QTR 04/05 001-2101-4251 110-3302-4251 001-2201-4251 SET UP FOR P.D. FORD EXPEDITION 715-2101-5403 Lodging/Charles/Post 9/29-10/01 001-2101-4312 Hardware Purchase/Aug 04 001-6101-4309 105-2601-4309 001-3104-4309 001-4204-4309 301-8630-4201 110-3302-4305 001-2021 001-2022 Underground Service Alert/08/04 160-3102-4201 2103 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE/7/04 105-2601-4201 109-3301-4201 Total : Total : Total : Total : 2,055.94 921.28 921.2. 77,600.00 9,700.00 9,700.00 4,056.06 106,461.64 270.00 270.00 433.58 44.77 106.30 479.26 52. 41. 128.00 -128.00 1,157.61 56.00 56.00 2,500.00 900.00 Page: 10 1 0 vchlist Check Register Page: 11 09/23/2004 5:31:16PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 38100 9/23/2004 11035 US LANDSCAPES, INC. (Continued) Total : 3,400.00 38101 9/23/2004 00015 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 310 318-0200 Phone Charges/08/28-09/28/04 001-1121-4304 5.87 001-1132-4304 2.93 001-1141-4304 23.470 • 001-1201-4304 24.94 001-1202-4304 57.21 001-1203-4304 36.67 001-1208-4304 2.93 001-2101-4304 444.49 001-2201-4304 187.77 001-4101-4304 26.41 001-4201-4304 42.54 001-4202-4304 296.32 001-4601-4304 168.70 110-1204-4304 29.34 110-3302-4304 79.22 715-1206-4304 38.14 310 372-6373 Fax Line Personnel/Sep 04 001-1203-4304 32.42 310 406-2421 Phone Charges/9/04 001-2101-4304 38.21dh Total : 1,537.5 •102 9/23/2004 12864 WSATA SOUTHERN CHAPTER 2101-16203 Tuition/Charles/Post Class 001-2101-4312 175.00 Total : 175.00 70 Vouchers for bank code : boa Bank total : 280,830.30 Total vouchers : 280,830.30 70 Vouchers in this report Page: 11 vchlist Check Register Page: 1 09/23/2004 10:45:33AM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 38032 9/23/2004 08116 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 1201-16174 Install Underground Structures/Beach Dr. 301-8106-4201 • • 1 Vouchers for bank code : boa 1 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : Total : Bank total : 160,377.00 160,377.00 160,377.00 160,377.0, • Page: 1 vchlist Check Register Page: 1 09/30/2004 4:11:28PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 38103 9/30/2004 12821 ACE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY 522493 DAY & NIGHT CAUTION TAPE 001-3104-4309 311.11 Total : 311.11 38104 9/30/2004 12066 AIT 5032 Ink Cartridges & Toner • • 715-1206-4305 491.54 5054 Toner Purchase/9/04 715-1206-4305 224.28 5061 Toner Purchase/9/04 715-1206-4305 181.18 Total : 897.00 38105 9/30/2004 06421 ALL STAR FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC. 90159 SELF CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS 001-2201-5402 1,711.43 90349 Brush Tool 001-2201-4309 77.18 Total : 1,788.611 38106 9/30/2004 11994 AMATO, NANCY 99838 Class Refund/9341 001-2111 Total : 38107 9/30/2004 00152 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 586-3750131 Shop Towels Cleaned • 586-3750132 715-4206-4309 Mats & Shop Towels Cleaned 001-3104-4309 586-3750133 Mats & Shop Towels Cleaned 001-2201-4309 586-3750134 Mats Cleaned 001-2101-4309 586-3750135 Mats Cleaned 001-4204-4309 586-3750137 Mats Cleaned 001-4204-4309 130.00 130.00 47.76• 68.09 43.79 53.58 59.22 70.45 Page: 1 1� vchlist Check Register Page: 2 09/30/2004 4:11:28PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 38107 9/30/2004 00152 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued) 586-3759208 Shop Towels Cleaned 715-4206-4309 40.56 586-3759209 Mats & Shop Towels Cleaned • 001-3104-4309 68.09 586-3759210 Mats & Shop Towels Cleaned 001-2201-4309 43.7410 586-3759211 Mats Cleaned 001-2101-4309 53.58 586-3759212 Mats Cleaned 001-4204-4309 59.22 586-3759214 Mats Cleaned 001-4204-4309 70.45 Total : 678.58 38108 9/30/2004 05179 AT&T 019 360 8382 Long Distance Billing/Sept 04 001-2101-4304 73.88 001-4204-4321 7.75 001-2201-4304 99.50 001-4202-4304 38.20 001-4201-4304 26.35 • 001-1201-4304 7.28 001-4601-4304 40.71 715-1206-4304 9.07 001-1101-4304 1.30 001-1121-4304 0.4 001-1132-4304 2.03 001-1202-4304 9.31 110-3302-4304 8.05 001-1141-4304 0.91 001-1203-4304 11.81 001-1208-4304 0.46 001-4101-4304 18.06 110-1204-4304 10.93 310 372-6373 Long Distance Fax Charges/9/04 001-1203-4304 29.66 Page: 2 iti vchlist 09/30/2004 4:11:28PM Check Register CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Page: 3 Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 38108 9/30/2004 05179 AT&T (Continued) 38109 9/30/2004 00407 AVIATION LOCK & KEY 28080 010 9/30/2004 09836 BAIERSKI, MARGUERITE L. 4601-03928 38111 9/30/2004 12880 BINKER-BROWN, MARGARED 99877 38112 9/30/2004 08482 BOUND TREE MEDICAL,LLC 981704 0113 38114 38115 9/30/2004 10151 984373 984376 984379 BRUCCOLIERI, VINCE 1203-16213 9/30/2004 00034 BUSINESS SYSTEMS CORPORATIC 281947 9/30/2004 04928 COLEN & LEE AS AGENT FOR THE 51 03 004A Repair/Community Center Gym Door/7/04 001-4204-4309 Instructor Pymnt Class # 8730 & 8732 001-4601-4221 Class Refund/93201 001-2111 Medical Supplies/9/04 001-2101-4309 Medical Supplies/9/04 001-2201-4309 Medical Supplies/9/04 001-2201-4309 Medical Supplies/9/04 001-2201-4309 Advanced Disability Payment/Sept 04 001-1203-4180 TOW AWAY & NO PARKING SIGNS 001-4202-4201 Settlement/Patterson 705-1209-4324 38116 9/30/2004 04715 COLEN AND LEE 1848 General & Auto Liability Claims 705-1209-4324 Total : 395.78 399.49 Total : 399.49 Alk 1,501.50 Total : 1,501.50 35.00 Total : 35.00 44.27 246.38 470.41 303.48 Total : 1,064.54. 2,898.00 Total : 2,898.00 183.94 Total : 183.94 35,000.00 Total : 35,000.00 1,000.00 Page: 3 15 vchiist Check Register Page: 4 09/30/2004 4:11:28PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor 38116 9/30/2004 04715 38117 9/30/2004 05970 Invoice Description/Account Amount COLEN AND LEE COLLINS, DENNIS 38118 9/30/2004 07809 CORPORATE EXPRESS 38119 9/30/2004 06100 DATA VAULT (Continued) 4601-03930 54706906 54926292 54944199 54961350 54961354 55000340 55026206 55182520 410-60774 38120 9/30/2004 00154 DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL CARE & 8/10/04 38121 9/30/2004 03673 DEPARTMENT OF THE CORONER 4012 38122 9/30/2004 11449 DEWEY PEST CONTROL Instructor Pymnt Class # 9069 & 9070 001-4601-4221 Office Supplies 001-1208-4305 Office Supplies/9/04 001-1208-4305 Returned Merchandise/9/04 001-1208-4305 Office Supplies 001-1208-4305 Office Supplies/9/04 001-1208-4305 ACRYLIC SIGN HOLDERS 001-4601-4305 Returned Merchandise/9/04 001-1208-4305 Office Supplies/9/04 001-1208-4305 Off Site Storage/9/04 715-1206-4201 Shelter Services/8/04 110-3302-4251 Autopsy Reports/8/04 001-2101-4251 2025337 PEST CONTROL SERVICES/SEPT 04 Total : 1,000.00 Total : Total : Total : Total : Total : 2,467.50 2,467.50 67.20 321.84 -23.19 123.51 23.19 177.96 -23.19 136.86 804.20 198.31 198.33 382.42 382.42 22.00 22.00 Page: 4 vchlist Check Register Page: 5 09/3012004 4:11:28PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 38122 9/30/2004 11449 DEWEY PEST CONTROL (Continued) 001-4204-4201 440.00 Total : 440.00 38123 9/30/2004 12874 DOBSON, ROBERT 1204-16170 Citation Refund # 1504002878 110-3302 65.00 0 0 Total : 65.00 38124 9/30/2004 01294 EXECUTIVE -SUITE SERVICES INC. 1700-109B 08/04 Janitorial - Jail 001-4204-4201 750.00 1700-113A 08/04 Janitorial - Police Dept. 001-4204-4201 1,200.00 1703-113 08/04 Janitorial - City Hall 001-4204-4201 1,245.00 1704-109 08/04 Janitorial - Base III 001-4204-4201 290.00 1705-109 08/04 Janitorial - Clark Bldg. 001-4204-4201 365.00 1706-111 08/04 Janitorial - Comm Ctr. 001-4204-4201 4,160.00 1707-109 08/04 Janitorial - City Yard 001-4204-4201 325.00 1861-049 08/04 Janitorial - Bowling Green 001-4204-4201 195.00 1884-036 08/04 Janitorial - So. Park School 001-4204-4201 55.00 Total : 8,585.00 38125 9/30/2004 10668 EXXON MOBIL FLEET/GECC, ACCT 5772033 Gas Card Purchases/Aug 04 Page: 5 I1 vchlist Check Register Page: 6 09130/2004 4:11:28PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 38125 9/30/2004 10668 EXXON MOBIL FLEET/GECC, ACCT (Continued) • 715-2101-4310 4,131.43 715-2201-4310 520.08 715-4201-4310 159.04 715-4202-4310 138.30 715-6101-4310 252.43 715-3302-4310 438.7 715-3104-4310 210.7 715-4601-4310 109.64 715-2601-4310 245.74 715-3102-4310 54.97 001-1250 56.99 Total : 6,318.07 38126 9/30/2004 08422 FIRE INFORMATION SUPPORT SEF 458 Record Management Support/8/04 001-2201-4201 170.00 Total : 170.00 38127 9/30/2004 06344 FIRST CALL STAFFING SERVICES 0709-88116 TRANSCRIPTIONS/PUBLIC WORKS MEETING 001-4202-4201 183.26 Total : 183.26 .8128 9/30/2004 09531 FIRSTLINE, LLC 9697 Medical Glove Purchase/8/04 001-2201-4309 152.83 Total : 152.8. 38129 9/30/2004 12787 GLS SPORTS 269938 SCOREBOARD 715-4204-5602 3,930.05 Total : 3,930.05 38130 9/30/2004 12773 HARRIS, CHERI 20040926 Meeting Minutes & Transcriptions/9/04 001-4601-4305 94.50 38131 9/30/2004 12875 HAYES, JAMES 1204-16201 Citation Refund # 1804006069 110-3302 Total : 94.50 35.00 35.00 Total : Page: 6 18 vchlist Check Register Page: 7 09/30/2004 4:11:28PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 38132 9/30/2004 04108 HAZELRIGG RISK MGMT SERV, IN 03-32509 Worker's Comp Claim/9/20/04 705-1217-4324 31,306.00 09/28/04 Worker's Comp Claims/9/24/04 705-1217-4324 8,427.38 Total : 39,733.38 033 9/30/2004 11122 HDL SOFTWARE LLC 6034 Annual Software Maintenance 715-1206-4201 3,800.00 Total : 3,800.00 38134 9/30/2004 00322 HERMOSA ANIMAL HOSPITAL 10 Emergency Vet Services/9/04 110-3302-4201 35.00 Total : 35.00 38135 9/30/2004 00065 HERMOSA BEACH CAR WASH, ZI 09/01/04 City Car Washes/Aug 04 715-2101-4311 225.80 715-3302-4311 10.90 001-1202-4305 15.85 715-4202-4311 69.95 715-6101-4311 54.90 715-4201-4311 9.90 Total : 387.30 38136 9/30/2004 09657 INFOLINK SCREENING SERVICES 140694 Pre Employment Background Check/9/04 001-1203-4201 63.6. III001-1203-4201 : 63.60 38137 9/30/2004 02458 INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELECT 198540-00 Electrical Supplies/9/04 105-2601-4309 458.56 001-2021 8.01 001-2022 -8.01 198567-00 RESTOCKING FEE/ELECTRICAL MATERIALS 301-8630-4201 205.99 198750-00 Electrical Supplies/Pier Project/9/04 301-8630-4201 528.87 001-2021 9.96 001-2022 -9.96 Page: 7 19 vchlist Check Register Page: 8 09/30/2004 4:11:28PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 38137 9/30/2004 02458 INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELECT (Continued) 198921 Electrical Supplies/9/04 105-2601-4309 183.19 001-2021 3.45 001-2022 -3.45 198949-00 Electrical Supplies/9/04 105-2601-4309 340.2 001-2021 6.4 001-2022 -6.41 Total : 1,716.90 38138 9/30/2004 04908 JAMESTOWN PRESS 5674 CORRECTION NOTICES PRINTED 001-4201-4305 548.90 Total : 548.90 38139 9/30/2004 12162 JOL DESIGN 7086 T-SHIRTS FOR ADULT SOFTBALL 001-4601-4308 137.48 Total : 137.48 38140 9/30/2004 12792 JONES LUMBER COMPANY INC. 00257370 STORAGE LOCKER MATERIALS 180-8610-4201 1,969.28 00261569 STORAGE LOCKER MATERIALS • 180-8610-4201 2,458.21 Total : 4,427.49 38141 9/30/2004 12282 KONE INC. 16437011 ELEVATOR MAINT/04/05 • 001-4204-4201 1,999.92 16437012 ELEVATOR MAINT/04/05 109-3304-4201 1,248.30 Total : 3,248.22 38142 9/30/2004 10496 KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS 202355948 Copier Usage/June 04 001-2024 368.85 110-2024 16.15 Total : 385.00 38143 9/30/2004 00843 L.A. COUNTY METROPOLITAN 9040511 Bus Pass Sales - Sept. 04 Page: 8 ao vchlist Check Register Page: 9 09/30/2004 4:11:28PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 38143 9/30/2004 00843 L.A. COUNTY METROPOLITAN (Continued) 145-3403-4251 180.00 Total : 180.00 38144 9/30/2004 12877 LA COUNTY EMS AGENCY 2201-16198 Prehospital Care Policy Manual 001-2201-4309 23.82 i • Total : 23.82 38145 9/30/2004 02175 LIEBERT, CASSIDY WHITMORE 47979 Legal Billing/8/04 001-1203-4201 220.00 47981 Legal Billing/8/04 001-1203-4201 466.00 47982 Legal Billing/8/04 001-1203-4201 1,316.95 47983 Legal Billing/8/04 001-1203-4201 480.00 Total : 2,482.95 38146 9/30/2004 12599 LOCKLEAR, DEREK BRENT 4601-03927 Instructor Pymnt #8898/8899/8900/8901 001-4601-4221 2,310.00 Total : 2,310.00 38147 9/30/2004 12876 MARTINEZ, AURELIO 1204-16195 Citation Refund # 1804005055 110-3302 35.00• 0 Total : 35.00 38148 9/30/2004 00956 MOHLER, VALERIE 1202-16232 Reimburse Travel Expenses/Eden Conf. 001-1202-4317 47.04 Total : 47.04 38149 9/30/2004 12860 NEW ENGLAND CAMP 91535534 SPONGE ROLLER FOR TENNIS COURTS 001-4601-4308 61.69 Total : 61.69 38150 9/30/2004 12795 OFFICE TEAM 11852053 Temp. Services - 9/13 - 17/04 001-4601-4201 816.00 Total : 816.00 Page: 9 a� vchlist Check Register Page: 10 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 09/30/2004 4:11:28PM Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 38151 9/30/2004 00093 OLYMPIC AUTO CENTER 0152 9/30/2004 00519 PAK WEST 38153 9/30/2004 10139 PARKING CONCEPTS INC. 38154 9/30/2004 12879 PEREZ, GLENN 38155 9/30/2004 05379 • 11421 611068-00 284 0804 285 0804 1204-16210 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON 135208 135209 135210 135211 38156 9/30/2004 12790 RITZ AUDIO VIDEO ASSOCIATES 124770 38157 9/30/2004 12888 ROBERTS CONSTRUCTION, NICK 1141-16211 38158 9/30/2004 10970 ROBERTS, FREDERICK 4601-03923 Description/Account Replace Front Windshield - HB10 715-2101-4311 Trash Bags/9/04 001-3104-4309 Amount Total : Total : OPERATING EXPENSES/PK STRUCTURE/08/ 109-3304-4231 OPERATION EXPENSES/LOT A AUG 04 109-3305-4231 Citation Refund # 1404003256 110-3302 Legal Re: General/8/04 001-1131-4201 Legal Re: Stop Oil/8/04 001-1131-4201 Legal Re: Cable TV/8/04 001-1131-4201 Legal Re: Code Enforcement/8/04 001-1132-4201 Total : Total : Total : REPLACEMENT CABLES/COUNCIL CHAMBER 001-1101-4201 Work Guarantee Deposit Refund/#5400 001-2110 Umpire Fees Total : Total : 273.38 273.38 156.43 156.4 14,220.32 11,580.80 25,801.12 65.00 65.00 210.00 7,763.85 58.50 1,060.• 9,092.40 113.95 113.95 1,600.00 1,600.00 Page: 10 22 vchlist Check Register Page: 11 09/30/2004 4:11:28PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 38158 9/30/2004 10970 ROBERTS, FREDERICK (Continued) 38159 9/30/2004 03353 S.B.C.U. VISA 5969 I 38160 9/30/2004 09391 SALDANA, OFFICER RAUL 2101-16223 38161 9/30/2004 00321 SBC 331254-6071 333 267-6155 333 267-6160 333 267-6161 333 267-6164 333 267-6165 11111 38162 9/30/2004 09656 SHRED IT CALIFORNIA 333364696 38163 9/30/2004 11831 SIR SPEEDY 10669 38164 9/30/2004 07704 SOUTH BAY YOUTH PROJECT 2101-16209 001-4601-4201 Safety Forms/8/04 001-2201-4317 Mileage Reimbursement/Post Class 001-2101-4312 Circuit Billing/Sept 04 001-2101-4304 Circuit Billing/Sept 04 001-2101-4304 Circuit Billing/Sept 04 001-2101-4304 Circuit Billing/Sept 04 001-2101-4304 Circuit Billing/Sept 04 001-2101-4304 Circuit Billing/Sept 04 001-2101-4304 Total : Total : Total : 1,015.00 1,015.00 5.95. 5.95 189.18 189.18 57.65 258.31 59.44 59.44 50.69 50.69• Total : 536.22 Shredding Services/9/04 001-2101-4201 95.00 Total : 95.00 Contract Specs Copied/8/04 001-4202-4201 58.44 Total : 58.44 04/05 Contribution So Bay Youth Project 001-2101-4201 3,000.00 Page: 11 vchlist Check Register Page: 12 09/30/2004 4:11:28PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 38164 9/30/2004 07704 SOUTH BAY YOUTH PROJECT (Continued) Total : 3,000.00 38165 9/30/2004 00146 SPARKLETTS 9581809-61 Drinking Water - Aug 04 001-4601-4305 19.65 Total : 19.65 • 38166 9/30/2004 10232 SPICERS PAPER,INC. 135698 PAPER PURCHASE/9/04 001-1208-4305 959.2. 001-2021 18.06 001-2022 -18.06 Total : 959.22 38167 9/30/2004 12618 SUMMIT UNIFORM CORP 3376 26 BLAUER RAIN JACKETS 001-2101-4314 2,927.08 Total : 2,927.08 38168 9/30/2004 06045 TAB PRODUCTS COMPANY 1488455 Office Supplies 001-1121-4305 117.19 Total : 117.19 38169 9/30/2004 11102 TORRANCE WHOLESALE NURSER 329485 Plants for Fire Dept. 001-6101-4309 292.28 329486 Plants for Fire Dept. 001-6101-4309 292.28 329487 Plants for Fire Dept. 001-6101-4309 216.5 Total : 801.0 38170 9/30/2004 09878 TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICES INC 176409 Signs/ Pier Renovation Announcement 301-8630-4201 147.22 Total : 147.22 38171 9/30/2004 08097 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Acct 1811351 Safekeeping Fees for Aug. 04 001-1141-4201 291.67 Total : 291.67 38172 9/30/2004 12087 VERIZON 1201-16224 Beach Dr. Underground Conversion 311-8106-4201 198,650.00 Page: 12 vchlist Check Register Page: 13 09/30/2004 4:11:28PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 38172 9/30/2004 12087 VERIZON (Continued) Total: 198,650.00 38173 9/30/2004 00015 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 310 181-0680 Phone Charges/8/28-9/28/04 001-4204-4321 42.61 310 197-3683 Phone Charges/9/04 715-1206-4304 262.060 • 110-3302-4304 63.91 001-2101-4304 1,301.37 001-4204-4321 57.51 001-2201-4304 254.41 001-4601-4304 154.44 001-4202-4304 126.84 001-4201-4304 100.08 109-3304-4304 30.92 110-1204-4304 33.31 310 376-6984 Phone Billing/8/16-9/15/04 001-1121-4304 8.39 001-1132-4304 8.85 001-1141-4304 25.88 001-1201-4304 36.22 001-1202-4304 79.67 001-1203-4304 57.22 001-1208-4304 4.18 001-2101-4304 586.2 • 001-2201-4304 337.17 001-4101-4304 60.08 001-4202-4304 386.87 001-4601-4304 248.57 110-1204-4304 52.90 110-3302-4304 104.54 715-1206-4304 57.38 001-4201-4304 79.33 Page: 13 vchlist Check Register Page: 14 09/30/2004 4:11:28PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 38173 9/30/2004 00015 VERIZON CALIFORNIA (Continued) 372-6186 Fax Billing 001-1101-4304 1.08 001-1121-4304 4.37 • 001-1141-4304 2.25 001-1202-4304 24.77 001-1203-4304 6.7 Total : 4,600.1 AI 38174 9/30/2004 03209 VERIZON WIRELESS -LA 1890667712 Cell Phone Usage/Sept 04 001-2101-4304 240.76 Total : 240.76 38175 9/30/2004 08767 WEST PAYMENT CENTER 807221191 CA Jury Instructions Updates 001-1132-4305 70.36 Total : 70.36 38176 9/30/2004 00135 XEROX CORPORATION 005036580 Copier Maint/Aug 04 001-2101-4201 160.58 Total : 160.58 38177 9/30/2004 01206 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES 69538 Sign Purchase - 09/04 • 001-3104-4309 238.15 Total : 238.15 75 Vouchers for bank code : boa Bank total : 381,796.60 75 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 381,796.62 Page: 14 vchlist Check Register Page: 1 10/05/2004 7:29:56AM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 38178 10/5/2004 00243 HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACC 09302004 Payroll/9-16 to 9-30-04 001-1103 394,391.59 105-1103 9,297.79 109-1103 5,144.00 110-1103 52,295.60 • 117-1103 1,017.88 122-1103 723.87 145-1103 1,580.26 152-1103 20.89 156-1103 4,030.56 160-1103 12,086.23 170-1103 3,821.21 301-1103 897.83 705-1103 4,055.02 715-1103 10,975.87 Total : 500,338.60 1 Vouchers for bank code : boa Bank total : 500,338.60 1 Vouchers in this report • Total vouchers : 500,338.60 • Page: 1 vchlist Check Register Page: 2 10/05/2004 7:29:56AM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount "I hereby certify that the demmnds or claimcovered by the checks listed on pages to oZ inclusive, of the check register for '/1,>•-• (0/ S-1 dal accurate funds are available for payment, and are in conformance to the budget." By Date • Finance Director Page: 2 • October 7, 2004 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council • Regular Meeting of October 12, 2004 TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS OCTOBER 26, 2004 Recommendation to consider outsourcing of ambulance program and two engine staffing Fire Chief Public Hearing: Review and reconsideration of Planning Commission approval of a Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 061822 for an 18,000 square foot commercial building containing 54 commercial condominium units and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 200 Pier Avenue. Community Development Director Public Hearing: Consideration for approval of 2005 St. Patrick's Day Parade and Festival to be held Saturday, March 12, 2005 and Sunday, March 13, 2005. Community Development Director Public Hearing: Variance to allow a 3 -foot side yard rather than the required 5 -feet for a merged lot at 3410 Hermosa Avenue and 111 34th Street. Community Development Director Public Works Project Status Report for September Public Works Director Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission meeting of October 5, 2004. Community Resources Dept. Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of October 19, 2004. Community Development Director Activity Reports — September All Departments NOVEMBER 9, 2004 Annual review of Fiestas City Manager Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Public Works Commission meeting of October 20, 2004. Public Works Director NOVEMBER 23, 2004 Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission meeting of November 2, 2004. Community Resources Dept. Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of November 16, 2004. Community Development Director Activity Reports — October All Departments PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2004 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 7:00 P.M. MINUTES The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. 1. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Beste, Cheatham, Lombardo Also Present: Richard Morgan, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Ray Abassi, Contract Traffic Engineer Michael Flaherty, Public Works Superintendent Rhea Punneo, Administrative Assistant, Public Works Department Absent: 2. Flag Salute Commissioners Applebaum, Winnek Commissioner Lombardo led the flag salute. Commissioner Lombardo requested a moment of silence in memory of Mr. Jim Sandus, a former Public Works employee. Mr. Flaherty noted that Mr. Sandus was a member of the Public Works Department for 27 years. Mr. Sandus succumbed to cancer after a long illness. 3. Approval of Minutes Minutes of 7/21/04 were approved as published. 4. Public Comments None. 5. Correspondence None 6. Items for Commission Consideration Note: Item 6a was heard last but items are presented in order for the sake of clarity. a. Change 26th Street to be One -Way Westbound This item was taken out of order because, as a resident of 26th Street, Commissioner Beste recused himself, leaving only two commissioners to hear the item. Commissioner Winnek had advised that he would be late but did not arrive at all. • • Mr. Morgan stated that this issue arose due to a petition, signed by 7 of the 28 residents on 26th Street requesting one-way westbound on 26th from Morningside to Manhattan. Mr. Morgan stated that he is aware that schools in residential areas can cause traffic problems and wrote this report based on historical knowledge. Subsequently, Mr. Morgan did a site visit after the school year started and did not observe any problems indicated in the petition. 26th Street is a 25 -foot wide street with parking on both sides of the street, similar to surrounding streets. In his report, Mr. Morgan noted that when vehicles have to pass one another, speeds decrease, slowing traffic. Changing the street to one-way might produce slightly increased speeds. Mr. Morgan stated his concern regarding diversion of traffic to the surrounding streets and his opposition to this change. Mr. Morgan will collect additional traffic/speed data to bring to the September meeting. Commissioner Lombardo suggested that the one-way traffic be directed eastbound rather than westbound. Commissioner Lombardo cited instructions for public comment and opened the floor. Robert Cummings, 232 26th Street ■ Believes that this area is fine as it is, has lived there 21 years. ■ People learn and adjust just fine to the narrow street. • The curb cuts help with passing on the street. ■ Agreed with Commissioner Lombardo that one-way traffic should travel eastbound. • Has heard many broadside accidents on 26th at Manhattan, as there are no stop signs. • Believes making 26th St. one-way westbound would exacerbate the problem at 26th and Manhattan. • Asked what would be gained by making street one-way. Jane Waterhouse, 337 26th Street ■ Has lived in this street for 42 years. ■ Traffic has changed due to larger vehicles, but believes people adjust. • Believes that one-way traffic would increase speeding on 27th Court. Sidney Roth, 255 26th Street • Has lived on the street for 32 years. • Has seen no problems, school has always been there. • If 26th is made one-way, only going to Myrtle and makes no sense. • Requested to see rendering of signs, stated all Hermosa Beach signs are ugly and there are too many now. ■ Twelve years ago when one-way streets were proposed, chaos erupted. • Believes the street is great now as a two-way street. • Does not want speed increased. ■ If it's not broken, don't fix it. Alan Carter, 252, 27th Court • Agrees with Mr. Roth and Mrs. Waterhouse. • Does not believe there is a need for one-way traffic. • Traffic would be diverted to 27th Court, Ozone Court (very narrow streets) and 27th Street. ■ 27th Street is always a mess. PWC Minutes 2 09/15/04 • Unsafe to purmore traffic on 27th Street; 27th and Ozone Courts are not equipped to handle the additional traffic. • Concerned about the children who play on 27th Court, which is an alley with a speed limit of 15 mph, which people don't obey. • On 27th with sun, vision is little to none. • Has lived on this street for 22 years and a school was in place at the time, but hasn't observed any problems. • Wondered who complained. ■ Additional concern, on 26th Street the houses sit back from the street, but on 27th Court the houses are right on the street. • Spoke with Mr. Morgan and requested speed bumps and was informed that everyone must agree first — this is not likely. • Requesting 26th Street not be made one-way. • The school has another side. • The school has traffic for 15 — 20 minutes twice a day — for this amount of time people would be inconvenienced 24 hours per day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. Mr. Morgan explained the policy on speed "bumps" to address the speeding issue on 27th Street — which is a separate issue from the one-way proposal. These are three inch high x 10 feet wide speed humps across the width of the street. Mr. Morgan clarified that majority (67%) approval is needed for placement of speed humps, but 100% approval is needed for those houses directly adjacent to the actual speed humps. A copy of this policy is available on the website and you may also call or come by to obtain a copy. Ed Vazquez, 340 27th Street • His property extends into the alley. • Concerned for the safety of his three children and the 15 other children in this area that would be affected by traffic moving through this two-way alley. Janelle Courts, 349 26th Street • Agreed with the Commissioner Lombardo make 26th one-way eastbound. • Concerned for the safety of the children who live near her. • Has witnessed accidents at this corner and husband was almost hit. ■ Vehemently opposed to 26th Street one-way westbound as this is dangerous. Gerri Vazquez, 340 27th Street • Questioned whether one-way westbound to Morningside to Manhattan or Morningside to Myrtle. If Morningside to Myrtle, this would dump additional traffic onto Myrtle. • There are children who live on Myrtle and those residents are not at this meeting to voice their objections or opinions. • Commented on 26th Street, eastbound. Morningside is a two-way street and a lot of the residents traveling west on Gould to enter the Court, what would happen to Morningside? Would Morningside remain a two-way street? • Is opposed to 26th Street one-way eastbound. Martha Lemmon, 262 27th Street • Requested the rationale for this request. ■ Doesn't believe she can make a fair decision without knowing the other side of the issue. PWC Minutes 3 09/15/04 • • Commissioner Lombardo read the petition into the record: 'This petition is being generated in the hopes that the City of Hermosa Beach, California will recognize the importance of having the block of 26th Street between Morningside Drive and Manhattan Avenue changed to a one way street going west. It is imperative that the children and the parents of the children that attend Valley Park School be safe at all times. No two vehicles can pass on 26th Street at the same time thus causing extreme traffic, high speeds and the safety of those in the area to be, in jeopardy.' Signed by 9 residents (8 live on 26th Street and one on Morningside) Martha Lemmon, 262 27th Street • This would cause traffic jams at the corner. • Believes this change would endanger more children on 27th Court. • Her son and daughter attended and two grandchildren currently attend the school and have had no problems. • Requested that both streets be left alone. • Saw a child almost hit the other day, that's why she's here tonight. Again, Commissioner Lombardo apologized for not being able to act on the issue this evening. This issue will be addressed again next month at the Public Works meeting. Public Notice will go out for the meeting. b. Parking Restrictions on South Side of Gould (corrected from 27th) Avenue Adjacent to Valley Park Mr. Morgan apologized for the mix-up on the flyers citing 27th Street. Mr. Morgan explained that this item arose out of a growing concern over the availability of parking for people who utilize Valley Park. In order to explore the many options available, Staff suggested that a public hearing take place. Currently, there are approximately 25-900 parking spaces and 6 newly added parallel parking spaces. One of the options considered would be to implement a 6 -hour restriction between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. only, similar to what is currently in place on Valley Drive. None of the options considered would restrict residents from overnight parking. Discussion among the Commission included the following: • Commissioner Beste restated that overnight resident parking by residents is not an issue. This is a look at restrictions during park usage hours only. • Mr. Morgan suggested that only the six new spaces adjacent to Valley implement parking restrictions. • Commissioner Cheatham requested clarification as to whether this action was to give Staff direction or to make recommendation to City Council or is this just to explore the options — Commissioner Lombardo clarified that this the latter, to make a recommendation to take to City Council. • Implementing parking passes to create parking space turnover was suggested. • Implementing a restriction to allow parking during park events. • Commissioner Lombardo reiterated that the Commission does not want to take away parking spaces; only parking at the park will be affected. Commissioner Lombardo cited instructions for public comment and opened the floor. PWC Minutes 4 09/15/04 • Robert Cummings, 232 26th Street • ■ Requested that Mr. Morgan provide the rationale for this decision: Mr. Morgan explained that Commission requested this item be placed on the agenda. Through this avenue, Commission can give advice/direction to Staff and most matters go to Council before implementation. This concern arose out of a noted shortage of parking and the long-term storage of parking (cars and RVs). Again, the issue is not to take away parking spaces from residents but to implement a process that would create parking turnover during the park usage hours. Public Works sent out a notice to.the public advising of this hearing. The Public Works Departments wants to hear about the residents' experiences in this regard. Ed Vazquez, 340 27th Street • Concerned that there was a mix-up on stating 27th Street and not Gould. • Most residents would not have come out if the notice had stated Gould as opposed to 27th Street. Mr. Morgan and Commissioner Lombardo again apologized for the mix-up. Martha Lemmon, 262 27th Street ■ Ms. Lemmon asked what hours would be restricted. Commissioner Lombardo informed during the daytime hours only. Ms. Lemmon also inquired whether it would be during the week or weekends. Commissioner Lombardo stated it was not yet decided. • Feels that residents should have first choice for parking. ■ Has out-of-town guest on weekends and to accommodate parking, on occasion, has received permission from the Manager at Ralphs to park in their lot for 4 — 5 hours. ■ Where would her guests park if parking is restricted? • Asked that someone psychologically plot out how the parking would be structured so that she can then find her course of action. Mr. Morgan noted that there are many options for solving this issue and, as stated before, wants to get input from the public before making a change or no change, if warranted. Mr. Morgan then restated Staff's recommendation to implement restricted parking in the newly added 5 parking spaces. It also makes sense not to make this restriction 7 days per week, as this is primarily a weekend issue. Alan Carter, 252 27th Court • No hours listed on the flyer. • Flyer sent to 27th Street and knows of one person who lives on Gould who did not receive the flyer and they aren't in attendance at the meeting. • The only problem with parking is on the weekends, so no need to implement restrictions during the week. • Please consider implementing restrictions on weekends only. • Would increase ticketing when the restrictions are unnecessary during the week. Ms. Punneo advised that flyers were mailed to the property owners' mailing addresses as they are recorded in the county tax records. PWC Minutes 5 09/15/04 • • John Horn, 409 Gould • Built his residence 50 years ago. • Has worked for Los Angeles County for 40 years. • Likes the park improvements. • Does not believe there is a parking problem at the park. • Feels that the 5 spaces on the East side of the park are dangerously located, the street is very narrow. • Also feels that those 5 parking spaces would not impact the residents on his street. • Don't take away parking from residents on the street, most residents utilize this area because parking is so limited. • Counted 29 parking spaces, including handicap and on 11 cars are parked there tonight. ■ Feels any other changes would be unfair and would petition to not re-elect current Commission. Commissioner Lombardo again reiterated that the discussion is only about those 5 spaces and that the commissioners are appointed to the Commission, not elected. Gerri Vazquez, 340 27th Street • Was confused about the street listed on the flyer. • The park is wonderful and they all enjoy, but it has created a big problem. • With the increased usage, visitors are looking for parking spaces around the park and on 26th, 27tH, 28th Streets and 27th Court. • Requested that this area be looked at as a traffic issue with speeders on 26th and 27th Court trying to find parking on 27th Street. • There are approximately 15 children on 27th Street alleyway and people are driving 45 mph down this alley. This needs to be addressed before someone is hurt or killed. • Feels the park has created a problem with many more activities. • Does not feel that 5 — 6 hours is a good solution to solve this problem. • Feels that even with the turnover there would still be a problem during the summer months and now will increase due to soccer season. • Has not observed any long-term parking and knows the owner of the RV periodically parked on the street. Commissioner Beste: The intent of tonight is to address that issue. If restrictions are implemented creating a parking turnover could reduce the number, of people driving through the residential area looking for parking. Commissioner Lombardo: Speeding is an issue that needs to be addressed separately, requested Mrs. Vazquez send a.letter. Commissioner Lombardo queried Mr. Flaherty regarding soccer at the park. Mr. Flaherty advised that there was at the soccer before the renovation. Janelle Courts, 349 26th Street • Agrees with Gerri, lives behind her. • People are always parking on her street. • Believes increased parking problems are due to beach -goers parking at the park in what is still a free and unrestricted parking area. • Suggested putting in meters and/or yellow permits. It was clarified by Mr. Flaherty and Mr. Morgan that residents living directly across from the parking spaces do not have parking permits and are not eligible for metered parking PWC Minutes 6 09/15/04 • permits due to a coastal regulatory issue. Mr. Morgan a vised that this would be a very long process to try to implement. Mr. Morgan stated that he met with the operators of the North School and they are willing to leave the parking lot open, but that the neighbors have complained about the trash left in the area. Martha Lemmon, 262 27th Street • Said the Art Show is an example that can be used for implementing public transportation to help resolve this issue. • Suggested utilizing parking at Mira Costa or TRW and using a shuttle service. Virginia Brewer, 445 Gould • Restricting the previously mentioned 6 newly created spaces will provide little relief. • People are parking all the time and no tickets are issued. • Has observed very little RV storage. • Said the speeding around the park is very dangerous. • Wants speeding restricted. • Wants to know if only the 6 spaces are restricted, how this will bring relief to residents in the area. Discussion among the Commissioners included of the following: • Commissioner Cheatham asked Mr. Morgan to explain the 3 -day rule. - Mr. Morgan explained that the California Motor Vehicle Code prevents long-term parking or storage on public streets. Mr. Flaherty added that the City does enforce the 72 -hour rule, but enforcement is complaint driven. ■ Streets are swept on Mondays between 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m.; violators are ticketed. Mr. Flaherty emphasized that it's the only opportunity to clean the area. • Commissioner Cheatham stated that there are similar parking restrictions in his area and they work well. ■ This parking issue should be addressed. • Suggested designating a few parking spaces for restrictions to test its effect on the parking issue. John Horn, 409 Gould • Does not agree with implementing parking restrictions, this will offend residents. • He is the owner of the RV, but vehicle is not parked on the street that often. • If parking is restricted, people will park on other streets, creating a negative impact. Commissioners reiterated that overnight parking is not an issue. Commissioners requested that Staff explain the parking restrictions on Valley Drive. Mr. Flaherty responded that there are several restrictions already in place. He noted that Clark Stadium and City Hall have restrictions and that the times change progressively as you move further south. This causes people to move their cars on a regular basis and prevents storing cars for a long period of time. It has not impacted the use of the facilities and still allows residential overnight parking. The residents in the area of Clark Stadium requested that parking restrictions be implemented to discourage overnight parking and use of park. Valley Park has never had parking restrictions. Parking restrictions along Valley Drive of people using it as a used car lot. Mr. Flaherty requested that the restrictions be consistently implemented around the perimeter for street sweeping purposes. Public parking is available behind Kiwanis and Rotary Clubs. PWC Minutes 7 09/15/04 • • Further discussion by the Commission included: • The intent of the restrictions is to discourage beach parking. • It would not take parking away from residents. • Looking at restrictions as a way to alleviate, not create, problems. • The restrictions should not pose a problem on weekdays or for those residents who come home early. • May need more than six spaces to create a turnover that would alleviate parking. MOTION by Commissioner Beste to implement a 4 -hour restriction on Valley Drive between Gould Ave. and the Kiwanis Club and the six newly created parking spaces on weekends only between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Seconded by Commissioner Cheatham. AYES: Cheatham, Lombardo, Beste NAYS: None ABSENT: Applebaum, Winnek ABSTAIN: None c. Citywide Speed Zone Survey Mr. Morgan informed everyone that the City is required to perform this survey every 5 years and maintain speed limit signs in conformance with the survey. Speed surveys have been completed and analyzed to determine the 85th percentile speeds. Accident history and other traffic factors are considered for revisions, if warranted. The Speed Zone Survey will be forwarded to City Council and will require two (2) meetings for formal adoption. Mr. Abassi presented the results of the survey. Highlights of Mr. Abassi's presentation included: • People are traveling at higher rates of speeds. • Speed at or below speed limit • Areas that have recommended revisions: o Ardmore Avenue: Gould Ave to 21st Street, decrease speed limit from 35 mph to 30 mph, Pier Avenue to 8th St. and 8th Street to 2nd Street increase speed limit from 25 mph to 30 mph; o Valley Drive, Gould Avenue to 21St Street, 21St Street to Pier Avenue, Pier Avenue to 8th Street, 8th Street to 2nd Street increase speed limits from 25 mph to 30 mph. • Mr. Morgan explained that Caltrans mandates that the survey be taken in order to enforce speeding tickets issued when using radar. • Streets not listed are governed by prima facie speed limit — travel at safe speeds of 25 mph or less; collector and arterial streets are included. Commissioner Lombardo cited instructions for public comment and opened the floor for comments. Alan Carter, 252 27th Court • Concerned that he did not see PCH down Gould included on survey. PCH West on Gould to Ardmore, traveling down the hill at 25 mph is very dangerous. Everyone travels faster. • Would like to see a survey done in this area. • Would like to see the speed limit raised from 25 mph to 35 mph. PWC Minutes 8 09/15/04 • Does not wan to see recommended decrease on Gould Ave to 21st Street from 35 mph to 30 mph. • Stated his feelings that Commission is not considerate of the people's time. Mr. Abassi addressed Mr. Carter's concern about the 25 mph on Gould. This segment of Gould, from PCH to Ardmore was re-classified as a residential street by City Council so it is not included in the survey. Discussion among the Commission included: ■ Concerned about 25 mph on Valley. Did City Council reduce without survey? Mrs. Punneo explained that Commission changed to 25 mph between 11th and 2nd Streets to Pier, reduced from 30 mph. This took place in the Commission's first year of existence. • Mr. Abassi explained that if recommendation is changed, that segment is no longer enforceable by radar. ■ Survey must go to Council and would carry recommendations of Commission along with it, but survey will be presented in its entirety to Council. • Council can deviate from recommendations or survey results. • Concern over Pier to 8th on Valley increased speed limit. Robert Cummings, 232 26th Street • Stated that due to pedestrian traffic on Valley Drive near the Farmers Market, it is not responsible to raise speed limit. Mr. Abassi noted that the report would go to Council in its entirety and could include a memo from the Commission stating their concerns and/or recommendations. MOTION by Commissioner Lombardo to support the engineering and traffic survey with the exception of the portion recommending an increase in speed for the segment of Valley Drive between Pier Ave. and 8th Street. Recommends that this area not have an increased speed limit due to foot traffic and congestion. Seconded by Commissioner Beste. AYES: Cheatham, Lombardo, Beste NAYS: None ABSENT: Applebaum, Winnek ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Lombardo informed Public that if they are not in agreement with Commission's decision could appeal. 7. Commissioners' Reports None. 8. Public Works Department Reports a. Monthly Activity Report — July b. Project Status Reports — July The above items are presented for information purposes only. At this time, Mr. Morgan advised that he'd spoken with Mr. Tim Podzervinski of Prospect Avenue and informed him that after extensive review of the license survey and left turn lane cycle length, PWC Minutes 9 09/15/04 • and that the Commission was not inclined to do further reduction in left turn lane time. Mr. Podzervinski would like to eliminate the left turn between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Mr. Morgan informed him that during this 2 -hour period, approximately 700 local residents who live between Herondo and Aviation would need to find a safe alternate route home. Mr. Morgan suggested that he should bring a petition signed by his neighbors and Mr. Podzervinski was not happy with this suggestion. Mr. Morgan then stated that if he were willing to hold a public hearing on this issue, the Commission would hear this issue. Discussion by Commission on this issue included the following: • Look at platooning of cars. • Gaps between stop signs. • No clear solution as this is a collector street and there is a large volume of traffic — one segment traffic light handles 14,000 cars. • Traffic signal in middle of segment to assist, might meet some warrants. • Traffic signals are very expensive, funding due to schools might help, but the only school is too far away. • Suggested moving 2nd Street red light at Hermosa to Prospect. • Mr. Podzervinski does not agree with traffic signal as a viable solution. • Will need residential approval for a traffic light. • Mr. Podzervinski cited Monterey as a basis where a left turn lane was restricted. • Monterey is a collector street, but the difference is that traffic is not diverted onto a residential street, it is diverted to PCH. • Mr. Morgan stated that speeds are nominal as there is a faster travel on PCH. 9. Items Requested by Commissioners None 10. Other Matters Commissioner Cheatham: Thanked the Commission and the Public Works Department for a fantastic working relationship over the last 4 years. Mr. Morgan informed Commission that Council has approved the recycling lids and they are a resounding success. Thanked the Commission for all their efforts. 