The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04/14/87"Laughter is a tranquilizer with no side effects." -Arnold H. Glasgow AGENDA REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 14, 1987 - Council Chambers, City Hall Regular Session - 7:30 p.m. MAYOR John Cioffi MAYOR PRO TEM Etta Simpson COUNCILMEMBERS Tony DeBellis Jim Rosenberger June Williams All Council meetings CITY CLERK Kathleen Midstokke CITY TREASURER Norma Goldbach CITY MANAGER Gregory T. Meyer CITY ATTORNEY James P. Lough are open to the public. PLEASE ATTEND. Complete agenda materials are available for public inspection in the Police Department, Public Library and the Office of the City Clerk. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: PROCLAMATIONS: Selective Service System Month, April, 1987 Earthquake Preparedness Month, April, 1987 Fair Housing Month, April, 1987 Child Abuse Prevention Month, April, 1987 INTRODUCTION OF NEW EMPLOYEES: Planning Associate Andrew Perea Planning Aide Lisa Breisacker Ru -u -c1 rov INTRODUCTION OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF HERMOSA BEACH JUNIOR CHAM- BER OF COMMERCE (JAYCEES); PRESIDENT STACEY K. BARR PRESENTATION OF PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL, SOUTH BAY SERVICE DELIVERY AREA, ANNUAL REPORT; SDA ADMINISTRATOR JAN VOGEL AND PROGRAM DIRECTOR JOHN KEYON. CITIZEN COMMENTS Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any items on the Consent Calendar or Consent Ordinances and Resolutions may do so at this time. 1 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 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.) (a) Approval of Minutes: Regular meeting of the City Coun- cil held on March 24, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve minutes. (b) Demands and Warrants: April 14, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve Demands and Warrants Nos. through inclusive. (e) (f) (g) (h) Tentative Future Agenda Items. Recommended Action: To receive and file. City Manager Activity Report: Memorandum from City Man- ager Gregory T. Meyer dated April 8, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. Request for Closed Session: Memorandum from City Man- ager Gregory T. Meyer dated April 3, 1987. Recommended Action: To calendar a Closed Session for April 28, 1987 at 6:00 p.m. Monthly Investment Report: Memorandum from City Treasurer Norma Goldbach dated April 7, 1987. Recommended Action: Receive and file. Request for Pr Landsca in um rom P� April 64:. Recommended Action: To apl ve request for pOosals and authorize staff to solicit bids for the work. Approval of consultant for Street Improvements on High- land Avenue and Gould-Valley/Ardmore (CIP 85-102, CIP 85-137). Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated April 2, 1987. Recommended Action: To 1) authorize Mayor to sign agreement with Barrett Consulting Group, 2) transfer $2,400 of State Gas Tax Funds from CIP 85-137 to CIP 85- osals for Irrigation Installation and Park Develo'ment IP 85-502). Mem ny Antich dat `,Q c Works Director 2 (1) (j) (k) 102, and 3) to appropriate amounts from fund balances as stated in staff report. Agreement for the purchase of an Electronic Fuel Manage- ment System for the City Yard (CIP 86-601). Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated April 3, 1987. Recommended Action: To authorize Mayor to sign an agreement with Uniforce Corporation for the purchase and installation of an electronic fuel management system for City Yard at a cost not to exceed $37,774. Contract for Focused E.I.R. for a proposed zone change from C-2 to Specific Plan Area for property located at 123 - 157 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Atrium Hotel. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 6, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve contract for consulting services with Willdan Associates; property owner to deposit $36,586 toward costs for E.I.R. Approval of agreement between the City of Hermosa Beach and the Beach Cities Symphony Association, Inc. Memo- randum from Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian dated March 23, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve agreement and authorize Mayor to sign. (1) Claims for Damages: 1) Casey's Isuzu, 840 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach, filed March 19, 1987; 2) Karen Ann Daily, 1622 Bayview Drive, Hermosa Beach, filed March 20, 1987; 3) Eric Milse, 2221 W. 250th Street, Lomita, filed March 26, 1987. Recommended Action: To deny claims and refer to City's insurance adjuster. (m) Summary of Assembly Bills No. 1586 and No. 2371 for con- sideration of City support. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 6, 1987. Recommended Action: To support both Assembly Bills and request City Clerk to notify the sponsors of these bills, the League of Cities and our Assembly and Senate representatives. (n) Approval of location of Shuttle Memorial as proposed by the Shuttle Memorial Committee. Memorandum from Com- munity Resources Director Alana Mastrian dated March 30, 1987. 3 (o) (p) Recommended Action: To approve Memorial Committee's recommended location. South Bay Free Clinic Lease Agreement. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian dated April 4, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve lease agreement and au- thorize Mayor to sign. Application of Hermosa Beach City Code Section 21-10(a), Oil Wells. Memorandum from City Attorney James P. Lough dated April 7, 1987. Recommended Action: Receive and file. (q) Award of Bid - Electrical Upgrade at City Hall (CIP 86- 602). Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated April 7, 1987. Recommended Action: To award bid to Black, O'Dowd As- sociates at a cost not to exceed $3,190 and authorize Mayor to sign agreement. (r) Salvation Army Lease Agreement. Memorandum from Com- munity Resources Director Alana Mastrian dated April 4, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve lease agreement and au- thorize Mayor to sign. 2. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS (a) ORDINANCE NO. 87-875 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PROHIBITING THE SEPARATE SALE OF CONTIGUOUS LOTS WHEN A SINGLE IM- PROVEMENT STRADDLES THE DIVIDING PROPERTY LINE. For waiver of further reading and adoption. (b) ORDINANCE NO. 87-876 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE VOLUNTARY MERGER OF CONTIGUOUS PARCELS UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP WITHOUT REVERTING TO ACREAGE OR HAVING TO COM- PLY WITH FILING REQUIREMENTS UNDER ARTICLE IV, SECTION 29.5-19 THROUGH 29.5-28. For waiver of further reading and adoption. (c) ORDINANCE NO. 87-877 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ARTI- CLE 10, SECTION 10.8 OF THE ZONING CODE REGARDING THE SALE OF GASOLINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALCOHOL AND THE HOURLY PARKING LIMITATION FOR OFF -SALE LIQUOR ESTABLISH- MENTS. For waiver of further reading and adoption. 4 (d) ORDINANCE NO. 87-878 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING AP- PENDIX A, ARTICLE 2 (DEFINITIONS) AND ARTICLE 4, (R-1 ONE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE) OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PURPOSE OF STRENGTHENING ILLEGAL UNIT ENFORCEMENT CAPABILITIES. For waiver of further reading and adoption. (e) PROPOSED ORDINANCES MODIFYING HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 5, ARTICLE 1, SECTION 5-4.5, SUBSECTION (e) TO ESTABLISH A 10 MILE PER HOUR STRAND SPEED LIMIT AND ADDING SUBSECTION (ee) TO REQUIRE THE DISMOUNTING OF BICYCLES AND SKATEBOARDS BETWEEN 10TH AND 15TH STREETS DURING PEAK TRAVEL PERIODS. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated April 6, 1987. 1) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFOR- NIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 86-862 BY ADDING THERE- TO A PROVISION REQUIRING BICYCLES TO BE WALKED AND SKATEBOARDS TO BE DISMOUNTED ON THE STRAND BETWEEN 15TH STREET AND 10TH STREET WHEN THE WALK ZONE IS IN EFFECT. For waiver of full reading and intro- duction with request for emergency adoption on April 28, 1987. 2) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFOR- NIA, AMENDING SECTION 5 - 24.5(e) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, BY ADDING THERETO A PROVISION ESTABLISHING A TEN MILE PER HOUR SPEED LIMIT ON THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE STRAND. For waiver of full reading and introduction with request for emergency adoption on April 28, 1987. (f) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF TRACT MAP #13147 FOR A TWO UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 101-103 MANHATTAN AVENUE, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. For adop- tion. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 7, 1987. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. (a) Letter from Melanie E. DeMont, 1717 Manhattan Avenue, #8, re. concerns on uncontrolled rent increases. Recommended Action: To refer to staff for reply. (b) Letter from Parker R. Herriott, 224 - 24th Street, dated March 30, 1987 re. refusal of Building Dept. to issue demolition permit for 2244 Loma Drive, aka 224 - 24th Street. 5 Recommended Action: 1) Affirm Building Director's de- nial of issuance of a demolition permit as being consis- tent with adopted City Council policy re. Ordinances #86-856 and #86-861; 2) Request City Clerk to so advise communicant. (c) Letter from Parker R. Herriott, 224 - 24th Street, dated March 30, 1987 re. strand lights and T.V. monitor to Hermosa Beach Police Station by microwave. Recommended Action: 1) To receive and file; 2) Request City Clerk to communicate to Mr. Herriott that City Council has considered the matter and does wish to in- stall additional safety devices in the vicinity of the pierhead subject to available funding. (d) Letter from Parker R. Herriott, 224 - 24th Street, dated April 1, 1987 re. Dial -A -Ride and school children riding the busses against the wishes of the California Highway Patrol. Recommended Action: 1) To receive and file; 2) Request City Clerk to communicate to Mr. Herriott that City does not intend on violating any State law; that there is a true difference of opinion in interpretation and that City is seeking appropriate legislative relief. (e) Letter from Parker R. Herriott, 224 - 24th Street, dated April 1, 1987 re. refusal to allow Parker Herriott to speak during Written Communications from the Public at Council meeting of March 24, 1987. Recommended Action: 1) To receive and file; 2) Request City Clerk to advise Mr. Herriott that, consistent with City policy, the City Council did consider his request to appear on March 24 and that the matter is now closed. (f) Letter from Parker R. Herriott, 224 - 24th Street, dated April 7, 1987 re. Planning Commission meeting of April 7, 1987. Recommended Action: To refer to City Attorney. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. 5. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE A CON- DITIONAL USE PERMIT, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #18330 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A 4 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 625 SEVENTH STREET. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 7, 1987. 6. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING THE PROHIBITION OF ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR DEVELOPMENTS THAT DO NOT MEET THE STANDARDS OF BOTH THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARTICULAR PROPERTY TO BE - 6 - DEVELOPED OR IMPROVED. For waiver of full reading and introduction. Memoranda from City Attorney James P. Lough dated March 31, and April 7, 1987. 7. TEXT AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE RE. THE DEFINITION OF AN "URBAN" BLOCK. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 6, 1987, noting alternative wording recommended by City Manager Gregory T. Meyer. 8. TEXT AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE TO ALLOW FENCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITH THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 6, 1987, noting staff recommended modification to wording promulgated by Planning Commission. 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 9. HMS HERMOSA ESCROW INSTRUCTION QUESTION. Memorandum from Councilmember June Williams dated April 6, 1987 and memorandum from City Attorney James P. Lough dated April 8, 1987. 10. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER 11. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) (b) (c) Approval of Catalina Channel Express, Inc. proposal to authorize a vessel service between Redondo Beach and Catalina Island. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 7, 1987. Recommended Action: To support application. Request by Mayor Pro Tem Simpson for City Council action to oppose state legislation precluding the City from banning alcohol/gasoline sales. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated April 7, 1987. Recommended Action: To communicate to State Legislature opposition to any legislation which would limit City's ability to govern, regulate and otherwise prohibit the sale of gasoline and alcohol at a common facility. Request for Planning Commission/City Council Subcommit- tee meeting. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 8, 1987. Recommended Action: That Subcommittee members DeBellis and Rosenberger indicate one or two available dates. 7 (d) Report from Councilmember Williams dated April 8, 1987 re. South Bay Cities Association meeting of March 26, 1987 and noting letter dated March 31, 1987 from Depart- ment of Transportation District Director Donald L. Watson to Mayor Cioffi. Recommended Action: To receive and file. 12. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL 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 8 ,Ps ,G3 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 GOVERNMENT • 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 considsered the most economical and efficient form of City government in the United States today. GLOSSARY The following explanations may help you to understand the terms found on most agen- das for meetings of the Hermosa Beach City Council. Consent Items A compilation of all routine matters to be acted upon by one vote; approval re- quires a majority affirmative vote. Any Councilmember can remove an item from this listing thereby causing that matter to be considered under the category Consent Cal- endar items Removed For Separate Discussion. Public Hearings Public Hearings are held on certain matters as required by law. The Hearings afford the public the opportunity to appear and formally express their views regarding the matter being heard. Additionally, letters may be filed with the City Clerk, prior to the Hearing. Hearings Hearings are held on other matters of public importance for which there is no legal requirement to conduct an advertised Public Hearing. Ordinances An ordinance is a law that regulates government revenues and/or public conduct. All ordinances require two "readings". The first reading introduces the ordinance into the records. At least one week later Council may adopt, reject or hold over the ordinance to a subsequent meeting. Regular ordinances take effect 30 days after the second reading. Emergency ordinances are governed by different provisions and waive the time requirements. Written Communications The public, members of advisory boards/commissions or organizations may formally communicate to or make a request of Council by letter; said letters should be filed with the City Clerk by the Wednesday preceeding the Regular City Council meeting. Miscellaneous Items and Reports - City Manager The City Manager coordinates departmental reports and brings items to the attention of, or for action by the City Council. Verbal reports may be given by the City Manager regarding items not on the agenda, usually having arisen since the agenda was prepared on the preceding Wednesday. Miscellaneous Items and Reports - City Council Members of the City Council may place items on the agenda for consideration by the full Council. Other Matters - City Council These are matters that come to the attention of a Council member after publication of the Agenda. Oral Communications from the Public - Matters of an Urgency Nature Citizens wishing to address the City Council on an urgency matter not elsewhere con- sidered on the agenda may do so at this time. Parking Authority The Parking Authority is a financially separate entity, but is operated as an inte- gral part of the City government. Vehicle Parking District No. 1 The City Council also serves as the Vehicle Parking District Commission. It's pur- pose is to oversee the operation of certain downtown parking lots and otherwise pro- mote public parking in the central business district. t.. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, March 24, 1987 at the hour of 7:37 P.M. CLOSED SESSION - 6:15 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: DeBellis (arrived 6:35 P.M.), Rosenberger, Simspon, Williams, Mayor Cioffi (arrived 6:30 P.M.) Absent: None PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmember Williams ROLL CALL Present: DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Cioffi Absent: None PROCLAMATIONS Health Fair Expo, April 44, 1987 National Library Week, April 5 - 11, 1987 accepted by Librarian Louise Mazerov with thanks. PLAQUE OF APPRECIATION: TO LOUISE MAZEROV, LIBRARIAN -IN -CHARGE, HERMOSA BEACH LIBRARY, APRIL 1980 TO APRIL 1987. Mayor Cioffi presented the plaque to Ms. Mazerov who expressed her pleasure of having served the City as librarian for the last 7 years. PLAQUE OF APPRECIATION: PRESENTED TO DELAYS PRINTING FOR DONA- TION OF PRINTING SERVICES FOR THE CITY AND 1736 PROJECTS SPON- SORED SAND AND STRAND RACE. Mayor Cioffi presented the plaque to Mr'. Delay and he expressed his gratitude. ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION: None CITIZEN COMMENTS: None 1. CONSENT CALENDAR Action: To approve Consent Calendar items (a) through as with the exception of the following items which were pulled for further discussion but are listed on the Consent Calendar for clarity: (d) Rosenberger, (t) City Attorney, (aa) Rosenberger, with the request that it be addressed with Item 11. Motion Simpson, second Williams. So ordered. (a) Approval of Minutes: Special meeting of the City Coun- cil held on March 2, 1987. Action: To approve minutes. (b) Approval of Minutes: Regular meeting of the City Council held on March 10, 1987. 1 IA Minutes 3-24-87 Action: To approve minutes. (c) Demands and Warrants: March 24, 1987. Action: To approve Demands and Warrants Nos. 22680 through 22834 inclusive noting voided Warrants Nos. 22684, 22685, and 22743. (d) Tentative Future Agenda Items. Action: To receive and file. Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger. So ordered. (e) Further Action: To direct the City Attorney to prepare a written opinion for April 14th meeting regarding Oil ballot measure money restriction (Upland and tidelands). Motion Simpson, second DeBellis. So ordered. Final Action: To put on the 1st agenda in May a discus- sion of whether or not this should be put on the ballot for a vote. Motion Williams, second Rosenberger. So ordered, noting the objections of DeBellis and Cioffi. City Manager Activity Report: Memorandum from City Man- ager Gregory T. Meyer dated March 18, 1987. Action: To receive and file. (f) Building and Safety De•artment Monthly Activit Report: February, 19:7. Action: To receive and file. (g) Community Resources Department Monthly Activity Report: February, 1987. (h) Action: To receive and file. Finance Department Monthly Activity Report: February, 1987. Action: To receive and file. (i) Fire Department Monthly Activity Report: February, 1987. Action: To receive and file. (j) General Services Department Monthly Activity Report: February, 1987. Action: To receive and file. Minutes 3-24-87 (k) Personnel Department Monthly Activity Report: February, 1987. Action: To receive and file. (1) Plannin De artment Monthly Activit Re ort: February, 19 7. Action: To receive and file. (m) Police Department Monthly Activity Report: February, 1987. Action: To receive and file. (n) Public Works Department Monthly Activity Report: February, 1987. (s) (t) Action: To receive and file. Monthly_Revenue Report: February, 1987. Action: To receive and file. Monthly Expenditure Report: February, 1987. Action: To receive and file. City Treasurer's Report: February, 1987. Action: To receive and file. Monthly report from South Bay Coalition.for Alternatives to Domestic Violence. Memorandum from Community Resour- ces Director Alana Mastrian dated March 5, 1987. Action: To receive and file. Report regarding aircraft.noise and beach flyovers. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated March 16, 1987. Action: To receive and file. Recommendation to.approve.a software. license agreement and.software service agreement with. Universal Computer Service. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dated March 17, 1987. Action: Authorize contract subject to City Attorney approval, with the following amendments to the Software Services Agreement: 1) Fees, paragraph 3, changing 30 days to 10 days and 2) Limitations of Damages/Remedies, paragraph 9, omitting references to negligence. Motion Rosenberger, second Simpson. So ordered. Minutes 3-24-87 w' r (u) Status report re. meeting between the Business Relations Sub -committee and the Downtown Merchants Association. Memorandum from Parking Administrator Joan Noon dated March 18, 1987. Action: To receive and file. (v) League of California Cities February 27, 1987 Legisla- tive Bulletin. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated March 18, 1987. Action: Council to review bulletin and determine if they wish to take a position on any matter and schedule consideration of any legislative advocacy positions for April 14 meeting. (w) Status re•ort concernin: Plannin: Commission's Purview and , cost over Fire Safety and Public Works re•uirements of. implementation. Memoranda from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated March 18, 1987 and City Attorney James P. Lough dated March 19, 1987. Action: 1) To receive and file this report; 2) that Planning Commission be advised that City policy is to impose Fire and Public Works type requirements consis- tent with the City Attorney's 3/19/87 opinion. (x) Installation.of.handicap..ramps at Clark, Building. Memo- randum from Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian dated March 18, 1987. Action: Appropriate $1,500 from Prospective Expendi- tures to Public Works Department for construction of handicap ramps at Clark Building. (y) Status re•ort .re. other cities which,currentl allow school children to.use the Dial -A -Ride Program. Memo- randum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated March 16, 1987. Action: Direct staff to obtain an agreement with the California Highway Patrol to enable children to ride the Dial -A -Ride to and from school. (AB 1586 will be on April 14th agenda for consideration of position.) (z) Status report. on Main, Street..Program. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated March 3, 1987. Action: That 1) there not be a 1987 grant application, TricT7T the City, Chamber of Commerce and Merchant's As- sociation work together to submit an application for 1988. (aa) Informational report re. U.U.T. monies for sewer, police and code enforcement_purposes. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated March 16, 1987. Minutes 3-24-87 4 Action: To receive and file this report and direct the City Manager to return to the Council at their June 9, 1987 meeting with a financial scenario to pay for sewer rehabilitation by borrowing monies to be paid back through UUT income. Motion DeBellis, second Williams. So ordered. 2. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS (a) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 86-839 TO AL- LOW PROJECTS THAT HAVE FILED A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICA- TION BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF SAID ORDINANCE TO RE- MAIN UNDER THE OLD STANDARDS. For waiver of further reading and adoption. Action: To waive further reading of Ordiance No. 87- 874 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 86-839 TO ALLOW PROJECTS THAT HAVE FILED A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF SAID ORDINANCE TO REMAIN UNDER THE OLD STANDARDS." Motion Rdsenberger, second Simpson. AYES - DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Cioffi NOES - None Final Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 87-874. Motion Rosenberger, second Williams. So ordered. (b) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF TRACT MAP #44073 FOR A THIRTY-FOUR UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LO- CATED AT 446 MONTEREY BOULEVARD, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFOR- NIA. For adoption. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated March 17, 1987. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 87-5022, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF TRACT MAP # 44073 FOR A THIRTY-FOUR UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LO- CATED AT 446 MONTEREY BOULEVARD, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA." Motion Simpson, second Williams. So ordered. (c) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY -COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF PARCEL MAP #17637 FOR A TWO UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 702 FOURTH STREET, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. For adoption. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated March 17, 1987. Minutes 3-24-87 Action: To adopt Resolution No. 87-5023, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF PARCEL MAP #17637 FOR A TWO UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 702 FOURTH STREET, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA." Motion Rosenberger, second Simpson. So ordered. (d) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES TO IMPLEMENT ORDINANCE NO. 86-840 RELATING TO THE COLLECTION OF DELI- QUENT COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL REFUSE FEES. For adop- tion. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director Wil- liam Grove dated March 16, 1987. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 87-5024, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES TO IMPLEMENT ORDINANCE NO. 86-840 RELATING TO THE COLLECTION OF DELI- QUENT COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL REFUSE FEES." Motion Williams, second Simpson. So ordered. (e) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 85-4860 RELATING TO AUTHORIZED USERS OF VISA BANK CARD SERVICES FROM BANK OF AMERICA NT&SA. For adoption. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated March 18, 1987. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 87-5025, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 85-4860 RELATING TO AUTHORIZED USERS OF VISA BANK CARD SERVICES FROM BANK OF AMERICA NT&SA." Motion Williams, second Rosenberger. So ordered. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT. CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. Item (d) and (t) 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 John T. Hales, 624 - 8th Place, Hermosa Beach, dated March 10, 1987 re. discussion of zoning inconsistency and its affect on the future of the area (bordered by 5th Street, 11th Street, Pacific Coast Hwy. and Ardmore). Action: That correspondent be advised his property is consistent (medium density/R-2); that should his neigh- borhood desire they may petition for downzone to low density/R-1. Motion DeBellis, second Williams. So ordered. 6 Minutes 3-24-87 (b) Petition from Gould Terrace Homeowners dated March 9, 1987 re. water and sand runoff on Gould Terrace. Action: Refer to Public Works Director to 1) analyze the possibility/practicality of requiring the developer to extend the drain to Gould; and 2) meet with the developers. Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger. So ordered. (c) Letter from Paul Barrett Herriott dated March 15, 1987 re. further request for time extension to obtain is- suance of building permit to construct a duplex at 224 - 24th Street (with 165 pages of background materials; said material available for review in City Clerk's office.) (d) Action: Reaffirm Council decision denying any extension. Motion DeBellis, second Simpson. So ordered. Letter from Steve I. Kaplan, representing Messrs. Paul and Parker Herriott, dated March 18, 1987, requesting reconsideration of a extension of time to allow a build- ing permit to be obtained. Action: Receive and file (the letter being a verbatim of his March 9 letter previously denied by City Council on March 10, 1987.) Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger. So ordered. (e) Three letters from Parker R. Herriott all dated March 18, 1987 requesting as follows: 1) Reconsideration of request for ordinance to extend time to obtain a building permit; 2) Reconsideration of denial of extension of time to obtain a building permit; 3) Reconsideration of disqualification. Two Supplemental letters from Parker R. Herriott: 4) Dated March 23, 1987, supplement to letter 1! 3 above. 5) Dated March 24, 1987, supplement to letter # 2 above. Action; Letters #1, ##2 and supplemental to reaffirm denial; letter # 3 and supplemental to receive and file. Motion DeBellis, second Simpson. So ordered, noting the objection of Rosenberger. Proposed Substitute Motion; To allow Mr. Herriott to address this item. Motion Rosenberger. Dies for lack of second. Minutes 3-24-87 PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. STRAND SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARD- ING STRAND BICYCLE SAFETY WITH PROPOSED ORDINANCES MODIFYING HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 5, ARTI- CLE 1, SECTION 5-4.5, SUBSECTION (e) TO ESTABLISH A 10 MPH STRAND_SPEED LIMIT AND ADDING SUBSECTION (ee) TO REQUIRE THE DISMOUNTING OF BICYCLES AND SKATEBOARDS BETWEEN 10TH AND 15TH STREETS DURING PEAK TRAVEL PERI- ODS. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wis- niewski dated March 16, 1987. Supplemental letter from Scott Eaton dated March 23, 1987. Mayor Cioffi declared the Public Hearing open, and made the written report a part of the record. The City Clerk stated that Affidavit of Publication was on file. No one coming forward, the Public Hearing was closed. Action: Accept the following staff recommendations: 1. Direct staff to return at the April 14th City Council meeting with an Ordinance that amends Ordinance No. 86-862 to include the following: a. Require bicycles to be walked from 10th street to 15th street when the lights are flashing and the walk zone is in effect. b. Require skateboards to be dismounted from 10th street when the lights are flashing and the walk zone is in effect. 2. Direct staff to return at the April 14th City Council meeting with an Ordinance that amends section 5-24.5e of the Municipal Code as follows: a. Establishes a ten (10) mile per hour speed restriction for all wheeled vehicles or devices permitted on the Strand; said speed limit to apply along the entire length of the Strand and to be in effect at all times. 3. Appropriate an amount not to exceed $7,100. from prospective expenditures fund for design, purchase, construction and installation of the lights, remote switch, signs, camera, striping, stenciling and other misc. materials required to complete the recommended program. 4. Approve in concept the utilization of a remote con- trolled camera mounted on the Life Guard station. Minutes 3-24-87 5. Staff come back with a recommendation on how to enforce this with a citation, and the amount set for the citation. Motion Williams, second Cioffi. So ordered. Mayor Cioffi requested that staff attempt to minimize the visual affect (of the flashing lights) in order not to detract from the beauty of the natural scenery. In reference to item # 4, the remote controlled camera, it was noted that this item was only being approved in concept, and that it will come back on another agenda for discussion. Funding will be persued through sources other than City funds. 6. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PROHIBITING THE SEPARATE SALE OF CON- TIGUOUS LOTS WHEN A SINGLE IMPROVEMENT STRADDLES THE DIVIDING PROPERTY LINE. Memorandum from Planning Direc- tor Michael Schubach dated March 17, 1987. The staff report was presented by Planning Director Schubach. The Public Hearing was opened, and the staff report was made part of the record. City Clerk stated Affidavit of Publication is on file. Coming forward to speak was: Parker Herriott - 224- 24th Street - questioned what properties this would affect. The Public Hearing was closed. Action: To waive full reading of Ordinance No. 87-875 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PROHIBITING THE SEPARATE SALE OF CONTIGUOUS LOTS WHEN A SINGLE IMPROVEMENT STRADDLES THE DIVIDING PROPERTY LINE." Motion Rosenberger, second DeBellis. AYES - Rosenberger, Simpson, DeBellis, Williams, Mayor Cioffi NOES - None Final Action: To introduce Ordinance No. 87-875. Motion Rosenberger, second Simpson. So ordered, noting the objection of Cioffi. 7. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE VOLUNTARY MERGER OF CONTIGUOUS PARCELS UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP WITHOUT REV- ERTING TO ACREAGE OR HAVING TO COMPLY WITH FILING RE- QUIREMENTS UNDER ARTICLE IV, SECTION 29.5-19 THROUGH 29.5-28. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated March 17, 1987. Minutes 3-24-87 - 0 - The staff report was presented by Planning Director Schubach. The Public Hearing was opened, the staff report was made part of the record, and affidavit of noticing is on file. No one coming forward, the Public Hearing was closed. Action: To waive full reading of Ordinance No. 87-876 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE VOLUNTARY MERGER OF CON- TIGUOUS PARCLES UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP WITHOUT REVERTING TO ACREAGE OR HAVING TO COMPLY WITH FILING REQUIREMENTS UNDER ARTICLE IV, SECTION 29.5-19 - 29.5-28." Motion Rosenberger, second Williams. AYES - DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Cioffi NOES - None Final Action: To introduce Ordinance No. 87-876. Motion Rosenberger, second Simpson. So ordered. 8. TEXT AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 10, SECTION 10-8, (2) AND (4) REGARDING THE SALE OF GASOLINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH AL- COHOL AND THE HOURLY PARKING LIMITATION FOR OFF SALE LIQUOR ESTABLISHMENTS. Memorandum from Planning Direc- tor Michael Schubach dated March 16, 1987. The staff report was presented by City Attorney James Lough and City Manager Gregory Meyer. The public hearing was opened, the staff report was made part of the record, and Affidavit of Publication is on file. Coming forward to speak was: Parker Herriott - 224 -24th Street - in support Action; To waive full reading of Ordinance No. 87-877 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ARTICLE 10, SECTION 10.8 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING THE SALE OF GASOLINE IN CON- JUNCTION WITH ALCOHOL AND THE HOURLY PARKING LIMITATIONS FOR OFF -SALE LIQUOR ESTABLISHMENTS." Motion Williams, second Simpson. AYES - DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Cioffi NOES - None Final Action: To introduce Ordinance No. 87-877. Motion Simpson, second Williams. So ordered, noting the objection of Rosenberger. 9. TEXT AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE RE. THE DEFINITION OF AN "URBAN" BLOCK. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated March 18, 1987 requesting that the public hearing be opened and continued to April 14, 1987. Minutes 3-24-87 �n Action: To open the Public Hearing and continue to April 14, 1987, noting that proper notice was given. Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger. So ordered. 10. TEXT AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE TO ALLOW FENCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITH THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated March 18, 1987 requesting that the public hearing be opened and continued to April 14, 1987. Action: To open the Public Hearing and continue to April 14, 1987, noting that proper notice was given. Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger. So ordered. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mr. Herriott asked about items not on the agenda, and was told there was another opportunity at the end of the agenda. Burk Buciera - 1837 Harper - spoke regarding item 1(y) on the Consent Calendar. AB1586 will be on the agenda for April 14. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 11. FOLLOWUP TO COUNCIL REQUEST REGARDING IN LIEU SEWER PAY- MENT FOR CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 829, 829-1/2 AND 833 FIFTH STREET. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated March 17, 1987. Action: To accept a $12,981.24 in lieu sewer payment for the condominium project, and direct staff to return with a draft sewer connection fee for review and consider- ation, using alternative # 5 with an inflation factor. Motion DeBellis, second Williams. So ordered. 12. REVISED GRADING PLAN FOR 8 -LOT SUBDIVISION AT 532, 534 THROUGH 540 TWENTIETH STREET. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated March 19, 1987. Addressing the Council on this item was Betty Evans - 1769 Valley Park Avenue - referring to specimen trees having a container size of at least 24 inches. Action: To approve revised conceptual grading plan dated Feb. 25, 1987) subject to three revisions: 1) Lot 5 retaining walls parallel to Power St. to be min. of 45' from property line; 2) terraced areas in NW corner of Lots 6 & 7 to be landscaped to reduce visual impact of retaining walls; and 3) soils report be amended to address above revisions; and to adopt Resolution No. 87- 5026, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE GRADING PLAN FOR AN EIGHT LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 532, 534- 540. TWENTIETH STREET SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS." Motion Simpson, second Rosenberger. So ordered. -11- Minutes 3-24-87 13. PROPOSED REVISIONS TO ZONING CODE DEFINITIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF STRENGTHENING ILLEGAL UNIT ENFORCEMENT CAPABILITIES. Memorandum from Building and Safety Di- rector William Grove dated March 17, 1987. Action: To waive full reading of Ordinance No. 87-878, entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING APPENDIX A, ARTI- CLE 2, (DEFINITIONS) AND ARTICLE 4, (R-1 ONE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE) OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PURPOSE OF STRENGTHENING ILLEGAL UNIT ENFORCE- MENT CAPABILITIES. Motion DeBellis, second Williams. AYES - DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Cioffi NOES - None Final Action: To introduce Ordinance 87-878. Motion DeBellis, second Williams. So ordered, noting the objection of Rosenberger. 114. BEACH MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH LOS ANGELES COUNTY. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated March 17, 1987. Proposed Action: To enter cost negotiations to help County defray maintenance costs. Motion Williams, second Rosenberger (for purposes of discussion). Motion withdrawn. Action: Staff be directed to research the cost of beach maintenance and that portion we provide now in regards to the total cost. A letter written under the Mayor's signature to the Board of Supervisors respectfully de- clining to enter into cost negotiations regarding beach maintenance costs, and explaining why. Motion DeBellis, second Simpson. So ordered, noting the objection of Rosenberger. Further Action: Refer to the City Attorney the issue of County indemnification in future City/County beach re- lated agreements. Motion DeBelllis, second Rosenberger. So ordered. Final Action; To not allow advertising on Hermosa Beach beach, as it relates to the County. Motion DeBellis, second Williams. So ordered, noting the objection of Rosenberger. Proposed.Substitute Motion: Instruct City Manager in above letter to request the selection and review process used by the County to approve ads. Hermosa Beach would like an item by item veto. Motion Simpson, second Rosenberger. Noting the objec- tions of DeBellis, Williams, and Cioffi, motion fails. -12- Minutes 3-24-87 15. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND. REPORTS -.CITY MANAGER - None 16. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) SB 151: Modifying the membership and powers of the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated March 15, 1987. Action: Oppose SB 151 and study AB 2031. Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger. So ordered. (b) Request by Mayor Pro Tem Simpson for support of SB 1231 (Beverly) to make it illegal to transport the performing killer whales out of California. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated March 19, 1987. (0) Action: Endorse SB 1231. Motion Simpson, second DeBellis. So ordered, noting the objections of Rosenberger and Williams. Request by Mayor Pro Tem Simpson for discussion of a proposed resolution of intent to the Planning Commission with individual council input re. height limit of build- ing structures, screening problems, density, lot size problems, value of unique skyline, and value of ocean view, value of air and sunlight. Action:, Resolution of Intention to the Planning Commis- sion re: Height Limit of Building.Stuctures as it per- tains to screening problems, density, lot size, value of unique skyline, ocean view, air, and sunlight. Back for April 28th Meeting, prepared by City Attorney.(Changes in height throughout City.) Motion Simpson, second DeBellis (for purposes of discus- sion). So ordered, noting the objection of Cioffi. 17. OTHER. MATTERS 7 CITY COUNCIL Rosenberger..- Catalina Ferry 7 Kiosk,. - on agenda for next meeting. DeBellis -.Sanitation District Recent Vote - City Man- ager to discuss vote on waiver with Mayor Cioffi. Williams - Lowering Density in R-2 and.R-3 Zones- Clarification that we can decrease density without a vote of the people, only a increase in density needs a vote of the people. Cioffi. -..Left Turn, Lane PCH _&Pier, - Staff contact Cal - Trans re: potential hazardous situation unless we out- line the two left turn lanes; as soon as possible. -13- Minutes 3-24-87 t Cioffi,..-,Business SubCommittee.- On next agenda, how do we get visitors, customers to comply with existing park- ing regulations, make them aware of what they are. How can we make. work what we have. APPEARANCE,OF INTERESTED. CITIZENS - None ADJOURNMENT The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, adjourned on Tuesday, March 24, 1987 at the hour of 9:52 P.M. to a Regular Meeting to be held on Tuesday, April 14, 1987 at the hour of 7:30 P.M. i Kathleen Midstokke, City Clerk -14- Minutes 3-24-87 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council April 8, 1987 City Council Meeting of April 14, 1987 ACTIVITY REPORT 1. Preliminary discussions have been held with both the JayCees and the Chamber of Commerce re there being a "Youth In Government" or "Leader For A Day" event in Hermosa Beach. Youth would spend a portion of a day in City offices learning how local government works; 2. Considerable time was spent in budget interviews with the several City departments and in conferences with legal counsel re matters of current litigation. 3. In regard to the 1987 - 1988 budget, several "assumptions" have been made re this year's financials as a part of the Recommended Budget (which is going to the printers during the week of April 14). Those assumptions are: A. In regard to this year's expenditures, that expenditures will be approximately $ 180,000 less than budgeted (this means that the we are assuming the General Fund balance for June 30, 1987 will be increased by that amount). This is predicated on the following General Fund approved expenditures no longer being authorized: $ 10,000 S 8,000 $ 40,000 $ 30,000 $ 25,000 $ 13,750 $ 4,000 $ 5,000 $ 2,500 $ 5,800 $ 33,800 $ 2,700 Police Civil Defense Employee Benefits Building Worker's Compensation Data Processing Animal Control Community Resource Child Abuse Elimination of Bard St. property payments C.I.P's Parking Additionally, for 1987 - 1988 budgetary purposes we are presuming that General Fund and Parking income will be $ 150,000 greater than that estimated at the February Mid -Year budget review. Id As a part of that Mid -Year budget review the Council adopted a policy guideline that we should seek to have a 37 "contingency" general fund balance. Based on pre- liminary figures for 1987 - '88 expenditures that amount would be approximately $ 250,000. It is our intent to do so in the Recommended Budget. 4. The several local school districts have produced an explan- atory brochure re their recent development fee. Attached is a copy; we are making it available to customers at the Build- ing Department. Additionally, they have now jointly es- tablished that any project for which plans have been submitted to the City Building department by 5 p.m. on Fri- day, April 3rd will not have to pay the new fee. 5. In regard to the Pierhead Kiosk: I have not had time to set up meetings with the Chamber of Commerce and the Jaycees to solicit their interest/support, methods of providing staff etc. I will try and do so such that a report can be filed with you for the April 28 regular meeting of the City Council. UPCOMING DATES: April 30, noon - Ambassador's Committee of the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce OLDTIMERS LUNCHEON, Comedy & Magic Club. The last such historical gathering was in 1955 at the Biltmore Hotel May 1 Uno De Mayo, Kiwanis fundraiser at 2525 Valley Drive May 2 8 p.m., Community Center Auditorium, Tune Up The Grand June 3 7:30 p.m. @ Mira Costa High Auditorium, Drug Free Education seminar June 26 Evening, tentative date for 75th Anniversary Installation Banquet, Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce Gr=gory T. Meyer Ci'y Manager attachment cc Executive Staff REDONDO BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT • 1401 Inglewood Avenue, Redondo Beach California, 90278-3999 (213) 379-5449 April 9, 1987 TO: Planning Department and/or Building Departments City of Hermosa Beach City of Manhattan Beach City of Redondo Beach RE:Collection of Developer Fees by the Redondo Beach City School District Be informed the four school districts participating in the collection of developer fees are in total agreement that all plans submitted inany form to the proper city department prior to 5 p.m. on April 3, 1987, will be exempt from the payment of developer fees. This decision is made in the interest of equity ness to those developers and/or builders who plans and because of time lag or delays, for reason, were not able to retrieve their plans the April 3, 1987 deadline. This communication will clarify the fact that school districts involved will expect to collect fees for plans submitted after 8 a.m. Monday, 1987. Nick G. Parras Superintendent Approved: Marilyn Harris Corey, Superintendent Hermosa Beach City School District Dr. Douglas Keeler, Superintendent Manhattan Beach City School District and fair - submitted whatever prior to the four developer April. 6, Dr. Edward King, Assistant Superintendent South Bay Union High School District 'our propised construction is iced Withi the boundaries of oath Bay Union High School trio n`hd one of three feeder nta districts. 