Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/12/87"The most important things in life aren't things." -Unknown AGENDA REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 12, 1987 - Council Chambers, City Hall Closed Session - 6:30 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: PROCLAMATIONS: „Trffic Safety Week, May 17-23, 1987 _gareect Posture Month, May, 1987 Classified School Employees Week, May 17-23, 1987 � b PRESENTATION OF 2 BICYCLES FROM BEACH CITIES CYCLE TO THE CITY FOR USE BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT BEACH PATROL. P$ESENTATION OF AWARDS TO HERMOSA BEACH YOUTH BASKETBALL LEAGUE INTRODUCTION OF NEW EMPLOYEES:lding Inspector, Norbert Kowatschitsch DeiiitCity Treasurer, ild Dianne Payroll Clerk, Fin '••a Gloyne Dept., CITIZEN COMMENTS Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any items on the Consent Calendar may do so at this time. 1. 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 - 1 - (a) 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.) Approval of Minutes: Regular meeting of the City Coun- cil held on April 28, 1987. c13"lcIk k Recommended Action: To approve minutes. (b) Demands and Warrants: May 12, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve Demands and Warrants Nos. through inclusive. (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) Tentative Future Agenda Items. Recommended Action: To receive and file. City Manager Activity Report: Memorandum from City Man- ager Gregory T. Meyer dated May 6, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. Request for Closed Session: Memorandum from City Man- ager Gregory T. Meyer dated May 7, 1987. Recommended Action: To calendar a Closed Session for May 26, 1987 at 6:00 p.m. Monthly Investment Report: Memorandum from City Treasurer Norma Goldbach dated May 6, 1987. Recommended Action: Receive and file. Cancellation of Warrants. Memorandum from City Treasurer Norma Goldbach dated May 6, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve cancellation of Warrant No. 023067. Claims for Damages: 1) Ricardo Icaza, 911 - 14th Street, Manhattan Beach, filed January 21, 1987, amended April 17, 1987; 2) John Francis McGonigle, 819 7th St. #A, Santa Monica, filed May 5, 1987. Recommended Action: To deny claims and refer to City's insurance adjusters. Department of Community Resources March, 1987 Activity Report, Revised. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian dated May 1, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. - 2 (1) Ol (o) Policy regarding gymnasium use at the Community Center. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian dated May 1, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. City Charter Update. Memorandum from Assistant City Manager Alana Mastrian dated May 1, 1987. Recommended Action: To convene a workshop session in July for discussion of adopting a City Charter. 1987 Chamber of Commerce Program of Work Conference. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated May 5, 1987. Recommended Action: To appropriate from Prospective Expenditures to City Council - Conferences an amount not to exceed $360 to fund the attendance of Council members and staff at the 1987 Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce Program of Work Conference. Informational report regarding panhandling. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated May 4, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. Election Calendar - General Municipal Election consoli- dated with County Elections, November 3, 1987. Memoran- dum from City Clerk Kathleen Midstokke dated May 1, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. Extension of agreement with Executive Suite Services, Inc. for housekeeping services. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated May 1, 1987. Recommended Action: Authorize Mayor to sign extension of agreement. Request by Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce for certain services in conjunction with their 20th Bi -Annual Fiesta de las Artes May 23, 24 and 25, 1987 and September 5, 6 and 7, 1987. Letter from Chamber of Commerce Executive Vice President William C. Fowler dated April 20, 1987. Recommended Action: To (1) approve closure of Pier Avenue from the Strand to Manhattan Avenue from 10th St. to 14th St.; (2) approve participation by local mer- chants in sidewalk sales on the show dates; (3) to ap- prove assistance of Public Works in hanging the signs and banners; and (4) require the Chamber to hire a com- mercial clean-up company and supervise street clean-up. 3 (q) _ Award of Bid: Sanitar• Sewer Re•lacement - Tar et Area II CIP 8 -402 . Memorandum from Pu•lic Wor s Director Anthony Antich dated April 28, 1987. Recommended Action: 1) Authorize Mayor to sign Agree- ment with Christeve Corporation for Sanitary Sewer Re- placement, Target Area II, at a cost of $527,925 and 2) authorize staff to issue change orders in an amount not to exceed 10% of the contract amount. Request for approval of Traffic Signal Upgrade (CIP 85- 1388). Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated April 27, 1987 Recommended Action: To approve Traffic Signal Study and uthorize Mohle, Grover & Associates to proceed with the Traffic Signal Design project for CIP 85-138 to: a) develop drawings, plans & specifications for traffic signal improvements on Hermosa Avenue at 2nd St., llth St., Pier Ave. and 13th St.; b) develop increased light- ing plan for Peir Ave. at Valley/Ardmore, but not con- sider a signal at this location at this time; c) develop a plan to optimize signal timing at Aviation/Prospect intersection but not consider protected left turn at this time. Closure of Hermosa Avenue median breaks at 9th St., 17th St., 18th St., and 20th St. (CIP 85-130). Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated April 30, 1987. Recommended Action: To make determination of whether to approve Planning Commission recommendation to have staff study the intersections at 9th, 10th and llth Sts. for purpose of reducing the accident rate at those intersec- \ C, tions and return to a Commission with their recomme ions; or, to appro a staff recommendation that gouncil authorize staff t, not consider CIP 85-130 a his time and that closing o the median breaks be considered with the Cir.ctilation Element. (t) Request from L. A. County Board of Supervisors for sup- port of their action urging the State Legislature to impose upon itself the same requirements of the Brown Act that are applicable to local levels ofovernment. Letter from Larry J. Monteilh, Executive Officer, Board of Supervisors dated April 23, 1987. Recommended Action: That Council take a legislative position urging the State Legislature to impose upon itself the same requirements of the Brown Act that are applicable to local levels of government, and that the City Clerk so advise our State elected officials, the League of California Cities and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. 4 (u) Child Abuse Monthly Report. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian dated May 6, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. 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) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY NCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REQU TING THE JUDGES OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF T SOUTH BAY JUDICIAL DISTRICT TO DETERMINE AND ESTAB SH A REASONABLE BAIL FOR VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 5-24. OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. For adoption. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated May 4, 1987. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RELATING TO AIR TRAFFIC SAFETY. For adoption. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. 5. ZONE CHANGE FROM R-1, C -POTENTIAL TO C-3 AND PRECISE PLAN FOR REAR 1/2 OF LOT 2 OF HEFFNER, FIORINI, ALLEN TRACT AT 1514 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND NEGATIVE DECLA- RATION. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated May 4, 1987. A. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFOR- NIA, APPROVING A ZONE CHANGE FROM R-1, C -POTENTIAL TO C-3 AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PROPERTY LO- CATED TO THE REAR OF 1514 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE REAR ONE-HALF OF LOT 2, OF THE HEFFNER, FIORINI, ALLEN TRACT. . A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN FOR 1514 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. HEARINGS 6. C10 v; AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA TO PROHIBIT THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR PROJECTS INVOLVING NONCONFORMING �s `-ra a.Q.LLAJ P l� STRUCTURES AND USES, WHERE THE VALUE OF THE PROJECT EX- CEEDS 50 OF THE REASONABLE REPLACEMENT VALUE OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. (Continued from 4/28/87 meeting.) 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 7. SEWER FEES. -0- (b) A) REPORT RECOMMENDING REVISIONS IN THE SEWER CONNEC- TION FEE (HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 28.7) AND ASKING THAT THE MATTER BE SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated May 5, 1987. Recommended Action: To 1) review and consider the draft sewer connection fee; and, 2) to adopt a resolution requesting an ordinance prescribing fees for connecting to city sewerage system or for in- creasing quantity to a connected parcel, and pro- viding for collection of such charges. B) ESTABLISHING IN -LIEU SEWER CONNECTION FEE FOR HER- MOSA PAVILION COMMERCIAL PROJECT. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated May 6, 1987 and letter from Hermosa Pavilion developer Joseph T. Langlois dated April 27, 1987 and letter from Patricia Hill dated May 1, 1987. Recommended Action: Make policy determination set- ting the in lieu sewer connection fee for the Her- mosa Pavilion commercial project. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER Status report re. developing a new County/Cityagreement for beach maintenance/ lifeguard services with recommen- dation to approve in concept a new five year agreement. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated May 7, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve in concept a new 5 -year service agreement subject to 11 terms and conditions. Interim report re. kiosk at Pierhead. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated May 7, 1987. Recommended Action: To make policy determination. 6 Q- 3"0, - 3"', -CS p 101 .34g5 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL Recommendation from the Business Relations Sub -Committee pertaining to a request from the Downtown Merchant's Association to replace the green -poled twenty minute meters in the downtown area. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dated April 21, 1987. Recommended Action: 1) To modify all the green -poled 20 minute meters; 2) instruct staff as to any changes in downtown meters/curb markings; 3) direct staff to return with resolution pertaining to 15 minute green curb mark- ings; 4) appropriate $500 from Parking Fund to Traffic Safety Fund, for labor involved in removing meter poles and painting green curbs; and 5) if all above recommen- dations accepted by Council, there be no further change on this issue for at least 1 year from date of implementation. Recommendations from the Business Relations Sub - Committee pertaining to requests made by the Downtown Merchant's Association. Memorandum from general Ser- vices Director Joan Noon dated April 20, 1987. Recommended Action: a) To convert 258 meters in down- town area to nickel, dime and quarter at an estimated cost of $7,355, to be appropriated from Prospective Ex- penditures to Parking Fund; b) direct staff to investi- gate installation of meters that give five minute courtesy period; c) to set for public hearing on May 26 consideration of a three hour time limit enforcement. (c) Report from Councilmember June Williams dated May 5, 1987 re. April 30 meeting of the Hermosa Beach Coor- dinating Council. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (d) Legal issues regarding placement of oil revenue limita- tion on November ballot. Memorandum from City Attorney James P. Lough dated May 4, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file report. 10. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL 11. MEETING OF THE HERMOSA BEACH PARKING AUTHORITY. (a) CONSENT CALENDAR (1) Approval of minutes of February 24, 1987 meeting. (b) Proceeding with a Community Center Vicinity Parking Facility. 7 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 attendant; 3) seek from Comm. Resources Comm. a proposed revision in tenant lease re- newals for 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/circulation, examine ac- quiring adjacent gas station; 7) seek City Atty. opinion on any public parking facility restrictions in force and effect as result of Community center grant deed from Hermosa Beach City Schools. APPEARANCE OF INTERESTED CITIZENS 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 p (c4-1 cA .0/3 ,-veLai, 13-f4 sw/ G;(33 thi-T-PE. swS'N) 11-0-1 Where there is no vision the people perish... . 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 GOVERMENT Hermosa Beach bas 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 considaered 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 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. operated as an inte- e Law Offices of James P. Lough JAMES P. LOUGH May 4, 1987 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM 1605 WEST OLYMPIC BLVD. SUITE 9018 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90015 (213) 381-6131 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 12, 1987 TO: Members of the City Council FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney RE: Legal Issues Regarding Placement of Oil Revenue Limitation on November Ballot RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report. This memo is in response to the Council's request for an opinion regarding the above-mentioned matter. The City Council is contemplating putting an initiative on the ballot which would limit use of any oil revenue received from onshore development to be used only for open space development and/or acquisition. This memo does not address the issue of revenues derived from oil taken from the tidelands. There are two types of revenues that the City could receive from onshore oil development. One type could be the royalties from the agreement signed with Macpherson Oil Company. The second type would be taxes and fees charged to Macpherson for doing business in the City or applying for various permits. Under the first category (royalty), a ballot measure could restrict these funds to whatever use the City Council desires. There is nothing in any state rule, law or constitutional pro- vision which would prevent such an earmarking of funds. Such royalty payments are contractual rights rather than taxes or fees and, therefore, not subject to all of the restrictions found under Proposition 13 and other similar laws. As to fees and taxes, the problem would become more diffi- cult. If the Council were to restrict taxes, such as business license taxes, received from Macpherson Oil to any particular type of use would probably run afoul of the California Consti- tution. No city may pass a special tax without a two-thirds votes of the people. Earmarking the money in question for a particular use would probably make such a tax a special one and subject to this two-thirds vote requirement. As to fees gener- ated, a legal problem would arise in that fees generated are supposed to only be used to defray the actual cost of providing the service in question. If we were to charge fees to raise 17/SR0512A -1- 9d 4 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 12, 1987 TO: Members of the City Council FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney RE: Legal Issues Regarding Placement of Oil Revenue Limitation on November Ballot open space funds, they would be subject to challenge as not relating to the cost reasonably borne for providing the services (permit review). The question would then become whether it is good policy to approve such a measure in the opinion of the City Council. One factor that should be noted is that the current oil well producing revenue for the City (the Stinnett well) currently only provides about ten dollars a month in royalties to the City of Hermosa Beach. The City Council might want to consider deferring this issue until test wells are sunk to determine whether or not there is enough oil above the mean high tide line to justify the expense of an election on this subject. JPL/gp Respectfully submitted, cc: Gregory T. Meyer, City Manager 17/SR0512A -2- JAMES P. LOUG$, City Atto.fney CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH / Simpson - Condition of Flags being flown by the City - Public Works will initiate obtaining new flags when they are needed. Williams.- LOV Merger.Ordinance - Advised Council that the County Tax Assessor would like to be informed of our lot merger ordinance -re demolition of -build-ing-s Action: Staff to notify the Los Angeles County Assessor's office that we do have a lot merger ordin- anceire demolition of -buildings and transmit a copy to them. Motion Williams, second Simpson. So ordered noting the absence of DeBellis. Williams - Sewer Fees and Public Works Director Comments Public Works Director Antich was commended by Council - member Williams for his excellent report on calculat- ing sewer fees. She reaffirmedrh-er understanding of , Council direction that the same manner of calculating sewer fees be applied to all other projects. Rosenberger - Specific Plan for Biltmore Site Action: To bring back the 54' height limit Specific Plan for the Biltmore site at the Closed Session of May 26, 1987. Motion Rosenberger, second Williams. So ordered noting the absence of DeBellis. APPEARANCE OF INTERESTED CITIZENS Bob Hoffman,.Hoffmants Restaurant, 2231 Hermosa Avenue re En- croachments - asked staff to look at the encroachment ordinance and the encroachment agreement which he feels are inconsistent. Action: To direct the City Attorney to not take any action against Hoffman's Restaurant's encroachment until more informa- tion is made available to the City Council at the meeting of May 26, 1987. Motion Mayor Cioffi, second Williams. So ordered noting the absence of DeBellis. Ken Ashman, 48 Hermosa Avenue 11 re Clark Field Basketball Courts Care and Maintenance, Community Center Gym Open to the Public, and changing "pppeaarance of Interested Citizens" to earlier.on the Agenda. Action: Staff to come back with a report on the basketball courts at Clark Stadium and improvements needed, how we can han- dle free time play at the Community Center gym, and if we don't have any, can we? Motion Mayor Cioffi, second Simpson. So ordered noting the absence of DeBellis. Consent Calendar items (c) Williams, (f) Williams 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. (a) Letter from Mr. Wiliam R. Lawrence, 3410 Hermosa Avenue., dated April 17, 1987 re. storing of recreational vehi- cles on city streets. Action: Refer to staff for some control. Motion Rosenberger, second Mayor Cioffi. So ordered noting the absence of DeBellis. HEARINGS 5. AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA TO PROHIBIT THE ISSUANCE -OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR REMODELING OF RESIDENTIAL DWELL- INGS. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director Wil- liam Grove and Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 20, 1987. Supplemental information - letter from Robb Anderson, 28th Street, dated April 23, 1987; memo- randum from Building Director Williams Grove dated April 28, 1987. NOTE: Requires a 4/5 vote (4 votes if only 4 present.) The staff report was presented by City Attorney Lough, Planning Director Schubach and Building Director Grove. Proposed Action:cTo not accept public testimony on- prohibiting riprohibiting the issuance of building permits for ---- remodeling of residential uses. Motion Williams - dies for lack of a second Council asked that public discussion areas discussed by the Council. Speaking to Council in opposition of emergency ordinance were: Tom Morley, 516 Loma Drive Pete Adams, 325 - 26th Street Betty Ryan, 588 - 20th Street Parker Herritt, 224 - 24th Street George Lanz, 17 - 16th Street Carol Reznichek, 2234 Strand Chuck Sheldon, 1800 Strand Jerry Compton, 832 - 7th Street be limited to those adopting the Proposed Action; To change the title of the ordinance to read "AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PRECLUDING THE ACCEPTING OF BUILDING_ APPLICATIONS FOR ALTERNATIONS TO NONCONFORMING USES [OR NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS WHICH Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council May 6, 1987 City Council Meeting of May 12, 1987 ACTIVITY REPORT 1. The 6th Street Storm Drain project (supervised by the County is going well. The aim is to be completed before Memorial Day. There is some temporary re-routing of traffic required on Hermosa Ave (see attached). On a related matter, we are still working on a companion project re. Beach Drive drainage and sewer line replacement. This project will be done later; the costs are more than we can financially handle right now and it was not possible to "add" this project to the County's; 2. Good strides are being made re. developing a strategy for im- proving our overall image; the Downtown Merchants Association is exploring how to utilize the marketing/research capabili- ties of Cal State Dominguez (upper division business admin classes) to conduct surveys, design logos/slogans and an overall marketing program. The City would be intimately involved as well as the Chamber of Commerce. We'll have more to report after their general membership meeting of June 11 and the Chamber's June 3 Program of Work Conference; 3. Staff has been gearing up for the Budget Workshop; additional graphs and Budget Bulletins will be distributed to you on May 12 for you to bring to the Workshop; 4. On the personnel side: A. All hirings have been done re. the summer program for Parking Enforcement; B. We had 3 vacancies in Public Works - Maintenance during the last two weeks. Temporary replacments have been found. 5. It would appear, from newspaper accounts (see attached) that our legislative intent re. the ability to regulate the concurrent sale of alcohol and gasoline is going to be thwarted; 6. The RPV issue of a sea animal health center does have an impact on us. As the owner of our beach we do take sick. sea life to Marineland. Should the Center close down we would have no alternative facility. We are therefore going to be keeping apprised of RPV's discussions/negotiations with Harcourt/Brace. 1 111 • 7. Banners are being installed re. both the upcoming Chamber Fiesta and to announce our formal Beach Parking program including Validation; 8. The upgraded street lights for the downtown portion of Hermosa Avenue (just like the ones recently installed on Pier Avenue between Hermosa Avenue and Beach Drive) have been ordered; we are aiming to have them installed before the fiscal year is completed. 9. CALTRANS has respondesd favorably to our request for a change in the PCH west turning lane(s) onto Pier Avenue. It now appears that they "buy into" our request for two dedicated turning lanes; we hope for implementation before July 1. 10. Both CALTRANS and neighboring cities (e.g. Redondo Beach) appear to be interested in implementing some DON'T BLOCK INTERSECTIONS signing along PCH; I hope that we can give you a formal action report within a month. 11. A formal, sit down meeting between Planning & Public Works and Learned Lumber is set for Thursday, May 7. All parties will be seeking to refine a solution that minimizes any impact on 7th Street residences. This was the earliest date when everyone could meet; hence the matter has been re -scheduled from May 12 to May 26 for a report to the City Council. UPCOMING DATES May 13 6:00 p.m. Council/Planning Sub -Committee meeting May 13 7:30 p.m. Council Parking Sub -Committee meeting May 14 7:30 p.m. Budget Workshop meeting of the City Council June 3 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Chamber of Commerce Program of Work Conference with City Officials @ Queen Mary June 1 & 2 League of California Cities Sacramento June 3 June 27 7:30 p.m. @ Mira Costa High Seminar with Mr. Toma Legislative Conference at Auditorium, Drug Free Evening, tentative date for 75th Anniversary Instal- lation Banquet, Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce GTM/ld 2 M CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH INTER -OFFICE MEMO TO: Anthony Antich, Director of Public Works FROM: Deborah Murphy, Assistant Engineer DATE: 5-5-87 SUBJECT: Hermosa Avenue Detour - 6th Street Storm Drain Project Pursuant to your request, attached please find a map of the sub- ject detour. • Page B-6 of the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works' Specifications for Hermosa Avenue - Sixth Street Storm Drain Con- struction (copy attached) indicates the following Hermosa Avenue Street closures: Hermosa Avenue a.) Southbound roadway - "Maintain two lanes for southbound through traffic at all times." b.) Northbound roadway - "Detour northbound traffic at Sixth Street easterly to Manhattan Avenue, then northerly on Man- hattan Avenue to Tenth Street and then westerly on Tenth Street to Hermosa Avenue." The contractor (Colich and Sons -Falcon Construction) has advised the City that this detour should be removed, and through traffic permitted on northbound Hermosa Avenue no later than May 19, 1987. I will keep you advised of their progress. Deporah Murphy Assistant Engineer 1 B-13 STREET CLOSURES, DETOURS AND BARRICADES: The Contractor shall provide at least the minimum traffic requirements specified hereinbelow at all times during construction in the following streets: Sixth Street (East of Hermosa Avenue) - May be closed to through traffic. Sixth Street Concrete Walkway (West of Hermosa Avenue) - Refer to :Asecti on B-12.3. Hermosa Avenue a. Southbound Roadway - Maintain two lanes for southbound through traffic at all times. b. Northbound Roadway - Detour northbound traffic at Sixth Street easterly to Manhattan Avenue, then northerly on Manhattan Avenue to Tenth Street and then westerly on Tenth. Street to Hermosa Avenue. Eighth Street - May be closed to through traffic. Beach Drive - May be closed to through traffic. B-14 PROTECTIVE AND SECURITY FENCING: The Contractor shall install Type 2 fencing between Station 4+35 and downstream end of construction. All construction activities shall be confined to the storm drain right of way and temporary easement limits shown on the plans. The Contractor shall provide through access to the Los Angeles County Department of Beaches and Harbors. Fencing requirements for all other work shall be in accordance with Subsection 7-10.4.4, as amended. 8-14A RESTORATION OF EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS EXCEPT PERMANENT SURFACING: B -14A.1 Electrolier System The relocation or temporary removal and reinstallation of the electrolier facilities necessitated by the construction of this project shall be the responsibility of the Contractor, and the entire cost thereof shall be included in the lump sums or unit prices bid for the various items of work. Hermosa Ave. -Sixth St. Drain S CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH GALUFORNItA temporary detour for northbound hermosa ave traffic at6 th. st. will be over may 19, 1987 SCALE: 1 INCH.400 FEET • 0.0.• r a eft CI •t r3 c - L I Pfn it...... . = i if • 1.1 iLU r)Peae, A V: „4-71-72,44. cc) AI -EAT -6d ... ,:�f,"''slri it ar - ' _ _y•�� c 1 c• Billt�.Curb.Cities' Liquor Controls Gains .Per .�.,,�. ,',r t ,.fit ,\ - i,., =Yr.,t. .. _ ..-.... .,,,,„:„.,:lk...q.lej ,-vb,$$-I;Iv c: ;Yr' "'-, 1. - By RICHARD C. PADDOCK, Times Staff Writer ter. '•..' yah ;:'v.—y ; SACRAMENTO -Legislation tries, was approved by the Assem- Gary Condit (D -Ceres), author of curbing the power -of local govern- •, bly Governmental Organization the measure and chairman of the ments to ban the simultaneous sale Committee 11 to 1. , , > ;r '; :,:- committee. "[It] doesn't take away :; of gasoline and alcoholic beverages Together, gas station and . con -or jeopardize local control.". , .; R$; at gas stations won its first legisla- ', ,yenience store businesses contrib- -However, , cities, such as Glen- tive test Tuesday in a• key Assem- ' :;,..uted more than $700,000 to legisla ; dale, whose :bans • on concurrent bly committee. - r �:,., ... ? '..' , • tors' election campaigns during the sales would be eliminated by the Billed as a compromise by its .:4-1985-86session. , +,-:.bill, have registered strong opposi- supporters, the measure would - In recent weeks, the bill has also tion to' the measure -as an infringe - prohibit cities and counties from gained the formal endorsement of - ment of their local control. . ti enacting blanket bans that forbid •'°:' the California League of Cities, ' :,: In addition, - representatives of the sale of both alcohol and gaso- , whose lobbyists helped draft the ' the Los Angeles County Board of line. The bill would wipe off the, measure, and from officials in the :Supervisors and the California PTA books at least 30 local bans enacted `'eities of Gardena, Mill Valley and , . -told the committee that the legisla- by cities since Aug. 1;1985. • : , Vallejo, which have used their tion would erode the principle, of At the same time, the legislation zoning power to regulate the sale of home rule by removing one option would allow all local governments - ,r„,alcoholic beverages and gasoline. , that local governments have for to retain their power under zoning ;:F They say the bill would shield their ,}`,:restricting joint sales. ,, :,-; -:' ' f ' laws to restrict such simultaneous •'cities from legal challenges from =,+-= Cities have sought to ' an or sales on a case-by-case basis. ;.the industry by spelling out the • restrict the sale of alcoholic bever- The bill, which has the backing ' `permit process in the law. ; : ages and gasoline at the same time of the politically powerful gas. sta- ; "The bill is a compromise mea- ; on the grounds that it contributes tion and convenience store Indus- ' "sure ... ,” said Assemblyman Please see CITIES, Page 25" ;.CITIES: Proposal, s • oto Curb Power - : { a'Continued from Page 3 ` .oto the problem of drunk driving. " i; But industry leaders,' including :Arco, which operates AM -PM ?Mini -Marts, and the Southland :Corp., which operates, 7 -Eleven Pstores, argue there is no proof that simultaneous sales cause drinking and driving. Bars, restaurants and :home parties put far more drunk drivers on the road, they say. By eliminating the power of local »governments to ban simultaneous osales, the legislation would require °cities and counties to review on an eindividual basis all applications '''„,from businesses seeking to sell mboth alcoholic beverages and gaso- • �line. — The process would allow a city or county to deny an application to a More for the simultaneous sale of .alcohol and gasoline only after "folding a hearing and gathering evidence to show why such a store ;would not be in the public interest. tt .n Ms. Kathleen Midstokke City Clerk City of Hermosa Beach . Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Ms. Midstokke: 911 14th Street Manhattan Beach, CA 90254 April 15, 1 Si APR t % 1987 City Clerk City of Neimu.a Beach wr•. /1rr 7wo- In response to your letter of January 22, 1987, I am amen•ing my letter of January 20, 1987 to include my estimate of damages to comply with California Government Code Sections 910 and 910.2. VA'? I have incurred approximately $102,136.00 in total damages. .this figure is subject to change pending further discovery of any other damages. The above figure includes the following amounts: 1. Out-of-pocket expenses 2. Loss of rental income stream for 3rd unit based on 7 years 3. Increase in appraisal value of structure with the addition of 3rd unit $ 15,000.00 15,136.00 72,000.00 Total damages $102,136.00 As I discussed more fully in my letter dated January 30, 1987, the City should grant my request for any necessary action or allowances by the City to permit me to obtain approval from the Coastal Commission for a proposed building project on my property located at 38 7th Street, Hermosa Beach. If the City does not reconsider its position, this letter will serve as notice that I will bring a lawsuit naming the City of Hermosa Beach and each City Council Member as defendants and will hold the members and the City liable for damages incurred as a result of their actions. Very truly yours, iii' X1'4 Ricardo F. Icaza Attachments (Discounted Rate of Return Analysis - 2) 1hn> Y DISCOUNTED RATE OF RETURN ANALYSIS Three Unit Project 38 8th Street Hermosa Beach, California General Description of Project: Three units over subterranean garage with required seven (7) spaces. . Unit "A" - 1293 sq. ft. Unit "B" - 1075 sq. ft. Unit "C" - 987 sq. ft. Cost of Building: Garage Area (2,000 sq. ft ) $ 50,000 1st Floor Garage Area (1,000 sq. ft ) $ 16,000 Unit, Deck and Stair Areas (4,980 sq. ft.) $249,000 Offsites, Plans, Permits, Financing $ 45,000 $360,000 Cost of Land $200,000 TOTAL Cost of Project $560,000 Rents/Income: $1500/Unit = $4500 X 12.0% [Gross Factor] X 12 Mos. = $648,000 Annual Costs for Project: Financing ($4000,000 @ 9.5% for 30 Yrs. = $3661/Mo. or $43,900/Yr.) $ 43,900 Taxes $ 5,700 Expenses (estimate 20% of annual rent) $ 10,800 TOTAL $ 60,400 Assuming 5% increase per year on taxes, expenses, and rent; following shows anticipated income for next seven years and present worth of income stream at 10% cap. rate: Annual Annual _Annual Income Time Cost Rent Income Stream 0 $ 40,000* $ 40,000 End of 1st Year $ 60,400 $ 54,000 $ (6,400) $ (5,818) End of 2nd Year $ 61,225 $ 56,700 $ (4,525) $ (3,739) End of 3rd Year $ 62,092 $ 59,550 • $ (2,541) $.(1,909) End of 4th Year $ 63,000 $ 62,550 $ ( 450) $ ( 307) End of 5th Year $ 63,955 $ 65,650 $ 1,695 $. 1,052 End of 6th Year $ 64,958 $ 68,950 $ 3,992 $ 2,253 End of 7th Year $ 66,010 $ 72,400 $ 6,390 $ 3,279 TOTAL $ 34,811 *$400,000 Financed less $360,000 building cost = $40,000 loan preceeds for first year. 1 DISCOUNTED RATE OF RETURN ANALYSIS Two Unit Project 38 8th Street Hermosa Beach, California General Description of Project: Two units of subterranean garage with required five (5) spaces. 1800 square feet per unit. Cost of Building: Garage Area (2,000 sq. ft ) $ 50,000 1st Floor Garage Area (200 sq. ft ) $ 3,200 Unit, Deck, and Stair Areas (4,800 sq. ft ) $240,000 Offsites, Plans, Permits, Financing $ 42,000 $335,200 Cost of Land• $200,000 TOTAL Cost of Project $535,000 Rents/Income: $2000/Unit = $4000 X 12.0% (Gross Factor) X 12 Mos. _ $576,000 Annual Costs for Project: Financing ($350,000 @ 9.5% for 30 Yrs. = $3100/Mo. or $37,200/Yr.) $ 37,200 Taxes $ 5,000 Expenses (estimate 20% of annual rent) $ 9,600 TOTAL $ 51,800 Assuming 5% increase per year on taxes, expenses, and rent; following shows anticipated income for next seven years and present worth of income stream at 10% cap. rate: Annual Annual Annual Income Time Cost Rent Income Stream 0 $ 15,000* $ 15,000 End of 1st Year $ 51,800 $ 48,000 $ (3,800) $ (3,455) End of 2nd Year $ 52,530 $ 50,400 $ (2,130) $ (1,760) End of 3rd Year $ 53,297 $ 52,900 $ ( 397) $ ( 298) End of 4th Year $ 54,102 $ 55,550 $ 1,448 $ 989 End of 5th Year $ 54,947 $ 58,350 $ 3,403 $ 2,112 End of 6th Year $ 55,834 $ 61,250 $ 5,416 $ 3,057 End of 7th Year $ 56,766 $ 64,350 $ 7,854 $ 4,030 TOTAL $ 19,675 *$350,000 financed less $335,000 building cost = $15,000 loan proceeds for first year. StIeet CONFIDhN T IAL MATERIA: NOT FOR PUBLIC I:LLF..ASE /CAzA 1.1.uihattan Beach, Cl; 90200 January 20, 1987 i r F ri r `ti.• ! • L..� i. • /- Mayor and City Council 6ca.r. City of Hermosa Beath Hermosa Beach, CA 90254• I �� Dear Mayor and Council Members: C�! This letter comprises an appeal to your decision made at the City „ Council meeting January 13, 1987, in regard to my request for any necessary action or allowances by the City to permit me to obtain approval from the Coastal Commission for a proposed building pro- ject on my property located at 38 7th Street, Hermosa Beach. As you will recall, I submitted my initial plans for the project April 1, 1980 in accordance with S .6.854. My property then, and now, fell within the "Grandfather" clause of the above code section: "Section 7. This ordinance shall not apply to projects that have submitted a completed building permit package to the City on or before April 1, 1986. Said package mast include a completed build- ing permit application form" etc. As a result of delays in processing my plans by both the City and the Coastal Commission, I have been unable to present the City with the necessary permits and applications within the time permitted in S 6.25-+ . Had the City and the Coastal Conr!iission responded to my requests in a timely manner, I would have been able to sub -.it the necessary documents within the time permitted. Throughout the processing period the City has represented that my project would be allowed and that the delays that have occurred would not affect me. In reliance on these assurances, I have in- vested a considerable amount of time and money in moving forward with my plans. These expenditures continued through November 26, 1986, when the City Council voted to amend the ordinance S o4-854 to allow me to proceed, and up to December 2, 1986 when the City notified me that the amendment had been approved and that I could proceed. For the reasons I specified during the January 13 meeting, the City cannot treat me in this manner. This letter will also serve as noti- fication that legal action has been initiated. Very truly yours, eie):.•a46 • Ricardo F. Icaza January 22, 1987 OIT? OF FG'I3MOS1[ i3ERIQ CIVIC CENTER IIERMOSA BEACH CALIFORNIA 9 0 2 5 4 CITY HALL:13) 37 3 7 6- 6 9 8 4 POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS: 3 7 6- 7 9 8 1 Mr. Ricardo F. Icaza 911 - 14th Street Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Re: Claim for Damages received January 21, 1987 Dear Mr. Icaza: Please take notice that the claim presented by you on January 21, 1987 fails to comply substantially with the requirements of Government Code sections 910 and 910.2. We are, therefore, returning this claim as being insufficient due to the following insufficiency: The amount claimed as of the date of presentation of the claim, including the estimated amount of any prospective injury, damage, or loss, insofar as it may be known at the time of the presentation of the claim, together with the basis of computa- tion of the amount claimed. Very truly yours, KATHLEEN MIDSTOKKE City Clerk Attachment cc: City Council City Attorney HERMOSA BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 1035 VALLEY DRIVE/ P.O. BOX 404 HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 (213) 376-0951 April 20, 1987 Mayor John Cioffi and Council City Hall/Civic Center Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 otk Dear Mayor Cioffi and Council Members: sL4D The 20th Bi -Annual Fiesta de las Artes is being planned for May 23, 24 & 25 1987 and September 5, 6 & 7, 1987. The City has traditionally provided space and revised traffic patterns as requested by the Chamber of Commerce, to accomodate artists, craftspeople and visitors to the show. Again this year we plan to "T" the show, which will entail closing Pier Avenue from the Strand to Manhattan Ave from 10th St. to 14th St. City support will consist of: 1. Closure of the above mentioned streets to thru traffic from 6:00 am to 8:00 pm on the three days of the show. 2. Approval for participation by local merchants in sidewalk sales on the show dates. 3. Assistance for Public Works in hanging the signs and banners. 4. The Chamber of Commerce will hire a commercial clean-up company and supervise street clean-up. As was done in previous shows, this company will clean the streets on Saturday, Sunday, Monday and Tuesday mornings. The Chamber of Commerce will supply the City of Hermosa Beach with a one million dollar liability rider. We will cooperate fully with merchants in the affected area to keep as many streets as possible open to provide access to parking lots and businesses. The Chamber, along with the City is proud to present this event twice a year. Nothing we do brings more positive attention to our beautiful city, than the production of these two Fiestas. We attract over 100,000 people to our city over the holiday weekends and gen-rate over $500,000.00 in sales during the same period. We th•. k the City and the Council for their continued support. kD,g 411,44 110i ' William C. Fowler Executive Vice President RE T , 1 __, __ _ ....... .... ....------------, _,.._ p sgrormilmormir Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council May 5, 1987 City Council Meeting of May 12, 1987 1987 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PROGRAM OF WORK CONFERENCE RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council appropriate from Prospective Expenditures to City Council - Conferences an amount not to exceed $360 to fund the attendance of Council members and staff at the 1987 Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce Program of Work Conference. BACKGROUND The Chamber of Commerce has now scheduled its annual Program of Work Conference for June 3, 1987 at the Queen Mary, Long Beach. Funds were not budgeted for Conference registration. Since inception of this study/conference in 1981 the City has been a very committed participant. Last year the Chamber of Commerce graciously waived the registration fee for City personnel due to our fiscal constraints. ANALYSIS The Chamber of Commerce wishes the full participation of all Councilmembers plus department heads and the Personnel Administrator. All are included as a part of the program. The registration for this meeting is $ 30 per person and includes lunch. Total City cost (5 City Councilmembers, City Manager and 6 Department Heads, Personnel Administrator) would not exceed $ 360. There are adequate funds in Prospective Expenditures to cover this expense. Gr Ci T. eyer y Mana:er 1 NOTED FOR FISCAL IMPACT atte;1-11tti4_1--- Viki L. Copeland Finance Administrator 11 cc Chamber of Commerce 2 / May 1, 1987 HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of Regular Meeting of the HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL May 12, 1987 EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT WITH EXECUTIVE SUITE SERVICES, INC. FOR HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES Recommendation It is recommended that City Council: 1. Authorize an extension of the agreement for housekeeping services at City Hall and Clark Stadium building with Executive Suite Services, Inc., and 2. Authorize the Mayor to sign the attached Agreements for Housekeeping Services at the City Hall Offices and Clark Stadium Building for Housekeeping Services with the extended agreement to expire June 30, 1988. Background On August 12, 1986, City Council authorized the Mayor to sign an agreement with Executive Suite Services, Inc-. for housekeeping services in the City Hall offices and authorized the Director of Public Works to execute contract amendments and addenda within authorized budget limits. Services at City Hall began on September 1, 1986. Executive Suite Services, Inc. has performed the work according to the agreement specifications. Their work and response to special services has been satisfactory. In March, 1987, a change order was executed to included housekeeping services for Clark Stadium building on a daily basis. The existing agreement for housekeeping services at the City Hall offices and Clark Stadium building expires on June 30, 1987. Analysis An extension of the contract is allowed under Section 2-52(b) of the municipal code. This was confirmed with the City Attorney. Executive Suite Services, Inc., was asked to revise their scope of services for the purpose of providing a better level of housekeeping services. REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICES To provide consistancy and to meet the maintenance needs at both City Hall and Clark Stadium some service frequencies were increased. The service changes shown on the attached agreement(s) increase dry floor care services from once and twice weekly to daily, wet cleaning floor care from "as requested" to monthly, dusting and damp cleaning is increased from one time per month 1 and "as requested" to daily service and "as needed", windows and mini -blinds are cleaned from "as needed" to monthly. Monthly charges have been adjusted to include the increased scope of services. These prices are good through June 30, 1988. LOCATION COST FOR HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES FY86-87 COST PER MONTH City Hall $574 1315 Valley (10 months) Clark Build. 