11. Public Comment None. 12. Adjournment Chairman Lombardo adjourned the meeting at 8:57 p.m. to the meeting of October 20, 2004. PWC Minutes 10 09/15/04 • 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 September 15, 2004. Jean Lombardo, Chairman Richard D. Morgan, P.E., Secretary Date PWC Minutes 11 09/15/04 • October 6, 2004 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council /0 -.)-AY Regular Meeting of October 12, 2004 REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF BANNER PERMIT FEES FROM THE HERMOSA BEACH WOMAN'S CLUB FOR THE ANNUAL PANCAKE BREAKFAST Recommendation: That the City Council waive the $236 banner fee for the pancake breakfast on October 24, 2004. Background: I have attached a request to waive the banner fee for the pancake breakfast on October 24, 2004. The City Council has waived this fee in this past. Respectfully sumitted, Stephen R. Burrell City Manager 2e • • September 21, 2004 `HE WOMAN'S CLUB OF 3 -BR MOS.A. BEACH Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 The Woman's Club of Hermosa Beach is gearing up for its 14th annual Pancake Breakfast on October 24 at the Clark Building. As usual, we have requested a permit to hang a banner at Pier Avenue and Valley Drive for the two weeks prior to the event informing the public of the date. We would appreciate the City Council's consideration of waiving the $236 banner fee for this year's event, which would enable our Club to donate more of the event's proceeds to our numerous philanthropies. We appreciate your past support and your consideration of this year's request. Sincerely, Elaine Doerfling Woman's Club of Hermosa Beach (310) 374-4932 Post Office Box 43, 3-(ermosa Beach, CaCfornia 90254 t° • /0/* )(/ Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council October 5, 2004 For the City Council Meeting of October 12, 2004 ACCEPTANCE OF DONATIONS Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council accept donations received by the City to be used as follows: 24 Hour Fitness Wells Fargo Community Support Campaign Wells Fargo Community Support Campaign e •ectfully submitted: Valerie Mohler Accounting Supervisor $10,000.00 20 Twelve month gym Estimated Value memberships to be auctioned or sold and used for the Summer 2005 Concert Series (will be appropriated in 2005). $90.00 Anonymous employee donations to be used for Teen Program supplies. $30.00 Anonymous employee donation to be used for Teen Program supplies. Concur: Viki Copeland Finance Director St p en Burrel City Manager 2f c: \donation 2000.doc Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council October 5, 2004 Regular Meeting of October 12, 2004 APPROVE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH AND THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FOR THE SANTA MONICA BAY BEACHES BACTERIA TMDL SHORELINE WATER QUALITY MONITORING Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Approve the Memorandum of Agreement between the City of Redondo Beach and the City of Hermosa Beach for the Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria Total Maximum Daily Load Shoreline Water Quality Monitoring; 2. Approve funding contributions to the City of Redondo Beach for retaining the service of a private laboratory that has the expertise, qualifications and equipment to perform stormwater quality monitoring services in the amount of $5,072.00; and 3. Authorize the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest the agreement subject to approval by the City Attorney. Summary: Under the City's Municipal NPDES Storm Water Permit with the Regional Water Quality Control Board we are required to implement a Water Quality Monitoring Program by November 1, 2004. This is necessary to determine compliance with Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL's) established for the discharge of bacteria into the Santa Monica Bay. Hermosa Beach is within Jurisdictions Five and Six, which includes the Cities of El Segundo, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, Torrance and Caltrans and the County of Los Angeles. Our Jurisdiction made a determination to hire a private lab to conduct the monitoring. The alternative was to allow the City of Los Angeles to perform this testing and reporting. It was determined to be less costly to use the private lab and probably be more responsive to our needs. Hermosa is responsible for the cost of monitoring only one of the ten storm drain outfalls. This is the storm drain at Pier Avenue. The cost of this monitoring is estimated to be $5,072 for the first year. This amount anticipates having two samples exceeding the allowed bacteria levels, which requires additional follow-up monitoring. The City of Redondo Beach has volunteered to administer the activities needed to hire the private lab and oversee the contract. Therefore staff recommends that the City Council approve the agreement with the City of Redondo Beach to conduct these activities on our behalf. 2g • • Fiscal Impact: The City's portion of the estimated cost of monitoring is $5,072.00. $9,500.00 is budgeted in account 160-3102-4201 for water quality monitoring. Attachment: Agreement Respectfully submitted, Homayoun Behboodi Associate Engineer Noted for fiscal impact: Viki Copeland Finance Director Concur: Richard D. M,%!n, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer Concur: Stephe City Manager F:\B95\PWFILES\CCITEMS\approve MOA SM bay TMDL plan 10-12-04.doc • CITIES OF REDO.BEACH AND HERMOSA BEACH SMBBB TMDL MONITORING AGREEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF REDONDO BEACH AND CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FOR SANTA MONICA BAY BEACHES BACTERIA TMDL SHORELINE WATER QUALITY MONITORING ATTACHMENT 1 • CITIES OF REDONNBEACH AND HERMOSA BEACH SMBBB TMDL MONITORING AGREEMENT AGREEMENT SANTA MONICA BAY BEACHES BACTERIA TMDLs SHORELINE WATER QUALITY MONITORING This AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF REDONDO BEACH ("Redondo Beach") and CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ("Hermosa Beach") collectively referred to herein as the "Parties". WHEREAS, on January 24, 2002, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region ("RWQCB") adopted Resolution No. 02-004 ("Resolution 02-004"), establishing the limit for the Total Maximum Daily Loads for bacteria during dry weather for Santa Monica Bay Beaches, a true and correct copy of which can be located on the internet at www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwgcb4/html/; and WHEREAS, on December 12, 2003, the RWQCB adopted Resolution No. 2002-022 ("Resolution 2002-022"), establishing the limit for the Total Maximum Daily Loads for bacteria during wet weather for Santa Monica Bay Beaches, a true and correct copy of which can be located on the internet at www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwgcb4/html/; and WHEREAS, Resolutions 02-004 and Resolution 2002-022 are jointly referred to herein as "Bacteria TMDLs"; and WHEREAS, the Bacteria TMDLs became effective on July 15, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Bacteria TMDLs are not self-executing and have not been incorporated into the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit regarding Waste Discharge Requirements For Municipal Stormwater and Urban Runoff Discharges within the County of Los Angeles, and the Incorporated Cities therein, except the City of Long Beach, dated December 13, 2001 ("NPDES Permit") in the manner required for the Bacteria TMDLs to be legally enforceable; and WHEREAS, the Bacteria TMDLs address documented bacteriological water quality impairments at 44 beaches from the Los Angeles/Ventura County line (to the northwest) to Outer Cabrillo Beach (just south of the Palos Verdes Peninsula); and WHEREAS, the Bacteria TMDLs provide for a monitoring plan to be submitted to RWQCB for approval; and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2004, RWQCB approved the Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacterial TMDLs' Coordinated Shoreline Monitoring Plan ("Monitoring Plan") submitted by the Counties of Los Angeles and Ventura, Caltrans, California Department of Parks and Recreation, Cities of Los Angeles, Calabasas, Santa Monica, El Segundo, Rancho Palos Verdes, Palos Verdes Estates,. Redondo Beach, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Manhattan Beach, Torrance, Culver City, 1 .4_ • CITIES OF REDONNBEACH AND HERMOSA BEACH SMBBB TMDL MONITORING AGREEMENT West Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Agoura Hills, Thousand Oaks, Westlake Village, Simi Valley, Hidden Hills, Inglewood, and Hermosa Beach (collectively herein referred to as "Municipalities", or individually as Municipality); and WHEREAS, the Parties intend to enter into an agreement to cooperatively establish a monitoring program that is consistent with the approved Monitoring Plan and consistent with the provisions of the Bacteria TMDLs while recognizing the fact that the Bacteria TMDLs have not been incorporated into the NPDES Permit; and WHEREAS, Redondo Beach will retain the service of a private laboratory that has the expertise, qualifications and equipment to perform monitoring services consistent with the Monitoring Plan (hereinafter "Monitoring Services"); and WHEREAS, Hermosa Beach is willing to pay Redondo Beach to perform Monitoring Services on their behalf at locations identified in Exhibit A and Redondo Beach is willing to provide, perform and to be reimbursed for such Monitoring Services as indicated in Exhibit B; and NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties do hereby agree as follows: AGREEMENT ARTICLE I — Purpose of AGREEMENT 1. Purpose of AGREEMENT — The purpose of this AGREEMENT is to memorialize the Parties' willingness to coordinate the payment and performance of Monitoring Services that are consistent with the provisions of the Monitoring Plan and the Bacteria TMDLs. The parties recognize and acknowledge that this AGREEMENT and the work being accomplished hereunder are being undertaken on a voluntary basis since the Bacteria TMDLs have not been incorporated into the NPDES permit in the manner required by law to be enforceable. 2. Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacterial TMDLs Coordinated Shoreline Monitoring Plan (Monitoring Plan) — The Bacteria TMDLs provide for a Monitoring Plan to be submitted to the RWQCB for approval by November 12, 2003. The Monitoring Plan identifies all the monitoring locations, the type of monitoring and the frequency of monitoring. RWQCB approved the Monitoring Plan on April 28, 2004, the approved Monitoring Plan can be located on the internet at http://www.ladpw.org/wmd/NPDES/beachplan.cfm 2 • CITIES OF REDONNBEACH AND HERMOSA BEACH SMBBB TMDL MONITORING AGREEMENT ARTICLE II— Responsibilities of Redondo Beach 1. Monitoring — Redondo Beach will retain the services of a private laboratory to perform Monitoring Services at locations as indicated in Exhibit A on behalf of Hermosa Beach. Performance of Monitoring Services by Redondo Beach at locations listed in Exhibit A is expressly conditioned upon all Municipalities listed in Exhibit A entering into monitoring services agreements with Redondo Beach for the performance of Monitoring Services. • Redondo Beach will not be obligated to perform Monitoring Services, and Hermosa Beach will not be obligated to pay Redondo Beach for such Monitoring Services until said condition is satisfied. If Redondo Beach does not obtain similar agreements with all Municipalities in order to perform Monitoring Services at locations listed in Exhibit A that will be consistent with the timeframes set forth in the Monitoring Plan and the Bacteria TMDLs, Hermosa Beach may seek to have the Monitoring Services performed by another entity. 2. Cost per monitoring location — Redondo Beach, in consultation with the Municipalities, established each Municipality's share of cost for the Monitoring Services. The cost allocation percentages among Municipalities and the estimated cost for each monitoring location are shown in Exhibit A. 3. Reports — Redondo Beach will submit monitoring reports to RWQCB each month and forward a copy to Hermosa Beach as described in the Monitoring Plan. Hermosa Beach acknowledges that the data contained is said report maybe used by the RWQCB in compliance with the Coordinated Shoreline Monitoring Plan approved April 28, 2004. 4. Exceedances — Redondo Beach will conduct accelerated monitoring according to existing Los Angeles County Department of Health Services protocol at each location where exceedance is detected. Exceedance will be determined according to the Monitoring Plan. Redondo Beach will provide additional accelerated monitoring at the request of Hermosa Beach. This AGREEMENT does not include any research or investigation of the reason(s) or source(s) that caused the exceedance. ARTICLE III — Responsibilities of Hermosa Beach 1. Documentations — Hermosa Beach agree to provide all readily available information and documentation to Redondo Beach that is deemed necessary to perform the Monitoring Services at no cost to Redondo Beach. 2. Grant of Access Rights — During the term of this AGREEMENT, Hermosa Beach hereby grants to Redondo Beach the right of access and entry to, but not limited to, all storm drains, creeks, beaches, and existing monitoring stations at beaches subject to this 3 • CITIES OF REDON/PBEACH AND HERMOSA BEACH SMBBB TMDL MONITORING AGREEMENT AGREEMENT at all reasonable times for the purpose of performing the duties and obligations described in this AGREEMENT. 3. Cost Reimbursement — Hermosa Beach agrees to reimburse Redondo Beach for the amount as shown in Exhibit B annually for the compliance monitoring and accelerated monitoring. ARTICLE IV - Invoice and Payment 1. Annual Payment — Hermosa Beach shall reimburse Redondo Beach an amount as shown in Exhibit B annually to cover the compliance and accelerated monitoring services preformed by Redondo Beach. The Annual Payment shall be increased annually by the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as calculated by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics for the Greater Los Angeles Area, All Items. The CPI as of July 2004 shall be used as the basis. The accelerated monitoring cost shown in Exhibit A is an estimate only; the actual cost of the accelerated monitoring will be reconciled with the next Annual Payment. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Annual Payment shall be revised only upon mutual consent of both parties in writing. 2. Invoice — Redondo Beach will invoice Hermosa Beach for the annual payment in May of each calendar year, beginning May 2005 for that fiscal year (November 1 to October 31). Hermosa Beach shall pay the invoice within 30 days of its receipt from Redondo Beach. 3. Late Payment Penalty — Any payment that is late shall be subject to interest on the original amount due from the date that the payment first became due. The interest rate shall be equal to the Prime Rate in effect when the payment first became due plus one percent for any payment that is made from 1 to 30 days after the due date. The Prime Rate in effect when the payment first became due plus five (5) percent shall apply for any payment that is made from 31 to 60 days after the due date. The Prime Rate in effect when the payment first became due plus ten (10) percent shall apply for any payment that is made more than 60 days after the due date. The rates shall, nevertheless, not exceed the maximum allowed by law. ARTICLE V — Term of AGREEMENT 1. The term of this AGREEMENT shall begin on November 1, 2004 and shall terminate on October 31, 2007. During the unexpired term of this AGREEMENT, either Party may demand that the other Party negotiate, in good faith, modifications to the AGREEMENT that may be reasonably necessary because of any of the following changed circumstances: 4 • CITIES OF REDO BEACH AND HERMOSA BEACH SMBBB TMDL MONITORING AGREEMENT A. There is a material change in the regulatory framework for stormwater and urban runoffs; or B. There is a proposed change, either addition or deletion of monitoring locations, tests and frequency of tests; or C. There is a material change in the cost of providing monitoring in the approved locations 2. This AGREEMENT shall continue on a month to month basis after the expiration date as stated in Article V, Section 1 above until either Hermosa Beach requests Redondo Beach in writing to cease the Monitoring Services on behalf of Hermosa Beach or a new AGREEMENT is executed for employing Redondo Beach to perform Monitoring Services on behalf of Hermosa Beach, but not to exceed twelve (12) months. The cost for the monthly monitoring shall be one twelfth of the annual cost. ARTICLE VI — General Provisions 1. Notices — Any notices, bills, invoices, or reports relating to this AGREEMENT, and any request, demand, statement or other communication required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing and shall be delivered to the Representative of the Party at the addresses set forth below. Parties shall promptly notify each other of any change of contact information provided below. Written notice shall include notice delivered via email. A notice shall be deemed to have been received on (a) the date of delivery, if delivered by hand during regular business hours, or by confirmed facsimile or by email; or (b) on the third business day following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid to the addresses set forth below: City of Redondo Beach: City of Redondo Beach Engineering and Building Services Department 415 Diamond Street Redondo Beach CA 90013 Attention: City Engineer Fax No.: 310-374-4828 5 CITIES OF REDONOBEACH AND HERMOSA BEACH SMBBB TMDL MONITORING AGREEMENT City of Hermosa Beach: City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Dr. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Attention: Fax No.: 2. Relationship of the Parties — The Parties are and shall remain at all times as to each other, wholly independent entities. No Party to this AGREEMENT shall have power to incur any debt, obligation, orliability on behalf of another Party or otherwise act as an agent of another Party except as expressly provided to the contrary by this AGREEMENT. 3. Cooperation, Further Acts — Parties shall cooperate fully with one another to attain the purposes of this AGREEMENT. 4. Amendments — All amendments must be in writing, approved and executed by both Parties. The authorized signatory of this AGREEMENT is authorized to execute any amendments that do not extend this AGREEMENT by more than twelve months and/or increase in cost for less than $ 5,000. 5. Indemnification — Each Party shall indemnity, defend and hold harmless each of the other Parties, including officers, elected and appointed officials, agents and employees from and against any and all claims demands, causes of action, lawsuits (whether at law, equity or both), proceeding, liabilities, losses, damages, expenses, costs (including without limitation attorney's fees and costs and expert witness fees), judgments, penalties and liens of every nature arising or claimed to arise, directly or indirectly, from or connected with its acts arising from and/or related to this AGREEMENT. 6. Governing Law — This AGREEMENT is governed by, interpreted under and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 7. Severability — If any provision of this AGREEMENT shall be determined by any court to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable to any extent, the remainder of the this AGREEMENT shall not be affected and this AGREEMENT shall be construed as if the invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision had never been contained in this AGREEMENT. 8. Arbitration — All disputes hereunder shall be resolved by binding arbitration. If the Parties cannot agree on an arbitrator and/or the rules governing arbitration, the dispute shall be governed by AAA rules. 6 • CITIES OF REDONNBEACH AND HERMOSA BEACH SMBBB TMDL MONITORING AGREEMENT IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties to this AGREEMENT have caused this AGREEMENT to be executed on their behalf as of the date specified below, respectively, as follows: CITY OF REDONDO BEACH A Chartered Municipal Corporation Date: Gregory C. Hill, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sandy Forrest, City Clerk John Eastman, Assistant City Attorney CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Date: Art Yoon, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Elaine Doerfling„ City Clerk Michael Jenkins, City Attorney 7 EXHIBIT A COST SHARING PERCENTAGES BY AGENCY Monitoring/ Observation Site Annual Compliance Monitoring Cost Estimated Accelerated Monitoring Cost Estimated Exceedances Manhattan Beach Hermosa Beach Redondo Beach Torrrance Total Percentage Distribution by Agency SMB 5-01 $4,702 $370 2 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% SMB 5-03 $4,702 $685 4 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% SMB 5-05 $4,702 $370 2 0.00% . 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% SMB 0-06 SMB 6-02 $4,702 $2,035 12 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% SMB 6-03 $4,702 $4,255 24 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% SMB 6-05 $4,702 $1,351 8 0.00% 0.00% 30.00% 70.00% 100.00% SMB 6-06 $4,702 $0 • 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%[ 100.00% SMB 0-07 SMB 0-08 •s S S EXHIBIT B ANNUAL MONITORING SERVICES COST FOR EACH AGENCY Monitoring/ Observation Site Manhattan Beach Hermosa Beach Redondo Beach Torrance Total SMB 5-01 $5,072 $0 $0 $0 $5,072 SMB 5-03 $5,387 $0 :: $0 $0 $5,387 SMB 5-05 - $0 $5,072 $0 $0 $5,072 SMB 0-06 Cost of associated with Observation Sites are included in Compliance Mon toring costs SMB 6-02 SO $0 $0L $6,737 $8,957 $0 t $6,737 $0 $8,957 SMB 6-03 $0 SMB 6-05 $0 $01 $1,816 $01 $0 $4,2371 $6,053 $4,7021 $4,702 SMB 6-06 $0 SMB 0-07 Cost of associated with Observation Sites are included in Compliance Monitoring costs SMB 0-08 Cost of associated with Observation Sites are included in Compliance Monitoring costs I Total $l0,459; $5,072' $17,510; $8,939' $41,981 • • Monday, October 4, 2004 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular meeting of The Hermosa Beach City Council October 12, 2004 DEVELOPMENT OF A LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN COMPLIANT WITH THE DISASTER MITIGATION ACT OF 2000 AND DEVELOPMENT OF A MUTI-HAZARD FUNCTIONAL PLAN COMPLIANT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA STANDARDIZED EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council: 1. Accept the Proposal of Emergency Planning Consultants, San Diego, CA, to provide the development of both a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Compliant with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and a Multi -Hazard Functional Plan compliant with the State of California Standardized Emergency Management System. 2. Authorize the transfer of $30,000 from the Prospective Expenditures Account to the Fire Department Contract Services Account (001-2201- 4201). BACKGROUND At its Regular meeting on July 13, 2004, City Council authorized the Mayor to sign a Letter of Intent to develop a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan to be submitted for State review and FEMA approval written in accordance with Section 322 of the Stafford Act. City Council also authorized the hiring of a qualified consultant to complete this Plan submitting a proposal including scope of work and cost, for approval as a future agenda item. Also included in this proposal is the development of a Multi -Hazard Functional Plan compliant with the State of California Standardized Emergency Management System. The City's current Multi -Hazard Functional Plan (1995) is outdated and is in need of redevelopment. Staff obtained proposals from four qualified emergency planning contractors. Staff evaluated these proposals and found that two had the ability to develop both plans and that Emergency Planning Consultants is not only highly qualified but also extends a 20% discount to develop both plans. 2h • • Emergency Planning Consultants cost to the City for the development of both plans is $30,000 including discount. The only other contractor who could do both plans was Blue Crane, Los Angeles, with a cost to the City of $60,000. FISCAL IMPACT The cost of Emergency Planning Consultants to develop both plans is $30,000. Respectfully submitted, Russell Tingley Fire Chief Concur: 4. LI 'S► Ste Ci anager Noted for Fiscal Impact: Q Viki Copeland Finance Director • • September 29, 2004 Chief Russell Tingley 540 Pier Avenue Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 This letter is in response to your request for a proposal concerning the development of two emergency management planning documents for the City of Hermosa Beach - Local Hazards Mitigation Plan and a Multi -Hazard Functional Plan. Qualifications Emergency Planning Consultants (EPC) is pleased to present this proposal to provide professional services for preparing both a Local Hazards Mitigation Plan and a Multi -Hazard Functional Plan. EPC President Carolyn J. Harshman possesses the outstanding qualifications required to facilitate the development of the Plan within the schedule identified by the City. EPC's emergency management, land use planning, risk assessment and mitigation expertise, including experience with city, county, and state governments provides EPC with a unique advantage at assisting Hermosa Beach in successfully completing this project. Current and past experience with Hazard Mitigation Plans and Multi -Hazard Functional Plans includes the State of Indiana, the City of Carlsbad, the County of San Diego (participating as private citizen volunteer), the City of Long Beach, and over 30 cities and school districts in Los Angeles County. Ms. Harshman is a land use subject -matter expert in FEMA's Recovery from Disaster Course, with offerings at the Emergency Management Institute and other locations throughout the country. In addition, Ms. Harshman is an instructor and subject -matter expert in the area of land use planning and recovery for the California Specialized Training Institute. Prior to working in the field of emergency management, Ms. Harshman had a combined 20 -year career as a city and regional planner for the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego. In her role as a land use planner, Ms. Harshman prepared General Plan Amendments, Community Plans, Zoning Ordinance revisions, and conducted hundreds of community meetings. Identifying land development constraints and mitigation techniques are skills of Ms. Harshman that have been refined over the past two decades. 1 • • Although Ms. Harshman provides all of the face-to-face consulting services including facilitations and public meetings, Emergency Planning Consultants has immediate access to numerous qualified subcontractors and technical specialists to assist with plan development, should the need arise. Proposal The Local Hazards Mitigation Plan and Multi -Hazard Function Plan will be prepared simultaneously utilizing the same Planning Team. The plans will be developed in compliance with the requirements of DMA 2000 and California's Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS), while utilizing the Planning Templates prepared by the Los Angeles Disaster Management Area Coordinators. Building on those Templates, the following methodology will be utilized: • Planning Tools have been developed by EPC that will significantly decrease the amount of jurisdictional staff time required for completion of both plans. A questionnaire developed by EPC will be utilized to expedite the gathering of documents, data, organizational charts, roles and responsibilities, and Emergency Operations Center information required to complete the Plans. Most of the needs for data collection associated with this project will be accomplished through utilization of the questionnaire. • Planning Team Kick -Off Meeting with the Planning Team made up of key departmental representatives (recommend City Manager's Office, Emergency Services Coordinator, Finance Department, Public Works Department, Police Department, Fire Department, Planning Department, Building Inspection Department, Engineering Department). The purpose of the Kick -Off Meeting is to gather pertinent documents, review timelines and project expectations, conduct an initial risk assessment of the jurisdiction, and discuss opportunities for public involvement in the planning process. The EPC questionnaire will be distributed at the Kick - Off Meeting. • Data Collection and Analysis related to preparation of the Threat Assessment will be the first deliverable in this project. The Threat Assessment will include Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment, and Vulnerability Analysis sections on each of the natural and technological hazards posing a significant threat to the City. In the event additional data or information is required, EPC will conduct interviews with the Planning Team over the telephone or via email. On as as -needed basis, interviews may also involve other government or technical resources. It is anticipated that any existing risk assessment data, hazard analysis studies, mitigation plans, and General (Comprehensive) Plan will be provided by the jurisdiction. Supplemental data collection required to satisfy DMA 2000 2 • • Guidelines (contained in FEMA 386-1, 386-2, 386-3, and 386-7) and SEMS will be coordinated between EPC and the Point of Contact for the City. Utilizing information regarding recent disasters and other existing resources, EPC will conduct additional research to identify all relevant hazards that may affect the jurisdiction. • Mapping activities will be the responsibility of the local jurisdiction with guidance provided from EPC. DMA 2000 and SEMS require that hazards and critical facilities be documented in both plans. EPC recommends that the maps be generated by the jurisdiction's existing mapping function (i.e. Engineering Department) and to draw from existing mapping capabilities. In the event the City wishes to outsource the mapping needs, EPC is available to offer alternatives. • Planning Team Mitigation Meeting will be dedicated to selecting, prioritizing and scheduling the recommended Mitigation Actions. Another planning tool developed by EPC is a comprehensive list of mitigation actions. This comprehensive list will allow the Planning Team to select rather than create mitigation actions appropriate to the jurisdiction. The Mitigation Actions will be finalized by the Planning Team and will be categorized by hazard; identify the coordinating agency, and establish a timeline. • Draft Local Hazards Mitigation Plan will be prepared by EPC and will include the various components mentioned above. A hard copy and electronic copy of the Draft Plan will be mailed to the City's Point of Contact for distribution and review by the Planning Team and other individuals with an interest in natural hazards mitigation. • Draft Multi -Hazard Functional Plan will be prepared by EPC and will include the SEMS -mandated components. A hard copy and electronic copy of the Draft Plan will be mailed to the City's Point of Contact for distribution and review by the Planning Team and other individuals in the City's emergency response activities. • Planning Team Final Meeting will be dedicated to discussing comments received during the review period, as well as providing missing information and corrections associated with the two plans. • Final Drafts Presented by EPC to the jurisdiction's decision makers (i.e. City Council) at a public meeting. Revisions to the plans will be made based on input by the decision makers at the public meeting, as well as comments gathered during the review period. A set of hard copies and electronic copies of the Final Drafts will be mailed to the City for submission to OES/FEMA (Mitigation Plan) and OES (Multi -Hazard Functional Plan). 3 • • Cost Emergency Planning Consultants will complete the above mentioned tasks for a total of $30,000. Arrangements for payment will be negotiated as a part of the contracting process. This proposal is in effect through October 31, 2004. A 20% discount has been built into this proposal in light of the fact the City would be purchasing more than one professional service. Should you have any questions concerning this proposal or other required tasks, please contact me at (858) 483-4626. Respectfully, Carolyn J. Harshman, President Emergency Planning Consultants 3665 Ethan Allen Avenue San Diego, CA 92117 (858) 483-4626, office (858) 483-2862, fax epc@pacbell.net 4 Schedule A with Emergency Planning Consultants • SCHEDULE A Populations/Service Areas less than 100,000 SCOPE OF WORK & SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE Option 1 — City/District as Sole Participant Task #1-1 Schedule Cost Task #1-2 Schedule Cost Task #1-3 Schedule Cost Conduct Kick -Off Meeting. ✓ Prepare materials and facilitate the first Planning Team meeting made up of key City representatives. First Month of Contract $5,000 Prepare Draft Threat Assessment. ✓ Analyze data and documents collected at the Kick -Off Meeting. Conduct additional research as necessary and prepare Draft Threat Assessment, consisting of four components: • Identification of hazards • Profiling of hazards • Preparation of community profile • Establishment of vulnerability Second Month of Contract $5,000 Conduct Second Planning Team Meeting. ✓ Discuss Draft Hazard Analysis and solicit input. Utilizing planning tools developed by Emergency Planning Consultants, facilitate the process of establishing a Mitigation Strategy, including the following components: • Mitigation Goals • Identification of Possible Mitigation Activities • Prioritize Activities • Develop an Action Plan ✓ Establish an Implementation Strategy which identifies how the mitigation recommendations will be integrated into City General Plans, City Capital Improvement Plans, and City Zoning and Building Codes. Third Month of Contract $5,000 September 29, 2004 1 • Schedule A with Emergency Planning Consultants • Task #1-4 Schedule Cost Task #1-5 Schedule Cost Task #1-6 Schedule Cost Prepare Draft Local Hazards Mitigation Plan and Multi— Hazard Functional Plan. ✓ Based on the discussions and recommendations from the Second Planning Team Meeting, complete the Draft Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and Multi -Hazard Functional Plan. Fourth Month of Contract $5,000 Planning Team Final Meeting ✓ Draft Plans are out for review during the fifth month of the contract. ✓ Planning Team Final Meeting focuses on discussing comments gathered during the review process and making any other revisions to the plans. Fifth Month of Contract $5,000 Participate in Public Hearing and Submit Final Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan. ✓ Assist with preparation of staff report and presentation materials and participate in one public meeting (i.e. City Council). As directed at the public meeting, incorporate recommendations into the Plans. Submit Final Local Hazards Mitigation Plan and Multi -Hazard Functional Plan to the City's Point of Contact. Sixth Month of Contract $5,000 Option 1 — City/District as Sole Participant Grand Total = $30,000 September 29, 2004 2 . + 1111 • Schedule A with Emergency Planning Consultants Option 2 — Additional Services Flat Fee Task #2-1 Schedule Cost Task #2-2 Schedule Cost Task #2-3 Schedule Cost Participate in additional Decision Maker Meeting. ✓ Assist with preparation of staff report and presentation materials and participate in one decision maker meeting (i.e. Planning Commission, City Council). Unknown $1,600 per Public Hearing Design and Facilitate Planning Team or Working Group all -day Meeting. Unknown $3,200 per Meeting Design and Facilitate a Public Workshop. ✓ Design and facilitate a 2-4 hour Public Workshop with focus on educating the public and soliciting input. Unknown $3,200 per Workshop Task #2-4 Incorporate recommendations from additional Planning Team, Public Workshop, or Decision Maker Meeting into the Plans. ✓ Incorporate recommendations from Meeting or Workshop into the Plans. Schedule Unknown Cost $1,600 per Meeting, Workshop, or Decision Maker Meeting Option 3 — Additional Services Time and Materials Task #3-1 Provide additional services on an as -needed basis. 1 Assist City/District on an as -needed basis and be reimbursed for Time and Materials. Any and all costs associated with providing the service will be reimbursed. Services could include, but not be limited to: facilitation of additional Planning Team meetings, participation at additional Decision Maker Meetings, assistance with Public September 29, 2004 3 Schedule A with Emergency Planning Consultants Workshops, or assistance with Plan revisions upon return from State or Federal reviewers. Schedule Unknown Cost $200 per hour Labor (one-way only for travel time); Hotel, Meals, and Mileage (one-way only) at 2004 GSA Per Diem Rates; other Materials (office supplies, etc.) as required. September 29, 2004 4 • October 4, 2004 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council October 12, 2004 SUBJECT: VARIANCE 04-2, APPEAL — APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF VARIANCES TO LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENT AND MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE VALUATION INCREASE FOR A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO PERMIT AN ADDITION AND REMODEL OF AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, RESULTING IN 70.9% LOT COVERAGE RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM 65% AND A 148.1% VALUATION INCREASE RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM 100% , AND TO ALLOW REQUIRED OPEN SPACE NOT ADJACENT TO A PRIMARY LIVING AREA APPELLANT: THOMAS & BARBARA ZONDIROS, 31131 STREET Planning Commission Recommendation Deny the appeal by adoption of the attached resolution. Background The subject property is currently developed with a one-story single family dwelling, with a one -car garage with access to the alley. The applicant is requesting a Variance from the 65% maximum lot coverage requirement and the maximum allowable 100% valuation increase for a nonconforming structure to accommodate a proposed expansion and remodel of a property at 311 31st Street. The proposed project is currently 5% over the maximum lot coverage allowance. The Planning Commission considered the Variance request at their August 17, 2004 meeting and voted unanimously to deny the request because they could not find that the property was extraordinary or unusual relative physical conditions or that the owner was denied a substantial property right possessed by others in the vicinity and zone. The Commission felt there were sufficient options available to remodel and expand the home without exceeding lot coverage requirements and valuation limits for nonconforming structures. Project Information ZONING: GENERAL PLAN: LOT SIZE: EXISTING FLOOR AREA: PROPOSED ADDITION: PROPOSED FLOOR AREA: PERCENT INCREASE IN VALUATION: EXISTING LOT COVERAGE: PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE: EXISTING PARKING: PROPOSED PARKING: EXISTING NONCONFORMING CONDITIONS FRONT YARD: PARKING: OPEN SPACE: 1 R-1 Low Density Residential 2,100 Square Feet 956 Square Feet 1,268 Square Feet 2,224 Square Feet 148.1% 56.8% 70.9% 1 garage space 2 garage spaces and 1 guest 0 Feet rather than required 7 feet (10% of lot depth). One space rather than two spaces plus one guest. Does not comply with the requirement that 60% be looted adjacent to primary living areas. SUPPLEMENTAL 5a INFORMATION • /0 �zv October 4, 2004 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council October 12, 2004 SUBJECT: VARIANCE 04-2, APPEAL — APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF VARIANCES TO LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENT AND MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE VALUATION INCREASE FOR A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO PERMIT AN ADDITION AND REMODEL OF AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, RESULTING IN 70.9% LOT COVERAGE RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM 65% AND A 148.1% VALUATION INCREASE RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM 100% APPELLANT: THOMAS & BARBARA ZONDIROS, 3113157 STREET Planning Commission Recommendation Deny the appeal by adoption of the attached resolution. Background The subject property is currently developed with a one-story single family dwelling, with a one -car garage with access to the alley. The applicant is requesting a Variance from the 65% maximum lot coverage requirement and the maximum allowable 100% valuation increase for a nonconforming structure to accommodate a proposed expansion and remodel of a property at 311 31s` Street. The proposed project is currently 3% over the maximum lot coverage allowance. The Planning Commission considered the Variance request at their August 17, 2004 meeting and voted unanimously to deny the request because they could not find that the property was extraordinary or unusual relative physical conditions or that the owner was denied a substantial property right possessed by others in the vicinity and zone. The Commission felt there were sufficient options available to remodel and expand the home without exceeding lot coverage requirements and valuation limits for nonconforming structures. Proiect Information ZONING: GENERAL PLAN: LOT SIZE: EXISTING FLOOR AREA: PROPOSED ADDITION: PROPOSED FLOOR AREA: PERCENT INCREASE IN VALUATION: EXISTING LOT COVERAGE: PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE: EXISTING PARKING: PROPOSED PARKING: EXISTING NONCONFORMING CONDITIONS FRONT YARD: PARKING: OPEN SPACE: 1 R-1 Low Density Residential 2,100 Square Feet 956 Square Feet 1,268 Square Feet 2,224 Square Feet 148.1% 56.8% 70.9% 1 garage space 2 garage spaces and 1 guest 0 Feet rather than required 7 feet (10% of lot depth). One space rather than two spaces plus one guest. Does not comply with the requirement that 60% be located adjacent to primary living areas'. 