HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/11/06CITY CLERK
AGENDA
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
Wednesday, July 11, 2006 - 6:30 p.m.
Council Chambers, City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
MAYOR CITY CLERK
Peter Tucker Elaine Doerfling
MAYOR PRO TEM CITY TREASURER
Sam Y. Edgerton John M. Workman
COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY MANAGER
Michael Keegan Stephen R. Burrell
J. R. Reviczky CITY ATTORNEY
Michael Jenkins
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
INTERVIEW APPLICANTS FOR:
PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION
APPLICATIONS ARE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE REGULAR CITY
COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA PACKET FOR JULY 11, 2006 UNDER
ITEM 8a
APPOINTMENTS WILL BE MADE AT THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THAT FOLLOWS THIS INTERVIEW MEETING.
ADJOURNMENT
1
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
• .
"A family vacation is one where you arrive with five bags, four kids and seven
I--thought-you-Packed-its." - Ivern ball
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - CounciI Chambers, City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Regular Session - 7:10 p.m.
Closed Session - Tmmediately following Regular Session
MAYOR CITY CLERK
Peter Tucker Elaine Doerfling
MAYOR PRO TEM CITY TREASURER
Sam Y. Edgerton John M. Workman
COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY MANAGER
Michael Keegan Stephen R. Burrell
J. R. Reviczky CITY ATTORNEY
Michael Jenkins
All council meetings are open to the public. PLEASE ATTEND.
The Council receives a packet with detailed information and recommendations on nearly
every agenda item. Complete agenda packets are available for public inspection in the
Police Department, Fire Depaitnient, 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
1
CANVASS OF VOTES AND INSTALLATION OF OFFICERS
RECESS
RECONVENE
1
ANNOUNCEMENTS
PROCLAMATIONS / PRESENTATIONS
NATIONAL PARKS & RECREATION MONTH
JULY 2006
CLOSED SESSION REPORT FOR MEETING OF JUNE 23, 2006: NO
REPORTABLE ACTIONS.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Although the City Council values your comments, the
Brown Act generally prohibits the Council from taking action on any matter not listed on
the posted agenda as a business item.
1. ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Members of the public wishing to address the City Council on any items within the
Council's jurisdiction, or to request the removal of an item from the consent calendar,
may do so at this time. Comments on public hearing items are heard only during the
public hearing. Comments from the public are limited to three minutes per speaker.
Members of the audience may also speak:
1) during discussion of items removed from the Consent Calendar;
2) during Public Hearings; and,
3) during discussion of items appearing under Municipal Matters.
The City Council acknowledges receipt of the written communications listed below. No
action will be taken on matters raised in written communications.
The Council may take action to schedule issues raised in oral and written
communications for a future agenda.
Citizens with comments regarding City management or departmental operations are
requested to submit those comments to the City Manager.
(a) Letter from Mr. Roy Judd regarding his property at 2416 Hermosa Avenue.
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 June 13, 2006.
• •
(b) Recommendation to ratify check register and to approve cancellation of
certain checks as recommended by the City Treasurer.
(c)
Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items.
(d) Recommendation to accept donations of $10,000 from Upstage Right
Productions to be used for the Centennial Concert Series to be held in 2007-
08; and, $3,744 from AYSO Region 18 to be used for Community Resources
program materials in 2006-07. Memorandum from Finance Director
Viki Copeland dated July 5, 2006.
(e)
Recommendation to approve a proposal for third party administration of the
City's workers' compensation claims submitted by Southern California Risk
Management Associates and authorize the City Manager to negotiate and
execute a contract for an approximate three (3) year term commencing August 1.
2006 with an option for extending up to an additional two years. Memorandum
from Personnel Director/Risk Manager Michael Earl dated July 6, 2006.
(f) Recommendation to receive and file the Status Report on the implementation
of Nonconforming Ordinance. Memorandum from Community Development
Director Sol Blumenfeld dated June 27, 2006.
3. CONSENT ORDINANCES
NONE
4. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR
SEPARATE DISCUSSION
* Public comments on items removed from the Consent Calendar.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 7:30 P.M.
a. ADOPTION OF METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY (MTA)
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT REPORT AND SELF CERTIFICATION
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING COMPLIANCE WITH THE
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) PURSUANT
TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65089. Memorandum from
Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated June 27, 2006.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution certifying compliance with
Congestion Management Program.
3
•
b. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION, ON
APRIL 18, 2006, REGARDING THE PRECISE DEVELOPMENT
PLAN AND PARKING PLAN, RELATED TO PARKING
OPERATIONS AT THE HERMOSA BEACH PAVILION AT
1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. Memorandum from Community
Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated July 3, 2006
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
1. Sustain the Planning Commission decision and adopt the attached
Resolution to require that the property owner provide 2 hours free
parking for customers with validation for all patrons of the building
and provide signage identifying the free parking in order to increase
use of the parking structure and prevent spillover parking in the
neighborhood; and
2. Re-evaluate the effectiveness of the validation program in six months
to determine whether it is necessary to impose new conditions on the
Parking Plan or repeal the mandatory validation program and initiate
public parking measures to mitigate spill over neighborhood parking.
6. MUNICIPAL MATTERS
a. REVISED AMENDMENTS TO PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION
ORDINANCE. (Continued from meeting of 6/27/06) Memorandum from
Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated July 6, 2006.
RECOMMENDATION: Waive full reading and introduce the
ordinance.
7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER
NONE
8. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL
a. APPOINTMENT TO PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION TO FILL
UNEXPIRED TERM DUE TO UNSCHEDULED VACANCY.
Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated July 5, 2006.
RECOMMENDATION: Appoint from among the applicants
interviewed earlier this evening to fill an unexpired term ending October
31, 2008 on the Public Works Commission.
• •
9. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL
Requests from Council members for possible future agenda items:
Recommended Action: 1) Vote by Council whether to discuss this item; 2) refer
to staff for a report back on a future agenda; or, 3) resolution of matter by Council
action tonight.
NONE
ANNOUNCEMENT IN OPEN SESSION OF ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED IN
CLOSED SESSION AS FOLLOWS:
1. MINUTES: Approval of minutes of Closed Session meeting held on June 27, 2006.
2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL
The City Council finds, based on advice from legal counsel, that discussion in
open session will prejudice the position of the City in the litigation.
Existing Litigation: Government Code Section 54956.9(a)
Name of Case: Macpherson v. City of Hermosa Beach
Case Number: BC172546
3. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Government Code Section 54957.6
City Negotiator:
Employee Organizations:
Stephen Burrell
Hermosa Beach Firefighters' Association
Hermosa Beach Management Association
ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION
ADJOURNMENT
• •
SCRIPT OUTLINE
ELECTION RESULTS AND SEATING OF NEW COUNCILMEMBERS
1. CERTIFICATION OF ELECTION
MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION
I1. OATH OF OFFICE TO INCOMING OFFICIAL - CERTIFICATE OF ELECTION
CITY CLERK TO GIVE OATH OF OFFICE AND CERTIFICATE OF ELECTION TO MR. BOBKO.
MAYOR INVITES MR. BOBKO TO BE SEATED ON THE DAIS.
III. ONCE ON THE DAIS, MAYOR WELCOMES NEW OFFICIAL AND INVITES:
BOBKO REMARKS
COUNCIL REMARKS
IV. BREAK
CITY CLERK ARRANGES NAME PLATES APPROPRIATELY:
(LEFT TO RIGHT FACING DAIS)
REVICZKY - BOBKO - TUCKER - EDGERTON - KEEGAN
VII. RECONVENE AND REFER TO AGENDA
• a-4,2-6.---d'e--74-,e7,4
Mayor and Members
of the City Council
60- 6 V2
7/7//0.(,.
July 5, 2006
City Council Meeting
July 11, 2006
CANVASS OF VOTES FOR THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL
ELECTION OF JUNE 6, 2006
Recommendation: To adopt the attached resolution, which presents the official canvass
of votes certified by the Los Angeles County Election Department for the City's Special
Municipal Election of June 6, 2006. The results of the election canvass show Patrick
"Kit" Bobko elected as Member of the City Council for the unexpired term ending in
November 2009..
NOTED:
Stephe:.:t , Cr anager
Elaine Doerfling, City Cle
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA,
SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
DECLARING THE RESULT AND
PROVIDED BY LAW
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RECITING THE FACT OF THE
HELD TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 2006,
SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS
WHEREAS, a Special Municipal Election was held and conducted in the City of
Hermosa Beach, California, on Tuesday, June 6, 2006, as required by law; and
WHEREAS, notice of the election was given in time, form and manner as
provided by law; voting precincts were properly established; election officers were appointed;
and in all respects the election was held and conducted and the votes were cast, received and
canvassed and the returns made and declared in time, form and manner as required by the
provisions of the Elections Code of the State of California for the holding of elections in general
law cities; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 06-6437 adopted January 10, 2006, the
County Election Department canvassed the returns of the election and has certified the results to
the City Council, the results are received, attached and made a part hereof as "Exhibit A."
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY. COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND
ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That there were seventeen (17) voting precincts established in the
City for the purpose of holding said election.
That the whole number of ballots cast in the precincts except absent voter ballots
was 2,903, and the whole number of absent voter ballots cast in the City was 1,119, making a
total of 4,022 ballots cast in the City.
SECTION 2. That the Special Municipal Election was held for the election of a
Member of the City Council to fill a vacancy for an unexpired term ending in November 2009.
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
That the names of the persons voted for at the election for Member of the City Council
are as follows:
Jeff Duclos
Patrick "Kit" Bobko
Janice R. Britain
Jeff Maxwell
SECTION 3. That the number of votes given at each precinct and the number
of votes given in the City to each of the persons above named for the office for which the
persons were candidates were as listed in the attached Exhibit "A."
SECTION 4. That the City Council does declare and determine that:
PATRICK "KIT" BOBKO was elected as Member of the City Council for the unexpired term
ending in November of 2009.
SECTION 5. That the City Clerk shall enter on the records of the City Council
of the City a statement of the result of the election, showing: (a) the whole number of ballots
cast in the City; (b) the names of the persons voted for; (c) the office each person was voted for;
(d) the number of votes given at each precinct to each person; and (e) the total number of votes
given to each person.
SECTION 6. That the City Clerk shall immediately make and deliver to the
person elected a Certificate of Election signed by the City Clerk and authenticated; that the City
Clerk shall also administer to the person elected the Oath of Office prescribed in the
Constitution of the State of California and shall have him subscribe to it and file it in the office
of the City Clerk. The person so elected shall then be inducted into the office to which he has
been elected.
SECTION 7. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of
this resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions.
2
l
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
• •
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2006:
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk City Attorney
. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES PRIMARY ELECTION
JUNE 6, 2006 PAGE 239.1
NONPARTISAN
FINAL OFFICIAL
STATEMENT OF VOTES CAST
CITY/PREC
REGISTRA- BALLOTS
TION CAST
HERMOSA CITY SPECIAL MUNI
CITY CNC TERM ENDS 11/09
JEFF
DUCLOS
P "KIT"
BOBKO
JANICE R
BRITTAIN
JEFF
MAXWELL
HERM65A4EACA
HERMOSA BEACH
HERMOSA BEACH
l:O B -
2'75C008A
2750009A
2750010A
.
HBRMOSA BtAC
HERMOSA BEACH
HERMOSA BEACH
27500148•
2750015A
2750016A
844
883
852
134
242
57
86
HERMOSA BEACH
HERMOSA BEACH
2750026A
2750028A
647
700
25
41
30
GRAND TOTAL VOTE'
12959
4022
1285
1424
511
324
LOS Meeks cow
emostrarsiRmertilkiriesumtv chi*
Cerdficate of the canvass of the app returns
I, CONNY B. McCORMACK, Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk of the County
of Los Angeles, of the State of California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that pursuant to the
provisions of Section 15300 et seq. of the California EIections Code, I did canvass
the returns of the votes cast for each elective office and/or measure(s) in
HERMOSA BEACH CITY
at the Primary Election, held on the 6th day of June, 2006.
I, FURTHER CERTIFY that the Statement of Votes Cast, to which this certificate
is attached, shows the total number of ballots cast in said jurisdiction, and the whole
number of votes cast for each candidate and/or measure(s) in said jurisdiction in each
of the respective precincts therein, and the totals of the respective columns and the
totals as shown for each candidate and/or measure(s) are full, true and correct.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal this
3rd day of July, 2006.
CONNY B. McCORMACK
Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk
County of Los Angeles
•
TO: Hermosa Beach City Council
7//0.6
I respectfully request to be put on the Agenda for the July 11 Council Meeting.
I will address the attempted break-in at my house, by another H.B. resident, the
performance by the police, the lack of communication from the police, the lack of follow
thru in identifying at least 3 more accomplices, the fraudulent filing of 2 felonious
documents to illegally transfer the title to my house, the lack of follow thru by police
leaders and the city manager, and finally the $80,000 I spent in attorney, notary and loan
broker fees, because the title to my house was clouded. I want to bring these facts before
the Council, and the public, so that proper remedies might be considered and
implemented.
FYI—the perpetrator plea bargained to one count of Federal Felony Wire Fraud (of the 6
counts), and was sentenced to 18 months (time served). She embezzled $384,000,
$140,000 was recovered. She was ordered to make restitution of $244,000 at $200 a
month. She is now out, FREE, having never been arrested for the crimes committed
against me. She will now likely repeat these activities.
R. Judd
2416 Hermosa Ave.
RECEIVED
JUN 1 9 2006
Per ....... .0....
Ia
TO Hermosa Beach City Council
Subject: Reply letter from the city manager.
I would like to direct your attention to the last paragraph, in the attached letter. It should
be noted that it took 25 days to get this response.
The original attempted break-in occurred Sept 28, 2003.
Since no arrests were made, the perpetrator filed FELONIOUS FRAUDULENT
documents, to illegally transfer title to my house. The police and city manager have
copies.
Over 2 years later, I tried to refinance my house. Only THEN did I learn of her activities
2 months after the attempted break-in. I was denied a conventional refinance from Wells,
because of "title and credit report problems". I then discovered the existence of the
documents, and that she had filed Incorporation papers with the State of California, using
my address. She also stole my mail, and caused improper items to be entered into my
credit records.
After bringing this to the attention of the city manager, I get his reply. Ostensibly saying
"NO HARM -NO FOUL" I got to keep my house. My credit suffered I spent over 300
hours, and $80K.
I am insulted and offended by each and every party involved in this fiasco over the last
32 months. It is particularly insulting to receive this response from the city manager.
Do you agree or disagree with me?
Am I right or wrong?
I have discussed this fiasco with numerous neighbors, and officials in Huntington Beach,
Fountain Valley, and Newport Beach. The FBI said"take it up with the H.B. City
Counsel" The Federal Prosecuter said these were local crimes, and up to H.B. to
prosecute. I am trying to figure out if I am out of whack. What did I do wrong? Am I
unreasonable?
FYI SHE is now out—free; you may be next.
A
May 1, 2006
• •
City o f `�%rmosa rl3eaclt�
Dr. Roy Judd
2416 Hermosa Avenue
Hermosa Beach, California 90254
Dear Roy:
Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885
This is a follow-up to our meeting on April 6th regarding your home on Hermosa Avenue and
whether or not the Police Department would be taking any further action involving attempted
theft of your property.
I have viewed your property regarding the fence you would like to build on the property line. It
is clear from the line that there is not enough room to service the gas meter for the neighboring
property and a similar condition exists at the eastern end where the cable and electrical
connections are located. It would be possible to build a fence that stops short of those
connections. It looks like a few feet would work. The gas meter for your neighbor might be able
to be moved to a different location, however, this would be something between you, your
neighbor and the gas company. If these two items were taken care of, then it would be possible
to issue a permit for the fence.
The second issue that you mentioned was that the neighboring house to the south of yours
extended the eaves of the roof over your property line. Based on the records that are on file with
the City, we do not find any changes to the roof line. It appears that the house has been in the
same location since 1957.
The last item was the request you made for the City to now prosecute the suspect that attempted
to change the title on your home as well as sell items from your home. I have provided the
information that you provided to me to the Police Department and, based on the review of the.
materials and the fact that the title of your property remains solely in your name, no additional
action will be taken. As you explained, the suspect has been prosecuted by the federal
government for theft via a wire transfer and will be sentenced on June 12`h.
Let me know if I can provide any additional information.
I---
phen R. Burrell
City Manager
SRB:rem
6
•
•
-7////04=.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, June 13, 2006, at the hour of 7:14
p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Ron Willoughby
ROLL CALL:
Present: Edgerton, Keegan, Reviczky, Mayor Tucker
Absent: None
ANNOUNCEMENTS — Councilmember Keegan said the second summer Art Walk
on Thursday, June 8, had been a successful, enjoyable event and invited everyone
to attend the third and final Art Walk on Thursday, July 13. He thanked all the
organizers of the event for their hard work.
Mayor Pro Tempore Edgerton announced the latest ballot count in the close race on
Measure A (school bonds) at the June 6 election, and invited forward Kit Bobko, the
apparent but unofficial winner of the vacant Council seat.
Kit Bobko thanked everyone and said he would have more to say when the election
results were certified and he was sworn in.
Councilman Reviczky called forward Jim Kennedy, Congresswoman Jane Harman's
new South Bay field representative.
Jim Kennedy said he looked forward to working with local communities and provided
Congresswoman Harman's local office phone number in El Segundo, 643-3636,
where he could be reached.
PROCLAMATIONS
70TH ANNIVERSARY
OF THE
HERMOSA BEACH LAWN BOWLING CLUB
Mayor Tucker read and presented the proclamation to Lyle Campbell, representing
the Lawn Bowling Club.
Lyle Campbell, on behalf of the Lawn Bowling Club, thanked the Council for the
proclamation and invited everyone to the 70th Anniversary Celebration on Sunday,
June 25, from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. for music, refreshments, lessons, and games
with prizes, at the Club's location at 861 Valley Drive, next to Clark Stadium. He
also noted that their club is continuing to grow, thanks to new members and the
loyalty and help of all of the members, unlike some clubs which were experiencing
decreased membership. He thanked the Council for providing the new lawn.
City Council Minutes 6-13-06
Page11927 2a
• o •
PRESENTATIONS
PRESENTATION BY
RALPH MAILLOUX, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
OF THE
SOUTH BAY REGIONAL PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY (RCC)
Ralph Mailloux conducted a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the new program
which pinpoints cell phone callers dialing 911 and directs them to their local agency,
rather than routing them through the California Highway Patrol as in the past, which
created delays in receiving emergency services. He directed residents to their
website at www.rcc911.orq, where they could take a visual tour of the facility, learn
about neighborhood watch and emergency preparedness, schedule a tour of their
facility or arrange for mascot Reddy Fox to visit schools for 911 education.
CLOSED SESSION REPORT FOR MEETING OF JUNE 1, 2006: No reportable
actions.
CLOSED SESSION REPORT FOR MEETING OF JUNE 6, 2006: Meeting
canceled.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
1. ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
There were no written communications.
Coming forward to address the Council at this time were:
Joanne Edgerton — Beach Cities Health District, congratulated and presented
prize packages to the City Council for walking the most steps during
the recent fundraiser for childhood obesity research, and for winning
the competition against the Manhattan Beach City Council and the
Beach Cities Health District Board; thanked everyone who participated
in the challenge, including the school children; said it made everyone
aware how active or sedentary their lives are; and
Kelly Reedy -Kovac and Tracy Hopkins — Neighborhood Watch, invited the
Council and the community to "A Conversation with the Chief' event at
7 p.m. Monday, June 26, 2006, in the City Hall Council Chambers, for
a discussion with interim Police Chief David Barr about crime
prevention techniques and information regarding Megan's Law; said
the event would be replayed on cable Channel 8.
2. CONSENT CALENDAR:
Action: To approve the consent calendar recommendations (a) through (n)
with the exception of the following items, which were removed for discussion
City Council Minutes
6-13-06 Page 11928
• •
in item 4, but are shown in order for clarity: 2 (a) Reviczky, (e) Edgerton, (g)
Reviczky, and (j) Keegan.
Motion Reviczky, second Edgerton. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
(a) RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR
MEETING OF MAY 23, 2006.
This item was removed from the consent calendar by Councilmember
Reviczky for separate discussion later in the meeting.
Action: To approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 23, 2006, as
amended to correct the second line on page 11911 to read "...from Eighth
Street onto Pacific Coast Highway..." rather than "...from Pier Avenue onto
Pacific Coast Highway...".
Motion Reviczky, second Tucker. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
(b) RECOMMENDATION TO RATIFY CHECK REGISTER NOS. 44048
THROUGH 44236, INCLUSIVE, AND TO APPROVE THE CANCELLATION
OF CHECK NOS. 43967 AND 44165, 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 AUTHORIZE THE ADDITION OF ONE
CROSSING GUARD POSITION TO THE CURRENT CONTRACT WITH ALL
CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES AT A. COST OF $7,821.45 PER YEAR.
Memorandum from Interim Police Chief David Barr dated May 23, 2006.
Action: To authorize the addition of one crossing guard position to the
current contract with All City Management Services at a cost of $7,821.45 per
year, as recommended by staff.
(e) RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE AWARD OF A CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT FOR THE MANHATTAN AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENTS,
CONCRETE ROAD RECONSTRUCTION AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS AND
STREET IMPROVEMENTS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS TO SEQUEL
CONTRACTORS, INC., OF SANTA FE SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, SUBJECT
TO NEGOTIATION OF A CHANGE ORDER REDUCING THE SCOPE OF
WORK SUCH THAT THE CONTRACT AMOUNT DOES NOT EXCEED
$2,198,150; AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AND THE CITY
CLERK TO ATTEST THE CONTRACTS, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF
THE CITY ATTORNEY; AND, AUTHORIZE THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
City Council Minutes 6-13-06 Page 11929
• •
WORKS TO APPROVE CHANGES WITHIN THE APPROVED BUDGET.
Memorandum from Public Works Director Richard Morgan dated June 6,
2006. Supplemental information received from Public Works Department on
June 13, 2006.
This item was removed from the consent calendar by Mayor Pro Tempore
Edgerton for separate discussion later in the meeting.
Public Works Director Morgan and City Manager Burrell responded to Council
questions.
Action: To approve the staff recommendation to:
(1) Authorize the award of a construction contract for the Manhattan
Avenue street improvements, concrete road reconstruction at various
locations and street improvements at various locations to Sequel
Contractors, Inc., of Santa Fe Springs, California, subject to
negotiation of a Change Order reducing the scope of work such that
the contract amount does not exceed $2,198,150;
(2) Authorize the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest the
contracts subject to approval of the City Attorney; and
(3) Authorize the Director of Public Works to approve changes within the
approved budget.
Motion Edgerton, second Keegan. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE REPORT OF CUSTOMER
SERVICE SURVEYS/COMPLAINTS. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine
Doerfling dated June 1, 2006.
Action: To receive and file report of Customer Service Surveys/Complaints,
as recommended.
RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT DONATIONS OF $2,000 FROM THE
WOMAN'S CLUB OF HERMOSA BEACH TO BE USED FOR THE
NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH PROGRAM; $2,000 FROM THE WOMAN'S
CLUB OF HERMOSA BEACH TO BE USED FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT AIR
BREATHING COMPRESSOR REPAIR AND INSTALLATION; $250 FROM
MATTHEW AND VIRGINIA CRUSE TO BE USED FOR THE
NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH PROGRAM; $250 FROM BEACH TRAVEL TO
BE USED FOR THE CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION; $10,000 FROM
INNOVA MARKETING TO BE USED FOR THE 2006-07 SUNSET
CONCERT SERIES; AND, DONATION OF A BRISTOL PNEUMATIC
FRESH AIR BREATHING COMPRESSOR WITH AN ESTIMATED VALUE
OF $3,000 FROM THE REDONDO BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT TO BE
USED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AS AN AIR FILLING STATION.
Memorandum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated June 5, 2006.
City Council Minutes
6-13-06 Page 11930
Y
• •
This item was removed from the consent calendar by Councilmember
Reviczky for separate discussion later in the meeting in order to acknowledge
and thank the donors.
Action: To accept the following donations:
- $ 2,000 from the Woman's Club of Hermosa Beach to be used for the
Neighborhood Watch Program;
- $ 2,000 from the Woman's Club of Hermosa Beach to be used for Fire
Department air breathing compressor repair and installation;
- $ 250 from Matthew and Virginia Cruse to be used for the Neighborhood
Watch Program;
$ 250 from Beach Travel to be used for the Centennial Celebration;
$10,000 from Innova Marketing to be used for the 2006-07 Sunset
Concert series; and,
Donation of a Bristol Pneumatic Fresh Air breathing compressor with an
estimated value of $3,000 from the Redondo Beach Fire Department to
be used by the Fire Department as an air filling station.
Motion Reviczky, second Mayor Tucker. The motion carried by a unanimous
vote.
(h) RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THE FOLLOWING CLAIMS AND REFER
THEM TO THE CITY'S LIABILITY CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR.
Memorandum from Personnel Director/Risk Manager Michael Ear! dated June
5, 2006.
Claimant: Erin McCoy
Date of Loss: 05/23/05
Date Filed: 05/18/06
Allegation: Property Damage
Claimant: Harry & Cynthia Dahl
Date of Loss: 05/23/05
Date Filed: 05/18/06
Allegation: Property Damage
Claimant: Bach-Cuc Le
Date of Loss: 04/23/06
Date Filed: 05/18/06
Allegation: Property Damage
Claimant: Stergios Karalaios
Date of Loss: 03/25/06
Date Filed: 05/22/06
Allegation: Loss of Property
Action: To deny the above claims and refer them to the City's Liability
Claims Administrator, as recommended by staff.
City Council Minutes 6-13-06 Page 11931
(i)
(i)
• •
RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE THE AWARD OF BID FOR FIRE
STATION FRONT RENOVATION PER FIRE DEPARTMENT
SPECIFICATIONS TO M3 SERVICES, INC. OF LOS ANGELES,
CALIFORNIA, IN THE AMOUNT OF $51,131. Memorandum from Fire Chief
Russell Tingley dated June 6, 2006.
Action: To authorize the award of bid for fire station front renovation per fire
department specifications to M3 Services, Inc. of Los Angeles, California, in
the amount of $51,131, as recommended by staff.
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE INSTALLATION OF STOP
SIGNS ON EIGHTH STREET AT CYPRESS AVENUE; AND, APPROVE
STRIPING FOUR -INCH WHITE LINES ON BOTH SIDES OF CYPRESS
AVENUE NORTH OF EIGHTH STREET DESIGNATING A "CLEAR AISLE"
FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS. Memorandum from Public Works Director
Richard Morgan dated June 6, 2006. Supplemental Public Works
Commission minutes for the meeting of April 19, 2006, and Striping Plan
received from Public Works Department on June 13, 2006.
This item was removed from the consent calendar by Councilman Keegan for
separate discussion later in the meeting.
Public Works Director Morgan responded to Council questions.
Proposed Action: To approve striping four -inch white lines on both sides of
Cypress Avenue, north of Eighth Street, designating a "Clear Aisle" for
emergency access, as recommended by staff.
Motion Reviczky, second Mayor Tucker. The motion was replaced by a
substitute motion.
Action: To approve striping four -inch red lines on both sides of Cypress
Avenue, north of Eighth Street, designating a "Clear Aisle" for emergency
access.
Motion Edgerton, second Mayor Tucker. The motion carried by a unanimous
vote.
Further Action: To approve the installation of stop signs on Eighth Street at
Cypress Avenue, as recommended by staff.
Motion Reviczky, second Mayor Tucker. The motion carried, noting the
dissenting vote of Councilman Keegan.
(k) RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE STORM MAINTENANCE
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE COUNTY -OWNED STORM DRAIN
OUTLETS AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AND THE CITY
CLERK TO ATTEST THE CONTRACTS, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF
City Council Minutes 6-13-06 Page 11932
(I)
(m)
• •
THE CITY ATTORNEY. Memorandum from Public Works Director Richard
Morgan dated June 5, 2006.
Action: To approve the staff recommendation to:
(1) Approve the Storm Maintenance Cooperative Agreement with the
County of Los Angeles for maintenance of the County -owned storm
drain outlets; and
(2) Authorize the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest the
contracts, subject to approval of the City Attorney.
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE CHANGE OF SCOPE FOR PHASE 1
OF CIP 06-641 - CLARK BUILDING REFURBISHMENT TO OBTAIN
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN SERVICES AND AUTHORIZE AN
APPROPRIATION OF $15,000 FROM THE FUNDS REMAINING IN THE
PIER RENOVATION PROJECT IN FY 05-06, THEREBY CREATING CIP 06-
641 IN THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR. Memorandum from Public Works
Director Richard Morgan dated June 6, 2006.
Action: To approve the staff recommendation to:
(1) Approve the change of scope for Phase 1 of CIP 06-641 - Clark
Building refurbishment to obtain architectural design services; and
(2) Authorize an appropriation of $15,000 from the funds remaining in the
Pier Renovation Project in FY 05-06, thereby creating CIP 06-641 in
the current fiscal year.
RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL
MAP #26020 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 852 AND 856
MONTEREY BOULEVARD. Memorandum from Community Development
Director Sol Blumenfeld dated June 6, 2006.
Action: To approve the staff recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 06-
5470, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FINAL PARCEL MAP NO.
26020, FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM,
LOCATED AT 852 AND 856 MONTEREY BOULEVARD IN THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA."
(n) RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL
MAP #61755 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 617 AND 619 FIFTH
STREET. Memorandum from Community Development Director Sol
Blumenfeld dated June 6, 2006.
Action: To approve the staff recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 06-
6471, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FINAL PARCEL MAP NO.
61755, FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM,
City Council Minutes
6-13-06 Page 11933
• •
LOCATED AT 617 AND 619 FIFTH STREET IN THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA."
At 7:44 p.m., the order of the agenda was suspended to go to public hearing items 5
(a) and (b).
3. CONSENT ORDINANCES
a. ORDINANCE NO. 06-1267 - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PROHIBITING SMOKING ON THE
BEACH AND AMENDING THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE."
For Adoption. Memorandum from City Clerk Memorandum from City Clerk
Elaine Doerfling dated May 31, 2006.
Action: To waive full reading and adopt Ordinance No. 06-1267.
Motion Keegan, second Mayor Tucker. The motion carried by the following
vote:
AYES: Edgerton, Keegan, Mayor Tucker
NOES: Reviczky
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
4. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE
DISCUSSION
Items 2(a), (e), (g) and (j) were heard at this time but are shown in order for
clarity.
Public comments on items removed from the Consent Calendar are shown
under the appropriate item.
At 9:45 p.m., the order of the agenda went to item 9(a) Other Matters - City Council.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. 2006-2007 BUDGET AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
(1) ADOPTION OF 2006-2007 BUDGET. Memorandum from Finance
Director Viki Copeland dated June 6, 2006. Supplemental emails from
Susan Bloomfield, M. Kathleen Dantzer, Stacy Moulton, Dennis Jarvis,
Jackie Friedman, and Ervin & Gabi Adler received on June 12, 2006.
Supplemental letter from Gordon B. Evans and email from Jim & Miyo
Prassas received on June 13, 2006.
Finance Director Copeland presented the staff report and responded to
Council questions.
City Council Minutes 6-13-06 Page 11934
i
• •
The public hearing opened at 7:54 p.m. Coming forward to address the Council on
this item were:
Cathy Osborne — Hermosa Beach, read a statement she wrote regarding
Lance Widman's removal of "No on Measure A" signs and the
proposed renewal of his mediation contract with the City; said she had
emailed each of the Councilmembers last night regarding this topic and
inadvertently received an answer from Lance Widman to some of the
Councilmembers with his thoughts on what the Council should do
about his contract, with her email embedded in the response; said she
was concerned about due process and a possible Brown Act violation;
Earl Keegan — Hermosa Beach, said the mediation contract should be put out
to bid as there were many individuals in the community who would be
more impartial;
Bernie Friedman — Hermosa Beach, said he found the situation regarding the
removal of campaign signs embarrassing and would like to see the
mediation contract go out for bid, with Mr. Widman being excluded;
Jay Hurd — Hermosa Beach, suggested awarding the mediation contract with
the City to someone less controversial; said removing campaign signs
and conducting mediation did not seem like a good match;
Patty Egerer — Hermosa Beach, spoke about the capital improvement project
of Sixteenth Street sidewalks and wondered if, to be in compliance with
the State in putting in the sidewalks, the telephone poles could be
placed underground and the cost factored into the City budget;
Dick McCurdy — Hermosa Beach, said the "No on Measure A" group, ran a
good campaign, but it had become a personal issue that had gone on
too long; said it was time to worry about the children and classrooms
and stop personal attacks on people who had served the community
well for a long time;
Jackie Friedman — Hermosa Beach, spoke of personal attacks in the
newspapers by the "Yes on Measure A" group, which were insulting to
those in the "No on Measure A" group who had worked hard on the
campaign; opposed renewal of the current mediation contract;
Gordon Evans — Hermosa Beach, said sometimes people were simply on the
opposite sides of issues, noting that he attended most of the school
board meetings over the last three years; spoke of slanderous
statements in the newspaper about the Measure A opponents; said
people thought they were getting classrooms with the last measure
and a gym was unnecessary because of the good weather in this area;
Jim Caldwell — Hermosa Beach, said that since Lance Widman's behavior did
not constitute a crime and this had become a tit-for-tat battle, he hoped
that things would settle down; and
Gordon Evans — Hermosa Beach, returned to the podium when the Council
asked if anyone in the audience had used Mr. Widman's mediation
services, and he described an instance when Mr. Widman's services
were requested to mediate with a church whose bells were disturbing
the neighborhood; said no when asked by the Council if Mr. Widman
was rude or obnoxious in these dealings.