861 Valley (1-87 & 2-87) $285 (3-87 - 6-87) $414 TOTAL: FY86-87 ANNUAL COST FY87-88 COST PER MONTH $5,740 $775 (10 months) $ 570 $1,660 $7,970* $415 FY87-88 ANNUAL COST $9,300 $4,980 $14,280 * It should be noted, the agreement in FY86-87 covering City Hall offices was for ten (10) months and not an entire year. Housekeeping services for Clark Stadium building covered six (6) months with varying costs relative to the amount of work performed. FISCAL IMPACT Amount Proposed for FY87-88 Budget $14,280 Amount of Proposed Housekeeping Services $14,280 No additional funding is anticipated to perform these services. COST COMPARISON FOR IN HOUSE SERVICE: 1 Custodian (C Step) 44% Fringe Benefits TOTAL MONTHLY COST: CONTRACT SERVICE: City Hall Clark Building TOTAL MONTHLY COST: IN HOUSE vs. CONTRACT SERVICE $1,403 per month 617 $2,020 $ 775 per month 415 per month $1,190 Extended yearly cost savings = $9,960. Alternatives Other alternatives considered by staff and available Council are: 2 to City 1. Direct staff to go out to formal bid for housekeeping services. - 2. Direct staff to include the necessary personnel in the Public Works Department Building Maintenance FY87-88 budget for housekeeping/janitorial services. 3. Adjust the attached scope of services. A i' ,/Ii/1AI ►., ntich Director of P blic Works Gre g7Celeyer Ci Manager Attachments: Respectfully submitted: Ly 6a'n Stevens Administrative Aide NOTED FOR FISCAL IMPACT: VC� Viki Copelan Finance Administrator Terms of Agreement, Maintenance Schedule and Offer and Acceptance for City of Hermosa Beach City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive. Terms of Agreement, Maintenance Schedule and Offer and Acceptance for City of Hermosa Beach Clark Stadium Building, 861 Valley Drive. 3 TERMS OF AGREEMENT, MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE, AND OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE FOR CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH City Hall - 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California for fiscal year 1987 - 1988 13 March 1987 5 Pages TERMS OF AGREEMENT FOR CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 13 March 1987 Page 1 of 5 We will furnish all electrical and custodial tools and equipment to be used by our personnel, and may store same on your premises. Further, we will furnish all expendable cleaning materials and supplies necessary to perform our tasks in a quality -workmanship manner. We do not distribute or job any supplies or equipment, and therefore can obtain any and all new products as they appear on the market. We use only those supplies and equipment which are best for a particular job. You will furnish all restroom supplies (soap, paper goods, toweling, deodorant, etc.). plus all light bulbs, plastic and paper liners for trash receptacles, and other expendable items not directly necessary to clean your facility. We can obtain and bill you for all such supplies, at your request. Our charge for this service is COST + 10%. MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE, FOR CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH — City Hall TASK 5 TIMES PER WEEK 1 TIME PER WEEK OTHER LOBBY AND ENTRIES x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Once per year. Once per month. Once per month. As needed. Once per week. . Once per month. Once per. year. Once per month. Once per month. 1. Police planter area for cigarette butts, trash, etc. FLOORS AND FLOOR COVERINGS - DRY CLEANING 1. Sweep or dustmop all uncarpeted floors. 2. Vacuum all carpeting, moving light furniture & office equipment other than desks & file cabinets. FLOORS AND FLOOR COVERINGS - WET CLEANING 1. Dampmop all composition floors. 2. Spotclean all carpeting. • 3. Machine -shampoo all carpeting. FLOORS AND FLOOR COVERINGS - RESURFACING 1. Machine -scrub & rinse all composition floors. 2. Add two coats of nonslip wax to all composition. floors. 3. Strip, reseal (1 coat), & rewax (3 coats) all composition floors. 4. Machine -buff all composition floors. WALL HANGINGS 1. Damp -dust all pictures, charts, graphs, etc. 2. Dust and/or wash clean all directory board & display glass. 3. Dust all mini -blinds. 4. Dust clocks, wall reliefs, paintings, & other wall hangings. 5. Wash all mini -blinds. PARTITIONS, DOORS, WALLS, AND WALL BUILT-INS 1. Hand -dust and clean all window sills. 2. Dust all mouldings, ledges, baseboards, & trim. 3. Hand -dust & clean all louvers, grills, etc. 4. Dust clean all vertical surfaces (walls, partitions, doors, door bucks, etc.). 5. Dust partition tops. 6. Wipe clean all stainless steel and enamel in public areas. 7. Remove all fingerprints, smudges, & other marks from metal partitions, doors, and other surfaces. 8. Wipe clean all chrome, aluminum, & other metal work. ro m 0 0 L861 uP'W ET H0`d2S `dSOWWRI3H 30 ASID MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE FOR CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH - City Hall TASK 5 TIMES PER WEEK 1 TIME PER WEEK OTHER GLASS x 1. Spotclean all door and partition glass (both sides). 2. Completely clean all windows (inside only). Once per month. OFFICE EQUIPMENT AND FURNISHINGS (USE CHEMICALLY TREATED DUSTCLOTHS THROUGHOUT) x x x x x 1. Hand -dust and clean all office furniture. 2. Dust all chair rails. 3. Dust under all desk equipment. 4. Damp -dust all telephone equipment. 5. Wash clean all water coolers. 6. Dust tops of all storage equipment (file cabinets, etc.). Spotclean as needed. 7. Dust phones, typewriters, & other desk accessories. x x 8. Dust lamps, art objects, plants & planter, bric-a-brac, and other furnishings. 9. Properly position furniture in offices. x x RESTROOMS x 1. Empty & clean all waste receptacles (ash, paper, & napkins). Replace liners as needed. 2. Fill & maintain operation of all toilet tissue & towel dispensers. x 3. Fill, clean, & polish all soap, seat cover, & sanitary napkin dispensers. 4. Polish mirrors. 5. Clean & polish all mirror frames & shelves. 6. Clean enameled surfaces. 7. Scour, wash, & disinfect wash basins, urinals, & bowls. 8. Clean undersides of urinal rims & bowl rims. 9. Wash toilet seats with soap & water (both sides). 10. Dry toilet seats (both sides). x x x x x x x x 11. Polish flushometers, piping, toilet seat hinges, & other metal work. 12. Dust all partition tops, door tops, & ledges. 13. Dampwipe tile walls near urinals. Wash with disinfectant as needed. 14. Mop, rinse, & dry floors. 15. Scrub all floors. x x x x As needed. 16. Dust or brush all lights, ceiling & vents, & surrounding areas. x S go £ abPd L861 qaTelsi ET HOK2g BSOWHSH 3O 2LIO MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE FOR CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH — City Hall TASK 5 TIMES PER WEEK 1 TIME PER WEEK OTHER TRASH x 1. Empty & clean cigarette urns. Replace sand as necessary. 2. Empty, dampwipe, & dry all ashtrays & other ash receptacles. x 3. Empty all wastebaskets & other trash receptacles. x 4. Move all building trash to outside pickup bins. x %. Install plastic liners in wastebaskets & replace as needed. As needed. SECURITY x 1. Lock all windows & doors. 2. Extinguish all lights, except as designted otherwise. x MISCELLANEOUS L. Leave Blooper Slips on all desks or in each office. Once per month. L86T u°z2N HOVa8 VSOmaH 30 ASIO OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE FOR CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH City Hall CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 13 March 1987 Page 5 of 5 EXECUTIVE -SUITE SERVICES, INC. offers to perform the services described in the attached MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE and TERMS OF AGREEMENT, and assumes full responsibility for all work as described. The total charge for the work will be: $775.00 per month, The attached MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE and TERMS OF AGREEMENT form a part of this OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE. The services will normally continue on a year-to-year basis, but may be terminated by either party at any time for any reason, upon a 30 -day written notice to the other party. date: 13 March 1987 EXECUTIVE -SUITE SERVICES, INC. by W,( .A ,_ ,Jr ;m4e WILLIAM S. PATRICK Vice President We accept the above offer submitted by EXECUTIVE -SUITE SERVICES, INC. The starting date for this contract is: 1 July 1987 date: by CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH title Mayor of the City of Hermosa Beach TERMS OF AGREEMENT, MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE, AND OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE FOR CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Clark Stadium - 861 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California for fiscal year 1987 - 1988 (Clark Stadium Building) TERMS OF AGREEMENT FOR CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 30 December 1986 Page 1 of 4 We will furnish all electrical and custodial tools and equipment to be used by our personnel, and may store same on your premises. Further, we will furnish all expendable cleaning materials and supplies necessary to perform our tasks in a quality -workmanship manner. We do not distribute or job any supplies or equipment, and therefore can obtain any and all new products as they appear on the market. We use only those supplies and equipment which are best for a particular job. You will furnish all restroom supplies (soap, _ paper goods, toweling, deodorant, etc.). plus all light bulbs, plastic and paper liners for trash receptacles, and other expendable items not directly necessary to clean your facility. We can obtain and bill you for all such supplies, at your request. Our charge for this service is COST + 10%. MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE FOR CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ! TASK 5 TIMES PER WEEK 1 TIME PER WEEK OTHER FLOORS AND FLOOR COVERINGS - DRY CLEANING x x x x x x x x x x x x x Once per month. Once per month. As needed. Once per month. Once per month. Once per month. 1. Sweep or dustmop all uncarpeted floors. 2. Vacuum all carpeting, moving light furniture. FLOORS AND FLOOR COVERINGS - WET CLEANING 1. Dampmop all floors. 2. Spotclean all carpeting. NOTE: Carpet shampooing not included in contract. Seperate additional price to be mutually agreed upon when service is requested. FLOORS AND FLOOR COVERINGS - RESURFACING 1. Machine -scrub & rinse all composition floors. 2. Add two coats of nonslip wax to all composition floors. 3. Strip, reseal (1 coat), & rewax (3 coats) all composition floors. NOTE: Only spray -buffing included in contract. Floor resurfacing to be an additional price and will be mutually agreed upon when service is requested. WALL HANGINGS 1. Damp -dust all pictures, charts, graphs, etc. 2. Dust and/or wash clean all directory board & display glass. 3. Dust all venetian blinds. 4. Dust clocks, wall reliefs, paintings, & other wall hangings. PARTITIONS, DOORS, WALLS, AND WALL BUILT-INS 1. Hand -dust and clean all window sills. 2. Dust all mouldings, ledges, baseboards, & trim. 3. Hand -dust & clean all louvers, grills, etc. 4. Dust clean all vertical 'surfaces (walls, partitions, doors, door bucks, etc.). S. Dust partition tops.x 6. Wipe clean all stainless steel and enamel in public areas. 7. Remove all fingerprints, smudges, & other marks from metal partitions, doors, and other surfaces. 8. Wipe clean all chrome, aluminum, & other metal work. GLASS 1. Spotclean all door and partition glass (both, sides). NOTE: Window washing not included in contract. Separate additional price � to be mutually agreed upon when service is requested. Prn ro a m N 0 rh 986T .t9 UI D Q 0£ HOK3g SOW 2H 30 2IIO i'u �u\1Giv tli\Vr. JL, nGUULi, rUd CTTY OF HERMCSA RFr iH I TASK 5 TIMES PER WEEK 1 TIME PER WEEK OTHER RESTROOMS 1. Empty & clean all waste receptacles (ash, paper, & napkins).• Replace liners as needed. x 2. Fill & maintain operation of all toilet tissue & towel dispensers. x 3. Fill, clean, & polish all soap, seat cover, & sanitary napkin dispensers. 4. Polish mirrors. 5. Clean & polish all mirror frames & shelves. 6. Clean enameled surfaces. 7. Scour, wash, & disinfect wash basins, urinals, & bowls. 8. Clean undersides of urinal rims & bowl rims. 9. Wash toilet seats with soap & water (both sides). 10. Dry toilet seats (both sides). x x x x x x x x 11. Polish flushometers, piping, toilet seat hinges, & other metal work. 12. Dust all partition tops, door tops, & ledges. 13. Dampwipe tile walls near urinals. Wash with disinfectant as needed. 14. Mop, rinse, & dry floors. 15. Scrub all floors. x x x x As needed. 16. Dust or brush all lights, ceiling & vents, & surrounding areas. / x TRASH x x x x 1. Empty & clean cigarette urns. Replace sand as necessary. 2. Empty, dampwipe, & dry all ashtrays & other ash receptacles. 3. Empty all wastebaskets & other trash receptacles. 4. Move all building trash to outside pickup bins. 5. Install plastic liners in wastebaskets & replace as needed. As needed. SECURITY x x 1. Lock all windows & doors. 2. Extinguish all lights, except as designted otherwise. MISCELLANEOUS • x 1. Completely clean the stoves and ovens (inside -outside). 2. Leave Blooper Slips. Once per month. 986T tequieoec HOK2H VSOWUSH 30 ASID OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE FOR CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Clark Stadium CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Page 4 of 4 27 February 1987 Revised Page 4 of 4 EXECUTIVE -SUITE SERVICES, INC. offers to perform the services described in the attached MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE and TERMS OF AGREEMENT, and assumes full responsibility for all work as described. The total charge for the work will be: $415.00 per month The attached MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE and TERMS OF AGREEMENT form a part of this OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE. The services will normally continue on a year-to-year basis, but may be terminated by either party at any time for any reason, upon a 30 -day written notice to the other party. date: 13 March 1987 by EXECUTIVE -SUITE SERVICES, INC. WILLIAM S. PATRICK Vice President We accept the above offer submitted by EXECUTIVE -SUITE SERVICES, INC. The starting date for this contract is: July 1, 1987 date: by CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH title Mayor of the City of Hermosa Beach frrevi/ii'- 4//i Areeir.4 %,vr. AREA 1. ENTRIES 2. GLASS 3. STAIRS 4. RESTROOMS 5. CARPETED FLOORS 6. UNCARPETED FLOORS 7. DOORS 8. PARTITIONS, WALLS, & WALL BUILT=INS 9. WALL HANGINGS 10. HALL ACCESSORIES & .JANITOR.CLOSETS 11. OFFICE EQUIPMENT & FURNISHINGS 12. TRASH 13. SPECIAL TASKS. 14. MISC . COMMENTS & REMARKS DATE: • . BUILDING: SUPERVISOR'S CHECKLIST DEVIATION FROM MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE' EXECUTIVE -SUITE SERVICES, INC. CLIENT LIAI8O SEPORT BUILDING: DATE: CONTACTED: TIME ARRIVED: TIME LEFT: Complaints LOCATION PROBLEM Remarks ;011)) BLOOPER S z • ' 4 ' • ' 4. April 28, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council May 12, 1987 AWARD OF BID SANITARY SEWER REPLACEMENT, TARGET AREA II-CIP 85-402 Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Authorize the Mayor to sign the attached Agreement (Exhibit A; Note: Copy of the Plans & Specifications are on file in the Office of the City Clerk) with the lowest price and most responsible bidder - Christeve Corporation, for Sanitary Sewer Replacement, Target Area II for alternate bid (i.e., slip lining) at a cost of $527,925. 2. Authorize staff to issue change orders, in an amount not to exceed 10% of the contract amount ($527,925). Background: On August 12, 1986, City Council authorized the Public Works Department to advertise for bids for sanitary sewer line replace- ment within Target Area II. On September 19, 1986, •(bid due date) sealed bids were received, publicly opened and read aloud. Only only two contractors (out of 7 plan holders) responded to our request for bids as follows: John T. Malloy $668,295 C. K. Construction $681,345 Engineer Estimate (ASL Consulting Engineers) $393,027 to $426,000 The apparent low bid was approximately 56% higher than the en- gineer's estimate and was not within the budgeted appropriation. Consequently, on October 14, 1986, City Council passed a motion to reject all bids received for Sanitary Sewer Line Replacement, Target Area II, and to re -advertise the project at a later date. Staff then worked together with the project engineer (ASL Con- sulting Engineers) to revise the Plans and Specifications, in the hope of receiving lower bids. The project was then re -advertised for five weeks, and nine contractors received the bid specifica- tions. On April 13, 1987, (bid due date) two sealed bids were received, publicly opened and read aloud, as follows: Bidder's Name Colich & Sons Christeve Corporation Base Bid Alternate Bid $569,443.00 $584,809.50 1 $559,211.00 $527,925.00 Base Bid Alternate Bid Eng. Estimate Range $342,000 - $417,000 $357,000 - $436,000 (ASL Consulting Engineers) The apparent low bidder is Christeve Corporation. The bid is approximately 21% higher than the engineer's estimated range of cost and is not within the budgeted appropriation for FY86-87. Analysis• The analysis will consider the following: 1. Reasons for bids higher than engineer's estimate. 2. Reference check of apparent low bidder. 3. Base bid vs. alternate bid. 4. School District Concerns. 5. Summary. 1.. REASONS FOR BIDS HIGHER THAN ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE The 7 contractors not submitting a bid claimed they were "swam- ped" and unable to fit this project into their busy schedule. The two bids received are within 2% of each other. It appears that the Engineer's Estimate did not take into consideration the contractor's higher operating costs, (i.e., higher insurance costs, higher labor rates, etc.) Based upon the bids received in September of 1986, and again on April 13, 1987, it appears that this is the price to have the work accomplished at this time. 2. REFERENCE CHECK OF APPARENT LOW BIDDER Staff conducted a reference check of Christeve Corporation and six references contacted spoke in high regard of contractor's work. Incidentally, Christeve'.s proposed Project Manager and President was the Project Manager for the Hermosa Beach Pier Avenue Storm Drain Project, recently completed by the L. A. Coun- ty Dept. of Public Works who were very satisfied with this Proj- ect Manager. 3. BASE BID vs. ALTERNATE BID The apparent low bid ($527,925) has proposed using "slip lining" for Corona Avenue and along portions across the school district property. However if slip lining is utilized, our consultant ASL Consulting Engineers, has advised staff of certain design changes (based upon the technical nature of slip lining; particular to this job) that could result in additional contract costs of up to $12,667 (should the contract be awarded for the use of slip lining, these additional costs need to be authorized to the con- tractor as a change order after the contract is awarded). 2 Staff recommends awarding the alternate bid - slip lining certain sections of the existing pipe, rather than the conventional meth- od of removal and replacement. The net savings to the City is as follows: Alternate (Slip Lining) Bid: Estimated Cost of Design Changes: Total Revised Alternate Bid: Cost of Conventional (Low) Bid: Net Savings to City: (with slip lining) 4. SCHOOL DISTRICT CONCERNS $527,925 12,667 $540,592 569,443 $ 28,851 In an effort to minimize any inconvenience to the school district and any disturbance to Valley School while classes are in ses- sion, all construction activity in the school district property has been scheduled during the summer months. In this way, there should be no conflict between construction machinery and school children. Although the majority of the sewer replacement on the school district property will be slip lined, a portion of the sewer line will require an open trench. In any event, it is the City's desire to restore the playing field to its "before con- struction" condition, prior to the beginning of the Fall Semester. 5. SUMMARY Based on the lowest cost submitted and the reference check, staff recommends awarding a contract to Christeve Corporation for the alternate bid of $527,925. FISCAL IMPACT No construction or inspection funds are scheduled to be expended during FY 86-87. The fiscal impact indicated below is based upon FY 87-88 proposed CIP Budget. (See Exhibit B for Tentative Proj- ect Schedule). Item Design Estimated Project Expenditures Anticipated FY 87-88 Final Cost Construction Administration & Inspection Subtotal 10% contingency Total -0- (design costs were funded prior to FY 87-88) $ 540,592 53,000 $ 593,592 59,359 $ 652,951 3 Total (proposed FY 87-88) amount budgeted $458,630 Amount needed to complete project $194,321 As no progress payments to the contractor are expected during FY86-87, all budget adjustments need to be implemented for FY87- 88. Alternatives: Other alternatives available to City Council and considered by staff are: 1. Reject all bids and re -advertise for bids for the third time for the above -referenced project. 2. Reject all bids and postpone the project until the construc- tion market becomes less competitive, and the bids might be lower. Respectf 11 submitted, eborah M. Murphy Assistant Engineer Concur: .,. Gregory eyer City Manager DMM:mv sansew/v Attachments: Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Agreement Tentative Concur: A 'w'vony Antich Director of Pib .ic Works Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator Project Schedule CC: Marilyn Harris Corey Superintendent of Schools, Hermosa Beach School District 4 -- r - ir i Exiir15/r A - AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 1986, by and between the City of Hermosa Beach, hereinafter called Owner, and , hereinafter called Contractor. WITNESSETH, that the parties hereto do mutually agree as follows: ARTICLE I: For and in consideration of the payments and agreements hereinafter mentioned to be made and performed by said Owner, said Contractor agrees with said Owner to perform and complete in a workmanlike manner all work required under the bidding schedule of said Owner's specifica- tions entitled, "SANITARY SEWERS - TARGET AREA 2" in accordance with the specifications and drawings there- for, to furnish at his own expense all labor, materials, equipment, tools, and services necessary therefor, except such materials, equipment, and services as may be stipulated in said specifications to be furnished by said Owner, and to do everything required by this agreement and said specifications and drawings. ARTICLE II: For furnishing all said labor, materials, equipment, tools, and services, furnishing and removing all plant, temporary structures, tools, and equipment, and doing everything required by this agreement and the said spe- cifications and drawings; also for all loss and damage arising out of the nature of the work aforesaid or, from the action of the elements, or from any unforeseen dif- ficulties which may arise during the prosecution of the work until its acceptance by said Owner, and for all risks of every description connected with the work; also for all expenses resulting from the suspension or discontinuance of work, except as in the said specifica- tions are expressly stipulated to be borne by said Owner; and for completing the work in accordance with the requirements of said specifications and drawings, said Owner will pay and said Contractor shall receive, in full compensation therefor, the price(s) named in the above-mentioned bidding schedule(s). ARTICLE III: The Owner hereby employs said Contractor to perform the work according to the terms of this agreement for the above-mentioned prices(s), and agrees to pay the same at the time, in the manner, and upon the conditions stipu- lated in the said specifications; and the said parties for themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, do hereby agree to the full performance of the covenants herein contained. r - ARTICLE IV: The Notice Inviting Bids, instructions to bidders, pro- posals, information required of bidder, specifications, drawings, and all addenda issued by the Owner with respect to the foregoing prior to the opening of bids, are hereby incorporated in and made part of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this contract to be executed the day and year first above written. Attest: Signature Title Approved as By By Owner - (SEAL) Signature Title Contractor (SEAL) Signature Title CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE -�p- PROJECT NAME :•=,;i1:34/774 -fey - p�6�r �7 .,L..E CtP 5S=12.. ACCOUNT NUMBER : TASKS Final design approval for construction LEGEND TENTATIVE SCHEDULE :,1111111111111111111 ACTUAL SCHEDULE X : 100% COMPLETE I I I 1 JAN FEB MAR APR I MAY JUN JUL ' AUG ' SEP , OCT I NOV DEC I.before advertisingllllllllllllll Prepare advertisement & set bid opening date Advertising period (issue addendums as necessary) Accept sealed bids & public bid opening Review bids Award contract Sign contract (bonds,insurance & workers comp. cert.) Preconstruction meeting procedure Issue "Notice to Proceed" Construction Period . Monitor progress & maintain records Progress payment and change order procedure Acceptance of work as complete Issusing and recording a "Notice of Completion" Retention Payment Project close out ilirmimi---' 4! gg w iMII ; A 111 1 11111 111 11111111 ' 111 I 1- 11111111+1111111It1111111iiri�lrm 1 i 11111111 11111111 11111111 111111111y111In ll' 1 11,1IFfiiT fl rl�TrlliirllTmiimimiimrr--' a. r AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this_ day of 1986, by and between the City of Hermosa Beach, hereinafter called Owner, and , hereinafter called Contractor. WITNESSETH, that the parties hereto do mutually agree as follows: ARTICLE I: For and in consideration of the payments and agreements hereinafter mentioned to be made and performed by said Owner, said Contractor agrees with said Owner to perform and complete in a workmanlike manner all work required under the bidding schedule of said Owner's specifica- tions entitled, "SANITARY SEWERS - TARGET AREA 2" in accordance with the specifications and drawings there- for, to furnish at his own expense all labor, materials, equipment, tools, and services necessary therefor, except such materials, equipment, and services as may be stipulated in said specifications to be furnished by said Owner, and to do everything required by this agreement and said specifications and drawings. ARTICLE II: For furnishing all said labor, materials, equipment, tools, and services, furnishing and removing all plant, temporary structures, tools, and equipment, and doing everything required by this agreement and the said spe- cifications pe- cifications and drawings; also for all loss and damage arising out of the nature of the work aforesaid or, from the action of the elements, or from any unforeseen dif- ficulties which may arise during the prosecution of the work until its acceptance by said Owner, and for all risks of every description connected with the work; also for all expenses resulting from the suspension or discontinuance of work, except as in the said specifica- tions are expressly stipulated to be borne by said Owner; and for completing the work in accordance with the requirements of said specifications and drawings, said Owner will pay and said Contractor shall receive, in full compensation therefor, the price(s) named in the above-mentioned bidding schedule(s). ARTICLE III: The Owner hereby employs said Contractor to perform the work according to the terms of this agreement for the above-mentioned prices(s), and agrees to pay the same at the time, in the manner, and upon the conditions stipu- lated in the said specifications; and the said parties for themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, do hereby agree to the full performance of the covenants herein contained. me- ttr- ARTICLE IV: The Notice Inviting Bids, instructions to bidders, pro- posals, information required of bidder, specifications, drawings, and all addenda issued by the Owner with respect to the foregoing prior to the opening of bids, are hereby incorporated in and made part of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this contract to be executed the day and year first above written. Attest: Signature Title Approved as By By F-2 Owner (SEAL) Signature Title Contractor (SEAL) Signature Title BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 383 HALL OF ADMINISTRATION / LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90012 LARRY J. MONTEILH, EXECUTIVE OFFICER (213) 974-1411 April 23, 1987 The Honorable John A. Cioffi Mayor City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Dear Mayor Cioffi: MEMBERS OF THE BOARD PETER F. SCHABARUM KENNETH HAHN " EDMUND D. EDELMAN DEANE DANA MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH At its meeting held April 21, 1987, on motion of Supervisor Peter F. Schabarum, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors urged the State Legislature to impose upon itself the same requirements of the Brown Act that are applicable to local levels of government. Further, the Board members requested your City Council's support of their action. Enclosed is a copy of the Board's Minute Order detailing this action. Very truly yours, TEILH EXECU, E 0 FICER LJM:r13:L46 Enclosure 1t MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Larry J. Monteilh, Executive Officer Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 383 Hall of Administration Los Angeles, California 90012 At its meeting held April 21, 1987, the Board took the following action: 104 Supervisor Schabarum made the following statement: "Since 1953, the Brown Act has placed certain requirements on local government regarding public meetings. Whether you love it or hate it, the Brown Act is now another political institution, ranking right up there with motherhood and apple pie. "The State Legislature, however, has never seen fit to apply the Brown Act to itself. By the initiative process, the voters have imposed limited open meeting requirements on the Legislature. However, these requirements are not as stringent as the Brown Act requirements and are easily waived. Obviously, the Legislature has not been listening to the great sighs of content given by the citizens that they all sleep better at night knowing that the Brown Act is protecting them from local government gone amok. Instead, the Legislature prefers to continue the almost unholy practice of meeting in closed door sessions with no advance notice, no justification and no public access to the basis of the decisions they make. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Since the Counties are basically controlled by available State funding and statutory requirements, there should be a level playing field between how the Legislature meets and makes decisions and how we do it at the local level." (Continued on Page 2) - 1 - SELF GOVERNING SPECIAL DISTRICTS ALTADENA LIBRARY DISTRICT (5) 600 East Mariposa Street Altadena, California 91001 ANTELOPE VALLEY -EAST KERN WATER AGENCY (5) Post Office Box 3176 Quartz Hill, California 93534 ANTELOPE VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT (5) 1600 West Avenue J Lancaster, California 93534 ANTELOPE VALLEY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT (5) Post Office Box 1192 Lancaster, California 93534 ANTELOPE VALLEY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT (5) 805 West Avenue J Lancaster, California 93534 ARTESIA CEMETERY DISTRICT (4) Post Office Box 728 Artesia, California 90701 CASTAIC LAKE WATER AGENCY (5) 23560 Lyons Avenue, Suite 225 Newhall, California 91321 CENTRAL BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (1) 7439 East Florence Avenue Downey, California 90240 CENTRAL & WEST BASIN WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT (1) 7439 East Florence Avenue Downey, California 90240 COMPTON CREEK MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT (4) 1224 South Santa Fe Avenue Compton, California 90221 CRESCENTA VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT (5) 2700 Foothill Boulevard La Crescenta, California 91214 DOWNEY CEMETERY DISTRICT (1) 9073 Gardendale Street Downey, California 90242 FOOTHILL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (5) 4536 Hampton Road La Canada-Flintridge, California 91011 GOLDEN VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (5) Star Route 2, Box 81 Gorman, California 93243 MIRALESTE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT (4) 19 Miraleste Plaza Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90274 NEWHALL COUNTY WATER DISTRICT (5) Post Office Box 779 Newhall, California 91322 ORCHARD DALE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT (1) 13819 East Telegraph Road Whittier, California 90604 PALM RANCH IRRIGATION DISTRICT (5) Post Office Box 3396 Quartz Hill, California 93534 PALMDALE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 2005 East Avenue Q Palmdale, California 93550 PALOS VERDES LIBRARY DISTRICT (4) 650 Deep Valley Drive Palos Verdes Peninsula, California 90274 PICO COUNTY WATER DISTRICT (1) 4843 South Church Street or Post Office Box 758 Pico Rivera, California 90660 POINT DUME COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS (4) 6955 Fernhill Drive Malibu, California 90265 QUARTZ HILL COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Post Office Box 3218 Quartz Hill, California 93534 RIDGECREST RANCHOS RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT (4) 28752 Crestridge Road Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90274 ROWLAND COUNTY WATER DISTRICT (1) 3021 South Fullerton Road or Post Office Box 8460 Rowland Heights, California 91748 SAN GABRIEL COUNTY WATER DISTRICT (5) 8366 East Grand Avenue or Post Office Box 475 Rosemead, California 91770 (5) (5) - 3 - May 4, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of May 12, 1987 IWOPfr AMID RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE AMODNr OF BAIL FOR VIOLATIONS OF CITY ORDINANCES 1 87-879 AND # 87-880 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council - 1. Receive and file this report. 2. Adopt the attached resolution requesting the Presiding Judge of the South Bay Municipal Court to adopt a bail amount o . for violations of Section 5-24.5 of the City Code. l y'/ ? cca- ANALYSIS: At the April 28th City Council meeting, Council directed staff to return on May 12th with a resolution setting bail for violations of Section 5-24.5. We have reviewed similar ordinance bail schedules frau the Cities of Manhatten Beach, Redondo Beach and Torrance. Manhatten Beach and Torrance set a bail of $10 for similar offenses. The City of Redondo Beach adopted a bail of $28.. In keeping with a reasonable areawide approach, we recommend a bail of $25. In our opinion, this amount is not excessive and would not create an undue hardship on the South Bay Municipal Courts by having large numbers of people appealing their citations because of excessive costs. It is our opinion that this bail amount will serve the intended purpose of punishing the violater and causing compliance with the law. - fully fully Si. tted, ate. Steve S. ^isniewski Director of Public Safety CONCUR: FISCAL IMPACT NCTIED: Vicki Copeland, Finance Administrator 7 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. 87- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IERMOSA BEACH CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE JUDGES OE THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE SOUTH BAY JUDICIAL DISTRICT TO DETERNIINE AND ESTABLISH A REASONABLE BAIL FOR VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 5-24.5 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. WHEREAS, the California Penal Code at Section 1275 provides that the judge or magistrate of the appropriate court having jurisdiction thereof determine and establish the amount of bail considered appropriate for certain offenses: NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMJOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City requests the judges of the Municipal Court of the County of Los Angeles South Bay Judicial����District determine and establish a bail amount of twenty-five (i540) dollars, plus three ($3.00) dollars County Assessment on each to equal my -eight t$28:Tr0) dollars, for the offenses designated in Section 5-24.5 o%the Hermosa Beach City Code, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2. That this resolution shall take effect immediately. SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution; shall cause the same to be entered among the 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 of the meeting at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of May, 1987. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California -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 ATTEST: CITY CLERK -2- DCHIBIT A Sec. 5-24.5. Wheeled vehicles or devices on Strand walkway. (a) Prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to ride or operate any wagon, .box on wheels, or any other -method of riding or locomotion on wheels on any portion of the Strand walkway, except the following. (1) -roller skates; (2) 'skateboards; (3) pedal -powered, nonmotorized bicycles or tricycles with a width of not more than thirty-six (36) inches used for recreational purposes; (4) conveyances for persons unable to walk. (b) Required to yield right-of-way to pedestrians. Under all circumstances, the rider or operator of a wheeled vehicle or device, including bicycles, skateboards and roller skates, on 'the Strand ' walkway shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians, and due and proper care shall at all times be exercised by the rider or 'operator for the pedestrians. - (c) Group riding. When more than two (2) persons in a group are riding or operating wheeled vehicles or devices, including bicycles, skateboards and roller skates, on the Strand walkway, no more than two (2) shall ride side by side. (d) Racing; trick riding. It shall be unlawful for any person riding or operating any wheeled vehicle or device to race any other such vehicle or device or person along the Strand walkway, or to indulge in any kind of trick or unsafe riding or operating. (e) Dangerous speed; penalty. It shall be deemed reckless and dangerous if any person rides or operates any wheeled vehicle or device permitted on the Strand walkway, including bicycles, skateboards and roller skates, at an unsafe speed under existing conditions, or operates such vehicle or device permitted .on the Strand walkway in such a reckless, wanton or careless manner as to constitute unsafe riding or operating, and any person so operating or riding said vehicle or device shall be guilty of an infraction of the law as set forth in Sections 19c and 19d of the Penal Code of the State of California. (f) Parking. No person operating any wheeled vehicle or device on the Strand walkway shall park said vehicle or device in front of any entrance to the public beach or to Supp. No. 9-84 72 • DCHIBIT A 5.25 BEACH, BOATS AND MUNICIPAL PIER . • # 526 public or private property, or in any way hinder, delay or obstruct the movement of pedestrians or emergency vehicles or other wheeled vehicles or devices upon the surface of said walkway. (g) Applicability of traffic regulations. Eveperson riding -a bicycEvery person on the Strand-walkviay shall be.granted all the rights and be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle' by Chapter 19, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, of this Code, except those provisions which by their very nature can have no application to such persons.' (h) Violation. Violation deny provision of paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section shall be an infraction. (Or&.No. 79-611, 12, 9-25-79; Ord. No. 80-641, 1, 6-27-80; Ord. No. 84-771, §i 1, .S, 8-14-84) 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Zs RESOLUTION NO. 87- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA RELATING TO AIR TRAFFIC SAFETY. WHEREAS, fifty-two (52) major air disasters have oc- curred since the National Safety Council warned on August 17, 1964, that collision prediction can only be achieved through use .f three dimensional measurement radar (longitude, latitude, and altitude); and WHEREAS, the said air disasters resulted in the tragic loss of hundreds of lives, including eighty-two (82) people in the City of Cerritos air disaster; and WHEREAS, said altitude could have been readily provided air traffic controllers through use of a three dimensional track- ing system; and WHEREAS, current airborne collision avoidance systems, as evidenced by continued midair tragedies, are not sufficiently effective in assuring public safety due to the absence of alti- tude determination; and WHEREAS, no restrictions have been placed on the number of private aircraft allowed flight permission within known heavy commercial air traffic areas; and WHEREAS, recognized experts in the field of flight ra- dar detection have testified that a cost effective ground-based three dimensional collision warning system is practicable and available in the form of Bistatic or Listen Only Radar (LOR), a one-way radio broadcast transmission system which informs moni- toring commercial aircraft pilots of collision bound commercial and/or private aircraft; and WHEREAS, said bistatic radar may be installed on the 2b 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 strength of local authority; and WHEREAS, bistatic radar systems, may, by expert tes- timony, be readily available from federal sources, surplus or otherwise, at little or no cost; and WHEREAS, said bistatic radar systems may be installed at far less cost than alternative airborne systems; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. This City Council does hereby support the California Legislature in urging Congress to initiate emergency expert analysis of three dimensional radar as an interim remedy to the current situation. SECTION 2. This City Council additionally supports the California Legislature in uring all counties in the State of Cal- ifornia which host major commercial air traffic to support the emergency request study of bistatic radar and to provide funding for same. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 12th day of May, 1987. ATTEST: APPROVED JOHN A. CIOFFI, MAYOR CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA CITY CLERK AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY May 1, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council May 12, 1987 10-psi/11,10,4w CITY' CHARTS Recommendation It is recommended that City Council after reviewing the attache materials; 1. Approve in principle the concept of pursuing a City Charter; �� GP 2. Desig to itself as a Committee of the Whole to serve as a C art Study Committee and set the matter for study at a uly, .1987 workshop. Background The discussion of the pros and cons regarding the adoption of a City Charter has been on-going since 1984. Analysis The attached material was shared with the previous City Council. As there are three new Council members since that time, we have provided the material again to acquaint the new members with the information. During the Council meeting of April 28, 1987, the City Council reviewed the goals of the City as they were prioritized . The issue of pursuing a City Charter was listed as a low priority. Copies of various City Charters are available for your "reading pleasure" and can be found in the City Manager's office. In addition to staff recommendation, other alternatives available to City Council are: Not proceed; 2. Retain a consultant to do a feasibility study. Greg City ry T Me er Manager Respectfully submitted, 0444^t- Alana M. Mastrian, Director Dept. of Community Resources ik Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council February 1, 1985 Mid -Year Budget Review of February 21, 1985 RECOMMENDATION TO PROCEED WITH CREATING A CITY CHARTER RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve in principle the concept of pursuing a City Charter; that the City Council by mo- tion designate itself as a Committee of the Whole to serve as a Charter Commission and that Management Services Institute be re- tained as a consultant to the Commission at a cost not to exceed $15,000. Retention of the consultant to be per their January 28, 1985 proposal with funding to be appropriated from Prospective Expenditures. BACKGROUND A Background report was submitted to the City Council at your January 22 meeting. That report was received and set for discus- sion at your Mid -Year Budget meeting. This matter was originally recommended to you as a part of the City Manager's recommended 1984-85 Budget. The City Council concurred in this with its adoption of the Budget in June, 1984. ANALYSIS The reasons for and against creating a City Charter are outlined in the Background Report. At this time the options available to the City Council are: I. Proceed with a Charter Commission A. Designate the City Council as the Commission and proceed. This is probably the most effective approach or; B. Create a citizen's Commission and initiate the process and; C. Direct both the City Manager and the City Attorney to be liaison to the Commission and; D. Retain outside expertise to assist in the process as outlined in the attached proposal or: E. Seek other proposals for expertise or reject the concept that outside assistance is needed. II. Defer this matter until next fiscal year III. Reject the concept of studying creation of a City Charter. In my judgement the City should actively pursue creation of a City Charter and should utilize outside expertise to ensure con- sideration of the best subtleties, options etc. Furthermore I would encourage that the process commence now, for possible placement on a fall election rather than defer the matter. Gre ory eyer City Ma ger NOTED FOR FISCAL IMPACT: GTM/ld Attachment cc: Executive Staff opLz-/fez,„64,.._4J Viki L. Copeland Finance Administrator Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council January 17, 1985 City Council Meeting of January 22, 1985 STATUS REPORT RE ADOPTING A CITY CHARTER RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that this report be received and that the mat- ter be referred to the Mid -Year Budget meeting of the City Coun- cil, February 21, 1985. BACKGROUND In California there are two types of municipal corporations, general law and charter. Of the approximately 500 incorporated cities in the State, 81 are charter cities (see listing in Back- ground Materials). The National League of Cities has, since 1900 maintained (and of course modified over the years) a Model City Charter (a copy of the 6th Edition is contained in the Background Materials). Likewise, the California League of Cities has prepared a docu- ment, Charter or General Law City?, designed to answer the most commonly asked questions re why adopt a Charter. A copy of that is also contained in the Background Materials. Lastly, each City as it goes through the process of considering adoption of a Charter generates a report/recommendations. At- tached for your information is such a report from the City of Duarte. ANALYSIS What are the basic reasons for a California general law city to become a Charter city? Basically they are: 1. A community desire to take advantage of the constitu- tional right to free the city from control of the state legisla- ture and vest that authority instead in the people of the city. 2. A desire for increased "home -rule". 