HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/08/06"If you never bravely stick your neck out, you will never get your head above the crowds."
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - Council Chambers, City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
7:10 p.m.
MAYOR
Peter Tucker
MAYOR PRO TEM
Sam Y. Edgerton
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Patrick 'Kit' Bobko
Michael Keegan
J. R. Reviczky
CITY CLERK
Elaine Doerfling
CITY TREASURER
John M. Workman
CITY MANAGER
Stephen R. Burrell
CITY ATTORNEY
Michael Jenkins
1
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.
City Council agendas and staff reports are available for your review on the
City's web site located at www.hermosabch.org.
Complete agenda packets are also available for public inspection in the Police
Department, Fire Department, Public Library and the Office of the City Clerk.
During the meeting, a packet is also available in the
Council Chambers foyer.
All written communications from the public included in the agenda will be
posted with the agenda on the City's website
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
ANNOUNCEMENTS
1
CITY CLERK
PRESENTATIONS
INTRODUCTION OF NEW POLICE CHIEF
GREG SAVELLI
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.
(b)
Letter from Kristine Keegan dated July 18, 2006 regarding Hermosa Schools.
2. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following more routine matters will be acted upon by
one vote to approve with the majority consent of the City Council. There will be no
separate discussion of these items unless a Council member removes an item from the
Consent Calendar. Items removed will be considered under Agenda Item 4, with public
comment permitted at that time.
(a) Recommendation to approve the following minutes:
1) Minutes of the Adjourned Regular meeting held on July 11, 2006; and,
2) Minutes of the Regular meeting held on July 11, 2006.
(b) Recommendation to ratify check register.
2
• •
(c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items.
(d) Recommendation to receive and file report of Customer Service
Surveys/Complaints. Memorandum from City Clerk Memorandum from City Clerk
Elaine Doerfling dated August 1, 2006.
(e) Recommendation to accept donations of $8,000 from Pierce Promotions to be used
for the Centennial Concert Series to be held in 2007-08 and $1,962.72 from
anonymous donors collected at the July 23, 2006 Sunset Concert to be used for the
Centennial Concert Series to be held in 2007-08. Memorandum from Finance Director
Viki Copeland dated July 31, 2006.
Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Public Works
Commission meeting of April 19, 2006.
Recommendation to approve the Memorandum of Understanding with the Los
Angeles Region — Imagery Acquisition Consortium (LAR -IAC) in the amount not to
exceed $19,200 and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement after
approval as to form by the City Attorney. Memorandum from Public Works Director
Richard Morgan dated July 31, 2006.
(h) Recommendation to approve the Professional Services Agreement No. 06.012 with
Kathleen McGowan to administer the City's Municipal Storm Water Management
Program in connection with NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System) permit requirements for an amount of $38,240 and authorize the Mayor to
execute and the City Clerk to attest the contract subject to approval by the City
Attorney. Memorandum from Public Works Director Richard Morgan dated
July 31, 2006.
(i)
Recommendation to reject all bids for Non-CIP Project No. 009-06 Pier Clock
Barrier Project and authorize staff to re -advertise for bids and invite all previous
bidders to re -bid the project. Memorandum from Public Works Director Richard
Morgan dated August 1, 2006.
(j) Recommendation to authorize the award of construction contract for CIP Project
No. 04-535 Clark Field Improvements to the lowest responsive bidder, in the
amount of the lowest responsive bid; authorize the Mayor to execute and the City
Clerk to attest the contract subject to approval of the City Attorney; and, authorize
the Director of Public Works to issue change orders as necessary within the
approved budget. Memorandum from Public Works Director Richard Morgan dated
August 1, 2006.
3
• •
(k) Recommendation to award purchase of one (1) 2007 Chevrolet Silverado Truck in
the amount of $28,462.37 (Equipment Service); award the purchase of one (1) 2007
Ford Ranger Extra Cab Truck in the amount of $17,923.32 (Public Works
Inspection); authorize the reappropriation of $46,386 from FY 05-06 for Vehicle
Purchases (Account numbers 715-4202-5403, 715-3202-5403 and 715-4202-5403;
and, authorize staff to issue the appropriate purchase documents as required.
Memorandum from Public Works Director Richard Morgan dated August 1, 2006.
Recommendation to authorize the purchase and installation of radio equipment for
the Fire Department from South Bay Regional Public Communications Authority
not to exceed $103,862.00 and approve the reappropriation of funds from FY 05/06
to FY 06/07 in the amount of $98,670.00, account #150-2204-5405 and $5,192.00
from account #001-2202-5405. Memorandum from Fire Chief Russell Tingley dated
August 1, 2006.
(1)
(m)
(n)
Recommendation to authorize the award of construction contract for the CIP
Project No. 05-121 Aviation Street Tree Project to Belaire-West Landscaping, Inc.
of Buena Park, California, in the amount of $170,750; authorize the Mayor to
execute and the City Clerk to attest the contract subject to approval of the City
Attorney; authorize the reappropriation of $137.781 from FY 05-06 account 302-
8121-4201; authorize the appropriation of $53,122 from the 301 Capital
Improvement Fund; and, authorize the Director of Public Works to issue change
orders as necessary within the approved budget. Memorandum from Public Works
Director Richard Morgan dated August 1, 2006.
Recommendation to adopt resolution approving final map #061318 for a 2 -unit
condo at 315-317 Hopkins Avenue. Memorandum from Community Development
Director Sol Blumenfeld dated July 31, 2006.
(o) Recommendation to adopt resolution approving final map #61742 for a 2 -unit condo
at 1054-1056 7th Street. Memorandum from Community Development Director
Sol Blumenfeld dated July 31, 2006.
3. CONSENT ORDINANCES
a. ORDINANCE 06-1270 — "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS I
NTHE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE R-1 ZONE EXCEPTIONS FOR
SMALL LOTS AND AMENDING THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL
CODE." For adoption. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated
July 26, 2006.
b. ORDINANCE 06-1271— "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADDING NEW CHAPTER 8.52 FLOODPLAN
MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS AND AMENDING CHAPTER 15.04 OF
THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE." For adoption.
Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated July 26, 2006.
4
• •
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. A CHANGE TO THE FEE CHARGED IN LIEU OF PROVIDING
REQUIRED PARKING SPACES, PER SECTION 17.44.190 OF THE
HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE. Memorandum from Community
Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated July 31, 2006.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution approving an increase in the City's
in -lieu parking fee from $12,500 to $28,900 per space.
b. TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW LARGE SPA FACILITIES IN THE C-
2 AND C-3 ZONES SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
Memorandum from Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated
July 31, 2006.
RECOMMENDATION: Waive full reading and introduce ordinance amending
Chapter 17.26 to add large day spas with greater than 3,000 square feet of gross
floor area as a conditionally permitted use.
6. MUNICIPAL MATTERS
a. PROGRESS REPORT ON NUISANCE ABATEMENT ORDER —1811
MANHATTAN AVENUE (RESOLUTION NO. 06-6459) AND 138 1sT
STREET (RESOLUTION NO. 06-6467). Memorandum from Community
Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated July 26, 2006.
RECOMMENDATION: Proceed with nuisance abatement at 1811 Manhattan
Avenue and approve the amended resolution allowing the owner of 138 1s` Street
to demolish the front unit and rehabilitate the rear unit.
b. REVIEW OF A TEXT AMENDMENT FOR LOT MERGER. Memorandum
from Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated July 27, 2006.
RECOMMENDATION: Review the issues outlined in the staff report and
provide direction related to:
1. Intent of the Lot Merger Ordinance
2. Criteria for merging lots
3. Procedures for merging lots
4. Setting a date to review draft revisions to the Lot Merger Ordinance
5
• •
7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER
NONE
8. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL
a. REPORT OF BALLOT TABULATION RESULTS FOR THE PROPOSED
LANDSCAPE AND STREET LIGHTING SUPPLEMENTAL
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling
dated July 26, 2006.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file.
b. REPORT ON ATTENDANCE AT THE INDEPENDENT CITIES
ASSOCIATION ANNUAL SEMINAR. Oral report from
Councilmember Keegan.
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
ADJOURNMENT
6
•
TO: Hermosa Beach City Council
/e€6 ceJih-)
• 8���06
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
Ieaders 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....000000.
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.
May 1, 2006
• •
City of 21ermosa Teaelt)
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 he 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 pennit 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. 1 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
govennnent for theft via a wire transfer and will be sentenced on June 12`h.
Let me know if I can provide any additional information.
Si
y,
phen R. Burrell
City Manager
SRB:rem
Hermosa Beach Police
Department
Detective Bureau
Memo
To: Chief G. Savelli
From: Det. S. Saylor
CC: Sgt. L. Heard
Date: 08/03/06
Re: Roy Judd
Chief,
I have reviewed the letter received from Roy Judd on June 26 2006. Some points made by Judd
were not accurate. The following information will outline some of the inaccuracies of Judd's letter.
An incident report was taken on 09/28/03 when suspect Dela Rosa employed a locksmith and
was attempting to have the front door lock of Judd's residence changed. Judd was home and
opened the door before the locksmith had begun to change the lock. Judd confronted Dela Rosa
as to why she was tying to change his lock and Dela Rosa then provided her business card to
Judd and stated to Judd that his home mortgage was in default. Per my investigation Judd's
mortgage was frequently in default and Dela Rosa was correct. Judd threatened to call the Police
and Dela Rosa left the location. A short time later, subjects began to arrive at the Judd residence
with fliers advertising a garage sale there. With this information, Sgt. Endom and I contacted Dela
Rosa at her residence, questioned her regarding the garage sale fliers and Dela Rosa stated she
did not know where the fliers came from. Sgt. Endom and I searched Dela Rosa's residence
including her computer and found no garage sale fliers or the distinctive paper the fliers were
printed on. Sgt. Endom and I did note the residence to have multiple real estate folders and
associated real estate paperwork. I asked Dela Rosa why she was trying to change the locks and
she stated that she was attempting to "help" Judd by providing a new mortgage for him and she
wanted to "look around" in the house. With the lack of evidence connecting Dela Rosa to the
garage sale fliers, and Dela Rosa's statement that she just wanted to "look around" rather than
commit a theft, Sgt. Endom and I elected to cite Dela Rosa for trespassing as the elements of
burglary where not present. Even though Dela Rosa had been cited, I continued to look into Dela
Rosa's background and found other crimes not associated with Judd. These crimes were tumed
over to the FBI as the crimes fell to the FBI's jurisdiction.
In addressing Judd's letter I found one of the first few lines stated that the "non-federal" crimes
were not investigated further once the FBI became involved. From the information provided to
Page 1 of 3
SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION 1 a
• •
this Police Department at that time, we had examined all workable information pertaining to the
initial violation reported by Judd. However, through our investigation of the initial crime, we
discovered several Federal bank fraud violations committed by suspect Dela Rosa. As stated
above these crimes did not fall into this department's jurisdiction to investigate. Therefore, I
contacted the FBI to take over with the information that I had acquired. At that time the
investigation of Judd's report was complete; the suspect had been cited a for the trespassing
violation.
Judd further stated in his letter that suspect Dela Rosa filed documents with "Los Angels County'
to transfer his mortgage and the deed to his house. Judd stated that this action by Dela Rosa
caused title issues and hindered his attempt to refinance his loan. Judd provided copies of these
documents through a Hermosa Beach City Councilman. This information is new to this case and I
began a preliminary investigation to obtain some background. I contacted a local title company
and requested a title search of Judd's residence. From a preliminary title report, I confirmed that
Judd is listed as the owner of the home with no one else on title. Also, the documents provided to
this department by Judd where not included in the preliminary title report suggesting that the
paperwork is not associated with the Judd residence. I then requested an additional document
search by the instrument number depicted on the paperwork provided by Judd. The title company
then sent me a copy that matched the paperwork provided by Judd. It should be noted that the
sole signature on the questionable documents is suspect Dela Rosa's; Judd's signature is absent.
Since Dela Rosa did not forge Judd's name, I am unsure of the impact of this document in the
view of a criminal matter as well as how the document's validity is viewed as a legitimate legal
document. However, if this action did rise to the level of an attempted fraud, I have researched
the issue and found that the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department Commercial Crimes
Bureau has jurisdiction and is the most applicable for conducting such an investigation. This is
further reinforced as the Los Angeles County recorder's office is the recipient of the possibly
fraudulent documents. In addition, Judd mentioned that Suspect Dela Rosa used his address to
file incorporation papers with the California Secretary of State. Again this activity, if criminal, is
more suitably investigated by California Department of Consumer Affairs. The Hermosa Beach
Police Department has no jurisdiction in these matters.
• Los Angeles county Sheriffs Department
Commercial Crimes Bureau Real Estate Fraud Unit
(562) 946-7217 Fax: (562) 944-8741
California Department of Consumer Affairs
(213) 974-9750 or (213) 974-1450 Fax: (213) 687-0233 or (213) 617-1431
Judd further stated that Dela Rosa was not arrested for 9 months after the initial crime was
reported. This Department turned over the investigation to the FBI on 10/23/03. At that point, The
Hermosa Beach Police Department had no further influence nor knowledge regarding when or
how an arrest would be made by that agency. Furthermore, the Hermosa Beach Police
Department is not privileged to know the protocols the FBI uses when it conducts such an
investigations nor what procedures or timelines are adhered to. Knowing the circumstances, I can
only state that the FBI made an arrest, and completed a successful prosecution where the
suspect was convicted of Federal crimes.
Page 2 of 3
• •
Judd continues in his letter and states that his neighbors were not interviewed. From the day of
the initial report, I had already identified the suspect, the locksmith company, and the locksmith
worker. Under these circumstances, I'm unsure what the neighbors could have to offer regarding
the initial case. Judd does mention later in his letter, "the other female stalker" noticed by his
neighbors, however, I have never received a crime report of stalking.
In the second paragraph of Judd's letter he states that no one from this department returned his
phone calls, and if we would have we would have gained more information. This is not accurate
as Sgt. Endom fielded dozens of phone calls from Judd and much of the information provided by
Judd had been previously discovered by this department, or was insignificant. Also, at the
beginning of the investigation this department, as a courtesy, would update Judd as to our
findings and the direction of the investigation. This practice ceased quickly as Judd began to
make his own calls to potential witnesses. In addition Judd, upon finding that the FBI was
becoming involved, began to contact the FBI offices to talk about his case. Consequently, the FBI
contacted Sgt. Endom and asked that we not disclose that an FBI investigation was underway.
After receiving Judd's letter, I contacted FBI agent Julie Viana who handled the Dela Rosa case in
Federal court. Viana left me a message stating that Dela Rosa was sentenced on the wire fraud
charges in June of 2006. The sentence was the time served, being approximately one year, six
months in a community detention center, and over two hundred thousand dollars of restitution to
the victim of the wire fraud. Agent Viana stated that Judd was very unhappy with the sentence
and stated that he was also very upset because he was not allowed to speak to the judge
regarding Dela Rosa's sentence.
Page 3 of 3
•
• f/f/a,
From: keegan [mailto:kristine.keegan@natplan.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 11:29 AM
To: 'peter@electpetertucker.com'; 'samedgerton@aol.com'; 'jbrhbcc@aol.com';
'michael@manhattanbread.com'; 'kit@kitforcouncil.com'; 'Sburrell@hermosabch.org'
Cc: 'Cathy McCurdy'; 'claypoole@verizon.net'; 'Carol Caballero'; 'Linda Beck'; 'Widman, Lance';
'smcclain@hbcsd.org'; 'Sylvia Gluck'; 'Kristin Thomas'; 'robinboz@msn.com';
'cantelmo@earthlink.net'; 'denisemacrae@earthlink.net'
Subject: Hermosa Schools
Dear City Council,
I am .sure you have read in the paper about the school needing donations to cover the shortfall
from what they get from state funding. This is for such things as having smaller class sizes (20
students per teacher) for Kindergarten thru 3 grade, Assistant Principal to help with discipline,
music teacher and science lab. This year the school is approximately $50,000 short and they are
hoping to get this shortfall by the end of the summer so no programs have to be cut.
I would like to formally ask the council to donate to the school for this shortfall and was wondering
how to do it. I would like this to be put on the August agenda for discussion.
If the answer is "no", I would like to know who exactly is sayingno and why it can't be put on the
agenda. I know that neighboring cities donate to their school districts every year and $50,000 is
just .25% of your $20 million budget (less than 1/2%!). I don't think it is too much to ask and we
all know the value that schools give to their communities. If the city needs to donate to a
particular program, maybe you could donate approximately $73,000 every year to keep the small
class sizes (this would still be less than 1/2% of your budget). If Hermosa ends up being the only
local city to cut small class sizes, it could have a domino effect, as good teachers may leave to
neighboring districts that have better working conditions (smaller classes) and more important to
the city, families choosing to live in those areas.
Please let me know how to proceed with this request.
Thank you.
Kristine Keegan
lb
• •
Movie In The Park
Featuring:
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Valley Park
Movie venue opens at 5:00 p.m.
Movie at dark
Activities for the kids, food and entertainment
sponsored by Hermosa Beach Arts Foundation,
Kiwanis, Rotary, MOMS Neighborhood Watch and
Woman's Club, the Valenzuela Family, the
Dunbabins, Chick-fil-A, Sammy's Woodfired Pizza,
Tru Green Landcare, Verizon FiOS and Commercial
Capital Bank
Supported by:
Chevron
Fell Event Services
•Bring the family and a blanket and prepare for a
great evening
•$5 donation per person over 3 years of age.
Opportunity drawing tickets available for $1.
Proceeds benefit Friends of the Parks
•No high back chairs, pets or alcohol permitted in
the movie venue
Presented by:
ver►np
• Page 1
Invent Some Fun In Hermosa Beach With Wallace & Gromit
Contact: Laura Raymond
(310) 376-4485
mlraytx@aol.com
For Immediate Release
HERMOSA BEACH — August 1, 2006 — Hermosa Beach Friends of the Parks (FOP)
announces their second annual Movie In The Park. This year's fun -filled, community event will
feature DreamWorks' Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were -Rabbit and will take place in
Valley Park on August 26, 2006. Gates will open at 5:00 p.m. and the movie will begin at
sundown, approximately 8:00 p.m.
When the gates open, a variety of activities will be available for the attendees. Mad
Science booths featuring "Mad Machines" and "Bubbling Potions" will have hands-on, interactive
activities for children. A claymation station, bounce houses, a cookie decorating station, an arts
and crafts station and face painting will add to the activities and keep children engaged and
entertained throughout the evening. Treats provided by Chick-fil-A and Sammy's Woodfired
Pizza, hot dogs, popcorn and drinks will be available in the movie venue.
Tickets for an opportunity drawing will be sold in the movie venue for $1. Several
packages are available and all have an entertainment theme. The feature package includes a
tour for two at Raleigh Manhattan Beach Studios, lunch on the lot and a signed CSI Miami script.
Attendees three and over are asked to make a $5 donation to participate in the activities
and view the movie. All proceeds will benefit Hermosa Beach Friends of the Parks and,
ultimately, parks and recreation programming in the City of Hermosa Beach.
Everyone is encouraged to bring a blanket and prepare for a great evening. No alcohol,
high back chairs or pets are permitted in the movie venue.
This event is made possible by the generous support of Verizon, the presenting sponsor;
Bell Event Services, Chevron and the City of Hermosa Beach, the supporting sponsors; and the
Hermosa Beach Rotary, the Hermosa Beach Kiwanis Club, Hermosa Beach MOMS, Chick-fil-A,
Sammy's Woodfired Pizza, the Hermosa Beach Woman's Club, the Hermosa Beach Arts
Foundation, Tru Green Landcare, Commercial Capital Bank, the Valenzuela Family, Kathy and
John Dunbabin, and Verizon FiOS, activity area sponsors.
Hermosa Beach Friends of the Parks is a non-profit foundation that serves to identify,
prioritize, and fundraise for park and recreation improvements throughout the City of Hermosa
Beach.
# # #
August 5, 2006 11:00pm
Party bus, Hermosa Ave.
I
affi&P)06
MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, July 11, 2006, at the
hour of 6:35 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Keegan, Reviczky, Mayor Tucker
Absent: Edgerton (arrived at 6:38 p.m.)
INTERVIEWS OF PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION APPLICANTS
Pursuant to past procedure, the applicants were interviewed separately, apart from
the others, with each Councilmember asking one question of each of the applicants.
Recognizing that this was a public meeting open to any member of the public
wishing to observe the interviews, each of the applicants waited their turn and
entered the room one at a time when called.
Coming forward to proceed with the interview process and respond to the individual
Council questions were the following applicants:
Janice Brittain
Julian Katz
Brian C. Koch
ADJOURNMENT - The Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of
Hermosa Beach adjourned on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 at the hour of 6:53 p.m. to
the Regular Meeting scheduled to begin at the hour of 7:10 P.M.
2a(1 )
City Council Minutes 07-11-06 Page 11952
•
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, July 11, 2006, at the hour of 7:15 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Kathy Dunbabin
ROLL CALL:
Present: Edgerton, Keegan, Reviczky, Mayor Tucker
Absent: None
CANVASS OF VOTES AND INSTALLATION OF OFFICERS. Memorandum from
City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated July 5, 2006.
City Clerk Doerfling presented the staff report and responded to Council
questions.
Action: To adopt Resolution No. 06-6480, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA,
RECITING THE FACT OF THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD
TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 2006, DECLARING THE RESULT AND SUCH OTHER
MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW."
Motion Reviczky, second Keegan. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
City Clerk Doerfling administered the oath of office to newly elected Councilmember
Bobko and presented him with a certificate of election.
Councilmember Bobko thanked those who supported him during his campaign and
his parents, who were in attendance; said that he had been raised to take very
seriously things like the oath he had just taken and that he would do his best to use
his skills and talents for the City.
Councilmember Reviczky congratulated Councilmember Bobko; said the people of
Hermosa Beach had spoken and he was happy to have him as part of the Council.
Councilmember Keegan said that Councilmember Bobko was very capable and
welcomed him to the Council.
Mayor Pro Tempore Edgerton echoed his colleague's sentiments and said welcome.
Mayor Tucker said that Mr. Bobko would bring a lot to the City and he welcomed the
opportunity to work with him on the many projects ahead to improve the City.
The meeting recessed at 7:22 p.m. for refreshments.
The meeting reconvened at 7:35 p.m.
ANNOUNCEMENTS — Councilmember Reviczky thanked the Police Department for
helping make the Fourth of July a safe holiday; said he had spent the day with them;
said there had been no serious incidents and there had been a smaller crowd than
last year.
City Council Minutes 7-11-06 Page 11953 2a(2)
• •
Mayor Tucker said that the last Hermosa Beach Art Walk for the summer would be
held on Thursday, July 13 and invited all residents to attend if they have not taken
advantage of this wonderful event.
Councilmember Reviczky said on Wednesday, July 12, Loreto students and the
Loreto Mayor and his wife would be arriving and a week of activities have been
planned for their visit; urged the community to visit our Sister City link on the City's
website for details.
PROCLAMATIONS / PRESENTATIONS
NATIONAL PARKS & RECREATION MONTH
JULY 2006
Mayor Tucker read and presented a proclamation proclaiming July as National Parks
& Recreation Month and thanked them for.all their work.
Commissioner Christine Hollander and Steve Francis accepted the proclamation and
thanked the Council for the honor.
CLOSED SESSION REPORT FOR MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2006: No reportable
actions.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
1. ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
a. Letter from Mr. Roy Judd regarding his property at 2416 Hermosa
Avenue.
Coming forward to address the Council on this letter was:
Roy Judd — Hermosa Beach, described a situation in which a woman who
was a stranger to him stated that she owned his house; said he spent
years and a large amount of money trying to clear the title on his
home; warned the community to be wary of such threats; said he did
not feel the Police Department adequately investigated the situation;
Councilmember Reviczky indicated that the Police Department did investigate the
situation and the woman was in jail for 18 months.
Action: To direct the Chief of Police to address Mr. Judd's concerns.
Motion Reviczky, second Keegan. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
Coming forward to address the Council at this time were:
Terry Bose — Hermosa Beach, President of the Kiwanis Club, provided written
invitations to the Council for the Sister City Association's Picnic on
Wednesday, July 19, at Valley Park; urged the Council and the
City Council Minutes 7-11-06 Page 11954
•
community to attend Taste at the Beach, with participation by local
restaurants, on Sunday, August 20, from 2-6 p.m. at the Community
Center, with tickets for sale at $50 per person and all proceeds to
benefit the Historical Society Museum expansion.
Howard Longacre -- Hermosa Beach, discussed the Pedestrian Protection
Ordinance being introduced as item 6(a) on tonight's agenda and
suggested to the Council that porta potties should be in place at the
site at the time of pre -demolition inspection and the staff report says
that merely the location of the porta potty must be determined at the
time of the pre -demolition inspection.
2. CONSENT CALENDAR:
Action: To approve the consent calendar recommendations (a) through (f)
with the exception of the following item, 2(d) Reviczky, which was removed
for discussion in item 4, but is shown in order for clarity:
Motion Reviczky, second Keegan. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
(a) RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR
MEETING OF JUNE 13, 2006.
Action: To approve the minutes of the Adjourned Regular Meeting of June
13, 2006.
(b) RECOMMENDATION TO RATIFY CHECK REGISTER NOS. 44356
THROUGH 44513, INCLUSIVE, AND TO APPROVE THE CANCELLATION
OF CHECK NOS. 43681 AND 44501, 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 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.
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:
City Council Minutes
7-11-06 Page 11955
• •
- $10,000 from Upstage Right Productions to be used for the Centennial
Concert Series to be held in 2007-2008; and,
- $ 3,744 from AYSO Region 18 to be used for Community Resources
program materials in 2006-2007.
Motion Reviczky, second Mayor Tucker. The motion carried by a unanimous
vote.
(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)
Action: To approve the staff recommendation to:
(1) Approve a proposal for third party administration of the City's workers
compensation claims submitted by Southern California Risk
Management Associates; and,
(2) 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.
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.
Action: To receive and file the Status Report on the implementation of
Nonconforming Ordinance.
At 7:59 p.m., the order of the agenda was suspended to go to public hearing items 5
(a) and (b).
3. CONSENT ORDINANCES - None
4. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE
DISCUSSION
Item 2(d) was heard at this time but is shown in order for clarity.
Public comments on items removed from the Consent Calendar are shown
under the appropriate item.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
City Council Minutes 7-11-06 Page 11956
1
• •
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.
Community Director Blumenfeld presented the staff report and responded to
Council questions.
The public hearing opened at 8:00 p.m.. As no one came forward to address the
Council on this item, the public hearing closed at 8:00 p.m.
Action: To adopt Resolution No. 06-6481, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL 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."
Motion Edgerton, second Keegan. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
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
PAVILION AT 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. Memorandum from
Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated July 3, 2006.
Supplemental emails received from Alan Strusser & Kammi Howlett and from
Fred Huebscher on July 10, 2006.
Community Director Blumenfeld presented the staff report and responded to
Council questions. City Attorney Jenkins also responded to Council
questions.
The public hearing opened at 8:29 p.m. Coming forward to address the Council on
this item were:
Gene Shook — Hermosa Pavilion, said he had appealed the Planning
Commission's decision because he did not feel it was fair he was
obligated to provide two hours of free parking to customers of all the
businesses at the Pavilion since the parking problem was caused by
the, customers of 24 -Hour Fitness; explained that employees of 24 -
Hour Fitness were required to provide their license plate numbers and
were restricted to parking on the first level; said a number of parking
passes had been sold; explained the tandem parking spaces on the
second and third levels, the use of which required car owners to leave
their keys with an attendant;
Sean O'Connor = Hermosa Beach, attorney for the appellant, said he
believed the Planning Commission was unlawful in addition to be being
unfair; said there was no evidence to indicate free parking would solve
City Council Minutes 7-11-06 Page 11957
• •
the problem of customers parking on the residential streets; said the
City had no authority to deprive Mr. Shook of profit from his parking
structure, said Mr. Shook had suggested other plans which provided a
better solution; said if the Planning Commission decision was upheld,
they would have to move on to other options;
Lee Grant — Hermosa Beach, said he lived two blocks from the facility, up a
hill; had asked people why they would prefer to walk up a hill and cross
Pacific Coast Highway rather than park in the structure and had been
told they did not wish to pay the $1 parking fee; said that one solution
Mr. Shook suggested was a parking district, which would incur cost for
the City and inconvenience for the residents;
Don Haggerty — Hermosa Beach, said that it appears to him that customers of
24 -Hour Fitness were not told there would be a parking fee in the
parking structure and want to park for free in other locations; said he
thought it was important for the City to review the parking conditions in
the lease between Mr. Shook and 24 -Hour Fitness;
Alan Thomen — Hermosa Beach, said he had a list of vehicles which
continuously park near his home; has spoken to some of the owners of
these vehicles and they said they are gym customers who want to park
for free; said people make u -turns at breakneck speed to grab a
parking space; said one driver backed into a stop sign, bending it
down, and simply drove away; felt that if free parking were provided,
the gym customers would park in the structure;
Rosalyn Thomen — Hermosa Beach, said that safety and noise were
problems in addition to the parking, with drivers parking and walking on
the streets at 1:00 or 2:00 a.m.; said that providing free parking might
not alleviate the problems completely but it would be a good beginning;
Carl Linden — Hermosa Beach, said that noise from the patrons of 24 -Hour
Fitness is affecting the quality of life in his neighborhood; feels that
gym patrons are trying to reduce their costs, since paying to park more
than two to three times a week could equal their membership fee; said
that offering free parking is a big first step toward solving the noise and
parking problems in his neighborhood;
Stan Levine — Hermosa Beach, asked the occupancy of the Pavilion project at
the current time (Community Director Blumenfeld replied that it was
60% occupied); said that the problem is going to get worse as the
building is completely occupied; said that 24 -Hour Fitness provides 24
hours of noise and was a public nuisance; urged the Council to require
free parking for three months and see the effect;
Howard Longacre — Hermosa Beach, said that gym patrons could be paying
up to $100 per month now just for parking in the structure; suggested
three hours of free parking should be provided with a six-month trial
period;
David Adler — Hermosa Beach, said the Pavilion should be an asset but it is a
frustration for the neighboring residents; agreed that three hours free
parking was preferable to two; said he had asked people parking near
his home why they did not park in the structure and they said they did
City Council Minutes 7-11-06 Page 11958
• •
not want to pay the fee; urged the Council to think of the families and
make the neighborhood safe;
Patty Egerer — Hermosa Beach, provided a letter to the Council making
reference to Municipal Code section 17.44.050(A) which referred to off-
street parking; said that the current Precise Development Plan does
not provide free parking in the structure but this should be required;
Greg Sampson — Hermosa Beach, said that a bigger problem than parking
was the increase of traffic and speed; urged the Council to require free
parking in the structure;
Eric Riley — Hermosa Beach, said a gym patron made a u -turn and destroyed
his rose bush and when his wife confronted him, he said he did not
want to pay the dollar to park; said the free parking should be for three
hours, not two;
Fred Huebscher — Hermosa Beach, agreed there should be three hours of
free parking; said that Mr. Shook has never contacted his residential
neighbors;
Nathan Core- Hermosa Beach, said the problem could be solved by requiring
parking permits on the streets near the Pavilion; and,
Gene Shook — Hermosa Pavilion, in rebuttal, said that his current occupancy
is 80%, that the top floor is fully occupied and the bottom floor would
be occupied if the restaurant project is approved by the Planning
Commission at its July 18 meeting; said that they have had 400 cars in
the structure at one time and in excess of 2,000 in a single day; said
many people take advantage of valet parking and are happy with the
arrangement; said there are other similar projects which charge for
parking, including the Metlox project in Manhattan Beach Union Cattle
Company in Hermosa Beach, and Gold's Gym in Redondo Beach.
The public hearing closed at 9:45 p.m.
Action: To approve the staff recommendation to:
(1) Adopt Resolution No. 06-6482, entitled "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."
(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.
Motion Edgerton, second Keegan. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
City Council Minutes 7-11-06 Page 11959
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. Revised draft
Ordinance received from Community Director Blumenfeld on July 11, 2006.
Community Director Blumenfeld presented the staff report and responded to
Council questions.
Action: To approve the staff recommendation to waive full reading and
introduce Ordinance No. 06-1269, entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE BUILDING CODE
(CHAPTER 15.04) TO REQUIRE THE INSTALLATION OF FENCING AND
PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION ON CONSTRUCITON AND DEMOLITION
SITES AND AMENDING THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE."
Motion Reviczky, second Bobko. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
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.
Action: Appoint Janice Brittain to fill the unexpired term ending October 31,
2008.
Motion Keegan, second Edgerton . The motion carried.
At 8:58 p.m., the order of the agenda went to Item 4, consent calendar items
removed for separate discussion.
9. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL
1. Request from Pete Tucker regarding agendizinq discussion of hookah
lounges opening in nearby. cities
City Attorney Jenkins responded to Council questions.
Council consensus was that City Attorney Jenkins research the topic and
report back at a future meeting.
ANNOUNCEMENT IN OPEN SESSION OF ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED IN
CLOSED SESSION AS FOLLOWS:
City Council Minutes
7-11-06 Page 11960
{
• •
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:
Case Number:
Macpherson v. City of Hermosa Beach
BC 172546
3. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Government Code Section 54957.6
City Negotiator: Stephen Burrell
Employee Organizations: Hermosa Beach Firefighters' Association
Hermosa Beach Management Association
ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION — The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the
City of Hermosa Beach adjourned on Tuesday, July 11, 2006, at the hour of 10:02
p.m. to a closed session
RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION — The Closed Session convened on Tuesday,
July 11, 2006, at the hour of 10:10 p.m. At the hour of 10:38 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 11, 2006, at the hour of 10:39 p.m. to the
Regular Meeting of July 25, 2006, at 7:10 p.m.
City Clerk Deputy City Clerk
City Council Minutes
7-11-06 Page 11961
vchlist Check Register Page: 1
07/20/2006 7:07:51AM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
44681 7/20/2006 00243 HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCO 07152006 Pavro11/7-1 to 7-15-06
001-1103 531,642.93
105-1103 4,203.81
109-1103 1,649.15
117-1103 1,421.
145-1103 63.36.
146-1103 2,667.19
152-1103 44.63
156-1103 2,961.75
160-1103 7,260.70
301-1103 2,455.99
705-1103 3,786.43
715-1103 4,890.46
Total : 563,047.77
1 Vouchers for bank code : boa Bank total : 563,047.77
1 Vouchers in this report p Total vouchers : 563,047.77
•
vchlist Check Register Page: 1
07/20/2006 4:31:34PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
Description/Account
Amount
44682 7/20/2006 08955 AAE INC.
44683 7/20/2006 06290 AIR SOURCE INDUSTRIES
44684 7/20/2006 11837 AJILON OFFICE
44685 7/20/2006 13855
44686 7/20/2006 06827
44687 7/20/2006 09620
ALEXANDER, AMY
ALL CITY MANAGEMENT
ALLEY, HEATHER H
14876 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES/JUN 06
001-3104-4201
446235
446994
T000350510
2006-1758
7737
19294
19294-A
44688 7/20/2006 12745 AMERICAN BINDING PRODUCTS 22989
44689 7/20/2006 13331 ASSIST ATHLETICS
19286
Oxygen .Refill/. Jun 06
001-2201-4309
Hazardous Materials/ Jun 06
001-2201-4309
Temp Services/ Week End 7/9/06
001-4601-4201
CPR Training/ Jun 06
001-2101-4317
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
CROSSING GUARD SERVICE/6-11 TO 6-24-06
001-2102-4201
Instructor Pymt/ #11213/ Jun 06
001-4601-4221
Instructor Pymt/11191-92,11206,11213
001-4601-4221
LAMINATION POUCHES
001-4201-4305
Instructor Pymt/ # 11400
001-4601-4221
44690 7/20/2006 00407 AVIATION LOCK & KEY 10791 Keys Made -Pier Restrooms/ Jun 06
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
1,591:40
1,591.40
72.40
261.*
334.15
106.80
106.80
121.50
121.50
3,091.11
3,091.11
100.00
825.
925.
125.72
125.72
483.00
483.00
Page:
vchlist Check Register Page: 2
07/20/2006 4:31:34PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
44690 7/20/2006 00407 AVIATION LOCK & KEY (Continued)
001-4204-4309 19.49
10800 Keys Made/ Jun 06
001-2101-4309 14.94
10806 Keys Made/ Jun 06
715-2101-4311 6_ID
10832 Keys Made/ Jun 06
001-4204-4309 5.85
Total : 46.78
44691 7/20/2006 11632 BALLING, ROSS 19285 Instructor Pymt/VolleyKids VB Camp
001-4601-4221 264.60
Total : 264.60
44692 7/20/2006 04277 BELL, OLIN 19284 Instructor Pymt/ After Blast Camp
001-4601-4221 588.00
Total : 588.00
44693 7/20/2006 13247 BENTHIN, GERHARD 19283 Instructor Pymt/ Brazil Soccer USA Camp
001-4601-4221 2,051.00
Total : 2,051.00
44694 7/20/2006 13901 BERRY, JENNIFER 126993 Class Refund
001-2111 50
Total : 50.
44695 7/20/2006 13839 BIRD MARELLA 26574 Legal, RE: MacPherson Oil/ May 06.
001-1131-4201 6,717.31
Total : 6,717.31
44696 7/20/2006 13904 BOOMERS! IRVINE 19303 TEEN EXTREME EXCURSION/ JUL 06
001-4601-4201 217.00
Total : 217.00
44697 7/20/2006 11913 CAPIO 19184 Annual Membership Dues/ S. Diaz
001-2201.4315 175.00
Total : 175.00
Page: 2
k3
vchlist Check Register Page: 3
07/20/2006 4:31:34PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
Description/Account Amount
44698 7/20/2006 13902 CARDENAS, ELFE 19249 AMB Transport Refund
001-3840 37.40
Total : 37.40
44699 7/20/2006 09632 CDWG
BCP0222
BCW 1764
TONER AND INKS / JUN 06
715-1206-4305 539.09
Computer Equipment -DVD Drives
715-4202-5402 302.