City Council Minutes 6-13-06 Page 11935
• •
The public hearing closed at 8:15 p.m.
In response to Council questions, City Attorney Jenkins said the Los Angeles
County District Attorney had ruled that Mr. Widman had committed no crime
in removing the campaign signs placed illegally on public property, noting that
it was advisable, however, for citizens to contact the City to remove the signs.
Action: To approve the staff recommendation to:
(1) Appropriate $5,000 from Prospective Expenditures in 2005-2006 for
the Envelope of Life Program;
(2) Appropriate $10,000 from Prospective Expenditures in 2005-2006 for
the Historical Society Expansion, with cost estimates and a time line
required; and
(3) Adopt Resolution No. 06-6472, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA,
ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007."
Motion Reviczky, second Keegan. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
Further Action: To approve contracts listed in the staff report for services
budgeted in the 2006-2007 Budget except for South Bay Center for Dispute
Resolution, which will go out to bid.
Motion Keegan, second Mayor Tucker. The motion carried by a unanimous
vote.
In response to Council questions, City Manager Burrell said the existing
mediation contract would continue on a month to month basis, and the matter
would come back to Council probably in October for contract approval.
(2) ADOPTION OF 2006-2007 APPROPRIATION LIMIT. Memorandum
from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated June 5, 2006.
Finance Director Copeland presented the staff report and responded to
Council questions.
The public hearing opened at 8:31 p.m. As no one came forward to address the
Council on this item, the public hearing closed at 8:31 p.m.
Action: To approve the staff recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 06-
6473, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE
ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007."
Motion Keegan, second Reviczky. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
b. HERMOSA BEACH LANDSCAPING AND STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT
2006-2007. Memorandum from Public Works Director Richard Morgan dated
June 5, 2006.
City Council Minutes
6-13-06 Page 11936
•
Public Works Director Morgan presented the staff report and responded to
Council questions.
The public hearing opened at 8:33 p.m. As no one came forward to address the
Council on this item, the public hearing closed at 8:33 p.m.
Action: To approve the staff recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 06-
6474, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING A DIAGRAM AND
ASSESSMENT AND LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
COMMENCING JULY 1, 2006, AND ENDING JUNE 20, 2007, IN
CONNNECTION WITH THE HERMOSA BEACH LANDSCAPING AND
STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT 2006-2007."
Motion Reviczky, second Keegan. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
6. MUNICIPAL MATTERS
a. BRIEF OVERVIEW OF JULY FOURTH OPERATIONAL PLANS FOR CITY
POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS. Memorandum from Interim Police
Chief David Barr and Fire Chief Russell Tingley dated June 13, 2006.
Interim Police Chief Barr and Fire Chief Tingley presented the staff report and
responded to Council questions.
Action: To receive and file the report.
Motion Reviczky, second Keegan. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
b. REQUEST TO RENEW THE EXCLUSIVE TAXICAB FRANCHISE
AGREEMENTS. Memorandum from Interim Police Chief David Barr dated
May 31, 2006.
Interim Police Chief Barr presented the staff report and responded to Council
questions. City Manager Burrell also responded to Council questions.
Coming forward to address the Council on this item was:
Alfred Martinez — resident of Downey and cab driver for South Bay Yellow
Cab, discussed the increase in franchise fees with the last franchise
agreement, and the relocation of the taxi stand which has resulted in
an unfair arrangement with the last taxi in line receiving the first fare
rather than the first taxi cab in line; suggested another location since
the traffic did not improve with the current location, as was the intent.
Action: To approve the staff recommendation to:
(1) Authorize the City Manager to renew a taxicab franchise agreement
with All Yellow Taxi and Administrative Services Cooperative of
City Council Minutes
6-13-06 Page 11937
• •
Gardena, California and Bell Cab Company of Hawthorne, and United
Independent Taxi of Los Angeles; and
(2) Allow 60 days for United Independent Taxi of Los Angeles to fill their
allowed maximum number of cabs and then divide the number of cabs
not furnished by United Independent Taxi of Los Angeles between the
other companies to maintain a total of 140 cabs.
Motion Keegan, second Edgerton. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
The meeting recessed at 9:15 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 9:18 p.m., with item 6(c).
c. AMENDMENT TO THE CITY'S BUILDING CODE ADDING NEW
PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION
AND DEMOLITION JOB SITES AND NEW PENALTY PROVISIONS FOR
RELATED CODE VIOLATIONS. Memorandum from Community
Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated June 1, 2006.
City Manager Burrell requested that this item be continued to the next Council
meeting of June 27, 2006.
Action: To continue the item to June 27, 2006, as recommended by staff.
Motion Mayor Tucker, second Keegan. The motion carried by a unanimous
vote.
7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER
a. STATUS REPORT ON AMENDMENTS TO LOT MERGER ORDINANCE.
Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated June 7, 2006.
Action: To direct staff to proceed with a Municipal Code Amendment for
Council consideration at a future meeting.
Motion Reviczky, second Edgerton. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
b. SUNSET CONCERT SERIES — APPROVAL OF THIRD CONCERT
PERFORMER. Oral report from City Manager Stephen Burrell.
Supplemental information received from Community Resources Department
on June 13, 2006.
City Manager Burrell presented the staff report and responded to Council
questions.
Action: To select Billy Vera and the Beaters to perform at the third beach
concert in the 2006 Sunset Concert Series on Sunday, August 6. 2006.
Motion Edgerton, second Reviczky. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
At 9:24 p.m., the order of the agenda returned to 3(a) consent ordinances.
City Council Minutes
6-13-06 Page 11938
•
8. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL - None
9. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL
a. Request from Councilman Reviczky to consider amending the Zoning
Code to allow weekly vacation rentals.
Action: Council consensus was to agendize for discussion at a future
Council meeting.
ANNOUNCEMENT IN OPEN SESSION OF ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED IN
CLOSED SESSION AS FOLLOWS:
City Manager Burrell said that an item needed to be added to the Closed Session
concerning the Macpherson case, noting that the matter came up after the agenda
was posted.
Action: To add to the Closed Session agenda a discussion of the Macpherson
case, based on the findings that the issue arose after the posting of the agenda and
required immediate action.
Motion Keegan, second Reviczky. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
a. Closed Session meeting held on May 9, 2006;
b. Closed Session meeting held on June 1, 2006; and
c. Closed Session meeting held on June 6, 2006.
2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL
The City Council finds, based on advice from legal counsel, that discussion in
open session will prejudice the position of the City in the litigation.
Existing Litigation: Government Code Section 54956.9(a)
Name of Case:
Case Number:
Philia Five Group, LLC dba The Union Cattle Company
YS015070
Threatened Litigation: Government Code Section 54956.9(b)
(One item added this evening)
3. LIABILITY CLAIMS
Government Code Section 54956.95
Claimant: Gary Brutsch and Tina Williams
Claim Against: City of Hermosa Beach
City Council Minutes
6-13-06 Page 11939
• S
ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION — The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the
City of Hermosa Beach adjourned on Tuesday, June 13, 2006, at the hour of 9:50
p.m. to a closed session.
RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION — The Closed Session convened on Tuesday,
June 13, 2006, at the hour of 9:57 p.m. At the hour of 10:20 p.m., the Closed
Session adjourned to the Regular Meeting.
ORAL ANNOUNCEMENTS — There were no decisions made requiring a public
announcement.
ADJOURNMENT - The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa
Beach adjourned on Tuesday, June 13, 2006, at the hour of 10:21 p.m. to the
Regular Meeting of June 27, 2006, at 7:10 p.m.
City Council Minutes
6-13-06 Page 11940
vchlist Check Register Page: 1
06/20/2006 7:13:41AM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
44356 6/20/2006 00243 HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCO 06152006 Payroll/6-1 to 6-15-06
001-1103 418, 943.01
105-1103 3,993.40
109-1103 1,555.0
117-1103 1,887.
145-1103 54.
152-1103 34.58
156-1103 3,626.71
160-1103 6,887.17
301-1103 5,971.89
705-1103 3,626.66
715-1103 4,641.39
Total : 451,221.67
1 Vouchers for bank code : boa Bank total : 451,221.67
1 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 451,221.67
•
Na)
/ Page: 1
L
vchlist Check Register Page: 1
06/22/2006 4:43:32PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
Description/Account Amount
44357 6/22/2006 08955 AAE INC. 14789 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES/MAY 06
001-3104-4201 680.00
Total : 680.00
44358 6/22/2006 06290 AIR SOURCE INDUSTRIES 445277 Oxygen Refill / May 06
001-2201-4309 167.30
445301 Oxygen Refill/ May 06
001-2201-4309 261.
Total : 429.05
44359 6/22/2006 12066 AIT 7011 Toner and Ink Purch/Jun 06
001-2201-4305 123.69
Total : 123.69
44360 6/22/2006 11837 AJILON OFFICE T000326145 Temp Services/Week end 6-4-06
001-4601-4201 431.65
Total : 431.65
44361 6/22/2006 06827 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT 7461 CROSSING GUARD SERVICE/5-14 TO 5-27-06
001-2102-4201 3,375.35
Total : 3,375.35
44362 6/22/2006 13815 BENNET-BOWEN & LIGHTHOUSE It 313835 FLASHLIGHT CHARGER
001-2201-5401 147.98
Total : 147.94
44363 6/22/2006 09104 BLENDER, TRACY 19048 Instructor Pymt/ # 10578, 10579
001-4601-4221 1,281.00
Total : 1,281.00
44364 6/22/2006 08482 BOUND TREE MEDICAL,LLC 50295438 Medical Supplies - Fire Dept/ May 06
001-2201-4309 111.18
50295461 Medical Supplies - Fire Dept/ May 06
001-2201-4309 26.50
50297828 Medical Supplies - Fire Dept/ May 06
001-2201-4309 337.58
Page: 1
vchlist Check Register Page: 2
06/22/2006 4:43:32PM
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice
44364 6/22/2006 08482 BOUND TREE MEDICAL,LLC
44365 6/22/2006 11620 BRUNN, OFFICER GEORGE
44366 6/22/2006 00016 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE
44367
6/22/2006 11913 CAPIO
44368 6/22/2006 11819 CAREERTRACK
44369 6/22/2006 10547 CBM CONSULTING, INC.
(Continued)
50297887
50299228
19059
60506
19060
8678316
8678317
323008
324008
DescriptionlAccount
Amount
Medical Supplies -
001-2201-4309
Medical Supplies -
001-2201-4309
Fire Dept/ May 06
Fire Dept/ Jun 06
Reimburse/ Uniform Expense
001-2101-4314
Water Usage - Apr 06
105-2601-4303
001-6101-4303
001-4204-4303
109-3304-4303
Member Renewal/ P Walcott
001-2101-4317
Registration/ M Brown
001-4601-4317
Registration/ D. Hunter
001-4601-4317
ENGINEERING SERVICES/ MAY 06
301-8117-4201
ENGINEERING SERVICES/ MAY 06
301-8120-4201
44370 6/22/2006 12111 CHACO, JOHN 19043 Instructor Pymt/# 10810, 10814
001-4601-4221
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
4.28
23.82
503.11)
375.25
375.25
1,209.62
7,772.34
725.44
241.58
9,948.98
175.00
175.00
99.06
99.00
198.00
562.50
1,320.00
1,882.50
252.00
252.00
Page: 2
3
vchlist Check Register Page: 3
06/22(2006 4:43:32PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code: boa
Voucher
Date Vendor Invoice
Description/Account
Amount
44371 6/22/2006 00634 CHEVRON AND TEXACO CARD SEF 7898192088606
44372 6/22/2006 13361 CINGULAR WIRELESS
44373 6/22/2006 05935 CLEAN STREET
44374 6/22/2006 04715 COLEN AND LEE
44375 6/22/2006 05970 COLLINS, DENNIS
44376 6/22/2006 07809 CORPORATE EXPRESS
44377 6/22/2006 00879 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Gas Card Purchases/ May 06
715-2101-4310
556214765X06112006 Cell Phone Usage/ May 06
001-4202-4304
46166
46167
2763
19023
70750749
70776068
70776070
70776072
AR323926
AR323952
Total :
Total :
DWNTWN PIER- PIER CLEANING/MAY 06
109-3301-4201
001-6101-4201
CITYWIDE STREET SWEEPING/ MAY 06
001-3104-4201
Total :
GENERAL LIABILITY CLAIMS ADMIN./MAY 06
705-1209-4201
Instructor Pymt/ # 10644, 10645
001-4601-4221
Office Supplies / May 06
001-1208-4305
Office Supplies / May 06
001-1208-4305
Summer Celebration Supplies / May 06
001-4601-4308
Summer Celebration Supplies / May 06
001-4601-4308
SEWER PUMP STATION MAINT/APR 06
160-3102-4251
ARTESIA BLVD. MEDIAN MAINT/APR 06
302-3104-4251
Total :
Total :
Total :
798.91
798.91
257.88
257.88
8,442.5
2,814.14
15,530.00
26,786.66
1,000.00
1,000.00
3,314.50
3,314.50
249.96
18.111
65.05
91.15
425.00
1,020.59
193.03
Page: 3
4/
vchlist Check Register Page: 4
06/22/2006 4:43:32PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher
Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
44377 6/22/2006 00879 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (Continued) Total : 1,213.62
44378 6/22/2006 00850 CURTIS, L.N. 1080394-00 Turnouts/ Hawkins
001-2201-5402 832.44
1080394-01 Turnouts/ Hawkins
001-2201-5402 665.7•
1086630-00 Returned Merchandise
001-2201-5402 -1,440.81
1102970-00 TURNOUTS/ B GREBBIEN
001-2201-4350 1,568.76
1104456-00 Emer Fire Hose Replacement
001-2201-5401 854.78
1104599-00 TURNOUTS/ J CRAWFORD
001-2201-4350 633.26
6000679-00 SILVEX CLASS A FOAM BUCKETS
001-2201-5401 519.60
Total : 3,633.77
44379 6/22/2006 05631 CUSA CC, LLC 139790 Sr Bus Trip/Queen Mary/May 06
145-3409-4201 758.75
Total : 758.75
44380 6/22/2006 12856 CYGANY, INC. 3308 DOG BAGS FOR CITY PARKS AND GREENBEL
001-6101-4309 843.411
Total : 843.
44381 6/22/2006 08855 D & D SERVICES, INC. 12693 Dead Animal Disposal/ May 06
001-3302-4201 295.00
Total : 295.00
44382 6/22/2006 08741 D.F. POLYGRAPH 2006/2 Polygraph/ May 06
001-2101-4201 150.00
61406 Polygraph Testing/ Jun 06
001-2101-4201 300.00
Total : 450.00
44383 6/22/2006 12991 DELL MARKETING L.P. N07969393 BACK UP SERVER
Page: 4
vchlist Check Register Page: 5
06/22/2006 4:43:32PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
Description/Account Amount
44383 6/22/2006 12991 DELL MARKETING L.P. (Continued)
153-2106-5402
44384 6/22/2006 03673 DEPARTMENT OF THE CORONER REAU90514 Autopsy Report/Jun 06
001-2101-4251
44385 6/22/2006 09823 DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTAN 19046 EPA Manifest Fee
715-4206-4251
44386 6/22/2006 00147 DEVELOPMENT, THE 160654 Film Developing / May 06
001-2201-4305
160798 Film Developing/ May 06
001-2201-4305
Total :
Total :
Total :
5,890.03
5,890.03
78.00
78.00
207.0•
207.00
47.59
19.00
Total : 66.59
44387 6/22/2006 01958 ECKERT, THOMAS 19087 Tuition Reimbursement
001-2101-4317 1,125.00
Total : 1,125.00
44388 6/22/2006 04685 FIRST CHOICE FIRE PROTECTION 54612 ANNUAL SERV & INSPECT/FIRE PUMP/PRK ST
109-3304-4201 500.00
Total : 500.00
44389 6/22/2006 12311 GREMAUD, MARIE BAPTISTE 19037 Instructor Pymt/ # 10652, 10657
001-4601-4221 406.00
Total : 406.00
44390 6/22/2006 04478 HALLGREN, JANET 19084 2005 Assessment Tax Rebate
105-3105
Total :
44391 6/22/2006 06518 HAYER CONSULTANTS, INC. 2526 Plan Check/ Feb 06
001-4201-4201
2541 Plan Check Consult/1-14-06
001-4201-4201
24.61
24.61
750.00
41.82
Page: 5
vchlist Check Register Page: 6
06/22/2006 4:43:32PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
44391 6/22/2006 06518 HAYER CONSULTANTS, INC. (Continued)
2548
Plan Check / Mar 06
001-4201-4201 450.00
Total : 1,24t82
44392 6/22/2006 04108 HAZELRIGG RISK MGMT SERV, INC 61906 Worker's Comp Claims/ 6-19-06
705-1217-4324 24,326.5
Total : 24,326.50
44393 6/22/2006 07027 HODGES, ALBERT 19070 2005 Assessment Tax Rebate
105-3105 24.61
Total : 24.61
44394 6/22/2006 06100 IRON MOUNTAIN OFF-SITE DATA 101053343 Off Site Storage/ May 06
715-1206-4201 198.33
Total : 198.33
44395 6/22/2006 10923 ISI TELEMANAGEMENT SOLUTION: 7003617 -IN Software Supp Subscription/FY 06/07
001-1550 848.70
Total : 848.70
44396 6/22/2006 13840 JOHN M CRUIKSHANK 5877 DESIGN & ENGINEERING SERVICES/MAY 06
301-8104-4201 652.50
Total : 652.5,
44397 6/22/2006 13858 KESHMIRI, ALI 125962 Facility Rental Deposit Refund
001-2111 110.00
Total : 110.00
44398 6/22/2006 00843 L.A. COUNTY METROPOLITAN 6060218 Bus Pass/ Stamp Sales/ Jun 06
145-3403-4251 204.00
Total : 204.00
44399 6/22/2006 10677 LAWRENCE ASSOCIATES 53106 Staff Supp Services/ May 06
140-8626-4201 1,734.00
117-5301-4201 1,479.00
Total : 3,213.00
Page: 6
vchlist Check Register Page: 7
06/22/2006 4:43:32PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice
Description/Account Amount
44400 6/22/2006 00167 LEARNED LUMBER
B21255
B21589
Summer Celebration Supplies/ Jun 06
001-4601-4308 18.46
Lumber Materials/ Jun 06
001-4601-4305 8.42
Total : 26.88
44401 6/22/2006 02175 LIEBERT, CASSIDY WHITMORE 67138 Legal, RE: HE050 00001 RK
001-1203-4201 237.1
67139 Legal, RE: HE050 00029 RK
001-1203-4201 1,701.00
67140 Legal, RE: HE050 00032 RK
001-1203-4201 3,961.75
67141 Legal, RE: HE050 00034 RK
001-1203-4201 8,940.61
67142 Legal, RE: HE050 00036 RK
001-1203-4201 11,338.35
67143 Legal, RE: HE050 00037 RK
001-1203-4201 2,089.92
67144 Legal, RE: HE050 00039 RGU
001-1203-4201 353.40
Total : 28,622.18
44402 6/22/2006 08445 LITTLE CO OF MARY HOSPITAL Q017007301 Blood Alcohol Draw /Q017007301
001-2101-4201 41.00
Total : 41.00
44403 6/22/2006 12599 LOCKLEAR, DEREK BRENT 10697-700 Instructor Pymt/ #10690,91,92 •
001-460144221 1,960.00
Total : 1,960.00
44404 6/22/2006 11107 LONG BEACH, CITY OF 19003 Leeway Sailing Ctr/Teen Extreme/7-06
001-1550 100.00
Total : 100.00
44405 6/22/2006 10045 MAIN STREET TOURS 33557 Bus Trip/Getty Villa/May 06
001-4601-4201 573.00
Page: 7
vchlist Check Register Page: 8
06/22/2006 4:43:32PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
44405 6/22/2006 10045 MAIN STREET TOURS (Continued) Total : 573.00
44406 6/22/2006 12664 MAJOR PUMPS AND CONTROLS 10425 EMER REPAIR -FIRE PUMP/PRKG STRUCTURE
109-3304-4201 550.00
Total : 550.00
44407 6/22/2006 06514 MAXIMUS, INC. 1030385-003 MANDATED COST CLAIMS/FY 06/07/4 OTR •
001-1202-4201 975.00
Total : 975.00
44408 6/22/2006 10681 MAYNOR, DONALD H. 60506 LEGAL SERVICES RE: UUT AUDIT/4TH QTR -
001 -1202-4201 1,250.00
Total : 1,250.00
44409 6/22/2006 10324 MBIA MUNI SERVICES COMPANY INV -12043 ANNUAL UUT AUDIT SERVICES/4TH QTR
001-1202-4201 1,560.19
Total : 1,560.19
44410 6/22/2006 09471 MCCOY, SONIA 19069 2005 Assessment Tax Rebate
105-3105 24.61
Total : 24.61
44411 6/22/2006 13791 MONTROSE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 23557 DVD Recorder,Plyr/Council Chambers
001-1101-5402 1,164.03
23571 Test/Calibrate AV Sys in CC/Jun 06
715-4204-4201 562.
Total : 1,726.53
44412 6/22/2006 07827 MUTUAL PROPANE 086434 Propane/ May 06
715-3302-4310 171.43
Total : 171.43
44413 6/22/2006 09881 NAFCO 29887 PARKING DECALS AND HANGING TAGS
001-1203-4305 459.57
001-2021 4.28
001-2022 -4.28
Total : 459.57
Page: 8
7
vchlist Check Register Page: 9
06/22/2006 4:43:32PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
Description/Account Amount
44414 6/22/2006 10098 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 551834312-054 Cell Phone Usage - May 06
001-4601-4304
959814312-054 Cell Phone Usage - May 06
001-4202-4304
001-4202-5401
44415 6/22/2006 13862 NORCON COMMUNICATIONS, INC 42199
Removable Microphone/Comm Center
001-4601-5401
Total :
Total :
208.02
515.82
124.74
848.58
154.
154.91
44416 6/22/2006 13114 OFFICE DEPOT 339734468-001 Office Supplies / Jun 06
001-1203-4305 26.29
Total : 26.29
44417 6/22/2006 12910 PIP PRINTING 2603 EQUIPMENT REQUEST FORMS/COPIES
001-2201-4305 400.22
Total : 400.22
12,300.00
Total : 12,300.00
44419 6/22/2006 08768 QUADRANT SYSTEMS 60512-28 Annual Software Supp/FY 06/07
715-1550 950.00
Total : 950.00
44420 6/22/2006 01429 RADIO SHACK CORPORATION 447976 Batteries/ May 06 •
001-2101-4309 37.87
Total : 37.87
44421 6/22/2006 04800 RAY, VINCE 19034 Instructor Pymt/# 10735, 10738
001-4601-4221 448.00
Total : 448.00
44422 6/22/2006 13301 RESOURCE COLLECTION, THE 0128287 -IN JANITORIAL SERVICES/ MAY 06
001-4204-4201 7,718.00
44418 6/22/2006 11539 PROSUM TECHNOLOGY SERVICE 17935
Comp Supp Serv/ May 06
715-1206-4201
Page: 9
/c)
vchlist
06/22/2006 4:43:32PM
Check Register
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Page: 10
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice
44422 6/22/2006 13301
44423
44424
44425
44426
RESOURCE COLLECTION, THE (Continued)
0128930 -IN
6/22/2006 00321 SBC
0128931 -IN
248 134-9454 462 8
331 254-6071 301 5
333 267-6155 686 9
333 267-6160 767 0
333 267-6161 416 3
333 267-6164 193 5
333 267-6165 717 0
6/22/2006 00118 SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL COURT 19056
6/22/2006 08116
6/22/2006 00159
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 6444-2000, 62078
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON C 2-00-989-6911
2-00-989-7315
2-01-836-7458
Description/Account
Amount
JANITORIAL SERVICES/ MAY 06
001-4204-4201
JANITORIAL SERVICES/ MAY 06
001-4204-4201
Circuit Billing / Jun 06
001-2101-4304
Circuit Billing / Jun 06
001-2101-4304
Circuit Billing / Jun 06
001-2101-4304
Circuit Billing /Jun 06
001-2101-4304
Circuit Billing/ Jun 06
001-2101-4304
Circuit Billing/ Jun 06
001-2101-4304
Circuit Billing / May 06
001-2101-4304
Citations Surcharge /May 06
001-3302
Meter Relocation/Service Upgrade
160-8418-4201
Electrical Billing - May 06
105-2601-4303
Electrical Billing - May 06
105-2601-4303
Electrical Billing - May 06
105-2601-4303
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
385.00
1,180.00
9,283.*
10.61
57.66
188.36
59.44
59.44
50.68
50.68
476.87
16,154.5
16,154.50
297.00
297.00
87.75
10,690.99
29.01
Page: 10
If
vchlist Check Register Page: 11
06/22/2006 4:43:32PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
44426 6/22/2006 00159 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON C (Continued)
2-02-274-0542 Electrical Billing - May 06
001-6101-4303 13.33
2-08-629-3669 Electrical Billing - May 06
001-4204-4303 92.39
2-09-076-5850 Electrical Billing - May 06
105-2601-4303 31.28
2-10-947-9824 Electrical Billing - May 06
105-2601-4303 96.
2-19-024-1604 Electrical Billing - May 06
001-6101-4303 602.05
2-20-128-4825 Electrical Billing - May 06
109-3304-4303 2,046.35
2-20-128-5475 Electrical Billing - May 06
001-4204-4303 28.43
2-20-984-6179 Electrical Billing - May 06
105-2601-4303 24.77
2-20-984-6369 Electrical Billing - May 06
105-2601-4303 188.79
2-21-400-7684 Electrical Billing - May 06
105-2601-4303 24.86
2-21-964-8003 Electrical Billing - May 06
105-2601-4303 24.86
2-22-267-0663 Electrical Billing - May 06
109-3304-4303 64.4,
2-23-687-8021 Electrical Billing - May 06
001-3104-4303 75.18
2-26-686-5930 Electrical Billing - May 06
105-2601-4303 1,817.22
Total : 15,938.07
44427 6/22/2006 00146 SPARKLETTS 0606 2553313 447278. Drinking Water/ Jun 06
001-4601-4305
0606 2553411 447298 Water Cooler Rental/ Jun 06
001-2201-4305
64.59
2.00
Page: 11
/Z
vchlist Check Register Page: 12
06/22/2006 4:43:32PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor invoice Description/Account Amount
44427 6/22/2006 00146 SPARKLETTS (Continued) Total: 66.59
44428 6/22/2006 10412 STERICYCLE 0003619303 Medical Waste Disposal - May 06
001-2101-4201 87.72
Total : 87.72
44429 6/22/2006 09198 STONEBRIDGE PRODUCTIONS 19075 Deposit/Sunset Concert Series •
001-1550 10,000.00
Total : 10,000.00
44430 6/22/2006 13861 SULLINS, KHALIL 125816 Facility Rental Deposit Refund
001-2111 250.00
Total : 250.00
44431 6/22/2006 06409 SULLY -MILLER CONTRACTING CO. 144359 Asphalt/ May 06
001-3104-4309 245.44
Total : 245.44
44432 6/22/2006 05869 T2 SYSTEMS, INC. 110764-M Ann Powerpack Maint Agree/FY06/07
715-1550 9,944.25
110765-M Ann Hardware Maint Agree/FY06/07
715-1550 5,385.00
Total : 15,329.25
44433 6/22/2006 13860 THACKSTON, AMY 125820 Class Refund
001-2111 25.00
Total : 25.00
44434 6/22/2006 09000 THOMAS, MARIA S 19055 2005 Assessment Tax Rebate
105-3105 24.61
Total : 24.61
44435 6/22/2006 09078 TRUGREEN LAND CARE REGIONAL 2455071237 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE/MAY 06
001-6101-4201
105-2601-4201
109-3301-4201
16,135.64
695.25
257.50
Page: 12
/0,
vchlist Check Register Page: 13
06/22/2006 4:43:32PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
44435 6/22/2006 09078 TRUGREEN LAND CARE REGIONAL (Continued)
2455071238 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE/MAY 06
105-2601-4201 2,575.00
109-3301-4201 927.00
2455098880 REDUCE SLOPES NOBLE PARK
001-6101-4201 1,400.00
Total : 21,990.39
44436 6/22/2006 08207 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT 520060306 Underground Service Alert/ Jun 06 .
160-3102-4201 78.40
Total : 78.40
44437 6/22/2006 04768 UPTIME COMPUTER SERVICE 19863 Printer Maintenance/ Jun 06
715-1206-4201 619.52
Total : 619.52
44438 6/22/2006 01340 VERIZON 310 UH9-9686 060508 MOVE 5 PHONE LINES/CENTRANET
001-2101-4304 397.18
Total : 397.18
44439 6/22/2006 00015 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 310 372-6373 Phone Charges/ Jun 06
001-1203-4304 38.10
310 406-2421 Circuit Billing / Jun 06
001-2101-4304 38.60
310 UH9-9686 060508 Phone Charges/ May 06
001-2101-4304 153.7
Total : 230.
44440 6/22/2006 10703 WILLDAN 061-19743
44441 6/22/2006 00135 XEROX CORPORATION 017646883
44442 6/22/2006 10688 YOUNG, FAYE 19065
Labor Standards Comp/Feb 06
140-8626-4201
Copier Maintenance / May 06
001-2101-4201
2005 Assessment Tax Rebate
Total :
Total :
760.00
760.00
166.99
166.99
Page: 13
vchlist Check Register
06/22/2006 4:43:32PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Page: 14
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice
44442 6/22/2006 10688 YOUNG, FAYE
(Continued)
Description/Account Amount
105-3105 24.61
Total : 24.61
44443 6/22/2006 01206 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES 0086839 Street Sign Maint Material/ May 06
001-3104-4309 655.4
0086933 Street Sign Maint Material/ May 06
001-3104-4309 866.43
0086934 Street Sign Maint Material/ May 06
001-3104-4309 858.96
Total : 2,380.84
87 Vouchers for bank code : boa Bank total : 246,731.01
87 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 246,731.01
•
Page: 14
vchlist Check Register Page: 1
06/29/2006 4:34:26PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
Description/Account Amount
44444 6/29/2006 02744 A & E TROPHIES 0606-101 Brass plate with engraving/J Lombardo
001-1101-4319 19.49
Total : 19.49
44445 6/29/2006 11837 AJILON OFFICE T000330994 Temp Services/Week ending 6-11-06
001-4601-4201 333.75
T000335850 Temp Services/Week ending 6-18-06
001-4601-4201 244.
Total : 578.50
44446 6/29/2006 13873 ALTAMURA, JOHN 19149 Damage Deposit Refund/353 30th St
001-2110 9,000.00
Total : 9,000.00
44447 6/29/2006 12275 APWA SOUTHERN CA CHAPTER 62206 Employment Ad/ PW Inspector
001-1203-4320 40.00
Total : 40.00
44448 6/29/2006 13609 ARROYO BACKGROUND INVESTIG 38 Background Investigations/Jun 06
001-2101-4201 3,510.00
Total : 3,510.00
44449 6/29/2006 13331 ASSIST ATHLETICS 19120 Instuctor Pymt/ # 10763
001-4601-4221 672.00
Total : 672.00
44450 6/29/2006 05179 AT&T 019 360 8382 001 Phone Charges/5-16 to 6-16-06 •
Page: 1
vchlist Check Register
06/29/2006 4:34:26PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Page: 2
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
44450 6/29/2006 05179 AT&T (Continued)
001-1101-4304 0.06
001-1121-4304 1.08
001-1132-4304 1.68
001-1141-4304 0.93
001-1201-4304 2.
qiii
001-1202-4304 11.
