Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/10/87',Manners are a happy way of doing things." -Ralph Waldo Emerson AGENDA REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, November 10, 1987 - Council Chambers, City Hall MAYOR John Cioffi MAYOR PRO TEM Etta Simpson COUNCILMEMBERS Tony DeBellis Jim Rosenberger June Williams Closed Session - 6:30 p.m. Regular Session - 7:30 p.m. CITY CLERK Kathleen Midstokke CITY TREASURER Norma Goldbach 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: PROCLAMATIONS: Marine Corps Recognition Week, November 9-15, 1987 APPOINTMENT OF MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEM: A. Motion to designate a Mayor for nine month term, ending August 9, 1988 B. Motion to designate a Mayor Pro Tem for nine month term, ending August 9, 1988 C. Intergovernmental agencies requiring appointment of Mayor as delegate: 1. Southern California Rapid Transit District (by resolution) 2. Los Angeles County/City Selection Committee 3. South Bay Cities Sanitation District 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) (b) a member prior to the roll call vote. (Items removed will be considered under Agenda Item 3.) Approval of Minutes: Regular meeting of the City Coun- cil held on October 27, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve minutes. Demands and Warrants: November 10, 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 4, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (e) Progress report on Parking Management Plan goals and objectives. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dated October 21, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (f) Claim for Damages: 1) David Allen Bell, 6032 California Avenue, Long Beach 90805, filed October 23, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve settlement of claim in an amount not to exceed $8,500, per City's Claims Administrator. (g) (h) 2) Lynn Gonzales, 620 Ninth St., Hermosa Beach, filed November 2, 1987. Recommended Action: To deny claim and refer to the City's Claims Administrator. Monthly Investment Report - October, 1987. Memorandum from City Treasurer Norma Goldbach dated November 4, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. Assignment of Vertical Management agreement to Computil for the processing of out-of-state parking citations. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dat- ed October 23, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve agreement assigning con- tract with Vertical Management to Computil. - 2 - (i) (j) (k) To approve a specific location of a Challenger Shuttle Memorial Plaque in City Hall Complex recommended by the Shuttle Memorial Committee and Community Resources Com- mission. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian dated November 4, 1987. Recommended Action: Approve installation of plaque in City Hall patio area on north wall. Status report on enforcement of conditional use permits. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated November 3, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. Award of Bid for Appraisal of Fixed Assets. Memorandum from Finance Administrator Viki Copeland dated November 3, 1987. Recommended Action: To award the contract for appraisal of fixed assets to Swope Valuation, Inc., subject to approval by the City Attorney which includes the terms of the low bidder's proposal and all terms and condi- tions found in the Request for Proposals. (1) Infocomp Contract confirmation. Memorandum from City Attorney James P. Lough dated November 5, 1987. Recommended Action: To affirm contract. (m) Report and recommendation re. enforcement of prohibition against trucks on 8th Street between Pacific Coast High- way and Ardmore Avenue. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated November 3, 1987. Recommended Action: To 1) direct the Police Department to initiate a neighborhood meeting in the impacted area in an effort to discuss -the problem with concerned citizens, and 2) receive and file this report. (n) Authorization to solicit bids for underground storage tank closure at Police Station and City Yard, CIP 86- 601. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony An- tich dated November 2, 1987. (o) Recommended Action: Authorize staff to advertise for bids for closure of the underground fuel tank at the Police Station yard and two underground paint thinner storage tanks from the City Yard, and issue addenda as necessary. Report on 18' driveway re. issuance of a driveway park- ing permits. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated November 4, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. - 3 - (p) Award of Sanitary Sewer Design Contract - CIP 87-405. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated October 29, 1987. Recommended Action: Authorize Mayor to sign agreement for sanitary sewer design to Harris & Associates in an amount not to exceed $43,648. (q) Award of design contract for CIP 87-602 and CIP 87-604 for various electrical/mechanical/structural improve- ments for Council Chambers and Community Center. Memo- randum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated November 3, 1987. (r) Recommended Action: To 1) authorize Mayor to sign agreement with Joncich, Sturm and Associates for ar- chitectural services for various electrical/mechanical/ structural capital improvements for Council Chambers and Community Center Theatre at a cost not to exceed $19,250; and 2) consider appropriation of construction dollars after the design is completed. Adjustment to City Manager selection schedule. Memoran- dum from Personnel Administrator Robert Blackwood dated November 3, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve adjustment to City Man- ager selection schedule as follows: 1) 11/24/87 - Closed session to review selected resumes, 2) 12/12/87 - City Council interviews top six candidates, 3) 12/19/87 - Final interview for selected candidates and selection of City Manager. ***************************************************************** 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 (a) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #17350 FOR A FOUR -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1107 LOMA DRIVE. For adoption. Memorandum from Plan- ning Director Michael Schubach dated November 4, 1987. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. (a) Letter from Lucille Springer, 500 - llth Street, Hermosa Beach, dated October 13, 1987 re. :multiple units being constructed in south end of town. Recommended Action: To: 1) refer to Building Dept. to respond re. block .37a111 2) refer(' o Planning Dept. to! respond ren R-l0zoning; 3) decidc1 if Council should respond reT density issue _ Letter from Anthony L. Rose', P. O. Box 488,, Hermosa Beach, dated, November 4, 1987° e. comments on election results. ' l� (c) 'd Recommended Action: To receive and file. 0 Letter from J. R. Reviczky, 600 Ardmore Avenue, Hermosa Beach, dated November 4, 1987 re. barking dogs at.City Yard. Recommended Action: To refer to staff for report back to Council. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. 5. TEXT AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING REGULA- TIONS FOR VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS FOR RESIDENTIAL SUB- DIVISIONS AND APPROVING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLA- RATION. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated November 10, 1987. 6. AN INTERIM ORDINANCE PERMITTING RECYCLING FACILITIES IN VARIOUS ZONES SUBJECT TQ A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.' Memorandum from Planning Direc- tor Michael Schubach dated November 3, 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 7. REPORT RE. ALTERNATE SOLUTIONS TO PIGEON PROBLEMS. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dat- ed November 2, 1987. Recommended Action: City Council consider the alterna- tives outlined by staff, in this report, and take ap- propriate action. 8. PROPOSED LEAFBLOWER ORDINANCE AND OTHER ALTERNATIVES. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated November 2, 1987. Recommended Action: To 1) review and make comments re. the amendment to Ordinance No. 86-867, an ordinance reg- ulating the use of leafblowers; and 2) direct staff to return for introduction of an ordinance amending Noise Regulations, Chapter 19-1/2, Article II, Section 19-1/2 of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. 9. 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.. Recommended Action: To approve and/or modify Attachment A which reflects the method for establishing an Open Space Blue Ribbon Committee. 10. STATUS REPORT ON THE MEANING OF INTERIM ORDINANCE 87-881 RELATING TO ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN INCONSISTENCIES. Memorandum from City Attorney James P. Lough dated November 10, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file 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. 11. REPORT AND RESOLUTION OF INTENTION FOR PLANNING COMMIS- SION TO STUDY LIMITING THE R-2 ZONE TO TWO -UNIT BUILD- INGS. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated November 5, 1987. Recommended Action: To.adopt resolution of intent and schedule for the second quarter General Plan Amendments of 1988. 12. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER .(a) --�- (b) Consideration of holding but one regular meeting during December. Memorandum from Interim City Manager Gayle T. Martin dated November 5, 1987. Recommended Action: To schedule one meeting for Decem- ber on December 15 or 16, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. with a closed session at 6 p.m. Proposals for appraisal of ATSF right-of-way. Memoran- dum from Interim City Manager Gayle T. Martin dated November 5,. 1987. Recommended Action: To retain the firm of George Hamil- ton Jones, Inc. to make the appraisal on the ATSF right- of-way, and to appropriate $12,500 from the Parks & Recreation Fund to cover this expenditure. 13. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) Support of Supervisor Schabarum's position re: Brown Act rules applying to the State Legislature as well as local and county officials. (Requested by Councilmember Rose- nberger.) Memorandum from City Clerk Kathleen Midstokke dated November 3, 1987. Recommended Action: City Council policy decision whether they wish their position to be restated to ap- propriate officials. (b) Report on problems with campaign contribution ordinance. (Requested by Councilmember DeBellis). Memorandum from City Clerk Kathleen Midstokke dated November 3, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file report, and agendize this item for the 1st meeting in January, 1988. 14. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL (a) Vacancies - Boards and Commissions Planning Commission - One vacancy, for term ending June 30, 1988 Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: C) Report from Councilmember Williams on Alcohol Policy Retreat and request for future agenda item with staff report on limiting alcohol outlets. Recommended Action: 1)Vote by Council whether to dis- cuss this item; 2) refer to staff for a report back on a future agenda; 3) resolution of matter by Council action tonight. 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 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 ti CITY VISION A less dense, more family oriented pleasant low profile, financially sound community comprised of a separate and distinct business district and residential neighborhoods that are afforded full municipal services in which the maximum costs are borne by visitor/users; led by a City Council which accepts a stewardship role for community resources and displays a willingness to explore innovative alternatives, and moves toward public policy leadership in attitudes of full ethical awareness. This Council is dedicated to learning from the past, and preparing Hermosa Beach for tomorrow's challenges today. Adopted by City Council on October 23, 1986 NOTE: There is no smoking allowed in the Council Chambers' ;, THE HERMOSA BEACH FORM OF GOVERNMENT Hermosa Beach bas the Council -Manager form of government, with a City Manager ap- pointed by and responsible to the City Council for carrying out Council policy. The Mayor and Council decide what is to be done. The City Manager, operating through the entire City staff, does it. This separation of policy making and administration is considsered the most economical and efficient form of City government in the United States today. GLOSSARY The following explanations may help you to understand the terms found on most agen- das for meetings of the Hermosa Beach City Council. Consent Items A compilation of all routine matters to be acted upon by one vote; approval re- quires a majority affirmative vote. Any-Councilmember can remove an item from this listing thereby causing that matter to be considered under the category Consent Cal- endar items Removed For Separate Discussion. Public Hearings Public Hearings are held on certain matters as required by law. The Hearings afford the public the opportunity to appear and formally express their views regarding the matter being heard. Additionally, letters may be filed with the City Clerk, prior to the Hearing. Hearings Hearings are held on other matters of public importance for which there is no legal requirement to conduct an advertised Public Hearing. Ordinances An ordinance is a law that regulates government revenues and/or public conduct. All ordinances require two "readings". The first reading introduces the ordinance into the records. At least one week later Council may adopt, reject or hold over the ordinance to a subsequent meeting. Regular ordinances take effect 30 days after the second reading. Emergency ordinances are governed by different provisions and waive the time requirements. Written Communications The public, members of advisory boards/commissions or organizations may formally communicate to or make a request of Council by letter; said letters should be filed with the City Clerk by the Wednesday preceeding the Regular City Council meeting. Miscellaneous Items and Reports - City Manager The City Manager coordinates departmental reports and brings items to the attention of, or for action by the City Council. Verbal reports may be given by the City Manager regarding items not on the agenda, usually having arisen since the agenda was prepared on the preceding Wednesday. Miscellaneous Items and Reports - City Council Members of the City Council may place items on the agenda for consideration by the full Council. Other Matters - City Council These are matters that come to the attention of a Council member after publication of the Agenda. Oral Communications from the Public - Matters of an Urgency Nature Citizens wishing to address the City Council on an urgency matter not elsewhere con- sidered on the agenda may do so at this time. Parking Authority • The Parking Authority is a financially separate entity, but is operated asan 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. October 27, 1987 City Council Meeting November 10, 1987 Mayor and Members of the City Council APPOINTMENT OF MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEM AND CITY COUNCIL REORGANIZATION - NOVEMBER 1987 Consistent with the City Council policy of a nine-month rotation of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore, the following appointments should be made: 1. Mayor for an eightrronth term ending July 1988. 2. Mayor Pro Tempore for an eight-month term ending July 1988. Recommendations after appointment of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore are: 1. To adopt Resolution No. 87- entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIF- ORNIA, APPOINTING A MEMBER OF SAID COUNCIL OF SAID CITY TO THE CITY SELECTION COMMITTEE OF THE SOUTHERN CALIF- ORNIA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT, PURSUANT TO PART 3 OF DIVISION 10 OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE." 2. To appoint the Mayor to the Los Angeles County/City Selection Committee. 3. To appoint the Mayor to the South Bay Cities Sanitation District. Enclosed for your information are current committee assignments as of February 1987. The remainder of the assignments may be made at the City Council meeting of November 24, 1987. Following appointment/reappointment, letters will be sent to the appropriate boards and commissions. You will receive a list of the newly appointed members. KATHLEEN MIDSTOKKE, City Clerk CONCUR: GAYL T. MARTIN, INTERIM CITY MANAGER Att. 2 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION October 27, 1987 City Council Meeting November 10, 1987 Mayor and Members of the City Council APPOINTMENT OF MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEM AND CITY COUNCIL REORGANIZATION - NOVEMBER 1987 Consistent with the City Council policy of a nine-month rotation of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore, the following appointments should be made: 1. Mayor for a nine-month term ending August 1988. 2. Mayor Pro Tempore for a nine-month term ending August 1988. Recommendations after appointment of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore are: 1. To adopt Resolution No. 87- entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIF- ORNIA, APPOINTING A MEMBER OF SAID COUNCIL OF SAID CITY TO THE CITY SELECTION COMMITTEE OF THE SOUTHERN CALIF- ORNIA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT, PURSUANT TO PART 3 OF DIVISION 10 OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE." 2. To appoint the Mayor to the Los Angeles County/City Selection Committee. 3. To appoint the Mayor to the South Bay Cities Sanitation District. Enclosed for your information are current committee assignments as of February 1987. The remainder of the assignments may be, made at the City Council meeting of November 24, 1987. Following appointment/reappointment, letters will be sent to the appropriate boards and commissions. You will receive a list of the newly appointed members. KATHLEEN MIDSTOKKE, City Clerk CONCUR: -r h11,- GAYL T. MARTIN, INTERIM CITY MANAGER Att. 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 RESOLUTION NO. 87- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPOINTING A MEMBER OF SAID COUNCIL OF SAID CITY TO THE CITY SELECTION COMMITTEE OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT, PURSUANT TO PART 3 OF DIVISION 10 OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That pursuant to the Southern California Rapid Transit District Law, being Part 3 of Division 10 of the Public Utilities Code of the State of California, the City Council does hereby appoint the following member of said Council as a member to the City Selection Committee: Delegate: Alternate: SECTION 2. Mayor Etta Simpson Mayor Pro Tempore Jim Rosenberger That the within resolution shall become operative and the appointment made by Section 1 hereof shall be effective as of November 10, 1987. SECTION 3. That immediately after the effective date of the appointment hereby made, the City Clerk shall without delay forward a copy of this resolution, together with notice of the appointment made hereby, to the Secretary of the Southern Calif- ornia Rapid Transit District. SECTION 4. That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution; shall cause the action of the City Council in adopting same to be entered in the official minutes of said City Council; and shall retain this resolution, duly signed by the proper City officials in the official records of the City. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1987 PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 1 ♦. Date: February 10, 1987 CITY COUNCIL REORGANIZATION OF DELEGATES, ALTERNATE APPOINTMENTS AND/OR REAPPOINTMENT Appointments made: Beach Cities Committee Delegate Cioffi Delegate Rosenber er Independent Cities Association Delegate DeBellis Alternate Cioffi Independent Cities Risk Management Association Delegate DeBellis Alternate Blackwood Inglewood Fire Training Authority Commission Delegate Williams Alternate Sim. son League of California Cities - Board of Directors Delegate Rosenberger Alternate Simpson Los Angeles County/City Selection Committee (must appoint alter- nate separately each time if unable to attend when meeting is called.) Mayor Cioffi Sister City Association, Inc. Delegate Williams Alternate DeBellis South Bay Cities Association Delegate Cioffi Delegate Williams 1 South Bay Cities Sanitation District (County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Delegate Cioffi Alternate Simpson South Bay Corridor Study Steering Committee Delegate Cioffi Alternate Williams South Bay Juvenile Diversion Project Delegate Simpson, alternate Rosenberger South Bay Regional Public Communications Authority Delegate Rosenberger Primary Alternate DeBellis (other three councilmembers are back-up alternates Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Delegate DeBellis Alternate Simpson Southern California Rapid .Transit District (by Resolution) Delegate Cioffi Resolution No. 86-4924 Alternate Simpson West Basin Water Association Delegate Simpson SUBCOMMITTEES Business Relations Councilmember Rosenberger Councilmember DeBellis City Community Relations Committee of the Council Mayor Pro Tem Cioffi Mayor Pro Tem Designee Simpson 2 City -County Relations Councilmember Williams Councilmember Rosenberger City -School District Relations Councilmember DeBellis Councilmember Simpson Coordinating Council Councilmember Williams Councilmember Cioffi Fire and Police Relations Councilmember Councilmember Planning Councilmember Councilmember Williams Rosenberger DeBellis Rosenberger Railroad Right -of -Way Councilmember DeBellis Councilmember Simpson State Legislation Review/Recommendation Councilmember Simpson Councilmember Cioffi Transportation & Parking Subcommittee Councilmember. Williams Councilmember DeBellis Strand Safety Committee Councilmember Williams Councilmember Rosenberger 3 MINUTES.OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY.CQUNCIL of the City of 'Hermosa Beach, CA held on Tuesday, October 27, 1987 at the hour of 7:37 P.M. PLDGE_OF_ALLEGIANCE - John Hales ROLL,_ CALL Present: DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Cioffi Absent: None PRQCLAMATIQNS: Red Ribbon Week, October 25 - 31, 1987 CERTIR'ICATE.OF COMMENDATIQN: Richard, Thelma & Darrell Greenwald CERTUICATE^t_F,COMIiENDATION: Pat Fuehring, Switchboard Operator City of Hermosa Beach CERTIFICATES OF.APPRECIATIQN.,FOVORGANIZERS OF 80TH. BIRTHDAY PARADE,: Carol Reznichek, Richard Reznichek, Hermosa Beach Rotary Club, Hermosa Beach Kiwanis Club, John Horger, Brian O'Malley, Fran Carr, Bunny Seawright, Seasprites Children's Center, Mick Felder, Jane Turner, Jim Graham, Hermosa Beach Historical Society CITIZEN COMMENTS None. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR Action: To approve Consent Calendar items (a) through dd) with the exception of the following items which were pulled for further discussion but are listed in order for clarity: (1) DeBellis, (x) DeBellis, (z) De- Bellis and (bb) Simpson, and noting NO votes by Williams on (cc) and (dd) who stated that she felt that this was an inappropriate time to change the hours at City Hall and as they are in the process of hiring a new City Man- ager it would be too disruptive. Motion Rosenberger, second Simpson. So ordered (a) Approval of,Minutes: Special meeting of the City Coun- cil held on Saturday, October 10, 1987. (b) Actiop: To approve minutes. ,ApprQyal Of.Minuts: Regular meeting of the City Coun- cil held on Tuesday, October 13, 1987. Action: To approve minutes. 1 Minutes 10-27-87 a (c) Demands -and Warrants: October 27, 1987 Action: To approve Demands and Warrants Nos. 24403 and 24567 through 24685 inclusive noting voided Warrants Nos. 24571 through 24574, 24599 and 24600. (d) Tentative, Future. Agenda Items. Action: To receive and file. (e) _City Manager Activity, -Report: Memorandum from Interim City Manager Gayle T. Martin dated October 21, 1987. Action: To receive and file. (f) Building. and Safety..,DepartmentMonthly Activity -Report: September, 1987. Action: To receive and file. (g) Community,Resources,D_epartment_„Monthly,.Activity,.Report: September,7. Action: To receive and file. (h) Finance _Department Monthly Activity -Report: September, -16787. Action: To receive and file. (i) Fire ..Department, Monthly,,Activity Report: September, 1987. Action: To receive and file. (j) General.Servsoes,Department..Monthly_Activity„Report: September, 1987. Action: To receive and file. (k) Personnel Department.,1onthly.-ActivityReport: Septem- ber, 19$7. Action: To receive and file. (1) Tannin: De.artnpent_Monthl .Activit Re ort: September, 19:7. Councilmember DeBellis referred to item 3, General Plan Amendment to resolve General Plan/Zoning inconsistencies in the Northwest sector. He asked Planning Director Schubach to explain the statement in the press attri- buted to him which reflects on the entire Council and Planning Commission. This statement follows one made by one of the City Council candidates that in every case except one the City Council and the Planning Commission - 2 - Minutes 10-27-87 had chosen the less dense alternative. According to the press, Mr. Schubach's stated that in each of the last 23 cases with one exception, the Council and Planning Com- mission had approved the higher density. Mr. Schubach stated this was apparently a misprint and should have said just the opposite, the lower density. Councilmember DeBellis read Mr. Schubach's letter to the press reiterating his statements to the press stressing the fact that both the Planning Commission and the City Council have consistently voted to lower density in Her- mosa Beach. Actj9n: To request an explanation and apology from Mr. Bob Rawich, Suburban Editor of the Los Angeles Times, on their letterhead, regarding the cause of the error in the newspaper article. Motion Rosenberger, second Simpson. So ordered. Councilmember Simpson read the following statement into the record: "It is unfortunate that a major article in a newspaper which was intended to inform citizens of issues and candidates on the upcoming election, should have seriously misinformed people on a key issue such as density. "A retraction by the TIMES of the statement attributed to Planning Director Michael Schubach, together with the printing of a letter of correction by the Planning Di- rector, should redress the error. "For the record: This Council has been consistent and faithful in continuing efforts, at every reasonable op- portunity, to reduce the density of building structures and to protect open space in our city. "And serious efforts to cope with density through con- structive challenge, recommending better alternatives or action acceptable to the community, 13 encouraged at all times and most particularly at every public hearing which relates to the issue of density." Furt4pr_11419/1To direct staff to write a letter, to be signed by the Mayor, asking that the appropriate papers try to write a story regarding the positive things Hermosa Beach has done regarding lowering density including resolutions and ordinances that were passed during the last three years, a copy of the list of these resolutions and ordinances that was prepared by the City Clerk to be sent with the letter. Motion DeBellis, second Simpson. So ordered. Furttigr Act Qn To receive and file this report. Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger. So ordered. - 3 - Minutes 10-27-87 Fi40-441ord; To allow three minutes of public testimony. Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger. So ordered noting a NO vote by Williams. Speaking to Council was George Schmeltzer, 515 - 24th Street, commending the action taken by the Council on this issue and stressing the damage done to the integri- ty of members of the Council and Planning Commission involved in the determination of these density issues. (m) POiice,Dgpartnent_Monthiy,.Activity_RePort: September, 1987. Action: To receive and file. (n) Public Works D,.artment.Monthly,_Actigty._epQrt: Sep- tember, 19 7. Supplemental information - memorandum from Interim City Manager Gayle T. Martin dated October 26,' 1987. Action: To receive and file. City.Treasurer's._Report: September, 1987. Action: To receive and file. Request,_ from.. Chamber of Commerce.. re arrangemgnts ,for Chris_tmas,act,ivities. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dated October 6, 1987. Action: Approve request to 1) allow three hours free parking at silver post meters, from Dec. 1, 1987 thru Jan. 1, 1988; and 2) direct Public Works to close the north side of Pier Avenue, from Hermosa Avenue to Beach Drive, on December 2nd from 5:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. for Christmas Lighting Ceremonies. (q) MoW11y, repprt_. from _5outh . Bay_Coalition , for _ Alternatives tQ.Domestic Violence.regarcing.Child Abuse„PreyentiQn. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian dated October 16, 1987. Action: To receive and file. (r) Report and_reeQmmendat.ions_.concerning_prQposed emergency ambulance__agreement witb_Los_Angeles Copnty. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated Oc- tober 16, 1987. Action: To 1) approve letter to County and instruct staff to deliver it in order to meet the October 30, 1987 deadline, and 2) receive and file report. 4 Minutes 10-27-87 (s) RePQrt,_and ,recommendations re. curfew, enforcement., in Hermosa_Beach. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated October 12, 1987. Action: To receive and file. (t) Re•uest for •ro.osals.Qr Cable T,O/.Consultin: ,Ser- vices. Continued from October 13, 19:7 meeting. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dat- ed October 19, 1987. Action: To approve the request for proposal for cable TV consulting services. (u) cancellation_of„Warrants. Memorandum from City Treasurer Norma Goldbach dated October 20, 1987. Action: To approve cancellation of Warrants Nos. 24557 and 244548. (v) Beach Driye,Improvements_(6th_to 10th_Btreets)_,_CIP,$7- 30_.901.1„f0r,, bids,_for construction._and,_ins ection snr- vipep. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated September 24, 1987. Action: To 1) authorize Public Works Dept. to advertise for bids and issue addenda as necessary, and 2) au- thorize staff to advertise for professional inspection services and issue addenda as necessary. (w) City _of ficrmosa._.Beach _ olicy, regarding,.additional _Sister Cy jet organizatipns. Memorandum from Assistant City Man- ager Alana Mastrian dated October 20, 1987 (x) Action: To receive and file. Report on„procedures/funding._sources/des��n,.plan_,for.,the Rossibjlity of aequiring_land„for�Pier/Valley/Ardmore street_improvements. Memorandum from Public Works Di- rector Anthony Antich dated October 16, 1987. Proposed,,Aot ,ont To receive and file. Motion Williams - dies for lack of a second. Action;. To go on record that the City Council desires to study the intersection of Pier/Ardmore/Valley with the intent of possibly changing the two intersections to one intersection, and to consider this as part of the Circulation Element to be done by DKS. Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger. So ordered. Final..A9tion: To receive and file. Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger. So ordered. 5 Minutes 10-27-87 (y) Approyalsof. C1ass,,Specification _for. public. Safety ,pis- patcher. Memorandum from Personnel Administrator Robert Blackwood dated October 20, 1987. Action: To approve Public Safety Dispatcher classification. (z) Re•ort.regardin:_inter•retation Qf..interim Ordinance, Not cies. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director Wil- liam Grove and Planning Director Michael Schubach dated October 19, 1987. Action; To direct the City Attorney tO return at the next meeting with a report on whether the existing or- dinance accomplishes the City Council's legislative in- tent that developmentmust comply with all of the criteria of the lower of the zoning or General Plan designation, if it doesinot, how can this be achieved, and take a look at Section 7 regarding existing structures. Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger. So ordered. PrQpQsgs,ActiQn; To adopt an emergency moritorium on the issuance of building permits where there are incon- sistencies between the General Plan and zoning, however, building permits may be issued for the lower density but must meet all other standards of said lower density. Motion Williams - dies for lack of a second. 1urther_44ion; To reaffirm the City Council's legisla- tive intent of Ordinance No. 87-881 that where there are inconsistencies between the General Plan and the zoning, the project must meet the standards for the lower density. Motion Mayor Cioffi, second DeBellis. So ordered noting a NO vote by Williams who stated she wanted an emergency moratorium. FinaidAction: To receive and file.. Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger. So ordered. (aa) M9nth1y..,lnyestment,RepQrt. (Continued from October 13, 1987 meeting. Memorandum from City Treasurer Norma Goldbach dated October 21, 1987. AetiQn: To receive and file. (bb) Re•uest to a•prove, ehan:in.the hours., of 0 erati•n. for City (fall office_sw from,_: Qnbanm to_5t00, p,mr MQn4 y through_FrideY _ to 7:00 . aAm, ., to_ .OQ„p.my...,Monday,. through Thursda f•r a.,_ ix. month ,trial •eriod._commencin_ Novem- ber.„3Q,_a9:7 Memorandum from Personnel Administrator Robert Blackwood dated October 19, 1987. 6 Minutes 10-27-87 Action: To approve the change in the hours of operation for City Hall offices for a six month trial period com- mencing November 30, 1987 with the amendment that the City Council have the opportunity to review the im- plementation of this change. Motion Simpson, second DeBellis. So ordered noting a NO vote by Williams who stated she felt this would be disruptive during this period of hiring a new City Manager. Couneilmember Simpson stated she felt a message recorder should be used during the hours when the switchboard is not open. (cc) Request. to authorize the_CitY_,Mana er�to„sign a_Sup- lemental,.to Memorandum_,of.U110er4ta40Dg_dated__September 119 5 between the,_City of.Hermosa_Beaoh,end the CaJ- ifrnia Teamsters,_I'ubli c, Profgssional, and ,Medical . Em- plQyees'. r Union, ,Local 91 �. , ,Ge_neral, „$uperysory, ,_and Administrative,.FmploYees,'_Bargaining_Units. Memorandum from Personnel Administrator Robert Blackwood dated Oc- tober 20, 1987. Action: Authorize City Manager to sign Supplemental to Agreement. NO vote by Williams. (dd) Request^�tQ. authgri�e the..Cityylanager_to__s�ygnra_,Sup- plemental to.,e the _Memorandum .of _ Under; standing tween , the City of Hermosa Beach, an! the. Hermosa..:- ach Maria; -went Assoc atigndatgd,Tuly_1•,,19:5; Memorandum from Per- sonnel Administrator Robert Blackwood dated October 20, 1987. Action: To authorize the City Manager to sign the Sup- plemental to Agreement. NO vote by Williams. MQTIQN _TQ..,WAIVE _FURTRFRwRFADING: Amon:.To waive the further reading to any resolution or or- dinance on tonight's agenda. Motion Rosenberger, second Simpson AYES - DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Cioffi NOES - None 2. QRDINANCES,AND.,RESQLUTIQNS (a) A _ RESQLUTIQN „QF,-TNE. CITY_ COUNCILTMQF,_THE„CITY,.OF_ HERMQSA BEACH,.CALIFORNIA,,`DFGLARING.ITS INTENTIQN.,TO DIRECT,THE PLANNING,.CQMMISST SIQN AND,AFF,„TQ.STU_. PYGENERAL,PLAN AMENDING ,AND REZONING ,QR'. TiE,EOLJ.,QWING .ARFA„FRQM,,,MEDIUM DENSLY R�ESIDENIAL..AND„R . .AND- R-3 ZQNING,_TQ_ .QW_DENSI- TY REIDENTIAL_AND_,.R-1._ZON.ING RESPECTIVELY:..ON,fUE_WEST, BOUNDED BY _ ARDMORE . AVEN E 0 , THE,. SOUT B U DED BY LOTS FRONTING QN,.T1 .,STEF ,-OIy,THE ,SQUTILSIQE;..QN„THE,.NQRTH, BQUNDED„BY,_THE,.LOTS .FRONTING,ON.,THE„NQRTH„SIDE QF .i1,TH S gtET; . bN _ TUE.. E4 T: _ R-?UND,FD ._ Y ,' HE� PROP ItT F 4..ZQl1Fb_ QR Minutes 10-27-87 C73.,.(EiEFE.ILTQ...ATTACHED.,MAP,), For adoption. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated October 20, 1987. Action; To adopt Resolution No. 87-5081 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO DIRECT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF TO STUDY GENERAL PLAN AMENDING AND REZONING OF THE FOLLOWING AREA FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND R-2 AND R-3 ZONING TO LOW DENSI- TY RESIDENTIAL AND R-1 ZONING RESPECTIVELY: ON THE WEST, BOUNDED BY ARDMORE AVENUE, ON THE SOUTH, BOUNDED BY LOTS FRONTING ON 6TH STREET ON THE SOUTH SIDE; ON THE NORTH, BOUNDED BY THE LOTS FRONTING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 11TH STREET; ON THE EAST, BOUNDED BY THE PROPERTIES ZONED FOR C-3 (REFER TO ATTACHED MAP.) Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger. So ordered. FLT rAc0.Qn; To allocate funds necessary to provide public notice, not to exceed $1,600, be allocated from Prospective Expenditures. Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger. So ordered. (b) - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCILOF THE. CI Y_OF HERMOSA BEACH CALIFORNIA #1:5:: FOR. A.TWQ-UNIT.CSNDQMIN UM PROJECT LOCATED_. AT _,5.11 7.11THr,STREET. For adoption. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated October 20, 1987. GRANTIN APP RQVAL OF FINAL.. PARCEL MAP Action;. To adopt Resolution No. 87-5082 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #18588 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 511 - 11TH STREET. Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger. So ordered. (c) A. RESOLUTION!F.THE_CITY COUNCIL,_OF__THE_CITOFHERMOSA BEACH .CALIFORNIA GRANTING,.APPROVAL_,OF_FINAL PARCEL,MAP #13:1 ., FQR„A,_TWQ-UNIT, CONDOMINIUM .PROJECT, 4T„5Q7-511 MO,ITERE7(„$4WD, For adoption. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated October 20, 1987. Action. To adopt Resolution No. 87-5083 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #13814 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 507-511 MONTEREY BLVD. Motion Rosenberger, second DeBellis. So ordered. ITEMS., REMOVED _FROM_,T(1E,CONSENT,,C#LENDAR._FOR _ SEPARATE,_ DISCUSSION. The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion at this time but are listed in order on the Consent Calendar for clarity: (1), (x), (z), and (bb). - 8 - Minutes 10-27-87 4. WRITTE[V�_COM�MUNICATIQNS FROM. THE.„PU$LiC. Pe ition ,containin:, sinatures s bmitted bY.Mr. ,T'i eat .. dated Octo . er1, 1 • : requesting enforcement of prohibition against trucks on 8th Street between Pacific Coast Hwy. and Ardmore Ave. Action: To refer to the Public Safety Director for a report back to Council, and request immediate monitoring of the area by patrol. Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger. So ordered. P[ALIPAEARiNGS None. MUNICItAL._MATTERS 5. 1907-88 AUART.ERLA.JMQTAgVIEW. A. STATUS,.,�tEPORT RE. _CAPTAL�IMPR�TJEMENT,__PRQJCTS Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony An- tich dated September 30, 1987. Agtion; To receive and file this report and direct the Public Works Department to install a water fountain at Ardmore and Pier. Motion Williams, second Simpson. So ordered. Speaking to Council was Mrs. Betty Schultz who had originally requested the water fountain at Ardmore and Pier. She again offered to pay the $350 for the installation of the fountain and this offer was gratefully accepted by the Council with thanks: She did request that the fountain include a faucet at the base of the fountain for the use of pets. B. SU9MARY„DEPORT. Memorandum from Assistant City Manager Alana Mastrian and Finance Administrator Viki Copeland dated October 21., 1987. (1) E2011111 _221211112.,1222/1: September, 1987. Action: To receive and file. Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger. So ordered. (2) MontIJ lIpend waaeport: September, 1987. Acti9 : To receive and file. Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger. So ordered. Mayor Cioffi requested the City Manager to bring back a report at the next meeting re permit parking in front of driveways (driveway permits) and footage required. - 9 - Minutes 10-27-87 C. REPORT AND .. RECOMMENDATION$.. RE . ,.DISPATCH. AND.. RECORDS MANAGEMENT. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated October 12, 1987. Action: To: (1J Adopt Resolution No. 87-5084 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTEN- TION TO WITHDRAW FROM PARTICIPATION AND MEMBER- SHIP IN THE SOUTH BAY REGIONAL PUBLIC COM- MUNICATIONS AUTHORITY"; (2) Direct staff to notify RCC and all participat- ing agencies of intention to withdraw from par- ticipation in RCC effective July 1, 1988; (3) Direct staff to notify Hawthorne Police Dept. of intention to discontinue contracting for computer records management services effective July 1, 1988; (4) At mid -year budget review, appropriate an amount, not to exceed $48,000, for installation of 911 equipment and for construction, purchase of equipment and installation at the remote transmitter site; (5) Approve agreement with California Water Service Co. for the radio transmitter facility and request the City Manager to write a letter to California Water Service expressing _ the City's appreciation for the use of their property; (6) Direct staff to obtain all necessary equipment to begin in-house dispatch and records management. Motion DeBellis, second Williams. So ordered. 6. FUNDING_FOR.SCIOQL,.DISTRICT..ASSEMBLIES. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian dated Oc- tober 15, 1987. Propo§eI,:,Aetp*. TO fund the School District Assemblies in the amount of $2,000. • Motion DeBellis - dies for lack of a second. PropQ$p0._A4Q To drop the funding for the School District Assemblies. Motion Rosenberger, second Williams AYES - Rosenberger, Williams NOES - DeBellis, Simpson, Mayor Cioffi Motion fails Ao4on: To reaffirm the City Council position to fund the School District Assemblies "Matching" Grant in the amount of $1,000. Motion Simpson, second Cioffi So ordered noting a NO vote by Rosenberger. - 10 - Minutes 10-27-87 7. RaIEW,_QE ,LEAESLQWER, USE. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated October 16, 1987. Sup- plemental information - information submitted by Roy Imazu, Legislative Analyst for the Southern California Gardeners Federation. Action: Direct staff to prepare wording for an or- dinance to ban leafblowers in the City of Hermosa Beach to take effect throughout the City with no exceptions, to be effective April 1, 1988, and ask staff to present options such as certain size lots, residential areas, etc. Motion DeBellis, second Williams Amendmgnt._to_11 tion To delete the exemption of the City of Hermosa Beach Public Works Department. So ordered noting a NO vote by Simpson. 8. MISCE14.ANEQUS _ ITEMS, ANS' REPORTS., - .CITY.,„MANAGER None. 9. MISCELLANEOUS. ITEMS„AND_REPORTS, ,.CIT)C_coUNCIL (a) Qral rePort.,re, ,A'SF right-of-way, Councilmember Simpson read the following press release into the record: "Monday, October 26, 1987 - On Friday, October 23, 1987, Mayor John Cioffi and Mayor PrO Tem Etta Simpson met with Brian J. Weber of the Santa Fe Pacific Realty Corporation and Frank J. A. Greco of Tur- rini & Brink, Land Planning Consultant for Santa Fe, for the second time to discuss the railroad property in Her- mosa Beach. During the informal meeting focus was upon potential acquisition of the right-of-way by the City for continued use as parkland and open space. The atmo- sphere of the two-hour meeting was friendly. It was agreed that meetings should continue on a regular basis and that the next meeting be scheduled for December.” Councilmember Williams stressed that there have been no plans submitted for development on the right-of-way - there has only been a request for a zone change. (b) Report_and.recommendations.rer.the._distribution„o _hand- bills .advertisin _materials __etc. (Continued from Oc- tober 13, 19 7 meeting for clarification by City Attor- ney re. political material.) Memorandum from City At- torney James P. Lough dated October 19, 1987. Aotion: To approve the staff recommendation as follows: 1. Instruct staff to prepare a letter to the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce requesting assistance in advising its membership regarding H.B.M.C. Sec. 3- 1, and requesting compliance. - 11 - Minutes 10-27-87 2. It is recommended that the Police Department direct its attention to H.B.M.C. Sec. 3-1, (Distribution of Handbills, Advertising Matters, etc.) and take appropriate action regarding its enforcement. Motion DeBellis, second Simpson. So ordered. (c) Btatus_,repOr. pn._Hermosa, Beach_City_E1emeptary, S0QQl Distrit4A , City,.of . Hermpsa, Be11ch. Memorandum from City Attorney James P. Lough dated October 19, 1987. To receive and file. Motion Simpson, second Rosenberger. So ordered. 10. OTHER MATTERS, ,CITY.,,CQgNCIL (a) Recommendation re appo�ntmeot gf Cable T1y. board mem- bers. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dated October 19, 1987. Action: To appoint the:following twelve applicants to the Cable TV Board: Jane Allison R. Sylvia Barton Robert Fleck Stephen Gaeh Susan Hay Barbara Jean Holland Charlotte Malone John A. McIntyre D. Scott Rosenberg Christopher M. Rowe Dr. S. Roy Schubert C. Evan Wright Motion Simpson, second Williams. So ordered noting a NO vote by Rosenberger. Staff will choose a few dates and poll the new members as to the date most convenient for the first meeting date for the Cable TV Board. RZQUESTS,_FRQi ..QQU cI MEMUERS„FQR,_PQ$SI$LE_EVTVRE„QGENDA_ITEMs: 1) Request,_#'romwMaygr_Pro_Tem._SimpsQn„for„creation,.,ai' a,,1b _memberBlue.Ribbpn ,Ad_Hoc,Citin Committee .tQ ser” ,._the, community _ in, Obaining,_ funding to„acquire the„right„pf -dray, for, parkland__use An oral report was presented by Councilmember Simpson. Action: To refer to staff for a report back on a fu- ture agenda. Motion Simpson, second DeBellis. So ordered noting a NO vote by Williams. 2) Reguest'rgrn CQuncilmember Wi1liams for discussion �f it th the -2 zope to two -unit buildi gs An oral report was presented by Councilmember Williams. - 12 - Minutes 10-27-87 Action: To refer to staff for a report back on a future agenda with a possible Resolution of Intention to send this item to the Planning Commission and indicating how many lots are involved, number of dwelling units, etc. Motion Williams, second Rosenberger. So ordered. 3) Request,.frQrCounclmember._Rosenberger,fgr_agendiz ing,.4 '_, discussioa—or-the BrownrAct An oral report was presented by Councilmember Rosen- berger asking that, as stated in the minutes of the previous City Council meeting, this matter be agendized for the next meeting. 4 .Request , from Cour�Gi� menDeBe is, #'or age diz}ng pf 0. 9f dinance An oral report was presented by Councilmember DeBellis asking for a discussion regarding the implementation and enforcement of the current Campaign Ordinance. The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach adjourned temporarily at the hour of 11:00 P.M. to a meet- ing of the Hermosa Beach Vehicle Parking District Commission. 11. MEETINQ_OF„THE,.HERMOSA,BEACI_,VEIICLE .PARKiNQ-PISTRICT COMMI SS .IQN . The Regular Meeting of the City Council reconvened at the hour of 11:05 P.M. • APPEARANCE,OF„INTERESTED. CITIZENS None. ADJQ[fl NMENT The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, adjourned on Tuesday, October 27, 1987 at the hour of 11:05 P.M. to a Regular Meeting to be held on Tuesday, November 10, 1987 at the hour of 7:30 P.M.f1 / // Deputy City'Clerk - 13 - Minutes 10-27-87 October 21, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council November 10, 1987 PROGRESS REPORT ON PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Recommendation: It is recommended that this report be received and filed. Background: At your regularly scheduled meeting of August 13, 1986, the City Council approved (in concept) a Parking Management Plan. This plan outlined certain goals and objectives designed to alleviate the myriad of parking problems facing the city. At your regularly scheduled meeting of September 22, 1987, Councilmember Williams requested that staff give a progress report on the goals and objectives established in the Parking Management Plan. Report: 1. Goal: To increase the parking spaces within the impact.zone. Action: Direct staff to conduct a study considering the impact of eliminating one south -bound and one north -bound traffic lane on Hermosa Avenue, from Herondo to Twenty Sixth Street, and installing diagonal parking spaces. Study to include the number of increased parking places, estimated cost and potential revenue from additional metered spaces. Also all traffic engineering impacts on both Hermosa Avenue and adjacent streets. This goal to be considered in a phased manner. Progress: The study was completed, by BSI Consultants, and delivered to staff in November of 1986. Subsequently, the following action was taken by the City Council on December 12, 1986; 1. Adopted Resolution No. 86-5005, establishing angle parking on Thirteenth Street, from Beach Drive to Hermosa Avenue. 2. Appropriated $4,040 from the Parking Fund for the purchase and installation of parking meters for Thirteenth Street. - 1 - 1e s 3. Referred the Hermosa Avenue angle parking discuss- ion to the City Council Business Relations Sub - Committee. 4. To set a public hearing workshop to discuss the impacts of angle parking on Hermosa Avenue after the City Council Business Relations Subcommitee meeting. Angle parking spaces and additional parking meters have been installed on Thirteenth Street. While the Business Relations Subcommittee has scheduled the discussion re. angle parking on Hermosa Avenue, other more pressing issues took priority and said discussion has been postponed to some future meeting. 2. Goal: Expand Vehicle District #1 to encourage more utiliz- ation of the parking in -lieu fees and validation, said ex- pansion to be from Sixteenth Street on the north to Eighth Street on the south and east to Manhattan Avenue. Action: Direct staff, working with the City Attorney, to present a proposal within six months for the expansion of Vehicle Parking District #1. Progress: Several conversations have taken place between the staff and City Attorney regarding expanding the district. It is a complicated issue, since it requires the affected property owners to petition for expansion. Actually, it is more feasible to disband the District, since the bonds have been paid off and the affected properties belong to the City. An alternative would be to designate an area for,in- lieu fee parking, to include the proposed expansion. You are all aware of the effort that has been made by your honorable body to encourage participation in the validation program e.g., two for one vals and city subsidization of merchant validation costs. 3. Goal: To meet peak auditorium and Community Center needs and to provide remote parking for beach -goers and downtown employee parking. Action: Staff has completed the RFP process for the finan- cial feasibility analysis for the construction of a parking structure in the vicinity of the Eleventh Street, city owned property and bids are in house. Progress: 8/12/86 - Accepted the proposal of Economic Research Associates to conduct an economic feasibility study of the Community Center parking structure. 2/24/87 - Accepted the report, prepared by ERA, and approved in concept implementation of a public parking facility to serve the Community - 2 - Center and adjacent business community. Directed that staff seek input from the Community Center Foundation and Community Resources Advisory Commission. 3/20/87 - Resources 5/12/87 - submitted continued meetings. Received input from the Foundation and Advisory Commission. Staff report and recommendations were to the City Council. This matter was to 5/26, 6/9, 7/28 and 8/11 council 8/11/87 - A legal opinion was given by City Attorney Lough re. no legal impediment in the Community Center grant deed vis-a-vis city pro- ceeding with a public parking facility. Action taken by City Council was to receive and file report and to reschedule to a meeting in October at which time Mr. Lough was to address the Council's concern. 10/13/87- Further report from City Attorney Lough submitted to the City Council. Action taken to receive and file report and notify Hermosa Beach School District that the City Council will not pursue public parking on the former Pier Avenue School property at this time. Staff was directed to provide background information on the proposed parking structure for Councilmembers for the next Parking Authority Meeting. 4. Goal: Encourage downtown employee parking at remote parking places. Action: Staff to prepare a plan, working in conjunction with the Chamber of Commerce and Downtown Merchants Association, to include some kind of shuttle service and the use of pedi- cabs, etc. Progress: This goal is actually tied in with providing a parking structure that is remote from the downtown area. We did however, present a proposal to the Vehicle Parking District Commissioners, in response to their request, from Ridgemont Parking Systems. Ridgemont was proposing a concept that was entirely new for the City of Hermosa Beach, that of parking privatization. They proposed to operate parking lots A, B, and C and to construct at their expense and operate a 450 unit parking garage on Lot C. The original request for a parking structure in the downtown area was made by the Down- town Merchants Association. The VPD Commission action was to receive and file the proposal. 5. Goal: To increase parking availability for businesses on Pacific Coast Highway. 3 Action: Seek to purchase individual lots within the multi- use corridor for use as parking lots and to also consider a joint effort with merchants on Pacific Coast Highway, south of Pier Avenue, for purchase of lots. Action: Analyze the feasibility of constructing a parking structure on the city -owned Third Street/Pacific Coast Highway parking lot and consider two or three-story structure in cooperation with Vasek Polak. Action: Ask staff to meet with an assessment engineer to establish the cost of services, and meet with highway busi- nesses to determine their interest and return with this feedback Progress: Little effort has been made in this area. Since we have not been able to make any progress with the Community Center parking structure, it did not seem prudent to pursue any new projects, at this time. We did investigate two lots that were for sale adjacent to Eighth Street and PCH, the price was right, but the location was questionable. If the City Council wishes us to pursue this goal, we will continue our effort. 6. Goal: To avoid impacting the residential parking adjacent to new commercial development in the multi -use corridor. Action: Notify affected residents of their ability to petition the City Council for a preferential parking permit program and to set parameters as they apply. Progress: While we have not attempted to send out any mass notification pertaining to the availability of preferential parking programs, we have advised anyone who calls in with a problem, that this alternative is available. To date we have not received any requests for neighborhood programs. 7. Goal: Provide parking space availability to encourage commuter usage of "Herman". Action: Direct staff to negotiate with Edison for the partial use of the Herondo vicinity powerline property. Progress: An RFP for a Community Transportation Plan, sponsored by seven cities (including Hermosa Beach) has been distributed. A consultant (Ekistic Corp.) has been employed and is currently working on the study. This plan may potentially provide for a park and ride program. 8. Goal: To preserve parking fund monies for the purchase of parking places. Fiscal year 1986/87 proposed budget projects the parking fund revenue at $1,740,804 and expenditures at $699,316, indicating a surplus of $1,041,488. Currently unexpended funds are transferred into the General Fund. Action: City Council to find alternate General Fund revenue in order to allocate all Parking Funds to the improvement of parking space availablility. Progress: The current 1987/88 budget provides for $83,000 for contract services re. Community Center parking structure and $50,000 for land acquisition, for a total of $133,000 to be dedicated to the improvement of parking space availablity. Additionally, the Parking Fund revenue is projected at $2,235,415 and expenditures are projected at $1,072,308, leaving a balance of $1,163,107 to be transferred into the General Fund. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no effort to find alternate general fund revenue so that parking fund revenue may be preserved for the improvement of parking space availablity. 9. Goal: To increase available parking within presently owned city parking facilities. Action: possible Action: space in Examine paved portion of railroad right-of-way for reconfiguration of parking spaces. Examine the possibility of reconfiguring the parking the three "City Hall" parking lots. Progress: Unfortunately, it is a little premature to make any plans for the railroad right-of-way. There were several conversations with City Manager Meyer regarding imposing time limit parking in the three city hall parking lots to discourage long term parking. In addition, consideration was given to relocating the parking meter workshop and cushman garage to Base #3. This would free up the lot on Bard - Street, which now has two very old garages upon it, for more Civic Center parking space. We anticipate that these dis- cussions will continue in the ensuing months. General Services Director Concur:/gv,71741, /Gayle. . Martin Interim City Manager November 6, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council November 10, 1987 ASSIGNMENT OF AGREEMENT TO PROCESS OOT -OF -STATE PARKING CITATIONS FROM VERTICAL MANAGEMENT TO COMPUTIL This item is continued to the meeting of November 24, 1987 due to some amendments that must be made to the Consent to Assignment. Jon Noon lh November 44, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council November 10, 1987 CHALLENGER MEMORIAL SHUTTLE PLAQUE RECOMMENDATION It' is recommended by the Community Resources Advisory Commission that the City Council approve the installation at City Hall of a donor plaque recognizing the major donors of the Challenger Shuttle Memorial Project and that the plaque be installed in the City Hall patio area on the north wall. BACKGROUND The Challenger Shuttle Memorial Committee's two projects included: 1) Building the Greg Jarvis Memorial Bike Rest Stop at 124th and Strand. 2) Donating $10,000 to the Hermosa Beach School District Challenger Science Labs (for equipment). In raising funds for the projects, several community businesses and individuals donated substantial time, materials, labor or money. The committee chose to honor these major donors by placing a permanent plaque in City Hall listing their names as contributors. At the commission meeting of August 26th the Shuttle Committee Liaison (Steve Crecy) was instructed to bring back to the commission a final location for the donor plaque (selected by the committee) for approval and submission to City Council. ANALYSIS The commission, at their meeting of October 28, 1987, unanimously agreed this location would be aesthetically pleasing and practical for the beautiful tile plaque. The plaque will be installed at no cost to the City and only after consulting with the Public Works Department as to the proper method of installation. Respectfully submitted, A ana M. astrian, Director Dept. of Community Resources ncur: Gayl-/ T. Martin Inte m City Manager November 6, 1987 CHALLENGER MEMORIAL SHUTTLE PLAQUE The attached picture is the plaque that Commission and Shuttle Committee is recommending be installed at City Hall. Respectfully submitted, Alana M. Mastrian, Director Dept. of Community Resources SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION li 84750-06017> N November 3, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council November 10, 1987 SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON THE ENFORCEMENT OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS INITIATED BY STAFF Recommendation Receive and file. Status The Planning Department has taken or is taking the following action: 1. Hired Assistant Planner to develop procedures, and enforce Conditional Use Permit requirements. 2. Researched Board of Zoning Adjustment files for all issued Conditional Use Permits. 3. Prioritized Conditional Use Permits (Alcohol establishment are at the top of the list.) 4. Conducted field studies. 5. Investigating the use of the Infraction Process so -that tickets may be issued to violators. 