Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/09/87"Toleration is the greatest gift of the mind." -Helen Keller AGENDA REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, June 9, 1987 - Council Chambers, City Hall Closed Session - 7:00 p.m. Regular Session - 7:30 p.m. MAYOR John Cioffi MAYOR PRO TEM Etta Simpson COUNCILMEMBERS Tony DeBellis Jim Rosenberger June Williams All Council meetings are open Complete agenda materials are the Police Department, Public Clerk. CITY CLERK Kathleen Midstokke CITY TREASURER Norma Goldbach CITY MANAGER Gregory T. Meyer CITY ATTORNEY James P. Lough to the public. PLEASE ATTEND. available for public inspection in Library and the Office of the City PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: The following routine matters will be acted upon by one vote to approve with the majority con- sent of the City Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless good cause is shown by a member prior to the roll call vote. (Items removed will be considered after Municipal Matters.) CITIZEN COMMENTS Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any items on the Consent Calendar may do so at this time. (a) Approval of Minutes: Budget Workshop of the City Coun- cil held on May 14, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve minutes. (b)l Approval of Minutes: Regular meeting of the City Coun- cil held on May 26, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve minutes. 1 f (c) (f) (h) (i) Demands and Warrants: June 9, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve Demands and Warrants Nos. through inclusive.j 41 ,Tentative Future Agenda Items. Recommended Action: To receive and file. City Manager Activity Report: Memorandum from City Man- ager Gregory T. Meyer dated June 4, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. Request for Closed Session: Memorandum from City Man- ager Gregory T. Meyer dated June 3, 1987. Recommended Action: To calendar a Closed Session for June 23, 1987 at 6:00 p.m. Monthly Investment Report: Memorandum from City Treasurer Norma Goldbach dated June 2, 1987. Recommended Action: Receive and file. Child Abuse Monthly Report. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian dated June 12, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file report. Acceptance of work as complete - asphalt area repair and resurfacing for park development (CIP 85-502). Memoran- dum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated May 20, 1987. Recommended Action: To 1) accept the asphalt area re- pair and resurfacing for park development performed by Sully -Miller Contracting Co. as complete; 2) authorize staff to release the Labor and Materials Bond and Faith- ful Performance Bond for subject project. Approval of agreement between City and Group Dynamics for Men's Pro Volleyball Tournament. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian dated June 1,1987. Recommended Action: Approve agreement for sponsorship of the Hermosa Beach Open Volleyball Tournament and au- thorize Mayor to sign. Consideration of an information booth "kiosk" at the Pierhead. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated May 7, 1987. Recommended Action: Authorize staff to formally explore construction of an all weather Kiosk to be situated on (m) Pier Avenue in the area between the Strand and Beach Drive. Report of City Council/Planning Subcommittee meeting. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated May 19, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. Business Relations Subcommittee report regarding meeting with the Downtown Merchants Association on May 13, 1987. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dat- ed May 18, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (n) Request,by Mayor Pro Tem Simpson for resolution of sup- port for Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 34. Recommended Action: Direct staff to return with resolu- tion supporting adoption of Senate Concurrent Resolution OK No. 34 designating State Highway Route 105 as the Glenn Anderson Freeway. (o) Indemnification provisions of new Community Recreation Agreement for County Lifeguard and Beach Cleaning Ser - /vices at Hermosa Beach between County of Los Angeles and City of Hermosa Beach for a five year period commencing July 1, 1987. Memorandum from City Attorney James P. Lough dated June 2, 1987. Recommended Action: Approve indemnification clause. (p) Request by South Bay Union High School District for ter- minationof lease agreement with City. Letter from Dr. Edward King, Deputy Superintendent, dated May 27, 1987. Recommended Action: Refer to staff. (q) Cancellation of Warrants. Memorandum from City Treasurer Norma Goldbach dated June 3, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve cancellation of Warrant No. 023305. (r) Removal of parking on Pacific Coast Highway. Memorandum from Public Works Assistant Engineer Deborah Murphy, and Planning Director Michael Schubach dated June 4, 1987. Recommended Action: Direct staff to initiate an En- vironmental Assessment for 1) a proposed public works project of removing west side parking. on PCH during the hours of 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. Monday thru Friday, and 2) a corresponding modification to the General Plan Policy statement which now calls for such removal during the hours of 4:15 p.m. to 6:15 p.m. SCPt 3 (s) Claims for Damages: 1) Duffy Constr. Co./Valerie Driscoll, represented by Tucker, Goldby & Freeman, 3465 W. Torrance Blvd., Ste. H, Torrance 90503, filed May 20, 1987; 2) Heritage Transfer & Storage, 2076 Artesia Blvd., Torrance, filed May 28, 1987; 3) Danilo Vujicich, 7600 Manchester Blvd., Playa Del Rey, filed June 1, 1987. 4) Daniel M. Hatton, Sr., 321 Pier Ave., #4, filed June 2, 1987. 5) Daniel M. Hatton, Jr., 321 Pier Ave., #4, filed June 2, 1987. 6) David M. Hatton, 321 Pier Ave., #4, filed June 2, 1987. Recommended Action: To deny claim and refer to in- surance administrators. (t) Report, from Councilmember Williams on League of.Califor- nia Cities.1987 Mayors and Councilmembers Legislative Briefing.held June 1 - 2, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (u) Report from Councilmember Williams on Sister City meet- ing held on May 21, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. *****************************iii4***iii*****1**********iii******* Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any item listed under Consent Ordinances and Resolutions may do so at this time. ***************************************************************** 2.. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS (a) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 21-23 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, BY CHANG- ING THE TITLE FROM "DRINKING ON STREET OR PLAYGROUND" TO "INTOXICATION", AND BY ADDING THERETO PROVISIONS REG- ULATING CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES UPON ANY STREET, SIDEWALK OR PARKWAY, PARK, PLAYGROUND, POSTED PREMISES, OR IN ANY PUBLIC PLACE, OR IN ANY PLACE OPEN TO THE PATRONAGE OF THE PUBLIC WHICH ARE NOT LICENSED FOR THE CONSUMPTION OF SUCH ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON THE PREMISES, AND A PROVISION REQUIRING THE POSTING OF PREM- ISES LICENSED FOR RETAIL OFF -SALE OF PACKAGED ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. For waiver of full reading and introduction. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated May 29, 1987. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM_THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. $. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. 4 U o(itIV )13&s/. o �2C,azi, ~ Jd«2 c2) PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. 5. PROPOSAL TO EXTEND THE TWO HOUR TIME LIMIT PARKING, ON - STREET, IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA, TO A THREE HOUR TIME LIMIT. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dated May 29, 1987. 6. PROPOSED 1987-1988 BUDGET AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. A.,'" BUDGET MESSAGE FROM CITY MANAGER GREGORY T. MEYER DATED APRIL 30, 1987 fBy� BUDGET BULLETINS EMBELLISHING PROPOSED BUDGET D. PUBLIC INPUT AND COUNCIL DELIBERATIONS RECOMMENDATION TO INSTRUCT STAFF TO FINALIZE THE BUDGET RESOLUTION IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: 1. Approve Hermosa Beach School District's J request for funding in the amount of $ 1,000 from Prospective Expenditures 2. Amend CIP 85-402, increasing the appropria- tion by $ 194,321 for a total of $ 652,951 from the Sewer Fund 3. Approve the N.L.C. request for Legal Center funding in the amount of $250 LTR from Prospective Expenditures 4: Approve funding for the Transportation, Circulation:,and Parking Element in the amount of $70,000. Funding sources will (C/be $10,878 Proposition A, $5,000 State Gas 0 Tax, $37,000 County Gas Tax and $17,122 from General Revenue Sharing 5. Amend the liability insurance budget to /D include an additional $ 128,890 as des- cribed in Budget Bulletin 7 6. Approve the request for funding from South ;S%-� Bay Juvenile Diversion in the amount of ( $ 3,000. (Recommended Budget page 139) 7. Approve the request for funding from the Hermosa Beach County Library for LEPAC '�(�, compact disc system in the amount of $1,500 (included in Recommended Budget, page 139) 8. Approve the appropriation of an additional $666 to the City Council budget for attend - S -td ance by one Councilmember to the League Mayor and Councilmember Executive Forum t(b9 • Approve an addition of $4,000 to the Elect- ions Budget for four ballot measures 10. Approve an addition of $9.,500 to the Com- munity Resources budget for stage lights rS\0 $ 2,000, a—fo11ow spot $5,000, and a 3.5-m m -p r -o j e c -t o r—$-'2 ; 5 cyo— j k 5 11. Approve an additional $5,000 to the Animal Control budget for replacement of a truck chassis �ya� 12. Designate $77,500 for costs relating to bwithdrawal from the RCC within the Reserve for Contingency 13. Delete CIP 85-130 in the amount of $78,650 ($67,813 Grant Fund, $10,837 State Gas Tax) from the Recommended Budget per the City Council action of May 12, 1987. The revenue estimate for Federal Aid Urban should be reduced accordingly by $67,813 14. Increase the Capital Improvement Designa- S tion by $21,609 for a total of $243,165. E. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, FIXING THE COMPENSA- TION TO BE RECEIVED BY THE CITY CLERK FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1987-88 AND PROVIDING A JOB DESCRIPTION FOR SUCH COMPENSATION. F. A:=RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ,`�HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, FIXING THE COMPENSA- TION TO BE RECEIVED BY THE CITY TREASURER FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1987-88 AND PROVIDING A JOB DESCRIPTION FOR SUCH COMPENSATION. 7. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED GENERAL REVENUE SHARING BUDGET 87- 88. A. PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES - POLICE: CAPITAL OUTLAY $ 44,165 B. PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES - FIRE: CAPITAL OUTLAY $ 30,835 8. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT AND LEVYING ASSESSMENT HERMOSA BEACH STREET LIGHTING DIS- TRICT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JULY 1, 1987. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich /./ dated May 27, 1987. 9. CONSIDERATION OF ENACTMENT OF 1985 CODES (BUILDING, PLUMBING, MECHANICAL, HEATING, DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, Ems. . Memorandum from Building and Safety Director William Grove dated May 30, 1987. ***************************************************************** Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any of the remaining items on the agenda may request to do so at the time the item is called. ***************************************************************** MUNICIPAL MATTERS 10. PROPOSED SEWER CONNECTION ORDINANCE. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated June 3, 1987. (Con- tinued from May 26, 1987 meeting.) Recommended Action: 1) Review and consider the proposed sewer connection fee ordinance; 2) set the proposed or- dinance for public hearing on July 14, 1987. BFI REFUSE RATE INCREASE REQUEST. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director William Grove dated June 1, 1987 and letter from Charles Leonard, BFI District Man- ager dated May 27, 1987.. ` :[1/cu., ?D\\Av� Recommended Action: To adopt resolution approving a 10.2% increase in refuse rates. 12. ESTABLISHING IN -LIEU SEWER CONNECTION FEE FOR HERMOSA PAVILION COMMERCIAL PROJECT. Memorandum from City Man- ager Gregory T. Meyer dated June 3, 1987. (Continued from May 26, 1987 meeting). Recommended Action: Make policy determination setting the in lieu sewer connection fee for the Hermosa Pavil- ion commercial project. 13. PROPOSED BALLOT MEASURE - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS BY THE CITY COUN- CIL REQUIRING THAT AN ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT AND COLLEC- TION OF LICENSE TAX BE,PLACED ON NEW RESIDENTIAL CON- STRUCTION. Memorandum from City Attorney James P. Lough dated June 2, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve the placement of the ordinance on the ballot for the November election. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER 11. C. (b) MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL Legal issues regarding placement of oil revenue limita- tion on November ballot. Memorandum from City Attorney James P. Lough dated May 4, 1987. (Continued from 5/12/ 87 and 5/26/87 meetings.) Recommended Action: To receive and file report. Oral report from RCC Delegate Councilmember Rosenberger re. special meeting of the South Bay Regional Public Communications Authority on June 3, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. 7 16. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL 17. MEETING OF THE HERMOSA.BEACH PARKING AUTHORIf7.5 (Con- tinued from 5/12/ 7 and 5/26/87 meetings.) ) i�- (a) CONSENT CALENDAR 1) Approval of minutes of February 24, 1987 meeting. (b) Proceeding with a Community Center Vicinity Parking Facility. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated April 22, 1987. Recommended Action: To 1) prepare a Master Plan for Community Ctr. and vicinity re. parking; 2) develop public parking facility plan that assumes such parking is operated with on-site attendance; 3) seek from Comm. Resources Comm. a proposed revision in tenant lease re- newals to include a parking surcharge -so tenants will not have to pay for parking by the day; 4) develop park- ing plan that does not diminish currently available rec- reational facilities; 5) assume continuance of Alano Club as tenant at Center with responsibility for con- structing their own facility and members paying for parking; 6) to improve parking/ irculation, examine ac- quiring adjacent gas station; 7) seek City Atty. opinion on any public parking facilit estrictions in force and effect as result of Community enter grant deed from Hermosa Beach City Schools. APPEARANCE OF INTERESTED CITIZENS V°lc M'IS Stj3 Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any matter within the jurisdiction of the Council not elsewhere considered on the agenda may do so at this time. Citizens with complaints regard- ing City management or departmental operations are requested to submit those complaints in writing to the City Manager. ADJOURNMENT df& I QP6er _ZS -221 cA_ jA, 2a MtAiz. CQJ o,t4, -- p \fk\ cu_e_ R,ti rD 3 S U.gt_c\,/ Cc WQ/\ - fH coRc, CLy I (D c/la J36 Where there is no vision the people perish... .1 HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA WELCOME! By your presence in the City Council Chambers you are participating in the process of representative government. Your government welcomes your interest and hopes you will attend the City Council meetings often CITY VISION A less dense, more family oriented pleasant low profile, financially sound community comprised of a separate and distinct business district and residential neighborhoods that are afforded full municipal services in which the maximum costs are borne by visitor/users; led by a City Council which accepts a stewardship role for community resources and displays a willingness to explore innovative alternatives, and moves toward public policy leadership in attitudes of full ethical awareness. This Council is dedicated to learning from the past, and preparing Hermosa Beach for tomorrow's challenges today. Adopted by City Council on October 23, 1986 NOTE: There is no smoking allowed in the Council Chambers' THE HERMOSA BEACH FORM OF GOVERNMENT Hermosa Beach has the Council -Manager form of government, with a City Manager ap- pointed by and responsible to the City Council for carrying out Council policy. The Mayor and Council decide what is to be done. The City Manager, operating through the entire City staff, does it. This separation of policy making and administration is considsered the most economical and efficient form of City government in the United States today. GLOSSARY The following explanations may help you to understand the terms found on most agen- das for meetings of the Hermosa Beach City Council. Consent Items A compilation of all routine matters to be acted upon by one vote; approval re- quires a majority affirmative vote. Any Councilmember can remove an item from this listing thereby causing that matter to be considered under the category Consent Cal- endar items Removed For Separate Discussion. Public Hearings Public Hearings are held on certain matters as required by law. The Hearings afford the public the opportunity to appear and formally express their views regarding the matter being heard. Additionally, letters may be filed with the City Clerk, prior to the Hearing. Hearings Hearings are held on other matters of public importance for which there is no legal requirement to conduct an advertised Public Hearing. Ordinances An ordinance is a law that regulates government revenues and/or public conduct. All ordinances require two "readings". The first reading introduces the ordinance into the records. At least one week later Council may adopt, reject or hold over the ordinance to a subsequent meeting. Regular ordinances take effect 30 days after the second reading. Emergency ordinances are governed by different provisions and waive the time requirements. Written Communications The public, members of advisory boards/commissions or organizations may formally communicate to or make a request of Council by letter; said letters should be filed with the City Clerk by the Wednesday preceeding the Regular City Council meeting. Miscellaneous Items and Reports - City Manager The City Manager coordinates departmental reports and brings items to the attention of, or for action by the City Council. Verbal reports may be given by the City Manager regarding items not on the agenda, usually having arisen since the agenda was prepared on the preceding Wednesday. Miscellaneous Items and Reports - City Council Members of the City Council may place items on the agenda for consideration by the full Council. Other Matters - City Council These are matters that come to the attention of a Council member after publication of the Agenda. Oral Communications from the Public - Matters of an Urgency Nature Citizens wishing to address the City Council on an urgency matter not elsewhere con- sidered on the agenda may do so at this time. Parking Authority The Parking Authority is a financially separate entity, but is operated as an inte- gral part of the City government. Vehicle Parking District No. 1 The City Council also serves as the Vehicle Parking District Commission. It's pur- pose is to oversee the operation of certain downtown parking lots and otherwise pro- mote public parking in the central business district. JONES HALL HILL & WHITE, CHARLES F. ADAMS STEPHEN R. CASALEOOIO EDSELL M. EADY, JR. ANDREW C. HALL, JR. KENNETH I. JONES PHILIP NELSON LEE WILLIAM H MADISON BRIAN D. QUINT PAUL J. THIMMIG SHARON STANTON WHITE To All Interested Parties: A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW June 4, 1987 FOUR EMBARCADERO CENTER SUlT.E 1950 SAN FRANCISCO 94111 (415) 391-5780 AUTOMATIC TELECOPIER (415) 391-5784 (415) 956-8308 Re: Cities That May Be Interested in Placing A Proposition For The Incurrence of General Obligation Bond Debt on the November 3, 1987 Ballot As you are aware, with the passage of Proposition 46 in November of 1985, it is now legally possible for cities to incur general obligation debt for the purpose of financing the acquisition and improvement of real property. We have received numerous inquiries from various City officials regarding the steps that need to be taken to include a proposition for incurring general obligation bond indebtedness on the ballot for the November 3rd statewide election, as well as the timing of those actions. We have prepared the enclosed Time Schedule Requirements which sets forth the actions which need to be taken, along with the deadlines for taking those actions, in order to include such a measure on the ballot for the November 3rd election. As you can see by examining the enclosed schedule, a City whose Council meets biweekly would need to adopt a resolution of necessity in early July in order to include a general obligation bond proposition on the November 3rd ballot. We are, of course, available to respond to any questions that you may have regarding the schedule or the type of improvements which may be financed with general obligation bonds. J3509 Very truly yours /A -Professional Law Corporation Ottth #i -c& .0k11(-€ (3) (4) (5) DONE S HALL HILL & WHITE , A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION TIME SCHEDULE REQUIREMENTS FOR CITY GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS (November 3, 1987 Election) This schedule is submitted on the basis of the following assumptions: (1) The bond election will be held on November 3, 1987; (2) There will be a special statewide election held on that date; and (3) The purpose of the bonds will be for the acquisition or improvement of real property. Citation EI.C.* 2553 Gov.C'" 43607, 43610 Gov.C. 43608; EI.C. 23302, 2502, 5014.5 EI.C. 23302 EI.C. 22003, 23306 Event Governor proclamation calling special statewide election Resolution Determining Public Interest or Necessity Demands Municipal Improvement (2/3rds vote) and Introduction of Ordinance Calling Election Passage of Ordinance Calling Election (2/3rds vote); Resolution Requesting Consolidation with Special Statewide Election; Exercise of Option (if desired) of procedures on Rebuttal Arguments File ordinance and request for consolidation with board of supervisors, copy to County Clerk Resolution Requesting Services of County Clerk, requesting Board of Supervisors to canvass results (may be combined with resolution listed in (3) above) " Elections Code of the State of California. .. Government Code of the State of California. Deadline for Action June 5, 1987 (150 days prior to election) Council meeting prior to Item (3) Council meeting prior to County election clerk's deadline for filing ballot prop. (August 7, 1987) (at least 88 days prior to date of election) August 6, 1987 (must submit list of precincts or consol- idated precincts at least 61 days before election) September 2, 1987 (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) Citation Event Deadline for Action EI.C. 5015 EI.0 5013 EI.C. 5014(a) EI.C. 5011, 5301 EI.C. 5025 EI.C. 22832 5301, 5013 1018, 10010 Gov.C. 43611 43611 EI.C. 22834 22835 Gov.C. 6061 6066 EI.C. 1002 EI.C. 2502 EI.C. 23306 Fixing of date for filing of arguments by City Clerk (may be combined with resolution listed in (3) above) Filing of Arguments with City Clerk Deadline for rebuttal arguments (if Council adopts EI.C. Sec. 5014.5(a)) Resolution ordering City Attorney to prepare impartial analysis and directing preparation of statement of economic effect (may be combined with resolution listed in (3) above) 10 -calendar day public examination period for ballot arguments, materials made available by City Clerk in City Clerk's office Submission of arguments and materials for printing Start mailing of sample ballots, polling place notices, absent voter ballot applications, arguments for and against and cost and tax date Publication of Ordinance Calling Election by City Clerk Publish list of polling places and election officers and synopsis of measure consolidated with notice of election Request for absent voter ballots Election day Board of Supervisors Canvass of Returns and Declaration of Results (18) City Council declares Results of Election Prior to action in #8 below Date set by City Clerk under #6 above 10 days after last date for argument submission (see #6, above) In time for analysis and statement to be included with material in #11, below (at least 10 days before submission) August 19, 1987 (not more than 40 nor less than 10 days before election) September 29, 1987 October 27, 1987 (at least 20 days prior to election) October 14, 1987 Between 29th and 7th day prior to election November 3, 1987 From Closing of polls until completion of Canvass After action in #17 above 1 JONE S HALL HILL & WHITE, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHARLES F. ADAMS STEPHEN R. CASALEOOIO EDSELL M. EADY, JR. ANDREW C. HAT T , JR. KENNETH I. JONES PHILIP NELSON LEE WILLIAM H MADISON BRIAN D. QUINT PAUL J. THIMMIO SHARON STANTON WHITE To All Interested Parties: June 4, 1987 FOUR EMBARCADERO CENTER SUITE 1950 SAN FRANCISCO 94111 (415) 391-5780 AUTOMATIC TELECOPIER (415) 391-5784 (415) 956-6308 Re: Cities That May Be Interested in Placing A Proposition For The Incurrence of General Obligation Bond Debt on the November 3, 1987 Ballot As you are aware, with the passage of Proposition 46 in November of 1985, it is now legally possible for cities to incur general obligation debt for the purpose of financing the acquisition and improvement of real property. We have received numerous inquiries from various City officials regarding the steps that need to be taken to include a proposition for incurring general obligation bond indebtedness on the ballot for the November 3rd statewide election, as well as the timing of those actions. We have prepared the enclosed Time Schedule Requirements which sets forth the actions which need to be taken, along with the deadlines for taking those actions, in order to include such a measure on the ballot for the November 3rd election. As you can see by examining the enclosed schedule, a City whose Council meets biweekly would need to adopt a resolution of necessity in early July in order to include a general obligation bond proposition on the November 3rd ballot. We are, of course, available to respond to any questions that you may have regarding the schedule or the type of improvements which may be financed with general obligation bonds. J3509 Very truly yours, At&..:6U/1" /Professional Law Corporation • (3) (4) (5) JONES HALL HILL & WHITE, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION TIME SCHEDULE REQUIREMENTS FOR CITY GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS (November 3, 1987 Election) This schedule is submitted on the basis of the following assumptions: (1) The bond election will be held on November 3, 1987; (2) There will bea special statewide election held on that date; and (3) The purpose of the bonds will be for the acquisition or improvement of real property. Citation EI.C.* 2553 Gov.C. 43607, 43610 Gov.C. 43608; EI.C. 23302, 2502, 5014.5 EI.C. 23302 EI.C. 22003, 23306 Event Govemor proclamation calling special statewide election Resolution Determining Public Interest or Necessity Demands Municipal Improvement (2/3rds vote) and Introduction of Ordinance Calling Election Passage of Ordinance Calling Election (2/3rds vote); Resolution Requesting Consolidation with Special Statewide Election; Exercise of Option (if desired) of procedures on Rebuttal Arguments File ordinance and request for consolidation with board of supervisors, copy. to County Clerk Resolution Requesting Services of County Clerk, requesting Board of Supervisors to canvass results (may be combined with resolution listed in (3) above) Elections Code of the State of California. Government Code of the State of California. Deadline for Action June 5, 1987 (150 days prior to election) Council meeting prior to Item (3) Council meeting prior to County election clerk's deadline for filing ballot prop. (August 7, 1987) (at least 88 days prior to date of election) August 6, 1987 (must submit list of precincts or consol- idated precincts at least 61 days before election) September 2, 1987 (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (12) • (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) Citation Event Deadline for Action EI.C. 5015 EI.0 5013 EI.C. 5014(a) EI.C. 5011, 5301 EI.C. 5025 EI.C. 22832 5301, 5013 1018, 10010 Gov.C. 43611 43611 EI.C. 22834 22835 Gov.C. 6061 6066 EI.C. 1002 EI.C. 2502 EI.C. 23306 Fixing of date for filing of arguments by City Clerk (may be combined with resolution listed in (3) above) Filing of Arguments with City Clerk Deadline for rebuttal arguments (if Council adopts EI.C. Sec. 5014.5(a)) Resolution ordering City Attorney to prepare impartial analysis and directing preparation of statement of economic effect (may be combined with resolution listed in (3) above) 10 -calendar day public examination period for ballot arguments, materials made available by City Clerk in City Clerk's office Submission of arguments and materials for printing Start mailing of sample ballots, polling place notices, absent voter ballot applications, arguments for and against and cost and tax date Publication of Ordinance Calling Election by City Clerk Publish list of polling places and election officers and synopsis of measure consolidated with notice of election Request for absent voter ballots Election day Board of Supervisors Canvass of Returns and Declaration of Results (18) City Council declares Results of Election Prior to action in #8 below Date set by City Clerk under #6 above 10 days after last date for argument submission (see #6, above) In time for analysis and statement to be included with material in #11, below (at least 10 days before submission) August 19, 1987 (not more than 40 nor less than 10 days before election) September 29, 1987 October 27, 1987 (at least 20 days prior to election) October 14, 1987 Between 29th and 7th day prior to election November 3, 1987 From Closing of polls until completion of Canvass After action in #17 above JONES HALL HILL & WHITE, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHARLES F. ADAMS STEPHEN R. CASALEOOIO EDSELL M. EADY, JR. ANDREW C. HALL, JR. KENNETH I. JONES PHILIP NELSON LEE WILLIAM H MADISON BRIAN D. QUINT PAUL J. THIMIUG SHARON STANTON WHITE To All Interested Parties: June 4, 1987 FOUR EMBARCADERO CENTER SUITE 1950 SAN FRANCISCO 94111 (415) 391-5780 AUTOMATIC TELECOPIER (415) 391-5784 (415) 956-6308 Re: Cities That May Be Interested in Placing A Proposition For The Incurrence of General Obligation Bond Debt on the November 3, 1987 Ballot As you are aware, with the passage of Proposition 46 in November of 1985, it is now legally possible for cities to incur general obligation debt for the purpose of financing the acquisition and improvement of real property. We have received numerous inquiries from various City officials regarding the steps that need to be taken to include a proposition for incurring general obligation bond indebtedness on the ballot for the November 3rd statewide election, as well as the timing of those actions. We have prepared the enclosed Time Schedule Requirements which sets forth the actions which need to be taken, along with the _deadlines for taking those actions, in order to include such a measure on the ballot for the November 3rd election. As you can see by examining the enclosed schedule, a City whose Council meets biweekly would need to adopt a resolution of necessity in early July in order to include a general obligation bond proposition on the November 3rd ballot. We are, of course, available to respond to any questions that you may have regarding the schedule or the type of improvements which may be financed with general obligation bonds. Very truly yours, gtth #111) J3509 A Professional Law Corporation (3) (4) (5) JONES HALL HILL & WHITE, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION TIME SCHEDULE REQUIREMENTS FOR CITY GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS (November 3, 1987 Election) This schedule is submitted on the basis of the following assumptions: (1) The bond election will be held on November 3, 1987; (2) There will be a special statewide election held on that date; and (3) The purpose of the bonds will be for the acquisition or improvement of real property. Citation EI.C.* 2553 Gov.C." 43607, 43610 Gov.C. 43608; EI.C. 23302, 2502, 5014.5 EI.C. 23302 EI.C. 22003, 23306 Governor proclamation calling special statewide election Resolution Determining Public Interest or Necessity Demands Municipal Improvement (2/3rds vote) and Introduction of Ordinance Calling Election Passage of Ordinance Calling Election (2/3rds vote); Resolution Requesting Consolidation with Special Statewide Election; Exercise of Option (if desired) of procedures on Rebuttal Arguments File ordinance and request for consolidation with board of supervisors, copy to County Clerk Resolution Requesting Services of County Clerk, requesting Board of Supervisors to canvass results (may be combined with resolution listed in (3) above) Elections Code of the State of California. " Government Code of the State of California. Deadline for Action June 5, 1987 (150 days prior to election) Council meeting prior to Item (3) Council meeting prior to County election clerk's deadline for filing ballot prop. (August 7, 1987) (at least 88 days prior to date of election) August 6, 1987 (must submit list of precincts or consol- idated precincts at least 61 days before election) September 2, 1987 • 4 (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) Citation Event Deadline for Action EI.C. 5015 EI.0 5013 EI.C. 5014(a) EI.C. 5011, 5301 EI.C. 5025 EI.C. 22832 5301, 5013 1018, 10010 Gov.C. 43611 43611 EI.C. 22834 22835 Gov.C. 6061 6066 EI.C. 1002 EI.C. 2502 EI.C. 23306 Fixing of date for filing of arguments by City Clerk (may be combined with resolution listed in (3) above) Filing of Arguments with City Clerk Deadline for rebuttal arguments (if Council adopts EI.C. Sec. 5014.5(a)) Resolution ordering City Attorney to prepare impartial analysis and directing preparation of statement of economic effect (may be combined with resolution listed in (3) above) 10 -calendar day public examination period for ballot arguments, materials made available by City Clerk in City Clerk's office Submission of arguments and materials for printing Start mailing of sample ballots, polling place notices, absent voter ballot applications, arguments for and against and cost and tax date Publication of Ordinance Calling Election by City Clerk Publish list of polling places and election officers and synopsis of measure consolidated with notice of election Request for absent voter ballots Election day Board of Supervisors Canvass of Returns and Declaration of Results (18) City Council declares Results of Election Prior to action in #8 below Date set by City Clerk under #6 above 10 days after last date for argument submission (see #6, above) In time for analysis and statement to be included with material in #11, below (at least 10 days before submission) August 19, 1987 (not more than 40 nor less than 10 days before election) September 29, 1987 October 27, 1987 (at least 20 days prior to election) October 14, 1987 Between 29th and 7th day prior to election November 3, 1987 From Closing of polls until completion of Canvass After action in #17 above CHARLES F. ADAMS STEPHEN R. CASALEOOIO EDSELL M. EADY, JR. ANDREW C. HALL, JR. KENNETH I. JONES PHILIP NELSON LEE WILLIAM H MADISON BRIAN D. QUINT PAUL J. THIMMIG SHARON STANTON WHITE JONES HALL HILL & WHITE, To All Interested Parties: A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW June 4, 1987 FOUR EMBARCADERO CENTER SUITE 1950 SAN FRANCISCO 94111 (415) 391-5780 AUTOMATIC TELECOPIER (415) 391-5784 (415) 956-6308 Re: Cities That May Be Interested in Placing A Proposition For The Incurrence of General Obligation Bond Debt on the November 3, 1987 Ballot As you are aware, with the passage of Proposition 46 in November of 1985, it is now legally possible for cities to incur general obligation debt for the purpose of financing the acquisition and improvement of real property. We have received numerous inquiries from various City officials regarding the steps that need to be taken to include a proposition for incurring general obligation bond indebtedness on the ballot for the November 3rd statewide election, as well as the timing of those actions. We have prepared the enclosed Time Schedule Requirements which sets forth the actions which need to be taken, along with the deadlines for taking those actions, in order to include such a measure on the ballot for the November 3rd election. As you can see by examining the enclosed schedule, a City whose Council meets biweekly would need to adopt a resolution of necessity in early July in order to include a general obligation bond proposition on the November 3rd ballot. We are, of course, available to respond to any questions that you may have regarding the schedule or the type of improvements which may be financed with general obligation bonds. J3509 r. _ Very truly yours, /A..Professi,onalOth #646 Law Corporation (3) (4) (5) JONES HALL HILL & WHITE, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION TIME SCHEDULE REQUIREMENTS FOR CITY GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS (November 3, 1987 Election) This schedule is submitted on the basis of the following assumptions: (1) The bond election will be held on November 3, 1987; (2) There will bea special statewide election held on that date; and (3) The purpose of the bonds will be for the acquisition or improvement of real property. Citation EI.C.* 2553 Gov.C'" 43607, 43610 Gov.C. 43608; EI.C. 23302, 2502, 5014.5 EI.C. 23302 EI.C. 22003, 23306 Even Governor proclamation calling special statewide election Resolution Determining Public Interest or Necessity Demands Municipal Improvement (2/3rds vote) and Introduction of Ordinance Calling Election Passage of Ordinance Calling Election (2/3rds vote); Resolution Requesting Consolidation with Special Statewide Election; Exercise of Option (if desired) of procedures on Rebuttal Arguments File ordinance and request for consolidation with board of supervisors, copy. to County Clerk Resolution Requesting Services of County Clerk, requesting Board of Supervisors to canvass results (may be combined with resolution listed in (3) above) " Elections Code of the State of California. Government Code of the State of California. Deadline for Action June 5, 1987 (150 days prior to election) Council meeting prior to Item (3) Council meeting prior to County election clerk's deadline for filing ballot prop. (August 7, 1987) (at least 88 days prior to date of election) August 6, 1987 (must submit list of precincts or consol- idated precincts at least 61 days before election) September 2, 1987 i (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (12) • (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) Citation Event Deadline for Action EI.C. 5015 EI.0 5013 EI.C. 5014(a) EI.C. 5011, 5301 EI.C. 5025 EI.C. 22832 5301, 5013 1018, 10010 Gov.C. 43611 43611 EI.C. 22834 22835 Gov.C. 6061 6066 EI.C. 1002 EI.C. 2502 EI.C. 23306 Fixing of date for filing of arguments by City Clerk (may be combined with resolution listed in (3) above) Filing of Arguments with City Clerk Deadline for rebuttal arguments (if Council adopts EI.C. Sec. 5014.5(a)) Resolution ordering City Attorney to prepare impartial analysis and directing preparation of statement of economic effect (may be combined with resolution listed in (3) above) 10 -calendar day public examination period for ballot arguments, materials made available by City Clerk in City Clerk's office Submission of arguments and materials for printing Start mailing of sample ballots, polling place notices, absent voter ballot applications, arguments for and against and cost and tax date Publication of Ordinance Calling Election by City Clerk Publish list of polling places and election officers and synopsis of measure consolidated with notice of election Request for absent voter ballots Election day Board of Supervisors Canvass of Returns and Declaration of Results (18) City Council declares Results of Election Prior to action in #8 below Date set by City Clerk under #6 above 10 days after last date for argument submission (see #6, above) In time for analysis and statement to be included with material in #11, below (at least 10 days before submission) August 19, 1987 (not more than 40 nor less than 10 days before election) September 29, 1987 October 27, 1987 (at least 20 days prior to election) October 14, 1987 Between 29th and 7th day prior to election November 3, 1987 From Closing of polls until completion of Canvass After action in #17 above JONE S HALL HILL & WHITE, CHARLES F. ADAMS STEPHEN R. CASALEOOIO EDSELL M. EADY, JR. ANDREW C. HALL, JR. KENNETH I. JONES PHILIP NELSON LEE WILLIAM H. MADISON BRIAN D. QUINT PAUL J. THIMMIO SHARON STANTON WHITE To All Interested Parties: A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW June 4, 1987 FOUR EMBARCADERO CENTER SUITE 1950 SAN FRANCISCO 94111 (415) 391-5780 AUTOMATIC TELECOPIER (415) 391-5784 (415) 958-6308 Re: Cities That May Be Interested in Placing A Proposition For The Incurrence of General Obligation Bond Debt on the November 3, 1987 Ballot As you are aware, with the passage of Proposition 46 in November of 1985, it is now legally possible for cities to incur general obligation debt for the purpose of financing the acquisition and improvement of real property. We have received numerous inquiries from various City officials regarding the steps that need to be taken to include a proposition for incurring general obligation bond indebtedness on the ballot for the November 3rd statewide election, as well as the timing of those actions. We have prepared the enclosed Time Schedule Requirements which sets forth the actions which need to be taken, along with the.:.cleadlines for taking those actions, in order to include such a measure on the ballot for the November 3rd election. As you can see by examining the enclosed schedule, a City whose Council meets biweekly would need to adopt a resolution of necessity in early July in order to include a general obligation bond proposition on the November 3rd ballot. We are, of course, available to respond to any questions that you may have regarding the schedule or the type of improvements which may be financed with general obligation bonds. J3509 Very truly yours, /A.