Total : 841.M.
44700 7/20/2006 07589 CENTENO'S NURSERY & LANDSCA 42903 REPLACEMENT TREES FOR MEDIANS
105-2601-4309 649.50
Total : 649.50
262.50
262.50
305.97
305.97
590.24
494.
1,696.
44703 7/20/2006 05970 COLLINS, DENNIS 19289 Instructor Pymt/#10953-54/Jun 06
001-4601-4221 1,975.35
19289-A instructor Pymt/#10953, 10954
001-4601-4221 1,185.15
Total : 3,160.50
178.24
44701 7/20/2006 13310 CHAPIN, DEREK JAMES 19291 Instructor Pymt/ #11219, 11220
001-4601-4221
Total :
44702 7/20/2006 05595 COACH USA 150996 CATALINA ISLAND TRIP TRANSPORT/DEPART
145-3409-4201
150997 Catalina Island Trip Transport/ Return
145-3409-4201
152051 Summer Blast Transport/ LaBrea Tar Pits
145-3409-4201
152069 Teen Extreme Transport/ Putting Edge
145-3409-4201
Total :
44704 7/20/2006 07809 CORPORATE EXPRESS 71376567 Office Supplies/ Jun 06
001-1208-4305
Page: 3
vchlist Check Register Page: 4
07/20/2006 4:31:34PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
44704 7/20/2006 07809 CORPORATE EXPRESS (Continued)
Description/Account Amount
71468337 Office Supplies! Jun 06
001-4601-4305 70.03
71503569 Printers
001-2101-5401 237.98
Total : 486.0
44705 7/20/2006 00879 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AR324420 SEWER PUMP STATION MAINT/MAY 06
160-3102-4251 1,324.69
AR324445 ARTESIA BLVD. MEDIAN MAINT/MAY 06
302-3104-4251 805.21
Total : 2,129.90
44706 7/20/2006 00850 CURTIS, L.N. 1106499-00 KERNMANTLE ROPE
001-2201-5401 206.91
1106585-00 PROSSER PUMP REPLACEMENT
001-2201-5402 1,424.87
Total : 1,631.78
44707 7/20/2006 01390 DAPPER TIRE CO. 407948 TIRES
715-2101-4311 948.16
Total : 948.16
44708 7/20/2006 12991 DELL MARKETING L.P. N74309863 TONER CARTRIDGES/ JUN 06
001-2101-4305 451..
Total : 451.88
44709 7/20/2006 00049 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION 19271 Strong Motion Mapping Fee/ Apr -Jun 06
001-3204 1, 524.46
Total : 1,524.46
44710 7/20/2006 00147 DEVELOPMENT, THE 161042 Film Developing/ Jun 06
001-2101-4305 48.28
Total : 48.28
44711 7/20/2006 13766 DISPENSING TECHNOLOGY CORP. MN33889 Traffic Paint/ Jun 06
001-3104-4309 573.73
Page: 4
vchlist Check Register Page: 5
07/20/2006 4:31:34PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank.code : boa
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
Description/Account Amount
44711 7/20/2006 13766 DISPENSING TECHNOLOGY COPR. (Continued) Total : 573.73
44712 7/20/2006 00122 DUNCAN PARKING TECHNOLOGIE; 27382
Parking Meter Cash Keys
001-1204-4305
44713 7/20/2006 01962 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. 1-116-90216 Express Mail/ Jun 06
001-1202-4305
301-8117-4201
Total :
Total :
1,217.06
1,217.06
33.9,E
19.
53.88
44714 7/20/2006 09531 FIRSTLINE, LLC 14805 Medical Supplies/ Jun 06
001-2201-4309 162.38
Total : 162.38
44715 7/20/2006 12284 FOLEY, ALICIA 19295 Instructor Pymt/ Chevron Surf Camp
001-4601-4221 437.50
Total : 437.50
44716 7/20/2006 12907 FREITAG, SUZANNE 127550 Class Refund
001-2111 155.00
Total : 155.00
44717 7/20/2006 10466 GRAHAM CO. 21840 EMERGENCY REPAIR/PARKING STRUC ALAR
109-3304-4201 360.00
Total : 360.00
44718 7/20/2006 12311 GREMAUD, MARIE BAPTISTE 19287 Instructor Pymt/#11265,269,324/Jun06 •
001-4601-4221 190.75
19287-A Instructor Pymt/ # 11265,269,324
001-4601-4221 190.75
Total : 381.50
44719 7/20/2006 06518 HAYER CONSULTANTS, INC. 2595 Plan Check/ 6-25-06
001-4201-4201 1,953.92
2597 Plan Check/ 6-25-06
001-4201-4201 13,988.34
Page: 5
vchlist Check Register Page: 6
07/20/2006 4:31:34PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
44719 7/20/2006 06518 HAYER CONSULTANTS, INC. (Continued)
2600
Plan Check -Inspection/ Fire Dept/6-25-06
001-4201-4201 300.00
Total : 16,242.26
44720 7/20/2006 04108 HAZELRIGG RISK MGMT SERV, INC 71706 Workers Comp Claims/ 7/17/06
705-1217-4324 10,660.
Total : 10,660.08
44721 7/20/2006 08576 HEC RAMSEY ENTERPRISES 15856 GUEST PARKING PASSES/ JUN 06
001-1204-4305 412.25
Total : 412.25
44722 7/20/2006 00065 HERMOSA BEACH CAR WASH, ZIPf 70106 City Car Washes/ Jun 06
715-2101-4311 458.45
715-4601-4311 5.95
715-4201-4311 5.95
Total : 470.35
44723 7/20/2006 13895 HEW ITT, MARISSA LEIGH 19282 Instructor Pymt/ # 11161
001-4601-4221 294.00
Total : 294.00
44724 7/20/2006 00372 INDEPENDENT CITIES ASSOCIATIC 62306 Membership Dues/ FY 06/07
001-1101-4315 823.c*
Total : 823.0
44725 7/20/2006 10820 JENKINS & HOGIN,LLP 13533 Legal Fees RE: General Ser/ Jun 06
001-1131-4201 7,012.50
13534 Legal Fees RE: Land Use/ Jun 06
001-1131-4201 841.50
13535 Legal Fees RE: Code Enforcement/Jun 06
001-1132-4201 1,453.50
13536 Legal Fees RE: Stop Oil II/ Jun 06
001-1131-4201 401.99
13537 Legal Fees RE: Union Cattle Co/ Jun 06
001-1131-4201 588.45
Page: 6
7
vchlist Check Register Page: 7
07/20/2006 4:31:34PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
Description/Account Amount
44725 7/20/2006 10820 JENKINS & HOGIN,LLP (Continued)
13538
44726 7/20/2006 10334 JENSEN, GLENN
19293
19293-A
Legal Fees RE: Cable TV/ Jun 06
001-1131-4201
Istructor Pymt/#11213/ Jun 06
001-4601-4221
Istructor Pymt/ #11191-92,11206,11213
001-4601-4221
Total :
Total :
292.50
10,590.44
380.90
1,742.70
2,123.60
44727 7/20/2006 10517 JH RECOGNITION 73941 SERVICE PINS
001-1203-4201 962.98
Total : 962.98
44728 7/20/2006 01165 JOBS AVAILABLE 614052 Employment Ad/ PW Inspector
001-1203-4201 142.80
Total : 142.80
44729 7/20/2006 13903 JOHNSON, BRETT 1806010859 Citation Refund/1106013629
001-3302 70.00
Total : 70.00
44730 7/20/2006 12282 KONE INC. 17099408 Elevator Maint Contract/ FY 06/07
001-4204-4201 2,188.14
109-3304-4201 1,520.58
Total : 3,708.70
44731 7/20/2006 02175 L1EBERT, CASSIDY WHITMORE 66387 Legal RE: HE050 00037 RK
001-1203-4201 9,587.84
Total : 9,587.84
44732 7/20/2006 10045 MAIN STREET TOURS 9798B Deposit/ Getty Villa Trip - Sep 06
001-4601-4201 500.00
Total : 500.00
44733 7/20/2006 12664 MAJOR PUMPS AND CONTROLS 10441 EMERGENCY PUMP REPLACEJPRKG STRUCT'
109-3304-4201 4,167.65
Page: 7
vchlist Check Register Page: 8
07/20/2006 4:31:34PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
Description/Account Amount
44733 7/20/2006 12664 MAJOR PUMPS AND CONTROLS (Continued) Total : 4,167.65
44734 7/20/2006 13271 MALLORY CO. 3115908 STRIKETEAM EQUIPMENT
001-2201-5402 1,471.38
Total : 1,471.38
44735 7/20/2006 13882 MCINTOSH, AMELIA ROSE 19297 Instructor Pymt/ Chevron Surf Camp
001-4601-4221 150.0
9
Total : 150.00
44736 7/20/2006 10455 MUNI FINANCIAL 38397 District Admin/ 4th Qtr 05/06
137-1219-4201 402.10
138-1219-4201 488.12
136-1219-4201 300.07
139-1219-4201 337.58
135-1219-4201 350.08
38508 Demand Letters/ Loma Dr/ Jun 06
138-1219-4201 106.17
136-1219-4201 35.39
139-1219-4201 70.78
38509 Delinquency Mgmt/ Myrtle Ave / Jun 06
137-1219-4201 41.56
138-1219-4201 62.34
139-1219-4201 20.1
Total : 2,214.
44737 7/20/2006 02490 NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASS' 3483684X Annual Fire Code Updates/ FY 06/07
001-2201-4317 730.69
Total : 730.69
44738 7/20/2006 12354 O'NEIL PRINTER SUPPLIES GROUP 127344 PARKING CITATIONS
001-3302-4305 1,494.56
Total : 1,494.56
44739 7/20/2006 13114 OFFICE DEPOT 342290430-001 Office Supplies/ Jun 06
715-1206-4305 27.05
Total : 27.05
Page: 8
vchlist
07/20/2006 4:31:34PM
Check Register
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Page: 9
Bank code : boa
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
Description/Account
Amount
44740 7/20/2006 11640 PALMIERI, DENISE
44741 7/20/2006 13309 PEREZ, SHAWN
44742 7/20/2006 04800 RAY, VINCE
19296 Instructor Pymt/ Chevron Surf Camp
001-4601-4221
19292
19298
44743 7/20/2006 13301 RESOURCE COLLECTION, THE 0129767 -IN
44744 7/20/2006 09521 ROAD WORKS 19276
44745 7/20/2006 03353 S.B.C.U. VISA
073617820028830002'
073618620770023336'
398617420622800008'
407619329901485005.
443618040600440006:
501614520706617756:
705616612166993146
705616713167055059
Instructor Pymt/ # 11219, 11220
001-4601-4221
Instructor Pymt/#11191-92,11206
001-4601-4221
JANITORIAL SERVICES/ JUN 06
001-4204-4201
Traffic Control Seminar/ J Loutzenhiser
001-4202-4317
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
ICMA Membership Dues/ FY 06/07
001-1201-4315
ICMA Conference Registration/Burrell
001-1201-4317
UNIFORM HANGERS
001-2201-4314
CITYCOUNCIL MTG/PW COMM INTERVIEW
001-1101-4305
Oral Board Lunch
001-2201-4201
Order Cancelled
001-4202-4201
League of CA Cities Conf Regis/Reviczky
001-1101-4317
League of CA Cities Regis/Tucker
001-1101-4317
375.00
375.00
609.70
609.70
1,326.40
1,326.40
7,718.00
7,718.00
100.00
100.00
1,400.00
565.00
673.62
40.10
71.79
-541.94
435.00
435.00
Page: 9
/0
vchlist Check Register Page: 10
07/20/2006 4:31:34PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
Description/Account Amount
44745 7/20/2006 03353 S.B.C.U. VISA
(Continued)
705616713167055060 League of CA Cities Regis/Burrell
001-1201-4317
Total :
435.00
3,513.58
44746 7/20/2006 09951 SANTA ANA COLLEGE 19310 Tuition -Command 2D/M Garofano
001-2201-4317 140.(41,
Total : 140.00
44747 7/20/2006 09951 SANTA ANA COLLEGE 19309 Tuition -Command 2B/M Garofano
001-2201-4317 140.00
Total : 140.00
44748 7/20/2006 09951 SANTA ANA COLLEGE 19308 Tuition- Command 2C/M Garofano
001-2201-4317 140.00
Total : 140.00
44749 7/20/2006 09951 SANTA ANA COLLEGE 19307 Tuition/J Crawford
001-2201-4317 140.00
Total : 140.00
44750 7/20/2006 09951 SANTA ANA COLLEGE 19231 Tuition- Mgmt 2C/M Garofano
001-2201-4317 140.00
Total : 140.00
44751 7/20/2006 00321 SBC 248 134-9454 462 8 Circuit Billing/ Jul 06 •
001-2101-4304 11.05
Total : 11.05
44752 7/20/2006 09268 SIGNS 4 SUCCESS 17618 Reletter Sunset Concert Banner
001-4601-4308 75.00
Total : 75.00
44753 7/20/2006 00114 SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY 3775 Prisoner Supplies/ Jun 06
001-2101-4306 75.97
6174 Summer Blast -Teen Extreme Supplies
001-4601-4308 88.98
Page: 10
1/
vchlist Check Register Page: 11
07/20/2006 4:31:34PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
Description/Account Amount
44753 7/20/2006 00114 SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY (Continued) Total : 164.95
44754 7/20/2006 13723 SMITH PAINT SUPPLY 630164 PRESSURE WASHER PARTS
001-3104-4309. 102.58
630165 SHIPPING FOR PRESSURE WASHER PARTS
001-3104-4309 8.60
Total : 111.18
44755 7/20/2006 11196 SORENSEN, W.D. 896866 BEE REMOVAL/ Jun 06
001-3302-4201 114.0
Total : 114.00
44756 7/20/2006 10960 SOUTH BAY AUTO UPHOLSTERY 0203 RECOVER SEAT OF PUB WORKS TRUCK
715-2601-4201 129.13
Total : 129.13
44757 7/20/2006 10764 SOUTH BAY CENTER FOR 63006 DISPUTE RESOLUTION/6-30-06
001-1132-4201 2,000.00
Total : 2,000.00
44758 7/20/2006 08604 SOUTH BAY FIRE CHIEFS ASSOC. 106 Annual Membership Dues/ FY 06/07
001-2201-4315 200.00
Total : 200.00
44759 7/20/2006 08226 SOUTH BAY FIRE PREVENTION 7106 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP FY 06/07
001-2201-4315 100.00
Total : 100.,
44760 7/20/2006 10532 SOUTH BAY FORD 95106 Auto Parts Purchase - May 06
715-2601-4311 21.33
95463 Auto Parts Purchase - May 06
715-2201-4311 6.31
95774 Auto Parts Purchase - May 06
715-6101-4311 7.26
96524 Auto Parts Purchase - Jun 06
715-4201-4311 65.76
Page: 11
vchlist Check Register Page: 12
07/20/2006 4:31:34PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
44760 7/20/2006 10532 SOUTH BAY FORD (Continued)
97469 Auto Parts Purchase - Jun 06
715-4601-4311 160.31
97482 Auto Parts Purchase - Jun 06
715-2101-4311 26.85
97502 Auto Parts Purchase - Jun 06
715-4601-4311 1.65.
CM97469 Auto Parts Returned - Jun 06
715-4601-4311 -133.37
Total : 319.86
44761 7/20/2006 08812 SOUTH BAY REGIONAL PUBLIC CO 200506529 PA Mic Replacement/ HB -12
715-2101-4311 58.03
200506531 MDC Battery/ HB -9
715-2101-4311 100.40
Total : 158.43
44762 7/20/2006 00146 SPARKLETTS 0706 2553313 447278. Drinking Water/ Jun 06
001-4601-4305 18.58
0706 2553411 447298. Water Cooler Rent/ Jul 06
001-2201-4305 2.00
070625533134472788. Drinking Water/ Jul 06
001-4601-4305 36.82
Total : 57.111
44763 7/20/2006 11812 STAPLES CREDIT PLAN 6934177001 MOBILE PLAN CENTER
001-4202-5401 729.55
Total : 729.55
44764 7/20/2006 01029 STEPHENS, INC., WALTER F. 0062336 -IN JAIL SUPPLIES/UNDERGARMENTS, TOILETRIE
001-2101-4306 112.78
Total : 112.78
44765 7/20/2006 09198 STONEBRIDGE PRODUCTIONS 19077 Sunset Concert Series/ Pymt # 2
001-4601-4201
Total :
10,000.00
10,000.00
Page: 12
13
vchlist Check Register Page: 13
07/20/2006 4:31:34PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
Description/Account Amount
44766 7/20/2006 11598 STREAMLINE HEALTH SERVICES 19288 Instructor Pymt/ # 10786
001-4601-4221 63.00
Total : 63.00
44767 7/20/2006 06349 THE ACTIVE NETWORK, INC. INC001598 Class Software Maint Fees/ 06/07
715-1206-4201
Total :
44768 7/20/2006 13845 TORRES CONSTRUCTION CORP 2 COMM CENTER BLDG COMPLEX/ PROG PYM1
140-8626-4201
301-8626-4201
Total :
6,611.94
6,611.94
42,648.2•
6,609.16
49,257.36
44769 7/20/2006 09364 TOYS R US E709490 Summer Blast/Teen Extreme Camp Supp
001-4601-4308 135.00
Total : 135.00
44770 7/20/2006 09078 TRUGREEN LAND CARE REGIONAL 2455123646 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE/JUN 06
001-6101-4201 16,135.64
105-2601-4201 695.25
109-3301-4201 257.50
2455123647 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE/ JUN 06
105-2601-4201 2,575.00
109-3301-4201 927.00
Total : 20,590.39
44771 7/20/2006 08207 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT 620060305 Underground Service Alert/ Jul 06
160-3102-4201 80.0
0
Total : 80.00
44772 7/20/2006 09139 VANGUARD VAULTS 0011789 Off Site Storage / Apr -Jun 06
001-1121-4201 48.00
Total : 48.00
44773 7/20/2006 13905 VENTURA, JAYNE 127576 Class Refund
001-2111 77.00
Total : 77.00
Page: 13
/4
vchlist Check Register
07/20/2006 4:31:34PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Page: 14
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
44774 7/20/2006 00015 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 310 318-0200 880930 Phone Charges/ Jul 06
001-1121-4304 10.63
001-1132-4304 5.63
001-1141-4304 2.71
001-1201-4304 8.18
001-1202-4304 34.
001-1203-4304 35.
001-1208-4304 1.38
001-2101-4304 264.40
001-2201-4304 155.87
001-4101-4304 23.68
001-4201-4304 40.01
001-4202-4304 124.33
001-4601-4304 60.73
001-1204-4304 37.12
001-3302-4304 3.77
715-1206-4304 11.79
310 372-6373 040311 Circuit Billing/ Jul 06
001-2101-4304 30.01
Total : 849.72
44775 7/20/2006 10703 WILLDAN 061-20222 Sr. Bldg Inspector/ Apr 06
001-4201-4201 3,200.00
Total : 3,200.*
44776 7/20/2006 09234 ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPANY 53208241 HAND CLEANERS AND SANITIZERS
001-2101-4306 466.02
Total : 466.02
95 Vouchers for bank code : boa Bank total : 210,946.87
95 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 210,946.87
Page: 14
vchlist Check Register Page: 1
07/27/2006 4:41:20PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
44777 7/27/2006 11837 AJILON OFFICE T000355545 Temp Services/ Week End 7-16-06
001-4601-4201 396.05
Total : 396.05
44778 7/27/2006 06827 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT 7818 Rev 1 CROSSING GUARD SERVICE/6-25 - 6/30/06
001-2102-4201 251.94
Total : 251.
110
44779 7/27/2006 06421 ALL STAR FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC. 107435 Inhalation Kits for Face Masks
001-2201-4309 141.05
Total : 141.05
44780 7/27/2006 12143 ALTEC INDUSTRIES, INC. 8897908 Parts - High Lift Truck
715-2601-4311 271.36
Total : 271.36
44781 7/27/2006 00152 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 586-4239116 Shop Towels Cleaned/ May 06
715-4206-4309 41.00
586-4239117 Mats & Shop Towels Cleaned/ May 06
001-3104-4309 68.00
586-4239118 Mats & Shop Towels Cleaned/ May 06
001-2201-4309 43.00
586-4239119 Mats Cleaned/ May 06
001-2101-4309 51.62
586-4239120 Mats Cleaned/ May 06
001-4204-4309 68.0
586-4239121 Mats Cleaned/ May 06
001-4204-4309 51.20
586-4239122 Mats Cleaned/ May 06
001-3302-4305 45.28
586-4249335 Shop Towels Cleaned/ Jun 06
715-4206-4309 41.00
586-4249336 Mats & Shop Towels Cleaned/ Jun 06
001-3104-4309 68.00
Page: 1
/b
vchlist Check Register Page: 2
07/27/2006 4:41:20PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
44781 7/27/2006 00152 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued)
586-4249337 Mats & Shop Towels Cleaned/ Jun 06
001-2201-4309 43.00
586-4249338 Mats Cleaned/ Jun 06
001-2101-4309 51.62
586-4249339 Mats Cleaned/ Jun 06
001-4204-4309 68.40
586-4249340 Mats Cleaned/ Jun 06
001-4204-4309 51.20
586-4249341 Mats Cleaned/ Jun 06
001-4204-4309 45.28
586-4259434 SHOP TOWELS CLEANED/ JUN 06
715-4206-4309 48.84
586-4259435 Mats & Shop Towels Cleaned/ Jun 06
001-3104-4309 68.00
586-4259436 Mats & Shop Towels Cleaned/ Jun 06
001-2201-4309 43.00
586-4259437 Mats Cleaned/ Jun 06
001-2101-4309 51.62
586-4259438 Mats Cleaned/ Jun 06
001-4204-4309 68.48
586-4259439 Mats Cleaned/ Jun 06
001-4204-4309 51..
586-4259440 Mats Cleaned/ Jun 06
001-3302-4309 45.28
Total : 1,113.58
44782 7/27/2006 08660 ARMSTRONG MEDICAL 1169389 Medical Supplies/ Jul 06
001-2201-4309 136.06
Total : 136.06
44783 7/27/2006 00321 AT&T 331 254-6071 301 5 Circuit Billing/ Jul 06
001-2101-4304 57.66
333 267-6155 686 9 Circuit Billing/ Jul 06
001-2101-4304 188.36
Page: 2
/7
vchlist Check Register Page: 3
07/27/2006 4:41:20PM
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice
44783 7/27/2006 00321 AT&T
(Continued)
333 267-6160 767 0
333 267-6161 416 3
333 267-6164 193 5
333 267-6165 717 0
44784 7/27/2006 13910 BALLARD, SHARON 19322
44785 7/27/2006 13911 BELICE, LYNN 19320
44786 7/27/2006 08585 BUSH, AARON 19337
44787 7/27/2006 00034 BUSINESS SYSTEMS CORPORATIC 284902
44788 7/27/2006 13764 CAL ASSO OF CODE ENFORCEMEP 19355
44789 7/27/2006 12230 CALIFORNIA OVERNIGHT
44790 7/27/2006 10547 CBM CONSULTING, INC.
5277547
324009
Description/Account
Amount
Circuit Billing/ Jul 06
001-2101-4304
Circuit Billing/ Jul 06
001-2101-4304
Circuit Billing/ Jul 06
001-2101-4304
Circuit Billing/ Jul 06
001-2101-4304
Registration Reimburse/ 6-26-06
001-2101-4313
Total :
59.44
59.44
50.68
50.60
466.26
30.00
Total : 30.00
Citation Refund/ #12060107.74
001-3302 330.00
Total : 330.00
Registration Reimbursement/ 4-13-06
001-2201-4317 350.00
Total : 350.00
TRAFFIC CITATIONS
001-2101-4305 1,699.31
Total : 1,699.
Registration/ R Rollins
001-4201-4317 65.00
Total : 65.00
Express Mail/ Jul 06
001-2101-4305 72.05
Total : 72.05
ENGINEERING SERVICES/ JUN 06
301-8120-4201 2,736.64
Page: 3
if?
vchlist Check Register Page: 4
07/27/2006 4:41:20PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
44790 7/27/2006 10547 CBM CONSULTING, INC. (Continued) Total : 2,736.64
44791 7/27/2006 09632 CDWG BDM9718 Filemaker Software
001-4601-4201 284.03
Total : 284.03
44792 7/27/2006 00634 CHEVRON AND TEXACO CARD SEF 7898192088607 Gas Card Purchase/ Jun 06.
715-2101-4310 436.1
0
Total : 436.13
44793 7/27/2006 04715 COLEN AND LEE 2806 GEN LIABILITY CLAIMS ADMIN/ JUN 06
705-1209-4201 847.83
Total : 847.83
44794 7/27/2006 09614 CONTINENTAL MAPPING SERVICE 63006 300' Noticing - 1601 PCH
001-4101-4201 225.00
Total : 225.00
44795 7/27/2006 07809 CORPORATE EXPRESS 71545844 Office Supplies/ Jun 06
001-1208-4305 158.60
71545845 Office Supplies/ Jun 06
001-1208-4305 56.15
71571777 File Cabinet
001-2101-5401 247.89
71575139 Office Supplies/ Jul 06
001-4601-4305 97.10
Total : 559.83
44796 7/27/2006 07700 CPRS 112419 Membership Dues/ A Davis
001-4601-4315 125.00
112421 Membership Dues/ A. Makarcyk
001-4601-4315 80.00
112422 Membership Dues/ D Hrboka
001-4601-4315 80.00
Total : 285.00
44797 7/27/2006 03674 CPS HUMAN RESOURCE SERVICE: SOP18637 Firefighter Exam
Page: 4
/9
vchlist Check Register Page: 5
07/27/2006 4:41:20PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
Description/Account Amount
44797 7/27/2006 03674 CPS HUMAN RESOURCE SERVICE: (Continued)
001-1203-4201 616.00
Total : 616.00
44798 7/27/2006 00850 CURTIS, L.N. 1106781-00 TURNOUT PANT FOR K BRIDGES
001-2201-4350 633.26
1107064-00 STRIKE TEAM JACKET/BUSH,MARKS,LICKHAL
001-2201-4350 476.84
1107064-01 GOGGLES
001-2201-4350 57.96
1107064-02 STRIKE TEAM JACKET/GREBBIEN
001-2201-4350 161.82
1107276-00 Equipment Parts/ Jul 06
001-2201-5401 46.87
Total : 1,376.77
44799 7/27/2006 08855 D & D SERVICES, INC. 4146 Dead Animal Disposal/ Jun 06
001-3302-4201 295.00
Total : 295.00
44800 7/27/2006 04689 DATA TICKET, INC. 0990606 DMV Record Retrieval - Jun 06
001-1204-4201 248.92
Total : 248.92
44801 7/27/2006 11398 DEBILIO DISTRIBUTORS,INC 228691 Prisoner's Meals/ Jun 06
001-2101-4306 233.2
Total : 233. Mr
44802 7/27/2006 12991 DELL MARKETING L.P. N80500960 FLAT SCREEN COMPUTER MONITORS
715-4202-5402 1,614.62
Total : 1,614.62
44803 7/27/2006 00364 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 577539 Employee Fingerprinting/ Jun 06
001-1203-4251 531.00
Total : 531.00
44804 7/27/2006 13559 DTG OPERATIONS, INC. 19270 Citation Refund/ # 1606018443
Page: 5
vchlist Check Register
07/27/2006 4:41:20PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Page: 6
Bank code : boa
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
Description/Account Amount
44804 7/27/2006 13559 DTG OPERATIONS, INC. (Continued)
001-3302 65.00
Total : 65.00
44805 7/27/2006 07853 EMPIRE PIPE CLEANING & EQUIP 7216 Sewer Line Maint/ Jun 06
160-3102-4201 7,527
Total : 7,527.
44806 7/27/2006 12729 ENFACT SOLUTIONS, INC. 1080 ADMIN STORM WATER PROGRAM/APR 06
160-3102-4201 6,035.00
Total : 6,035.00
44807 7/27/2006 01320 GALLS/LONG BEACH UNIFORM CO 786992 Uniform Supplies/ Batons
001-2101-4314 24.84
Total : 24.84
44808 7/27/2006 05125 GHASSEMI PETTY CASH, MARIA 19370 Petty Cash Replenishment/ Jul 06
001-1101-4305 5.19
001-1201-4317 25.00
001-1203-4201 9.47
001-2101-4305 118.28
001-2101-4317 90.00
001-2101-4309 36.96
001-2201-4309 10.35
001-2201-5401 6.
001-3104-4309 91.9
001-4101-4305 4.32
001-4201-4305 92.19
001-4601-4305 143.08
001-4601-4308 254.66
001-6101-4309 27.05
Total : 915.02
44809 7/27/2006 06518 HAYER CONSULTANTS, INC. 2606 Plan Check/ 3-28 - 5-9-06
001-4201-4201 3,984.08
Total : 3,984.08
44810 7/27/2006 04108 HAZELRIGG RISK MGMT SERV, INC 72406 Workers Comp Claims/ 7-24-06
Page: 6
c2
vchlist Check Register Page: 7
07/27/2006 4:41:20PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
Description/Account Amount
44810 7/27/2006 04108 HAZELRIGG RISK MGMT SERV, INC (Continued)
705-1217-4324
Total :
16,943.96
16,943.96
44811 7/27/2006 13909 HOLMAN PROFESSIONAL 62306 Employee Services/ Jun 06
001-1203-4201 750.00
Total : 750.00
44812 7/27/2006 09657 INFOLINK SCREENING SERVICES 218468 Pre-employment Screening/ Jun 06
001-1203-4201 32.8
Total : 32.80
44813 7/27/2006 13629 INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL 0175797 -IN 2003 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE
001-4201-4317 93.60
Total : 93.60
44814 7/27/2006 13840 JOHN M CRUIKSHANK 5976 DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES/ JUN 0
301-8104-4201 3,190.00
Total : 3,190.00
44815 7/27/2006 13912 KRESICH, JOHN 19323 Work Guarantee Refund/ # 5769
001-2110 1,600.00
Total : 1,600.00
44816 7/27/2006 09696 L.A. AREA FIRE CHIEFS ASSOC 31306 Annual Dues/ R Tingley
001-2201-4315 200.00
Total : 200.10
44817 7/27/2006 10677 LAWRENCE ASSOCIATES 70106 Staff Support Services/ Jun 06
140-8626-4201 1,198.50
117-5301-4201 1,768.00
Total : 2,966.50
44818 7/27/2006 11452 LEHNER/MARTIN,INC 963975
44819 7/27/2006 02175 LIEBERT, CASSIDY WHITMORE 67967
Helium Tank Refill/ Jun 06
001-4601-4308 19.20
Total : 19.20
Legal RE: HE050 00029 RK/ Jun 06
Page: 7
vchlist Check Register Page: 8
07/27/2006 4:41:20PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
44819 7/27/2006 02175 LIEBERT, CASSIDY WHITMORE (Continued)
001-1203-4201 651.00
67968 Legal RE: HE050 00032 RK/ Jun 06
001-1203-4201 10,986.72
67969 Legal RE: HE050 00034 RK/ Jun 06
001-1203-4201 3,619.
67970 Legal RE: HE005 00036 RW Jun 06
001-1203-4201 493.20
67971 Legal RE: HE050 00037 RK/ Jun 06
001-1203-4201 2,261.67
67972 Legal RE: HE050 00038 RK/ Jun 06
001-1203-4201 17.00
67973 Legal RE: HE050 00039 RGU/ Jun 06
001-1203-4201 239.85
Total : 18,268.82
44820 7/27/2006 02175 LIEBERT, CASSIDY WHITMORE 66072 So Bay Emp Relations Consortium/06/07
001-1203-4317 2,485.00
Total : 2,485.00
44821 7/27/2006 08445 LITTLE CO OF MARY HOSPITAL Q016818127 Medical Services - Q016818127
001-2101-4201 480.00
Q017045881 Blood Alcohol Draw/ Q017045881
001-2101-4201 41.40
Q017128671 Blood Alcohol Draw/ Q017128671
001-2101-4201 41.00
Total : 562.00
44822 7/27/2006 10914 LOS ANGELES ZOO 3773 Summer Blast Zoo Trip
001-4601-4201 282.00
Total : 282.00
44823 7/27/2006 13066 LOS ANGELES, CITY OF 48H-50-3734-07-004 LARA Membership Dues/ 06/07
117-5301-4315 3,841.05
Total : 3,841.05
44824 7/27/2006 13658 MBF CONSULTING, INC. 200-182 DESIGN & ENGRG SERVICES/ 4-24 TO 6-25-06
Page: 8
vchlist Check Register
07/27/2006 4:41:20PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Page: 9
Bank code : boa
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
44824 7/27/2006 13658
44825 7/27/2006 07827
44826 7/27/2006 07762
MBF CONSULTING, INC.
MUTUAL PROPANE
NEOPOST
44827 7/27/2006 13114 OFFICE DEPOT
44828 7/27/2006 10139 PARKING CONCEPTS INC.
44829
7/27/2006 13869 PCI
(Continued)
Description/Account
Amount
160-8413-4201
200-183 ENGINEERING SERVICES/ 4-24 TO 6-25-06
160-8418-4201
086821
816784
42434733
42434833
42434834
Service Agreement/ Propane Tank
715-4206-4310
Propane Parts/ Jul 06
715-3302-4311
Maintenance Agreement/ Mailing Machine
715-1208-4201
Annual Postage Meter Rental
715-1208-4201
Maintenance Agreement/ Postage Scale
715-1208-4201
343403356-001 Office Supplies/ Jul 06
001-1203-4305
2840606
2850606
PARKING STRUCTURE/JUN 06
109-3304-4231
OPERATING EXPENSES LOT A/ JUN 06
109-3305-4231
11011 PIER AVENUE STREET IMPROV/JUN 06
146-8116-4201
109-3304-4201
44830 7/27/2006 11539 PROSUM TECHNOLOGY SERVICES 18274 Computer Support/ Jun 06
715-1206-4201
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
18,663.00
1,314.00
19,977.00
1.40
329.08
330.08
495.00
909.30
134.20
1,538.50
8.84
8.84
15,030.1
9,010.85
24,040.91
20,880.68
17,400.00
38,280.68
12,300.00
Page: 9
oZ y
vchlist Check Register Page: 10
07/27/2006 4:41:20PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
Description/Account Amount
44830 7/27/2006 11539 PROSUM TECHNOLOGY SERVICES (Continued)
18275 Computer Support/ Sr. Consult/ Jun 06
715-1206-4201
Total :
375.00
12, 675.00
44831 7/27/2006 13608 PSOMAS 0021480 DesignSer/Pier Plaza Clock/4-28to5-25-06
109-3301-4201 4,408.
0021539 Interim Assoc Engineer/ 4-28 to 5-25-06
302-8121-4201 6,117.50
0022226 Interim Assoc Engineer/ 5-26 to 6-22-06
301-8117-4201 6,136.00
302-8121-4201 5,100.00
301-8535-4201 840.00
Total : 22,602.48
44832 7/27/2006 03353 S.B.C.U. VISA 443617140600440004. TPA Interview Panel Lunch
705-1217-4201 20.05
Total : 20.05
44833 7/27/2006 00839 SAXE-CLIFFORD PH D, SUSAN 6-0705-4 Pre-employment Evaluation
001-1203-4320 375.00
Total : 375.00
44834 7/27/2006 09784 SHIFT CALENDARS, INC. 71106 SHIFT CALENDARS/YEAR 2007
001-2201-4305 328.
Total : 328.7
44835 7/27/2006 00114 SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY 7586 Cleaning & Misc Supplies/ Jun 06
001-4204-4309 45.75
001-2201-4305 21.86
Total : 67.61
44836 7/27/2006 00159 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON C 2-00-989-6911 Electrical Billing - Jun 06
105-2601-4303 66.15
2-00-989-6911-A Electrical Billing - Jul 06
105-2601-4303 28.76
Page: 10
vchlist Check Register Page: 11
07/27/2006 4:41:20PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
44836 7/27/2006 00159 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON C (Continued)
2-00-989-7315 Electrical Billing - Jun 06
105-2601-4303 9,730.56
2-00-989-7315-A Electrical Billing - Jui 06
105-2601-4303 101.46
2-01-836-7458 Electrical Billing - Jun 06
105-2601-4303 21.19
2-01-836-7458-A Electrical Billing - Jul 06
11
105-2601-4303 9.
4
2-02-274-0542 Electrical Billing - Jun 06
001-6101-4303 9.74
2-02-274-0542-A Electrical Billing - Jul 06
001-6101-4303 4.24
2-08-629-3669 Electrical Billing - Jun 06
001-4204-4303 10.40
2-08-629-3669-A Electrical Billing - Jul 06
001-4204-4303 2.50
2-09-076-5850 Electrical Billing - Jun 06
105-2601-4303 26.52
2-09-076-5850-A Electrical Billing - Jul 06
105-2601-4303 11.53
2-10-947-9824 Electrical Billing - Jun 06
105-2601-4303 68.29
2-10-947-9824-A Electrical Billing - Jul 06
105-2601-4303 29.1
2-19-024-1604 Electrical Billing - Jun 06
160-3102-4303 384.89
2-19-024-1604-A Electrical Billing - Jul 06
160-3102-4303 167.35
2-20-128-4825 Electrical Billing - Jun 06
109-3304-4303 1,860.71
2-20-128-4825-A Electrical Billing - Jul 06
109-3304-4303 809.00
2-20-128-5475 Electrical Billing - Jun 06
001-4204-4303 35.48
Page: 11
vchlist Check Register Page: 12
07/27/2006 4:41:20PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
44836 7/27/2006 00159 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON C (Continued)
2-20-128-5475-A Electrical Billing - Jul 06
001-4204-4303 8.52
2-20-984-6179 Electrical Billing - Jun 06
105-2601-4303 17.42
2-20-984-6179-A Electrical Billing - Jul 06
105-2601-4303 7.