6. Meeting scheduled to coordinate with Police Department the enforcement of certain conditions of approval relating to noise, loitering, and relatedlrequirements. ctfully s bm' ed d Mic ael Schubach Gay T. Martin Planning Director Int- im City Manager 1 November 3, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council November 10, 1987 Award of Bid Fixed Asset Appraisal RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council award the contract for appraisal of fixed assets to Swope Valuation, Inc, subject to approval by the City Attorney, which will include the terms of the low bidder's proposal and all terms and conditions found in the Request for Proposals. BACKGROUND On August 25, 1987, the City Council authorized issuance of a request for proposals for appraisal of fixed assets. The City has never had an appraisal of its assets, however it is a good business practice in terms of fiscal compliance, control and information. Funds for both the appraisal and fixed asset software for the computer are included in the 1987-88 City Council Adopted Budget. ANALYSIS Four bids were received and opened by the City Clerk on September 18, 1987. They are as follows: Bidder Proposed Cost Swope Valuation, Inc. $ 9,835 American Appraisal Associates $10,220 Armstrong & Ryan $22,000 + $2,500 estimated expenses Marshall and Stevens, Inc. $25,000 In keeping with the City code requirement to award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder presenting the best bid to the City, staff recommends Swope Valuation, Inc. The bid is the lowest of the four submitted and all requirements of the City's proposal are met. Staff has checked the references listed in the proposal and received recommendations from the cities using Swope's services. All cities were able to obtain acceptance of the valuation work from their auditors. Grant Thornton, the City's auditing firm has reviewed both the RFP and the proposal and will work on the project with the appraiser to insure acceptance. Gay T. Martin Interim City Manager Viki Copeland Finance Administrator lk Swope Valuation, Inc, PROPOSAL for the INVENTORY and VALUATION of Certain FIXED ASSETS Belonging to the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA September 17, 1987 Submitted by James J. Swope, President 3726 ATLANTIC AVENUE, SUITE A • P.O. BOX 7548, LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90807-0548 • (213) 427-3773 I. PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT The proposed service is to establish a basis for fixed asset accounting for the City of Hermosa Beach, California. This project will provide data for: Audit Compliance Cost Accounting Stewardship Risk Management The resulting fixed asset data from the project will meet the needs as outlined in the City's Request for Proposal. II. COMPANY PROFILE Swope Valuation, Inc. was established in 1985 with the purpose of providing quality appraisal services to public entities. The company's experience is primarily based upon that of the President, James J. Swope. His experience includes 18 years as a Valuation Engineer with General Telephone and 8 years as a Senior Appraiser and Manager of Public Sector Appraisals with Marshall and Stevens. The company has five full—time employees and is equipped to perform projects as outlined in your request. Recent projects include: City of Banning Bill Olsen, Finance Director (714) 849-4511 Valuation of Utilities — $32,000,000 City of Rancho Cucamonga Elizabeth Stoddard, Assistant Finance Director (714) 989-1851 Valuation of General Fund — $16,000,000 City of Loma Linda Larry Ronnow, Finance Director (714) 796-0131 Valuation of General Fund and Utilities — $28,000,000 City of Oxnard Bill Petty, Purchasing Director (805) 486-4311 Valuation of Utilities — $53,000,000 We have prepared accounting manuals for several clients, such as Rancho Cucamonga, Anchorage, Salt Lake City, and the Jefferson County Schools in Colorado. Resumes of the appraisers who will perform the project field— work are included in this proposal. III. PROJECT SCOPE The proposed service is a complete inventory and valuation of capitalized fixed assets other than infrastructure*, owned by the City of Hermosa Beach, such as: Land Buildings and yard improvements Vehicles Furniture and office equipment Machinery and'other equipment Communications equipment Infrastructure includes streets, sidewalks, gutters, storm drains, traffic signals, street lights, trees and other landscaping on street right of ways and in parks. IV. DEFINITIONS The following definitions are applicable to this project: Historical Cost — The installed cost new of a structure or item when it was first placed into service. Replacement Cost New — The cost of construction to replace the structure or item with a substitute of like utility. Insurable Cost New — The Replacement Cost New less any non—insurable components. Replacement Cost New Less Depreciation — The Replacement Cost New less the loss in value due to physical deterioration. Insurable Cost New Less Depreciation — The Insurable Cost New less the loss in value due to physical deterioration. V. VALUATION PROCEDURES For each asset, the City records will be searched to establish historical cost and acquisition date. If an original cost cannot be found, then it will be estimated using appropriate trend factors. LAND The City will furnish the appraiser with the cost, date of acquisition and description of all land parcels owned by the City. If land costs are not available, then they will be estimated by use of appropriate appraisal procedures. Replacement Cost New will not be determined for land as it is not required for either accounting or risk management purposes. BUILDING & YARD IMPROVEMENTS Each building and yard improvement will be appraised to estab— lish a Replacement Cost New. If the original cost cannot be found in City records, it will be necessary to estimate the historical cost by use of trend factors. VEHICLES The City will furnish the appraiser with the cost, date of acquisition, and identification numbers of all city vehicles. FURNITURE AND OFFICE EQUIPMENT MACHINERY AND OTHER EQUIPMENT COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT All capitalized items will be physically inspected, invento— ried, and tagged. Historical cost will be from City records where possible. VI. PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE Activity No. Week Ending Work Completed 1. 11-6-87 The resolution of valuation techni— ques, depreciation method, service lives, and capitalization policy by the city finance administrator, out— side auditor and the valuation con— sultant. 2. 11-13-87 The search of available city records, extracting historical costs for individual assets. 3. 11-20-87 The field inspection of all buildings, improvements and land parcels. 4. 12-4-87 The field inventory of machinery and equipment. This activity and subse— quent activities are dependent upon having tags by November 13, 1987. 5. 12-11-87 6. 12-11-87 All capitalized assets will be valued. Reports delivered to the Finance Director. 7. 12-18-87 Fixed Asset Accounting Manual deliv— ered to the City. City personnel trained in reporting all fixed asset accounting transactions. VII. PROJECT RESPONSIBILITY It is the intent of Swope Valuation, Inc. to establish a fixed asset accounting system which will satisfy the requirements of the GFOA Certificate of Conformance Program and the outside auditors. Project functions are shown below: SWOPE VALUATION, INC. 1. Perform all inventory' work. 2. Perform all necessary. valuations. 3. Review purchase orders, current accounting files and project files for original cost data. 4. Establish a lifing schedule. 5. Prepare cost data reports in accordance with Section VIII. of this proposal. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1. Identify and provide date of acquisition and cost data for City owned land parcels. 2. Provide access to City records pertaining to original cost. 3. Provide a vehicle list, with description, vehicle identification number, date of acquisition and cost. 4. Provide a list of radios, with description, date of acquisition and serial number. VIII. REPORTS Swope Valuation, Inc. will provide to the City of Hermosa Beach, three sets of accounting reports detailing the following data: Asset Description Quantity Location Date Acquired Economic Life Replacement Cost New Insurable Value Historical Cost Current Year Depreciation Accumulated Depreciation Fund Class Department/Division Object The reports will be either as of June 30, 1987 or as of December 31, 1987, as will be specified by the City. The following reports are standard: 1. Stewardship Report 2. Accounting Report by Department 3. Accounting Report by Location 4. Accounting Summary Report 5. Replacement Cost Report 6. Additions Report 7. Retirement Report IX. TIME AND COST OF APPRAISAL ACTIVITY Activity No. Days 1. 2 day 2. 3 days 3. 5 days 4. 5. 10 days 6. 3 days Cost of tags — $500 * -.If capitalization cutoff is: $ 200 — 8 days $ 500 — 4 days $1,000 — 2 days Cost $ 500 1,000 1,665 3,335 1,500 $2,670 $1,335 $ 665 Additional Consulting Services — $75 per hour X. FEE SUMMARY $1,000 Cutoff Inventory & Valuation of Referenced Assets $8,665 $500 Cutoff $200 Cutoff $9,335 $10,670 Purchase of Tags 500 500 500 Total Fees $9,165 $9,835 $11,170 Additional reports over three copies — $150 per copy Additional consulting services Optional reports — $250 each Fees are payable as follows: — $75 per hour One third upon completion of the field work (Activities 3 & 4). One third upon delivery of the completed reports. One third upon completion of the property manual and training. XI. ACCEPTANCE This proposal is submitted in duplicate. You may signify your acceptance by endorsing one copy and returning it to me. The project will be scheduled upon receipt. SWOPE VALUATION, INC. James . Swope, President Accepted: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA By: Title: Date: September 17, 1987 JAMES J. SWOPE EDUCATION: Kansas City Junior College A.S. — Engineering U.C.L.A. B.S. — Finance PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION: Senior Member — American Society of Appraisers Licensed real estate broker — California APPRAISAL EXPERIENCE: General Telephone Company — Valuation Engineer AMARC Real Estate — Broker — Commercial — Valuation Consultant Marshall & Stevens — Senior Appraiser Marshall & Swift — Senior Construction Analyst Swope Valuation, Inc. — Valuation Consultant TYPES OF PROPERTIES APPRAISED: Public Utilities — Water, gas, electrical, telephone & wastewater Industrial — Light to heavy Commercial — Offices, retail, medical buildings, restaurants & automobile dealerships Public — Government buildings, schools, churches & historical structures TYPES OF APPRAISALS: Agricultural Residential Vacant Land Real Estate Machinery Construction — Farm land & packing facilities — Apartments, condominiums, proposed construction, single family homes — Industrial, commercial, farm, residential — Market Value & ad valorem — Market Value, value in use, orderly liquidation, forced liquidation & insurable value — Cost verification & insurable value James J. Swope PARTIAL LIST OF CLIENTS PERSONALLY SERVED Public Sector Long Beach Redevelopment Agency, CA Port of Oakland, CA Jefferson County School District, Lakewood, CO City of Long Beach, CA City of Santa Monica, CA City of Torrance, CA City of Salt Lake, UT City of Davis, CA City of Covina, CA City of Fairbanks, AK City of Anchorage, AK San Jose Community College, -CA San Bernardino School District, CA Glendale Unified School District, CA San Ysidro Unified School District, CA 'Redlands Unified School District, CA San Bernardino Public School Insurance Authority, CA Esparto School District, CA Mount Saint Mary's College, Los Angeles, CA City of Banning, CA City of Henderson, NV City of Santa Barbara, CA City of Bremerton, WA County of Yolo, CA City of Burbank, CA City of Monterey Park, CA City of Rialto, CA City of Richland, WA City of Paramount, CA City of Upland, CA City of Castle Rock, CO City of Anacortes, WA City of Livermore, CA City of Mt. Shasta, CA City of Winters, CA City of Loma Linda, CA City of San. Marcos, CA City of Oxnard, CA Santa Monica Community College, CA City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA James J. Swope PARTIAL LIST OF CLIENTS PERSONALLY SERVED Private Sector Kaiser Hospitals, Oakland, CA ESCO Steel, Portland, OR Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco, CA Vancouver Memorial Hospital, Vancouver, WA Coldwell Banker, Los Angeles, CA Security Pacific National Bank, Los Angeles, CA Cushman—Wakefield, Los Angeles, CA Trancor Industries, Irvine, CA Procto Inc., West Covina, CA C. P. National, Concord, CA Saint Vincent Hospital, Santa Fe, NM Hi—Shear Corporation, Torrance, CA Century Bank, Los Angeles, CA Irvine Medical Center, Irvine, CA Davidson Brick Co., Perris, CA Tenenbaum—Hill Associates, Kansas City, MO Empire Bank, Los Angeles, CA Coast Federal Savings, Los Angeles, CA Glendale Financial, Los Angeles, CA Prairie Financial, Los Angeles, CA Pacific Funding Group, Anaheim, CA Pacific Inland Bank, Anaheim, CA First Federal Savings Bank of California, Santa Monica, CA First Nationwide Bank, Los Angeles, CA Independence Bank, Beverly Hills, CA RESUME Jennifer L. Swope 3726 Atlantic Avenue, Suite A Long Beach, CA 90807 Certified Member — PWAA Professional Women's Appraisal Association MAI Canidate — American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers Appraisal Work Experience: 2/02/85 — Appraiser — Swope Valuation, Inc. Long Beach, California Appraisal Courses Completed Marshall & Swift's — Segregated Cost Seminar American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers — Basic Valuation Clients Served: Century Bank, Los Angeles, CA California Federal, Los Angeles, CA Bradford & Associates, Newport Beach, CA Glendale Financial Network, Glendale, CA Chua, Bailey & Associates, Glendale, CA Santa Monica City College, Santa Monica, CA City of Banning, CA City of Oxnard, CA United First Funding, Arcadia, CA City of Loma Linda, CA Pacific Inland Bank, Anaheim, CA Prairie Financial, Artesia, CA First Nationwide Bank, Los Angeles, CA Pacific Funding Group, Carson, CA RESUME Shelley J. Rooney 3726 Atlantic Avenue Suite A Long Beach, CA 90807 (213) 427-3773 CRrtified Member Professional Women's Appraisal Association MAI Candidate Appraisal Work Experience: 2/1/85 — Appraiser — Swope Valuation, Inc. Long Beach, California Appraisal Course Work Completed: Marshall & Swift's — Segregated Cost Seminar American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers — Basic Valuation Clients Served: Century Bank California Federal Bradford & Associates Glendale Financial Network Chua, Bailey & Associates Santa Monica City College City of Banning City of Oxnard City of Loma Linda City of San Marcos United First Funding Priority Lending Prairie Financial First Federal Savings 1st Nationwide Bank Pacific Inland Bank Pacific Funding Group Law Offices of James P. Lough JAMES P. LOUGH November 5, 1987 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDU M 30 NORTH RAYMOND AVENUE SUITE 708 PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91103 (213) 381-6131 (818) 792-4728 (818) 792-4776 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 10, 1987 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney RE: INFOCOMP Contract Confirmation RECOMMENDATION: Affirm contract to purchase software and give City license to use. BACKGROUND: INFOCOMP, our only available source of software for the City's computer, was going into bankruptcy and sent us notice of this fact. Under the terms of our maintenance agreement with INFOCOMP, it was the only company that we could legally use for maintenance of our software systems. Upon learning of this problem which would leave every Hewlett Packard using city in the state without maintenance support, the City staff began immediately negotiating with INFOCOMP to obtain the remaining budgeted software items and to gain a license to allow outside maintenance releases. Under the time deadline of a forced bank foreclosure, the City staff was able to obtain the terms and conditions set out in the attached contract. After an initial offer of $40,000 and a waiver of money already paid to INFOCOMP, the City was able to obtain an approximate price of $7,000, well under the budgeted figure for software of $40,000. From talking to other cities, it appears that the City was able to obtain the best deal, before the involuntary foreclosure and dissolution of INFOCOMP, of the 37 California cities. CONCUR: t �L� Respectful emitted, GAY, T. MARTIN, City Manager JAMES P. LOUGH, y Attor CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 11 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: aim i. Steve Wisniewski Public Safety Director Gay lie T. Martin Interim City Manager (2) Res ctfully submitted, • ohn J. M: b Captain Operations Division Hermosa Beach Police Department ius November 2, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council November 10, 1987 AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT BIDS FOR UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK CLOSURE - POLICE STATION, CITY YARD: CIP 86-601 Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council authorize staff to advertise for bids for closure of the underground fuel tank at the Police Station yard and two underground paint thinner storage tanks from the City yard, and issue addenda as necessary. Background: On June 23, 1987, City Council approved the FY 87-88 Capital Improvements Budget (Exhibit A) which included : a) removal of the 4,000 gallon underground gasoline storage tank from the Police Station yard, and b) removal of two 550 gallon underground paint thinner storage tanks from the City yard. In accordance with California State law, on September 4, 1987, all City -owned tanks at the Police Station and City yard were precision tested for leaks by Associated Environmental Systems. All tanks tested "tight" (i.e., no leaks) with the exception of a minor piping leak in one of the 550 gallon paint thinner storage tanks. The product in this tank has been removed, and Los Angeles County has been advised of our intention to remove or abandon this tank within ninety (90) days. Analysis: Because the City of Hermosa Beach has not established its own regulations for underground tank removals and closures, it falls under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Fire Department. The Public Works Department has developed plans and specifications (for these tank closures) which are on file in the Office of the City Clerk for review. This project will be bid ,for both removal of the tanks and the alternate bid of abandoning them in place. Both of these closure methods are acceptable to Los Angeles County. Authorization to advertise for bids is requested at this time. After the bids are received, the most cost effective alternative will be recommended to Council for implementation. Now that the paint thinner has been removed from these underground storage tanks, paint thinner is being stored above ground in 55 gallon drums. City crews utilize approximately 120 gallons of paint thinner annually. A project schedule is in indicated on Exhibit C. 1 "i Fiscal Impact: CIP 86-601 Total Budgeted Amount Amount Expended Through 10/30/87 (on precision tank testing) Amount Remaining for Tank Closure Engineer's Estimate for Tank Closure $15,730 2,135 $13,595 $14,410 to $16,610 Please refer to Exhibit B for Engineer's Estimate. Although there is no fiscal impact at this time, it may be necessary for staff to return to Council requesting additional funds for the tank closure after the bids are received. A portion of the expenditures is reimburseable from the State under SB90. Staff will pursue 100% reimbursement. Alternative: Other alternatives considered by staff and available to City Council are: 1. Drop the project. 2. Modify the scope of the work. Respectfully submitted, NM/ i._ Deborah M. Murphy Assistant Engineer oncur: Gay T. Martin Interim City Manager Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator untank/v DMM:mv Concur: Antony Antich Director of Pu.1 c Works C Steve Wisniewski Public Safety Director Attachments: Exhibit A, Copy of CIP 86-601 Budget Exhibit B, Engineer's Estimate Exhibit C, Project Schedule 2 ur 1 T Ur r1t11MU m bl MI4jri • • CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FY86-87 THRU FY88-89 SECOND YEAR OF THREE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM )ROJECT NAME: City Fuel Dispensing Equipment )ROJECT NUMBER: CIP 86-601 \CCOUNT NUMBER: 001-401-8601-4201 DROGRAM AREA: Public Buildings & Ground Improvements ?ROJECT DESCRIPTION: AORK'PROPOSED: L. Supply and install electronic. fuel dispensing system (including new gas pumps) for inventory and billing control of gasoline dispensation to City vehicles (City Yard) FY 86-87 2. Bring existing gasoline dispensation to City vehicles into conformance with California State law as follows: , a. remove 6,000 gallon underground gasoline storage tank from Police Department yard (FY 87-88) b. remove 400 gallon underground paint thinnerstorage tank from City Yard (FY87-88) c. annual precision test (FY87-88, 88-89) and eventually (FY88-89) remove and replace three 4000 gallon existing underground tanks from the City Yard. • BUDGET SCHEDULE. Col 1 Col 2 Col 3 Col 4 Col 5 •Col 6 Col 7 PROJECT ELEMENTS PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING PLANS, SPECS & ESTIMATES CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION OTHER DIRECT COSTS EXPENDED BUDGET THRU FY86-87 2/28/87 1 48,500 EST'ED THRU 6/30/87- EST'ED FY86-87 BALANCE TOTAL PROJECT FY87-88 FY88-89 BUDGET 1 1 -I 1 I -1 5,0001 5,0001 36,978 11,522 13,0001 93,0001 142 L9781 I I 1 1 Administration (5890) _ 1.0001 201 _ 1,,0001 I I I 1 1 -I 1 I 1 I -0- I- -12.1001 • 1 1 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCY 49,500 2001 37, 9781 11, 522 14, 3001 107, 800 160,078 11 11 4,950 -0- -0- 4,950 1,430 10,780 12,210 TOTAL EXPENDITURE FUNDING SCHEDULE 54,450 200 37,978 16,472 15,730 118,580 172,288 FUND NO. 0011 SB90 FUNDING SOURCES ****************** FUNDING DISTRIBUTION ************** TOTAL I I 1 1 I 1 I 001 1SB90-Administration 0011 General Fund 105 1Lighting Fund 160 Sewer Fund I _ 20 L3501 1 1,0001 I_10„128i_10L2221_14L4301_4812f21_7218401 200 1,0001 -0-1_ 1„3001_ 9=8001_ 1211001 1 10'000I 1 3'750I 6,2501 1 _ 20 166 23 916 1 13,1001 1 13,1001 -0-1 1_20,16g1 3312GGI 10,000 10,000 -0- 20L166 30L166 TOTAL FUNDING 54,450 200 37,978 16,472 15,730 118,580 172,288 1 EXHIBIT B ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE CIP 87-405 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK CLOSURE POLICE STATION & CITY YARD Estimated Cost Description of Work Abandon Remove 1. APPLICATION FOR CLOSURE, including fees (3 tanks) - $ 500 $ 500 2. POLICE DEPT. Abandon or remove 4,000 gal. police yard tank and transport to legal disposal site 1,000 3,000 3. CITY YARD. a) Abandon or remove (2) 550 gallon tanks from City yard and transport to legal disposal site. 1,000 4,000 4. SOILS SAMPLES/REPORTING a) Police yard tank (1) 2,000 500 b) City yard tanks (2) 2,500 1,000 5. CLOSURE REPORTS -3 TANKS 6,000 2,500 6. BACKFILL/COMPACTION TEST & PATCH PAVEMENT TO MATCH EXISTING a) Police Yard -0- 1,000 b) City Yard tanks -0- 2,500 7. CITY BUSINESS LICENSE 100 100 Subtotal $13,100 $15,100 10% Contingency 1,310 1,510 Grand Total (range) $14,410 to $16,610 prop/v 1 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Tank Closures: CIP 86-601 PROJECT NAME : 001-401-8601-4201 ACCOUNT NUMBER : LEGEND TENTATIVE SCHEDULE : nommumirm ACTUAL SCHEDULE : mommummommom X : 100% COMPLETE Exhibit C. 1 JAN 1 FEB 1 MAR 1 APR 1 MAY It JUN JUL 1 AUG 1 SEP I OCT I NOV I DEC TASKS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I mini mill_ I Final design approval before advertising 1 for construction 1__1__ I I 1 I I 1 I is Prepare advertisement & set bid opening 1 1 1 date 1 J. - 1IN�r Advertising period 1 1 1 (issue addendums as necessary) 1 1,_ _I111■ ' Accept sealed bids & public bid opening 1 1.--.--...1 1 I I' so Review bids Award contract 1. 1 Sign contract (bonds,insurance & workers comp. cert.) I 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 1987 I-, - ,1 I Project closeout ME NM II IN r■ I I III MI MN INN NIB 1 I 1 INN EMI 1INN B 1 • Ell I I I I I tunaI 1 lumina i I I 1 1 1 I I I I. A November 4, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council November 10, 1987 REPORT ON 18 FOOT DRIVEWAYS RE: ISSUANCE OF DRIVEWAY PARKING PERMITS Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council -receive and file this report. Background: At the October 27, 1987 meeting, City Council asked for a report on the 18 foot requirement when applying for a driveway parking permit. Analysis: The program of issuing permits to park in front of a driveway approach is handled by the General Services Department. The Public Works Department provided input on the parking stall size and is involved only in the measuring of these driveways when a permit is requested. A recommendation is then made to the General Service Department on whether or not to issue the permit, based on the driveway width, as well as the other requirements listed on Attachment #2. The 18 foot requirement for parking in front of private driveways is consistent with City practice of placing 18 foot long stalls on the street. Approximately 50% of the driveways in Hermosa Beach are 12' wide or less. A legal parking stall for a compact car is 18' x 8'. The average length of a compact car is 14-1/2'; whereas, all other cars average 17' in length. Thus, the 18' stall allows a margin of safety for the driver (and other parked cars) when backing up (to either park or leave) and prevents the driver from becoming trapped in the stall by other parked cars. Using these dimensions and practical experience of the problems that occur when a smaller than minimum size stall is allowed, 18 feet is the desired length when recommending approval of a driveway parking permit. 1 Alternatives: 1) Refer to staff for further study. 2) Do nothing. Respectfully submitted, �J- Gary eaton Engineering Technician Concur: Gayl) T. Martin Inte im City Manager Co cur: A'' ony Antich Director of Pu•lic Works Concur: -••••7•w Joar Noon Director of General Services Attachments: #1 - Drawings #2 - Permit Application drive/v GW:mv 2 Attachment #1 4.1 0 LID cd 4-t 0 H ca at 18 FEET Marked parking stall L�NG STALL 18 FEET EEDED Fi'.R CK//G UP 18 FEET Marked parking stall 18 FEET Marked parking stall TYPICAL 3 FOOT RED CURB TYPICAL 12 FEET WIDE DRIVEWAY APPROACH BACKUP R fO ATTACHMENT #2 Page 2 of 2 pages WHAT HAPFITNS WH RKE 11F/ /NA 12 F NA CAR IS T PAGE 18 FEET 12 FEET 18 FEET f"--* 18 FEET Marked parking stall Marked parking stall Marked parking stall --1 NO ROOM AVAILABLE FOR BACKUP ,N4:1 • .17, 5. 11.1:;Z(4e:. .$1 • 4.,Cds,2";4 , • ' PERMIT CAR ENCROACHES INTO MARKED PARKING STALL NECES BACKUP Fl ATTACHMENT #2 APPLICATION FOR HERMOSA BEACH DRIVEWAY PARKING PERMIT CITY ORDINANCE 81-664. DATE NAME (please print) ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER CURRENT PROOF OF RESIDENCY (Check one according to your status) TENANT (You need lease agreement from your landlord) OWNER (Will be verified by Building:Department) VEHICLE REGISTRATION LICENSE NUMBER(S): Note: Before you submit this application, please be sure you read the City Ordinance on the back side of application. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *•* * * FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSE ONLY OUTSTANDING PARKING CITATIONS (See reverse side) PUBLIC WORKS VERIFICATION: PERMIT NO. ISSUED: ISSUEDBY: DATE ISSUED: Initials Date PERMIT PARKING - PRIVATE DRIVEWAY SECTION 19.61.1 Parking in front of a private driveway shall be allowed only when a vehicle has prominently displayed in front of the windshield a valid parking permit which includes the name and address of the owner or lessee of the private property. The permit is effective while the holder owns or leases the property for which the permit is issued, but may be revoked without notice or hearing if it is determined that parking authorized by said permit creates traffic safety or other public health and safety problems. Requirements to obtain a permit are: a. Proof of current residency. b. Payment of fee per permit as determined by Resolution of the City Council. c. Verification that applicant has no outstanding parking citations. EXCEPTIONS: 1. Where signs are posted restricting parking for any other reason, ie. posted no parking this side or during cer- tain hours. 2. Entrance to driveway on alleys. 3. Driveways to underground parking or multiple dwelling parking spaces. I the undersigned, have read and understand the above statement. Signature Date NAME: ATTACHMENT #2 , page 2 DATE: ADDRESS: The above address has been declined a Driveway Permit for the following reason(s): * Driveway is under 18' wide * Entrance on Alley * Underground Parking * Multiple Dwelling * Posted Restrictive Parking * Hazardous Parking * Other: If you have any further questions please call 376-6984 ext. 209.: or 217. Gary Wheaton Technical Aide Public Works General Services '1 WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A CAR IS PARKED IN A 12 FOOT SPACE 18 FEET 12 FEET 18 FEET 18 FEET Marked parking stall Marked parking stall NO ROOM AVAILABLE FOR BACKUP PERMIT CAR ENCROACHES INTO MARKED PARKING STALL x Marked parking stall NECES BACKUP ROOM 18 FOOT LONG STALL NEEDED FOR PARKING & BACKING UP 18 FEET Marked parking stall 18 FEET ♦ Via" �����• ��`♦♦• � `D'+ iia Q4'fi•. '':����i!i� !�!��!�`i♦i!i'�e♦i i i4`�`iri4b*♦�!i i9*!ih.'�i!ti= 18 FEET Marked parking stall 18 FEET Marked parking stall TYPICAL 3 FOOT RED CURB TYPICAL 12 FEET WIDE DRIVEWAY APPROACH BACKUP ROOM October 29, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council November 10, 1987 AWARD OF DESIGN AGREEMENT FOR SANITARY SEWER DESIGN, CIP 87-405 Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Authorize the Mayor to sign the attached Agreement (Attachment 2) for sanitary sewer design for CIP 87-402 to Harris & Associates in an amount not to exceed $43,648. Background: On September 8, 1987, City Council authorized staff to solicit design proposals for CIP 87-405. Analysis: Request for Proposals for CIP 87-405 were mailed to ten (10) consulting engineering firms. Proposals were due on October 14, 1987 and were received by the following seven (7) consultants: Santina & Thompson ASL Consulting Engineers Harris & Associates Donald Rosenburg & Associates CH2M Hill BSI, Inc Willdan & Associates $29,500 $34,000 $43,797 $44,250 $44,650 $49,800 (late proposal," returned unopened) Staff evaluated each of these proposals and invited Santina & Thompson, ASL Consulting Engineers and Harris & Associates for an oral interview. Based upon these interviews, staff determined that ASL Consulting Engineers and Harris & Associates met the qualifications of the Request for Proposal, but Santina and Thompson did not meet the needs of the City. After further discussions with these consultants, other engineers and contractors, staff developed a revised scope of work and received the following revised proposals: 107 COST Contingency Cost Not to Exceed ASL Consulting Engineer$47,300 Harris & Associates $39,680 (Engineer's Estimate $40,000) $ 4,730 $ 3,968 $ 4,000 $52,030 $43,648 $44,000 Further evaluation, including a reference check, indicated that both consulting firms were equally qualified, and that a final determination would be based primarily upon cost. Consequently, 1 1p Harris & Associates is the lowest cost civil engineering consultant that best meets the needs of the City. Fiscal Impact: Noted below is the FY 87-88 CIP Budget for this project: CIP 87-405 Plans, specifications & estimates $ 40,000 Construction 400,000 Inspection 40,000 Contingency 48,000 Total $528,000 Funding Sources Sewer Fund $528,000 This design expenditure (not to exceed $43,648) is within the budgeted amount. No additional funds are required. Alternatives: Other alternatives available to City Council and considered by staff are: 1. Drop the project. 2. Modify the scope of work. Res •ec ul l . Yr,bmitted , eborah M. Murphy Assistant Engineer ncur: Gayl T. Martin Interim City Manager Concur: Okei/t- Ant ony Antich Director of Publ c Works Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator Attachments:. Attachment 1, Map of Proposed Work Attachment 2, Agreement Attachment 3, Project Schedule DMM:mv award/v 2 (This ma MAP OF PROPOSED WORK: CIP 87-405 CH2M Hill in their Proposal yy iL ,:7,1r } u y�il `� 1ixx l t1l ttp meg.,+�_1J i Attachment I to the City of Hermosa Beach t}•�{ 't. PACIE c•coAST HIGHWAY to -, • .a.,53,-=�cA'c-a }r_ _T`ti`. +-Ti.j Va'2,8CiJ�t1.1 Z.��1 Y•i t4 ti {� • Yr.S.'fIT1t^ " ;---•. t�Txc 7 LrA1 L t > ,:.i:r..2,.. LI ,1 l';',-1''.t.-- ,;.,,,,„ a.:.;ii:,,,:r.:. ,...M a T , �T Z,'rdf4 I L. r• Ijai. I.. ii "shi' 'ti'�� i5��;n. > la"' 0 r,!1I .Ic 1, 'e 111 t( TI t tl f terNA crly.fj °'r . if 1.41- '�ARDMORE �� t i �ti.. „.q tart ; 1k 4y,1 fldru t ,”- 4 �`�? t.:.3,' O o . Z!. d t �i: ..0 ti ` � I ii•, f Ip csiitxtrl ,F°;'ra . ,, ELILI )1;,y� i•....�~ f`j7 ';. I (I 14 ! le`+ C'1 11:f1r11:LlIz F7.t'1�L at: etifY-or'ik'i.11,1 !tl.!ID11 / 5l�`���r���'``..i:14 !{N�jelf,,\Fr.s'x-"I•„�.. .,n. , ..•r,.,,..,aa. fit,�.Z•' t flIVE;'ALM .D +t(��tat�7 .,. ()Sl�• DRIVi}�Ft'3l. -_ F{ERM .,,;. t<< t • •+; t i�1� ,rt L1 +tf r a;. L. r fA@F,C'8i1.s td..rl HlE t.?tl i Lia t. Thuir:ii tlo'' � I ''-� i.vtuivit� IAi fL�Ski4i t , i +'�,1 .$ t ,t1�1> n • I,..t�, ,” 1ci n�.i•. �." 1 _ l.-r5.'f1.JyJ{,tt l��..,, LEGEND • ---- CITY LIMITS '----� SEWER LINES AND MANHOLES TO BE REHABILITATED • r 14Z" ,_PACIFIC OEAIV r=1^ r , +a � it. � Yq•. G. • qviltAr 'Ll "�.h'�" �,7�•�„KFr �'Cs...pt'4a wC1 y.t•1 "' w `'i�..,- �' ��"��^'�t�"�'tr,�{'xi•g�?,^+•Z,'Si3"tCl"f'C,^'�4 � ����t +n `� 1 �Gr�i1� • • �4 ky.. DATE OF PHOTOGRAPHY APRIL,1003 FIGURE 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH SANITARY SEWER ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 87-405 ClQv1H/LL —� ATTACHMENT II PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT SANITARY SEWER ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CIP 87-405 THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of , 1987 by and between the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, a Municipal Corporation hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and CONSULTANT; hereinafter referred to as "ENGINEER". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, CITY desires to retain ENGINEER to perform sani- tary sewer engineering services as set forth in Exhibit "A", at- tached hereto and incorporated herein and by this reference made a part hereof. WHEREAS, City Sewer Fund shall be used for this project and ENGINEER agrees to comply with all City regulations; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. CITY agrees to retain ENGINEER to perform design services as herin set forth: 2. ENGINEER shall perform all work necessary to complete in a manner satisfactory to CITY the services set forth in Ex- hibit "A" entitled Proposal and attached hereto•and by reference incorporated herein and made a part hereof. 3. All information, data, reports and records and maps as are existing and available from CITY, and necessary for carrying 1 out the work outlined in Exhibit "A" shall be furnished to EN- GINEER without charge by CITY and CITY shall cooperate in every way reasonable in the carrying out of the work without delay. 4. ENGINEER represents that it employs, or will employ at is own expense all personnel required in performing the services required under this Agreement. 5. All of the services required hereunder will be per- formed by ENGINEER or under its direct supervision, and all per- sonnel engaged in. the. work shall be fully qualified and shall be authorized or permitted under state and local law to perform such services. 6. CITY's Director of Public Works (the "Director" or his designee) shall direct the ENGINEER to proceed and the work re- quired shall be completed within the time limit mutually agreed upon. ENGINEER shall have no claim for compensation for any ser- vices upon which the Director has not authorized ENGINEER to proceed. 7. The ENGINEER shall work closely and cooperate fully with the Director, or his designee, who shall be the liaison between ENGINEER and the CITY and who shall review and approve all details of the work as it progresses. 8. The CITY reserves the right to terminate or suspend the Agreement at any time upon seven (7) days written notice ef- fected by personal delivery or by a bona fide mail service, which shall be deemed communicated as of the date of receipt thereof, under any of the following circumstances: (a) The project, as described in the attached Exhibit "A", is to be abandoned or indefinitely postponed. 2 (b) ENGINEER fails to prosecute the work within the time limits specified in the attached Exhibit "A". (c) Unsatisfactory performance by ENGINEER. 9. No change in the scope of the work to be performed by ENGINEER shall be made except in writing between CITY and EN- GINEER, which shall set forth the changes mutually agreed upon by the CITY and the ENGINEER. 10. In accordance with State Compensation Laws, the ENGINEER shall carry.. Worker's Compensation insurance for all per- sons employed in the performance of services as set forth herein. The ENGINEER shall provide the CITY with a certificate verifying such coverage or endorsement acceptable to the CITY before com- mencing services under this Agreement. Such policy shall require thirty (30) days notice to the CITY in writing prior to cancella- tion, termination, or expiration of any kind. 11. The ENGINEER shall carry Professional Liability in- surance in an amount of not less than $1,000,000.00. The ENGINEER shall provide the City with certificates verifying such coverage or endorsement acceptable to the. City before commencing services under this Agreement. Such polity shall require thirty (30) days notice to the City in writing prior to cancellation, termination or expiration of any kind. All insurance policies shall name the City of Hermosa Beach as additional insured. 12. If ENGINEER fails to maintain such insurance, the CITY may obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for such insurance from any sums due under this Agreement. 3 13. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as limit- ing in any way the extent to which ENGINEER may be held respon- sible to payment of damages to persons or property resulting from its operations or any operations of any subcontractors under it. ENGINEER will be required to indemnify and hold harmless CITY and its officers and employees from any claims, damages, or expenses, including attorney's fees and court costs, arising out of CONSUL- TANT'S negligent performance under this agreement. 14. In the.event that legal action is commenced to enforce or declare the rights created under this Agreement, the prevail- ing party shall be entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorney's fees in the amount to be determined by the court. 15. The CITY agrees to pay ENGINEER for all the work or any part of the work performed under this Agreement at the rates and in the manner established in the attached Exhibit "A". 16. This Agreement shall begin upon execution and shall expire on the date shown on the Notice to Proceed unless extended in writing by mutual agreement of both CITY and ENGINEER. 17. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties, but it shall not be assigned by the EN- GINEER without the written consent of the CITY. 18. The ENGINEER shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or otherwise) without the prior written approval of the CITY, provided, however, that claims for money due or to become due the ENGINEER from the CITY under this Agree- ment may be assigned to a bank, trust company, or other financial institution or to a Trustee in Bankruptcy, without such approval. 4 Notice of any such assignment or transfer shall be furnished promptly to the CITY. 19. No member of the governing body of the CITY and no other officer, employee, or agent of the CITY who exercises any functions or responsibilities in connection with the planning and carrying out of the program, shall have any personal financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement; and the ENGINEER shall take appropriate steps to assure compliance. 20. The ENGINEER covenants that be presently has no inter- est and shall not acquire interest, direct or indirect, in the study area or any parcels therein or any interest which would conflict in any manner or degree wth the performance of his ser- vices hereunder. The ENGINEER further covenants that in the per- formance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed. 21. This agreement supercedes any and all other agreements, either oral or in writing, between the parties hereto_ with respect to the employment of ENGINEER by CITY and contains all the covenants and agreements between the parties withrespect to such employment in any manner whatsoever. Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements, orally or otherwise, have been made by any party, or anyone acting on behalf of any party, which are not embodied herein, and that no other agreement or amendment hereto shall be effective unless executed in writing and signed by both CITY and ENGINEER. 22. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in 5 accordance with the laws of the State of California, and all ap- plicable federal statutes and regulations as amended. 23. The invalidity in whole or part of any provision of this Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, and all applicable federal statutes and regulations as amended. 24. ENGINEER agrees to comply with all Federal, State and local laws and regulations as they pertain to the performance of this Agreement, but not limited to, the provisions attached here- to as Exhibit "A". IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year first above written. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ITY R Y 6 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH A Municipal Corporation By: MAYOR, City of Hermosa Beach By: ENGINEER ENGINEER CONSULTING ENGINEERS HARRIS & ASSOCIATES Exhibit A CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS November 2, 1987 Ms. Deborah M. Murphy Civil Engineer City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Ms. Murphy: This letter is to modify our proposal dated October 12, 1987 for design of sewers. 1. The attached spread sheet outlines our revised costs. The total estimated cost is $39,680. This is our not -to -exceed figure, intermediate costs are estimates only. 2. Soil borings will be drilled to a point below the proposed sewer grade at approximately 500 foot intervals. 3. Traffic considerations will be of a more general nature covered in the specifications. 4. Each manhole will be inspected and repaired, rehabilitation on replacement will be covered on the plans. City sewer crews should make sure that all sewer manhole covers can be opened with normal hand tools. 5. City will provide "pot holing" of city owned facilities and city or utility will "pot hole" other utility facilities. 6. Harris and Associates will not provide services during construction as part of this contract. 7. Harris and Associates will carry $1,000,000 of General Liability coverage. The above revisions reflect our understanding of our discussions; if not, please let us know. We appreciate very much the consideration by Hermosa Beach of our firm for this sewer project. Ver ly yours, Robe J. Mimiaga, Vice 'resident RJM/lg Attachment 2250 IMPERIAL HWY., SUITE 252 N EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA 90245 01 (213) 640-7036 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH SANITARY SEWER ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES CIP 87-405 -MANPOWER ESTIMATE - REVISED 11/2/87 TASK DESCRIPTION PRINC IN CHR6 PROJ ENGR TECHNICIAN CLERICAL SUB TOTAL HOURS RATE HOURS RATE HOURS RATE HOURS RATE PRELIMINARY DESIGN PHASE INFORMATION GATHERING 0 101 8 80 0 42 0 38 640 SURVEYING 0 101 8 80 20 42 0 38 2000 3480 MAPPING 0 101 4 80 0 42 0 38 3000 3320 UTILITY/AGENCY ORDINATION 0 101 16 80 0 42 0 38 1280 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT 2 101 40 80 80 42 16 38 6762 TOTAL PRELIMINARY DESIGN 2 76 100 16 5000 15482 FINAL DESIGN PHASE CONTRACT DRAWINGS 2 101 100 80 180 42 0 38 15762 COVER SHEET 1 SHEET INDEX MRP 1 SHEET PLAN AND PROFIL 11 SHEET DETAILS 2 SHEET SOIL BORINGS 3500 CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS 0 101 24 ' 80 0 42 16 38 1920 CONSTRUCTIONS ESTIMATE 0 101 16 80 8 42 0 38 1616 PRINTING 0 101 2 80 0 42 2 38 600 760 TOTAL FINAL DESIGN 2 142 188 18 600 23558 BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE QUESTIONS DURING BIDDING 0 90 4 80 0 40 0 40 320 REVIEW BIDS 0 90 4 80 0 50 0 50 320 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION 0 90 0 80 0 50 0 50 0 (4 HRS/WK FOR 9 WEEKS) TOTAL BID AND CONSTRUCT 0 8 0 0 0 640 TOTAL 39680 E'. CONSULTING ENGINEERS HARRIS & ASSOCIATES CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS 3 1 7 October 12, 1987 Anthony Antich Director of Public Works City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Dear Mr. Antich: Enclosed is our proposal for Sanitary Sewer Design Services CIP 87-405 in response to your request of September 16, 1987. Harris & Associates is prepared to assume this assignment if selected and complete it in a professional, timely and cost-effective manner. Ver y yours, Ro.'- rt J. Mimiaga, P Vice President RJM:tls Attachment 1 2250 IMPERIAL HWY., SUITE 252 ® EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA 90245 ® (213) 640-7036 APPROACH TO PROJECT The following describes our approach to the work. In general, the work program corresponds to the outline scope of work presented in the Request for Proposal. 1. PREDESIGN TASKS A. Predesign Engineering The- first task is to gather as much existing information as possible including: o existing utility locations o sewer rim and invert elevations from base maps o previous reports and studies o design criteria o flow information o television inspection logs o physical inspection reports Preliminary horizontal and vertical alignments will be established and potential utility conflicts noted. An evaluation of replacement, paralleling, sliplining or insituform will be made and a preliminary cost estimate prepared. B. Soil Investigations Soil borings will be taken at approximately 750 -foot intervals along the proposed route. Borings will extend down to at least 15 feet. A report will be prepared describing trenching conditions, backfill recommendations, dewatering requirements and shoring requirements. C. Mapping and Surveying All existing manholes, valves, grates, etc. will be painted white to improve visibility on the aerial photos. Aerial crosses will be painted to provide horizontal control for the aerials. A baseline will be established (tied to City monuments) to provide hori- zontal control. Aerial photo plan and profile sheets will be prepared at a scale of 1"=20' using either City of Hermosa Beach or Harris & Associates title blocks. Existing utilities will be plotted in the plan view using existing base maps provided by the City and the utility companies. The plotting will be verified by the aerial photos which show existing cover locations. 4 D. Determine Utility Conflicts After all known utilities are plotted and a preliminary -/ horizontal alignment is selected, potential conflicts with existing utilities will be identified. Excavations will be supervised, if required, to determine the exact horizontal and vertical alignment of these potential conflicts. 2. FINAL DESIGN TASKS A. Design Engineering The single most important task in this project is to accurately locate all existing utilities in both plan and profile. After this is done, determining the final horizontal and vertical alignment becomes straightforward. A ground profile above the proposed route will be conducted and the alignment tied to the baseline and City monuments. Drawings will be prepared specifying traffic control require- ments during . construction. This helps ensure that what look good on the plan can actually be built in the field. Specifications and details will utilize the uniform standards adopted by the City for this project. A proposed drawing list is as follows: DESCRIPTION DRAWING NUMBER Cover Sheet 1 Index Map with Notes, Maps, Legend, Symbols 2 Plan and Profile (1"=20') - 3-9 Details and Traffic Control 10-11 B. Construction Cost Estimate The bidding documents will be prepared in a unit price bidding format. The cost estimate will use the same bid items and will be set up on electronic spread sheet for easy modification. This spreadsheet will also be used for bid tabulation. Alternative bid items may also be added so the City can analyze various methods of work. 5 C. Progress Reviews/Coordination of Revisions Harris & Associates will work closely with the City to keep them informed of the project status. Meetings with City staff and utilities will be arranged and conducted. D. Printing Printing of all checksets and complete set of final plans and specifications are included in this proposal. E. Bidding Services We will be available to answer questions during the bidding phase, issue addendums, attend the pre-bid conference, tabulate the bid results. 3. PROJECT DESIGN MANAGEMENT We will prepare progress reports as required to the City. Additionally, we will keep staff informed of our progress by telephone or personal visit on a regular basis. Harris & Associates will conduct its own internal cost accounting and project status reports to keep the project on time and within budget. A public relations program will be conducted to keep residents and businesses along the pipeline route informed of the project status. This effort will include neighborhood meetings, door hangers, and flyers. 4. CONSTRUCTION SUPPORTING SERVICES We will provide all construction staking and cut sheets to the Contractor. Harris & Associates will review shop drawing submittals, change order requests, shoring plans and observe construction. We will also be available to answer questions regarding our design intent. 5. SCHEDULE The design report will be ready for staff review within one month of receiving authorization to proceed. Final plans, specifications and estimates will be submitted for staff review within 4-6 weeks of approval of the design report. 6 6. FEE The computer spreadsheet shows our estimate of the maximum fee and assumes that all projects will be designed. Upon completion of the design report; the selection of the actual projects to be designed and with the scope of constructions services better defined, it is likely that the total fee can be reduced appreciably. 7 DESIGN SCHEDULE PROJECT NAME : Sanitary Sewer Design ACCOUNT NUMBER : 160-401-8405-4201 TASKS Prepare request for proposals Advertise for proposals Consultant selection procedure Award contract Sign contract Issue "Notice to Proceed" Attachment 3 LEGEND TENTATIVE SCHEDULE : ismsossosasom ACTUAL SCHEDULE . mmommmoommmismm X : 100% COMPLETE I 1 I JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ■ INN MEL 1 MIMNMil 1111111 I I ■=a 1111111 1987 Design Period ■ - - I ■ l="MINI ME Monitor and review design Final design approval before advertisin for construction 1 I November 3, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council November 10, 1987 AWARD OF DESIGN AGREEMENT FOR CIP 87-602 & CIP 87-604 VARIOUS ELECTRICAL/MECHANICAL/STRUCTURAL IMPOVEMENTS FOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND COMMUNITY CENTER Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Authorize the Mayor to sign an agreement (Attachment I) with Joncich, Sturm and Associates for architectural services for the various electrical/mechanical/structural capital improvements for the Hermosa Beach Council Chambers and Community Center Theatre at a cost not to exceed $19,250. 2. Consider appropriation of construction dollars after the design is completed. Background: On June 23, 1987, City Council approved the FY 87-88 Capital Improvement Budget, which included the following: Community Center Air Conditioning $45,000 Community Center Furnace Replacement $ 8,000 On August 11, 1987, City Council was presented a report outlining deficiencies in the City Hall electrical system. City Council appropriated $74,250 for the provision of electrical upgrade at City Hall. On August 25, 1987, City Counciljauthorized solicitation of a request for proposal for various electrical/mechanical/structural improvements. In addition to the work described above, City Council appropriated an additional $6,000 for the provision of designing (only) an air conditioning system in the City Hall Council Chambers and investigating extending the Council Chambers into the foyer. It was estimated that the construction cost of the Council Chambers air conditioning could cost nearly $31,000. The request for proposal was mailed to eight firms on August 28, 1987 and written proposals were received on September 22, 1987. 1 lq Analysis: The three firms submitting proposals and their cost are as follows: Joncich, Sturm & Associates Black, O'Dowd & Associates Richard T. Santos, Architect, Inc. Design Fee Not to Exceed $13,300 $33,070 $27,300 The lowest cost proposal was submitted by Joncich, Sturm & Associates (JSA). All supplied references for similiar work commented highly of the architect's work. After reviewing all proposals and interviewing each architect, staff refined the original scope of work and received a revised proposal from JSA in the amount of $17,500. JSA is still the lowest cost proposal and is the architect that best meets the needs of the City. Fiscal Impact: Project Estimated Design Cost Architect's Estimated Constr. Cost Total City Council Est. Cost Budget CIP 87-602 a. City Hall, elec. upgrade b. Council Chambers, air cond. & Council Chambers structural remodel $ 5,000 4,300 CIP 87-604 a. Community Center, air cond. & furnace 8,200 $ 70,400 30,080 1 59,000 $ 75,400 $ 74,250 34,380 6,000 (design only) 67,200 53,000 Total $17,500 $159,480 $176,980 $133,250 10% contingency 1,750 included 1,750 N/A $159,480 $178,730 $133,250 The total project design cost is not to exceed $19,250, which is within the total project budgeted costs of $133,250. More accurate estimated construction costs cannot be determined until the preliminary design is complete. Staff will return to Council after the design is complete for additional construction dollars, if necessary. Grand Total $19,250 2 Alternatives: Other alternatives considered by staff and available to Council are: 1. Modify the scope of work. 2. Drop the project. Respectfu ubmitted, Ai/ Deborah M. Murphy / Assistant Engineer cur: GaylT. Martin Interim City Manager DMM:AA:mv award/m Concur: t ony Antich Director of Pudic Works Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator Attachments: Attachment 1 - Professional Services Agreement Attachment 3 - Project Schedule cc: Alana Mastrian 3 Attachment 1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT VARIOUS ELECTRICAL/MECHANICAL/STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS - FOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS & COMMUNITY CENTER CIP 87-602 & 87-604 THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of , 1987 by and between the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, a Municipal Corporation hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and hereinafter referred to as "ARCHITECT" W 1TN E S S E T H: WHEREAS, CITY desires to retain ARCHITECT to perform electrical/mechanical/structural design services as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein and by this reference made a part hereof. WHEREAS, City General Fund shall be used for this project and ARCHITECT agrees to comply with all City regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. CITY agrees to retain ARCHITECT to perform design services as herein set forth. 2. ARCHITECT shall perf9rm all work necessary to complete in a manner satisfactory to CITY the services set forth in Ex- hibit IIAn entitled Proposal and attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein and made a part hereof. 3. All information, data, reports and records and maps as are existing and available from CITY, and necessary for carrying out the work outlined in Exhibit "A" shall be furnished to ARCHI- TECT without charge by CITY and CITY shall cooperate in every way reasonable in the carrying out of the work without delay. 1 4. ARCHITECT represents that it employs, or will employ at is own expense all personnel required in performing the ser- vices required under this Agreement. 5. All of the services required hereunder will be per- formed by ARCHITECT or under its direct supervision, and all per- sonnel engaged in the work shall be fully qualified and shall be authorized or permitted under state and local law to perform such services. 6. CITY's Director of Public Works (the "Director" or his designee) shall direct the ARCHITECT to proceed and the work re- quired shall be completed within the time limit mutually agreed upon. ARCHITECT shall have no claim for compensation for any services upon which the Director has not authorized ARCHITECT to proceed. 7. The ARCHITECT shall work closely and cooperate fully with the Director, or his designee, who shall be the liaison between ARCHITECT and the CITY and who shall review and approve all details of the work as it progresses. 8. The CITY reserves tie right to terminate or suspend the Agreement at any time upon seven (7) days written notice ef- fected by personal delivery or by a bona fide mail service, which shall be deemed communicated as of the date of receipt thereof, under any of the following circumstances: (a) The project, as described in the attached Exhibit "A", is to be abandoned or indefinitely postponed. (b) ARCHITECT fails to prosecute the work within the time limits specified in the attached Exhibit nAu (c) Unsatisfactory performance by ARCHITECT. 2 9. No change in the scope of the work to be performed by ARCHITECT shall be made except in writing between CITY and ARCHI- TECT, which shall set forth the changes mutually agreed upon by the CITY and the ARCHITECT. 10. In accordance with State Compensation Laws, the ARCHITECT shall carry Worker's Compensation insurance for all persons employed in the performance of services as set forth herein. The ARCHITECT shall provide the CITY with a certificate verifying such coverage or endorsement acceptable to the CITY before commencing services under this Agreement. Such policy shall require thirty (30) days notice to the CITY in writing prior to cancellation, termination, or expiration of any kind. 11. The ARCHITECT shall carry Professional Liability in- surance in an amount of not less than $250,000. The ARCHITECT shall provide the City with certificates verifying such coverage or endorsement acceptable to the City before commencing services under this Agreement. Such policy shall require thirty (307 days notice to the City in writing prior to cancellation, termination or expiration of any kind. All insurance policies shall name the City of Hermosa Beach as additional insured. 12. If ARCHITECT fails to maintain such insurance, the CITY may obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for such insurance from any sums due under this Agreement. 13. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as limit- ing in any way the extent to which ARCHITECT may be held respon- sible to payment of damages to persons or property resulting from 3 its operations or any operations of any- subcontractors under it. ARCHITECT will be required to indemnify and hold harmless CITY and its officers and employees from any claims, damages, or ex- penses, including attorney's fees and court costs, arising out of CONSULTANT'S negligent performance under this agreement. 14. In the event that legal action is commenced to enforce or declare the rights created under this Agreement, the prevail- ing party shall be entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorney's fees in the amount to be determined by the court. 15. The CITY agrees to pay ARCHITECT for all the work or any part of the work performed under this Agreement at the rates and in the manner established in the attached Exhibit "A". 16. This Agreement shall begin upon execution and shall expire on the date shown on the Notice to Proceed unless extended in writing by mutual agreement of both CITY and ARCHITECT. 17. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties, but it shall not be assigned by the AR- CHITECT without the written consent of the CITY. 18. The ARCHITECT shall 'not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or otherwise) without the prior written approval of the CITY, provided, however, that claims for money due or to become due the ARCHITECT from the CITY under this Agreement may be assigned to a bank, trust company, or other financial institution or to a Trustee in Bankruptcy, without such approval. Notice of any such assignment or transfer shall be furnished promptly to the CITY. 19. No member of the governing body of the CITY and no 4 other officer, employee, or agent of the CITY who exercises any functions or responsibilities in connection with the planning and carrying out of the program, shall have any personal financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement; and the ARCHI- TECT shall take appropriate steps to assure compliance. 20. The ARCHITECT covenants that he presently has no inter- est and shall not acquire interest, direct or indirect, in the study area or any parcels therein or any interest which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of his ser- vices hereunder. The ARCHITECT further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed. 21. This agreement supercedes any and all other agreements, either oral or in writing, between the parties hereto with respect to the employment of ARCHITECT by CITY and contains all the covenants and agreements between the parties with respect to such employment in any manner whatsoever. Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements, orally pr otherwise, have been made by any party, or anyone acting on behalf of any party, which are not embodied herein, and that no other agreement or amendment hereto shall be effective unless executed in writing and signed by both CITY and ARCHITECT. 22. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, and all ap- plicable federal statutes and regulations as amended. 23. The invalidity in whole or part of any provision of this Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance 5 with the laws of the State of California, and all applicable federal statutes and regulations as amended. IN WITNESS WHEREOF_, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year first above written. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO_ ORM: Y ATTOR CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AMunicipal Corporation By: MAYOR, City of Hermosa Beach By: ARCHITECT ARCHITECT Attachment 1: Exhibit A JSA 839 So. Beacon Street Joncich, Sturm & Associates Suite 214 Architecture San Pedro, California 90731 213 831-2372 November 3, 1987 City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Attn: Mr. Anthony Antich Subj: Request for Proposal - CIP86-602 and 86-604 Dear Mr. Antich: After discussing the scope of tasks outlined for the City Hall and Theatre HVAC projects with Debby Murphy and our consultants, we wish to amend our original proposal dated September 21, 1987. The Amendment will further clarify the project scope and delineate our pre - design systems selection. The assumptions used were the basis for setting our fees and the preliminary construction cost estimate. The amendment adds to our first proposal a Motor/Fan unit to the HVAC system in the Theatre and structural design analysis of both the Theatre mezzanine, where a condensor unit is proposed, and the Council Chambers roof, where new package A/C units are proposed. The fees outlined in this proposal include all studies and calculations necessary to evaluate whether the pre -design assumptions are valid, and if they are, complete the bid documents. If not all early assumptions prove valid, the fee will cover determining the most economical method/system that will satisfy project requirements. At that time it can be determined if the construction budget must be increased and if additional design fee is needed. Where the proposed HVAC systems are based on pre -design assumptions, the fees outlined in this proposal are broken into preliminary design and construction document phases. The assumptions must be confirmed before a final design can be executed. If the assumptions prove invalid, and alternate systems must be considered, those systems will be identified in the preliminary design phase. If a different system is required, the construction document phase fee will be reviewed and may need to be adjusted. JSA Joncich, Sturm & Associates Architecture November 3, 1987 Mr. Anthony Antich City of Hermosa Beach Page Two Hermosa Beach - Electrical Upgrade Cost Estimate Task I - Electrical Upgrade of City Hall including: 1. Separation of computer load from panel B $ 5,000 2. Auto transfer switch and generator 25,000 3. Uninterruptable power supply 30,000 4. Automatic restart for computer 1,000 5. Concrete pad & security fence for generator 1,000 6. Miscellaneous, including demolition 2,000 7. Contingency - 107 6,400 TOTAL: $ 70,400 DESIGN FEE $5,000 Task II - Hermosa Beach Community Center Theatre Air Conditioning including: 1. New split -system air conditioning (a) Based on locating the new condensing unit in Mech. Mezzanine (b) Assumed that existing duct system is adequate for new HVAC system (c) Assumed existing building structure can support new load $ 25,000 2. Replace the existing furnace 8,000 3. Replace the existing fan/motor 10,000 4. Run electrical for new units 6,000 (a) Assumed that the building has adequate service 5. Architectural required to accommodate the above and the demolition 5,000 6. Contingency - 10% 5,400 TOTAL: $ 59,000 JSA Joncich, Sturm & Associates Architecture November 3, 1987 Mr. Anthony Antich City of Hermosa Beach Page Three DESIGN FEE: The fee for Task II is broken into two phases of work as follows: Phase A - Preliminary design. Required to verify whether our pre -design assumptions were valid and can be taken into construction document phase. Included: a. As -built investigation (verify existing conditions) b. Structural design analysis (of existing structure) c. Preliminary load calculations for HVAC system. Will establish sizes and weights, and duct size requirements d. Consider architectural/design ramifications e. Consider noise and vibration f. Verify electrical power requirements g. Preliminary cost estimate PRELIMINARY DESIGN FEE $2,500 Phase B.