The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/24/87"One has the right to be wrong in a democracy." -Rep. Claude Pepper AGENDA REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, November 24, 1987 - Council Chambers, City Hall Regular Session - 7:30 p.m. MAYOR Etta Simpson MAYOR PRO TEM Jim Rosenberger COUNCILMEMBERS John A. Cioffi Tony DeBellis June Williams INCOMING CITY COUNCIL MAYOR Etta Simpson MAYOR PRO TEM Jim Rosenberger COUNCILMEMBERS Roger Creighton Chuck Sheldon June Williams CITY CLERK Kathleen Midstokke CITY TREASURER Norma Goldbach INTERIM CITY MANAGER Gayle T. Martin CITY ATTORNEY James P. Lough CITY CLERK Kathleen Midstokke CITY TREASURER Gary L. Brutsch INTERIM CITY MANAGER Gayle T. Martin CITY ATTORNEY James P. Lough All Council meetings 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: RESOLUTION: Canvass of Votes, Consolidated General Municipal Election November 3, 1987 PRESENTATIONS TO OUTGOING ELECTED OFFICIALS OATH OP OFFICE - CERTIFICATE OF ELECTION STATEMENTS BY NEW COUNCILMEMBERS PROCLAMATIONS: 1987 Family. Week, November 22 - 28, 1987. - 1 - CITIZEN COMMENTS Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any items on the Consent Calendar may do so at this time. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following routine matters will be acted upon by one vote to approve with the majority con- sent of the City Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless good cause is shown by a member prior to the roll call vote. (Items removed will be considered under Agenda Item 3.) (a) Approval of Minutes: Regular meeting of the City Coun- cil held on November 10, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve minutes. (b) Demands and Warrants: November 24, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve Demands and Warrants Nos. through inclusive. (c) Tentative Future Agenda Items. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (d) City Manager Activity Report: Memorandum from Interim City Manager Gayle T. Martin dated November 18, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (e) Building and Safety Department Monthly Activity Report: October, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (f) Community Resources Department Monthly Activity Report: October, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (g) Finance Department Monthly Activity Report: October, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (h) Fire Department Monthly Activity Report: October, 1987. (i) Recommended Action: To receive and file. General Services Department --Monthly Activity Report: October, 1987.. . _ : .. _- Recommended -Recommended Action: To -receive and file. - 2 - (j) Personnel Department Monthly Activity Report: October, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (k) Planning Department Monthly Activity Report: October, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (1) Police Department Monthly Activity Report: October, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (m) Public Works Department Monthly Activity Report: Oc- tober, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (n) Monthly Revenue Report. October, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (o) Monthly Expenditure Report: October, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (p) City Treasurer's Report: October, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (q) Claims for Damages: 1) William Allan Geach, 3311 Keystone No. 1, Los An- geles, 90034, filed November 3, 1987. 2) Ron Bone, 610 Loma Drive, Hermosa Beach, filed Novem- ber 4, 1987. (r) (s) Recommended Action: To deny claims and refer to the City's claims administrator. Amendment to the Memorandum of Agreement for Liability Claims Administration Services. Memorandum from Person- nel Administrator Robert Blackwood dated November 17, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve the amendment to the liability claims administration contract and authorize the Mayor to sign. Approval of supplemental to the Management Employees' Bargaining Unit M.O.U. modifying that unit to include the classifications of Public -Safety Director and Personnel-Risk-Management-.Dir-ector, and approval of the class specification for Personnel -Risk Management Direc- tor. Memorandum from Personnel Administrator Robert Blackwood dated November 16, 1987. Recommended Action: To authorize the City Manager to sign the supplemental to the Management Employees' Bar- gaining Unit M.O.U. and approve the class specification for Personnel -Risk Management Director. Child Abuse Monthly Report. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian dated November 15, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. Repeal of Hermosa Beach City Code Section 2-8, Residency requirement for City Manager. Memorandum from City At- torney James P. Lough dated November 12, 1987. Recommended Action: That the City Council repeal the above -referenced City Code section as it has come to our attention that an ordinance of this type is prohibited by the California Constitution and the Government Code. Additional appropriation of funds for legal services. Memorandum from Finance Administrator Viki Copeland dat- ed November 18, 1987. Recommended Action: To appropriate $185,000 from General Fund Reserve for Contingencies to City Attorney Contract Services Account for estimated legal fees through June 30, 1988. (All legal fees are paid from this account, not just City Attorney.) Approval of the exchange of Community Development Block Grant Funds. Memorandum from Assistant City Manager Alana Mastrian dated November 17, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve the agreement and resolution approving the exchange of the City's CDBG Funds to the City of West Hollywood and authorize Mayor to sign said documents on behalf of the City. Trucks on Eighth Street. Memorandum from City Attorney James P. Lough dated November 18, 1987. Recommended Action: Staff research an appropriate al- ternative to usage of Eighth Street and the City Council then adopt an acceptable truck route for everyone concerned. Authorization to re -bid Pier Grounding Repairs (CIP 85- 203). Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated November 16, 1987. 4 Recommended Action: To authorize staff to readvertise for bids for the pier grounding repairs (CIP 85-203) and issue addenda as necessary. (z) Recommendation to authorize lease of copy machines. Memorandum from Pu c Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated November ,7. Recommende ®®' Y Vn d ►1c�tion: To author It v. � lease of copy ma- chines from the Xerox Corporat.':' for an approximate amount of $1,491.79 per month, amount to be paid from the same accounts that they are now drawn from. ***************************************************************** Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any item listed under Consent Ordinances and Resolutions may do so at this time. ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** MOTION TO WAIVE FURTHER READING: After the City Clerk has read the title to any resolution or or- dinance on tonight's agenda, the further reading thereof be waived, reserving and guaranteeing to each Councilmember the right to demand the reading of any such resolution or ordinance in regular order. ***************************************************************** 2. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Aa) ORDINANCE NO. 87-908 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HER- MOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS. For adoption. 4:1) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DECLARING SUPPORT FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A SERVICE AU- THORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES. For adoption. Memo- randum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dat- ed November 17, 1987. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. (a) (b) Letter from Anthony L. Rose, P. O. Box 488, Hermosa Beach, dated November 4, 1987 re. comments on election results. (Continued from November 10, 1987 meeting.) Recommended Action: To receive and file. Letter from Diane L. Greenwald, 32 Tenth Street, Hermosa Beach, dated October. 31,-1987 re. parking at Hermosa Valley'School. - Recommended Action: -_To_refer to staff for a report back on feasibility of allowing la minute parking on west - 5 side of Valley Drive adjacent to 1645 Valley Drive during school hours. (c) Letter from Roger D. Creighton, 1070 Third Street, Her- mosa Beach, dated November 13, 1987 re. City personal- ized stationery. Recommended Action: Council to make a policy decision re. continuation of such expenditure. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. V/f5. AMENDMENT TO INTERIM ORDINANCES ESTABLISHING MORATORIUMS ON THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS IN INCONSISTENT AREAS. Memorandum from City Attorney James P. Lough dated November 16, 1987. 16. TEXT AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE TO ADD "MINI -STORAGE, PERSONAL" AND "CARETAKER UNIT, CUP REQUIRED" TO M -ZONE PERMITTED USE LIST. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated November 16, 1987. J7. TEXT AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT RECYCLING CENTERS IN VARIOUS ZONES WITH CUP'S REQUIRED FOR CERTAIN FACILITIES. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated November 16, 1987. ***************************************************************** Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any of the remaining items on the agenda may request to do so at the time the item is called. ***************************************************************** MUNICIPAL MATTERS 8. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESEARCHING AND OBTAINING FUNDING FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian dated Novem- ber 4, 1987. (Continued from 11/10/87 meeting.) Recommended Action: To approve and/or modify Attachment A which reflects the method for establishing an Open Space Blue Ribbon Committee. 9. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER (a) Consideration of holding but one regular meeting during December. Memorandum from Interim City Manager Gayle T. Martin dated November 5, 1987. (Continued from 11/10/87 meeting.) Recommended Action: To_ -schedule one meeting for Decem- ber on December. 5 r 16,11987 at 7:30 p.m. with a closed session a` . 6 p-. m.. . _ (b) Establishment of a residential source separation (recy- cling) program for the City of Hermosa Beach. Memoran- dum from Interim City Manager Gayle T. Martin dated November 19, 1987. Recommended Action: 1) Instruct staff to determine what can be worked out with City of Redondo Beach toward cre- ation of a joint powers agreement providing for joint use of the Redondo Beach Recycling Center; and 2) hold in abeyance any further action toward the establishment of a residential source separation program until the full extent of other potential programs such as compost- ing and commercial waste recovery are proposed by the County Sanitation Districts. 10. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) City Council Reorganization - November 1987 (b) Recommended Action: To make various council committee appointments. Instructions to City Selection Committee Delegate to vote for appointment of a member of the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board. Memorandum from Interim C t_y Ma -nag -r e Ca-y-1-T_dated November 19, 1987. Recommended Action: To 1) select one of the nominated candidates for election to the SCAQMD Board; and 2) in- struct delegate to vote for the selected candidate. 11. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL (a) Vacancies - Boards and Commissions Planning Commission - One vacancy for term ending June 30, 1988. Recommended Action: To appoint a new commissioner for this unexpired term from applications received. Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: 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 TO CLOSED SESSION FOR DISCUSSION OF MATTERS OF PER- SONNEL AND LITIGATION, (UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9) 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 has the Council -Manager form of government, with a City Manager ap- pointed by and responsible to the City Council for carrying out Council policy. The Mayor and Council decide what is to be done. The City Manager, operating through the entire city staff, does it. This separation of policy making and administration is considsered the most economical and efficient form of City government in the United States today. GLOSSARY The following explanations may help you to understand the terms found on most agen- das for meetings of the Hermosa Beach City Council. Consent Items A compilation of all routine matters to be acted upon by one vote; approval re- quires a majority affirmative vote. Any Councilmember can remove an item from this listing thereby causing that matter to be considered under the category Consent Cal- endar items Removed For Separate Discussion. Public Hearings Public Hearings are held on certain matters as required by law. The Hearings afford the public the opportunity to appear and formally express their views regarding the matter being heard. Additionally, letters may be filed with the City -Clerk, prior to the Hearing. Hearings Hearings are held on other matters of public importance for which there is no legal requirement to conduct an advertised Public Hearing. Ordinances. An ordinance is a law that regulates government revenues and/or public conduct. All ordinances require two "readings". The first reading introduces the ordinance into the records. At least one week later Council may adopt, reject or hold over the ordinance to a subsequent meeting. Regular ordinances take effect 30 days after the second reading. Emergency ordinances are governed by different provisions and waive the time requirements. Written Communications The public, members of advisory boards/commissions or organizations may formally communicate to or make a request of Council by letter; said letters should be filed with the City Clerk by the Wednesday preceeding the Regular City Council meeting. Miscellaneous Items and Reports - City Manager The City Manager coordinates departmental reports and brings items to the attention of, or for action by the City Council. Verbal reports may be given by the City Manager regarding items not on the agenda, usually having arisen since the agenda was prepared on the preceding Wednesday. Miscellaneous Items and Reports - City Council Members of the City Council may place items on the agenda for consideration by the full Council. Other Matters - City Council These are matters that come to the attention of a Council member after publication o -f 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. PRESENTATIONS TQ OUTGOING ELECTED OFFICIALS: REVISED A. LEAH JEFFRIES (SUPERVISOR DANA'S OFFICE) COMES TO THE PODIUM AND MAKES PRESENTATIONS TO ALL 3 OUTGOING OFFICIALS; B. EDIE WEBBER (ASSEMBLYMAN FELANDO'S OFFICE) COMES TO THE PODIUM AND MAKES PRESENTATIONS TO ALL 3 OUTGOING OFFICIALS; C. REPRESENTATIVE FOR SENATOR BEVERLY COMES TO THE PODIUM AND MAKES PRESENTATIONS TO ALL 3 OUTGOING OFFICIALS; NOTE: IN ALL ABOVE CASES WILLIAMS WILL ACCEPT FOR GOLDBACH D. CIOFFI MAYOR SIMPSON GIVES PROCLAMATION AND MAYOR PRO TEM ROSENBERGER GIVES TILE PLAQUE TO CIOFFI CIOFFI RESPONDS MAYOR SIMPSON GIVES FLOWERS TO MARYMAE E. DEBELLIS MAYOR SIMPSON GIVES PROCLAMATION AND MAYOR PRO TEM ROSENBERGER GIVES TILE PLAQUE TO DEBELLIS DEBELLIS RESPONDS SIMPSON GIVES FLOWERS TO MELANIE F. GOLDBACH OUT OF TOWN, WILL NOT BE PRESENT. COUNCIL - MEMBER WILLIAMS RECEIVES ON BEHALF OF GOLDBACH. G. ALL OUTGOING OFFICIALS DEPART THE DAIS. OATH OF OFFICE - CERTIFICATE OF ELECTION A. CITY CLERK ARRANGES NAME PLATES APPROPRIATELY: CREIGHTON-WILLIAMS-SIMPSON-ROSENBERGER-SHELDON AT THE PUBLIC PODIUM: B. OATH OF OFFICE TO CITY CLERK MIDSTOKKE BY DEPUTY CITY CLERK PEEK; C. OATH OF OFFICE TO CREIGHTON WHO THEN JOINS COUNCIL ON THE DAIS; D. OATH OF OFFICE TO SHELDON WHO THEN JOINS COUNCIL ON THE DAIS; E. OATH OF OFFICE TO TREASURER BRUTSCH ON THE DAIS F. MAYOR SIMPSON REMARKS F. CREIGHTON REMARKS G. SHELDON REMARKS AT THE PODIUM H. BRUTSCH REMARKS BRIEF RECESS CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: William Grove, Director of Building and Safety RE: Projects with inconsistent zoning/general plan designation DATE: November 24, 1987 For your information in considering amendments to Ordinances No. 87-873 and 87-881 there are currently ten (10) projects in the plan check process which would be affected by the proposed amendments. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PRESENTATIONS TO OUTGOING ELECTED OFFICIALS: , A. LEAH JEFFRIES (SUPERVISOR DANA'S OFFICE) COMES TO THE PODIUM AND MAKES PRESENTATIONS TO ALL 3 OUTGOING OFFICIALS; B. EDIE WEBBER (ASSEMBLYMAN FELANDO'S OFFICE) COMES TO THE PODIUM AND MAKES PRESENTATIONS TO ALL 3 OUTGOING OFFICIALS; C. REPRESENTATIVE FOR SENATOR BEVERLY COMES TO THE PODIUM AND MAKES PRESENTATIONS TO ALL 3 OUTGOING OFFICIALS; NOTE: IN ALL ABOVE CASES WILLIAMS WILL ACCEPT FOR GOLDBACH D. CIOFFI MAYOR SIMPSON GIVES PROCLAMATION AND MAYOR PRO TEM ROSENBERGER GIVES TILE PLAQUE TO CIOFFI CIOFFI RESPONDS MAYOR SIMPSON GIVES FLOWERS TO MARYMAE E. DEBELLIS MAYOR SIMPSON GIVES PROCLAMATION AND MAYOR PRO TEM ROSENBERGER GIVES TILE PLAQUE TO DEBELLIS DEBELLIS RESPONDS ER GIVES FLOWERS TO MELANIE F. GOLDBACH OUT OF TOWN, WILL NOT BE PRESENT. COUNCIL - MEMBER WILLIAMS RECEIVES ON BEHALF OF GOLDBACH. G. ALL OUTGOING OFFICIALS DEPART THE DAIS. OATH OF OFFICE - CERTIFICATE OF ELECTION A. CITY CLERK ARRANGES NAME PLATES APPROPRIATELY: CREIGHTON-WILLIAMS-SIMPSON-ROSENBERGER-SHELDON AT THE PUBLIC PODIUM: B. OATH OF OFFICE TO CITY CLERK MIDSTOKKE BY DEPUTY CITY CLERK PEEK; C. OATH OF OFFICE TO CREIGHTON WHO THEN JOINS COUNCIL ON THE DAIS; D. OATH OF OFFICE TO SHELDON WHO THEN JOINS COUNCIL ON THE DAIS; E. OATH OF OFFICE TO TREASURER BRUTSCH ON THE DAIS F. MAYOR SIMPSON REMARKS F. CREIGHTON REMARKS G. SHELDON REMARKS AT THE PODIUM H. BRUTSCH REMARKS BRIEF RECESS a c_07_,:& de-qt- "/V2Liti2.J &tub T �j� �q • `. 6 del / O November 19, 1987 City Council Meeting November 24, 1987 Mayor and Members of the City Council OFFICIAL CANVASS - GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION - NOVEMBER 3, 1987 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECITING THE FACT OF THE CANVASS OF THE BALLOTS FROM THE GENERAL MUNICIPnL ELECTION HELD IN THE CITY ON NOVEMBER 3, 1987, DECLARING THE RESULT AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY THE PROVISIONS OF LAW", which includes the Los Angeles County's Certificate of Canvass. The results of the canvass are as shown on "Exhibit A" of the attached resolution. Respectfully submitted, THLEEN MIDSTOKKE City Clerk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 87-5088 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECITING THE FACT OF THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD IN THE CITY ON NOVEMBER 3, 1987, DECLARING THE RESULT AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. WHEREAS, a General Municipal Election was held and conducted in the City of Hermosa Beach, California, on Tuesday, November 3, 1987, as required by law; and WHEREAS, notice of the election was duly and regularly given in time, form and manner as provided by law; that voting pre- cincts were property established; that election officers were appointed and that in all respects the election was held and conducted and the votes were cast, received and canvassed and the returns made and declared in time, form and manner as required by the provisions of the Elections Code of the State of Cali- fornia for the holding of elections in cities; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 87-5048 adopted on June 23, 1987, the Registrar -Recorder, County of Los Angeles, canvassed the returns of the election and has certified the results to this City Council, the results are received, attached and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A". NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That there were nine (9) voting precincts established for the purpose of holding said election consisting of the regular election precincts in said City as established for holding of State and County elections. SECTION 2. That at the General Municipal Election, the following candidates and measures were submitted to the electors of said City, to wit: 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 That the names of persons voted for at the election for Member of the City Council of the City are as follows: Roger Creighton Tony DeBellis Chuck Sheldon Mike Neiman That the name of the person voted for at the election for City Clerk of the City is as follows: Kathleen Midstokke That the names of the persons voted for at the election for City Treasurer of the City are as follows: Gary L. Brutsch Sandra Hughes Elaine Doerfling That the measures voted upon at the election are as follows: J MANDATING THE PURCHASE AND INSTITUTION OF THE MEANS OF PURCHASE OF THE A.T.&S.F. RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY Shall Ordinance No. 87-895, an ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach submitted to the voters by the City Council, be adopted which mandates the purchase and institution of the means of purchase of the property commonly known as the A.T.&S.F. Santa Fe Railroad Right of Way for parkland and open space? K CHANGING THE UTILITY USERS TAX FROM SIX PERCENT (6%) TO TEN PERCENT (10%) Shall Ordinance No. 87-896, an ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach submitted to the voters by the City Council, be adopted which changes the rate of utilities tax from six percent (6%) to ten percent (10%)? L MANDATING THAT ALL FUNDS THE CITY DERIVES FROM HYDROCARBON RECOVERY GO INTO THE PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES FUND Shall Ordinance No. 87-897, an ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach submitted to the voters by the City Council, be adopted amending Ordinance No. 84-758 by mandating that all funds the City derives from hydrocarbon recovery go into the Park and Recreation Facilities Fund no matter where the wells are bottomed, except up to the first $500.00 of Business License fees and any funds regulated by the State Lands Commission? 2 M MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMITS IN THE COMMERCIAL AND 1 RESIDENTIAL/PROFESSIONAL ZONES 2 Shall Ordinance No. 87-894, an ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach submitted to the voters by the City Council, be 3 adopted which requires a vote of the people to raise the maximum height limit for the C-1, C-2, C-3, and 4 residential/professional zones? 5 N GROSS RECEIPTS TAX FOR MOTION PICTURE THEATERS 6 Shall Ordinance No. 87-893, an ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach submitted to the voters by the City Council, be 7 adopted which establishes a gross receipts tax for motion picture theaters? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 3. That the whole number of ballots cast in the City except absent voter ballots was 3,171. That the whole number of absent voter ballots cast in the City was 382, making a total of 3,553 ballots cast. SECTION 4. That the number of votes given at each precinct and the number of votes given in the City for and against each of such measures were as listed in "Exhibit A" attached. SECTION 5. The City Council does declare and determine that as a results of said election, a majority of the qualified voters voting on such candidates and measures did determine as follows: Roger Creighton was elected as Member of the City Council for a term of four (4) years; Chuck Sheldon was elected as Member of the City Council for a term of four (4) years; Kathleen_Midstokke was elected as City Clerk for a term of four (4) years; Gary L. Brutsch was elected as City Treasurer for a term of four (4) years; J - PURCHASE OF THE A.T.&S.F. RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY That said measure was carried. 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 K - CHANGING UTILITY USERS TAX FROM 6% TO 10% That said measure was carried. L - HYDROCARBON RECOVERY FUNDS TO PARKS AND RECREATION FUND That said measure was carried. M - MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMITS - COMMERCIAL AND R/P ZONES That said measure was carried. N - GROSS RECEIPTS TAX FOR MOTION PICTURE THEATERS That said measure was carried. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall immediately make and deliver to each of such persons so elected a Certificate of Election signed by the City Clerk and duly authenticated; that the City Clerk shall also administer to each person elected the Oath of Office prescribed in the State Constitution of the State of California and shall have them subscribe to it and file it in the Office of the City Clerk. Each and all of the persons so elected shall then be inducted into the respective office to which they have been elected. SECTION 7. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and shall enter the same in the Book of original Resolutions of said City. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON the 24th day of November, 1987. PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: KATHLEEM MIDSTOKKE, City Clerk JAMES P. LOUGH, City Attorney 4 REGISTRAR -RECORDER COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 5557 FERGUSON DRIVE - P.O. BOX 30450, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90030 / (213) 725.5805 CHARLES WEISSBURD HE G IS1 RG.R RE CCiF.[!E R November 16, 1987 Ms. Kathleen Midstokke, City Clerk City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Dear Ms. Midstokke: Enclosed is the official Canvass Certificate and the official Statement of Votes Cast by precinct for the Hermosa Beach City General Municipal Election held on November 3, 1987. Please call the Elections Administration Section at (213) 725-5805, if you have any questions. Very truly yours, CHARLES WEISSBURD Registrar -Recorder Enclosure EXHIBIT "A" STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) ss. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. ) I, CHARLES WEISSBURD, Registrar -Recorder of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, do hereby certify that the attached is a true and correct Canvass of the Votes Cast for all candidates for the two offices of Member of the City Council, the office of City Clerk and the office of City Treasurer at the Hermosa Beach City General Municipal Election held on November 3, 1987. I further certify that the total Ballots cast at the Hermosa Beach City General Municipal Election are as follows: PRECINCT BALLOTS CAST 3,171 ABSENTEE TOTAL BALLOTS CAST BALLOTS CAST 382 3,553 I further certify that the total votes cast for the two offices of Member of the City Council are as follows: MEMBER OF THE PRECINCT ABSENTEE TOTAL CITY COUNCIL VOTE VOTE VOTE TONY DeBELLIS 1,353 165 1,518 MICHAEL NEIMAN 1,019 141 1,160 CHUCK SHELDON 1,437 155 1,592 ROGER D. CREIGHTON 1.528 184 1,712 I further certify that the total votes cast for the office of City Clerk are as follows: CITY CLERK KATHLEEN MIDSTOKKE PRECINCT ABSENTEE TOTAL VOTE VOTE VOTE 2,181 241 2,422 (Continued on next page) PRECINCT ABSENTEE TOTAL PROPOSITION M VOTE VOTE VOTE YES 2,482 313 2,795 NO 549 51 600 PROPOSITION N YES NO 2,028 248 2,276 949 113 1,062 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal this 16th day of November, 1987. CHARLES WEISSBURD Registrar -Recorder County of Los Angeles COUNTY OF LDS ANGELES CONSOLIDATED ELECTIONS NOVEMBER 3, 1967 PAGE 67.1 OFFICIAL 1 10U IU 1i-, ILL ILL, ,LL, 10 'J IJ IJ ill- IW IW 10 i2 IZ j^ IZ Z ii iE_ Z in I. 1> V%'> C,> ZI> (: 1.,-) U w _JIU W- W OiU W w < mJ WW u J ma 0 I� E W" E Z 1` W'.S E U 10WLJULL Iuwi1uLL' V) 10 E Wlo] E JIC72VI[il E0 r: , 0 w 0 1<J I< CI<JY,CJf, J [nr,} V).-IIV)..0m”-w: J 00210001000000 . • EZOIEZ:-,EZI'EZO; rip: cc1r�OErOU��O�I 00 00 00 00, I IU IU I0 IIU 1 c i I IU k., LL' IL ILL' ILLI W I I Iw IW 10 LL' i.. C5".-, I 7 I.. I. Z17 1 I It V7 I:> R:>- U 0 I- C C •F-- u w r CC l; 0 .- 1LIw0,00000- CI c0 C0 T -o 'IoIOC. U Y 2 0 V1 .r l v V: U I U N 0 CO I CCW I WC ICCC ICD< W0 WC 00 0J C JJ, '<CCco<ct Z,< C. 1 V)0I• I Iinr0IVJr ,ILot- >; 0 r• 10 Z:0 <10 c, Er< I ' 1E T<:E>JiE>< w..wr. w,- w.J � 2U .—U U IIU M HERMOSA BEACH 27500014 HERMOSA BEACH 27500034 HERMOSA BEACH 27500084 'HERMOSA BEACH 27500104 HERMDSA'BEACH 27500114 ?HERMOSA BEACH, 2750015A HERMSOSA. BEACH 2750016A HERMOSA BEACH 27500184 HERMOSA BEACH 27500304 PRECINCT VOTE ABSENTEE VOTE GRAND TOTAL VOTE 386 201. 93 211; 167, 445 212 129 239 200 274 99 115 10C 114 476177 1811 '185 2531 241 921 108 .-104 112 -350 130 '98'1311 198 286 122 78 117, 141' 330 134 113 139 172 383 186 104 205 165 1 I 3171 ' 1353 i 1437 j 1019 1528 382 165 155 i 141 184 3553 1518 ! 1592 I i 1166 1712 ,1� 253 58 110 190 320 ! 93 142 166 186 I 69 71; 88 332 I ` 102 138 181; 166 1 4E? 72 84 232. .60 95 138, 198 55 87, 104 234 51 121: 124 260 61 131 138 971:. 2181 597. 1 1.213 ,126 ' 241 72 135 1 , 1007 :2422 I i .6E9 11248, ) '9 I I 3 1 COUNTY DF LOS ANGELES CONSOLIDATED ELECTIONS NOVEMBER 3, 1987 PAGE 67.2 0PF'ICIA_ BALLOTS CAST ! I IL! lu IL 10 ILL Ili ILL IW J J IJ ILL' Iw Iw Iw 1...- iZ Iz I'+ z Z 2, 1`.- NIT <t> Z>.-0 IU W J4U W 1-.10 W 0IU W W 0J 0LLw CU -J CO CC 10 M W'I M 20 c w.2 E 0. IO W O•U W' IOW SIU W I I!✓E w:OE JI0 E 010E0 0 W I 1 1<J I<J<!<JYI<Jd'I 0..r10r.20..U10.-.W, 00210001000000 E20'EZ--+IEZTIE Z0' cc0- 0E•Ce00 0Ce WO wO WO WO SU 20 ,2U 00 U J;i W W 0 25- C)- U CY W q- a N IVw0,C.)W0:Uw1- 0 4. IS --110 !=0C' IVN.-.I0 V,0 VVI CJ I0< 10< Ioc 0< WW WJ l< CC CC l< CC ZI<c NH 0:11)f- NH> I0 210 <10 Cr IE><IE>-JIE> re < <f- Q I- WIC/ 1- 0, _ W 1-. W �--� I U 0 SU I2U COUNTYWIDE COUNTYWIDE ABSENTEE VOTE HERMOSA:BEACH HERMOSA BEACH ABSENTEE VOTE EL CAMINO COMMLNITY CO EL CAMINO :COMM.NIT1` CO ABSENTEE VOTE SOUTH BAY UNION HIGH 31711353 j 1437 1018 382 165 I • I 184 3171 1353j 1411 1 155 I 1 1437, 1 i • 1019 1 1528 362 1 165155 141 3171 i 135311437 L 10151 019. 1 362 1EE 155 141 3171 i 1353 1437 1019 1 1528 152B 184 1528 184 • I 971 2181' 1 597 i 1213 1 1 1 i 126 I I 241 .72 1 135 1 . i '9711 1 2181' .597 1 1213 • J 126 i 241, 72 ' 135 1 I 971 2181' ' :597 1 1213 126 241 72 ' 125 2181 971 597. 1213 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. I, CHARLES WEISSBURD, Registrar -Recorder of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, do hereby certify that the attached is a true and correct Canvass of the Votes Cast For and Against Propositions J, K, L, M and N at the Hermosa Beach City Special Municipal Electron held on November 3, 1987. 1 further certify that the total Ballots cast at the Hermosa Beach City Special Municipal Election Election are as follows: PRECINCT BALLOTS CAST 3,171 ABSENTEE TOTAL BALLOTS CAST BALLOTS CAST 382 3,553 I further certify that the total votes cast For and Against Propositions J, K, L, M and N are as follows: PRECINCT ABSENTEE TOTAL PROPOSITION J VOTE VOTE VOTE YES 2,795 320 3,115 NO 305 51 356 PROPOSITION K YES 1,650 NO 1,412 PROPOSITION L YES 2,710 NO 355 (Continued on next page) 165 196 294 63 1,815 1,608 3,004 418 PRECINCT ABSENTEE TOTAL CITY TREASURER VOTE VOTE VOTE SANDRA I. HUGHES 597 72 669 ELAINE C. DOERFLING 971 126 1,097 GARY L. BRUTSCH 1,213 135 1,348 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal this 16th day of November, 1987. ho.aA\ CHARLES WEISSBURD Registrar -Recorder County of Los Angeles CO1JITY OF LDS ANGELES CONSDLIDATED ELECTIONS NDVEMEER 3, 1987 PAGE 67.1 OFFICIA.. IL) 1LL i 1i L-, 10-, F 1- 0 a.-, J. V> V) J 0 0 N < Eaw 6D! a0> wa 2a 12 IL) 10] 0 100 00 ID) -- 10- 1- • 1-- • 1- a,-. 1 1<-• Ic-, in v? 1 lin in IV> v; 00 00V)00 Ea o' EawlEao' aOZ a0>Ia0Z, 2a i 12a Ila I 1 IJ IW Z I00 00 102 •-• I0- 1- r ,c-, (c,- L'i V) V. G 1 O D V>ID fawEa0' o>aoZ • w a W a I 2C IC-, Ic --• (i)V) IV) L/ 0 0 WO 0 Eaw'Ea0 a0>a0Z UJ CI: wa 2a 2L HERMOSA BEACH, 27500014 HERMOSA BEACH 27500034 HERMOSA BEACH 27500084 HERMOSA BEACH 2750010A HERMOSA BEACH 27503114 HERMOSA BEACH 27500154 HERMOSA BEACH 27500164 HERF4JS4 BEACH 27500184 HERMOSA BEACH 27500334 PRECINCT VOTE ABSENTEE VOTE GRAND TOTAL VOTE 388 339 40 201 171 445 405 30259 173 274 239 30, 1 133 133 476 41d 59 227 234 1 241 2181 16 i 126 101' 350 .310 32 ' 195 1411 266 244 34 141 137 330 284 40 143 176 383 346 24 223 146 1 171 2797 1 1 1412 1 305 1650 382 320 1 196 51 165, 3553 3115 1608 1 356 1815 1 1 I s { 319 55 29B 74 226 137 376 5 353 75 95 ! 282. 141 235 31 i 210 51. 162 92 401 t0 i 9571 282 172 215 18 19fl 36 3 150 78 302 34 282 9 49 i 234 '85 253 23 . 217 53 . 191 79 281 44 258 62 224 86 328 38 313 51. 277, 79 ] i 2710 ! 545 12326 ' 355 1 2482 I 945 294 i 51 : 246 63 313 i 113 330 600 2276 18 2795 ; 1062 COUNT\ OF LOS ANGELES CONSOLIDATED ELECTIONS NOVEMBER 3, 1967 PAGE 87.2 OFFICIAL BALLOTS CAST 1 i 0 IL' 10 I0 LL' ILL'ILL' w• 1 ,J IJ w' ILL' 1"-'Iw Z - 0. I' I? L' 1C IU ILL' IL• Iw :0 4 ICC?, L .4 IL in "D v,7 IV)Y Iv,Y '2 Z i2 Z '2 Z IS Z 0D ICC 100 I00 07,.- ICYJ- ICG .- I4•- f- I- ' F • 1- I<,-. 1< -, Iv)If, Iv) v, • OD'Pio D I faw2a0 140>- c 0 Z Lu CC wa I4 I : <� I V)V) IV)1') oochic, o 5awl540 c0}cOZI wa w a ,2a 1 IU IC 0 0 0 u �"• w ILL J 1-' J J I ALL' IL.- w iw' Z IS- I` ,` I0 0 i0 Iv I 0 IL: I•' ILL' ' LL' 1L" IL ILpa. IL IV,_ _ ' IV,' In WI SZ 'TZ SZ IS 10 C. ;VC 00U0 10•-' ICD` tL,-- I0-- ~ H I- 16::1 I<.- <.- < IV) V) Iv) V: V) V) (PV: DD V);OO : 00000 540:540 540540 c0>IC OZ, c 0 >- 4 0 Z Cr1017 • wa wa I w _a II ; =a 2a 1 0 IL 010 J 1_. w ILL I I.- I 1^ I 1: ILL+ iv Z IZ 1L• C MD 10 �- H H ' < •- i< r. if. • • 0 V)10 4w54O 0 0 rice o we we 2a 2a COUNTYWIDE COUNTYWIDE ABSENTEE VOTE 1- ERMOSA -BEACH HERMOSA. BEACH ABSENTEE VOTE EL CAM`;INO COtiM_NITI CO EL CAMINO COMMLNITY CD ABSENTEE VOTE SOUTH BAY UNION 1-:1G- 3171 • 2795: 3051 382 320 I 51; 2171, 279 5 1 i 382 320 I 51; 3171; 2795 1 • 1 305 382 .320 ; .51 3171 2795 I 305 1650 165 1650, 165 1650: 165 1650 3 1412 2710, 1 196 294 1 1412 :2710 i 196, 294 1412 ; 2710 ' 355 196 29. 355 63, 355, 63 1412 63 2482, 313 2482 313 2482 313 549 51; 549 51' 54g 51 2710 549 355 2482 949 I i I 2028 248 2028 248 2028 248 2028 949 1'13' 949 113 949 113 November 17, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council of November 24, 1987 THIRD YEAR RENEWAL TO THE AGREEMENT FOR LIABILITY CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION SERVICES RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached con- tract for Liability Claims Administration services and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract. BACKGROUND: On December 16, 1985 the City Council contracted with Emett & Chandler Self Insurance Services, Inc. for services related to the administration of the City's Liability Insurance program. The original contract was amended on April 15, 1986, to acknowledge the contractors name change to Jardine Claims Manage- ment, Inc. and on December 18, 1986 to increase the second years renumeration. Also as part of the December 18th amendment, con- tract language was included to limit any future increases to a maximum of 157 above the prior years renumeration. On November 13, 1987 staff entered into negotiations with the claims administrator in order to arrive at the terms of continu- ing the contract. From these negotiations the following was agreed to for submittal to the Council for consideration: 1. Remuneration for the third year of the contract to be an annual rate of $17,520 (13.037 increase). 2. The length of the contract to be 18 months in order to have this contract run consecutively with the contract for Work- ers' Compensation Administration Services. Total remuneration for the 18.5 months to be $27,010 based on the annual fee of $17,520. 3. No limit to number of claims handled (previous fee of S15,500 was based upon a maximum of 45 claims with a S350/claim charge for all claims in excess of 45). ANALYSIS: Since the amendment to the contract in 1986, the firm has again changed its name. Jardine Claims Management, Inc. was purchased by Self Insurers Service (S.I.S.). Self Insurers Service has requested that their standard contract form be utilized for this renewal as opposed to amending the original contract. The terms of the contract remain the same as expressed in the original form. lC The original renewal proposal by S.I.S. (attached) requested a 29% to $20,000 per annum increase based upon an internal survey of time allocation demands and overheadatributable to servicing the City's account. Also the initial proposal suggested a 6.5 month contract in order to align this contract to run concurrent- ly with the workers' comp. contract. The agreed upon recommendation to the Council is within the con- tract specified allowed increase and provides the City with pro- fessional liability claims administration services for the next 18 months. Respectfully submi Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Administrator Noted for fiscal impact: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator Concur: • Gayle T. Martin Interim City Manager SELF 2NSU s SERMC CLAIM SERVICE AGREEMENT # This Agreement entered into this day of , 19 by and between City of Hermosa Beach, hereafter called the Client, and Self -Insurers Service, Inc., (S.I.S.) hereafter called the Service Agent, for the administration of a self- insured liability claims program in the State of California. SECTION I: Service Agent The Service Agent shall provide the following services to the Client: 1. Investigate, adjust and otherwise administer all of the above referenced claims during the period of this contract. - 2. Determine the compensability, if any, the settlement thereof and pay all claims, with funds provided by the Client. 3. Prepare and file all claim reports in accordance with the established procedures and state guidelines. 4. Maintain a separate claim file on each reported claim. 5. Provide computerized monthly loss reports disclosing pertinent claims data as well as a copy of each check issued. 6. Coordinate all litigation activity with selected outside legal counsel. 