-Professionalteittz #4.46 Law Corporation 1' (3) (4) (5) JONE S HALL HILL & WHITE , A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION TIME SCHEDULE REQUIREMENTS FOR CITY GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS (November 3, 1987 Election) This schedule is submitted on the basis of the following assumptions: (1) The bond election will be held on November 3, 1987; (2) There will be a special statewide election held on that date; and (3) The purpose of the bonds will be for the acquisition or improvement of real property. Citation EI.C.* 2553 Gov.C.** 43607, 43610 Gov.C. 43608; EI.C. 23302, 2502, 5014.5 EI.C. 23302 EI.C. 22003, 23306 Event Governor proclamation calling special statewide election Resolution Determining Public Interest or Necessity Demands Municipal Improvement (2/3rds vote) and Introduction of Ordinance Calling Election Passage of Ordinance Calling Election (2/3rds vote); Resolution Requesting Consolidation with Special Statewide Election; Exercise of Option (if desired) of procedures on Rebuttal Arguments File ordinance and request for consolidation with board of supervisors, copy to County Clerk Resolution Requesting Services of County Clerk, requesting Board of Supervisors to canvass results (may be combined with resolution listed in (3) above) • Elections Code of the State of California. Government Code of the State of California. Deadline for Action June 5, 1987 (150 days prior to election) Council meeting prior to Item (3) Council meeting prior to County election clerk's deadline for filing ballot prop. (August 7, 1987) (at least 88 days prior to date of election) August 6, 1987 (must submit list of precincts or consol- idated precincts at least 61 days before election) September 2, 1987 (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) Citation Event Deadline for Action EI.C. 5015 EI.0 5013 EI.C. 5014(a) EI.C. 5011, 5301 EI.C. 5025 EI.C. 22832 5301, 5013 1018, 10010 Gov.C. 43611 43611 EI.C. 22834 22835 Gov.C. 6061 6066 EI.C. 1002 EI.C. 2502 EI.C. 23306 Fixing of date for filing of arguments by City Clerk (may be combined with resolution listed in (3) above) Filing of Arguments with City Clerk Deadline for rebuttal arguments (if Council adopts EI.C. Sec. 5014.5(a)) Resolution ordering City Attorney to prepare impartial analysis and directing preparation of statement of economic effect (may be combined with resolution listed in (3) above) 10 -calendar day public examination period for ballot arguments, materials made available by City Clerk in City Clerk's office Submission of arguments and materials for printing Start mailing of sample ballots, polling place notices, absent voter ballot applications, arguments for and against and cost and tax date Publication of Ordinance Calling Election by City Clerk Publish list of polling places and election officers and synopsis of measure consolidated with notice of election Request for absent voter ballots Election day Board of Supervisors Canvass of Returns and Declaration of Results (18) City Council declares Results of Election Prior to action in #8 below Date set by City Clerk under #6 above 10 days after last date for argument submission (see #6, above) In time for analysis and statement to be included with material in #11, below (at least 10 days before submission) August 19, 1987 (not more than 40 nor less than 10 days before election) September 29, 1987 October 27, 1987 (at least 20 days prior to election) October 14, 1987 Between 29th and 7th day prior to election November 3, 1987 From Closing of polls until completion of Canvass After action in #17 above JONES HALL HILL & WHITE, CHARLES F. ADAMS STEPHEN R. CASALEOGIO EDSELL M. EADY, JR. ANDREW C. HALL, JR. KENNETH I. JONES PHILIP NELSON LEE WIT T TAM H MADISON BRIAN D. QUINT PAUL J. THIMMIO SHARON STANTON WHITE To All Interested Parties: A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW June 4, 1987 FOUR EMBARCADERO CENTER SUITE, 1950 SAN FRANCISCO 94111 (415) 391-5780 AUTOMATIC TELECOPIER (415) 391-5784 (415) 956-8308 Re: Cities That May Be Interested in Placing A Proposition For The Incurrence of General Obligation Bond Debt on the November 3, 1987 Ballot As you are aware, with the passage of Proposition 46 in November of 1985, it is now legally possible for cities to incur general obligation debt for the purpose of financing the acquisition and improvement of real property. We have received numerous inquiries from various City officials regarding the steps that need to be taken to include a proposition for incurring general obligation bond indebtedness on the ballot for the November 3rd statewide election, as well as the timing of those actions. We have prepared the enclosed Time Schedule Requirements which sets forth the actions which need to be taken, along with the..deadlines for taking those actions, in order to include such a measure on the ballot for the November 3rd election. As you can see by examining the enclosed schedule, a City whose Council meets biweekly would need to adopt a resolution of necessity in early July in order to include a general obligation bond proposition on the November 3rd ballot. We are, of course, available to respond to any questions that you may have regarding the schedule or the type of improvements which may be financed with general obligation bonds. J3509 Very truly yours, /A Professigfth ,41114- onal Law Corporation i (3) (4) (5) JONES HALL HILL & WHITE , A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION TIME SCHEDULE REQUIREMENTS FOR CITY GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS (November 3, 1987 Election) This schedule is submitted on the basis of the following assumptions: (1) The bond election will be held on November 3, 1987; (2) There will be a special statewide election held on that date; and (3) The purpose of the bonds will be for the acquisition or improvement of real property. Citation EI.C' 2553 Gov.C. 43607, 43610 Gov.C. 43608; EI.C. 23302, 2502, 5014.5 EI.C. 23302 EI.C. 22003, 23306 Ev n Governor proclamation calling special statewide election Resolution Determining Public Interest or Necessity Demands Municipal Improvement (2/3rds vote) and Introduction of Ordinance Calling Election Passage of Ordinance Calling Election (2/3rds vote); Resolution Requesting Consolidation with Special Statewide Election; Exercise of Option (if desired) of procedures on Rebuttal Arguments File ordinance and request for consolidation with board of supervisors, copy to County Clerk Resolution Requesting Services of County Clerk, requesting Board of Supervisors to canvass results (may be combined with resolution listed in (3) above) * Elections Code of the State of California. Government Code of the State of California. Deadline for Action June 5, 1987 (150 days prior to election) Council meeting prior to Item (3) Council meeting prior to County election clerk's deadline for filing ballot prop. (August 7, 1987) (at least 88 days prior to date of election) August 6, 1987 (must submit list of precincts or consol- idated precincts at least 61 days before election) September 2, 1987 (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) Citation Event Deadline for Action EI.C. 5015 EI.0 5013 EI.C. 5014(a) EI.C. 5011, 5301 EI.C. 5025 EI.C. 22832 5301, 5013 1018, 10010 Gov.C. 43611 43611 EI.C. 22834 22835 Gov.C. 6061 6066 EI.C. 1002 EI.C. 2502 EI.C. 23306 Fixing of date for filing of arguments by City Clerk (may be combined with resolution listed in (3) above) Filing of Arguments with City Clerk Deadline for rebuttal arguments (if Council adopts EI.C. Sec. 5014.5(a)) Resolution ordering City Attorney to prepare impartial analysis and directing preparation of statement of economic effect (may be combined with resolution listed in (3) above) 10 -calendar day public examination period for ballot arguments, materials made available by City Clerk in City Clerk's office Submission of arguments and materials for printing Start mailing of sample ballots, polling place notices, absent voter ballot applications, arguments for and against and cost and tax date Publication of Ordinance Calling Election by City Clerk Publish list of polling places and election officers and synopsis of measure consolidated with notice of election Request for absent voter ballots Election day Board of Supervisors Canvass of Returns and Declaration of Results (18) City Council declares Results of Election Prior to action in #8 below Date set by City Clerk under #6 above 10 days after last date for argument submission (see #6, above) In time for analysis and statement to be included with material in #11, below (at least 10 days before submission) August 19, 1987 (not more than 40 nor less than 10 days before election) September 29, 1987 October 27, 1987 (at least 20 days prior to election) October 14, 1987 Between 29th and 7th day prior to election November 3, 1987 From Closing of polls until completion of Canvass After action in #17 above JONES HALL HILL & WHITE, CHARLES F. ADAMS STEPHEN R. CASALEOOIO EDSELL M. EADY, JR. ANDREW C. HALL, JR. KENNETH I. JONES PHILIP NELSON LEE WILLIAM H. MADISON BRIAN D. QUINT PAUL J. THIMMIO SHARON STANTON WHITE To All Interested Parties: A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION .ATTORNEYS AT LAW June 4, 1987 FOUR EMBARCADERO CENTER SUITE 1950 SAN FRANCISCO 94111 (415) 391-5780 AUTOMATIC TELECOPIER (415) 391-5784 (415) 056-8308 Re: Cities That May Be Interested in Placing A Proposition For The Incurrence of General Obligation Bond Debt on the November 3, 1987 Ballot As you are aware, with the passage of Proposition 46 in November of 1985, it is now legally possible for cities to incur general obligation debt for the purpose of financing the acquisition and improvement of real property. We have received numerous inquiries from various City officials regarding the steps that need to be taken to include a proposition for incurring general obligation bond indebtedness on the ballot for the November 3rd statewide election, as well as the timing of those actions. We have prepared the enclosed Time Schedule Requirements which sets forth the actions which need to be taken, along with the deadlines for taking those actions, in order to include such a measure on the ballot for the November 3rd election. As you can see by examining the enclosed schedule, a City whose Council meets biweekly would need to adopt a resolution of necessity in early July in order to include a general obligation bond proposition on the November 3rd ballot. We are, of course, available to respond to any questions that you may have regarding the schedule or the type of improvements which may be financed with general obligation bonds. J3509 Very truly yours, 11. i'Professional Law Corporation • (3) (4) (5) JONES MALL MILL & WHITE , A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION TIME SCHEDULE REQUIREMENTS FOR CITY GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS (November 3, 1987 Election) This schedule is submitted on the basis of the following assumptions: (1) The bond election will be held on November 3, 1987; (2) There will bea special statewide election held on that date; and (3) The purpose of the bonds will be for the acquisition or improvement of real property. Citation EI.C.* 2553 Gov.C.— 43607, 43610 Gov.C. 43608; EI.C. 23302, 2502, 5014.5 EI.C. 23302 EI.C. 22003, 23306 Even Governor proclamation calling special statewide election Resolution Determining Public Interest or Necessity Demands Municipal Improvement (2/3rds vote) and Introduction of Ordinance Calling Election Passage of Ordinance Calling Election (2/3rds vote); Resolution Requesting Consolidation with Special Statewide Election; Exercise of Option (if desired) of procedures on Rebuttal Arguments File ordinance and request for consolidation with board of supervisors, copy. to County Clerk Resolution Requesting Services of County Clerk, requesting Board of Supervisors to canvass results (may be combined with resolution listed in (3) above) • Elections Code of the State of California. • Government Code of the State of California. Deadline for Action June 5, 1987 (150 days prior to election) Council meeting prior to Item (3) Council meeting prior to County election clerk's deadline for filing ballot prop. (August 7, 1987) (at least 88 days prior to date of election) August 6, 1987 (must submit list of precincts or consol- idated precincts at least 61 days before election) September 2, 1987 (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (12) • (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) Citation Event Deadline for Action EI.C. 5015 EI.0 5013 EI.C. 5014(a) EI.C. 5011, 5301 EI.C. 5025 EI.C. 22832 5301, 5013 1018, 10010 Gov.C. 43611 43611 EI.C. 22834 22835 Gov.C. 6061 6066 EI.C. 1002 EI.C. 2502 EI.C. 23306 Fixing of date for filing of arguments by City Clerk (may be combined with resolution listed in (3) above) Filing of Arguments with City Clerk Deadline for rebuttal arguments (if Council adopts EI.C. Sec. 5014.5(a)) Resolution ordering City Attorney to prepare impartial analysis and directing preparation of statement of economic effect (may be combined with resolution listed in (3) above) 10 -calendar day public examination period for ballot arguments, materials made available by City Clerk in City Clerk's office Submission of arguments and materials for printing Start mailing of sample ballots, polling place notices, absent voter ballot applications, arguments for and against and cost and tax date Publication of Ordinance Calling Election by City Clerk Publish list of polling places and election officers and synopsis of measure consolidated with notice of election Request for absent voter ballots Election day Board of Supervisors Canvass of Returns and Declaration of Results (18) City Council declares Results of Election Prior to action in #8 below Date set by City Clerk under #6 above 10 days after last date for argument submission (see #6, above) In time for analysis and statement to be included with material in #11, below (at least 10 days before submission) August 19, 1987 (not more than 40 nor less than 10 days before election) September 29, 1987 October 27, 1987 (at least 20 days prior to election) October 14, 1987 Between 29th and 7th day prior to election November 3, 1987 From Closing of polls until completion of Canvass After action in #17 above ti JONES HALL HILL & WHITE, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHARLES F. ADAMS STEPHEN R. CASALEOOIO EDSELL M. EADY, JR. ANDREW C. FTAT.T , JR. KENNETH I. JONES PHILIP NELSON LEE WILLIAM 11 MADISON BRIAN D. QUINT PAUL J. THIMMIO SHARON STANTON WHITE To All Interested Parties: June 4, 1987 FOUR EMBARCADERO CENTER SUITE 1950 SAN FRANCISCO 94111 (415) 391-5780 AUTOMATIC TELECOPrER (415) 391-5784 (415) 956-6308 Re: Cities That May Be Interested in Placing A Proposition For The Incurrence of General Obligation Bond Debt on the November 3, 1987 Ballot As you are aware, with the passage of Proposition 46 in November of 1985, it is now legally possible for cities to incur general obligation debt for the purpose of financing the acquisition and improvement of real property. We have received numerous inquiries from various City officials regarding the steps that need to be taken to include a proposition for incurring general obligation bond indebtedness on the ballot for the November 3rd statewide election, as well as the timing of those actions. We have prepared the enclosed Time Schedule Requirements which sets forth the actions which need to be taken, along with the deadlines for taking those actions, in order to include such a measure on the ballot for the November 3rd election. As you can see by examining the enclosed schedule, a City whose Council meets biweekly would need to adopt a resolution of necessity in early July in order to include a general obligation bond proposition on the November 3rd ballot. We are, of course, available to respond to any questions that you may have regarding the schedule or the type of improvements which may be financed with general obligation bonds. Very truly yours, J3509 A Professional Law Corporation (3) (4) (5) JONES HALL HILL & WHITE , A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION TIME SCHEDULE REQUIREMENTS FOR CITY GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS (November 3, 1987 Election) This schedule is submitted on the basis of the following assumptions: (1) The bond election will be held on November 3, 1987; (2) There will bea special statewide election held on that date; and (3) The purpose of the bonds will be for the acquisition or improvement of real property. Citation EI.C:* 2553 Gov.C. 43607, 43610 Gov.C. 43608; EI.C. 23302, 2502, 5014.5 EI.C. 23302 EI.C. 22003, 23306 Event Governor proclamation calling special statewide election Resolution Determining Public Interest or Necessity Demands Municipal Improvement (2/3rds vote) and Introduction of Ordinance Calling Election Passage of Ordinance Calling Election (2/3rds vote); Resolution Requesting Consolidation with Special Statewide Election; Exercise of Option (if desired) of procedures on Rebuttal Arguments File ordinance and request for consolidation with board of supervisors, copy. to County Clerk Resolution Requesting Services of County Clerk, requesting Board of Supervisors to canvass results (may be combined with resolution listed in (3) above) ' Elections Code of the State of California. Government Code of the State of California. Deadline for Action June 5, 1987 (150 days prior to election) Council meeting prior to Item (3) Council meeting prior to County election clerk's deadline for filing ballot prop. (August 7, 1987) (at least 88 days prior to date of election) August 6, 1987 (must submit list of precincts or consol- idated precincts at least 61 days before election) September 2, 1987 (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (12) • (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) Citation Event Deadline for Action EI.C. 5015 Fixing of date for filing of arguments by City Clerk (may be combined with resolution listed in (3) above) EI.0 5013 EI.C. 5014(a) EI.C. 5011, 5301 EI.C. 5025 EI.C. 22832 5301, 5013 1018, 10010 Gov.C. 43611 43611 EI.C. 22834 22835 Gov.C. 6061 6066 EI.C. 1002 EI.C. 2502 EI.C. 23306 Filing of Arguments with City Clerk Deadline for rebuttal arguments (if Council adopts EI.C. Sec. 5014.5(a)) Resolution ordering City Attorney to prepare impartial analysis and directing preparation of statement of economic effect (may be combined with resolution listed in (3) above) 10 -calendar day public examination period for ballot arguments, materials made available by City Clerk in City Clerk's office Submission of arguments and materials for printing Start mailing of sample ballots, polling place notices, absent voter ballot applications, arguments for and against and cost and tax date Publication of Ordinance Calling Election by City Clerk Publish list of polling places and election officers and synopsis of measure consolidated with notice of election Request for absent voter ballots Election day Board of Supervisors Canvass of Returns and Declaration of Results (18) City Council declares Results of Election Prior to action in #8 below Date set by City Clerk under #6 above 10 days after last date for argument submission (see #6, above) In time for analysis and statement to be included with material in #11, below (at least 10 days before submission) August 19, 1987 (not more than 40 nor less than 10 days before election) September 29, 1987 October 27, 1987 (at least 20 days prior to election) October 14, 1987 Between 29th and 7th day prior to election November 3, 1987 From Closing of polls until completion of Canvass After action in #17 above JONES HALL HILL & WHITE, CHART -ES F. ADAMS STEPHEN R. CASALEOOIO EDSELL M. EADY, JR. ANDREW C. HALL, JR. KENNETH I. JONES PHILIP NELSON LEE WILLIAM H MADISON BRIAN D. QUINT PAUL J. THIMMIO SHARON STANTON WHITE To All Interested Parties: A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW June 4, 1987 FOUR EMBARCADERO CENTER SUITE 1950 SAN FRANCISCO 94111 (415) 391-5780 AUTOMATIC TELECOPIER (415) 391-5784 (415) 956-6308 Re: Cities That May Be Interested in Placing A Proposition For The Incurrence of General Obligation Bond Debt on the November 3, 1987 Ballot As you are aware, with the passage of Proposition 46 in November of 1985, it is now legally possible for cities to incur general obligation debt for the purpose of financing the acquisition and improvement of real property. We have received numerous inquiries from various City officials regarding the steps that need to be taken to include a proposition for incurring general obligation bond indebtedness on the ballot for the November 3rd statewide election, as well as the timing of those actions. We have prepared the enclosed Time Schedule Requirements which sets forth the actions which need to be taken, along with the deadlines for taking those actions, in order to include such a measure on the ballot for the November 3rd election. As you can see by examining the enclosed schedule, a City whose Council meets biweekly would need to adopt a resolution of necessity in early July in order to include a general obligation bond proposition on the November 3rd ballot. We are, of course, available to respond to any questions that you may have regarding the schedule or the type of improvements which may be financed with general obligation bonds. J3509 Very truly yours, itY4th #646--,64flihLt /A -Professional Law Corporation 4' (3) (4) (5) JONE S HALL HILL & WHITE , A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION TIME SCHEDULE REQUIREMENTS FOR CITY GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS (November 3, 1987 Election) This schedule is submitted on the basis of the following assumptions: (1) The bond election will be held on November 3, 1987; (2) There will bea special statewide election held on that date; and (3) The purpose of the bonds will be for the acquisition or improvement of real property. Citation EI.C." 2553 Gov.C'" 43607, 43610 Gov.C. 43608; EI.C. 23302, 2502, 5014.5 EI.C. 23302 EI.C. 22003, 23306 Event Governor proclamation calling special statewide election Resolution Determining Public Interest or Necessity Demands Municipal Improvement (2/3rds vote) and Introduction of Ordinance Calling Election Passage of Ordinance Calling Election (2/3rds vote); Resolution Requesting Consolidation with Special Statewide Election; Exercise of Option (if desired) of procedures on Rebuttal Arguments File ordinance and request for consolidation with board of supervisors, copy.to County Clerk Resolution Requesting Services of County Clerk, requesting Board of Supervisors to canvass results (may be combined with resolution listed in (3) above) • Elections Code of the State of California. "" Government Code of the State of California. Deadline for Action June 5, 1987 (150 days prior to election) Council meeting prior to Item (3) Council meeting prior to County election clerk's deadline for filing ballot prop. (August 7, 1987) (at least 88 days prior to date of election) August 6, 1987 (must submit list of precincts or consol- idated precincts at least 61 days before election) September 2, 1987 (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (12) • (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) +Citation EI.C. 5015 EI.0 5013 EI.C. 5014(a) EI.C. 5011, 5301 EI.C. 5025 EI.C. 22832 5301, 5013 1018, 10010 Gov.C. 43611 43611 EI.C. 22834 22835 Gov.C. 6061 6066 EI.C. 1002 EI.C. 2502 EI.C. 23306 Event Deadline for Action Fixing of date for filing of arguments by City Clerk _,(may be combined with resolution listed in (3) above) Filing of Arguments with City Clerk Deadline for rebuttal arguments (if Council adopts EI.C. Sec. 5014.5(a)) Resolution ordering City Attorney to prepare impartial analysis and directing preparation of statement of economic effect (may be combined with resolution listed in (3) above) 10 -calendar day public examination period for ballot arguments, materials made available by City Clerk in City Clerk's office Submission of arguments and materials for printing Start mailing of sample ballots, polling place notices, absent voter ballot applications, arguments for and against and cost and tax date Publication of Ordinance Calling Election by City Clerk Publish list of polling places and election officers and synopsis of measure consolidated with notice of election Request for absent voter ballots Election day Board of Supervisors Canvass of Returns and Declaration of Results City Council declares Results of Election Prior to action in #8 below Date set by City Clerk under #6 above 10 days after last date for argument submission (see #6, above) In time for analysis and statement to be included with material in #11, below (at least 10 days before submission) August 19, 1987 (not more than 40 nor less than 10 days before election) September 29, 1987 October 27, 1987 (at least 20 days prior to election) October 14, 1987 Between 29th and 7th day prior to election November 3, 1987 From Closing of - - polls until completion of Canvass After action in #17 above Honorable ,Mayor and Members of the Hermosa 13dach City Council February 13, 1987 City Council Meeting of February 24, 1987 RECOMMENDATION FOR A CITY COUNCIL POLICY THAT COUNCIL COMMITTEES SHALL SUBMIT WRITTEN REPORTS AND/OR RECOMMENDED ACTIONS RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the policy: Committees of the Council, upon concluding a meeting shall reduce to writing: A. Proceedings of the meeting, and B. Specific recommendations, if any further is desired of the full City Council. following Committee action .The report shall be signed by the Committee members and submitted at the next available City Council meeting. BACKGROUND A change in State law, effective January 1, 1987 now requires 1) That the City give 72 hours notice of all Council agenda items and 2) that the agenda specifically call out the intended action for each and every item. ANALYSIS Oral reports from Council Committees preclude compliance with the new amendments to the Brown Act; written reports will better al- low the intent of an action to be known in advance by all inter- ested parties. Written reports tend to facilitate a clarity in defining the requested action and further, provide a better op- portunity for coordinating the timing and fiscal impacts of the recommended actions. On the other hand, written reports require more time (both for the writing and obtaining of signatures etc). GTM/ld cc: City Attorney James P. Lough ir (1) Planning Department Monthly Activity Report: January, 1987. Action: To receive and file. (m) Police Department Monthly Activity Resort: January,~ 19:7. Action: To receive and file, noting that Rosa's Res- taurant was listed as the last place a person had had a drink, and they do -not have a liquor license. Staff to look into this, and this "Where Did You Have Your Last Drink" report be given to the Planning Commission for review at the time of the CUP's being renewed. Motion DeBellis, second Cioffi. So ordered. (n) Public Works Department Monthly Activity Report: January, 1987. Action: To receive and file. City Treasurer's Report: January, 1987. Action: To receive and file. Monthly Revenue Report: January, 1987. Action: To receive and file. Monthly Expenditure Report: January, 1987. Action: To receive and file. Recommendation for a City Council policy that Council Committees shall submit written, reports and/or recommen- ded actions. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated February 13, 1987. Action: Approve recommended policy. Motion Cioffi, second Simpson. So ordered, noting the objection of Williams. (s) Status report on SCRTD, LACTC and Public Transportation in the South Bay Area. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated February 18, 1987. (t) Action: To receive and file report. Acceptance of work as complete - restroom refurbishing at Hermosa Pier and Clark Stadium CIP 85-501 and CIP 85- 503. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony An- tich dated February 13, 1987. Minutes 2-24-87 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Thursday, May 14, 1987 at the hour of 7:35 P.M. PLEADGE .OF .ALLEGIANCE - Gary Brutsch ROLL CALL Present: DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Cioffi Absent: None Action: To adjourn to a committee of the whole. So ordered. OVERVIEW STATEMENT BY CITY MANAGER City Manager Meyer distributed the following Budget Bulletins: 1. Hermosa Beach City Schools Request for Funding. 2. Data regarding City Clerk request for increase in regular base salary. 3. Amending C.I.P. 85-402 (Replacement of Pipe between MH 602-610, MH 722-804 & MH 818-822) to increase appropriation, and correspondingly reducing estimated Sewer Fund Balance for .6/30/88. 4. Further discussion C.I.P. 86-302. 5. National League of Cities request for Legal Center funding. 6. Proposal to fund extensive study of Circulation Element, Hermosa Beach General Plan. 7. Modification of Insurance Budget due to ICRMA. 8. Request by South Bay Juvenile Diversion in the amount of $3,000. re the "Unfunded" portion ($134,122) of revised Actuarial, for Continued Funding City Manager Meyer discussed the following items: A. Programs and Services B. City Finances C. The Use of Funds CITY REVENUES, A REVIEW OF THE BUDGET REVENUE ANALYSIS BY ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER. This item was explained by Assistant City Manager Mastrian and Finance Administrator Copeland. PROPOSED 1987-1988 EXPENDITURES (A REVIEW DEPARTMENT BY DEPARTMENT AS DESIRED BY COUNCIL). Staff answered questions concerning individual department budgets. 1. Minutes la 5-14-87 THE PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR 1987-1989,. PRESENTED BY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS. Public Works Director Antich answered questions from City Council. CONSENSUS INSTRUCTIONS RE. MATTERS REQUIRING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, ETC. .SUCH MATERIAL TO_BE SUBMITTED BACK_TO COUNCIL AT THE JUNE. 9 REGULAR,MEETING. City Council requested the following information and/or changes: 1. Breakdown of Transfer In/ Transfer Out. 2. Total revenues of 1986 per audit vs. projected revenues. 3. Bids for Circulation Element - RFP - Proposals on June 9th Agenda. 4. Add $5,000 for Animal Control Truck Chassis, pursue Public Works Truck donated by local car dealer. 5. Look and creating Lighting and Landscape District. 6. Ask ML Media if they could broadcast the City Council Agenda prior to the meeting. 7. "Projected" year-end figure (estimate) Page 3. 8. Percent of homes sold in the City, perhaps available through Residential Building Reports. 9. Look into Gross Receipts/ Admissions Tax 10. City Council Conferences - Budget for "New Councilmembers Workshop". 11. Review Policy for Councilmembers expenses - $40/mo per member. 12. City Treasurer- Resolution to include hours and duties. 13. Elections- add $4,000 for 4 more measures. 14. Fire Department - Personnel page missing. 15. Coordinating Council - $1000 for scholarships. 16. Community Resources - add in Stage Lights, Follow -Spot, Projector. ActioQj To reconvene as the City Council. So ordered. ADJOURNMENT The Adjourned Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, adjourned on Thursday, May 14 1987 at the hour of 10:50 P.M. to a Regular Meeting to be held on Tuesday, May 26, 1987, preceded by a Closed Session at 6:00 P.M. Kathleen Midstokke, City Clerk - 2 Minutes 5-14-87 May 18, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council May 26, 1987 BUSINESS RELATIONS SUB -COMMITTEE REPORT REGARDING MEETING WITH THE DOWNTOWN MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION ON MAY 13, 1987 Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report. Discussion: It was agreed that any further discussion regarding the reduction of parking ticket fines from $18 to $13 and a roll back of enforcement hours in the downtown area to 6:00 p.m., would be continued until after the public hearing on June 9, 1987. The remainder of the discussion pertained to complaints regarding parking lot operations. Action taken: It was agreed that the Downtown Merchants Association would submit a list of grievances, regarding parking lot operations, to Mr. Bill Lehtonen`of Allright Parking, in an effort to deal with the problems, merchant to merchant. A copy of said grievances to be submitted to Staff Liaison Noon, who would in turn make a report to the City Council. The next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, July 15th, at 7:30 p.m. an Noon Noted: 0 Gre or 71 (ES"— City Manager / MARIATTas Ben( II MIUTb BAY CpTUB-0I .11 Y ( 111.)01 I ISTUICT 6OUTII BAY UNION HIGH 6CIIOOL DISTI2ICT 200 N. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY • REDONDO BEACH, CA 90277 • 213/379-5421 May 27, 1987 The Honorable John Cioffi Mayor, City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mayor Cioffi: This letter is a formal request to rescind the lease that was drawn on July 9, 1985, between the City of Hermosa Beach and South Bay Union High School District for the lease of facilities at the Hermosa Beach Community Center. At that time the District agreed to lease rooms 1 and 2 for a five-year period at a very reasonable rate. Since that time the school district has suffered declining enrollment and severe reduction in state financial support creating for us a very tight budget and a surplus of our own classrooms. Our Superintendent, Dr. Walt Hale, has met with City Manager, Gregory Meyers, and I have met with Assistant City Manager, Alana Mastrian, over this issue. On both occasions we felt sincere concern for the situation described above. It is our understanding that the city council must act on our request to rescind this contract for the coming year and although this is a hardship on both the city and the school district your fine facility has potential for leasing to other non profit organizations. Please consider our request at the next council meeting to terminate this lease agreement. I am available for additional information at 318-7396, if you wish to call. Sincerely, r Edward King, Ph. D. Deputy Superintendent ak ip /LAW OFFICES TUCKE /'� & L V VKE G®A/A-/ iI Y F ACK W. TUCKER C L• ENN S. GOLDBY DIANNE C. FREEMAN I! ISI PAUL 5. PASSOVOY MARK E. CADWALLADER• JOAN BENJAMIN BROWN • ALSO MEMBER MONTANA BAR EMANY May 19, 1987 City Manager CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Civic Center Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 RE: AMENDMENT TO CLAIM TO CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Pursuant to Government Code Sections 901 and 910. Dear Sir: Duffy Construction Company ("Duffy"), 2127 Cogswell Road, El Monte, CA 91733, hereby makes claim against the City of Hermosa Beach for the following occurrence: On February 23, 1987, Duffy was served with summons and complaint in.. the action entitled Valerie Driscoll vs. Construction Co., South Bay Municipal Court, Case No. 84 C0104, 825 Maple Avenue, Torrance, CA 90503. The complaint alleges personal injuries were sustained by Ms. Driscoll on July 2, 1986, while roller skating on the Strand. She specifically claims damage to her health, medical expenses and lost earnings in the amount of $25,000. A copy of the complaint is attached as Exhibit A. If Ms. Driscoll is entitled to damages against Duffy, Duffy is entitled to equitable indemnity or partial equitable indemnity from the City of Hermosa Beach to the extent the City is liable because of improper lighting on the Strand and lack of/or insufficient warnings to roller skaters on the Strand. The name or names of public employees causing the injury, damage or loss are unknown. Ms. Driscoll claims $25,000 in damages because of her roller skating fall. Accordingly, the demand of this claim is also for $25,000. 7 City of Hermosa Beach May 19, 1987 Page 2 Notices to Duffy regarding the claim should be sent to its attorneys of record: Joan Benjamin Brown, Esquire TUCKER, GOLDBY & FREEMAN 3465 W. Torrance Blvd., Ste. H Torrance, CA 90503 Very truly yours, TUCKER, GOLDBY & FREEMAN BY: JO JBB/rs Enc. BENJ N BROWN 4 s LAW OFFICES TUCKER, GOLDBY & JACK W. TUCKER GLENN 5. GOLDBY DIANNE C. FREEMAN PAUL S. PASSOVOY MARK E CADWALLADER• JOAN BENJAMIN BROWN ,I. • ALSO MEMBER MONTANA BAR EMAN Kathleen Midstokke City Clerk CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Civic Center 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3885 RE: AMENDMENT TO CLAIM Dear Ms. Midstokke: 3465 WEST TORRANCE BOULEVARD SUITE H TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA 90503 (213) 543-1616 (213) 772-6673 I have received your letter of May 15, 1987, regarding the enclosed claim to the City of Hermosa Beach, the original of which was returned. I am submitting an amended claim to clarify the original. On February 23, 1987, defendant, Duffy, was served with the Summons and Complaint in Valerie Driscoll vs. Duffy Construction Company. Accordingly, pursuant to Government Code Section 901, February 23, 1987, is the date of accrual of cause of action for equitable or partial equitable indemnity. Accordingly, I request that you reconsider your return of the enclosed claim to City of Hermosa Beach. Very truly yours, TUCKER ,GOLDBY & FREEMAN BY: J JBB/rs Enc. BENJAMIN :ROWN U iMONS N JUDICIAL) ,NQTICE 10 DEPENDANT:• (Aviso a c'usado) DUFFY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, DOES I THROUGH IX, INCLUSIVE YOU AI1E BEING SUE[) BY PLAINTIFF: (A Ud. le es(a dettlattdando) VALERIE DRISCOLL FOA cc'VR► UM ONLY COLO PIRA L/SO 01 (A CORM You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this sum- mons is served on you to file a typewritten re- sponse at this court. A letter or phone call will not protect you; your typewritten response must be In proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. If you do not He your response on tirne, you may lose the case, end your wages. money and pro- perty may be taken without further warning from the court. There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. 