Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/25/87"One of the best things people can have up their sleeves is a funny bone." -Richard L. Weaver II AGENDA REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 25, 1987 - Council Chambers, City Hall Closed Session - 6:00 p.m. Regular Session - 7:30 p.m. MAYOR John Cioffi MAYOR PRO TEM Etta Simpson COUNCILMEMBERS Tony DeBellis Jim Rosenberger June Williams CITY CLERK Kathleen Midstokke CITY TREASURER Norma Goldbach CITY MANAGER Gregory T. Meyer 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. P EDGE OF ALLEGIANCE L CALL:Ovri /,ueJ,e. d' ""` 2 gear Cwos g GS+oi PROCLAMATIONS: Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Month, September, 1987 Union Label Week, September 7 - 12, 1987 RESOLUTION DECLARING SUPPORT OF EFFORTS OF THE UNITED STATES SOC- CER FEDERATION IN BRINGING THE 1994 WORLD CUP TO THE UNITED STATES. CITIZEN COMMENTS Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any items on the Consent Calendar may do so at this time. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following routine matters will be acted upon by one vote to approve with the majority con- sent of the City Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless good cause is shown by a member prior to the roll call vote. (Items removed will be considered under Agenda Item 3.) (a) Approval of Minutes: Regular meeting of the City Coun- cil hel on August 11, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve minutes. (b) Demands and Warrants: August 25, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve Demands and Warrants Nos. through inclusive. Tentative Future Agenda Items. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (d) City Manager Activity Report: Memorandum from City Man- ager Gregory T. Meyer dated Recommended Action: To receive and file. )Building and Safety Department Monthly Activity Report: YJ"July, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. Community Resources Department Monthly Activity Report: July, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. Finance Department Monthly Activity Report: July, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. Fire Department Monthly Activity Report: July, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. General Services Department Monthl' Activity Report: July, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. Personnel Department Monthly Activity Report: July, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (k) Planning Department Monthly Activity Report: July, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. Police Department Monthly Activity Report: July, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. Public Works Department Monthly Activity Report: July, 1987. (j) - 2 Recommended Action: To receive and file. (n) Monthly Revenue Report: July, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (o) Monthly Expenditure Report: July, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (p) City Treasurer's Report: July, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (q) Cancellation of Warrants. Memorandum from City Treasurer Norma Goldbach dated August 17, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve cancellation of Warrant No. 23954. (t) (u) (v) Request for reserved parking spaces on llth Street for guests attending Hermosa Beach 80th Birthday kick-off event. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dated August 10, 1987. Recommended Action: To 1) approve request of Thelma Greenwald, Sea Sprite Motel, for reserved spaces, from 4:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., on September 9; and 2) direct Public Works Department to post the appropriate signs twenty-four hours in advance. Recommended solution, recreational vehicles parking on City streets. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dated July 2, 1987. Recommended Action: To direct staff to prepare or- dinance restricting parking of recreational vehicles on those city streets or alleyways with marked stalls, when width of street is 25' or less; and restricting the num- ber of days and hours an R.V. may park, without a spe- cial permit. Call for Bids: Fixed Asset Inventory/Appraisal. Memo- randum from Finance Administrator Viki Copeland dated August 12, 1987. Recommended Action: To authorize call for bids. Application for late claim: Hermosa Beach School Dis- trict - amended claim filed August 14, 1987. Recommended Action: To deny late claim. Crossing Guard Program Update. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated August 17, 1987. 3 (x) Recommended Action: To 1) approve the suggested Route to School Program; 2) relocate crossing guard from Gould/Morningside to Ardmore at 16th Street; 3) request Caltrans study the PCH/16th Street intersection, and that Caltrans consider removing PCH /9th St. uncont- rolled crosswalk; 4) relocate Hermosa View pedestrian signal to the 1700 block of Valley Drive; 5) request City Attorney legal analysis re. proposed ATSF walkways; 6) increase crossing guard budget appropriation by $31,372; 7) loan $22,622 from General Fund to Crossing Guard District Fund to be repaid by June 30, 1989. Beach Drive Improvements for 6th Street Storm Drain Project, Status Report - CIP 86-302. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated August 12, 1987. Recommended Action: To 1) retitle CIP 86-302 "6th St. Storm Drain Project" to CIP 87-302 "Beach Drive Improve- ments; 2) appropriate $182,192 to CIP 87-302 [i.e., $19,700 from State Gas Tax Fund fund balance, and $$162,492 from Sewer Fund fund balance]; 3) authorize completion of plans and specifications. Approval of supplemental to the Administrative Employees Bargaining Unit MOU establishing the classification of Computer Systems Manager in that unit, and establishing a salary range for the classification. Memorandum from Personnel Administrator Robert Blackwood dated August 19, 1987. Recommended Action: To authorize the City Manager to execute the supplemental to the Administrative Em- ployees' Bargaining Unit. Various electrical/mechanical capital improvements - Civic Center. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated August 11, 1987. Recommended Action: To 1) appropriate $3,000 from General Fund Designation for Capital Improvements to CIP 87-604 for the provision of designing for air condition- ing in the City Hall Council Chambers; 2) consider ap- propriation of construction dollars at the time of award of design contract; and 3) authorize staff to solicit the RFP. Preliminary Engineering Report - CIP 85-102, Highland Avenue Widening; CIP 85-137, Gould/Valley/Ardmore inter- section improvements. Memorandum from Public Works Di- rector Anthony Antich dated August 17, 1987. gRecommended Action: To 1) accept the preliminary design report; 2) authorize completion of the plans and specifications using Figure 5 (Alternative No. 1) for Valley/Gould/Ardmore. (aa) Status Report on Noise Ordinance. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated August 14, 1987. Recommended Action: To 1) receive and file report, and 2) staff report to Council upon conclusion of study. (bb) Request for proposals CIP 87-606, First floor Police Department remodel including Dispatch Room. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated August 18, 1987. Recommended Action: Authorize staff to solicit the Request for Proposal. (cc) Recommended Consultant and contracts for the Commuter Transportation Implementation Plan and mutual agreement with neighborhood cities. Memorandum from Planning Di- rector Michael Schubach dated August 17, 1987. Recommended Action: To hire Ekistic Transportation Sys- tems and authorize Mayor to sign contract. Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any item listed under Consent Ordinances and Resolutions may do so at this time. 2. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS (a) ORDINANCE NO. 87-898 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HER- MOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 19 "MOTOR VEHI- „'L CLES AND TRAFFIC", REMOVING PARKING METERS AND ES- Ut'' TABLISHING A FIFTEEN MINUTE PARKING ZONE AS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH (DOWNTOWN BUSINESS AREA, HERMOSA AVENUE AND PIER AVENUE). For waiver of further reading and adoption. (b) ORDINANCE NO. 87-899 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HER - J` MOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADDING A SUBSECTION (5) TO SEC- )c„ EC- A ) TION 2-6.2 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE ES- TABLISHING AN EMPLOYEE SERVICE PIN ARDS PROGRAM. For waiver of further reading and adop (c) ORDINANCE NO. 87-900 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HER- MOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, MANDATING THAT ALL FUNDS THE CITY DERIVES FROM HYDROCARBON RECOVERY GOES INTO THE \� ..,cd PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES FUND NO MATTER WHERE THE WELLS ARE BOTTOMED. For waiver of further reading and adoption. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. 5 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. (a) Letter from William R. Simpson, 1820 Ardmore, Apt. 39A, Hermosa Beach, dated August 8, 1987 re. excessive rent increases. Recommended Action: City Council to make policy deter- mination of whether a Council sub -committee could be of advisory assistance to Peppertree tenants. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. 5. `` APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A WALL TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT AT 906 PROSPECT AVENUE. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated August 17, 1987. 6. AN INTERIM ORDINANCE EXTENDING FOR 12 MONTHS EMERGENCY AC ORDINANCE NO. 87-861, ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE v), UANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMITS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ,'ISSOTS ON WHICH AT LEAST ONE OF THE CONTIGUOUS PARCELS U HELD BY THE SAME OWNER DOES NOT CONFORM TO STANDARDS FOR MINIMUM LOT SIZE. (Requires 4/5 vote.) Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated August 13, 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 MAT hRS 7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER (a) Refining of City Council goals. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer a'ated August 19, 1987. Recommended Act To 1) schedule a workshop meeting on January Pr 8, 1988 for the purpose of revising the adopt City Council goals; and 2) direct department ^��4 heads . prepare a formal statement, i.e., a Plan of /v�-- Ac '•n, on the current High Priority goals for review at e Quarterly Budget Review, October 13, 1987. 8. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a)J5esignation of Voting Delegate for League of California 1-6-I Cities Annual Conference - October 4 - 7, 1987 in San Sgl v3 Francisco. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. �`' Meyer dated August 19, 1987. Recommended Action: Designate a Voting Delegate and a Voting Alternate who will be present at the Business 6 Session at the League of California Cities Annual ference October 4 - 7, 1987 in San Francisco. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL \- le � l N T MEETING OF THE HERMOSA BEACH VEHICLE PARKING DISTRI COMMISSION. CONSENT CALENDAR 4({-O-1 s c 01) Approval of minutes of August lbw K 7 vc7c,f;v44,d20 1987 meeting. Discussion re. validation program. Memo r ndum from Parking Administrator Joan Noon dated Ai- 8 1987. (Continued from August 11, 1987 seting.) O l(ciR c S)P - Po APPEARANCE OF INTERESTED CITIZENS ItIPV14( Citizens wishing to address -We City Council on any matter within the jurisdiction of the C•sncil not elsewhere considered on the agenda may do so at thi: time. Citizens with complaints regard- ing City management o departmental operations are requested to submit those comp{r: nts in writing to the City Manager. PFJ ) �,,�! 0710 C1 'PGE 1 '\vq7 Cl/JecGS7 (Dcg3%r'S n ° .\QL t grog 5 4 bs1II 6, ©h) .[ 3;.,., eV..?cA lIy.,i PSP ozG cu, e r__ €M i. cut ri Kiti g 4'7 -Poi kcnA dad a4: -E ADJOURNMENT Rb S 10-A - deQi 6,(24) ;Atlas) u 3iw - QQ (‘ oLicei p„,e,r n AJL--,) J-4 Rv,k) % QAueoPAR 7 ?cc -7-1 Off-tetAi,S d .S4„‘, oloue-44,Lbepa4 C,Thp\ i• 6-v•at— \?,ekte,A) ,mak 14J/ka,A, loAA U CAA 5R ? — LA -)61-t- 6606e-co-vb V v` J Where there is no vision the people perish... HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA WELCOME! By your presence in the City Council Chambers you are participating in the process of representative government. Your government welcomes your interest and hopes you will attend the City Council meetings often CITY VISION A less dense, more family oriented pleasant low profile, financially sound community comprised of a separate and distinct business district and residential neighborhoods that are afforded full municipal services in which the maximum costs are borne by visitor/users; led by a City Council which accepts a stewardship role for community resources and displays a willingness to explore innovative alternatives, and moves toward public policy leadership in attitudes of full ethical awareness. This Council is dedicated to learning from the past, and preparing Hermosa Beach for tomorrow's challenges today. Adopted by City Council on October 23, 1986 NOTE: There is no smoking allowed in the Council Chambers' THE HERMOSA BEACH FORM OF GOVERNMENT Hermosa Beach has the Council -Manager form of government, with a City Manager ap- pointed by and responsible to the City Council for carrying out Council policy. The Mayor and Council decide what is to be done. The City Manager, operating through the entire City staff, does it. This separation of policy making and administration is considsered the most economical and efficient form of City government in the United States today. 1 GLOSSARY / /)4, 4 (AC 7 The following explanations may help you to understand the terms found on most agen- das for meetings of the Hermosa Beach City Council. - Consent Items A compilation of all routine matters to be acted upon by one vote; approval re- quires a majority affirmative vote. Any Councilmember can remove an item from this listing thereby causing that matter to be considered under the category Consent Cal- endar items Removed For Separate Discussion. Public Hearings Public Hearings are held on certain matters as required by law. The Hearings afford the public the opportunity to appear and formally express their views regarding the matter being heard. Additionally, letters may be filed with the City- Clerk, prior to the Hearing. Hearings Hearings are held on other matters of public importance for which there is no legal requirement to conduct an advertised Public Hearing. Ordinances An ordinance is a law that regulates government revenues and/or public conduct. All ordinances require two "readings". The first reading introduces the ordinance into the records. At least one week later Council may adopt, reject or hold over the ordinance to a subsequent meeting. Regular ordinances take effect 30 days after the second reading. Emergency ordinances are governed by different provisions and waive the time requirements. Written Communications The public, members of advisory boards/commissions or organizations may formally communicate to or make a request of Council by letter; said letters should be filed with -the City Clerk by the Wednesday preceeding the Regular City Council meeting. Miscellaneous Items and Reports - City Manager The City Manager coordinates departmental reports and brings items to the attention of, or for action by the City Council. Verbal reports may be given by the City Manager regarding items not on the agenda, usually having arisen since the agenda was prepared on the preceding Wednesday. Miscellaneous Items and Reports - City Council Members of the City Council may place items on the agenda for consideration by the full Council. Other Matters - City Council These are matters that come to the attention of a Council member after publication of the Agenda. Oral Communications from the Public - Matters of an Urgency Nature Citizens wishing to address the City Council on an urgency matter not elsewhere con- sidered on the agenda may do so at this time. Parking Authority The Parking Authority is a financially separate entity, but is operated as an inte- gral part of the City government. Vehicle Parking District No, 1 The City Council also serves as the Vehicle Parking District Commission. It's pur- pose is to oversee the operation of certain downtown parking lots and otherwise pro- mote public parking in the central business district. ACTION SHEET 41,5 .-(A 7I LST ACTION SHEET "One of the best things people can have up their sleeves is a funny bone." -Richard L. Weaver II AGENDA REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 25, 1987 - Council Chambers, City Hall MAYOR John Cioffi MAYOR PRO TEM Etta Simpson COUNCILMEMBERS Tony DeBellis Jim Rosenberger June Williams Closed Session - 6:00 p.m. Regular Session - 7:30 p.m. - 1 - CITY CLERK Kathleen Midstokke CITY TREASURER Norma Goldbach CITY MANAGER Gregory T. Meyer 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: MAYOR CIOFFI ABSENT PROCLAMATIONS: Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Month, September, 1987 Union Label Week, September 7 - 12, 1987 RESOLUTION DECLARING SUPPORT OF EFFORTS OF THE UNITED STATES SOC- CER FEDERATION IN BRINGING THE 1994 WORLD CUP TO THE UNITED STATES. ANNOUNCEMENT FROM CLOSED SESSION TO SEND 2ND LETTER TO ATSFTO EXPRESS DESIRE TO PURCHASE R -O -W PRESENTATION OF PLAQUE AND. RESOLUTION TO GREG MEYER. SOB! CITIZEN COMMENTS Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any items on the Consent Calendar may do so at this time. 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 1 a member prior to the roll call vote. (Items removed will be considered under Agenda Item 3.) (a) Approval of Minutes: Regular meeting of the City Coun- cil held on August 11, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve minutes. APPROVED DEB ABSTAINED (b) Demands and Warrants: August 25, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve Demands and Warrants Nos. through inclusive (c) Tentative Future Agenda Items. Recommended Action: To receive and file. WI - HOW TO ENFORCE CUPS SHOULD BE ADDED TO FUTURE AGENDA. WILL 40- \`> B E DONE. i DEB - ASIED AGAIN ABOUT REPORT ON OIL DRILLING. GTM EXPLAINED MOTION R & F DEB/WI - OK 4-0 (d) City Manager Activity Report: Memorandum from City Man- ager Gregory T. Meyer dated Recommended Action: To receive and file. (e) Building and Safety Department Monthly. Activity Report: July, 1937. SI - INDICATION OF CUMULATIVE DWELLING UNITS. WOULD LIKE TO SEE WE HAVE NOT ONLY THIS FIGURE BUT THOSE PERMITS WHICH ARE IN PIPE- LINE. GTM SAID WE COULD ADD.. DWELLING UNITS WHICH ARE IN PLAN CHECK, MOTION DEB/JR R & F SO ORDERED. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (f) Community Resources De•artment Monthl Activit Resort: July, 19:7. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (g) Finance Department Monthly Activity Report: July, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (h) Fire Department Monthly Activity Report: July, 1987. JR - NOTED INCREASE IN TRAUMA CASES. .JR/DEB,R & F OK 4-0 Recommended Action: To receive and file. 2 (i) General Services De•artment Monthl Activit Resort: July, 1987. WI - _WANTED TO THANK DEPT. FOR ML MEDIA ARTICLE. R & F. SECOND DEB - SO ORDERED. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (j) Personnel Department Monthly Activity Report: July, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (k) Plannin��Department Monthly Activity Report: July, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (1) Police pepartment Monthly Activit Report: July, 1987. JR COMMEND DEPT. FOR EFFECTIVENESS WITHOUT MOTORCYCLES. .SECOND JR/DEB R & F . OK SO ORDERED (m) Recommended Action: To receive and file. Public Works Department Monthly Activity Report: July, 1987.r Recommended Action: To receive and file. (n) Monthly Revenue Report: July, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (o) Monthly Expenditure Report: July, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (p) City Treasurer's Report: July, 1987. Recommended_Action: To receive and file. (q) Cancellation of Warrants. Memorandum from City Treasurer Norma Goldbach dated August 17, 1987. Recommended Action: No. 23954. To approve cancellation of Warrant (r) Request for reserved parking spaces on llth Street for guest attending Hermosa Beach. 80th Birthday,kick-off event. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dated August 10, 1987. WI - THOUGHT IT WOULD BE BETTER TO USE LOTS AND VALIDATE TICKETS, NOON RESPONDED. MOTION DEB/.SI STAFF REC. OBJ - JR SUB. MOTION 3 JR SAYS BUY 4 OR 5 BOOKS OF VALS. AND INFORM GREENWALDS. OK 4-0 DEB WITHDREW ORIGINAL MOTION. MAKE IT 5BOOKS Recommended Action: To 1) approve request of Thelma Greenwald, Sea Sprite Motel, for reserved spaces, from 4:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., on September 9; and 2) direct Public Works Department to post the appropriate signs twenty-four hours in advance. (s) Recommended solution, recreational vehicles parkingon City streets. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dated July 2, 1987. `P V" -C\ WI SAID HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE IDEA BUT_HAD.QUESTIONS SUCH AS COST FOR PERMIT HOW TO ENFORCE.. NOON SAID,WHEN,STAFF COMES BACK WITH ORDINANCE WILL ADDRESS.THESE QUESTIONS. MOTION WI/DEB AP- PROVE STAFFRECONM. OK.4-0. Recommended Action: To direct staff to prepare or- dinance restricting parking of recreational vehicles on those city streets or alleyways with marked stalls, when width of street is 25' or less; and restricting the num- ber of days and hours an R.V. may park, without a spe- cial permit. (t) Call for Bids: Fixed Asset Inventory/Appraisal. Memo- randum from Finance Administrator Viki Copeland dated August 12, 1987. Recommended. Action: To authorize call for bids. (u) Ap lication for late claim: Hermosa Beach School Dis- trict - amended claim filed August 14, 1987. (v) (w) Recommended Action: To deny late claim. Crossing Guard Program Update. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated August 17, 1987. Recommended Action: To 1) approve the suggested Route to School Program; 2) relocate crossing guard from Gould/Morningside to Ardmore at 16th Street; 3) request Caltrans study the PCH/16th Street intersection, and that Caltrans consider removing PCH /9th St. uncont- rolled crosswalk; 4) relocate Hermosa View pedestrian signal to the 1700 block of Valley Drive; 5) request City Attorney legal analysis re. proposed ATSF walkways; 6) increase crossing guard budget appropriation by $31,372; 7) loan $22,622 from General Fund to Crossing Guard District Fund to be repaid by June 30, 1989. Beach Drive Improvements for 6th Street Storm Drain Project, Status., Report - CIP 86-302. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated August 12, 1987. JR QUESTIONED INCREASE IN COST...WHAT HAPPENED? ANTICH EXPLAINED. MOTIQN_JR STAFF REC, SECOND SI. OK SO ORDERED. Recommended.Action: To 1) retitle CIP 86-302 "6th St. Storm Drain Project" to CIP 87-302 "Beach Drive Improve- ments; 2) appropriate $182,192 to CIP 87-302 [i.e., $19,700 from State Gas Tax Fund fund balance, and $$162,492 from Sewer Fund fund balance]; 3) authorize completion of plans and specifications. (x) Approval of supplemental to the Administrative Employees Bargaining Unit MOU establishing the classification of Com•uter S stems Mana:er in that unit and establishin: asalary range for the classification. Memorandum from Personnel Administrator Robert Blackwood dated August 19, 1987. Recommended Action: To authorize the City Manager to execute the supplemental to the Administrative Em- ployees' Bargaining Unit. (y) Various electrical/mechanical capital improvements - Civic Center. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated August 11, 1987. WI - WOULD LIKE AIR CONDITIONING AT CITY HALL DELETED. MOTION JR T0 APPROVE,WITH,AMENDMENT TO EXPLORE INCLUSION OF FOYER AND IMPROVEMENT OF VISIBILITY,FROM,FOYER. ._SECOND SI. DEB.ASKED JR TO CHANGE FIGURE TQ ,000 TO INCLUDE IN STUDY THE FOYER REDESIGN, JR SAY UP TO $6,000. OK 3-1 WI -NO) Recommended Action: To 1) appropriate $3,000 from General Fund Designation for Capital Improvements to CIP 87-604 for the provision of designing for air condition- ing in the City Hall Council Chambers; 2) consider ap- propriation of construction dollars at the time of award of design contract; and 3) authorize staff to solicit the RFP. (z) Preliminar En:ineerin: Re ort - CIP 85-102 Hi bland Avenue Widening-.CIP 5-137, Gould/Valley/Ardmore inter- section.improvements. Memorandum from Public Works Di- rector Anthony Antich dated August 17, 1987. WI.MOTION CALL FQR.PUBLIC HEARING AND POSTPONE.UNTIL.THAT TIME. SECOND JR. COMMENT DEB - FEELS WE HAVE HAD MANY_P.H.,ON.THIS SI WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO /8 FOR FULL COUNCIL. SECOND _DEB. , 2-2 FAILS MOTION.TO MOVE,TO NEXT..ITEM DEB/SI, JR.WOULD LIKE SOME.ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC COUNT STUDIES. GTM .$AID PREFER 9/.22 MTG. AND HAVE _ENGINEER HERE, ..WOULD LIKE THEM TO MOVE AHEAD;_ON HIGHLAND. MOTION,.WI/,TO MOLD P.H. AT 9/22 MTG. SECQND_JR. NO DEB/SI. MOTION_.JR TQ APPROVE STAFF.REC, ON HIGHLAND AVENUE,WIDENING. AILS.FOR LACK OF SECOND. PL SAID .WITH LACK , OF ACTION COMES BACK . IN .SAME .FORM AS QN . THIS 5 AGENDA. DEB ,WOULD.LIKE MOTION FIGURE ON HOW.MUCH WOULD COST TO INDI- VIDUALLY ADVERTISE TO ALL PEOPLE AFFECTED.. ALSO DO TRAFFIC COUNT$, AND A. REPORT ON HOW,MANY ACCIDENTS HAVE HAPPENED IN LAST THREE YEARS OR SQ._, SECOND SI. 2-2, RESULT:,ALL ACTIONS FAILED. Recommended Action: To 1) accept the preliminary design report; 2) authorize completion of the plans and specifications using Figure 5 (Alternative No. 2) for Valley/Gould/Ardmore. (aa) Status Report on Noise Ordinance. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated August 14, 1987. (bb) Recommended Action: To 1) receive and file report, and 2) staff report to Council upon conclusion of study. uest.for .ro•osals CIP 87-606 First floor Police Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated August 18, 1987. Recommended Action: Authorize staff to solicit the Request for Proposal. (cc) Recommended.Consultant and. contracts for.the Commuter Transportation,Implementation Plan and..mutual agreement with neighborhood citie2. Memorandum from Planning Di- rector Michael Schubach dated August 17, 1987. Recommended. Action: To hire Ekistic Transportation Sys- tems and authorize Mayor to sign contract. ***************************************************************** Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any item listed under Consent Ordinances and Resolutions may do so at this time. ***************************************************************** 2. ORDINANCES AND RESQLUTIQNS (a) ORDINANCE NO. 87-898 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HER- MOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 19 "MOTOR VEHI- CLES AND TRAFFIC", REMOVING PARKING METERS AND ES- TABLISHING A FIFTEEN MINUTE PARKING ZONE AS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH (DOWNTOWN BUSINESS AREA, HERMOSA AVENUE AND PIER AVENUE). For waiver of further reading and adoption. MQTION DEB/JR - TO ADOPT ORP. .47Q 6 (b) ORDINANCE NO. 87-899 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HER- MOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADDING A SUBSECTION (5) TO SEC- TION 2-6.2 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE ES- TABLISHING AN EMPLOYEE SERVICE PIN AWARDS PROGRAM. For waiver of further reading and adoptin. MOTION„DEB/SI - TO .ADOPT ORD...OK ,4-0 ORDINANCE NO. 87-900 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HER- MOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, MANDATING THAT ALL FUNDS THE CITY DERIVES FROM HYDROCARBON RECOVERY GOES INTO THE PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES FUND NO MATTER WHERE THE WELLS ARE BOTTOMED. For waiver of further reading and adoption. MOTION JR/WI - TO ADOPT ORD. ,OK 4-0 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE.. CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. (a) Letter from William R. Simpson, 1820 Ardmore, Apt. 39A, Hermosa Beach, dated August 8, 1987 re. excessive rent increases. MOTION JR/WI TO R & F. OK 4-0 Recommended Action: City Council to make policy deter- mination of whether a Council sub -committee could be of advisory assistance to Peppertree tenants. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. 5. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A WALL TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT AT 906 PROSPECT AVENUE. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated August 17, 1987. PUBLIp HEARING „QPENED,AT 8:16 P.M. MOTION JR TO .DENY VARIANCE &,SUPPORT,P.C, .RESQ. ,_.SECOND. WI. OK SO.,ORDERED. DEB- SYMPATHIZED WITH APPLICANT.BUT NOTES DECREASE_IN.DECIBELS INDICATEDIS IMPERCEPTIBLE TO,HUMAN.EAR. 6. AN INTERIM ORDINANCE EXTENDING FOR 12 MONTHS EMERGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 87-861, ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMITS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF LOTS ON WHICH AT LEAST ONE OF THE CONTIGUOUS PARCELS HELD BY THE SAME OWNER DOES NOT CONFORM TO STANDARDS FOR MINIMUM LOT SIZE. (Requires 4/5 vote.) Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated August 13, 1987. JR HAS QUESTIONS -,CONCERNED ABOUT ,NUMEROUS PUBLIC,HEARINGS THAT WILL BE REQUIRED TQ RESOLVE. THIS ISSUE. .DO _YOU HAVE,ANY .IDEA .HOW LONG , TO.D0 THIS PRQCEDU RE . , , SCHUBACH .. SAID BEFORE , NEXT.. MONTH .WILL BE NOTIFYING PEOPLE THAT THEIR LOTS WILL BE CSNBINED UNL S$ P.H. REQUESTED. SHOULD HAVE ALL LOTS MERGED OR HAVE BEEN DECIDED NOT TO BE COMBINED DURING TIME.LINE OF EXTENSION. MOTION DEB/JR TO EXTEND ORDINANCE.. QK 4-0 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. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND..REpORTS.- CITY MANAGER (a) Refining of City Council goals. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated August 19, 1987. Recommended.Action: To 1) schedule a workshop meeting on January 27 or 28, 1988 for the purpose of revising the adopted City Council goals; and 2) direct department heads to prepare a formal statement, i.e., a Plan of Action, on the current High Priority goals for review at the Quarterly Budget Review, October 13, 1987. JR.QUESTIONED OCTOBER.DATE IN.REC, #2. DEB.SUGGESTED PUTTING WHOLE MATTER OFF_ UNTIL NEXT YEAR RESCHEDULE IN,._JANUARY TO. SET FOR SPRING. OK 4-0 8. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) Designation of Voting Delegate for League of California Cities Annual Conference - October 4 - 7, 1987 in San Francisco. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated August 19, 1987. Recommended.Action: Designate a Voting Delegate and a Voting Alternate who will be present at the Business Session at the League of California•Cities Annual Con- ference October 4 - 7, 1987 in San Francisco. MOTION BY WI TO APPOINT,JR DELEGATE AND WILLIAMS.ALTERNATE. SECOND By JR. SO ORDERED. 9. OTHER,MATTERS - . CITY COUNCIL JR .-,.NQNE DEB,- LONG AGO WAS A REQUEST_TQ MAKE,OPPOITE.SIRES OF STREETS AVAILABLE FOR,.PARKING ON STREET SWKEPING„DAX., WQULD,.LIKE .TQ SEE AN .ITEM SCUEDVLED AS_SQON;.AS..POSSIBLE .MAKE. AREA. TEMPORARILY DESIGNATED•PERMANENT AND,ADD OTHER AREAS MAYBE.QVERLQQKED,BEFQRE. - GOT COPY OF. RAILS TO RAIL CONSE'VANCY NEWSLET ER WITH A '. A H . 1. _WI BE ON NEXT CONSENT CALENDAR. SI - WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE COUNCIL TO PARTICIPATE IN 80TH BIRTHDAY PARADE. WI - RE. R -0-W. WOULD LIKE A REPORT.AT OPEN.SESSIQN.QN WHERE WE STAND ON ROW WOULD LIKE THIS PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION. 10. MEETING OF THE HERMOSA BEACH,VEHICLE PARKING DISTRICT COMMISSION. CONVENED AT;10:35 P.M. (a) CONSENT CALENDAR 1) Approval of minutes of August 11, 1987 meeting. (b) Discussion re. validation program. Memorandum from Parking Administrator Joan Noon dated July 20, 1987. (Continued from August 11, 1987 meeting.) VPD ADJOURNED AT 10:47 P.M. 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. MOTION.DEB/JR,TO GO TO ORAL COMMENTS.BEFORE VPD PARKER HERRIOTT 224 - 24THST. ,-.READ LETTER COMPLAINING.ABQUT CITY ATTY.. ALSO COMPLAINED ABOUT STREET LIGHT SHINING INAIS WINDOW. SI.WQULD.LIKE A REPLY_QN STREET LIGHT ADDRESSED TO HERRIOTT. CHUCK.SHELDON.-.ANNOUNCED GOING AWAY PARTY FOR.CITY.MANAGER_BY CHAMBER OF.COMMERCE THIS FRIDAY. LISSNER - WOULD.LIKE TO KNOW IF CHANCE TO,DO._SOMETHING ON,.1Z.TQ- NIGHT,. ANSWER: ,.NO., RAY .BILLIG 1600,ARDMQRE -,.HEARD .REFERENCE.TO.LAW SUIT RE, .COMMO- DORE . , CITY ATTY, .INVITED .HIM .TO, CALL HIS OFFICE. ROBERT.BENZ.RE, BENCH 30TH,&_STRAND, DEB WOULD,LIKE BENCH ON.NEXT AGENDA.. MAYOR,REQUESTED IT,BE MADE AN AGENDA ITEM. DEB/JR ADJOURN .C,,C,_MTG...TO. SPECIAL, 1TG. _ON 8/26, , ..QK 4-0 ADJOURNMENT 9 July 20, 1987 Honorable Chairman and Members Vehicle Parking District Meeting of July 28, 1987 of the Vehicle Parking District DISCUSSION REGARDING VALIDATION PROGRAM Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Vehicle Parking District Commissioners (1) hear an oral report from the Business Relations Sub -Committee regarding their meeting with the Downtown Merchants Association on July 15, 1987 and (2) discuss the validation program as it is now o eratin at 20 cents er validation stamp. /, N.; )2) '�'` 54. t. • :. ckgro!_ui SLAC,,..- ('7 w1- 4 4,"`_`r C 34 -1 -pg k0 lAt your regul rly sc e u e meeting of March 10, 1987, the Vehicle Parking District Commissioners took the following action; 1. For a three month period, commencing April 1 and ending June 30, for each purchase of a 40 ticket book of parking validations, merchants will receive one free book, to be provided by Alright Parking Company. 2. Commencing March 11 and continuing through June 30, the merchant will be charged $6 for the $8 validation book and Alright Parking will be entitled to a credit of $2.26 from the City for each $6 received from the merchant. 