'e districts by authority of re nt Cede motion 53080 have notice of intent to begin nt of deelcer fees on 6, 11087.0. ese fees are to be used for esignated projects to rehabili- ate, modernize and reconstruct drool facilities in your school istricts Developer Fee applications are available from the City Planning Departments, the schools' district offices or PLACE OF COLLECTION: Developer Fees for the cities of Hermosa `Beach, Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach are to be paid in person, or by mil to Redondo Bewdh City School District, collection agent for the four school districts. Place of Collection Redondo Beach City School District 1401 Inglewood Avenue (one block south of Artesia, corner of Grant Avenue and Inglewood Ave.)' Redondo Beach CA 90278 (213) 379-5449 wwmmft ...."" E40 a QEOONOO 9EACH Checks are to be made payable to: RDMD/Developer Fee Collector The Re&mdo Beach City School Dis- trict serves as a collection agency only. Bach` district is responsible for implementation of G.C. 53080 in its respective jurisdiction. A11 new residential, commercial ndustrial construction,and/or addition of covered or enclosed ce, are subject to the collec- on of developer fees. In the aw, this is determined by square tage of habitable space. FMB ISE AT TIME OF PILI aidential $1.50 per sq. ft. ♦Cannercial 0.25 per sq. ft. ;+r 'Industrial 0.25 per sq. ft Habitable areas used to measure square footage for the developer fee formula is the floor area of conditioned space on all floors including basements, intermediate floor tiers or mezzanines and pent- houses, measured from exterior faces of exterior walls and the exterior face of walls separating conditioned and unconditioned spaces. T HABITABLE AREA IS NOT onditioned floor area does not include covered walkways, open roofed -over areas, porches, ex- terior terraces or steps, chimneys, roof overhangs, parking garages or heated basements. The developer will be responsible for determining' square footage to be assessed (see developer fee application). In addition, ONE SET OF RETURNABLE PLANS IS TO BE SUBMITTIM WITH THE APPLICATION IN ORDER TO REVIEW THE CALCULATED HABITABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE. The amount of the fee, minus a $50.00 application charge, will be refundable if construction does not begin or the project is suspended or abandoned. An authorized written notice declaring that the building permit has been canceled must be delivered or sent to the Redondo Beach City School District, Developer Fee Department, 1401 Inglewood Avenue, Redondo Beach, CA 90278. Refunds will be processed 30 to 60 days after receipt of notification. WHk I KIST THE FEES BE PAID? The fees must be paid and a "certification of compliance" issued by the school districts prior to the issuance of a building permit by the city. Redondo Beach City School District will collect the fees for all districts and issue the certification.' Developer_ f ees are assessed on all eligible residential construc- tion. Industrial and commercial projects will be reviewed on a case by case basis. Exemption for omemercial or in- dustrial projects may be granted if there is evidence that such con- struction will not impact the high school district. Projects where the assessed fee is less than $50.00 are exempt, however, developer must still secure certificate of compliance. To complete application at time of filing, developer must submit: s completed application • 1 set of plans for project • Check, cash or noney order, in amount of fee assessment. April 2, 1987 Regular Meeting of April 7, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of The Hermosa Beach City Council APPROVAL OF CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS ON HIGHLAND AVENUE AND GOULD, VALLEY/ARDMORE, CIP 85-102 & 85-137 Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Authorize the Mayor to sign the attached Agreement (Exhibit 1) for a traffic engineering design consultant for CIP 85-102 and CIP 85-137. 2. Transfer $2,400 of State Gas Tax Funds from CIP 85-137 to CIP 85-102. 3. Appropriate the following amounts from fund balances to the following: From: To: Amount: State Gas Tax CIP 85-102 $3,600 Street Lighting CIP 85-102 1,000 Sewer CIP 85-102 2,000 Background: The above referenced projects were approved in the 1986-87 CIP Budget. These projects are FAU funded (i.e., 86.22% Federally funded; 13.78% locally funded by the City's State Gas Tax.) Below is a brief description of each project. CIP 85-102 - Widen Highland Avenue from Longfelow Avenue to 35th Street This project will widen the roadway from 30' to 39'; thereby, providing an 8' parking lane on each side of the street. CIP 85-137 - Valley/Ardmore at Gould Avenue This project will re -align the intersection at Valley/Ardmore and Gould to better design both the horizontal and vertical alignments. On January 13, 1987, City Council authorized staff to solicit design proposals for these project. Analysis: On or about January 15, 1987, staff mailed Request for Proposals to sixteen (16) consulting engineering firms. Proposals were due ih 1 on February 27, 1987, and were received by staff from nine (9) consultants. Based upon our evaluation of these nine (9) proposals, we narrowed this list to five (5) and invited five consulting firms back for an oral interview on March 24, 1987. Based upon further evaluation of these firms, presentations at their interview and together with our independent research of their qualifications (i.e., contacting their references, etc.), we further narrowed this list from five to two. For all intents and purposes, the qualifications of these "top two" consultants are equal. A final determination was based upon cost, since all other criteria were virtually equal. Based upon our discussions with these consultants and with Caltrans, we developed a list of minimum requirements, and we asked the "top two" consultants, Greer and Company and Barrett Consulting Group to submit a revised proposal to reflect these minimum requirements, and any resulting cost revisions. We received these revised proposals on April 1, 1987, and the costs are as follows: Greer and Company $18,003. Barrett Consulting Group (BCG) $13,800. Engineer's Estimate $ 9,200. A "not to exceed" amount of $13,800 was agreed on by BCG. Consequently, Barrett Consulting Group is the civil engineering consultant that best meets the needs of the City. Fiscal Impact: Noted below are the FY 86-87 budget allocations for each project: CIP 85-102 CIP 85-137 Plans, Specifications & Estimates $ 5,700 $ 3,500 Construction 57,000 38,500 Inspection 5,700 5,500 Contingency 6,840 5,750 Total $75,240 $52,250 Funding Sources FAU State Gas Tax Sewer Fund $64,872 $10,368 $45,050 $ 7,200 A redistribution of project budget is appropriate and should be done before design begins. PROPOSED BUDGET DISTRIBUTION Funding Sources State Gas Tax Fund State Gas Tax Fund Sewer Fund St. Lighting Fund Estimated June Fund: State Gas Tax Sewer Street Lighting Alternative Proposed Action Transfer Appropriation Appropriation Appropriation TOTAL: Projects CIP 85-102 CIP 85-137 Total $2,400 $4,800 $7,200 3,600 3,600 2,000 2,000 1,000 1,000 $9,000 $4,800 $13,800 30, 1987 fund balances Existing: $ 3@9,576 $ 166,486 $1,019,419 Other alternatives available to staff are: 1. Deny the project. 2. Make changes to the funding Res•ectfitted, Deborah M. Murphy Assistant Engineer Concur: IIPA' Gregory . e er City. Manager DMM:mv app/v Attachment: Exhibit 1 after distribution: Change: - 3,600 - 2,000 - 1,000 After: $ 365,976 $ 164,486 $1,018,419 City Council and considered by distribution. Concur: cAttAb Ant ony Antich Director of Pub is Works Noted for Fiscal Impact: act afia-/-4-‘/1- Viki Copeland Finance Administrator EXHIBIT 1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT STREET IMPROVEMENTS ON HIGHLAND AVENUE (CIP 85-102) AND GOULD, VALLEY/ARDMORE INTERSECTION (CIP 85-137) THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of , 1987 by and between the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, a Municipal Corporation hereinafter referred to as " CITY ", and , hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, CITY desires to retain CONSULTANT to perform design services as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein and by this reference made a part hereof. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. CITY agrees to retain CONSULTANT to perform engineering design/consulting services as herein set forth. 2. CONSULTANT shall perform all work necessary to com- plete in a manner satisfactory to CITY the services set forth in Exhibit "A" entitled Scope of Work and attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein and made a part hereof. 3. All information, data, reports and records and maps as are existing and available from CITY, and necessary for carrying out the work outlined in Exhibit "A" shall be furnished to CON- SULTANT without charge by CITY and CITY shall cooperate in every way reasonable in the carrying out of the work without delay. 4. CONSULTANT represents that it employs, or will employ at is own expense all personnel required in performing the ser- vices required under this Agreement. 1 5. All of the services required hereunder will be per- formed by CONSULTANT or under its direct supervision, and all personnel engaged in the work shall be fully qualified and shall be authorized or permitted under state and local law to perform such services. 6. CITY`s Director of Public Works (the "Director" or his designee) shall direct the CONSULTANT to proceed and the work required shall be completed within the time limit mutually agreed upon. CONSULTANT shall have no claim for compensation for any services upon which the Director has not authorized CONSULTANT to proceed. 7. The CONSULTANT shall work closely and cooperate fully with the Director, or his designee, who shall be the liaison between CONSULTANT and the CITY and who shall review and approve all details of the work as it progresses. 8. The CITY reserves the right to terminate or suspend the Agreement at any time upon seven (7) days written notice ef- fected by personal delivery or by a bona fide mail service, which shall be deemed communicated as of the date of receipt thereof, under any of the following circumstances: (a) The project, as described in the attached Exhibit "A", is to be abandoned or indefinitely postponed. (b) CONSULTANT fails to prosecute the work within the time limits specified in the attached Exhibit "A". 9. No change in the scope of the work to be performed by CONSULTANT shall be made except in writing between CITY and CON- SULTANT, which shall set forth the changes mutually agreed upon by the CITY and the CONSULTANT. 2 CONSULTANT shall be made except in writing between CITY and CON- SULTANT, which shall set forth the changes mutually agreed upon by the CITY and the CONSULTANT. 10. In accordance with State Compensation Laws, the CONSULTANT shall carry Worker's Compensation insurance for all persons employed in the performance of services as set forth herein. The CONSULTANT shall provide the CITY with a certificate verifying such coverage or endorsement acceptable to the CITY before commencing services under this Agreement. Such policy shall require thirty (30) days notice to the CITY in writing prior to cancellation, termination, or expiration of any kind. 11. The CONSULTANT shall carry Professional Liability in- surance in an amount of not less than $1,000,000.00. The CONSUL- TANT shall provide the City with certificates verifying such coverage or endorsement acceptable to the City before commencing services under this Agreement. Such policy shall require thirty (30) days notice to the City in writing prior to cancellation, termination or expiration of any kind. All insurance policies shall name the City of Hermosa Beach as additional insured. 12. If CONSULTANT fails to maintain such insurance, the CITY may obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for such insurance from any sums due under this Agreement. 13. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as limit- ing in any way the extent to which CONSULTANT may be held respon- sible to payment of damages to persons or property resulting from its operations or any operations of any subcontractors under it. - 3 CONSULTANT will be required to indemnify and hold harmless CITY and its officers and employees from any claims, damages, or ex- penses, including attorney's fees and court costs, arising out of CONSULTANT'S negligent performance under this agreement. 14. In the event that legal action is commenced to enforce or declare the rights created under this Agreement, the prevail- ing party shall be entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorney's fees in the amount to be determined by the court. 15. The CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT for all the work or any part of the work performed under this Agreement at the rates and in the manner established in the attached Exhibit "A". 16. This Agreement shall begin upon execution and shall expire on the date shown on the Notice to Proceed unless extended in writing by mutual agreement of both CITY and CONSULTANT. 17. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties, but it shall not be assigned by the CON- SULTANT without the written consent of the CITY. 18. The CONSULTANT shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or otherwise) without the prior written approval of the CITY, provided, however, that claims for money due or to become due the CONSULTANT from the CITY under this Agreement may be assigned to a bank, trust company, or other financial institution or to a Trustee in Bankruptcy, without such approval. Notice of any such assignment or transfer shall be furnished promptly to the CITY. 19. No member of the governing body of the CITY and no other officer, employee, or agent of the CITY who exercises any 4 functions or responsibilities in connection with the planning and carrying out of the program, shall have any personal financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement; and the CONSUL- TANT shall take appropriate steps to assure compliance. 20. The CONSULTANT covenants that he presently has no interest and shall not acquire interest, direct or indirect, in the study area or any parcels therein or any interest which would conflict in any manner or degree wth the performance of his ser- vices hereunder. The CONSULTANT further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed. 21. This agreement supercedes any and all other agreements, either oral or in writing, between the parties hereto with respect to the employment of CONSULTANT by CITY and contains all the covenants and agreements between the parties withrespect to such employment in any manner whatsoever. Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements, orally or otherwise, have been made by any party, or anyone acting on behalf of any party, which are not embodied herein, and that no other agreement or amendment hereto shall be effective unless executed in writing and signed by both CITY and CONSULTANT. 22. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, and all ap- plicable federal statutes and regulations as amended. 23. The invalidity in whole or part of any provision of this Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, and all applicable 5 federal statutes and regulations as amended. 24. CONSULTANT agrees to comply with all Federal, State and local laws and regulations as they pertain to the performance of this Agreement, but not limited to, the provisions attached hereto as Exhibit "A". IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year first above written. ATTEST: APPROVED ASFORM: 1-v^^L3 CITY ATTORNEY - 6 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH A Municipal Corporation By: MAYOR, City of Hermosa Beach By: CONSULTANT CONSULTANT EXHIBIT A PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES CIP 85-102: HIGHLAND AVENUE CIP 85-137: VALLEY/ARDMORE/GOULD The proposal for the above project is attached to the original agreement and is on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach, CA. April 3, 1987 Regular Meeting of April 14, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of The Hermosa Beach City Council AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF AN ELECTRONIC FUEL SYSTEM FOR THE CITY YARD - CIP 86-601 Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Authorize the mayor to enter into an agreement (Exhibit A) with Uniforce Corporation for the purchase and installation of an electronic fuel management system for the City yard at a cost not to exceed $37,774. 2. Authorize staff to issue addendums as necessary. Background: On January 27, 1987, City Council authorized the Public Works Department to advertise for bids for an Electronic Fuel Dispensing System for the City yard. This project was advertised for 3 weeks and 12 vendors received the bid specifications. Analysis: Two sealed bids were received by the City Clerk on February 20, 1987 at 11:00 a.m. (bid due date). The bids were publicly opened and read aloud as follows: Vendor System/Product Name Amount Uniforce Corporation (Fuel Force) $34,340.00 C. E. Thomas (RUSCO) $29,276.00 The Engineer's Estimate was $33,100.00 This project will provide the following: 1. Replacement of the fuel pumps and island, and 2. installation and training for an electronic fuel dispensing system. The following analysis will focus on the electronic fuel system portion of the bids. Analysis of Fuel Systems As called out in the bid specifications, selection of the system which best meets the needs of the City will be based on: 1 1i 1. Conformance to the specific hardware and software performance specifications, 2. a presentation/demonstration of the system in operation; 3. the proven "track record" of the system (per references, etc.), and 4. the service and maintenance agreement of the system. Criteria No. 1. Staff evaluated both proposals received based upon adherence to the specifications. It first appeared that both products met the City's needs. After further investigation only one vendor is able to provide a product meeting all the specifications. Criteria No. 2. On March 13, 1987, a visual product demonstration was scheduled with both Uniforce and C. E. Thomas, as well as an additional vendor: Petroleum Dynamics, Inc (PDI). PDI was not aware of our Advertisement for Bids. After the sealed bids were received, PDI contacted the City and proposed a fuel management system (Tech -21) that the City might consider on a sole source basis. PDI was invited to participate in the demonstration to be certain the City consider every possible system. The results of the demonstrations are as follows: 1. Neither the system proposed by C. E. Thomas (RUSCO is the name of the system), nor that proposed by PDI offered a product that is integrated with the City's Hewlett Packard software. Both would require computer programming and additional cost. 2. The performance of the C. E. Thomas system (RUSCO) was unacceptable. (It didn't work). 3. The PDI system did not meet the specifications, nor did it offer anything above and beyond the other two proposals. Therefore, it could not be considered on a sole source basis and was then eliminated for further consideration. Based on demonstrations, Uniforce Corporation is the best supplier of a fuel management system for the City of Hermosa Beach for the following reasons: a. Uniforce is the only proposed fuel management system fully integrated with the City's existing Hewlett-Packard computer system. b. Uniforce is the only proposed fuel management system which will not require any additional computer software programming. 2 c. Even before the call for bids, staff conducted extensive research (via written and visual presentations) of the various potential suppliers. RFP's were sent (by staff) to 12 of these potential suppliers and only two responded. The lowest cost proposal (C. E. Thomas) demonstrated a product whose performance was unsatisfactory. (It didn't work.) Given,the presentation/demonstration performances of PDI and C. E. Thomas, the rest of this memo's analysis of bids will concentrate on the apparent best supplier, Uniforce. Criteria No. 3. The City of West Covina has the Uniforce Fuel Management System. Staff visited the City Yard at the City of West Covina on two separate occasions. In October, we observed the installation phase of the Fuel Force System, and in March, witnessed the system in full operation. We observed the ease with which the City employees were able to use and understand the system. Their comments (and those of other Uniforce references we contacted) were positive and enthusiastic. These were indeed "satisfied customers". Criteria No. 4. The service and maintenance agreement for the apparent best supplier (Uniforce) will cost approximately $3,336 annually. SUMMARY The bid from C. E. Thomas is non-responsive, since the demonstration was unsatisfactory. Fuel Force is the only fuel management system that meets the needs of the City of Hermosa Beach, and Uniforce Corporation is the sole supplier of Fuel Force. It is interesting to note that West Covina staff indicates that fuel consumption has dropped to approximately one-half after installation. Fiscal Impact: CIP 86-601 total FY 86-87 budget allocation of $54,450 included funding of both the fuel management system and precision testing and/or removal of the City's underground gasoline storage tanks. The recommended funding of this project is as follows: 3 Contract Amount Project Amount Budgeted Funding Source 1. Fuel Mgmt. System a. Fuel Dispensing System $26,846 $26,846 7,494 7,494 16,676 b. Fuel Pumps 2. Tank Testing and/or removal (pending notification of L. A. Co. Public Works Subtotal 10% contingency Total General Lighting Sewer Subtotal SB90 Fund Fund Fund $ 3,746 13,100 10,000 26,846 7,494 SB90 16,676 $34,340 $51,016 $51,016 3,434 3,434 SB90 3,434 $37,774 $54,450 $54,450 The contract amount is within budget. Staff intends to proceed with researching a compatible Fleet Management System and will return to Council at a later date with an appropriate recommendation. Alternatives: Other alternatives available to Council and considered by staff are: 1. Drop the project at this 2. Re -advertise for bids. Respectfully submitted, �O//- ///.c Deborah M. Murphy Assistant Engineer Concur: / . Gre ory Cit Manag Attachment: Exhibit A DMM:mv fmgmt/m time. 4 Concur: Antony Antich Director of bloc Works Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator EXHIBIT A CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • AGREEMENT FOR FUEL DISPENSING SYSTEM FY 85-86 THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of , 1987, by and between the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, hereinafter referred to as "City", and Uniforce Corporation as "Contractor". , hereinafter referred to WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, City and Contractor have executed the bonds at- tached and incorporated by this reference, and WHEREAS, City desires to contract with Contractor to perform the services detailed in said bonds and in the Specifications and Proposal, and WHEREAS, Contractor has represented that it is fully qualified to assume and discharge such responsibility; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto do agree as follows: 1. Scope of Work: CONTRACTOR hereby agrees to furnish all labor, materials and equipment necessary to perform street repair work in accordance with the Special Provisions included hereinafter. Such work shall be performed in a good and workman- like manner, under the terms as stated herein and in the Notice to Bidder, Instructions to Bidders, and Specifications and Pro- posal and in accordance with the latest edition of the Joint 1 Cooperative Committee, Southern California Chapters of the Ameri- can Public Works Association and the Associated General Contrac- tors of America, document entitled, "Standard Specifications for - Public Works Construction". In the event of any conflict between the terms of this agreement and any of the above-referenced docu- ments, the terms of this agreement shall be controlling. 2. Compensation. In consideration of the services rendered hereunder, Contractor shall be paid according to the prices as submitted on the Proposal. Monthly progress payments will be made within thirty (30) days after invoicing of Contractor's services. 3. Hold Harmless; Insurance. It is specifically understood and agreed by all parties hereto that Contractor is, for the pur- poses of this Agreement, an independent contractor and not an employee of the. City. Accordingly, Contractor shall not be deemed the City's employee for any purpose whatsoever. Contrac- tor shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obliga- tion or liability whatever for or against City and shall hold harmless and defend the City of Hermosa Beach from and against any and all obligations, claims, liens, or causes of actions, arising out of or related to Contractor's services hereunder. Contractor shall file and maintain a file with the City at all times during the term of this Agreement, a copy or certificate of general liability insurance for bodily injury and property damage protecting Contractor in amounts not less than $500,000.00 for injuries to one person, $1,000,000.00 for injuries to more than one person and $100,000.00 for property damage. Such insurance shall not be cancelled without thirty (30) days' prior written 2 notice to City, shall name the City and its officers and em- ployees as additional insured, and shall include all automobiles utilized by Contractor's personnel in the performance of this Agreement. 4. Assignment. This Agreement may not be assigned by Con- tractor, in whole or in part, without the prior consent of City. 5. Termination. This agreement may be cancelled by City at any time without penalty upon thirty (30) days' written notice. In the event of termination without fault of Contractor, City shall pay Contractor for all services rendered prior to date of termination, and such payment shall be in full satisfaction of all services rendered hereunder. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed the within Agreement the day and year first above written. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH By ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM:/ / CONTRACTOR By / \Icity Attorney 4/7/87/v 3 SPECIFICATIONS I. General Requirements The City of Hermosa Beach is requesting proposals for a fuel dispensing and management system which will control and automatically record dispensing of gasoline fuels. The system must be capable of operating unattended, 24 hours a day, in a "stand-alone" mode. Selection of the system which best meets the needs of the City will be based on: 1. Conformance to the specific hardware and software and software performance specifications as defined herein. 2. A presentation/demonstration of the system in operation, 3. the proven "track record" of the system (per referen- ces, etc.), and 4. the service and maintenance agreement of the system In addition, the proposed fuel dispensing system must be compatible with the City's Hewlett Packard 3000 series 48 main frame computer, and must be accessible from any au- thorized HP 3000 series 48 terminal linked to mainframe computer within the City. It is the intent of these specifications to detail and specify the requirements for the furnishing and installa- tion of an electronically controlled solid state fuel dis- pensing and monitoring system and access control with op- tions to include inventory and costs control data entry. The bid price shall include all costs of shipping instal- lation and training. The modems, controller, video display terminal and serial line printer and any other equipment necessary for inter- facing with hose and outlaying sites, should be provided. All equipment must be new and meet all applicable Federal, State, and local codes and regulations. It shall be the responsibility of each bidder to inspect the site and make his/her own determination as to connec- tion distance and necessary modifications to existing system. II. Existing Condition(s) The City presently has two (2) fueling sites (The Police Department and the City Yard). The scope of the work for this project is only to include the City Yard operation. The yard is located at: 555 - 6th Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 There are three existing gasoline dispensers at this loca- tion to be replaced, per the specifications of this pro- posal. Currently, when fuel is dispensed, the employee man- ually records the vehicle number, odometer reading and amount of fuel dispensed to approximately 100 vehicles by approximately 100 employees. III. Scope of Work This proposal is to include the supply and installation of both: • 1. Mechanical Fuel Pumps: The proposal shall include the furnishing and installation of the three (3) self- contained commercial refueling pumps. (Installation shall include re -piping at the island, only, not from the underground storage tanks to the island. Island shall be re -cast.) 2. Fuel Dispensing System: The system shall be desig- ned to provide control and access to 1-3 mechanical fueling dispensers. The system shall have the capability to print out on demand a variety of transactions, inventory, and infor- mational reports via local printing device, as well as certain authorized, terminals linked to the mainframe computer. The "card" terminal shall be designed for island mount- ing atop the manfacturers pedestal or suitable equivalent. Programming of the system shall be via the system key- pad or, optionally, through a locally connected keyboard/printer, or remotely via computer connections. The system software shall be user prompting for entry of data. All user access (i.e. "card") characteristics and system parameters shall be individually program- mable and changeable as required. Specific requirements are indictated in the Bidder's Proposal. 2 • .. ..ti:.t—.� . �6Y..i..ro.r.. 4:..%v.: ✓v)w�'.%r : 4 s.rL_f...'+...1......w....� r.... �.. Uniforce p. 1/8 PROPOSAL Instruction: The specifications indicated in the left hand column indicate those characteristics required by the City. Bidder shall complete the right hand column indicating exactly what is being proposed. If the proposed item is no different from the specification in the left hand column, simply indicate by an "X" in the right hand column. You must complete each item or your bid may be disqualified. Specification Proposal Bidder to certify that the proposal is capable of the following: Section I: Fuel Pumps 1. Rated to a minimum 15 gpm capacity X 2. Equipped with 1/3 hp motor for use with either 110 v or 220v X 3. 4 wheel non -computing register with up to 1,000 gal per delivery; totalizer to 1,000,000 gallons X 4. Electric power resets X 5. Gear type suction pump with built in air separator X 6. Positive displacement piston meter X 7. Pulsar to interface with proposed fuel management system X 8. Cabinet to be constructed of all steel and and be equipped with stainless steel removable doors, X 9. Single, 1" dia., 12' co -axial hoses (with static wire) with high hose retrievers, dual swivels, _automatic nozzle, and filters, all in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Control District requirements, and the requirement of the Los Angeles Co. Fire Dept. X 10. Must be UL listed X 11. "Weather resistant", i.e., suitable for outdoor use in an unprotected marine environment X 12. What type of warranty is included with your proposal: a. equipment (attach copy) b. installation 1 Yr. Parts & Labor 90 Days 13. What brand of dispenser are you proposing? 14. Other (take this opportunity to further Qualify your proposal) ITokheim #785 Attach additional sheets if necessary Specification Proposal Section II: Fuel Management System -Hardware 1. Have capacity to serve 100 vehicles, 100 employees, initially X 2. Have capacity to upgrade, to provide for possible future expansion (150 vehicles, 150 employees, 2 fuel sites, gate security) X 3. In the event of a system failure the pumps may be manually operated X 4. Must allow for simultaneous fueling from each pump and pump in use indicater x 5. Shall be enclosed in a weatherized cabinet with an operating temperature range of - 20 degrees F to + 120 degrees F. X 6. Shall be of rugged construction to discourage vandalism and include a tamper switch to initi- ate an alarm at the controller if forced entry is attempted. x 7. Shall include a numeric keypad for entering data and pump selection and a visual display of numeric entries X 8. Shall have an -emergency stop button to. to disableall pumps in the event of an emergency. X 9. The front panel shall be illuminated at night X 10. The "terminal" shall be designed to allow access through a removable panel, which must be secured with a lock X 11. Transactions and authorizations memory must be protected for at least 72 hours in the event of power failure. The system must be capable of complete automatic recovery from an AC power X failure to a fully operational status without loss of programmed authorization information or transaction X 12. Shall include a memory erase safeguard to include a minimum of two (2) separate commands before any memory is erased. X Specifications Proposal Section III: System Activation 1. Shall be self -prompting to guide the user through each operating step. X 2. The fuel dispenser activation process shall shall require the following data to be input by the user: a. Employee identification code (manual or via card) b. Vehicle identification code (manual or via card) c. Fuel pump identification number (regular, unleaded, etc.) d. Odometer readings to the nearest whole mile (not tenths) e. Capability to enter a tank identificaton number and five digit quantity for recording fuel deliveries at moment of delivery by authorized personnel X 3. Please indicate the type of user access your system proposes (i.e. one card, two card, no card, etc., including type of card - keypunch, magnetic stripe, etc.) and cost of additional cards. Proposal shall include equipment for coding additional identification cards, if necessary. X NO CARD (OPTIONAL 1 OR 2 CARD) 4. Before fuel can be dispensed, the system must have the capability to make the following checks and deny access, if necessary: a. Review the user and vehicle information and compare this information to either an authorized or unauthorized identity validation system. b. Check the odometer reading for reason- ableness (based on an estimated mpg and tank capacity of vehicle used). c. System will check the fuel pump number to determine if type of fuel being selected is correct for equipment being fueled d. If user is denied access because of any of the above checks, he shall be allowed 5. Record Retrieval - The information contained in the fuel system data storage memory shall be accessible to the central computer (HP3000). Reports or records of any transaction may be generated from either the local or remote (HP150) terminals, and may be printed on either the local or remote printing device, upon request. (Note: the "local printing device" is that which is included in "the system". It must be of the quality required for industrial use.) 6. Reports relative to stored transactions in system memory may be sorted and extracted by either: (1) Amount (2) ID#, (3) User #, (4) Vehicle #. Reports may be extracted by only authorized personnel. X X 7. The system is to include a pricing and billing program with the capabilities listed below. The objective is to provide the means of billing a particular department for their portion of the products used. Capabilities of the pricing and billing program must include the following: a. Assignment of a price per unit for fuel b. Cost total per transaction c. Assignment of a transaction to a department or more than one department -for example, a particular vehicle may be charged (divided proportionally) to four different departments d. Provide a total cost per Department on a periodic basis (weekly, monthly, etc.) e. Provide a listing of all transactions per Department on a periodic basis f. Invoice the Department of the dispensed product X X * X X X Specifications Proposal Section V: Installation 1. The system and fuel pumps to be installed shall be wired and color coded uniformly; wiring shall be approved and inspected by the City of Hermosa Beach electrical inspector and Fire Dept., prior to acceptance. Schematics and technical data on hardware and installation shall be provided to the City. X 2. All lines to card readers shall be installed underground. x *INVOLVES SIGNIFICANT PROGRAMMING, COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED 'WITH 3Q MINUTES CLERICAL EFFO_RT5/PER MONTH. 3. All electrical connections other than those already in place shall be provided by the contractor. X 4. Included in the successful installation shall be the training and instruction of six (6) City of Hermosa Beach employees in all aspects of the system to insure continued use of the system. The bid shall include all training and implementation costs. X 5. The acceptance criteria shall be: a. Vendor shall perform all tests of hardware and software and present data on day before cutover. A system performance report shall be prepared and presented by the successful low bidder. b. Vendor personnel shall remain on site until all components of the system, including hardware and software, and training are functional according to specs. c. System will not be judged to satisfy the acceptance criteria until thirty (30) days i have passed without major fault. X X X Specifications Proposal Section VI: Miscellaneous 1. Include the ability to easily add or delete "card" numbers, change individual or vehicle authorization data and update inventory files as required. X 2. For off-site fueling, or fueling from a site that is not automated, manual transaction entries shall be used to enter fuel and non - fuel transaction data from the Video Display Terminal. These entries shall provide a transaction record indicative of a one or two card,fuel or non -fuel, with or without odo- meter entry transaction. Additionally, manual entries shall allow recording of a bulk fuel delivery, or fueling from a retail fueling station. X 3. The system shall incorporate a "watchdog" feature to continuously monitor hardware and software performance. X 4. Bidder shall indicate on bid proposal the maximum time required in calendar days for project completion. In any event, installation and completion shall be accomplished within sixty (60) calendar days to be calculated from date of written notification to proceed. Bidder shall submit a project schedule prior to job commencement. 60 DAYS 5 Manuals, brochures and descriptive literature describing the equipment and/or features bid shall be submitted in duplicate with each bid proposal. A schematic drawing of the proposed fuel dispensing system is to be submitted with the bid. The successful bidder shall submit with his/her bid proposal the terms and conditions of the warranty, including all parts, equipment and installation. x 6. Is you fuel dispensing system proposal capable of expanding to interface with a Hewlett Packard compatible fleet management system? If so, indicate which fleet manage- ment system your proposal is compatible with. UNIFORCE DMM:mv fueldis/m 1/15/87 r J .J Contractor's Bid Schedule Date: Contractor's Name: Address: Phone: Contractor's Signature: City of Hermosa Beach Fuel Dispensing System CIP 86-601 "Proposal p. 8/8" February\20, 1987 Uniforce Corporation 41 Tamarack Circle, Skillman, NJ 609 683-4242 /444 Please carefully fill in your bid price as indicated. Include all applicable taxes and contingencies, overhead and profit costs for each item. The City reserves the right to delete any item from the total bid. Note: Words shall govern when there is a discrepency between numbers and words. Item Bid Price ($ and Words) 1. Fuel pumps a. equipment b. installation 2. Fuel dispensing system a. equipment b. installation $6,900.00 Sixty nine hundred 600.-UU Si$ hundred eight 17,988.00 Seventeen nini eighty 6,188.00 sixty one eighty eight 3. Initial training costs (lump sum) 2,725.00 Twenty seven twentyfiv 4. Annual maintenance agreement 3,036.00 Thirtythirtysix Total Bid Price Maximum time required (in calendar days) for project completion p. 8/8. 34,340.00 one timeplus support 60 Law Offices of James P. Lough JAMES P. LOUGH April 7, 1987 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM 1605 WEST OLYMPIC BLVD. SUITE 9018 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90015 (213) 381-6131 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 14, 1987 TO: Members of the City Council FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney RE: Application of Hermosa Beach City Code Section 21-10(a) This memo is in response to the Council's request for an opinion as to the revenue limitations placed upon the City Council by the above -referenced ordinance. This ordinance was adopted by a vote of the people in 1984. The revenue restrictions found in the ordinance are quoted as follows: ...The drilling of wells bottomed in the tidelands may produce revenue the use of which is limited by the state. General fund revenue for which tidelands revenue is substituted shall be used first to reduce any bonded indebtedness resulting from the enactment of Community Facilities District No. 1, which district would acquire the South School site, the Seaview Parkette, and the railroad right-of-way; and, second, when the bond indebtedness is paid, the acquisition, maintenance and improvement of available excess school or other properties for open space and parkland purposes. The ballot measure was clear and unambiguous as to what monies were restricted. The measure only restricted those funds found in the general fund of the City which the tidelands revenue replaced. These freed up funds would then only be used for the items listed in the ordinance and quoted above. There is no reference to any restrictions applying to onshore revenue or any business license or other types of tax applied to oil drillers utilizing the site on behalf of the City. The language appears very clear on the face of the ordinance that only general fund monies equal to tideland revenue used to pay for City services are required to be used for open space type purposes under the measure. This is the same interpretation that was given previously by the City Attorney on the same subject when the matter was 17/SR0414A -1- lp REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 14, 1987 TO: Members of the City Council FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney RE: Application of Hermosa Beach City Code Section 21-10(a) brought to the attention of the Council by Mr. Roger Creighton. Since the language of the ordinance has not changed, neither does this opinion. In conclusion, only tidelands revenue funds are covered under the restrictions found under Hermosa Beach City Code Section 21-10(a). JPL/gp Enclosures cc: Gregory T. Meyer, City Manager 17/SR0414A -2- Respectfully\submitte JAMES P. LOUGH, City Attorney FITY OF HERMOSA BEACH March 30, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council April 14, 1987 LOCATION OF BICYCLE REST STOP MEMORIAL Recommendation It is recommended by the Challenger Shuttle Memorial Committee that City Council approve the following proposed location for the Greg Jarvis Memorial Bicycle Rest Stop: 104 feet north of 14th and Strand as was displayed at project groundbreaking on March 10, 1987. Background At the City Council meeting of November 25, 1986, the Challenger Shuttle Memorial Committee proposed (as an alternative to the preferred 6th and Strand location) the Bike Rest Stop location be: Between 14th and 15th Street on the Strand (in front of the empty sandlot). At that meeting Council approved the location with the following motion: "At end of 14th Street adjacent to restrooms." Since that meeting, in accounting for storm drain easements, existing light standards, aesthetics and functionality, the committee selected an exact location for the memorial at 104 feet north of 14th Street on the Strand. At this time the committee would like to confirm the acceptability of this spot with City Council so that construction can be initiated with full confidence that all approvals are in order. Analysis The Hermosa Beach Challenger Shuttle Memorial Committee would like to convey at this time their strongest convictions that this Bicycle Rest Stop is first and foremost a Memorial. Greg Jarvis, as a member of the Challenger 51L crew was and is regarded as a national hero. It is the purpose of this project to remember him and to honor him with dignity in his own community. With this in mind, the Committee (in compromising from the originally proposed 6th Street location) has attempted to place the memorial at a site befitting its perceived magnitude of importance. This site could be interpreted as being approximately 75 feet north of the Council initiated location at the end of 14th Street when storm drain easements are accounted for. This 75 feet, 1� however, carries significance with the Committee and their intended goals. To place the memorial closer to 14th Street would present the following problems as presented by the Committee: (1) Most importantly from a memorial standpoint, having the Bike Rest Stop closer to the restrooms would "not be tasteful." This is a national monument and as such should not be in view of a public restroom. (2) The restroom already has an existing bike rack and resting area. Why duplicate facilities? (3) Congestion in the 14th Street area is already heavy. Having the two resting areas so close to each other would increase loitering in a concentrated area. (4) The Rest Stop is intended to be used as a peaceful resting spot for pedestrians and cyclists. The "restroom area" eliminates that possibility. (5) There is a light pole in the area that would interfere with design considerations. (6) It is artistically displeasing, off -center and has an obstructed (by restroom) ocean view. It is the hope of the Challenger Shuttle Memorial Committee that Council will see fit to support their selected location. They feel strongly that 75 feet makes a significant difference in the reverence and aesthetics of this important community memorial. They and many community donors anxiously await the initiation of construction and look forward to sharing pride with Council at project ribbon -cutting. They request your support in making this happen. Concur: 3(. cos .c 2( Alana M. Mastrian, Director De t. of Community Resources Gr:gor T. Meyer Ci.y Manager Res t f submitted, Mary Dept ney, Coordinator unity Resources TL Myk: Sheets, Chairman Cha lenger Shuttle Memorial Proposed Action: To deny the request for exemption. Motion Cioffi, second Williams AYES - Cioffi, Williams NOES - Rosenberger, Simpson, Mayor DeBellis Motion fails. Action: To grant the exemption and direct staff to re- turn on December 16, 1986 with an appropriate ordinance amending Ordinance No. 86-824, section 7, and adding section requiring permit to be issued within 60 days after Coastal Commission approval. Motion Mayor DeBelli.s, second Rosenberger AYES - Rosenberger, Simpson, Mayor DeBellis NOES - Cioffi, Williams 8. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION RE. CABLE T.V. FRANCHISE TRANS- FER FROM STORER CABLE T.Y., INC. TO M.L. MEDIA PARTNER- SHIP, L.P. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dated November 18, 1986. Action: To continue this item to December 16, 1986. Motion Mayor DeBellis, second Cioffi. So ordered. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 9. PROPOSED ALTERNATE LOCATION FOR GREG JARVIS MEMORIAL BICYCLE REST STOP. Letter from Shuttle Memorial Commit- tee Chairman Michael Sheets dated November 17, 1986. Memorandum from Community Resources Coordinator Mary Rooney dated November. 19, 1986. Supplemental informa- tion - letter from Robert E. Viault, 49 - 5th Street dated November 25, 1986 Council agreed to allow testimony on this subject for seven (7) minutes - to 11:20 P.M. Speaking to Council were: Jay Jaeger, 1821 Pacific Coast Highway, member of the Shuttle Committee Steve Crece, 1148 - 2nd Street, member of the Shuttle Committee Ed Nash, 600 Strand, in opposition to 6th St. location Nita Hunt, 600 Strand, in opposition to.6th St. location Action: To site the proposed Greg Jarvis Memorial Bicy- cle Rest Stop on the Strand at the end of 14th Street..aac�at,,,, Motion Rosenberger, second Cioffi AYES - Cioffi, Rosenberger, Simpson, Mayor DeBellis NOES - Williams Proposed Action: To reconsider the above action. Motion Mayor DeBe1lis, second Cioffi AYES - Cioffi, Mayor DeBellis NOES - Rosenberger, .Simpson, Williams Motion fails • 9 - Minutes 11-25-86 HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL April 6, 1987 Regular Meeting of April 14, 1987 ASSEMBLY BILLS #1586 AND #2371 TO ALLOW CHILDREN TO RIDE THE DIAL -A -RIDE VEHICLES TO AND FROM SCHOOL RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Support both Assembly Bills #1586 and #2371, but as a combined bill, whereby the bill is an urgency matter, which also requires inspections, and is declared mandated. 2) Request the City Clerk to so notify the sponsors of these bills, the League of Cities and our Assembly and Senate representatives. BACKGROUND On March 25, 1987, the City Lobbyist from Sacramento sent the City a letter requesting resolutions of support from the City of Hermosa Beach and Redondo Beach for Assembly Bill #2371. On March 6, 1987, Assembly Bill #2371 was introduced at the California Legislature by Assembly Member Felando. On March 5, 1987, Assembly Bill #1586 was introduced at the California Legislature by Assembly Campbell. On February 24, 1987, the City Council supported Assembly Bill #1586 submitted by LACTC and introduced by Assembly Member Beverly to the California Legislature. Although the City Council supported this bill on this date, no formal action was implemented, because at that time, a number had not been assigned to this bill. ABSTRACT Assembly Bill #1586 would require the Department of the California Highway Patrol to inspect and certify general public paratransit vehicles, and require drivers to complete specified training courses. All drivers would be required to possess a certificate, and display it in the vehicles. Assembly Bill #2371 would exempt any motor vehicle operated by or for municipalities for general public transportation from school bus restrictions and requirements, and would make the law an urgency matter which would make it effective immediately instead of January 1, 1988. ANALYSIS The benefit of Assembly Bill #2371 would insure that the City's existing Dial -a -Ride program would be declared exempt from "school bus" restrictions and requirements, and this bill would take effect immediately, if adopted.. The benefit of Assembly Bill #1586 would provide inspections conducted by the California Highway Patrol to insure that the City's Dial -a -Ride vehicles meet minimum standards of safety for school children. It will also declare the program of inspection State Mandated, which will allow for reimbursement of the costs incurred. ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue to support Assembly Bill #1586 only. 2. Support only Assembly Bill #2371 and rescind the original support of Assembly Bill #1586. ATTACHMENTS 1. Assembly Bill #2371 2. Assembly Bill #1586 3. City lobbyist letter dated 3/25/87 4. Background a. City Council Minutes - 2/24/87 b. City Council Staff Report - 2/24/87 Michael Schubach Planning Director Gr Ci g or T. Meyer 1 y Mana er - 2 Resp, gtfull submitted, i a Bre]. •. er Planning Aide ti CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE -1987-88 REGULAR SESSION ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2371 Introduced by Assembly Member Felando March 6, 1987 ' An act to amend Section 545 of the Vehicle Code, e effect to vehicles, and declaring_the urgency thereof, to immediately. .. - LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 2371, as introduced, Felando. Vehicles: school buses. (1) Existing law exempts various specified vehicles from schoolbus restrictions, inspections, and other requirements.' ;; This bill would also exempt motor vehicles operated by of for municipalities for public transportation in general. (2) The bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. Vote: %. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State -mandated local program: no. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 1 . SECTION 1. Section 545 of the Vehicle Code is 2 amended to read: 3 545. A "schoolbus" is any motor vehicle designed, 4 used, or maintained for the transportation of any school 5 pupil at or below the 12th -grade level to or from a public 6 or private school or to or from public or private school. 7 activities, except the following: 8 (a) A motor vehicle , of any type carrying only 9 members of the household of the owner thereof. 10 (b) A motortruck transporting pupils who are seated 11 only in the passenger compartment, and a passenger 1 12 vehicle designed for and when actually carrying not 99 70 AB 2371 — 2 — 1 more than 10 persons, including the driver, except any 2 such vehicle or truck transporting two or more 3 handicapped pupils confined to wheelchairs. 4 (c) A motor vehicle operated by a common carrier, or 5 by and under the exclusive jurisdiction of a publicly 6 owned or operated transit system, only during the time 7 it is on a scheduled run and is available to the general 8 public or on a run scheduled in response to a request from 9 a handicapped pupil confined to a wheelchair, or from a 10 parent of the handicapped pupil, for transportation to or 11 from nonschool activities; provided, that the motor 12 vehicle is designed for and actually carries not more than 13 16 persons and the driver, is available to eligible persons 14 of the general public, and the school does not provide the 15 requested transportation service. 16 (d) A school pupil activity bus as defined in Section 17 546. 18 (e) A motor vehicle operated by a carrier licensed by 19 the Interstate Commerce Commission which is 20 transporting pupils on a school activity entering or 21 returning to the state from another state or country. 22 (f) A youth bus as defined in Section 680. 23 (g) Notwithstanding any other provisions of . this 24 section, the governing board of a district maintaining a 25 community college may, by resolution, designate any 26 motor vehicle operated by or for the district, a schoolbus 27 within the meaning of this section, if it is primarily used 28 for the transportation of community college students to 29 or from a. public community college or to or from public 30 community college activities. The designation shall not 31 be effective until written notification thereof has been 32 filed with the Department of the California Highway 33 Patrol. 34 (h) A state-owned motor vehicle being operated by a 35 state employee upon the driveways, paths, parking 36 facilities, or grounds specified in Section 21113 that are 37 under the control of a state hospital under the jurisdiction 38 of the State Department of Developmental Services 39 where the posted speed limit is not more than 20 miles 40 per hour. The motor vehicle may also be operated for a 99 80 —3— tiu Gs11 1 distance of not more than one-quarter mile upon a public 2 street or highway that runs through the grounds of a state 3 hospital under the jurisdiction of the State Department of 4 Developmental Services, if the posted speed limit on the 5 public street or highway is not more than 25 miles per 6 hour and if all traffic is regulated by posted stop signs or 7 official traffic control signals at the points of entry and 8 exit by the motor vehicle. 9 (i) Any motor vehicle operated by or for a 10 municipality which is used to provide public 11 transportation which is not primarily intended for the use 12 of transporting school pupils, and which has been 13 approved by the municipality for the transportation of 14 school pupils. 15 SEC. 2. This act is an urgency statute necessary for 16 the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, 17 or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the 18 Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts 19 constituting the necessity are: 20 In order to facilitate the transportation of school pupils 21 in areas where inadequate school bus service is presently 22 available, it is necessary that this act take effect 23 immediately. 0 99 11. C C C CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE -1987-88 REGULAR SESSION ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1586 Introduced by Assembly Member Campbell (Coauthor: Senators Bergeson and Beverly) March 5, 1987 An act to amend Sections 545 and 34500 of, and to add Sections 336, 2807.4, and 12523.5 to, the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 1586, as introduced, Campbell. Vehicles: general public paratransit. (1) Existing law regulates the operation, inspection, and certification of schoolbuses and youth buses. This bill would require the Department of the California Highway Patrol to inspect and certify general public paratransit vehicles, as defined, and require drivers complete specified driver training courses. All vehicles would be required to display, and drivers to possess certificates thereby imposing a state -mandated cost by creating a new crime. (2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain 'costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State -mandated local program: yes. Ccrrp;;rnCnts m t to ►.:;cbc a +3. everdY 5:. atcr, s7; Cisiritt 99 60 AB 1586 —2— The people of the State of California do enact as follows:' 1 SECTION 1. Section 336 is added to the Vehicle 2 Code, to read: 3 336. "General public paratransit vehicle" is any 4 motor vehicle designed for carrying no more than 27 5 persons including the driver, and which provides local 6 transportation to the general public through one of the 7 following modes: dial -a -ride, shared -ride taxi service, 8 subscription service, or route -deviated bus service. 9 SEC. 2., Section 545 of the Vehicle Code is amended 10 to read: 11 545. A "schoolbus" is any motor vehicle designed, 12 used, or maintained for the transportation of any school 13 pupil at or below the 12th -grade level to or from a public 14 or private school or to or from public or private school 15 activities, except the following: 16 (a) A motor vehicle of any type carrying only 17 members of the household of the owner thereof. 18 (b) A motortruck transporting pupils who are seated 19 only in the passenger compartment, and a . passenger 20 . vehicle designed for and when actually carrying not 21 more than 10 persons, including the driver, except any 22 such ' vehicle or truck transporting two or more 23 handicapped pupils confined to wheelchairs. 24 (c) A motor vehicle operated by a common carrier, or 25 by and under the exclusive jurisdiction of a publicly 26 owned or operated transit system, only during the time 27 it is on a scheduled run and is available to the general 28 public or on a run scheduled in response to a request from 29 a handicapped pupil confined to a wheelchair, or from a 30 parent of the handicapped pupil, for transportation to or 31 from nonschool activities; provided, that the motor 32 vehicle is designed for and actually carries not more than 33 16 persons and the driver, is available to eligible persons 34 of the general public, and the school does not provide the 35 requested transportation service. 36 (d) A school pupil activity bus as defined in Section 37 546. . 38 (e) A motor vehicle operated by a carrier licensed by — 3 — AB 1586 1 the Interstate Commerce Commission which is 2 transporting pupils on a school activity entering or 3 returning to the state from another state or country. 4 (f) A youth bus as defined in Section 680. 5 (g) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this 6 section, the governing board of a district maintaining a 7 community college may, by resolution, designate any 8 motor vehicle operated by or for the district, a schoolbus 9 within the meaning of this section, if it is primarily used 10 for the transportation of community college students to 11 or from a public community college or to or from public 12 community college activities. The designation shall not 13 be effective until written notification thereof has been 14 filed with the Department of the California Highway 15 Patrol. 16 (h) A state-owned motor vehicle being operated by a 17 state employee upon the driveways, paths, parking 18 facilities, or grounds specified in Section 21113 that are 19 under the control of a state hospital under the jurisdiction 20 of the State Department of Developmental Services 21 where the posted speed limit is not more than 20 miles 22 per hour. The motor vehicle may also be operated for a 23 distance of not more than one-quarter mile upon a public 24 street or highway that runs through the grounds of a state 25 hospital under the jurisdiction of the State Department of 26 Developmental Services, if the posted speed limit on the 27 public street or highway is not more than 25 miles per 28 hour and if all traffic is regulated by posted stop signs or 29 official traffic control signals at the points of entry and 30 exit by the motor vehicie. 31 (i) A general public paratransit vehicle as defined in 32 Section 336. 33 SEC. 3. Section 2807.4 is added to the Vehicle Code, 34 to read: 35 2807.4. (a) The Department of the California 36 Highway Patrol shall inspect and certify every general. 37 public paratransit vehicle at least once each year to 38 ascertain whether its condition complies with all 39 provisions of law. 40 (b) No person shall drive any general public AB 1586 —4- 1 paratransit vehicle unless there is displayed therein a 2 certificate issued by the Department of the California 3 Highway Patrol stating that on a certain date, which shall 4 be within 13 months of the date of ' operation, an 5 authorized employee of the Department of the California 6 Highway Patrol inspected the general public paratransit 7 vehicle and found that on the date of inspection the 8 general public paratransit vehicle complied with the 9 applicable provisions of state law. The Commissioner of 10 the California Highway Patrol shall provide, by rule or 11 regulation,for the issuance and display of distinctive 12 inspection certificates. 13 (c) The Commissioner of the California Highway 14 Patrol may determine the fee and method of collection 15 for the annual inspection of general public paratransit 16 vehicles. The fee, established by regulation, shall be 17 sufficient to cover the cost to the department for general 18 public paratransit vehicle inspections and testing of 19 drivers pursuant to Section 12523.5. All fees received shall 20 be deposited in the Motor Vehicle Account in the State 21 Transportation Fund. 22 SEC. 4. Section 12523.5 is added to the Vehicle Code, 23 to read: 24 12523.5. (a) No person shall operate a general public 25 paratransit vehicle unless he or she has in his or her 26 possession a valid driver's license of the appropriate class 27 and a certificate issued by the department to permit the 28 operation of a general public paratransit vehicle. 29 (b) Applicants for a certificate to drive a general 30 public paratransit vehicle shall present evidence that 31 they have successfully completed a driver training course 32 administered by oi• at the direction of their employer 33 consisting of a minimum of 40 hours of classroom 34 instruction covering applicable laws and regulations and 35 defensive driving practices, a minimum of eight hours of 36 certified defensive driving, and a minimum of 20 hours of 37 behind -the -wheel training in a vehicle to be used as a 38 general public paratransit vehicle. Applicants seeking to 39 renew a certificate valid for driving a general public 40 paratransit vehicle shall present evidence that they have 0 — 5 — AB 1586 1 received two hours of refresher training during each 12 2 months of driver certificate validity. 3 (c) The driver certificate shall be issued only to 4 applicants qualified by examinations prescribed by the 5 Department of Motor Vehicles and the Department of 6 the California Highway Patrol. The examinations shall be 7 conducted by the Department of the California Highway 8 Patrol. The Department of Motor Vehicles may deny, 9 suspend, or revoke a certificate valid for driving a general 10 public paratransit vehicle for the causes specified in 11 regulations adopted by the Department of the California 12 Highway Patrol for schoolbus drivers. 13 SEC. 5. Section 34500 of the Vehicle Code is amended 14 to read: 15 34500. The Department of the California Highway 16 Patrol shall regulate the safe operation of the following 17 vehicles: 18' (a) Motortrucks of three or more axles which are more 19 than 6,000 pounds unladen weight. 20 (b) Truck tractors. 21 (c) Buses, schoolbuses, fifiel youth buses, and general 22 public paratransit vehicles. 23 (d) Trailers and semitrailers designed or used for the 24 transportation of more than 10 persons, and the towing 25 motor vehicle. 26 . (e) Trailers and semitrailers, excluding camp trailers, 27 trailer coaches, and utility trailers, pole or pipe dollies, 28 auxiliary dollies, and logging dollies used in combination 29 with vehicles listed in subdivisions (a),' (b), (c), and (d). 30 This subdivision does not apply to camp trailers, trailer 31 coaches, and utility trailers. 32 (f) Any combination of a motortruck and any vehicle 33 or vehicles set forth in subdivision (e) that exceeds 40 34 feet in length when coupled together. 35 (g) Any truck, or any combination of a truck and any 36 other vehicle, transporting hazardous materials. 37 (h) Manufactured homes which, when moved upon 38 the highway, are required to be moved under a permit 39 as specified in Section 35780 or 35790. 40 (i) A park trailer, as defined in subdivision (f) of AB 1586 —6- 1 Section 799.24 of the Civil Code, which, when moved 2 upon a highway, is required to be moved under a permit 3 pursuant to Section 35780. 4 - (j) Any other motortruck not specified in subdivisions 5 (a) to (h), inclusive, that is regulated by the Public 6 Utilities . Commission . or the Interstate Commerce 7 Commission, but only for matters relating to hours of 8 •service and logbooks of drivers. 9 ...SEC. 6. . No reimbursement is required by this act 10 pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California 11 Constitution because the only costs which may be 12 incurred by a local agency or school district will be 13 incurred because this act creates a new crime or 14 infraction, changes the definition of a crime or infraction, 15 changes the penalty for a crime or - infraction, or 16 eliminates a crime or infraction. 0 99 180 s..-......._.+...�. �.-u.�s.a .�.1 t�••r.41,rviti.696.+ .61164 Mi'X17f+i'I:r••444feiwa • .s.Pa.;t... ..i: RALPH M. OCHOA HERMAN SILLAS TIMOTHY H. B. YARYAN ROSE SLOAN JULIA E. SYLVA GARY M. MANDINACH STEVEN A. ROYSTON ANN C. PUMAR JOHN N. KUNAK FRED W. LOPEZ ** OF COUNSEL F. VALLES La PEZ * GONZALO VALLES * PABLO GALICIA * Mr. Gregory Meyer City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Greg, OCHOA 8 SILLAS ATTORNEYS AT LAW OVIATT BUILDING 617 SOUTH OLIVE STREET, SUITE 1010 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90014 (213) 622-9170 March 25, 1987 SACRAMENTO OFFICE 925 L STREET, SUITE 906 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 (916) 447-3383 BAY AREA - OFFICE 505 14TH STREET, SUITE 300 OAKLAND, CA 94612 (415) 272-0544 MEXICO CIT- Y OFFICE BOSOUE DE DURAZNOS NO. 65-507-B BOSOUES DE LAS LOMAS 11700 MEXICO, D. F. (905) 596-68-48 PLEASE REPLY TO: SACRAMENTO Please find enclosed copies of legislation recently intro- duced by Assemblyman Jerry Felando, on behalf of the City, re- garding the "dial -a -ride" program. It would be helpful if I could get resolutions of support for AB 2371 passed by both Hermosa Beach and Redondo Beach. I will also work with Assemblymembers Campbell and Condit who, I have been informed, have similar problems in their districts. THBY:emn Enclosure cc: Jim Lough Very truly yours, TIMOTHY H. B. YARYAN *ADMITTED ONLY IN MEXICO, D. F. **LIMITED TO FEDERAL COURTS AND AGENCIES. Eatitgrvultit atirfat (y) Los Angeles County Transportation CommissionTs bill that would allow use of Dial -A -Ride for school trips. Memo- randum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated February 17, 1987. Action: To support the LACTC's.proposed legislation. Further Action: To put this item on the agenda of the City Council meeting on March 24, 1987. Motion Cioffi, second Simpson. So ordered, noting the objections of Rosenberger and Williams. Minutes 2-24-87 • - Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council February 17, 1987 Regular Meeting of February 24, 1987 Los Angeles County Transportation Commission's Bill that Would Allow Use of Dial -A -Ride for School Trips Recommendation Staff recommends that the City support the proposed Los Angeles County Transportation Commission's (LACTC) legislation to allow children to ride the Dial -A -Ride bus to and from school. Background On August 5, 1986, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) informed the City that according to Section 545 of the Vehicle Code, the City would be in violation of State law if school children were allowed to board the Dial -A -Ride buses. On September 23, 1986, the Hermosa Beach City Council determined that Section 545 of the Vehicle Code does not apply to the Dial -A -Ride program. On October 21, 1986, the Commissioner from the CHP sent a letter stating that the Department would have to take enforcement action against those dial -a -ride systems which are not operating within the law. On November 13, 1986, the Hermosa Beach City Council directed the City to exclude school children from utilizing the Dial -A -Ride program. On January 5, 1987, the Hermosa Beach Dial -A -Ride contractor discontinued service to children riding to and from school. The week of February 2, 1987, LACTC submitted a bill to the State legislature that would enable children to ride the bus to and from school. At this time, no legislative Bill Number has been issued. Abstract LACTC submitted a bill to the State legislature. If the legislative bill passes, it will allow children to be transported to and from school on the Dial -A -Ride vehicles. Analysis Officials at LACTC indicate that the dial -a -ride vehicles are considered public transit; therefore, they should be exempt from Section 545 of the Vehicle Code which states that any vehicle that transports children to and from school is classified as a 1 "school bus". If the children are not exclusively being transported, dial -a -ride vehicles may continue to transport them. However, the vehicles may not drop-off or pick-up on the school grounds which would imply that an exclusive trip was made. Also, school -related group tours are exclusively prohibited. Rancho Palos Verdes and Orange County are still transporting children to and from school. So far, they have not received any citations because they are not exclusively transporting school children. Until a court interpretation of the law is made, CHP may have trouble enforcing the law which is vague and has many "loopholes". LACTC's bill will help clarify some vague interpretations of Section 545 of the Vehicle Code. It will also require a safety inspection of dial -a -ride buses being used to transport children. It will be approximately July, 1987 before any decisions are made regarding this issue. If the bill passes, it will be approximately next January before there is implementation of the bill. Mictlaefl Schubach Planning Director Gregory T. Meyer City Manager 2 Respectfully submitted, vLisa Breisacher Acting Planning Aide Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council April 6, 1987 Regular Meeting of April 14, 1987 Contract for Focused Environmental Impact Report for a Proposed Zone Change from C-2 to Specific Plan Area for Property Located at 123-157 Pier Avenue - Hermosa Atrium Hotel Recommendation Staff recommends that the attached contract for consulting services be approved and that the following policy be established: 1. The owner, Kim and Yun, Inc., of subject property shall deposit with the City $36,586 as a deposit toward the Focused E.I.R. costs for their proposed hotel development; City will remit funds to E.I.R. consultant as invoiced in accordance with the contract. 2. Kim and Yun, Inc. shall be invoiced monthly by the City for any and all other costs that exceed the deposit of $36,586 so obligated for the purpose of developing and certifying the Focused E.I.R. 3. Consultant shall not begin services until City receives deposit. Background On December 30, 1986, the Staff Environmental Review Committee conducted an environmental assessment of the proposed project and determined that a Focused E.I.R. would be necessary (see attached Minutes and Environmental Checklist Form). The Planning Department sent a Request For Proposal to 22 firms and received 9 responses. On February 20 and 23, 1987, the Staff Environmental Review Committee interviewed 5 of the 9 consultants. On March 10, 1987, the Staff made their final decision to hire Willdan Associates based on their proposal, their interview and their references. Analysis The Willdan Associates proposal will provide the City with an extensive environmental review of the impacts associated with the proposed zone change from C-2 to Specific Plan Area and specifically, a 206 room, 5 story hotel. 1 The total costs will be as follows: Consultant's Fee: $ 27,950 Contingency Fee (10%): $ 2,795 City Administrative Fee (19%): $ 5,841 TOTAL: $ 36,586 The amount noted above will be charged to Kim and Yun, Inc. Attachments 1. Contract 2. Background a. Proposal b. Staff Review Minutes - 12/30/86 c. Environmental Checklist Form CONCUR: Gre oryI T. Meyer Cit Managr g NOTED FOR FISCAL IMPACT: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator 2 Respectfully ,submitted, ae-1 Schubach Planning Director CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AGREEMENT FOR FOCUSED EIR CONSULTING SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 1987, by and between the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, a municipal corporation, herinafter referred to as "CITY", and WILLDAN ASSOCIATES, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT". I RECITALS The CITY is desirous of obtaining the services of the CONSULTANT to prepare a Draft and Final Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the following proposed project: A zone change from C-2 to Specific Plan Area (SPA) for property located at 123-157 Pier Avenue and specifically, a 206 room, 5 story hotel. II SCOPE OF SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide the services set forth in his proposal to the CITY dated January 23, 1987 and the addendum dated March 19, 1987, and by this reference made a part hereof. Other services to be rendered under this Agreement shall be in accordance with the instructions of the CITY'S Director of Planning and with the concurrence of the CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT shall not communicate directly with the applicant for the project concerning the CONSULTANT'S performance under this Agreement or the Draft EIR without prior approval of the CITY'S Director of Planning. Any such communication without prior consent from the CITY shall, at the option of the CITY, terminate this Agreement. III PERFORMANCE BY PERSONNEL The CONSULTANT may associate with or employ associates in the performance of his services under this Agreement, as indicated in the proposal dated January 23, 1987, but at all times the CITY 1 shall be notified in writing of such associates and shall approve of their involvement in the provision of contract services. IV COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to pay the CONSULTANT a total amount not -to -exceed $30,745 which includes a 10% contingency fee. Included within the compensation provided for by this Agreement are all of the CONSULTANT'S ordinary office and overhead expenses incurred by him, his agents and employees, including meeting with CITY representatives, and costs to accumulate all needed data. V METHOD OF PAYMENT The CONSULTANT shall submit invoices to the CITY for services rendered for the month. All invoices are payable within thirty (30) days of receipt by the CITY. VI INTERESTS OF CONSULTANT The CONSULTANT affirms that it presently has no interest and shall not have any interest, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the services contemplated by this Agreement. No person having any such interest shall be employed by or associated with the CONSULTANT. VII COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL LAWS The CONSULTANT shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, and codes of Federal, State and local governments. VIII LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES A. CONSULTANT shall keep fully informed of State and federal laws and Municipal ordinances and regulations which in any 2 manner affect those employed by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement. The CONSULTANT shall at all times observe and comply with all such laws, ordinances, and regulations and shall be responsible for the preparation of the Screencheck EIR, Draft EIR, the Final Draft EIR, the Final EIR, notices, Statement of Findings and Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, Resolutions, and for attendance at the public hearings on the project. B. CONSULTANT agrees that in the performance of the terms of this Agreement, no discrimination shall be made in the employment of persons because of sex, race, color, national origin, ancestry, or religion of such persons. A violation of this provision will subject the CONSULTANT to all of the penalties imposed by law. IX OWNERSHIP OF REPORTS, INFORMATION, DATA, EXHIBITS, ETC. All of the reports, information, data, and exhibits prepared or assembled by the CONSULTANT in connection with the performance of its services pursuant to the Agreement are confidential and the CONSULTANT agrees that they shall not be made available to any individual or organization without the prior consent of the City. All such reports, information, data, and exhibits shall be the property of the CITY and shall be delivered to the CITY upon demand, or at the completion of the project, without additional cost or expense to the CITY. X TERM The CONSULTANT shall submit all required materials as indicated in the Project Schedule or revision to said schedule approved by the CITY. The executory provisions of this Agreement may be terminated by either party on ten (10) days written notice to the other without further action by either party. In the event of such termination by either party of this Agreement, the CITY shall pay the CONSULTANT for work completed to date of such termination. Any extension of time or request for additional compensation shall be submitted in writing to the CITY prior to the scheduling of any additional work not covered in the original contract. The CITY will evaluate said request and advise the CONSULTANT of its 3 decision regarding any such request. Costs incurred by the CONSULTANT for additional work not approved by the CITY shall be the sole responsibility of the CONSULTANT. XI NOTICES Any notice required to be given hereunder shall be in writing with copies as directed herein and shall be personally served or given by mail. Any notice given by mail shall be deemed to have been given when deposited in the United States mail, certified and postage prepaid, addressed to the party to be serviced as follows: To CITY: To CONSULTANT: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Attention: Mr. Michael Schubach Director of Planning WILLDAN ASSOCIATES 12900 Crossroads Parkway South Suite 200 Industry, CA 91746-3499 Attention: Mr. Albert V. Warot Manager Planning Services XII ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT The CONSULTANT shall not assign or otherwise transfer his rights and obligations under this Agreement without prior written. consent of the CITY. Any such assignment without such consent shall be void and shall, at the option of the CITY, terminate this Agreement. CITY may employ additional Consultants as it deems necessary to work with the CONSULTANT at any time during the term of this contract. 4 XIII EXTENT OF AGREEMENT This Agreement represents the entire integrated Agreement between the CITY and the CONSULTANT, and supercedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, whether written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument signed by both the CITY and the CONSULTANT. APPROVED AS TO FORM: —4 ��i/ rnmes P. Lough, "City AF " ATTEST: Kathleen Midstokke, City Clerk 5 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH A Municipal Corporation By John Cioffi, Mayor CONSULTANT By Willdan Associates gi a ti? rtaIB Mr. Tony Antich City Engineer City of Hermosa Beach City Hall Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 WILLDAN ASSOCIATES ❑ E\GI\EERS &P Dear Mr. Antich: _A\\ERS April 2, 1987 At your request this letter is intended to amplify our approach to pre- paring the parking analysis portion of the EI R for the proposed hotel in the downtown area. The following discusses our approach to the short and Tong term analyses. Short Term The study will commence with a determination of the actual number of spaces which will be displaced by the development of the hotel. This will be conducted by evaluating the existing onstreet parking space availability on a busy day. If it is determined that onstreet parking will not be sufficient to handle the displaced parking, Willdan Associates will identify any vacant parcels within a reasonable distance to the site, that are of sufficient size to accommodate an equal number of parking spaces. The implication is that the developer would be able to procure the property for a given period of time to offset the short term parking loss associated with construction. Long Term The long term analyis will investigate the available alternatives for providing adequate parking for the area. One alternative already discussed is the possibility of requiring the developer to provide an equal number of displaced spaces within the proposed hotel parking structure. The other alternative would investigate opportunities for the development of public parking on a remote site located within a reasonable distance of the project. The final alternative would investigate the feasibility of phasing the hotel construction, to provide the least interruption in the availability of public parking. Other alternatives will be developed as the project evolves. hope you find this information helpful, if I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, WI AN ASSOCIATES Ed Cline Manager Traffic Engineering Department ELC/RSG:sd 12900 CBIQSSDS PARKWAY SOUTH • SUITE 200 • INDUSTRY • CALI FORNIA 91746-3499 • (213) 695-0551 WILLDAN ASSOCIATES ❑ E\GI\EERS & P.ANNERS MAR 2 '1 1987 March 19, 1987 Mr. Michael Schubach Director of Planning City of Hermosa Beach City Hall Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mr. Schubach: On the behalf of Wilidan Associates, I would like to thank you and the other members of City staff for meeting with us this week to discuss the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed hotel within the downtown area. At that time, a number of amendments, in terms of additional work tasks were requested to be included within the proposed Scope of Services. The following is intended to document the requested changes and outline our proposed costs to accomplish these additional tasks. Aesthetic Impacts The existing Scope of Services proposes that photographs be taken from three view locations, one immediately east of the site and two additional locations at greater distances. The proposed building bulk would then be superimposed on these photographs to graphically show the views which will be altered, if the project is to be approved. In addition to these graphics, staff has recommended that an additional photograph be taken from the beach, looking easterly, to show the proposed building bulk from this vantage point. Four additional graphics were also requested utilizing the same vantage points as previously mentioned, however, showing the hypothetical views that would be altered if a hotel was developed on the project site that conformed with the prevailing zoning standards. The cost for preparing these additional view impairment graphics is $1 ,750. Fiscal Impacts A fiscal impact analysis will be prepared to document the costs of providing public services to the site as well as analyzing the revenues (transient, sales and property taxes) which would be accrued, if the project is to be developed. The economic consulting firm of Natelson, Lavender and Whitney will prepare the study as a subcontractor to Wilidan Associates. The cost for the fiscal study is $4,000. 12900 CROSSROADS PARKWAY SOUTH • SUITE 200 • INDUSTRY • CALIFORNIA 91746-3499 • (213) 695-0551 Mr. Michael Schubach -2- March 19, 1987 Traffic and Circulation In order to supplement existing traffic data to be provided by the City, turning movement counts will be taken on a typcial weekday from the hours of 7 - 9 a.m., 11 a.m. - 1 p.m. and 4 - 6 p.m. at the following locations: Pacific Coast Highway/Pier Avenue Pacific Coast Highway/10th Street/Aviation Avenue Manhattan Avenue/Pier Avenue Manhattan Avenue/16th Street Hermosa Avenue/Pier Avenue Hermosa Avenue/16th Street Hermosa Avenue/14th Street Monterey Boulevard/Pier Avenue Twenty four (24) hour machine counts will also be taken from a typical Thursday through Monday period, in order to identify weekend fluctuations in traffic, on the following streets: - - Hermosa Avenue -- Manhattan Avenue -- Pier Avenue The cumulative impact analysis section of the report will include the following projects: Community Center Parking Structure - - Doubletree Hotel -- Santa Fe Railroad Property - - Pavilion (theater) Project Traffic studies previously conducted on the Doubletree Hotel, Santa Fe Property and Pavilion Project will be provided by the City. A separate analysis of the Community Center Parking Structure will be conducted based on certain assumptions provided by the City staff such as size (number of stalls) and points of ingress and egress. This analysis will include traffic distribution and assignment. Mr. Michael Schubach -3- March 19, 1987 An analysis of the short term (construction phase) and long term parking impacts will be conducted as well as a determination of the adequacy of on-site parking facilities and circulation patterns. The cost of providing the additional traffic work is $2,800. Miscellaneous Changes In addition, and at staff's request, the time schedule included in the proposal would be expanded to include a 45 day review period rather than the proposed 30 day review period. Willdan Associates will also prepare the Notices of Preparation and Completion, as required by CEQA. Based on the inclusion of the abovementioned additional items and in order to be consistent with the format of our proposal (reference; Schedule and Costs Section), the following is the breakdown of costs: Reports Preparation (including Response to Comments) $24,898 Typing/Clerical 1 ,200 Printing (56 copies) 1,000 Meeting Attendance ( 3 meetings) 852 Total Fee $27,950 In closing, I would again like to thank you for meeting with us and I look forward to working with you on this project. If you have any questions regarding the proposed changes, please do not hesitate to contact me at (213) 695-0551. Very truly yours, WILLDAN ASSOCIATES Ross Geller Principal Planner RSG : yn JN 9604 1 i L L L L i PROPOSAL TO PREPARE A FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR A REQUESTED ZONE CHANGE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 123-157 PIER AVENUE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH JANUARY 23, 1987 Submitted by: Willdan Associates Planning Services Department 12900 CROSSROADS PARKWAY SOUTH • SUITE 200 • INDUSTRY• CALIFORNIA 91746-3499 • (213) 695-0551 r r r r i r f 0 L L L WILLDAN ASSOCIATES ❑ E\GINEERS & PANNERS Mr. Michael Schubach Planning Director City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mr. Schubach: FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR ZONE CHANGE AT 123-157 PIER AVENUE January 23, 1987 Willdan Associatesis pleased to offer its professional environmental planning and engineering services to the City of Hermosa Beach for the preparation and processing of a Focused EI R for a Zone Change requested at 123-157 Pier Avenue. This proposal is being submitted in response to your Request for Proposal (RFP) and is based on: 1) the information provided in your RFP; 2) additional information and clarification provided during our meeting on January 20, 1987; 3) observations made during a recent tour of the project area; and 4) our corporate and individual experience in preparing and processing EIR's for similar projects. Our Planning Services Department has an extensive background in the field of environmental studies, having prepared numerous environmental documents for a wide range of projects. Willdan Associates has the planning and engineering capabilities that are required in order to respond to the issues involved in the preparation of the EI R for the proposed project. We feel that the work program being offered by Willdan Associates is fully responsive to your RFP and will result in a product that will be objective, accurate and comprehensive. In preparing this proposal, we have taken an approach which will demonstrate our understanding of the project, our technical approach to the accomplishment of defined tasks and the qualifications of the professional planners and engineers who will be performing these tasks. In order to explain each area more fully, the text of this proposal has been organized under the following headings: 1) Scope of Services; 2) Personnel and Project Management; and 3) Schedule and Costs. These sections are followed by appendices that contain resumes for each of the key personnel and a partial list of similar assignments undertaken by Willdan Associates. The names and phone numbers of contact persons have been provided for several of our more recent projects. 12900 CROSSROADS PARKWAY SOUTH • SUITE 200 • INDUSTRY• CALIFORNIA 91746-3499 • (213) 695-0551 Mr. Michael Schubach -2- January 23, 1987 We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal and stand ready to proceed with the services requested upon your authorization. If you should have any questions concerning this proposal, please feel free to call the undersigned who has authority to negotiate a contract with the City of Hermosa Beach. Respectfully submitted, WILLDAN ASSOCIATES Albert V. Warot Manager Planning Services Department AVW : dmv JN 9604 Enclosure 1 SCOPE OF SERVICES The Environmental Impact Report for the proposed project will be prepared in accordance with the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the guidelines promulgated by the City of Hermosa Beach. The EIR will discuss environmental effects in proportion to their severity and probability of occurrence. In preparing the EIR, Wilidan Associates will work closely with you, the applicant and other responsible agency staff to ensure that the EIR is accurate relative to the proposed project and reflects the concerns of the City and other responsible agencies as required by CEQA. The preparation of the EIR will involve the completion of the following work program. PHASE I - PREPARE DRAFT EIR Task 1 - Compile and Review Background Material Wilidan Associates will assemble all available material regarding the project and its environmental setting including any previously prepared EI R's for nearby projects (e.g., Doubletree Hotel), any supporting technical studies and the responses to the Notice of Preparation. Our staff will review this material in relation to the Initial Study that has been prepared by City staff. Task 2 - City Staff/Consultant Meeting Having collected and reviewed all existing data, our staff will meet with key City staff members to discuss the various components of the project and to review the detailed outline for the EIR. City staff will be instrumental in identifying issues and areas of known public controversy and directing the consultant to responsible informational sources. Task 3 - Project Description This introductory section of the EIR will discuss the purpose of the report and the approach and format used in its preparation. In addition, the project will be described as to: 1) the project proponents; 2) the boundaries of the project site; 3) the existing and proposed land uses, zoning and General Plan designations; 4) the objectives of the project; and 5) the general characteristics of the project. The location of the project site will be shown on local and regional maps. A description of the components of the project, including technical and environmental characteristics, will be presented along with a discussion of the type of development envisioned, the principal engineering proposals and supporting public facilities. The entitlements required from the City of Hermosa Beach will also be identified. r Scope of Work ( Cont. ) 17 F , Z L L L L Task 4 - Summary An executive summary will be provided in this section which will describe the potential impacts attributable to the project, appropriate mitigation measures for reducing or eliminating potentially significant impacts and any unavoidable significant adverse impacts. The alternatives that were considered will also be discussed. This summary will identify the salient findings discussed in greater detail within the body of the EIR. Task 5 - Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures In performing this task, Willdan Associates will conduct data collection and literature research sufficient to establish the existing environmental conditions and to permit assessment of the impact of the project on the environment. Data will be obtained from other documents concerning the local setting (Hermosa Beach General Plan, previously prepared environmental reports, etc.) . Field surveys, measurements and/or observations will be conducted to update and supplement this information as necessary. Having documented the existing environmental conditions in the project area, the potential short- and long-term, impacts associated with the proposed project will be addressed. The proposed project and any alternatives or design variations being considered will be analyzed. Both direct and indirect project impacts will be assessed. Related and other nearby public and private projects, both approved and planned, will be considered for the purpose of determining the cumulative impacts associated therewith. Potential impacts will be quantified whenever possible. Each environmental issue will comprise a separate section of the EIR and be dealt with separately. The data and analyses contained in the EIR will be commensurate with the significance of the potential impacts. Having evaluated project -related impacts, measures that could reduce or eliminate potentially significant impacts will be identified, where possible. An emphasis will be placed on measures that can be implemented. This includes the use of alternative project designs to mitigate adverse impacts. Mitigation measures included in the project plan, as well as other measures that are not included but could reasonably be expected to reduce adverse impacts, will be discussed. Finally, any significant unavoidable impacts that are likely to result from project implementation will be identified. The foregoing analysis will be prepared for each of the issues identified as potentially significant in the City's Initial Environmental Study. A brief description of the work that would be performed under each of these topics is presented below. Scope of Work (Cont.) Task 5.1 - Soils/Geology/Topography The existing soil and geologic conditions in the vicinity of the project site will be described and the suitability of the site to support the proposed level of development will be evaluated. Similarly, the existing topography on the site will be described and the project -related alterations thereto will be assessed. Potential impacts associated with constructing four tiers of subterranean parking at this location and excavating below the grades of adjacent properties will be examined. The specific geotechnical issues to be addressed include: Groundwater levels and construction dewatering. Support of excavation walls or slopes during construction. Foundation type and design parameters (allowable bearing pressure, minimum size, and anticipated settlement for footings; axial and lateral capacity curves, tip depths, and preliminary driving interia for two sizes of piles) . Static and pseudo -dynamic lateral earth pressures. Chemical testing to provide data for evaluation of soil corrosivity with respect to steel and concrete. Subgrade preparation and pavement design criteria. In preparing this section of the report, Geofan, Incorporated, will utilize data contained in the EIR for the nearby Doubletree Hotel project and will supplement this data with field, laboratory and engineering evaluations. Task 5.2 - Land Use The existing land use and zoning patterns in the project area will be discussed as well as the manner in which the project would altar the usage of the site. The compatibility of the proposed project with the adjoining residential and other uses will be discussed. In addition to existing zoning and land uses, the consistency of the project with the Hermosa Beach General Plan (particularly the Land Use Element) will be evaluated. The potential for this project to induce the development or redevelopment of other nearby properties will also be addressed. Task 5.3 - Aesthetics/Light and Glare A visual analysis will be prepared that will document the present character of the project site, the surrounding area and the potential impact thereon. A prime consideration in this analysis will be the alteration of views from upslope residences and selected public view F Scope of Work (Cont.) o. t L L locations. In order to assess this potential impact, photographs of the existing setting will be presented in the EIR. The outline of the proposed project will then be superimposed on these photographs to clearly show the project -related impact. This analysis will be performed for three view locations - one immediately east of the site and two additional locations at a greater distance to the northeast and southeast of the property. A shade/shadow analysis will be prepared for both winter and summer conditions and the potential for the creation of Tight and/or glare impacts on adjoining properties will be addressed. Outdoor lighting levels necessary for public safety without creating excessive illumination will be discussed. The architectural compatibility of the project with adjoining uses will also be assessed to the degree that available information, e.g., elevations, renderings, etc., will permit. Renderings and elevations will be presented in the report as available. Task 5.4 - Traffic and Circulation Recognizing that traffic is a major consideration with any development, particularly in a beach community, Willdan's in-house Transportation Engineering staff will prepare the necessary traffic impact analysis. This phase . of the study will involve the accomplishment of the following sub -tasks: Sub -task 