1f you do not know an attorney, you inay call en attorney refer- ral service or a legal aid office (listed In the phone book). Despucrs de que le entreguen esfa citation judicial usted fiene un plaza de 30 DIAS CALENDAf;IOS para presentar una respuesta escrifa a m.quina en esta come. Una carfa o una llarnada telefdnica no le o(recerJ protection; su respuesta escrita a mdquina bene que cunrplir con las (orntalidades legates apropiadas sl usted quiere que la torte escuche su caso. Si usted no prescnta su respuesta a tientrr3 puede perder el casa, y le pueden guitar su salariq so drnero y otras cosas de su propiedad sin aviso adicional por parte de la torte. E.risten oras requisi(os legates. Puede que usted quiera llarrrar a un abogado innrediatanren(e. Sr no conoce a un abogado, puede Ilantar a un seriicia de referencia de abogados n a una otidna de ayuda legal (►ra d diredorio tele(onico). The name and address of the court Is: (El nombre y direction de la corte es) MUNICIPAL COURT SOUTH BAY JUDICIAL DISTRICT 825 Maple Avenue Torrance, Ca. 90503 CASE NUMBER: INiwre,e 4e4 Ca,N 87c0104 the name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff's attorney, or plaintiff Vvithout an attorney, Is: El nombre, la direccidn y el nmintero de teltfono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que rio tiene abogado. es) Hm. Erdmler Attorney at Law 3030 Sawtelle Blvd., Los Angeles, Ca. 90066 213-391-8208 )ATE: -echal JAN 68 1987 Cf iR1STOF HER CR AV'/FURD Clerk, by (Acluario) �• l �1ti,`�.1'tJa� ,Deputy n. famt40 ISEALI NOTICE 70 THE PERSON SERVED: You ere served 1. ] es an individual defendent. 2. i—] as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify): 3. Q on behalf of (specify): under: I -)CCP 416.10 (corporation) El CCP 418.20 (defunct corporetlon) I—] CCP 416.40 (association or pertnerehlp1 i i other: by personal delivery on (deteJ: 4. 1811' A (Delgado) n CCP 418.60 (minor) CCP 416.70 (conserving', I�CCP416.90 (Individual) 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Wm. Frdmier Attorney at Law 3030 Sawtelle Blvd., Los Angeles, Ca. 90066 (213) 391-8208 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF(S), DE Mil ORIGINAL FILED JAN 1987 MUNICIPAL COURT SOUTH SAY JUDfc1AL DtSTR1CT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE SOUTH BAY JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STAT4 OF CALIFORNIA VALERIE DRISCOLL Plaintiff(s), vs. DUFFY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, DOES I THROUGH IX, INCLUSIVE Defendant(s). PLAINTIFF ALLEGES: I CASE NO. 8'7cC1 C4 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, of defendants DOES I through VI, inclusive are unknown to plaintiff, who therefore sues said defendants by such ficti- tious names; and who will ask leave to amend to show correct names and capacities when they are ascertained. -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 cn� i ►� �r ;' "; I?r,� C1OURT REQUIRES A COPY OF THE, ; ,E ; 1•.;; JIFF'S COMPLAINT. At all tunes fi r�i'r� mentioned, each of the defendants wars the agenit, servant and employee of each of the remaining defendants, and was at all times herein mentioned, acting within the purpose and scope of said agency, service and employment. III On. or about July 2, 1986 and for some time prior thereto, Dei'endants DUFFY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY , and DOES I through VI, and each of them owned and were engaged in and operating and maintaining A CONSTRUCTION SITE located at Pier Avenue and The Strand in the City of Hermosa Beach , County of Los Angeles, State of California, wherein said Defendants were effecting repairs to the flood control or plumbing system of the County of Los Angeles. On or about 7/2/86 IV , Plaintiff Valerie Driscoll was about said construction site for the purpose or roller skating upon the Strand. v That at said time and place, Defendants, and each of them, so negligently maintained, managed, controlled, operated, owned and supervised said construction site that Plaintiff Valerie Driscoll was caused to fall upon a hose that defendants had stretched over the sidewalk, in the nighttime, without lights or warning devices of any type. -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VI That at, all times herein mentioned, Defendants carelessly and negligently caused said premises to be in such condition that it was unsafe and dangerous for„persons to use it, such as and including Plaintiff. Defendants failed to warn Plaintiff of said defective, dangerous and unsafe condition although they knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, of the danger- ous and defective condition. VII Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Defendants, and each of them, had actual notice of the dan- gerous, defective and unsafe condition of the aforementioned premises. VIII As a direct and proximate result of the carelessness and negligence of Defendants, and each of them, as herein alleged, Plaintiff was injured in his health, strength and acitvity, sus- taining injury to his body and shock and injury to his nervous system and person, all of which injuries have caused, and continue to cause Plaintiff great mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on such in- formation and belief alleges that said injuries will result in some permanent disability to Plaintiff, all to his general damage in the sum of $25,000.00. 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 IX As a further direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, as herein alleged, Plaintiff was prevented from attending his,.usual occupation or any occu- pation whatsoever: Plaintiff is informed and believes and on such• information and belief alleges that by reason of said negligence of Defendants, and each of them Plaintiff, will, in the future, be prevented from attending to his usual occupation for an unde- termined period of time, and Plaintiff will ask leave to amend this Complaint accordingly when the same has been ascertained. X As a further direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, as herein alleged, Plaintiff was required to and did employ physicians and surgeons for medical examination, treatment and care of said injuries. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on such information and belief alleges that by reason of said negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has incurred and will incur further medical and inci- dental expenses for the care and treatment of said injuries, the exact amount of which is unknown at the present time. Plaintiff will ask leave to amend this Complaint to set forth the exact amount thereof when the same are fully and finally ascertained. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against the Defendants, and each of them, as follows: 1. For general damages in the sum of $25,000.00, 2. For medical and incidental expenses according to proof. -4- e 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 3. For damages for loss of income and earning, impairment oC earning; ability, according to proof. 4. For costs"oC suit incurred herein; and 5. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just. Plaintiff remits recovery in excess of $25,000.00. DATED: 1/7/87 -5- WM•1. ERDMIER Attorney for Plaintiff • • f-' LIABILITY CITY CLAIM REPORTING FORM FOR ALL PERSONS OR PROPERTY CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ATTENTION: City Clerk ADDRESS: 1315 V 11ey Drive HermoGa Rear -h_, C.A 90254 iTAGE T"QSF - 10000 Police Department 20000 !Fire Department blic Works/Part 50000 iAdministration 60000 Miscellaneous . 9000©; neral Services COPIES TO: urErr TAR CLAIMS FOR DEATH INJURY TO PERSON,' OR TO PERSONAL PROPERTY, MUST,BE FILED NOT • LATER THAN 100 DAYS AFTER THE OCCURRENCE (GOV. CODE, SEC. 911.2). ---- 2. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES TO REAL PROPERTY MUST BE FILED NOT LATER THA;..„-,,-T7-,,,,,;,51,.;-..,:i4, }T A:AFTER T.H. OCCURRENCE (GOV.- CODE, SEC. 911.2). , - - ! � ._,:r ,. \ .r 1B. READ ENTIRE CLAIM FORM BEFORE FILING�-t }ir Clty (Jerk'-::• 4. ATTACH SEPARATE SHEETS, IF NECESSARY, TO GIVE FULL DETAILS..4�\ CItYQftierm��geE�h. ;�`\/ NAME OF CLAIMANT: /711E/F46 r 7e-Sf ../...s.!;-7-6. CO• 4. HOME ADDRESS OF CLAIMANT (STREET, CITY AND STATE) 2-074 41-4-7"s/4 tae- ob • • 732VN ce Ct • go 0 - -TELEPHONE NUMBER:2l.?-3241-17N I:USINESS ADDRESS OF CLAIMANT (STREET, CITY AND STATE) 5 1t• GIVE ADDRESS TO WHICH YOU DESIRE NOTICES OR COMMUNICATIONS TO BE SENT REGARDING THI TELEPHONE NUMBER: CLAIM: f uAJc7uftb 77p( • I5ATE OF ACCIDENT: 320 TIME: • A.M. /4;60 PLACE OF ACCIDENT (BE SPECIFIC) /292.6, A -amp -Re sr i.jear)4 c`r. / C6 . HOW DID f MAG OR INJURY OCCUR? (BE SPECIFIC) 57-X ,e£/A/fieliti Lr -Pr fieo 7P /) ,Af6 Ft&,vt C. tite AAnl ietcrA �P�,sfr £e -M' 77fe£ WERE POLICE AT SCENE? . YES NAME OF CITY EMPLOYEE CAUSING THE INJURY OR DAMAGE, IF KNOWN GIVE TOTAL AMOUNT OF CLAIM INCLUDE ESTIMATE AMOUNT OF ANY PROSPECTIVE INJURY OR DAMAGE). 0149e2.57 HOW WAS AMOUNT OF CLAIM COMPUTED? (BE SPECIFIC. LI T DOCT ESTIMATES, ETC..). PLEASE ATTACH TWO ESTIMATES: X R BI •, WAGE RATE, REPAIR THIS CLAIM MUST BE SIGNED ON REVERSE stnF A & B TIRE SERVICE & SALES 1656 VOORHEES MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266 (213) 372-2558 INVOICE NO. 9160 /*2l 7/fie :::2 P.O. # No. PLEASE PAY FROM CITY STATE ZIP .. -' THIS INVOICE D �� /^ (j` 7DER/7„.... SALESN TER& k )) 7 F.o�{`LfJ����, ^^re 5-`3/- r./ 20 . / 22 2-7-r Xoe /C-76 , : ( L EXCISE TAX V ciiii SALES TAX Don't Cuss CaII Us. TOTAL /no q(P t: LIABILITY CITY CLAIM REPORTIN-G FORM FOR ALL PERSONS OR PROPERTY CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ATTENTION: City Clerk ' ADDRESS: 1315 Valley Drive, H_rmosa RPach, rA 90254 10000 :Polies Dapartmen 20000 'Fire Department 30000 ?Public Works/Par 50000 sAdministration 60000 +'Miace1laneous 9000Q iteral Servicefi COPIES TO: • CLAIMS FOR DEATH INJURY TO PERSON, OR TO PERSONAL PROPERTY, MUST,BE FILED NOT LATER THAN 100 DAYS AFTER THE OCCURRENCE (GOV. CODE, SEC. 911 CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES TO REAL PROPERTY MUST BE FILED NOT LAT OCCURRENCE (GOV. CODE, SEC. 911.2). , 4. READ ENTIRE CLAIM FORM BEFORE FILING. 4. ATTACH SEPARATE SHEETS, IF NECESSARY, TO GIVE FULL DETAILS. NAME OF CLAIMANT: Danilo Vujicich HOME ADDRESS OF CLAIMANT (STREET, CITY AND STATE) 7600 Manchester Ave. No. 1110 Playa Del Rey, CA 90.293• TELEPHONE NUMBER: I?USINESS ADDRESS OF CLAIMANT (STREET, CITY AND STATE) 822-4584 TELEPHONE NUMBER: GIVE ADDRESS TO WHICH YOU DESIRE NOTICES OR COMMUNICATIONS TO BE SENT REGARDING TH CLAIM: Personal injury DATE OF ACCIDENT: May 2, 1987 TIME: A.M. 1:30 P.1 PLACE OF ACCIDENT (BE SPECIFIC) 532 The Strand (BIKE PATH) HOW DID DAMAGE OR INJURY OCCUR? (BE SPECIFIC) Claimant was riding bicycle on the designated bike path; a DEEP GROOVE in the pavement caused the front wheel of the bike to become caught and resulted in the loss of control of bike WERE POLICE AT SCENE? . • YES NO NAME OF CITY EMPLOYEE CAUSING THE INJURY OR DAMAGE, IF KNOWN unknown GIVE TOTAL AMOUNT OF CLAIM (INCLVD-E ESTIMATE AMOUNT- OF ANY PROSPECTIVE INJURY OR DAMAGE). $200,000.00 ..: HOW WAS AMOUNT'Of CLAIM COMPUTED? (BE SPECIFIC. LIST DOCTOR BILL WAGE RATE, REPAIR ESTIMATES, ETC.). PLEASE ATTACH TWO ESTIMATES: FUTURE MEDICAL CARET; Loss of earning rap_ _ter (wage rat_:.P' $12.52/hour) THIS CLAIM MUST BE SIGNED ON REVFRSE SIfF EXPENDITURES MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ACCIDENT OR INJURY (DATE AND ITEM). Approx. $400.00 medical care ( 5/2/871 NAME AND ADDRESS OF WITNESSES, DOCTORS AND -HOSPITALS: WITNESS: Dorinda Connealy Dr. Bru •. Dr. Peter*Gleiber 316-0811 532 Strand Mermosa tsedcI1 PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING CAREFULLY: For all accident claims, place on following diagram names of streets, including North, East, South and We: indicate place of accident by "X" and by showing house numbers or distances to street corners. If City Vehicle was involved, designate by letter "A" location of City Vehicle when you first saw it, and E "B" location of yourself or you vehicle when you first saw City Vehicle; location of City vehicle at time o accident by "A -P' and location of yourself or your vehicle by the time of the accident by "B-1" and the point of impact by "X". NOTE: IF DIAGRAMS BELOW DO NOT FIT THE SITUATION, ATTACH HERETO A PROPER DIAGRAM - SIGNED BY CLAIMANT. 1 For Automobile Accidents or Other Accidents HAVE READ THE FOREGOING CLAIM AND KNOW THE CONTENTS THEREOF: AND CERTIFY THAT T; SAME I5 TRUE OF MY OWN KNOWLEDGE EXCEPT AS TO THOSE MATTERS WHICH ARE HEREBY STATEC UPON MY INFORMATION AND BELIEF: AND AS TO THOSE MATTERS I BELIEVE IT TO BE TRUE. CERTIFY (OR DECLARE) UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY_THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT, DATED: I B thflAq 87 (SIGNED): Note: Presentation of a false cloim is a felony (CAL. PEN. CODE CITY OF --- ATTENTION: ADDRESS: 1315 Val1.y Drive, H _rmosa ll ach, ' 90254 LIABILITY - ., 10000 ,Police Department CITY CLAIM REPORTING FORM FOR ALL f 20000 Fire Department PERSONS OR PROPERTY 30000 lPublic Works/Par} 50000 iAdministration 60000 +'Miscellaneous ._9000Q neral Services c OPIES TO: HERMOSA BEACH City Clerk CLAIMS FOR DEATH INJURY TO PERSON, OR TO PERSONAL PROPERTY, MUST,BE FILED NOT • LATER THAN 100 DAYS AFTER THE OCCURRENCE (GOV. CODE, SEC. 91 2. , CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES TO REAL PROPERTY MUST BE FILED NOT LA OCCURRENCE (GOV. CODE, SEC. 911.2). 3. READ ENTIRE CLAIM FORM BEFORE E,ILING. TER TH r 6, CteFk 4. ATTACH SEPARATE SHEETS, IF NECESSARY, TO GIVE FULL DETAILS! - ee°c�, `' I L: NAME OF CLAIMANT: b v)tE L - II l7 s AGE: .3 I% HOME ADDRESS OF CLAIMANT (STREET, CITY AND STATE) 3-1 f5. +ti -' r • o G G� TELEPHONE NUMBER: 3-i 2_: / I3USINESS ADDRESS OF CLAIMANT (STREET, CITY AND STATE) TELEPHONE NUMBER: GIVE ADDRESS TO WHICH YOU DESIRE NOTICES OR COMMUNICATIONS TO BE SENT REGARDING THI CLAIM: M:5,406 l -i-666.-Treof 2 ) A + 10-A)44 - I �' P- Ca`.`16'')i terA-1- T4 E$$ oATE OF ACCIDENT: . ('! 2`�J-7 TIME: • A.M. /2 30 P.t PLACE OF ACCIDENT (BE SPECIFIC) 3 a i P( /1• -vu - * Y DN 6mc') y HOW DID DAMAGE OR INJURY OCCUR? (BE SPECIFIC) OF: Fc'C /l y 6,)/cc, C# 74 i R 'z5 ELY 3 o t V '7'7/1E5 'TYECir f - c.K Y I.J tiLC i-1 ,2 L)4.5- `r"* ova -, (j OMD t L »45 c J,� --re) � cN 15) O Fo 2 cCe• Uv&' - }I -CS° tt* E f� FST�r�o .. i� e( .. yah fi r. �S rVP Z� T .Yv WERE POLICE AT SCENE? . . . YES 3 NO �} j�o(,-&-- -�- -7/6 NAME OF CITY EMPLOYEE CAUSING THE INJURY OR DAMAGE, IF KNOWN' C ft -2'G -U GIVE TOTAL AMOUNT OF CLAIM (INCLUDE ESTIMATE AMOUNT OF ANY PROSPECTIVE INJURY OR DAMAGE). -5 Alva( M A -L ;5c)F i J(— FE/4t2 HOW WAS AMOUNT OF CLAIM COMPUTED? (BE SPECIFIC. LIST DOCTOR BILL, WAGE RATE, REPAIR STIMATES, ETC.). PLEASE ATTACH TWO ESTIMATES: ) 01) g_ l e(v-c, 4.)ED THIS CLAIM MUST BE SIGNED ON REVERSE StnF CITY OF ATTE NTI ON: ADDRESS: 1315 V421e.YDr...la2,TierMClaa13.each,--C8-94254 t : LIABILITY -. I - 10000 .Polica Department CITY CLAIM REPORTIN-G FORM FOR ALL 20000 l'ire Department PERSONS OR PROPERTY I 30000 !Public Works/Parl 50000 lAdministration HERMOSA BEACH ` 60000 'Miscellaneous . •: • 1 . 9000? icaneral Services City Clerk • - COPIES TO: . '---• 7: .. — 1. Z. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES TO REAL PROPERTY MUST BE FILED NOT TER TH CLAIMS FOR DEATH INJURY TO PERSON, OR TO PERSONAL PROPERTY MUST BE FILED NOT - LATER THAN 100 DAYS AFTER THE OCCURRENCE (GOV. CODE, SEC. 9 OCCURRENCE (GOV. CODE, SEC. 911.2). 4 • 3. READ ENTIRE CLAIM FORM BEFOREEILING.zp, ••00„. / 7 ' NAME OF CLAIMANT: EL /--t • ifit-T77;,./1 • Liie AGE: ) HOME ADDRESS OF CLAIMANT (STREET, CITY AND STATE)(sir-1Z_ ALE 41 fti _ • 4. ATTACH SEPARATE SHEETS, IF NECESSARY, TO GIVE FULL DETAIL plcjli C7-'4 70'Z5 1/41 ..TELEPHONE NUMBER: "3")•2-34 I3USINESS ADDRESS OF CLAIMANT (STREET, CITY AND STATE) TELEPHONE NUMBER: GIVE ADDRESS TO WHICH YOU DESIRE NOTICES OR COMMUNICATIONS TO BE SENT REGARDING THi CLAIM: L. (..) FFE/V/-)6-LcP5vftt& fele "-re)•6760,0* 6 y oATE OF ACCIDENT: f I (R.. ct TIME: • A.M. (� PLACE OF ACCIDENT (BE SPECIFIC) • 44- ti HOW DID DAMAGE OR INJURY OCCUR? (BE SPECIFIC) OPPiC_re 4-4,6-6- (;&;% /to/ PA-ITE/(15 IEJf4-4(( -roe Av-) V 6C1) Ko5r It? CK KpoCA4e-i,i) Xi --r?-f-E 6 As, - - WERE POLICEAT SCENE? YES v • NO NAME OF CITY EMPLOYEE CAUSING THE INJURY OR DAMAGE, IF KNOWN OF -Pr CEA- 4t-'06-6--.' • GIVE TOTAL AMOUNT OF CLAIM (INCLUDE ESTIMATE AMOUNT OF ANY PROSPECTIVE INJURY OR DAMAGE). 11 E-1--)714-(-- STA 5,c • HOW WAS AMOUNT OF CLAIM COMPUTED? (BE SPECIFIC. LIST DOCTOR BILL, WAGE RATE, REPAIR ESTIMATES, ETC.). PLEASE ATTACH TWO ESTIMATES: U - THIS CLAIM MUST BE SIGNED ON REVERSE stilF t; LIABILITY .• -- 10000 Police Department CITY CLAIM REPORTING FORM FOR ALL ' 20000 Fire Department . PERSONS OR PROPERTY 1 30000 IPublic Works/Pari 50000 *Administration CITY OF HERMOSA BEAC$ 60000 Miscellaneous ATTENTI ON: City Clerk' 90000 parietal Services r COPIES TO: ~ -- ADDRESS: 1315 Vey Drive. Hermnsa RPar_h, rix 90254 , s. 1. 2. CLAIMS FOR DEATH INJURY TO PERSON, OR TO PERSONAL PROPERTY, MUSS_.BEFILED NOT LATER THAN 100 DAYS AFTER THE OCCURRENCE (GOV. CODE, SEC. 91,i LL 1�r cf CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES TO REAL PROPERTY MUST BE FILED NOT LAT >i'HA$ `t .A i • R TH OCCURRENCE (GOV. CODE, SEC. 911.2). 4 3. READ ENTIRE CLAIM FORM BEFORE EILING. 4. ATTACH SEPARATE SHEETS, IF NECESSARY, TO GIVE FULL DETAILS. J(���. .Ctl%p city or Hef c„4 187zu os@ 8e4104 Q' 3 NAME OF CLAIMANT: S) 1 " t - AGE: 1] HOME ADDRESS OF CLAIMANT (STREET, CITY AND STATE) .ez f eI - kc 1 L4 • D"1 Ll TELEPHONE NUMBER: PZ.3ft 1?USINESS ADDRESS OF CLAIMANT (STREET, CITY AND STATE) TELEPHONE NUMBER: GIVE ADDRESS TO WHICH YOU DESIRE NOTICES OR COMMUNICATIONS TO BE SENT REGARDING TH1 CLAIM: /`LEy-,DdrL ...S OMEX/A) -- L c CN S: frJ �` 1= 1f - f SCK i> ` 12) 6 —v ci'a'b 6y' oATE OF ACCIDENT: . -/127/12') TIME: • A.M. ?2.. P.�. PLACE OF ACCIDENT (BE SPECIFIC) ( (rte .E.0g • HOW DID DAMAGE OR INJURY OCCUR? (BE SPECIFIC) ;. 11-06-&- k;C i xzrwi- TjLY tlt`i r r -g_' S (-0 "F -r /-) L 7 ' P P ( 'M -- AA) U i A -v1) • 7 v5T" c'Gc:i ,"G- t4 -i"- "Tv ail- WERE POLICE AT SCENE? YES L7 NO NAME OF CITY EMPLOYEE CAUSING THE INJURY OR DAMAGE, IF KNOWN FiCER • GIVE TOTAL AMOUNT OF CLAIM (INCLUDE ESTIMATE AMOUNT OF ANY PROSPECTIVE INJURY OR DAMAGE). /t -t �',' � �- �`� ��i� SS j S C -k , F A - HOW WAS AMOUNT OF CLAIM COMPUTED? (BE SPECIFIC. LIST DOCTOR BILL, WAGE RATE, REPAIR STIMATES, ETC.). PLEASE ATTACH TWO ESTIMATES: U w PrirjC." i,JiA THIS CLAIM MUST BE SIGNED ON REVERSE stDF May 29, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of June 9, 1987 RECOMMENDED ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21-23 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RECO VENDATION: It is recommended that City Council introduce the attached ordinance for adoption. BACKGROUND: Uniformed police officers have occassionaly experienced individuals who, while sitting in private vehicles parked in lots adjacent to off -sale premises, are in possession of open alcoholic beverage containers. Since currently there are no statutes allowing enforcement of such activities, officers cannot effectively deal with drinking in, or out of, vehicles in off -sale parking lots. The attached ordinance addresses all of the necessary issues and will provide the Police Department with the proper authority to regulate any violations. ANALYSIS: Until recently there was no enabling authority allowing cities to adopt local ordinances regulating possession of open alcoholic beverage containers on private property(parking lots) adjacent to off -sale premises. Since there was no existing State law regulating this non-public land area, enforcement authority has been non-existent. The California Legislature added Penal Code Section 647e which enables local agencies to regulate alcohol problems on specific private land areas. Penal Code Section 647e deals with: Alcoholic beverages; possession of opened container on premises of or on the sidewalk adjacent to premises of retail package licensee; regulation by local ordinance. Any person violating any provision of such an ordinance shall be guilty of an infraction. Any local ordinance adopted pursuant to this section shall require posting of. the premises. The provisions of this section shall not apply to a private residential parking lot which is immediately adjacent to the posted premises. fully 'tted, Steve S. isniewski Director of Public Safety CONCUR: Greggry T. Meer, City Manager w a4v'L" 1 2. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. A (_ (lc r,\,,`.s AN ORDINANCE. OF THE .CITY OF HE-RMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA AMENDING SECTION 21-23 OF -THE MUNICIPAL CODE, BY CHANGING -`TTI .,-FROM "DRINKINGON- STREET OR PLAYGROUND" TO ' TOXICATIO ", AND BY ADDING THERETO PROVISIONS REGU- LATINxO N'SUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES UPON ANY STREET, SIDEWALK OR PARKWAY, PARK, PLAYGROUND, POSTED PREMISES, OR IN ANY PUBLIC PLACE, OR IN ANY PLACE OPEN TO THE PATRONAGE OF THE PUBLIC WHICH ARE NOT LICENSED FOR THE CONSUMPTION OF SUCH ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON THE PREMISES, AND A PROVISION REQUIRING THE POSTING OF PREMISES LICENSED FOR RETAIL OFF -SALE OF PACKAGED ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That section 21-23 of the Municipal Code, titled "Drinking on Street or Playground" is amended to read pt.couoLtc 3�cQaccON S'�i2 L( 012- ('LA I°'P-a ;'Intoxication" and the Section shall read as follows: A. No person shall drink any malt, spirituous or vinous liquor containing more than one-half of one percent of alcohol by volume, upon any street, sidewalk or parkway, park, playground or in any public place, or in any place open to the patronage of the public, which premises are not licensed for the consumption of such liquor on the premises. B. No person who has in his or her possession any bottle, can or other receptacle containing any alcoholic beverage which has been opened, or a seal broken, or the contents of which have been partially removed, shall enter, be, or remain on the posted premises of, including the posted parking lot immediately adja- cent to, any retail package off -sale alcoholic beverage licensee licensed pursuant to Division 9 (commencing with Section 23000) of the Business and Professions Code of the State of California, or on any public sidewalk immediately adjacent to the licensed and posted premises. Any person violating any provision of this Subsection shall be guilty of an infraction. C. All retail package off -sale alcoholic beverage licensees 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 licensed pursuant to Division 9 (commencing with Section 23000) of the Business and Professions Code of the State of California shall install and maintain signs not less than seventeen (17) inches by twenty-two (22) inches in size with lettering not less than one (1) inch in height on the licensed premises, clearly visible to the patrons of the licensee and to persons in or on any parking lot or public sidewalk immediately adjacent to the licensed premises, which notify all such persons that the pro- visions of Subsection B of this Section are applicable. Any licensee violating any provision of this Subsection shall be guilty of an infraction. D. As used in Subsections B and C of this Section, "posted premises" means those premises which are subject to licensure under any retail package off -sale alcoholic beverage license, the parking lot immediately adjacent to the licensed premises on which clearly visible notices have been placed pursuant to the provisions of Subsection C of this Section. E. The provisions of Subsections B and C of this Section shall not apply to a private residential parking lot which is immediately adjacent to the posted premises. F. No person shall have in his or her possession, with intent to consume any part of the contents thereof in any public place not licensed for the consumption thereof, any bottle, can or other receptacle containing any alcoholic beverage which has been opened, or a seal broken, or the contents which have been partially removed, upon any street, sidewalk or parkway, park playground, or in any public place, or in any place open to the patronage of the public, which premises are not licensed for the 42 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 for the consumption of such alcoholic beverage on the premises. Any person violating any provision of this subsection shall be guilty of an infraction. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS day of June, 1987. PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach ATTEST: APPROVED AS _ ORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY bkkA,L MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE. CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, May 26, 1987 at the hour of 7:40 P.M. CLOSED SESSION - To discuss matters of personnel, litigation and potential litigation under Government Code Section 54956.9 held at 6:00 P.M. Present: DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Cioffi Absent: None PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Gary Brutsch ROLL CALL Present: DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Cioffi Absent: None PROCLAMATION: DrugFree Education Week, June 1 - 5, 1987 accepted by Sheryl Hartzell Flag Day, June 14, 1987 Action: To suspend the agenda and go to item 11.h. Motion Mayor Cioffi, second Simpson. So ordered. Item 11.h. was heard at this time but is listed in order for clarity. INTRODUCTION OF.NEW EMPLOYEES: INTRODUCTION OF NEW CITY/COUNTY MR. RONALD E. SCHNEIDER ACTIONS TAKEN- IN CLOSED SESSION None CITIZENS COMMENTS Raul Saldana, Police Officer Ellsworth Freeman, Maintenance I, Public Works Department BRANCU LIBRARIAN, Gary Brutsch, 3112 Hermosa Avenue - asked to speak to item 11g Wilma Burt, 1152 - 7th Street - asked to speak to items 9 and 11a Ken Bertossi, 629 Gould Terrace - asked City Council help on item 1r and submitted photos of the problem area Ed McDougall, 605 Gouild Terrace - also asked for City Council help on item 1r 1. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. CONSENT CALENDAR Action: To approve Consent Calendar items (a) through ff with the exception of the following items which were pulled for discussion but are listed in order for - 1 - Minutes 5-26-87 1b clarity: (e) Rosenberger, (f) Rosenbnerger, (1) Rose- nberger, (q) Rosenberger, (t) Simpson, (u) Williams, and noting NO votes by DeBellis on (r) and (v). Motion Rosenberger, second Williams. So ordered. (a) Approval of Minutes: Regular meeting of the City Coun- cil held on May 12, 1987. Action: To approve minutes. (b) Demands and Warrants: May 26, 1987. Action: To approve Demands and Warrants Nos. 23140 and 2320 through 23371 inclusive noting voided Warrants Nos. 23251, 23251 and 23294. (c) Tentative Future Agenda Items. Action: To receive and file. (d) City Manager Activity Report: Memorandum from City Man- ager Gregory T. Meyer dated May 20, 1987. Action: To receive and file. (e) Buildin: and Safety .De•artment Monthl Activit Re.ort: April, 19:7. Action: To receive and file with commendation to Build- ing Director Grove for excellent report. Motion Rosenberger, second DeBellis. So ordered. (f) Community Resources Department Monthly Activity. Report: -57.77-787. Action: To receive and file. Motion --Mayor Cioffi, second Simpson. So ordered. (g) Finance Department Monthly Activity Report: April, 1987. Action: To receive and file. (h) Fire Department Monthly. Activity Report: April, 1987. Action: To receive and file. (i) General. Services De artment Monthly Activit Re ort: April, 19 7. Action: To receive and file. (j) Personnel De artment Monthly Activity Report: April, 19 7. Action: To receive and file. - 2 - Minutes 5-26-87 '1. (k) Planning Department Monthly Activity Report: April, 1987. Action: To -receive and file. (1) Police. Department Monthly. Activity Report: April, 1987. Action: To receive and file. Motion Rosenberger, second Mayor Cioffi. So ordered. (m) Public Works_ Department Monthly Activity Report: April, 1987. Action: To receive and file. (n) Monthly Revenue Report: April, 1987. Action: To receive and file. (o) Monthly Expenditure Report: April, 1987. Action: To receive and file. (p) City Treasurer's Report: April, 1987. Action: To receive and file. (q) Authorization to enter into an agreement: Sanitary Sewer Replacement Target Area II Inspection and. Administration Services (CIP 85-402). Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated May 18, 1987. Action: To approve and authorize Mayor to sign agree- ment for a cost not to exceed $42,680; authorize staff to issue addenda as necessary. Motion Rosenberger, second Williams. So ordered. (r) Cost sharing proposal submitted by the Gould Terrace Homeowners. Memorandum from Public Works -Director Anthony Antich dated May 14, 1987. Action: Authorize City to participate in the cost shar- ing proposal submitted by the Gould Terrace Homeowners, staff to also look at the second drain flowing over the curb to Gould Terrace. (NO vote by DeBellis) (s) (t) Reallocation of Fund Account. Memorandum from Assistant City Manager Alana Mastrian dated May 15, 1987. Action: To appropriate $17,801 from the Park and Recre- ation Fund for CIP 85-501, Clark Field Restroom Remodel Project. General Plan review regarding dwelling units and.popula- tion. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated May 18, 1987. - 3 - Minutes 5-26-87 (u) Action: To receive and file report, staff to reconcile census figures with City -originated figures to reflect real figures, and communicate with U.S. Department of Census re ranking of City of Hermosa Beach Motion Simpson, second DeBellis. So ordered. Request.to appropriate.funds,for employee service pins. Memorandum from Personnel Administrator Robert Blackwood dated May 18, 1987. Action: To 1) reaffirm support for recognizing City employees by endorsing the re-initiation of the Employee Service Pin Program; and 2) appropriate $2,300 from Pro- spective Expenditures to Personnel Department Office Supplies for purchase of the pins. Motion Mayor Cioffi, second DeBellis. So ordered. (v) Consideration of a traffic management plan ordinance. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated May 18, 1987. Action: To refer to Planning Commission for study. (NO vote by DeBellis) (w) (x) Claims for Damages: Ana Abarca, 2909 Strand, represented by Law Offices of Ramiro J. Lluis, 205 E. Broadway, Suite 1000, L.A., filed May 10, 1987; 2) Doris Martinez, 5843 W. 95th Street, #3, L.A., rep- resented by Law Offices of Ramiro J. Lluis, 205 E. Broadway, Suite 1000, L.A., filed May 12, 1987; 3) Julio Martinez, 5843 W. 95th St., #3, L.A., repre- sented by Law Offices of Ramiro J. Lluis, 205 E. Broadway, Suite 1000, L.A., filed May 12, 1987; 4) David & Ana Maria Cortez, 2909 Strand, represented by Law Offices of Ramiro J. Lluis, 205 E. Broadway, Suite 1000, L.A., filed May 14, 1987; 5) Automobile Club of So. Calif./Susannah Waddy, P. 0. Box 25001, Santa Ana, CA 927,99, filed May 13, 1987. Action: To deny claims and refer to City's Claims Administrator. Legislative advocacy position_ re. Abandoned.Vehicle Trust Fuad: AB. 166,.AB.425.and.SB.144. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated May 18, 1987. Action: To take a legislative advocacy position urging enactment of AB 166, AB 425 and SB 144; request City Clerk to so notify our Senate and Assembly representa- tives plus the authors of the bills and the League of California Cities. (y) Letter from City of.E1 Monte dated May 15,._1987 seeking su••ort for AB 1125 (Tanner) re. local non artisan cam- paign practices. - 4 Minutes 5-26-87 (z) Action: To support AB 1125 and request the City Clerk to so notify our Senate and Assembly representatives, the author and the League of California Cities. Informational report regarding roller hockey. Memoran- dum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated May 18, 1987. Action: To receive and file report. (aa) Report from Councilmember June Williams dated May 5, 1987 re. April 30 meeting of the Hermosa Beach Coor- dinating Council. Action: To receive and file. (bb) Report from Councilmember June Williams dated May_8 re. attendance at Association for Commuter Transportation ACT .meeting May 7,. 1987. Action: To receive and file. (cc) Report from Councilmember June Williams dated April 27 re. April 23, 1937 South Bay Steering Committee and South Bay Cities meetings. Action: To receive and file. (dd) ITEM_WITHDRAWN (ee) Cancellation,of Warrants. Memorandum from City Treasurer Norma Goldbach dated May 20, 1987. Action: To approve cancellation of Warrant No. 022777. (ff) Asphalt Street Repair.CIP 86-163 Request for Additional Funding for 8th Street between Ardmore and Pacific Coast Highway. Memorandum from Deborah M. Murphy, Assistant Engineer dated May 22, 1987. Action; To appropriate $5,800 from the State Gas Tax Fund Balance to CIP 86-163 to accomplish asphalt street repair work on 8th Street between Ardmore and Pacific Coast Highway. 2. ORDINANCES. AND RESOLUTIONS (a) ORDINANCE NO..87-884 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HER- MOSA.BEACH CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ZONE. CHANGE FROM R- 1,.C-POTEN+IAL TO C-3 AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED TO THE.REAR OF 1514 PACIFIC COAST.HIGH- WAY, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THEREAR ONE-HALF..OF LOT 2 OF THE HEFFNER,,FIORINI, ALLEN TRACT. For waiver of fur- ther reading and adoption. - 5 - Minutes 5-26-87 Action: To waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 87-884 entitled "AN ORDI-NANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ZONE CHANGE FROM R-1, C - POTENTIAL TO C-3 AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED TO THE REAR OF 1514 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, LE= GALLY DESCRIBED AS THE REAR ONE-HALF OF LOT 2 OF THE HEFFNER, FIORINI, ALLEN TRACT. Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger AYES - DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Cioffi (b) ENCROACHMENT ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION UPDATE. Memoran- dum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated May 18, 1987. Supplemental information - Letter from Robert Hoffman dated May 18, 1987. 1) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL.OF THE CITY.OF HERMOSA BEACH CALIFORNIA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 5- 21, AS AMENDED, IDENTIFYING THE APPROVAL PRO- CESS OF COMMERCIAL ENCROACHMENT.. PERMIT APPLICA- TIONS. For waiver of full reading and introduction. Action: To waive full reading of Ordinance No. 87 - entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING OR- DINANCE NO. 85-821, AS AMENDED, IDENTIFYING THE APPROVAL PROCESS OF COMMERCIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATIONS." Motion Rosenberger, second Williams AYES - DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Cioffi NOES - None Further Action: To introduce Ord. No. 87 - Motion Simpson , second Williams. So ordered noting a NO vote by DeBellis Final. Action: To sent this ordinance back to staff for modification of the findings. 2) A RESOLUTION. OF THE, CITY _COUNCIL OF. THE CITY.OF HERMOSA BEACH CALIFORNIA AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. :5- ::5, AS AMENDED, TO.ESTABLISH ADDITIONAL POLI- CIES FOR. ENCROACHMENTS ON CITY. RIGHT-OF-WAY AND AMEND RESOLUTION NO..86-4932, AS.AMENDED CHANGING THE REQUIREMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL_ ENCROACHMENTS PER- MIT,.LIABILITY INSURANCE AND APPROVING CHANGES TO THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ENCROACHMENT PERMIT EN- DORSEMENT. For adoption. Action: To sent this Resolution back to staff for modification to knclude allowing the lessee to ob- tain an encroachment with a provision to protect the City. Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger. So ordered. 6 Minutes 5-26-87 (c) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,.CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #18449 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED.AT 1 01 MANHATTAN AVENUE, HERMOSA BEACH,,. CALIFORNIA. For adoption. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated May 19, 1987. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 87-5039 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #18449 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1401 MANHATTAN AVENUE, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA." Motion Rosenberger, second DeBellis. So ordered. (d) A RESOLUTION OF.THE_CITY,.000NCIL OF THE.CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CALIFORNIA AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. $0=4385 BY ADDING THERETO AN. ADDITIONAL CURBSIDE PARKING STALL AND SPACE.FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF DISABLED PERSONS ..PUR- SUANT TO SECTIONS 22511.7 AND.22511. OF THE CALIFORNIA VEHICLE_CODE...AS HEREIN. SET FORTH COMMONLY KNOWN.AS 321 PIER AVENUE. .PARKING STALL TO. BE ON..LOMA DRIVE AT PIER). For adoption. Memorandum from Public Works Di- rector Anthony Antich dated May 12, 1987. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 87-5040 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 80-4385 BY ADDING THERETO AN ADDITIONAL' CURBSIDE PARKING STALL AND SPACE FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF DISABLED PERSONS, PUR- SUANT TO SECTIONS 22511.7 AND 22511.8 OF THE CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE, AS HEREIN SET FORTH, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 321 PIER AVENUE (PARKING STALL TO BE ON LOMA DRIVE AT PIER). Motion Simpson, second Rosenberger. So ordered. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR. FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. Consent Calendar items (e) Rosenberger, (f) Rosenberger, (1) Rosenberger, (q) Rosenberger,:r(t) Simpson and (u) Williams were discussed at this time but are listed in order on the Consent Calendar for clarity. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. None PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC.. HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. None Action_: To suspend the agenda and go to item 11.g. Motion Mayor Cioffi, second DeBellis. So ordered. - 7 Minutes 5-26-87 Item 11.g. was heard at this time but is listed in order for clarity. A recess was called at 10:18 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 10:28 P.M. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 5. ESTABLISHING, IN -LIEU. SEWER CONNECTION FEE FOR..HERMOSA PAVILION COMMERCIAL. PROJECT. (Continued from 5/12/87 meeting.) Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated May 21, 1987. Action: To continue this matter to the next meeting. Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger. So ordered. 6. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE. CONTINUED PARTICIPATION WITH SOUTH BAY REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY,AND HAWTHORNE RECORDS. Memorandum from Public Safety Direc- tor Steve Wisniewski dated May 19, 1987. Supplemental information - Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated May 26, 1987. The staff report was presented by Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski. Also speaking to Council was Bob Ben- son, Executive Director of R.C.C. Action: 1) Instruct staff to begin preparations for inhouse dispatch and record keeping as outlined in al- ternative #4; 2) Not adopt a resolution approving City participation in financing the proposed RCC enhance- ments; 3) Technical proceedings to be considered at quarter year budget review, October, 1987: a) notify RCC of City intention to withdraw effective 7/1/88, b) adopt resolution of intent to withdraw, c) notify Hawthorne Police of intent to withdraw from Hawthorne Police Records System effective 7/1/88, d) appropriate not to exceed $53,000 for construction and equipment purchases, e) appropriate not to exceed $24,500 for hiring 5 dispatchers. Motion Williams, second Mayor Cioffi AYES - DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Cioffi NOES - None 7. APPROVAL OF PROPOSITION "A".DISCRETIONARY FUND APPLICA- TIONS.FOR THE "WAVE" DIAL-A-RIDE.PROGRAM, THE.CQMMUTER STUDY, AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A NEW.COMMUTER SERVICE. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated May 19, 1987. Action: To 1) adopt Resolution No. 87-5041 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN 8 Minutes 5-26-87 THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SUB - REGIONAL PARATRANSIT INCENTIVE PROGRAM FOR A COMMUTER STUDY AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A NEW COMMUTER SERVICE" and 2) adopt Resolution No. 87-5042 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CAL- IFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH FOR FY 1987-88 PROPOSITION A DIS- CRETIONARY FUNDS UNDER THE SUBREGIONAL PARATRANSIT INCENTIVE PROGRAM FOR THE "WAVE" DIA -A -RIDE PROGRAM." Motion DeBellis, second Williams. So ordered. 8. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT DRINKING IN PUBLIC,PARKING LOTS. Memorandum from Public Safety Di- rector Steve Wisniewski dated May 19, 1987. Continued to next meeting. 9. PROPOSED COMMUNITY_ RECREATION AGREEMENT FOR COUNTY LIFEGUARD AND_ BEACH. CLEANING. SERVICES AT HERMOSA BEACH BETWEEN COUNTY.OF.LOS.ANGELES AND. CITY OF.HERMOSA BEACH FOR A FIVE YEAR,.PERIOD COMMENCING. JULY 1, 19-87. Memo- randum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated May 20, 1987. The staff report was presented by City Manager Meyer. Speaking to this item was Wilma Burt, 1152 - 7th Street. Action: To approve the staff recommendation as follows: 1. Approve the five-year agreement with the Los Angeles County Department of Harbors and Beaches for Lifeguard and Beach Cleaning services (subject to City Attorney approving the language of the Indemnification clause) and authorize the Mayor to sign the Agreement with change to page 6, Section 5.01 "City -owned and operated public improvements, e.g. restrooms, on the BEACH.", and page 7, last line Section 8 to read "City Council." 2. Authorize staff to refine the existing Citation sur- charge concept with County staff, with the understanding that the existing surcharge would not exceed $3/citation and that the combination of court construction and beach operation surcharges could not exceed $3; draft legisla- tion to then be submitted back to City Council for en- dorsement and authorization to seek League support, utilization of lobbyist, etc. Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger (discussion) AYES - Rosenberger, Simpson, Mayor Cioffi NOES - DeBellis, Williams 10. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS.ANDREPORTS - CITY MANAGER - 9 - Minutes 5-26-87 (a) (b) Interim report re. Kiosk at Pierhead. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated May 7, 1987. (Con- tinued from 5/12/87 meeting.) Continued to next meeting. Ur enc matter recommendin:.Cit Council.endorse,Lea:ue of. California Cities L.A..County Division, amendments 1z 2 and 3,re..SD.2.and AB 18. Memorandum from City Man- ager Gregory T. Meyer dated May 11, 1987 with May 19 update. Continued to next meeting. (c) Proposed Sewer Connection Ordinance. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated May 20, 1987. Continued to next meeting. 11. MISCELLANEOUS.ITEMS.AND REPORTS -CITY COUNCIL (a) (b) (0) (e) Le:al.issues re:ardin:..•lacement of oil revenuelimita- tion on November.. ballot. Memorandum from City Attorney James P. Lough dated May 4, 1987. (Continued from 5/12/ 87 meeting.) Continued to next meeting. Resort of Cit Council/Plannin:.Subcommittee meetin:. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated May 19, 1987. Continued to next meeting. Business Relations Subcommittee report regarding meeting with the Downtown Merchants Association on May 13, 1987. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dat- ed May 18, 1987. Continued to next meeting. Re•uest by Mayor Pro_Tem Sim son for Cit .Council to consider defining the.need.for..environmental review prior. to issuance.of.a building..permit. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated May 19, 1987. Supplemental information - copy of City of Walnut Creek Initiative Measure H, November 5,1985 Election. Continued to next meeting. Request by Mayor,Pro Tem.Simpson for resolution. of sup- port for Senate.Concurrent.Resolution No.,.34. Continued to next meeting. - 10 - Minutes 5-26-87 (f) Notice of meetin:of Los An:eles Count Cit Selection Committee.Thursday,..June , 19:7 at :00 p.m. Continued to next meeting. (g) Ballot Measure - Purchase of. the Railroad. Right -of -Way. Memorandum from City Clerk Kathleen Midstokke dated May 20, 1987. Speaking to Council regarding this item were: Gary Brutsch, 3112 Hermosa Avenue - Rosamond Fogg, 610 - 6th Street Wilma Burt, 1152 - 7th Street Charles Fogg, 610 - 6th Street Proposed Action: Direct staff to hire the proper per- sonnel to create a Mello Roos Assessment District for for the purchase of the AT&SF right-of-way for park- lands, for the November ballot or a Special Election, the amount of the assessment not to exceed $10 million. Motion DeBellis, second Simpson AYES - DeBellis, Simpson NOES - Rosenberger, Williams, Mayor Cioffi Motion fails 0 ,ter vA For the record, CouncilmemberS Williams stressed that it was too soon for this type of action and it could jeopardize the acquisition of the right-of-way. Action: Staff to notify AT&SF of the City's interest in purchasing the right-of-way, based on community input, and attempt to determine a price. Motion Williams, second DeBellis. So ordered. (h) Request by Mayor_Cioffi to,consider.funding.request from South Bay, Union Hgh.School District Drug Free Education Program, Addressing Council on this matter was Sheryl Hartzell reiterating this request for funds. Action:. To approve the staff recommendation as follows: 1. Appropriate $1,000 from Prospective Expenditures for transfer to the Community Resources Department for a social services contract with the South Bay Union High School District, the contract being for the purpose of providing Impact Counselor and Staying Sober Support Counselor services at Redondo High School; said services to be in response to counseling needs generated from the David Toms Workshops (June 1-4, 1987). - 11 - Minutes 5-26-87 2. Not fund any of the professional speaking expenses for the David Toma Workshop. Motion Mayor Cioffi, second Simpron. Amendment to Motion - To change the appropriation to $2,000. Motion DeBel.lis - accepted by the maker and second of the motion So ordered noting NO votes by Rosenberger •and Williams. 12. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL None 13. MEETING OF, THE HERMOSA BEACH PARKING AUTHORITY. (Con- tinued from 5/12/87 meeting.) Continued to next meeting. ADJOURNMENT The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, adjourned on Wednesday, May 27, 1987 at the hour of 12:10 A.M. to a Regular Meeting to be held on Tuesday, June 9, 1987 at the hour of 7:30 P.M. - 12 - Minutes 5-26-87 June 1, 1987 1D4W---6 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council June 9, 1987 1987 HERMOSA OPEN VOLLEYBALL TOURNAMENT Recommendation It is recommended that City Council approve the attached agreement between the City and Group Dynamics, Inc. (a sports marketing firm) for the sponsorship of the Hermosa Beach Open Volleyball Tournament to be held June 27 and 28, 1987. Background For the last four years, the City has entered into a contract for this event. The past two years, Group Dynamics, Inc. acted as the sponsoring marketing firm. The first two years were sponsored by Event Concepts. Analysis Historically, the Hermosa Beach tournament has ben met with great success providing the Pro Beach Volleyball circuit with one of its premier events. The 1987 major event sponsor will be Miller Beer, the same sponsor for the last four years. The contract is the same as last year's with a permit fee of $3,000 (an increase of $2,000 from 1984). It is noteworthy that in 1985, Group Dynamics implemented an upgraded, professional security staff for the duration of the event in response to Police Department requests. This security staff will be in force for the 1987 tourney. In years past, the tournament was held in late July. Per the request of Group Dynamics, it will be held in late June this year. Staff does not foresee any problems with this change in date. In view of the fact that Group Dynamics, Inc. has conducted an orderly event with no major negative incidents for two years and in response to the overall success of the event, staff recommends approval of this tournament by City Council. Concur: Alana M. Mastrian, Director_ Dem. of Community Resources Gre Cit eyer Manager _ Respectf ubmitted, Mary Dept. ney, Coordinator Community Resources Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Finance Administrator li AGREEMENT This agreement is entered into on May 6, 1987, at Hermosa Beach, California by and between GROUP DYNAMICS, INC. a Sporting Events Promoter (GDI), and the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH (CITY), with regard to the following facts: A) GDI is a promotion company which promotes sporting events. B) City Administers beach programs in Hermosa Beach, California and annually stages beach volleyball tournaments, including the Hermosa Beach Open. C) GDI and CITY are desirous of entering into a relationship with regard do the 1987 Hermosa Beach Open. THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows: 1) GDI will pay to CITY a fee of $3,000 for use of the beach volleyball courts located at the Hermosa Beach Pier, June 27 and 28, 1987. Said fee to be paid prior to tournament. 2) GDI agrees to provide beach clean up around tournament site both Saturday and Sunday as it did in 1986. 3) GDI will pay the cost for Police Officers to supervise the event both days; the Chief of Police or his designate will mandate the number of officers and hours worked. In the event of an emergency or other situation arising from a volleyball related activity which necessitates additional security, GDI is responsible for the additional costs incurred. Said costs to be paid no later than two weeks after tournament. 4) GDI will supply a security force of their own, minimum of eight at any one time to supervise the crowd and alert all present to the "Open Container" Ordinance of the City. All such personnel shall be wearing identifiable t-shrits. 5) GDI will provide the CITY a Certificate of Insurance providing liability insurance naming the CITY, and County of Los Angeles their officers, employees and agents as additional insured with a minimum coverage of $1,000,000 combined single limit coverage. GDI agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold the CITY and County of Los Angeles harmless from and against any and all liability and expense, including defense costs and legal fees, caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of the GDI, its agents, officers, and employees, including, but not limited to, personal injury, bodily injury, death, and property damage. 6) GDI will guarantee a minimum announced purse of $20,000. In no event is the CITY liable for the prize money. 7) All P.O.P. materials (i.e. event posters) produced will mention the event and all posters, counter cards and tour schedules will mention of the competition site. 8) Adequate funds will be committed by GDI and its sponsors to advertise the event. The CITY shall assume no advertising obligation. 9) GDI shall be permitted to sell official Pro Volleyball concession items at no more than one concession booth at the tournament site. 10) No food or beverage concessions are permitted. r �S -�c�,i `fit"�,1U, 11) CITY shall be notified no=later than June ,,.i , 1987 of co-sponsors supporting the Tournament. Each co-sponsor shall pay to CITY a fee of $100. Said fees to be paid by GDI prior to the tournament. Co-sponsors shall be permitted to display their products at no more than one concession booth each. CITY and GDI will mutually agree to display areas. 12) GDI shall provide portable audio system capable of reaching primary spectator area. 13) CITY shall permit GDI to place two event banners announcing the tournament over major thoroughfares, at mutually agreed upon locations, for the period of two weeks preceeding the event. Installation to be done by City Public Works Department and cost to be borne by GDI. 14) CITY shall permit the staging of a regional bathing beauty competition for one hour, beginning at 1:00 p.m., June 27th, in conjunction with the volleyball tournament. Procedures and guidelines for staging the bathing beauty competition will be the same as last year's format. Said competition shall take place at the south side of the Pier and shall not impede lifeguarding activities. In the event temporary construction is needed, GDI shall return site to original condition. 15) CITY shall request the Los Angeles County Department of Beaches to level the beach and sift the sand before 7:00 a.m. on June 26th. Costs shall be borne by GDI. 16) GDI will provide up to four portable toilets at a location agreed to by both contracting parties and the L. A. County Lifeguards. 17) GDI shall provide a leaderboard, volleyballs, nets, referees and all equipment necessary to stage the event. QWWTql 18) All sponsor signs ops, product facsimilies), etc., deemed nece y by GDI to i•en ify the event, shall be approved as to location and content by CITY. CITY will not unnecessarily deny said approval and will not curtail certain constitutional rights of GDI. 19) That Group Dynamics be required to post signs throughout the impacted area as well as at major: ingress roads to the CITY indicating 1) where there is free parking and 2) that the CITY will strictly enforce all traffic and parking regulations. 20) GDI shall have access to the Tournament site 36 hours prior to start of event. 21) CITY to contact L. A. County Lifeguards to provide power source for GDI. 22) CITY shall block the end of Pier Avenue for GDI staff parking and television access. e wi •e responsible for monitoring use of this are.. (Same areas in years past.) Beach Drive to . and VED, AS TO ORM \ 6 GROUP DYNAMICS, INC. Y Dir. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, Municipal Corporation, By Mayor Date f Public Relations/Promotions Date Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council May 7, 1987 City Council Meeting of May 12, 1987 CONSIDERATION OF AN INFORMATION BOOTH "KIOSK" AT THE PIERHEAD RECOrMENDATION Attikok It is recommended that the City Council authorize staff to.for- mally explore construction of an all weather/Kiosk to be sVtuated P=i=e-r�Apvenue�=in-thhe=a�r-ea�-bettwe•en--the—Strand and-Beac ride. BACKGROUND At previous Council meetings the City Council has briefly dis- cussed the possibility of there being a downtown "kiosk". Staff was to explore the possibility of having various volunteer groups (e.g. Chamber of Commerce) operate the facility and report back. ANALYSIS There seems to be enthusiastic support from the Chamber of Com- merce, downtown merchants etc. for the concept of there being a downtown/strand facility that would serve several purposes. This would include information dissemination, a place for foot patrol, Police Reserve officers and Parking Enforcement personnel to be seen, etc. On the other hand, it does not appear practical to regularly schedule citizen volunteers to operate the booth. From several conversations what has emerged is the idea that the area between the Strand and Beach Drive on Pier Avenue be re- designed to: 1. Better provide a drop-off/loading zone for passengers; 2. House a kiosk similar to the one now existing in the Riviera section of Redondo Beach. This seems worthy of pursuing. We have had preliminary conversa- tions with Redondo Beach re. their kiosk. It is not now in use (and hasn't been for quite some time). So it might be available for purchase. \ - gj 4olwr An all weather facility, as opposed to the temporary type struc- ture that the Chamber of Commerce uses during their Fiesta, would allow for the storage of bulletins and pamphlets and would better accommodate such use as bicycle enforcement, beach patrol, etc. This concept would modify the traffic pattern on Pier Avenue. The adjacent merchants should be contacted for their input. Likewise, there are utilities underground in the street at that juncture. So any facility would probably have to be modular and not a permanent structure. Were there such a kiosk it would probably have a significant and, I believe, positive influence on behavior in that area. The presence of various (Police, Reserve and Parking) uniformed per- sonnel could serve many purposes. Gre 4c7t.cllyiri4l4AliiL Cit Manager GTM/ld cc: Chamber of Commerce Downtown Merchants Association Assistant City Manager Public Safety Director General Services Director 2 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council May 19, 1987 Regular Meeting of May 26, 1987 REPORT OF CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING The City Council/Planning Commission Subcommittee met May 13, 1987 at 6:00 p.m. as scheduled. The two areas of discussion were prioritization and upgrading costs to developers. In an hour and a half much was accomplished and it was decided that in the future, this Subcommittee should meet on a regular basis every two months, beginning in August. The following is a summary of what occurred.cp r 1d /� �l hcLk.) ... vNw-,pj wycjr- p ci ccs lAn PRIORITIZATION 0 J� J 1. Reduction in Density: It was decided that this issue should first be addressed through resolving zoning/General Plan inconsistency areas (City Council -requested study of lot square footage required per dwelling unit in all residential zones would be addressed later). It was requested that the 3rd Quarter General Plan amendment (beginning in August) include redesignating the Multi -Use Corridor to General Commercial. 2. Prohibition of on -shore facilities for off -shore oil drilling: This has been scheduled for the 6/2/87 Planning Commission meeting and the 7/14/87 City council meeting. 3. Maximum height allowed in all zones: This has been scheduled for Staff Review on 5/21/87, Planning Commission on 6/2/87 and the City Council on 7/14/87. 4. Expansion of existing nonconforming use or building: It was agreed that this was an urgent priority. Staff will do a survey of how other cities address this issue and submit an interim operating ordinance to City Council on 6/23/87 and refer this matter to the Planning Commission for review and recommendations. 5. Public right-of-way & residential uses: This pertained to walls or fences on walk -street properties. It was agreeed that this was more a matter of enforcement rather thatn study since the Zoning Ordinance has rules pertaining to this problem. 6. Restaurant Expansion without required parking: It was agreed that, especially in the downtown area, there were often unique characteristicis ,not considered in the general commercial parking requirements. This has been scheduled for 1 Staff Review in September, Planning Commission in October and City Council in November, 1987. 7. Downtown Revitalization: The grant application for this is March, 1988. The report and application for this grant will be submitted to the Planning Commission for review in January, 1988 and City Council in February, 1988. UPGRADE COSTS TO DEVELOPERS After some discussion, the Subcommittee members understood that due to the Jarvis/Gann initiatives, the financial burden of upgrading such City services as sewer lines, fire flow, etc. necessitated by development, may have to be the responsibility of the developer. FUTURE MEETINGS Everyone agreed that 6:00 p.m. was a good time for the future meetings which will be scheduled every two months, beginning in August; however, no firm day was set. The Planning Commission, at their May 19th meeting, has been requested to consider Mondays or Wednesdays of whichever week of the month mutually agreeable to them. Their preferences will be made known to you after their meeting which you can then negotiate to your mutual convenience. August may be a difficult month to begin a pattern because of vacations. Also because of the Brown Act requiring the posting of an Agenda for all such meetings, possible topics of interest should be considered prior to each meeting. CONCUR: Gre;,ory T. CitManager Ker e r 1441 ectfully„sub „QA " Michael "Schu.ach Planning Director - 2 CITY OF HAWTHORNE ----A- 9 "'`"•'=`?I 4455 West126th Street • Hawt horne, Cal i forni a 90250 PATRICK ERLE KELLER q� City Clerk PAN FITZSIMMONS, CMC Chief Deputy City Clerk May 12, 1987 'CITY OF GOOD NEIGHBORS' (213) 970-7922 Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: At their regular meeting of May 11, 1987, the City Council Hawthorne adopted Resolution No. 5599, entitled: of the City of A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HAWTHORNE, CALIFORNIA, URGING THE ADOPTION OF SENATE CONCURRENT RESO- LUTION NO. 34, DESIGNATING STATE HIGHWAY ROUTE 105 AS THE GLENN ANDERSON FREEWAY. We have enclosed a copy of that resolution for your review and consideration. Sincerely, Joan Fitzsimmons, CMC Chief Deputy City Clerk tw CITY.. MANAGER NOTE: Mayor Pro Tem Simpson asks tht staff be directed to prepare an appropriate resolution supporting Senate.concurrent resolution 34 designating State Highway Route 105 as the Glenn Anderson Highway. RESOLUTION NO.. 5599 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HAWTHORNE, CALIFORNIA, URGING THE .ADOPTION -OF. SENATE CON- CURRENT RESOLUTION NO.. 34, DESIGNAT- ING STATE HIGHWAY ROUTE 105 AS THE GLENN ANDERSON FREEWAY_ WHEREAS, throughout his brilliant public service career, Glenn Anderson has always been guided by his genuine • • concern for the individual, stressing our personal rights aria our need to be free of government interference, as he shaped the legislation and decisions that have benefitted our state and nation; and WHEREAS, H athorne hast and continues to benefit, from the leadership and vision Glenn Anderson has bestowed on us through his -past -"service -as -Mays ,-Assemb-lyrita-nt-Gover- -- nor, and as a Congressman; and WHEREAS, Glenn Anderson has played a direct role in the progress Hawthorne has experienced over the years, in- cluding the developmen of Hawthorne Municipal Airport, the 'construction of Hawthorn City Hall, providing funding for street improvement projects and capital improvements, fight- __ ight- ----------- - - 'ing for government contract\for our Southern California aerospace industry, and always being there to support our bid for equitable distribution of t x revenues that benefit our police,- fire, senior citizens, an parks and recreation pro- grams; and _ WHEREAS, Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 34 of the cnate of California is a concurrent resolution with the As- sembly of the State of.California, urging the designation of State Highway Route 105 as.the Glenn Anderson Freeway. `4 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS CITY OF HAWTHORNE )• I, PATRICK E. KELLER, City Clerk of the City of Hawthorne, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being Res -elution No. 5599 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of HawLhcirne, California, at a regular meeting of the City Council held May 11, 1987 , and that it was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Councilmembers Andersen, Lambert, Bookhammer, Mayor Ainsworth. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmember York. City Clerk, City of Hawthorne, California b Law Offices of James P. Lough JAMES P. LOUGH 10:1 June 2, 1987 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM 1605 WEST OLYMPIC BLVD. SUITE 9018 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90015 (213) 381-6131 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 9, 1987 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney RE: Approval of Insurance Indemnification Clause in County Beach Maintenance Agreement RECOMMENDATION: The City Attorney recommends the attached language for any indemnification to be included in the county's beach agreement. BACKGROUND: At the City Council meeting of May 26, 1987, the Council approved the beach agreement for lifeguard and maintenance services with the county, subject to the approval of indemnification language by the City Attorney. The attached language meets the minimum basic requirements necessary for agreements of this type and, therefore, was approved by the City Attorney. The indemnification language places a -large share of the liability exposure on the county even though the maintenance and lifeguard agreement does not require any City payments and compensation for that exposure to liability. If members of the Council are inclined not to ratify the approval of the City Attorney, I would strongly urge that a closed session be convened so that the City Attorney could freely discuss the potential liability facing the City if this indemnification clause and underlying agreement are not approved. Respectf itted JPL/gp Enclosure cc: Gregory T. Meyer, City Manager gl/SR0609B JAMES P. LOUGH, City Att• ney CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 4. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS 4.01 The CITY shall provide the COUNTY with thirty (30) days written notice prior to any work of public improvement being done by the CITY, its agents or contractors, on the BEACH. 4.02 The COUNTY shall undertake no physical construction, alteration, or other work of public improvement on the BEACH, except such work as is described in Article 2 or any emergency work that may be required to protect the BEACH and facilities from storm damage, without the prior written consent of the CITY. 5. BEACH ASSET REPLACEMENT 5.01 The CITY shall create a Beaches Capital Asset Replacement Fund for the purpose of accumulating grants, donations, and other monies to be appropriated for preservation, repair, rehabilitation and replacement of public improvements owned by the CITY, or for which the CITY has responsibility under Article 3 of this agreement, e.g., restrooms, on the BEACH. 6. SPECIAL EVENTS 6.01 The CITY has the sole right to issue permits for special events on the BEACH. The CITY shallnotify the COUNTY of all CITY permitted events. 6.02 The COUNTY shall be fully reimbursed by the CITY, within sixty (60) days of the CITY's receipt of a COUNTY invoice, for all costs, including overhead, incurred by the COUNTY in providing extraordinary services requested.. by the CITY for any special event. 6 6.03 The COUNTY may request CITY permission to conduct special events on the BEACH. CITY permission shall not be unreasonably withheld. 7. COUNTY MARKETING PROGRAM 7.01 The CITY authorizes the COUNTY to display marketing program sponsor or donor names, or their product names, on COUNTY tideboards, refuse containers, trucks, uniforms, rescue boats, rv3rand other lifeguard equipment Name/product identification shall only be displayed on equipment that is involved in providing a public service and shall not directly solicit the sale of any product. The COUNTY shall not permit name/product identification displays involving alcoholic beverage or tobacco related products. The COUNTY shall not display the name of any marketing program sponsor or donor, or of their products, on any beach under this agreement, in any fashion other than as is' described in this paragraph, without prior written approval from the city council. 8. INDEMNIFICATION 8.01 COUNTY agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold the CITY harmless from and against any and all liability and expense, including defense costs and legal fees, caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of the COUNTY, its agents, officers, and employees to the extent that such liability is imposed upon the CITY by the provisions of §895.2 of the Government Code of the State of California, including, but not limited to, personal injury, bodily injury, death, and property damage occurring on 7 and within the BEACH, and arising out of any negligent or wrongful act or omission in the performance of the custodial maintenance and lifeguard obligations that have been assumed by the COUNTY in this agreement. In addition when liability arises pursuant to Chapter 2, Part 2, Division 3.6 of Title 1, commencing with Section 830 of the California Government Code, by reason of (1) a dangerous condition of the public restrooms, lifeguard headquarters and towers on the BEACH that is created by an act or omission of the agents, officers and employees of the COUNTY in the performance of the custodial maintenance obligation _that has been assumed by the COUNTY for these structures under the agreement, or (2) a dangerous condition of the public restrooms on the BEACH that is created by a condition of disrepair for which it is the obligation of the CITY under the agreement to protect, repair, remedy or correct, and of which the COUNTY has actual notice but fails to give the CITY notice of the condition of disrepair prior to the date the condition of disrepair causes injury or damage to the third party tort claimant, the COUNTY agrees to assume the entire liability for the dangerous condition, and defend, indemnify and hold the CITY harmless from liability for the dangerous condition, including the alleged act or omission of the CITY, its agents, officers and employees, to protect against, repair, remedy, or correct the dangerous condition, to provide safeguards against the dangerous condition, or warn of the dangerous condition. It is understood and agreed by the CITY that the foregoing assumption of liability by the COUNTY for liability arising pursuant to Chapter 2, Division 3.6 8 of Title 1, commencing with Section 830 of the Government Code shall not be deemed, to be either an expressed or implied, acceptance by the COUNTY of an obligation to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the CITY for liability arising pursuant to Section 830, et sec. of the Government Code, by reason of a dangerous condition of the BEACH that is created by (1) a condition of the piers and groins, (2) a condition of the public restrooms for which it is the obligation of the CITY under the agreement to protect, repair, remedy or correct and of which the CITY has actual notice or of which the COUNTY does not have actual notice or of which the CITY and COUNTY do not have actual notice prior to the date on which the condition causes injury or damage to the third party tort claimant, (3) or a natural condition or hybrid natural and artificial condition of the upland, the accretions to the upland, the tide and submerged land, and the ocean, including the alleged act or omission of the COUNTY, its agents, officers and employees, to protect against, repair, remedy, or correct the dangerous condition, to provide safeguards against the dangerous condition, or to warn of the dangerous condition. 8.02 CITY agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold the COUNTY harmless from and against any and all liability and expense, including defense costs and legal fees, caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of the CITY, its agents, officers, and employees to the extent that such liability is imposed upon the COUNTY by the provisions of Section 895.2 of the Government Code of the State of California, including, but not limited to, 9 personal injury, bodily injury, death, and property damage occurring on and within the BEACH caused by the negligent act or omission of the agents, officers and employees of the CITY in the performance of the obligations assumed by the CITY in this agreement. In addition, when liability arises upon any cause of action pursuant to Section 830 et seg.,of the Government Code, by reason of a dangerous condition of the BEACH that is created by either (1) a condition of the piers and groins or (2) a condition of the public restrooms for which it is the obligation of the CITY under the agreement to protect, repair, remedy or correct and of which the CITY has actual notice or of which the COUNTY does not have actual notice or of which the CITY and COUNTY do not have actual notice prior to the date on which the condition causes injury or damage to the third party tort claimant, or (3) a natural condition, or a hybrid natural and artificial condition of the upland, the accretions to the upland, the tide and submerged land and the ocean, the CITY agrees to and shall assume liability and shall defend, indemnify, and hold the COUNTY harmless from liability for the dangerous condition, including but not limited to, any alleged failure of the COUNTY, its agents, officers and employees, to protect against, repair, remedy, or correct the dangerous condition, to provide safeguards against the dangerous condition, or to warn of the dangerous condition. The term "natural condition" is defined to mean a condition of the 'land and ocean that has not been physically changed by some work of improvement having been made, such as by way of illustration and not limitation,: cliffs, rocks, ravines, - 10 - rip currents, shallow water, bottom slope, depressions, trenches, sand bars, wave break and refraction. The term "hybrid natural and artificial condition" is defined to mean a condition that is created by a combination of a natural condition of the land and water and an alleged act or omission of the COUNTY, its agents, officers and employees, that is either not performed or inadequately performed with respect to the protection, repair, remedy, correction, safeguard or warning of the natural condition. 8.03 Any dispute between the parties over their respective obligations for indemnification that cannot be resolved by mutual agreement of the parties shall be submitted for determination by arbitration under the California Arbitration Act or any amendments or reenactments of the Act over the term of the. agreement. However, the foregoing notwithstanding, it is agreed that until a final determination has been made, the respective obligations for indemnity shall be performed in accordance with the provision of paragraph 8.03.01. Once the determination has been made, the arbitrator shall determine the rights of the parties to any reimbursement for the respective costs that are 'incurred pending final resolution of their dispute based upon whether there was a prevailing party in the arbitration to resolve the dispute, and if so, which party prevailed. 8.03.01 The costs of the judgment, settlement and defense of the third party tort claimant's claim and lawsuit, inclusive of the costs of attorneys, witnesses, experts, investigation, discovery, trial and appeal, shall be equally shared between the parties with the COUNTY assuming fifty percent of the costs of the claim and lawsuit, and the CITY assuming the other fifty percent of such costs. The county counsel and the city attorney shall provide joint representation for the named party defendants in the litigation that is commenced and exercise joint control over the defense of the case in the trial and appellate courts. In the event of a disagreement between the two attorneys over how the defense of the case should be conducted in the trial and appellate courts, the disagreement shall be resolved by allowing the attorney who wishes to engage in the course of action on which there is disagreement to proceed at the sole cost of the party that the attorney customarily of the county counsel is the COUNTY attorney is the CITY. However, the represents which in the case and in the case of the city foregoing procedure for joint representation of named party defendants and joint control of litigation notwithstanding, the county counsel shall represent all named party defendants who have been named in the litigation that has been commenced, whenever the city attorney determines in the exercise of his sole discretion interest of the CITY for the county named party defendants in the case. that it counsel In the would be to the best to represent all the event of a representation of all the named party defendants by the county counsel, it is agreed by the COUNTY that the county counsel shall keep the city attorney advised on the status of the case, control the defense of the case in the trial and appellate courts subject - 12 - to a right of consultation by the city attorney on the decisions that are made, obtain the prior approval of the city attorney before hiring private attorneys and expert witnesses to assist in the defense of the case, and pay for the costs of the defense as incurred; and, it is agreed by the CITY that the city attorney shall assist the county counsel in producing such witnesses and documents under the control of the CITY that may be required in the defense of the case, shall not unreasonably withhold his right of approval over private attorneys and expert witnesses selected by the county counsel, and shall approve all correct 'invoices submitted by the county counsel for reimbursement by the CITY of the CITY's proportionate share of the costs of defense that have been paid by the COUNTY. Any claim and lawsuit shall require the joint approval of the COUNTY and the CITY before an agreement for the release of the claim and a dismissal of the lawsuit can be made and entered with the third party tort , claimant. In the case of settlements and final judgments each party shall pay its proportionate share of the total amount directly to the third party tort claimant. 8.04 The obligations assumed by the parties in article 8 shall survive the termination of the agreement, whether by expiration of term or otherwise, as to claims arising for personal injury, bodily injury, death or property damage, occurring on or before the date of termination. 8.05 The indemnity provided in 8.01 and 8.02 shall be excess to any other indemnity coverage protecting the parties from third party tort liability arising out of their acts or omissions and dangerous conditions on the BEACH. 8.06 In the event that there is indemnity for the third party tort liability under both paragraphs 8.01 and 8.02, it is agreed that the liability shall be equally shared between the parties with the COUNTY assuming fifty percent of the costs of the judgment, settlement and defense of the claim and lawsuit, and the CITY assuming the other fifty percent. It is further agreed that the control over the claims and lawsuits that are subject to the combined indemnity described in this paragraph shall be handled in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 8.03.01. 8.07 This agreement of indemnity shall supersede any and all other agreements of indemnity between the parties with respect to their liability for the BEACH by reason of their being parties to an agreement as defined in Section 895 of the California Government Code that is still in force and effect on the effective date of this amendment to this agreement. • iI I Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council May 28, 1987 Regular Meeting June 9, 1987 REMOVAL OF PARKING ON PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council direct staff to: Initiate an Environmental Assesment for: a. a proposed public works project of removing the west side parking on Pacific Cost Highway during the hours of 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and b . a corresponding modification to the General Plan Policy Statement Number 3, which now calls for such removal between the hours of 4:15 p.m. to 6:15 p.m. 2. Make every effort to accomplish these Environmental Assessments with the goal of obtaining a Negative Declaration with mitigating measures; failing that, a focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR). CciZ7;\cv Pch rcA. EtR Background: -_J At a special City Council meeting held on October 23, 1986, Council established the following goal: "To remove parking on Pacific Coast Highway" Policy Statement 3 in the General Plan addresses traffic on Pacific Cost Highway; concludes that improved. handling of traffic on PCH will reduce neighborhood traffic caused by travelers through our City and calls for parking removal on the west side of PCH during the hours of 4:15 p.m. to 6:15 p.m. Analysis: The analysis of this report is divided into six (6) sections as follows: 1. Definition of Project. 2. Is the project subject to the California.Environmenta-1 Quality Act (CEQA)? 3. Potential Environmental Impacts. 1 4. Consistency with the General Plan. 5. Approach to Environmental Assessment. 6. Conclusion. 1. DEFINITION OF PROJECT Section 15378 of the CEQA Statutes and Guidelines; June 1986, defines the term "project" as follows: (a) " 'Project' " means the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately, and that is any of the following: 1. An activity directly undertaken by any public agency including but not limited to public works construction and related activities,..... (c) The term "project" refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies 2. IS THE PROJECT SUBJECT TO THE CEQA? Staff suggests that the project to remove parking from PCH is subject to CEQA because it depends upon the discretionary approval of City Council, in the form of a resolution and concurrance by Caltrans. However, Section 21084 of the Public Resources Code requires the CEQA Guidelines to include a list of classes of projects which are exempt from the provisions of CEQA. According to Section 21080.19 of the CEQA statutes, "this division does not apply to a project for restriping of streets or highways to relieve traffic congestion". Therefore, there exists the possibility that this project may be considered exempt from CEQA guidelines. However, because the proposed restriping of the highway is for the purpose of creating an additional driving lane, staff suggests that the proposed project is indeed subject to CEQA. 3. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Section 21083 of the CEQA Statutes states that ". ..a project may have a significant effect on the environment" if any of the following conditions exist: (a) a proposed project has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, curtail the range of the environment, or to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals. 2 (b) the possible effects of a project are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in this subdivision, "cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. (c) the environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly." Staff suggests that the proposed project poses a potential for controversy. Additionally, the issue of how the proposed change may impact our southern boundary with Redondo Beach must be considered. 4. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN Policy Statement Number Three of the Hermosa Beach General Plan states in part the following: "The spill over of traffic from the inability of Pacific Coast Highway to effectively deal with auto demand must be dealt with or the diversion of through traffic into neighborhoods will continue and in fact grow. ..This need revolves around peak hour demand therefore a third driving lane should be created by the elimination of parking from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. in the morning hours northbound and from 4:15 p.m. to 6:15 p.m. southbound on Pacific Coast Highway..." Consequently, eliminating parking on Pacific Coast Highway is consistent with the City's General Plan. However, in the City of Manhattan Beach, the peak evening hours are from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. To be consistent with the City of Manhattan Beach would require the City of Hermosa Beach to adopt a General Plan ammendment revising Policy Statement Number Three to re -define the peak evening traffic hours as 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. southbound on Pacific Coast Highway. 5. APPROACH TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Review of the Environmental Assessment form by the Environmental Staff Review Committee could result in any of the following possible recommendations: 1. Negative Declaration without mitigating measures. 2. Negative Declaration with mitigating measures. (To approach the project on an incremental basis; i.e.,- .Northern boundary to Pier, Pier to Aviation, Aviation to southern boundary, rather than along the entire length of the City might be considered as a mitigating measure.) 3. Focused EIR 4. Full EIR Staff suggests an approach to the Environmental Assessment, consistent with the goal of obtaining a Negative Declaration with mitigating measures. Should this effort be unsuccessful, obtaining a focused EIR would be the alternate effort. 6. CONCLUSION 1. Staff concludes that the proposed project is subject to CEQA statutes and guidelines for the following reasons: (a) Removing parking on PCH is defined as a "project" according to CEQA. (b) The purpose of restriping PCH is to create an additional driving lane. (c) Removing the parking on PCH may result in significant environmental impacts. 2. The project of removing the parking on PCH should follow CEQA guidelines and will involve reviews by the Environmental Staff Review Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council, in addition to public hearing(s). 3. The Environmental Assessment for the removal of parking from Pacific Coast Highway would best be accomplished via a Negative Declaration with mitigating measures. Fiscal Impact: If staff were directed to proceed with this project, there is no fiscal impact at this time. However, there exists the following potential fiscal impacts: 1. Noticing for Public Hearing(s) $ 300 2. Fee for Traffic Analysis Study (up to) 10,000 3. Cost to Implement Project 4,000 (to be borne by Caltrans) Total Estimated Costs: * $14,300 *Please note these figures are only an estimate. There may be additional costs associated with this project that should be done in Redondo Beach (in the vicinity of Herondo/PCH and Catalina/PCH). 4 • Alternatives: Other alternatives considered by staff and available to Council are: 1. Consider this project when the City revises its circulation element. 2. Drop the project. Respectfull,submitted, Deborah M. Murphy Assistant Engineer Concur: Michael Schubach Planning Director DMM:mv pch/v Concur: Gr gory T D� Ci Mana er Mona V. Clark 1866 Rhodes Street Hermosa Beach, California 90254 (213)379-0866 May 21, 1987 Mayor John Cioffi City of Hermosa Beach City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Re: Parking restrictions on Pacific Coast Highway Dear Mr. Cioffi: This morning, a copy of the enclosed interoffice memo regarding parking restrictions on Pacific Coast Highway was delivered to all employees of Computer Sciences Corporation located in El Segundo. (Approximately 700 people.) Tom Newman, the author of the memo, is a resident of Redondo Beach and commutes to El Segundo. As a homeowner and lifetime resident of Hermosa Beach who commutes to El Segundo, I feel that in the interest of equal time the other side of his argument should also be heard. .1 hope Mr. Newman is incorrect in stating that our City Council is again planning to consider another dialogue on this subject. However, if this is true, I wanted to let you know that this memo had been circulated, so you would be aware that at least SOME of the communication you may receive on this matter will undoubtedly be from people who are NOT residents of Hermosa. Possibly most of it, as people living outside the city limits of Hermosa Beach are the ones who would benefit most from a change of this type. Hermosa Beach residents (including our children) and businesses would be the losers if rush hour parking on Pacific Coast Highway is prohibited. Our children would be the first losers if parking restrictions were imposed. Many of them cross Pacific Coast Highway on foot during rush hour. Why should we force them to confront the added danger of crossing more lanes in faster traffic? Businesses would lose rush hour commuter customers who would no longer have a place to park. They would also lose many future customers - people who are currently forced to slow down in rush hour traffic and look in showroom windows. Some of those people stop and buy. I know - I'm one of them. Small businesses housed in storefronts dependent on street parking would eventually be forced out of business. Mayor John Cioffi Page Two May 21, 1987 Residents would lose the most. As any observer of Hermosa Beach knows, we have been on a crusade for years to stop increased density and its resultant traffic. Denying us our parking on Pacific Coast Highway, and adding a southbound lane during rush hour at night, would create an illusion of -more available space. It does not take much imagination to realize that real estate developers would then see this as their golden opportunity to falsely claim that Hermosa's streets could then support an increased number of cars (like they've been trying to prove for years). These developers would seize the opportunity to acquire businesses struggling due to the lack of street parking (as has happened in Manhattan Beach). The resultant increased density and traffic (from newer, bigger buildings) would rush in to fill this assumed availability. Then what happens? A multi-level highway? Or existing buildings destroyed to widen the one we have? The enclosed memo suggests that we should follow in Manhattan Beach's footsteps and impose parking 'restrictions. I disagree. Hermosa Beach is a small town, with everything that implies, and should be preserved as such. I know Hermosa is considered a "bottle neck" because we do not have parking restrictions during rush hours. But let's leave well enough alone. Hermosa is already bursting at the seams. I have lived here for 39 years. I work in El Segundo. I probably spend more time commuting now than I would if parking restrictions were imposed. And I don't care. The people who would benefit most from a decision like this are developers, or people living SOUTH of Hermosa - not IN it. Hermosa Beach cannot hold one more car, structure, or resident. Let's not ruin our city to please other people or fatten their wallets. Enclosure cc: ncerely, Mona V. Clark Tony DeBellis Jim Rosenberger Etta Simpson June Williams The Easy Reader The South Bay Daily Breeze All employees of Computer Sciences Corporation CSC COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INTEROFFICE CORRESPONDENCE to: All El Segundo Employees from: Tom ewman mail code/ext: A339/1461 Rush Hour Traffic -- Hermosa Beach subject: date: May 18, 1987 ref: Hermosa Beach residents concerned about the diversion of rush hour traffic through their neighborhoods have an opportunity to do something about it. The Hermosa Beach City Council may soon take up the question of imposing parking restrictions on Pacific Coast Highway southbound, and will be interested in the public's viewpoint. This action would be similar to that already taken by Manhattan Beach. A restriction on rush hour parking would have broad benefits. By opening an additional southbound lane to speed the flow of traffic, it would also draw commuter traffic off residential streets, making them safer for children coming home from school and improving the comfort of residential neighborhoods. Almost 20% of the registered voters in Hermosa Beach are employeed in El Segundo. We suggest that CSC employees who live in Hermosa consider the benefits in terms of your own commute and your own neighborhood, and make your views known to your elected officials. You can write Mayor John Cioffi at City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, Calif. 90254, or you can call (213)376-6984. Mona V. Clark 1866 Rhodes Street Hermosa Beach, California 90254 (213)379-0866 May 21, 1987 Mayor John Cioffi City of Hermosa Beach City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Re: Parking restrictions on Pacific Coast Highway Dear Mr. Cioffi: This morning, a copy of the enclosed interoffice memo regarding parking restrictions on Pacific Coast Highway was delivered to all employees of Computer Sciences Corporation located in El Segundo. (Approximately 700 people.) Tom Newman, the author of the memo, is a resident of Redondo Beach and commutes to El Segundo. As a homeowner and lifetime resident of Hermosa Beach who commutes to El Segundo, I feel that in the interest of equal time the other side of his argument should also be heard. I hope Mr. Newman is incorrect in stating that our City Council is again planning to consider another dialogue on this subject. However, if this is true, I wanted to let you know that this memo had been circulated, so you would be aware that at least SOME of the communication you may receive on this matter will undoubtedly be from people who are NOT residents of Hermosa. Possibly most of it, as people living outside the city limits of Hermosa Beach are the ones who would benefit most from a change of this type. Hermosa Beach residents (including our children) and businesses would be the losers if rush hour parking on Pacific Coast Highway is prohibited. Our children would be the first losers if parking restrictions were imposed. Many of them cross Pacific Coast Highway on foot during rush hour. Why should we force them to confront the added danger of crossing more lanes in faster traffic? Businesses would lose rush hour commuter customers who would no longer have a place to park. They would also lose many future customers - people who are currently forced to slow down in rush hour traffic and look in showroom windows. Some of those people stop and buy. I know - I'm one of them. Small businesses housed in storefronts dependent on street parking would eventually be forced out of business. Mayor John Ciof f i Page Two May 21, 1987 Residents would lose the most. As any observer of Hermosa Beach knows, we have been on a crusade for years to stop increased density and its resultant traffic. Denying us our parking on Pacific Coast Highway, and adding a southbound lane during rush hour at night, would create an illusion of -more available space. It does not take much imagination to realize that real estate developers would then see this as their golden opportunity to falsely claim that Hermosa's streets could then support an increased number of cars (like they've been trying to prove for years). These developers would seize the opportunity to acquire businesses struggling due to the lack of street parking (as has happened in Manhattan Beach). The resultant increased density and traffic (from newer, bigger buildings) would rush in to fill this assumed availability. Then what happens? A multi-level highway? Or existing buildings destroyed to widen the one we have? The enclosed memo suggests that we should follow in Manhattan Beach's footsteps and impose parking restrictions. I disagree. Hermosa Beach is a small town, with everything that implies, and should be preserved as such. I know Hermosa is considered a "bottle neck" because we do not have parking restrictions during rush hours. But let's leave well enough alone. Hermosa is already bursting at the seams. I have lived here for 39 years. I work in El Segundo. I probably spend more time commuting now than I would if parking restrictions were imposed. And I don't care. The people who would benefit most from a decision like this are developers, or people living SOUTH of Hermosa - not IN it. Hermosa Beach cannot hold one more car, structure, or resident. Let's not ruin our city to please other people or fatten their wallets. Enclosure cc: ncerely, Mona V. Clark Tony DeBellis Jim Rosenberger Etta Simpson June Williams The Easy Reader The South Bay Daily Breeze All employees of Computer Sciences Corporation CSC COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INTEROFFICE CORRESPONDENCE to: All El Segundo Employees from: Tom—Newman mail code/ext: A339/1461 subject: Rush Hour Traffic — Hermosa Beach date: May 18., 1987 ref: Hermosa Beach residents concerned about the diversion of rush hour traffic through their neighborhoods have an opportunity to do something about it. The Hermosa Beach City Council may soon take up the question of imposing parking restrictions on Pacific Coast Highway southbound, and will be interested in the public's viewpoint. This action would be similar to that already taken by Manhattan Beach. A restriction on rush hour parking would have broad benefits. By opening an additional southbound lane to speed the flow of traffic, it would also draw commuter traffic off residential streets, making them safer for children coming home from school and improving the comfort of residential neighborhoods. Almost 20% of the registered voters in Hermosa Beach are employeed in El Segundo. We suggest that CSC employees who live in Hermosa consider the benefits in terms of your own commute and your own neighborhood, and make your views known to your elected officials. You can write Mayor John Cioffi at City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, Calif. 90254, or you can call (213)376-6984. May 28, 1987 Honorable(Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council June 9, 1987 CONSIDERATION OF EXTENDING THE TWO HOUR TIME LIMIT PARKING, ON -STREET IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA, TO A THREE HOUR TIME LIMIT Recommendation: The Business Relations Sub -Committee of the City Council recommends that the City Council consider the extension of the two hour time limit parking, on -street in the downtown area, to a three hour time limit. Background: At your regularly scheduled meeting of May 12, 1987, the City Council directed staff to set a public hearing for the purpose of considering a three hour time limit enforcement, as opposed to a two hour time limit enforcement, in the downtown area. The above recommendation was the result of on-going negotiations between the Business Relations Sub -Committee of the City Council and the Downtown Merchant's Association. Attached are copies of the April 22, 1986 minutes and agenda item which pertain to the decision to enforce the two hour limit at all meters in the commercial clusters. In addition to the published notice of public hearing, in this matter, notices were distributed to all of the merchants in the downtown area. Analysis: Originally, the Association asked the Sub -Committee to consider four hour, on -street, meter enforcement in the winter months and two hour, on -street, meter enforcement in the summer months. Realizing that this would involve a constant change in signing and meter mechanisms and further tend to exacerbate a situation that is already confusing due to the many changes that have been made over the past two years, the Association decided to "split the baby in half" and ask for three hour enforcement, year round. The Association has indicated that this is the desire of the majority of the downtown merchants. 1 Staff is of the opinion that a three hour time limit enforcement of the meters in the downtown area will not provide the desired turnover required to accomodate customer parking. Customers may obtain up to four hours of free parking in the lots, with merchant validation. To staff it seems that the needs of the long-term customer e.g. a combination of shopping and restaurant patronage, would be accomodated by the validation program. The estimated cost for replacement parts, to convert the downtown meters, is approximately $7,355. Estimated completion time will depend upon whether or not other conversions are made i.e. nickel, dime, quarter, etc. In any event the conversion cannot be accomplished before the end of the summer. Concur: Meyer Manager G00,41 cam. -a r m°6 seqc-s J Council ember DeBellis unci mem•er 'osen.er p DPa S -A v.rI4ctP- kr-LLA (),wc" 2 Bel egoROUND R4TERIA1 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council April 8, 1986 City Council Meeting of April 22, 1986 RECOMMENDATION TO ENFORCE THE TWO HOUR PARKING LIMIT AT THE SILVER POSTED METERS IN THE COMMERCIAL CLUSTERS Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council direct staff to enforce the two hour time limit parking at the silver posted meters in the commercial clusters. Background: At their regularly scheduled meeting of March 11, 1986, the Vehi- cle Parking District Commissioners directed staff to set a public hearing for the purpose of giving consideration to a two hour parking limit on Pier Avenue between Hermosa Avenue and the Pier Head. The intent was to provide more rapid turn -over in those parking places adjacent to the commercial businesses on Pier Avenue. It has long been our practice to enforce the meters in the com- mercial clusters for expiration, but not for the two hour limit. All of these meters have two hour time limits. In the City of Manhattan Beach, for instance, the officers not only enforce the expired meter but they chalk the tires and enforce the time limit as well. Analysis: Most assuredly, enforcing the two hour time limit would encourage more rapid turn -over of parking spaces. While a shorter time limit enforcement would benefit some businesses ie. drug stores and liquor stores, less than two hour enforcement would not be beneficial to restaurants and clothing stores (at least for female shoppers). Time limit enforcement, excluding meters, is not an efficient method, our experience in the past has shown this. Chalk marks have been erased and people will move their vehicles to the next space in an effort to avoid enforcement. In our opinion, the most effective method of insuring turn -over in a commercial district, is a combination of meter and time limit enforcement. The direction, from the Vehicle Parking District Commissioners, targeted Pier Avenue from Hermosa Avenue to the Pier Head however, it would seem beneficial to consider this type of en- forcement in all of the commercial clusters since all merchants will benefit by a consistant_turn-over of parking spaces. In addition, we recommend that. the meters- be posted to indicate that two time. limit parking will be strictly enforced (see at- tachedcopy of_avaiiable decal) oon,.. G. S- Director • Concur: Gr. oryiT. eyer Cit Manage 2 • April 14, 1986 Dear Merchant, (Q][171v OF kEtWOM 8EsZL(1, CIVIC CENTER HERMOSA BEACH CALIFORNIA 40254. CITY HALL: (213) 375.$3$4 POLICE AND FIVE DEPARTMENTS: 3711-7911 Summer is almost upon us again. In an effort to promote con- venient parking spaces for your customers, the City Council, act- ing as the Vehicle Parking District. Commissioners, and in con- junction with the Chamber of Commerce has made the following changes to enhance customer parking; 1. The meters will be removed from Lot "B". Validated parking will be available during the day hours and valet parking will be available at night. 2. Non -validated parking rates have been increased to $1.00 per half hour. 3. All employees, with the exception of owners and managers are to park on Lot "C", effective May 1, 1986. This will free up Lots "A" and "B", which are closer to the stores, for customer parking. In addition to the above mentioned changes, there will be a public hearing at the City Council meeting of April 22, 1986, to discuss enforcing the two hour time limit at the meters in the commercial clusters. The intent of this recommendation is to insure vehicle turnover at the meters and discourage all day parking. Sincerely, Joan Noon Parking Administrator Motion 'Cioffi; second%Mayor--DeBe11is .7. /AYES - Cioffi, Simpson, -Williams, Mayor DeBellis / NOES - Rosenberger ENFORCEMENT OF THE TWO HOUR TIME LIMIT PARKING IN THE COMMERCIAL CLUSTERS OF HERMOSA BEACH. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dated April 8, 1986. The staff report was presented by City Manager Meyer. The Public Hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak were: Bill Fowler, Hermosa Beach Chanber of Commerce, indicat- ing he had attended a meeting tonight of 25 downtown. merchants and the majority were in favor of the two-hour limit enforcement. He asked if this limit was to be enforced at all commercial meters by chalking and was advised in the affirmative. Scott Ingell, 1100 Strand, who represented=the Downtown Merchants Association, stating they were in favor of the limitation. The Public Hearing was closed. Action: To approve the staff recommendation directing staff to enforce the two hour time limit parking at the silver posted meters in the commercial clusters. Motion Mayor DeBellis, second Cioffi Amendment to Motion: Staff to obtain decals to be af- fixed to meters indicating the 120 minute limit. Motion Mayor DeBellis with the concurrence of the second AYES - Cioffi, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor DeBellis NOES - None Final Action: To initiate enforcement of this 120. minute parking limit on June 1, 1986 after flyers and signs were made available to the downtown merchants and the Chamber of Commerce. Motion Cioffi, second Rosenberger. So ordered. TEXT AMENDMENT TO REVISE RESIDENTIAL PARKING STANDARDS, I.E., GUEST PARKING, GARAGE MAINTENANCE, ROLL -UP DOORS AND SETBACKS.emorandum and presentation by Planning Director Michael Schubach.'datedApril 16,, 1986. / ! /-. c The staff report was presented by Planning Director \ Michael% Schubach�..r' . / jr • tit / '� . .L„,,,.----". �,,, 11" Pu \ Theblic Hearing Jwas continued open. 'Coming forward `-to speak were: - 8 - Minutes 4-22-86 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 Attachment B 1011A 6 RESOLUTION NO. 8 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, FIXING THE COMPENSATION TO BE RECEIVED BY THE CITY TREASURER FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1987-88 AND PROVIDING A JOB DESCRIPTION FOR SUCH COMPENSATION. WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the compensation for the City Treasurer during the 1987-88 Budget Hearings; and WHEREAS, the matter of staffing and other job related factors have been reviewed by the City Council during the 1987-88 Budget Hearings. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That pursuant to Ordinance No. 79-621 of the City Code of the City of Hermosa Beach, adopted July 24, 1979, the compensation of the City Treasurer shall be fixed by a Resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach. SECTION 2. That the City Treasurer shall receive a salary of Five Hundred Dollars ($500) per month payable semi-monthly at the same time and in the same manner as the salaries paid to each of the officers and employees of the City. That the City Treasurer work a minimum of hours per week. That the duties of the City Treasurer shall be administration of the City's Investment Portfolio; administration of bond issues; signing of monthly warrants; signing of all tract maps; and all other related work as required. Gf 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 Attachment B SECTION 3. That said compensation as set forth in Section 2 of this Resolution shall be in full force and effect for the Fiscal Year 1987-88 and to run until such time as a final 1988-89 budget is adopted by the City Council. SECTION 4. That this Resolution supersedes City Council Resolution No. 86-4958 adopted June 24, 1986. PASS D, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of June, 1987. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTES : Cit Clerk 0 od)J; APPROVED AS FORM: June 3, 1987 City Council Meeting June 9, 1987 Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council CITY CLERK- SALARY RESOLUTION 1987-1988 Recommended Action It is recommended that the City Council adopt the following Resolution "ARESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, FIXING THE COMPENSATION TO BE RECEIVED BY THE CITY CLERK FOR .THE FISCAL YEAR 1987-88 AND PROVIDING A JOB DESCRIPTION FOR SUCH COMPENSATION." Background Pursuant to the review of the City Clerk's compensation and duties which were addressed at the Budget Workshop on May 14, 1987, the following resolution is being submitted setting the City Clerk's salary at $1,000 per month, setting a minimum of 20 hours of work per week, and providing a job description. Included in the resolution is a section which clarifies that the City Clerk is entitled to the same insurance and retirement benefits as the City Council. This is the current policy that is followed based on the last Council Action addressing this subject on March 27, 1984. The action mentions both City Council and elected officials. For purposes of retriving the information at a future date, it is much easier to locate in a resolution, rather than the minutes. KATHLEEN MIDSTOKKE, City Clerk Noted: (:)/1dIS„QIP GREgORY`TM YER, ity Manager NOTED FOR FISCAL IMPACT: 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 N_ as RESQ.VTI.QN._HQ 87- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,- CALIFORNIA, EACH,CALIFORNIA, FIXING THE COMPENSATION TO BE RECEIVED BY THE CITY CLERK FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1987-88 AND PROVIDING A JOB DESCRIPTION FOR SUCH COMPENSATION. WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the compensation for the City Clerk at the Budget Workshop on May 14, 1987 and during the 1987-88 Budget Public Hearing on June 9, 1987; and WHEREAS, the matter of staffing and other job related duties have been reviewed by the City Council at the Budget Workshop on May 14, 1987 and during the 1987-88 Budget Public Hearing on June 9, 1987; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk's last base salary adjustment was in June, 1984. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: ECTIQ,N,.1. That pursuant to Ordinance No. 78-603 of the City Code of the City of Hermosa Beach, adopted December- 14, 1978, the compensation of the City Clerk shall be fixed by a Resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach. SECTIQN,...2. That the duties of the City Clerk shall be the usual and statutory duties (excluding elections) including the duties speeificaly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and titled "Partial List of' City Clerk's Duties". SECTIQN..3. That the City Clerk will work a minimum of 20 hours per week including office hours; regular, adjourned, special and workshop City Council Meetings; court appearances; and educational sessions. 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._4. That the City Clerk shall receive a salary of One housand ($100$0 per month payable semi-monthly_ at, the_ same time nd in the same manner as the salaries paid to each of the fficers and employees of the City. SECTIQN._5. That the City Clerk shall be eligible for the ame insurance and retirement benefits as the City Council. SECTZQN,„6. That this Resolution supersedes City Council esolution No. 86-14957 adopted June 214, 1986. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day Of June,. 1987. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, TTEST:. ITY CLERK 1111444,A,PPROVED ASiii FORM: .. Al 11' s' A TORNE PARTIAL.LIST OF. CITY CLERK'S DUTIES 1. Maintain custody of records. 2. Index and file City records and prepare certified copies. 3. Serve as Clerk of the Council (attend all Regular, Special and Adjourned meetings and workshops, sign documents and agreements, record votes cast and conditions stipulated, follow-up action of Council to City staff, prepare Chamber for each meeting.) 4. Maintain record of the proceedings of City Council meetings. 5. Attest, publish, post, index and file Ordinances and Resolutions. 6. Maintain custody of City Seal. 7. Administer and file Oaths of Office. 8. Administer oaths, affirmations and acknowledgements. 9. Receive petitions relating to Initiatives, Referendums or Recalls. 10. Attest and accept subpoenas. 11.- Perform duties concerning Street and Easement vacations. 12. Perform duties concerning liens, encroachments and release of liens. 13. Receive claims and perform duties concerned therewith. 14. Give notice of Public Hearings, supervise all legal noticing for City, contract with newspaper for publications. 15. Receive and open bids. 16. Record with the County Recorder such documents as are required to be recorded. 17. Assist citizens regarding record requests, City Council meeting procedures, claims and various other matters. 18. Conduct research, assemble data and prepare reports, drafts, memoranda, correspondence as may be directed by the City Council or City Manager. -1- Exhibit "A" 19. Administration of City Clerk's Department. 20. Preparation of City Clerk and Election budgets. 21. Maintain, supplement and duplicate City Code and Zoning Code books. 22. Other statutory duties pursuant to State law except those transferred to the Finance Director. 23. Appoint deputies. 24. Filing officer for disclosure and campaign statements per Fair Political Practices Commission. 25. Responsible for proper posting of agendas for meetings under the Brown Act. 26. Serve as Parliamentarian to City Council. 27. Receive and process Written Communications from the Public. -2- Exhibit "A" T6 athgrvutth trrtatg CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BUDGET BULLETIN NO. 2 1987-1988 RECOMMENDED BUDGET DATE: FROM: SUBJECT: May 14, 1987 City Clerk Kathleen Midstokke City Clerk's Salary Adjustment Pursuant to State Law and City Code, the compensation of the City Clerk is fixed by a resolution adopted by the City Council. On June 26, 1984, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 84-4721 setting the Clerk's salary at $750.00/month (attached). There has been no adjustments since that time except for temporary compensation due to elections and a medical leave of the Deputy City Clerk. The City Clerk is a "part-time" elected position with numerous statutory and usual duties (see attached). The common meaning of the term "part-time" usually indicates less than 20 hours per week. I do keep track of my hours and generally work 25-30 hours per week._ This request is being made for an increase to $1,000/month. If 100 hours were worked in a month, this would be equivalent to $10.00/hour. The Chief Deputy under the City Clerk is currently making approximately $13.20/hour excluding merit pay. If this adjustment is approved, I would be willing to include a section in the new resolution which would indicate I would work a minimum of 20 hours per week including office hours, City Council meetings, Adjourned and Special meeting, coutt appearances and educational sessions (no extra compensation for extra hours). The City Attorney sees no problem with this since I am doing it voluntarily. This will also let any candidates for the City Clerk position who might run in November know that the demands of this "part-time" position require a minimum of 20 hours per week. Prepared by: City Clerk Fiscal Impact Noted: Viki Copeland rIm _ Meydr ' PARTIAL LIST OF CITY CLERK'S DUTIES 1. Maintain custody of records. 2. Index and file City records and prepare certified copies. 3. Serve as Clerk of the Council (attend all Regular, Special and Adjourned meetings and workshops, sign documents and agreements, record votes cast and conditions stipulated, follow-up action of Council to City staff, prepare Chamber for each meeting.) 4. Maintain record of the proceedings of City Council meetings. 5. Attest, publish, post, index and file Ordinances and Resolutions. 6. Maintain custody of City Seal. 7. Administer and file Oaths of Office. 8. Administer oaths, affirmations and acknowledgements. 9. Receive petitions relating to Initiatives, Referendums or Recalls. 10. Attest and accept subpoenas. 11. Perform duties concerning Street and Easement vacations. 12. Perform duties concerning liens, encroachments and release of liens. 13. Receive claims and perform duties concerned therewith. 14. Give notice of Public Hearings, supervise all legal noticing for City, contract with newspaper for publications. 15. Receive and open bids. 16. Record with the County Recorder such documents as are required to be recorded. 17. Assist citizens regarding record requests, City Council meeting procedures, claims and various other matters. 18. Conduct research, assemble data and prepare reports, drafts, memoranda, correspondence as may be directed by the.City Council or City Manager. 19. Administration of City Clerk's Department. 20. Preparation of City Clerk and Election budgets. 21. Maintain, supplement and duplicate City Code and Zoning Code books. 22. Other statutory duties pursuant to State law except those transferred to the Finance Director. 23. Appoint deputies. 24. Register citizens to vote (shortly after May 26, 1987.) 25. Filing officer for disclosure and campaign statements per Fair Political Practices Commission. 26. Responsible for proper posting of agendas for meetings under the Brown Act. 27. Serve as Parliamentarian to City Council. ��• y.‘,ue) 91 "4471.4 A.9• � Z m 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. 84 - 4721 A RESOLUTION -OF THE CITY. COUNCIL OF THE CITY• OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA., FIXING THE COMPENSATION TO BE RECEIVED BY THE CITY. CLERK FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1984-85 WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the compensation for the City Clerk during the 1984-85 Budget Hearings; and WHEREAS, the matter of staffing and other job related factors have been reviewed by. the City Council during the 1983-84 Budget Hearings. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That pursuant to Ordinance No. 78-603 of the City -Code of the City of Hermosa Beach, adopted December 14, 1978, the compensation of the City Clerk shall be fixed by a resolution adopted by the -City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach. SECTION 2. That the City Clerk shall receive a salary of Seven -Hundred Fifty ($750) per month payable semi-monthly at the same time and in the same manner as the salaries paid to each of the officers and employees of the City. SECTION 3.. That said compensation as set forth in Section 2 of this resolution shall be in full force and effect for the Fiscal Year 1984-85 and to run until such time as a final 1985-86 budget isadopted by the City Council. SECTION 4. That this resolution supersedes City Council. Resolution No 83-4606, adopted June 28, 1983. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of June Pi . , 1 /1 PRESIDENT of he City Counc 1, and MAYOR of he City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FOR?: CITY ATTORNEY , 1984 s3 -G 1-"" RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT (continued) Vote Barks- Wood Schmeltzer - Wood Webber - Wood Wood - Wood Mayor Brutsch - Wood (b) ' Quasi -Conti ct +City.=Entp oy a °: #= Memorandum from City 'Manager-='Gregory``T. Meyer dated March 22, 1984. Councilman Wood stressed his concern regarding City responsibility for these quasi -contract City employees and stated that they should be employeed under the City umbrella. He felt that a standard contract should be drawn up to put these relationships on a contractual basis. City Attorney Post felt that some further policy direction would be of value. If you have people on the payroll, you can be assured that the taxes are paid through withholding. They are employees if they are recipients of City benefits. You have no guarantee that people being paid by the City are in fact contract people rather than employees. ACTION - (1) To investigate the subject areas (quasi - contract City employees), particularly as they relate to the downside of the liability; (2) to review the benefits and disadvantages of the contractor relationship with the City; and (3) the City Attorney to investigate and bring back appropriate language and subject matter that might be included in a contract that contractors would sign with the City, to be returned to Council on 4-24-84. Motion Schmeltzer, second Mayor Brutsch AYES - Schmeltzer, Webber, Wood, Mayor Brutsch NOES - Barks (c) City Council Compensation. Letter from George Barks, Councilman dated March 23, 1984. ACTION - e"xbene Ove available to them the au omatic health, denta 'Vision and :.life insurance program that the Management Group has, -that it cover only the elected official, that it be paid for entirely by the City and that the elected official be automatically enrolled unless he otherwise declines, to be effective April 1, 1984. Motion Schmeltzer, second Brutsch AYES - Barks, Schmeltzer, Webber, Wood, Mayor Brutsch NOES - None -10- Minutes 3-27-84 4. HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS AND EMPLOYEE RATES =V. MEDICAL MGT. & COVERAGE PREMIUM GEN. EMPS. FIRE ELECTED POLICE RETIRED PacifiCare Emp. Only $ 94.25 City Paid 94.25 City Paid City Paid 94.25 Emp. + 1 Dep. 185.10 City Paid 185.10 90.85 19.22 185.10 Emp. + 2/more 273.17 88.07 273.17 178.92 36.33 273.17 Blue Shield Preferred Emp. Only $ 88.90 Emp. + .1 Dep 185.10 Emp. + 2/more 255.73 Oral Health Services Emp. Only $ 13.10 Emp. + 1 Dep 18.82 Emp. + 2/more 23.90 George Washington Dental Emp. Only $ 14.58 Emp. + 1 Dep 37.68 Emp. + 2/More 37.68 City Paid City Paid 70.63 City Paid City Paid City Paid City City City Paid Paid paid 88.90 185.10 255.73 DENTAL City Paid 96.20 166.83 City Paid 19.24 33.37 13.10 City Paid City Paid 18.82 5.72 1.15 23.90 10.80 2.16 14.58 37.68 , 37.68 City Paid 23.10 23.10 VISION INSURANCE Medical Eye Services Corporation Emp. Only $ 4.70 Emp. + 1 Dep 9.55 Emp. + 2/More 12.20 Management City Paid City Paid City Paid City Paid 4.62 4.62 88.90 185.10 255.73 13.10 18.82 23.90 14.58 37.68 37.68 Elected All Others City Paid . 