3. Permit all merchants, on the periphery of the District, from 10th Street on the south to 16th Street on the north and east to Manhattan Avenue to participate in the validation program, for the period of this experiment. In consideration of the above action, taken by the VPD Commissioners, the Downtown Merchants Association agreed to (1) distribute to its merchants a minimum of 50 store -window signs indicating that the merchants validate, and (2) agree to increase the number of merchants participating in the validation program by 25%. Analysis: Attached is a copy of the staff analysis re. the number of merchants participating in the validation program during the ` demonstration program. This analysis indicates that there was not a 257 increase in merchant participation, an additional 10 merchants were needed to meet the goal. This figure was not acheived. t'V( e'VP SA , 6c/1)1 @ (cx -n-g--1 The costs to the City for the demonstration program was (1) $514.12 for the printing of 2 for 1 validations and (2) $3,954.00 for the $2.00 per book subsidy. We have calculated the average validation -book sales, per month, to be approximately 651 books. This figure is based on the sales over the past eleven months. If the City continued to subsidize the validation program whereby the merchants continue to pay 15 cents per stamp or $6.00 per book and the City pay the other 5 cents or $2.00 per book, our costs would be $1,302 per month. If the City wished to subsidize the validation program whereby the merchants would pay 10 cents per stamp or $4.00 per book and the city pay the other 10 cents per stamp or $4.00 per book, our costs would be $2,604 per month. Currently the validation books cost $8.00, 20 cents per stamp. In March of 1988, the validation stamps are scheduled (per contract) to be raised to 25 cents per stamp or $10.00 per book. There is also a sceduled raise of 5 cents per stamp in March of 1989 and March of 1990. The contract expires in May of 1991. C.o.? Noon arkin¢ Administrator n Noon arking Administrator Noted: yerGr goror T, a er Ci y Manager 2 Noted as to Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH INTER -OFFICE MEMO TO: Joan Noon, Director DATE: July 14, 1987 General Services Dept. SUBJECT: Validation Program FROM: Michele D. Tercero, Administrative Aide *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*_*_*_*_*-*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_* *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_* Reflective of City Council Action at their reguarly scheduled meeting of March 10, 1987, the following statistics are for your information, with regard to purchase of merchant validations: (see item 8b, attached, Recommendation ¥2, and Analysis, para- graph 2) February: 48 merchants purchased 787 validations. March: 24 merchants purchased 514 validations. (includes one new merchant purchasing validations) April: 41 merchants purchased 554 validations. (554 books were also given away per the 2 for 1 offer, see attached agenda item) Total number of books issued, 1108. May: 36 merchants purchased 614 validations. (614 books were also given away per the 2 for 1 offer) Total number of books issued, 1228. June: 42 merchants purchased 809 validations. (809 books were also given away per the 2 for 1 offer) Total number of books issued, 1618. Includes 36 former purchasers who did not purchase this month, and 6 new purchasers. A comparison of the months of February and March represents a 50% drop in the number of merchants participating in the validation program, and a 35% drop in the number of validations purchased. A comparison of the months of March and April, represents a 59% increase in the number of merchants participating, and an 8% in- crease in the number of validations purchased. A comparison of the months of February and April, represents an 15% decrease in the number of merchants participating, and a 42% drop in the number of validations purchased. rfq A comparison of the months of April and May, represents a 37% decrease in the number of merchants participating, and a 10.23% increase in the number of validations purchased. A comparison of the months of May and February, represdnts a 257 - drop in the number of merchants participating, and a 17% drop in the number of validations purchased. A comparison of the months of APril, May and June, represents an average of 39.67 merchants participating in the program, and an average of 659 validation books purchased. Statistics over the past year, show an average of 40 merchants regularly participating in the program. A 257 increase, would mean an additional 10 merchants were needed to participate in the program. This figure has not been achieved. August 12, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council August 25, 1987 FIXED ASSET APRAISAL APPROVAL OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached Request for Proposal for appraisal of the City's fixed assets. BACKGROUND Fixed assets are those assets such as property, plant (buildings) and equipment which are tangible in nature. For purposes of the fixed asset inventory, criteria is usually established to further define "asset" or the items to be included. The current working definition for Hermosa Beach is that the item be over $200 in value and have a useful life of greater than one year. Portable items such as calculators and cameras may fall below the dollar limit but can be included for control purposes. The City has never had a formal appraisal of its fixed assets, however it is desirable from the standpoint of fiscal compliance, control and information. The City Council has approved, as part of the 1987-88 Budget, funds for both the appraisal and fixed asset software (to be provided by Infocomp Systems, Inc.) ANALYSIS Infrastructure assets (such as highways, sidewalks, lighting systems) are not to be included. These assets are immovable and generally considered to be of value only to the government. Both GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) and GAAFR (Governmental Accounting, Auditing and Financial Reporting) allow recording of infrastructure fixed assets to be optional. Recording of general fixed assets, on the other hand, must be included in the city's financial statement or the auditors have to qualify their opinion to so state. The city has always received a qualified opinion. 1 Benefits to be derived from the fixed asset appraisal: - Removal of Qualified Opinion on Financial Statement Removal of the qualified opinion may, in turn, enhance the City's credit rating thereby lowering interest on debt issues. The City may also submit a comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) to professional organizations such as the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers and Government Finance Officers of America for consideration in their award or certificate of excellence programs. The report would not be considered with a qualified opinion. (It is anticipated that the 1987-88 financial statements would have an unqualified opinion). - Control/Protection of Assets - Provides Information for Asset Repair/Maintenance - Provides Information for Insurance Purposes, Coverage Levels, Replacement Values for Claims - Enhances Vehicle Replacement Decision -Making Ability - Identification of Idle Assets for Sale or Transfer Between Departments The tentative schedule of work is attached. After vendor selection, the schedule will be finalized. Concur: O Greg ry a er City Manage Viki Copeland Finance Administrator DATES 8/25/87 9/8/87 9/18/87 10/13/87 10/13/87- 1/31/88 2/88 FIXED ASSETS APPRAISAL TENTATIVE SCHEDULE TASKS City Council approves RFP Deadline for publication of public notice Deadline for submission of bids for opening Recommendation to City Council and award of bid Appraisal in process Issuance of Appraisal Report CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FIXED ASSET APPRAISAL REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL BACKGROUND The population for the City of Hermosa Beach is 19,383 as of January 1, 1987. The City's governmental structure is the Council -Manager form with departments as shown on the attached organization chart. (Exhibit 1) Assets include land, buildings, parking lots, a municipal pier and a variety of vehicles and equipment (infrastructure such as flood control and sewers are to be excluded). Several funding sources have been used including General Revenue Sharing funds. The City's accounting system is fully computerized on Hewlett Packard hardware. The general ledger is organized by fund. Currently, funds include a general fund with twelve special revenue funds and proprietary funds which are an internal service fund and two enterprise funds. Account structure is fourteen digits for fund, class, department/division and object. OBJECTIVES The City of Hermosa Beach is soliciting bids for a detailed property appraisal to include a physical inventory and valuation of selected fixed assets owned by the City. This appraisal will provide the City with workable property control and factual data in satisfying the following objectives associated with fixed asset accounting: 1. To assist in the formulation of acquisition and retirement policies through accumulation of data regarding values and useful life and designation of other funds used as sources to acquire, ie, federal grants and entitlements. 2. To provide record support for reimbursement of depreciation under grants and intergovernmental service programs 3. To provide data for financial reporting that conforms to GAAP principles 4. To account for depreciation in proprietary funds 5. To provide information for insurance purposes To accomplish the above objectives the City wishes to engage a qualified firm to assist in developing cost andother data for input into its computerized fixed asset system to be provided by Infocomp Systems, Inc. DEFINITIONS City assets of a tangible nature having a useful life extending beyond the current year and having a significant value will be entered into the fixed asset system according to the following criteria: 1. Land - includes all land parcels acquired for building sites, recreation, etc. 2. Building - includes all buildings (or structures which serve as buildings). Permanently attached fixtures installed during construction will be considered a part of the building. The subsequent addition of equipment will be recorded as Machinery and Equipment. Major improvements such as additions to buildings will be capitalized. 3. Improvements Other Than Buildings - includes improvements such as park facilities and parking lots. 4. Machinery and Equipment a. Machinery and Mobile Equipment - includes all motor vehicles, trailers, construction and maintenance equipment where the unit cost exceeds a specified amount or the equivalent of that amount for older assets. b. Office Equipment and Fixtures - includes all office equipment where cost exceeds a specified amount or the equivalent of that amount for older assets; examples are calculators, dictation machines, desks, file cabinets and radio/communication equipment. The following costs associated with the acquisition of fixed assets are to be capitalized: 1. Purchase cost before trade-in allowance and less discounts or use of techniques to estimate historical cost; before trade-in allowance and less discounts; or a qualified appraisal of value at the time of acquisition if the asset is contributed. 2. Professional fees of attorneys, architects, engineers, appraisers, surveyors, and the like when appropriate. 3. Site preparation costs such as clearing, levelling, filling and demolition of unwanted structures. 4. Fixtures attached to a building or other structure. 5. Transportation and installation charges. 2 6. Any other expenditure required to put the asset into,its intended state of use. 7. Capitalized interest as required under GAAP. In accordance with AICPA Industry Audit Guide, the City will not capitalize infrastructure assets. PROJECT SCOPE A. Consultant will be responsible for affixing numbered tags on items within the Machinery and Equipment category. Costof the tags, if separate, should be included in the proposal. B. Consultant will furnish the following reports: 1. A comprehensive appraisal and property record report in the form of a bound volume with numbered pages, to include the following: a. Table of contents for access to any desired location or building data. Location maps will be provided by the city for orientation and reference. b. Appropriate explanations, techniques, certification and other preface material. c. Total city recapitulation of historical cost and of values of buildings and the contents within each. d. An individual location/department summary. Values to be included are new replacement cost, new replacement insurable cost, depreciated value and depreciated insurable value. 2. A system design manual C. Consultant will interface with the city's designated coordinator and our independent auditors, Grant Thornton, to assure acceptance of final work product. This will include planning, execution and finalization of project. Records and information used by consultant will be available for review and examination by Grant Thornton as deemed necessary. Consultant will provide information such that city personnel can determine the estimated useful life and methods of depreciation including salvage value. D. Consultant will calculate depreciation, life years and salvage values for the enterprise funds. E. Consultant will train City personnel in the procedure to report property transactions (additions, sales, transfers and abandonments) for future updating. Consultant to provide or design form for use in property transactions. 3 F. Consultant will inventory and appraise assets acquired or being acquired through lease purchases at cost or on the basis required by GAAP. Donated fixed assets shall be recorded at their estimated fair value. G. Consultant will measure, calculate and record floor areas of buildings. Building descriptions should also include types of construction materials and appurtenances. The proposal should contain the following: 1. A description of the overall approach intended to be used to complete this project. 2. A project schedule by activity or phase. The tentative plan is to have the work performed between October and January. 3. Information on how your firm's qualifications and experience relate to the desired services. 4. Information on the qualifications and experience of each individual that you anticipate will be involved with this project, role that person will play in the overall project, and the office from which that person is based. 5. A list of three previous government clients for similar projects which your firm has completed, along with names and telephone numbers of contact persons. 6. The names, qualifications and justification for any subcontractors you intend to utilize in this project. 7. Functions to be performed and information to be provided by the City. 8. The estimated time and the maximum cost for each activity or phase identified in item number 2 above. Elements of cost should include: A. Number of completed copies of the basic appraisal report (as outlined in PROJECT SCOPE) to be furnished. B. Cost of extra copies over and above basic issue. C. Cost of any optional reports available. D. Cost of any optional consulting assistance. 4 SELECTION CRITERIA Selection criteria will be based primarily on the following: 1. Experience and qualifications in preparing and completing this type of project. 2. Experience of those individuals proposed for the consultant's project team. 3. The approach intended to be used to complete this project. 4. Ability to meet work schedules. 5. Maximum cost. 5 BID INSTRUCTIONS Each bid shall be submitted in a sealed envelope: ADDRESSED: City Clerk City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive, Room 201 Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254 PLAINLY MARK ENVELOPE: Sealed Bid: (in lower left hand corner) Fixed Assets Appraisal Opening Date & Time: September 18, 1987 DATED THIS DAY OF 1987 NAME OF COMPANY/BIDDER SUBMITTED BY BUSINESS ADDRESS CITY, STATE, & ZIP CODE TELEPHONE NUMBER All questions relating to the extent of the project should be directed to Viki Copeland, Finance Administrator, (213) 376-6984. Upon completion of the selection procedure, it is anticipated that a contract will be entered into within approximately thirty(30) days of receipt of proposals. The City makes no committment that award will be made to anyone and reserves the right to terminate the project at any time. Proposals must be on file in the City Clerk's office on or before September 18, 1987. No late proposals will be accepted. Late proposals if received will be returned unopened. 6 August 17, 1987 HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of Regular Meeting of the HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL August 25, 1987 CROSSING GUARD PROGRAM UPDATE Recommendation It is recommended that City Council: 1. Approve in concept the "Suggested Route to School Program" to include the following: - a. Approval of the preparation of plans and the implementation of the Suggested Route to School Plan shown in Figure 1 subject to review and modification as necessary by the School District and Police Department. - b. Preparation of the appropriate resolution for City Council approval to adopt the guidelines in the Caltrans Traffic Manual with respect to pedestrian safety guidelines including the sections on adult crossing guards and flashing beacons for school areas. - c. Relocation of the adult crossing guard at Gould/Morningside to the intersection of Ardmore Avenue/16th Street. - d. Requesting that Caltrans study the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway/16th Street in view of the need for a crossing guard and for the relocation of the present south side crosswalk to the north side. As an interim measure for the protection of Hermosa Beach children provide and interim adult crossing guard at Pacific Coast Highway/16th Street. - e. Requesting that Caltrans consider removing the existing uncontrolled crosswalk across Pacific Coast Highway at 9th Street. -f. Preparation of the necessary plans to modify the pedestrian traffic signal located on Prospect Avenue and relocate it to the 1700 block of Valley Drive at the crosswalk. Until the modification can be completed, retain the adult crossing guard and the existing flashing beacons on Valley Drive. - g. Referring to the City Attorney the subject of the proposed improvement of the walkways across the AT&SF railroad area J� �5P to Valley Drive at 16th Street and Valley Drive at 21st Street. — Increase the budget appropriation for the Crossing Guards by $31,372 and include this amount on next years's assessment. 3. Approve the loan of $22,622 from the general fund fund balance to the Crossing Guard District to cover the short fall; this loan to be repaid by June 30, 1989 or earlier as Crossing Guard District funds become available. Background In an effort to increase pedestrian safety and address the concerns of the School District's letter presented to City Council on July 28, 1987, the following report has been prepared. Analysis The analysis in this memorandum will consider funding of the recommendations. ESTIMATED COST POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES WORK ITEM SUBTOTAL TOTAL CROSSING GUARD Additional Crossing Guard at 16th & PCH 1. Until Caltrans completes X -walk study estimated to take 3-5 mnths to complete one additional guard is needed $7.00 0 hr X 4 hrs a day X 90 school days= 2520 DESIGN Preparation of bid package for: A. Traffic Signal Relocation from Prospect to 1700 Block of Valley Drive 2000 B. "Citywide" Signing & Crosswalk Markings 2000 CONSTRUCTION Installation of the following: A. Traffic Signal Relocation from Prospect to 1700 Block of Valley Drive 10000 B. "Citywide" Signing & Crosswalk Markings 10000 $2,520 $4,000 $20,000 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING $2,000 c. Project administration & inspection 2000 Subtotal $28,520 10% Contingency $2,852 TOTAL $31,372 CROSSING GUARD FUND # 155 2520 4000 20000 2000 28520- 2852 8520- 2852 31372 AFFECT ON THE FUND BALANCES AMOUNT BUDGETED 6/23/87 61086 ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE 6/30/88 8750 ADDITIONAL APPROPIATJON REQUIRED 31372 BALANCE -22622 LOAN FROM GENERAL FUND FUND BALANCE 22622 . REVISED FUND BALANCE 0 APPROPIATION SUMMARY 6/23/87 61086 8/25/87 (1) 31372 TOTAL 92458 (1) City Council Action Required Traffic Engineering file: A\XINGGRDS.WK1 AFFECT ON ASSESSMENT The Crossing Guard Maintenance Assessment District was voted on at the Special Municipal Election of November 8, 1983. The measure was an advisory vote, which is not binding and the measure passed by a 2-1 margin. The Government Code beginning at Section 55530 provides authority for this assessment. Funds to operate and maintain the Crossing Guards District are provided via an annual assessment. The annual assessment for FY87-88 is $73,495. Section 55562 provides for advancement of funds when there is an anticipated deficiency in the funds. THREE YEAR CROSSING GUARD ASSESSMENT Below is a three year tabulation of assessments. 3 YEARS ASSESSMENT FUND BALANCE FY AMOUNT 85-86 $58,000 (-) $10,098* 86-87 $73,495 (-) $ 9,123** 87-88 $73,495 $ 8,750** *Actual **Estimated Alternatives Other alternatives considered by staff and available to City Council are: 1. Pursue general funding of the proposed work. 2. Consider funding this proposal at the quarterly budget review. Res •= tfully subm Ant •ny Antich Director of P NOT D FOR FISCAL IMPACT: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator CONCUR: Gre, ory T. Meyer, CitManager JoNoon General Services Director Attachment: 1. Government Code Section 55562 2. Project Schedule 3. Report from Ed Ruzak & Associates, Inc. 3 ltle 5 ssess- same :cs -of ni 55 wnt ooun- used .tract body •leg- sub- -ove- ,the spe- out pter of a eral tsed spe- ody for suf- the of red dis- ns- Div. 2 CROSSING GUARD M'NTCE DISTRICTS § 55564 Schools X105. Library References C.J.S. Schools and School Districts § § 55562. Special assessments; deficiency; advancement of funds If for any reason there shall be a deficiency in the funds derived 'from the annual special assessments levied for the district, the legis- lative body may meet the deficiency by an appropriation out of the general fund or may advance such sums, to be repaid out of the pro- ceeds of the annual special assessment for the next or ensuing years, as deemed appropriate by the legislative body. • (Added by Stats.1974, c. 317, p. 633, § 1, eff. May 31, 1974.) Unexpended funds; credit for ensuing year Any unexpended balance remaining in the special fund for the district after the payment of the costs and expenses for which the as- sessment was levied shall be credited to the fund to be raised for the next ensuing period of maintenance for the district. (Added by Stats.1974, c. 317, p. 633, § 1, eff. May 31, 1974.) § 55564. Inapplicability of provisions of Rev. & T.C. § 2263.2 The provisions of Section 2263.2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code shall not apply to any ad valorem special assessment levied pur- suant to this chapter. (Added by Stats.1974, c. 317, p. 633, § 1, eff. May 31, 1974.) Article 4 ANNEXATIONS, DETACHMENTS, AND DISSOLUTION Sec. 55565. Reviewal of boundaries; resolution to annex or detach territory. 55566. Hearing; notice. 55567. Notice of hearing; publication. 55568. Hearing; determinations. 55569. Detachment of territory; procedure. 55570. Automatic dissolution of district; time. Article 4 was added by Stats.1974, c. 317, p. 633, § 1, eff. May 31,1974. Schools «31 et seq. Library References C.J.S. Schools and School Districts § 27. 657 PROJECT SCHEDULE PROJECT NAME : Hermosa Beach Crossing Guard District LEGEND TENTATIVE SCHEDULE : EN m EN EN mi ACCOUNT NUMBER : 155-401-2102- ACTUAL SCHEDULE X : 100% COMPLETE 1 { I I I 1 1988 198 1 I I 1 TASKS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 1 I 1 I I I I I 1111111111111111X Recommendation 1. a. I I I I I 1 I t Recommendation 1. b. Recommendation 1. c. Recommendation 1. d. Recommendation 1. e. Recommendation 1. f. Recommendation 1. g. 1II„IIII1IIIIIIII1IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII11I11II1II111X 111111111111111 11111111111111111111 { I I I 11111111111111111111111111111111111111 1 1 1 uuuiuu111111111111111111111111111111111 I II I 1 11111111111111111E X I I I I 111111111111111111 X I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I-- --I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 ZAI:Ci&= ASSOCIATES; ..INC':::: Introduction SUGGESTED ROUTE TO SCHOOL FLAN AUGUST 1987 The need to provide safe walking routes for school age children is the responsibility of school and City officials, the general public,and the students themselves. The guidelines and policies used to promote school area safety must be developed in order for the plan to function properly. This program identifies and suggests school walking routes that a child may follow to and from school. It involves identifying the corridors that have positive controls, i.e. stop signs, signals,crossing guards, etc. that can be used by children in their walking patterns. It identifies areas that do not yet provide optimal assistance to the school children and pro— vides recommendations for implementation treatments to eliminate these potentially unsafe situations. Program Development The program includes: . Review of accident history statistics for 1985, 19'86 and 1987 (to August) relative to. pedestrian anci bicycle occurrences, citywide. . Inventory and analysis of existing traffic control devices for the purpose of determining where improvements for the protection of walking school children are needed. Input from School District, City Engineering and Police Department personnel- for the purpose of determining problem areas and locations where additional devices may be needed. . A field review of roadway conditions and traffic operations. Development of guidelines for installation of marked crosswalks, pavement markings, and advance signing for pedestrian crossings. ▪ Development of recommendations for signing, crosswalks, pave— ment markings,and adult crossing guards such that an reliable "Suggested Route to School Program " can be implemented. Existing Conditions The City of Hermosa Beach presently has only one public elementary school in operation. It is the Hermosa Valley School. It is located adjacent to Valley Drive north of Fier Avenue. Two previously utilized schools, North Elementary and Hermosa View Elementary are now a day care center and an adult education school, respectively. They da not have children walking to and from their facilities. 10061 TALBERT AVENUE SUITE200 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CALIFORNIA 92708 (714) 964.4880 There are two other non-public schools operating in the City that were also considered in the program. These are the 13i -Lingual school , located on Valley Drive north of Second Street, and Our Lady of Guadalupe parochial school., located adjacent to Massey Avenue north of Prospect Avenue. Analysis Children going to Hermosa Valley School can came from anywhere in the City. Likewise the other two schools have the same drawing area. The suggested route to school program utilized a citywide street map for its graphic display. A field inventory to obtain existing STOP signs, painted crosswalks, school area related signing, traffic signal locations and crossing guard locations were developed in early 1987. Suggested walking routes were initially selected an the basis of the most direct path to and from the school sites. Figure 1 shows the typical and in most cases the most direct route to the schools. The routes were structured so that these corridors would taF::e children through either what is referred to as a high compliance intersection or that would channel them through areas where crossing guards were stationed. The term "high compliance intersection" refers to an intersection where existing traffic control devices such as STOP signs or traffic signals are present. These locations provide a greater degree, of protection to the walking child than at an uncontrolled situation. Figure 1 also shows the suggested route to school program. It incor- porates the use of signing, signalizatian, pavement markings and crossing guards to provide school children with a choice of route from their home to the school. Table 1 describes the changes and additions to the existing devices in order to accomplish the program. Accident Review A review of the magnitude and location of 1.985, 1986 and 1987 (to July) pedestrian and bicycle accidents revealed a random occurrence throughout the City. The only concentration evident was at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and 9th Street. Three pedestrian and one bicycle accident occurred there during 1985. In terms of pedestrian accidents, there were 17 in 1985,9 in 1986 and 3 in 1987 up to August. For the same years, there were 18 bicycle accidents in 1935,23in 1986 and 12 in 1987 up to August. The majority of .the acidents involve invasion of either the bicyclists right of way by a motor vehicle or vice versa. Approximately one half of the pedestrian accidents involve violations by the pedestrians, i.e. jaywalking, drinking, lack of attention. Bicycle accidents were most prominent an those streets west of PCH in the beach area such as Hermosa Avenue. -2- In the case of PCH/9th Street, there is a ma.rked,uncontrolled crosswalk across the south side of PCH. Ninth Street is located close to the veru high traffic volume carrying intersection of F'CH/Aviation and the signalized PCH/8th street. Vehicles may not anticipate crossings at this. non -signalized location after they leave the respective signals to the north and, south. It is recommended that the crosswalk be removed and chain barriers be installed together with signing recommending a crossing at 8th Street or Aviation in lieu of 9th street. General Considerations Several issues relative to placement of devices need to be determined prior to implementation of the suggested route to school program. Caltrans Manual provides guidelines for installation of devices and is the accepted standard of practice for school pedestrian safety. There are, however, areas within these guidelines that allow engineering judgment in the implementation of devices. The first consideration would be whether to mark crosswalks at all. There have been several studies in the Southern California region that have pointed out in general that the painted uncontrolled crosswalk may provide a false sense of security for the pedestrian. This has prompted adoption at a no crosswalk painting in many cif these agency's. In Hermosa Dear -h, the mixture of beach oriented patrons with the need for school crossings precludes a policy of not marking crosswalks. Without sc'me form of channeliz ation and formal control at key locations there would be wanton and random crossings mi.dbiock. This could lead to potential accidents for --.all users. However, when an uncontrolled crosswalk is installed there should be advance signing, crosswalk _sinning, advance pavement markings and a high visibility crosswalk, i.e. crass hatching or "zebra type". If there are unusual geometrics to the approaching crossing then the consideration of flashing beacons and/or additional pavement markings may be needed. This would be determined on the basis of an engineering study by the City Traffic Engineer. It is not believed that there is a need for a limit line in front of a crosswalk at e controlled intersection. Observations in Southern California indicate that drivers at controlled approaches stop where it is convenient to see the cross traffic. If required to stop -approximately four feet behind a crosswalk in this City they will Most surely be placed in a position where they would have to move beyond the crosswalk to see a clear line of vision. The drivers in this area have learned to use the -back of crosswalk line as the .limit line. It is recommended that this be a policy for all future repainting of crosswalks and new installations. The closure of several schools allows the City in its new plan to delete crosswalks and remove stop controls that are no longer- needed. There will also be additional stop control installations and marked crosswalks along the new walking routes to reflect the new patterns. One such relocation involves the existing pedestrian traffic signal on Prospect Avenue. The District Superintendent of the Hermosa Beach City City schools agrees with this and has formally corresponded to the City Manager on this issue as of June 29, 1987. There is a need to modify this pedestrian signal in order to meet the current recognized traffic engineering standards for pedestrian signals It can then be relocated to the crossway:: at the 1700 black of Valley Drive. The modification may not be ready for the opening of the upcoming school year. However, the present flashing beacon, signing, marking and crossing guard at the Valley Drive crosswalk should remain. It is estimate that the modification to the pedestrian signal can be accomplished for approximately $ 8000 to $ 10,000. There are two major walkways across the ATa:SF railroad area that need to be improved for pedestrian access. The crossing at 21st street to Valley Drive needs to be improved as well as the zig-zag crossing at 16th Street do6•Jn to the 1700 block of Valley drive. The hand railing, path and entry way at the street may need to be improved so that children are encouraged to use the facility. Presently children are observed to climb dawn the bank adjacent to the walkways rather than using the walkways. It is recommended that low, durable plantings be provided adjacent to the walkways for a distance sufficient to discourage pedestrians from climbing down the hill. The planting would have to be durable enough to prevent children from walking through it and destroying it. It would also have to be low enough to eliminate any -possibility of children being hidden from view. Adult Crossing Guards Adult Crossing guards are assigned at designated locations during the school hours to assist elementary school children in their walk to school. It is the practice of many jurisdictions to provide school crossing guards at certain Locations when warranted. The Police Department usually administers the adult crossing guard program. An adult crossing guard is a supplemental technique to assist pedestrians and shall not be considered as a traffic control device.This is clearly stated in the California Vehicle Code section 2815. Caltrans School Area Pedestrian Safety section of the Traffic Manual suggests a policy for.- assignment of adult crossing guards in section 10-08 . The policy for their assignment applies only to crossings serving elementary school pedestrians on the "Suggested Route to School". It is attached to this report. Utilizing these criteria with realization that the City of Hermosa Beach has had a change in pedestrian school walking patterns due to the closure of several schools, has led to the authorization of the following adult crossing guard locations as of August, 1987. 1. Gould Avenue: Morningside Drive 2. Gould Avenue 8: Valley Drive 3. Pier Avenue & Monterey Blvd. 4. F'ier Avenue & Valley Drive 5. Pier- Avenue ° pacific Coast Highway 6. 21 St. Street ? Pacific Coast Highway 7. Sth Street & Pacific Coast Highway 8. 1700 Block Val ley Drive (Crosswalk at Hermosa Valley School) There is a question as to the need for an adult crossing guard at the first location on the list. With the closure of the North school, this guard would better be utilized at an uncontrolled crossing closer to the Hermosa Valley School. It is recommended that the present guard at Gould/Morningside be relocated to the proposed uncontrolled crossing across the north side of Ardmore Avenue at 16th street. In addition there is an uncontrolled marked crosswalk across the south side of Pacific Coast Highway at 16th Street. Caltrans studies indicate this crosswalk is warranted. With the development of new commercial activities along 16th Street, (Hermosa pavilion) ,there will be increased northbound left turns into 16th street. Thus, the crosswalk would be better p laced on the north side of 16th street. The City plans to ask Caltrans to re -study this location and to also assess the need for an adult crossing guard. It is recommended that an adult guard at this location be considered as an interim --safety measure to direct children to the controlled crossing at F'ieriPCH until the Caltrans study findings are released. Conclusion The suggested route to school program may not be the shortest route to the school since there are many options for the walker. It is the route however, that minimizes the exposure to vehicular traffic and uncontrolled situations. The school children in their instructions from teachers and parents should be encouraged to walk somewhat longer distances in order to avoid locations that may be considered a greater- risk:. It is important that the school and school children are made aware of and use the suggested route to school criteria. It is also recommended that the City approve the concept of the Suggested Route to School Program and the implementation of the concept plan. -5- Recommendations Based on the above discussion and analyses the following are recommended: 1. Approve the concept of the "Suggested Route to School Program" 2. Approve the Implementation of the Suggested Route to School Flan shown in Figure 1 subject to review and modification as necessary by the School District and Police Department. 