3. Charter cities are more at liberty to diversify their revenue sources, resulting in a more equitable tax structure. 4. Charters may provide for internal city government or- ganization which may not be possible under general law. 12 - 1 - 9 5. Charter cities may provide their own procedural ordinan- ces in conducting special assessment proceedings resulting in a less cumbersome process. 6. Public works contracts may be freed from restrictive state laws under a Charter; local regulations can be enacted more in tune with the needs of the community. 7. Ordinance adoption procedures may be modified by a Charter city; the expense of publishing ordinances in their en- tirety can be eliminated, at City discretion. 8. Municipal election procedures can be specified by a Charter city. 9. Planning matters may be expedited by a Charter city, precluding the necessity of duplicate public hearings before both the Planning Commission and the City Council, if so desired. 10. The State Legislature annually adopts more regulations that constrict a general law city; charter cities can avoid much of this. 11. A Charter City can better protect it's revenue sources from usurption by the State. There are also disadvantages to the creation of a Charter city. As summarized in the attached texts, the reasons are: 1. Potential difficulty in drafting an acceptable Charter. 2. General law has been, usually, tested in the courts and hence there is less likelihood of uncertainty due to untested phraseology of a charter. 3. General law, being broadly based and subject to con- siderable scrutiny, may be "better law" than a unique statute in p local Charter. In their document Charter or General Law City?, the California League of Cities states on page 7 "Because of the many pitfalls in charter drafting, it is recommended that the charter commis- sioners or the city council, as the case may be, consider employ- ing a charter consultant at an early stage in the charter draft- ing process." I concur in this analysis. A proposal is being readied for review at your Mid -Year Budget meeting. cc: City Attorney attachments U, 4.1 , RULE r0 • Home Rule Charter or General Law e" City of Duarte March 1971 N• • -. • • ^ ••• , V...1? • i LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 1400 K Street Sacramento, California 95814 RETURN IN 2 WEEKS PLEASE .•:f;••,,-•?, • •!;? • "••- • 7:7'e' • • •.• ••? •-‘• ;;•.; 9:1 C•c-7 • • CITY tY.: TABLE OF CON ' vNTS Page No. Local interest .. .• 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Why A Charter 0 • • o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 1 State Background . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Charter Adoption P edu €s 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 3 C msiderationss in Drafting a Charter . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ., ii torso on Sc DooEs 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Casts of Charter Adaption . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pros and Cors . . . . . . . . . . . . Advantages 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 . 0 a 0 . 0 , 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,] 0 0 DiVBY,trMgVJ . a .. . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 CITY OF DUARTE A REPORT TO CITE' COUNCIL ON CITY CHARTER PROPOSAL This report 6`a.$ been prepared and Es being submitted in accordance with your pr1or irstrucfio3Yo Lcal Interest Appsacently the idea of a city chcr:'OF for the City of Duarte has foscinoted some persons in our community for .many years. Co'raspoedence in files en this subject date back to ob Least 1965 and was uraderr3 end that there ,,,was some discussion prior to that, € urging the 1970 Municipal Election the subaect was once again boou,3ha to the form by as council candidate. More recently, Councilman Anderson has e2coressed in- terest in this subject as have other councilmen. Interest is being sparked, perhaps, by newspaper publicity concerning our neighboring Cities of Temple City and Baldwin Pry as well en the City of Los Angeles. The City of Lae Angeles is proposing extensive charter revisio61s while Temple City will vote on their proposed chanter or March 9; ldwin mak continues to sturdy the proposal. Why A Charter? In each city oclopting c charter there are probably many underlying r sons; however, o common theme might well be that them is o desire to take csivantoge of the ccrstitutionaE right to free the city fr m control of the .stcte legislature c d vest that cuthority instead in the people of tho city. State ke ou d The State Constitution provides that any city of 3, 500 population may adopt a charter. Thcze cities not odopting a charter oce ;governed by the general lows of the state. it is this latter fact which leads to the inclusion in the Constitution of 1879 of the "h )ma -u&' charter prevision for ciyieso Prior to that time, there. : iitige restrictic i upon the state in their acts r°egulatirg cities. This resulted in .'the legislature ;sassing r'any specinl acts of'f::cting cities which wens undesi,able to the Citi€t " thus the cons'riautional prohibition or:d the "home -rule" cho er0 "Ho,`3'°'w''-r le" cho ter per- mit. chits to draft their own "otfgonic kw" i.e. laws governing their own organization and irate nal structure. .ly76 were many cities adopting "home -rule" charters in the - cn that fol!owed this cr.-,n; titut'ronal grant of power to the people of the cities. Concurrently, the state was dev Roping that body of law which we now know as city general law end eventually the gear nal becorne so free of 510strictive provisions that the reasons for adopting "home -i. tile" charters diminished with the Pelt that tho rte of cdopticcra ofcharter:, de- clined. Renewed intorest in "home -rule" charters by numerous cities at thiA time e seyrsr- ingly it a result of the legislature not keepifxg up with tae developments in charter cities, so far an the seneml law cities are concerned. Perhaps, even tore important, however, is the desia:a of cities to protect themselves from the state legislature's fl'ar aC-mrr with regional isns l'zoponecats of charters in states which have not kept up with Co orafio in the city general law area hove a much stranger case than they would here. Where much cf i000l government is left as local communities in state law. the appeal of di -off: -rule" charter is lessened:, Nonetheless, , there is a certain attraction to a local charter which is approveri by the local voters r ':cher than sac :epi ing the mandates of the sta :e le&sm laatur'eo Local government is unequivocally more democnstic at the grass rocs level, 2 Charter Adoption Procedures Should we desire to puesue the matter of a city charter further, several o ltec - tives are open to use The City of a le City has taken, perhaps, the most expeditious method of adopting a chaster. Their city attorney working with their city manager and members of city council ;prepared the charter. Upon council cpproval it is being sub- mitted to the voter of their city on March 9, if approved by the voters the charter will then be srabrnitted to the state legislature and. upon its c©ncum nce, the charter becomes effective. o Another approach to the adoption of as city chaster has been taken by the City of Beidwin Park. That city's city council bee ®ppointed c charter study committee and they have been investigating the matter for many month,, with public hearings and ctt- ,ndent publicity. Upon completion of their deliberatiorr, they will submit ;hear caport to their city council which may, at that tier , take further action or drop the whole~ miner. The Government Code provides for yet another procedure and that is that upon council initiative or petition by noir less than 15 percent of the registered electors, as charter corrarrris3ion may be elected and this commission rroy then deliberzete ills matter and propce a charter. Regardless of the manner in which the charter is proposed, it eventually must be submitted to the voted of the city and with ii err approval forwarded to the state legis- lature. Ordinarily, the approval of the stag's legiaiot-.1813 is ccr>3idered to be routine. Cc:nsideseetiors in Drafting a Charter Any city drafting o charter or revisions to their charter, would be well advised to have .the work done by competent persons in the field. It should be drafted in final form by en attorney who is knowledgeable in municipal laws In this state, the League of California C'stis will provide further review. In general, city charters should, in emulation of the U.S, Constitution, be kept relctively brief and contain generally broad statements outlining the city government, it's functions, authority, power and limita- tions on authority. Details can be provided by ordinances or resolutions which are more easily altered than the charter. One of the greatest pitfalls for "homerule" charter government for cities is that charters may not be well drafted, may contain unnecessarily restrictive details eind thus create numerous legal and administrative problems. On the other hand, as well-written charter might be easier to live with than is the city general law. Thus, the drafting of the cl::arrter is of the utmost importance. It is our understanding that the proposed charter for the City of Temple City is merely a restatement of the belie city generei law and provides no fundamental changes, except charter status. Their main objective in proposing a charter is not to bring about fundansen ai changes but rather to protect therszelves from the threat of regicn©iismo lmpact on Schools The adoption of a "hone-rule" charter may or moy not affect the schools. If there is no desire to involve the schools, a simple statement to this effect in the charter suffices. However, in the event there is o desire to bring the schools within the juris- diction oa the carter, then th's provision must be approved by not only the city voters but other voters within the schaol district as well. Such an arrangement woul,i cpen up as whole new subject area., Costs of Chcrtor Adoption The costs of adopting a charter ccu!d vary well be minimal. In fact, one city 4 charter consists of less than two type-written pages, but others ars bulky booklets. Should we establish a charter commission, they might incur expenses, but if the pro- posed charter were kept to a minimum, the legal expense would not be great. The largest probable expense would indeedbe the election. However, if this were con- solidated with another election within the city, even this expense could be kept to a minimum. A municipal election will cost the city approximately $1,600, but the additional question of charter adoption added to a ballot at another election would result in almost no additional costs. Pros and Cons It is obvious that there is a division of opinion among cities and city officials as to the desirability of remaining a general law city or becoming a charter city. On that point (i.e. no agreement), there is a unanimity of opinion. There ars, however, trends which appear to be obvious: larger citis tend to be charter cities. The cities with special problems tend to adopt charters. Although the rate of charter adoptions has decreased over the years, there is a resurgence of interest by cities at this time. Currently, civic leaders point out that the leading, more progressive cities in this state usually are charter cities. We are including with this report a list of Lw Angeles County cities which indicates whether they are general law, or charter. Advantages Advantages cited for "home-rule" charters include the following 1. Charter cities are more at liberty than are general law cities to diversify their revenue sources and this obviously results in a more equitable tax structure overall. 2. Charters may provide for internal city government organ- izction which may not be possible under general law. 3. Charter cities moy provide their own procedural ordin- ances to be followed in conducting special assessment pro- ceedings and as a result: the sometimes cumbersome procedure contained in state lar, may be streamlined with time-consuming procedures discarded for expedited approaches more consistent with the needs of the individual community. 4. Public works contracts may be freed from restrictive state laws and local aegulctions adopted more to the lilting of the city. 5. Ordinance adoption procedures may be modified and the un- necessary expense of publishing ordinances in their entirety might be eliminated. 6. Fiscal procedure may be altswed to more closely meet the needs of the city than these which are prescribed by the state. 70 Municipal elections may be conducted as prescribed by charter i.e. different procedurce than those prescribed by the state and alternate election dates could be chosen, for example. 8. The structure of city council might be altered, for example, the membership might be changes (rather than 5, perhaps 7, etc.) staggering of the teres of office could be prescribed, etc. 9. Charters may provide the more responsive government at no greater cost and provide protection from the state legislature. 10., "Home -rule" charters provide a sense of participation by the residents which is absent in general law cities. -6- 11 a Zone change, subdivisions, and other developmental pro- cedures may be expedited without the necessity of duplicate public hearings before both the planning corrrri:.sion and council 12. Every workable and satisfactory procedure granted to general law cities may also be retained under a charter. Only those iterrs which have proved to be ad antcgeous would need to be included in the charter. 13. The state legislature is constantly eroding the authority of general low cities and imposing mandatoay provisions by which they must abide. A charter city may escape much of this danger. 14. The largest and most respected cities in California are chcr;ered. Because of the image factor, &one, a charter city gains certa ir. cd - vantages. The value of this, while infrangible, is important. 15. A charter city can protect its revenue sources beccuse of it:; classification. This has been demonstrated in the enactment ort the uniform cigaret tax law in 1966 The legislature may soon enact a utility users tax. As a charter city we could protect ourselves from the kind of tresstm-eet that moulted from passage of the cigaret tax law, whereby the cities with the greatest sales tax revenue received, unduly, the greater share of cigaret tax monies regardless of the actual volume of cigaret sales. 16. A charter can provide for the most effective and efficient or- ganization in financing a utility service, should we so desire. f 17. Carefully and wisely drafted, a charter can tailor the means and methods of local government to the specific needs at a lower cost to the taXpayen o Disadvantages It i5 obvrious that with the cdvanE•c°.ges set forth above, there are disadvantages; onions them area 1. Potential diffiict lty in drafting an acceptable charter and the problems of revision and amendments which are time-consuming end perhaps costly. ?o General law has been, usually, tested in the courts and hence them is less likelihood of uncerteinty die to untested ph oseology of a charter. 30 Gra'l law boirg broadly baeed and subject to scrutiny by municipal and state officials at a state-wide level may be better law then that which a locally edcpted charter provides. Should we desire to proceed further with this sub;ect, we should ccrsult with our city attorney as to legal requirements, and t would encourcge our cansultotion with him as to the subject matter and content of any proposed charier. Respectful! swbmined, Robert R. FAi tch®1l City Maner RRh'gr For Council Meeting, March 9, 1971 INCORPORATED CITIES IN THE COUNT'' OF LOS ANGELES NAME .OF C'I'TE INCORPO2ATIOF ' - ll__abetic _ EFFECTIVE C ASS 1. Alhambra July .11 r: 1903 Charter 2. Arcadia Aug. 5, 1903. r1 3. Arten is May 29, 1959 General Law 4. Avalcn Jens. 26, 1913 5. Azusa Dec. 29, 1894 11 6. Baldwin Pk.. Jan. 25, 1956 7. Dell' Nov., 7, -1927 . 8. Bell Gardens Aug. 1, 1961 11 9. Dellilower Sept. 3, 1937 10 Beverly Hills . Jan. 28; 19114 11: Bradbury July 2.6, 1957 11 Burbank July 15; 1911 Charter,: Carson Feb. 20, 1968 General Law Cerritos(d) April 24, 156 Charter Claremont Oct. 3, 1907General Law Cimmerce Jan. 28,E 1960 1i . Compton May 11,' 1888 Chartar Covina Aug. 14; 1901 General Lt Cudahy Nov. 10,1960 1f Culver City Sept. 26.', 1917 Charter Downey. Dec. 17, 1956- General L21i Duarte Aug. ,22, 1957: 11 El Monte . Nov. 1$, 1912 111 Segundo Jan. 18, 1917 GardenaSept..11, 1930 Glendale . : Feb. 15, 1906 Charter Glendora Nov. 13, • 911 General Law Hawaiian Gdns. April 14, 1964 11 Hawthorne July 12, 1922 Hermosa Bch. Jan. 10, 1907 Hidden Hills 'Oct. 19, 1961 Huntington Pk. Sept. 1, 1906 11 Industry June 18; 1957 . 11 Inglewood Feb. 14, 1908 Charter Irwindale .Aug. 6, 1957 General Law Lakewood . April 16, 1954 11 La Mirada(a) Mar. 23, 1960 La Puente • Aug. 1,!1956 La Verne(b) Sept. II, 1906 Lawndale. Dec.. 23, 1955 i0 09 11 10. 11, 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 13. 19. 2Q. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 228. 29. 30. al. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. • 11 10 11 11 9, 1/ 09 CI1RONOLO(+ 1 CM. ORDER OF I NCORPOfAT T •1. Los Angeles 2. Pasadena 3. Santa Monica 4. Monrovia 5. Pomona 6. Long Beach 7.• So. Pasadena 8. Compton 9. Rer endo Bch. 10. Whittier 11. Azusa 12. Covina 13. Alhambra 14. Arcadia 15. Vernon 16. Glendale 17. Huntington Pk. 18. La Verne 19. Hermosa Bch. 20. Sierra Madre 21. Claremont 22. Inglewood 23. Burbank 24. San Fernando 25. Glendora 26. El Monte 27. Manhattan Bch. 23. San Gabriel 29. San Marino 30. Avalon 31. Beverly dills 32. Monterey Park 33. El Segundo 34. Culver City 35. Montebello 36. Torrance •37. Lynwood 38. Hawtiiorne 39. Saut,i trate 40. West Covina A Mayor JAMES J. COUGHLIN Mayor pro tempore DONALD R. WATSON Councilmen ELWOOD L. ANDERSON KURT HAHN ROBERT C. HARBICHT City 0/2iarte 1634 E. Third Street Box 218 Duarte, Calif. 91010 Area Code 213 Telephone 358-3207 March 31, 1971 League of California Cities 1108 "O" Street Sacramento, California 95814 Subject: City Charter Report Gentlemen: ADMINISTRATION y^ l IC lyrAlar ger f 1 �R R. RI..MITCHEL • vj�Uj� ' Ass't itylManager, Pla Hing " Director iefI`d. respect eft` y TER Supt. Pa sand Recredtion RICHARD H. COLVIN Supt. Pubiic Works LONNIE B. MARSHALL am pleased to enclose a copy of a City Charter Report which I recently submitted to our City Council. Council has directed the city attorney and myself to draft a city charter which might then be used for study in preparation to submitting a proposal to the electorate for approval. You will note that my study is non-technical as I felt that there was no necessity in repeating information which is contained in both the League of California Cities' report and the National Municipal League's report entitled "A Guide for Charter Commissions". In addition, of course, the city attorney will provide legal guidance. Our Councilmen felt that this report, non-technical as it is, has been of great assist- ance to them and will be useful for distribution to interested citizens. Therefore, I am sending you this copy in hopes that it might prove useful to others as well. RRM:gr enc Home of the City of Hope National Medical Center Sincerely 7 i' Robert R. Mitchell City Manager =AGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 14G0 K Street a ornia Charter Cities Sacramaato, California 95814 'SEM !N 2 WEEKS PLEASE81 cities 2/83 City Alameda Albany Alhambra Anaheim Arcadia Bakersfield Burkalky 3.' 15ea..' Burbank �1,k4 Cerritos Chico Chula Vista Compton Culver City Cypress Del Mar Downey Eureka Fresno Gilroy Glendale Grass Valley Hayward Huntington Beach Industry Inglewood Irvine Irwindale Loma Linda Long Beach Los Alamitos Los Angeles Marysville Merced Modesto Monterey Mountain View Napa Needles Newport Beach Oakland Oroville Pacific Grove Palo Alto Pasadena Petal uma Piedmont Placentia '/€ - (jibe s i *1980 Date of Present County .Population Charter Alameda 63,852 1937 Alameda 15,130 1927 Los Angeles 64,615 1915 Orange 221,847 1965 Los Angeles 45,994 1969 Kern 105,611 1915 amdg,� aid/ • 103,328 1909 /9r3 ons Angeles 84,625 1927 Los Angeles 52,756 1964 Butte 26,601 1960 San Diego 83,927 1949 Los Angeles 81,286 1948 Los Angeles 38,139 1947 Orange 40,391 1975 San Diego 5,017 1960 Los Angeles 82,602 1965 Humboldt 24,153 1959 Fresno 218,202 1957 Santa Clara 21,641 1959 Los Angeles 139,060 1921 Nevada 6,697 -1953 Alameda 94,167 1956 Orange 170,505 1937 Los Angeles 664 1976 Los Angeles 94,245 1927 Orange 62,134 1975 Los Angeles 1,030 1976 San Bernardino 10,694 1981 Los Angeles 361,334 1921 Orange 11,529 1967 Los Angeles 2,966,763 1925 Yuba .9,898 1919 Merced .36,499 1949 Stanislaus 106,105 1951 Monterey 27,558 1962 Santa Clara 58,655 1953 Napa 50,879 1915 San Bernardino 4,120 1959 Orange 63,475 1955 Alameda 339,288 1969 Butte 8,683 1933 Monterey 15,755 1969 Santa Clara 55,225 1909 Los Angeles 119,374 1901 Sonoma 33,834 1947 Alameda 10,498 1923 Orange 35,041 1965 California Charter Cities Population - 1980 Page 2 2-2-83 *1980 Date of'Present City County Population Charter Pomona Los Angeles 92,472 1965 Porterville Tulare 19,707 1927 Redondo Beach Los Angeles 57,102 1949 Redwood City San Mateo 54,965 1929 Richmond Contra Costa 74,676 1909 Riverside Riverside 170,876 1953 Roseville Placer 24,347 1955 Sacramento Sacramento 275,741 1921 Salinas Monterey 80,479 1919 San Bernardino San Bernardino 118,057 1905 San Diego San Diego 875,504 1931 San Francisco San Francisco 678,974 1931 San Jose Santa Clara 636,550 1965 San Leandro Alameda 63,952 1933 San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo 34,252 1955 San Mateo San Mateo 77,561 1971 San Rafael Marin 44,700 1913 Santa Ana Orange 203,713 1953 Santa Barbara Santa Barbara 74,542 1967 Santa Clara Santa Clara 87,746 1951 Santa Cruz Santa Cruz 41,483 1948 Santa Monica Los Angeles 88,314 1947 Santa Rosa Sonoma 83,205 1923 Seal Beach Orange 25,975 1964 Stockton San Joaquin 149,779 1923 Sunnyvale Santa Clara 106,618 1949 Temple City Los Angeles 28,972 1971 Torrance Los Angeles 131,497 1947 Tulare Tulare 22,475 1923 Vallejo Sonoma 80,188 1970 Ventura Ventura 74,474 1971 Visalia Tulare 49,729 1969 Watsonville Santa Cruz 23,543 1960 Whittier Los Angeles 68,872 1955 *Population figures are from the 1980 Federal Decennial Census CHARTERS 211 A Guide for Charter Commissions National Municipal League C• a 1972 Wrgayea s �s 5 i' . rr c. C 310 c.2 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CI'rl1S 1430 IC Street Sacramento, California 95814 RETURN IN 2 WEEKS PLEASE NATIONAL MUNICIPAL LEAGUE CARL H. PFORZHEIMER BUILDING, 47 EAST 68TH STREET NEW YORK, N. Y. 10021 Price: $1.50 PART I Intro ductio n THE AMERICAN CITY IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY THIS HAS BEEN a century of astounding changes, and a multitude of signs and voices tells us that even greater things are yet to come. Science, tech- nology, industry and agriculture simply will not stand still. Social, economic and political changes still lag behind but they have been speeded up tremendously in recent decades. This has become an age of international -mindedness and of striving for a new international order through institutions to maintain peace and promote human welfare. It is also an age of large national states and big governments. At their centers these modern giant states have developed tremendous energy and programs of intense activity. There are many who bemoan the centralization of func- tions that has taken place and the increased scale of central government activities. Is there any place left in this modern scheme of things for local gov- ernments? Have American cities any important functions left in the face of the national and state centralization that has already taken place and the internationalization of public functions that is coming so rapidly? Why bother at all with cities and their governments in an age when a single bomb can wipe out a large-sized city? To get the answers to these questions requires nothing more than that we keep our heads cool and our minds receptive to the facts of life about us. It may be that the human race will go berserk one of these days and in effect destroy most of itself and of modern civilization, but this has not happened yet and there is good reason to believe it will never happen. In the meantime here are some facts: 1. Two-thirds of the people in the United States live, work and play in urban places; and the percentage of city dwellers is likely to go much higher. 2. Local governments today provide more services for the American people and raise and spend more money on public functions, in total and per capita, than they ever did before. Their usefulness is steadily increasing. 3. Local governments of all kinds are being called upon constantly to cooperate with national and state governments in the performance of functions the nation or state wishes to have performed. No sooner is a power or function centralized at the national or state level than the central 1 2 administrators find they cannot do everything from the center. In one way or another the administration of most functions must be localized. 4. It is in cities, towns and villages that the people have to learn the practice of democratic, responsible self-government. It is there we find a training ground for democratic leadership for state and nation. Many persons of recognized wisdom believe sincerely that without self- government in our communities popular government on a national scale cannot succeed. Therefore local government needs to be made and kept as effective and as democratic as knowledge and intelligence will permit, to the end that citizens will learn at home the best available principles and practices of democratic government in general. Good local government is, then, not only an end in itself because of the better services it can achieve but also an educationalrocessof tre- mendous importance to the nation and to all nations. New generations are forever coming upon the scene and the leaders of each generation need to learn over again, by precept and experience, what the previous ones had come to accept as true�ntors who find waysAnd dissenters make genuine scoff oold wisdom and a few improve- ments. INTRODUCTION IMPORTANCE OF THE CHARTER How can better local government be achieved in the United States today? There is no royal road to the desired goal. Many things must be done and done continuously and well. Among the methods of maintaining and raising the standards of gov- ernment are: education in schools and colleges; the informational services of press, radio and television; widespread men and women toparticipation officeand in unremitting effort to elect better investiga- tions by citizen groups, experts in public administration, bureaus of govern- mental research, and even by grand juries and prosecutors into the conduct of governments and their officers. The improvement activity to which this booklet is devoted is the making of better charters. At one time even informed persons thought it sufficient, when the local government was corrupt, wasteful or ineffective, to "turn the rascals out" and install better men in office. This is and prob- ably always will be a useful thing to do. reveal that even the On the other hand investigations in many places best of men in office are handicapped or frustrated in their endeavors to improve the public services by ill-advised or out-of-date provisions of the charter and laws. Until such provisions are eliminated or improved little ns are can be done. Furthermore, officials hen better charter achievel aobetter result llthan even the less competent public INTRODUCTION 3 before, while the spoils -seeking official is prevented from plying his trade to the limit at public expense. Good men are reluctant to accept office in an unworkable system and are attracted to one which is well organized and effective. For these reasons the National Municipal League began in 1897 to formulate and to publish the principles of sound municipal gov- ernment in the form of a Municipal Program which later became the Model City Charter. What is a city charter? It is the basic law that defines the organization, powers, functions and essential procedures of the city government. It is comparable to the state constitution and to the constitution of the United States. The charter is, therefore, the most important single law of any city. Through change in the charter almost any desired change can be achieved in governmental organization, powers, functions and procedures. All the effects of a new charter may not be felt immediately but in the long run a charter has important effects, for better or for worse, on everything that the government does. Faulty governmental machinery is responsible for more municipal ills than most people suspect. Other things being equal, the better the charter the better the government. HOME RULE It is in states that authorize home rule charters that charter commis- sions aae most common. Every state has control over the local governments within its limits. Originally there were practically no restrictions on the state legislature's power to create, abolish, organize and reorganize the governments of local units. It was the early legislative practice to organize each city separately by passing a special or local law which became the charter of the munici- pality. By subsequent legislation applicable to the particular place the legislature would change the municipal organization, enlarge or decrease the city's area, change its powers and its functicns and make other altera- tions. Each place was treated as a special case and each city accumulated a body of special legislation applicable to it alone which, taken as a whole, was the charter of that city. By the same token, every city had a charter different from that of every other. Many legislative abuses developed in connection with this special and local legislation. Partisanship frequently prevailed over principle. A legis- lature dominated by one party would impose unwanted boards, officers and expenses on a city ruled by another party. Special interests obtained franchises in city streets that the city government would not have author- ized. Much of this type of legislation was passed at the state capital without notice or hearing for the citizens and officials of the city concerned. The 4 INTRODUCTION very principle of local self-government in local affairs was flouted and violated time and time again. Leaders in cities began to demand amendments to the state constitu- tion to put an end to this regime of special legislation. A movement for such prohibitions began a century ago and soon New York, Indiana, Ohio and Michigan, to mention a few, had put into their constitutions various restrictions upon or prohibitions against special and local laws. This movement spread until about three-fourths of the state constitutions now contain clauses that in one way or another attempt to limit or prohibit the evil of special legislation. A strong argument for all such prohibitions was the right of local self-government. Unfortunately, a prohibition against special state legislation on local matters is not equivalent to granting local home rule. As already stated, each city had a separate and distinctive local charter. It also had peculiar circumstances to some extent and its people and leaders had their own ideas as to how to satisfy local needs. Cities were growing, their needs were changing and their old special charters were constantly getting out of date and out of step with the times. But when the legislature had been for- bidden to pass local or special laws for cities, the legislative road to change was at least partially closed. Furthermore, the legislature could not meet all local needs and wishes by blanket general laws; these simply could not be made to fit all local circumstances. How then could particular cities get their charters modernized? In 1875 the Missouri constitutional convention adopted provisions for St. Louis and future cities of over 100,000 population that proved in prac- tice to be a very satisfactory answer in many states. It was simply this: Permit cities, within the limits of state laws, to frame, adopt and amend their own charters. This arrangement, embedded in the state constitution, is known as "constitutional municipal home rule." Coupled with a consti- tutional provision that prohibits the legislature from enacting special and local laws for cities, it has the effect of transferring the power to make special or local laws from the legislature to the people of the city concerned. The Missouri idea spread until approximately half the states had con- stitutional provisions permitting one or more cities (up to "all cities and villages" as in Minnesota) to frame, adopt and amend their charters. In a number of non -home rule states local charter -drafting bodies prepare special charters that must be approved by the legislature. In New Jersey charter commissions determine which of several ready-made optional charters pro- vided by law should be submitted to the voters. Citizen participation in charter -making is, therefore, a significant feature of local democracy in a substantial majority of the states. May 4, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Menbers City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of May 12, 1987 REPCRT AND RECCMMENDATION REGARDING PANHANDLING RECCMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council receive and file this report. BACKGROUND: At the City Council meeting on April 28th, Mayor Cioffi requested a report on any ordinances the city has that addresses the issue of "Panhandling". ANALYSIS: Lieutenant Altfield completed a review of all laws and ordinances pertaining to the subject of panhandling and his report is attached for your review. Generally, it appears that there are no specific city ordinances that directly apply to the issue of panhandling. There are several sections of the Municipal Code which could be interpreted to have an impact on panhandling. Section 647 of the California Penal Code specifically addresses the subject of panhandling. It is our opinion that we have adequate means to address any problem which might arise from panhandling. Steve S. Wisniewski Director of Public Safety NOTED: Gr g ory T. Meyer, City Manager April 30, 1987 To: Captain John Mebius From: Lt. Anthony Altfeld Subject: Panhandling Concerning Chief Wisniewski's request on any local ordinance which prohibits panhandling in the city, upon review of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, I was unable to locate any section which specifically addresses this issue. There are some general sections within the municipal code which could possibly be interpreted to affirmatively impact panhandling as a nuisance condition. Section 20-2.1 HBMC , "...shall apply to any and all conditions which reasonably constitue a nuisance within the intent expressed in section 20-1, 'Purposes,of chapter'." Section 20-1 HBMC, states, "The intent of the city council...is to protect the inhabitants of the city against all forms of nuisances, public and private, not specifically prohibited by state law, growing out of any action, activity, condition, circumstances or situation permitted to exist within the city and caused or produced by any person...which is ...detrimental to the public safety, morals or general welfare...or an obstruction to the free use of property to such an extent as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment or life or property by the entire community or neighborhood, or by any considerable number of persons." Section 20-12 HBMC, states, "No person shall loiter or stand in or upon any public highway, alley, sidewalk...or other public way open for pedestrian travel or otherwise occupy any portion therof in such a manner as unreasonably to annoy or molest any pedestrian thereon or as to obstruct or unreasonably interfere with the free passage of pedestrians." The state penal code specifically addresses the issue of panhandling in section 647. It states, "Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor: (c) "Who accosts other persons in any public place or in any place open to the public for the purpose of begging or soliciting alms." Section 647c of the state penal code also speaks to the issue of obstructing public sidewalks: "Every person who willfully and mal- iciously obstructs the free movement of any person on any street, side- walk, or other public place or on or in any place open to the public is guilty of a misdemeanor." There are a variety of other state and local statutes which might possiblyaddress other specific conditions that may create an attractive environment for panhandling. They could also be used and/or enforced to mitigate any perceived problem. Lt. Antho Altfed Operation. 'ivision Hermosa Beach Police Department - la - Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council //e( April 27, 1987 Regular Meeting of May 12, 1987 TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPGRADE - CIP 85-138 Recommendation: It is recommended by both the Planning Commission and the Public Works Department that the City Council: 1) Approve the attached Traffic Signal Study (Exhibit C) for CIP 85-138. (CIP 85-138 is the consolidation of CIP 85-131, 85-132, 85-133, 85-134, 85-136 and 85-138). 2) Authorize Mohle, Grover and Associates (MGA) to proceed with the Traffic Signal Design project for CIP 85-138 as follows: a. Develop drawings,.plans and specifications for traffic signal improvements on Hermosa Avenue at 2nd St., 11th St., Pier Ave. and 13th St. b. Develop an increased lighting plan for Pier Ave. at Valley/Ardmore, but do not consider a signal installation at this location at this time. c. Develop a plan to optimize the signal timing at the Aviation/Prospect intersection, but do not consider protected left turn phasing at this time. Background: On January 13, 1987, the City of Hermosa Beach entered into an agreement with Mohle, Grover & Associates (MGA), for traffic signal design consultant services at the following locations: Hermosa Avenue at 2nd Street Hermosa Avenue at 11th Street Hermosa Avenue at Pier Avenue Hermosa Avenue at 13th Street Aviation Blvd. at Prospect Pier at Valley/Ardmore (formerly (formerly (formerly (formerly (formerly (formerly CIP 85-131) CIP 85-132) CIP 85-133) CIP 85-134) CIP 85-136) CIP 85-138) On January 20, 1987, MGA conducted a workshop with the Planning Commission during which the project goals were established. Shortly thereafter, MGA began collecting field and historical data to discuss at a second Planning Commission Workshop on February 3, 1987. The project direction was then more clearly defined and MGA proceeded with the traffic study which included traffic counts, accident history and computer simulation of potential alternatives. The results of this study were presented 1 to the Planning Commission for comments at a third workshop on March 17, 1987. On April 2, 1987, the Planning Commission took formal action to recommend that the City Council: a. approve the attached Traffic Signal Study (Exhibit c), and b. authorize MGA to proceed with the design (as described in the above in Recommendation #2.) c. authorize additional study regarding angled parking on Hermosa Avenue. (See Exhibit A for the April 2, 1987 Planning Commission minutes) Analysis: The Traffic Signal Study is complete (Exhibit C) and is being presented for your, review. The thrust of this study is defined in the following recommendations: A. Hermosa Avenue Angle Parking 1. If angle parking is installed on Hermosa Avenue, the street classification should be changed from collector and arterial to local, to reflect its intended function. 2. The accident rate will most probably be increased with a change to angle parking. 3. Staff recommends additional study of the consequences of angle parking on Hermosa Avenue when the revised Circulation Element is presented to both the Planning Commission and City Council later this year. 4. The traffic signal improvements on Hermosa Avenue at 2nd St., 11th St., Pier Avenue and 13th St. are "straight -forward" type of improvements and include modernizing existing signals, installing pedestrian buttons, etc., to enhance public safety. These improvements will be included in the final design, bid drawings and specifications. B. Pier at Valley/Ardmore 1. With present geometrics the existing all -way stop control will function better than signal control. 2. Existing conditions will be improved with more lighting. C. Aviation Blvd. at Prospect 1. If protected left turn phasing is installed, the average stopped delay time per vehicle for all intersection movements would increase from 16 seconds (existing) to 18 seconds. 2. The existing signal timing provides too much proportional signal cycle time to Prospect Avenue compared with Aviation Blvd. The signal timing should be optimized to better represent the volumes and intended uses of the two streets. With optimized signal timing of the existing signal, the weighted average delay for all movements would decrease from 16 seconds (existing) to 10 seconds. With Council approval of these recommendations, MGA will proceed with the preparation of the corrresponding plans and specifica- tions. Within approximately 45 days, staff will return to both City Council and Caltrans for the final design approval before the construction phase begins. Please refer to Exhibit B for this Tentative Project Schedule. Analysis: Other alternatives available to City Council and considered by staff are: 1. Request additional information for City Council presentation. 2. Drop the project. Respectfsubmitted, Deborah M. Murphy Assistant Engineer Concur: Gre:ory . M:yer City Manager DMMmv pcmtg/v 3 Concur: A '''" •ny ntich Director of Public Works 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 7, 1987 PAGE 9 Steve Coke, 833 16th Street, Hermosa Beach, asked for clarification on the proposed zone change. Public Hearing closed at 9:02 P.M. by Chmn. Sheldon. MOTION by Comm. Schulte, seconded by Comm. Compton, to approve the zone change and precise plan for rear one-half of Lot 2 at 1514 Pacific Coast Highway, as recommended by staff and subject to the specified conditions. AYES: Comms. Compton, Peirce, Rue, Schulte, Chmn. Sheldon NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None TRAFFIC SIGNAL STUDY — CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROSECT 85-138 Tony Antich, Director of Public Works, gave staff report dated April 2, 1987. He stated that it is recommended that the Planning Commission advise the City Council to: 1) Approve the traffic signal study for CIP 85-138. (CIP 85-138 is the consolidation of CIP 85-131, 85-132, 85-133, 85-134, 85-136, and 85-138.) 2) Authorize Mohle, Grover and Associates (MGA) to proceed with the traffic signal design project for CIP 85-138 as follows: a) Develop drawings, plans, and specifications for traffic signal improvements on Hermosa Avenue at 2nd Street, 11th Street, Pier Avenue, and 13th Street; b) Develop an increased lighting plan for Pier Avenue at Valley/Ardmore, but do not consider a signal installation at this location at this time; c) Develop a plan to optimize the signal timing at the Aviation/Prospect intersection, but do not consider protected left -turn phasing at this time. Chinn. Sheldon noted the importance of this issue. He asked whether it is appropriate to discuss the issue of angled parking on Hermosa Avenue at this time. Mr. Antich stated that the consultant was present and would be able to answer questions. He stated that angled parking on Hermosa Avenue would not materially affect traffic on Hermosa Avenue. Chmn. Sheldon stated that he has strong feelings about angled parking on Hermosa Avenue. Churn. Sheldon explained, for the benefit of the audience, the proposal. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Compton, to approve staffs' recommendation to advise the City Council of the abovementioned issues. No objections; so ordered. Chmn. Sheldon stated that the prepared report is excellent. He stated that it is important to determine whether Hermosa Avenue is a collector or an arterial street. He favored a collector status. He noted that there is angled parking on Pier Avenue west of Hermosa Avenue, but he questioned what types of problems might surface because of o, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 7, 1987 PAGE 10 angled parking on other streets. He favored angled parking. He asked whether any statistics had been compiled in regard to this issue. Mr. Antich stated that such statistics are not currently available. Churn. Sheldon and the other Commissioners discussed the issue of traffic and angled parking. Comm. Rue favored angled parking, stating that he feels Hermosa Avenue is wide enough to support such parking. He felt it would have merit in the downtown area. Churn. Sheldon asked the consultant for information on how the report was prepared. Mr. Mohle, traffic consultant, explained the methods utilized in the study. He stated that more study could be done during the summer months to determine the traffic volume during those months. He noted that winter and summer conditions can vary dramatically. Comm. Peirce favored angled parking in the north end of town, noting that traffic is not as heavy in the north as it is in the south. He discussed the merits of such an action. Churn. Sheldon requested Mr. Antich to further refine the study of angled parking on Hermosa Avenue from one end to the other over the next several months, including the summer. A recommendation could then be obtained from the consultant at the conclusion of the study. Comm. Compton discussed the possibility of removing parking from the medians and relocating it to the sides of the street, noting safety concerns.. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Schulte, to recommend to the City Council that the study be further refined as mentioned above. No objections; so ordered. A ZONING ORDINANCE INTERPRETATION OF THE PERMITTED USES IN THE C-3 ZONE AS RELATED TO THE SALE OF ADULT VIDEOS, GREETING CARDS, SMOKING ACCESSORIES, GIFTS, NOVELTIES, TOYS, AND GAMES As previously noted, a motion was made and passed to continue this item to the Planning Commission meeting of April 21, 1987. STAFF ITEMS The Commissioners received and discussed the following: - Memo from staff regarding prioritization of future agenda items MOTION by Churn. Sheldon, seconded by Comm. Compton, directing staff to request a Planning Commission subcommittee meeting with the City Council subcommittee to discuss scheduling of Planning Commission priority items and other issues as deemed appropriate. He requested the City Council to advise the Planning Commission when it is convenient for them to meet. No objections; so ordered. PROJECT NAME : �l IC Si-� ACCOUNT NUMBER : C / - 8S S / 3 O TASKS 1 • Ctc e- 1"--r-a-rw 0-- przry 2. ' 1111 Fa -1 t. (- L .r ca et.pprewa-e, irr �j- ,6-' isi 3 cc..�" A2It o ttr ic, I 11 ?Let n,runcL Cet ,ixtti, , ® El I 4. c c - � F z LEGEND. %fNTR-Tii/G ilia .NMI ® van ms: ss A�TuraC�Sc��p.• X : 100% COMPLETE JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 101 111111111111111 --- -- -4,(Le-tc-Cp—CP1- I 111111 11 11111 11111111 "` i"iTl ---- 4 , Et 7. C y Coy. - 4 f2p;(.4- r ---J9 [-Go c. c ) I q,�C1 (;a u.,k ctj�iu /O. X ai--II--a/ � ��-���,�-moi' I ---- . I CO/I/a- fru • p -oma 1111111111111! .11lT� 111111'111 111111'1111.11111111tflir;1�11111111�1I11111� . • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH TRAFFIC SIGNAL STUDY FOR Federal Aid Urban Project MG -3041(2 70) March 1987 Submitted by MOHLE, GROPER ASSOCIATES 901 East Imperial H' Suite A ALa Habra, C A 90631 • 714)738.3471 1 1 elfir MOHLE, GROVER O ASSOCIATES G 901 East Imperial Highway Suite A La Habra, CA 90631 • (714)738.3471 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 March 30, 1987 Mr. Anthony Antich Director of Public Works City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Tony: This is the final report of the traffic signal study for Federal -Aid Urban Project MG -3041(270). This study, submitted in partial fulfillment of our agreement, concerns the following subjects: o Angle parking on Hermosa Avenue o Signalization of Pier Avenue at Valley/Ardmore o Possible left turn phasing for the existing signal at Aviation Boulevard and Prospect Avenue The report reflects the comments of City staff. We and our associated noise consultant, Endo Engineering, sincerely appreciate the opportunity of working for you and your City. The assistance of Deborah Murphy has been especially appreciated. Respectfully submitted, MOHLE, GROVER & ASSOCIATES Wc"—Lc R. Henry Mohle President RHM: jh Attachment TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION 1 Street Classification 1 STUDY CONCLUSIONS 5 Hermosa Avenue Angle Parking 5 Pier Avenue at Valley/Ardmore 5 Aviation Boulevard and Prospect Avenue 5 ANGLE PARKING ON HERMOSA AVENUE 8 Existing Conditions 8 Proposed Angle Parking 8 Accident Aspects 8 Traffic Capacity 14 Conclusion 15 PIER AVENUE AT VALLEY/ARDMORE 16 Existing Conditions 16 Vehicle Delays with Stop Sign Vs Signal Control 20 Speed Considerations 20 Vehicle Volumes 20 Vehicle Storage Limitations 23 Noise Considerations 23 Conclusions 24 AVIATION BOULEVARD AT PROSPECT AVENUE 25 Existing Conditions 25 Accident Analyses 29 Delay Analyses 31 Prospect Volume Analysis 35 LIST OF FIGURES PAGE FIGURE 1 - VICINITY MAP 2 FIGURE 2 - STREET CLASSIFICATION 3 FIGURE 3 - ANGLE PARKING ON HERMOSA AVENUE 9 FIGURE 4 - PIER AVENUE AT VALLEY/ARDMORE GEOMETRICS 17 FIGURE 5 - MIDDAY VOLUMES AT PIER AVENUE AT VALLEY/ARDMORE 18 FIGURE 6 P.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUMES AT PIER AVENUE AT VALLEY/ARDMORE 19 FIGURE 7 STOP SIGN VS SIGNAL CONTROL DELAY FOR MIDDAY PERIOD (PIER AVENUE AT VALLEY/ARDMORE) 21 FIGURE 8 STOP SIGN VS SIGNAL CONTROL DELAY FOR P.M. PEAK HOUR (PIER AVENUE AT VALLEY/ARDMORE) 22 FIGURE 9 - AVIATION BOULEVARD AT PROSPECT AVENUE LAYOUT 26 FIGURE 10- MIDDAY PEAK HOUR VOLUMES (AVIATION BOULEVARD AT PROSPECT AVENUE) 27 FIGURE 11- P.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUMES (AVIATION BOULEVARD AT PROSPECT AVENUE) 28 FIGURE 12 -COLLISION DIAGRAM, AVIATION BOULEVARD AT PROSPECT AVENUE 30 FIGURE 13 P.M. PEAK HOUR STOPPED DELAY - EXISTING SIGNAL TIMING 32 FIGURE 14 P.M. PEAK HOUR STOPPED DELAY - OPTIMIZED TWO-PHASE TIMING 33 FIGURE 15 P.M. PEAK HOUR STOPPED DELAY LEFT TURNS ON AVIATION BOULEVARD 34 APPENDICES _ APPENDIX A - CAPSSI Analysis for Hermosa Avenue & Pier Avenue APPENDIX B - Signal Simulation for Pier Avenue at Valley/Ardmore APPENDIX C - CAPSSI Analysis for Aviation Boulevard &Prospect Avenue APPENDIX D - Manual Turning Counts APPENDIX E - Field Delay Observation Results APPENDIX F - Machine Traffic Counts for Prospect Avenue APPENDIX G - Noise Analyses by Endo Engineering INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to present the results of a review and analysis of three different locations within the City of Hermosa Beach that are included as part of a Federal -Aid Urban project for the modernization and installation of traffic signals. The FAU project number is MG -3041(270). The first portion of the study concerns the accident and capacity implications of converting existing parallel parking to angle park- ing along Hermosa Avenue. The intersection of Hermosa Avenue at Pier Avenue was selected to be representative of the signalized intersections on Hermosa Avenue for the purpose of analyzing the traffic capacity aspects of instituting angle parking on the boule- vard. The construction portion of the FAU project on Hermosa Avenue pro- vides for the general upgrading of signals at the intersections of Second Street, Eleventh Street, Pier Avenue and Thirteenth Street. Because of the defined nature of these improvements, it is not necessary to include discussion of the improvements in this report. These improvements will be included in the plans, specifications and estimate element of the FAU project. The second major element of the study concerns the possible changing of the existing all -way stop control at the intersections of Pier Avenue at Valley/Ardmore to signalized control. The third major study element considers the possibility of installing left turn phasing at the existing two-phase signal at the intersection of Aviation Boulevard and Prospect Avenue. The locations of the possible signal improvements are shown on Figure 1 titled "Vicinity Map." Street Classification Before considering the specific traffic signal locations, it is believed appropriate to put into perspective the aspect of street classification as it relates to the proposed improvement locations. Figure 2 titled "Street Classification" shows the arterial and collector street system for the City of Hermosa Beach. The map represents the existing City circulation element of the General Plan dated 1979 concerning the designated function of the street system. It will be noted on the classification map that 1 NIB OUP INN INN NM NM 01111 OW ON al OM ON ON NS UM NO alit Nil NMI NO SGA LE .f er/ 43. Zr/ SEFti o' g�VD \L. .l1 PACIFIC 0 FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP PROJECT LOCATIONS 0 = LEFT TURN PI-IASI NG ❑ = NEW SIGNAL = MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING 51GNALS C MI OM Mill WI, all MN Eli MI lilt OM IMO IIIN Olt IN MIS FIGURE 2 STREET CLASSIFICATION LEGEND = AK i ER1AL 111111111 = CoLLECT?R.S LOCAL Hermosa Avenue southerly of Fourteenth Street is classified as an arterial, while northerly of Fourteenth Street it has a collector classification. Pier Avenue and Aviation Boulevard are both classi- fied as arterials, while Ardmore Avenue northerly of Pier Avenue and Valley Drive southerly of Pier Avenue are classified as collector streets. Prospect Avenue is also classified as a collector street. Assuming that the designated street classifications do, in fact, represent the official policy of the City of Hermosa Beach, it is appropriate to point out that the intended functions of a collector street and arterial are significantly different. Street functional classification is a means of placing intended street usage into a frame of reference so that traffic controls and land use development can be made in an orderly manner in concert with adopted policies. In terms of street classification, freeways are, of course, the highest form in terms of having the sole function of providing through traffic service with no side friction caused by driveways or intersecting streets. The next step down from a freeway is an arterial street which is intended to have as its purpose a major function of providing a high quality of service for through traffic movements between the collector street and freeway system. Trip lengths on freeways obviously are the longest with the next longest trip lengths being made on arterial streets in the ideal situation. With arterial streets the movement function is considered primary above the function of providing access to abutting lands. That, for instance, is why removal of on -street parking from an arterial street is considered very appropriate when the street width being used for parking is needed to enhance the movement function of the street. On arterials, access controls are more stringent than on collectors. Collector streets are intended to convey traffic from local streets to an arterial. The trip lengths on collectors will be shorter than on arterials. A collector street has almost an equal function of providing access to abutting lands as well as providing mobility. A collector street is not intended to convey high volumes of traffic for long distances. This is the function of an arterial or freeway. Lowest on the scale of mobility, of course, are the local streets whose primary function is to provide access to the abutting properties. This very brief overview of street classification is presented at this point in the study because it is believed very important that the reader recognize the street classifications of the streets involved in the particular discussion. Knowing ahead of time the street classification greatly assists in putting some order into the many variables concerned in street intersection traffic control. 4 STUDY CONCLUSIONS The following are the primary conclusions resulting from this study. Hermosa Avenue Angle Parking o The accident rate will most probably be increased with a change to angle parking. o The classification of the street should be changed to "local" to logically justify angle parking. Changing to angle parking in effect is changing the street to a "parking lot." o Existing volumes are low enough that changing to angle parking would not significantly increase overall vehicle delays. Pier Avenue at Valley/Ardmore o With present geometrics the existing all -way stop control will function better than signal control for the following main reasons: Existing storage length between intersections on Pier Avenue is only 80 feet long providing storage for only three to four cars while signal simulation shows that at least an eight vehicle storage length is required for through traffic on Pier Avenue. Signalization will cause "grid lock." - For most of the movements the average stopped time delay will be greater with signal control than with existing all -way stop. o Signalization would not significantly change existing noise levels. o Before signalization is contemplated the geometrics must be made simpler so that signalization will work efficiently. o Existing conditions would be improved with improved lighting especially on Pier Avenue between the two intersections and increasing the size of the right side -mounted stop signs for east and westbound motorists entering the complex. 5 Aviation Boulevard and Prospect Avenue o For the period 1984 through 1986 the average number of left turn accidents for vehicles turning left off of Aviation Boulevard was as follows: - Westbound to southbound — 2.0 accidents/year - Eastbound to northbound = 0.3 accidents/year o Five or more left turn accidents in a 12 month period for a particular left turn movement warrants consideration of a separate left turn phase. o With protected left turn phasing on Aviation Boulevard the average stopped time delay per vehicle for all intersection movements would increase 12 percent (16 seconds to 18 seconds) compared to existing signal timing. o With optimized signal timing of the existing signal the weighted average delay for all movements would decrease from 16 seconds (level of service C+) to 10 seconds (level of service B-). o With protected left turn phasing on Aviation Boulevard the average stopped time delay per vehicle for all inter- section movements would increase 80 percent (10 seconds to 18 seconds) compared to optimized timing of the existing two-phase signal. o The existing signal timing provides too much proportional signal cycle time to Prospect Avenue compared to Aviation Boulevard, considering that Prospect Avenue is a "collector" street and that through traffic movements on "collector" streets should be discouraged in accordance with existing City policy of designating Prospect Avenue as a "collector" street. o If left turn phasing were installed on Aviation Boulevard, the left turning volumes would not change significantly because the numerous stop signs on Prospect Avenue already provide the capacity restraints accepted by the motorists using Prospect Avenue as a through street. o With left turn phasing noise levels on Prospect Avenue would not change significantly since the volumes would not increase. 6 o With optimized two-phase signal operation compared to existing timing, the proportion of the cycle for west- bound traffic (both through and left turners) would be increased from 50 percent to 63 percent, an increase of 26 percent. The number of cycles per hour would increase from 49 to 60, thereby increasing the number of yellow cycle changes by 22 percent, giving more left turn oppor- tunities, and therefore reducing the possibility of impatient left turns being made because of excessive stopped time delay. The delay for the westbound to southbound left turners will be reduced from 41 seconds to 13 seconds, a reduction of 68 percent. o Since no significant changes in traffic volumes on Prospect Avenue are expected from any of the discussed signal modifications, noise levels on Prospect Avenue will not change significantly. Appendix G contains the details of the noise analyses conducted by Endo Engineering as a consultant to MGA for this study. 7 ANGLE PARKING ON HERMOSA AVENUE The purpose of this section of the report is to discuss capacity and accident aspects of instituting angle parking on Hermosa Avenue. Existing Conditions Presently Hermosa Avenue is a four lane divided street with a curb to curb width ranging from 80 to 86 feet. Portions of Hermosa Avenue have a median where parallel parking is allowed on both sides of the median. For this median arrangement the total median width including the area for car parking is approximately 20 feet wide. Where parking is not permitted along the median the median width is approximately 16 feet wide. Parallel parking is permitted on both sides of the street. As has been mentioned previously, Hermosa Avenue is classified as an "arterial" from Fourteenth Street southerly and as a "collector" street from Fourteenth Street northerly. Proposed Angle Parking The proposed angle parking would be installed along the east and west sides of the street. Because of the existing street width, a preliminary analysis indicates that the parking angle appropriate for the existing street width would be 45 degrees. This angle would provide adequate room for motorists backing out of the parking spaces between the curb and the median construction. With the angle parking the existing right hand or number two lanes would be devoted essentially to parking areas. The number one lane in each direction would be utilized for motorists entering and exiting from the angle parking spaces. Specifically, this means that during parking and exiting traffic movements no through movements would be permitted along Hermosa Avenue at that particular location. Figure 3 titled "Angle Parking on Hermosa Avenue" shows the 45 degree angle parking concept. Accident Aspects The purpose here is to present available information concerning accident aspects of converting parallel parking to angle parking. However, before discussing accident aspects, it is appropriate to point out that from a logical functional street classification viewpoint, if angle parking were instituted on Hermosa Avenue, the functional classification of the street should be changed from 8 r— I r— MB N NI r Ir MB wr In I NM NS S HERMOSA AVENUE FIGURE 3 PIER AVENUE ANGLE PARKING ON HERMOSA AVENUE 45° vazKiuG (eve) LE t" SCA : = 40' arterial and collector to a local street. This would recognize that the street's primary purpose would be for providing access to abutting properties and for the provision of on -street parking as opposed to providing mobility. Angle parking on collector and arterial streets is inconsistent with the functional definition of these types of streets. It is recognized that the number of cars parked with 45 degree angle parking compared to parallel parking would represent an increase of some 90 percent. From the point of view of providing parking there is no question that if the desired goal is to create the maximum amount of parking on the street is opposed to providing mobility, instituting angle parking is the logical alternative. A review of several authoritative traffic engineering references was made for this study. The review showed that as the references became more recent, it was increasingly difficult to find references to angle parking. To illustrate the results of this literature review, the following will be a series of quotations taken from the various publications mentioned. The oldest publication reviewed was the 1950 edition of the "Traffic Engineering Handbook" published by the Institute of Traffic Engineers. On pages 296 and 297 of this publication the following was mentioned concerning on -street parking: "Parallel curb parking is the most desirable form of on -street parking from the standpoint of safety and efficient use of street width. "Angle curb parking accommodates more vehicles than does parallel curb parking but at the expense of street capacity for moving traffic. Due to lack of visibility in leaving the stall, angle parking is invariably more hazardous than parallel parking. The backing maneuver also impedes or conflicts with one additional lane of moving traffic. "Angle parking is not advised at the curb and should be used only in separate parking areas and in low speed urban areas where parking requirements take precedence over the smooth operation of through traffic. If angle parking is used, care must be taken that adequate free moving lanes remain. A minimum street width of 70 feet should be required before angle parking is permitted." The next publication reviewed in chronological order was the 1957 publication entitled "Parking" published by the Eno Foundation for Highway Traffic Control. The following quotations taken from this publication are from pages 83 through 87: "Angle parking accommodates more vehicles per unit or curb space than parallel parking. This advantage increases as widths of the angle increase, until at ninety degrees nearly 10 two and one-half times as many spaces are possible. But as the angle increases, so do requirements of roadway width used for parking and additional width needed for maneuvering into and out of spaces. "Ninety degree parking at the curb is rarely permissible and only under special conditions as in wide market -district streets where small trucks back to the curb for the sale or delivery of produce. Usually, sixty degrees is the maximum practicable, and the forty-five degree stalls generally give best results. Steeper angles require more maneuvering space, while flatter angles use nearly as much curb space as parallel parking. "Angle parking simplifies and speeds up the act of parking. The driver can head directly into a stall with no lost motion and a minimum of interference with moving traffic. Parallel parking involves a backing maneuver, which delays moving traffic and is difficult for many drivers to perform without repeated and time consuming attempts. "On the other hand, while angle parking is almost ideal in causing a minimum of interference during the act of parking, the act of leaving an angle stall is more dangerous than unparking from a parallel stall. Many drivers back ex- cessive distances when leaving an angle stall, others back too suddenly for the short distance needed to gain visi- bility; consequently, moving traffic is forced to swing out, often across the center line and partly into an opposing line of traffic. Hence the result that several feet of roadway adjoining the angle spaces become No -Man's -Land, avoided by moving traffic as dangerous. "Many studies, of the 'before -and -after' type, have shown than angle parking at the curb is a common factor in acci- dents and a change in parallel parking brings a definite reduction. "Minor disadvantages of angle parking are that cars so parked often overhang the curb, with a consequent loss of sidewalk space a hazard to pedestrians; and angle parking forces parkers to debark in the street and walk through the gutter to reach the sidewalk. "A decision as to whether angle parking may be permitted at a given curb must be based upon the width of the street, the volume of traffic, the type of traffic or vehicles, the type of parking to be expected (turnover) and the nature of the neighborhood. "For the central business district, because of the nature and volume of the traffic movement on most downtown streets, it is recommended that angle parking be generally prohibited, and permitted only where the roadway is exceptionally wide (over 11 70 feet), or on short dead-end or stub streets as neglible traffic movement." The third reference is the 1971 publication titled "Parking Principles," Special Report 125 of the Highway Research Board of the National Academy of Engineering. This very authoritative and often quoted publication on pages 164 through 166 contains the following pertinent quotations: "At the hitching post of yesteryear the horse or cart generally stood at an angle to the street. With the development of auto- mobiles, the trend was to park in a similar fashion. This unfortunate tendency remains in many small towns and may even occasionally be found in larger and otherwise progressive cities. "Arranging parking at an angle to the curb accomplishes more parking per unit of curb length than parallel parking. This apparent advantage becomes greater as the angle becomes greater, until at 90 degrees almost 2.5 times as many spaces are available compared with parallel parking. Unfortunately, as the angles increases, so does the need for greater amounts of roadway for maneuvering and so does the hazard or starting, stopping and turning in streams of moving traffic. As a result, the 'apparent' advantage of angle parking disappears when considering the combined disadvantage of interference and hazard along the street. "Originally, when operating speeds and traffic volumes were low, angle parking worked satisfactorily. But with today's fast moving concentrations of traffic, angle parking is an unsafe anachronism that should be eliminated as rapidly as possible. "Many studies have been made that have shown the serious hazard connected with angle parking. The accident rate is typically several times that of parallel parking. As pre- viously shown, accident rates involving parallel parking are in themselves cause for concern. "Significant results were obtained from a before -and -after study in Kansas City, Missouri. On several streets where parking was changed, there were five accidents per block per year with angle parking and one accident per block per year with parallel parking. Another study in Oakland, California, compared one street using angle parking with another having parallel parking. The street with parallel parking carried more traffic, including buses. However, there were only 23 accidents involving parked cars on this street, whereas there were 46 similar accidents on the street having angle parking. Intersection accidents showed an even greater difference: 82 on the street with parallel parking and 183 on the street with angle parking. 12 "The principal hazard in angle parking is the lack of adequate visibility for the driver during the back -out maneuver. A second hazard results from the driver who stops suddenly when he sees a vehicle ahead in the process of backing out. Because empty parking stalls are difficult to perceive with angle parking, a third hazard results from motorists who are seeking a place to park. They must either proceed slowly (thus tying up traffic) in order to see the empty stall or slow abruptly when they come upon an empty space. "Some otherwise well-intentioned officials have thought that angle parking could be allowed on wide streets without the increased congestion and accidents that occur with its use on narrower streets. However, 45 degree angle parking along both sides of a 100 foot wide street will affect the entire width. The angle parked vehicles occupy nearly 18 feet of space, and their back -out operation directly affects an additional 12 to 15 feet. This in turn can cause lane change accidents in the second lane away from the angle parking. These problems may be readily noted by observing typical angle parking activities. "Because angle parking is such an obsolete concept, there has been a steady trend toward its elimination throughout the United States. In the Inventory of Traffic Safety Activities of the National Safety Council, it has been standard practice to record the amount of existing angle parking that a given city had removed since its last report. Such data were used to help establish 'credits' toward general traffic safety efforts. "There are, of course, conditions where one or more blocks can be closed to through traffic and converted into parking malls. The necessary factors are that (a) the street is not required for the traffic network, (b) through traffic can be effectively prohibited, and (c) the parking is so urgently needed at the location that it is more important than block circulation. "Functional classification of the street system and applica- tion of zoning provisions can help in formulating parking restrictions." The fourth and last publication reference is the 1984 edition of "Fundamentals of Traffic Engineering," by Wolfgang S. Homburger and James H. Kell of the Institute of Transportation Studies of the University of California. This publication on page 24-3 has the following pertinent comments concerning angle parking: "The choice between parallel and angle parking should be made primarily on the basis of the following considerations: 13 a. Angle parking uses considerably more street width, pri- marily because of the manner in which cars in the adjacent traffic lane place themselves laterally with respect to the parking lane. Therefore, parallel parking is preferred over angle parking where the movement of traffic takes priority over the temporary storage of vehicles, and vice versa. b. Angle parking provides more spaces than does parallel parking for the same length of curb space. c. Angle parking is potentially more hazardous than parallel parking because of impaired visibility for the unparking driver. d. The most critical maneuver for angle parking - leaving the space - is more quickly and easily completed than that for parallel parking - entering the space. Against this advantage for angle parking must be weighted the extra road width needed, as mentioned earlier." Based on 34 years of traffic engineering experience, it is believed that the key element in deciding the appropriateness of angle parking versus parallel is to decide the intended function of the street. If the street is intended to provide mobility, angle parking is inappropriate. If, however, the intent is to provide maximum parking and access to abutting properties in deference to mobility, angle parking may be an appropriate consideration. It is concluded from the accident point of view that the institution of angle parking has a high probability of significantly increasing the number of accidents related to parking compared to existing parallel parking. Traffic Capacity In order to evaluate the effect of changing from parallel parking to angle parking on traffic capacity and level of service for traffic flow, the MCA CAPSSI computer program was utilized. Based on discussions with -City staff, the intersection of Hermosa Avenue at Pier Avenue was selected as a typical Hermosa Avenue signalized intersection to be used as a model for analysis purposes. Appendix A contains the results and technical details of the CAPSSI analysis for the Hermosa Avenue at Pier Avenue intersection. The traffic counts utilized in the CAPSSI analysis were made during the midday period after consultation with the City staff. It was felt that the midday traffic conditions were fairly representative of the overall street activities during daylight hours. The CAPSSI analysis results for existing volumes, which are for the winter or off-season, showed that with parallel parking the level of service for the intersection was B+. This included an average stopped time delay for the intersection of 8 seconds per vehicle. Using the same 14 winter volumes and assuming angle parking, the level of service was found to be B+ for the intersection with a 9 second amount of stopped time delay. CAPSSI analyses were also made assuming a 50 percent increase in hourly volume intended to simulate summertime conditions. The utilization of the 50 percent increase factor was based purely on a value judgment of the consultant since no data was available from the City for summertime volumes. With the 50 percent increase in traffic changing from parallel to angle parking resulted in a change of level of service for the intersection from B+ to B-. The average stopped time delay for the intersection for the two conditions was 9 and 13 seconds per vehicle delay. It is concluded that with low traffic volumes, added delays due to angle parking installation are very low. If the traffic volumes on Hermosa Avenue were much higher, there would not be a very signifi- cant increase in vehicle delay. Another aspect of conversion to angle parking would relate to the possible coordination of traffic signals along Hermosa Avenue. With angle parking, coordination for traffic mobility would be more difficult and less efficient than with existing parallel parking conditions. Conclusion It is concluded that based on current traffic volumes, it is a value judgment decision involving the desire to increase the on -street parking supply that will be the key factor in converting to angle parking. If angle parking is installed, the street classification should be changed to "local" to reflect its intended function. 15 PIER AVENUE AT VALLEY/ARDMORE The purpose of this section of the report is to present the findings of a study conducted to determine the feasibility of changing the present all -way stop control at the intersection complex on Pier Avenue at Valley/Ardmore to traffic signalization. The study is related primarily to reviewing aspects concerning changes in average stopped time vehicle delay with stop sign versus signal control, actual operation of the intersection complex with signal control and aspects of noise connected with conversion from stop sign to signal control. Existing Conditions Pier Avenue is a four lane arterial. Pier Avenue does not have separate left turn lanes. Valley Drive is a two-way (one lane in each direction) street on the westerly side of the complex, while Ardmore Avenue is a two-way (one lane in each direction) street on the easterly side of the complex. The distance between the stop bars between the two intersections is 80 feet. Observations were made in February 1987 during the 3:30 to 5:30 p.m. peak traffic period by Mr. Mohle of MGA to determine how existing traffic was operating with the all -way stop control. These observations showed that the traffic is operating satisfactorily under existing conditions. In addition to the observations, quantitative measurements were made to determine actual stopped time delays with the existing all -way stop control. The results of these observations will be discussed later; however, the details of the delay survey are contained in Appendix E. During the field observations it was noted that increased lighting levels on Pier Avenue between the two intersections would be a significant improvement consideration from the point of view of traffic operations. Manual turning movement counts were also made at the intersection complex. The results of these counts are shown in Appendix D. Figure 4, "Pier Avenue at Valley/Ardmore Geometrics," is a sketch showing the overall intersection complex layout and general traffic lane arrangements. Figures 5 and 6 show midday and p.m. peak hour volumes at the intersection complex. 16 En MI— MI NM MB E s I all E— —— M UN 1 r NS VI PIER FIGURE 4 STOP 0 JiI r 0 ra STOP AVENUE 1 Ez3 scALE : 1" = 40' PIER AVENUE AT VALLEY / ARDMORE GEOMETRICS — s En MI M N EN MB— NB MI 1 i— all NM r r NE PIER. FIGURE 5 12 4 GIG 536 4-8 44- 20 52 52 �00 w > /• 42 38 -� 80 44 32 M.D. PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 584 �a AvE. 12 r IOZ 84- 44 411VIE NO SCALE N ME NM 1 OM r E NM N I- - - M S E- - i PIER. /„ 80� 372 132 2A 580 ' 548 ,f 'I0O 80 ZO 72,... �52 FIGURE 6 }-4,3G 5C1AVE. 124�_ 10 244 4 PM. PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 512 552 GO r ----,, 124 1 31626O 92 -P.- ( ci 1 NO SCALE Vehicle Delays with Stop Sign Vs Signal Control One of the fundamental considerations of intersection control is stopped time vehicle delay. Stopped time vehicle delay simply means the average amount of time the motorist would experience in approaching one of the directions to the intersection. Consideration of stopped time delay recognizes that one of the fundamental objectives in contemporary traffic engineering is to minimize delays to traffic and pedestrians using the street system. Reduction of delay is therefore an important objective in evaluating traffic control devices on the arterial and collector street systems. At the intersection complex field stopped time delay samplings were conducted during the midday and p.m. peak periods for the existing stop sign control and computer simulation studies were made to estimate stopped time delay if traffic signals were installed at the intersection complex. The detailed results of the field delay observations are contained in Appendix E. Appendix B contains the results of the computer simulation analysis. Based on the data contained in these Appendices, Figures 7 and 8, "Stop Sign Vs Signal Control Delay" for midday and p.m. peak hours show in a graphic form that for most of the movements at the intersection complex, average vehicle stopped time delay would increase with change from existing all -way stop control to signalized control. It is pointed out that the cycle length used in the signal simulation study was a 60 second cycle. If the cycle length is increased, delays with signalization would increase rapidly. It is concluded from the field and simulation delay studies that with current traffic volumes, there would be no advantage to the motoring public in terms of reducing stopped time delay by con- verting from stop sign control to signal control. Speed Considerations The above discussed delay analysis has shown that speeds through the intersection complex would decrease with traffic signal control. Based on a value -judgment review of the existing street system, land use pattern and other traffic controls in the area, it is concluded that if signal control were instituted at the intersection compelx, there would be no significant change in overall average speeds away from the specific intersection complex. Vehicle Volumes Because of the expected increase in overall stopped time delay at the intersection if a signal were installed at this intersection complex, it is also concluded that vehicle volumes would not increase due to traffic diversion under existing land use conditions. If the delay studies had shown that delay would be reduced with signal control, there would be a reasonable expectation 20 all MI 11111 N NM E N N MN NB INI1 E 1 NM MI NM 11111 N I PIER Di 0 N I 21 5 11111 11 FIGURE 7 re MI LEGEND % 1111111111 = FIELD MEASURED W1T1-1 STOP SIGN CONT DL = SIGNAL SIMULATION W > Q SCALE : I" = 20 SEC. /VEI-4. STOPPED M TIME COROL / 111▪ 1- 1- 1- 11- 8 rillE 17 2 G 111111 1 '4 to STOP SIGN VS. SIGNAL CONTROL DELAY FOR M. D. PERIOD o = AvE. 1111 i r = 14 I = 11111 N MN I EN E NE M NE N EN 111111 111111 NM MI 1 PI El?.. J 23 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII l0 FIGURE 8 MIN IMO I ME �{- LEGEND 1111111111= FIELD MEASURED WITH STOP SIGN CONTROL = SIGNAL SIMULATI0W W Q SLE : 1" = 20 SEC. VE4-1. STOPPED Tl M E CONTEZO L -t- l2 J EiM iMME = AVE. Th, Pc, 1 - co STOP SIGN VS. SIGNAL CONTROL DELAY FOR PM. PERIOD that volumes would increase because commuters would divert from their current commuter routing to utilize the reduction in delay at this intersection. However, since delay will actually increase with signal control, the overall conclusion is that traffic volumes will not materially change under existing land use conditions. Vehicle Storage Limitations As has been pointed out before, the distance between the stop bars at Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue along Pier Avenue is only 80 feet. This means that on the average only three to four cars maximum can be "stored" on Pier Avenue in each lane between the Valley/Ardmore intersections. The traffic signal simulation studies contained in Appendix B show that under signalized control the number of vehicles that would occupy this storage area would equal or exceed the storage length available. The specific implications of this limited storage length at the intersection complex leads to the direct and distinct possibility that frequent "grid lock" would occur at the intersection under signalized control. Specifically, it means that without adequate storage between the two closely spaced intersections, cars would back out on Pier Avenue across the two side streets which would prevent movements across Pier Avenue on Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue. It appears that under current volume conditions signaliza- tion would be observed by local motorists as being distinctively worse than the existing all -way stop control which at the present time is considered to be providing adequate traffic service. It is emphasized that these comments are based on the fact that both Ardmore Avenue and Valley Drive are two-way streets. If, for instance, Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue were changed to a one-way couplet, the signalization situation would improve drastically. Another alternative would be to redesign the intersection complex so as to create just one simple cross intersection rather than the two intersection complex. If this were done, signalization would also drastically improve traffic service. Noise Considerations Based on the decrease in overall speeds at the intersection complex, the noise consultant has concluded that there would be no significant change in noise levels at the intersection complex under signalization control. 23 Conclusions Following are the main conclusions resulting from the review of this intersection complex: o Change in traffic control from all -way stop to signalized control would result in increased stopped time delay for the overall intersection complex. o Signalization would not encourage motorists to drive faster. In fact, because of the increased stopped time delay, motorists would actually drive slower. o Signalization would not increase traffic volumes. Actually, because of the increased stopped time delay, it tends to discourage any traffic diversion from other locations. o Signalization would not significantly change existing noise levels at the intersection complex. o Increased lighting on Pier Avenue between Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue would improve nighttime traffic operations. o The intersection complex is working adequately under existing traffic volumes during p.m. peak periods under existing stop sign control. o Before signalization is contemplated, finalization of improved intersection complex geometries should be determined. o Overall it is believed that traffic service would be decreased by instituting signalized control for the intersection complex. 24 AVIATION BOULEVARD AT PROSPECT AVENUE The purpose of this section of the report is to discuss the findings of a study focused at determining the propriety of adding left turn phasing to the existing signals for Aviation Boulevard traffic. Existing Conditions Aviation Boulevard is an arterial street in accordance with the City's circulation element of the General Plan dated 1979. Aviation Boulevard is striped for four lanes of moving traffic and has painted left turn pockets at the Prospect 'Avenue intersection. The daily traffic volume on Aviation Boulevard is approximately 20,500 vehicles. The existing signal control is semi -actuated with loops only on Prospect Avenue. Figure 9 titled "Aviation Boulevard at Prospect Avenue Layout" shows the existing intersection geometrics. Prospect Avenue from Aviation Boulevard to Artesia Boulevard has a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour-. The curb to curb width of this section of Prospect Avenue is 40 feet within a right of way of 54 feet. On -street parking is permitted on both sides and the adjoining land use is essentially residential. The average daily traffic volume on this portion of Prospect Avenue is approximately 6,700 vehicles. Prospect Avenue from Aviation Boulevard to 190th Street has a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The curb to curb width is 30 feet while the right of way width is 44 feet. Adjoining land use is residential. Both sections of Prospect Avenue are classified as collector streets according to the City's classification of streets. The average traffic volume on the section of Prospect Avenue southerly of Aviation Boulevard is approximately 14,500 vehicles per day while on the section northerly of Aviation Boulevard, the daily volume is approximately 6,700 vehicles. Appendix F contains an hour by hour analysis of the machine traffic counts taken for the two sections of Prospect Avenue. This appendix also includes graphs of the hourly volume fluctuations throughout the 24 hour count period. The counts were made on March 16, 1987 and located between 7th and 8th Streets and 17th and 18th Streets, respectively. Figures 10 and 11 titled "Peak Hour Volumes" for midday and p.m. show graphically the traffic volumes for all the movements at the 25 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 64 176 128 168 • ,'- 768 ------‘16 AVIATION BLVD 76168 200 PROSPECT AVE FIGURE 10 1 NO SCALE 64‘z._ 864 188 M.D. PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 27 / 200 248 184 .160 740 AVIATION BLVD 96248 200 4141 NO SCALE 60‘ 1080 PROSPECT AVE 320 •0' FIGURE 1t P.