7. Establish appropriate reserves for each file. 8. Advise the excess carrier of claims which ma -y pene- trate the self-insured retention and/or coverages provided by the excess insurance company. 9. Keep the Client informed of major claim changes. SECTION I I : Client The Client agrees to: 1. Provide adequate funds from which to pay all claims and allocated expenses, and the timely replenishment of- same._- - - 2JAMB3 (dsmw/9A25) 2. Provide up to date information on all excess insur- ance. 3. Cooperate fully in the disposition of all claims. 4. Establish a settlement authority of $1,500 per claim. 5. Report on a timely basis all claims, incidents, claim reports and all other claim correspondence. 6. Promptly pay the Service Agent's fee. SECTION III: General Conditions The Client agrees that it will indemnify and hold harmless the Service Agent and its directors, officers, employees, parents, subsidiaries and affiliates from and against any and all claims, loss, liability, costs, damages and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by the Service Agent as the direct or indirect result of any misconduct, error or omission of the client, or any of its' directors, officers, employees, parents, subsidiaries or affiliates taken in connection with the furtherance or performance of any provision of this agreement, provided that said claims, loss, liability costs, damages and reasonable attorneys' fees have not been directly caused by any misconduct, error or omission of the Service Agent, its' directors, officers, employees, parents, subsidiaries and affiliates. The Service Agent agrees that it will indemnify and hold harmless the Client and its directors, officers, employees, parents, subsidiaries and affiliates from and against any and all claims, loss, liability costs, damages and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred as the direct or indirect result of any misconduct, error or omission of the Service Agent or any of its' directors, officers, employees, parents subsidiaries or Affiliates taken in connection with the furtherance or perfor- mance of any provision of this agreement, provided that said claims, loss, liability, costs, damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees have not been directly caused by any miscon- duct, error or omission of the Client, its' directors, officers, employees, parents, subsidiaries and affiliates. 2JAMB4 - -2- (dsmw/9A26) • SELF SER /.4.... SECTION IV: Fees The Client agrees to pay the Service Agent a,a annum service fee of $27,010, payable monthly, in the amount of $1,460 beginning December 18, 1987 through June 30, 1989. Thereafter, it is the intention of the parties to continue this Agreement in full force and effect, subject to annual renegotiation of fees, unless and until this Agreement is terminated by either party as hereinafter provided. In addition to the above service fee, and subject to the Client's prior approval, the Client agrees to pay all Allocated Expenses as defined below: Allocated Loss Expenses means any cost or expense we incur on your behalf as a result of our engaging the service of firms or persons outside our organization for work in connection with the investigation, adjustment, settlement or defense of a Claim. Allocated Loss Expenses includes, but is not limited to the following: subrogation; rehab- ilitation; automobile or other physical damage appraisal; all court costs, fees, and expenses; fees for service of process; fees to attorneys; the cost of services of under- cover operations and detectives; fees or independent adjusters or attorneys for investigation or adjustment of claims in areas removed from reasonable access to our salaried employees; the cost of employing experts for the purpose of preparing maps, photographs, diagrams, and chemical or physical analysis, or for expert advice or opinion; the cost of obtaining copies of any public re- cords; and the costs of depositions and court reporters or recorded statements. SECTION V: Cancellation This Agreement may be cancelled by either the Client or the Service Agent, by giving to the other, in writing, notice of his intention to cancel this Agreement, sixty (60) days prior to the actual date of cancellation. Upon cancellation the Service Agent will not be required to provide any further services to the Client. Service Agent may also cancel immedi- ately for non-payment of service fee. In_ the event of termination of this Agreement, by the Client for any reason whatsoever, the Client shall also designate, in writing, one of the following options: Option I: Require the Service Agent to return all open/ pending or closed. files to the Client to ensure the orderly transition to a succeeding administrator. 2JAMB5 (dsmw/9A27) SELF lStJR RS Option II: Require the Service Agent to continue to provide all services as previously outlined in this "gree- ment, at a fee to be negotiated between the Client and the Service Agent. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on their behalf by the undersigned duly authorized persons. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH President of the City Council, and Mayor of the City of Hermosa Beach Attest: City Clerk Approved As To Form: /1/1"4:,-.7 / City Attorney SELF -INSURERS SERVICE, INC. Attest: Date: 11 I1rt 2JAMB6 • (dsmw/928) Ho_p'e J✓ iTTett Vice R' esident Date: // //J�if7 TO achgrilutth filatrrialg AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO TO MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR LIABILITY ADMINISTRATION SERVICES DATED DECEMBER 18, 1985 Amendment to agreement between CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called "CLIENT", and JARDINE CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, INC., a California corporation, hereinafter called "CONTRACTOR", originally entered into the 16th day of December 1985. Effective October 1, 1986, the name of the contractor is hereby changed to JARDINE CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, INC. Effective December 18, 1986, the renumeration to be paid under this Agreement to the SERVICE AGENT by the SELF-INSURED shall be based upon a flat rate of FIFTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($15,500) for the period December 18, 1986 through December 17, 1987, for the first FORTY-FIVE (45) claims and THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS ($350.00) per claim for all claims beyond the first FORTY-FIVE (45) and, shall be payable quarterly, commencing December 18, 1986, at the rate of THREE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE DOLLARS ($3,875.00) to be adjusted a year end based on actual claim count. Effective December 18, 1987, any additional increase in therenumeration for this Agreement shall be for a mutually agreeable amount not to exceed a sum which would cause there to be an increase in excess of 15% above the renumeration for the preceding twelve (12) month period. Effective December 18, 1986 CONTRACTOR agrees to provide to the CLIENT two (2) claims review sessions and two (2) educational seminars. Said sessions and seminars to be scheduled on the premises of the CLIENT at a date and time mutually agreed._ Effective December 18, 1986, this Agreement may be cancelled by either party, by its giving to the other, in writting, notice of its intention to cancel this agreement at least SIXTY (60) days prior to the date of termination. .ti All other terms and conditions of the agreement remain the same. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 4 PRESIDENT or /the City Council, and MAYOR ,ofi th City of Hermosa Beach Attest: APPROVED AS TO FORM: J ttorney JARDINE CLAIMS MANAGEMENT Attest: DATE: INC. /01-a3-�(� DATE : /4216-674 DATE: By: Date: AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR LIABILITY ADMINISTRATION SERVICES DATED DECEMBER 16, 1985 Effective January 24, 1986, the name of the contractor is hereby changed to EMETT & CHANDLER SELF-INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. All other terms and conditions remain the same. ATTEST: DATE: ATTEST: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DATE: 3 /AC/Y( DATE: EMETT & CHANDLER SELF-INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. BY: (4— DATE: /174 -Ni c / ._I _ 6--e-- c l�� AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AND R. L. KAUTZ & COMPANY FOR SELF-INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this 16th day of December , 1985, by and between City of Hermosa Beach a municipal corporation, hereinafter called "CLIENT," and R. L. Kautz & Co., a California corporations, hereinafter called "CON- TRACTOR," for certain services as outlined herein in connection with the duties and responsibilities of administering a program of Liability Self -Insurance. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, CLIENT has undertaken to self -insure; and, WHEREAS, CONTRACTOR is engaged in the supervision and ad- ministration of programs of self-insurance, NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual obligations hereby assumed, and the performance of the acts hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. GENERAL. A. CONTRACTOR agrees to supervise and administer the Liability Self -Insurance program for CLIENT and shall act as their representative in connection with the investigation, adjustment, processing, supervision and resolution of liability claims and potential claims for money damages asserted by third parties against CLIENT which are premised upon allegations of negligent or careless acts or 1 omissions, or conduct for which CLIENT is alleged to be legally responsible, and agrees further to provide to CLIENT during the term of this Agreement all the services more particularly set forth hereinafter. In the performance of the services provided for herein, CONTRACTOR shall use its best efforts without any guarantee as to the ultimate outcome of any claim adjusted, investigated, pro- cessed, supervised or resolved by CONTRACTOR. B. CONTRACTOR shall open a bank account with a federally insured bank, as agent for CLIENT, and shall have sole signing authority on said account. CLIENT shall be responsible for maintaining suffi- cient balances in the account to cover the payment of the general liability and automobile liability claims which might reasonably be expeeted to result under CLIENT'S Liability Self -Insurance Program. However, if at any time an overdraft exists on this account, SELF -INSURER agrees for the benefit of CONTRACTOR and the bank to be responsible for the amount thereof. 2. INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES. A. CONTRACTOR agrees to provide investigative services as follows: (1) Receipt and examination of all reports of ac- cidents, incidents, .:claims or cases which are 2 or may be the subject of such liability claims. (2) Such preliminary investigation as is required to determine probable liability, or lack thereof, of CLIENT, that can be appropriately performed by telephone. However, where, by virture of the complexity of the case or the severity of the injuries, an investigation is required which utilizes field personnel, or requires photos, the obtaining of statements from witnesses, diagraming of intersections or other outside adjusting services will be con- ducted. CLIENT shall provide CONTRACTOR with photographs and engineering drawings or other descriptive material of all conditions of CLIENT property which are alleged to be dan- gerous or that were damaged in the events which produce the claim under investigation. B. CLIENT agrees to pay for the cost of extraordinary investigative services, including, but not limited to, those where expert and professional assistance is required, such as professional photography, in- dependent medical examinations, laboratory ser- _ vices, the copying of medical and other records, trial preparation and professional engineering ser- vices, including but not limited to map prepara- tion, accident reconstruction, material analysis and evaluaton premises. 3. ADJUSTMENT SERVICES. CONTRACTOR agrees to provide complete adjustment ser- vices on each accident or incident which is or may be the subject of a liability claim. Such services shall include: A. The maintenance of a claim file on each potential or actual claim reported to CONTRACTOR. B. Whenever its investigation results in a determina- tion that CLIENT has sustained a liability to a third party, CONTRACTOR shall process any such claim or potential claim for settlement in accor- dance with instructions and policies of CLIENT for settlement of such claims. C. Notification of CLIENT'S excess carriers of all claims which have the potential to exceed CLIENT'S retention and maintenance of liaison between the insurance carriers and the CLIENT on matters af- fecting the adjustment of such claims and notify CLIENT when CLIENT is entitled to reimbursements for loss in excess of retention. 4 D. Obtain all Release Agreements on settlement of any claim or potential claim. 4. PERIOD OF AGREEMENT. This AGREEMENT is for a period of twelve (12) months commencing at 12:01 a.m., December 18, 1985 , and ending midnight, December 17, 1986 . There- _ after, it is the intention of the parties to continue this Agreement in full force and effect, subject to annual renegotiation of Section 6 hereunder ("CONSID- ERATION"), unless and until this Agreement is termi- nated by either party as hereinafter provided. 5. CONSIDERATION. Client agrees to pay to CONTRACTOR THE SUM of $ 41345 in two (2) equal installments. April 15, 1986 and October 15, 1986. In addition thereto, CONTRACTOR, shall submit to the CLIENT all costs for the procurement of police reports, index bureau reports, and for such other reports and documents which are appropriate and necessary, and the CLIENT shall pay such costs directly. 6. CANCELLATION OF AGREEMENT. After this Agreement has been in effect for at least twelve (12) months, this Agreement may be terminated 5 by either party, by its giving to the other, in writ- ing, notice of its intention to cancel this Agreement at least sixty (60) days prior to the date of termination. 7. DISPOSITION OF FILES ON TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT. A. All files on each claim shall be the property of the CLIENT. B. In the event of termination or cancellation of the Agreement, CONTRACTOR shall return all files to CLIENT unless CLIENT requests CONTRACTOR to con- tinue to process any file, which file CONTRACTOR will continue to process on a time and expense basis. C. In the event of cancellation of this Agreement by CONTRACTOR, the consideraton to be paid pursuant to Section 6 shall terminate effective with the ter- mination of the Agreement and the CLIENT shall not be liable for payment of consideration under Sec- tion 6 relating to any period after the effective date of the termination. 8. HOLD HARMLESS. A. CLIENT agrees to defend any legal action commenced against CONTRACTOR caused directly or indirectly by wrongful or negligent acts of CLIENT'S officers, employees, agents or other's engaged by CLIENT; and 6 indemnify CONTRACTOR against any liability, loss, costs, or damage, including attorney's fees, resulting therefrom. B. CONTRACTOR agrees to defend any legal action com- menced against CLIENT caused directly or indirectly by wrongful or negligent acts of CONTRACTOR'S,of- ficers, employees, agents or others engaged by CON- TRACTOR; and indemnify CLIENT against any liabili- ty, loss, cost, or damage, including attorney's fees, resulting therefrom. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be signed by their duly authorized officers as of the day and year first above written. R. L. KAUTZ & CO. A California Corporation By: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 7 VIII. FEE SCHEDULE A. Flat Minimum Fee Per Annum $8,690.00 B. Per Claim (If more than 40 claims per year) 200.00 8 November 16, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council of November 24, 1987 APPROVAL OF SUPPLEMENTAL TO THE MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES' BARGAINING UNIT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) MODIFYING THAT UNIT TO INCLUDE THE CLASSIFICATIONS OF PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR AND PERSONNEL/RIRK MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR, AND APPROVAL OF THE CLASS SPECIFICATION FOR PERSONNEL/RISK MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached class specification for Personnel/Risk Management Director and authorize the City Manager to execute the attached supplemental to the Management Employees' Bargaining Unit which establishes: 1. The classifications of Public Safety Director and Personnel/Risk Management Director as part of that bargaining unit, and 2. Specifies the salary range of each classification. BACKGROUND: Public Safety Director: At the City Council meeting of May 27, 1986, the City Council approved the class specification for the position of Public Safe- ty Director and further agreed to assign this position to the management bargaining unit, represented by the Hermosa Beach Man- agement Employees' Association. Due to ongoing consideration by the Council regarding the inter- nal salary relationships of the other classifications within the management employees bargaining unit, formal adoption of the classification of Public Safety Director into the Management Em- ployees' Association was delayed until resolution of that issue. On April 24, 1987, the City Council agreed to retain the State of California, Coorperative Personnel Services (CPS) to do a compen- sation study of the management positions. In response to the agreement to contract with CPS, the Management Employees' As- sociation agreed to formally adopt the classification of Public Safety Director into the Association. Personnel and Risk Management Director: Included in the City Council approved budget for FY 87/88, the Council authorized the reclassification of the Personnel Ad- ministrator position to Personnel and Risk Management Director. This position is to acknowledge the increased responsibilities 1,7 assumed by the position in the area of liability claims manage- ment, safety programming, employee relations, health insurance cost management, contract administration, and other labor relations/personnel officer functions. On August 20, 1987, the City Council instructed the City Manager, or his designee, to negotiate with the Management Association in order to establish the classification of Personnel and Risk Man- agement Director as part of the management employees bargaining unit and establish a salary range for the classification. Negotiations in regards to both classifications were concluded at the beginning of November. The class specification was developed as a part of the CPS clas- sification study and incorporates the assigned duties of the position. ANALYSIS: Upon execution of the attached supplemental to the Hermosa Beach Management Employees' Association Memorandum of Understanding, both the positions of Public Safety Director and Personnel and Risk Management Director will be aligned with the appropriate recognized employee organization for management employees. An appropriation for both salary ranges was included in the adop- ted FY 87/88 budget. Respectfully submitt Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Administrator Noted for fiscal impact: 0-4 Viki Copeland Finance Administrator Concur: Gayle T. Martin Interim City Manager • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PERSONNEL AND RISK MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR DEFINITION Under the administrative direction of the City Manager, to plan, organize, direct and coordinate a comprehensive Personnel and Risk Management program; to direct the settlement of worker's compensation claims, recommend coverages and purchase of insurance and develop and direct the conduct of safety and training programs; and to do related work as required. EXAMPLES OF DUTIES Plans, organizes, directs, coordinates, supervises and performs professional personnel work involved in the administration and maintenance of City recruitment, selection, employee orientation, classification and salary, labor relations, performance evaluation, counseling and grievance and affirmative action programs; develops, administers and interprets personnel and salary policies, regulations and procedures; coordinates with departmental and administrative officials in the development or improvement of personnel procedures, standards, regulations and forms; advises departments on organization, design and staffing; serves as a liaison and coordinates contracted testing and selection processes; provides staff support to the Civil Service Commission; coordinates the preparation of departmental agenda items and attends meetings of the Civil Service Commission and City Council; periodically reviews and updates City job classifications; directs and conducts personnel management, salary and benefit surveys and prepares recommendations and reports; provides information and technical assistance on personnel policies and procedures, the affirmative action program, supplementary employee benefits and other personnel matters; reviews departmental payroll records for completeness and accuracy; directs the maintenance of confidential records and files; reviews and makes recommendations on improvements to personnellpractices and procedures; serves on the management team in the City negotiating process; directs and conducts studies and surveys and develops salary, benefit and cost data for management proposals; implements and monitors MOU's; counsels and advises on a range of labor-management problems; reviews and analyzes pertinent legislation affecting personnel management; supervises the work of department personnel. Plans, organizes, directs, coordinates, supervises and performs professional work involved in the administration and maintenance of the City's Risk Management Program; manages the purchase of Property, Vehicle, Casualty, Liability, and Workers' Compensation insurance; recommends coverages, deductible amounts, and reserve levels; manages the City's claims defense and settlement process; coordinates the City's recovery actions in ti cases of negligence by a third party; coordinates and monitors the work of claims adjusters and attorneys representing the City; performs research and analysis and prepares reports, charts, tables, and other forms of analysis in order to provide the department and the City with necessary risk management information; presents reports and information to the City Council; develops procedures and recommends methods for funding, program, and organizational risks; reviews proposed programs, contracts, facilities, and activities under consideration by the City, and advises on the risk implications; confers with managers to determine loss prevention and safety; works with departmental safety committees on loss control activities; develops, improves and contracts for the presentation of safety and training programs; serves as City representative on Risk Management groups and associations. SPECIAL REQUIREMENT Possession of a valid California driver's license issued by the State Department of Motor Vehicles. DESIRABLE QUALIFICATIONS Knowledge of: Modern principles, practices and procedures of personnel administration, including labor relations, affirmative action, classification and compensation, recruitment, selection, performance evaluation and training; Federal and State laws, regulations and administrative rules as the relate to personnel management, risk management, workers' compensation, safety, and loss control; Risk management techniques and principles; Fiscal planning and budget allocation techniques;. Claims processing, adjusting and reporting techniques; Office management and recordkeeping principles, methods and procedures; Statistical, research and survey methods and techniques; Principles and practices of supervision, training and budget administration; Labor relations laws, practices and procedures; Computers and computer applications; Report writing methods and techniques. and Ability to: Plan, organize, direct, coordinate and perform professional level work involved in a comprehensive Personnel and Risk Management program; P Conduct and improve recruitment, selection, evaluation, training, classification audit and personnel recordkeeping activities; Initiate research studies and reports including the collection, organization, analysis and development of administrative and management recommendations; Advise City officials and employees on Personnel and Risk Management related programs and services; Prepare and present comprehensive written and oral reports; Develop and improve training and safety programs; Assist with identifying and resolving various Labor Relations and Risk Management related problems in the City's work force; Establish and maintain cooperative work relationships with those contacted in the course of work; Supervise and train subordinate personnel. and Training and Experience: Any combination of training and experience which would provide the required knowledges and abilities is qualifying. A typical way to obtain these knowledges and abilities would be: Three years of professional experience in personnel and risk management activities, preferably including at least one year in a supervisory or administrative capacity. Education: Graduation from an accredited four year college or university with a Degree in Public Administration, business Administration, Industrial Relations, Finance or a closely related field. A SUPPLEMENTAL TO THE JULY 16, 1985 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AND HERMOSA BEACH MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES' BARGAINING UNIT Effective November 25, 1987, Exhibit A, the schematic list of class titles and base monthly salary schedule, of the Memorandum of Understanding, Management employees' Bargaining Unit, is amen- ded to include the class titles of PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR and PERSONNEL/RISK MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR with salary ranges as follows: A B C D Public Safety Director: 4570 4768 5006 5256 A B C D Personnel/Risk Management Director: 2957 3105 3260 3423 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused their duly au- thorized representatives to execute this Supplemental Memorandum of Understanding this day of , 1987. Gayle T. Martin Interim City Manager William Grove, President Hermosa Beach Management Employees' Association Law Offices of James P. Lough JAMES P. LOUGH November 12, 1987 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: JAMES P. LOUGH, City Attorney Linda LeVanway, Paralegal 30 NORTH RAYMOND AVENUE SUITE 708 PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91103 (213) 381-6131 (818) 792-4728 (818) 792-4776 RE: Repeal of Hermosa Beach City Code Section 2-8, Residency Requirement for City Manager RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council repeal the above - referenced City Code section as it has come to our attention that an ordinance of this type is prohibited by the California Constitution and the Government Code. ANALYSIS: Section 2-8 of the Hermosa Beach City Code reads: Residence in the city at the time of appoint- ment of a city manager shall not be required as a condition of the appointment, but within one hundred eighty (180) days thereafter the city manager must beome a resident of the city, or the city council shall declare the office of city manager to be vacant." Article XI, Section 10 of the California Constitution prohibits a city from requiring its employees be residents of such city, except that such employees may be required to reside within a reasonable distance of their place of employment. Further, Government Code section 50083 states: No local agency, or district, shall require that its employees be residents of such local agency or district. There have been several California Attorney General Opinions written on this subject from 1973 to present. In of all the opinions, the Attorney General has stated that a requirement that an employee reside within the city or district in which he/she is employed is prohibited. However, a residentiary requirement based on time, mileage, or some other criterion reasonably related to the needs and demands of a particular type of employment, so that emergency employees are readily available to perform their duties, would probably be upheld as not being within the scope of section 50083. (Atty Gen Ops 72-213) A perfect example of this type of requirement was upheld in Marabuto v. Town of Emeryville (1960) 183 Cal App 2d 406, 410, L13/repcm-. - -1- November 12, 1987 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: JAMES P. LOUGH, City Attorney Linda LeVanway, Paralegal RE: Repeal of Hermosa Beach City Code Section 2-8, Residency Requirement for City Manager where the court upheld a geographic residentiary requirement for policemen and firemen because of the need for them to respond quickly to recall orders when an emergency strikes the city. Still, a requirement that police or firepersons live within the city where they are employed would be unreasonable and prohibited. CONCLUSION: In light of the foregoing state law, we recommend that the City Council direct this office to prepare the neces- sary devices to repeal Section 2-8 for the Hermosa Beach City Code. espectfully tted .ti L13/repcm_ -2- ES P. LOUGH, City Att•rney TY OF HERMOSA BEACH November 18, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council November 24, 1987 ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR LEGAL SERVICES RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council appropriate $185,000 from the General Fund Reserve for Contingencies to the City Attorney Contract Services Account for estimated legal fees through June 30, 1988. (All legal fees are paid from this account, not just City Attorney) BACKGROUND The current appropriation for legal services ($131,650) was developed during the 87-88 budget process based on the City Attorney's existing contract and the level of litigation expected. From page 32 of the City Council Adopted Budget, the breakdown of the $131,650 is as follows: City Attorney Retainer @ $3,700 $44,400 City Attorney Additional Regular Services 12,000 Land Use/Other Litigation 50,000 General Litigation 25,000 $131,400 Funding for State Local Center 250 (Council Action of 6/23/78) $131,650 ANALYSIS Due to new and increased litigation, an additional appropriation is necessary. Expenditures by law firm as of November 24, 1987 are: (Services through October) Kane, Ballmer and Berkman Jim Lough, Retainer Jim Lough, Extraordinary Ochoa and Sillas, Los Angeles Ochoa and Sillas, Sacramento Miscellaneous (publications, code supplements) $79,550 19,106 24,844 5,741 1,128 3,281 $133,650 The additional appropriation of $185,000 is based on estimates from the law firms providing services currently. A summary of appropriations is presented below: City Attorney Retainer City Attorney Regular Services Other Litigation Miscellaneous Original $44,400 12,000 75,000 250 Additional Annual $40,000 $84,400 52,000 64,000 88,000 163,000 5,000 5,250 $131,650 $185,000 $316,650 To give Council a clear picture of our financial position as of October 31, 1987,. a summary of the General Fund Balance and Designations is presented below. These balances reflect actual balances for 6/30/87, the 87-88 adopted budget and any appropriations Council has made since 7/1/87. Legal fees have generally been paid from the General Fund in the past. The amounts shown as designations for certain purposes are designated by Council and are discretionary. Staff is recommending that the $185,000 be taken from the designation for Contingency and not from the other accounts. Unappropriated Fund Balance Designation for: Asset Replacement Capital Improvements Prospect Park Acquisition Debt Service Affordable Housing Contingency $22,492 120,000 109,885 200,000 65,005 46,831 366,492 Appropriation of the $185,000 from the Contingency account will mean that less than 370 is reserved. At the 86-87 Midyear Review Council instructed that a 3% reserve be included in the budget. The amount left in the Contingency after allowing for the $185,000 will be $181,492 or 2.25%. Since the purpose of the Contingency is to provide a "cushion" for unexpected occurrences, it is recommended that the appropriation be made from this account. Noted: Gayle T. Martin Interim City Manager Viki Copeland Finance Administrator November 17, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council November 24, 1987 APPROVAL OF THE EXCHANGE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended the City Council approve the attached agreement, Attachment A and resolution, Attachment B approving the exchange of the City's CDBG Funds to the City of West Hollywood and authorize mayor to sign said documents on behalf of the City. Further that City Council designate these funds -to offset the deficit in the CDBG Fund. BACKGROUND Attachment C reflects the background on the City's CDBG funds. This report was submitted to City Council and approved on October 13, 1987. ANALYSIS Staff contacted many cities regarding the exchange of these funds and was very fortunate to have the City of West Hollywood interested at the rate of $.70 on the dollar. The funds realized by the City of Hermosa Beach on the. sale of $253,128 at the rate of $.70 on the dollar is $177,190. Attachment C explains in detail the genesis of this exchange. Please note the deficit of $75,938 will be addressed at the mid -year budget review. The Community Development Commission of Los Angeles County has approved the exchange of funds per their letter dated November 12,` 1987. (Attachment D) Respectfully submitted, Alana M. Mastrian Assistant City Manager Gay1=/T. Martin VViki Copeland Finance Administrator Interim City Manager PROVED AS 0 :ORM s P. Loug y Attorney Attachment A AGREEMENT This Agreement is made by and between the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH (Hermosa), a municipal corporation, and the CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD (West Hollywood), a municipal corporation, with respect to the following facts: RECITALS A. On July 15, 1987, the West Hollywood City Council executed a one-year Memorandum of Understanding with the County of Los Angeles concerning Community Development Block Grant-(CDBG) Funds for Fiscal Year 1987-88. B. On October 19, 1987, the West Hollywood City Council authorized staff to negotiate an agreement with the City of Hermosa Beach concerning the exchange of West Hollywood general funds for Hermosa Beach CDBG supplemental funds for the Fiscal Year 1987-88. C. On February 2, 1982. the Hermosa Beach City Council executed a five-year cooperation agreement with the County of Los Angeles concerning CDBG funds for Fiscal Years 1979-80 through 1984-85. D. On November 24, 1987, the Hermosa Beach City Council designated the City of West Hollywood as the recipient of its CDBG supplemental funds for Fiscal Years 1979-80 through 1984-85 in exchange for general funds in an amount to be agreed upon by both parties. E. The Cities now desire to enter into an agreement under which = West Hollywood would exchange $177,190 of its general funds for Hermosa Beach entitlement of CDBG supplemental funds for Fiscal Years 1979-80 through 1984-85, not to exceed $253,128. NOW, THEREFORE, the Cities agreeas follows: 1. Exchange. West Hollywood hereby agrees to pay Hermosa Beach one hundred seventy-seven thousand one hundred and ninety dollars ($177,190) from its general funds. Hermosa Beach irrevoc- ably assigns to West Hollywood two hundred fifty-three thousand one hundred twenty-eight dollars ($253,128) of its entitlement of CDBG supplemental funds for Fiscal Years 1979-80 through 1984-85. 2. Best Efforts. Hermosa Beach shall use its best efforts to obtain any consent required of any governmental or administra- tive agency to effectuate the assignment of $253,128 of its CDBG supplemental funds to West Hollywood. Hermosa Beach agrees to execute any and all additional documents which such agencies may request in connection with the assignment and receipt of grant. DP172.MG -1- (111387A) t 3. Payment. West Hollywood shall pay Hermosa Beach one hundred seventy-seven thousand one hundred ninety dollars ($177,190) in cash from its general fund on or before December 31, 1987. 4. Indemnification. West Hollywood agrees to defend, at its own cost and to indemnify and hold harmless Hermosa Beach, its agents and employees from and against any and all loss, claims, costs, expenses (including attorney's fees), damages and liabilities, however caused, resulting directly or indirectly, to the obligation or expenditure by West Hollywood of the CDBG supplemental funds that Hermosa Beach is assigning to West. Hollywood under this agreement. 5. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted and the rights and liabilities of the Cities hereto determined in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 6. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Cities and supersedes any and all other agreements, either oral or written between the Cities. 7. Attorney's Fee. If any legal action or other proceeding is brought for the enforcement of this Agreement, the successful or prevailing City shall be entitled to recover reasonable attor- ney's fees and other costs incurred in that action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief to which it may be entitled. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Cities hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective officers, duly authorized, on the dates shown below. CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD 8611 Santa Monica Boaz West Ho MAYOR Date: Ar, 1987 ATTEST: DP172.MG CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 MAYOR Date: , 1987 CITY CLERK -2- (111387A) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Attachment B RESOLUTION 87— A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING THE EXCHANGE OF $253,128 IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK FUNDS FOR $177,190 IN GENERAL FUND MONIES FROM THE CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD. WHEREAS, The City of Hermosa Beach has a Community Development Block Fund Grant allocation of $253,128 uncommitted; and WHEREAS, the City of Hermosa Beach does not have an adequate low to moderate income target area project that would qualify for Community Development Block Grant Fund expenditures; and WHEREAS, the City of West Hollywood has agreed to exchange $177,190 in General Funds for $253,128 in Community Development Block Grant Funds from the City of Hermosa Beach which is equivalent to an exchange rate of $.70 on the dollar; and WHEREAS, the Los Angeles Community Development Commission has granted permission for the exchange of funds; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California: 1) The City Manager is authorized to execute an agreement with the City of West Hollywood for the exchange of Community Development Block Grant Funds in the exact amount of $253,128, for $177,190 in General Funds from the City of West Hollywood. 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 2) The City Manager of Hermosa Beach is authorized to execute and file any other document required by the Los Angeles Community Development Commissionand furnish any subh additional information as required. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of November, 1987. ETTA SIMPSON Mayor, City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO M: KATHLEEN MIDSTOKKE CITY CLERK M S P. LOUGH ITY ATTORNEY arc.,-opt4,0,4 �' Attachment C October 5, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council October 13, 1987 CDBG STATUS REPORT RECOMMENDATION_ It is recommended City Council exchange the City's remaining CDBG Funds with another city at a rate no less than $.60 on the dollar. BACKGROUND The City of Hermosa Beach has been in the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) since 1978. These federal funds are administered by the Los Angeles Community Development Commission (L.A. CDC) and this is the agency the City of Hermosa Beach has been dealing with since 1978. In 1985, the then City Council decided to no longer participate in this federal program. The present City Council reaffirmed that decision at the last City Council meeting of Sept. 22, 1987. ANALYSIS The City of Hermosa Beach has used CDBG funds for many projects in the City, one of which was the Community Center Rehab Project. All other CDBG projects have been (or shortly will be) successfully closed out. This one project continues to be a problem for the City as well as Los Angeles CDC. The Community Center Rehab Project was approved by L. A. CDC January, 1983. All contractors and the scope of work was approved at that time. As the project progressed, the City_ reallocated CDBG funds from other projects into the Community Center Rehab Project and'proceeded to process the paperwork with L.A. CDC. At the end of the rehab project, L. A. CDC decided the project was ineligible for funding. At that point L.A. CDC had already reimbursed the City of Hermosa Beach $306,880. By the end of the project, L.A. CDC owed and still owes the City $252,491. Staff has been pursuing this reimbursement for the last three years using administrative measures and finally any political intervention that was or is available. The final result to date is a letter from L.A. CDC stating that the $360,880 that was already reimbursed is an approved expenditure. Please note Attachment A, letter dated July 9, 1987, from L. A. CDC. However, what was not in the correspondence of July 9, 1987, and what was verbally conveyed to staff at a meeting with Community Development Commission representatives on August 14, 1987, is - 1 g that the remainder of funds that the City expended on the rehab project and for which we requested reimbursement ($253,128) will not be reimbursed. But, ironically, that same amount is available for the City to expend on any other project that meets CDBG guidelines. In staff's opinion it would be ludicrous for the City to expend money on another project as that would simply result in the City spending the money twice and being reimbursed only once. In an effort to finalize this project, staff is recommending the City exchange its remaining funds with another City. Please refer to Attachment B. Attachment B reflects the rates of exchange and indicates the approximate amount of funds the City would realize. In exchanging funds with another City, Hermosa Beach will receive funds that can be allocated per the wishes of the City Council with no restrictions. But in doing so, City Council must realize an exchange of funds will result in funding that is less than the $253,128. Again, please refer to Attachment B. Staff feels all other avenues have been exhausted except one, and that is litigation. If the City Council wishes to pursue that course of action, staff would suggest the matter be discussed at closed session. Attachment C gives an historical perspective on the project. Please note, and it is not on the attachment, but the project was completed in January, 1984 and the City received notification on April 25, 1984, that the eligibility of the entire project was being questioned by HUD. ncur: „t Gayle T. Martin Inte .m City Manager 2 Respectfully submitted, Alana M. Mastrian, Director Dept. of Community Resources I).c%ic1 N. I l i t t:.lrr Wavy 1)irrr Iw July 9, 1987 Community Development Commission County of Los Angeles ATTACHMENT A 1436 Cinodrk h ISuulc%ard•Conuncrcr•.Calilrnnia 90022.12131725-7421! Mr. Gregory T. Meyer, City Manager City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 902514 Dear Mr. Meyer: r' r� • `f? Commissioners Michael (). Antono%ict: Chairman Peter F. Schabarum Kenneth Hahn Edmund 1). Edelman Deane Dana l�. Enclosed is a letter from HUD announcing their decisionregar,ling the expenditure of $360;889 by your City on tile Hermosa Beach Community Center (Project #82C.262). We are`erhappy that this matter has been brought to a closure, but please refer to the content of the letter as to the rationale for approving the expenditures. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call me at 725-7339. Iri addition, we *will be glad to work with your staff in identifying eligible *activities which your City could implement with your remaining balance of CDBG funda.- Sincerely, CA'RLOS JACN, Director Community evelopment Block Grant Division CJ:sm Enclosure • JL JUL 7 1987 •1. r (74: '87 JUL —8 110 :55 David N. Lund Executive Director Community Development Commission 1436 Goodrich Boulevard Commerce, CA 90022 Dear Mr. Lund: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Los Angeles Office, Region IX 1615 West Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, Calilornia 90015-3801 SUBJECT: Hermosa Beach Community Center Program No. B -85 -MC -06-0505 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) • )14 My staff has thoroughly reviewed the information submitted to justify CDBG expenditures for the renovation of the,:kiermosa Beach Community Center. As you may recall, the eligibility of the activity • was questioned when it was apparent that the CDBG dollars were pri- marily used for the renovation of the auditorium, lobby and adjoining restrooms and the City was unable to prove low and moderate income benefit. My staff recommended that compliance with CDBG national objectives might be established through determination of a blighted structure or "spot blight" (24 CFR 570.901)(b)(2)(ii), CDBG regulations). The material reviewed was the second information package submitted to HUD to justify compliance with this program benefit objec- tive. Although the material submitted dc2s not include a work write-up or cost estimate which can relate required work items with code violations, my staff has attempted to synthesize the -observations of the architect and building department, Table 1: Deficiencies and Code Requirements", the table of "Community Center Construction Expenditures" and the copies of the,Baxter-David contract and change orders. Using some estimating techniques, HUD staff has generously concluded that the $360,889 CDBG funds already expended could have been used to correct basic code deficiencics which would support a designation of spot blight for the Community Center. I must say that our estimation is without the benefit of the City's work write-up or drawings which were not submitted. Our estimate has taken into consideration only what might have been expended to correct City code C.♦ 2 items and has eliminated any items which would be consideredrdesign features of the work completed. Since our estimate is actually less than the $360,889 already expended, I feel our acceptance of costs ls a generous allowance. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Karen Potts, Community Planning and Development Representative, at (213) 251-7248. Sincerely, erbert Rob Director, Community Planning and Development Division, 9.4C r ern .P ATTACHMENT B RATES OF EXCHANGE At a rate of exchange at $.60 on the dollar, the City would receive $151,876 or $101,251 less than the full amount. At a rate of exchange at $.65 on the dollar, the City would receive $164,533 or $88,594 less than the full amount. At a rate of exchange at $.75 on the dollar, the City would receive $189,846 or $63,282 less than the full amount. At a rate of exchange at $.80 on the dollar, the City would receive $202,502 or $50,625 less than the full amount. 1 MUNICIPAL SERVICE:,, INC. January 22, 1986 Ms. Alana Mastrian City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 • ATTACHMENT C Subject: Synopsis of Community Center Events Dear Alana: Based on a review of the records I have been able to find, enclosed.=;s a synopsis of' events pertaining to the acquisition and rehabilitation of the Community Center. I have also enclosed copies of some of the more critical documents related to this issue. It is important to note that the City has completed three separate income surveys of Community Center users and that almost two years have transpired since the issue was first raised by HUD. The City has now been asked to pursue an alternative method of qualifying the project -- alleviation of slum and blight. The situation obviously needs to be resolved as quickly as possible. As it now stands, the City has been reimbursed for $360,889 of the project costs with $252,191 being withheld by the CDC pending resolution of the project's eligibility. The City has a standing request, for reimbursement. The CDC has not processed the final MOU Amendment (#3) which would permit reimbursement for the final costs. I hope this information assists you in your efforts. Please call me fiI can provide further assistance. Sincerely, MUNICIPAL SERVICES, INC. Robb Steel CDBG Consultant RS:jg Enc. d: HB II Diamond Bar Eaecuthe Park r • 712 N. Diamond Bar Boulevard • Diamond Bar, California 91765 • (818) 912-5321 (714) 594-2943 DATE ACQUISITION May 15, 1976 May 5, 1977 May 12, 1977 June 22, 1977 August 16, 1977 October 11, 1977 SYNOPSIS OF EVENTS COMMUNITY CENTER'PROJECT ACTION City submitted project to acquire Pier Avenue School to County of Los Angeles Department of Community Development. CDBG Funding was initially $70,578. HUD questions the eligibility of the Pier Avenue School Acquisition Project, stating that only 38 -percent of the residents of Census Tract 6211 (the project site) are lower income. City responds with letter from ^od Merl to Sesto Chi'i 'e110 of the County that census tracts outside the city should be included in the service area and that these tracts are predomipantly lower income. Letter from County of Los Angeles indicates that the project has been granted conditional approval. The City has 60 days to qualify the activity under the CDBG Regulations or reprogram the funds. City responds by indicating that the nature of services provided by the Center will insure benefit to low and moderate income persons. The City states that it will assure that the tenant mix benefits 50% or more low and moderate income persons by controlling the final mix of users. Memorandum from Rod Merl to Earl Diller states that the Third Year CDBG Contract requires that the City "select a final mix of users for the facility that will insure that at least 509C, ---of the users shall be persons of low and moderate income." November 4, 1977 Second Amendment to Contract increases funding to $275,101. The City subsequently acquired the site using CDBG and other funds. REHABILITATION FY 1981-32 City submits Community Center Rehabilitation Project 310.262 for approval. CDBG Funding is $169,088. December, 1982 City submits new Project 82C.262 which combines $169,088 previously allocated to 810.262 with $152,155 additional CDBG funding. Project purpose is to restore th..Community Center. Project was approved by CDC on January 19, 1983. DATE ACTION May 23, 1983 May -June, 1983 August 11, 1983 *Fall, 1983 *Fall, 1983 January 13, 1984 April 10, 1984 v County CDC approves Amendment #1 adding•$5,2,000 CDBG Funding to the Project. Project CDBG Funding now tot.is $373,243. City conducts its first user survey and finds that an estimated 51.5 percent of the beneficiaries are low and moderate income. County CDC approves Amendment #2 extending the time of performance to June 30, 1984. City submits a letter to County Supervisor Deane Dana•hequesting his support in securing a waiver of CDBG Regulations ;hick do not permit installation of a fire hydrant to support the' Community Center Rehabilitation Project. Supervisor Deane Dana submits a waiver request to HUD on behalf of the City. Ignacio Galindo of IIUD responds that the fire hydrant project cannot be approved based on compliance with CDBG Program Regulations and that his office had not been granted authority to approve a waiver. The waiver request would be forwarded to the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development. Further, 1 -IUD questions the eligibility of the Community Center Rehabilitation Project, stating that it does not appear to qualify under the CDBG Program Regulations. City submits Amendment #3 to Project 82C.2G2 adding $240,137 for a total project budget of $613,380. CDC denies approval of Amendment pending resolution of eligibility concerns and low- and moderate -income benefit test. CDC also refuses to process further reimbursement requests for this project. CDC withholds $252,491. April 25, 1984 City receives letter from Barbara Bell King of the CDC which accompanies a letter dated April 17, 1984, from IIUD to Deane Dana. In short, the letters confirm that the waiver cannot be approved and that the eligibility of the Community Center Rehabilitaiton Project itself is in question. The City is instructed to provide evidence that the project meets one of the:•statutory objectives of the CDBG Program, principally benefit to low- and moderate -income persons. June, 1984 The City meets with the tenants of the Community Center to establish the low and moderate income character of their clientele. * I did not have a copy of the letters in the file although I have seen them. DATE ACJION July 12, 1984 August 29, 1984 December 6, 1934 City submits documentation that the benefit to low and moderate income persons was an estimated 7396 basedy:•n the interviews with the Center's tenants. CDC submits letter of justification to Herb. Roberts of HUD. The letter contends that the City's efforts to promote the Community Center as a service center for the disadvantaged fulfills the intent of the CDBG Program. Herb Roberts of HUD -LA -responds that HUD cannot accept the City's documentation of low and moderate income . >enefit. HUD suggests that the City conduct an income survey which will result in more specific, quantifiable documentation of benefit to low- and moderate -income persons. February -March 1985 City conducts a one month survey of all Glxrrimunity Center users. The results show a benefit to low- and moderate -income persons of 51.5 percent. May 7, 1985 City submits letter to the CDC documenting the survey results. The City also committed to adopt affirmative policies to ensure benefit to low- and moderate -income persons. May 29, 1985 CDC submits City's letter of May 7, 1985, to HUD requesting that the City's efforts to qualify the Community Center Project be approved based on benefit to low- and moderate -income persons. November , 1985 HUD responds that the documentation of low/moderate benefit still cannot be accepted and suggests that the City try and qualify the activity under the slum and blight national,,,objective, rather than benefit to low- and moderate -income persons. d: HB II David N. Lurid Executive Director Attachment D Community Development Commission County of Los Angeles 1436 Goodrich Boulevard •Commerce, California 90022.12 13) 725-7422 November 12, 1987 Ms. Alana M. Mastrian Assistant City Manager City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 Dear Ms. Mastrian: Commissioners Michael D. Antonovich Chairman Peter F. Schabarum Kenneth Hahn Edmund D. Edelman Deane Dana This is in response to your letter dated November 3, 1987, in which you requested authorization to exchange the City of Hermosa Beach's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for general funds with the City of West Hollywood. We do not foresee any problem in approving the exchange of funds between the two cities. However, an agreement outlining the terms and conditions, such as the total amount to be exchanged, exchange rate, and method of payment, would need to be prepared and submitted to CDC for review prior to execution by both parties. Each city must also submit to the CDC evidence of City Council approval of the agreement. Since the City of West Hollywood is a current participating city in the Urban County program, and your City has unexpended CDBG funds as a result of previous years' funding, both blanket contracts must be amended by the Board of Supervisors to reflect the appropriate changes. Your Program Manager, Ms. Lorraine Allen, is available to assist you with the preparation of the agreement, and to answer any questions you may have. She may be reached at (213) 725-7397• Sijicere1y, aive4r) CARLOS JAC1k,S'ON, Director Community Development Block Grant Division LA:am/11 Law Offices of James P. Lough JAMES P. LOUGH TO: 30 NORTH RAYMOND AVENUE SUITE 708 PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91103 (213) 381-6131 (818) 792-4728 (818) 792-4776 November 18, 1987 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 24, 1987 Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney Linda LeVanway, Paralegal RE: TRUCKS ON 8TH STREET Introduction This office has been asked to address the problem of commercial vehicle traffic on Eighth Street. By adopting Ordinance No. 86-4999, the City left commerical vehicles no direct truck route to the industrial area of Hermosa Beach. By using 8th Street, the trucks are abiding by Hermosa Beach Municipal Code section 19-111, traveling the most direct route. Ticketing commercial vehicles would only complicate this issue, and may even cause legal problems for the City. A possible solution is to create a new truck route amicable to all parties. Analysis Vehicle Code section 35701, grants authority to cities and counties to prohibit certain uses of streets. It reads: (a) Any city, or county for a residence district, may, by ordinance, prohibit the uses of a street by any commerical vehicle or by any vehicle exceeding a maximun gross weight limit, except with repect to any vehicle which is subject to Sections 1031 to 1036, inclusive, of the Public Utilities Code (busses). (b) The ordinance shall not be effective until appropriate signs are errected indicating either the streets affected by the ordinance or the streets not affected, as the local authority determines will best serve to give notice of the ordinance. (c) No ordinance adopted pursuant to the section after November 10, 1969, shall apply to any state highway which is included in the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, except an ordinance which has been approved by a two-thirds vote -of the California Transportation Commission. Case -authority on this subject has affirmed a local entities authority toenforce commercial traffic for public welfare reasons. However, it has been continuously upheld that a local entity has gone too far when no aternative route is provided. The leading and most recent case addressing this subject is San Leandro Rock Company v. City of San Leandro (1982) 136 Cal App 3d 25. In that case, the Court of Appeals held that a city ordinance requiring gravel trucks to take an alternate route that was potentially dangerous was unreasonable and maybe considered a regulatory taking because substantial evidence was shown that enforcement of the ordinance would force the company to close. The San Leandro case outlined the applicable precedents on this subject; McCammon v. City of Redwood City (1957) 149 Cal App 2d 421, Neary v. Town of Los Altos Hills (1959) 172 Cal App 2d 721, and Skyline Materials, Inc. v. City of Belmont (1961) 198 Cal App 2d 449. In the McCammon case, the court upheld a city ordinance requiring quarry trucks to use an alternate route on county and state roads, even though the alternate route was 6.25 miles longer including a grade that added a cost factor in trucking operations. The court held that nearly all regulatory provisions add burdens or inconveniences, but when not so unreasonable as to be unnecessarily burdensome, all citizens must yield for the general or common good. An added expense to the business effected by such an ordinance is not unreasonable. The court then stated, "appellants' trucks are not prevented from delivering to any point inside or ouside of Redwood City. It is simply that the hauling distance....is thereby increased and results in increased expense." In the Neary case, a city adopted an ordinance barring all of its streets to all vehicles having a gross weight in excess of 12 tons, virtually prohibiting the ingress or egress of trucks belonging to a quarry within the city. Most pertinent here, the court found the ordinance invalid because it was confiscatory, and for that reason to constitute an unreasonable exercise of the police power, because it failed to provide an alternate route by which material could be removed from the quarry. The Skyline case addressed an ordinance that closed a centrally located city road called Ralston Avenue to trucks over eight gross tons claiming it was "unsafe", thus requiring plaintiff's trucks to use a route which was five miles longer and according to plaintiff more hazardous than Ralston because it was steep and had a narrow bridge. The court found the ordinance valid because it was within the legislative power to adopt reasonable ordinances for the public welfare, and that it was hot substantially shown that requiring the company to use the alternate route was unreasonable or arbitrary. Bymexamining the preceeding cases, two holdings become apparent. First, for an ordinance to be valid an alternate route has to be established. This alternate route does not have to be even in the city, but it-does:have to be reasonable and safe. (McCammon v. Redwood City,.supra.) Second, an otherwise valid ordinance may be invalid as -applied to a particular business if it deprives then of "substantially all use of his land," so as to constitute."excessive regulation in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United Ststaes Constitution and arti le I, section 19 of the California Constitution." (Agins v. City of Tiburon (1980) 447 US 255) The McCammon-Neary-Skyline trilogy suggests that a weight limitation ordinance which nas t e effect of putting a rock quarry out of business by blocking use of the only available route for delivery of its product is similarly invalid. (San Leandro Rock Co. v. City of San Leandro (1982) 136 Cal App 3d at 35) Recommendation The commercial traffic that travels on 8th Street does so legally pursuant to the Hermosa Beach Muncipal Code because 8th Street is the most direct route to their destination and there is no other alternative. The City would be adding fuel to the fire if it began ticketing these trucks. Further, it is possible that litigation could occur over the issue of a regulatory taking. Therefore, this office recommends that staff research an appropriate alternative to usage of 8th Street and the City Council adopt an acceptable truck route for everyone concerned. ( \Respectfuly submitted, JAS P. LOUGH, City Attorney ///C OF HERMOSA BEACH NOTED: 6-7 ` , I fes, t, -<1 r_ — GAYLEJMARTIN, City Manager L15/TKS November 3, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council November 10, 1987 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF PROHIBITION AGAINST TRUCKS ON 8TH STREET BETWEEN PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND ARDMORE AVENUE. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Direct the Police Department to initiate a neighborhood meeting in the impacted area in an effort to discuss the problem with concerned citizens. 2. Receive and file this report. BACKGROUND: Staff was directed to prepare a report and make recommendations regarding truck traffic on 8th Street between Pacific Coast Highway and Ardmore Avenue. ANALYSIS: Periodically this issue generates complaints from residents in Hermosa Beach. On December 16, 1986 the Hermosa Beach City Council enacted resolution No. 86-4999 modifying and establishing our current truck route system which consists of (1) Artesia Blvd., (2) Pacific Coast Highway, (3) Aviation Blvd., (4) Pier Ave. Trucks may only travel these routes with the exceptions delineated in Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 19-111 (Certain Trucks to Use Only Truck Routes; Exceptions). Basically these exceptions are as follows: (1) The operator of a vehicle exceeding a maximum gross weight of three tons shall not be prohibited from coming from a "truck route" having ingress and egress by direct route to and from restricted streets when necessary for the purpose of making pickups or deliveries of goods, wares and merchandise from or to any building or structure located on such restricted streets or for the purpose of delivering materials to be used in the actual and bona fide repair, alteration, remodeling or construction of any building or structure upon such restricted streets for which a building permit has previously been obtained therefore. (2) Passenger buses under jurisdiction of the Public Util- ities Commission. (1) (3) Any Vehicle owned by a Public Utility while necessarily in use in the construction, installation or repair of any public utility. (4) Any vehicle owned or operated by the city or its agents in the performance of a service or repair or for other purposes requiring the use of the streets. As indicated there are a number of exceptions to truck travel on the truck route system only. As 8th St. is one of two Hermosa streets that cross the railroad right-of-way south of Pier Ave. it becomes by necessity a direct and closest route from P.C.H. to the south west quadrant commercial corridor located on Valley Dr., Cypress Ave. and 6th Street. Trucks servicing this area are not in violation when utilizing 8th St. for ingress and egress to this area. Although 8th St. at Ardmore for eastbound traffic is posted "NO TRUCKS", this posting is somewhat deceiving as the exceptions in H.B.M.C. 19-111 apply and that by direct and closest route can only utilize 8th Street. CONCUR: A Plrms- Steve Wisniewski Public Safety Director !,4:7 h� Gayle T. Martin Interim City Manager (2) Res•ectfully submitted, L ohn J. M biu's1, Captain Operations Division Hermosa Beach Police Department Div. 15 r. r-651 -- nA Decreases by Cities ::1:7:7,17°-:1-').4Z,17?'t'Vstriagx3"..i4iArt•ss{:.v ,1., rotfrr_:ey. 35701. • (a)- -Any city; orcoantyfora residence distrroe may;hy ordinance; prohibit the use of a 'street by -any commercial -vehicle or -by any vehicle exceeding a maximumgross weight limit, except -with respect to -any -Vehicle • -which is subject to Sections 1031 to 1036, inclusive, of the Public Utilities . Code. = .;-:v.._L,.::.:;71,:cvii:+:'tA;};efJ. /:.•''_i?1'L'.:4,)ii a0 ',Jima In)it' `h* D? (b) The • ordinance shall not:- be effective'•until'a prop=tate=signs •ate - erected indicating either the streets affected by the ordinance or the streets ' •. ••- not affected; as the local 'authority determines will -best serve le give'notice of the ordinance'- = :k-:'� 'ittp t -e -•3a. ac u 4af4�mti• ai_ f--rari iso . -'- (c)°'No ordinance adopted- ursuantothis&iafterNoveniber-1U - 1969, shall 'apply 'to:any state waywhich isincluded=in :the -National ' ' Systemof Interstate and Defenseghways, exceppt an ordinanceiwhich has-- been approved by a"two-thirds-yote :of the 'CaliforniaiTranspo Commission.:-_ •.._,- _^::r Transportation .. ,<` � a�s<,1F.�:rr�+�r-v'�-vavTi133tfi�a;]?`..i::�i_oi:R��:'i7#niY=e.•r ��,:-.: Amended Ch. 1365, Stats. 1969. Effective November 10, 1969. ` 't -r r `�' fgi:i.:-;..;-.-• - .: . Amended Ch. 622, Stats 1980 Effective anuary1, 1981:•'�' '`-j; ,'',;,..:-!1*'•t f,' bt'st;na ''''' Amended Ch. 681, Stats..1982. Effective January 1,1983.•: ,•tiy ►1., ,,i.re rt^,c.t'` _ ; • . Amended Ch. 1378, Stats 1986. Effective January 1,1987„ .:. .iSi - -eili T 9 .f7t;Ti.r63't°1 • - the 1986 amendment added the italicized _ material:-• . • Approval of Ordinance ; :r..,,-L.ri. �.;.:.,ti i:rt;: 13 y. :�; {:ti:,,, . i• f icr:, .ii__...viiA�•. iii):'}:. �;a�.: L....•-.yt:'.'-- i .: 35702. No ordinance proposed -under Section. 35701 iso effective- with N respect to any highway which is not under the exclusive jurisdiction of the local authority enacting the ordinance, or, in the case of any state highway', • until the ordinance has been submitted by the governing body'of the local"• authority to, and approved in writing by, the Department of Transportation: I, In submitting a proposed ordinance to the -department -for -approval; -the governing body of the local authority shall designate therein; an al.ornate route for the use of vehicles, which route shall remain unrestricted by any rf local 'regulation as to- weight limits or types of vehicles: so ' long -as ;the • ordinance proposed shall remain in effect. The approval of: the' proposed f ordinance by the Department of Transportations shall constitute an approval by it of the alternate route so designated. No such ordinance which applies : . t to any state highway included in • the- national • system -of _interstate .and • defense highways, shall subsequen�t�lyy be disapproved until such disapproval.- , has been concurred in by,a four-fifths rote of the California Transportation .. .: Commission:• • '' ' fc i b• • a. a ;ici:a�.irira=.J or:.? aniatrl�, Amended Ch. 1365, Stat .'1969. Effective November 10, 1969'-fr J; iii..; ' ill' ::..: ,; 5•'7 .. -'Amended Ch. 545, Stats. 1974. Effective January 1; 1973 ` Amended Ch. 622, Stats 1980. Effective January1, 1981'.---';' T'.= F; r`r� •r*-=-' :.I(Y.J*,::: J Commercvo/ Vehicles • • - .rlOJ,:;ur, 1I L= :rla: _i.r;'• . • ` •'-.,i-•:na,oaR'»:,.:,i.:•1 "!at.1 •::: •:_:rY' ..i.:1-1.•:,-,1,..:1.1` .: 35703. No ordinance adopted pursuant to Section 35701 shall prohibit any I commercial vehicles coming from an unrestricted street havingingress egress by direct route to and from a restricted street when necessary' an for the purpose of making pickups or deliveries of goods; wares, and merchandise from or to any building or structure located on the restricted -street or for the purpose of delivering materials to be used in the actual and bona fide ( repair,' alteration, remodeling, or construction of any building or structure tupon the restricted street for which a building permit has previously been i obtained. • _ ., ; .,: ,., .-, •,;• .., • .: . '; i:.. • . ••Public Utility Construction or Repair Vehicle- b -:=,•, •'.. :•5.• -•- cc i 35704. _ No ordinance • adopted by • a'cityto decrease weight )units_ shall r apply to any vehicle owned by a public utility or a licensed -contractor while necessarily in use in the construction; installation, or repair of any public i utility......,..... .. ..1. -:-;./ti.:, ..,‘:!:•,:,-.•••• a:y' • .. ' - 1 '-Amended Ch. 307, Stats 1959.- Effective September 18, 1959.i:'�:\f-'„-tt`-'i {2srr-'-.'''' November 16, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council November 24, 1987 AUTHORIZATION TO REBID ON PIER GROUNDING REPAIRS, CIP 85-203 Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council authorize staff to re -advertise for bids for the Pier Grounding Repairs (CIP 85-203) and issue addenda as necessary. Background: On June 23, 1987, City Council approved the FY 87-88 Capital Improvements Budget for repairs on the Hermosa Beach Municipal Pier; including the grounding system and lights. On March 28, 1987, staff contracted with Ronald Nisbett Associates (RNA) to report on the condition of the grounding system. This report (which, including photographs is on file in the Public Works Department) indicates that the original grounding system is virtually missing, and is in need of replacement. RNA then developed design drawings and installation procedures which have been incorporated into the Plans and Specifications for CIP 85-203, and are on file in the Office of the City Clerk. On October 13, 1987, City Council authorized staff to advertise for bids for repair of the Pier grounding system, and to issue addenda as necessary. Analysis: A Notice Inviting Bids was published in local newspapers and trade journals, and Plans and Specifications were sent to six contractors. There were no bids received on the bid due date, November 6, 1987. The remainder of this analysis is divided into the following sections: The Non -Responsiveness of Bidders Revised Specifications Fiscal Impact Summary & Conclusions Other Alternatives I. The Non -responsiveness of Bidders Although there were no official bidders on this project, one bid was received 11 minutes late, and was returned unopened. Staff contacted the remaining 5 planholders to determine why they 1 ly didn't bid. Two contractors were not interested in taking on another project at this time. The other 3 contractors indicated the following concerns which may have prevented them from submitting a bid: a. Unknown variables. A Time and Materials contract, rather than the specified Lump Sum contract might be more appropriate in this case, due to the unknown variables involved, including soil conditions, rough seas, etc. b. Availability of materials. Although local supplier's and/or manufacturer's names legally cannot be included in the Specifications, materials availability and suppliers could be discussed at a pre-bid conference. c. Specialized nature of the work. The planholders for this project were professional diving contractors, most of which were unfamiliar with the City's competitive bidding requirements. II. Revised Specifications After discussing the non -responsiveness of the bidders with all planholders and the designer (RNA), staff revised the specifications to reflect the following: 1. Agreement to be based on a Time and Materials, Cost Not to Exceed fee, rather than a Lump Sum fixed fee. 2. Agreement to specify 30 working days, rather than 30 calendar days, so that contractor is not penalized for unforeseen weather conditions. (Days with bad weather or rough seas are not considered "working days"). 3. All bidders will be required to attend a pre-bid conference to familiarize themselves with the project, the City's bidding requirements, and the availability of the materials. III. Fiscal Impact There is no fiscal impact at this time. IV. Summary Staff recommends authorization to re -bid the project, with the revised specifications. This may result in the following: 1. Receipt of bids, due to planholder's enhanced understanding of: a. City's bidding requirements, b. availability of materials, and c. scope of work required. 2. Payment of services based on a.Time and Materials fee with a cost not to exceed for 100% completion (rather than a lump 2 sum fee), may result in a lower cost to the City. With a Lump Sum contract, the contractors told us they inflate their bid to protect against a "worst-case" situation. A Time and Materials contract would compensate the contractor for only work performed up to the cost not to exceed. V. Other Alternatives c. Other alternatives considered by staff and available to Council are: 1. Re -bid the project using the original plans and specifications. 1. Drop the project. 2. Modify the scope of work. Re/s'pectfully submitted, 7 Deborah M. Murphy Assistant Engineer C cur: fi Gayle ) . Martin Interim City Manager fi DMM:mv pgr/m Concur: Attachment: Exhibit A - Project Schedule 114 AAn 'ony Antich Director of Public Works CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE PROJECT NAME : Pier Grounding Repairs ACCOUNT NUMBER : CIP 85-203 LEGEND TENTATIVE SCHEDULE : ® o m m a ACTUAL SCHEDULE X : 100% COMPLETE 1 .i, ,� S JAN FEB MAR 1 APR 1 MAY JUN JUL 1 AUG I SEP I-LOCT -I -NOV-I DEC I 4TASK i iir ..0 Final design approval before advertising I•"II 1 !' W for construction I_I I I 1 1 1 Prepare advertisement & set bid opening I I date 1 1 1_ 1 1 14111 I Advertising period i__,�� (issue addendums as necessary) I 1 1 1,_ __I Accept sealed bids & public bid opening 1988. 988. 