11/
2-20-984-6369 Electrical Billing - Jun 06
105-2601-4303 137.50
2-20-984-6369-A Electrical Billing - Jul 06
105-2601-4303 33.00
2-21-400-7684 Electrical Billing - Jun 06
105-2601-4303 22.41
2-21-400-7684-A Electrical Billing - Jul 06
105-2601-4303 6.53
2-21-964-8003 Electrical Billing - Jun 06
105-2601-4303 19.08
2-21-964-8003-A Electrical Billing - Jul 06
105-2601-4303 5.34
2-22-267-0663 Electrical Billing - Jun 06
109-3304-4303 44.98
2-22-267-0663-A Electrical Billing - Jul 06
109-3304-4303 19.1
2-23-687-8021 Electrical Billing - Jun 06
001-3104-4303 54.52
2-23-687-8021-A Electrical Billing - Jul 06
001-3104-4303 10.91
2-26-686-5930 Electrical Billing - Jun 06
105-2601-4303 1,770.97
2-26-686-5930-A Electrical Billing - Jul 06
105-2601-4303 749.76
Total : 16,285.76
44837 7/27/2006 13803 TIGER DIRECT, INC 90005436336 Merchandise Returned
001-6101-4309 -279.99
Page: 12
vchlist Check Register Page: 13
07/27/2006 4:41:20PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Bank code : boa
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
Description/Account Amount
44837 7/27/2006 13803 TIGER DIRECT, INC (Continued)
P736604701022
COMPUTER EQUIP FOR IRRIGATION SYS
001-6101-4309
44838 7/27/2006 00015 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 310 167-1756 990511 Circuit Billing / Jul 06
001-2101-4304
310 372-6186 890831 Phone Charges/ Jul 06
001-1101-4304
001-1121-4304
001-1202-4304
310 PLO -0346 030623 Circuit Billing / Jul 06
001-2101-4304
44839 7/27/2006 00371 WEST BASIN WATER ASSOCIATIOF 70106 MEMBERSHIP DUES/ 06/07
001-1101-4315
44840 7/27/2006 11219 WESTCHESTER MEDICAL GROUP 71406 Pre-employment Exam/ Jun 06
001-1203-4320
44841 7/27/2006 02873 WESTERN GRAPHIX 25306 Employee ID Badges/ Jun 06
001-2101-4201
44842 7/27/2006 00315 YAMADA COMPANY INC. 46284 Auto Parts/ Jun 06
715-6101-4311
66 Vouchers for bank code : boa
66 Vouchers in this report
744.45
Total : 464.46
269.88
8.40
12.14
13.32
41.94
Total : 346.00
200.00
Total : 200.00
475.00
Total : 475.00
77.78
Total : 77.7
27.68
Total : 27.68
Bank total : 223,520.60
Total vouchers : 223,520.60
Page:. 13
vchlist Check Register
07127/2006 4:41:20PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Page: 14
Bank code : boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
"I hereby certify that the demands or claims covered by the
checks listed on pages // to '1'7 inclusive,
of the check register for /AD accurate
funds are available for payment, and are in conformance to
the budget."
By
Date
Finance Director
Page: 14
•
August 3, 2006
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Hermosa Beach City Council
`i o124)
df -8-o4.
Regular Meeting of
August 8,2006
1
TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
1
NO MEETING
--�=
APPOINTMENT OF MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEMPORE
Administrative Penalties Municipal Code Amendment
Community Development Director
Recommendation to receive and file Project Status Report.
Public Works Director
Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the
Public Works Commission meeting of July 19, 2006.
Public Works Director
Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Parks,
Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission
meeting of August 1, 2006.
Community Resources Director
Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting of August 15, 2006
Community Development Director
Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Public
Works Commission meeting of August 16, 2006.
Public Works Director
Activity Reports — July 2006
All Departments
PMB:E_R 2:67:200:6
Report on proposed amendment to C-1 zone
Community Development Director
Report on proposal to add residential use in M-1 zone
Community Development Director
Review Work Plan 2006-07
City Manager
Plumbing Code Update
Community Development Director
Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Parks,
Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission
meeting of September 5, 2006.
Community Resources Director
Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting of September 19, 2006.
Community Development Director
Activity Reports — August 2006
All Departments
2c
Mayor and Members
of the City Council
REPORT OF CUSTOMER SERVICE SURVEYS/COMPLAINTS
Recommendation: To receive and file the report.
August 1, 2006
Regular Meeting of
August 8, 2006
Complaint/Survey Summary
The departments in this summary has been abbreviated (CD = Community Development, CM =
City Manager, FC = Finance Cashier). One survey did not specify a particular department. This
summary report includes surveys received in the City Clerk's office from the 1st of June through
the 31st of July, 2006. No complaints or letters were received during the specified time period.
The following summarizes the 5 surveys received:
Dept(s) Date Rec'd Service Additional comments
FC 06-05-06 Excellent Always a pleasure to do business with the City
FC 06-14-06 Excellent Appreciates 4 -day work week with extended hours
City Hall 06-19-06 All good Re proposed landscaping district — "good concept,
bad timing"
FC/CM 06-21-06 Excellent
CD 07-17-06 Excellent Need for more parking
Elaine
Noted:
Stephen -1 , r ity Manager
oerfling, City Clerk
2d
July 31, 2006
Honorable Mayor and Members For the City Council Meeting
of the City Council of August 8, 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
Pierce Promotions
Anonymous
Respectfully submitted:
d&e.t.e.) C9/1z-&-tAi
Valerie Mohler
Accounting Supervisor
Amount Purpose
$8,000.00 To be used for the Centennial
Concert Series to be held in 2007-
08.
$1,962.72 Donations collected at the 7/23/06
Sunset Concert to be used for the
Centennial Concert Series to be
held in 2007-08.
Concur:
Viki Copeland
Finance Director
Ste. enwurrell
City Manager
2e
e1BLIC WORKS COMMISSICO
JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 2006
CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1315 VALLEY DRIVE
7:00 P.M.
The meeting was called to order at 7:07 p.m.
1. Roll Call
Present: Public Works Commissioners. Beste, DiVirgilio, Marinelli
Planning Commissioners Allen, Hoffman, Perotti, Pizer
Also Richard Morgan, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director
Present: Michael Flaherty, Public Works Superintendent
Ken Robertson, Senior Planner
Rhea Punneo, Administrative Assistant, Public Works Department
Absent: Public Works Commissioner Winnek
Planning Commissioner Kersenbloom
2. Flag Salute
Commissioner DiVirgilio led the flag salute.
After the flag salute, Commissioner DiVirgilio invited Mr. Morgan who reviewed the purpose of
the meeting, advising that they're looking for free interaction between the commissioners and
suggesting that could perhaps meet again in another six months.
3. Public Comment (moved from end of agenda to this position):
John Dzus, Hermosa Beach
Has lived on I &Street about 2 years, advised that with parking on both sides of the street
and two-way traffic it is difficult to get in and out of parking as well as getting up and down the
street. Would like to see no parking on a portion of Ocean Drive between Aviation and 10th St.
on the east side of street.
Dave Rodriquez, Hermosa Beach
Indicated support of recent mailing regarding lighting and landscaping supplemental
assessment district. Also, indicated support of slowing of traffic on Pier Ave. and throughout
the community. Would like to see achieving the goal of slowing traffic and adding trees to the
area.
Commissioner Pizer suggested they start the meeting by having the department heads define
the jobs of the departments adding that the Planning Commission plans and the Public Works
Commission sees it gets built.
2f
•
•
Mr. Blumenfeld's description of the Planning Commission included:
• It is a decision making body defined in the Municipal Code.
• It is the only commission to make final decisions on land use matters that are non-
legislative
• Unless appealed, the Planning Commission is the final word on land use planning.
• it makes recommendations regarding land use.
• Comments on land issues as they relate to land with respect to the General Plan
Mr. Morgan's description of the Public Works Commission included:
• It is an advisory body that makes recommendations - an example would be the criteria
established for disabled parking spaces for residents.
• Issues come to the commission with anything policy related, hears from the public,
makes recommendations to Council
• Voiced his appreciation for the existence of the PW Commission, adding that the town
hall meetings highlight the open public process in Hermosa.
• Makes job easier when go to Council,- having had a town hall meeting, utilizing the
resident input.
Mr. Hoffman further defined the difference between the commissions in that the Planning
Commission deals primarily with private land use issues while the Public Works Commission
deals with projects in the public right-of-way, an important distinction. The Planning
Commission feels the urban design element has to be addressed; noted painting the light
standards has more to do with what the City looks like than all the condos. Feels a good idea
to have the two commissions on the same page — each commission should be aware of what
the other is doing.
Further discussion highlighted the following:
• There's a need for good communication between the two commissions/departments to
avoid appearing to give residents "the run-around.".
• Don't want to get to a point where there is a duplication as effort
• Shouldn't feel bad sending people to the proper place
• At an important juncture, need urban design element for the General Plan
• These are the two commissions that should handle this project or, the department
heads may discuss and then take to Council
Commissioner DiVirgilio reopened the floor to public comments.
Tammy Lubiani, Hermosa Beach
Concerned about Pier Avenue — worried about safety vehicles getting out and around the
traffic.
4. Discussion Items
a. Aviation Boulevard
Mr. Blumenfeld advised that the Planning Commission adopts an annual work plan and
that this year the Commission directed staff to prepare an Aviation Corridor Specific Plan.
He defined the elements of a Specific Plan, noting that there are many ways a plan can be
oriented.
PW Commission
2 6/21/06
A
• •
They set out to study the area, noting the area needed a lot of help; closely looked at land
use conditions. There are three components to the study: investigation, documentation
and implementation. They'll be working closely with Public Works to put the information on
the City's GIS system to develop very detailed land use mapping where they'll soon move
to identify problems which surface through this mapping process.
They'll then seek community input for developing policies and programs. They want to
know how the community feels about the area. After amassing comments, will move to
documentation phase which will become an implementation tool of the General Plan after
hearings and approval/adoption by the City Council. Typically takes a year to a year and a
half to complete the plan, they are ten months into it at this time.
Mr. Perotti suggested that a member of the PW Commission would like to attend and Mr.
Morgan noted that perhaps the PW Commission would form a sub -committee to attend
and report back to the commission as was done for the parkway tree project.
Mr. Blumenfeld noted that some of the offsite improvements that Public Works wants to do
can be made conditions of approval by Community Development when part of the Specific
Plan. Mr. Morgan concurred, adding that should ask that builders take responsibility for
parkway trees and gave a brief history of the lighting/landscaping district how necessary it
is.
Mr. Perotti said the he was glad to hear that the tree project for Aviation Boulevard is finally
funded since it has taken quite a bit of time.
In response to Mr. Beste's inquiry about adding requirements for more setbacks or adding
vacations for specific properties along Aviation Boulevard, Mr. Blumenfeld said the plan is
a work in process and they expect to have standard development issues spelled out in the
Zone Code. Feels the additions talking about — street trees, grates - would help the area.
There are some solid uses in the area, real pedestrian generators. Question is how do
they develop more of these generators? How do they improve the physical use, land use,
encourage building, improvement incentives, etc.? How do residents in the area feel?
Further discussion highlighted:
• Need to look at land use issues
• There is no business improvement district for the area at this time
• Need to have the businesses in league to create an underground utility district
• Plan for trees and grates is 90% complete — 60 trees from PCH to Harper.
• Don't have the business base at this time to support changes
• Plan needs further development before it is taken to Council.
• Originated as work plan from the commission, not Council direction.
• Level of effort for General Plan update is huge — comprised of several elements
Commissioner DiVirgilio opened the floor for public comments. Coming forward to address
the Commissions were:
Carolyn Petty, Hermosa Beach
Said she has seen a change in the quality of life driven by traffic; is concemed about the
infrastructure — it hasn't changed but traffic has become horrendous; without a plan for
infrastructure improvement, wouldn't like to see beautification of Aviation Boulevard.
Wouldn't want to see anything that would create more traffic.
PW Commission 3 6/21/06
•
Dave Rodriquez, Hermosa Beach
Have to decide if Hermosa Beach is going to be a city of a village. He tries to avoid driving
on weekends. Doesn't seem to be a cohesive plan when comparing Hermosa vs.
Manhattan. Have to pick vision and plan and holistically look at it. Would rather have a
community sense here rather than an urban sense.
b. Upper Pier Avenue
Mr. Morgan began the discussion, giving a brief history and noting that now have funding
for improvements. Pier Avenue pavement is in need of refurbishing as well as solving
flooding problems.
Goal is to begin construction is in FY 06-07. Found old implementation plan that was part
of plan used for Pier Plaza which included widening sidewalks and reducing to two travel
lanes. Conferred with traffic engineering consultant and determined the street could
handle it; then determined to do a test, which was implemented on June 7. He
acknowledged there have been issues of concern.
The goal is to create a more pedestrian friendly, small town feeling and slowing traffic is
part of that. Taking steps to observe the traffic plus taking item to Council to make
modifications which would relieve congestion in front of Fire Department as well as
changing width of center lane. Will have another meeting to review situations. This is a
major gateway street; would like to see businesses flourish, more pedestrian safety before
spending a few million dollars so feel painting first is providing valuable information.
Discussion highlighted:
• Some would like to see STOP at Bard stay even after work is completed
• Funding sufficient for basics — sidewalks, drainage — but may be short on amenities
• Perhaps business improvement district could be developed as was done on the
Plaza
• Bicycle riders like median
• Upper Pier Ave. is not the same as Aviation Blvd. — they are completely different;
vision of Upper Pier hasn't been seen yet, only the traffic plan
• Major questions: What is goal of Pier Ave.? The look" being discussed is an
urban design issue should be able to go to urban design element to determine.
• Public involvement encouraged
• There are no proposed improvements for traffic signals at Artesia and PCH or Pier
and PCH
• Don't want to push traffic into residential areas
• The level of service on a street like Artesia is a regional issue — City has no control
at all
Floor opened for public comment at this time:
Tammy Lubiani, Hermosa Beach
Widening parking?! She said she can't make a right turn as it is... is now driving in
residential areas because of the traffic on Pier.
PW Commission 4
6/21/06
• •
Carolyn Petty, Hermosa Beach
Said the F grade indicates problems with the infrastructure. The new buildings indicate
there'll be more traffic in the future. Said she sees more people and wonders if the City
can support all these people. The infrastructure will only get worse; it comes down to who
drives the decisions — businesses? Poll the residents — do they want bigger sidewalks or
the traffic to flow?
Mr. Morgan noted that comments are encouraged — that's the purpose of the test. There'll
be a large public process before any final decisions. Stay involved. Mr. DiVirgilio added
that this is all part of the process determined in the 90's.
Dave Rodriquez, Hermosa Beach
Said willing to sacrifice a few minutes to get to PCH for better quality of life.
Mr. Marinelli noted that Mr. Morgan has developed and undertaken an ambitious plan to
improve the infrastructure in the three years he's been here.
c. Street Tree Ordinance
Mr. Morgan noted that it took a long time to develop, delaying the Aviation Street Tree
Project but Staff like the improvements. Brief summary of the ordinance included:
• Assigns administration of the Ordinance to the Director of Public Works instead of
the Director of Parks and Recreation
• A permit is required to plant a street tree
• There is an official list of acceptable trees
• Stipulations set for removal of parkway tree
• Policy developed: trees in excess of 12" in diameter at 60" above ground requires
a petition and PW Commission hearing before can remove
• Puts responsibility for tree pushing up sidewalk on property owner
Discussion of the ordinance with regard to new developments highlighted the following:
• Public Works would speak to the issue of removing street trees by developer
putting in driveway during plan check.
• There is no list of streets where we want trees
• Current GIS project building infrastructure layer for trees; haven't yet addressed
line of sight issues
d. Conditions of Approval for New Projects
Mr. Blumenfeld noted that this falls into what was just discussed about communicating with
Public Works when plan first comes in. Every discretionary permit has a condition of
Public Works approval. Better communication and coordination is the best interface
between the departments.
Among cooperative actions taken by the two departments, the Hold Harmless Agreement
is one that Mr. Morgan said is not his ideal solution — doesn't like that water from the public
right-of-way is running onto private property. Agreement basically says that property
owner recognized that he did not meet City's requirements and City has no liability in the
situation. It was noted that because many people want asmuch developable area as
PW Commission 5 6/21/06
•
possible, the subterranean garages are being permitted, but owner must take
responsibility. It was also noted that houses are no longer allowed to pump water into the
street — must be done on-site. City does not issue discharge permits. Handling these
issues at the beginning of a project will make a big difference with regard to drain back-ups
into City streets and flooding neighborhoods.
At this time Mr. DiVirgilio asked for suggestions for future joint meetings. Mr. Hoffman
suggested more frequent meetings but asked for caution what would cause for staff.
Suggested that when topic is obvious, sub -committees would be the next logical step or
action. The Pier Avenue design element is an example of an obvious topic for creating a
sub -committee. Forming the sub -committee could be initiated by either commission.
Mr. Pizer suggested the commissioners review the plans from other cities that he'd
provided. Mr. DiVirgilio suggested that the commissions meet at the very least on an
annual basis.
5. Meeting Minutes
April 19, 2006 meeting minutes were approved as written.
7. Commissioners' Reports
None
8. Public Works Department Reports
a. Monthly Activity Report — March, April
Received and Reviewed
b. Project Status Report — March, April
Received and Reviewed
9. Items Requested by Commissioners
None
10. Other Matters
Mr. DiVirgilio thanked the Planning Commissioners for their participation.
11. Public Comment
None
12. Adjournment
Commissioner DiVirgilio adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m. to the meeting of Wednesday,
July 19, 2006.
PW Commission 6
6/21/06
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the
Public Works Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of June 21, 2006.
Michael DiVirgilio, Vice Chairman Richard i. Morgan, P.E., Secretary
r/0‘
Date
PW Commission
et
Sol Blumenfel , Community Development Director
F:1B951PWFILESIPW Commission\minuteslminutes 6-21-06.doc
7 6/21/06
t
• • gotareue-
g/do/O
July 31, 2006
Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular meeting of
The Hermosa Beach City Council August 8, 2006
APPROVAL OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR
PARTICIPATION IN THE LOS ANGELES REGION - IMAGERY ACQUISITION
CONSORTIUM (LAR -IAC)
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Approve the Memorandum of Understanding with the Los Angeles Region - Imagery
Acquisition Consortium (LAR -IAC) in the amount not to exceed $19,200; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement after approval as to form by the
City Attorney.
Background:
One of the City's most critical Geographic Information System (GIS) layers of information is
aerial orthophotography. It not only provides an important base upon which to build other GIS
information layers, it is also an important analysis tool and illustration resource in reports,
displays, and presentations. It can also help staff answer questions from their desktops,
thereby saving them a trip to the job site.
The City's existing aerial photography was done in 1994. A significant amount of change has
taken place in the City over the last twelve years, including PCH commercial development, the
Pier and Life Guard Facility Renovation, as well as many smaller commercial and residential
projects. The absence of these developments in the existing aerial photography increasingly
limits their usefulness as a planning and research tool. In addition, features for these new
developments, such as building footprints and infrastructure, are missing from the GIS, thereby
limiting its analytical and cartographic accuracy as well.
The Los Angeles Region — Imagery Acquisition Consortium (LAR -IAC) is a cooperative
partnership with Los Angeles County and at least twenty-eight other public agencies within the
LA County region. As a member of this consortium, the City would obtain the following
products:
• high resolution color digital aerial photography
• high resolution aerial oblique photography
• two -foot elevation contours
• LiDAR digital terrain model
• infra -red photography
2g
• •
This data has already been captured (January 2006), and all of the products are received as a
bundle.
This project would replace the existing black and white aerial photography with color
photography. Color offers many advantages for the users, especially when distinguishing and
locating small features such as fire hydrants, manhole covers, and curb lines. In addition, this
project would provide higher resolution photography (4 -inch pixels), making all features appear
sharper. This will allow recognition of features previously unobtainable from the existing 12 -
inch -pixel aerial photos.
The elevation contours and Digital Terrain Model (DTM) will enable more powerful analyses,
such as:
• Three-dimensional visualization
• Viewshed/visibility/line-of-sight analyses
• Hydrologic runoff and flood modeling
Lastly, this data will be consistent throughout the County (i.e., in the same coordinate system,
referenced to the same parcel base), thereby facilitating a better working relationship amongst
the various agencies.
This is an unprecedented opportunity to join a project that will give the city more imagery
products at a lower cost, higher quality, and larger coverage area than the city could obtain on.
its own. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council approve the Memorandum of
Understanding with the Los Angeles Region — Imagery Acquisition Consortium (LAR -IAC) in
the amount not to exceed $19,200.
Fiscal Impact:
The cost of Hermosa Beach's participation in the LAR -IAC is $19,200. Funding has been
approved in the FY 06-07 budget
Attachment: Memorandum of Understanding
Respectfully submitted,
Richard . Morg
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Noted For Fiscal Impact:
Viki Copeland
Finance Director
Concur:
F:1b951pwfiles\ccitems\MOU approval for LAR -IAC 8-08-06.doc-
2
• •
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE
LOS ANGELES REGION IMAGERY ACQUISITION CONSORTIUM (LAR -IAC) PROGRAM
BY AND BETWEEN
THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND PARTICIPATING ENTITIES
This Memorandum of Understanding ("Agreement") is made and entered into
effective as of August 8, 2006, by and among the County of Los Angeles, a
political subdivision of the State of California ("County"), and the California cities, special
districts and agencies set forth on Exhibit "A" attached to this Memorandum of
Understanding and incorporated herein by this reference (such entities are hereinafter
referred to collectively as the "Participating Entities" and each individually as a
"Participating Entity"). The County and the Participating Entities are hereinafter referred
to collectively as the "Parties" and each individually as a "Party."
WHEREAS, the County has planned to acquire new digital terrain data sets and
update its digital orthogonal and oblique aerial imagery in the winter of 2005/2006 (such
acquisition, the "Project");
WHEREAS, the County has become aware that various Participating Entities
have similar projects currently underway or plan to undertake similar projects in the near
future;
WHEREAS, in order to avoid the duplication of efforts and cost by the County
and the Participating Entities in connection with the Project, the Parties desire to pool their
resources to collectively undertake the Project upon the terms and conditions set forth herein
below.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein set forth
and the mutual benefits to be derived therefrom, the Parties agree as follows:
1. Purpose.
The purpose of this Agreement is to provide a vehicle for the collective
undertaking of the Project by the Parties. The Project shall focus on the acquisition of
certain aerial imagery digital data (the "Digital Data") which may include, but shall not be
limited to, geodetic points (including triangulation), digital terrain datasets, 2 foot elevation
contours, 4 inch pixel resolution color orthogonal imagery, color oblique imagery and
• •
near -infrared imagery. It is the intent of the Parties that Digital Data shall be acquired
under this Agreement for all areas covered by the jurisdictions of the Parties.
2. Responsibilities of the County.
The County shall be responsible for the following:
A. Identify and provide specifications for the following types of Digital Data
(or their derivatives):
i. Geodetic Control and Pre -marking
ii. Aerial Triangulation
iii. Digital Terrain Datasets (DSM, DTM and DEM)
iv. Contours with Two (2) Foot Interval
v. Color Orthogonal Imagery with Four (4) Inch Pixel Resolution
vi. Color Orthogonal Imagery with One (1) Foot Pixel Resolution
(only for national forest lands)
vii. Color Oblique imagery (community and neighborhood shots)
viii. Near -infrared imagery
ix. Elevation Contours with Five (5) Foot Interval (only for national
forest lands)
x. Quality Control Reports
B. Develop all necessary procurement documents (the "Procurement
Documents") for necessary services to be provided by one or more qualified
contractors in connection with the acquisition and administration of the Digital
Data.
C. With the cooperation of the Participating Entities, select the most
qualified contractor or contractors to provide the necessary services in
connection with the acquisition and administration of the Digital Data and
manage the entire acquisition. and administration process.
D. With the assistance of one or more selected contractors, provide quality
control ("QC") for all Digital Data delivered under this Agreement.
E. Arrange for the delivery of the Digital Data (or portions thereof) to the
Participating Entities as the Parties shall further determine.
F. Provide monthly reports to the Participating Entities on the status of the
Project.
2
1 •
3. Responsibilities of the Participating Entities.
The Participating Entities shall be responsible for the following:
A. Where feasible, participate in the selection of a contractor or contractors
to provide services in connection with the Project.
B. Where feasible, participate in the preparation of all documentation
required for the Project; including review, comment and revision of documents
prepared by the County in connection with the acquisition and administration of
the Digital Data, including, but not limited to, the Procurement Documents.
C. Where feasible, participate in identifying and providing technical
specifications for the Digital Data (or their derivatives).
D. Where feasible, provide currently available geodetic points (with
necessary standards and accuracy) for County's QC process.
4. Mutual Responsibilities.
The Parties hereto shall be mutually responsible for the following:
A. Finance the acquisition and administration of the Digital Data, including,
but not limited to, costs related to QC and distribution thereof. The total cost of
such acquisition and administration (the "Total Cost") shall be allocated among
the Parties The portion of the Total Cost allocated to a Party hereunder shall be
hereinafter referred to as such Party's "Maximum Contribution." The Maximum
Contribution of a Participating Entity hereunder shall be the amount set forth in
that certain letter of intent (the "Letter of Intent") attached hereto as Exhibit "B".
Each Participating Entity will transfer its Maximum Contribution to a special trust
account to be established by the County for this purpose (the "Trust Account")
and as further described in Paragraph 5 of this Agreement.
B. In the event that the Project is terminated for any reason before the
execution of any contract with a contractor for the provision of goods and/or
services in connection with the Project, each Participating Entity shall be
refunded its Maximum Contribution (or such portion of the Maximum
Contribution as shall have been paid to the County by such Participating Entity)
in its entirety.
3
• I
5. Payment of Maximum Contribution; Administration of Trust Account.
A. A Participating Entity shall have the following options in paying its
Maximum Contribution to County hereunder:
i. The Participating Entity may elect to pay its Maximum
Contribution to County in its entirety upon execution of this
Agreement.
ii. The Participating Entity may elect to pay its Maximum
Contribution to County as follows: (a) twenty percent (20%) by
October, 2005; (b) forty percent (40%) by April, 2006; and (c) forty
percent (40%) upon delivery of Digital Data, but in any event no
later than September, 2006.
B. The Trust Account to be established by County under this Agreement
shall be subject to the following:
i. All funds held in the Trust Account shall be used solely for the
payment of qualified contractors selected by County to provide
goods and services in connection with the Project, including, but
not limited to, the performance of re -flights for the purpose of
updating the Digital Data.
ii. Any funds held in the Trust Account not expended upon the
completion of the Project or the termination of this Agreement
shall be held, administered and distributed as shall be determined
by each Participating Entity based on their prorated share of the
total Consortium Program Cost.
6. General Terms and Conditions.
A. This Agreement shall take effect as of August 8, 2006 and
shall remain in effect through September 30, 2007.
B. The term of this Agreement may be extended by the mutual written
agreement of the Parties.
C. Any royalties or other payments received by County from any third party
as compensation for the use of or access to the Digital Data (or any portion
thereof) shall be deposited into and administered as part of the Trust Account.
4
D. It is the intention of the Parties that each Participating Entity shall receive
with the delivery of the Digital Data an unlimited perpetual license to use the
Digital Data in its own operations, with an unlimited number of seats; including,
but not limited to, intranet applications, copying and printing.
E. Each Participating Entity shall have the right to transfer the Digital Data
to any of its subcontractors or consultants on projects which are outsourced
from its own operations. In this connection, each Participating Entity shall
require each subcontractor or consultant to whom the Digital Data is transferred
to execute a written acknowledgement and agreement to abide by the terms of
such Participating Entity's license to use the Digital Data. Such
acknowledgement and agreement shall be in a form to be determined and
mutually agreed to by the Parties.
F. Each Participating Entity will have a license to publish orthogonal
imagery, contours and digital terrain datasets on its internet web sites with a
maximum resolution of one (1) foot for orthogonal imagery.
G. Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, a
Participating Entity will not have the right to sell, resell or otherwise transfer its
license to use the Digital Data to any other person or entity.
H. This Agreement may be amended or modified by County based on
theater collaboration and consultation with the Participating Entities.
I. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to give any person or
entity, other than the Parties hereto, any legal or equitable right, remedy or
claim under or in respect to this Agreement or any provision herein contained.
This Agreement and the provisions hereof are intended to be and are for the
sole and excusive benefit of the Parties hereto.
J. No Party may terminate its participation under this Agreement after an
execution of contract(s) for acquisition of Digital Data without the prior written
consent of County.
K. Any other California city, special district or agency may become a
Participating Entity under this Agreement if (i) the participation of such entity is
approved by a majority vote of the Participating Entities, (ii) such entity
executes this Agreement, and (iii) such entity makes its Maximum Contribution
to County as provided for under this Agreement. Any such contribution shall be
deposited into the Trust Account and administered in accordance with subparagraph
5.B of this Agreement.
5
• •
L. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and the signed
counterparts shall constitute a single instrument. The signatories to this
Agreement represent that they have the authority to bind their respective Party
to this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Memorandum of
Understanding for the Los Angeles Region Image Acquisition Consortium Program on the
date first indicated above.
[SIGNATURES OF PARTIES TO BE SET FORTH BELOW — Exhibit A]
6
/
• •
EXHIBIT A
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE
LOS ANGELES REGION IMAGERY ACQUISITION CONSORTIUM (LAR -IAC) PROGRAM
BY AND BETWEEN
THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND PARTICIPATING ENTITIES
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Peter Tucker, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
7
• • 61 -7 -fir;
July 31, 2006
Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of
the Hermosa Beach City Council August 8, 2006
AWARD CONTRACT FOR ADMINISTRATION OF
THE CITY MUNICIPAL STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Approve the Professional Services Agreement No. 06.012 with Kathleen
McGowan to administer the City's Municipal Storm Water Management
Program in connection with NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System) permit requirements for an amount of $38,240; and
2. Authorize the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest the contract
subject to approval by the City Attorney.
Background:
Kathleen McGowan, Environmental Consultant has been assisting the South Bay Cities
with the implementation of the NPDES Permit for several years. Ms. McGowan's
contract with the City would identify tasks such as NPDES Program Management,
Public Education Program Implementation, Industrial /Commercial Facilities Control
Program, Development Planning & Construction Programs Including Municipal
Employee Annual Training, Public Agency Activities Program, Illicit Connection & illicit
Discharge Elimination and SMBBB (Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria) TMDL ( Total
Maximum Daily Loads) program Development & Implementation.
In addition, Ms. McGowan would represent the City at Executive Advisory Committee &
General Meetings, Santa Monica Bay-Ballona Creek Watershed Management
Committee Meetings, Public Outreach Strategy Meeting held by LA County and SMBBB
TMDL Jurisdictions 5/6 Planning Meetings; which would enable the City to interact with
member cities to support its position on different issues as they arise.
Analysis:
The State of California, through the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, is
continuing to enforce the Municipal NPDES Permit and its Management Plan (Models).
All cities within Los Angeles County are required to adopt and implement programs
consisting of six model programs (Public Outreach, Illicit Discharges, Planning,
Construction, Public Agency and Industrial/Commercial) that are consistent with such
Models Including Development of SMBBB TMDL Implementation Plan.
Ms. McGowan would replace City's previous consultant, Sheila Kennedy of Enfact
Solutions Inc., whose contract with the City expired June 30, 2006. Changing
2h
• •
consultants will save the City approximately $16,000 for the same, reputable consulting
services.
Ms. McGowan's proposal assures continued assistance with the complex
implementation of the NPDES Permit Requirements.
The current Permit will expire December 2006. Discussions at the Regional Board level
have already begun for the next Permit process. This dynamic development of the
Permit and its components (i.e., Total Maximum Daily Loads) may have a larger impact
on the City in the future. Ms. McGowan would be keeping the City informed and
updated of all changes, as well as taking an active roll in minimizing the requirements
for the City.
Fiscal Impact:
In FY 06-07, $54,270 has been allocated for storm water management services and the
NPDES program of which $38,240 will be expended for storm water management
services for the current fiscal year.
Attachments: Professional Services Agreement No. 06.012
Respectfully submitted,
Homayoun Behboodi
Associate Engineer
Noted For Fiscal Impact:
Viki Copeland
Finance Director
Concur:
��
Richare". Morgan, P.E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Concur:
Stephe 7'11. r'rre
City ►i : nager
F/B95/Pwriles/Ccitems/storm water Management program award 8-8-06
2
• •
PSA NO.
06.012
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 8th day of August, 2006 at
Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California, by and between the CITY
OF HERMOSA BEACH, through its duly elected, qualified and acting MAYOR,
hereinafter called the CITY, and Kathleen McGowan, P.E., hereinafter called the
CONSULTANT.
WITNESSETH: That the CONSULTANT for and in consideration of the
covenants, conditions, agreements, and stipulations of the CITY herein expressed,
does hereby agree to furnish to the CITY professional services and materials, as
follows:
ARTICLE I - Scope of Work
CONSULTANT shall perform all work necessary to complete in a manner
satisfactory to CITY the services set forth in the proposal and or the scope of work
attached as Exhibit A.
ARTICLE II - Costs
The CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT for all the work or any part of the work
performed under this Agreement at the rates and in the manner established in the
attached Cost Breakdown in the attached proposal as Exhibit B.
Total expenditure made under this contract shall not exceed the sum of
$ 38,240. This fee includes all expenses, consisting of all incidental blueprinting,
photography, travel, and miscellaneous costs, estimated to be accrued during the life of
the contract. It also includes any escalation or inflation factors anticipated. No increase
in fees will be allowed during the life of the contract.
Any increase in contract amount or scope shall be by express written
amendment approved by the CITY and CONSULTANT.
The CONSULTANT will be reimbursed for costs incurred in the performance
hereof as are allowable under the provisions of Part 1-14 of the Federal Procurement
Regulations.
ARTICLE III - Method of Payment
CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed monthly in arrears based upon the hourly
services provided. CONSULTANT shall submit invoices in triplicate and addressed to
the CITY, c/o the Finance Department, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-
3884.
• •
ARTICLE IV - Subcontracting
CONSULTANT shall not be permitted to subcontract any portion of this contract
without the express written consent of the CITY.
ARTICLE V - Completion Date
CONSULTANT shall commence work under this agreement upon execution of
this agreement and shall complete the work according to the schedule submitted as
part of Exhibit "A", however, the CITY's Director of Public Works may extend the
completion date as required by the scope of this contract. Any contract time extension
shall require the express written consent of the Director of Public Works.
ARTICLE VI - Accounting Records
CONSULTANT must maintain accounting records and other evidence pertaining
to costs incurred which records and documents shall be kept available at the
CONSULTANT's California office during the contract period and thereafter for three
years from the date of final payment of Federal funds hereunder.
ARTICLE VII - Ownership of Data
All data, maps, photographs, and other material collected or prepared under the
contract shall become the property of the CITY.
ARTICLE VIII - Termination
This contract may be terminated at any time for breach and the CITY may
terminate unilaterally and without cause upon seven (7) days written notice to the
CONSULTANT. All work satisfactorily performed pursuant to the contract and prior to
the date of termination may be claimed for reimbursement.
ARTICLE IX - Assignability
CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer interest in this contract without the
prior written consent of the CITY.
ARTICLE X - Amendment
It is mutually understood and agreed that no alteration or variation of the terms of
this contract, or any subcontract requiring the approval of the CITY, shall be valid
unless made in writing, signed by the parties hereto, and approved by all necessary
parties.
2
• •
ARTICLE XI - Non -Solicitation Clause
The CONSULTANT warrants that he or she has not employed or retained any
company or persons, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the
CONSULTANT, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other
consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract.
For breach or violation of this warranty, the CITY shall have the right to annul this
contract without liability, or, in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or
consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission,
percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee.
ARTICLE XII - Equal Opportunity Assurance
During the performance of this contract, the CONSULTANT agrees as follows:
A. The CONSULTANT will not discriminate against any employee or
applicant for employment because of race, sex, creed, color or national origin. The
CONSULTANT will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and
that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, sex, creed,
color or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following:
employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising;
layoffs or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for
training, including apprenticeship. The CONSULTANT agrees to post in conspicuous
places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the
provisions of this nondiscrimination clause.
B. The CONSULTANT will, in all solicitations or advertisements for
employees placed by or on behalf of the CONSULTANT, state that all qualified
applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, sex, creed,
color or national origin.
C. The CONSULTANT will permit access to their books, records and
accounts by the applicant agency, the State, the Federal Highway Administration and/or
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for purposes of investigation to
ascertain compliance with this nondiscrimination clause.
D. In the event of the CONSULTANT's noncompliance with the
nondiscrimination clauses of this contract, this contract may be canceled, terminated or
suspended in whole or in part.
ARTICLE XIII - Clean Air Act
During the performance of this Contract, the CONSULTANT agrees to comply
with all applicable standards, orders, or regulations issued pursuant to the Clean Air Act
of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.) and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) as amended.