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 28 Aviation Boulevard at Prospect Avenue intersection for the 11:30 to 12:30 midday and 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. hours. The volumes are based on four times the peak 15 minute volumes to reflect peak flow rates. The figure shows the very significant westbound to southbound left turn volume of 320 vehicles turning off of Aviation Boulevard in the westbound direction to southbound on Prospect Avenue. Appendix D shows that the actual 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. volume is 289 vehicles, which is slightly lower than the 15 minute peak rate. Because of this high volume it is concluded that a significant portion of this volume is through traffic not destined for the immediate adjoining residential properties along Prospect Avenue in Hermosa Beach. Another way to put into perspective the heavy left turn movement is to multiply this particular hourly volume by the opposing through volume in the eastbound direction on Aviation Boulevard. The pro- duct of these volumes is an indicator of a possible need for left turn signal phasing. For the p.m. peak hour period at the Aviation Boulevard at Prospect Avenue intersection the product of the west- bound to southbound and eastbound through movements is more than 200,000. In terms of left turn signal phasing warrant considera- tions, a product over 100,000 is considered indicative of possible need of left turn phasing. Appendix F contains the results of machine recording traffic counts taken on Prospect Avenue both northerly and southerly of Aviation Boulevard. This appendix shows the hour by hour volume breakdown of traffic volumes on the two sections of Prospect Avenue, as well as a graphic display of the directional volumes hour by hour for each section. Accident Analyses Based on traffic accident data provided by the City, an analysis was made of intersection left turn and total accidents for the years 1984, 1985 and 1986. Figure 12 titled "Collision Diagram, Aviation Boulevard at Prospect Avenue" shows in graphical form an analysis of reported intersection accidents for the three year period. The analysis indicated that for the approach having the highest number of left turn accidents - that is, the westbound to southbound vs eastbound through direction - the number of left turn accidents per year averaged 2.0. To put this number into perspective it is necessary to recognize that the accepted number of accidents that would warrant left turn phasing consideration is 5 per year for one particular movement. If left turn phasing were installed for the westbound to southbound movement, the number of left turn accidents could be expected to be reduced from 2.0 per year to about 0.4 per year. With this reduc- tion in left turn accidents the number of rear -end accidents on Aviation Boulevard could be expected to increase five to ten per- cent, based on studies by Los Angeles County Road Department. 29 30 --714(f FIGURE COLLISION PROSPECT & JAN 84 - LEGEND -> < PDO -->O< Injury >� Fatality CIN OF HERMOSA BEACH 12 DIAGRAM AVIATION DEC 86 AVIATION 'A ACCIDENT SUMMARY Head on Sideswipe Left Turning Right Turning Broadside Rear End Other (not Total 0 2 7 2 7 10 plotable) 1 29 30 In analyzing the total intersection accidents it is appropriate to consider not the total number of accidents but rather the number of intersection accidents per million vehicles entering the intersec- tion. On this basis the number of average annual accidents for the last three year period is 9.67. The daily average traffic volume entering the intersection is approximately 31,100 vehicles. Based on these accident and volume totals, the accident rate in terms of accidents per million vehicles entering the intersection is 0.85. This accident rate is about 15 percent below the 1.00 average for this type of intersection; therefore, it is concluded that the overall number of accidents at the intersection is within acceptable limits. The specifics of the proposed changes in signal displays will be considered during the design phase of the project. It is concluded that installing left turn phasing cannot be justified on an accident history basis based on comparison to accepted minimum warrant levels. Delay Analysis The following discussion is concerned with the delay aspects of varied facets of traffic signal control for the intersection. Based on peak period observations by the senior MGA staff, it was con- cluded that the existing signal timing at the two-phase intersection may be less than optimal. Based on field observed delay studies, the MGA CAPSSI computer model was again used to simulate traffic signal operation with existing signal timing. The CAPSSI program then was allowed to optimize the signal timing to see if improvements could be made in intersection operating characteristics through changed signal timing. The third analysis using the CAPSSI model was to evaluate the effect of installing protected left turn phasing for Aviation Boulevard. Appendix C contains the detailed results of the three CAPSSI analyses. In order to simplify the presentation of the CAPSSI results, Figures 13, 14 and 15 were prepared which show graphically the stopped time delay for the three conditions studied. On an overall basis the analyses showed that under existing signal timing, the westbound to southbound left turn movement experiences approximately 41 seconds of stopped time delay while the critical intersection movements experience about 31 seconds. By improving the signal timing by changing from approximately a 74 second cycle length to a 60 second cycle length and optimizing the signal phase splits - that is, the time provided for each street - the amount of delay for the west- bound to southbound left turn movement can be reduced to about 13 seconds and the critical movement average delay reduced to 17 seconds. This means that the level of service for the entire inter- section would improve from a C+ to a B-. 31 14 X13 AVIAl10N BLVD � PROSPECT AVE NO SCALE 16 41 FIGURES SHOW SECONDS OF DELAY PER VEHICLE FIGURE 13 P.M. PEAK HOUR STOPPED DELAY EXISTING SIGNAL TIMING 37 15 AVIATION BLV"12 24 12 PROSPECT AVE 40/ NO SCALE 13 FIGURES SHOW SECONDS OF DELAY PER VEHICLE FIGURE 14 P.M. PEAK HOUR STOPPED DELAY OPTIMIZED 2 -PHASE TIMING 33 17 4 27 19 AVIATION BLVD ` 14 27 13 PROSPECT AVE NO SCALE 15 30 FIGURES SHOW SECONDS OF DELAY PER VEHICLE F►GURE 15 P.M. PEAK HOUR STOPPED DELAY LEFT -TURNS ON AVIATION 34 For the critical intersection movements there would be a 45 percent reduction in average stopped time delay and for the entire intersec- tion, there would be a 37 percent reduction in delay. It is empha- sized that these delay reductions can be achieved solely by inter- section control retiming. The CAPSSI analyses showed that when left turn phasing is installed on Aviation Boulevard and signal timing again optimized using a 64 second cycle length, the delay for the westbound to southbound left turn movement is reduced from the original 41 seconds to 30 seconds and the critical movement weighted average delay is reduced to 23 seconds compared to the original 31 seconds. However, the 23 second delay for the critical movement is significantly higher than the 17 second delay for the critical movement based on retiming the two- phase signal operation. For the full intersection on a weighted average basis, the delay would be 18 seconds compared to 10 seconds for an optimized two-phase operation. It is concluded that from the point of view of delay, continuing intersection control in a two-phase mode with optimized timing is the most appropriate and efficient alternative compared to the institution of left turn phasing on Aviation Boulevard. Prospect Volume Analysis Another important consideration in contemplating the possible installation of left turn phasing on Aviation Boulevard is the possibility of volume increases on Prospect Avenue. Any increase in volume would be a result of more commuter through traffic. Based on several field reviews, an analysis of the existing high traffic volumes, and the numerous stop sign controlled intersections on Prospect Avenue, it is concluded that the reduced delay a motor- ist would experience at Aviation Boulevard and Prospect Avenue from having left turn phasing would be insignificant. The existing delay caused by the numerous stop signs is the controlling factor. The following table shows the predicted left turn volumes during the p.m. peak hour turning southerly onto Prospect Avenue from westbound on Aviation Boulevard for the various conditions studied. Condition With existing signal timing With optimized two-phase signal timing With added left turn phasing for westbound to southbound vehicles Left Turn Volume, Veh/Hr 320 320 320 It is concluded that there would be no significant change in Prospect Avenue traffic volumes due to improvements in the signal at Aviation Boulevard. 35 APPENDIX A CAPSSI Analysis for Hermosa Avenue & Pier Avenue CAP S S I- 8 5 • INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS PER 1985 HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MD PEAK - EXISTING SOLUTION USING PREDETERMINED CYCLE TIMES PIER & HERMOSA LANE GROUPS CM 1 CM 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Peak 15 Min Flow (vph) 152 140 360 144 64 536 112 128 Saturation Flow (vph) 700 1200 3600 1600 900 3600 1600 1600 Lost Times (seconds) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Relative Saturation - 'X' 0.47 0.25 0.21 0.19 0.15 0.32 0.15 0.17 Green Times (effective) 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 Movement Times 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Minimum Times 27 27 10 10 10 10 10 10 Progression Adj. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Average Delays (sec/veh) 9 7 7 7 7 8 7 7 Level of Service B+ B+ B+ B+ B+ B+ B+ B+ Av Queue @ start of green 1 1 3 1 1 5 1 1 Vehicles stopping (%) 68 60 53 53 53 53 53 53 Do Vehicles Clear YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 8 Level of Service = B+ Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 8 Level of Service = B+ Predetermined Cycle Length is 60 seconds Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.36 LEGEND: 0 0 0 LANE GROUP �® O 50 _.„ �N� PIER. AVENUE STREET NAME UM ER.O,,A A STREET NAME MOHLE, GROVER S. ASSOCIATES CAPS S I - 8 5 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS PER 1985 HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MD PEAK - ANGLE PARKING ON HERMOSA SOLUTION USING PREDETERMINED CYCLE TIMES LANE GROUPS PIER & HERMOSA CM 1 CM 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- Peak 15 Min Flow (vph) 536 140 360 144 64 152 112 128 Saturation Flow (vph) 1800 1200 1800 1600 900 700 1600 1600 Lost Times (seconds) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Relative Saturation - 'X' 0.64 0.25 0.43 0.19 0.15 0.47 0.15 0.17 Green Times (effective) 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 Movement Times 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Minimum Times 27 27 10 10 10 10 10 10 Progression Adj. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Average Delays (sec/veh) 10 7 8 7 7 9 7 7 Level of Service B- B+ B+ B+ B+ B+ B+ B+ Av Queue @ start of green 5 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 Vehicles stopping (%) 76 60 53 53 53 53 53 53 Do Vehicles Clear YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 10 Level of Service = B+ Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 9 Level of Service = B+ Predetermined Cycle Length is 60 seconds Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.44 1 PIER AVENUE STREET NAME I4ERMOSA AVENUE STREET NAME M HLE, GROWER i• ASSOCIATES LEGEND: OI LANE GROUP CAP S S I- 8 5 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS PER 1985 HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MD PEAK - 50% VOL INCREASE SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME LANE GROUPS PIER & HERMOSA CM 1 CM 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Peak 15 Min Flow (vph) 228 210 540 216 96 804 168 192 Saturation Flow (vph) 500 1150 3600 1600 700 3600 1600 1600 Lost Times (seconds) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Relative Saturation - 'X' 0.76 0.53 0.25 0.39 0.23 0.37 0.30 0.35 Green Times (effective) 45 25 45 25 45 45 25 25 Movement Times 47 27 47 27 47 47 27 27 Minimum Times 27 27 10 10 10 10 10 10 Progression Adj. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Average Delays (sec/veh) 15 16 5 14 5 6 14 14 Level of Service C+ C+ B+ B- B+ B+ B- B- Av Queue @ start of green 2 3 5 3 1 7 2 3 Vehicles stopping (%) 73 82 40 67 40 40 67 67 Do Vehicles Clear YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 16 Level of Service = C+ Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 9 Level of Service = B+ Required Cycle Length is 75 seconds Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.64 0 ®L LEGEND: O lO LANE GROUP r -r; PIER. AVENUE STREET NAME NER.M05A AVENUE STREET NAME MOH LE, GROVVER 6, ASSOCIATES CAPS S I - 8 5 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS PER 1985 HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MD PEAK - ANGLE PKG + 50% VOL INCREASE SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME PIER & HERMOSA CM 1 CM 2 Peak 15 Min. Flow (vph) 228 210 Saturation Flow (vph) 400 1150 Lost Times (seconds) 2.0 2.0 Relative Saturation - 'X' 0.85 0.64 Green Times (effective) 61 25 Movement Times 63 27 Minimum Times 27 27 Progression Adj. Factor 1.00 1.00 Average Delays (sec/veh) 24 24 Level of Service C- C- Av Queue @ start of green 2 4 Vehicles stopping (%) 77 89 Do Vehicles Clear YES YES Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay LANE GROUPS 3 4 5 6 7 8 540 216 96 804 168 192 1800 1600 750 1800 1600 1600 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.45 0.47 0.19 0.67 0.37 0.42 61 25 61 61 25 25 63 27 63 63 27 27 10 10 10 10 10 10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 21 4 8 20 20 B+ C- A B+ C+ C- 5 4 1 7 3 4 33 73 33 33 73 73 YES YES YES YES YES YES (sec) — 24 Level of Service = C - (sec) = 13 Level of Service = B - Required Cycle Length is 91 seconds Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.74 BOO iO 8O1 LEGEND: o. % ® ® ® ic) -4T 1 evF w iF PIER_ AVENUE STREET NAME 14ERMO5I& AVEIJUI STREET NAME MOHLE, GROVER i' ASSOCIATES lO LANE GROUP APPENDIX B Signal Simulation for Pier Avenue at Valley/Ardmore M I N MI E 1 MI --— all r M r a— M r ui g N- N«�N NNN P1 EQ }J1L /AVS. 132 232 - 130 ) 230 111 I 131 211 231 110 - 210 112 Thi212I 17 \ i Tr' W 6 ,7 4 o g J _ __ NNN Q 9 > 4 FIGURE LINK NODE DIAGRAM 1 i I S UN E MI EN all MI r NE N-- r- EN MI TRANSYT-7F: CITY OF HERMOSA B A.M.peak EXISTING TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE 3/6/87 60 SECOND CYCLE 60 STEPS PAGE 2 <PERFORMANCE WITH INITIAL SETTINGS> NODE LINK FLOW SAT DEGREE TOTAL TOTAL ---AVG DELAY--- LEVEL OF UNIFORM MAX BACK QUEUE FUEL PHASE LINK NO NO FLOW OF SAT TRAVEL TIME APPRCH STOPPED SERVICE STOPS OF QUEUE CAPACITY CONSUM LENGTH NO (VEH/H)(VEH/H) (%) (VEH-MI/H)(VEH-H/H) (SEC/VEH) (VEH/H;%) (VEH/LK)(VEH/LK) (GA/H) (SEC) 1 110 584 1800 78 10.89 3.73 19.3 14.8 B 463.6( 79%) 8 > 4C 3.78 27 110 1 111 48 700 16 .89 .20 11.6 8.9 B 27.7( 58%) 0 4 .24 27 111 1 112 60 1600 9 1.12 .24 10.8 8.3 B 33.7( 56%) 1 4 .28 27 112 1 120 200 1800S 50 3.73 1.14 16.7 12.9 B 145.7( 73%) 4 4 1.16 23 120 1 121 152 1600 27 2.83 .77 14.6 11.2 B 101.0( 66%) 2 4 .80 23 121 1 122 112 120L 50 2.09 .64 16.7 12.9 B 81.6( 73%) 120 120L .65 23 122 1 130 616 1800 82 14.16 2.45 9.8 7.5 B 146.2( 24%) 3 5 2.24 27 130 1 131 76 800 23 1.75 .14 1.8 1.4 A 2.3( 37.) 0 5 .16 27 131 1 132 80 1600 12 1.84 .35 11.0 8.4 B 44.9( 567.) 1 5 .36 27 132 1 140 68 1800S 92 1.27 1.18 58.7 45.2 E 63.5( 937.) 4 4 1.03 10 140 1 141 44 140L 92 .82 .76 58.7 45.2 E 41.1( 93%) 140 140L .67 10 141 1 142 108 140L 92 2.01 1.87 58.7 45.2 E 100.9( 93%) 140 140L 1.60 10 142 1 : 2148 MAX = 92 43.40 13.48 18.6 14.3 8 1252.1( 587.) 12.98 PI = 18.0 2 210 612 1800 97* 14.07 8.04 42.7 32.9 D 424.9( 69%) 10 > 5C 6.89 23 210 2 211 100 800 36 2.30 .38 9.0 6.9 B 20.2( 207.) 0 5 .34 23 211 2 212 28 1600 5 .64 .14 13.1 10.1 B 17.1( 617.) 0 5 .16 23 212 2 220 48 1800S 27 .89 .28 17.3 13.3 B 34.9( 737.) 2 4 .31 19 220 2 221 48 220L 27 .89 .28 17.3 13.3 B 34.9( 737.) 220 220L .31 19 221 2 222 40 220L 27 .75 .23 17.3 13.3 8 29.0( 737.) 220 220L .25 19 222 2 230 552 1800 88 10.29 4.85 27.9 21.5 C 479.9( 87%) 9 > 4C 4.62 23 230 2 231 32 700 13 .60 .16 13.9 10.7 B 20.1( 63%) 0 4 .18 23 231 2 232 92 1600 16 1.71 .45 13.8 10.6 B 59.1( 647.) 1 4 .50 23 232 2 240 148 1800S 62 2.76 1.07 22.3 17.2 C 121.6( 827.) 4 4 1.06 18 240 2 241 92 240L 62 1.71 .67 22.3 17.2 C 75.6( 827.) 240 240L .70 18 241 2 242 56 240L 62 1.04 .41 22.3 17.2 C 46.0( 827.) 240 240L .42 18 242 2 : 1848 MAX = 97* 37.67 16.95 28.9 22.3 C 1363.4( 74%) 15.74 PI = 22.4 M - R - - 1 N - I - - - - - - 1 r - - TRANSYT-7F: CITY OF HERMOSA 8 A.M.peak EXISTING TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE 3/6/87 60 SECOND CYCLE 60 STEPS PAGE 3 <SYSTEM WIDE TOTALS INCLUDING ALL LINKS> TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL AVERAGE TOTAL TOTAL DISTANCE TRAVEL UNIFORM RANDOM DELAY DELAY UNIFORM FUEL PERFORMANCE SPEED TRAVELED TIME DELAY DELAY STOPS CONSUM INDEX (VEH-MI/H) (VEH-H/H) (VEH-H/H) (VEH-H/H) (VEH-H/H) (SEC/VEH) (VEH/H-%) (GA/H) (MI/H) 81.07 30.43 15.22 10.71 25.93 23.36 2615.6( 65%) 28.72 40.46 2.66 <TOTALS> 1- M S In MI I NM I- ■■I 1 EN M N- - N EN TRANSYT-7F: CITY OF HERMOSA B P.M.peak EXISTING TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE 3/6/87 60 SECOND CYCLE 60 STEPS PAGE 2 <PERFORMANCE WITH INITIAL SETTINGS> NODE LINK FLOW SAT DEGREE TOTAL TOTAL ---AVG DELAY--- LEVEL OF UNIFORM MAX BACK QUEUE FUEL PHASE LINK NO NO FLOW OF SAT TRAVEL TIME APPRCH STOPPED SERVICE STOPS OF QUEUE CAPACITY CONSUM LENGTH NO (VEH/H)(VEH/H) (%) (VEH-MI/H)(VEH-H/H) (SEC/VEH) (VEH/H;%) (VEH/LK)(VEH/LK) (GA/H) (SEC) 1 110 548 1800 73 10.22 3.29 17.9 13.8 B 422.4( 77%) 8 > 4C 3.37 27 110 1 111 36 700 12 .67 .15 11.2 8.6 B 20.2( 56%) 0 4 .17 27 111 1 112 88 1600 13 1.64 .36 11.0 8.5 B 49.6( 56%) 1 4 .42 27 112 1 120 376 18005 82 7.01 2.91 24.1 18.5 C 317.9( 85%) 8 > 4C 2.84 23 120 1 121 212 1600 38 3.95 1.14 15.6 12.0 B 146.9( 69%) 3 4 1.17 23 121 1 122 140 120L 82 2.61 1.08 24.1 18.5 C 118.4( 85%) 120 120L 1.06 23 122 1 130 616 1800 82 14.16 3.17 13.9 10.7 B 331.3( 54%) 8 > 5C 3.14 27 130 1 131 144 800 43 3.31 .30 2.9 2.3 A 3.8( 3%) 0 5 .26 27 131 1 132 88 1600 13 2.02 .38 11.0 8.5 B 49.6( 56%) 1 5 .40 27 132 1 140 92 1800S 83 1.71 1.19 42.9 33.0 D 85.0( 927.) 3 4 1.10 10 140 1 141 36 140L 83 .67 .47 42.9 33.0 D 33.3( 927.) 140 140L .43 10 141 1 142 72 140L 83 1.34 .93 42.9 33.0 D 66.5( 92%) 140 140L .86 10 142 1 : 2448 MAX = 83 49.32 15.37 18.6 14.3 8 1644.8( 67%) 15.22 PI = 21.8 2 210 552 1800 88 12.69 4.21 22.8 17.6 C 350.6( 64%) 8 > 5C 3.92 23 210 2 211 100 800 36 2.30 .35 8.1 6.2 B 17.8( 18%) 0 5 .32 23 211 2 212 112 1600 20 2.57 .58 14.0 10.8 B 72.2( 64%) 1 5 .60 23 212 2 220 296 1800S 89 5.52 3.14 34.4 26.5 D+ 265.6( 90%) 7 > 4C 2.89 19 220 2 221 52 220L 89 .97 .55 34.4 26.5 D+ 46.7( 90%) 220 220L .53 19 221 2 222 108 220L 89 2.01 1.14 34.4 26.5 D+ 96.9( 90%) 220 220L 1.05 19 222 2 230 512 1800 81 9.54 3.91 23.8 18.3 C 431.3( 84%) 8 > 4C 3.83 23 230 2 231 60 800 21 1.12 .31 14.6 11.2 B 39.2( 65%) 1 4 .34 23 231 2 232 76 1600 14 1.42 .37 13.6 10.4 B 47.7( 63%) 1 4 .41 23 232 2 240 136 1800S 70 2.54 1.05 24.2 18.6 C 114.6( 84%) 5 > 4C 1.03 18 240 2 241 124 240L 70 2.31 .96 24.2 18.6 C 104.5( 84%) 240 240L .94 18 241 2 242 76 240L 70 1.42 .59 24.2 18.6 C 64.0( 84%) 240 240L .61 18 242 2 : 2204 MAX = 89 44.41 17.16 24.0 18.5 C 1651.1( 75%) 16.46 PI = 23.9 i En um me me in 1 MI NM E En 11111 111. INII 111111 M MI TRANSYT-7F: CITY OF HERMOSA B P.M.peak EXISTING TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE 3/6/87 60 SECOND CYCLE 60 STEPS PAGE 3 <SYSTEM WIDE TOTALS INCLUDING ALL LINKS> TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL AVERAGE TOTAL TOTAL DISTANCE TRAVEL UNIFORM RANDOM DELAY DELAY UNIFORM FUEL PERFORMANCE SPEED TRAVELED TIME DELAY DELAY STOPS CONSUM INDEX (VEH-MI/H) (VEH-H/H) (VEH-H/H) (VEH-H/H) (VEH-H/H) (SEC/VEH) (VEH/H-%) (GA/H) (MI/H) 93.73 32.53 19.30 8.02 27.33 21.15 3295.9( 71%) 31.68 45.64 2.88 <TOTALS> APPENDIX C CAPSSI Analysis for Aviation Boulevard & Prospect Avenue CAPS S I - 8 5 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS PER 1985 HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PM PEAK EXISTING SOLUTION USING PREDETERMINED CYCLE TIMES LANE GROUPS AVIATION & PROSPECT CM 1 CM 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ---- ---- ---- ---- Peak 15 Min Flow (vph) 320 184 740 448 1140 496 60 96 Saturation Flow (vph) 750 800 3600 3600 3600 3600 300 750 Lost Times (seconds) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Relative Saturation - 'X' 0.90 0.49 0.43 0.26 0.67 0.29 0.42 0.27 Green Times (effective) 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Movement Times 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 Minimum Times 22 22 10 10 10 10 10 10 Progression Adj. Factor 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.00 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.00 Average Delays (sec/veh) 41 14 13 9 16 12 14 9 Level of Service E+ B- B- B+ C+ B B- B+ Av Queue @ start of green 5 3 10 5 16 7 1 1 Vehicles stopping (%) 100 89 69 53 69 69 69 53 Do Vehicles Clear NO YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 31 Level of Service = D Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 16 Level of Service = C+ Predetermined Cycle Length is 74 seconds Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.69 AVIATION BLVD. STREET NAME g -A PROSPECT AVE. STREET NAME MOH LE, GRovER 1 ASSOCIATES LEGEND: IO LANE GROUP CAPS S I - 8 5 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS PER 1985 HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PM PEAK - OPTIMUM 2 PHASE SOLUTION USING PREDETERMINED CYCLE TIMES LANE GROUPS AVIATION & PROSPECT CM 1 CM 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- Peak 15 Min Flow (vph) 320 184 740 448 1140 496 60 96 Saturation Flow (vph) 750 800 3600 3600 3600 3600 300 750 Lost Times (seconds) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Relative Saturation - 'X' 0.71 0.69 0.34 0.37 0.53 0.41 0.33 0.38 Green Times (effective) 36 20 36 20 36 20 36 20 Movement Times 38 22 38 22 38 22 38 22 Minimum Times 22 22 10 10 10 10 10 10 Progression Adj..Factor 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.00 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.00 Average Delays (sec/veh) 13 24 6 12 7 15 6 12 Level of Service B- C- B+ B- B+ C+ B+ B- Av Queue @ start of green 3 3 6 5 10 7 1 1 Vehicles stopping (%) 91 100 52 67 52 87 52 67 Do Vehicles Clear YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 17 Level of Service = C+ Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 10 Level of Service = B - Predetermined Cycle Length is 60 seconds Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.70 1 1 L.. ®cy4 or o 0 AVIATON SLVD. STREET NAME PROSPECT AVE. STREET NAME 1MOHLE, GROVER IP ASSOCIATES LEGEND: lO LANE GROUP CAP S S I- 8 5 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS PER 1985 HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PM PEAK - L.T. PHASING ON AVIATION SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME LANE GROUPS. AVIATION & PROSPECT CM 1 CM 2 CM 3 4 5 6 7 8 Peak 15 Min Flow (vph) 320 184 740 448 1140 496 60 96 Saturation Flow (vph) 1600 800 3600 3600 3600 3600 1600 750 Lost Times (seconds) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Relative Saturation - 'X' 0.78 0.72 0.62 0.39 0.70 0.43 0.34 0.40 Green Times (effective) 16 20 20 20 29 20 7 20 Movement Times 18 22 22 22 31 22 9 22 Minimum Times 10 22 22 10 10 10 9 10 Progression Adj. Factor 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.00 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.00 Average Delays (sec/veh) 30 27 19 13 15 17 27 14 Level of Service D+ D+ C+ B B C+ D+ B- Av Queue @ start of green 5 3 12 5 14 8 1 1 Vehicles stopping (%) 100 100 100 68 71 89 100 68 Do Vehicles Clear YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 23 Level of Service = C - Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 18 Level of Service = C+ Required Cycle Length is 64 seconds Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.71 AV(ATrON BLVD. STREET NAME cr or 00 PROSPECT AVE. STREET NAME MWLE, GROVER' ASSOCIATES LEGEND: ID LANE GROUP APPENDIX D Manual Turning Counts aim we ma am tior in poi amp me 1110 IIor so MK M. OM' 1011 IMM TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS AVIATION & PROSPECT 2 / 5 / 87 AVIATION AVIATION PROSPECT PROSPECT WESTBOUND EASTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND TIME BEGINS LEFT STRAIGHT RIGHT LEFT STRAIGHT RIGHT LEFT STRAIGHT RIGHT LEFT STRAIGHT RIGHT 11:30 A.M. 37 187 10 15 167 2 16 30 37 20 34 12 11:45 36 216 10 8 157 4 15 42 29 32 44 16 12:00 47 199 8 4 150 0 11 36 37 31 23 13 12:15 44 209 9 17 181 1 15 26 41 31 31 7 12:30 42 175 8 12 159 1 19 31 50 23 27 7 12:45 30 152 8 7 177 1 13 35 35 24 27 10 1:00 P.M. 37 179 16 12 192 0 16 38 49 19 25 8 1:15 39 166 8 9 153 1 13 38 44 23 25 10 3:30 69 181 5 7 185 4 12 33 39 26 71 11 3:45 73 209 14 14 166 1 24 41 45 25 62 7 4:00 61 186 7 12 171 2 16 40 50 27 92 8 4:15 80 220 10 6 149 1 20 61 46 26 95 11 4:30 77 230 11 5 176 2 17 38 31 27 90 13 4:45 70 225 15 15 171 3 13 43 39 22 101 11 5:00 62 270 12 11 185 1 14 51 40 46 107 10 5:15 80 229 14 13 163 2 17 62 45 34 111 8 MN ND PM 1110 1111) MI IOW OS Wak Mai en MIL MIN Eli MIN 14111 TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PIER & VALLEY 2/ 12/87 PIER PIER VALLEY VALLEY WESTBOUND EASTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND TIME BEGINS LEFT STRAIGHT RIGHT LEFT STRAIGHT RIGHT LEFT STRAIGHT RIGHT LEFT STRAIGHT RIGHT 11:30 A.M. 7 127 11 4 119 14 5 7 13 24 50 25 11:45 11 125 14 3 112 15 11 11 17 34 44 24 12:00 16 145 10 12 96 6 9 15 27 31 37 27 12:15 10 142 15 3 117 9 11 8 13 38 31 26 12:30 19 127 16 3 126 9 9 9 16 29 30 16 12:45 18 149 12 6 146 15 6 8 9 23 32 26 1:00 P.M. 12 154 20 8 117 15 5 11 13 28 41 28 1:15 8 133 18 8 125 14 5 17 18 30 35 18 3:30 14 106 21 8 111 15 5 14 13 44 58 31 3:45 15 125 22 5 114 7 1 16 13 43 77 24 4:00 22 124 12 9 96 16 6 11 15 39 75 28 4:15 15 141 10 9 114 27 7 6 5 42 90 24 4:30 26 141 9 8 104 19 9 15 10 49 82 28 4:45 36 137 11 6 107 16 1 13 13 34 92 35 5:00 25 150 20 5 137 13 5 20 18 33 93 24 5:15 19 154 14 5 130 18 6 23 11 53 94 20 !al Olt OM el km OW NO Mr ON NO -NW Ai um NW !Wu 1110 ous TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PIER & ARDMORE 2/9/87 PIER PIER ARDMORE ARDMORE WESTBOUND EASTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND TIME BEGINS LEFT STRAIGHT RIGHT LEFT STRAIGHT RIGHT LEFT STRAIGHT RIGHT LEFT STRAIGHT RIGHT 11:30 A.M. 3 111 10 7 131 7 13 20 12 6 7 8 11:45 1 112 14 12 121 4 18 23 9 5 9 8 12:00 5 135 19 13 129 7 17 20 11 6 7 10 12:15 8 126 20 13 131 4 17 37 14 7 9 10 12:30 6 134 15 11 153 7 15 35 9 7 11 10 12:45 0 105 23 25 131 5 19 28 8 12 12 9 1:00 P.M. 3 138 12 20 146 5 23 21 11 8 11 7 1:15 ' 3 113 7 13 126 4 18 24 13 10 11 8 3:30 4 123 9 15 119 8 16 31 10 8 14 14 3:45 4 96 12 11 123 8 30 28 9 11 37 16 4:00 6 128 19 12 107 14 7 28 19 5 41 22 4:15 2 115 10 15 128 7 27 17 11 6 46 20 4:30 14 117 9 16 128 13 18 30 10 10 46 23 4:45 9 122 15 19 136 19 15 34 11 13 52 24 5:00 15 128 14 25 138 23 31 34 15 9 61 31 5:15 6 123 13 25 122 28 18 25 15 10 74 27 TIME BEGINS 110 111Rot 1/4 CUP API IWIt 111. WS ON NV all MA ON PIER WESTBOUND TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PIER & HERMOSA 2/ 12/87 PIER HERMOSA HERMOSA EASTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND LEFT STRAIGHT RIGHT LEFT STRAIGHT RIGHT LEFT STRAIGHT RIGHT LEFT STRAIGHT RIGHT 11:30 A.M. 32 16 17 3 18 11 11 54 24 16 61 7 11:45 27 20 20 3 19 7 7 57 29 24 61 1 12:00 27 28 32 11 20 5 7 48 42 23 54 8 12:15 35 19 19 5 16 10 12 72 28 17 55 9 12:30 33 20 27 5 11 12 8 63 28 29 80 2 12:45 31 14 24 4 23 13 6 72 25 38 73 10 1:00 P.M. 24 14 25 7 12 12 8 60 31 23 70 6 1:15 26 16 27 5 20 13 16 92 31 23 73 3 TIME BEGINS 11:30 A.M. 11:45 12:00 P.M. 12:15 12:30 12:45 1:00 1:15 3:30 3:45 4:00 4:15 4:30 4:45 5:00 5:15 111. 41111 41114 AO US alt. 1111. THROUGH VEHICLE COUNTS PROSPECT (north of aviation) 2/24/87 PROSPECT PROSPECT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 41 45 60 33 73 65 59 55 52 36 57 63 35 40 41 49 48 74 67 66 48 103 49 100 68 103 72 114 69 150 60 166 tim los, MI am In am fop ipei iiipv pit lig oirnt OR Om lut TIME BEGINS 11:30 A.M. 11:45 12:00 P.M. 12:15 12:30 12:45 1:00 1:15 3:30 3:45 4:00 4:15 4:30 4:45 5:00 5:15 THROUGH VEHICLE COUNTS PROSPECT (south of aviation) 2/24/87 PROSPECT NORTHBOUND PROSPECT SOUTHBOUND 82 75 78 86 87 103 82 89 103 91 83 89 100 75 79 79 109 81 96 98 93 111 114 142 154 183 184 196 209 216 222 228 t r t APPENDIX E Field Delay Observation Results MB OM 41111 4me mac Om flot 401 00' 1140 low mot mg 111 MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND LEFT PROSPECT TO AVIATION WESTBOUND LEFT AVIATION TO PROSPECT SOUTHBOUND PROSPECT LEFT TO AVIATION EASTBOUND LEFT AVIATION TO PROSPECT FIELD DELAY STUDY RESULTS AVIATION & PROSPECT 2/ 11 /87 TOTAL TOTAL UNINTERRUPTED AVERAGE DELAY VEHICLES VEHICLES DELAY (SEC.) THROUGH THROUGH (SEC./VEH.) 99 6 0 16.5 110 8 2 13.8 183 6 1 30.5 48 2 0 24 114 4 0 28.5 119 7 3 17 AVERAGE DELAY = 21.7 1140 19 1 60 802 25 4 32.1 816 31 2 26.3 1104 33 9 33.5 789 26 0 30.3 889 18 1 49.4 97 6 2 264 14 4 54 7 3 183 7 1 146 9 3 156 9 3 AVERAGE DELAY = 38.6 16.2 18.9 7.71 26.1 16.2 17.3 AVERAGE DELAY = 17.1 67 3 0 22.3 52 3 1 17.3 52 2 1 26 64 4 2 16 104 2 0 52 22 1 0 22 AVERAGE DELAY = 25.9 IPS OM WI iit am flar 110 1110 IP NO Ws at pm NO el mil MOVEMENT WESTBOUND (11:45 - 12:00) NORTHBOUND (12:00 - 12:15) EASTBOUND (12:30 - 12:45) SOUTHBOUND (12:15 - 12:30) WESTBOUND (3:45 - 4:00) NORTHBOUND (4:00 - 4:15) EASTBOUND (4:15 - 4:30) SOUTHBOUND (4:45 - 5:00) FIELD DELAY STUDY RESULTS PIER & ARDMORE 2/11 /87 TOTAL TOTAL AVERAGE DELAY UNITS DELAY (SEC.) THROUGH (SEC./VEH.) 1291 285 922 244 1179 431 694 876 146 8.8 49 5.8 150 6.1 40 6.1 149 7.9 67 6.4 151 4.6 77 11. Ma Se ON at MI So IIIt Mr OS lip mu aim wow at an MOVEMENT EASTBOUND (11:30 - 11:45) WESTBOUND (12:15 - 12:30) SOUTHBOUND (12:30 - 12:45) NORTHBOUND (12:45 - 1:00) EASTBOUND (3:30 - 3:45) WESTBOUND (4:30 - 4:45) SOUTHBOUND (5:00 - 5:15) NORTHBOUND (5:15 - 5:30) TOTAL DELAY (SEC.) 660 1177 838 135 2621 1665 5570 268 FIELD DELAY STUDY RESULTS PIER & VALLEY 2/ 11 /87 TOTAL AVERAGE UNITS DELAY THROUGH (SEC./VEH.) 124 5.3 146 8.1 76 11. 27 5 113 23. 147 11. 136 41. 41 6.5 .11 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX F Machine Traffic Counts for Prospect Avenue i i w1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 PROSPECT AVENUE Traffic Counts South of Aviation Boulevard t CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 15 MINUTE TRAFFIC COUNTS PROSPECT AVE. - BETWEEN SEVENTH AND EIGHTH 3/16/87 MONDAY AM TRAFFIC VOLUME PM TRAFFIC VOLUME IEND TIME N/B S/B TOTAL N/B S/B TOTAL 11 12:15 7 14 21 85 98 183 12:30 8 10 18 89 102 191 12:45 5 9 14 90 118 208 1:00 1 9 10 86 106 192 II 1:15 3 6 9 85 108 193 1:30 4 3 7 82 156 238 1:45 2 7 9 87 132 219 11 2:00 3 4 7 118 112 230 2:15 2 3 5 91 108 199 2:30 1 1 2 98 138 236 2:45 3 3 6 89 167 256 I/ 3:00 1 4 5 75 180 255 3:15 1 3 4 75 202 277 3:30 2 2 4 85 175 260 3:45 1 1 2 90 145 235 it 4:00 1 3 4 99 144 243 4:15 1 2 3 108 153 261 4:30 3 2 5 124 180 304 4:45 2 3 5 121 208 329 I 5:00 3 5 8 132 224 356 5:15 11 7 18 129 197 326 I/ 5:30 19 12 31 151 258 409 5:45 17 8 25 146 268 414 6:00 22 11 33 177 244 421 6:15 56 22 78 158 210 368 ir 6:30 79 47 126 144 186 330 318 6:45 101 41 142 140 178 7:00 109 79 188 128 133 261 7:15 134 75 209 113 153 266 II 7:30 159 70 229 87 123 210 7:45 175 91 266 65 92 157 8:00 201 87 288 64 87 151 8:15 181 119 300 56 72 128 I' 8:30 199 91 290 54 70 124 8:45 152 82 234 53 67 120 9:00 128 63 191 52 55 107 I/ 9:15 131 72 203 51 61 112 9:30 118 65 183 50 73 123 9:45 125 53 178 50 65 115 II10:00 104 53 157 51 64 115 10:15 111 64 175 32 54 86 10:30 94 61 155 24 34 58 10:45 99 59 158 26 4 30 11:00 82 61 143 22 42 64 11:15 78 85 163 14 29 43 11:30 92 72 164 12 18 30 11:45 75 61 136 11 16 27 11 12:00 76 80 156 11 16 27 TOTALS 2982 1785 4767 3980 5825 9805 1 1 1 y t 1 1 1 1 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH TRAFFIC COUNT SUMMARY PROSPECT AVE. - BETWEEN SEVENTH AND EIGHTH 3/16/87 MONDAY END TIME N/B N/B 6962 7:45 175 8:00 201 8:15 181 8:30 199 TOTAL 756 END TIME N/B 5:30 151 5:45 146 6:00 177 6:15 158 TOTAL 632 24 HOUR VOLUME S/B TOTAL 7610 AM PEAKHOUR END TIME S/B 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 91 87 119 91 TOTAL 388 PM PEAKHOUR END TIME S/B 5:30 5:45 6:00 6:15 258 268 244 210 TOTAL 980 4TH HIGHEST HOUR 14572 DIR END TIME VOLUME N/B 7:00 PM 570 S/B 4:00 PM 666 8TH HIGHEST HOUR DIR END TIME VOLUME N/B 2:00 PM 372 S/B 1:00 PM 424 END TIME TOTAL 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 266 288 300 290 TOTAL 1144 END TIME TOTAL 5:30 5:45 6:00 6:15 409 414 421 368 TOTAL 1612 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 24 HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME PROSPECT AVE. - BETWEEN SEVENTH AND EIGHTH 3/16/87 MONDAY END TIME N/B S/B TOTAL 1:00 AM 21 42 63 2:00 AM 12 20 32 3:00 AM 7 11 18 4:00 AM 5 9 14 5:00 AM 9 12 21 6:00 AM 69 38 107 7:00 AM 345 189 534 8:00 AM 669 323 992 9:00 AM 660 355 1015 10:00 AM 478 243 721 11:00 AM 386 245 631 12:00 PM 321 298 619 1:00 PM 350 424 8TH 774 2:00 PM 372 8TH 508 880 3:00 PM 353 593 946 4:00 PM 349 666 4TH 1015 5:00 PM 485 765 1250 6:00 PM 603 967 1570 7:00 PM 570 4TH 707 1277 8:00 PM 329 455 784 9:00 PM 215 264 479 10:00 PM 202 263 465 11:00 PM 104 134 238 12:00 AM 48 79 127 TOTAL 6962 7610 14572 AM PEAKHOUR END TIME N/B END TIME 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 175 201 181 199 TOTAL 756 S/B END TIME TOTAL 7:45 91 8:00 87 8:15 119 8:30 91 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 266 288 300 290 TOTAL 388 TOTAL 1144 PM PEAKHOUR END TIME N/B END TIME 5:30 5:45 6:00 6:15 TOTAL 151 146 177 158 S/B END TIME TOTAL 5:30 258 5:45 268 6:00 244 6:15 210 5:30 5:45 6:00 6:15 409 414 421 368 632 TOTAL 980 TOTAL 1612 1 t 1 t 1 1 i 1 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 24 HOUR TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PROSPECT AVE. - BETWEEN SEVENTH AND EIGHTH 3/16/87 MONDAY VEHICLES PER HOUR END TIME 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 **************************************************************** 1:00 AM * xo * * 2:00 AM *xo * * 3:00 AM *xo * * 4:00 AM *xo * * 5:00 AM *xo * * 6:00 AM * o x * * 7:00 AM * o x * * 8:00 AM * o x * * 9:00 AM * o x * * 10:00 AM * o x * * 11:00 AM * o x * * 12:00 PM * ox * * 1:00 PM * x o * * 2:00 PM * x o * * 3:00 PM * x o * * 4:00 PM * x o * * 5:00 PM * x o * * 6:00 PM * x o * 7:00 PM * x o * 8:00 PM * x o * 9:00 PM * x o * 10:00 PM * x o * 11:00 PM * xo * * 12:00 AM * x o * **************************************************************** x = N/B o = S/B PROSPECT AVENUE Traffic Counts North of Aviation Boulevard 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 a 1 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 15 MINUTE TRAFFIC COUNTS PROSPECT AVE. - BETWEEN SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH 3/16/87 MONDAY AM TRAFFIC VOLUME PM TRAFFIC VOLUME END TIME N/B S/B TOTAL N/B S/B TOTAL 12:15 5 5 10 52 78 130 12:30 1 3 4 49 81 130 12:45 1 2 3 55 74 129 1:00 4 3 7 44 84 128 1:15 5 6 11 50 65 115 1:30 0 1 1 51 67 118 1:45 1 3 4 51 57 108 2:00 0 0 0 45 69 114 2:15 1 2 3 56 59 115 2:30 2 1 3 52 56 108 2:45 1 1 2 48 59 107 3:00 2 9 11 49 64 113 3:15 0 0 0 56 72 128 3:30 1 0 1 51 66 117 3:45 0 1 1 46 63 109 4:00 1 0 1 49 65 114 4:15 0 1 1 48 65 113 4:30 0 1 1 56 78 134 4:45 1 0 1 58 99 157 5:00 2 0 2 57 105 162 5:15 2 0 2 52 114 166 5:30 8 0 8 42 125 167 5:45 11 1 12 43 106 149 6:00 10 0 10 49 86 135 6:15 13 4 17 56 84 140 6:30 21 12 33 64 67 131 6:45 35 14 49 54 59 113 7:00 64 13 77 52 46 98 7:15 94 13 107 51 35 86 7:30 108 14 122 24 32 56 7:45 106 25 131 32 25 57 8:00 144 45 189 42 29 71 8:15 126 54 180 41 26 67 8:30 104 47 151 32 21 53 8:45 85 40 125 26 24 50 9:00 84 35 119 22 18 40 9:15 81 49 130 18 16 34 9:30 73 34 107 16 15 31 9:45 54 34 88 7 18 25 10:00 40 19 59 9 14 23 10:15 40 39 79 11 16 27 10:30 33 25 58 8 15 23 10:45 44 30 74 5 18 23 11:00 44 31 75 9 14 23 11:15 50 36 86 4 9 13 11:30 39 40 79 6 10 16 11:45 44 40 84 3 7 10 12:00 44 51 95 1 8 9 TOTALS 1629 784 2413 1802 2483 4285 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 24 HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME PROSPECT AVE. - BETWEEN SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH 3/16/87 MONDAY END TIME N/B S/B TOTAL 1:00 AM 11 13 24 2:00 AM 6 10 16 3:00 AM 6 13 19 4:00 AM 2 1 3 5:00 AM 3 2 5 6:00 AM 31 1 32 7:00 AM 133 43 176 8:00 AM 452 97 549 9:00 AM 399 176 8TH 575 10:00 AM 248 136 384 11:00 AM 161 125 286 12:00 PM 177 167 344 1:00 PM 200 8TH 317 517 2:00 PM 197 258 455 3:00 PM 205 238 443 4:00 PM 202 266 4TH 468 5:00 PM 219 347 566 6:00 PM 186 431 617 7:00 PM 226 4TH 256 482 8:00 PM 149 121 270 9:00 PM 121 89 210 10:00 PM 50 63 113 11:00 PM 33 63 96 12:00 AM 14 34 48 TOTAL 3431 3267 6698 END TIME N/B 7:30 7:45 8:00 8:15 108 106 144 126 TOTAL 484 AM PEAKHOUR END TIME S/B END TIME TOTAL 8:00 45 8:15 54 8:30 47 8:45 40 TOTAL 186 PM PEAKHOUR END TIME N/B END TIME 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 131 189 180 151 TOTAL 651 S/B END TIME TOTAL 6:15 56 5:00 105 6:30 64 5:15 114 6:45 54 5:30 125 7:00 52 5:45 106 TOTAL 226 4:45 5:00 5:15 5:30 157 162 166 167 TOTAL 450 TOTAL 652 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH TRAFFIC COUNT SUMMARY PROSPECT AVE. - BETWEEN SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH 3/16/87 MONDAY END TIME N/B 7:30 7:45 8:00 8:15 N/B 3431 108 106 144 126 TOTAL 484 END TIME N/B 6:15 6:30 6:45 7:00 56 64 54 52 TOTAL 226 24 HOUR VOLUME S/B TOTAL 3267 AM PEAKHOUR END TIME S/B 8:00 8:15 8:30 8:45 45 54 47 40 TOTAL 186 PM PEAKHOUR END TIME S/B 5:00 5:15 5:30 5:45 105 114 125 106 TOTAL 450 4TH HIGHEST HOUR 6698 DIR END TIME VOLUME N/B 7:00 PM 226 S/B 4:00 PM 266 8TH HIGHEST HOUR DIR END TIME VOLUME N/B 1:00 PM 200 S/B 9:00 AM 176 END TIME TOTAL 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 131 189 180 151 TOTAL 651 END TIME TOTAL 4:45 5:00 5:15 5:30 157 162 166 167 TOTAL 652 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 24 HOUR TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PROSPECT AVE. - BETWEEN SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH 3/16/87 MONDAY VEHICLES PER HOUR END TIME 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 **************************************************************** 1:00 AM * xo * * 2:00 AM *xo * * 3:00 AM *xo * 4:00 AM *xo * 5:00 AM *xo * 6:00 AM *0 x * 00 AM * 8:00 AM * o x * 9:00 AM * o x * 10:00 AM * o x * 11:00 AM o x * 12:00 PM * ox * 1:00 PM * x o * 2:00 PM * x o * 3:00 PM * x o * * 4:00 PM * x o * 5:00 PM * x o * 6:00 PM * x o * 7:00 PM * x o * 8:00 PM * o x * * 9:00 PM * o x * 10:00 PM * x o * 11:00 PM * x o * 12:00 AM * x o **************************************************************** x = N/B o = S/B APPENDIX G Noise Analyses by Endo Engineering Hermosa Beach Signalization Noise Study Endo Engineering Traffic Engineering Air Quality Assessments Noise Studies Endo Engineering March 17, 1987 Traffic Engineering Air Quality Studies Noise Assessments Mr. R. Henry Mohle Mohle, Grover & Associates 901 E. Imperial Highway, Suite A La Habra, CA 90631 SUBJECT: Hermosa Beach Signalization Noise Studies FAU Project No. MG - 3041(270) Dear Mr. Mohle; Endo Engineering is pleased to present this technical report addressing the acoustic. impacts associated with the Signalization Project in the City of Hermosa Beach. This report addresses the impacts associated with the replacement of the existing stop signs at the intersection of Valley/Ardmore with Pier Avenue by a 2 -phase traffic signal and the installation of left turn phasing in all directions at the intersection of Prospect Avenue and Aviation Boulevard. Listed in summarized form at the beginning of the report are the study findings and recommendations. It has been a pleasure to be of service on this project. If you have questions after reviewing this report, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (714). 768-4333. Cordially, ENDO ENGINEERING Vicki Lee Endo Registered Professional Engineer TR -1161 25432 Trabuco Road, Suite 205, El Tom, California 92630 (714) 768-4333 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1 2.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 2-1 3.0 NOISE ANALYSIS 3-1 3.1 Existing Acoustic Environment 3-1 - Fundamentals of Noise - Harmful Effects of Noise - Community Response to Noise - Land Use Compatibility with Noise - Existing Noise Conditions 3.2 Acoustic Impact Analysis - Short -Term Acoustic Impacts - Long -Term Acoustic Impacts 3.3 Acoustic Mitigation Measures APPENDIX - Fundamentals of Noise - Harmful Effects of Noise - Noise Measurement System and Procedures - RD -77-108 Assumptions - California Standard Specifications to Reduce Noise Impacts - Construction Noise Control Strategies 3-8 3-13 i LIST OF FIGURES Number Title Following Page 1 Typical Noise Levels of Familiar Sources 3-1 2 Speech Communications Versus Background Noise .... 3-2 "3 Construction Noise 3-8 LIST OF TABLES Number Title Page 1 Harmful Effects of Noise 3-2 2 Design Noise Level/Activity Relationships 3-5 3 City of Hermosa Beach Land Use Compatibility With Noise 3-6 4 Current Exterior Leq Exposure Adjacent to Prospect Avenue 3-7 5 Exterior Leq Predictions Adjacent to Prospect Avenue 3-9 6 Noise Impacts of Signalization 3-11 7 Percentage of Vehicles Stopping With Signal Installation 3-12 ii 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Existing Acoustic Environment 1. Ambient noise levels in the project area are affected pri- marily by motor vehicle noise emanating from area streets. 2. The FHWA noise modeling predicts that noise levels at 50 feet from the Prospect Avenue centerline are currently 59 or 61 Leq (dBA) . 1.2 Acoustic Impacts 1. Construction activities will generate short-term increases in noise levels adjacent to site access routes and the areas where improvements will occur at any given time. 2. Maximum one-hour Leq values are projected for various in- creases in traffic along Prospect Avenue as shown in Table 5. 3. Although less than a 5% increase in traffic volumes along Prospect Avenue is expected with the project, increases up to 25% would be inaudible to sensitive noise receptors in the project vicinity. 4. Sensitive noise receptors adjacent -to the Aviation/Prospect intersection should not experience any significant long-term noise impacts as a result of the project. 5. Sensitive receptors adjacent to the intersection of Valley/ Ardmore should not experience any long term noise impact resulting from the project. 1.3 Acoustic Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures have been recommended for in- corporation in the project to minimize noise impacts: 1. Construction activities will take place only on the hours specified in the City of Hermosa Beach Noise Control Ordi- nance to reduce noise impacts during more sensitive time periods. 2. All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1000 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained muffler exhaust systems. 3. Stationary equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers such as residential areas. 4. Every effort should be made to create the greatest distance between noise sources and receptors during construction activities. 5. The noisiest construction operations should be arranged to occur together in the construction program to avoid contin- uing periods of greater annoyance. 2.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The proposed project is a Federal Aid Urban project (FAU Project Number MG -3041(270) involving traffic signal improvements at several locations within the City of Hermosa Beach. The improvements include: (1) the installation of left turn phasing in all directions at the signal which controls the intersec- tion of Aviation Boulevard and Prospect Avenue. The existing 2 phase signal will be upgraded to a 5 or 8 phase signal. An alternative being considered is the optimized timing of the existing 2 phase signal. (2) the installation of a 2 phase signal at the Valley/ Ardmore intersection with Pier Avenue in place of the existing 4 -way stop control. The analysis herein addresses the potential change in noise levels adjacent to Prospect Avenue between Artesia Boulevard and 190th Street. It also evaluates the noise impacts adjacent to the Prospect/Aviation intersection and the Valley/Ardmore inter- section with Pier Avenue. 