4.70 4.85 9.55 7.50 12.20 PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH California Wellness Plan - $6.00/month City paid coverage for General, Management, Fire and Elected. Optional coverage for Police. LIFE INSURANCE nom.: Transamerica Occidental $40,000 Available to City Manager, Management and Elected - City Paid Manhattan Life (For PacifiCare enrollees only) $ 7,500 Fire City Paid 9,500 Police City Paid 12,000 Management, General & Elected City Paid New England Life $10,000 City Manager Same as Manhattan Life for employees enrolled in Blue Shield Preferred Plan City Paid City Paid Myers/Stevens Life $20,000 Fire City Paid LONG TERM DISABILITY Canada Life LTD $1,500 Max benefit - Police City Paid 1,500 Max benefit - General City Paid 3,000 Max benefit - Management City Paid Myers/Stevens LTD $1,200 Max benefit - Fire City Paid 2 June 1, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council n,,,n,_fj,`' City Council Meeting of June 9, 1987 GENERAL REVENUE SHARING Recommendation It is recommended that General Revenue Sharing funds in the amount of $75,000 be allocated for 87/88 fiscal year as follows: • Capital Outlay: Police Department $44,165 • • Capital Outlay: Fire Department 430,835 Baekground- `t General Revenue Sharing is an allocation received from the Federal Government that can be used by cities for any purpose. A requirement for the funding is that a Public Hearing must be set for the public to have the opportunity to voice comments on the proposed expenditures. Analysis Capital Outlay: Police Department $44,165. For fiscal year 1987/88 the Police Department has requested funding for computer equipment, safety equipment, office furniture, police car radios and miscellaneous police car equipment. Capital Outlay: Fire Department $30,835. For fiscal year 1987/88 the Fire Department has requested funding for computer equipment, safety equipment and new fire hose. The above listed items are consistent with the City Manager recommended budget for 87/88. Concur: 74441=----- eyGre ory6T. Mer Ci Manager Manager 1 Respectfully submitted Alana M. Mastrian Assistant City Manager Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator 4 �t May 27, 1987 HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of Regular Meeting of the HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL June 9, 1987 CONFIRMATION OF FY 87-88 STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENTS Recommendation It is recommended that City Council adopt Resolution 87 - resolution of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, confirming diagram and assessment and levying assessment for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 1987. Background a On April 28, 1987, City Council adopted Resolution 87-5031 which set 8:00 p.m. on June 9, 1987 as the time and date for a public hearing in order to accept public input on this matter. Analysis A notice for this public hearing was printed in the May 28, 1987 edition of the Easy Reader. Adoption of the attached resolution provides the funds necessary to continue operation of the City's street lighting system. The assessment provides for the payment of all costs related to street lighting operation, maintenance and administration. The FY 87-88 assessment is $397,647.31 which represents a $6,092 decrease from FY 86-87. Mr. Patrick Rossetti, the City's Assessment Engineer, will be present at the June 9, 1987 meeting to answer questions about the assessment. Alternatives Other alternatives considered by staff and available to City Council are: 1) Let the district lapse; thereby, causing an increased general fund obligation of $397,647.31. Res.ectfully submitted lam' `��Lr�-c�eJ►�4 L tln Stevens Administrative Aide NOTED FOR FISCAL IMPACT: 0:LCCII Viki Copeland Finance Administrator Attachments: Estimate of Cost FY 87-88 Resolution No. 87- 1 An ony Antich Director of Pubic Works L illt.� c Greg ry City Manage STREET LIGHTING 3 YEARS ASSESSMENT FUND BALANCE FY AMOUNT 85-86 $387,779 $1,309,873* 86-87 $403,739 $1,111,467** 87-88 $397,647 $1,027,260** * Actual ** Estimated 2 HERMOSA BEACH STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 1987-1988 ESTIMATE OF COST FY1987-1988 1. Estimate of Cost: Energy and Edison Maint. Cal -Trans Agree. for PCH Lights 2. Incidental Expenses: Public Works Personnel Cost City Manager Expense City Council Expense Finance Department Expense Legal Expense City Clerk Expense Assessment Engineering Services L.A. Co. Collections of Assess- ments $190,000 6,000 Subtotal: $196,000 $103,576 12,500 4,000 18,000 5,000 5,000 15,530 2.000 Subtotal: $165,606 $ 70,800 3. Operating Expenses of Equipment and Data Support Services: 4. Capital Improvement Reserve Fund: CIP 85-102 Highland Lights $ 5,000 CIP 85-201 Light Conver./Install. 55,000 CIP 85-202 Hermosa Ave. Lighting 115,500 CIP 85-203 Pier Lighting Repair 13,200 Subtotal: $188,700 Total: $621,106 Contingency Reserve: 62,111 Grand Total for Street Lighting Dist. NO. 87-88 $683,217 Less Contribution from Fund Balance $<285,569.69> NET ASSESSMENT for FY1987-88 $397,647.31 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (A) RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT AND LEVYING ASSESSMENT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JULY 1, 1987. HERMOSA BEACH STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 1987-1988 WHEREAS, in proceedings under the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" (commencing with Section 22500, Streets and Highways Code), the City Council adopted Resolution No. 87-5017 ordering the Director of Public Works to prepare and file the report required by said Act for the proposed levy of an annual assessment for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 1987, and pursuant thereto such report has been prepared and filed with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted its Resolution No. 87-5030, approving the report as filed pursuant to Resolution No. 87-5016, ordering said report; and WHEREAS, The City Council adopted its Resolution of Intention No. 87-5031 declaring its intention to order certain street lighting fixtures and appurtenances to be installed, maintained and electric current to be furnished for lighting said fixtures for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1987 and appointing a time and place for hearing protests relative thereto; and WHEREAS, the hearing was duly held at the time and place fixed therefor and all interested persons desiring to hear and be ///// ///// 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 heard, either orally or in writing, were afforded the opportunity to hear and be heard on the report of the Director of Public Works, the Diagram and Assessment contained therein, or in any way relating to the report and the proceedings. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council has considered all oral and written protests made or filed by any interested persons, and except to the extent of any changes ordered by the City Council, each and all such protests are overruled and denied. SECTION 2. The Assessment and Diagram are hereby confirmed. The adoption of this resolution constitutes the levy of an assissment for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 1987, as referred to in the Assessment. SECTION 3. The City Clerk is directed to file a certified copy of this resolution and of the Diagram and Assessment referred to herein with the County Auditor of the County of Los Angeles. Thereupon, the County Auditor shall provide for the collection of the assessments at the time and in the manner provided in the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972". SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution; shall cause the same to be entered in the book of original resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council of said City in the minutes ///// /1/1/ - 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of the meeting at which the same is passed and adopted. SECTION 5. That this resolution shall take effect immediately. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of 1987. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 3 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council May 30, 1987 City Council Meeting of June 9, 1987 ADOPTION OF THE 1985 EDITIONS OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, UNIFORM BUILDING CODE STANDARDS, UNIFORM HOUSING CODE, UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE AND THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council waive further reading and introduce the attached ordinance for adoption. ANALYSIS The adoption of the referenced codes will update the City's building regulations to be in conformance with state law. As a general law city, Hermosa Beach is required to enforce the codes adopted by the state, although amendments for administration and local conditions can be made. The State of California has adopted the 1985 editions of the various uniform codes creating a deadline for local adoption of July 31, 1987. Should the City not take any action to adopt the 1985 codes (with amendments), the codes as adopted by the state would be governing regulations as of July 31, 1987. The National Electric Code is on a different three year cycle than the "Uniform Codes". Adoption of the 1987 edition will be proposed later this year. The revisions to the uniform codes from the 1982 editions are largely editorial and technical in nature. Examples of building code revisions include the following: 1) Complete revision to the standards for masonry construction to more nearly reflect the state of the art. 2) Revision to allow one exit for sundecks less than 500 sq. ft. in area on the roof of a two story single family dwelling where two exits were previously required. 3) Stairway dimensions, other than private stairways, have been revised to require a maximum rise of 7 inches and a minimum run (tread) of 11 inches. Previously the rise could be 7 1/2 inches and the run could be 10 inches. Research indicates that the new stair geometry will result in safer stairs. 4) Minimum stairway width has been increased from 30 inches to 36 inches. Detailed changes to the uniform codes from the 1982 editions may be determined by reviewing the 72 page document entitled "1985 - 1 - Analysis of Revisions to the Uniform Building Code (andrelated codes)" published by the International Conference of Building Officials on file in the City Clerks office. Concur: Greg•ry City Manager er Respectfully submitted, William Grove Director, Bldg. & Safety 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 87- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 7, ARTICLES I, II, III, IV AND CHAPTER 24 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO BUILDING AND PLUMBING REGULATIONS AND ADOPTING WITH CERTAIN ADDITIONS, DELETIONS AND AMENDMENTS, WHICH ARE SET FORTH HEREIN, THE RULES, REGULATIONS, PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THOSE CERTAIN CODES ENTITLED, "UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1985 EDITION", "UNIFORM BUILDING CODE STANDARDS, 1985 EDITION", "UNIFORM HOUSING CODE, 1985 EDITION", AND "UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, 1985 EDITION", PROMULGATED AND PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS AND THE "UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, 1985 EDITION" AND "UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE, 1985 EDITION" PROMULGATED AND PUBLISHED JOINTLY BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS AND THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL OFFICIALS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Chapter 7, Article I of the City Code of the City of Hermosa Beach is hereby amended to read as follows: "Sec. 7-1 Adoption of Uniform Building Code and Standards. Pursuant to the provisions of the Government Code of the State of California, those certain codes designated as the "Uniform Building Code, 1985 Edition" including appendix excepting chapters 12 and 53 of said appendix and the "Uniform Building Code Standards, 1985 Edition" published by the International Conference of Building Officials one (1) copy of which is on file in the office of the city clerk for public record and inspection, are hereby adopted by reference and made a part of this chapter as though set forth in this chapter in full, subject, however, to the amendments, additions and deletions set forth in this chapter and said codes shall comprise the building code for the city of Hermosa Beach. Whenever the word "jurisdiction" appears in said codes, it shall mean and refer to the City of Hermosa Beach. 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 Whenever the term "building official" appears in said building code it shall mean and refer to the director of building and safety of the City of Hermosa Beach." Section 2. That Section 7-1.4 "Security" is hereby amended, in part as follows: "Section 7102. Scope. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to Group A, B, E, H, I , M and R occupancies. Exception. The requirements shall not apply to Group M occupancies having no openings to an attached building or which are completely detached." Section 7109 Doors - Swinging. Exception (1) is hereby deleted. Section 7114. Lights - Material. Lights within forty (40) inches of a required locking device on a door when in the closed and locked position and openable from the inside without the use of a key, and lights with a least dimension greater than six (6) inches but less than forty-eight (48) inches in B Occupancies, shall be fully tempered glass, approved burglary -resistant material, or guarded by metal bars, screens or grilles in an approved manner. Section 7115. Lights - Locking Devices. (a) Sliding glass windows shall be provided with locking devices that, when subjected to the tests specified in section 7107, remain intact and engaged. Movable panels shall not be rendered easily openable or removable from the frame during or after the tests. (b) Other openable windows shall be provided with substantial locking devices which render the building as secure as the devices required by this section. In Group B Occupancies, such devices shall be a glide bar, bolt, crossbar and/or padlock with hardened steel shackle. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (c) Special: Louvered windows, except those above the first story, in Group R Occupancies which cannot be reached without a ladder shall be of material or guarded as specified in section 7114 and individual panes shall be securely fastened by mechanical fasteners requiring a tool for removal and not accessible from the outside when the window is in the closed position. Section 3. That Section 7-1.10 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 3401 of said building code is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 3401. All skylight frames shall be constructed of noncombustible materials. All skylights shall be designed to carry all tributary roof loads as specified in Section 2305. Skylights, the glazing of which is set at an angle of less than 45 degrees from the horizontal, shall be mounted at least 4 inches above the plane of the roof on a curb constructed as required for the frame. Spacing between supports in one direction for flat wired glass in skylights shall not exceed 25 inches. Corrugated wired glass may have supports 5 feet apart in the direction of the corrugation. Section 4. That Section 7-2 "Adoption of Uniform Housing Code; definition" is hereby amended to read as follows: "That certain code designated as the "Uniform Housing Code, 1985 Edition," published by the International Conference of Building Officials, one copy of which is on file in the office of the city clerk for public record and inspection, is hereby adopted by reference and made a part of this chapter as though set forth in this chapter in full, subject, however, to the - 3 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 amendments, additions and deletions set forth in this chapter, and said code shall be known as the housing code of this city. Whenever the term "jurisdiction" appears in said code it shall mean and refer to the City of Hermosa Beach. Whenever the term "building official" appears in said code, it shall mean and refer to the director of building and safety of the City of Hermosa Beach." Section 5. That Section 7-3 "Adoption of Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings; definitions." is hereby amended to read as follows: "That certain code designated as the "Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, 1985 Edition," published by the International Conference of Building Officials, one (1) copy of which is on file in the office of the city clerk for public record and inspection, is hereby adopted by reference and made a part of this chapter as though set forth in this chapter in full, subject, however, to the amendments, additions and deletions set forth in this chapter, and said code shall be known as the abatement of dangerous buildings code of this city. Whenever the term "jurisdiction" appears in said code it shall mean and refer to the City of Hermosa Beach. Whenever the term "building official" appears in said code it shall mean and refer to the director of building and safety of the City of Hermosa Beach." Section 6. That Section 7-4 "Adoption of Uniform Mechanical Code; definition" is hereby amended to read as follows: "That certain code designated as the "Uniform Mechanical Code, 1985 Edition," including "Appendices A, B and C" contained therein, published jointly by the International Association of - 4 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plumbing and Mechanical Officials and the International Conference of Building Officials, one (1) copy of which is file in the office of the city clerk for the public inspection, is hereby adopted by reference and made this chapter as though set forth in this chapter in subject, however, to the amendments, additions, and forth in this chapter, and said code shall be known mechanical code of the City of Hermosa Beach. Whenever the word "jurisdiction" appears in said code or is otherwise used, it shall mean and refer to the City of Hermosa on record and a part of full, deletions set as the Beach. Whenever the term "building official" appears in code it shall mean and refer to the director of building said and safety of the City of Hermosa Beach. Section 7. That Section 7-4.3 is hereby added to read as follows: Section 7-4.3 Mechanical Permit Fees Sections hereby amended to "Section 304(b) and 304 (c) of said mechanical code are read as follows: 304 (b) Permit Fees. The fee for each permit shall be as set forth in the most recent executive order issued pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 2, Article XII of the City Code. Section 304(c) Plan Review Fees. When a plan or other data are required to be submitted by subsection (b) of Section 302, a plan review fee shall be paid at the time of submitting plans and specifications for review. Said plan review fee shall be fifty (50) per cent of the mechanical permit fee." Section 8. That Section 24-1 "Adoption of Uniform Plumbing Code" is hereby amended to read as follows: "That certain code entitled "Uniform Plumbing Code, 1985 5 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 Edition" including the Installation Standards therein contained, promulgated and published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, one copy of which is on file in the office of the city clerk for public record and inspection, is hereby adopted by reference and made a part of this chapter as though set forth in this chapter in full, subject however, to the amendments, additions and deletions set forth in this chapter, and said code shall be known as the plumbing code of the City of Hermosa Beach. Whenever the word "jurisdiction" appears in said code or is otherwise used, it shall mean and refer to the City of Hermosa Beach. Whenever the term "administrative authority" appears in said code it shall mean and refer to the director of building and safety of the City of Hermosa Beach. Section 9. That Section 24-2 "Violations and Penalties." is hereby amended to read as follows: "The Uniform Plumbing Code contains language on violation and penalties, and it leaves blanks for cities to insert the amount of fine and imprisonment. Where such blanks are left to the cities, the City of Hermosa Beach hereby inserts five hundred dollars ($500.00) for the maximum fine and six (6) months for the maximum imprisonment. For example, in Section 20.3 of the 1985 Uniform Plumbing Code, insert "five hundred dollars ($500.00)" in the space provided on line three, insert "City or the County" in the space provided on line 4, and insert "six (6)" in the space provided on line 5. Section 10. That Section 24-2.6 Plans required." shall be amended to read as follows: "Section 306 of said plumbing code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Section 306. Plans required. The building official may require the submission of plans, specifications, drawings, schematics and/or other information as he may deem necessary prior to commencement of, and at any time during the progress of, any work regulated by this code. The issuance of a permit upon plans and specifications or from preventing construction operations being carried on thereunder when in violation of this code or of any other pertinent ordinance or from revoking any certificate of approval when issued in error. Any plumbing system of one hundred eighty (180) fixture units or greater for DWV shall be presented for plan check as acomplete engineered plumbing system. A schematic diagram of the plumbing system shall be provided for all R occupancies as defined by the Building Code of three units or more, to be presented to the building official or assistant no later than the first called inspection under permit. When a plan is required and the building official so requests, a plan -checking fee shall be paid to the building department at the time of submitting plans and specifications for checking. Said plan -checking fee shall be equal to one-half of the plumbing fee. Section 11. Effective Date. That this ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption. Section 12. Publication. That the City Council does hereby designate the City Attorney to prepare a summary of this ordinance to be published pursuant to Government Code Section 36933(c) (1) in lieu of the full text of said ordinance. That prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause the summary to be - 7 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 20 21 22( 23 24 25 26 27 28 published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach. Section 13. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance; shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city; shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE DAY OF 1987. PRESIDENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTORNEY 8 N - June 1, 1987 Honorable Mayor and City Council Meeting Members of the City Council June 9, 1987 BFI REFUSE RATE INCREASE REQUEST RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving a 10.2% increase in refuse.rates. BACKGROUND The City's refuse contract with Browning-Ferris Industries re- quires an annual adjustment of the refuse collection fee "... by an amount up to the percentage rate as reflected in the Consumer Price Index (Transportation Group) Los Angeles -Long Beach area as published in April of each year by the U.S. Depart- ment of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics ("CPI"), not to exceed ten percent (10%) annually, with such adjustments to be effective July 1 of each year...In addition to the above, CONTRACTOR may petition the CITY at any time for additional rate and price ad- justments at reasonable times on the basis of unusual changes in the cost of operations, such as revised laws, ordinances, or reg- ulation; changes in location of disposal sites or changes in dis- posal charges; and for other reasons." ANALYSIS BFI has submitted documentation indicating the CPI (Transporta- tion Group) increase for the past year is 3.6%. In addition, BFI is requesting an additional 6% increase due to significant increases in landfill rates charged by the Los An- geles County Sanitation Districts which will be effective July 1 1987. Rates for the Puente Hills landfill are increasing from $7.00 per ton to $9.50 per ton or a 367 increase. Rates for the Scholl Canyon landfill are increasing from $8.50 per ton to $12.00 per ton or a 41% increase. Transfer station rates are in- creasing by 21%. BFI has determined that they can minimize the disposal rate in- crease impact to 30% utilizing internal control measures. Pur- suant to Appendix "A" of the BFI request, a 30% increase in dis- posal charges can be accomodated by a 6% rate increase. The 6% increase must be further increased to 6.67 to account for the city's 10% franchise fee. The total rate increase proposed is 10.2% (3.6% + 6.6%). A survey of surrounding cities (attached) evea that, although service levels vary, the proposed rate o $6.94 or a single dwelling unit would be the lowest rate in ISouth Bay. Commer- cial rates vary considerably and not all cities have an exclusive franchise for commercial collection; however a "benchmark" rate for a 3 yard container picked up once a week compares favorably to other South Bay cities. 1 11 ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve the 3.6% CPI increase and negotiate for the remainder of the increase request. Concur: G : ory /T lleTer Cit, Manager Respectfully submitted, William Grove Director, Bldg. & Safety 2 NOTED FOR FISCAL IMPACT: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator 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 cV SOLUTION NO.87 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A 10.2% REFUSE RATE INCREASE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1987. WHEREAS, the City Council entered into an agreement with Browning-Ferris Industries on March 11, 1986 to provide refuse service; and WHEREAS, said agreement provides for annual rate adjustments in accordance with the consumer price index, transportation group, for the Los Angeles -Long Beach area: and WHEREAS, said agreement provides for additional adjustments due to changes in disposal locations or disposal charges; and WHEREAS, the consumer price index, transportation group, for the Los Angeles -Long Beach area increased 3.67 during the past year; and WHEREAS, the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County approved landfill disposal charge increases of 36% to 417 to be effective July 1, 1987. NOW, THEREFOR, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY APPROVE A 10.27 REFUSE RATE INCREASE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1987 AS EVIDENCED BY THE ATTACHED EXHIBITS "A" AND "B". PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 9th day of June, 1987. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS s' FORM: CITY CLERK ITY ATTORNEY Waste Systems�� BROWNING -FERRIS INDUSTRIES Gardena Dslr ct EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Schedule of Rates for Trash Removal Service Commercial, Professional, Industrial Firms and Apartment Complexes July 1987 YARDS 1/WK 2/WK 3/WK 4/WK 5/WK 6/WK 7/WK 1 YD 36.76 55.17 73.56 91.97 110.21 128.72 150.61 1.5 YD 40.86 61.29 81.71 102.41 122.60 164.10 191.99 2 YD 49.06 75.64 102.19 128.72 151.24:= 173.72 203.25 3 YD 57.18 87.85 118.53 149.17 179.80 210.43 246.21 4 YD 68.62 105.44 159.17 179.25 215.79 252.56 295.50 6 YD 85.80 131.79 177.82 223.78 269.73 315.69 369.37 ROLL -OFF RATE $30.00 delivery fee $129.50 per load plus disposal fee RESIDENTIAL RATE $6.94 per single family dwelling 14905 S. SAN PEDRO ST. • P.O. BOX 2438 • GARDENA. CALIFORNIA 90247 • (213) 329 4115 EXHIBIT "B" SHARED -BIN USER RATES - VPD NAME ADDRESS SQ. FT. CURRENT RATE X 10.2% INCREASE = PROPOSED RATE Bamboo Hut 36 Pier Ave. 1672 $54.44 $59.99 Bank of America 90 Pier Ave. 5970 $64.83 $71.44 Coast Drugs 58 Pier Ave. 2640 $28.67 $31.59 Diana's Mexican Food 4 Pier Ave. 1890 $61.58 $67.86 The End Zone 22 Pier Ave. 2790 $90.90 $100.17 Hennessy's Tavern 8 Pier Ave. 800 $26.06 $28.72 Hermosa Fish Mkt. Cafe 20 Pier Ave. 1200 $39.40 = $43.42 Hermosa Hotel 26 Pier 5580 $60.00 $66.12 Lighthouse Cafe 30 Pier Ave. 2697 $87.87 $96.83 Pier Market 50 Pier Ave. 1628 $53.04 $58.45 Pier 52 52 Pier Ave. 2640 $86.91 $94.67 Robert's Liquor 74 Pier Ave. 2850 $30.90 $34.05 Shirt Tales 34 Pier Ave. 880 $9.56 $10.54 Sunrise Restaurant 68 Pier Ave. 2640 $86.01 $94.78 Sushi Sei 50 Pier Ave. 2816 $91.75 $101.11 Avanti Jewelers 31 Pier Ave. 1000 $10.86 $11.97 The Beach Store 59 Pier Ave. 2100 $22.81 $25.14 Bey Company 1233 Hermosa Ave. 1015 $11.02 $12.14 Bijou Cinema 1233 Hermosa Ave. 10542 $74.49 $82.09 Cantina Real 19 Pier Ave. 1750 $57.02 $62.84 Casablanca 53 Pier Ave. 1848 $69.98 $77.12 Harbor B. 1235 Hermosa Ave. 2318 $25.07 $27.63 Hermosa Cyclery 20 13th St. 1805 $19.50 $21.49 Shared -Bin User Rates page 2 NAME ADDRESS SQ. FT. CURRENT RATE X 10.2% INCREASE = PROPOSED RATE Hermosa Gifts 65 Pier Ave. 2240 $24.33 Hermosa Sporting Goods 25 Pier Ave. 600 $ 6.52 Hermosa Tackle Box 21 Pier Ave. 750 $ 8.14 Ilboccaccio 39 Pier Ave. 2730 $88.94 Jeanne's 73 Pier Ave. 2030 $22.05 Lovy & Dovy 49 Pier Ave. 1064 $11.56 Mermaid Resturant 11 Pier Ave. 4800 $107.56 Michael J. Video 1233 Hermosa Ave. 323 $ 3.56 Paradise Sushi 53 Pier Ave. 1044 $34.01 Sears Saving Bank 81 Pier Ave. 3372 $36.60 Shear Art 49 Pier Ave. 1092 $11.86 Sugar Babies 53 Pier Ave. 1092 $11.76 West Bay 30 13th St. 3375 $36.60 Good Stuff 1228 Strand 1624 $67.90 Jeffer's 1338 Strand 312 $3.39 La Playita 16 14th St. 1596 $81.19 Pacific Strand 1328 Strand 1056 $11.40 Perry's Pizza 1318 Strand 3800 $58.24 Poop Deck 1272 Strand 1333 $61.15 $26.81 $ 7.19 $ 8.97 $98.01 $24.30 $12.74 $118.53, $3.92 $37.48 $40.33 $13.07 $12.96 $40.33 $74.83 $3.74 $89.47 $12.56 $64.18 $67.39 Waste Systems - BROWNING -FERRIS INDUSTRIES Gardena District May 27, 1987 Gregory Meyer, City Manager City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Dear Greg: We have just received notification of enormous increases at both Puente Hills landfill and Scholl Canyon landfill. Puente Hills landfill increased from $7.00 per ton to $9.50 per ton or a 36% increase. Scholl Canyon raised their rates from $8.50 per ton to $12.00 per ton for an increase of 41%. Currently, disposal costs for Hermosa Beach are running at=an average of $15,089.42 per month. These numbers were based on a ten month average from July 1, 1986, through April 30, 1987. The residential portion of the disposal number is $5,982.71 and the commercial disposal amounts to $9,106.71. Through utilizing internal control measures, we can minimize the disposal rate increase impact to 30%. The 30% increase in disposal costs equals $4,526.83 per month plus a 10% City franchise fee of $452.68 which totals $4,979.51 in increased disposal rates. In addition, the Los Angeles/Long Beach Consumer Price Index (Transportation Group) ending April 30, 1987, amounted to a 3.6% increase. Again, we have taken some internal measures to hold costs at a minimal increased level. Therefore, we feel the requested 6% adjustment for disposal increases and 3.6% for increased operating costs is minimal considering the increases we are facing. Attached you will find cost analysis and affect for disposal in Appendix A and the CPI affect in Appendix B. There is a new proposed rate schedule attached in Appendix C. We are very proud that we are able to minimize the impact of these increases to you. We will continue working diligently to provide you with the highest quality service at the lowest rates in the South Bay. Best regards, Charles Leo and District Manager CL/ts enclosures (3) 14905 S. SAN PEDRO ST. • P.O. BOX 2438 • GARDENA, CALIFORNIA 90247 • (213) 329-4115 APPENDIX A DISPOSAL COST ADJUSTMENT (All numbers based in 10 month average July 1, 1986, through April 30th, 1987) CURRENT RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL TOTAL 1. A. Avg. Monthly Gross Revenue $37,924.90 $45,345.80 = $83,270.70 B. Avg. Monthly Disposal $ 5,982.71 $ 9,106.71 = $15,089.42 C. Net Revenue $31,942.19 $36,239.09 = $68,181.28 2. Current Monthly Disposal Cost 30% Disposal Increase New Monthly Disposal Cost Increased Monthly Disposal Cost 3. Total Current Gross Revenue Disposal Increase 10% Franchise Fee Proposed Gross Revenue 4. Proposed Gross Revenue With Disposal Increase New Monthly Disposal Cost Proposed Net Revenue 5. Proposed Gross Revenue Current Gross Revenue 6. Proposed 6% Disposal Cost Adjustment $15,089.42 x 1.30 $19,616.25 $ 4,526.83 $83,270.70 $ 4,526.83 $ 452.68 $88,250.21 $88,250.21 $19,616.25 $68,633.96 $88,250.21 $83,270.70 1.0598 APPENDIX B COMBINED DISPOSAL AND CPI COST ADJUSTMENT 1. *Proposed Gross Revenue with Disposal Increase CPI (Los Angeles/Long Beach) Adjustment Total Proposed Gross Revenue 2. Total Proposed Gross Revenue *Proposed Gross Revenue with Disposal Increase Additional Revenue (CPI Adjustment) 3. Additional Revenue (above) City Franchise Tax on CPI Adjustment 4. Proposed Gross Revenue with Disposal Increase Increase Related to CPI Adjustment 5. Total Increase % in Gross Revenue: Total Proposed Gross Total Current *from Appendix A $88,250.21 x 1.036 $91,427.22 $91,427.22 $88,250.21 $ 3,177.01 $ 3,177.01 $ 317.70 $ 3,494.71 (1) $88,250.21 $ 3,494.71 (1) $91,744.92 $91,744.92 $83,270.21 $ 8,474.71 or 10.2 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY SCHEDULE OF NEW RATES FOR SOLID WASTE .lij RANSFER AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES �J VC��v ° 6!r:1 EFFECTIVE July 1, 1987 ,�+ 1 v SPADRA LANDFILL, Pomona Refuse $ 9.50/ton Solid Inert Material 9.50/ton Hard -to -Handle Bulky Items 13.50/ton Minimum Charge 9.50 per load Pull -Offs 13.50 each Non -Hazardous Liquids Bulk 35.00/ton Containers 30.00 each Washouts 35.00 each PUENTE HILLS LANDFILL, Whittier Refuse $ 9.50/ton Solid Inert Material 9.50/ton Hard -to -Handle Bulky Items 13.50/ton Minimum Charge 9.50 per load Pull -Offs 13.50 each Non -Hazardous Liquids Bulk 35.00/ton Containers 30.00 each Washouts 35.00 each SOUTH GATE TRANSFER STATION, South Gate Refuse $20.00/ton Hard -to -Handle Bulky Items 25.00/ton Minimum Charge 10.50 per load SCHOLL CANYON LANDFILL, Glendale Refuse $12.00/ton Solid Inert Material 12.00/ton Hard -to -Handle Bulky Items 16.00/ton Minimum Charge 12.00 per load Pull -Offs 16.00 each CALABASAS LANDFILL, Agoura Refuse $13.00/ton Solid Inert Material 13.00/ton Hard-to-Handle,Bulky Items 17.00/ton Minimum Charge 13.00 per load Pull -Offs 17.00 each 1,;;01 Uncovered Loads Capable of $3.00/ton surcharge; Producing Litter -A11 Sites $3.00 minimum. LL v r�gaa "i i,•.i.u, ,u..0„•i a, i..i!tt. Ilbi-lip unle,a nth.•r•siy,- noted) Feb. 1987 Expenditure category Expenditure category Expenditure category Published indexes Mar. 19)37 Percent chance to Apr. 1987 fr.m- Apr. Apr. Feb. 1981 1986 ,1987 Mar. 1987 Transportation 330.8 333.5 335.5 3.6 1.4 0.6 Private transportation 330.4 332.8 334.5 3.8 ` 1.2 .5 Motor fuel t2/ 148.1 151.9 154.2 .6 4.1 1.5 Gasoline 2/ 148.4 152.2 154.8 1.0 4.3 1.7 Gasoline, leaded regular 4/ 164.6 168.9 173.0 2.9 5.1 2.4 Gasoline, unleaded regular 4/ 169.1 173.4 175.9 .1 4.0 1.4 I,t Gasoline, unleaded premium 5/ 76.8 78.5 79.4 -.3 3.4 1.1 Public transportation 344.5 350.3 354.5 2.9 2.9 1.2 Medical care 482.3 483.7 485.7 7.3 .7 .4 Entertainment 235.5 235.1 237.3 2.5 .8 .9 Other goods and services 341.2 341.7 342.7 3.3 .4 Personal care 292.6 291.0 293.6 2.0. .39 .9 Commodity and service group Commodity and service group Commodity and service group All items 338.8 341.4 342.8 4.9 1.2 .4 Commodities 274.7 277.3 276.7 3.5 .7 -.2 Food and beverages 319.2 316.7 317.0 4.8 -.7 .1 Commodities less food and beverages 249.8 255.3 254.1 2.5 1.7 -.5 ) Nondurables less fond and bevtragea 253.0 259.7 258.7 3.1 2.3 -.4 Durables 251.7 255.5 254.1 1.6 1.0 -.5 Services 435.9 438.5 442.3 6.1 1.5 .9 Medical care services 516.4 517.6 519.3 7.7 .6 .3 Special indexes Special indexes Special indexes l All items less shelter 306.0 307.9 308.1 3.9 .7 .1 All items less medical care 331.1 333.7 335.1 4.7 1.2 .4 All items less energy 6/ 185.1 186.5 187.1 5.4 1.1 _ .3 Energy 2/ - 169.4 171.0 173.7 .3 2.5 1.6 Commodities leas food 248.8 253.8 253.1 2.5 1.7 -.3 Nondurables less food 249.8 255.6 255.3 3.1 2.2 -.1 Nondurables 287.5 289.7 289.3 4.1 .6 -.1 Services less rent of shelter 1/ 125.8126.0 126.6 4.9 .6 .5 Services less medical care 424.6 427.3 431.2 5.9 1.6 .9 CITY REFUSE COLLECTION SURVEY Large 3 yd. Est. Monthly P/U Item Comm. bin- 7/1/87 Fee weekly P/U Franchise 1/week fee Redondo Beach $7.15 1 weekly no $7.15 + summer cleanup Gardena $6.85 1 1/year no $7.12 Carson $9.48 2 2/year no unknown Torrance $8.00 1 1/year no unknown Lawndale $7.85 2 weekly no $52.00 $8.25 Manhattan Beach $7.14 1 1/month yes $51.43 $7.50/ $54.00 (comm.) Hawthorne $8.40 1 2/year yes $86.25 $8.70 $89.25 (comm.) Hermosa Beach $6.30 1 1/month yes $51.89 $6.94 $57.18 (per request) I` Honorable Mayor and membef's of the Hermosa Beach City Cou• • June 3, 1987 City Council Meeting of June 9, 1987 e4 ESTABL H G IN -LIEU SEWER CONNECTION FEE FOR HERI4O'S" PAVIILI N AND OTHER SUCH COMMERCIAL PROJECTS RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the 3q 1 City Council: Q, 5/6 qint 1 (T) Establish the "pro -rata" share of sewer improvement to be borne by the Pavilion developer, and t2 Direct staff, as a matter of policy, to apply this same reasoning to all other such projects (developments subject to environmental assessment wherein the determination is a sewer fee rather than construction of sewer lines) which will receive a Building Permit prior to enactment of a new Sewer Connection Ordinance. The City Manager recommends that the "pro -rata" share be set at 15% of the full replacement cost ($ 3,605.90/single family equivalent). BACKGROUND This matter was originally heard on May 12 ( see attached Back- ground Materials). The matter was continued to allow both the developer and the City to further study data. ANALYSIS During the Environnmental Assessment on this project there was a determination re sewers. It was as follows (Exhibit A of En- vironmental Impact and Proposed Mitigation Measures regarding the Hermosa Ocean Center, June 12, 1986, p 22): The City of Hermosa is currently completing a major renovation of the sewer lines serving the project site. The Department of Public Works bas determined that sufficient capacity will be in place prior to the opening of the project. The project shall pay its pro - rata share of such improvements, as determined by the Public Works Department. 