5a • • Analysis The applicants are proposing to construct a second -story addition of 1,268 square feet to the existing residence. The project also entails remodeling 634 square feet of existing livable floor area. The expansion will increase the living area of the house from 956 square feet to 2,224 square feet. The nonconforming front yard will remain. Also, the proposed project will remain nonconforming to small lot open space requirements. The proposed enlarged garage and driveway will cover the existing open space area in the rear yard, and the applicants propose to replace this area with a second story deck and a roof deck with a combined usable open space area of 340 square feet. The proposed open spaces still do not comply with the requirement that 60% be located` adjacent to primary living areas, as the second story deck is adjacent to the proposed master bedroom and the roof deck is not directly adjacent to any living area. The expansion and remodel results in a 148.1% increase in valuation. Pursuant to Chapter 17.52 of the Zoning Ordinance, the maximum allowable valuation increase for an expansion and remodel of an existing nonconforming structure is 100%. Therefore, a Variance is required from the maximum allowable valuation increase for a nonconforming structure. The garage is proposed to be enlarged and moved closer to the alley to accommodate two parking spaces. Combined with an enlarged driveway to provide adequate area for a parallel guest parking space, the proposed garage eliminates the existing nonconforming parking condition and brings the property into compliance with current parking requirements. However, the proposed addition causes lot coverage to be increased by 296 square feet (approximately 14%) to accommodate the enlarged garage Therefore, a Variance is required from the lot coverage requirement. The reason for the applicants' request is primarily to make the dwelling more livable as a single family dwelling to suit their needs, with an increased family/living room area on the first story, and three bedrooms and two bathrooms on the second story, including a master bedroom and bathroom suite. The applicants wish to construct this addition while maintaining as much of the existing structure as possible, and keep the primary living area (the living/family room) on the first floor adjacent to the existing open area abutting the walk street encroachment at the front of the property. Staff has discussed other options with the applicants to avoid the need for a Variance, such as a building a completely new residence given that the proposed project more than doubles the existing structure valuation, or scaling down the expansion below the 100% maximum. A Variance is not intended to be a grant of a special privilege, but a means to ensure that there is parity with surrounding properties. "The concept of a Variance is that basic zoning provisions are not being changed but the property owner is allowed to use his property in a manner basically consistent with the established regulations with such minor variation as will place him in parity with other property owners in the same zone."2In order to grant a Variance the City Council must make the following four findings: 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, limited to the physical conditions applicable to the property involved. 2. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question. 3. The granting of the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. 4. The Variance is consistent with the General Plan. The applicant argues that because of the small lot size, the existing small building size, and the desire to maintain the primary living area on the ground floor it is not possible to comply with development standards while maintaining the existing structure. 2 • • Discussion of findings: Finding 1: The lot is considered a "small lot" under the R-1 development standards, as it is 2100 square feet. This means the lot already qualifies for the small lot exception, which allows open space to be provided on decks. So the small lot condition, which exists on this entire block (38 lots have the same dimension) is not really exceptional or unusual and, further, because these small lots are recognized in the code, the property is already given some relief from development standards. The existing condition of the property may be somewhat unusual, in that it is located on a walk street with the only garage access off a narrow 10 -foot wide alley at the rear of the property. Because the garage access is limited to the rear of the property, the requirement that 60% of the usable open space be located adjacent to primary._living areas cannot be provided adjacent to primary living areas on the ground floor without reducing the buildable area of the project. Ifthe primary living area is provided on the second floor, then the required open space can be provided on decks, but the applicants believe that reversing the floor plan (providing primary living areas upstairs and bedrooms downstairs) negatively impacts the unique character of the walk street by closing off the property to it with more private bedroom space. However, these conditions exist for all the properties on this walk street and are not unique to this property relative to the other walk street properties. Also, the existing building is nonconforming to current development standards, and thus is afforded some benefits by being allowed to maintain these nonconformities that may not be available to other properties in the same situation, and is not available to properties with new construction. In summary it is questionable whether these circumstances could be considered as exceptional and extraordinary. Finding 2: The owners wish to exercise a property right, possessed by others in the neighborhood, to construct a single family home to meet current standards of livability and to be a reasonable size. They argue that the Variances to lot coverage and valuation increase are necessary for this dwelling to reach a size that the applicants find comfortable and to maintain the primary living area on the ground floor without also being forced to significantly reconfigure the existing structure. Supporting such a finding depends on whether the ability to meet the applicants' preferences for livability or a certain size home is considered a substantial property right, and whether the lot coverage and valuation increase requirements are so restrictive that they are denying the applicants this right, and whether these rights can be achieved through alternative methods such as building a new house. Making this finding is difficult given that new construction or alterations to the project plans would make it possible to meet the applicants' general objectives and still comply with the lot coverage requirement and eliminate the need for a Variance. Finding 3: The project will not likely be materially detrimental to property improvements in the vicinity and zone since the project complies with all other requirements of the Zone Code, and is not inconsistent with development in the neighborhood. Finding 4: The project is not unusually large or out of scale with other new projects in the neighborhood, and is otherwise in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. The City Council must adopt the required findings as described above or make similar findings. 3 CONCUR: 011P . So : lumenfe or Community 1- evelopment Department Stephen1 City Manager Attachments 1. Resolution Sustaining Commission Decision 2. Planning Commission Resolution and Minutes 3. Applicant Correspondence 4. Location Map 5. Zoning Analysis 6. Photographs 7. Correspondence Footnotes Scott L1 ceford Associate Planner 1. Complies with the total open space area requirement for small lot exception of 300 square feet with a total of 374 square feet is available in the rear yard. Section 17.08.030 —"Exceptions for Small Lots: Lots of 2100 square feet or less in area shall be allowed a minimum of three hundred (300) square feet of usable open space with minimum dimensions of seven (7) feet in length and width, and all of the required usable open space may be provided on balconies or decks provided that at least sixty percent (60%) of usable open space is directly accessible to primary living areas (living rooms, family rooms, and kitchen and living room or family room combinations). and located on the same floor level as the accessible primary living area." 2. Longtin's California Land Use, rd Edition, 1987, Chapter 3, Part G, "Variances and Conditional Use Permits" 4 1 29 • • RESOLUTION NO. 04- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO DENY A VARIANCE TO THE LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENT AND MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE VALUATION INCREASE FOR A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN ORDER TO ALLOW AN ADDITION AND REMODEL OF AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, RESULTING IN 70.9% LOT COVERAGE RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM 65% AND A 148.1% VALUATION INCREASE RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM 100% AT 311 31ST STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 23, BLOCK 117, SHAKESPEARE TRACT The City Council does hereby resolve and order as follows: Section 1. An application was filed by Thomas and Barbara Zondiros, owners of the property located at 311 31s` Street, seeking Variances to allow an addition and remodel of an existing legal nonconforming single-family residence resulting in 70.9% lot coverage rather than the 65% maximum and 148.1% valuation increase rather than the 100% maximum. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for a Variance on August 17, 2004, at which testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission. Based on the evidence, the Commission could not make the necessary findings for a Variance and denied the requested Variance. Section 3. The applicant filed an appeal of the Commission's decision. Section 4. The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal on October 12, 2004, at which testimony and evidence, both written and oral, and the record of decision of the Planning Commission was presented to and considered by the City Council. Section 5. Based on the evidence received at the public hearing, and the record of decision of the Planning Commission the City Council makes the following factual findings: 1. The subject lot is zoned R-1 and contains 2100 square feet with a dimension of 30' X 70'. This is the typical lot size for this block, which is a walk street, and is considered a small lot pursuant to the R-1 zoning standards, which provides an exception to open space requirements for small lots. 2. The property is nonconforming with respect to front yard requirements (0 rather than required 7 feet), open space (does not comply with the requirement that 60% be located adjacent to primary living areas), and parking (One space rather than two spaces plus one guest). 3. The applicants are proposing to construct a second -story addition of 1268 square feet to the existing residence. The project also entails remodeling 634 square feet of existing livable floor area. The expansion will increase the living area of the house from 956 square feet to 2,224 square feet. 4. The Variance to the maximum allowable valuation increase of 100% for a nonconforming structure is needed because the proposed expansion and remodel results in a 148.1% increase in valuation. Pursuant to Chapter 17.52 of the Zoning Ordinance, the maximum allowable valuation increase for an expansion and remodel of an existing nonconforming structure is 100%. • • 5. The Variance to lot coverage is needed because the proposed addition causes lot coverage to be increased by 296 square feet (approximately 14%) to accommodate an enlarged garage, resulting in 70.9% lot coverage rather than the required 65% maximum. Section 6. Based on the foregoing factual findings, and the record of decision of the Planning Commission, the City Council makes the following findings pertaining to the application for a Variance: 1. Though the lot is considered a "small lot" on a walk street, there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances limited to the physical conditions applicable to the subject property because the property shares the same characteristics with the 38 other lots located in the same area. 2. The Variance is only necessary to satisfy the applicants' desire to maintain the primary living area on the ground floor without providing additional adjacent open space on the property. However, other options are available to the applicant to exercise their property rights that do not require a Variance. Such as building a completely new residence (given that the proposed project greatly increases the existing structure's valuation) or scaling down the expansion to within the 100% valuation maximum. Therefore the Variance is not necessary to exercise a substantial property right. Section 7. Based on the foregoing, and since the City Council cannot make all 4 required finding as required by Section 17.54.020 of the Zoning Ordinance, the City Council hereby denies the requested Variance. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 12th day of October, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR PROTEM of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY B95/cd/cc/varr311-31st • 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ' 29 • • RESOLUTION NO. 04-29 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING REQUESTED VARIANCE TO THE LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENT AND MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE VALUATION INCREASE FOR A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN ORDER TO ALLOW AN ADDITION AND REMODEL OF AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, RESULTING IN 70.9% LOT COVERAGE RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM 65% AND A 148.1% VALUATION INCREASE RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM 100% AT 311 31ST STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 23, BLOCK 117, SHAKESPEARE TRACT The Planning Commission does hereby resolve and order as follows: Section 1. An application was filed by Thomas and Barbara Zondiros, owners of the property located at 311 31st Street, seeking Variances to allow an addition and remodel of an existing legal nonconforming single-family residence resulting in 70.9% lot coverage rather than the 65% maximum and 148.1% valuation increase rather than the 100% maximum. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for a Variance on August 17, 2004, 2004, at which testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission. Section 3. Based on the evidence received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission makes the following factual findings: 1. The property is nonconforming with respect to front yard requirements (0 rather than required 7 feet), open space (does not comply with the requirement that 60% be located adjacent to primary living areas), and parking (One space rather than two spaces plus one guest). 2. The applicants are proposing to construct a second -story addition of 1268 square feet to the existing residence. The project also entails remodeling 634 square feet of existing livable floor area. The expansion will increase the living area of the house from 956 square feet to 2,224 square feet. 3. The lot is considered a "small lot" under the R-1 development standards, as it is 2100 square feet. 4. The Variance to the maximum allowable valuation increase of 100% for a nonconforming structure is needed because the proposed expansion and remodel results in a 148.1% increase in valuation. Pursuant to Chapter 17.52 of the Zoning Ordinance, the maximum allowable valuation increase for an expansion and remodel of an existing nonconforming structure is 100%. 7 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 • • 5. The Variance to lot coverage is needed because the proposed addition causes lot coverage to be increased by 296 square feet (approximately 14%) to accommodate an enlarged garage, resulting in 70.9% lot coverage rather than the required 65% maximum. Section 4. Based on the foregoing factual findings, the Planning Commission makes the following findings pertaining to the application for a Variance: 1. Though the lot is considered a "small lot" on a walk street, there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances limited to the physical conditions applicable to the subject property because the property shares the same characteristics with the 38 other lots located in the same area. 2. The Variance is only necessary to satisfy the applicants' desire to maintain the primary living area on the ground floor without providing additional adjacent open space on the property. However, other options are available to the applicant to exercise their property rights that do not require a Variance. Such as building a completely new residence (given that the proposed project greatly increases the existing structure's valuation) or scaling down the expansion to within the 100% valuation maximum. Therefore the Variance is not necessary to exercise a substantial property right. Section 5. Based on the foregoing, and since the Planning Commission cannot make all 4 required finding as required by Section 17.54.020 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission hereby denies the requested Variance. VOTE: AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 04-29 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meeting of August 17, 2004. Sam Perrotti, Chairman August 17. 2004 Date VARR311 Sol Blumenfel S retary surrounding area and the effects upon neighboring properties, and that staff prepares evaluation based on the City's Zoning Ordinance as well as other codes. He added th s of the findings are found in staff reports. an Mr. Levi noted his concern that the open patio activities will create a nuisan• for the neighbors; a dressed his concern with the negative impact this condition may h. e upon his property value; . d noted his concern with the loss of privacy, increased noise, mited parking in the area, and p • ential need for more security. He questioned if the public h . •ng notice cited the proposed exten . :d hours and request for an alcohol permit. Elaine Lipkin, 727 24th treet, echoed Mr. Levin's concerns; stated t i .t she is a tenant in the office building; advised thashe works in her office until 9:00 P.M. o to three evenings a week as a psychotherapist; and that ,he leases her office one or two othe evenings. She addressed her concern with parking and expr- . sed her belief that the outside fining will be disruptive to her business and to the business of oth office building tenants. Jason Wallace, resident living on 24th ' . ce, noted his co erns that the patio dining will create a nuisance and suggested that consideration . e given to r- @ lacing the existing wall with a full glass wall, thereby giving the applicant the view - y are eking. Teryl Bernette, 24th Place resident, echoed the stated that this neighborhood should not b: sub.) opposition to approving a full liquor lice :e at this belief that the 6 -foot glass barrier will n . provide relie cerns with the inadequate parking in this area; ted to a neighborhood bar; and expressed tablishment. Ms. Bernette expressed her r the residents. Mike Brudek, 725 24th Street, high bar activities. ted his concerns with king, excess noise and disruptive Bob Albert, 730 24th Street, choed the concerns expressed this eve MOTION by Vice -C -+ rman Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Koem 04-3 to the Septemb- 21, 2004 meeting. The motion carried as follows: AYES: en, Hoffinan, Koenig, Pizer, Perrotti NOES: one ABSTAIN- None ABSENT. None to CONTINUE CUP 8. VAR 04-2 -- Variance to allow greater than 65% lot co .erage; to allow greater than 100% increase in valuation while maintaining a nonco'hforming front yard; and to allow required open space not adjacent to a primary living area at 311 31st Street. Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. Director Blumenfeld stated that this is a request to permit the construction and remodel to an existing single-family home; explained that the proposed increase in valuation is 148 percent Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2004 • • rather the 100 percent maximum allowed; that the lot coverage is proposed at 70.9 percent as opposed to 65 percent; advised that the property has a nonconforming front yard of zero feet; that it has less than 60 percent required open space directly accessible to the primary living area required under the code; and that it has one parking space as opposed to the required two parking spaces, plus the guest space required under the parking ordinance. He stated that the applicant is proposing to enlarge the garage and driveway, to remodel the existing 956 -square -foot structure, noting that the living area will now be 2,224 square feet. He noted that the nonconforming front yard will remain as well as the nonconforming open space; and advised that the proposed addition causes the lot coverage to increase by approximately 14 percent primarily to accommodate the new garage. He commented on meeting the four mandatory findings for granting a Variance: 1) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, limited to the physical conditions applicable to the property involved; 2) the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question; 3) the granting of the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located; and 4) the Variance is consistent with the General Plan. With respect to Finding No. 1, Director Blumenfeld stated that staff believes the applicant is not able to make this finding since there are 38 other lots of similar size in the vicinity which are classified as small lots; that since the lot is classified as a small lot, it's permitted to provide all its open space on deck, which means that it's conveyed an advantage that isn't possessed by other properties — pointing out that the property already has some relief from the development standards relative to location of open space. Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicants note in their correspondence that the location of the property on a walk street is unique, that the condition limits the location of the garage to the rear of the property and complicates providing 60 percent of useable open space directly adjacent to primary living area; however, he noted that this condition exists for all properties along a walk street and that it is not unique to this property. Director Blumenfeld stated that Finding No. 2 could only be made if the Commission agrees that the applicant and owner wish to exercise their property rights that are possessed by others in the neighborhood to construct a home to meet their current standards of livability and reasonable size. If the Planning Commission supports this finding, he stated that the Commission would have to concur with the applicants' idea of what constitutes livability (that a preference for a certain size home, is considered a substantial property right). He advised that the Planning Commission also has to determine whether the lot coverage and valuation standards are so restrictive that the owners are otherwise being denied a property right. He pointed out that making this finding is difficult since the applicant can simply construct a new home that would meet the applicants' general objectives without the need for a Variance for lot coverage or valuation standards. Director Blumenfeld expressed staff's belief the other two findings are possible to make, that the • proposed project is not overly large, that it is consistent with project sizes in the area, and that it also is not a violation of the Zoning Ordinance or General Plan. l a Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2004 • • Commissioner Hoffman requested clarification on the applicants' assertion that a precedent had been set at 259 31st Street. Director Blumenfeld explained that the Planning Commission made a determination to deny that request; and that on appeal, the applicant was granted by City Council a variance from lot coverage, since the work was at the second floor level and in an area not readily visible to surrounding properties. Commissioner Allen requested further clarification on Finding No. 2. Director Blumenfeld explained that the Commission needs to find whether there are other properties that enjoy a property right that is basically denied to this property owner and if the applicants are put at such a disadvantage that there is not parity between the project and the properties in the surrounding area. Barbara Zondiros, 311 31st Street, applicant, stated that a larger house is needed to accommodate her growing family; noted that while there is a zero front yard setback, they do have an easement and do use the front 12 feet as their front yard; and she requested that this area be considered as part of the open space requirement — noting that this is a 12 x 30 foot area. She indicated her plans to put on a second story to accommodate the three bedrooms, opening up the bottom floor for the living room, kitchen and dining areas. She highlighted her preference to keep the bedrooms upstairs; and she stated that it is important for her family to continue to enjoy the sense of community in her neighborhood, on this walk street. She added that if they do leave the bedrooms downstairs, they will have to set back the front wall 14 feet, which leaves too little room for a kitchen, dining area and living room, sitting back from the street 26 feet on a 30 x 70 - square -foot lot. Ms. Zondiros pointed out that none of the neighbors' views will be affected; noted that the renovations to the 259 31St Street project maxed out the lot coverage; and stated that she should be afforded the same variance — pointing out that her project will not be as large. Tom Zondiros, 311 31st Street, applicant, stated that he does not wish to build a new house; expressed his love for this neighborhood; and expressed strong opposition to not being able to watch his kids play outside from the first floor living room areas — pointing out his plans to put the bedrooms upstairs. He stated that this is a modest plan. Commissioner Hoffman stated that he is not able to make Finding No. 1, noting that there's nothing about this lot that differentiates it from other lots in the area; and pointed out that there are already other exemptions given on this property. Vice -Chairman Pizer stated that he is not able to make Finding Nos. 1 and 2. Commissioner Koenig noted his concurrence with the lack of findings. Commissioner Allen stated that he is not able to make Finding Nos. 1 and 2. Chairman Perrotti stated that he cannot make Finding No. 1; noted his concern that there are 38 Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2004 • • other lots of similar size and the potential with setting a precedent; mentioned that the City has already made an exception for lots of this size and that modifications have already been made to the building standards to give these small lots a break; and he suggested that the applicants consider modifying their plans. The public hearing was closed. MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Vice -Chairman Pizer, to DENY VAR 04-2 -- Variance to allow greater than 65% lot coverage; to allow greater than 100% increase in valuation while maintaining a nonconforming front yard; and to allow required open space not adjacent to a primary living area at 311 31st Street. The motion carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer, Perrotti None None None 9. ON 04-18/PDP 04-19 — Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Pla ' and ting Tentative Parcel Map No. 61623 for a four -unit condominium at 98 1st V Stree Staff Recommende Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld stat east of Ardmore Avenue, unusually large -- 50 feet in project consists of four attached westerly side of the lot; that the units units (Nos. 1 and 4) being a mirror ima the project; and that the middle two units entering from the side. He stated that each and two stories, with a mezzanine above; noted t the 30 -foot height limit; that lot coverage is 56 allowed; that all required yards are provided required minimum by 4 feet. He stated that advised that parking for each unit is ace along the west side of the lot and is po while parking maneuverability is t Zoning Ordinance, but pointed o area, which could interfere wi replace an existing curb cut no loss of on -street parkin that this project consists of a single lot on the st of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH); th and a depth of over 130 feet; -story units with a common e designed with two fl of each other and s. 2 and 3) b will c Chairman Perrotti o Fran Yearlm th side of 1 s` Street, ntioned that the lot is plained that the proposed eway to be located along the r plans, with the front and rear ntering from the front and rear of g a mirror image of each other and tain a basement with a private garage e buildings are designed to comply with nt, well under the 65 percent maximum out that the front yard exceeds the rms to all zoning requirements. He a common driveway provided lot width. He explained that inimum standards of the fall within the parking eway curb cut will at there will be point]. e project co sed perpendicular le because of the 50-fo t, it does comply with the staff's concern with the columns th the turning radius. He added that the cated on the eastern side of the street and note ed the public hearing. representing the applicant, stated that the project conforms to all zoning /a - Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2004 Thomas and Barbara Zondiros 311 31st Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 City of Hermosa Beach Planning Division 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Madams or Sirs: • RECE11/tD AUG 0 9 2004 COM. DEV. DEPT. We have submitted plans for improvements to our home at 311 31g Street. In addition, we have applied for a variance in order to meet the needs of our family while maintaining the unique character of a walk street. We have fully considered and addressed issues particular to lots located on walk streets in the R-1 zone. Hence, our plans consist of a moderate two-story, three- bedroom home with the main living area on the first floor that opens to the front yard and street. A two -car garage with the required turning radius and additional parking space is included in order to address limited parking and narrow alley conditions. Open space is located on the second story as well as on the roof deck. In the paragraphs that follow, we will specifically address the extraordinary circumstances involved in improvements to our property and the solutions we have developed to best address those circumstances. We live on a 30 ft. x 70 ft. lot, with a 30 ft. x 12 ft. easement in the front. Our home is currently 956 sq. ft. (56.8% lot coverage) and has not had an addition in at least 25 years. We reside in an R-1 zone, which restricts us to building 25 feet in height. Our house's existing front wall, which we plan to maintain, is aligned with almost every other house on our side of the street. Our alley (32nd Place) is one of the most narrow alleys in all of Hermosa Beach. We, as well as our immediate neighbors, live on some of the most restricted lots in Hermosa Beach. It is clear that the current zoning laws are inequitable when applied to our neighborhood versus other Hermosa Beach communities. Therefore, exceptions must be made enabling us to develop a home that is consistent with the rest of city. Our plans address the parking issue by calling for a two -car garage off the alley with an additional parking space and appropriate turning radius. To meet this condition, we are installing a garage door 21 ft. wide, nearly spanning the entire width of the lot and we must eliminate the courtyard in the rear of the property. We have then satisfied the open space requirement by including a 400 sq. ft. roof deck as well as a 118 sq. ft. deck on the second floor. The first floor /3 i• has an open space area of 44.17 sq. ft. In addition, we believe that the 360 sq. ft. of yard in front of the property should be considered open space, bringing the total open space on the first floor to 404.17 sq. ft. Walk streets are unique in that they naturally create a sense of community. Although these lots are small, they are some of the most desired lots in the city. Hence, our plans call for the living area to remain on the first floor. We believe that reversing the floor plan negatively impacts the continuity of the walk street community. Also, reversing the floor will not change the open space or the square footage of the house; it would merely change the location of the rooms. Our plans call for a total lot coverage of 1446 sq. ft. (70.9%). Again, this 5.9% overage is due to the two -car garage requirement. The total area of the house will be 2,200 sq. ft., and although this is over a 100% increase in valuation, by current standards, it is still a modest size home. Also, the entire project will account for only 67% of the maximum allowable area if we were to build a new home with a third level. Furthermore, these exceptions have been made for several neighbors, the most current being at 259 31' Street. We believe that to be equitable, we should be allowed these same exceptions. In summation, we have taken great care to develop a modest size home that maintains the charm of our walk street and is consistent with the comprehensive General Plan. We believe our situation is unique and requires special consideration. By building only two stories, we have eliminated the risk of settlement and damage to our neighbors' homes (as recently experienced at 30th/Momingside and 31"/Morningside). We have the full support of our neighbors, whose property values will also increase due to our improvements. We are requesting only exceptions that have been granted to others in our vicinity and zone. Therefore, we urge the Planning Commission • : prove our planned improvements. Res mitted, Thomas i• ndiros Barb . . ` • ndiros J 40 4 Z D • � 2 / < f*1 5 40 D Z A 'Ix Z 33RD O .! 30 Z4 30 30 43w•• ls"% ,, ' �O✓� O 2 4 g" 6 30 8 10 D S r••• I2 W 1 30 . 4 s 16uoIW B LK 1 30 ST. 30 ON 24 II 30 26 8 =3 28 30 32 O 36 L 30 K W 4 TO 73 36 06. 1 Z O A • 3! O, • - -- 30.(31,4.• OM.O 30 3h, .`7 % OQ OO/ 9• p N 13 3O i 15 30 40 O% S h 17 Ny 40 44 L,NGFELLOW 30 1 ✓ O e• 37 39 30 AVE.'S ° C 30 o .30 p 37 39 0 ST. ° 30 CO042- __l U > NV11VHNVW 30 VI 2 0 00 30TH 30 • o, 30TH 30 4O O 0 0 0 17 3 41 sr - 2 0 0 ..i 0 0 25 41.I -2r 27 0 3L 3 - 35 40 0 Z z C) 4 (n A40 0 R 0 8 IQ-. 00 12 10 0 14 • • V — o 0 II 13 P. 15et.N 17 0 2Q • 454 V 2224243 0 0 19 21 II, 0 23 O 25 O 21_ 0 27 30 • 0 2 la 1~O • 31 33 36 0 3 40 40� 6 LONGFELLOW • 30 • O O O O /3 = 3 O ®p 9 p /: ® . . 4 6 8 10 12 14 3 NO 4 O O O O O /3 it 3 5 7 9 II 13 .4 . . . . 40$1-/0 31st 0 30 0 0 6 0 8 0 10 0 12 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 :1 0 0 13 8 307H 4/v-9 0 37 Do 39 ZONING CHECK LIST ADDRESS S I I 3I34- dS1 r ZONE 1 I OWNER/ARCHITECT 7�ona� Yos GENERAL PLAN L2 PROJECT TYPE Van i atice 6Renic 44dd 4ioh) DATE 8/10/4 ITEMS CHECKED NEED CORRECTION 1) ALLOWABLE DENSITY (e(�jo} EXISTING DENSITY I ciu/ lar(- PROPOSED no GI -tar -13e I 2) ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT Z S EXISTING PROPOSED 7 COASTAL ZONE YES NO *IF YES, A COASTAL PERMIT IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE. MAXIMUM HEIGHT IINFORMATION PROPERLY SHOWN ON ROOF PLAN/ELEVATIONS: PC ELEVATIONS if CRITICAL POINT MAX AND PROPOSED ✓DISTANCES TO C.P.'S S. 3) NO. OF STORIES EXISTING I PROPOSED 2 4) MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE 65% EXISTING 5C,,�j41PROPOSED 70_9 ti. 5) REQUIRED. FRONT YARD WRAF( 7 I .EXISTING O PROPOSED. 1 r 6) REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK, 1sT FL. _1 2ND FL I I EXISTING PROPOSED 7) REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK 31 EXISTING 3 I &7I PROPOSED 31 & MULTIPLE ROW DWELLINGS YES NO ✓ IF YES: REQUIRED SIDE -YARD EXISTING PROPOSED 8), REQUIRED PARKING SPACES STANDARD Z- GUEST EXISTING SPACES STANDARD I GUEST f25' PROPOSED SPACES STANDARD 2 GUEST 9) PARKING SPACES MINIMUM SIZE: STANDARD INSIDE GARAGE 6:611c 201 EXISTING 9.51X091 PROPOSED /01 X 201 GUEST SPACE(S) OUTSIDE 91 x �Z $ EXISTING �--' PROPOSED 9 X 1 10) GARAGE OR PARKING SETBACK REQUIRED .91 EXISTING I O PROPOSED 9 11) MIN. GARAGE DOOR/CEILING CLEARANCE 7 1 EXISTING PROPOSED 7 12) TURNING AREA REQUIRED t tJ EXISTING 20 PROPOSED I S 1 13) DRIVEWAY: 1 1 REQUIRED WIDTH 9 EXISTING PROPOSED �- MAXIMUM SLOPE (2 .5%, EXISTING PROPOSED ? MINIMUM CLEARANCE 7 1 EXISTING PROPOSED I f . ..1- V 14) REQUIRED USABLE OPEN SPACE aDO 42 EXISTING 3 44 PROPOSED_34-0 4 MINIMUM DIMENSION REQUIRED 7 ( EXISTING 14471 PROPOSED 71 MAXIMUM COVERAGE ALLOWED jOr. EXISTING AY -PROPOSED 52( MINIMUM ADJACENT TO PRIMARY LIVING,tAREA (R-2, R-3 OR R-1 SMALL LOT) OR MINIMUM V REQUIRED ON GRADE (R-1 & R -1A) 1 O t EXISTING - PROPOSED `- 15) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS: MAIN BUILDINGS EXISTING PROPOSED 1 MAIN BUILDING AND ACCESSORY 'GP EXISTING PROPOSED 16) ARCHITECTURAL ENCROACHMENTS INTO REQUIRED YARDS: MINIMUM EAVE SETBACK 2. SI EXISTING PROPOSED 17) MINIMUM BAY WINDOW SETBACK 3 EXISTING PROPOSED MINIMUM COLUMNS/CHASES ETC. SETBACK 2. S 1 EXISTING PROPOSED MINIMUM FIREPLACE SETBACK 2.5/ EXISTING PROPOSED I,!� IMU1'''STAiRWAYBA.LCOIW FRONT SETBACK ENCROACHMENT 3 EXISTING PROPOSED 18) STAIRWAY IN SIDEYARD: ABOVE 1ST LEVEL YES NO EXTEND IN BOTH DIRECTIONS YES NO MAXIMUM HEIGHT 4 EXISTING PROPOSED 19) PERIMETER WALLS/FENCES --LOT TYPE: INTERIOR CORNER REVERSED CORNER FRONT HEIGHT MAXIMUM 3.51 EXISTING PROPOSED SIDE HEIGHT MAXIMUM Co 1 EXISTING PROPOSED REAR HEIGHT MAXIMUM co' EXISTING PROPOSED 20) CHIMNEY/VENTS PROJECTION ABOVE HEIGHT LIMIT FLAT ROOF SLOPED ROOF r/a MAXIMUM PROJECTION ABOVE ROOF 2' EXISTING PROPOSED CHIMNEY BULK: MAX DIMENSION EXISTING PROPOSED 21) SOUND TRANSMISSION INSULATION BETWEEN WALLS (CONDOMINIUMS) MIN. S.T.C. RATING BETWEEN FLOORS PROPOSED MIN. S.T.C. RATING BETWEEN COMMON WALLS PROPOSED NO PLUMBING FIXTURES IN COMMON WALLS i 22) NONCONFORMING REMODEL STRUCTURE: (PARKINGMINIMUM SPACE SIZE: 8 'Y2 FT. W x 18 FT. D) MAX. EXPANSION (PERCENTAGE VALUATION) BY RIGHT SO% PROPOSED 1 48. I ONE PARKING SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT MAX. EXPANSION PROPOSED LESS THAN 1 PARKING SPACE PER UNIT MAX. EXPANSION PROPOSED MAXIMUM DEMOLITION PROPOSED 23) REVIEW CARD FILE AND MASTER FILE OPEN PERMITS YES NO 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION PENDING YES NO ✓ OPEN COMPLAINTS YES NO PREVIOUS ADDITION TO NONCONFORMING REMODEL . NO YES IF YES, % nia 24) CORNER VISION CLEARANCE YES NO 25) SCREENED TRASH FACILITY YES NO ✓ rte.+ rterr}e4 n/a 26) SIGNED DOCUMENTS G01\7NECIrEt3 WITIi:DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL NEEDED RECEIVED ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONS AFFIDAVIT NOTICES OF PENDING CONSTRUCTION AFFIDAVIT CC & R'S FOR RECORDATION ASSUMPTION OF RISK IF SUMP PUMP 27) HISTORIC LANDMARK OR RESOURCE ? na NOMINATED DESIGNATED CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 28) *IF A COASTAL APPROVAL FOR THIS PROJECT IS REQUIRED, 2 SETS OF CONCEPTUAL PLANS AND A COASTAL PERMIT APPLICATION NEEDS TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY AFTER ZONE CHECK APPROVAL. CONTACT PLANNING STAFF FOR INFORMATION (310) 318-0242. 29) ADDITIONAL COMMENTS F:\B95\CD\zonecheck2003.doc revised 3/04 _.: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT NONCONFORMING/UNDERGROUNDING VALUATION WORKSHEET ADDRESS 31 I 31 -reef DATE 8� I O EXISTING BUILDING FLOOR AREAS LIVABLE 9SG x 110.88 = I0‘0,001.28 GARAGE 237 x 29.16 = 1G,9I0.92 DECKS X 17.42 = EXISTING VALUE = I 12,912..20 50% OF EXISTING VALUE = 56/ 4560. 10 PROPOSED PROJECT ADDED FLOOR AREAS LIVABLE 1 2.68 x (10.88 = I40,595.84 GARAGE 25 3 x 29.16 _ DECKS 5 18 x 17.42 = 9/02-3.567 REMODELED AREA d LIVABLE 3 1 7 X 55.44 = 17/574.4-5 GARAGE X • 14.58 = DECKS X 8.71 = TOTAL VALUE 1607 193.88 PERCENTAGE OF VALUE OF PROJECT TO EXISTING BUILDING 148. I % UNDERGROUND UTILITIES REQUIRED NO * ANY GARAGE EXPANSION FOR VEHICLE PARKING SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN ALLOWABLE EXPANSION / REMODELING (SEC. 13-3(B) & 13-7(B)) • • Community Development Department Planning Division 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 To Whom It may Concern: RECEIVIED OCT 0 6 2004 COM. DEV. DEPT. This letter addresses the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny variances to lot coverage at 311 31st Street. As a thirty-five year resident of the neighborhood I am quite concerned about maintaining integrity in the building permit system. The current requirements with respect to lot coverage have been in existence for many years and have served the community well. Nothing in the request for variances indicates anything unusual in the property at 311 31st Street. The motivation for the variances is simply to build a bigger house. Much new construction has been done on the two north Hermosa walk streets all of which were done in conformity with accepted lot coverage requirements. It is hard to see what distinguishes this case from all the others. Allowing this variance will surely lead to many attempts by others to also request similar exceptions. Where is the basic fairness when everyone is not treated the same. Either we have requirements or we don't. I strongly urge the City Council to reject this appeal and uphold the Planning Commission decision. I appreciate that I was given the opportunity to submit my views, which are shared by many of my neighbors; neighbors who are interested in preserving the integrity of our neighborhood. WA-. (1/, ciz ea_ Ulrich de la Camp 259 30th St Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 S • • Thomas and Barbara Zondiros 311 31st Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 City of Hermosa Beach City Council Members 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Sirs: We have submitted plans for improvements to our home at 311 31A Street. In addition, we have applied for a variance in order to meet the needs of our family while maintaining the unique character of a walk street. We have fully considered and addressed issues particular to lots located on walk streets in the R-1 zone. Hence, our plans consist of a moderate two-story, three-bedroom home with the main living area on the first floor that opens to the front yard and street. A two -car garage with the required turning radius and additional parking space is included in order to address limited parking and narrow alley conditions. Open space is located on the second story as well as on the roof deck. In the paragraphs that follow, we will specifically address the extraordinary circumstances involved in improvements to our property and the solutions we have developed to best address those circumstances. We live on a 30 ft. x 70 ft. lot, with a 30 ft. x 12 ft. easement in the front. Our home is currently 956 sq. ft. (56.8% lot coverage) and has not had an addition since 1959. We reside in an R-1 zone, which restricts us to building 25 feet in height. Our house's existing front wall, which we plan to maintain, although nonconforming, is aligned with almost every other house on our side of the street. From our front door, we look at our neighbor's staircase (259 31 sc St.). Our alley (32°d Place) is one of the most narrow alleys (10 ft. wide) in all of Hermosa Beach. We live on one of the most restricted lots in Hermosa Beach. It is clear that the current zoning laws are inequitable when applied to our neighborhood versus other Hermosa Beach communities. Therefore, exceptions must be made enabling us to develop a home that is consistent with the rest of city. 1 SUPPLEMENTAL Ja INFORMATION Our plans address the parking issue by calling for a two -car garage off the alley with an additional parking space and appropriate turning radius. To meet this condition, we are installing a garage door 21 ft. wide, nearly spanning the entire width of the lot and we must eliminate the courtyard in the rear of the property. We have then satisfied the open space requirement by including a 400 sq. ft. roof deck as well as a 118 sq. ft. deck on the second floor. The first floor has an open space area of 44.17 sq. ft. In addition, we believe that the 360 sq. ft. of yard in front of the property should be considered open space, bringing the total open space on the first floor to 404.17 sq. ft. Walk streets are unique in that they naturally create a sense of community. Although these lots are small, they are some of the most desired lots in the city. Hence, our plans call for the living area to remain on the first floor, with open space on the second floor, off the master bedroom. We believe that reversing the floor plan negatively impacts the continuity of the walk street community and our family's lifestyle. Also, reversing the floor will not change the open space or the square footage of the house; it would merely change the location of the rooms. Our plans call for a total lot coverage of 1488 sq. ft. (70.9%). Again, this 5.9% overage is due to the two -car garage requirement. If we were allowed to include our front yard in this calculation, lot coverage would be only 60.5%. The total area of the house will be 2,200 sq. ft., and although this is over a 100% increase in valuation, by current standards, it is still a modest size home. A kitchen remodel alone would amount to about 50% valuation. Also, the entire project will account for only 67% of the maximum allowable area if we were to build a new home with a third level. Exceptions have been made for many neighbors, the most current being at 259 31st Street (see attachment A). We believe that several of the findings by the City Council and/or the Planning Commission regarding other properties hold true for our lot (see attachments B -C). Other findings by the city, such as with 3515 Manhattan Avenue and 122 2nd Street, also pertain to our situation. These variances were granted for the owners to have • • a "reasonable or comfortable size home". We believe that by granting these variances, a precedent has been established. Our property is furthermore exceptional because it has not been developed in the last 45 years. Most properties in the area have had additions in the past thirty years. Therefore, owners either already have a variance, their large duplex has been converted to a SFD, or another addition would be small, with a lesser valuation. In summation, we have taken great care to develop a modest size home that maintains the charm of our walk street and is consistent with the comprehensive General Plan. We believe our situation is exceptional because of lot size and age of the home, and requires special consideration. By building only two stories, we have eliminated the risk of settlement and damage to our neighbors' homes (as recently experienced at 30t/Morningside and 31 `/Morningside). By building a two -car garage and parking space, we have addressed the parking issue. We have the full support of our neighbors, whose property values will also increase due to our improvements. We are requesting. only exceptions that -have been granted to others in our vicinity and zone. Therefore, we urge the City Council to overturn the decision of the Planning Commission, and approve our planned improvements. ubmitted, Thomas Zondiros 3 Some Properties on 31" Street 205 31" St. — New house built in 1975 (2,208 sq. ft.); 1982 — deck added; Variance to allow 71% lot coverage. 