3.0 NOISE ANALYSIS 3.1 Existing Acoustic Environment Various noise fundamentals are introduced below followed by a discussion of (1) the harmful effects of noise, (2) guidelines for achieving land use compatibility with noise, and (3) the current and future noise environment in the vicinity of the project. Fundamentals of Noise Noise levels are measured on a logarithmic scale in decibels which are then weighted and added over a 24-hour period to re- flect not only the magnitude of the sound, but also its duration, frequency, and time of occurrence. In this manner, various acoustical scales and units of measurement have been developed. A -weighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to a broad frequency noise source by discriminating against the very low and high frequencies of the audible spec- trum. They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies audi- ble to the human ear. Examples of the decibel level of various noise sources are shown in Figure 1. They include: the quiet rustle of leaves (10 dBA), a soft whisper (20 to 30 dBA), the hum of a small electric clock (40 dBA), ambient noise outdoors or a house kitchen (50 dBA), normal conversation (60 dBA) , or a busy -street (70 to 80 dBA) . Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly but are calcu- lated from sound pressure levels typically measured in A -weighted decibels (dBA). The equivalent sound level (Le,) is the constant level that, over a given time period, transmitgs the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time -varying sound. Equivalent sound levels are the basis for both the day -night average sound level (1Ldn) and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) scales. Harmful Effects of Noise Approximately 20 million people in the United States currently have some degree of hearing loss. In many of these cases, expo- sures to very loud, impulsive or sustained noises caused damage to the inner ear which was substantial even before a hearing loss was actually noticed. To prevent the spread of hearing loss, a desirable goal would be to minimize the number of noise sources which expose people to sound levels above 70 decibels. 1. See the Appendix for additional information on the fundamen- tals of noise. 3-1 Physically Painful Extremely Loud Discomforting Very Loud Loud Quiet Threshold of Hearing Engineering Endo g ineerin g FIGURE 1 TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS OF FAMILIAR SOURCES dBA 145 140 135 130 125 120 115 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Sonic Boom Jet Takeoff at 200' Oxygen Torch Discotheque Motorcycle at 15' (Unmuffled) Power Mower at 3' Newspaper Press Freight Train at 50' Food Blender Electric Mixer, Alarm Clock Heavy Truck at 50' Busy Street Traffic at 50' Average Traffic at 100', Vacuum Cleaner at 10' Electric Typewriter at 10' Dishwater at 10', Air Conditioning Unit at 15' Normal Conversation at 5' Typical Daytime Suburban Background Refrigerator at 10' Bird Calls Library Motion Picture Studio Leaves Rustling But hearing impairment is only one of the harmful effects of noise on people. Table 1 summarizes the potentially harmful effects of noise on sensitive noise receptors. The Appendix provides additional details on physical and psychological re- sponses of humans to noise. TABLE 1 HARMFUL EFFECTS OF NOISE Effect Noise Levels At Which Harmful Effects Occur Prevention Or Interruption Of Sleep Speech Interference Extra Auditory Physiological Effects Hearing Loss 35 - 45 dB(A) 50 - 60 dB(A) 65 - 75 dB(A) 75 - 85 dB(A) Source: Calif. Dept. of Public Health Report to 1971 Legislature Figure 2 illustrates how excessive background noises can reduce the amount and quality of verbal exchange and thereby impact education, family lifestyles, occupational efficiency and the quality of recreation and leisure time. Speech interference begins to occur at about 40 to 45 decibels and becomes severe at about 60 decibels. Community Response To Noise Approximately 10 percent of the population has such a low toler- ance for noise that they object to any noise not of their own making. Consequently, even in the quietest environment, some complaints will occur. Another 25 percent of the population will not complain even in very severe noise environments. Thus, a variety of reactions can be expected from people exposed to any given noise environment. Despite this, the population as a whole can be expected to ex- hibit the following responses to changes in noise levels: an increase or decrease of 1.0 dBA cannot be perceived except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments; a 3.0 dBA increase is considered just noticeable outside of the laboratory; an increase of 5.0 dBA is often necessary before any noticeable change in community response (i.e. complaints) would be ex- pected.2 1. "Literature Survey for the FHA Contract on Urban Noise", Report No.1460, BB&N, January, 1967. 2. "Noise Manual"; Caltrans, 1980 and "National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 117", HRB, 1971. 3-2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .c 120 ack •round Noise Level (dBA' 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 0 40 FIGURE 2 SPEECH COMMUNICATION AS .A FUNCTION OF BACKGROUND NOISE LEVEL hill Illllllll ommunication Possible Ai.)ifheSi .kst�£• c:A :Yi .wri J :;sYu' �,!r.'sv: %�wi:?3 i's'w\ti:r$ nf!% � Expected Normal Voice Level 9� d:+''rij2 4ti;: �C }t SY,.jSk,',C•:^:•:kti•}}iii'f.{?!M' s: <'Area o 'Nearly Norma •Speech Communicatio �IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII IIII IIII 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Talker to Listener Distance in Feet Source: Miller, "Effects of Noise on People", Journal of Acoustical Society of Americal, V.56, No.3, 9/74 Endo Engineering Recent studies have shown that changes in long-term noise levels, measured in units of Ldn or CNEL, are noticeable and that people respond. About 10 percent of the people exposed to traffic noise of 60 Ldn will report being highly annoyed with the noise, and each increase of one Ldn is associated with approximately 2 percent more people being highly annoyed. When traffic noise exceeds 60 Ldn or aircraft noise exceeds 55 Ldn, people begin complaining. Group and legal actions to stop the noise should be expected to begin at traffLc noise levels near 70 Ldn and air- craft noise levels near 65 Ldn. Land Use Compatibility with Noise Some land uses are more tolerant of noise than others. For example, schools, hospitals, churches and residences are more sensitive to noise intrusion than commercial or industrial activ- ities. As ambient noise levels affect the perceived amenity noise impacts impair the economic health and growth potential of a community by reducing the area's desirability as a place to live, shop, and work. For this reason, land use compatibility with the noise environment is an important consideration in the planning and design process. There are two sets of noise criteria that apply to this project. These include the federal noise standards (promulgated by the Federal Highway Administration) and the City of Hermosa Beach noise standards established in the Noise Element of the General Plan. Each set of standards uses a different noise metric and a unique methodology to assess noise impacts. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed a series of maximum design noise levels for various activity categories which are epressed in terms of equivalent sound levels (Leq) or Ll values.4 These design noise levels are commonly used on federally funded projects or projects for which federal review or CalTrans review is anticipated. The FHWA design noise levels represent maximum values and incor- porate trade-offs between desirable and feasible noise levels (recognizing that in many cases lower noise exposures would result in even greater community benefits). The Federal -Aid Highway Program Manual, Volume 7, Chapter 7, Section 3 (FHPM 7.7.3) has established design noise levels for different activity categories. Residences, schools, and recreation areas are in activity Category B which specifies a maximum exterior design 1. State of California, Department of Health Services, Dr. Jerome Lukas, Memo dated July 11, 1984. 2. L10 values are noise levels exceeded ten percent of the time. They are commonly used to express peak hour noise levels (since peak hour traffic volumes are typically 10 percent of the daily traffic volume). 3-3 noise level of 67 dBA (Leq). Most commercial areas are in activ- ity Category C with a corresponding design noise level of 72 dBA (Leq). The design noise levels for all activity categories appear in Table 2 and are to be applied to: - those undeveloped lands for which development is planned, designed and programmed on the date of public knowledge of the highway or other federally funded construction project; - those activities and land uses in existence on the date of public knowledge of the project; and - those areas which have regular human use and in which a lowered noise level would be of benefit. The FHWA noise abatement criteria establish an exterior noise goal for residential uses of 67 Leq. An interior goal of 52 Leq applies where: (1) no exterior activity area is identified or (2) the exterior activities are either remote from the highway or shielded in some manner so that they will not be significantly affected by the noise (but the interior activities will). The criteria apply to private yard areas and assume that typical wood frame homes provide a 10 dB (outdoor to indoor) noise reduction with windows open and a 20 dB reduction with windows closed. The City of Hermosa Beach adopted its Comprehensive General Plan in October of 1979. Included in the General Plan is a Noise Element which specifies maximum desirable noise levels for vari- ous land use categories in an attempt to protect people from hearing damage, disruption of normal activities, and general annoyance. The City specifies ambient noise level standards that are compat- ible with land use designations as shown in Table 3. Sound emanating from motor vehicle traffic on the roadways may be no more than 5 dBA above ambient standards in residential areas. Similarly, traffic noise may be no more than 10 dBA above ambient standards in commercial zones. The ambient standards utilized by the City do not account for the impact of noise during more sensitive time periods, such as evening and nighttime hours. Since the federal standards address this issue, they will be utilized in this'report to determine land use compatibility with noise in the project vicinity. Existing Noise Conditions Ambient noise levels in the project vicinity are primarily the result of motor vehicles on area streets. Noise from motor vehi- cles is generated by the engine vibrations, the interaction between the tires and the road, and the exhaust system. Reducing the speed of motor vehicles reduces the noise exposure of listen- ers inside the vehicle and those located adjacent to the roadway. 3-4 r- -- 1 1 M-- E E M-- r I 11111 TABLE 2 DESIGN NOISE LEVEL/ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIPS1 Activity Design Noise Levels2 Description of Activity Category Category Leq(h) L10(h) A 57 dBA 60 dBA Tracts of lands in which serenity and quiet are of ex - (exterior) traordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intend- ed purpose. Such areas could include amphitheaters, particular (public or private) parks or portions of parks, open spaces, or historic districts which are dedi- cated or recognized by appropriate local officials for activities requiring special qualities of serenity and quiet. B 67 dBA 70 dBA Public areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active (exterior) sports areas, and public or private parks which are not included in Category A and residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries and hospitals. C 72 dBA 75 dBA Developed lands, properties or activities not included in (exterior) Categories A or B above. D For requirements of undeveloped lands see paragraphs lla and c in the Appendix. E 52 dBA 55 dBA Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, (interior) schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums. 1. Refer to Federal Highway Administration's Program Manual FHPM 7-7-3 for details. 2. Either L10 or Leg (but not both) design noise levels may be used on a project. 3-5 TABLE 3 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH LAND USE COMPATIBILITY WITH NOISE Land Use Category Ambient Standards with Standards (dBA) Transportation Noise Residential (R1) 45 50 Schools/Hospitals Nursing Homes Residential (R2) 50 55 Parks/Playgrounds Residential (R3) 55 60 Commercial (C1) 55 65 Commercial (C2,C3) 60 70 Manufacturing 65 75 Source: City of Hermosa Beach Comprehensive General Plan, 10/79. The Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model developed by the Federal Highway Administration (RD -77-108) and currently being applied throughout the nation was used to evaluate current noise conditions at various points within the Area of Potential En- vironmental Impact (APEI). This model accepts various parameters including: the traffic volume; vehicle mix and speed; and roadway geometry in computing equivalent noise levels during typical daytime, evening, and nighttime hours. The resultant noise levels can be weighted, summed over 24 hours, and output as the Ldn value. Various Ldn contours can subse- quently located through a series of computerized iterations de- signed to isolate the critical contour locations. Table 4 provides the predicted current Leq levels adjacent to Prospect Avenue within the project limits. Assuming a noise reduction with distance factor of 4.5 dBA with each doubling, and assuming no adjustment for local attenuation (houses, buildings, noise barriers, etc.) the distance to various noise contours used for land use compatibility purposes have also been determined and shown. TABLE 4 CURRENT EXTERIOR LEQ EXPOSURE ADJACENT TO PROSPECT AVENUE Roadway (mph) Peak Leq at Leq Contour (ft)2 VPH1 50 ft.2 67 dBA 62 dBA Prospect Avenue (25) - S/0 Artesia Boulevard 670 59 ROW 33 - S/O Aviation Boulevard 1110 61 ROW 45 1. PM peak hour 2 -way vehicle volume in vehicles per hour. 2. Distances are given from the Prospect Avenue centerline. All contours ignore localized shielding effects. 3.2 Acoustic Impact Analysis Short -Term Acoustic Impacts Short-term acoustic impacts are those associated with construc- tion activities necessary to implement the proposed project. These noise levels will be higher than the ambient noise levels in the project area today but will subside once the improvements are complete. Two types of noise impact should be considered during the con- struction phase. First, the transport of workers and equipment to the construction site will incrementally increase noise levels along the roadways leading to and from each site. The increase should not exceed 1.0 dB(A), when averaged over a 24-hour period, and should therefore be an inaudible increase to noise receptors located along the roadways utilized for this purpose. Second, the noise generated by the actual construction activities at each construction site should be evaluated. Construction activities are carried out in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment, and consequently its own noise charac- teristics (see Figure 3). These various sequential phases will change the character of the noise levels surrounding the con- struction site as work progresses. The Environmental Protection Agency has found that the noisiest equipment types operating at construction sites typically range from 88 to 91 dB(A) at 50 feet. Although noise ranges were found to be similar for all construction phases, the erection phase tended to be less noisy. Noise levels varied from 79 dB(A) to 89 dB(A) (energy average) at 50 feet during the erection phase of construction. The construction noise impact to the adjacent noise sensitive land uses will be a temporary nuisance. The City of Hermosa Beach Noise Ordinance from the Municipal Code requires that construction activities will take place only during daytime hours (8 AM to 7 PM) when noise intrusion is less disruptive. The "Federal Highway Program Manual" (FHPM 7-7-3) requires that land use activities which may be affected by highway construction noise be identified. In addition, the measures needed in the plans and specifications to minimize or eliminate construction noise impacts must be determined. However, no earth moving equipment will be needed to complete the proposed improvements therefore construction noise impacts are expected to be minimal. The local noise ordinance (Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 19.5-11) specifies which hours each day construction activities can occur. The 1981 California Standard Specifications (Section 7-1.O1N, Section 42-1.02, and Section 42-2.02 (as shown on page 16 of the Appendix) and Standard Caltrans Special Provisions 3-8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 FIGURE 3 CONSTRUCTION NOISE Earth Moving Noise Level (dBA) at 50 feet 60 70 80 90 100 110 Front Loader z..,.„0 Dozer ,,. •.,, Dragline k. ' .. Backfiller *.i., , %, ...,.. .., Scraper/Grader .s.• -;.44oi; -, . Trucks .- . Materials Handling Concrete Mixers ki•OP 4:.;..,.."."›..:,,,A Concrete Pumps ,....z, ?k Motor Crane + , 4 46. . • igt Stationary Pumps Generators .,..::. , . • Compressors Source: EPA, 1971; "Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances". NTID300.1 Endo Engineering Section 5-1 (Sound Control Requirements) may be referenced in the project plans and specifications when they apply to minimize or eliminate construction noise impacts. A diagram illustrating various construction noise control strategies developed by Caltrans is included in the Appendix. Long -Term Acoustic Impacts Daily traffic volumes, vehicle delay data, and percent stop data were provided by Mohle, Grover & Associates. The findings of the traffic study indicate that the change in peak hour and daily traffic volumes would be minimal with the project versus the no - project alternative. Traffic volumes along Prospect Avenue are expected to increase minimally (less than 5 percent) with versus without the project. Table 5 includes the noise level increases that can be expected to result from a 5 percent, a 10 percent, and a 25 percent increase in traffic over existing volumes. As shown therein, a 25% increase in traffic would result in a 1.0 dBA noise level increase adjacent to Prospect Avenue. Since an increase of 1.0 dBA cannot be perceived outside of a laboratory environment, it is considered inaudible. TABLE 5 EXTERIOR LEO PROJECTIONS ADJACENT TO PROSPECT AVENUE Roadway Link (25 mph) Peak Leq at Leq Contour (ft)2 VPH1 50 ft.2 67 dBA 62 dBA Artesia Blvd. to Aviation Blvd. - 5% Increase 704 59 ROW 34 - 10% Increase 737 60 ROW 35 • - 25% Increase 838 60 ROW 38 Aviation Blvd. to 190th Street - 5% Increase 1166 62 ROW 47 - 10% Increase 1221 62 23 48 - 25% Increase 1388 62 25 53 1. PM peak hour 2 -way vehicle volume in vehicles per hour. 2. All distances are measured from the centerline. All contours ignore localized shielding effects. ROW means the contour is located inside the right-of-way. 3-9 Changes in noise levels at the intersection of Prospect Avenue and Aviation Boulevard will be inaudible if the project is implemented. Traffic volumes are not expected to increase with either project alternative. Average intersection delays will decrease by 6 seconds with optimized timing, whereas average delays will increase by 2 seconds with the signal phasing alternative. When delay decreases, the adjacent noise levels decrease (since the higher noise levels associated with acceleration and deceler- ation occur less frequently and adjacent noise receptors are exposed to the source of noise for a shorter period of time). This decrease in sound levels is offset by the higher noise levels associated with vehicles travelling at constant speed (25 mph) versus those with speeds that are lower as they prepare to stop. However, both changes are so small that the net result is an inaudible change in adjacent noise perceived by sensitive noise receptors. Valley/Ardmore at Pier Avenue is actually two intersections which are offset by approximately 100 feet. Both are currently con- trolled by 4 -way stops with Ardmore at Pier located east of Valley at Pier. The project proposes the signalization of both intersections with synchronized signal timing. Noise monitoring at two typical 4 -way stop controlled intersec- tions was undertaken by Endo Engineering in March of 1987 to determine the noise impacts associated with deceleration to a stop and then acceleration from a stop versus noise generated by vehicles at a constant speed. The noise monitoring indicated that for a link with an average running speed of 30 mph, the acceleration impact is +2.5 dBA (Leq) and the deceleration impact is -1.0 dBA (Leq) from the noise level associated with a constant speed. Conversely at a higher running speed link (45 mph) the acceleration impact was -0.6 dBA (Leq) and the deceleration impact was -2.5 dBA (Leq). See the Appendix for further informa- tion regarding the noise measurement system and technique. Table 6 utilizes the change in noise level between acceleration/ deceleration versus constant speed and correlates it to the percentage of vehicles stopping. At a 4 -way stop controlled intersection, the increase in noise resulting from the accelera- tion phase of one movement is generally offset by the decelera- tion phase of the opposing movement. Noise levels at locations outside the intersection right-of-way tend to remain relatively constant. The intersection of Valley/Ardmore at Pier Avenue is similar to the intersection in Table 6 that has a 30 mph running speed. Similar changes in adjacent noise levels can therefore be antici- pated. The existing intersection has 4 -way stop control and therefore 100 percent of the vehicles are stopping. 3-10 TABLE 6 NOISE IMPACTS OF SIGNALIZATION Operating Percentage of Vehicles Stopping Condition 25% 50% 75% 100% Running Speed- 30 mph - Decelerating To Stop - Accelerating From Stop Running Speed- 45 mph - Decelerating To Stop - Accelerating From Stop -0.3 -0.5 +0.8 +1.4 - 0.8 -1.4 - 0.2 -0.3 - 0.8 +2.0 - 2.0 - 0.5 - 1.0 +2.5 - 2.5 -0.6 Table 7 shows the percentage of vehicles stopping after project implementation. The decrease in the percentage of vehicles stop- ping should have an insignificant effect on the adjacent noise receptors. Moreover, the closest sensitive receptors are too distant to perceive the change in noise level. TABLE 7 PERCENTAGE OF VEHICLES STOPPING WITH SIGNAL INSTALLATION Movement Valley @ Pier Ardmore @ Pier Northbound - Through 92 84 - Right 92 84 - Left 92 84 Southbound - Through 85 90 - Right 85 90 - Left 69 90 Eastbound - Through 77 64 - Right 56 64 - Left 56 18 Westbound - Through 54 84 - Right 56 63 - Left 3 65 3.3 Noise Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures have been recommended for in- corporation in the project to minimize noise impacts: 1. Construction activities will take place only on the hours specified in the City of Hermosa Beach Noise Control Ordi- nance to reduce noise impacts during more sensitive time periods. 2. All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1000 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained muffler exhaust systems. 3. Stationary equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers such as residential areas. 4. Every effort should be made to create the greatest distance between noise sources and receptors during construction activities. 5. The noisiest construction operations should be arranged to occur together in the construction program to avoid contin- uing periods of greater annoyance. FUNDAMENTALS OF NOISE Noise levels are measured on a logarithmic scale in decibels which are then weighted and added over a 24-hour period to re- flect not only the magnitude of the sound, but also its duration, frequency, and time of occurrence. In this manner, various acoustical scales and units of measurement have been developed such as: equivalent sound levels (La), day -night average sound levels (Ldn) and Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL'S). A -weighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to a broad frequency noise source by discriminating against the very low and high frequencies of the audible spec- trum. They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies audi- ble to the human ear. The decibel scale has a value of 1.0 dBA at the threshold of hearing and 140 dBA at the threshold of pain. Each interval of 10 decibels indicates a sound energy ten times greater than before, which is perceived by the human ear as being roughly twice as loud. Therefore, a 1.0 decibel increase is just audible whereas a 10 decibel increase means the sound is per- ceived as being twice as loud as before. Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly but are calcu- lated from sound pressure levels typically measured in A -weighted decibels (dBA). The equivalent sound level (Lea) is the constant level that, over a given time period, transmit the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time -varying sound. Equivalent sound levels are the basis for both the Ldn and CNEL scales. Day -night average sound levels are a measure of the cumulative noise exposure of the community. The Ldn value results from a summation of hourly Lea's over a 24-hour time period with an increased weighting facgtor applied to the nighttime period be- tween 10:00 pm and 7:00 am. This noise rating scheme takes into account those subjectively more annoying noise events which occur during the normal sleeping hours. Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL) also carry a weighting penalty for noises that occur during the nighttime hours. In addition, CNEL levels include a penalty for noise events that occur during the evening hours between 7:00 pm and 10:00 pm. Because of the weighting factors applied, CNEL values at a given location will always be larger than Ldn values, which in turn will exceed Leq values. However, CNEL values are typically within one decibel of the day -night average sound level. For a "line source" of noise such as a heavily travelled roadway, the noise level drops off by a nominal value of 3.0 decibels for each doubling of distance between the noise source and noise receiver. Environmental factors such as the wind direction and speed, temperature gradients, the characteristics of the ground (hard or soft) and the air (relative humidity), the presence of grass, shrubbery, and trees, combine to increase the actual attenuation achieved outside laboratory conditions to 4.5 deci- bels per doubling of distance. In an area which is relatively flat and free of barriers, the sound level resulting from a single "point source" drops by 6 decibels for each doubling of distance or 20 decibels for each factor of ten in distance. This applies to fixed noise sources and mobile noise sources which are temporarily stationary such as an idling truck or other heavy duty equipment operating within a confined area. The noise levels adjacent to line sources increase by 3.0 dBA with each doubling in the traffic volume (provided that the speed and truck mix do not change). From the mathematical expression relating increases in the number of noise sources (motor vehi- cles) to the increase in the adjacent noise level, it can be shown that a 26 percent increase in the traffic volume will cause a 1.0 dBA increase in adjacent noise levels. HARMFUL EFFECTS OF NOISE Exposure to noise can cause temporary physical and psychological responses in humans. The chronic recurrence of these physical reactions has been shown to aggravate headaches, fatigue, diges- tive disorders, heart disease, circulatory and equilibrium dis- orders. Moreover, as a source of stress, noise is a contributory factor in stress-related ailments such as ulcers, high blood pressure and anxiety. Two other harmful effects of noise which are commonly of concern involve speech interference and the prevention or interruption of sleep. Figure 2 illustrates how excessive background noises can reduce the amount and quality of verbal exchange and thereby impact education, family lifestyles, occupational efficiency and the quality of recreation and leisure time. Speech interference begins to occur at about 40 to 45 decibels and becomes severe at about 60 decibels. Background noise levels affect performance and learning processes through distraction, reduced accuracy, increased fatigue, annoyance and irritability, and the inability to concentrate (particularly when complex tasks are involved or in schools where younger children exhibit imprecise speech pat- terns and short concentration spans). Several factors determine whether or not a particular noise event will interfere with or prevent sleep. These factors include the noise level and characteristics, the stage of sleep, the individ- ual's age, motivation to waken, and so forth. Ill or elderly people are particularly susceptible to noise -induced sleep inter- ference, which can occur when intruding noise levels exceed the typical 35-45 decibel background noise level in bedrooms. Sleep prevention can occur when intruding noise levels exceed 50 dBA. NOISE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM AND PROCEDURES 1. Sound Level Meter The sound level meter utilized was a Model 800B Precision Sound Level Meter and Analyzer manufactured by Larson & Davis Labora- tories. This meter meets ANSI and IEC Standards (ANS S1.4-1971 Type I precision) and was calibrated before field measurements were taken. 2. Procedure Three integrated noise measurements were taken for each intersec- tion. The first measurement was taken at mid -block where vehicle speeds were essentially constant. The next measurement location was within the right-of-way adjacent to the approach lane. The third measurement location was within the right-of-way adjacent to the exiting lane from the stop sign. At the intersection on the link with the 30 mph running speeds, the second and third measurement locations were 17 feet from the crosswalk. At the intersection on the link with the 45 mph running speeds, the measurement location was 40 feet from the crosswalk. These locations were selected as representative of the point where most vehicles were exhibiting peak acceleration or deceler- ation. Fifteen minute noise level recordings were taken. NOISE ASSUMPTIONS FOR RD -77-108 MODELLING I. Temporal Traffic Distribution Assumed (Percent) Type of Vehicle Day Evening Night Automobile 75.19 12.51 9.30 Medium Truck 1.82 0.10 0.22 Heavy Truck 0.75 0.02 0.09 Note: A 2.5% truck mix was assumed along Prospect Avenue with 71.31% of the trucks medium duty vehicles. II. Road Grade Assumptions -- level terrain and roadway. III. Roadway Widths -- were provided by Mohle, Grover Assoc- iates. Typical roadway cross-sections along Prospect Ave- nue include 40 feet curb -to -curb in a 54 -foot right-of-way (from Artesia to Aviation) and 30 feet curb -to -curb within a 44 -foot right-of-way (between Aviation and 190th Street). IV. Speeds Assumed -- for a "worst-case" analysis, the posted speed limits were assumed for the noise modelling. Posted speeds along Prospect Avenue are 25 mph. CALIFORNIA STANDARD SPECIFI9,TIONS TO REDUCE NOISE IMPACTS Section 7-1.O1N Sound Control Requirements The Contractor shall comply with all local sound control and noise level rules, regulations and ordinances which apply to any work performed pursuant to the contract. Each internal combustion engine , used for any purpose on the job or related to the job, shall be equipped with a muffler of a type recommended by the manufacturer. No internal combustion engine shall be operated on the project without said muffler. Section 42-2.02 Construction The noise level created by the combined grooving operation shall not exceed 86 dBA at a distance of 50 feet at right angles to the direction of travel. Section 42-2.02 Construction The noise level created by the combined grinding operation shall not exceed 86 dBA at a distance of 50 feet at right angles to the direction of travel. 1. Source: Caltrans, "Standard Specifications"; January, 1981.. EN In all MN MI an NM N 11111 N 1 all E 11111 I NS UN Construction Noise Control Strategies Design Considerations 11 Source Control Site Control I me & Activity Time Constraints 1 Community Awareness 1 1) Design & Project Layout 2) Sequence of Operations 3) Alternate Methods 1) Muffler Requirements 2) Maintenance & Operations 3) Emission Level Requirements Source: 1) Site Control 1) Time & Activity 1) Public Reations of overall Limitations noise level I Caltrans, "Noise Manual", 1980 } April 30, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council May 12, 1987 CLOSURE OF HERMOSA AVENUE MEDIAN BREAKS AT 9TH ST., 17TH ST., 18TH ST., & 20TH ST. CIP 85-130 Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommends: 1. That staff study the intersections at 9th, 10th and 11th Streets for the purpose of primarily reducing the accident rate at those intersections. 2. That staff return to the Planning Commission with their recommendations. City Staff recommends: 1. That City Council authorize staff to not consider this time. That the closing of the median breaks be considered Circulation Element. Background: with the The 9th St., 17th St., 18th St. and 20th St. Hermosa Avenue median breaks -(there are no intersecting streets at these locations) have been brought to the attention of the Public Works Department as high accident locations. At the January 22, 1987, Environmental Staff Review Meeting, a motion was passed to recommend to the Planning Commission that a Negative Declaration without mitigating measures be prepared for CIP 85-130. A public hearing was held at the March 3, 1987 Planning Commission Meeting and was extended until April 7, 1987. Analysis: At the April 7, 1987, Planning Commission meeting, (see Exhibit B for the minutes of this meeting) a motion to close the median breaks at 9th, 17th, 18th and 20th Street failed. After some discussion, a motion was passed "to direct staff to study the intersections at 9th, 10th and 11th Streets for the purpose of primarily reducing the accident rate at those intersections and that staff return with their recommendation; also, that the sign upgrade as recommended by staff be approved." (For additional information, please refer to Exhibit A: Staff report presented to the Planning Commission at their April 7, 1987 meeting). As an advisory body to the City Council, the Planning Commission appeared more concerned with circulation than with increased parking, as evidenced by their suggested left turn pockets, in lieu of the median closures. Their concerns included: (1) that closing off a median break (un -controlled intersection) might have an adverse effect on the nearest median break left open; i.e. 1.s R stop -controlled intersection, and (2) that the accident statistics on file do not support a need for the median break closures. It is not cost effective to use FAU (Federal Aid Urban) funding to upgrade the signs without closing off the median breaks. In fact, Caltrans has advised staff that this revised scope of work would be "nonsensical" since the administrative costs alone could easily exceed the actual "construction" costs of the sign upgrade. Given the recommendations of the Planning Commission to City Council, staff recommends dropping the project at this time but reconsider the median break closure with the circulation element. FISCAL IMPACT Should City Council concur with the recommendations of the Planning Commission, listed below are the fiscal impacts of the recommended further study: 1. Approximately $4,500 additional costs to study the 9th, 10th, and 11th Street Hermosa Avenue intersections. 2. Approximately 120 days before staff is prepared to return to Council as follows: Task a.) Investigation: 9th, 10th, 11th St. b:) Return to Planning Commission with results. c.) Return to City Council with results. Total: Time Required 60 days 30 days 30 days 120 days Alternatives: Other alternatives available to Council and considered by staff are to authorize staff to: a. proceed with the sign upgrade on Hermosa Avenue from 1st Street to 35th Street using another funding source and direct staff to return with other potential sources of funding, b. proceed with preparing an RFP to close off median breaks on Hermosa Avenue at 17th, 18th and 20th Streets using an alternate funding source. Respect 1 submitted, Deborah . Murphy Assistant Engineer -Concur: 2 Concur: ($ Anthony Antic Director of blic Works April 1, 1987 Regular Meeting April 7, 1987 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission CLOSURE OF HERMOSA AVENUE MEDIAN BREAKS AT 9TH ST., 17TH ST., 18TH ST., & 20TH ST. CIP 85-130 Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1. Issue a Negative Declaration for CIP 85-130 to: a. to upgrade signs on Hermosa Avenue from 1st St. to 35th St., and recommend that this project proceed; b. close off median breaks at Hermosa Avenue and 9th, 17th, 18th., and 20th Sts. and recommend that this project proceed. 2. Recommend that in the impending RFP for median closure, a Traffic Engineering Consultant shall provide information indicating that the accident rate will decrease if the medians are closed. This information shall be provided before any design work begins. Background: This memorandum is being presented to the Commission at this time pursuant to their request for additional information at the March 3, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. Analysis: This report to the Commission is divided into four (4) sections and are titled as follows: 1. Project Background 2. Response to Commission Member Concerns 3. Analysis of Accident Information 4. Summary and Conclusions 1 1. PROJECT BACKGROUND The following median breaks are being considered for closure and are shown on the map below. p Aisr OJECT LOC THO 3 CITY OF IIERMOSA BEACH ,CAu IIIFORNKA . 44 .- :1,..-.i' 1:' 1;1 • litrr_,:.A.--r---'-----........._..pg 1 tr_i. fL.:,.‘;':.:...._:;.'---- ® Median Installation ppm Lighting Upgrade ';®b®Mir The above illustrated Hermosa Avenue intersections have been brought to the attention of the Public Works Department as high accident locations. At the January 22, 1987, Environmental Staff Review Meeting, a motion was passed to recommend to the Planning Commission that a Negative Declaration without mitigating measures be prepared for CIP 85-130. A public hearing was held at the March 3, 1987 Planning Commission Meeting.. In compliance with Caltrans requirements, this hearing was advertised in the Easy Reader approximately 30 days in advance of this meeting, and again approximately 10 days in advance. Additionally, all locations were posted and notices were - distributed to all addresses in the area approximately 10 days in advance. 2. RESPONSE TO COMMISSION MEMBER CONCERNS At the March 3, 1987, meeting, the Planning Commission requested staff to: 1) Provide the Commission with a street map depicting the medians at issue. 2) Provide the Commission with accident information for other median openings, both at signalled and non -signalled locations between 9th Street and 24th Street. 3) Keep the hearing record open until March 18, 1987, as noticed, but also submit comments received after March 18 to the Planning Commission to be considered when they render a final decision on April 7, 1987. RESPONSE TO CONCERN NO. 1 A street map depicting all median breaks on Hermosa Avenue between 9th St. and 24th St. is illustrated below: EXISTING MEDIAN BREAKS Hermosa Ave. 9th -24th Streets CITY OF IIERMOSA BEACII CAILIIIF01I NIIA KEY x4 existing median breaks 3 RESPONSE TO CONCERN NO. 2. The fact that an accident occurred at an intersection does not necessarily indicate that the median break was a contributing factor. (For example, sideswiping a parked car is not directly affected by the fact that there exists a median break at that particular location.) Consequently, the accident information summarized in the table below indicates the total number of traffic accidents at a given median break, but, more importantly indicates the number of accidents which were directly affected by the existence of the median break. Hermosa Avenue Total # of Accidents Total # of Median Related Median Break Reported since 1980 Accidents since 1980 9th St. 12 9 10th St. 33 12 llth St. 22 7 13th St. 12 5 14th St. 7 3 15th St. 4 1 16th St. 10 3 17th St. 2 2 18th St. 8 4 19th St. 7 2 20th St. 4 1 21st St. 7 6 22nd St. 9 2 24th St. 5 3 A more detailed composite of this accident information is included as Exhibits 1 and 2. RESPONSE TO CONCERN NO. 3 Hearing Record The cummulative hearing record (February•3-March 18), includes the following (no comments were received after March 18): January 22, 1987 - Oral comments at Environmental Staff Review Meeting (Exhibit 3). February 9, 1987 - Written comments from Darrel L. Greenwald (Exhibit 4). March 3, 1987 -Written Comments from William Hindman (Exhibit 5) March 3, 1987 - Oral comments from Ms. Sheila C. Miller and Mr. Darrel Greenwald at the Planning Commission Public Hearing (Exhibit 6). 3. ANALYSIS OF ACCIDENT INFORMATION The accident information for the proposed median breaks (Exhibit 1) and for all the other median breaks between 9th Street and 24th Street (Exhibit 2) was compiled from all the police reports of accidents at these locations since 1980. Unfortunately, these Exhibits are not necessarily an accurate comparison of the likelihood of an accident. The likelihood of an accident is measured by the accident rate, not by the shear quantity of accidents. The accident rate is " •determined by dividing the quantity of accidents by the volume of traffic through the intersection. Consider the following example EXAMPLE # Of Accidents Volume of traffic Accident Rate at median break traffic through (Vehicle/Volume) each year each year as a percentage Median Break A Median Break B 10 100 10/0 5 10 50% At Median Break A, 10% of all traffic entering the median break will be involved in an accident. On the other hand, even though Median Break B has fewer accidents each year, 50% of all traffic will be involved in an accident. Median Break B has a higher accident rate. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The proposal to close the median breaks (9th, 17th, 18th and 20th Streets) and upgrade the signs along Hermosa Avenue will result in the following: 1. Enhancement of public safety by forcing traffic to the next stop -controlled intersection where motorists can make protected left and U-turns. This controlled intersection will provide better sight distance and upgrading the signs should result in a safer intersection. 2. Creation of more parking spaces in the City's impacted parking areas as follows: 9th Street Median Break 6 additional parking spaces 17th Street Median Break 6 additional parking spaces 18th Street Median Break 6 additional parking spaces 20th Street Median Break 6 additional parking spaces Total 24 additional parking spaces This will satisfy objectives #1 and #3, page 19 of the parking element of the General Plan for the City of Hermosa Beach, which states: "(1) to provide adequate residential parking (3) to find adequate parking spaces for both the visitors and shoppers in Hermosa Beach". 3. Increased parking revenues as follows:' 24 meters x $375 per meter = $9,000 increased annual revenue (annual revenue) 5 Alternatives: Other alternatives considered by staff and available to the Commission are: 1. Do not consider this project at this time. 2. Engage the services of a traffic engineering consultant to conduct a focused traffic engineering report. 3. Issue a Negative Declaration with mitigating measures for CIP 85-130. Respec submitted, Con_ur: Deborah M. Murphy Assistant Engineer An bony Antich Director of Pu•lic Works Attachment: Exhibit 1 -Traffic Accident History; 9th, 17th, 18th & 20th Streets Exhibit 2 -Traffic Accident History; 10th, llth, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 19th, 21st, 22nd & 24th Sts. Exhibit 3 -Environmental Staff Review Minutes, 1/22/87 Exhibit 4 -Written Hearing Record, 2/9/87 Exhibit 5 -Written Hearing Record, 3/3/87 Exhibit 6 -Public Hearing Minutes, 3/3/87 medbr/m EXHIBIT 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Accidents at Median Breaks since 1980 on Hermosa Avenue at 9th St., 17th St., 18th St and 20th St. Street 9th Street 17th Street 18th Street 20th Street 1/21/87 acci/m Date 6/14/80 10/04/80 12/01/84 1/11/86 9/25/85 10/25/81 8/04/85 8/28/85 6/24/81 11/12/83 10/01/86 12/01/84 6/07/80 1/2/81 q/15/84 9/15/85 9/11/82 5/31/84 8/07/82 9/15/82 9/28/80 4/07/86 5/12/85 3/23/80 5/16/80 5/08/83 Improper U-turn at u n n median break i n n n n u n n n n Lane change at median break Rearend at median break II II II II n n it n Rearend parked vehicle n u n n n n Sideswipe -Improper U-turn Rearend at n n median break i It (improper) U-turn at median tt II II 11 break Improper lane change at median break Sideswipe due to improper lane change Sideswipe parked vehicle Rearend parked vehicle n n n Hit pedestrian Improper U-turn Broadside after losing control Rearend (after vehicle malfunction) Rearend (parked vehicle) 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Accidents at Hermosa Avenue Median Breaks since 1980 Intersection: 10th Street, Type of Control: Stop Sign at 10th Hermosa Avenue: No Control D. Collisions on Hermosa Avenue while stopped for pedestrians 1/10/81 6/9/84 6/16/83 6/16/84 Rearend Total 4 Accidents A. Vehicles travelling on Hermosa Avenue, turning at median E. Hit Parked Car break (accidents at or affected by median break) 12/19/80 Sideswipe 3/7/80 Broadside 11/12/84 " 4/5/80 8/27/85 Rearend 11/5/80 Rearend 4/26/81 Sideswipe Total 3 Accidents 8/3/83 Broadside 9/15/83 2/16/84 3/10/85 5/13/85 Rearend 8/7/85 12/6/86 Broadside 8/8/86 Rearend Total 12 Accidents B. Vehicles travelling from 10th St. collision at median break, either crossing Hermosa Ave., or turning at median break 4/30/80 Broadside 6/28/80 10/22/81 5/31/82 1/24/83 7/15/83 9/23/84 Total 7 Accidents C. Collision at 10th St. (to or from Hermosa Ave.) turning at 10th St. 3/11/80 Broadside 10/1/82 6/20/84 Rearend 8/5/84 Broadside 6/21/85 Rearend 7/11/85 Sideswipe 9/21/85 Broadside Total 7 Accidents 1 - 2 - Intersection: llth Street, Type of Control -Signal with a "No U -Turn" sign for Hermosa Avenue Traffic A. Vehicles travelling on Hermosa Avenue, turning at median break (accidents at or affected by median break) 3/8/80 Broadside 4/2/80 2/13/80 Broadside 9/20/80 6/24/80 Head-on • 5/20/81 Head-on 11/27/80 Broadside 12/28/82 Sideswipe 1/8/81 7/7/84 Broadside 7/13/93 Head-on 11/16/85 Broadside Intersection: 13th St. Type of control: Signal with "No U-turn sign for Hermosa Avenue traffic. A. Vehicles travelling on Hermoa Ave. -turning at median break (accidents at or affected by median break. Total 5 Accidents Total 7 Accidents B. Vehicles travelling from llth St., either crossing Hermosa B. Vehicles travelling from llth St. -either crossing Hermosa Ave or turning at median break - collision at median break. Ave. or turning at median break -collision at median break. 