1 is In other words, the sewer line directly in front of the project was adequate and not in need of replacement at this time hence the developer was not required to construct any off-site sewer lines (like was done for the 446 Monterey project). However, the developer was required to make a "fair share" contribution toward renovation costs. On the basis of the "full cost" calculation formula enacted by the City Council on March 24, 1987, the Public Works Director advised the developer on March 31 that the sewer connection fee would be $ 451,411.52. Subsequently that number was modified to $ 422,611.47. Those numbers are predicated on the entire cost of the 30 year sewer replacement being paid for at the time of the project's occupancy. Additionally, the tenants will, over the next 30 years pay into the UUT an amount roughly equivalent to that same cost. Hence there is the high likelihood that the combination of development monies and pay as you go would far exceed their fair share. Other projects (mostly condominuiums) are also in need of clarification as to what sewer connection fees shall be col- lected. How best to handle this? Staff suggests that rather than 0 or 100%, these developments should pay some. Overall how much will sewer impacted growth add to our system? While a pre- cise number is not known, it would be reasonable to say that over 30 years the impact will be somewhere between 1070 and 257. It won't be zero and, based on lack of vacant land, rigid develop- ment standards/density requirements, the number shouldn't be substantial. The current fixture count sewer connection fee results in minimal monies (see the table described in item 10 of this agenda). In the case of the Pavilion it would result in about S13,000. Presuming that the City "transitions" from the current fixture count basis to the full cost assumption (formula 5) it then seems "fair" to require those projects that are now in the pipeline to pay more than the fixture count and less than the new full cost levy. In that regard it is recommended that 15% be the rule of thumb for those projects subject to an environmental assessment for which the mitigation was not actual sewer line construction. This would mean a levy of $ 63,392 for the Pavilion. As indi- cated in his April 27, 180987 letter, the Developer offered to pay $ 17,000. r The developer now agrees that a levy of $ 63,392 represents a "pro -rata share". However, in discussing making payment,the developer has raised the question of whether in fact the City exceeded its "costs reasonably borne" in the collection of the plan check fee. If we have done so then, by law such monies must be remitted. A cursory review of those fees and the costs indi- cates that this may be the case. To resolve this and the issue of the connection fee it is proposed that: A. The sewer connection fee for the Hermosa Pavilion be $ 63,992 and that B. City will audit its plan check costs versus the fee collected and credit the connection fee for any plan check monies that exceed costs reasonably borne. On the basis of this resolution the same logic would then be ap- plied to any other such project now in the "pipeline ". - r gor Ci y Manager eyer atitgrnuttb atrriaL. � C Honorable Mayor and members of the Hermosa Beach City Council May 6, 1987 City Council Meeting of May 12, 1987 ESTABLISHING IN -LIEU SEWER CONNECTION FEE FOR HERMOSA PAVILION COMMERCIAL PROJECT RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that, as a matter of policy, the City Council: 1. Set the in -lieu sewer connection fee for the Hermosa Pavilion commercial project; and on that basis determine whether to waive the Sewer Connection Fee as called for in Chapter 28 of the municipal code; 2. Set for discussion on June 9 the manner and methodology for operating the Reimbursement portion of the Travelodge Agreement For Replacement of Sanitary Sewers. ABSTRACT In line with the City Council's March 24 deliberations re in -lieu sewer fees the Director of Public Works established a sewer fee for this project of $ 451,411.52 and so advised the developer in writing on March 31. On the basis of reduced square footage that number is now calculated to be $ 422,611.47. On the basis of today's square footage for the project, by type and category, this number has been calculated by Public Works to be $422,611.47. On the other hand, were the calculation computed proportionately to that levied on the Travelodge (assuming a 117.20 unit equivalency to single family residences for the Pavilion and a 26.27 unit equivalency for the Travelodge), the levy would either be $277,764 based on the Travelodge rate paid or $422,611.47 predicated on the March 24 formula. As expressed in his April 27 letter, the developer feels that the assessment should be $17,000. Staff has been unable to resolve this. In any event, "formula 5" from March 24, 1987 has not yet legally ben enacted by the City Council as law. That very issue is before the Council at the May 12 meeting, listed as item 7A. 1 C C Additionally there is a need to clarify how the Travelodge Reimbursement Agreement works for the reimbursement process. Specifically, over the "up to 10 years" is it possible for the Travelodge developer to be fully reimbursed the entire amount advanced? Secondly, what should be the interpretation of fees being collected that are subject to reimbursement (i.e. are those monies limited solely to the Sewer Connection Fee)? BACKGROUND As a discretionary project (caused by utilization of the Parking Management Plan development standard) this commercial endeavor received formal evaluation by the Staff Review Committee. A Negative Declaration EIR with mitigation measures was issued. Included in the Mitigation Measure was the following re sewers: Page 22 The City of Hermosa is currently completing a major renovation of the sewer lines serving the project site. The Department of Public Works has determined sufficient capacity will be in place prior to the opening of the project. The project shall pay its pro -rata share of such improvements, as determined by the Public Works Department [emphasis added]. A search of records and correspondence has not provided any written documentation of any such "pro -rata" calculation having been made prior to the March 31 memorandum from the Director of Public Works. Developer Langlois represents that he definitely was told that the fee would be "less than the $30,000 pro -rated to the Biltmore Hotel" (see attached letter from Mr. Joe Langlois dated April 27, 1987); the Public Works Director does not agree that any number was ever proferred. The matter is not resolvable at the staff level, hence it is before you. ANALYSIS The Public Works Director has determined that the appropriate new "burden" on the sewer system generated by the Hermosa Pavilion project is the equivalent of 117.20 single-family residences. Consistent with the logic and mathematics of the March 24, 1987 City Council adopted in -lieu calculation, this fee was computed to be $ 451,411.52. His rationale and computations are contained in the March 31, 1987 letter to the developer, copy attached. Coincidently, at this same time the City has re -bid the already determined rehab/upgrade of the sewer lines in this vicinity (the award of bid is listed as Agenda item lq. The award of bid is for $ 527,925 (and an additional contingency of $52,792 was presumed. 2 C C As originally envisioned at the time of the Travelodge development the cost for the upgrade was $124,555. On that basis the City entered into a 10 year Reimbursement Agreement with the Travelodge, both the City and the motel developer agreed to pay one-half of the construction costs (with the developer having a $ 62,278 cap on his liability) with the understanding that: 1. Developer was to deposit his $62,278 with the City prior to award of the construction contract. They have deposited those funds with the City. 2, The City shall complete the sewer project within one year from Travelodge postingand approval of a faith- ful performance bond as required in Section II, Article 2 of the Reimbursement Agreement. Per item 1(q) of this Council agenda the City is ready to proceed with this project. 3. There would be a 50/50, Developer/City payback of monies advanced for the construction as other parties added additional burden to the sewer [emphasis added]. Recital 10 of the Reimbursement Agreement states that reimbursement shall be accomplished through the City collecting sewer connection fees. Recital 11 specifies that the pertinent fees collected are those paid for projects within Drainage Area 17. The Pavilion is a project within that Drainage Area. 4. For the Travelodge, City waives the Sewer Connection fee as called for in Chapter 28, Article II (estimated to be $ 3,000). :t. The Public Works director feels that this Agreement has no bearing on the Pavilion; the City Manager feels that it does. INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR On March 10, 1987 a $10,000 in -lieu sewer payment was offered in regards to the construction of a ten unit condominium. City Council did not accept the offer and directed staff to return with alternate suggestions for a policy to charge an in -lieu sewer fee. - -. After considering five alternate methods at the March 24, 1987 meeting, City Council took action establishing a method to deter- mine share of cost. The method is based on a -formula developed by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District and considers the impacts of intensified land usage. The formula considers the cost of the City sewer system replacement and each user's propor- tionate share based on level of usage. The drawings below illustrate the added -burden of intensified land usage. "ESFH" is an abbreviation for equivalent single fam- ily houses. Proportionate share of cost is dependant of level of usage of the sewer system A project that replaces a single - 3 - family house with another single family house adds no burden, hence the proportionate share of cost is zero. Whereas, a proj- ect that replaces three ESFH with 117 ESFH does add a burden and should pay a proportionate share of cost equal to the level of usage. COUNTY TRUNK • SEWER COUNTY TRUNK SEWER CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BEFORE EXISTING HOUSING STOCK 8319.7 ESFH City Sanitary Sewer System $30 MILLION 34 MILES CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AFTER EXISTING HOUSING STOCK 8319.7 ESFH 117.2 ESF -i City Sanitary Sewer System $30 MILLION 34 MILES In 1983 Santina & Thompson calculated 8319.7 equivalent single family housing units in the City of Hermosa Beach. Using the same number of units and a $30 million sewer system replacement cost, the sewer replacement cost of one equivalent single family house in 1987 is: $30,000,000 - 8319.7 = $3,605.90 The cost for the other 41 land use categories (as identified by the County Sanitation District) can be simply calculated by di- viding the flow generation of that category to the flow genera- tion of a single family dwelling unit and multiplied by the unit cost above. 4 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH UNITS OF USAGE, FLOW, SEWER UNITS AND CONNECTION FEE - July 1, 1986 - June 30, 1987 . LAND USE CATEGORIES (1) RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY HOME DUPLEX TRIPLEX FOURPLEX CONDOMINIUMS REDUCED SFH > OR = FIVE UNITS MOBILE HOME PARKS COMMERCIAL (1) (2) UNIT OF USAGE FLOW(GPD) PARCEL 260.00 PARCEL .360.00 PARCEL - - - 540.00 PARCEL 720.00 NO. OF UNITS 180.00 PARCEL 180.00 NO. OF UNITS 180.00 SPACES 180.00 HOTELS/MOTELS/RM. HOUSES ROOMS 100.00 STORES 1,000 SQ. FT. 100.00 SUPERMARKET 1,000 SQ. FT. 100.00 SHOPPING CENTER 1,000 SQ. FT. 100.00 OFFICE BUILDING 1,000 SQ. FT. 200.00 PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 1,000 SQ. FT. 300.00 RESTAURANT 1,000 SQ. FT. 1,000.00 INDOOR THEATRE 1,000 SQ. FT. 500.00 CAR WASH - TUNNEL TYPE 1,000 SQ. FT. 3,700.00 CAR WASH - WAND TYPE 1,000 SQ. FT. 700.00 FINANCIAL INSTITUTION 1,000 SQ. FT. 100.00 SERVICE SHOP 1,000 SQ. FT. 100.00 ANIMAL KENNEL 1,000 SQ. FT. 100.00 SERVICE STATIONS 1,000 SQ. FT. 100.00 AUTO SALES/REPAIR 1,000 SQ. FT. 100.00 WHOLESALE OUTLETS 1,000 SQ. FT. 100.00 NURSERIES/GREENERIES 1,000 SQ.,, FT. 25.00 MANUFACTURING 1,000 SQ. FT. 200.00 DRY MANUFACTURING 1,000 SQ. FT. 25.00 LUMBER YARDS 1,000 SQ. FT. 25.00 WAREHOUSING 1,000 SQ. FT. 25.00 OPEN STORAGE 1,000 SQ. FT. 25.00 DRIVE-IN THEATRE 1,000 SQ. FT. 20.00 NIGHT CLUB 1,000 SQ. FT. 750.00 BOWLING/SKATING 1,000 SQ. FT. 150.00 CLUB 1,000 SQ. FT. 20.00 AUDITORIUM, AMUSEMENT 1,000 SQ. FT. 350.00 GOLF COURSES, CAMP & PARK 1,000 SQ. FT. 100.00 HOMES FOR THE AGED BED 90.00 LAUNDROMAT 1,000 SQ. FT. 4,600.00 MORTUARIES/CEMETERIES 1,000 SQ. FT. 100.00 HEALTH SPA, W/SHOWERS 1,000 SQ. FT. 600.00 HEALTH SPA, W/0 SHOWERS 1,000 SQ. FT. 300.00 INSTITUTIONAL COLLEGES/UNIVERSITIES STUDENT 20.00 PRIVATE SCHOOLS 1,000 SQ. FT. 200.00 CHURCHES 1,000 SQ. FT. 50.00 (1) Obtained from the LA County Sanitation District (2) Effective from July 1, 1986 to June 30, 1987 for Sanitation District - (3) Sewer units = FLOW (by land use category) ; FLOW house) (3) SEWER UNITS 1.00 1.38 2.08 2.70 0.69 0.69 0.69 0..69 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.77 1.15 3.85 1.92 14.23 2.69 0.38 ' 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.003 0.77 0.003 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.08 2.88 0.58 0.08 1.35 0.38 0.35 17.69 0.38 2.31 1.15 0.08 0.77 0.19 SEWER CONNECTION FEE $ 3,605.90 4,976.14 7,500.27 9,735.93 2,488.07 n a 1,370.24 n n n 2,776.54 4,146.78 13,882.71 6,923.33 51,311.96 9,699.87 1,370.24 n n 10.82 2,776.54 10.82 360.59 n n 288.47 10,384.99 2,091.42 288.47 4,867.96 1,370.24 1,262.07 63,788.37 1,370.24 8,329.63 4,146.78 288.47 2,776.54 685.12 the South Bay Cities (of single family C � $527,925. To levy $ 422,611.47 on the Pavilion would result in their effectively paying all the remainder of the cost of the upgrade. Somehow that doesn't seem appropriate. As stated in the Pavilion Negative Declaration Mitigation document, the developer was to pay the pro -rata share of "these improvements". Would it not then be a reasonable assumption to say that their share is some portion of the total cost of the rehab/upgrade (recognizing that the cost has escalated from $124,555 to $527,925)? 2. As previously mentioned, there is no known written documentation as to sewer fees calculated/proposed for the Pavilion. But let's look at the sequence of events. The "last call " notice to departments went out from the Building & Safety Director on March 6 (copy attached), advising that the developer had submitted corrected working drawings and that he was desirous of obtaining a building permit. From that notice were generated two memos from Public Works, dated March 9 and March 16, 1987 (copies attached). Those memos=sddress several points including sewer easements and monies the developer was to deposit before issuance of a building permit. There was no addressing of the pro -rata share sewer monies to be collected. Administratively this is explainable because the focal point of the March 6 memo was relative to issuance of a Building Permit, not the sewer hookup and/or the monies to be collected for that. As a part of this "trying to finalize for a building permit" process, the developer did talk to the several departments to ascertain fees/permits and other obligations (i.e. the $40,000 traffic mitigation requirement). This was necessary so that he could properly represent these costs to the lender. The land transaction, building permit, construction loan were all part of a concurrent occurrence. So what number did the developer "represent" to the lender? I don't know. We are not privy to those documents. In any event, based on timing, it could not have been per the assumptions of Formula 5 from the March 24 City Council proceedings. 3. The City has not yet, by Ordinance, enacted a new Sewer Connection Fee. In fact, recent State legislation requires us to proceed with caution with some public awareness etc. During the March 24 discussions there was no specific discussion of commercial/industrial uses. To "declare" that formula 5 from March 24 is now governing on such projects might be a poor position to legally defend. The City Attorney should be consulted on this. • HOW BEST TO PROCEED? The City is in the very process of formally determining a new policy on sewer fees. The current 28-7 provision results in a minimal fee being paid; the Pavilion project has long been in discussion and, per the EIR mitigation measures, is obligated to pay is "pro -rata share of such improvements"; the proposed fee basis (agenda item 7A) would result in a levy of $ 422,611.47. Gre ory Cit Manage _ . - GTM/ld' cc: Hermosa Pavilion C C April 27, 1987 Members of the City Council Members of the Planning Commission Hermosa Beach City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Re: Hermosa Beach Pavilion Dear Councilpersons and Commissioners: Recent events compel me to communicate to you my strong feelings on several topics relating to the Hermosa Pavilion Shopping,Center. For reasons that escape me I will probably be appearingbefore you in the next few weeks to discuss two subjects: (1) The exact square footage and parking for the project and (2) a sewer assessment fee. I firmly believe that neither of these issues would have arisen had it not been for my involvement with the Biltmore Site Hotel Project. Throughout the "Hotel Controversy" I have nevertheless maintained cordial and respectful relationships with many of the "hotel opponents". In fact, several strong opponents of the hotel have been key supporters of the Shopping Center. I have lived in Hermosa for over a year now and deeply value my ties to this community. Many of you have seen me running on The Strand, attending Little League Games, and eating Sunday breakfast at Martha's. I have donated to local school events and contribute to the. Community Center. My integration into this community has proceeded beyond the approval of the shopping center. In addition, let me point out that the future of the hotel rests soley with the judicial system. Yet, the growing likeliness of the approval of the hotel has generated a level of pettiness and aggression that is disappointing and disillusioning. Let me address the issues and see if those of you involved in the public hearing process have similar recollections. 1. Exact Square Footage & Parking The project was approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to a parking plan and negative declaration. The "approved building" required that certain changes be made in the plans. (e.g. two driveways into the parking, subtracting 5 parking spaces and substituting 25 motorcycle spaces, etc., etc.). Therefore, certain of the documents incorporated into the approval were superficially inconsistent while nevertheless achieving the intent of the commission and satisfying CEQA review requirements. • C C Members of the City Council Members of the Planning Commission April 27, 1987 Page 2 However, if one inappropriately goes back only to the parking plann analysis, the Planning Commission approved the following: 1:r Retail 2. Restaurant 3. Theatres 28,236 "square feet 17,693 square feet 25,344 square feet 71,273 This layout was required to provide 540 parking spaces (-5 for motorcycles). -Please note that parking for the theatre is calculated on a per seat basis, as opposed to a square footage basis for the other uses. After incorporating the design changes suggested by staff and the planning commission, and allowing for the further development of the drawings, we ' submitted the following layout to the City Council: A. Retail decreased by 1,096. Under strict code application of 1 per 250 square feet we would get a credit of 4.38 spaces B. Theatre seats decreased by - 7 seats. Under strict code application of 1 per 5 seats we would get a credit of 1.4 spaces Total Credit: 5.78 spaces C. Restaurant increased by 1756. .Under strict code application of 1 per 100 we would need to provide 17.56 spaces 'Therefore, the net difference on a strict code application is 11.78 spaces. Please remember that the parking plan approved the shared parking concept and I have applied strict code numbers that disregard the shared parking concept. I also point out that we are still achieving_a total parking ration of 7.42 per 1000 square feet. Under the shared parking concept, in the evenings we are providing a ratio of 10.14 per 1000 square feet. - t Members of the City Council Members of the Planning Commission April 27, 1987 Page 3 As part of our response to an appeal filed of the Planning Commission Approval we submitted on appeal: Retail 27,140 Theatre 26,093 Restaurant 19,449 72,692 The drawings incorporated these changes were attached to•my submission to the City Council and were reflected on the presentation boards presented before the council. Please note the following: 1. The total increase in square footage was 1419 square feet or 1.9% of the total. This magnitude of change in going from concept drawings to working/construction drawings is remarkable for its adherence to the conceptual approval. 2. Of the increase, 749 square feet is in the theatre. Such increase neither increases capacity or traffic. In fact, the number of seats reduced by 7! 3. Therefore the total increase in square footage that is relevant to a parking discussion (1419 — 749) is 670 square feet or .009% 4. The relevant change in the configuration is made up of the 1756 square foot increase in the square footage of the restaurants. I have agreed to eliminate 1200 square feet of restaurant space until the Commission has further reviewed this analysis. Therefore, in the interum, we are at a complete break—even on parking. No special favors of any kind were extended to this project. In fact, the hypersensitivity to me as the "hotel developer" has caused staff to refuse to make ordinary administrative decisions that they would normally make. Finally, as to parking, let me point out an issue that has not been reviewed in the newspapers. One of the discussed documents that has confused this issue has been a paragraph in the negative declaration that restricted the number of valet and tandem spaces. When the project was redesigned to enclose the garage, the creation of fan rooms and ventilator shafts necessitated the creation of more valet/tandem spaces! We have the ability to create up to 570 or more spaces. Again, the perhaps reasonable concerns of staff as to the controversy surrounding the hotel prevented them from allowing us to use valet parking to dramatically increase the parking. We asked only that the same tandem standard be applied to us that is applied city wide. Members of the City Council Members of the Planning Commi@®ion April 27, 1987 Page 4 I will be coming before you to further explain this at a later date. I will say that all of the discussions about seeking to promote commercial development on PCH has not resulted in a favorable or reasonable business environment. The Sewer Assessment -Fee This is the more difficult issue for me to discuss because it is the motivation behind my feeling that I have not been treated fairly. If nothing else, as a Hermosa voter and resident, I want its elected Officials to understand some of the frustration of trying to also do business here. In addition, as an owner of potentially two commercial facilities that will generate a substantial portion of Hermosa's tax revenues and employment, I hope that I can establish a fair and businesslike relationship with City Hall. With all of the controversy surrounding the hotel, there are very few people in town who will ever accuse me of not being courteous and civil. All of us have a right to expect such treatment in our mutual dealings. Lastly, I know that a letter to public officials is a public document and will soon find its way to the local press. Therefore, you can assume that, in light of the litigous nature of this town, my feelings are perhaps even stronger than those expressed here. - Some Facts: 1. My construction and acquisition loan for the project was closed and funded on March 15, 1987. As part of that closing I received a written letter from the building department stating that I was entitled to pick up a building permit subject only to paying the fee and providing a stamped set of plans from Cal Trans. In addition, the Planning Commission sent to the.loan closing a stamped certified document stating that I had complied with the negative declaration. 2. Prior to March 15, 1987, I had attended a series of meetings with various city staff to ensure that I could comply with my closing schedule. Various requests were made of me and each was met within.a time frame acceptable to staff. - 3. I elected to pay for my building permit on March 31, 1987, because (a) the approximately $70,000 cost justifies waiting as long as possible and I could not begin construction until The Priamos' vacated the property on April 15, 1987; and (b) I prudently wanted to not incurr the new school tax which began in April. A meeting was scheduled with Bill Grove at approximately 3:00 p.m. on March 31st for the sole purpose of..picking up •the building permit.The setting and purpose of this meeting waswidely known among staff. �,, C Members of the City Council Members of the Planning Commission April 27, 1987 Page 5 4. At the March 31st meeting the issue covered in the first half of this letter was discussed and resolved as set forth above. 5. At approximately 4:00 p.m. during that same meeting, the Public Works director declared that "the traffic study was inaccurate". The negative declaration had been certified months earlier! My agreement was to pay for a subsequent traffic study (which I did) which was to tie into the signalization of Pier & Valley/Ardmore. If justified, I was to contribute an additional $40,000 to traffic signalization. This was all part of the public hearing process. This study was not part of the approval of the project but was a precondition to my having to put up the $40,000 for traffic signals. I have paid for the study and am fully prepared to pay for the traffic light. The Public Works director (who contracted, administered and reviewed the traffic study long after my negative declaration had been certified) told me on March 31st that the study did not include an analysis of the decelaration stacking lane on PCH and 16th Street, that he (the Public Works Director) did not know that there was one, and that my study was therefore invalid. I raise 3 points: 1. Plans for this project have shown a decelaration/stacking lane since its inception. The lane was discussed at every staff meeting and public hearing. My architects met several times with the Public Works director to help design it. The public works director sat in Cal Trans meetings to analyze this exact issue. For the public works director to suggest that he didn't know that there was a stacking lane (he did so in front of numerous witnesses) is staggering. For him to undertake a study not including it is inexplicable. Moreover, the public work director had this study months prior to the March 31st meeting. He sat on this information through many meetings on the same subject post his receipt of the study. To resolve the matter, staff elected to call the traffic consultant who pointed out that the Project was dramatically improved by the addition of the stacking lane and the matter was dropped. 2. At 4:50 on March 31st (potentially 10 minutes prior to my incurring the new school tax, the public works director handed me a letter asking for. approximately $460,000 in sewer assessments. I sincerely believe that the expression of shock on my face was matched by.:,hose in the room. This delivery was accompanied by the announcement that "Just so you.don't accuse me of sitting on anything else... here". • C C Members of the Cid Council Members of the Planning Commission April 27, 1987 Page 6 . 3. I think that staff, other than the public works director, will confirm the fact that I am meticulous about determining fees in advance. I received._estimates_¶and_ costs, from Planning, Building & Safety, Cal --Trans, County Sewers and Public Works. This.,is demonstrated by my discussions months ago with Bill Grove and Greg Meyer that I felt that an approximately $120,000 plan check and building permit fee was excessive. After some review it was paid. -. Those of you at all familiar with construction loan procedures will - immediately recognize that all fees must be submitted and documented'to the lender months in advance as part of -the approval of the loan commitment. My point here is not to attempt to explain this behavior or concoct conspiracies and scenarios. I am pointing out the fact that achieving agreed upon mutual goals (well designed, highly parked commercial development on PCH) is next to impossible in this kind of environment. I was told, as part of the staff EIR review, that the sewers would be adequate to handle the proposed facility. Nevertheless, under the assurance that the fee would be "much less than the hotel" I assumed the fee to be less than $30,000. On more than one occasion -the public works director and I discussed an estimate of $17,000. However, lets assume for arguments sake that no number was discussed. The public works director decided that a new directive from the council imposes this large fee. Does he call me? Does he raise the issue during our meetings? No. On April 1st, 1987, (the day after the public works director handed me his first letter) the public works director mailed to me a second demand letter (attached). On April 14th, 1987, I received a letter from the City Manager which suggests that the matter is still to be discussed. On April 21st, 1987, I received another letter from the public works director by certified mail! I am fully aware of the implications of certified mail. How would any of you have reacted in this same -instance? - The Pavilion is one of the largest projects in the history of Hermosa Beach. It has been well supported in view of the history of this -town. I think most of you will recognize that I applied past experience to design a project around the concerns of Hermosa Beach. Members of the City Council Members of the Planning Commission April 24, 1987 Page 7 The Pavilion is now under construction and will soon be a beautiful part of Hermosa's economy and ambience. I hope these temporary problems do not foretell a difficult relationship. I will be speaking with each of you to discuss these matters in the near future. Sincerely, eph T. L.. glois ice Presi•ent Developers Equities, Inc. and P.. er: Developers Equities -Hermosa A California limited Partnership cc: Kathleen Midstock Tony Antich Greg Meyer Bill Grove Mike Schubach Jim Lough • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM TO: Michael Schubach, Planning Director FROM: Anthony Antich, Public Works Director -,SUBJECT: .Hermosa Pavilibn Project at 1617 Pacific Coast Hwy. DATE: March 31,-1987 From the data provided in the Hermosa Pavilion Negative Declaration and the following statement placed in the Negative -Declaration by the developer: "The project shall pay its pro -rata share of,such improvements (sewer), as determined by the Public Works Department." The following is the calculation of the pro -rata share of sewer costs of $451,411.52. BACKGROUND: On March 24, 1987, City Council accepted a $12,981.24 in -lieu sewer payment for the 10 -condominium project located at 829, 829-1/2 and 833 Fifth Street. The calculation for the in -lieu payment was based on the Santina & Thompson report and a 1987 estimated sewer replacement cost of $30,000,000. The $30 million replacement cost is an extrapolation of the estimated cost from the MSI Report and the Santina & Thompson Report. The pro -rata calculation uses the concept of equivalent dwelling units or sewer units. For the Hermosa Pavilion, the following data is provided. - 1. In 1983 Santina & Thompson calcuated 8319.7 equivalent dwelling units in the City of Hermosa Beach. Hence', the cos of a connection of one single family house in 1987 is: $30,000,000 8319.7 = $3,605.90 2. The cost of sewer connections for the other 41 land use categories (as identified by the County Sanitation District) can be simply calculated by dividing the flow generation of -that category to the flow generation of a single family dwelling unit and multiplied by the unit cost above. 3. The following are provided from the County Sanitation District. Use Single Family House Retail (stores) Unit of Usage -Flow (GPD) Sewer Units •1-- Parcel 260 1.00 1,000 s.f. 100 0.38 • - 1 • Restaurant - . 1,000 s.f. 1,000 8.85 Theatres (in -door) 1,000 s.f. 500 •1.87 CALCULATION FOR 1617 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, HERMOSA PAVILION Cost: Proposed Project - Use .1 1 S.F. i ; Flow ; Total ; (GPD) Total Sewer Units Retail + (store) 1 1 128,236 - -. . . i 1 100/ ; 1000 s.f. 2,823.6 10.73 + Restaurant 1 1 117,693 i 1 1,000/ - i 1000 s.f. r 1 1 17.693.0 156.58 + Theatres 1 1 i. 125,344 i i 500/ i 1,000 s.f. 1 1 1 12,672.0 47.39 Total 33,188.6 214.7 ..33,188.6 : 260 X $3,605.90 = $460,287.58 Credit: Existing Structures Use Total Sq. Ft. Flow Total (GPD) Sewer Unit Single Family N/A . - 260 260 1.00 Retail (stores) 3,800 • 100/1000 sf 380 -1.44 Total 640 2.44 640: 260:x 3,605.90 = $8,876.06 Summary Use - Connection Fee Sewer Units Proposed Project $460,287.58 214.70 Existing Structure's (credit) 8,876.06 2.44 $451,411..52 212.26 cc: Bill Grove, Building and Safety Director 1 r 1-1D--••• toitairAN April 1, _ 1987 _ (any or ]4(Em. 4154 )3E401 CIVIC CENTER H ERMOSA BEACH CALIFORNIA 9 0 2 5 4 _ CITY HALL: (213) 3.76-6984 POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS: 3 7 6. 7 9 8 1 Developer's Equities, Inc. 1880 Century Park East, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Attention: Joe Langlois - Subject: Hermosa Pavilion 1 - Dear Joe, This lett6r is a follow up to the meeting on March 31, 1987 where I gave you a copy of the attached letter. Your reaction at the time was that you could not pay that amount. Please clarify for me your intent, do you or do you not intend to pay to the City of Hermosa Beach the amount shown on my March 31, 1987 memo to Michael Schubach? If you do intend to pay, when can the City expect payment. If you do not intend to pay, please provide in writing your reasons for not paying the amount. Until this matter is resolved I cannot issue a permit to allow the project's wastewater to discharge into the City sewer system. I would appreciate a written response within two weeks so this matter can be resolved as quickly as possible. Sincerely, a Ariy Antich Director of Ptlbl4c Works Attached: March 31, 1987 AA:ls memo - hand delivered to Joe Langlois 1 HD -0400\ April 21, 1987 aIT or beBM 13EIK(11 CIVIC CENTER HERMOSA BEACH CALIFORNIA 9 0 2 5 4 CITY HALL:A9025 3 7 6- 6 9 8 4 POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS: 3 7 6. 7 9 8 1 Developer's Equity, Inc. 1880 Century Park East, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Attention: Joe Langlois Certified Return Receipt Requested: P-506 330 215 RE: Hermosa Pavilion Dear Joe: RECEIVED APR 2 7 1981 Ans'd On April 1, 1987 I wrote you a letter (attached) requesting a written response within two weeks. It has been_ longer than two weeks and I have not received a written response. Again, I would appreciate a written response to my April 1, 1987 letter so that this matter can be resolved as quickly as possible. Sincerely, Anthony Antic Director of Public Works AA:ls Attachment: April 1, 1987 letter from Director of Public Works City of Hermosa Beach. 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM RECE14/EP APR 1 6 19 _Ans'd............ TO: Public Works Director Anthony Antich FROM: City Manager Gregory T. Meyer DATE: April 14, 1987. a f.i i RE: Hermosa Pavilion Sewer Connection Fee Please hold• in abeyance your two week deadline for them to respond re. the appropriate fee. Upon my return from vacation I would like to discuss this matter with you at our next one-on-one meeting Monday, April 20. J' 7 While I realize that we never gave them an exact fee, it is my recollection that we implied it would be a pro rata share of the rehabilitation cost for the sewer project that commences in the Travelodge vicinity, passes by Alpha Beta, Von's, Marie Callen- dar's and terminates near Hermosa Valley School. Such a pro rata share would be a different number than that utilized by formula No. 5 as recently discussed by the City Council. I think we should be prepared to wind up with this matter being adjudicated by the City Council at either its April 28 or May 12, 1987 meeting. G e City M GTM/ld T. Meyer ager C C €11T OF )3E!K1t CIVIC CENTER HERMOSA BEACH CALIFORNIA 9 0 2 5 4 CITY HALL: (213) 376-6984 POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS: 3 7 6- 7 9 8 1 April 1, 1987 Developer's Equities, Inc. 1880 Century Park East, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Attention: Joe Langlois Subject: Hermosa Pavilion Dear Joe, This letter is a follow up to the meeting on March 31, 1987 where I gave you a copy of the attached letter. Your reaction at the time was that you could not pay that amount. Please clarify for me your intent, do you or do you not intend to pay to the City of Hermosa Beach the amount shown on my March 31, 1987 memo to Michael Schubach? If you do intend to pay, when can the City expect payment. If you do not intend to pay, .please provide in writing your reasons for not paying the amount. - Until this matter is resolved I cannot issue a permit to allow the project's wastewater to discharge into the City sewer system. I would appreciate a written response within two weeks so this matter can be resolved as quickly as possible. Sincerely, Ariy Antich Director of P bl c Works Attached: March 31, 1987 memo - hand delivered to Joe Langlois AA:ls 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH INTER -OFFICE MEMO TO: Planning, Public Works, Fire, DATE: 3/6/87 and Police Departments RE: Hermosa Pavilion Permits FROM: William Grove, Director Dept. of Bldg. & Safety The developer of the Hermosa Pavilion project at 1617 P.C.H. has re- turned corrected working drawings from our building code consultant and is desirous of obtaining a building permit. Please informme in writing if the project has complied with all of your departments requirements or , if not, what items remain to be resolved prior to permit- issuance. A response is requested no later than 3:00 p.m. on Monday, March 9, 1987. CC: Gregory T. Meyer, City Manager CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH INTER -OFFICE MEMO TO: Bill Grove, Director of Building & Safety FROM: Anthony Antich, Director of Public Works DATE: March 9, 1987. SUBJECT: Hermosa Pavilion Permits - Memo Dated 3-6-87. The following items are still pending and are not dependent on Building Permit issuance: I. Street Plans for..Sixteenth Street Currently in plan check process. II. Deeds for right-of-way Dedication a) Sixteenth Street b) Pacific Coast Highway III. Deed for five feet sewer easement along westerly property line. IV. Payment to City of $40,000 as directed by City Council at February 24, 1987 meeting. This amount is to guarantee fu- ture improvements to the impacted intersections. VAIWA Anthony Antich Director of Pub Works 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM TO: Bill Grove, Director of Building & Safety FROM: Tony Antich, Director of Public Works a q RE: Hermosa Pavilion - Dual Entrance Gates off of 16th . Street March '16,.1987' After reviewing the building plans for the Hermosa Pavilion, on Friday, 3/13/87, I am concerned about the placement of the entrance gates on 16th Street. Placement, as shown, may cause queing and congestion of traffic. Before the plans were drawn, I telephoned Joe Langlois about this concern. Later, I mentioned this to the City Manager, and also told him that the developer will have to correct their placement before the final plans are drawn. cc: Michael Schubach Planning Director C C 1 May 1987 Members of the City Council City Hall Hermosa Beach, California Dear Members of the Council: The Easy Reader in its continuing coverage of the Langlois Pavilion development reported in its 30 April issue that Langlois obtained a permit on 31 March, a permit which included his agreement to pay a sewer assessment to be determined (according to a pro rate formula) by the Hermosa Beach Public Works Department. After Langlois agreed to this form of determination, he then claimed he was earlier provided a much lower quote by the public works director, who denied a figure was provided. Of much greater concern, however, is Easy Reader's report that a city official, none other than the city manager, "...said the fee may be substantially lowered by not being required to adhere to the formula, recently agreed on by the city council." (emphasis added) This suggestion of preferential treatment for a permit applicant by a city officer requires the immediate attention of and investigation by the City Council. Langlois, in an admittedly straightforward strategy of tax avoidance, delayed the submission of his application, which he claimed had placed him in a difficult position with his lenders. His choice to delay the submission of his application included this inherent, foreseeable risk and the results of his choice for late submission should not in any way deter or pressure the Council in its investigation. The Council must ensure that all laws, ordinances, rulings of civic government are applied even-handedly. If the Public Works Director must adhere to the City Council's assessment formula, the city manager can do no less. The business of the city government is not the preferential treatment of an individual business endeavor but governance under laws equally applied to all applicants. Very truly yours, Patricia Hill 841 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California 90254 cc: The Easy Reader • Honorable Mayor and members of the Hermosa Beach City Council May 6, 1987 City Council Meeting of May 12, 1987 wAgA c1144Aj 31- 1°9P ESTABLISHING IN -LIEU SEWER CONNECTION FEE FOR- �- HERMOSA PAVILION COMMERCIAL PROJECT RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that, as a matter of policy, the City Council: 1. Set the in -lieu sewer connection fee for the Hermosa Pavilion uwmercial project; and on that basis determine whether to waive the Sewer Connection Fee as called for in Chapter 28 of the municipal code; 2. het for discussion on June 9 the manner and methodology for operating the Reimbursement portion of the Travelodge Agreement For Replacement of Sanitary Sewers. ABSTRACT In line with the City Council's March 24 deliberations re in -lieu sewer fees the Director of Public Works established a sewer fee for this project of $ 451,411.52 and so advised the developer in writing on March 31.On the basis of reduced square footage that number is now calculated to be $ 422,611.47. On the basis of today's square footage for the project, by type and category, this number has been calculated by Public Works to be $422,611.47. On the other hand, were the calculation computed proportionately to that levied on the Travelodge (assuming a 117.20 unit equivalency to single family residences for the Pavilion and a 26.27 unit equivalency for the Travelodge), the levy would either be $277,764 based on the Travelodge rate paid or $422,611.47 predicated on the March 24 formula. As expressed in his April 27 letter, the developer feels that the assessment should be $17,000. Staff has been unable to resolve this. In any event, "formula 5" from March 24, 1987 has not yet legally ben enacted by the City Council as law. That very issue is before the Council at the May 12 meeting, listed as item 7A. - 1 - 1b Additionally there is a need to clarify how the Travelodge Reimbursement Agreement works for the reimbursement process. Specifically, over the "up to 10 years" is it possible for the Travelodge developer to be fully reimbursed the entire amount advanced? Secondly, what should be the interpretation of fees being collected that are subject to reimbursement (i.e. are those monies limited solely to the Sewer Connection Fee)? BACKGROUND As a discretionary project (caused by utilization of the Parking Management Plan development standard) this commercial endeavor received formal evaluation by the Staff Review Committee. A Negative Declaration EIR with mitigation measures was issued. Included in the Mitigation Measure was the following re sewers: Page 22 The City of Hermosa is currently completing a major renovation of the sewer lines serving the project site. The Department of Public Works has determined sufficient capacity will be in place prior to the opening of the project. The project shall pay its pro -rata share of such improvements, as determined by the Public Works Department [emphasis added]. A search of records and correspondence has not provided any written documentation of any such "pro -rata" calculation having been made prior to the March 31 memorandum from the Director of Public Works. Developer Langlois represents that he definitely was told that the fee would be "less than the $30,000 pro -rated to the Biltmore Hotel" (see attached letter from Mr. Joe Langlois dated April 27, 1987); the Public Works Director does not agree that any number was ever proferred. The matter is not resolvable at the staff level, hence it is before you. ANALYSIS The Public Works Director has determined that the appropriate new "burden" on the sewer system generated by the Hermosa Pavilion project is the equivalent of 117.20 single-family residences. Consistent with the logic and mathematics of the March 24, 1987 City Council adopted in -lieu calculation, this fee was computed to be $ 451,411.52. His rationale and computations are contained in the March 31, 1987 letter to the developer, copy attached. Coincidently, at this same time the City has re -bid the already determined rehab/upgrade of the sewer lines in this vicinity (the award of bid is listed as Agenda item lq. The award of bid is for $ 527,925 (and an additional contingency of $52,792 was presumed. 