3. Adopt the guidelines in the Caltrans Traffic Manual with respect to Pedestrian Safety guidelines including the sections an adult crossing guards and flashing beacons for school areas. 4. Relocate the adult crossing guard at Gould/ Morningside to the intersection of Ardmore Drive/16th Street 5. Request that Caltrans study the intersection of PCH/16th Street in view of the need for a crossing guard and for the relocation of the present south side crosswalk to the north side. As an interim measure for the protection of Hermosa Beach children provide an interim adult crossing guard at F'CH/16 Street. 6. Request that Caltrans consider removing the existing uncontrolled crosswalk across PCH at 9th Street. 7. Modify the -pedestrian traffic signal located on Prospect Avenue and relocate it tooth=� 1700 Block of Val ley Drive., �t the crosswalk. and the modiT ication can Be completed, retain the adui'E crossing guard and the existing flashing beacons on Valley Drive. 8. Implement the improvement of the walkways across the AT& SF railroad area to the street at Valley drive and 16th street and Valley drive at 21st street Include law, durable landscaping adjacent to the walkways to ensure they are used by children in lieu of climbing dawn the embankments. ejr/encl. TABLE 1 SUGGESTED ROUTE TO SCHOOL PROGRAM SIGNS AND MARKING NEEDS LOCATION DEVICE RECOMMENDATION Across MANHATTAN SO.of 33RD ST. XWAI_I:--EXISTING REMOVE LONGFELLOW W. of MORNINGSIDE MORNINOSIDE S. of LONGFELLOW 28TH ST E. of MORNINGSIDE 29TH ST. E. of 30TH ST. E. of 31ST ST. E. of 28TH Sl". E of 29TH ST. E of 26TH ST. E. of MANHATTAN HIGHLAND N. of LONGFELLOW CROSSHATCH HERMOSA S. of 25TH ST. HERMOSA S. of LONGFELLOW On HERMOSA facing S8 SO. of 35TH ST. W54A W71(NEXT 2 11I) INSTALL ON RT IN MEDIAN On 28TH CT. E. u: W. of MANHATTAN STOP SIGN (R-1) INSTALL " 28TH CT. " " " MORNINGSIDE 29TH CT. " " MANHATTAN 29TH CT. MORNINGSIDE 30TH PL. MANHATTAN 30TH PL. " MORNINGSIDE 31ST PL. " MANHATTAN 31ST PL. MORNINGSIDE 32ND PL. MANHATTAN " 32ND PL. MORNINGSIDE " 33RD PL. " -- MANHATTAN " 34TH F'L. " MANHATTAN " 35TH PL. MANHATTAN Across MYRTLE N of 25TH ST. XWALI( EXISTING REMOVE MYRTLE S of 25TH ST. SILVERSTRND S.of 225th st. 25th ST. E.of MYRTLE II II 25TH ST. E.of SILVERSTRAND MANHATTAN N.of 22ND ST. 22ND ST. W.of MANHATTAN 22ND ST. E.of MANHATTAN 1. HERMOSA N.of 24TH ST. XWALI:HEXISTING CROSSHATCH On HERMOSA facing NB & SB at 24TH ST. W54/W79/W80 SIGNS; PED XING PAVEMENT MARKINGS INSTALL On HERMOSA facing NB U: 8B at 25TH ST. LJ54 S I CANS e PED XING PAVEMENT MARK I NGS INSTALL On OZONE CT. N. & S. of 25TH ST. STOP SIGN (R-1) INSTALL On PALM DR. S. of 24TH ST. " „ On LOMA DR. W. of MANHATTAN On 21ST CT. 20TH CT. 19TH CT. 18TH CT. 17TH CT. PALM DR. PALM DR. BAYVIF_W DR. [1 W of HERMOSA L=J W W S 22ND ST S 19TH ST. N : S of 19T1 -'J Across 19TH ST. E.of MONTEREY MANHATTAN S of 19TH ST. HERMOSA S of 19TH ST. On HERMOSA NF: S of 19TH ST. On VALLEY PARE; S of 20TH ST. Across 18TH ST. E of PARK 18TH ST W of VALLEY E 21ST ST W " 20TH ST W " VALLEY S " 20TH ST ARDMORE N " 20TH ST. 20TH ST E " ARDMORE On SPRINGFIELD S of 20TH ST. " AVA S of 20TH ST. " ARDMORE Ne: S of 20TH ST. VALLEY N S of 21ST ST. ARDMORE N of 24TH ST. ARDMORE 250'S of 20TH ST. 21ST ST L•J of POWER 16TH CT. W of HERMOSA 15TH CT. W 14TH CT. W 13TH CT. W Across Nu: BAYVIEW PALM MONTEREYN&: 16TH ST 16TH ST 16TH ST LOMA S S S W W W N of of c'f of of of of On LOMA N& S of 16TH ST ST. MANHATTAN 16TH ST 16TH ST MANHATTAN MONTEREY LOMA 16TH ST On LOMA 25O' N&S of 16TH ST On 16TH W of LOMA STOP SIGN (R1) INSTALL XWALK W54 SIGNSWED F'ED XING PAVEMENT MARKINGS W63 SIGN SB;RI NL XWALK_YELLOW RI SD X WALE:: -YELLOW R1 R1 W66 ; W66A 81 GNS , SLOW SCHOOL XING MARKINGS R2R(30) W63 SB W63 NI F:1 R1 R1 R1 Ri Ri R1 REMOVE INSTALL CROSSHATCH INSTALL INSTALL; CROSSHATCH INSTALL; CROSSHATCH INSTALL XWAL( FAINT YELLOW REMOVE XWAI._<:-YELLOW INSTALL INSTALL; CROSSHATCH W66;SLOW SCHOOL XING PAVEMENT MARKINGS INSTALL W63 R1 UNTIL PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL I S INSTALLED ON VALLEY DRIVE THE FOLLOWING APPLY Across VALLEY @ HERMOSA VALLEY SCHOOL Across VALLEY N of F'IER VALLEY N of PIER PIER W of BARD PIER E2 W of BARD 11 PIER PIER PIER ,.,PIER E&: W EL': W "W of W of of CYPRESS of LOMA CYPRESS LOMA PIER W of MONTEREY PIER E of HERMOSA F'IER W of HERMOSA PIER BET. HERMOSA ;: BEACH DR. On F'IER E & W OF CROSSWALK On PIER E of BEACH Across VALLEY S of 11TH ST VALLEY N & S of 11TH ST . VALLEY S OF BARD VALLEY a COMMUNITY CENTER VALLEY N9: s OF COMMUNTT.Y CTR. VALLEY N On 11TH ST E of 11TH ST W of 16TH CT W of 15TH CT W 13TH CT W 10TH CT W 9TH CT W of 8TH ST. LOMA LOMA HERMOSA XWALK -YELLOW SLOW SCHOOL XING PAVEMENT MAF9( I'NGS FIEF: (30) NIS R2R( 0) W65 ;; R2 ; R?2 ND W65; F:2; R.2 FLASHING YELLOW BEACON W65 R2R(30) XWALK:--EXISTIND W54 9 PED XING PAVEMENT MARKINGS XWALk:: W54 NB W54 EB W54 WB XWALK: W54 SIGNSyPED XING MARKINGS W54 ED XWALK-EXISTING W54 SIGNS;F'ED XING MARKINGS W54 -S3 XL•JALK-EXISTING W54 SIGNS; PED XING MARKINGS W54A R1 -STOP INSTALL; CROSSHATCH INSTALL INSTALL 300' N OF XWALK INSTALL 400' S OF XWALI<; INSTALL 400' S OF XNAL F INSTALL 300' N OF XWALk:: RETAIN REMOVE INSTALL CROSSHATCH INSTALL INSTALL CROSSHATCH INSTALL CROSSHATCH INSTALL INSTALL " 3TH CT W of HERMOSA 7TH CT W of HERMOSA 6TH CT W 5TH CT W 4TH CT W 3RD CT W LYNDEN W of Arosso._ATU.,FaN " HERMOSA NERAOU RNOSA I1 6TH ST HERMOSA 10TH ST 6TH ST END ST 10TH{ ST STH ST 6TH ST 6TH ST 2ND ST HERMOSA HERMOSA E NI E E E E E E S N of HERMOSA of LYNDEN of MANHATTAN of MANHATTAN of MANHATAN 2 ( of MONTEREY of MONTEREY of MONTEREY of MONTEREY W of MONTEREY of 6TH ST of 4th ST " HERMOSA N& S of 4TH ST " HERMOSA-._N & 8 of 6TH ST " HERMOSA N & 8 of 10TH ST " 11ERMOSA N of HERONDO MONTEREY MONTEREY 6TH ST PCH PROSPECT 1ST ST 17TH ST PROSPECT 6TH ST 5TH ST 4TH ST GENTRY END ST 1ST PL 1ST ST PROSPECT 19TH ST PROSPECT PROSPECT j N W S N E E W E LJ W N W W W S E N S of i(rH ST of 4TH ST of CYPRESS of 9TH ST u: S of 1ST ST & W of P'ROSP'ECT & W of P'ROSP'ECT of HOLLOWELL : W of PROSPECT of PROSPECT of PROSPECT • S of PROSPECT of PROSPECT of PROSPECT of PROSPECT of 19TH ST of PROPSPECT of 17TH ST of 17TH ST R1 -STOP R1 -STOP R1 -STOP Y,WALk::- X I ST INSTALL INSTALL 11 INSTALL REMOESHATOH 13 CROSSHATCH RELOCATE TO S.SIDE; CROSSHATCH W54 SIGNS9ALS0 IN MEDIAN; PED X I NG MARKINGS INSTALL INSTALL INSTALL W54A (NEXT 2 NILES) ; W71 ALSO IN MEDIAN INSTALL XWALK- EXIST REMOVE XWALK-YELLOW XWALK; W66 SIGN XWALK-EXISTING W66 SIGN INSTALL REMOVE PROSPECT N of 13TH ST TRAFFIC SIGNAL FOR HERMOSA VIEW SCHOOL On PROSPECT PROSPECT DAYV I EW N EAYV I EW N PALM DR S 1ST CT W RAYMOND I`d NIRA S HILLCREST N RHODES N BORDEN N E of MA SSEY W of GENTRY u: S of END ST of 1ST ST of 1ST ST of MONTEREY of 16TH ST of 16TH ST • S of 21ST ST • S of 21ST ST of 21ST ST UNNAMED ST S of 21st ST VALLEY N of END ST VALLEY S of 2ND ST At BILINGUAL SCHOOL EXIT W of VALLEY On PROSPECT SE of 5TH ST 5TH ST W of REYNOLDS LN Across 5TH ST W of REYNOLDS W of REYNOLDS 1 of REYNOLDS 6TH ST 6TH ST 3RD ST W of F'ROPSECT " VAN HORNE E of PROF'SECT On PROSPECT N of VAN HORNE " REYNOLDS N --of 5TH ST On 3RD,ST °: On MASSEY @ PROSPECT W17 -STOP AHED 1r W17 -STOP AF -LEAD EB R1 -STOP W65r,F2;R72 SIGNS R'R(S5) R1 -STOP W66; TYPE N MARKER R1 -STOP XWALF:-YELLOW R1 -STOP XWALE(-YELLOW W63 SIGN R49 (PERS PROHIBITED) INSTALL TO PROHIBIT CROSSING OF PROSPECT MODIFY RELOCATE INSTALL INSTALL REMOVE INSTALL INSTALL 10-6 5-1979 SCHOOL AREA PEDESTRIAN SAFETY Traffic Manual As noted in Section 10-03.4, an adequate crossing gap in approaching traffic should occur randomly at an average rate of at least once each minute during the school crossing periods. Adult Crossing 10-08.1 General Adult Crossing Guards are a supplemental tech- nique and not a traffic control device. They may be assigned (CVC 2815) at designated school crossings, to assist elementary school pedestrians at specified hours when going to or from school. The following .suggested policy for their assignment applies only to crossings serving elementary school pedestrians on the "Suggested Route to School." • An Adult Crossing Guard should be considered when: 1. Special problems exist which make it necessary to assist elementary school pedestrians in cross- ing the street, such as at an unusually complicat- ed intersection with frequent turning move- ments and high vehicular speeds; or 2. A change in the school crossing location is immi- nent but prevailing conditions require school crossing supervision for a limited time and it is infeasible to install another form of control for a temporary period. 10-08.2 Warrants for Adult Crossing Guards Adult Crossing Guards normally are assigned where official supervision of elementary school pedestrians is desirable while they cross a public highway on the "Suggested Route to School", and at least 40 elementary school pedestrians for each of any two hours daily use the crossing while going to or from school. Adult crossing guards may be war- ranted under the following conditions: 1. At uncontrolled crossings where there is no al - 10 -09.1 General Pedestrian Separation Structures eliminate vehic- ular -pedestrian conflicts but are necessarily limited to selected locations where the safety benefits clearly balance the public investment. Separation structures. are supplemental techniques for providing school pedestrian safety and are not traffic control devices. 10-09.2 Warrants Pedestrian Separation Structures should be consid- 10-07.4 Special Conditions A School Safety Patrol shall not be assigned where inadequate stopping sight distance prevails, unless flashing yellow beacons are installed for operation during School Crossing hours. Guard 10-08 ternate controlled crossing within 600 feet; and a. In urban areas where the vehicular traffic volume exceeds 350 in each of any two daily hours during which 40 or more school pede- strians cross while going to or from school; or b. In rural areas where the vehicular traffic vol- ume exceeds 300 in each of any two daily hours during which 30 or more school pede- strians cross while going to or from school. Whenever the critical approach speed ex- ceeds 40 mph, the warrants for rural areas should be applied. 2. At stop sign controlled crossings: a. Where the vehicular traffic volume on undi- vided highways of four or more lanes exceeds 500 per hour during any period when the school pedestrians are going to or from school. 3. At traffic signal -controlled crossings: a. Where the number of vehicular turning movements through the school crosswalk ex- ceeds 300 per hour while school pedestrians are going to or from school. b. Where there are circumstances not nor- mally present at a signalized intersection, such as crosswalks more than 80 feet long with no intermediate refuge, or an abnor- mally high proportion of large commercial vehicles. Pedestrian Separation Structures 10-09 ered where the following conditions are fulfilled. 1. The prevailing conditions that require a school pedestrian crossing must be sufficiently perma- nent to justify the separation structure; and 2. The location must be on the "Suggested Route to School" at an uncontrolled intersection or midblock location along a freeway, expressway or major arterial street where the width, traffic speed and volume make it undesirable for pede- strians to cross; and August 24, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council August 25, 1987 ADDENDUM TO AGENDA ITEM lw CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 25, 1987 BEACH DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS FOR 6TH STREET STORM DRAIN PROJECT STATUS REPORT - CIP 8.6-302 The question has been asked as to why the difference between this project cost estimate and the earlier January 1987, estimate. By way of background: On January 27, 1987, a memorandum was presented to City Council in which a preliminary estimate was prepared showing the estimated (before design) City cost only. Item BEACH DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS Preliminary Estimate (before design) Estimated Cost Design Services (Street & Sewer) $ 9,000 Construction: Street 90,000 Sewer (@ $90/foot) 45,000 Subtotal 144,000 10% Contingency 14,400 Total Cost Up to: $158,400 During January it was anticipated the Los Angeles County storm drain extension along Beach Drive from the 6th Street storm drain and all inspection was to be paid by the County. The engineer's estimated cost of the Beach Drive improvements exceeded the amount allowable under the County's contract. Hence, if the project is authorized to proceed by Council, additional City funding is necessary (to include the storm drain and inspection - originally to be paid by Los Angeles County). Engineer's Estimate (after design) ASL Engineers was retained by the City to perform the design work. Attached is the engineer's estimate showing the estimated cost (after design) of the project. REASON FOR INCREASE IN ESTIMATED COST Street Work Engineer's Estimate Preliminary Estimate Increase in estimate $ 90,000 130,215 $ 40,215 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 11N The $90,000 estimate was prepared by Los Angeles County Public Works. Potential cost increases not considered by the County in their estimate preparation and only discovered after surveying and design work (by ASL) progressed are the pavement removal/grading and other miscellaneous costs reflective of today's prices. Sewer Work Engineer's Estimate Preliminary Estimate Increase in Estimate $ 65,600 45,000 $ 20,600 A reason for the cost increase is the installation of approximately 800 l.f. of 8" ductile iron pipe. Because of the shallow cover above the pipe and the potential breakage from the weight of vehicles (garbage trucks, moving vans, etc) it was necessary to change from clay to iron pipe. Rise in Cost ($30 - $10) X 800 L.F. = $16,000 Another reason for the cost increase was the inclusion of bid item #16, "Concrete Encasement per LACE Standard 23, Case II, including PVC Membrane and Greased Pipe", which is also needed for pipe protection. Rise in Cost $ 7,200 Storm Drain Work Engineer's Estimate $121,929 Preliminary Estimate -0- Increase in Estimate $121,929 After the surveying work was complete it was discovered (by ASL)that the drainage could not be corrected as originally thought by Los Angeles County. This was later confirmed with engineered hydrologic and hydraulic calculations and topographic survey. Summary of Estimated Increase Street Work Sewer Work Storm Drain Work Approximate Total Respectfully Submitted, /Ai AAAAA At. AA nt'ony Antich Director of lic Works 2 $ 40,215 20,600 121,929 $182,734 Concur: Gre oryYT ye Cit Mana er ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE HERMOSA BEACH BEACH DRIVE Page 1 of 2 STREET IMPROVEMENTS /3g 3'S 1 14,600 S.F. 3" A.C. Pavement Type II UNIT • ITEM QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTION PRICE TOTAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS /3g 3'S 1 14,600 S.F. 3" A.C. Pavement Type II $ 1.00 $ 14,600 2 3,050 S.F. 6" Concrete Pavement $ 7.00 $ 21,350 3 270 C.Y. 4" Crushed Aggregate Base $ 52.50 $ 14,175 4 420 S.F. Brick Pavers, Sand Bed $ 7.00 $ 2,940 5 • 1,040 L.F. Concrete Swale . $ 30.00 $ 31,200 6 L.S. Adjust Existing Utility Manholes, Boxes, Storm Grate to Grade $ 10,000 7 21,300 S.F. Remove Existing A.C. Pavement and Haulaway $ 1.50 $ 31,950 8 500 S.F. Remove Existing Concrte Pavement $ 3.00 $ 1,506 9 L.S. Traffic Control $ 500 10 4 _ EA. Barricade, Removal, and Replacement, and New Gate to Match Existing $ 500.00 $ 2,000 SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 6S, Lo6 11 • 800 L.F. Remove Existing 8" VCP Sewer, Including Trenching and Pavement Removal $ 10.00 $ 8,000 12 800 L.F. Furnish and Install 8" Ductile Iron Class 54 Sewer Pipe • $ 30.00 $ 24,000 13 38 EA. Furnish and Install Service Laterals 4 or 6" Tees or Wyes, Mechanical Joint by Push Joint, Ductile Iron to Vitrified Clay Pipe Adaptors $ 300.00 $ 11,400 14 3 EA. Remove Existing Brick Manhole and Construct Shallow Manhole $2,000.00 $ 6,000 15 1 _ EA. Connect New 8" Sewer to Existing , Shallow Manhole $ 500.00 $ 500 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE HERMOSA BEACH BEACH DRIVE Page 2 of 2 ITEM QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAL SEWER IMPROVEMENTS -- . 312 L.F. Concrete Encasement per LACE Standard $ 132.00 $ 41,184 20 375 L.F. 23, Case II, Including PVC Membrane $ 120.00 $ 45,000 16 800 L.F. and Greased Pipe • $ 9.00 $ 7,200 17 800 L.F. Sheeting and Shoring for Sewer Work $ 10.00 $ 8,000 23 5 EA. Adjust Existing Sewer Manholes to $2,100.00 $ 10,500 18 2 EA. Finish Surface • $ 250.00 $ 500 STORM D 19 312 L.F. 30" RCP Storm Drain Including Trenching $ 132.00 $ 41,184 20 375 L.F. 24" RCP Storm Drain Including Trenching $ 120.00 $ 45,000 21 33 L.F. 18" RCP Storm Drain Including Trenching $ 65.00 $ 2,145 22 6EA. LACFCD Junction Structure No. 2 $1,050.00 $ 6,300 23 5 EA. LACFCD Catch Basin No. 5 (3 Grates) $2,100.00 $ 10,500 24 2 EA. LACFCD Manhole No. 1 $1,800.00 $ 3,600 25 1 EA. LACFCD Junction Structure No. 3 $1,000.00 $ 1,000 26 720 L.F. Sheeting and Shoring for Storm Drain Work $ 10.00 $ 7,200 27 L.S. _ Miscellaneous Repair and Rerouting Existing Utilities Interfering with Storm Drain Construction $ 5,000 CALCULATED BY TJH JOB NO. 1267.9 CHECKED BY CJG DATE 2/25/87 ENR 5452+0 TOTAL ESTIMATE $317,744 August 19, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council of August 25, 1987 APPROVAL OF SUPPLEMENTAL TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYEES' BARGAINING UNIT MOU ESTABLISHING THE CLASSIFICATION OF COMPUTER SYSTEMS MANAGER IN THAT UNIT AND ESTABLISHING A SALARY RANGE FOR THE CLASSIFICATION RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Man- ager to execute the attached Supplemental to the Administrative Employees' Bargaining Unit MOU which establishes: 1. The classification of Computer Systems Manager in the Ad- ministrative Employees' Bargaining Unit, and 2. A salary range for the classification. BACKGROUND: During the closed session of August 11, 1987, the City Council instructed staff to negotiate with representatives of the Teamster Union, Local 911, for the purpose of establishing a sal- ary range and determining the appropriate bargaining unit for the classification of Computer Systems Manager. The Computer Systems Manager class specification was approved by the Council on August 11, 1987. ANALYSIS:: Consistent with the organizational pattern of the City, and based upon the similarity of the general kinds of work to be performed by the Computer Systems Manager, the appropriate bargaining unit was determined to be the Administrative Employees' Bargaining Unit. As a result of the "meet and confer" process, a five step salary range of $2323-$2824 per month, with incremental increases of 5%, was agregd to. This salary range is consistent with the ranges of other classes in the bargaining unit which have similar responsibilities and experience requirements. Following approval, the attached supplemental will be effective September 1, 1987. The anticipated hiring date for this clas- sification is January 1, 1987. Respectfully submi ___ d Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Administrator Concur: fri- Gre:ory T. Meyer Cit, Manager A SUPPLEMENTAL TO THE SEPTEMBER 1, 1985 - AUGUST 31, 1988 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AND CALIFORNIA TEAMSTERS PUBLIC, PROFESSIONAL, AND MEDICAL EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 911 ADMINISTRATIVE..EMPLOXEES'.BARGAINING.UNIT Effective September 1, 1987, Exhibit A, the schematic list of class titles and base monthly salary schedule, of the Memorandum of Understanding, Administrative Employees' Bargaining Unit, is amended to include the class title of COMPUTER SYSTEMS MANAGER with a salary range as follows: A B C D E 2323 2439 2561 2690 2824 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused their duly authorized representatives to execute this Supplemental Memorandum of Understanding this day of , 1987. Gregory T. Meyer, City Manager City of Hermosa Beach Michael K. Flaherty, Chief Union Steward, California Teamsters Public, Professional & Medical Employees Union, Local 911 August 14, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council of August 25, 1987 STATUS REPORT REGARDING NOISE ENFORCEMENT STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that: 1. This report be received and filed. 2. Staff report to Council upon conclusion of study with study results. BACKGROUND City Council previously instructed the department to study upgrading the existing noise ordinance and to return with recommendations. ANALYSIS A comprehensive noise study is currently in progress. Sound monitoring equipment was installed in the downtown area on July 31, 1987 by Dr. Frank Gomez, L.A. county Community Noise Advisor. It is anticipated that the study will be completed by Sept. 30, 1987 and will focus on (1) City-wide community noise assessment data, (2) Proposed revision of our local noise control ordinance, (3) Suggested equipment and training (4) Assistance in initial enforcement. ,•k1U. `_ I i STEVE W NIEWSKI PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR GR CI a sj MI vV' GORY MEYER Y MANAGER y submit Jl'HJ. MECAPTAIN 0 ERATIONS DIVISION HERMOSA BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT laa August 18, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council August 25, 1987 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS-CIP 87-606 FIRST FLOOR POLICE DEPARTMENT REMODEL, INCLUDING DISPATCH ROOM Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Authorize staff to solicit the attached Request for Proposal. Background: On August 11, 1987, City Council approved $43,900 additional funds for CIP 87-606, (construction -first floor Police Department remodel, including dispatching center). On June 23, 1987, City Council approved the Capital Improvement budget, which included the design only of the first floor Police Department remodel (CIP 87-606). Staff intends to solicit proposals for the work described above. Analysis: Since this project is estimated to cost more than $5,000, the City must go to formal bidding procedures. Plans and specifications are necessary for the bidding procedure. Attached is a request for proposal and tentative schedule for your review and comments. Alternatives: Other alternatives considered by staff and available to City Council are: 1. Modify the scope of the proposed work. 2. Delete this project. Respectfully submitted, Anthony Antich Director of P •lic Works Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator Attachments: Request for Proposal Design Schedule Construction Schedule varele/v 1 Concur: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL CIP 87-606 First Floor Police Department Remodel, Including Dispatch Room The City of Hermosa Beach is requesting submission of proposals for the following: The architectural services for plans and specifications adequate for bidding purposes are described below: Demolition and modification of approximately 1,750 squre feet of existing space in the Police Facility (to be bid in two phases) - remodel and dispatching center. The work will include updating the existing electrical power and mechanical to service the modified square footage, selection of flooring material, wall treatments, fixed storage, ceiling treatment and other appurtenant work. The consultants work shall include the preparation of plans and specifications ready for construction. In your proposal, please include the following information: 1. By task (listed above), a cost not to exceed for analysis plus design. 2: By task (listed above), estimated cost for construction. 3. Personnel to be assigned to this work and their background. 4. Three references for similar work. All proposals shall be submitted to the Office of the Director of Public Works of the City of Hermosa Beach by , 1987, no later than 10:00 a.m. All proposals shall be in writing and shall include all services to be provided. Proposals are to be signed by an authorized agent of the firm submitting the proposal and shall include a cost not to exceed. The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals in order to select the proposal deemed by the City to be in its best interest. The consultant shall complete all work within 31 calendar days from the Notice to Proceed. The Director reserves the right to extend any time frame. Questions regarding the proposal may be directed to: Anthony Antich, P.E. Director of Public Works (213) 376-6984, ext. 211 for your time and effort and we look your proposal. Thank you receiving Sincerely, Ant •r y Antich, . . Director of Pu is Works (-1, air/v 8/11/87 _2___ forward to DESIGN SCHEDULE PROJECT NAME : CIP 87-606: First Floor Palirp D pt _ Remodel, Including Dispatch Room ACCOUNT NUMBER : 001-400-8606-4201 TASKS Prepare request for proposals Advertise for proposals Consultant selection procedure Award contract 1 L� Sign contract Issue "Notice to Proceed" Design Period Monitor and review design LEGEND TENTATIVE SCHEDULE : MENE ACTUAL SCHEDULE : X : 100% COMPLETE JAN FEB., MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 11 Final design approval before advertisingniu 1111111 for construction 11111111 1 I. Xnnn11f II 111111 1 [1111111 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE PROJECT NAME : CIP 87-606: First Floor Police Dept. Remodel, Including Dispatch Room ACCOUNT NUMBER : 001-400-8606-4201 LEGEND TENTATIVE SCHEDULE : ACTUAL SCHEDULE X : 100% COMPLETE 1 I I I 1 TASKS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC I I I I Final design approval before advertisingjllll111111111i for construction Prepare advertisement & set bid opening date Advertising period (issue addendums as necessary) Accept sealed bids & public bid opening Review bids Award contract Sign contract (bonds,insurance & workers comp. cert.) Preconstruction meeting procedure Issue "Notice to Proceed" Construction Period Monitor progress & maintain records Progress payment and change order procedure Acceptance of work as complete Issusing and recording a "Notice of Completion" Retention Payment Project close out 1 I I 111111111111111 1/11111111 11/11111 111111111 1111111111 1 i 1111111111111111111 1 1111111111111111111 I I 11111111111111111 X 111111111111111 1111110111111 1 I I 1 1111111111111 1 1 1 11111111111111111111111111 I I I I I August 17, 1987 HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the Regular Meeting of HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL August 25, 1987 SUBJECT: RECOMMENDED CONSULTANT AND CONTRACTS FOR THE COMMUTER TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND MUTUAL AGREEMENT WITH NEIGHBORING CITIES Recommendation 1. Approve the consultant, Ekistic Transportation Systems, for a Commuter Transportation Implemetation Plan. 2. Approve the attached contracts. Background On March 10, 1987, City Council approved the Request for Proposal for Commuter Transportation Implementation Plan. On July 8, 1987, the Request for Proposal for the Commuter Transportation Plan was sent to various consultants. n August 12, 1987, the participating Cities' Transit Task Force ,Hermosa Beach, Rancho Palos Verdes_, Redondo Beach, Torrance, El Se undo awndale, and Los Angeles), interviewed Ekistic ransportation Systems consu ting firm. Analysis Staff sent. Request for Proposals (RFP) to 48 consulting firms. Ekistic was the only consulting firm that reponded to the RFP. An oral interview with Ekistic was conducted, and references were checked. Staff contacted key consulting firms to determine why they did not repond to the RFP. Reasons were lack of manpower for such a large study, lack of expertise, and too many other projects undertaken. Staff, in agreement with the other participating Cities' Transit Staff, recommend Ekistic, because they have undertaken numerous projects that involve commuter transportation service in the area. Furthermore, independent consultants who are knowledgeable in transit marketing, service development, and implementation, in addition to being familar with the project area, have teamed up with this firm to make up the best possible task force for this project. For a total of $65,263, Ekistic will prepare a Commuter Transportation Implemetation Plan. It is intended that the consultant commence work on August 26, 1987, and complete the plan by December 15, 1987. 1- 1 Each of the participating Cities have allocated $5,000 toward the study. The Los Angeles Transportation Commission will fund $32,632. (This figure represents 50% of the total cost of the study.) Michael Schubach Planning Director ry Gr gorj T Meyer Ci y Mana er 2 YRese ctfully submitted, Brei -ac er COMMUTER TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION STUDY AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, 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 Ekistic, hereinafter referred to as CONSULTANT. I RECITALS The CITY acting as Lead Agency for the participating Cities of Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, Torrance, El Segundo, Lawndale, and Los Angeles is desirous of obtaining consultant services for a Commuter Transportation Implementation Plan to provide effective commuter service to the El Segundo and Los Angeles International Airport Employment Centers via the following service areas: 1. Coastal Corridor - Extreme westerly portion of the South Bay from the Palos Verdes Peninsula, inclusive of the beach cities, to the El Segundo Employment Center and the Los Angeles International Airport. 2. Central Torrance/Hawthorne Blvd. Corridor - Mid -South Bay area from Rancho Palos Verdes north through Torrance via Hawthorne Blvd. to El Segundo Employment Center and the Los Angeles International Airport. 3. Southeastern Corridor - From San Pedro north to the El Segundo Employment Center and the Los Angeles International Airport. II SCOPE OF SERVICES A. The CONSULTANT shall provide the services set forth in his proposal to the City dated July 27, 1987, and by this reference made a part hereof. Other services to be rendered under this Agreement shall be in accordance with the instructions of the Director of Planning of the City of Hermosa Beach (Lead Agency), and with the concurrence of the consultant. B. The CONSULTANT shall be responsible for the preparation of a mid -point progress report due October 15, 1987, a Draft Commuter Transportation Implementation. Plan, a Final Commuter Transportation Implementation Plan, and attendance at meetings. 1 S•J II CONSULTANT STAFFING The CONSULTANT shall designate Project Manager in charge of the study, and provide descriptions of the responsibilities of each person charging hours to the project. NAME TITLE III PERFORMANCE BY PERSONNEL The CONSULTANT may associate with or employ associates in the performance of his services under this Agreement, as indicated in the proposal dated July 27, 1987, but at all times the CITY shall be notified in writing of such associates and shall approve of their involvement in the provisions of contract services. IV COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to pay the CONSULTANT a total amount not -to -exceed sixty-five thousand two hundred and sixty-three dollars ($65,263). An additional 1070 may be authorized by the City to the Consultant without revision to said contract. Included within the compensation provided for by this Agreement are all of the Consultant's ordinary office and overhead expenses incurred by him, his agents and employees, including meetings with City representatives, and costs to accumulate all needed data. The City shall retain fifteen percent (15%) of the total maximum amount of compensation until completion of all the tasks to be performed under this Agreement. Any extension of time or request for additional compensation shall be submitted in writing for approval prior to scheduling of any additional work. The CONSULTANT shall submit invoices to the City for services rendered for the month. All invoices are payable within thirty (30) days of receipt by the City. 2 - V INTEREST OF CONSULTANT The CONSULTANT affirms that it presently has no interest, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the services contemplated by this Agreement. No person having any such interest shall be employed by or associated with the CONSULTANT. VI COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL LAWS The CONSULTANT shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances and codes of Federal, State and local government. VII LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES A. CONSULTANT shall keep fully informed of State and Federal laws and Municipal ordinances and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement. The CONSULTANT shall at all times observe and comply with all such laws, ordinances and regulations. B. CONSULTANT agrees that in the performance of the terms of this Agreement, no discrimination shall be made in the employment of persons because of sex, race, color, natural origin, ancestry, or religion of such persons. A violation of this provision will subject the CONSULTANT to all the penalities imposed by-law. VIII OWNERSHIP OF REPORTS, INFORMATION, DATA, EXHIBITS, ETC. All of the reports, information, data and exhibits prepared or assembled by the CONSULTANT in connection with the performance of its services pursuant to the Agreement are confidential and the CONSULTANT agrees that they shall not be made available to any individual or organization without prior consent of the participating Cities', i.e. Hermosa Beach, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, Torrance, El Segundo, Lawndale, and Los Angeles. All such reports, information, data and exhibits shall be the property of the Cities and shall be delivered to the Cities upon demand, or at the completion of the project, without additional cost or expense to the participating Cities. 