001-1203-4304 14.17
001-1208-4304 0.31
001-2101-4304 104.46
001-2201-4304 53.49
001-4101-4304 7.23
001-4201-4304 18.47
001-4202-4304 25.18
001-4601-4304 16.53
001-1204-4304 6.80
001-3302-4304 1.71
715-1206-4304 1.73
001-4204-4321 9.04
Total : 276.14
44451 6/29/2006 09549 BERGSTROM, ROBERT 19150 2005 Assessment Tax Rebate
105-3105 24.61
Total : 24110
44452 6/29/2006 11076 BOSSONIS, ANDRONIKI 19112 Instructor Pymt/ # 10793, 10794
001-4601-4221 798.00
Total : 798.00
44453 6/29/2006 08344 BOUMA, SHANE 19124 Roller Hockey Referee/ Mar -Jun 06
001-4601-4201 342.00
Total : 342.00
44454 6/29/2006 03372 CA EMS PERSONNEL FUND 19102 Paramedic Lic Renewal/ A Bush
001-2201-4317 130.00
Total : 130.00
44455 6/29/2006 13764 CAL ASSO OF CODE ENFORCEMEF' 19108 Registration/ R Rollins
Page: 2
/7
vchlist Check Register Page: 3
06/29/2006 4:34:26PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
Description/Account Amount
44455 6/29/2006 13764 CAL ASSO OF CODE ENFORCEMEI, (Continued)
001-4201-4317 65.00
Total : 65.00
44456 6/29/2006 12120 CATALINA CHANNEL EXPRESS 19122 Catalina Summer Trip/Final Payment
145-1550
001-1550
44457 6/29/2006 06307 CHASE, MARGARET 19114 Instructor Pymt/ # 10624, 10627
001-4601-4221
44458 6/29/2006 08906 COLOURCRAFT PRINTING INC 25903 06 Summer Rec Brochure
001-4601-4221
44459 6/29/2006 07809 CORPORATE EXPRESS 70887550 Office Supplies/ Jun 06
001-1208-4305
71052313 Office Supplies/ Jun 06
001-1208-4305
44460 6/29/2006 00154 DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL CARE & 60906 Shelter Services/ May 06
001-3302-4251
Total :
Total :
Total :
2,877.00
2,380.50
5,257.56
591.50
591.50
6,839.24
6,839.24
344.17
63.87
Total : 408.04
505.37
Total : 505.37
44461 6/29/2006 00364 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 573060 New Employee Fingerprinting/May 06 •
001-1203-4251 288.00
Total : 288.00
44462 6/29/2006 00604 ° DIVE N' SURF 19113 Instructor Pymt/ # 10895
001-4601-4221
Total :
34.30
34.30
44463 6/29/2006 13872 DYKSTRA, JOE 19141 Citation Refund/# 1206010995
001-3302 35.00
Page: 3
vchlist Check Register Page: 4
06/29/2006 4:34:26PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice
Description/Account Amount
44463 6/29/2006 13872 DYKSTRA, JOE
44464 6/29/2006 05509 ESCALANTE, RICK
(Continued)
19118 Instructor Pymt/ # 10863, 10864
001-4601-4221
44465 6/29/2006 10668 EXXON MOBIL FLEET/GECC 10657073
Gas Card Purch/ 5-11 to 6-10-06
715-2201-4310
715-4201-4310
715-4202-4310
715-6101-4310
715-3302-4310
715-3104-4310
715-4601-4310
715-2601-4310
001-1250
715-2101-4310
44466 6/29/2006 13494 FAST FORMS 1712 ENVELOPES/JUN 06
001-1208-4305
44467 6/29/2006 13864 FIERBERG, IRA M 19083 Witness Fee Refund
001-3818
44468 6/29/2006 10466 GRAHAM CO. 19088 Preventive Maint Agree/FY 06/07
109-1550
44469 6/29/2006 13607 GRUVER, ERIC W. 328 Pre-employment Evaluations/ Jun 06
001-2101-4201
Total :
Total :
Total :
35.00
630.00
630.00
•
621.67
192.61
155.28
415.62
521.89
475.25
92.74
557.65
57.28
5,275.44
8,365.43
552.08
Total : 552.08
150.9 Total : 150.0
Total :
Total :
1,000.00
1,000.00
1,200.00
1,200.00
44470 6/29/2006 12773 HARRIS, CHERI L. 20060620 Transcripts/AVP After Action Mtq 6-20-06
001-4601-4201 84.00
Page: 4
/9
vchlist Check Register Page: 5
06/29/2006 4:34:26PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
Description/Account
Amount
44470
6/29/2006 12773 HARRIS, CHERI L. (Continued)
44471 6/29/2006 04108 HAZELRIGG RISK MGMT SERV, INC 62606
44472 6/29/2006 00322
44473 6/29/2006 04642
44474 6/29/2006 09130
44475 6/29/2006 13330
44476 6/29/2006 06483
44477 6/29/2006 09657
44478 6/29/2006 02458
HERMOSA ANIMAL HOSPITAL
HOLLYWOOD BOWL
HRBOKA, DENNIS
HUGHES SUPPLY, INC.
IMAX THEATER
Workers Comp Claims/ 6-26-06
705-1217-4324
123 Emergency Vet Services/ Jun 06
001-3302-4201
20-29983 Hollywood Bowl Trip/ Aug 19, 06
001-1550
19121 Instructor Pymt/ # 10860
001-4601-4221
S123870720.001
19125 Summer Blast Trip
001-4601-4201
Plumbing Supp/ ClarkStadium Restroom
001-4204-4309
INFOLINK SCREENING SERVICES 214383
INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELECTF 208317-00
208467-00
Pre -employ Background Check/ Jun 06
001-1203-4201
Electrical Supplies - Jun 06
001-4204-4309
001-2021
001-2022
Electrical Supplies - Jun 06
001-4204-4309
001-2021
001-2022
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
84.00
9,385.99
9,385.99
35.1
35.
1,359.00
1,359.00
1,218.00
1,218.00
85.29
85.29
272.50
272.50
95.•
95.40
178.50
3.36
-3.36
Page: 5
vchlist Check Register Page: 6
06/29/2006 4:34:26PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice Description/Account Amount
44478 6/29/2006 02458 INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELECTF (Continued)
208578-00
Electrical Supplies - Jun 06
105-2601-4309
001-2021
001-2022
44479 6/29/2006 12151 JAHNG, CHRISTOPHER Y. 19025 Instructor Pymt/ # 10904
001-4601-4221
44480 6/29/2006 13741 JAS PACIFIC, INC
BI 8862
BI 8909
Interim Assoc Planner/Apr 06
001-4201-4201
Interim Assoc Planner/ May 06
001-4201-4201
Total :
Total :
Total :
485.15
9.13
9.1
765.
3,386.25
3,386.25
2,600.00
12.025.00
14,625.00
44481 6/29/2006 12901 JAZZY GYM, INC 10586,589,592,595 Instructor Pymt/ #10599,604,607
001-4601-4221 962.50
Total : 962.50
44482 6/29/2006 11616 JOHNSON, KIMBERLY 10661-10663 Instructor Pymt/ 10667, 10668
001-4601-4221
2,924.95
Total : 2,924.90
44483 6/29/2006 13868 KC ENTERPRISES, INC 992043 PIER CONCRETE DECK TREAT,LESS RETENT
301-8643-4201 78,750.00
44484 6/29/2006 11065 LAOLAGI, ROSE
10740,743,746,796 Instructor Pymt/ # 10799,802,805
001-4601-4221
Total : 78,750.00
2,226.00
Total : 2,226.00
44485 6/29/2006 00167 LEARNED LUMBER B23472 Maint Supplies/ Jun 06
001-6101-4309 427.37
Total : 427.37
44486 6/29/2006 13870 LEWIS, PHYLLIS 19144 Citation Refund/ # 1406021442
Page: 6
1/
vchlist Check Register Page: 7
06/29/2006 4:34:26PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice
Description/Account Amount
44486 6/29/2006 13870 LEWIS, PHYLLIS (Continued)
44487 6/29/2006 11817 LINNELL, RICHARD 10636, 10633
44488 6/29/2006 13606 LOBO, PEPE HB0306
44489 6/29/2006 11288 MANHATTAN STITCHING CO. 19129
001-3302 10.00
Total : 10.00
Instructor Pymt/# 10632, 10637
001-4601-4221
Total :
CENTENNIAL WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT & MAII
109-4603-4201
Total :
1,043.00
1,043.00
•
1,225.00
1,225.00
Deposit/Embroidery on Sweatshirts
001-2201-4314 352.36
Total : 352.36
44490 6/29/2006 12948 MICO-"THE MICROFILM COMPANY" 9826 Microfiche Services/ Jun 06
001-4201-4201 1,101.70
Total : 1,101.70
44491 6/29/2006 13724 MSM MASONRY 61406 INSTALL RETAINING WALUGREENBELT
001-6101-4201 500.00
Total : 500.00
44492 6/29/2006 13114 OFFICE DEPOT 339099129-001 Office Furniture/Comm Center
001-4601-5402 1,467.08
340524628-001 Surfers Walk&Concert Series Supp/Jun06
001-4601-4308 96.10
Total : 1,563.18
44493 6/29/2006 10139 PARKING CONCEPTS INC. 2840506 ANNUAL OPERATIONS PARKING/MAY 06
109-3304-4231 15,818.65
2850506 OPERATING EXPENSES LOT A/MAY 06
109-3305-4231 9,042.00
Total : 24,860.65
44494 6/29/2006 13875 PICETTI, JUDY & STEVEN 19132 Encroach Dep Refund/Barnacles Bar&Grill
001-2110 1,000.00
Page: 7
vchlist Check Register Page: 8
06/29/2006 4:34:26PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
44494 6/29/2006 13875 PICETTI, JUDY & STEVEN (Continued) Total : 1,000.00
44495 6/29/2006 12910 PIP PRINTING 13882 COPIES/HOME EMER SUPP/ HBNW
001-2101-4201 2,474.60
14003 Copies/Enlargements - Jun 06
001-2201-4305 108.
411
Total : 2,582.8W
80.00
Total : 80.00
0021484 Interim Assoc Engineer/ May 06
301-8117-4201 4,384.00
301-8120-4201 5,304.00
125-8535-4201 1,080.00
302-8121-4201 360.00
Total : 11,128.00
290.00
Total : 290.00
498.4•
Total : 498.40
349.19
916.41
Total : 1,265.60
44501 6/29/2006 03353 S.B.C.U. VISA 043613200401426656. Travel Insurance/ J Gomez
44496 6/29/2006 00097 POSTMASTER
44497 6/29/2006 13608 PSOMAS
44498 6/29/2006 09225 PUBLIC SECTOR EXCELLENCE
44499 6/29/2006 13051 ROBERTS, SCOTT
44500 6/29/2006 09870 RYDIN DECAL
PO BOX 695 PO BOX # 695 Annual Rent
001-2101-4305
19146 Registration/ A Rayburn&B McKinney
001-1550
19028 Instructor Pymt/ # 10826
001-4601-4221
207665
207770
TAXI DECALS/ JUN 06
001-3302-4305
CASH KEY DECALS/ JUN 06
001-1204-4305
001-2201-4317 12.00
043613800414525968, Lodging/ Management Retreat
001-1203-4317 432.30
Page: 8
vchlist
06/29/2006 4:34:26PM
Check Register
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Page: 9
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice
Description/Account
Amount
44501 6/29/2006 03353 S.B.C.U. VISA
44502 6/29/2006 11501
44503 6/29/2006 03428
44504 6/29/2006 11226
SAFETY LINE
SAFETY-KLEEN CORPORATION
SEIDLER, THOMAS
44505 6/29/2006 09656 SHRED IT CALIFORNIA
44506 6/29/2006 09811 SIGLER, WILLIAM E.
(Continued)
043614507200713501
199614650997110021
262613264200010506•
398613228620490027.
398615920730110075'
501614520706617756:
651613020000077014'
684615235715101021.
3368
0031730237
19142
333438914
19026
LODGING CANCELLED/J GOMEZ
001-2201-4317
Oral Board Lunch
001-1203-4201
Air Fare / J. Gomez
001-2201-4317
Management Retreat/ Meal
001-1203-4317
Supplies/ Jun 06
001-1203-4305
Order cancelled
001-4202-4201
Lunch/Sharkees Fire
001-2201-4317
REGISTRATION/JERRY GOMEZ
001-2201-4317
SAFETY JACKETS
001-4202-4314
Total :
Total :
REPLACE SOLVENT TANK SOLUTION/ JUN 06
715-4206-4201
Citation Refund/ # 1206010582
001-3302
Shredding Services/ Jun 06
001-2101-4201
Instructor Pymt/ # 10904
001-4601-4221
Total :
Total :
Total :
-289.14
59.85
139.10
401.80
31.76
-541.94
84.83
569.00
899.60
88.40
88.40
240.90
240.
10.00
10.00
100.00
100.00
3,386.25
Page: 9
a?'
vchlist Check Register Page: 10
06/29/2006 4:34:26PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice DescriptionlAccount Amount
44506 6/29/2006 09811 SIGLER, WILLIAM E. (Continued) Total : 3,386.25
44507 6/29/2006 12930 SPANGLER, DANIELLE 19111 Instructor Pymt/ # 10788
001-4601-4221 602.00
Total : 602.00
44508 6/29/2006 06409 SULLY -MILLER CONTRACTING CO. 145770 Emulsion Purch / Jun 06
001-3104-4309 66.03
145771 Asphalt Purch/ Jun 06
001-3104-4309 163.84
146949 Asphalt & Emulsion Purch/ Jun 06
001-3104-4309 247.75
Total : 477.62
44509 6/29/2006 13803 TIGER DIRECT, INC P743039401012 IRRIGATION CONTROL COMPUTER
001-6101-4309 145.98
Total : 145.98
44510 6/29/2006 08097 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 291245 Safekeeping Fees/ May 06
001-1141-4201 291.67
Total : 291.67
44511 6/29/2006 00015 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 310 167-1756 990511 Circuit Billing/ Jun 06
001-2101-4304 269.8
310 197-3683 Phone Charges/ Jun 06
715-1206-4201 187.15
715-1206-4304 188.45
001-3302-4304 64.57
001-2101-4304 1,270.77
001-4204-4321 58.64
001-2201-4304 240.13
001-4601-4304 149.14
001-4202-4304 122.52
001-4201-4304 89.54
109-3304-4304 31.01
001-1204-4304 30.68
Page: 10
vchlist Check Register Page: 11
06/29/2006 4:34:26PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
44511 6/29/2006 00015 VERIZON CALIFORNIA (Continued)
310 372-6186 890831 Phone Charges/ Jun 06
001-1101-4304
001-1121-4304
001-1141-4304
001-1201-4304
001-1202-4304
310 376-6984 720712 Phone Charges/5-16 to 6-16-06
001-1121-4304
001-1132-4304
001-1141-4304
001-1201-4304
001-1202-4304
001-1203-4304
001-1208-4304
001-2101-4304
001-2201-4304
001-4101-4304
001-4201-4304
001-4202-4304
001-4601-4304
001-1204-4304
001-3302-4304
715-1206-4304
310 PLO -0346 030623 Circuit Billing / Jun 06
001-2101-4304
18.01
1.22
0.54
1.22
19.84
21.8
28.56
4.71
35.88
77.11
42.00
6.92
661.35
314.49
80.52
119.22
240.28
134.66
78.68
21.35
14.37
41.411
Total : 4,667-111.
44512 6/29/2006 09056 VERIZON ONLINE 16310579 Internet Services/ July 06
715-1206-4201 649.00
Total : 649.00
44513 6/29/2006 13871 VOGEL, PAUL 19143 Citation Refund/ # 1306016247
001-3302 10.00
Total : 10.00
70 Vouchers for bank code : boa Bank total : 216,983.85
Page: 11
vchlist Check Register
06/29/2006 4:34:26PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Page: 12
Bank code : boa
Voucher
Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
70 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 216,983.85
"I hereby certify that the demands or claim covered by the
4° --LPO
checks listed on pages / to �inclusive,
of the check register for 71 p(p are accurate
funds are available for payment, and are in conformance to
the budget."
Date
Finance Director
'77/6,&
Page: 12
a7
•
July 5, 2006
Honorable Mayor and For the Meeting of
Members of the City Council July 10, 2006
CANCELLATION OF CHECKS
Please ratify the following request for cancellation of the check listed below:
#43681 — 04/13/06 — Blue Cross of California — $78.68.
Check payable to the wrong vendor. The check was not mailed.
#44501 — 06/29/06 — S.B.C.U. Visa — $899.60.
Check issued in the wrong amount. The check was not mailed.
Concur:
Stephurrell,
City Manager
Joh M. Workman, City Treasurer
Noted for fiscal impact:
Viki Copeland, Finance Director
•
July 6, 2006
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Hermosa Beach City Council
•
-7////of
Regular Meeting of
July 11, 2006
i
TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
NO MEETING
2c
251 :20:06
Vehicle purchases for the Public Works Department
Public Works Director
Public Hearing: Supplemental Assessment District for Street
Lighting and Landscaping
Public Works Director
Public Hearing: 726 Prospect Avenue lot merger from 2 to 1 lot
(continued from City Council meeting of May 23, 2006 for full
council review.
Community Development Director
Public Hearing: Planning Commission denial, on September 20,
2005, of conditional use permit amendment for a restaurant with on -
sale alcohol to change the closing time from 12:00 midnight to
2:00am daily at 73 Pier Avenue, Mediterraneo Restaurant
Community Development Director
Flood Plain Management Ordinance
Public Works Director
Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Public
Works Commission meeting of May 17, 2006.
Public Works Director
Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Parks,
Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission
meeting of July 10, 2006.
Community Resources Director
Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting of July 18, 2006.
Community Development Director
Activity Reports — June 2006
All Departments
NO MEETING
2c
Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Public
Works Commission meeting of June 21, 2006.
Public Works Director
Text amendment to allow large spa facilities in the C-2 and C-3 zones
subject to a Conditional Use Permit
Community Development Director
Review of proposed revisions to lot merger ordinance
Community Development Director
Status report on nuisance abatement at 1811 Manhattan Ave. &
138 1st Street
Community Development Director
NO MEETING
2c
S
•
July 5, 2006
Honorable Mayor and Members For the City Council Meeting
of the City Council of July 10, 2006
ACCEPTANCE OF DONATIONS
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council accept donations received by the City to be
used as follows:
Donor Amount Purpose
Upstage Right Productions
AYSO Region 18
Relspectfully submitted:
Valerie Mohler
Accounting Supervisor
$10,000.00 To be used for Centennial Concert
Series to be held in 2007-08.
$3,744.00 To be used for Community
Resources program materials in
2006-07.
Concur:
Viki Copeland
Finance Director
„
Ste •j'T n : urrell
City Manager
2d
•
July 6, 2006
Honorable Mayor and Members of
The Hermosa Beach City Council
74//D -
Regular Meeting of
July 11, 2006
Approval of Recommendation for Third Party Administration of
Workers' Compensation Claims
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council approve a proposal for third party administration
of the City's workers' compensation claims submitted by Southern California Risk
Management Associates and authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a
contract for an approximate three (3) year term commencing August 1, 2006 with an
option for extending up to an additional two years.
Background:
The contract with the existing third party administrator, Hazelrigg Risk Management
Services expired June 30, 2006. Hazelrigg Risk Management agreed to continue on a
month to month basis until the RFP process was completed. Staff prepared and solicited
a Request for Proposals (RFP). The RFP was developed using a standard format
previously used that defines the general scope of work. In addition, a set of performance
standards developed by the Independent Cities Risk Management Authority (ICRMA)
was also incorporated into the RFP. These performance standards define 42 requirements
that the TPA must meet in providing claims administration services. Staff also used the
services of Bickmore Risk Services, the company that provides the administration and
management for ICRMA, to assist in developing the RFP, reviewing the proposals, and
participating in the interview process. A total of twelve (12) responses to the RFP were
received. Following a review of the proposals, six companies were invited to an
interview. In addition to the Finance Director and Personnel & Risk Management
Director, Lynn Keller of Bickmore Risk Services, who serves as the manager of the
workers compensation program for ICRMA, participated in the interviews.
Analysis:
In evaluating the proposals staff considered the following criteria: cost of proposed
services, experience of the company including experience in serving clients with public
safety departments, company philosophy, approach to claims management and loss
control, examiner experience, caseload of examiners, reserving practices, file reviews,
loss performance reports, approach to return to work programs, claims information
systems, optional loss control services, and ability to meet performance standards. Key
2e
• •
overriding considerations were the company's ability to provide a proactive claims
management approach that ensures proper benefits are provided to the injured worker,
focuses on early claim resolution, and works as a partner in reducing the City's overall
cost of risk for its workers' compensation claims program. In this process, staff has set
out to obtain a higher level of service in claims administration than previously required.
Southern California Risk Management Associates has extensive experience in claims
administration for public entities including providing services for 97 California cities and
over 340 self-insured California employers. 90% of SCRMA's existing clients are public
agencies in California. SCRMA consistently receives excellent State audit results and
has performed very well in audits conducted by ICRMA workers compensation program
managers. SCRMA also reports a 97% client retention rate since its inception in 1988.
SCRMA requires all examiners to obtain certification in claims administration and
maintains lower caseloads helping to ensure that proper oversight is maintained by
qualified personnel. In addition, SCRMA has emphasized their experience in
administering claims for public safety employees and focusing on loss reduction.
SCRMA will provide regular loss reports, medical savings reports, and other loss trend
analysis to assist the City in determining areas in which to focus its loss control efforts.
SCRMA provided a comprehensive response to the request for proposals and was very
impressive in response to questions posed during the interview process.
In accordance with the City's Administrative Policy on professional services, companies
are not selected on a competitive bid process based on the lowest cost service provider.
Rather, proposals are to be evaluated to determine the most responsive and qualified
provider, with cost of service as one factor.
Among the twelve proposals submitted, the service fees quoted ranged from $29,504 to
$79,882 for the first year. The current service fees are $28,645 per year. In anticipation
of accepting proposals, $45,000 was approved in the current 2006/2007 budget for third
party claims administration services.
SCRMA fees for the initial service period (11 months, August 1, 2006 through June 30,
2006) are to be $33,810. In addition, there will be a data conversion fee up to $7,000.
SCRMA has included in their proposal the annual licensing fee for access to their on-line
claims software at no additional charge. In the second and third year of the contract, the
fees would increase no more than 3% per year. If the number of reported claims goes
down, SCRMA will reduce their fees accordingly. A three-year contract is proposed with
an option for a two-year renewal based on performance as recommended by the City
Manager and Personnel Director.
Copies of each of . the proposals submitted are available for review in the Personnel
Office.
Fiscal Impact:
The fiscal impact of approving the proposal with SCRMA is a three-year total cost of
$117,928 including all start-up costs. Adequate funds are budgeted in the current
2006/2007 budget for all first year costs.
Respectfully submitted,
Mic . . el A. Earl
Personnel & Risk Management Director
Concur,
'01 \\\\,
St- 'hen Burrell
City Manager
•
d'ef)—e-/fr--
7////D-b.
June 27, 2006
Honorable Mayor and Members Regular Meeting of
of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 11, 2006
SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT - IMPLEMENTATION OF NONCONFORMING ORDINANCE
Recommendation:
That the City Council receive and file this report.
Background & Analysis:
Over the last year, the City completed revisions to the Nonconforming Ordinance that guides
the extent of remodel for buildings and uses nonconforming to the City's zoning regulations.
A new ordinance, was adopted by City Council on December 13, 2005 and took effect on
January 13, 2006. The new regulations greatly simplify the law relative to building
demolition and eliminate the need for Planning Commission review of nonconforming
residential projects. The Council directed staff to return with a status report six months after
implementation of the Ordinance. The highlights of the new nonconforming building
regulations are:
• 100 sq. ft. expansion allowed with no on-site parking.
• 500 sq. ft. expansion allowed with 1 parking space or added parking.
• Up to 100% expansion to a maximum of 3,000 sq. ft. per unit, 5,000 sq. ft. per lot with
2 parking spaces per unit to a maximum of 2 units.
• Expansion limitations per above with 2 parking spaces but insufficient guest parking.
• Elimination of the exemption allowing continued use and extension of walls within
10% of the side yard requirement.
The new Ordinance also eliminates the prior confusing method of calculating the extent of
remodel and eliminates the limitations on the amount of removal, so long as the
nonconforming condition is left in tact and the existing floor system remains. Nonconforming
uses have similar thresholds for parking, expansion and demolition.
In order to ensure the timely and fair implementation of this new law, the City set a six month
deadline of June 13, 2006 to complete plan check and permit issuance for nonconforming
remodel projects designed under the original Ordinance. All projects currently in the pipeline
for building permits have been allowed to continue through the plan check process under the
original provisions of the Ordinance. Any new project submitted after the effective date of
the Ordinance must conform to the new law. All outstanding projects have been permitted
and all new projects have been checked for conformance with the new law.
To date 10 projects have been reviewed under the new provisions of the Nonconforming
Ordinance. There have been no problems with interpreting project expansions and the public
and design professionals have generally expressed their satisfaction with the Ordinance. One
design professional expressed concern regarding the elimination of the exemption allowing
10% side yard width nonconformities to be maintained and extended because so many older
structures were constructed before to the use of precise surveying methods. For second story
2f
additions, this regulation causes owners to step the building back to a conform to current side
yard requirements and requires major structural work to carry second floor loads, affecting the
look and costs associated with remodeling projects.
Sol : lumenfel
Community
Concur:
Stephe
City Manager
Di ector
velopment
AP ", peAll
• . rre 1,
Nonconforming Regsl
• IIP
June 27, 2006
Regular Meeting
July 11, 2006
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Hermosa Beach City Council
SUBJECT: CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) FY 05-06 —
ADOPTION OF THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION CERTIFYING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
(CMP), PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
65089
Recommendation:
Adopt the attached Resolution certifying compliance with Congestion Management Program.
Background:
Proposition 111 requires that each city adopt and implement a Transportation Demand
Management Plan. As a result, cities must provide annual documentation that they are in
compliance with the State mandated CMP program which provides a link between
development, transportation and air quality through trip reduction and transportation
measures.
Analysis:
Using the mathematical formulas provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority,
staff has prepared the attached Local Development Report (LDR), in compliance with
State requirements. At this time no transportation or traffic improvement measures are
required under the Congestion Management Program.
Sol Blumenf ld, l 'rector
Community 9 evelopment Department
CONCUR
Stephen R.
City Manager
Attachments:
1. Resolution
2. Local Development Report
L.
Kbh Ro ertson, Senior Planner
5a
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
• •
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 06-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA
FINDING THE CITY TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CONGESTION
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) AND ADOPTING THE CMP LOCAL
DEVELOPMENT REPORT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65089
Whereas, the City Council held a public hearing on July 11, 2006 to consider oral and written
testimony and made the following factual Findings:
1. CMP statue requires the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
("LACMTA"), acting as the Congestion Management Program Agency for Los Angeles
County to annually determine that the County and cities within the County are
conforming to all CMP requirements.
2. LACMTA requires submittal of the CMP Local Development Report by September 1 of
each year; and
NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE THE FOLLOWING:
SECTION 1. The City has taken all of the actions listed below and is in conformance with
all applicable requirements of the 2004 CMP adopted by the LACMTA Board on July 22
2004:
1. By June 15, of odd -numbered years, the City will conduct annual traffic counts and
calculated levels of service for selected arterial intersections, consistent with the
requirements identified in the CMP Highway and Roadway System Chapter.
2. The City has adopted and continues to implement a Transportation Demand Management
Ordinance, consistent with the minimum requirements identified in the CMP
Transportation Demand Management Chapter.
3. The City has locally adopted and continues to implement a land use analysis program,
consistent with the minimum requirements identified in the CMP Land Use Analysis
Program Chapter.
4. The City has adopted a Local Development Report, attached hereto and made a part
hereof, consistent with the requirements identified in the 2004 CMP. This report
balances traffic congestion impacts due to growth within the City with transportation
improvements, and demonstrates that the City is meeting its responsibilities under the
Countywide Deficiency Plan consistent with the LACMTA Board adopted 2003 Short
Range Transportation Plan.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
• •
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall
forward a copy of this Resolution to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1 1th day of July, 2006.
President of the City Council and Mayor of the City of Hermosa Beach, California.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY
F:\B95\CD\CMP\CMPO6reso.doc
2
City of Hermosa Beach
2006 CMP Local Development Report
Reporting Period: June 1, 2005 -May 31, 2006
Date Prepared: June 28, 2006
Enter data for all cells labeled "Enter." If there are no data for that category, enter "0."
PART 1: NEW DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
Category
Dwelling
Units
Single Family Residential
65.00
Multi -Family Residential
17.00
Group Quarters
0.00
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
Category
1,000 Gross
Square Feet
Commercial (less than 300,000 sq.ft.)
12.37
Commercial (300,000 sq.ft. or more)
0.00
Freestanding Eating & Drinking
0.00
NON -RETAIL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
Category
1,000 Gross
Square Feet
Lodging
0.00
Industrial
0.00
Office (less than 50,000 sq.ft.)
3.52
Office (50,000-299,999 sq.ft.)
0.00
Office (300,000 sq.ft. or more)
0.00
Medical
0.00
Government
0.00
Institutional/Educational
0.00
University (# of students)
0.00
OTHER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
Description
(Attach additional sheets if necessary)
Daily Trips
(Enter "0" if none)
ENTER IF APPLICABLE
0.00
ENTER IF APPLICABLE
0.00
Section 1, Page 2
• •
City of Hermosa Beach
2006 CMP Local Development Report
Reporting Period: JUNE 1, 2005 - MAY 31, 2006
Contact: Ken Robertson
Phone Number: 310-318-0235
Date Prepared: June 28, 2006
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY
2006 Local Development Summary
IMPORTANT: All "#value!" cells on this page are automatically calculated.
Please do not enter data in these cells.
DEVELOPMENT TOTALS
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
Single Family Residential
Multi -Family Residential
Group Quarters
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
Commercial (less than 300,000 sq.ft.)
Commercial (300,000 sq.ft. or more)
Freestanding Eating & Drinking
NON -RETAIL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
Lodging
Industrial
Office (less than 50,000 sq.ft.)
Office (50,000-299,999 sq.ft.)
Office (300,000 sq.ft. or more)
Medical
Government
Institutional/Educational
University (# of students)
OTHER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
ENTER IF APPLICABLE
ENTER IF APPLICABLE
EXEMPTED DEVELOPMENT TOTALS
Exempted Dwelling Units
Exempted Non-residential sq. ft. (in 1,000s)
Dwelling Units
29.00
(46.00)
0.00
1,000 Net Sq.Ft.2
(0.26)
0.00
0.00
1,000 Net Sq.Ft.2
0.00
0.00
3.52
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Daily Trips
0.00
0.00
1. Note: Please change dates on this form for later years. Section 1, Page 1
2. Net square feet is the difference between new development and adjustments entered on pages 2 and 3.
City of Hermosa Beach Date Prepared: June 28, 2006
2006 CMP Local Development Report
Reporting Period: June 1, 2005- May 31, 2006
Enter data for all cells labeled "Enter." If there are no data for that category, enter "0."
PART 2: NEW DEVELOPMENT ADJUSTMENTS
IMPORTANT: Adjustments may be claimed only for 1) development permits that were both
issued and revoked, expired or withdrawn during the reporting period, and 2) demolition of any
structure with the reporting period.
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ADJUSTMENTS
Category
Dwelling
Units
Single Family Residential
36.00
Multi -Family Residential
63.00
Group Quarters
0.00
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
Category
1,000 Gross
Square Feet
Commercial (less than 300,000 sq.ft.)
12.63
Commercial (300,000 sq.ft. or more)
0.00
Freestanding Eating & Drinking
0.00
NON -RETAIL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
Category
1,000 Gross
Square Feet
Lodging
0.00
Industrial
0.00
Office (less than 50,000 sq.ft.)
0.00
Office (50,000-299,999 sq.ft.)
0.00
Office (300,000 sq.ft. or more)
. 0.00
Medical
0.00
Government
0.00
Institutional/Educational
0.00
University (# of students)
0.00
OTHER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
Description
(Attach additional sheets if necessary)
Daily Trips
(Enter "0" if none)
ENTER IF APPLICABLE
0.00
ENTER IF APPLICABLE
0.00
Section 1, Page 3
City of Hermosa Beach Date Prepared: June 28, 2006
2006 CMP Local Development Report
Reporting Period: June 1, 2005- May 31, 2006
Enter data for all cells labeled "Enter." If there are no data for that category, enter "0."
PART 3: EXEMPTED DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
(NOT INCLUDED IN NEW DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
TOTALS)
LowNery Low Income Housing
0
Dwelling Units
High Density Residential
Dwelling Units
0
Near Rail Stations
Mixed Use Developments
0
1,000 Gross Square Feet
Near Rail Stations
0
Dwelling Units
Development Agreements Entered
1,000 Gross Square Feet
0
into Prior to July 10, 1989
0
Dwelling Units
Reconstruction of Buildings
1,000 Gross Square Feet
0
Damaged in April 1992 Civil Unrest
0
Dwelling Units
Reconstruction of Buildings
1,000 Gross Square Feet
0
Damaged in Jan. 1994 Earthquake
0
Dwelling Units
Total Dwelling Units
0
Total Non-residential sq. ft. (in 1,000s)
0
Section 1, Page 4
Exempted Development Definitions:
1. LowNery Low Income Housing: As defined by the California Department of Housing and Community
Development as follows:
- Low -Income: equal to or less than 80% of the County median income, with adjustments for family size.
- Very Low -Income: equal to or less than 50% of the County median income, with adjustments for family size.
2. High Density Residential Near Rail Stations: Development located within 1/4 mile of a fixed rail passenger
station and that is equal to or greater than 120 percent of the maximum residential density allowed under
the local general plan and zoning ordinance. A project providing a minimum of 75 dwelling units per acre
is automatically considered high density.