1 1 I------� I Review bids Jw _I I I I 1 Award contract I ----� ierr-- I Sign contract (bonds,insurance & workers comp. cert.) ■ 1 1 Preconstruction meeting procedure Issue "Notice to Proceed" Construction Period Monitor progress & maintain records Progress payment and change order procedure Acceptance of work as complete Issusing and recording a "Notice of Completion" Retention Payment Project closeout a 1 -rte" 1 1 1 1------1 I I I I 1 1------1 1 ■iii NINNIES 1 1 1 1 I I I I I__ier 1 1 1 1 1 I lir I 1 I 1 1 11- ---I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 `m I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 , 7 H 4. • November 17, 1987 City Council Meeting November 24, 1987 Mayor and Members of the City Council ORDINANCE NO. 87-908 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS. Submitted for waiver of further reading and adoption is Ordinance No. 87-908 relating to the above subject. At the regular meeting of November 10, 1987, this ordinance was introduced by the following vote: AYES: Cioffi, DeBellis, Rosenberger, Williams, Mayor Simpson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Ka hleen Midstokke, City Clerk Concur: 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- 908 N ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, STABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this atter on November 10, 1987 to receive oral and written testimony n this matter and made the following Findings: The State law requires that all cities have provisions for vesting tentative maps; The proposed ordinance is in compliance with State requirements; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCE REGULATING VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS: ECTION 1. Add the following section to Chapter 29.5, Article II, Subdivision.: Title: "Section 29.5-16 Vesting Tentative Map. A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this ordinance to establish procedures necessary for the implementation of the Vesting Tentative Map Statute, and to supplement the provisions of the of the Subdivision Map Act and the Subdivision Ordinance. Except as otherwise set forth in the provisions of this ordinance, the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance and State Subdivision Map Act shall apply to the Vesting Tentative Map Ordinance. B. Consistency. No land shall be subdivided and developed pursuant to a vesting tentative map for any purpose which is inconsistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan or not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance or other applicable provision of the municipal Code. C. Filing and Processing. A vesting tentative map shall be filed in the same form and have the same contents, accompanying data and reports, and shall be processed in the same manner as set forth in the Hermosa Beach Subdivision Ordinance for a tentative map except as hereinafter provided. 1. At the time a vesting tentative map is filed, it shall have printed conspicuously on its face, the words "Vesting Tentative Map'. 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 2. At the time a vesting tentative map is filed, a subdivider shall submit a complete application as set forth by Planning Commission resolution. D. Fees. Upon filing a vesting tentative map, the subdivider shall pay the fees required by the method of determining fees for the filing and processing of a tentative map. E. Expiration. The approval or conditional approval of a vesting tentative map shall expire at the end of the same time period and shall be subject to the same extension established by the Subdivision Ordinance for the expiration of the approval or conditional approval of a tentative map. F. Vesting on Approval of Vesting Tentative Map. 1. The approval or conditional approval of a vesting tentative map shall confer a vested right to proceed with development in substantial compliance with the ordinances, policies, and standards described in the State Subdivision Map Act. 2. Notwithstanding subdivisin, a permit, approval, extension, or entitlement may be made conditional or denied if any of the following are determined: a. A failure to do so would place the residents of the subdivision or the immediate community, or both, in a condition dangerous to their health or safety, or both. b. The condition or denial is required in order to comply with State or federal law. 3. The rights referred to herein shall expire if a final map is not approved prior to the expiration of the vesting tentative map as provided in Subsection E. If the fianl map is approved, these rights shall last for the following periods of time. a. An initial time period of one (1) year. Where several final maps are recorded on various phases of a project covered by single vesting tentative map, this initial time period shall begin for each phase when the final map for that phase is recorded. b. Theinitial time period set forth in 3a. shall be automatically extended by any time used for processing a complete application for a grading permit or for design or architectural review, if such processing 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 exceeds 20 days, from the date a complete application is filed. c. A subdivider may apply for a one (1) year extension at any time before the initial time period set forth in 3a. expires. If the extension is denied, the subdivider may appeal that denial to the legislative body within 15 days. d. If the subdivider submits a complete application for a Building Permit during the period of time specified in subdivisions (a) -(c), the rights referred to herein shall continue until the expiration of that permit, or any extension of that permit." BSECTION 2. Add to Chapter 29.5, Article I, Section 29.5-01, 9 Definitions.: 10 3. "Vesting Tentative Map. 11 A map for a residential subdivision, as defined in the Hermosa Beach Subdivision ordinance, that 12 shall have printed conspicuously on its face the word "Vesting Tentative Map: at the time it is 13 filed in accordance with Section 29.5-16.6, and is thereafter processed in accordance with the 14 provisions hereof." l ECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of 16 its final passage and adoption. 17SECTION 4. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause 18 this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and 19 circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law. 20SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and 21 adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and 22 shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City 23 Council at which the same is passed and adopted. 24 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of November, 1987. 25 26 PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California: 2 ATTEST: 28 CITY CLERK - 3 - .. p 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 PROVED AS TO'1FORM: A,„„c„ CITY ATTORNEY 4 November 17, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of November 24, 1987 REPORT REGARDING REQUEST FROM LOS ANGELES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Receive and file this report. 2. Adopt the attached resolution as requested by the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission and send a certified copy to the LACTC. ANALYSIS: The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission desires to establish a Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE). The program will be aimed at improving response times to motorists in need of assistance on the freeway system; keeping all emergency call boxes in good working order on the freeway system; and installing an additional 1,376 new call boxes along the freeways. On January 1, 1986, SB 1199 became effective, enabling counties and their cities to address these areas by forming a Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE). If a county and its cities choose to form a SAFE, the Department of Motor Vehicles collects an additional one dollar per year on all vehicles registered in the county. these funds go to the SAFE, to be used for call box system improvements. If a Los Angeles County SAFE is formed, they plan to eli- minate the current problems, and upgrade the entire system. This would make Los Angeles County's highways safer. 'The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission has requested that each city adopt a resolution supporting a Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE). ayl )T. Martin, Interim City Manager Attachment Steve S. Wisniewski Director of Public Safety 2b 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 87- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DECLARING SUPPORT FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES. WHEREAS. Chapter 14 of Division 3 of the Streets and High- ways Code provides for the establishment of a Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) if the Board of Supervisors of the county and a majority of the cities within the county having a majority of the population adopt resolutions providing for the establishment of the authority, and WHEREAS, the Hermosa Beach City Council finds that the motorist aid system for call boxes benefits all motorists; and WHEREAS, the Hermosa Beach City Council finds this system needs a number of improvements, such as installation of addi- tional phones, improved response time, better maintenance, and implementation of recent technological advances; and WHEREAS, the Hermosa Beach City Council finds that these improvements are needed to ensure the safety of all motorists; and WHEREAS, SAFE will have responsibility for the motorist aid system in the Los Angeles County region; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED, that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, hereby supports the estab- lishment of a Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies in Los Angeles County pursuant to Section 2550 of the Streets and High- ways Code, with authority to expend funds for any use as allowed by law. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Hermosa Beach, supports designation of the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission as the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies in 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 County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of 1987. ATTEST: APPROVE PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California , CITY CLERK D AS TO FORM: , CITY ATTORNEY t 4, LACTC November 6, 1987 Dear City Manager: Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies Los Angeles County Transportation Commission 403 West Eighth Street Suite 500 Los Angeles California 90014-3096 (213) 626-0370 The enclosed packet was recently sent to the Mayor of your city. The packet describes the need for improving the county's call box system, and recommends that your city adopt a resolution approving a Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE), which could provide the necessary improvements. I would appreciate your including this item on your Council's agenda. When this item comes to the Council, please give each Councilmember copies of the enclosed explanatory material. Once the resolution is approved, please send a certified copy to me at the LACTC offices. If you have any questions, please contact me, or Peter De Haan of my staff, at (213) 626-0370. Our staff would be happy to make a presentation to your city, if it is necessary. Thank you very much for assisting our efforts to provide a safe and efficient call box system. Sincerely, GINGER GHERARDI, Manager Highway/TSM Programs GG:PDH:me SAFE3 November 9, 1987 Dear Mayor: LACC SAFE = Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies What does SAFE mean to your city? Right now, probably not much. But... have you ever had a stalled car on the freeway and simply walked over to a nearby call box to get help? Have you ever used a call box to notify the CHP of an emergency on the freeway? If so, SAFE is important to you and your city. But to form a SAFE, we need to obtain approval from a majority of cities having a majority of the county's population. We therefore ask that you provide each member of your City Council with a copy of the enclosed explanatory material, and introduce the enclosed resolution to your City Council for approval. Do we really need a SAFE? In Los Angeles County we are very fortunate to have a call box system --not many other states or counties have such a setup. But our system is in need of improvement, as follows: o We need to improve response time. Completion of a non -emergency call to the CHP can take up to forty minutes, due to the fact that staffing and equipment at the CHP dispatch center are very overloaded. o We must keep all callboxes in good repair. Approximately 10% of the 3600 call boxes are out of order at any given time, and in some areas, up to 50% of the phones are not working during a given period of time. o 1,376 new phones are needed to complete the system. On January 1, 1986, legislation (SB 1199) became effective, enabling counties and their cities to address these problems by forming a Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE). If a county and its cities choose to form a SAFE, the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission 403 West Eighth Street Suite 500 Los Angeles California 90014-3096 (213) 626-0370 COMMISSIONERS AND ALTERNATES TOM BRADLEY CHAIRMAN Mayor City of Los Anae,es RAY REMY, Alt. KENNETH HAHN VICE CHAIRMAN Supervisor Los Angeles County WALTER KING, Alt. PETER F. SCHABARUM Supervisor Los Angele: Cour. BLAKE SANBORN, Alt. EDMUND D. EDELMAN Supervisor Los Angeles County ROBERT GEOGHEGAN, Alt. DEANE DANA Supervisor Los Anaeies BARNA SZABO, Alt. MICP 4EL D. ANTONOVICH Supervisor Los Angeles Count JOHN T. La FOLLETTE, Alt. MICHAEL WOO Counolm' C't‘ of Los Anoe'e: HON. PAT RUSSELL, Alt. EDD TUTTLE Councilman City of Long Beac. . HON. RAY GRABINSKI, Alt. JACKI BACHARACH Councilwoman City of Rancho Palos Verdes HON. HAROLD CROYTS, Alt. CHRISTINE E. REED Council .s'omar City of Santa Mon'ca HON. ROBERT WHITE, Alt. MARCIA MEDNICK Citizen Representative City of Los r - DONALD WATSON Ex -Officio Memoer State of California RICK RICHMOND Executive Director SAFE November 9, 1987 Page 2 Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) collects an additional one dollar per year on all vehicles registered in the county. These funds go to the SAFE, to be used for call box system improvements. If a Los Angeles County SAFE is formed, we will be able to eliminate the current problems, as well as upgrade the entire system. This will make Los Angeles County's highways better and safer. If you have any questions, please contact Ginger Gherardi of LACTC staff at (213) 626-0370. LACTC would be happy to make a presentation to your city, if it would be helpful. After your City Council has approved the enclosed resolution, please send a certified copy to LACTC. Thank you very much for your time and cooperation. Sincerely, c t 42.wJL, CKI BACHARACH Commissioner League of California Cities Representative CHRISTINE E. REED Commissioner League of California Cities Representative Call Box System Upgrade » Upgrade existing system etre Add 850 freeway call boxes amom Add 526 state highway call boxes Ave. M Saugus X104 (1,376 new call boxes) fr6 ,®soi No au 61 \. a26� 11& I 2 �,� I w � it h- 1 Van Nuys ;, Burbank ik lot :O J if Pasadena D� / i 270 / // + A lo� Azusa .A42 IN-/ s/ '/ P Hollywood �� a mi w si 194> 3r �` / Santa Monica Whittler Green dotted lines refer to freeways not yet funded. Blue dotted lines refer to call boxes at turnouts only, rather than at quarter -mile intervals. LAC Los Angeles County Manspoctatlon Commisslon 403 West Eighth Street Suite 500 Los Angeles California 90014 (213) 626-0370 What A One Dollar Yearly SAFE Fee Will Get You: o 1,376 new phones to complete the system o Constant monitoring of equipment in the system for system malfunction o Faster repairs of malfunctioning call boxes o Additional CHP dispatch personnel o Faster response time o A device on each phone to automatically identify the location of the phone o Turnouts where the freeway has been restriped, so that a phone may be installed with the caller's safety in mind o A sound hood on each phone to decrease freeway noise while making a call o A device on each phone that would allow the CHP operator to ring the call box in case it is necessary to report changes in response for assistance o $1.2 million of gas tax money now used to pay for the call boxes would be available to the county each year for additional road repairs o $1.2 million of CHP revenues now used for call boxes would be available each year for law enforcement LACTC FACTS ABOUT ESTABLISHING A "SAFE" IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY BACKGROUND Los Angeles County Transportation Commission 403 West Eighth Street Suite 500 Los Angeles California 90014-3096 (213) 626-0370 The Los Angeles County call box system consists of approximately 3,600 freeway call boxes connected to the CHP central dispatch center via telephone lines. On most freeways the phones are spaced at 1/4 mile intervals; however, in some areas without phone lines no call boxes have been installed. Currently those gaps exist on the Antelope Valley, Golden State and Simi/San Fernando Valley Freeways. When the Glenn Anderson (Century), Route 30 and Corona Freeways are completed new call boxes will have to be installed on them. Today, through the use of cellular and radio technology, it is feasible to also install call boxes on more remote state highways that attract a lot of recreational traffic, suc1 as the Pacific Coast Highway, Route 138, the Angeles Crest Highway, San Gabriel Canyon Road (39) and others. To complete the call box system at least 1,376 new call boxes will be needed. The call box system is owned and maintained by the County Department of Public Works. Approximate annual operating and maintenance costs to the County are as follows: Number of Operating Operating Maintaining Maintenance Phones Company Cost Company Cost 1,990 Pac Bell $372,000 Volt $235,000 1,582 General $195,000 Omni $160,000 The County is currently using gas tax money to pay the $962,000 annual operating and maintenance costs. In addition, the county is paying $190,000 per year for phone replacement and $45,000 per year for administration, also from gas tax funds. Obviously, this money could be used for roads. The cost of installing new phones has also been borne by the County. Each hardwire phone unit costs approximately $20,000, while the cellular or radio phones cost about $5,000. However, the operating costs for cellular or radio phones are more than twice as much as for conventional hardwire phones. Cellular or radio phone units are most appropriate to the outlying areas of the County, where it is not feasible to set up phone lines, but where communication should be available. SAFE Facts Page 2 Caltrans is responsible for installing and maintaining call box signs and for call box site development and maintenance. Their annual costs of approximately $50,000 would also be borne by the SAFE. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) is responsible for answering all freeway telephone calls at their communications center, paying long distance charges for these calls when applicable and providing input to locating new or relocating existing phones as needed. The CHP spends about $800,000 annually for staffing and equipment and about $400,000 annually for long distance charges. Currently the CHP is not reimbursed for their costs in Los Angeles County. Depending on the CHP's load, non -emergency calls are normally completed within 5-25 minutes. In poor weather, however, the call can take up to 40 minutes. The call box system currently handles an average of 1,700 calls per day. Each motorist may, at any time, find themself in a situation where they need to use a call box. In addition, congestion is reduced through the timely removal of disabled vehicles, because lane blockages and "gawker's block" are eliminated. Therefore, an improved call box system will provide a benefit for each motorist. The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, the California Highway Patrol, and the Countywide Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee agree that improvements are needed. CREATING A SAFE In 1986 SB 1199 (Craven) was enacted into law to permit County Boards of Supervisors, joined by a majority of the cities having a majority of the population, to establish a Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE). The SAFE would collect a $1 vehicle •registration fee surcharge to fund operation and improvements to the motorist aid system for call boxes. SB 202 (Bergeson) provides for the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission to be designated as the SAFE. The fees collected by a SAFE can only be used for the implemen- tation, maintenance and operation of a motorist aid system for emergency call boxes on the California Freeway and Expressway System and on State Highway routes that connect segments of the system. These funds cannot be used for any other type of road - related activity. A fee of $1 per registered vehicle per year in the County would annually yield approximately $3 million more than current operating expenses. This money could be used to upgrade the existing telephones, provide noise shelters, and fill in the SAFE Facts Page 3 existing gaps. These funds could also be used to provide additional funding to the CHP for more equipment and increased manpower levels, to finance call box site improvements, to make the phones usable by the handicapped and for other system -related projects, such as a call box information program. In addition, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), who is responsible for collecting and distributing the fees imposed by the SAFE, would deduct approximately 1% of the fees collected for its administrative and overhead costs. As the SAFE, the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, working with the County Department of Public Works, would write a plan for implementing improvements to the call box system, as required by State law. The SAFE will most likely contract with the County Department of Public Works to maintain the system and, as required by Statute, contract with the CHP for their services, thus enabling money currently spent on the system to be used for roads and law enforcement. The SAFE will also reimburse Caltrans and the DMV for all services they provide. HOW THE REVENUES ARE COLLECTED Vehicle owners are notified that a $1 surcharge for the call box system has been added to their vehicle registration fee. Approximately $6 million dollars a year will be generated in Los Angeles County. SAFE estsafe MICHAEL P. LAWTON 1840 HERMOSA AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 2Z /710ve-��, 87 eu44-eA-at- 44,07/ /Aso- i717".14ae.ez- p(az C64 -f -Preei Ct4 gats¢ "3(114~ ISeAdf, eitb-1-&7114, ,1-eze4 A4441 ,iii4a-a4%0‘, yita e6w0az d24pfr a,60.a4,6ea ltrxx-xerssutta AP- (aydH,yyc2 . g7- 973 .cul+dr dce-eudae-c/ 7.irGlo ir-LA-td.A#so- dev-elea-f4t4*et- 0/76R, 45r4/6- 41-01-} /6-6/91-4 osu. .‘-taid4'�*� carr /Le a-6 /goo oW(444-042e aveozze} r4ere/�- 3 ' .lujk ..,yG,tP: /122Zc‘v-ell a ,4%4Z41» ,rx.✓.kae.- .f, -test dertLrdae1,45,- Q re.r.z‘ df/f/e axe .-fiede4,€‘141, ixz.g44‘44/ �tfis��G �1%�isc •uN[J.au..✓ a.ct .t#ut¢u a gokjr a4‘ 1,11/vf-.tts4E deuGLsjosscucf1-4'), 62aw ..4/;LearAtee jeee-4-/ dIGG .41-(414 ac�el.�� ucdk sc�c La�yc`' ti"zc1��oZ�+ yU-c -7-04144 44e! du o- vie4;4re .cam i-W4aa2 GiCo'elen St4- f0t444 �o /00*..st4+r44444 A4►"/als4) ,rte ,,�io�t, afi,sie g.u� .G'ucC.o�. f• 'a44e A„aLAAe /ase- 64r26- mss, aucl Buz ala c/f,24f/e dievsr _ iso. .p,vdct,✓ .44v&, "if/e .40€ 4.2e4tee/ ce•iie,o,oiwor‘ 44-041‘.41 ( ,CfrXek 4e4, /e44 .010) Aftie -5,5.7-•4?‘ /et /;Get -e/ ept ��.Syys.t/V; . adet- D'l11rua hLve ,Q4/) ,14,0-:� oe ala -404472A4 lidee%zeikA ti1t1ici a.r.cGe7a4if‘e..cam "' �I/iLle4-nor% (mkt Q Lvavee- 44.,/ (,tfrefi p -d1 ,"tar djczue`lezpo 'l.4 -/A4' °z"a' um' a-4444 .06(A649/azilz-i-eye. ,cea. c��,��u�d.ruoce�u e adzr.f4 .&44*>- .14;w1L1 ov-e. 0ziewiti ded-ifie eopat446 ad_ .u,e lefe 7tfi[ Zeteice,ctss az6�cGLY6-fi��KL,) ad- olcuz, it.fm"e- dvs�e .0 r Su, cow .017 adee4e ate. . +.ea41tie a e. �— .rite asi4A4re, ,‘41/aeoptAzd 4//la.4.‘40f4 de - at eta, 4644e4 -re A/e/Azi.e ecP-c Q cl , , MICHAEL P. LAWTON 1840 HERMOSA AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 014 - 410-'1 Ge- el-‘e-144f;t4ete, %AO, adrd ,rte, 5-,,dAte.4a44 ./f1ce f.aa r� ate-- "- z- Aget ivzoia•ee) /241•RA4 Aer 124-r1154' To-"4fy 'Geay u`ti"1-4(/' ��LGar,��varGi eta- i/44014 44+frLcc 1714t,i CA►�ioG deteMi .1.0t it;ce "wit r44,--,e4"G Jur-of ..61ce /IytsAe cftcC °i' 4itt -� •� moi% aitd a1s'°- cttd-dcca atita ,:crc�uzarifr aa. GzW-o44Usd. /�.Q .t/41L .use 4-.a�8- Gl-tu s� ,u,072.161-elt4, .Gve Nou..26441606) G.we.) C<uvsGli Ot441/ /Y�rGaa�-GoGu%) � dut' ck41-41a40t tLc.c 43ruietscfz r rc Ate .(vu lf.� a....d/ �sw-axe Zfr-1 ,mss 4a,�i! px � al`,�4's'4 a�` �2�e,cicc� . do-.alcce free ee14444C0W ,Comae a� Alti ,4xadt. a...7, .lite caii-eAg-ous G, GR61.u.e aethe,GGGiau e0a artc . .7/700 - dref 1-1-4Zith �Lv-e 2c1 �it�yj.{a",a�iy ,sur -,. .F�caeei`G�t�rut � G�y�Y.�calsj at+s1 �1tr�tei/ of 14_'7 �.Gctc� iLftAtsectlt .l,•at! .Gnu4Id4tLsije4W yam -716124e zocase .751)tc, 4A4f 'peep_ ,&4) • 4*sct-Tvgecq/ ex: ,/i/h Howard L. Longacre 1221 Seventh Place Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254 Current and New Members of the Council City of Hermosa Beach City Hall Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254 Re: Interpretation of an R3 -Medium Density zoning criteria. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Council: First off, welcome and congratulations to the new members of our council, and best wishes to our departing members. Thanks to all for your service to the community. I am writing to you to reflect a great concern I have regarding what I view as a subtle, continuous, and insidious erosion of the value of a 30 x 100 property I purchased aproximately thirteen months ago specifically to build a single-family home on and to then occupy. The property is located at 1622 Hermosa Avenue. I have been an adult resident of Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach continuously since 1967. (Twenty years) I have been coming to the beach here for over thirty years. I currently own and occupy a home in the Hermosa hills area. While it would appear to me that the council has a great concern for density reduction which I also share, there seems to be an attitude to change zoning criteria carte -blanche without the owners of the properties in question having much idea of what is happening until after the fact. Some thirteen months ago in October of 1986 I purchased the property at 1622 Hermosa Avenue with the clear intention to build a new single-family home to live in. The property currently has a very small and very run-down sixty-five year old dwelling on it. Prior to buying the property I checked carefully with the city building and planning departments. In both departments I indicated that because most all of the surrounding properties were multi -unit and condo -type and built up to the 35 foot limit of the R3 zone I wanted to know that the code with respect to height and levels would be available to me. I was assured as best one could be assured that the height and levels criteria would be available and that due to Coastal Commission and general plan requirements, condominiums were out of the question. However a duplex would still be OK. I indicated that a duplex was not my desire. Just a single-family home, but that due to most all of the surrounding blocks having buildings already built to the 35 foot height my home should have that design criteria possible also. I was assured that there was no problem. That the R3 -Medium density design criteria for height and levels was there and available. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 5 Then as I got to the point of firming up my home's design I again for the last two months talked on various occasions with inspectors Norbert and Harold, and Director Mr. Bill Grove of our city building and safety department regarding my design and again reviewing the 35 foot height limit, levels, and setbacks to be sure I was in compliance. Again I was reassured and mention was made that now while there had been some discussion in the council on changing the zoning, that it had been cleared up, and was unchanged. Then on 4 November 1987 while filing my conceptual drawings with the city I was told the council is again reviewing the idea of changing an R3 -medium density designation to that of R2 or R3 -high density. This no doubt was a great shock to me. As members of the council I would like you at this time, to clearly understand that I am fully in support of efforts to achieve a particular quality of life here at the beach. Please remember I have been an adult resident here for twenty years and have been coming to this beach for over thirty years. I am not a newcomer. However, when a property owner is striving to build himself a single-family home of quality, will provide twice and more the garage parking required, build it on a block of quite heavy street noise where virtually 99% of the existing properties have 2, 3, and 4 units per lot, you would be most unfair, and I believe imprudent to say he does not have at least the right to achieve the same share of view everyone that came before did. Should the council now feel that R2 zoning is mandated where R3 zon- ing has been for so long, then I would hope due consideration would be given to projects that have been in progress. /(-47 Longacre City Resident / Homeowner P.S. If further studies or changes are to be made to the zoning and or criteria in this regard, then I would hope that the council approve a grandfathering of projects in progress and submitted in concept, and I would hope that the date of such grandfathering would provide for my project to proceed. While in design for quite sometime, my concept drawings which reflect accurately the home to be built were submitted to the city 4 November 1987. I would hope your decisions will be carefully considered, and that my project to build a single-family home not be put in jeopardy. It definately would be put in jeopardy if R2 building criteria came into play on my particular property. cc: City Attorney / Mr. James Lowe Director of Building and Safety / Mr. Bill Grove 11-12-87 To the Hermosa Beach City Council, Aly name is Fred Greene. My wife and I have been living in Hermosa Beach since 1976. We have a six year old daughter attending the first grade at Hermosa Valley. We also have one on the way. We bought a house on Bayview Dr. when we first moved here. After a year or so the womar, across the alley recieved permission to build a rental unit on top of her garage. This quite effectively removed our entire panoramic ocean view. We panicked and sold. It has taken us this long to be able to buy a home in Hermosa. We found a house that we can afford to buy and fix it up so that we will enjoy living here even more. We checked with the City of Hermosa Building Dept. to see what we were allowed to do. We were told that this property is zoned- R-2, low density. They also said that this meant we could build a single family dwelling thirty feet high. We were quite ec- static because this meant that we could get our view back again. Needless to say, we bought. While we were in escrow I kept going back to the building dept. to find out different things that I needed to do. I am not using a builder. When we finally went to sign the escrow papers I noticed the Report of Residential Building Records stated that this property was zoned R-1. I called the building dept. right then and there from the escrow office. I read to them what I had and what it stated. I waited on the phone and when he came back he said the report was wrong and that I could still go up thirty feet. This all happened at 4:00, Oct. 29th. On Oct. 30th I paid out the money for the house and went to the building dept. to check on a survey report. A builder.. was ,here - discussing --what had, happened- previous council meeting. This is how I found out about the height change. Apparently, the change occurred, the building dept. misinformed me,:and then- I boughtthe.house. We Would like to stay a part of this community, but we would like to be treated, fairly and we would like to be kept informed as to what is happening in our city. S,'n SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 5 GEOFFREY S. YAREMA 2160 Monterey Boulevard Hermosa Beach, California 90254 November 18, 1987 Members of the City Council City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Ladies and Gentlemen: It is my understanding that at your meeting on November 24, 1987 you will be considering an ordinance that would place a moratorium on any development exceeding the more restrictive of the development standards set forth in the applicable zoning ordinance or the general plan designation. I am writing to urge that, if you pass such an ordinance, you include a grandfather clause which exempts conceptual plans submitted to the City's Building Department on or before November 24, 1987. I make this request because of the recent experience I have had. After living in Manhattan Beach for almost ten years, I recently decided to move to Hermosa Beach and bought a beautiful home, of which I am very proud, at 2160 Monterey Boulevard. In buying this house I was told that I could build up to a 30 foot height limit. Before closing escrow, I visited the Building Department and the Planning Department of the City to confirm this information. I spent over two hours with various persons at both counters and was shown several maps, all of which confirmed what I had been told -- that a 30 foot height limit did indeed apply. I explained that I wanted to add to the building's existing height, so I was given information on how to submit plans, the type of survey that would be necessary and other information. After receiving this information, I closed escrow and retained a surveyor and an architect to plan the addition. At substantial cost and in reliance on City Staff information, the conceptual plans are now complete and will be on file before the meeting. Only in the last ten days I was told that, while my plans meet 5 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Members of the City Council November 18, 1987 Page 2 all requirements of the applicable zoning ordinances, they do not meet the standards of the general plan designation. I was further told about the ordinance before you and advised that it may stop my plans, absent an appropriate grandfather clause. I am very proud to be a new citizen of Hermosa Beach and look forward to contributing to its vitality. I sincerely hope you understand my individual predicament and will see my request as reasonable under the circumstances. If you have any questions, I will be in attendance at the City Council meeting on the 24th. In the meantime, I can be reached at work at (213) 612-7842 and at home at (213) 372-5314. Very truly yours, (e./t eoffrey S. Yara GSY:tjh 3524o/LA1 cc: James P. Lough, Esq. t Law Offices of James P. Lough JAMES P. LOUGH November 16, 1987 MEMORANDUM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 30 NORTH RAYMOND AVENUE SUITE 708 PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91103 (213) 381-6131 (818) 792-4728 (818) 792-4776 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 24, 1987 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney RE: Amendment to Interim Ordinances Establishing Moratoriums on the Issuance of Building Permits in Inconsistent Areas RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council make a policy decision as to whether or not to adopt the attached ordinance by a four-fifths (4/5) vote. BACKGROUND: On February 24, 1987, the City Council adopted a moratorium which prevented the construction, in inconsistent areas, of projects that did not meet the minimum density stand- ards found in both the general plan and zoning code as applied to the particular property. This moratorium was necessary while the City cleared up its inconsistencies because of the decision in Elysian Heights Residents Assn., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1986) 182 Cal App 3d 21, which declared that building permits must be issued based on zoning and not the general plan. This moratorium was extended for 22 months by Ordinance No. 87-881 on April 28, 1987. Since the adoption and extension of this moratorium, several projects have been submitted and approved in which the minimum density standards are adhered to but all of the higher standards for side yard setbacks, height and other criteria, besides den- sity, are used based on the higher zoning of a particular prop- erty. If the zoning on those properties is eventually lowered to comply with the general plan, any buildings constructed using the higher height or other standards would be nonconforming and probably remain in existence for a long period of time. This would perpetuate the inconsistency once the zoning standards are lowered to those of the general plan. ANALYSIS: The attached ordinance amends the original two ordi- nances dealing with the moratorium issue. Here, language is added to section two which deals with the problem when the zon- ing is higher than the general plan. In those situations, the 19/SR1124A -1- REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 24, 1987 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney RE: Amendment to Interim Ordinances Establishing Moratoriums on the Issuance of Building Permits in Inconsistent Areas Building Department would look to the general plan designation. for the property in question. If the general plan designation is low density, a building permit would only be issued based on standards found in the R-1 zone. This is because R-1 is the zone that is consistent with low density under section one of the moratorium. Under section four, the word density is removed from the terms of the ordinance. By removing the word "density," any project in question would have to meet all criteria including height, setbacks and other development standards besides den- sity. This can be accomplished when section two is amended to set up an equivalency between the general plan and consistent zoning classifications. As with the previous ordinance and in keeping with the general practice of the City, section seven contains a "grand- father clause" which allows for projects in the pipeline to continue. This clause has been added by the Council in the past two previous moratoriums and its addition here is consistent with that practice. If this section is removed, only those persons who have received a building permit and have expended substantial funds in reliance upon that building permit would be allowed to build. Persons who have submitted plans and are awaiting approval would not receive a building permit. This is true even if they have already expended substantial funds for the preparation of plans and are waiting City approval. Section seven also removes the clause which exempts existing buildings from the moratorium. This removal prevents a double standard from occurring. If this clause were left in the ordi- nance, persons could leave part of a building standing and not be subject to the moratorium. Finally, this ordinance will become effective upon passage by a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council. This 4/5 vote 19/SR1124A -2- REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 24, 1987 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney RE: Amendment to Interim Ordinances Establishing Moratoriums on the Issuance of Building Permits in Inconsistent Areas requirement applies since moratoriums may only be adopted and/or amended by a super majority requirement. NOTED: GAYLE 'VJ MARTIN, City Manager espectfullysubji ted, .ti 19/SR1124A -3- S P. LOUGH, C ty At ••rney TY OF HERMOSA BEACH E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 87 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBERS 87-873 AND 87-881 TO PROHIBIT THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR DEVELOPMENTS THAT DO NOT MEET ALL 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; /// 19/ORD20 -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, allowing inconsistent development in which properties can develop to zoning standards that are higher than standards that would be consistent with applicable General Plan designations result in more nonconforming developments; 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. For areas where the General Plan designation has a lower density standard that the current zoning classification, a building 19/ORD20 -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 permit shall only be issued if the project in question meets all of the criteria for the zoning classification that is considered consistent with the current General Plan designation as defined in Section 1 of this ordinance. Section 3. No building permits shall be issued by the Build- ing 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 ordi- nance does not preclude the right to request the normal variance procedure. 