3
• •
ARTICLE XIV - Indemnity
CONSULTANT agrees to indemnify the CITY, its officers, employees and agents
against, and will hold and save each of them harmless from, any and all actions, claims,
damages to persons or property, penalties, obligations or liabilities that may be
asserted or claimed by any person, firm, entity, corporation, political subdivision or other
organization arising out of the negligent acts or intentional tortious acts, errors or
omissions of CONSULTANT, its agents, employees, subcontractors, or invitees,
provided for herein. CONSULTANT will defend any action or actions filed in connection
with any of said claims, damages, penalties, obligations or liabilities and will pay all
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees incurred in connection herewith.
CONSULTANT will promptly pay any judgment rendered against CITY, its officers,
agents or employees for any such claims, damages, penalties, obligations or liabilities.
In the event CITY, its officers, agents or employees is made a party to any action or
proceeding filed or prosecuted against CONSULTANT for such damages or other
claims arising out of or in connection with the sole negligence of CONSULTANT
hereunder, CONSULTANT agrees to pay CITY, its officers, agents, or employees, any
and all costs and expenses incurred by CITY, its officers, agents or employees in such
action or proceeding, including but not limited to reasonable attorney's fees.
ARTICLE XV - Insurance
A. Without limiting CONSULTANT'S obligations arising under ARTICLE XIV -
lndemnity , CONSULTANT shall not begin work under this Agreement until it obtains
policies of insurance required under this section. The insurance shall cover
CONSULTANT, its agents, representatives and employees in connection with the
performance of work under this Agreement, and shall be maintained throughout the
term of this Agreement. Insurance coverage shall be as follows:
i. Automobile Liability Insurance with minimum coverages of
$500,000 for property damage, $500,000 for injury to one person/single occurrence,
and $500,000 for injury to more than one person/single occurrence.
ii. Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance, insuring CITY its
elected and appointed officers, agents, and employees from claims for damages for
personal injury, including death, as well as from claims for property damage which may
arise from CONSULTANT'S actions under this Agreement, whether or not done by
CONSULTANT or anyone directly or indirectly employed by CONSULTANT. Such
insurance shall have a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000.
Worker's Compensation Insurance for all CONSULTANT'S
employees to the extent required by the State of California.
B. Deductibility Limits for policies referred to in subparagraphs A (i) (ii) and
(iii) shall not exceed $5,000 per occurrence.
4
r
• •
C. Additional Insured. City, its elected and appointed officers, agents, and
employees shall be named as additional insureds on policies referred to in
subparagraphs A (i) and (ii).
D. Primary Insurance. The insurance required in paragraphs A (i) (ii) and (iv)
shall be primary and not excess coverage.
E. Evidence of Insurance. Consultant shall furnish CITY, prior to the
execution of this Agreement, satisfactory evidence of the insurance required, issued by
an insurer authorized to do business in California, and an endorsement to each such
policy of insurance evidencing that each carrier is required to give CITY at least 30 days
prior written notice of the cancellation of any policy during the effective period of the
Agreement. All required insurance policies are subject to approval of the City Attorney.
Failure on the part of CONSULTANT to procure or maintain said insurance in full force
and effect shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement or procure or renew such
insurance, and pay any premiums therefor at CONSULTANT'S expense.
ARTICLE XVI - Enforcement of Agreement
In the event that legal action is commenced to enforce or declare the rights
created under this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of costs
and reasonable attorney's fees in the amount to be determined by the court.
ARTICLE XVII - Conflicts of Interest
No member of the governing body of the CITY and no other officer, employee, or
agent of the CITY who exercises any functions or responsibilities in connection with the
planning and carrying out of the program, shall have any personal financial interest,
direct or indirect, in this Agreement; and the CONSULTANT further covenants that in
the performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be
employed.
ARTICLE XVIII - Independent CONSULTANT
The CONSULTANT is and shall at all times remain as to the CITY a wholly
independent consultant. Neither the CITY nor any of its agents shall have control over
the conduct of the CONSULTANT or any of the CONSULTANT's employees, except as
herein set forth. The CONSULTANT shall not at any time or in any manner represent
that it or any of its agents or employees are in any manner agents or employees of the
CITY.
ARTICLE XIX - Entire Agreement of the Parties
This Agreement supersedes any and all other agreements, either oral or in
writing, between the parties hereto with respect to the employment of CONSULTANT
by CITY and contains all the covenants and agreements between the parties with
respect such employment in any manner whatsoever. Each party to this Agreement
acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements, orally or
5
• •
otherwise, have been made by any party, or anyone acting on behalf of any party,
which are not embodied herein, and that no other agreement or amendment hereto
shall be effective unless executed in writing and signed by both CITY and
CONSULTANT.
ARTICLE XX - Governing Law
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws
of the State of California, and all applicable federal statutes and regulations as
amended.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Agreement on the date and year first above written.
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CONSULTANT
MAYOR:
Mayor, City of Hermosa Beach Kathleen McGowan, P.E.
ATTEST:
Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
6
F:1B951PwfiIes\PSA106.012 Kathleen McGowan 8-8-06
t
• •
Proposal for NPDES and TMDL
Implementation
Environmental Consulting Services
This proposal is submitted in response to City of Hermosa Beach Department of
Public Works Department request for proposal to provide NPDES and TMDL
consulting services. Included in the request was that a significant fraction of the
consulting services be delivered during office hours onsite in the City of Hermosa,
Beach (City). As the City enters the implementation phase of the Santa Monica Bay
Beaches Bacteria Total Maximum Daily Load (SMBBB TMDL), City Public Works
staff is seeking responsive, customized environmental consulting service.
This proposal reflects a thorough understanding of the municipal NPDES permit and
in-depth familiarity with the Jurisdictional Group 5 & 6 SMBBB TMDL
Implementation Plan. Section 2 -Background provides a brief summary of the City's
needs, regulatory framework and recent activity relating to this proposal. Section 3 -
Scope of Services describes each proposed task with assumptions and basis for level -
of -effort. A cost estimate for each task and subtask described in the Scope of
Services is presented in Section 4 -Cost Breakdown. Section 5 -Experience and
Qualifications documents my technical and regulatory expertise and Section 6
provides samples of public education materials developed under my direction for
other municipal clients.
I will personally conduct the work effort described in the Scope of Services for a cost
not to exceed $38,240 in FY 2006/07. On average, six hours per week of this level -
of -effort will be conducted from City of Hermosa Beach offices in space provided by
the City. Work will be billed based on actual time expended at my standard rate for
long-term municipal work with direct expenses billed at cost without markup. My
invoices are detailed and provide full and complete justification for level -of -effort
expended. I am confident that the City will find my services to be of the highest
caliber and an outstanding value for services rendered.
Proposal for NPDES and TMDL Implementation
1-1 Kathleen McGowan, P.E.
EXHIBIT A
•
"'city of Hermosa Beach
This proposal is submitted in response to City of Hermosa Beach Public Works
Department staff request for proposal to provide NPDES and TMDL consulting
services.
City of Hermosa Beach
The City of Hermosa Beach is a small, historical beach city that will celebrate its
centennial in 2007. The city encompasses only 1.3 square miles, fronts two miles of
popular beaches and is home to approximately 18,000 residents. The Public Works
Department is responsible for the maintenance and operation of all city facilities and
properties. This responsibility extends to and includes engineering services, streets,
public buildings, park grounds, streetlights, traffic control services, sewage collection
and storm drain management.
As a coastal city focused on tourism, surfing and other ocean -oriented activities,
maintaining high water quality is an important issue for the City of Hermosa Beach.
The City has moved proactively to meet the requirements of the NPDES Permit and
begins FY 2006/2007 in good standing with respect to permit implementation
requirements. The City has also begun to implement recommended activities in the
SMBBB TMDL Implementation Plan
•
NPDFS Permit & Storm Water Quality Management Program (SQMP)
implementation
The City of Hermosa Beach is subject to Order No. 01-182, the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit issued to Los Angeles County Flood
Control District and the incorporated cities within the County of Los Angeles
(Permittees) for storm water and urban runoff discharges from the municipal separate
storm sewer system (MS4). This NPDES MS4 permit is the third in a series of five-
year permits; it became effective on December 13, 2001 and will expire on December
12, 2006. The permit requires all Permittees to implement a Storm Water Quality
Management Plan (SQMP) in six major program areas:
Public Information and Participation,
Industrial/Commercial Facilities Control,
Development Planning,
Development Construction,
Public Agency Activities, and
Illicit Connections and Illicit Discharges Elimination.
The City of Hermosa Beach is in compliance with the required elements of this
program and will continue to implement these programs during the permit renewal
Proposal for NPDES and TMDL Implementation
2-1 Kathleen McGowan, P.E.
• •
City of Hermosa Beach
period until a 4th term permit goes into effect at which lime additional program
requirements are possible.
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
All of the land area and concomitant storm water runoff within the City of Hermosa
Beach drains to the Santa Monica Bay, and accordingly is subject to the Santa
Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria Wet- and Dry -Weather Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs) for which final approval was received on June 19, 2003. The Wet -Weather
TMDL organizes the areas draining to the Santa Monica Bay into seven jurisdictional
groups. The City of Hermosa Beach is a responsible agency within Jurisdictional
Groups 5 & 6.
The overlap of responsible agencies among Jurisdictions 5 and 6 and the similarity of
land use and development in these areas prompted the responsible agencies of
Jurisdiction 5 and 6 to determine that they should pool resources to submit a joint
implementation plan on behalf of both jurisdictional groups. On July 15, 2005,
Jurisdictional Groups 5 & 6 jointly submitted an Implementation Plan to the Los
Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board for achieving compliance with the
Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria Total Maximum Daily Load. The Jurisdictional
Group 5 & 6 (J5/6) Implementation Plan employs an integrated approach designed to
provide the responsible agencies with a systematic process for progressively
improving compliance with SMBBB TMDL allocations while at the same time
achieving broader water quality benefits and public goals. The implementation
strategy relies on a combination of measures designed to reduce migration and
transport of bacteria and other pollutants through a three -pronged system of
programmatic, structural and source control solutions.
On July 15, 2006 the first compliance deadlines under the SMBBB TMDL went into
effect for summer dry weather single -sample and geometric mean targets. The
Regional Board has stated its intention to reopen the MS4 NPDES Permit to
incorporate TMDL requirements so that the permit will become the enforcement
instrument for TMDLs.
Proposal for NPDES and TMDL Implementation
2-2 Kathleen McGowan, P.E.
f>;
•
•City of Hermosa Beach
This Scope of Services will assist the City of Hermosa Beach in meeting the
requirements of the NPDES MS4 Permit as well as undertaking implementation
activities under the SMBBB TMDL in the most cost effective yet proactive manner
possible.
The Scope of Services is organized into seven major tasks:
Task 1: NPDES Program Management
Task 2: Public Information and Participation
Task 3: Industrial/Commercial Facilities Control Program
Task 4: Development Planning & Construction Program
Task 5: Public Agency Activities Program
Task 6: Illicit Connection & Illicit Discharge Elimination
Task 7: SMBBB TMDL Implementation
The City's philosophical approach to TMDL and NPDES water quality programs is
compatible with those of my current clients. I intentionally seek out clients with
similar philosophical approach in order that I may represent multiple client interests
without conflict and distribute my level -of -effort across those clients thereby reducing
individual costs to each client. Subtasks where I anticipate being able to do so are
identified with an asterisk (*).
Task 1 NPDES Program Management
The NPDES Program touches virtually all areas of municipal activities and requires
effective management and coordination across municipal divisions and departments
in order to assure that all aspects of the permit are carried out. I will work closely
with the City's NPDES Program Supervisor/Associate Engineer in conducting the
following program management subtasks.
Subtask 1.1 Internal Coordination
This task provides an allocation of time for regular communication and briefing of
City staff on the status, recent developments and need for action or response with
respect to NPDES permit and TMDL implementation. Periodic meetings with the
Associate Engineer/NPDES Permit Program. Supervisor will be held to discuss
progress and provide opportunity for City staff to inject policy direction as needed.
Progress reports appropriate for providing updates to upper management will be
Proposal for NPDES and TMDL Implementation
3-1 Kathleen McGowan, P.E.
• •
City of Hermosa Beach
prepared on a quarterly basis to summarize progress of each of the major tasks and as
an aid in preparing the annual report.
Subtask 1.2 NPDES Annual Report and Budget Summary
Data and information will be gathered from each of the program areas and compiled
to prepare the draft annual report for City staff review. This will include working
with City staff to prepare the annual budget summary for Annual Report. Revise
annual report based on City staff review and submit to County for compilation with
other municipal report to Regional Board. Prepare Supplementary volume of
supporting information to be made available by City in case of audit.
Subtask 1.3 Executive Advisory Committee & General Permittee
Meetings*
The Executive Advisory Committee (EAC) was established by the MS4 Permittees to
discuss and coordinate response to issues among the Principal Permittee and Co -
Permittees across all areas of the Municipal NPDES Permit, including those relating
to TMDL development and implementation policy. The EAC meets monthly.
Representatives from each of the Watershed Management Committees attend, as well
as any other interested city representatives, and occasionally, senior Regional Board
staff. The EAC discusses issues of interest to all the Permittees and often organizes
efforts to comment to the Regional and State Boards regarding issues of common
interest to the Permittees. The EAC meetings provide a forum for communication of
critical information from the City of LA and County staff which are frequently in
close communication with Regional Board staff and are involved in issues across
many different watersheds.
This task will include representing the City at EAC meetings and providing City staff
with prompt EAC meeting notes focusing on items of discussion that are of particular
importance to the City. Time allocated for this subtask presumes level -of -effort
sharing with two other clients with similar interests reducing the actual time charged
to the City to two hours per month.
During the upcoming fiscal year ongoing discussions of permit renewal issues will
continue with periodic general Permittee meetings and review of documents. Time
for participating in these meetings and responding to issues will be shared among two
other clients with a net allocation in this Scope of Services of 20 hours of effort over
the course of the next year to address these issues in addition to EAC meeting effort.
Subtask 1.4 SMB -BC Watershed Management Committee*
The Santa Monica Bay-Ballona Creek Watershed Management Committee meets
quarterly as required by the NPDES Permit. The scope of this subtask includes
representing the City at the quarterly meetings, including travel time, and providing
City staff with prompt meeting notes focusing on items of discussion that are of
particular importance to the City. From time to time each city assumes small tasks in
support of the overall cooperative effort, so additional time is included to provide
Proposal for NPDES and TMDL Implementation
3-2 Kathleen McGowan, P.E.
• Sty
of Hermosa Beach
such in-kind effort on the part of the City. Time shown in the cost breakdown is 1/3
of the actual time expended to reflect cost sharing with two other cities.
Task 2 Public Information and Participation Program (PIPP)
The scope of services for public information and participation is organized into four
subtasks. In the cost breakdown for each of these subtasks it is assumed that costs for
printing public education materials or purchasing premiums for distribution to the
public will be provided by the City through direct purchase orders with vendors. Note
that some of these costs can be covered by Used Oil Block Grant funds. In other cases
the County will provide allocations of their materials at no charge to the City.
Subtask 2.1 Public Education Program Implementation
This task covers implementation of the County -wide Public Education Program
within the City utilizing materials developed by the County as Principal Permittee.
These activities include: promoting the K-12 education program, distributing
educational materials, updating City website, placing spots on local cable channel,
etc. Time is primarily for obtaining and distributing information and preparing letters
of correspondence, and making local contacts.
Subtask 2.2 Public Outreach Strategy Meetings*
The permit requires attendance by a representative from each Permittee at quarterly
meetings held by County to discuss and coordinate the County -wide Public Education
Program. The scope of this subtask includes quarterly meeting attendance, including
travel time and preparation of meeting notes. Time shown in the cost breakdown is
1/3 of the actual time expended to reflect cost sharing with two other cities.
Subtask 2.3 Pollutant -specific Targeted Outreach (TMDL
Implementation)
Targeted outreach will focus on watershed -specific TMDL pollutants utilizing
existing materials/programs where appropriate as well as those jointly developed by
Jurisdictional Groups 5. & 6 (J5/6) or if need be, creating materials especially for the
City. I will work with City public works staff to identify and carry out the most
effective targeted outreach initiatives and those which also meet objectives of the J5/6
TMDL Implementation Plan, these activities could include: preparing articles for the
City newsletter, gathering and assembling materials for a joint J5/6 landscape BMP
webpage or identifying the best existing web pages for linking to the City's website,
working with parks and recreation staff and community groups to plan and implement
targeted outreach at a City public event, e.g., one of the Fiesta Hermosa events or the
St. Patrick's Day Parade & Festival.
Subtask 24 Business Assistance (TMDL Implementation)
The City has made an excellent start in reaching out to businesses by developing and
initiating the Clean Ocean City establishment program with particular focus on
restaurants. The objective of this subtask will be to expand the Clean Ocean City
Proposal forNPDES and TMDL Implementation 3-3
Kathleen McGowan, P.E.
• • City of Hermosa Beach
program by increasing the number of restaurants and other businesses (e.g., pet
boarding facilities, veterinarians, garden centers) that seek and successfully obtain
certification. Upon the opening of a new establishment or based on a list of targeted
establishments compiled with input from City staff, friendly and brief site visits will
be made to provide informational material regarding BMPs appropriate to the
category of business as well as information about the Clean Ocean City establishment
program. At the City's discretion additional opportunities for outreach to business
owners will be pursued through the Chamber of Commerce and/or local restaurant
associations.
Task 3 Industrial/Commercial Facilities Control Program
The permit requires the implementation of an Industrial/Commercial Facilities control
Program to track, inspect and ensure compliance at facilities that are critical sources
of pollutants in storm water. The City has already concluded or will shortly conclude
remaining required inspections of industrial/commercial facilities under the permit.
In order to maintain the high level of compliance by industrial/commercial
establishments as demonstrated in the City's annual report to date and to further the
Jurisdictional Group 5 & 6 Implementation Plan objectives of maintaining and
enhancing existing programmatic solutions, this task provides an allocation of time to
assist the City in continuing with this effort in two subtasks.
Subtask 3.1 Update Inventory of Industrial/Commercial Facilities
This subtask allocates time to provide support to and assist the City's Business
License Depal intent in maintaining the inventory of Industrial/Commercial facilities.
This subtask also allocates time to update the inventory with the status of inspections
and follow ups and to compile and summarize the information near end of each fiscal
year for incorporation into annual report.
Subtask 3.2 Assist City Inspector and Code Enforcement Officer
In order to maintain the high level of compliance demonstrated in the City's annual
reports to date, it is assumed that the City will continue with inspections, albeit at a
somewhat decelerated rate during the period of permit renewal. A suggested
approach would be to inspect those facilities that were previously found to be
inadequately implementing BMPs and any new facilities that had not previously been
inspected twice during the 3rd term permit. This subtask provides an allocation of time
to assist the City's inspector in conducting such selected industrial/commercial
inspections and managing the documentation of inspection reports and follow up
inspections.
Task 4 Development Planning & Construction Programs
The Development Planning provisions of the NPDES Permit require the City's
Planning Division to ensure that development and redevelopment projects provide for
Proposal for NPDES and TMDL Implementation
3-4 Kathleen McGowan, P.E.
• •City of Hermosa Beach
permanent measures to reduce storm water pollutant loads from the development site.
The Development Construction Program of the NDPES Permit tasks the Building &
Safety Division with the related objective of minimizing pollutant Loads from
development and redevelopment sites during construction.
Subtask 4.1 Annual Training
Annual training of the Community Development Department staff will utilize a
variety of approaches to familiarize staff with recent implementation issues raised by
the Regional Board and engage City staff to enhance internal coordination with
respect to NPDES Permit/SUSMP implementation procedures. The format of the
training will include Power Point® presentation with handouts as well as round -table
discussions to actively engage staff. A single two-hour training session is assumed for
both Planning and Building & Safety staffs with allowance for adequate preparation
time for visual presentation and handouts.
Subtask 4.2 Special Project Support
This subtask provides an allocation of time to assist Planning and/or Building &
Safety staff in support of new development or redevelopment projects that require
additional staff review with respect to water quality issues or any necessary response
to Regional Board staff inquiries. Recent enforcement activity on the part of
Regional Board staff have increased the workload of many cities' planning and
engineering staffs in responding to this activity.
Task 5 Public Agency Activities Program
The Public Agency Activities program focuses primarily on the activities of the
Public Works Department and requires implementation of Best Management
Practices (BMPs) to minimize water quality impacts from:
• Public construction activity
• Vehicle maintenance, material storage and corporate yards
• Landscape and recreational facilities maintenance
• Storm drain operation and maintenance
• Streets and roads maintenance
• Parking facilities management
• Public industrial activities
• Emergency response, maintenance, overflow and spill prevention for sewage
systems [these requirements are now superseded by the newly enacted
statewide Waste Discharge Requirements for Sewage Collection Systems]
Proposal for NPDES and TMDL Implementation
3-5 Kathleen McGowan, RE.
1
• City of Hermosa Beach
Subtask 5.1 Public Works/Maintenance StaffAnnual Training
The permit requires that public works employees receive annual training in how to
conduct their responsibilities in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on water
quality. This subtask provides for conducting a one-hour training session with visual
aides covering general background on the NPDES MS4 permit and focused training
on stormwater best management practices (BMPs) related to maintenance and other
public works activities. The training will include roundtable discussion with
maintenance staff on their concerns and experiences related to NPDES MS4 issues.
A second component of the training will be a separate field review of maintenance
facilities with the Public Works Superintendent and .senior inspectors to identify areas
for improvement and address issues of concern regarding corporate yard and exterior
material storage areas.
Subtask 5.2 Regulatory & Compliance Support for Public Works
Public Works projects are subject to the same development planning and construction
requirements under the NPDES MS4 permit as private projects and are required to
obtain coverage under the Statewide general construction activities NPDES permit for
projects disturbing one or more acres of land area. Appropriate Best Management
Practices (BMPs) must be implemented for all manner of public works activities
conducted in exposure to storm water. This subtask allocates time for providing
regulatory and compliance support to Public Works staff for public works projects
and activities.
Subtask 5.3 Administrative StaffAnnual Training
Since administrative staff often provides primary contact with the public and because
these personnel are integral to the cohesive operation of municipal activities, it is
important that they have a general understanding of stormwater and urban runoff
permit requirements. In small cities administrative personnel often serve multiple
divisions and their action can be critical in ensuring prompt and effective response to
complaints and emergencies. This subtask provides for a brief annual training session
with visual aides to provide an overview of the NPDES MS4 permit and TMDL
programs and discussion of various informational . materials available for
dissemination to the public, e.g., brochures, website information, etc. This will be
followed by a round -table discussion of relevant administrative staff procedures for
dealing with water quality related issues.
Task 6 Illicit Connection & Illicit Discharge Elimination
The City has already concluded required screening for illicit connections under the
permit. Accordingly, ongoing activities in this program area will consist of
implementation of the Illicit Connections/Illicit Discharge (IC/ID) Elimination
Program and occasional updates of the program documentation.
Proposal for NPDES and TMDL Implementation
3-6 Kathleen McGowan, P.E.
•ty of Hermosa Beach
Subtask 6.1 Regulatory /Technical Support for IC/ID
This subtask allocates a modest amount of consulting time to provide regulatory
advice in support of code enforcement activities in response to IC/IDs.
Task 7 Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria TMDL Implementation
Jurisdictional Group 5 & 6 agencies are moving forward with carrying out their
TMDL Implementation Plan through a combination of joint and individual activities.
Subtask 7.1 SMBBB TMDL J5/6 Planning Meetings
This subtask provides an allocation of time to attend and represent the City's interests
at monthly Jurisdiction 5/6 coordination meetings. An allocation of time to review
monitoring reports, attend and prepare meeting notes for six meetings per year is
provided in this subtask.
Subtask 7.2 SMBBB TMDL Phase I Program Development &
Implementation
This subtask provides an allocation of time to carry out activities under Phase I of the
Implementation Plan. At the direction of City staff, this effort will focus on particular
activities of interest to the City and could include activities such as: conducting
drainage area surveys; reconnaissance of high priority drainage areas as well as parks,
open space and recreational areas; and implementation of the new grease
trap/interceptor ordinance.
Proposal for NPDES and TMDL Implementation
3-7 Kathleen McGowan, P.E.
•�yi��l;i9(5,193
City of Hermosa Beach
I will personally conduct the work effort described in the foregoing Scope of Services
for a cost not to exceed $38,240 in FY 2006/07. On average, six to eight hours per
week of this level -of -effort will be conducted from City of Hermosa Beach offices in
work space provided by the City.
A task -by -task breakdown of costs is shown on the following pages. A corresponding
explanation for each of the tasks has been provided in the Scope of Services.
Whenever possible, charges for services performed for multiple clients, such as
participation in meetings and meeting note preparation will be distributed among two
or more clients in order to reduce costs to the City. This Cost Breakdown incorporates
such projected savings (marked with "*"). Billing will be based on actual time
charged at my standard rate for long-term municipal work and direct expenses at cost
without markup (see separate attachment). My invoices are detailed and provide full
and complete justification for level -of -effort expended.
Despite the care taken in preparing the Scope of Services on which the Cost
Breakdown is based, it is the nature of regulatory -driven programs to be subject to
variation due to changes in regulatory requirements and emerging issues. A major
assumption underlying this proposal is that the upcoming 4th -term MS4 NPDES
permit will not go into effect during fiscal year 2006-07; this is an expectation shared
by most of my colleagues. I will closely monitor and inform the City of changing
requirements and emerging issues as part of my regular communication with City
staff, and will notify the City in advance if I anticipate that such changes could
necessitate a concomitant adjustment in the scope of services.
This cost breakdown reflects a high level of personal productivity gained over years
of broad-based experience in environmental regulatory compliance services. Due to
low overhead rates I am able to offer high quality expertise for labor rates comparable
to those that larger firms charge for less experienced staff So in this cost breakdown
the City is realizing dual savings as a result of efficiency based on experience and low
overhead rates. I am confident that the City will find my services to be of the highest
caliber and an outstanding value for services rendered.
Proposal for NPDES and TMDL Implementation
4-1 Kathleen McGowan, P.E.
'City of Hermosa Beach
Cost Breakdown
, ` ?/ ..y 1. _ f ham, YSiF'u�V C lR `110.12• Y :.•-•.:'‘ x f Y. Y
..,_ _ , .. . ii,.. s „a _: ¢;..� ,.. a....... Fy t ', .e . ......,. 4. M:i .+�` t — tl.�r'..,.. meati,.
TP _,: -/-.T.'
:,T,:% -;,---e,.
Task 1 NPDES Program Management
FY 06/07
1.1 Internal Coordination
$1,980
1.2 NPDES Annual Report & Budget Summary
4,500
1.3 Executive Advisory Committee & General Permittee Meetings*
3,780
1.4 SMB -BC Watershed Management Committee*
720
Total Task 1 Cost:
hours:
$10,980
122
Task 2 Public Information and Participation Program (PIPP)
FY 06/07
2.1 Public Education Program Implementation
$1,800
2.2 Public Outreach Strategy Meetings*
540
2.3 Pollutant -Specific Targeted Outreach (TMDL Implementation)
3600
2.3 Business Assistance (TMDL Implementation)
Total Task 6 Cost
hours:
3600-
600TOTAL
TOTALTASK 2
$9,540
hours
106
Task 3 Industrial/Commercial Facilities Control Program
FY 06/07
3.1 Update Inventory of Industrial/Commercial Facilities.
$900
3.2 Assist City Inspector and Code Enforcement Officer
3150
Total Task 3 Cost
hours:
$4,050
45
Task 4 Development Planning & Construction Programs
FY 06/07
4.1 Annual Training
$720
4.2 Special Project Support
900
Total Task 4 Cost
hours:
$1,620
18
Task 5 Public Agency Activities Program
FY 06/07
5.1 Public Works/Maintenance Staff Annual Training
$900
5.2 Regulatory & Compliance Support for Public Works Staff
900
5.3 Administrative Staff Annual Training
360
Total Task 6 Cost
hours:
$2,160
24
Proposal for NPDES and TMDL Implementation
EXHIBIT B
Kathleen McGowan, P.E.
Cost Breakdown
X:CI fin✓ f '. .C,•
..
•
City of Hermosa Beach
Task 6 — Illicit Connection & Illicit Discharge Elimination
FY 06/07
6.1 Regulatory/Technical Support for IC/ID
450
Total Task 6 Cost
hours:
$450
5
Task 7 — SMBBB TMDL implementation
FY 06/07
7.1 SMBBB TMDL 15/6 Planning Meetings
7.2 SMBBB TMDL Program Implementation
$5,400
3290
Total Task 6 Cost
hours:
Total Labor Cost
hours:
DIRECT EXPENSES
TOTAL NPDES and TMDL Consulting Services
* = Cost savings for shared costs
$8,690
97
FY 06/07
$37,490
417
$750
$38,240
Proposal for NPDES and TMDL Implementation Kathleen McGowan, P.E.
•
et-CGCQ/
August 1, 2006 //04
Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of
The Hermosa Beach City Council August 8, 2006
NON-CIP PROJECT NO. 009-06 PIER CLOCK BENCH BARRIER PROJECT
REJECT ALL BIDS
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Reject all bids for Non-CIP Project No. 009-06 Pier Clock Bench Barrier Project;
2. Authorize staff to re -advertise for bids and invite all previous bidders to re -bid the project.
Background:
On July 13, 2006, Public Works staff advertised for bids in accordance with public contract requirements. The
City Clerk received two bids by the closing date of July 31, 2006. The bids were publicly opened and read aloud.
The results were as follows:
Bid
Company Amount
1. M3 Service $ 105,170.70
2. Zondiras Corp. $ 129,452.00
The proposed work includes installation of a clock donated by the Hermosa Beach Kiwanis and construction of a
reinforced concrete bench barrier and related electrical work.
Analysis:
Staff reviewed the bids and found the bid amount to be significantly higher than expected. Discussions with local
contractors not involved in the project confirmed the prices were high. For the low bid, concrete costs are
roughly $2,000 per cubic yard. Costs for this type of work are typically $800 to $900 per cubic yard.
Staff will reevaluate bid package and may re -bid the project.
Fiscal impact:
None at this time.
Respectfully submitted,
Kenneth Reamey
Project Manager
Concur:
Richard D. i% gan
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
2i
F:1B95\PWFILESICCITEMS\009-06 clock bench barrier - Award Contract 8-8-06.doc
•
•
City of Hermosa Beach
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
Date: August 3, 2006
To: City Council
From: Rick Morgan, Public Works Director
Subject: Award of Contract for Clark Field Improvements
Bids were opened for this project at 2:00 pm on Thursday, August 03, 2006. Bids
received are as follows:
Tru Green Lawn Care $224,737.00
CS Legacy Construction, Inc. $231,604.00
Belaire — West Landscape, Inc. $244,250.00
Ryco Construction, Inc. $431,134.00
The lowest bidder, Tru Green Lawn Care, is also our current Landscape Maintenance
contractor. Public Works has been very satisfied with their services and therefore
recommends award of this contract to them. The contract amount is far lower than the
budgeted amount of $422,413.
citelarntee
2j
rbp/c/memo
• •
August 1, 2006
Honorable. Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of
The Hermosa Beach City Council August 8, 2006
CIP PROJECT NO. 04-535 CLARK FIELD IMPROVEMENTS
AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Authorize the award of construction contract for CIP Project No. 04-535 Clark Field
Improvements to the lowest responsive bidder, in the amount of the lowest responsive bid;
2. Authorize the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest the Contract subject to
approval of the City Attorney;
3. Authorize the Director of Public Works to issue change orders as necessary within the
approved budget.
Background:
On July 13, 2006, Public Works staff advertised for bids in accordance with public contract
requirements. The City Clerk will receive bids by the closing date of August 3, 2006, which will be
publicly opened and read aloud. The results will be detailed in the supplemental information to be
provided.
The proposed work includes improvements to the playing fields at Clark Field as follows:
• Clear and grub.
• Modifications to brick dust (infield) lines at the baseball/softball fields.
• Installation of a new irrigation system for the entire field.
• Fine grading and soil preparation.
• Installation of new sod at all areas except infields.
• Installation of a new backstop on the south field.
The proposed work does not include installation of new lighting which will be proposed as a separate
project next year.
Analysis:
Staff will review the low bidder's documents and reference calls will be made. The Department of
Public Works will recommend award of this contract to the lowest responsive bidder.
Fiscal Impact:
Total available funding for this project is $393,713. Staff anticipates that the total cost of this work will
be less than that amount.
f
Respectfully submitted,
Kenneth Reamey
Project Manager
Noted For Fiscal Impact:
Viki Copeland
Finance Director
Concur:
Richard D. organ
Director o Public Works/City Engineer
Stephen
City Man
,I 1 'lI
Bu 'HJT r
•er
F:\B95\PWFILES\CCITEMS\04-535 Clark Field Imp - Award Contract 080806.doc
2
• • k/g/o .
August 1, 2006
Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of
the Hermosa Beach City Council August 8, 2006
AWARD PURCHASE OF NEW PUBLIC WORKS VEHICLES
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Award purchase of one (1) 2007 Chevrolet Silverado Truck in the amount of $28,462.37 (Equipment
Service);
2. Award the purchase of one (1) 2007 Ford Ranger Extra Cab Truck in the amount of $17,923.32 (Public
Works Inspection);
3. Authorize the reappropriation of $46,386 from FY 05-06 for Vehicle Purchases (Account numbers 715-
4202-5403, 715-3102-5403, and 715-4202-5403); and
4. Authorize Staff to issue the appropriate purchase documents as required.
Summary:
Public Works vehicles are part of the inventory in the Vehicle Replacement Fund. The 1989 Chevrolet
Astrovan used by Equipment Service Division personnel was identified in the FY 04-05 Adopted Budget as
scheduled for replacement and $26,250 was allocated for this purpose in Public Works Administration. This
funding was reappropriated for FY 05-06 to complete the purchase. This request is for the purchase of the
Chevy Silverado truck with utility bed package to replace that Astrovan.
The 1996 Ford Ranger pick-up used by Public Works inspection personnel was identified in the FY 05-06
Adopted Budget as scheduled for replacement. There is an allocation in the amount of $12,600 in the Vehicle
Replacement Fund - Public Works Administration and $8,400 in the Vehicle Replacement Fund —
Sewers/Storm Drains also for this purpose, totaling $21,000 for the replacement of the 1996 Ford Ranger pick-
up.
Staff recommends that Council authorize the purchase of these vehicles from Wondries Fleet Group of
Alhambra, California as they hold the sole contract (Bids #0364375 and #207488) with the County of. Los
Angeles. They are also the provider of many Public Works vehicles in the County fleet.
Since Wondries Fleet Group has an established government contract with the County, City policy allows the
purchase of equipment from a sole source vendor under these conditions. This is considered a "piggyback"
purchase and is standard within the industry.
Fiscal Impact:
The total cost to purchase both vehicles is $46,385.69. Of this amount, $12,600 is available in account 715-
4202-5403, Public Works Administration and $8,400 is available in account 715-3102-5403 for the purchase of
the 2007 Ford Ranger. For the purchase of the Chevrolet Silverado, $26,250 is available in account 715-4202-
5403. See breakdown below.
2k
M
•
•
VEHICLE
ACCOUNT
BUDGET
NEEDED
COMMENTS
Ranger Truck
715-4202-5403
12,600
Replacing Ford Ranger
TOTAL
715-3102-5403
8,400
28,462.37
$2,212.37 shortfall for this purchase
which can be covered by the surplus
allocated for the Ranger replacement.
TOTAL
21,000
17,923.32
$3,076.68 remains in acct. 715-4202-
5403
VEHICLE
ACCOUNT
BUDGET
NEEDED
COMMENTS
Silverado
715-4202-5403
26,250
Replacing Astrovan
TOTAL
26,250
28,462.37
$2,212.37 shortfall for this purchase
which can be covered by the surplus
allocated for the Ranger replacement.
Respectfully submitted,
Richar.'� Morgan, P.E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Noted for fiscal impact:
Viki Copelan
Finance Director
Concur:
Step urrell
City - nager
F:1B951PWFILESICCITEMS\Vehicle Purchase 8-8-06.doc
2
Tuesday, August 1, 2006
Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular meeting of
The Hermosa Beach City Council August 8, 2006
PURCHASE OF RADIO EQUIPMENT FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that council:
1. Authorize the purchase and installation of radio equipment for the fire.
department from South Bay Regional Public Communications Authority not
to exceed $103,862.00.
2. Approve the reappropriation of funds from FY 05/06 to FY 06/07 in the
amount of $98,670.00, account #150-2204-5405 and $5,192.00 from account
#001-2201-5405.
BACKGROUND:
City Council approved the Fire Department receipt of $162,441.00 in grant funding from
the FEMA "Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program", to purchase communication
equipment. Digital/Analog dual mode capable P25 compliant UHF and VHF radio
equipment was identified in the grant proposal as specific fire department communication
equipment need.
Fire department staff researched radio manufacturers which offered products that met
grant guidelines and selected Motorola and Tait manufactured UHF radios to conduct
field testing with. The field test evaluation process determined the Tait UHF radio
product to be the functional choice by the firefighters for operational use. Fire department
staff identified Bendix King Digital/Analog dual mode capable P25 compliant VHF
radios would best suit the department need based on statewide field use for wildland fire
events when VHF radios are primarily utilized.
The City of Hermosa Beach solicited sealed bids from qualified vendors specifically
identifying Tait Digital/Analog dual mode capable UHF P25 compliant equipment
mobile arld portable radios, Bendix King Digital/Analog dual mode capable P25
compliant VHF portable radios, necessary accessories, and installation. Three (3) vendors
submitted sealed bids, South Bay Regional Public Communication Authority
$104,610.13, Advanced Electronics $103,093.97, and Vincent Communications,
$17,969.00. The only vendor that met all bid specifications was the South Bay Regional
Public Communication Authority. The. Advanced Electronics bid substituted Motorola
• •
radios with less capability than the specified Tait and Bendix King radios. Vincent
Communication submitted a partial bid for only the Bendix King radios which the South
Bay Regional Public Communication Authority bid amount improved on.