3. Mixed Uses Near Rail Stations: Mixed-use development located within 1/4 mile of a fixed rail passenger
station, if more than half of the land area, or floor area, of the mixed use development is used for high
density residential housing.
4. Development Agreements: Projects that entered into a development agreement (as specified under Section
65864 of the California Government Code) with a local jurisdiction prior to July 10, 1989.
5. Reconstruction or replacement of any residential or non-residential structure which is damaged or destroyed,
to the extent of > or = to 50% of its reasonable value, by fire, flood, earthquake or other similar calamity.
6. Any project of a federal, state or county agency that is exempt from local jurisdiction zoning regulations and
where the focal jurisdiction is precluded from exercising any approval/disapproval authority. These locally
precluded projects do not have to be reported in the LDR.
lb
Honorable Mayor and Members of the
Hermosa Beach City Council
gzi-06 6,443-
74/(D
July 3, 2006
Regular Meeting of
July 11, 2006
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO MODIFY THE CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL FOR THE HERMOSA PAVILLION PRECISE DEVELOPMENT
PLAN AND PARKING PLAN (RESOLUTION NO. 03-45) -- 1605 PACIFIC COAST
HIGHWAY
Planning Commission Recommendation:
1 Sustain the Planning Commission decision and adopt the attached Resolution to require that
the property owner provide 2 hours free parking for customers with validation for all patrons
of the building and provide signage identifying the free parking in order to increase use of the
parking structure and prevent spillover parking in the neighborhood; and
2. Re-evaluate the effectiveness of the validation program in six months to determine whether it
is necessary to impose new conditions on the Parking Plan or repeal the mandatory validation
program and initiate public parking measures to mitigate spill over neighborhood parking.
Background:
On February 21, 2006, the Planning Commission reviewed a parking study submitted by the
Hermosa Pavilion owner, and heard testimony from residents, customers and employees which
established that adequate parking is provided on site' but that a significant parking problem exists
on surrounding streets, since 30-40% of building users were choosing to park on -street or in
other commercial lots rather than use the building garage. Staff and the owner presented parking
solutions for Commission consideration, and the Commission continued the matter, directing
staff to work with the applicant to find mutually acceptable parking solutions. On March 21,
2006, the Planning Commission reviewed the owner's recommendations and determined that it
was necessary to amend the project conditions in order to mitigate problems created by the
parking operations of the Hermosa Pavilion. On April 18, 2006 the Planning Commission
approved Resolution No. 06-16, modifying the Parking Plan to require free validated parking for
building customers and a signage program identifying the free parking.
The Planning Commission originally approved a Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan
under Resolution No. 03-45 for the Hermosa Pavilion, which contains conditions related to the
adequacy of parking supply and efficiency of parking operations for the building. The Parking
Plan is based upon a shared parking analysis that allows the owner to park the project on peak
parking demand for various uses in the multi -tenant building rather than on code required
parking ratios, thus allowing the owner to provide significantly less parking than would typically
be required under the Parking Ordinance. The Parking Plan approval is conditioned upon
effective monitoring of project parking to ensure that parking operations do not create a nuisance
to the surrounding neighborhood.
Condition No. 3(b) specifically states that the "adequacy of parking supplies and efficiency of the
parking operation program shall be monitored for six -months after occupancy of the Health and
Fitness Facility," requiring a report from the applicant's traffic engineer "certifying adequate on -
1
5b
• •
site parking is available". The owner and staff have been monitoring the use of the parking
facility in relation to the use of the fitness club and other tenants in the building. The owner has
provided a report pursuant to this requirement for Commission review to address both the
adequacy of parking supplies, and the efficiency of the parking operation. The report supplied
by the owner's traffic and parking consultant clearly shows a significant under utilization of the
structure, and a substantial off-site parking impact." Section 6 of Resolution 03-45 includes the
provisions that states that the "Planning Commission may review this Precise Development Plan
and Parking Plan and may amend the subject conditions or impose any new conditions if deemed
necessary to mitigate detrimental effects on the neighborhood resulting from the subject use."
Analysis:
The purpose of the present agenda item is to consider the appeal by the building owner to
determine whether the City Council should uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to
amend Resolution 03-45 to require that the property owner provide free parking to mitigate
problems of spill-over parking in the adjacent neighborhood. The approved Parking Plan
stipulates that in addition to supplying required parking, it is also the owner's obligation to
ensure that the parking is being used and that parking operations for the project do not create
neighborhood problems. When the project parking is creating a nuisance, these conditions give
the City authority to take action, which may include requiring improvements to the parking
operations to ensure use of the parking structure. It is the owner's obligation to demonstrate that
the structure is being used efficiently.
Staff met with the applicant to discuss some of the options presented. The owner has focused on
efforts to better promote and lower the cost for users of the Pavilion, by offering monthly or
annual passes, that can potentially reduce the cost for parking from $1.00 to 50 cents per visit.
Also, a program to offer free parking validation with the purchase of a smoothie is proposed.
The owner has offered to provide limited 2 -hour free parking on level 2 of the parking garage in
the tandem parking spaces (fitness club patrons would receive a double validation). This would
require users to leave a key with a parking assistant. Sixty spaces are available at this level.
Otherwise, the owner suggests that the City solve the problem by limiting parking on P.C.H. to
30 minutes, and initiate a preferential parking district for the impacted neighborhoods (please see
attached correspondence).
Discussion of Planning Commission Recommended Condition
Modify conditions of the Parking Plan to require two hour free validated parking to all
building customers and provide signage advertising the free parking.
The Commission majority determined that it was most effective to require that the owner provide
2 hours of validated free parking for all building customers, rather than limiting the validation
only for the fitness club and only during peak parking demand periods as suggested by staff or to
use any of the methods suggested by the owner. Some Commissioners and several area residents
expressed interest in establishing a parking district to deal with the spillover parking problems.
The City's traffic engineer reviewed the parking study and the spillover parking problem, and
supports the recommendation for providing free parking, noting that the current cost for parking
encourages the patrons of the facility to find alternative means to park their vehicles. Typically
2
i
• •
those looking for parking seek the least expensive and convenient means to park their cars. For
regular customers of the building, on street parking becomes a very attractive alternative. Since
the critical period for customer parking related to the gym use is early morning and early
evening, two hours of free parking during these periods was recommended to resolve the on -
street parking problems. The Commission also determined that it was necessary to evaluate the
effectiveness of this condition six months from the effective date of the modified resolution. At
that time, if a study by the owner's parking consultant does not demonstrate that fitness club
members are parking in the structure, the matter may be revisited by Commission which may
then decide to repeal the condition or enact new parking conditions or, recommend public
parking measures to discourage parking on the streets.
The owner is opposed to this condition and does not want to provide free parking in this manner.
He argues that not charging for the frequent short parking visits by the customers of the fitness
club will result in a significant loss in revenue which will in turn make it impossible to continue
to provide the high level of security and service in the parking structure. He notes that he
provides 24-hour security, and employs several cashiers and other attendants to make sure that
the parking structure is maintained safe and clean, and operates smoothly, reflecting a first class
operation. Further, he notes that the current rate structure is already established in the lease with
24 -Hour Fitness, which cannot be modified, therefore, he cannot pass the cost on to the fitness
club, or to members in their membership dues. He also argues the providing free parking will
not necessarily be an effective solution, since it is not only the cost of parking that causes patrons
to use street parking. The owner is basically proposing free tandem assist parking for two hours,
and to better promote parking in the structure, and offering parking passes that will reduce the
cost per visit if purchased in advance."'
In correspondence, the owner's attorney argues that the Commission's action is not supported by
evidence that building customer's are dissuaded from parking on site due to cost; that the
Commission has no authority to require free parking; that the Commission's decision deprives
the owner of a property right without due process and that it's action constitutes a confiscatory
taking without just compensation.
In response, the City Attorney has noted that since a specific problem causing detrimental effects
on the neighborhood has been identified and quantified, the Commission and Council may
decided to impose more specific conditions to address the problem such as providing 2 hours of
free validated parking. If such a condition were added, it would explicitly give the City authority
to withhold occupancy permits and construction permits for any new tenants until such free
parking is provided and allow mandatory parking validation during specified periods.' As stated
in Section 6 of Resolution 03-45, if the Commission or Council finds that the use of the building
is causing detrimental effects on the neighborhood, conditions of the resolution may be amended
or new conditions imposed. Also pursuant to Chapter 17.70 of the Zoning Ordinance (pertaining
to revocation an expiration of permits or variances granted by the Commission), the Commission
may after public hearing revoke or modify any permit if "the use for which the approval was
granted was so exercised as to be detrimental to the public health or safety, or so as to constitute
a nuisance." Therefore under either the Parking Plan resolution or the Zoning Ordinance the
Commission or Council may lawfully consider permit revocation or modification.
3
Conclusion:
The City Attorney has determined that the City has the authority to require free or discounted
validated parking for persons conducting business in the building. This is an exercise of the
City's constitutional police power to impose reasonable conditions on a project to address project
impacts and mitigate adverse environmental impacts associated with a development project and
to avert creation of a public nuisance.
Sol Blumenfels Director
Community D : elopment Department
Ste'�i/ "' ' : urrell
City Manager
Attachments:
1. Proposed amended Resolution
2. Resolution No. 03-45
3. Section 17.70
4. Correspondence
5. Parking Study Report
. Existing Parking Supply:
Consistent with the approved Parking Plan a maximum of 540 parking spaces are provided as follows:
454 standard single load,
42 tandem (for employee parking or tandem assist for customers)
44 parallel for valet parking.
ii Tables 3-2 and 3-3 Parking Intercept Surveys, and Tables 3-4 and 3-5, Summary of On Street/Off-Street
Parking Survey, Hermosa Beach Pavilion Parking Study Report, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, 2/13/06
A detailed customer intercept survey was conducted on Mondays and Fridays, between 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. and on
Saturday from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. for the area bordering the Pavilion (along Pacific Coast Highway, 18th, 17th 16th
and 15t , Streets) The intercept survey revealed that on Mondays 450 cars ( 27.9%) parked on the streets within this
study area and 1,124 indicated they parked on site. Most of those surveyed parked on PCH but significant numbers
also parked on the side streets. On Fridays 726 parked on site and 257 (25.6%) parked on the street. On Saturdays
298 parked on site and 496 (37.2%) parked on the street. The report concludes that based on these observations it
can be concluded that there are Pavilion patrons parking in the surrounding neighborhoods. The parking on 16th
Street is particularly impacted. During Monday peak period, 17 vehicles were observed parking on the street and 14
of those that parked ( 82%) went to the Pavilion. This is described on Table B-5 when the survey was conducted on
1/30/05.
Existing Parking Rates: Parking rates are $1.00 per hour, or 16.00 per day. With validation, 24-hour fitness
customers can park for up to two hours for $1.00 (Monthly passes are available a price of $20.00 per month).
Employee parking passes (monthly and annual) are available to park in separately designated employee parking
areas based on lease agreements with each tenant.
Section 2.84.010 Limitations on processing applications. — "Any illegal condition existing on property in the City
shall be remedied before an application for permit, license, constract or other entitlement provided for in this code
(other than permits necessary to cure the illegal conditions) shall be accepted as complete or processed in connection
with that property."
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUSTAINING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION TO MODIFY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF A
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PARKING
PLAN FOR AN EXPANSION AND REMODEL TO AN EXISTING
COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND SHARED PARKING TO ACCOMMODATE
A NEW ALLOCATION OF USES WITHIN THE "THE HERMOSA PAVILION"
INCLUDING A NEW HEALTH AND FITNESS FACILITY, OFFICES, RETAIL
AND RESTAURANT USES AT 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AKA 1605
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY.
The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve and order as follows:
Section 1. On August 19, 2003, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution 03-45
to approve an application by Shook Development Corporation owner of property at 1605 Pacific
Coast Highway, known as the "Hermosa Pavilion", to amend a previously approved Precise
Development Plan and Parking Plan to remodel and expand an existing commercial building and
to allow shared parking to accommodate a new allocation of uses within the building including a
health and fitness facility, office, retail and restaurant uses.
Section 2. At the Planning Commission meeting of February 21, 2006, the Planning
Commission conducted a six-month review of parking operations as required by Condition No.
3(b) of P.C. Resolution 0-45 to evaluate if parking supply and parking efficiency were adequate.
At that time, it was shown based parking surveys conducted by the property owners consultant,
city staff, and on testimony considered from the public that the parking structure was not being
used efficiently, causing detrimental spillover parking into the neighborhood, and the owner was
given the opportunity to resolve these problems. At the March 21, 2006 meeting, the Planning
Commission found that the solutions presented by the owner would not significantly reduce or
alleviate the problem directed staff to schedule a public hearing to consider modifications to the
Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan (P.C. Resolution 03-45) to resolve the problems
being caused by inefficient use of the Parking Structure.
Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider
the revocation or amendment for the Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan on April 18,
2006, at which testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by
the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 06-16 to amend the
conditions of approval for the Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan.
Section 4. The owner of the Hermosa Pavilion, Gene Shook, filed an appeal of the Planning
Commission decision to amend the Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan.
Section 5. The City Council conducted a duly notice public hearing to review and consider
the appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on July 11, 2006, at which the record of the
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
•
decision of the Planning Commission and testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was
presented to and considered by the City Council.
Section 6. Based on evidence received at the public hearing, and the record of decision of the
Planning Commission, the City Council makes the following findings:
1. The parking facility is currently not operating in compliance with the terms of the Parking
Plan and Precise Development Plan as amended in 2003 for the following reasons:
a) The six-month review of operations of the parking facility as required by the
Parking Plan and Precise Development has not demonstrated that the efficiency of the parking
operation is adequate. Instead the six-month review has clearly demonstrated (by parking
intercept surveys, and testimony from residents) that a significant percentage of customers of
the building are utilizing on -street parking in the residential neighborhoods rather than using
the parking structure. The parking in the structure costs at least one dollar with validation for
two hours, with an additional dollar for each hour, while the parking on the nearby streets is
free. This disparity in cost is the primary reason for this inefficient use of the parking facility.
b) The demonstrated spillover parking is causing detrimental effects on these •
residential neighborhoods, as shown by the spillover parking, and supported by testimony
from residential property owners and occupants in the neighborhoods along 16th Street.
2. The allocation of uses and the use of the parking facility with shared parking to meet parking
requirements, for which the Parking Plan was granted, is not being exercised in accordance with
the approval and the assumption of the shared parking. Instead the operation of the parking
facility is resulting in a detrimental impact to the public health, and safety and constitutes a
nuisance, in that:
a) Spillover parking into nearby public parking areas along both residential and
commercial streets is detrimental to the existing businesses and residences which have long
established practice of using this on street parking.
b) The use of on -street parking across Pacific Coast Highway is forcing customers and
patrons of the Pavilion to cross P.C.H. which is a hazard to both the pedestrians crossing the
street and the vehicles traveling on P.C.H.
c) Another review of parking operations and spillover effects within 6 months, after
removal of the disparity in the cost of parking, will clearly show if the cost of parking is what is
causing this spillover parking.
3. The applicant has not demonstrated that his proposals to mitigate the demonstrated
spillover parking will result in anysubstantial reduction or alleviation of the inefficient use of the
parking facility and spillover parking into nearby neighborhoods:
2
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
• •
a) The tandem assisted free parking would only available for those willing to park in level
2, which is not the most convenient location in the structure, and may not be more convenient
then nearby on -street parking.
b) The monthly parking passes are aimed only at frequent users, as it would not make any
sense for those parking 2 -hours or less per visit who use the structure less than 20 times a month
to spend $20 for a monthly pass. So a typical gym patron that comes 2-4 times a week would
have no reason to purchase a pass.
c) The smoothie validation program provides for free validated parking for customers
purchasing a $5 or $6 smoothie. As such, its potential effect is limited, and instead of addressing
the cost disparity, it results in a substantial cost to park in the structure.
Section 7. Based on the foregoing, the City Council sustains the decision of the Planning
Commission and hereby modifies and amends the subject Precise Development Plan and Parking
Plan, subject to the following Conditions of Approval, which supersede and incorporate the
conditions of P.C. Resolution 03-45.
A. New Conditions
1. Two hour free validated parking shall be provided for patrons of the businesses
and offices within the Hermosa Pavilion.
2. Signs shall be prominently displayed at all entry locations and in all public areas of
the Hermosa Pavilion to promote the two-hour free validated parking program.
3. The effectiveness of the free validated parking program and the overall efficiency
of the use of the parking structure and off-site parking impacts shall be evaluated
in 6 -months from the effective date of this Resolution. The owner shall provide
the necessary parking receipts, and parking intercept surveys and parking counts
to demonstrate the effectiveness of this program.
B. Original Conditions of Approval
1. The development and continued use of the property shall be in conformance with
submitted plans reviewed by the Planning Commission at their meeting of August
19, 2003. Minor modifications to the plan shall be reviewed and may be approved
by the Community Development Director, including modifications to the
allocation of uses if consistent with the shared parking analysis.
2. To ensure compliance with the Parking Plan for shared parking the allocation of
uses within the building shall be substantially consistent or less than the following
allocation:
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
• •
Allocation(in square feet)
Health and Fitness Facility (including a 46,500
basketball court and pool)
Office 26,000
Retail 28,500
Restaurant 4,000
Total 105,000
Any material change to this allocation requires amendment to the Parking Plan,
and approval of the Planning Commission.
3. A parking operation plan shall be submitted for approval by the Planning
Division prior to issuance of the building permit for the Health and Fitness
Facility, ensuring maximum use of parking structure consistent with the Shared
Parking Analysis (prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan, dated August 3,
2003), and to ensure efficient ingress and egress to and from the structure. The
parking structure shall be operated in accordance with said plan.
a) A minimum of 450 single use and 30 dual use (tandem) parking spaces shall
be available within the structure for employees and customers of all tenants
within the building, and all parking shall be available on a first come first
serve basis (i.e. no assigned parking except that tandem spaces may be
assigned to employees).
b) The adequacy of parking supplies and the efficiency of the parking operation
program shall be monitored for six -months after occupancy of the Health and
Fitness Facility, and annually thereafter in the month of January, with a
report submitted to the Community Development Department by the
applicant's traffic engineer certifying adequate on-site parking is available. If
supplies are found to be inadequate, the applicant shall provide valet assisted
parking, and a detailed valet assistance program shall be provided to the City
for review by the City's traffic engineer. If the City's traffic engineer finds
the parking supply inadequate the Planning Commission shall review the
Parking Plan and may modify the Parking Plan to resolve any parking
inadequacy.
c) A lighting and security plan, including possible use of security personnel shall
be reviewed and approved by the Police Department to ensure that the
parking structure is well lit and safe for the patrons prior to issuance of
building permits.
4. Architectural treatment including sign locations shall be as shown on building
elevations and site and floor plans. Any modification shall require approval by the
Community Development Director
4
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
5. The project shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Department and the Public
Works Department.
6. Final building plans/construction drawings including site, elevation, floor plan,
sections, details, signage, landscaping and irrigation, submitted for building
permit issuance shall be reviewed for consistency with the plans approved by the
Planning Commission and the conditions of this resolution, and approved by the
Community Development Director prior to the issuance of any Building Permit.
a. The landscape plans shall include landscaping along Pacific Coast Highway
and street trees and shall be consistent with the original landscape plans
approved for the Hermosa Pavilion, subject to review and approval of the
Community Development Director.
b. Project plans shall include insulation to attenuate potential noise problems
with surrounding residential uses.
7. All exterior lights shall be located and oriented in a manner to insure that
neighboring residential property and public right-of-way shall not be adversely
effected.
8. Bicycle racks shall be provided in conveniently accessible locations to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director
9. The project and operation of the businesses shall comply with all applicable
requirements of the Municipal Code.
10. The Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan shall be recorded, and proof of
recordation shall be submitted to the Community Development Department.
Section 8. This grant shall not be effective for any purposes until the permittee and the
owners of the property involved have filed at the office of the Planning Division of the
Community Development Department their affidavits stating that they are aware of, and agree to
accept, all of the conditions of this grant.
The Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan shall be recorded, and proof of
recordation shall be submitted to the Community Development Department.
Each of the above conditions is separately enforced, and if one of the conditions of
approval is found to be invalid by a court of law, all the other conditions shall remain valid and
enforceable.
Permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, it agents, officers, and
employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or
employee to attack, set aside, void or annul this permit approval, which action is brought within
the applicable time period of the State Government Code. The City shall promptly notify the
permittee of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. If
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
• S
the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any claim, action or proceeding, or if the City
fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall not thereafter be responsible to defend,
indemnify, or hold harmless the City.
The permittee shall reimburse the City for any court and attorney's fees which the City
may be required to pay as a result of any claim or action brought against the City because of this
grant. Although the permittee is the real party in interest in an action, the City may, at its sole
discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of the action, but such participation shall
not relieve the permittee of any obligation under this condition.
The subject property shall be developed, maintained and operated in full compliance with
the conditions of this grant and any law, statute, ordinance or other regulation applicable to any
development or activity on the subject property. Failure of the permittee to cease any
development or activity not in full compliance shall be a violation of these conditions.
The Planning Commission may review this Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan
and may amend the subject conditions or impose any new conditions if deemed necessary to
mitigate detrimental effects on the neighborhood resulting from the subject use.
Section 9. Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, any legal challenge to the
decision of the Planning Commission, after a formal appeal to the City Council, must be made within
90 days after the final decision by the City Council.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 2006,
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY
F:\B95\CD\CC\PPR1605-amendment 2006.doc
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
i
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 03,
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PARKING PLAN, AS AMENDED, FOR AN
EXPANSION AND REMODEL TO AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING,
"THE HERMOSA PAVILION;" AND TO ALLOW SHARED PARKING TO
ACCOMMODATE A NEW ALLOCATION OF USES WITHIN THE CENTER,
INCLUDING A NEW HEALTH AND FITNESS FACILITY, OFFICES, RETAIL
AND RESTAURANT USES AT 1605 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve and order as
follows:
Section 1. An application was filed by Shook Development Corporation owner of
property at 1605 Pacific Coast Highway, known as the "Hermosa Pavilion", seeking to amend a
12 previously approved Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan to remodel and expand an
existing commercial building and to allow shared parking to accommodate a new allocation of
13 uses within the building including a health and fitness facility, office, retail and restaurant uses.
14 Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to
15 consider the application for a Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan amendments on
August 19, 2003, at which testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and
16 considered by the Planning Commission
17
Section 3. Based on evidence received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission
18 makes the following factual findings:
19
1. The Hermosa Pavilion retail and entertainment complex was originally approved
20 in 1986, and constructed based on a approval consisting of a Parking Plan for shared parking and
a Conditional Use Permit for a 6-plex movie theatre (Resolution P.C. 86-40). A new project
21 without the theatre complex, and focusing on a health club and office uses was approved on June
22 11, 2002, (City Council Resolution 02-6201) which is in the process of construction at the
demolition phase. The applicant is proposing changes to the allocation of uses from the June 11,
23 2002 approval as follows:
24
25
26
27
28
29
Prior Approved
Use (6/11/02)
Allocation
Proposed Project Proposed Allocation
Health and Fitness 68,300 SF
Offfice 25,380 SF
Retail 15,050 SF
Total 105,378 SF
Health and Fitness Club 46,500
Office 26,000
Retail 28,500
Restaurant 4,000
Total 105,000 SF
1
03 3151501_:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14•
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
26
• •
2. Based on the June 11, 2002, approval, the existing 6 -level parking structure will be
reconfigured to contain 450 parking spaces (334 standard, 116 compact size) with an additional
31 spaces if tandem parking is used and up to 514 spaces with valet assistance in the existing six -
level parking structure.
3. The site is zoned S.P.A. 8 which requires amendment to the Precise Development
Plan for a remodel and expansion project that exceeds 10,000 square feet and exceeds a floor
area to lot area ratio of 1:1. A Parking PIan is necessary to amend the existing approved shared
parking arrangement in order to comply with the parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance
Section 4. Based on the foregoing factual findings, the Planning Commission makes the
following findings pertaining to the application for a Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan
Amendment:
1. The project is consistent with applicable general and specific plans, and is in
compliance with the use and development requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The site is zoned S.P.A. 8, Specific Plan Area -Commercial, and the project and
proposed use complies with the development standards contained therein.
3. Pursuant to Section 17.44.210 of the Zoning Ordinance, a reduction in the number
of parking spaces required is acceptable due to the proposed mix of uses with varying peak hours
of parking needs. Parking demand is projected to be satisfied by the supply within the parking
structure due to the proposed new mix of uses with varying times of peak parking demand. The
applicant has submitted a Shared Parking Analysis, prepared by Linscott Law and Greenspan
(dated August 5, 2003) to demonstrate that the parking will be sufficient for the proposed mix of
uses. The shared parking analysis shows that based on projected hourly parking counts the
proposed fitness facility; plus projected parking needs of the office and retail uses (based on City
parking requirements), that the proposed supply of 450 spaces is adequate and can be
supplemented with parking management.
4. Compliance with the conditions of approval will mitigate any negative impact
resulting from the issuance of the Precise Development Plan.
5. The project is Categorically Exempt from the requirement for an
environmental assessment, pursuant to the Califomia Environmental Quality Act Guidelines,
Sections 15303(b) and 15315 as the modifications to the project adopted with a Negative
Declaration are minor.
Section 5. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves the subject
27 Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan, as amended, subject to the following Conditions of
Approval, which supersede the conditions of City Council Resolution 02-6201
28
29 1. The development and continued use of the property shall be in conformance with
submitted plans reviewed by the Planning Commission at their meeting of August
19, 2003. Minor modifications to the plan shall be reviewed and may be approved
2
03 3151501
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
1.3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
IV) Vint vv
•
by the Commu.ys. y Development Director, including modifications to the
allocation of uses if consistent with the shared parking analysis.
2. To ensure compliance with the Parking Plan for shared parking the allocation of
uses within the building shall be substantially consistent or less than the following
allocation:
Allocation(in square feet)
Health and Fitness Facility (including 46,500
a basketball court and pool)
Office 26,000
Retail 28,500
Restaurant 4,000
Total 105,000
Any material change to this allocation requires amendment to the Parking Plan,
and approval of the PIanning Commission.
3. A parking operation plan shall be submitted for approval by the Planning
Division prior to issuance of the building permit for the Health and Fitness
Facility, ensuring maximum use of parking structure consistent with the Shared
Parking Analysis (prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan, dated August 3,
2003), and to ensure efficient ingress and egress to and from the structure. The
parking structure shall be operated in accordance with said plan.
a) A minimum of 450 single use and 30 dual use (tandem) parking spaces shall
be available within the structure for employees and customers of all tenants
within the building, and all parking shall be available on a first come first
serve basis (i.e. no assigned parking except that tandem spaces may be
assigned to employees).
b) The adequacy of parking supplies and the efficiency of the parking operation
program shall be monitored for six -months after occupancy of the Health and
• Fitness Facility, and annually thereafter in the month of January, with a
report submitted to the Community Development Department by the
applicant's traffic engineer certifying adequate on-site parking is available. If
supplies are found to be inadequate, the applicant shall provide valet assisted
parking, and a detailed valet assistance program shall be provided to the City
for review by the City's traffic engineer. If the City's traffic engineer fords
the parking supply inadequate the Planning Commission shall review the
Parking Plan and may modify the Parking Plan to resolve any parking
inadequacy.
c) A lighting and security plan, including possible use of security personnel shall
be reviewed and approved by the Police Department to ensure that the
parking structure is well lit and safe for the patrons prior to issuance of
building permits.
03 3151501
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
,v, Ff.; VV
• •
4. A. chitectural treatment including sign locations shall be as shown on building
elevations and site and floor plans. Any modification shall require approval by
the Community Development Director
5. The project shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Department and the
Public Works Department.
6. Final building plans/construction drawings including site, elevation, floor plan,
sections, details, signage, landscaping and irrigation, submitted for building
permit issuance shall be reviewed for consistency with the plans approved by the
Planning Commission and the conditions of this resolution, and approved by the
Community Development Director prior to the issuance of any Building Permit.
a. The landscape plans shall include landscaping along Pacific Coast Highway
and street trees and shall be consistent with the original landscape plans
approved for the Hermosa Pavilion, subject to review and approval of the
Community Development Director.
b. Project plans shall include insulation to attenuate potential noise problems
with surrounding residential uses.
7. All exterior lights shall be located and oriented in a manner to insure that
neighboring residential property and public right-of-way shall not be adversely
effected.
8. Bicycle racks shall be provided in conveniently accessible locations to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director
9. The project and operation of the businesses shall comply with all applicable
requirements of the Municipal Code.
20 10. The Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan shall be recorded, and proof of
recordation shall be submitted to the Community Development Department.
Section 6. This grant shall not be effective for any purposes until the permittee and the
22 owners of the property involved have filed at the office of the Planning Division of the
23 Community Development Department their affidavits stating that they are aware of, and agree to
accept, all of the conditions of this grant.
21
24
25 The Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan shall be recorded, and proof of
recordation shall be submitted to the Community Development Department.
Each of the above conditions is separately enforced, and if one of the conditions of
27 approval is found to be invalid by a court of law, all the other conditions shall remain valid and
28 enforceable.
26
29
Permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, it agents, officers, and
employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or
employee to attack, set aside, void or annul this permit approval, which action is brought within
4
03 3151501
1
2
3
4
5
6
I I. 6.1.1 VV
•
the applicable time period of the State Government Code. The City shall prompLiy notify the
permittee of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. If
the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any claim, action or proceeding, or if the City
fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall no thereafter be responsible to defend,
indemnify, or hold harmless the City.
The permittee shall reimburse the City for any court and attorney's fees which the City
may be required to pay as a result of any claim or action brought against the City because of this
grant. Although the permittee is the real party in interest in an action, the City may, at its sole
discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of the action, but such participation shall
not relieve the permittee of any obligation under this condition.
8 The subject property shall be developed, maintained and operated in full compliance with
9 the conditions of this grant and any law, statute, ordinance or other regulation applicable to any
development or activity on the subject property. Failure of the permittee to cease any
10 development or activity not in full compliance shall be a violation of these conditions.
The Planning Commission may review this Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan
12 and may amend the subject conditions or impose any new conditions if deemed necessary to
13
mitigate detrimental effects on the neighborhood resulting from the subject use.
14 Section 7. Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 any legal challenge to
the decision of the Planning Commission, after a formal appeal to the City Council, must be
15 made within 90 days after the final decision by the City Council.
VOTE: AYES: Hoffman, Pizer, Perrotti, Kersenboom, Tucker
17 NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
11
16
18
19
20
CERTIFICATION
21 I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 03-45 is a Prue and complete record of the
action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their
22 -_- lar meeting of August 19, 2003.
23
24 Peter Hoffm.l: irman
25
26
27
28
29
August 19, 2003
Date
Pc/8-19-03/pprl 605am
5
So Blumenf:, d, S : retary
03 3151501
1
5. Resolution s
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
6. PARK 03-4/PDP 03-11 -- Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan
revocation/modification hearing related to parking operations at 1601 Pacific Coast
Highway, Hermosa Pavilion, AKA 1605 Pacific Coast Highway (PCH).
Staff Recommended Action: 1) To adopt the attached Resolution amending Resolution No. 03-
45 to require that the property owner provide free parking for customers with validation only
during peak operating periods of the fitness club in order to increase use of the parking structure
by the fitness club members and prevent spillover parking in the neighborhood; and 2) Re-
evaluate the effectiveness of the validation program in six months to determine whether it is
necessary to impose new conditions on the Parking Plan or repeal the mandatory validation
program and initiate public parking measures to mitigate spill-over neighborhood parking.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the Commission has received a request from the property
owner's attorney to continue this matter; noted that staff is not recommending this matter be
continued, believing Mr. Shook had full knowledge of this hearing; and mentioned that this issue
would be further addressed at the March 21, 2006 Commission meeting when staff was directed
to set this matter for public hearing. He stated that prior to commencing with the actual hearing,
the Commission will need to make a determination whether it wants to continue this matter,
determine why the matter needs to be continued, why his consultants cannot adequately speak
on his behalf or why he isn't prepared at this point. He advised that if the Commission decides
to proceed with the hearing this evening, City Attorney, John Cotti, is present to respond to legal
issues that were raised in the April 13, 2006, correspondence submitted by Mr. Shook's
attorney.
Mr. Gene Shook, Shook Development, applicant, stated he knew this matter was set for a future
date but not a specific date and that he only got word of it at the end of last week when he was
leaving town; advised that his attorney was also not in town at the same time and that they
believe adequate notice of this evening's hearing was not afforded them.
Commissioner Perrotti noted that Mr. Shook and his consultants were at the last meeting and
expressed his belief the Commission was clear on its intent/discussion; and pointed out that this
issue started last winter and that it shouldn't be of any surprise to anyone that it is on this
evening's agenda. He added that the April 13, 2006, letter from Mr. Shook's attorney is detailed
and that it is difficult to believe the attorney was not prepared to move forward if he had the time
to prepare such a detailed letter to be submitted for the Commission's review this evening. He
stated this matter should move forward.
Commissioner Pizer echoed Commissioner Perrotti's comments.