- Construction Documents. a. Prepare plans and specifications b. Prepare final cost estimate c. Process through the Building Department FEE TO COMPLETE $5,700 Hermosa Beach - Electrical Upgrade (continued) Cost Estimate Task IIIA - Hermosa Beach City Hall Council Chambers Air Conditioning Estimate based on the installation of Package Roof Top units utilizing the existing ducts and designed to condition the air in the foyer. Including: 1. Air Conditioning 16,000 2. Electrical hook-up (a) Assumes that the existing building is adequate 6,000 JSA Joncich, Sturm & Associates Architecture November 3, 1987 Mr. Anthony Antich City of Hermosa Beach Page Four Hermosa Beach - Electrical Upgrade (continued) Cost Estimate Task IIIA (continued) 3. Architectural work, cut roof, curbs, 6,000 reroofing, and miscellaneous 4. Contingency - 10% 2,800 TOTAL: $ 30,800 DESIGN FEE: The fee for Task IIIA is broken into phases of work as follows: Phase A - Preliminary design. a. As -built investigation b. Structural design analysis (of existing structure) c. Preliminary load calculations for HVAC system. Will establish sizes and weights and duct size requirements. d. Consider architectural/design ramifications e. Consider noise and vibration f. Verify electrical power requirements Preliminary cost estimate g. PRELIMINARY DESIGN FEE $1,000 Phase B - Construction Documents. Complete design and prepare bid documents. FEE TO COMPLETE $2,500 Task IIIB - Renovation to Council Chambers 1. Preliminary design and drawings with cost estimate for the removal of west wall separating the chambers and foyer. 2. Replace of wooden entrance doors with glass doors. Pre -design construction cost estimate: $ 18,000 PRELIMINARY DESIGN FEE $ 800 JSA Joncich, Sturm & Associates Architecture November 3, 1987 Mr. Anthony Antich City of Hermosa Beach Page Five The fees stated above (except for Task IIIB which is preliminary design only) include the design, drawing, specifying, cost estimating, and city review process. If you have further questions regarding this proposal, please give me a call. Very truly you s, urmWAIA Principal JS/jp This agreement is a not to exceed fee based on JSA's current hourly rate. Confirmed per telephone conversation with Jerry Sturm on 11/3/87. DESIGN SCHEDULE PROJECT NAME : ACCOUNT NUMBER Electrical/Mechanical/Structural Improvements Council Chambers & Community Center, CIP 87-602 & : 001-401-8602-4201 & 001-401-8604-4201 87-604 TASKS Prepare request for proposals Advertise for proposals Consultant selection procedure Award contract Sign contract Issue "Notice to Proceed" ATTACHMENT 2 LEGEND TENTATIVE SCHEDULE : missummazei ACTUAL SCHEDULE : X : 100% COMPLETE JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC is m mg Design Period Monitor and review design Final design approval before advertisin for construction 4 1988 E ■ 1 1 .s I MIN MINI MIMI LI 1 1 1 1 1 1 November 3, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council of November 10, 1987 ADJUSTMENT TO CITY MANAGER SELECTION SCHEDULE RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the following adjustment to the City Manager selection schedule: 1. November 24, 1987 - Closed session to review selected resumes (following completion of regular agenda). . December 12, 1987 - City Council interviews top six candidates. . December 19, 1987 - Final interview for selected candidates and selection of City Manager. BACKGROUND: The closing date for the City accepting resumes for the position of City Manager is November 13, 1987. To date fifty-three (53) resumes have been received. --On November 20, 1987 a rating of applicants resumes will be con- ducted and then the resumes will be submitted for Council review. ha• At the September 22, 1987 meeting the Council approved a tenta- tive recruitment schedule which set December 8, 1987 as the date - for the Council to review the resumes of City Manager applicants and January 9, 1988 as the tentative date for the initial inter- views. The secondary interviewing of the top three candidates and final selection would not be until January 16, 1988 under the current schedule. ANALYSIS: By adjusting the selection schedule as recommended above, final selection of the City Manager could be made in December. Assum- ing that the selected candidate will desire to give a minimum of thirty (30) days notice to his/her present employeer, this schedule would allow for the new City Manager to commence employ- ment on or before February 1, 1988. The current selection schedule, which has final selection occur- ing on January 16, 1988, would not allow for the new City Manager to commence employment much before March 1, 1988. •In addition to gaining a month'by adjusting the selection schedule, the recommended schedule decreases the probability that the more qualified candidates will have received offers of em- ployment elsewhere prior to this City making its decision. There are several other Southern California cities currently recruiting for City Manager. ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE: 1. Set a special meeting of the City Council for December 1, 1987 for the purpose of reviewing the City Manager resumes. 2. Set December 19, 1987 for the initial interview of the top six candidates. 3. Set January 9, 1987 for the final interview and selection of the City Manager. Respectfully submit d, deAl-eac? awif Concur: Robert A. Blackwood Gay 1 T. Martin Personnel Administrator Interim City Manager b f. October... 13,. 1987 City Council Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254 46: Re: Multiple unit development in Hermosa Beach There are too .many multiple units being built on the the.sout „ Hermosa Reach. The last council agreed that Hermosa Beach alas a_read over populated. Redondo Beach and i,Ianhattan Beach are ' vy lems with over -development. San Diego, Orange County andLos'Anoeies County are taking steps to. correct this situation, '4vhen is Hermosa beach going to realize that these developers have to be stop. ed.t?? You can't move in Hermosa Beach. as it is. If we get any_:ore condos here we will have our own "gridlock";;. For the past year we have had noise, construction equipment- working on Cypress Street and 5�1 .311th Street. There is the constant noise, workers taking parking places ant congestion. There are 12 more units proposed proposed for llth Street. Parking There will be projectsi�' bad enough.. 3 under construdtion.at thesarne time. That will tie-up the street for the next year;! _ -We. have had it:: Would you like something like that on your block''??;. The proposed 3 uni' condo at 51d lith, street is next door to us. We have a block, w - ± , wr ich is ori° otiF-property e yard to��tY k part of our house. extending from the back on Slt3 llth St. side. �'4hen theystartdiggingi _ft. or. our Fide and 6 ft, llapse along with our back yard and the possibility ofoourur whouse1cracll king. They (contractors) are supposed to'shore-up the adjacent property, especially with the sand lots on this block. But they are not doing it. Buiin.ing dept. tells us that our only recourse is the courts. That doesn't seem right to me. Dies it to you? The developers have :;o be made to abide by the rules; The bottom line is greed. They coxae into a neighborhood and destroy it and move on. They really don't care about the problems they create: The voters have demanded low-de_:sity. This council- has not honored the voter- wishes. Could another council give the voters what they want; See letters enclosed. jWWE ARE ALREADY TC., CONGESTED!! Sincerely Lucille Springer Earthquake show be a consideration: If a najor quake hit Redondo bch. it would do a lot of damage to Hermosa a each also. Scr::e :,hought should bo gitren to the development of high density complexes in this area, especially if you are one of the single dwellings in between two high- rise buildings;; iviarch 21, 1987 Attention: Hermosa Beach City Council Re: The construction on 500 block between Loma Drive and Valley Drive There is a 4 -unit development in progress on this street. already. We opNosed this unit when it was first proposed. However, it got in "under the wire". At the time the last council agreed that this area could not take any more traffic. This project is out of context with the surrounding neighborhood. It had been suggested that this area be reduced to an R-1 zone. - =-:yR..�:,«_,• It has come to our attention that there are a possibility. of three_ more similar projects to be built. Also, the Santa FE Project, is w ``ti:rb~ for approval. This -street •cannot take anymore -r iulti^le unit: P ! Below again are the reasons we op;•ose these projects: 1. Yost of the people on this block have only 1 garage and 2 or more cars. Parking is already an impossible situation. 2. We bet parking from Clark Stadium, Cyress Street, beach parking in the summer. The people in the apartments on this street do not use the parking spaces provided for them - they use the street. more units will create more parking.problemsll. 3. Some of the owners have small children. riore multiple units will create a safety hazaru for the. children. .• 4. i:lore units will cause enviornmental problems as well -as adding to an already congested area. ' . 5. 14ost young; fdi,:ilie are looking for single resident Homes - not Condos: This council was supposed to be for low-density. So far, their actions co.not prove teat. if you aL.prove the Santa Fe project you won't be able to mnve. If we wante.i high-uensity we could've kept Jack Wood! At least we knew where he stood: STUr ANY FUhTHIE,R ia,: VILUf,...ENT ON THIS BLUCKI ! For two years we have had construction on Cypress or llth Street: Lumber truck`s;`` rdaVy duty equip.ent--and= NOISE: UJe'`'r '*-i`n"•fo " riotner-Lwo years It would be nice tc open your front door and not hear nothing but construc- tion work in progress.. Would you like to be in our situation? 'Give the. residents a break: WE Asti :urLALY T0U CONGi;STLD!! H BUILT; _:NG BLOCK ',IA LLS SINCE I950" . MILLER • 7 RDER AVE. iEGNY : 320-4500 LIFr_.RNIA STATE LIC. , 141166 1 1 ' I xe'r 1 VERT . RE BA R .3TEEL 2.3AR •k..,*:•' • ..)"JT ALL VERT CONTAINING STEEL REBAR -,) , I Ye. CON_ WA LL LIKE:Ii,L L! A LIFE . :••••T PLA •- ' MENT EVER NEEDED C(4 .1)11.X...c14,-4_. 4, C6,(_,_-,_•7„ PERMIT AND INS PECTUON •1 PD. fiz-E46-7-g:v.w. , 3/E.e.. -4iSo. 73 'Az ///------- //5. -"S'. 4o. cf 74 ' 4;. ' • / T . ` . --7,.. ay. e. .70. 0-g /t;'. .5--R47/VG_g-te //tft 5-74. 5.e.e/7 'ys 44.) 7 -op Vz..aeel` \ \ SUBJECT 9, xve/7-5././ 77 g7e. 9c—rel E r c 1 fi Fo -57 czy s- 14./ 7... 9 0?7. SCAL. lir 20' E JE JC7, NO. ,a7:40%.1 ; • . 4 i • • . • • ,44 .• ; . • t, • • It 4.1; 0 • • / ‘"'• e 1-, • , e •!• „,_ • , , . . -•-• •---• -.• ‘‘. ' • , % . . ,., •. . f • I/ .^ iA • • "iT '72 . ,-;•••• 0.4 ••" .'" "di 144 • • " 1w-- -!?• ! i ',row !,043.ixt,. 1 - 1 -, *•••;i:Ni'a - e 2.. t ); ••••-i 2 -/4-2./ 4 .: 1.:1 7 . 1'.....' ,3..,: . ,,,,„..,..,...:,,.., 774 1 1 -..e,, ,-.,.. ,.. , ..,.... • 4,,,, -..ti. - , - . '. iir''....... 4.• 804.::•?.,;:.7.,...5:co4b,1.,!:71.4L),.;:r.1..it :.1.1f.11iiirgel‘.4. fr:;)P'3C .... . • i t • f• ,„,.. ,,,,.:, Lii.: 4''' ;4 ii: 4- 0.'.'ii..; ' ' '.L 512 ' '.4tijTS.';,-,Ii'i .5-:.1: 7- •„,.......,H. ,;:;i.,,,ia:.)..:c.-7,.... , ,.. . ,:i.,:• 1,-; )// e Kf.Qc s Rt4 o v/ 11 7 7ri .77) \S-47 3.? a0:7,:.T..i,r7r.7"r7.7777.57,L777,.,,,i. • 3._ :7-.. -,--:, „...,,),_ v- I ,i) re k.' .-~, -. 1 •••• . • ' .',‹., ,..,. .....-. . , ,,,,;.:11.=',-..: 1:..'...F.t0. it.1:1.?i4;:11,...b14;41:::. ! i'l ,,i 1 4404.1 n: ..i.„ --A.::. - ... ,/ii2-..7i ,,i,i5 ••• Li , N. • ; . I • --*” 4 1 • ''air'' ” ?1 it ' : • tis,ik, ',' ,..- -ia -1 .-, -373 • jv . ..: . r,1 ler ''....).. Z _.. ....:...— ,......?.. I.._ _•,, . , .;,., . . - •:..... - . ia-4 4.E.....• 4..1.--; ) • ' ! ..;;;,/gC/........1, • ;----!-- ""'!""Rir!"•;;;;r-:7-: •-ff:-.:r:' -t17-7.0,'..nrl\--:"::;''.1.:Pl. ./efirri'rE717.1 7../711/./ • -...L.,13:11-,41%-ii%1";•1•'' :1 - , . . • -.< / .i - • .,-,_ .•._ : ...,,,....,4•—,,. I.Ir':J. 4. . ti •,. _,. ... - ' k... . - _ -; • :::-E_:......1.......7... : _...-77-:.1. .-- 7.:::.:/..../r-s.el....S.7,. - n... . • - 4/,I;1.;J'..4i./../. / •`-" --• -- - . 1 ri, 1 . _ f ,, '!.'* . ' • \ • • ' — ••• • ,•". • 1 • ‘;4'.; - V; :1 1. - • • • •,. ". " • • •'•11•7117:17.1777.7"- "••••-• • • .' - • • 1.1: -!`.1. -•'.:;Err.,: • • :•f•q.:...;'egd • • ,<""431.ifiZ . / • 4,, • •4••• • 77 st • ' '••• • • • • ' • , .1••• •-••••-••••g, • ... f•- . ..• - .-- i -el: , .... _•t• ...ilkN ' 'c -'•- ---."1•-:- • ' 4,14:50:,.. ,:`-f-,.:4 ., •,. \ -,- N • - '1 •• Z "-:..;.".",:V.E.` -1•';4•:t-13, . - ..• — • • . 7.)?.., .1 , .t. „;.i. ••`•icf'., f.,'/ -_,e7 . • -.:•• ..., ,...- ... t • .. • .„.... li;,_ 4,, A F.. ....:.:••••••• . t • ., ... .0/ Vst r..- )1 r 0: , ;144t,' .• '-• • ' • :I P: "0 . ;. t J: . • :,.... 11. pa i.."if7.':''''''. ' -. - . ...*.jAk;-' •i" . , . ___ ,..„,-.4-...44i--r.y.1... 0<i'b•,.. t ' • Lli .„-:-...,.: . ... . .,..r" , .4.,,,,,.,..,,:er-,:;11•,,i- . --- IV..ag•:•.4....‘ " . ' . • -• • — - • *- •• • •. " • ....... • 110.4' 4/t711.4t) • • ••••n,-." - 2L. • • . • .• - • • f; • • • • • -N. •• • •/ ,,'••••• ••• • • • ••• *6;1 • .•• ' • -•••• . •••-• •• - . e • t • ttP1.• • i &'41-•2••.• ,•• • • •:1,- I ‘ • " • --4 / 4 p, • r 1- I 1••••=E 1.0 crat.*IVIfif;%; WA - 44. •••31'.r.t•b• )-P ) 1 -77• I z.7 • P • f• • '1 , t . • • • •, L!!".1, I • A, • 2/7/ Open Letter to the Hermosa Beach City Council. The election is done: the results are unmistakable. The citizens of Hermosa Beach have been mobilized, have made their strong statement, are poised for further action. You, as elected representatives of the people, have a choice: you can join the people's movement, and attempt to become effective community leaders; or you can continue hiding behind timid lawyers and bowing to tenacious land developers, and risk public reproach. For the good of Hermosa Beach, I hope you will side with the citizens. This will not be easy for any of you. It will require radical changes in the way our city is governed; changes that demand exceptional skills, knowledge, and perseverence from our City Councilpersons. Each of you must become more honest and articulate, if you are to stand and speak forthrightly on behalf of a fully mobilized constituency. All of you must learn to better- recognize pitfalls and synthesize opportunities, if you are to plan and negotiate effectively under the scrutiny of vocal concerned citizens. None of you can settle for narrow political support, if you are to obtain real community consensus. In short, you've got to reach out for public involvement, and reach in for personal courage. You've got to invite confrontation, admit mistakes, and effect improvement. You've got to engage with the thousands of persons who demand a voice in their own governance; disengage from the handful of professionals who demean the democratic process. ;Only thus will you be able to serve this city and its' residents during the critical months of debate and decision that lie ahead. The will of the people is clear: we want elegant open spaces in our environment; we demand effective open forums in our community. I trust you will do your very best to comply, on both accounts. I offer my personal support. With respect and good wishes, 1 ii/04-/s/ .......ANALKskicicAphxzt...s. 600 Ardmore Avenue Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 November 4, 1987 The City Council of Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mr. Mayor and Honorable Council Members: I live at 600 Ardmore Avenue, Hermosa Beach, which as you know is directly across from the City Yard. The City Yard also houses the Animal Control Kennel for lost and/or stray animals. On many occasions dogs that are held there bark at all times of the day and night. This is particularly annoying on weekends. I have been told that if an animal has been picked up on Friday and the owner cannot be found, the animal is not transferred to a county facility until Monday morning. Animal Control is not staffed at all hours of the day or night; and the Police Department says nothing can be done about the noise. Apparently Hermosa Beach does not have a "barking dog ordinance;" or if they do, it does not apply to the City. I have complained to the Police Department, General Services, and the City Manager's Office. For over a year my complaints have fallen on deaf or uncaring ears. Please put this item on the agenda for the next regular Council meeting so that this issue can be resolved. Sleepily yours, R. Reviczky Nnvember 3. 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council November 10, 1987 SUBJECT: TEXT AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO ADD "VESTING" TENTATIVE MAPS & TO APPROVE AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION LOCATION: CITY-WIDE. INITIATED BY STAFF - Recommendation Staff recommends that the attached ordinance adding "Vesting" Maps to the Subdivision Ordinance be adopted. Background The State passed Senate Bill 1660 requiring all cities to adopt an ordinance regarding this new form of tract map. Abstract By adopting the attached ordinance, subdividers will be able to guarantee that only policies, ordinances and resolutions in effect at the time the tract map is approved, will be imposed for the following three years. In other words, even if the City changed its laws prior to the developer obtaining a Building Permit, the new laws could not be imposed on the development except under certain circumstances such as the proposed development would impact public health and/or safety. Analysis Analyzing the new regulations imposed on the City by the State, the City could adopt an ordinance whereby a Precise Development Plan (P.D.P.), or other type of plan review is required at the time building permits are required, thereby enabling the City to impose conditions of approval at later date than at the time of the vesting tentative map approval. Any new resolutions, ordinances, etc. could be imposed as conditions of approval. Staff will study this aspect of P.D.P. use with the current study in progress. In regard to tract maps for condominiums, the expiration date could be an added condition of approval limiting condominum Conditional Use Permits to 1 year. The Planning Commision has asked staff to study this possibility and staff has therefore studied this matter and recommended that the Planning Commision adopt a policy statement making a 1 year expiration date as a standard condition of approval for all Condominium Conditional Use Permits. This Policy Statement once adopted by the Planning Commision will be submitted to the City Council for confirmation. -1 - 5 By adoption of the said Policy Statement the developer would be limited to one year to execute his Conditional Use Permit or new conditions of approval could be imposed. Refer to attached Staff Report for further analysis. Attachments 1. Ordinance No. 87- 2. Staff Report to Planning Commision 3. Resolution P.C. 87-58 4. Planning Commission Minutes 5. Copy of California Planning and Zoning Development Laws pertaining to vesting maps. NCUR: Gayl_- T. Martin Interim City Manager / is ael Schubach Planning Director 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 87 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, 3STABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this matter on November 10, 1987 to receive oral and written testimony on this matter and made the following Findings: A. The State law requires that all cities have provisions for vesting tentative maps; B. 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: SECTION 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. The initial 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 - 4. - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8SECTION 9 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." 2. Add t� Chapter 29.5, Article I, Section 29.5-01, 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." 15ECTION 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. 27 TTEST: 28 CITY CLERK -5- APPROVED AS T 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 J 6 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission September 30, 1987 Regular Meeting of October 6, 1987 SUBJECT: TEXT AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO ADD "VESTING" TENTATIVE MAPS LOCATION: CITY-WIDE INITIATED BY STAFF Recommendation Staff recommends that the attached resolution recommending approval of including."Vesting" Maps to the Subdivision Ordinance be adopted. Background The State passed Senate Bill 1660 requiring all cities to adopt an ordinance regarding this new form of tract map. Analysis SB 1660 (Montoya) was signed into law by the Governor on September 3, 1984, and became Chapter 1113 of the 1984 Statutes. This law creates a new form of subdivision map called a "vesting tentative map" which, when approved by a local jurisdiction, guarantees a developer that he or she will be able to proceed with development in accordance with that approval.- All jurisdictions in the State of California are required to have adopted a procedure (by ordinance or resolution) necessary for the application and processing of vesting tentative maps T January 12_ 1986 [Sec.66498.8(a)]. A vesting tentative map is basically the same as an ordinary tentative map. However, when one of these maps is filed with a jurisdiction, the map must have conspicuously printed on its face the words "vesting tentative map" [Sec.66452(c)]. A vesting tentative map is treated in the same manner as an ordinary tentative map (Sec.66452). The law does not regulate a jurisdiction's powers to regulate subdivisions up to the time the vesting tentative map is approved. What the law does limit is the ability of a jurisdiction to change conditions after that point. Under the law, once a vesting tentative map is approved by a jurisdiction, the developer may generally proceed with development in substantial compliance with the ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the time the developer filed a complete application with said jurisdiction [Sec.66498.1(b)]. Exceptions are made where proceeding with the development would C either endanger the public health or safety, or violate State or federal law [Sec.66498.1(c)]. The Staff Environmental Review Committee recommended that the vesting map should not confer rights with regard to Zoning or Building Code requirements. However, the State law specifically states "...the local agency shall apply only those ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the date the local agency has determined that the application is complete...." In regard to Building Code standards, the City will still be able to show that health and safety issues are involved and therefore, require compliance with any new Building standards at the time of construction since Building standards are based on health and safety factors. New zoning standards will be more difficult to justify. However, a one year time limit on vested rights after the final map is approved is allowed by State law, and Staff has placed the maximum of one year in the proposed ordinance. Therefore, an applicant has a total maximum of three years to implement his or her project or otherwise, follow all the new ordinances in effect. 8 Michael Schubach Planning Director 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION P.C. 87-58 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 6, 1987 to receive oral and written testimony on this matter and made the following Findings: A. The State law requires that all cities have provisions for vesting tentative maps; B. The proposed ordinance is in compliance with State requirements; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend adoption of the following ordinance regulating vesting tentative maps: SECTION 1. Add the following section to Chapter 29.5, Article II, Subdivision.: Title: "Section 29.5-16 Vesting Tentative Map. A. Pur ose. It is the purpose of this ordinance to esta lish procedures necessary for the implementation of the Vesting Tentative Map Statute, and to supplement the provisions 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 [City] 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 9 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 on its face the words "Vesting Tentative Map". 2. At the time a vesting tentative map is filed, a subdivider shall submit a complete applicatin as set forth by Planning Commission resolution. D. Fees. 1. 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 extensions, established by the Subdivision Ordiance 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 subdivision, 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 of 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 final 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 a single vesting tentative map, this initial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 SECTION 2. time period shall begin for each phase when the final map for that phase is recorded. (b) The initial time period set forth in 3.(a) 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 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 3.(a) 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." Add to Chapter 29.5, Article I, Section 29.5-01, Definitions.: 3. "Vesting Tentative Map. A map for a residential subdivision, as defined in the [City] Subdivision ordinance, that shall have printed conspicuouly on its face the words "Vesting Tentative Map: at the time it is filed in accordance with Section 29.5-16.6, and is thereafter processed in accordance with the provisions hereof." VOTE: AYES: Comms.Compton,Ingell,Peirce,Rue NOES: Chmn.Sheldon ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION I her certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 87-58 is a t .e and complete record of the action taken by the Planning '-�---"on the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their o October 6, 1987. 27 28 k She d , Chairman Me D bl/ Cei'Zr A7 Date ichael Schu ach, Secretary Eachgrvutth i1aatrr'itt15 PLANNING COMMIS N MINUTES - OCTOBER 6, 1987 C PAGE 13 TEXT AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO ADD VESTING MAPS Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated September 30, 1987. The State passed Senate Bill 1660 requiring all cities to adopt an ordinance regarding this new form of tract map. SB 1660 (Montoya) was signed into law by the Governor on September 3, 1984, and became Chapter 1113 of the 1984 statutes. This law creates a new form of subdivision map called a "vesting tentative map" which, when approved by a local jurisdiction, guarantees a developer that he will be able to proceed with development in accordance with that approval. All jurisdictions in the State of California are required to have adopted a procedure (by ordinance or resolution) necessary for the application and processing of vesting tentative maps by January 1, 1986. A vesting tentative map is basically the same as an ordinary tentative map. However, when one of these maps is filed with a jurisdiction, the map must have conspicuously printed on its face the words "vesting tentative map." A vesting tentative map is treated in the same manner as an ordinary tentative map. 1 PLANNING COMMIC JN MINUTES - OCTOBER 6, 1987 C PAGE 14 The law does not regulate a jurisdiction's powers to regulate subdivisions up to the time the vesting tentative map is approved. What the law does limit is the ability of a jurisdiction to change conditions after that point. Under the law, once a vesting tentative map is approved by a jurisdiction, the developer may generally proceed with development in substantial compliance with the ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the time the developer filed a complete application with said jurisdiction. Exceptions are made where proceeding with the development would either endanger the public health or safety or violate State or federal law. The Staff Environmental Review Committee recommended that the vesting map should not confer rights with regard to zoning or building code requirements. However, the state law specifically states "...the local agency shall apply only those ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the date the local agency has determined that the application is complete...." In regard to building code standards, the City will still be able to show that health and safety issues are involved and therefore require compliance with any new building standards at the time of construction since building standards are based on health and safety factors. New zoning standards will be more difficult to justify. However, a one-year time limit on vested rights after the final map is approved is allowed by state law, and staff has placed the maximum of one year in the proposed ordinance. Therefore, an applicant has a total maximum of three years to implement his project or otherwise follow all the new ordinances in effect. Mr. Schubach stated that staff recommended that the resolutiore,recommending approval of "vesting" maps to the subdivision ordinance be adopted. Public Hearing opened at 9:31 P.M. There being no citizens who appeared to speak either in favor of or opposition to this issue, Public Hearing closed at 9:31 P.M. by Chmn. Sheldon. Chmn. Sheldon noted that in the future the zoning code, building code, and general plan will be changed. He noted that it takes time before the changes can be implemented. He hoped that these changes will be of benefit to the City; and he did not feel that a developer should be given an unlimited amount of time to proceed with a project. Mr. Schubach stated that there are methods by which to prevent this from happening, however. According to the City Attorney and the Building Director, the resolution being presented to the Commission for adoption is the best mechanism available to the Commission at this time. It is required that something be adopted now. Chmn. Sheldon asked whether the Commission could adopt a time limit of one year. Mr. Schubach replied in the negative, stating that according to State law there must be a minimum of one year from the final date of the tract map and a minimum of two years for tentative maps to final maps. Comm. Rue asked whether conditions can be imposed between the time of the tentative tract map to the issuance of a building permit. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative. --13 PLANNING COMMIC JN MINUTES - OCTOBER 6. 