The Fire Department request City Council Authorize the purchase and installation of
radio equipment for the fire department from South Bay Regional Public
Communications Authority not to exceed $103,862.00. Fire Department staff will
modify the quantity of radios originally specified to reduce cost while still enhancing the
number of radios on the current radio inventory.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The funds required for the purchase and installation of the fire department identified
radios will be taken from the approved reappropriation of grant funds, account #150-
2204-5405, and the fire department's\general fund, account #001-2201-5405.
Res
ectfully submitted,
Tingley
ief
Concur:
S .iln Turrell
City Manager
Noted for Fiscal Impact:
Viki Copeland
Finance Director
• • 10)4X -
August 1, 2006
Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of
The Hermosa Beach City Council August 8, 2006
CIP PROJECT NO. 05-121 AVIATION STREET TREE PROJECT
AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Authorize the award of construction contract for the CIP Project No. 05-121 Aviation Street
Tree Project to Belaire-West Landscaping, Inc. of Buena Park, California, in the amount of
$170,750;
2. Authorize the Mayor to execute and the •City Clerk to attest the Contract subject to
approval of the City Attorney;
3. Authorize the reappropriation of $137,781 from FY 05-06 account 302-8121-4201;
4. Authorize the appropriation of $53,122 from the 301 Capital Improvement Fund; and
5. Authorize the Director of Public Works to issue change orders as necessary within the
approved budget.
Background:
On July 13, 2006, Public Works staff advertised for bids in accordance with public contract
requirements. The City Clerk received three bids by the closing date of July 31, 2006. The bids were
publicly opened and read aloud. The results were as follows:
Company
Bid
Amount
1. M3 Service
2. Pima Corp.
3. Belaire-West Landscaping Inc.
The proposed work includes the following:
• Remove 64 existing trees.
• Modifications and repairs to sidewalks/tree grates.
• Install 69 Queen Palms.
• Install 69 concrete tree grates.
Analysis:
$ 171,444.27
$ 207,875.00
$ 170,750.00
Staff reviewed the low bidder's documents and found them to be in order. Reference calls were
supportive of the contractor's work habits. The Department of Public Works, therefore, recommends
award of this contract Belaire-West Landscaping, Inc. in the amount of $170,750.
2m
Fiscal Impact:
The apparent lowest bid price of $170,750 plus contingency of $17,075 bring the project total to
$187,825. $3,078 is allocated for consulting services for FY 06-07.
$137,781 is available in FY 05-06 for this work. An additional appropriation of $53,122 is needed to
complete this project.
Respectfully submitted,
Kenneth Reamey
Project Manager
Noted For Fiscal Impact:
Finance Director
2
Concur:
Richard o' organ
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
F:\B95\PWFILES\CCITEMS\05-121 Award Contract 080806.doc
F
HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the
HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: FINAL MAP NO. 061318 (C.U.P. CON NO. 04-
LOCATION: 315 - 317 HOPKINS AVENUE
APPLICANT(S): HAROLD ANSCHEL
722 11TH STREET
HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254
REQUEST:
Recommendation
LAdo D9486
July
July 31, 2006
Regular Meeting of
August 8, 2006
11, PDP NO. 04-12)
TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP FOR A TWO -
UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT
Staff recommends approval of Final Parcel. Map No. 061318 which is consistent with the
approved Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, and recommends the City Clerk be directed to endorse
the certificate for said map.
Background
The Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit for a two unit condominium
project and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No.061318 at their June 15, 2004 meeting. The
approval of the map was extended for an additional year to June 2007 by the Planning
ComMission. The project is currently under construction.
Process
Once a map has been tentatively approved by the Planning Commission, copies of the tentatively
approved map must be submitted to the L.A. County Engineer, who is contracted by the City, to
review the map for its technical correctness (pursuant to Section 66442(a)(4)of the Subdivision
Map Act).
An applicant has two years from the date of tentative map approval to submit for final map
approval. Typically applicants have not submitted for final map approval until projects are near.
completion. and ready to be sold.
Final maps must be submitted to the City Council and must be approved by the City Council,
"...if it conforms to all the requirements of [Subdivision Map Act] and any local subdivision
2n
ordinance applicable at the time of approval or conditional approval of the tentative map and any
rulings made thereunder...." pursuant to Section 66458(a) of the Subdivision Map Act.
Analysis
The staff has reviewed the Final Map and found it substantially consistent with the Vesting
Tentative Parcel Map approved by the Planning Commission and in conformance with the State
Subdivision Map Act.
CONCUR:
Sol Blumenf;i d, D ector
Community 9 evelopment Department
Stephen
City Man
ger
y/f:fm315Hopkins
2
3
4
5
7
9
10
11
1.2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
•
RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FINAL PARCEL MAP NO. 061318, FOR
THE SUBDIVISION OF A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM, LOCATED AT 315 -
317 HOPKINS AVENUE IN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, on June 15, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of IIermosa Beach
conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application of Harold Anschel (the
"Applicant" hereinafter) for approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 061318 and, upon conclusion
of said public hearing on June 15, 2004 the Planning Commission adopted its Resolution No. 04-
20 approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 061318.
WHEREAS, on July 25, 2006, the Applicant filed an application for approval of Final
Parcel Map No. 061318 (the "Application" hereinafter), as described in the title of this Resolution.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.08.040, the City Engineer has
reviewed Final Parcel Map No. 061318 and determined that the map is technically correct,
conforms to the approved Tentative Parcel Map and is in compliance with applicable provisions of
Title 16 of the Municipal Code and of the Subdivision Map Act.
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in
this Resolution are true and correct.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 16.08.040 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, the
City Council finds the Final Parcel Map to be in substantial conformance with the Tentative Parcel
Map, with Title 7, Division 2, Chapter 3 of the California Govermnent Code and with the
applicable provisions of Title 16 of the Municipal Code. Based on the foregoing finding, the
Council hereby approves Final Parcel Map No. 061318 as presented. The Council further
authorizes and directs the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Subdivision Agreement for
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
•
installation of public improvements required by Tentative Parcel Map No. 061318 and not yet
completed as of the date hereof.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to:
a. Certify to the adoptionof this Resolution; and
b. Transmit a certified copy of this Resolution to the Applicant.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 8th day of August, 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\fm315 Hopkins rs
HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the
HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
July 31, 2006
Regular Meeting of
August 8, 2006
SUBJECT: FINAL MAP NO. 61742 (C.U.P. CON NO. 04-19, PDP NO. 04-20)
LOCATION: 1054 - 1056 7TH STREET
APPLICANT(S): STEVEN WITHEROW
1056 7TH STREET
HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254
REQUEST: TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP FOR A TWO -
UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of Final Parcel Map No. 61742 which is consistent with the
approved Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, and recommends the City Clerk be directed to endorse
the certificate for said map.
Background
The Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit for a two unit condominium
project and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No.61742 at their September 21„2004 meeting. The
project is currently under construction.
Process
Once a map has been tentatively approved by the Planning Commission, copies of the tentatively
approved map must be submitted to the L.A. County Engineer, who is contracted by the City, to
review the map for its technical correctness (pursuant to Section 66442(a)(4)of the Subdivision
Map Act).
An applicant has two years from the date of tentative map approval to submit for final map
approval. Typically applicants have not submitted for final map approval until projects are near
completion and ready to be sold.
Final maps must be submitted to the City Council and must be approved by the City Council,
"...if it conforms to all the requirements of [Subdivision Map Act] and any local subdivision
2o
• •
ordinance applicable at the time of approval or conditional approval of the tentative map and any
rulings made thereunder...." pursuant to Section 66458(a) of the Subdivision Map Act.
Analysis
The staff has reviewed the Final Map and found it substantially consistent with the Vesting
Tentative Parcel Map approved by the Planning Commission and in conformance with the State
Subdivision Map Act.
CONCUR:
Sol Blumenf
Community
d, I irector
evelopment Department
Steph
City "ager
Respectfully submitted,
oZ
n x�o�x�,rtson
Senior Planner
y/f:fm1054 - 7th
2
3
5
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 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FINAL PARCEL MAP NO. 61742, FOR
THE SUBDIVISION OF A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM, LOCATED AT 1054 -
1056 7T11 STREET IN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA
WIIEREAS, on September 21, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa
Beach conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application of Steven Witherow
(the "Applicant" hereinafter) for approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 61742 and, upon
conclusion of said public hearing on September 21, 2004 the Planning Commission adopted its
Resolution No. 04-37 approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 61742.
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2006, the Applicant filed an application for approval of Final
Parcel Map No. 61742 (the "Application" hereinafter), as described in the title of this Resolution.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.08.040, the City Engineer has
reviewed Final Parcel Map No. 61742 and determined that the map is technically correct,
conforms to the approved Tentative Parcel Map and is in compliance with applicable provisions of
Title 16 of the Municipal Code and of the Subdivision Map Act.
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in
this Resolution are true and correct.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 16.08.040 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, the
City Council finds the Final Parcel Map to be in substantial conformance with the Tentative Parcel
Map, with Title 7, Division 2, Chapter 3 of the California Government Code and with the
applicable provisions of Title 16 of the Municipal Code. Based on the foregoing finding, the
Council hereby approves Final Parcel Map No. 61742 as presented. The Council further
authorizes and directs the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Subdivision Agreement for
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
installation of public improvements required by Tentative Parcel Map No. 61742 and not yet
completed as of the date hereof
SECTION 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to:
a. Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
b. Transmit a certified copy of this Resolution to the Applicant.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 8th day of August, 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\fm1054 - 7th Street rs
July 26, 2006
City Council Meeting
August 8, 2006
Mayor and Members
of the City Council
ORDINANCE NO. 06-1270 - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE R-1 ZONE
EXCEPTIONS FOR SMALL LOTS AND AMENDING THE HERMOSA
BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE"
Submitted for adoption and waiver of full reading is Ordinance No. 06-1270 relating to
the above subject.
At the meeting of July 25, 2006, the ordinance was presented to the City Council for
consideration and introduced by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Noted:
Bobko, Keegan, Reviczky, Mayor Tucker
None
Edgerton
None
Stephe
City Manager
Oki y/
acne Doerfling, City CIe
2
3
• .
ORDINANCE NO. 06-1270
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN THE
ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE R-1 ZONE EXCEPTIONS FOR
4 SMALL LOTS AND AMENDING THE HERMOSA BEACH
MUNICIPAL CODE
5
6
7 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY
8 ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
9 SECTION 1. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on May 16 and
10 June 20, 2006, based on initial direction from the City Council, to consider amending " the
11 development standards of the R-1 zone, as set forth in Section 17.08.030, as they pertain to the
12 exceptions for small lots.
13 SECTION 2. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on July 25, 2006 to
14 consider amending the development standards of the R-1 zone, as set forth in Section 17.08.030, as
15 they pertain to the exceptions for small lots as recommended by the Planning Commission following
16 its public hearing on the matter.
17 SECTION 3. Based on the evidence considered at the public hearing and the
18 recommendation of the Planning Commission, the City Council makes the following findings:
19 1. Section 17.08.030 of the Zoning Ordinance currently provides exceptions to the R-
20 1 development standards for small lots with respect to open space requirements.
21 2. Small lots are defined as lots that are 2100 square feet or less, and the Planning
22 Commission on a case-by-case basis may also include lots within 10% (i.e. up to 2,310 square
23 feet).
24 3. The small lots are largely concentrated in the Shakespeare Tract (between 30th
25 Street and Longfellow Avenue west of Valley Drive). There are approximately 150 lots zoned R-
26 1 located in the Shakespeare tract with lot dimensions of 30'x 70' feet. Additionally, there are
27 approximately 140 other smaller parcels of less than 2100 square feet, of which about 70 are
28 "half -lots" located throughout the City. Also there are approximately another 150 smaller parcels
1 06-1270
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
• •
that fall within the 10% range (i.e. between 2100 and 2310 square feet), which are located in
various areas throughout the City. Therefore, a total of approximately 440 properties may qualify
as "small lots" in the City.
4. A small lot exception for open space in the R-1 zone was added to the code in 1988
and amended in 1997 to deal with the hardship of building on small lots. These provisions have
the unintended effect of allowing the development of slightly larger homes with unconventional
floor plans (i.e. primary hying area on upper floors with bedrooms on the first floor) rather than
traditional floor plans. Also development pressures on small lots have resulted in an unusual
number of variances being requested even with these exceptions.
5. The Ordinance allows the front yard to count toward required open space and to
increase the allowable lot coverage to provide some additional footage demanded by most
homeowners either remodeling or constructing new homes, without compromising neighborhood
compatibility, and should reduce the need for variances. The changes should also increase the
desirability of conventional floor plans on walk streets where the front yard open space directly
connects to the open area available in the encroachment area. Also, these changes may provide
enough additional footage so owners do not feel compelled to construct full basements. For those
lots fronting on vehicular streets these amendments will reduce the current benefit gained by
loading garages on the vehicular street, so owners will be encouraged to continue to use the alley
for garage access, and preserve on -street parking.
6. The subject text amendment is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environment Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to the general rule set forth in Section 15061(3) of
the CEQA Guidelines, as there is no possibility that this text amendment may have a significant
effect on the environment.
SECTION 4. Title 17- Zoning, Chapter 17.08, Section 17.08.030 of the Hermosa Beach
Municipal Code is amended by repealing the entire Subsection number (1), under Section
17.08.030(L), entitled Exceptions for small lots
SECTION 5. Title 17- Zoning, Chapter 17.08, of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code is
amended by adding thereto a new Section 17.08.040 to read as follows:
2 06-1270
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
• •
"Section 17.08.040 Development Standards for Small Lots.
Lots that are 2100 square feet or less in area shall be subject to the development standards
as contained in Section 17.08.030, with the exception of the following standards:
A. Open Space. There shall be a minimum of three hundred (300) square feet of usable
open space with minimum dimensions of seven feet in length and width, and all of the required
usable open space may be provided on balconies or decks provided that at least sixty percent
(60%) of usable open space is directly accessible to primary living areas (living rooms, family
rooms, and kitchen and living room or family room combinations) and located on the same floor
level as the accessible primary living area. The required front yard area may be included in the
required amount of open space provided a minimum dimension of seven feet in length and width
is provided. When computing open space in conjunction with required side yard areas, only the
area that exceeds the minimum required yard dimension may be counted toward open space and
only if the overall dimension of the required yard and the excess area together has a dimension of
seven feet in length and width.
B. Lot Coverage. All buildings including accessory buildings shall not cover more
than seventy (70) percent of the area of the lot;
C. Lots within ten percent (10%) of the lot size identified above (i.e. lots ranging from
2101 - 2310 square feet) may also be considered for some or all of the lot coverage and/or open
space exceptions for small lots, pursuant to the above, subject to review and approval by the
Planning Commission if warranted by any of the following considerations:
1. To achieve a consistent and comparable amount of indoor living space with
existing dwelling units in the immediate neighborhood;
2. To allow design flexibility in the application of the open space standard in
conjunction with the remodeling and expansion of existing structures;
3. To allow an innovative design which otherwise is consistent with the goals
and intent of the open space and development standards for the R-1 zone;
3 06-1270
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
• •
4. To address unusual lot configurations or topography, as compared with
surrounding lot and development patterns."
SECTION 6. 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 7. 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 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance,
shall enter the same in the book of original Ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the
passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the
same is passed and adopted.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 8th of August 2006 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Bobko, Keegan, Reviczky, Mayor Tucker
None
Edgerton
None
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Herniosa Beach, California
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS -TO FORM:
City Attorney
4 06-1270
• • g 4)-o4
July 26, 2006
City Council Meeting
August 8, 2006
Mayor and Members
of the City Council
ORDINANCE NO. 06-1271 - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADDING NEW CHAPTER 8.52
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS AND AMENDING
CHAPTER 15.04 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE"
Submitted for adoption and waiver of full reading is Ordinance No. 06-1271 relating to
the above subject.
At the meeting of July 25, 2006, the ordinance was presented to the City Council for
consideration and introduced by the following vote:
Noted:
Stephe
1
AYES: Bobko, Keegan, Reviczky, Mayor Tucker
NOES: None
ABSENT: Edgerton
ABSTAIN: None
re JCity Manager
Elaine Doerfling, City Cler
3b
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. 06-1271
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORiNIA,
AMENDING TITLE 8 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE ADDING
NEW CHAPTER 8.52 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS AND
AMENDING CHAPTER 15.04 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby finds that the Title 44, Section 60.1(a) of the Code
of Federal Regulations requires adoption of Floodplain Management Regulations in order for the
residents of the City of Hermosa Beach to be eligible to purchase flood insurance through the
National Flood Insurance Program, which is managed by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency. Such regulations must meet the minimum standards set forth in Title 44, Section 60.3 of
the Code of Federal Regulations.
SECTION 2. Title 8 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code is amended by adding thereto
a new Chapter 8.52 to read as follows:
Chapter 8.52 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS
8.52.010 STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION,
The Legislature of the State of California has in Government Code Sections 65302, 65560,
and 65800 conferred upon local governments the authority to adopt regulations designed to
promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of its citizenry. Therefore, the City of
Hermosa Beach does hereby adopt the following floodplain management regulations.
8.52.020 FINDINGS OF FACT_
A. The flood hazard areas of Hermosa Beach are subject to periodic inundation which
results in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and
governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and
impairment of the tax base, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety, and general
welfare.
B. These flood losses are caused by uses that are inadequately elevated, flood -proofed,
or protected from flood damage. The cumulative effect of obstructions in areas of special flood
1 06-1271
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
• •
hazards which increase flood heights and velocities also contributes to flood Losses.
8.52.030 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.
It is the purpose of this chapter to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare,
and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions by provisions designed to:
A. Protect human life and health;
B. Minimize expenditure of public money for costly flood control projects;
C. Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and
generally undertaken at the expense of the general public;
D. Minimize prolonged business interruptions;
E. Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains;
electric, telephone and sewer lines; and streets and bridges located in areas of special flood hazard;
F. Help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development of
areas of special flood hazard so as to minimize future blighted areas caused by flood damage;
G. Ensure that potential buyers are notified that property is in an area of special flood
hazard; and
H. Ensure that those who occupy the areas of special flood hazard assume
responsibility for their actions.
8.52.040 METHODS OF REDUCING FLOOD LOSSES.
In order to accomplish its purposes, this chapter includes regulations to:
A. Restrict or prohibit uses which are dangerous to health, safety, and property due to
water or erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosion or flood heights or
velocities;
B. Require that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities which serve such uses,
be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction;
C. Control the alteration of natural floodplains, stream channels, and natural protective
barriers, which help accommodate or channel floodwaters;
D. Control filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood
damage; and
2
06-1271
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
• •
E. Prevent or regulate the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert
floodwaters or which may increase flood hazards in other areas.
8.52.050 DEFINITIONS.
Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this chapter shall be
interpreted so as to give them the meaning they have in common usage and to give this chapter its
most reasonable application.
"A zone" - sce "Special flood hazard area".
"Accessory structure" means a structure of which the use is incidental to that of the main
structure on the same lot. Where the wall of an accessory structure has a common wall or a
portion of a common wall not less than four feet in length, such accessory structure shall be
considered as a part of the main structure.
"Appeal" means a request for a review of the Floodplain Administrator's interpretation of
any provision of this chapter.
"Area of shallow flooding" means a designated AO or AH Zone on the Flood Insurance
Rate Map (FIRM). The base flood depths range from one to three feet; a clearly defined channel
does not exist; the path of flooding is unpredictable and indeterminate; and velocity flow may be
evident. Such flooding is characterized by ponding or sheet flow.
"Area of special flood hazard" - See "Special flood hazard area."
"Area of special flood -related erosion hazard" is the land within a community which is
most likely to be subject to severe flood -related erosion losses. The area may be designated as
Zone E on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).
"Base flood" means a flood which has a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded
in any given year (also called the "100 -year flood"). Base flood is the term used throughout this
chapter.
"Base flood elevation" (BFE) means the elevation shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map
for Zones AE, AH, A1-30, VE and V1 -V30 that indicates the water surface elevation resulting
from a flood that has a 1 -percent or greater chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year.
3 06-1271
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
• •
"Basement" means any area of the building having its floor subgrade - i.e., below ground
level - on all sides.
"Breakaway walls" are any type of walls, whether solid or lattice, and whether constructed
of concrete, masonry, wood, metal, plastic or any other suitable building material which is not part
of the structural support of the building and which is designed to break away under abnormally
high tides or wave action without causing any damage to the structural integrity of the building on
which they are used or any buildings to which they might be carried by flood waters. A breakaway
wall shall have a safe design loading resistance of not less than 10 and no more than 20 pounds per
square foot. Use of breakaway walls must be certified by a registered engineer or architect and
shall meet the following conditions:
1. Breakaway wall collapse shall result from a water load less than that which would
occur during the base flood; and
2. The elevated portion of the building shall not incur any structural damage due to
the effects of wind and water loads acting simultaneously in the event of the base flood.
"Building" - see "Structure".
"Coastal high hazard area" means an area of special flood hazard extending from offshore
to the inland limit of a primary frontal dune along an open coast and any other area subject to high
velocity wave action from storms or seismic sources. It is an area subject to high velocity waters,
including coastal and tidal inundation or tsunamis. The area is designated on a Flood Insurance
Rate Map (FIRM) as Zone V1 -V30, VE, or V.
"Development" means any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate,
including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading,
paving, excavation or drilling operations or storage of equipment or materials.
"Encroachment" means the advance or infringement of uses, plant growth, fill, excavation,
buildings, permanent structures or development into a floodplain which may impede or alter the
flow capacity of a floodplain.
"Existing manufactured home park or subdivision" means a manufactured home park or
subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the
4
06-1271
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
• •
manufactured homes are to be affixed (including, at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the
construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed
before the date this chapter became effective.
"Expansion to an existing manufactured home park or subdivision" means the preparation
of additional sites by the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured
homes are to be affixed (including the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either
final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads).
"Flood, flooding, or flood water" means:
1. A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally
dry land areas from the overflow of inland or tidal waters; the unusual and rapid accumulation or
runoff of surface waters from any source; and/or mudslides (i.e., mudflows); and
2. The condition resulting from flood -related erosion.
"Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM)" means the official map on which the
Federal Emergency Management Agency or Federal Insurance Administration has delineated both
the areas of special flood hazards and the floodway.
"Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)" means the official map on which the Federal
Emergency Management Agency or Federal Insurance Administration has delineated both the
areas of special flood hazards and the risk premium zones applicable to the community.
"Flood Insurance Study" means the official report provided by the Federal Insurance
Administration that includes flood profiles, the Flood Insurance Rate Map, the Flood Boundary
and Floodway Map, and the water surface elevation of the base flood.
"Floodplain or flood -prone area" means any land area susceptible to being inundated by
water from any source - see "Flooding."
"Floodplain Administrator" is the Director of Public Works.
"Floodplain management" means the operation of an overall program of corrective and
preventive measures for reducing flood damage and preserving and enhancing, where possible,
natural resources in the floodplain, including but not limited to emergency preparedness plans,
flood control works, floodplain management regulations, and open space plans.
5 06-1271
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
• •
"Floodplain management regulations" means this chapter and other zoning ordinances,
subdivision regulations, building codes, health regulations, special purpose ordinances (such as
grading and erosion control) and other application of police power which control development in
flood -prone areas. This term describes federal, state or local regulations in any combination
thereof which provide standards for preventing and reducing flood loss and damage.
"Flood -proofing" means any combination of structural and nonstructural additions,
changes, or adjustments to structures which reduce or eliminate flood damage to real estate or
improved real property, water and sanitary facilities, structures, and their contents. For guidelines
on dry and wet flood -proofing, see FEMA Technical Bulletins TB 1-93, TB 3-93, and TB 7-93.
"Floodway" means the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas
that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the
water surface elevation more than one foot. Also referred to as "Regulatory Floodway."
"Floodway fringe" is that area of the floodplain on either side of the "Regulatory
Floodway" where encroachment may be permitted.
"Fraud and victimization" as related to Section 8.52.260 of this chapter, means that the
variance granted must not cause fraud on or victimization of the public. In examining this
requirement, the City of Hermosa Beach will consider the fact that every newly constructed
building adds to government responsibilities and remains a part of the community for fifty to
one -hundred years. Buildings that are permitted to be constructed below the base flood elevation
are subject during all those years to increased risk of damage from floods, while future owners of
the property and the community as a whole are subject to all the costs, inconvenience, danger, and
suffering that those increased flood damages bring. In addition, future owners may purchase the
property, unaware that it is subject to potential flood damage, and can be insured only at very high
flood insurance rates.
"Functionally dependent use" means a use which cannot perform its intended purpose
unless it is located or carried out in close proximity to water. The term includes only docking
facilities, port facilities that are necessary for the loading and unloading of cargo or passengers,
6
06-1271
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
• •
and ship building and ship repair facilities, and does not include long-term storage or related
manufacturing facilities.
"Governing body" is the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach.
"Hardship" as related to Section 8.52.230 of this chapter means the exceptional hardship
that would result from a failure to grant the requested variance. The City of Hermosa Beach
requires that the variance be exceptional, unusual, and peculiar to the property involved. Mere
economic or financial hardship alone is not exceptional. Inconvenience, aesthetic considerations,
physical handicaps, personal preferences, or the disapproval of one's neighbors likewise cannot, as
a rule, qualify as an exceptional hardship. All of these problems can be resolved through other
means without granting a variance, even if the alternative is more expensive, or requires the
property owner to build elsewhere or put the parcel to a different use than originally intended.
"Highest adjacent grade" means the highest natural elevation of the ground surface prior to
construction next to the proposed walls of a structure.
"Historic structure" means any structure that is:
1. Listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places (a listing maintained
by the Depaitinent of Interior) or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as
meeting the requirements for individual listing on the National Register;
2. Certified or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as contributing
to the historical significance of a registered historic district or a district preliminarily determined
by the Secretary to qualify as a registered historic district;
3. Individually listed on a state inventory of historic places in states with historic
preservation programs which have been approved by the Secretary of Interior; or
4. Individually listed on a local inventory of historic places in communities with
historic preservation programs that have been certified either by an approved state program as
determined by the Secretary of the Interior or directly by the Secretary of the Interior in states
without approved programs.
7 06-1271
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
"Levee" means a man-made structure, usually an earthen embankment, designed and
constructed in accordance with sound engineering practices to contain, control or divert the flow
of water so as to provide protection from temporary flooding.
"Levee system" means a flood protection system which consists of a levee, or levees, and
associated structures, such as closure and drainage devices, which are constructed and operated in
accord with sound engineering practices.
"Lowest floor" means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area, including basement (see
"Basement" definition).
1. An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure below the lowest floor that is usable
solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage in an area other than a basement area, is
not considered a building's lowest floor provided it conforms to applicable non -elevation design
requirements, including, but not limited to:
a. The flood openings standard in Section 8.52.160.C.4 ;
b. anchoring standards .in Section 8.52.160.A;
c. construction materials and methods standards in Section 8.52.160.B; and
d standards for utilities in Section 8.52.170.
"Manufactured home" means a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is
built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when
attached to the required utilities. The term "manufactured home" does not include a "recreational
vehicle".
"Manufactured home park or subdivision" means a parcel (or contiguous parcels) of land
divided into two or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale.
"Market value" is defined in the City of Hermosa Beach substantial damage/improvement
procedures. See Section 8.52.140.B.
"Mean sea level" means, for purposes of the National Flood Insurance Program, the
National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929, North American Vertical Datum (NAVD) of
1988, or other datum, to which base flood elevations shown on a community's Flood Insurance
Rate Map are referenced.
8 06-1271
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
• •
"New construction" for floodplain management purposes, means structures for which the
"start of construction" commenced on or after the effective date of this chapter, and includes any
subsequent improvements to such structures.
"New manufactured home park or subdivision" means a manufactured home park or
subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the
manufactured homes are to be affixed (including at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the
construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed
on or after the effective date of this chapter.
"Obstruction" includes, but is not limited to, any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee,
dike, pile, abutment, protection, excavation, channelization, bridge, conduit, culvert, building,
wire, fence, rock, gravel, refuse, fill, structure, vegetation or other material in, along, across or
projecting into any watercourse which may alter, impede, retard or change the direction and/or
velocity of the flow of water, or due to its location, its propensity to snare or collect debris carried
by the flow of water, or its likelihood of being carried downstream.
"One -hundred -year flood" or "100 -year flood" - see "Base flood."
"Primary frontal dune" means a continuous or nearly continuous mound or ridge of sand
with relatively steep seaward and landward slopes immediately landward and adjacent to the beach
and subject to erosion and overtopping from high tides and waves during major coastal storms.
The inland limit of the primary frontal dune occurs at the point where there is a distinct change
from a relatively mild slope.
"Program deficiency" means a defect in a community's floodplain management regulations
or administrative procedures that impairs effective implementation of those floodplain
management regulations.
"Public safety and nuisance" as related to Section 8.52.250 of this chapter, means that the
granting of a variance must not result in anything which is injurious to safety or health of an entire
community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, or unlawfully obstructs the
free passage or use, in the customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, or
basin.
9 06-1271
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
• •
"Recreational vehicle" means a vehicle which is:
1. Built on a single chassis;
2. 400 square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projection;
3. Designed to be self-propelled or permanently towable by a light-duty truck; and
4. Designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living
quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use.
"Regulatory floodway" means the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent
land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively
increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot.
"Remedy a violation" means to bring the structure or other development into compliance
with State or local floodplain management regulations, or if this is not possible, to reduce the
impacts of its noncompliance. Ways that impacts may be reduced include protecting the structure
or other affected development from flood damages, implementing the enforcement provisions of
this chapter or otherwise deterring future similar violations, or reducing State or Federal financial
exposure with regard to the structure or other development.
"Riverine" means relating to, formed by, or resembling a river (including tributaries),
stream, brook, etc.
"Sand dunes" mean naturally occurring accumulations of sand in ridges or mounds
landward of the beach.
"Sheet flow area" - see "Area of shallow flooding."
"Special flood hazard area (SFHA)" means an area in the floodplain subject to a 1 percent
or greater chance of flooding in any given year. It is shown on an FHBM or FIRM as Zone A, AO,
Al -A30, AE, A99, AH, V1 -V30, VE or V.
"Start of construction" includes substantial improvement and other proposed new
development and means the date the building permit was issued, provided the actual start of
construction, repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, placement, or other improvement was
within 180 days from the date of the permit. The actual start means either the first placement of
permanent construction of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings, the
10
06-1271
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
• •
installation of piles, the construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation; or
the placement of a manufacture home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include
land preparation, such as clearing, grading, and filling; nor does it include the installation of streets
and/or walkways; nor does it include excavation for a basement, footings, piers, or foundations or
the erection of temporary forms; nor does it include the installation on the property of accessory
buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main
structure. For a substantial improvement, the actual start of construction means the first alteration
of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of a building, whether or not that alteration
affects the external dimensions of the building.
"Structure" means a walled and roofed building that is principally above ground; this
includes a gas or liquid storage tank or a manufactured home.
Substantial damage" means damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost
of restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the
market value of the structure before the damage occurred.
"Substantial improvement" means any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other
improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of
the structure before the "start of construction" of the improvement. This term includes structures
which have incurred "substantial damage", regardless of the actual repair work performed. The
term does not, however, include either:
1. Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations or state or
local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the Iocal code
enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions; or
2. Any alteration of a "historic structure," provided that the alteration will not
preclude the structure's continued designation as a "historic structure."
"V zone" - see "Coastal high hazard area."
"Variance" means a grant of relief from the requirements of this chapter which permits
construction in a manner that would otherwise be prohibited by this chapter.
11
06-1271
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
• •
"Violation" means the failure of a structure or other development to be fully compliant
with this chapter. A structure or other development without the elevation certificate, other
certifications, or other evidence of compliance required in this chapter is presumed to be in
violation until such time as that documentation is provided.
"Water surface elevation" means the height, in relation to the National Geodetic Vertical
Datum (NGVD) of 1929, North American Vertical Datum (NAVD) of 1988, or other datum, of
floods of various magnitudes and frequencies in the floodplains of coastal or riverine areas.
"Watercourse" means a lake, river, creek, stream, wash, arroyo, channel or other
topographic feature on or over which waters flow at least periodically. Watercourse includes
specifically designated areas in which substantial flood damage may occur.
8.52.060 LANDS TO WHICH THIS CHAPTER APPLIES.
This chapter shall apply to all areas of special flood hazards within the jurisdiction of City
of Hermosa Beach
8.52.070 BASIS FOR ESTABLISHING THE AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD
HAZARD.
The areas of special flood hazard identified by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) in the "Los Angeles County Flood Insurance Study (FIS)" dated July 6, 1998,
with accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM's) and Flood Boundary and Floodway
Maps (FBFM's), and all subsequent amendments and/or revisions, are hereby adopted by
reference and declared to be a part of this chapter. This FIS and attendant mapping is the
minimum area of applicability of this chapter and may be supplemented by studies for other areas
which allow implementation of this chapter and which are recommended to the City of Hermosa
Beach by the Floodplain Administrator. The study, FIRM's and FBFM's are on file at the City of
Hermosa Beach Public Works Department at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach.
8.52.080 COMPLIANCE.
No structure or land shall hereafter be constructed, located, extended, converted, or altered
without full compliance with the terms of this chapter and other applicable regulations. Violation of the
requirements (including violations of conditions and safeguards) shall constitute a misdemeanor.
12
06-1271
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
• •
Nothing herein shall prevent the City of Hermosa Beach from taking such lawful action as is necessary
to prevent or remedy any violation.
8.52.090 ABROGATION AND GREATER RESTRICTIONS.
This chapter is not intended to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements,
covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this chapter and any other provision of law,
easement, covenant, or deed restriction conflict or overlap, whichever imposes the more stringent
restrictions shall prevail.
8.52.100 INTERPRETATION.
In the interpretation and application of this chapter, all provisions shall be:
A. Considered as minimum requirements;
B. Liberally construed in favor of the governing body; and
C. Deemed neither to limit nor repeal any other powers granted under state statutes.
8.52.110 WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY.
The degree of flood protection required by this chapter is considered reasonable for regulatory
purposes and is based on scientific and engineering considerations. Larger floods can and will occur on
rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by man-made or natural causes. This chapter does not
imply that land outside the areas of special flood hazards or uses permitted within such areas will be
free from flooding or flood damages. This chapter shall not create liability on the part of City of
Hermosa Beach, any officer or employee thereof, the State of California, or the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, for any flood damages that result from reliance on this chapter or any
administrative decision lawfully made hereunder.
8.52.120 FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION PERMIT.
A flood damage prevention permit shall be obtained before any construction or other
development, including manufactured homes, within any area of special flood hazard established
in Section 8.52.070. Application for a flood damage prevention permit shall be made on forms
furnished by the City of Hermosa Beach. The applicant shall provide the following minimum
information:
A. Plans in duplicate, drawn to scale, showing:
13
06-1271
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
•
1. Location, dimensions, and elevation of the area in question, existing or proposed
structures, storage of materials and equipment and their location;
2. Proposed locations of water supply, sanitary sewer, and other utilities;
3. Grading information showing existing and proposed contours, any proposed fill,
and drainage facilities;
4. Location of the regulatory floodway when applicable;
5. Base flood elevation information as specified in Section 8.52.070 or Section
8.52.140.C;
6. Proposed elevation in relation to mean sea level, of the lowest floor (including
basement) of all structures; and
7. Proposed elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any nonresidential
structure will be flood -proofed, as required in Section 8.52.160.C.3 of this chapter and detailed in
FEMA Technical Bulletin TB 3-93.
B. Certification from a registered civil engineer or architect that the nonresidential
flood -proofed building meets the flood -proofing criteria in Section 8.52.160.C.3.
C. For a crawl -space foundation, location and total net area of foundation openings as
required in Section 8.52.160.C.2 of this chapter and detailed in FEMA Technical Bulletins 1-93
and 7-93.
D. Description of the extent to which any watercourse will be altered or relocated as a
result of proposed development.
E. All appropriate certifications listed in Section 8.52.140.E of this chapter.
8.52.130 DESIGNATION OF FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR.
The Director of Public Works is hereby appointed to administer, implement, and enforce
this chapter by granting or denying flood damage prevention permits in accord with its provisions.
8.52.140 DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE FLOODPLAIN ADMINSTRATOR.
The duties and responsibilities of the Floodplain Administrator shall include, but not be
limited to the following:
A. Permit Review.
14
06-1271
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
• •
Review all flood damage prevention permits to determine:
1. Permit requirements of this chapter have been satisfied, including determination of
substantial improvement and substantial damage of existing structures;
2. All other required state and federal permits have been obtained;
3. The site is reasonably safe from flooding;
4. The proposed development does not adversely affect the carrying capacity of areas
where base flood elevations have been determined but a floodway has not been designated. This
means that the cumulative effect of the proposed development when combined with all other
existing and anticipated development will not increase the water surface elevation of the base
flood more than 1 foot at any point within the City of Hermosa Beach; and
5. All Letters of Map Revision (LOMR's) for flood control projects are approved
prior to the issuance of building permits. Building Permits must not be issued based on
Conditional Letters of Map Revision (CLOMR's). Approved CLOMR's allow construction of the
proposed flood control project and land preparation as specified in the "start of construction"
definition.
B. Development of Substantial Improvement and Substantial Damage Procedures.
1. Using FEMA publication FEMA 213, "Answers to Questions About Substantially
Damaged Buildings," develop detailed procedures for identifying and administering requirements
for substantial improvement and substantial damage, to include defining "Market Value."
2. Assure procedures are coordinated with other departments/divisions and
implemented by community staff.