Chairman Hoffman stated that while the City has an obligation to notify the applicant involved,
the owner also has a due diligence/responsibility to pursue this matter as well; noted that the
Commission typically grants continuations at the will of the applicant because they're not
prepared to move forward; but noted that in this case, there is a tremendous advantage to the
applicant to delay this matter; and agreed that Mr. Shook's attorney has provided a detailed
2 Planning Commission Minutes
April 18, 2006
/:
• •
letter and that he believes this matter needs to proceed.
Mr. Longacre mentioned that a large orange sign/notice of this evening's hearing was placed on
the front door of Mr. Shook's building and that notice was on the City's website and in the Easy
Reader.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to PROCEED with this
hearing this evening. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Kersenboom
Director Blumenfeld stated that the purpose of this evening's hearing is to determine whether to
modify the conditions of approval for the Hermosa Pavilion Parking Plan and Precise
Development Plan that was approved in August 2003; and explained that the Commission has
the authority to modify or revoke a permit under the provisions of the Zone Code if the
Commission finds the building operations are having detrimental effects upon the neighborhood.
He stated that at the March 2005 meeting following the 6 -month review of the parking
operations at the Pavilion, the Commission determined there was significant evidence that spill-
over parking was occurring in the surrounding neighborhoods and that it resulted from the price
of parking at the Pavilion since the fitness club users were choosing to park on the street rather
than pay to park in the garage — pointing out that the patrons were compelled to pay a dollar for
a second hour of parking with respect to the use of the fitness club; and noted this was verified
by the Parking Intercept Surveys that were performed by Mr. Shook's parking consultant who
indicated that between 30 to 40 percent of the people parking on the street had the Pavilion as
their destination.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the Commission must make specific findings that the use is
not in compliance with the Parking Plan and Precise Development Plan in the Conditions of
Approval in order to modify this permit, noting that some of those findings may be found on
Page 3 in staff report; and stated that if the Commission decides to modify the permit, staff
would recommend the Commission require a mandatory parking validation program be
immediately put in place by the property owner during the peak operating periods of the fitness
club -- between 10:00 A.M. and noon and 5:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. daily, the highest peak
demand and greatest potential for spill-over parking in the surrounding neighborhood. He noted
staff is also recommending this issue be revisited in 6 months to assess whether the new
parking conditions are adequately addressing the nuisance parking problems in the surrounding
neighborhoods or whether the price of parking is not the reason for spill-over parking; added
that the owner will be required to have his parking consultant provide a similar parking analysis
to survey the parking conditions; and that the Commission can use that analysis in its
assessment in the next 6 months.
Director Blumenfeld explained that in the event the price is not the determining factor causing
the spill-over parking, then the use of the validation program for the parking garage can be
removed by this Commission in a follow-up review and that other measures should then be
considered, such as a parking district or other restrictions to ease the neighborhood parking
burdens. He highlighted staffs recommendation to adopt the resolution amending Resolution
03-45, requiring the property owner provide free parking for his customers with validation only
during those peak operating periods of the fitness club in order to increase use of the parking
3 Planning Commission Minutes
April 18, 2006
l7
• •
structure by the fitness club members and prevent spill-over parking in the neighborhoods; and
secondly, that the Commission re-evaluate the effectiveness of the validation program in 6
months to determine if it's necessary to impose other conditions.
Director Blumenfeld stated that Page 7 of the Shared Parking Analysis prepared for the original
project approval indicates the highest peak period for parking demand for the fitness club,
noting that the fitness club members by far are the highest number of patrons for the parking
garage; and stated that the free parking validation program would be available to all business
customers in this facility.
Commissioner Pizer expressed his belief 2 hours of free parking should be available at any time
of day, believing this is much easier to handle.
Director Blumenfeld explained that staff's intent to deal with the spill-over parking issue was to
not unduly affect the property owner's parking revenue, but to address those peak hours that
generated the most potential spill-over parking.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Shook reiterated that he did not have adequate notice of this evening's hearing. Mr. Shook
stated that the current parking study and charts for 2006 are more reflective of what is taking
place today; advised that there is a Targe traffic volume on Mondays and Tuesdays from 5:00
P.M. to 7:00 P.M.; and explained that he has tried to be a good corporate citizen in Hermosa
Beach; that he has invested a lot of money to make this the best project he could provide; and
stated that it has always been clear he had the expectation of being able to charge for parking.
He stated that when the theatres were approved for this site, they were originally charging $1.25
per hour for parking; and he stated there is no evidence that giving 2 hours free parking will
solve the neighborhood parking problem, pointing out that people will quickly take advantage of
the first and most convenient parking spaces directly in front of the Pavilion or on 16th Street;
and added that some people do not want to park in parking structures. He expressed his belief
the residents will be impacted from the beach parking no matter what he does with this
structure. He stated that a number of things being recommended is speculation; advised that
he has been proactive in his attempts to provide adequate parking; and he requested that he be
given a full 6 months to fine tune the parking garage operations. Mr. Shook advised that he met
with some of the business owners in the affected community; noted that those business owners
are requesting green 30 -minute parking zones in front of their businesses; and pointed out that
parking problems existed in this area even before this center was open for business.
Mr. Shook highlighted the importance of providing a secure and safe parking facility, noting the
need to maintain an adequate number of parking garage employees; stated that he has offered
60 parking spaces, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week that will be double validated on Level 2; and
stated that the parking rates are extremely low, some working out to 7.2 cents per hour. He
urged the City to allow him more time to work on this issue.
Ron Miller, Hermosa Beach resident, stated that he is the closest resident to the parking
garage; advised that the parking garage operations are a nuisance because of the vehicle lights
shining into his property, the loud noise coming from the car radios of people sitting in their cars
waiting for people to come out of the fitness club; and noted that around 5:00 P.M. and 6:00
P.M., these cars verge on the entrance, blocking 16th Street. He added that people are parking
in the Vons unloading area to wait for fitness club patrons, causing the semi trucks to blow their
horns at night to move these people out of the way. Mr. Miller stated he would welcome a
4 Planning Commission Minutes
April 18, 2006
/g
• •
parking permit district and to put in place one-way traffic to help maintain the safety and sanctity
of this area.
Richard Thompson, Hermosa Beach resident, stated that the free parking in this structure
should be offered 24 hours a day, 7 days a week; stated that because of the increase in traffic
and high speed, he is concerned for pedestrians; and he noted that the new signal is diverting
traffic up 16`h Street.
Elizabeth Styles, Hermosa Beach resident, stated that parking on her street has become almost
impossible; advised that only today, the City put in a light and painted the curb red half way up
the street, now losing even more parking spaces; and expressed her belief that free parking
would help. She noted that since the fitness club has opened, the parking has become a
problem every day of the week.
Linda Miller, Hermosa Beach resident, stated that 161h Street between Ardmore and PCH has
gotten too busy and dangerous for pedestrians; expressed her belief that the only way to solve
the problem is with permit parking, asking that it be implemented on a trial basis; and she also
suggested that this street be a one-way street going from the school westbound.
Lee Grant, Hermosa Beach resident, noted his concern that he did not receive notification of
this evening's meeting; stated that when the movie theatre was in operation, the parking was
validated for the patrons; advised that the traffic and parking on 16'h Street has become a major
problem; and suggested that this matter be revisited sooner than 6 months.
Lisa Holcombe, owner of the Pet Care Company, noted her concern that what is being
recommended will not solve the problem; and she urged the City to implement a permit parking
program and to be more proactive in parking and traffic enforcement all around this area. She
noted her support of providing shorter hours of validation, stating it is not fair to take all the
revenue away from the parking structure.
Patty Egerer, Hermosa Beach resident, expressed her belief that a parking district will ultimately
be the thing that will stop the parking problems; and stated that Mr. Shook should be financially
responsible for the cost borne by the residents to preserve their neighborhoods. She stated that
the parking problem should be free to all, with a minimum of 2 hours, 7 days a week, 24 hours a
day; and noted her opposition to painting green 30 -minute parking spaces on PCH, believing it
will have a negative impact on those businesses. She stated that people need to be
encouraged to park in the parking structure that provides adequate and visible security at all
hours, with active, uniformed security guards circulating the structure 24 hours a day; and she
stated that the loitering and graffiti should be handled in an immediate fashion. She expressed
her belief that only patrons of this center should be using the parking structure, not beach -goers
or those participating in an event such as the Fiesta.
There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Chairman Hoffman stated that staff has identified in its report 10 specific findings which are
indicative of the Commission's prior discussion and requested that those findings in staff report
be reflected in the minutes as follows:
Planning Commission Minutes
April 18, 2006
Findings for Modifying the Conditions of Approval:
The parking facility is currently not operating in compliance with the terms of the Parking Plan
and Precise Development Plan as amended in 2003:
1. The six-month review of operations of the parking facility as required by the Parking
Plan and Precise Development has demonstrated that parking operations are inefficient.
This review, based upon parking intercept surveys and testimony from residents,
indicates that a significant percentage of customers of the building are utilizing on -street
parking in the residential neighborhoods rather than using the parking structure. The
parking in the structure costs at least one dollar with validation for two hours, with an
additional dollar for each hour, while the parking on the nearby streets is free. This
disparity in cost is the primary reason for this inefficient use of the parking facility.
2. The demonstrated spill-over parking is causing a detrimental effect on these
residential neighborhoods, as shown by the parking study and supported by testimony
from residential property owners and occupants in the neighborhoods along 16th Street.
3. Review of parking operations within 6 months, after removal of the disparity in the cost
of the parking, will clearly show if parking cost is causing spill-over parking in the
neighborhoods.
4. The allocation of uses and the use of the parking facility with shared parking to meet
parking requirements, for which the Parking Plan was granted, is not being exercised in
accordance with the approval and the assumption of the shared parking. Instead, the
operation of the parking facility is resulting in a detrimental impact to the public health
and safety and constitutes a nuisance.
5. Spill-over parking into nearby public parking areas along both residential and
commercial streets is detrimental to the existing businesses and residences, which have
a long established practice of using this on -street parking.
6. The use of on -street parking across Pacific Coast Highway is forcing customers and
patrons of the Pavilion to cross PCH, which is a hazard to both the pedestrians crossing
the street and the vehicles traveling on PCH.
7. The applicant has not demonstrated that his proposals to mitigate the demonstrated
spill-over parking will result in any substantial reduction or alleviation of the inefficient
use of the parking facility and spill-over parking into nearby neighborhoods.
8. The tandem assisted free parking would only be available for those willing to park on
Level 2, which is not the most convenient location in the structure and may not be more
convenient than nearby on -street parking.
9. The monthly parking passes are aimed only at frequent users, as it would not make
any sense for those parking 2 hours or less per visit who use the structure less than 20
times a month to spend $20 for a monthly pass. So a typical gym patron that comes 2-4
times a week would have no reason to purchase a pass.
6 Planning Commission Minutes
April 18, 2006
10. The smoothie validation program provides for free validated parking for customers
purchasing a $5 or $6 smoothie. As such, its potential effect is limited, and instead of
addressing the cost disparity, results in a substantial cost to park in the structure.
Commissioner Pizer noted his support of the findings to solve the parking problems; stated he
understands the owner always intended to charge for parking, but pointed out that it's not
working; and stated that the free parking may not completely solve the problem but that the
Commission needs to take the first step in dealing with the parking problems. He reiterated his
desire to see the 2 -hour free parking program be offered at any hour of the day, offered to all
patrons of this center, and not restricted to one level of the garage; and he suggested revisiting
this issue in 3 months to see if the operation is working.
Director Blumenfeld clarified the 2006 survey reiterates the findings in the 2003 Shared Parking
Analysis/survey which reflects the peak parking times and noted there is a parking accumulation
survey, a count of occupancy in the garage — pointing out that these numbers arenot
speculative; and noted there is hard data reflecting that the peak demand for parking is from
10:00 A.M. and noon and 5:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M.
Commissioner Perrotti stated that in order to make the 2 -hour parking program less complicated
to enforce, it should be offered at any hour of the day; and stated that he is able to support the
findings.
Vice -Chairman Allen stated that in order to keep this less complicated for all, the 2 -hour free
parking should be offered at any hour of the day; expressed his belief that further mitigation
measures will be necessary to solve the parking problems; and stated he can make the findings
as noted in staff report.
Chairman Hoffman stated that any action taken should guarantee the resolution of the parking
problem, not experiment to see if it works; stated he is reluctant to engage in this experiment
given the punitive effect it may have on Mr. Shook; and expressed his belief that the only
solution to the spill-over parking is the creation of a free parking district. He noted his belief that
a 30 -minute parking limit would unduly punish the retail establishments and residents along
PCH in this area.
Commissioner Pizer stated that adequate signage and notification should be made of the free
parking program.
City Attorney Cotti mentioned that not only is the Commission required to make the 10 findings,
but those findings must be supported by substantial evidence. He stated that the residents'
testimony demonstrates this project is causing spill-over parking; but explained that the issue
here is whether providing 2 hours free parking will alleviate the spill-over parking; and that this is
where the Commission needs to focus its inquiry.
Director Blumenfeld reminded the Commission that it has the ability to rescind or modify this
new condition in 6 months if this plan does not have a material effect in the neighborhood. He
explained that the Commission needs to isolate these issues and ultimately find a solution. He
stated that the proposal for 2 hours free parking is a good place to start, to encourage people to
park in the garage; and reiterated that this can be rescinded/modified or a new condition can be
imposed if this does not work.
Commissioner Pizer reiterated his support for a 3 -month review period.
7 Planning Commission Minutes
April 18, 2006
2i
Director Blumenfeld noted the necessity of proactive advertising/signage; and expressed his
belief that 6 months is necessary to adequately test the program.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE the
attached resolution, to require that the property owner provide 2 hours free parking with
validation; that this program be offered to any center patron at any hour of the day/night, 7 days
a week; and that this issue be reviewed in 6 months. The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Allen, Perrotti, Pizer
Hoffman
None
Kersenboom
7. UP 06-3 -- Conditional Use Permit to allow on -sale beer and wine in conjunctn
w a restaurant at 424 Pier Avenue, Creme de la Crepe (continued from Marc 21,
200 . eeting).
Staff Recomme ' ded Action: To continue to October 17, 2006 meeting.
Director Blumenfel• dvised that the owner is attempting to sort out iss s relative to the
County Health Depart nt and is seeking several months to resolve his ':sues; and he noted
that this would require a : w hearing notice.
Chairman Hoffman opened th
the public hearing.
ublic hearing. There being no inpjr , Chairman Hoffman closed
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Vice- hairman Allen, to CONTINUE to
October 17, 2006 CUP 06-3 -- Cond l.nal Use Per/ i to allow on -sale beer and wine in
conjunction with a restaurant at 424 Pier A enue, Cr' e de la Crepe. The motion carried as
follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Kersenboom
8. PDP 06-3 -- Precise Deve opment Plan to construct - second dwelling unit on a
property in the R -2B zoyte at 33 16th Street.
Staff Recommended Actior1: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Rob son advised that the subject lot is on a fairly flat lot .cated on the north
side of 16th Stre- , a walk street, between the beach and Hermosa Avenu- stated that the
existing dwellin: located on the front part of the lot was constructed in 1937 an• remodeled in
1978; and t the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing detached garag: and add a
second u above a new garage and carport with alley access at the rear of the pro• -rty. He
stated t. - applicant is proposing the addition of a new second dwelling unit that is 1,74 .quare
feet, -ith a lot size of 3,652 square feet; that the proposed new dwelling unit is a 3 -story bu • ing
th. contains 2 stories above the garage; that the parking is provided within a new 2 -car gara►e
and 3 -car carport; that thedwelling unit contains 3 bedrooms and 3 baths; that the garage an.
8
Planning Commission Minutes
April 18, 2006
2Z
• •
CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH
MUNICIPAL CODE ON-LINE
ZONING
Chapter 17.70
REVOCATION AND EXPIRATION
17.70.010 Permits or variances may be revoked.
17.70.020 Expiration.
17.70. 010 Permits or variances may be revoked.
Planning commission may, after a public hearing held in the manner
prescribed in Chapter 17.42 governing variances and conditional use permits,
revoke or modify any permit or variance issued on any one or more of the
following grounds:
A. That the approval was obtained by fraud;
B. That the use for which such approval is granted is not being exercised;
C. That the use for which such approval was granted has ceased to exist or
has been suspended for one year or more;
D. That the permit or variance granted is being, or recently has been,
exercised contrary to the terms or conditions of such approval, or in violation
of any statute, ordinance, law or regulation;
E. That the use for which the approval was granted was so exercised as to be
detrimental to the public health or safety, or so as to constitute a nuisance.
(Prior code Appx. A, § 1800)
17.70. 020 Expiration.
Any permit or variance granted by the planning commission or city council
becomes null and void if not executed within the date specified in such
permit or variance, or if no date is specified, within two years from the date
of approval of such permit or variance. (Prior code Appx. A, § 1801)
23
SFtEPPA{tQ {y<t1Lt{N R'Ct3TER tIAMPIt
A T T Cl R N E Y S AT LAW
July I, 2006
Via E -Mail
-City Council
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
1 -Hermosa Beach, California 90254
Re:
550 Town Center Drive I 4th Floor I Cosia Mesa, CA. 92:626-1993
4-S ;
3-51 00 office I 714-513-5130 rax I www.sheppardmullin.com
Writer's Direct Line
soconnor@sheppardmullin.com
Our File Number: OGLC-064504
Appeal of April 18, 2006 Planning Commission Decision Re: Precise
Development Plan and Parking Plan Modification Related to Parkin;
Operations at the Hermosa Beach Pavilion at 1605 Pacific Coast Highway
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
This firm represents Shook. Development Corporation ("Shook"), the owner of the
Hermosa Beach Pavilion, an existing commercial shopping center located at 1605 (also known as
1601) Pacific Coast Highway (the "Subject Property"). This letter sets forth the reasons for
Shook's appeal of the April 18, 2006 Planning Commission ("Commission") decision concerning
modifications to the parking operations at the Subject Property. Specifically, on April 18, 2006,
the Commission voted to require Shook to provide two hours of free parking to any patron of the
Subject Property at any hour of the day/night, seven days a week. As set forth in, detail below,
the Commission's decision in this regard was unlawful, unfair and poorly reasoned. The City
Council should grant Shook's appeal and overturn the Commission's decision.
1. THE COMMISSION'S DECISION WAS UNLAWFUL.
The Commission's decision to require Shook to provide two hours of free parking
at all times to all patrons was unlawful for a number of reasons. First, there was no evidence to
support the decision made by the Commission. Second, the Commission had no authority to
require Shook to provide free parking at the Subject Property. Third, the Commission's decision
deprived Shook of property without due process of law. Fourth, and finally, the Commission's
decision constituted a confiscatory taking, requiring just compensation be paid to Shook.
a. There Was No Evidence To Support The Commission's Decision
As recognized by the Commission itself, there was no evidence to support the
Commission's decision to require Shook to provide free parking at the Subject Property. Instead,
in a light most favorable to the Commission, the Commission seemed to be hoping that its
• •
SHEI'PARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
Planning Commission
July 1, 2006
Page 2
decision requiring Shook to provide free parking would solve the parking problems. However,
the Commission's hopes and speculations are not a proper basis to make the decision that it did.
The Commission's decision was wholly lacking in evidentiary support as clearly
established in the Commission's own minutes and findings. Indeed, Finding No. 3 states:
"Review of parking operations within six months, after removal of the disparity in the cost of the
parking, will clearly show if parking cost is causing spillover parking in the neighborhoods."
The very wording of this finding demonstrates that the Commission does not know whether free
parking would resolve the spillover parking in the neighborhoods. Rather, the Commission
suggests that a six month experiment of free parking he tried, and then, at that time, the
Commission will know whether parking cost is causing spillover parking. This finding clearly
shows that the Commission was lacking any evidentiary support concerning its decision.
The minutes from the April 18, 2006 hearing show that at least Chairman
Hoffman had it right. He specifically stated that any action taken should guaranty the resolution
of the parking problem, not experiment to see that it works. Chairman Hoffman hit the nail on
the head — the Commission's decision can best be described as an experimentation, not a decision
supported by evidence.
The minutes from the April 18, 2006 hearing also show that City Attorney Cotti
clearly warned the Commission that it was required not only to make ten factual findings, but
"those findings must be supported by substantial evidence." April 18, 2006 Minutes, p. 10. City
Attorney Cotti also stated that the issue is whether providing two hours of free parking will
alleviate the spillover parking, and that is where the Commission needed to focus its inquiry.
Despite City Attorney Cotti's warnings, the Commission did no such analysis concerning
whether two hours of free parking would alleviate the parking situation. There were no studies
done to show why patrons may prefer street parking to parking in the Subject Property's
structure. Do patrons prefer street parking because it is more convenient that dealing with the
structure and finding a space? Do patrons prefer street parking because they can make it to the
gym more quickly than by parking in the structure? Do patrons prefer street parking because it is
closer to the gym? Do patrons prefer street parking because they can save a dollar? Shook does
not know the answers to these questions. But more importantly, the Commission does not know
either, and there is no evidence that free parking will solve tl:e problems.
The Commission acted unlawfully when it voted to require Shook to provide free
parking because there was no evidence to support the decision. The City Council must therefore
uphold the law and overturn the Commission's decision.
ZS
• •
SHEPPARD 11lii,LJN RICHTER & HAMPTON 1�4P
Planning Commission
July 1, 2006
Page 3
b. The Commission Had No Authority To Require Free Parking At The Subject
Property
As a puiported basis for this requirement, the Commission relied upon
Resolution 03-45. April 18, 2006 Minutes, p. 2; April 12, 2006 Staff Report, p. 1-2. More
specifically, the Commission relied upon Condition No. 3(b) of Resolution 03-45, which states in
part that the "adequacy of parking supplies and efficiency of the parking operation shall be
monitored for six months after occupancy of the Health and Fitness Facility." April 12, 2006
Staff Report, p. 1. The Commission's reliance on this condition was misplaced. A proper
reading of this condition leads to the inescapable conclusion that the condition focused on
parking adequacy (i.e., supply), not parking efficiency.
Indeed, the word "efficiency" is mentioned only once in the entire Resolution 03-
45. Moreover, the language following the one use of the word "efficiency" makes clear that the
condition deals only with parking adequacy. Specifically, the remainder of Condition No. 3(h)
"refers to monitoring parking for six months after occupancy" with a report submitted to the
Community Development Department by the applicant's traffic engineer certifying adequate
onsite parking is available." Shook has fully complied with this condition. Indeed, Shook's
traffic engineer submitted a Parking Study Report dated February 13, 2006, which concluded:
"The project's parking supply has been determined to be more than adequate to meet current and
future parking demands." Linscott Law & Greenspan Parking Study Report, February 13, 2006,
p. 28.'
Condition No. 3(b) further provides: "If supplies are found to be inadequate, the
applicant shall provide valet assisted parking, and a detailed valet assistance program shall be
provided to the City for review by the City's traffic engineer. If the City's traffic engineer finds
the parking supply inadequate the Planning Commission shall review the Parking Plan and may
modify the Parking Plan to resolve any parking inadequacy."
The Staff Report concerning Resolution 03-45 also makes it clear that the
Commission was focusing on parking supply, not parking efficiency. Specifically, the Staff
Report provided in part: "Parking is projected to be satisfied with the existing supply within the
parking structure due to the proposed new mix of uses with varying times of peak parking
demand. The applicant has submitted a revised and updated Shared Parking Analysis (dated
August 5, 2003), prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan. This Shared Parking Analysis
This Parking Study Report was submitted to the Community Development Department
on February 13, 2006, and we hereby request that it be made part of the administrative
record in this matter.
•
SHEPPARI) 3rl:LLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
Planning Commission
July I, 2006
Page 4
demonstrates that the existing parking supply will be sufficient for the proposed mix of uses
based upon peak and off peak usage."
Further, the Planning Commission minutes concerning the approval of Resolution
03-45 also establish that parking adequacy, not efficiency, was the concern: "Director
Blumenfeld stated that the applicant submitted a Shared Parking Analysis to reflect these
changes; and advised that the analysis indicates the shared parking for these various uses will
reach a peak demand at 5:00 p.m., needing 411 parking spaces, which can be satisfied by the
proposed onsite supply of parking within the structure. He noted that staff is recommending
approval." Planning Commission Minutes, August 19, 2003.
The Commission did not contend, nor could it have, that Shook had not provided
adequate parking supply for the Subject Property. indeed, to the contrary, the Commission's
February 15, 2006 report acknowledges that: "The supply of garage parking is currently more
than adequate." More recently, at a March 21, 2006 Commission hearing on this matter,
Commissioner Hoffman acknowledged that parking at the Subject Property was adequate.
The foregoing analysis is critical because while Resolution 03-45 arguably gives
the City the authority to monitor and modify the parking situation based on inadequate parking,
the City has no authority require Shook to provide free parking because of the parking taking
place on the street.
c. The Commission's Decision Deprived Shook Of Property Without Due
Process Of Law.
The state and federal Constitutions prohibit government from depriving a person
of property without due process of law. Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control 13d. (1997) 16
Ca1.4th 761, 771; Cal. Const., art. I, § § 7, 155, U.S. Const., 11th Amend., § 1. These provisions
place substantive limitations on legislative measures, preventing government from enacting
legislation that lacks a reasonable relation to a proper legislative purpose. Id. In the context of
price control, courts will only find that a regulation bears a reasonable relation to a proper
legislative purpose if the law does not deprive the property owner of a "fair return." Id.
"[T]he essential inquiry in due process cases involving price controls is whether
the regulatory scheme's result is just and reasonable." Id. at 778. "[I]t is the result reached not
the method employed which is controlling. It is not theory but the impact of the price regulation
which counts." Id. at 772. "[A] court must determine whether the regulation may reasonably be
expected to maintain financial integrity, attract necessary capital, and fairly compensate investors
for the risks they have assumed." Id.
The Commission's decision constituted a price control in its worse form -- it did
not just seek to cap the cost of parking; rather it eliminated the price all together, forcing Shook
• •
SHEPPARD MULLIN RIGHTER l I \Mi PON LLP
Planning Commission
July 1, 2006
Page 5
to provide free parking to all patrons at all times. This will have a tremendous impact on Shook's
profits because it will result in a 100% loss.. The dollar amount of this impact is unknown at this
time, but believed to be in excess of$1 million per year. With capitalization rates currently at
approximately 5%, this translates into a total loss to Shook of over $20 million, for which we
will hold the City responsible.
The Commission's decision cannot "reasonably he expected to maintain financial
integrity, attract necessary capital, and fairly compensate investors for the risks they have
assumed." As such, the Commission's decision violated the Shook's substantive due process
rights under the California and U.S. Constitutions.
d. The Commission's Decision Constituted A Confiscatory Taking, Requiring
Just Compensation.
"The state and federal Constitutions prohibit government from takingprivate
property for public use without just compensation." Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd.
(1997) 16 Ca1.4°i 761, 773. "[A] regulation of property that goes too far may effect a taking of
that property, though its titles remains in private hands." Id. This is true even if "it does not
involve a physical invasion and leaves the property owner some economically beneficial use of
his property." idd. at 774. In such a case, the property owner may bring an inverse condemnation
action, and if it prevails, the regulatory agency must either withdraw the regulation or pay just
compensation." Id. at 773.
Generally, in the context of price regulation, courts have "employed an analysis
under the takings clause similar to that which it employs under the due process clause, focusing
on the regulation's impact and investors' ability to earn a fair return." Ed. at 776; see also Santa
Monica Beach, LT. v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4`'' 952, 964. For the reasons explained
above, the Commission's decision will have a tremendous economic impact on Shook and
greatly interfere with Shook's ability to earn a fair return. Indeed, the decision will cause Shook
to lose 100% of its profits during peak hours. Accordingly, the decision, if upheld by the
Council on appeal, will constitute a taking under the California and U.S.JConstitutions, requiring
the City to withdraw the action or to pay just compensation to Shook.
2. THE COMMISSION'S DECISION WAS UNFAIR AND POORLY REASONED
a. Shook Made A Substantial Investment With The Expectation, Disclosed To
The Commission, Of A Fee Parking Structure.
The Commission is well aware of the approximately $10 million renovation at the
Property, including the renovation of the six -level parking garage. The Commission also knows
that the parking garage complies with the Resolution, provides ample parking, and passed City
inspection.
i •
SHEPPARi) MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LU'
Planning Commission
July I, 2006
Page 6
Shook undertook those efforts and expenditures based, in part, on anticipated
parking revenue. The Commission has recently mentioned that it believes Shook did not
disclose that there would be paid parking at the Property. That is incorrect.
Shook has always made it clear that the parking would not be free. As reflected
in the minutes from the Commission's January 19, 1999 meeting, "Gene Shook, owner of the
property, stated the fee currently set at 50 cents for the first two hours for the 24 Hour Fitness
patrons and 50 cents for the third hour." The minutes from the Commission's July 20, 1999
meeting note that, in response to a question from Chairman Tucker, "Mr. Shook stated the
employees will not park in other spaces since they will be charged at the regular rates." Those
are just some of the disclosures Shook has made regarding charged parking, and Shook believes
a further review of the minutes, correspondence and parking reports will show other disclosures.
Simply put, Shook's investment was premised on the revenue from not only the
tenants (rent), but also the patrons (parking revenue).
b. The Commission's Decision Was Far Too Broad, Unfairly Penalizing Shook
The action as proposed and recommended in the April 12, 2006 Staff Report
would have been unlawful in any event, but the modifications made at the April 18, 2006 hearing
by the Commission unquestionably turned the Commission's decision into an unlawful one.
Specifically, the Staff Report recommended that. the Commission vote to require Shook to
provide free parking for two hours only to patrons of 24 Hour Fitness and only during peak
periods (in the morning and in the evening). While Shook objected to this recommendation and
felt that it was unlawful, at least the recommended course of action was narrowly tailored.
Incredibly, however, the Commission expansively broadened the scope of the recommended
action, requiring Shook to provide two hours of free parking to all patrons at all times of the
day and all times of the night.
Any decision by the Commission requiring Shook to provide free parking would
have resulted in severe financial damage to Shook, but the broad -brush approach taken by the
Commission will cause catastrophic financial damage to Shook, thereby ensuring the
unlawfulness of the Commission's decision.
The Commission's decision is all the more surprising in that it has a severe penal
effect against a good property and a good citizen. Shook has spent substantial time and
resources into making the Subject Property a source of pride for the City. Shook voluntarily
funded a traffic signal to make the community a safer one. Simply put, Shook deserves better
treatment than was dished out by the Commission.
• •
SHEEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
Planning Commission
.iuly 1, 2006
Page 7
c. The Commission's Decision Ignored the Real Problems
Primarily because the Commission's decision was not supported by any evidence,
the decision ignores the real problems that are causing the parking difficulties surrounding the
Subject Property. First, members of the Commission and members of the public who spoke at
the April 28, 2006 Hearing noted that the real solution to the parking problem is the creation of a
residential parking district. The Commission and the City could have lawfully taken this path
but instead chose to pursue the unlawful path requiring Shook to provide free parking.
Many of the Commissioner's also recognize that the parking problems were
caused by patrons of one tenant at the Subject Property (24 Hour Fitness). indeed, the
Commission specifically found (Finding No. 4) in reference to this tenant that the parking
situation resulted "in a detrimental impact to the public health and safety and constitutes a
nuisance." While Shook does not agree that the parking situation constitutes a nuisance, if the
City believes this to be the case, it should take action against the tenant causing the nuisance.
problem, not against Shook. The City clearly has authority to do so. See, e.g., Sunset
Amusement Company v. Board of Police Commissioners (1972) 7 Cal.3d 64 [holding that a
roller skate rink provided insufficient parking that created a n.uisance].
d. The Commission Ignored Shook's Proposals
As set forth in this firm's March 21, 2006 letter to the Commission, Shook
proposed remedying the City's issues. These suggestions were as follows:
1. Shook will continue to use Level 1 (only 28 spaces, and the least desirable
level) for 24 Hour Fitness employees.
2. Shook has started using a Tandem Assist at Level 2. This means an
orange -vested assistant will help people park in spaces according to their vehicle size (not
putting a Mini Cooper where a large Suburban can go). About. 20 drivers would leave their keys
with the Tandem Assist person at this level, which would only happen for a few hours per week.
Shook will have 60 spaces marked for 2 -hour validation on this level. With parking turnover,
Level 2 could accommodate 250 to 300 vehicles or more in a busy day. This provides safety,
security and comfort to those on Level 2 by having an attendant from 6:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.rn.
during the week, and 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturdays.
3. Level 3 will be for office workers and monthly passes for gyre members.
Shook now offers gym members a 4 -month parking pass for $60 or just $15 per month. Shook is
now using a Tandem Assist person at this level. This facilitates parking vehicles according to
size which maximizes efficiency.
3
r •
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER. & HAMPTON L1,P
Planning Commission
July 1, 2006
Page 8
4. Level 4 will be for valet. Various people thought that no one would use
valet; however, Shook has seen 90% usage at peak hours.
5. Levels 5 and 6 are for any non -monthly, non-employee users. These
levels, which offer some of the best spaces, are available to gym members for $1 for two hours.