1987 C PAGE 15 Comm. Peirce noted the importance of this issue, and he felt that it should be a high priority matter for the Planning Department to do further work on the matter. Comm. Rue felt that encouragement should be given to changing the procedures so that the City has more control as a result of this ordinance going into effect. He stressed the importance of protecting the City's interests. Comm. Compton felt that the best action to take is for the City to clarify the zoning code. He noted that there have been so many recent changes in the zoning code that it is difficult for everyone concerned. He felt that if there are problems, the zoning code should be changed. Comm. Peirce noted that many applicants take far too long before beginning a project. He felt that a time limit of three years is excessive, stating that he feels one year to be appropriate. Chmn. Sheldon agreed that if there are problems, the zoning code should be corrected. He noted concern, though, that while the code is being updated, there could be an enormous number of vested developments which are under the old code. He agreed that three years is much too long. Comm. Compton stressed the importance of property rights. He stated that people present plans to the City and while waiting for approval, the rules are changed. He stated that this is not fair. He noted that the only remedy is the grandfather clause, which most people have complained about bitterly. He stressed that it is a fact of life that things in the City will change. He felt that it is important to have clear regulations in the City so that quality people will be attracted to build here, not to be scared away by a complex set of rules. ;...� Comm. Peirce felt that 15 to 18 months should be the absolute maximum length of time in which to finish a project. If it's not completed in that time, the applicant can start over. He felt that too many people are maxing out for various reasons. He felt that this is unfair both to the people and to the City. Comm. Compton noted that he did not favor the three year maximum; however, he noted that that time period is being mandated because of what other cities are doing. MOTION by Chmn. Sheldon, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to direct staff to return to the Planning Commission at the earliest possible time with a recommendation that would substantially reduce the three-year time period and provide more flexibility to the Commission. Further, this would allow the Planning Commission to have more staff work, discussion, and negotiation in regard to what a reasonable time period should be. Comm. Compton asked what would happen if someone came in with a vested map before this is approved. He asked what position this would place the City in. Mr. Schubach stated that there is State law concerning what must be done immediately. He stated that he heard discussions on this matter at a seminar he attended. He noted that one of the discussions concerned the fact that if someone did come in with a vested map before this is approved, it could prove to be a situation which could go on for seven or eight years before the project is actually built. Mr. Lawson explained that this situation would maximize the time in which a person could go back and use the older codes. PLANNING COMMI( ,N MINUTES - OCTOBER 6, 1987 C PAGE 16 Comm. Compton noted concern over many people coming in immediately with vested tentative tract maps. Comm. Ingell noted that if staff's recommendation is approved immediately, the conditional use permit process could be changed as soon as possible. Comm. Rue noted that the resolution does everything within the law to minimize the time period. Therefore, there is not much choice on the ordinance. However, there will be choices in the future about changing the procedures and conditional use permit requirements so that the effects can be minimized. Chmn. Sheldon stated that he is not prepared at this time to vote on staff's recommendation. He felt it is necessary to know what other options and alternatives are available. He felt that a year and a half time limit would be more appropriate. Mr. Lawson stated that the Planning Commission cannot override State law in this regard. However, there other methods to adjust this process. Mr. Schubach stated that he could return with more information on this issue. Comm. Ingell suggested approving this ordinance, noting that modifications could be made later on the other issues. In this way, the City will not be flooded with vested tentative tract maps. Mr. Lawson agreed, noting that staff would then have time to prepare amendments to the code. SECOND WITHDRAWN by Comm. Peirce as second to the motion.: Therefore, MOTION DIES for lack of a second. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Inge11, to approve -staff's recommendation and approve Resolution P.C. 87-58. AYES: Comms. Compton, Ingell, Peirce, Rue NOES: Chmn. Sheldon ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION by Comm. Compton, seconded by Chmn. Sheldon, to direct staff to revise the conditional use permit process in order to provide the City with whatever protection is necessary in regard to the vested tentative tract maps, and to return to the Planning Commission at the first meeting in November with a report. No objections; so ordered. Filing of vesting tentative map Chapter 4.5. Development Rights 66498.1. (a) Whenever a provision of this division requires that a tentative map be filed, a vesting tentative map may instead be filed. Vested right 011, Conditions for deter- mination of denial or conditional approval Uncodified policy (b) When a local agency approves or conditionally approves a vesting tentative map, that approval shall confer a vested right to proceed with development in substantial compliance with the ordinances, policies, and standards described in Section 66474.2. However, if Section 66474.2 is repealed, that approval shall confer a vested right to proceed with development in substantial compliance with the ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the time the vesting tentative map is approved or conditionally approved. (c) Notwithstanding subdivision *** (b), the local agency may condition or deny a permit, approval, extension, or entitlement if it determines any of the following: (1) 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. (2) The condition or denial is required, in order to comply with state or federal law. (d) The rights conferred by this section shall expire if a final map is not approved prior to the expiration of the vesting tentative map. If the final map is approved, the rights conferred by this section shall be subject to the periods of time set forth in subdivisions (g) and (h) of Section 66452.6. (e) Consistent with subdivision (b), an approved or .conditionally approved vesting tentative map shall not limit a local agency from imposing reasonable conditions on subsequent required approvals or permits necessary for the development and authorized by the ordinances, policies,and standards described in,subdivision (b). (Added by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1113.. Operative January 1, 1986; Amended by Stats. 1986, Ch. 613.) Note: Stats. 1984, Ch. 1113, also reads: SEC. 1. By this enactment, the Legislature intends to accomplish all of the following objectives: (a) To establish a procedure for the approval of tentative maps that will provide certain statutorily vested rights to a subdivider. (b) To ensure that local requirements governing the development of a proposed subdivision are established in accordance with Section 66498.1 of the Government Code when a local agency approves or conditionally approves a vesting tentative map. The private sector should be able to rely upon an approved vesting tentative map prior to Amendment to vesting tentative map Inconsistency with zoning ordinance expending resources and incurring liabilities. without the risk of having the project frustrated by subsequent action by the approving local agency, provided the time periods established by this enactment have not elapsed. (c) To ensure that local agencies have maximum discretion, consistent with Section 66498.1 of the Government Code, in the imposition of conditions on any approvals occurring subsequent to the approval or conditional approval of the vesting tentative map, so long as that discretion is not exercised in a manner which precludes a subdivider from proceeding with the proposed subdivision. 66498.2. If the ordinances, policies, or standards described in subdivision_(b) of Section 66498.1 are changed subsequent. to. the approval or conditional approval of a vestingtentative map, the subdivider, or his or her assignee, at any time prior to the expiration of the vesting tentative map pursuant to subdivisions (g) and (h) of Section 66452.6 *** may apply for an amendment to the vesting tentative map to secure a vested right to:proceed with:the changed ordinances, policies, or standards. An application shall clearly specify the _changed ordinances, policies, or standards for which the amendment is sought. (Added by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1113. Operative January 1, 1986. See note following Section 66498.1; Amended by Stats. 1986, Ch. 613.)- 66498.3. (a) Whenever a subdivider files a vesting tentative map for a subdivision whose intended development is inconsistent with the zoning ordinance in existence at that time, that inconsistency shall be noted on the map. The local agency may deny *** a vesting tentative map or approve it conditioned on the subdivider, or his or her designee, obtaining the necessary change in the zoning ordinance to eliminate the inconsistency. If the change in the zoning ordinance is obtained, the approved or conditionally approved vesting tentative map shall, notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 66498.1, confer the vested right to proceed with the development in substantial compliance with the change in the zoning ordinance and the map, as approved. (b) The rights conferred by this section shall be for the time periods set forth in subdivisions (g) and (h) of Section 66452.6. (Added by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1113. Operative January 1, 1986. See note following Section 66498.1; Amended by Stats. 1986, Ch. 613.) —(g— Development approvals/ permits Filing not prerequisite to development approval Effect.on local/state/ federal requirements Applicability 66498.4. Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter, a property owner or his or her designee may seek approvals or permits for development which depart from the ordinances, policies, and standards described in subdivision (b) of Section 66498.1 and subdivision (a) of Section 66498.3, and local agencies may grant these approvals or issue these permits to the extent that the departures are authorized under applicable law. (Added by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1113. Operative January 1, 1986. See note following Section 66498.1; Amended by Stats. 1986, Ch. 613.) 66498.5. If a subdivider does not seek the rights conferred by this chapter, the filing of a vesting tentative map shall not be a prerequisite to any approval for any proposed subdivision, permit for construction, or work preparatory to construction. (Added by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1113. Operative January 1, 1986. See note following Section 66498.1.) 66498.6. (a) This chapter does not enlarge, diminish, or alter types of conditions which may be imposed by a local agency on a development, nor in any way diminish or alter the power of local agencies to protect against a condition dangerous to the public health or safety. (b) The rights conferred by this chapter shall relate only to the imposition by local agencies of conditions or requirements created and imposed by local ordinances. Nothing in this chapter removes, diminishes, or affects the obligation of any subdivider to comply with the conditions and requirements of any state or federal laws, regulations, or policies and does not grant local agencies the option to disregard any state or federal laws, regulations, or policies. (Added by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1113. Operative January 1, 1986. See note following Section 66498.1.) 66498.7. (a) Until December 31, 1987, this chapter shall apply only to residential developments. (b) On and after January 1, 1988, an ordinance adopted pursuant to subdivision (g) of Section 66452.6 may differentiate between residential and nonresidential developments in prescribing the initial time period after which the rights conferred by a vesting tentative map shall expire. In no event, however, shall that period be less for residential developments than for nonresidential developments. Establishing (Added by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1113. Operative January 1, 1986. See note following Section 66498.1. Amended by Stats. 1985, Ch. 995.) 66498.8. (a) On or before January 1, 1986, a city, county, or city and county shall adopt ordinances or resolutions necessary or appropriate for the implementation of this chapter. (b) If a city, county, or city and county receives a written request to implement this chapter, it shall adopt any ordinances or resolutions --it determines necessary or appropriate to implement this chapter. The city, county, or city and county shall adopt the ordinances or resolutions not more than 120 days from the date the request is made and any fee is paid to cover the direct expenses the city, county, or city and county determines it will incur in processing the ordinances or resolutions. The city, county, or city and county may arrange, with the person making the request, to collect fees from subdividers filing vesting tentative maps and to reimburse the person requesting the ordinance or resolution for any costs so advanced by that person. (c) The local agency may charge subdividers who file vesting tentative maps a fee in an amount sufficient to recover the direct costs associated with establishing and adopting ordinances or resolutions pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b). (Added by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1113. See note following Section 66498.1; Repealed and Added by Stats. 1985, Ch. 249. Urgency; effective July 25, 1985.) 66498.9. By the enactment of this article, the Legislature intends to accomplish all of the following objectives: (a) - • To establish a procedure for tie approval of tentative maps that will provide ,certain statutorily vestedrightstoa subdivider. (b) To ensure that local requirements governing the development of a. proposed subdivision are established in accordance with Section -66498.1 when a local agency approves or conditionally approves a vesting, tentative map. The private sectorshould` be able•to-rely upon an approved vesting tentative map prior,to expending resources and incurring liabilities without the risk of having the project frustrated by subsequent action bythe approvinglocal agency, provided the time periods established by this article have not elapsed. (c) Torensure that local agencies have maximum discretion, consistent with Section. 66498.1, in 20�- (f) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems. (g) That the design of the subdivision or e type of improvements will conflict ith easements, acquired by the public at 1- ge, for access through or use of, property thin the proposed subdivision. In this co ection, the governing body may approve a map i it finds that alternate easements, for access .r for use, will be provided, and that these wi be substantially equivalent ta.ones previo ly acquired by the ublic. This subsectio shall apply only to e- ements of record o to easements established by dgment of•a cou of competent jurisdiction and 'o authorit is hereby granted to a legisla•'ve body • determine that the public at large ha ace red easements for access through or use o .roperty within the proposed subdivisio (Amend-, by ts. 1982, Ch. 518.) 6647 .01. No ithstanding subdivision (e) of Sect'•n 66474, a lo, al government may approve a to tative map, or - parcel map for which a entative map was of required, if an environmental impact r -•ort was prepared with respect to the project a • a finding was made pursuant to subdivision (c of Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code that-•-cific economic, social, or other consideration- make infeasible the mitigation measures or projec alternatives identified in the environmental impa• report. (Added by Stats. 1985, Ch. 738.) 66474.1. A legislative body shall •ot deny approval of a final or parcel map if '.t has previously approved a tentative map fo the proposed subdivision and if it finds that e final or parcel map is in substantial complianc with the previously approved tentative map. (Amended by Stats. 1982, Ch. 87. Effective March 1, 1982.) /66474.2. In determining whether to approve or 'disapprove an application for a tentative map, the local agency shall apply only those 'ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the date the local agency has determined that the application is complete pursuant to Section 65943 :of the Government Code. However, if the local agency has formally initiated proceedings by way of ordinance or resolution and published notice of such ordinance or resolution, in accord with the procedures used by the local agency for publication of ordinances, to amend applicable general or specific plans, or zoning or Tentative map approval with EIR and finding Finding - substantial comp]:'= ce prohibits den' =1 Tentative map approval -211— Securi ifflProv Bonds Deposit for is Instrument or letter of credit Lien Other security Recordatio the imposition of conditions on any approvals occurring- subsequent to the approval or conditional approval of the vesting tentative map, so long. as that • discretion is not exercised in a manner which precludes .a .:subdivider from proceeding with the. proposed:subdivision. (Added by Stats. -1986, Ch. 613.) Chapter 5. Improvement Security 66499. (a) Whenever this division • a local ordinance authorizes or requires • furnishing of security in connection with the •-rformance of any act or agreement, such secur y shall be one of the following at the option • and subject to the approval of the local age (1) Bond or bonds by •ne or more duly authorized corporate suret'es. (2) A deposit, either th the local a responsible escrow the option of the egotiable bonds s.curing deposits An inst finan,ial ins the st e or the fun agreeme•t paymen , or fina • ial inst. ( < A lien up c'eated by contr ocal agency, if th would not be in the the installation of t sooner than two years a the map. (5) Any form of security, including security interests in real property, wh h is acceptable to the local agency and spec]. 'ed by ordinance thereof. (b) Any contract or security int est in real property entered into as security for .-rformance pursuant to paragraph (4) or paragra.• (5) of subdivision (a) shall be recorded with the county recorder of the county in which the subject eal property is located. From the time •f recordation of the written contract or docume creating a security interest, a lien shall attach to the real property particularly described therein and shall have the priority of a judgment agency or gent or trust company, at cal agency, of money or of the kind approved for of public moneys. ent of credit from one or more tutions subject to regulation by federal government and pledging that ecessary to carry out the act or are on deposit and guaranteed for letter of credit issued by such a tution. n the property to be divided, ct between the owner and the local agency finds that it ublic interest to require required improvement ter the recordation of -22- subdivision ordinances before it has received the complete application, the local agency may apply any ordinances, policies, or standards enacted or instituted as a result of those proceedings which are in effect on the date the local agency approves or disapproves the tentative map. If the subdivision applicant requests changes in applicable ordinances, policies or standards in connection with the same development project, any ordinances, policies or standards adopted pursuant to the applicant's request shall apply. This section -shall remain in effect only until January 1, 1989, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, which is chaptered before January 1, 1989, deletes or extends that date. (Added by Stats. 1982, Ch. 1449. See note following 65961. ds subject to W liamson Act con -ct 66474.4. (a) The legislative body of a city o county shall deny approval of a tentative map a parcel map for which a tentative map wa required, if it finds that the land is s a contract entered into pursuan California Land Conservation Act of 1 7 (catmencing with Section 51200) of Title 5) and that the re following a subdivision of tha small to sustain their agr purposes of this section, to be in parcels too agricultural use if th res in size in t land or (2) less case of land w land. .r pu land sha enough to land is 1) a of pr agricu ac -s in size in ime agricultural 1 (b) A legislati - body may approve a subdivision with parce smaller than those specified in this section 1. the legislative body makes either of the following indings: (1) The parcels can neve heless sustain an agricultural use permitt:d under the contract, or are subject to a wri en agreement for joint management pursuant to Section 51230.1, provided that the parcels which are 'ointly managed total at least 10 acres in size 'n the case of land which is not prime agricul ral land. or not ect to to the 5 (Chapter Division 1 lting parcels and would be too cultural use. For nd shall be presumed mall to sustain their land is (1) less than 10 case of prime agricultural an 40 acres in size in the ich is not prime agricultural ses of this section, agricultural e presumed to be in parcels large tain their agricultural use if the least 10 acres in size in the case ural land, or (2) at least 40 he case of land which is not d. _�3_ the subdivider to extend that map, the ma hall automatically be extended for 60 day- or until the application for the extension approved, conditionally approved, or de 'ed, whichever occurs first. If the advisor agency denies a subdivider's application •or an extension, the subdivider may appeal • the legislative body within 15 days aft- the advisory agency has ied the extensi. . Development moratorium For pu ••.-s of this section, a development morat• ium hall include a water or sewer moratori,. , or a water and sewer moratorium, as well -. oth actions of public agencies which re.- ate lan• e, development, or the provision services to t land, other than the public agency with the authority to approve or conditionally approve he tentative map, which thereafter prevents, p 'hibits, or delays the approval of a final or parc map. A development moratorium is deemed to exi for purposes of this section for any period of ti during which a condition imposed by the city o county could not be satisfied because the conditi., was one which, by its nature, necessitated actio by the city or county, and the city or county eithe did not take the necessary action or by its . n action or inaction was prevented or delayed in taking the necessary action prior to expiration ,of the tentative map. Time period of (g) The rights conferred by a vesting tentative vesting tentative map as provided by Chapter 4.5 (commencirig with map Section 66498.1) shall last for an initial time period, as provided by ordinance, but shall not be less than one year or more than two years beyond the recording of the final map. Where several final maps are recorded on various phases of a project covered by a single vesting tentative map, the one year initial time period shall begin for each phase when the final map for that phase is recorded. The initial time period shall be automatically extended by any time used by the local agency for processing a complete application for a grading permit or for design or architectural review, if the time used by the local agency to process the application exceeds 30 days, from the date that a complete application is filed. At any time prior to the expiration of the initial time period provided by this section, the subdivider may apply for a one-year extension. If the extension is denied by an advisory agency, the subdivider may appeal that denial to the legislative body within 15 days. 1) November 3, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council November 10, 1987 SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT, AND EXTENSION OF INTERIM ORDINANCE #87-907 INITIATED BY STAFF Recommendation Staff recommends adoption of the attached Extension of Interim Ordinance #87-907. Background Pursuant to State law, the City Council adopted Interim Ordinance allowing recycling facilities in the Commercial and Manufacturing Zones on October 13, 1987. The Planning Commision, at their October 20, 1987 meeting, held a public hearing and adopted resolution recommending approval of a permanant recycling ordinance. Analysis The City Council will be receiving the Planning Commision recommended recycling ordinance at their November 24, 1987 meeting. If the ordinance is adopted at that time, the ordinance will become effective in 45 days. After the 45 days, the -City Council could rescind the interim ordinance. CUR: Gayl-1 T. Martin Inte m City Manager 1 Rctful ly ,s}ibm; t Mic aeSchub. ch Planning Director 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 INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH TO EXTEND ORDINANCE NO. 87-907 PERMITTING RECYCLING FACILITIES IN THE COMMERCIAL AND MANUFACTURING ZONES SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WHEREAS, the City Council desires to make redemption and recycling of reusable materials convenient to the consumer in order to reduce litter and increase the recycling of reusable materials; and WHEREAS, 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; and WHEREAS, this ordinance is found by the City Council to be necessary to provide for implementation of the California Beverage Container and Litter Reduction Act; and WHEREAS, in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare related to odors, noise, and aesthetics, the City Council deems this ordinance immediately necessary; and WHEREAS, the City of Hermosa Beach has unique and persistent parking problems in the commercial district; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California does hereby ordain as folows: Section 1. Definitions A. Recyclable Material Recyclable material is reusable material including but not limited to metals, glass, and paper, which are intended for reuse, remanufacture, or reconstitution for the purpose of using the altered form. Recyclable material does not include refuse or hazardous materials Recyclable material may include used motor oil collected and transported in accordance with Section 25250.11 and 25143.2(b)(4) of the California Health and Safety Code. 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 B. 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. A bulk reverse vending machine is a reverse vending machine that is larger than 50 square feet; is designed to accept more than one container at a time; and will pay by weight instead of by container. C. 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. D. 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 indicated in Section 2 Criteria and Standards. Collection facilities may include the following: 1. Reverse Vending Machine(s); 2. Small collection facilities which occupy an area of not more than 500 square feet, and may 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 and may include permanent structures. 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 Section 2. Criteria and Standards All recycling facilities shall require a Conditional Use Pemrit and shall meet the applicable criteria and standards provided that such standards may be relaxed, or stricter standards may be imposed as an exercise of discretion upon a finding that such modifications are reasonably necessary in order to implement the general intent of this ordinance. This Conditional Use Permit shall be revokable when there is lack of compliance with the Conditions of Approval pursuant to Section 1800 of the Zoning Ordinance. A. Reverse Vending Machine(s) Reverse vending machine(s) located within a commercial structure do not require discretionary permits. Reverse vending machines do not require additional parking spaces for recycling customers and may be permitted in all commercial and industrial zones with a conditional use permit provided that they comply with the following standards: 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 watrerproof 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; 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; 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. 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. B. Small Collection Facilities Small collection facilities may be sited in commercial and industrial 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; 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 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 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 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. Signs may be provide 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 impair the 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. C. Large Collection Facilities A large collection facility is one that is larger than 500 square feet, or is on a separate property not appurtenant to a host use, and which may have a permanent building. A large collection facility is permitted in commercial and industrial - 5 - J 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 zones with a conditional use permit, provided the facility meets the following standards: 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. Space will be provided on site for six (6) vehicles or the anticipated peak customer load, whichever is higher, to circulate and to deposit recyclable materials; 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 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 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; flcility 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 informatinal 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 thret 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. Section 3. Time Frames and Procedures A. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption by a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach. • This extension ordinance shall be effective for a period of ten (10) months and fifiteen (15) days from the date of expiration of Ordinance No. 87-907 unless extended pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code Section 65858. C. The City Council shall draft a report for presentation to the public at its second meeting in August, 1988. 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, unless a remedy has already been implemented. D. The City Council shall designate the City Attorney to prepare a summary of this ordinance to be published pursuant to Government Code Section 36933(c) (1) in lieu of the full text of said ordinance. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its - 7 - r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 adoption, the City Clerk shall cause the summary to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach. E. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall make minutes of the passage and adoption therof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of November, 1987. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: PROVED ASIM FORM CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY November 2, Honorable Mayor and Members City Council of the City Council November 10, REPORT REGARDING ALTERNATE SOLUTIONS TO PIGEON PROBLEMS Recommendation: 1987 Meeting of 1987 It is recommended that the City Council consider the alternatives outlined by staff, in this report, and take appropriate action. Background: At your regularly scheduled meeting of September 22, 1987, the City Council reviewed written communication from Mr. James Reynolds, 449 Hollowell Avenue, requesting that an ordinance be drawn up to prohibit the feeding of pigeons on public lands and grounds. In addition, written communication in favor of feeding the pigeons, from Phylis Bratti, 348 Hollowell Avenue, was reviewed by the Council. In Mrs. Bratti's letter, it was pointed out that Hermosa Beach had been declared a Bird Sanctuary. Public testimony was taken from both Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Bratti as well as three other members of the audience, on this issue. Subsequently, the City Council directed staff to prepare a staff report regarding this matter indicating alternative solutions. In preparation of this report, staff attempted to contact Mr. Reynolds by telephone to see if the problem still exists but he was not listed in the directory.' Analysis: Attached for your review is a copy of Resolution No. N.S. 2778, declaring all areas within the City a wild bird sanctuary. Please note that in Section 2, it provides that the resolution does not preclude the necessary control measures for correcting nuisances and health hazards engendered by pigeons, seagulls, and domesticated birds. We have also attached for your review, the City of La Mesa Ordinance No. 2082 which strictly prohibits the feeding of pigeons. It appears that adopting an ordinance that would prohibit the feeding of pigeons would not be in conflict with Resolution No. N.S. 2778. There are really not many alternatives available, it - 1 - 1 is a question of determining if the problem is serious enough to warrant such an ordinance. This problem seems to be confined to one neighborhood, it could be interpreted as a nuisance and potential health hazard to that neighborhood. While there is nothing specific in the nuisance ordinance in reference to feeding pigeons, Section 20-1, of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, provides that if an activity is "offensive to the senses or an obstruction to the free use of property to such an extent as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment or life or property by the entire community or neighborhood, or by any considerable number of persons", it may be considered a nuisance. Alternatives: 1. Receive and file this report. 2. Direct staff to send a letter to the person feeding the pigeons, giving them a chance to abate the nuisance before the City Council takes any formal action. 3. Direct staff to prepare an ordinance prohibiting the feeding of pigeons. J :' Noon General Services Director Concur: ' Gayle 0% Martin Interim City Manager RESOLUTION NO. N S. 2778 /5C4D O A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BFA.CH, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ALL AREAS WITHIN SAID CITY A WELD BIRD SANCTUARY. WHEREAS, Hermosa Beach has &Any residents who love, enjoy, and feed buds in their gardens; and WHEREAS, plantings in the parks are encouraging birds to stay to the city; and WHEREAS, Hermosa Beach has laws prohibiting the htmting of birds or use of guns in the city; and WHEREAS, birds add much color.and intersTst in the city with ove thirty-three varieties having been Counted in one Widen; and WHEREAS, the Garden Club of the City of Hermosa Beach has requested that said city be declared a Wild Bird Sanctuary., NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY Or HF,RMOSA BEACH, CAL!ORNL , DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the entire City of Hosa Beach be, and is hereby declared a Wild Bird Sanctuary, and all residents and visitors are reed and urged to protect and enhance the wild bird population. SECTION 2. Provided that no effect of this declaration shall preclude the necessary control awes for correcting nuisances and health hazards engendered by 'pigeons, seagulls,. and domesticated birds. SECTION 3. That appropriate identification be made of this declaration. SECTION 4. That a copy of this Resolution be filed with the Federal and State Conservation Departments. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this Sth day of June, 1968. /s/ Al Valdes MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach ORDINANCE NO. ' 2082 AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 8.04.151 TO THE LA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE (Feeding of wild pigeons) The City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, DOES ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Section 8.04.151 is hereby added to the La Mesa Muni— cipal Code to read as follows: 8.04.151 FEEDING OF WILD PIGEONS. No person shall feed any wild pigeon or pigeons. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its adoption and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause the same to be published at least once in the La Mesa Scout within fifteen days after its adoption. INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 14th day of September , 1976, and thereafter PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council held the 28th day of September , 1976, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Councilmen Slater, Bailey, Uselton, Kuykendall - NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Fordem ATTEST: MARIE G. MANGAN,: City/Clerk u APPROVED: HARDY the Cit• ALL, Vice Mayor o Mesa, California 84 CKGR O(/ND i4 TER/41 L GhtA.t. kya444=1 , '12v4 laupz“- Ai-frea?‘ /kiT1414445 6/44' August 21, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: This is a proposal to have an ordinance drawn up on the order of the "Dog Pooper Scooper Law" you now have on the books. This ordinance would cover feeding pigeons on public lands and grounds. This is a health and nuisance problem here in the City, and it is getting worse all the time. The birds cannot be killed as they are protected by law. Hermosa Beach was declared a bird sanctuary, so the City has it's hands tied, but if the the birds are not fed on a regular basis at a given area, they would stop congregating in the area and move away. The ordinance would be as unenforceable as the pooper scooper law is, but would still make enough impression on people when it was enforced. There are several of us here in the Prospect Heights area who are up to here with bird excrement and would like to see a little relief from these birds. If you need some signatures we will be more than happy t9 accommodate you. Sincerely, L\,r James Y. Reynolds +17 Hoitocc at t ('/ dIcaa 348 B HOLLOWELL AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 (213) 372-6237 September 22, 1987 Honorable Mayor & r;embers of the City Council City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center Hermosa Beach, Ca 90254 Res James Reynolds request to Ban the feeding of Pigeons on Public Property. Dear Honorable A,ayor & Council kembers : If sod provides food for us, how can we deny food for the Pigeons? Could they live without some caring person giving them food. chat a person would begrudge food to a helpless creature is difficult for us to believe. Prior to Mr. Reynolds proposal to the City Council, he had contact- ed Health Department of Torrance, and had a Health Officer come to the neighborhood. This Health Officer knocked onrour)door to ,.state that the Pigeons are to be fed only once a week in the future. So, it appears that this man doesn't even want the Pigeons to starve, he prefers that their food is banndd oom pletely. Also, I have gone to their home. to see for myself the damage that they claim the Pigeons have done. I saw no damage, and told them so. Fortunately, Hermosa Beach has been declared a Bird Sanctuary, which means that there are a great many people in our City that love and care about Birds and Pigeons. What a barren and silent world it would be without them. It should be possible for birds, dogs, cats, pigeons and people to live in harmony together. We sincerely hope you will deny Ivir. Reynolds proposal, as we have enough problems in Hermosa Beach without being known as the Meanies of California. Yours truly, Phylis Bratti /14.276% '16 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 4 a /z l-GZe vt,* . • ., November 2, 1987 HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of Regular Meeting of the HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL November 10, 1987 PROPOSED LEAFBLOWER ORDINANCE AND OTHER ALTERNATIVES Recommendation It is recommended that.City Council: 1. Review and make comments regarding the attached amendment to Ordinance No. 86-867 an ordinance regulating the use of leafblowers. 2. Direct staff to return to City Council for an introduction of an Ordinance amending Noise Regulations, Chapter 19 1/2, Article II, Section 19 1/2-10 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. Background On October 27, 1987, City Council directed staff to prepare wording for an ordinance to ban leafblowers city wide, granting no exceptions and with an effective date for the end of the current contract period with Speciality Maintenance Inc. City Council also directed staff to present other options to leafblower regulation. The City presently contracts with two maintenance contractors that use leafblowers. Specialty Maintenance Inc., is contracted to perform downtown area and pier maintenance, their contract expires in March, 1988. California Landscape Maintenance Inc., is contracted to perform city park maintenance, their contract is a three year contract that expires in June, 1988 and is renewable with City Council approval. Analysis This report will discuss two topics: 1. Proposed Wording for An Ordinance Banning Leafblower Use. 2. Options for Restricted Leafblower Use. 1. PROPOSED WORDING FOR AN ORDINANCE BANNING LEAFBLOWER USE The attached proposed ordinance states that at no time shall backpack/leafblowers be used by anyone within the city limits of 1 leafblowers when special circumstances including lot size, location or surroundings exist. The impact may be higher costs for contract services as follows: COMPANY: INCREASED COST: California Landscape Maintenance Inc., $ 467.00 Monthly Calculated as follows: 8 hr./wk. x 4.3 wks. = 34 hr./mo. @ $13.75/hr. = $467/mo. Specialty Maintenance Inc., $ 650.00 Monthly No calculation was offered by the contractor. 2. OPTIONS FOR LEAFBLOWER USE Listed below are other options considered by staff and available to City Council: (a) Residential Areas vs. Commercial Areas (b) Increased Enforcement (c) Increase the Fine for Violation (d) Require a Variance or Conditional Use Permit Tighten Hours of Use Limit Time of Use Per Address Establish "Safe" Distance from Resident Restrict Use to Lot Size (a) Residential Areas vs. Commercial Areas Three complaints recently received have been from residential areas in the northern section of the city where contracted gardeners have been in violation of the ordinance in a number of ways, i.e., high speeds, blowing debris onto neighbor's yard and lack of proper equipment. One reoccurring, residential complaint originates from the southwestern area of the city. No recorded complaints have been received from commercial establishments or from residents who live adjacent to commercial areas. (b) Increased Enforcement Most complaints about leafblowers come to the City by telephone. These complaints are forwarded to the Police Department for enforcement. The Public Safety Director has informed Public Works staff that enforcement is not a burden on Police Department staff. When a complaint comes to the City an officer is dispatched to the address. The officer issues a citation to the person in 2 violation who may pay the $100 fine plus a 70% penalty assessment. However, the person in violation could plead not guilty and request a court date. The officer who issued the citation must appear in court and the City pays that officer at time and one half. The Judge could find the defendant guilty and require full payment plus the penalty assessment; or, the Judge could find the person not guilty. It should be noted that an officer must witness the violation before a citation may be issued. The current maximum bail for infractions of the City's Noise Regulation Chapter is $100 + 70% penalty assessment. It was recommended by Police Department staff that any laws regulating the leafblower would be most effective if those laws were as uncomplicated as possible. (c) Increase the Fine for Violation A higher fine associated with the violation of any of the "guidelines" already in place may deter gardeners from leaf blower abuse, however no data was available on this form of restriction. It was recommended by Police Department staff to keep the maximum fine in-line with neighboring cities. The following maximum fine for infractions of noise regulations in other cities is as follows: CITY: Redondo Beach Manhattan Beach Torrance Hawthorne MAXIMUM BAIL FOR NOISE VIOLATIONS: Fee is set by South Bay Municipal Court Fee is set by South Bay Municipal Court $25 - $100 (Animals, Trains, Planes) No response Again, an officer must witness the violation before a ticket may be issued. (d) Require a Variance or Conditional Use Permit for Leafblower Use within the City. This method of restriction and control would provide the city with a record of leafblower users, placing the city in a better position to enforce guidelines and address citizens concerns in a timely manner. Inspection and administration of the variance or conditional use permit may require up to one additional employee depending on the complexity of the process. 3 Areas of consideration for granting a variance or conditional use permit could include: 1. Tightening Permitted Hours of Use. Hours of use could be adjusted to the neighborhood. 2. Limit Length of Time of Use per Address. Residents with large lots would be permitted to operate the leafblower for longer periods of time than residents with smaller lots. 3. Restrict Use by Lot Size The following is an example of lot sizes: SIZE: 30'x 80' 25'x 100' 30'x 95' 40'x 100' Irregular SQUARE FEET: 2,400 2,500 2,850 4,000 >4,000 LOCATIONS: Northwest City, West of Hermosa Avenue, Interspersed Interspersed throughout the City Heavy concentration West of Hermosa Avenue Interspersed throughout the City Northeast City & Interspersed It could be difficult to restrict all leafblower use to "certain size lots" because of the inconsistency of lot sizes throughout the City. However, during a permit review process each request could be evaluated individually. Also, during the review process other considerations could be evaluated on an individual basis as they pertained to the neighborhood. The variance or conditional use permit could be granted or denied based on these findings. SUMMARY Staff's recommendation is to amend Ordinance No. 86-867, banning the use of leafblowers however, giving City Council an option to grant permission to use leafblowers when special circumstances including lot size, location or surroundings exist. 4 Alternatives Other alternatives considered by staff and available to City Council are: 1. Modify the Ordinance 2. Assign an Ad Hoc Committee to Study Other Options 3. Drop the Matter Respectfuljy submitted: LyBubenas inistrative Aide CO An .ny Antich Director of Publaic a 1.„.7 Works Gayle . Martin Interim City Manager Attachment: Draft Amendment to Ordinance No. 86-867 Existing Ordinance No. 86-867 5 ORDINANCE NO. 87 - (PROPOSED WORDING) 04)4 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEAC , CALIFORNIA, PROHIBITING THE USE OF BACKPACK/LEAFBLOWERS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. WHEREAS, the use of electrical or gasoline powered backpack/leafblowers creates debris, noise and fumes which is bothersome to nearby residents; and - WHEREAS, regulatory guidelines have been tried; and WHEREAS, the use of said blowers causes dust and other debris to be blown onto adjoining properties and onto public streets. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. (1) of Section 19 1/2-10, Article II, Chapter 19 1/2 of the Municipal Code of the City of Hermosa Beach shall be deleted and replaced with the following: "(1) It shall be unlawful to use or cause to be used electrical or gasoline powered backpack/leafblowers, such as commonly used by gardeners, landscapers and other persons within the Hermosa Y Beach City limits.4— "(2) City Council may grant permission to use leafblowers when special circumstances including lot size, location or surroundings exist." SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and operation from and after July 1, 1988. er 1 %t • t a -SECTION 3. PUBLICATION. The City Council does hereby designate the City Attorney to prepare a summary of this (PROPOSED WORDING) ordinance to be published pursuant to Government Code Section 36933(c) (1) in lieu of the full text of said ordinance. That prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause the summary to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach. SECTION 4. CERTIFICATION. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance; shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said City; shall make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at a which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of 1987. PRESIDENT of the City Council,.and MAYG of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: CITY CLERK 2 APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY November 4, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council November 10, 1987 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OPEN SPACE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION It is recommended City Council approve and/or modify Attachment A which reflects the method for establishing an Open Space Blue Ribbon Committee. BACKGROUND This item was brought before the City Council at it's October 27, 1987 meeting by Mayor Pro Tem Simpson. At that meeting Council referred the item to staff to report back with a method for accomplishng the establishment of an Open Space Blue Ribbon Committee. ANALYSIS The establishment of a "Blue Ribbon Committee" has been done in the past by other City Councils. The most notable, at least in this staff person's mind is the Blue Ribbon Committee established for the purchase of the former Pier Avenue Junior High School now known as the Hermosa Beach Community Center. A "Blue Ribbon Committee" essentially takes the lead in a project and amasses as much information as possible referencing their subject matter. City Staff is used primarily for secretarial/informational support. Once all the information has been gathered and analyzed, the,committeethen recommends a course of action for the City Council to pursue. - It is suggested the City Council: • 1) Establish the goal of the committee and the means of achieving that goal. 2) Establish the committee itself by determining the number of people to comprise it, method of selection and method by which the interested citizens may apply. 3) Establish a general operating format for the committee. 1 9 Attachment A reflects staff suggestions regarding the above. City Council may choose to change, modify, delete or add to any and/or all of the suggestions listed. Respectfully submi Alana M. Mastrian, Director Dept. of Community Resources cur: Gayle T. Martin Inte im City Manager Attachment A OPEN SPACE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE I GOAL: TO IDENTIFY ALL SOURCES OF FUNDING THAT WILL ENABLE THE CITY COUNCIL TO PURCHASE THE RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY. The Committee shall develop a comprehensive list of all state and federal funding sources and the guidelines for submissions of applications. The committee shall*review all viable sources of funding and make specific recommendations to the City Council as to which sources to pursue. II GOAL: TO ESTABLISH AN OPEN SPACE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE. The committee shall be comprised of ten (10) members. Each Councilperson shall select two (2) citizens at large. The City Clerk shall place an ad in the Easy Reader requesting interested citizens to apply for consideration to sit on the Committee. The appointments shall be made at the second Council meeting in December. III GOAL: TO ESTABLISH A GENERAL OPERATING FORMAT FOR THE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE. The committee shall meet a minimum of once a month (more as needed). ▪ The committee shall elect a chairperson and recording secretary. ▪ The Director of the Department of Community Resources shall be the staff liaison between the City Council and the committee. ▪ The committee shall submit progress reports City Council monthly. to the • The committee, upon thorough review of all available sources of funding, shall make a recommendation to the City Council as to what funding source(s) to pursue. 1 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) 792-4728 (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 was; 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 matter 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 .to 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: 2,;72 GAYL-MARTIN, City Manager Respectfully submitt ES P. LOUGH, City A torn TY OF HERMOSA BEACH y 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. 87-873 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 of the City of Hermosa Beach:; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach are currently taking steps to bring our planning and zoning into consistency through hearings for both bodies; WHEREAS, allowing inconsistent development during the process of bringing all parcels into consistency will be a long term harm to the City's planning process and a detriment to the health, safety and general welfare of the populous; /// /// 14/ORD16 -1- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 tri t 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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 )lanning Commission. Section 2. No building permits shall be issued by the Building Department, except as herein provided, for any develop- ment, project or improvement that is not consistent, in all respects, with the General Plan of the City of Hermosa Beach. Section 3. No building permits shall be issued by the Building Department, except as herein provided, for any development, project or improvement that is not consistent, in all respects, with the Zoning Code of the City of Hermosa Beach, This ordinance does not preclude the right to request the normal variance procedure. 14/ORD16 -2- 1 2 3 4 J 6 8 0 10 1] 12 13, 14 15 16 17 18 10 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Section 4. A building permit may be issued to any applicant whose particular project, although located in an area where an inconsistency exists between the General Plan and Zoning, meets the minimum density criteria for both the General Plan designa- tion and Zoning classification for the property in question. Section 5. This ordinance shall not prohibit the issuance of building permits by the Director of Building and Safety if it is his opinion that a substantial threat to the health, safety and welfare of the public would exist if such permit were not issued. Section 6. This ordinance shall not prevent the issuance of building permits by the Director of Building and Safety if, pursuant to state law, there exists a mandatory duty of the City of Hermosa Beach to issue such permit. Section 7. This ordinance shall not affect any project, development or improvement which only requests structural modi- fications to existing structures that do not add additional. dwelling units. This ordinance shall not apply to any project which has submitted completed conceptual plans to the City of Hermosa Beach on or before February 10, 1987. Section 8. The provisions of this ordinance shall not apply to any property that is owned by any governmental entity within the boundaries of the City of Hermosa Beach on the effective date of this ordinance. /1/ /// /1/ /// 14/ORD16 -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 131 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Section 9. Any person who cannot obtain a building permit because of the terms and conditions of this ordinance shall have priority in any requests the applicant makes for a General Plan change or Zone change to have said applicant's property brought into consistency with both the General Plan and Zoning. Said priority shall be subject to the rules and regulations of the City of Hermosa Beach and State of California for the setting of public hearings for General Plan changes and Zoning amendments. Section 10. This ordinance shall be operative for a period of only forty-five (45) days from the date the ordinance takes effect unless extended pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code Section 65858. Section 11. The City Council shall draft a report for presentation to the public at its regular meeting within the forty-five (45) day period. Such report shall state what steps are being taken by the City to correct the problems referenced in this ordinance and what steps are planned to be taken in the future to remedy the situation. .Section 12. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general•circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law. /// /// /// /// /// 14/ORD16 -4- 1 2 3 4 5 6 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, 7 1987. 8 9 10 ATTEST: 11 12 CITY CLERK 13 APPROVED AS T ORM: 1` tel 16 iTY ATTORNE l . 17 y 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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; /1/ L2/buildper -1- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 87-873 was adopted by the City Council of Hermosa Beach on February 10, 1987, whereupon it prohibited the issuance of Building Permits for developments that do not meet the standards of both the General Plan Designation and Zoning classification for a period of forty-five (45) days; WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65858 (b) provides for an urgency measure extension of twenty-two (22) months, fifteen (15) days upon adoption by a four-fifths (4/5) vote following notice pursuant to Section 65090 and a public hearing; WHEREAS, Government Code Section 36937 allows this extending ordinance to take immediate effect for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety, and upon a vote of four-fifths (4/5) of the City Council; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Ordinance No. 87-873 be extended an additional twenty-two (22) months, fifteen days, pursuant to Government Code 65858 (b). Section 2. That the Planning Commission continue to review and revise Zoning Classifications and General Plan Designations for consistency. Section 3. That pursuant to Government Code Section 36937, this ordinance is designed to protect the health and safety of the citizens of Hermosa Beach and becomes effective immediately upon adoption of a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council. /// /// L2/buildper -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 u/< "" CITY CLERK Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of the ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 1987. ATTEST: RESIDENT OF T AND MAYOR OF HERMOSA BEAC 13 APPROVED AS TO 10\ 16 ;CTY ATTORNEY 7 I 17/ r i 18- 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 L2/buildper -3- CITY COUNCIL CITY OF CALIFORNIA 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. MIIHTC'TPRT ���.,•� r. n VERBATUMJF .ITEM 5, . CITX COUNCIL ,MEETING OF ,FEBRUARY, 1Q, . 1987, "AN ORDINANCE._ QF .THE.. CITY COUNCIL. OF_.THE CITY_OF.HERMQSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA,,.TO_PRQHIBIT_THE ISSUANCE_OF BUILDING.PERMITS,.,FOR DEVELOPMENTS THAT DO,.NQT .MEET THE_ STANDARDS OF,BOTH THE . GENERAL LAN. DESIGNATION.. AND ZONING.CLASSIFICATION.FOR,A PARTICULAR PROPERTY„TO QBE ,DEVELOPED_ OR _IMPROVED. ".. Memorandum,,.#'rom„City Attorney Jampes_ P. ,Lough datec�_Felaruary . 4, 19$7. and_ Planning Director Michae]�.,Schubach .dated,,F:pbruary. 3,..19$7. 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: Let those be made part of the record. Mr. Meyer, do we have a staff report? Meyer: Your honor, the report was filed by the City Attorney and is dated February 4, 1987. Cioffi: With that then, I would like to open the Public Hearing. Do you, Mr. Schubach, want to make a presentation? Meyer: Lough: 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 Rosenberger: Lough: Rosenberger: Lough: Rosenberger: Cioffi: DeBellis: Lough: 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. 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? 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. And then the vote is to enact a 45 -day moratorium? 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. OK, thank you. Are there any other questions of staff? 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.... 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. - 9 - 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: Until that variance is granted, it's not. DeBellis: 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. Lough: That's why I have beenopen 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: DeBellis: 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. 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 Monteeello Drive, RH Cioffi: And with that, I would like to close the Public Hearing and bring it back to the Council. Rosenberger: 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. Schubach: 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. Rosenberger: OK, so how far back does this go, the initial State requirement of consistency between the two? Schubach: I believe it was the early 70's. Lough: 1974. Rosenberger: And what - one, I would like to know how we got around this attempt to Schubach: 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. Rosenberger: Schubach: DeBellis: 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 situation. 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: What is the pleasure of the Council on this proposed ordinance? Lough: First, your honor, I would just like to report that there were no decisions made in closed session. Cioffi: Thank you Mr. Lough. 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 included 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, whicheverjis least, and every time it was expressed, it was expressed in different verbage. • On line 4, Section 4, can we say the minimum deity 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 becguse 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 4. Lough: That would be to add "the minimum density criteria" on line 4, 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 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. I CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council FROM: Michael Schubach, Plan )116 SUBJECT: City Council Item 11 DATE: November 6, 1987 Please replace City Council item 11 - RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A MAXIMUM OF TWO DWELLING UNITS PER STRUCTURE ON ANY LOT WITHIN THE R-2 ZONE - with the attach revised Staff Report and Resolution. 