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 criteria for both the General Plan designation and Zoning classification that applies to the project under this ordinance. 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 apply to any project which has submitted completed conceptual plans to the City of Hermosa Beach on or before November 24, 1987. 19/ORD20 -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 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. 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 the time period set out under Ordinance Number 87-881 pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code Section 65858. To the extent that this ordinance contradicts, amends and/or modifies Ordinance Numbers 87-873 and 87-881, this ordinance shall control. Section 11. The City Council shall draft a report for presentation to the public at its regular meeting within a 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. Pursuant to Government Code Section 36937, this ordinance, which restates and amends Ordinance Numbers 87-873 and 87-881 and is designed to protect the health and safety of the citizens of Hermosa Beach,.: shall become effective 19/ORD20 -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 immediately upon adoption by a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council. Section 13. 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 14. 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 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1987. ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY l /7 19/ORD20 -5- PRESIDENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA Law Offices of James P. Lough JAMES P. LOUGH TO: FROM: RE: REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 10, 1987 30 NORTH RAYMOND AVENUE SUITE 708 PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91103 (213) 381-6131 (818) 7924728 (818) 792-4776 MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL JAMES P. LOUGH, CITY ATTORNEY STATUS REPORT ON THE MEANING OF INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 87-881 RELATING TO ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN INCONSISTENCIES RECOMMENDATION: To receive and file this report and reaffirm the setting of a public hearing for November 24, 1987 to amend Ordinance Nos. 87-881 and 87-873 to remove the word "density" from the language of said ordinances. BACKGROUND: On February 24, 1987, the City Council adopted interim Ordinance No. 87-873 which precluded issuance of building permits for projects which did not meet the density requirements of both the general plan designation and zoning classification for the parcel involved. At the public hearing there was considerable discussion among the members of the Council, after the public hearing, about the meaning of the wording in the ordinance stating the "minimum criteria for both the General Plan designation and Zoning classification for the property in question." After consideration of the matter, the Council voted to add the word "density". This changed the language from the general to the specfic; to "minimum density criteria." While, even after reading the attached transcripts, there may be questions as to the Council's intent, the issues addressed in this memo are the actual meaning of the words of the ordinance and the methods by which the Council can change the meaning of the ordinance, if it desires. The reason this ordinance became necessary was because of two factors: (a) the numerous inconsistencies throughout the city and (b) the decision in the case of Elysian Heights Residents Assn., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1986) 182 Cal App 3d 21, which declared that building permits must be issued based on zoning and not the general plan. Based on these two factors, the Gales applied for a building permit based on zoning and not the general plan. Their permit was held up on other issues and the council wanted to take action to plug the gap placed in the City's density reduction plans by this court decision. It was at this point that the interim ordinance came to the Council for its consideration. ANALYSIS: The ordinance was designed to stop projects similar to the Gales from happening. Section 1 of the ordinance established a table of General Plan Designations and Zoning Classifications so that there would be a guide for the Building and Planning Departments to follow when reviewing day-to-day situations. If it is determined by staff that the zoning and general plan does not match as they are shown in Section 1, the rest of the ordinance applies to the proposed project. Secticn 2 prevents the issuance of a building permit for any 10 project that varies with the General Plan. This requires the applicant to meet all the requirements of the General Plan designation for the property at issue. Likewise, Section 3 requires that the same applicant meet all of the standards for the zone in which the property is located. Section 3 also reaffirms an applicant's statutory right to apply for a variance. Section 4 allows the City to issue a building permit for projects that meet the"minimun density criteria for both the General Plan designation and Zoning classification for the property in question." This is the main section in the ordinance which allows development for projects located in -inconsistent areas (as defined by Section 1). It was amended by the Council to specifically state "minimum density criteria." With this amendment it would be difficult to apply any other development standards. Another aspect of Section 4 is the waryr it applies the General Plan and Zoning to each situation. The only General Plan designation and Zoning classification that apply to a particular project are those that currently apply to the property in question. If an area is R-2 and High Density, the sideyards, height and density of R-2 would govern. However, if a property were Medium Density and R-3, the height, sideyard and other similar issues would be covered by R-3 and the density would be R-2. This is because the General Plan only deals with density and section 4 only applies the zoning class and G.P. designations that already apply to the property. SUGGESTIONS FOR AMENDMENT: This matter could not be brought back for a public hearing for this meeting because of the publication deadlines at the Easy Reader. Staff set this natter for a public hearing at the next council meeting so that amendments could be made to the interim ordinance. The reason that amendments could not be made last meeting or this meeting is that amendments :t0 an ordinance adopted at a public hearing can't be made without a public hearing except in rarest circumstances. The introduction of a new ordinance which changes the way in which building permits are issued for projects in inconsistent areas would be considered an amendment by a court of law. Amendments can be made to change the way in which projects are approved in inconsistent areas. The Council's only legal way to accomplish this is at the public hearing set for November 24, 1987. NOTED: GAYLF MARTIN, City Manager Respectfully submitte Ikk AM aJ WES P. LOUGH, City A TY OF HERMOSA BEACH torn y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91 10 11 121 13 141 15 16 17 1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 87-873 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 building=_ 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 cf 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; /// /1/. 14/ORD16 -1- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Director. Any person who does not agree with said interpre- 17 tation 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 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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, 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 1 Section 4. A building permit may be issued to any applicant 2 whose particular project, although located in an area where an 3 inconsistency exists between the General Plan and Zoning, meets 4 the minimum density criteria for both the General Plan designa- 5 tion and Zoning classification for the property in question. 6 Section 5. This ordinance shall not prohibit the issuance 7 of building permits by the Director of Building and Safety if it 8 is his opinion that a substantial threat to the health, safety 9 and welfare of the public would exist if such permit were not 10 issued. 11 Section 6. This ordinance shall not prevent the issuance of 12 building permits by the Director of Building and Safety if, 13i pursuant to state law, there exists a mandatory duty of the City 14!, of Hermosa Beach to issue such permit. 15 Section 7. This ordinance shall not affect any project, 16 development or improvement which only requests structural modi- 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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 opeiative 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 0 -4- 2 3 4 5 6 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 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1987. ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS T 15 16 fy3Y ATTORNEY 17 j/ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. 25 26 27 28 ORM: -i 14/ORD16 -5- PRESIDENT. OF THE ,CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR OF THE' ;CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 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- 881 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. /1/ /1/ L2/buildper -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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. 10 ATTEST: 11 12 CITY CLERK 13 APPROVED AS TO FORM: 14 16 CITY ATTORNEY 77 I ; 17( i 1 18_ RESIDENTOF T'! CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR OF CITY OF HERMOSA BEA , CALIFORNIA 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 L2/buildper -3- The Public Hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak in favor of the adoption of this ordinance were: David Szmudanowski - 931- Sixth Street -representing several neighbors in the area. Ron Schendel - 43 -7th Street Speaking in opposition to the adoption of the moratorium ordinance were: Dana Shaw - 913 -5th Street Jerry Compton - 832 -7th Street Steven Label - 2600 Colorado Ave. Santa Monica - attor- ney rep. clients who are trying to build in the city. Parker Herriott - 224 -24th Street - submitted a letter Karen Gale - 26 Montecello Drive, Rolling Hills Est. Bill Harmon - 1641 Golden Avenue Valerie Clark - 406 Ocean View Dr.Gale - 26 Montecello Drive, RHE - owner of 933 -6th The Public Hearing was closed by Mayor Cioffi. Action: To temporarily adjourn the City Council Meet- ing to a Closed Session pursuant to Govt. Code Section 54956.9(b) (significant exposure to litigation) Motion DeBellis, second Mayor Cioffi. So ordered. The Regular Meeting of the City Council adjourned tem- porarily at the hour of 8:52 P.M. to a Closed Session. The Regular Meeting of the City Council reconvened at the hour of 9:18 P.M, with no announcements of any ac- tions taken in Closed Session. Action; To waive full reading of Ordinance No. 87-873 entitled "AN ORDINANCE 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 IM- PROVED.",,with the following changes: Page 2, line 10 - add C-1 Page 2, line 27 - add "This Ordinance does not preclude the right to request the normal variance procedure." Page 3, line 4 - change to read "the minimum density criteria ..." Page..3, line 18 - add "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." Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger AYES - DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Cioffi NOES - None Final Action; To introduce Ordinance No. 87-873. Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger. So ordered. Further Action: Staff to post a list of all the projects which are exempt under this Ordinance Motion DeBellis, second Cioffi. So ordered. MIINTrIPAT VERBATUM,OF ITEM 5,,CITY COUNCIL MFFTING OF FEBRUARX,1Q, 1987, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF_THE CITY=OF.HERMOSA BEACH CALIFORNIA_,,fTO PROHIBIT ,THE ISSUANCE_QF BUILDING,PERMITS „FOR DEVELOPMENTS THAT DONOT :MEET THE_STANDARDSOF BOTH THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING,CLASSIFICATION FOR AI PARTICULAR PROPERTY. TO BE DEVELOPED QR IMPROVED."_ Memorandum.from,_City Attorney Jampes P. Lough dated February 4, 1987 and Planning Director Michael .Schubach_ datedY,February 3, .1.987. Cioffi: And was proper notice given? Midstokke: Yes, proof of publication is on file. Cioffi: Do we have any additional written or verbal comments? Midstokke: Yes, there is a supplemental letter from David Szmudanowski, 931 - 6th Street, a supplemental memorandum from the Building and Safety Director William Grove dated today, and supplemental information, a flyer that was passed out entitled "Zone Changes". Cioffi: Meyer: Cioffi: Meyer: Lough: Let those be made part of the record. Mr. Meyer, do we have a staff report? Your honor, the report was filed by the City Attorney and is dated February 4, 1987. With that then, I would like to open the Public Hearing. Do you, Mr. Schubach, want to make a presentation? The City Attorney would like to since he authored the primary document. Mr. Lough. Just quickly, Mr. Mayor, this is the ordinance that was requested be brought back as a non -emergency measure from two meetings ago. The way that the interim ordinance system works in California is that since the matter is not referred back to the Planning Commission, that is why there is a 4/5ths vote and I would suggest that is the safer course of conduct for this. Basically, the moratorium, while not done on an emergency basis, the one, before you tonight, is for a 45 -day period. Now because it's noticed, and done on a 45 -day period, instead of the emergency type of situation that we were dealing with last month, becase of that the Council, if it desires to after studying the matter, after the 45 -day period could extend it, the moratorium, up to 22 months. So that is the tradeoff that the Legislature made in their most recent changes to the emergency interim ordinance provisions of the Government Code. Basically, this is noticed as a nonemergency measure and the way the Legislature drafted it, it still required a 4/5ths, and I would suggest that it be passed in that manner. Thank you. Rosenberger: Mr. Mayor, can I ask a question of the City Attorney on that matter? If this matter, after the hearing comes to a 3/2 vote, what is the situation? Lough: I would recommend that right now you just, if it comes to a 3/2 vote, then we have a question as to whether it passed or not. It is a legal question so that I would suggest that once it comes to that point, that the Council make a decision one way or the other. I would strongly suggest that it be done with a 4/5ths basis and so I would .hope that the Council follow that recommendation before the vote. Rosenberger: And then the vote is to enact a 45 -day moratorium? Lough: Yes it is, and then instead of having to extend for 10 months after a public hearing, and then extend for another 10 months after a public hearing, Council could within the 45 day period extend it 22 months so that is the difference in the language. Rosenberger: OK, thank you. Cioffi: Are there any other questions of staff? DeBellis: I have a couple. Mr. Lough, in the staff report and in the proposed ordinance, I still don't understand the wording that says "except when it meets the minimum criteria for both the General Plan designation and zoning classification of the property in question. It strikes me that if this is inconsistent, how can it meet both? I would like you to give me an example I guess of what some kind of circumstance that that would.... Lough: If you have one parcel that is General Plan designated high density and it is also zoned R-2, that because of the conflicts between the two, the building permit in order to be issued if this were adopted, would have to meet both the standards -of R-2 and also the high density standards. An so it would have to be the lesser. In other words the stricter requirements between the two. Or if it was R-1 and high density. Or, on the opposite end, if was an R-3 zoning classification and a low density General Plan designation, then it would have to meet the low density General Plan designation. For whatever requirements are in our General Plan apply for that type. It would be the density issue only. It's confusing. DeBellis: The example that you gave to me is an inconsistency. If it is a General Plan high density and zoned R-2, it is not inconsistent. That is what it tells right here. Lough: You caught me on that one, that is right. It is basically, what you have to look at is the lesser standards under each one. Whatever makes it under the way the definitions and the way I said it under Section 1 on page 2 of the ordinance, it would have to be the least dense or the least obtrusive criteria would have to be met. If you want some clarification on that we could add something. DeBellis: I am just concerned that we probably all know what we want to do but having it implemented is another thing, and I don't want to stop all development in the City. One of the, in Section 3, it says "No building permits shall be issued", that's on page 2, "except as herein provided for any development project or improvement that is not consistent in all respects with the Zoning Code." It strikes me that if someone has a project that he brings into Building or Planning and it requires a variance for setback, it is not consistent with zoning and therefore it couldn't go forward. Lough: DeBellis: Lough: Until that variance is granted, it's not. Well you know, it doesn't say that. I know building permits will be issued and if I was the Planning Director and I read that, I would say that I couldn't even consider your project. It's not consistent with zoning. That's why I have been open to all suggestions to modify this since the last time. And so far none have been forthcoming and I haven't been able to come up with a better definition. If Council can suggest language, I would be perfectly happy to incorporate it. You have touched upon a subject that is very difficult to define, and that is our problem here. Consistency is a very nebulous concept, it is not something that can be uniformly or easily applied. And then when you add the problem of trying to determine what standards apply in an inconsistent area. It is one of the reasons we are doing this, I believe, it has been brought to the Council. DeBellis: I'm not sure it's possible, but I hope you understand what I'm trying to do is to make it implementable. It really could stop all development. Lough: You might want to hear from the Building Director and Planning Director on their interpretation of it. They use it on a nuts and bolts basis. DeBellis: Let me ask you another question first. Section 8 says that it does not apply to any other property owned by a governmental entity within the boundaries of the City of Hermosa Beach, which I would have to assume meant the School Board, ourselves, who else? Lough: It would be the School Board, the Post Office, DeBellis: The Post Office is exempt anyway, though. Lough: Well it would also include the Post Office, they are exempt anyway, that is true, but that is the basic intention of it is to exempt. We are currently in litigation with one of those governmental entitles. DeBellis: Lough: DeBellis: Lough: The intent it not to put you on the spot but like why do we have, why would we want to exempt the schools if we're not exempting anyone else? The reason I put that in there is that we are under litigation and that is why. That is the reason why. So if someone else sued us, then they could get_" around this? What are we saying. No, it is a class just based on the suit. It is just my opinion that -I felt that this should be placed in there just, for the protection of the City. You can take it out if the Council so desires. Our rules apply to everyone uniformly. But this is a unique situation where the School District suit came up at the same time this did, and the School District is attacking the General Plan of the City on a comprehensive basis and I didn't want to cause any more problems in that suit over and above what we have here. And I didn't want this to stand or fall because we have many instances in areas of the City, and the School District's portions are very minute and I don't see a real problem with the consistency of the School District. We only, I believe, have one inconsistent area in the School District and that is in the middle of the new school site. There is an R-3 that has been there for 50 years and no one knows why. And so, I didn't see the School District properties as posing a big problem and so I didn't want to create= problems in a lawsuit because of that. DeBellis: Lough: Cioffi: Rosenberger: Lough: DeBellis: Cioffi: Rosenberger: Cioffi: OK, then my last question is any projects that have been submitted to plan check or whatever that are in the pipeline. What the reasoning here is that we would just - it's not an emergency but they would have 30 days. The date this take effect, if a building permit has not been issued and substantial expenditures have not been made in reliance on that building permit, those people do not have a vested right to proceed with their project. That's the way the law reads. Councilmember Rosenberger. Yes, Mr. Lough was asking for suggestions on Section 3, page 2. I had one. I don't know if it is going to fly but I would offer it. That is where the 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 both the Zoning Code of the City of Hermosa Beach and the General Plan. That is only consistent with some of the earlier statements that the City Attorney has made. And at the beginning, I guess you could add in addition to that "the lesser of the two" or language related to that. Again I don't know if it is going to fly but. It's as good as anything I've come up with. I would only like to suggest that we hold the Public Hearing first before we try changing the wording. We may hear some testimony that helps us. Anything else Councilmember Rosenberger? There is time, I can wait. With that, I would like to ask those in favor of this ordinance to come forward to speak. Please give your name and address. David Szmudanowski - 931 Sixth Street Ron Schendel, 43 - 7th Street Cioffi: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in support of this? Is there anyone who would like to address the Council in opposition. The gentleman in the back. Dana Shaw, 913 - 5th Street Jerry Compton, 832 - 7th Street Steven Label, 2600 Colorado Ave., Santa Monica Parker Herriott, 224 - 24th Street Karen Gale, 26 Montecello Drive, RH Bill Harmon, 1641 Golden Avenue Valerie Clark, 406 Ocean View Dr. Gale, 26 Montecello Drive, RH Cioffi: Rosenberger: Schubach: Rosenberger: And with that, I would like to close the Public Hearing and bring it back to the. Council. I wonder if we could have the City Planner come before us here. I would like to have him give us some background on the legal requirements that this City has been under as of whatever year it was, 1984 or earlier, in terms of bringing our General Plan and our zoning into consistency. Well as far as the General Plan and zoning laws of the State, I have always been given the information from attorney's in other cities that unless they were in conformance, you weren's allowed to build. And so generally if someone were to come in for a piece of to be consistent with the General -Plan or ask for a General Plan amendment to be consistent with the zoning. Technically you are supposed to make the zoning consistent with the General Plan but that isn't the general rule. They go both ways; whichever is the more desirable. And then it goes through the review process, public hearing, and so forth, and one way or the other it gets resolved. In this City, as I understand it, up until, and it's still in effect by the way, there has been nothing more than condominiums built and the condominium ordinance in the City always said that you have to comply with the General Plan. Consequently all this time you have followed the General Plan which is the lower density. It was just recently that apartments have now been proposed. It has become financially feasible to build apartments again and so now we have crated this problem. Apartments don't fall under the condominium ordinance so consequently they are asking for the higher density. We initially started to impose the rule that the General Plan had to be consistent and then, unfortunately, our City Attorney said no, the courts have applied a new rule. The Elysian Heights case, which has been referred to earlier tonight, and that says that you have to follow the zoning, which is quite contrary as far as I'm concerned to the general State Law about General Plans and zoning. And that is what we have been attempting to do and the staff has been between a rock and a hard place not knowing what to do about all this. So that is where we stand now. We are trying to follow the zoning as required by the most recent court case. OK, so how far back does this go, the initial State requirement of consistency between the two? Schubach: Lough: Rosenberger: Schubach: Rosenberger: Schubach: DeBellis: I believe it was the early 70's. 1974. And what - one, I would like to know how we got around this attempt to We really didn't get around it, what happened was that the condominiums were always coming in and the condominiums were always required to follow the General Plan, and so there wasn't a problem until apartments starting being proposed again. And then the Alysian Heights case came along and between the two of them the problem was created. And so at this point we are, shall we stop this or shall we continue. Maybe I'm not directing my question exactly right. What I am thinking is that even if we had this inconsistency between areas on our General Plan and our zoning, did we over the years make any attempt to bring them into consistency in a general overall fashion. I have been here for two years so running some of the history that I find in the files, apparently there were some attempts made to bring them into conformity but it never really was accomplished. So when I got here the goal was to get this straightened out once and for all and we are at' this time moving towards getting that resolved. We are going through case by case every area that is inconsistent and either resignating it to be consistent with the zoning or rezoning it to be consistent with the General Plan on a case by case basis dependent on the area, what it should be at this time. Let me be more specific. It strikes me that if we don't pass this, the residents of 6th Street probably would feel comfortable in suing for inconsistency between the General Plan and zone designation as any citizen could have done in the last 14 years. And if we do, the Gales may sue for having followed a policy that we followed for so long, and maybe fall on sympathetic ears. The Icaza property is the other one that brought this to us and the same sitOation. And the Herriott _property and three or four others I would imagine. Then we have the school board thing - it strikes me Lough: that possibly we should discuss our exposure, and I so move. Before I do that though, what kind of special technique would we have to do to have a closed session this evening that wasn't advertised. You don't have to advertise a closed session. You can adjourn to closed session if there is significant exposure to liability. I believe that Councilmember DeBellis has adequately justified that and so your adjournment would be under Government Code Section 54956.9(b). DeBellis: I so move. Williams: Second. Cioffi: Any objection. Recessed to closed session. Return from closed session. Cioffi: Lough: Cioffi: Lough: What is the pleasure of the Council on this proposed ordinance? First, your honor, I would just like to report that there were no decisions made in closed session. Thank you Mr. Lough. While there were no decisions made, there was some language discussed that was suggested be added -to the ordinance so I will present it now for the Council's discussion. Then a decision can be made to either accept or reject that or accept the whole Ordinance or reject that in total. That would be to amend Section 7 :on page 3 or the ordinance to add in addition to the language that is already in Section 7 a new sentence which reads as follows: "This ordinance shall not apply to any project that has submitted completed conceptual plans to the City of Hermosa Beach on or before February 10, 1987." That would be today's date. (Reread). Cioffi: OK, that is one proposed change. I thought Councilmembers DeBellis and Rosenberger had some proposed changes. DeBellis: We were talking about the same areas. And I think you had some verbage on the less restrictive or more restrictive. Rosenberger: Yes, Section 3, Mr. Mayor, page 2, the last line where it begins "in all respects with both the zoning code and General Plan of the City of Hermosa Beach". You can read'that whole section if you want to see if it makes sense and whether or not it qualifies legally for what we are trying to .. Lough: You might want to read that, members of the Council, read Section 2 and then read Section 3. If you are going to make that kind of change, you might want to make it on Section 2 also. Section 2 says that nothing can be developed that is not _ consistent with the General Plan and then Section 3 says no building permits can be issued for zoning code. Rosenberger: You could just remove one of the sections, could you not? Lough: Yes, you could do that. Cioffi: Then everything would have to be renumbered. Councilmember Rosenberger, if in reading both of those together cover what you are trying to do, we might just leave it even though it would have been better the other way. Is that OK? Rosenberger: Alright. Lough: I believe earlier also, a month ago at the last meeting there was some discussion by Councilmember DeBellis regarding the zoning classifications, that is the only change where under our density remainedR-1 for the zoning classification under low density; under General Plan designation, medium density, R-1 and R-2, R-1 was added; under high density, R-1, R-2 and R-3 were added. I would assume that, I had some discussions with Councilmember DeBellis before the meeting, and he had some concerns that maybe under General Commercial adding C-1 to the C-2 and C-3. You might want to have'. the Building Director look at that. And then under the Multi -Use Corridor, I believe that C-3 is the only use allowed in the Multi -Use Corridor and there is no C-1 or C-2. But you might want to have the Building Director look at that. I bring those up because that is consistent with the way I brought it back before. Rosenberger: I am sure Mr. DeBellis will have an opinion on this too. In Sections 2 and 3, doesn't it seem that they could very well be in contradiction to each other and giving the lawyers the opportunity to have their day in court as each one read a different section as their basis for either going ahead or denying a project? DeBellis: I had that problem with 2, 3 and 4. Cioffi: Would you feel more comfortable if we put them together, 2 and 3? I we said as Councilmember Rosenberger suggested "consistent with both the Zoning Code and the General Plan". • DeBellis: Cioffi: My dilemma comes with the totality of the Zoning Code, that we are tending to focus I'm afraid on the number of units allowed to be developed by zoning versus General Plan. But zoning code encompasses yards and setbacks and heights of buildings and all kinds of matters where if it was not consistent there would be a mechanism of a variance or adjustment or whatever which they might be able to apply for. And my concern was that by strictly reading this if they needed any of those actions they're incluied and no building permit can be issued. Mr. Lough said that we could say that unless that variance, etc. was issued, I would feel more comfortable with that , I'm not sure just exactly how to word it. Sticking them together doesn't totally alleviate that problem. I think we are talking more about units and not all the other parts of the zoning code. Mr. DeBellis, can we say something along the lines of the density requirements of the General Plan and zoning? DeBellis: You will have to ask Mr. Lough, he is the attorney. Lough: Cioffi: Lough Williams: That is probably better. The key I would suggest is that you focus on Section 4 because Section 4 is where the two various conflicting provisions collide. And that is the problem in drafting something where, I wasn't asked to come back -with you know, stick to the General Plan or stick to zoning, I was asked to stick to both, whichever is least, and every time it was expressed, it was expressed in different verbage. On line 4, Section 4, can we say the minimum density criteria for both the General Plan designation and zoning classification? Yes we could. This has a safety valve in it also because no matter how we drafted this, we would have problems because it is hard to put down every situation or the ordinance would be 10,000 pages long. So the safety valve for this is that if the applicant disagrees with the interpretation of the Building Director or Planning Director, then he can appeal the matter to the Planning Commission who is the interpreter of our code. And that would also be appealable to the Council. So there are safety valves put into the system. I would like to suggest some language on line 26 under Section 3 that might help the problem with variances if we would just use the phrase that "this ordinance does not preclude the right to request the normal variance procedure." • Lough: Cioffi: Williams: Lough: DeBellis: Cioffi: Rosenberger: DeBellis: Rosenberger: DeBellis: Lough: Cioffi: Rosenberger: Cioffi: Rosenberger: Cioffi: That would be fine. Would you repeat that again. It would be on line 27, add to line 27 "This section does not preclude the right to request the normal variance procedures." "This ordinance" might be better. Do we have an elephant yet? Now back to Councilmember Rosenberger. Do you want to try to combine those Sections 2 and 3? Well I was wondering, if we had Section 4 there changed, do we need Section 2 or 3? Yes, because 4 tells you Its a positive and the other ones are negative. Right? True, agree? If 4 is a positive, 2 and 3 are negatives. So you couldn't eliminate 2 and 3 and leave 4 in. Right, correct. This went through several drafts and there is no off the ship because no one wanted to help on this one. Mr. Rosenberger, then you want to, again can we try to combine it by saying Section 2, line 22, saying "with both the density requirements of the General Plan and the Zoning Code of the City of Hermosa Beach" I am not sure that I wouldn't just be building verbage in there which at this point we haven't tried to cover - I see what Mr. Lough has done now. Basically he has gerrymandered this thing through three sections and I would simply be constantlyreferring back to each one of those sections and that is sort of like unnecessary reiteration so I will give him credit for making the best of a mess. So you are satisfied with it? Yes. Councilmember DeBellis, again in Section 3, line 26 where we say "with the -"-Zoning Code", do you want to restrict that or are you happy with it the way it is? DeBellis: With Mrs. Williams amendment, I think that is OK. Cioffi: Is there a motion? Lough: Maybe when we have the motion then afterwards we will have a clarification as to what has been amended so far so that we don't have any questions. DeBellis: Mayor Cioffi, I would like to waive further reading of Ordinance No. 87 -next number, "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 a particular property to be developed or improved" as amended. Midstokke: That amendment being on page 2, Section 3, line 27, added "This ordinance not not preclude the right to request the normal variance procedure." DeBellis: Then on line 22 and 26 in both, is that what we decided to do? Midstokke: No. Rosenberger: No. Cioffi: No. On page 3 there are changes also. Rosenberger: On page 3 there is a change on line 14. Lough: That would be to add "the minimum density criteria" on line 14, page 3 add the word density, and then under Section 7, line 18, add the following language: "This ordinance shall not apply to any project that has submitted completed conceptual plans to the City of Hermosa Beach on or before February 10, 1987." and then the rest of the ordinance would stand as submitted to Council. Cioffi: Lough: DeBellis: Before we have the roll call, Mr. Lough had suggested, is there any consideration for changes under the zoning classifications which refer back to the General Plan designation "General Commercial" and "Multi -Use Corridor"? I would suggest the "Multi -Use Corridor" be left as it is and maybe get the Building Director if you want to talk about any changes under the "General Commercial" as far as adding C-1. Mr. Grove, my only question is whether we have cumulative zoning or not? So,if you have a C-2 zoned property, are you allowed to put C-1 uses on. it? So then it should say C-1. C-1, C-2, C-3 and - 12 - any commercial specific. OK. Then I would like to add that as an amendment on line 10 of page 2. To add C-1 on that line. Cioffi: And leave line 12 the way it is. DeBellis: Yes. Cioffi: OK, this was for waiver of full reading. Midstokke: Councilmember DeBellis - yes Mayor Cioffi - yes Councilmember Rosenberger - yes Councilmember Simpson - yes Councilmember Williams - yes The motion would be to introduce the above ordinance. DeBellis: So moved. Rosenberger: Second. Cioffi: Roll call. Midstokke: Councilmember DeBellis - yes Rosenberger - yes Simpson - yes Williams - yes Mayor Cioffi - yes Cioffi: OK, now that we have completed item 5 we will go back to the Consent Calendar. November 16, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council November 24, 1987 SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: REQUEST: SPECIAL STUDY NO. 87-10 & TEXT AMENDMENT -- CARETAKER UNIT IN CONJUNCTION WITH PERSONALIZED MINI -STORAGE 552 - 11TH PLACE AND ALL M ZONE AREAS GEAN KOWALSKI, GUARDIAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT TO PERMIT CARETAKERS UNIT Recommendation Staff recommends adoption of the attached Ordinance adding "Mini -Storage Personal" and "Caretaker Unit" to the M Zone. Background At the August 4, 1987 meeting, the Planning Commission directed Staff to study allowing mini -storage and caretaker units in the M -Zone. At the October 20, 1987 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of both "Mini -Storage, Personal" and "Caretaker Unit". Abstract Approval of the attached Ordinance will add to the M-1 Zone Permitted Use List "Mini -Storage, Personal" and "Caretaker Unit". It will also add definitions of the subject uses to the Definitions Section of the Zoning Ordinance. Refer to the attached staff report for further analysis. Attachments 1. Proposed Ordinance. 