Additionally, Shook uses spotters so cars can be directed upon entry to the level with the most
open spaces.
6. Shook has also proposed other programs and policies, as set forth in
Shook's prior correspondence.
The Commission ignored these proposals and instead unlawfully required Shook
provide free parking to all patrons at all times.
3. CONCLUSION.
Without any evidence supporting its decision, the Commission voted to require
Shook to provide two hours of free parking to all patrons at all times of the day and night. This
decision that will have a devastating impact on Shook. This decision was unlawful for the
reasons set forth above. Shook therefore requests that the Council grant Shook's appeal and
overrule the Commission's decision.
Very/ t yiy yours,
.mean P. O'Connor
for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
w02-\P.ST:NSO\40002803 i .1
cc: Mr. Sol Blumenfeld
Mr. Gene Shook
31
*Please include this communication in council's agenda packet for July 11, 20
WiEcEr. EP
City of Hermosa Beach
City Council Members ! 0��
r`•He1315 Valley Drive COM. DEV. DEP F. \r -
Hermosa
rmosa Beach, CA 90254 ` i,;'
RE: P.C. RESOLUTION 06-16, AMENDMENT TO PARKING PLAN,
PAVILION, 1601 Pacific Coast Hwy, H.B.
ly 3, 2006
Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of Council:
The operational parking plan for business located at 1601 Pacific Coast Hwy, represents a
progressive problem for residents in the surrounding area. P.C. Resolution 06-16 provides an
opportunity to create an instrument to reduce impact. The resolution requires supplemental changes
as identified below.
Supplemental Terms to: P.C. Resolution 06-16
a) All employees (full & part time) to receive free parking.
b) Patron parking to be free 7 days a week, 24 hours a day.
c) The entire parking supply to be "self -park" no tandem parking or parallel parking spaces
allowed. When the building is full, a sign would be posted "Garage Full."
d) Parking structure NOT to be utilized as "special event" parking.
e) Security: "Active" security personnel to monitor the parking structure, stairwells, and building
perimeter 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. Security personnel to be easily identifiable by the
public, i.e., security would be uniformed. The security company to be responsible for
furnishing HBPD with disturbance reports on regular intervals.
f) Red Zones: NO vehicle shall stop, stand, or park for any purpose along the dedicated red zones
directly in front of the Pavilion, or along 16t'' Street, this includes vehicles "for hire." The
dedicated right -turn lane along PCH, must be maintained clear, to avoid traffic congestion, and
hazardous conditions.
g) TAXIS: Service vehicles are NOT to lurk or park in neighborhoods or take up public parking
spaces. Service vehicles are to be contained within the commercial building.
h) Entry to the proposed "restaurant -bar" to be accessible exclusively via the interior lobby of the
main building, not at a side entry located on PCH. This avoids problems with persons
congregating outside and causing distraction for motorists.
i) Tandem parking is not feasible or desirable for employees. Employees would be required to
deposit keys with a parking attendant. This creates undesirable conditions by design.
j) Land Use: NO "adult entertainment" allowed.
The Pavilion's "high impact tenant" opened in August of 2005 creating an influx of commercial
traffic and patron parking in residential neighborhood. The gym -tenant occupies about 46,049
square feet (50%) of the building. The surrounding neighborhood and businesses were immediately
impacted. Residents are deprived valuable parking, and safety concerns have manifested. Impact is
NOT limited to 16th Street. Other interior streets, connecting with 16th Street, i.e., (15th Place, Mira
Ave., Raymond Ave., and Bonnie Brae Ave.) all suffer from the same commercial intrusion. The
developer has NOT implemented a single mitigation measure during this 10 -month period. The
city's intervention is required, to deter disruption for residents.
1 of 2
32-
•
Municipal Zoning Code 17.44.050, Unlawful to reduce available parking. Code specifically
prohibits the "reducing, diminishing or eliminating existing required off-street parking." Shook's
operational -management policy/plan of the garage structure creates a deterrent preventing the
effective usage of the structure.
Contrary to representations and assertions made by Gene Shook, the Pavilion's policy is inconsistent
and NOT the norm for businesses in the surrounding area. NO other commercial -business location
within Hermosa Beach or Manhattan Beach charge customers a "fee" to park. Claims that
mitigation measures recommended by the commission "... unfairly deprives me of my investment
expectations..." (Shook's letter, April 25, 2006) assumes the development project is entitled to
adversely impact the surrounding neighborhoods.
The analysis prepared Linscott, Law & Greenspan's engineers is insufficient. Parking demands
require recalculation. Parking for this 100,000-sq.ft building to be identified as 100% self -park.
This is the standard, preference, and expectation of our community. The freedom and convenience
to self -park can not be undermined. Imposing attendant assist parking on both patrons and
employees manipulates the quantity of vehicles that can park within the building. The feasibility
for "attendant assistance parking" is dubious, at best.
Tandem parking imposed upon employees is unrealistic, one can anticipate vehicles to avoid this
method of parking. It is my understanding, this indirectly violates the owner's responsibility to
contain parking in accordance with code.
Linscott, Law & Greenspan's engineers previously submitted plans on behalf of their client that
strategically aim to convert a residential artery to service commercial traffic. Once again, their
analysis prepared in February 2006 (LLG Parking Report, Reference 1-06-3625) aggressively
advocates Mr. Shook's interests. Conclusions made by the firm undermine residents, and offer no
understanding or concept of solutions, acceptable to the residential community. Additionally, the
report fails to represent all of the building's business uses (conforming and nonconforming.) The
city needs to investigate, review, and assess all noncompliance issues prior to rendering a decision.
The proprietor has missed every opportunity to voluntarily implement mitigation measures.
Everyday strangers from the Pavilion case and intrude upon our residential living environment.
This destructive intrusion presents dramatic change to the character of our neighborhood. In effort
to preserve and protect neighborhood, the supplemental terms defined herein require adoption into
P.C. Resolution 06-16.
Thank you for your attention to this detail.
Respectfully,
atty . gere
He Asa each, Resident
2 of 2
33
i1/23/1999 17:31 3103723099
STRUSSER/HOWLETT PAGE 02 "
• AHTI tr-Wk
bitar T1 (Inn�l eommi 5Sio() +fi2VIC6 A!'2 t 8 2K6COh9 DEV. DEPT.
Z an/ a !ma! flerrYwaDc. 132Gc.F)
ktc-Qicbiut" Y an/ VerN Proud d -P �-F , lOtiich is Witt
T am orif +WS� (dkr. 11'114 Inushava, Q:QQil
5\-cussec, %as `1oeetf1 01-1tvociili 0ouvtei
rnn�
�ou��o�n ate- Public u)o�'ks ry�ee�is „of
siRN.L owf neshyrkoocL hfIs -ku ned t ✓)-Fb cam.
pRe%iNG L01' kiati i-�iness ! fie, C�idvi=E
move in -1-0 • ��is 11ei hl�rhocci kamoi ooula
be, a Comrnacicd z�� iks-knd a -F kebijeatial
,
Gm all cor- progress aid qrau}i'h
'�eV2�D�rne�1k i fl our- e4mMudli-}e buk0&t)h9�del -441L�Q,�
Qee* kvt *1-0 Slk1� I at)
,fie \(O u) +Val- 24 Out/ *Tri -Hess IYtembers cta
nod k0i4\ -141t� I. oo r 1�,�c-Eute, , bU+ poiV
i�,ear�h;12 i�ne �ov�n pwK
� �.� o�.c,,�
Ze.Aev1�al 5e+5 , ;11eca1,1u\ N(k fake ov,r-
,e;hood f rn� \-)a�a o us .
u.( hop 2)-1 PlArc6r�--heir
�f e� `I�f kl�q � ot.�,r 5.4-�fee-{-S u7 i H ��,
utih ed h: -Vo J pEtu�n �T 1 �,z � • v,imps �et`(,s
salu.-ia0 4-0 such coo
SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION
nbecdak3) fololcv
01/23/1999 17:31 3103723099 STRUSSER/HOWLETT
PAGE 03
,�— r.Ocsh e� -�o fie. hese, -���q'n-�- � n
peS
YJ use vie 55 a�.L c.pur e___
.
1�i 2. GK e- Soaa
ssi �0.-� 2 C�.f � �.�
v,�:,��- V"\e- }o,�(t r-- QP)JK_,
)0ja Ao )0/ tr\tct ir\_)07)
a QomvxwcaS) w
\nor-- c=k5L_. twe.G-af cura_
\eic,c\r\loctL_ (%uarif vc-c\,95\15,
S‘yr \PAAA NiwocA-e).3/\.1--
s
olv\a w\-- 0401\ 40\r\
ow\(\offow( Ci2N\VA))1 001\0k 0) 1A -C
ukcA-• r-tD f\i\Vir\ •0\1- CLQ,
corn,e_ klouAki\ a 30\ktki o -Ni
fo tAi\Nese, rdk,c3 w
)01-)cA\
DAM alcut)
„e X tt (310) 31a - -5011
3S
01/23/1999 17:31
3103723099
•
(P\Conv\i
(R, -e._
821-1 11-kh
(3,0 312 - 3099
A\vc\.\ V6, Zoog
STRUSSER/HOWLETT
R6m,
•
SSV
X- mveticia?04\ o�
eo1;a1 ee�
PAGE 01
APR 8 2ririG
DEV DEV. DEF f.
61,
9
3 36
SHEPPARD MULLIN
SHEPPARD MUWN RICHTER & HAMPTON LIP
ATTORNEYS AT
April 13, 2006
Via E -Mail
LAW
Planning Commission
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, California 90254
4th Floor I '650 Town Center Drive I Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993
714-513-5100 office I 714-51 3-5130 fox 1 www.sheppordmullin.com
Writer's Direct Line
soconnornsheppardmull in.com
Our File Number: OGLC-064504
APR 1 3 ?QOM
COM DEV. DEP F.
Re: Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan Hearing Related to Parking
Operations at the Hermosa Beach Pavilion at 1605 Pacific Coast Highway
Honorable Members of the Planning Commission:
This firm represents Shook Development Corporation ("Shook"), the owner of the
Hermosa Beach Pavilion, an existing commercial shopping center located at 1605 Pacific Coast
Highway (the "Subject Property"). This letter serves as Shook's request that the hearing
scheduled for April 18, 2006 be continued so that Shook can properly prepare for the hearing and
present its positions. This letter also serves as Shook's preliminary objections to the proposal to
require two hours of free parking at the Subject Property.
1. The Hearing Should Be Continued.
Shook first received notice of the hearing on April 7, 2006, the day before
Shook's owner, Gene Shook, left for a family vacation over spring break. Mr. Shook will not
return to work until April 17, 2006. Mr. Shook explained the situation to Sol Blumenfeld,
Director of Community Development, on April 7, 2006, but Mr. Blumenfeld denied the
requested continuance. Mr. Blumenfeld's denial of the requested continuance was based in part
on his belief that Shook's attorneys were "apprised of the upcoming hearing in correspondence
from the City Attorney." Mr. Blumenfeld is mistaken in this regard, and I believe that he now
acknowledges that mistake. As the City Attorney will confirm, he never notified this firm of the
upcoming hearing date.
As Mr. Shook has been on vacation with his family this entire week, he has not
had an opportunity to properly prepare for the April 18, 2006 hearing. For example, Mr. Shook
has not had an opportunity to consult with his traffic consultant and other experts in preparation
for the upcoming hearing. Accordingly, we again request that the April 18, 2006 hearing be
continued.
SHEPPARD h1ULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP.
Planning Commission
April 13, 2006
Page 2
2. Planning Commission Resolution 03-45 Provides No Basis. To Require Free
Parking On The Subject Property.
It is our understanding that the Commission seeks to require Shook to provide
free parking at the Subject Property. As a purported basis for this requirement, the Commission
relies upon Resolution 03-45. More specifically, the Commission relies upon Condition No. 3(b)
of Resolution 03-45, which states in part that the "adequacy of parking supplies and efficiency of
the parking operation shall be monitored for six months after occupancy of the Health and
Fitness Facility." The Commission's reliance on this condition is misplaced. A proper reading of
this condition leads to the inescapable conclusion that the condition focused on parking
adequacy (i.e., supply), not parking efficiency.
Indeed, the word "efficiency" is mentioned only once in the entire Resolution 03-
45. Moreover, the language following the one use of the word "efficiency" makes clear that the
condition deals only with parking adequacy. Specifically, the remainder of Condition No. 3(b)
"refers to monitoring parking for six months after occupancy" with a report submitted to the
Community Development Department by the applicant's traffic engineer certifying adequate
onsite parking is available." Shook has fully complied with this condition. Indeed, Shook's
traffic engineer submitted a Parking Study Report dated February 13, 2006, which concluded:
"The project's parking supply has been determined to be more than adequate to meet current and
future parking demands." Linscott Law & Greenspan Parking Study Report, February 13, 2006,
p. 28)
Condition No. 3(b) further provides: "If supplies are found to be inadequate, the
applicant shall provide valet assisted parking, and a detailed valet assistance program shall be
provided to the City for review by the City's traffic engineer. If the City's traffic engineer finds
the parking supply inadequate the Planning Commission shall review the Parking Plan and may
modify the Parking Plan to resolve any parking inadequacy."
The Staff Report concerning Resolution 03-45 also makes it clear that the
Commission was focusing on parking supply, not parking efficiency. Specifically, the Staff
Report provided in part: "Parking is projected to be satisfied with the existing supply within the
parking structure due to the proposed new mix of uses with varying times of peak parking
demand. The applicant has submitted a revised and updated Shared Parking Analysis (dated
August 5, 2003), prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan. This Shared Parking Analysis
This Parking Study Report was submitted to the Community Development Department
on February 13, 2006, and we hereby request that it be made part of the administrative
record in this matter.
rci
32-
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
Planning Commission
April 13, 2006
Page 3
demonstrates that the existing parking supply will be sufficient for the proposed mix of uses
based upon peak and off peak usage."
Further, the Planning Commission minutes concerning the approval of Resolution
03-45 also establish that parking adequacy, not efficiency, was the concern: "Director
Blumenfeld stated that the applicant submitted a Shared Parking Analysis to reflect these
changes; and advised that the analysis indicates the shared parking for these various uses will
reach a peak demand at 5:00 p.m., needing 411 parking spaces, which can be satisfied by the
proposed onsite supply of parking within the structure. He noted that staff is recommending
approval." Planning Commission Minutes, August 19, 2003.
The Commission does not contend, nor can it contend, that Shook has not
provided adequate parking supply for the Subject Property. Indeed, to the contrary, the
Commission's February 15, 2006 report acknowledges that: "The supply of garage parking is
currently more than adequate." More recently, at the March 21, 2006 hearing on this matter,
Commissioner Hoffman acknowledged that parking at the Subject Property was adequate.
3. Shook Made A Substantial Investment With The Expectation, Disclosed To The
Commission, Of A Fee Parking Structure.
The Commission is well aware of the approximately $10 million renovation at the
Property, including the renovation of the six -level parking garage. The Commission also knows
that the parking garage complies with the Resolution, provides ample parking, and passed City
inspection.
Shook undertook those efforts and expenditures based, in pail, on anticipated
parking revenue. The Commission has recently mentioned that it believes Shook did not
disclose that there would be paid parking at the Property. That is incorrect.
Shook has always made it clear that the parking would not be free. As reflected
in the minutes from the Commission's January 19, 1999 meeting, "Gene Shook, owner of the
property, stated the fee currently set at 50 cents for the first two hours for the 24 Hour Fitness
patrons and 50 cents for the third hour." The minutes from the Commission's July 20, 1999
meeting note that, in response to a question from Chairman Tucker, "Mr. Shook stated the
employees will not park in other spaces since they will be charged at the regular rates." Those
are just some of the disclosures Shook has made regarding charged parking, and Shook believes
a further review of the minutes, correspondence and parking reports will show other disclosures.
Simply put, Shook's investment was premised on the revenue from not only the
tenants (rent), but also the patrons (parking revenue).
.2�
3?
SHEPPARD IIULLIN RICHTER HAMPTON LLP
Planning Commission
April 13, 2006
Page 4
4. The Commission's Proposed Action Deprives Shook Of Property Without Due
Process Of Law.
The state and federal Constitutions prohibit government from depriving a person
of property without due process of law. Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (1997) 16
Ca1.4` 761, 771; Cal. Const., art. I, § § 7, 155, U.S. Const., 1 lth Amend., § 1. These provisions
place substantive limitations on legislative measures, preventing government from enacting
legislation that lacks a reasonable relation to a proper legislative purpose. Id. In the context of
price control, courts will only find that a regulation bears a reasonable relation to a proper
legislative purpose if the law does not deprive the property owner of a "fair return." Id.
"[T]he essential inquiry in due process cases involving price controls is whether
the regulatory scheme's result is just and reasonable." Id. at 778. "[I]t is the result reached not
the method employed which is controlling. It is not theory but the impact of the price regulation
which counts." Id. at 772. "[A] court must determine whether the regulation may reasonably be
expected to maintain financial integrity, attract necessary capital, and fairly compensate investors
for the risks they have assumed." Id.
The Commission's proposed action constitutes a price control in its worse form —
it does not just seek to cap the cost of parking; rather it seeks to eliminate the price all together,
forcing Shook to provide free parking during peak hours. This would have a tremendous impact
on Shook's profits because it would result in a 100% loss during peak hours which is when the
parking lot is the busiest. Such an action cannot "reasonably be expected to maintain financial
integrity, attract necessary capital, and fairly compensate investors for the risks they have
assumed." As such, the proposed regulation, if passed, would violate the Shook's substantive
due process rights under the California and U.S. Constitutions.
5. The Commission's Proposed Action Constitutes A Confiscatory Taking:
Requiring Just Compensation.
"The state and federal Constitutions prohibit government from taking private
property for public use without just compensation." Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd.
(1997) 16 Cal.4th 761, 773. "[A] regulation of property that goes too far may effect a taking of
that property, though its titles remains in private hands." Id. This is true even if "it does not
involve a physical invasion and leaves the property owner some economically beneficial use of
his property." Id. at 774. In such a case, the property owner may bring an inverse condemnation
action, and if it prevails, the regulatory agency must either withdraw the regulation or pay just
compensation." Id. at 773.
Generally, in the context of price regulation, courts have "employed an analysis
under the takings clause similar to that which it employs under the due process clause, focusing
on the regulation's impact and investors' ability to earn a fair return." Id. at 776; see also Santa
zf
SHEPPARD M1.JLLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
Planning Commission
April 13, 2006
Page 5
Monica Beach, LT. v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Ca1.4`h 952, 964. For the reasons explained
above, the Commission's proposed action would have a tremendous economic impact on Shook
and greatly interfere with Shook's ability to earn a fair return. Indeed, the proposed action would
cause Shook to lose 100% of its profits during peak hours. Accordingly, the proposed
regulation, if passed, would constitute a taking under the California and U.S. Constitutions,
requiring the Commission to withdraw the action or to pay just compensation to Shook.
6. Shook's Proposals.
As set forth in this firm's March 21, 2006 letter to the Commission, Shook
proposes remedying the City's issues as follows:
1. Shook will continue to use Level 1 (only 28 spaces, and the least desirable
level) for 24 Hour Fitness employees.
2. Shook has started using a Tandem Assist at Level 2. This means an
orange -vested assistant will help people park in spaces according to their vehicle size (not
putting a Mini Cooper where a large Suburban can go). About 20 drivers would leave their key
with the Tandem Assist person at this level and this would only happen for a few hours per
week. Shook will have 60 spaces marked for 2 hour validation on this level. With parking
turnover, Level 2 could accommodate 250 to 300 vehicles in a busy day or more. This provides
safety, security and comfort to those on Level 2 by having an attendant from 6:00 a.m. until
10:00 p.m. during the week, and 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturdays.
3. Level 3 will be for office workers and monthly passes for gym members.
Shook now offers gym members a 4 month parking pass for $60 or just $15 per month. Shook is
now using a Tandem Assist person at this level. This facilitates parking vehicles according to
size, which maximizes efficiency.
4. Level 4 will be for valet. Various people thought that no one would use
valet, however, Shook has seen 90% usage at peak hours.
5. Levels 5 and 6 are for any non -monthly, non-employee users. These
levels, which offer some of the best spaces, are available to gym members for $1 for two hours.
Additionally, Shook uses spotters so cars can be directed upon entry to the level with the most
open spaces.
6. Shook has also proposed other programs and policies, as set forth in
Shook's prior correspondence.
SHEPPARD M JLLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP -
Planning Commission
April 13, 2006
Page 6
7. Conclusion.
Based on the foregoing, Shook again requests that the April 18, 2006 hearing be
continued so that Shook can properly prepare for the hearing. Additionally and alternatively, the
Commission's proposal to require free parking should beied for the reasons set forth above.
Very t jP yours,
can P. O'Connor
for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
W02-OC:NSO\41424482.1
cc: Mr. Sol Blumenfeld
Mr. Gene Shook
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Planning Commission
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, California 90254
RECEIVED)
APR 1 3 ZBGB
'COM. DEV. DEP T
Re: April 18 Precise Development Plan Revocation/Modification Hearing
We the undersigned residents of the Commodore at 1600 Ardmore wish to provide the
following input to the hearing process. We have reviewed the documents on file at the
Planning Commission office.
We live in unit #213 and are the closest residence to the parking structure on 16th street.
This structure has changed our lives for the worst.
Issue #1
Parking traffic is not managed and ingress and egress of the parking structure blocks
1600 street from through traffic often from 5 pm through 10 pm. Because of class
schedules at the Pavilion and the charges for parking users in automobiles wait on 1600th
Street for a time close to the starting time of their class. This places illegally parked
vehicles in the Von's truck unloading area and along the curb painted red for no parking
on 1600th street. These vehicles leave their engines running and their stereo radios
blaring for long periods of time. Once the Pavilion health club class is ready to start alt
of these vehicles merge onto 16th Street to enter the parking garage again blocking the
street. Because of the charge for parking many of the health club users are dropped off
and picked up by drivers illegally parking in Von's delivery driveway and red curb areas
on the north side of 16th Street. This blocks the trucks going to Von's to deliver. How
many times have we had to listen to a 18 wheeler blasting their horn to get cars to move
from the delivery area.
Issue #2
The Pavilion management states that the parking structure is always staffed by parking
attendants. Every night automobiles entering the structure are allowed to keep their
stereo radios full blast while moving into, in and from the parking garage. This even
occurs at 1 am but remember that after 10 pm it violates the city noise ordinance. No
effort has been made by the parking `attendants' in the past six months to stop this
practice. Also automobiles leaving the parking structure 'peal out' of the exit and race
up and down the street. Just talk to the school crossing guard at the crosswalk on
Ardmore and 16th Street to see how often this occurs during the short time he is on the
corner. This will become worse when the traffic light is operational. We do not have
Hermosa Beach Police patrolling the street very often. We of course would welcome
more Police patrols and would encourage the use of speed bumps.
Also these `attendants' allow patrons to gather outside the parking entrance and create
noise that often extends up to 2 am in the morning. The Pavilion security staff should try
to ensure that the noise level from their garage operation is at an acceptable level,
especially after 10 pm.
Issue #3
Members of the Health club park anywhere they can. This causes an large amounts of
jaywalking across Pacific Coast Highway, 16th street and Ardmore Avenue (one fatality
recently). Crossing at the new traffic light will help but the Pavilion needs to educate its
membership on the jaywalking issue. If nothing else hire a security person to watch and
stop the jaywalking. Better yet, have Hermosa Beach Police write jaywalking tickets.
Most of this jaywalking occurs because the Health Club members park using Von's
parking lot or the east side (northbound) of Pacific Coast Highway.
Issue #4
The Pavilion's legal counsel letter dated March 21, 2006 on page 3 states:
It is a well known `secret' that other business do not comply with CUP conditions
and other parking restrictions.
This is not true. I know from experience dealing the Hermosa Beach Code Enforcement
staff (very professional) and the Hermosa Beach Police Department (very responsive)
that parking and unloading restrictions are strictly enforced. One only needs to review
the number of responses to calls by us for illegal parking and unloading. Hermosa Beach
Police and Parking Enforcement are active on 1600 Street. Even trades people working
at the Pavilions have been moved by the police or cited for illegal parking. Von's
vendors have also received tickets for parking in the red zone on 16t Street.
That same letter also states on page 3:
Residents use street parking because of space restrictions and the lack of City
restrictions (e.g. Commodore). Shook believes that he is being made to pay for
the sins of others.
The Commodore is a residence residing is a proper zone area for multi residences. What
are the streets for in a residential area. If the residents are not allowed to park on the
streets, then the same should apply for parking on Pacific Coast Highway on both sides of
the street for Health Club patrons. Currently most parking is taken by customers of the
Pavilion. If a resident needs to have a permit to park then that might be an alternative for
us. Mr. Shook brings a business into the area with parking facilities but wants his
customers to use outside parking by charging them to use his parking. Something does
not ring true here.
25-
• •
We support the City in its proposal to force the Pavilion to provide free parking for its
patrons for two hours. We do believe that this is a good start in resolving many of the
issues we raised above.
We will be in attendance at the Hearing and will be happy to answer any questions the
Planning Board might raise.
Thank you for considering this submission.
kit
Ronald and Linda Miller
1 600 Ardmore #213
Hermosa Beach, California 90254
(310) 937-9052
24
RECEIVED
APR -- 6 2006
Per
RECEIVED
1707 PCkCic CCD0,-&
(.4"� . f"-Q0-4"i
^a�R , � a ?ass
o wCOM. DEV DEP C
CiOa-Gy
Loco,.:LAL Pi em&A,.. t v,
M cAl\ 4oJ1 k0J 4OIJD
u
&UJ S 0 OU IK�1/� V
R_Qc(spt,,s i�-4l t✓� f
C 0 ..i
kig-Lo-QA
-KA's (te,cAs toL do
cf,of-
po_dec uA„., pc41 to-
tkiii„J9,,L,
pcjA,,,:
S
7r --"S24) iVc41—
ic
o6-,‹1
•
9
•
RREIVED
APR -5 2006
Per
M ,,,'y02. = Cck,g-,c„ L /16,-7 4g2.,r 4/:76
7
/4/ PD�7-�,2._ >2R,t' ,GAJ G
77 ColdiNc,
J .v / /i. �r,�%,t/6-7-4561-7-- 77A / ,,-sos,�J
P, d
,L/N �SI'N
Ce c / 6r -r- 72 77-7-f6 ) e-/eC's
Pi�/2lei A) 6- 16 ee-o ,v,5_ vv s - T y aa -v -s, a,, 1 Ai
7--- / f}e, 4-' 6/ k7 y
,Lc,4-R _lee- 5: dd-ot./7"-S, QA/ /9c -lite ,F-`7` itits7244os4
,50� /707 a •K c..- co�'374y- (Ai,/ `3,3r /1/L 646o gS `7`"0
zy t- -r, P,
o,., F s — 0s,9. kL, oN . /,c,e-- ,J1...)��,c,7--
7 Coo-, 41 s. a N[Gic..e .u- 7-7-& -
'—
-- t__G-4_--r_e_ca
-7-e5 /1-
/1- v2 72-6-,-6,,v-6- /S c.,w c'F
iv -o --r- c 1 eoci. -z._ Xil cJ/L- (--Cr---c_,i-Sie,c1
aCS ,51t -S !xP-' o
7/-4OS t? :0-A9-(--IltL.
�- "...4- £v , 6--(..-A.2.0
73 fr/ yzci / •u--, C -C ti,,v
5-/r"6")1-4.10
9
LUJ
Manhattan Beach zin,
Council should uphold free parking. th<
Last week, :the Hermosa Beach Plan- s.
ning Commission mandated that the Her- . s;
mosa Pavilion shopping center offer two, d•
hours free parking for persons visiting :u
businesses located in the pavilion. The le
• commission's decision was based upon tic
complaints from neighbors around the kr•
pavilion; since the gym in the pavilion ori
opened, gym users have'been parking upse.....
thestreets surrounding the pavilion in us'
eluding PCH. because of the pavilion's
charging for parking 24 hours a day. sc;
Residents can't find parking because .of cc
this situation. qu
The owner of the pavilion, Gene cu
Shook, has announced that he intends todry
appeal the Planning Commission's deci- - C
sion to the City -Council. Shook haspro ani
posed as .an alternative setting up a permit ed
parking district around the pavilion to an
prevent gym users from parking on these H:
streets and forcing them to pay for park- cli
ing in his shopping center. Moreover; is
he'd like the city to allow only 30 min-
ute . . ', ; . , PCH at all times.
e permi
residents $35 per year per permit and -will
make it difficultto have visitors. More-
` over, .the 30 -minute limit 'on.
-PCH_
make it difficult to visit residents of the
apartment complexes located on PCH:
My question is why is the owner of the
pavilion making the :residents suffer and
then expect them to payforthe privilege.
of parking? 1 urge all residents to contact
'the City Council and tell them to uphold
the Planning Commission's decision...
• Fred Huebscher
osa Beach
�)J
lL —41
(j70
Y
Com,
G i4 7
RECEIVEP
APR: 0 5 200ii
DEV. DEP L
RECEIVED
APR - 4 2006
•
171-3-6‘
- ;iti jig: .:✓ � �Sy'i. 1i, h:% :;
11EP711C[ttl l4l'jlt�ir*3:RitF{ FihMPTQN t'P
A 3 T O R N Y i AT LAW
March 21, 2006
VIA FACSIMILE
(310) 937-6235
VIA EMAIL
sblun:enfeld r@frernrosabch. org
650 Town Center Div I 4th Floor I Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993
714-513-51 00 office 1 714-513.51 30 :'ox { www.sheppardmullin.conr
Writer's Direct Line
mstcwart 2?sheppardmullin.com
Our File Number: OGLC-064504
Planning Commission
c/o Sol Blumenfeld, Director Community Development Department
City of Herniosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, California 90254
Re: Six -Month Review of Parking Operations At The
Hermosa Beach Pavilion at 1605 Pacific Coast Highway
Dear Honorable Members of the Planning Commission:
ECEBVED
MAR 2 1 200
COM. DEV. DEP r
This firrn represents Shook Development Corporation ("Shook"), the owner of the
Hermosa Beach Pavilion, an existing commercial shopping center located at 1605 Pacific Coast
Highway in the City of Hermosa Beach (the "Property").
The City Planning Com.mission (the "Commission") has scheduled for this
evening's meeting a discussion regarding the parking review at the Property. The following
constitutes additional items that Shook believes will benefit the Commission in discussing this
matter.
Resolution P.C. 03-45
Shook believes that the Commission's review is premature and unfairly seizes on
the term "efficiency." In August 2003, the Commission issued Resolution P.C. 03-45, consisting
of five pages of parking related points and conditions, most of which address the number of
parking spaces Shook must provide at the Property. Shook has complied by providing those
spaces, and generally upgrading the parking structure as part of a $10 million renovation of the
Property.
SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION
l� S�
• •
SHEPPARJ) MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLi'
March 21, 2006
Pate 2
The Commission does not contend that Shook has not provided sufficient parking
spaces, or vastly improved ingress and egress, or that Shook has not improved security and
aesthetics. In fact, the Commission's February 15, 2006 report correctly notes that "The supply
of garage -parking is currently more than adequate."
However, the Commission seizes on the word "efficiency," which is mentioned
only once in the five-page Resolution, and concludes that Shook must provide free parking to
address street parking used by patrons of 24 Hour Fitness. The Commission's suggestion
unfairly focuses on "efficiency," despite Shook's compliance with the Resolution and
expenditure of seven -figure sums. Shook requests that the Resolution be viewed as a whole, and
that Shook's investment in the Property and the City be recognized. Shook should not be ordered
under the City's "police powers" to provide free parking after making this significant investment.
The Resolution contemplates a six-month review, and Shook believes that the
current review is premature. The final occupancy permit for the Property was issued in mid-
October, 2005. The Commission's parking survey was conducted over four days in January and
five days in early February 2006. Not only was the survey conducted before the six-month
period, but it took place during two of the three busiest months for 24 Hour Fitness, and health
clubs in general. This means that the survey results are skewed by an influx of patrons of' 24
Hour Fitness that does not exist at other times during the year. It also came at a time when
Shook was, and is, still working things out in terms of parking and other operating issues.
As set forth in Shook's March 14, 2006 letter and follow-up email of March 15, it
is not uncommon for a newly opened center to experience growing pains. Shook is
implementing policies and programs to promote parking in the structure, as detailed in his prior
letters. Shook requests that he be given time to implement those programs and show the
Commission the results it seeks. It should be remembered that the Commission doubted Shook's
ability to renovate and re -open the Property at the time the Commission issued the Resolution.
Since that time Shook has undertaken great efforts, and the Property is proof of those efforts.
Shook again asks the Commission for time to allow Shook to implement his suggested measures.
Shook's Investment And Prior Disclosures Of Charged Parking
The Commission is well aware of the approximately $10 million renovation at the
Property, including the renovation of the six -level parking garage. The Commission also knows
that the parking garage complies with the Resolution, provides ample parking, and passed City
inspection.