C. Review, Use and Development of Other Base Flood Data.
When base flood elevation data has not been provided in accordance with Section
8.52.070, the Floodplain Administrator shall obtain, review, and reasonably utilize any base flood
elevation and floodway data available from a federal or state agency, or other source, in order to
administer Sections 8.52.160 through 8.52.220.
NOTE: A base flood elevation may be obtained using one of two methods from the
FEMA publication, FEMA 265, "Managing Floodplain Development in Approximate Zone A
15
06-1271
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
1 •
Areas — A Guide for Obtaining and Developing Base (100 -year) Flood Elevations" dated July
1995.
D. Notification of Other Agencies.
1. Alteration or relocation of a watercourse:
a. Notify adjacent communities and the California Department of Water
Resources prior to alteration or relocation;
b. Submit evidence of such notification to the Federal Emergency Management
Agency; and
c. Assure that the flood carrying capacity within the altered or relocated portion of
said watercourse is maintained.
2. Base Flood Elevation changes due to physical alterations:
a. Within 6 months of information becoming available or project completion,
whichever comes first, the floodplain administrator shall submit or assure that the permit applicant
submits technical or scientific data to FEMA for a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).
b. All LOMR's for flood control projects are approved prior to the issuance of
building permits. Building Permits must not be issued based on Conditional Letters of Map
Revision (CLOMR's). Approved CLOMR's allow construction of the proposed flood control
project and land preparation as specified in the "start of construction" definition.
Such submissions are necessary so that upon confirmation of those physical changes
affecting flooding conditions, risk premium rates and floodplain management requirements are
based on current data.
3. Changes in corporate boundaries:
Notify FEMA in writing whenever the corporate boundaries have been
modified by annexation or other means and include a copy of a map of the community clearly
delineating the new corporate limits.
E. Documentation of Floodplain Development.
16
06-1271
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
following:
• •
Obtain and maintain for public inspection and make available as needed the
1 Certification required by Section 8.52.160.C.1 and Section 8.52.190 (lowest floor
elevations);
2. Certification required by Section 8.52.160.C.3 (elevation or flood -proofing of
nonresidential structures);
3. Certification required by Sections 8.52.160.C.4 (wet flood -proofing standard);
4. Certification of elevation required by Section 8.52.180.A.3 (subdivisions and other
proposed development standards);
5. Certification required by Section 8.52.220 (floodway encroachments);
6. Information required by Section 8.52.210.F (coastal construction standards); and
7. Maintain a record of all variance actions, including justification for their issuance,
and report such variances issued in its biennial report submitted to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
F. Map Determination. Make interpretations where needed, as to the exact location of the
boundaries of the areas of special flood hazard, where there appears to be a conflict between a
mapped boundary and actual field conditions. The person contesting the location of the boundary
shall be given a reasonable opportunity to appeal the interpretation as provided in Section
8.52.150.
G. Remedial Action. Take action to remedy violations of this chapter as specified in
Section 8.52.080.
H. Biennial Report. Complete and submit Biennial Report to FEMA.
I. Planning. Assure community's General Plan is consistent with floodplain management
objectives herein.
8.52.150 APPEALS
The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach shall hear and decide appeals when it is
alleged there is an error in any requirement, decision, or determination made by the Floodplain
Administrator in the enforcement or administration of this chapter.
17
06-1271
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
• •
8.52.160 STANDARDS OF CONSTRUCTION
In all areas of special flood hazards the following standards are required:
A. Anchoring.
All new construction and substantial improvements of structures, including
manufactured homes, shall be adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral
movement of the structure resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the
effects of buoyancy.
B. Construction Materials and Methods.
All new construction and substantial improvements of structures, including
manufactured homes, shall be constructed:
1. With flood resistant materials, and utility equipment resistant to flood damage for
areas below the base flood elevation;
2. Using methods and practices that minimize flood damage;
3. With electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing and air conditioning equipment and
other service facilities that are designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or
accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding; and
4. Within Zones AH or AO, so that there are adequate drainage paths around
structures on slopes to guide flood waters around and away from proposed structures.
C. Elevation and Flood -proofing.
1. Residential construction. All new construction or substantial improvements of
residential structures shall have the lowest floor, including basement:
a. In AE, AH, Al -30 Zones, elevated to or above the base flood elevation.
b. In an AO zone, elevated above the highest adjacent grade to a height equal
to or exceeding the depth number specified in feet on the FIRM, or elevated at least 2 feet above
the highest adjacent grade if no depth number is specified.
c. In an A zone, without BFE's specified on the FIRM [unnumbered A zone],
elevated to or above the base flood elevation; as determined under Section 8.52.140.C.
18
06-1271
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
• •
Upon the completion of the structure, the elevation of the lowest floor, including basement,
shall be certified by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor, and verified by the
community building inspector to be properly elevated. Such certification and verification shall be
provided to the Floodplain Administrator.
2. Crawlspace Construction. This sub -section applies to buildings with crawl spaces
up to 2 feet below grade. Below -grade crawl space construction in accordance with the
requirements listed below will not be considered basements.
a. The building must be designed and adequately anchored to resist flotation,
collapse, and lateral movement of the structure resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads,
including the effects of buoyancy. Crawl space construction is not allowed in areas with flood
velocities greater than 5 feet per second unless the design is reviewed by a qualified design
professional, such as a registered architect or professional engineer;
b. The crawl space is an enclosed area below the BFE and, as such, must have
openings that equalize hydrostatic pressures by allowing for the automatic entry and exit of
floodwaters. For guidance on flood openings, see FEMA Technical Bulletin 1-93;
c. Crawl space construction is not permitted in V zones. Open pile or column
foundations that withstand storm surge and wave forces are required in V zones;
d. Portions of the building below the BFE must be constructed with materials
resistant to flood damage. This includes not only the foundation walls of the crawl space used to
elevate the building, but also any joists, insulation, or other materials that extend below the BFE;
and
e. Any building utility systems within the crawl space must be elevated above
BFE or designed so that floodwaters cannot enter or accumulate within the system components
during flood conditions.
f. Requirements for all below -grade crawl space construction, in addition to
the above requirements, to include the following:
1. The interior grade of a crawl space below the BFE must not be more than
2 feet below the lowest adjacent exterior grade (LAG), shown as D in figure 3 of Technical
19
06-1271
2
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
• •
Bulletin 11-01;
2. The height of the below -grade crawl space, measured from the interior
grade of the crawl space to the top of the crawl space foundation wall must not exceed 4 feet
(shown as L in figure 3 of Technical Bulletin 11-01) at any point;
3. There must be an adequate drainage system that removes floodwaters
from the interior area of the crawl space within a reasonable period of time after a flood event, not
to exceed 72 hours; and
4. The velocity of floodwaters at the site should not exceed 5 feet per second
for any crawl space. For velocities in excess of 5 feet per second, other foundation types should be
3. Nonresidential construction. All new construction or substantial improvements of
nonresidential structures shall either be elevated to conform with Section 8.52.160.0 or:
a. Be flood -proofed, together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities,
below the elevation recommended under Section 8.52.160.C.1, so that the structure is watertight
with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water;
b. Have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and
hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy; and
c. Be certified by a registered civil engineer or architect that the standards of
Section 8.52.160.C.3.a & b are satisfied. Such certification shall be provided to the Floodplain
Administrator.
4. Flood openings. All new construction and substantial improvements of structures
with fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor (excluding basements) that are usable solely for
parking of vehicles, building access or storage, and which are subject to flooding, shall be
designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the
entry and exit of floodwater. Designs for meeting this requirement must meet the following
minimum criteria:
a. For non -engineered openings:
1. Have a minimum of two openings on different sides having a total
net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding;
20
06-1271
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
•
2. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade;
3. Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves or other
coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwater; and
4. Buildings with more than one enclosed area must have openings on
exterior walls for each area to allow flood water to directly enter; or
b. Be certified bya registered civil engineer or architect.
5. Manufactured homes. See Section 8.52.190.
6. Garages and low cost accessory structures.
a. Attached garages.
1. A garage attached to a residential structure, constructed with the
garage floor slab below the BFE, must be designed to allow for the automatic entry of flood
waters. See Section 8.52.160.C.4. Areas of the garage below the BFE must be constructed with
flood resistant materials. See Section 8.52.160.B.
2. A garage attached to a nonresidential structure must meet the above
requirements or be dry flood -proofed. For guidance on below grade parking areas, see FEMA
Technical Bulletin TB -6.
b. Detached garages and accessory structures.
1. "Accessory structures" used solely for parking (2 car detached garages
or smaller) or limited storage, as defined in Section 8.52.050, may be constructed such that its
floor is below the base flood elevation (BFE), provided the structure is designed and constructed
in accordance with the following requirements:
a. Use of the accessory structure must be limited to parking or limited
storage;
24 b. The portions of the accessory structure located below the BFE must
25 be built using flood -resistant materials;
26 c. The accessory structure must be adequately anchored to prevent
27 flotation, collapse and lateral movement;
28
21
06-127]
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
• •
d. Any mechanical and utility equipment in the accessory structure
must be elevated or flood -proofed to or above the BFE;
e. The accessory structure must comply with floodplain encroachment
provisions in Section 8.52.220; and
f. The accessory structure must be designed to allow for the automatic
entry of flood waters in accordance with Section 8.52.160.C.4.
2. Detached garages and accessory structures not meeting the above
standards must be constructed in accordance with all applicable standards in Section 8.52.160.
8.52.170 STANDARDS FOR UTILITIES.
A. All new and replacement water supply and sanitary sewage systems shall be
designed to minimize or eliminate:
1. Infiltration of flood waters into the systems; and
2. Discharge from the systems into flood waters.
B. On-site waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them, or
contamination from them during flooding.
8.52.180 STANDARDS FOR SUBDIVISIONS AND OTHER PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT
A. All new subdivisions proposals and other proposed development, including
proposals for manufactured home parks and subdivisions, greater than 50 lots or 5 acres,
whichever is the lesser, shall:
1. Identify the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) and Base Flood Elevations (BFE).
2. Identify the elevations of lowest floors of all proposed structures and pads on the
final plans.
3. If the site is filled above the base flood elevation, the following as -built information
for each structure shall be certified by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor and
provided as part of an application for a Letter of Map Revision based on Fill (LOMR-F) to the
Floodplain Administrator:
a. Lowest floor elevation.
22
06-1271
b. Pad elevation.
c. Lowest adjacent grade.
B. All subdivision proposals and other proposed development shall be consistent with the
need to minimize flood damage.
C. All subdivision proposals and other proposed development shall have public utilities
and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical and water systems located and constructed to minimize
flood damage.
D. All subdivisions and other proposed development shall provide adequate drainage to
reduce exposure to flood hazards.
8.52.190 STANDARDS FOR MANUFACTURED HOMES
A. All manufactured homes that are placed or substantially improved, on sites located:
(1) outside of a manufactured home park or subdivision; (2) in a new manufactured home park or
subdivision; (3) in an expansion to an existing manufactured home park or subdivision; or (4) in
an existing manufactured home park or subdivision upon which a manufactured home has incurred
"substantial damage" as the result of a flood, shall:
1. Within Zones A1-30, AH, and AE on the community's Flood Insurance Rate Map,
be elevated on a permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the manufactured home is
elevated to or above the base flood elevation and be securely fastened to an adequately anchored
foundation system to resist flotation, collapse, and lateral movement.
2. Within Zones V1-30, V, and VE on the community's Flood Insurance Rate Map,
meet the requirements of Section 8.52.210.
B. All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved on sites in an
existing manufactured home park or subdivision within Zones A1-30, AH, AE, V1-30, V, and VE
on the community's Flood Insurance Rate Map that are not subject to the provisions of Section
8.52.190 will be securely fastened to an adequately anchored foundation system to resist flotation,
collapse, and lateral movement, and be elevated so that either the:
1. Lowest floor of the manufactured home is at or above the base flood elevation; or
2. Manufactured home chassis is supported by reinforced piers or other foundation
23
06-1271
26
27
28
• •
elements of at least equivalent strength that are no less than 36 inches in height above grade.
Upon the completion of the structure, the elevation of the lowest floor including
basement shall be certified by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor, and verified by
the community building inspector to be properly elevated. Such certification and verification shall
be provided to the Floodplain Administrator.
8.52.200 STANDARDS FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLES
A. All recreational vehicles placed in Zones A1-30, AH, AE, V1-30 and VE will
either:
1. Be on the site for fewer than 180 consecutive days; or
2. Be fully licensed and ready for highway use. A recreational vehicle is ready for
highway use if it is on its wheels or jacking system, is attached to the site only by quick disconnect
type utilities and security devices, and has no permanently attached additions; or
3. Meet the permit requirements of Section 8.52.120 of this chapter and the elevation
and anchoring requirements for manufactured homes in Section 8.52.190.
B. Recreational vehicles placed on sites within Zones V1-30, V, and VE on the
community's Flood Insurance Rate Map will meet the requirements of Section 8.52.200.A and
Section 8.52.210.
8.52.210 COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREAS
Within coastal high hazard areas, Zones V, V1-30, and VE, as established under Section
8.52.070, the following standards shall apply:
A. All new residential and non-residential construction, including substantial
improvement/damage, shall be elevated on adequately anchored pilings or columns and securely
anchored to such pilings or columns so that the bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member
of the lowest floor (excluding the pilings or columns) is elevated to or above the base flood level.
The pile or column foundation and structure attached thereto is anchored to resist flotation,
collapse, and lateral movement due to the effects of wind and water loads acting simultaneously
on all building components. Water loading values used shall be those associated with the base
flood. Wind loading values used shall be those required by applicable state or Local building
24
06-1271
standards.
B. All new construction and other development shall be located on the landward side
of the reach of mean high tide.
C. All new construction and substantial improvement shall have the space below the
lowest floor free of obstructions or constructed with breakaway walls as defined in Section
8.52.050 of this chapter. Such enclosed space shall not be used for human habitation and will be
usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage.
D. Fill shall not be used for structural support of buildings.
E. Man-made alteration of sand dunes which would increase potential flood damage is
prohibited.
F. The Floodplain Administrator shall obtain and maintain the following records:
1. Certification by a registered engineer or architect that a proposed structure complies
with Section 8.52.210.A; and
2. The elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the bottom of the lowest horizontal
structural member of the lowest floor (excluding pilings or columns) of all new and substantially
improved structures, and whether such structures contain a basement.
8.52.220 FLOODWAYS.
Since floodways are an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of flood waters which
carry debris, potential projectiles, and erosion potential, the following provisions apply:
A. Until a regulatory floodway is adopted, no new construction, substantial
development, or other development (including fill) shall be permitted within Zones A1-30 and AE,
unless it is demonstrated that the cumulative effect of the proposed development, when combined
with all other development, will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more
than 1 foot at any point within the City of Hermosa Beach.
B. Within an adopted regulatory floodway, the City of Hermosa Beach shall prohibit
encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and other
development, unless certification by a registered civil engineer is provided demonstrating that the
proposed encroachment shall not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the
25
06-1271
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
• •
base flood discharge.
C. If Sections 8.52.220.A & B are satisfied, all new construction, substantial
improvement, and other proposed new development shall comply with all other applicable flood
hazard reduction provisions of Sections 8.52.160 through 8.52:220.
8.52.230 NATURE OF VARIANCES
The issuance of a variance is for floodplain management purposes only. Insurance
premium rates are determined by statute according to actuarial risk and will not be modified by the
granting of a variance.
The variance criteria set forth in this section of the chapter are based on the general
principle of zoning law that variances pertain to a piece of property and are not personal in nature.
A variance may be granted for a parcel of property with physical characteristics so unusual
that complying with the requirements of this chapter would create an exceptional hardship to the
applicant or the surrounding property owners. The characteristics must be unique to the property
and not be shared by adjacent parcels. The unique characteristic must pertain to the land itself, not
to the structure, its inhabitants, or the property owners.
It is the duty of the City of Hermosa Beach to help protect its citizens from flooding. This
need is so compelling and the implications of the cost of insuring a structure built below flood
level are so serious that variances from the flood elevation or from other requirements in the flood
ordinance are quite rare. The long term goal of preventing and reducing flood loss and damage
can only be met if variances are strictly limited. Therefore, the variance guidelines provided in
this chapter are more detailed and contain multiple provisions that must be met before a variance
can be properly granted. The criteria are designed to screen out those situations in which
alternatives other than a variance are more appropriate.
8.52.240 CONDITIONS FOR VARIANCES
A. Generally, variances may be issued for new construction, substantial improvement,
and other proposed new development to be erected on a lot of one-half acre or less in size
contiguous to and surrounded by lots with existing structures constructed below the base flood
level, providing that the procedures of Sections 8.52.120 through 8.52.220 of this chapter have
26
06-1271
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
1I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
• •
been fully considered. As the lot size increases beyond one-half acre, the technical justification
required for issuing the variance increases.
B. Variances may be issued for the repair or rehabilitation of "historic structures" (as
defined in Section 8.52.050 of this chapter ) upon a determination that the proposed repair or
rehabilitation will not preclude the structure's continued designation as an historic structure and
the variance is the minimum necessary to preserve the historic character and design of the
structure.
C. Variances shall not be issued within any mapped regulatory floodway if any
increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result.
D. Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the
"minimum necessary" considering the flood hazard, to afford relief. "Minimum necessary" means
to afford relief with a minimum of deviation from the requirements of this chapter. For example,
in the case of variances to an elevation requirement, this means the City of Hermosa Beach need
not grant permission for the applicant to build at grade, or even to whatever elevation the applicant
proposes, but only to that elevation which the City of Hermosa Beach believes will both provide
relief and preserve the integrity of the local ordinance.
E. Any applicant to whom a variance is granted shall be given written notice over the
signature of a community official that:
1. The issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the base flood level will
result in increased premium rates for flood insurance up to amounts as high as $25 for $100 of
insurance coverage, and
2. Such construction below the base flood level increases risks to Life and property. It
is recommended that a copy of the notice shall be recorded by the Floodplain Administrator in the
Office of the Los Angeles County Recorder and shall be recorded in a manner so that it appears in
the chain of title of the affected parcel of land.
F. The Floodplain Administrator will maintain a record of all variance actions, including
justification for their issuance, and report such variances issued in its biennial report submitted to
the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
27
06-1271
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
• •
8.52.250 CRITERIA FOR ISSUANCE OF VARIANCES
A. In passing upon requests for variances, the City of Hermosa Beach shall consider
all technical evaluations, all relevant factors, standards specified in other sections of this chapter,
and the:
1. Danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others;
2. Danger of life and property due to flooding or erosion damage;
3. Susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the
effect of such damage on the existing individual owner and future owners of the property;
4. Importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community;
5. Necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable;
6. Availability of alternative locations for the proposed use which are not subject to
flooding or erosion damage;
7. Compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development;
8. Relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and floodplain
management program for that area;
9. Safety of access to the property in time of flood for ordinary and emergency
vehicles;
10. Expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the
flood waters expected at the site; and
11. Costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions,
including maintenance and repair of public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and
water system, and streets and bridges.
B. Variances shall only be issued upon a:
1. Showing of good and sufficient cause;
2. Determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional
"hardship" to the applicant; and
3. Determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood
heights, additional threats to public safety, or extraordinary public expense, create a nuisance (see
28
06-1271
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
• •
"Public safety and nuisance"), cause "fraud and victimization" of the public, or conflict with
existing local laws or ordinances.
C. Variances may be issued for new construction, substantial improvement, and other
proposed new development necessary for the conduct of a functionally dependent use provided that
the provisions of Sections 8.52.250.A through 8.52.250.D are satisfied and that the structure or
other development is protected by methods that minimize flood damages during the base flood and
does not result in additional threats to public safety and does not create a public nuisance.
D. Upon consideration of the factors of Section 8.52.240.A and the purposes of this
chapter, the City of Hermosa Beach may attach such conditions to the granting of variances as it
deems necessary to further the purposes of this chapter.
SECTION 3. Chapter 15.04 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code is amended by adding
a new Section 15.04.150 to read as follows:
15.04.150 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 15.04.010, the Building Code is amended by
requiring that all construction or other development within any area of special flood hazard, as
determined in Section 8.52.060 of this Code, is subject to the Floodplain Management Regulations
set forth in Chapter 8.52 of this Code.
SECTION 4. 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 5. Pursuant to Government Code § 36933(c)(1), a summary of this ordinance
was published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and
circulated, in the City of Hermosa Beach five days before adoption. Prior to the expiration of
fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause a summary of 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.
29
06-1271
• •
SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance,
shall enter the same in the book of original Ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the
passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the
same is passed and adopted.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 8th of August 2006 by the following vote:
AYES: Bobko, Edgerton, Keegan, Reviczky, Mayor Tucker
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk City Attorney
30
06-1271
July 31, 2006
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of
Hermosa Beach City Council
August 8, 2006
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN INCREASE IN THE CITY'S IN -LIEU PARKING FEE
Recommendation:
That the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving an increase in the City's in -lieu parking
fee from $12,500 to $28,900 per space.
Background:
Section 17.44. 040E of the Zone Code establishes requirements for the payment of fees to provide for
off-site parking in -lieu of providing the required parking on the project site:
"E. Parking in -lieu fees. When the city council provides for contributions to an improvement
fund for a vehicle parking district in -lieu of parking spaces so required, said in -lieu fee
contributions shall be considered to satisfy the requirements of this chapter..."
The amount of the in -lieu parking fee is to be adopted by City Council resolution. The fee amount was
last changed in June of 1999, when it was set at $12,500. From preliminary information on
construction costs and comparison with other cities' fees, it was determined that the current fee amount
is not sufficient to finance the cost of providing the off-site spaces. The City commissioned the
attached study by Nagasaki and Associates to determine the appropriate revised in -lieu fee amount
based upon a comparative analysis of in lieu fees in other cities and the cost per stall to construct
subterranean parking. The study determined that:
"Many fees are typically based on the purported cost per space for construction of alternative
parking structures to accommodate development in the `in -lieu parking' districts. We ... sought
secondary information for developing the cost to construct a parking structure in the city of
Hermosa Beach. This is based a hypothetical parking structure located within the city including
costs of construction, financing and land acquisition..." (p.3)
The study concludes that allowing for the estimated costs of construction and land acquisition:
"[the data] indicates a range of $25,882 to $33,849 per space, with an average of $28,884. It is
interesting to note that these figures are generally consistent with the in -lieu fees being charged
[by other cities] which in many cases reflect the cost to build a new parking structure...
... we have concluded with an in -lieu parking fee of $28,900 per space as appropriate for the
City of Hermosa Beach. This figure considers both the cost basis, as well as competitive rates
charged by other municipalities." (p.4)
Thus, the attached study finds that the average construction cost is $28,844, which is generally
consistent with the fees charged by most area cities for in lieu parking and that the City's in -lieu
parking fee should be revised to $28,900. Staff believes that the data presented are realistic and the
conclusions are reasonable given the prevailing fees in other cities and therefore recommends adoption
of the attached resolution.
5a
• •
Development Impacts with the Proposed Fee Change:
The proposed fee change dramatically increases already costly in lieu parking fees. Two recently
proposed downtown office -retail projects that substantially relied on in lieu parking for project
development may find the cost prohibitive.' Promoting office and retail use remains a goal in the
downtown and the Council may want to exercise flexibility for certain projects that promote economic
development goals. For example, the Council may want to consider options for in lieu parking such as
allowing smaller businesses to lease in lieu spaces to accommodate smaller business expansions.
Another option may to allow discounted in lieu fees for certain projects that promote an important
revitalization goals or to allow certain businesses to pay in Iieu parking over time.2 This effectively
subsidizes the cost of parking to facilitate an important project or goal. If the City Council wants to
pursue any of these changes they can be accomplished with a future amendment to the downtown
Parking Ordinance.3 Any proposed changes to the downtown in lieu parking program will also require
Coastal Commission approval.
Fiscal Impact:
Per the findings of the study, the revised fee will provide for deposits to the City's Downtown
Enhancement Fund for funding the construction of public parking facilities in the city.
Sol Blumenfe d, D rector
Community 1 evelopment
Con
Step
City % anager
Notes:
Approved for Fiscal Impact:
Viki Cope and, Director
Finance
1. A proposed retail/office project at 400 Pier Avenue recently reduced the project scope to accommodate
more parking on site and reduce parking demand and another retail -office project at 1429 Hermosa
Avenue that is proposing to use in lieu parking may need to reevaluate the project based upon the
Council's decision regarding the in lieu fee increase.
2. Some cities like the City of San Clemente authorize time payments from 5 to 10 years with a minimum
initial cash payment of one-half the value of the spaces and the balance paid over the term and interest
accruing on the unpaid balance of the in lieu fee at 10% annually.
3. The current in lieu parking ordinance requires providing 25% of parking on-site for projects with floor
area ratios over 1:1 and project with less than 1:1 floor area may provide 100% of project parking in
lieu.
Attachments:
1. Study by Nagasaki and Associates
2. Draft Resolution
P:/InLieuFces
•
NAGASAKI &i ASSOCIATES
REAL ESTATE CONSULTANTS
Mr. Sol Blumenfeld
Community Development Director
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Room 103
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Dear Mr. Blumenfeld:
July 10, 2006
Re: In -Lieu Parking Fees
Downtown Parking District
Hermosa Beach, California
File No. 06-191
In accordance with your request, we have completed an analysis of the In -Lieu Parking Fees for the City
of Hermosa Beach. Please recognize this report is a consulting analysis and provides an opinion of the fee
to be paid "in -lieu of the required parking spaces needed for development of a project in the Downtown
District of the city. This is not a formal appraisal document, but provides in summary report format, our
investigations and conclusions of the appropriate in -lieu parking fee.
The client and intended user of this report is the City of Hermosa Beach and its Community Development
Director for the purpose of updating the current in -lieu parking fee charged for development in the
Downtown Hermosa Beach district. Use by others in not implied nor permitted.
Based on our investigations and analyses, we have concluded the appropriate In -Lieu Parking Fee for the
downtown district of the City of Hermosa Beach, as of the current date, should be:
TWENTY EIGHT THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED DOLLARS PER SPACE
($28,900 PER SPACE)
Scope of Work
In our scope of work we undertook the following studies:
Reviewed the existing ordinance;
Researched charges for In -lieu parking fees for cities in Southern California;
Researched parking garage costs on a per space basis;
Reconciled and considered the application of both costs and similar fees as compared to Hermosa
Beach;
Arrived at a conclusion of final charges appropriate for the city;
Prepared a written report outlining our conclusions in a summary report format.
2421 West 205th Street, Suite D201
Torrance, California 90501
310.224.7900, Ext. 103 • 310.224.7901 Fax
• •
Existing Ordinance
According to the city of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code the following is the current ordinance:
17.44. 040 Parking requirements for the downtown district.
The following requirements apply within in the boundary of the downtown district, as defined by
the map incorporated by this reference.
A. The amount of parking shall be calculated for each particular use as set forth in Section
17.44.030 with the exception of the following:
Retail, general retail commercial uses: one space for each 333.33 square feet of gross floor
area (or 3 spaces per 1000 square feet).
Offices, general: one space for each 333.33 square feet of gross floor area (or 3 spaces per
1000 square feet).
Office, medical: one space for each 333.33 square feet of gross floor area (or 3 spaces per
1000 square feet).
B. When the use of an existing building or portion thereof is less than 5,000 square feet gross floor
area is changed from a non -restaurant use to a restaurant use, the parking requirement shall be
calculated as set forth in Section 17.44.030, with no parking credit allowed for the existing or prior
use.
C. When the use of an existing building or a portion thereof is changed to a more intensive use with
a higher parking demand (with the exception of restaurants less than 5,000 square feet gross floor
area as noted above), the requirement for additional parking shall be calculated as the difference
between the required parking as stated in this chapter for that particular use as compared to a base
requirement of 1 space per 250 square feet gross floor area.
D. For expansions to existing buildings legally nonconforming to parking requirements, parking
requirements shall only be applied to the amount of expansion.
E. Parking in -lieu fees. When the city council provides for contributions to an improvement fund for
a vehicle parking district in -lieu of parking spaces so required, said in -lieu fee contributions shall
be considered to satisfy the requirements of this chapter.
The Director of the Community Development Department shall be responsible for the
calculations required under this chapter and shall calculate and collect the in -lieu
contribution.
The following allowances through in -lieu fee contributions for parking may be allowed with
a parking plan as approved by the Planning Commission and as prescribed in Section
17.44.210:
a. Building sites with a ratio of building floor area to building site of one to one or less may
pay an "in -lieu" fee for all required spaces.
b. Building sites where buildings will exceed a one to one gross floor area to building site
area ratio shall be required to provide a minimum of twenty-five (25) percent of the required
parking on-site.
Scope of Investigations for Competitive Fees
We began our search by contacting municipalities across Los Angeles and Orange Counties regarding their
practices of in -lieu parking fees. As might be expected, many cities in the suburban areas of the counties do
not have such fees, as parking is required within specific developments and not allowed to be off-site.
Typically, these fees applied to densely developed urban or downtown dining/entertainment areas which
provided parking in structures owned by the individual cities or county. Ultimately, adequate parking is
available to the immediate area, consolidated within these structures, but whose cost of development or
acquisition are offset by the imposition of the in -lieu fees.
We initially contacted over 25 cities, concentrating on those cities with known fees, within beach
communities, or areas with densely developed downtown or dining/entertainment districts. The results from
the various cities are shown below:
Manhattan Beach has $28,935 per space in designated parking districts. Persons purchase merchant
parking permits at a rate of $0.90 per day. Up to five offsite spaces are allowed within 300 ft.
Hermosa Beach - In -Lieu Parking Fee Page 2 File No. 06-191
/1
• •
El Segundo's per space cost is $17,500 and in -lieu parking is only available in the downtown
specific area. Financing options are available. Before June 2004, fees were $12,500 per space.
Huntington Beach's in -lieu fee per parking space is $15,563.30 in the downtown area only.
Beverly Hills per space parking fees are levied only in the business triangle area around Wilshire and
Santa Monica boulevards. Rodeo Drive fees are $33,338.80 per space; Beverly Drive is $26,671;
and, other locations within the triangle are set at $20,003.20
West Hollywood has an in -lieu fee of $20,000 per space for development throughout the city.
Santa Monica allows in -lieu parking for office developments greater than 15,000 sf. Fees are $2.25
psf for the first 15,000 sf and 55.00 psf for areas exceeding 15,000 sf; based on this the minimum
fee would be $33,750 for the first 15,000 sf of development; however, this is a one time charge and
would permit the multiple spaces within that fee.
Torrance has not implemented an in -lieu policy. However, merchants can buy spaces from other
businesses but must be reviewed by the planning commission. The cost of entitlements is $2,400
and does not include the cost per space.
Long Beach designated per space fee of $3,000.
Seal Beach's in -lieu fee is $3,500 per space and applies to Main Street only.
Based on these fees, we gave most consideration to the Manhattan Beach fee, similar in location and
downtown flavor of the subject. We considered the El Segundo and Huntington Beach fees to be less than
the subject due to the less intensive development of the downtown areas. The Beverly Hills fee was higher
due to the Rodeo Drive location, but the other Triangle and Beverly Drive locational features were
considered comparable to Hermosa Beach. West Hollywood's fee is similar to slightly inferior due to the lack
of densely developed retail/entertainment districts.
Construction Costs
Many fees are typically based on the purported cost per space for construction of alternative parking
structures to accommodate development in the "in -lieu parking" districts. We were unable to uncover any
recent direct cost figures for garages in the various cities surveyed. Therefore we sought secondary
information for developing the cost to construct a parking structure in the city of Hermosa Beach. This is
based a hypothetical parking structure located within the city including costs of construction, financing and
Land acquisition. The first component for construction is the estimated costs of direct construction of the
building structure.
The first resource we reviewed was Marshall Valuation, a nationally recognized cost manual. This
provides a range of costs per space of $15,608 for average and $23,012 for high costs. This includes
current and local multipliers, as well as 15% soft or indirect costs (for surveys or feasibility studies,
financing costs, miscellaneous fees).
RS Means Construction Cost Data is another nationally recognized cost publication. We
contacted their senior editor to provide us with a cost per space. As with many cost manuals, the
more accurate method to calculate the direct cost is on a per square foot basis of proposed building
area. They indicated that their costs are based on actual figures and that a locally adjusted cost per
space based on their national averages would be $18,364 per space including 15% or indirect costs.
Finally, we reviewed a January 2004 article in The Parking Professional, prepared by Joey D.
Rowland, P.E. of Carl Walker, Inc., a national parking consulting finn. His firm keeps a data base
of actual construction costs for projects they have developed on a national basis. Based on the
figures published in that article, adjusted for location and to current time, including 15% indirect
costs would be $15,045 per space.
Hermosa Beach - In -Lieu Parking Fee Page 3 File No. 06-191
• •
Based on these figures, the range is from $15,045 to $23,012 per space, with an average of $18,007 per
space. This provides the tools to consider actual construction of the garage, but we would need to consider
the acquisition cost of land to develop this hypothetical structure.
We do not have a specific site to consider for this potential garage, so we cannot provide an appraisal of land
to form this basis. However, we did consider the cost for land in the Hermosa Beach area. In a separate
study we conducted, we researched land sales within a five mile radius of the city for the various land use
types including commercial, residential and industrial properties. We researched sales from January 2000
to the current date. Utilizing this information, including the average and median price psf for the various land
uses, we estimated the cost of land in the city. These figures were weighted by their various proportions of
land use within the city's General Plan. Based on this information, the weighted average price psf for land
in Hermosa Beach is $101 psf. This was considered reasonable, given the high cost of residential land and
the weighted proportion of 55% of the land uses in the city.
We used this figure to estimate the approximate cost for the land component for a potential garage. The land
acquisition would include a site and at least a three-story design. Based on this the potential cost per space
for land in the city of Hermosa Beach would be $10,937 per space. This would be added to the cost figures
already shown and is calculated in the following table:
Source
Construction Cost
Land Cost
Total Cost
Marshall
Valuation
Average
$15,608
$10,837
$26,445
High
$23,012
$10,837
$33,849
R.S. Means
$18,364
$10,837
$29,201
Carl Walker, Inc.
$15,045
$10,837
$25,882
Average
$18,007
$10,837
$28,844
This indicates a range of $25,882 to $33,849 per space, with an average of $28,884. It is interesting to note
that these figures are generally consistent with the in -lieu fees being charged which in many cases reflect the
cost to build a new parking structure.
Conclusion
Based on both of these studies, we have concluded with an in -lieu parking fee of $28,900 per space as
appropriate for the City of Hermosa Beach. This figure considers both the cost basis, as well as competitive
rates charged by other municipalities. We hope this information assists the city in its updating of existing
fees.
Sincerely,
N •�;i • KI & ASSOCIATES
JN:abl
Nagasaki, MAI
Hermosa Beach - In -Lieu Parking Fee Page 4 File No. 06-191
i
• •
CERTIFICATION AND RESTRICTION UPON DISCLOSURE AND USE
I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, ..
The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct.
The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting
conditions, and are my personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions.
I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report.
I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved.
My compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the
cause of the client, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a
subsequent event. My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined
results.
The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity
with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics & Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the
Appraisal Institute, which include the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.
No one provided significant professional assistance to the persons signing this letter.
One (or more) of the signatories of this appraisal report is a Member (Associate or Affiliate) of the Appraisal
Institute. The Bylaws and Regulations of the Institute require each Member and Associate or Affiliate to control
the use and distribution of each appraisal signed by such Member or Associate or Affiliate. Therefore, except as
hereinafter provided, the party for whom this report was prepared may distribute copies of this appraisal, in its
entirety, to such third parties as may be selected by the party for whom this appraisal was prepared; however,
selected portions of this appraisal shall not be given to third parties without the prior written consent of the
signatories of this report. Further, neither all nor any part of this appraisal shall be disseminated to the general
public by the use of advertising media, public relations media, news media, sales media or other media for public
communication without the prior written consent of the signatories of this report.
The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly
authorized representatives.
As of the date of this letter Jeffrey T. Nagasaki, MAI has completed the requirements of the continuing education
program of the Appraisal Institute. As of the date of this letter Jeffrey T. Nagasaki, MAI (No. AG003078) has
satisfied the requirements as Certified General Real Estate Appraisers, licensed by the State of California.
I have
inspected the property which is the subject of this report.
CA# AGO
Hermosa Beach - In -Lieu Parking Fee Page 5 File No. 06-191
QUALIFICATIONS OF JEFFREY T. NAGASAKI, MAI
EXPERIENCE
Nagasaki & Associates, 2005 to present; Principal responsible for providing a broad variety of real estate
consultation and valuation services for the public and private sectors. Property rights appraised include fee
simple, leased fee, and leasehold interest. Services include traditional market value studies, market rent
studies, historic valuation studies, value diminution analysis, partial interests for estate planning and family
limited partnerships. Assignments deal with all major property types including commercial retail and office,
hotel, industrial, marina, multiple residential, acreage, residential subdivisions, and special purpose
properties. He is qualified as an approved appraiser under the MAP program for the U.S. Department of
Iousing and Urban Development. Mr. Nagasaki's experience includes over 28 years of appraisal experience,
and he is fully competent and qualified to complete most assignments under the requirements of USPAP
competency provision.
Lea Associates, Inc., 1985 - 2005; Principal and Senior Vice President responsible for providing real estate
appraisal and consultation services. Property types included retail, office, industrial, creative office,
residential income, vacant land, and hotels. Property rights appraised include fee simple, leased fee, and
leasehold interest.
Security Pacific National Bank, 1978 - 1985; Assistant Vice President with responsibility for valuation of
real property, proposed and existing, including retail, office, industrial, residential income units, vacant land,
special purpose properties, single-family residences, condominiums, and residential subdivisions.