2. Planning Commission Resolutions 87-59 and 87-59(a). 3. Planning Commission minutes of October 20, 1987. 4. Staff Report to Planning Commission ` Gayle/1T. Martin Inter m City Manager Respectfully s ;bmitted Michael Schubach Planning Director 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- N ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DDING CARETAKER UNIT TO THE M -ZONE SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE ERMIT AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND APPROVING AN ENVIRONMENTAL EGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on November 24, 1987 to receive oral and written testimony regarding this atter and made the following Findings: Caretaker Units should be limited to those uses where an unusual form of harm or danger to life or property exists; ▪ Typical dangers of fire, theft, earthquakes, or similar do not constitute grounds for caretaker units; • Where unusual danger or harm to property exists beyond those that are typically a concern of the City's public services, i.e. Police, Fire, Public Works, a property owner may request a caretaker's unit; NOW, THEREFORE, The City of Hermosa Beach, California does hereby ordain the following Amendment to Zoning Ordinance: SECTION 1. Add to Article 2, Definitions, the following new section: "Section 283. Caretaker Unit. Caretaker unit shall mean a residence of not more than one -bedroom, consisting of not more than 4 rooms, having a maximum of 950 square feet of floor area and is limited in conjunction with those uses where an unusual form of harm or danger to life or property exists beyond those protected by the Police, Fire, and/or other public agencies as determined by the Planning Commission." SECTION 2. Add to Article 9, Section 9-2, Permitted Uses, in alphabetical order the following: "Caretaker Unit, Conditional Use Permit required" PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 24th day of November, 1987. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 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 87 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ADDING PERSONALIZED MINI -STORAGE TO THE M -ZONE AND APPROVING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on November 24, 1987 to receive oral and written testimony regarding this matter and made the following Findings: A. Personalized mini -storage is similar in intensity to other uses in the M-1 Zone; B. The external effect of said use on adjacent uses will not be significant as long as dangerous materials are not stored; C. Personalizied mini -storage will be a benefit to the community by providing residents with convenient storage facilites; NOW, THEREFORE, The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California does hereby ordain the following Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance: SECTION 1. Add to Article 2, Definitions, the following new section: "Section 282. Mini -storage, Personal. Mini -storage shall mean an establishment which rents storage space for personal use by the rentee, and no materials of a hazardous nature, i.e. toxics, highly inflammable, and/or similar are stored; nor shall there be warehousing of whole -sale and/or retail materials and/or products." SECTION 2. Add to Article 9, Section 9-2, Permitted Uses, in alphabetical order the following: "Mini -storage, Personal (see Definitions, Article 2)" PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 24th day of November, 1987. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. 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 ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C RESOLUTION P.C. 87-59(a) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ADDING CARETAKER UNIT TO THE M -ZONE SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND APROVING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 20, 1987 to receive oral and written testimony regarding this matter and made the following Findings: A. Caretaker Units should be- limited to those uses where an unusual form of harm or danger to life or property exists; B. Typical dangers of fire, theft, earthquakes, or similar do not constitute grounds for caretaker units; C. Where unusual danger or harm to property exists beyond those that are typically a concern of the City's public services, i.e. Police, Fire, Public Works, a property owner may request a caretaker's unit; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California does hereby recommend the following Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance: SECTION 1. Add to Article 2, Definitions, the following new section: "Section 283. Caretaker's Unit. Caretaker's unit shall mean a residence of not more than one -bedroom, consisting of not more than 4 rooms, has a maximum of 950 square feet of floor area and is limited in conjunction with those uses where an unusual form of harm or danger to life or property exists beyond those protected' by the Police, Fire, and/or other public agencies as determined by the Planning Commission." SECTION 2. Add to Article 9, Section 9-2, Permitted Uses, in alphabetical order the following: "Caretaker's Unit, Conditional Use Permit required" VOTE: AYES: Comm.Rue,Acting Chmn.Compton NOES: Comm.Peirce ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comms.Ingell,Sheldon CERTIFICATION 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 87-59(a) is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Comm_i,sssion of the amity of Hermosa Beach, California at their regiqa mee ing of; October 20, 1987. J -2 �� e'ald Compton, Acting Chairman Michael Schubach, Secretary Date 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 RESOLUTION P.C. 87-59 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ADDING PERSONALIZED MINI -STORAGE TO THE M -ZONE AND APROVING AN ENVIRONMENT.d. NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS-,- the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 20, 1987 to receive oral and written testimony regarding this matter and made the following Findings: A. Personalized mini -storage is similar in intensity to other uses in the M-1 Zone; B. The external effect of said use on adjacent uses will not be significant as long as dangerous materials are not stored; C. Personalizied mini -storage will be a benefit to the community by providing residents with convenient storage facilities; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California does hereby recommend the following Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance: SECTION 1. Add to Article 2, Definitions, the following new section: "Section 282. Mini -storage, Personal. Mini -storage shall mean an establishment which rents storage space for personal use by the rentee, and no materials of a hazardous nature, i.e. toxics, highly inflammable, and/or similar are stored; nor shall there be warehousing of whole -sale and/or retail materials and/or products." SECTION 2. Add to Article 9, Section 9-2, Permitted• Uses, in alphabetical order the following: "Mini -storage, Personal (see Definitions, Article 2)" VOTE.: AYES: Comm. Peirce,Rue,Acting Chmn.Compton NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comms.Ingell,Sheldon CERTIFICATION 27 I hereby- certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 87-59 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning 28 Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meeting of October 20, 1987. 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2G 27 28 era d—ninipton, Acting Chairman Michael Schubach, Secretary Date 2 • J. PLANNING COMLION MINUTES - OCTOBER 20. 1987~ PAGE 11 TEXT AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ADD "MINI -STORAGE, PERSONAL" AND "CARETAKER'S UNIT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUIRED" TO PERMITTED USES OF M -ZONE, • MANUFACTURING PLANNING COM& BION MINUTES - OCTOBER 20, 198/ PAGE 12 Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 13, 1987. At the August 4, 1987, meeting of the Planning Commission, staff was directed to study allowing mini -storage and caretaker units in the M -Zone. Currently, the ordinance does not allow caretaker units or mini -storages. Allowing mini - storage in the M -Zone would not be a problem so long as the storage of toxics, explosives, highly flammable materials, and other hazardous materials is prohibited. Caretaker units should be extremely limited; otherwise, these types of units are merely a method by which to put residences in the manufacturing zone. Only under unusual circumstances should caretaker units be allowed. Basic security of the building or its contents should not be an adequate reason. To ensure that the caretaker units are reserved for unusual situations, a conditional use permit should be required. Also, the unit should be restricted to one bedroom. The applicant desires to have a caretaker's unit at his existing mini_ storage business because of the danger of severe flooding. The applicant has indicated that water pumps have been installed; but, if for some reason, those pumps fail, severe flooding will occur unless someone is there to correct the failure. Mr. Schubach suggested that the caretaker's unit be only four rooms, with one bedroom, and a maximum of 900 square feet; further, that a conditional use permit be required for this use. He stated that this would be added to the definition of a caretaker's unit. Mr. Schubach recommended approval of the proposed resolution allowing caretaker units and personalized mini -storage facilities in the manufacturing zone. Public Hearing opened at 10:01 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Gene Kowalski, representing the owners of the mini -storage facility, addressed the Commission. He explained the flooding problems at the location of the mini -storage facility. He stated that this facility has a unique requirement for a caretaker's unit because of the flooding problems. He noted that if it becomes necessary in the event of an electrical failure, someone must be present to manually start the back-up gasoline generator. Comm. Rue asked how stored items at the facility are monitored. Mr. Kowalski stated that it is publicized as to what can and cannot be stored at the facility. Also, the items are observed as they are being put into storage. He noted that the caretaker would also oversee what is being stored there; although, his main responsibility would be during the flood season. Chmn. Compton asked whether the management has a right to inspect what is being stored at the facility. Mr. Kowalski stated that the management has a right to refuse storage if there is reason to believe the material is not in compliance with the requirements. He noted that management has'worked with the Police Department in regard to this issue. Peter Bond, 918. Manhattan Avenue, stated that there are other types of generators which are available on the market which do not require a manual start. He continued by describing those systems, and he stated that they are very reliable. He stated that this PLANNING COM( JION MINUTES - OCTOBER 20, 198r PAGE 13 would be much cheaper than having a caretaker live on the premises. Mr. Kowalski stated that he is not familiar with the system discussed by Mr. Bond. He further noted that the owners of the property have spent a large amount of money on the system currently in use at the location and it is state-of-the-art. Mr. Schubach stated that staff feels there is a legitimate reason to have a caretaker at this particular location. He noted that this applicant must come before the Commission to request a conditional use permit for the caretaker's unit; at that time, the Commission can impose conditions which are deemed necessary. Public Hearing closed at 10:07 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Comm. Peirce noted that there are very reliable back-up systems which can be used at this location; however, he stated that they can be quite expensive. Comm. Peirce could see no reason why there should be a caretaker's unit at a mini - storage facility in the manufacturing zone. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Compton, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 87-57, as written; with the addition of wording that the caretaker's unit shall be four rooms, consisting of one bedroom only, a bath, kitchen and living area, to be a maximum of 900 square feet; and that a conditional use permit shall be required for the caretaker's unit. Comm. Peirce asked how many votes are necessary for this motion to pass, noting that it is a zoning matter. Mr. Lough stated that approval would require a majority,_vote.,of._.the_ Commissioners present. Comm. Peirce noted that he would vote against the motion because he could find no compelling reason why there should be a caretaker's unit in the manufacturing zone. He felt that such action would be not be good planning. He noted, however, that he felt a mini -storage use is acceptable in the M -Zone. MOTION WITHDRAWN by Comm. Rue as maker and agreed to by Chmn. Compton as second. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve a portion of the text amendment Resolution: specifically, Section 282, relating to mini -storage, personal; and to delete from Section 2 the following wording: "Caretaker's Unit, Conditional Use Permit required." AYES: Comms. Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT:. Comms. Ingell, Sheldon _ After Mr. Lough researched the code to be certain that approval of zoning issues is based on a majority vote of the Planning Commissioners present, the following motion was made: MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve caretaker's units as part of the text amendment, with the additional staff recommendation that the PLANNING COMM( ON MINUTES - OCTOBER 20, 1987( PAGE 14 caretaker's unit shall be four rooms only — a bedroom, bath, kitchen, and living room; and that the unit shall not exceed 900 square feet. Further, that the unit shall require approval of a conditional use permit. AYES: Comm. Rue, Chmn. Compton NOES: Comm. Peirce ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Sheldon � C October 13, 1987 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission October 20, 1987 SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY NO. 87-10; CARETAKER'S UNIT IN CONJUNCTION WITH PERSONALIZED MINI -STORAGE LOCATION: 552 - 11TH PLACE AND ALL M ZONE AREAS APPLICANT: GEAN KOWALSKI, GUARDIAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT Recommendation Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution allowing caretaker units and personalized mini -storage in the M -Zone. Background At the August 4, 1987 meeting, the Planning Commission directed Staff to study allowing mini -storage and caretaker units in the M -Zone. Analysis Currently, the ordinance does not allow caretaker units or mini -storage. Mini -storage: Allowing mini -storage in the M -Zone would not be a problem as long as the storage of toxics, explosives, highly inflammable materials, and other hazardous materials were prohibited. Caretaker Units: Caretaker units should be extremely limited; otherwise these types of units are just a means to put residences in Manufacturing areas. Only under unusual circumstances should caretaker units be allowed; basic security of the building, or its contents, should not be an adequate reason. To make certainthat caretaker units are reserved for unusual situations, a C.U.P. should be required. Also, the unit should be restricted to a one -bedroom unit. The applicant desires to have a caretaker's unit at his existing mini -storage business because of the danger of severe flooding. The applicant has indicated that water pumps have been installed, but if, for some reason, those pumps fail, severe flooding will occur unless someone is there to correct for the failure. I:il ' 1_AJ1 Michael Schubach Planning Director 1 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council November 16, 1987 Regular Meeting of November 24, 1987 SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY NO. 87-12 & TEXT AMENDMENT PERMITTING RECYCLING FACILITIES INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation Staff recommends adoption of the attached Ordinance approving Recycling Facilities subject to specified conditions. Background On October 20, 1987, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending approval of permitting recycling facilities. Abstract The attached Ordinance is in accordance with the newly enacted state laws regarding recycling. The Ordinance differs from the current interim Ordinance in that it does not require a Conditional Use Permit for single -feed reverse vending machines. However, certain conditions are imposed, and if a request is made to differ with those conditions, a Conditional Use Permit would be required. Analysis Refer to the attached staff report to. the Planning Commission. Attachments 1. Proposed Ordinance. 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 87-64. 3. Planning Commission minutes of October 20, 1987. 4. Staff report to Planning Commission. CUR: 'Gayle T. Martin Inte im City Manager 1 Respectful // ]submit / / //Q /7 X;) .,.r Michael 'Schubaz i 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- N ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PERMITTING RECYCLING FACILITIES IN VARIOUS ZONES AND REQUIRING A CONDITIONAL SE PERMIT FOR CERTAIN FACILITIES, AND APPROVING AN ENVIRONMENTAL EGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public bearing on November 24, 1987 to receive oral and written testimony on this matter and ade the following Findings: The City Council desires to make redemption and recycling of re -usable materials convenient to the consumer in order to reduce litter and increase the recycling of re -usable materials; The City Council desires to encourage the provision of recycling services by adopting a comprehensive and easily understood program of permitting and regulating such uses; C. This ordinance is found by the City Council to be necessary to provide for implementation of the California Beverage Container and Litter Reduction Act; D. In order to protect the health, safety, and welfare related to odors, noise, and aesthetics, the City Council deems this ordinance necessary; E. The City of Hermosa Beach has unique and persistent parking problems in the commercial district. NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby ordain the following: Section 1: Add the following to Article 2, Definitions, of the Zoning Ordinance: "Section 278. Recyclable Material. Recyclable material is re -usable material including but not limited to metals, glass, and paper, which are intended for re -use, remanufacture, or reconstitution for the purpose of using the altered form. Recyclable material does not- •include refuse or hazardous material. Recyclable material may include used motor - 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 oil collected and transported in accordance with Sections 25250.11 and 25143.2(b)(4) of the California Health and Safety Code. Section 279. Reverse Vending Machine(s). A reverse vending machine is an automated mechanical device which accepts at least one or more types of empty beverage containers including but not limited to aluminum cans, glass and plastic bottles, and issues a cash refund or a redeemable credit slip with a value not less than the container's redemption value as determined by the State. A reverse vending machine may sort and process containers mechanically provided that the entire process is enclosed within the machine. In order to accept and temporarily store all three container types in a proportion commensurate with their relative redemption rates and to meet the requirements of certification as a recycling facility, multiple grouping of reverse vending machines may be necessary. Section 280. Mobile Recycling Unit. A mobile recycling unit means an automobile, truck, trailer or van, licensed by the Department of Motor Vehicles which is used for the collection of recyclable materials. A mobile recycling unit also means the bins, boxes or container transported by trucks, vans, or trailers, and used for the collection of recyclable materials. Section 281. Recycling Collection Facilities. A collection facility is a center for the acceptance by donation, redemption, or purchase of recyclable materials from the public. Such a facility does not use power -driven processing equipment except as permitted by Conditional Use Permit. Collection facilities may include the following: 1. Reverse vending machines(s); 2. Small collection facilities which occupy an area of not more than 500 square feet, and include: a. A mobile unit; b. Bulk reverse vending machines or a grouping of reverse vending machines occupying more than 50 square feet; c. Kiosk type units which may include structures; d. Unattended containers placed for the recyclable materials. 3. Large collection facilities which may occupy an area of more than 500 square feet, may include permanent structures and is not appurtenant to a host use." 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 ection 2. Add the following to Article 8, Section 8-2, Neighborhood Commercial Zone, in alphabetical order: "Reverse vending machine(s); subject to Article 10, Section 10-10." ection Add the folowing to Article 8, Section 8-4, General Commercial Zone, in alphabetical order: "Recycling, small collection Article 10, Section 10-11; required. Recycling, large collection Article 10, Section 10-11; required." facilities; Conditional facility; Conditional subject to Use Permit subject to Use Permit ection 4. Add the following new section to Article 10, Conditional Use Permit Standards: "Section 10-10. Reverse Vending Machines(s). Reverse vending machine(s), single feed, may be installed without a Conditional Use Permit when the following criteria and standards are met; any variation to such standards or criteria shall require a Conditional Use Permit. Violation of the standards and criteria shall be deemed a misdemeanor offense, and grounds for removal of the use as determined by the Planning Commission. 1. Established in conjunction with a commercial use or community service facility which is in compliance with the zoning, building and fire codes of the City; 2. Located within 30 feet of the entrance to the commercial structure and shall not obstruct pedestrian or vehicular circulation; 3. Parking spaces required by the primary use are not occupied; 4. No more than 50 square feet of floor space per installation, including any protective enclosure, and shall be no more than eight (8) feet in height; 5. Constructed of durable waterproof and rustproof material; 6. Clearly marked to identify the type material to be deposited, operating instructions, and the identity and phone number of the operator or responsible person to call if the machine is inoperative; 7. Sign area of a maximum of four (4) square feet per machine, exclusive of operating instructions; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a. The facility shall be clearly marked with signage that lists the appropriate emergency telephone number of County Health Department for persons to contact in case of an immediate threat to public health and safety caused by debris or any other health hazards; 8. Maintained in a clean, litter -free condition on a daily basis; 9. Operating hours shall be at least the operating hours of the host use; 10. Illuminated to ensure comfortable and safe operation if operating hours are between dusk and dawn. 11. An annual business license shall be obtained. Section 10-11. Recycling, Small Collection Facilities. Small collection facilities may be sited in the C-3 and M-1 zones with a conditional use permit provided they shall comply with the following conditions: 1. Established in conjunction with an existing commercial use or community service facility which is in compliance with the zoning, building and fire codes of the City; 2. No larger than 500 square feet; 3. Set back at least ten (10) feet from any street line and shall not obstruct pedestrian or vehicular circulation; 4. Accept only glass, metals, plastic containers, papers and other items as deemed acceptable by the Planning Commission; 5. No power -driven processing equipment except for reverse vending machines; 6. Containers constructed and maintained with durable waterproof and rustproof material, covered when site is not attended, secured from unauthorized entry or removal of material, and of a capacity sufficient to acomodate materials collected in conjunction with the collection schedule; 7. Store all recyclable material in containers or in the mobile unit vehicle, and no materials outside of containers when attendant is not present; 8. Maintained free of litter and any other undesirable materials, and mobile facilities, when truck or containers are removed at the end of each collection day, shall be swept at the end of each collection day; 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 9. Maximum noise levels of 60 dBA as measured at the property line of residentially zoned or occupied property; a maximum of 70 dBA in all other cases; 10. Attended facilities located within 100 feet of a property zoned or occupied for residential use shall operate only during the hours between 9:00 a.m. and 7:30 p.m.; 11. Containers for the 24-hour donation of materials shall be at least 100 feet from any property occupied for residential use unless there is a recognized service corridor and acoustical sheilding between the container and the residential use; 12. Containers shall be clearly marked to identify the type of material which may be deposited; the facility shall be clearly marked to identify the name and telephone number of the facility operator and the hours of operation, and display a notice stating that no material shall be left outside the recycling enclosure of containers; a. The facility shall be clearly marked with signage that lists the appropriate emergency telephone number of the County Health Department for persons to contact in case of an immediate threat to public health and safety caused by debris and/or any other health hazards; 13. Signs may be established as follows: a. Recycling facilities may have identification signs with a maximum of 20 percent per side or 16 square feet, whichever is larger, in addition to informational signs required in condition 12; in the case of a wheeled facility, the side will be measured from the pavement to the top of the container; 14. The facility shall not encroach into any landscaping; 15. Mobile recycling units shall have an area clearly marked to prohibit other vehicular parking during hours when the mobile unit is scheduled to be present; 16. Occupation of parking spaces by the facility and the attendant may not reduce available parking spaces below the minimum number required for the primary host use; 17. If the permit expires without renewal, the collection facility shall be removed from the site on the day following permit expiration. Section 10-12. Recycling, Large Collection Facilities. - 5 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Large collection facilities may be sited in the C-3 and M-1 Zones with a Conditional Use Permit provided they comply with the following conditions: 1. Facility does not abut a property zoned or planned for residential use; 2. Facility will be screened from the public. right-of-way by operating in an enclosed building or: a. Within an area enclosed by an opaque block wall at least six (6) feet in height with landscaping. b. At least 150 feet from the property zoned or planned for residential use; and c. Meets all applicable noise standards. 3. Setbacks and landscape requirements shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission; 4. All exterior storage of material shall be in sturdy containers which are covered, secured, and maintained in good condition. Storage containers for flammable material shall be constructed of nonflammable material. Oil storage must be in containers approved by the Fire Department. No storage, excluding truck trailers and overseas containers, will be visible above the height of the fencing; 5. Site shall be maintained free of litter and any other undesirable materials, and will be cleaned of loose debris on a daily basis; 6. A minimum of six (6) vehicle parking spaces, or one space per 1000 square feet of land area, whichever is greater, shall be provided; 7. One (1) parking space will be provided for each commercial vehicle operated by the recycling facility. 8. Noise levels shall not exceed 60 dBA as measured at the property line of residentially zoned property, or otherwise shall not exceed 70 dBA; 9. If the facility is located within 500 feet of property zoned, planned or occupied for residential use, it shall not be in operation between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.; 10. Any containers provided for after-hours donation of recyclable materials will be at least 100 feet from any property zoned or occupied for residential use, shall be of sturdy, rustproof construction, shall have sufficient capacity to accommodate materials - 6 - 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 collected, and shall be secure from unauthorized entry or removal of materials. 11. Donation areas will be kept free of litter and any other undesirable material, and containers will be clearly marked to indentify the type of material that may be deposited; facility shall display a notice stating that no material shall be left outside the recycling containers; 12. Facility will be clearly marked with the same name and phone number of the facility operator and the hours of operation; identification and informational signs will meet the standards of the zone; and directional signs, bearing no advertising message, may be installed, if necessary, to facilitate traffic circulation or if the facility is not visible from the public right. -of -way; a. The facility shall be clearly marked with signage that lists the appropriate emergency telephone number of County Health Department for persons to contact in case of an immediate threat to public health and safety caused by debris or any other health hazards. 13. Power -driven processing, including aluminum foil and can compacting, baling, plastic shredding, or other light processing activities necessary for efficient temporary storage and shipment of material, may be approved if noise and other conditions are met. ASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 24th day of November, 1987. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. TTEST: PPROVED AS TO FORM: 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 c RESOLUTION P.C. 87-64 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING PERMITTING RECYCLING FACILITIES IN VARIOUS ZONES AND REQUIRING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CERTAIN FACILITIES, AND APPROVING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE IsECLARATION. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 20, 1987 to receive oral and written testimony on this ••.atter and made the following Findings: The Planning Commission desires to make redemption and recycling of re -usable materials convenient to the consumer in order to reduce litter and increase the recycling of re -usable materials; B. The Planning Commission desires to encourage the provision of recycling services by adopting a comprehensive and easily understood program of permitting and regulating such uses; C. This ordinance is found by the Planning Commission to be necessary to provide for implementation of the California Beverage Container and Litter Reduction Act; D. In order to protect the health, safety, and welfare related to odors, noise, and aesthetics, the Planning Commission deems this ordinance necessary; E. The City of Hermosa Beach has unique and persistent -,parking problems in the commercial district. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby recommend the following: Section 1: Add the following to Article 2, Definitions, of the Zoning Ordinance: "Section 278. Recyclable Material. Recyclable material is re -usable material including but not limited to metals, glass, and paper, which are intended for re -use, remanufacture, or reconstitution for the purpose of using the altered form. Recyclable - 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 material does not include refuse or hazardous material. Recyclable material may include used motor oil collected and transported in accordance with Sections 25250.11 and 25143.2(b)(4) of the California Health and Safety Code. Section 279. Reverse Vending Machine(s). A reverse vending machine is an automated mechanical device which accepts at least one or more types of empty beverage containers including but not limited to aluminum cans, glass and plastic bottles, and issues a cash refund or a redeemable credit slip with a value not less than the container's redemption value as determined by the State. A reverse vending machine may sort and process containers mechanically provided that ,the entire process is enclosed within the machine. In order to accept and temporarily store all three container types in a proportion commensurate with their relative redemption rates and to meet the requirements of certification as a recycling facility, multiple grouping of reverse vending machines may be necessary. Section 280. Mobile Recycling Unit. A mobile recycling unit means an automobile, truck, trailer or van, licensed by the Department of Motor Vehicles which is used for the collection of recyclable materials. A mobile recycling unit also means the bins, boxes or container transported by trucks, vans, or trailers, and used for the collection of recyclable materials. Section 281. Recycling Collection Facilities. A collection facility is a center for the acceptance by donation, redemption, or purchase of recyclable materials from the public. Such a facility does not use power -driven .processing equipment except as permitted by Conditional Use Permit. Collection facilities may include the following: 1. Reverse vending machines(s); 2. Small collection facilities which occupy an area of not more than 500 square feet, and include: a. A mobile unit; b. Bulk reverse vending machines or a grouping of reverse vending machines occupying more than 50 square feet; c. Kiosk type units which may include structures; d. Unattended containers placed for the recyclable materials. 