Shook undertook those efforts and expenditures based, in part, on anticipated
parking revenue. The Commission has recently mentioned that it believes Shook did. not
disclose that there would he paid parking at the Property. That is incorrect.
.S%
SHI ('PARI) MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LU
March 21, 2906
Page 3
Shook has always made it clear that the parking would not be free. As reflected
in the minutes from the Commission's January 19, 1999 meeting, "Gene Shook, owner of the
property, stated the fee currently set at 50 cents for the first two hours for the 24 Hour Fitness
patrons and 50 cents for the third hour." The minutes from the Commission's July 20, 1999
meeting note that, in response to a question from Chairman Tucker, "Mr. Shook stated the
employees will not park in other spaces since they will be charged at the regular rates." Those
are just some of the disclosures Shook has made regarding charged parking, and Shook believes
a further review of the minutes, correspondence and parking reports will show other disclosures.
It is simply inaccurate to contend that Shook concealed that there would be paid
parking at the Property. Shook's investment was premised on the revenue from not only the
tenants (rent), but also the patrons (parking revenue).
Safety Concerns
Shook encourages the Commission to visit the Property, inspect the parking
structure, and assess the parking situation. Shook has asked City personnel and management to
do so, but is not aware of any such visits. The parking structure is better lighted, better patrolled,
better managed, and is simply safer than others in the area, including the City parking structure.
Shook's investment in parking cashiers, attendants, and security can only be
justified with incoming parking revenue. Shook has made this very clear in his correspondence
and comments to the City. And again, Shook encourages Commission members to visit the
Property and see how well the parking operates.
Shook believes, and is fully invested, in the City and the Property — to a degree
that few can match. Shook wants to maintain a high level of safety in the parking structure, and
is concerned about the Commission's apparent desire. to. prohibit Shook from deriving parking
revenue. Shook financed the renovation based on parking revenue, set lease rates based on
parking revenue, and finances ongoing operations based on parking revenue.
Any reduction in Shook's parking operations would not only raise safety
concerns, but also harm the efficiency of the operations. Shook's attendants and spotters utilize
valet parking, tandem parking and quickly handle the often sudden influx attributable to the start
time of the most popular fitness classes. •Their absence will seriously reduce the efficiency of the
parking operations.
The spillover parking is not new to this area, and, Shook believes, is somewhat
overstated in the Staff Report, if nothing else because it focuses on a time period (post -flew
Year's) when fitness patrons are most prevalent. It is a well known "secret" that other local
business do not comply with CUP conditions or other parking restrictions. Residents use street
parking because of space restrictions and the lack of City restrictions (e.g., Commodore). Shook
believes he is being made to pay for the sins of others. The City approved Shook's renovation,
Sz-
•
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICII'I'ER & HAMPTON LLP
March 21, 2006
Pate 4
knew Shook intended to collect parking revenue, and should not now order Shook to provide free
parking— especially when Shook has submitted alternatives and proposed a further review.
Shook's Proposals
Shook proposes remedying the City's issues as follows:
1. Shook will continue to use Level 1 (only 28 spaces, and the least desirable
level) for 24 Hour Fitness employees.
2. Shook has started using a Tandem Assist at Level 2. This means an
orange -vested assistant will help people park in spaces according to their vehicle size (not
putting a Mini Cooper where a large Suburban can go). About 20 drivers would leave their key
with the Tandem Assist person at this level and this would only happen for a few hours per
week. Shook will have 60 spaces marked for 2 hour validation on this level, With parking
turnover, Level 2 could accommodate 250 to 300 vehicles in a busy day or more. This provides
safety, security and comfort to those on Level 2 by having an attendant from 6:00 a.m. until
10:00 p.m. during the week, and 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturdays.
3. Level 3 will be for office workers and monthly passes for gym members.
Shook now offers gym members a 4 month parking pass for $60 or just $15 per month. Shook is
now using a Tandem Assist person at this level. This facilitates parking vehicles according to
size, which maximizes efficiency. -
4. Level 4 will he for valet. Various people thought that no one would use
valet, however, Shook has seen 90% usage at peak hours.
5. Levels 5 and 6 are for any non -monthly, non-employee users. These
levels, which offer some of the best spaces, are available to gym members for $1 for two hours.
Additionally, Shook uses spotters so cars can be directed upon entry to the level with the most
open spaces.
6. Shook has also proposed other programs and policies, as set forth in
Shook's prior correspondence.
5-3
SHEPPARD MULLIN RfcH'r;R ttc HAMII'ON LLP
March 21, 2006
Page 5
Conclusion
Shook respectfully requests that the Commission allow Shook six months to
implement the above measures. If, after that period, the parking does not comply with the
Resolution, the City and Shook can address implementing other measures.
Thank you for your consideration.
for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
W02 -OC: NA3\4 t 422466.1
S'
• •
March 14, 2006
Members of Planning Commission
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON PARKING
Yw'\
kDeve10010! „f
The Hermosa Pavilion management team is working hard to deliver solutions to the parking issues raised
as a result of the February 21 recommendation of the Planning Commission directing City staff to work
with Hermosa Pavilion. We called the next day (2-22-06) and once call was returned the earliest City Staff
could meet was 2-28-06 at 2pm.
At the meeting we discussed a 3 way approach.
1A. -First what the Hermosa Pavilion could do to increase use of parking structure.
M. -Second to meet with local businesses on PCH from 18th to Pier.
3C. -Third to meet with local residents East of PCH from 18th to 14th and the Commodore on 16th west
of PCH.
Regarding IA above Hermosa Pavilion did the following.
1. Met with 24 Hour Fitness to strategize on ways to increase member use parking structure.
2. Posted and handed out parking fliers for 24 Hour Fitness for parking passes at $20 per month
to increase awareness of parking passes.
3. Created buy 3 months get 1 month free on parking. Effectively reducing cost to $15 per month
($20 X 3 divide by 4) or just 50 cents per day.
4. Started Buy a Smoothie and have parking validated program at Stillwater Cafe.
5. Started Valet program on 3-13-06, it is optional at $1 extra. This adds over 80 additional
spaces to parking structure and helps to have parking work more efficiently.
6. Added additional cashier and installing Pay on foot pay station (a free standing way to bypass
cashier). Both of these will eliminate lines at cashier to make it easier for customers.
7. Glen Ivy has agreed to do a multi hour validation for their customers.
Regarding 2B above Hermosa Pavilion did the following.
1. We walked business area and talked to businesses on PCH from 18th to Pier and shopping
center with Von's.
2. Had town meeting for local businesses on 3-13-06 with 10 businesses attending.
3. Started Iocal business watch group from meeting. The group is formulating a flier that is
agreed by group on what to do. I will forward when I receive. In general the group likes green
stripe 30 minute parking in front of businesses on PCH from 18th to Pier and believes that if
cars are illegally parked the most effective method is to tow them.
RAVLO
N
27941 Suffolk Lane San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 P: (949) 661-1837 www.hermosapavilion.com
SJ SS
Sho ketelotififeilt Cor
Regarding 3C above Hermosa Pavilion did the following.
1. Met with City Staff on 2-28-06 and they agreed to supply us with names and addresses of
Residents East of PCH from 18`h to 14` and the Commodore on 16th west of PCH. As of 3-14-06
we have not received them. Once received we will mail letter and set up town meeting for
residents.
2. We walked the area East of PCH from 18`h to 14`h and talked to some residents and took pictures of
existing conditions. It was difficult to meet with residents without list.
CONCLUSIONS
It is clear that Hermosa Pavilion has met the requirement of providing adequate parking. The issues we
are attempting to resolve in collaboration with City Staff involve specific concerns raised by some
residents and local merchants due to 24 Hour Fitness gym members parking in designated free parking
spaces along PCH and in the surrounding neighborhoods. Some have suggested 2 hour free parking in the
Pavilion parking lot. We believe that this would have more negative effects than positive. If the city in
their parking structure went to 2 hours free I believe it would create more of a problem for the city. By
charging at the city lot it helps eliminates an element that may not be desirable to local businesses and
residents. If the lot was free it would simply fill up quicker and have a higher spillover with upset people
that expected to park for free. The same in general would apply to the Hermosa Pavilion parking structure.
I have noticed many times at the city parking structure that cars are parked not in the space but
overlapping into the adjacent space creating a lot fewer spaces (cars taking up 2 spaces). By having the
staff at the Pavilion we are able to monitor this and keep it to a minimum. Many of our spaces are Tandem
or Valet and by utilizing our staff to do this we are able to have over 540 spaces instead of 454 ls` access
spaces this is well over what we were required to have when this was approved (we did this by spending a
lot of money to move walls and shrink rooms to create more useable parking spaces). By having a large
parking staff we are able to monitor floors and direct traffic to reduce congestion. For example when 24
hour Fitness has a large class that enters or exits at the same time we alternate incoming traffic from upper
floors to lower floors (and switch back again) and move an extra cashier into booth at peak times,
allowing a larger number to get in and out more efficiently. If for example level 6 is full, parking staff will
tell you when you arrive "top level is full please park on level 5." This eliminates someone searching for a
parking space. We offer a very safe parking structure that is well illuminated. And we have a lot of
parking and security personnel, along with 29 cameras that hold about 90 days of data (it is one terabyte).
We would like to recommend that the City allow the Pavilion to continue to build out the balance of
the retail center while we continue to spend the next 6 months exploring the parking alternatives
with our local residents and business owners. We have a phenomenal restaurant concept Stillwater
Bistro and will also be bringing a unique retail space to the Hermosa Pavilion (on virtually all spaces
on first floor SDC will be owner or part owner). We would like to finish our construction phase by
the 3`d quarter of this year on all the remaining space.
HERMOS A
AV 1 L 1 0 N
27941 Suffolk Lane San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 P: (949) 661-1837 www.hermosapavilion.cam
6
• •
Shoo1DgVeloprenfori
It is important to note that the costs of the parking garage far outweigh any revenue generated at this
time. We are running operations to deliver a superior product at about $600,000 or above per year.
The reason is simple. We could change to a lower standard of operating costs, but that is not in
keeping with the total concept of the Hermosa Pavilion.
In closing, we intend this document to reflect to the City our sincere efforts to be a good community
citizen to promote our commitment to the City of Hermosa Beach. We do not feel it is in anyone's
best interest to delay the progress of the Hermosa Pavilion any longer while we research the parking
review and recommendations. We are looking forward to a positive and progressive resolution to
these issues, and we urge you to consider the investment Hermosa Pavilion has contributed to the
community in terms of the signal light, property values, a beautiful building and a concept: health,
wellness and beauty which are truly unique to the South Bay.
CLOSING RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Have the Hermosa Pavilion to continue their efforts outlined above and review in 6
months.
2. Allow the Pavilion to build out the rest of the space as per our allocation in LLG parking
study dated 2-13-06.
We are looking forward to a great summer. Thank you for your support and consideration.
Sincerely,
,//
Gene Shook
President
Shook Development Corporation
1601 Pacific Coast Highway Suite 300
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Phone 310 698=0700
Fax 310 698-0701
Email gshook@shookdevelopment.com
H E R MQS A
27941 Suffolk Lane San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 P: (949) 661-1837 wmwl.hermosapavilion.com
7
s7
•
i
L k 1 (>
A
Parking Passes
Want to save time?
Not a fan of long lines?
Like saving money?
Afraid you may lose
your parking ticket?
Were you thinking that
parking should be more
convenient in a town where
parking is inconvenient?
LOOK NO FURTHER!
$20
(wow
$25
Monthly pass*
for 100 hors
That's over 3 hours a day
3 times a week!)
Monthly pass*
for 250 hours
(now that's saving! 7
`Monthly Parking Passes are now available. Rules. regulations and
stipulations do apply. Please ask a Pavilion Service Representative
for details. Monthly parking passes may not be used on Levels 5 & 6
of the. parking structure; parking only in areas specifically designed for
pass holders will be enforced. Exceeding pass hours will be penalized.
Presentation of parking pass is required for entry. Additional identifi-
cation of the pass holder may be required. The parking pass is non.
transferable and non-refundable. The pass may be revoked without
refund. Lost processed monthly passes may be replaced for a fee with
proper identification. A S10 refundable deposit is required for key
card. Parking hours do not rollover.
Please be considerate and kind to our neighbors by parking in designated areas. Please be advised
that parking in designated areas is enforced. Thank you.
Hermosa Pavilion
1601 Pacific Coast
Highway
Hermosa Beach, CA
90254
WWW.HermosaPavifion.com
W W W.Seasideoffice.com
2 Sd'
ontle.g' of pao
onth fire
• ,44**1••-••WAi.
• '
ec".••,..ei: +.1*
akjto worpi,:•.11'.00 .110 Ete fy:M fit h
r0
:0;•&0$
p 1. •ii hours - •••••10 ncit'01l;.oyer.1.401.month PresLiunuon
of
:ask Tik i U k 11) I ef a).d. non
••••iLqiigiiiiI6.11.6,pli.:•.May-be:rriAtokilici without rclund Lo processe urni rhi ptscs in t
rope'r• iden tifi ea I ion. A refundable deposit ofSIO
•Hurry,only happen when a .10r.echautt has los(hj's •
gold !Offer exptrt•
••s Maith 3!,200(
•
7 . • :
•
_ tiTaix".ty„
•
Please be considerate and kind to our neighbors by parking in designated areas. Please be advised that parking in
designated areas is enforced daily. Thank You.
C21
----,
/ C , 7. I h-8•4. . .f
,/7I 77 , .
•
$
Want to Re -Energize
your day?
Buy a s.moothie & have
our parking validated!
StillWater, Cafe and Green Bar. will validate your par g
ticket with the purchase of a RAW, organic,smoothie.*
;-..goOd-forr-$1.:#1.validat,ioKitiOy0e 40,04.#116other t -Pifer 0:Vii:0.9n April 30th,
Rmess.
4, fl..,,. W • f.
. • •
TV
Glen Ivy Day Spa
Limnosa Bcach
0 • .
eisA 418
:.-R.grplEf ?VS;
e sAriepSe,
•
6,1 • l•-• - • •• A',
ifl
•
TOWN MEETING
For business owners
At the
L 1;t M A
I LION
On
FRIDAY, MARCH 10, 2006 1:00pm
Regarding
The Parking In Your Neighborhood
PLEASE JOIN US IN A COMMUNITY
EFFORT
YOUR TIME & OPINIONS DO COUNT!
THERE ARE SOLUTIONS!
We are gathering at the Still Water Cafe & Green Bar
of the Pavilion.
Refreshments will be served.
'41
Proud. '",-.3puir7e.ir
ATERH )
1/
fRpfiDE!
C./
Memo
From: Raymond R. Abassi
Subject: Comments on the HB Pavilion Parking Study
I have reviewed the Parking "Study Report — Hermosa Beach Pavilion" and have the
following comments:
1. Some of the patrons are parking off-site to use the facilities on HBP. It represents
two problems:
a. Any on-site parking survey does not show the full usage of the parking
stalls on-site. Therefore, any parking usage survey should survey both on
and off-site parking usage simultaneously.
b. Patron of the site should use the on-site parking stalls.
2. The cost for parking encourages the patrons of the facility to find alternative
means to park their vehicles. As in traffic flow, parking vehicles look for the least
expensive and yet convenient means to park their cars and therefore the on -street
parking stalls become very attractive. Therefore I agree with the planning staff
that accommodation for the patrons should be made to inform them of the free
parking and therefore not park off-site.
3. The methods for sharing of the parking stalls are questionable to me. Many
assumptions are made and testimonial is received from the on-site merchants that
are used to calculate the parking demand. I think more acceptable engineering
methods should be used in coming up with the actual demand. This may include
conducting concurrent on and off-site surveys to document existing parking
demand and conducting parking demand survey at other facilities with similar
land uses. Also the assumptions of the percent of the peak demand parking for
various time increments need to be explained better as to the source of the data.
4. There are other miscellaneous uses on site such as the Detail shop and Kiosks
that need to be accounted for.
5. To restrict the usage of the on -street parking stalls should not be done as this will
require enforcement and will cost the City money to maintain.
In conclusion, I believe that the parking should be free or pretty close to it and the
parking study need to better reflect the existing demand and more accurately project the
future demand.
After review of my comments, if you any questions, please call me on my cell at 714-
329-4500.
62
• •
February 28, 2006
Mr. Sol Blumenfeld
Director, Community Development
Mr. Ken Robertson
Senior Planner
SUBJECT: OPTIONS TO RESOLVE PARKING SITUATION
�haoi�Uevelo
The Hermosa Pavilion management team is working hard to deliver solutions to the parking issues raised
as a result of the February 21 recommendation of the Planning Commission.
It is clear from Chairman Hoffman's comments that Hermosa Pavilion has met the requirement of
providing adequate parking. The issues we are attempting to resolve in collaboration with City Staff
involve specific concerns raised by some residents and a few local merchants during public comment due
to 24 Hour Fitness gym members parking in designated free parking spaces along PCH and in the
surrounding neighborhoods.
Hermosa Pavilion respectfully asserts our position that any designated free parking space is just that — a
free parking space and we should not be held responsible for policing or enforcing the parking usage of
City designated free parking. We have, however, as a good community citizen, gone the extra mile to
provide the following research and recommendations.
PARKING RESEARCH
Hermosa Pavilion management staff has bounded the areas noted by residents and local merchants
concerns as bordered by 18`x' Street North and South to 14th Street, East as far as Prospect and West
on 16th Street to Ardmore. Please see map.
Hermosa Pavilion management staff has physically walked the streets in areas and are in the process
of documenting the parking signs and free parking spaces in these residential areas. We have
already spoken to a few residents and most of the business owners and we are reviewing a number of
options that will work for the residents and businesses. We are looking at getting more input
through a "town meeting" forum where we will invite residents one evening and businesses another
evening to help us collaborate to creatively problem -solve our parking problems to come up with a
global solution.
COMMUNITY SUPPORT
Hermosa Pavilion is making a strong and focused effort to reach all residents and local businesses
impacted by the current parking and traffic issues. This week we will be inviting our neighbors in
the community to two separate meetings to specifically address their concerns, obtain feedback and
recommend solutions to the parking problems. Preliminary research findings show that business
owners on PCH WANT to have 30 minute free parking zones with green painted curbs and we are in
HER M 05 A
AV 1 L 1 0 N 27941 Suffolk Lane San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 P: (949) 661-1837 www.hermosapavilion.com
G3
favor of this recommendation. It is our plan to conduct our "town meetings" with residents and local
businesses and provide the research to support these options to ask for consensus on a collaborative
solution.
For individual residents, we are exploring several options for remedy to the parking situation as are
currently found in the City in other residential areas like Loma and Monterrey. One solution that
may work is to provide these same types of remedies for residents East of PCH. Currently
residential parking is impacted by a number of factors including the 24 Hour Fitness gym members
such as spill-over parking from the area apartment and condominium structures. Some residents at
the last meeting of the Planning Commission on February 21 also made recommendations to modify
16th Street East of PCH. We will be reviewing these recommendations during our town meetings
with all of the other solutions we are researching.
Many of the residential streets in the bounded area noted are noticeably not up to a consistent
standard. We recommend the City review 14th Street and 15th Street as excellent examples of how
the parking issues may be resolved.
WAYS THE CITY CAN HELP
We would like to request any information on studies that might have been conducted for the parking
and traffic impact to 14th Street with the Pier Avenue and PCH signal was installed. We feel it is
only logical that similar traffic concerns must have been experienced by the residents of the 14th
Street East when this signal was placed.
We would like to invite Council members and members of the Planning Commission to our "town
meetings" to hear feedback firsthand.
We would like to request that the City consider parking remedies that currently exist in other parts of
Hermosa Beach. See specifically Manhattan Avenue and Monterrey Avenues where there is a basic
system of 1 hour parking , the parking spaces are clearly marked and permit parking is allowed for
residents only.
Over the last 5 years the City of Hermosa Beach has experienced an increase in parking demand
along PCH and surrounding areas. Many homes are being built out of the vacant lots and all of this
culminates in a greater population density than in previous years. It is easy to single out Hermosa
Pavilion as the sole target of the parking problems we are experiencing in the community, but it may
not be accurate or fair to do so. Regardless of what we do or don't do, parking is now impacted in
the residential areas, and has been for years and will continue to be impacted. The only way to
resolve the situation is to implement a positive solution that takes in a number of these parameters
for consideration.
OUR EFFORTS SINCE LAST TUESDAY
In addition to the onsite research our management team has started this week by walking the affected
area as noted, Hermosa Pavilion has actively begun to inform and promote our parking as follows:
H ERM OS A
27941 Suffolk Lane San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 P: (949) 661-1837 www.hermosapavilion.com
bit
• •
)evelop-Men tCo
❖ Flyers created (example attached) to offer parking to customers of the Pavilion at $20 per
month or 100 hours, whichever comes first; or $25 per 250 hours. These flyers have been
distributed to 24 Hour Fitness Sales Representatives and Management as well as individuals
throughout the Pavilion.
❖ We will be offering these additional promotions for parking. Buy 3 months and get 1 month
free. This promotion is valid until March 30. For example: for $60 you would be getting
120 days of parking, effectively bringing the cost of parking to 50 cents per day in our
structure!
❖ Any patron who buys an organic smoothie in our Stillwater Cafe & Green Bar will get an
additional hour of validation for their visit to the Pavilion toward their parking. This
promotion is valid until April 30. Thus a gym member that buys a smoothie and is here for 2
hours will park free.
• As noted we are working with 24 Hour Fitness to creatively find ways to inform their
members of our parking situation.
❖ We have implemented a weekly update called Dear Friend of the Pavilion to inform our
tenants and patrons of our community efforts and concerns
❖ We are actively working toward collaboration with the surrounding residential buildings to
solicit feedback and support for our preliminary options noted in this brief.
❖ We are actively contacting local businesses and residents to invite them to attend our "town
meeting" forum to collaborate on how to collectively solve our parking problems and create
consensus through information and dialogue.
❖ We are implementing a Valet Parking program during the hours of 7am to l Opm for a $1
surcharge as a totally optional alternative for parking.
❖ We are creating a notice of Parking Ombudsman for the residents of the surrounding
neighborhoods so that they are informed about who to call if parking problems arise on their
streets.
We would like to recommend that the City allow the Pavilion to continue to build out the balance of
the retail center while we continue to spend the next 5-6 months exploring the parking alternatives
with our local residents and business owners. We have a phenomenal restaurant concept waiting to
take shape and will also be bringing a unique retail space to the Hermosa Pavilion (on virtually all
spaces on first floor SDC will be owner or part owner). We would like to finish our construction
phase by the 3`d quarter of this year on all the first floor retail space.
It is important to note that the costs of the parking garage far outweigh any revenue generated at this
time. We are running operations to deliver a superior product at about $600,000 or above per year.
The reason is simple. We could change to a lower standard of operating costs, but that is not in
keeping with the total concept of the Hermosa Pavilion. Even the retail spaces on the first floor are
being built by the owner in partnership with very select retailers and restaurateurs' who fit the
Hermosa Pavilion concept. Free parking has pros and cons, and could increase the spillover instead
of decreasing the spillover.
HERMOSA
AV 1 L & ® N 27941 Suffolk Lane San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 P: (949} 661-1837 www.herrnosapavilion.com
6s
In closing, we intend this document to reflect to the City our sincere efforts to be a good community
citizen to promote our commitment to the City of Hermosa Beach. We do not feel it is in anyone's
best interest to delay the progress of the Hermosa Pavilion any longer while we research the parking
review and recommendations. We are looking forward to a positive and progressive resolution to
these issues, and we urge you to consider the investment Hermosa Pavilion has contributed to the
community in terms of the signal light, property values and a concept: health, wellness and beauty
which are truly unique to the South Bay.
We are looking forward to a great summer. Thank you for your support and consideration.
Gene Shook
Sincerely,
Gene Shook
President
Shook Development Corporation
1601 Pacific Coast Highway Suite 300
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Phone 310 698-0700
Fax 310 698-0701
Email gshook@shookdevelopment.com
HERMOS A
AVILION 27941 Suffolk Lane San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 P: (949) 661-1837 ww;nr.hermosapavilion.comm
•
February 21, 2006
Honorable Chairman & Members of the
Hermosa Beach Planning Commission
SUBJECT: SIX MONTH REVIEW OF PARKING OPERATIONS AT THE
HERMOSA PAVILION 1601 Pacific Coast Highway
The Hermosa Pavilion is addressing the planning commission findings in their report of
February 15 by the Director of Community Development, Sol Blumenfeld and Ken Robertson,
Senior Planner for the City of Hermosa Beach.
The requirements of the 2003 Planning Commission Condition No. 3(b) of Planning
Commission Resolution 03-45 requires a report from the applicant's traffic engineer to "certify
adequate on-site parking is available". To this first point the Hermosa Pavilion's traffic
engineer team parking study, Linscott, Law & Greenspan indicates that the parking supply is
adequate. This assertion is validated and confirmed by both Mr. Robertson and Mr.
Blumenfeld.
The issues we will address today concern operating efficiency of the parking garage, and the
neighborhood complaints about the street parking from the gym members at 24 Hour Fitness
and spill-over parking.
OPERATING EFFICIENCY
As indicated by the LLG report and evidenced in the document by Mr. Blumenfeld and Mr.
Robertson, The Hermosa Pavilion has 540 parking spaces. Please note that this is 60 more
parking spaces than originally required by the Planning Commission.
The breakdown is as follows:
❑ 454 standard single load
❑ 42 tandem for employee parking
❑ 44 parallel for valet parking
As of this date, our parking crew and management team are conducting Valet Parking runs to
test the operations when Valet is in use in anticipation of our VIP Amenity program which will
begin in March. Each level of the parking garage is designated for a particular use in
operations. For example:
Level 1 = Employee Parking / Tandem Assist
Level 2 = Employee Parking / Tandem Assist
Level 3 = Valet Parking sections & General Parking
Level 4 = Valet Parking sections & General Parking
Level 5 = General Parking
Level 6 = General Parking
_.3.'•8' Sill .ai3N aE im , CA l:e±:, ?'
i
SUPPEEMENT1_
- INFORMATION
The parking garage at Hermosa Pavilion is currently hosting parking at 270 cars per day
attributed to 24 Hour Fitness, and we project 60-100 for Glen Ivy and the Stillwater Bistro as
we continue to develop our retail outlets. These numbers confirm two things: 1) we are
operating efficiently and 2) we are under -parked with adequate room for expansion given our
total build -out plans.
PARKING COSTS & COMPARISONS
In addition to the review by the City, Hermosa Pavilion staff also undertook research to review
parking and validation programs for gyms that are within Southern California, yet comparable
to the 24 Hour Fitness facilities at the Pavilion. By comparable, we mean workout facilities
that offer the same or better class of amenities as those offered by our gym. The 24 Hour
Fitness facilities at the Hermosa Pavilion are considered the high end of the "sport" category.
24 Hour Fitness has 5 categories of workout facilities: Express, Active, Sport, Super Sport and
Ultra -Sport. This particular facility is the most successful and fastest growing in its category in
the United States. 24 Hour Fitness has over 400 clubs nationwide.
When comparing parking rates we reviewed not only the facilities but the neighborhoods in
which we found these gyms. Many times we were not comparing "apples to apples". For
example, the 24 Hour Fitness Sport in Santa Monica is located at the Santa Monica Airport in a
business park which is difficult to locate. If you do not have pay -for -use parking validation at
this location the cost to park is $1.15 for each 15 minutes. Both the location, and the facilities
are considerably different than those of the Pavilion. The 24 Hour Fitness location in Long
Beach is another example of a mismatch in parking comparisons. The Oceangate facility is
classed as an "Active" center, which provides only workout machines, no pool, no classes, and
no basketball court. To park in this location, you have to be there after 3:30 pm or find
metered parking on the street. The attendant was quoted at this location as saying, "Try to get
here as close to but not before 3:30 as possible, or good luck trying to find a meter. Don't stay
too long either", insinuating expensive and unavailable parking meters. The parking structure
at this facility charges $2.50 each 20 minutes.
Parking rates charged at Hermosa Pavilion are the same as rates charged all over the City at the
meters and in the City parking lot at 13th Street. In fact, in addition to our research we
compared the two facilities as follows:
Amenities
13th Street Parking Garage
Hermosa Pavilion Parking Garage
Parking Spaces
300
540
Security Cameras
None
29
Security Staff
None
3 shifts 24/hrs day/7 days per week
Well -lighted
Yes
Yes
Escalators
No
Yes
Elevators
Yes
Yes
Valet parking
No
Yes
Auto Detail
No
Yes
Hours of Operation
7a -3a
24 hours per day
Currently usage
270 max on 300 spaces
270 max on 540 spaces; valet available
F. R. R". S
• 5 3 Y x
27f;41, Surrc,:k L3tier SEM .1iidi. Ca is['a:i� CA KF;75 P: Std
Z
ti
Rates
$1.00 per hour same as meters
$6.00 flat rate on Fri/Sat after 6pm
$25 per month for 7a -7p pass
$50 per month for unlimited usage
$1.00 per hour same as meters
$1.00 for 2 hours with 24HF validation
$20 per month for 100 hours usage
$25 per month for 200 hours usage
In essence, Hermosa Pavilion is the cheapest and best parking facility in the City of Hermosa
Beach. As a business owner, it makes no fiscal sense to give away the parking in the Hermosa
Pavilion for less than what the City currently charges for its own garage.
PARKING ISSUES
The report by Mr. Blumenfeld and Mr. Robertson indicates complaints and observations
concerning customers of the fitness club using street parking instead of the parking structure.
Further,the report indicates that is unclear whether these customers choose not to use the
structure because of operational issues such as congestion, ease of ingress and egress or if it's
related to cost. The Hermosa Pavilion respectfully submits our opinion that the reason has to
do with perception and change in the community.
We have demonstrated that parking is safe and reasonably priced, and the efficiency of our
operation is currently sufficient. We have demonstrated that the cost is reasonable and
comparable with not only other workout facilities of a similar nature, but also with the City of
Hermosa Beach parking rates.
While we cannot police or enforce the utilization of free parking spaces along the residential
streets, we can and do meet with our merchant neighbors in the community to address their
concerns. We actively solicit their feedback and we have begun an ongoing communication
process with our tenants to inform, educate and advise them of our efforts and concerns from
the neighborhood community. We have asked that our merchant neighbors strictly enforce
their Private Property/No Trespassing rules and actively engage in towing unauthorized
vehicles from their property. This is their right as business owners and necessary for them to
maintain their place in the free market economy. Every business owner has to make choices as
to the livelihood of their business. The statement that, "We've never had this problem before
Hermosa Pavilion got here", is not a sound premise. The reality is that Hermosa Beach and all
the Beach Cities in the South Bay are under parked. Hermosa Pavilion is increasing business
and has in fact, created additional parking for a City already burdened with parking issues. As
Hermosa Beach expands and the population increases and new businesses are attracted here,
parking will continue to be a problem.
OPTIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
In an effort to be a good community citizen, we offer these suggestions for specific issues and
are in concurrence with the findings of Mr. Blumenfeld and Mr. Robertson's report:
❑ In consideration of neighborhood parking, we respectfully submit that the Pavilion is
not yet experiencing spillover parking, due to lack of availability; we are under-utilized
in our current parking. Indeed, if we lower our parking rates we anticipate a large
amount of spillover which would adversely affect the community.
r: S
.... r �.�.4 _ t•, ..:,94. w:,,Tif,,.,...Juan C.•:":SE;3. ,t,A .!<.
3
D Please see the attached Friend of the Pavilion flyer which goes out weekly to inform
our tenants and customers of the Pavilion of the impact of their parking habits.
❑ We concur with the recommendation that the City take steps to restrict parking on
impacted streets by either creating a parking district, or installing metered parking.
❑ The Hermosa Pavilion is not prepared to offer lower rates than the City of Hermosa
Beach for its parking facility due to the costs of operation (4 x what the 13`h St lot costs
to operate) over $600,000.00 annually.
❑ A lower price structure is already in place with the validation program at 24 Hour
Fitness. Each tenant decides their parking validation program when they negotiate their
lease. This is not within our control for leases that have already been negotiated.
D We are happy to provide local residents with parking passes for use of our garage for
the established monthly rates. This is also applicable for the local business who may be
interested to use these for the parking structure for their visitor or employee parking.
Thank you for your consideration of our report and its findings regarding the 6 -month parking
review for Hermosa Pavilion.
Sincerely,
ri
kg.
Gene Shook
President
Shook Development Corporation
1601 Pacific Coast Highway Suite 300
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Phone 310 698-0700
Fax 310 698-0701
Email gshook(a,shookdevelopment.com
27:3=1 Jua;. i..:; >. ';i:. :... i:; P:
Dean Francois
Box 808
Hermosa Beach, ca 90254
310-318-3326
Planning commission
E. Doerfling, City clerk
City of Hermosa Beach
Hermosa Beach, ca 90254
Via email: edoerfling@hermosabch.org
Subject: receive & file for item #11 (Hermosa
pavilion parking) planning commission 2/21 meeting
.To Whom It May Concern:
Please have this letter received, filed, and
distributed to all commissioners for the
commission meeting.
I support the intention of the first 3 recommendations
in the staff report and oppose the 5th recommendation.