5.4.1 - Willdan Associates will confer with the appropriate City staff to determine the exact scope of work and precise study area. It is envisioned at this time that the area would be generally bounded by 16th Street on the north, Pacific Coast Highway on the east, 10th Street on the south and Hermosa Avenue on the west. At this meeting, arrangements will be made to secure copies of relevant previous studies, count data, maps, aerial photographs and any other information necessary to conduct the study. Sub -task 5.4.2 - The area will be reviewed in the field and information obtained during Sub -task 4.5.1 will be analyzed for completeness. Additional field data and measurements will be taken to complete the background field conditions. Since there is no opportunity, because of time constraints, to obtain data relative to summer traffic conditions, Willdan will be required to use the best information available to use as a background condition. Sub -task 5.4.3 - In order to predict the volume of traffic that can reasonably be expected to be generated by the proposed development, nationally and regionally accepted trip generation factors will be used to forecast future traffic conditions. Site specific studies conducted at successful hotel sites in the San Diego area will be used as a check against this data. Factors for 24-hour traffic for weekdays as well as weekends will be used. Peak hour factors will also consider weekday as well as weekend conditions. Scope of Work (Cont.) Sub -task 5.4.4 - Using existing travel splits, the gravitation aspects of the traffic generator within the area and experience in the area, the predicted traffic volumes will be assigned and distributed through the study area on both a 24-hour and peak hour basis. The directional split of the traffic generated into and out of the site will be quantified and provided on easy to read graphics. Sub -task 5.4.5 - With the completion of the previous tasks, intersection capacity analyses can be conducted at each of the significant intersections in the study area. Generally, any signalized or four-way stop controlled locations would be studied. These evaluations will be done for the background condition and with the project traffic added for comparison. These comparisons will be conducted for the previously mentioned peak traffic periods on both weekdays and weekends. Tables outlining these comparisons will be provided. Sub -task 5.4.6 - Wilidan's operationally oriented project engineer will review the forecasted traffic pattern and recommend any improvements that may be necessary to mitigate any identifiable impacts. This analysis will include signal or four-way stop warrant studies that may be appropriate, as well as any special channelization that may be needed for improved access to the site or to mitigate capacity shortages at intersections. Since intersections control mid -block capacities along any roadway section, link volume/capacity analyses are not considered necessary for this project in this area. Sub -task 5.4.7 - The cumulative effect of traffic predicted to the generated by the project will be measured against the background plus other known projects in the study area. These projects should be identified by City staff, and will also be used for cumulative air and noise calculations. Task 5.5 - Parking Available parking in a beach community is an extremely important facet of any project evaluation. Since the site is currently used for public parking, it will be important to analyze both the short- (during construction) and long-term impacts associated with the proposed development. To this end, Willdan Associates will use available parking studies and additional data as the time frame will permit to evaluate the impacts, both positive and negative, of the project. Site specific studies will be used when possible. Scope of Work (Cont.) Task 5.6 - Air Quality The climate and meteorological trends prevailing in the project vicinity will be discussed and the historical trend in local, ambient air quality for the past three years will be summarized. Any major sources of air pollution near the project site will also be identified. Having documented the background conditions in the project area, both short-term construction and long. -term operational impacts will be addressed. An air pollutant emission inventory will be prepared for future conditions with and without the project. The project -related emissions generated by both mobile and stationary sources will then be compared to the regional emission inventory compiled by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. In addition, the concentration of primary air contaminants in the vicinity of the site will be determined for the post -project condition and evaluated for compliance with applicable State and Federal air quality standards. The primary contaminants to be considered include carbon monoxide, sulfer dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, hydrocarbons and particulate matter. The project's consistency with the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan will also be addressed. Having documented the potential impacts of the project, measures will be identified to avoid, or at least reduce these impacts to an acceptable level. Measures already included in the project plan as well as additional measures which could reduce impacts, but are not currently included, will be discussed. Task 5.7 - Noise The existing noise levels in the vicinity of the project site and along the major streets serving the site (i.e., Pier Avenue, Hermosa Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway) will be documented. The CNEL noise measurement scale will be used to document vehicular noise levels. Having established the existing conditions, the impact of the project thereon will be assessed. Both the stationary and mobile noise sources associated with the project will be examined. Noise contours will be prepared using the Federal Highway Noise Prediction Model for the forecasted traffic volumes on the previously mentioned streets.. Noise exposure levels will then be evaluated for their acceptability on the basis of applicable State and local standards. Conformance to the Noise Element of the Hermosa Beach General Plan and the City's Noise Ordinance will be examined. Finally, measures for the attenuation of projected noise levels will be suggested as necessary. { Scope of Work (Cont.) Task 5.8 - Public Services The current level of police, fire, and emergency medical service provided in the project area will be identified, as well as any significant problems associated therewith. Based on the current project description, the project -related demand for increased services (i.e., personnel or equipment) will be determined. Recognizing the multi -story nature of the proposed project, the ability of the Hermosa Beach Fire Department to suppress a fire on the site will be discussed. In addition, any water system improvements needed to provide an adequate fire flow will be identified. Our staff will work closely with the Hermosa Beach Fire and Police Departments in preparing this section of the EIR. Task 5.9 - Public Facilities The ability of existing water distribution, sewerage and storm drain systems to accommodate the proposed project will be assessed. In addition to capacity considerations, the manner in which stormwater will be conveyed from the subterranean parking structure to the nearest storm drain will be examined. The relocation of electrical and telephone lines necessitated by the project ,will also be discussed. Planned or programmed improvements will be discussed and any additional improvements needed to adequately serve the project will be identified. In addition to these public facilities/utilities, the project will also indirectly affect beach access, through the possible elimination of a public parking lot in proximity to the beach. Hence, this potential impact will also be examined along with measures for the mitigation thereof. Task 6 - Growth Inducing Impact of the Proposed Project The potential growth -inducing impact of the project will be addressed. Ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or employment growth, either directly or indirectly, in the community will be discussed, including population growth. The potential for this project to facilitate or encourage the redevelopment of adjoining or nearby land will also be addressed. Task 7 - Alternatives to the Project The EIR will describe reasonable alternatives to the project which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project and why they were rejected in favor of the ultimate choice. The specific alternative of "no project" will be evaluated along with its associated impact. The discussion of alternatives shall include alternatives capable of substantially reducing or eliminating any significant environmental effects even if these alternatives are more costly. Scope of Work (Cont.) In addition to the "no project" alternative, at least two additional alternatives will be evaluated. These alternatives will be developed by Wilidan Associates in concert with City staff and will likely involve a smaller scale hotel and an alternative use permitted under the C-2 zoning on the site. These alternatives will be evaluated in sufficient detail to allow for a comparative analysis of the alternative development scenarios with the project as proposed. Task 8 - Appendices All State and local agencies, other organizations and private individuals that were consulted during the preparation of the EIR will be identified, as well as the individuals that were responsible for preparing the various sections of the EIR. Any supporting technical studies and calculation worksheets for the assessment of potential impacts as well as any correspondence received in respect to the project shall be presented in the form of appendices to the EIR. The Initial Study will also be appended to the report as well as any responses to the Notice of Preparation. Task 9 - Submit Preliminary Draft EIR for City Review Upon the completion of Tasks 1 through 8, Willdan Associates will submit six (6) Preliminary Draft EIR's for review by the City. Comments provided by the staff will be incorporated into the Draft EIR which will be circulated to affected or interested agencies and individuals. PHASE II - PROCESS DRAFT EIR Task 10 - Prepare and Circulate Draft EIR Thirty (30) copies of the Draft EIR will be reproduced and submitted to the City for review by public agencies required by law or requested by the City to review the draft as well as for distribution to local citizens, City staff, and decision-making bodies of the City. This will initiate a minimum 30 -day review period during which comments on the Draft EIR will be solicited by the City. Task 11 - Planning Commission Public Hearing The Draft EIR will be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing following the close of the 30 -day review period for the Draft EIR. The Planning Commission will evaluate the adequacy of the Draft EIR and will make its recommendations to the City Council for certification. The consultant will be present to respond to questions and comments on the Draft El R. F F 3 ip Scope of Work (Cont.) Willdan Associates will respond to all written comments received during the public review period. These responses will be prepared in the form of an addendum to the Draft EIR. Likewise, any comments made by the Planning Commission in taking its certification action will be incorporated into this addendum prior to City Council consideration. Task 12 - City Council The Draft EIR will be forwarded to the Hermosa Beach City Council for consideration. Willdan Associates will be present to explain the preparation and review process leading to the submission of the EIR as well as the significant points thereof. At the close of the public hearing, the City Council will certify the EIR. Any comments made by the City Council in certifying the report will be incorporated into the addendum to the Draft E1 R. The Draft EIR and this addendum will constitute the Final EIR. The City will be furnished with twenty (20) copies of the Final EIR and a reproducible master. PERSONNEL AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT Willdan Associates utilizes a project management approach to ensure a complete and accurate report. Each job is usually assigned to a senior member of our staff who leads a multi -disciplinary team assembled from our technical staff and associate consultants. Experience in the type of job, knowledge of the subject environs and availability to support the required schedule are primary considerations in the selection of a project manager. Willdan Associates has designated Mr. Al Warot to serve as the Principal In Charge for this assignment. Mr. Warot, who is Manager of Planning Services for Willdan Associates, has over 15 years of professional planning • experience which includes both public and private sector employment. Mr. Warot has substantial experience in the preparation and processing of environmental documents. Mr. Warot will provide overall direction to the project team and will be responsible for contract administration and overall contract performance. He will meet regularly with the Project Manager to review the status of the assignment, schedule and other contract -related matters. He will be responsible for• resolving any management issues at the corporate level. Mr. Warot will also review all work products before they are submitted to the City of Hermosa Beach. Mr. Ross Geller, Principal Planner with Willdan Associates, will serve as the Project Manager for this project. Mr. Geller has over eight years of professional planning experience. While he has worked in a variety of capacities, the majority of his career has been spent in the field of environmental analysis. Mr. Geller has successfully managed the preparation of numerous environmental documents including several recent EIR's for developments similar to the proposed project. Mr. Geller will be responsible for the day-to-day direction of the professional staff assigned to this project and will personally prepare major portions of the EIR. He will have full management authority over the project and will be furnished with a weekly cumulative financial record of hours and expenses incurred on the project. He will be directly responsible to the City of Hermosa Beach for execution of the work program, meeting established deadlines, representing Willdan Associates at all meetings and hearings, maintaining fiscal responsibility and assuring that the City's needs are met and that the work products are of the highest professional quality. Assisting the Project Manager in a technical capacity will be Mr. Jon Davidson, Planning Associate. The necessary traffic and circulation study will be prepared under the direction of Mr. Ed Cline, Manager of Transportation Engineering with Willdan Associates. The air quality and e Personnel and Project Management (Cont.) noise impact analyses will be conducted by Mr. Hans Giroux, a technical subconsultant to Willdan, while the geotechnical investigations will be performed by Geofon, Incorporated, under the direction of Mr. Alex Khan. To summarize, the project team will consist of the following individuals: Willdan Associates Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Albert Warot Ross Geller Jon Davidson Ed Cline Geofon, Incorporated Mr. Alex Khan Mr. Byron Konstantinidis Mr. James Harris Mr. Hans Giroux Principal In Charge Project Manager Planning Associate Manager, Transportation Engineering Geotechnical Engineer Foundation Engineer Geotechnical Engineer Air Quality and Noise Specialist Resumes for each of these individuals are appended to this proposal. SCHEDULE AND COSTS The Preliminary Draft (Screencheck) EIR woul be submitted to the City within six weeks (45 days) of receiving an Au horization to Proceed. The Draft EIR, in turn would be submitted to th City within two weeks after receiving the comments of the City staff o the Screencheck Draft. The responses to comments received during the 316 -day public review period for the Draft EIR would be prepared within two weeks following the close of the review period and the Final EIR would be submitted within two weeks after certification of the EIR by the Hermosa Beach City Council. The tentative time schedule for the preparation and processing of the EIR is graphically portrayed in Exhibit 1. It should be pointed out that Wilidan Associates would be available to begin work immediately upon receiving an Authorization to Proceed. The services offered in this proposal would be provided for a maximum, not -to -exceed cost of $19,400. The fee includes all field work, research and writing, graphics work, clerical support and project coordination activities necessary to prepare the Draft and Final EIR's. This fee also includes the printing of six Preliminary Draft EIR's, 30 Draft EIR's and 20 Final EIR's. Attendance at two (2) Planning Commission meetings and one (1) City Council meeting is also included in this fee. Attendance at additional meetings would be billed as an extra at an hourly rate of $84 for the Principal In Charge and/or $71 for the Project Manager. The breakdown of our estimated costs is as follows: Report Preparation (including Response to Comments) Typing/Clerical Printing (56 copies) Meeting Attendance (3 meetings) Total Fee $16,348 1,200 1,000 852 $19,400 r.:, I �`: �' � Pte, _ 1-4 y EZ123:01 ..41:212131 455121t21 fAlarr...n1 Exhibit 1 Major Tasks 1. PREPARE PRELIMINARY DRAFT EIR 2. STAFF REVIEWS PRELIMINARY DRAFT EIR 3. PREPARE DRAFT EIR 4. CIRCULATE DRAFT EIR 5. RESPOND TO COMMENTS 6. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7. CITY COUNCIL HEARING 8. PREPARE FINAL EIR TENTATIVE TIME SCHEDULE City of Hermosa Beach Focused EIR For Zone Change At 123-157 Pier Avenue WILI DAN ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS WEEKS 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 I Zgrilainiim 1 ALBERT V. WAROT POSITION: Manager, Planning Services Department EDUCATION: EXPERIENCE: Northern Arizona University Bachelor of Science, Geography University of Arizona California State University - Fresno California State University - Long Beach Graduate Studies, Geography and Urban Planning As Manager of Planning Services for Willdan Associates, Mr. Warot is responsible for the general administration and management of the firm's planning operations. Mr. Warot has over 14 years of professional planning experience which has involved both public and private sector employment. Prior to joining Willdan Associates, Mr. Warot served as Manager of Environmental Planning for B C L Associates, a planning consultant firm in Long Beach, California. Previously held positions also include Associate Planner with the City of Torrance and Planning Aide with the City of Merced. Since joining Willdan Associates, Mr. Warot has served as CDBG Program Manager for the City of Rosemead, Acting Community Development Director for the City of South El Monte, Special Planning Advisor for the City of Westlake Village, and Planning Advisor for the Cities of La Habra Heights, Hawaiian Gardens, and Lynwood. Mr. Warot has managed the preparation of Tong -range General Plans for several California communities as well as implementing zoning ordinances therefor. He has also participated in the land use planning for projects ranging from downtown redevelopment to outlying residential development. In addition to his land use planning and zoning administration background, Mr. Warot has extensive experience in the preparation and processing of environmental documents. Among the projects for which he has prepared EIR's/EIS's are: 1) the Torrance Municipal Airport Master Plan, 2) the Gateway Plaza mixed use project in Garden Grove, California, 3) major redevelopment projects in the Cities of Lynwood, Oxnard, Torrance and Pasadena, California, 4) a Albert V. Warot (Cont.) EXPERIENCE (Cont.) : ASSOCIATIONS AND AFFILIATIONS: proposed 22,000 -acre annexation to the City of Tehachapi, California, and 5) the Marlex Oil expansion in Long Beach, California. Mr. Warot has prepared applications for and subsequently administered numerous State and Federal grants related to planning and community development (e.g., CDBG, 701, Historic Preservation, etc.). He has an indepth working knowledge of the redevelopment process and has designed and administered programs dealing with property rehabilitation (both residential and commercial) and the development of low and moderate income housing. While serving as a project manager, Mr. Warot has made numerous public presentations before bodies ranging from homeowner associations to city councils. American Planning Association Association of Environmental Professionals National Trust for Historic Preservation Downtown Development Plan Task Force, Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Advisory Committee, City of Long Beach Chairman, City Advisory Committee, Los Angeles County Community Development Block Grant Program California Association for Local Economic Development Community Redevelopment Agencies Association ROSS S. GELLER POSITION: Principal Planner EDUCATION: California Polytechnic University - Pomona Bachelor of Science, Urban Planning EXPERIENCE:. California State University - Fullerton Master of Arts, Public Administration (in progress) Mr. Geller is a senior member of Willdan Associates' Planning Services Department. In this capacity, he is responsible for the preparation of technically oriented planning studies as well as a wide range of administrative/project management activities. He has prepared numerous General Plans and Specific Plans within the Southern California region. He has also managed or been involved in the preparation of Environmental Impact Reports for projects such as private developments, water/wastewater treatment plants and microwave transmission facilities. Mr. Geller currently serves as the Planning Advisor to the City of Hawaiian Gardens where he is responsible for the overall administration of the City's planning activities. He is also currently administering the public improvements component of the County of Los Angles' Community Business Revitalization Program within the Second Supervisorial District. In this capacity, he is responsible for formulating a program of public improvements in concert with local business associations and County staff, coordinating with Willdan's Engineering Services Department in the preparation of design specifications for bid packages, obtaining the proper clearances and permits from County departments and administering the construction process. Prior to joining Willdan Associates Mr. Geller was an Associate Planner with the planning consulting firm of L. D. King, Inc. In the capacity he participated in numerous projects and managed several major planning studies including the Joint Powers Authority Water Treatment Plant EIR, the R. H. Wagner Properties Specific Plan and the Seven Palms Ranch EIR. Mr. Geller was also responsible for updating general plans for the cities of Montclair and Fontana. JON K. DAVIDSON POSITION: Planning Associate EDUCATION: EXPERIENCE: University of Washington - Seattle, Washington Bachelor of Arts, Urban Planning California State Polytechnic University - Pomona Master of Urban and Regional Planning (Urban Design Specialization) Mr. Davidson performs a variety of urban planning functions in conjunction with senior staff members including technical and professional duties such as research and analysis, report writing and design graphics. He has participated in a wide range of planning and design assignments including Environmental Impact Reports, General Plan programs, Redevelopment Plans, Specific Plans, Urban Design studies and various specialized planning studies. He has recently functioned as Planning Advisor for the City of Bell Gardens acting as an extension of City Staff in handling current planning matters. In addition, Mr. Davidson has developed a specialization in urban design and is skilled in site planning, and architecture as they relate to urban planning. His design - related assignments have included aesthetic/visual analyses, preparation of design guidelines, urban design studies and site plans, as well as assistance in streetscape improvement and downtown revitalization programs. Prior to joining Wilidan Associates, Mr. Davidson held a planning position with Urban Futures, Inc., a planning and redevelopment firm in Fullerton, California. He performed duties such as field research, data analysis, text preparation, and graphics for numerous redevelopment plans, environmental impact reports and planning studies. Additional experience includes a planning intership with the Office of Neighborhood Planning in the City of Seattle. Mr. Davidson was involved in the preparation of a series of planning reports which were used in development of new multi -family land use policies. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: American Planning Association, Urban Design Division Institute for Urban Design EDWARD L. CLINE PRESENT POSITION: Manager Transportation Engineering Department EDUCATION: College -level Engineering Classes EXPERIENCE: As Manager of the Transportation Engineering Department, Mr. Cline is responsible for transportation planning, traffic safety and traffic engineering projects. He also serves as City Traffic Engineer for several communities in Southern California. Mr. Cline has 31 years of traffic engineering experience. Since joining Willdan Associates, he has been responsible for numerous traffic engineering studies and reports including corridor studies on five arterial highways through the City of Alhambra. He has conducted two-day seminars on Traffic Safety through Construction and Maintenance Zones through the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California. He has lectured on Traffic Engineering at the University of Southern California, California State College at Los Angeles, Citrus College, and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Academy. Prior to joining Willdan Associates, Mr. Cline was in charge of the Traffic Investigations Unit of the Road Department. He directed a seven -person staff of engineers involved with conducting traffic investigations and studies in response to requests and suggestions from citizens, law enforcement and school officials. His earlier experience with the Road Department involved responsibility for all phases of temporary traffic control attendant to several hundred major public works projects including bridge widening, road improvements, and various underground projects. MEMBERSHIP IN ORGANIZATIONS: Institute of Transportation Engineers Orange County Traffic Engineering Council REGISTRATION: California, CE 21715 California, TE 535 INCORPORATED[ ==- GEOFCIN • 1 L L L L ALEXANDER I. KHAN PRESIDENT EDUCATION 1970 University of Toronto, Toronto; M.A.Sc. in Geotechnical Engineering 1976 University of Texas, Austin; Pile Design 1977 University of Missouri, Rolla; Construction Dewatering 1978&1985 Colorado State University, Boulder; Pile Dynamics EXPERIENCE 1983 - present GEOFON, Cypress, California President. Notable projects include a 24 acre land reclamation and wharf construction project for The Port of Long Beach, a 30 acre foundation improvement project for International Transportation Services in The Port of Long Beach, a 3,000 foot long marina for The Irvine Company in Newport Beach, Brookhurst Avenue Bridge widening, EIR input for the Union Oil Development project on and offshore Santa Barbara, reconstruction of a 600 foot long pier on San Clemente Island, a 30 million dollar pier in San Diego and a Homeporting facility for the U.S. Coast Guard. Was responsible to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for all onshore and offshore geophysical investigations in Southern California. 1975- Ertec/Fugro, Long Beach, California 1983 Senior Engineer. Client -related responsibilities included liaison, project management and technical supervision. Company related responsibilities required input to planning, organizing, staffing and business development. Selected activities are chronologically listed below: 1982 - Long Beach International Coal Project, Long Beach, California - Los Cerritos Channel Bridge Crossing, Long Beach, California - Major offshore California project for confidential client f s L L L 1981 - Heber Geothermal Plant, Heber, California - Atlantic Avenue Bridge Widening, Long Beach, California - Downtown Shoreline Marina, Long Beach, California 1980 - North Harbor Fill, The Port of Long Beach, California - Powerine Refinery, Santa Fe Springs, California - Large Scale Pile Load Test for Shell Oil Company, Long Beach, California 1979 - Hua Shan Hotel, Shanghai, China - 13th Street Bridge, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California - Cerritos Channel Crossing, Shell Oil, Long Beach, California 1978 - MX Missile Studies, Western United States 1977' - Sundesert Nuclear Power Project, Blythe, California - Arizona Nuclear Power Project, Arizona 1976 - Pipeline Trestle, Sohio Oil Terminal, Long Beach, California - Toxic Waste, Anaconda's Blue Water Mill, Grants, New Mexico 1975 - Rud-e-Karun Nuclear Power Plant, Iran 1975 Dames & Moore, Tehran, Iran Project Engineer for soil investigation and construction control for the Halileh Nuclear Power Plant. Project engineer for Arya Sheraton Hotel soil investigations and several small projects. 1974- Dames & Moore, Los Angeles, California 1975 Project Engineer for projects involving soil investigation and fill control for storage tanks, oil refineries, high-rise structures, and dams. Prepared construction specifications and drawings for cooling pond dikes in North Carolina. 1973- Dames & Moore, Cranford, New Jersey 1974. Project Engineer for analysis and field work on the Atlantic Generating Station Nuclear Plant (Floating Nuclear Power Plant). Worked with consultants using state-of-the-art soil mechanics and instrumentation techniques. i. t 1i L L 1970- Woodward Clyde Consultants, Clifton, New Jersey 1973 Activities included field, laboratory, and office work for preparation of foundation reports and onsite fill control. Involved in onshore and offshore investigations for Daily News and AT&T buildings, the Maryland LNG Terminal and several shopping centers for Arlen Shopping centers Inc. Helped in expansion of static and dynamic testing capabilities. PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES AND ACTIVITIES Chairman, ASCE Geotechnical Division, Los Angeles Chapter Member, Structural Engineers Association of Southern California Affiliate Member, American Institute of Architects Member, American Society of Civil Engineers Registered Engineer, State of California PUBLICATIONS AND PAPERS "Geology of Long Beach" Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists February, 1983 (Winner of AEG Publication Award for 1983) "Stress Conditions in Welland Clay," M.A.Sc Dissertation. "Alternate Concrete Reinforcement Materials", B.E. Thesis. • L L L L L GEOFON 1 N C O R P O R A T E D BYRON KONSTANTINIDIS VICE PRESIDENT EDUCATION 1972 University of New Mexico- M.S.C.E(Geotechnical Major) 1971 Robert College - B.S.C.E. EXPERIENCE 1985- GEOFON, Inc., Cypress, California Present Vice President. Directs foundation engineering studies for on land and waterfront projects. 1974- THE EARTH TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION(formerly Fugro, Inc.) 1985 Long Beach, California Progressed from staff Engineer to Manager of Foundation Engineering. Directed foundation engineering studies and provided construction phase consultations for a wide variety of projects including several major power plants, power transmission and distribution facilities, multi -story office complexes, hotels, shopping facilities, port and harbor developments, residential developments, water storage and distribution facilities, military installations, and miscellaneous public works. The combined construction cost of these projects was about $20 Billion. Mr. Konstantinidis evaluated and monitored foundation settlements for heavy settlement -sensitive structures, performed comprehensive material and compaction evaluations for deep fills, conducted seepage studies for ponds and reservoirs, assessed liquefaction and dynamic settlement potential under earthquake conditions, evaluated deep excavation stability and dewatering requirements, and designed permanent drainage systems for structures and embankments. His r L L foundation engineering studies for critical facilities such as nuclear and coal fired power plants involved state-of-the-art subsurface exploration and analytical methods as well as extensive performance monitoring. These in-depth evaluations have given him unique insight into the foundation performance of, very heavy structures (weighing ,as much as 70 -story high rises). 1972- Engineers Testing Laboratories, Phoenix, Arizona 1974 Conducted over 100 foundation investigations for residential, commercial, and industrial developments, including several shopping centers, office buildings, hospitals, bridges, and pipeline alignments. Provided construction phase consulting and inspection services for two high-rise developments, two shopping centers, and a number of smaller developments. PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES AND ACTIVITIES Associate Member, American Society of Civil Engineers Registered Civil Engineer, State of California PUBLICATIONS 1. Structural Settlements at a Major Power Plant - co-authored with Gary Van Riessen and Jerry P. Schneider. Submitted for publication in the Proceedings of the Specialty Session on Settlements of Shallow Foundations on Cohesionless Soils, A.S.C.E. National Convention April 1986. 2. Geotechnical Applications of Borehole Geophysics- co-authored with James B. Crosby III and Paul Davis. Published in the Proceedings of the Specialty Session on Geophysical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering, A.S.C.E. National Convention, October 1979. . 1 r ti j i 1± .' 1 L L L JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, IV SENIOR ENGINEER EDUCATION 1982 Master of Science Degree in Civil Engineering, California State University, Long Beach, GPA 3.90 1979 Bachelor of Science, Marine Biology, California California State University, Long Beach EXPERIENCE GEDFDN I N C O R P O. R A TEO 1985 GEOFON, Inc. Cypress, California Responsible for conducting a variety of geotechnical projects. 1983- Irvine Soils Engineering, Inc. Irvine, California 1985 Responsibilities include: project management of geotechnical investigations and project construction; report preparation including design of deep and shallow foundations, slope stabilization, hillside and flatland grading recommendations; direction of field technicians involved with construction observation and testing. Performing slope stability analysis utilizing time-sharing and in-house computers; evaluation of geotechnical software for in-house applications. 1982- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1983 Responsibilities • included: overflow analysis utilizing computer programs, flood insurance studies, design and analysis of open channels and rivers, channel observation for release control. r' r P 11 17 EJ L L 1981- Department of Civil Engineering, 1982 California State University, Long Beach California State University, Long Beach. Under the direction of Dr. Bing Yen, conducted state-of-the-art research in uplift resistance of frozen soils for the Alaskan natural gas pipeline. Duties included: scheduling tests and manpower, sample preparation, instrumentation, fabrication of testing apparatus and analysis of results. 1977- Marine Biological Consultants, Inc., Costa Mesa, 1980 Planned, supervised, and participated in various endeavors and state -approved bioassay experi implemented an in-house "Bioassay Procedures Manual". California field and laboratory ments. Wrote and and Quality Assurance PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES AND ACTIVITIES Registered Professional Engineer in California Associate Member, American Society of Civil Engineers ' Hans D. Giroux Consultant rMeterology • Air Quality • Noise I HANS D. GIROUX SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE EDUCATION: Bachelor of Arts in German Literature, University of California, 1965. Bachelor of Science in Meteorology, University of Utah, 1966. Graduate studies in Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, 1967-68. Masters of Science in Meteorology, UCLA, 1972. Candidacy for Doctorate in Meteorology, UCLA, 1974. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Weather Forecaster, U. S. Air Force, Truax AFB, Madison, WI, 1966-67. Staff Weather Officer/Chief Forecaster, McChord AFB, WA, 1968-69. Teaching Assistant, Basic Meteorology and Advanced Dynamics, UCLA, 1969-71. Research Assistant - California Marine Layer Structure, UCLA, 1971. Research Assistant, Remote Air Pollution Sensing by Satellites, UCLA, 1972. Research Assistant, Climatic Change Due to Aircraft Pollution, UCLA, 1973. Instructor, Basic Meteorology, Cal State Northridge, 1972-74. Air Pollution Meteorologist, S -Cubed LaJolla, CA, 1973-75. Senior Meteorologist, Meteorology Research (MRI), Altadena, CA, 1975-77. Instructor, Weather Forecasting for Aircrews, Orange Coast College, 1976. Instructor, Basic Meteorology, Golden West Community College, 1976-81. Instructor, Basic Meteorology, Orange Coast College, 1977-81. Consultant, Air Pollution Meteorology, Irvine, CA, 1977 -present. 26 Sunriver • Irvine California 9271 4 • (71 4) 786 - 0782 F I 1► F L L NOISE - performed on-site baseline noise surveys, calibrated and ran the FHWA roadway noise model, evaluated noise impact mitigation measure effectiveness. . Milliken -Highland Development Freeway Noise Study, Rancho Cucamonga, CA . Jamboree Residential Noise Set -Back Constraint Study, Newport Beach, CA . West End Development Plan Master EIR, Fontana, CA . Coyote Canyon Landfill Gas Recovery Noise Constraint Study, Irvine, CA . Bancroft Road Widening (FAU Funds Project), Walnut Creek, CA . Serramonte Development Aircraft and Freeway Noise Assessment, Daly City, CA . John Muir Hospital Modernization Noise Sensitivity Study, Walnut Creek, CA . Oakley Area General Plan Noise Element Update, Oakley, CA . Stonecrest Development Noise Monitoring and Impact Modeling, San Diego, CA . Oak Road Widening Noise Impact Study, Walnut Creek, CA . Berkeley Waterfront Development Monitoring and Impact Study, Berkeley, CA . One Pacific Plaza Noise Impact Modeling, Fremont, CA ▪ Fontana Rail Noise Impact/Mitigation Study, Fontana, CA . Mori Point Development EIR Noise Study, Pacifica, CA . San Juan Hills Development Master Plan, Belmont, CA . Placer County Government Center Noise Impact Alternatives, Lake Tahoe, CA . Northgate Station Development Freeway Noise Exposure, Sacramento, CA . Paul Masson Winery Property Redevelopment Noise Impact Study, Saratoga, CA f CLIENT: City of Fullerton/William Lyon Company CONTACT: Mr. Fred Bosley William Lyon Company (714) 833-3600 PROJECT: Coyote Hills West Specific Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract 12029 LOCATION: Fullerton, California COMMENTARY: Two separate actions were analyzed in this EI R. The first action was a request by the project proponent, William Lyon Company, to amend the Coyote Hills West Master Plan. A four acre development area was to be reclassified to an open space category in the Master Plan and the respective residential density was to be transferred to a future development area. The second action that was addressed in the EIR was a request to develop a 40 acre development area with 123 single family homes. The environmental document was focused to assess potential project -related impacts on landforms, soils and geology, land use, air quality, biological and paleontological resources, noise exposure, aesthetics/views, demographics, public utilities and services and energy resources. Due to its location relative to the McColl Dump, the significance of the past disposal of hazardous wastes at this landfill was also addressed. 1 i t L L L CLIENT: CONTACT: PROJECT : LOCATION : COMMENTARY: City of Torrance Ms. Rosalie Woodward Planning Associate (213) 618-5990 Environmental Impact Report for the Prairie Glen Condominium Project Torrance, California This Focused EI R addressed a number of issues associated with the proposed construction of 151 townhouse condominiums on an approximately 9 -acre site in north Torrance. The subject property was a former school site and was bordered on three sides by single-family homes. In order to implement the project, a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Tract and Conditional Use Permit were required. The topics addressed in the EIR included: compatibility with surrounding uses, traffic generation and circulation, drainage, crime prevention, school impaction, recreational demands and noise exposure. Particular attention was given to construction -related impacts. The alternatives that were evaluated included two lower density forms of residential development. CLIENT: City of Avalon PROJECT: Environmental Impact Report on the Proposed Hamilton Cove Project LOCATION: Avalon, California COMMENTARY: The proposed 18 -acre development consisted of 165 condominiums, a restaurant, related clubhouse facility and tennis courts and parking for 200 golf carts. Primary project concerns included the supply of fresh water available to the project site and the provision for a sufficient amount of necessary low-cost employee housing. The environmental assessment involved an analysis of the project site (Santa Catalina Island) for impacts associated with the project. Soil erosion, geologic hazards, and seismic concerns were all major issues of study. Mitigation measures were provided for each impact assessed to reduce overall hazards and impacts. CLIENT: City of Claremont CONTACT: Ms. Donna Preszler Housing Coordinator (714) 624-4531 PROJECT: Environmental Impact Report for the "California 6 Motel" LOCATION: Claremont, California COMMENTARY: Willdan Associates prepared a Focused EI R that analyzed all environmental and planning -related impacts associated with a proposed 118 -unit motel. In order to develop the proposed motel, a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change were required and were considered to have potentially significant impacts to be addressed within the environmental document. The proposed project was located in a mixed neighborhood with a variety of land uses including residential and an adjacent school. The City requested that the environmental document fully analyze the impact of the proposed project on these and other nearby uses. The EI R was focused to assess potential project -related impacts on traffic circulation, aesthetics, land use and planning considerations, public safety/security, air quality, noise and Tight/glare. Mitigation measures were developed that suggested exterior design modifications and revisions to the submitted site plan. The suggested mitigation measures were developed in such a manner that they could easily be incorporated into the project's future design. CLIENT: Hutton Associates CONTACT: Mr. Savoy Bellavia Project Manager (714) 432-8707 PROJECT: Environmental Impact Report on the Sun Gold North Residential Development LOCATION: Riverside, California COMMENTARY: Willdan Associates was retained by Hutton Associates to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for proposed amendments to the City of Riverside General Plan and the Sycamore Canyon Specific Pian. These amendments were requested in order to allow the development of an 85 -acre parcel owned by Hutton Associates. The subject property had been placed within a community -initiated overlay zone (hillside and agricultural preservation) which allowed development of not more than one half dwelling unit per acre. The proposed project involved a density of approximately seven dwelling units per acre. Issues addressed in the report included topography, drainage, traffic, noise, land use compatibility, schools, energy consumption and air quality. A cumulative impact analysis was also conducted to assess the "worst case" impacts of full development of pending and proposed projects in the eastern portion of the City of Riverside. The project was ultimately approved although the preparation of a "statement of overriding considerations" was required. CLIENT: City of Gardena Alexander Haagen Development Company Kenneth Tokita Partners CONTACT: Mr. Roy T. Kato City Planner City of Gardena (213) 217-9525 Mr. Tom Corley Haagen Development Company (213) 546-4520 PROJECT: Gardena Center Community Shopping Center EIR LOCATION: Gardena, California COMMENTARY: Willdan Associates prepared a Focused Environmental Impact Report for a 26 -acre shopping center on three separate parcels of excess Caltrans freeway right-of-way. Due to the abandonment of plans for the Artesia Freeway - extension westerly of the Harbor Freeway, these parcels became available for development through a cooperative arrangement among the City, Caltrans and two development firms. The development site is completely surrounded by sensitive uses including single-family residences, senior housing, a church, a known toxic waste disposal site and the "Willows", a sensitive wetland area. The primary focus of the EIR was to evaluate the project's relationship to these uses and to recommend measures to ensure compatibility therewith. The issues addressed in the environmental analysis included traffic and circulation, land use, biological resources, air quality, noise, aesthetics, toxic hazards, soils and geology, alternatives and growth inducement. In addition, Willdan Associates prepared a fiscal impact analysis for the commercial project. • CLIENT: County of San Luis Obispo City of San Luis Obispo CONTACT Mr. Warren Hoag Senior Planner (805) 549-5600 PROJECT: San Luis Obispo Airport Area Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report LOCATION: San Luis Obispo, California COMMENTARY: Willdan Associates is presently preparing a Specific Plan of Land Use and supporting technical and environmental studies for a 1 ,700 acre area located south of the City of San Luis Obispo (SLO), which includes the SLO County Airport. The end product will consist of a detailed land use plan, infrastructure master plans, and implementation and financing strategy. Specialized studies are being prepared in the areas of transportation and circulation, economics, biological resources and hydrogeology. Civil engineering studies are being prepared to assess the area's ultimate need for roadways, sewers and sewage treatment, water supply and drainage. The project area contains both incorporated and unincorporated territory with little or no existing infrastructure. The City of San Luis Obispo, the primary service purveyor in the area, has historically had a policy of not providing services outside of its corporate limits. One of the primary challenges of this effort will be to explore conditions whereunder such services could be provided. CLIENT: The City of San Juan Capistrano CONTACT: Ms. Susan Tebo, Assistant Planner (714) 493-2171 PROJECT: San Juan Corporate Plaza Environmental Impact Report LOCATION: San Juan Capistrano, California COMMENTARY: Willdan Associates' Planning Services and Transportation Services Divisions were retained by the City of San Juan Capistrano to assess the impacts of constructing a 38,000 square foot office building on a 3.5 acre, steeply sloping site. The building was proposed to be terraced; using two building pads to conform to prevailing grades of the property. The potential visual/aesthetic impacts were a primary concern of the EIR in that the project was located immediately adjacent to the San Diego Freeway. The project, as originally proposed, involved the use of a 32 foot cribwall to stabilize a steeply cut slope at the rear of the property. The proponents also proposed an unbalanced grading concept which required the movement of over 50,000 cubic yards of earth. In addition to the assessment of aesthetic impacts the document also addressed traffic and circulation, historic resources, geology and landform alteration, construction and noise impacts and energy conservation. L L C•C MINUTES OF THE STAFF REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 30, 1986 IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 10:00 A.M. PRESENT: Michael Schubach, Planning Director William Grove, Building & Safety Director Anthony Antich, Public Works Director Steve Wisniewski, Public Safety Director Paul Osekowsky, Fire Department Captain ---NW CORNER OF MANHATTAN AVENUE & PIER AVENUE, HERMOSA' ATRIUM - HOTEL; ZONE CHANGE TO SPECIFIC PLAN IN CONJUNCTION WITH A HOTEL' PROJECT Applicants: -James Yun, Kim & Yun,Inc., Owners Steve Kaplan, Attorney •Lee & Sakahara, Architects Jack Hiehwart -Patrick Sheehy, Architect Mr. Grove requested that the Environmental Information Form be changed to #10) 9 floors and #11) 364 off-street parking spaces and informed the Committee that #17 had been addressed by the applicant on a supplemental sheet. Capt. Osekowsky and Mr. Wisniewski requested that #30 be changed to a'"YES" answer. -Applicants agreed. 