3. Large collection facilities which may occupy an area of more than 500 square feet, may include 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 permanent structures and is not appurtenant to a host use." Section 2 Add the following to Article 8, Section 8-2, Neighborhood Commercial Zone, in alphabetical order: "Reverse vending machine(s); subject to Article 10, Section 10-10." Section 3. Add the folowing to Article 8, Section 8-4, General Commercial Zone, in alphabetical order: "Recycling, small collection facilities; Article 10, Section 10-11; Conditional required. Recycling, large collection facility; Article 10, Section 10-11; Conditional required." subject to Use Permit subject to Use Permit Section 4. Add the following new section to Article 10, Conditional Use Permit Standards: "Section 10-10. Reverse Vending Machines(s). Reverse vending machine(s), single feed, may be installed without a Conditional Use Permit when the following criteria and standards are met; any variation to such standards or criteria shall require a Conditional Use Permit. Violation of the standards and criteria shall be deemed a misdemeanor offense, and grounds for removal of the use as determined by the Planning Commission. 1. Established in conjunction with a commercial use or community service facility which is in compliance with the zoning, building and fire codes of the City; 2. Located within .30 feet of the entrance to the commercial structure and shall not obstruct pedestrian or vehicular circulation; 3. Parking spaces required by the primary use are not occupied; 4. No more than 50 square feet of floor space per installation, including any protective enclosure, and shall be no more than eight (8) feet -in height; 5. Constructed of durable waterproof and rustproof material; 6. Clearly marked to identify the type material to be deposited, operating instructions, and the identity -and phone number of the operator or responsible person to call if the machine is inoperative; 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 7. Sign area of a maximum of four (4) square feet per machine, exclusive of operating instructions; a. The facility shall be clearly marked with signage that lists the appropriate emergency telephone number of County Health Department for persons to contact in case of an immediate threat to public health and safety caused by debris or any other health hazards; 8. Maintained in a clean, litter -free condition on a daily basis; 9. Operating hours shall be at least the operating hours of the host use; 10.. Illuminated to ensure comfortable and safe operation if operating hours are between dusk and dawn. 11. An annual business license shall be obtained. Section 10-11. Recycling, Small Collection Facilities. Small collection facilities may be sited in the C-3 and M-1 zones with a conditional use permit provided they shall comply with the following conditions: 1. Established in conjunction with an existing commercial use or community service facility which is in compliance with the zoning, building and fire codes of the City; 2. No larger than 500 square feet; 3. Setback at least ten (10) feet from any street line and shall not obstruct pedestrian or vehicular circulation; 4. Accept only glass, metals, plastic containers, papers and other items as deemed acceptable by the Planning Commission; 5. No power -driven processing equipment except for reverse vending machines; 6. Containers constructed and maintained with durable waterproof and rustproof material, covered when site is not attended, secured from unauthorized entry or removal of material, and of a capacity sufficient to acomodate materials collected in conjunction with the collection schedule; 7. Store all recyclable material in containers or in the mobile unit vehicle, and no materials outside of containers when attendant is not present; 8. Maintained free of litter and any other undesirable materials, and mobile facilities, when truck or 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 containers are removed at the end of each collection day, shall be swept at the end of each collection day; 9. Maximum noise levels of 60 dBA as measured at the property line of residentially zoned or occupied property; a maximum of 70 dBA in all other cases; 10. Attended facilities located within 100 feet of a property zoned or occupied for residential use shall operate only during the hours between 9:00 a.m. and 7:30 p.m.; 11. Containers for the 24-hour donation of materials shall be at least 100 feet from any property occupied for residential use unless there is a recognized service corridor and acoustical sheilding between the container and the residential use; 12. Containers shall be clearly marked to identify the type of material which may be deposited; the facility shall be clearly marked to identify the name and telephone number of the facility operator and the hours of operation, and display a notice stating that no material shall be left outside the recycling enclosure of containers; a. The facility shall be clearly marked with signage that lists the appropriate emergency telephone number of the County Health Department for persons to contact in case of an immediate threat to public health and safety caused by debris and/or any other health hazards; 13. Signs may be established as follows: a. Recycling facilities may have identification signs with a maximum of 20 percent per side or 16 square feet, whichever is larger, in addition to informational signs required in condition 12; in the case of a wheeled facility, the side will be measured from the pavement to the top of the container; 14. The facility shall not encroach into any landscaping; 15. Mobile recycling units shall have an area clearly marked to prohibit other vehicular parking during hours when the mobile unit is scheduled to be present; 16. Occupation of parking spaces by the facility and the attendant may not reduce available parking spaces below the minimum number required for the primary host use; 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 17. If the permit expires without renewal, the collection facility shall be removed from the site on the day following permit expiration. Section 10-12. Recycling, Large Collection Facilities. Large collection facilities may be sited in the C-3 and M-1 Zones with a Conditional Use Permit provided they comply with the following conditions: 1. Facility does not abut a property zoned or planned for residential use; 2. Facility will _be screened from the public right-of-way by operating in an enclosed building or: a. Within an area enclosed by an opaque block wall at least six (6) feet in height - -with landscaping. b. At least 150 feet from the property zoned or planned for residential use; and c. Meets all applicable noise standards. 3. Setbacks and landscape requirements shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission; 4. All exterior storage of material shall be in sturdy containers which are covered, secured, and maintained in good condition. Storage containers for flammable material shall be constructed of nonflammable material. Oil storage must be in containers approved by the Fire Department. No storage, excluding truck trailers and overseas containers, will be visible above the height of the fencing; 5. Site shall be maintained free of litter and any other undesirable materials, and will be cleaned of loose debris on a daily basis; 6. A minimum of six (6) vehicle parking spaces, or one space per 1000 square feet of land area, whichever is greater, shall be provided; 7. One (1) parking space will be provided for each commercial vehicle operated by the recycling facility. 8. Noise levels shall not exceed 60 dBA as measured at• the property line of residentially zoned property, or otherwise shall not exceed 70 dBA; 9. If the facility is located within 500 feet of property zoned, planned or occupied for residential use, it shall not be in operation between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.; 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 27 28 10. Any containers provided for after-hours donation of recyclable materials will be at least 100 feet from any property zoned or occupied for residential use, shall be of sturdy, rustproof construction, shall have sufficient capacity to accommodate materials collected, and shall be secure from unauthorized entry or removal of materials. 11. Donation areas will be kept free of litter and any other undesirable material, and containers will be clearly marked to indentify the type of material that may be deposited; facility shall display a notice stating that no material shall be left outside the recycling containers; 12. Facility will be clearly marked with the same name and phone number of the facility operator and the hours of operation; identification and informational signs will meet the standards of the zone; and directional signs, bearing no advertising message, may be installed, if necessary, to facilitate traffic circulation or if the facility is not visible from the public right-of-way; a. The facility shall be clearly marked with signage that lists the appropriate emergency telephone number of County Health Department for persons to contact in case of an immediate threat to public health and safety caused by debris or any other health hazards. 13. Power -driven processing, including aluminum foil and can compacting, baling, plastic shredding, or other light processing activities necessary for efficient temporary storage and shipment of material, may be approved if noise and other conditions are met. VOTE: AYES: Comms.Peirce,Rue NOES: Acting Chmn.Compton ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comms.Ingell,Sheldon CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 87-64 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commi'ss�on/of the -City of Hermosa Beach, California at their egular s eetin-g of October 20, 1987. _, r - /-- era'ld Compton, Acting Date Chairman Michael Schubach, Secretary 7 PLANNING COMMIStON MINUTES - OCTOBER 20, 1987 ( Pi 1!LE 11+ TEXT AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMcV TECTMENE=1:111VIITEMS VARIOUS ZONES AND REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL 1`Es`E'. MERIC.1. Eat iMfRMANd FACILITIES; AND APPROVE AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGAM E dil,"lIi]h'f Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 16, 1987. fuau:inttKv a ltiw ,11?l-e,Cit 17 Council adopted an interim ordinance allowing recycling fttriliEtiis:;ihritlitteCiDrurnialcrii-allanki Manufacturing zones, and requested staff to prepare a pernant€*ati ctr tfirr�rt:. Mr. Schubach stated that there are three types of recydl ag fti .;iii that roma permit: reverse vending machines, small collection falittiriet54, arnrd a i=alertiazta facilities. However, cities may regulate these facilities tat tii'tth, s anrfi wteiLri~. Based on the State's model ordinance, large collection ft iitlic i ;c :uitd wilt -Malik prohibited in this City since these facilities can be restri?r di uai iii 15110 f+eett. fawn. a yy residential use or zone. Mr. Schubach went on to describe in detail the three difr tentt tiyItissi oft n ,cixhg n facilities. He concluded by stating that staff recomminc& a ,ai at° ittie growled resolution permitting recycling facilities. Chmn. Compton discussed wording which could be incorraaratiedthe. ressalliltbYtin ih regard to indoor reverse vending machines. Mr. Schubach stated that he would rewrite the ordran and; returns It Ur), Atte Commission. Mr. Schubach discussed the reverse vending machines and he. manes; in+ wltrnh tqi y wsow:111 be permitted. Public Hearing opened at 10:25 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Peter Bond, 918 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, widinaossiet tittagnmilusiim mr1 discussed the various recycling facilities. He stated that1Hletam.o &f:artfhis awbearrys3nrar1 city and it is important to maintain a cleaner area. I-II ;telt that r,atryarllnT riil ie� would harm the commercial areas; although, they 'navy agiwarlyriiili& iii .tire manufacturing zones. He noted concern that such fact;ities rr:iet cthalwtr: art rrtts; tt-o the area. He felt that recycling facilities could have serious iepcns' Qrassiintfiittyainrdtm regard to environmental aspects. He also noted concern fa ran ii?ffiean: Mr. Lough noted that this issue is state mandated and not corrutttolied,byr tile'Ci,tiyz< Public Hearing closed at 10:33 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Chmn. Compton asked about the small collection facilitbi „ r ti„g t i itt 'i'tits Aype ;of facility might be the most likely to draw transients. Ht net .tf' ttis t tliet crouldi potential problem. He asked whether there could ie trandituisna-h ust}. le/mitt 1.-4UNIN11N� M1INU1L'J - UC1.013ER 20, 1987 PAGE 15 requirement for the reverse vending machines. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative. He noted that there is currently such a requirement for large and small collection facilities in the interim ordinance. Mr. Schubach stated that the City Council has suggested that reverse vending machines be encouraged by not requiring a conditional use permit. Chmn. Compton disagreed, stating that he feels conditional use permits should be required for all the facilities, and that all such facilities should be monitored very carefully to determine potential problems. If problems persist, the CUP could then be revoked. Mr. Schubach stated that many requirements have een added in regard to the recycling facilities, even though each one does not necessacahave to come before the Planning Commission. Chmn. Compton stressed the importance of the conditional use permit process as it relates to enforcement issues. Comm. Rue disagreed, stating that it's about time recycling facilities are made available because of the large amounts of trash generated within the City. He felt that the requirements imposed on the reverse vending machines are quite adequate. He noted that his only concern is with the large facilities because of the potential for noise problems. He noted, however, that there is a noise ordinance to address that issue. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 87-54. Chmn. Comp -ton stated that he did not feel that recycling facilities should be allowed everywhere in the City; therefore, he would vote against the motion. He stated that his opposition to the motion is based only on the issue of the conditional use permits, not the requirements for reverse vending machines. He noted the importance of enforcement issues in regard to these facilities. In all other aspects, he favored approval of the ordinance. AYES: Comms. Peirce, Rue NOES: Chmn. Compton ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Sheldon 1' October 16, 1987 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beacb Planning Commission October 20,1987 SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY NO. 87-12 & TEXT AMENDMENT PERMITTING RECYCLING FACILITIES INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution permitting recycling facilities. Background Pursuant to State law, the City Council adopted an interim ordinance allowing recycling facilities in the Commercial and Manufacturing Zones, and directed Staff to prepare a permanent ordinance. Analysis Recycling Facilities: There are 3 types of recycling facilities that cities must permit: (1) Reverse vending machines, (2) Small collection facility, and (3) Large collection facility. However, cities may regulate these facilites for health, safety, and welfare, and based on the State's model ordinance, large collection facilities could be virtually prohibited in this City since these facilitates can be restricted within 150 feet from any residential use or zone. The following is the description of the 3 types of facilities: 1. Reverse Vending Machine Reverse vending machines are mechanical devices that accept one or more types of empty beverage containers and issue a cash refund or redeemable coupon. Some machines will also dispense coupons and promotional materials. The machines identify containers by reading the bar code, scanning the shape, or by other methods. There are two main types of reverse vending machines: single -feed and bulk -feed. Single -feed machines resemble soda vending machines in size and appearance. They accept one container at at time, count the containers, and pay the consumer by number of containers deposited. One machine may take aluminum, glass, and plastic containers or there may be a separate machine for each material. Bulk reverse vending machines are substantially larger. They accept several containers at once,. usually pay by weight, and will hold a substantially larger amount than a single -feed 1 reverse vending machine. Because of their larger size, parking lot placement, and noise, bulk vending machines are treated in the model ordinance as small collectors. 2. Small Collection Facility Small collection facilites are no larger than 500 square feet and are intended for collection only. They have room for limited, day-to-day storage of material, and do not include power -driven processing equipment except as part of reverse vending machines. Examples of small collection facilities are: * Single drop-off containers for newspaper or glass; * A set of containers with a staff person on-site 30 hours a week to purchase materials, and the containers remain on-site for donation of materials at other times; * A truck which arrives on-site to purchase materials 30 hours a week, and is driven off-site at other times; * A truck collecting re -usable materials for a charity such as a Goodwill truck; * A trailer or compartmentalized roll -off bin which remains on-site, and is exchanged for a new bin when full. An attendant is present 30 hours a week to purchase materials. During off hours, all equipment is loaded into the trailer and locked. 3. Large Collection Facility Large collection facilities buy or accept material from the public, move it to a shipping container, and store it until there is enough for a shipment. Large collection facilities differ from the small collection facilites in that they are larger than 500 square feet, would most likely occupy a single site rather than being on a host use, and have capacity for aggregating and storing larger amounts of material on-site in preparaton for shipping to market. This type of facility is usually permanent and may include permanent structures. A large collection facility uses little or no power -driven processing equipment. Large collection facilities vary in design and operation and may include: * A buy-back center located at a former gas station, with most material handling indoors and with storage containers located in or behind the building not visible to the public; * A drop-off and buy-back recycling center operated by a non-profit organization._ Employees accept and sort 2 * A drop-off and buy-back recycling center operated by a non-profit organization. Employees accept and sort material from the public; drop-off containers are usually available when the facility is not attended. Processing Facilities: A processing facility receives material from the public and/or other recycling facilities and uses power -driven machinery to prepare recyclable materials for efficient shipment. Because of economies of scale, processing facilities will often be able to pay a higher scrap price for materials than small collectors. They will attract customers who bring relatively large amounts of materials. A processing facility should not be confused with a =certified processor. A certified processor is defined in the Act as a facility which purchases at least one container type from recycling centers and "cancels" them. Cancellation consists of shipping the containers directly to their end user, or_ physically processing them in a prescribed and recognizable manner so that they cannot be re -redeemed. Certified processors pay recycling centers their redemption values and scrap values, and often will collect materials from reverse vending machines and small collectors in convenience zones. Processing facilities, as defined in the model zoning ordinance, do not have to be certified processors. The definitions and conditions for processing facilities in the model zoning ordinance will allow them to perform the tasks required of certified processors. Light and heavy processing facilities are distinguished from each other in the model. A light processing facility consists of up to 45,000 square feet and has no more than two (2) shipments of material a day on the average. This limits the volume, nuumber of 'customers and size of the quipment. Heavy processing facilities are larger, have higher volume, may accept materials that arebulky or more difficult to work with, have more truck traffic, and use more powerful processing machinery. The impacts of processing facilities are similar to those of smaller facilities except in degree. They include noise, customer and truck traffic, outdoor storage and appearance. Industrial impacts such as dust, fumes, smoke, and vibration are generally not created. Examples of processing facilities include: * A Beverage distibutor who buys aluminum cans and uses an aluminum can flattener, blower and/or briquetter; * A company that buys aluminum cans, glass bottles, plastic bottles, and newspaper from the public; collects office paper from commercial facilities; operates several satellite centers; and processes the materials on-site; * A company that processes material from a commercial corrugated collection program and from a community curbside recycling program. Because a processing facility is at least 45,000 square feet in area and since, the State's model ordinance states that these facilities should not be located near residential development, Staff believes these type of facilities should not be permitted in Hermosa Beach. Because of the configuration of Hermosa Beach, both commercial and manufacturing areas are adjacent to residential areas; thereby making it virtually impossible to locate a processing facility away from residential uses. Eliminating Parking: Currently, there is some cnfusion regarding the recycling facility Act and the locating of facilities on required parking areas. Staff has attended a seminar and obtained literature concerning the new 1-aw. Nowhere does the new law require a City to permit recycling facilities on required parking areas. The model ordinance does suggest that it be allowed, but it is not mandated. The City has the right to adopt reasonable rules and regulations and a right to deny a permit when it finds a facility to be detrimental to health, safety, and welfare. Michael SchubC Planning Director November 5, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of November 10, 1987 CONSIDERATION OF HOLDING BUT ONE REGULAR MEETING DURING THE MONTH OF DECEMBER The regularly scheduled Council meetings of December, 1987 are December 8 and 22. Traditionally the Council has met but once during that month, also we have usually avoided meeting during the week of Christmas. It is suggested that the City Council declare its intent to meet but once (as a regular meeting) during December, 1987 and that the date of the meeting be December 15 or 16, at 7:30 p.m. with a Closed Session at 6 p.m. . , / GAY " T. MARTIN Interim City Manager GM/ld 'November 19, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of November 24, 1987 INSTRUCTIONS TO CITY SELECTION COMMITTEE DELEGATE TO VOTE FOR APPOINTMENT OF A MEMBER OF THE SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT BOARD Recommendation It is recommended that: 1. City Council select one of the nominated candidates for election to the SCAQMD Board; and 2. Instruct delegate to vote for the selected candidate. Background On December , 1 1987at 8:00 p.m. in McCandeless Auditorium, 9150 E. Flai3 r Drive, El Monte, California, the City Selection Commit- tee will elect a person to represent the Los Angeles County Cit- ies on the streamlined Board of Directors of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for a 4 -year term. At the last session of the Legislature, SB -51 was passed and signed into law. This new law has a significant impact on the mandates, authorities and appointments on the District Board. Analysis The composition of the District Board is outlined in the attached letter dated November 9, 1987 from Charles Storing, Chairman, Los Angeles County City Selection Committee. This letter goes fur- ther to state the desired qualifications of the Board member to be appointed and that person's ability to attend Board meetings. Mayor Simpson has received correspondence indicating that the following persons have been nominated: 1. Marvin Braude - City of Los Angeles 2. Tom Heinsheimer - City of Rolling Hills 3. Leo King - City of Baldwin Park Also appended hereto is a letter dated November 16, 1987 from Hal Croyts, President, South Bay Cities Association, indicating the support of that organization for the election of Tom Heinsheimer. Mayor Simpson has indicated she will be unable to attend the De- cember 3, 1987 meeting of the City Selection Committee and has designated Mayor Pro Tem Rosenberger to be the City's delegate - for this meeting with instructions to vote for the candidate se- lected by City Council. GAYLE, . MARTIN Inter m City Manager MEMBER CITIES Agoura Huls Alhambra Arcadia Artesia Avalon Azusa Baldwin Park Bellflower Bell Bell Gardens Beverly Hills Bradbury Burbank Carson Cerritos Claremont Commerce Compton Covina Cudahy Culver City Downey Duarte El Monte El Segundo Gardena Glendale Glendora Hawaiian Gardens Hawthorne Hermosa Beach Hidden Hills Huntington Park Industry Inglewood Irwindale La Canada/Flintridge La Habra Heights Lakewood La Mirada Lancaster La Puente La Verne Lawndale Lomita Long Beach Los Angeles Lynwood Manhattan Beach Maywood Monrovia Montebello Monterey Park Norwalk Palmdale Palos Verdes Estates Paramount Pasadena Pico Rivera Pomona Rancho Palos Verdes Redondo Beach Rolling Hills Rolling Hills Estates Rosemead San Dimas San Fernando San Gabriel San Marino Santa Fe Springs Santa Monica Sierra Madre Signal Hill South El Monte South Gate South Pasadena Temple City Torrance Vernon Walnut West Covina West Hollywood Westlake Village Whittier LOS ANGELES COUNTY CITY SELECTION COMMITTEE Hon. Etta Simpson, Mayor City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mayor Simpson: November 9, 1987 Ii&' �2 ?., � ,?)/t:ti I4::Lt t1 V L OFFICERS Charles storing Chairman Edmund Krause Vice Chairman Larry J. Monteilh Secretary Violet Verona Deputy Secretary As most of you are aware, Senate Bill 151 (Presley), which reorganizes the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board, was passed by the State Legislature and signed into law by the Governor on September 28, 1987. The new law has a significant impact on the mandates, authorities and appointments on the District Board. For the purpose of the City Selection Committee's upcoming meeting, I will just address changes which affect the appointment process of the cities in the south coast district. They are summarized as follows: --The composition of the District Board includes 11 members appointed for 4 -year terms. The terms will be determined by lot: Four members - January 15, 1990 Four members - January 15, 1991 Three members - January 15, 1992 A. Three appointees: °One by the Governor (technical qualifications are specified), the Senate Rules Committee, and the Speaker of the Assembly. B. Eight locally -elected officials: °Four representing each of the four counties in the District and appointed by the respective County Boards. °Four appointed by the cities in each County (members shall be either a mayor or a councilmember). The appointments shall be acted on at a duly noticed meeting of the City Selection Commitee, which shall meet in a government building and provide an opportunity for testimony on the qualifications of the candidates. 383 HALL OF ADMINISTRATION, 500 WEST TEMPLE STREET. LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 City Selection Committee November 9, 1987 Page 2 The appointment shall be made by not less than 2/3 (56) of all the cities in the District, and not less than 2/3 (4,894,923) of the population of all incorporated cities. (The census data provided by the State Finance Department confirmed the total population of 84 cities at 7,342,384 as of 1-1-87.) - -All members shall be residents of the District. - -All members shall be appointed on the basis of their demonstrated interest and proven ability in the field of air pollution control and their understanding of the needs of the general public in connection with air pollution problems of the South Coast Air Basin. - -Each member shall be appointed on the basis of his or her abi- lity to attend substantially all meetings of the District Board, to discharge all duties and responsibilities on a regular basis, and to participate actively in the affairs of the District. --No member may designate an alternate for any purpose or other- wise be represented by another in his or her capacity as a member of the District Board. - -Persons residing in unincorporated areas or areas of a county outside of the South Coast District shall not be considered for appointment. I urge you to carefully consider these new requirements before nominating a candidate(s) or voting on the appointment at the December 3, 1987 meeting of the City Selection Committee. An agenda of this meeting is enclosed. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and I look forward to seeing you on December 3rd. Staff will be available at (213) 974-1431 to answer any questions you may have. Very truly yours, ,>- ` o,t!A4/1,. CHARLES STORING IL Chairman CS:KN:nhb Enclosure JPA1/C LOS ANGELES COUNTY CITY SELECTION COMMITTEE MEMBER CITIES OFFICERS Agoura Hills Alhambra Arcadia Artesia Avalon Azusa Baldwin Park Bellflower Bell Bell Gardens Beverly Hills Bradbury Burbank Carson Cerritos Claremont Commerce Compton Covina Cudahy Culver City Downey Duarte El Monte El Segundo Gardena Glendale Glendora Hawaiian Gardens Hawthorne Hermosa Beach Hidden Hills Huntington Park Industry Inglewood Irwindale La Canada/Flintridge La Habra Heights Lakewood La Mirada Lancaster La Puente La Verne Lawndale Lomita Long Beach Los Angeles Lynwood Manhattan Beach Maywood Monrovia Montebello Monterey Park Norwalk Palmdale Palos Verdes Estates Paramount Pasadena Pico Rivera Pomona Rancho Palos Verdes Redondo Beach Rolling Hills Rolling Hills Estates Rosemead San Dimas San Fernando San Gabriel San Marino Santa Fe Springs Santa Monica Sierra Madre Signal Hill South El Monte South Gate South Pasadena Temple City Torrance - Vernon Walnut West Covina West Hollywood Westlake Village Whittier Date: December 3, 1987 Time: 8:00 p.m. Place: NOTICE OF MEETING McCandeless Auditorium 9150 E. Flair Drive El Monte, California AGENDA 1. Call to order and roll call. 2. Approval of minutes of June 4, 1987. 3. Appointment of one member to the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board for a 4 -year term. BY Vi -V- ffattAneLAL) a JPC1/C 383 HALL OF ADMINISTRATION, 500 WEST TEMPLE STREET, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 Charles Storing Chairmen Edmund Krause Vice Chairman Larry J. Monteilh Secretary Violet Varona Deputy Secretary GLENDALE • se eie11/41. 0 LOS ANGELES • PASADENA 9150 Flair Drive El Monte, CA (818)-572-6200 SAN GABRIEL 0 tP c9 e•c9 17 �� a9 su X41. 09 09 Go 1 San Bernardino Frwy Pomona"' WHITTIER LOS ANGELES COUNTY CITY SELECTION COMMITTEE MINUTES The meeting of the Los Angeles County City Selection Committee was held Thursday, June 4, 1987 at the Luminarias Restaurant, 3500 Ramona Boulevard, Monterey Park, California. Chairman Charles Storing called the meeting to order at 8:05 p.m The Secretary called the roll and the following duly authorized persons representing 57 cities were present constituting a quorum: Fran Pavley, Mayor Agoura Hills James Van Horn, Jr., Councilmember Artesia Eugene Moses, Mayor Azusa Richard Gibson, Mayor Baldwin Park Jay Price, Mayor Bell Joseph Cvetko, Mayor Bellflower Donna Ellman, Councilmember Beverly Hills Bill Dillard, Councilmember Bradbury Mary Kelsey, Mayor Burbank Sylvia Muise, Councilmember Carson Barry Rabbitt, Councilmember Cerritos Judy Wright, Mayor Claremont Michael Gue-rra, Mayor Commerce Walter Tucker, Mayor Compton Henry Morgan, Councilmember Covina Tom Thurman, Councilmenber Cudahy. Robert Cormac, Councilmember Downey John Van Doren, Mayor Duarte Don McMillen, Mayor- El Monte Ginger Bremberg, Mayor - Glendale Kenneth Prestesate-r, Mayor Glendora Rosalie Sher, Mayor- Hawaiian Gardens' Charles Bookhammer, Councilmember - Hawthorne Los Angeles County - City Selection Committee Minutes of June 4, 1987 Page 2 Jim Rosenberger, Councilmember Thomas Jackson, Mayor Edmund Krause, Councilmember Jean Good, Councilmember Marc Titel, Mayor Louis Piltz, Councilmember Lynn Harrison, Councilmember Robert Rodriguez, Councilmember Charles Belba, Councilmember Joy Picus, Councilmember John Byork, Councilmember Gil Archuletta, Councilmember Betty Lou Rogers, Councilmember William Nighswonger, Councilmember Chris Houseman, Councilmember Margaret Nelson, Mayor Esther Caldwell, Councilmember Loretta Glickman, Councilmember Garth Gardner, Mayor Nell Soto, Councilmember Jacki Bacharach, Councilmember Jack Chapman, Councilmember Gordana Swanson, Mayor Nell Mirels, Councilmember Dennis McDonald, Councilmember Terry Dipple, Councilmember Janis Cohen, Mayor Rosemary Simmons, Mayor Jessie Blacksmith, Mayor Albert Perez, Mayor Herbert Cranton, Councilmember Harvey Holden, Mayor Kenneth Chappel, Mayor Charles Storing, Councilmember Hermosa Beach -Huntington Park La Canada/Flintridge La Habra Heights Lakewood La Mirada Lancaster La Verne Lomita Los Angeles Lynwood Manhattan Beach Maywood Montebello Monterey Park Norwalk Paramount Pasadena Pico Rivera Pomona Rancho Palos Verdes Redondo Beach Rolling Hills Rolling Hills Estate Rosemead San Dimas San Gabriel San Marino Signal Hill South El Monte South Gate Walnut West Covina La Puente On motion of Mayor John Van Doren, City of Duarte, seconded by Councilmember Henry Morgan, City of Covina, and unanimously carried, the minutes of April 2, 1987 were approved. In order to facilitate the selection process, on motion of Mayor Jay Price, City of Bell, seconded by Mayor Richard Gibson, City of Baldwin Park, and unanimously carried, the meeting was recessed at 8:20 p.m. -to the Nominating Committee of the Whole. Los Angeles County - City Selection Committee Minutes of June 4, 1987 Page 3 Chairman Storing reconvened the City Selection Committee meeting at 8:30 p.m. On motion of Mayor John Van Doren, City of Duarte, seconded by Mayor Thomas Jackson, City of Huntington Park, and unanimously carried, the Committee accepted the recommendations of the Nominating Committee of the Whole to appoint the following members to the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Advisory Committee: Robert Bacon, Councilmember West Covina Ruth Aldaco, Councilmember Commerce Joy Picus, Councilmember Los Angeles John Hitt, Councilmember Duarte Fran Pavley, Mayor Agoura Hills Archie Snow, Councilmember Redondo Beach William Jennings, Councilmember Santa Monica There being no further business before the Committee, Chairman Storing declared the meeting adjourned at 8:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, LARRY J. MONTEILH,�Secretary �� f,;4( 1/' VG am/ VIOLET VARONA Deputy Secretary 4 Summary Report Report E-5 POPULATION AND MOUSING ESTIMATES FOR CALIFORNIA CITIES AND COUNTIES Department of Finance Population Research Unit 1025 P Street Sacramento. California 95814 (916) 322-4651 The summary report(s) attached provide provisional population and housing estimates for California cities and counties. Data Description: Population Items. Data in columns one through four represent population counts. Column one has total population for the area. The second column represents the number of persons living in occupied housing units, or households. This household population Includes persons living in mobile homes Much Is separated out and shown In column three. The final category under population is group quarters. This includes all persons in living arrangements, such as nursing homes, school dormitories, and military barracks, which are not households.- The population in group quarters plus the population in households equals the total population for an area. Housing Items. Columns five through eleven contain data on housing units. Column five indicates the total number of housing units which Includes both year-round units and vacant seasonal and migratory units. The next four columns represent the four types of housing units: 1. Single-family dwellings: There are two sub -types of single-family dwellings; (a) single-family, detached --the unit is detached from any other house with open space on all four sides. Mobile homes to which one or more permanent roams have been added are also included. Otherwise mobile homes are listed below. (b) Single-family, attached --the unit is attached to another unit with the adjoining walls extending from ground to roof which divide it from other adjoining structures and forms a property line. 2. Two -to -four units: Units with two, three, or four housing units in one structure. 3. Five -or -more units: Units with five or more housing units in one structure. 