3 I% TERM The CONSULTANT shall submit a progress report for review 42 days, from the date of the notice to proceed. All subsequent deliverables shall occur as dictated by review durations. The executory provisions of this Agreement may be terminated by either party on (10) ten days written notice to.the other without further action by either party. In the event of such termination by either party of this Agreement, the CITY shall pay the CONSULTANT for work completed to date of such termination. Any extension of time or request for additional compensation shall be submitted in writing to the Cities' Task Force Committee prior to the scheduling of any additional work not covered in the original contract. The CITY will evaluate said request and advise the CONSULTANT of its decision regarding any such request. Costs incurred by the CONSULTANT for additional work not approved by the CITY shall be the sole responsibility of the CONSULTANT. The term of this Agreement shall become effective as of the date hereof and shall continue in force and effect until final payment for the completed study is made to the consultant. INSURANCE CONSULTANT shall maintain in effect during the entire term of this Agreement workmen's compensation insurance covering all its employees and comprehensive public liabilty insurance in an amount of not less than $500,000 injuries including accidential death, for any one person, in an amount of not less than $500,000 for any one accident, and property damage insurance in an amount of not less than $500,000 for each occurrence. The CITY shall be an additional insured on such comprehensive public liability insurance policy. CONSULTANT shall likewise maintain public liability and property damage insurance to cover vehicles used or maintained by it in the performance of the work connected with this Agreement, with liability limits of not less than $500,000 for any one accident, and property damage of not less than $500,000 for each occurrence. CONSULTANT shall provide the CITY with certificates of insurance as evidence that the insurance coverages required herein are in effect. If CONSULTANT fails to maintain such insurance, the CITY may obtain such insurance, and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for such insurance from any sums due under this Agreement. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as limiting in any way the extent to which CONSULTANT may be held responsible - 4 for payment of damages to persons or property resulting from its operations or any operations of any subcontractors under it. CONSULTANT will be required to indemnify and hold harmless CITY and its officers and employees from any claims, damages, or expenses, including attorney's fees and court costs, arising out of CONSULTANT'S negligent performance under this Agreement. %I NOTICES Any notice required to be given hereunder shall be in writing with copies as directed herein and shall be personally served or given by mail. Any notice given by mail shall be deemed to have been given when deposited in the United States mail, certified and postage prepaid, addressed to the party to be served as follows: To Lead City: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Attention: Lisa Breisacher Project Coordinator To Consultant: EKISTICS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 195 Calle Mayor Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Attention: Donald A. Torluemke, P.E. Project Manager %II ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT The CONSULTANT shall not assign or otherwise transfer his rights and obligations under this Agreement without prior written consent of the CITY. Any such assignment without such consent shall be void and shall, at the option of the CITY, terminate this Agreement. CITY may employ additional.. CONSULTANTS as it deems necessary to work with the Consultant at any time during the term of this contract. %II EXTENT OF AGREEMENT This Agreement represents the entire integrated agreement between the CITY and the CONSULTANT, and supercedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements whether written or - 5 oral. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument signed by both the CITY and the CONSULTANT. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year first written above. ATTEST: CITY CLERK APRROVED AS TO FORM: .1dultigg Y ,1 0°( Y ATTORN Y V -. 6 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH A Municipal Corporation State of California MAYOR EKISTIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS A California Corporation PRESIDENT COMMUTER TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION STUDY AGREEMENT WITH THE CITIES OF HERMOSA BEACH, RANCHO PALOS VERDES, REDONDO BEACH, TORRANCE, EL SEGUNDO, LAWNDALE, AND LOS ANGELES THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this day of , 1987, among the Cities of Hermosa Beach, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, Torrance, El Segundo, Lawndale, and Los Angeles municipal corporations, hereinafter referred to as the CITIES. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the CITIES seek to implement improved, effective commuter transit service in the South Bay, specifically to the El Segundo Employment Center and Los Angeles International Airport via three service corridors. WHEREAS, the CITIES are desirous of obtaining consultant services for a Commuter Transportation Implementation Plan. WHEREAS, the CITIES wish to maintain an objective relationship with the consultant and with each other. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the CITIES agree as follows: I PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to assist in clarifying the roles, responsibilities, and financial participation among the CITIES throughout the development of the Commuter Transportation Implementation Plan. II TERM The term of this Agreement shall become effective as of the date hereof and shall continue in force and effect until final payment for the completed study is made to the consultant. III ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT ROLES A. HERMOSA BEACH will actively serve as lead agency throughout the development of the Plan and shall perform and/or administer the following: 1. Administration of the payments to the consultant for services rendered. Copies of all invoices from the consultant shall be provided for the participating CITIES. 1 2. Invoice and collect agreed upon financial contributions from the participating CITIES for their proportional share of the costs. 3. Collect financial contribution from LACTC for their proportional share of the costs. (Proportional share from LACTC totals 50% Proposition A Incentive Funds for the cost of the complete study.) 4. The City of Hermosa Beach shall be responsible for notifying the Task Force Committee of meetings to evaluate the consultant's performance. 5. Serve as immediate liaison to the consultant and information coordinator to the participating CITIES and LACTC. 6. Maintain full authority to monitor and enforce all provisions incorporated in the consultant service contract in consultation with the participating CITIES. 7. Submit to the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission the necessary Proposition A project descriptions and reporting forms. 8. Notify participating Cities, for their approval, any extension of time, or request for additional compensation made by the consultant. B. The participating CITIES shall be Rancho Palos Verdes, Torrance, Redondo Beach, El Segundo, Lawndale, Los Angeles, and Hermosa Beach serving as lead City, and each City be responsible for the following: 1. Appoint a representative to serve on the Task Force Committee. 2. Evaluate the proposal submitted by the consultant. 3. Remit agreed upon proportional share of the project costs at the beginning of the study to the City of Hermosa Beach. The City of Hermosa Beach shall return any funds that are not expended to the participating CITIES. 4. The assigned representative from each of the participating CITIES shall engage in a cooperative effort to assist the consultant during the course of the study by providing information related to their City. 5. The asssigned representative from each of the participating CITIES shall attend meetings associated with the development of the Plan. 2 6. Each participating City shall formally consider additional participation in the implementation of a commuter service for one of the three corridors that would most effectively serve their area. IV EXTENT OF AGREEMENT This Agreement represents the entire integrated agreement among participating CITIES, and supercedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements whether written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument signed by the participating CITIES. If, at any time, one of the participating CITIES poses a dissenting posture in policy and/or operations matters pertaining to this study, the CITIES may petition the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission to mediate the dispute. 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties represented in signature below do agree to the conditions and provisions herein set forth. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES BY: BY: MAYOR MAYOR BY: BY: CITY CLERK CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS 0 ORM CITY AT 0 Adopted: BY: CITY ATTORNEY Date Adopted: CITY OF TORRANCE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH BY: BY: MAYOR _. BY: BY: MAYOR CITY CLERK CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: BY: CITY ATTORNEY CITY ATTORNEY Date Adopted: Date Adopted: - 4 CITY OF EL SEGUNDO CITY OF LAWNDALE BY: BY: MAYOR MAYOR BY: BY: CITY CLERK CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: BY: CITY ATTORNEY CITY ATTORNEY Date Adopted: Date Adopted: CITY OF LOS ANGELES BY: BY: MAYOR CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: CITY ATTORNEY Date Adopted: 4 August 13, 1987 City Council Meeting August 25, 1987 Mayor and Members of the City Council ORDINANCE NO. 87-898 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 19 "MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC", REMOVING PARKING METERS AND ESTABLISHING A FIFTEEN MINUTE PARKING ZONE AS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH (DOWNTOWN BUSINESS AREA, HERMOSA AVENUE AND PIER AVENUE). Submitted for waiver of further reading and No. 87-898 relating to the above subject. At the regular meeting of August 11, 1987, introduced by the following vote: AYES: NOES: None ABSENT: DeBellis ABSTAIN: None adoption is Ordinance this ordinance was Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Cioffi --I (:/hiordthleen Concur: Midstokke, City Clerk 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 5 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 87-898 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDNG CHAPTER 19 "MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC", REMOVING PARKING METERS AND ESTABLISHING A FIFTEEN MINUTE LIMIT PARKING ZONE AS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH. (DOWNTOWN BUSINESS AREA, HERMOSA AVENUE AND PIER AVENUE) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That Chapter 19, "Motor Vehicles and Traffic", of the Hermosa Beach City Code shall be and is hereby amended by adding a new paragraph to Section 19-96 to read as follows: The parking meters in front of the following businesses be removed and a fifteen minute parking zone be established. Allstate Savings & Loan 81 Pier Avenue Bank of America 90 Pier Avenue Cantina Real 19 Pier Avenue Coast Drug Store 58 Pier Avenue Hermosa Escrow 1040 Hermosa Avenue Rainbow Camera 1150 Hermosa Avenue Robert's Liquor 74 Pier Avenue The Development 1246 Hermosa Avenue SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall take effect thirty days after the date of its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of August, 1987. ATTEST: A PROVED PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY TO 'OR (,0 Mayor and Members of the City Council Y--0 4Se_ August 13, 1987 City Council Meeting August 25, 1987. ORDINANCE NO. 87-899 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADDING A SUBSECTION (5) TO SECTION 2-6.2 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING AN EMPLOYEE SERVICE PIN AWARDS PROGRAM. Submitted for waiver of further reading and adoption is Ordinance No. 87-899 relating to the above subject. At the regular meeting of August 11, 1987, this ordinance was introduced by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Concur: Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Cioffi None DeBellis None Ka hleen Midstokke, City Clerk Gre i ory T. Me er, City Manager 2b 2 3 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 --18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 87- 899 N ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HER}IOSA BEACH, ALIFORNIA, ADDING A SUBSECTION (5) TO SECTION 2-6.2 OF THE HER - OSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING AN EMPLOYEE SERVICE PIN WARDS PROGRAM. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach did, n Section 2-6.2 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, establish riteria whereby the City Council may authorize awards to public ignitaries, members of other government agencies, community roups, and retired City employees and elected officials; WHEREAS, the City Council did, in Section 2-6.3, of the Her- osa Beach Municipal Code establish regulations whereby it can ward tokens of appreciation for conduct beneficial to the public t large through volunteer work, public service, or other public ontributions; WHEREAS, the City Council, on May 26, 1987, reaffirmed their upport for recognizing permanent City Employees by endorsing the e -initiation of the City employee Service Pin Award Program; WHEREAS, the City Council, thereby, intends to amend Section -6.2 to include a provision that will establish a Service Pin ward Program in order to recognize the years of public service y permanent City employees; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 2-6.2 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code is amended to include a subsection (5) that shall read as follows: "Section 5. A "City Employee Service Pin Award Program" as follows: 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (a) A gold filled service pin upon employee's fifth anniver- sary of employment; (b) A gold filled service pin adorned with a synthetic ruby or sapphire upon employee's tenth and fifteenth anniver- sary of employment respectively; (c) A gold filled service pin decorated with one three point diamond upon employee's twentieth anniversary of employment; (d) A gold filled service pin decorated with two three point diamonds upon employee's twenty-fifth anniversary of employment; (e) A gold filled service pin adorned with three three point diamonds upon employee's thirtieth anniversary of employment; (f) A gold filled service pin decorated with three three point diamonds with a synthetic sapphire upon employee's thirty-fifth anniversary of employment; (g) A gold filled service pin decorated with four three point diamonds upon employee's fortieth anniversary of employment." Section 2. Publication. That prior to the expiratin of fifteen 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. Section 3. Effective Date. That this ordinance shall be- come effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 i 8 9 10 11f 12 13 14 15 16 17 ..18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1987. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED THIS th day of PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY - 1 Mayor and Members of the City Council August 13, 1987 City Council Meeting August 25, 1987 ORDINANCE NO. 87-900 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, MANDATING THAT ALL FUNDS THE CITY DERIVES FROM HYDROCARBON RECOVERY GOES INTO THE PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES FUND NO MATTER WHERE THE WELLS ARE BOTTOMED. Submitted for waiver of further reading and adoption is Ordinance No. 87-900 relating to the above subject. At the regular meeting of August 11, 1987, this ordinance was introduced by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Concur: Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Cioffi None DeBellis None Ka hleen Midstokke, City Clerk 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 87-900 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, MANDATING THAT ALL FUNDS THE CITY DERIVES FROM HYDROCARBON RECOVERY GOES INTO THE PARR AND RECREATION FACILITIES FUND NO MATTER WHERE THE WELLS ARE BOTTOMED. WHEREAS, the City Council of Hermosa Beach recognizes the importance of Open Space to the general welfare of the citizens of Hermosa Beach; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that its citizens desire the City to purchase more Open Space for park and recreational purposes; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that funds derived from hydrocarbon recovery would be best put to use in the "Park and Recreation Fund" to- enable the City to purchase, maintain and improve Open Space and Parkland for the community. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1 (A). Any and all funds derived, acquired, awarded, or SECTION 2. given to the City of Hermosa Beach from or for hydrocarbon recovery (including but not limited to drilling, platform fees, royalties, bonuses, etc.) shall be deposited in the "Park and Recreation Facilities Fund" for the acquisition, maintenance, and improvement of available excess school or other properties for open space and parkland purposes. If any section or portion of this ordinance is declared invalid by a court of proper jurisdiction, the remaining sections or portions are to be considered valid. 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 SECTION 3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said City, shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1987. PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, CA ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Attorne 2 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council August 10, 1987 City Council Meeting of August 25, 1987 RECOMMENDATION RE REQUEST FOR RESERVED PARKING SPACES ON 11TH STREET FOR GUESTS ATTENDING THE HERMOSA BEACH 80TH BIRTHDAY KICK-OFF EVENT Qtvot-tAil „ \)9SkkAkkl.P -<V1 Z_S .4c,ICS E bcf:At-t-O-(SC S P It is recommended that the City Council (1) approve the request of Thelma Greenwald, Sea Sprite Motel, for reserved parking spaces, from 4:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., on September 9, 1987. Said parking spaces to be that row of metered spaces on the south edge, directly adjacent to, Lot "A", and (2) direct the Public Works Department to post the appropriate signs, twenty four hours in advance of the posted no parking. Background: Please see attached letter from Thelma Greenwald, of the Sea Sprite Motel, requesting reserved parking spaces in conjunction with the City of Hermosa Beach's 80th Birthday. Mrs. Greenwald also requested the use of those parking spaces reserved for lifeguard parking. I have contacted Captain Voorhees of the Los Angeles County Lifeguard Station, 1200 Strand, he has agreed to give up their spaces for the event that evening. Recommendation: Analysis: Although the signs, prohibiting parking between the hours of 4:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m., will be posted twenty four hours in advance, the actual reserved space parking will only be for a period of four hours. This should have only a very minimal effect on our meter revenue. It is, after all, an auspicious occasion. Jo Noon General Services Director Concur: Gre pry . e jr l City Manage THE SEA SPRITE MOTEL "Play on the Beach AND Stay en the Beach" 1016 The Strand Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254 213-376-6933 AUG. 5 1987 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Hermosa Beach, Calif. 90254 Attention: Joan Noon, Director of General Services In connection witth the City of Hermosa Beach's 80th Birthday, the Sea Sprite Motel is having a Chamber of Commerce Mixer on Wednesday, Sept. 9th, 1987 from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., as a Kick Off to the September 26th celebration. On September 9, the 80 year old Berth Hotel building at 1042 The Strand --now integrated with the Sea Sprite --will be honored with a bronze historical marker and many other festivities are planned. The Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Business Men's Association, Sister City Organization, Women's Club, city government officials, and other Hermosa Beach people will be invited. The Sea Sprite is hiring Jeanette's Restaurant to do the catering. We hereby request the privilege of parking cars in the spaces the lifeguards use during the day --11th & Strand directly next to the building that is being honored. In addition, we would like to request that people attending have the exclusive use that day of the row of metered spaces on the south edge of Lot A. Your cooperation will be greatly appreciated in helping to make this a notable event for Hermosa Beach. Thelma B. Greenwald Business Manager Copy to Bill Fowler August 6, 1987 City of 2lermosa BeacL Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 Captain Steve Voorhees Los Angeles County Lifeguard Station 1200 Strand Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254 Dear Captain Voorhees; Attached is a letter from one of your neighbors, Thelma B. Greenwald, Sea Sprite Motel. She is requesting permission to utilize your reserved parking spaces, on Eleventh Street, for a special occasion. Rather than discuss this matter with you by telephone, I thought you should read the letter. My question is, what is your opinion in this matter, would it be an inconvenience for your officers, considering the time of the function? I would appreciate your input as soon as possible, a phone call will do. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, General Services Director City Hall (213) 376-6984 • Community Center 379.3312 / 376.6984 • Fire Department 376-2479 / 376-6984 • Police Department 376-7981 1376-6984 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council July 2, 1987 City Council Meeting of August 25, 1987 RECOMMENDED SOLUTION, RECREATIONAL VEHICLES PARIZING ON CITY STREETS Recommendation: That the City Council consider, directing staff to prepare an ordinance restricting parking of Recreational Vehicles, on those city streets or alleyways with marked stalls, when the width of the street is 25' or less as outlined in the circulation element, and restricting the number of days and hours (48 consecutive hours) an R.V. may park, without a special permit. Background: At their regularly scheduled meeting of June 23, 1987, City Council discussed the ordinances of several area cities, with regard to the parking of Recreational Vehicles on City streets. The City Council then directed staff to look into alternatives they feel to be the best solution, to the parking of Recreational Vehicles on our City streets. Analysis: There doesn't seem to be any one ord-inance among those we have received, that would apply to our needs. Our primary concerns seem to be; (1) restricting over -sized R.V.'s from parking on too -narrow streets; (2) preventing residents from using the city streets to "store" seldom used R.V.'s; (3) and to prevent the use of our streets by those who might live, for months at a time, in those R.V.'s. History has shown that most of our complaints come as a result of some neighbor to neighbor dispute, or frustration resulting from too little parking during the summer months. Rarely, do we receive complaints about over -sized vehicles, namely R.V.'s, during the winter months. When parking is scarce, people seem to look at anything, that may be depriving them from using a parking space. What staff is suggesting, is to limit the parking of a recreational vehicle to 48 consecutive hours and to prohibit the parking of recreational and related vehicles, from parking on any street or alleyway whose width is twenty-five (25') or less. Parking in excess of the 48 hour limit would require a permit obtained through the Police Dept. (this would seem to be the most - 1 - 15 feasible, since their offices are open 24 hours, and weekends) The permits would allow the bearer to park their vehicle up to 72 consecutive hours, notwithstanding any other ordinances which may be in effect, and for a maximum of any 35 days, in any one year period. Permits to be issued on a weekly basis, at a cost to be determined at a later date. A "recreational vehicle", for the purpose of this matter, is described as a motor home, travel trailer, truck camper, or camping trailer, with or without motive power, designed for human habitation, or a park trailer designed for human habitation, and including, but not limited to, house cars, campers, boat trailers and trailers. It would seem, the end purpose of an ordinance to restrict the parking of "recreational vehicles", would be to encourage the owners of such vehicles, to seek alternatives to long term parking on the streets, i.e., storage facilities, cleaning out the garage, etc. Alternatives: (1) Continue current enforcement policies, i.e. 72 hour marks, by complaint; and 12 hour enforcement on the railroad right-of-way. (2) Continue current enforcement policies as above, but still require a permit to park on city streets. (3) (4) Enforce only over -sized vehicle parking. Enforce the suggested restrictions and prohibitions, for a trial period only, during the summer months of 1988. Concur: �ij-tom-✓ V i� JoNoon, Director General Services 2 Respectfully submitted, Joan Noon, Director by //�GJ. /�24-C.e" Michele D. Tercero, Administrative Aide August 12, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council August 25, 1987 BEACH DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS FOR 6TH STREET STORM DRAIN PROJECT TATUS REPORT - CIP 86-302 Recommendation: ss 14-04,c, It is recommended that City Council: 1 Retitle CIP 86-302 "6th Street Storm Drain Project" to CIP 87-302 each Drive Improvements". Appropriate $182,192 to CIP 87-302 as follows: a. $19,700 from the State Gas Tax Fund fund balance, b. $162,492 from the Sewer Fund fund balance. Authorize the completion of the plans and specifications. Background: On November 12, 1986, the Los Angeles County Public Works Department conducted a community meeting for the Hermosa Avenue 6th Street Storm Drain construction project in the Hermosa Beach City Council Chambers. Several residents attended this meeting to express their concerns regarding poor street drainage on Beach Drive between 6th Street and 10th Street. The Los Angeles County Public Works assured the audience that they would investigate their concerns. On January 5, 1987, the Public Works Department was notified by the County that improvements to the drainage could be made part of the 6th Street Storm -Drain contract provided plans were prepared and completed by the City., On January 27, 1987, City Council appropriated $9,000 and authorized staff to proceed with the design process to alleviate drainage concerns on Beach Drive (from 6th Street to 10th Court) in conjunction with the 6th Street Storm Drain Project. On January 28, 1987, staff issued a Notice to Proceed to ASL Consulting Engineers. The plans were completed on February 28, 1987, and forwarded to the County the following day. From February to May, staff negotiated with Los Angeles County to include the storm drain work and inspection on Beach Drive with the County Funded 6th Street Storm Drain Project. Staff was unsuccessful in negotiating with Los Angeles County. In order for the Beach Drive project to proceed at this time, additional funding is necessary. Analysis: This analysis is divided into four segments: 1 1) General Discussion 2) Los Angeles County Response 3) Fiscal Impact 4) Summary GENERAL DISCUSSION The final cost for ASL's services, to prepare the plans only, was $8,800. ASL had determined during plan preparation (based upon calculations, and a videotape investigation of the sanitary sewer), that in addition to the drainage concern, the street surface and the sanitary sewer line on Beach Drive between 6th Street and 10th Street warrants replacement. The poor drainage on Beach Drive requires sloping (reconstructing)the street to facilitate better drainage and installing a short segment of storm drainage pipe. In spite of these unexpected discoveries and complications, ASL put forth a great deal of effort to stay on schedule and to submit their design to City staff on February 26, 1987. Staff reviewed this design and submitted it to L. A. County Flood Control on February 27, 1987 before the start of construction on the 6th Street Storm Drain Project. LOS ANGELES COUNTY RESPONSE Staff contacted the County (to determine the status of this project) numerous times between February 27, 1987 and April 30, 1987 when the County met with staff to discuss this project. Written confirmation of this discussion was received by the Public Works Department on May 14, 1987, and is summarized as follows: 1) The County could not justify a change order of this magnitude as the (existing) specifications would require the entire storm drain contract -to be re -negotiated 2) The street and sewer work is considered a betterment and would be funded by the City. 3) There are currently (FY 86-87) no County funds available for the storm drain project. On July 14, 1987, the 6th Street Storm Drain Project was finalized by Los Angeles County. FISCAL IMPACT Additional funding is necessary to complete this work. All associated street work is elgible for the State Gas Tax funding and the storm drain is eligible for sewer funding based on operating budget appropriation practice of funding both sewer and storm drain work from the sewer fund. 2 The estimated cost, potential funding sources, and the affect on the fund balances for the completion of Beach Drive Improvements is as follows: ESTIMATED COST POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES WORK ITEM SUBTOTAL TOTAL 1 DESIGN $5,700 Preparation of bid package 5700 CONSTRUCTION a. Street work 130215 b. Sanitary sewer/storm drain work 187529 $317,744 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING $38,000 c. Project administration & inspection 38000 Subtotal $361,444 10% Contingency $36,144 TOTAL $397,588 STATE GAS TAX SEWER TOTAL FUND # 115 FUND # 160 1 1 2336 3364 $5,700 130215 = $130,215 187529 $187,529 15573 22427 $38,000 148124 213320 $361,444 14812 21332 $36,144 162936 234652 $397,588 AFFECT ON THE FUND BALANCES AMOUNT BUDGETED 6/23/87 143236 72160 $215,396 ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE 6/30/88 28397 374543 ADDITIONAL APPROPIATION REQUIRED 19700 162492 $182,192 REVISED FUND BALANCE 8697 212051 TOTAL $397,588 APPROPIATION SUMMARY 6/23/87 143236 • 72160 $215,396 8/25/87 (1) 19700 162492 $182,192 TOTAL 162936 234652 $397,588 (1) City Council Action Required Sewer file: A\CIP402.WK1 3 t Lpeo÷;--4 Summary: Additional funding is necessary to complete this project. The condition of the sanitary sewer alone warrants immediate replacement based on health and safety reasons. The high cost of street and sanitary sewer work forced the cost of the Beach Drive work to a dollar amount so that the change order process was not possible. The contract between the County and Contractor precludes a change order in the amount needed to construct the Beach Drive improvements, unless both projects were delayed for an additional (or longer) year. The 6th Street storm drain was already delayed once and another delay would result in higher costs. Alternatives: Other alternatives available to Council and considered by staff: 1) Pursue this project with Los Angeles County with the hope of capturing FY 88-89 funding. 2) Pursue alternate funding sources 3) Drop the project at this time and include it in the FY 88-89 budget. Respectfully submitted, llAnt h n'y Antich Director of Public Works Noted for Fiscal Impact: dit'Ael,e4C1t4t.,) Viki Copeland Finance Administrator AA:mv bchdr/m Concur: 1111 For RA_Gre;; ory T. Myer Cit Manager Attachments: Background Material (Exhibits) A. January 5, 1987 letter from Los Angeles County B. January 27, 1987 memorandum to City Council C. February 27, 1987 letter transmitting plans from Public Works to Los Angeles County D. May 14, 1987 letter from Los Angeles County E. Proposed Project Schedule F. Proposed Project Budget - 4 TL atitgrouttb fliatrrtatg THOMAS A. TIDEMANSON, Director WYNN L. SMITH, Chief Deputy Director CECIL E. HUGH . Assistant Director COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES December 31, 1986 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 1540 ALCAZAR STREET LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90033 Telephone: (213) 226-8111 Mr. Tony Antich Director of Public Works City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-0299 Dear Mr. Antich: RECEIVED JAW 0 5 198/6 PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. -EXh'-/ & ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO: P.O. BOX 4089 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90051 IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO FILE PD -3 634.41 HERMOSA AVENUE - SIXTH STREET DRAIN - STREET IMPROVEMENT After our recent community meeting on the above project, we investigated the localized flooding problem brought to our atten- tion by the residents of Beach Drive. We have determined that reconstructing Beach Drive from Sixth Street to Tenth Court with an inverted crown and concrete gutter would be the most economical way to alleviate this problem. This work is estimated to cost $90,000 and, since the problem is localized, would be considered a betterment. In a recent meeting with Mr. Tim Bazinet of my staff, you requested that we maintain our present construction schedule and not include the above work at this time as preparation of plans for this addi- tional work would delay awarding of our construction contract and could result in extending the contractor's operations into the summer beach season. In addition, you indicated that the 8 -inch sewer in Beach Drive from Sixth Street to Eighth Court may need to be replaced in conjunction with this street work. An option of including this additional work in our contract at a later date by change order still exists. This would require that the City complete the plans for this betterment work in time to allow for negotiations with our contractor and preparation and pro- cessing of the necessary betterment agreement. Please.keep us advised of your intentions on this matter. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Tim Bazinet at (213) 226-4066. Very truly yours, T. A. TIDEMANSON Di ct or of P} blic Works 1 uARRA . STONE Deputy Director TKB:pg/LAHER Exhibit B January 15, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council January 27, 1987 AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH DESIGN PROCESS OF BEACH DRIVE DRAINAGE FOR 6TH STREET STORM DRAIN PROJECT, CIP 86-302 Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Appropriate $9,000 to CIP 86-302 for design services for the above -referenced project as follows: a. Appropriate $6,000 from the State Gas Tax to CIP 86-302. b. Transfer $3,000 from CIP 86-405 to CIP 86-302. 2. Authorize staff to proceed with the design process to alleviate drainage concerns on Beach Drive (from 6th Street to 10th Court) in conjunction with the 6th Street Storm Drain Project. Background: At their regular meeting of November 25, 1986, City Council took formal action to receive and approve the plans and specifications for storm drain construction at Hermosa Avenue -6th Street, and authorized Los Angeles County Public Works to proceed with the bid process. Analysis: On Tuesday evening, November 12, 1986, the Los Angeles County Public Works conducted a community meeting for the subject .project in the Hermosa Beach City Council Chambers. Several Beach Drive residents attended this meeting expressing their street drainage concerns in this area. The L.A. County Public Works assured the audience that they would investigate these concerns and determined the following: (See Exhibit A) 1. The drainage concerns can be alleviated by re -surfacing Beach Drive (between 6th Street and 10th Court) with an inverted crown and concrete gutter. 