EDUCATION
Continuous participation in numerous seminars relating to real estate appraisal theory and practice. A sample
of these seminars include:
• Limited Appraisals and Reporting Options
• Environmental Risk and the Real Estate Process
• Litigation Seminar
• Partial Acquisition
• Easement Valuation
• Shopping Centers Analysis
• Impact of Detrimental Conditions
• National IRS Symposium on Valuation
• Case Study in Limited Partnership Valuation
• Affordable Housing Projects
• Marketability discounts for real estate interests
• Partial interests theory and case law
• Public Interest Value program
• Valuation of Leases, Leasehold & Leased fees
Going Concern Value and Real Property
Successful completion of the following Appraisal Institute's courses and examinations:
• Highest and Best Use Analysis
• Standards of Professional Practice
• Comprehensive Examination
• Demonstration Appraisal Report
• Basic Valuation Procedures
• Residential Valuation
• Case Studies in Real Estate Valuation
• Capitalization Theory and Techniques, Part A
• Capitalization Theory and Techniques, Part B
• Valuation Analysis and Report Writing
• Real Estate Appraisal Principles
California State University, Long Beach, Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration specializing
in Real Estate Finance and Financial Management, May 1978.
Hermosa Beach - In -Lieu Parking Fee Page 6 File No. 06-191
• •
QUALIFICATIONS OF JEFFREY T. NAGASAKI, MAI (Cont'd)
EXPERT TESTIMONY
Mr. Nagasaki has qualified as an expert witness in real estate matters and has testified before:
• Los Angeles County Superior Court • Riverside County Superior Court
• San Bernardino County Superior Court • Orange County Superior Court
Further, he has appeared in binding and non-binding arbitration hearings as an expert witness in real estate
valuation.
ASSOCIATIONS
Member of the Appraisal Institute, with an MAI Designation
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser - AG003078, State of California
Institute of Real Estate Management (IREM) - Associate Member
Hermosa Beach - In -Lieu Parking Fee Page 7 File No. 06-191
• •
RESOLUTION 06-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH SETTII1G A REVISED FEE IN LIEU OF
PROVIDING REQUIRED PARKING SPACES IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE
The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. Section 17.44.040 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code provides that a
fee in lieu of providing required parking spaces shall be set by the City Council.
Section 2. A City -commissioned study carried out by a qualified real estate consulting
firm, Nagasaki & Associates, determined that an increase in the existing in -lieu parking fee to
$28,900 per parking space is necessary because that is the cost to construct new parking in
lieu of providing parking spaces onsite by a development.
Section 2. The City Council, pursuant to applicable law, held a duly noticed hearing
on August 8, 2006 to consider the proposed increase in the fee amount.
Section 3. Based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby:
1. Sets the fee amount to be paid in lieu of providing onsite parking spaces at
$28,900 for each required space not provided for in a project; and
2. Directs that all collected fees and interest shall be placed in a Downtown
Enhancement Fund to build and operate public parking; and
3. Repeals previous fee Resolution 99-6001.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 8th day of August, 2006.
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California
AT TEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY
f
1 •
July 31, 2006
Honorable Chairman Mayor and Members Regular Meeting of
of the Hermosa Beach City Council August 8, 2006
SUBJECT: TEXT AMENDMENT 06-1— LARGE DAY SPAS
c„ 7 -\arj
Planning Commission Recommendation:
That the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapter 17.26 to add large day spas with
greater than 3,000 square feet of gross floor area as a conditionally permitted use.
Background:
Large day spas have become a more popular commercial use in the city. These spas typically have
greater than 3,000 square feet of floor area and offer a combination of non—medical personal services
that includes nail, skin, or hair care treatment, and massage therapy. The businesses also provide
relaxation rooms, spa tubs, and elaborate bath facilities to enhance customer experience. There are
currently three businesses offering these services; Trilogy Spa opened in 1996, located in the
commercial building at 1301 Manhattan Avenue; Tropical Waters Spa in the Plaza Hermosa and most
recently Glen Ivy Spa in the Hermosa Pavilion. These uses are not currently subject to a Conditional
Use Permit and have been approved as beauty shops permitted by right in the commercial zone. In
addition, they are not regulated as message therapy businesses because less than 25% of their floor
area is used for massage therapy. All of these businesses have similarities to beauty shops but are
distinguished from them by size (all have more than 3,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area), the number and
types of services they offer and the use of spas tubs and relaxation rooms.
The Zoning Ordinance does not specifically regulate large day spa uses. A day spa is generally
considered to be part beauty shop and part message therapy business. The Zoning Ordinance does,
however, regulate massage therapy and permits beauty shops by right, as follows:
Massage Therapy Business - is defined in Chapter 17.04', and is permitted only with a C.U.P. when it is
exclusively massage use, or part of a business with more than 25% of the floor area dedicated to
massage therapy as defined. Parking is required at the retail -parking ratio of 1 space per 250 sq. ft. of
gross floor area.
Beauty Shop- Beauty or barber shop uses are allowed as permitted uses in the commercial zone with
parking required at a retail parking ratio of 1 space per 250 sq. ft. of gross floor area.
Analysis:
Large day spas do not typically create nuisance conditions that require special regulation beyond the
current requirements of the Municipal Code. The above businesses have not created security problems
and there is no evidence that they have contributed to or will cause any significant traffic or parking
problems in the buildings or shopping centers where they are located. However, there is a potential
that larger spas could potentially impact the community relative to parking and traffic if they were not
located in shopping centers with ample parking. For example, if a spa use contains 5000 sq. ft. of floor
area it requires 20 parking spaces. Commercial properties large enough to accommodate 20 spaces of
surface parking are rare in the city." If such uses are not adequately parked the customer parking may
spill over into the surrounding neighborhood. The Glen Ivey Day Spa has validated two- hour free
parking and has not contributed to neighborhood parking problems. The shared parking analysis for
the Hermosa Pavilion indicates that during peak parking periods the garage more than accommodates
building parking demand.
5b
• •
Larger day spas that include massage therapy are typically not regulated with a CUP since the
message therapy portion of the business occupies less than 25% of the area of the establishment
as defined under Section 5.74.010.'
In January 2006, Planning Commission considered the potential adverse impacts of large day spa
facilities to neighborhoods and recommended adding it as a conditionally permitted use in the
C-2 and C-3 zone. This will allow a review of floor plans by the Commission, and imposing
conditions deemed necessary to regulate business operations and development standards on a
case by case basis.'"
Concur:
Steph
City ' nager
AiniaMiLLA
Sol Blumeni-ld, 1 irector
Community b evelopment
1 Massage Therapy Business" means an establishment offering massage, alcohol rub, fomentation, electric or
magnetic treatment, or similar treatment or manipulation of the human body, unless such treatment or manipulation
is administered by a medical practitioner, chiropractor, acupuncturist, physical therapist or similar professional
person licensed by the state as part of a medical clinic. This definition excludes a gymnasium/health and fitness
center, school, barber/beauty shop, or similar establishment where massage or similar manipulation of the human
body is offered by an individual as an incidental or accessory service and does not occupy more than 25% of the
area of the establishment. This definition also specifically excludes Adult Massage as defined in Section 17.04.060.
" 20 parlcing spaces require a minimum of 6,000 sq. ft. for on grade parking and the combined land area for both the
building and parking is 11,000 sq. ft. (5,000 sq. ft. building area and 6,000 sq. ft. of parking area). The existing
large spa facilities in the city are part of shopping centers or part of a multi -use complex which have a significant
amount of surface or structured parking.
For example, a spa with 10,000 sq. ft. of floor area could have up to 2,500 sq. ft. of floor area devoted to message
therapy.
Smaller facilities (less than 3,000 square feet) offering similar services will continue to be considered a beauty
shop, and permitted by right in the zone.
Attachment:
1: Ordinance
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
• •
ORDINANCE 06 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ADD
LARGE DAY SPAS AS A CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE IN
THE C-2 AND C-3 ZONES AND TO ADD LARGE DAY SPA
FACILITIES IN THE USE DEFINITION IN CHAPTER 17.04.
The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on January 17, 2006, to
consider adopting an ordinance adding a new definition in Chapter 17.04 and amending Section
17.26.030 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code to regulate large day spa facilities with greater than
3,000 square feet of gross floor area.
Section 2. The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on August 8, 2006, to
consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve adding large day spa facilities as
a conditionally permitted use in the C-2 and C-3 zones and to add the definition of large day spa in
Chapter 17.04, at which testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered
by the Council.
Section 3. The subject text amendment is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to the general rule set forth in Section 15061(3) of
the CEQA Guidelines, as there is no possibility that these modifications to the zoning ordinance
may have a significant effect on the environment.
Section 4. Based on the evidence considered at the public hearing and the recommendation of
the Planning Commission the City Council hereby ordains that Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, Title
17 -Zoning, Chapter 17.04, Section 17.04.050 be amended to add the following to commercial land use
definitions:
t
1. "Large Day Spa. An establishment that consists of more than 3,000 square feet of
gross floor area, that offers a combination of non-medical personal services that may
include hair, nail and skin care treatment or other services typically found in a beauty
shop, and also massage therapy and similar treatment of the human body, and may also
include spa tubs, pools, steam rooms, saunas or other related accessory facilities and
uses. If massage therapy occupies more than 25% of the gross floor area of the
establishment the business shall be subject to requirements of massage therapy
business pursuant to Chapter 5.74 of the Municipal Code."
Section 5. Amend the land use matrix under Chapter 17.26, Land Use Regulations to add
i
Use
C-1
C-2
C-3
See Section
Large Day Spa
-
U
U
17.04.040
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
• 19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
•
Section 5. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after
thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption.
Section 6. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the .date of its adoption, the City
Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general
circulation published and circulated, in the City of Hermosa Beach in the manner provided by law.
Section 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall
enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the passage
and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed
and adopted.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of , 2006, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk City Attorney
2
•
• 0 6‘�Cv
/38 - /5 2-,
July 26, 2006
Honorable Mayor and 1Vlembers of the Regular Meeting of
Hermosa Beach City Council August 8, 2006
SUBJECT: PROGRESS REPORT ON NUISANCE ABATEMENT ORDER -
1811 MANHATTAN AVENUE (RESOLUTION NO. 06-6459) AND I,
138 15` STREET (RESOLUTION NO. 06-6467)- P 6
Recommendation: rD
That the City Council: jp v) I
1. Proceed with nuisance abatement at 1811 Manhattan Avenue./ -
2
venue2. Approve the amended resolution allowing the owner of 138 1s1 Street to demolish
the front unit and rehabilitate the rear unit.
Background: (04-0(L
On May 23, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 06 --64"59 and No. 06-6467
ordering the abatement of the subject properties. The resolutions required demolition of
the structures, abatement of rodents and asbestos, property clearing and fencing the lots
by August 23, 2006.
Analysis:
1811 Manhattan Avenue
Staff has been working to ensure compliance by the owner, Steven Tack. Since the
hearing, staff has communicated with the owner by letter and telephone, (four letters and
three telephone conversations), and has visited the site on three occasions to document
conditions. (Chronology and copies of correspondence and photos attached.)
The owner has made little progress in the matter, his efforts primarily limited to the
removal of some trash and debris from the property. He has not submitted the required
vermin and asbestos reports, and insists that there are no rodents or asbestos problems.
138 1st Street
Staff has been working to ensure compliance by the owner, Stephen Landau. Since the
hearing, Mr. Landau has submitted the required documents (asbestos report and disposal
manifest) to obtain a demolition permit for the front (north) unit, has had his preliminary
plot plan reviewed for demolition, and is now requesting permission to process plans to
renovate the rear unit. A demolition permit was issued on 7/25/06. (Chronology and
copies of letters and photos attached.)
Renovation of the rear unit is possible providing the owner addresses the issues cited in
the property analysis prepared by the City's engineering consultant, Mel Green &
Associates. The required work includes replacement and repair of portions of the floor
and roof and replacement and repair of wall framing due to termite damage. It is also
necessary to repair the damaged electrical, plumbing and heating systems.
• •
Conclusions:
In summary, staff believes that the owner at 1811 Manhattan Avenue is unwilling to
proceed with the abatement of nuisance conditions at his property and that the city must
mobilize its own forces to carry out the abatement.
The owner at 138 1St Street has demonstrated his willingness to comply with the City's
abatement order and has presented an alternative to carry out the intent of Resolution No.
.96-6467. The amended resolution provides a 90 day deadline for compliance; 30 days
from the date of resolution approval for plan submittal to renovate the rear unit, 30 days
'thereafter for permit issuance and 30 days to complete all required repairs.
Sol Blumenf
Community
Concur:
Id, l+irector
evelopment
Ste
Cit anger
Attachments:
1. Resolution Nos. 06-6459 and 06-6467
2. Amended Resolution No. 06-6467
3. Project Chronology
4. Correspondence
5. Photos
6. Engineering Reports
P:/AbatementRpts
• •
RESOLUTION NO. 06 -
AN AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION NO. 06-6467 OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE
ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE VIOLATIONS AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
138 FIRST STREET
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES
HERBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. On May 23, 2006, following a duly noticed hearing the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 06-6467, ordering the demolition of the structures on the property located at 138 First
Street after finding substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the condition of the structures
and the property constitutes a public nuisance within the meaning of the Hermosa Beach Municipal
Code.
SECTION 2. The owner has now requested that the City consider allowing him to rehabilitate, rather
than demolish, the rear (south) unit in accordance with the findings and recommendations of the
City's engineering consultant, Mel Green & Associates. The Council finds that it is feasible for the
owner to rehabilitate the rear unit. Hence, the City Council is willing to modify its previous nuisance
abatement order and permit the rehabilitation of the rear (south) unit on the property providing:
1. The owner submits all required plans and documents to obtain permits to rehabilitate the
rear structure no later than 30 (thirty) days from the date of the this resolution.
2. The owner obtains a building permit for renovation of the rear structure no later than 60
(sixty) days from the date of this resolution.
3. The rehabilitation of the rear unit shall be completed no later than 90 (ninety) days from the
date of this resolution.
SECTION 3. Except as modified in Section 2 above, the provisions of Resolution No. 06-6467 remain
in full force and effect. The City Council directs the City Attorney to take the necessary steps to
secure an abatement warrant to implement Resolution No. 06-6467 as regards the front (north) unit if
the required abatement is not performed by the owner, and further, to do the same as regards the rear
(south) unit if the requirements of Section 2 are not fully satisfied, all pursuant to the abatement
procedures outlined in Section 8.28.070 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, and to record a lien on
the property as may be necessary for the City to recover its costs of abatement.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of August, 2006.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
s
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. 06-607
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING
ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE VIOLATIONS AT THE
PROPERTY AT 138 FIRST STREET
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. State and City statutes provide for the abatement of structures and properties
determined to be a public nuisance.
SECTION 2. Chapter 8.28 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code contains provisions
allowing the City Council to conduct a public hearing and order the abatement of the public
nuisances at the subject property.
SECTION 3. The City Council has reviewed written and photographic evidence of
Substandard conditions on the property at 138 First Street, Hermosa Beach, and determined that
there is sufficient evidence of a public nuisance on the property to order the abatement of said
property due to:
1. Property has been abandoned and left in disrepair for several years
2 Property is not properly fenced or secured from intruders
3. Peeling paint
4. Deteriorated wood sheathing
5. Deteriorated and missing roofing materials
6. The structure on the property is an eyesore
7. Greater than 75% of the building is in need of repair
SECTION 4. Based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby orders the demolition,
control of vermin, lot clearing and fencing to be completed no later than August 23, 2006.
Furthermore, the City Council directs the City Attorney to take the necessary steps to attach the
1 06-6467
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
! S
property for abatement and administrative costs, pursuant to the abatement procedures outlined in
Section 8.28-070 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 23rd day of May 2006.
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California
ATTEST:
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
06-6467
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
I, Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 06-6467 was duly and regularly passed,
approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach at a Regular
Meeting of said Council at the regular place thereof on May 23, 2006.
The vote was as follows:
AYES: Edgerton, Reviczky, Mayor Tucker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Keegan
Dated: June 13, 2006
I.
oerfling, City Clerk
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1s
19
20
21
22
23
•
•
RESOLUTION NO. 06-6459
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO DETERMINE
IF THE PROPERTY AT 1811 MANHATTAN AVENUE CONSTITUTES A
PUBLIC NUISANCE
The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. State and City statutes provide for the abatement of structures and properties
determined to be a public nuisance.
SECTION 2. Chapter 8.28 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code contains provisions
allowing the City Council to conduct a public hearing to determine whether a public nuisance
exists on a property and whether proceedings to abate the nuisance should be initiated.
SECTION 3. The City Council has reviewed written and photographic evidence of
substandard conditions on the property at 1811 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, and
determined that there is sufficient evidence of a public nuisance on the property to set a public
hearing to determine if abatement proceedings should be initiated.
SECTION 4. Based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby sets a public hearing for
May 23, 2006 to determine if the above -reference property constitutes a public nuisance, and
directs the City Clerk to advertise the hearing and to notify thereof the property owner and all
owners within 300 feet of the subject property, pursuant to the abatement procedures outlined in
Section 8.28.070 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code.
- PASSED, APPROVE nd ADOPTED this 25th day of April 2006.
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California
24
25 ATTEST:
26
27 •
28 City Clerk
• •
STA 1E OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
I, Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 06-6459 was duly and regularly passed,
approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach at a Regular
Meeting of said Council at the regular place thereof on April 25, 2006.
The vote was as follows:
AYES: Edgerton, Keegan, Reviczky, Mayor Tucker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Dated: April 27, 2006
Elaine Doerfling, City Cl
CHRONOLOGY OF PROGRESS MADE BY STEPHEN LANDAU,
138 1ST STREET — SINCE APRIL 3, 2006
Robert Rollins July 24, 2006
4/3/06 — Rollins sends regular and certified letters to owner regarding the City Council
meeting scheduled for April 25, 2006.
4/24/06 — Mr. Landau submits an asbestos report.
APRIL 25, 2006 CITY COUNCIL HEARING ON NUISANCE ABATEMENT
5/2/06 — Property is posted with notice of City Council Abatement hearing results from
April 25, 2006, and certified letter is sent to owner. Letter is returned as undeliverable.
5/22/06 — Rollins speaks with Mr. Landau by phone, informs him that the asbestos report
has been accepted. Mr. Landau states that he should be able to start the abatement in a
week.
MAY 23, 2006 — CITY COUNCIL DECIDES TO GO FORWARD WITH
NUISANCE ABATEMENT, SETS DEADLINE OF AUGUST 23, 2006.
6/13/06 — Rollins sees Mr. Landau at the property and stops to chat. Mr. Landau says he
should have his asbestos abatement begin in a couple of weeks.
6/27/06 — Rollins sends Mr. Landau letter expressing concern over the lack of progress
and reminding him of the August deadline.
7/6/06 — Rollins phones Mr. Landau at both phone numbers of record, no answer or voice
mail on either line. That afternoon, Mr. Landau comes to the counter with asbestos
abatement report and processes papers to demo the front duplex. He does not have the
valuation of works and says he will return the next week to finish the paperwork and pay
for the permit.
7/11/06 — Rollins sends Mr. Landau a letter documenting the conversation they had
regarding his desire to restore the back unit and demolish the front. He also notes steps
that need to be taken and urges speedy action.
7/12/06 — Rollins sends Mr. Landau a letter requesting a detailed letter of intent regarding
his plans for the property.
7/24/06 — Mr. Landau submits a letter of intent to rehabilitate the rear unit on the
property. He specifies seven steps, but submits no plans or drawings.
• •
7/25/06 — Rollins sends letter acknowledging receipt of his letter and requesting plans for
the rehabilitation of the rear unit. The letter also urges all speed for the project. Same
day, Mr. Landau phones to say he intends to obtain the demolition permit that afternoon.
Rollins tells him that he has received his letter and asks for a plot plan. Mr. Landau says
he will bring the plot plan with him that afternoon.
Same date — Mr. Landau comes to office, obtains demolition permit for the north unit.
Rollins and Zak review his plot plan and advise him of what is needed for the submittal
to renovate the south unit. Mr. Landau says he will submit the revised plan later this
week.
July 25, 2006
• •
City of 2lermosa rl3eacly
Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885
VIA REGULAR AND CERTIFIED MAIL
Mr. Stephen Landau
632 Poinsettia Place
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Subject: Nuisance Abatement of your Property Located at 138 1st Street Hermosa Beach,
California 90254, APN #4188-014-046.
Dear Mr. Landau:
Per Hermosa Beach City Council resolution 06-6467, passed May 23, 2006 (copy
enclosed) "Section 4. Based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby orders the
demolition, control of vermin, lot clearing and fencing to be completed no later than
August 23, 2006.
As we discussed at my office on July 6, 2006, the Community Development Department
is ready to issue the demolition permit as soon as you file your completed application and
pay the permit fees.
We have received your letter of intent regarding the rehabilitation of the rear unit, and
urge you to submit plans for the project as soon as possible so we can issue the permit.
I am preparing a staff report on the progress of your efforts for the August 8, 2006
Council meeting. Please proceed with the above without delay. If you have any
questions, I can be reached at (310) 318-0235 Monday through Thursday between 7:00
a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Respectfully,
Wp6ertJ fns
Robert J. Rollins
Code Enforcement Officer
cc: Sol Blumenfeld, Director, Community Development Department
• •
STEPHEN J. LANDAU
632 North Poinsettia Place
Los Angeles, California 90036
(323) 936- 4166 936-0844
July 24, 2006
City of Hermosa Beach
Civic Center
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885
Attention: Robert J. Rollins
Code Enforcement Officer
Re: 138 First Street, Hermosa Beach, California 90254
APN #4188-014-046
Dear Mr. Rollins:
JUL 2 Al 2C
.;;QA.); : i.: DEP F
We have previously discussed my plans to demolish the front unit and repair the
back unit as recommended by Mr. Mel Green.
To this end, I have received proposals from several contractors to do the required
work.
The rear unit is constructed with a slab floor and exposed beam ceiling. Some
have suggested that the unit is a converted garage. It is very understandable that one
might draw this conclusion. However, I know the history of the rear unit and it was
originally built as a housing unit. However, the real point is that it is very simple
construction and, therefore, easily repaired.
With respect to the rear unit, I plan to have the following work done:
1. Replace door between garage and living room with solid core door and
automatic closer;
2. Replace damaged wood,
3. Install new electric service;
5
•
City of Hermosa Beach
Page 2
July 24, 2006
4. Finish north wall;
5. Repair roof,
6. Install new water line and water heater; and
7. Install space heater (furnace).
If you have any other suggestions, please let me know.
Very truly yours,
feX
•
STEPHEN J. LANDAU
SJL/sjg
• •
City of2-lermosa lr3eacL)
Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885
July 12, 2006 #03-14
Mr. Stephen Landau
632 Poinsettia Place
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Subject: Nuisance Abatement of your Property Located at 138 1St Street Hermosa Beach,
California 90254, APN #4188-014-046.
Dear Mr. Landau:
As you have indicated that you intend to demolish the front (north) unit and repair and/or
possibly enhance the rear (south) unit, it would greatly enhance your case to detail said
plans in a formal letter of intent describing exactly what your intentions are.
In any event, you are encouraged to proceed with all speed possible, as the deadline is
fast approaching. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (310) 318-0235 Monday
through Thursday between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Respectfully,
Rp6ert 5. &fans
Robert J. Rollins
Code Enforcement Officer
cc: Sol Blumenfeld, Director, Community Development Department
• •
City of Hermosa Teacjv
Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885
July 11, 2006 #03-14
Mr. Stephen Landau
632 Poinsettia Place
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Subject: Nuisance Abatement of your Property Located at 138 1St Street Hermosa Beach,
California 90254, APN #4188-014-046.
Dear Mr. Landau:
As we discussed at the counter last Thursday, July 6, we have accepted your asbestos
report and are ready to issue the demolition permit as soon as you complete the permit
application and pay the permit fee.
You indicated that you intend to demolish the front (north) unit and repair and/or possibly
enhance the rear (south) unit. As I informed you, the City Council has ordered the
demolition of both units, and your decision may or may not be acceptable. If you have
demolished the front unit and submitted plans to rehabilitate the rear unit by August 3,
2006, the council may consider modifying their decision, but there is no guarantee of this.
In any event, you are encouraged to proceed with all speed possible, as the deadline is
fast approaching. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (310) 318-0235 Monday
through Thursday between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Respectfully,
Rp6ert1ns
Robert J. Rollins
Code Enforcement Officer
cc: Sol Blumenfeld, Director, Community Development Department
June 27, 2006
Mr. Stephen Landau
632 Poinsettia Place
Los Angeles, CA 90036
• •
City of alermosarl3each.)
Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885
#03-14
Subject: Nuisance Abatement of your Property Located at 138 1st Street Hermosa Beach,
California 90254, APN #4188-014-046.
Dear Mr. Landau:
Per the direction of the City Council, you have been ordered to abate the nuisance
conditions on your property by August 23, 2006. As we discussed on your property two
weeks ago, we have accepted your asbestos report and are ready to issue your demolition
permit as soon as the asbestos abatement work is completed and a manifest is provided.
We are concerned by the lack of progress in this matter and encourage you to proceed
without delay. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (310) 318-0235 Monday
through Thursday between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Respectfully,
Rp6ert 9 W9Clins
Robert J. Rollins
Code Enforcement Officer
cc: Sol Blumenfeld, Director, Community Development Department
• •
Code Enforcement Inspection
138 1St Street, Hermosa Beach
Date of Inspection: June 21, 2005
Personnel: Melvyn Green, SE
Loretta Duvall, PE
Elizabeth Green, Bldg Code Tech
Code Basis: 1997 Uniform Housing Code
Chapter 10 — Substandard Buildings
1001.1 — Substandard Generally
1001.2 — Inadequate Sanitation
No kitchen sink
Lack of hot water
Lack of heating — questionable heating and venting/vent pipe and flue
Dampness due to roof leak
General dilapidation
1001.3 Structural
Deteriorated flooring, floors sheathing and floor supports
Deteriorated ceiling joists and roof rafters. Temporary shoring in place.
Possibly no beam over opening where shoring is in place.
1001.5 Electrical — Electrical panel damaged
1001.8 — Faulty Weather Protection
Loose and deteriorated plaster
Damaged waterproofing on exterior walls and roof
Deteriorated, broken, rotted wall and roof coverings
1001.9 — Fire Hazard
Combustibles, mounds of clothing, etc. on top of furniture
Lack of solid core door with closer between garage and dwelling unit 2
1001.11 — Hazardous, unsanitary conditions
1001.13- Fire Protection
Lack of smoke detectors
Code Enforcement Inspection 6-21-05 1 November 10, 2005
• •
Recommendation
The extent of the termite and water damage to the front building is significant. To repair
the structure almost one-half of the roof and floor would have to be removed and
reconstructed. An entire new electrical system is required. The cost for such work would
be more than rebuilding. It is recommended that the structure be removed.
The rear building is in a condition that may permit rehabilitation. There is deterioration in
the structure including termite damage, electrical system needs and a new roof. It is
recommended that the building be demolished or repaired in conformance to the
standards of the Housing Code.
Code Enforcement Inspection 6-21-05 2 November 10, 2005
• •
CHRONOLOGY OF PROGRESS AT 1811 MANHATTAN AVENUE, OWNED BY
STEVEN TACK SINCE APRIL 3, 2006
Robert Rollins July 24, 2006
4/3/06 — Rollins posts notices on the property and sends regular and certified letters to
owner regarding the City Council meeting scheduled for April 25, 2006.
APRIL 25, 2006 CITY COUNCIL HEARING ON NUISANCE ABATEMENT
5/2/06 — Property is posted with notice of City Council Abatement hearing results from
April 25, 2006, and certified letter is sent to owner.
5/18/06 — Rollins speaks with Mr. Tack by phone, informs him that the city is moving
forward with the abatement procedure.
MAY 23, 2006 — CITY COUNCIL DECIDES TO GO FORWARD WITH
NUISANCE ABATEMENT, SETS DEADLINE OF AUGUST 23, 2006.
5/30/06 — Rollins sends letter commemorating phone conversation of that day informing
him that he needs both rodent and asbestos abatements.
6/27/06 — Rollins sends Mr. Tack a letter expressing concern over the lack of progress
and reminding him of the August deadline.
7/6/06 — Rollins calls Mr. Tack, who says that he should have his architects plans soon.
Rollins asks about asbestos and rodent abatement. Mr. Tack replies that there is no
asbestos or rodents on the property. Rollins informs him that the City Council requires
those abatement reports before we can issue the demo permit. Mr. Tack says he is
making progress and it will all work out.
7/11/06 — Rollins photographs back yard of property notes little progress and sends Mr.
Tack a letter listing required progress and urging that action be taken.
7/20/06 Same date that Rollins takes photos of the yard (copies attached) Mr. Tack leaves
voice mail indicating that the yard work is 75% done and that he is right on schedule.
7/25/06 — Rollins sends letter stressing the mandate to demolish and urging speedy
action.
July 24, 2006
•
City of 2-lermosaTeaclL
Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885
VIA REGULAR AND CERTIFIED MAIL
Mr. Steven Tack
PO Box 639
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Subject: Nuisance Abatement against your Property Located at 1811 Manhattan Avenue,
Hermosa Beach, California 90254, APN #4183-009-021.
Dear Mr. Tack:
Per my letters of May 30, June 27, and July 11, 2006, the Hermosa Beach City Council
requires you to abate the nuisance on your property by August 23, 2006. As per Council
resolution number 06-6466 (copy enclosed), "Section 4. Based on the foregoing, the City
Council hereby orders the demolition, control of vermin, lot clearing and fencing to be
completed no later than August 23, 2006."
I received your phone message of July 20, 2006, in which you claimed to be making
progress. Although you have assured me that there are no pests/rodents or asbestos on
your property, the City requires property demolition and reports from licensed contractors
verifying asbestos and rodent abatement.
While cleaning the yard is a valid effort, you have yet to submit any of the required
documents. I am preparing a staff report for the Council meeting of August 8, 2006, and
must report the lack of significant progress. You are urged to submit the required
documents to obtain the demolition permit without delay so you can proceed with the
demolition. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (310) 318-0235 Monday
through Thursday between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Respectfully,
Robert I. Rollins
Robert J. Rollins
Code Enforcement Officer
cc: Sol Blumenfeld, Director, Community Development Department
July 11, 2006
• •
Citi of`�iermosa rl3each�
Mr. Steven Tack
PO Box 639
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885
Subject: Nuisance Abatement against your Property Located at 1811 Manhattan Avenue,
Hermosa Beach, California 90254, APN #4183-009-021.
Dear Mr. Tack:
Per my letter of June 27, 2006, you are required to abate the nuisance on your property by
August 23, 2006. As per the City Council resolution, you need to provide the City with a
copy of a licensed pest/rodent company invoice for the elimination of any vermin on the
property, and an asbestos report from a licensed environmental company prior to our
issuing a demolition permit.
In our telephone conversations in the past few weeks, you have assured me that you are
working to clean the back yard. I stopped by this morning and noted very little progress.
Also, you have yet to submit any of the required documents. We urge you to proceed
without delay. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (310) 318-0235 Monday
through Thursday between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Respectfully,
Robert I. Rollins
Robert J. Rollins
Code Enforcement Officer
cc: Sol Blumenfeld, Director, Community Development Department
June 27, 2006
•
Citi of .2iermosaTeaclt.)
Mr. Steven Tack
PO Box 639
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885
Subject: Nuisance Abatement against your Property Located at 1811 Manhattan Avenue,
Hermosa Beach, California 90254, APN #4183-009-021.
Dear Mr. Tack:
Per the direction of the City Council, you are required to abate the nuisance on your
property by August 23, 2006. As we discussed on the phone last week, you need to
provide the City with a copy of a licensed pest/rodent company invoice for the
elimination of any vermin on the property.
You also need to provide us with an asbestos report from a licensed environmental
company prior to our issuing a demolition permit. We are concerned with the lack of
progress in this matter, and encourage you to proceed without delay. If you have any
questions, I can be reached at (310) 318-0235 Monday through Thursday between 7:00
a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Respectfully,
Robert J. RoOCins
Robert J. Rollins
Code Enforcement Officer
cc: Sol Blumenfeld, Director, Community Development Department
May 30, 2006
• •
City of 2IermosaTeack_
Mr. Steven N. Tack
PO Box 639
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885
Subject: Rodent abatement required prior to issuance of a demolition permit for your
Property Located at 1811 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, California 90254, APN
#4183-009-021.
Dear Mr. Tack:
Per our telephone conversation today, the City requires that you produce a report from a
licensed pest control company that shows that either there are no rodents to be removed
from your property, or that rodents have been removed from your property prior to the
City issuing a demolition permit. Also required are the standard asbestos testing and
abatement reports.
During our conversation, you repeatedly referred to pictures of rats on your property. I
have never seen a rat on your property nor taken a photo of a rat on your property. I do
not know the source of any photos of rats on your property.
As per the decision of the City Council, you have until August 23, 2006, to complete the
demolition. It is advised that you begin to get the required rodent and asbestos reports as
soon as possible.
If you have any questions, I can be reached at (310) 318-0235 Monday through Thursday
between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Respectfully,
Robert I. Rollins
Robert J. Rollins
Code Enforcement Officer
July 11, 2006 - Rear of 1811 Manhattan is still overgrown and cluttered with debris.
,4;. 1
•
July 20, 2006 — 1811 Manhattan
Av — Little change since Council meeting of April 23, 2006.
• •
Code Enforcement Inspection
1811 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach
June 21, 2005
Personnel: Melvyn Green, SE
Loretta Duvall, PE
Elizabeth Green, Bldg Code Tech
Code Basis: 1997 Uniform Housing Code
Chapter 10 — Substandard Buildings Fire damaged building
1001.1 — Substandard Generally
1001.2 — Inadequate Sanitation
General dilapidation
1001.3 Structural
South wall has studs, cripple studs, plates. Wall could hinge and buckle.
Floor cracked and possible structural issue
1001.4 — Nuisance — Possible attractive nuisances with back yard debris.
1001.5 - Electrical — Loose wiring
1001.8 — Faulty Weather Protection
Damaged waterproofing on exterior walls and roof
Deteriorated, broken, rotted wall and roof coverings
Broken window
1001.11 — Hazardous, unsanitary conditions
Back yard trash, garbage, vegetation, weeds, site for vermin
Neighbors report major jump in rat and mice population
1001.13- Fire Protection
Smoke detectors may be missing.
Recommendation
The major portion of the fire damaged building has been demolished. However all the
debris remains on the site creating a harbor for vermin and a potential health issue.
It is recommended that the area be cleaned and all openings into the house and its
underside be secured or that the entire house be demolished.
Code Enforcement Inspection 6-21-05 3 July 11, 2005
•
Sol Blumenfeld
From: Rick Koenig [rIkoenig@adelphia.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 7:50 AM
To: 'Rick Koenig'; michael@manhaftanbread.com; samedgerton@aol.com;
peter@electpetertucker.com; pbobko@rwglaw.com; jbrhbcc@aol.com; Steve Burrell; Sol
Blumenfeld
C.0
Li II -
Subject: RE: Request from the neighbors of 1811 Manhattan Avenue
Dear HB City Council,
Page 1 of 5
I am writing this email in regards to tonight's City Council Agenda which I am not able to
attend due to a prior commitment.
Regarding: Municipal Matter # 6a "Progress report on nuisance abatement order — 1811
Manhattan Ave".
Logic would dictate that Mr. Tack (the property owner) will be present to request a stay
of demolition. Over the last several years Mr. Tack has promised that he had plans and
permits in hand and was "days away" from demolition. These statements obviously had
no merit.
Below and attached in this email are pictures taken by me this morning (08-08-06) at 7
am.
As you can see the property is and has been for 8+ years a mess and a hazard.
According to my frustrated and vermin inundated neighbors, there was "some
hammering going on" yesterday (8-7-06). No new work was evident on the exterior or
the yard areas.
On behalf of me and my neighborhood please take a No Tolerance position on this
issue.
The Council's pre -decided deadline for demolition is August 23, 2006 and we (the
neighborhood) are all counting down the days.
Thank You In Advance for your attention to this matter.
Richard Koenig, Et al.
SUPPLEMENTAL 6a
INFORMATION
8/8/2006
• •
Dr. Steven N. Tack
PO Box 639
1811 Manhattan Avenue
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
310 374-6776 / E -Mail: ezmed3@verizon.net
8/3/2006
To: Robert Rollins
Code Enforcement
City of FIB
Phone: (310) 318-0235
Re: 1811 Manhattan Avenue #4183-009-021
"Nuisance" Abatement Progress
Dear Mr. Rollins:
This letter is to review the progress since I last spoke with you..
The 2nd backyard was the only possible source of rodents and it is totally clear. All other areas are clear
except for a few things in the 1St backyard. They should be clear by next week.
A note from an exterminator and an asbestos person is being worked on. I hope to have them by 08/23/06.
** I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AN EXTENSION ON THE DEMO UNTIL 10/01/06.
I am not ready to demo my house. A couple things are not completed, but I've made the needed contacts and
should be read o in. A proper exam of the house will show that very stable and of minimal risk to anyone.
Respec Ily,
Ste N. Tack, D.P.M.
SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION 6a
f
•
July 27, 2006
&ct tviz
Y/V06
Honorable Mayor and IVlembers of the Regular Meeting of
Hermosa Beach City Council August 8, 2006
SUBJECT: REVISION TO LOT MERGER ORDINANCE
Recommendation:
That the City Council review the issues outlined in the staff report and provide direction related to:
1. Intent of the Lot Merger Ordinance.
2. Criteria for merging lots.
3. Procedures for merging lots
4. Setting a date to review draft revisions to the Lot Merger Ordinance.
Background:
A citywide lot merger program was completed 17 years ago following adoption of the Lot Merger
Ordinance in 1986. The City examined hundreds of lots and conducted hearings in accordance with
the Ordinance. All lots surveyed were either deemed separately developable by the Commission and
City Council, or were subject to merger. 1,100 lots were eventually merged into 500 parcels with a list
of the merged lots presented to the Planning Commission on May 16, 1989.