3/15/81 Broadside Total 1 Accident C. Collision at llth St., turning at llth St. to or from Hermosi Avenue. 4/12/80 Rearend 7/20/82 Broadside 7/17/82 Rearend 12/2/82 Hit pedestrian 1/21/84 Rearend 3/20/84 Hit cyclist -0- C. Collision at 13th St., turning at llth St. to or from Hermosa Avenue. 6/1/83 Hit fixed object 6/15/83 Rearend 6/30/86 Hit pedestrian 10/30/86 Sideswipe Total 4 Accidents D. Collision at Hermosa Ave. crosswalk while stopped for signal or pedestrian. Total 6 Accidents 8/1/81 Rearend D. Collision at Hermosa Ave. crosswalk while stopped for signal Total 1 Accident or pedestrian E. Hit Parked Car 1/30/80 Rearend 6/26/82 Rearend Total 2 Accidents E. Hit Parked Car 7/11/80 Sideswipe 12/19/81 7/19/83 " 5/22/86 Rearend 9/9/86 Broadside 10/17/86 Sideswipe Total 6 Accidents - 3 - 6/14/81 Sideswipe/Rearend 7/9/81 Rearend Total 2 Accidents Intersection: 14th Street Type of Control: Signal. Intersection: 15th Street Type of Control: None A. Vehicles travelling on Hermosa Avenue, turning at median A. Vehicles travelling on Hermosa Avenue, turning at median break (accidents at or affected by median break).• break (accidents at or affected by median break) 2/26/81 Rearend 10/20/85 Broadside 8/13/85 Broadside '.10/5/851. Total 1 Accident Total 3 Accidents B. Vehicles travelling from 15th St.- collision at median break, either crossing Hermosa Ave., or turning at median break B. Vehicles travelling from 14th St., either crossing Hermosa Avenue or turning at median break - collision at median break -0- -0- C. Collision at 15th St. (to or from Hermosa Ave.) turning at 15th St. C. Collision at 14th St., turning at 14th St. to or from Hermosa Avenue. -0- -0- D. Collision on Hermosa Avenue while stopped for pedestrian D. Collision at Hermosa Avenue crosswalk while stopped for -0- signal or pedestrian. E. Hit parked car 2/13/80 Rearend 9/29/80 " 5/20/80 Broadside 7/27/82 Hit cyclist 7/9/80 Sideswipe 6/10/84 Rearend 2/28/81 Rearend Total 4 Accidents Total 3 Accidents E. Hit Parked Car -0- 5 6 Intersection: 16th Street Type of control: Stop sign on Hermosa Avenue. Stop sign on 16th St. Intersection: 19th Street Type of control: None on Hermosa Avenue. Stop sign on 19th Street A. Vehicles travelling on Hermosa Avenue, turning at median break (accidents at or affected by median break) A. Vehicles travelling on Hermosa Avenue, turning at median break (accidents at or affected by median breaks 3/7/81 Rearend 7/4/81 Broadside '6/6/80 Broadside 6/6/84 Broadside 6/30/80 Broadside Total 3 Accidents Total 2 Accidents B. Vehicles travelling from 16th St., collision at median break, B. Vehicles travelling from 19th St., collision at median break, either crossing Hermosa Ave., or turning at median break either crossing Hermosa Ave., or turning at median break -0- C. Collision at 16th St., turning at 16th St., to or from C. Collision at 19th St., turning at 19th St., to or from Hermosa Avenue Hermosa Avenue. 6/29/82 Broadside Total 1 Accident D. Collision on Hermosa Avenue when stopped for pedestrian 8/25/84 Sideswipe Total 1 Accident E. Hit Parked Car 3/26/86 Sideswipe Total. 1 Accident D. Collisions on Hermosa Avenue while stopped for sign or pedestrians 3/28/82 Rearend 7/26/82 5/4/84 7/29/85 Hit pedestrian 11/1/85 Sideswipe 4/9/86 Rearend 10/15/81 Sideswipe/Rearend 4/10/83 Rearend Total 6 Accidents 8/24/86 Total 3 Accidents E. Hit parked car -0- - 8 - 7 Intersection: 21st Street Type of control: None on Hermosa Avenue, stop sign on 21st Street Intersection: 22nd Street Type of control: Stop sign on Hermosa Avenue, stop sign on 22nd Street A. Vehicles travelling on Hermosa Avenue, turning at median A. Vehicles travelling on Hermosa Avenue, turning at median break (accidents at or affected by median break) break (accidents at or affected by median break 8/29/80 Broadside .9/10/80 " 4/4/81 11 11/8/81 " 8/17/81 Rearend 8/27/85 Broadside Total 6 Accidents 8/25/81 Hit pedestrian 10/24/81 Rearend Total 2 Accidents B. Vehicles travelling from 22nd St., either crossing Hermosa Avenue or turning at median break -collision at median break -0- B. Vehicles travelling from 21st St., either crossing Hermosa Ave., or turning at median break -collision at median break. C. Collision at 22nd St , turning at 22nd St., to or from Hermosa Avenue. -0- 4/17/80 Rearend C. Collision at 21st St., turning at 21st St., to or from 7/3/80 Broadside Hermosa Avenue. 6/22/81 9/22/83 Rearend 8/31/80 Hit Pedestrian Total 4 Accidents Total 1 Accident D. Collision at Hermosa Ave. crosswalk while stopped forsignal D. Collision at Hermosa Avenue crosswalk while stopped for or pedestrian signal or pedestrian 3/22/86 Rearend -0- 5/19/82 Hit cyclist E. Hit parked car Total 2 Accidents -0- E. Hit parked car 6/15/81 Sideswipe Total 1 Accident 9 - 10- Intersection: 24th Street Type of control: None on Hermosa Avenue, Stop sign on 24th Street A. Vehicles travelling on Hermosa Avenue, turning at median break (accidents at or affected by median break) 4/8/80 Rearend 5/28/81 6/25/81 Total 3 Accidents B. Vehciles travelling from 24th St., collision at median break, either crossing Hermosa Ave., or turning at median break -0- C. Collision at 24th St. (to or from Hermosa Ave.) turning at 24th Street. 1/17/85 Rearend Total 1 Accident D. Collision on Hermosa Avenue while stopped for pedestrians -0- E. Hit parked car 8/14/83 Sideswipe Total 1 Accident Staff Review Committee Meeting January 22, 1987 PROJECT 87-1 C.I.P. 85-130• UPGRADING OF SIGNS & MEDIAN WORK ON HERMOSA AVENUE FROM 1ST TO 35TH STREET (From Public Works Dept. Applicant: Deborah Murphy, Public Works Dept. Engineer Ms. Murphy explained that this project involves the intersections of Hermosa Avenue and 9th St., 17th St., 18th St., and 20th St. These intersections have median breaks and no cross streets, this proposal is to extend the median so there is no break. This will create approximately 6 parking spaces and will eliminate the possibility of accidents because there will not be any U-turns at those locations. The project will also involve the upgrading of all reflective stop signs along Hermosa Avenue. A member of the audience asked if this project was to increase parking spaces. Ms. Murphy replied that it originated to eliminate U-turns and to increase safety. Mr. Antich said that the Police Department showed concern that when motorists make U-turns there is a safety problem and accidents occur. With this project, it would force traffic to go to the next stop controlled intersection. A member of the audience asked for the number of accidents on 9th Street and if this project would accelerate speed on Hermosa Avenue. Ms. Murphy replied that since 1980 there have been 12 accidents at the 9th St. intersection, 2 accidents on the 17th St. Intersection, 8 accidents at the 18th St. intersection and 4 accidents at 20th St. Capt. Straser informed the applicant that in his experience of patrolling Hermosa Avenue in the last couple of years, speeds have actually decreased. The owner of the 16 car parking lot at 906-910 Hermosa Avenue objected to the closure of 9th St. and recommended that this be done on a temporary basis with a permanent decision after 6 months. Ms. Frater asked that this recommendation be submitted in written form to the Planning Commission for their March 3, 1987 meeting. - 3 - MINUTES OF THE STAFF REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 22. 1987 IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 10:00 A.M. PRESENT: Amy Jane Frater, Planning Assistant William Grove, Building & Safety Director Anthony Antich, Public Works Director Val Straser, Police Department Captain Timothy Howell, Fire Department FF/PM PROJECT 86-53 625 - 7th STREET - 4 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM Applicants: Benjamin Gilmore & Edward Sarkisian Ms. Frater explained that 507 of the storage area must be contiguous to the ground. Mr. Gilmore said he would make the revisions. Mr. Grove did not have a copy of the lot survey and calculated the project to be 32 ft. in height at one elevation and 34 ft. at another elevation, this project should not exceed 30 ft. for this zone. Mr. Gilmore will have the revisions made and will bring in the lot survey. Capt. Straser asked what type of garage lighting there was going to be and if the garage was going to be gated. Mr. Gilmore replied he would have recessed lighting for security reasons and would not have a gate. Several members of the audience wished to speak regarding this project. Louis Stokum, 626 - 7th Street, spoke in opposition to the project stating that parking is presently a problem and that it would be bring in more density. He submitted a letter dated January 20, 1987 from Fred Comstock, 634 - 7th Street, also in opposition of the project. Mr. Grove explained the Environmental Review Process and informed the audience that these concerns should be'addressed to the Planning Commission. Dave Riddle, 647 - 7th Street, said there is already great difficulty in exiting from 7th Street onto Ardmore and this project will just add more cars and accidents to this street. - 1 - l u' -"fib.. Staff Review Committee Meeting January 22, 1987 Project 87-1 (cont.) Motion by Ms. Frater to recommend to the Planning Commission that a Negative Declaration be prepared without mitigation measures for Project 87-1 for C.I.P. 85-130 for the upgrading of signs and median work on Hermosa Avenue from 1st to 35th Street, seconded by Mr. Grove. VOTE: AYES: Ms. Frater, Mr. Grove, Capt. Staser, FF/PM Howell NOES: None ABSTAIN: Mr. Antich Motion passed. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Staff Review Committee at their regular meeting of January 22, 1987. Chairman Amy Jane g rater, ctin - 4 - /G=nuance Z$i�" De i q 3' • r r- L_ 'Fr L J 1' �, 1 3 T Si (,vo T.TA VA' 1.) /O.''' C • 1 r- 1— L- -1L- r J L !y 2,.a1 GGeo, ,(J MANAGER SEA SPRLTE MOTEL / 1016 STRAND HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 February 9, 1987 • HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION UO PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA. 90254 RE: Proposed Median construction at 9th St. & Hermosa Avenue Dear Commissioners: I em opposed to the closure of the Median at 9th Street and Hermosa Avenue. It would be agreeable that you allow only a left turn to South bound traffic with a NO "U" TURN. Over six (6) months ago we purchased the property at 906-910 Hermosa Avenue. Before consummating the purchase of this property, Ichecked with the Planning and Building Department of Hermosa Beach and ex- plained to them that we wanted to purchase those lots and use them for en enclosed Parking Lot. Both Departments said that use would be OK. In fact, thdy were delighted with the fact we were going to use the building for parking as they had turned down one request after another to use the building for other commercial projects not compatible to the area. One of our biggest considerations for purchasing the property and using it for a Parking Facility was the fact that you could make a Left -Hand turn into the Parking Lot while traveling South bound on Hermosa Avenue. We have no objection to restricting "U" turns there, but please continue to allow us to turn left from South bound Hermosa Avenue. Respectfully, ct.w21' Go DARRELL L. GREENWALD DLG/dg • -rOtt! d i i gee-Le_4 me -7 teul- s4) I �-o 44L Ste', ate'44" .efr1/31- / ezio-i-,-*" PVC_ /1/(._ PAC _ William J. Hindman 1920 Hermosa Avenue Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 3, 1987 PAGE 2 MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Compton, to approve Resolution P.C. 87- 15, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE VOLUNTARY MERGER OF CONTIGUOUS PARCELS UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP WITHOUT REVERTING TO ACREAGE OR HAVING TO COMPLY WITH FILING REQUIREMENTS UNDER ARTICLE IV, SECTIONS 29.5-19 - 29.5-28. Noting the abstention of Comm. Schulte, no objections; so ordered. Comm. Peirce discussed Resolution P.C. 87-16, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING •COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE REQUIRED SEVENTEEN -FOOT PARKING SETBACK AND PARTIAL COVERAGE OF OPEN SPACE AT 3323 THE STRAND. He specifically addressed Condition No. 3: "All Public Works and Fire Department requirements shall be complied with." He wanted to ensure that the applicant would not have to bear the entire cost burden of the proposed upgrading of the fire hydrant. Chmn. Compton noted that the minutes of February 17, 1987, accurately reflect the intent of the Planning Commission in regard to the upgrade. He suggested that the Resolution be modified to include the wording of the motion into the resolution. He further noted that a Condition No. 4 was to be added stating that the applicant would be required to pay only a reasonable amount of the cost of the upgrade. Churn. Compton noted that approval of Resolution P.C. 87-16 would be continued to the next meeting. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No citizens appeared to address the Commission. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 85-130 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO UPGRADE SIGNS ON HERMOSA AVENUE FROM 1ST STREET TO 35T11 STREET AND CLOSURE OF HERMOSA AVENUE MEDIAN BREAKS AT 9TH STREET, 17TH STREET= 18TH STREET, AND 20TH STREET Deborah M. Murphy, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, Assistant Engineer, gave staff report dated February 27, 1987. She explained Exhibit 1, Traffic Accident History, regarding accidents at median breaks since 1980 on Hermosa Avenue at 9th Street, 17th Street, 18th Street, and 20th Street. Ms. Murphy explained that, since this is a Federally -funded project, it is required by law that Statements 1-5 from Volume 1, Section 09, Page 6, of Caltrans Local Programs Manual must be read aloud. She continued by explaining that the Commission could take no action on the matter until the hearing record is closed; it must remain open for 14 days from the date of this meeting. A final decision cannot be made until March 18. She suggested that the Commission make its final determination at the April 7, 1987, meeting of the Planning Commission. Mr. Lough stated that the Public Hearing would be continued in order to allow citizens to submit written comments; those comments would then be submitted to the Commission in April, at which time the Public Hearing will be closed. r-1 - t vi 1 w MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF TI IE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON MARCH 3, 1987, AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:33 P.M. by Comm. Compton. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Schulte. ROLL CALL Present: Comms. Compton, Peirce, Schulte Absent: Comm. Rue, Chmn. Sheldon Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; James P. Lough, City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary Comm. Compton acted as Chairman of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chinn. Compton, to approve the minutes of February 17, 1987, as submitted. Noting the abstention of Comm. Schulte, no objections; so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Compton, to approve Resolution P.C. 87- 8, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING THE LEGAL USE TO BE THREE DWELLING UNITS FOR PROPERTY KNOWN AS 63 9TH STREET AND 58 IOTH COURT, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 24, BLOCK 10, HERMOSA BEACH TRACT. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Compton, to approve Resolution P.C. 87- 12, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR FENCES THAT EXCEED THE HEIGHT LIMIT. Noting the abstention of Comm. Schulte, no objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Compton, to approve Resolution P.C. 87- 13, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 1/18414, AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 645 IST PLACE. Noting the abstention of Comm. Schulte, no objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Compton, to approve Resolution P.C. 87- 14, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL PROHIBITING THE SEPARATE SALE OF CONTIGUOUS LOTS WHEN A SINGLE IMPROVEMENT STRADDLES THE DIVIDING PROPERTY LINE. Noting the abstention of Comm. Schulte, no objections so ordered. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 3, 1987 PAGE 4 Public !tearing continued at 7:57 P.M. by Chinn. Compton. Mr. Lough suggested that the Public Hearing remain open until the meeting of April 7; thereby extending the required time period beyond the 14 days. He noted that since only three Commissioners were present, those Commissioners would be the only members able to vote on the issue unless the entire hearing is rescheduled. Comm. Peirce requested that a street map depicting the medians at issue be provided to the Commission. Ile also requested accident information for other median openings, both at signalled and non -signalled locations between 9th Street and 24th Street. Mr. Lough suggested that the Public Works Department make the maps available for interested citizens. Ms. Murphy stated that notices have been distributed in the areas involved indicating that the hearing record will be open until March 18, 1987; therefore, only comments received on or before that date will be presented to the Commission. Comm. Peirce felt that all comments submitted should be presented, including those given after March 18. Chian. Compton noted that the Public Hearing would be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 7, 1987. Citizens may comment by writing to the Public Works Department; those comments will be presented to the Commission at the next regularly scheduled meeting. Final determination will be made at the tneeting of April 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP //18330 FOR A FOUR - UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 625 7T11 STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 26, 1957, and stated that the staff environmental review committee recommended a negative declaration at their meeting of January 22, 1987. Mr. Schubach stated that the submitted plans for this project indicate three-bedroom, three -bath units with a mezzanine. The development meets the minimum requirements. 1-lowever, the open space includes the use of the front and rear yards. The City does not have a specific definition of open space. Generally; open space excludes yard areas; except that in some cases, the portion that exceeds the minimum is counted. In other words, if the minimum sideyard is five feet, and there is seven feet, the extra two Leet would count in area since the overall dimension of seven feet meets the minimum width for open space. Counting the entire seven feet could result otherwise in nothing more than an extra wide sideyard. Open space is supposed to go beyond the required setbacks. In this instance, 348 square feet of the required 1200 square feet is actually required setbacks. Mr. Schubach stated that staff believes that an ordinance defining open space should be adopted. Mr. Schubach concluded by stating that staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit and tentative tract map subject to the conditions listed in the resolution. Comm. Peirce asked for clarification of the open space requirements for condominiums. C PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 3, 1987 PAGE 3 Ms. Murphy read the required statement: 1. "The hearing is being held to present studies to date on the location and/or design features of the proposal and to provide a forum for public discussion of the major features, including social, economic, and environmental effects of the proposal. 2. The hearing is being held prior to making any commitment to the various alternatives being presented at the hearing; that no studies or plans will be finalized until the complete public record has been analyzed including data gathered at the public hearing and received in response to the draft environmental document. 3. Written statements and exhibits may be submitted for at least ten days after the hearing; this hearing will be held open for 14 days, until March 18, 1937. Longer periods are appropriate for more complex or controversial proposals. Written material should be submitted to the local agency at the address given in the handouts. 4. Subsequent to the hearing and prior to requesting approval, all data gathered at the hearing or submitted for the record will be available for inspection and copying at the local agency's office or other location. 5. After the local agency has made its decision regarding the proposal, approval will be requested of CALTRANS for those proposals on Federal -aid routes." After a decision is trade by the Planning Commission, the issue will go to the City Council before final decision is made by CALTRANS. Ms. Murphy stated that no formal study was performed; rather, the information is based primarily on accident data. Anthony Antich, Director of Public Works, addressed the Commission and explained the procedures which must be followed for Federally -funded projects. Mr. Schubach stated that the report is consistent with the general plan. Public Hearing opened at 7:53 P.M. by Chntn. Compton. Sheila Donahue Miller, 77 17th Street, Hermosa Beach, opposed the closing of any medians at the streets in question. She felt that the statistics provided are inaccurate. She felt that even if these streets are closed off, people will continue to make U-turns at other locations but will cause a much greater hazard and create even more congestion. She felt that more study on the number of accidents should be done. She stressed that it is important to look to the future and the cumulative effects of possible developments in regard to traffic. Darrell Greenwald, 32 10th Street, Hermosa Beach, manager of the Sea Sprite Motel, opposed the closure of the median at 9th Street and Hermosa Avenue. He felt that it would be agreeable to allow only a left turn to southbound traffic with a "NO U TURN" sign. He stated that he had no objection to restricted "U" turns there, but he asked that left turns from southbound traffic on Hermosa Avenue be allowed. He stated that by more restrictions on "U" turns, businesses in the area will suffer. He felt that the proposed closures would do nothing but create additional problems. - eQ4,017-5 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON APRIL 7, 1987, AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:32 P.M. by Chmn. Sheldon. Pledge of Allegiance led by Chmn. Sheldon. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Comms. Compton, Peirce, Rue, Schulte,'Chmn. Sheldon None Michael Schubach, Planning Director; James P. Lough, City Sally White, Recording Secretary Attorney; APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Comm. Schulte, seconded by Comm. Compton, to approve the minutes of March 17, 1987, as submitted. No objections; so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Compton, to approve Resolution P.C. 87- 16, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE REQUIRED SEVENTEEN -FOOT PARKING SETBACK AND PARTIAL COVERAGE OF OPEN SPACE AT 3323 THE STRAND:-,Notingthe•abstention of Comm. Schulte, no objections; so ordered. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No citizens appeared to address the Planning Commission. CLOSURE OF HERMOSA AVENUE MEDIAN BREAKS AT 9TH, 17TH, 18TH, AND 20TH STREETS AND SIGN UPGRADING ON HERMOSA AVENUE FROM HERONDO TO 35TH STREET Deborah Murphy, assistant engineer, gave staff report dated April 1, 1987. She stated that additional information has been provided to the Commission pursuant to a request at their meeting of March 3, 1987, noting that more information is being provided in regard to project background, responses to Commission member concerns, analysis of accident information, and summary and conclusions. It was recommended that the Planning Commission issue a negative declaration for Capital Improvement Project 85-130 to upgrade signs on Hermosa Avenue from 1st Street to 35th Street and recommend that the project proceed; and close . off median breaks at Hermosa Avenue and 9th, 17th, 18th, and 20th Streets and recommend that this project proceed. Further, that in regard to the impending RFP for median closure, a traffic engineering consultant shall provide information indicating that the accident rate PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 7, 1987 PAGE 2 will decrease if the medians are closed. This information shall be provided before any design work begins. Ms. Murphy stated that the median breaks in question were originally brought to the attention of the public works department because they were deemed to be high accident areas. She stated that Exhibit 1 shows the accident rate at Hermosa Avenue at 9th, 17th, 18th, and 20th Streets since 1980. Exhibit 2 shows the accident rate at other median breaks along Hermosa Avenue. She stated that the number of accidents is not necessarily an indication of safety at the median breaks. She stated that it is important to look not only at the number of accidents, but also the volume of traffic through the median breaks. She stated that the traffic engineering consultant with assess the traffic volume situation, so. that it can be proved that the accident rate will decrease when the median breaks are closed. . Tony Antich, Director of Public Works, explained the procedure to be followed for this program. He stated that traffic volume information is not currently available for study. He stated that the traffic consulting engineer could provide more information when the study is completed. He stated that the Commission will review the report before any design work is begun. Chmn. Sheldon noted that the median breaks in question are physically much smaller than other median breaks along Hermosa Avenue, stating that this fact is not mentioned in the report. Mr. Antich concurred, but noted that these breaks differ in that there are no intersecting streets at either sides of the breaks; therefore, they,do not need to be as large. Chmn. Sheldon asked whether it is possible that the accident.. rate is higher at these locations because of the smaller size of the breaks. Mr. Antich stated that he was doubtful whether such a parallel could be drawn based on the size of the breaks. Chmn. Sheldon stated that there are 100 percent more accidents at 10th Street than at other locations. He noted that this fact has not been addressed. Mr. Antich stated that there is no proposal to close the 10th Street median break. He stated that studies have previously been done on that location, and it has been determined that accidents would not be reduced by stop signals or signs; in fact, it was determined that accidents would probably increase if lights or signals were installed because of the possibility of rear -end collisions. He stated that more study could be done on 10th Street if the Commission so desired. • Mr. Antich gave background information on past studies done at 10th Street in regard to the types of accidents which had taken place there. Comm. Rue asked whether any thought had been given to the possibility of creating left- hand turn pockets at those locations where the medians will be closed. He noted that when the medians are closed, there will be more traffic; and the left -turn lanes would get those cars waiting to turn out of the traffic flow, thereby preventing rear -end collisions. Mr. Antich stated that if left -turn lanes are created, parking spaces in the center median would be lost. He felt that that possibility runs contrary to the goals and objectives of PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 7, 1987 PAGE 3 the City to provide more parking. Comm. Rue stressed that by closing off some medians, traffic will be increased at the medians that remain open. Parking could be gained at the locations of the closed medians to mitigate the loss of parking at those remaining open with a left -turn lane. He stated that this trade-off could be made in the interest of safety. Comm. Compton felt that by closing 9th Street, more U-turns would be made at 10th Street which is an already dangerous and accident-prone location. Public Hearing opened at 7:58 P.M. by Chmn. Sheldon. Betty Ryan, 588 20th Street, Hermosa Beach, asked about the median break at 9th Street. Public Hearing closed at 7:59 P.M. by Chmn. Sheldon. Chmn. Sheldon felt that the median break closures on north Hermosa Avenue are appropriate. He noted concern, though, over the proposed closure at 9th Street because there has been no proposal to do anything about the accident rate at 10th Street. He felt that an undue burden would be placed on 10th and 1 Ith Streets if 9th Street is closed. Mr. Antich concurred, but stated that this is a matter of trade-offs. He suggested that the issue of 9th Street be set aside until more study can be done. He stated that further study of 9th and 10th Streets could be part of the design process. Churn. Sheldon stressed that it is very difficult, and at times frightening, to make U- turns at 17th, 18th, and 20th. He noted that it is almost._impossible to see oncoming traffic while trying to turn at those locations because of the parked cars. Churn. Sheldon stated that he would support the median closures on north Hermosa Avenue, but suggested that more study be given to 9th, 10th, and 11th before a decision is made in regard to 9th Street. Comm. Schulte favored closing the medians at 17th, .18th, and 20th Streets. He agreed that turning there can be quite difficult. He felt that in those locations, people are turning without benefit of stop signs. He was amazed that there have not been even more accidents at those locations. He felt that at least one of the breaks on north Hermosa Avenue needs to remain open with a stop sign and two others could be closed. He felt that the closure of 9th should be studied further because of the undue burden which would be placed on 10th Street. He could not favor the 9th Street closure at this time. Comm. Peirce discussed the map provided in the staff report and stated that there is an error. He said that there is not a street west of 16th Street; it is a T-type walk street. Comm. Peirce stated that he could not support the median closings at 17th, 18th , and 20th. He agreed that U-turns are difficult at 10th Street, stating that visibility is poor. He felt that it would not be wise to close the north Hermosa Avenue medians without first studying the .problems at 9th, 10th, and 1 lth. Comm. Compton felt that by closing the 9th Street median, parking could be gained. On the other hand, he noted that this is a question of circulation. He favored more circulation unless it creates a safety problem. He felt that it has not been conclusively PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 7, 1987 PAGE 4 proven that the median break at 9th causes a substantial safety problem. Therefore, he could not support the 9th Street closure. In regard to north Hermosa Avenue, he felt that if the reason the closures are being proposed is because of the small size, then they should be enlarged rather than closed. He felt that only one should be closed and two could be widened. Churn. Sheldon favored the suggestion propounded by Comm. Rue in regard to trading off parking for left -turn lanes. He stressed the danger of turning of 17th, 18th, and 20th because of their small size. He noted that other streets very near these have substantially wider openings. He strongly favored turning lanes to get the turning vehicles out of the way of traffic. He felt that this would be the best compromise. He noted that he favors further study of 9th Street. Comm. Rue favored the compromise. He noted concern for safety. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Schulte, to direct staff to study the alternative of putting in left -turn lanes at selected intersections along north Hermosa Avenue in order to mitigate the fact that the median breaks at 17th, 18th, and 20th Streets will be closed; further, that more study be done in regard to 9th, 10th, and 11th Streets to determine whether there is a method by which to lessen accidents at that location and that no action be taken in regard to the 9th Street median closure until such a study is done; also, that study be given to the possibility of additional parking spaces to be gained; and finally, to approve the sign upgrade as recommended by staff. Comm. Compton suggested that either 17th or 18th be provided with a left -turn pocket. He stated that 20th Street is the least objectionable of the median openings in the north. Comm. Peirce stated that there are other, less draconian measures to provide for additional parking in the City. He stated that the parking situation is not as severe in the north end of town as it is in other areas. He stressed that 10th Street is a major problem; he did not feel that 9th Street is. He stated that he is opposed to the closure at this time. Comm. Compton agreed with Comm. Peirce. Chmn. Sheldon noted that the median closures are a major issue. He asked Mr. Antich why he feels it is necessary to close the north Hermosa Avenue medians. Mr. Antich stated that U-turns are very difficult because of poor visibility. He stated it is a toss-up based on the fact that convenience is gained, but safety is endangered. He noted that there is more pedestrian traffic during the summer, thereby compounding traffic and turning problems at the median breaks. Churn. Sheldon stated that the accident statistics do not support a need for the drastic measure of closing the median breaks. He did note the dangers involved, but the statistics do not support the necessity for the closures. • Mr. Antich stated that this is.a trade-off. Chmn. Sheldon noted that the motion on the floor does not provide for any additional parking. Comm. Compton suggested that the medians be closed temporarily in order to determine the effects of the closures. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 7, 1987 PAGE 5 Comm. Schulte stated that turning at 17th, 18th, and 20th Streets is not easy. He stated that if these medians are closed, people will be forced to travel to the nearest stop street to make their turns. He felt that this would be beneficial from a safety standpoint. AYES: - Comms. Rue, Schulte NOES: Comms. Compton, Peirce, Chmn. Sheldon ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None (MOTION FAILS) MOTION by Chmn. Sheldon, seconded by Comm. Compton, to direct staff to study the intersections at 9th, 10th, and 11th Streets for the purpose of primarily reducing the accident rate at those intersections and that staff return with their recommendation; also that the sign upgrade as recommended by staff be approved. Comm. Compton requested more information in regard to accidents along Hermosa Avenue south to, and including, 2nd Street. Chmn. Sheldon stated that the accident rate report does not support the median closures proposed on north Hermosa Avenue. Noting Comm. Schulte's objection to the motion, so ordered. Mr. Lough discussed Agenda Item No. 11, a zoning ordinance interpretation of the permitted uses in the C-3 zone as related to the sale of adult videos, greeting cards, smoking accessories, gifts,. novelties, toys, and games. He suggested that the item be continued to the meeting of April 21, 1987, since he needed to do more study on the issue. He suggested that the item be continued at this time so that people in the audience would not need to wait for the item to come up. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Compton, to continue Agenda Item No. 11, to the Planning Commission meeting of April 21, 1987, as suggested by staff. No objections; so ordered. Recess taken from 8:26 P.M. until 8:32 P.M. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ##86-4, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #17663 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A THREE -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1430 HERMOSA AVENUE Comm. Compton stated that he would abstain from discussion on this issue because he is the architect of record on the project. Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 2, 1987. The applicant is proposing to construct a three -unit condominium project. Each unit will contain three bedrooms, three baths, and a family room. The size of the each unit will be: Unit A, 1981 square feet; Unit B, 1940 square feet; and Unit C, 1605 square feet. The design will be two floors over a partial subterranean garage. Mr. Schubach stated that the plans will need to be modified to meet all of the minimum parking requirements. The proposal will provide two enclosed parking spaces per unit as 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 T»PC3S ORDINANCE NO. 87-M 'Fa, EZ(_‘ AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCOF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA TO PROHIBIT THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FO PROJECTS INVOLVING NONCONFORMING ‹-S-laUCTURES AND USES WHERE THE VALUE OF THE PROJECT EXCEEDS 5O7 OF THE REASONABLE REPLACEMENT VALUE OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. WHEREAS, Sections 1300-1310 of the Hermosa Beach Zoning Code sets out conditions and exceptions for nonconforming buildings and uses; and WHEREAS, the nonconforming sections referenced above have been interpreted to allow for the demolition of significant portions of structures while retaining the nonconforming status of the building; and WHEREAS, allowing reconstruction of a building in a manner which allows the property to retain its nonconforming status while circumventing existing planning and development regulations leads to continuation of the nonconformity for the life of the new reconstructed building which compounds any current parking, density, safety and other environmental problems caused by continuation of such nonconformities; and WHEREAS, Section 65858 of the Government Code authorizes the adoption of an interim ordinance as an emergency measure which can act to prevent injuries to the health, safety and general welfare caused by the continuation of nonconforming uses throughout the life of the reconstructed building. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: GtAlcim p (42.R,Lic 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 l& tmee) JW �k IAA (Sc Section 1. N building permits shall be issued for any projects involving nonconforming uses or nonconforming buildings where the value of the project exceeds 5070 of the reasonable replacement value of the existing structure. Value of a project and reasonable replacement value of existing structures shall be determined by the Building Department using data provided in Building Standards magazine published by the International Conference of Building Officials and any other recognized construction valuation data available. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption by a four-fifths (4/5) vote of tte City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach. By this four-fifths s (4/5 atp the �0 C (Lis ( ad o c �. City Council also finds that this item constitutes \n el ear ncy situation under Government Code Section 65858. Section 3. That this ordinance be effective for a period of forty-five (45) days from today's date unless extended pursuant to the provision of California Government Code Section 65858. Section 4. That the City Council shall draft a report for presentation to the public at its second meeting in June, 1987.Such report shall state what steps are being taken by the City to correct the problems referenced in this ordinance and what steps are planned to be taken in the future to remedy the situation. Section 5. That prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordiance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2.1 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law. Section 6. 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 into the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. ATTEST: Aficz adLi PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 12TH DAY OF MAY, 1987 PRESIDENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: 3 TO: FROM: RE: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY CITY CLERK EMERGENCY ORDINANCE RE: NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AND USES. Attached is a recent appellate decision, Sebek v. County of Sonoma, et.al., which although it involves a commercial operation, the County of Sonoma does have an ordinance which in part states, "when such a legal nonconforming use structure is for any reason remodeled, at a cost exceeding 15% of its appraised value, it lost its "legal nonconforming use" status, and its continued operation was also subject to the discretion of an appropriate County agency of.official. (Conditional use permit.) The court held this Ordinance to be valid and enforceable. Some "on Point" legal authority which you may wish to consider in some of your WHEREAS'S for our Ordinance: "Given the objective of zoning to eliminate nonconforming uses, courts throughout the country generally follow a strict policy against their extension or enlargement."(County of San Diego v. McClurken (1951) "Zoning legislation ... looks to the future and the eventual liquidation of nonconforming uses."(National Advertising v. County of Monterey (1970). "It is the general purpose to eventually end all nonconforming uses and to permit no improvements or rebuilding which would extend the normal life of nonconforming structures." (Ricciardi v. County of Los Angeles (1953). "The ultimate purpose of zoning is to confine certain classes of buildings and used, to particular localities and to reduce all nonconforming uses within the zone to conformity as speed- ily as is with proper safeguards for the interests ����,� consistend of those v. County Monterey (19521.: .\ affected." (Dienelt of S.R4 0A0 to° 6( part of the massive federal effort to end unempioymem a statute which is the predecessor of the one here in question was passed. It was designed to reach the blind who could not be helped by jirograms such as the Public Works Adminis- tration. House of Representatives, Committee on Labor, H.R. Rep. No. 1094, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. (1936), 2. The new statute authorized the operation on federal property of stands by blind vendors. The declared purposes were "pro- viding blind persons with remunerative employment, en- larging the economic opportunities of the blind, and stimulating the blind to greater efforts in striving to marke themselves self-supporting." 49 Stat. 1559 (1936). In 1954 the statute was amended to give these vendors preference. 68 Stat. 663(1954). In 1974, disappointment was expressed that on the thousands of pieces of federal property there were only 874 blind vending stands. Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Report No. 93-937, 93rd Cong., 2nd Sess. (1974) 10. Amendments were adopted which contain the provisions objected to by Jacobsen. The special solicitude shown by Congress for the blind has been so long, so con- stant, and so pointed that it must be seen as manifesting a congressional conviction that the federal government has, in the words of yet another statute, "special federal responsi- bilities" to the blind. See Vocational rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title III, 87 Stat. 377. Within its general interest in preventing unemployment, Congress has a particular inter- est in providing for the employment of the blind. Such spe- cial federal responsibilities are the second governmental interest on which the administrators defend the statute and rest their case. The issue, then, is whether the restrictions 20 U.S.C. § 107d-3 places on newspaper vending machines on perimeter sidewalks are reasonable time, place and manner restric- tions, justified in light of these competing interests. The practical effect of the statute is to make economically im- possible the operation of newspaper vending machines on the sidewalk or at the very least, where there are no blind vendors in competition, to impose a substantial handicap on traditional use of a traditional public forum. An absolute prohibition in these areas "will be upheld only if narrowly drawn to accomplish a compelling governmental interest." Grace, 461 U.S. at 177. Other time, place and manner con- straints may be enforced if they are "content -neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government inter- est, and leave open ample alternative channels of communi- cation." Id. (quoting Perry Education Ass's v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983) ). We believe plaintiff has raised a serious question whether the burdens imposed by section 107d-3 in areas that are public forums can be justified under these standards. The government admits that the perimeter sidewalks on post office property are public forums. Thus, for those ar- eas; the question is whether section 107d-3 imposes reason- able and justifiable time, place and manner restrictions on plaintiff. The government distinguishes, however, the walk- GOVERN1VMIN'1' Change in Nonconforming Structure Requires Conditional Use Permit Cite as 87 Daily Journal D.A.R. 963 SEBEK, INC., Plaintiff -Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SONOMA, BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS OF THE COUNTY OF SONOMA, BOARD OF SUPERVISIORS OF THE COUNTY OF SONOMA, BUILDING DEPARTMENT OF THE COUNTY OF SONOMA, PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT OF THE COUNTY OF SONOMA and PLANNING DEPARTMENT OF THE COUNTY OF SONOMA, Defendants -Respondents. No. A033551 Super. Ct. No. 145040 California Court of Appeal First Appellate District Division One Filed March 13, 1987 Plaintiff Sabek, Inc. (Sabek) appeals from the superior court's judgment denying its mandate application, in favor of the above-named defendants, to whom we shall here -after collectively refer as the County. The application sought to set aside a ruling of the County denying Sabek a "permitted use" to "operate a grocery store/convenience store" on real property owned by Sabek. It was entitled "Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5), or in the Alternative, for Writ of Mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085)." A pure question of law is posed by the appeal. It is whether, under the uncontroverted facts of the case, and as stated by Sabek, "the permitted use provisions, or the condi- tional use provision of the Sonoma County zoning regula- tions apply." Sebek, in effect, seeks to compel the County to perform a ministerial duty, i.e., to perform the ministerial act of granting a permit for a "permitted use" of real property under a zoning ordinance. (See Bodinson Mfg. Co. v. California E. Com. (1941) 17 Cal. 2d 321, 329.) For that reason we treat the proceeding, as apparently did the trial court, as commenced under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085. The uncontroverted factual -procedural context of the case follows. Sabek was the owner of a parcel of land which had been zoned by a County ordinance as C-2 (Retail business dis- trict). Grocery store, and retail stores generally, were per- mitted in a C-2 zoning district. Such stores were entitled as a uses was the same before and after the passage of a zoning ordinance, each case must stand on its own facts.... The spirit underlying the ordinance is to restrict rather than to increase the nonconforming use...." (Edmonds v. County of Los Angeles (1953) 40 Cal. 2d 642, 651; and see Livingston Rock etc. Co. v. County of L.A. (1954) 43 Cal. 2d 121, 127.) "The policy of the law is for elimination of nonconform- ing uses...." (City of Los Angeles v. Wolfe (1971) 6 Cal. 3d 326, 337.) "In enacting such ordinances, ... municipal authorities have had in mind the injustice and doubtful constitutionality of compelling the immediate removal of the objectionable buildings already in the district, and have usually made express provision that these nonconforming uses may be continued, without the right to enlarge or rebuild after de- struction. The object of such provision is the gradual elimi- nation of the nonconforming use by ob§olescence or destruction by fire or the elements, and it has been frequent- ly upheld by the courts." (Rehfeld v. San Francisco (1933) 218 Cal. 83, 84-85.) "Given the objective of zoning to eliminate nonconform- ing uses, courts throughout the country generally follow a strict policy against their extension or enlargement." (County of San Diego v. McClurken (1951) 37 Cal. 2d 683, 686- 687.) "(Z)oning legislation ... looks to the future and the eventual liquidation of nonconforming uses." (National Ad- vertising Co. v. County of Monterey (1970) 1 Cal. 3d 875, 880.) "(I)t is the purpose of zoning to crystallize present uses and conditions and eliminate nonconforming uses as rapidly as is consistent with proper safeguards for those affected; that provisions for continuation of a nonconforming use are inserted in zoning ordinances because of the injustice and doubtful constitutionality of compelling immediate discon- tinuance of the nonconforming use; and that our courts and courts throughout the country generally, have always strict- ly construed such provisions.... 'The underlying spirit of a comprehensive zoning plan necessarily implies the restric- tion, rather than the extension, of a nonconforming use of land. and therefore to whatever extent the particular act fails to make express provision tot he contrary, a condition that the lawful nonconforming use of land existing at the time of the adoption of the ordinance may continue must be held to contemplate only a continuation of substantially the same use which existed at the time of the adoption of the ordinance, and not some other and different kind of noncon- forming use which the owner of the land might subsequently find to be profitable or advantageous... ' " (Our emphasis; County of Orange v. Goldring (1953) 121 Cal. App. 2d 442, 446- 447.) "(T)he fact that some hardship or financial injury to a property owner may result from zoning restrictions does not invalidate the imposing ordinance " (Paramount Rock Co. v. County of San Diego (1960) 180 Cal. App. 2d 217, 233.) Monday, March 23, 1987 Psilg c ellate teport 963 The administrators are willing to allow Jacobsen's racks on federal property if he complies with the statute — that is, if he turns over all his income from the racks to a blind vendor where there is one on the property, or 50 percent of his income from the racks to a state agency for the blind, where there is no blind vendor on the property. Jacobsen has refused to accept this proposition. He has claimed that there has been discriminatory enforcement of the statute, alleging that the administrators permit newspa- pers of general circulation such as the Minneapolis Star and Tribune to be on federal property without paying anything to the blind, but apply the statute to him because of dislike for his papers. Jacobsen also raises a more general First Amendment contention that the statute as applied to any newspaper is an unconstitutional invasion of freedom of the press. Finally in Count N of his complaint, he makes the very general claim that the administrators are relying on statutes which "on their face" are "violative of protections guaranteed by the United States Constitution." In his brief, he more specifically presses the claim that what the govern- ment is attempting to collect is not a lawful uniform tax, but a royalty extracted for the profit of the blind vendors. The case is governed by United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 (1983). Grace makes three things clear: 1. The government, like a private owner of property, cna reserve its property to be used for the purposes for which it meant the property to be used. Id. at 178. 2. Sidewalks are presumptively a public forum, even though they are owned by the federal government. Where there is no separation, fence or other indication that govern- ment sidewalks are being used in some special way in con- nection with the federal building they abut, the government cannot deprive them of their character of a public forum by the simple expedient of a statutory definition.Id. at 180. 3. The government may impose, but must justify, rea- sonable time, place, and manner restrictions on the use of such sidewalks. Id. at 183-184. Here the administrators have two governmental inter- ests to protect — safe, unimpeded access to the post office, see National Anti -Drug Coalition, Inc. v. Bolger, 737 F.2d 717, 724 (7th Cir. 1984) ; and an interest in aiding the blind, whose basis must be located in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution," The Congress shall have power to...provide for...the general Welfare of the United States." The blind, partially handicapped and particularly deserving, have lone been thought worthy of special federal assistance. Over a centuiy ago, Congress appropriated money to aid the Amer- ican Printing House for the Blind. 20 Stat. 468 (1879) . In 1920, in the wake of World War I, a statute aimed at restoring not merely wounded veterans but disabled persons generally "to civil employment" included the blind within its reach. Vocational Rehabilitation Act, 41 Stat. 735 (1920). In 1936, as part of the massive federal effort to end unemployment a statute which is the predecessor of the one here in question ways leading from the public sidewalks into the post office buildings, arguing that those areas are not public forums, but are much like the interior of the post office building, and that a total ban on newspaper vending machines there is justified. We have not been presented with sufficient facts to decide here whether the ingress/egress walkways are public forums under Grace. That question will have to be presented to the district court on remand. Jacobsen's affidavit as to the hardship imposed on his enterprise by the effect of the administrators' actions has not been refuted. The balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor. Where the precious First Amendment right of free- dom of the press is at issue, the prevention of access to a public forum is, each day, an irreparable injury: the ephem- eral opportunity to present one's paper to an interested audience is lost and the next day's opportunity is different. Raising a serious question of constitutional dimensions, he has met the conditions necessary to secure a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, we remand to the district court with in- structions that it issue a preliminary injunction ordering the government not to remove any newspaper rack of the appel- lant which does not obstruct access or endanger pedestrians and which is placed on any perimeter sidewalk owned by the government adjacent to a post office. We remand for consid- eration of whether preliminary injunctive relief is appropri- ate as to ingress/egress walkways. Trial on the merits will afford both parties the opportu- nity of testing Jacobsen's other allegations and of refining the terms of the injunction. For purposes of this preliminary injunction we need not and do not need to rule whether there are other portions of post office premises which have been opened up by the government as a place for expressive activity. See Cornelius v. NACCP Legal Defense and Educa- tion Fund, 105 S.Ct. 3439, 3448 (1985); Hale v. Department of Energy, 806 F.2d 910 (9th Cir. 1986) ; American Postal Work- er v. United States Postal Service, 764 F.2d 858 (D.C. Cir. 1985). Nor do we pass on the constitutionality of 20 U.S.C. § 107d-3 in the light of Article I, section 9 of the Constitution of the United States. Congress apparently views money raised under the statute as a "nonappropriated fund." 20 U.S.c. § 107b-3. We express no view on the constitutional status of such a "nonappropriated fund" while drawing it to the atten- tion of the parties as an issue they may wish to explore more fully on remand. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. GOVERNMENT • C14 matter of law under the ordinance, to operate under a "per- mitted use." Under the C-2 zoning ordinance such a permit "shall be issued if the proposed use ... is in conformance with the provisions of (the ordinance)." (Our emphasis.) "Gasoline service stations" were not so permitted, as a matter of law, in a C-2 zoning district, unless they had been constructed prior to the C-2 zoning ordinance's enactment; in such a case they were allowed as a "legal nonconforming use." Otherwise permits for a "nonconforming use" were granted only at the discretion of the appropriate County agency or official. And when such a "legal nonconforming use" structure was for any reason remodeled, at a cost exceeding 15 percent of its appraised value, it lost its "legal nonconforming use" status, and its continued operation was also subject to the discretion of an appropriate County_agen- cy or official. A gasoline service station had, before the zoning ordi- nance's adoption, been maintained on the property by Sabek as a "legal nonconforming use." Sabek thereafter converted what had been the lubrica- tion racks of the property's service station into a "mini - mart" grocery store. The cost of such conversion appears to have been far in excess of 15 percent of the service station's appraised value. According to Sabek the partial conversion of the service station into a mini -mart was made necessary for economic reasons; without it the service station would not be profitable. While the service station and retail store were so main- tained and operated in one building, the changed operation was observed by an agent or officer of the County, and Sabek was instructed to apply to the County for a'discretionary "conditional use permit." The mandate proceeding appears to have followed. We are advised by Sabek as follows: "This appeal pre- sents a question of apparent first impression...." And he states, as noted; "(I)t requires a determination by this court whether the (mandatory) permitted use provisions, or the (discretionary) conditional use permit provisions, of the Sonoma County zoning regulation apply." It seems profitable at this point to explore the rationale and purpose of "legal nonconforming uses" of zoning ordinances. "The rights of users of property as those rights existed at the time of the adoption of a zoning ordinance are well recognized and have always been protected.... According- ly, a provision which exempts existing nonconforming uses is ordinarily included in zoning ordinances because of the hardship and doubtful constitutionality of compelling the immediate discontinuance of nonconforming uses.... How- ever, the continued nonconforming use must be similar to the use existing at the time the zoning ordinance became effective ..., andin.determining whether the nonconforming uses was the same before and after the passage of a zoning ordinance, each case must stand on its own facts.... The 964 !uilg ppeUate ittpart Monday, March 23, 1987 And "a type of business distortive of the zoning plans (which) adds permanency to a nonconforming use which is the intent of the ordinance to eliminate" is of course forbid- den. (Paramount Rock Co. v. County of San Diego, supra, at p. 231.) "The ultimate purpose of zoning is to confine certain classes of buildings and uses to particular localities and to reduce all nonconforming uses within the zone to conformity as speedily as is consistent with proper safeguards for the interests of those affected. Any change in the premises which tends to give permanency to, or expands the noncon- forming use would not be consistent with this purpose." (Dienelt v. County of Monterey (1952) 113 Cal. App. 2d 128, 131.) And: "(I)t is the general purpose to eventually end all nonconforming uses and to permit no improvements or re- building which would extend the normal life of nonconform- ing structures." (Ricciardi v. County of Los Angeles (1953) 115 Cal. App. 2d 569, 576; the emphasis of this paragraph is ours.) It will be noted that maintenance of a service station, or a service station and a grocery store, in the same building on the property is the continued maintenance of a nonconform- ing use. And surely a change or alteration of the property, made necessary for economic reasons, tended to add perma- nency to its "legal nonconforming use." Moreover, Sabek has established no prejudice on his appeal. He was allowed to seek a discretionary conditional use permit which, if granted, would have give him every thing he seeks by the instant action and appeal. He was required to exhaust his administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief. (Hittle v. Santa Barbara County Employees Retirement Assn. (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 374, 384; Concerned Citizens of Palm Desert, Inc. v. Board of Supervi- sors (1974) 38 Cal. App. 3d 257, 266.) And: "Anyone who seeks on appeal to predicate a reversal of (judgment) on error must show that it was prejudicial." (People v. Archerd (1970) 3 Cal. 3d 615, 643; 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Appeal § 353, p. 356.) For the reasons and authority above stated, we perceive no reversible error. The judgment is affirmed. ELKINGTON, Acting P. J. We concur: NEWSOM, J. HOLMDAHL, J. Trial Court Superior Court of Somona County Trial Judge: Hon. R. Bryan Jamar ATTORNEYS For Plaintiff -Appellant: Amen & Keith FACTS The trustee in bankruptcy for Nucorp Energy, Inc., brought suit against Jericho -Britton. Bellmon intervened as a plaintiff. The bankruptcy court entered a default judgment against Jericho -Britton, which moved for relief. The bank- ruptcy court denied that and a subsequent motion for recon- sideration and entered a final order on March 4, 1986. Jericho -Britton filed its notice of appeal with the district court on March 17, 1986. Bellom moved to dismiss because the notice of appeal was filed late. The district court agreed and dismissed. DISCUSSION Under Bankruptcy Rule 8002(a), the deadline for filing a notice of appeal is "within 10 days of the date of the entry of judgment." 11 U.S.C. § 8002(a) (1982). That deadline is calculated under Rule 9006(a), which excludes the day upon which judgment was entered but includes the tenth day, unless if falls on a weekend or a legal holiday, in which case the deadline is extended to the next day that is not on a weekend or a holiday. 11 U.S.C. § 9006(a) (1982). The bankruptcy court entered its default judgment on Tuesday, March 4, 1986. Under section 9006(a), Jericho- Britton's deadline for filing a notice of appeal was Friday, March 14, 1986. It filed its notice of appeal on Monday, March 17, missing the deadline. Jericho -Britton concedes this, but argues that instead of 9006(a), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a) should be used to calculate the filing deadline. Rule 6(a) is the same as 9006(a), but excludes weekends and holidays if the filing period is less than 11 days. Under that rule, the notice of appeal would be timely. Jericho -Britton contends that using Rule 6(a) would be consistent with the policies of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Bankruptcy Code. A policy behind Rule 6(a) is to avoid hardship on parties facing a rigid l0 -day filing period. Jericho -Britton argues that because Bankrupt- cy Rule 8002(a) has a rigid 10 -day filing period, Rule 6(a) should apply. Bankruptcy Rule 8002 is not rigid. It avoids potential hardship by specifically providing deadline extensions. A party may receive an extension up to 20 days if requested within the 10 -day filing period. If a party misses that dead- line, in certain cases he may still receive an extension upon request within 20 days of the deadline if he can show "excus- able neglect." 11 U.S.C. § 8002(c). Jericho -Britton did not do so. Outside these exceptions, "(t)he time provisions in Bankruptcy Rule 8002 are strictly enforced." Matter of Thomas, 67 B.R. 61, 62 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1986). "This rigid enforcement is justified by the `peculiar demands of a bank- ruptcy proceeding,' primarily the need for expedient admin- istration of the Bankruptcy estate aided by certain finality of officers and employees of its predecessor corporation, Lesny Development. The seven depositions were scheduled over two days. The first scheduled deposition was that of Alan Lowy. Mr. Lowy appeared for his deposition accompanied by the six remaining deponents. Lowy's counsel refused to allow the deposition of Mr. Lowy to go forward without the other six being present. Plaintiffs counsel would not proceed under those circumstances. The proceedings adjourned at that point and plaintiff moved for a protective order to exclude from each deposi- tion all Lowy representatives except for the deponent and Lowy's counsel. Lowy opposed the motion, contending that all of Lowy's officers were entitled to be present at each deposition. The transcript of the hearing on plaintiffs motion in- dicates that the respondent court was inclined to make a "compromise" order which would have permitted the cor- poration to have one officer, in addition to the deponent, pre- sent at each deposition as the corporation's representative. The court analogized the situation to a trial, where the court may exclude any witness, other than a party to the action, but "li]f a person other than a natural person is a party to the action, an officer or employee designated by its attorney is entitled to be present." (Evid. Code, § 777.) Whether by mistake or design, the court did not follow its original inclinations, and instead made an order providing that "all the remainder of corporate officers may not be pre- sent during the taking of the deposition of any individual cor- porate officer." Lowy then filed the within petition for writ of mandate, seeking an order from this court to the effect that all cor- porate officers have an absolute right to be present at the deposition of any other corporate officer. We issued an alter- native writ substantially reflecting the "compromise" originally proposed by the respondent court. DISCUSSION The circumstances under which a court may issue a pro- tective order in a deposition proceeding are set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 2019, subdivision (b) (1). That sec- tion permits the court to issue an order to the effect that a deposition "shall be held with no one present except the par- ties to the action and their officers or counsel." (Emphasis added.) Lowy contends that the Legislature's use of the word "officers" (plural) evidences its desire to afford all corporate officers the right to attend depositions in cases where the cor- poration is a party. Section 2019, subdivision (b) (1) was derived from former Rule 30(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 30(b) contained the language "that the examination shall be held with no one present except the parties to the action and their officers and counsel," the same language contained in COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY 1955 Workman Mill Road / Whittier, California Mailing Address: / P. 0. Box 4998, Whittier, California 90607 Telephone: (213) 699-7411 / From Los Angeles (213) 685-5217 City of Hermosa Beach Building & Safety Department 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Gentlemen: CHARLES W. CARRY Chief Engineer and General Manager May 7, 1987 File No: 31-180.90 County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Sewer Connection Fee Program R�►-.._wr:n MAY j 8 19$7 This is to inform you that the Districts' Connection Fee rates will be increased effective July 1, 1987. Included with this letter is a notice showing the increase in rates by District. In order to help inform the public of the rate increase, it would be appreciated if you would post this notice at your public counter. In conjunction with this increase, new fee schedules and applications have been prepared and will be delivered to you during the month of June. During the delivery of the Connection Fee material, District staff will again review the Connection Fee Program with your staff and answer any questions they may have. In the meantime, if you or your staff have any questions, please contact the undersigned, extension 362. We thank you for your continued cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, Charles W. Carry Trent Smith Project Engineer Financial Planning & Property Management Section TS:jm Enclosures SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Ta. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY NOTICE OF CONNECTION FEE RATE INCREASE Effective July 1, 1987, there will be an INCREASE in the Connection Fee Rate charged by the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County for anyone connecting or significantly increasing their discharge to the sewerage system. The following is a comparison of the current and new connection fee rates for single family homes in each District: DISTRICT EXISTING NEW CONNECTION FEE RATES CONNECTION FEE RATES EFFECTIVE JULY 1,1987 SINGLE FAMILY HOME SINGLE FAMILY HOME S/SFH S/SFH 1 625 700 2 650 700 3 575 650 5 650 725 8 650 700 15 575 600 16 600 625 17 625 650 18 650 675 19 625 675 21 575 600 22 675 700 23 475 500 29 550 625 30 675 750 14 20 26 32 4 9 27 525 675 525 675 875 950 875 950 700 1,230 700 1,230 775 1,230 Fees for other types of use (other residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial categories) will increase proportionately. A SEWER CONNECTION PERMIT will not be issued by this office until the connection fee is paid to the Sanitation Districts. Sewerage System Connection Fee Forms and Schedules are available at this counter. The form, however, must be processed at the Sanitation Districts' Office located at 1955 Workman Mill Road, Whittier. Once processed, you are to return the Districts' approved yellow copy to the Building Department. For more information, contact the 'Sanitation Districts, (213) 699-7411; from L.A., (213) 685-5217. Consent Calendar items (c) Williams, (f) Williams 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. (a) Letter from Mr. Willam R. Lawrence, 3410 Hermosa Avenue, dated April 17, 19a7 re. storing of recreational vehi- cles on city streets. Action: Refer to staff for some control. Motion Rosenberger, second Mayor Cioffi. So ordered noting the absence of DeBellis. HEARINGS 5. AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA TO PROHIBIT THE ISSUANCE,.OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR REMODELING OF RESIDENTIAL DWELL- INGS. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director Wil- liam Grove and Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 20, 1987. Supplemental information - letter from Robb Anderson, 28th Street, dated April 23, 1987; memo- randum from Building Director Williams Grove dated April 28, 1987. NOTE: Requires a 4/5 vote (4 votes if only 4 present.) The staff report was presented by City Attorney Lough, Planning Director Schubach and Building Director Grove. Proposed Action:tTo-not accept public testimony_on prohibiting the issuance of building permits _for -remodeling of residential uses: Motion Williams - dies for lack of a second Council asked that public discussion areas discussed by the Council. Speaking to Council in opposition of emergency ordinance were: be limited to those adopting the Tom Morley, 516 Loma Drive Pete Adams, 325 - 26th Street Betty Ryan, 588 - 20th Street Parker Herritt, 224 - 24th Street George Lanz, 17 - 16th Street Carol Reznichek, 2234 Strand Chuck Sheldon, 1800 Strand Jerry Compton, 832 - 7th Street Proposed Action; To change the title of the ordinance to read "AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PRECLUDING THE ACCEPTING OF BUILDING APPLICATIONS FOR ALTERNATIONS TO NONCONFORMING USES[, NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS WHICH 9 Simpson - Condition of Flags being flown by the City - Public Works will initiate obtaining new flags when they are needed. Williams.- Lot;Merger.Ordinance - Advised Council that the County Tax Assessor would like to be informed of our lot merger ordinancerre-demolition of buildings. Action: Staff to notify the Los Angeles County Assessor's office that we do have a lot merger ordin- ance re demolition of buildings,and transmit a copy to them. Motion Williams, second Simpson. So ordered noting the absence of DeBellis. Williams - Sewer Fees and Public Works Director Comments Public Works Director Antich was commended by Council - member Williams for his excellent report on calculat- ing sewer fees. She reaffirmedfher understanding of Council direction that the same manner of calculating sewer fees be applied to all other projects. Rosenberger - Specific Plan for Biltmore Site Action: To bring back the 54' height limit Specific Plan for the Biltmore site at the Closed Session of May 26, 1987. Motion Rosenberger, second Williams. So ordered noting the absence of DeBellis. APPEARANCE OF INTERESTED CITIZENS Bob Hoffman,. Hoffman's Restaurant, 2231 Hermosa Avenue re En- croachments - asked staff to look at the encroachment ordinance and the encroachment agreement which he feels are inconsistent. Action: To direct the City Attorney to not take any action against Hoffman's Restaurant's encroachment until more informa- tion is made available to the City Council at the meeting of May 26, 1987. Motion Mayor Cioffi, second Williams. So ordered noting the absence of DeBellis. Ken Ashman, 48 Hermosa Avenue #1 re Clark Field Basketball Courts Care and Maintenance, Community. Center Gym Open to the Public, and changing "Appeaarance of Interested Citizens" to earlier. on the Agenda. Action: Staff to come back with a report on the basketball courts at Clark Stadium and improvements needed, how we can han- dle free time play at the Community Center gym, and if we don't have any, can we? Motion Mayor Cioffi, second Simpson. So ordered noting the absence of DeBellis. May 11, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council City Council Meeting of May 12, 1987 URGENCY MATTER RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ENDORSE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES L. A. COUNTY DIVISION AMENDMENTS 1, 2 AND 3 RE. SB 2 AND AB 18 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council urge the California Senate Transportation Committee to make the following three amendments re. SB 2 and AB 18: 1. Enlarge new LACTC governing board from 11 to 13 members to provide four City Selection Committee appointments instead of two; Change effective date from January 1, 1988 to July 1, 1989; Permit use of locally elected officials as alternates. 2. Request the City Clerk to notify our Senate and Assembly representatives as to this legislative position and also notify Assembly Member Katz and all members of the Senate Transportation Committee plus the League of California Cities re. the City's position. BACKGROUND On May 11 the City Manager received a communication from the League of California Cities dated May 7, 1987 re. SCRTD and LACTC consolidation. This communication was received too late to be placed on the regular agenda of the City Council meeting for May 12. ANALYSIS Attached is an analysis from the League of Cities regarding the merger of SCRTD and LACTC. Staff fully concurs in the three proposed League amendments to that legislation. PAN.Gre orI City Manager GTM/ld yLr le& cc: Planning Director City Attorney Attachment ADDITIONAL ITEM 8c California Cities Work Together League of California Cities 1400 K STREET • SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • (916) 444-5790 Sacramento, CA May 7, 1987 TO: Mayors and City Managers of All Cities Within Los Angeles County FROM: Kenneth J. Emanuels, Legislative Director RE: Urgent. SCRTD and LACTC Consolidation. AB 18 (Katz) Will be Heard by Senate Transportation Committee on Tuesday May 19. Every City Needs to Lobby for League Division Amendments by Phone and Letter Immediately. Direct Your Efforts to Author, Committee Chairman and Four Los Angeles Area Senators. Major Issue with AB 18: Gross Under -Representation. 82 City Selection Cities have 44% of County Population, But Only 18% of Vote on New Commission. . BACKGROUND AB 18 (Katz) merges the Southern California RTD into the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, effective February 1, 1988. AB 18 has been approved by the Assembly and is now in its final Senate policy committee. At the April 2 Division meeting, a comprehensive position statement was adopted on both AB 18 and SB 2. As of the April 27 amendments to AB 18, the League amendments relating to municipal operators and separate subordinate operating agencies have been largely adopted. However, the Division's request for greater representation on the new LACTC governing board, a delay in the effective date and use of alternates has not yet been accepted. WHAT TO DO: LEAGUE DIVISION AMENDMENTS We think that the Senate Transportation Committee may be receptive to the Division's amendments, particularly the enlargement of the governing board for two additional city members, if the Committee members hear from every city in the Division before May 19. Write or call or telegram the Senate Transportation Committee members today, asking for support of the League amendments. If you get a commitment of support, tell us. WHAT LEAGUE AMENDMENTS WILL DO - Enlarge new LACTC governing board from 11 to 13 members to provide four City Selection Committee appointments instead of two. - Change effective date from.February 1, 1988 to July 1, 1989. - Permit use of locally elected officials as alternates. WHY LEAGUE AMENDMENTS ARE NEEDED 1. Need to Expand Commission Membership. We believe the voting membership of the commission should have 13 members rather than 11 and that the bill should be amended to provide for 4 rather than 2 members appointed by the City Selection Committee. This is the highest priority amendment for the League Division and is a matter of very great concern. Of the 4 constituencies represented on the commission, (Board of Supervisors, City of Los Angeles, City of Long Beach, City Selection Committee representing 82 cities) in fact the 82 City Selection Committee cities represent 44% of the County's population or 3,563,000 people, yet have only 2 of 11 votes (18%). The 82 City Selection Committee cities represent those 3.5 million people in a way that the Los Angeles County Supervisors cannot because the Supervisors are not responsible within cities for traditional municipal issues such as land use within cities, transportation planning, highway and transit improvement programs within cities, transportation corridors, commercial and retail development which follows transportation corridors and other matters which will be directly affected by the decisions of a newly consolidated county transportation authority. Because the issues which the authority will deal with are typically municipal, not county issues, the 82 cities on the City Selection Committee should be represented by at least four elected city council members and not by county supervisors. Attached to this letter is a voting representation chart which lists the constituent representatives, their population and their current representation on the SCRTD Board, the LACTC Board, as well as AB 18 and SB 2. 2. Effective Date Should be Delayed. The effective date of February 1, 1988 is far too early to accomplish the massive readjustment required by this bill in an orderly way. We urge you to amend Section 45 (p. 36) of AB 18 to provide that the effective date of this consolidation will be July 1, 1989. 3. Alternates Should be Allowed. However, only locally elected officials should serve as alternates. Illnesses, unavoidable absences and legitimate schedule conflicts should be recognized by allowing the use of elected officials as alternates so a voting majority is always available. -2- WHO TO LOBBY Senate Transportation Committee: Member Capitol Room # Wadie Deddeh, Chair; 3048 Jim Ellis, Vice Chair; 4053 Marian Bergeson, 4082 * Bob Beverly - Los Angeles Area 2054 * Ralph Dills - Los Angeles Area 5050 Gary Hart, 2057 Quentin Kopp, 4062 Rebecca Morgan, 4090 Dan McCorquodale, 4032 * Alan Robbins - Los Angeles Area 5114 * Newton Russell - Los Angeles Area 5061 John Seymour, 5087 Rose Ann Vuich 5066. Author of AB 18: Assembly Member Richard Katz 3146 Attachment ke0506d1/leg Population City Selection Committee 3,563,000 (44 %) (82 Cities) City of Los Angeles 3,215,000 (39 %) 2 3 3 3 (incl. Mayor) VOTING REPRESENTATION SCRTD LACTC AB 18 SB 2 (11 total) (11 total) (11 total) 11 total 4 2 2 2 Supervisors 984,000 (12 %) (unincorporated) 5 5 5 1 1 1 City of Long Beach 390,000 (4.8 %) - April 21, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council May 12, 1987 RECOrMENDATION FROM THE BUSINESS RELATIONS SUB -COMMITTEE PERTAINING TO A REQUEST FROM THE DOWNTOWN MERCHANT'S ASSOCIATION TO REPLACE THE GREEN -POLED TWENTY MINUTE METERS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council: (1) consider the following request of the Downtown Merchant's Association, as endorsed by the Business Relations Sub -Committee of the City Council. To replace the green -poled twenty minute meters as follows: CURRENT STATUS RECOMMENDATION Two twenty minute meters One green curb, one thirty in front of Cantina Real minute meter Pier Avenue Market -one Green curb in front of Coast twenty minute meter Drug Two twenty minute meters One green curb, one thirty in front of Hermosa Escrow minute meter One twenty minute meter in Change to green curb front of Rainbow Camera Two twenty minute meters in One green curb, one thirty front of Allstate S & L minute meter Eight twenty minute meters at Hermosa Avenue at Pier Avenue by B of A One green curb, seven thirty minute meters. One green curb in front of Robert's Liquor The Development -twenty One green curb minute meter. (2) Instruct staff as to any changes in downtown meters/curb markings. (3) Direct staff to return with the appropriate resolution pertaining to fifteen minute green curb markings. 1 (4) Appropriate $500 from the Parking Fund to the Traffic Safety Department, for the labor involved in removing the meter poles and painting the green curbs. (5) If all of the above recommendations are accepted by the City Council, the Sub -Committee recommends that there be no further change, on this particular issue, for at least one year from the date of implementation. Background: At your regularly scheduled meeting of July 8, 1986, the City Council approved in concept the installation of twenty minute meters in the downtown area. Subsequently, upon the receipt of the proposed location of said meters, submitted by the Downtown Merchant's Association, the installation was approved at your meeting of September 9, 1986. The original intent of installing the twenty minute meters was to provide quick turnover in front of those businesses that had in and out service. By installing said meters, no revenue would be lost and the turnover would be insured. This idea was plagiarized from the City of San Luis Obispo where it is very successful. The concept was in accordance with the desire of the Downtown Merchants and was approved by them. In addition, staff installed 7" X 10" metal signs on all commercial meter poles, at the cost of $2,665.16, to avoid any confusion due to the different time limits and enforcement hours throughout the commercial clusters. During on-going negotiations between the Downtown Merchant's Association and the Business Relations Sub -Committee, it was agreed that the Sub -Committee would recommend, to the City Council, a compromise pertaining to replacing these twenty minute meters with fifteen minute green curb zones. The above recommendation reflects said compromise. Analysis: Normally, the installation of fifteen minute green curb zones requires the following procedure; a. a petition is submitted to the Public Works Director, by the merchant, b. a resolution has to be approved by the City Council and c. a $100 survey fee, $250 installation fee and $100 per year maintenance fee, is charged. The Business Relations Sub -Committee has indicated they would ask for a waiver of fees ($3,150 for installation and survey and $900 per yearly maintenance cost) to install the proposed nine green curb, fifteen minute zones. There would be no difference in the citation bail of $18.00, since both are time limit parking violations. There would be a potential annual meter revenue loss of $18,067. Concur: Gre 6Pljeyer Cit Manager Cou calm tuber Delle is (--7-r‘\ ) 3 uncilmem•er' Rosenber br Noted for fiscal impact: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator April 20, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council May 12, 1987 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE BUSINESS RELATIONS SUB -COMMITTEE PERTAINING TO REQUESTS MADE BY THE DOWNTOWN MERCHANT'S ASSOCIATION Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider the following requests of the Downtown Merchant's Association, as endorsed by the Business Relations Sub -Committee of the City Council; a. Convert 258 meters, in the downtown area, from quarter for 30 minutes - quarters only, to nickel for 6 minutes, dime for 12 minutes and quarter for thirty minutes. Est- imated cost (for parts only - no labor) is $7,355. Said cost to be appropriated from Prospective Expenditures to the Parking Fund. b. Direct staff to investigate the possibility of installing meters that will give a five minute courtesy period. irt Direct staff to set a public hearing, for the regularly scheduled meeting of Ma -y-2-'61 . , for the purpose of 4f° considering a three hour time limit enforcement as opposed to a two hour time limit enforcement, in the downtown rea ur1 downtown � b e� Background: The above recommendations are 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 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. Analysis: The recommendation to convert the 25 cents per thirty minute meters to nickel, dime, quarter is being proposed for the downtown area only, at this time, for the purpose of demonstration. There was some concern, on the part of the Sub -Committee, that more citations might be issued as a result of persons not allowing enough time to conduct business. Six or twelve minutes is not really enough time to do much of anything. 1 It will take approximately four to six weeks estimated delivery of parts and another two months to complete installation, considering that the installation will be performed in the summer months and we only have a staff of two to collect and repair 1700 meters. If this recommendation is approved by the City Council, it is further recommended that we schedule a review, 90 days from the completion of installation, for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness of the demonstration program. Pertaining to item "b", we have attempted to ascertain whether or not a meter is available that will give an extra 5 minute courtesy period. We did, in fact, contact a Ms. Jean Baucom, Parking System Manager for the City of Evanston, I1. It was proported-that Evanston has such a system. Ms. Baucom stated that while it was proposed, it was never implemented. The recommendation was made by one City Alderman and was not supported by the remaining Aldermen. We have since contacted Duncan Meters, who is putting together a demo meter for us. Our other supplier P.O.M. does not have such an animal. Since the two hour enforcement was implemented as a result of a public hearing, it is felt that the proposal to go to three hour enforcement, at the commercial meters, should be considered at a public hearing, as well. Staff Note: Each of the above recommendations, if implemented, will require changing parts in the meter mechanisms. At the present time, we only have the estimated cost for converting from 25 cents per half hour to nickel, dime, quarter. Unless the City Council is only going to approve one of the three recommendations, Staff advises that nothing be done until a final determination on all three recommendations is made. To implement the three recommendations incrementally, would cause duplication of labor and an additional unknown amount of parts cost. Concur: Gr gory T. Meyer Ci'y Manag-r 2 Jj Cou cilmeimber 'eBel is ncilmember osenbe ger Noted for fiscal impact: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator 84C/(ORO(/ND MATERIAL 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. ..1 rn addition, we recommend that the meters be posted to indicate that two time limit parking will be strictly enforced (see at- 3 • tached copy of, available decal),-, ; • • oon, G. S. Director Concur: • Gr ory /Tj 4, . yer ) A-ts c•di1_1 Cit Manage 2 ' •'., • VEHIC[F_SUBJE ', Tat CITATIONS IFS' PARKEMINITHIS : STA Lit LONGER* THAN.; ;w 9 MlNUtES REGARDtES$OI ADDiImONAECoINSIE 1. DEPOSC[EDIOR I4X* MEnatiElks.4 sl MALEUNCTIO � : SIRE IIL -•••=.000.01^4.1b April 14, 1986 Dear Merchant, SIT OF 1hE1aNO$!t 8E11(Ii, CIVIC CENTER HERMOSA BEACH CALIFORNIA 40254.. CITY HALL: (213) 376.63$4 POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS: 376-7361 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 DeBellis AYES - Cioffi, Simpson, Williams, Mayor DeBellis NOES - Rosenberger . 6. 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. 7. TEXT AMENDMENT TO REVISE RESIDENTIAL PARKING STANDARDS, I.E., GUEST PARKING, GARAGE MAINTENANCE, ROLL -UP DOORS AND SETBACKS. Memorandum and presentation by Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 16, 1986. The staff report was presented by Planning Director Michael Schubach. . The Public Hearing was continued open. Coming forward to speak were: 8 - Minutes 4-22-86