2. This street work is estimated to cost $90,000, and because it is considered a betterment, neither the construction nor the design will be funded by the County. Staff evaluated the situation and determined that if the construction schedule were delayed by waiting for the County to prepare these betterment plans, storm drain construction would inevitably extend into the summer beach season. Consequently, in It the best interests of the City, staff advised the County to proceed with their bidding process. In addition, staff considered the possibility of a necessary sewer line upgrade in this area. It is more practical if the sewer improvements could be scheduled in conjunction with the street work, rather than tearing up the street in a few years. The Santina & Thompson report has already identified one sewer pipe segment needing replacement. The rest of the line will be videoed to determine the extent of sewer replacement. Staff recommends proceeding with the design process for the Beach Drive sewer/street improvements. The municipal code exempts professional services from the City's bidding process and allows for negotiation. We can successfully negotiate with a design consultant immediately so that the actual design can be approved by Council and the L. A. County Public Works in time for cost negotiations with the successful low bidder for the storm drain project. (See Exhibit B: Construction Schedule). Once the design is approved and the funds are transferred, Los Angeles County Public Works will administer the construction and inspection of this betterment in conjunction with the storm drain project. Fiscal Impact: The cost of these design services is estimated at $9,000. Construction costs are estimated at approximately $150,000, which may be less if the the sewer does not warrant replacement. Staff has compiled the following preliminary estimate and recommended funding sources: Preliminary Estimate BEACH DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS. Item Estimated Cost Design Services (Street & Sewer) $ 9,000 Construction: Street Sewer (at $90/foot) Subtotal 10% Contingency Total Cost up to: Budget for Design only: Sewer Fund State Gas Tax Total 90,000 45,000 144,000 14.400 $ 158,400 1/3 ($9,000) = $3,000 2/3 ($9,000) • = $6,000 $9,000 Funding Sources for Design only: Estimated Fund Balance 6/30/87 State Gas Tax $305,758 Proposed Expenditure $6,000 Adjusted Fund Fund Balance $299,758 Sewer Fund Transfer: $3,000 from CIP 86-405 to CIP 86-302 No construction costs are being requested at this time. Staff will return to Council at a later date with actual construction costs, and our recommended funding sources. There are currently sufficient funds in both State Gas Tax and the Sewer Fund (CIP 86-405) to pay for construction. Alternatives: Other alternatives available to Council and considered by staff: 1. Do nothing about the Beach Drive drainage concerns at this time and consider this project at a later date. Due to the valid concern of the affected residents (see Exhibit C), staff does not concur with this alternative. 2. Negotiate with the County. Deborah M. Murphy Assistant Engineer Concur: DMM:mv bchdr/m Attachments: Concur: An ony Antich Director of Pub is Works Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator Exhibit A, Letter from L. A. County Public Works Exhibit B, Construction Schedule Exhibit C, Letter from Residents 3 THOMAS A. TIDEMANSON, Director WYNN L. SMITH, Chief Deputy Director CECIL. E. BUGH . Assistant Director December 31, 1986 ()LINTY OF LOS ANGLES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC: WORKS. 1540 ALCAZAR STREET LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90033 'Telephone: 1213) 226-8111 RECEIVED JAN Q 5 1986 Mr. Tony Antich PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. Director of Public Works City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-0299 Dear Mr. Antich: HERMOSA AVENUE - SIXTH STREET DRAIN - STREET IMPROVEMENT After our recent community meeting on the above project, we investigated the localized flooding problem brought to our atten- tion by the residents of Beach Drive. We have determined that reconstructing Beach Drive from Sixth Street to Tenth Court with an inverted crown and concrete gutter would be the most economical way to alleviate this problem. This work is estimated to cost $90,000 and, since the problem is localized, would be considered a betterment. In a recent meeting with Mr. Tim Bazinet of my staff, you requested that we maintain our present construction schedule and not include the above work at this time as preparation of plans for this addi- tional work would delay awarding of our construction contract and could result in extending the contractor's operations into the summer beach season. In addition, you indicated that the 8 -inch sewer in Beach Drive from Sixth Street to Eighth Court may need to be replaced in conjunction with this street work. An option of including this additional work in our contract at a later date by change order still exists. This would require that the City complete the plans for this betterment work in time to allow for negotiations with our contractor and preparation and pro- cessingof the necessary betterment agreement. Please keep us advised of your intentions on this matter. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Tim Bazinet at (213) 226-4066. EXHIBIT A ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO: P.U. BOX 4089 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90051 IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO FILE PD -3 634.41 Very truly yours, T. A. TIDEMANSON Di c or of blic Works.' 1 (k.) 4HARRy . STONE Deputy Director TKB:pg/LAHER Lam, w , r, / / v PROJECT SCHEDULE PROJECT NAME : CPI rST '73/e/V1 D,e74/A/ ACCOUNT NUMBER : L I 1 1 I TASKS JAN FEB I MAR I APR I MAY I JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT 1 NOV DEC 1 �'c -icr I T ,t3 F i -I DR-. 1 I DE5(C7N-1 f --/2...o P 05/A -L. `U raeVi- w iQt-.:7-i4- ;cD,e.. 1EZ I 1 I Da --s /6 &J p, c,i' 5 4. . Gr P SC -3.6 2, LEGEND Srb elv(- .D12Fi-Jn/ �"G�ED, : w — me rn C33E4c.i. D€. SC1-ELzcjE:imazcumnsmon X : 100% COMPLETE Ai E cT 7411- d ArY4-,e o OE61c-A/ e CAI resa c r Dc ccs/ PE.i / c o airy C 6( LAI 57c4/4 r"ae, DES /c Al APPFzc WI L c_, A-, ccctki — 3 -/c ii..lc4eK 5 8 c_-1 c1, e, DE.S/6)4tr e_pLiA-G^ /6's -u -E ,dWQ&,/W,71 To srCse n £X C'cv/r eac-r Fr,' 8& A2. impeC versi acne -J-4 la4ei v : P€E - LoAlsre uc7,'()A/ AyE•Er/ .Jc— 8EA-e a-/ vE C: 0x15 TieC.CGT/o,4 F .i op Tc ie rn i€.41 AJ C' bAISTPCGGT/Dk f Ei2-/ OD I 1 1 1 P®11®®� • 1 .1 .1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • 1 .i • January 12, 1987 City of Hermosa Beach Dept. of Public of Works RE: Beach Drive Flood Drainage EXHIBIT C Dear Sirs: It has come to the attention of the residents near the 6th Street "Storm Drain Project" that the LA County Flood Control District has just completed their drainage study of Beach Drive from 6th Street to 8th Street and informed us that the responsibility lies with the City of Hermosa Beach for correcting the drainage problem on Beach Drive. We the residents living and owning our property adjacent to Beach Drive are making a formal re- quest to have this problem resolved by the City of Hermosa Beach. We understand that the County surveying team has completed the necessary maps to alleviate the problem. The City Public Works told the County not to include these plans with the 6th Street Drain Project as it could delay the opening of the bids. In addition, the City said it did not have necessary funds at this time for the improvements and they wanted to construct a sewer along with the drain. We feel this is unfair, as all work could be completed at the same time. We feel we were set up for this delay. Two months ago we attended a special hearing at the City Council Hall, stated our position and were told that immediate action would be taken to correct the problem. We made numerous attempts to contact the Flood Control District and were told they were working on it. Not until Friday, January 9, 1987 were we informed that the Flood Control District was not including the remedy plans for our area at the request of the City of Hermosa Beach Public Works Department because it would delay opening of the bids. We, the residents of the affected area, plan to commence law suits against the City of Hermosa Beach for damages in the past and in the future resulting from water damage from flooding. It is noted that special consideration and remedies are always given to property owners located north of 9th Street, the "Sea Sprite Area" and so forth, while those south of the 9th Street are forgotten. Our re- quests for flood drainage work in our area dates back several years. See enclosed documents. There is a definite health problem because of stagnant standing water which breeds mosquitos and fleas, and attracts other insects. We can't even hose our yards or wash a car without worrying about the water that will not drain. The collection of water takes a week or more to disappear through natural evaporation. We request immediate r;sponse to this letter as we believe the City wants to do the right thing for its taxpaying residents and property owners. Attached are names and signatures of the affected residents and property owners. Sincerely Gerald A. Littman. Please Contact: Gerald A. Littman Committee Chairman (213) 379-6410 / Home (213) 979-1582 / Office Copy to: - Planning Dept. - City Council - City Manager Enclosure - as above PRINT NAME Ge-jr).4 (.-n 4. 1, TTS- e7 BEACII DRIVE FLOOD DRAINAGE PETITION SIIl;vI' ADDRESS PIIONE # 3J' %e $7r��,� ///32 379-(// 0 d54 c0� •st- 4 37y-oo301- ct 374 00��- ick (^ io -r S rCf1Nn A'Uut % /i'• I o4 u w e? b ;tt 74-c- Tie 4N 744/n) prz, e_a 60 74.e- C�' '- Z, 163 2 6) , we 642- 6 s 1/\ if - 11 31W- 57 5 q , ;47-ei:E'c,� Pocze </5 rzY //g. S3G 1'4 6,1)- (At 51' /u4. ki \ V) J/J) -_05-14 ie0-42,17‘ Al 4 *eic- / ti • ;7Zv 2-S' -c c � (' /. 37 -Dass-- > ,. * .3 72rFcef 2__ IA ,,,,,, 7(E7? ee,‘-z' /-----P ,C9.9- Z 7 3%, G3G 1 379_0zR/o 45') 771-Y-3°140.1S--hh, /7T.. 7(1 PRINT NAME • I . �R S IIS t[OFFn11 A IU 1 , C• 030aA)6 • BEACH DRIVE FI.00I) DRAINAGE PETITION SI Evil- ADDRESS ET ADDRESS V)I ect e4- 18 S61(6/0771 1Z R m -DG EQ .6Azebort. 1 17 SevAlk, SV. 11-1 n7 st liotAw. cat /7 7 js1. ��Vf i%' 11 1ti` ST *2. K ett-094 50,-0-1 I -8 &A S 14eacros&L. t30ae. \ -ePL°._52x $/0,63 4 6eCi C- PHONE' # 3 "71864 -65'0g / 3ig-�s5�7 3'1 6-- c6ci 3 7S /e?/ $12 -0��-7. SIGNATURE 1 G /1-67„ 4:a ,t . ��ti I I v/4'ti 73./NcgeFfez, - k,.. e-0 WAS/ C7 /-// /:#tv, _63rthe. 5'iranc4 /cg_ 3r7� -726 r� 37/-6 WO Y, • &11227 VP", zeez klha L th-0 /ZE .e;/c /92G , /99 zz;za( /46 /62tet-A2lit Jnr' Yke GCrz /04-4lLieZ�inrGvt� ae . , /1-6, zyc .fiidsLx-zadditid, 2 `8 p :moi .,v ,4wCo gds :.:: ‘71‘17 -el -I, ,Jhiy /9'7.2 1 l eccy /9 czzlay ,e-.6-ze&42,g—/2zejlezzi-d4t, . .b/Aff>iaiige,Az-az ;:. ..-A -1,f7,r .'(,?>e/ze Zx-dahzi ix. i ., laa-z/ ,(,£e-e-evlz- Zie.72r. 6`/‘ Y7‘e-i /22.€.84:1-e_e, rN-ri:... vr..., .'•_•:. -....:iin.iw.z-..ti.: • 5z&� Je2Era • 4/4 -16(9 -t -A-• - Fo9s3/ 62/3) G3/5) /57.2 - 7 7/1 S7 ,z� i -.577t#44/13 C0w40 /151 cCd6 tont 63 ZJ 63,/> G34 437 TNF_ STIz-o'"D February 27, 1987 EX///a/7- C._ CIVICCITY OF 1031710M teilat CENTER HERMOSA BEACH CALIFORNIA 9 0 2 5 4 CITY HALL: (213) 376-6984 POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS: 3 7 6- 7 9 8 1 Mr. Tim Bazinett Los Angeles County Flood Control 1540 Alcazar Street Los Angeles, CA 90033 Subject: Beach Drive Drainage for Sixth Street Storm Drain Dear Tim, Pursuant to our conversation this afternoon, enclosed please find: 1. design drawings, 2. engineering (hydrologic and hydraulic calculations, 3. topographic survey, 4. inspection report, and 5. engineer's estimate from our Consultant (ASL Consulting Engineers) for the above referenced project. As you can see, according to ASL's investigation, there are three major concerns on Beach Drive; street improvements, sewer improvements and drainage improvements. According to ASL (and verified on their video inspection), the Beach Drive sewer line between 6th Street and 10th Street warrants replacement. However, in order to maintain the slope (between 2 fixed sewer manholes), the street elevation cannot be lowered or there would be virtually no street cover over the sewer line. Unfortunately, if we do not lower the street 'elevation, there will be insufficient drainage in this vicinity. (Beach Drive between 6th Street & 10th Street) We have no choice but to construct a storm drain on Beach Drive between 6th Street and 10th Street. I understand that because the street and sewer work is considered a betterment, it must be funded by the City, although the storm drain improvements may be funded by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. Since any improvement that will be administered by the County (even though they may be funded by the City), must receive design Mr. Tim Bazinett Page 2. 2/27/87 approval prior to construction. I have enclosed the street, sewer and storm drain design drawings for your approval. Upon design approval, I understand that the County will negotiate a price with the contractor and will keep the City advised regarding funding and contract administration. Please keep me advised if there is anything I can do to facilitate obtaining County funding for this storm drain project. Thank you for your assistance, Tim. I shall look forward to hearing from you. Very Sincerely, 1-aptf.--N Deborah M. Murphy Assistant Engineer DMM:mv Enclosures THOMAS A. TIDEMANSON. Director WYNN SMITH. Chief Deptra1 Director CECIL SUCH. AtitaM Directs May 1, 1987 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 1540 ALCAZAR STREET L08 ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90088 Ttdttpbene: (318) 2264111 Mr. Tony Antich Director of Public Works City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-0299 °°94' 1• �VJ� Ex/4-i.e / -r- D ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO: P.O. BOX 4089 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90051 IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO FILE D-0 664.43 Dear Mr. Antich: HERMOSA AVENUE -SIXTH STREET DRAIN This letter confirms my staff's recent discussions with you on the proposed betterment work along Beach Drive near the above project. In our letter of December 31, 1986, we indicated that reconstruction of a portion of_ Beach Drive would alleviate the localized flooding problem for an approximate cost of $90,000. Upon review of your plans, we note that a storm drain lateral is being recommended to alleviate the flooding problem in addition to street and sanitary sewer reconstruction at a total esti- mated -cost of'$320,000. As discussed, we could not justify a change order of this magnitude as the specifications would require the entire storm drain contract to be renegotiated. We have no objections to the proposed scope of storm drain construction. Detailed comments will be provided separately by my staff. In addition, we will issue a change order to provide a stub for the future storm drain lateral. - As stated in your letter, the street and sewer work is considered a better- ment and would be funded by the City. Funding for the storm drain improve- ment by the County would need to be considered in a future budget, as surplus funds are not anticipated in our current year program. 11. Mr. Tony Antich -2- May 1, 1987 Your cooperation in this matter has been appreciated. We are forwarding a copy of this letter to Supervisor Deane Dana for his information. Any com- ments regarding this matter may be directed to Mr. John Engeman at (213) 226-4067. Very truly yours, T. A. TIDEMANSON Director of Public Works ROGER W. BURGER Deputy Director TB:cdl/HA-6 cc: Supervisor Deane Dana PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE PROJECT NAME : CIP 87-302 Beach Drive Improvements LEGEND TENTATIVE SCHEDULE : monimmim W oFlp ACCOUNT NUMBER : 115-401-8302-4201 ACTUAL SCHEDULE i—i X : 100% COMPLETE i 1 y 1 1 1 TASKS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 1 1 1 1 Final design approval before advertising IIIIIIIIIII11I11 for construction Prepare advertisement & set bid opening date Advertising period (issue addendums as necessary) Accept sealed bids & public bid opening Review bids Award contract Sign contract (bonds,insurance & workers comp. cert.) Preconstruction meeting procedure Issue "Notice to Proceed" Construction Period . Monitor progress & maintain records Progress payment and change order procedure Acceptance of work as complete Issusing and recording a "Notice of Completion" Retention Payment Project close out 11111111 1111 1111 111111111 111111111 11111111 111111111111111 1111 11111111111111111 III 11111111111111111 111111111 1 1 1 1 4111111111111 11111111 1111111111 1111111111111111111111 1111111//1 111111111 .111111111 EXHIBIT "F" L J CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH -• CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FY86-87 THRU FY88-89 SECOND YEAR OF THREE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM • • PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: ACCOUNT NUMBER: 6th Street Storm Drain Project CIP 86-302 115-401-8302-4201 PROGRAM AREA: Storm Drainage Improvements PROJECT DESCRIPTION: WORK PROPOSED: This project provides for the construction of approximately 1,400 feet of 24 inch to 39 inch reinforced concrete pipe conduet to provide for the safe discharge of storm flows into the ocean. This project is funded by, will be administered by and was designed by the LA County Dept. of Public Works. This design: neglected drainage concerns on Beach Drive between 6th and 9th Streets which were brought to the attention of the County by residents of Beach Drive at a Community hearing in November, 1986. Staff contracted the design services of ASL Consulting Engineers BUDGET SCHEDULE Col 1 Col 2 Col 7 Col 4 Col 5 Col 6 Col 7 PROJECT ELEMENTS PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING PLANS, SPECS & ESTIMATES CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION EXPENDED EST'ED EST'ED TOTAL BUDGET THRU TABU F786-87 PROJECT FY86-87 2/28/87 6/30/87 BALANCE FY87-88 FY88-89 DUDCET I I I 1 1 - 2'0001 --- g-- 9.9°01 11,400.0001 • 01 820,1551 579,845 OTI1ER DIRECT COSTS g g °1 40991 9 820,1551 1 I I I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 Beach Drive Const. 'ALM 317 74 I I I I t I I I SUBTOTAL 1I,409,005 g 829,155I---- 579,--�84 317,744I °I1L i 146 8 9 ------- CONTINGENCY • 140,000 0 0 140,000 31,774 0 31274 TOTAL EXPENDITURE - 1,549,000 0 829,155 719,845 349,518 01,178,673 FUNDING SCHEDULE to address these concerns. They provided a cost estimate FUND N0. to the City which includes necessary street, sewer and storm drain repair. Staff is currently soliciting LA County support (fdnanclal and administrative) for these repairs. PAC FUNDING SOURCES • ****************t* FUNDING DISTRIBUTION * TOTAL I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 01 820,1551 719,8451 9 01 820,15 6,0001 01 6,0001 01 143,231 9 149,231 3;0001 9 3,009 9 72,169 9 75,165 1_124212 _______ q 13411271 LA County Funded 1,540,0001 115. State Gas Tax 160 , Sewer Fund Unfunded TOTAL FUNDING 1,549,000 I � I I D) CITY OF HERMOSA• BEACH 1 •:CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FY86-87 THR FY88-89 • 829,155 719,845 349,518 0 1,178,673 SECOND YEAR OF THREE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM • - PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: ACCOUNT NUMBER: • Beach Drive Improvements LIP 87-302 115-401-8302-4201 PROGRAM AREA: Storm Drainage Improvements PROJECT DESCRIPTION: WORK PROPOSED: This project proposed to alleviate the drainage concerns• on Beach Drive between 6th Street and 10th Street by re- constructing the street and installing a storm drain. During preliminary plan preparation work, the sanitary sewer was video taped to determine the condition of pipes. The video revealed a sanitary sewer pipe in a deteriorated state and warranting replacement. Hence, In addition, the sanitary sewer will be replaced. • • BUDGET SCHEDULE Col 1 Col 2 Col 3 Col 4 Col 5 'Col 6 Col 7 PROJECT ELEMENIS PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING PLANS, SPECS & ESTIMATES CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION OTHER DIRECT COSTS SUBTOTAL EXPENDED EST'ED EST'ED TOTAL BUDGET THRU TNRU FY86-87 PROJECT F286-87 2/28/87 6/30/87 BALANCE FY87-88 FY88-89 BUDGET 1 1 1 1 I 9,000(1) 8,800 200 5 700 (317,744 38,000 I I 114,700 1 1317,744 38,000 CONTINGENCY • TOTAL EXPENDITURE FUNDING SCHEDULE 9,000 1 1-8A800_1 200 ?61,t44 a2A.244_1 -0- -_� -0- -0- 36,144 36,144 9,000 8,800 200 397,588 406,388 FUND N0. FUNDING SOURCES ******* ********** FUNDING DISTRIBUTION 115 (State Gas Tax I 6,000 1 .160 1 Sewer Fund 1 3,000 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I TOTAL 1 1 5,900 100 162,936 1 16828361 100 234 65 237 55 1 2.900 TOTAL FUNDING I 1 I I I 8,800 200 397,588 (1) Appropriated by City Council on January 27. 1987. I I 406,388 FACT SHEET From October 1, 1985 to June 30, 1988 Revenue UUT Allocation of UUT to Sewer Fund Expenditures from Sewer Fund Balance Additional appropriation CIP 86-302 Revised Downtown CIP 85-404: $2,788,031 1,805,000 1,322,482 $ 482,518 $ 162,492 $ 320,026 L.F. 3,000 Cost $ 182,000 Current Projects: CIP 86-402: Valley Drive, 17th to 18th & Corona (Aviation to Prospect Avenue) L.F. 4,100 Cost $ 652,951 CIP 86-302: Beach Drive Improvements L.F. 1,600 CIP 85-102: Highland Avenue L.F. 600 Proposed Project CIP 86-405: L.F. 4,000 (approximately) Cost $ 528,000 Other: 446 Monterey Blvd. Developer installed L.F. 583 8/25/87 fact/m Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council August 11, 1987 Regular meeting of August 25, 1987 VARIOUS ELECTRICAL/MECHANICAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS HERMOSIA BEACH Recommendation: i\ It is recommended tbiat City Council: 1. Appropriate 3 000 from the General Fund Designation for Capital Improvements to CIP 87-604 for the provision of designing for air co ditinoning in the City Hall Council Chambers. ��� o„ LQ ^'1` c,, t>, 2. Consider appropriation of construction dollars at the time of award of design contract. Wj[ 3. Authorize staff to solicit the attached Request for Proposal. Background: On August 11, 1987, City Council approved additional funds for electrical upgrading (CIP 86-602) at City Hall. On June 23, 1987, City Council approved the Capital Improvement budget, which included the design and installation of air conditioning for the theatre and a furnace replacement in the same area (CIP 87-604). In December, 1984, staff requested proposals for installation of air conditioning in the Hermosa Beach Council Chambers. However, based on fiscal constraints, all proposals were rejected and the project was deleted from the Capital Improvement budget. Hence, this memorandum seeks Council authorization to install air conditioning in the Council Chambers. Staff intends to solicit proposals for the work described above as a single capital project. Analysis: Since this project is estimated to cost more than $5,000, the City must go to formal bidding procedures. Plans and specifications are necessary for the bidding procedure. Attached is a request for proposal and tentative schedule for your review and comments. The balance of the analysis will consider the proposal work as three separate tasks. Task I. Task II. Electrical Upgrade at City Hall Air Conditioning and Furnace Replacement at the Community Center Theatre. - 1 - 1y Task III. Air Conditioning in Council Chambers. Fiscal Impact: Tasks I and II are additional funding proposals received design and install follows: VsC '11. 1985 -.� Estimated Cost �/ S�� Design $ 2,250 Conditioning Installation 20,000 Subtotal 22,250 10% Contingency 2,400 funded. Task III is not budgeted and requires . In 1987 the estimated cost, based on by City in 1985 and considered by Council, to air conditioning in the Council Chambers is as Total A potential funding source Capital Improvements. $24,650 1987 Estimated Cost $ 3,000 25,000 28,000 3,420 $30,800 is the General Fund Designation for Alternatives: Other alternatives considered by staff and Council are: 1. Modify the scope of the proposed work. 2. Delete this project. Resp-ctfully submitted, Ant o"y`Antich Director of Publ' Works Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Cope .nd Finance Administrator Attachments: Request for Proposal Design Schedule Construction Schedule varele/v 2 available to City Concur: ory T. M Ci.y Manager CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL Various Electrical/Mechanical Capital Improvements for Hermosa Beach City Hall/Council Chambers & Hermosa Beach Community Center Theatre The City of Hermosa Beach is requesting submission of proposals for the following: Task I. Hermosa Beach City Hall 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Analysis and design of the electrical upgrade at City Hall which includes: 1. A separation of the computer load from panel "B". 2. Automatic transfer switch and generator. 3. Uninterruptible power supply. 4. Automatic restart for computer. Task II. Hermosa Beach Community Center Theatre 711 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Analysis and design of: 1. Air Conditioning. 2. A furnace replacement. Task III. Hermosa Beach City Hall Council Chambers - 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Analysis and design of an air conditioning system. 7 GncAA FTE The consultants work shallinclude the preparation of plans and specifications ready for construction. In your proposal, please include the following information: 1. By task (listed above), a cost not to exceed for analysis plus design. 2. By task (listed above), estimated cost for construction. 3. Personnel to be assigned to this work and their background. 4. Three references for similar work. 1 All proposals shall be submitted to the Office of the Director of Public Works of the City of Hermosa Beach by , 1987, no later than 10:00 a.m. All proposals shall be in writing and shall include all services to be provided. Proposals are to be signed by an authorized agent of the firm submitting the proposal and shall include a cost not to exceed. The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals in order to select the proposal deemed by the City to be in its best interest. The consultant shall complete all work within 31 calendar days from the Notice to Proceed. The Director reserves the right to extend any time frame. Questions regarding the proposal may be directed to: Anthony Antich, P.E. Director of Public Works (213) 376-6984, ext. 211 Thank you for your time and effort and we look forward to receiving your proposal. Sincerely, Ant ony Antich, P.E. Director of 'u• is Works ih air/v 8/11/87 2 DESIGN SCHEDULE Various Electrical/Mechanical PROJECT NAME : Capital Improvements for Hermosa Beach LEGEND- Project I CIP 86-602 Electrical Upgrade/City Hall TENTATIVE SCHEDULE : ACCOUNT NUMBER :Project II CIP 87-604 Air Conditioning, Hermosa Beach ACTUAL SCHEDULE : ceccamizmzmomm ity Center Project III CIP 87-604 Air rCConditioning,oHermosa Beach City � Hall unc l Cha X 100% COMPLETE TASKS 1 JAN I FEB I --MAR ArPR l MAY I JUN I JUL i AUG 1 SEP 1 OCT I NOV I DEC I Prepare request for proposals I 1 =_ e 1 1 I I 1 Advertise forproposals 1 11 1 1 I I I I ------I I . MN 11. Consultant selection procedure 1 I 1'. -1 I 1------1 1 I 11 1 1 Award contract 1 I I ------I I ------I I------I------I------I I I ------I IN ICE IN -----------.-I I------I------I------ I I ------I Sign contract I I ------I I I I 1------I I------I------I------I 1 I------I_-----I 1------1 I Issue "Notice to Proceed" Design Period Monitor and review design ■ MI ■ MI I I I ------I 1 1------1 1------1 MI INN ■ -- --I------1 1 I------1 I 1 I I 1 IIn Al Final design approval1--_--1 1------1------I----_-1------1----_-1----- g before advertisingooomss'■ I ------I- 1 I I for construction Prepare advertisement & set bid opening i oIst I �! I 1 1 I 1 date Advertising period -`-1 1 1 1------1------1 1 1------1 I 1 1------I- mu m nom(issue addendums as necessary) Accept sealed bids & public bid opening) I 1 mum i I 1 1 i 1 I I I --------------------1 1 1 I 1 1 11, Review bids m� 1 I 1 1 ------ I Award contract 1 1 I I — 1 I 1 1 I ------I { Sign contract 1------1 1-----1 1 1 1 1 1------I I 1 ■s'sor (bonds.insurance & workers comp. cert.) 1-- 1 1------1 1 1------1 1-----I------I--»--1------1 1 Preconstruction meeting procedure m - MN Issue "Notice to Proceed" I I I I I i_ I I I I ------I I Construction Period I I I ------I 1 =_ s; g 1 1-. -1I------1 Monitor 1 1 I ------I 1------1 I I 1 I- -1 ---- progress & maintain records i _ _ s Progress payment and I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 es,e,ssef change order procedure 1 1 1------I 1 11 1 1 Acceptance of work as complete s NM _ 1 1------1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 Issusing and recording a - "Notice of Completion" Retention Payment 1 1------1 1------1 1 1 1 1 1 NMMI■ Project close out 1 I I I I I I I 1 1- 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 { F C� I,42, Q/43 --LC-- "a-;7-1 e7 Frieft—a) 4,Le) ALA'e,�y..��u-�.siz�cs_.r_.�r�_V 0- Tenants Tull to Cooncii After Rent Is Raised ice-- (044-1-0 • By GAIL POLEVOI,'Times Staff Wkiter HERMOSA BEACH—When Greg,G lamb : new landlord told him in March that the rent for his onbed om apartment was going up .14%-from 'to $595 -3 -he accepted the news philosophically. . Last month, however, Galambos heard m the landlord again. His rent was going up another 8% on Oc 1, to $645 a month—a 24% increase in six months. This time, Ga bos spoke up. Surveying his neighbors around the o 1 at the Pepper Tree Apartments, the 30 -year-old engine learned that most of the tenants in the 10.2 -unit complex had -also been hit with two rent increases in six months. The increases averaged about 25%, but some rents went up as much as 33 %, he said. In a letter to tenants last February, Pepper Tree manager Jeffrey Ginsburg maintained that "an intensive market survey .. determined that the rents at the Pepper Tree are 18% to 22% below the market value." When the October increase goes through, the rents will be "close to market value, but still under it," Ginsburg said in an interview. The increases have 'sparked a bitter dispute between the - landlord and the tenants, and have set off the first grass-roots rumbling for rent control in Hermosa Beach since the City Please see RENT, Page 7 £tos Angeles gimes RENT: 25% Increase Continued from Page 1 Council rejected the idea five years ago Galambos called a tenants' meet- ing last month and asked his neigh- • bors to join him in a protest against ; the arecond increase. He encour- aged them to write letters to the'• . building owner, Allen Ginsburg, a Wilmington ophthalmologist and,': the father of Jeffrey Ginsburg. Their letters -went unanswered, they said, as did their telephone calls to Dr. Ginsburg's office. "The ' only way I could get hold of him • was to be devious," Galambos said. • "I had to pretend I was a patient." :The doctor told him he had no choice but to raise rents because they were significantly below mar- ket value. Went to Councilman - Frustrated, the tenants contact- ed City Councilman George Barks, who played go-between on Tues- day night as 70 irate tenants squared off against Jeffrey Gins- burg in the complex's recreation • room. Ginsburg said his father was away on vacation and could not be reached.- "__ At the meeting, residents com- plained that they should have been informed in April, when rents first went up, that a second increase was on the way. ' ' "The monetary value is not my argument," Galambos said. "My argument is the way the landlord went about this. He should have us time to et out." insburgac nowTedged that both increases had been planned in. March but said his father thought it would be easier on the tenants to'. raise rents gradually. 'We could have done one increase," he said, "but we broke it into two?' Required to Raise Rents Ginsburg said his father had been required to bring the rents "up to market value" by World Savings, the institution that gave Allen Ginsburg the loan to buy the •property in January. However, a World Savings spokesman said last week that such a requirement would be highly unusual. "I can't imagine the bank getting involved in any forced rent in- creases," said Al Suebeck, loan officer for the South Bay. "We can't tell them to do anything." • . An average one -bedroom apart- ment at Pepper .Tree will rent for 775-cr..4-1 $645 in October, up from $525 in 7 March. A two-bedroom unit will _4 go • HARRY CHASE / Los Angeles Times 'My argument is the way the landlord ' went about this. He should have given .. us time to get out.' —Greg Galambos Pepper Tree tenant agencies that were contacted said rents for one -bedroom apartments in Hermosa Beach range from $450 to $750. Rents quoted for two-bed- room apartments ranged from $600 to $1200. Tenants, however, said they are angered by the percentage of the increases, rather than the dollar amount. Under the previous owner, rent increases averaged 7% to 8% a year, they said. Ask Council to Intervene A group of tenants plans to ask the City Council on Tuesday to intervene to work out a solution. If that fails, the tenants plan to ask for some sort of rent -protection ordinance, though some tenants oppose rent control, Galambos said. Rent control would not find favor with the council or the community, Councilman Barks said. "I don't think the community supports rent control. ... In the long term, rent control is not good for tenants, the city or the land- lords." . The council turned down a rent cost. $850, up from $700. Five rental control proposal five years ago, Barks said. A once -a -year limit on rent increases might be more ac- ceptable, he said. He said he had not received any complaints until the current controversy arose. As for tenant Galambos, he does not plan to wait for council action. He has already made plans to move from the Pepper .Tree to a•three- bedroom apartment in Torrance . that he'll share with two room- mates. His portjon of the rent? Just $265... •i 6 Cont d on page tt ---- HB tenants told property tenets in failed bid for rent rollback by Michael Wolf Hopes for rent control were quickly dis- pelled Tuesday as the Hermosa Beach city council moved to act as an intermediary between a landlord and a group of tenants protesting a massive rent hike. More than 50 Peppertree apartment dwellers attended the council meeting in a campaign to get the building's owners to roll back part of the average 25 percent in- crease imposed this year in rents. Representatives of the apartment dwellers told the council they were not protesting the total dollar amount of the increase, but rather the sharpness of the increase. In some cases, the increase amounted to 33 percent over 10 months. In addition to asking that the landlord roll back the second rent increase this year from October to next April, the tenants want extended notice of projected increases. They contended that a 40 -day notice of an increase leaves fhem only 10 days to look for a new place or make a decision, since they are required to give the landlord 30 days notice if they move out. The.city council appointed a committee, Gary Brutsch and George Barks, to meet with the Peppertree tenants and the land- lord. • The building was purchased earlier this year by Dr. Alan . Ginsberg of Palos Verdes, and is run by a company formed by his two sons. One of them, Jeff Ginsberg, told the council Tuesday that the rents charged at Peppertree are below market value for comparable rentals in the area, even after the . two hikes this year. ' Ginsberg also told the council that he had not given notice of a. second rent in- crease to the tenants, after announcing the first increase at the beginning of the year. One of the tenants' requests was that the council consider an ordinance, limiting Hermosa Beach landlords to one increase a year, no matter how many times the buildings change owners in that year. The council' refused, but at the request of Barks, asked the city attorney to study a draft of a "renters protection" ordinance presented by Peppertree renter Marty - Estrin. The draft would require a landlord to give 90 days notice in the event of a rent increase exceeding 10 percent. The Peppertree presentations triggered a speech by mayor Jack Wood on the ad- verse consequences t1"reats to ii divi dual freedom of rent control. Wood also accused Barks of disregard- ing council policy by inviting the dis- senting Peppertree renters to the council meeting. This, said Wood, overrides the Cont'd on page 10 r. re in • m co wl cil n -a co. •co sai 1 ful sai thE thE '1 abi ed a c' Fei no: by it. ' vet. an) rea. the A unc cou ask Nacti the hat I co. C 'Jut itC'Jelu Lie CUM= mission, at minimum, will be updated on Renters Cont ii from page 4 mayor and council's prerogative to sched- ule speakers. Barks responded that the rent increase becomes effective October 1 and that the emergency warranted his move. Wood then asked Barks whether Barks had expected the council to roll back the rents. Barks said no. The dispute ended with the council unanimously voting to reaffirm the policy that the mayor retains control of meeting agendas. b. Report from Councilmembers George Barks and Gary Brutsch re. Peppertree Apartment rents. Memo- randum from Councilman Gary L. Brutsch dated October 7, 1985. An oral report was presented by Councilman Barks. Action To write a letter to the Greater Los Angeles Apartment Owner's Association regarding this matter. Motion Barks, second Cioffi AYES - Barks, Cioffi, DeBellis NOES - Mayor Wood ABSENT - Brutsch Minutes 10-14-85 October 7, 1985 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council City Council Meeting of October 14, 1985 COMMITTEE MEMBER REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL - PEPPERTREE RENT MEETING OF OCTOBER 2, 1985 As directed by the City Council at its September 24th meeting a City Council subcommittee, consisting of Councilmember Barks and myself met jointly with the owner and representative tenants of the Pepper Tree Apartments. As a result of that meeting (October 2, 1985) I have concluded that: 1. Dr. Ginzburg complied with all the pertinent laws governing noticing to tenants; 2. Two rent increases within one year did constitute a shock to many of the renters; 3. The apartment owner contemplated two increases at the time the first one was implemented; While I continue to uphold the right of a property owner to col- lect rents adequate to protect an investment, I support the fol- lowing -actions which were agreed to by Dr. Ginzburg: . 