'The concensus of the Environmental'Review Committee resulted in the following answers of the Environmental. Checklist Form being changed to either a "YES" or "MAYBE" answer.. II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1.c. 1.g. 2.a. 3.b. 13.b. 14.a. .14.b. :'11.1. 14 • ,9•0 :k7:. 14 . e 'Y,'!: -Ts 14.f. 16.b. • 1.6.c. " 16.d. 18. 21.c. 21.d. Yes Maybe Maybe Yes Yes Maybe Maybe Maybe Yes Maybe Maybe (Power) Maybe Yes (Water Mains) Maybe Maybe Maybe Maybe 1 AT1P4*"1:, " • .44 v•ti " • r • -ow $ • . •dov • • .,,;:-t:,::„',Staff Review Committee Minutes t'Aii;114.44, • . -t•• Hermosa Atrium Hotel - NW Corner of Manhattan Avenue & Pier i7c1.1, Avenue (cont.) • `•• Several members of the audience spoke with regard to the great parking need in this -area. , .,-, Mr. Schubach informed the audience that this will be addressed in , . the E.I.R. and explained that approximately 35 request for proposals for an Environmental Impact Report will be sent out to _.:various consultants, they will be interviewed, and the city will' ' "'choose one to do the report. ',• , ' e, -Motion by Mr. Schubach that this is an environmentally .fi4osignificant project and a focused E.I.R. on all "Yes" and "Maybe" answers shall be prepared by a consultant chosen by the city and paid for by the applicants, seconded by Mr. Grove. No objections, so ordered. - Meeting adjourned at 11:45 A.M. CERTIFICATION ft— 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 December 30, 1986OL. ,v• ic )i et1 • . • . • • ' . jfr • Michael Schubach, Chairman , Date 2 ; • i St • .- • NATURAL RESOURCES (State Designated Form) ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (To be completed by applicant) Type or Print Legibly Date Filed November 14, 1986 GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: Kim & Yun, Inc. c/o Law Offices STEVE I. KAPLAN, 1215 Highland Ave., M.B. 90266 2. Address of project: . Manhattan & Pier Avenues 3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: Law Offices, STEVE I.. KAPLAN, 1215 Highland Ave. Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 (213) 546-7366 4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains: N.A. 5. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: Zone change filed concurrently herewith; Coastal permit obtained subsequent to City approvals 6. Existing zoning district: C-2 7. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed): Hotel PROJECT DESCRIPTION 8. Site size: 38,414 S.F.; .88 acres 9. Square footage 261,120 S.F. of gross building area 10. Number of floors of construction Five ,"Z' 11. Amount of off-street parking provided: 12. Attach plans. 1 .• • c 13. Proposed scheduling: 14. Associated projects: A.S.A.P. N.A. 15. Anticipated incremental development: N.A. 16. If residential, include the number of units, schedule_ of unit sizes, and type of household size expected: N.A. 17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally orientated square . footage of sales area, and loading facilities: /,e,/1} 18. If industrial, indicate type; estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities: N.A. 19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project: 20. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required: Zone change required to change existing zoning from C-2 to Specific Plan area. Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES NO x 21. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, lakes or hills or substantial alteration of ground contours. 22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. 23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. x 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. 26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or i7v.a117 iv/.a.vrbvn, .... �.�.�.•:�>v;e.+v.--�.:•sr�.+..'lrrst:sw��CLd:*" - -' — ��irf`S.es...-a'r�.. �, 6. x quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. x 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. - - . 28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. 29. Use or disposal of potentially hazardousmaterials, such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. -30. - Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). x x 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). • 32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site: :Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. Site consists of mixed use commercial facilities and city =arking lot 34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one -family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DATE November 14, 1986 (Signator - I NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 21803 and 21807, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21000-21176, Public Resources Code. 1 . ,• ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. BACKGROUND. 1. Name of Proponent Kim & Yun , Inc . 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: c/o Law Offices of 3. STEVE I. KAPLAN, 1216 Highland Ave., M.B. 90266 Date of Checklist Submitted: Agency Requiring Checklist 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable • II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) YES NO MAYBE 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in b. geological sub -structures? Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, . covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Chagnes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify -"the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Exposure of people or property to geological hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deteriroation of g. x x aillmmomme x x x YES NO MAYBE ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odcirs? c. Alteration of air . movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or in the course or _ . direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? . . • b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course of flow of flood waters? d. Change in. the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or . in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alterations of the direction or rate of low of ground waters? h. Substantial .reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? 1. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of-tpecies, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal x x f replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? x 5. Animal Life. Will, the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers' of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shelfish, benthic organisms or insects)? x b. Reduction of the numbers. of any unique, rare or endangerd species of animals? x c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? x d. Deterioration to existing .fish or wildlife habitat? x ---6 Noise. Will the proposal . result in: a. Increase in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of peopleto severe noise levels? x 7. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? • x 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve: . a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? x b. Possible intgrference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? x _ 11. Population. Will the proposl alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? ' . x d• :�..i'ai.�.:.-..n..araektha.....�.......F..ar..cu..:.�•- YES NO MAYBE x x x Y i. Al (4-" ( YES 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alternations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazardds to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will. the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: Fire protection • _ Police protection Schools Parks or other recreational facilities a. b. c. d. e. Maintenance of - public facilities, including roads f. Other governmental services 15. Energy. Will the poroposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities, Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: • a. Power b. Communications systems. c. Water. d. Sewer or septic tanks. e. 'Storm water drainage. f. Solid waste and disposal. x NO MAYBE x x_ x x x x x 17. Human Health. Will the - proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard 'or potential health hazard (excluding mental health?) b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation.. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources: Will the proposal: a. result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archeological site? b. result in adverse phyusical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric building, structure, or object? c. have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural valu es? d. restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential for degrate the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitate of a fish or wild life species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate important examples of the major peroids of California history or pre -history? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future?) O D. YES NO MAYBE • x X x x x r f c. , Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? . (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impcat on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impcats on the environment is significant?) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial severe effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? �.,•. ' d. YES NO MAYBE X(147c‘ .. March 23, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council April 14, 1987 APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AND THE BEACH CITIES SYMPHONY ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED Recommendation It is recommended that City Council approve the attached Agreement. Background At the Council meeting of January 27, 1987, City Council authorized funding in the amount of $500 to the Beach Cities Symphony Association Inc. Said funds to be appropriated from Prospective Expenditures. Analysis Staff was directed to return with an Agreement between the City and the Beach Cities Symphony Associaiton. That Agreement is before you this evening. Concur: Gregory . Keyer City Manager Respectfully submitted, Alana M. Mastrian, Director Dept. of Community Resources NOTED FOR FISCAL IMPACT: ai 4. • Viki Copeland Finance Administrator lk 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 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 14th day of April, 1987 , in the City of Hermosa Beach, California by and between the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY" and the BEACH CITIES SYMPHONY ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED, a non-profit organization, hereinafter referred to as the SYMPHONY. WHEREAS, the CITY has determined that the services rendered by the SYMPHONY are of a valuable public benefit to South Bay residents; and WHEREAS, the SYMPHONY is a non-profit organization which provides programs that attempt to bring musical excellence to the area; and WHEREAS, the CITY has appropriated funds to be used by the SYMPHONY pursuant to this Agreement, for the rendering of services to the residents of the South Bay and that said services funded by this Agreement are for a valid public purpose. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The CITY agrees to provide funds to the SYMPHONY in an amount not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500) for fiscal year 86/87 beginning July 1, 1986, and ending June 30, 1987. 2. The SYMPHONY shall provide the CITY with a report in the last quarter of the contract year, which shall be considered public record, indicating a breakdown of the expenditure of the 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 $500. Upon receipt of said documentation, CITY shall issue payment. 3. The SYMPHONY shall make its report to the HERMOSA BEACH DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY RESOURCES, hereinafter referred to as the "DIRECTOR". All notices pursuant to this Agreement shall be directed by the SYMPHONY to the DIRECTOR. At any time when the CITY does not have an individual serving as DIRECTOR, the duties of the DIRECTOR shall reside in the office of the CITY MANAGER or his designee. 4. The CITY recognizes that the SYMPHONY is operated by an independent governing body. The CITY shall not attempt to direct any employee or agent of the SYMPHONY in the performance of his or her duties with the SYMPHONY. Conversely, the CITY shall not have any authority to contractually bind or legally obligate the SYMPHONY in any manner whatsoever under the terms and conditions of this Agreement except as otherwise herein specified. The SYMPHONY shall not act as an agent or instrumentality for the CITY when performing its functions hereunder. 5. The CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH or any of its duly authorized representatives shall have access to any books, documents, papers and records of the SYMPHONY which are directly pertinent to this Agreement for the purposes of making audits, examinations, excerpts and transcriptions. Nothing in this Agreement shall require the release of any names of any persons who use the services of the SYMPHONY to the CITY or any other person. Such records shall not become public records of the CITY under this Agreement unless otherwise specified herein. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 2 27 28 6. The SYMPHONY shall maintain records of all details with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement, for a period of five (5) years after receipt of final payment, unless authorization to remove them sooner is granted in writing by the CITY. 7. This Agreement is terminable upon the giving of thirty (30) days written notification by either party. further, the CITY may terminate said Agreement immediately if it determines that the funds provided by the CITY are not being used for the purposes specified in this Agreement. 8. SYMPHONY shall hold the CITY free and harmless from any and all liability and claims for damages by reason of any injury to any person or persons, including butnot limited to, the SYMPHONY, or to property of any kind whatsoever and to whomsoever belonging, including but not limited to the SYMPHONY, from any causes whatsoever in connection with the activities of SYMPHONY. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the 14th day of April, 1987 ATTEST: 'CITY OF HERMSOA BEACH a municipal corporation CITY CLERK MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM: TY ATTORNEY BEACH CITIES SYMPHONY ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED a non-profit organization PRESIDENT Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council April 7, 1987 Regular Meeting of April 14, 1987 AWARD OF BID ELECTRICAL UPGRADE, CITY HALL CIP 86-602 Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Authorize the Mayor to sign an agreement with Black, O'Dowd Associates for CIP 86-602 at a cost not to exceed $3,190. 2 Authorize staff to issue addendums as necessary. Background: On January 13, 1987, City Council authorized the Public Works Department to advertise for proposals. Request for Proposals were mailed to ten perspective firms. Analysis: On March 4, 1987, proposals were received from the following: Banerjee Engineering Corp $29,850 Dixon & Associates, Inc $ 9,615 Joncich, Sturm & Associates $ 8,880 Black, O'Dowd Associates $ 2,900 The Engineer's Estimate was $10,000 The proposals were reviewed, and based on cost and qualifications the work should be awarded to Black, O'Dowd Associates. Fiscal Impact: This project was budgeted for FY 86-87. Project Budget Contract Estimated Balance CIP 86-602 $10,000 $2,900 10% Contingency 290 Total $3,190 $6,810 Funding Source: General Fund No additional City funds are anticipated to complete this project. 1 Alternatives: Other alternatives considered by staff and available to City Council are: 1. Drop the project. 2. Revise the scope of work. Respectfully submitted, Concur: _`JuAlAil1&A Anth:ny Antich -� Director of P b c Works Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator AA:mv eleup/v Attachments: Agreement Gregory T. Meyer City Manager PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ELECTRICAL UPGRADE AT CITY HALL CIP 86-602 THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of , 1987 by and between the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, a Municipal Corporation hereinafter referred to as " CITY ", and. , hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT". W I T N E S SET H: WHEREAS, CITY desires to retain CONSULTANT to perform design services as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein and by this reference made a part hereof. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. CITY agrees to retain CONSULTANT to perform engineering design/consulting services as herein set forth. 2. CONSULTANT shall perform all work necessary to com- plete in a manner satisfactory to CITY the services set forth in Exhibit "A" entitled Scope of Work and attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein and made a part hereof. 3. All information, data, reports and records and maps as are existing and available from CITY, and necessary for carrying out the work outlined in Exhibit "A" shall be furnished to CON- SULTANT without charge by CITY and CITY shall cooperate in every way reasonable in the carrying out of the work without delay. 4. CONSULTANT represents that it employs, or will employ at is own expense all personnel required in performing the ser- vices required under this Agreement. 5. All of the services required hereunder will be per- formed by CONSULTANT or under its direct supervision, and all personnel engaged in the work shall be fully qualified and shall be authorized or permitted under state and local law to perform such services. 6. CITY's Director of Public Works (the "Director" or his designee) shall direct the CONSULTANT to proceed and the work required shall be completed within the time limit mutually agreed upon. CONSULTANT shall have no claim for compensation for any services upon which the Director has not authorized CONSULTANT to proceed. 7. The CONSULTANT shall work closely and cooperate fully with the Director, or his designee, who shall be the liaison between CONSULTANT and the CITY and who shall review and approve all details of the work as it progresses. 8. The CITY reserves the right to terminate or suspend the Agreement at any time upon seven (7) days written notice ef- fected by personal delivery or by a bona fide mail service, which shall be deemed communicated as of the date of receipt thereof, under any of the following circumstances: (a) The project, as described in the attached Exhibit "A", is to be abandonedor indefinitely postponed. (b) CONSULTANT fails to prosecute the work within the time limits specified in the attached Exhibit "A". 9; No change in the scope of the work to be performed by CONSULTANT shall be made except in writing between CITY and CON- SULTANT, which shall set forth the changes mutually agreed upon by the CITY and the CONSULTANT. 2 10. In accordance with State Compensation Laws, the CONSULTANT shall carry Worker's Compensation insurance for all persons employed in the performance of services as set forth herein. The CONSULTANT shall provide the CITY with a certificate verifying such coverage or endorsement acceptable to the CITY before commencing services under this Agreement. Such policy shall require thirty (30) days notice to the CITY in writing prior to cancellation, termination, or expiration of any kind. 11. The CONSULTANT shall carry Professional Liability in- surance in an amount of not less than $1,000,000.00. The CONSUL- TANT shall provide the City with certificates verifying such coverage or endorsement acceptable to the City before commencing services under this Agreement. Such policy shall require thirty (30) days notice to the City in writing prior to cancellation, termination or expiration of any kind. All insurance policies shall name the City of Hermosa Beach as additional insured. 12. If CONSULTANT fails to maintain such insurance, the CITY may obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for such insurance from any sums due under this Agreement. 13. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as limit- ing in any way the extent to which CONSULTANT may be held respon- sible to payment of damages to persons or property resulting from its operations or any operations of any subcontractors under it. CONSULTANT will be required to indemnify and hold harmless CITY and its officers and employees from any claims, damages, or ex- penses, including attorney's fees and court costs, arising out of 3 CONSULTANT'S negligent performance under this agreement. 14. In the event that legal action is commenced to enforce or declare the rights created under this Agreement, the prevail- ing party shall be entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorney's fees in the amount to be determined by the court. 15. The CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT for all the work or any part of the work performed under this Agreement at the rates and in the manner established in the attached Exhibit "A". 16. This Agreement shall begin upon execution and shall expire on the date shown on the Notice to Proceed unless extended in writing by mutual agreement of both CITY and CONSULTANT. 17. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties, but it shall not be assigned by the CON- SULTANT without the written consent of the CITY. 18. The CONSULTANT shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or otherwise) without the prior written approval of the CITY, provided, however, that claims for money due.or to become due the CONSULTANT from the CITY under this Agreement may be assigned to a bank, trust company, or other financial institution or to a Trustee in Bankruptcy, without such approval. Notice of any such assignment or transfer shall be furnished promptly to the CITY. 19. No member of the governing body of the CITY and no other officer, employee, or agent of the CITY who exercises any functions or responsibilities in connection with the planning and carrying out of the program, shall have any personal financial 4 interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement; and the CONSUL- TANT shall take appropriate steps to assure compliance. 20. The CONSULTANT covenants that he presently has no interest and shall not acquire interest, direct or indirect, in the study area or any parcels therein or any interest which would conflict in any manner or .degree wth the performance of his ser- vices hereunder. The CONSULTANT further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed. 21. This agreement supercedes any and all other agreements, either oral or in writing, between the parties hereto with respect to the employment of CONSULTANT by CITY and contains all the covenants and agreements between the parties withrespect to such employment in any manner whatsoever. Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements, orally or otherwise, have been made by any party, or anyone acting on behalf of any party, which are not embodied herein, and that no other agreement or amendment hereto shall be effective unless executed in writing and signed by both CITY and CONSULTANT. 22. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, and all ap- plicable federal statutes and regulations as amended. 23. The invalidity in whole or part of any provision of this Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the .laws of the State of California, and all applicable federal statutes and regulations as amended. 24. CONSULTANT agrees to comply with all Federal, State 5 and local laws and regulations as they pertain to the performance of this Agreement, but not limited to, the provisions attached hereto as Exhibit "A". IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year first above written. ATTEST: APPROVED A TO FORM CITY ATTORNEY 6 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH A Municipal Corporation By: MAYOR, City of Hermosa Beach By: CONSULTANT CONSULTANT EXHIBIT A ELECTRICAL UPGRADE, CITY HALL CIP 86-602 The proposal for the above referenced project is attached to the original agreement and is on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach. April 2, 1987 City Council Meeting April 14, 1987 Mayor and Members of the City Council ORDINANCE NO. 87-875 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PROHIBITING THE SEPARATE SALE OF CONTIGUOUS LOTS WHEN A SINGLE IMPROVEMENT STRADDLES THE DIVIDING PROPERTY LINE. Submitted for waiver of further reading and adoption is Ordinance No. 87-875 relating to the above subject. At the regular meeting of March 24, 1987, this ordinance was introduced by the following vote: AYES: DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, NOES: Mayor Cioffi ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Ka hleen Mi.dstokke, City Clerk Concur: Gre.ory eyer, Ci y anager 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 87- 875 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PROHIBITING THE SEPARATE SALE OF CONTIGUOUS LOTS WHEN A SINGLE IMPROVEMENT STRADDLES THE DIVIDING PROPERTY LINE. WHEREAS, Emergency Ordinance No. 86-866 prohibited the sale or separation of individual contiguous lots of nonconforming size owned by the same person or legal entity when a single improvement straddles the dividing property line; WHEREAS, a resolution of intention was sent to the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission pursuant to Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 29.5-2; WHEREAS, a thorough study of the matter was conducted by the Planning Commission investigating the serious nature of this problem and a public hearing was held on February 17, 1987; WHEREAS, the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission found that the sale or separation of individual contiguous lots of noncon- forming size usually results in further development which increases density and harms the public welfare; WHEREAS, the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission found that an ordinance prohibiting people from selling a lot which shares an improvement with a contiguous lot prevents possible health and safety problems connected with that improvement in a situation where there are different lot owners and neither will take responsibility for the building's maintenance; /// /// 14/ORD17 -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 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach finds that the sale or separation of individual contiguous lots of nonconforming size usually results in further development which increases density and harms the public welfare; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach finds that the creation of an ordinance prohibiting people from selling a lot which shares an improvement with a contiguous lot will prevent the problem of neither owner taking responsibility for that improvement which could cause health and safety problems; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 29.5-31 shall be added to the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code to read as follows: Section 29.5-31 Development involving contiguous parcels. It shall be prohibited to separately sell or separate two or more contiguous lots owned by the same person or legal entity that have an existing structure or improvements straddling their common property line. For property not owned by the same person or legal entity which has been conveyed in violation of this ordinance, no permits for the demolition, construction or addition to the structure shall be issued by the Hermosa Beach Building Department. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. /// 14/ORD17 -2- r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Section 3. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE DAY OF 1987. ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: Y ATTORN Y 14/ORD17 -3- PRESIDENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA April 2, 1987 City Council Meeting April 14, 1987 Mayor and Members of the City Council ORDINANCE NO. 87-876 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE VOLUNTARY MERGER OF CONTIGUOUS PARCELS UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP WITHOUT REVERTING TO ACREAGE OR HAVING TO COMPLY WITH FILING REQUIREMENTS UNDER ARTICLE IV, SECTION 29.5-19 - 29.5-28. Submitted for waiver of further reading and adoption is Ordinance No. 87-876 relating to the above subject. At the regular meeting of March 24, 1987, this ordinance was introduced by the following vote: AYES: DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Cioffi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Concur: Grego eker, Cit Manager Ka hleen Midstokke, City Clerk 21:3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 87 - 876 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE VOLUNTARY MERGER OF CONTIGUOUS PARCELS UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP WITHOUT REVERTING TO ACREAGE OR HAVING TO COMPLY WITH FILING REQUIREMENTS UNDER ARTICLE IV, SECTION 29.5-19 - 29.5-28 WHEREAS, Article IV, Sections 29.5-19 - 29.5-28 of the Hermosa Beach City Code have been adopted by the City Council of Hermosa Beach, outlining a procedure by which two (2) or more contiguous parcles or units of land held by the same owner may be merged; WHEREAS, Section 66499.20 3/4 of the California Government Code provides for the enactment of an ordinance by a city or county that authorizes the merger of contiguous parcels under common ownership without reverting to acreage, or lenghty procedures when done voluntarily; WHEREAS, the people of the City of Hermosa Beach desire a more expedient procedure whereby they can voluntarily merge two (2) or more contiguous parcels held by the same owner; NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Section of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code be amended to read as follows: "Two or more contiguous parcels, under common ownership, may be voluntarily merged without reverting to the procedures of this chapter. Such merger requires that the recordation of an instrument evidencing the merger be made with the county recorder." 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Section 2. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE DAY OF , 1987 ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS T FORM: , tv 'ITY ATTORNEY PRESIDENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH April 2, 1987 City Council Meeting April 14, 1987 Mayor and Members of the City Council ORDINANCE NO. 87-877 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ARTICLE 10, SECTION 10.8 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING THE SALE OF GASOLINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALCOHOL AND THE HOURLY PARKING LIMITATION FOR OFF -SALE LIQUOR ESTABLISHMENTS. Submitted for waiver of further reading and adoption is Ordinance No. 87-877 relating to the above subject. At the regular meeting of March 24, 1987, this ordinance was introduced by the following vote: AYES: DeBellis, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Cioffi NOES: Rosenberger ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Concur: ( Kathleen Midstokke, City Clerk Greg• y T. Me r, City Manager 2c 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 87- 877 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ARTICLE 10, SECTION 10.8 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING THE SALE OF GASOLINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALCOHOL AND THE HOURLY PARKING LIMITATION FOR OFF -SALE LIQUOR ESTABLISHMENTS. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach held a public hearing on March 24, 1987, to take public testimony regarding this matter and made the following Findings: 1. The text amendment of Section 10-8(2) is more clear than the existing text; 2. The text amendment of Section 10-8(4) will give customers more time to shop at markets; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby ordain as follows: 1. Amend Section 10-8(2) to read: "Alcohol sales shall be prohibited at any establishment selling gasoline." 2. Amend Section 10-8(4) to read: "Clearly visible signs prohibiting loitering, littering, consumption of alcohol on the premises and limiting the parking period to two (2) hours shall be posted in conspicuous locations." PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of , 1987. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: CITY CLERK ITY ATTORNEY 1 April 2, 1987 City Council Meeting April 14, 1987 Mayor and Members of the City Council ORDINANCE NO. 87-878 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING APPENDIX A, ARTICLE 2 (DEFINITIONS) AND ARTICLE 4, (R-1 ONE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE) OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PURPOSE OF STRENGTHENING ILLEGAL UNIT ENFORCEMENT CAPABILITIES. Submitted for waiver of further reading and adoption is Ordinance No. 87-878 relating to the above subject. At the regular meeting of March 24, 1987, this ordinance was introduced by the following vote: AYES: DeBellis, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Cioffi NOES: Rosenberger ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Concur: Greg ry 1. M yer, Cit Lager *4:4&)' Kathleen Midstokke, City Clerk 2� 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 87- 878 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA AMENDING APPENDIX A, ARTICLE 2 (DEFINITIONS) AND ARTICLE 4, (R-1 ONE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE) OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE FOR.THE PURPOSE OF STRENGTHENING ILLEGAL UNIT ENFORCEMENT CAPABILTIES. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on January 27, 1987 and determined that successful illegal unit enforcement requires a zoning code requirements that will be effective in a court of law; and WHEREAS, it was determined that amending portions of ARTICLE 2 (Definitions) of the Hermosa Beach zoning code pertaining to "dwelling unit or apartment", "family," guest house or accessory living quarters" and "kitchen" would facilitate more effective illegal unit enforcement; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does ordain as follows: Section 1. That ARTICLE 2 (Definitions), Section 215, "Dwelling Unit or apartment", be amended to read as follows: "'Dwelling unit' or 'apartment' means one or more rooms in a dwelling or apartment house or apartment hotel designed for occupancy by one family for living or sleeping purposes, and having only one kitchen. All rooms comprising a dwelling unit shall have interior access through an interior doorway not containing a deadbolt lock to other parts of the dwelling unit with the exception of accessory living quarters, provided that where a dwelling unit occupies two stories, interior access shall be provided between stories by an open unenclosed stairway. -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 For, the purpose of this section, 'open stairway' shall mean a stairway which has a minimum of one wall which is not more than 42 inches high opening into at least one room from which the stairway connects each floor. .10 If in the opinion of the Director of Building & Safety the design of a dwelling has the potential to be converted to additional dwelling units, the Director may require a deed restriction to be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit." Section 2. That ARTICLE 2 (Definitions) Section 220, "Family.", be amended as follows: "Family. Two or more persons living together in a dwelling unit, sharing common cooking facilities, and possessing the character of a relatively permanent single bona fide house -keeping unit in a domestic bond of social, economic and psycholgical committment to each other, as distinguished from a group occupying a boarding house, club, dormitory, fraternity, hotel, lodging house, motel, rehabilitation center, rest home or sorority." Section 3. That ARTICLE 2, (definitions), Section 223. "Guest house or accessory living quarters", be amended as follows: "'Guest house or accessory living quarters' means living quarters within a main building for the use of persons employed on the premises, or for temporary use by guests of the occupants of the premises. Such quarters shall have no kitchen facilites and shall not be rented or otherwise used as a separate dwelling unit. Guest houses and accessory living quarters are subject to 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 the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit and are not allowed in accessory buildings." Section 4. That ARTICLE 2 (Definitions) Section 226, "Kitchen" be amended as follows: "'Kitchen' means any room or space used or intended or designed to be used for cooking or the preparation of food. The installation of a cooking appliance constitutes a kitchen within the meaning of this definition, and where such a kitchen is installed or maintained in a room or suite of rooms said room or suite of rooms shall constitute a dwelling unit." Section 5. That ARTICLE 4, Section 4-2. (R-1 One -Family Residential Zone, Permitted Uses) be amended by adding: 8. "Accessory living quarters shall be allowed within a main building only, subject to a conditional use permit in accordance with Article 10." PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of January, 1987. PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED 0 FQR�! 1 -3- CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY April 6, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of April 14, 1987 PROPOSED ORDINANCES MODIFYING HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER R 5 ARTICLE 1, SECTION 5-4.5, SUBSECTION (e) TO ESTABLISH A 10 MILE PER HOUR STRAND SPEED LIMIT AND ADDING SUBSECTION (ee) TO REQUIRE THE DISMOUNTING OF BICYCLES AND SKATEBOARDS BEFAEEN 10TH AND 15TH STREETS DURING PEAR TRAVEL PERIODS. REOCHMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council waive futher reading and introduce the proposed ordinances. BACKGROUND: At their regular meeting of March 24, 1986, City Council instructed staff to return on April 14, 1987 with proposed ordinances to include recommendations made by the Strand Safety Advisory Committee. ANALYSIS: After studying the total Strand problem, the Strand Safety Advisory Committee settled on three recommendations to be made to City Council. 1. Establish a 10 mile per hour speed limit along the entire length of the Strand and post signs to that effect along the entire length. 2. Erect flashing lights on the Strand at 10th and 15th streets. Require bicycles to be walked frau 10th street to 15th street when the lights are flashing. 3. Ban the use of skateboards on the Strand between 10th and 15th streets when the lights are flashing. These recammmendations developed over the course of several meetings and lengthy discussion from members of the committee and interested citizens. There were many ideas and suggestions considered by the committee and it was unanimously agreed that the best long term solution was to make recommendations that are self regulating. It was felt that this could best:be accomplished by approaching the problem through the three "E's", Engineering, Education and Enforcement. The committee felt that large, easy to read signs along the entire length of the Strand would help by informing all who use the Strand of the regulations. We would also conduct area wide publicity by placing articles in the local newspapers as well as sending flyers to all of the bike shops and cycling clubs in the area. The flashing lights were seen as a solution which would help draw more attention to the walk bike regulation during heavily conjested times. This was seen as being less restrictive and more enforceable. 2e On days when there were not large crowds, the lights would not be on and the regulation would not have to be enforced. When the lights were turned on, we could utilize selective enforcement techniques which would not require full time staffing on the Strand and should have satisfactory results. The lights would be controlled from the Police Department by a remote switch similar to the one for the fog horn on the pier. The lights would be turned on by Police personnel when there were large crowds and turned off when the crowds diminished. Police supervisors on duty would be responsible for making the determination in accordance with established guidelines and polices. During the initial period of use, we would have several officers in the area to issue warnings in an attempt to educate the users of the Strand to the new rules. A period of citation writing would follow in order to gain compliance and then, as with any traffic situation, we would schedule selective enforcement in the area when the lights were on. We feel that these suggestions and recommendations will simplify the enforcement issues and will be adequate to provide a safe, multi -use recreation area for all concerned. 4/L City Manager Amyoif tted, 4111111WA NOM w Steve S. isniewski Director of Public Safety 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 87 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, MENDING SECI'IC 5 - 24.5 (e) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, BY ADDING THERETO A PROVISION ESTABLISHING A TEN MILE PER HOUR SPEED LIMIT ON THE EN IRE LENGTH OF THE STRAND. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach is concerned with the public safety, including the safe use of public streets, sidewalks and other thoroughfares; and; WHEREAS, each year several million persons use and tra- verse the walkway adjacent to the public beach known as The Strand; and; WHEREAS, bicyclists, skateboarders, rollerskaters, joggers, sightseers and other pedestrians have increased in nimr bers over recent years, carpeting for limited space on The Strand; and; WHEREAS, this increased usage and carpetition for recrea- tional use poses a serious threat to the public safety; and WHEREAS, said City Council desires to reduce the threat to public safety in certain high use areas. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That Article I, Chapter 5, Section 5-24.5 (e) of the Municipal Code, titled "Dangerous speed; malty" shall be amended to read as follows: "(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, skate- boards and roller skates, in excess of ten (10) miles per hour, at an unsafe speed under existing conditions, or operates such vehicle or device permitted on the Strand walkway in such a reckless, wanton or 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 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. SECTION 2. That enforcement of this ordinance shall commence May 1, 1987. SECTION 3. That prior to the expiration of fifteen days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach. SECTION 4. That pursuant to Government Code Section 36937, this ordinance is designed to protect the health and safety of the citizens of Hermosa Beach and becomes effective immediately upon adoption of a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS th day of April, 1987. PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa, Beach ATTEST: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 87 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF iERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, MENDING ORDINANCE NO. 86 - 862 BY ADDING 'rt xir'0 A PROVISION REQUIRING BICYrrFS TO BE WALKED AND SKATE- BOARDS TO BE DISMOUNTED ON THE STRAND BETWEEN 15TH STREET AND 10TH buttes' WHEN THE WALK ZONE IS IN EFFECT. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach is concerned with the public safety, including the safe use of public streets, sidewalks and other thoroughfares; and; WHEREAS, each year several million persons use and tra- verse the walkway adjacent to the public beach known as The Strand; and; WHEREAS, bicyclists, skateboarders, rollerskaters, joggers, sightseers and other pedestrians have increased in num- bers over recent years, carpeting for limited space on The Strand; and; WHEREAS, this increased usage and competition for recrea- tional use poses a serious threat to the public safety; and WHEREAS, said City Council desires to reduce the threat to public safety in certain high use areas. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOILLCQS: SECTION 1. That Article I, Chapter 5, Section 5-24.5, of the Municipal Code, titled "Wheeled vehicles or devices on Strand Walkway," shall be amended by adding thereto, after subsection (e), item "(ee)" to be titled "Designated Walk Zones," to read as follows: "(ee) DESIGNATED WALK ZONES. The City Council by a majority vote, may designate certain areas of The Strand walkway as hazardous for bicycling and skateboarding, based on appropriate studies and/or 'staff recommendations, and may designate those areas i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 as walk zones by amendment to this ordinance and ordering the placement of appropriate signs, barricades, markings, flashing lights, delineations or devices signifying "Walk Zane Ahead" at least fifty (50) feet prior to the designated zone; and the placement of appropriate regulatory signs at the beginning of the walk zone such as, "Walk Bikes and Skateboards when Flashing." The end of the walk zone shall be desig- nated by signs indicating "resume riding beyond this point". It shall be unlawful to ride a bicycle or skateboard when the following designated walk zone is in effect: 1. The Strand walkway between the centerlines of 10th Street and 15th Street. SECTION 2. That enforcement of this ordinance shall commence May 1, 1987. SECTION 3. That prior to the expiration of fifteen days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach. SECTION 4. That pursuant to Government Code Section 36937, this ordinance is designed to protect the health and safety of the citizens of Hermosa Beach and becanes effective immediately upon adoption of a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOiri u THIS th day of April, 1987. ATTEST: APPROVED AS ‘;)20MS PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa, Beach 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CLERK QTY ATTORNEY S Law Offices of James P. Lough JAMES P. LOUGH march 31, 1987 1605 WEST OLYMPIC BLVD. SUITE 9018 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90015 (213) 381-6131 MEMORANDUM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 14, 1987 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney RE: Extension of Ordinance No. 87-873, a Moritorium Prohibiting the Issuance of Building Permits in Inconsistent Areas RECOMMENDED ACTION: To waive further reading and introduce the following ordinance. BACKGROUND: On February 10, 1987, the City Council of Hermosa Beach passed Ordinance 87-873 which prohibited all development within inconsistent areas that are inconsistent with either the General Plan or the Zoning for the particular parcel in question. The ordinance had a moritorium period of forty-five (45) days whereupon the City Council could review the materials presented by the Planning Director regarding inconsistency to determine how long it will probably take to clear up the inconsistent areas. CONCLUSION: Ordinance 87-873 should be extended so the Planning Commission can continue to review and revise Zoning and General Plan for consistancy. It is recommended that the City Council adopt this extension for a period of twenty-two (22) months pursuant to Government Code Section 65858 (b). Pursuant to Government Code Section 36937, this extension will become effective immediately upon a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council. Please be advised that as with any emergency moratorium -type ordinance, this ordinance requires a four-fifths (4/5) vote for adoption. Passage by less than a 4/5 vote would mean that the moratorium will expire. NOTED: Respectfully GRE ORX.1MEYER,, City Manager JAMES P. LOUGH, City Attorne CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 8 • Law Offices of James P. Lough JAMES P. LOUGH April 7, 1987 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM 1605 WEST OLYMPIC BLVD. SUITE 9018 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90015 (213) 381-6131 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 14, 1987 TO: Members of the City Council FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney RE: Report of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach on Steps Taken During the 45 -Day Moratorium Period to Alleviate General Plan/Zoning Inconsistencies This report is a requirement under the interim ordinance sections found in the California Government Code. During the 45 -day period, the City Council must prepara a report which references the types of action being taken to remedy the situation which required the adoption of the interim ordinance. This report attempts to list some but not all of the steps taken by the Planning Commission, Planning Department and other City staff members on this issue. The steps taken by the Planning Department and Planning Commission under the moratorium period were to continue to process General Plan changes. As it may be known, General Plan changes may only be made four times a year. Both the Planning Director and the Planning Commission have set up schedules to use all four amendment possibilities during this calendar year. The use of all four periods will mean that more inconsistent areas will be able to be addressed this year. This policy will continue throughout the extended moratorium period. During the moratorium, the Building Department has abided by the terms of the moratorium and will continue to do so through- out the extension period if the extension is granted. This will mean that no building permits will be issued for projects that are inconsistent with either the Zoning or General Plan for a particular parcel and meet the other criteria found in the interim ordinance. Considering the size of the inconsistency problem and the speed at which the City must move under the statutory restraints, 22 months will be necessary in order to complete the process while preventing inconsistencies from developing while this process is underway. Therefore, this 22 -month extension is necessary to be enacted so that inconsistencies will not be exacerbated by continued development before the Planning 17/SR0414B -1- REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 14, 1987 TO: Members of the City Council FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney RE: Report of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach on Steps Taken During the 45 -Day Moratorium Period to Alleviate General Plan/Zoning Inconsistencies Department and Commission are able to get to certain areas for presentation and recommendation to the City Council. Respectfu],.1 submit JPL/gp ITAMES P. LOUGH, City Att•rney CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH cc: Gregory T. Meyer, City Manager 17/SR0414B -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 87 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO EXTEND ORDINANCE NO. 87-873 THAT PROHIBITS THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR DEVELOPMENTS THAT DO NOT MEET THE STANDARDS OF BOTH THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARTICULAR PROPERTY TO BE DEVELOPED OR IMPROVED. WHEREAS, consistency between the Hermosa Beach Planning and the Hermosa Beach Zoning Codes are both required by state law and a goal of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach; WHEREAS, development of parcels in a manner inconsitent with either the General Plan or Zoning creates inconsistencies which cannot be remedied during the lifetimes of the buildings in question; WHEREAS, such inconsistent development is a detriment to the City of Hermosa Beach in that it prevents proper planning to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public of the City of Hermosa Beach; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach are currently taking steps to bring our planning and zoning into consistency through hearings for both bodies; WHEREAS, allowing inconsistent development during the process of bringing all parcels into consistency will be a long term harm to the City's planning process and a detriment to the health, safety and general welfare of the populous; /// L2/buildper -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 WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 87-873 was adopted by the City Council of Hermosa Beach on February 10, 1987, whereupon it prohibited the issuance of Building Permits for developments that do not meet the standards of both the General Plan Designation and Zoning classification for a period of forty-five (45) days; WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65858 (b) provides for an urgency measure extension of twenty-two (22) months, fifteen (15) days upon adoption by a four-fifths (4/5) vote following notice pursuant to Section 65090 and a public hearing; WHEREAS, Government Code Section 36937 allows this extending ordinance to take immediate effect for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety, and upon a vote of four-fifths (4/5) of the City Council; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Ordinance No. 87-873 be extended an additional twenty-two (22) months, fifteen days, pursuant to Government Code 65858 (b). Section 2. That the Planning Commission continue to review and revise Zoning Classifications and General Plan Designations for consistency. Section 3. That pursuant to Government Code Section 36937, this ordinance is designed to protect the health and safety of the citizens of Hermosa Beach and becomes effective immediately upon adoption of a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council. /// /// L2/buildper -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17/ 18' 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of the ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 1987. ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: TY ATTORN4Y L2/buildper -3- PRESIDENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR OF THE CITYOF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA Law Offices of James P. Lough JAMES P. LOUGH February 4, 1987 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM 1605 WEST OLYMPIC BLVD. SUITE 9018 LOS ANGELES. CAI.IFORNIA 90015 (213) 381-6131 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 10, 1987 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney RE: Adoption of Prohibition on the Issuance of Building Permits for Inconsistent Areas RECOMMENDED ACTION: To waive further reading and introduce the following ordinance. BACKGROUND: This is an ordinance presented to the City Council pursuant to its request of January 13, 1987. At the January 13 meeting, the council failed to approve this measure as an emer- gency ordinance and decided to have it set for a public hearing as a regular ordinance. The purpose of the ordinance is to stop the issuance of building permits unless the particular parcel in question meets both the standards of the General Plan and Zoning for the particular area. ANALYSIS: This ordinance prohibits all development within incon- sistent areas that is inconsistent with either the General Plan or the Zoning for the particular parcel in question. However, it does not prevent development of other areas where consistency has been shown to exist. More importantly, it does not prevent development of inconsistent areas in a manner which is consist- ent with the standards of both the General Plan and the Zoning in question. The ordinance in question has a time period of forty-five (45) days so that the City Council can review the materials presented by the Planning Director regarding inconsistency to determine how long it will probably take to clear up the incon- sistent areas. If this ordinance is adopted, the City Council will have time to study the matter and determine the best time period without unreasonably restricting development rights while giving the city process enough time to bring all properties into consistency. The safer course of action on all interim ordinances, whether emergency or not, is that they should be approved by a four-fifths (4/5) vote. The reason for this is that the matter has not been referred back to the Planning Commission for its recommendation. 14/SR0210B -1- 5 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 10, 1987 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney RE: Adoption of Prohibition on the Issuance of Building Permits for Ingonsistent Areas Whit- it is the City Attorney's opinion that this matter may be by a three-fifths (3/5) vote, the safer course of action would be to introduce the ordinance by a four-fifths (4/5) vote. While this ordinance may be introduced by a four-fifths (4/5) vote, it is also the opinion of the City Attorney's office that this matter should not be introduced as an emergency moratorium since the city would have difficulty defending such a position in court because of the previous vote, in front of the same council, that this was not an emergency. Since this is a long-term problem, the council should look towards the safer course of action in adopting the procedures for clearing up the problems. Unless there are some reasons which have developed since the last vote in question, it is highly recommended that the matter not be adopted as an interim emergency ordinance which takes effect immediately. If the council wishes to take this step, I would strongly suggest that you do so after holding a closed session on the subject of the emergency moratorium and its effect on potential litigation involving the city. ANALYSIS OF CONSISTENCY REQUIREMENT, INCLUDING THE OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: The City Council, at its January 13, 1987 meeting, asked the City Attorney to return with responses regarding the Attorney General's Opinion on consistency. While there has been little on the subject by the Attorney General since 1975, the consistency requirement has not changed drastically since that time and, therefore, the opinion of the Attorney General of that time period is still relevant today. In 1975, the Attorney General issued an opinion that reaffirmed the general understanding regarding the consistency requirement found in Government Code Section 65860 (58 Ops Cal Atty Gen 21 (1975)). This opinion stated that all zoning must be consistent with a validly adopted general plan. If no general plan has been adopted or the plan is incomplete or inadequate, the agency in question may not rezone property. The general guidelines for consistency are found under sub- section (a) of Government Code Section 65860. Those guidelines are as follows: 14/SR0210B -2- REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 10, 1987 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney RE: Adoption of Prohibition on the Issuance of Building Permits for Inconsistent Areas (ii) The various land uses authorized by the ordinance are compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in such a plan. This vague guideline leaves it to each city to apply whether a use is compatible on a case by case basis. For example, the fact that zoning provides for a different use than a validly adopted general plan does not mean that the property in question is inconsistent. Sometimes general plans state that a particular use should be obtained in the future, such as agricultural zoning now with residential zoning 15 to 20 years from now under the general plan. Those two seemingly inconsistent laws are consistent if the general plan intends to phase towards a particular type use, like residential. Consistency should be determined based in relationship to the objectives of the general plan in question. In Hermosa Beach, since most of the land use designations are static and few changes are planned to take place under our General Plan, the land use designation under the Zoning laws should be the same as that under the General Plan. However, in areas where the city is attempting to change the face of the city in a certain direction, the Zoning Designation for a parcel could be one type of use while the General Plan, intended to be implemented at a later date, could have another designation. When these differences are necessary for good planning, it should be specified specifically in the General Plan that these are future goals so that, if challenged, the city can point to the General Plan Designation as a goal for the future rather than requiring an immediate change in the Zoning Ordinance. Be aware that although consistency of plan regulation is required by state law, courts will invalidate governmental actions which appear on their face to be consistent if, in the court's opinion, the actions are taken without a view towards long-term planning. In other words, if the city were to amend its General Plan every time there was a zoning amendment, the court could invalidate such actions as emasculating the purposes and goals of a general plan (Dalton v. City & County of Honolulu (1969) 462 P2d 199). 14/SR021OB -3- REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 10, 1987 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney RE: Adoption of Prohibition on the Issuance of Building Permits for Inconsistent Areas CONCLUSION: It is recommended that this attached ordinance be introduced. This will set in motion the procedure which will set as the city's highest planning priority bringing inconsist- ent areas into compliance with the General Plan. Please be advised that this is not a mechanical process which can be applied on a strictly more or less density rationale. The city must look to good planning goals which are consistent with the overall goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan. In addition, the city must not just look to conditions within this city but also to the regional needs for housing, open space, commercial and recreational needs. NOTED: GREG RY YcR, CIty Manager JPL/ILL/gp • Respectfull sub'itted, 9 JAMES P. LOUGH, C ty Attor ey CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 14/SR0210B -4- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 87- 5 7 3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO PROHIBIT THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR DEVELOPMENTS THAT DO NOT MEET THE STANDARDS OF BOTH THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARTICULAR PROPERTY TO BE DEVELOPED OR IMPROVED. WHEREAS, consistency between the Hermosa Beach Planning and the Hermosa Beach Zoning Codes are both required by state law and a goal of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach; WHEREAS, development of parcels in a manner inconsistent with either the General Plan or Zoning creates inconsistencies which cannot be remedied during the lifetimes of the buildings in question; WHEREAS, such inconsistent development is a detriment to the City of Hermosa Beach in that it prevents proper planning to. protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public of the City of Hermosa Beach; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach are currently taking steps to bring our planning and zoning into consistency through hearings for both bodies; WHEREAS, allowing inconsistent development during the process of bringing all parcels into consistency will be a long term harm to the City's planning process and a detriment to the health, safety and general welfare of the populous; /// /// 14/ORD16 -1- NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Consistency between the General Plan designation and Zoning classification shall be defined as follows: General Plan Designations Zoning Classifications Low Density R-1 Medium Density R-1, R-2 High Density R-1, R-2, R-3 Neighborhood Commercial C-1 General Commercial C-1, C-2, C-3 and any Commercial Specific Plan Area Multiuse Corridor C-3 and Residential Uses Industrial Manufacturing Any conflicts or areas not covered above shall be• interpreted by the Planning Director after consultation with the Building Director. Any person who does not agree with said interpre- tation given under this section shall have the right to request a clarification from the Planning Commission. Section 2. No building permits shall be issued by the Building Department, except as herein provided, for any develop- ment, project or improvement that is not consistent, in all respects, with the General Plan of the City of Hermosa Beach. Section 3. No building permits shall be issued by the Building Department, except as herein provided, for any development, project or improvement that is not consistent, in all respects, with the Zoning Code of the City of Hermosa Beach. This ordinance does not preclude the right to request the normal variance procedure. 14/ORD16 -2- Section 4. A building permit may be issued to any applicant whose particular project, although located in an area where an inconsistency exists between the General Plan and Zoning, meets the minimum density criteria for both the General Plan designa- tion and Zoning classification for the property in question. Section 5. This ordinance shall not prohibit the issuance of building permits by the Director of Building and Safety if it is his opinion that a substantial threat to the health, safety and welfare of the public would exist if such permit were not issued. Section 6. This ordinance shall not prevent the issuance of building permits by the Director of Building and Safety if, pursuant to state law, there exists a mandatory duty of the City of Hermosa Beach to issue such permit. Section 7. This ordinance shall not affect any project, development or improvement which only requests structural modi- fications to existing structures that do not add additional dwelling units. This ordinance shall not apply to any project which has submitted completed conceptual plans to the City of Hermosa Beach on or before February 10, 1987. Section 8. The provisions of this ordinance shall not apply to any property that is owned by any governmental entity within the boundaries of the City of Hermosa Beach on the effective date of this ordinance. /// /// /// /// 14/ORD16 -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Section 9. Any person who cannot obtain a building permit because of the terms and conditions of this ordinance shall have priority in any requests the applicant makes for a General Plan change or Zone change to have said applicant's property brought into consistency with both the General Plan and Zoning. Said priority shall be subject to the rules and regulations of the City of Hermosa Beach and State of California for the setting of public hearings for General Plan changes and Zoning amendments. Section 10. This ordinance shall be operative for a period of only forty-five (45) days from the date the ordinance takes effect unless extended pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code Section 65858. Section 11. The City Council shall draft a report for presentation to the public at its regular meeting. within the forty-five (45) day period. 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 12. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law. /// /// /// /// /// 14/ORD16 -4- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 Section 13. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1987. ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS !PO- FORM: Ask 1 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Y ATTORNEY 14/ORD16 -5- • PRESIDENT' OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA • . • Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council February 3, 1987 Regular Meeting of February 10, 1987 Data Concerning General Plan /Zoning Inconsistencies Within the City Recommendation To receive and file. Background Councilmembers Rosenberger and Simpson contacted the Planning Department and requested the following data: 1. How much of a density reduction would result from making the zoning and General Plan consistent? 2. How many inconsistent areas are there? 3. What areas of the City are inconsistent? Analysis Question 1: It is difficult to make an estimate of any actual density reduction that may result from making the General Plan and zoning consistent since, in some instances, the General Plan actually allows higher density. It appears that the various areas may balance each other if they were rezoned according to the General Plan. Also, the various inconsistent areas vary in overall area, individual lot size, type of existing housing stock and age. A further variable is the ultimate decision of the City Council, e.g., if the City Council allows the zoning to remain in areas where the General Plan actually allows for higher density and rezones in areas where the General Plan allows for less density, then, the outcome could be from 33% to a 507 reduction in allowable density. This is based on the rule of thumb that the R-2 zone allows about 1/3 less density than the R-3 zone, and the R-1 zone allows about 50% less density than the R-2 zone. Since each area should be examined on a case by case basis, the assumption that all the areas will be reduced in density should not be made. Question 2: There are 48 inconsistent areas within the City. These areas range in size from approximately 1/8 of a block to several blocks. Question 3: The map identifying all the inconsistent areas is not reproducible at this time. Therefore, the Staff will provide SUPPLEMENTAL 5 - 1 - INFORMATION Olt the map at the public hearing and it may be examined in the Planning Department during regular City hours. CONCUR: Gre oryS' Ie0V ej Cit Manager 2 Michael chubach Planning Director Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council April 6, 1987 Regular Meeting of April 14, 1987 Text Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Regarding the Definition of an Urban Block Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the attached proposed Ordinance and Negative Declaration; the City Manager recommends the alternate Ordinance which substitutes the word "A11" for "contiguous parallel". Background At their October 14, 1986 meeting, the City Council requested a review of the definition of a City Block by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission, at their February 3, 1987 meeting, adopted Resolution P.C. 87-11, recommending approval of the attached Ordinance. Abstract This Ordinance will redefine an urban block for general purposes and will add a new definition to be used in conjunction with the new lot merger ordinance. Analysis The proposed definitions differ with the suggested definition by the City Council so that clarity of meaning could be improved, and also, when the block defintion is used in conjunction with the lot merger ordinance, it is more logical and equitable. It should be noted that with the new definitions, some confusion will result in regard to some of the unique development patterns existing within the City. The Planning Commission has determined that when a need arises regarding block definitions, the Planning Commission will develop an interpretation and adopt it as Policy. 1 To attemptto develop a definition which would fit all situations, Staff believes would not be feasible. A further analysis of the definition is in the attached Staff Report, dated January 28, 1987, to the Planning Commission. Attachments 1. Staff proposed Ordinance 87- 2. City Manager proposed Ordinance 87- 3. Resolution P.C. 87-11 4. Background a. City Council Minutes dated 10/14/86 b. Staff Report dated 1/28/87 to P.C. c. P.C. Minutes dated 2/3/87 d. Negative Declaration CONCUR: 1" ° er Oki1 Gre ory Me er Cit Manager 2 Michael` Schubac Planning Director 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 87 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION. 206 TO MODIFY THE DEFINITION OF AN URBAN. BLOCK IN RELATION TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE LOT MERGER ORDINANCE AND TO APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on April 14, 1987 to receive oral and written testimony regarding this matter and made the following Findings: 1. The current definition of a block is not adequate for the purposes of zoning; 2. A second definition is necessary in conjunction with the newly adopted lot merger orinance; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: . Section 206 Block shall be amended to read as follows: "Section 206 Block 1. Block: Contiguous parallel lots facing a common street on both sides of said street between intersecting and/or intercepting streets or between a street and a railroad right-of-way, terminus, dead-end street or City boundary. 2. Block (relating to lot merger): Where the need for determination regarding lot merger, Section 29.5-21, occurs, the following defintion shall apply: Contiguous parallel lots facing a common street on both sides of said street, except where residential zoned lots do not exist, or are not within the City limits, and said lots are between intersecting and/or intercepting streets or between a street and a railfoad right-of-way, terminus, dead-end street or City boundary." PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of April, 1987. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: APPROVED AS FO CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 87 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 206 TO MODIFY THE DEFINITION OF AN URBAN BLOCK IN RELATION TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE LOT MERGER ORDINANCE AND TO APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on April 14, 1987 to receive oral and written testimony regarding this matter and made the following Findings: 1. The current definition of a block is not adequate for the purposes of zoning; 2. A second definition is necessary in conjunction with the newly adopted lot merger orinance; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: A. Section 206 Block shall be amended to read as follows: "Section 206 Block 1. Block: All lots facing a common street on both sides of said street between intersecting and/or intercepting streets or between a street and a railroad right-of-way, terminus, dead-end street or City boundary. 2. Block (relatingto lot merger): Where the need for determination regarding lot merger, Section 29.5-21, occurs, the following defintion shall apply: All lots facing a common street on both sides of said street, except where residential zoned lots do not exist, or are not within the City limits, and said lots are between intersecting and/or intercepting streets or between a street and a railfoad right-of-way, terminus, dead-end street or City boundary." PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of April, 1987. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: APPROVED AS c 0 CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION P.C. 87-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TEXT AMENDMENT. TO MODIFY THE DEFINITION OF AN ,URBAN BLOCK IN RELATION TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE SUBDIVISION LOT MERGER ORDINANCE. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 3, 1987 to receive oral and written testimony regarding this matter and made the following Findings: 1. The current definition of a block is not adequate for the purposes of zoning; 2. A second definition is necessary in conjunction with .the newly adopted lot merger ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby recommend the following: A. Section 206 Block shall be amended to read as follows: Section 206 Block "1. Block: Contiguous parallel lots facing a common street on both sides of said street between intersecting and/or intercepting streets or between a street an a railroad right-of-way, terminus, dead-end street or City boundary. 2. Block (relating to lot merger): Where the need for determination regarding lot merger, Section 29.5-21,. occurs, the following definition shall apply: Contiguous parallel lots facing a common street on both sides of said street, except where residential zoned lots do not exist, or are not within the City limits, and said lots are between intersecting and/or intercepting streets or between a street and a railroad right-of-way, terminus, dead-end street or City boundary." VOTE: AYES: Comms. Peirce,Compton,Rue NOES:. None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Chmn.Sheldon,Comm.Rue CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 87-11 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning 1 2 3 4 c(- Commission o the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meeting of February 3, 1,2§7-1 Chuck Sheldon, Chairman -61 Date 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Mic ael G/1.-"t4r/7,47. 7 chubach, Secretary Eathgrvittlit a tr riahi i' - n - STATUS REPORT RE. EXTENSION OF DEMOLITION PERMIT MORATORIUM AND PROPOSED PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING LOT MERGER ORDINANCE. Memoranda from City Attorney James P. Lough and Planning Director Michael Schubach dated Oc- tober 9, 1986,. 7 Minutes 10-14-86 Action:- To receive and file this report as required by aa— Motion Mayor DeBellis, second Cioffi. So ordered. The Public Hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak in favor of extending the Demolition Permit Moratorium were: George Schmeltzer, 515 - 24th Place Henry Rado, 720 - 24th Place Bob Fleck, 620 - 24th Place Jerry Compton, 832 - 7th Street Elizabeth Rather, 730 - 24th Place Speaking in opposition to the moratorium was: Wilma Burt, 1152 - 7th Street The Public Hearing was closed. Action: To waive full reading of Ordinance No. 86-861 entitled "AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMITS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF LOTS ON WHICH AT LEAST ONE OF THE CON- TIGUOUS PARCELS HELD BY THE SAME OWNER DOES NOT CONFORM TO STANDARDS FOR MINIMUM LOT SIZE" with the following changes: Page 2, line 20 to read "implement lot merger procedures in effect September 25, 1986." Page 3, line 19, change property to properly. Motion Rosenberger, second Simpson AYES - Cioffi, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor DeBellis NOES - None Further Action: To adopt Emergency Ordinance No. 86-861. Motion Rosenberger, second Simpson AYES - Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor DeBellis NOES - Ci,offi Further Action: For this purpose, "block" shall be de- fined as "contiguous parallel lots facing a common street that is bordered on each end by a street, alley or City boundary." Motion Mayor DeBellis, second Rosenberger. So ordered noting a NO vote by Cioffi. Further Action: To send the definition of "block" in the Municipal Code to the Planning.Commission for definition. Motion Mayor'beBellis, second Simpson. So ordered. • - 8 Minutes 10-14-86 it, -... .. r^0- . • • _., Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission - January 28, 1987 Regular Meeting of February 3, 1987 Text Amendment Regarding Definition of An Urban "Block" Recommendation Staff recommends the fol;owing definition: 1. Block: Contiguous parallel lots facing a common street on both sides of said street between intersecting and/or intercepting streets or between a street .and a railroad right-of-way, terminus, dead-end street or City boundary. 2. Block (relating tolot emerger): SectionWhere 29.5-21, need occurs, etermination regardinglot merger, the following definition shall apply: Contiguous parallel lots facing a common street on both sides of said street except where residential zoned lots do not exist, or are not within the City limits, and said lotsare between intersecting and/or intercepting streets or between a street and a railroad right-of-way, terminus, dead-end street or City boundary. Background The City Council, at their October 14, 1986 meeting, requested that the definition of a block be modified particularly in regard to lot mergers .(refer to attached minutes). Analysis Staff's recommendation differs from the City Council's requested change since that definition was ambiguous in regard to the fact that they wanted both sides of the street counted as part of a block (refer to attached Exhibit A, originally submitted to City Council by the City Attorney). Staff also recognized that a universal definition of a block causewould not be some adequate cases. Therefore,, d to lot emergers second de intion conffusion sepcifically for lot mergers has been recommended. Staff has not done a study as to whether there will be any specific problems, but instead,, is attempting to consider all possibilities. It should be noted that Webster's Dictionary defines block as follows: -1- "space ...rectangular (as in a cit $y) enclosed by streets and occupied by, or intended for buildings, (2) the distance along one of the sides of such a block..." Therefore, the dictionary is defining block to include lots which are abutting to the rear and are actually facing different. streets. ‘-rnitt.-fh-CL---1)-CLeV Michael Schubach 'CLO6 Planning Director .. r (7 EXHIBIT A C REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 1986 TO: Members of the_City Council FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney Linda LeVanway, Paralegal RE: Emergency Ordinance No. 86- . VLot Mergers The description of a block is illustrated as follows: BLOCK .p 1-4-^"' A definitionnay a "block" ay be 'contiguous parallel lots facing a vest-eaai street, backing to lots of an adjacent block, -,I and enclosed b—hori-zontal street.'/ +��t ''" r2., t.''- • L In addition, an exemption has been) fadded for those projects that were submitted prior to the April 1, 1986 density reduc- tion deadline. This step was taken to be consistent with previous directives of the City Council. Finally, the new subsection F allows the Building Director to issue a permit if, in his professional judgment, failure to do so would create an immediate threat to health and/or safety. 8/SR1014A PLANNING COMMISS(N MINUTES - FEBRUARY 3, 1987 \ PAGE 7 TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING DEFINITION OF AN URBAN "BLOCK" Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 28, 1987. The City Council, at their meeting of October 14, 1986, requested that the definition of a block be modified, particularly in regard to lot mergers. Staff's recommendation differs from the City Council's requested change since that definition was ambiguous in regard to the fact that they wanted both sides of the street counted as part of a block. Staff also recognized that a universal definition of a block would not be adequate in regard to lot mergers and may cause confusion in some cases. Therefore, a second definition specifically for lot mergers has been recommended. Staff has not done a study as to whether there will be any specific problems, but instead, is attempting to consider all possibilities.. Webster's Dictionary defines 'block" as "...rectangular space (as in a city) enclosed by streets and occupied by, or intended for buildings, (2) the distance along one .of the sides of such a block." Therefore, the dictionary is defining block to include lots which are abutting to the rear and are actually facing different streets. Staff recommended the following definition: 1. Block: Contiguous parallel lots facing a common street on both sides of said street between intersecting and/or intercepting streets or between a street and a railroad right-of-way, terminus, dead-end street or City boundary. 2. Block (relating to lot merger): Where the need, for determination regarding lot merger, Section 29.5-21, occurs, the following definition shall apply: Contiguous parallel lots facing a common street on both sides of said street except where residential zoned lots do not exist, or are not within the City limits, and said lots are between intersecting and/or intercepting streets or between a street and a railroad right-of-way, terminus, dead-end street, or City boundary. Mr. Schubach stated that there are unusual configurations in the City which may have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. He stated that policy statements can be drafted in the future. Public Hearing opened at 8:59 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. There being no citizens who appeared either in favor of or opposition to this issue, the Public Hearing was closed at 8:59 P.M. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to accept staffs' recommendation to approve the two definitions in regard to urban blocks as written. AYES: Comms. Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comms. Schulte, Sheldon . Location a. Address: City of Hermpsa Beach, City-wide b. Legal: N/A 2. Description Text Amendment to Zoning Code re: Definition of "urban" hlnrk" 3. Sponsor a. Name: City of. Hermosa Beach, Planning Department b. Mailing Address: 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach,`CA 90254 Phone:(213) 376-6984 NEGATIVE DECLARATION • In accordance with Resolution 79-4309 of the City of Hermosa beach, which im plements the California Environmental quality Act of 1970 in Hermosa Beach, the Environmental Review Committee must make an environmental review of all private projects proposed to be undertaken within the City, and the Planning Commission must make an environmental review of all public projects proposed to be undertaken within the City, which are subject to the Environmental quality Act. This declaration is documentation of the review and, if it be- comes final, no comprehensive Enviromnental Impact Report is required for this project. FINDING OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE _We have undertaken and completed an Environmental Impact Review of this pro posed project in accordance with Resolution 79-4309 of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, and find that this project does not require a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report because, provided the attached mitigation meas- ures are included in the project, it would not have a significant effect on the environment. Documentation supporting this finding is on file in the Building Department. - Date of Finding Chairman, Environmental Review Committee FINDING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION We have undertaken and completed an Environmental Impact Review of this pro- ject in accordance with Resolution 79-4309 of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, and find that this project does not require a comprehensive Environ- mental Impact Report because, provided the attached mitigation measures are included in the project, it would not have a significant effect on the en- vironment. Documentation supporting this finding is on file in the Build- ing Department. Date of Finding • Chairman, Planning Commission FINDING OF THE CITY COUNCIL We have undertaken and completed an environmental Impact Review of this pro- posed project in accordance with Resolution 70-4309 of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, and find this project does not require a comprehensive En- vironmental Impact Report because, prZArigitAcThEkmiggisiM41646ixgkilticarkxlileassr xiounkm adxiaxthexpxol t4xit would not have a significant effect on the environment. Documentation supporting this finding is on file in the Building Department. April 14, 1987 Date of Finding Mayor, Hermosa Beach City Council HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL April 6, 1987 Regular Meeting of April 14, 1987 TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FENCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITH THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RECONIIENDATI ON Staff recommends that the attached ordinance be adopted. The Planning Commission's recommendation is specifically the same as Staff's, except that in order to be more precise as to who is required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit when encroaching into the right-of-way or on Open Space zoned areas, additional words have been included which Staff believes more accurately express the intent of the amendment. ABSTRACT The current\ordinance requires variances for fences that exceed the height limitation, although grounds for the required Findings seldom exist.'\ Adopting the amendments to the current ordinance will allow fences in the residential, commercial and manufacturing zones to exceed the height limit when a Conditional Use Permit is approved by the Planning Commission. It will also require a Conditional Use Permit for fences in the Open Space zone and on public right-of-way areas. Thus, there will be regulation as to type of fencing allowed and environmental issues such as light, air, ventilation, etc. can be resolved. BACKGROUND On Febraury 17, 1987, the Planning recommendation amending the Zoning Conditional Use Permits for fences ATTACHMENTS Commission adopted a Ordinance to require that exceed the height limit. 1. Ordinance No. 87- 2. Planning Commission Resolution 87-12 3. Background a. Planning Commission Staff report dated 2/12/87 b. Planning Commission Minutes of February 17, 1987 c. Negative Declaration CONCUR: Michael Sc usach Planning Director Greg 2 eyer City Manager Manager Respcctfully submitted, C2isa Brei acher Planning Aide 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 87 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 1215 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH ZONING CODE TO REQUIRE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR FENCES THAT EXCEED THE HEIGHT LIMIT, AND TO APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the. City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach held a public hearing on April 14, 1987, to take public testimony regarding this matter and made the following Findings: A. The Zoning Ordinance requires variances for fences that exceed the height limit; B. The Findings required to grant variances do not usually apply to cases in which fences exceed the height limit; C. The Conditional Use Permit.. process is more applicable for requests to exceed the height limit for fences; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby ordain as follows: 1. Section 1215 Wall or Fence May Be Maintained. shall be retitled as follows: "Section 1215 Walls, Fences and Hedges in Residential, Commercial, Manufacturing, Open Space Zones, and on public Right -of -Way." 2. Existing two paragraphs shall be numbered "1." and "2." 3. Paragraphs "3.", "4.", and "5." shall be added to state the following: 113. 3. Residential walls, fences or hedges may exceed the maximum height noted.above,.in subsection 1 and 2 if a Conditional Use Permit has been granted by the Planning Commission. . . 4. Walls, fences or hedges exceeding 36 inches in height in commercial or manufacturing zones shall require a Conditional Use Permit. 5. Walls, fences or hedges when proposed by a private party within the Open Space. Zone or public right-of-way areas shall require a Conditional Use Permit and an Encroachment Permit when applicable." 1 2 3 4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of April, 1987. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: CITY CLERK PROVED A• TO ORM: TY ATTORNEY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION 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. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 17, 1987 to receive oral and written testimony on this matter and the following Findings: A. The Zoning Ordinance requires variances for fences that exceed the height limit; B. The Findings required to grant variances do not usually apply to cases in which fences exceed the height limit; C. The Conditional Use Permit process is more applicable for requests to exceed the height limit for fences; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby recommend that the City Council amend the Zoning Ordinance by amending and adding the following language to Section 1215 Wall or Fence May Be Maintained. 1. Said Section shall be retitled as follows: "Section 1215 Walls, Fences and Hedges in Residential, Commercial and Manufacturing Zones." 2. Existing two paragraphs shall be numbered "1." and "2.". 3. Paragraphs "3.", "4.", and "5." shall be added to state the following: Residential walls, fences or hedges may exceed the maximum height noted above in subsection 1 and 2 if a Conditional Use Permit has been granted by the Planning Commission. 113. 3. 4. Walls, fences or hedges exceeding 36 inches in height in commercial or manufacturing zones _shall require a Conditional Use Permit. 5. Walls, fences or hedges within the Open Space Zone or public right of way areas shall require a Conditional Use Permit." VOTE: AYES: Comms.Compton,Peirce,Rue,Chmn.Sheldon NOES: None 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 ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm.Schulte CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 87-12 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meeting of February 17, 1987. Chuck Sheldon, Chairman Michael Schubach, Secretary Date Eatityrrtuttb a tr riai Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission February 12, 1987 Regular Meeting of February 17, 1987 Text Amendment to Allow Fences to Exceed the Maximum Height with the Approval of a Conditional Use Permit Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution. Background On January 20, 1987, the Planning Commission directed Staff to examine allowing fences to exceed the maximum height allowed by the Zoning Ordinance when a Conditional Use Permit is approved by the Planning Commission. Analysis Most cities allow higher fences with a Conditional Use Permit. There are legitimate grounds for permitting a wall or fence which exceeds the maximum height. However, these grounds seldom meet the Findings for a variance; noise attenuation is one good reason. The main concerns the City should have are that the wall is decorative and not unsightly; will not block views, light, air or ventilation, or facilitate theefforts of criminals; serves a purpose; and is not opposed by the neighbors. By the use of a Conditional Use Permit, these kinds of issues can be resolved to everyone's benefit. In the commercial and manufacturing zones, fencing can become a real "eye sore" when, for instance, a 7 or 8 foot fence laced with razor wire is installed. This situation has occurred in other cities particularly in connection with used car lots and various types of manufacturing uses. A more appropriate type of fencing that would serve the same purpose would be wrought iron with a shepherd hook top. Putting walls around open space property would defeat the purpose of open space. Planning Director PLANNING COMMISON MINUTES - FEBRUARY 17, 1987 PAGE 8 • TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FENCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITH THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT • Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 12, 1987. On January ,20, 1987, the Planning Commission directed staff to examine allowing fences to exceed the maximum height allowed by the zoning ordinance when a conditional use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. Most cities allow higher fences with a conditional use permit. There are legitimate grounds for permitting a wall or fence which exceeds the.:maximucrm_height. However, these grounds seldom meet the findings for a variance. Noise attenuation is one good reason. The main concerns the City should have are that the wall is decorative and not unsightly; will not block views, light, air, or ventilation, or facilitate the efforts of criminals; serves a purpose; and is not opposed by the neighbors. By the use of a conditional use permit, these kinds of issues can be resolved to everyone's benefit. In some commercial and manufacturing zones, fencing can become a real eyesore when, for instance, a seven- or eight -foot fence laced with razor wire is installed. This situation has occurred in other cities particularly in connection with used car lots and various types of manufacturing uses. A more appropriate type of fencing that would serve the same purpose would be wrought iron with a shepherd hook top. Putting walls around open space property would defeat the purpose of open space. Comm. Compton discussed Condition No. 5 of the resolution and stated that "Public Right of Way," should be included in addition to "Open Space Zone." He noted walk streets which are actually public rights of way. Comm. Compton asked whether there are design standards for open space zones. Mr. Schubach stated that he would prefer open fences,such as chain link in -the open space zones. He stated that it depends on location. PLANNING COMMISStN MINUTES - FEBRUARY 17, 1987 PAGE 9 Comm. Compton suggested that design standards will need to be addressed in the future. Public Hearing opened at 8:53 P.M. by Chmn. Sheldon. There being no citizens who appeared to speak either in favor of or in opposition to this request, Public Hearing closed at 8:53 P.M. by Chmn. Sheldon. MOTION by Comm. Compton, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs' recommendation to recommend that the City Council amend the zoning ordinance to require conditional use permits for fences that exceed the height limit, with an amendment to Condition No. 5 stating that "Walls, fences or hedges within the Open Space Zone or Public Right of Way shall require a Conditional Use Permit." AYES: Comms. Compton, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Sheldon NOES: None ABSENT: Comm. Schulte. .. .... 1. •• Location a. Address: b. Legal: City -Wide, City of Hermosa Beach City -Wide, Residential, Commercial, Manufacturing & Open Space Zones & Public Right -Of -Way. 2. Description An Ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach amending Section 1215 to requir a Conditional Use_Permit for fences that exceed maximum height limit. 