As noted in the report, it is clear that users of
the fitness center are parking elsewhere,
especially those that use the facility for a
greater length of time. The only clear solution
is to have all the parking at the pavilion free.
The garage is underutilized at this point and it
is ridiculous to expect residents to be subjected
to this simply because they are charging to park
there. If and when business increases, then we
can talk about paying to park. As noted in your
report, the installation of a signal on 16th &
PCH there will make it even easier to park on
other streets and the situation will be worse for
neighbors. Having more restricted residential
parking is not the answer.
Thank you,
Dean Francois
Friends of the South Bay Bicycle Path
(310) 318-3326
cell 938-2191
www.geocities.com/SAVETHESTRAND
SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION
•/
3-1U-6 r
•
THE PETCAREVOMPANY
1630 Pacific Coast Highway • Hermosa Beach, California 90254
p.2
February 16, 2006
Planning Commission
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
RE: 6 Month Review of Hermosa Pavilion Parking Plan
Dear Council Representatives:
RECEIVED
FEB 1 6 2006
COM. DEV. DEP r.
I am writing to express our desire to see changes made regarding the parking plan for the
tenants at Hermosa Pavilion. Since the opening of 24 Hour Fitness, we have seen a marked
decrease in sales and hear continually from our customers that they are unable to find parking
near our store when our lot is full. This is a huge impact on an independent retailer like us.
These issues are due to people seeking free parking on Pacific Coast Highway rather than pay
for parking within the development where 24 Hour Fitness is located_
Not only does this situation impact our business at 1630 Pacific Coast Highway, it also poses a
community safety hazard since few of the people parking on street are using crosswalks. The
number of near -miss accidents we see daily is a growing concern!
We would like to offer the following suggestions to alleviate the problems being caused by the
change in impact to the surrounding neighborhood since the opening of Hermosa Pavilion:
• Change the fee structure within the facility so that tenants and customers have free
parking for a designated period of time.
• Change the street signage from 2 hour parking to half hour parking on Pacific Coast
Highway.
• Create a street parking permit program for residents and businesses.
• Increase law enforcement's presence at 161" and 17' to encourage a more
conscientious and safe traffic and pedestrian patterns_
Please note, we are not opposed to 24 Hour Fitness being in Hermosa Pavilion or to the
improved development of this site by Gene Shook and Shook Development Company.
However, we would hope that Hermosa Pavilion and its tenants would be better community
citizens. As a business that has been part of the community for more than 15 years at our
location, we strive to be conscious of our neighbors_ We hope that you will encourage the City
Council and the developer to do the same_
It is also important that this issue be dealt with quickly. In a short time, Glen Ivy and Kids
Cabaret will be opening. This will only magnify the problem we are currently dealing. -nd
increase the safety problems on Pacific Coast Highway.
vsC,E (310) 372.7y 14,14.petcarecorgp4
b
y• Fxv11info@petcarec"any. net eto• �/E3S1TE �yet o
1 1
(c.ivE72, PLr/S6) ?Z
V I V -J I -{-JVJ I
•
P.J
Thank you for the opportunity to voice our concerns and we look forward to working with the
Commission to find an appropriate and amenable solution.
Sincerely,
Icombe
Cornu unity Relations Specialist
�3
Fred Huebscher
Page 1 of 1
From: Fred Huebscher [drslate@verizon,net]
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 6:17 PM
To: Steve Burrell; 'Peter@electpetertucker.com'; JR Reviczky; Michael Keegan
Subject: Hermosa Pavilion parking situation
Gentlemen,
As you may know I live on 16th Street in the second block above PCH (i.e. east of PCH).
Since the 24 Hour Fitness has opened in the Hermosa Pavilion, the gym's patrons are now
parking on 16th Street because of the Pavilion's charging for parking. Moreover, gym patrons
are also parking on PCH between 15th and 17th Streets. People are parking on 16th and on
PCH as early at 5:30 AM. And apparently, gym patrons are also parking in the Vons'
shopping center parking lot (I say this because they now have signs posted at the entrance to
the lot prohibiting parking except for shopping center patrons.). I understand that the city will
soon be approving a specific parking plan for the Hermosa Pavilion. I would ask that you
inform all the residents surrounding the Pavilion when you are going to be evaluating the plan
because I think it's essential that residents' input is considered. The obvious solution is to
mandate that the Pavilion offers free parking for the first hour and half. Otherwise, we will
need to establish permit parking in our area to ameliorate the situation. And I would hope that
Mr. Shook would pay for our permits since his building is the direct cause of the problem.
Thank you for your consideration.
Fred Huebscher
Fred Huebscher
310-374-0568
www.politicalscientists.com
3/21/2006
From: Fred Huebscher [ma ilto:drslate@verizon.net]
Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 6:33 PM
To: Steve Burrell
Subject: Hermosa Pavilion
Steve,
I would appreciate your putting the following letter into the record for Tuesday's
council meeting.
Dear Council,
At this Tuesday's council meeting, Gene Shook and the Hermosa Pavilion will be
appealing the Planning Commission's decision to mandate 2 hours of free
parking at the Hermosa Pavilion. The Planning Commission took this action
because of the lack of parking on 16th Street north and south of PCH as well as
on PCH itself. The reason for this lack of parking is because patrons of 24 Hour
Fitness are parking on our streets because they want to avoid the parking
charges at the Hermosa Pavilion. Also the Plaza Hermosa (Von's shopping
center) has signs posted now about parking being for their customers only. They
never had these signs posted until the 24 Hour Fitness opened. I assume they
also are having 24 Hour Fitness customers park there to avoid paying for parking
at the Pavilion. Mr. Shook has proposed instituting 30 minute parking on PCH
and permit parking on 16th Street. First of all, the 30 minute parking is unfair to
Peppertree Apartment dwellers since visitors will no longer have a place to park.
It is also unfair for our neighborhood to be forced into permit parking because Mr.
Shook refuses to allow 2 hours of free parking in his facility. I'm quite sure that if
he allowed 2 hours of free parking in his facility the problem of parking by non-
residents would be significantly curtailed.
I might point out that folks going to the gym park on 16th St. as late as 10 PM and
as early as 5 AM to avoid paying for parking at the Pavilion.
Mr. Shook now wants to put in a restaurant in the Pavilion and if he charges
those people for parking too, they will also start parking on our residential streets.
I strongly urge the Council to uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Mr.
Shook has been a poor neighbor whose only interest is putting as much money
in his pocket without regard for the residents who live near the Pavilion.
Sincerely,
Fred Huebscher
924 16th St.
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
SUPPLEMENTAL �
INFORMATION
TO : HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
FROM : ALAN STRUSSER / KAMMI HOWLETT
824 SEVENTEENTH STREET
HERMOSA BEACH, CA. 90254
PH# (310)372-3099
RE : PARKING SOLUTIONS FOR RESIDENTS IN THE HERMOSA PAVILIONS
INFRINGEMENT ZONE.
Mayor and City Council Members :
JULY 9, 2006
The issues are the continued infringement of the members of the 24 Hour fitness center on the residential
areas surrounding the Hermosa Pavilions. Since the day the Pavilions opened our quality of life has
continued to spiral out of control. Not only are we assaulted both mentally and physically 24 hours a day but
we feel that our children are forced to take shelter inside the house to avoid the inconsideration of the
constant flow of strangers past our home. This has been going on far to long and although just a start toward
a solution, enforcing the parking restrictions on the neighborhoods would reduce the infringement.
We feel the option of free parking at the Pavilions garage would in fact reduce the assault but unfortunately
is not the only solution. A very easy fix to an out of control problem would be to either enforce the enormous
Jay Walking issue or grant the residents the Parking Permit District, we so rightly deserve. Many times daily
we deal with 24 Hour Fitness patrons dangerously pulling in and out of our driveways, where our kids are
playing, loitering, undressing, littering, 24 noise pollution and a general neglect for anyone other than
themselves!!!
Please make us proud of being members of this community once again. We love our schools, our home
and our lives in Hermosa Beach but lately it seems like the qualities we once enjoyed and paid for have
slipped away to benefit the business and entertainment elements. Please give us back our pride and sense of
community.
Sincerely,
Alan, Kammi, Sage and Stella
SUPPLEMENTAL 51.-'
INFORMATION
Hermosa Pavilion - Directory
• ses,(;Lire_e_-_-eirc
/ //0 6
H R, N', {1S
L
O
i°'✓ dirk here /.`•'1' ?Few(' an learin!
LIOMI t lNkoRMATION i ASO1.1T rt -ii I"ER:r.(OsA PAVILION NIEWs i CONTACT OS , t.IN'S
f.)1R.E.C'I'C: Y YAKKING
24 Hour Fitness Sport Club
Special pre -opening rates are being offered to new members. Visit the sales site located
in Ralph's Shopping Center, Hermosa Beach, and take a virtual tour of the new club. The
24 Hour Fitness club will include an indoor swimming pool, an NBA -size basketball court as well as an
extensive line of state-of-the-art equipment, free weights, whirlpool, steam room and sauna. Provided with
numerous amenities, members will also have access to the Kids' Club, along with a wide assortment of fitness
apparel available at the Pro Shop.
F1777E55'1
Glen Ivy Hot Springs, Inc. Day Spa
Chosen by National Geographic Traveler Magazine as one of the "24 Best Spas in
America," the historic Glen Ivy Hot Springs Spa has been recognized for its high quality
Cle.)'t iv Day Spa of service, commitment to clients, and excellent reputation throughout the industry. The
'?" '_' `.'................ 15,000 square foot Hermosa Beach day spa will offer 20 treatment rooms, two stations
for manicures and pedicures, and two steam rooms plus a wide range of services including massage, body
treatments, and skin care services.
Kelly's Coffee & Fudge Factory 00 I I
Blends specialty coffees with an extensive menu of pastries, sandwiches, salads, and
home -style fudge.
Kids Kabaret
Kids (ages 4-18) will have the opportunity to perform on stage in a cabaret setting as well as
the option to take dance, vocal, theater, and musical instrument classes. Auditions will also be
held two nights per week for shows on the weekends, talent shows, and battle of the bands. A
boutique selling unique gifts and a delicious food and beverage menu will be available.
Seaside Office Suites
s+! lam, A!' [DE
Premium ocean -view executive suites, which share all of the offerings of the Pavilion plus
a prestigious, permanent business address, spacious, fully furnished offices with
impressive reception areas, on-site professional services, I.T. support, and more.
next pane
� J7i-t&cj/(9t/
2A/A 6
RE; 1601 PCH, H.B. "PAVILION"
COUNCIL MEETING JULY 11, 2006
Municipal Zoning Code 17.44.050
17.44. 050 Unlawful to reduce available parking.
The provision and maintenance of required off-street parking facilities and areas,
and of area available to the owner or user of real property for meeting minimum
required parking standards, shall be a continuing obligation of the property owner
and user. An owner or user of real property containing uses for which off-street
parking facilities or areas are required by this chapter shall be prohibited from the
following:
A. Reducing, diminishing or eliminating existing required off-street parking
facilities or area under the ownership or control of such owner or user, whether on
the same lot or on a separate lot from the use requiring such off-street parking
facilities or area; or
B. Selling, transfering, leasing or otherwise making unavailable for such required
off-street parking facilities or area any portion of said lot or of any adjacent lot
under the same ownership or control if the same is necessary for and available to
satisfy in whole or in part the off-street parking requirements imposed by this
chapter. (Prior code Appx. A, § 1153)
Date:
To:
(AP -1-) o)'100 aC,7
7////0
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
MEMORANDUM
July 6, 2006
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Sol Blumenfeld ector Communitt evelopment
Stephen R. Burrell, City Manager
Subject: Revised Amendments to Pedestrian Protection Ordinance
Recommendation:
That the City Council waive full reading and introduce the ordinance.
Background & Analysis:
At the June 27, 2006 meeting the City Council considered the subject ordinance
and made the following revisions:
1. Requirement for pre -demolition inspection.
2. Change of wording from "must" to "shall".
These changes are reflected in the attached Ordinance.
6a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
• •
ORDINANCE NO. 06 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE
BUILDING CODE (CHAPTER 15.04) TO REQUIRE THE
INSTALLATION OF FENCING AND PEDESTRIAN
PROTECTION ON CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION
SITES AND AMENDING THE HERMOSA BEACH
MUNICIPAL CODE
The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council hereby finds as follows:
1. Hermosa Beach is an older city with narrow streets and sidewalks.
2. When construction and demolition projects are located on these streets and sidewalks
and inadequately protected with fencing and canopies hazardous conditions are created
for pedestrians.
3. The current building code does not sufficiently address the City's constrained building
and right of way conditions to ensure pedestrian safety.
4. The purpose of this Ordinance is to assure that the public is protected from the risk of
falling construction materials through the installation offencing and pedestrian
protection on construction sites.
SECTION 2. The City Council held a duly -noticed public hearing on June 27 and July 11,
2006 to consider the amendment to the California Building Code relative to adoption of this
Ordinance requiring the installation of fencing and pedestrian protection at demolition and
construction sites at which the Council took testimony from interested persons prior to deliberating
and taking action.
SECTION 3. Chapter 15.04 of Title 15 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code is amended
by adding thereto a new Section 15.04.140 to read as follows:
15.04.140. Pedestrian Protection
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 15.04.010, Chapter 3303 of the Building Code is
amended by adding thereto a new Section 3303.7.5 to read as follows:
Section 3303.7.5 Fencing and pedestrian protection shall be required at all building and
demolition sites as follows:
1. Prior to issuance of a demolition or building permit, a pre -demolition site inspection
shall be performed verifying sewer cap and temporary toilet location, and the capping
of electrical, water and gas service to the property.
2. Prior to commencement of work, all new construction or demolition sites shall install
minimum 6 foot high protective chain link fencing or wood fencing consistent with
Section 3303 of the California Building Code, and Table 33-A regardless of distance to
the property line Protective wood canopies must be installed prior to commencement
of work pursuant to the requirements of Section 3303 and Table 33A of the CBC.
3. A Pedestrian Protection Plan must be approved identifying all areas of required
pedestrian protection for the property, prior to the issuance of demolition or building
permits. The plan must indicate all areas of pedestrian protection or indicate why such
protection is not required (i.e. exempt due to distance of construction to property line).
The Pedestrian Protection Plan, must be prepared by a licensed contractor, engineer or
1 05.1253
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
• •
owner -builder and indicate the proposed protection system to be installed and the
method of installation. When conditions make installation of a pedestrian canopy
impractical (i.e. a narrow street or alley) an alternative method may be shown on the
plan such as pedestrian diversion through use of flagpersons and barriers.
4. Any work encroaching into the public right of way or involving pedestrian diversion
shall require Public Works Department approval of permits and pedestrian protection.
5. In addition to the remedies provided in the Building Code, violations of this section
shall result in revocation or suspension of a building permit pursuant to the procedures
set forth in the Code.
SECTION 4. Adoption of this Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378 of the State CEQA
Guidelines.
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from
and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption.
SECTION 6. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the
City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the "Easy Reader", a weekly newspaper of
general circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided
by law.
SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance,
shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the
passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the
same is passed and adopted.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED on 11h of July 2006 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk City Attorney
2 05-1253
ORDINANCE NO. 06 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE
BUILDING CODE (CHAPTER 15.04) TO REQUIRE THE
INSTALLATION OF FENCING AND PEDESTRIAN
PROTECTION ON CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION
SITES AND AiMENDING THE HERMOSA BEACH
MUNICIPAL CODE
The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council hereby finds as follows:
1. Hermosa Beach is an older city with narrow streets and sidewalks.
2. When construction and demolition projects are located on these streets and sidewalks
and inadequately protected with fencing and canopies hazardous conditions are created
for pedestrians.
3. The current building code does not sufficiently address the City's constrained building
and right of way conditions to ensure pedestrian safety.
4. The purpose of this Ordinance is to assure that the public is protected from the risk of
falling construction materials through the installation of fencing and pedestrian
protection on construction sites.
SECTION 2. The City Council held a duly -noticed public hearing on June 27 and July 11,
2006 to consider the amendment to the California Building Code relative to adoption of this
Ordinance requiring the installation of fencing and pedestrian protection at demolition and
construction sites at which the Council took testimony from interested persons prior to deliberating
and taking action.
SECTION 3. Chapter 15.04 of Title 15 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code is amended
by adding thereto a new Section 15.04.140 to read as follows:
15.04.140. Pedestrian Protection
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 15.04.010, Chapter 3303 of the Building Code is
amended by adding thereto a new Section 3303.7.5 to read as follows:
Section 3303.7.5 Fencing and pedestrian protection shall be required at all building and
demolition sites as follows:
1. Prior to issuance of a demolition or building permit, a pre -demolition site inspection
shall be performed verifying sewer cap and temporary toilet location, and the capping
of electrical, water and gas service to the property.
2. Prior to commencement of work, all new construction or demolition sites shall install
minimum 6 foot high protective chain link fencing or wood fencing consistent with
Section 3303 of the California Building Code, and Table 33-A regardless of distance to
the property line. Protective wood canopies shall be installed prior to commencement
of work pursuant to the requirements of Section 3303 and Table 33A of the CBC.
3. A Pedestrian Protection Plan shall be approved identifying all areas of required
pedestrian protection for the property, prior to the issuance of demolition or building
permits. The plan shall indicate all areas of pedestrian protection or indicate why such
protection is not required (i.e. exempt due to distance of construction to property line).
The Pedestrian Protection Plan, shall be prepared by a licensed contractor, engineer or
SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION I 6a
05-1253
owner -builder and indicate the proposed protection system to be installed and the
method of installation. When conditions make installation of a pedestrian canopy
impractical (i.e. a narrow street or alley) an alternative method may be shown on the
plan such as pedestrian diversion through use of flagpersons and barriers.
4. Any work encroaching into the public right of way or involving pedestrian diversion
shall require Public Works Department approval of permits and pedestrian protection.
5. In addition to the remedies provided in the Building Code, violations of this section
shall result in revocation or suspension of a building permit pursuant to the procedures
set forth in the Code.
SECTION 4. Adoption of this Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378 of the State CEQA
Guidelines.
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from
and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption.
SECTION 6. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the
City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the "Easy Reader", a weekly newspaper of
general circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided
by law.
SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance,
shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the
passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the
same is passed and adopted.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED on 11h of July 2006 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk City Attorney
2 05-1253
•
7//)/0-4,
July 5, 2006
City Council Meeting
July 11, 2006
Mayor and Members
of the City Council
APPOINTMENT TO PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION TO FILL
UNEXPIRED TERM DUE TO UNSCHEDULED VACANCY
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council appoint from among the three applicants to fill
an unexpired term ending October 31, 2008 on the Public Works Commission.
Background:
At its meeting of June 27, 2006, the City Council scheduled applicant interviews to take
place at 6:30 p.m. July 11, 2006, with appointment to follow at the regular meeting. All
of the applicants were notified by telephone and mail of the date, time and place of the
scheduled interviews. Appointment is appropriate at this time.
Applicants:
Janice Brittain
Julian Katz
Brian C. Koch
4-
Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk
8a
• •
PUBLIC WORKS
COMMISSION
APPLICANTS
• CITY OF HERNOSA BEACH •
BOARD/COMMISSION APPLICATION
NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION PUBLIC WORKS
Name: Janice Brittain Home Phone: 310-318-2104
Address: 225 30th Street, Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254
Or P.O. Box 872, Hermosa Beach, Ca, 90254
Occupation/Profession: Retired Educator - Adult School Principal
Name of Employer: Retired from Los Angeles Unified School District Bus. Phone:
Address of Employer: NA
REFERENCES:
Local: Peter Tucker, Mayor, Hermosa Beach City Council
Professional: Joan Ririe, Retired Staff Relations Coordinator, 1281 Carrillo Ave. #310
Torrance, Ca. 90501-2872
Other: Sam Edgerton, Councilman, Hermosa Beach City Council
COMMUNITY PARICIAPTION AND SERVICE (past and present):
Hermosa Beach Historical Society (Life Member), Kiwanis, Woman's Club of Hermosa Beach,
Hermosa Beach Garden Club, Centennial Committee of Hermosa Beach, including "100 Acts of
Beautification" - Sub Committee. Friends of the Parks, Hermosa Beach, Hermosa Beach
Neighborhood Watch ,Chamber of Commerce, and League of Woman Voters.
Why do you wish to become a Commission member?
Since I have retired I want to become more involved in city government. Commissions in our city
are the first step to hearing the concerns of the community and share information.
What do you feel are the duties and responsibilities of a Commission member?
As per the City statement, the duties of the Public Works Commission are to review and make
recommendations to the City Council on all capital improvement projects, assist in the
development and updating of design guidelines for public improvements and other matters
referred to the Commission by the City Council. Members must be qualified electors of the City.
1
• •
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 X No (If yes,_please explain)
Please give a resume ofyour education, employment, membership, past activities and other experience
that you fee would qualify you as a Board Commission member.
See attachment
This Board Commission meets on Third Wednesday of every month at 7:00 p.m. Do you foresee any
scheduling problems that might make you miss meetings? Yes X No
How long have you lived in Hemostat Beach? 16 years
Comments:
Public Workers is an important Commission for our city government and
I am Iooking forward to taking this opportunity to participate in our city progress.
Date June 14, 2006
2
JANICE R. BRITTAIN
RESUME FOR APPLICATION
FOR PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA
JUNE, 2006
CONTACT INFORMATION
310-318-2104 or 310- 944-1271
MisC98@yahoo.com
www: janicebritttain.com
225 30th Street Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254
P.O. Box 872, Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254
A resident and property owner in Hermosa Beach for 16 years and have lived in the South Bay area
Since 1967.
PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND
Recently retired after 40 years in public education in Los Angeles. I served as a School administrator
(the last 20 years as a principal in Adult and Career Education for the Los Angeles Unified School District).
My last assignment included the Venice Skills Center, a vocational education site that focuses of technology
including CISCO Networking, Web Page Design, Graphic Arts, and other computer related professions.
Prior to that I taught high school (Norwalk), adult school, and was an Adult School Counselor and an
Assistant Principal of Operations.
EDUCATION
B.A. Degree from Hastings College, in Hastings, Nebraska. (1964)
M.A. Degree in Theatre Arts from UCLA (1971)
Completed administrative training at Loyola Marymont and counseling courses at UCLA
Extension. (1976)
Graduated from Palmer High School in Colorado Springs, Colorado (1960)
LOCAL AND COMMUNITY PARTICIAPTION AND SERVICE
Hermosa Beach Historical Society (Life Member), Kiwanis, Woman's Club of Hermosa Beach,
Hermosa Beach Garden Club, Centennial Committee of Hermosa Beach, including "100 Acts of
Beautification" - Sub Committee, Friends of the Parks, Hermosa Beach, Chamber of Commerce,
Hermosa Beach Neighborhood Watch, and League of Woman Voters.
PROFESSIONAL PARTICIPATION AND LEADERSHIP POSITIONS
South Central Family Health Clinic
Board members since 1991
Currently serving as Board Chair
The Hastings College Nebraska Alumni Associations for the Southern California
Served on board since 1980; Reunion chair for 15 years
California Council for Adult Education: (CCAE)
Member since 1975 Centurion Member;
Served on the state board and was the State Board President
3
• •
Association of California School Administrators (ACSA)
Member since 1984; served 5 years on the ASCA Adult Ed Committee,
Administrative Association of Los Angeles (AALA)
Charter member; Co-chaired various AALA Conferences
Women Educators
Member since 1975: Served as President in 1978-79; chaired numerous committees
Delta Kappa Gamma, Gamma Eta Chapter
(International Women Educator Organization)
Member since 1978; Served as Chapter President and currently Treasurer
Beverly -Fairfax Chamber of Commerce
Serve while Principal of Fairfax CAS (1978 -1984)
(Chaired the Hanukah Festival and the one and only "Chopped Liver Cook Off')
Foundation for the Academy of Performing and Visual Arts
Founding Member (1980 -1990)
Greater East Los Angeles Senior Citizen Organization (GELASCO)
Served on Board for 30 years including two years as President
1 have ales served on numerous other committees and Board in various communities in the Los
Angeles area
AWARDS AND RECONIGITIONS
During my career in adult education I have receive numerous certificates of recognition from
political and community organizations (available for viewing if requested)
Just to lista few:
Received the E Manfred Evans Award as "Out standing Adult Educator" for California Council
of Adult Education, The Los Angles Metro Section.
Outstanding Alumni for Hasting College, in Hastings, Nebraska,
Certificates of Congratulation and recognition from President Bill Clinton, Major Richard
Riordan, and Governor Gray Davis.
4
Name
:51U-372-5141
•
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
BOARD/COMMISSION APPLICATION
NAME OF COMMISSION PUQI-rr. ‘00 'leer
UL r •4 AI /44"/"-Z
Address:
p. 1
Home Phone: __1.71"- 7 47 0 S'
4/.73/ ..57> r-&-7-
Occupation/Profession: EAV
Name of Employer
Address of Employer _
REFERENCES:
Local: .e ueA rci2ff'"10 ,t.% 3l0 - 37 r; -14<9.4—
Bus.
'<Bs
Bus. Phone:
Professional: 1/2424" 4 J s1!ry d a— ,145G - 2 -fir
Other:
F Ercr f -5T re sl -.20.3- ?- `v? — 07.5 2—
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND SERVICE (past and present):
//Cc �•2r i.dE/ij L-fB , /u A/ G Cl wL�A1 U.
77:16—
R451- o ArePiPBc+e._ _l->< E2 UCt6,770,( p=ou AtQ,9-77/
Why do you wish to become a Commission member? -L- 20 U !F' T C• / r'y
Ala° /4-0€-Th/V47-6= /1 -Ave- // yam- ?ND
Cal• ac) a /Z) e�i CoM � OM.
,C-� ,�S/ a/G/ %mss 7�
What do you feel are the duties and responsibilities of a Commission member?
Gel/ Tb/ G71Nc72. /S%8cC do
Gdo/ s 72 7 7 61-e,40 c - Ca 1J 0,C /c_ A'S eef
7/11417— /at/ et co OVS/S ?/ ? ' i
/9.e,0 e1 l fc e 7 Pagel of 2 0''1(0 ? /' '
!} Qp-
01U-014-0141
•
p.L
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 }S 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 ember.
• deI¢ 4..= CI V/ E/h'filleVrZ/A/� > CU"+IlRR/0 £cpg.1/Cose- oAtiv
• l�►'.p�fr2c ,-- STV O/ zLT £?-1.16-;/1(0-e.nI j , OJari'FWr'i94.4/oiel3 Dm(t
• '*lairtr4-d A/ • .Q, CQ,4-F7-- C'Aiega .
41,4.01 /W,irk i - g/Mr- ,
• yew - 616 t/c, .40 rry i 4' L Ti 1V ,G34 S3 s'
• /•4t .?"- � *,,e3 l er /4
al a. a -S
This Board/Commission meets ort. at at 7 p.m. Do you foresee
any scheduling problems that might make you miss meetings? Yes < No
How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach? /7 fr-izoikaS
Comments: Looe J J(.) Ci 10
(4/23101 )
Page 2 of 2
0620/2006 15:32
•
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
BOARD/COMMISSION APPLICATION
•
NAME OF COMMISSION Public Works Cornmisslon
Name: Brian C. Koch Home Phone: 31.0-410-0902
Address: 2450 Ozone Court, Hermosa Beach 90254
Occupation/Profession: Civil / Stn►ctural Engineer
Employer: City of Los Angeles/Dept. of Water Power (LADWPI Bus. Phone: 213-367-0054
Address of Employer: 111 North Hope Street, Room 945, Los Angeles, CA 90012
REFERENCES:
Local: Rob Carleen Neste, work phone (310) 781-6900
Professional: John Dennis, LADWP, work phone (213) 367-0881
Other:
NO.036 P01
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND SERVICE (past and present):
For '2-1 /2 years, from late 2000 until February 2003 J previously served on the Public Works
Contmiasion. For the firyt year, I was the Chair of the Commission 1 believe our inaugural
several years of the PWC was successful and provided valuable input to the City Council. I
personally had excellent attendance at Commission meetings, missing very few meetings.
Why do you wish to beco.me a Commission member?
1 first moved to Hermosa Beach almost 15 Years ago and have enjoyed the city spirit and culture.
serving on a Commission again would provide me the opportunity to help improve the
c4mxnuaity. As a licensed engineer my techn(p 1 �nclprofe sional expertise Eris well within this
• i v• hav .rovi. • . valu • contribu io s ilto e decision makin 7 .rocess for
Public Works construction and procedures in the past, and would do so in the future.
What do you feel arc the duties and responsibilities of a Commission. member?
As the announcement states: the duties of this Commission are to review and make
recommendations to the City Council on all capital improvement protects assist in the
development and updating of design guidelines for public improvements and other matters
referred the Commission) by the City Council. 1 feel that the duties are to listen to public and
staff input, evaluate projects/programs, and act in a responsible manner Jo make decisions. I can
specifically provide input of a techrtieal natures regardjpa both specific project details, design
options, and code regtlirernents as well ac it ut into the eontractingprocess Engineering
•06i20i2006 15:32 N0.036 002
•
expertise is valuable to review alternate proposals and make informed recommendations to the
city Council. Public projects need to balance community needs, technical importunities, and
economic considerations.
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 X 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/Cornmission member.
Attached is a Resume. As an gineer in a local municipal department; I have extensive
experience in Public Works construction projects, including building,p jects, site
improvements/roadways, and utility work. I deal with both in-house designers and contractor
design firms working on permitting specifications, desien documents/drawingsand contract
administration.
1 lso had a revious o ortuni to serve on another ublic board as an elected member of the
LADWP Retirement I3oard !rich rovi ed ex ce in she workin s of a ublicl noticed
oversight group.
This Board/Commission meets on the third Wednesday of the month 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? Over 10 years
Comments:
My technical and professional experience and long term involvement in Hermosa Beach
provides a solid base to serve on the Public Works Commission. I enjoyed my past years art the
PWC, and serving again wo itd be a great way to give back to our community. This commission
mows me to use my engineering expertise and working knowledge of public works projects to
provide support to our elected officials,
Signed:
Date:
Please return completed application to. the City Clerk's Office
1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
(310) 318-0204 or FAX to (310) 372-6186
06/20/2006 15:32
i BRIAN C. KOCH •
JPB Room 945
work phone (213) 367-0054
NO.036 G03
Profile:
Over 23 years of diversified, in-depth experience in management, administration & engineering,
including technical, business, resource & strategic planning; technical & administrative supervision;
budgeting and asset management; project design and management; and contract administration, with
education and experience in business/finance skills, planning, computer applications, leadership,
recruitment, and administrative issues. A results -oriented team player with excellent problem
solving, analytical, and communication skills.
Professional Experience: City of Los Angeles, Department of Water and Power
2004 to present -- Manager of Power System Planning, PSP&P
2001 to 2004 - Power Engineering Manager - PT&D System Planning, Budget & Asset Management
1998 to 2001 - WSO Projects Design Manager (Civil/Structural & EIectrical/Mechanical Groups)
1997 to 1998 - FEMA Project Management Engineer
1995 to 1997 - Executive Office Staff Engineer - Power System
1991 to 1995 - Structural Engineer (Structural Design Supervisor)
1988 to 1991 - Senior Structural Engineering Associate
1982 to 1988 - Structural Engineering Associate / Civil Engineering Assistant
Current responsibilities: Power System Planning, including Distribution, Transmission and Integrated
Resource / Generation Planning, and Capital Project Prioritization, Budget & Schedule Tracking.
Includes directing preparation of the Integrated Resource Plan and 10 -year Transmission Assessment,
encompassing demand & production forecasts, resource planning, & capital program development.
Past PT&D responsibility: Manager for PTDBU Budget (Capital $225M, Q&M $173M), Distribution System
Planning, General Facility/Architectural and Claims Groups. Preparation of PTDBU Business Plan, Coordination
of Reliability & Benchmarking Studies, Performance Tracking Reports, & FEMA Project Documentation.
Past WSO responsibility: Projects Design Group Manager for Water Engineering & Technical Services, leading the
Civil/Structural & Electrical/Mechanical Groups. The almost 50 employee group designs reservoirs; tanks;
pump stations; buildings; groundwater, chlorination,, & fluoridation treatment facilities; and control systems.
Previous Power System responsibilities: strategic planning related to Energy Services reorganization, developing
budget & staffing targets, managing industry restructuring implementation teams, crafting organizational
structure, ensuring employee communication/goal development, and evaluating budget/schedule performance.
Education: 1988 -1993 Master of Business Administration (MBA)
University of Southern California Magna Cum Laude
1982 -1984 Master of Science, Civil Engineering (MSCE)
University of Southern California Magna Cum Laude.
1977 -1982 Bachelor of Science, Engineering (BSE)
University of California, Los Angeles Cum Laude.
Registration and Professional Affiliations:
Structural Engineer - State of California #S3144
Civil Engineer - State of California #C39670
Past Member of ASCE , ICEO, and Structural Engineers Association of Southern California
Other Activities:
DWP Retirement Board Member, 1999-2000
Public Works Commissioner, City of Hermosa Beach, 2000 - 2003