1. No further rent increases for one year; 2. Additional time for hardship, senior citizens who wish to relocate due to the rent adjustments. I do not support the concept of rent control and urge my col- leagues to not enact such government regulation. I would support a motion requiring management/tdnants to consider the human side of business, however it is not the function of government to pre- scribe legal human behavior. Gary L./=ruts.che5e-ezZ-Zf.) City Cola cilmember GLB/ld 11b c. Memorandum from Councilmember Barks Apartment tenants concerns. Councilman Barks presented a report at Peppertree Apartments. re. Peppertree on the problems Speaking, asking the City Council to intervene and act as a third party arbitrator in the many tenant/ landlord problems, were: Greg Galambos, 1820 Ardmore Diana Da'Vis, 1820 Ardmore Sandra Yagoda, 1820 Ardmore Maggie Gabriele, 1821 Pacific Coast Highway Marie Armstrong, 1821 Pacific Coast Highway Marty Estrin, 1820 Ardmore - presented a draft rent protection ordinance Jeff Pusarti, 1820 Ardmore - presented a petition Others speaking were: Jeff Ginsberg, Jr., 27519 Long Hill Drive, Palos Verdes, speaking on behalf of his father, owner of Peppertree Apartments, supporting the rent in- creases. Parker Herriott, 224 - 24th Street - opposes rent restrictions and feels the City has no business in the landlord business. Proposed Action: To direct the City Attorney to bring back to the next City Council meeting a rent protection ordinance similar to the draft ordinance presented by Mr. Estrin. Motion Barks - dies for lack of a second Proposed Action: tion presented by Motion Mayor Wood To receive Councilman - dies for and file the informa- Barks. lack of a second Action: The City Council to set up a subcommittee to talk with the tenants and landlord and report back to the City Council, Councilmen Barks and Brutsch to be members of the subcommittee. Motion Brutsch, second DeBellis AYES - Barks, Brutsch, Cioffi, DeBellis NOES - Mayor Wood - 8 - Minutes 9-24-85 d-eco,- -4 September 19, 1985 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council City Council Meeting of September 24, 1985 PEPPERTREE APARTMENT TENANTS CONCERNS RE NEW RENT INCREASE It is requested of my colleagues that: 1. They join with me in expressing concern to the owners of the Pepper Tree Apartments over their raising the rents twice in one year; 2. Consideration be given to adopting an Ordinance that would limit the frequency of rent adjustments to once every 12 months. 3 Convene a Council sub -committee meeting to help in resolving this matter (as was done similarly several years ago in regard to the Marineland Mobilehome Park). For your information I have attached a copy of my September 12 letter to the managers of the Pepper Tree and a copy of the ten- ant letter objecting to two significant increases within a one year period. I i L.4 Ge." ge Councilmember GGB/ld s cc: Mr. Rick Heaney September 12, 1985 llTy aF 1IRNoM 1¢411q1 CIVIC CENTER HERMOSA BEACH CALIFORNIA 9 0 2 5 4 CITY HALL::(213 3 7 6- 6 9 8 4 POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS: 3 7 6- 7 9 8 1 G and G Enterprises Management Corporation 7519 Longhill Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274 To whom it may concern: I have been contacted by Mr. Rick Heaney, tenant at the Pepper - tree Apartments, 1820 Ardmore Avenue, Hermosa Beach, Apartment #7. He has expressed a concern for the tenants at this complex with regard to a proposed rent increase effective October 1, 1985. It has been purported to me that this will be the second rent increase in the past six months. I have been told this equates to an approximate $150/month increase during this period of time. Mr. Heaney believes that this will create a financial hardship for many of his fellow tenants. I have included with this letter a copy of a tenants petition that was given to me. The purpose of sending this letter. to .you is not to take a posi- tion with regards to your tenants request, but rather to offer a sub -committee of our City Council comprised of two members to sit down with the tenants and yourselves to help in resolving the concerns of your tenants by sitting in as a third party to pro- mote better understanding and communication. Since I have been on the _City Council, which has been 12 years, there has been one attempt to bring rent control into our city. I did not then and do not support now rent control as a method to resolve these problems. We have been successful in the past as a third party in discussions to resolve these issues and avert any rent control action. Feel free to call me if you have any further questions or if I may be of any help to you in this matter. My phone number is 379-2538 and my address is 847 Third Street, Hermosa Beach. Sincerely, George G,arks m4- Counci man CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH cc: Mr. Rick Heaney City Council & Mayor City ManagerV Dr. Alan, Ginsberg • h .�v . R 1 ' _ nie. &coo( 6Atz,s t. To Fellow Pepper Tree Tenants: Efforts are underway to prevent the rent increase scheduled for Oct. 1. If you agree with the attached letter, simply mail it to G & G. There is no need to sign it. If G & G receives a hundred or so letters -- in effect, a petition from its tenants -- that might make an impression on them. If not, we can then pursue other measures, including the extension of rent control to Hermosa Beach which is already in effect in many nearby communities. Nail the attached letter to: G & G Enterprises 7519 Longhill Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca. 90274 September 1, 1935 G & G Enterprises 7519 Longhill Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca. 90274 To the Owners and Management of the Pepper Tree Apartments: We, the tenants of the Pepper Tree Apartments, 1820 Pacific Coast Hwy. and 1820 Ardmore Ave., Hermosa Beach, strongly protest your notification to us of a rent increase effective Oct. 1, 1985, which is the second increase imposed on most of us in the past six months. This increase is so excessive and out -of -line with our expect- ations when we became renters here, that we cannot passively accept it. While the Consumer Price Index has gone up by less than four per cent in the past year, you are seeking to raise most rents by 25 per cent in six months -- that is more than 600 per cent of the rate of inflation. Furthermore, the past practice of the owners of this complex has been to increase rents no more than once a year, and that is customary throughout the apartment industry. Therefore, if you intend to raise rents twice a year, you should have assessed all tenants of that immediately when you became the new owners of this complex. Presently, we would like to give you the opportunity to re- evaluate your current practices and affect the following: - -The latest rent increase should be rescinded for all tenants who have received a second raise this year. Increases should also be rescinded for those other tenants who have received a raise notice but who have lived here less than a year. - -In the future, raises should be limited to once a year, and within a reasonable rate of the CPI. If the rent increases are not rescinded in writing within 72 hours of your receipt of this petition, the tenants reserve the right to take all appropriate actions through all appropriate avenues of recourse. In re-evaluating your position, you may wish to consider the following: ; • Page 2 --Simply because some other apartment complexes are charging excessive rents is no excuse for you to do the same. In fact, zany of us moved into this building because rents were reasonable here. --The sea breeze, which you praise as being a bonus feature of living in this complex, is provided by nature. You should not be trying to charge us extra for it. --Your proposed rent increase, which totals 25 per cent in just six months, is unquestionably a financial hardship for most tenants; and an unplanned move to another apartment building is also a hardship. If there is anything exceptional about the Pepper Tree Apartments, it is that the group of people living here are very considerate and conscientious tenants. We hope the new owners and management will become likewise. The Tenants of the Pepper Tree Apartments, Hermosa Beach Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission August 17, 1987 Regular Meeting of August 25, 1987 SUBJECT: VAR 86-9, APPEAL OF A VARIANCE DENIAL LOCATION: 906 PROSPECT AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 144, REDONDO VILLA TRACT APPLICANT: OLGUIN AND RUTHERFORD 936 PROSPECT AVENUE, NO. 106 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 REQUEST: TO MAINTAIN A WALL THAT EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AREA AT 906 PROPECT AVENUE Recommendation The Planning Commission and Staff recommend adoption of the attached Resolution confirming denial of the variance request to maintain a wall that exceeds the maximum allowable height within the front yard setback area At 906 Prospect Avenue. There is no designated Planning Commission spokesperson for this item. Background The Staff Environmental Staff Review Committee, at their meeting of November 26, 1987, did not find any environmental impacts associated with this project and recommended a Negative Declaration. The Staff Environmental Review Committee also recommended denial of the variance because they could not find any unusual circumstances associated with this project. At their meeting of January 20, 1987, the Planning Commission continued the Public Hearing regarding this matter and adopted a Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow fences to exceed the maximum allowable height subject to obtaining a Conditional Use Permit. On April 14, 1987, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution recommending that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to require Conditional Use Permits for fences that exceed the allowable height limit. The City Council, at their meeting of April 28, 1987, received and filed the staff report and directed staff to study over -height fences as they pertain to non-residential uses only. The Planning Commission, at their meetings of May 19, 1987, June 2, 1987, and July 7, 1987, granted the applicant continuations of the matter to provide the applicant additional time to prepare for the Public Hearing. 1 5 The Planning Commission, at their meeting of July 21, 1987, recommended denial of the variance request based on the fact that the Planning Commission was unable to make the necessary Findings to approve a variance. Analysis The applicant is requesting a variance to maintain a fence constructed within the front yard setback which exceeds the maximum allowable height. The Zoning Code allows fences within the front yard setback to be maximum of thirty six (36) inches. The applicant has constructed a fence varying from thirty-six (36) inches to seventy-two (72) inches within the front yard. setback area. The wall was built at a recently constructed single family dwelling. The wall has no permits, and the approved plans for the dwelling did not show the wall as constructed. A Temporary Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for the site pursuant to the condition that the applicant either obtain a variance for the wall or remove that portion over height. The applicant has posted a five thousand dollar ($5,000) bond to insure performance of the established conditions. Section 233 of the Zoning Ordinance defines lot line, front as "...In the case of a corner lot, the front lot line shall be the line separating the narrowest street frontage of the lot from the street." Although the house fronts onto 9th -Street, the front yard, per definition of the Zoning Code, is located along Propect Avenue. A variance request to change the front yard to the side yard area will create a nonconforming structure because of setbacks. Further, to grant a variance for the location of the front yard is unprecedented and may result in future requests for other yards to become the front yard. Staff is unable to meet all the required Findings for granting a variance. Staff and the Planning Commission could not find any exceptional circumstances applicable to this property. The site is typical of other properties in the surrounding area. Staff is also concerned that granting this variance will set a precedent to allow variances for over height walls for all properties along Propsect Avenue or any other heavily traveled street. Additional analysis and background information is included in the attached staff reports dated July 21, 1987, July 7, 1987, and May 19, 1987. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 87- confirming the Planning Commission decision to deny the variance request 2. Resolution 87- approving the variance request on appeal 3. Resolution P.C. 87-28 4. Noise Study Submitted by Applicant 5. Letters from Applicant dated July 31, 1987 and July 14, 1987 2 6. Backgound a. Temporary Certificate of Occupancy and Agreement of Conditions b. Staff Reports and Minutes for P.C. Meetings of July 21, 1987, July 7, 1987, June 2, 1987, May 19, 1987, and January 20, 1987 c. Staff Reports and Minutes for C.C. Meetings of April 14, 1987 and April 28, 1987 d. Letters received from property owners supporting the variance 7. Site Plans and Photograph CON UR: Mic ae Schubach Planning Director 3 Res tfullubmitted, A1:'ew Per:a Associate 'lanner 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 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, ALIFORNIA, DENYING ON APPEAL A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO INTAIN A WALL THAT EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT WITHIN HE FRONT YARD SETBACK AREA AT 906 PROSPECT AVENUE. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held a public hearing in August 28, 1987 to receive oral and written testimony regarding the Planning Commission's denial of this request and made the following Findings: 1. The applicant constructed a wall varying in height from thirty-six inches to seventy-two inches within the front yard setback; The Zoning Ordinance prohibits fences from exceeding thirty-six inches within the front yard setback area; There are no exceptional or unusual features of size, shape, or topography which qualify this property for a variance. A substantial property right which has been granted to other properties within the vicinty for lots of similar size, shape, and location is not being denied. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY DENY A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO MAINTAIN A FENCE THAT EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AREA AT 906 PROSPECT AVENUE. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of August, 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 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, APPROVING ON APPEAL A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO MAINTAIN A WALL THAT EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AREA AT 906 PROPECT AVENUE. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held a public hearing on August 28, 1987 to receive both oral and written testimony regarding the Planning Commission's denial of this request and made the following Findings: 1. (To be completed upon Findings established by the City Council). 2. 3. 4. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY APPROVE A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO MAINTAIN A WALL THAT EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT OF THIRTY-SIX INCHES (36") WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AREA AT 906 PROSPECT AVENUE. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of August, 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 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. 87-28 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A WALL TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN FRONT YARD SETBACK AT 906 PROSPECT AVENUE. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on this matter on July 21, July 7, June 2, May 19, and January 20, .1987 to receive oral and written testimony regarding this matter pursuant to applicable law and made the following Findings: A. The applicant constructed a wall varying in height from thirty-six inches to seventy-two inches within the front yard setback; B. The Zoning Ordinance prohibits fences from exceeding thirty-six inches within the front yard setback area; C. There are no unusual fetaures of size, shape, or topography which qualify this property for a variance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission. of the City of Hermosa Beach, California does hereby deny a variance to allow a fence to exceed the maximum allowable height within the front yard setback at 906 Prospect Avenue. VOTE: AYES: Comms.Peirce,Rue,Chmn.Sheldon NOES: None ABSTAIN: Comm.Compton ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 87-28 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, at their regular meetipg of July 7, 1.987. (A) Chuck Sheldon, Chairman e/Vell Dat ( (1 ,.(( Qa)20 (0( Mic ael Schubach, Secretar fl INU()1_' J1:1.1•Ri:' O\t'1:N;; O'f._:1.1.; ,) JAN .41 31A'rkYLO1: H GHR: ,1.1) ; I I' i? z(-1• KRISTIN 1 ()LS::N C SACKS, RIVERA 4 SOLOMON OLOMON A f 'A PAR TNER!'•HII' INCLUDINC, PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS S WTEI F H)l'LEVARI). `•,T'I'E 7O' WEST LOS ANt;ELES CALIFORNIA 90025 "'•^t)NE (213) - 73_b1135 City of Hermosa Beach City Hall Council Charbers July 31, 1987 RE: Appeal from Denial of Variance at 906 Prospect Avenue Gentlepersons: 'A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION As the new owner of the property located at 906 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach, California, I herewith appeal Denial of Variance to allow a wall to exceed maximum height within the front yard setback on the following grounds: THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS APPLICZyBLE TO THE PROPERTY INVOLVED. The yard inside the subject wall is the only yard area for this property. The yard Treasures approximately 12' x 60' and has a lighted, planted palm. Without the existing wall all privacy would be lost to persons utilizing this yard for sunbathing or other such activities. If there was a back yard in the rear of the property, the wall would not be as crucial to the overall conditions and enjoyment of this property. The side yard is in reality my back yard. Any traffic proceeding east on Ninth Street must turn right on Prospect and left on Ninth to continue in an easterly directional along Ninth Street. The living room and master bedroom face west looking down Ninth Street. With- out the wall, the traffic headlights would shine right into these rooms. As stated at the prior hearings, the noise level from these vehicles, racing their engines to get up the hill on Ninth Street or driving on Prospect would be intolerable without the wall to deaden the sound. The Noise Monitoring Analysis as previously submitted is attached hereto for your review. City of Hermosa Beach July 31, 1987 City Hall' Council Chambers Page 2 Although the address of the site is 906 Prospect Avenue, the property actually faces Ninth Street and it is really just the side yard wall along Prospect Avenue (which slopes downwards towards Ninth Street) that exceeds the height limit of 36 inches; and this is ncstly along the northerly end of the wall which decreases in height as the wall runs to Ninth Street. THAT SUCH VARIANCE IS NECESSARY FORME PRESERVATION AND ENJOYMENT OF A SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY RIGHT POSSESSED BY GTHER PROPERTY IN THE SAME VICINITY AND ZONE, AND DENIED TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. Most of the properties in the immediate vicinity are single family residence with normal set-ups including a front yard, rear yard and neighbors on either side. This property has no rear yard and a small front yard that serves as the entry way to the house and the side yard inside the wall in question. Due to the site constraints, no other yard was able to be placed on the site. This yard area represents a crucial and necessary open air environment for the resident owner which would be substantially impaired if the wall is reduced to 36 inches. THAT THE GRANTING OF SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT`BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE, OR INJURIOUS TO THE PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SAME ZONE OR VICINITY IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. The Staff Environmental Review Comrrittee did not find any negative environmental impacts associated with this project and recommended a negative declaration. No opposition was submitted or voiced on this variance request. The wall itself was designed to taper off as it approaches Ninth Street to allow for vehicles heading west along Ninth_Strcct to visually scc the traffic coming towards them on Prospect Avenue. This is not a case where the applicant seeks a wall of equal height around the entire house (see for example 202 Hollowell Avenue). THAT THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSF'TX AFFECT ANY ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN. The wall in question will not conflict with any public access or recreation or would not prejudice this city's ability to prepare and implement a local coastal program. Based on all of the above the appeal should be granted. Respectfully submitted, SACKS, RIVERA & SOLOMON A Law Partnership BY: CGCAR J RIVERA, OJR:spm cc: Mr. Jay Siegel, 169 Pier Ave., 2nd Flr., Santa Nbnica, CA cc: Mr. Jerry Olguin, Olguin & Rutherford, 936 Hermosa Ave., #106, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 F4%n1 .7,,1.. 1001 Davy Associates, Inc. Consultants in Acoustics 8G5 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Suite 202 • Manhattan Beach. California 90266-4911 • 213/546.3387 JN 87120 NOISE MONITORING ANALYSIS 906 Prospect Avenue Hermosa Beach, California for Olguin & Rutherford 936 Hermosa Avenue, Suite 106 Hermosa Beach, California 90254 July, 1987 1.0 Introduction At the direction of Olguin & Rutherford, Davy & Associates, Inc. has completed an acoustical analysis of the site located at.906 Prospect Avenue in Hermosa Beach, California. Section 2.0 contains the results of measurements and calculations of the exterior noise environment at the site. 2.0 Exterior Acoustical Environment Environmental noise levels were monitored at the site in Hermosa Beach, California during a site inspection that was conducted on July 10, 1987 between the hours of 1:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. Noise levels at the site are dominated by vehicular traffic on Prospect Avenue to the west. No other significant sources of noise were noted during the site visit. Noise levels were monitored during the site inspection at the northwest corner of the house (Location 1), where shielding is provided by a 3' wall, and at the northeast corner of the house (Location 2), where shielding is provided by a 6' wall. Environmental noise levels at these locations were measured with a precision integrating sound level meter that measures and displays the equivalent noise level (LEQ), as well as the maximum and the minimum noise levels during the measurement period. All measurements were made with a B&K 2230 Sound Level Meter that had been calibrated with a B&K 4230 Acoustical Calibrator immediately prior to use. A copy of the analysis of the acoustical data is attached to this report. The data thus collected were analyzed to determine the CNEL level at the measurement location. The CNEL value was determined by measuring the equivalent noise level (LEQ) directly, and then calculating the equivalent noise level for each of the other 23 hours in the day.l This CNEL approach has been -utilized in the past and compared with automatic .4 -hour measurements at the same location. The calculation procedure has always been within acceptable accuracy limits. The results of the monitoring and calculations are summarized below in Table 1. 1See, for example, "Insulation of Buildings Against Highway Noise", B. Davy and S. Skale, Federal Highway Administration FHWA-TS-77-202. Table 1 Measured Ambient Noise Levels in dB Location Location 1 Location 2 Peak Hour LEQ CNEL 64 dB „61 6�d0 64 Measurements made at Location 1 were behind a 3' high wall, and measurements made at Location 2 were behind a 6' wall. The wall steps down from a height of approximately 6' to 3' along Prospect Avenue. The results of the measurements a,,d calculations shown above indicate that noise will exceed CNEL 65 in the areas where the wall is 3' high. The effects of decreasing the wall to 3' across the property line will then increase noise levels throughout the entire front yard to CNEL 67. This is significant infrPRRP since the generally accepted criterion for exterior nois levels in Los Angeles County is CNEL 65. The west corner of the house, behind the 6' wall, would be considered to be the outdoor living space, since this is where the patio and exterior doors are located. If the wall is removed, noise levels in this outdoor recreation area will exceed CNEL 65, and there is no feasible mitigation to reduce these noise levels. We therefore recommend that the shielding wall be left in place. • `1 SITE MONITORING NOISE ANALYSIS JN 87120 PROJECT: 906 PROSPECT AVENUE, HERMOSA BEACH LOCATION: LOCATION 1 TEST DATE: 7/10/87 START TIME: 1:00 P.M. END TIME: 1:30 P.M. EQUIPMENT USED: B&K 2230 / B&K 4230 LEQ = 64.1 dB LMAX = 78.7 dB LMIN = 42.1 dB CNEL = 67.1 dB LDN = 66.1 dB DAVY & ASSOCIATES, INC. SITE MONITORING NOISE ANALYSIS JN 87120 PROJECT: 906 PROSPECT AVENUE, HERMOSA BEACH LOCATION: LOCATION 2 TEST DATE: 7/10/87 START TIME: 1:30 P.M. END TIME: 2:00 P.M. EQUIPMENT USED: BOK 2230 / B&K 4230 LEQ = 61.4 dB LMAX = 73.0 dB LMIN = 47.4 dB CNEL = 64.4 dB LDN = 63.4 dB DAVY & ASSOCIATES, INC. July 14, 1987 Planning Department City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Dear Commission Members: I am requesting a'v'ariance to allow a block wall to remain at 906 Project. Please refer to your paragraph 1) listed in the Application for Variance which states that there are exceptional or extraordinancry circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved. The reasons are listed below: 1. ` The subject wall in question .is only 46 feet long with an average height of 46 inches. 2. I have also enclosed sound data studies done by Bruce Davy and Associates (sound engineer) showing that the wall does indeed help in the preservation and enjoyment of this property and his recommendation states that the wall remain as is. (see copy enclosed) . 1S- 936 HERMOSA AVE., NO. 106, HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 (213) 376-9406 TO ackgr _nu tt PI a trrittig -/6- .•,••141.v.FA`47;•;;V44.1a.vX74-.74 ustA7.0;•9797.7.9 . ;1Z . 9 . . ..,•;4-4;;•F 9 Il.v.9.t.T.1;.9.7.9A.A....4;.,. . 4.1,;.9....;.-•94.00 • '44.9 9.179 t4.-94 . W9-.V.C4Chw,V•*a. • Titg itf_LBERMOSA BEACH • • iirpartntrut Eltittritt .:11-tprrtinit This Certificate issued pursuant to the requirements of Section 306 of the Uniform Building Code certifying that at the time of issuance this structure was in compliance with the various ordinances of the City regulating building construction or use. For the following: Group R Div 3 Type Construction VN Fire Zone Owner of Building N. & K.. Shirotant, J . TakamaAtigass 715 N..Paulina, Redondo Bch 90277 Building Address 906 Prospect William Grove, Director Building Official Locality HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254. By: Date: —October 24,. 1986' . •ell•ar • • I•• • • •I• • I •111 • .1,11, • ••• •t161. •S• •Ii• • I • •Xt The attached certificate of occupancy is only temporary in nature and shall only become permanent if the conditions set forth herein are satisfactorily completed. In order to obtain a perma- nent certificate of occupancy, applicant must apply for and ob- tain a variance for the wall that exceeds the three foot height limit established by the City. If the variance sought is not approved by the City, applicant shall either tear down the wall in question or bring it into con- formity with City codes within 10 days of the final decision of the City. Applicant shall post a five thousand dollar bond to insure performance of these conditions by applicant. If appli- cant fails to take the required step of removing or bringing the wall into legal compliance within the established time limits, the City shall have the right to take the full bond amount as liquidated damages for the failure to comply with the terms of this temporary certificate. The taking of the proceeds of the bond will not preclude the City from tearing down the wall or bringing it into compliance. If legal action is required by the City to foreclose on the bond or if legal action is required to abate the illegal height of the wall in question, the City shall be entitled to recover its at- torney's fees and costs which arise out of such action. These conditions must be met by applicant without any notice of de- ficiency being sent by the City. I hereby accept and agree to comply with the terms of this Tem- porary Certificate of Occupancy. Nobuyasu Shirotani Li Juko Takamatsu • Kyo o A. Shirotani Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission July 16, 1987 Regular Meeting of July 21, 1987 UNFINISHED BUSINESS (Continued from July 7, 1987) SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: REQUEST: VAR 86-9 906 PROSPECT AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 144, REDONDO VILLA TRACT OLGUIN AND RUTHERFORD 936 PROSPECT, AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A WALL TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny a variance request to maintain a wall exceeding the maximum allowable height of thirty six inches (36") within the front yard setback area. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission, at their meeting of July 7, 1987, granted the applicant an additional continuation of this matter to provide time to prepare a noise analysis of the site and address the required findings for granting a variance. In addition, the Planning Commission directed staff to send a letter to the applicant advising him of the continuance and to submit any additional information to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Additional background information has been prepared in the attached Staff Reports dated July 7, 1987 and May 19, 1987. ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a variance to maintain a fence constructed within the front yard setback area which exceeds the maximum allowable height. The zoning code allows fences within the front yard setback to be a maximum of thirty six inches. The applicant has constructed a wall within the front yard varying from thirty six to seventy two inches. The applicant has provided a noise study of the property. The study concludes that the existence of the wall constructed above height minimally reduces noise levels. The applicant has also submitted a letter addressing some of the required Finding for granting a variance. Staff is unable to meet all the required findings for granting a variance. Staff cannot find exceptional circumstances applicable to this property. The site is typical of other properties in the surrounding vicinity, and throughout the city. Staff is also concerned that granting this variance will set a precedent to allow properties along Propsect Avenue or any other heavily travel street to construct six foot high walls. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution P.C. 87-28 2. Noise Study Submitted by Applicant 3. Letter from Applicant dated july 14, 1987 2. Background a. Staff Report for P.C. Meeting of July 7, 1987 b. Staff Report for P.C. Meeting of June 2, 1987 c. P.C. Minutes of June 2, 1987 d. Staff Report for P.C. Meeting of May 19, 1987 e. P.C. Minutes of May 19, 1987 f. Staff Review Minutes December 4, 1986 g. Staff Report for P.C. Meeting of January 20, 1987 h. C.C. Minutes of April 14, 1987 i. C.C. Minutes of April 28, 1987 CONCH Michael" Schubac Planning Director ._._, An.rew P ea Associat- Planner • PLANNING COMMIS iON MINUTES - JULY 21, 1987 AYES: Comm. Rue, Chrnn. Sheldon NOES: Comm. Peirce ABSTAIN Comm. Compton ABSENT: None Recess taken from 10:05 P.M. until 10:10 P.M. PAGE 16 VARIANCE TO EXCEED HEIGHT LIMITATION FOR A WALL LOCATED AT 906 PROSPECT AVENUE Comm. Compton abstained from discussion on this matter because of a conflict of interest in that he has a business relationship with the applicant. Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 16, 1987. The Planning Commission at their meeting of July 7, 1987, granted the applicant an additional continuation of this matter to provide time to prepare a noise analysis of the site and address the required findings for granting a variance. In addition, the Planning Commission directed staff to send a letter to the applicant advising him of the continuance and to submit any additional information to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The applicant is requesting a variance to maintain a fence constructed within the front yard setback area which exceeds the maximum allowable height. The zoning code allows fences within the front yard setback to be a maximum of thirty-six inches. The applicant has constructed a wall within the front yard varying from thirty-six to seventy-two inches. The applicant has provided a noise study of the property. The:study7, oncludesAhatthe existence of the wall constructed above height minimally reduces noise levels. The applicant has also submitted a letter addressing some of the required findings for granting a variance. Staff is unable to meet all of the required findings for granting a variance. Staff cannot find exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property. The site is typical of other properties in the surrounding vicinity and throughout the City. Staff is also concerned that the granting of this variance will set a precendent to allow properties along Prospect Avenue or any other heavily traveled street to construct six- foot -high walls. Mr. Schubach concluded by stating that staff recommends denial of the variance to maintain a wall exceeding the maximum allowable height of thirty-six inches within the front yard setback area. Comm. Rue asked about the threshold point in regard to the noise study. Mr. Schubach explained that the threshold is reached at 65 decibels. He continued by discussing the noise study. He noted that the wall would help in reducing noise; however, the appropriate findings cannot be made to grant the variance. Public Hearing opened at 10:15 P.M. by Chmn. Sheldon. Jerry Olguin, 936 Hermosa Avenue, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission. He apologized for not being present at the last meeting, explaining that there was a misunderstanding between himself and staff. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 21, 1987 X PAGE 17 . Mr. Olguin stated that he requested the continuance in order to obtain more information regarding this wall. He stated that he had a sound consulting firm perform a noise analysis, which was done between the hours of 1:00 and 2:00 on July 10. He stated that the analysis was not done during peak hours, and he could not explain why the consultant chose to do the study during a non -peak period. He stated that the peak hours are between 6:30 A.M. and 9:00 A.M. and again from 3:30 P.M. to approximately 6:30 P.M. Mr. Olguin discussed the sound analysis, stating that if the study had been done during the peak hours, obviously the sound analysis report would have been significantly different. Mr. Olguin stated that the wall is not entirely six feet, explaining that its average height is 46 inches. The wall itself is about 65 feet from the corner of 9th Street and Prospect. He stated that the home was designed so that the outside area could be used as a recreation -type area; this was the reasoning behind the wall being higher than 36 inches. Mr. Olguin handed out photographs of the wall for the benefit of the Commission and explained the various locations of the wall. Mr. Olguin stated that he understood the staff's concern that the granting of this variance would create a precedent; however, he noted that this property differs in that the garages are on 9th Street, and the front yard faces Prospect. The way the house is designed, the living room and dining room area open onto the outdoor area which is surrounded by the wall. He stated that the layout of this house is unusual. Mr. Olguin felt that each variance request must be looked at on a case-by-case basis, asserting that this project should be approved because of the wall's partin reducing noise and the fact that this house is on a corner lot and has an unusual layout. He noted that the sound engineers recommended that the wall stay as is for the part it plays in noise reduction. Mr. Olguin explained the locations in which the the sound studies were performed. Public Hearing closed at 10:25 P.M. by Chmn. Sheldon. Comm. Peirce felt that every house on this street, and throughout the City, has a problem insofar as noise is concerned. He stated that it came as no surprise that the wall helped to reduce the noise at this location; however, he did not want to create a precedent by approving this variance. He felt that this project is no different from others in the same area, noting that the applicant chose to build in this manner. He felt that it is inappropriate for the applicant to put. the onus on the City in regard to the wall. For these reasons, he stated he would vote against the variance. Comm. Rue noted that the wall is aesthetically pleasing; however, he could not make the required findings to grant this variance. Chmn. Sheldon agreed that the wall is aesthetically pleasing and helps reduce noise, stating that those facts were never at issue in this case. The problem is that the findings cannot be made in this case. Chmn. Sheldon stated that even though the wall is attractive and reduces noise, it is illegal in that it exceeds 36 inches. He noted that he could not make the required findings to grant this variance. PLANNING COMMISiON MINUTES - JULY 21, 1987 PAGE 18 Comm. Rue stated that he drove by the property and could find no unusual circumstances, noting that it is very much like all the other lots at the same level. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve P.C. 87-28, denying the variance, based on the fact that the required findings could not be made. AYES: Comms. Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Sheldon NOES: None ABSTAIN: Comm. Compton ABSENT: None Chmn. Sheldon noted that all decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. TEXT AMENDMENT TO ADD VIDEOTAPE SALES AND RENTALS, EXCEPT "X" RATED, TO THE C-1 ZONE PERMITTED USE LIST Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 14, 1987. At the April 21, 1987, meeting the Planning Commission directed staff to set for public hearing a text amendment to consider adding videotape sales and rentals to the C-1 zone. The C-1 zone's intent and purpose is to provide convenient retail sales and service at a neighborhood level. Videocassette recorders are becoming as common as television sets. The videotape is a small item, and the amount of floor area needed for sales display can be as little as several square feet to hundreds of square feet. The demand for parking and traffic generated is typical of other retail uses and varies: with . the size of the business; i.e., the larger the inventory, the greater the parking demand. Currently, the C-1 zone allows music stores which sell musical cassettes; photographic equipment. is also permitted. These uses have the closest similarity to videotape sales and rentals. Overall, staff believes that this type of use is no more intense than other uses in the C-1 zone -and foresees no harm in adding it to the C-1 permitted use list provided no "X" rated videos are permitted. It should be noted that °once a use is listed in the C-1 zone, it is allowed in C-2 and C-3 zones automatically. Therefore, the proposed resolution eliminates the use from the list in the C-2 zone to prevent redundancy. Mr. Schubach concluded by stating that staff recommends adding videotape sales and rentals to the C-1 zone. Mr. Lough stated that this applicant is not requesting to have "X" rated video sales. However, he noted that there may be a problem on the outright prohibition of adult movies. He said that recent court decisions have asserted that ocassional usage of adult videos does not make an establishment solely an adult establishment. He said that one court case asserted that establishments with sales of 20 percent or less of adult videos does not make that an adult store. Mr. Lough stated that the Planning Commission may not have a great deal of control over such limitation. He stated that he would do more study on the issue, noting that the -- _ PLANNING COMMI ION MINUTES - JULY 21, 1987 PAGE 18 . Comm. Rue stated that he drove by the property and could find no unusual circumstances, noting that it is very much like all the other lots at the same level. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve P.C. 87-28, denying the variance, based on the fact that the required findings could not be made. AYES: Comms. Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Sheldon NOES: None ABSTAIN: Comm,. Compton ABSENT: None Chmn. Sheldon noted that all decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. TEXT AMENDMENT TO ADD VIDEOTAPE SALES AND RENTALS, EXCEPT "X" RATED, TO THE C-1 ZONE PERMITTED USE LIST Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 14, 1987. At the April 21, 1987, meeting the Planning Commission directed staff to set for public hearing a text amendment to consider adding videotape sales and rentals to the C-1 zone. The C-1 zone's intent and purpose is to provide convenient retail sales and service at a neighborhood level. Videocassette recorders are becoming as common as television sets. The videotape is a small item, and the amount of floor area needed for sales display can be as little as several square feet to hundreds of square feet. The demand for parking and traffic generated is typical of other retail uses and var•-ies:.,with_,the size of the business; i.e., the larger the inventory, the greater the parking demand. Currently, the C-1 zone allows music stores which sell musical cassettes; photographic equipment is also permitted. These uses have the closest similarity to videotape sales and rentals. Overall, staff believes that this type of use is no more intense than other uses in the C-1 zone and foresees no harm in adding it to the C-1 permitted use list provided no "X" rated videos are permit ted. It should be noted that once a use is listed in the C-1 zone, it is allowed in C-2 and C-3 zones automatically. Therefore, the proposed resolution eliminates the use from the list in the C-2 zone to prevent redundancy. Mr. Schubach concluded by stating that staff recommends adding videotape sales and rentals to the C-1 zone. Mr. Lough stated that this applicant is not requesting to have "X" rated video sales. However, he noted that there may be a problem on the outright prohibition of adult movies. He said that recent court decisions have asserted that ocassional usage of adult videos does not make an establishment solely an adult establishment. He said that one court case asserted that establishments with sales of 20 percent or less of adult videos does not make that an adult store. Mr. Lough stated that the Planning Commission may not have a great deal of control over such limitation. He stated that he would do more study on the issue, noting that the PLANNING COMMI tON MINUTES - JULY 21, 1987 PAGE 19 sale of general videos is a highly compatible use in the neighborhood commercial zone. Public Hearing opened at 10:34 P.M. by Chmn. Sheldon. Noting that the applicant was present but did not wish to speak, and there being no citizens who appeared to address the Commission, the Public Hearing was closed at 10:34 P.M. Chmn. Sheldon questioned whether there is a way to permit general video sales and exclude "X" rated sales in the C-1 zone. Mr. Lough stated that such a prohibition would be highly unenforceable. He stated that this issue relates to first amendment rights, noting that there may be problems with such a prohibition. MOTION by Comm. Compton, seconded by Chmn. Sheldon, to approve the staff recommendation to recommend a text amendment adding videotape sales and rentals, except "X" rated, to the C-1 zone permitted use list. Comm. Rue asked about parking and traffic problems as related to the video establishments. Mr. Schubach stated that parking and traffic have not been deemed to be a problem in the C-1 zone. He viewed these establishments as being similar to other uses in the same zone. Churn. Sheldon stated that the C-1 zone is surrounded by neighborhood residences. He noted concern over "X" rated videos in any part of the City, but particularly in the C-1 zone. He stated that he would rather have no video sales and rentals at all in the C-1 zone than to allow then with adult videos. Chmn. Sheldon stated that if adult videos are permitted in C-1, they are automatically permitted in C-2. Chmn. Sheldon voiced strong opposition to adult videos in both the C-1 and C-2 zones. Mr. Schubach stated that conditional use permits are currently required in the C-3 zone for all establishments offering adult -type videos. Mr. Lough stated that if an applicant wished to sell or rent 20 percent or more adult -type videos, he would be required to obtain a conditional use permit. He stated, though, that conditional use permits could be required for all video uses, if so desired. Comm. Compton questioned whether "X" rated videos could be restricted via the conditional use permit process. Mr. Lough stated that establishments are allowed up to 20 percent of adult videos, noting that that is the break off point between general sales and adult businesses. He noted that this also includes books and movies as well as videos. Mr. Lough stated that more research is necessary on this issue. Comm. Rue stated that he has no problem with this applicant, but he noted great concern over future applicants. He questioned whether the motion would be enforceable. Comm. Rue questioned whether displays could be controlled by a conditional use permit. --25 - r PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 21, 1987 PAGE 2b • Mr. Schubach stated that outdoor displays can be conditioned. Comm. Rue suggested a conditional use permit requirement be added to the motion. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Compton as maker, and agreed to by Chmn. Sheldon as second, that a conditional use permit be required for all video sales and rental establishments in C-1 and C-2 zones. Comm. Peirce spoke against the amendment, noting that the city is so small that it is very easy. for people to enter such establishments, whether they be in C-1, C-2 or C-3. He noted that establishments in the C-3 zone display notices near the entrances of the adult section advising that there are "X" rated videos being displayed. He felt that the issue is relatively minor and is nota public nuisance. AYES: Coniins. Compton, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Sheldon NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None STAFF ITEMS The Commissioners received a letter of resignation from the Planning Commission from John Berardo, dated July 13, 1987. MOTION by Comm. Compton, seconded by Comm. Rue, to accept the resignation. No objections; so ordered. Mr. Schubach discussed the issue of the removal of parking along the west side of Pacific Coast Highway explaining what will next happen on this issue. Comm. Peirce noted concern that no action is taking place on this issue. He stressed the importance of the issue being addressed. He asked that he be informed when the meeting will occur on the issue so that he can attend. The Commissioners received a memo from the City Manager regarding the City's ability to control alcoholic beverages. Chmn. Sheldon stated that the issue of alcoholic consumption is very important in this city. He noted that Councilwoman Williams had submitted an excellent article on the issue and he thanked her for the input. The Commissioners received a letter from the City Manager regarding a study of adopting an ordinance requiring on -sale liquor establishments to post signs warning that drinking alcoholic beverages during pregnancy can cause birth defects. Comm. Compton strongly favored the posting of such signs, and suggested that the recommendation be sent to the City Council. Mr. Schubach suggested that such a requirement become part of the conditional use permits for establishments selling alcoholic beverages. The Commissioners received copies of the City Council minutes. Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa -Beach Planning Commission • .June 29,. 1987 Regular Meeting of July 7, 1987 UNFINISHED BUSINESS (Continued from June 2, 1987) SUBJECT: VAR 86-9 LOCATION: 906 PROSPECT AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF LOTS_? AND 8, BLOCK 144, REDONDO VILLA TRACT APPLICANT: OLGUIN AND RUTHERFORD 936 PROSPECT AVENUE , HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 REQUEST: A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A WALL TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny a request for an additional continuation of this matter and to deny the application to maintain a wall exceeding the maximum allowable height of thirty six inches (36") within the front yard setback area. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission, at their meeting of June 2, 1987, granted the applicant an additional continuation of this matter to provide time to prepare a noise analysis of the site. The Planning -Department has not received any additional information regarding this site. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of May 19, 1987, granted the applicant a continuation of this matter to allow the applicant time to address the required four findings to grant a variance. Additional background information has been prepared in the attached Staff Report dated May 19, 1987. ANALYSIS • The applicant is requesting a variance to maintain a fence constructed within the front yard setback•area which exceeds the maximum allowable height. The zoning code allows fences within the front yard setback to be a maximum of thirty six inches. The applicant has constructed a wall within the front yard varying from thirty six to seventy two inches. The applicant has telephoned 'to request an additional continuation of this application, Staff is recommending denial of the continuation because the applicant has had over a month to June 29, 1987 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting, of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission July 7, 1987 UNFINISHED SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: REQUEST: BUSINESS (Continued from June 2, 1987) VAR 86-8 906 PROSPECT AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 144, REDONDO VILLA TRACT OLGUIN AND RUTHERFORD 936 PROSPECT AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A WALL TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny a request for an additional continuation of this matter and to deny the application to maintain a wall exceeding the maximum allowable height of thirty six inches (36") within the front yard setback area. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission, at their meeting of June 2, 1987, granted the applicant an additional continuation of this matter to provide time to prepare a noise analysis of the site. The Planning Department has not received any additional information regarding this site. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of May 19, 1987, granted the applicant a continuation of this matter to allow the applicant time to address the required four findings to grant a variance. Additional background information has been prepared in the attached Staff Report dated May 19, 1987. ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a variance to maintain a fence constructed within the front yard setback area which exceeds the maximum allowable height. The zoning code allows fences within the front yard setback to be a maximum of thirty six inches. The applicant has constructed a wall within the front yard varying from thirty six to seventy two inches. The applicant has telephoned to request an additional continuation of this application. Staff is recommending denial of the continuation because the applicant has had over a month to provide additional information regarding this variance. The Planning Department has not received any additional information. Staff is unable to meet all the required findings for granting a variance. Staff cannot find exceptional circumstances applicable to this property. The site is typical of other properties in the surrounding vicinity, and throughout the city. Staff is also concerned that granting this variance will set a precedent to allow properties along Propsect Avenue or any other heavily travel street to construct six foot high walls. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution P.C. 87-28 2. Background a. Staff Report for P.C. Meeting of June 2, 1987 b. P.C. Minutes of June 2, 1987 c. Staff Report for P.C. Meeting of May 19, 1987 d. P.C. Minutes of May 19, 1987 e. Staff Review Minutes December 4, 1986 f. Staff Report for P.C. Meeting of January 20, 1987 g. C.C. Minutes of April 14, 1987 h. C.C. Minutes of April 28, 1987 CONC Mic ae Schubach Planning Director Andrew Pere Associate Plhnner PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 7, 1987 PAGE 4 VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE HEIGHT LIMITATION FOR A WALL LOCATED AT 906 PROSPECT AVENUE (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 2, 1987) Comm. Compton stated that he would abstain from discussion of this matter because the applicant is his client. Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 29, 1987. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of June 2, 1987, granted the applicant an additional continuation of this matter to provide him time to prepare a noise analysis of the site. The Planning Department has not received any additional information regarding this site. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of May 19, 1987, granted the applicant a continuation of this matter to allow the applicant time to address the required four findings to grant a variance. Additional background information has been prepared by staff and was provided to the Commissioners. The applicant requested a variance to maintain a fence constructed within the front yard setback area which exceeds the maximum allowable height. The zoning code allows fences within the front yard setback to be a maximum of thirty-six inches. The applicant has constructed- a wall within the front yard varying from thirty-six to seventy-two inches. _ The applicant asked the Planning Department for an additional continuation of this application when contacted by staff. Staff recommended denial of the continuation because the applicant has had over a month to provide additional information regarding this variance. The Planning Department has not received any additional information. Mr. Schubach stated that staff is unable to find the required findings required for granting a variance. Staff cannot find exceptional circumstances applicable to this property. The site is typical of other properties in the surrounding vicinity and throughout the City. Staff is also concerned, that granting this variance will set a precedent to allow properties along Prospect Avenue or any other heavily traveled street to construct six-foot high walls. Mr. Schubach concluded by recommending that the Planning Commission deny the request for an additional continuation of this matter and to deny the application to maintain a wall exceeding the maximum allowable height to thirty-six inches within the front yard setback area. Comm. Peirce noted that nothing had been received in writing from the applicant requesting the continuation. He further noted that the applicant has submitted no new information on this issue. --30 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 7, 1987 PAGE 5 Mr. Schubach stated that there is no doubt in his mind that the applicant was aware of the fact that this public hearing would occur. Also, the hearing was fully noticed, Chmn. Sheldon noted that the applicant was not present. Mr. Schubach stated that the applicant informed a planning associate, by telephone, that he has been unable to complete the noise study, but every effort was being made to complete the study. Mr. Schubach stated that the applicant has had months to obtain a noise study by competent noise engineers; therefore, staff recommended denial of the continuance. Comm. Rue noted surprise that the applicant was not present. Mr. Schubach gave background information concerning the dates this issue has been heard previously. Mr. Schubach stated that the applicant was not specific in giving a reason, only that more time was needed to complete the necessary noise study. Chmn. Sheldon stated that the issue is of one of fairness to the applicant, stating that in a case of this magnitude, the applicant should be present. Comm. Peirce stressed that the applicant submitted nothing in writing; further, the applicant did not contact the City, the Planning Department called him. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Sheldon, to continue this variance request to the July 21, 1987, meeting of the Planning Commission.. Further, that the applicant shall be notified of the continuance. Comm. Rue stated that the Commission would like more information in writing from the applicant in regard to the intent of this applicant regarding the noise study. Chmn. Sheldon asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak on this issue; no -citizens responded. Chmn. Sheldon noted that the Commission has granted continuances on a fairly routine basis in other matters of less magnitude; therefore, he would support one continuance of this matter. Comm. Rue stated that he felt the applicant should be given an opportunity to address the Commission. Comm. Peirce felt that to continue this item would create a burden not only on the Commission but also on staffs' time. He stated that if this issue had been important to the applicant, the applicant could have sent a written request to the City. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Chmn. Sheldon as second, and agreed to by Comm. Rue as second, that the applicant shall be notified in writing by the Planning Department of the upcoming continuation date. AYES: Comm. Rue, Chmn. Sheldon NOES: Comm. Peirce ABSTAIN: Comms. Berardo, Compton ABSENT: None Honorable Chairman and Member of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission UNFINISHED SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: REQUEST: May 27, 1987 Regular Meeting of June 2, 1987 BUSINESS (Continued from May 19, 1987 VAR 86-9 906 PROSPECT AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 144, REDONDO VILLA TRACT OLGUIN AND RUTHERFORD 936 PROSPECT AVENUE, #106 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A WALL TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK RECOMMENDATION At the Planning Commission meeting of May 19, 1987, the Planning Commission continued this item to this meeting to allow the applicant additional time to address the findings required to grant a variance. The applicant has requested an additional continuation of his variance request to the meeting of July 7, 1987. The applicant has contracted a sound engineer to measure the noise level at the site. The engineer will be unable to conclude his study in time for this meeting. Staff recommends that the continuation be granted to the meeting of July 7, 1987. C�• Michae Schu.ach Planning Director Andrew Pe ea Associate Planner 1' PLANNING COMMISSI N MINUTES - JUNE 2, 1987 PAGE 2 VARIANCE TO ALLOW A WALL WHICH EXCEEDS THE HEIGHT LIMITATION OF 36 INCHES IN THE FRONT SETBACK AT 906 PROSPECT AVENUE (CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 19, 1987 Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 27, 1987. At the Planning Commission meeting of May 19, 1987, the Planning Commission continued this item to this meeting to allow the applicant additional time to address the findings required to grant a variance. The applicant has• requested an additional continuation of his variance request to the meeting of July 7, 1987. The applicant has contracted a sound engineer to measure the noise level at the site. The engineer was unable to conclude his study in time for this meeting. Mr. Schubach recommended that a continuation to the meeting of July 7, 1987, 'be granted. Chmn. Sheldon noted that since there were no objections, this item would be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of. July 7, 1987. May 11, 1987 Honorable Chairman and Member of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission May 19, 1987 UNFINISHED BUSINESS (Continued from 1-20-87, renoticed) SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: REQUEST: VAR 86-9 906 PROSPECT AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 144, REDONDO VILLA TRACT OLGUIN AND RUTHERFORD 936 PROSPECT AVENUE, #106 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A WALL TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission DENY the applcation to maintain a wall exceeding the maximum allowable height of thirty six inches within the front yard setback. BACKGROUND At their meeting of January 12, 1987, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing regarding this matter and adopted a resolution of intent to amend the zoning ordinance to allow fences to exceed the maximum allowable height subject to obtaining a Conditional Use Permit. Staff studied the proposed text amendment and prepared a staff report and draft resolution to adopt a zoning code amendment to allow fences to exceed the maximum height with a Conditional Use Permit. On April 14, 1987 the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to require Conditional Use Permits for fences that exceed the height limit. The City Council, at their meeting of April 28, 1987, received and filed the staff report and directed the Planning Commission to review the maximum height of fences as they pertain to non-residential uses only. The Staff Environmental Review Committee, at their meeting of November 26, 1986, did not find any negative environmental impact associated with this project and is recommending a Negative Declaration. The Staff Environmental Review Committee is also recommending denial of the variance because they could not determine any unusual circumstances associated with this project. ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a variance to maintain a fence constructed within the front yard setback area which exceed the maximum allowable height. The zoning code allows fences within the front yard setback to be a maximum of thirty six inches. The applicant has constructed a wall within the front yard varying from thirty six inches to seventy two inches The wall is aesthetically pleasing and provides the applicant with a private yard. The applicant also states that the wall was also' constructed to block noise along Prospect Avenue. Staff is unable to meet all the required finding for granting a variance. Staff cannot find exceptional circumstances applicable to this property. The site is typical of other properties in the surrounding vicinity, and throughout the City ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution P.C. 87-28 2. Background a. Staff Review Minutes of 12/4/86 b. Staff Report for P.C. Meeting of 1/20/87 c. P.C. Minutes of 1/20/87 d. C.C. Minutes of 4/14/87 e. C.C. Minutes of 4/28/87 CO Michael Schubach Planning Director A :`ew Per Associate a lanner . - PLANNING COMMISSivN MINUTES - MAY 19, 1987 PAGE 8 VARIANCE TO ALLOW A WALL WHICH EXCEEDS THE HEIGHT LIMITATION OF 36 INCHES IN THE FRONT SETBACK AT 906 PROSPECT AVENUE Comm. Compton abstained from discussion on this issue, noting that the applicant is his client. Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 11, 1987. He stated that at the Planning Commission meeting of January 12, 1987, the Commission continued the public hearing regarding this matter and adopted a resolution of intent to amend the zoning ordinance to allow fences to exceed the maximum allowable height subject to obtaining a conditional use permit. Staff studied the proposed text amendment and prepared a staff report and draft resolution to adopt a zoning code amendment to allow fences to exceed the maximum height with a conditional use permit. On April 14, 1987, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the zoning ordinance be amended to require conditional- use permits for fences that exceed the height limit. The City Council, at their meeting of April 28, 1987, received and filed the staff report and directed the Planning Commission to review the maximum height of fences as they pertain to non- residential uses only. The staff environmental review committee, at their meeting of November 26, 1986, did not find any negative environmental impact associated with this project and is - recommending a negative declaration. The staff environmental review committee is also recommending denial of the variance because they could not determine any unusual circumstances associated with this project. The applicant requested a variance to maintain a fence constructed within the front yard setback area which exceeds the maximum allowable height. The zoning code allows fences within the front yard setback to be a maximum of 36 inches. The applicant has constructed a wall within the front yard varying from 36 inches to 72 inches in height. The wall is aesthetically pleasing and provides the applicant with a private yard. The applicant also states that the wall was also constructed to block noise along Prospect Avenue. Staff is unable to meet all the required findings for granting a variance. Staff can find no exceptional circumstances applicable to this property. The site is typical of other properties in the surrounding vicinity and throughout the City. PLANNING COMMI,-.ON MINUTES - MAY 19, 1987 PAGE 9 Mr. Schubach concluded by stating that staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the application to maintain a wall exceeding the maximum allowable height of 36 inches within the front yard setback. Comm. Rue asked the location of the non -conforming portion of fence. Mr. Schubach stated that the fence exceeds the height along Prospect Avenue. Public Hearing opened at 8:51 P.M. by Chmn. Sheldon. Jerry Olguin, 306 30th Street, Hermosa Beach, general contractor, addressed the Commission and displayed a photograph depicting the wall in question. Mr. Olguin stated that this wall was intended to serve as a noise buffer because Prospect Avenue is a very heavily used street. He noted that there is a "STOP" sign at Prospect and 9th Street, and more noise is created by the cars stopping and starting at that sign. He stated that the front yard of the house is actually the back yard, because there is no back yard. The living room leads out into this area. The highest portion of the wall on Prospect is 60 inches. Mr. Olguin stressed that the wall is intended to serve as a noise buffer. Further, the wall is necessary for privacy. He stated that the wall is aesthetically pleasing. Comm. Schulte noted that the application submitted by the applicant had not addressed the four findings necessary to grant a variance. Mr. Olguin stated that he had not addressed the findings in the application; he asked if it would be possible to continue the hearing so that he could address the findings. Chmn. Sheldon stated that it is not the responsibility of an applicant to make the necessary findings; rather, that is a function of the Planning Commission based on the testimony and staff report. Public Hearing closed at 9:02 P.M. by Chmn. Sheldon. Comm. Peirce stated that this house covers the entire lot except for the setbacks. He felt that the applicant is, in essence, asking the City to provide him with private open space by building a six-foot wall. He noted that the wall looks attractive; but if this fence is allowed to remain for noise abatement and privacy at this house, all other houses along Prospect would be allowed the same type wall. He noted concern over setting a precedent by granting this variance. Comm. Peirce sympathized with the owner, but noted that he had difficulty supporting this variance. He discussed what has occurred in the north end of town, stating that there are so many six-foot walls that it is difficult to see City property which is behind the walls. He feared the same thing would happen if this variance is approved. Comm. Schulte felt that there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property. He stated that he would like the applicant to have an `opportunity to address specifically the four findings, especially numbers one and two. At this point, he could not favor this variance, though. Comm. Rue asked whether many of the lots along Prospect are above or below the street grade. PLANNING COMMI ...JN MINUTES - MAY 19, 1987 c PAGE 10 Mr. Schubach stated that the grade of the lots varies. Comm. Rue asked if Prospect Avenue is a collector street and whether there is evidence that it is an overloaded street, carrying more traffic than was originally intended. Mr. Schubach stated that Prospect Avenue is a collector street and is very definitely overloaded with traffic. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Sheldon for purposes of discussion, to approve the request for a variance to allow a newly constructed wall at 906 Prospect Avenue based on the following findings: 1. That there is an exceptional traffic load on a street designated as a collector and because of this overloading, the noise level is above what it should be; 2. That most of the lots along Prospect Avenue are either above the street, giving adequate height from the noise; or the street drops down to the westerly side to protect it; 3. That the variance would preserve the quality of life available in other surrounding properties either on 9th Street or Prospect specifically in regard to noise; 4. That granting of this variance is not materially detrimental to the public welfare, and it does not adversely affect the general plan. Chmn. Sheldon asked what differentiates this property from other properties in the area. Comm. Rue stated that this house is very close to the street; the elevation is almost on street level, whereas many other houses are situated on varying grades; the street is a two-lane street; the street is already very overloaded. He felt that these facts make this case exceptional. Comm. Schulte stated that those things could be applied to many other properties in the City. Comm. Peirce stated that many houses along Prospect have almost the same configuration as this house. If the variance were granted in this case, everyone in the area would be able to obtain a variance on the same grounds. Chmn. Sheldon questioned whether a precedent would be set by the granting of this variance. .He noted concern over the .possibility of granting special privileges. Comm. Schulte stated that he would prefer to let the applicant have a chance to address the four necessary findings. He stated that he could not support this motion, though. Comm. Rue felt that the "STOP" sign at 9th and Prospect causes more noise because of the extra stopping and starting of vehicles. He stressed that he feels there are instances which demand mitigating measures. He stated that in certain cases, projects are well done and have been done for a specific reason. Those cases need to be addressed. AYES: Comm. Rue NOES: Comms. Peirce, Schulte, Chmn. Sheldon ABSTAIN: Comm. Compton ABSENT: None - y r PLANNING COMMIr"`N MINUTES - MAY 19, 1987 c PAGE 11 (MOTION FAILS) MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Sheldon, to deny the variance based on the fact that the Planning Commission could not make the four findings necessary to the. granting of a variance. Mr. Olguin, representing the applicant, asked if the hearing could be continued so that he could have time to address the four necessary findings, particularly items one and two. Comm. Schulte stated that he would vote against the motion, stating that he preferred to continue the item in order to give the applicant a chance to address the findings. AYES: Comm. Peirce, Chmn. Sheldon NOES: Comms. Rue, Schulte ABSTAIN: Comm. Compton ABSENT: None (MOTION FAILS) MOTION by Comm. Schulte, seconded by Comm. Rue, to continue the hearing in order that the applicant may have an opportunity to address the four findings necessary to the granting of this variance. AYES: Comms. Rue, Schulte, Chmn. Sheldon NOES: Comm. Peirce ABSTAIN: Comm. Compton ABSENT: None -3(1- Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council April 20, 1987 Regular Meeting of April 28, 1987 Text Amendment to Allow Fences to Exceed the Maximum Height with the Approval of a Conditional Use Permit & Standard Conditions of Approval Recommendation Staff recommends that the attached ordinance and proposed conditions be adopted. Staff also recommends that this matter be referred to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. Abstract The current ordinance requires a variance be obtained for fences that exceed the height limitations. The required findings for issuing a varinace are often difficult to establish. Amending the current ordinance will allow fences to exceed the established height limit by requiring a Conditional Use Permit. Background On February 17, 1987, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to require Conditional Use Permits for fences that exceed the height limit. - On April 14, 1987, this matter was referred to the City Council for adoption of the text amendment. At that meeting, the City Council directed Staff to develop criteria and conditions to be imposed with the Conditional Use Permit allowing fences to exceed height limitations. Analysis The conditions established in the proposed ordinance have been created to maintain an aesthetically pleasing environment and minimize any negative impacts a fence or hedge may have regarding view, light, air and ventilation. Other conditions may be added as deemed necessary or appropriate, pending review of each individual application. Attachments 1. Ordinance No. 87- 2. Resolution P.C. 87-12 3. Background a. C.C. Minutes of 4/14/87 b. P.C. Staff Report dated 2/12/87 c. P.C. Minutes of 2/17/87 Respectfully submitted And -et Pere Michael"Schubac Associate Planner 1anning DirectorASZ__ p� Gr gor T� Myer "' Ci y Manager Minutes 4-28-87 (f) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 1215 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH ZONING CODE TO REQUIRE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR WALLS, FENCES AND HEDGES THAT EXCEED THE HEIGHT LIMIT. IN ALL RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND MANUFACTURING ZONES; TO REQUIRE A CONDI- TIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ANY WALL, FENCE OR HEDGE CON- STRUCTED BY A PRIVATE PARTY WITHIN AN OPEN SPACE ZONE OR PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY; ADOPT SECTION 10-10, ESTABLISHING STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR WALLS,.FENCES AND HEDGES; AND ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. (Continued from April 14, 1987 meeting.) For waiver of full reading and introduc- tion. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 20, 1987. Action: To receive and file. Motion Williams, second Mayor Cioffi. So ordered noting the absence of DeBellis. Final Action: To direct the Planning Commissin to re- view the maximum height of fences as they pertain to non-residential areas of the City and to return with a report. Motion Mayor Cioffi, second Williams. So ordered noting the absence of DeBellis. it • • HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL April 6, 1987 Regular Meeting of April 14, 1987 TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FENCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITH THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the attached ordinance be adopted. The Planning Commission's recommendation is specifically the same as Staff's, except that in order to be more precise as to who is required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit when encroaching into the right-of-way or on Open Space zoned areas, additional words have been included which Staff believes more accurately express the intent of the amendment. ABSTRACT The current\ordinance requires variances for fences that exceed the height 1'imitation, although grounds for the required Findings seldom exist.`, Adopting the amendments to the current ordinance will allow fences in the residential, commercial and manufacturing zones to exceed the height limit when a Conditional Use Permit is approved by the Planning Commission. It will also require a Conditional Use Permit for fences in the Open Space zone and on public right-of-way areas. Thus, there will be regulation as to type of fencing allowed and environmental issues such as light, air, ventilation, etc. can be resolved. BACKGROUND On Febraury 17, 1987, the Planning Commission adopted a recommendation amending the Zoning Ordinance to require Conditional Use Permits for fences that exceed the height limit. ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance No. 87- 2. Planning Commission Resolution 87-12 3. Background a. Planning Commission Staff report dated 2/12/87 b. Planning Commission Minutes of February 17, 1987 c. Negative Declaration CONCUR: Mic ael Schu•ach Planning Director •L_1.. Ar Gregory 1 eyer Cityl Manager Resggctfully submitted, L/Disa Brei acher Planning Aide 8. TEXT AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE TO ALLOW FENCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITH THE APPROVAL .OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 6, 1987, noting staff recommended modification to wording promulgated by Planning Commission. Mayor Cioffi made the report part of the record. The staff report was presented by Planning Director Schubach. The Public Hearing was opened. No one coming forward to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. Action: To continue this item to April 28, so that criteria can be developed. Motion Rosenberger, second DeBellis. So ordered, noting the objection of Cioffi. Minutes 4-14-87 January 12, 1987 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission January 20, 1987 Zone Variance for a Wall Exceeding the Maximum Height of 36 Inches in the Front and Side Yard Setbacks for 906 Prospect Recommendation Staff recommends that the variance be continued, and that a Resolution of Intent be adopted to amend the Zoning Ordinance so that fences exceeding the height may be allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant should be requested to apply for a Conditional Use Permit once the ordinance is adopted. If the ordinance is not adopted, the applicant may return for consideration of a variance. Background The Staff Environmental Review Committee recommended a Negative Declaration and denial of the variance. Analysis Most cities allow higher fences with a Conditional Use Permit. There are legitimate grounds for permitting a wall or fence which exceeds the maximum height. However, these grounds seldom meet the Findings for a variance; noise attenuation is one reason. The main: concerns the City should have are that the wall is decorative and not unsightly, will not block views, is not excessively high, serves a purpose, and is is not opposed by the neighbors. A plain grey wall, six (6) feet high, completely surrounding the front setback is an example of the kind to prohibit. In this case, the applicant has constructed an aesthetically pleasing wall that varies in height from four to six feet. It provides the applicant with a private yard area and helps to block noise from the excessive traffic on Prospect Avenue. No opposition to this wall has been submitted to the Planning Department. / Michael S hubach Planning Director \ PLANNING COMMI( )N MINUTES - JANUARY 20, 1987 PAGE 12 ZONE VARIANCE FOR A WALL EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 36 INCHES IN THE FRONT AND SIDEYARD SETBACKS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 906 PROSPECT AVENUE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 12, 1987, and stated that staff recommends that the variance request be continued and that a resolution of intent be adopted to amend the zoning ordinance so that fences exceeding the height may be allowed with a conditional use permit. The applicant should be requested to apply for a conditional use permit once the ordinance is adopted. If the ordinance is not adopted, the applicant may return for consideration of a variance. Mr. Schubach stated that most cities allow higher fences with a conditional use permit. There are legitimate grounds for permitting a wall or fence which exceeds the maximum height; however, these grounds seldom meet the findings for a variance. Noise attenuation is one reason. The main concerns the City should have are that the wall is decorative and not unsightly, will not block views, is not excessively high, serves a purpose, and is not opposed by the neighbors. A plain gray wall, six feet high, completely surrounding the front setback is an example of the type to prohibit. In this case, the applicant has constructed an aesthetically pleasing wall that varies in height from four to six feet. It provides the applicant with a private yard area and helps to block noise from the excessive traffic on Prospect Avenue. No opposition to this wall has been submitted to the Planning Department. Mr. Schubach stated that the wall was not shown on the original plans submitted by the applicant, noting that the wall is completed. He stated that it was not necessary for the wall to receive a final building inspection because it is six feet or less. He stated that the wall violates the zoning ordinance only in terms of height because it exceeds the allowable 36 inches. MOTION -by Comm. Schulte, seconded by Comm. Rue, to accept staffs' recommendation to continue this item and to adopt a resolution of intent to amend the zoning ordinance so that fences exceeding the height may be allowed with a conditional use permit. AYES: Comms. Compton, Peirce, Rue, Schulte, Chmn. Sheldon - NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None . 1 . . ~ ^ + ' r.; CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 LEGAL NOTICE 906 Prospect Avenue oPP) ,rpt ,) ‘P( NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS OF APPEAL TO THE HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE HEIGHT LIMITATION FOR A WALL LOCATED AT 906 PROSPECT AVENUE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of Hermosa Beach, California, will on Tuesday, August 25, 1987, hold a Public Hearing to consider the decision of the Planning Commission to deny -a Variance toexceed the height limit for a wall on property located at 906 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach, Oscar J. Rivera, Jr., Appellant. SAID HEARING TO BE: HELD at 8:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 1315 Val- ley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California. ANY AND ALL PERSONS interested in the above matter are invited to participate at that time and place or to write to the Planning Department at City Hall prior to Monday, August 18, 1987. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact the Planning Department at 376-6984, ext. 242. Dated: 8-5-87 KATHLEEN MIDSTOKKE City Clerk CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 LEGAL NOTICE 906 Prospect Avenue NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS OF APPEAL TO THE HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE HEIGHT LIMITATION FOR A WALL LOCATED AT 906 PROSPECT AVENUE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of Hermosa Beach, California, will on Tuesday, August 25, 1987, hold a Public Hearing to consider the decision of the Planning Commission to deny -a Variance to exceed the height limit for a wall on property located at 906 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach, Oscar J. Rivera, Jr., Appellant. _ SAID HEARING TO BE HELD at 8:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 1315 Val- . ley .Drive, Hermosa. Beach, California. ANY AND ALL PERSONS interested in the above matter are invited to participate at that time and place or to write to the Planning Department at City Hall prior to Monday, August 18, 1987. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact the Planning Department at 376-6984, ext. 242. Dated: 8-5-87 KATHLEEN MIDSTOKKE City Clerk d August 13, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council August 25, 1987 SUBJECT: INTERIM LOT MERGER ORDINANCE CITY COUNCIL INITIATED Recommendation The Staff recommends that the attached interim ordinance be adopted. Background On October 14, 1986, the City Council adopted Interim Ordinance No. 86-861, which prohibited issuance of demolition permits for the development of lots on which at least one of the contiguous parcels held by the same owner does not conform to standards for minimum lot size. On July 28, 1987, pursuant to State law, the Staff submitted a Status Report concerning this matter, and the City Council directed Staff to set for public hearing an interim ordinance extending the moratorium on demolition permits. Analysis Extending the interim ordinance will give the Staff the needed time to complete the lot merger process. Attachments 1. Ordinance extending moratorium. 2. Ordinance 86-861, currently in effect. 3. City Council Minutes of 7/28/87. CONCUR: rt�����,,, 1 Re.pectfully bmltted lichael 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, TO EXTEND ORDINANCE NO. 86-861 THAT ESTABLISHES A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMITS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF LOTS ON WHICH AT LEAST ONE OF THE CONTIGUOUS PARCELS HELD BY THE SAME OWNER DOES NOT CONFORM TO STANDARDS FOR MINIMUM LOT SIZE. WHEREAS, Section 1203 et seq. of the Hermosa Beach Zoning Code establishes methods of regulating combined lots in which a common owner owns contiguous lots in which either is below the minimum lot size allowed under current zoning; WHEREAS, the California Legislature has adopted Government Code Sections 66451.11-66451.21 which now comprise the only method by which cities may merge such lots referenced above after January 1, 1984; WHEREAS, the City of Hermosa Beach could not merge any lots pursuant to its current ordinances after January 1, 1986 pursuant to the newly enacted state law; WHEREAS, the development of individual lots of nonconforming size by owners who possess such nonconforming lots held in common ownership that are contiguous causes increased problems to the health, safety and welfare of the general public as set forth below; WHEREAS, the development of such contiguous lots into two separate developments causes increased density within the City of Hermosa Beach which creates an unreasonable burden of noise, water runoff, parking, congestion, smoke, pollution and other environmental effects; WHEREAS, such increased density lowers the quality of life within the City by adding nonconforming parcels which double the impact upon the City's sewer system which, according to recent studies, is inadequate and cannot handle the additional load; 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHEREAS, the process of developing such nonconforming contiguous lots will accelerate if emergency and extraordinary measures are not taken immediately to halt the issuance of demolition permits; WHEREAS, the failure of the City Council to act at this time to stop the issuance of demoliton permits would cause the harm to continue while the City follows its precedures to implement this ordinance, thereby increasing the environmental burdens upon the populace while study of the problem is being undertaken; WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted an ordinance to implement lot merger procedures in effect September 25, 1986; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. No demolition permits shall be issued for any parcels which meet the following criteria: A. The main structure is partially sited on the contiguous parcels and not more than 80°h of the lots on the same block of the affected parcel have been split and developed. B. With respect to any affected parcel, one or more of the following conditions exists: 1. Comprises less than four thousand square feet in area at the time of the determination of merger; 2. Was not created in compliance with applicable laws and ordinances in effect at the time of its creation; 3. Does not meet current standards for sewage disposal and domestic water supply; 4. Does not meet slope stability standards; 5. Has no legal access which is adequate for vehicular and safety equipment access and maneuverability; 6. Is inconsistent with the applicable general plan and any applicable specific plan, other than minimum lot. size or density standards. C. The requirements set forth above shall not be applicable if any of the conditions set forth in Section - 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 66451.11(b) (A) through (E) of the California Government Code exist. D. This ordinance shall not affect properties which had properly submitted prior to April 1, 1986, pursuant to the density reduction ordinance (Ordinance No. 86-824), where the demoliton would result in all structures being removed from the parcels involved. E. This ordinance is not applicable if the merger process has been completed. F. Upon a showing to the Director of Buildng and Safety that an immediate threat to the health and/or safety of the public which necessitates the issuance of a deomolition permit. SECTION 2. 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. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be effective for a period of twelve (12) months from today's date. SECTION 4. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law. SECTION 5. 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 this day of August, 1987. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: \ \ APPROVED CITY CLERK 3 TY ATTOEY 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. 86-861 AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMITS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF LOTS ON WHICH AT LEAST ONE -OF THE CONTIGUOUS PARCELS HELD BY THE SAME OWNER DOES NOT CONFORM TO STANDARDS FOR MINIMUM LOT SIZE. WHEREAS, Section 1203 et seq. of the Hermosa Beach Zoning Code establishes methods of regulating combined lots in which a common owner owns contiguous lots in which either is below the minimum lot size allowed under current zoning; WHEREAS, the California Legislature has adopted Government Code Sections 66451.11-66451.21 which now comprise the only method by which cities may merge such lots referenced above after January 1, 1984; WHEREAS, the City of Hermosa Beach could not merge any lots pursuant to its current ordinances after January 1, 1986 pursuant to.the newly enacted state law; WHEREAS, the development of individual lots of nonconforming size by owners who possess such nonconforming lots held in common ownership that are contiguous causes increased problems to the health, safety and welfare of the general public as set forth below; WHEREAS, the development of such contiguous lots into two separate developments causes increased density within the City of Hermosa Beach which creates an unreasonable burden of noise, water runoff, parking, congestion, smoke, pollution and other environmental effects; 6/ORD8 -1- 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHEREAS, such increased density lowers the quality of life within the City by adding nonconforming parcels which double the impact upon the City's sewer system which, according to recent studies, is inadequate and cannot handle the additional load;: WHEREAS, the process of developing such nonconforming, contiguous lots will accelerate if emergency and extraordinary measures are not taken immediately to halt the issuance of demolition permits; WHEREAS, the failure of the City Council to act at this time to stop the issuance of demolition permits would cause the harm to continue while the City follows its procedures to implement this ordinance, thereby increasing the environmental burdens upon the populace while study of the problem is being undertaken; WHEREAS, Section 65858 of the Government Code authorizes the adoption of an interim ordinance as an emergency measure which can act to prevent conflicts with a contemplated proposal that the City Council has adopted and which the Planning Department will be directed to implement; WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted an ordinance to implement lot merger procedures in effect September 25, 1986; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:. Section 1. That no demolition permits shall be issued for any parcels which meet the following criteria:. /// /// /// -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 A. The main structure is partially sited on the contiguous parcel and not more than 80% of the lots on the same block of the affected parcel have been split and developed separately. B. With respect to any affected parcel, one or more of the following conditions exists: 1. Comprises less than four thousand square feet in area at the time of the determination of merger; 2. Was not created in compliance with applicable laws and ordinances in effect at the time of its creation; 3. Does not meet current standards for sew- age disposal and domestic water supply; 4. Does not meet slope stability standards; 5. Has no legal access which is adequate for vehicular and safety equipment access and maneuverability; 6. Is inconsistent with the applicable general plan and any applicable specific plan, other than minimum lot size or density standards. C. The requirements set forth above shall not be applicable if any of the conditions set forth in Section 66451.11(b)(A) through (E) of the California Government Code exist. D. This ordinance shall not affect properties which had properly submitted prior to April 1, 1986, pursuant to the density reduction ordinance (Ordinance No. 86-824), where the demolition would result in all structures being removed from the parcels involved. E. This ordinance is not applicable if the merger process has been completed. F. Upon a showing to the Director of Building and Safety that an immediate threat to the health and/or safety of the public which necessitates the issuance of a demolition permit. Section 2. That this ordinance shall take effect immediatel upon adoption by a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach. 6/ORD8 -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 . 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Section 3.' That this ordinance be effective for a period of n (10) months fifteen (15) days from today's date .unless xtended pursuant to the provisions of California Government Section 65858. ectio City Council shall draft a report for presentation to the public at its second meeting in November. Such report shall state what steps are being taken by the City to correct the problems referenced in this ordinance and what steps are planned to be taken in the future to remedy the situation. Section 5. That prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law. Section 6. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, shall make minutes of the /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// 6/ORDS -4- • 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 1 • 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 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1986. ATTEST: TY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY A'TORNEY 6/ORDS L-• PRESIDE )OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA y 6-. STATUS REPORT.ON LOT MERGERS FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING MORATORIUM FOR UP.TO..ONE YEAR.TO PROHIBIT_THE SEPARATING OF LOTS. Memorandum from Plan- ning Director Michael Schubach dated July 21, 1987. Action: To direct staff 1) to set for Public Hearing on August 25, 1987, an interim ordinance extending moratorium for one year re. issuance of demolition per- mits for development of lots in which at least one of the contiguous parcels held by same owner does not con- form to standards for minimum lot size; and 2) to study and make recommendations re. public hearing process and policy guidelines for merging and unmerging lots to be brought back to Council meeting of August 25, 1987. Motion DeBellis, second Simpson. So ordered. 10 - Minutes 7-28-87 f' 1 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council August 19, 1987 City Council Meeting of August 25, 1987 DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATE TO LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE, OCTOBER 4 - 7, 1987 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council designate a Voting Dele- gate and a Voting Alternate to the annual League of California Cities Conference. BACKGROUND The City Council must designate who is authorized to vote, on behalf of the City, at the Business Session of the annual League Conference. ANALYSIS The following Councilmembers have indicated their intention to attend the annual Conference: Councilmembers Debellis, Rosen- berger and -Williams. Additionally; registrants include City Clerk Midstokke and City Attorney Lough. The designated delegate should plan on attending the Tuesday, October 6 at 2 p.m Business Session. This includes deliberating the approximately 100 formal Resolutions submitted by the various divisions. T./"��/ Gre ory k Meyer Ci Manager Manager GTM/ld Attachment cc City Clerk Midstokke � C, L.(A) 1. •, 4 m®®or II Ir ElII®® 111111 1111. California Cities Work Together League of California Cities 1400 K STREET • SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • (916) 444-5790 Sacramento, CA July 8, 1987 TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATE FOR LEAGUE ANNUAL CONFERENCE Dear City Official: This year's League Annual Conference is scheduled for October 4-7 in San Francisco. The most important aspect of the Annual Conference is the General Business Session at which time the membership takes action on conference resolutions. It is important for California cities to take the initiative in developing positive programs for the future. Annual Conference resolutions will guide cities and the League in our efforts to improve the quality, responsiveness and vitality of local government within this state. All cities should be represented at the Business Session on Tuesday afternoon, October 6, at 2:00 p.m. in San Francisco's Moscone Center. To expedite the conduct of business at this important policy-making meeting, each City Council should designate a voting representative and an alternate who will be present at the Business Session. The League Constitution provides that each city is entitled to one vote in matters affecting municipal or League policy. A voting card will be given to the city official designated by the City Council on the enclosed "voting delegate form." If the Mayor or a member of the City Council is in attendance at the Conference, it is expected that one of these officials will be designated as the voting delegate. However, if the City Council will not have a registered delegate at the Conference but will be represented by other city officials, one of these officials should be designated the voting delegate or alternate. Please forward the enclosed "voting delegate form" to the Sacramento office of the League at the earliest possible time, so that the proper records may be established for the Conference. The voting delegate may pick up the city's voting card in the League Registration Area at the Moscone Center in San Francisco. If neither the voting delegate nor alternate is able to attend the Business Session, the voting delegate or alternate may pass the voting card to another official from the same city by appearing in person before a representative of the Credentials Committee to make the exchange. An outline of the voting procedures that will be followed at this conference is printed on the reverse side of this memo. It is suggested that the Mayor and all Council Members from a given city try to sit together at the Business Session so that, if amendments are considered, there may be an opportunity to exchange points of view and arrive at a consensus before the city's vote is cast. Your cooperation in returning the attached "voting delegate form" as soon as possible will be appreciated. Dan Benninghoven Executive Director •w League of California Cities Annual Conference Voting Procedures 1. Each member city with city officials registered at the Annual Conference has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to League policy. 2. TO cast the city's vote a city official must have in his or her possession the city's voting card and be registered with the Credentials Committee. 3. Prior to the Annual Conference, each city should designate a voting delegate and an alternate and return the Voting Delegate Form to the League for use by the - Credentials Committee. 4. The voting delegate or alternate may pick up the city's voting card at the voting delegate's desk in the conference registration area. 5. Free exchange of the voting card between the voting delegate and alternate is permitted. 6. If neither the voting delegate nor alternate is able to attend the Business Session, the voting delegate or alternate may pass the voting card to another official from the same city by appearing in person before a representative of the Credentials Committee to make the exchange. 7. Qualification of an initiative resolution is judged in part by the validity of signatures. Only the signatures of city officials who, according to the records of the Credentials Committee, are authorized to use_the city's voting card and who have left a sample of their signatures on the Credentials Committee's register will be approved. 8. In case of dispute, the Credentials Committee will determine the right of a city official to vote at the Business Session.. discdrft.policy . 1 b } C 1. VOTING DELEGATE: CITY: LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 1987 ANNUAL CONFERENCE VOTING DELEGATE FORM (NAME) 2. VOTING ALTERNATE: (TITLE) (NAME) (TITLE) ATTEST: Please Return To: LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 1400 K STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 Not Later Than Friday, September 18, 1987 IA VZGDELFM.pol (NAME) (TITLE) MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE HERMOSA BEACH VEHICLE PARK- ING DISTRICT #1 held on Tuesday, August 11, 1987 at the hour of 10:49 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman John Cioffi - Present Commissioner Etta Simpson - Present Commissioner Tony De Bellis - Absent Commissioner Jim Rosenberger - Present Commissioner June Williams - Present A. Consent Calendar 1) Approval of minutes of March 10, 1987 meeting Action: To approve minutes. Motion Commissioner Simpson, scond Cioffi, so ordered. B. Discussion re. validation program Action: To continue to the meeting of August 25th. Motion Commissioner Rosenberger, second Cioffi, so ordered. ADJOURNMENT: 10.53 p.m. Ageoeovcip akire,71 --O- 10a ACH rs • 1 � • S J tX tt .44 tti SPEED 25 . CrUAtt._-- ,516.4141. 4 .40 114 II 1.1 iZ tt Ari J t. 05-Camir town) win WWI Ali