1990 2 bedrooms and deck added. 2,663 sq. ft. 209 318' St. - Variance to maintain 70% lot coverage with addition to nonconforming single family residence. 216 31' St. — Permission to add 40% to existing single family dwelling with nonconforming sideyard and to maintain sideyard with addition. 2,505 sq. ft. 22131St St. — Variance — allowed to construct more than 40% gross floor area to extend duplex with nonconforming yards and provide front setback and usable open space less than required under R-1 standards. 2,414 sq. ft. 226 31" St. - Variance to allow a room built over the garage having less than a 22 ft. turning radius. 237 31' St. — Variance to maintain nonconforming front yard with 0 ft. with deck on 2°d floor in lieu of 3 ft. required sideyard and 7 ft. required front yard; enclose porch and provide stair and landing in the required sideyard which does not return to grade. 244 31" St. — This home is 2,899 sq. ft. It was a duplex, converted into a SFD. Although there is no variance on file, this house exceeds 65% lot coverage. 248 31" St. — Variance to exceed 65% lot coverage with garage depth less than 20 ft. 259 31" St. — Renovation started in 3/97. Work stopped in 4/97 because no plans had been submitted to city. Planning Commission approved 68% lot coverage with nonconforming open space and parking. No variance on file. Renovations were completed. Addition of 233 sq. ft. in 2003. Variance approved to add 58 sq. ft. to lot coverage, bringing it to 71% . Property is nonconforming with respect to front/side yard requirements, open space, lot coverage and pig. 30131" St. — Variance to add more than 40% gross floor area to existing SFD with nonconforming yards and to provide usable open space in roof decks rather than yards at grade; to exceed 65% lot coverage and provide less than the required turning radius with modified parking design standards. 2,125 sq. ft. 302 31" St. — Variance to encroach into required front yard by 4 feet when enclosing an existing, nonconforming front porch. 335 31" St. - Variance to encroach 6 ft. into the required 7 ft. front setback with spiral staircase with condition that stairs remain open and unenclosed. 339 31" St. — "City has no record of permits for 2°d story addition or roof deck or garage." 347 31" St. —New 2 -story home built in 1985 — 2,523 sq. ft. 352 31" St. — Existing open space was 5.5 ft. x 27 ft. (152 sq. ft.) — 57 sq. ft. addition allowed, bringing open space to 95 sq. ft. -A- 4 t 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 RESOLUTION NO. 04-6322 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE A VARIANCE FROM LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS AT 259 31ST STREET LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 19, BLOCK 117, SHAKESPEARE TRACT THE CITY COUNCIL OF. THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. An application was filed by A. Jonathan Schwartz owner. of real property located at 259 31st Street in Hermosa Beach, California, seeking a Variance from Section 17.08.030(J), Permissible Lot Coverage in the R-1 Zone, to allow an addition and remodel, and conversion of a duplex to a single-family dwelling, resulting in 71% lot coverage rather than the maximum 65%. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for a Variance on October 21, 2003, at which testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission. Based on the evidence, the Commission could not make the necessary findings for a Variance and denied the requested Variance. SECTION 3. The applicant filed an appeal of the Commission's decision. SECTION 4. The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal on January 13, 2004, at which testimony and evidence, both written and oral, and the record of decision of the Planning Commission was presented to and considered by the City Council. SECTION 5. Based on the evidence received at the public hearing, and the record .of decision of the Planning Commission the City Council makes the following factual findings: 1. The subject lot is zoned R-1 and contains 2100 square feet with a dimension of 30' X 70'. This is the typical lot size for this block, which is a walk street, and is considered a small 5 b 03-6322 SiRu�IJDrca4e-, • • lot pursuant to the R-1 zoning standards, which provides an exception to open space requirements 2 for small lots. 3 2. The subject property is currently developed with a two-story stacked duplex, with a 4 two -car garage with access to the alley. The current use as two units is a nonconforming use in the R-1 zone. The property is also nonconforming with respect to front and side yard requirements, open space, lot coverage and parking summarized as follows: Front Yard: 0 rather than required 7 feet (10% of lot depth) Side Yard: 1;5 feet on the west side rather than the required 3 feet (10% of lot width), including a bay window that projects to the property line. Open Space: Complies with the total requirement for small lot exception of 300 square feet, as a total of 500 square feet is available on the roof deck (380) and excess yard areas on the ground (120), but does not comply with the requirement that 60% be located adjacent to primary living areas, as 120 square feet is available on ground rather than 180 square feet. Lot Coverage: currently 68% rather than the required 65% Parking: one space per unit plus one guest rather than two spaces per unit 3. The proposed project involves eliminating one of the units by removing the first floor kitchen and connecting this floor with the second floor with a spiral stair. Also, the garage will be relocated and reconstructed closer to the alley allowing the addition of 175 square feet of floor area on the first floor for an additional bedroom and bathroom, and the addition of a master bath on the second floor above a portion of the new garage. The proposed remodel and addition will bring the property into conformance with the Zoning Ordinance with respect to use because of the elimination of one unit, and bring the property into compliance with parking requirements. The nonconforming front and side yards will remain, and the project will remain nonconforming to small lot open space requirements. The project as designed causes lot coverage to be increased by 58.5 square feet (approx 3%) to accommodate the relocated garage and master bathroom. Therefore, a Variance is required from the lot coverage requirement. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 2 03-6322 4. The applicant is proposing a 233 square foot expansion, resulting in an increase of valuation of 44% as combined with a 1997 expansion and remodel project. SECTION 6. Based on the foregoing factual findings, and the record of decision of the Planning Commission, the City Council makes the following findings pertaining to the application for a Variance: 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances relating to the property because the lot size (2100 square feet with dimension of 30' X 70') is small as compared with the typical lot size in the Shakespeare Tract and in the City. Also, the existing condition of the structure, historically a duplex, is unusual for this small lot, and is proposed to be converted into a single family dwelling as part of this project 2. The Variance is necessary for the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the vicinity to construct a single-family home of a reasonable size with a functional floor plan. 3. The project will not likely be materially detrimental to property improvements in the vicinity and Zone since the project complies with all other requirements of the Zoning Code, and does not involve a major expansion. The increased lot coverage is minimal, and in an area of building not readily visible to surrounding properties. 4. The project is not unusually large or out of scale with the neighborhood, and is otherwise in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. SECTION 7. Based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby approves the requested Variance subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 1. The development and continued use of the property shall be in conformance with submitted plans received and reviewed by the City Council at their meeting of January 14, 2004. 2. The Variance is specifically limited to the lot coverage requirement as specified, and applicable to the situation and circumstances that result relative to the proposed project and is not applicable to the development of future structures or any future expansion. 83 7 03-6322 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 • i 3. A deed restriction shall be recorded with property limiting the use of the building to a single-family residence. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 27th day of January 2004. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of /lie City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: City Clerk 13 APPROVED AS TO FORM: 4 03-6322 RESOLUTION B.Z.A. 154-223 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH GRANTING A VARIANCE TO LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 209 - 31ST STREET, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Adjustments of the City of Hermosa Beach, at a public hearing held on the 7th day of March, 1977, considered the request of Mr. John R. Kenney for permission to maintain approximately 70% lot coverage with an addition to a nonconforming single family residence, on property known as Lot 5, Block 117, Shakespeare Tract; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, the following facts were presented for consideration; that the applicant proposes to demolish an existing garage and add a second floor bedroom and bath with unenclosed parking below; that there is both an outside and inside entrance to the addition; that the parking platform must have a minimum of a 6" barrier; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, a letter from the applicant was read to the Board in which he stated that the proposed addition of unenclosed parking at the rear of the lot would facilitate use of the area for offstreet parking due to insufficient turning radius for entry and exit from a garage; that the proposed alterations will reduce the nonconforming aspects of the property, bringing the structure closer to the zoning code as now written; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, no one appeared to speak in opposition to the request; and WHEREAS, afterdue consideration, it is the opinion of the Board of Zoning Adjustments that the variance request is justified, subject to conditions, for the following reasons:' 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved because the conditions requiring a var- iance exist now and have existed since original construction, presumed to be in the 1930's. 2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question because the proposed altera- tions to the building will reduce the nonconforming aspects rather than add to them thereby effectively bringing the structure closer to the building code as nowwritten. 3. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vic- inity and zone in which the property is located because the house is unique in architecture and represents a period of historic building style that should be preserved in the area. 4. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the compre- hensive General Plan because no additional dwelling units have been added. AND, FURTHER, that the variance is granted subject to the following condition: 1. That a deed restriction. is provided limiting the use of the property to single family dwelling. ••• • 9,s 20'-0" • ZONDIROS RESIDENCE 51'-0" i 6'-0" L •. EASEMENT (3) NEW 10' TALL KIN6 PALM TREES EXISTIN6 BLOCK WALL REQUIRED SETBACK (NEW SECOND NEN DECK 121.12833' CRITICAL POINT REMOVE EXISTING TREE FLOOR SETBACK) ROOF BELOW HIGH 6LAS5 PARAPET W/ WOOD TOPRAIL- BUTTJOINT ROOF DECK 400 5F 1 BUILPIN6 10.00' PROPERLY LINE EXISTING SIDE YARD 3;-" tam. STUCCO PARAPET ,l rr \ / // SKYLI6HT- IC80 ER -6015 o. in SKYLI6HT- I050 ER -6015 HIND® SKYLIGHT 4%2.'.. IN.12 :SLOPE TYPIC SETBACK do naCE VED J U L 0 6 2004 COM. DEV. DEPT. STONE VENEER CHIMNEY (3) FIXED I; 11'-4" , -0, / / � r • 1 .o I/2:.,IN.12 :.•: SLOPE-.TYP,IGAL... 12'-0' EXISTIN6 15'-6" 5IDE YARD 20'-2" TO EXISTIN6 SFR 65' -Il' EXISTIN6 SETBACK O SITE/ ROOF PLAN SCALE 1/4"4-0" 3'-0' CANTILEVER Ii4 N L\ i41 1 51,� NORTH PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION SQUARE FOOTAGE SUMMARY SHEET INDEX ZONING GROUP R -I ASSESSOR'S ID NO. 4181 .0141.024 NUMBER OF STORIES CONSTRUCTION TYPE V. NON -RATED TKO -STORY REPODB./ ADDITION. (3) BEDRGOF6, (5) BATHS, DPRIN6 ROOM, FAMILY ROOM. KITGle1, LIMNS ROOM WITH 14 ATTAC1 D TWO -GAR GARAGE I ROOF P. PROJECT CONTACTS VICINITY MAP OWNER TOM 6 BARBARA ZONDIROS S 1 1 3I st STREET F4OSA BEACH-, GA 90254 PHONE ,(510) 457-4946 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER TO BE DETERMINED ENERGY CONSULTANT TO BE DETERMINED DE8/GNER .EFF BROMNIN6 2704 SATES AVE. MB REDONAO BEACH, CA 40278 PHONE ,(310) 971-0550 311 31st STREET HERMOSA BEACH, CA 80254 • EXISTIN6 DYfLIN6, 456 SF 6ARAEE. 251 SF • ADDITION SECOlV FLOOR, 1,268 SF SEO01D FLOOR BALCONY, 116 SF ROOF DECK. 400 SF 6ARA6E, 253 SF t ' NEN TOTAL, FIRST FLOOR. 456 SF SECOND FLOOR, 1,266 SF DWBlIN6 TOTAL. 2,224 SF SECOI'D MOOR BALGCNY. 116 SF ROOF PECK, 400 SF OPEN SPACE TOTH-, S18 SF 6ARA6E TOTAL, 440 SF • LOT AREA. 2,100 S.F. * NEM LOT GOJIStASE, (1,486 (6ROUPD FLOOR TOTA4.+OVERHANG5I/ 2,100)• 10.45 • PARKINS, (2) GAR,6ARA6E+(I) 6UE.ST,DRIV8'UY ARCHITECTURAL- BROOKINS 0E5I61'6 A-0.0 DOVER SHEET/SITE PLAN/ ROOF PLAN A -0.I A5 -BUILT PLAN A-0.2 DEMO PLAN A -I.0 FIRST 6 SELCND FLOOR PLAN A-2.0 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS- FRONT t REAR A -2.I EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS- 510E5 A -S.0 LOWITUDINAL SECTION CRITICAL POINT CALCULATION MIM GABA LGN GGRQ / LOT DLtM X ▪ DISTMIO? MIEN MIM • DRYALOIM P/L LM GORlMDICP) P/L 6Z1. AT CRITICAL POINT mew LIMIT t2s2 MAX 0110114e13LL.P. 121.643' OAST SIR A1031 LOT SCUM 5100 HIM OMR 11.26 LGN CORER / LOT WIN .55/30' • SLOPE PER PT. 01966 X DISTMYt PION HIM 5'-2' • DMP ALMS P/L0551' LON G0R63HDrsp1 t1.y'. P/L tfl. AT 4'1.20' ITIGN. POINT LlIONT UNIT al1O MAX N1AMA.b6 P 122.2' to O1 oz z cc 0 W U. W ccco0 46S e ccchA M m LUN 2 cc DESIGN REVISER 5/28/04 OWNERSHP AND USE OF DOCUMENTS Al ••+w A—s— r — four ,•.•.r U r r ad roma, t. /•••.y 111. mud Mk i••••11.116 ,wpt Modr—,1. II• wow olio mead NI •more SHEET T= COVER SHEET SITE/ ROOF PLAN DATE 4/1/04 APPROVED - DRAWN JB RENEWED JB PROJECT N0. 04-04 SCALE AS DOVR1 SHEET NO. A-0.0 Z 0 33 OL OF 31st STREET- MALK 5TREET 4 3'-2" 23'-3" W 3'-2 30'-0" O 9 ZONDIROS RESIDENCE 311 31st STREET HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 Browning Designs 2704 GATES AVENUE, 46 REDONDO BEACH, CAUFORNIA 00278 PHONE 310-371-0350 FAX 31-371-4332 Z O G. OF 315t STREET- POLK STREET to J J 1 O ==j • 1 1 1 11 1 1 f 1 • • n 1 � I LI __, r T-- Lii n- 11!11 X11 �' p II :ill / 1 II LLE===E-i---E- _� / I / 1 6__11 F— 3'-2 23'-3" •— 3'-2" 30'-0" 1 N 9 5 • 2 ZONDIROS RESIDENCE 311 31st STREET HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 Browning Designs 2704 GATES AVENUE, 48 REDONDO BEACH CAUFOFNIA 90278 PHONE 310371-0350 FAX 310971/932 61'-0" 5'-0" 56'-0" I L • E DINING ROOM 4'-6" X 4'-6" r J KITCHEN 4'-6"X14'-0' 000 C 6' COUNTER 0 0 0 FAMILY/ LIVIN6 ROOM 62'-2" X IS' -4' 0 UP STM X 4'-2' O FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALE: va"=r� PAU W TWO -GAR GARAGE 22'-10" X 20'-2" J SYMBOL LEGEND E EXI5TIN6 N NEN R RELOCATE/100D9. = = EXISTIN6 WALL NEM MALL EXI5TIN6 MALL TO BE DEMOLISHED 4 Y • 1 64'-0" 1' -0" 59'-0" ROOF BELOW BILLOWY I WALK-IN CLOSET 10'-0" X 7 UP STUDY 10'-6" X 6'-4' I I I I L__J T 0 O SECOND LE FLOOR PLAN RM LIN BATH NORTH N V7 .a. ZCC laO a c cc u) co O1 -V cc M 111 M m N 0 i W DESIGN REVISION 5/20/04 OWNERSHIP NAD USE OF DOCUMENTS A. Wm^ Mrwru.. N roar tuner MOON . M IN• OM n... fl ... eerrS rel of M neer Y tlY r.h Y. p1.Y .. .'MYrWt Wb�n'•'t May r Ow inesot .f~'�'"'"'Iwn.y 41•••••* SHEET nu FIRST FLOOR PLAN DATE 4/1/04 APPROVED — DRANK J9 RENEWED JB PROJECT NO. 04-04 SCALE AS SHOW SHEET N0. A-1.0 REVISIONS DESIGN REVISION 5/2/04 OWNERSHP IND USE OF DOCUMENTS ■ .—w r..r r Wm ••••110•104.11, r pr w ma* t,.. T - r Is %. dk mini leISL •_�4i.• &paw • M Immat ..A •.r ...a r Y Owl* SHEET TIME EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS DATE 4/1/04 APPROVED DWON 45 RENEWED JB PROJECT NO. 04-04 SOME AS SHOWN SHEET NO. A-2.0 m tn 1 , 1[l N �!.' A. -N. ' A. _ — A \\' A' N $' A A' A ‘ A' \ NMEI a A AN N w A ' A % REVISIONS DESIGN REVISION 5/2/04 OWNERSHP IND USE OF DOCUMENTS ■ .—w r..r r Wm ••••110•104.11, r pr w ma* t,.. T - r Is %. dk mini leISL •_�4i.• &paw • M Immat ..A •.r ...a r Y Owl* SHEET TIME EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS DATE 4/1/04 APPROVED DWON 45 RENEWED JB PROJECT NO. 04-04 SOME AS SHOWN SHEET NO. A-2.0 RAISE DUSTIN, GRIME STEW N9ml S'4' NIGH STUCCO PARAPET CV ' UNRLErE® OIESWY S'-4' 14164 SflJCC° PARAPET A SIDE ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4 =T-0' iii, ,ryi / 42' HIGH &AM WUNmRA11. W MOD TDR RAIL / ¢� / r 9/ ST1ICC0 OVERIMw 42. 141111 .LASS dUNIMAIL W HOW TOP RAIL © SIDE ELEVATION SCALE 1/4"4-0" RAISE EXISTING GRADE 3 wQ U Z wz I.'O E,9 _CTU V) ccw 1- J cc o tic e 5. r Z t7 m N O ccw REASONS DESIGN REVISION S/20/04 OWNERSHP MD USE OF DOCUMENTS •aw.r. w- •41 Wm NY Meal ♦— r OM mode yho F•pr � .L.Vr r . r 1apdan 0A• Ammer .P -arm -1 r AI but* SHEET TRLE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS DATE 4/1/04 APPROVED — DRAWN JB RENEWED JS PROJECT H0. 04-04 SCALE AS SHOWN SHEET N0. A-2.1 • • • WALK STREET w • ROOF PEG 1 R'10F PARAPET MASTER BEDROOM SHOPBt MASTER BATH MTh w BEDROOM J PROW PATIO LIVING ROOM L ri STAIRWAY O SECTION A -A SCALE: 1/4"4-V TWO -GAR 6ARAEE N NOTE: PROVIDE INSULATION AT ROOF, BETWEEN FLOORS, ALL EXTERIOR WALLS, AND AROUND BATHROOMS (ROOF: R-30; WALLS: R -IB). NOTE: ALL STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS ARE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY. REFER TO STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR FRAMING. ON w a UZ z cc G WW LL (n CC J CCV)0 M Z M m N 0 i CC W 2 REVISIONS DESIGN REVISION 5/2A/o4 OWNERSHP N10 USE OF DOGUIOAS ..r.�y� r —..r V. irv-rrr iw.�__�rr - AA air d this a�'-fir r nrr! =arm wane wont AN Muth* SHEET TRLE LONGITUDINAL SECTION OATS 4/1/04 APPROVED - ORAME JB REMOVED JB PROJECT ND. 04-04 SCALE AS SWAM SHEET NO. A-3.0 • O 0V/ V3 • ///--Y4(/ September 1, 2004 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council October 12, 2004 SUBJECT: TEXT AMENDMENT CORRECTING SECTION 17.44.090 OF THE ZONE CODE -- OFF-STREET PARKING LOCATION AND 17.28.020 - M-1 PERMITTED USE LIST Recommendation: That the City Council waive further reading and adopt the attached ordinance. Background: The subject code sections require corrections due to errors made during the text amendment process. On July 27, 1999 the City Council approved a change to the M-1 permitted use list (Ordinance No. 99-1193) eliminating storage and mini -storage uses and including conditional use permits for certain manufacturing uses. In a completely separate action, on July 23, 2002 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 02-1221 amending Sections 17.44.090 and 17.28.020 of the Zone Code approving the addition of parking lots and structures to the M-1 permitted use list. When Ordinance No. 02-1221 was adopted to change the M-1 permitted uses only to add parking lots and structures, these 1999 amendments regarding storage and mini - storage uses and conditional use permit requirements for certain manufacturing uses were inadvertently not included in the final adopted ordinance. Changes to parking regulations were also approved in Ordinance No. 02-1221 to allow non -required parking to be located off-site and the Council considered and rejected adding leased parking as an option for providing required parking off-site. Following the hearing, the wording from the draft ordinance was inadvertently used in the final ordinance. The proposed text amendment will correct the errors that occurred with adoption of Ordinance No. 02-1221. The current code incorrectly includes the option for leased parking and also incorrectly shows storage and mini -storage on the M-1 permitted use list and will be corrected. Staff discovered the errors while reviewing two project proposals. No project has been approved on the basis of the incorrect code provisions and the City Clerk now routinely routes all code text amendments prepared by the Community Development Department back for a review prior to final reading by the City Council. 10 1 l'lL1 Blumenfe. a , D ector Community - velopment Con S : urrell, City Manager Attachments: 1. Ordinance M-ltextamendcorrection 5b • • ORDINANCE NO. 04 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CORRECTING ERRORS MADE IN THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 02-1221, AMENDING SECTION 17.44.090 -TO REMOVE LEASED OFF-SITE PARKING AS AN OPTION FOR REQUIRED PARKING, AND AMENDING SECTION 17.28.020 — TO REMOVE STORAGE AND MINI -STORAGE AS PERMITTED USES, AND TO REQUIRE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR CERTAIN MANUFACTURING USES IN THE M-1 ZONE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on October 12, 2004 to correct an error in Ordinance No. 02-1221, approved July 27, 2002, regarding the leasing of required parking and changes to the M-1 permitted use list. Section 2. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on August 17, 2004 to correct the errors in Ordinance No. 02-1221, approved July 27, 2002, regarding the leasing of required parking and changes to the M-1 permitted use list. Section 3. Based on the evidence considered at the public hearing, the City Council makes the following findings: 1. The City Council previously considered the proposed text amendment regarding off-site parking and determined that providing leased off-site parking creates problems relative to enforcement of parking regulations. 2. The City Council previously adopted Ordinance 99-1193 which established a new M-1 permitted use list which did not include storage and mini -storage uses as permitted uses, determining that it would help maintain suitable locations for manufacturing uses, and also included conditional use permits for certain uses. When Ordinance No. 02-1221 was adopted to change the M-1 permitted use only to add parking lots and structures to the M-1 permitted use and no other changes, these 1999 amendments regarding storage and mini -storage uses, and conditional use permit requirements for certain manufacturing uses were inadvertently not included in the final adopted ordinance. 3. The proposed text amendment will correct the errors, which occurred with adoption of Ordinance No. 02-1221. 4. The subject text amendment is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to the general rule set forth in Section 15061(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, as there is no possibility that the modification to the text may have a significant effect on the environment. Section 4. Based on the foregoing, the City Council amends the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, Title 17 -Zoning, as follows: 1. Amend Section 17.28.020 to read as follows: "Sec. 17.28.020 Permitted Uses 2- r • • In the following:matrix, the letter "P" designates use classifications permitted and the letter "U" designates use classifications permitted by approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Use classifications not listed are prohibited. Section numbers listed under "see section" reference additional regulations located elsewhere in the Zoning Ordinance or Municipal Code. M-1 ZONE, LAND USE REGULATIONS P = Permitted U = C.U.P. Required (See Article 10) Administrative offices accessory to a primary permitted use (listed below), not exceeding twenty-five percent of the gross floor area Artist studio P P AudioNisual recording studio Motor Vehicle and equipment service: • General repair, service, installation of parts and accessories • Body repair and painting P U U Manufacturing, fabrication, assembly, testing, repair, servicing and processing of the following products and materials: Coated, plated and engraved metal products Die cut paper, paperboard, cardboard Machinery Equipment and supplies Surfboards U Chapter 17.40 Chapter 17.40 Chapter 17.40 Manufacturing, fabrication, assembly, testing, repair, servicing and processing of the following products and materials Apparel Audio/Visual products Awnings Bakery Products Communications Equipment Confectionery and related products Electronic components, computers, and P 3 accessories Electric lighting and wiring equipment Stone and cut stone products Furniture and fixtures Glass products Household tools and hardware Jewelry, silverware, and plated ware Luggage Motor vehicle parts and accessories Musical instruments and parts Office and household machines and appliances Office products Paperboard containers and boxes Pharmaceutical Products Photographic and optical goods, watches and clocks Hardware, plumbing, heating equipment and supplies Pottery and related products Professional, scientific and controlling instruments Toys, amusements, sporting and athletic goods (including surfboards) Wooden containers Parking lots and/or structures Wholesale distribution of the products and materials listed above, and including the following: Packaged groceries and related products a P P Warehousing P 2. Amend Section 17.44.090 to read as follows: "Section 17.44.090 Off-street Parking Location All off-street automobile -parking facilities shall be located as follows: A. All required parking spaces shall be located on the same lot or building site as the se for which such spaces are provided; provided however, that such parking spaces provi . ed for commercial, business, industrial or warehouse uses may be located on a different 1 • t or lots, all of which are less than three hundred (300) feet distant from the use for which it s provided, and such lot or lots are leased -or under common ownership with the lot o building site for which such spaces are provided. Where the buildings are situated on one lot and the parking is situated on another 1 • t, the owner shall file with the building community development department an affidavit recorded by the office of the Los Angeles County recorder that these lots are held in commo ownership for the use specified. Such distance shall be measured along a straight li e drawn • llt between the nearest point on thepremises devoted to th se served bysuch parkingfacilities and the nearest point on the premises providing such parking facilities. It is further provided that uses located within the boundaries of an established off-street parking district, organized pursuant to action by the city council, shall be waived by the requirements of this subsection." Section 5. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. Section 6. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in a newspaper`of general circulation in the City of Hermosa Beach in the manner provided by law. Section 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 12th day of October, 2004 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 5 moy �-- - October 6, 2004 /(2/J /Z;Y Honorable Chairman and Members Regular Meeting of October 12, 2004 of the Hermosa Beach City Council SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF MEASURES TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH AB 939 WASTE DIVERSION MANDATE Recommendation: That the City Council: 1. Authorize staff to begin the process for joining the Los Angeles Area Regional Agency for AB 939 diversion and disposal reporting purposes. 2. Adopt the attached construction debris recycling resolution to divert debris to recycling facilities instead of landfill disposal. 3. Adopt the attached resolution to establish an "Automated Recycle Toters for Commercial Businesses" program to enhance recycling by businesses. 4. Adopt the attached resolution establishing a "5% Commercial Trash to Transformation Facility " program to increase diversion from the commercial and industrial sector. Background The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) mandated a state program requiring that each local jurisdiction prepare, adopt and implement a Source Reduction and Recycling Element in order to divert 50 percent of its solid waste from local landfills. For several years, the City has been working with Eugene Tseng & Associates on various measures to achieve compliance with the mandatory 50% diversion rate. The City of Hermosa Beach achieved a high of 47% diversion rate in 2001, but the diversion rate for 2002 fell to 37% due to a huge increase in disposal, mostly from increased construction and increased economic growth. In 2001, staff was convinced that implementation of the new 33 gallon toter program would enable the City to achieve the 50% diversion goal, however, the increased volume of construction debris has offset the City's other diversion efforts. Subsequently, on June 10t 2004, staff met with representatives of the California Waste Management Board to discuss methods to achieve diversion goals. The Board followed up with a 30 day Notice of Intent to Issue a Compliance Order to the City regarding implementation of its Source Reduction and Recycling Element and staff developed the implementation measures outlined below as the City's response to the notice. In order to achieve the 50 -percent state mandate and avoid the possibility of daily fines, staff is recommending consideration of four measures: 1. Affiliation with the Los Angeles Area Regional Agency to provide for consolidated AB 939 diversion and disposal reporting. 2. Introduction of a construction debris diversion policy to divert debris to recycling facilities instead of landfill disposal. 3. Introduction of an "Automated Recycle Toters for Commercial Businesses' program to enhance recycling by businesses. 4. Introduction of a "5% Commercial Trash to Transformation Facility " program to increase diversion from the commercial and industrial sector • • Analysis 1. Los Angeles Regional Agency (LARA) — Consolidated Waste Diversion Reporting Because there are other cities in the area besides Hermosa Beach which have not yet achieved the required 50 percent diversion rate, a number of cities have joined together to form a combined Regional Agency for satisfying the requirements of AB 939. In January 2002, the City of Los Angeles took initial steps toward the formation of a Los Angeles Regional Agency (LARA) for AB 939 diversion and disposal reporting purposes. All of the 88 cities in Los Angeles County were invited to attend meetings and consider joining LARA. (In Northern California, cities and counties have already banded together to form a total of 22 regional agencies.) Initially, 13 other cities responded to LA's invitation and the Los Angeles Regional Agency (LARA) was formed with a total of 14 cities. LARA held its first quarterly meeting in March 2004. The purpose of forming a Regional Agency is to report AB 939 diversion and disposal as one entity rather than by individual jurisdictions. Therefore, instead of 40 cities with 40 different annual reports and diversion rates, there is one Regional Agency with one annual report and one diversion rate. This simplifies the annual AB 939 reporting process by averaging the diversion among participating jurisdictions. This is helpful for cities such as Hermosa Beach that have not reached 50 percent. (The City of Los Angeles submitted a year 2000 Base Year Study to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), reporting a diversion rate of 59 percent.) The mechanism used to join LARA is a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA). The JPA gives LARA the legal authority to put together the diversion information for all member cities and submit a joint annual report each year. Advantages of joining LARA: • A Regional Agency has more influence at the State level than any single jurisdiction, and better negotiating power. • CIWMB staff has stated that it is more efficient to serve cities collectively rather than attend individual cities' meetings. • LARA allows cities to share costs and conduct new "regional level" base year studies, if required by proposed legislation. • Small cities will not be as affected by fluctuations in the Disposal Reporting System (DRS). It reduces "bean counting" and concern over whether the numbers will add up to a 50 percent diversion or not. • The cities can voluntarily withdraw from LARA by filing a 180 -day written notice of intent to withdraw. Effect on Hermosa Beach: • The City's diversion rate will be the same as LARA, which is currently estimated at 52%+ percent for 2002 (compared to the City's 37 percent). • The City will no longer submit an individualized annual report. LARA will submit an annual report on behalf of all the members. This will reduce the time and expense of the City for this task in future years. • The City's diversion rate will not fluctuate as much as before. For example, any large 2 • • construction project in the City or significant misreporting of neighboring cities activities shifted the City's reported disposal tonnage and therefore diversion rate significantly. • Each city will still be responsible for implementing programs outlined in its CIWMB- approved Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE). Joining the Agency does not mean a City can reduce attention to its recycling programs. • The City will still be responsible for managing its own solid waste and recycling hauling contracts and programs. • In case of new laws or mandates, the City will be in a stronger position to meet them and implement needed programs. • Fluctuations in disposal tonnages and/or improper allocation of disposal tonnage to the City can significantly impact the overall diversion rate year by year; and by joining a regional agency, the disposal fluctuations have minimal impact on the overall regional diversion rate. Cost: • There is a fee of $.15 per ton based on each city's disposal tonnage. Thus, for 2002, Hermosa Beach's annual cost would have been $0.15 x 22,944 or $3,441. The Agency will provide members annual financial statements and full accounting. 2. Construction Debris Waste Diversion Since 1998, the City has been encouraging both public and private demolition and construction projects to achieve a minimum of 50% diversion through waste reduction, reuse, and recycling when reasonably feasible. The new mandatory requirement applies to construction projects with a valuation greater than $100,000. To implement the construction waste diversion requirement, the Department of Public Works has previously collected weight tickets as documentation of waste disposal facilities and recycling diversion facilities destination as proof of disposal and diversion. The City has also provided resource guides containing listings of construction and demolition waste processors and service providers. However, more explicit policies and procedures are needed to better document the effectiveness of these recycling requirements so that the City can demonstrate progress toward achieving the mandated state diversion goal of 50%. In order to do this, staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution for " Mandatory Reduction and Recycling of Construction and Demolition Waste", which includes a recycling plan submittal requirement prior to construction/demolition activities commencing. This includes a recycling reporting form indicating recycling and disposal of demolition after the completion of the project. 3. Automated Recycle Toters for Commercial Businesses An "Automated Recycle Toters for Commercial Business" program has been recommended. On average each business will have two 74 -gallon recycle toters delivered upon implementation of the program. Businesses will source separate paper, cans, bottles, and flattened cardboard and place these materials into the toters for collection by the hauler. An estimated 900 tons will be diverted each year. The estimated cost increase to the commercial customers' rate is approximately 6.7%. The additional diversion tonnage costs are approximately $76 per ton diverted. 3 • • 4. 5% Commercial Trash to Transformation Facility A "5% Commercial Trash to Transformation Facility" program has also been recommended for implementation. Approximately 1,719 tons per year of commercial trash will be sent to the Long Beach Waste -to -Energy Facility (SERRF) for incineration. This will result in al1100% of the 1,719 tons being credited as diversion to the City of Hermosa Beach., and represents approximately another 5% additional increase in the City's overall diversion rate. The estimated cost increase to the commercial customers' rate is approximately 5.1%. The additional diversion tonnage from this program costs are approximately $30 per ton diverted. Fiscal Impact: If staff recommendations are approved, the City will begin the process of joining the Los Angeles Area Regional Agency. Additional funds in the amount of $3,441 for FY 04-05 will be appropriated in the Solid Waste budget to fund the City's -consulting expenses related to joining and working with LARA. All other costs will be funded through fees attached to commercial recycling. Conclusions: If the staff recommendation is approved, the City will begin the process of joining the Los Angeles Area Regional Agency. After joining the Regional Agency, the City's reported diversion will be commingled with LARA's to help achieve diversion rates. The City will also continue to implement other programs in its approved Source Reduction and Recycling Element. In addition, adoption of the construction debris diversion and commercial toter programs will facilitate achievement of diversion goals. These steps will address compliance concerns and demonstrate the City's good faith effort toward program implementation. Staff will present them to the Board at their November 3, 2004 meeting. Eat P., So Blumenfel Community D Concur: or velopment Step rrell, City anager Attachments: 1. Resolutions 2. Exhibit A 3. Compliance Letter Bi95/cd/RevisedAB939DiversionMeasurcs 4 LI Viki Copeland, Director ance Departm , t Rick Morgan, Director Public Works Department • • RESOLUTION 04- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, APPROVING REDUCTION AND RECYCLING OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. The State of California has responded to the pressing need to divert materials from landfills in order to preserve decreasing landfill capacity and diminishing natural resources. As a result the California Integrated Waste Management Act (Assembly Bill 939) was passed in 1989. The bill mandates a required waste diversion of 50 percent. The -City of Hermosa Beach is committed to achieve and maintain that State mandated 50 percent diversion goal. Section 2. To ensure that solid waste generated in the City of Hermosa Beach is reduced, reused or recycled, the City Council hereby adopts a resolution for the Reduction and Recycling of Construction and Demolition Waste, with guidelines for implementation attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and directs staff to implement it. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 12th day of October, 2004 PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 5 • • RESOLUTION 04- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, APPROVING AN AUTOMATED COMMERCIAL RECYCLING TOTER PROGRAM AND 5% COMMERCIAL TRASH TO TRANSFORMATION PROGRAM The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. The State of California has responded to the pressing need to divert materials from landfills in order to preserve decreasing landfill capacity and diminishing natural resources. As a result the California Integrated Waste Management Act (Assembly Bill 939) was passed in 1989. The bill mandates a required waste diversion of 50 percent. The City of Hermosa Beach is committed to achieve.and maintain the State mandated 50 percent diversion goal. Section 2. To ensure that the City meets it solid waste diversion goals, the City Council must initiate additional waste diversion measures such as an automated commercial recycling toters program and 5% commercial trash to transformation program. Section 3. Based on the testimony considered at the City Council hearing on October 12 2004, the City Council makes the following findings: 1. The commercial recycling toter program will require commercial businesses to source separate papers, cans, bottles and flattened cardboard for collection and an estimated 900 tons of solid waste will be diverted per year in this manner 2. The 5% commercial trash to transformation program will require that the waste hauler send commercial trash to the Long Beach Waste to Energy Facility (SERRF) for incineration and an estimated 1,719 tons of solid waste will be credited as diversion through this effort Section 5. Based on the foregoing the City Council hereby adopts an automated commercial recycling toter program and 5% commercial trash to transformation program and directs staff to implement them. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 121 day of October, 2004 PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY EXHIBIT A: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH RESOLUTION FOR REDUCTION AND RECYCLING OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE L General/Background The State of California has responded to the pressing need to divert materials from landfills in order to preserve decreasing landfill capacity and diminishing natural resources. As a result the California Integrated Waste Management Act [Assembly Bill 939] was passed in 1989. The bill mandates that by January 1, 1995, each California city and county must divert 25 percent of all solid waste from landfill or transformation facilities through source -reduction; --recycling, and composting activities. By January 1, 2000, the required waste --- diversion is 50 percent. The City of Hermosa Beach is committed to achieve and maintain the State mandated 50 percent diversion goal beyond the year 2000. To ensure that solid waste generated in the City of Hermosa Beach is reduced, reused or recycled, municipal and private construction projects over $100,000 in value involving construction, remodeling or demolition, must submit a "Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan" to the Community Development Department (private projects) and the Public Works Department (municipal projects) for review and approval with the permit application. Applicant/Contractors will be expected to follow the plan and document results during construction. "Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling Report" form will be submitted at the end ofthe project to the for review of compliance with the plan. After the Solid Waste Management and Recycling Plan has been reviewed by the Public Works staff; the plan will either be returned in one of the following four (4) status conditions: • "Approved" • "Further Explanations Needed." The Public Works staff will return plan to contractor with questions about applicant's plan. Applicant must resubmit plan with each of the City's questions answered thoroughly. • "Denied" . -- This will stop the approval for a permit. • "Exempted -- Due to Infeasibility" IL Definitions a. "Applicant" means any individual, contractor, firm, limited liability company, association, partnership, political subdivision, government agency, municipality, industry, public or private corporation, or any other entity whatsoever who applies to the City of Hermosa Beach for the applicable permits to undertake any construction, demolition, or renovation project within the City of Hermosa Beach. b. "Construction" means the building of any facility or structure or any portion thereof including any tenant improvements to an existing facility or structure. c. "Construction and Demolition Debris" means used or discarded materials removed from premises during construction or renovation of a structure resulting from construction, remodeling, repair, or demolition operations on any pavement, house, commercial building, or other structure. • • d. "Conversion Rate" means the rate set forth in the standardized Conversion Rate Table approved by the City pursuant to this Article for use in estimating the volume or weight of materials identified in a Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan. e. "Covered Project" shall have the meaning set forth in Section III of this Article. f. "Demolition" means the decimating, razing, ruining, tearing down or wrecking of any facility, structure, pavement or building, whether in whole or in part, whether interior or exterior. g. "Divert" means to use material for any purpose other than disposal in a landfill. Diversion credit is given for source reduction (waste reduction), recycling, and composting. h. "Diversion Requirement" means the diversion of at least fifty (50) percent of the total Construction and Demolition Debris generated by a Project via reduction (source reduction), reuse or recycling, unless the Applicant has been granted an Infeasibility Exemption, in which case the Diversion Requirement shall be the maximum feasible diversion rate established by the City of Hermosa Beach. i. "Noncovered Project" shall have the meaning set forth in Section III of this Article. j. "Performance Security" means any performance bond, surety bond, money order, letter of credit, or certificate of deposit submitted to the City. k. "Project" means any activity which requires an application for a building or demolition permit or any similar permit from the City of Hermosa Beach. 1. "Recycling" means the process of collecting, sorting, cleansing, treating, and reconstituting materials that would otherwise become solid waste, and returning them to the economic mainstream in the form of raw material for new, reused, or reconstituted products which meet the quality standards necessary to be used in the marketplace. m. "Renovation" means any change, addition, or modification in an existing structure. n. "Reuse" means further or repeated use of Construction or Demolition Debris. An example is the reuse of crushed concrete as road base or as aggregate on the construction site. o. "Salvage" means the controlled removal of Construction or Demolition Debris from a permitted building or demolition site for the purpose of recycling, reuse, or storage for later recycling or reuse. p. "Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan" means a completed form, approved by the City of Hermosa Beach for the purpose of compliance with this Article, submitted by the Applicant/Contractor for any Covered or Noncovered Project that indicates the estimated diversion that the Applicant/Contractor anticipates in diverting from disposal. q. "Construction and Demolition Waste Management Report" means a completed form, approved by the City of Hermosa Beach for the purpose of compliance with this Article, submitted by the Applicant/Contractor for any Covered or Noncovered Project that documents the disposal and diversion tonnages and destinations. III. Covered and Non -Covered Projects a. Covered Projects: All construction, demolition, and renovation projects within the City that is where the total costs is greater than or equal to $100,000. "Covered Projects" shall comply with this Article. b. Noncovered Projects: Applicants for construction, demolition, and renovation projects within the City whose total costs are less than $100,000. "Noncovered Projects" shall be encouraged to divert at least fifty (50) percent of all project -related construction and demolition debris. g • • c. City -Sponsored Projects: All City -sponsored construction, demolition, and renovation Projects, regardless of cost shall be considered "Covered Projects" for the purposes ofthis Article and shall submit a Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan to the WMP Compliance Official prior to beginning any construction or demolition activities and shall be subject to all applicable provisions of Article. d. Compliance as a Condition of Approval: Compliance with the provisions of this Article shall be listed as a condition of approval on any building or demolition permit issued for a Covered Project. IV. Infeasibility Exemption a. Application: If an Applicant for a Covered Project experiences unique circumstances that the Applicant believes makeit infeasible to comply with the Diversion Requirement, the Applicant may apply for an exemption at the time that he or she submits the Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan. The Applicant shall indicate on the Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan the maximum rate of diversion he or she believes is feasible for each material and the specific circumstances that he or she believes make it infeasible to comply with the Diversion Requirement. b. The Public Works Department shall review the information supplied by the Applicant and may meet with the Applicant to discuss possible ways of meeting the Diversion Requirement. Based on the information supplied by the Applicant, the City shall determine whether it is possible for the Applicant to meet the Diversion Requirement. c. When the Public Works Department or Community Development Department determine that it is infeasible for the Applicant to meet the Diversion Requirement due to unique circumstances, he or she shall determine the maximum feasible diversion rate for each material and shall indicate this rate on the Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan submitted by the Applicant. The City shall return a copy of the Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan to the Applicant marked "Approved for Infeasible Exemption" and shall notify the permit issuing entity that the Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan has been approved. d. Denial of Exemption: The City shall inform the applicant in writing if it determines that it is possible to meet the Diversion Requirement. The applicant shall have 30 days to resubmit a Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan. If the applicant fails to resubmit the Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan, or if the resubmitted Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan does not comply with the requirements of the plan, the City shall deny the Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan. V. Diversion Measurement The methodology used to calculate diversion is based on the Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Article 6.1 Solid Waste Generation Study, Section 18722 et seq, and is consistent with CIWMB measurement protocols. The following equation defines the "Generation -Based Diversion Quantification Methodology": • • Generation = Disposal + Diversion Diversion Rate (%) = Diversion Tons Generation Tons General Directions for Completing the City of Hermosa Beach Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan / Report Forms Prior to Commencing Work To assist you in completing your Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan, please contact the City of Hermosa Beach, Public Works Department at 310-318-0213 or Community Development Department at 310-318-0235. The following materials are available: • "Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan" Form • "Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling Report" Form • California Integrated Waste Management Board, Technical Assistance Literature regarding construction and demolition waste reduction and recycling • City of Hermosa Beach Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling Resource Guide Applicant must fill out the Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan and fax or mail to the City : Public Works Department (Municipal Project) 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3885 Fax: 310-937-5015 Community Development Department (Private Project) 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3885 Fax: 310-318-0235 For private and municipal projects, the Permittee/Contractor will be expected to follow the plan and document results during construction. At the completion of activities, Applicant/Contractor must submit the Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling Report form to the Public Works Department or the Community Development Department for approval prior to final project approval. 10 • • CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING PLAN The City of Hermosa Beach is requesting that all applicants prepare a waste management and recycling plan by completing the following form for construction and demolition materials produced as a result of work performed in the City of Hermosa Beach. The City requires that contractors minimize the generation of waste, and recycle materials when there is a viable recycling company available. The City of Hermosa Beach staff will provide assistance to applicants in developing and implementing the waste management and recycling plan. If you have any questions regarding the form or recycling and disposal, please call 310-318-0213 (Municipal project) or 310-318-0235 (private project). Owner Name: Date: Property Address: Owner Telephone: Contractor Name: Contractor Contact: Contractor Telephone: Description of Project: Approximate Dollar Value of Construction / Demolition: Approximate Square Footage of Project: Demolition Dates: Construction Dates: Explanation if Petitioning for Waiver Due to Infeasibility: {1 Please fill out the following form for submittal. The form will help to identify the types of materials, estimated quantities of materials and how the waste material will be reduced, recycled or disposed. Estimate can be in calculated in tons or cubic yards. MATERIALS ESTIMATE OF ESTIMATE OF DISPOSAL DIVERSION Tons��f...�. Cubic::::.:.. Tons Cubic Yards : Yards Concrete 1 Asphalt Dirt HOW MATERIALS IS DIVERTED Wood Metals Soil Others (describe) Total Tons or X= Yards Y= ESTIMATED DIVERSION RATE (Y / (X+Y) = FOR CITY USE ONLY Approval Status: Approved Further explanation needed, see attached Denied Exempted Due to Infeasibility ------ _..-_ Reviewed by: Date: • • CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE RECYCLING AND DISPOSAL REPORT FORM Owner Name: Date: Property Address: Owner Telephone: Contractor Name: Contractor Contact: Contractor Telephone: Description of Project: Approximate Dollar Value of Construction / Demolition: Approximate Square Footage of Project: Demolition Schedule: Construction Schedule: Name of Hauler(s): Telephone: Please check waste reduction activities that are practiced at this project site: Use of Prefabricated Components Reuse of Materials Onsite Accurate Material Estimates Reduced Packaging Other (describe) Conversion Factors for Selected Loose Materials Concrete Asphalt Brick Dirt Wood Gypsum wallboard Cardboard 2370 lbs/cu yd 1940 lbs/cu yd 2430 lbs/cu yd 2660 lbs/cu yd 400 lbs/cu yd 500 lbs/cu yd 50 lbs/cu yd 1.18 tons/cu yd 0.97 tons/cu yd 1.21 tons/cu yd 1.33 tons/cu yd 0.20 tons/cu yd 0.25 tons/cu yd 0.025 tons/cu yd 0.84 cu yds/ton 1.03 cu yds/ton 0.82 cu yds/ton 0.75 cu yds/ton 5.00 cu yds/ton 4.00 cu yds/ton 40.0 cu yds/ton 13 • • CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE MATERIAL DISPOSITION SUMMARY Fill out the tables below. The unit of measurement is "tons". Use the conversion factors provided on the previous page. If a different conversion number is used, please provide. If tonnage information is not available, estimates can be provided in "cubic yards". Part I. DEMOLITION MATERIALS (tons or cubic yards) Material Disposed in Class III Landfill Taken to Inert Fills • Other Disposal (describe) Reduced, Recycled or Salvaged How Diverted? (e.g., reused as aggregate, etc.) Type Concrete Asphalt Dirt Wood Metals Mixed Waste Other (describe) Total Tons A= B= C= D= Diversion Rate: D / (A+B+C+D) = Additional Notes / Comments: ly Part II. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS (tons or cubic yards) Material Disposed in Landfills Taken to Inert Fills Other (describe) Reduced, Recycled or Salvaged How Diverted? (e.g., reused as aggregate, etc.) Type Concrete Asphalt Dirt Wood Metals Mixed Waste Other (describe) Total Tons or Cubic Yards A= B= C= D= Diversion Rate: D / (A+B+C+D) = Additional Notes / Comments: 15 • • Disposal Facilities Please name of the facilities (e.g., landfill or inert facility name) materials are taken to: Facility Name Total Tons or Cubic Yards Facility Name Total Tons or Cubic Yards Facility Name Total Tons or Cubic Yards Recycling Facilities Please name of the recycling facilities or recycler (materials given or sold to): Recycler / Recycling Facility Name Total Tons or Cubic Yards Recycler / Recycling Facility Name Total Tons or Cubic Yards Recycler / Recycling Facility Name Total Tons or Cubic Yards To the best of my knowledge, the above estimates are an accurate representation of the disposition of the construction and demolition materials generated on-site at the construction job. I understand that the City may audit disposal and recycling documentation related to this survey. Print Name Signature Additional Notes / Comments: Li gill ■..■ .... Winston H. Hickox Secretary for Environmental Protection • • California Integrated Waste Management Board Linda Moulton -Patterson, Chair 1001 I Street • Sacramento, California 95814 • (916) 341-6000 Mailing Address: P. 0. Box 4025, Sacramento, CA 95812-4025 www.ciwmb.ca.gov September 16, 2004 The Honorable Mayor Art Yoon Hermosa Beach City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 RECEIVID SEP 7 0 2004 COM. DEV. DEPT. Gray Davis Governor RE: 30 -Day Notice of Intent to Issue the City of Hermosa Beach a Compliance Order for Failure to Implement its Source Reduction and Recycling Element and/or Household Hazardous Waste Element and Meet the Fifty Percent Diversion Requirement Dear Mayor Yoon: The purpose of this letter is to formally notify you of the California Integrated Waste Management Board's (Board) intent to consider issuing the City of Hermosa Beach (City) a Compliance Order at its November 9-10, 2004, public meeting for failure to meet the 50 percent diversion requirement. The Board has the authority to issue Compliance Orders to those jurisdictions found to not have made a good faith effort to adequately implement the diversion programs selected in their Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) and/or Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE) in accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 41825. On November 19, 2002, the Board approved a SB 1066 Time Extension Application (TE) for the City to allow the City until July 31, 2004, to implement additional programs to reach the diversion goal of 50 percent. Board staff visited the City on June 10, 2004, and determined that the City was not implementing some of the programs identified in the Plan of Correction (POC), which is part of the TE. As such, Board staff discussed with the City the need to immediately implement the programs in the POC. At the June 10, 2004 meeting, Board staff notified the City Manager that without resolution of the program implementation issues, the City should be aware that the Board will have to consider whether or not the City is making a good faith effort to implement the programs identified in its TE. We also discussed that if the City is found not to be making a good faith effort to implement their POC programs, the City could be issued a Compliance Order and that failure to meet the Compliance Order requirements may result in civil penalties of up to $10,000 a day. Staff also explained to the City representatives that if the City is taken before the Board to consider the issuance of a Compliance Order, staff would first send the City a 30 -Day notification letter of the Board's intent to consider issuing the City a Compliance Order. California Environmental Protection Agency 6o Printed on Recycled Paper The energy challenge facing California is mal. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption. For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your e� ay costs, see our Web site at hnp://www.ciwmb.ca.govl. JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT Between the following Jurisdictions: 1. City of Artesia 2. City of Beverly Hills 3. City of Duarte 4. City of Hidden Hills 5 City of Los Angeles 6. City of Lynwood 7. City Manhattan Beach 8. City of Pomona g City of Rancho Palos Verdes 10. City of Redondo Beach 11. City of Rosemead 12. City of Sierra Madre 13. City of South Gate 14. City of Torrance Establishing the Los Angeles Area Integrated Waste Management Authority • • JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT — LOS ANGELES AREA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY THIS JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT - Los Angeles Area Integrated Waste Management Authority; effective the day of ("Agreement") is made andentered into by and between the Cities of: 1. City of Artesia 2. City of Beverly Hills 3. City of Duarte 4. City of Hidden Hills 5. City of Los Angeles 6. City of Lynwood 7. City Manhattan Beach 8. City of Pomona 9. City of Rancho Palos Verdes 10. City of Redondo Beach 11. City of Rosemead 12. City of Sierra Madre 13. City of South Gate 14. City of Torrance each a municipal corporation, hereinafter also referred to individually as "Party" and collectively as "Parties". Whereas, Section 6500, et seq., of the California Government Code (Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 5, Article 1) provides for agreements between two or more public agencies to jointly exercise any power common to the contracting parties, subject to certain mandatory provisions contained therein; and Whereas, the State of California has enacted the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), California Public Resources Code § 40000 etsem., mandating that Printed on Recycled Content Paper 1 municipalities and county unincorporated areas divert material from disposal, and has promulgated regulations promoting material reuse and recycling; and Whereas, the foregoing Parties to this agreement have the power to provide waste management services including the storage, collection, recycling, and disposal of solid wastes within their respective jurisdictions; and • Whereas, the foregoing Parties desire and agree to form a regional agency to report as a single entity the annual regional compliance with AB 939 reporting requirements and to work towards the implementation of regional waste reduction and regional recycling diversion programs; and Whereas, each of the foregoing Parties has a California Integrated Waste Management Board approved Source Reduction and Recycling Element, a California Integrated Waste Management Board approved Solid Waste Generation Study, a California Integrated Waste Management Board approved Household Hazardous Waste Element, and a California Integrated Waste Management Board approved Non -Disposal Facility Element; and Whereas, on the date above, this agreement was entered into by the Parties to this agreement whereby the Los Angeles Area Integrated Waste Management Authority is established to be a "Regional Agency" entity to provide cooperative solid waste reporting and program activities to the participating parties; and Whereas, the California Public Resources Code, Sections 40970 through Section 40975 allows cities and counties to form Regional Agencies to implement PRC Division 30, Part 2, Integrated Printed on Recycled Content Paper 2 20 Waste Management Plans, in order to reduce the cost of reporting and tracking of disposal and diversion programs by individual jurisdictions and counties and to increase the diversion of solid waste from disposal facilities; and Whereas, by this agreement, the parties hereto wish to enter into this agreement to form a Regional Agency for purposes of combining disposal and diversion quantities for determining compliance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 and to allow for the efficient operation of diversion programs on a region -wide basis; and Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: Section 1. Definitions A. Agreement. This agreement as it is now exists, or as it may be amended. B. AB 939. The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. C. Agency/Regional Agency. Los Angeles Area Integrated Waste Management Authority, formed pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sections 40970 through 40975 and approved by the CIWMB. D. Annual Report. The report required by the State of California to measure compliance to the provisions of AB 939. E. Board. Body consisting of a representative designated by the governing body of each member. F. Chair/Vice-Chair. Members elected by a majority vote of the Board with responsibilities as stated in Section 10.3. Printed on Recycled Content Paper 3 SI G. CIWMB. California Integrated Waste Management Board. H. Fiscal Year. Any year beginning July 1 and ending June 30. I. HHWE. Household Hazardous Waste Element J. Jurisdiction. Incorporated Parties who may be Members of the Agency. K. Manager. Individual responsible for the administration of the Agency. L. Member/Members. Jurisdictions who are parties to the Agreement. M. NDFE. Non -Disposal Facility Element N. SRRE. Source Reduction and Recycling Element 0. Treasurer. Member elected by the Board with duties as stated in Section 10.3. Section 2. Purpose of Agreement This Agreement is made and entered into for the purpose of forming a Regional Agency pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sections 40970 through 40975, the Regional Agency being established for purposes of combining disposal and diversion quantities for determining compliance with AB 939, to allow for the efficient operation of diversion programs on a region - wide basis as allowed by Members under this agreement, and to allow for the development of RegionalIntegrated Waste Management Plans including a Source Reduction and Recycling Element, Household Hazardous Waste Element, and Non -Disposal Facility Element. The Agency will pool together the resources of its Members as stated in this agreement to provide AB 939 compliance to the residents and businesses of all who participate under a single umbrella organization. The Agency will be responsible for preparing the annual regional diversion rate calculation for the Regional Agency, and submitting the report to the CIWMB. Printed on Recycled Content Paper 4 ZZ The Members enter the agreement with the intent to benefit from the regional programs and regional reporting that the Agency will provide. Section 3. Term of Agreement The term of this agreement shall commence on , and shall continue until amended or terminated pursuant to the terms contained herein. Section 4. Powers of the Agency 4.1 The Agency is authorized to perform the following functions as required by the terms of this Agreement and the by-laws of the Agency: a) to make and enter into contracts; b) to apply for and accept grants, advances and contributions; c) to make plans and conduct studies; d) to incur and discharge debts, liabilities and obligations; e) to hire agents and employees. 4.2 Such powers shall be exercised subject only to the limitations set forth in this Agreement, applicable law and such restrictions upon the manner of exercising such powers as are imposed by law upon the Members in the exercise of similar powers. In no event do these powers expressly granted restrict the individual power of each Member with regards to solid waste management under their jurisdiction. Furthermore, in no event shall the Agency be authorized to exercise any power not expressly granted by this Agreement. The Members hereby designate the City of Los Angeles as the Member required to be designated by Section 6509 of the California Government Code. Printed on Recycled Content Paper 5 Z3 Section 5. Responsibilities of the Regional Agency 5.1 This Agreement hereby creates and establishes an authority to be known as the "Los Angeles Area Integrated Waste Management Authority". The Authority shall constitute a Regional Agency pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 40973. Said Agency shall be responsible for compliance with the waste diversion requirements set forth in the Public Resources Code, Article 1 of Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 41780). 5.2 The Agency will be responsible for providing the following services for the -benefit of the Members: a) The Agency will be responsible for preparing the Annual Report with collective information submitted by the Members and submitting the report to the CIWMB; b) The Agency will prepare the annual collective diversion rate calculation for all Members; c) The Agency will develop standardized database tools for monitoring, tracking, and evaluating implemented jurisdiction owned / operated diversion programs and make them available to all members; d) The Agency will conduct a new "regional level" generation based diversion study when required by the CIWMB or when a study is needed for a new baseline for its Members; e) The Agency will provide legislative and regulatory analysis on pending regulations and legislation for Members; f) The Agency will seek grant funding for additional Regional Agency activities. g) The Agency will evaluate and disseminate information to Members about innovative waste management/recycling technologies. Printed on Recycled Content Paper 6 2� •.` As directed by the Board and upon available funding, the Agency will conduct additional programs based on additional funding such as but not limited to: cooperative food waste donation for reuse, technical assistance for business recycling, investigate forming cooperative partnerships to develop additional capacity for processing and/or reuse of materials and/or to pool buying power of Members to lower the cost of recycled content products. Section -6.- Duties and responsibilities of Member Jurisdictions 6.1 Each Member will be responsible for funding and/or implementing programs recommended for implementation in their jurisdiction as adopted in their respective SRRE and for continued support of the associated programs as adopted in their respective HHWE. 6.2 Each Member will also provide funding of the Agency for its operation in accordance with Section 9, the implementation of regional programs, and for preparing the annual regional diversion rate calculation for the progress made by the Regional Agency. 6.3 Each Member shall provide the information required for annual report or new base year compilation to the Agency in a timely manner according to the format set forth by the Agency. Section 7. Approval of Agreement by the California Integrated Waste Management Board Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 40975(A), establishment of a Regional Agency requires authorization from the California Integrated Waste Management Board, if the Board finds that the formation of such a Regional Agency will not adversely affect compliance with PRC Division 30, Part 2. Integrated Waste Management Plans. Printed on Recycled Content Paper 7 25 Section 8. Agency Financial Requirements 8.1 The Agency will follow the financial accounting requirements set forth in Government Code Section 6505, Section 6505.1, Section 6505.5, Section 6505.6, Section 6511, and Section 6512, herein incorporated by reference. 8.2 The Manager will prepare a budget for each fiscal year and present it to the Board before its approval by the City of Los Angeles. The assets, rights, debts, liabilities and obligations of the Agency shall not constitute assets, rights, debts, liabilities --or obligations of any of the Members. However, nothing in this Agreement shall prevent any Member from separately contracting for or assuming responsibility for specific debts, liabilities or obligations of the Agency, provided for that both the Agency and the Member approve such contract or assumption. 8.3 Payment of Civil Penalties Imposed by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) - The Members hereby agree that the responsibility for any civil penalties incurred pursuant to AB 939 shall be assigned to the Agency. Should a penalty be assessed against the Agency for non-compliance after all administrative remedies are exhausted, the Members hereby authorize the Agency to allocate responsibility to the Members based upon equal division of the monetary fine between all of the participating Members. Any modification to this basis for determining responsibility for any civil penalties will be codified in the operating by-laws.. Section 9. Funding 9.1 Members shall not be assessed the startup costs for the Agency of approximately $150,000, which have been borne by the City of Los Angeles. As a Member, the City of Los Angeles Printed on Recycled Content Paper 8 21.41 7 will contribute existing staff and resources totaling approximately $300,000 per year to the Agency. 9.2 The City of Los Angeles will provide $100,000 annually towards a new base year study to be prepared no less than three years but within five years from the commencement of this Agreement. 9.3Funding will be provided by each additional Member jurisdiction at $0.15 per ton of landfill disposal per year with the year 2000 as the base year, -subject -to adjustments as directed by the Board. This fee will be due at the beginning of each fiscal year. Section 10. Structure of the Agency 10.1 Manager. Initially, the City of Los Angeles shall employ the manager who shall be the Chief Administrative Officer of the Agency. The Manager shall, upon direction by the Board, plan, organize, and direct the administration and operations of the Agency, shall advise the ChairNice Chair on policy matters, shall hire and discharge staff, shall develop Agency budgets, shall reply to communications on behalf of the Agency, shall approve payments duly authorized by the Board, shall attend meetings of the Board, and carry out other duties as needed. 10.2 Board. The Board of the Los Angeles Area Integrated Waste Management Authority shall be comprised of a representative from each of the Member jurisdictions. The Board shall make all policy decisions on behalf of the Agency, review and approve budgets, and decide the disbursement of discretionary funds collected under Section 9.3. 10.3 The officers of the Board shall include a Chair and Vice -Chair elected by a majority vote of Members. Their duties are to: Preside over all meetings of the Board; Appoint all ad hoc Printed on Recycled Content Paper 9 7i 1 •• committees subject to ratification by the Board; act as ex -officio member of all standing ad hoc committees. 10.4 The officers of the Board shall include a Treasurer elected by a majority vote of Members. His/her duties are to lead in the preparation and submission of Agency budgets to the Board and monitor expenditures with the assistance of the Manager and Agency administrative staff. 10.5 Committees. Committees, subcommittees,-- and ad hoc committees shall be at the discretion of the Chair subject to ratification by the Board. The Chair may appoint any individual deemed qualified to serve on a Committee. 10.6 Meetings. The Board will hold regular meetings, at a minimum, on a quarterly basis. Special meetings of the Board may be called in accordance with the provisions of Section 54956 of the California Government Code. 10.7 All meetings of the Board shall be held subject to the provisions of the California Ralph M. Brown Act (Sections 54950 et seq. of the California Government Code) and other applicable laws of the State of California. 10.8The Manager shall cause minutes of all meetings of the Board to be kept and shall, after each meeting, cause a copy of the minutes to be forwarded to each member. Section 11. Addition of New Member Jurisdictions 11.1 The Agency will have the authority through an action by the Board to add New Member Jurisdictions to the Agency without modification to the existing Agreement by the amendment of Attachment A. Attachment A shall list the Member Jurisdictions and contain additional signature pages for each New Member. Each New Member shall have equal rights and responsibilities of all Members. Printed on Recycled Content Paper 10 11.2 New members must apply to the Board no less than 90 days before the end of each fiscal year to be considered for membership. 11.3 New Members will be assessed a prorated share of assets held by the Agency such as the reserve fund. Section 12. Withdrawal and Termination - 12.1 Any Member may voluntarily withdraw from this Agreement by filing with the,Agency_a_. written notice to withdraw no less than one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the close of the Agency's fiscal year. 12.2 A Jurisdiction's participation and membership may be terminated by the Agency for non- performance of its responsibilities and/or duties required under Sections 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 of this Agreement. A vote by a majority of the Members is needed to terminate the agreement with respect to a Jurisdiction. When terminated, the Jurisdiction and the CIWMB will be notified in writing of the action on behalf of the Agency and all funds received by the Agency for the remainder of the current fiscal year after termination will be refunded to the Jurisdiction. 12.3 With the written concurrence of a majority of the Members to this Agreement, this Agreement may be terminated at any time. Section 13. Jurisdictional Responsibility Upon Termination In the event that this Agreement is terminated, individual Jurisdictions will assume responsibility for a share of any civil penalties incurred by the Agency during the term of the Jurisdiction as a Member. Jurisdictions will also be responsible individually for any civil penalties incurred individually. If this Agreement is terminated, each Jurisdiction will assume responsibility for Printed on Recycled Content Paper 11 2g 18.1 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the respective Parties hereto, provided that no Party shall assign any rights, nor delegate any duties provided for hereby without the consent of the other Party. 18.2 Required Actions of the Parties. The Parties hereto agree to execute all such instruments and documents and to take all actions as may be required in order to consummate the transactions herein contemplated. 18.3 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof, and thereby supersedes all prior understandings and agreements, if any, with respect thereto, whether written or oral. No addition or modification of any term or provision shall be effective unless set forth in writing, signed by the Parties hereto. 18.5 Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence of each and every term, condition, obligation and provision thereof. 18.6 Notices. All notices or other communications required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing and shall be delivered personally (including by means of professional messenger service) or sent by express mail or registered mail or certified mail, return receipt requested. Notices delivered personally or by express mail shall be considered given when received. Notices sent by registered or certified mail shall be considered given two (2) business days after deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the person to receive such notice. 18.7 Notices shall be addressed as appears below for the Agency, and as listed in Attachment A for each party, provided that if any party gives notice of a change of name or address, Printed on Recycled Content Paper 14 �2 • Tuesday, October 05, 2004 Honorable Mayor and Members of The Hermosa Beach City Council ADOPTION OF A NEW TRUANCY ORDINANCE RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council: 1. Approve the new truancy ordinance prepared by the City Attorney. Regular meeting of October 12, 2004 BACKGROUND The City of Hermosa Beach does not have an ordinance prohibiting school -aged children who are subject to mandated education laws from being in public places during regular school hours. Hermosa Beach does have a curfew ordinance for minors but has never adopted a truancy ordinance. All of the surrounding South Bay cities have truancy ordinances. The School Attendance Review Board (SARB) has requested that Hermosa Beach adopt a similar ordinance to provide uniformity of enforcement among the local cities. ANALYSIS Truancy is a major problem in Los Angeles County. Students who are absent from school without a valid excuse are not receiving the education they need to lead productive lives. In some cases these students are getting involved in criminal conduct in our communities. Truancy can be reduced by aggressive anti -truancy programs at the local level. A truancy ordinance allows police officers to stop and issue a citation to a student that is truant from school. The student would then be transported back to school and the student's parent(s) would have to appear with them in court on the citation. Once or twice a year, the South Bay police departments conduct a truancy sweep in conjunction with the School Attendance Review Board (SARB) to pick up students that are truant from school. It has been difficult for Hermosa Beach to participate since we do not have a truancy ordinance at this time. The attached ordinance has been developed by the City Attorney and is based on the ordinances of other South Bay Cities. The City of Monrovia developed the first truancy ordinance in 1994. Since that time, approximately 70 California cities have adopted similar ordinances including the surrounding South Bay cities (Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, El Segundo, Torrance, Gardena and Hawthorne). It is therefore requested that the Council adopt the attached truancy ordinance. Respectfully submitted MICHAEL L CHIEF OF POLICE HERMOSA a H POLICE DEPARTMENT Concur: STEPHEN BURRELL CITY MANAGER 6b • • ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ESTABLISHING A DAYTIME CURFEW FOR MINORS AND AMENDING THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does ordain as follows: Section 1. Title 9 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code is amended by adding thereto a new Chapter 9.32 to read as follows: Chapter 9.32 Daytime Juvenile Curfews 9.32.010 Definitions 9.32.020 Prohibited act. 9.32.030 Exemptions. 9.32.040 Infraction penalty. 9.32.050 Hearing requirement parental obligations to attend. 9.32.060 Penalty may be set aside for first infraction. Section 9.32.010 Definitions. Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the terms used in this Chapter will be defined as follows: ESTABLISHMENT: Any privately owned place of business operated for a profit to which the public is invited, including without limitation, places of amusement or entertainment, retail stores and eating places. GUARDIAN: A person who, under court order, has legal charge or custody of a minor. MINOR: Any person under eighteen (18) years of age. PUBLIC PLACE: Any place to which the public has access, including without limitation, public buildings, public parks, playgrounds, the beach, schools (other than the school at which the minor is enrolled), and common areas of condominiums and apartment buildings, office buildings and transportation facilities. PUBLIC STREET: Any public street, highway, road, avenue, sidewalk, alley, parkway or other right-of-way. Section 9.32.020 Prohibited act. It shall be unlawful for any minor to be present in or remain in or upon any public street, public place, or any establishment, vacant lot or other unsupervised place during the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. of the same day on days when said minor's school is in session. It shall also be unlawful for a parent or guardian of a minor to knowingly permit, or by insufficient • • control, allow a minor for whom they are responsible, to remain in any public place or on the premises of any establishment within the City during these daytime curfew hours. Section 9.32.030 Exemptions. The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply under any one of the following circumstances: A. The minor has in his or her possession a written excuse from the minor's parent(s), legal guardian(s), or other adult person(s) having the legal care or custody of said minor, which excuse provides a reasonable explanation, as determined by the court, for the minor' s absence from school; B. The minor is accompanied by his or her parent(s), legal guardian(s), or other adult person(s) having the legal care or custody of the minor; C. The minor is upon an emergency errand directed by said minor's parent(s), legal guardian(s), or other adult person(s) having the legal care or custody of the minor; D. The minor is going to or returning directly from a medical appointment; E. The minor has permission to leave campus and said minor has in his or her possession a valid, school -issued, off -campus permit; F. The minor is going to or returning directly from a public meeting, or place of public entertainment, such as a movie, play, sporting event, dance or school activity, provided such meeting, event or activity is a school -approved activity for the minor or is otherwise supervised by school personnel of said minor's school; G. The presence of the minor in said place or places is connected with or required by a school -approved or school -related business, trade, profession or occupation in which said minor is lawfully engaged; H. The minor, due to split sessions or year round school, is not required at the time he or she is found, to be in attendance at school; I. When the minor is exempt by law from compulsory education or compulsory continuation education; J. When the minor is authorized to be absent from his school pursuant to the provisions of California Education Code Section 48205 or any other applicable State or Federal law; K. The minor is emancipated pursuant to law; L. The minor is in a motor vehicle involved in interstate travel; or M. The minor is engaged in an activity protected by the United States or California constitutions. • • Section 9.32.040 Infraction -- Penalty. Violation of this Chapter shall constitute an infraction punishable by a fine as provided for in Section 1.12.010(B) of this Code. Section 9.32.050 Hearing requirement -- Parental obligation to attend. A minor cited for an infraction for violation of a provision of this Chapter must attend a court hearing on the infraction and must be accompanied at the hearing by all of the persons (or person) having the legal care or custody of said minor. If any such person fails to attend the hearing with the minor, and unless the interests of justice would otherwise be served, the court shall continue the hearing and shall issue a citation to said person directing said person to appear at the continued hearing with the minor. Section 4.124.060 Penalty may be set aside for first infraction. Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter, the court may set aside the fine imposed by this Chapter, or any portion thereof, if the fine is based on the minor's first infraction under this Chapter and provided the minor produces proof satisfactory to the court that the following has occurred during the period between the initial hearing on the infraction and any subsequent hearing set by the court: A. The minor has had no unexcused absences from school; and, as directed by the court, either or both of the following: B. The minor has performed ten (10) hours of court -approved community service during times other than said minor's hours of school attendance; and/or C. The minor's parent(s), legal guardian(s), or other adult person(s) who have the legal care or custody of said minor, has or have attended a parenting class or a series of parenting classes approved by the court. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2004. MAYOR Attest: City Clerk • SCHOOL.ATTENDANCE REV BOARD SARB 16 1401 Inglewood Avenue, Redondo Beach, California 90278 Phone: 310.379.5449 Fax: 310.798.6191 April 16, 2004 Detective Dean Garkow Hermosa Beach Police Department 540 Pier Avenue Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 RE: DAYTIME CURFEW Dear Detective Garkow: I am writing on behalf and at the request of the School Attendance Review Board (SARB 16). As you are aware, California Legislature established the School Attendance Review Boards in 1975. The purpose of SARB was to make a better effort to meet the needs of students with attendance and/or behavior problems and to promote the use of alternatives to the juvenile court system. In an attempt to comply with this legislative order, the Redondo Beach Unified School District, Manhattan Beach Unified School District, El Segundo Unified School District, and Hermosa Beach City Schools have joined forces with the Beach Cities Health District to form what is known as SARB #16. This joint venture has provided members of the South Bay Community with a variety of resources to assist families in addressing their individual needs. In order to provide the communities with additional legal means of support, the cities of Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach, and El Segundo have established what is known as a daytime curfew. The purpose of this law is to establish the cities powers of preserving and promoting the public health, safety, and welfare, and in particular to protect minors. The curfew hours are usually from 8:30 AM to 1:30 PM Monday through Friday. Upon approval of such a curfew the cities have the authority to cite a person under eighteen years of age. This tool has provided the cities with a tool that has proven to be most successful in reducing the number of students who are truant from school. When students are found in violation of such an ordnance, the peace officer shall be authorized to issue a citation to appear in a juvenile traffic court of competent jurisdiction or to file a juvenile application for a petition to be filed under section 601 or 602 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code, at the discretion of the peace officer. It is with these factors in mind, the School Attendance Review Board recommended I request the city of Hermosa Beach to consider such a daytime curfew ordnances. The adoption of such a curfew would provide SARB and the citizens of the beach cities with a uniform means of ensuring that any student who is found truant from school will receive a uniform operational process. Currently, when SARB and its membership police departments conduct a truancy sweep, only those students found in the cities of Redondo, Manhattan, and El Segundo can be cited. Membership Districts Redondo Beach USD - Manhattan Beach USD • Hermosa Beach City Schools El Segundo USD • i Should the city of Hermosa Beach adopt such a Daytime Curfew and/or Daytime Restrictions for Minors law, all membership cities would have a uniform process. In addition to providing the law enforcement agencies with this tool, it provides the parents with an additional means of support. Therefore, I am requesting your assistance in working with your city council and other city officials in the development and establishment of a Daytime Curfew. I understand this is an involved process and many steps are necessary in the development of such a program. However, the School Attendance Review Board feels the benefits of such a curfew would far out weight the effort needed to develop a Daytime Restriction for Minors Law. I thank you in advance for your assistance and consideration in this matter. Should you have any questions or if I may be of further assistance in this matter, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Kemfeth Flood, Consultant School Attendance Review Board October 6, 2004 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of October 12, 2004 REDONDO UNION HIGH SCHOOL CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION SPONSORSHIP Recommendation: That the City Council consider whether or not it wishes to become a sponsor for the 100 year celebration at Redondo Union High School and, if it is decided to participate, at what sponsorship level. Background: Redondo Union High School Centennial Celebration has provided a request to the City Council to participate as a sponsor for the celebration on June 25, 2005. A copy of their letter is attached. There are several sponsorship levels ranging from $250.00 to $10,000. As you know, the City Council provides funding for Grad Nite activities in the amount of $1,000 to both Redondo and Mira Costa each year. It would be possible, with the existing City Council budget for these types of activities, to contribute up to $1,000. Respectfully submitted, Stephen R. Burrell City Manager 7a 1905 - 2005 Rdondb (Onion stigh School • Centennial Celebration 631 Vincent Park (310) 798-8665 Ext. 2005 Redondo Beach, CA 90277 www.ruhsalumni.org. Celebrating 100 years of Sea Hawk Pride City of Hermosa Beach Mayor and City Council 1315 Valley Dr Hermosa Beach CA 90254 RECEIVED SEP 1 6 2004 Per ............. September 2004 Dear Mayor and City Council Redondo Union High School will celebrate its 100th birthday in June of 2005. Our great school is rich with tradition and superior achievements. One of the greatest qualities of Redondo Union High School (RUNS) is the fact that the community has always been an integral part of the school's success and the day to day activities on campus For this reason, we are asking for the community to take part and to help us celebrate our 100 years of rich history. We expect as many as 10,000 or more alumni, staff, family and friends to attend the day -long celebration on June 25, 2005 in our own Sea Hawk Bowl. At the event, we plan to have decade tents which will allow people from all generations to visit and reminisce with old friends. Reunion gathering will take place throughout the days before the main event. We hope to make this celebration the biggest, most memorable event ever staged at RUHS. To encourage all alumni, faculty and friends to attend, we hope to make this a free event. In order for this to happen, we are reaching out to you for help. We simply cannot do this without you! Please look . at the attached page. It outlines the sponsorship levels we have set up for the celebration. We hope that you will seriously consider becoming a partner with us. As an alternative to the sponsorship levels, perhaps you'd rather make a contribution to sponsor a particular event, such as the opening ceremony, a refreshment booth, the Sea Hawk "family" tent for past and present faculty, staff and administrators, the memorial walkway or the farewell breakfast on June 26. If you are able to help us, please contact me today at 310 798-8665x2005. For one hundred years, RUHS has provided quality academic programs, athletic victories and, most of all, hundreds of thousands of memories. Please join the Sea Hawk family as we launch our Centennial Celebration. We are so grateful for your support and encouragement. Steve B • pp Centennial Celebration Chairman • • Redondo Beach Unified School District August 2004 1401 Inglewood Avenue Redondo Beach California 90278-3999 Tel. 310 379-5449 Fax 310 798-8610 Dear Community Member, The 2004-2005 school year is going to be a truly memorable one for the Redondo Beach Unified School District. This school year will mark the 100th birthday of Redondo Union High School. Redondo Union is a high school steeped in tradition, excellence and a strong sense of community pride. We invite all of you who have been graduates, staff, volunteers, and supporters throughout the years to join us in commemorating this milestone in the history of RUHS. One hundred years later, RUHS continues to provide the highest quality academic program in conjunction with very successful athletics and co -curricular activities that meet the needs of all students. This year alone, our achievement scores increased by the highest percentage ever, continuing our history of high academic achievement. Last year alone the student publications, High Tide and Pilot, were recognized with national awards; the Robotics Team went to the national finals; our tennis team had a perfect record and won the CIF title; art students continued to receive stunning accolades for their unique talents and creativity, while the Jazz band held its 22nd Jazz Under the Stars concert. The stakeholders committee is currently planning the events and activities for the Centennial celebration. From June 22-26, 2005, specific events will commemorate the Centennial. A Welcome Reception, a day long event at the high school, and a day at the beach, are just a few of the events planned. We have so much to be thankful for at Redondo Union High School. Most of all we are grateful for the many people who continue to support us over the years. We are asking for your help again. Because we want the RUHS Centennial Celebration to be as spectacular as the history of the campus — we are seeking your loyal financial support in making this possible. We are looking for sponsors who have continued to support us in holding these events. Your donations will enable all interested graduates, staff and community members to attend. Attached please find a list of sponsorship levels which we ask you to consider. Please help us in celebrating this truly remarkable event. Sincerely, l�- Carol A. Leighty, Ed.D. Superintendent CAL:th Attachment 1 • Redondo Beach Unified School District REDONDO UNION HIGH SCHOOL CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION FUNDRAISING SPONSORSHIP LEVELS Banner (10 foot banner) Sponsor Advertisement Full Page Advertisement in RUHS Yearbook/Centennial Yearbook Full Page Advertisement in RUHS Commencement Program/100th Distinguished Grads Six Complimentary Tickets to the Distinguished Graduates Reception Eight complimentary T -Shirts Complimentary Copy of Centennial Yearbook ($50.00 value) Gold $5,000.00 Banner (8 foot banner) Sponsor Advertisement Half -Page Advertisement in RUHS Yearbook/Centennial Yearbook Half -Page Advertisement in RUHS Commencement Program/100th Distinguished Grads Four Complimentary Tickets to the Distinguished Graduates Reception Six complimentary T -Shirts Complimentary Copy of Centennial Yearbook ($50.00 value) Silver $2,500.00 Banner (6 foot banner) Sponsor Advertisement Quarter Page Advertisement in RUHS Yearbook/Centennial Yearbook Quarter Page Advertisement in RUHS Commencement Program/1 00th Distinguished Grads Two Complimentary Tickets to the Distinguished Graduates Reception Four complimentary T -Shirts Complimentary Copy of Centennial Yearbook ($50.00 value) Bronze $1000.00 Banner (4 foot banner) Sponsor Advertisement Business Card Advertisement in RUHS Yearbook/Centennial Yearbook Business Card Advertisement in RUHS Commencement Program/100th Distinguished Grads Four complimentary T -Shirts Complimentary Copy of Centennial Yearbook ($50.00 value) Business Card Advertisement in RUHS Yearbook/Centennial Yearbook Business Card Advertisement in RUHS Commencement Program/100th Distinguished Grads Two complimentary T -Shirts Complimentary Copy of Centennial Yearbook ($50.00 value) Red and White Sponsor Business Card Advertisement in RUHS Yearbook/Centennial Yearbook Two complimentary T -Shirts Complimentary Copy of Centennial Yearbook ($50.00 value) $250.00 Please make checks payable to: RUHS Centennial Celebration 631 Vincent Park Redondo Beach, CA 90277 (310) 798-8665 x 2005 I October 6, 2004 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council 10- ro/,may Regular Meeting of October 12, 2004 COMMUNITY ENERGY PARTNERSHIP TORCHIERE LAMP TRADE-IN PROGRAM NOVEMBER 20, 2004 Recommendation: That the City Council receive and file as an informational item. Background: The City Council approved joining the 10 city Community Energy Partnership in August. The first community activity planned will be on Saturday, November 20, 2004 at the City Hall Parking Lot on Valley Drive. This will provide an opportunity for residents to exchange their energy -guzzling halogen floor lamps for new, highly efficient fluorescent models and to purchase energy saving spiral fluorescent light bulbs at a large discount. The event is being staffed by Leadership Hermosa volunteers. There is no cost for the exchange of lamps. This is one of the funded activities covered by the grants received by the Energy Coalition and clearly one of the benefits of the program for Hermosa Beach residents that wish to participate in the lamp exchange program. Respectfully sub ed, p c Stephen R. Burrell City Manager 7b i • October 6, 2004 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council / 0A 0), Regular Meeting of October 12, 2004 E -NEWSLETTER Recommendation: That .the City Council review and approve the recipient data base list use and the general guidelines for content and approval and direct the City Manager to sign the month to month service agreement; and appropriate $3,500 to cover the cost of the service contract for seven months. Background: The City Council, at its meeting of September 14, 2004, approved the concept of initiating an e -newsletter about City events, projects, public information and services. During the discussion, staff was directed to return with information on how the recipient list would be protected from other uses and the general guidelines of content for the e -newsletter. The recipient list would only be used for distributing the newsletter. The person wishing to receive the newsletter would sign up and the following disclosure will be part of the sign up process. "I provide the City with my email address for the sole purpose of being placed on an email list for the receipt of the City of Hermosa Beach e -newsletter. It is my expectation that my email address to the maximum extent permitted by law will not be shared with any third parties. I understand that my email address may not be confidential in other electronic communications that I have with the City." The information requested need only include an email address; it would be optional to include name and address. This will allow the City to keep the email addresses and use them only for the email distribution. The list will not be sold, or given to anyone for any purpose. The general guidelines for the e -newsletter content will have as its primary purpose to publish City events and activities, including providing information regarding various non-profit groups such as the Toy Drive, Friends of Park, Sister Cities, Hermosa Beach Education Foundation, Beach Cities Health District, Leadership Hermosa, and various school activities and I am sure that there are others. Some of this information is now on the website under the calendar section. The idea is to be able to provide up-to-date public information regarding the City and the various activities. The newsletter will not record votes of the City Council. For example, the e -newsletter will say the City Council approved an event, say when it will take place, where, and what time it starts. By and large there will not be any specific listing of names of people unless it is necessary to convey the information. 7 c • • The website will contain a button to sign up for the newsletter and staff will report back on the use of the e -newsletter after 3 months. This will give us enough time to work out any bugs and make sure that the cost is worth the effort and determine what type of feed back we receive from our residents. Based on this review the City Council can consider whether or not it wishes to continue publishing the e -newsletter. Respectfully submitted, Stephen R. Burrell City Manager ✓ E-GovMail.Com z PROPOSAL FOR THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Proposed Services: E-GovMail.Com (a division of Western States Information Systems) agrees to provide the following services for the City of Hermosa Beach. • Design and develop a client database for use in community-based email newsletter o Assist client in accumulation of e-mail addresses o Collect, input and manage data • Create system for acquiring current activity information from various city departments as well as other community-based organizations. • Design, create and send emails to highlight city activities as well as other information of interest to local residents. (A maximum of 3 e-mails per month.**) Client will approve all work prior to implementation. Client will delineate customer database segment for mailing (as applicable). • Maintain and update customer database to ensure accuracy. **Additional work, not specified in this agreement will be billed at the rate of One Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($150.00) per hour. TERMS The above services will be provided to the client for the sum of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) per month. An initial database setup charge of Two Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($250.00) will apply. Additional services and/or supplies (i.e. outside printing costs) will be billed separately. These rates will remain unchanged for a minimum of six months. Either party, upon 30 days written notice, may terminate this agreement at any time. PAYMENT Initial payment of $750.00 (Database Setup Charge and first month's invoice) due at signing. All subsequent invoices are due seven (7) days after submittal. Approved: Ap Date: Date: y /zi /4, 7 833 Hermosa Ave. Hermosa Beach, CA. 90254 (310) 376-1863 john@e-govmail.com • • E-GovMail.Com~ Closing the Circle on E-Government 833 Hermosa Ave. Hermosa Beach, CA. 90254 (310) 376-1863 john@e-govmail.com Bill To: City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive. Hermosa Beach, CA. 90254 Invoice Invoice #: 0001 Invoice Date: 9/21/04 Customer ID: 001 Item Description Amount Discount % Taxable Total Initial Setup Charge $250.00 $250.00 Monthly Fee $500.00 $500.00 TOTAL DIJE $750.00 I PREPAID Pay This Amount $750.00 REMITTANCE Customer ID: 001 Date: 9/21/04 Amount Due: Amount Enclosed: Make Checks Payable To: Western States Information Systems • October 7, 2004 Honorable Mayor and Members of The Hermosa Beach City Council City Council Meeting of October 12, 2004 Adoption of a Resolution Extending the Term of the Cable Television Franchise Agreement to April 30, 2005 Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution extending the term of the existing cable television franchise with Adelphia Cable Communications for six months to expire on April 30, 2005 Background The existing cable television franchise agreement went into effect October 27, 1994 between the City and ML Media Partners for a ten-year term. In July of 1995 the franchise was transferred to Century Communications and then to Adelphia in May of 1999. The franchise is due to expire on October 27, 2004. Analysis Staff has taken the initial steps towards negotiating a new cable television franchise agreement. We have met with representatives from Adelphia to outline the steps we would like to take in negotiating a new franchise agreement. The City Council authorized the establishment of a Cable Television Review Commission. The City Clerk ran notices in the newspaper to solicit applications for the commission; however, only one application was received. The application period was extended to October 19, 2004. To date, no additional applications have been received. With the assistance of the City's cable television legal counsel, we have prepared a draft update to the cable television regulatory ordinance. The draft has been reviewed by Adelphia representatives and they have provided seemingly minor changes. We are in the process of having these changes reviewed. In addition to updating the regulatory ordinance, we anticipate conducting a franchise fee audit to ensure that the fees are paid in accordance with the franchise agreement. We are also considering conducting an audit of the physical system to evaluate its condition. However, this may not be necessary with recent upgrades made. A six-month extension of the existing agreement should be adequate to conduct the additional technical work necessary and provide adequate opportunity for public 7d participation through the Cable Television Review Commission and/or through public hearings. Respectfully Submitted: Concur: Ste en Burrell Personnel & Risk Management Director City Manager • RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH CENTURY -TCI CALIFORNIA, L.P. TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE AGREEMENT TO APRIL 30, 2005 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. This resolution is adopted in recognition of the following facts and circumstances: A. Century -TCI California, L.P., dba Adelphia Cable Communications ("Adelphia"), is the authorized assignee of a cable television franchise agreement that will terminate on October 27, 2004. B. The City and Adelphia desire to extend the term of the cable television franchise agreement for an additional period of time in order to facilitate the renewal negotiations that will commence in late 2004. Section 2. The City Council hereby approves the "Franchise Extension Agreement" in substantially the form attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. The Mayor is authorized to execute that document and thereby evidence the written consent of the City to the extension of the franchise until April 30, 2005, or such earlier date as a cable television franchise renewal agreement between the parties becomes effective. ✓ • • Section 3. This resolution will become effective upon its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of 2004, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Mayor • FRANCHISE EXTENSION AGREEMENT The undersigned agree to extend the current Cable Television Franchise Agreement ("Franchise Agreement) entered into on October 27, 1994, between the City of Hermosa Beach, CA (`Grantor") and Century -TCI California, L.P., d/b/a/ Adelphia Cable Communications ("Grantee") (the "Franchise Agreement") through the earlier of April 30, 2005 or the effective date of a renewal franchise agreement. During this extension, the terms and conditions of the current Franchise Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Both parties reserve all rights under applicable provisions of the Cable Act, including Sections 626 and 635. Nothing herein shall be deemed or construed as a waiver, release or surrender of any right that either party may have under the Cable Act or any applicable law. Execution of this Franchise Extension ("Extension") shall neither constitute an assumption nor rejection by Grantee of the original Franchise Agreement nor a waiver of Grantee's rights respecting the Franchise Agreement, including, without limitation, all of Grantee's rights under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 365. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CENTURY -TCI CALIFORNIA, L.P., A Delaware limited partnership, d/b/a Adelphia Cable Communications By: Century -TCI California Communications, L.P., A Delaware limited partnership, Its General Partner, By: Century Exchange L.L.C., A Delaware limited liability company, Its General Partner, By: Century Cable Holding Corporation, A New York corporation, Its Sole Member By: By: Name: Lee A. Perron Senior Vice President Date: Its: Date: October 6, 2004 City Council Meeting October 12, 2004 Mayor and Members of the City Council VACANCIES - BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS - EXPIRATION OF TERMS - PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council schedule a meeting prior to the regular meeting of Tuesday, October 26, 2004, for the purpose of interviewing applicants, with appointments to be made that evening at the regular meeting. Background: Three terms on the Public Works Commission will expire October 31, 2004. At its meeting of August 10, 2004, the City Council directed that the City Clerk advertise for applicants for the three seats. Notice was posted at City Hall and published in the Easy Reader August 19 and 26, with an October 5 deadline for submitting applications. All three appointments will be for full four-year terms ending October 31, 2008. Five applications are on file at this time for the three seats (see attached). The applicants are: Noted: Stephen Ala 110A di . _ !'� ity �! anager Richard Applebaum Michael DiVirgilio Geoffrey Hirsch Jean Lombardo Daniel Marinelli Elaine Doerfling, City-% erk 8a • • PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION APPLICANTS • • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BOARD/COMMISSION APPLICATION NAME OF COMMISSION �UauL v idz, Name A1Ghin/10 Address: L oin02 Home Phone: 3 79 71r Occupation/Profession: 40/513 &* / T7,Cf% Name of Employer Bus. Phone: Address of Employer REFERENCES: _ / 1� Local: ‘A -Ay �ji, /" — /419- 4Yv L4 /'/Pn/%- /4 �CJ - 37r- Professional: ifk £4- 4fi liq-4OZ-5 �jt/y///�/fr✓CF 7`14/ du r%?- (,co 7q9$ Other. I Ke' PO IOC- 3 2 /6177 �- �/- g `y37 -30z3 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND SERVICE (past and present): g/A/c. UUoKKCrc,lifit1/ 'ai✓Ei2 ®`/iii¢/1y 094 - - liOc. 'NTT iz d Z0 M Fc/Z E4DRzc.y. co/ie.,/ /40,3 *0i15 - 705,9 G'TTcE L hoe' Di- , o4 /4KEY�� 5 c fneo Ago - Zo/ '- -v/i 69z ic."9"/3 D/5e7K, Why do you wish to become a Commission member? Z Wow ro am" 770 �614 , Gy i ���% W.. DE,,o/B2, nfecti : ��✓� y !{E „xy n/C /6h�/�oP�� //i�/O - Ti/� �ES�O�r,i�S m!- ���-,�I os� /4/,4 dF o/✓ /,/i�0 �/LDB� �=�'yl S�L��✓� S� i �o,�C c ✓e'z*,„ /4/7ES7 What do you feel are the duties and responsibilities of a Commission member? / y� D:'776 S Ae o/✓St ,w7/ES 4%'A- r>14 /55,0.✓ /17e2,40 -7Z, /*re -710 fL� /W—Na,1 /5 ' -To /75z-, r(7/ Gtry 4 / - v/15 E -(0i✓S it/ �l� G� � T 1� / W 5 s7 -f/ 0 ,� age l of 2 R l a-khto A-epi_67&11441 • Do you have any current obligations or responsibilities, which could be construed as a conflict of interest with your being a board/commission member? Yes o If yes, please explain) Please give a resume of your education, employment, memberships, past activities and other experience that you feel would qualify you as a Board/Commission member. /iv/vc- S try ov� 5. ; -41 Aro c ifiri 5 ii - S/// ,rate_/4/e-flo Y-i?a/,9e G-42 c y 57Wre= //1//drYl.S r'/ %4W4 6E)-iIc-r✓r'\49//m/A /4g77ops /97 74(r‚Y �r.7,r,,k,7://7T//5 /977 "ge-weivr-av/vb-ye_ 4,,e'/%%,Ke-77//6 /1/c-�lEexv y-4e-cr hie 4/6 Mfeary AvNe7LZ, 4Vf o /, / 7 Sc-vavAz-6' 4 - /,V-uro//v6 .9f-eceDr//c-ING , ✓��G %��n�trr/C� W/cif= g‘-r499,t,77"5/ E1l/6',-J Z n/6 /24/15, Go 3 - ccY,' /,9rv`r5 v" Rte'/e//a2 i//lbci✓uNG This Board/Commission meets on 1 /tier/✓t 5D/V at 7'©(-2 p.m. Do you foresee any scheduling problems that might make you miss meetings? Yes IX No How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach? 3 %/5 Comments: ffq14' kv 9i J e- e0 '55(a✓ eC.X6 1/1/4 5 Fol , Ye/K/1% ,c1 ff4,C /Iwo /Wt's 6moD //n/-oe_5�%/0//►//!,e9(4&>170 v AOS/✓S/6/eerie 6o.D Acci}-rio/✓ /P 1,0771 77// T j /170 U✓L) deli '/ % G _e)/1/ //! " Oe -Vo /Ml 77/174/, �4/eiZe Y 'To Sc144P 774/6 i /r` God, 7(5 i F&, 777/e ff/E/716-- �o Signed:t- Date: /29 - V- / (4/23/01) Page 2 of 2 OCT. 5. 2004 4:26PM • • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BOARD/COMMISSION APPLICATION f)JNAME OF COMMISSION 1 i?( wr FS (oratit i SS jc Name M IL aef LIYtrjiIio Address: 6 6 a Yid St, Home Phone: NO. 1019 P. 1 O O i 0 E. cr 1 Occupation/Profession: S -1-e„ e k c i'rJ reetcsem Name of Employer C.v• Ss �cu,e fii.owtalA Bus. Phone: 693'7636 Address of Employer P3 at E., Rom. c. ra' r . REFERENCES: Local: R,`c lc koeni'q , lS� lYO3 Professional: M1' c hazel( keee cc.^ r Svc 3,170 cm 7'-? Other: L I n la I J,, 1; / .80C2. - 6089. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND SERVICE (past and present):: .J 'foIe,‘ 4 � o�'ce or Scirc-far• on s HermbS4 �s wl daAlbel T &›4r i 1 , a • Iu r l/ CG c! 4/1 ("IVO S i I- volon 1t "cc) d..)/W., +k P644,,. � Gorriirliisr;v- (f'e: Why do you wish to become a Commission member? 1 �-n-� r S 4 to 7J� ./1,701^‹ SPI✓aitAer VI Mak Pee-ol ase, BpGc 1, 4,7 4 ca)esD_1 P/4(' '1a I rve_ - also wo- Lc9 C'r7`r i e lr /07L O -r ta-he f e4/eryp 41 frk,r - ria f' wau/ eEt-74 What do you feel are the duties and responsibilities of a Commission member? e..yo-i c� //`T C u {-jes a c,o+-1i;Le (I In c(escrr� f r`er. c, F Puh �r rc L- c,r.k Co��1/SJi�� Aet ;s 4 mein iee. c /sec -10045-141'17 -o/^ A `-14 bes4- Puss, l% l io4 of ot./-iiinr, /ertedl Qu 1r''[ G✓ork VU/' T'�el/'/1fOS i�s'rI&ii.s anti e�'hpec,�errrtrJ c;i7 j Page 1 of 2 Cava c r % -hj 1 f e %r o e,:ncleA I r i c icy- J cote 4 OCT. 5. 2004 4:27PM • NO. 1019 P. 2 Do you have any current obligations or responsibilities, which could be construed as a conflict of interest with your being a board/commission member? Yes No (If yes, please explain) Please give a resume of your education, employment, memberships, past activities and other experience that you feel would qualify you as a Board/Commission member. • 1.r.clie1o.r of Science • L)o 4 ) al - Co ivicCiitc< ( ;Aearo,t) r/ F3_) et, ".Ce S . at, on arc+ "ger firnf Ar�ba�) pit eitgi iee,hsny aJ'Leek,"'cg./ (c�p'cThes 1543"a.Oo)✓ J • War kec9 c Federd lies& rcP>~tgrfu hbe. S 1 c er Qr- s� 3ye.iS_ 1-14R ��` do -2 -ens / • !kr fl�i( `f`P Irk - 4Ci1✓rfiess 6 /J'T ir.V4( Q49/0tc Or`gGn/2h T7vns c 3 4 res✓i1-o'1 41(7.Currc ' emp lxie/ t, This Board/Commission meets on ed /les ctlf S at 7'0o p.m. Do you foresee any scheduling problems that might make you miss meetings? Yes �No How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach? / }/tel rs y 44044 -Lr Comments: Signed: Date: rbc er�s / 0.00? Page 2 of 2 (4/23/01) CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BOARD/COMMISSION APPLICATION NAME OfirMMISSION Name Ori4 Home Phonc( .>(0) 7C'" Address: S -V tie" lq. 49e10`#i g CI' ec16 Occupation/Profession: 1/1 /(2Ct099/ r-r7c1,` Name of Employer Address of Employer REFERENCES: Local 019 ek'-- arn. 4<, 1Alefile4V fe58.11471,r0 Professional: OtherSk t4__. r b - • s'-- s''' COMMUNITY PARTICIPATIO1; AN SERVICE (past and present): Bus. Phon "YcjRiT- 7 c- 5 -0-e' a 11-ciC 7 Why do y a .esav i',56e/z What do you eel a the duties and responsibilities of a Commission/member? eel a cit-14$` hie It Oce/c09( f-.' ) p/-kk ogV,)z-v ol /7 • / , fct -_J ifrVfY 6?*. ( Do you have any current obligations or responsibilities, which could be construed as a conflict of interest with your being a board/commission member? Yes 1Vo (If yes, please explain) Please give a resume of your education, employment, memberships, past activities and other experience that you feel would qualify you asa Board/Commission member. kiaeci47 This Board/Commission meets on frd Y/Q 61, at TOO p.m. Do you foresee any scheduling problems that might make you miss meetings? Yes No How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach Comments: Ito Signed: Date: 'k IfP 00oppzotel /7 N9- doge , /7 . ` 1 Page 2 of 2 (4/23/01) ce� P.5b Ocb 00 C"Y"fQ $.0,14,ce crh AP pLeic( 51.1.a7 Oabti 0: q4, 4521 147 tee t $(30 #gr1ke re c fre4 fr'oy ass'� wititfti o 9e�i• (Over& CeN Sale - 64F:xisf 64ri Qer 901 ck eetw 4-)14/zo life 4s�f'dc/q CI7/rec'') lca PPe SZ a;Pt<e/dp6ee e- C eSYei )724z 6`eYtiqy 03 �Oo'' CYl_ N -er tefkie C>0°2, I 4c7P42 J9f y(/� (I sv! !�e!�'/'o i"�S/R' �l/d ‘V/-c'P /�Gz2Y J/P 5'M 42 ye 1-wf. Yolieee -to-714 V9'(o, � of l�0�l r�' �c�P rv�.°� Y'G��ec-Q, )1- i_, -fir �(,c"F9Y (fag 1/1%ef y .€, td ..c;?. / (4)c 5-7/ ,-( ( -eQ vete 6te54'P d iy- te ! op �+'"�'/'{,�il��i7�1/�! ��PO's_CG�j%G�l GZ . _ l(iol�t U21C?9�P d'� / `� /1' CGc~0,'91/'�i _ori c'k/_ _c��e/Za I2Qp 7-‘ ccq. 5Ttwic ‘eiv 11, r i -Y/€ � p kv � cv hvc�ii� � p� � 9c41 �G'NBg( i, q SCS ee,10f-es o G • • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH P3C3 2 3 2p1k r CVE CLCilA T, 1i6ACH 0 BOARD/COMMISSION APPLICATION c,cF NAME OF COMMISSION PaAz-1 e- 00/VC S �� Name jE4 ti/ 1----o1f3A Kp o Home Phone: _F7 (-.5-- Address: 2 4 to C S/4 t/EA STR/fA/p 4. i1E . Occupation/Profession: Name of Employer Address of Employer REFERENCES: Bus. Phone: Local: a a7 J /� ,r -e- 6,C � 3ex /o - Professional:. /,% � -D Other: v11tt 6JI foe - a 90 2 - COMMUNITY COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND SERVICE (past and present): Why do you wish to become a Commission member? What do you feel are the duties and responsibilities of a Commission member? Page 1 of 2 • • Do you have any current obligations or responsibilities, which could be construed as a conflict of interest with your being a board/commission member? Yes ,'No (If yes, please explain) Please give a resume of your education, employment, memberships, past activities and other experience that you feel would qualify you as a Boanl/Commission member. This Board/Commission meets on 3 at a/i p.m. Do you foresee any scheduling problems that might make you mics _Yes )/ No How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach? , t c- LGe— /! Comments: Signed: Date: �9//r/// Page 2 of 2 (4/23/01) APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION Attachment -- Jean Lombardo 2465 Silverstrand Avenue Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 OM 374-5389 ieanlombardolna,adelphia.net Education Completed Grades one thru twelve at Kansas City, Missouri public schools Four years at Kansas City Institute of Art Two years at University of Missouri Three years at Otis Parsons School Design Employment Legal secretary for U.S. District Attorney for Missouri 1955 —1957 Engineering Secretary for Litton Industries at Woodland Hills, CA 1962 Engineering Secretary and Tape Librarian for Scientific Computer at Litton Industries 1963 —1968 Cost Accountant for Canoga Electronics, Canoga Park, CA 1969 —1972 Head Fashion Designer at D.B.A.L.A. a wholesale apparel manufacturer 1975 —1980 Freelance Fashion Designer for various wholesale garment manufacturers 1980 —1988 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND SERVICE Four years on the Hermosa Beach Public Works Commission, one year as Chairman of the Public Works Commission, Arts in the Community Chairman for California Federation of Women's Clubs, First Night, Founding member of Project Touch Car Show, Hermosa Beach celebration of the Olympics, Sister City and Hermosa Beach 90`h birthday celebration, H.B. Sister City Convention, H.B. Woman's Club Art Contest for elementary school students, Friends of the Library Fortieth Anniversary, St. Patrick's Day Parade, Candidate's Forum for 1999 H.B. City Council election, YWCA 1996 Citizen of the Year, Hermosa Beach Woman of the Year. MEMIBERSIF Woman's Club of Hermosa Beach, past president - Hermosa Beach Friends.of the Library - Hermosa Beach Sister City Assoc - Project Touch, former board member - Seize the Day, former board member - Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce - California Federation of Women's Clubs, current executive committee member and Chairman of Arts in the Community - CFWC Marina District, past president - Beach Cities League of Women Voters. I would like to remain on the Public Works Commission to continue my work as a member of the Tree Committee and the Gateway project. My concerns are for the quality of life for the citizens of Hermosa Beach. I feel the duties and responsibilities of a Public Works Commissioner are to consider the needs of the citizens of Hermosa Beach, and to make recommendations accordingly to the Hermosa Beach City Council. The duties include being financially responsible, taking direction from the City Council and recommending items for determination at their pleasure. Thank you for your consideration. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BOARD/COMMISSION APPLICATION NAME OF COMMISSION PU Dl► C Works Comrr'i On Home Phone: 3101379-1713 Name ► )cU\ e )0C ePh KOS t ► Address: CD07 Lon 'c.ttOW kklenuS_rM060, R i CJ . cto23(( J Occupation/Profession: Tel CAMtto, CCr4i'koc — r oke Vidito ,onS Name of Employer 5 • e.moo j Cc . Bus. Phone: CL1i Sia C 1 • (G3fS 7 Address of Employer Sc Mt 11S above. REFERENCES: Nana 1 Local: c_ /i n MCCarfk General t anaa _r, Btac V, t- oo5t kokK yl/n Professional: SItIe Be.imirbire.c civ' /VC sp„,-k, Carkkx,k� (If\ Other: KA Sdtrelo.121 1\CcIantkn Bea( IN City C�urc..'t COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND SERVICE (past and present): bare Lost c% ttR Ctec4;on- ilSpec.;a1 of Mcleleh;u 57uct►ns or ke pusk g years . Suc.ccsscull Crtaterl ccs> >ncdvsive enVironMcnk bik,crt CQucidakS'ror Par}ics _ r t In 0' 1n IOW pc1A i cc,1 1co(cS5- m _ Why do you wish to become a Commission member? I O CGnk i (WC. . 6t Pa cf pc t_ C.iv;L OeCco io' k r'a:fS Ntct\oSck [St_act-, fhcA What do you feel are the duties and responsibilities of a Commission member? ',n c S 4 c ► a J ( ()vain p� ,t^ ii,r and u�1ic S(Se.� . k 'tr.-lot-641$ be inc.} 1 r -V of a [OMfhiSS►nn Wii:� The c., icii LC. P i . e�,ch: .� e 1 1\ CA ' u t '► 01'�M�� Ou � '� Page 1 of 2 • Do you have any current obligations or responsibilities, which could construed as a conflict of interest withyour beinga board/commission member? Yes /No (If yes, please explain) Please give a resume of your education, employment, memberships, past activities and other experience th you feel would qualify you as a Board/Commission member. PttIU(.cCA oust_ cinr1 0. CI*'( 1 rtSunC an Curre_rAll a merN6tr o '}L vktno.a Reac.L KiLickniS C1Uzi l e( -mos& \ca(,L Hi oticcax Sc(ifki, and 5o((rsSCuit l spducAltri rorA itke igrAuoJTaI LtchatrSL �tre•No.sa C1�55 Of aoO3. ¶IIS CIGSS b� �� MC or° Cant Jk L1; r MlLLae.I vlal.tri \ StRtrAcndtr Pu61;i 1Nlort.S Ntarrictitn\ 1 gi (.1-‘c%1-1 Rot3an (;rccAoc OC pUbl,C- Vs/(1X 1-0.04 r Wt ivattt 6ntck a Ow. is CtcueLiSi I of +int i(o as6n5 SfwdQrdis In � t C�cv,,nTol�ln arca, c ( � l� /� ( p 11 1 `Ws On 10tkOLs) ble !3y AtoducaM cv. NUoek a Skil etI13�\ l logo" 1n 1 J 1 Omits 40 or onf ,4ioral rc aitS_ e CurrtrA Lic y* &cict.t in Ca�i�orn; a corr tri 5(.40 11 „ Akts +0 teRorl to non- trad,v, oral Mt,..ocls jo unct S,,Li, oyckS. This Board/Commission meets on \OtA.Atscials at -7 p.m. Do you foresee any scheduling problems that might make you miss meetings? Yes X No How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach? IV ; ne. to r5 Comments: (,:rttJ u? ;n a cc. ;11 Cn(Quraya_CDC intkiiVeran+ omit Sccutc, d�nb Signed: Date: Dkc1Ler r, aOO-I Page 2 of 2 (4/23/0.1) DANIEL J. MARINELLI 607 Longfellow Avenue Hermosa Beach, California 90254 310/379-1793 310/617-6387 (cell) danie118@gte.net www.33118.com CAMERA OPERATOR SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS— Emphasizes sound analysis and professionalism, solid major sports coverage expertise and skill at utilizing a proactive, team approach to the set-up, camera operation and breakdown of high -visibility, remote sports production assignments at the multi-million dollar network/independent syndication level. Areas of particular skill and proficiency include— Overview—Superior, detailed knowledge of camera work (game, hand-held POV), processes, techniques, equipment, procedures and methods used to televise major sports and special event activities; Strong, highly organized work philosophy that couples focused task achievement with thoroughness, precision and quality remote video photography; Technically experienced problem -solver with complete comprehension of coverage assignment and follow-up that requires minimal supervision; Experience—Coverage Formats—Professional sports coverage of championship, league playoff, weekly regional, Grand Prix, Derby, tournament, pro tour and scheduled Game -of -the -Week network, corporate - sponsored, international foreign broadcast and independent/syndicated events; Sports—Professional golf, tennis, track and field, downhill skiing, horse racing, auto racing, baseball, basketball, football, Super Bowl football, hockey, figure skating. Outlets/Production Units—New York, Pittsburgh and Los Angeles -based free-lance assignments for ABC SPORTS, ESPN TELEVISION, TRANSWORLD INTERNATIONAL, NATIONAL MOBILE TELEVISION and NEP Broadcast on ABC, NBC, CBS, ESPN, NHK (Japan), FOX SPORTS and USA NETWORK. Equipment—Video Cameras and Lenses—IKEGAMI HL -55A with FUJINON 18:1 zoom; IKEGAMI HK -355 with FUJINON AH -55:9.5 zoom; IKEGAMI HK -366 with FUJINON AH -66:9.5 SESM zoom; IKEGAMI HK -377 with FUJINON 18:1 zoom; KEGAMI HK-377P/SE377 with FUJINON AH -66:9.5 SESM zoom. EMPLOYMENT HISTORY— August 1990 to Present NETWORK AND INDEPENDENT TELEVISION SPORTS COVERAGE • Free -Lance Camera Operator Los Angeles, California / New York, New York / Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania - Presently assuming a range of free-lance sports coverage assignments through primary ongoing relationships with TRANSWORLD INTERNATIONAL, New York, New York, NATIONAL MOBILE TELEVISION, Torrance (Los Angeles), California, and NEP, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Attends pre -production meetings and logistics planning sessions. Participates in major sports coverage of events at key stadiums, tracks, indoor/outdoor facilities and venues in the United States/Hawaii, Mexico and Japan. Recent production credits include - 87th Indianapolis 500 ABC SPORTS (2003) • Camera Operator—ABC Super Bowl XXVVII ABC SPORTS (2003) • Camera Operator—ABC Battle of the Network Stars NBC (2003) • Camera Operator—TWI United States Figure Skating Championships ABC SPORTS (2002) • Camera Operator—ABC Rose Bowl National Championship Game ABC SPORTS (2002) • Camera Operator—ABC The Games of the XXVII Olympiad„ Sydney, Australia NBC SPORTS (2000) • Camera Operator—SYDNEY OLYMPIC BROADCASTING ORGANISATION i . t DANIEL J. MARINELLI Page 2 EMPLOYMENT HISTORY (Continued)— August 1990 to Present (Continued) NETWORK AND INDEPENDENT TELEVISION SPORTS COVERAGE • Free -Lance Camera Operator (Continued) Recent production credits (Continued) Opening the Tombs of the Golden Mummies: Live!, Bahareya, Egypt FOX (2000) • Camera Operator—FOX XVIII Winter Olympics, Nagano, Japan TNT (1998) • Camera Operator—CHARTER BROADCAST NA MTV's Motel California, Rancho Palos Verdes, California MTV (1997) • Camera Operator—MTV NFL on NBC NBC SPORTS (1996) • Camera Operator—Weekly regional coverage ABC's College Football ABC SPORTS (1996) • Camera Operator—Seasonal coverage and Aloha Bowl The Games of the XXVI Olympiad 1996, Atlanta, Georgia AOB (1996) • Camera Operator—ATLANTA COMMITTEE FOR THE OLYMPIC GAMES EDUCATION— UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania • Bachelor of Arts—Communications (August 1990) AFFILIATIONS— INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THE THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES (IATSE)/LOCAL 600 Los Angeles, California • Member NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCAST EMPLOYEES & TECHNICIANS (NABET)/LOCAL 57 Hollywood, California • Member Professional and Personal References Furnished on Request i October 6, 2004 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of October 12, 2004 PROPOSITION 68 i Recommendation: That the City Council determine whether or not it wishes to take a position on Proposition 68. Background: I have attached the information that the City has received on Proposition 68. In addition, I have attached a list of the propositions on the November ballot and the position that the League of California Cities has taken on each one. Respectfully submitted, Stephen R. Burrell City Manager 8b League of California Cities• • Page 1 of 1 League Board Adopts Positions on Propositions for November Ballot The board reviewed all the propositions that will appear on the statewide ballot this November. Recognizing that Proposition 1A represents the League's top priority, the board decided to take positions only on measures that have a compelling municipal interest. The board established the following positions: Prop. 1A Prop. 59 Prop. 60 Prop. 61 Prop. 62 Prop. 63 Prop. 64 Prop. 65 Prop. 66 Prop. 67 Prop. 68 Prop. 69 Prop. 70 Prop. 71 Prop. 72 Protect local revenues Access to government information Primary elections Children's hospital bonds Primary elections Mental health services Unfair competition law Local government funds Limitations on "Three Strikes" Telephone surcharge for emergency services Tribal gaming compact renegotiation Collection of DNA samples Exclusive gaming rights Stem cell research Health care coverage Support" Support Neutral No Position Neutral Neutral Neutral Oppose law No Position Neutral Oppose No Position Oppose No Position Neutral last updated : 8/3'2004 http://www. cacities.org/story_di splay.j sp?di splaytype=pf&zone=locc§ion=advo&sub... 9/30/2004 PROPOSITION 68 NON -TRIBAL COMMERCIAL GAMBLING EXPANSION. TRIBAL GAMING COMPACT AMENDMENTS. REVENUES, TAX EXEMPTIONS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE. OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY Prepared by the Attorney General Non -Tribal Commercial Gambling Expansion. Tribal Gaming Compact Amendments. Revenues, Tax Exemptions. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. • Authorizes Governor to negotiate tribal compact amendments requiring that Indian tribes pay 25% of slot machine/gaming deice revenues to government fund, comply with multiple state laws, and accept state court jurisdiction. • If compacted tribes don't unanimously accept required amendments within 90 days, or if determined unlawful, authorizes sixteen specified non -tribal racetracks and gambling establishments to operate 30,000 slot machines/gaming devices, paying 33% of net revenues to fund government public safety, regulatory, social programs. • Provides exemption from specified state/local tax increases. Summary of Legislative Analyst's Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact: • Increased gambling revenues—potentially over $1 billion annually. The revenues would he provided primarily to local governments throughout the state for additional child protective, police, and firefighting services. • Depending on outcome of tribal negotiations, potential loss of state revenues totaling hundreds of millions of dollars annually. ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST BACKGROUND The California Constitution and state statutes specify the types of legal gambling that can occur in California. For instance, current law allows wagering on horse races and certain games in licensed card rooms. In addi- tion, Indian tribes with tribal -state gambling compacts can operate slot machines and certain other casino -style gambling in California. Card Rooms and Horse Racing Card Rooms. The state allows card rooms to conduct card games where the card room operator has no stake in the outcome of the game. The players play against each other and pay the card room a fee for the use of the facilities. Typical card games include draw poker, 7 -card stud, and poker pai gow. Certain games—such as twenty-one—are prohibited. There are 96 licensed card rooms in the state. Local governments approve card rooms, as well as establish the hours of operation, the number of tables, and wagering limits. Current state 54 Title and Summary/Analysis law limits the expansion of both the number of card rooms and the size of existing card rooms until January 2010. Horse Racing. The state issues licenses to racing associations that then lease tracks for racing events. Li California, there are 6 privately owned racetracks, 9 racing fairs, and 20 simulcast -only facilities. (These latter facilities do not have live racing; instead, they allow betting on televised races occurring elsewhere in the world.) Gambling on Indian Land Federal law and the State Constitution govern gam- bling operations on Indian land. Tribes that enter into a tribal -state gambling compact may operate slot machines and engage in card games where the operator has a stake in the outcome, such as twenty-one. Currently, 64 tribes have compacts and operate 53 casi- nos with a total of more than 54,000 slot machines. Any new or amended compact must be approved by the 9 ao NON -TRIBAL COMMERCIAL GAMBLING EXPANSION. TRIBAL GAMING COMPACT AMENDMENTS. REVENUES, TAX EXEMPTIONS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE. ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST (CONT.) Legislature, the Governor, and the federal government. As sovereign nations, tribes are largely exempt from state and local taxes and laws, including California envi- ronmental laws. 1999 Compacts. Most tribes signed their current cotrr- pacts in 1999. Under these compacts, a tribe may oper- ate up to two facilities and up to a total of 2,000 slot machines. In exchange, tribes make some payments to the state which can only be used for specified purposes (such as for making payments to tribes that either do not operate slot machines or operate fewer than 350 machines). These payments total over $100 million annually. Under these compacts, tribes are required to prepare an environmental study analyzing the impact on the surrounding area of any new or expanded gam- bling facility. These compacts will expire in 2020. 2004 Compacts. In the summer of 2004, five tribes signed amendments to their compacts, and these revised agreements were approved by the state. Under these new agreements, these tribes may operate as many slot machines as they desire. In exchange, tribes make a specified payment annually to the state, with additional payments for each slot machine added to their facilities. As additional tribes sign similar com- pacts, payments to the state are expected to total in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Unlike the payments required by the 1999 compacts, the state can use these payments for any purpose. The newer com- pacts also require the tribes to (1) prepare more detailed environmental studies; (2) negotiate with local governments regarding payments addressing the impacts of new gambling facilities on the local commu- nities; and (3) follow other provisions related to patron disputes, building codes, and labor relations. These new agreements expire in 2030, ten years later than the 1999 compacts. PROPOSAL This measure, which amends the State Constitution and state statutes, sets up two possible scenarios regard- ing new state gambling revenues. • The first scenario would occur only if all Indian tribes with compacts agree to specified revisions to their existing compacts. • The second scenario would be triggered if the tribes do not agree to the revisions. In this case, 5 existing racetracks and 11 existing card rooms would be allowed to operate slot machines. PROP 68 These two scenarios are discussed below. Revision of Current Tribal -State Compacts Under the first scenario; all compact tribes would be required to agree with the Governor to terms required by this measure within 90 days of its passage. Specifically, the measure requires that all tribes with compacts agree to (1) pay 25 percent of their "net win" to the Gaming Revenue Trust Fund (GRIT, a state fund established by the meas- ure) and (2) comply with certain state laws, including those governing environmental protection, gambling regulation, and political campaign conuibutions. Net win is defined as the wagering revenue from all slot machines operated by a tribe after prizes arc paid out; but prior to the payment of operational expenses. Under federal law, the federal gov- ernment would have to approve the revised agreements. Expansion of Gambling if Compacts Are Not Revised As noted above, if the current compacts are not revised under the first scenario, the measure would allow slot machines on non -Indian lands. Specifically, under the second scenario, the measure allows speci- fied racetracks and card rooms located in Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, and San Mateo Counties to operate up to 30,000 slot machines (see Figure 1). The measure would allow the sale or sharing of slot machine licenses in certain circum- stances. The measure also makes permanent the limit on the expansion of both the number of card rooms and the size of existing card rooms (due to expire in January 2010 under current law). Net Win Payments. Racetracks and card rooms would pay 30 percent of the net win from their slot machines to the GRTF. They would also pay 2 percent of their net win to the city and 1 percent to the county in which the gambling facility is located. The measure specifies that the payments to the GRI'F be in place of any state or local gambling -related taxes or fees enacted after September 1, 2003. The five racetracks also would be required to pay annual- ly an additional 20 percent of the net win on their slot machines. These funds would be administered by the California Horse Racing Board and used to benefit the horse racing industry, including the increase of race purses. Distribution of Gambling Revenues Payments based on net win would be made to the GRTF under either scenario—whether tribes revised their compacts or racetracks and card rooms operated slot machines. in either case, slot machine operators Analysis 55 PROP 68 NON -TRIBAL COMMERCIAL GAMBLING EXPANSION. TRIBAL GAMING COMPACT AMENDMENTS. REVENUES, TAX EXEMPTIONS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE. ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST (CONT.) Sites for Slot Machines at Racetracks and Card Rooms' California Grand Casino Pacheco Lucky Chances Casino Colina Artichoke Joe's Casino San Bruno Bay Meadows Racetrack San Mateo Golden Gate Fields Racetra Albany Alameda County A Racetrack • Card Room San Mateo County Commerce Casino Commerce Bicycle Club Casino Bell Gardens Crystal Park Casino Compton Hawaiian Gardens Casino Hawaiian Gardens Los Alamitos Racetrack Los Alamitos Hustler Casino Gardena _ Normandie Casino Gardena " Under measure's second scenario (see text). 56 Analysis Hollywood Park Casino Inglewood Hollywood Park Racetrack Inglewood NON -TRIBAL COMMERCIAL GAMBLING EXPANSION. TRIBAL GAMING COMPACT AMENDMENTS. REVENUES, TAX EXEMPTIONS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE. ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISI.,ATIVE ANALYST (CONT.) would be required to pay for annual audits of their reported net win and payments made to the GRTF. The measure establishes a five -member board appointed by the Governor to administer the GRTF. Figure 2 describes how funds in the GRTF would be distributed. The bulk of the funds would be distributed to local governments throughout the state for additional child protective, police, and firefighting services. DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS FROM THE GAMING REVENUE TRUST FUND ✓ First, payments would be made for three specific purposes: • Up to 1 percent of the funds for administrative costs of the initiative. • S3 million annually for "responsible gambling" programs. • Supplemental payments to tribes that do not operate slot machines or operate fewer than 350 machines. ✓ Second, remaining funds would be distributed to local governments throughout the state as follows: • 50 percent would be allocated to counties to provide services for abused and foster care children. The amount allocated to a county would be based on the number of child abuse referrals. • 35 percent to local governments (based on population) for additional sheriffs and police officers. • 15 percent to local governments (based on population) for additional firefighters. The measure also specifies that these funds could not replace funds already being used for the same purpose. Related Provisions in Proposition 70 Proposition 70 on this ballot also contains provisions affecting the number of slot machines authorized in the state. That measure would allow tribes entering a new or amended compact to expand the types of games authorized at casinos. It would also eliminate the exist- ing limits on the number of slot machines and facilities a tribe can operate. In exchange for the exclusive right to these types of gambling, tribes would pay the state a percentage of their net income from gambling activi- ties. The State Constitution provides that if the provi- sions of two approved propositions are in conflict, only the provisions of the measure with the higher number of yes votes at the statewide election take effect. FISCAL EFFECT The fiscal effect of the measure on state and local governments would depend on whether current corn- i.>acts arc revised or if racetracks and card rooms oper- ate slot machines. The fiscal effect under each scenario is discussed below. Revision of the Current Tribal -State Compacts Net Win Payments. While tribes do not publicly report information on their slot machine revenues, it is PROP 68 estimated that the machines are generating net win of over $5 billion annually in California. If the tribes agree to this measure's provisions, tribes would pay 25 percent of their slot machines' net win to the GRTF—potentially over $1 billion annually. These pay- ments would be provided primarily to local govern- ments to increase funding for child protective, police, and firefighting services. Existing Payments to the State. As described above, tribes under the 1999 and 2004 compacts pay hundreds of millions of dollars annually to the state for both spe- cific and general purposes. This measure does not specifically address whether these payments would con- tinue or cease under the coinpact revision process. As a result, it appears that the continuation of the payments would be subject to negotiation between the tribes and the Governor. If the revised compacts do not include a continuation of these payments, the state would experi- ence a reduction in payments—potentially totaling hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Expansion of Gambling at Card Rooms and Racetracks Net Win Payments. If the tribes do not agree to revise their compacts within the time required, specific card rooms and horse racing tracks would be authorized to operate up to 30,000 slot machines. These entities would pay 30 percent of the net win to the GRT. The amount of these payments would depend on the num- ber of slot machines in operation and their net win. These revenues could potentially be over $1 billion annually. These revenues would be provided primarily to local governments to increase funding for child pro- tective, police, and firefighting services. Additional Payments to Local Governments. Also under this scenario, the cities in which these establishments are located would collectively receive payments in the high tens of millions of dollars (2 percent of the net win). Counties in which these establishments are locat- ed would collectively receive payments of half of this amount (1 percent of the net win). The use of these funds is not restricted. Increased Taxable Economic Activity. If the tribes do not agree to the requirements of this measure, the expan- sion of gambling at card rooms and racetracks could result in an overall increase in the amount of taxable econorrtic activity in California. This would occur if, over time, there was a large diversion of gambling activ- ity and associated spending from other states to California. This would also be the case to the extent that the gambling authorized by this measure replaced existing tribal gambling activities (since much tribal activity is exempt from state taxation). This additional gambling -related activity would lead to an unknown increase in state and local tax revenues. Analysis 57 PROP >: 68 NON -TRIBAL COMMERCIAL GAMBLING EXPANSION. TRIBAL GAMING COMPACT AMENDMENTS. REVENUES, TAX EXEMPTIONS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE. Can we share some straight talk? Indian casinos are earning between $5 Billion and $8 Billion per year through a monopoly granted to them by the state of California. Under this monopoly, only Indian casinos can operate slot machines in California. But while the rest of us pay taxes on what we earn. the tribes pay almost nothing on their Billions of earnings— even though they use the same roads, schools, police, and fire and emergency medical services that we all pay for. Last year, one Indian Casino alone had a slot machine profit of over $300 million and paid no taxes. It's time Indian Casinos paid their Fair Share. In Connecticut and New York, Indian casinos pay the state up to a 25% Fair Share of their winnings in exchange for keeping their monopolies. Proposition 68 says to the Indian Tribes: You can keep your nwnopoly on slot machines, but only if you pay a 25% Fair Share Blur the Indian Casinos in .Connecticut and New Ibrk. The 25% Fair Share would go to pay for local police and fire services and local programs for abused, neglected, and foster children. The Tribes would also be required to comply with the same political campaign contribution and environmental protection laws that all of us already must comply with. Proposition 68 actually gives the Indian casinos a choice: If they pay their Fair Share, they keep their monopoly on slot machines. But if they don't, the state will also grant rights to a limited number of locations where gaming already exists. The Indians would keep operating their slots, but they'd get a little competition. A limited number of card clubs and horseracing tracks where gaming already exists would be allowed to add slot machines to their existing games. Proposition 68's promoters—card clubs and race- tracks—are using a bait -and -switch scheme. They want voters to think 68 is about "making the Indian tribes pay their fair share." It's not. It's really a deceptive attempt to change California's Constitution to create huge Las Vegas -size commercial casinos on non -Indian lands throughout California. In fact, the very organizations Prof. 68 promoters claim to help, overwhelmingly reject this deceptive measure: • Taxpayer groups OPPOSE Prop. 68 because IT WILL. HURT—NOT HELP—THE STATE'S BUDGET— not one dollar will go to reduce the state's deficit, and 68 exempts its promoters from paying any future state and local tax increases. • The California Police Chiefs Association, California State Firefighters Association, the California District Attorneys Association, and more than 30 County, Sheriffs OPPOSE because Prop. 68 means MORE CRiME AND HiGHER LAW ENFORCEMENT COSTS. Prop. 68 would place HUGE NEW CASINOS on non -Indian lands in our cities and suburbs - 58 Arguments These card clubs and horseracing tracks are located in the cities of: Arcadia, Bell Gardens, Commerce, Compton. Cypress, Gardena, Hawaiian Gardens, Inglewood. and Oceanside in Southern California and in the cities of Albany, Colma, Pacheco, San Bruno, and San Mateo in Northern California. Unlike Indian casinos. the card clubs and racetracks would pay 33% of their revenues from the slot machines to local government. With California's current budget crisis, we need the money. According to the state's former Legislative Analyst, Bill Hamm, Proposition 68 will generate nearly $2 Billion every year—monies that will he sent directly to all local governments around the state with all communities bene- fiting equally. It isn't fair that the tribes can build casinos wherever they want and make Billions of dollars through a monop- oly granted by the state without paying taxes or a Fair Share like the rest of us. But Proposition 68 is fair. It doesn't take any rights away from the Indian Casinos. But it says that if Indian Casinos won't pay a Fair Share to support local public services like all of us, then they can't keep a state monopoly to them- selves. You can't have it both ways. It's time for the Indian Casinos to pay their Fair Share. We urge you to Vote YES on Proposition 68. LEE BACA, Murrill County of Los Angeles LOU BLANAS, Sheriff County of Sacramento ROY BURNS, President Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS) 30,000 new slot machines NEAR MORE THAN 200 SCHOOLS. • Education leaders and child advocates OPPOSE because Prop. 68 WILL END UP COSTING OUR SCHOOLS MILLIONS, hurting our kids. • Public safety and local government leaders OPPOSE because Prop. fib mutes MORE TRAFFIC CONGESTION on already overcrowded freeways and surface streets. Please join Governor Schwarzenegger, law enforce- ment, firefighters, educators, parents, Indian tribes, busi- ness, labor, seniors, local government, environmentalists, and taxpayer groups, and VOTE NO ON 68. STOP THE DECEPTIVE GAMBLING PROPOSI- T1.ON. It's a bad deal for all Californians. Please VOTE NO on PROPOSITION 68. CARLA NINO, President Calijo -1,in State PTA DAViD W. PAUISON, President Cali/ornia District Attorneys Association MIKE SPENCE, /resident Cali/urnia Taxpayers Protection Committee NON -TRIBAL COMMERCIAL GAMBLING EXPANSION. TRIBAL GAMING COMPACT AMENDMENTS. REVENUES, TAX EXEMPTIONS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE. GU,MENT ,Against Proposition Message front. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegge7: "I am officially opposed to Proposition 68, and 1 strongly urge you to VOTE NO." This measure is not what it seems. While proponents claim the measure will force Indian gaming tribes to pay their fair share to the state, Proposition 68 does nothing of the sort. Proposition 68 is not a guaranteed source of revenues for California from Indian gaming tribes. Instead it authorizes 16 new Las Vegas -style casinos to be built in urban areas throughout California. Governor Schwarzenegger has a vision for California that does NOT include making our state the next pot of gold for commercial casino gambling interests. Governor Schwarzenegger believes casino gaming should be limited to Indian lands. THE NEW AGREEMENTS 'S GOVERNOR SCIIWARZENEGGER NEGOTIATED WITH MANY INDIAN GAMING TRIBES ARE A WINNER FOR TRIBES AND TAXPAYERS. These agreements keep California's promise to Indian tribes while making thein pay their fair share. They promote cooperation between tribes and local governments to deal with the impact on law eriforcement, traffic congestion, and road construction. Unfortunately, Proposition 68 could destroy these new agreements. The 16 new casinos authorized by Proposition 68 are located in urban areas of California. They will be near 200 schools and major streets and freeways in Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay Area and San Diego, further congesting our crowded roads. NOT A SINGLE PENNY FROM THIS INITIATIVE CAN BE USED TO HELP BALANCE THE STATE BUDGET. Further, the promoters of Proposition 68 have written it so they are exempt from paying any future increases in state and local taxes. GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER JOINS MORE THAN 400 PUBLIC SAFETY, TAXPAYER, AND OTHER LEADERS IN SAYING: VOTE NO ON 68 California Police Chiefs Association, California State Firefighters' Association, California Coalition of Law "[Arnold Schwarzenegger] wants to renegotiate gam- ing compacts with casino -operating Indian tribes in the hopes of getting tribes to share revenue with the state. He noted tribes pay Connecticut 25 percent of their rev- enues, and said such an an-angcment could pay for 'thousands of police officers, thousands of teachers.' " Sacramento Bee, Sept. 24, 2003 We agreed then and we agree now. It makes zero sense for the overwhelming majority of Indian casi- nos—a $6–$8 billion industry—to operate in California while paying virtually nothing to support the common good. It's time for these immensely profitable Indian casinos to give something back to the state that has given them the most lucrative gaming monopoly in history. It's time for the people of California to get their fair share. Proposition 68 isn't a blank check for the politicians in Sacramento. It requires a real and meaningful fair share payment that must be used to hire local police and PROP= 68 Enforcement Associations, California District Attorneys Association. More than 50 California Indian Tribes. State Treasurer Phil Angelides, State Controller Steve Westly, Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell, Crime Victims United of California, Peace Officers Research Association of California. Sierra Club California, California School Boards Association, The Seniors Coalition, Prevent Child Abuse California, California Taxpayer Protection Committee. AND 34 COUNTY SHERIFFS: • Sherif/James Allen • Sherif/ Terry Bergstrand • Sheriff Virginia Black • Sheriff Ed Bonner • Sheriff Bob Brooks • Sheriff Bill Coghill • Sheriff Anthony Craver • Sheriff John Crawford • SherijJJim Denney • .Sheriff Bob Doyle • Sheriff Robert Doyle • Sheriff Bill Freitas • Sheriff Curtis Hill • Sheriff William Kolender • Sheriff Dan Lucas • Sheriff Ken Marvin, Ret. • Sheriff Scott Marshall • .Sheriff Rodney Mitchell • Sheriff Bruce Mix • Sheriff Daniel Paranick • Sherif Clay Parker • Sheriff Gary Penrod • Sheriff Charles Plummer • Sheriff Jim Pope • Sheriff Ed Prieto • Sheriff Michael Prizmich • Sheriff Perry Reniff • Sheriff Richard Rogers • Sheriff Warren Rupf • Sheriff Robert • Shadley. Jr. • Sheriff Gary Simpson • Sheriff Gary Stanton • Sheriff Mark Tracy • Sheriff Dean Wilson. PROP. 68 WOULD RESULT IN A HUGE EXPANSION OF CASINO GAMBLING ON NON -INDIAN LANDS. It's a sweetheart deal for the gambling interests behind it, another broken promise to Indian tribes, and a bad deal for the rest of us. VOTE NO ON 68. STOP THE DECEPTIVE GAMBLING PROPOSITION. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor State of California JEFF SEDIVEC, President California State Firefighters' Association WAYNE QUINT, JR., President California Coalition of Law Enforcement Associatwns sheriffs, keep local fire stations open, and fund proven educational programs for abused and neglected children. To make sure it's truly fair, we give the Indian casinos the final choice. They choose to make this 25% contribu- tion—just as they do in New York and Connecticut. Otherwise, the state will allow limited and highly regulat- ed competition with an even bigger financial return to California's communities. Before you make your decision, please read the initia- tive. We think you'll agree: it's time the Indian casinos did the right thing. And pay their fair share. [.EE BACA, Sheriff County of Los Angeles LOU BLANAS, Sheriff County of Sacramento ROY BURNS. President Association of Los Angeles Deputy .Sherif/s (A LADS) Arguments 59 l i TEXT OF PROPOSED LAWS Proposition 67 (cant.) poses by a statute passed in each house by rollcall vote entered in the journal, four-fifths of the membership concurring. SECTION 11. Operative Date This act shall become effective immediately upon its adoption by the people, however it shall not become operative until January I in the year following its adoption. SECTION 12. Severability If any provision of this act, or part thereof, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining provisions shall not be affected, but shall remain in full force and effect, and to this end the pro- visions of this act are severable. In addition, the provisions of this act are intended to be in addition to and not in conflict with any other ini- tiative measure that may be adopted by the people at the same electidn, and the provisions of this act shall be interpreted and construed so as to avoid conflicts with any such measure whenever possible. In the event the distribution of funds from any of the accounts established by subdi- vision (c), (d). (e), (f), or (g) of Section 41135 of the Revenue and Taxation Code is permanently enjoined or invalidated by final judicial action that is not subject to appeal, the funds in any such account shall be continuously transferred to all other accounts in the 911 Emergency and Trauma Care Fund on the same basis as funds arc allocated to such accounts by Section 41135 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. Funds remaining in the account shall be allocated as many times as necessary to reduce the account balance to ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or less. SECTION 13. Conformity with State Constitution SEC. 13.1. Section 14 is added to Article XIII B of the California Constitution. to read: SEC. 14. 'Appropriations subject to limitation" of each entity of government shall not include appropriations of revenue from the 911 Emergency and Trauma Care Fund created by the 911 Emergency and Trauma Cam, Act. No adjustment in the appropriations limit of any entity ofgovernment shall he required pursuant to Section 3 as a result of revenue being deposited in or appropriated. from the 91/ 'Emergency and Trauma Can Fund. The surcharge created by the 911 Emergency and Tr oma Care Act shall not be considered General Fund revenues for the purposes of Sections 8 and 8.5 of Article XVI. Proposition 68 This initiative measure is submitted to the people of California in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of Article II of the California Constitution. This initiative measure amends provisions of, and adds sections to, the California Constitution and the Business and Professions Code and the Government Code: therefore, existing provisions proposed to be deleted are printed in hype and new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new. PROPOSED LAW THE GAMING REVENUE ACT OF 2004 SECTION 1. Title. This act shall be known as and may be cited as the "Gaming Revenue Act of 2004." This act may also be cited as the "Gaming Revenue Act" or the "act." SEC. 2. Findings and Purpose. The people of the State of California hereby make the following findings and declare that their purpose in enacting this act is as follows: (a) California now faces an unprecedented budget deficit of billions of dollars that particularly threatens funding for education, police pro- tection, and fire safety. As a result of California's budget crisis, the state needs to find new ways to generate revenues without raising taxes. In March 2000, Proposition IA was enacted, which triggered an unprece- dented expansion of Indian casino gaming, gave Indian tribes a monop- oly on casino gaming, and has led to billions of dollars in profits for Indian tribes, but little or no taxes to the state. Moreover, local govern- ments and communities have not been adequately protected, the state does not have sufficient regulation and oversight of tribal casino gam- ing, and tribal casinos have not complied with state laws applicable to other businesses and designed to protect California citizens, such as laws regarding the environment and political contributions. Gaming tribes also have failed to fully fund a trust fund to promote the welfare of Indian tribes that do not operate large casinos. Some Indian tribes have attempted to acquire land far away from their reservations or tradi- tional lands to be used as casinos and not for use as traditional reserva- tions. Tribes have expended over one hundred twenty million dollars ($120,000,000) in political contributions but have refused to comply with disclosure requirements. (b) California should request that all Indian gaming tribes voluntar- ily share some of their gaming profits with the state that can be used to support public education, and local police and fire services, and address other problems associated with tribal casino gaming, and in the event all Indian gaming tribes do not do so, California should grant gaming rights to other persons who will share substantial revenue with the state that can be used to support public education and local police and fire services. (c) The Governor should be authorized to negotiate amendments to all existing compacts with Indian tribes to allow these Indian tribes to con- tinue to have the exclusive right to operate gaming devices in the State of California if the Indian tribes agree to pay 25 percent of their winnings from such devices to a gaming revenue trust fund and agree to comply with state laws, including laws governing environmental protection, gam- ing regulation, and campaign contributions and their public disclosure. 130 Text of Proposed Laws (d) In the event all Indian tribes with existing compacts do not agree to these terms, five existing horse racing tracks and II existing gambling establishments, where forms of legal gambling and wagering already occur, should have the right to operate a limited number of gam- ing devices, provided they pay 33 percent of their winnings from the operation of such gaming devices to cities, counties, and a gaming rev- enue trust fund to be used for education, and police and fire services, and provided they comply with strict legal requirements on the opera- tion and location of such gaming devices. (e) In addition to paying substantial taxes, the owners of gambling establishments and horse racing tracks authorized to operate gaming devices would have to be licensed by the California Gambling Control Commission under the Gambling Control Act, which requires that they be persons of good character, honesty, and integrity, and persons whose prior activities, reputation and associations entitle them to receive a license from the state. (f) Permitting five existing horse racing tracks and I I licensed gam- bling establishments to operate gaming devices and requiring them to pay 33 percent of their winnings from these gaming devices will gener- ate revenues estimated to exceed one billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) annually. These funds will help alleviate California's dire fiscal crisis,. which particularly threatens funding for education, police protection, and fire safety, and will help mitigate the impact on cities and counties where gaming occurs. (g) The Gaming Revenue Act will establish the Gaming Revenue Trust Fund, the sole purpose of which will be to ensure that the revenues raised by this act are distributed in accordance with the act. The act will also establish a board of trustees consisting of individuals who arc engaged in public school education, law enforcement, and fire protection. (h) The Gaming Revenue Act will provide funding for the existing Division of Gambling Control and the existing California Gambling Control Commission for the purpose of regulating gaming authorized by this act. (i) The Gaming Revenue Act will increase the moneys distributed to non -gaming Indian tribes by guaranteeing that each such tribe will receive at least one million two hundred thousand dollars (S1,200,000) annually, and will award three million dollars ($3,000,000) annually to responsible gambling programs. (j) The Gaming Revenue Act Trust Fund will distribute 50 percent of the net revenues directly to county boards of education to be used to improve educational services for abused and neglected children and children in foster care. (k) The Gaming Revenue Act Trust Fund will distribute 35 percent of the net revenues directly to local governments for additional neigh- borhood sheriffs and police officers. (I) The Gaming Revenue Act Trust Fund will distribute 15 percent of the net revenues directly to local governments for additional firefighters. tm1 The revenues generated for county offices of education for improving the educational outcomes of abused and neglected children and children in foster care and local governments for police protection and fire safety by this act arc not to be used as substitute funds hut rather shall supplement the total amount of money allocated for county offices of education and local governments. TEXT OF PROPOSED LAWS 411110115171111119111 AIDISM1101=11 Proposition 68 (emit.) tribes on Indian lands in California in accordance with federal law. Accordingly, islet-mnzltineti gaming devices, lottery games, and banking and percentage card games are hereby permitted to be conduct- ed and operated on tribal lands subject to those compacts. f (g) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the Legislature may author- ize private. nonprofit, eligible organizations, as defined by the Legislature, to conduct raffles as a funding mechanism to provide sup- port for their own or another private, nonprofit, eligible organization's beneficial and charitable works, provided that (I) at least 90 percent of the gross receipts from the raffle go directly to beneficial or charitable purposes in California, and (2) any person who receives compensation in connection with the operation of a raffle is an employee of the private nonprofit organization that is conducting the raffle. The Legislature, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, may amend the percentage of gross receipts required by this subdivision to be dedicat- ed to beneficial or charitable purposes by means of a statute that is signed by the Governor. (h) Notwithstanding subdivisions (e) and (/). and any other previ- sion of state tau: the Governor is authorized to negotiate and conclude amendments to all existing compacts with all Indian tribes in accor- dance with the provisions of this subdivision. An "existing compact" means a gaming compact entered into between the Slate and an Indian tribe prior to the effective date of the Gaming Revenue Act 9f22004. All compacts amended pursuant to this subdivision shall include the follow- ing terms. conditions, and requirements: (1) The Indian tribe shall agree to pay 25 percent ()fits net win from all gaining devices operated by it or on its behalf to the Gaining Revenue Trust Fund. Such payments shall be made monthly and shall be due within 30 days of the end of each month. "Net win " means the wagering revenue frown all gaining devices operated hi' the Indian tribe or on its behalf retained after prizes or winnings have been paid to play- ers or to pools dedicated to the payment of such prizes and winnings. and prior to the payment ofoperuting or other expenses. Such payments shall commence immediately after federal approval of the amended compact. (2) The Indian tribe shall agree to report to the Division of Gambling Control the net win on all gaining devices operated by or on behalf of it. Such reports shall be submitted monthly. shall he due with- in 30 days of the end of each month, and shall be available to the pub- lic upon request. (3) The Indian tribe shall agree to pay for an annual audit per- formed by an independent firm of certified public accountants approved by the California Gambling Control Commission to ensure that the net win is properly reported and the pavement is properly paid to the Gaming Revenue Trust Fund. The audit report shall be available to the public upon request. (4) The Indian tribe shall agree to comply with the California Political Reform Act. (5) The Indian tribe shall agree that its casino facilities shall com- ply with the California Enyimnmental Quality Act. (6) The Indian tribe shall agree to enter into good faith negotiations with any city or county within which the Indian lands are located where class III gaming is conducted to mitigate local gaming -related impacts within a reasonable time following the State's execution of the compact. The state courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction to resolve any dispute regarding the failure to reach an agreement or the enforcement of the agreement. (7) The Indian tribe shall agree to comply with all provisions of the Gambling Control Act, and shall agree to lie subject to the jurisdiction of the California Gambling Control Commission and Division of Gambling Control. (8) The Indian tribe shall agree that state courts shall have exclu- sive jurisdiction over any criminal or civil proceeding arising from or related to the Gaming Revenue Act, arising flan: or related to the coni - pact, or arising from or related to any act or incident occurring on the premises of a tribal casino. The powers of the :State and the applicability of state law to Indian tribes and Indian casinos pursuant to this subdivision are to he con- strued consistently with the fullest extent of States rights and powers under federal law to reach agreements with Indian tribes with tribal con- sent. No tribe with an existing conn/.,act is required by this subdivision to agree to amend its existing compact. Nothing in the Gaming Revenue Act of 2004 :waives or restricts the civil or criminaljuri.sdiction of the State under Public Law 2h0 (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1162), and the State may not waive such jurisdiction in any compacts. Text of Proposed Laws 131 (n) Indian tribes have attempted to acquire land at locations off of their reservations or distant from their traditional Indian lands to be used solely as casinos and not for use as traditional reservations. Gaming on these newly acquired lands would be detrimental to the sur- rounding communities. Therefore, the Gaming Revenue Act prohibits the location of gaming establishments by Indian tribes on newly or recently acquired lands. (o) In order to reasonably restrict the growth of non -Indian gam- ing, non -Indian gaming authorized by this act will be limited to the sites of five existing horse racing tracks located in the Counties of Alameda, Los Angeles, Orange, and San Mateo, and the sites of I I existing gambling establishments located in the Counties of Los Angeles, San Diego, Contra Costa, and San Mateo. To ensure that there are no new gambling establishments other than those in exis- tence as of the enactment of the act, the current limitation on the issuance of new gambling licenses. which expires in 2007, will be made permanent. The purpose of such restriction is to exercise control over the proliferation of gambling. (p) The expansion of Indian gaming has led to conflicts between tribes and local governments. In some cases. tribes have failed to take sufficient steps to address local concerns and impacts. Therefore, this act will authorize the Governor to negotiate amendments to all existing compacts pursuant to which all tribes agree to enter into good faith negotiations with county and city governments to address and mitigate community impacts. (q) To clarify legal jurisdiction over Indian casinos, state courts should have jurisdiction over any criminal or civil proceeding arising under this act, under a compact. or related to a tribal casino. Therefore, this act will authorize the Governor to negotiate amendments to all existing compacts pursuant to which all tribes agree that state courts will have jurisdiction over such disputes. (r) Indian tribes have used their gambling profits to spend well over one hundred twenty million dollars ($120,000,000) on campaign contri- butions and political activities in California. But some Indian tribes maintain that they are sovereign nations and do not have to comply with California's laws and regulations relating to political contributions and reporting. Because these tribal political expenditures result substantial- ly from, and often concern, gaming activities in California, this act will authorize the Governor to negotiate amendments to all existing com- pacts pursuant to which all tribes agree to comply with the California Political Reform Act. (s) While some terms of this act concern conditions tribal casinos must meet if Indian tribes are to retaina monopoly over slot machines, it is the express intent of the voters to raise revenues immediately through this initiative to help solve California's current fiscal crisis, regardless of whether those revenues come from tribal or non -tribal gaming, regardless of court decisions regarding Indian gaming, regardless of changes in federal law, or regardless of any challenges or efforts by the Indian tribes or others to delay or circumvent this act. Therefore, if all Indian tribes with existing compacts do not agree to share with the state 25 percent of their winnings from gaming devices and do not agree to the other conditions on tribal gaming set forth in this act within the time limits provided in this act, it is the express intent of the voters to immediately allow licensed gambling establish- ments and authorized horse racing tracks to operate a limited number of gaming devices, provided they pay 33 percent of their winnings from the operation of such gaming devices to cities. counties, and the Gaming Revenue Trust Fund. SEC. 3. Section 19 of Article IV of the California Constitution is amended to read: SEC. 19. (a) The Legislature has no power to authorize lotteries and shall prohibit the sale of lottery tickets in the State. (b) The Legislature may provide for the regulation of horse races and horse race meetings and wagering on the results. (c) Notwithstanding subdivision (a). the Legislature by statute may authorize cities and counties to provide for bingo games. but only for charitable purposes. (d) Notwithstanding subdivision (a). there is authorized the estab- lishment of a California State Lottery. (c) The Legislature has no power to authorize, and shall prohibit, casinos of the type currently operating in Nevada and New Jersey. (f) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (c), and any other provi- sion of state law, the Governor is authorized to negotiate and conclude compacts, subject to ratification by the Legislature. for the operation of sLL,t ..a.chin c gaining devices and for the conduct of lottery games and banking and percentage card games by federally recognized Indian • TEXT OF PROPOSED LAWS • Proposition 68 (cont.) (i) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (e). and am other provi- sion of state or local law, in the event amendments to all existing conn - pacts with all Indian tribes, as provided in subdivision (h1. are not entered into and submitted to the Secretary of the Interior within 90 days of the effective date 011ie Gaming Revenue Act of 2004, owners of authorized gambling establishments and owners of authorized horse racing tracks shall immediately thereafter he authorized to operate not more than a combined total of30,000 gaming devices. In the event trib- al monopolies are adjudicated to be illegal, in the event the amended compacts are not approved or considered approved pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. or in the event subdivision (h) is inval- idated or delayed more than 90 days after this act would otherwise take effect, by the State, the federal government, or any court. owners of authorized gambling establishments and owners of authorized hake racing Hacks shall immediately thereafter he authorized to operate the gaming devices authorized by this section. For purposes of this act. "authorized gambling establishment" shall mean a site in the Counties of Los.4ngeles, San Diego. Contra Costa. or San Mateo at which 14 or more gaming tables were authorized to be operated as of September I. 2003. pursuant to the Gambling Connol.4ct, except such sites that were actually taken into trust far an Indian tribe or Indians after September 1. 