At the conclusion of this program, the lot merger ordinance was never repealed. Consequently, any
lots that qualify for merger are still subject to lot merger requirements that governed during the
citywide process described above. Based on the City Attorney's advice in 2005, in view of the fact that
the lot merger ordinance is still a part of the Municipal Code, staff has been processing lot mergers for
properties that may qualify for lot merger on a case by case basis, for referral to the Planning Commission
pursuant to the Ordinance.
Analysis:,
The purpose of the present agenda item is to obtain policy direction on clarifying, revising and
implementing the Ordinance. When two or more lots merge, they become a single parcel to be
developed, sold, leased, or financed as one . Sections 16.20.020 and 16.20.030 allow lots to be merged
if: 1) the same owner holds two or more contiguous parcels, 2) the lots are substandard in area (less
than 4,000 square feet in area) 3) the main structure straddles the contiguous parcels and 4) not more
than 80% of the lots on the same block have been split and developed separately. (Please see attached
Ordinance for the exact language).
Summary of Citywide Survey of Potential Lot Mergers
The following summarizes staff's recent citywide survey of the number of lots that may potentially be
merged under the Ordinance as it exists today:
• 170 Assessor's Parcels were found with lot ties that potentially could be merged.
• 60 parcels were found to meet the all the essential criteria for merger.
■ 45 of the 60 parcels identified involve remnant lots and cannot be developed separately (as they
are less than 20 -feet wide).
• Several more lots are questionable because of the difficulty in applying the 80% "split and
developed separately" rule as it is currently written.
■ 15 parcels meet the criteria for merger in the R-1 zone, containing two or more lots that can
separately be developed.
6b
• •
Problems with the Current Ordinance
The current Ordinance requires that staff examine lots for potential merger as follows:
• Examine current L.A. County Assessor's Parcel Maps for lot ties indicating common
ownership.
• Determine whether one of the lots that comprise the property is substandard in lot area
• Determine if structures straddle the property line
• Calculate the percent of lots on the block that have "already been split and developed
separately
• If the lot is similar to more than 80% of the lots on the block, then the lot is not subject to
merger.
In many situations, the current ordinance is difficult to interpret and apply primarily with respect to the
80% rule listed above. It is not clear in all circumstances what constitutes "split and developed
separately" and it is not clear whether the affected lot should be included in the 80% calculation. Also
it is not clear when making this calculation if remnant parcels or lots are included in the calculation. 1
For the majority of the City, the lot patterns are not uniform, and ownership ties that combine adjacent
parcels are often small remnants, half lots, or other odd divisions of property that occurred before lot
divisions were regulated by the Subdivision Map Act. In these cases "split and developed separately"
does not apply and, therefore, this phrase should be clarified in any revisions to the Ordinance.
Also, for small blocks, lot mergers will likely meet the 80% criteria even it the general trend of
neighborhood development is not consistent. For example, some blocks are comprised of four or
fewer lots and if the lot is included where two other lots have already been split, then the "not more
than.80%" rule applies and it is subject to merger, however, if it is excluded then over 80% have been
split and the property is not subject to merger. Further, it is unclear if a "block" includes only lots
fronting a street (i.e. the side with lots narrowest frontage). If the intent of the Ordinance is to ensure
neighborhood compatibility with surrounding lots, then application of the law in this manner may not
be consistent with the neighborhood.
The ordinance is written to apply in all zones, even though it the original intent may have been to
address density concerns in residential zones only (as implied by the 4,000 square foot lot size criteria)
and likely, it was intended to be limited to the R-1 zone. However, as written it requires including all
properties. Based on a review of the decisions to adopt the original ordinance, it seems that the City's
intent was to prevent separate development of 25 -foot wide lots in areas generally east of and near
Prospect Avenue which are R-1. Many of these lots, originally subdivided into substandard lots, have
since been developed largely into 50 -wide home sites that comply with the ordinance.
The proper implementation of Section 16.20.120 of the Ordinance is also unclear. Section 16.20.120
sets out prohibitions for separate sale and permit issuance where an existing building straddles two or
more lots. According to the City Attorney, this is misleading as it only applies to lots subject to
merger and does not apply to all properties. Instead the intent is to deter owners from trying to
circumvent the law by transferring ownership to obtain a permit while a lot is under consideration for
lot merger. The hearing process also is problematic. Section 16.20.060 sets out the requirements for
hearings and is intended to provide an opportunity for the affected owner to address Commission on
the merger. However, it does not require formal public notification of surrounding owners which
leaves other potentially affected property owners out of the process.
2
i
• •
Finally, the ordinance does not provide clear direction on how to deal with small remnant portions of
lots that are essentially not developable. Many remnants, some as small as 2 -feet wide, are subject to
the Ordinance. Forcing mergers of such remnants does not accomplish the objective of reducing
density and may in some cases result in a parcel inconsistent with the prevailing pattern of
neighborhood development.
Issues to Consider
1. Intent of the Ordinance
2. Criteria for Merging lots (Block or Neighborhood or Both)
3. Procedures for Merging Lots (Citywide vs. Case by Case Review & Public Notice)
4. Survey ofPotential Lot Mergers
1. Intent of the Ordinance
The City Council must confirm what the Ordinance was originally intended to do and if there is any
reason to change direction at this time. It appears the intent was to reduce the number of potential
units (i.e. to maintain current densities) and to reduce the number of nonconforming lots incompatible
with the neighborhood. However, an alternative intent would be to allow development that is
consistent with the prevailing pattern of development in the immediate neighborhood, requiring merger
when the prevailing pattern consists of conforming lots, and not requiring merger if the prevailing
pattern is nonconforming. Knowing the intent of the Ordinance provides the necessary direction for
clarifying or revising the merger criteria of the Ordinance.
If the intent is simply to reduce the number of potential new housing units (density) then the general
criteria should not be materially changed and the focus should be on finishing the task in a fair and
timely manner. If the intent is to make lots compatible with the existing neighborhood, than the
Council should consider modifying the existing criteria.
The current ordinance requires the City to implement mergers on R-2 and R-3 zoned property,
although it is not clear whether this is consistent with the original intent. In the R-2 and R-3 zones
density is a function of lot area, not necessarily the existing lot pattern. By forcing mergers, the City
may actually be encouraging more dense development, rather than allowing the development of
individual parcels for single family projects. For example if two adjacent 30 X 90 R-2 lots are merged,
the resulting parcel can be developed for three units, and the option to build the property as two single-
family homes has been precluded. In fact, the City has recently granted two Variances to the minimum
lot size to allow property owners to revert back to their original lots sizes of approximately 2,700
square feet (prior to merger) at 26 9U' Street (aka 836 Beach Drive) and 501 & 507 29th Street in order
to allow the development of two single-family homes rather than 3 -unit condominium projects.
2. Criteria for Merging Lots
Block Level Criteria
The current Ordinance provides direction on merging lots when not more than 80% of the lots on a
block have already been split and developed separately but is not explicit as to how to implement this
in all cases. If a block level analysis is to be used the 80% rule should be reworded as follows:
If the substandard parcel is similar in size and width to more than 80% of the parcels on the
same. block, inclusive of the subject parcel, then the parcel shall be exempt from lot merge.
3
• •
With this revision, which does not change the general intent or scope from the original ordinance, the
City can more clearly identify blocks with a dissimilar lot pattern (size and width) and remnant parcels
that are inconsistent with other development on the block. Thus, nonconforming lots dissimilar and
smaller to the rest of the block will be subject to merger. At a minimum, the existing language should
be rephrased because it is very difficult to understand. Further, the Council can consider changing the
80% to another percentage, if deemed appropriate.
Neighborhood Compatibility Criteria
Another standard for review is neighborhood compatibility. The Council should decide if it is
necessary to look beyond a block and apply more subjective criteria to the lot merger decision. A
specified radius such as 300' can be used to look at more properties to determine compatibility with
the neighborhood. Between 60 and 120 parcels would typically be included in a 300' radius area
depending on the lot size. Other neighborhood criteria may be groups of blocks within the same zone
and general plan area within defined common boundaries that could include arterials or collector
streets, parks or open space such as the greenbelt or other significant topographical features such as
hillsides. This criterion is consistent with the requirements for approval of a Subdivision Map.
(Please See Assessor Radius Map Illustrations and Neighborhood Map Illustration.).
Combined Block Level and Radius or Neighborhood Analysis Criteria
The current merger criteria are primarily based on a calculation that in some cases fails to recognize
the actual conditions of the neighborhood since the 80% rule only focuses upon a percentage of "lots
split and developed separately" that comprise a block. The ordinance criteria can instead be written to
contain two tiers of review. First it can establish the minimum percentage of lots on a block (the 80%
rule) to determine if a parcel should be considered for merger. However, when there are an insufficient
number of lots to review, it should also allow for a broader look at the prevailing pattern of
development in the area (defined per Subdivision Ordinance, Section 16.08). The initial review by
staff would involve a calculation to determine whether the lot qualifies for merger (lot less than 4000
sq. ft. area, building straddling the lots and held under one ownership) relative to all other lots on the
block. This calculation works if there are more than five lots that comprise a block. However, if there
are five or fewer lots on a block, the review should be expanded to a larger area to determine the
prevailing lot pattern within a neighborhood area. The broader review should be part of the appeal
process to Planning Commission.
3. Procedures for Merging Lots
Citywide Review vs. Case by Case Review
The Council must determine whether to initiate a citywide program potentially involving up to 60
hearings following the City's standard hearing notice procedures or continue to consider lot mergers on
a case-by-case basis as applications for development are brought forward by property owners. Staff
recommends that the ordinance be implemented with a citywide program focusing on R-1 zoned
property where there is most potential to increase density with development on small lots that conflicts
with the neighborhood pattern of development. This will focus efforts on approximately 15
properties. Case-by-case merger is recommended for the remaining R-1 properties affecting mostly
remnant parcels and for the multi -family zones when the property is being redeveloped. For example,
a 10 -foot wide existing remnant from a prior real estate transaction obviously cannot be developed
separately, and can be merged at the time of redevelopment of the property, or when the owner prefers
to sell it. In another example, an R-2 zoned 30' x 90' lot combined with another 30' by 90' lot
1
• •
permits development of 3 units rather than two single family homes on two separate lots --there is no
reason to force this merger if the owner prefers to maintain the current condition or develop two single
family homes. Following a determination to merge lot, the lot merger when recorded, is a final action,
and there is no other appeal or change permitted to the lots without filing an application for a
subdivision.
Definitions
The definition of block is not included in the Lot Merger Ordinance, however the term is used in the
criteria for merger. Section 17.04 of the Zone Code provides a definition of block that must be
incorporated into the lot merger ordinance with modifications. The modified definition should include
only lots that front on a common street, and that are within the same zone, to identify a block face and
frontage. Also the Subdivision Ordinance description of "prevailing lot pattern should be incorporated in
the Ordinance to define the prevailing pattern of neighborhood development in establishing criteria for
neighborhood character.
In summary, staff seeks City Council direction as to:
1. Confirming the original intent of the Ordinance related to density and neighborhood compatibility and
whether to simply modify " 80% rule" to achieve a consistent development pattern for all affected
blocks.
2. Determining whether it is necessary to establish other criteria for lot mergers based on block level
analysis, or neighborhood analysis either separately or in combination.
3. Establishing procedures for merging lots through a mandatory citywide program or on a case-by-case
basis, or both, and revised noticing requirements for appeals (300 foot mailed notice, notice
published in local newspaper of general circulation and posted notice) with notice costs borne by the
property owner.
4. The date on which a draft ordinance should be returned for Council consideration.
t1
So Blumenfeld Director
Community De elopment Department
Concur:
Ste
Cit " anager
rrell,
e 76 7
o ertson
Senior Planner
Notes
I. For blocks in the districts east of Prospect Avenue, it is relatively easy to apply this section, because a uniform lot
pattern was established in which 25 -foot wide lots were the norm, with a portion of those lots developed and sold with a
single home on a combined 50 -foot wide lot. The common ownership was clearly reflected on the County Assessor Parcel
Maps tying the two 25 -foot lots together. For those blocks, it is clear what split and developed separately means.
However, for the majority of the City, the lot patterns are not so uniform, and ownership ties that combine adjacent parcels
5
• •
are often small remnants, half lots, or other odd divisions of property that occurred before lot divisions were regulated by
the Subdivision Map Act. In these cases "split and developed separately" does not apply.
2. Planning Commission and City Council Minutes from 1987 — 1989. Approximately half of the 1100 parcels/units of
land merged were located in the general area east of and near Prospect Avenue involving merger of 25 -foot wide lots
into 50 -foot wide parcels.
3. "Block" for the purpose of determining lots to be merged is currently defined as follows:
All property fronting upon one side of a street between intersecting and intercepting streets, or between a street and a
railroad right-of-way, waterway, terminus or dead-end street, or city boundary. An intercepting street shall determine
only the boundary of the block on the side of the street which it intercepts;
Where the need for determination regarding lot merger, Section 16.20.030, occurs, the following definition shall apply:
All lots facing a common street on both sides of said street, except where residential zoned lots do not exist, or are
not within the city limits, and said lots are between intersecting and/or intercepting streets or between a street and
a railroad right-of-way, terminus, dead-end street or city boundary.
This definition is problematic since it does not address the issue of whether to include lots on properties in different
residential zone and it does not adequately define what "facing" means.
4. Section 16.08.060 of the Subdivision Ordinance provides for the following in making a subdivision determination:
D. The size of the proposed lots is not smaller than the prevailing lot size and lot frontage within the same zone
and general plan designation within a three hundred (300) foot radius; provided, however, that all such lots used in
the comparison shall be in the same neighborhood area;
E. The granting of the subdivision would result in the creation of lots that would be of a size and configuration
which would be in keeping with the standards of development specified by the zoning ordinance for the land use
zone in which it is Iocated;
F. The creation of the proposed lots would be in conformity with the intent and purpose of the comprehensive
general plan for the city;
G. The tentative subdivision map complies with the requirements for approval set forth in the Subdivision Map
Act of the state of California.
For purposes of this section "neighborhood area" is defined as the block or group of blocks, within the same zone
and general plan designated area, being located within clearly defined common boundaries. Boundaries shall
include arterial or collector streets, parks or open space designated areas (such as the "greenbelt"), or significant
topographical features such as hillsides
Attachments:
1. Lot Merger Ordinance
2. Citywide Survey (Available in the Community Development Department)
3. Assessor Map Illustration 300' and 500' (Available as supplemental item.)
4. Neighborhood Map Illustration (Available as supplemental item.)
P:/LotMergerOrd
6
CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH
MUNICIPAL CODE ON-LINE
SUBDIVISIONS
Chapter 16.20
MERGER OF PARCELS
16.20.010 Intent and purpose.
16.20.020 Applicability.
16.20.030 Requirements for merger.
16.20.040 Determination of ownership.
16.20.050 Notice of intention to determine status.
16.20.060 Hearing date, fee, presentation of evidence --Planning
commission determination.
16.20.070 Merger--Notice--Effective date.
16.20.080 When parcels not merged --Release and clearance of
notice of intention to determine status.
16.20.090 Planning commission determination without hearing--
Notice to owner.
16.20.100 Appeal.
16.20.110 Industry merger.
16.20.120 Development involving contiguous parcels.
16.20. 010 Intent and purpose.
The purpose of this section and the following sections relating to merger of
parcels is to provide a procedure by which two or more contiguous parcels or
units of land held by the same owner may be merged. This procedure is
adopted pursuant to Sections 66541.10 through 66451.21, inclusive, of the
California Government Code, and this code.
Any procedure found within this chapter which is inconsistent or not
authorized under the California Government Code shall not be followed. If
any such procedures conflict with or are not authorized by the Government
Code, the rules and procedures established under the Government Code shall
be followed when implementing this chapter. (Prior code § 29.5-19)
• •
16.20. 020 Applicability.
A. The provisions set forth in this chapter for the merger of parcels shall be
applicable to two or more contiguous parcels of land held by the same owner
where:
1. The parcels were created under the provisions of this code regulating
subdivisions or any prior state law or ordinance regulating the division
of land or which were not subject to any prior law regulating the
division of land;
2. At least one of the contiguous parcels or units of land held by the
same owner does not conform to standards for minimum parcel size to
permit use or development under the city's zoning and/or subdivision
ordinance.
B. Nothing in the provisions relating to merger of parcels shall be construed
or interpreted to prohibit the sale, lease or financing of such contiguous
parcels of land, or any of them, where the same have not been merged
pursuant to the procedure set forth in this chapter. (Prior code § 29.5-20)
16.20. 030 Requirements for merger.
Any two or more contiguous parcels or units of land held by the same owner
which are subject to the merger provisions set forth as provided in Section
16.20.020 may be merged if all of the following requirements are satisfied:
A. The main structure is partially sited on the contiguous parcel and not
more than eighty (80) percent of the Tots on the same block of the affected
parcel have been split and developed separately.
B. With respect to any affected parcel, one or more of the following
conditions exists:
1. Comprises less than four thousand (4,000) square feet in area at the
time of the determination of merger;
2. Was not created in compliance with applicable laws and ordinances in
effect at the time of its creation;
3. Does not meet current standards for sewage disposal and domestic
water supply;
4. Does not meet slope stability standards;
5. Has no legal access which is adequate for vehicular and safety
equipment access and maneuverability;
6. Its development would create health or safety hazards;
7. Is inconsistent with the applicable general plan and any applicable
specific plan, other than minimum lot size or density standards.
C. The requirements set forth in subsection B of this section shall not be
applicable if any of the conditions set forth in Section 66451.11(b)(A)
through (E) of the California Government Code exist. D. If the merger of
parcels results in the creation of a parcel that is at least eight thousand
(8,000) square feet in size, the planning commission and/or city council may,
with the consent of the property owner, redivide the parcel into separate
parcels that are at least four thousand (4,000) square feet in size. (Prior
code § 29.5-21)
16.20. 040 Determination of ownership.
For purposes of determining whether contiguous parcels or units are held by
the same owner, ownership shall be determined as of the date that notice of
intention to determine status is recorded pursuant to Section 16.20.050.
(Prior code § 29.5-22)
16.20. 050 Notice of intention to determine status.
Whenever the director of planning has knowledge that real property may be
merged pursuant to the merger provisions of this chapter, he shall:
A. Mail by certified mail to the then current record owner of the property a
notice of intention to determine status. Such notice shall state that:
1. The affected parcels may be merged pursuant to the merger provisions
of Sections 16.20.010 through 16.20.100, inclusive of this chapter,
- 2. The owner may file a request with the planning department any time
within thirty (30) days after the date the notice of intention to
determine status is recorded for a hearing before the planning
commission and may present evidence at the hearing that the property
does not meet the requirements for merger, and
3. That the notice of intention to determine status was filed for recording
with the county recorder's office on the same date such notice was
mailed to the property owner;
B. File for record with the county recorder's office, on the same date that the
notice is mailed to the property owner, the notice of intention to determine
status. (Prior code § 29.5-23)
16.20. 060 Hearing date, fee, presentation of evidence --Planning
commission determination.
A. Upon receipt of a request for a hearing on determination of status and
receipt of the filing fee as set forth by resolution of the city council, the
director of planning shall fix a time, date and place for a hearing to be
conducted by the planning commission and shall so notify the property owner
by certified mail. The hearing shall be conducted not less than thirty (30)
days following the receipt of the property owner's request therefor, but may
be postponed or continued with the mutual consent of the planning
commission and the property owner.
B. At the hearing, the property owner shall be given the opportunity to
present any evidence that the affected property does not meet the
requirements for merger as set forth in Sections 16.20.020 and 16.20.030.
C. At the conclusion of the hearing, the planning commission shall make a
determination as to whether the affected parcels are to be merged and shall
• •
notify the owner of its determination as soon thereafter as practicable, but
no later than five working days after the determination has been reached. If
such notification cannot be made at the time of the hearing to the owner in
person, the notification shall be made by certified mail. (Prior code § 29.5-
24)
16.20. 070 Merger--Notice--Effective date.
A. If the planning commission or city council determines that the affected
parcels are merged, the director of planning shall file for record with the
county recorder's office a notice of merger specifying the names of the record
owners and particularly describing the real property to be merged.
B. The notice of merger for any parcel merged by the planning commission
or city council shall be filed no later than thirty (30) days after the conclusion
of the final hearing on determination of status.
C. A merger of parcels becomes effective on the date the notice of merger is
duly filed with the county recorder's office. (Prior code § 29.5-25)
16.20. 080 When parcels not merged --Release and clearance of notice
of intention to determine status.
If the planning commission or city council determines that the affected
parcels are not to be merged, the director of planning shall:
A. File for record with the county recorder's office a release of the notice of
intention to determine status, recorded pursuant to Section 16.20.050,
specifying the names of the record owners and particularly describing the
real property to be merged; and
B. Mail a clearance letter to the then current owner of record;
C. The release and clearance letter shall be filed and mailed, respectively,
within five working days of the date of the city council's determination or
within five working days after the applicable ten-day appeal period has run
following a determination of the planning commission. (Prior code § 29.5-26)
16.20. 090 Planning commission determination without hearing --
Notice to owner.
If the property owner fails to file a request for hearing within the thirty (30)
day period as provided in Section 16.20.060, the planning commission may,
at any time thereafter, make a determination as to whether the affected
parcels are to be merged.
A. If the planning commission makes a determination of merger, the director
of planning shall file a notice of merger no later than ninety (90) days after
the mailing of the notice of opportunity for hearing as provided in this
section, and shall notify the property owner of such determination by
certified mail.
B. If the planning commission makes a determination of nonmerger, the
director of planning shall follow the procedure set forth in Section 16.20.080.
(Prior code § 29.5-27)
1
• •
16.20. 100 Appeal.
A. The property owners, a member of the city council or any interested
person may appeal a decision of the planning commission within ten days of
such decision, file an appeal with the city clerk of the city. The city council
shall consider the appeal within thirty (30) days. This appeal shall be a
hearing held at no cost to the appellant with notice being given pursuant to
Section 16.20.060 and with additional notice to be given to the property
owner. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the city council shall declare its
findings at a time not later than the next regularly scheduled city council
meeting after the hearing is held. The city council may sustain, modify, or
reject or overrule any recommendations or rulings of the planning
commission and may make such findings as are consistent with the
provisions of this chapter or the state Subdivision Map Act.
B. All decisions of the planning commission regarding the merger or
nonmerger of parcels shall be final, unless appealed from as prescribed in
this section, or until any condition precedent to its effectiveness has been
fulfilled, whichever is later in time. After final resolution of an appeal by the
city council, the director of planning shall file all appropriate notices within
the time limits established under Sections 16.20.070 and 16.20.080. (Prior
code § 29.5-28)
16.20. 110 Industry merger.
Two or more contiguous parcels, under common ownership, may be
voluntarily merged without reverting to the procedures of this chapter. Such
merger requires that the recordation of an instrument evidencing the merger
be made with the county recorder. (Prior code § 29.5-29)
16.20. 120 Development involving contiguous parcels.
It shall be prohibited to separately sell or separate two or more contiguous
lots owned by the same person or legal entity that have an existing structure
or improvements straddling their common property line. For property not
owned by the same person or legal entity which has been conveyed in
violation of this section, no permits for the demolition, construction or
addition to the structure shall be issued by the building department. (Prior
code § 29.5-31)
Radius Map
300 ft. Buffer Zone
Subject parcel
Parcels selected by buffer (124)
City Limits
300ft.
Prepared by:
Public Works GIS
Chris Hardenbrook
August 2006
i u int
0 250 500 750 1,000
SUPPLEMEN T8L
INFORMATION
Radius Map
500 ft. Buffer Zone
Subject parcel
Parcels selected by buffer (277).
City Limits
500ft.
PrePublicpared Works
kss
GIS
Chris Hardenbrook
August 2006
1 (Feet
0 250 500 750 1,000
Greenbelt
Hermosa Avenue
Valley Park
North School
Neighborhoods may be defined by using natural features to delineate boundaries.
In the example above, this is illustrated by using the Greenbelt to the East;
a collector street (Hermosa Avenue) to the West; the City Limit to the North, and;
a combination of parks, schools, and the elevation rise of 25th St. to the South.
Prepared by:
Public Works GIS
Chris Hardenbrook
August 2006
(Feet
250 500 750 1,000
• •
Mayor and Members
of the City Council
July 26, 2006
Regular Meeting of
August 8, 2006
REPORT OF BALLOT TABULATION RESULTS FOR THE
PROPOSED LANDSCAPE AND STREET LIGHTING
SUPPLEMENTAL MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
Recommendation: To receive and file.
Background:
At its meeting of July 25, 2006, the City Council conducted a public hearing on this matter and,
after receiving public comments and additional ballots, closed the public hearing and authorized the
City Clerk to oversee the tallying of all ballots received to take place in the first floor conference
starting at 8 a.m. on July 26 until the tally is completed, noting that members of the public were
welcome to observe the tabulation.
Assessment Ballot Tabulation Results:
48% favored the formation of the proposed supplemental assessment district.
52% opposed the formation of the proposed supplemental assessment district..
The attached document shows that the total number of ballots received was 2,867, with an
assessment amount of $69,235. There were 1,316 "yes" ballots, with an assessment amount of
$33,479, and 1,551 "no" ballots, with an assessment amount of $35,756.
Elaine Doerfling, City Cler
Noted:
Stephen Burr -1' ' tanager
• •
City of Hermosa Beach
Landscape and Street Lighting
Supplemental Maintenance District
ASSESSMENT BALLOT TABULATION RESULTS
Total of
Ballots Received
Total
"Yes" Ballots
Total
"No" Ballots
No. of Ballots: ( (07
No. of Ballots: ),3 t (p
No. of Ballots: 1 7
Asmt Amt: $ 6;9 a 3 S
Asmt Amt: $ 33,E 79
,5-5
Asmt Amt: $ 3 S, 756,
Asmt Amt
Percent Yes: Lib %
Asmt Amt
Percent No: SP,
Ballots tabulated by:
`k---1 ----q
Harris & Associates
Carol Hill, Project Analyst
Date: /n7/P\
Q:\Hermosa Beach\LLMD supplement\ballot results form by asmt.doc
SCALE: 1 -30'
1 PARCEL
8,400 SQ. H.
9AKEL
v
A
VESTING SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEET
\o. 061318
IN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH , COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 8 OF HOPKINS TRACT, AS PER
MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 9 PAGE 102 OF MAPS, IN THE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
FOR
CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
PIAT ENGINEERING INC.
SUBDIVIDER'S STATEMENT
I HEREBY STATE THAT I AM THE SUBDIVIDER OF THE LANDS INCLUDED WITHIN THE
SUBDIVISION SHOWN ON THIS MAP WITHIN THE DISTINCTIVE BORDER LINES, AND I
CONSENT TO THE PREPARATION AND FILING OF SAID MAP AND SUBDIVISION.
HAROLD ANSCHEL - SUBDIVIDER
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
SS.
ON THIS 'y' r DAY OF •, ; r~ ' 200 ., BEFORE ME, E ! 7A. f .Ef./ r SPO ' J ,4 ,40/114'Y
PERSONALLY APPEARED HAROLD ANSCHEL, PERSONALLY KNOWN TO ME Oh'
PROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON
WHOSE NAME IS SUBSCRIBED TO THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED
TO ME THAT HE EXECUTED THE SAME IN HIS AUTHORIZED CAPACITY, AND THAT
BY HIS SIGNATURE ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSON, OR THE ENTITY UPON
BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSON ACTED, EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT.
NOTARY PUBLIC- •
PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES - �: • " '
MY COMMISSION No.
CONDOMINIUM NOTE:
THIS SUBDIVISION IS APPROVED AS A CONDOMINIUM PROJECT FOR TWO UNITS,
WHEREBY THE OWNERS OF THE UNITS OF A/R SPACE WILL HOLD AN UNDIVIDED
INTEREST IN THE COMMON AREAS WHICH WILL, IN TURN, PROVIDE THE NECESSARY
ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENTS FOR THE UNITS.
3333 f, j
COM, DE, -
ENGINEER'S STATEMENT.:
THIS MAP WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION AND WAS COMPILED
FROM RECORD DATA IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND LOCAL ORDINANCE AT THE REQUEST OF HAROLD
ANSCHEL IN JUNE, 2005. I HEREBY STATE THAT THIS PARCEL MAP SUBSTANTIALLY
CONFORMS TO THE APPROVED OR CONDITIONALLY APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP,
IF ANY.
VICTOR J. PIAL, R.C.E. 20327
EXPIRES: 09-30-07
RECORD DATA NOTE:
RECORD DATA IS FROM HOPKINS TRACT, M.B. 9-102.
CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE:
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THIS MAP AND THAT IT CONFORMS
SUBSTANTIALLY TO THE TENTATIVE MAP AND ALL APPROVED ALTERATIONS
THEREOF; THAT ALL PROVISIONS OF SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH APPLICABLE AT THE TIME OF APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE
MAP HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH; AND THAT I AM SATISFIED THAT THIS MAP
IS TECHNICALLY CORRECT WITH RESPECT TO CITY RECORDS.
DONALD L. WOLFE -
1 1 gGINEERATE: �� �06.EPUTY.
-7274 EXPIRES: 1Z -31-6c,
RECORD OWNERS: HAROLD ANSCHEL, VINCENT BRUCCOLIERI AND LAURA BRUCCOLIERI.
EASEMENT NOTE:
WARREN GILLELEN, SUCCESSOR OR ASSIGNS, EASEMENT HOLDER FOR WATER PIPE
PURPOSES PER DEED RECORDED /N BOOK 1617 PAGE 47 OF DEEDS, RECORDS
OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY.
SAID EASEMENT IS BLANKET IN NATURE.
•
LEGEND
• •
INDICATES THE BOUNDARY OF THE LAND
BEING SUBDIVIDED BY THIS MAP
FD. 2 "l. P. W/PK&W
LS 6771 PER CITY
TIE SHT No. 185.
20'
20' 40'
z
N
v+
0
0
4;
20.
20
S'LY LINE OF LOT 7,
HOPKINS TRACT,
M.B. 9-102.
W'LY LINE OF LOT 8, HOPKINS
TRACT, M.B. 9-102 AND E'LY LINE
OF P.M. No. 13703, P. M, B. 139-61,
AND E'LY LINE OF LOT 6, HURD'S
OCEAN VIEW TRACT, M.B. 12-117
S'LY LINE OF LOT 8, HOPKINS
TRACT, M.B. 9-102 AND N LY
LINE OF P.M. No. 10651,
P.M.B. 110-66-67.
-E:-E. No.
1-.s.
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS CERTIFICATE:
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS LEVIED UNDER THE
JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, TO WHICH THE LAND INCLUDED
IN THE WITHIN SUBDIVISION OR ANY PART THEREOF IS SUBJECT, AND WHICH
MAY BE PAID IN FULL, HAVE BEEN PAID IN FULL.
DATE.:
CITY TREASURER OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
CITY CLERK'S CERTIFICATE:
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
BY MOTION ADOPTED AT ITS SESSION ON THE DAY OF
, APPROVED THE ANNEXED MAP.
DATE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
CITY PLANNER'S CERTIFICATE:
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ANNEXED MAP CONFORMS SUBSTANTIALLY TO THE
TENTATIVE MAP APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE DAY
OF 2003.
DATE
SECRETARY OF PLANNING
COUNTY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE:
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THIS MAP, THAT IT COMPLIES WITH
ALL PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW APPLICABLE AT THE TIME OF APPROVAL OF
THE TENTATIVE MAP; AND THAT / AM SATISFIED THAT THIS MAP IS TECHNICALLY
CORRECT IN ALL RESPECTS NOT CERTIFIED TO BY THE CITY ENGINEER.
COUNTY ENGINEER
DATE: BY:
DEPUTY
FD. S.W.&T., LS
4702 PER CITY
TIE SHT No. 176.
S�;R�Er
f.. 3gD
R.C.E. No. EXPIRES:
SCALE: 1"=-30`
1 PARCEL
5,200 SO, FT,
VESTING SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEET
PARCEL MAP No. 61742
IN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH , COUITTY OF LOS ANGELES
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 18, GLORIETTA VILLA TRACT AS
RECORDED IN MAP BOOK 9 PAGE 111 OF MAPS IN THE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY
FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
SUBDIVIDER'S STATEMENT
I HEREBY STATE THAT / AM THE SUBDIVIDER OF THE LANDS INCLUDED WITHIN
THE SUBDIVISION SHOWN ON THIS MAP WITHIN THE DISTINCTIVE BORDER LINES,
AND I CONSENT TO THE PREPARATION AND FILING OF SAID MAP AND SUBDIVISION.
Sy;
STEVE WITHEROW (SUBDIVIDER)
SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT
THIS MAP WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION AND WAS COMPILED
FROM RECORD DATA IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION
MAP ACT AND LOCAL ORDINANCE AT THE REQUEST OF STEVE WITHEROW
IN JANUARY, 2006. I HEREBY STATE THAT THIS PARCEL MAP SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORMS
TO THE APPROVED OR CONDITIONALLY APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP, IF ANY
l2-3/
XP
STATE OF CALIFORNIA �,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SS. -7\ 3 ;q
l: i cs Z (AA A Mo1`ARW PUBLI "' ~ ��:.
ON THIS AY OFl 2006, BEFORE ME, ,
PERSONALLYAPPEARED STEVE WITIYEROW PERSONALLY KNOWN TO ME OR
PROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON
WHOSE NAME IS SUBSCRIBED TO THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED
TO ME THAT HE EXECUTED THE SAME IN HIS AUTHORIZED CAPACITY, AND THAT
BY HIS SIGNATURE ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSON, OR THE ENTITY UPON
BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSON ACTED, EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT.
„LetLL
NOTARY PUBLIC— LI; Z calj E— U. 6 s`
PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN LOS ANGELES CO NTY
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES — L • E
COMMISSION NO. — V.()7 (a 7((�
CONDOMINIUM NOTE:
THIS SUBDIVISION IS APPROVED AS A CONDOMINIUM PROJECT FOR TWO UNITS,
WHEREBY THE OWNERS OF THE UNITS OF AIR SPACE WILL HOLD AN UNDIVIDED
INTEREST IN THE COMMON AREAS WHICH WILL, IN TURN, PROVIDE THE NECESSARY
ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENTS FOR THE UNITS.
Q
0
C:)
0
LEGEND
• • •
INDICATES THE BOUNDARY OF THE LAND
BEING SUBDIVIDED BY 77 -IIS MAP
* REFERS TO GLORIETTA VILLA TRACT
MB 9 PG 111
EASEMENT NOTES:
AN EASEMENT TO WARREN GILLELEN FOR WATER
PIPELINE PURPOSES AS DISCLOSED BY DEED
RECORDED IN BOOK 1617 PAGE 47 OF DEEDS
SAID EASEMENT IS BLANKET IN NATURE
7th Sl-Fi e, 40.
N
'4'
0 0.34,00:a 00
JTq
NA\\ tAtti
S of Lai t5
OVIP VC( loAse
of P� Wit. MKiat‘s7
_6)
0
0
0
W`VY LINE Or
LOT17 O F
0
0
0
0
N
rs
40.00'
N70. 0
cal
c$1
41 A'
41///7 -
THOMAS M BOSSERMAN, L.S. 7328
EXPIRES: 12-31-07
RECORD OWNERS: STEVE WITHEROW AND JESSICA WITHEROW
RECORD DATA NOTE:
RECORD DATA IS FROM GLORIETTA VILLA TRACT MB 9 PAGE 111
SPECIAL ASSESMENTS CERTIFICATE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL SPECIAL ASSESMENTS LEVIED UNDER THE
JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, TO WHICH THE LAND INCLUDED
IN THE WITHIN SUBDIV/DSION OR ANY PART THEREOF IS SUBJECT, AND WHICH
MAY BE PAID IN FULL HAVE BEEN PAID IN FULL.
CITY TREASURER OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DATE
CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE
I HERBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THIS MAP AND THAT IT CONFORMS
SUBSTANTIALLY TO THE TENTATIVE MAP AND ALL APPROVED ALTERATIONS THEREOF;
THAT ALL PROVISIONS OF SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH APPLICABLE AT THE TIME OF APPROVAL TO THE TENTATIVE MAP HAVE BEEN
COMPLIED WITH; AND THAT I AM SATISFIED THAT THIS MAP IS TECHNICALLY
CORRECT WITH RESPECT TO CITY RECORDS.
DONALD L. WOLFE
CITY ENGINEER
DEPUTY
R.C.E. EXPIRES
COUNTY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT 1 HAVE EXAMINED
PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW APPLICABLE AT
TENTATIVE MAP; AND THAT 1 AM SATISF/ED
CORRECT IN ALL RESPECTS NOT CERTIFIED
DATE
THIS MAP, THAT IT COMPLIES WITH ALL
THE TIME OF APPROVAL OF THE
THAT THIS MAP IS TECHNICALLY
TO BY THE CITY ENGINEER
COUNTY ENGINEER
BY DEPUTY
R.C.E. NO
EXPIRES
CITY CLERK'S CERTIFICATE
DATE
I HERBY CERTIFY THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BY
MOTION ADOPTED AT ITS SESSION ON THE DAY OF ,20
APPROVED THE ANNEXED MAP.
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DATE
CITY PLANNER'S CERTIFICATE
I HERBY CERTIFY THAT THE ANNEXED MAP CONFORMS SUBSTANTIALLY TO THE
TENTATIVE MAP APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE DAY
OF , 20
SECRETARY OF PLANNING CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DATE