1 11 r November 6, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council November 10, 1987 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A MAXIMUM OF TWO DWELLING UNITS PER STRUCTURE ON ANY LOT WITHIN THE R-2 ZONE INITITATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation Staff recommends that the attached Resolution of Intent be adopted. Background At their meeting of October 27, 1987 the City Council requested the Staff to study amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow a maximum of 2 dwelling unit per structure on any lot within the R-2. Analysis This study is to limit the maximum number of dwelling units per stucture to two units, e.g. if a lot contains enough land to allow four units, the design of the project will have two detached structures each two units rather than one large four unit structure. The emphasis of this study is;=to preserve the character of existing neighborhoods by requiring less bulky structures. This study will include a recommended distance for the separation of the stucures. There will be no changes in the allowable densities within the R-2 zones. The precise impacts of this proposal will be discussed in the study. CONCUR: de Gayl/.T. Martin Inte im City Manager ch el Schubach anning Director 1 Res ct fu l submitted, 1, t Anirew P: Associat ea Planner 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 - RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA EACH. CALIFIORNIA, TO DIRECT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF 0 STUDY AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A MAXIMUM OF TWO NITS PER STRUCTURE ON ANY LOT WIHIN IN THE R-2 ZONE WHEREAS, at the October 27, 1987 City Council meeting, the ity Council requested a Resolution of Intent to study amending he Zoning Ordinance to allow a maximum of two dwelling units per tructure on any lot within the R-2 zone; and made the following indings: 1. The City Council is desirous of preserving the character of existing neighborhoods. 2. The allowable densities within the R-2 zones will not be changed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does bereby direct the Planning Commission and Staff to study amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow a maximum of two dwelling unit per structure on lots within in the R-2 zone. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of October, 1987. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY November 4, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council November 10, 1987 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A MAXIMUM OF TWO UNITS PER LOT IN THE R-2 ZONE INITITATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation 1. Staff recommends that the attached Resolution of Intent be adopted, and that this matter be scheduled for the 2nd Quarter General Plan Amendments of 1988. Background At their meeting of October 27, 1987 the City Council requested the Staff to study amending the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to allow a maximum of 2 dwelling unit in any R-2 lot. Analysis Scheduling: Staff is recommending that this matter be heard during the 2nd Quarter General Plan amendments for 1988. Staff has many other items already scheduled for review during the 1st Quarter General Plan Amendments for 1988. The current General Plan allows a maximum of 26 Dwelling units in the R-2 Zones, or 1750 square feet of land per dwelling unit. This study is to limit the maximum number of units on any R-2 lot to 2 dwelling units. Generally, the impact of a maximum of 2 units per lot will be small since most R-2 lots in town are not large enough to have more than 2 units. Additionally, the R-2 lots in the inconsistancy areas which are designated by the General Plan to be low density should ultimately be lowered to R-1. 1 11 The precise impacts of this proposal will be discussed in the study. CO fi � Michael Schubach Tanning Direc or i Gayl . Martin Interim City Manager 2 Res 1Jy)submitted, An ew Per'' Associate ,Manner 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 - RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA EACH. CALIFIORNIA, TO DIRECT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF 0 STUDY AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW MAXIMUM OF TWO UNITS PER LOT IN THE R-2 ZONE WHEREAS, at the October 27, 1987 City Council meeting, the ity Council requested a Resolution of Intent to study amending he General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to allow a maximum of two welling units on any R-2 lot; and made the following Findings: 1. The current General Plan allows a maximum of 26 dwelling units in the R-2 Zones, or 1750 square feet of land per dwelling unit. 2. The City Council is desirous of reducing densities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby direct the Planning Commission and Staff to study amending the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to allow a maximum of two dwelling unit per lot in the R-2 zone. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of October, 1987. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California TTEST: PPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 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 12 a November 3, 1987 City Council Meeting November 10, 1987 Mayor and Members of the City Council SUPPORT OF SUPERVISOR SCHABARUM'S POSITION RE THE BROWN ACT Recommended Action: City Council policy decision whether they wish their position to be restated to the Board of Supervisors, State Legislators and League of California Cities. Background: At the City Council meeting of October 13, 1987, Councilmember Rosenberger requested that this matter be agendized for possible support of Supervisor Schabarum's position. However, this item was Consent Calendar item 1(t) on the City Council agenda of May 12, 1987. Council action was to support the position and advise the appropriate officials (see attachment). It is, therefore, requested that City Council decide if they wish this position conveyed again. Concur: GAYL KA LEEN MIDSTOKKE, City Clerk T. MARTIN, Interim City Manager Attachment �, (p) (q) Request by Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce for certain services in conjunction with their 20th Bi -Annual Fiesta de las Artes May 23, 24 and 25, 1987 and September 5, 6 and 7, 1987. Letter from Chamber of Commerce Executive Vice President William C. Fowler dated April 20, 1987. Action: To (1) approve closure of Pier Avenue from the Strand to Manhattan Avenue from 10th St. to 14th St.; (2) approve participation by local merchants in sidewalk sales on the show dates; (3) to approve assistance of Public Works in hanging the signs and banners; and (4) require the Chamber to hire a commercial clean-up compa- ny and supervise street clean-up. Motion Mayor Cioffi, second Rosenberger. So ordered. Award of Bid: Sanitary Sewer Replacement - Target Area II (CIP 85-402). Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated April 28, 1987. Action: 1) Authorize Mayor to sign Agreement with Christeve Corporation for Sanitary Sewer Replacement, Target Area II, at a cost of $527,925 and 2) authorize staff to issue change orders in an amount not to exceed 10% of the contract amount. (r) Request for approval of Traffic Signal Upgrade (CIP 85- 138). Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated April 27, 1987 Action: To approve Traffic Signal Study and authorize Moohle, Grover & Associates to proceed with the Traffic Signal Design project for CIP 85-138 to: a) develop drawings, plans & specifications for traffic signal im- provements on Hermosa Avenue at 2nd St., 11th St., Pier Ave. and 13th St.; b) develop increased lighting_ plan for Pier Ave. at Valley/Ardmore, but not consider a sig- nal at this location at this time; c) develop a plan to optimize signal timing at Aviation/Prospect intersection but not consider protected left turn at this time. Motion Rosenberger, second Williams. So ordered. (s) Closure of Hermosa Avenue median breaks at 9th St., 17th St., 18th St., and 20th St. (CIP 85-130). Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated April 30, 1987. Action: To approve staff recommendation that Council authorize staff to not consider CIP 85-130 at this time and that closing of the median breaks be considered with the Circulation Element. Motion Rosenberger, second Mayor Cioffi. So ordered. (t) Request from L. A. County Board of Supervisors for su port of their action urging the State Legislature to impose upon itself the. same requirements of the Brown Act that are applicable to local levels of government. 4 Minutes 5-12-87 1111111111," -.- Letter from Larry J. Monteilh, Executive Officer, Board of Supervisors dated April 23, 1987. Action: That Council take a legislative position urging the State Legislature to impose upon itself the same requirements of the Brown Act that are applicable to local levels of government, and that the City Clerk so advise our State elected officials, the League of Cal- ifornia Cities and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. (u) Child Abuse Monthly Report. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian dated May 6, 1987. Action: To receive and file. 2. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS - (a) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE JUDGES OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE SOUTH BAY JUDICIAL DISTRICT TO DETERMINE AND ESTABLISH A REASONABLE BAIL FOR VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 5-24.5(ee) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. For adop- tion. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wis-. niewski dated May 4, 1987. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 87-5035 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE JUDGES OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE SOUTH BAY JUDICIAL DISTRICT TO DETERMINE AND ESTABLISH A REASONABLE BAIL FOR VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 5-24.5(ee) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE" (Ord. No. 87-879 - bikes and skateboards walked on Strand between 10th & 15th Streets, and Ord. No. 87-880 - 10 mph speed limit on entire length of Strand - $13.00). Motion Rosenberger, second DeBellis. So ordered. Final Action: To direct the Public Safety staff to re- turn with a recommendation regarding the handling of roller hockey players on the Strand. Motion Williams, second Mayor Cioffi. So ordered. (b) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RELATING TO AIR TRAFFIC SAFETY. For adoption. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 87-5036 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RELATING TO AIR TRAFFIC SAFETY." Motion Simpson, second Williams. So ordered noting the absence of Rosenberger from the dais. 5 Minutes 5-12-87 1 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 383 HALL OF ADMINISTRATION / LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90012 LARRY J. MONTEILH. EXECUTIVE OFFICER (213) 974-1411 April 23, 1987 The Honorable John A. Cioffi Mayor City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Dear Mayor Cioffi: MEMBERS OF THE BOARD PETER F. SCHABARUM KENNETH HAHN EDMUND D. EDELMAN DEANE DANA MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH At its meeting held April 21, 1987, on motion of Supervisor Peter F. Schabarum, the Los Angeles County Board of - Supervisors urged the State Legislature to impose upon itself the same requirements of the Brown Act that are applicable to local levels of government. Further, the Board members requested your City Council's support of their action. Enclosed is a copy of the Board's Minute Order detailing this action. LJM:r13:L46 -Enclosure Very truly yours, AP Y, EXECUTI r'2 MO TEILH E O FICER 1. 1. 1 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Larry J. Monteilh, Executive Officer Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 383 Hall of Administration Los Angeles, California 90012 At its meeting held April 21, 1987, the Board took the following action: 104 Supervisor. Schabarum made the following statement: "Since 1953, the Brown Act has placed certain requirements on local government regarding public meetings. Whether you love it or hate it, the Brown Act is now another political institution, ranking right up there with motherhood and apple pie. "The State Legislature, however, has never seen fit to apply the Brown Act to itself. By the initiative process, the voters have imposed limited open meeting requirements on the Legislature. However, these requirements are not as stringent as the Brown Act requirements and are easily waived. Obviously, the Legislature has not been listening to the great sighs of content given by the citizens that they all sleep better at night knowing that the Brown Act is protecting them from local government gone amok. Instead, the Legislature prefers to continue the almost -unholy practice of meeting in closed door sessions with no advance notice, no justification and no public access to the basis of the decisions they make. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Since the Counties are basically controlled by available State - funding and statutory requirements, there should be a level playing field between how the Legislature meets and makes decisions and how we do it at the local level." (Continued on Page 2) - 1 - r Syn. 104 (Continued) -I Interested persons addressed the Board. On motion of Supervisor Schabarum, seconded by Supervisor Edelman, unanimously carried (Supervisor Hahn being absent), the Board urged the State Legislature to impose upon itself the same meeting requirements of the Brown Act that are applicable to local levels of government. The Executive Officer of the Board was instructed to send letters to the Los Angeles County Legislative Delegation, informing them of the Board's action on this matter. Further, the Executive Officer of the Board was instructed to send letters to each City, School District and Special District in Los Angeles County informing them of the Board's action and requesting their support. MIN3:c28.1 Copies distributed: Each Supervisor Chief Administrative Officer County Counsel Letters sent to: Each Mayor, Los Angeles County Each Superintendent, All School Districts in Los Angeles County Each Member, Los Angeles County Legislative Delegation Each Self Governing Special District (see attached list) 2 It May 15, 1987 Name Location Address City City o fgiermosarl3eaclt� Re: Brown Act Dear Name2: Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, at their regular meeting held on Tuesday, May 12, 1987 took the following action regarding imposing the same requirements on the State Legislature as are applicable to local levels of government Action: That the Council take,a legislative position urging the State Legislature to impose upon itself the same requirements of the Brown Act that are applicable to local levels of government, and that the City Clerk so advise our State elected officials, the League of California Cities and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. We urge your support of this position. Very truly yours, KATHLEEN MIDSTOKKE City Clerk cc: Board of Supervisors County of Los Angeles City Hall (213) 376-6984 • Community Center 379-3312 / 376-6984 • Fire Department 376-2479 / 376-6984 • Police Department 376-7981 / 376-695 Name Location Address City Name2 Honorable Gerald N. Felando California State Assembly State Capital Room 5156 Sacramento, CA 95814 Assemblyman Felando Legislative Committee League of California Cities 1400 K Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Sirs Honorable Robert G. Beverly California State Senate State Capital Room 2054 Sacramento, CA 95814 Senator Beverly (b) Oral report re. status of.ATSF raght-of-way. Interim City Manager Gayle T. Martin read a press release into the record stating that Mayor Cioffi and Mayor Pro Tem Simpson had met with Santa Fe Pacific Re- alty Corporation and Turrini & Brink to discuss the railroad property and both parties agree that further discussions could lead to a mutually beneficial agree- ment as to the acquisition of the property for continued use as parkland in the City. A subsequent meeting is scheduled for Friday, October 23, 1987. 10. OTHFR.MATTERS.-_CITy,COUNCIL (a) Qther_Matters -_City Council, Future,Agenda Items. Memorandum .from City Clerk Kathleen Midstokke dated Oc- tober 2, 1987. Action: To include items under "Other Matters City Council" as "Requests from Councilmembers for Possible Future Agenda Items", these items to be submitted to the City Manager's office by Tuesday noon the week prior to the Council meetings. Motion Williams, second DeBellis (discussion). So ordered. Final_Action:_ To affirm the implementation policy for this procedure that at the outset of each of these agen- da items there would be a vote of the Council to see if they wish to discuss this matter. Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger. So ordered. (b) Rosenberggr,-_Brolin,Aet_Rulg - He congratulated and en- couraged support of Supervisor Peter Schabarum's posi- tion regarding having the Brown Act rules apply to the State Legislature as well as to all Municipal and County officials. He asked that this matter be agendized for possible support of Supervisor Schabarum's position. ,(c) Rosenberger.-_CDBG Monies - Should we rethink requesting CDBG monies? Assistant City Manager Mastrian advised that she was verbally told that we could exchange the monies, however, the filing date for these monies was Thursday, October 15, 1987. (d) SimpsQn-..Hi$torjcal.,Buji0ings - Asked Council to con- sider adopting a historical preservation ordinance. (e) Simpson_=,Earthquake Preparedgess - Asked how the City could ascertain which buildings in the City were earthquake -proof and those which are not reinforced. She was advised by the City Manager. that the Uniform Building Code is the criteria by which this is established. - 11 - Minutes 10-13-87 November 3, 1987 City Council Meeting November 10, 1987 Mayor and Members of the City Council REPORT ON NEWLY ENACTED CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION ORDINANCE Recommended Action: To receive and file report, and agendize this matter for the first City Council meeting in January, 1988. Background: At the City Council meeting of October 27, 1987, Councilmember DeBellis requested that this item be on the next City Council agenda. A campaign contribution ordinance which also includes regulations regarding endorsements and use of the City Seal was passed in July 1987 and effective August 1987. The November 3rd election is the first time this ordinance is being imposed. New procedures were set up to ensure that all candidates complied with the new regulations. Adequate time following the election is necessary to do a complete report to the City Council with possible suggested revisions. Input will be requested from all candidates, the City Attorney and possibly some of the approximately 50 other cities in California which have similar campaign limitation ordinances. Concerns which will be addressed include: penalty clause, who is responsible for enforcement, who determines what an "implied endorsement" is, requiring all written permission for endorsements be filed by the time the literature is in the mail, can you disclaim away an implied endorsement, and including newspaper and media advertising under the endorsement section. It is anticipated that the report will be completed by the first City Council meeting in January, 1988. ncur: GAY T. MARTIN Interim City Manager KATHLEEN ,City MIDSTOKKE, Clerk O 1 13.h r• 11' 2t 31 4� 61 i 8 Ij 1 5 II 16 17 • 18, 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 87-892 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISH- ING LIMITATIONS ON POLITICAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND CAMPAIGN CONDUCT. WHEREAS, California Election Code Section 22808 permits a City to limit campaign contributions by ordinance or resolution in municipal elections; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 84308 prohibits contributions of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) or more from any party while a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use is pending before the agency and for three months following the final decision; and WHEREAS, the City Council is desireous of avoiding these potential conflict of interests; and WHEREAS, local government should serve the needs and respond to the wishes of all citizens equally, without regard to their wealth; and WHEREAS, public officials should perform their duties in an impartial manner, free from bias caused by the financial interests of persons who have supported them; and WHEREAS, reasonable campaign contribution limitations will encourage a broader public participation in the local elective process and will provide all residents with the real chance of becoming elected officials; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. Words and phrases used hereinafter shall have the same meaning as defined in the Political Reform Act of 1974, as amended, Title 9, California Government Code 1 2 :3I 4f ,5 i G! ! 7 8 9! committees supporting or opposing such candidate, to exceed the (Section 81000 et. seq.) as it now exists or may hereafter be amended. SECTION 2. CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITATIONS. No person shall make, nor shall any candidate for elective office or his or her committee, accept any contribution, gift, subscription, loan, advance, pledge, or promise of money in aid of the nomination or election of a candidate which will cause person with respect to a single election opposition to, such candidate, including the total given by such in support of, or contributions to all 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 . 17 18 19' 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the sum of two hundred forty-nine dollars ($249.00). This section shall not apply to amounts given by a candidate to his own campaign. SECTION 3. ENDORSEMENTS AND SEALS. (a) No person shall issue any campaign literature or material to the public during an election which claims or implies any endorsement of a candidate without filing with the City Clerk his affidavit, signed under penalty of perjury, that he has obtained the written consent of such person whose endorsement is claimed or implied. (b) No person shall in any manner, on any campaign literature or material, make use of the official seal of the City of Hermosa Beach, or any facimile or likeness of the seal. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. If any provision, or the applica- tion thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remaining provisions of these sections and the applicability of such provisions to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected. 1 21 31 4 6 i 8� 10 11 12 13 14 15, 16 17 18 19 20 21 SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and operation from and after thirty days after its final passage and adoption, and shall apply to all Municipal Elections thereafter. SECTION 6. 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. SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance; shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said City; shall make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 28th day of July 1987. ATTEST: APPROVED AS _O FORM: ESIDENT of the .,y Council, and AYOR of the Cit :f Hermosa Beach y Clerk 23 24 25 26 27 28 Cit Attorney 1, foreign corporation, United States national bank, ral governriient contractor or federally -established orporation, such as a federal savings and loan association, from making any contributions to state or local candidates. MISCELLANEOUS Must candidates and committees be concerned with tax considerations? Yes. Income tax must be paid on interest, dividends and capital gains of more than $100 per year earned by a campaign. Internal Revenue Service and California Franchise Tax Board Regulations must also be followed by ontributors to take the tax credit permitted under federal aw and the deduction allowed under California law. 14'i1I campaigns be audited? Yes. Candidates and/or committees may be randomly elected for audit by the Franchise Tax Board. Additionally, he Fair Political Practices Commission and/or the ranchise Tax Board may initiate a discretionary audit. Audits and investigations must be made with respect to he reports and statements of: Each statewide, Supreme Court, court of appeal, or Board of Equalization candidate in a direct primary or general election for whom it is determined that $25,000 or more in contributions or expenditures has been raised or made. whether by the candidate or by committees controlled by the candidate. Each statewide candidate whose contributions and expenditures are below $25,000 shall be subject to audit on a 10 -percent random basis. Each candidate for the Legislature or superior court judge in a direct primary or general election shall be subject to audit by random selection if it is determined $15,000 or more in contributions or expenditures has been received or made. whether by the candidate or by committees controlled by the candidate. Random selection shall be 50 percent each of the Senate and Assembly districts and judicial offices contested in an election year. Each candidate in a special primary or legislative runoff election for whom it is determined that $15,000 or more in contributions or expenditures has been received or made, whether by the candidate oZ committees controlled by the candidate. Each controlled committee of any above-described candidate who is being audited. Each committee (other than Major Donor) primarily supporting or opposing an above-described candidate being audited, if the committee spent more than $10,000. Each committee (other than Major Donor) whose participation is primarily in support of or opposition to a state measure, if the committee spent more than $10,000. — Each committee (other than Major Donor or those primarily supporting or opposing a candidate or measure) shall be subject to audit if the committee raised or spent more than $10,000 in a calendar year supporting or opposing candidates or measures. If the audit determines that the committee is in substantial compliance, the committee is thereafter subject to random audit selection of 25 percent of such committees. c 1 s F Must candidates disclose certain personal financial activities? Yes. California law requires financial disclosure of 10 investments and real estate by candidates. State and local elected officials filing the annual Statement of Economic Interest must disclose income, loans, gifts, investments, real estate and business positions held. Are campaign laws•s at other levels of government applicable? Yes. In addition to federal law (see below), many California local governments have enacted comprehensive campaign ordinances which add regulations beyond the Political Reform Act. The local ordinances should not be overlooked. (See below.) LOCAL CAMPAIGN ORDINANCES A local government may adopt additional campaign ordinances so long as they further the purposes of the Political Reform Act and do not conflict with any of its provisions. The ordinances that have been enacted by cities and counties to date vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Many cities and counties prohibit certain entities from contributing to campaigns, limit the amount that may be contributed to campaigns by businesses, political action committees and individuals, require lower levels of itemization of campaign contributors, limit extensions of credit to campaigns, require additional campaign statements to be filed before local elections, impose separate penalties for violations of local ordinances, or require lists of campaign contributors to be published in newspapers. Cities and counties that have adopted campaign ordinances as of January 1, 1986 include: Adelanto Berkeley Chico Concord Contra Costa County Coronado Culver City Davis Del Mar Dublin Escondido •Fountain Valley Fremont Fresno Fresno County Gardena Gilroy Grand Terrace Huntington Beach Irvine Livermore Los Angeles (city) Newport Beach Orange County Palo Alto Pasadena Poway Rancho Mirage Rialto Roseville Sacramento San Diego San Diego County San Francisco San Jose San Juan Capistrano San Luis Obispo San Marcos San Mateo County Santa Cruz County Santa Monica Sonoma County South San Francisco Walnut Creek Westminster West Covina Because additional cities and counties may have enacted campaign ordinances or these cities and counties may have amended their ordinances after this publication was printed, the clerk of the city or county should be contacted to determine if there are additional campaign requirements and to obtain a copy of the ordinances. Local ordinance information can be obtained by calling the Fair Political Practices Commission at (916) 322-5662. CALIFORNIA JOURNAL November 5, 1987 City Council Meeting November 10, 1987 Mayor and Members of the City Council VACANCIES - BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS PLANNING COMMISSION ONE VACANCY - TERM ENDING JUNE 30, 1988 Planning Commissioner Chuck Sheldon, after having been successful in his bid for a City Council seat, submitted his resignation by phone to this office at 10:15 AM on this date, effective immediately. Mr. Sheldon did so to avert any conflicts regarding possible decisions made by the Planning Commission and then referred to City Council for action. Recommendation To accept the resignation of Mr. Sheldon with thanks and request staff to prepare the appropriate recognition for presentation. The City Clerk will advertise for applicants for the Planning Commission vacancy as previously directed, this commissioner to be appointed at the City Council meeting of November 24, 1987. Concur: i r f �Izt /)/L- GAYLEJT. MARTIN, Interim City Manager KATHLEEN KATHLEEN MIDSTdKKE, City Clerk 14 a SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION November 4, 1987 City Council Meeting November 10, 1987 Mayor and Members of the City Council VACANCIES - BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS PLANNING COMMISSION ONE VACANCY - TERM ENDING JUNE 30, 1988 At the General Municipal Election held on Tuesday, November 3, 1987, Planning Commissioner Chuck Sheldon was elected to the Hermosa Beach City Council and will take office on November 24, 1987. This will result in a vacancy on the Planning Commission effective that date and appointment should be made at that time. Recommendation Staff to prepare the appropriate recognition for presentation to Commissioner Sheldon, and direct the City Clerk to advertise for applicants for the Planning Commission vacancy, said commissioner to be appointed at the City Council meeting of November 24., 1987. Background The Planning Commission is governed in all respects and performs duties as prescribed by applicable State and local laws. The primary purpose of the Commission is to maintain and enhance the environment of the community which entails advance or long-range planning (updating of the General Plan and specific elements); current planning (short range projects); land use controls (administering to the Code and review of all subdivisions and zoning positions). The Commission serves as an advisory board to the City Council on all matters pertaining to zoning, conditional use permit process, etc. C,9ycur : a0 - /Yl KATHLEEN MIDSTOKKE, City Clerk GAYLF1 T. MARTIN, Interim City Manager 14 a CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION VACANCY UNEXPIRED TERM ENDING JUNE 30, 1988 The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach is accepting applications to fill an unexpired term on the Hermosa Beach PLANNING COMMISSION. The Planning Commission serves as an advisory board to the City Council on all matters pertaining to zoning, conditional use permits, variances, and long-range planning and land use control. Applicants must be registered voters in the City of Hermosa Beach. Contact the office of the City Clerk at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, 376-6984, ext. 203 for applications or additional information. Applications must be received in the office o_f the City Clerk prior to Thursday, November 19, 1987. KATHLEEN MIDSTOKKE City Clerk Dated: November 4, 1987 Run : Display - 11-12-87