3. Sponsor a. Name: Michael Schubach, Planning Director b. Mailing Address: City of Hermosa Beach, Planning Department 1315 Valley Driver H.B., CA 90254 Phone: (213) 376-6984 NEGATIVE DECLARATION In accordance with Resolution 79-4309 of the City of Hermosa beach, which im plements the California Environmental quality Act of 1970 in Hermosa Beach, the Environmental Review Committee must make an environmental review of all private projects proposed to be undertaken within the City, and the Planning Commission must make an environmental review of all public projects proposed to be undertaken within the City, which are subject to. the Environmental quality Act. This declaration is documentation of the review and, if it be- comes final, no comprehensive Enviromnental Impact Report is required for this project. FINDING OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE _We have undertaken and completed an Environmental Impact Review of this pro posed project in accordance with Resolution 79-4309 of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, and find that this project does not require a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report because, provided the attached mitigation meas- ures are included in the project, it would not have a significant effect on the environment. Documentation supporting this finding is on file in the Building Department. Date of Finding Chairman, Environmental Review Committee FINDING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION We have undertaken and completed an Environmental Impact Review of this pro- ject in accordance with Resolution 79-4309 of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, and find that this project does not require a comprehensive Environ- mental Impact Report because, provided the attached mitigation measures are included in the project, it would not have a significant effect on the en- vironment. Documentation supporting this finding is on file in the Build- ing Department. Date of Finding • Chairman, Planning Commission FINDING OF THE CITY COUNCIL We have undertaken and completed an environmental Impact Review of this pro posed project in accordance with Resolution 70-4309 of the City Council of � Hermosa Beach, and find this project does not require a comprehensive En- vironmental Impact Report because, pnoxrxix odc)auccadzcecd{xxmictxi.4atsiconxmeas* 4MeAugfflteocicmaludedxinxthexprmlxmt4 it would not have a significant effect on the environment. Documentation supporting this finding is on file in the Building Department. April 14, 1987 Date of Finding -- .-- Mayor, Hermosa Beach City Council HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the,. HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL April 7, 1987 Regular Meeting of April 14, 1987 APPROVAL OF CATALINA CHANNEL EXPRESS,,INC. PROPOSAL TO AUTHORIZE A VESSEL SERVICE BETWEEN REDONDO BEACH AND CATALINA ISLAND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council support the attached application to authorize the transportation of passengers by vessel between the Redondo Beach Marina and Catalina Island. BACKGROUND On March 3, 1987, the vice-president of Charles G. Johnston, Inc., DBA Redondo Beach Marina sent the City a letter requesting support of an application to authorize transportation between Redondo Beach and Catalina Island. On January 8, 1987, Catalina Channel Express, Inc., submitted an application to the Public Utilities Commission proposing vessel service betweentheRedondo Beach Marina and Catalina Island. ABSTRACT Catalina Channel Express Inc., seeks authorization to establish a vessel service transporting passengers between the Redondo Beach Marina and Catalina Island. The company is requesting support from local jurisdictions in order to obtain approval of the application. ANALYS I S The proposed service will divert some of the existing schedules Catalina Channel Express, Inc. runs from its San Pedro and Long Beach departure points to the Redondo Beach departure point, so as to better serve passengers in the South Bay. The proposed service will offer one morning run from the Redondo Beach Marina and one evening run from Catalina Island daily, and an additional evening run from the Redondo Beach Marina and Catalina Island will be offered Friday and Sunday. Benefits of the Service 1. The proposed service from the Redondo Beach Marina would attract passengers (residents and tourists) from the South Bay area who might not otherwise make the longer automobile journey to the San Pedro and Long Beach Harbor to travel to Catalina Island. 1 11 a i 2. The proposed service would be more convenient to a substantial portion of passengers who live in the South Bay. Furthermore, officials of the City of Redondo Beach, authorities at the Redondo Beach Marina, and the public community and tourist industry in the South Bay have all requested this type of service. 3. The parking facilities at the Catalina Terminal in San Pedro are often filled, particularly during the summer months, so that passengers desiring transportation to Catalina cannot park their cars and obtain transportation. The proposed Redondo Beach departure point would alleviate parking congestion in San Pedro, make Catalina transportation available to more people, andincrease the efficiency of the service. If approval of the application is obtained, the service is proposed to commence on or before June 30, 1987. ATTACHMENTS 1. Catalina Channel. Express, Inc. Application 2. Redondo Beach Marina letter CONCU Mich el Scbubach Planning Director • Greg ry(. City Manager ever ,Resp tfully subna,itted, _'Lisa Breisacher Planning Aide JAN 1 3 1987 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of the Application of CATALINA CHANNEL EXPRESS, INC., a California corporation, for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity Authorizing the Transportation of Passengers and Baggage by Vessel between Redondo Beach, California on the one hand, and Santa Catalina Island on the other hand. APPLICATION Application No. COMES NOW Applicant CATALINA CHANNEL EXPRESS, INC., a California corporation, ("Catalina Express") and respectfully alleges as follows: 1. The exact name of the applicant is Catalina Channel Express, Inc., a California corporation, which has been duly organized and is existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California. ,Its principal place of business is Berth 95-96, Catalina Terminal, San Pedro, Los Angeles, California 90731; its mailing address is Post Office Box 1391, San Pedro, California 90731; its telephone number is (213) 519-1212. A certified copy of its Articles of Incorporation is already on file with this Commission. 2. Correspondence and communications with regard to appli- cant i t proc-ed 6.5020/ Mficf0V-- 3 -7 ,g7 60. 6 41-54-5 ARK,"�f 6 S � 0200 s,�•��N� FRdrit 2� 4.10;06. should be addressed t•• -1- )4753 J. Terence Lyons A Professional Corporation 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2250 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (213) 277-3040 3. Applicant Catalina Express is a common carrier by vessel (VCC 52) and is authorized to transport passengers and their baggage between Berth 95-96 in Los Angeles Harbor, San Pedro, and the Queensway Hilton Hotel, Long Beach, on the one hand, and points on Santa Catalina Island, on the other hand, as set forth in Decision 93291 dated July 7, 1981 as amended by subsequent decisions. 4. By this application, applicant Catalina Express seeks authority pursuant to section 1007 of the Public Utilities Code to establish common carrier service by vessel transporting persons and their baggage between Redondo Beach, California and Santa Catalina Island. Authority is sought to provide such service on a scheduled basis. A map depicting the route and scope of the proposed service is attached hereto as Exhibit A. If this appli- the cation is granted, Catalina Express intends to commence proposed service on or before ane 30, 1987. 5. Applicant Catalina Express presently provides passenger service as a common carrier by vessel between the Port of Los Angeles (San Pedro), on the one hand, and numerous points on Santa Catalina Island, on the other hand. Its Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for this service was described in Appendix A to Decision 93291 and amended in Decision No. -2- ..' .. ... m .,e,... . r•. ,. ._,::i... 2��ia: x c r ...-` :��s'�^. , `�.��' ...r. t� eS:i. F. C�`iZ� '.•'t N� ��. � ..%�.:^-�•.'.�:.�cy9�. ':; `3y1, :". a X, .,,. ,,:a .lfa 1 'Y � ti v 1) 83-06-038. A copy of this Certificate as amended is attached hereto and marked Exhibit B. 6. Catalina Express presently operates four vessel in providing the service authorized by its certificate. These vessels are listed, described, and pictured in Exhibit C attached " a hereto. 7. The proposed ares or rates o be assessed for this service and the rules and regulations governing same are set forth in Exhibit D which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. The proposed service will also be subject to Catalina Express's tariffs on file with this Commission. 8. Attached hereto as hibit Ej s the schedule which Catalina Express proposes to initiate in the service between Redondo Beach and Avalon. 9. Catalina Express will conduct the proposed service at the docking facilities which it presently uses in Avalon and at Two Harbors. Attached as Exhibit,is a diagram of the docking and parking facilities which it proposes to use in Redondo Beach. 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit _is a description and photographs of the vessel which Catalina Express intends to use for the proposed service between Redondo Beach and Avalon. This vessel has been used by Catalina Express sin a 1983 and this vessel is now in use by Catalina Express in its transportation service between San Pedro and Santa Catalina Island. 11. The proposed Redondo Beach/Catalina service has been studied and considered by Catalina Express for the past two years. -3- 12. In its present service between the Port of Los Angeles (San Pedro) and Catalina, Catalina Express carries passengers to Catalina from points of origin throughout Los Angeles County and Southern California. The only point of departure for transporta- tion by vessel to Avalon from Los Angeles County at the present time is the Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor. A significant number of Catalina Express' passengers to Avalon now originate from the "South Bay" area, including Redondo Beach, ermosa :-.ch, Manhattan Beach, Torrance, and surrounding communities. Recently, these communities have become more tourist oriented, new hotels have opened, and mpre out-of-town visitors staying in these communities desire transportation to Catalina. By this application, Catalina Express seeks authority to divert some of its existing schedules from its San Pedro departure point to a Redondo Beach departure point so as to better serve its existing ap ssengers in this area. The reasons for this proposed service from Redondo Beach are as follows: A. The proposed service would be more convenient to a substantial portion of Catalina Express' present passengers who live in the South Bay area. B. The proposed service from Redondo Beach would attract passengers (residents and tourists) from the South Bay area who might not otherwise make the longer automobile journey to the Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor to travel to Catalina. —4— C. The parking facilities at the Catalina Terminal _ f in San Pedro are often filled, particularly during the summer months, so that passengers desiring transportation to Catalina cannot park their cars and obtain transportation, and the Redondo Beach departure point would alleviate parking congestion in San Pedro and make Catalina transportation available to more persons. D. A Redondo Beach departure point would increase the efficiency of Catalina Express' entire passenger transpor- tation service and result in greater economies to Catalina Express as well as greater convenience to the traveling public. E. Te officials of the City of Redondo Beach, the authorities at Redondo Beach Marina, and the public community and tourist industry in the South Bay have all requested direct service from Redondo Beach to Catalina. 13. Catalina Express has the financial ability to provide the service proposed herein. Its balance sheet as of October 31, 1986 and its income statememt for the ten months ended October 31, 1986 are attached hereto a Exhibits H anI, respectively. These are the latest available financial statements. These statements together show more than adequate financial ability to institute the proposed service, particularly in view of the fact that the proposed service is intended to be rendered by one of the vessels currently operated by applicant Catalina Express. -5- 14. Attached hereto as Egibit J s a proforma profit and loss statement for the first season of the proposed operations between Redondo Beach and Catalina. 15. The public convenience and necessity require the proposed operations for each of the reasons set forth in paragraph 12 above and for the following reasons: A. There is presently no direct service between Redondo Beach and Catalina. B. Catalina Express has received numerous requests for such direct service. C. 'The proposed service would be supported in part by .providing a more convenient departure point to Catalina Express' r existing passengers in the South Bay, and in part by encouraging new passengers from that area with the more convenient direct service. 16. Catalina Express is not aware of any passenger vessel common carrier service which would be adversely affected by the proposed service. Pursuant to Rule 15.1(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, notice of this application is provided by publication in the Commission's Daily Transportation Calendar. Catalina Express has provided a courtesy copy of this application to the representative of H. Tourist, Inc., the only other passenger vessel common carrier service now operating between any point in Los Angeles County and Santa Catalina Island, -6- • and to the City of Redondo Beach and the City of Avalon. Applicant shall deliver a copy of this application to any person making a request therefor, or to any person as the Commission may direct. 17. It can be seen with • . .•- ertainty that the issuance of the requested certificate will have no significant adverse effect on the environment. To the contrary,..t.heevesselt.ransporta-._ tion proposed—by...ths application will eliminate the necessity for many persons to use their own private automobiles from the South Bay area to the Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor. All of the transportation proposed by this application will be providecLon the open n sea, Direct water transportation will be a viable alternative to freeway travel between Redondo Beach and the South Bay area to the Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach. Other than air service, passenger vessel service is the only means of transporta- tion to and from Catalina. WHEREFORE, applicant Catalina Express prays that this Commission: 1. Issue its order granting the requested certificate of public convenience and necessity as hereinabove described. -7- 2. Grant such other and further relief as it may deem proper under the circumstances. Executed at Los Angeles, California this 1987. J. TERENCE LYONS A Professional Corporation ay of January, . CATALINA CHANNEL EXPRESS, INC. e—President and ral Manager By //, Terence Lyon Attorney for Apcant VERIFICATION I am the Vice -President and General Manager of Catalina Channel Express, Inc., Applicant in this proceeding. I have read the foregoing application and know the contents thereof, and the same is true of my own knowledge, except for matters which may be stated therein on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe it to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Los Angeles, California this 0 day of January, 1987. NEIL PROPOSED SERVICE REDONDO BEACH EXHISTINC SERVICE - SAN PEDRO 5/16" = 1 mile 11...1ululu�t"u111 4! 11 77 IJ5 .. ,A, • .. .. "u1.r1 3111 P 39 37 ..010 106[0 W1.1 Islur 1.41u4 b...1 • 431 • ' IV .r- 40 '?• _. i 157 `I •FI 10.4c 12011 ISM • ur- • 1-q 73Nc +ANPCON0• /. •4b•4i�96?Wt 241, NIr 1675� 4,, • H A) S..w 1.>ro SPI rerinl .i3 m • fr 31 w w 6 42 4„�' SA.i/61.r1.n; R 111411156 1 : tw 1 ses rN _ 1 �' V 4011 �' \ C O 414 , y i1Go+B _ 415 Ittr° IC \ tilli di!1 r'M1' sift- l S ( I now s) I 487 Q 1 1 l f \lic.i A 4.119 31 302 211 rN 252 139 • a 127 R,f �^ K 76fsi~7M�-. X1).--;;;37".-_-ss, zC i irs—.- Syr`12f 23 $1 w•' t 74 "PO r4. q. 333 S. 69 397 1 1 45 50 f14p 40049 71441$3 �� 1 N 1716 111 47 CFI1�e 32' 49 1 353 Esta MI; Ca1}rV% 40 • Mut. L.* 41 .• 50 ,1, 3/ •, 41 '4'. G• Li OW) 120441 „lc 391 Row SCabufinu ,.s 617 iruwrBawl, 76 :moi 697 • ss+ , f1 • C„ , 1j. 4a 1'V 47s • 1107 ^ `'Gt74o �1Isis 01170 ic 010444 1 u as - 1107 %%aLEkta 16400 • 011411 . Yf171.O N% rases • u47 QAg1111 1 307 IA11w j a7- 1471 7l 67 rN 371 rs •' b 9 a% FIN 25 .-•-•' 10 .s 51 j2" f•%. 7 ' RW •LO- 1 �• " WeaSrlf 13ci X141 13 RA .es.. I I'JOJ/ St SAN 9,1 lo, .1 ' 14 17 • 12 M 11 2 r$ 4 _ •29.3391 32 2624F16 w 22 i 2 G'31t• 'Ili 121. r 27 :. ie w 200 421 31 33 47 272 33 1 34 'r•a3 --. 4S 134 • u SOU 4011 3d9 421 AIM Lip" .110 {1j 1M 1__ t • EXHIBIT A 405 331 435 r�o 204 391 421 343 392 175 1 ;Al 1 1 - 300 % 1 371 395 �'ao9 1MJ 4 IDS •7! �2 ▪ ff6...Mit 761 gs ty— 11 t.•4 409 4_.• r• /AIJ/jn • Appendix A CATALINA CHANNEL EXPRESS, INC. Original Title Page (a California corporation) CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY VCC-52 Showing common carrier by vessel operative rights, restrictions, limitations, exceptions and privileges. All changes and amendments as authorized by the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California will be made as revised pages or added original pages. Issued under authority of Decision 93291 dated ��U� 7 - X981 l.. of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, in Application 60379, EXHIBIT B Appendix A CATALINA CHANNEL EXPRESS, INC. (a California corporation) (Vcc-52) First Revised Page 1 Cancels Original Page 1 Catalina Channel Express, Inc., a California corporation, by this certificate of public convenience and necessity, is authorized to conduct common carriage by vessels for the transportation of passengers and their baggage between Berth 95-96 in the Los Angeles Harbor and the Queensway Hilton Hotel, Long Beach, on the one hand, and Avalon and Two Harbors on Santa Catalina Island, on the other hand, as described below: I. Scheduled Service Between Berth 95-96 in the Los hand, and Avalon, Santa Catalina Island, the following restrictions, limitations, /a. V One sched,1 e clan -Si -at 4:3 geles Islan3. Angeles Harbor, on the one on the other hand, with and specifications: will be operated in theernoon �.m . leaving Berth 95-96 in the armor to Avalon, Santa Catalina b. No schedules will be operated leaving Berth 95- 96 in the Los Angeles Harbor destined for Avalon, Santa Catalina Island with a departure time within one-half hour before or after the scheduled departures of H. Tourist, Inc. on file with this Commission on June 18, 1981. Between Berth 95-96 in the Los Angeles Harbor, on the one hand, and Two Harbors., Santa Catalina Island, on the other hand, with the following limitation: / A minimun of one round-trip schedule per day for a minimum of five days per week will be operated throughout the year. Issued by California Public Utilities Commission. Revised by Decision" -83-06-038 Application 82-07-64. Appendix A CATALINA CHANNEL EXPRESS, INC. First Revised Page 2 (a California corporation) Cancels (VCC-52) Original Page 2 II. Nonscheduled Service Between Berth 95-96 in the Los Angeles Harbor and the Queensway Hilton Hotel, on the one hand, and Avalon and Two Harbors on Santa Catalina Island, on the other hand. Issued by California Public Utilities Commission. Revised by Decision 83-06-038 , Application'82-07-64. Appendix A CATALINA CHANNEL EXPRESS, INC. First Revised Page 3 (a California corporation) Cancels (VCC-52) Original Page 3 III. General Restrictions, Limitations, and Specifications - a. No vessel shall be operated unless it has met all applicable safey requirements, including those of the United States Coast Guard. b. Nonscheduled service shall be operated on an "on -ca asis. The term on-call as used fefers to service which is authorized to be rendered dependent on the demandsof passen ers. The tariffs and timetables shall show a conditions under which each authorized on-call service will be rendered. Issued by California Public Utilities Commission. Revised by Decision "83=06=038' , Application 82-07-64. EXHIBIT C VESSELS IN USE BY CATALINA EXPRESS FOR PASSENGER SERVICE BY VESSEL TO AND FROM POINTS ON SANTA CATALINA ISLAND. Vessel Name M/V CHANNEL EXPRESS M/V AVALON EXPRESS M/V CATALINA EXPRESS M/V TWO HARBORS EXPRESS Passenger Capacity Cruising Speed 60 Passengers 149 Passengers 149 Passengers 149 Passengers 19 knots 20 knots 22 knots 24 knots Each of these vessels is certificated by the United States Coast Guard, and each has the passenger capacity and cruising speed listed above. EXHIBIT C, Page 1 .•••. . ..... . 15; .: ,... : 4... ; ; -, y.. ..,.;:.-.:.,...;'...*„..,;.:,i... 1.1 ?.' • ,';..,..z :414: ic. ;,;:s1 • • - " • •:.....; • ... ...... i '.1 • • .! • 1 • ; ; . • . • 1. ,;:•• •• ,"; ' • • , • • ; •••;'. :* ;.; ; ! !:• • .; ..:;•'; • • • - • . . .., :;;;- sriaAantilaii1444,.14‘;‘,T,",441L4i .• • , ;,1. • — r* 4, • • -q 1 •• •., ..! EXHIBIT C, CATALINA EXPRESS REDONDO BEACH SERVICE Individual Fares Adult Senior 55+ Children (2-11) Infant (under 2) PROPOSED FARES. Avalon Two Harbors e Way > One Way $14.40 $12.90 $48 0 $ -0- $14.50 $13.00 $ 8.50 $ -0- Avalon Two Harbors Group Fares Round Trip Round Trip Group (20 or more) $24.00 $24.20 EXHIBIT D, Page 1 TRAVEL INFORMATION Cruise Reservations - Round trip reservations can be booked with one phone call.Tickets may be purchased the d of de rture or in '141hour camearation no • on s and tickets purchased In advance, is required to obtain tut refund All tickets must be validated In our office prior to departure. 50% groups of 5 or more. Charter rates ava� required on Check -In Time - You should check in and claim your reservations at least .45 minutes I .ia 2art re. Reservations will only be guaranteed until 15 minutes prior to the scheduled departure time. Travel Light - Foch person is responsible for carrying his or her own luggage to and from the boat so bring only niy what boggoge you'll need for the trip. luggage is limited to 50 Pounds per person. • Baggage limitations - U.S. Coast Guard regulafiors passengerprorrying any dangerous commodities on harooa fla vessels. Cale pp stoves. to s Ionble materials firewood. ttems of any kind are strictlye^tru ti offensive material, internal cam Prohibited large quantities food or other combustion engines• large quantities d devices or materials not defined as personal baggage will not be permitted Please check with our reservations office for regulations concerning specific Items ng—All comping on Catalina is a rna ave & Camp (213) 510-0303 or -LA Coun y {213) 510-0688. Important to Note: When traveling on Catalina Express. Coast Guard baggaQe limitations apply. Please refer to above boggoge hmitations fisting. Pet- brought with such pets sas dogs. cats, and birds may be You: however, we assume no liability for your pet. For the safety of other passengers, on board. dogs must be properly leashed and muzzled. or carried in o pet container during the entire trip. Cats and birds must be in a cage. or pet carrier. If your pet is not housebroken,. cleaning material will be supplied for you k, use. VBicycles/Surfboards - Reservortions are required oras space rnits: on -deck transport 53 one way. Sporting Equipment - Most sporting equipment is considered personal baggage. For Accommodations - Advance reserves are required information and reservations contact: Catalina na Island Chamber chainaf520��ce, P.Q Baa 217. Avalon, CA 90704. Checks. Credit Cards - Master BankArnericar Visa and American Express honored Charge'� . license. regulations provide that Beverage Control beverages [boordoboot ns may drink by -Calabria unless they ave een served Schedules and fares subject to change h conformance with California Public Utilities Commission regulations. EXHIBIT D, Page 2 ,y-)5 CATALINA EXPRESS REDONDO BEACH SERVICE MID -JUNE THROUGH MID -SEPTEMBER PROPOSE Departs 8:50 am 6:30 pm REDONDO BEACH TO AVALON Arrives 10:50 am 8:30 pm Frequency Daily Friday & Sunday ,(o-&'--ra-- AVALON TO REDONDO BEACH Departs Arrives Frequency 4:00 pm 6:00 pm Daily 9:00 pm 11:45 pm Friday & Sunday Departs 9:00 pm Departs 10:15 pm AVALON TO TWO HARBORS* Arrives Frequency 9:45 pm Friday & Sunday TWO HARBORS TO REDONDO BEACH Arrives 11:45 pm Frequency Friday & Sunday are carried from Ava_•n to Two Harbor . Additional passengers bound for Redondo Beach are picked up at Two Harbors. This "leg" of the journey is included here to show boat utilization. EXHIBIT E San Pedro =213 - 519-1212 - 213.- 519-7971 Berth 95 P.O. Box 1391 San Pedro, CA 90733 SAN PEDRO, CA. AT LINA AstEL.F.IELE.E CONTACT: Elaine Vaughan (213) 519-7971 Welcome aboard the "Avalon Express", one of the fastest boats to Catalina Island. Catalina Channel Express operates a fleet of vessels with daily, year round departu o Avalon & Two_Jiarb Catalina Express provides a v.oth, fast •I-,inute rid- . .. "-na Island aboard vessels equipped 'with state-of-the-art stabilizers and personalized service. Additional on board amenities include refreshment center, service by cabin attendants and color television with video recorder. EXHIBIT G (including photographs) to l is '*, i, '1 %�• .� L Jam' 0 Catalina Island -213- 510-1212 P.O. Box 1566 Avalon, CA 90704 • • • • ••••!. • •• •• • • • • ••• • 1. ••••••••• • • •••. • : • • L••• '•:..•••rr.....•••••••••••••••4•••er .••••••••• ••. • .400.4147.41416,. • • . • • . dn. d.• • .• ,..!..••••••• • • • •••••••• • • • • ••••I • 4141inla • N & •••••1141 1131.7 „pm, "t ; . 3 -1 •-.7re of................rr • • . . 1: c.,:n.' • .... . .4........r...............t.: 4. "—......T.L.r.'..E.4-4:+.: ., . .. ••••••••••••••• • • •' 4* M. 1 .: •”::W.....S. :,......i.4 ...r; . -2 .....' ......i ..., i.. , , •,..,...—.--.0..!#.11..:-.-....-1--,-, ....N..... • ... rt • V .• •••• ' '" • • : ••••:e -•••• .• ... • ... ' • • %. ,•••(•,r:•.• • c ' t cr4 fiiO.S.k. ,... .1..• . • ' : •• . • • ' 1......• . • ."." .. •••••., ft. %...4............ _. .",":frit -e,•.,;;,... ; .4'. ..11,-"'''' ''' ''' ' • . • ''. . +. • . . . • - .,.. _,..„ i, . . --..../ ., . ... '7•....:.4....p•-••-...14.....4,r;,-;r ... ... t".-1-..-.......,—„ct.,—,.....;;64.7_..:-:.---.• •41.r. i rri...."1. ... ' "=1.:....1.4:4•-4...., 4.......eleig *I laiedrol itag AA' Ir IA , 07, .••••&• .• ........ • -... al op • • • . • ,11".• •••. 4,1212113riel'...41°341X0 ACM.' .0.1b1F ! 11h. ode- • • • ." t•i; Tr.!" : 44" • "‘"1 tort •;t1;014-vaggi'Vrrnraitt.1.44,0 • • A: 7 • • .:.••••'•';1111...1:6q ; • • L •••: : e. • t 0— • • • •"% -"•• ,• {7'1 •• re • •• ..r04,1 • r".. 7, . • .7 , 444 Jig,. ." . , , it,: • •• i.r , • r rtt. • ,rect;44 •1 q.01:14 ii,1717;;""Ittm" i; . • ;"itsS.#1..ii ••••.,:21i ;11,1W, 1'4'0' .11 ; fq" . , ,RIB•••• -••••••• • • v. „ e i.e.. _ - . • • Itif • 1.". • , ;4. • .-,3 ..„ Eh?! '4,44:1; 2."-$ . • . 1, ' • ' ...t.eto 1•• 1.4 • • • • . , ••••: • - • z .."k.'"'"'"?;.A • • f ••••, . * j?"' 4• • ..04-4416 tie1 ).;,;f;•;,•-•:;;4''' ? Ac:• • t4.. • itj -00404., • I "pt • ".•••••• ;E; , jrmuvirseePio • i .............. 10.1.1. "... 1 Y. •••••••.. •• • • • • • • • ••nr••••••• •••• • • • . 0 •• • • •••“= .......• -••••••---46- '''''''''''.- - ...........::: ..."' '''' • • • • I 4, ••••••••ft•m••••• ....... - --.-."........'...,......,•••. .0.=•••••..... • •-• • • •••• • 0.1 •••••• .. ••••.,.. .'••••••=•••• sr ••••••m•=•••.......... XL% ! •• • • ••• • •• •••••• ••.M.•• • • ..• •• •P•pw. ••••.••••• •......... •,.....,„ ••••=•••ftm..... •••••• %b. • •• • • •• 0 • •• 4.•••••••••••••• 0••••••• 460^ •••••• .•••••••111..V, •••••••••• • ••••.•m•Am.m.•23•• mm••••••••mwmwee ••••••• • •• • .• • • • •••••. 11=•••••••••=. .... ••••••• •••/••••• .. ....... — Nam u..........e...... ..111••••• ........,.................. ......•11...... ........................•••••••. . .... ...... • •• ........ ..a.,••••••••......._ .1••••••• ..... 1•14.•••••••• . .. ........ . ammo! „ • •••• .1.11, .••;•••••••••••••• • • •I "...••• ••••.. . ma, ......... •••11, ••• jr:. 1 •••••• .........4 :=:: • • • • =".., ;,.. ...rm., mom • v.. • .-.-- — , 4 .................m.............."..... ' D. 'It II •••••••••••••••••••• •.,••••• a •• OMNI . ., .••••••••••.••• a•••••••• O.., • 0.:: ' .z.,..? ••• t •1001.••••••••• tf... VVI • ON011••••••••• anon ••• • •0•• ■•••••••• •••••••• • ••••••10.0.• • • ••• ••• • t • . ": -!••• • •;., • •• • ••• • • ;-1.2f • tkr,, •••• .•• *• • CATALINA CHANNEL EXPRESS, INC. BALANCE SHEET October 31, 1986 (unauditied) ASSETS Current assets Cash on hand and in bank Accounts receivable, trade Accounts receivable - other Inventories Prepaid expenses $ 328,925 79,789 2,700 7,396 13,400 Total current assets $ 432,210 Property and equipment Machinery and equipment Piers and floats Total property and equipment Less accumulated depreciation Net property and equipment Other assets Total assets EXHIBIT 8 $ 368,469 67,596 436,065 119,584 316,481 57,490 $ 806,181 CATALINA CHANNEL EXPRESS, INC. BALANCE SHEET October 31, 1986 (unaudited) LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY Current liabilities Accounts payable and accured expenses Income tax payable $ 181,072 17,547 Total current liabilities 198,619 Stockholder's equity Common stock, 100,000 shares authorized, 12,000 shares issued and outstanding $ 12,000 Retained earnings 595,562 Stockholder's equity Total liabilities and stockholder's equity 607,562 $ 806,181 CATALINA CHANNEL EXPRESS, INC. STATEMENT OF INCOME For The Ten Months Ended October 31, 1986 (unaudited) Income $ 3,300,483 Expenses Salaries and employee benefits: Boat Crew Clerical Boat Maintenance Administration Payroll Taxes and benefits 498,236 359,924 36,641 57,894 147,624 Total salaries and benefits $1,100,319 Operating expenses Fuel 175,860 Boat leases 339,824 Food and beverage 103,860 Rent 191,941 Repairs and maintenance 121,895 Other operating expenses 863,880 Total operating expenses $1,797,260 Total expenses Net income Retained earnings December 31, 1985 Retained Earnings October 31, 1986 EXHIBIT I 2,897,579 402,904 192,658 $ 595,562 v 41 CATALINA CHANNEL EXPRESS, INC. .."7" -- PROJECTED INCOME STATEMENT For The Period June 15, 1987 to September 15, 1987 Service Between Redondo Beach - Avalon - Two Harbors Total Projected Income Projected Expenses Salaries Boat Crew Clerical • Boat Maintenance & Repairs Administration Total Salaries Operating Fuel Boat Lease Wharfage Rent Repairs & Maintenance (Boat) Other Operating Expense Insurance and Taxes Total Operating Total Expenses Net Income 9 $ 48,000 9,500 3,500 5,000 66,000 26,600 22,500 11,000 13,200 6,500 30,200 10,000 120,000 07/44/1-a° fed EXHIBIT J 186,000 $ 34,000 V 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I have this date served a copy of Applicant Catalina Channel Express, Inc.'s Application by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid addressed as follows: Mr. John Longley City Manager City of Avalon P.O. Box 707 Avalon, CA 90704 Mr. Jim Casey City Manager City of Redondo Beach 415 Diamond Street Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Edward J. Hegarty, Esq. 100 Bush St., 21st Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 (Attorney for H. Tourist, Inc.) Executed this i� day of January 1987 at Los Angeles, California. inda A. Maurer riortawmwmomwammw 1RL1)ONDO BEACH MARINA, March 3, 1987 Dear South Bay Mayor: Here's an opportunity to help offer a service to your community at no cost to your city and with no reason for there to be any opposition by your citizens. For many years we have wanted to offer passenger service from Redondo Beach to Catalina Island. Catalina Express, a current carrier based in San Pedro, has an application pending at the Public Utilities Commission and we need local support in order to obtain approval. I'm sure that you agree that your citizens who choose to go to Catalina would prefer a short trip to Redondo Beach rather than driving to San Pedro or Long Beach. Redondo Beach is the only viable location for additional Catalina Service. It would take too long to reach Catalina from Marina del Rey and other locations do not have a harbor for calm water boarding or adequate parking. We are adding parking for the service. If you and your Council wish to support the application please send a letter (with a copy to me for our files) to: Mr. Vahak Petrossian California Public Utilities Commission Traffic Division 107 South Broadway, Room 5109 Los Angeles, CA 90012 We hope you will support the application and improve access to Catalina Island for your citizens. Sincerely yours, CHARLES G..JOHNSTON, INC. DBA REDONDO BEACH MARINA Gordon McRae, Jr. Vice President and General Manager GM/ 181 North 1larborDrive / Redondo Beach, California 90277 / (2] 3) 374-3481 .4 Division o/ ('harp's (;.Johnston., Inc. Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council April 7, 1987 City Council Meeting of April 14, 1987 REQUEST BY MAYOR PRO TEM SIMPSON FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION TO OPPOSE STATE LEGISLATION PRECLUDING THE CITY FROM BANNING ALCOHOL/GASOLINE SALES RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council communicate to the State Legislature its opposition to any State legislation which would limit the City's ability to govern, regulate and otherwise pro- hibit the sale of gasoline and alcohol at a common facility. BACKGROUND Mayor Pro Tem Simpson has communicated to Assemblyman Condit, Chairman of the Assembly Governmental Organization Committee her opposition to the State eliminating or restricting a city's ability to regulate/prohibit commercial facilities from selling both alcohol and gasoline. ANALYSIS Attached is a copy of the pertinent legislation, recent newspaper articles and Councilmember Simpson's communication. In addition to the recommendation, other options available to the City Council are: 1. Concur in the proposed legislation, AB 937 as amended; thereby agreeing with the League of Cities position; 2. Seek further amendments to the bill; 3. Receive and File. ate. -7:Gregory �I eyer City Manager GTM/ld Attachments cc Planning Director Schubach Planning Commission City Attorney Lough 11b 4 zwiluoistalsonswasznip;F1f S� / • L £ A Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 V Citi o f2-Iermosarl3eaclt.) CITY COUNCIL John Clotfl, Mayor Etta Simpson, Mayor Pro Tem Jim Rosenberger June Williams Tony DeBelils Norma Goldbach, City Treasurer Kathleen Midstokke, City Clerk April 7, 1987 Assemblyman Gary A. Condit Chairman, Assembly Governmental Organization Committee State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: AB 937 Dear Assemblyman Condit: Please support the cities in their need to provide the safest and healthiest environment possible to citizens in their community. If the fuel/liquor interests are arguing their right to do business together, and that this business serves community interest as well as theirs, let it be argued on points of law in a court of law, not preempted by the legislature, compro- mising community interests by responding to Southland -Richfield threats of litigation against cities which have banned liquor/ gasoline sales at a common site. What evidence is there to that much from on-site sale in and consumption of alcohol? Efforts to separate drinking and driving prove that off-site sale differs the time lapse between purchase should be rein- forced, not eroded. Commercial bars and restaurants in our city have the offer from Westside Cab Co. to extend their anti - drunk driving program of free transportation from holidays only to include all week -ends. Separate the drunk from driving; not allowing a common site sale is a firm step in that direction. Most sincerely, Enc: Westside Cab Co. Mayor Pro Tem letter City Hall (213) 376-6984 • Community Center 379-3312 / 376.6984 • • Fire Department 376-2479 / 376-6984 • Police Department 376-7981 / 376.69E A .9. 7;f1t—S .crc) /To Ri. 4-' 7 -7- 77 • Tying the Cities' Hands ' 7 5'I The concurrent sale of alcoholic beverages with gasoline at combination convenience stores and service stations has raised serious questions about the authority of local communities to control the -practice. 'Proprietors of the concurrent -sales stores waged an unsuccessful effort last year to deny local -government any authority over licensing the tores. That mischievous approach stirred, as it •,should have, strong opposition from the state's cities. There is growing recognition that local 'authorities are far better qualified than distant 'beverage controllers to decide where and whether 'Off -sale alcoholic -beverage establishments should be setup. 41. This year the industry has come back with a compromise proposal that is at least an improve- 'ent. Under provisions of AB 937, introduced by Assemblyman Gary A. Condit (D -Ceres), local governments could have the last word through the issuance of conditional -use permits, on the model of the Los Angeles regulations. But cities Iu' would be prohibited from establishing total bans on the concurrent -sale operations, as Glendale has done. The principle of this bill has been approved by directors of the League of California .Cities. It is defended as equitable because it would provide what the industry calls a level playing field, with the same rules applying everywhere. As an in- centive, the industry has offered to drop its court challenges to existing categorical -ban ordinances if this piece of legislation is approved and signed by the governor. That has not satisfied the leaders of .cities that want to facilitate control of this practice through categorical bans. We share their concern. If local control is to be respected, as it should be, the form of control should be at the discretion of the cities. Condit has agreed to meet with representatives of those cities before he moves ahead with his bill. So he should. Unless they can be satisfied, the argument that he is empowering local government will not ring true. . i WESTSIDE CAB CO. 401 E. MANCHESTER, SUITE 205 INGLEWOOD, CA 90301 P.O. BOX 8038 INGLEWOOD, CA. 90308 (213) 678.2072 • (213) 671 -TA: FUTURA TRANSPORTATION COMPANY INC. March 26, 1987 City Council of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA. 90254 _____„_____----. f •,,,,,,,------/_56,,,,.,/,.--- .ift,r ft• i ,,..„.: _ ., .. ,t,... i.,,, ,,,_ j. i,ILL � •• .. i•,L-'2---/ • ',: .i• �' f _f Re: ANTI. DRUNK DRIVING PROGRAM; SPONSORED BY WESTSIDE CAB COMPANY AND RED CAR COMMUTER/FLYER Dear Sir(s)/Madam(s) Future Transportation Company, Inc., dba Westside Cab Company and Red Car Commuter/Flyer is delighted to inform you of its new extended Week -End Anti Drunk Driving Program which is now .being.:.. offered to the residents and commericial bars and restaurants o`f your fair city. Since about August of 1986, we have operated an Anti Drunk Driving Program limited to -major holidays, which involved the free trans- portation home of intoxicated would-be drivers from local bars and restaurants located in the cities of their residence. This community -oriented program should be reviewed from the viewpoint that a tremendous number of all accidents, including accidents caused by drunk driving, occur very close to home. The holiday drunk driving program has been promoted and utilized primarily in the cities of Hawthorne and Inglewood. (See attached copies of original correspondence describing operational details and logistics of the program.) Westside Cab Company and Red Car .Commuter/Flyer are indeed very proud and happy to report that this program, over a relatively short period of time, has experienced a very large measure -of success. We have been enthusiastically welcomed and received by the various communites-at-large, including all drivers and non -drivers alike, as well as by commerical drinking establishments. The following summary illustrates the actual.results of the program by major holidays during the latter half of 1986. These statistics are based on rides within the cities of Inglewood and Hawthorne, with occasional calls and rides from residents of Lawndale and El Segundo who have heard of and participated in the program: Labor Day (Friday -Sunday) Halloween Thanksgiving (Thursday -Sunday) Christmas (Wednesday -Sunday) New Year's Eve (Wednesday -Sunday) M.L. Kings's Birthday (Friday -Monday) 36 Rides 34 Rides 41 Rides 52 Rides 112 Rides 16 Rides TOTAL 291 Rides *(Total Number of Lives Saved - UNKNOWN!!!) •We at Westside/Red Car feel a necessary committment to the public we serve to help keep drunk drivers off the streets and to prevent them from injuring and killing innocent people. The time is now and the goal is to stamp out drunk driving. One person driving drunk is one too many 111 On this basis and the enormous community response to the holiday, program, Westside Cab Company and Red Car Commuter/Flyer are -nocr- effectively extending the program to include all week -ends (starting at 11:00 P.M. to 4:00 A.M. Fridays and Saturdays). The major holiday Drunk Driving Prevention Program will continue as before. We hope that in the interest of those you serve, the contents of this letter will be communicated to them. We are confident that both urgency and the importance of the subject programs will not go unrealized. Should you have any questions or comments, we would be available to answer or respond at your earliest convenience. ERL/mc Respectfully Submitted, E. MEW MIMIC League of California Cities ■MMO .■0® California Cities Work Together Sacramento, CA. March 18, 1987 Janet Cater P.O. Box 975 Orange, CA 92666 Ray Chavira 11434 Plum St. Lynwood, CA 90262 Dear Janet and Ray: I am enclosing with this letter the draft that has been sent to Legislative 4915!'»Ati72 /u6 Counsel of the amendments to AB 937, which represents a compromise between the AOC GonirKcl-League, District Attorney Reiner s office, and the alcoholic beverage Whl/ L.,f establishment. As I indicated to Janet, we believe that this compromise C 0, �1 ratifies our authority in the area of alcoholic beverage regulation in the context of concurrent sales, and could have the beneficial result of causing ii,e411v cities to look not just at concurrent sales, but at the whole proliferation issue on alcoholic beverage sales. We believe that it retains all of our basic authority, plus it disposes of the litigation over whether the regulation of concurrent sales is the regulation of sale or a land use control. I am also enclosing a Dopy of our legislative bulletin article outlining the compromise and contained in our March 13, 1987 bulletin. lib N1%- Thank you for your concern about this issue, and I look forward to working \eco MPevn'►tse1/ with you in assisting cities in developing standards to help them in /regulating alcoholic beverage outlets. J -f Y✓1 E KNIzel SETTLE IT IN THE cc: Assemblyman Gary Condit John Lovell Encl. CB318M3.1eg CONFERENCE REGISTRATION OFFICE BOX 7005. LAFAYETTE. CA 94549 (415) 283-2113 Sincerely yours, l . Constance H. Barker Attorney HEADQUARTERS 1400 K STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 (916) 444-5790 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OFFICE 404 HILTON CENTER OFFICE BLDC 900 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES. CA 90017 (213) 629-1422 MADD MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING P.O. BOX 975 ORANGE, CALIF. 92666 (714) 532-MADD March 12, 1986 Mr. Gary A. Condit, Chairman Assembly Governmental Organization Committee State Capitol Sacramento, Ca 95814 Dear Mr. Condit, Orange County MADD is opposed to AB 937 which would deny cities and counties the right to regulate the sale of alcoholic beverages through zoning ordinances. Citizens of each city and county have the right to determine for themselves the environment they want to live in. The State is too far removed from local government to be able to adequately protect the interests of local communities in this manner. We all know which special interest groups seek to end local control. It is clearly wrong for profit making companies to seek to deny the rights of local citizens to self determination of their neighborhood environment. Don't sell us out! In our community juveniles tell us they can purchase alcoholic beverages just about anywhere without being carded. There is no longer any fear of the ABC because they are so severely understaffed. Eventhough you are also sponsoring legislation to increase their funding, citizens will be left without any protection for self-determination with passage of AB 937. Sincerely, Janet K. Cater Executive Director \.c: Senator Bill Campbell Senator Edward Royce Senator Marian Bergeson Senator John Seymour Senator Robert Presley Assemblymen: Ross Johnson, Nolan Frizzelle, Gilbert Fergeson, John Lewis, Doris Allen, Dennis Brown and League of California Cities 39470 MAR 1 3 1987 87077 14:34 RECORD # 30 BF: RN 87 007736 PAGE NO. 1 Subo L:ue AMENDMENTS TO ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 937 Amendment 1 Below the heading, insert: (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Hill) Amendment 2 On page 2, strike out lines 3 to 11, inclusive, and insert: 23790.5. (a) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this section to ensure that local government shall not be preempted in the valid exercise of its land use authority pursuant to Section 23790. It is also the intent of the Legislature to prevent the legislated prohibition of the concurrent retailing of beer and wine for off -premises consumption and motor vehicle fuel where the retailing of each is otherwise allowable. (b) (1) No city, county, or city and county shall, by ordinance or resolution adopted on or after January 1, 1988, legislatively prohibit.the concurrent retailing of motor vehicle fuel and beer and wine for off -sale consumption in zoning districts where the zoning ordinance allows motor vehicle fuel and off -sale beer and wine to be retailed on separate sites. (2) On and after July 1, 1988, no city, county, or city and county ordinance or resolution adopted prior to January 1, 1988, shall have legal effect if it legislatively prohibits the concurrent retailing of motor vehicle fuel with beer and wine for off -sale consumption in zoning districts where the zoning ordinance allows beer and wine and motor vehicle fuel to be retailed on separate sites. (3) This section shall not apply to a prohibition by a city, county, or city and county of the sale of beer and wine in conjunction with the sale of motor vehicle fuel if that prohibition occurs as a result of the prohibition of the combining of the sale of motor vehicle fuel with a broader class of products or uses which includes alcoholic beverages or beer and wine as a named or unnamed part of that larger class, if that prohibition was enacted before August 1, 1985. (c) Subject to the restrictions and limitations of subdivision (b), this section shall not prevent a city, county, or city and county from denying permission to an individual applicant to engage in the concurrent retailing 39470 .s RECORD C.• .40 BF: Ci,lr 87077 14:34' RN 87 007736 PAGE NO. 2 of motor vehicle fuel with beer and wine for off -premises consumption pursuant to a valid conditional use permit ordinance based on appropriate health, safety, or general welfare standards contained in the ordinance if that conditional use permit ordinance contains all of the following: (1) A requirement for written findings. (2) A provision for an administrative appeal if the governing body has delegated its power to issue or deny a conditional use permit. (3) Procedures for notice of a hearing, conduct of a hearing, and an opportunity for all parties to present testimony. (4) A requirement that the findings be based on substantial evidence in view of the whole record to justify the ultimate decision. (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, establishments engaged in the concurrent sale of motor vehicle fuel with beer and wine for off -premises consumption shall, until January 1, 1990, abide by the following conditions: (1.) No beer or wine shall be displayed within five feet of the cash register or the front door unless it is in a permanently affixed cooler as of January 1, 1988. (2) No advertisement of alcoholic beverages shall be displayed at motor fuel islands. (3) No sale of alcoholic beverages shall be made from a drive-in window. (4) No display or sale of beer or wine shall be made from an ice tub. (5) If there is a finding that a licensee or his or her employee has sold any alcoholic beverages to a minor at the establishment, the alcoholic beverage license at the establishment shall be suspended for a minimum period of 72 hours. For purposes of Section 23790, the effect of such a license suspension shall not constitute a break in the continuous operation of the establishment nor a substantial change in the mode or character of operation. SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs which may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, changes the definition of a crime or infraction, changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, or eliminates a crime or infraction. CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE -1987-88 REGULAR SESSION ASSEMBLY BILL No. 937 Introduced by Assembly Member Condit February 26, 1987 An act to add Section 23790.5 to the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. LEGISLATIVE COUNSELS DIGEST AB 937, as introduced, Condit. Alcoholic beverages. Existing law contained in the California Constitution vests in the state the exclusive right and power 'to license and regulate the manufacture, sale, purchase, possession, and transportation of alcoholic beverages in this. state. The law provides that no retail alcoholic beverage license shall be issued which is contrary to a valid zoning ordinance of any county or city. This bill would state that no city, county, or city and county shall be preempted from regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises where sold if it is accomplished by means of a valid zoning ordinance or a fairly applied conditional -use permit and would prohibit any city, county, or city and county from adopting a policy that bans the concurrent sale of alcoholic beverages and gasoline solely because they are sold at the same site. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State -mandated local program: no. AB937 —2— The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 1 SECTION 1. Section 23790.5 is added to the Business 2 and Professions Code, to read: 3 23790.5. (a) No city, county, and county 4 be preempted from regulating the tysale of alcoholic 5 beverages for consumption off the premises where sold if 6 it is accomplished by means of a valid zoning ordinances 7 or a fairly applied conditional -use permit. 8 (b) No city, county, or city and county shall adopt a 9 policy that bans the concurrent sale of alcoholic 10 beverages and gasoline solely because those two products 11 are sold at the same site. 0 1 ruce in Cvriveg tic. n.=-01.vi c nap _ Compromise would outlaw flat bans on joint alcohol, gas sales By Herbert A. Sample 1—i Bee.Capitot SAC g Me Li To BEe The controversy surrounding joint sales of gasoline and alcohol at many of the thousands of convenience markets dotting the state appeared to be near settlement Monday with pending legislation that preserves the right of local governments to regulate the stores. The agreement between operators of stores that sell both products. the Los Angeles County district attorney, representatives of local governments and Assemblyman Gary Condit. D -Ceres. will be amended this week into legislation Condit is carrying. The amended measure would outlaw all flat bans on "concurrent sales" of alcoholic beverages and gasoline by local governments. However. cities and counties could continue to regulate the stores with existing condi- tional use permit powers. The agreement also contains several restrictions on the operation of the stores. including an automatic 72 - hour suspension of a store's alcohol license if the opera- tor is caught selling an alcoholic beverage to a minor. The restrictions. though would end in 1990. There are between 1.500 and 2.000 minimarkets In the state that offer both gasoline and alcoholic beverages. according to the Southland Corp.. which operates and franchises 7 -Eleven stores. Most sell beer and wine in addition to food. but a few also sell hard liquor. Last year, the controversy over concurrent sales spurred a handful of conflicting measures. One bill. supported by Mothers Against Drunk Driving. proposed a ban on all concurrent sales. Another. backed by convenience store owners. would have outlawedl0tal governments from instituting flat bans on concurrent sales. All the bills died in the Assembly Governmental Or- ganization Committee. which Condit chairs. A compromise was reached at a negotiating session Condit hosted last month. The parties agreed on specific language last week. Mothers Against Drunk Driving did not take part In the negotiations. One representative said the 72 -hour sus- pension would only work if the numbers of state Alcohol- ic Beverage Control agents also increased. Janet Cater. an Orange County member who serves on the group's legislative committee, said. -It's nice to put that Into law. but it has to be doable.... We have to have enough officers to enforce it" Connie Barker. a lobbyist with the League of Califor- nia Cities. said the compromise may outlaw one avenue of regulating convenience stores. but it upholds the pow- er of local governments to control their operation and location by means of conditional use permits. "All we've lost Is the ability to legislatively ban concur- rent sales." Barker said. -We can still regulate it." Barker said that the directors of her group support the compromise in concept, but have not yet seen the amended bill. A lobbyist for several convenience stores said his cli- ents had "mixed emotions" about the bill. "We will proba- bly support it but It's one of those things we are not jumping up and down about." said Kurt Malmgren. The bill is scheduled to be heard In Condit's commit- tee on April 7. Drinking alcohol during pregnancy can cause low birth weight, miscarriage and birth defects. WARNING: = VOTING"FOR-SB 96 CANy' CAUSE_LOSS OF CAMPAIGN:,- " "•_ CONTRIBUTIONS; POLITICAL.. s SUPPORT AND RE -ELECTIONS_. $ %.0 v 4E1 i -11-t1 MAR 1 ISc7 LEGISLATIVE BULLETIV 11■®111L. League of California Cities California Cities Work Together 1400 K Street • Sacramento 95814 • (916) 444-5790 March 13, 1987 #8-1987 *********************LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES******************** 1. Mandatory Mediation When Requested by Peace Officers or Firefighters. AB 1099 (Elder). Oppose. 2. Hazardous Materials. Hearing Set for Legislation Which Repeals Public Entity Exemption in Proposition 65. SB 269 (Kopp). Monday March 23, Senate Toxics and Public Safety Management Committee. Oppose. 3. SB 300 Clean -Up. Local Street and Road Funding. Proposed Change to Maintenance of Effort Base Year. AB 1798 (Costa). Support. 4. Major Transportation Funding. SB 140 (Deddeh) and SB 176 (Deddeh). Probable Hearing: Tuesday March 31. Senate Transportation Committee. Review & Comment. 5. Concealed Weapon Permits. AB 768 (Floyd). SB 194 (Boatwright). Oppose AB 768 - Support SB 194. 6. Authority for Capital Facilities Fee to be Charged to Another Public Agency Passes Committee Unanimously. AB 318 (Cortese). Support. 7. Abandoned Vehicle Trust Fund. AB 166 (Hauser) and AB 425 (Agnos). Hearing: Wednesday March 18, Assembly Transportation Committee. Support. 8. Tort Reform. Legislation Introduced to Recognize a Comparative Fault Defense to Inverse Condemnation Lawsuits. AB 1318 (Peace). Support - League Sponsored. 9. Authority for CALTRANS to Contract for Engineering Services. SB 516 (Bergeson). Support. 10. Expansion of Sales Tax Base to Include Mail -Order Sales and Home Shopping Services. AB 229 (Leonard). Support. 11. Redevelopment. Amendments to the Statement of Indebtedness. AB 1374 (Cortese). Oppose. Compromise Reached Regarding City Regulation of Gasoline and Alcohol Sales. AB 937 (Condit). Information. 13. Consolidation of SCRTD and the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission. SB 2 (Robbins) and AB 18 (Katz). Set for Hearing: Tuesday March 17, Senate Transportation Committee and Wednesday March 18, Assembly Transportation Committee. Review & Comment. 12. INFORMAIIUN Lorpromise Keacneu Kegaruiny LILy KequiaLion 01 Gasoline and Alcohol Sales. AB 937 (Condit). Last year, numerous competing legislative proposals were introduced relating to city regulation of alcoholic beverage sales. They ranged from a statewide ban on concurrent sale of alcoholic beverages and gasoline to a proposal which would have effectively wiped out all city zoning control over alcoholic beverage retailers. At that time, Assembly Member Gary Condit, the Chair of the Assembly Governmental Organization Committee, announced to the parties concerned that all bills on this subject would be held in his Committee, that interim hearings would be held, and that no legislation would move until a negotiated compromise was reached. Since last fall, the League has been in negotiations with representatives of the alcoholic beverage industry to formulate compromise legislation governing the combined sale of alcoholic beverages and gasoline. A compromise has now been reached, and within the next two weeks will be amended into AB 937 (Condit). The essential terms of the compromise are as follows: (1) Any city ordinance or resolution adopted after January 1, 1988 will be prohibited from legislatively banning the concurrent retailing of motor vehicle fuel and beer and wine for off -sale consumption in any zoning district where each of those uses of property is otherwise allowed when not combined. (2) Any ordinance or resolution adopted prior to January 1, 1988, which legislatively bans concurrent sale of alcoholic beverages and gasoline in a zoning district where each may be independently retailed, must come into compliance with paragraph (1) not later than July 1, 1988. (3) Exempted from the law are city ordinances or resolutions enacted prior to August 1, 1985 that legislatively provide that gasoline may not be retailed with non -auto -related commodities. AB 937 will specifically provide that a city may require conditional use permits to allow the combined sale of gasoline and alcoholic beverages. Thus, the effect of the bill is to require cities to look at the merits of each application rather than legislatively precluding concurrent sales on every site in the city. League staff has obtained a great deal of information from cities on use permit regulations on combined sales. This information is available for interested cities. Although not contained in the legislation, it is also agreed that the lawsuits challenging the validity of legislative bans will be dismissed upon the Governor's approval of AB 937, and that while the legislation is pending, the proponents will not pursue those lawsuits. Left open for future determination is the validity of the amortization clauses of certain cities which are . phasing out concurrent sales establishments which existed at the time of the enactment of the legislative prohibition. In concept, the framework of this compromise was approved by the League's Board of Directors in the fall of 1986. In addition to the land use provisions of the bill, AB 937 will also place some statewide restrictions on concurrent sale, including a preclusion of displaying beer or wine within 5 feet of a cash register or the front door, a ban on advertising the sale of alcoholic beverages on fuel islands, a ban on selling alcoholic beverages from drive-in windows, and a mandatory 72 -hour minimum license suspension for each offense of selling beer or wine to a minor. (Currently, there is no mandatory license suspension). We expect AB 937 to be set for hearing in the next few weeks in the Assembly Governmental Organization Committee. M 0 T I 0 N According to recent information, renewed efforts may he made in Sacramento this year to pass legislation that would prevent cities and counties from enacting zoning ordinances tc prohibit the concurrent sale of alcoholic beverages and gasoline. In years past, the City has opposed any such efforts that would undermine the City's cwn authority to require conditional use permits for the sale of on- and off -sale alcoholic beverages. Specific positions taken by the City during the 1985-86 Legisla- tive Session included opposition to SB 2522 (Maddy), AB 4146 (Moore) and AB 3858 (Calderon), which were attempts to limit or negate such local authority. At the same time, the City supported AB 3366 (Duffy) and AB 1433 (Moorhead), which proposed to prohib- it the Alcoholic Beverage Control Department from issuing or renewing off -sale retail licenses for premises where motor vehicle fuel is sold. Should this issue surface again in the current session., the City should continue its opposition to legislation which would restrict local zcning authcrity over the concurrent sale of alcoholic beverages and motor vehicle fuel, consistent with: the priority recommendation of the City's Liquor Store Task Force that the City Attorney investigate the legislative means to curtail the issuance of liquor licenses to gas station mini -marts; the City's Policy Statement on Substance Abuse, which supports legislation to provide more local control regarding the issuance of on -sale and off -sale alcoholic beverage licenses; and the City's Home Rule Policy. I THEREFORE MOVE that the City's 1987-88 Legislative Program include opposition to any legislation which would restrict local zoning authcrity over the concurrent sale cf alcoholic beverages and motor vehicle fuel February 25, 1987 40/1 PRESENTED BY SECONDED BY Joy Picus 5Rurcilwoman, 3rd District / CITY OF LOS ANGELES FEB 2 5 1987 err `• i ' REL. r. VC1-159 • Analysis The conditional use permit (CUP) process is a key element in the City's ability to review land uses that could create significant problems for the residents in the adjacent neighborhood. The CUP process allows the public and elected officials to examine these land uses on a case-by-case basis to determine the impact that the land use would create in a specific neighborhood. One such land use that creates significant problems is the sale of alcoholic beverages in retail businesses (bars, stores, restaurants, and convenience stores). It is a proper use of the City's zoning authority to subject such land uses to scrutiny. AB 937 sets the stage for an assault on the conditional use process now in use in Los Angeles. The proposed amendatory language appears to bring the assault "closer -to -home". It is extremely likely that additional amendments will be made to AB 937 to strike down the conditional use process now in effect for off and on site sale of alcoholic beverages. This assault could then be used by others to further restrict the conditional use process. Advisory Committal* George Gallup, Jr. Pollster Honorary Chairman Pat Boone Entertainer Joseph A. Califano, Jr. Attorney Hon. Herman E. Talmadge Former U.S. Senator Abigail Van Buren Syndicated Columnist Raymond ChavIra Board Member California Council on Alcohol Problems Michael E. De Bakey, M.D. Heart Specialist Hon. Wilbur D. Mills Attorney Ernest P. Noble, Ph.D., M.D. Director, Alcohol Research, UCLA Sue Mischa Director, Families In Action Joklchl Takamlne, M.D. Chairman, AMA Committee on Alcoholism Dale P. Dirks Treasurer March 16, 1987 AMERICANS FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT National Headquarters 400 Rrst Street, NW Suite 712 Washington. DC 20001 (202)347.7878 (800) 255-2727 Letters to the Editor Los Angeles Herald Examiner 1111 S. Broadway Los Angeles, CA 90015 Dear Editor: Once again "home rule" is under seige. In "A local r; ca.111 decision" (April 9, 1986), the Herald cha pioned A the traditional right of cities and counties to ex-. ercise their zoning ordinance powers and conditional -use-permit procedures to regulate the selling of gas and booze at the same site. Threatening home rule last year was State Senate Bill 2522 (Maddy, R -Fresno), sponsored by convenience store and oil company special -interests hell-bent on totally re- moving any local control over beer and wine permits for off-site consumption. These food, fuel, and booze retailers lost that battle, when faced with a loud and widespread public outcry illuminating their greedy plans to hijack local government's only zoning tool over proliferating beer/wine outlets, especially in high-risk settings mixing gas and booze. On February 26 these hijackers came back with AB 937(Condit, D -Modesto), which, with a recent amend -1 141.4.Q 141.4.Ct �„j n ment drafted for greater profits and power, would A,i.Sc,.,,61„- ,u., / /� I/ ill wti;/f wipe out nearly 100 city and county bans against ,Ic Gp--uut'har # of page 2 the "concurrent sale" of gas and booze. Such state pre-emption shenanigans remind one of the Moriaiy fireworks scandal still making headlines. The Devil is clearly in the details of the newly -added language. Surely all sections of local government. cities, counties, school districts must oppose any dismantling of local -control over this fastest-growing, unlimited -by -the - state mini -liquor license plaguing our highways and neighborhoods -- the Type 20 beer/wine off -sale license. Given the realities of a decimated Dept. of Alcoholic Beverage Control, pandemic illegal sales to minors, and the 78% and 16% grab of the entire booze market that beer and wine sales comprise, respectively, how is the public health and safety protected by permitting AB 937 to get through its first hurdle in the Assembly Governmental Organization Committee, chaired by the very "author" of this irresponsible legislation who will now, ironically, permit no further amendments? Sincerely, 1 Ray ClVavira Advisory Committee Policy Chairman Americans for Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment 11434 Plum Street Lynwood, CA 90262 (213) 632-5861, 940-2604 Public Health Issues in California State Assembly Bill 937 (including admendments of March 4, 1987, to the bill introduced by Assemblyman Condit on February 26, 1987) prepared by: Friedner D. Wittman, Ph.D. Study Director Prevention Research Center Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation Berkeley, California ('iiC.) y&ch'1987 Summary description of AB 937 Section (a) states this bill's intent to prevent cities and counties from passing local legislation which will prohibit the retail off -sale of beer/wine and gasoline at the same location in those parts of the locality where retail sale of each is permitted at separate sites. Section (b) specifies how this will be done. When the bill becomes law, cities and counties will no longer be able to ban directly the off -sale of beer/wine at gasoline stations (b.1). After July 1, 1988, such bans in cities existing prior to passage of this law will no longer be permitted (b.2), with some exceptions for cities which passed bans prior to July 1, 1985, that included off -sale beer/wine sales as part of a "broader class of products or uses which includes alcoholic beverages..."(b.3). These two sections will eliminate future city and county ordinances, and after 1988 virtually all of the current local ordinances, that ban the off -sale of beer/wine in gas stations. It is not clear why liquor (distilled spirits) is not included in this bill; that is, why the term "alcoholic beverages" is not used rather than "beer and wine." Theoretically, cities could still ban sales of liquor at gas stations, although to do so would be of little practicalfutility for public health purposes if beer and wine were for sale. Section (c) permits localities to deny conditional use permits to individual applicants for the off -sale of beer/wine at gas stations within the normal scope of zoning law, if local ordinances provide for written findings (c.1); for administrative appeal "if the governing body has delegated its power to issue or deny a conditional use permit" (c.2); for procedures to conduct a hearing at which all parties have an opportunity to present testimony (c.3); and for fmdings to be based on substantial evidence in view of the.whole record to justify the ultimate decision (c.4). In setting forth these requirements, the bill would require what is already general practice m in the development of conditional use -permit ordinances in many communities. However, it would formalize processes that in many communities may be somewhat informal. Sections (c.1), (c.2), and (c.3) are not controversial. The practical meaning is not at all clear in (c.4)'s requirement that findings be based on "substantial evidence in view of the whole record to justify the ultimate decision." Section (d) sets forth four physical restrictions on the off -sale of beer/wine at places where alcohol and gasoline are sold together: no displays of beer or wine within 5 feet of cash register or front door (d.1); no advertisements for alcoholic beverages on motor fuel islands (d.2); no sales of alcoholic beverages from a drive-in window (d.3); no display or sale of alcoholic beverages from an ice -tub (d.4). Additionally, Section d.5 provides for mandatory suspension of an establishment's alcoholic beverage license for at least 72 hours if a licensee or his employee have been found to have sold alcoholic beverages to a minor at the establishment. The section also states that "For purposes of Section 23790 [of the ABC Act], the effect of such a license suspension shall not constitute a break in the continuous operation of the establishment nor a substantial change in the mode or character of operation." Public health concerns raised by this bill: Generally speaking, this bill is of concern because it places limitations on the use of local ordinances to prevent health and social problems associated with the retail sale of alcoholic beverages. Elaboration of these concerns is found in Colman, 1986; Reynolds, 1986; Segars and Ryan, 1986; Wittman, 1986). To summarize the public health concerns in brief, localities may wish to prevent certain classes of retail alcohol outlets from occurring or expanding within the community in order to prevent sizeable increases in alcohol availability. Generally speaking, greater levels of alcohol availability (larger numbers of outlets, lower retail prices) are associated with greater consumption and larger numbers of alcohol problems. This relationship has been demonstrated by a variety of research studies, including those commissioned by proponents of alcohol sales in gasoline stations (McCarthy and Umbeck, 1986). If California's approximately 13,000 gasoline stations were to become sites where alcoholic beverages are routinely made available (approximately 2,000 gas stations currently sell alcoholic beverages), this would add substantially to California's approximately 15,000 current off - sale beer and wine licenses. The proposed legislation is of concern from a public health perspective because it would remove a significant power of local jurisdictions to prevent a major proliferation of alcohol outlets. Furthermore, as is explained in detail below, no state agency such as the Alcoholic Beverage Control Department would be in a position to substitute the regulatory oversight that would be lost at the community level. In addition to concerns about proliferation, communities also may wish to confine sales of alcoholic beverages to certain types of commercial establishments in order to lighten law- enforcement burdens and to reduce the risk of specific alcohol-related problems such as drinking -driving and access by young people to alcoholic beverages. Cities and counties may decide not to permit or to sharply restrict certain high-risk commercial locations at which drinking is likely to be mixed with driving, or which are heavily utilized by young people. Just as communities may choose to proscribe alcohol sales generally at drive -m movies, fast-food restaurants, city parks and other public places, recreation and entertainment places frequented by young people, and stores near high schools, so should localities be able to restrict the sale of alcoholic beverages generally in gasoline stations if the concurrent sale of alcoholic beverages is found, to the satisfaction of the local legislature, to create more problems for the community than benefits. The California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control has favorably noted local regulatory activity to limit alcohol outlets as an aid to the ABC's licensing and enforcement of alcohol outlets, particularly with respect to alcohol sales in gasoline stations (Stroh, 1984). With less than 150 field officers state-wide, the ABC must rely on strong participation by localities to ensure full attention to licensing and enforcement issues. Often use of the local zoning code is more efficient and more effective than law enforcement activities in preventing problems associated with alcohol outlets. The power to regulate whether a particular kind of commercial establishment should be allowed to sell alcohol is largely a local power. The ABC's interest in licensing a retail establishment looks to the details of the individual application, taking little official notice of the distribution in the community of specific types of commercial outlets for the sale of alcoholic beverages. Instead, both the ABC Act, through Section 23790, and ABC District Office processing of license applications, depend upon local zoning ordinances to establish patterns of distribution, density, and many features of operation of the various commercial types alcohol outlets that are considered at the local level to be appropriate for the particular community. One must sharply question the wisdom of any state -level legislation to remove local powers in this basic division of labor to ensure preventive regulation of alcohol availability. Questioning must become more severe when, as is the case here, proposed legislation would restrict local powers without providing increases in ABC or local resources to offset additional problems that might arise following the weakening of local controls. The proposed legislation does not appear necessary to protect the legitimate interests of retailers who may wish to engage in concurrent sale. Local planning and zoning law already is required to meet standards of rationality and of clear purpose to protect the health, welfare, and safety of the community's citizens. Arbitrary and capricious misuse of local zoning powers already can be dealt with through California's courts. In fact, Food and Fuel Retailers for Economic Equality (FFREE), an organization that lobbies for the interests of gasoline/convenience store retailers, currently has lawsuits pending against several cities and counties in California that have imposed bans on concurrent sales. Since localities are already being challenged to defend their restrictions in court, special legislation to overturn local bans could be seen more to protect the special interests of retailers against an unwelcome outcome through the judicial process, than to defend their rights to sell alcoholic beverages. Can the use of conditional use permits to deny permits on an individual basis provide the protections against alcohol problems that communities may wish to establish, without requiring outright bans on concurrent sales? There are several points to be made about the pending legislation in response to this question. 1. Removal of local authority to regulate alcohol availabiltity by disallowing a particular class of commercial outlet to sell alcoholic beverages would leave a gap in the field of preventive regulation of alcohol availability. As suggested in the discussion above, The ABC Act and administration cannot step in to perform land -use regulation of alcohol availability. The ABC Code has no sections which allow it to substitute for local land -use planning activity. The use of conditional use permits instead of outright bans could be problematic for those communities which already have determined that they have enough or more than enough concurrent sales outlets. These communities could be forced into a cumbersome process of continuing reviews for modifications to existing permits, as well as processing of new J applications, even though the policy of local law enforcement, the local planning department, local alcohol -problem treatment programs, community groups, and local elected officials all might be against additional concurrent sales. An important test of this point would be a survey of those cities and counties which already have imposed bans on concurrent sales. Are local agencies and community groups in these localities satisfied with the operation of these ordinances? What problems have local bans caused for the communities which have imposed them? If the localities are satisfied, certainly no public health purpose is served by disallowing bans that already are in place. 2. Possible pre-emption of local authority to regulate physical aspects of alcohol availability in the community. Parts (d.1), (d.2), (d.3), and (d.4) establish physical requirements for concurrent sales. It may be that these few requirements, which by themselves are not likely to have significant preventive impact, and which in any case would expire in 1990, could be interpreted as the state's pre-emption of law in this area, denying to localities other physical restrictions that may prove more effective and more appropriate for the locality. Generally, many localities have developed their own physical/temporal restrictions, and should remain free to develop such restrictions based upon local conditions. 3. Possible challenges to localities' exercise of the conditional use permit features of their local ordinances. Part (c) raises questions about what is meant by "appropriate" health, safety and general welfare standards and (c.4) raises questions about what is an appropriate mix of facts and values that localities may use in arriving at C.U.P. decisions. These questions should not be taken as an opportunity to discourage local regulatory activity. It is important to recognize that localities' good -faith efforts to prevent alcohol problems will involve use of that information which is reasonably available to the community in light of its resources and research capabilities; in light of the fact that the state of California provides very limited planning information about alcohol sales and related alcohol problems; and in light of the fact that alcohol retailers are reluctant to disclose information about problems and plans for the sale of alcoholic beverages. All California cities and counties, regardless of size and extent of resources, should be free to use their own ordinances as best they can within these limitations, without intimidation. 4. Possible pre-emption of ABC and local actions against gasoline stations that sell alcoholic beverages to minors. Section d.5. may have the opposite effect of its apparent intention. Nominally this section appears written to single out alcoholic beverage sales to minors as an especially problematic practice that deserves certain punishment. However, the deterrent strength of the proposed 72 -hour suspension is debatable depending upon the certainty that the violation will be actually be observed and successfully prosecuted, which may be small, and in light of the fact that the provision will sunset in 1990. Additionally, exempting a license suspension for sales to minors as a change in "mode or character of operation' might hamper local and ABC law enforcement efforts. Yet such an exemption is an interpretation easily taken of the bill's phrase "...the effect of such a license suspension shall not constitute a break in the continuous operation of the establishhment nor a change in the mode or character of operation." Determining such a break or change could be vital both to enact sanctions of the ABC Act and to require conformance to the local conditional use permit, particularly when the suspension represents repeatedly -reported problems with the establishment. REFERENCES Colman, V., Testimony before the Governmental Organizational Committee of the California State Assembly, Trauma Foundation, San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, California September 29, 1986. McCarthy, P., and J. Umbeck, A summary of the effect of banning common site sales of alcohol-related auto accidents in California: An empirical study, Purdue University, October 1, 1986. Reynolds, R.I., Testimony for the Assembly Select Committee on Alcohol and Related Problesm, Sacramento, California, April 10, 1986. Segars, L. and B. Ryan, Survey of off-site purchase and consumption locations of convicted drinking drivers, County of San Deigo Alcohol Program, March, 1986. Stroh, J., letter from the Director of the California Alcoholic Beverage Control Department, to Dorothy J. Partridge, President, Board of Education, San Leandro School District, July 9, 1984. Wittman, F.D., Questions and answers about problems associated with the sale of alcoholic beverages in gasoline stations, Prevention Research Center, Berkeley, California, April 30, 1986. cqune ' VViLLl.ams 2065 Man/ affan ve. of{etmoia _Stack, (�'-� 90254 April 8,1987 Mayor Cioffi Honorable Councilmembers South Bay Cities Assn. meeting of March 26, 1987 Report on proposed "para -transit" information telephone system. Federal Grant money available (CCIS) Cities to pay on a transaction basis - each question asked the computer Don Watson,CALTRANS District Director was handed by me personally the letter from Mayor Cioffi re: triangle problem at Artesia and PCH. He promised to look into the situation right away. (I told him we wanted it fixed this week - he said he couldn't promise that soon) He said plans are to double deck the Century Freeway for 5 or 6 miles They plan on more car-pooling, Bus lanes Rail lanes and "some lanes for traffic" Plan to widen Santa Ana freeway mostly in Orange Co. - widen San Diego from Orange Co. to Marina Freeway. Rt 30 ext from 210 in Environmental stage. NOT going to be able to build many more new facilities - too costly in urban areas - will have to make system operate more efficiently (better use of lanes we now have. Looking into restriction of truck traffic - maybe restrict to certain hours. MORE MONEY SPENT PICKING UP LITTER and graffiti than almost anything else DO use prisoners at night for this - jailbirds wear orange hats - CALTRANS wear white. 1 1 d STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7, P.O BOX 2304, LOS ANGELES 90051 (213) 620-3874 March 31, 1987 07 -LA -1/91 PCH at Artesia Honorable John Cioffi Mayor, City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3885 Dear Mayor Cioffi: I am sorry for the delay in restriping the safety improvement at the southeast corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Artesia Boulevard. Normally we prefer to perform this type of striping by contract. However, as you are well aware, there has been a considerable delay in generating a contract. I have, therefore, asked our Maintenance forces to expedite the correction. We hope to perform the restriping before the Easter holidays depending upon the weather and crew availability. If we are unable to get the work done in early April, we will do it immediately after the holidays and no later than May 9th. If you have any additional questions please contact Mr. Ray Higa of my Main- tenance staff at (213) 620-2573. Sincerely, DONALD`'1. WATSON District Director ,.. �ara•ga.: •p Cos Angeles me itorial Pages • • CCVP. 11' •0- • t -p.: .f - 'F•`T��1tS,ti. _. f�1i�: r `,zS:'t*'j,J�F4.. . f. . i''i . [�.:pR.� L..'l,S.s .ir - fr4,5. :t ` r '�`�,,�� n�'. � ,,r.�t,s''1P,5,,;l,� 'S5's r%r . �' >a ��.;= as) r ,, ats, �6.•:�..,.� n . .,°.rx"FYa s , .< �..o; i , >r"n:'1 ,, e,�t tcs h��..�.k•3o�r ['y `H• 1 uirr. :i1:•.t•Y s h�;�3�. ;. b� ��4 � i..'''''''' • alarmed early last year 'when two gas • stations, both *< Altogether, backers of the bill contributed more than, intervention. ''':'4•1.•'-..': _ -:. " But:.officialsi,'n • cities such' 'as'. CostaMesa and^�, '. . Bi: RICHARD Cf PADDOC Ais Sttf1WTfp� sla 044:7,,,i;4,,,,,1_-_-:, JL, • SACRAMENTOElectedlaei's-in Glendalegrev;„a,nullifiedbythe bill ;,F,;-jti�-•`t4;�Bremberg•. was ,rate.over._ th' atefF•.at'em tec•<'liquor stores in South Los'Angeles:��,�3 )•'",��;1.:n' • . "xt� •• • within a block •of . R. D. ;White elementary school,...,: -.V.$700,000 to candidates for state office in 1985.and 1986.:3" "I think it is an incredible encroachment on: local-, Glendale that have enacted bans oppose the measure, -,,t-.,... 'proposed selling beer and wine along with gasoline. Among the recipients were 106 of the Legislature's 118 home rule," she said. "If this bill goes through, it has,:y, contending that it would undermine local control over i` The City Council,' worried about "one-stop drunks".;;�.; members; •including the measure's author, 'Assembly ,, eroded our opportunity to control our city's destiny." land -use • decisions. Los Angeles • City; Atty.. James,G.'. driving, through the -neighborhood, ': voted to prohibit man Gary A. Condit (D -Ceres), who received $5;707 ' •' . The bill has the support of Atlantic .Richfield Co Hahn also has taken a stand against the bill, rejecting -,ry, ; ` ...gas stations from selling alcohol anywhere in the city. _. , Cast as a :compromise by. Condit, the legislation =::, which operates AM -PM ' Mini=Marts, the • Southland s _pleas,from Condit, who flew to Los Angeles last week a rr r • The decision 'placed Glendale in the• forefront of a ,•'-would°=require,:;local.-government to ,review, on a' Corp.; which operates 7 -Eleven. stores, and. e. coalition ",:;m an attempt to win him over. And the legislation has.,::::` movement among • California; :cities • to' outlaw the,' :case-by-case..basis applications to operate businesses of oil companies and convenience store chains: ' - •. ••••::-.1,:'drawn fire from Mothers Against Drunk Driving and; rf; , simultaneous sale of. gasoline and alcohol. But now the „,that • sell both gasoline and alcoholic beverages. The' :•,. ; . Local officials and communitygroups are divided on `4other;groups concerned with alcohol abuse., , • , •., ,Y _ + Y, , Glendale ban, and.similar prohibitions adopted.by'at local officials could deny'an:application altogether or ; ,, Condit's bill: Behind the scenes, •Condit his waged a `;.Last year, the convenience store and -gas station. . . " are in dan a of bein wiped off .:z 'could;;impose restrictions:on:the.design„and operation2,,_.4. . campaign to:win support for the'measure in Southern ,;,lobbies sought ,.passage :of a''bill that would have` �;'-' i tease, 30, othe1 cities, g r, g ,,y, P., .; n: �_ . _ •, �. x -h_ stri ed cities and counties of any authority to regulate. .° . �„ � - �• t.- . : w-' of. the�business.,--.r , ,�; „,;, •,•-,,1";•-:,;;,..,., . � . .:•.;, California as well as in Sacramento.Y= � •. s- � �.<t �:, {,�<, ; �.• .� PP • nd asoline. • But local .,'',1:4 ' the�l ooks e•, s z .,_ t' i Vic y p: nv:. . -fro L _>_•• •ar �., } . �- ,', ` 41• ;': , Los Angeles County Dist..Atty.;ir`a'Rein.er and the the ..joint sales of alcohol 's g, ,- • Ibit the •behest';.of. the; pohtacally powerful ,conven ��y,:.;�:� My-intentions:.arec to, allow,ylocal•�governments a ,i ,�,, g. �• - overnment leaders Were successful in defeating' the :-ien "'s store and gas station industries, the Legislature is �1 process,. by • which r..they-could control ; convenience„ _•-South-Centrale Organizing •Committee; 'a citizens' ac g • o' derin •.a bill that would take away the authority r -stores," Condit said;'"I have always been supportive of tivist 'group,:.participated.:' with • representatives in ;` legislation.`• . . _. • - ' -- • .. ,' ,• t c g �> Y Px S okesmen for Atlantic Richfield; Southland Corp of .• ties and counties to impose'blanket bans en the sale I. locaI , government'ak! autonom • and T don. t ,intend to Yr '.negotiations that produced the, because a .Reiner And not' 3 =;and the industry coalition known easl the Food and Fuel ?; s , „ ;+r x . ;...3 t << committee , support it largely,, b us - of gasoliban enacted alcohol from tre same outlets.::;, . �- ,deviate from that. y ! :Cif Councilwoman 'Ginger t 'interfere with their' efforts to curb the proliferation of * .$. s.'';• -'...,'''.'i4'.,-,,,,;':':.1:,;, r ''£ ,..-; Please see ALCOHOL, Page 3 ; ' • EYny,'.ban := ;after .Aug... 1, ; 1985, would be r , Nevertheless, Glendale y ng r..<a';rs- A•F;. l..l, ,J ;....-.•:,, S•r, `'s`—`e -t- ,.- a %,,,,,r.17a a,er c.z!•' ') ,<'r •t i '•c F '• .. a �1, ter, :; id• fir... t.. ,r. d'•..i ,r`� ..Y»- -:1, r,. r`.i. ,r.. .i..yy i 'i. ..n or .v'i ,r 'ti •C ,h. ,t; `:„', • - ti' , :. :y •f; F. t:'• `F140411/.1*!...,*(] a'^.ir 1' r=.1 .�,�, rL :.')E,;. ...r if. 3'. .,r'.1 ..�...: .. ,.. r:;17, t�• . ~., tE. ti,'; :s s 7 0� 40 7 i 7`;; 4. y. .,. �'; >YT 5 ,i,t, r- •1 ' . .l .• f Y-. . � i . , f .. . :')v ' f.” .;:.•;;,:. ,hrt may., � sR' ... Continued from Page 1 Retailers for Economic Equality said they are not pleased with the • Condit compromise because it does not go far enough, but are support- ing it as a first step in eliminating unfair local controls on their busi- nesses. : . We are not attempting to pre- empt local government," said Jo- seph Ackler, a lobbyist for Atlantic Richfield. "We justwant them to judge us on a level playing field:" 1 . . Central to, the debate over the bill is the question of whether the joint sale of alcohol and gasoline contributes to the problem of drunk driving. • i, ,Some city officials contend that• the sale of both items together, prompts some motorists to drink while driving. At some gas stations;; they, say, beer advertisements'. posted at the gas pumps and tubs of cold beer displayed near the cash register encourage drivers to drink.. ' But spokesmen for the stores and gas stations say that studies paid' for by their industry show that they concurrent sale of alcohol andw gasoline is not a major contributor to the problem of drunk driving. Bars, restaurants and parties at. home 'put more drunks on the highways, they say. - Marc A. Aprea, a lobbyist for; Southland Corp., cited one industry::. study that showed that only 3% of.' those arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol obtained their drinks from' an outlet that.; sells both gasoline and'alcohol. `Aprea said . Condit's legislation actually provides little relief for his';' corporation. But the 7 -Eleven,; chain is supporting the bill, he said, because it will bolster the compai:, ny's case that joint sales of alcohol and gasoline do not contribute to •• drunk driving: , :With the passage of [the Condiii• bill), the State of California will" rightfully dismiss the fiction that:: concurrent sales contribute drinking and driving," Aprea wrote" in a*March 30 letter to Condit. Los Angeles City • Atty. Hahn;', however, challenges Aprea's as«; • sessment. Hahn said' .his- office. ' prosecuted more than 40,000`,x__ drunk -driving cases,' le$st year.' • Based on the industry's'13% esti- ' mate, he pointed out, the drivers '1' involved in more than, 1,000 of those cases would have obtained their drinks from outlets that sell •.. both gas and alcohol.' i. • "More than 1,000 cases in the city. • • of Los Angeles is not 'a fiction," Hahn said.. .' Creates a Perception..; .. The large amount of . money; spent on campaign contributions by Atlantic Richfield, Southland 'and their allies has created the percep- tion among opponents ., that the industry is extremely influential the Capitol and could ,eventually • win passage of a stronger measure , • limiting the power of local govern • - ments. The list of recipients Of industry .` money reads like a Whb's Who of California politics: t..' During the lastlegislative ses- sion, Atlantic Richfield gave $492,000 to state politicians; includ- ing Gov. George Deukrnejian, Lt. Gov. Leo T. McCarthy, Atty. John Van de Kamp, Controller Gray Davis; state Schools pupt. Bill ; . Honig—and even some, of .their . opponents in last year's .elections.', In addition, the oil company made donations to• 112 legislators or can- , ' didates for the Legislature... • During the same period, South land Corp. gave $127,000, to Deuk mejian; several other statewide of- - ficials and 77 incumbent'legislators' who were seeking reelection.. The food' .and • fuel ,,coalition, . which ' counts Southland and the ' Beacon Oil Co: among its'members, ,- • sprang to life during the five weeks' leading up to the Nov. 4 elections_: and gave $81,000 to 31 legislators ' who were running for ;selection: ' Beacon'Oil also gave another $1,550 to three legislators last session.. ,In addition to making substantial contributions, the industry has • hired firms_ headed, by such influ- ential lobbyists as Clay Jackson` . and Don BrOwn, who are known '; . for representing powerful special • interests in Sacramento. would be more cumbersome and., . • "If ' we're doing something im ^ Hors. ;These .provisions, however, - Connie Barker, a lobbyist tor 'thc-'.' time consuming than the enact- fi "properly • that : takes away their:, would expire after the bill is in - League of California Cities, said the `;,k ment of an outright ban. But he saidl authority,: we ,.want , to do redo : • effect for two years.:; industry's influence raises the fear any city or county that wanted to ; that". said Condit, himself a former :' , Even if local governments give' : that it would win passage of a more' prohibit all simultaneous sales ofI city councilman, mayor and county . in to the compromise, Hahn argued,; onerous measure and prompted her alcohol and gasoline could do so' 4.' supervisor. • • . . the convenience store and gas to seek a resolution of the issue. under the bill simply by denying*!1. a. Condit, chairman of the Assein station industry will be back with•e:. She helped draft the compromise, .every application. • ; y,~bly, Governmental Organization .bill next year.to further reduce although her organization is offs- . • "This bill would allow cities to do ri:. Committee 'that now has jurisdic 4r • local government's power. : cially neutral on Condit's bill. • . ' • • exactly what they've been doing - tion over the bill, .said he has not ,• "I'just see it as the first step," he.. "When we have a lot of 'money , except they have to do it through a. ;r;; been influenced by the industry's . said. "Once . they get this bill,. the '4 and lobbyists on the other side,.we.: • conditional use permit," he said campaign contributions to him. • • liquor industry or the gasoline' try to work out a compromise," she :• ."The • business community then. �,Condit noted that his bill would retailers will say, 'We'll come back'. explained. , . = knows what the conditions are `r = curb ,advertisingof alcoholic bey- next year and get something else.' • Some opponents Of Condit's leg They know what the rules are." f erages at outlets that also sell : • , Aprea, the Southland Corp. lobt. islation .liken the bill to a contro ' The conditional use -permit pro 'C = gasoline.'• It also would allow au- '. byist, would not discuss what the; versial measure sponsored by fire _ - cess is being used -with some suc 4 ;'thorities to close such outlets for 72 industry might propose in .the fu= works manufacturer W. Patrick.... cess by Los Angeles to regulates hours . if they 'were found to be , tures But of Condit's bill, he said, "I Moriarty in 19$2 that would have ' liquor stores in South -Central Los'; selling alcoholic beverages to mi- think this is a real first step." : stripped cities of the power to ban: " Angeles. Dist.. Atty. Reiner and the .F :: •• ` ` " °"'' ' non -explosive fireworks. Moriarty, .: South -Central Organizing Com •, a major campaigncontributor to mittee contend that the prolifera 1 the Legislature, won passage of the tion of off -sale outlets in that part bill but it was vetoed by then -Gov:: ' of the city. is a more serious,: Edmund G. Brown Jr. • . • - problem than gas: stations and - Subsequently, Moriarty and for:,:. convenience stores that sell both mer Assemblyman Bruce E. Young . gasoline and alcohol, Reiner and (D -Norwalk), a major proponent of the cominunity group favor • the .; the fireworks bill, were convicted; ' Condit compromise because' it in' an influence -peddling scandal would, leave their permit process ` surrounding the measure's passage intact. - • by the Legislature. Young, who But 'city officials'say ..that''t1W„, became a lobbyist after leaving - permit system is weaker, more. office in 1984, was registered to ` expensive and more time consum represent the Southland Corp. until; , ; ing than adopting a blanket prohi- just before his conviction in Febru- • bition. The choice of whether to, ary. • . + issue permits or enact' an outright. Permit Process , r r ; , ; :: tc : _ ban should be left to elected city;: i C.Condit's bill, while'taking' away councils, they say. the power of local governments to'> .Obviously, [the permit process] ban the concurrent sale of alcohol r does not accomplish the same ob- and gasoline, would funnel all deci- jective, which is to substantially sions on such sales through the.; reduce or eliminate the concurrent conditional use -permit process s sales of gasoline and alcohol;" said';.. used by local governments in many ' ': Allan. Roeder, • city manager of•c; zoning and land -use decisions:. Costa Mesa, which last year banned ; Under this process ocities and ' . all new joint -sale outlets, l counties would have to consider Glendale Councilwoman' Brem every applicant individually and,,;;• berg added: - "The' conditional use, would be able to grantor deny a ; ', process is 'a cop-out to make . it permit .only after gathering, sound like, you've got home rule dente and holding a public hearing,,. ' and you don't.", , • • , . • y The process also allows .local offi- • , . Faced with growing opposition cials to impose conditions onhow, -;' to his bill, Condit has postponed a the businesses. are designed and' :: Capitol hearing scheduled for '; operated.Tuesday so that he can meet with lz Condit :acknowledged that' the , , opponents and attempt to work out conditional •use -permit procedure • an acceptable solution. `: . a , �. i . '