2003. For purposes 011ie Gaming Revenue Act of 2004. "authorized horse racing track" shall mean a site in the Counties of Alameda. Los Angeles. ()lunge, or San Mateo at which horse racing was conducted by a thoroughbred racing association or quarter horse racing associa- lion that was licensed pursuant to the Horse Racing Law to conduct more than 50 days or nights of racing in 2002. For purposes of the Gaining Revenue Act of 2004, "site" shall mean the real property on which an authorized horse racing track or an authorized gambling establishment was located as of September h 2003, and shall include real property adjacent to the site. The operation of these gaining devices shall be subject to the following provisions: (1) Payments. (A) Owners of authorized gambling establishments and authorized horse racing tracks shall pay 30 percent of the net win from gaining devices operated by then; to the Gaming Revenue Trust Fund created pursuant to this section. Such payments shall be made monthly and shall he due within 30 days of the end of each month. "Net win" means the wagering revenue from gaining devices operated pursuant to the Gaining Revenue Act of 2004. retained after prizes or winnings have been paid to players or to pools dedicated to the payment ofsuch prizes and winnings, and prior to the payment of operating or other expenses. (B) Owners of authorized gambling establishments and authorized horse racing tracks shall report to the Division of Gambling Control the net win on al! gaining devices operated by or on behalf of them. Such reports shall be submitted monthly shall be due within 30 days of the end of each month, and shall be available to the public upon request. (C) Owners of authorized gambling establishments and authorized horse racing tracks shall pay for an annual audit per/'armed by an inde- pendent firm of certified public accountants approved by the California Ganihling Control Commission to ensure that the net win is properly reported and the payment is properly paid to the Gaining Revenue Trust Fund. The audit report shall he available to the public upon request. (D) Owners of authorized gambling establishments and authorized horse racing tracks shall pay 2 percent of their respective net win Ervin gaining devices operated by them to the city in which each authorized horse racing track and authorized gambling establishment is located. In the event an authorized gambling establishment or an authorized horse racing track is not located within the boundaries of a city; the payment imposed by the Gaming Revenue Act of 2004, shall be made to the county in which the authorized gambling establishment or authorized horse racing track is located. Such payments shall he made monthly and shall be due within 30 days of the end of each month. (E) Owners of authorized gambling establishments and authorized horse racing tracks shall pay 1 percent of their respective net win front gaming devices operated by them to the county in which each author- ized gambling establishment and authorized horse racing track is locat- ed. Such payments .shall 1w made monthly and shall be due within 30 days of the end ()leach month. (2) Number and Location of Authorized Gaming Devices. (.4) .4 total of 30,000 gaming devices are authorized to he operated by owners of authorized horse racing tracks and owners of authorized gambling establishments. which ane allocated as follows: (i) lin- authorized horse racing tracks: 132 Text of Proposed Laws Three thousand gaming devices for each authorized !horse racing track In order to ensure the maximum generation of revenue for the Gaming Revenue Trust Fund, in the event that the owners of an author- ized horse racing truck for any reason cease to have or lose the right to operate any of the gaining devices authorized by the Gaming Revenue Act of 2004, the gashing devices allocated to that authorized horse rac- ing track shall he reallocated equally among the remaining authorized horse racing tracks. Notwithstanding the limit of 3.000 gaming devices, owners of authorized horse racing tracks may also transfer, sell. license, or assign their rights to own and operate one or more gaming devices to other authorized horse racing tracks or authorized gambling establish- ments, but in no event shall the total number of gaming devices author- ized to he operated at an authorized horse racing track exceed 3.800. The owners of gaming devices that are reallocated. or are transferred. sold, licensed, or assigned pursuant to this clause shall make the distri- butions required by Section 19609 of the Business and Professions Code. (ii) For authorized gambling establishments: (I) Authorized gambling estahlislunenls located in Los Angeles County authorized as of September I, 2003. to operate 100 or more gaining tables shall he authorized to operate 1.700 gaming devices each; authorized gambling establishments in Los .4ngeles Count- authorized as of September I. 2003, to operate between 14 and 99 gain- ing tables shall he authorized to operate 1.000 gaming devices each: arid cell oilier authorized gambling establishments shall be authorized to operate 800 gaining devices each. (/l) Licensed gambling establishments that are not authorized gam- bling establishments wider this section shall be licensed far faur gam- ing devices for each table authorized pursuant to the Gambling Control Act as of September 1. 2003, up to a maximum of 2,000 gaining devices in total, which they cannot operate at their gambling establishments. but may transfer, sell, or assign the rights to own or operate such gam- ing devices to authorized gambling establishments. (III) In order to ensure the maxinuan generation of revenue for the Gaming Revenue Trust Fund, in the event the owners of an authorized gambling establishment described in subclause (1) for any reason cease to have or lose the right to operate any of the gaming devices author- ized by the Gaining Revenue Act of 2004, these gaming devices shall be transferred or allocated to authorized gambling establishments pro rata according to the allocation in subclause (I). Notwithstanding the limi- tation on gaining devices imposed by subclause (q. authorized gam- bling establishments may also transfer sell, license, or assign their rights to own and operate one or more gaining devices to other author- ized gambling establishments or authorized horse racing tracks, but in no event shall the total number of gaming devices authorized to the operated at an authorized gambling establishment exceed 1.900. (1Y) In the event that the allocation of gaming devices set forth in clause (ii) exceeds /5.000, the gaming devices authorized pursuant to subclause (ll) shall be reduced ratably to bring the total number of gaming devices allocated to all authorized gambling establishments to 15.000 or less. (B) The owners of an authorized horse racing track may, in accor- dance with provisions of applicable law, relocate its racing meeting to another site whether or not it is an authorized horse racing truck, or discontinue its racing operation. In the event they do .so, however, the gaming devices authorized to he operated by them may only be oper- ated at an authorized horse racing track or an authorized gambling establishment. (C) In wrier to 'ensure the maximum generation of revenue for the Gaining Revenue •'rust Fund. the owner or operator of an authorized horse racing track and the owner or operator of an authorized gam- bling establishment whose facilities are located in the same city may agree upon the maximum number of gaining devices that may he oper- ated at each such facility, subject to approval of any such agreement by the California Gambling Control Commission, which shall make its decision of whether to approve any such agreement based upon a determination that any such agreement is in the interests of regulated gaming in the State of California. Any such agreement approved by the California Gambling Control Commission shall not exceed three years in duration. 0) Suspension of Authorization. The authorization to operate gaming devices and to transfer. .sell. or assign rights to gaming devices pursuant to this subdivision may be sus- pended hx the Cali/in•nio Gambling Control Commission for f rilun' to make the payments imposed by this .subdivision within 30 dank of such payments becoming due. • TEXT OF PROPOSED LAWS Proposition, 68 (cont.) (i) Fif s percent to county offices of education to provide services for abused and neglected children and children in luster care. These moneys shall be allocated to each county office of education according to each county:s proportionate share of the annual statewide total of child abuse referral reports for the prior calendar year and shall he used to improve educational outcomes of abused and neglected children and children in foster care. Each county office of education shall allo- cate these finds to county child protective services agencies to provide these services. Funds received by each county child protective services agency shall be used for the following purposes: (I) Out -stationing county child protective services social workers in schools. • (II) Providing appropriate caseloads to ensure that pro(ssional staff will have sufficient time to provide services necessary to improve the educational outcomes of abused and neglected children and chil- dren in foster care. (1/l) Providing services to children in faster care to minimize mid- year transfers from school to school. (l1') Hiring juvenile court workers whose responsibility it is to ensure the implementation of court orders issued by juvenile court judges affecting a foster child's educational performance. Each county child protective services agency shall he subject to all accountability standards including student performance. enrollment. school stability, and performance measured by the percentage of chil- dren at grade level on standardized tests. as provided hr slate and fed- eral law Each county child protective services agency shall use fiends received pursuant to this section in a manner that maximizes the couut- ties'ability to obtain federal notching dollars f r services to children in the child protective services .system. (ii) Thirty-five percent to local governments on a per capita basis for additional neighborhood sheriffs and police officers. (iii) Fifteen percent to local governments on a per capita basis for - additional. firefighters. (k) The Governor shall not consent. concur, or agree to the location of any tribal casinos on newly acquired land pursuant to 25 U.S.C. Sec. 2719(b)(1)(A). Further, any compact entered into by the State pur- suant to 25 U.S.C. Sec. 2710(d) shall only be for class III gaming on Indian lands actually taken into trust by t)se United States for the bene- fit of an Indian tribe prior to September I. 2003, except for land con- tiguous to reservations existing as of that date. SEC. 4. Section 19609 is added to the Business and Professions Code, to read: 19609. (a) Unless otherwise defined in this chapter, the terms used in this section shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Gaping Revenue Act of 2004 ("the act ,. (b) Three-quarters of 1 percent of the net win ,from all gaming devices operated by. or on behalf of owners of authorized horse racing tracks upon which a thoroughbred racing meeting was conducted in 2002 shall be distributed for thoroughbred incentive awards and shall be payable to the applicable official registering agency and thereafter distributed as provided in the California Horse Racing Lass•. (c) One and one-half percent of the net win from all gaming devices operated by: or on behalf of owners of authorized hose racing tracks upon which a thoroughbred racing meeting was conducted in 2002 shall be distributed to each of those thoroughbred racing associations and racing fairs that are not authorized horse racing tracks in the same rel- ative proportions that such thoroughbred racing associations or racing fairs generated conmsissions during the preceding calendar year .4 les- see of an authorized horse racing track as of the effective date of the act shall not be deemed to be an authorized horse racing track for the pur- poses of this section. (d) Seventeen and three-quarters percent of the net win from all gaming devices operated hy or on behalf of owners of authorized horse racing tracks upon which a thoroughbred racing meeting was conduct- ed in 2002 shall be pooled ("the pooled net win') and .shall be distrib- uted in the ffirm ofposes for thoroughbred horses in accordance with the provisions of this subdivision. (1) The pooled net win shall lie allocated to tlsoroughbied racing associations and racing fairs throughout the State of Culi/brnia and shall he distributed among each of them in .such manner as to equal- ize on an average daily basis purses for thoroughbred races other than stakes and special events. Notwithstanding the foregoing, pooled net win nsav be allocated to supplement purses far thoroughbred races so the thoroughbred racing associations and racing faits may maintain Text of Proposed Laws 133 (4) Prohibition on Additional Fees, Taxes, and Levies. The payments imposed pursuant to the Gaming Revenue Act of 2004 are in lieu of any and all other fees, taxes, or levies, including, but not limited to, revenue. receipt, or personal property tares, that may be charged or imposed. directly or indirectly. against authorized horse rac- ing trucks or authorized gambling establishments, their patrons. gaining devices, employers. or suppliers, by the State. cities, or counties. except- ing fees, taxes, or levies that were in effect and imposed prior to September 1. 2003, that applied to horse racing and controlled games with cards or tiles, or that are applied generally to commercial activi- ties, including sales and use, income, corporate, or real property tares. The physical expansion of gaming facilities or the operation of gaming devices authorized by the Gaming Revenue .4ct of 2004 shall not be con- sidered an enlargement ofgaining operations under any local ordinance related to fees, taxes, or levies. (5) Licenses. The owners of authorized gambling establishments and the owners of authorized horse racing tracks shall be licensed by the California Gambling Control Commission under the Gambling Control Act. (6) Other Laws. The Ginning Revenue Act of 2004 shall supercede any inconsistent provisions of state. city, or county law relating to gaining devices. including, but not limited to, laws regarding the transportation, manu- facture. operation. sale, lease, .storage, ownership, licensing, repair. or use of gaining devices authorized in this act. In order to encourage the maximum generation of revenue for the Gaming Revenue Trust Fund, the operation of gaming devices authorized pursuant to the Gaming Revenue Act of 2004 is not subject to any prohibition in state or local law now existing or hereafter enacted. r) Gaming Revenue Trust Fund. (1) There is hereby established the Gaining Revenue Trust Fund in the State Treasury that shall receive all payments pursuant to the requirements of subdivisions (h) and (i). (2) There is hereby established the board of trustees to administer the Gaming Revenue Trust Fund. The board of trustees shall be com- prised offive members appointed by the Governor. Of the five members. two shall he engaged in public school education. one shall be engaged in last enforcement, one shall be engaged in fire protection, and one shall be a certified public accountant. Each member shall be a citizen of the United States and a resident of this state. No more than three of the five members shall be members of the sane political party. Of the members initially appointed. two shall be appointed for a tern of two years, two shall be appointed for a term of three years. and one shall be appointed fir a term of four years. After the initial terms. the term of office of each member shall be four years. The Governor shall appoint the members and shall designate one member to serve as the initial chairperson. The initial chairperson shall serve as chairperson for the length of his or her term. Thereafter, the chairperson shall be selected by the hoard of trustees. The initial appointments shall be made within three months of the operative date of the Gaming Revenue Act of 2004. The board of trustees shall approve all transfers of mon- eys from the Gaming Revenue Trust Fund. The board of trustees shall engage an independent firm of certified public accountants to conduct an annual audit of all accounts and transactions of the Gaining Revenue Trust Fund. (3) 7'he moneys in the Gaming Revenue Trust ['Wild shall he distrib- uted as follows: (A) Not more than i percent of the moneys annually to the Division of Gambling Control and the California Gambling Control Commission ,for the cost of carrying out administrative duties pursuant to the Gaining Revenue Act of 2004. and for reimbursement of airy state department or agency that provides any service pursuant to the provi- sions optic Gaming Revenue Act of 2004. (B) Moneys .sufficient to guarantee that each non -gaming tribe shall receive one million two hundred thousand dollars ($1,200,000) annual- ly from the Indian Gaining Revenue Sharing Trust Fund as codified in the Government Code. "Non -gaming tribe" shall mean a federally rec- ognized Indian tribe which operates fewer than 350 gaming devices. (C) Three million dollars ($3,000,000) to he awarded annually by the board of trustees to responsible gambling programs. ID) .4 filer the distributions required pursuant to .subparagraphs (A), (Ip). and (C), the remaining moneys .shall be distributed as follows: TEXT OF PROPOSED LAWS Proposition 68 (cont.) up to their historic relative proportions between overnight races, and stakes races and special events. Increases in the aggregate amount of purses for stakes races of thoroughbred racing associations and rac- ing fairs resulting from pooled net win contributions shall be deter- mined in accordance with an agreement signed by all the thorough- bred racing associations and the organization responsible,fur negoti- ating thoroughbred purse agreements on behalf of thoroughbred horsemen. (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (I). the funds dis- tributable to thoroughbred racing associations and racing fairs from the pooled net win shall he allocated in such a manner as to cause average daily proses for thoroughbred races. other than stakes races and spe- cial events, to he the percentages of the average daily purses tier surh races conducted by thoroughbred racing associations in the central and southern zone as set forth below: (A) Ninety percent for thoroughbred racing associations in the northern zone; (B) .Sixty five percent for a racing fair in the central zone; (C) Fifty percent fir racing fairs in the northern zone other than the Humboldt County Fair; (D) Seven and one-half percent Ar the Humboldt County Fair. (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of this subdivision to the con- trary, the allocation of purses among the thoroughbred racing associa- tions and the racing fairs may be altered upon approval of the California Horse Racing Board. in accordance with an agreement signed by all of the thoroughbred racing associations and the organiza- tion responsible Ar negotiating thoroughbred purse agreements on behalf of horsemen. (4) The Califbr•nia Horse Racing Board shall be responsible far the oversight of the distribution of the pooled net win in accordance with the provisions of this subdivision. (e) Eighteen and one-half percent of the net win from all gaining devices operated by owners of an authorized horse racing track upon which a quarter horse racing meeting was conducted in 2002 shall be paid to supplement purses of races conducted by a quarter horse rac- ing association. (f) One and four -tenths percent of the net win from gaming devices operated by owners of an authorized horse racing track described in subdivision (e) shall be paid to supplement the purses of harness races conducted by a harness racing association that conducts at least /50 days or nights of harness racing annually at the California Exposition and State Fair; and one-tenth of 1 percent of such net win shall be paid to the harness racing association described in this subdivision. SEC. 5. Section 19805.5 is added to the Business and Professions Code, to read: 19805.5. As used in this chapter. and in the Gaining Revenue Act of 2004, "gaming device "sltall mean and include a slot machine, under state law: or any class IiI device under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The operation of a gaming device by a tribe. entity, or person authorized to operate gaming devices under the Gaming Revenue .4ct shall constitute controlled gaming under state law SEC. 6. Section 19863 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to read: 19863. A publicly traded racing association or a qualified racing association . or their successors in interest, shall be allowed to operate only one gaining gambling establishment, and the gaming gambling establishment shall be located on the same premixes site as the entity's racetrack was located in 2002. SEC. 7. Section 19985 is added so the Business and Professions Code, to read: /9985. (a) Except as provided in this section, the Gambling Control Act, including, but not limited to. the jurisdiction and powers of the division and commission to enact regulations. to enforce applicable law, to conduct background investigations. and to issue licenses and work permits, shall apply to authorized horse racing tracks, as defined in the Gaming Revenue Act, and to the operators of gaming devices thereon. including their successors in interest, in and to the same extent the Gambling Control Act applies to gambling establishments. (h) Eniplowees of authorized horse racing tracks who are not own- ers. shareholders, partners, or key employees, and whose job responsi- bilities do not involve controlled games, shall not he required to obtain work permits pursuant to this chapter: 134 . Text of Proposed Laws SEC. 8. Section 19962 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to read: 19962. (a) On and after the effective date of this chapter, neither the governing body nor the electors of a county, city, or city and coun- ty that has not authorized legal gaming within its boundaries prior to January 1, 1996, shall authorize legal gaming. (b) ,4+t No ordinance in effect on January I, 1996. that authorizes legal gaming within a city. county. or city and county may two be amended to expand gaming in that jurisdiction beyond that permitted on January 1, 1996. (c) This section . . is not intended to prohibit gaining author- ized by the Gaining Revenue Act of 2004. SEC. 9. Section 19963 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to read: 19963. fe4 In addition to any other limitations on the expansion of gambling imposed by Section 19962 or any provision of this chapter. and except as provided in the Gaining Revenue Act of 2004. the com- mission nwy shall not issue a gambling license for a gambling estab- lishment that was not licensed to operate on December 31. 1999, unless an application to operate that establishment was on file with the division prior to September 1, 2000. SEC. 10. Section 19817 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to read: 19817. The commission shall establish and appoint a Gaming Policy Advisory Committee of 10 members. The committee shall he composed of representatives of controlled gambling licensees. author- ized horse racing tracks under the Gaining Revenue Act, representa- tives of gaining tribes, and members of the general public as-eqtel numbers. The executive director shall, from time to time, convene the committee for the purpose of discussing matters of controlled gam- bling regulatory policy and any other relevant gambling -related issue. The recommendations concerning gambling policy made by the com- mittee shall be presented to the commission, but shall be deemed advi- sory and not binding on the commission in the performance of its duties or functions. Indian gaming SEC. 11. Section 12012.6 is added to the Government Code, to read: 12012.6. (a) Notwithstanding Sections 12012.25 and 12012.5. and any other provision of law; the Governor is the designated state officer responsible for negotiating and executing, on behalf of the state. tribal -state gaming compacts with federally recognized Indian tribes located within the State of California pursuant to the federal Indian Gaining Regulatory Act of /988 (18 U.S.C. Secs. /166 to 1168. incl., and 25 U.S'.C. Sec. 2701 et seq.) for the purpose of authorizing class Ill gaming. as defined in that act, on Indian lands within this stale. Nothing in this section shall be construed to dent the existence of the Governor's authority to have negotiated and executed tribal -state gaining compacts prior to the effective date of this section. (b) The Governor shall submit a copy of any executed tribal -slate compact to the .Secretary of State, who shall forward a copy of the exe- cuted compact to the Secretary of the Interior /'air his or her review and approval, in accordance with paragraph (8) of subsection (d) of Section 2710 of Title 25 of the United States Code. SEC. 12. Section 12012.75 of the Government Code is amended to read: 12012.75. There is hereby created in the State Treasury a special fund called the "Indian Gaming Revenue Sharing Trust Fund" for the receipt and deposit of moneys derived from gaming device license fees that are paid into the fund pursuant to the terms of tribal -state gaining compacts, and moneys received from the Gaining Revenue Trust Fund, for the purpose of making distributions to noncompact tribes. Moneys in the Indian Gaming Revenue Sharing Trust Fund shall be available to the California Gambling Control Commission, upon appropriation by the Legislature. for the purpose of making distributions to noncompact tribes, in accordance with the Gaiting Revenue Act and tribal -state gaming compacts. SEC. 13. Section 8.3 is added to Article XVI of the California Constitution, to read: TEXT OF PROPOSED LAWS Proposition 68 (cont.) SEC. 8.3. (a) Funds appropriated pursuant to the Gaining Revenue Act of 2004 shall not be deemed to be part of "total allocations to .school districts and community college districts from General Fund proceeds of!ares appropriated pursuant to Article X111 B" as that term is used in paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 8. (b) Revenues derived finm payments made pursuant to the Gaming Revenue.4c! of shall not be deemed to he "General Fund r>rvenucs , which niav he appropriated pursuant to Article X111 B" as that terns is used in paragraph (I) of subdivision (h) of Section 8 nor shall the)' be considered in the determination of "per capita General Fund revenues" as that term is used in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) and in subdivi- sion (e) of Section 8. SEC. 14. Section 14 is added to Article XIII 13 of the California Constitution, to read: SEC. 14. (a) For purposes of this article. "proceeds of taxes" shall not include the revenues created by the Gaining Revenue Act of 2004. (h) For purposes of this article. "appropriations subject to !Mara- non" of each entity of government shall not include appropriations of revenues from the Gaming Revenue Trust Fund created by the Gaming Revenue .4ct 91-2004. SEC. 15. Amendment The statutory provisions of this act may be amended only by a vote of two-thirds of the membership of both houses of the Legislature. All statutory amendments to this act shall be to further the act and must be consistent with its purposes. SEC. 16. Consistency With Other Ballot Measures The provisions of this act are not in conflict with any initiative measure that appears on the same ballot that amends the California Constitution to authorize gaming of any kind. In the event that this act and another measure that amends the California Constitution to permit gaming of any kind are adopted at the same election, the courts are hereby directed to reconcile their respective statutory provisions to the greatest extent possible and to give effect to every provision of both measures. SEC. 17. Additional Funding No moneys in the Gaming Revenue Trust Fund shall be used to sup- plant federal, state, or local funds used for child protective and foster care services. neighborhood sheriffs and police officers. and firefighters but shall be used exclusively to supplement the total amount of federal. state, and local funds allocated for child protective services and foster care which improve the educational outcomes of abused and neglected children and children in foster care and for additional sheriffs, police officers, and firefighters. SEC. 18. Judicial Proceedings In any action for declaratory or injunctive relief. or for relief by way of any extraordinary writ, wherein the construction, application. or validity of Section 3 of this act or any part thereof is called into question. a court shall not grant any temporary restraining order, pre- liminary or permanent injunction, or any peremptory writ of mandate. certiorari, or prohibition, or other provisional or permanent order to restrain, stay, or otherwise interfere with the operation of the act except upon a finding by the court. based on clear and convincing evi- dence, that the public interest will not be prejudiced thereby, and no such order shall be effective for more than 15 calendar days. A court shall not restrain any part of this act except the specific provisions that are challenged. SEC. 19. Severability If any provision of this act or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect other provisions or applications of this act that can be given effect without the invalid or unconstitutional provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are severable. Proposition 69 This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of Article 11 of the California Constitution. This initiative measure amends a section of the Government Code, and amends. repeals, and adds sections to the Penal Code; therefore, existing provisions proposed to be deleted are printed in strikeeui-type and new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new. PROPOSED LAW SECTION 1. Title (a) This measure shall be known and referred to as the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act. SEC. II. Findings and Declarations of Purpose The people of the State of California do hereby find and declare that: (a) Our communities have a compelling interest in protecting them- selves from crime. (b) There is critical and urgent need to provide law enforcement officers and agencies with the latest scientific technology available for accurately and expeditiously identifying, apprehending, arresting, and convicting criminal offenders and exonerating persons wrongly sus- pected or accused of crime. (c) Law enforcement should be able to use the DNA Database and Data Bank Program to substantially reduce the number of unsolved crimes; to help stop serial crime by quickly comparing DNA profiles of qualifying persons and evidence samples with as many investigations and cases as necessary to solve crime and apprehend perpetrators: to exonerate persons wrongly suspected or accused of crime; and to iden- tify human remains. (d) Expanding the statewide DNA Database and Data Bank Program is: (1) The most reasonable and certain means to accomplish effective crime solving in California, to aid in the identification of missing and unidentified persons, and to exonerate persons wrongly suspected or accused of crime: (2) The most reasonable and certain means to solve crime as effec- tively as other states which have found that the majority of violent crim- inals have nonviolent criminal prior convictions. and that the majority of cold hits and criminal investigation links are missed if a DNA data- base or data bank is limited only to violent crimes; (3) The most reasonable and certain means to rapidly and substan- tially increase the number of cold hits and criminal investigation links so that serial crime offenders may be identified apprehended and con- victed for crimes they committed in the past and prevented from com- mitting future crimes that would jeopardize public safety and devastate lives; and (4) The most reasonable and certain means to ensure that California's Database and Data Bank Program is fully compatible with, and a meaningful part of, the nationwide Combined DNA Index System (CODIS). te) The state has a compelling interest in the accurate identification of criminal offenders, and DNA testing at the earliest stages of criminal proceedings for felony offenses will help thwart criminal perpetrators from concealing their identities and thus prevent time-consuming and expensive investigations of innocent persons. (f) The state has a compelling interest in the accurate identification of criminal offenders, and it is reasonable to expect qualifying offend- ers to provide forensic DNA samples for the limited identification pur- poses set forth in this chapter. (g) Expanding the statewide DNA Database and Data Bank Program is the most reasonable and certain means to ensure that per- sons wrongly suspected or accused of crime arc quickly exonerated so that they may reestablish their standing in the community. Moreover, a person whose sample has been collected for Database and Data Bank purposes must he able to seek expungemcnt of his or her profile from the Database and Data Bank. SEC. III. DNA and Forensic Identification Database and Data Bank Act Text of Proposed Laws 135 SUNSHINE CANYON LANDFILL Managing today's waste while protecting tomorrow's environment. Combined City/County Landfill Project—Executive Summary Background In 1958, Sunshine Canyon Landfill began managing Los Angeles area waste when the City of Los Angeles authorized operations on the City side of the landfill property. In 1993, the County of Los Angeles authorized landfilling on the County side of the property, with operations beginning in 1996. In 1999, the City of LA approved the permits to create a joint City/County landfill that will meet the waste disposal needs of countywide residents and businesses for next 25 years. The final steps in combining the separate City and County landfill operations into a single Sunshine Canyon Landfill are currently underway. LA County Approvals and Operations The first of these steps is a request by BFI to the LA County Regional Planning Commission for a replacement Conditional Use Permit (CUP) that will provide conformance between the County's 1993 CUP and the City's 1999 approvals. The 1993 CUP was approved by the LA County Board of Supervisors and authorized landfilling on the County side of the Landfill. This CUP was based on the results of a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), which examined a combined City/County operation of 12,100 tons per day. Among its stipulations in the 1993 CUP, the Board of Supervisors also directed BFI to obtain City of LA approval to restart landfilling operations on the City portion of Sunshine Canyon. After the County approved the '93 CUP, BFI received all required operational permits including: Solid Waste Facilities Permit (CIWMB); Waste Discharge Requirements (LA Regional Water Quality Control Board); 401 Certification (LA Regional Water Quality Control Board); 404 Permit (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers); 1603 Agreement (California Dept. of Fish and Game); and 1150.1 Permit (SCAQMD). After receiving these permits and approvals, BFI conducted required construction activities and in 1996 landfilling operations began on the County side of Sunshine Canyon. City -side Approval Process and Start of Operations Prior to receiving formal approval from the City of LA in 1999 to restart landfilling operations on the City side of the Sunshine Canyon Landfill property, the City required completion of a Subsequent EIR (SEIR) that examined not only environmental impacts of a City -only landfilling operation, it re-examined the combined City/County operation proposed by the Board of Supervisors in 1993. A combined City/County landfill operation has now been supported by two EIRs. • • With the SEIR and after receiving City approvals, BFI worked to obtain all permits and approvals required by City, State and Federal agencies including: Solid Waste Facilities Permit (CIWMB); Waste Discharge Requirements (LA Regional Water Quality Control Board); 401 Certification (LA Regional Water Quality Control Board); 404 Permit (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers); 1603 Agreement (California Dept. of Fish and Game); and 1150.1 Permit (SCAQMD). Additionally, the City required approvals for transportation system improvements; clearance by a Technical Advisory Committee; a final Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program (MRMP); and the hiring of independent City monitors to review air quality reports and insure compliance with all conditions of approval and the MRMP. Required pre -construction activities are complete and construction of the landfill is underway with an estimated start of operations in Spring 2005. At this point in time, two separate landfilling operations will be underway at Sunshine Canyon Landfill. Benefits of a Joint City/County Landfill Approval of the conforming revisions to the 1993 CUP would create a joint City/County landfill offering several major advantages: 1. A single entrance and single working face. As opposed to two separate entrances and working faces (a City -side and a County -side), a single entrance provides a more efficient and less intrusive traffic pattern for trucks. A single working face eliminates redundant operations and creates an overall efficient and environmentally sound waste disposal site. 2. Fully utilized landfill capacity and stabilized County revenues. The replacement CUP will not expand the Landfill; but it does allow BFI to fully utilize all available capacity within the approved footprint. A maximized capacity will in turn maximize and stabilize revenues to the County. 3. Cost-effective disposal for cities. Your city will have a cost effective, in -county waste disposal option for the next 25 years. Businesses in the County using Sunshine Canyon Landfill potentially could experience costs 40 to 60 percent less than other presently available disposal alternatives. Other Community Benefits with Sunshine Canyon 1. On-site waste diversion and recycling facilities 2. 1,000 acres of open space, and park and recreational land in East Canyon and Bee Canyon 3. Riding and hiking trails in East Canyon, Bee Canyon and O'Melvany and Weldon Canyon Trails 4. More than 10,000 oak trees planted on- and off-site 5. Funding of forestry and ecological studies 6. Funding for community HHW Roundups • • The Need for Future Disposal Capacity Today, residents and businesses in Los Angeles County generate approximately 40,000 tons of waste each and every day. By the year 2014 that number will increase to more than 44,000 tons per day. As the tons of waste generated increases, the available effective in -county landfill capacity in the Year 2014 will decrease to approximately 35,000 tons per day. All cities in LA County need to plan for their current and future waste disposal needs. As a part of your city's waste disposal plan, Sunshine Canyon Landfill provides in -county disposal capacity in a cost-effective, environmentally -sound manner. • • Date To Whom It May Concern: As a Councilmember in (City X), I believe it is important to responsibly and equitably manage the region's waste. As a local elected official, it is my responsibility to the residents of (City X) to make sure their waste is picked up daily and in a cost efficient manner. Our City relies on the Sunshine Canyon Landfill to serve as a consistent location to take our waste. It is important to our City to maintain this reliability and therefore, for the landfill to receive a conditional land use permit. We would like both the City and County side of the landfill to operate as one so that the facility may operate more efficiently. While every community produces waste, selected communities bear the burden of its disposal. This is the case with numerous other regional issues as well. Whether it is an airport expansion, the development of a significant housing project, or a freeway widening, the region benefits as a whole while a community manages the micro effects of such projects. Yet without local community participation the region would suffer as a whole. Every community must contribute in some manner to the benefit of the region. The current issue regarding the expansion of the Sunshine Canyon Landfill involves all 88 cities in Los Angeles County. Many cities in the region utilize the Sunshine Canyon landfill on a daily basis and need its services to maintain necessary health and safety standards. The City of X daily hauls our residents' waste to Sunshine Canyon Landfill. Our residents' waste needs to be collected and disposed of in a reasonable and responsible manner. The shortened time schedule at the Sunshine Canyon Landfill may force haulers to stop collecting waste leading to unsanitary conditions. In some instances, the lack of infill capacity has led to illegal dumping, a recurring problem in Los Angeles County. Ignoring the issue could worsen the situation and cause a health hazard. This is unacceptable in light of the existence of the Sunshine Canyon Landfill facility. It is a facility that has served as a landfill for 45 years and has the necessary infrastructure to continue to serve as such for the next 25 years. Without any other current viable options, we must be supportive of this facility. It is the intermediate step to reaching a long-term regional solution. Although rail hauling may be an alternative by the next decade the infrastructure does not currently exist to immediately implement. We all produce waste; therefore we must be responsible for its appropriate and safe disposal. This responsibility is a region wide issue and concerns all communities. I believe that the Sunshine Canyon Landfill expansion should be granted a conditional land use permit, as it effectively helps to meet the needs of Southern California cities. A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE APPROVAL OF A CONFORMING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SUNSHINE CANYON LANDFILL. WHEREAS, our City takes our residents' waste to Sunshine Canyon Landfill and WHEREAS, doing so, provides our residents with the most cost manner to dispose of waste and WHEREAS, utilizing the landfill is the only viable option to our City's waste NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council supports Canyon Landfill's efforts to obtain a conforming conditional to continue operation. Feel free to change it as you see appropriate. effective dispose of Sunshine use permit