2 As originally envisioned at the time of the Travelodge development the cost for the upgrade was $124,555. On that basis the City entered into a 10 year Reimbursement Agreement with the Travelodge, both the City and the motel developer agreed to pay one-half of the construction costs (with the developer having a $ 62,278 cap on his liability) with the understanding that: 1. Developer was to deposit his $62,278 with the City prior to award of the construction contract. They have deposited those funds with the City. 2. The City shall complete the sewer project within one year from Travelodge posting and approval of a faith- ful performance bond as required in Section II, Article 2 of the Reimbursement Agreement. Per item 1(q) of this Council agenda the City is ready to proceed with this project. 3. There would be a 50/50, Developer/City payback of monies advanced for the construction as other parties added additional burden to the sewer [emphasis added]. Recital 10 of the Reimbursement Agreement states that reimbursement shall be accomplished through the City collecting sewer connection fees. Recital 11 specifies that the pertinent fees collected are those paid for projects within Drainage Area 17. The Pavilion is a project within that Drainage Area. 4. For the Travelodge, City waives the Sewer Connection fee as called for in Chapter 28, Article II (estimated to be $ 3,000). The Public Works director feels that this Agreement has no bearing on the Pavilion; the City Manager feels that it does. INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR On March 10, 1987 a $10,000 in -lieu sewer payment was offered in regards to the construction of a ten unit condominium. City Council did not accept the offer and directed staff to return with alternate suggestions for a policy to charge an in -lieu sewer fee. After considering five alternate methods at the March 24, 1987 meeting, City Council took action establishing a method to deter- mine share of cost. The method is based on a formula developed by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District and considers the impacts of intensified land usage. The formula considers the cost of the City sewer system replacement and each user's propor- tionate share based on level of usage. The drawings below illustrate the added burden of intensified land usage. "ESFH" is an abbreviation for equivalent single fam- ily houses. Proportionate share of cost is dependant of level of usage of the sewer system . A project that replaces a single 3 family house with another single family house adds no burden, hence the proportionate share of cost is zero. Whereas, a proj- ect that replaces three ESFH with 117 ESFH does add a burden and should pay a proportionate share of cost equal to the level of usage. ,, COUNTY TRUNK • SEWER COUNTY TRUNK SEWER CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BEFORE EXISTING HOUSING STOCK 8319.7 ESFH City Sanitary Sewer System $30 MILLION 34 MILES • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AFTER 117.2 ESF EXISTING HOUSING STOCK n 8319.7 ESFH City Sanitary Sewer System $30 MILLION 34 MILES In 1983 Santina & Thompson calculated 8319.7 equivalent single family housing units in the City of Hermosa Beach. Using the same number of units and a $30 million sewer system replacement cost, the sewer replacement cost of one equivalent single family house in 1987 is: $30,000,000 - 8319.7 = $3,605.90 The cost for the other 41 land use categories (as identified by the County Sanitation District) can be simply calculated by di- viding the flow generation of that category to the flow genera- tion of a single family dwelling unit and multiplied by the unit cost above. 4 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH UNITS OF USAGE, FLOW, SEWER UNITS AND CONNECTION FEE July 1, 1986 - June 30, 1987 LAND USE CATEGORIES (1) (1) (2) (3) SEWER SEWER CONNECTION RESIDENTIAL UNIT OF USAGE FLOW(GPD) UNITS FEE SINGLE FAMILY HOME PARCEL 260.00 1.00 $ 3,605.90 DUPLEX PARCEL 360.00 1.38 4,976.14 TRIPLEX PARCEL 540.00 2.08 7,500.27 FOURPLEX PARCEL 720.00 2.70 9,735.93 CONDOMINIUMS N0. OF UNITS 180.00 0.69 2,488.07 REDUCED SFH PARCEL 180.00 0.69 " > OR = FIVE UNITS NO. OF UNITS 180.00 _ 0.69 " MOBILE HOME PARKS SPACES 180.00 0.69 n COMMERCIAL HOTELS/MOTELS/RM. HOUSES ROOMS 100.00 0.38 1,370.24 STORES 1,000 SQ. FT. 100.00 0.38 " SUPERMARKET 1,000 SQ. FT. 100.00 0.38 " SHOPPING CENTER 1,000 SQ. FT. 100.00 0.38 OFFICE BUILDING 1,000 SQ. FT. 200.00 0.77 2,776.54 PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 1,000 SQ. FT. 300.00 1.15 4,146.78 RESTAURANT 1,000 SQ. FT. 1,000.00 3.85 13,882.71 INDOOR THEATRE 1,000 SQ. FT. 500.00 1.92 6,923.33 CAR WASH - TUNNEL TYPE 1,000 SQ. FT. 3,700.00 14.23 51,311.96 CAR WASH - WAND TYPE . 1,000 SQ. FT. 700.00 2.69 9,699.87 FINANCIAL INSTITUTION 1,000 SQ. FT. 100.00 0.38 1,370.24 SERVICE SHOP 1,000 SQ. FT. 100.00 0.38 " ANIMAL KENNEL 1,000 SQ. FT. 100.00 .0.38 " SERVICE STATIONS 1,000 SQ. FT. 100.00 0.38 " AUTO SALES/REPAIR 1,000 SQ. FT. 100.00 0.38 " WHOLESALE OUTLETS 1,000 SQ. FT. 100.00 0.38 " NURSERIES/GREENERIES 1,000 SQ. FT. 25.00 0.003 10.82 MANUFACTURING 1,000 SQ. FT. 200.00 0.77 2,776.54 DRY MANUFACTURING 1,000 SQ. FT. 25.00 0.003 10.82 LUMBER YARDS 1,000 SQ. FT. 25.00 0.10 360.59 WAREHOUSING 1,000 SQ. FT. 25.00 0.10 " OPEN STORAGE 1,000 SQ. FT. 25.00 0.10 " DRIVE-IN THEATRE 1,000 SQ. FT. 20.00 0.08 288.47 NIGHT CLUB 1,000 SQ. FT. 750.00 2.88 10,384.99 BOWLING/SKATING 1,000 SQ. FT. 150.00 0.58 2,091.42 CLUB 1,000 SQ. FT. 20.00 0.08 288.47 AUDITORIUM, AMUSEMENT 1,000 SQ. FT. 350.00 1.35 4,867.96 GOLF COURSES, CAMP & PARK 1,000 SQ. FT. 100.00 0.38 1,370.24 HOMES FOR THE AGED BED 90.00 0.35 1,262.07 LAUNDROMAT 1,000 SQ. FT. 4,600.00 17.69 63,788.37 MORTUARIES/CEMETERIES 1,000 SQ. FT. 100.00 0.38 1,370.24 HEALTH SPA, W/SHOWERS 1,000 SQ. FT. 600.00 2.31 8,329.63 HEALTH SPA, W/0 SHOWERS 1,000 SQ. FT. 300.00 1.15 4,146.78 INSTITUTIONAL COLLEGES/UNIVERSITIES STUDENT 20.00 0.08 288.47 PRIVATE SCHOOLS 1,000 SQ. FT. 200.00 0.77 2,776.54 CHURCHES 1,000 SQ. FT. 50.00 0.19 685.12 (1) Obtained from the LA County Sanitation District (2) Effective from July 1, 1986 to June 30, 1987 for the South Bay Cities Sanitation District (3) Sewer units = FLOW (by land use category) ; FLOW (of single family house) 5 HERMOSA PAVILION PROJECT The heading titled "Sewers" from the negative declaration for the project reads: The City of Hermosa Beach is currently completing a major renovation of the sewer lines serving the project. The Department of Public Works has determined that sufficient capacity will be in place prior to the opening of the proj- ect. The project shall pay its pro -rata share of such im- provements, as determined by the Public Works Department. On May 7, 1987 staff checked with the Building and Safety Depart- ment to confirm the square footages proposed for the Hermosa Pa- vilion. The new square footages and costs are as follows: COST: Proposed Project TOTAL SEWER USE S.F. FLOW UNITS COST Retail(stores) 27,140 2,714 10.43 $ 37,609.54 Restaurant 15,348 15,348 59.03 212,856.27 Theaters 26,093 13,047 50.18 180,944.06 Total: 30,108 119.64 $431,409.87 CREDIT: Existing Structures TOTAL SEWER USE S.F FLOW UNITS COST Single Family N/A 260 1.00 $3,605.90 Retail (stores) 3,800 380 1.44 5,192.50 Total: TTU 2.44 $8,798.40 USE Proposed Project (Cost) Existing Structure (Credit) Total: SUMMARY SEWER UNITS 119.64 2.44 117.20 (1) Sewer Units = Flow - 260 (2) Cost = Sewer Units x $3,605.90 INPUT FROM THE CITY MANAGER COST $431,409.87 8,798.40 $422,611.47 The City manager's perspective is this: 1. The Pavilion project is within the drainage impact area defined by the Travelodge reimbursement agreement. On that basis the City Manager feels that the Travelodge should be reimbursed (50/50). The total cost of rehab/upgrade, as now known is $527,925. To levy $ 422,611.47 on the Pavilion would result in their effectively paying all the remainder of the cost of the upgrade. Somehow that doesn't seem appropriate. As stated in the Pavilion Negative Declaration Mitigation�� document, the developer was to pay the pro -rata share of these improvements". Would it not then be a reasonable assumption to say that their share is some portion of the total cost of the rehab/upgrade (recognizing that the cost has escalated from $124,555 to $527,925)? 2. As previously mentioned, there is no known written documentation as to sewer fees calculated/proposed for the Pavilion. But let's look at the sequence of events. The "last call " notice to departments went out from the Building & Safety Director on March 6 (copy attached), advising that the developer had submitted corrected working drawings and that he was desirous of obtaining a building permit. From that notice were generated two memos from Public Works, dated March 9 and March 16, 1987 (copies attached). Those memos address several points including sewer easements and monies the developer was to deposit before issuance of a building permit. There was no addressing of the pro -rata share sewer monies to be collected. Administratively this is explainable because the focal point of the March 6 memo was relative to issuance of a Building Permit, not the sewer hookup and/or the monies to be collected for that. As a part of this "trying to finalize for a building permit"_ process, the developer did talk to the several departments to ascertain fees/permits and other obligations (i.e. the $40,000 traffic mitigation requirement). This was necessary so that he could properly represent these costs to the lender. The land transaction, building permit, construction loan were all part of a concurrent occurrence. So what number did the developer "represent" to the lender? I don't know. We are not privy to those documents. In any event, based on timing, it could not have been per the assumptions of Formula 5 from the March 24 City Council proceedings. 3. The City has not yet, by Ordinance, enacted a new Sewer Connection Fee. In fact, recent State legislation requires us to proceed with caution with some public awareness etc. During the March 24 discussions there was no specific discussion of commercial/industrial uses. To "declare" that formula 5 from March 24 is now governing on such projects might be a poor position to legally defend. The City Attorney should be consulted on this. HOW BEST TO PROCEED? The City is in the very process of formally determining a new policy on sewer fees. The current 28-7 provision results in a minimal fee being paid; the Pavilion project has long been in discussion and, per the EIR mitigation measures, is obligated to 7 pay is "pro -rata share of such improvements"; the proposed fee basis (agenda item 7A) would result in a levy of $ 422,611.47. Gre;,ory Cit Manage GTM/ld cc: Hermosa Pavilion 8 April 27, 1987 Members of the City Council Members of the Planning Commission Hermosa Beach City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Re: Hermosa Beach Pavilion Dear Councilpersons and Commissioners: Recent events compel me to communicate to you my strong feelings on several topics relating to the Hermosa Pavilion Shopping Center. For reasons that escape me I will probably be appearing before you in the next few weeks to discuss two subjects: (1) The exact square footage and parking for the project and (2) a sewer assessment fee. I firmly believe that neither of these issues would have arisen had it not been for my involvement with the Biltmore Site Hotel Project. Throughout the "Hotel Controversy" I have nevertheless maintained cordial and respectful relationships with many of the "hotel opponents". In fact, several strong opponents of the hotel have been key supporters of the Shopping Center. I have lived in Hermosa for over a year now and deeply value my ties to this community. Many of you have seen me running on The Strand, attending Little League Games, and eating Sunday breakfast at Martha's. I have donated to local school events and contribute to the_ Community Center. My integration into this community has proceeded beyond the approval of the shopping center. In addition, let me point out that the future of the hotel rests soley with the judicial system. Yet, the growing likeliness of the approval of the hotel has generated a level of pettiness and aggression that is disappointing and disillusioning. Let me address the issues and see if those of you involved in the public hearing process have similar recollections. 1. Exact Square Footage & Parking The project was approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to a parking plan and negative declaration. The "approved building" required that certain changes be made in the plans. (e.g. two driveways into the parking, subtracting 5 parking spaces and substituting 25 motorcycle spaces, etc., etc.). Therefore, certain of the documents incorporated into the approval were superficially inconsistent while nevertheless achieving the intent of the commission and satisfying CEQA review requirements. Members of the City Council Members of the Planning Commission April 27, 1987 Page 2 However, if one inappropriately goes back only to the parking plann analysis, the Planning Commission approved the following: 1. Retail 2. Restaurant 3. Theatres 28,236 square feet 17,693 square feet 25,344 square feet 71,273 This layout was required to provide 540 parking spaces (-5 for motorcycles). Please note that parking for the theatre is calculated on a per seat basis, as opposed to a square footage basis for the other uses. After incorporating the design changes suggested by staff and the planning commission, and allowing for the further development of the drawings, we submitted the following layout to the City Council: A. Retail decreased by 1,096. Under strict code application of 1 per 250 square feet we would get a credit of 4.38 spaces B. Theatre seats decreased by 7 seats. Under strict code application of 1 per 5 seats we would get a credit of 1.4 spaces Total Credit: 5.78 spaces C. Restaurant increased by 1756. Under strict code application of 1 per 100 we would need to provide 17.56 spaces Therefore, the net difference on a strict code application is 11.78 spaces. Please remember that the parking plan approved the shared parking concept and I have applied strict code numbers that disregard the shared parking concept. I also point out that we are still achieving a total parking ration of 7.42 per 1000 square feet. Under the shared parking concept, in the evenings we are providing a ratio of 10.14 per 1000 square feet. Members of the City Council Members of the Planning Commission April 27, 1987 Page 3 As part of our response to an appeal filed of the Planning Commission Approval we submitted on appeal: Retail 27,140 Theatre 26,093 Restaurant 19,449 72,692 The drawings incorporated these changes were attached to my submission to the City Council and were reflected on the presentation boards presented before the council. Please note the following: 1. The total increase in square footage was 1419 square feet or 1.9% of the total. This magnitude of change in going from concept drawings to working/construction drawings is remarkable for its adherence to the conceptual approval. 2. Of the increase, 749 square feet is in the theatre. Such increase neither increases capacity or traffic. In fact, the number of seats reduced by 7! 3. Therefore the total increase in square footage that is relevant to a parking discussion (1419 - 749) is 670 square feet or .009% 4. The relevant change in the configuration is made up of the 1756 square foot increase in the square footage of the restaurants. I have agreed to eliminate 1200 square feet of restaurant space until the Commission has further reviewed this analysis. Therefore, in the interum, we are at a complete break-even on parking. No special favors of any kind were extended to this project. In fact, the hypersensitivity to me as the "hotel developer" has caused staff to refuse to make ordinary administrative decisions that they would normally make. Finally, as to parking, let me point out an issue that has not been reviewed in the newspapers. One of the discussed documents that has confused this issue has been a paragraph in the negative declaration that restricted the number of valet and tandem spaces. When the project was redesigned to enclose the garage, the creation of fan rooms and ventilator shafts necessitated the creation of more valet/tandem spaces! We have the ability to create up to 570 or more spaces. Again, the perhaps reasonable concerns of staff as to the controversy surrounding the hotel prevented them from allowing us to use valet parking to dramatically increase the parking. We asked only that the same tandem standard be applied to us that is applied city wide. Members of the City Council Members of the Planning Gommimmion April 27, 1987 Page 4 I will be- coming before you to further explain this at a later date. I will say that all of the discussions about seeking to promote commercial development on PCH has not resulted in a favorable or reasonable business environment. The Sewer Assessment Fee This is the more difficult issue for me to discuss because it is the motivation behind my feeling that I have not been treated fairly. If nothing else, as a Hermosa voter and resident, I want its elected officials to understand some of the frustration of trying to also do business here. In addition, as an owner of potentially two commercial facilities that will generate a substantial portion of Hermosa's tax revenues and employment, I hope that I can establish a fair and businesslike relationship with City Hall. With all of the controversy surrounding the hotel, there are very few people in town who will ever accuse me of not being courteous and civil. All of us have a right to expect such treatment in our mutual dealings. Lastly, I know that a letter to public officials is a public document and will soon find its way to the local press. Therefore, you can assume that, in light of the litigous nature of this town, my feelings are perhaps even stronger than those expressed here. - - Some Facts: 1. My construction and acquisition loan for the project was closed and funded on March 15, 1987. As part of that closing I received a written letter from the building department stating that I was entitled to pick up a building permit subject only to paying the fee and providing a stamped set of plans from Cal Trans. In addition, the Planning Commission sent to the loan closing a stamped certified document stating that I had complied with the negative declaration. 2. Prior to March 15, 1987, I had attended a series of meetings with various city staff to ensure that I could comply with my closing schedule. Various requests were made of me and each was met within.a time frame acceptable to staff. 3. I elected to pay for my building permit on March 31, 1987, because (a) the approximately $70,000 cost justifies waiting as long as possible and I could not begin construction until The Priamos' vacated the property on April 15, 1987; and (b) I prudently wanted to not incurr the new school tax which began in April. A meeting was scheduled with Bill Grove at approximately 3:00 p.m. on March 31st for the sole purpose of picking up the building permit. The setting and purpose of this meeting was widely known among staff. Members of the City Council Members of the Planning Commission April 27, 1987 Page 5 4. At the March 31st meeting the issue covered in the first half of this letter was discussed and resolved as set forth above. 5. At approximately 4:00 p.m. during that same meeting, the Public Works director declared that "the traffic study was inaccurate". The negative declaration had been certified months earlier! My agreement was to pay for a subsequent traffic study (which I did) which was to tie into the signalization of Pier & Valley/Ardmore. If justified, I was to contribute an additional $40,000 to traffic signalization. This was all part of the public hearing process. This study was not part of the approval of the project but was a precondition to my having to put up the $40,000 for traffic signals. I have paid for the study and am fully prepared to pay for the traffic light. The Public Works director (who contracted, administered and reviewed the traffic study long after my negative declaration had been certified) told me on March 31st that the study did not include an analysis of the deceleration stacking lane on PCH and 16th Street, that he (the Public Works Director) did not know that there was one, and that my study was therefore invalid. I raise 3 points: 1. Plans for this project have shown a deceleration/stacking lane since its inception. The lane was discussed at every staff meeting and public hearing. My architects met several times with the Public Works director to help design it. The public works director sat in Cal Trans meetings to analyze this exact issue. For the public works director to suggest that he didn't know that there was a stacking lane (he did so in front of numerous witnesses) is staggering. For him to undertake a study not including it is inexplicable. Moreover, the public work director had this study months prior to the March 31st meeting. He sat on this information through many meetings on the same subject post his receipt of the study. To resolve the matter, staff elected to call the traffic consultant who pointed out that the Project was dramatically improved by the addition of the stacking lane and the matter was dropped. 2. At 4:50 on March 31st (potentially 10 minutes prior to my incurring the new school tax, the public works director handed me a letter asking for- approximately $460,000 in sewer assessments. I sincerely believe that the expression of shock on my face was matched by those in the room. This delivery was accompanied by the announcement that "Just so you don't accuse me of sitting on anything else... here". Members of the City Council Members of the Planning Commission April 27, 1987 Page 6 3. I think that staff, other than the public works director, will confirm the fact that I am meticulous about determining fees in advance. I received estimates and costs from Planning, Building & Safety, Cal Trans, County Sewers and Public Works. This is demonstrated by my discussions months ago with Bill Grove and Greg Meyer that I felt that an approximately $120,000 plan check and building permit fee was excessive. After some review it was paid. Those of you at all familiar with construction loan procedures will immediately recognize that all fees must be submitted and documented to the lender months in advance as part of the approval of the loan commitment. My point here is not to attempt to explain this behavior or concoct conspiracies and scenarios. I am pointing out the fact that achieving agreed upon mutual goals (well designed, highly parked commercial development on PCH) is next to impossible in this kind of environment. I was told, as part of the staff EIR review, that the sewers would be adequate to handle the proposed facility. Nevertheless, under the assurance that the fee would be "much less than the hotel" I assumed the fee to be less than $30,000. On more than one occasion the public works director and I discussed an estimate of $17,000. However, lets assume for arguments sake that no number was discussed. The public works director decided that a new directive from the council imposes this large fee. Does he call me? Does he raise the issue during our meetings? No. On April 1st, 1987, (the day after the public works director handed me his first letter) the public works director mailed to me a second demand letter (attached). On April 14th, 1987, I received a letter from the City Manager which suggests that the matter is still to be discussed. On April 21st, 1987, I received another letter from the public works director by certified mail! I am fully aware of the implications of certified mail. How would any of you have reacted in this same instance? The Pavilion is one of the largest projects in the history of Hermosa Beach. It has been well supported in view of the history of this -town. I think most of you will recognize that I applied past experience to design a project around the concerns of Hermosa Beach. Members of the City Council Members of the Planning Commission April 24, 1987 Page 7 The Pavilion is now under construction and will soon be a beautiful part of Hermosa's economy and ambience. I hope these temporary problems do not foretell a difficult relationship. I will be speaking with each of you to discuss these matters in the near future. Sincerely, eph T. L- glois ice Pres]. ent Developers Equities, Inc. and P. er: Developers Equities -Hermosa A California limited Partnership cc: Kathleen Midstock Tony Antich Greg Meyer Bill Grove Mike Schubach Jim Lough CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM TO: Michael Schubach, Planning Director FROM: Anthony Antich, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Hermosa Pavilion Project at 1617 Pacific Coast Hwy. DATE: March 31, 1987 From the data provided in the Hermosa Pavilion Negative Declaration and the following statement placed in the Negative Declaration by the developer: "The project shall pay its pro -rata share of such improvements (sewer), as determined by the Public Works Department." The following is the calculation of the pro -rata share of sewer costs of $451,411.52. BACKGROUND: On March 24, 1987, City Council accepted a $12,981.24 in -lieu sewer payment for the 10 -condominium project located at 829, 829-1/2 and 833 Fifth Street. The calculation for the in -lieu payment was based on the Santina & Thomp•son report and a 1987 estimated sewer replacement cost of $30,000,000. The $30 million replacement cost is an extrapolation of the estimated cost from the MSI Report and the Santana & Thompson Report. The pro -rata calculation uses the concept of equivalent dwelling units or sewer units. For the Hermosa Pavilion, the following data is provided. 1. In 1983 Santina & Thompson calcuated 8319.7 equivalent dwelling units in the City of Hermosa Beach. Hence, the cost of a connection of one single family house in 1987 is: ••$30,000,000 8319.7 = $3,605.90 2. The cost of sewer connections for the other 41 land use categories (as identified by the County Sanitation District) can be simply calculated by dividing the flow generation of that category to the flow generation of a single family dwelling unit and multiplied by the unit cost above. 3. The following are provided from the County Sanitation District. Use Single Family House Retail (stores) Unit of Usage Flow (GPD) Sewer Units .'K. Parcel 260 1.00 1,000 s.f. 100 0.38 Restaurant Theatres (in -door) 1,000 s.f. 1,000 8.85 1,000 s.f. 500 •1.87 CALCULATION FOR 1617 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, HERMOSA PAVILION Cost: Proposed Project Use V S.F. ; Flow i ; Total (GPD) ; Total ; Sewer Units Retail ; 100/ + (store) 28,236 i 1000 s.f. ; 2,823.6 i 10.73 1 I f 1,000/ + Restaurant 17,693 1000 s.f. = 17.693.0 I 156.58 500/ + Theatres 25,344 1,000 s.f. 12,672.0 47.39 Total 33,188.6 214.7 ..33,188.6 260 X $3,605.90 = $460,287.58 Credit: Existing Structures Use Total Sq. Ft. Flow Total (GPD) Sewer Unit Single Family N/A 260 260 1.00 Retail (stores) 3,800 100/1000 sf 380 1.44 Total 640 2.44 640 : 260 x 3,605.90 = $8,876.06 Summary Use • Connection Fee Sewer Units Proposed Project $460,287.58 Existing Structures (credit) 8,876.06 $451,411...52 cc: Bill Grove, Building and Safety Director 214.70 2.44 212.26 HD April 1, 1987 C1TV oF beR'i*M )3EKUA CIVIC CENTER HERMOSA BEACH CALIFORNIA 9 0 2 5 4 CITY HALL:254 CI 3 7 6- 6 9 8 4 POLICE -AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS: 376-7981 Developer's Equities, Inc. 1880 Century Park East, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Attention: Joe Langlois Subject: Hermosa Pavilion Dear Joe, This letter is a follow up to the meeting on March 31, 1987 where I gave you a copy of the attached letter. Your reaction at the time was that you could not pay that amount. Please clarify for me your intent, do you or do you not intend to pay to the City of Hermosa Beach the amount shown on my March 31, 1987 memo to Michael Schubach? If you do intend to pay, when can the City expect payment. If you do not intend to pay, please provide in writing your reasons for not paying the amount. Until this matter is resolved I cannot issue a permit to allow the project's wastewater to discharge into the City sewer system. I would appreciate a written response within two weeks so this matter can be resolved as quickly as possible. Sincerely, A ny Antich Director of Publ4c Works Attached: March 31, 1987 memo - hand delivered to Joe Langlois AA:ls 1 .11,0-10N April 21, 1987 ii7ITY oF he3MoM 13EAb, CIVIC CENTER HERMOSA BEACH CALIFORNIA 9 0 2 5 4 CITY HALL:NIA 90 3 7 6- 6 9 8 4 POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS: 3 7 6- 7 9 8 1 Developer's Equity, Inc. 1880 Century Park East, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Attention: Joe Langlois Certified Return Receipt Requested: P-506 330 215 RE: Hermosa Pavilion Dear Joe: RECEIVED APR 2 7 198/ Ans'd On April 1, 1987 I wrote you a letter (attached) requesting a written response within two weeks. It has been longer than two weeks and I have not received a written response. Again, I would appreciate a written response to my April 1, 1987 letter so that this matter can be resolved as quickly as possible. Sincerely, Anthony Antic Director of Public Works AA:ls Attachment: April 1, 1987 letter from Director of Public Works City of Hermosa Beach. 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM- RECE?VEP APR 16 198i Ana ............ TO: Public Works Director Anthony Antich FROM: City Manager Gregory T. Meyer DATE: April 14, 1987 RE: Hermosa Pavilion Sewer Connection Fee Please hold in abeyance your two week deadline for them to respond re. the appropriate fee. Upon my return from vacation I would like to discuss this matter with you at our next one-on-one meeting Monday, April 20. While I realize that we never gave them an exact fee, it is my recollection that we implied it would be a pro rata share of the rehabilitation cost for the sewer project that commences in the Travelodge vicinity, passes by Alpha Beta, Von's, Marie Callen- dar's and terminates near Hermosa Valley School. Such a pro rata share would be a different number than that utilized by formula No. 5 as recently discussed by the City Council. I think we should be prepared to wind up with this matter being adjudicated by the City Council at either its April 28 or May 12, 1987 meeting. -- - G e orT. Meyer City M- ager GTM/ld llT SDE bietlyitS11 i3EIKXb. CIVIC CENTER HERMOSA BEACH CALIFORNIA 9 0 2 5 4 CITY HALL: (213) 376-6984 POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS: 3 7 6- 7 9 8 1 April 1, 1987 Developer's Equities, Inc. 1880 Century Park East, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Attention: Joe Langlois Subject: Hermosa Pavilion Dear Joe, This letter is a follow up to the meeting on March 31, 1987 where I gave you a copy of the attached letter. Your reaction at the time was that you could not pay that amount. Please clarify for me your intent, do you or do you not intend to pay to the City of Hermosa Beach the amount shown on my March 31, 1987 memo to Michael Schubach? If you do intend to pay, when can the City expect payment. If you do not intend to pay, please provide in writing your reasons for not paying the amount. - Until this matter is resolved I cannot issue a permit to allow the project's wastewater to discharge into the City sewer system. I would appreciate a written response within two weeks so this matter can be resolved as quickly as possible. Sincerely, Afbriy Antich Director of P bl c Works Attached: March 31, 1987 memo - hand delivered to Joe Langlois AA:ls 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH INTER -OFFICE MEMO TO: Planning, Public Works, Fire, DATE: 3/6/87 and Police Departments RE: Hermosa Pavilion Permits FROM: William Grove, Director Dept. of Bldg. & Safety The developer of the Hermosa Pavilion project at 1617 P.C.H. has re- turned corrected working drawings from our building code consultant and is desirous of obtaining a building permit. Please inform me in writing if the project has complied with all of your departments requirements or , if not, what items remain to be resolved prior to permit issuance. A response is requested no later than 3:00 p.m. on Monday, March 9, 1987. CC: Gregory T. Meyer, City Manager ,CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH INTER -OFFICE MEMO TO: Bill Grove, Director of Building & Safety FROM: Anthony Antich, Director of Public Works DATE: March 9, 1987. SUBJECT: Hermosa Pavilion Permits - Memo Dated 3-6-87. The following items are still pending and are not dependent on Building Permit issuance: I. Street Plans for Sixteenth Street Currently in plan check process. II. Deeds for right-of-way Dedication a) Sixteenth Street b) Pacific Coast Highway III. Deed for five feet sewer easement along westerly property line. IV. Payment to City of $40,000 as directed by City Council at February 24, 1987 meeting. This amount is to guarantee fu- ture improvements to the impacted intersections. Anthony Antich Director of Pub Works 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM TO: Bill Grove, Director of Building & Safety FROM: Tony Antich, Director of Public Works G q RE: Hermosa Pavilion - Dual Entrance Gates off of 16th . Street DATE: March 16, 1987 After reviewing the building plans for the Hermosa Pavilion, on Friday, 3/13/87, I am concerned about the placement of the entrance gates on 16th Street. Placement, as shown, may cause queing and congestion of traffic. Before the plans were drawn, I telephoned Joe Langlois about this concern. Later, I mentioned this to the City Manager, and also told him that the developer will have to correct their placement before the final plans are drawn. cc: Michael Schubach Planning Director 1 1 May 1987 Members of the City Council City Hall Hermosa Beach, California Dear Members of the Council: The Easy Reader in its continuing coverage of the Langlois Pavilion development reported in its 30 April issue that Langlois obtained a permit on 31 March, a permit which included his agreement to pay a sewer assessment to be determined (according to a pro rate formula) by the Hermosa Beach Public Works Department. After Langlois agreed to this form of determination, he then claimed he was earlier provided a much lower quote by the public works director, who denied a figure was provided. Of much greater concern, however, is Easy Reader's report that a city official, none other than the city manager, "...said the fee may be substantially lowered by not being required to adhere to the formula, recently agreed on by the city council." (emphasis added) This suggestion of preferential treatment for a permit applicant by a city officer requires the immediate attention of and investigation by the City Council. Langlois, in an admittedly straightforward strategy of tax avoidance, delayed the submission of his application, which he claimed had placed him in a difficult position with his lenders. His choice to delay the submission of his application included this inherent, foreseeable risk and the results of his choice for late submission should not in any way deter or pressure the Council in its investigation. The Council must ensure that all laws, ordinances, rulings of civic government are applied even-handedly. If the Public Works Director must adhere to the City Council's assessment formula, the city manager can do no less. The business of the city government is not the preferential treatment of an individual business endeavor but governance under laws equally applied to all applicants. Very truly yours, Patricia Hill 841 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California 90254 cc: The Easy Reader Law Offices of James P. Lough JAMES P. LOUGH COVIR TO: FROM: RE: June 4, 1987 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1605 WEST OLYMPIC BLVD. SUITE 9018 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90015 (213) 381-6131 CONFIDENTIALMEMORANDUM Mayor and Members of the City Council James P. Lough, City Attorney Langlois Sewer Project CDflF1OERT1L When considering this project, it is important for the Council to realize some of the constraints under which it operates. After review by staff of the overall matter, it has been determined that the City has overcharged the developer for building fees which are supposed to be based upon a cost reasonably borne for the services provided by the City. It is because of this problem and the potential impacts of this problem on other projects that I am recommending that any arrangement worked out should be approved in the form of a settlement agreement that reflects an overall settlement between the developers of the Hermosa Pavilion Project and the City of Hermosa Beach. The drafting of an overall settlement agreement would keep the developer, or any other person, from coming back and challenging any particular aspect of the arrangement without considering the entire construction of the deal. Since there is some exposure because of the prices that the City charged for the building permit fees, I strongly urge the Council to not discuss the fact that the fee in question is not a cost reasonably borne by the City. Once the deal is consum- mated, if it is, and the developer signs off on it, you would then be free to discuss the reasons behind the settlement with regard to this aspect. If you have any questions regarding any of the above- ___ feel free to contact me. NOT A PUBLIC RECORD This document is exempt from public disclosure pursuant to Government Code Section 6254 & is a Confidential Communication between Attorney and Client under Evidence Code Section 952 JPL/gp Respectfully submitted, cc: Gregory T. Meyer, City Manager L6/SR0609D ES P. LOUGH, City Attorney CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH f2,