4. Mobile homes: This includes both occupied and vacant mobile homes to which no permanent rooms have been added. Also included are any occupied units which do not fit into the other categories. such as vans, tents, and houseboats. Counts in these categories include both occupied and vacant units. Column ten Indicates the number of occupied housing units of all types at the time of the estimate. The percentage of the total housing units which are vacant is shown in column eleven. Population per household. The final column represents the average number of persons -per household (PPH). PPH times the number of occupied housing units equals the number of persons living in housing units. Methods. Population estimates are initially prepared for each city and the unincorporated portion of each county using the Housing Unit Method. These estimates are summed for each county and adjusted to county control figures. The county _ controls are prepared by using three separate estimating methods: Ratio Correlation (regression), Administrative Records method using Federal income tax returns, and a Composite Migration Method using driver license address changes. These county estimates are then controlled to a State total figure. The state and county population estimates that are used as controls for January are interpolations of the July estimates, except data for births, deaths, and group quarters which are calculated as of January. The 1980 decennial census population, including all subsequent corrections, is the benchmark for all of the estimates. The county populations are estimated by adding the respective average population change, as measured by the methods available, to the previous year's figure. These are adjusted to a State control. A brief description of the Housing Unit and the three county methods follows: City Estimates Housing Unit Method. This method is used to estimate total housing units, occupied housing units, average household size, and persons not in housing units --the 'group quarters' population. Data from the latest census are used to estaolish benchmarks for each of these elements. Housing units are estima-ted by adding new construction minus demolitions to the census benchmark of housing units. Occupied housing units are estimated by adding the change in residential electric customers to the benchmark data. Independently calculated housing units and occupied housing units are then compared to obtain a vacancy rate and to evaluate their -reliability. - • - - A critical element in the estimation of population by the Housing Unit Method is the average household size. This variable is calculated directly from census data and is then adjusted for subsequent changes. Changes are evaluated on the basis of indicators such as intercensal trends, special census -findings in cities with similar characteristics, housing types constructed, and shifts in the number of school enrolled children per household. Population in group quarters 1s the final information necessary to the Mousing Unit Method. actual count from the records of each group quarters facility. After the housing unit estimates are completed they are adjusted to the county controls. necessary because county estimates are more accurate than city estimates. This accuracy certain estimating procedures requiring data which are unavailable on a sub -county basis. County Estimates The county population estimates were developed by adding the average change in the results of the following independent methods to the April 1980 census population. The Driver License Address Change Composite Migration Estimating Method (DLAC) is a method in which migration of the population under 18 years old iestimated using change in school enrollment, and migration of the population 18 to 64 years old is estimated using address changes on the California driver's license file. The number of migrants is estimated from the address changes by using the 1980 census relationship of population to driver licenses for the ages 18 to 64 years. The resulting estimates of migration are added to the survived cohort of the household population under 65 years old. Also added to this number are estimates of immigration from abroad including undocumented aliens, group quarters, and an estimate of the population 65 and over based on Medicare statistics. The Ratio -Correlation Method relies upon a multiple correlation equation and changes in the distribution of four different series of data to estimate the observed relationship of changes in the data series to changes in the county population distribution within the State for the 1970-80 decade. The equation used to prepare the estimates for the 1980's is the following: Typically. this comes from a, The control l l ng process 1 s is attained through the use of Y ' .0507 + .0492(A) + .3711(B) + .4851(C) + .0515(D) where Y is the population variable and A, B. C, and D represent changes in the distribution of births, school enrollment, auto registration. and voter registration.. Group quarters populations are added to the calculated household populations. The Administrative Records Method is a component method that uses administrative records (In this instance individual Federal income tax returns) in order to measure intercounty migration, and reported vital statistics in order to estimate natural increase. The tax returns are matched for the successive periods to determine the number of persons whose county of residence changed during the estimating period. A net migration rate based on the number of taxpayers under age 65 changing residence is derived; this rate is then applied to the under age 65 population. These estimates are then combined with the over 65 population and immigration from abroad including undocumented aliens. Undocumented Aliens These population estimates include annual adjustments made by the U.S. Department of Commerce for undocumented aliens who have entered California since the April 1, 1980 census. These adjustments have been incorporated into our State, county and city estimates for each year. starting in 1981. Accuracy The estimates and changes shown here are subject to estimating error. Variations from actual population trends are inherent in estimating procedures because the correlation between the data series and population change is not perfect. The data series used are all affected by factors other than population change. The methods used to develop the estimates have been tested and modified through comparison with the results of census. The mean absolute difference of the average of the county estimates produced for April 1, 1980 compared to the 1980 census count was 2.9 percent. For cities the difference was 5.0 percent. MOTE: Table totals may not equal sum due to independent rounding. These estimates are provisional and subject to change. For more detailed information concerning estimating procedures contact the Population Research Unit. ID 395 SUMMARY REPORT LOS ANGELES CONTROLLED COUNTY POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR 1-1-87 NO POPULATION HOUSING UNITS PUI'tI Al LUN 11FSfAR(:11 UNI1 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE STATE OF CALIFORNIA PAGE 19 DATE PRINTED 05/07/87 POP. CITY HOUSE- MOBILE GROUP PER TOTAL HOLDS HOMES QUARTERS TOTAL5 OR SINGLE 2 TO 4 MORE HOMES E PIED VACANT HOUSE - .HOLD AGOURA HILL$ 18489 18489 0 0 6123 5077 329 717 0 5835 4.70 3.169 ALHAMBRA 73123 71726 16 1397 29074 14016 4213 10832 13 27689 4.78 2.590 ARCADIA 49254 48647 12 607 19231 12067 1150 6008 6 18521 3.69 2,827 ARTESIA 14941 14407 202 534 4564 3470 189 803 102 4434 2.85 3.249 AVALON 2418 2418 0 0 1568 654 564 348 2 1045 33.35 2.314 AZUSA 36815 35451 728 1364 12397 5945 1536 4392 524 12103 2.37 2.929 BALDWiN PARK 62188 61494 837 694 16319 12760 461 2630 468 15908 2.52 3.868 BELL,: 28141 28044 383 97 9395 3996 1719 3370 310 8848 5.82 3.170 BELLFLOWER 59472 58810 2072 662 23426 12961 13119 7680 1396 22872 2.36 2.571 'BELL•GAROENS 37690 37175 686 515 BE 9752 6695 908 1710 439 9361 4.01 3.971 BEVERCV HILLS 34306 34209 7 97 15978 6011 1644 8316 7 15132 5.29 2.261 9RADBURy 914 914 0 0 314 297 5 12 0 294 6.37 3.109 'BURBANK 90971 90094 100 877 38757 21413 4863 12394 87 37292 3.78 2.416 CARSON 88363 88021 3767 342 24020 18595 905 2310 2210 23716 1.27 3.711 CERRITOS 57850 57738 65 112 15361 14011 801 526 23 15074 1.87 3.830 CLAREMONT' 35996 31805 0 4191 11079 9178 496 1405 0 10680 3.60 2.978 COMMERCE 12475 12375 0 100 3328 2541 273 514 0 3207 3.64 3.859 COMPTON� 92797 92153 1392 644 23929 16814 2780 3789 546 23135 3.32 3.983 COVINA CUDAHY 42473 41959 702 514 15820 10267 1033 4064 456 15387 2.74 2.727 20038 20028 491 10 5535 2554 463 2176 342 CULVER CITY5262 4.93 3.806 40731 40201 261 530 17091 8029 2194 6720 148 16514 3.38 2.434 DOwNEY 86653 85244 300 1405 34102 20664 1299 11932 207 33290 2.38 2.561 DUARTE 21104 20162 293 942 6822 4753 387 1442 240 6612 3.08 3.049 EL MONTE 93852 91936 2873 1916 26970 15404 2346 7584 1636 26307 2.46 3.495 EL SEGUNDO 15403 15334 0 69 6924 3356 737 2831 0 6642 4.07 2.309 • • si CITY SUMMARY REPORT LOS ANGELES CONTROLLED COUNTY POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR 1-1-87 POPULATION RESEARCH UNIT DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE STATE OF CALIFORNIA PAGE 20 DATE PRINTED 05/07/87 POPULATION HOUSING UNITS POP• PER HOUSE— MOBILE GROUP 5 OR MOBILE OCCU— % HOUSE— TOTAL HOLDS HOMES QUARTERS TOTAL SINGLE 2 TO 4 MORE HOMES PIED VACANT HOLD GARDENA 50218 49441 1653 777 18576 8305 2183 6973 1115 17904 3.62 2.761 GLENDALE 156857 154297 34 2560 64684 27844 6989 29817 34 62308 3.67 2.478 GLENDORA 43177 42193 1045 984 14706 11355 603 2064 684 14284 2.87 2.954 HAWAIIAN GARDENS 12069 12050 389 19 3464 2050 290 909 215 3314 4.33 3.636 HAWTHORNE 62857 62073 356 784 26283 9334 2822 13816 311 24897 5.27 2.493 HERMOSA BEACH 19383 19329 69 54 9948 4846 2394 2656 52 9415 5.36 2.053 HIDDEN HILLS 1957 1957 0 0 523 501 13 9 0 502 4.02 3.898 HUNTINGTON PARK 51210 51087 47 123 15405 5414 2936 7038 17 14617 5.12 3.495 ,INDUSTRY 390 231 12 159 88 71 4 7 6 84 4.55 2.750 INGLEWOOD 102888 100736 539 2152 38534 15638 4880 17706 310 37115 3.68 2.714 IRWINDALE. 1060 1050 19 10 258 250 2 2 4 242 6.20 4.339 LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE 20762 20747 0 15 6936 6452 146 338 0 6823 1.63 3.041 .LA HABRA HEIGHTS 5358 5358 0 0 1673 1599 20 54 0 1608 3.89 3.332 LAKEWOOD 76642 76625 190 17 26535 22748 357 3324 106 26268 1.01 2.917 LA MIRADA 42573 41114 216 1459 12794 10703 314 1673 104 12422 2.91 3.310 LANCASTER 68044 67512 5266 532 26889 17487 1815 4726 2881 25160 6.43 2.683 LA PUENTE 33414 33410 115 4 8835 6274 463 2038 60 8687 1.68 3.846 LA VERNE 29172 28673 2670 499 10128 6876 777 938 1537 9636 4.86 2.976 LAWNDALE 27048 27000 153 48 9335 6022 987 2226 100 8940 4.23 3.020 LOMITA 20125 20065 802 60 8549 4585 566 2757 641 8062 5.70 2.489 LONG BEACH 406211 392319 3798 13892 167603 77801 22790 64735 2277 159538 4.81 2.459 LOS ANGELES 3311544 3235862 11233 75682 1233893 577779 45645 603692 6777 1203853 2.43 2.688 LVNWO00 53421 52511 125 910 14538 8974 1889 3595 80 14028 3.51 3.743 MANHATTAN BEACH 35085 35083 0 2 15111 11419 2701 991 0 14303 5.35 2.453 MAVWOOD 24576 24450 37 126 6815 3199 1339 2258 19 6525 4.26 3.747 1. CITY ' MONROVIA ,MONTEBELLO MONTEREY PARK NORWALK PALMDALE PALOS VERDES ESTATES PARAMOUNT PASADENA PICO RIVERA POMONA ' SUMMARY REPORT LOS ANGELES CONTROLLED COUNTY POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR 1-1-87 POPULATION HOUSING UNITS POP HOUSE- MOBILE GROUP PER TOTAL HOLDS HOMES QUARTERS TOTALSINGLE 2 TO 4 5 OR MOBILE OCCU- % HOUSE - MORE HOMES PIED VACANT HOLD 33552 33316 254 236 13287 8055 1151 3940 141 12720 4.27 2.619 59146 58579 256 567 19147 10699 2504 5767 177 18409 3.85 3.182 62877 60712 49 2165 20299 11937 2191 6130 41 19622 3.34 3.094 89608: .67455 635 2153 26338 20464 659 4814 401 25591 2.84 3.417 33083', -33022 2852 61 13983 8741 415 3518 1309 12232 12.52 2.700 15033 15033 2 0 5025 4622 26 376 1 4965 1.19 3.028 POPUI ATION RESEARCH UNIT DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE STATE OF CALIFORNIA PAGE 21 DATE PRINTED 05/07/87 41829 41567 2239 262 12552 7241 1019 3003 1289 12074 3.81 3.443 130787 125742 27 5045 50808 27849 4338 18594 27 48647 4.25 2.585 • RANCHO PALOS VERGES REDONDO BEACH ROLLING HILLS. ROLLING HILLS ESTATE ROSEMEAD SAN DIMAS SAN FERNANDO SAN GABRIEL SAN MARINO SANTA FE SPRINGS SANTA MONICA SIERRA MADRE SIGNAL HILL 59337 59030 775 307 16520 12709 416 3016 379 16043 2.89 3.679 117827 114566 2566 3261 36458 23929 3651 7201 1671 35345 3.05 3.241 45982 45611 0 371 15226 12419 213 2594 0 14902 2.13 3.061 64362 64314 306 48 28148 12016 5417 10524 191 27164 3.50 2.388 2133 2133 0 0 674 666 0 8 0 655 2.82 3.256 7903 7903 0 0 2724 2597 45 82 0 2658 2.42 2.973 46893 46141 776 752 14072 11069 1161 1473 369 13529 3.86 3.411 29594 28758 1081 836 9833 7339 417 1350 727 9666 1.70 2.975 20230 20196 151 34 5746 4200 457 1011 78 5658 1.53 3.569 33724 33174 21 550 12143 7294 830 3976 43 11723 13921 13868 3.46 2.830 0 53 4474 4414 18 42 0 4421 1.18 3.137 15437 15416 127 21 4519 3298 54 1079 88 4414 2.32 3.493 96065 94036 351 2029 47733 11172 5273 31017 271 45452 4.78 2.069 11126 10977 12 149 4936 3659 284 981 12 4688 5,47 2.353 4176 7803 0 373 3586 1352 742 1492 0 3390 5.47 2.302 18977 16933 1322 44 4789 3246 231 798 514 4617 78741 786473.59 4.101 436 94 23625 14012 4098 5279 236 22850 3.28 3.442 SOUTH EL MONTE SOUTH GATE ' CI TV • LOS ANGELES SUMMARY REPORT CONTROLLED COUNTY POPULATION- ESTIMATES FOR 1-1-87 --------- POPULATION HOUSE- MOBILE GROUP TOTAL HOLDS HOMES QUARTERS ---3333-- HOUSING POPULATION RESEARCH UNIT DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DATE PRINTED PAE 22 05/07/87 UNITS ---------------------- POP. TOTAL SINGLE 5 OR MOBILE OCCU- PER SOUTH PASADENA 2 TO 4 MORE HOMES A MOUSE - PIED VACANT HOLD ---------------------3333--24417----241363333 ___ TEMPLE CITY 12 281 10664 5385 --3'333` 1229 32039 ---603 4044 -----3333----3333-- 31436 ----3333-- 6 --3333--32039----3143633333---0----------------------------072 10261 TORRANCE 11502 3.78 2.352 9855 --------------- 140218 -----33333333--3333-- 575 1072 --3333---3333-- -'---------------------- 138794 1516 11187 ----------------------0733-- RNON --`4021833- 1424 52483 1 71 2 810 -333333333333--3333-- 30058 ---------3333-- • -3333----------- 2999 18424 ---3333-- ,_�---------------3333-- d8 982 51513 -- 8 p --3333------------------3333-- WALNUT -- --3333-- 3333-----0-- 37 1.81 2.891 29 ------------------------------ 23750 23750 ------3333- 0 d -------------------3333-- 2 -----3333-- 0 --33750333323750 3333 0 --------3333333-- 27 27.03 3.259 WEST,COVINA 6227 5958 --- -_____________ _ --------------------------- 29 93397 239 3 915 -----------------=-----------3333-_ 928541 6067 --- ------------------------------29501 WEST HOLLYWOOD 400 543 308222.57 ------------------------- 22508 1463 6686 --------------- 34442 38223 ----------------------- 165 ---------3333--------------3333-_35 29501 --------------5933-- 3333- __4_29 WESTLAKE VILLAGE -----"-----3333- 2458) 3017 19 3.147 1590 -------'- 19959 -----3333-- 7319 7311 229 --------3333-- --3333-- -------=----- 8 -----3333-----3333--233333-22562---e-24---_894 WHItT.,IER -3333-- 2482 ------`"--1982 148 -------- 230 73473 -----'----- 71837 -----3333-- 122 255 --`--------------- 2373 4.39 2036 28094 - --- 3.081 •��.--- �- e --..-.......-..-.....-.....-..-..............-.--..--.--------------------------off--- ---------------- 19632 1753 6519 ------'------- 190 27273 2.92 2.634 143012 ' TOTAL INCORPORATED 7342384' 7199372 • •6513--3333--------------------------- 2683507 1412457 181011 1054093 35946 2597872 3.19 2.771 UNINCORPORATED --------------------------- 1061148 1046530 19056 ----------------------- ---'--------------------------------------------------6-8--------329--0------2241 --.'.-A-------------------------------------------------►------------�--------------- 22879 53899 103114.12 315749 ---- 3.314 TOTAL COUNTY ---.------53899 -------------------------------- 8403532 8245902 79698 157630 3012837 1654698 203890 1107992 46257 2913621 3.29 2.830 outif '3ay Cities = Z$$ociation c/o 415 Diamond Street, Redondo Beach, CA 90277 (213) 372-1171 November 16, 1987 Mayor and City Council City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 .Dear Mayor and City Council: On December 3, 1987, the City Selection Committee will elect a person to represent the Los Angeles County cities on the streamlined Board of Directors of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The meeting will be held at the SCAQMD Headquarters in El Monte. The South Bay Cities Association, at its regular meeting on November 12, 1987, passed a motion to recommend to each Association member city council that they support Tom Heinsheimer, Councilman, City of Rolling Hills, as the Los Angeles County cities' representative on the SCAQMD Board. The City of Torrance representative at the meeting abstained because the subject election is scheduled on a future agenda. I urge you to have a representative at the meeting to be sure that your voice is heard. Sincerely, Hal Croyts President Carson El Segundo Gardena Hawthome Hermosa Beach Inglewood - La- wndale Lomita Los Angeles Manhattan Beach Palos Verdes Estates Rancho Palos Verdes Redondo Beach Rolling Hills Rolling Hills Estates Torrance LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN ACTION HUGH MILLER Mayor WARREN SCHWARZMANN Mayor Pro -Tem NELL MIRELS Councilwoman JEROME BELSKY Councilman PETER WEBER Councilman RAYMOND B. TAYLOR City Manager November 13, 1987 THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES Mayor Eta Simpson City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Dear Mayor Simpson: 4045 PAIRS VERDES DRIVE NORTH • ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 TELEPHONE -377-1577 As you may know, the City Selection Committee intends to select the individual who will represent Los Angeles County cities on the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Board of Directors on December 3, 1987. The Rolling Hills Estates City Council respectfully requests your City's support to reappoint Rolling Hills Councilman Tom Heinsheimer to the SCAQMD Board. Over the years the SCAQMD has made significant progress in improving air quality within the South Coast Air Basin. However, considerable work remains to achieve air quality attainment goals which only underscores the need for proven leadership on the recently streamlined SCAQMD. Since Councilman Heinsheimer's appointment to the Board of Directors in 1977, he has proven to be an unparalleled leader in this field with a thorough understanding of air quality policy and technology based on his educational and professional background. Our City Council knows Tom personally, works with him directly on projects of mutual concern, and feels he has done an outstanding job in his appointed position on the Board. Please join us in supporting Councilman Heinsheimer's reappointment to the SCAQMD Board of Directors. Sincerely, 1 Y 4'4'1""' Nm V Warren Schwarzman Mayor Pro Tem WS:hn SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION lOb November 16, 1987 City Council Meeting November 24, 1987 Mayor and Members of the City Council VACANCIES - BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council appoint one member to the Planning Commission from the applications attached for an unexpired term ending June 30, 1988. BACKGROUND On November 5, 1987, Planning Commissioner Chuck Sheldon submitted his oral and written resignation from the Planning Commission, effective immediately, after having been elected to the City Council on November 3, 1987. On November 10, the City Council directed the City Clerk to advertise for additional applicants and to present said applications at the meeting of November 24, 1987 for City Council appointment. PLANNING COMMISSION - ONE UNEXPIRED FOUR-YEAR TERM ENDING JUNE 30, 1988 - RESIGNATION OF CHUCK SHELDON Qualifications: Elector of the City of Hermosa Beach. The primary purpose of the Commission is to maintain and enhance the environment of the community. Applications have been received from the following and are attached: Tim Meyers Kenneth F. Conklin Jeff Greene Rick Colman Concur: Tony DeBellis Rhett D. Beavers Christine M. Ketz Howard M. Simon John R. Edwards KAT(HLEEN MIDSTOKIE, City Clerk r —7 ?fl GAYLE' T. MARTIN, Interim City Manager lla • THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO MUNICIPA NAME OF COMMISSION Planning Name: Tim Meyers Address: "MO' r \te` (1 17 0 ; •1 c:tv Clc.k ice. nit), co HermtJsn Oct. 11; 82 302 30th Street, Hermosa Beach 90254 Hpix Phone: Occupation or Profession: Real Estate Sales and Developit Name of Employer: Terim Land Company (self employed) Address of Employer: ,18093 S. Prairie Ave. #A TorranrP, rA 9n5n4 Business Phone: 542-7727 BIOGRAPHICAL Marital Status: Single Children: (Names and Ages) Date of Birth: June 29, 1955 •EDUCATION Elementary School: Spouse's Nape: Place of Birth: San Jose, California High 'School: Redondo High School Degrees and Titles: BA Geography 1978 College (s) : Cal State Dominguez (Include names of schools and dates, if applicablf Local References: (Optional) See Attached Professional: See Attached Other: Community Participation and Service: Biltmore Commission • Activities and Hobbies: Fitness Activities Karate Student and Instructor, Basketball and other -2 - Why do you wish to become a Commission Member? have the time and wish to give back to community. I am qualified, What do you feel are the duties and responsibilities of a Commission biembc Where Public opinion is obvious, to follow their wishes. Otherwise, to use best judgement without predjudice. What are your present civil, fraternal or professional memberships and obligations? Karate Instructor Wednesday and Saturday. Otherwise can arrange schedule. Do you have any concurrent obligations and responsibilities which could be construed as a conflict of interests? If so, what are they? No. Small possibility of building in Hermosa Beach again. Please give a resume of your education, employment, past activities and other experience that you feel would qualify you as a Commission member. SPA AttarhPd Resume_ How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach? 1965-1974 and 1982 -present Comments: Received: TM/acp • =THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO MUNICIPAL COMMISSION NAME OF COMMISSION Name: /,e:tti k ); Address: ro r Home Phone : 37-Q 144 ( j Occupation or Profession: tr-!etm /'4a!itp/ev- Name of Employer: r I t �� V L � vp Address of Employer: 3) v (,tf. 1rsF'jk. /Vat Burliness Phone: 6l7-=6 ZG Ti?(1-4! GBIOGRAPHICAL Marital Status: it a,frtft Spouse's Name: ,j, r6a.�^ Children: Fri C R ' bq te (Name6 an Ages)) Date of Birth: EDUCATION 7--1-7 Elementary Sc ool: High School:. D'�.� Degrees and Titles: Local References: Professional: /d• Kn5 I.1)13, ;�,�,,> )0, Place of Birth:((( qj, ('4 ([ncie n- cev Qs /.a r tJ hi (Optional) 1 (y Ci. f1rsw, 4 College .(s) : f v((4, 01., rt vs, 7:iv 4.✓0 e C4 i t -Mo �qyU'1•. schoolsl and dates, if appl'cable) S�'e o /3v oic- .5-0 3 ro'w(1 2€ t Other: Co vev-•cam revy, il6rua Community Participation and Service: 1st - mf) 2 72 -.et,,Jit eA5t 6ay /337 _ ,.7 LLL ; • Activities and Hobbies: 8/,0,1frii" J i1 ion '` • `'t-/ 1'4 `"'/a;, f •• -2- Why do you wish to'become a Commission Member? What do you feel are the duties and responsibilities of a Commission MembeD 5“beet 55 zAat, 5 J ' � cd,,, r4 .;ji nj C-0. ►4 (S5l till c 6!€u� kt,trWhat are your present civil,fra erna or pr '1 memberships and obligations? f plqrfe55 f7U4S 64.e; 6 'as J FK , -Fc K ,t , t 0 - Do you have any concurrent obligations and responsibilities which could be construed as a conflict of interests? If so, what are they? Please give a resume of your education, employment, past activities and other experience that you feel would qualify you as a Commission. member. How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach? r�� +,.,oS- cever Comments: Signed: Date: Received: THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO MUNICIPAL NAME OF COMMISSION PLANNING Occupation or Profession: Developer/Builder Name of Employer: Self Emp. Address of Employer: Same Burliness Phone: 376-8130 BIOGRAPHICAL Marital Status: Married Children: 0 Spouse's Name: Alicia Greene (Names and Ages) Date of Birth: 1/25/56 .EDUCATION Place of Birth: Oregon Elementary School: Euclid/Colorado High -School: Monte Vista College .(s):San Diego State Degrees and Titles: 3- Building Licenses/ Contractors Lic./Pilots Lic. (Include names of schools and dates, if applicable Local References: (Optional) Professional: Viva Stroyke-213-546-7611 Other: Community Participation and Service: none to date Activities and Hobbies: Flying/all sports ti . • • • -2- Why do you wish to become a Commission Member? 1. I have recieved two letters requesting my add value to the planning commision. one from the director of planning and the other from a council member. 2. l feel. it is a way to give back to the community which i depend on as a developer and at -the same time stay in touch with the market that i am professionally What do you fel-are the duties and responsibilities of a Commission Membe: Study and evaluate proposed projects for their merits and demE with respect to the rules and requlations governing the Game_ then make the decisions that are appropriate th the proposed request. understand that the decisions that are made affect the economic,demographic and socialogical values of the city. What are your present civil, fraternal or professional memberships and obligations? none that would effect the required responsibilitys Do you have any concurrent obligations and responsibilities which could be construed as a conflict of interests? If so, what are they? none Please give a resume of your education, employment, past activities and other experience that you feel would qualify you as a Commission member. upon further request How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach?.3 years -beach area=12 years Comments: Signed% 105,-!j5e-e-c_,-/ Date: 8/1n/s7 Received: THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO MUNICIPA NAME OF COMMISSION PLANNING Name: Rick Colman Address: 502 Longfellow Occupation or Profession: Architect Name of Employer: self-employed �� SE U AA P1 51987• Cfty cb.k OtP W Nepro Bi.oli Home Phone: 379-7167 office Address of ' Employer: 39 Fourteenth St. H.B-. Budiness Phone: 318-8847 BIOGRAPHICAL Marital Status: married Children: Nicole (11), Jessica (7), Daniel -(1) (Names and Ages) Date of Birth: 6/7/49 EDUCATION Spouse's Name: El i ssa Place of Birth: Detroit MI Elementary School: (Michigan) College .(s) :Uni versi tv .of Michigan High School: (Michigan) U.C.L.A. Degrees and Titles: U of °4: B.A. (American Culture); U.C.L.A.:Naster Architecture (Include names of schools and dates, if applicabl Local References: (Optional) Professional: Other: (see attached) Community Participation and Service: none to date Activities and Hobbies: bicycling,hiking, photography -2 - Why do you wish to become a Commission Member? (please see attached Personal Statement) What do you feel are the duties and responsibilities 'of a Commission Memt To be well-informed on all agenda items, and given the interests of all parties in- volved, to render opinions consistent with the long-range good of the community What are your present civil, fraternal or professional memberships and obligations? American Institute of Architects Do you have any concurrent obligations and responsibilities which could be construed as a conflict of interests? If so, what are they? None Please give a resume of your education, employment, past activities and other experience that you feel would qualify you as a Commission member. (please see attached Personal Statement) How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach? 4 years Comments: Date: Received: /gam Name: THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO MUNICIPAL NAME OF COMMISSION h. A) Address: Occupation or Profession: C/Tt) Name of Employer: Home Phone: Cl % V OF �,UGLFG)pQ ) Address of Employer: 2 0 , 3DX ($A -177u9 . CA So30/ Business Phone: //2-52.30 BIOGRAPHICAL Marital Status: 1>7�F�TCiE� Spouse's Name: mei. 0,0 1E FR L.L.O,%I Children: 21E,0 /7 CAITLIN (P -I9 ANZ /Y)AuR.R (12) FAu.oN- mckJitJ7 (Names and Ages) Date of Birth: Nov 5 /Rh/-( Place of Birth: Co/unt6ksJ &k.:1; EDUCATION Elementary School: College .(s) : O KLA aarnA- High School: Ltwa- bA) 14161_4 L., 4v'; au 0kLA tA/Vrl)r Sr i) p1As—sFS 0P Degrees and Titles: $.A. — O.U. if4,g R66/0NAL. AND CC T Y .ANNrn(G —O. U. 1973 (Include names of schools and dates, if applicable Local References: (Optional) Professional: ?Aut. ECki.fs air? )1? AvAGeee d G 73 Other: 7 f r.vE - J A$9 /2.,s -A73")?.. Community Participation and Service: Cr i P (otctJc. LL 94- k� 1304 -et 4 r Z a4. I j J4.1.D Tq4rn -t.T 1-41.:4446,54 2/771,5 1....egA6"44L N z/LyN/bf i1 aqs e1-r3A. G A. F�4 6 Activities and Hobbies: S coAcks�c� feu.-�'� SpcJsf -2 - Why do you wish to become a Commission Member? /,a -De• t d u.cA-+I D �u � j e41 r.0 1u.1) + FX/De it1•riuc,c i v 22/a -41a l,u . i bele A,¢.c. m isIkANin 15514 e tae Uc b( -7L Cb>nf: What do you feel are the duties and responsibilities of a Commission Memb( C /1-2/4/2. / C o'x1S / d ba T11. ../14-o/ S Co rrn l ug rGG644m.e,pAl."2 O 1-14 g /M y /x€47 j ie.-ix-ft-40i— What ieix-ftiv (What are your present civil, fraternal or professional memberships and obligations? N6-thi ±L.A-f Gvarttd Ci epre4 d844- 4-6r r,.e Q4.} '4)61 ja /-6 -gyp nth i�nl y�S Do you have any concurrent obligations and responsibilities which could be construed as a conflict of interests? If so, what are they? 4 NT, MAIL e i4 No Please give a resume of your education, employment, past activities and other experience that you feel would qualify you as a Commission member. /472- rS As A C, %J PLA.0 tiF2_ How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach? >O -i- eAl25 Comments: —7-1-1 j E FD ei f-1 SPCP" 1._�el Ld I j S_0 4 N Le, /• --�S p Y, m t5 41 n g,) r1 b fA t- z y y f 1 c. 4-k f5 2 E Signed: Date: AIeU' 1r 1.g? Received: THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO MUNICIPAL COMMISSION NAME OF COMMISSION Planning Commission Name: Rhett D. Beavers Address: 606 Hollowell Ave. Hermosa Bch, CA 90254 Home Phone: 318-7176 Occupation or Profession: Sr. Community Planner/Landscape Architect Name of Employer: P &'D Technologies (formerly PRC Engineering) Address of Employer:972 Town & Country, Orange Business Phone: 714-835-4447 BIOGRAPHICAL Marital Status: Married Spouse's Name: Brenda Reiswerg Children: none (Names and Ages) Date of Birth: 3/11/50 Place of Birth: New Iberia, Louisiana EDUCATION Elementary School: College (s): Univ. of Texas. Austin High School: Texas A & M B.B.A. Finance, University of Texas, Austin.(1972) M.L.A. Landscape Architecture, Texas A & M (1979) (Include names of schools and dates, if applicable; Degrees and Titles: Local References: (Optional) Professional: Warren Roche, AIA, Newport Beach, CA Other: Community Participation and Service: Cultural Arts Council of Houston, Architecture Grants Panel, 1981-1986 Activities and Hobbies: Reading, Architecture, Walking, Gardening -2 - Why do you wish to become a Commission Member? Community participation is is a duty and a privilege which I find both professionally and personally rewarding_ What do you feel are the duties and responsibilities of a Commission Member Please see reverse side of this page. What are your present civil, fraternal or professional memberships and obligations? American Society of Landscape Architects, California Council of Landscape Architects, Society of Commercial Archeology. Do you have any concurrent obligations and responsibilities which could be construed as a conflict of interests? If so, what are they? No. Please give a resume of your education, employment, past activities and other experience that you feel would qualify you as a Commission member. Please see attached professional resume. How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach? Six months Comments: Signed: Date: November 17, 1987 Received: THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH APPLICA'T'ION FOR APPOINTMENT TO MUNICIPAL COMMISSION NAME OF COMMISSION fo:..r.,iS:-iOh Name : ('rri Etir,e 1:. 11e t:. Address: 335 31s1 lierv,osa i_•,CLch Occupation or Profession: ilrnninL Borne Phone: Narne of Employer: Chris ketz no issociates Address of Employer:1142 1•,anhattan Ave Ste CF 62D,usiness Phone: 318-4458 l.anhattan leach BIOGRAPHICAL Marital Status: 1,,arri eo Children: ri -- TrE old Spouse's Name: Gerald (Names and Ages) Date of Birth: ; _ i C,_` fl Place of Birth: crEinton, Pennsylvania EDUCATION Elementary School: Lancroft E. S. College (s):Dloomscuia State Univer. 1). of Lora svi lle Tenn. State Ur:versity Degrees and Titles: I F,c, V.S. r.nr rI gni ty Devel opn,ent ' '13 ] •,i;A' E 1 (Incl'ude names of schools and dates, if applicable High School: Central h. 3. Local References: (Optional) Sue Haller Armstrong . 372-11 71 Professional: George Fla 623-5536; Charles Schempeler 614-0939, Other: Community Participation and Service: I have not provides enough community service but I am very interested in participating. Activities and Hobbies: bike riding. beach walkinr, tennis, skiing NOV 19876, CkY Clerk /�, City of Hcimoa• se�h• -2- ,Yhy do you wish to become a Commission Member? ] feel thL, t. ] could contri I,t:t e my experience ar,c knowledge to t ( city N hers ] 1 i ve . 1 'rea' lv cart atout Iiern:osa Leach and it: quE ] i .y of life. What do you feel are the duties and responsibilities of a Commission Member To provide guidelines for development and to carefully revieti, the Community Plan, its policies and any zoning chang requests for their impact on the community. What are your present civil, fraternal or professional memberships and obligations? memi_.er--American Planning Association member --Association of Environin:ental Planners Do you have any concurrent obligations and responsibilities which could be construed as a conflict of interests? If so, what are they? no Please give a resume of your education, employment, past activities and other experience that you feel would qualify You as a Commission member. I have worked in the Planning profession for over 15 years, Eight of which I was the Director of Current Planning; for 'the Louisville and Jefferson County Planning Commission. See attached resume for details. How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach? 1 1/2 years riow and 1 yr in 1981 Comments: see attached Signed: C� Date: November 7 7 . 1 987 Received: THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO MUNICIPAL COMMISSION NAME OF COMM I S S I ON PLANNING Name: Howard M. Simon Address: 2436 Palm Drive, H.B. CA 90254 Occupation or Profession: Planning Consultant Home Phone: (213) 372-5218 Name of Employer: Xerox Corporation Address of Employer: ll Continental Blvd., Suite 43business Phone: (213) 333-2187 El Segundo.. CA 9024545 BIOGRAPHICAL Marital Status: single Children: None Spouse's Name: (Names and Ages) Date of Birth: 11/17/56 Place of Birth: Los Angeles, CA EDUCATION Elementary School: Rosewood Ave. - w. Hollywoceollege .(s): UCLA, CSUN, use High School: Beverly Hills High Master of Business Administration, USC, December, 1982 Degrees and Titles: Bachelor of Science, Business Administration, CSUN, June, 1981 (Include names of schools and dates, if applicable Jeanette Carr Roy Judd Al Gradowski Local References: (Optional) 2432 Palm Dr. 2416 Hermosa 107 - 24th Dan Cota Susan Rubin Dave Mundhenke Professional: 1630 Monterey 225 - 27th 1630 Monterey Xerox managers & neighbors Other: Community Participation and Service: Hermosa Beach Historical Society Charter Member - MOCA Sierra Club Member Assistant Scoutmaster - Troop 64 Activities and Hobbies: Restoring my house, beach volleyball, bicycling, jogging N DV 1 91987e. City Clerk City of Hermosa Beeoli -2- Why do you wish to become a Commission Member? To us_ my financial, analytic, negotiation skills and creativity to preserve the railroad right-of-way open space, and to preserve the neighborly, small-town atmosphere by limiting residential density, increasing off-street parking, and attracting quality businesses. What do you feel are the duties and responsibilities of a Commission Membr To support the desires of the community in interpreting and ruling on issues which come before the commission. To recommend actions which maintain or enhance the quality of life in Hermosa Beach. What are your present civil, fraternal or professional memberships and obligations? USC Commerce Associates Do you have any concurrent obligations and responsibilities which could be construed as a conflict of interests? If so, what are they? NO Please give a resume of your education, employment, past activities and other experience that you feel would qualify you as a Commission member. See attached resume. Native of Los Angeles. How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach? since September, 1986 Comments: Please feel free to call or visit. I would be happy to meet and discuss my qualifications, as you are already familiar with the other candidates. Hermosa Beach is a wonderful place to live and I would like to help maintain tha mag- as a member of the Planning Commission. Signed: Date: November 18, 1987 Received: 111L L.1 1 ! td.V nrAurfy 1�t,Hl.l7 APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO MUNICIPAL COMMISSION NAME OF COMMISSION Pk& i\w-6_ Name: c41Faz-/ . Address: SO/ -3 3 /-/6--iefyvvo S117(cZMO54- Z09C6 Horne Phone: 3/d'"/cf52-0 Occupation or Profession: Cj/Virz74. 7ar4'/��✓ � Name of Employer: (1 S. /1,k- e S/42 -c -6 --/?3,1)7/ - 3, �,v/�o•vihP.� il'/witin., sD/D6v Address of Employer: o, A5� I s9 Cg 90007 Business Phone: `f3"d 9� BIOGRAPHICAL Marital Status: /174(16--a Children: RD -41//1/4 (2-) Spouse's Name: Arne 6 (Names and Ages) Date of Birth: � %-%S Place of Birth :.q4(A-S'-(14j 11 ` 76,61 -.ti.-) EDUCATION ) Elementary School: 7 i e-ci �.�c f (Pe.),College (s) : UCL High School :PALos Veries 1--S• (.4 SC ( r-c.a )- Degrees and Titles: �1if.5T� aG✓iCPI g.mM417 Ahoeia -u SC (Include names of schobils a dates, if applicabl! Local References: (Optional) Professional: i'skti-o . _ 11/` Q,\ C 3)3 -0 9 3 Other: i.1 Community Participation and Service: StrAre �e lie (per ds PE?-- nevi A,,1 E Activities and Hobbies: M -o‘11'. S 3aett`e- 60-x„ er2) g �`-�-c`�,) -2- I // Why do you wish to'..become. a Commissions •Member? TO 14.4 S- `' -41-t- CJe ve (op ftwk Tic Cows rh.KM"1‘j / W_ vA) : pr��. 4 v$V- C.'.$ i da.r icr \ Shat do you feel are the duties and responsibilities of a Commission Memb( To re v c/o GCA.K.A.A.:217s 1 i\e“. C_ h� P 44-C-41 .?1-7S eft., ,,4P Pte' ow_ /4)114 et,..„.t ' .pro 419 Ni `ice- 0 What a -re your present civil, fraternal obligations? tvy— or professional memberships and Do you, have any concurrent obligations and responsibilities which could be construed as a conflict of interests? If so, what are they? Please.give a resume. of your education, employment, past activities and other experience that you feel would qualify you as a Commission' member. AGStA'� 2.0O10 ) MA*4-e{S t4/J E-NVIYrNW. ) EAr > GuvfontmOV -F 3?.$ aWitoL 5, 4.) °i i Firce 9.eeS_ blVdeAe7 tlror P a -Lt S ) Lis ,4f deet, .How long haveou lived in Hermosa Beach? Y SN C e a4,4,rc_ h I X18 % L 1 IN J A Q,r�v D3s4 t J .Comments: S►,.J' 13414j&. Th4N� L2 A, I 4 e , .Sc -(1.7 .4 Signed: Date: /f h V F7. Received: