Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/28/87"Let everyone sweep in front of his or her own door, and the whole world will be clean." -Goethe AGENDA REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA.BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 28, 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. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: 4k PROCLAMATIONS: Constitution Week, September 17 - 23, 1987 Daily Breeze International Surf Festival Week, July 27 - August 2, 1987 RESOLUTION SALUTING THE VISITING VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA LIFEGUARD TEAM ON ITS VISIT AND PARTICIPATION IN THE 25TH DAILY BREEZE INTERNATIONAL SURF FESTIVAL. AWARD OF PLAQUES TO OUTGOING COMMISSIONERS: Planning Commissioner Walter J. Schulte, Community Resources Commissioner Thomas Nyman Community Resources Commissioner Michael Martell INTRODUCTION OF NEW EMPLOYEES: (102D s fcn.4 ° Q (01,,1) CITIZEN COMMENTS Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any items on the Consent Calendar may do so at this time. ne Loughin - Clerk Typist, Polic= Department Tim ,•rkman - Maintenance I, . P •lic Works Department 1 3) 6A -JV C4R p 6y),(is--m 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following routine matters will be acted upon by one vote to approve with the majority con- sent of the City Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless -good cause is shown by a member prior to the roll call vote. (Items removed will be considered after Municipal Matters.) (a) Approval of Minutes: Regular meeting of the City Coun- cil held on July 14, 1987.Qom, Pp ii Recommended Action: To approve minutes. (b) Approval of Minutes: Adjourned regular meeting of the City Council held on July 16, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve minutes. (c) Demands and Warrants: July 28, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve Demands and Warrants Nos. through inclusive. (d) Tentative Future Agenda Items. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (e) City Manager Activity Report: Memorandum from City Man- ager Gregory T. Meyer dated July 22, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. Building and Safety Department Monthly Activity Report: June, 1987. 1(11 lacH 4C - Recommende Action: To receive dnd'file. Community Resources Department Monthly Activity Report: J June, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. Finance Department Monthly Activity Report: June, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. Fire Department Monthly Activity Report: June, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. General Services Department Monthly Activity Report: June, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (f) 2 (k) Personnel Department Monthly Activity Report: June, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (1) Planning Department Monthly Activity Report: June, ,A1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (m) Police Department Monthly Activity Report: June, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (n) Public Works Department Monthly Activity Report: June, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (o) Monthly Revenue Report: June, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (p) Monthly Expenditure Report: June, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (q) City Treasurer's Report: June, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (r) Recommendation to amend the General Services Budget by deleting one General Services Officer position and add- ing one Technical Aide position. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dated June 24, 1987. (s) (t) Recommended Action: To approve an amendment to the Parking Enforcement Division, General Services Depart- ment, personnel allocation only, by deleting one General Services Officer position and adding one. Technical Aide position. Critique of Environmental Impact Statesment (E.I.S.) for off -shore oil drilling by a professional consultant. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 17, 1987. Recommended Action: A joint effort among the potential- ly impacted coastal communities to obtain professional consulting services to examine and comment on the E.I.S. for off -shore oil drilling. Approval of revised class specification for Assistant Engineer. Memorandum from Personnel Administrator Rob- ert Blackwood dated July 15, 1987. 3 (u) (v) Recommended Action: To approve revised class specifica- tion for Assistant Engineer. Approval of class specification for Assistant Planner. Memorandum from Personnel Administrator Robert Blackwood dated July 17, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve the class specification for Assistant Planner. Acceptance of work as complete - Fuel Dispensing System, CIP 86-601. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated July 14, 1987. Recommended Action: To accept as complete the CIP 86- 601 Fuel Dispensing System and authorize staff to release the 10% retention payment for subject project to Uniforce Corporation. (w) Reappropriation of Building Department FY 86-87 capital outlay funds for FY 87-88. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director William Grove dated July 20, 1987. Recommended Action: To reappropriate $1,000 of unused Building Department capital outlay funds from FY 86-87 to FY 87-88. (y) (z) Cancellation of Lease Agreement between the City of Her- mosa Beacb and the City of Redondo Beach for space in the Community Center for the Redondo Beach/Hermosa Beach operation of the Wave Program. Memorandum from Communi- ty Resources. Director Alana Mastrian dated July 21, 1987. Ler 6;, Recommended Action: To approve cancellation of lease as of September 16, 1987; that premises be accepted as is, including the remodelling done by City of Redondo Beach. Approval of Lease Agreement between the City of Hermosa Beacb and the Association for Retarded Citizens - South- west for space in tbe Community Center. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian dated July 21, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve lease agreement. Cancellation of Lease Agreement between the City of Her- mosa Beach and Redondo Union High School District for office space in tbe Community Center. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian dated July 21, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve cancellation of lease. 4 (aa) Recommended Consultant and contract for Circulation, Transportation and Parking Element. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 21, 1987. Recommended Action: To 1) approve DKS and Associates as consultant; and 2) approve contract so that preparation of the Circulation, Transportation and Parking Element may commence; and 3) authorize Mayor to sign on behalf of City. (bb) Request to transfer funds from the General Fund to the Insurance Fund. Memorandum from Personnel Administrator Robert Blackwood dated July 14, 1987. Recommended Action: To 1) transfer $28,415 from General Fund to Insurance Fund and appropriate same amount to Workers' Comp Division, Acct. 705-401-1217-4182; and 2) transfer $7,973 from General Fund to Insurance Fund, and appropriate same amount to Workers' Comp Division, Acct. 705-401-1217-4183. (cc) City sites and scenes RTD program for bus sign. Memo- randum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated July 16, 1987. Recommended Action: To refer to staff to pursue with Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Merchants Associa- tion for possible utilization. (dd) Child Abuse Monthly Report. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian dated July 21, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any item listed under Consent Ordinances and Resolutions may do so at this time. 2. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ORDINANCE NO. 87-889 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING CODE IN REGARDS TO HEIGHT LIMITATION IN THE COM- MERCIAL AND R -P ZONES AND FOR THE BILTMORE SITE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA. For waiver of further reading and adoption. ORDINANCE NO. 87-890 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HER- MOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP. BY CHANGING THE ZONE FROM M-1, LIGHT MANUFACTURING, TO R-2, TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE, AND APPROVING A NEGA- TIVE DECLARATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 602, 614, 622 THIRD STREET AND 228 ARDMORE AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 74, 75 AND 76 OF WALTER RANSOM COMPANY'S VENABLE PLACE TRACT. For waiver of further reading and adoption. (c) ORDINANCE NO. 87-891 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PRESCRIBING FEES FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF CONNECTING ANY PARCEL WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DIRECTLY --OR INDIRECTLY TO THE SEWERAGE SYSTEM, OR FOR INCREASING THE QUANTITY OF WASTEWATER ATTRIBUTABLE TO A CONNECTED PAR- CEL WITHIN THE CITY, AND PROVIDING FOR THE COLLECTION OF SUCH CHARGES, AMENDING CHAPTER 28, ARTICLE II, SECTIONS 28-7 THROUGH 28-14. For waiver of further reading and adoption. (d) ORDINANCE NO. 87-892 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING LIMITATIONS ON POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND CAMPAIGN CON- DUCT. For waiver of further reading and adoption. (e) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #18351 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1525 MANHATTAN AVENUE. For adoption. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 23, 1987. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. (a) (b) G J Letter from Hermosa Beach City Schools Superintendent Marilyn Corey dated June 29, 1987 re. flashing signal located in the 1800 block of Prospect Avenue. Recommended Action: Refer to staff for analysis and reply. ~i) Letter from Howard L. Cohen, 48 - 14th Street, Hermosa -e. access to his property Beach dated July 15, 19 through Parking Lot C. Recommended Action: Re Parking Administta-t-or for reply and coordination with Parking Lot Operator. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. NONE 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'MATIRRS 5. INTERPRETATION OF ZONING CODE APPLICATION TO PROJECT AT 2524-2526 HERMOSA AVENUE. Memorandum from Building and 6 Safety Director William Grove and Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 20, 1987. Recommended Action: 1) Planning Commission recommends that the Council concur in their interpretation that the subject project conforms to the requirements of the zoning code and adopt resolution (exhibit A); 2) Staff recommends that the Council not concur with Planning Commission interpretation, determine that the subject project constitutes two new dwelling units and adopt resolution (exhibit B). 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. Recommended 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 de- molition permits for development of lots in which at least one of the contiguous parcels held by same owner does not conform to standards for minimum lot size; and 2) to study and make recommendations re. public hearing process and pol-icy guidelines for merging and unmerging lots to be brought back to Council meeting of August 25, 1987. 7. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING FIRE FLOW CAPABILI- TIES. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wis- niewski dated July 20, 1987. 11 i I) Recommended Action: To direct staff to 1) obtain cost estimates for upgrading all fire hydrants with 2-1/2" connections to 4" connections for consideration at quar- terly budget review; 2) conduct flow tests with 4" hose connected to 2-1/2" couplings and report results, 3) continue with current method of having developers up- grade the water capabilities in conjunction with their projects, 4) prepare ordinance requiring installation of sprinkler systems in new residential dwellings, busi- nesses and remodels of dwellings and businesses if re- model costs exceed $30,000, 5) seek proposals for study of needs and deficiencies in City's water system and fire flow capabilities. 8. MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT, REQUEST TO ANNEX. Memoran- dum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated July 15, 1987. Recommended Action: To adopt the following resolutions: A. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, MAKING APPLICATION TO THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION FOR A CHANGE 7 OF ORGANIZATION PURSUANT TO THE CORTESE/KNOX LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ACT. For adoption. B. JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, AND THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY WEST MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT APPROVING AND ACCEPTING NEGOTIATED EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUES RESULTING FROM THE ANNEXATION OF THE CITY OF HERMO- SA BEACH TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY WEST MOSQUITO ABATE- MENT DISTRICT. For adoption. 9. MATTERS CONCERNING THE NOVEMBER 3, 1987 G NERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION: g 0 D �41,,^^ ,Ap� A. DISCUSSION ON WHETHER THE FOLLOWING MATERS SHOULD BE BALLOT ISSii�Lv � PJM k�l1a4'� j a ��j 1) LETTER FROM 0.S. .A.C., ROSAMOND FOGG, CHAIR- RA?A cLCRF PERSON, DATED JULY 20, 1987 REQUESTING THEIR LA( I OPEN S134.C. ACQUISITION MATTER BE ON THE BALLOT. S1��-f,Vz 4 i06/LS Ulr i /o ti`7',, fs66.G Spic CCI-lAvg, 2) 'INSTITUTING A METHOD OF AFFIRMING CHANGES ¶IN THE EXISTING DESIGNATED OPEN SPACE ZONES. INI- or" TIATIVE SIGNED BY MESSRS. BRUTSCH, SCHULTZ AND DEUTSCH . .g-lsc 12-t F 1--kt (pa Ge 3) AMENDING ORDINANCE 84-758 RE. HYDROCARBON Sc,JI `e MONIES. INITIATIVE SIGNED BY MESSRS. BRUTSCH, � S WEISS AND CREIGHTON. .,iwii 1:„..1J� �(' ' 4) CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITATIONS. SEE ITEM �i,� 431.4) � 2(d) LISTED ABOVE. C.p is Q1 y-7 4� B A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING .70 4k NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELEC- TION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1987, FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELEC- TORS LEC TORS OF SAID CITY PROPOSED ORDINANCES RELATING TO A GROSS RECEIPTS TAX FOR MOTION PICTURE THEATERS, AND MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMITS IN THE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL-PROFESSIONAL ZONES, AND FOR ANY OTHER MEASURES AS DETERMINED IN "A" ABOVE. For adoption. ESTABLISHING PREFERENCE FOR ORDER OF BALLOT MEA- SURES. Memorandum from City Clerk Kathleen Mid- stokke dated July 23, 1987. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO CON- SOLIDATE A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF SAID CITY TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1987 WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND GENERAL DISTRICT ELECTIONS TO BE HELD ON SAID DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 23302 OF cc THE ELECTION CODE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING CERTAIN MEASURES TO THE ELECTORATE. For adoption. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, -AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OF ITS MEMBERS TO FILE WRITTEN ARGUMENTS REGARDING CITY MEASURES AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE IMPARTIAL ANALYSES. For adoption. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR CITY MEASURES SUBMITTED AT MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS. For adoption (optional). Memorandum from City Clerk Kathleen Midstokke dated July 23, 1987. G. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, FIXING THE COMPENSATION TO BE RECEIVED BY THE CITY CLERK FOR GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 3, 1987. For adoption. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER 12. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL w Ci (a) Discussion of Planning Commission/City Council Scom- mmission ouncil Workshop y meetings. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 20, 1987. (b) mittees or Planning Co /Cit Request by Councilmember DeBellis for discussion re. amending open space zoning. (c) Discussion requested by Councilmember DeBellis concern- ing eminent domain action to acquire park land. 13. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL 14. COMMISSION. (a) CONSENT CALENDAR ,- AV -)L MEETING OF THE HERMOSA BEACH VEHICLE PARKING DISTRICT 1) Approval of minutes of the March 10, 1987 meeting. (b) Discussion re. validation program. Memorandum from Parking Administrator Joan Noon dated July 20, 1987. Recommended Action: To 1) hear an oral report from_. Business Relations Subcommittee re. their mtg. of 7/15 with Downtown Merchants Association; and 2) discuss the validation program as it is now operating at 20 cents per validation stamp. 9 15. MEETING OF THE HERMOSA BEACH PARKING AUTHORITY. (a) CONSENT CALENDAR (b) 1) Approval of minutes of the February 24, 1987 meeting. Proceeding with a Community Center Vicinity Parking Facility: Legal opinion from City Attorney dated July 21, 1987 re. possible Grant Deed restrictions. Recommended Action: Accept opinion and advise School District requesting that they indicate any concerns about City pursuing a public parking facilit at he former Pier Avenue School Site. KI-1077-4070(s F 70(s 1AVE aeed ctujr-4 Petrucl L APPEARANCE OF INTERESTED CITIZENS Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any matter within the jurisdiction of the Council not elsewhere considered on the agenda may do so at this time. Citizens with complaints regard- ing City management or departmental operations are requested to submit those complaints in writing to the City Manager. ADJOURNMENT 1)ctiv,„ RJAR-19k / 04A- As2c-4‘) AQ5,,,4_, (1,124 L r Aca-)? es 4Allyatro�.,�.4a ,w 01 ) 3 (-J uoiwte zur_51— 0,1 gee, RI,tzi,„\ Jci) P-Q-(*tsbyr ? Itf1Lc og4; ?c,6 _cp_Je-N -kyoo kvz) „le p 4-,1;24.4A ‘.(V „dip, ?? n-isALPciAos- i\vvilAn 41- L‘) g " sA-1076), AQtqc4 ary2fct — — b jc,w;_.k...taect c_ 8,1 qt,,) JL7/7(2 ( S PvG L6 I* PAT A Noe ui? 3c,\J pitoLl..0 )t- 0 p - J9�La PcLcc July 15, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council of July 28, 1987 INTRODUCTION OF NEW EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH The following employees' names are submitted for introduction to the City Council: Dianne Loughin - Police Department Clerk Typist Mrs. Loughin was appointed as a Clerk Typist on May 19, 1987 and is currently assigned to the Operations Division of the Police Department. Dianne has attended El Camino College where she completed courses in Computer Science. She has also completed courses at the Southern California Regional Occupational Center. Tim Workman - Maintenance I Mr. Workman was appointed to the Public Works Department on July 1, 1987. Immediately prior to this Civil Service appointment, Tim was working in a temporary capacity for the Department. Following a 4 year tour of duty in the Navy, Tim was employed by the City of Troutdale, Oregeon until his move to California in 1985. In Oregeon, he was employed as a Wastewater Operator and holds a certificate for that position. The City welcomes these two new employees. Respectfully submitted, Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Administrator intro/rab. Noted: Gr gory T. Meyer Ci y Manager (;Q Qtr YA-pg ,\DCv4 Where there is no vision the people perish... HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA WELCOME! By your presence in the City Council Chambers you are participating in the process of representative government. Your government welcomes your interest and hopes you will attend the City Council meetings often CITY VISION A less dense, more family oriented pleasant low profile, financially sound community comprised of a separate and distinct business district and residential neighborhoods that are afforded full municipal services in which the maximum costs are -borne by visitor/users; led by a City Council which accepts a stewardship role for community resources and displays a willingness to explore innovative alternatives, and moves toward public policy leadership in attitudes of full ethical awareness. This Council is dedicated to learning from the past, and preparing Hermosa Beach for tomorrow's challenges today. , Adopted by City Council on October 23, 1986 NOTE: There is no smoking allowed in the Council Chambers' THE HERMOSA BEACH FORM OF GOVERNMENT Hermosa Beach has the Council -Manager form of government, with a City Manager ap- pointed by and responsible to the City Council for carrying out Council policy. The Mayor and Council decide what is to be done. The City Manager, operating through the entire City staff, does it. This separation of policy making and administration is considsered the most economical and efficient form of City government in the United States today. GLOSSARY The following explanations may help you to understand the terms found on most agen- das for meetings of the Hermosa Beach City Council. Consent Items A compilation of all routine matters to be acted upon by one vote; approval re- quires a majority affirmative vote. Any Councilmember can remove an item from this listing thereby causing that matter to be considered under the category Consent Cal- endar items Removed For Separate Discussion. Public Hearings Public Hearings are held on certain matters as required by law. The Hearings afford the public the opportunity to appear and formally express their views regarding the matter being heard. Additionally, letters may be filed with the City Clerk, prior to the Hearing. Hearings Hearings are held on other matters of public importance for which there is no legal - requirement to conduct an advertised Public Hearing. Ordinances An ordinance is a law that regulates government revenues and/or public conduct. All ordinances require two "readings". The first'reading introduces the ordinance into the records. At least one week later Council may adopt, reject or hold over the ordinance to a subsequent meeting. Regular ordinances take effect 30 days after the second reading. Emergency ordinances are governed by different provisions and waive the time requirements. Written Communications The public, members of advisory boards/commissions or organizations may formally communicate to or make a request of Council by letter; said letters should be filed with the City Clerk by the Wednesday preceeding the Regular City Council meeting. Miscellaneous Items and Reports - City Manager The City Manager coordinates departmental reports and brings items to the attention of, or for action by the City Council. Verbal reports may be given by the City Manager regarding items not on the agenda, usually having arisen since the agenda was prepared on the preceding Wednesday. Miscellaneous Items and Reports - City Council Members of the City Council may place items on the agenda for consideration by the full Council. Other Matters - City Council These are matters that come to the attention of a Council member after publication of the Agenda. Oral Communications from the Public - Matters of an Urgency Nature Citizens wishing to address the City Council ,on an urgency matter not elsewhere con- sidered on the agenda may do so at this time. Parking Authority • The Parking Authority is a financially separate entity, but is operated asan inte- gral part of the City government. Vehicle Parking District No. 1 The City Council also serves as the Vehicle Parking District Commission. It's pur- pose is to oversee the operation of certain downtown parking lots and otherwise pro- mote public parking in the central business district. HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH July 15, 1987 Regular Meeting of July 28, 1987 MAD (MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT) REQUEST TO ANNEX Recommendation It is recommended that City Council: 1. Approve Resolution No. 87- a resolution of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, making application to the Local Agency Formation Commission for a change of organization pursuant to the Cortese/Knox Local Government Reorganization Act, and 2. Approve Resolution No. 87- a joint resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the Los Angeles County, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, and the Los Angeles County West Mosquito Abatement District approving and accepting negotiated exchange of property tax revenues resulting from the annexation of the City of Hermosa Beach to Los Angeles County West Mosquito Abatement District, and 3. Approve the "Application to initiate proceedings for change of organization or reorganization". Background A copy of LAFCO's "Fact Package on Mosquito Abatement" is on file in the City Clerk's Office, Public Works Department and Public Library. The County Board of Supervisors is encouraging all Cities in Los Angeles County to annex to/or create their own Mosquito Abatement District to avoid a possible epidemic of mosquito -born St. Louis Encephalitis. The County also wants the City to share the cost of mosquito control. The City of Hermosa Beach is located in an area that would allow annexation to a Los Angeles County West MAD (Mosquito Abatement District). Analysis This analysis is broken into five (5) sections: 1. Application to Annex to LA County West MAD 2. Historical Experience with Mosquitos 3. Services to be Provided by MAD 4. Cost 5. Conclusions 1. Application to Annex to LA County West MAD: Applications from cities wishing to annex to a MAD must be submitted to LAFCO by July 31, 1987. Although a date has not been set for the County's hearing of LAFCO's presentation; the hearing is expected to be completed by October 31, 1987. 2. Historical Experience with Mosquitos: 8 The County has responded to requests of Hermosa Beach residents for mosquito abatement as needed (approximately 10-15 times per year). 3. Services to be Provided by MAD: The MAD will continue to provide response as needed in addition they will provide regular mosquito abatement, education, spot checks, spraying and testing of the mosquitos for the virus encephalitis. 4. Cost: FISCAL IMPACT According to the attached joint resolution, Hermosa Beach's cost as a member of the Los Angeles County West MAD will be $766 beginning on July 1, 1988. This amount will be matched by the County. For the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1989 and each fiscal year thereafter, additional costs will be calculated at 0.0319293% of the incremental tax growth attributable to the "Hermosa Beach Annexation" area. This percentage of the incremental tax growth will be shared on a 50-50 basis with the County. The County's offer to share costs on a 50-50 basis will not apply to MAD (Mosquito Abatement District) annexations which are not completed this calendar year. One way to explain the method of determining the cost to the City each year is by the following example: FISCAL IMPACT - ANNEXATION TO MAD CITY TAX , INCREMENTAL % OF TAX AMOUNT OF COUNTY CITY BASE FY ASSESSED VALUE RATIO ' TAX GROWTH RATIO INCREMENTAL GROWTH CITY COST COST TOTAL 85-86 $832,099,267 86-87 $903,715,650 (9% increase) 85-86 (-) 832,099,267 Growth $ 71,616,383 (x) 1% = $716,163.83 (x) .000319293 = $228 (;) 2 = $114 (+) $766 = $880 87-88 $978,995,163 (8.33% increased ave. of previous 3 years) 86-87 (-) 903,715,650 Estimated Growth: $ 75,279,513 (x) 1% = $752,795.13 (x) .000319293 = $240 (z) 2 = $120 (+) $766 = $886 88-89 $1,060,545,433 (8.33% increase) 87-88 (-) 978,995,163 Estimated Growth: $ 81,550,297 (x) 1% = $815,502.97 (x) .000319293 = $260 (i.) 2 = $130 (+) $766 = $896 The following is an explanation of the terms used in the joint resolution and application: Tax Ratio: 1% of Annual Property Tax Revenue is what is available for all County agencies to share. This 1% multiplied by the (growth) of the assessed value of the City is the incremental tax growth. Incremental Tax Growth: Is the total amount of property tax available for all County agencies to share. % of Tax Ratio: The L.A. Co. West Mosquito Abatement District is -a County agency allowed to use 0.0319293% of the incremental tax growth from the City of Hermosa Beach. Amount of Incremental Growth: The total of the Incremental Tax Growth multiplied by the % allowed. County/City: 50-50 cost to each. City Cost: City's 50% share. Base Cost: Cost to annex to the L.A. Co. West MAD. Total: Estimated cost to the City to annex to the L.A. Co. West MAD. 5. Conclusions: 1. MADs are an effective encephalitis. way to control mosquito -borne 2. The cost to Hermosa Beach upon the City budget. will have a relatively small impact 3. If the City delays application to be annexed to the MAD, the County will not share in 50% of the costs. 4. The Los Angeles County West MAD will become responsible for abatement operations immediately; but the City will not be obligated to pay any funds to the MAD until July 1, 1988. Alternatives Other alternatives considered Council are: by staff and available to City 1. Contract out for mosquito control. 2. Have City crews spray for Respectfully submitted L Stevens Administrative Aide Noted for fiscal impact: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator mosquitos on an as requested basis. Cii. R: , Ari"ony Antich .... Director of Greg 1� City Manager lic Works l,J24___ybr k COUNTY .....:s HIDDEN HILLS MUL NOL LAND .................. CO OCEAN FIGURE "A" -70 RECOMMENDED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY WEST M.A.D. SCALE: 1" = 25,000' Js / A 4 eKKL / dI--. p /7 ."2-e-e/zr,t-e( a1 0 ,/"e" -e tin 6 at RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HEDMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, riAKING APPLICATION TO THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION FOR A CHANGE OF ORGANIZATION PURSUANT TO THE .CORTESE/KNOX LOCAL. GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ACT- HERMOSA BEACH ANNEXATION TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY WEST MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of HERMOSA BEACH desires to initiate proceedings for annexation of said terri- tory to the Los Angeles County West Mosquito Abatement District, pursuant to the Cortese/Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985 (Division 3, commencing with Section 56000, of the California Government Code), BE IT RESOLVED as follows: 1. Application is hereby made to the Local Agency Formation Commission of Los Angeles County for the annexation of certain territory in the City of HERMOSA BEACH to the Los Angeles County West Mosquito Abatement District, pursuant to the Cortese/Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985. 2. The territory proposed to be annexedis inha- bited, and a description of said territory is. set forth in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. 3. The reason for this proposal is that there is a need for more uniform and complete coverage of mosquito control in the County of Los Angeles. -. 4. This proposal is consistent with the sphere of influence adopted by the Local Agency Formation Commission for the Los Angeles County West Mosquito Abatement District. 5. The proposed annexation is subject to no specific terms or conditions. 6. The City Council of the City of HERMOSA BEACH requests that proceedings be taken for the change of organi- zation hereinabove described. 7. The City Clerk is directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Local Agency Formation Commission. The foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of HERMOSA BEACH at its meeting of , 1987, by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS :.i►ORM: f ty Attorn y CITY OF Mayor P EXHIBIT "A" All of the territory within the boundaries of the City of HERMOSA BEACH as same existed on February 23, 1987. APPLICATION TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR CHANGE OF ORGANIZATION OR REORGANIZATION (Pursuant to the Cortese -Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985, Title 5, Division 3, commencing with Section 56000, of the Government Code ZD: LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION County of Los Angeles Room 383, Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street Los. Angeles, California 90012 (213) 974-1448 Designation of Proposal HERMOSA BEACH ANNEXATION Affected Local Agency to Los Angeles County West Mosquito Abatement District Related Jurisdictional Changes: (None) Grneral Location of Proposal City of Hermosa Beach Proposal initiated by: Applicant: Thomas Guide Page Coordinates XX Resolution Registered Voter/Landowner Petition City of Hermosa Beach (City, District or Chief Petitioner) 1315 Valley Drive (Address) Hermosa Beach 90254 Signed ) Q cruToiteit.e, (Cit Manager Title, if any g Telephone 213/376-6984 I. THE AFFECTED TERRITORY A. General Description 1. Acres or Square Miles 2 1.360 sq. mi. 2. What major highways and streets serve the area: not applicable 3.Topography:not applicable 4. Physical boundaries, if any (rivers, freeways, etc.): not applicable B. Population and Housing 1. Population Source of information 18,264 Regional Planning 2. Number of registered voters 12,348 Source and date of information Registrar 3. Number and type of dwelling units 9,850 housing units C. Land Use and Zoning 1. What is the present land use in the subject area: not applicable - 2. What is the land use in the surrounding area? not applicable 3. If annexation to a city is involved as a part of this proposal, what is the city's general plan designation for the area? not applicable 3 4. Describe any proposed change in land use and zoning as a result of this proposal (including, if applicable, prezoning by an affected city): not applicable 5. If this proposal will result in development of property, describe the type of development proposed (type of business or industry, single- or multi- family residence, etc.; number of units or facilities): not applicable 6. What effect would denial of this proposal have on the proposed development, if any: not applicable II. THE PROPOSAL A. What are the reasons for the initiation of this proposal? To provide uniform mosquito abatement and related services throughout the city B. What are the alternate courses of action, if any? (Include names of other local agencies having the authority to provide the same or similar services as those proposed.) none I C. Plan for Providing Services 4 Describe the services to be extended to the affected territory, the range and level of those services, when the services can feasibly be extended to the area, and how the services will be ±inanced, including any improvement or upgrading of structures, roads, sewer or water facilities or other conditions the local agency would impose or require within the affected territory if this proposal is completed: Mosquito abatement and related services will be provided by the district. Such services would be available immediately upon annexation. Financing of services will provided by the City and the County on a 50-50 basis, based on costs estimated by the District. No upgrading of structures, roads, etc. would be required as a result of this annexation. ) 5 D. List the division, acquisition, improvement, disposition, sale or transfer of any property, real or personal, o belong? ng to a city or district that is involved in this proposal: not applicable E. List the disposition, transfer or division of any money or funds and any other obligations of a city or district involved as part of this proposal: not applicable F. Tb what extent will residents of the subject area be liable or remain liable for any existing indebtedness of the city or district to or from which annexa- tion or detachment is proposed? not applicable G. What services and/or costs to residents in the area would be reduced or elimi- nated as a result of this proposal? none H. List any terms or conditions requested as part of this proposal: none f III. GENERAL A.' List rianias and addresses- of any persons, organization or agencies known to you who may be opposed to this proposal: none B. ANY OTHER COMMENT YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE: C. Names and addresses of persons who are to receive notice of hearing, staff report and minutes: Norm Hauret, Manager Los Angeles County West MAD 12107 W. Jefferson Blvd. Culver City 90230 County of Los Angeles Chief Admin. Office Attn. Sandy Hoodye Health Services Attn. Art Tilzer (827-3448) (974-1163) (974-7859) Contact person Anthony Antich • 6 (Name) Director of Public Works CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1315 Valley Dr. (Address) Hermosa Beach 90254 Telephone ( ) 376-6984 RESOLUTION NO. JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, AND THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY WEST • a MOSQUITO.ABATEMENT DISTRICT APPROVING AND ACCEPTING NEGOTIATED EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUES RESULTING FROM THE ANNEXATION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY WEST MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 99 of the Revenue -and Taxation Code, prior to the effective date of any jurisdic- tional change the governing bodies of all agencies whose service areas or service responsibilities would be altered by such change must determine the amount of property tax reve- nue to be exchanged between the affected agencies and approve and accept the negotiated exchange of property tax revenues by resolution, but if the affected agency is a spe- cial district, the Board of Supervisors must negotiate on behalf of the district; and WHEREAS, the "Hermosa Beach Annexation" to the Los Angeles County West Mosquito Abatement District affects only the County of Los Angeles, the City of Hermosa Beach and the Los Angeles County West Mosquito Abatement District; and WHEREAS, The affected agencies desire to provide ade- quate and equal funding for the provision of services by the District to the City of Hermosa Beach. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows: 1. The negotiated exchange of property tax revenue between the County of Los Angeles, the City of Hermosa Beach and the Los Angeles County West Mosquito Abatement District resulting from the "Hermosa Beach Annexation" to Los Angeles County West Mosquito Abatement District is approved and accepted. 2. For fiscal years commencing on and after July 1, 1988, or after the effective date of this jurisdictional change, whichever is later, property tax revenue in the amount of Seven Hundred Sixty -Six Dollars ($766) is ordered transferred from the City of Hermosa Beach to the Los Angeles County West Mosquito Abatement District and Seven Hundred Sixty -Six Dollars ($766) is ordered transferred from the County of Los Angeles to the Los Angeles County West Mosquito Abatement District. 3. In addition, for each fiscal year commencing on and after July 1, 1988, or after the effective date of this jurisdictional change, whichever is later, 0.0319293 Percent of the incremental tax growth attributable to the "Hermosa Beach Annexation" area shall be transferred to the Los Angeles County West Mosquito Abatement District, Fifty Percent (50%) of said percentage to be transferred from the City of Hermosa Beach and Fifty Percent (50%) of said per- centage to be transferred from the County of Los Angeles, and the City's and the County's share of incremental tax growth shall be reduced accordingly. 4. No other transfers of property tax revenue shall be made among the agencies as a result of this annexation. • . The 'foreguiny resoluL iun wab aduptCd by Lhe Board Vi Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles, the Board of Directors of the Los Angeles County West Mosquito Abatement District and the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk day of 1987 APPROVED AS TO FORM: .441l46. ",..d/L4d ity Atto''ney Resolution No. Page 2 of 3 r LOS ANGELES COUNTY WEST MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT General Manager day of 1987 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Chairman, Board of Supervisors LARRY J. MONTEILH, Executive Officer - Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By Deputy day of 1987 Resolution No. Page 3 of 3 ACTION SHEET ACTION SHEET "Let everyone sweep in front of his or her own door, and the whole world will be clean." -Goethe AGENDA REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 28, 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 All Council meetings are open Complete agenda materials are the Police Department, Public Clerk. CITY CLERK Kathleen Midstokke CITY TREASURER Norma Goldbach CITY MANAGER Gregory T. Meyer CITY ATTORNEY James P. Lough to the public. PLEASE ATTEND. available for public inspection in Library and the Office of the City PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: ALL PRESENT PROCLAMATIONS: Constitution Week, September 17 - 23, 1987 Daily Breeze International Surf Festival Week, July 27 - August 2, 1987 RESOLUTION SALUTING THE VISITING VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA LIFEGUARD TEAM ON ITS VISIT AND PARTICIPATION IN THE 25TH DAILY BREEZE INTERNATIONAL SURF FESTIVAL. RESO 87- JERRY HILBY & JOHN PETTIGROVE, MGR. OF TEAM ACCEPTED. AWARD OF PLAQUES TO OUTGOING COMMISSIONERS: Planning Commissioner Walter J. Schulte PRESENT Community Resources Commissioner Thomas Nyman NOT PRESENT Community Resources Commissioner Michael Martell NOT PRESENT INTRODUCTION OF NEW EMPLOYEES: Dianne Loughin - Clerk Typist, Police Department Tim Workman - Maintenance I, Public Works Department ' 1 LAPIN ANNOUNCEMENT 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 after Municipal Matters.) (a) Approval of Minutes: Regular meeting of the City Coun- cil held on July 14, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve minutes. (b) Approval of Minutes: Adjourned regular meeting of the City Council held on July 16, 1987. 0 MOTION JR/WI TO APPROVE AS AMENDED. OK 5-0 Recommended Action: To approve minutes. (c) Demands and Warrants: July 28, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve Demands and Warrants Nos. through inclusive. (d) Tentative Future Agenda Items. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (e) City Manager Activity Report: Memorandum from City Man- ager Gregory T. Meyer dated July 22, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (f) Building and Safety Department Monthly Activity Report: June, 1987. SIMPSON WOULD LIKE TO GET REPORTS ON NET INCREASE IN HOUSING UNITS. (g) Recommended Action: To receive and file. Community Resources Department Monthly Activity Report: June, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. PULLED BY SI - DIRECTOR COMMENTED ON FUTURE CONCERTS. MOTION DEB/SI TO RECEIVE AND FILE. OK 5-0 (h) Finance Department Monthly Activity Report: June, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (1) Fire Department Monthly Activity Report: June, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (j) General Services Department Monthly Activity Report: June, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (k) Personnel Department Monthly Activity Report: June, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (1) Planning Department Monthly Activity Report: June, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file.. (m) Police Department Monthly Activity Report: June, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (n) Public Works Department Monthly Activity Report: June, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (o) Monthly Revenue Report: June, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (p) Monthly Expenditure Report: June, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (q) City Treasurer's Report: June, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (r) Recommendation to amend the General Services Budget by deleting one General Services Officer position and add- ing one Technical Aide position. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dated June 24, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve an amendment to the Parking Enforcement Division, General Services Depart- ment, personnel allocation only, by deleting one General Services Officer position and adding one Technical Aide position. 3 (s) (t) (u) Critique of Environmental Impact Statesment (E.I.S.) for off -shore oil drilling by a professional consultant. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 17, 1987. Recommended Action: A joint effort among the potential- ly impacted coastal communities to obtain professional consulting services to examine and comment on the E.I.S. for off -shore oil drilling. Approval of revised class specification for Assistant Engineer. Memorandum from Personnel Administrator Rob- ert Blackwood dated July 15, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve revised class specifica- tion for Assistant Engineer. Approval of class specification for Assistant Planner. Memorandum from Personnel Administrator Robert Blackwood dated July 17, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve the class specification for Assistant Planner. (v) Acceptance of work as complete - Fuel Dispensing System, CIP 86-601. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated July 14, 1987. Recommended Action: To accept as complete the CIP 86- 601 Fuel Dispensing System and authorize staff to release the 1O7 retention payment for subject project to Uniforce Corporation. (w) Reappropriation of Building Department FY 86-87 capital outlay funds for FY 87-88. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director William Grove dated July 20, 1987. Recommended Action: To reappropriate $1,000 of unused Building Department capital outlay funds from FY 86-87 to FY 87-88. (x) Cancellation of Lease Agreement between the City of Her- mosa Beach and the City of Redondo Beach for space in the Community Center for the Redondo Beach/Hermosa Beach operation of the Wave Program. Memorandum from Communi- ty Resources Director Alana Mastrian dated July 21, 1987. PULLED BY WILLIAMS - CONCERNED ABOUT VANDALISM. MOTION APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WI/DEB OK 5-0 Recommended Action: To approve cancellation of lease as o Septem er 1 987; that premises be accepted as is, including the remodelling done by City of Redondo Beach. 4 (y) (z) Approval of Lease Agreement between the City of Hermosa Beach and the Association for Retarded Citizens - South- west for space in the Community Center. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian dated July 21, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve lease agreement. Cancellation of Lease Agreement between the City of Her- mosa Beach and Redondo Union High School District for office space in the Community Center. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian dated July 21, 1987. PULLED BY DEB - BASED ON SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ITEM WONDERS ABOUT DISTANCE BETWEEN EXPIRATION DATE AND START UP DATE FOR NEW LEASE. MOTION DEB/SI TO APPROVE STAFF REC. OK 5-0 Recommended Action: To approve cancellation of lease. (aa) Recommended Consultant and contract for Circulation, Transportation and Parking Element. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 21, 1987. JR PULLED - JPL ON PAGE -2 ADD SENTENCE SAYING UNDER METHOD OF PAYMENT "CITY SHALL RETAIN 10% OF FINAL COMPENSATION UNTIL ALL WORK COMPLETED." DEB ASKED ABOUT RAISING THE PERCENTAGE. MOTION JR/TO APPROVE STAFF REC. W/CHANGES AS REC. BY JPL BUT CHANGE TO 157 SECOND DEB. OK 5-0 Recommended Action: To 1) approve DKS and Associates as consultant; and 2) approve contract so that preparation of the Circulation, Transportation and Parking Element may commence; and 3) authorize Mayor to sign on behalf of City. (bb) Request to transfer funds from the General Fund to the Insurance Fund. Memorandum from Personnel Administrator Robert Blackwood dated July 14, 1987. Recommended Action: To 1) transfer $28,415 from General Fund to Insurance Fund and appropriate same amount to Workers' Comp Division, Acct. 705-401-1217-4182; and 2) transfer $7,973 from General Fund to Insurance Fund, and appropriate same amount to Workers' Comp Division, Acct. 705-401-1217-4183. (cc) City sites and scenes RTD program for bus sign. Memo- randum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated July 16, 1987. PULLED BY JR - THINKS THERE ARE BETTER WAYS TO USE PROP A FUNDS WI SAYS SHE THOUGHT GOOD WAY TO PUBLICIZE OUR COMMUTER BUS AND OUR DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES. MOTION WI/DO ON TRIAL BASIS PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION. SECOND SI - WHAT BASIS IS THERE FOR EVALUATION OF THE VALUE OF THIS TO THE BUSINESSES. OK 4-1 JR -NO - 5 - Recommended Action: To refer to staff to pursue with Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Merchants Associa- tion for possible utilization. (dd) Child Abuse Monthly Report. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian dated July 21, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any item listed under Consent Ordinances and Resolutions may do so at this time. 2. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS (a) ORDINANCE NO. 87-889 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING CODE IN REGARDS TO HEIGHT LIMITATION IN THE COM- MERCIAL AND R -P ZONES AND FOR THE BILTMORE SITE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA. For waiver of further reading and adoption. HAGGERTY COMPLAINED ABOUT LACK OF NOTIFICATION. JPL THERE WAS A NOTICE. HAGGERTY DOES NOT FEEL IT HAS HAD A PROPER NOTICING WITHOUT INDIVIDUAL NOTICE TO ALL AFFECTED. DR. ANTHONY ROSE, SECONDS THE COMMENTS OF 1ST GENTLEMAN. STAN DENIS - HMS REPRESENTATIVE - REITERATE COMMENTS OF 2 PREVIOUS SPEAKERS. HIS CLIENTS WERE NOT AWARE OF WHAT WAS TAKING PLACE LAST MONTH. IF C.C. ELECTS TO VOTE ON ORDINANCE PLEASE DO IN NEGATIVE FASHION BECAUSE CLAIM HAS BEEN FILED AS WELL AS A LAW SUIT. HE OBJECTS TO CHANGING REGULATIONS ON THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE IT WOULD CHANGE VALUE OF PROPERTY. AMEND LINE 6, PAGE 1 TO SAY "RELATION". MOTION JR/SI - TO ADOPT (WI PROPOSED ADDITION TO SAY TO "ALLEVIATE DENSITY". JPL WOULD HAVE TO REINTRODUCE. NO SECOND FOR AMENDMENT.) VOTE - OK 5-0 (b) ORDINANCE NO. 87-890 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HER- MOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FROM M-1, LIGHT MANUFACTURING, TO R-2, TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE, AND APPROVING A NEGA- TIVE DECLARATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 602, 614, 622 THIRD STREET AND 228 ARDMORE AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 74, 75 AND 76 OF WALTER RANSOM COMPANY'S VENABLE PLACE TRACT. For waiver of further reading and adoption. MOTION DEB/JR ADOPT ORD. 5-0 (c) ORDINANCE NO. 87-891 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PRESCRIBING FEES FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF CONNECTING ANY PARCEL WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO THE SEWERAGE SYSTEM, OR FOR INCREASING THE - 6 QUANTITY OF WASTEWATER ATTRIBUTABLE TO A CONNECTED PAR- CEL WITHIN THE CITY, AND PROVIDING FOR THE COLLECTION OF SUCH CHARGES, AMENDING CHAPTER 28, ARTICLE II, SECTIONS 28-7 THROUGH 28-14. For waiver of further reading and adoption. MOTION TO WAIVE - SI/DEB - OK 5-0 MOTION TO ADOPT ORD. SI/DEB - OK 3-2 (WI/JR-NO.) (d) ORDINANCE NO. 87-892 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING LIMITATIONS ON POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND CAMPAIGN CON- DUCT. For waiver of further reading and adoption. MOTION WI/JR TO WAIVE - OK 5-0 MOTION WI/JR TO ADOPT. OK 4-0-1 (DEB -ABSTAIN) (e) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #18351 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1525 MANHATTAN AVENUE. For adoption. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 23, 1987. MOTION WI/JR - TO APPROVE MAP AND ADOPT RESOLUTION. OK 5-0 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. (a) Letter from Hermosa Beach City Schools Superintendent Marilyn Corey dated June 29, 1987 re. flashing signal located in the 1800 block of Prospect Avenue. MOTION DEB/JR - TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDTION. OK SO ORDERED Recommended Action: Refer to staff for analysis and reply. (b) Letter from Howard L. Cohen, 48 - 14th Street, Hermosa Beach dated July 15, 1987 re. access to his property through ,Parking Lot C. ��^I MOTION JR/DEB TO APPROVE STAFF REC. OK 5-0. )DW DEB WOULD LIKE INFO. RE.EXCHANGE OF CITY PROPERTY MAKING LOT WE RECENTLY OBTAINED THE RESIDENTIAL PARKING AREA. Recommended Action: Refer to Parking Administrator for reply and coordination with Parking Lot Operator. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. NONE Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any of the - 7 - remaining items on the agenda may request to do so at the time the item is called. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 5. INTERPRETATION OF ZONING CODE APPLICATION TO PROJECT AT 2524-2526 HERMOSA AVENUE. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director William Grove and Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 20, 1987. MOTION WI - GO WTIH BLDG. REC. CHANGING WORDING THAT ALL CON- STRUCTION COMPLIES WITH CURRENT CODES AND IF IT DOES NOT APPLY FOR VARIANCE., SECOND BY DEB FOR DISCUSSION. MOTION JR/SI TO RECEIVE AND FILE AND URGE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT NEW PLANS. TO SUBSTITUTE AS MAIN MOTION. BECOMES MAIN MOTION R & F AND SUBMIT NEW PLANS WITH C.A. REC. THAT WORDING SPECIFICALLY REJECT PLANNING COMMISSION RATIONALE AND INTERPRETATION ON EXISTING PLANS. OK 4-1 (WI -NO) Recommended Action: 1) Planning Commission recommends that the Council concur in their interpretation that the subject project conforms to the requirements of the zoning code and adopt resolution (exhibit A); 2) Staff recommends that the Council not concur with Planning Commission interpretation, determine that the subject project constitutes two new dwelling units and adopt resolution (exhibit B). 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. MOTION DEB/SI TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. OK 5-0 Recommended 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 de- molition permits for development of lots in which at least one of the contiguous parcels held by same owner does not conform 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. 7. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING FIRE FLOW CAPABILI- TIES. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wis- niewski dated July 20, 1987. Recommended Action: To direct staff to 1) obtain cost estimates for upgrading all fire hydrants with 2-1/2" connections to 4' connections for consideration at quar- terly budget review; 2) conduct flow tests with 4" hose connected to 2-1/2" couplings and report results, 3) cy,79 - 8 - • continue with current method of having developers up- grade the water capabilities in conjunction with their projects, 4) prepare ordinance requiring installation of sprinkler systems in new residential dwellings, busi- nesses and remodels of dwellings and businesses if re- model costs exceed $30,000, 5) seek proposals for study of needs and deficiencies in City's water system and fire flow capabilities. 8. MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT, REQUEST TO ANNEX. Memoran- dum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated July 15, 1987. Recommended Action: To adopt the following resolutions: A. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, MAKING APPLICATION TO THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION FOR A CHANGE OF ORGANIZATION PURSUANT TO THE CORTESE/KNOX LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ACT. For adoption. MOTION DEB/? TO ADOPT RESOLUTION. OK 5-0 B. JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, AND THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY WEST MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT APPROVING AND ACCEPTING NEGOTIATED EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUES RESULTING FROM THE ANNEXATION OF THE CITY OF HERMO- SA BEACH TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY WEST MOSQUITO ABATE- MENT DISTRICT. For adoption. MOTION JR/DEB TO ADOPT RESOLUTION. OK SO ORDERED. 9. MATTERS CONCERNING THE NOVEMBER 3, 1987 GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION: A. DISCUSSION ON WHETHER THE FOLLOWING MATTERS SHOULD BE BALLOT ISSUES: 1) LETTER FROM 0.S.P.A.C., ROSAMOND FOGG, CHAIR- PERSON, DATED JULY 20, 1987 REQUESTING THEIR OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION MATTER BE ON THE BALLOT. COUNCIL VOTED IN CLOSED SESSION TO RELEASE MEMO FROM JPL RE. AC- TION ON OPEN SPACE INITIATIVES. IF C.C. PUTS ON BALLOT CITY WOULD PROBABLY BE REQUIRED TO DEFEND INITIATIVE. ROSAMOND FOGG, 610 SIXTH ST., SPEAKING FOR OSPAC. WANTS LANGUAGE OF INITIATIVE TO REMAIN INTACT. BARBARA LINDEMAN, ATTY. FOR OSPAC. OBJECTS TO PARTIAL DOCUMENT. MUCH DISCUSSION BY MANY. MOTION DEB/PLACE INITIATIVE ON BALLOT. SECOND SI. (AS CIRCULATED BY MRS. FOGG). MANDATING THE PURCHASE AND ACQUISITION OF THE R- 0 -W . ETC. AND INCORPORATE ENTIRE TEXT OF INITIATIVE. OK 3-2 (WI/JR-N0). MOTION DEB/PLACE ON BALLOT TO RAISE UUT FROM 6% TO 10% SECOND SI. OK 5-0. 9 MOTION WI/ HIRE APPRAISER AND SEND IMMEDIATE LETTER TO ATSF . JR HOPES THERE WILL BE NO SECOND TO THIS MOTION. DIES FOR LACK OF SECOND. MOTION DEB/WI TO MEET THURSDAY AT 6:30 P.M. 2) INSTITUTING A METHOD OF AFFIRMING CHANGES IN THE EXISTING DESIGNATED OPEN SPACE ZONES. INI- TIATIVE SIGNED BY MESSRS. BRUTSCH, SCHULTZ AND DEUTSCH. MOTION JR/CIO TO R & F. OK 4-1 (DEB -NO) 3) AMENDING ORDINANCE 84-758 RE. HYDROCARBON MONIES. INITIATIVE SIGNED BY MESSRS. BRUTSCH, WEISS AND CREIGHTON. MOTION WI/ TO SUBMIT TO VOTERS THE INITIATIVE. SECOND SI. OK 2-3 (DEB/CIO/JR-NO) 4) CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITATIONS. SEE ITEM 2(d) LISTED ABOVE. MOTION DEB/JR TO R & F. OK 5-0 B. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELEC- TION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1987, FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELEC- TORS OF SAID CITY PROPOSED ORDINANCES RELATING TO A GROSS RECEIPTS TAX FOR MOTION PICTURE THEATERS, AND MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMITS IN THE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL -PROFESSIONAL ZONES, AND FOR ANY OTHER MEASURES AS DETERMINED IN "A" ABOVE. For adoption. C. ESTABLISHING PREFERENCE FOR ORDER OF BALLOT MEA- SURES. Memorandum from City Clerk Kathleen Mid- stokke dated July 23, 1987. D. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO CON- SOLIDATE A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF SAID CITY TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1987 WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND GENERAL DISTRICT ELECTIONS TO BE HELD ON SAID DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 23302 OF THE ELECTION CODE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING CERTAIN MEASURES TO THE ELECTORATE. For adoption. E. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OF ITS MEMBERS TO FILE WRITTEN ARGUMENTS REGARDING CITY MEASURES AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE IMPARTIAL ANALYSES. For adoption. - 10 - F. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR CITY MEASURES SUBMITTED AT MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS. For adoption (optional). Memorandum from City Clerk Kathleen Midstokke dated July 23, 1987. G. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, FIXING THE COMPENSATION TO BE RECEIVED BY THE CITY CLERK FOR GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 3, 1987. For adoption. 11. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER [12. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL 2[ (a) Discussion of Planning Commission/City Council Subcom- mittees or Planning Commission/City Council Workshop meetings. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 20, 1987. (b) Request by Councilmember DeBellis for discussion re. amending open space zoning. (c) Discussion requested by Councilmember DeBellis concern- ing eminent domain action to acquire park land. 13. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL 14. MEETING OF THE HERMOSA BEACH VEHICLE PARKING DISTRICT COMMISSION. (a) CONSENT CALENDAR 1) Approval of minutes of the March 10, 1987 meeting. (b) Discussion re. validation program. Memorandum from Parking Administrator Joan Noon dated July 20, 1987. Recommended Action: To 1) hear an oral report from Business Relations Subcommittee re. their mtg. of 7/15 with Downtown Merchants Association; and 2) discuss the validation program as it is now operating at 20 cents per validation stamp. 15. MEETING OF THE HERMOSA BEACH PARKING AUTHORITY. (a) CONSENT CALENDAR 1) Approval of minutes of the February 24, 1987 meeting. (b) Proceeding with a Community Center Vicinity Parking Facility: Legal opinion from City Attorney dated July 21, 1987 re. possible Grant Deed restrictions. Recommended Action: Accept opinion and advise School District requesting that they indicate any concerns about City pursuing a public parking facility at the former Pier Avenue School Site. 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. KAREN ROEBUCK, L.A.TIMES, ANY DISCUSSIONS RE. CITY ATTORNEY AND COSTS INCURRED BE HELD IN THE PUBLIC MEETING. ADJOURNED AT 12:56 P.M. TO ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING ON THURSDAY MEETING AT 6:30 P.M. ADJOURNMENT - 12 - CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Cioffi DATE: July 30, 1987 FROM: City Manager Gregory T. Meyer RE: Remaining items on the July 28 City Council Agenda As you requested, listed below is a recap: Item Number 12 14 15. Subject Comment Fire Flow Analysis Continue to 8/11 Election Matters Requires action City Council Matters Up to City Council VPD Matters Merchants want action Parking Authority Could be continued cc Department Heads 1 Highland and Valley/Ardmore, Gould CIP 85-102 & 85-137): Preliminary design scheduled for completion July 1987 by Barrett Consulting Group. Pier Lighting Repairs (CIP 86-203):. Underwater inspection of Pier grounding now completed. Design in progress. Traffic Signal Improvements (CIP 85-138): Design in Progress. Sixth Street Storm Drain Project (CIP 86-302): Completed by Los Angeles County Flood Control. Fuel Dispensing System (CIP 85-601): Installed in June, operational in July. Following is a list of projects completed by the Public Works Department in FY 86-87: CIP CIP CIP CIP CIP CIP CIP CIP CIP CIP 86-163: 86-601: 85-138: 85-160: 85-501: 85-503: 85-301: 86-506: 86-605: 86-604: Proiects Asphalt Street Repairs City Fuel Dispensing (City Yard) Traffic Signal Improvements (study only) City Street/Sidewalk Repairs (concrete) Restroom Refurbishing, Clark Stadium Restroom Refurbishing, Pier Pier Avenue Storm Drain (pd. FY 85-86) Various Park Improvements 14th Street Parking Lot Building Improvements, Various Locations Major Projects Planned for FY 87-88 CIP 85-102: CIP 85-160: CIP 85-201: CIP 86-203: CIP 85-402: CIP 86-507: CIP 86-508: Final Cost $108,810 33,810 16,925 12,721 39,317 31,773 337,000 11,966 6,243 20,834 Widen Highland Avenue, Longfellow to 35th Street Roadway Improvements and Appurtenances Light Conversions & Installations (City-wide) Pier Lighting Repairs Target Area II -Sewer Replacement Clark Field Tennis Court Resurfacing Park Irrigation Restoration Maintenance - Parks/Medians: To operate effective landscape maintenance and landscape for all City planted areas and provide upkeep of irrigation systems within the City medians and parks. - Street Maintenance/Sanitation: Includes the repair and maintenance of streets, alleys, sidewalks, curbs and gutters; street sweeping and cleaning of streets, alleys and parking lots. - Sewer and Storm Drains: Maintenance of sewers, storm drains and City sanitary sewer pump stations; installation of new laterals for new construction. 2 \ 'Al Kcv\-P-\-J:c -/cy 7 (7 Pr y2e-t_ (olui .,) C-14 -"Q-- G4,1 Wil' �, u�RcLAJ ii-II\00-?, ii 1* HPTREND Performance Trend R porting Produced on behalf of CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH for HERMOSA BEACH REPORT Series 48 S/N 2404V20742 h1 P, attn: MARGUERITE STURGES CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MARGUERITE STURGES 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 HEWLETT PACKARD_ �u< „ • , U 11 a 1 Preface This HPTREND report shows resource utilization trends on an HP 3000 computer. HPTREND is a capacity planning tool designed for use without assistance from I -IP. However, if you do require help interpreting the data or additional performance consulting, please contact your Software Support Representative at your local Hewlett Packard Sales Office. System Handle : HERMOSA BEACH REPORT Measurement Interface dates : Mon, Nov 3, 1986 thru Fri, Jul 3, 1987 Daily MPE Log file dates : Fri, Mar 13, 1987 thru Thu, Jul 2, 1987 Account Usage Summaries : Thu, Mar 12, 1987 thru Thu, Jul 2, 1987 Date of data reduction : Fri, Jul 3, 1987 HPTREND Report Generator Version : A.00.06 Copyright © Hewlett-Packard Co. 1985 List of Graphs 41, Section One Resource Utilization Trends Daily Peak period CPU Utilization 2 Daily Peak period DISC I/O Utilization 3 Hourly CPU Utilization 4 Hourly Disc I/O Rates 5 User CPU Execution Priority 7 CPU used by Batch Jobs 8 CPU used by Online Terminals 9 User Disc I/Os 10 Printer Output 11 Mag Tape Usage 12 Section Two Resource Consumption Connect Hours 14 CPU Hours 15 Million of Disc I/Os 16 Pages Printed 17 Mag Tape Blocks (x1000) 18 Jobs and Sessions Logons by Account 19 CPU Hours consumed by Account 20 Copyright © Hewlett-Packard Co. 1985 UHEWLETT n PACKARD Resource Utilization ..9 Section One Resource Utilization Trends A. PERCENTAGE AND RATE INFORMATION The next series of graphs show usage trends in peak times of use over a given period of time. These trends are obtained from the Measurement Interface. Measurement Interface data is used to show system management in relation to hour of the day. These charts present CPU usage in percentage format, while DISC I/O usage is given in rate per hour. • HERMOSA BEACH REPORT Series 48 S/N 2404V20742 Page 1 Copyright © Hewlett-Packard Co. 1985 pi HEWLETT PACKARD Percent Utilized 120 100 80 Resource Utilization b - Daily Peak period CPU Utilization (6 AM - 6 PM) TOTAL USER 02/08/87 This first plot shows the percentage of CPU used each day. USER is the amount of time the CPU was actually executing a user (non MPE) process. It does include time spent in the system library routines for the user process. TOTAL is the total amount of CPU used. It includes USER plus various MPE functions such as memory management, Disc Caching, etc. The difference between TOTAL and USER can be thought of as "system overhead". HERMOSA BEACH REPORT .Ssries 48 S/N 2404V20742 Page 2 Copyright © Hewlett-Packard Co. 1985 HEWLETT pi PACKARD 100 UOs per second 80 60 40 Resource Utilization Daily peak period DISC I/O Utilization (6 AM — 6 PM) LOGICAL PHYSICAL MEMORY 1 • LOGICAL is the rate of "perceived" disc I/Os (i.e it is the rate at which the user think the discs are going). PHYSICAL is the actual disc I/Os. If disc caching is not present on a system, then Logical and Physical should be the same (every time the user "thinks" the system does an IO, it really does one). If disc caching is present, then the difference between Logical and Physical is due to Caching satisfying a disc request from Cache and not having to do a Physical IO. MEMORY is the rate that MPE's Memory Manager must do disc IOs in order to swap things to and from memory. It may be thought of as a swapping rate although one swap may actually require several IOs. If the MEMORY curve is a significant proportion of the total IOs then possibly your system is being constrained by main memory size. HERMOSA BEACH REPORT Series 48 S/N 2404V20742 Page 3 Copyright © Hewlett-Packard Co. 1985 HEWLETT P PACKARD 80 Percent Utilized 60 40 20 Hourly CPU Utilization (Mon, Nov 3, 1986 - Fri, Jul 3, 1987) TOTAL USER Resource Utilization 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 Hour of the day The next plots are an average over the same dates as the previous plots. They break down resource usage into hours of' the day rather than days. They can be used to determine if you have a good balance through out your work day. You can use them to compare loads from different shifts if you run shift work. Each value is the average usage during this hour over the entire reporting period (not counting weekends). This actual peak usages will no doubt be much higher than these averages. HERMOSA BEACH REPORT Series 48 S/N 2404V20742 Page 4 Copyright © Hewlett-Packard Co. 1985 pi HEWLETT PACKARD Hourly Disc I/O Rates (Mon, Nov 3, 1986 - Fri, Jul 3, 1987) LOGICAL PHYSICAL Resource Utilization MEMORY Hour of the Day This graph shows hourly average disc utilization (not counting weekends). Remember that the difference between the LOGICAL and PHYSICAL curves is the benefit you gain from disc caching. Compare this against the previous plot system CPU overhead (difference between TOTAL and USER). You may see times of the day when the benefit of disc caching does not justify its costs. Consider turning caching off during these times if the trend continues. l HERMOSA BEACH REPORT Series 48 S/N 2404V20742 Page 5 Copyright © Hewlett-Packard Co. 1985 PAHEWLETT PACKARD B. QUANTITY INFORMATION Resource Utilization The next series of plots were obtained from MPE log files. It shows plots similar to the day by day plots at the begining of this report. One major difference is that it can only report the NUMBER of events rather than the PERCENTAGE or RATE(i.e "one million disc lOs today" rather than "average of ten Ios per second"). HERMOSA BEACH REPORT Series 48 S/N 2404V20742 Page 6 Copyright © Hewlett-Packard Co. 1985 ea rHEWLETT PACKARD CPU hours Resource Utilization User CPU by Execution Priority LOPRI CS PRI HIPRI 04/27/87 05/19/87 Smoothed over 7 days 06/10/87 This graph shows CPU usage in three categories: LOPRI is all CPU used by jobs or sessions running in either the "DS" or "ES" subqueues (normally batch jobs and "idle" jobs). CS PRI is all CPU used by jobs or sessions running in the "CS" subqueue and is normally reserved for online terminals. HIPRI (if present) is CPU used by jobs or sessions running in the "BS" subqueue. Note that this graph does not include CPU time spent for system management by MPE. Also, the data has been smoothed considerably; there will be no "peaks" or "valleys". Use this plot for general trend analysis, not peak usage. HERMOSA BEACH REPORT Series 48 S/N 2404V20742 Copyright © Hewlett-Packard Co. 1985 Page 7 /'IHEWLETT PACKARD CPU used by Batch Jobs BATCH CPU hours SMOOTHED BATCH Resource Utilization 1 03/13/87 11 1� 1 1 l 04/27/87 05/19/87 06/10/87 07/0: This graph shows CPU used by batch jobs, regardless of execution priority. The data has been treated with a seven-day smoothing function. HERMOSA BEACH REPORT Series 48 S/N 2404V20742 Copyright © Hewlett-Packard Co. 1985 Page 8 paHEWLETT , PACKARD 10 CPU hours Resource Utilization CPU used by Online Terminals ONUNE SMOOTHED ONUNE t i r 03/13/87 04/05/87 04/27/87 05/19/87 This graph shows CPU used by interactive sessions. 1- 06/10/87 • 07/03/87 HERMOSA BEACH REPORT Series 48 S/N 2404V20742 Page 9 Copyright © Hewlett-Packard Co. 1985 Frtl HEWLETT PACKARD User Disc I/Os DISC* Millions of records SMOOTHED DISC 10 Resource Utilization 03/13/87 •/ / / 1 L. T 04/05/87 04/27/87 05/19/87 06/10/87 07/0: Remember that this data does not include disc activity due to MPE. HERMOSA BEACH REPORT Series 48 S/N 2404V20742 Page 10 Copyright © Hewlett-Packard Co. 1985 ;4 01 HEWLETT PACKARD 2000 Pages 1500 1000 Printer Output PRINT SMOOTHED PRINT Resource Utilization 03/13/87 1 1 /\ r 04/05/87. 04/27/87 05/19/87 06/10/87 - 07/03/87 A page is assumed to contain 60 lines. Page printers (i.e. laser printers) report actual pages printed to the log files. HERMOSA BEACH REPORT Series 48 S/N 2404V20742 Page 11 Copyright © Hewlett-Packard Co. 1985 Er HEWLETT n ,� PACKARD 25 Thousands of lOs 20 15 10 Mag Tape Usage TAPE SMOOTHED TAPE Resource Utilization 03/13/87 04/05/87 04/27/87 05/19/87 )1A\-1 06/10/87 07/03/87 HERMOSA BEACH REPORT - Series 48 S/N 2404V20742 Page 12 Copyright © Hewlett—Packard Co. 1985 VI HEWLETT rall PACKARD Resource Consumption Section Two Resource Consumption The next series of graphs show resource consumption by ACCOUNT. These graphs may be compared with previous graphs in. this report and with previous HPTREND reports to find utilization trends by account and, possibly, to locate the categories of users that are utilizing most of the system. The basic format of each graph is the same. It is a pie chart showing which ACCOUNT on your system used the most of each resource. The top ten accounts are plotted along with one additional category called "(OTHERS)". This category is the total of all other ACCOUNTS on the system and is used to make the pie represent 100% of the user usage of each resource. I HERMOSA BEACH REPORT Series 48 S/N 2404V20742 Page 13 Copyright © Hewlett-Packard Co. 1985 CHEWLETT PQ PACKARD TRAFFIC 12232.26 Resource Consumption Connect Hours - (Thu, Mar 12, 1987 - Thu, Jul 2, 1987) HPWORD 16701.76 RGA 1026.617 AL 1047.083 PERMITS 1061.3 BL 1242.917 (OTHERS) 1316.066 RNANCE 2365.708 HPOFRCE 4933.672 This graph shows connect hours for the top ten accounts. CONNECT time is the number of hours a user was "logged on" to the system. This includes time for batch jobs as well as for interactive sessions. If a user was logged on to two terminals for one hour then this would count as two hours of connect time. HERMOSA BEACH REPORT Series 48 S/N 2404V20742 Copyright © Hewlett-Packard Co. 1985 Page 14 VAIIHEWLETT PPACKARD !t Resource Consumption CPU Hours (Thu, Mar 12, 1987 - Thu, Jul 2, 19 87) HPWORD 88.33232 SYS 13.84363 PARKS 76.3864 (OTHERS) 28.78583 FINANCE 61.50945 This graph shows the top ten consumers of CPU time. This plot shows the CPU used by an account as a percentage of a whole. It includes batch and interactive usage but does not include the CPU used by MPE processes(such as memory management or disc caching). HERMOSA BEACH REPORT Series 48 S/N 2404V20742 Page 15 Copyright © Hewlett-Packard Co. 1985 pak HEWLETT Ea PACKARD Resource Consumption Millions of Disc I/Os (Thu, Mar 12, 1987 - Thu, Jul 2, 1987) HPWORD 19.8141 TELESUP 2.474365 $SYSTEM 4.26453 (OTHERS) 5.584407 FINANCE 10.89792 NOTE: You may see a category called "$SYSTEM" in this graph. It is to account for those disc I/Os that are done be MPE and ARE logged to the MPE log files. Most of these I/Os will belong to the "LOADER" process and are a result of running a program or are caused by MPE reading "Terminal Type" files to reinitialized modem terminal ports. HERMOSA BEACH REPORT Series 48 S/N 2404V20742 Copyright © Hewlett-Packard Co. 1985 Y Page 16 HEWLETT 10,11 PACKARD FINANCE 9220 Resource Consumption Pages Printed - (Thu, Mar 12, 1987 - Thu, Jul 2, 1987) TRAFFIC 16789 BL 7160 SYS 3302 AL 966 PARKS 1328 HPWORD 1513 (OTHERS) 1596 PERMITS 1660 BUDGET 2227 NOTE: Printer pages are not recorded in the log files for all printer types. On some line printers only a line count is recorded. In this case, pages are arbitrarily calculated as lines divided by 60. Only spooled printers are included in this plot but spooled terminal type printers are included. HERMOSA BEACH REPORT Series 48 S/N 2404V20742 Page 17 Copyright © Hewlett-Packard Co. 1985 pa: HEWLETT CA PACKARD TRAFFIC 112.936 Resource Consumption Mag Tape Blocks (x1000) (Thu, Mar 12, 1987 - Thu, Jul 2, 1987) FINANCE 132.859 SYS 65.93 d Tape drives usually write data in blocks; each block will contain many logical records. The numbers reported in this graph are physical I/Os (blocks). For this reason, each physical I/O may represent many more user records. $SYSTEM on this plot is usually caused by IMAGE or USER LOGGING which uses a tape drive. HERMOSA BEACH REPORT Series 48 S/N 2404V20742 Page 18 Copyright 0 Hewlett-Packard Co. 1985 Faa HEWLETT PACKARD Resource Consumption Jobs and Sessions Logons by -Account (Thu, Mar 12, 19 8 7 - Thu, Jul 2, 19 8 7) SESSIONS JOBS f (� RGB BUDGET 3 AL A SYS PERMITS HPOFFICE BL FINANCE TRAFFIC /A • HPWORD 1 1000.0 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 This graph shows the ten -most active accounts in terms of job and session creation over the reporting interval. HERMOSA BEACH REPORT Series 48 S/N 2404V20742 Copyright © Hewlett-Packard Co. 19 8 5 Page 19 HEWLETT PACKARD (OTHERS) SYS PARKS RNANCE HPWORD TRAFFIC Resource Consumption CPU hours consumed by Account (Thu, Mar 12, 1987 - Thu, Jul 2,1987) SESSIONS JOBS r 0 100 200 300 400 This graph splits CPU usage into that used by interactive users (SESSIONS) and batch jobs (JOBS). The TOTAL CPU used by the account is the total bar size (Sessions + Batch). If you have any questions on the meaning of the information in this report, or if you feel that a more in-depth analysis is required on your system, please contact your local Hewlett Packard Sales office for assistance. HERMOSA BEACH REPORT Series 48 S/N 2404V20742 Copyright © Hewlett-Packard Co. 1985 Page 20 June 24, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council July 28, 1987 RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND THE GENERAL SERVICES BUDGET BY DELETING ONE GENERAL SERVICES OFFICER POSITION AND ADDING ONE TECHNICAL AIDE POSITION Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve an amendment to the Parking Enforcement Divison, General Services Dept., personnel allocation only, by deleting one General Services Officer position and adding one Technical Aide position. Background: The General Services Department recently conducted an evaluation of the current work load and personnel distribution, in the parking enforcement division. The conclusion is, we would be better staffed by affecting the recommended change. Currently there are eleven officers, plus supervisors, issuing parking citations and only two persons covering all of the technical functions, associated with the processing of parking citations. The two Technical Aides, who are assigned the task of processing citations, also devote approximately 33% [each] of their time to data processing functions. The clerical aspects of processing parking citations involve data entry, seeking registered owner information from the DMV, printing and mailing notices of delinquent parking citations, sending holds on the vehicle registration to the DMV, setting court dates, creating hot sheets for the booting program, and numerous other follow-up procedures. The department issued ninety-eight thousand citations over the past year. In order to keep up with the data entry alone, approximately 500 citations per day, have to be initially processed by the clerical support staff. 1 Analysis: This transfer of personnel within the department will not financially affect the adopted 87/88 budget in any way. It would involve a lateral transfer from G.S.O. to Technical Aide. Both positions are in the same salary schedule. The employee slated for this transfer, is currently in the number two position on the existing certified Civil Service, Technical Aide, list. This employee has served temporarily in the capacity of T.A., has experience in data entry and some background in data processing. Joa Noon G. S. Director Concur: Gre Cit T. eyer Manager Noted for fiscal impact: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator cc: Personnel Administrator Teamsters Local 911 Representative 2 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM PERSONNEL .. TO: Gregory T. Meyer DATE: June 22, 1987 City Manager FROM: Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Administrator Re: Lateral Transfer - G.S. Department In regards to Ms. Noon's proposal to laterally transfer G.S. Of- ficer Richard Harris to the classification of Technical Aide, the following would apply: 1. Authority exists in the Personnel Rules and Regulations for the transfer of an employee. Rule G, Section 5(f) states: "In the case of the transfer of any employee from one position ... to another class to which the same pay range is applicable, the employee shall remain at the same pay step and shall retain his original anniversary date." 2. The applicable MOU article (Article 15) states: "Seniority shall be the determining factor in all ...transfers within the unit. Under the Seniority article, it is allowed that "Qualifications and Ability" shall be considered before "Length of Continuous Service". Given these provisions, and Mr. Harris' qualifications, I see no difficulty in effecting the proposed transfer. I support the G.S. Directors proposal and would suggest that Mr. Harris and the appropriate union representative be notified in a timely manner in order that any concerns they may raise can be addressed. r �. June 18, 1987 TO: Gregory T. Meyer, City Manager FROM: Joan Noon, General Services Director SUBJECT: Lateral Transfer PROPOSAL LATERAL TRANSFER FROM GENERAL SERVICES OFFICER TO TECHNICAL AIDE - RICHARD HARRIS Recommendation That Richard Harris, currently a General Services Officer, be laterally transferred to Technical Aide, effective September 1, 1987. Background Richard Harris is currently in the number two position on the existing certified Civil Service, Technical Aide, list. This list is due to expire on September 17, 1987. The pay scale is the same for both General Service Officer and Technical Aide. Mr. Harris served as a temporary T. A., for a six week period, in the absence of Jeanne Francis, T. A., who was out on surgical sick leave. He was also scheduled to cover for another T.A. during a scheduled leave, in the month of November/87, but this leave was cancelled. In light of our previous and planned utilization of Mr. Harris, we scheduled him to take computer operator training, which he has completed. He is currently familiar with data entry procedures for parking permits, citations and animal licenses. In addition, he has a personal computer, at home, and some background in data processing. Analysis After reviewing the overall personnel/task distribution throughout the General Services Department, I am of the opinion that we are overstaffed in field operations and understaffed in._ office operations. The attached G.S.O. summary field schedule indicates the following coverage: 1 t I , DAY OF WEEK # OF OFFICERS ON DUTY P.E.-DAY P.E.-NITE A.C. Sunday 4 3 1 Monday 4 2 1 Tuesday 4 2 1 Wednesday 4 2 1 Thursday 5 3 1 Friday 4 3 1 Saturday 4 3 1 I propose that we totally eliminate schedule time -slot 11, which I believe is superfluous. Mr. Harris is due to rotate into this slot on October 1, 1987, so it will not affect any other G. S. Officer. He is currently in slot 10, so for one month we would be one person short on Wednesday night. However, there is a Supervisor on duty and he should be able to take up the slack. On the other hand, with the increase in -data processing users, the additional terminals and software applications, along with all of our other processing functions, we are faced with a heavy work load on the clerical side of the department. In the past month alone ( May 18 thru,June 18 ), we have had 52 requests for service from the Data Processing Division. These requests have ranged from minor problems that take minutes to fix, to training and major software installation problems that took several hours to complete. Our current staff, assigned to data processing, consists of three people. One who devotes 100% of her time as system manager and two Technical Aides who devote one-third [each] of their time as back up to the system manager and computer operations. In addition, the budget reflects 15% of my time devoted to management, coordination, etc. The two Technical Aides (assigned to data processing) are also assigned the total responsibility for parking citation records and processing. I believe this proposal is a responsible recommendation, I further believe it is the prerogative of the department head to properly allocate personnel to handle workload. Therefore, I do not anticipate any problem with the Union. While I have not discussed this proposal with Mr. Harris, I feel that he would be receptive to the transfer. This transfer of personnel within the department will not affect our proposed 87/88 budget in any way. Jo Noon, G. S. Director 2 S M T W T F S OFF ' 6-2:30 6-2:30 6-2:30 6-2:30 6-2:30 OFF - 2:30-11 I 2:30-11 2:30-1.1 OFF OFF 9:30-6 9:30-6 OFF OFF 7-3:730 7-3:30 7-3:30 7-3:30 73:30 7-3:30 .7-3:30 7-3:30 7-3:30 OFF OFF 7.-3:30 OFF OFF 1 2:30-11 2:30-11 2:30-11 2:30-11 2:30-11 7-3:30 1 7-3:30 OFF OFF 7-3:30 7-3:30 7-3:30 9:30-6 9:30-6 9:30-6 9:30-6 9:30-6 OFF r OFF 2:30-11 2:30-11 OFF OFF 2:30-11 2:30-11 2:30-11 7-3:30 . 7-3:30 7-3:30 7-3:30 7-3:30 OFF OFF 2:30-11 OFF OFF 2:30-11 2:30-11 2:30-11 2:30-11 6-2:30 6-2:30 OFF OFF 6-2:30 6-2:30 6-2:30 1 • c. Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 17, 1987 Regular Meeting -.of July 28, 1987 Critique of Environmental Impact Statement (E.I.S.) for Off -Shore Oil Drilling by A Professional Consultant Staff Recommendation A joint effort among the potentially impacted coastal communities to obtain professional consulting services to examine and comment on the Environmental Impact Statement for off -shore oil drilling is recommended. Background The federal government, in the near future, will be preparing an E.I.S. for off -shore oil drilling. One consulting firm has already contacted the City offering to critique the document (refer to attachment). Analysis Since communities from Rancho Palos Verdes to Santa Monica could be directly impacted by off -shore oil drilling in the Santa Monica Bay, a united effort to obtain professional help in examining the adequacy and accuracy of the E.I.S is a logical approach to this matter. The attached map indicates the "Area(s) of Call" which are the first areas to be considered for leasing; the striped areas have been deferred from consideration to an unspecified, future time. The map is to scale, and Staff has noted the scale in the bottom left-hand corner of the map; 1 inch equals approximately 12 miles. It is important to note that all oil leasing tracts start three miles off -shore. Attachments 1. Map of lease areas 2. Notice of Intent to prepare E.I.S. from Department of Interior 3. Statement of Qualifications from consultant CONCUR: Gr gorry T Meyer Ci y Mana er 1 Respectfully su•mitted., Michael Schubac Planning Director ia Pitas Pt. 3D • Ventura 4960 4959 L 75 4 4658 4657 • Oxnard Port Hueneme Pt. Mugu a 4557 4556 4455 '' 4453 • 43534 Pt. Dume 2 4, , 'zre,Barbara 4r //4M Islandffir W3I 55 f 9��eJea Co Santa 43514348 74346 4345 4344 • Monica •...r.��riiei.`_ 4244 4143 4043 3943 37 LEGEND H H zo PROPOSED SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY LEASING MAP OR PROTRACTION DIAGRAM BOUNDARY AREA OF CALL [OUTSIDE OF 3 MILE STATE LINE[ AREAS IN CALL SUBJECT TO FURTHER DISCUSSION WITH DOD DEFERRALS • Los Angeles Long(is San • Beach t Pedro Pt. Fermin 3641 3536 3535 Huntington Beach CQ Rm !AIM iAd Arz lii, Ar AM 31 3" Ar A" A A A AP �� iiiiiii�Ar 4 i.Ar Ak ,, f AV Ay 839 739 rfir ,. Newport Beach 3333 3231 lir 3130 =Fig 30.30 il3029 Laguni Dan :,,= 1741 /25 25 0 1644 NAUTICAL MILES 01'/,'Y/,v/.r l STATUTE MIL 25 or 7A A /. ►--� F--{ 14 KILOMETERS 1740 ;:...p.-4.41,- -1r.4. J'�� V 1640 ' 544 1542154 ��i}• / 543 _i M,.:.d rte,-/. A ES i *r4r,v j 4? /.///./r /� 4 JUL 6 19$7 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE Southern California OCS Lease Sale 95 Call for Information and Nominations and Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement CALL FOR INFORMATION AND NOMINATIONS Purpose of Call for Information and Nominations The purpose of the Call is to assist the Secretary of the Interior in carrying -out his responsibilities under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) (43 U.S.C. 1331-1356 (1982)), as amended by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1985 (100 Stat. 147), and the regulations issued thereunder (30 CFR Part 256) with regard to proposed OCS Lease Sale 95 in the Southern California Planning Area tentatively scheduled for September 1989. This initial information gathering step is important for ensuring that all interests and concerns are communicated to the Department of the Interior (DOI) for future decision points in the leasing process. This Call does not indicate a preliminary decision to lease in the area described below. The 5 -Year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program for Mid -1987 through Mid-1992 eliminates specific subareas within the Southern California Planning Area from consideration for leasing during the 5 -year period it covers. These areas are described below. As a preliminary step to this process, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) published a Request for Information in the Federal Register on January 17, 1985, requesting geological information and company interest concerning oil and gas prospects in the Southern California Planning Area. A�number of companies provided information. In addition, a number of companies supplied supplementary information in response to an informal survey conducted in September 1985. This information was used during the development of the new 5 -year program and will be used along with the information provided in response to this Call in proceeding further with the lease sale process. Information submitted in response to this Call will be use&for several purposes. First, responses will be used to identify the areas of potential for oil and gas development. Second, comments on possible environmental effects and potential use conflicts will be used in the analysis of environmental conditions in and near the Call area. Together, these two considerations will allow a preliminary determination of the potential advantages and disadvantages of oil and gas exploration and development to the region and the Nation. Thus, it may be possible to make key decisions in connection with the next step in the planning process --Area Identification --to further resolve conflicts by deleting additional blocks where there is sufficient information to justify that action. However, the Area Identification represents only a preliminary step to select the area to be analyzed in the environmental impact statement (EIS). The Area Identification is tentatively scheduled for September 1987. A third purpose for this Call is to use the comments collected to initiate the scoping process for the EIS and to identify and analyze alternatives to the proposed action. The Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS which•includes a description of the scoping process is located later in this document. There will be a series of public meetings as part of EIS scoping. These will be announced at a future date in the Federal Register and by press release. Fourth, comments may be used in developing lease terms and conditions to ensure safe offshore operations. Fifth, comments may be used to point out potential conflicts between offshore oil and gas activities and California coastal zone management policies as established by the California Coastal Act of 1976, as amended, and approved local coastal plans. The DOI made a commitment in the new 5 -year program to provide environmental protection offshore California similar to the levels provided in OCS Lease Sales 73, Central California, and 80, Southern California, held in November 1983 and October 1984, respectively. The mitigating measures to be developed and analyzed during the prelease process for proposed OCS Lease Sale 95, Southern California, will address such issues as: air quality, transportation of hydrocarbons, oil spills, fisheries, hazardous waste dumps, biological resources, timing of operations, navigational safety, archaeological resources, military conflicts (including the hold and save harmless, the operational controls, and the evacuation clauses), water use, drilling discharges, onshore oil processing, sea otters, and marine biota. The MMS will consider in the more detailed scoping review conducted for proposed OCS Lease Sale 95 the stipulations included in the separate proposals of California Governor Deukmejian, Congressman Regula, and Congressman Panetta on the 5 -year program. Additionally, special attention will be focused on the resolution of any remaining military conflicts. This will be carried-out _ under the procedures of the 1983 Memorandum of Agreement between DOI and the Department of Defense (DOD) and may involve further block deferrals and the adoption of special protective measures. Description of Area The general area of this Call is offshore. southern California from 3 to 130 miles from shore. The area is shown in general on the map at the end of this Call. A more detailed map of the Call for Information and Nominations area (hereinafter referred to as the Call map), is available free of charge from the Regional Supervisor, Office of Leasing and Environment, MMS, Pacific OCS Region, at the address listed at the end of this section. The Southern California Planning Area is defined as follows: West along a line extending from the territorial sea at approximately 35-degrees 47' latitude to approximately 124 degrees W longitude thence south to approximately •34 degrees 58' N latitude thence east to approximately 122 degrees W longitude thence south to approximately 32 degrees 55' N latitude thence east to approximately 121 degrees 40' W longitude thence south to approximately 32 degrees 40' N latitude thence east to approximately 120 degrees 20' W longitude thence south to approximately 32 degrees 10' N latitude thence east to 120 degrees W longitude thence south to the U.S.-Mexico Provisional Maritime Boundary thence northeastward' along the U.S.-Mexico Provisional Maritime Boundary to the - 3-geographical mile line thence northward and westward along the 3-geographical mile line to the point of origin. Ten Federal OCS lease sales have been held since 1963 in the Southern California Planning Area. Of the 318 leases awarded in this area, 66 discoveries have been designated by MMS Order No. 4 determinations. As of June 1987, there were 156 active leases, 15 units, 16 producing leases, 21 platforms installed, and 6 additional platforms proposed. Not included in the Call are areas that the Secretary of the Interior deferred from leasing in the new 5-year program. These areas are the deepwater areas (generally beyond the 900-meter isobath) off southern California; Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary; Santa Barbara Federal Ecological Preserve and Buffer. Zone; San Nicolas Basin (the DOD Coordinated Anti-Submarine warfare Area); the area offshore Santa-Monica Bay from Point Dume to Point Fermin; the area offshore San Diego; and several coastal buffers offshore Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) including the coastal buffer overlapping the southern portion of the sea otter range and adjacent to the mouth of Salto ;'€reek ASBS; Newport Beach, Irvine Coast, and San Diego Marine Life Refuges; Heisler Park ASBS, San Diego -La Jolla Ecological Reserve ASBS, Santa Catalina Island ASBS's, and San Clemente Island ASBS. Additionally, large areas within the Southern California Planning Area continue to be excluded from consideration for leasing because of DOD concerns. Blocks falling within a submarine transit lane with the terminus at San Diego are deferred from this Call. Additional consideration will be given to adjusting two other submarine transit lanes pending comments received as a result of this Call. (Discussion regarding these two transit lanes may be found below). Operating areas offshore Camp Pendleton and Encinitas have been included in the new 5 -year program for phased leasing. The analysis and decisions resulting from the new 5 -year program will be considered during all the decision points for proposed OCS Lease Sale 95. Almost all of the areas requested by DOD for deferral in OCS Lease Sales 73 and 80 for DOD concerns are deferred from this Call. In addition, a part of the Pacific Missile Test Center (PMTC) which extends west of the area studied for Sale 80 is deferred from this Call. In several cases, military operating areas not deferred in OCS Lease Sale 80 are the subject of continued discussions with DOD regarding joint use, and thus are included in the Call. The DOI. and DOD are also discussing the possible adoption of special protective measures for certain blocks in military operating areas. A more detailed description of the considerations for various military operating areas for the Call on proposed OCS Lease Sale 95 are detailed below. Consideration will also be given to views of the U.S. Coast Guard at subsequent lease sale decision points. Based on requests made by the State, and as announced in April, blocks within buffer zones extending 6 statute miles beyond the shoreline of Begg Rock and San Nicolas Island ASBS's are not included in this Call. These areas were deferred in OCS Lease Sale 80 primarily due to DOD concerns. The following list identifies the OCS Leasing Maps and Official Protraction Diagrams and blocks which comprise the Call area. Existing leases are included in the Call since they may expire or be relinquished before the proposed sale.Y For blocks that overlap the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, the Call includes only those portions outside the Sanctuary. Also,.for blocks that overlap deferral areas and those that overlap State boundaries, the Call includes only those nondeferred portions in Federal waters. The maps and diagrams may be purchased for $2.00 each from the Regional Supervisor, Office of Leasing and Environment, Pacific Region, MMS, 1340 West 6th Street, Los -- Angeles, California 90017, telephone (213) 894-7107. The purpose of these maps and diagrams is not to delineate the Call area (the Call map mentioned above serves the purpose of delineating the Call area) but to more clearly show small blocks. OCS Leasing Map 6A OCS Leasing Map 6B OCS Leasing Map 6C OCS Leasing Map 6D (Revised October 25, 1984) Blocks: 3673-3675, 3772-3775, 3872-3876, 3972-3977, 4072-4073, 4076-4079, 4177-4180, 4278-4282, 4381-4382, 4772-4777, 4784-4785, 4872-4878, 4884-4886, 4972-4987, 5072-5087, 5172-5187, 5272-5288, 5372-5389, 5474-5479, 5481-5489, and 5582-5589. (Revised October 25, 1984) Blocks: 3040-3041, 3140-3142, 3240-3243, 3247-3252, 3340-3353, 3440-3454, 3540-3555, 3643-3655, 3670, 3744-3755, 3769-3770, 3844-3855, 3869-3871, 3944-3954, 3970-3971, 4045-4055, 4057-4058, 4070-4071, 4146-4155, 4158-4159, 4248-4255, 4257-4259, 4350-4357, 4453-4457, 4556-4558, 4657-4662, 4758-4768, 4859-4871, 4959-4971, 5060-5065, 5068-5071, 5162-5165, 5170-5171, 5263, 5270-5271, and 5371. (Revised October 25, 1984) Blocks: 1521-1531, 1622-1632, 1722-1732, 1828-1832, 1928-1932, 2022-2032, 2122-2132, 2228-2232, 2328-2339, 2427-2439, 2526-2539, 2625-2639, 2725-2738, 2827-2839, 2928-2939, 3030-3039, 3132-3139, 3232-3239, 3333-3339, 3434-3439, 3535-3539, and 3636. (Revised October 25, 1984) Blocks: 1053-1060, 1154-1160, 1254-1260, 1355-1360, 1455-1460, 1556-1560, 1657-1658, 1758, 2040-2043, 2140-2143, 2240-2244, 2340-2347, 2440-2450, 2540-2549, 2642-2647, 2745-2746, 2846, 2940, and 2946. OCS Leasing Map 6E (Revised October 25, 1984) Blocks: 458-460, 558-560, 658-660, 758-760, 858-860, and 958-960. NH 11-1, Bushnell Knoll (Approved December 12, 1979) Blocks: 15-33, 59-77, 106-121, and 150-165. f May 11, 1983) Blocks: 225-231, 269-276, 313-320, 401-411, 447-458, 491-502, 580-593, 625-637, 670-680, 758-770, 803-815, 847-861, 936-949, and 981-993. NI 10-3, San Luis Obispo (Revised 181-187, 357-367, 535-549, 714-725, 892-905, NI 10-6, Santa Maria (Approved March 26, 1976) Blocks: 12-24, 56-68, 101-113, 146-157, 191-201, 235-245, 280-289, 325-333, 370-376, 415-421, 460-467, and 504-506. NI 11-10, San Clemente (Revised February 8, 1985) Blocks: 418-433, 462-477, 506-521, 550-565, 594-609, 638-653, 679-697, 723-741, 767-785, 811-829, 854-873, 898-917, 943-961, and 987-1005. 7 Instructions on Call • Respondents are requested to nominate any or all of the Federal blocks within the Call area for inclusion in proposed OCS Lease. Sale 95. Although the identities of those submitting nominations become a matter of public record, the individual indications of interest are considered to be proprietary and confidential information. Those indicating such interest are required to do so on the Call map by listing block numbers or outlining the area(s) of interest along block lines. As stated in paragraph 1 under "Description of Area", the Call map is available free from the Regional Supervisor, Office of Leasing and Environment, MMS, Pacific OCS Region, at the address stated under "Description of Area." Respondents may submit a detailed list of whole and partial blocks nominated (by OCS Leasing Map numbers and Official Protraction Diagram designations) to ensure correct inter- pretation of their nominations. The telephone number and name of a person to contact in the respondent's organization for additional information should be included. Respondents should rank areas in which they have expressed interest according to priority of their interest (e.g., priority 1 (high), 2 (medium), or 3 (low)). •We encourage_ respondents to be specific in listing blocks by priority. This information is very helpful in assessing the area to be identified for further study at future sale decision points. Blanket nominations on large areas are not as useful in providing information pertinent to analysis of industry interest. Areas where interest has been indicated but which have no specified priorities will be considered priority 3. Information concerning both location and priority of interest submitted by individual respondents will be held proprietary and confidential and will help determine the area upon which the EIS analysis will be focused. In addition to indications of interest by respondents, further consideration of areas for analysis in the EIS will be based on hydrocarbon potential and environmental, economic, and multiple -use (including military use) conditions. The Call map highlights the MMS interpretation of the promising acreage area (the area of hydrocarbon potential). Comments are requested within the entire Call area. Such nominations and comments will be considered at the Area Identification stage for identification of the proposal to be analyzed in the EIS. -- s- As of June 1987, there were 156 active leases in the -Southern California Planning Area. Respondents are encouraged to review these leased blocks in the event the leases -are terminated prior to the issuance of the final Notice of Sale and could, therefore, be offered in proposed OCS Lease Sale 95. In addition to nominations (indications of interest), comments are sought from all interested parties about particular geologic, environmental, biological, archaeological, or socioeconomic conditions or conflicts, or other information which might bear upon potential OCS leasing and development in the Call area. Comments are also sought on potential conflicts that may result from the proposed sale between future OCS oil and gas activities and California coastal zone management policies as established by the California Coastal Act and approved local coastal management plans. If possible, these comments should identify specific California Coastal Management Plan policies of concern, the nature of the conflict foreseen, and steps that MMS can take to avoid or mitigate the potential conflict. Comments may either be in terms of broad areas or restricted to particular blocks of concern. Those submitting comments are requested to list block numbers or outline the subject area on the Call map. Nominations and comments must be received no later than 45 days following publication of this document in the Federal Register in envelopes labeled "Nominations for proposed Southern California OCS Lease Sale 95," or "Comments on the Call for Information and Nominations for proposed Southern California OCS Lease Sale 95," as appropriate. The original Call map showing indications of interest and/or comments must be submitted to the Regional Supervisor, Office of Leasing and Environment, MMS, Pacific OCS Region, at the address stated under "Description of Area", and a • copy of the Call map showing indications of interest and a copy of any comments are to be sent to the Chief, Offshore Leasing Management Division, Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Room 4230, 18th and C Streets, NW., Washington, D.C. 20240. Special Measures for Joint Use with Military Operations Nominations and comments are requested on specific blocks which are in military operating areas and are being considered for possible joint use by DOI and DOD for proposed OCS Lease Sale 95. 4 Joint use may be facilitated if special protective measures can be developed for relevant blocks. The measures which are being considered include various controls on exploration, development, and production on potential leases within military operating areas. 9 A commitment was made in the new 5 -year program -regarding the Camp Pendleton Amphibious Assault Area (CPAAA) and the Encinitas Naval Electronics TestArea (ENETA)--DOD operating areas: This _ agreement provides that each of the areas would be divided into two sectors; active leases would be allowed in only one sector of each at any one time. In the ENETA area, only one of two tracts nearest shore in a sector could be leased at one time. For proposed OCS Lease Sale 95, the first sale in the Southern California Planning Area since approval of the new 5 -year program, the area north of the CPAAA corridor and the northern half of ENETA are included in the Call. The area south of the CPAAA corridor and the southern half of ENETA will be considered for inclusion in the Call for proposed OCS Lease Sale 138, the second Southern California OCS Lease Sale on the new 5 -year program (scheduled for June 1992), and would be offered for lease only if there are no active leases in the northern areas. A map depicting these areas can be found at the end of this Call. Commitments have not been made with regard to the other areas described below by either the DOI or DOD at this time. Areas shown on the Call map as areas subject to further discussion with DOD should be considered included in the Call. Therefore,. inter- ested parties are requested to comment or indicate nominations in these areas, if appropriate. With the exception of the discussion regarding proposed measures for the PMTC (item 1 below), the following restrictions have been developed and are printed here only to elicit further comment and help focus further discussions with DOD on joint use pursuant to the July 20, 1983, Memorandum of Agreement between the DOD and DOI. No further comments regarding PMTC are requested at this time since that area was the subject of a February 1987 Federal Register Notice. 1. PMTC The MMS published a Federal Register Notice (Vol. 52, No. 25) on February 6, 1987, requesting comments on possible mitigating measures in conjunction with the PMTC to allow for the joint use of the OCS within portions of the Pacific Missile Test Center Sea Test Range (PMTCSTR). The affected blocks for these measures would include the following blocks in OCS Leasing Map 6B: 4057, 4058, 4155, 4158, 4159, 4255, 4257, 4258, 4259, 4355, 4356, 4357, 4455, 4456, 4457, 4556, 4557, 4558, and 4657;. The first measure which is being proposed is identical to parts (a) and (b) of a military stipulation used in OCS Lease Sales 73 and 80. The second measure is a new stipulation for operational coordination and controls within the identified portion of the PMTCSTR. The • third measure is identical to the "Hold Harmless" stipulation used in Sales 73 and 80. The other measures would preclude surface occupancy within 6 nautical miles of the Meteorological Rocket Launch Facility at PMTC and require subsea completions on the remaining portions of the blocks identified above within the PMTCSTR. The MMS is evaluating the comments received as a result of that Notice. Discussions with DOD are continuing regarding this area. A copy of the Notice may be obtained by contacting the Regional Supervisor at the address stated under "Description of Area" above. 2. '-CPAAA The new 5 -year program provided for phased leasing in the CPAAA. For proposed OCS Lease Sale 95, the area north of the CPAAA corridor is included in the Call. However, those portions of the blocks which lie inside the corridor would be considered for leasing with no surface occupancy conditions. The area south of the CPAAA corridor will be considered for inclusion in the Call for proposed OCS Lease Sale 138 in the Southern California Planning Area (this sale is scheduled for June 1992), but will be offered for lease only if there are no active leases in the northern area. The following blocks, all on OCS Leasing Map 6C, will have the no surface occupancy provision applied as indicated: For blocks 2328, 2427, 2526, and 2625, no surface occupancy will be permitted east of a line from the southwest corner of the block to the northeast corner. For blocks 2128 and 2228, no surface occupancy will be permitted east of the line defining the CPAAA corridor. For block 2127, no surface occupancy will be permitted west of a line from the southwest corner of the block to the northeast corner. The commitment made in the new 5 -year program regarding CPAAA is also shown on the maps at the end of this Call. 3. ENETA The new 5 -year program provided for phased leasing in the ENETA operating area. For proposed OCS Lease Sale 95, the northern half of ENETA is included in the Call. The southern half of ENETA will be considered for inclusion in the Call for proposed OCS Lease Sale 138 but will be offered for lease only if there are no active leases in the northern area. • -/1- The blocks, all in OCS Leasing Map 6C, and the portions .which are included in this Call are as follows: Blocks 2022, 2023, 2024, 2024, 2025, 2026, 2027, 2122, 2123, 2124, 2125, 2126, and 2127. This area is shown on the maps at the end of this Call. 4. FLETA-COLD Training Area Blocks in this operating area on OCS Leasing Map 6C are being included in the Call. Pending further discussions with the military, if these blocks are offered, stipulation language that could restrict density and timing -of oil and gas activities may be applied to leases. The relevant blocks are 1722, 1723, 1724, 1725, 1726, 1728, 1729, 1622, 1623, 1624, 1625, 1626, 1628, 1629, 1521, 1522, 1523, 1524, 1525, 1528, and 1529. 5% Submarine Transit Lanes The Call includes the following blocks within two of four submarine transit lanes which run through the Southern California Planning Area. The Navy may consider adjusting submarine routes pending review of industry interest information as a result of this Call and during the subsequent prelease process. Official Protraction Diagram NI 11-10, San Clemente: 426-433, 470-477, 513-521, 556-565, 599-604, 606-609, 642-647, 650-653, 685-690, 694-697, 728-733, 738-741, 772-777, 782-785, 815-820, 826-829, 854-863, 870-873, 898-906, 914-917, 943-949, 958-961, 987-992, and 1002-1005. Official Protraction Diagram NH 11-1, Bushnell Knoll: 30-33, 74-77, 118-121, and 162-165. 6. U.S. Air Force and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Blocks included in this Call are located in areas jointly used by the U.S. Air Force and NASA as a solid rocket booster fallout area. The DOI is planning to include a similar Information to Lessees (ITL) clause used in the Southern California OCS Lease Sale 80 final Notice of Sale in future OCS Lease Sale 95 Notices to describe the area affected and restrictions which will be applied to relevant leases. The blocks involved are as follows: OCS Leasing Map No. 6D: 1053-1060, 1154-1160, 1254-1260, 1355-1360, 1455-1460, 1556-1558, and 1657-1658. OCS Leasing Map No. 6E: 458-460, 558-560, 658-660, 758-760, 858-860, and 958-960. Official Protraction Diagram NI 11-10, San Clemente: 418-424, 462-468, 506-512, 550-555, 594-598, 638-641, 682-684, 723-727, 767-770, 811-814, and 857. For a, copy of the proposed ITL with a revised block list for proposed OCS Lease Sale 95, please contact the Regional Supervisor, Office of Leasing and Environment, MMS, Pacific OCS Region at (213) 894-7107. Tentative Schedule Final delineation of the area for possible leasing will be made at a later date only after compliance with established Departmental procedures and applicable laws including all requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321) and the OCSLA, as amended. If a decision to offer blocks is made, a final Notice of Sale will be published in the Federal Register detailing'areas to be offered for competitive bidding, stating the terms and conditions for leasing, and announcing the location, date, and time bids will be received and opened. The following is a list of tentative milestones which will precede this sale, proposed for September 1989. Comments Due on the Call Area Identification Draft EIS Published Public Hearings on Draft EIS Final EIS Published Proposed Notice of Sale Issued Governor's Comments Due on Proposed Notice Final Notice of Sale Published Sale - - August 1987 - - September 1987 - - July 1988 - - August 1988 -- February 1989 -- April 1989 - - June 1989 - - August 1989 - - September 1989 Existing Information Information already available on the Call area includes that.. gathered during the EIS process for the 1982 Final Program (1982 to 1987) and the 5 -Year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program for -/3- s Mid -1987 through Mid-1992 and for OCS Lease Sales 35, 48, 53, 68, RS -2, 73, and 80. Also, DOI has received extensive information from Congress and industry during negotiations over OCS leasing off California during development of the new 5 -year program. In addition, comments previously received by the DOI from State and local governments, other Federal Agencies, environmental groups, and the oil and gas industry concerning past OCS actions will be considered. The following is a list of additional information which 'will be available to the DOI for consideration regarding proposed OCS Lease Sale 95. Pacific OCS Region Summary Reports and Indices Summary Reports Indices May 1980 October 1980 May 1982 June 1981 December 1982 March 1983 September 1983 October 1984 July 1984 April 1985 May 1986 Summary. Reports and Indices are available for review at the MMS, Pacific OCS Region (see address under "Description of Area"). Also available for review are technical and geologic reports. For more information, please contact Ms. Frieda Star of that office at (213) 894-2062. Copies of the Pacific OCS Region Summary Reports and Indices may also be obtained from the following: OCS Information Program Office of Offshore Information and Publications Minerals Management Service 1951 Kidwell Drive, Suite 601 Vienna, VA 22180 Environmental Studies - Southern California Planninc Area A list of completed, active, and proposed environmental studies conducted by the MMS Environmental Studies Program in the Southern California Planning Area is available. Completed study reports may be reviewed at the MMS, Pacific OCS Region, at the address listed under "Description of Area" and at many deposit- ories throughout the State. Also, many reports may be purchased from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). For a list of studies, depositories, or to obtain anNTIS phone number, please contact Ms. Ora Woods, Environmental Studies Section, MMS, Pacific OCS Region at (213) 894-6626. -/, NOTICE OF INTENT TO PREPARE AN EIS Pursuant to the regulations implementing the procedural provision of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321), the MMS is announcing its intent to prepare an EIS regarding the oil and gas leas_ ng proposal known as Southern California OCS Lease Sale 95. The Notice of Intent also serves to announce the scoping .process which will be followed for this EIS. Throughout the scoping process, Federal, State, and local governments and other interested parties aid the MMS in determining the significant issues and alternatives to be analyzed in the EIS. The public may present comments and recommendations at scoping meetings which will be held in appropriate locations for the purpose of obtaining additional comments and information regarding the scope of the EIS following a decision on Area Identification. In addition, comments and recommendations may be submitted in writing to the Regional Supervisor, Pacific Region, at the address listed under 4k"Description of Area" above. Written aping comment9 are due 1.}t. October 9, 1987. tour scoping meetings will be held during October 1987 in the vicinity of San Luis Obispo/Santa Maria, Santa Barbara/Ventura, Long Beach/Newport Beach, and San Diego. The specific times and locations of these scoping meetings will be announced at a future date in the Federal Register and by press release. The EIS analysis will focus on the potential environmental effects of leasing, exploration, and development of the blocks included in the area defined in the Area Identification procedure as the proposed area of the Federal action and on potential mitigating measures such as those included in OCS Lease Sales 73 and 80. Alternatives to the proposal which may be considered are to delay the sale, cancel the sale, or modify the sale. Director, Minerals Management Service Approved: Assistant Secretary - Land and Minerals Management Date CHAMBERS GROUP, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION SANTA ANA, CA STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS FOR OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING Submitted by: CHAMBERS GROUP, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION 2933E Pullman Street Santa Ana, California 92705 (714) 261-5414 JULY 1987 -12- CHAMBERS GROUP, INC. STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS FOR OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 COMPANY QUALIFICATIONS 1 1.2 SUMMARY OF THE QUALIFICATIONS PACKAGE 2 SECTION 2 - QUALIFICATIONS AND APPROACH 3 2.1 MANAGEMENT 3 2.2 AIR QUALITY 4 2.3 OIL SPILL CONTINGENCY PLANNING 7 2.4 SOCIO-ECONOMIC STUDIES 8 2.4.1 Socio -Economics 8 2.4.2 Commercial Fishing 9 2.4.3 Recreation and Tourism 10 2.5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 10 2.6 MARINE WATER QUALITY 12 2.7 BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS 13 2.8 TECHNICAL REVIEW 14 SECTION 3 SECTION 4 - COMPANY EXPERIENCE 16 - PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS 20 SECTION 5 - COMPANY FACILITIES 5.1 CORPORATE OFFICES 5.2 RESEARCH LABORATORIES 5.3 PRODUCTION AND COMMUNICATION.CAPABILITIES 5.4 DIVISION OFFICES 27 27 27 28 28 L r i SECTION 1 — INTRODUCTION 1.1 COMPANY QUALIFICATIONS Chambers Group, Inc. has over ten years experience in conducting environmental studies for major energy developments, public works projects, resource management, industrial development, and recreational projects within the western United States. Our firm regularly conducts environmental studies of major importance both onshore and offshore of California. The majority of our work has been for public agencies and major clients include the County of Santa' Barbara, State Lands Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Bureau of Land Management. We have developed a consistent record of producing unbiased, high quality documents on time and within budget. . Since 1979, Chambers Group has specialized in assessing the impacts of offshore oil development. The firm has conducted numerous studies assessing the impacts of all phases of offshore oil and gas development. These studies have included: o Exploratory drilling EIRs; o EIRs for development and production including — Offshore platforms and pipelines, — Onshore oil and gas processing facilities, and — Onshore pipelines; o On—site monitoring of the impacts of various aspects of oil development; o Mitigation to alleviate and o Technical studies alternatives. impacts of offshore oil development; on air emissions and oil metering This statement of qualifications documents our capability to provide environmental consulting and planning support to assist interested agencies, organizations, and individuals to .evaluate federal proposals for offshore oil development off the California Coast. This document describes our firm's personnel capabilities, previous experience, and our expertise on issues related to the environmental assessment ofmajor offshore and associated onshore oil and gas facilities. We are in a unique position to provide expertise in the various study categories described in Section 2 that would be of most concern to'those evaluating Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil development proposals. In addition to our expertise in each of these key areas, we offer a coordinated and integrated approach to consider r r t ti the relationship between the various issue areas and yield the larger picture of how different issues relate to and affect each other and how impacts differ for different proposals. Chambers Group has provided technical representation and advice to government agencies for major controversial proposed offshore developments in Southern California. These projects include: o The Exxon development of the Santa Ynez Unit in federal waters off the coast of Santa Barbara County;, o The proposed leasing of State tide and submerged lands between Point Conception and Point Arguello for offshore oil development; and o ARCO's Proposed Coal Oil Point Development off the coast of Santa Barbara County, the first major new development proposal in state waters since the 1969 oil spill. Through our extensive previous experience, we have developed a detailed knowledge of the technical and engineering issues involved in construction and operation of both on- and off -shore oil facilities. Chambers Group is also thoroughly familiar with the regulatory and permit processes involved in energy develop- ment. Our staff has first-hand field experience observing the impacts of oil development and also has a working knowledge of state-of-the-art techniques for assessing impacts. Since we have worked extensively on major offshore oil development environ- mental documents, Chambers Group knows all available and effective mitigation strategies for alleviating the impacts of oil development on the local environment. Of particular importance to this effort is that Chambers Group is based in southern California. Since our professional staff lives and works in southern California, we have a unique knowledge of the existing environment that firms outside of the area would not have. In addition, we have a interest in assuring that all feasible environmental safeguards are imposed on any OCS developments. 1.2 SUMMARY OF THE QUALIFICATIONS PACKAGE Section 2 of this package describes Chambers Group's management program and discusses our approach, experience and personnel for each of the issue areas most relevant to local OCS planning studies. Section 3 details our relevant corporate experience and describes pertinent previous studies our firm has completed. Section 4 describes the relevant experience of our project team and Section 5 briefly describes our company facilities. • We believe you will find our qualifications and approach to the issues highly relevant and our project team eminently qualified to assist in OCS planning. s —20- 1 r r t SECTION 2 - QUALIFICATIONS AND APPROACH This section describes how we would approach an assessment of the major issues that could be involved in OCS environmental analysis and planning as it relates to local agency involvement. These issues encompass a wide spectrum and may not all be relevant to very study. Also, additional items such as aesthetic analyses may be required. Chambers Group can design a custom -scope for any planning effort. 2.1 MANAGEMENT Chambers Group, Inc. has extensive experience coordinating inter- disciplinary teams for complex environmental projects. Teams invariably consist of combinations of in-house staff, local issue area specialists, individuals on contract, and outside consulting organizations. Effective management requires a management team able to interact and communicate directly with all project participants. It also requires established systems for monitoring project progress and coordinating and re -allocating project resources to meet budget or schedule constraints. Our firm has a proven management team and the management systems to facilitate coordinating interdisciplinary projects. In addition, the project team we have assembled consists of individuals and organizations experienced at working together on other major projects of similar scope and importance. The team knows the issues. Task area managers are also recognized specialists in the areas they manage. Lines of communication are already established, including the regular use of computer -to- computer communications links and facsimile transmission of documents. We at Chambers Group believe that an integrated interdisciplinary approach is the most effective and efficient means to address the variety of complex issues facing cities and counties concerned about the potential impacts of proposed federal OCS oil development. Such an approach requires managers knowledgeable about all the issue areas and capable of working with all project participants to ensure a coordinated and well -organized endeavor. Our management team has a proven record of successful project completion, within budget and on schedule. Mr. M.D. Chambers, Principal and owner of Chambers Group, Inc., has been consulting on environmental issues for 15 years. For ten of those years, he has managed Chambers Group, Inc., formerly known as Chambers Consultants and Planners. The firm• has developed a reputation in recent years for its extensive expertise in analyzing the effects �f offshore oil development —2l — C and has had a continual presence in the area since 1978, having worked on many of the most controversial projects. John Westermeier is Division Manager for Chambers Group's Environmental Division and has been doing environmental consulting for 12 years. He has extensive experience with controversial projects and was among the first to prepare environmental impact analyses for offshore oil development. Most recently, he was project manager for the ARCO Coal Oil Point Project EIR/EIS prepared for the State Lands Commission to analyze a proposed offshore oil development near Santa Barbara. Andrew Nelson, Director of Projects, has extensive experience in management and environmental consulting for over 10 years. In addition, he has a strong background in financial and business management gained from experience managing other business ventures. He was deputy project manager for the ARCO Coal Oil Point Project EIR/EIS, responsible for contract management and cost and schedule control. He was also project manager with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, responsible for the Air Quality Management Plan update. The project organization chart (Figure 1) shows the overall structure of Chambers Group's project organization. This structure has a minimum of management layers and provides for the interdisciplinary coordination we believe is essential for a successful project. 2.2 AIR QUALITY The meteorology of the southern California coast is characterized by prevailing wind regimes which bring offshore air onshore most of the year. Thus, air pollutants emitted by operations on the outer continental shelf will be brought inland. Pollutants transported from offshore will add to existing pollution from onshore sources and may affect areas currently less critically affected by air pollution. Offshore emissions occur from construction equipment, supply and crew boats, helicopters transporting workers and supplies, and from the platform equipment. The largest sources of emissions are generally the diesel equipment used either routinely or for emergency operations (producing large amounts of oxides of nitrogen) and from diesel or turbine generators used to power the equipment on the platforms (producing both oxides of nitrogen and reactive hydrocarbon emissions). Platforms electrified using onshore grid power emit far less pollution. (However, generating the power simply moves the sources of pollution and does not eliminate it entirely. Our air quality team is uniquely qualified to evaluate or perform sophisticated modeling of air quality impacts of offshore --22_- r'� rry PROJECT MANAGEMENT CHAMBERS GROUP, INC. M.D. Chambers J. Westermeier A. Nelson BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT N. Davis D. Costa S. Benech OIL SPILL CONTINGENCY P. Reese T. Chambers PHYSICAL RESOURCES AIR QUALITY K. Tran H. Giroux WATER QUALITY C. Menzie N. Davis SOCIO—ECONOMIC ISSUES RECREATION AND IMPACTS D. Rockland E. Gary M. Mc enimen COMMERCIAL FISHING A. Rath DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS D. Rockland A. Nelson PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT J. Tapper H.M. Feldman LEGAL/POLICY ISSUES Shute, Mihaley z Weinberger TECHNICAL REVIEW SCIENTIFIC & REGULATORY Project Team STUDY ORGANIZATION CHART FIGURE 1 C ti emissions. If necessary, we can develop the meteorological data base to support an air quality modeling effort. Applied Modeling, Inc. (AMI), a firm with which Chambers Group works on a regular basis, is a private technical research and engineering company with extensive experience in air quality modeling and impact analysis. AMI has successfully provided assistance to federal, state, and local government agencies as well as private industry in solving complex problems in air quality, hazard assessment, and computer applications. AMI is in the forefront of atmospheric dispersion modeling technology with experience in acid precipitation, long-range transport, visibility, Gaussian and numerical dispersion modeling, numerical weather prediction and complex terrain modeling. The firm has also developed advanced models for photochemical pollutants and complex terrain which have received approval from regulatory agencies. The AMI -developed OCDCPM model is recommended by EPA and the California Air Resources Board for analyzing onshore impacts from offshore emission sources. The AMI -developed trajectory model TRACE is approved to analyze the impacts of reactive pollutant emissions. AMI has performed .air quality impact analyses for numerous leasing programs and projects proposed for offshore oil and gas development including projects for the Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service (MMS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California State Lands Commission, California Coastal Commission, and Counties of Santa Barbara,' San Luis Obispo, and Ventura. Reactive pollutant impacts were analysed using AMI's TRACE model and the three-dimensional Urban Airshed and PARIS models. Representative OCS air quality studies performed by AMI include: o EIR/EIS on ARCO Proposed Coal Oil Field Project Development Plans, California State Lands Commission (Lead Agency). o Programmatic EIR for Leasing, Exploration and Development of Oil and Gas Resources on State Tide and Submerged Lands between Point Conception and Point Arguello, California State Lands Commission. o EIR on Chevron OCS Activities in the Santa Barbara Channel, County of Santa Barbara. o Air Quality Analysis of Potential Impacts of Offshore 0i1 and Gas Development in Central and Northern California (Lease Sale 53), Minerals Management Service. o Air Quality Impacts for OCS Oil Development in the Santa Barbara Channel, California Office of Planning and Research. Performed photochemical air quality modeling and impact analysis. c f o OCS Drilling and Associated Activities: Analysis of Air Quality and Land Use Impacts on San Diego County, San Diego County APCD. AMI's office in Woodland Hills, California is equipped with three DEC MICROVAX II computer systems operating under VMS, an Intel 86/300 development system operating under IRMX and IBM PC AT micro -computers. The company has performed extensive air quality analyses requiring computer runs of several days for each model and has successfully completed all modeling efforts on time and under budget. Applied Modeling is also highly qualified to develop meteorolog- ical inputs for computer modeling even from limited data. The firm '-has extensive experience with wind field models that interpolate winds over an extensive grid with only limited actual input points. The ARCO Coal Oil Point Project EIR/EIS air quality modeling required extensive development of offshore wind fields from a limited data base. Mr. Hans Giroux for coordinates the development of the necessary meteorology information. Mr. Giroux has extensive experience as an air quality and meteorological consultant for industrial projects throughout the south coast air quality basin. 2.3 OIL SPILL CONTINGENCY PLANNING An important aspect of the overall assessment of the implications of oil and gas development is the identification of the potential location and extent of oil spills. Chambers Group and our study team members have extensive experience in oil spill modeling as well as the analysis of the environmental and economic impacts of any size oil spill. The MMS relies heavily upon oil spill trajectory analysis and probability of occurrence in assessing the significance of impacts of oil spills. We have the capability for detailed computer oil spill trajectory analysis and can compute the probability of any type of spill. However, we have believe that basing an impact analysis on the consequences of a spill with minimal regard for its probability of occurrence is a much more defensible approach. In our recent analysis for the Coal Oil Point Project, oil spill impacts were based solely on the consequences of the spill rather than the probability. Based on current and wind patterns, all areas that could be affected by an oil spillfwere identified and the extent and effect of the oil spill determined. The contingency planning process begins with the identification of the potential locations for spills and the most sensitive areas threatened by a spill. With this step completed, the types of emergency response equipment as well as its optimum location -- 5 c may be determined. Naturally existing constraints on equipment locations would be taken into account. The planning..�a-ctivity includes identifying sensitive coastal habitats and developing methods of protecting coastal wetlands and nearshore areas. Oil spill contingency planning must also account for potential sea state conditions. Many responses are ineffective in high winds or waves. Under these circumstances, the oil slick may dissipate more rapidly, but it becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible, to limit the spread of contamination. Conditions under which known response technologies would not be.effective should be identified. Mr. Phil Reese and Mr. Tim Chambers direct the oil spill contingency planning process. They have conducted the systems safety and reliability analyses for most of the major oil and gas projects in recent years off the California Coast. Their efforts can be supplemented by Drs. Noel Davis and Charles Menzie as well as other knowledgeable members of the Chambers Group team. Both Drs. Davis and Menzie have extensive experience in the analysis of the biological effects of oil spills. 2.4 SOCIO—ECONOMIC STUDIES Economic impacts from offshore oil development occur primarily in three important areas. These are: (1) the direct and indirect economic impacts of project expenditures, payrolls, and associated population changes in a region, (2) commercial fishing, and (3) recreation and tourism. Chambers Group would conduct a thorough economic analysis, which may include sophisticated computer modeling if required, of the potential impacts of various OCS development scenarios affecting the socioeconomics of the southern California area. Over the past several years, on the order of two million dollars have been spent for socioeconomic analyses of oil and gas development projects in the Santa Barbara Channel region, Northern West Coast, Alaska, and Gulf of Mexico. Many of these studies have focused on establishing methodologies and identifying data sources. Wherever possible, the wealth of existing data and models would be employed. 2.4.1 Socio—Economics Socio—economic impact analysis considers several key issues: o Changes in local employment by industry and population; o Affects on the supply and demand of affordable temporary'and permanent housing; .24 — o Increased demands on public services from the project and its associated population, the increases in local b.isiness activity, and in -migrant population resulting from the development project; and o Increases or decreases in local, county, and state public revenues and the costs of providing public services such as police, fire, medical, sewers, water, electricity, schools, and landfills. The economic impacts of offshore oil development followa sharply rising and gradually declining curve as the original construction and drilling activity gives way to routine production operations. Construction is a period of maximum local expenditures and an influx of population as workers from outside the area move in temporarily while platforms are being set, the decks and production equipment installed, and onshore support facilities built. Drilling, which follows construction, also is a period of higher levels of activity and many drilling workers may be drawn from outside the local area because of their specialized skills. Drilling normally continues for several years while initial wells are drilled and production gradually increases from the platform as each additional well is completed. Production normally rises to a peak shortly after the wells are completed. Generally, production and oil processing operations are highly automated and the workforce during production is not large. While the workforce does not change much during the production phase, production gradually declines as the resource is depleted from the reservoirs and becomes more difficult to extract. Thus, it is necessary to analyze the full construction/drilling/ production cycle to accurately estimate economic impacts of offshore development. Peak impacts can be analyzed using the construction phase, but the on-going impacts cannot be ignored. Chambers Group is experienced with such analyses and highly qualified to advise on the potential impacts as well as mitigation measures that may alleviate the most severe adverse economic impacts, including those on public services and public finance. 2.4.2 Commercial Fishing Commercial and sport fishermen are affected by offshore oil development in several ways. They cannot fish where platforms are. Oil vessel traffic may interfered with their fishing activities. Conflicts may occur in the use of limited port and dockage facilities. T r C The extent of potential exclusion areas and economic effects of lost fishing grounds can be estimated. These estimatescan then be used to estimate the full impact on the commercial and sport fishing industries. Commercial fishing analysis is coordinated by Mr. Anthony Rath, a marine specialist with expertise in the analysis of commercial fishing. Mr. Rath has worked extensively with evaluating fishing impacts due to oil development in the santa Barbara Channel. 2.4.3 Recreation and Tourism Impacts on tourist and recreational resources fall into several categories. Competition between offshore oil development workers and recreational visitors may occur if parks or hotel/motel rooms are used as temporary living quarters for employees. Population increases associated with offshore development also increase demand for recreational resources such as beaches and parks. Potential oil spills could affect use of recreational facilities, particularly along the shoreline. There are also potential impacts on recreation and tourism which are related to the visual impacts of offshore drilling activity. To assess recreation and tourism impacts, baseline information is usually taken from existing environmental documents and other sources such as the California Office of Tourism, Chambers of Commerce and local service providers. Beach use data is often available from state and local park service offices. Visitation information can be translated into revenue impacts. A'model for this effort has been developed by the MMS, and could be used. In addition, recent literature such as journal publications from Leisure Sciences and Journal of Leisure Studies should be incor— porated and used. In the areas of recreation and tourism, Enid Cohn Gary will coordinate the analysis effort. Ms. Gary has extensive experience with the analysis of impacts to tourism along the California Coast and prepared the Recreation and Tourism sections of the ARCO Coal Oil Point EIR/EIS. 2.5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Members of the public and many local government officials and staff 'are often only vaguely aware of the environmental and policy issues related offshore oil development. In order to participate effectively in the policy process, a full understanding of the issues is necessary. Thus, an effective public participation program is an essential element of the study. Chambers Group would, as its primary public participation program objective, to develop the basic information materials and to provide training to a limited number of public participation program leaders to enable them to conduct the actual in -community participation activities. Information materials may include fact sheets, developed by technical experts and presented in-,.1yman's terms in a clearly readable format, that can be distributed at meetings or through the mail. Fact sheets could cover: o Basic information on offshore oil development including the setting of platforms, drilling of wells, and production and transportation of crude product; o The impacts of oil spills, including the methods available to respond to spills and their relative effectiveness in sea conditions commonly encountered off the coast of the six county area; o Other environmental impacts to air quality, water quality, health and human safety, and sea life that can be expected from oil development; and o The local, state, and national policy issues related to the need and justification for development of offshore oil reserves, both pro and con. The project team members in this issue area are highly experienced in developing and conducting public participation programs for controversial projects. Ms. Mary McMenimen would coordinate the public participation effort. She has extensive past experience with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the National Park Service with public participation programs. In addition, CGI has experience working with citizen's groups in dealing with the local decision making process on projects that affect their communities. CKT Associates, which could develop training programs and prepare fact sheets, has been involved in public participation programs for numerous controversial projects all over the state. The firm developed the U.S. EPA's nation-wide public participation evaluation training program and conducted the public participation workshops and prepared the newsletters for the BKK hazardous waste landfill program. The firm has also conducted similar programs for several City and County of Los Angles agencies, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and the U.S. Soil Conservation Service in Davis. Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger is a highly respected environmental law firm. The firm has provided legal and public involvement services to numerous communities throughout the State of California including the City of Newport Beach concerning the Orange County Airport and a homeowner's group concerned about development at Lake Tahoe. The firm would provide information s -. t• L. r and guidance on the legal' aspects and policy process'considera- tions that the public and local officials need to know to participate effectively in the negotiated rule making process. 2.6 MARINE WATER QUALITY Offshore oil development can affect marine water quality in multiple ways. Drill muds (heavy, mud -like fluids used to lubricate drills and control well shaft pressures) and the cuttings (rock and other material cut by the drill bit) may be discharged into the ocean. Drill muds may contain toxic chemicals and, with cuttings, may cover the bottom and interfere with the growth and development of bottom dwelling marine organisms. Water that is normally mixed together with produced oil is separated out on• the platform may be discharged to the ocean. Also, water produced from onshore processing facilities may be discharged through outfalls near the shoreline. In all cases, there can be water quality impacts from such discharges. Chambers Group is highly qualified to address issues pertaining to discharges related to offshore energy development. Through our preparation of six EIRs for offshore oil and gas development, we have encountered all relevant water quality issues pertaining both to permitted discharges and to accidental leaks and spills. In evaluating the discharges planned for ARCO's Coal Oil Point Project, we made use of state-of-the-art modeling techniques to model the drilling mud plume and the near field and far field dispersion of discharged produced water. The ARCO EIR/EIS was also the first oil development EIR to quantitatively address the resuspension and long-term dispersion of drilling wastes once they settle on the ocean floor. Chambers Group has worked with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to assist in the design of monitoring programs to document the impacts of ocean disposal of drill muds and cuttings and of produced water. Chambers staff has been monitoring the impacts of drilling discharges and produced water discharges from oil operations in Huntington Beach for the past seven years. As Director of Chambers Group Marine Division, Dr. Noel Davis has been responsible for these monitoring programs and for the marine water quality sections of Chambers Group's EIRs. Chambers Group recognized the -importance of the issue of impacts of drilling discharges as far back as 1980 when preparing the exploratory drilling EIR for Shell's Pierpont Project. Dr. Davis authored a special Finalizing Addendum which reviewed the available information on impacts of drilling discharges Chambers Group marine water quality team also includes Dr. Charles Menzie. Dr. Menzie is a recognized expert on the marine biological and water quality effects of discharges associated with offshore oil development. He has worked extensively with the EPA on the evaluation of new source performance and on the -3d- T guidelines and regulation of the disposal of drilling mud and produced water. He has recently conducted a review_;f all existing information dealing with EPA regulation of ocean discharges. Currently, he is preparing a report on the benefits associated with particular standards for the EPA's NPDES permits. 2e7 BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS The southern California coastline supports numerous sensitive marine habitats which could ' be affected by offshore oil development. A biological assessment program would seek to catalog these habitats, and identify the species which could be subject to impacts from offshore development. Based on our extensive experience assessing impacts to marine habitats, our study team would identify and describe the range of potential impacts to sensitive species. Chambers Group has extensive experience identifying sensitive coastal resources; assessing sensitivity to.oil spills and other impacts of offshore oil and gas development; and developing and implementing mitigation programs to alleviate identified impacts. In. Chambers Groups' six major oil development EIRs, we have analyzed in detail all impacts to marine life. Each EIR has included a separate section identifying special interest marine species and sensitive coastal habitats and specifically analyzing any potential impacts. Each EIR has also included a complete mitigation section discussing ways to avoid or lessen all identified impacts. Finally, each EIR has included a comprehensive discussion of cumulative impacts. Chambers Group's Marine Division also has a wealth of hands-on experience performing baseline biological surveys, monitoring the impacts of various phases of offshore oil development, and designing and implementing mitigation strategies. Relevant previous studies include: o ARCO's proposed Coal Oil Point Development o Field monitoring programs to assess the impacts of drilling discharges from Oil Platform Emmy, Oil Platform Eva, and Oil Island Esther, o Field monitoring program to examine the effects of a produced water discharge off Huntington Beach, o Monitoring of impacts to kelp beds, fishes, and invertebrates from construction of a gas pipeline from Platform Hondo to shore, o Participation in the Navy's MMS -funded program to assess the effects of the noise and disturbance of offshore oil activities on large marine mammals, -31- r In addition to all its studies on marine biological impacts of offshore oil development, Chambers Group has performed a wide variety of other relevant studies including the implemental on of a mitigation program to alleviate dredging impacts on eel grass in Newport Bay, surveys and impact assessment on coastal wetland areas, and EIRs for such coastal developments as sewage outfalls and harbor construction. Chambers Group's marine studies program is headed by,Dr. Noel Davis, a long-time resident of Laguna Beach. Dr. Davis has 20 years experience studying the coastal resources of Orange County. • Dr. Davis was part of the SCCWRP team which performed a comprehensive study of the marine life associated with Platforms Hilda and Hazel in the Santa Barbara Channel. Dr. Davis was also a co-author of a scientific paper published in Marine Ecology - Progress Series on the marine life associated with Platform Eva off Huntington Beach. The Chambers Group biological impact assessment team also includes Dr. Arthur Wolfson. Dr. Wolfson is a marine ecologist with extensive experience studying the environmental impacts of offshore oil development and waste water disposal and documenting baseline biological conditions. Dr. Wolfson has been principal investigator on a number of pioneering studies to investigate the ecology of offshore oil platforms. He was in charge of the marine biology studies of the EIR/EIS for Exxon's proposed oil and gas development of the Santa Ynez Unit in Santa Barbara and was one of the co-authors of the Marine Biology Appendix of Chambers Groups' EIR/EIS for ARCO's proposed Coal Oil Point oil and gas development. Dr. Wolfson led a multi -disciplinary study of the environmental effects of oil spill clean up techniques in San Francisco Bay. He has co-authored a scientific paper on identifying marine areas of biological concern. His southern California experience includes studies on Oil Platform Eva off ( Huntington Beach and an evaluation of the marine life impacts of the Aliso Creek Wastewater Ocean Outfall. Dr. Dan Costa brings expertise on the effects of oil development on marine mammals to the Chambers Group Biological Assessment Team. Dr. Costa was one of the principal investigators for key studies on the impacts of oil on sea otter. He was chief scientist for Chambers Groups' Interview Program to Determine the Proximity of Large Marine Mammals to Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms, and he was in charge of the sections dealing with marine mammals in Chambers Groups' EIR/EIS for ARCO's proposed Coal Oil Point Oil and Gas Development. 2.8 TECHNICAL REVIEW As is evident from our discussion of the issues thus -,far, Chambers Group proposes a highly qualified technical project team knowledgeable about all key issue areas. Members of this team -32 C C t would be made available to large or small groups to describe key issues and to answer questions of local interest and conce.n. An area where expert technical review would be valuable is in the assessment of policy proposals put forward by the MMS and other agencies concerning offshore oil development. In negotiated rule making, proposals are presented for public discussion and comment, are revised in response to those inputs, and may then be re—presented for further comment or proposed as final rules. At each stage, an expert review of the language of the proposed rules would be highly beneficial to ascertain how completely the concerns raised at early stages of the process were addressed and whether the revisions that are made satisfy the concerns of the jurisdictions and individuals affected. In our view, technical review falls into two major areas. The first is in the scientific and technical environmental issue areas. These are where the substantive scientific and technical experience of the project team would be most useful in satisfying the technical review objectives. The second area, and one we believe is equally important, is in the political and policy process area. Our project team is also experienced in the policy and regulatory processes followed by agencies in making decisions concerning offshore oil development. Decisions are often made, not on substantive or factual scientific grounds, but on the basis of political perceptions or judgments of the effects of a decision on important constit— uencies. We can provide experienced guidance in the political and policy areas as .well as in the areas of scientific and technical concern. f r r r L SECTION 3 - COMPANY EXPERIENCE Chambers Group, Inc. has developed particular expertise in offshore oil development issues and has specialized in this area since 1980. We also have extensive experience with other energy related projects which are relevant to offshore oil development studies. We have described below a few of the most relevant studies our firm has performed that relate to the impacts of offshore oil development. A comprehensive listing of projects conducted by Chambers Group is available, as is more information on the projects listed below. o EIR/EIS FOR THE ARCO COAL OIL POINT PROJECT Client: State Lands Commission Chambers group prepared a comprehensive EIR/EIS for ARCO's proposed Coal Oil Point Project in the Santa Barbara Channel near Goleta. The analysis included the projection of environmental impacts associated with three platform complexes to be located offshore from the University of California, Santa Barbara campus, and the community of Isla Vista. Pipelines, onshore/offshore gas and crude oil processing facilities, onshore petroleum storage facilities, and a marine terminal were proposed as part of this project. o MOJAVE, KERN RIVER, TRANSWESTERN, EL PASO, AND EL DORADO PIPELINE EIR/EIS Clients: California State Lands Commission and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission This comprehensive EIR/EIS studied the potential impacts of constructing natural gas pipelines through Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas to supply gas for enhanced oil recovery projects in the San Joaquin Valley. o PROGRAM EIR FOR THE LEASING OF STATE TIDE AND SUBMERGED LANDS BETWEEN POINT CONCEPTION AND POINT ARGUELLO Client: State Lands Commission, Sacramento, California Chambers Group prepared this EIR to evq.uate the potential impact of development of oil and gas resources off this area of the California coast. The document describes hypothetical development scenarios and included on-site marine biological investigations and thorough secondary research concerning the i 1 potential physical and biotic impacts and effects on off- and on -shore cultural resources. o EIR/EIS FOR SHELL PLATFORM HERCULES, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY Client: Jacobs Engineering/County of Santa Barbara Chambers Group is preparing the Marine Biology, Marine Water Quality and Fisheries sections of the EIR/EIS for a major offshore platform in the Santa Barbara Channel. This analysis includes the evaluation of several alternative pipeline alignments. Major issues include physical impacts to rocky bottom habitat, impacts associated with oil spills and impacts associated with discharge of drilling muds. o ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY'S PROPOSED EXPLORATORY DRILLING ON STATE OIL AND .GAS LEASE PRC 3499, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY Client: State Lands Commission This EIR addresses _the potential impacts of Phillips Oil Company's proposed resumption of exploratory drilling operations on State oil and gas lease PRC 3499 off Point Conception. The report considers all relevant aspects of the physical, biotic, cultural, and socioeconomic environment. o MITIGATION PROGRAM TO TRANSPLANT ZOSTERA BED IN NEWPORT BAY Client: U.S. Army Corps of Engi a rs, Los Angeles District, California Dredging requirements in the Newport Bay entrance channel would destroy an eel grass bed. CGI undertook a program to transplant a portion of the threatened eel grass bed to another part of the entrance channel. CGI divers moved the eel grass to the new spot and CGI monitored the progress of the new bed. o MONITORING PROGRAM FOR WASTEWATER DISCHARGE OFF HUNTINGTON BEACH Client: Aminoil USA, Inc., Huntington Beach, California An ongoing monitoring program was initiated in 1979 for a petroleum operations discharge. The program included diver transects, sediment sampling, core samples for infauna, and photographs of quadrats. f o REVIEW OF EIR FOR ANGUS PETROLEUM PROJECT IN CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Client: Concerned Citizens of Huntington Beach Chambers Group reviewed an EIR for an enhanced oil recovery project in the City of Huntington Beach. This review pointed out many serious deficiencies in the report which eventually resulted in the withdrawal of the application. o BIOLOGICAL MONITORING OF PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION THROUGH KELP BEDS LOCATED OFFSHORE CORRAL CANYON Client: Pacific Offshore Pipeline Comapany, Los Angeles, California CGI performed a biological survey to assess the damage caused by subsea pipeline construction through a kelp bed located offshore Corral Canyon about 20 miles west of the city of Santa Barbara. o EA/EIR FOR PROPOSED TEXACO NATURAL GAS PLATFORM "HABITAT" AND PIPELINE, PITAS POINT, SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL Client: County of Santa Barbara, California A joint EA/EIR was written coordinating the concerns of five co -lead agencies (Santa Barbara County, California Coastal Commission, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and addressing potential environmental impacts of a proposed offshore platform (Platform Habitat), natural gas pipeline, and ancillary onshore facilities. o MONITORING PROGRAM TO DETERMINE IMPACTS OF OCEAN DISPOSAL OF DRILL MUDS AND CUTTINGS FROM PLATFORM EMMY Client: Aminoil USA, Inc., Huntington Beach, California A monitoring program disposal of drill muds having any impact on were taken around the and sediments were parameters. was conducted to determine if ocean and cuttings from Oil Platform Emmy was the marine environment. Core samples discharge point and at a control site, analyzed for infauna and chemical o CHULA VISTA SALT MARSH INVENTORY Client: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Under contract to the Corps of Engineers, this study identified and mapped the vegetation of the Sweetwater and•"D" Street Marshes along the San Diego County coast. The study involved extensive field surveys -of the mapping of survey --3C. - results on aerial photographs of the marsh for future reference to identify changes in marsh vegetation communities. Maps were prepared on transparent overlays to allow comparison -- with future aerial photographs. • r. L L SECTION 4 — PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS This section provides brief descriptions of Chambers Group's project team personnel. The overall organization and management approach is described in Section 2 of this document. Detailed resumes for members of the project team are available on request. Our study team has extensive expertise and many years of experience in the planning and environmental assessment of offshore oil and gas projects. Work performed by these professionals has held up to intense scrutiny by agencies, the oil.•industry and the general public. This team has established close working relationships over the years which facilitates efficient technical review and project management. M.D. Chambers — Principal Mr. Chambers, President of Chambers Group, Inc., has extensive experience directing complex interdisciplinary environmental studies, particularly studies relating to oil and gas development. He is knowledgeable about the concerns of various federal, state, and local agencies. Mr. Chambers has a Masters degree in Civil and Environmental Engineering with an emphasis on water resources from Utah State University. Projects for which Mr. Chambers served as Manager/Coordinator include the EIR for Exploratory Drilling Operations on State Oil and Gas Leases PRC 3314 (Pierpont Prospect) and PRC 3499 (Conception Prospect) off the coast of Santa Barbara County, the EIR for Chevron's Platform Edith, and the Program EIR for Leasing of State Tide and Submerged Lands between Point Arguello and Point Conception. John F. Westermeier — Division Manager Mr. Westermeier holds graduate degrees in biological sciences and business administration and has over ten years environmental analysis and project management experience throughout the western United States. He served as Project Manager for CGI for the $4.9 million ARCO Coal Oil Point EIR/E_IS, was task manager for the Shell Beta complex off Huntington Beach and was Project Manager and Chief Biologist for the Chula Vista Salt Marsh inventory. Mr. Westermeier's broad experienbe includes managing the application and environmental analysis for the Chevron and Getty Oil facilities in Santa Barbara County, the Shell Beta EIR/EA off Orange County, and the Environmental Analysi's and Master Plan Formulation for resource management at San Nicolas Island. r r Andrew Nelson - Director of Projects Mr. Nelson has extensive experience managing complex projects and -- conducting major consulting studies. He has worked extensively with computerized project management and control systems and has a broad business background ranging from manufacturing to financial management. Mr. Nelson has a Masters degree in Public/Environmental Policy. He served as Deputy Project Manager for the ARCO Coal Oil Point EIR/EIS and as Project Mahager for several other EIRs since joining Chambers. Prior to joining CGI, Mr. Nelson was a project manager for the Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), where he was responsible for the coordination of the Reasonable Further Progress Reports to EPA and the Air Resources Board, and the development of the Air Quality Management Plan. He also directed the preparation of the SCAQMD's revised Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Plan. Khanh T. Tran - Air Quality, Mr. Tran is a highly respected air quality scientist with over 11 years experience in environmental modeling and assessment. He has authored and co-authored over 40 technical publications and reports in atmospheric dispersion modeling and air quality impact assessment. Mr. Tran has also managed air quality studies for Southern California Edison, prepared a safety analysis for the U.S. Navy utilizing the AMI -developed model EASE (Emergency Assessment of Spills in the Environment), and has developed air quality models and modeling data bases encompassing emissions, meteorology and air quality. Mr. Tran has a Masters in Mechanical Engineering from the University of California at Santa Barbara, and is currently completing a Ph.D. in Environmental Engineering at the University of California at Los Angeles. He has extensive experience in management of air quality studies specifically dealing with oil/gas development, and was responsible for the air quality portion of CGI's EIR for the leasing of State Tide Lands between Point Arguello and Point Conception, and for the EIR/EIS for ARCO's Coal Oil Point Project. Mr. Tran is highly qualified to deal with the complex terrain of the coastal mountains of the Bay area. For his doctoral thesis at UCLA, Mr. Tran developed an advanced three-dimensional predictive dispersion model which includes, a dynamic boundary layer model and a diagnostic wind model for applications in complex terrain and coastal areas. The model has the unique capability of forecasting meteorological and pollutant concentration fields in real time, and is applicable to" long range transport assessments. -39- T Hans D. Giroux — Air Quality/Meteorology Mr. Giroux has been an Air Pollution/Meteorology consultant for over twelve years, specializing in emission dispersion modeling and control, dust control, and air toxics management. He has conducted numerous studies air quality studies in throughout California, Nevada, and Arizona. Mr. Giroux's areas of specialization include modeling of transportation emissions, dust and odor analysis, hazardous material handling facilities, and measurement of construction emissions. Mr. Giroux has a Masters degree in Meteorology from the University of California at Los Angeles, and a B.S. in Meteorology from the University of Utah. Projects which Mr. Giroux has conducted air quality analyses for include the Owens Lake Dust Stabilization Study, the South Orange County Local Coastal Plan Update, the Moreland Property HIS Odor Transport Study in Goleta, .CA (along the Santa Barbar'& coast), and El Segundo Generating Station NOx Impact Studies. Phillip Reese — Systems Safety Mr. Reese has had extensive experience analyzing the systems safety and reliability factors of oil and gas treatment facilities, both onshore and offshore. He has done safety analyses for many offshore developments on the southern California coast as well as risk analysis for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Mr. Reese has done systems safety analyses for over 40 environmental studies and documents, including at least 14 EIRs and joint EIS/EIRs. Mr. Reese has a Masters degree in Engineering from Johns Hopkins University. His specific experience includes Manager for the systems safety portion of the EIS/EIR for the ARCO Coal Oil Point Project, and the EIS/EIR for Cities Services San Miguel Project off the coast of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties. Mr. Reese also served as the West Coast Manager for the development of the maritime risk management program for the Santa Barbara Channel, which focused on offshore oil development and vessel traffic, in support of Coastal Commission policy development. Tim Chambers — Systems Safety Mr. Chambers has over 15 years experience as a systems analyst with major emphasis on risk management analysis, offshore oil activities, port and terminal analysis, hazardous materials analysis, and maritime transportation. He has a Masters degree in Mathematics from the University of Toledo, and extensive coursework in computer technology and systems analysis. Mr. Chambers experience during the past eight years has included extensive environmental work, especially in the area of offshore C f C r oil activities in the Santa Barbara Channel as well as in the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. Other environmental_ analysis has involved risk management of maritime transportation, — marine terminals, petroleum and hazardous materials storage and transfer, pipelines and processing facilities. Mr. Chambers has worked on over 30 environmental projects, including twelve EIR's and EIS/EIR's. Enid Cohn Gary — Socioeconomics, Public Participation Ms. Gary has over 8 years environmental planning experience with both public agencies and private consulting firms, including review and preparation of environmental reports, and preparation of plans for industrial, commercial, and residential projects. Since joining CGI, she has prepared the UCSB impact analysis and the recreation/tourism sections for the ARCO Coal Oil Point EIR/EIS, as well as aesthetics, socioeconomics, traffic, land use, and other sections for other EIRs. Ms. Gary has a Masters in Public Administration and Geography, with a specialization in Environmental Planning, from the University of Minnesota. She has served as project manager for several urban oriented EIRs. Prior to joining CGI, Ms. Gary's 'experience includes preparation of portions of the environmental documentation for harbor alterations at a naval base on the gulf coast. Mary McMenimen — Socioeconomics, Public Participation Ms. McMenimen has eight years experience in the fields of land use policy planning and environmental analysis. Her professional experience includes working for the National Park Service as a community and environmental planner, and as a liaison with numerous federal, state, and local agencies in the Southern California area. She is familiarwith both state and federal environmental regulations and procedures, and has extensive experience in working with citizen and community groups, review boards and commissions, and state and federal agencies. Ms. McMenimen has a Masters degree in Architecture and Urban Planning from the University of California at Los Angeles. Over the past two years she has been responsible for coordinating public relations and public participation programs for the Army Corps of Engineers. Ms. McMenimin was Project Manager for the Master Plan of Conservation and Recreation four Catalina Island. Joyce Tapper — Public Participation Ms. Tapper has been actively involved in developing and implementing public participation programs for over a decade. She has worked extensively in California and prepared the U.S. t L Environmental Protection Agency's handbook Evaluation'of Public Participation. Her work includes numerous controversial projects for agencies ranging from the Environmental Protection-Acjency to the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, to the U.S. Soil Conservation Service to the Santa Clara County Water District. Ms. Tapper maintains publication quality word processing equipment and software with which quality newsletters, information flyers, and other material can be prepared. Heide -Marie Wenzel Feldman - Public Participation Ms. Wenzel Feldman holds a Masters Degree in Urban Planning from UCLA and has worked in planning, communications, and public participation capacities for over ten years. From 1977 to 1981 she held various positions with the Southern California Association of Governments in public information, project management, and environmental project reporting. Since 1981, Ms. Wenzel Feldman has worked with numerous public agencies and private sector clients on communications and public participation issues. Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger - Legal Counsel Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger is a highly respected environmental law firm based in. San Francisco. E. Clement Shute, a founding partner, began his legal career with the California State Attorney General's Office where he was intimately involved with the development of environmental legislation and the state CEQA guidelines in the early 1970s. The firm has represented citizens groups all over the State of California before local and state agencies concerning various environmental issues. In addition to legal services, the firm also provides public participation services and has coordinated public participation programs in numerous communities. Charles Menzie, Ph.D. - Marine Water Quality Specialist Dr. Charles Menzie is a leading authority on the biological and water quality effects of discharges associated with offshore energy development. He has been active in the study of oil and gas development impacts on the marine environment for the past 10 years. Dr. Menzie was one of the Principal Investigators for the pioneering monitoring programs to assess the effect of drilling discharges in the mid-Atlantic. He has authored a number of key scientific papers on the environmental implications of offshore oil and gas activities. Dr. Menzie was responsible for the assessment of marine -water quality impacts addressed in Chambers Groups' EIR/EIS for ARCO's Coal Oil Point Project. Dr. Menzie-has also worked extensively with the Environmental Protection Agency on numerous energy- -412- r a C C related projects. Recently, he has evaluated new source performance standards and the guidelines and regulations.tor the disposal of drilling wastes and produced waters. Dr. Menzie is also developing models for the EPA to predict sediment mixing levels of contaminants and to evaluate oxygen impacts on the marine environment. He is also conducting a review of all existing information dealing with EPA regulation of ocean discharges. He is preparing a report on the benefits associated with particular standards for the EPA's NPDES permits. Noel Davis, Ph.D. - Marine Resources Noel Davis, a long-time resident of Laguna Beach, has over twelve years experience working with and managing Marine Biological studies for environmental impact reports and related documents. She holds a Ph.D. in Biological Oceanography from Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Dr. Davis has a particularly relevant background of experience in offshore oil development studies. Dr. Davis' oil and gas development -related experience includes a variety of projects and studies: a published study of the marine life associated with Oil Platform Eva oft Huntington Beach, studies of Oil Platforms Hazel and Hilda in the Santa Barbara Channel, biological and chemical monitoring programs for ocean disposal of drill muds and cuttings from Platform Emmy and Oil Island Esther off Huntington Beach, monitoring of biological impacts of installation of a natural gas pipeline from Platform Hondo, a pilot interview program to determine the proximity of marine mammals to oil and gas platforms, and a study of biological impacts of a submarine power cable from Chevron's Platform Edith to an onshore tie-in at Huntington Beach. Dr. Davis was Project Manager and Director of Biological Studies for Chambers Group's EIR for Shell's resumption of exploratory drilling on Lease PRC 3314.1 in the Santa Barbara Channel, and she was Director of Biological Studies for Chambers Group's EIR for Chevron's Platform Edith, the joint EA/EIR for Texaco's proposed Platform Habitat and pipeline off Carpinteria, Chambers Group's Point Conception -Point Arguello Program EIR, and Chambers Group's EIR for Phillips' resumption of exploratory drilling on Lease PRC 3499.1 off Point Conception. Dr. Davis was in charge of biological field surveys for the three latter studies. She was also responsible for the analysis of impacts to the marine biota in SAI's EIS/EIR for Exxon's proposed development of the Santa Ynez unit. She was'Ichief scientist for the benthic survey that CGI performed as part of that program. The benthic survey included box core samples, as well as visual observations and video/still photography from tethered and•free swimming submersibles. Most recently, Dr. Davis was task manager for the marine studies section of the EIR/EIS for ARCO's Coal Oil - 173- r Point Project. The supporting studies for the EIR/EIS included extensive marine biological field programs. Daniel Costa, Ph.D. - Marine Mammals Dr. Costa is an expert on the ecology and physiology of marine mammals. He has done some of the most important basic research on the effects of oil on sea otters. Dr. Costa, who received his doctorate from the University of California at Santa Cruz, has also studied the energetics and ecology of pinnipeds including the Northern Elephant seal. Dr. Costa has been an associate of Chambers Group since 1978 and was responsible for the marine mammal and seabird surveys in Chambers Groups marine Biological Baseline Study of the Point Arguello Boathouse. He was Principal Investigator for Chambers Groups' study to determine the proximity of large marine mammals to offshore oil and gas platforms. Most recently he was in charge of the marine mammal sections of Chambers Groups' EIR/EIS for ARCO's proposed Coal Oil Point Project. Arthur Wolfson, Ph.D. - Marine Ecology Dr. Arthur Wolfson is a marine ecologist with extensive experience studying the environmental impacts of offshore oil development and wastewater disposal and documenting baseline biological conditions. He received his doctorate in Marine Biology from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Dr. Wolfson has been principal investigator on a number of pioneering studies to investigate the ecology of offshore oil platforms. These studies included a biological assessment of marine life associated with Platforms Hilda and Hazel in the Santa Barbara Channel, a study of the ecology of marine communities associated with Platform Eva in Huntington Beach, and a study of biofouling and predator -prey relationships on Platform Hazel. Dr. Wolfson was in charge of the marine biology studies of the EIR/EIS for Exxon's proposed oil and gas development of the Santa Ynez Unit in Santa Barbara and was one of the co-authors of the Marine Biology Appendix of Chambers Groups' EIR/EIS for ARCO's proposed Coal Oil Point oil and gas development. In addition, he led a multi -disciplinary study of the environmental effects of oil spill clean up techniques in San Francisco Bay and has co-authored a scientific paper on identifying marine areas of biological concern. Dr. Wolfson's Orange County experience includes studies on Oil Platform Eva off Huntington Beach and evaluation of the marine life impacts of the Aliso Creek Wastewater Ocean Outfall. SECTION 5 — COMPANY FACILITIES 5.1 CORPORATE OFFICES Chambers Group's corporate offices are located in Santa Ana, California, near major academic institutions, museums, libraries, federal offices, and other major resources requisite for technical performance of the highest quality. The offices contain the necessary facilities for project management, fiscal control, analysis and report production. Included among these facilities are: o General administrative and project -specific offices; o Word processing, production, and duplication center; o An extensive technical library with OCS oil and gas development emphasis; a large data base of California's coastal resources; and a large scientific reference data section (e.g., topographic, geologic, and bathymetric maps, aerial photographs_); o In-house computer and communications center; o Conference rooms and A-V support equipment. The main office provides secretarial and reproduction services, data interpretation equipment, cartographic and graphics facilities. The firm's main office telecommunications capability is augmented by an in-house facsimile machine which is used for low and medium volume document transmission. 5.2 RESEARCH LABORATORIES The Chambers Group Marine Laboratory maintains offshore and intertidal sampling equipment and provides space for processing and storage of samples. This facility supports Chambers Group's scientific diving program and includes tools, transits, photographic equipment, sampling and sorting equipment, collecting devices, and SCUBA equipment. In addition, microscopes and a large reference collection of California algae, adult and larval fishes, and invertebrates, as well as a complete library of keys to California species are maintained. CGI has an extensive collection of underwater slides of California fauna and flora. These slides aid in field and photographic identification. Chambers Group also maintains an archaeology laboratory equipped for both wet and dry screening of archaeological material. Additional equipment includes standard -testing sieves that can be utilized for basic column and flotation analysis and grain size and soil composition analysis; soils testing equipment•' precision scales; and drafting equipment for map preparation. 5.3 PRODUCTION AND COMMUNICATION CAPABILITIES Chambers Group's production staff is capable of producing profes- sional clerical and reproduction services. The CGI Word Process- ing Center maintains a variety of in-house computer systems ranging from IBM PCs with modems and 40 megabyte hard discs, to a Digital Equipment PDP -11/73 computer with the latest word processing, spreadsheet, and data base software. Terminals to this DEC system are in all project professional's offices and are used for directly and efficiently entering draft documents. Printing is done by a high resolution, high volume laser printer resulting in quality originals for -reproduction. The Center provides the ability to accommodate revisions and editing with rapid turn around. These features allow for high capacity, excellent reproduction quality, and the ability to accommodate revisions and editing in a minimum amount of time. The in-house graphics department is capable of producing high quality graphics and charts. This graphics capability is augmented by computer- ized graphics and chart -making capabilities. In-house micro computers allow for telecommunications with the contractors and/or clients when rapid turn around is required. CGI regularly communicates with clients and subcontractors to transfer document drafts and revisions. 5.4 DIVISION OFFICES Chambers Group maintains a division office in Albuquerque, New Mexico, a major surface and air transportation nexus. This office includes 500 square feet of wet and dry laboratory space and 1,000 square feet of analysis and office space, temporary and permanent storage facilities, curatorial facilities, field equipment for archaeological survey and excavation, four wheel drive vehicles and graphics facilities. Other special facilities, such as large capacity computers and data processing equipment, can be made available as needed through the University of New Mexico, University of Utah, and Arizona State University. July 15, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council of July 28, 1987 APPROVAL OF REVISED CLASS SPECIFICATION FOR ASSISTANT ENGINEER Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached re- vised Class Specification for Assistant Engineer. Background: The adopted budget for Fiscal Year 1987/88 authorizes an addi- tional Assistant Engineer position in the Public Works Department. The Public Works Director has requested that the Class Specifica- tion for Assistant Engineer be revised to include duties associ- ated with project and personnel supervision. Analysis: The attached Class Specification has been revised to include supervision of projects and department personnel. Respectfully submit ,. Concur: 7W-9.12kk Greory T. eyer Cit' Manager Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Administrator Teamster, Local 911, has agreed with the above: NA0A0c7 Union Representativ 1.1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ASSISTANT ENGINEER DEFINITION: Under the direction of the Public Works Director, performs administrative and professional engineering duties in the design, investigation, construction and maintenance of Public Works and related projects; acts as a technical and administrative advisor; supervises projects and other department personnel as assigned. TYPICAL,_ThSKS/ASSIGNMENTS: - Design, prepare plans, specifications, and cost estimates for public works projects including street, storm drain, sanitary sewers, vehicle maintenance, parks, building, street lighting, traffic signal systems and related projects; - Research projects for design requirement; - Perform complex calculations and prepare estimates of time and material costs; - Prepare requests for proposals and evaluations of the proposals; - Contract and specification preparation and administration; - Perform special engineering studies and prepare reports; - Investigate field problems affecting, and respond to complaints regarding, maintenance operations, property owners, and contractors; - Assist in budget preparation; - Prepare reports for the City Council; - Supervise assigned projects and personnel; - Perform related duties as assigned EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS/QUALIFICATIONS Knowledge of: Principles and practices of engineering as applied to public works operations and maintenance, utilities or building construction projects and cost estimating. Computer skills highly desirable. Ability to: Perform complex professional engineering designs and computations, prepare engineering plans and designs, and communicate both orally and in written form with outstanding proficiency. Must possess excellent organizational skills. Certificate: Engineer -in -training certificate in the State of California is highly desirable. License: A vaild, unrestricted, California Motor Vehicle Operator's license of appropriate class. EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION: Experience: Two years experience in professional civil engineering work, preferably in Public Works or municipal engineering. Education: Bachelor's Degree from an accredited college or university with major study in civil engineering. 7/16/87 July 17, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council of July 28, 1987 APPROVAL OF CLASS SPECIFICATION FOR ASSISTANT PLANNER Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached • class specification for Assistant Planner. Background: The approved budget for Fiscal Year 1987/88 authorized an Assis- tant Planner position in the Planning Department. On January 13, 1987, the City Council approved changing the name of the existing Planning Assistant class specification to Plan- ning Associate. The attached class specification establishes the specifications for the newly created Assistant Planner position and includes duties associated with review of C.U.P. and Zoning Code provi- sions for compliance. The budgeted position for the Assistant Planner is scheduled to begin on Oct. 1, 1987. Analysis: Following approval of this Class Specification, staff will request instruction to negotiate a salary range and appropriate unit determination with the Teamsters Union, Local 911. spectfully submitted Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Administrator Concur: ---/ A__ kV, Gr gory T. Meyer Citty Manager Teamster, Local 911 has agreed to the above: r11\0033JCVm. Union Representati CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ASSISTANT PLANNER DEFINITION: Under direction, enforces Zoning Regulations and provisions of Conditional Use Permits; conducts research into planning and zoning problems; disseminates information to the general public on planning and zoning regulations and programs; and does related work as required. DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS: The Assistant Planner is distinguished from the Planning Associate in that the Assistant Planner is directly supervised by a professional planner, does not perform the more complex assignments, and does not serve as an alternate for the Planning Director in his absence. TYPICAL TASKS/ASSIGNMENTS: Depending upon assignment, duties include, but are not limited to the following: - - Reviews Conditional Use Permits (C.U.P.) for compliance with Conditions of Approval - Conducts in -field investigations for determining compliance with Code and C.U.P. provisions. - Coordinates interdepartmental enforcement of Zoning Code Regulations and provisions of C.U.P's. - Assists in the preparation of staff analysis of projects being heard by the Planning Commission and City Council; - Assists in preparing and conducting planning surveys, land use studies and research; - Has continuous contact with the public on planning regulations such as the planned development subdivisions and the condominium ordinance; - Assists in preparation of initial environmental assessments; - Assists in the preparation, processing and monitoring of grant applications; KNOWLEDGE..AND,ABILITIES: Knowledge of: Code Enforcement Process, Public Relations, and Current Zoning and Planning Laws. Ability to: deal skillfully and effectively with the public in order to obtain their coorperation; establish and maintain effective working relationships with co-workers, department heads, and other municipal officials; prepare clear and concise, written reports; collect and analyze data. EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE: B.A. Degree in Planning or a related field and one year of experience in the planning field. Masters degree in Planning or Governmental field may be substituted for experience requirement. Must possess a valid, unrestricted, California Driver's License. July 17, 1987 July 14, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council July 28, 1987 ACCEPTANCE OF WORK AS COMPLETE -FUEL DISPENSING SYSTEM, CIP 86-601 Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Accept as complete -the CIP 86-601 Fuel Dispensing System performed by Uniforce Corporation. 2. Authorize staff to release the 1070 retention payment for subject project to Uniforce Corporation. Background: On April 14, 1987, the City entered into an agreement with Uniforce Corporation for the subject project in the amount not to exceed $37,774. A Notice to Proceed was issued on May 18, 1987, and work began on June 1, 1987. Analysis: This project was completed on June 12, 1987. Staff has authorized payment for all but the contract's 1070 retention amount ($3,381). Pending City Council authorization, staff will issue this final purchase order to Uniforce Corporation. Fiscal Impact: 4 CIP 86-601 Final Project Contract Contract Total Total * Amount : Amount Savings $37,774 $34,340 $33,809.54 $3,964.46 * Not to exceed contract amount 1 1 V The final project cost (including change orders) is $33,809.54, for a net savings to the City of nearly $4,000 (NTE $37,774 minus $33,809.54 = $3,964.46). The project was, completed under budget and within the contracted time frame. Respectf submitted, Deborah M. Murphy Assistant Engineer Concur: Gre oryer. eyer Cit Manager DMM:mv fds/v 2 Concur: A''` ony Antich Director of 'ub is Works Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council July 20, 1987 City Council Meeting July 28, 1987 REAPPROPRIATION OF BULILDING DEPARTMENT CAPITAL OUTLAY FUNDS FROM FISCAL YEAR 1986/1987 TO FISCAL YEAR 1987/1988 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council reappropriate $1000 of unused Building Department capital outlay funds from Fiscal Year 1986/1987 to Fiscal Year 1987/1988. BACKGROUND The approved Fiscal Year 1986/1987 budget included $2000 in Building Department capital outlay funds for purchase of a micro- fiche reader capable of viewing 35mm format film. ANALYSIS A 35mm microfiche reader is necessary to view building plans and other large documents filmed in this format. For the current fis- cal year funds were appropriated to begin microfilming of the large storehouse of plans we are mandated by the state to maintain. The equipment was not purchased in Fiscal Year 1986/1987 due to staff oversight. Concur: Gre ory T. Meyer Ci Manager Noted For Fiscal Impact: Respectfully submitted, William Grove Director, Bldg. & Safety Viki Copeland Finance Administrator July 21, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council July 28, 1987 -APPROVAL OF LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AND THE ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CITIZENS Recommendation It is recommended that City Council approve the attached agreement between the City of Hermosa Beach and the Association for Retarded Citizens - Southwest (ARC) for space in the Community Center. Background ARC is expanding their program and is interested in securing space in the Community Center. Analysis The space ARC will be Occupying will be Rooms 1 and 2 (formerly occupied by Redondo Union High School District) and Room 15 (formerly the dispatch center for the Dial -a -Ride Program). It is a five year lease beginning Sept. 1, 1987, and it contains an option to renew. The lease adheres to the present lease rate policy adopted by the City Council. The ARC program deals with mentally and physically disabled adults. Concur: Gr Ci gor T Myer y Mana:er 1 Respectfully submitted, Alana M. Mastrian, Director Dept. of Community Resources 1y 4 HERMOSA BEACH COMMUNITY CENTER LEASE AGREEMENT This Leasing Agreement is made and entered into on this, the 28th day of July _ , 19 87 , by and between the City of Hermosa Beach, a Municipal Corporation (City) and The Association for. Retarded Citizens - Southwest (ARC) (Lessee). A. RECITALS: 1. The City is the owner of a recreational/civic service facility generally referred to as the Hermosa Beach Com- munity Center (referred to herein as the "facility"). 2. The facility is subject to certain agreements and deed restrictions entered into on the 28th day of February 1978, between the City and the Hermosa Beach City School District and is further subject to certain provisions imposed by the Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment as,set forth in a document entitled Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Real Property and dated the 28th day of February 1978. These documents are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City and are public documents and by reference are incorporated into this leasing agreement and are referred to herein as the HUD and SCHOOL DISTRICT AGREEMENTS. 3. The Lessee desires to use a portion of the facility on the terms and conditions set out herein. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. TERM. The term of this lease shall be for a period of 5. years commencing on the. 1st day of September ,19 87 , and ending on the 31st day of August ,19 92 The Lessee shall have a five (5) year option to renew. Lessee shall exercise said option by delivering to the City, at least 90 days prior to expiration of current term, written notice of such exercise. 2. DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES. The Lessee is leasing from the City that portion of the facility described as: Room 1 (720 s . ft.) Room 2 (720 s•. ft.) Room 15 (920 s.. ft.) total s•uare foota:e is 2 3 3. RENT. Lessee agrees to pay to the City rent ac cording to the following schedule: Please see attached Addendum A. Payable on the first day of the month. If this lease commences on a day other than the first day of the month, then the Lessee shall pay upon the commencement of the lease the rental on a pro rata basis for the remainder of that month and commence a full rental pay- ment on the first day of the following month. 3A. OTHER CONDITIONS. The following additional condi- tions are agreed to by the Lessee: 1. Lessee shall not mark, drill or deface any walls, ceilings, floors, wood or iron work without Lessor's written consent. 2. No signs or awning shall be erected or maintained upon or attached to the outside of the premises/building or placed in any windows. 3. All window treatments must receive prior approval of the Lessor. 4. All remodel work shall receive prior approval of the Lessor. 5. Negotiations for parking fees/conditions will begin between the lessor and lessee upon City Council approval of a parking structure on the Community Center site. 4. USE. The Lessee agrees to use the premises only for the following purpose or purposes:, Association for Retarded Citizen .ro_rams And for no other purpose without the -express written consent of the City. Lessee also agrees the premises shall not be used in violation of the Depratment of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or School District Agreements as those agreements are interpreted by either the City or the Hermosa Beach City School District or the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 5. INSURANCE LIABILITY. Lessee shall obtain and maintain at all times during the term of this agreement Comprehensive General and Automobile Liability insurance protecting Lessee in amounts not less than $1,000,000 for personal injury to any one person, $1,000,000 for injuries arising out of any one occurrence, and $1,000,000 for property damage or a com- bined single limit of $1,000,000. Such insurance shall name City of Hermos'a Beach and their officers, employees, elected officials and members of Boards or Commissions as additional insured parties. Coverage shall be in accordance with the sample certificates and endorsements attached hereto and must include the coverage and provisions indicated. Lessee shall file and maintain the required certificate(s) of insurance with the other party to this agreement at all times during the term of this agreement. The certificate(s) is to 2 be filed prior to the commencement of the work or event and should state clearly: (1) The additional insured requested; (2) Thirty day prior notice of change or cancellation to the City of Hermosa Beach; (3) Insurance is primary to that of the Additional Insured; (4) Coverage included; (5) Cross -liability clause. WORKER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE. Lessee shall obtain and maintain at all times during the term of this agreement Work- er's Compensation and Employers Liability insurance and fur- nish the City (or Agency) with a certificate showing proof of such coverage. Such insurance shall not be cancelled or materially changed without a thirty (30) day prior written notice to: City Manager, City of Hermosa Beach. INSURANCE COMPANIES. Insurance companies must be rated (B:XIII) or better in Best's Insurance Rating Guide. 6. CONDITION OF THE PREMISES UPON TERMINATION OF THE LEASE. Lessee agrees to keep and maintain the premises in good con- dition and repair and to return to the City the premises upon termination of this lease in the same condition as when Les- see took possession of the premises excepting any repairs or alterations which were approved by the City, reasonable wear and tear excepted, and does promise to pay the City upon de- mand the reasonable sums to repair the premises in the event of a violation of this provision. 7. CONSTRUCTION. Lessee is prohibited from making any al- terations or performing any construction whatsoever on the premises without the expressed written approval of the City. Any such approval shall include provisions to protect the City from potential liens of labor and material persons. 8. DESTRUCTION, PARTIAL DESTRUCTION OR NECESSITY TO REPAIR BECAUSE OF CONDITIONS CAUSED BY OTHER THAN LESSEE. The City has no duty or obligation to reconstruct the premises in the event of destruction or partial destruction of the premises. The City at its option may reconstruct or repair the prem- ises, whereupon this lease shall remain in full force and effect except that no rent will be owing to the City during said period of reconstruction or repair if such reconstruc- tion or repair interferes with the tenancy created herein to the extent that the premises cannot be used for the purposes intended. In the event the City at its sole discretion determines not to reconstruct or repair the premises then either party at its option may cause this lease to be termi- nated and neither party shall have any liability each to each other. 9. HOLD HARMLESS. Lessee promises to hold the City harmless from any claims, causes of actions or damages of any nature whatever arising from Lessee's use of the premises -and will pay the City any monies to which the City may become obli- gated because of Lessee's use of the premises. Lessee` shall,_. if so instructed by the City, cause any occupants of the premises to execute a document in a form prepared by the City wherein that occupant shall expressly waive any right of ac- tion against the City for damages for any injury sustained because of Lessee's use of the premises. 10. RULES, REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES. The Lessee agrees to comply strictly with all applicable laws and any uniform Com- munity Center rules and regulations adopted by the City Council. 11. TAXES AND CHARGES. Lessee agrees to pay when due any and all taxes, assessments or charges levied by any governmental agency on or to the lease -hold premises. 12. DEFAULT. Should Lessee fail to pay any monies due pur- suant to this lease within three days after written notice from the City or to perform any other obligation required pursuant to the terms of this lease within thirty days after notice from the City, City may immediately cause this lease to be terminated and thereafter take any action and pursue all remedies available under the laws then existent in the State of California. 13. NOTICE. Any notice required to be made or given pur- suant to the provisions of this lease may be either personal- ly served upon the party or deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, LESSOR: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY HALL 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 LESSEE: Association for Retarded Citizens Southwest ARC Administrative Offices 16921 S. Western Avenue Suite 212 ,Gardena, Calif. 90247 Any notices so given pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph will be deemed served twenty-four hours after the deposit thereof in the United States mail. 14. ATTORNEYS FEES. The parties agree that in the event -any action is instituted concerning any of the provisions of this lease agreement, the prevailing party may in the discretion of the court be granted as an additional item of damages its attorneys fees. 4 15. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING. Lessee may not assign or sublease all or any portion of the premises without the writ- ten consent of the City, which consent may be granted or de- nied at the exclusive and total discretion of the City. 16. SUCCESSORS. Subject to prior provisions, this lease is binding upon the heirs, assigns and successors of interest of the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Hermosa Beach Community Center Lease Agreement at Hermosa Beach on the day first hereinabove set forth. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, a Municipal Corporation, Lessor By ATTEST: CITY ATTORNEY LESSEE: 5 ADDENDUM A Sept. 1, 1987 through June 30, 1988 $.67 sq. ft. or $1,581/mo. July 1, 1988 through June 30, 1990 $.74 sq. ft. or $1,652/mo. July 1, 1990 through August, 1992: The lease rate shall be ac- cording to the policy in effect at that time. Room 15 occupancy shall begin Sept. 16, 1987. Therefore the rental amount for September, 1987 only shall be $1,273. _ A Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 21, 1987 Regular Meeting of July 28, 1987 SUBJECT: RECOMMENDED CONSULTANT AND CONTRACT FOR CIRCULATION, TRANSPORTATION, AND PARKING ELEMENT Recommendation 1. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the consultant, DKS and Associates, for the preparation of the Circulation, Transportation, and Parking Element. 2. Approve the attached contract so that preparation of the Circulation, Transportation, and Parking Element may commence, and authorize the Mayor to sign on behalf of the City. Background The City Council requested the preparation of a Circulation, Transportation, and Parking Element at their July 8, 1986 meeting. Analysis The Staff has sent Request For Proposal (RFP) to twenty consulting firms. Four firms responded to the RFP; oral interviews were conducted, and references were checked. The following consultants responded: CONSULTANT ASL *Crain & Assoc. Ekistic DKS COMPLETION TIME COST 10 months 6 months 8 months 10 months *Proposal had shortcomings. $ 99,900 $ 49,373 $ 79,666 $ 70,000 Based on each consultant's proposal, oral interview, references, and cost, the Staff determined that DKS and Associates would be the correct choice. For a total of $70,000, DKS has proposed to provide .a comprehensive Circulation, Transportation, and Parking Element for the City, and the necessary Environmental Impact Report. 147‘ kbp_Eg _ b 14 • 1aa Copies of the proposal are on file with the Planning Department. CONCUR: (VIA Gre ory �T Meyer Cit Manager NOTED FOR FISCAL IMPACT: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator 2 R tf 11 .mi Mic ael Schu•ach PLa ing Directo ed, e -pec u y s Anthony Antich Public WorksiD rector CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AGREEMENT FOR FOCUSED EIR CONSULTING SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 1987, by and between the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, a municipal corporation, herinafter referred to as "CITY", and DKS ASSOCIATES, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT". I RECITALS The CITY is desirous of obtaining the services of the CONSULTANT to revise the City's Circulation, Transportation, and Parking General Plan Element, and to prepare the necessary Environmental Impact Report for said General Plan Element. II SCOPE OF SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide the services set forth in his proposal to the CITY dated February 27, 1987 and the attached "Exhibit A", dated July 21, 1987, and by this reference made a part hereof. Other services to be rendered under this Agreement shall be in accordance with the instructions of the CITY'S Director of Planning and with the concurrence of the CONSULTANT. 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 February 27, 1987, but at all times the CITY shall be notified in writing of such associates and shall approve of their involvement in the provision of contract services. 1 IV COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to pay the CONSULTANT a total amount not -to -exceed $70,000. Included within the compensation provided for by this Agreement are all of the CONSULTANT'S ordinary office and overhead expenses incurred by him, his agents and employees, including meeting with CITY representatives, and costs to accumulate all needed data. V METHOD OF PAYMENT The CONSULTANT shall submit invoices to the CITY for services rendered for the month. A1.1 invoices are payable within thirty (30) days of receipt by the CITY. VI INTERESTS OF CONSULTANT The CONSULTANT affirms that it presently has no interest and shall not have any interest, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the services contemplated by this Agreement. No person having any such interest shall be employed by or associated with the CONSULTANT. VII COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL LAWS The CONSULTANT shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, and codes of Federal, State and local governments. VIII LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES A. CONSULTANT shall keep fully informed of State and federal" - laws and Municipal ordinances and regulations which in any 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. The CONULTANT shall be responsible for the preparation of all Drafts and Final documents that comprise the Circulation, Transportation, and Parking General Plan Element, and the Screencheck EIR, Draft EIR, the Final Draft EIR, the Final EIR, notices, Statement of Findings and Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, Resolutions, and for attendance at the public hearings. B. CONSULTANT agrees that in the performance of the terms of this Agreement, no discrimination shall be made in the employment of persons because of sex, race, color, national origin, ancestry, or religion of such persons. A violation of this provision will subject the CONSULTANT to all of the penalties imposed by law. IX OWNERSHIP OF REPORTS, INFORMATION, DATA, EXHIBITS, ETC. All of the reports, information, data, and exhibits prepared or assembled by the CONSULTANT in connection with the performance of its services pursuant to the Agreement are confidential and the CONSULTANT agrees that they shall not be made available to any individual or organization without the prior consent of the City. All such reports, information, data, and exhibits shall be the property of the CITY and shall be delivered to the CITY upon demand, or at the completion of the project, without additional cost or expense to the CITY. X TERM The CONSULTANT shall submit all required materials as indicated in the Project Schedule or revision to said schedule approved by the CITY. The executory provisions of this Agreement may be terminated by either party on ten (10) days written notice to the other without further action by either party. In the event of such termination by either party of this Agreement, the CITY shall pay the CONSULTANT for work completed to date of such termination. Any extension of time or request for additional compensation '• shall be submitted in writing to the CITY prior to the scheduling of any additional work not covered in the original contract. The CITY will evaluate said request and advise the CONSULTANT of its 3 decision regarding any such request. Costs incurred by the .. CONSULTANT for additional work not approved by the CITY shall be the sole responsibility of the CONSULTANT. XI NOTICES Any notice required to be given hereunder shall be in writing with copies as directed herein and shall be personally served or given by mail. Any notice given by mail shall be deemed to have been given when deposited in the United States mail, certified and postage prepaid, addressed to the party to be serviced as follows: To CITY: To CONSULTANT: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Attention: Mr. Michael Schubach Director of Planning XII ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT The CONSULTANT shall not assign or otherwise transfer his rights and obligations under this Agreement without prior written consent of the CITY. Any such assignment without such consent shall be void and shall, at the option of the CITY, terminate this Agreement. CITY may employ additional Consultants as it deems necessary to work with the CONSULTANT at any time during the term of this contract. 4 XIII EXTENT OF AGREEMENT This Agreement represents the entire integrated Agreement between the CITY and the CONSULTANT, and supercedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, whether written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument signed by both the CITY and the CONSULTANT. APPROVED AS TO FORM: James P. Lough, City Attorney ATTEST: Kathleen Midstokke, City Clerk 5 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH A Municipal Corporation By John Cioffi, Mayor CONSULTANT By DKS Associates EXHIBIT A DKS Associates 411 West Fifth Street Suite 500 Los Angeles, C4 90013 (213) 627.0419 July 21. 1987 Michael Schubach Director of Planning City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach. CA 90254 RE: DKS Proposal for City of Hermosa Beach Circulation Element A87x0057 Dear Mr. Schubach: The purpose of this letter is to summarize the results of our proposal negotiations. This letter supersedes all correspondence between DKS and the City on this subject. The base price proposed by DKS Associates is $50.500. This base price includes the Circulation Element. city-wide and on -street parking. TDM/transit. EIR and meetings. DKS also proposes to perform further special studies for the fees noted below. SPECIAL STUDY FEES Residential Intrusion $1,500 Hermosa Avenue Parking $1,000 Merchant Shuttle $2,000 Beach Drop-off Locations $1.000 Ten Intersection Counts & Speed Data $10,000 Signal Warrant Analyses $1,000 PCH Corridor Study $1.500 Ardmore Accident Study $500 Directional Signage $1,000 Subtotal $19.500 The total fee with all special studies is $70.000. DKS recognizes the importance of this study. We are prepared to begin this work immediately. If you have any questions on this matter. please feel free to call me at (213) 627-0419. Sincerely. DK ASSOCIATES ichae P. Meyer. ''ncip Director of Los Angeles Operations 5208.a057ms.ltr July 14, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council of July 28, 1987 Wat Request for Transfer from the General Fund to the Insurance Fund Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Transfer $28,415 from the General Fund to the Insurance Fund, and appropriate the same amount to the Workers' Comp Divi- sion, Account #705-401-1217-4182, and 2. Transfer $7,973 from the General Fund to the Insurance Fund, and appropriate the same amount to the Workers' Comp Division, Account #705-401-1217-4183. Background: It is anticipated that, at the end of the Fiscal Year 1986/87, the Workers' Compensation account in the Insurance Fund will be overexpended $36,388. This deficit was caused as a result of $25,000 being unappropriated due to an anticipated, but unreal- ized, savings, along with unanticipated settlements, medical costs, and temporary disability payments incurred as a result of injuries sustained during April and May of 1987. These two accounts in the Workers' Comp. Division are for claims reported prior to July 1985 (#705-401-1217-4183), and claims subsequent to July 1985 (#705-401-1217-4182). Analysis: The amount requested to be appropriated will be reflected in Fis- cal Year 1986/87 and will provide the amount necessary to fund the Workers' Compensation current and prior claims accounts. R-spectfully submit Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Administrator Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator Concur: TW Grgory T.(Meyer City Manager Mayor and Members of the City Council July City July 21, 1987 Council Meeting 28, 1987 ORDINANCE NO. 87-889 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING CODE IN REGARDS TO HEIGHT LIMITATION IN THE COMMERCIAL AND R -P ZONES AND FOR THE BILTMORE SITE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA. Submitted for waiver of further reading and adoption is Ordinance No. 87-889 relating to the above subject. At the regular meeting of July 14, 1987, this ordinance was introduced by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Concur: DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, None None None Mayor Cioffi sejae.,Kathleen Midstokke, City Clerk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 87-889 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING CODE IN REGARDS TO HEIGHT LIMITATION IN THE COMMERCIAL AND R -P ZONES AND FOR THE BILTMORE SITE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on July 14, 1987 to receive oral and written testimony regarding this matter and made the following Findings: A. The height in certain zones is excessive in r ationJto the intent and purpose of those zones; B. Limiting the height will improve and protect light, air, ventilation, and views within the community; C. Amending the height is not contrary to the General Plan; D. The amendment to Ordinance No. 84-751 does not change, amend or otherwise affect any vested rights which have accrued under the Specific Plan and/or Development Agreement voted upon at the June 11, 1985 Special Election; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 1. SECTION 8-5(6). BUILDING HEIGHT shall be amended as follows: a. In the C-1 zone, any building may have a maximum height of 30 feet. b. In the C-2 zone, any building may have a maximum height of 35 feet. c. In the C-3 zone, any building may have a maximum height of 45 feet. 2. SECTION 701. HEIGHT in the R -P Zone shall be amended as follows: "Any building may have a maximum height of 35 feet. 3. ORDINANCE 84-751, SECTION 7 shall be amended as follows: "The project shall not exceed 45 feet in height including any mansard roof or similar structure and shall comply with Section 1201 of the Zoning Ordinance." 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 . This ordinance shall become effective and be/ i1 full force and effect from and after thirty (30) day f its final passage and adoption. . 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. 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 July, 1987. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: TO CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY til.11 V 111 1LL,Lv11L• 1L.ti1IUly Location a. Address: Cit wide, City of Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 b. Legal: C-1 Zones, C-2 Zones, R -P Zones, and Biltmore Site S.P.A. 2. Description Amendment to Zoning Ordinance re: allowable heights 3. Sponsor a. Name: Michael Schubach, Planning Director b. Mailing Address: Planning Department, City of Hermosa Beach 1315 -Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach Phone: (213) 376-6984 90254 NEGATIVE DECLARATION In accordance with Resolution 79-4309 of the City of Hermosa beach, which im- plements the California Environmental quality Act of 1970 in Hermosa Beach, the Environmental Review Committee must make an environmental review of all private projects proposed to be undertaken within the City, and the Planning Commission must make an environmental review of all public projects proposed to be undertaken within the City, which are subject to the Environmental quality Act. This declaration is documentation of the review and, if it be- comes final, no comprehensive Enviromnental Impact Report is required for this project. FINDING OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE _We have undertaken and completed an Environmental Impact Review of this pro- posed project in accordance with Resolution 79-4309 of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, and find that this project does not require a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report because, provided the attached mitigation meas- ures are included in the project, it would not have a significant effect on the environment. Documentation sup rtinth3-S finding is on file in the Building Department. May .21, 1987 Date of Finding hairmarf, Environmental Revie�+ Committee FINDING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION We have undertaken and completed an Environmental Impact Review of this pro- ject in accordance with Resolution 79-4309 of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, and find that this project does not require a comprehensive Environ- mental Impact Report because, provided the attached -mitigation measures are included in the project, it would not have a significant effect on the en- vironment. Documentation supporting this finding is on file in the Build- ing Department. J e_ Date of Finding airman, anning Comm ion FINDING OF THE CITY COUNCIL We have undertaken and completed an environmental Impact Review of this pro- posed project in accordance with Resolution 70-4309 of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, and find this project does not require a comprehensive En- vironmental Impact Report because, provided the attached mitigation meas- ures are included in the project, it would not have a significant effect on. the environment. Documentation supporting this finding is on file in the Building Department. Date of Finding Mayor, Hermosa Beach City Council Uo 1-1 LC r7S (A 161 rJCu P C�� G`DC) ( (5° qEt-s Mayor and Members of the City Council • July 21, 1987 City Council Meeting July 28, 1987 ORDINANCE NO. 87-890 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FROM M-1, LIGHT MANUFACTURING, TO R-2, TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE, AND APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED .AT 602, 614, 622 THIRD STREET AND 228 ARDMORE AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 74, 75 AND 76 OF WALTER RANSOM COMPANY'S VENABLE PLACE TRACT. Submitted for waiver of further reading and adoption is Ordinance No. 87-890 relating to the above subject. At the regular meeting of July 14, 1987, this ordinance was introduced by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Concur: DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Cioffi None None None Gre kp yer, City anager Kat leen Midstokke, City Clerk 2b r'' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 87-890 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FROM M-1, LIGHT MANUFACTURING, TO R-2, TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE, AND APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 602,614,622 THIRD STREET AND 228 ARDMORE AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 74, 75 AND 76 OF WALTER RANSOM COMPANY'S VENABLE PLACE TRACT. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on July 21, 1987 to receive oral and written testimony regarding this matter and made the following Findings: A. The location and size of the subject property is adequate and more suitable for residential development than manufacturing; B. Changing the zoning to R-2 is a logical extension to the R-2 zone adjacent to the east and would not result in "spot zoning"; C. The proposed zone change is consistent with the General Plan; D. THe zone change does not impose any significant impacts on the environment and the City Council thereby approves the issuance of a Negative Declaration; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 1. The official Zoning Map shall be amended by rezoning the property at 602, 614, 622 Third Street and 228 Ardmore Avenue, legally described as Lots 74, 75 and 76 of Walter Ransom Company's Venable Place Tract, from M-1, Light Manufacturing zone to R-2, Two -Family Residential zone. 2. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. 3. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law. 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the 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 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day cf ;-iuly, 1987. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYO}. the City o Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: ITY CLERK PPROVED A• T F CITY ATTORNEY 1. Cs%rii■iii i4l u��r—rrv��r .�v�• Location "a. Address • 602, 614, 622 -3rd Street & 228 Ardmore Ave. b. Legal: Lots 74,75,& 76 of Walter Ransom Company's Venable Place Tract 2. Description Zone Change from M-1, Light Manufacturing To_ R-2, Two Family Residential 3. Sponsor a. Name: Paul Healy b. Mailing Address: P.O. Box 577 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Phone: NEGATIVE DECLARATION In accordance with Resolution 79-4309 of the City of Hermosa beach, which im- plements the California Environmental quality Act of 1970 in Hermosa Beach, the Environmental Review Committee must make an environmental review of all private projects proposed to be undertaken within the City, and the Planning Commission must make an environmental review of all public projects proposed to be undertaken within the City, which are subject to the Environmental quality Act. This declaration is documentation of the review and, if it be- comes final, no comprehensive Enviromnental Impact Report is required for this project. FINDING OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE _We have undertaken and completed an Environmental Impact Review of this pro- posed project in accordance with Resolution 79-4309 of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, and find that this project does not require a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report because, provided th attached mitigation meas- ures are included in the project, it would not a e a significant effect on the environment. Documentation suppong th finding is on file in the Building Department. November 17,1986 Date of Finding Chairmar,� nvironnental Review Committee FINDING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION We have undertaken and completed an Environmental Impact Review of this pro- ject in accordance with Resolution 79-4309 of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, and find that this project does not require a comprehensive Environ- mental Impact Report because, provided the attached mitigation measures are included in the project, it would not have a significant effect on the en- vironment. Documentation supporting this finding is on file in the Build- ing Department. May 5,1987 Date of Finding Ch uman, Planning Commission FINDING OF THE CITY COUNCIL We have undertaken and completed an environmental Impact Review of this pro- posed project in accordance with Resolution 70-4309 of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, and find this project does not require a comprehensive En- vironmental Impact Report because, provided the attached mitigation meas- ures are included in the project, it would not have a significant effect on . the environment. Documentation supporting this finding is on file in the Building Department. July 14,1987 Date of Finding Mayor, Hermosa Beach City Council Mayor and Members of the City Council (JD July 21, 1987 City Council Meeting July 28, 1987 ORDINANCE NO. 87-891 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PRESCRIBING FEES FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF CONNECTING ANY PARCEL WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO THE SEWERAGE SYSTEM, OR FOR INCREASING THE QUANTITY OF WASTEWATER ATTRIBUTABLE TO A CONNECTED PARCEL WITHIN THE CITY, AND PROVIDING FOR THE COLLECTION OF SUCH CHARGES, AMENDING CHAPTER 28, ARTICLE II, SECTIONS 28-7 THROUGH 28-14. Submitted for waiver of further reading and adoption, is Ordinance No. 87-891 relating to the above subject. At the regular meeting of July 14, 1987, this ordinance introduced by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Concur: DeBellis, Rosenberger None None ayor Cioffi was Kat leen Midstokke, City Clerk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 87- 891 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PRESCRIBING FEES FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF CONNECTING ANY PARCEL WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO THE SEWERAGE SYSTEM, OR FOR INCREASING THE QUANTITY OF WASTEWATER ATTRIBUTABLE TO A CONNECTED• PARCEL WITHIN THE CITY, AND PROVIDING FOR THE COLLECTION OF SUCH CHARGES, AMENDING CHAPTER 28, ARTICLE II, SECTIONS 28-7 THROUGH 28-14. WHEREAS, for reasons of health and safety, it is necessary to maintain and rehabilitate the sewer system. WHEREAS, the Santina and Thompson report (titled: Sewer System Analysis -January, 1985) concluded that the City sewer system is in disrepair and is in need of rehabilitation. WHEREAS, all_new construction and development which increase wastewater flow (when compared to existing conditions) contribute to the accelerated deterioration of the City's sanitary sewer system. This represents an added burden on the sanitary sewer system, an added expense to taxpayers and a potential negative environmental impact. WHEREAS, on March 24, 1987, after considering several alternatives, City Council approved a method to calculate the proportionate share of cost. This method considers the impacts of intensified land usage on the City's sanitary sewer system. Land usages which are not intensified do not negatively impact the sanitary sewer system. WHEREAS, City Council's decision of March 24, 1987 represents the policy and method by which the City of Hermosa Beach calculates (Alternative No. 5) proportionate share of cost for intensified land usages which impact the sanitary sewer system. 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 Santina and Thompson report identified 8319.7 sewer units within the City of Hermosa Beach. Using $168 per Ala foot, in 1987 it is estimated to cost up to $30,000,000 to replace approximately 34 miles of sanitary sewer. The cost of one sewer unit is: $30,000,000 = $3,605.90 8319.7 WHEREAS, The fee calculation for a land usage which intensifies the wastewater flow is illustrated example: Description Existing Existing Total: Proposed Proposed Total: Single Family House Duplex Sewer Fee $ 3,605.90 4,976.14 $ 8,582.04 5,000 s.f. Office Bldg. $ 6,852.21 10,000 s.f. store 13,702.42 SUMMARY Credit for existing structures Cost for proposed development Net: $20,553.63 in the following Sewer Units 1.00 1.38 2.38 1.90 3.80 5.70 $ 8,582.04 2.38 20,553.63 5.70 $11,971.59 3.32 WHEREAS, On March 24, 1987 City Council directed staff to prepare a draft sewer connection fee for review and consideration, using Alternative No. 5, with an inflation factor. This was presented to City Council on May 12, 1987. WHEREAS, it is the intent to apply this all construction and development. WHEREAS, the proposed fees are attached document to this ordinance as Exhibit "A". 2 ordinance equally to as a separate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 6 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHEREAS, on May 12, 1987, City Council adopted Resolution No. 87-5038, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ordering the preparation of an ordinance prescribing fees for the privilege of connecting any parcel within the boundaries of the City of Hermosa Beach directly or indirectly to the sewerage system, or for increasing the quantity of wastewater attributable to a connected parcel within the city, and providing for the collection of such charges. WHEREAS, the ordinance preparation has been completed and reviewed. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The amendment to Sections 28-7 through 28-14, Chapter 28, Article II shall read as follows: PART I - GENERAL PROVISIONS SECTION 1.01 - SHORT TITLE This Ordinance shall be known as the "Sewer Connection Fee Ordinance for the City of Hermosa Beach" and may be cited as such. SECTION 1.02 - PURPOSE The purpose of this Ordinance is to impose charges for the privilege of connecting a parcel within the City directly or indirectly, to the City's sewerage system as hereinafter. defined or for increasing the quantity o'f wastewater attributable to a connected parcel, and to provide for collection of said charges. All properties shall discharge wastewater to City sewer lines. Funds derived under this Ordinance shall be deposited in the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 City's Sewer Fund. SECTION 1.03 - AUTHORITY The City Council is empowered to fix fees or charges for the privilege of connecting to its sewerage system. SECTION 1.04 - ADMINISTRATION The Director shall administer, implement, and enforce the provisions of this Ordinance. Any powers granted to or duties imposed on the Director may be delegated by the Director to persons acting in the beneficial interest of, or in the employ of the City. SECTION 1.05 - VALIDITY If any part, section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by any court, that decision does not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remainder of this Ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have adopted each provision of this ordinance irrespective of the validity of any other provision. PART II - DEFINITIONS This Ordinance shall be construed according to the following definitions: SECTION 2.01 - ADDED BURDEN An added burden shall mean any of the following: (1) A connection, direct or indirect, to the sewerage syste for the first time, of any structure located on a parcel(s) of land within the City. (2) An existing connection from a parcel where the number of sewer units attributable to said parcel has -been 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 increased due to construction of additional dwelling units or change in land usage. SECTION 2.02 - DIRECTOR Director shall mean the Director of Public Works of the City of Hermosa Beach or his duly authorized deputy or agent. SECTION 2.03 - LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL PARCEL Local governmental parcel shall mean any parcel which is not subject to this ordinance and which is owned by the City; provided that such parcel is used for a governmental rather than proprietary function and which use is for the direct benefit of the public in general and not for the benefit of a single class or classes of individuals. SECTION 2.04 - PARCEL Parcel shall mean real property upon which an assessment is made. SECTION 2.05 - PERSON Person shall mean any individual, partnership, committee, association, corporation, public agency, and any other organization or group of persons, public or private. SECTION 2.06 - SEWERAGE SYSTEM Sewerage system shall mean the entire network of wastewater collection and conveyance, which are interconnected by means of sewers and owned in whole by the City. SECTION 2.07 - SEWAGE UNIT The average daily quantity of sewage flow from a single family home measured in terms of flow. SECTION 2.08 - UNIT OF USAGE Unit of usage shall mean the basic unit of measure which quantifies the degree of use of a particular parcel (e.g., dwelling unit, square footage). Square footage of an improvement 5 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 shall be based upon the gross exterior dimensions of the structure. SECTION 2.09 - USER CATEGORY User category shall mean the specific land use classification for a particular parcel which is defined in terms of its use (e.g., single family home, restaurant). SECTION 2.10 - WASTEWATER Wastewater shall mean the water carried wastes of the community derived from human or industrial sources including wastewater of domestic origin and industrial wastewater. PART III - FEES SECTION 3.01 - CONNECTION FEES No person shall impose an added burden, as herein defined, to the sewerage system from any parcel within the boundaries of the City until an application for sewer connection has been made and approved by the Director and a connection fee has been paid to the City. Local governmental parcels shall not be subject to a connection fee under this Ordinance. (1) Any person imposing an added burden shall pay a connection fee in accordance with this Ordinance. With respect to discharges which constitute an increase in the quantity of wastewater attributable to a particular parcel or operation already connected, the connection fee shall be based on the increase in anticipated use of the sewerage system. - (2) A credit shall be allowed with respect to new construction replacing a demolished building which had been connected to the sewerage system or with respect to a change in use of a building which had been connected to the sewerage system. 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 (3) The credit for a demolished building shall be equal to the connection fee that would have been paid with respect to the most recently demolished building under the terms of this Ordinance and based on the current connection fee rate. The credit for a change in use of a building which had been connected to the sewerage system shall be based upon the units of usage existing immediately prior to construction of the improvement or occurrence that brought about the increased use and the current connection fee rate. If a demolished building or a building for which there was a former use had a prior connection fee application approved by the City, the credit provided for above shall be based upon the highest number of sewer units for which a connection fee application had been approved and the current connection fee rate. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the' Director the user category and the number of units of usage applicable to a demolished building or a building for which there was a former use, and whether or not such building was connected to the sewerage system. The credit provided for (2) above shall be applicable only to the specific parcel upon which the demolition has occurred and may be allocable by the owner of such parcel if more than one building is being connected. The City Council finds that'under certain circumstances the transfer to a different parcel of a business operation discharging wastewater does not impose any additional burden on the sewerage system. 7 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 credit which shall be referred to as a relocation credit shall be allowed for the relocation to a different parcel of a business operation discharging wastewater upon the following requirements being met: (a) That essentially the same business operation has been transferred from one parcel to another and such operation was previously connected directly or indirectly to the sewerage system. (b) That the business operation was owned prior to the transfer by the same person now making claim to a relocation credit. (c) That the discharger has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Director that the business operation has been abandoned from the parcel from which the transfer has occurred or presented a certification in writing that such business operation will be abandoned within six months of the City approving an application for connection. Should the facility not be abandoned within the prescribed period, the relocation credit shall be revoked and a connection fee with respect to the parcel to which the business operation was transferred shall be due and payable as of the date said parcel was connected to the sewerage system. The connection fee shall equal the product of the number of sewer units upon which the relocation credit was based and the current connection fee rate. (d) That the Director has made a determination that there is adequate capacity in the sewerage system to accommodate connection of the business operation -to be 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (4) transferred. In no case shall the credit provided for in subsections (2) or (3) above exceed the new connection fee. The City Council finds in the case when the discharger is required to construct/replace sewer facilities, the discharger shall pay a fee equal to the calculated fee rate minus a credit for the actual construction cost of the sewer facility. In no case shall the credit for the actual construction cost exceed the calculated fee rate. SECTION 3.02 - CALCULATION OF THE CONNECTION FEE (1) The connection fee for any parcel within the City's boundaries imposing an added burden to the sewerage system shall be based on anticipated use and shall equal the product of the estimated number of sewer units which will result from the added burden, as determined in paragraph (2) of this section, and the connection fee rate determined pursuant to Section 3.03 hereof. (2) Calculation of the Number of Sewage Units -The number of sewage units (SU) shall be determined by the following formula: SU = (FLOW ) ( avg) (FLOW ) ( sfh) where: FLOW = Average flow of wastewater from a single family home in gallons per day; FLOW = Estimated flow of wastewater which will avg enter the sewerage system from a user in gallons per day.' 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (3) The number of sewer units attributable to a parcel from which no industrial wastewater is discharged shall be calculated using mean loadings per unit of usage for each connecting parcel's user category as adopted from time to time by the City Council of Hermosa Beach. The mean loadings per unit of usage for flow in gallons per day, shall be based upon the best data currently available, including updated sampling information and data from other jurisdictions and publications including the Board of Directors of the Los Angeles County Sanitation District. SECTION 3.03 - CALCULATION OF THE CONNECTION FEE RATE The estimated cost of the entire City sewer system divided by the estimated total number of sewer units in the City equals the cost of one sewer unit. This calculation, including an inflation factor, is performed once annually. The connection fee rate shall be 25% of the cost of a sewer unit. SECTION 3.04 - PAYMENT OF FEE All fees shall be determined by and paid to the City's Building and Safety Department. The fee shall be paid prior to building occupancy. The monies collected shall be deposited with the City and credited to the Sewer Fund. SECTION 3.05 - REFUNDS In the event that any person shall have paid the applicable sewer connection fee and no installation shall have been commenced and the permit for such installation shall have been cancelled or have expired, said person shall be entitled to a refund in an amount equal to one hundred per cent (100%) of the sewer connection fee paid by said person, minus one percent (1%) �f 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 said charge; however, the amount retained shall not be less than ten dollars ($10.00), nor more -than one hundred dollars ($100.00). SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force within the time periods prescribed by law. SECTION 3. PUBLICATION. That the City Council does hereby designate the City Attorney to prepare a summary of this ordinance to be published pursuant to Government Code Section 36933(c) (1) in lieu of the full text of said ordinance. That prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause the summary to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach. SECTION 4. CERTIFICATION. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance; shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said City; shall make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 1987. PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the C_t Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FOR CITY CLERK ITY ATTORNE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH "EXHIBIT A" UNITS OF USAGE, FLOW, SEWER UNITS AND CONNECTION FEE July 1, 1987 - June 30, 1988 LAND USE CATAGORIES: (1) (2) (3) °�' (4) - SEWER SEWER CONNECTION RESIDENTIAL UNIT OF USAGE FLOW(GPD)260.00UNITS FEE SINGLE FAMILY HOME PARCEL 260.00 1.00 $ 901.48 DUPLEX PARCEL 360.00 1.38 1,244.03 TRIPLEX PARCEL540.00 2.08 1,875.06 FOURPLEX PARCEL 720.00 2.70 2,433.98 CONDOMINIUMS NO. OF UNITS 180.00 0.69 622.01 REDUCED SFH PARCEL 180.00 0.69 II > OR = FIVE UNITS NO. OF UNITS 180.00 0.69 11 MOBILE HOME PARKS SPACES 180.00 0.69 II COMMERCIAL HOTELS/MOTELS/RM. HOUSES ROOMS 100.00 0.38 342.56 STORES 1,000 SQ. FT. 100.00 0.38 �� SUPERMARKET 1,000 SQ. FT. 100.00 0.38 �� SHOPPING CENTER 1,000 SQ. FT. 100.00 0.38 II OFFICE BUILDING 1,000 SQ. FT. 200.00 0.77 694.13 PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 1,000 SQ. FT. 300.00 1.15 1,036.69 RESTAURANT 1,000 SQ. FT. 1,000.00 3.85 3,470.67 INDOOR THEATRE 1,000 SQ. FT. 500.00 1.92 1,730.83 CAR WASH - TUNNEL TYPE 1,000 SQ. FT. 3,700.00 14.23 12,827.99 CAR WASH - WAND TYPE 1,000 SQ. FT. 700.00 2.69 2,424.96 FINANCIAL INSTITUTION 1,000 SQ. FT. 100.00 0.38 342.56 SERVICE SHOP 1,000 SQ. FT. 100.00 0.38 ANIMAL KENNEL 1,000 SQ. FT. 100.00 0.38 it SERVICE STATIONS 1,000 SQ. FT. 100.00 0.38 II AUTO SALES/REPAIR 1,000 SQ. FT. 100.00 0.38 it WHOLESALE OUTLETS 1,000 SQ. FT. 100.00 0.38 II NURSERIES/GREENERIES 1,000 SQ. FT. 25.00 0.003 2.70 MANUFACTURING 1,000 SQ. FT. 200.00 0.77 694.13 DRY MANUFACTURING 1,000 SQ. FT. 25.00 0.003 2.70 LUMBER YARDS 1,000 SQ. FT. 25.00 0.10 90.14 WAREHOUSING 1,000 SQ. FT. 25.00 0.10 11 OPEN STORAGE 1,000 SQ. FT. 25.00 0.10 11 DRIVE-IN THEATRE 1,000 SQ. FT. 20.00 0.08 72.11 NIGHT CLUB 1,000 SQ. FT.750.00 2.88 2,596.24 BOWLING/SKATING 1,000 SQ. FT. 150.00 0.58 522.85 CLUB 1,000 SQ. FT. 20.00 0.08 72.11 AUDITORIUM, AMUSEMENT 1,000 SQ. FT. 350.00 1.35 1,216.99 GOLF COURSES, CAMP & PARK 1,000 SQ. FT. 100.00 0.38 342.56 HOMES FOR THE AGED BED 90.00 0.35 315.51 LAUNDROMAT 1,000 SQ. FT. 4,600.00 17.69 15,947.09 MORTUARIES/CEMETERIES 1,000 SQ. FT. 100.00 0.38 342.56 HEALTH SPA, W/SHOWERS 1,000 SQ. FT. 600.00 2.31 2,082.40 HEALTH SPA, W/0 SHOWERS 1,000 SQ. FT. 300.00 1.15 1,036.69 INSTITUTIONAL COLLEGES/UNIVERSITIES STUDENT 20.00 0.08 72.11 PRIVATE SCHOOLS 1,000 SQ. FT. 200.00 0.77 - 694.13 CHURCHES 1,000 SQ. FT. 50.00 0.19 171.28 (1) Obtained from the LA County Sanitation District (2) Effective from July 1, 1987 to June 30, 1988 for the South Bay Cities Sanitation District (3) Sewer units = FLOW (by land use category) i FLOW (of single family house) (4) Replacement Cost = $30,000,000 Total Equivalent Dwelling Units = 8319.7 Cost of one (1) sewer unit = 0.25 x $30,000,000 i 8319.7 = $901.48 "EXHIBIT A" Mayor and Members of the City Council • Lk July 21, 1987 City Council Meeting July 28, 1987 ORDINANCE NO. 87-892 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING LIMITATIONS ON POLITICAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND CAMPAIGN CONDUCT. Submitted for waiver of further reading and adoption is No. 87-892 relating to the above subject. At the regular adjourned meeting of July 16, 1987, this was introduced by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Concur: Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Cioffi None None DeBellis A - Gregory T. M ye`r, City Manager Ordinance ordinance Kathleen Midstokke, City Clerk 2 d 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. 87-892 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA-BEACH, CALIFORNIA., ESTABLISH- ING LIMITATIONS ON POLITICAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND CAMPAIGN CONDUCT. WHEREAS, California Election Code Section 22808 permits a City to limit campaign contributions by ordinance or resolution in municipal elections; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 84308 prohibits contributions of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) or more from any party while a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use is pending before the agency and for three months following the final decision; and WHEREAS, the City Council is desireous of avoiding these potential conflict of interests; and WHEREAS, local government should serve the needs and respond to the wishes of all citizens equally, without regard to their wealth; and WHEREAS, public officials should perform their duties in an impartial manner, free from bias caused by the financial interests of persons who have supported them; and WHEREAS, reasonable campaign contribution limitations will encourage a broader public participation in the local elective process and will provide all residents with the real chance of becoming elected officials; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. Words and phrases used hereinafter shall have the same meaning as defined in the Political Reform Act of 1974, as amended, Title 9, California Government Code • 1 2 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 81000 et. seq.) as it now exists or may hereafter be amended. w SECTION 2. CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITATIONS. No person shall make, nor shall any candidate for elective office or his or her committee, accept any contribution, gift, subscription, loan, advance, pledge, or promise of money in aid of the nomination or election of a candidate which will cause the total given by such person with respect to a single election in support of, or opposition to, such candidate, including contributions to all committees supporting or opposing such candidate, to exceed the the sum of two hundred forty-nine dollars ($249.00). This section shall not apply to amounts given by a candidate to his own campaign. SECTION 3. ENDORSEMENTS AND SEALS. (a) No person shall issue any campaign literature or material to the public during an election which claims or implies any endorsement of a candidate without filing with the City Clerk his affidavit, signed under penalty of perjury, that he has obtained the written consent of such person whose endorsement is claimed or implied. (b) No person shall in any manner, on any campaign literature or material, make use of the official seal of the City of Hermosa Beach, or any facimile or likeness of the seal. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. If any provision, or the applica- tion thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remaining provisions of these sections and the applicability of such provisions to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective a\. l.e in full force and operation from and after thirty days after its final passage and adoption, and shall apply to all Municipal Elections thereafter. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach. SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance; shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said City; shall make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 1987. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach City Clerk 1► City Attorney 3 Substitute Motion: To take a position in opposition to this legislation. Motion Simpson, second DeBellis. Vote on Making the Substitute Motion the Main Motion: AYES - Simpson, DeBellis, Mayor Cioffi NOES - Rosenberger, Williams. Final Action; To take a position in opposition to SB 442: Land Readjustment Law. City Clerk to notify local legislators. Councilmember Simpson stated that she has individually opposed this bill. 11. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) (b) Request by Councilmember Rosenberger for discussion of CUP enforcement. Action: To send this matter to staff for study. Research using an infraction for enforcing, citations in a timely manner, monetary fines. Request by Councilmember Williams for motion to recon- sider denial of appeal from Planning Commission decision to deny a variance request of 17' parking setback at 3104 Ingleside Dr. for the purpose of granting a parking variance but requiring construction of a single car garage and two uncovered parking spaces. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated July 9, 1987. Proposed.Action: Staff to send the applicant a letter asking if he desires to submit plans incorporating a single car garage and if so, Council would waive the appeal fee. Motion Williams, second Rosenberger (discussion) AYES - Rosenberger, Williams NOES - DeBellis, Simpson, Mayor Cioffi Motion fails. (d) Political campaign contribution limitations 1) Request by Councilmember Williams for Council con- sideration of an ordinance limiting campaign con- tributions to $25(' from any one source and putting a limitation on spending by candidates for elective office. 5 Supplemental memo from Councilmember Williams dated June 10, 1987. Clarification was made that the campaign contribu- tion limitation was to be effective for City Coun- cilmembers, City Clerk and City Treasurer and amendment was to be made to the proposed ordiriance stating that "no candidate for elective office, nor his or her committee, shall accept to exceed the sum of two hundred forty-nine dollars ($249.00) . Action; To waive full reading of Ordinance No. 87- 892 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING LIMITATIONS ON POLITICAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND CAMPAIGN CON- DUCT" to include the recommended amendment above. Motion Mayor Cioffi, second Williams AYES - DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Cioffi NOES - None Final Action; To introduce Ordinance No. 87-892. Motion Mayor Cioffi, second Simpson. AYES - Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Cioffi NOES - None ABSTAIN - DeBellis 12. OTHER MATTERS - CITY.COUNCIL (a) Vacancies - Boards and Commissions Civil Service Commission - 2 four-year terms ending July 15, 1991 Community Resources Commission - 1 four-year term ending June 30, 1991 Memorandum from City Clerk Kathleen Midstokke dated July 6, 1987 indicating that incumbents desire and are eligible for reappointment. Action; To direct the City Clerk to advertise, request- ing applicants for the two Civil Service Commission and one Planning Commission vacancies. Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger. So ordered. Further,Aation: To direct the City Clerk to advertise all future vacancies. Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger. So ordered. 6 July 21, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City Council Meeting of July 28, 1987 TERMINATION OF LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AND THE REDONDO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Reco mends ion It ommended that City Council terminate the lease agreement betwee the City of Hermosa Beach and the Redondo Union High School District for offices located in the Hermosa Beach Community Center effective August 31, 1987. BackgZround At the Council meeting of June 23, 1987, the City Council rejected the District's request for termination of this lease but indicated it would be willing to do so if another lessee was secured. Please refer.to the attached Background Materials. Analysis A new lessee has been secured and is ready to lease those rooms as soon as possible. The new lessee's agreement is before the Council this evening for approval (item 1Y ). Concur: AQ9&.4 Gre ory T. eyer Cit Manager 1 Respectfully submitted, Alana M. Mastrian, Director Dept. of Community Resources lz June 16 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Ol City Cncil Meeting of Jun- 23 1987 REQUEST FOR TERMINATION OFASE AGREEMENT ' BETWEEN THE CITY OF HERMO - BEACH AND THE REDONDO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Recommendation It is recommended that City Council not terminate the lease agreement between the City of Hermosa Beach and Redondo Union High School District until such time another lessee is secured for that space at. the Community Center. Background The City has been asked by Redondo Union High School District to rescind the lease agreement between the City of Hermosa Beach and the District for office space in the Community Center (please see District letter dated May 27, 1987). Analysis City staff has been discussing this matter with the District for several months in the attached City correspondence dated March 6, 1987. Staff suggested the District try to sub -lease their space which is an option provided in the agreement. They have not indicated their willingness to do so. Staff has conveyed to the District it's unwillingness to recommend that the lease be rescinded. Basically it is a five year lease that began August 1, 1985 and runs through June 30, 1990. By terminating the lease at this time, lost revenue to the City would be as follows: Sept. 1, 1987 to June 30, 1988: $ 965 per mo. or $9,650 Sept. 1, 1988 to June 30, 1989: $1,008 per mo. or $10,080 Sept. 1, 1989 to June 30, 1990: $1,051 per mo. or $10,510 Total Lost Revenue: $30,240 In negotiating this present contract, the City favored a long term lease (5 years) and approved the agreement allowing for • lease payments 10 months of the year versus the normal 12 months. This was in keeping with the District's operating schedule. Thus the District will not be making payments in July and August. In an effort to. secure another lessee, City staff has informed marry non-profit agencies that there is rental space available at the Community Center. However, there has been rio interest to date. lv At the time staff .conveyed to the District its (staff's) unwillingness to recommend termination of the lease, staff conveyed to the District they approach the City Council with this matter as the Council had the ultimate authority. Attached is a copy of the lease agreement. Respectfully submit P Concur: Gre ory`T.Meyer Cit Manager Alaria M. Mastrian, Director Dept. of Community Resources Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator • { 4 ID 1,11 1.k." t11..I1 11 4.1 1.1,10. 1 / SOUTH BAY UNION HIGH eSCIIOOL DIc TI2ICT 200 N. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY • REDONDO BEACH, CA 90277. • 213/37975421 May 27, 1987 • • The Honorable John Cioffi Mayor, City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 30254 Dear Mayor Cioffi: This letter is a formal request to rescind the lease that was drawn on July 9, 1985, between the City of Hermosa Beach and South Bay Union High School District for the lease of facilities at the Hermosa Beach Community Center. At that time the District agreed to lease rooms 1 and 2 fol: a five-year period": at, a very reasonable rate. Since that time the school district has suffered declining enrollment and severe reduction in state financal support creating for us a very tight budget and a surplus of our own classrooms. Our Superintendent, Dr. Walt Hale, has met with City Manager, Gregory Meyers, and 1 have met with Assistant City Manager, Alana Mastriai►, over this issue. On both occasions we felt sincere concern for the situation described above. It is our understanding that the city council must, act on our request to rescind this contract for the coming year and although this is a hardship on both the city and the school district your fine facility has potential for leasing to other non profit organizations. Please consider our request at the next council meeting to terminate this lease agreement. I am available for additional information at 3i8-7396, if you wish to call. Sincerely, /C Lz,t ' Edward King, Ph. D. Deputy Superintenuent ak C1TV OF h13MOM )3E&h CIVIC CENTER HERMOSA BEACH CALIFORNIA 90254 CITY HALL.; (213) 376 -6984-- POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS : 376.-7981 March 6, 1987 Dr. Edward J. King Deputy Superintendent South Bay Union High School District 200 N. Pacific Coast Highway Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Dear Dr. King: It has been brought to my attention by Mr. Greg Meyer, our City Manager, that the South Bay Union High School District would like to relocate it's Independent Studies Program. I am somewhat dismayed, Dr. King, about this turn of events. At the time the District was interested in securing the space here in the Hermosa Beach Community Center, we turned down two potential lessees in favor of securing a long term tenant. At that time we could not move fast enough to guarantee the District this space. The need appeared to be great. As the City of ?:ermosa Beach does not want:to create a hardship for the District nor for itself, I have recommended to our City Manager that the lease remain in force until a new lessee is secured and that we ask the District to assist in securing that new lessee. Another possibility, Dr. King, is to assign or sublease the rooms. However per Article 15. of the Lease Agreement, written consent of the City must first be obtained. I don't believe this is an insurmountable hurdle. I have attached some pertinent information a new lessee would need to know. Please do, not hesitate to call me Dr. King, if you should have any questions or care to discuss this matter further. I can be reached at 376-G984 ext. 280. Kindest regard'-., Alana M. Mastrian, Director • Dept. of Community, Resources b ✓cc: City Manager, Gregory T. Meyer Enclosures ATTACHMENT 1. Lessee must be a non-profit organization. 2. Total space available for lease: 1,440 sq. ft. (2 rooms at 720 sq. ft. each). 3. Square footage rate: July 1, 1986 thru June 30, 1987 July 1, 1987 thru June 30, 1988 July 1, 1988 thru June 30, 1989 July 1, 1989 thru June 30, 1990 4. Minimum lease: One (1) year $.64 sq. ft. $.67 sq. ft. $.70 sq. ft. $.74 sq. ft. 5. Liability insurance required in the minimum amount of $1 million. City of Hermoa Beach must be named as Additional Insured. BACKGROUND MATERIALS i HERMOSA BEACH COMMUNITY CENTER LEASE -AGREEMENT This Leasing Agreement is made and entered into on this, the 9TH day of July , 19 85 , by and between the City of Hermosa Beach, a Municipal Corporation (City) and So. Bay Union High School (Lessee). A. RECITALS: 1. The City is the owner of a recreational/civic service facility generally referred to as the Hermosa Beach Com- munity Center (referred to herein as the "facility"). 2. The facility is subject to certain agreements and deed restrictions entered into on the 28th day of February 1978, between the City and the Hermosa Beach City School District and is further subject to certain provisions imposed by the Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment as set forth in a document entitled Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Real Property and dated the 28th day of February 1978. These documents are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City and are public documents and by reference are incorporated into this leasing agreement and are referred to herein as the HUD and SCHOOL DISTRICT AGREEMENTS. 3. The Lessee desires to use a portion of the facility on the terms and conditions set out herein. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. TERM. The term of this lease shall be for a period of 5 years commencing on the 1st day of August ,1985 , and ending on the 30th day of June ,19 90 2. DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES. The Lessee is leasing from the City that portion of the facility described as: Rooms 1 and 2 3. RENT. Lessee agrees to pay to the City rent accord- ing to the following schedule: Please see Addendum A Payable on the first day of the month. If this lease commences on a day other than the first day of the month, then the Lessee shall pay upon the. commencement of the lease the rental on a pro rata-- basis for the remainder of that month and commence a full rental payment on the first day of the •following month. 3A. OTHER CONDITIONS. The following additional condi- tions are agreed to by the Lessee: 1. Lessee shall not mark, drill or deface any walls, ceilings, floor, wood or iron work without Lessor's written consent. 2. No signs or awning shall be erected orintainept ed upon or attached to the outside of the premises such signs showing the business withfthethe policyeestablished . All such signs shall be in accordance by the Lessor. 4. USE. The Lessee agrees to use the premises only for the ur oses: Independent study pro ram of following purpose or p P the South Ba Union Hi:h School District and for no other purpose without the express the premiseswshallnnotnsbet of the City. Lesser also agrees Urban used in violation of the SchoolPartment DistrictoAgreementsaas those Development (HUD) or agreements are interpreted by either the City or the Hermosa Beach City School District or the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 5. INSURANCE LIABILITY. Lessee shall obtain and maintain at all times during the term of this inagreement protectingsLessee ive General and Automobile Liability fourancer personal injury to in amounts not less than $1,G00000 out in any any one person, $1,000,000 for injuries arising au o a cym- of one occurrence, and $1,000,000 for property l bined single limit of $1,000,000. Such insurance eeshallename e City of Hermosa Beach and their officers, officials and members of Boards or Commissions ommn ss ions aeas additional insured parties. Coverage shall th the sample certificates and endorsements attached hereto and mus t include the coverage and provisions indicated. Lessee shall file and maintain toethisrequired centlatcall(tim of insurance with the other party(s) during the term of this agreement. htheeworklorteventlando be filed prior to the commencement of should state clearly: (1) The additional insured requested; (2) Thirty day prior notice of change or cancellation to the City of Hermosa Beach; (3) of the Additional (3) Insurance is primary Insured; (4) Coverage included;' (5) Cross -liability clause. . WORKER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE. Lessee shall obtain and • maintain at all times during the term of this agreement Work- er's Compensation and Employers Liability insurance and fur- nish the City (or Agency) with a certificate showing proof of such coverage. Such insurance shall not be cancelledioren materially changed without a thirty (30) day prior notice to: City Manager, City of Hermosa Beach. INSURANCE COMPANIES. Insurance companies must be rated (B:XIII) or better in Best's Insurance Rating Guide. 6. CONDITION OF THE PREMISES UPON TERMINATION OF THE LEASE. Lessee agrees to keep and maintain the premises ingood con- dition and repair and to return to the City the premises upon termination of this lease in the same condition as when Les- see took possession of the premises excepting any repairs or alterations which were approved by the City, reasonable wear and tear excepted, and does promise to pay the City upon de- mand the reasonable sums to repair the premises in the event of a violation of this provision. 7. CONSTRUCTION. Lessee is prohibited from making any al- terations or performing any construction whatsoever on the premises without the expressed written approval of the City. Any such approval shall include provisions City from potential liens of laborandmaterial protect Citythe persons. 8. DESTRUCTION, PARTIAL DESTRUCTION OR NECESSITY TO REPAIR BECAUSE OF CONDITIONS .CAUSED BY OTHER THAN LESSEE. The City has no duty or obligation to reconstruct the premises in the event of destruction or partial destruction of the premises. The City a't its option may reconstruct or repair the prem- ises, whereupon this lease shall remain in full force and effect except that no rent will be owing to the City during said period of reconstruction or repair if such reconstruc- tion or repair interferes with the tenancy created herein to the extent that the premises cannot be used for the purposes intended. In the event the City at its sole discretion determines not to reconstruct or repair the premises then either party at its option may cause this lease to be termi- nated and neither party shall have any liability each to each other. 9. HOLD HARMLESS. Lessee promises to hold the City harmless from any claims, causes of actions or damages of any nature whatever arising from Lessee's use of the premises and will pay the City any monies to which the City may become obli- gated because of Lessee's use of the premises. Lessee shall, if so instructed by the City, cause any occupants of the premises to execute a document in a form prepared by the City wherein that occupant shall expressly waive any right of ac- tion against the City for damages for any injury sustained because of Lessee's use of the premises. 10. RULES, REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES. The Lessee agrees to comply strictly with all applicable laws and any uniform Com- munity Center rules and regulations adopted by the City Council. 11. TAXES AND CHARGES. Lessee agrees to pay when due any and all taxes, assessments or charges levied by any governmental agency.on or to the lease -hold premises. ...JCR • 12. DEFAULT. Should Lessee fail to pay any monies due pur- suant to this lease within three days after -written notice from the City or to perform any other obligation required pursuant to the terms of this lease within thirty days after notice from the City, City may immediately cause this lease to be terminated and thereafter take any action and pursue all remedies available under the laws then existent in the State of California. 13. NOTICE. Any notice required to be made or given pur- suant to the provisions of this lease may be either personal- ly served upon the party or deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, LESSOR: CITY OF HFRMOSA BEACH CITY HALL 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 LESSEE: SOUTH BAY UNION H.S. DISTRICT 200 NORTH PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY REDONDO BEACH, CA 90277 Any notices so given pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph will be deemed served twenty-four hours after the deposit thereof in the United States mail. 14. ATTORNEYS FEES. The parties agree that in the event any action is instituted concerning any of the provisions of this lease agreement, the prevailing party may in the discretion of the court be granted as an additional item of damages its attorneys fees. 15. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING. Lessee may not assign or sublease all or any portion of the premises without the writ- ten consent of the City, which consent may be granted or de- nied at the exclusive and total discretion of the City. 16. SUCCESSORS. Subject to prior provisions, this lease is binding upon the heirs, assigns and successors of interest of the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Hermosa Beach Community Center Lease Agreement at Hermosa Beach on the day first hereinabove set forth. CITY�O M ni BEACH, a ration, Lessor APPROVED AS TO DAT TY ATTORNEY LESSEE: ADDENDUM A 1st Year: Aug. 1,. 1985 - June 30, 1986: $ 878 per mo. 2nd Year: Sept. 1, 1986 - June 30, 1987: $ 922 per mo. 3rd Year: Sept. 1, 1987 - June 30, 1988: $ 965 per mo. 14th Year: Sept. 1, 1988 - June 30, 1989: $1,008 per mo. 5th Year: Sept. 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990: $1 051per mo. - Total square footage: 1,440. l July 21,-1987 ohs Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council July 28, 1987 SUBJECT: RECOMMENDED CONSULTANT AND CONTRACT FOR CIRCULATION, TRANSPORTATION, AND PARKING ELEMENT Recommendation 1. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the consultant, DKS and Associates, for the preparation of the Circulation, Transportation, and Parking Element. 2. Approve the attached contract so that preparation of the Circulation, Transportation, and Parking Element may commence, and authorize the Mayor to sign on behalf of the City. Background The City Council requested the preparation of a Circulation, Transportation, and Parking Element at their July 8, 1986 meeting. Analysis The Staff has sent Request For Proposal (RFP) to twenty consulting firms. Four firms responded to the RFP; oral interviews were conducted, and references were checked. The following consultants responded: CONSULTANT COMPLETION TIME COST ASL 10 months $ 99,900 *Crain & Assoc. 6 months $ 49,373 Ekistic 8 months $ 79,666 DKS 10 months $ 70,000 *Proposal had shortcomings. Based on each consultant's proposal, oral interview, references, and cost, the Staff determined that DKS and Associates would be the correct choice. For a total of $70,000, DKS has proposed to provide .a comprehensive Circulation, Transportation, and Parking Element for the City, and the necessary Environmental Impact Report. 1 iaa Copies of the proposal are on file with the Planning Department. CONCUR: Gre ory'T.Meyer Cit Manager NOTED FOR FISCAL IMPACT: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator 2 Re pectfully mi ed Mic ae Schuuach P ing Directo 1/1(1‘.( /01` I/1 Anthony Antich Public Works0Director CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH -_ AGREEMENT FOR FOCUSED EIR CONSULTING SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 1987, by and between the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, a municipal corporation, herinafter referred to as "CITY", and DKS ASSOCIATES, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT". I RECITALS The CITY is desirous of obtaining the services of the CONSULTANT to revise the City's Circulation, Transportation, and Parking General Plan Element, and to prepare the necessary Environmental Impact Report for said General Plan Element. II SCOPE OF SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide the services set forth in his proposal to the CITY dated February 27, 1987 and the attached "Exhibit A", dated July 21, 1987, and by this reference made a part hereof. Other services to be rendered under this Agreement shall be in accordance with the instructions of the CITY'S Director of Planning and with the concurrence of the CONSULTANT. 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 February 27, 1987, but at all times the CITY shall be notified in writing of such associates and shall approve of their involvement in the provision of contract services. 1 IV COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to pay the CONSULTANT a total amount not -to -exceed $70,000. Included within the compensation provided for by this Agreement are all of the CONSULTANT'S ordinary office and overhead expenses incurred by him, his agents and employees, including meeting with CITY representatives, and costs to accumulate all needed data. V METHOD OF PAYMENT The CONSULTANT shall submit invoices to the CITY for services rendered for the month. A1.1 invoices are payable wi .in thijty (30) days of receipt by the CITY.,� AD VI INTERESTS OF CONSULTANT The CONSULTANT affirms that it presently has no interest and shall not have any interest, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the services contemplated by this Agreement. No person having any such interest shall be employed by or associated with the CONSULTANT. VII COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL LAWS The CONSULTANT shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, and codes of Federal, State and local governments. VIII LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES A. CONSULTANT shall keep fully informed of State and federal'' laws and Municipal ordinances and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement. The CONSULTANT shall at all times observe and 2 comply with all such laws, ordinances, and regulations. The CONULTANT shall be responsible for the preparation of alr Drafts and Final documents that comprise the Circulation, Transportation, and Parking General Plan Element, and the Screencheck EIR, Draft EIR, the Final Draft EIR, the Final EIR, notices, Statement of Findings and Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, Resolutions, and for attendance at the public hearings. B. CONSULTANT agrees that in the performance of the terms of this Agreement, no discrimination shall be made in the employment of persons because of sex, race, color, national origin, ancestry, or religion of such persons. A violation of this provision will subject the CONSULTANT to all of the penalties imposed by law. IX OWNERSHIP OF REPORTS, INFORMATION, DATA, EXHIBITS, ETC. All of the reports, information, data, and exhibits prepared or assembled by the CONSULTANT in connection with the performance of its services pursuant to the Agreement are confidential and the CONSULTANT agrees that they shall not be made available to any individual or organization without the prior consent of the City. All such reports, information, data, and exhibits shall be the property of the CITY and shall be delivered to the CITY upon demand, or at the completion of the project, without additional cost or expense to the CITY. X TERM The CONSULTANT shall submit all required materials as indicated in the Project Schedule or revision to said schedule approved by the CITY. The executory provisions of this Agreement may be terminated by either party on ten (10) days written notice to the other without further action by either party. In the event of such termination by either party of this Agreement, the CITY shall pay the CONSULTANT for work completed to date of such termination. Any extension of time or request for additional compensation shall be submitted in writing to the CIU prior to the scheduling of any additional work not covered in the original contract. The CITY will evaluate said request and advise the CONSULTANT of its 3 decision regarding any such request. Costs. incurred by the ._ CONSULTANT for additional work not approved by the CITY shall be the sole responsibility of the CONSULTANT. XI NOTICES Any notice required to be given hereunder shall be in writing with copies as directed herein and shall be personally served or given by mail. Any notice given by mail shall be deemed to have been given when deposited in the United States mail, certified and postage prepaid, addressed to the party to be serviced as follows: To CITY: To CONSULTANT: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Attention: XII Mr. Michael Schubach Director of Planning ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT The CONSULTANT shall not assign or otherwise transfer his rights and obligations under this Agreement without prior written consent of the CITY. Any such assignment without such consent shall be void and shall, at the option of the CITY, terminate this Agreement. CITY may employ additional Consultants as it deems necessary to work with the CONSULTANT at any time during the term of this contract. 4 M.� XIII EXTENT OF AGREEMENT This Agreement represents the entire integrated Agreement between the CITY and the CONSULTANT, and supercedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, whether written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument signed by both the CITY and the CONSULTANT. APPROVED AS TO FORM: James P. Lough, City Attorney ATTEST: Kathleen Midstokke, City Clerk 5 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH A Municipal Corporation By John Cioffi, Mayor CONSULTANT By DKS Associates EXHIBIT A DKS Associates 411 West Fifth Street Suite 500 Los Angeles, C4 90013 (213) 627.0419 July 21, 1987 Michael Schubach Director of Planning City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach. CA 90254 • • RE: DKS Proposal for City of Hermosa Beach Circulation Element A87x0057 Dear Mr. Schubach: The purpose of this letter i s to summarize the results of our proposal negotiations. This letter supersedes all correspondence between DKS and the City on this subject. The base price proposed by DKS Associates is $50.500. This base price includes the Circulation Element, city-wide and on -street parking. TDM/transit, EIR and meetings. DKS also proposes to perform further special studies for the fees noted below. SPECIAL STUDY FEES Residential Intrusion $1,500 Hermosa Avenue Parking $1,000 Merchant Shuttle $2,000 Beach Drop-off Locations $1.000 Ten Intersection Counts & Speed Data $10,000 Signal Warrant Analyses $1,000 PCH Corridor Study $1.500 Ardmore Accident Study $500 Directional Signage $1.000 Subtotal $19.500 The total fee with all special studies is $70,000. DKS recognizes the importance of this study. We are prepared to begin this work immediately. If you have any questions on this matter, please feel free to call me at (213) 627-0419. Sincerely, DK ASSOCIATES ichae P. Meyer, "nci p Director of Los £ngeles Operations 5208.a057ms.ltr Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 28, 1987 Regular Meeting of July 28, 1987 Addendum to Agenda No. 1 (aa) Staff Analysis of "Low Bidder" & Recommended Consultant for Preparation of Circulation, Transportation and Parking Element Low Bidder Crain & Associates submitted the lowest bid. Their proposal was essentially "boilerplate" and therefore, non-responsive to the City's RFP. If the basic Circulation Element and E.I.R. were what was desired, then this proposal would have been acceptable. None of the special concerns of the Planning Commission or City Council were identified in the Proposal. Also, such items as attendance at meetings, magnetic tape of element, number of copies provided, index of element, and analysis of parking structure at the Community Center, were not discussed and/or noted in the "cost breakdown". During the interview, the consultants were somewhat evasive when asked if it were their intentions to include everything that was noted in the City's RFP. It was also discovered that rewrites to the E.I.R. were not included. Staff also found fault with the proposed timetable in relation to review period and public hearing requirements. It would be impossible to allow for public review and have public hearings within the short .timespans noted. For example, one week was given between submittal of the E.I.R. and the public hearing; 3 weeks were g jven for "Comment and Revision" prior to the public hearing on the Draft Plan. Also, it was the consultants' intent to prepare the E.I.R. simultaneously with completion of the Element. How can an E.I.R. be prepared on a project not yet formulated? Recommended Consultant DKS was chosen by Staff to prepare the Element and E.I.R. In short, DKS's proposal was comprehensive and the cost was the lowest, excluding Crain & Associates. The proposal was not "boilerplate" and related adequately to the City's RFP. The schedule for completing the document seemed accurate and it was noted that the E.I.R. would be prepared after the Draft Element was prepared. DKS has prepared Elements for Santa Monica, Santa Barbara, Davis and Napa. DKS has also recently prepared a Signal Optimization 1 SUPPLEMENTAL la a - INFORMATION� I „!� study for Manhattan Beach, El Segundo, Redondo Beach, Hawthorne and Lawndale. DKS has a staff of 80 and offices in Oakland, San Jose and Los Angeles. CONCUR: Gre Ci ory T. Myer Manager •r- 2 Respectfully = bmitted, Ant ony Antic Public Wor' lirector Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 16, 1987 �� City Council Meeting of \Q-) J13 July 28, 1987 k.VCITY SITES AND SCENES RTD PROGRAM FOR BUS SIGN RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that this matter be referred to Staff to pursue with the Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Merchants Associa- tion for possible utilization. BACKGROUND Attached is a description of the RTD program for bus signs that "tout" a particular City. ANALYSIS As part of a "Shop In Hermosa Beach" campaign, utilization of bus signs might be of benefit. As we understand it the focus of these signs must, if Proposition A funds are used to pay the costs, be primarily used to promote public transit or must other- wise "exhibit direct benefit to public transit users". Also attached is a copy of the District Agreement for obtaining such services. There are adequate funds in our Proposition A Fund to allow for a 3 mont ,.e0 trial. It is suggested that this effort, pro- motin;. HERMAN a•'d WAVE should not be done until after consulta- tion wi e Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Merchants. With concurrence of the City Council, Planning Staff will meet with the merchants and then return with a final report and recommendation. In addition to the staff recommendation, other options available to the City Council are: 1. Receive and file, thereby not proceed at all; 2. Authorizing a 3 month, $ 1,600 trial run without any further consultation. Gr gory T. Ci'y Manag-r GTM/ld er cc: Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce Hermosa Beach Merchants Association Planning Director Schubach NOTED FOR FISCAL IMPACT: Viki L. Copeland Finance Administrator CC -01I \\1J2 -W -C6/1 -/t/ 7v? --C) 7.fe ( Li 0')- //11)61Y 51 tt/ use' FACT SHEET: RTD CITIES SITES AND SCENES The purpose of the Program is to provide a forum through which your City can display its landmarks and local transportation system with pride for the rest of Los Angeles to know what makes it special. The rates for your participation in this promotion are as follows: o There is a set $1,600 charge which includes art and printing costs for the Program on a minimum of 200 buses. This charge allows you to display your message for a full three months without incurring any additional costs. Beyond the three-month period, the cards may remain aboard the buses for no additional fee if space remains available. _ o Advertising on 300 or more buses for a similar three-month period will result in a further reduction of rates per card. If you commit to 300 buses, the total cost would be $2,100 or $7 per card. That is a full $400 savings over the $8 per card rate that is charged for the Program on 200 buses. o The same conditions for retaining cards aboard buses after the expiration of the three-month period for 300 or more cards applies as in the purchase of 200 cards. These rates and conditions make the Cities Sites and Scenes Program very attractive for your participation. We suggest that a six-week preparation time be allowed from initial decision to join the Program through the production and placement of the cards aboard RTD buses. EDR:19:42 December 16, 1986 Ms. Alice Wiggins Manager of Promotions Southern California Rapid Transit District 425 S. Main street Los Angeles CA 90013 Los Angeles County Transportation Commission 403 Wtst Svec Suite 507 Los Anoeles California 90014-30% (213) 626-0370 Attn: DAVID WILSON, PLANNER Dear Ms. Wiggins: Thank you for meeting with the Local Assistance staff last Wednesday to introduce the SCRTD Cities Sites and Scenes program. The use of carcards aboard RTD buses to promote participating city landmarks and activity centers and encourage city visitation provides great expo- sure to your system's thousands of transit consumers. From our dis- cussion we briefly spoke of possible use of Proposition A monies by cities to participate in this program. If a city intends to use Proposition A funds for this program, the format of the carcard must be within the eligible category as dic- tated by the Local Return Program Guidelines. That is, the carcard must primarily be used -to promote public transit or must exhibit di- rect benefit to public transit users. For this reason, carcards pre- dominantly illustrating local political figures, activity centers, or special events are not promoting public transit or providing specific user benefit; Although these types of cards may promote a city's at- tractions, they do not promote mode or route of access to the city (i.e., how does one get to the City of Lakewood via public transit to see its Centennial parade?). Realizing that the RTD's Cities Sites and Scenes program is geared towards promoting city attractions, why not combine several ideas? Some examples of carcards promoting city landmarks and eligible to be funded by Proposition A monies might include: 3 A map representing sites of interests (highlighted by star or other symbol), along with regional bus routes, local' transit routes and possibly park -n -ride lots; Ms. Wiggins December 16, 1986 Page 2 • o A map indicating access to park -n -ride lots and buses serving the lot; and o Existing routes of local and regional transit services plus phone numbers of city paratransit providers. We wish you continued sucess in your promotion of the SCRTD Cities Sites and Scenes program. If I can be of any further assistance please do nit hesitate to contact me at (213) 626-0370. Sincerely, PAMELA MOCK Analyst, Local Assistance Programs PM:iml PM/I AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF , AND THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT • This agreement is between the Southern California Rapid Transit District and the City of WHEREAS, the City of desires to engage in a promotional program with the Southern California Rapid Transit District buses titled the Cities Sites and Scenes Program, the respective parties to this agreement will do the following: City of shall: 1. Pay the RTD a flat fee of for the placement of interior oar cards on buses. The fee for participating in the Program shall include all costs for printing, artwork and placement of the cards in the contracted number of District buses. 2. Participate in the Program from to 3. Remit placement fee upon receipt of invoice from District prior to. placement of cards on buses. 4. Approve all copy and artwork for the cards. The District shall: - 1. Approve all copy and artwork for the cards. 2. Provide the appropriate number of buses required at time of delivery of the car cards. 3. Notify the appropriate media of the city's participation in the Program. 4. Arrange to print all car cards and have them installed in the appropriate buses serving the city. 5. Permit the car cards to remain on District buses after the contracted period until space is needed. City Representative Maynard Z. Walters City Representative RTD Counsel III/10:3 Hermosa Beach City Schools P.O. Box Number 338 Hermosa Beach, California 90254 MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BOARD Joe Mark Lynne Gonzales • Peggy O'Brien Carol G. Reznichek Mary Lou Weiss SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS Marilyn Corey (213) 376-8961 • June 29, 1987 Mr. Gregory Meyer City Manager City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mr. Meyer, The flashing signal located in the 1800 block of Prospect successfully assisted many students safely cross Prospect Avenue on their way to and from Hermosa View School. Now that Hermosa View School no longer houses young students, could that flashing signal be re -located to Valley Drive in front of Hermosa Valley School. Thanks for considering this request. Sincerely, Marilyn Corey District Superintendent July 15, 1987 CITY CLERK CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Pier and Valley Avenues Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Madam: Howard L. Cohen 48 14th Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 I V) VE I am interested in reaching a long-term and reasonable accommodation or understanding regarding access to my property through the City -owned and operated Parking Lot "C". When I purchased the property in 1982, access to my private property parking was without problem, barrier, or question, for myself and my guests. Since then, on multiple occasions, but especially in the last two years, numerous changes in the City's operating procedures have caused a continuing deterioration of free access. These changes and their attendant problems have -been accelerated and magnified by the high operating personnel turnover. At this juncture, there appears to be an on -again and off -again policy to obtain a red sticker on the parking ticket and/or a card -key program which will permit access. Neither of these systems are consistent, working, or viable. My guests have been rudely stopped and interrogated at the gate upon entering and leaving (after parking on my property), I have been rudely questioned and delayed at the gate barriers, my guests have paid parking charges to avoid embarrassment, I have been denied card -keys (the acting manager is presently holding one of the cards, which I voluntarily gave him when solicitating re -activation of the card and additional cards) and I have been forced to leave employment early on several occasions in order to try and determine who the manager is, where he is, and what the latest operating procedure is. I am certain that we can come to a reasonable and permanent agreement regarding access to my property if you will take the time to_review and evaluate the situation and meet with me. The re -opening of 14th Court is not the only answer to this situation and I would rather find a cooperative position and agreement than initiate this sort of litigation. Please feel free to contact me daily (working hours) at (213) 978-7411 or at my home evenings at (213) 379-0788. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely yours, Howard L. Cohen 4h Esc Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council July 20, 1987 City Council Meeting July 28, 1987 INTERPRETATION OF CODE APPLICATION TO PROJECT AT 2524-2526 HERMOSA AVENUE RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council concur in their interpretation that the subject project conforms to the requirements of thzoning code and adopt the attached resolution ( Exhibit A ). Staff: Staff recommends that the City Council not concur with the Planning Commission interpretation, determine t�iat the subject project constitutes two new dwelling units and adopt the attached resolution ( Exhibit B ). BACKGROUND This project was referred to the Planning Commission for inter- pretation at their meeting of June 2, 1987. The commission voted to approve the project as submitted. Pursuant to Section 1101 of the zoning code, interpretations of the code are heard by the Planning Commission and forwarded to the City Council for final approval. -. ANALYSIS The applicants presently own a duplex structure that consists of two units of 507 sq. ft. each over a four car garage. The garage has substandard openings of 15 ft. in lieu of the required 16 ft. openings. The proposal is to significantly demolish the existing units, convert the remaining area to a portion of a 4270 sq. ft. single unit and add a new attached unit towards the front of the lot. The proposal would maintain the existing nonconforming garage setbacks of 2.9 ft. sideyards in lieu of the 4.5 ft. sideyard required and a 3.2 ft. rear yard in lieu of the 17 ft. (min.) setback required for garages facing streets or alleys. All new portions of the structure would conform to current zoning setback criteria. Staff feels that the project should conform to current zoning standards for new buildings for the following reasons: 1) The proposal, in essence, converts -a duplex to a single unit and adds a new unit. Although the net result is still two dwelling units, the new unit was in no way part of the existing structure. Section 1162(a) states " For every residential dwelling hereafter erected, parking spaces shall 1 be provided, permanently maintained and permanently available as set forth in section 1151, including requirements for turning radii, as provided by this article, and the parking standards contained herein." Section 1162(c) contains similar wording relative to adding units to lots where there are existing residential structures. Unit "A" is a new dwelling which was not part of the original structure. Staff believes that the correct interpretation of sections 1162(a) and 1162(c) would require this project to provide two parking spaces per unit plus one guest space (five spaces). In addition, conformance with the parking standards would require a minimum 17 ft. setback for the garages. 2) The existing units are being demolished to a point where very little is left other than the nonconforming garages. The demolition plan indicates that 63% of the exterior walls at the second floor level will be entirely removed and the remaining walls at that level will have the interior plaster completely removed. All interior partitions, cabinets, fixtures, ceiling and roof structure will be completely removed. Approximately 10% of the floor area at the second floor level will also be removed to provide for a deck area. At the garage level, 18% of the exterior walls will be removed including a portion of the foundation. Although not indicated on the demolition plan, it is likely that additional components at the garage level will be replaced to accomodate structural revisions necessary in order to construct an additional story. The net result of the demolition will leave a portion of the garage standing and two partially complete second story walls ( see demolition plan on sheet 9 of submitted plans). The amount remaining is insignificant given that the proposal would result in a duplex of over 6000 sq. ft. in area including garage. Section 1309 provides for alteration and expansion of existing structures which are nonconforming as to yards, lot coverage, open space, etc. The issue which is not addressed by section 1309 is to what extent may a nonconforming building be partially demolished and reconstructed. While it is admittedly subjective, staff does not believe the intent of the code was to allow the extent of demolition and reconstruction as proposed by this project. The Planning Commission voted (3 to 1) to approve the project as submitted as being in conformance with their interpretation of the zoning code. A review of the Planning Commission minutes regarding this matter as well as the resolution reveal that they approved the project largely because they felt that the applicant had expended considerable amounts of time and money on the proj- ect without being advised that there were problems with the pro- posal. They also felt that the code was unclear and did not specifically prohibit the project as proposed. 2 It is true that the applicant has expended considerable time and probably money as well pursuing this project. Discussions did take place with Building Department staff prior to the project submittal on April 15, 1987 but unfortunately did not focus on the issues previously outlined. In any case a delay experienced by the applicant in processing a project is not an appropriate justification for a code interpretation. The question before the Planning Commission and now before the City Council is whether this project conforms to the requirements of the zoning code or not. It is staffs opinion that the project is, in essence, two new dwelling units with an existing nonconforming garage. The project should be revised to conform to the requirements for new build- ings or a variance sought. Concur: William Grove Director, Bldg. & Safety ory T Ci Manaer yer, 3 y ichae `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 EX11/817- "All RESOLUTION NO. 87- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CONCURRING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION INTERPRETATION THAT THE PROJECT AT 2524/2526 HERMOSA AVENUE IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING CODE. WHEREAS, on June 2, 1987 the Planning Commission reviewed plans for a two unit project at 2524/2526 Hermosa Avenue and received written and oral testimony regarding said project; and WHEREAS the Planning Commission determined that the two dwelling units existing on the property could be partially demolished and rebuilt without complying with all aspects of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS the Planning Commission determined that the existin duplex could be converted to a single dwelling and a new unit added to the lot with the net result being two units on the property without the project conforming to the parking standards for new units; and WHEREAS the zoning code does not clearly address the issues raised by this project nor is the project specifically prohibited; and WHEREAS there has been a lack of clarification of section 1309 of the zoning code; and WHEREAS approval of this project is based on the unique timing of the project and that aprecedent could not be set because a moratorium is in effect; and (L - 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHEREAS the City council reviewed this matter at a meeting held on July 28, 1987 and concurred with the Planning Commission interpretation. NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1) That Sections 1162(a) and (c) are not interpreted to apply t this project because there are two existing dwelling units and the net result of the project would be two dwelling units. 2) That Section 1309 allows a garage with nonconforming setback to be maintained even though the existing dwellings served are partially demolished and reconstructed. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of July, 198 President of the City Council and Mayor of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney 5) -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 .5A/Nis/i "8 RESOLUTION NO. 87- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA INTERPRETING THAT THE PROJECT AT 2524/2526 HERMOSA AVENUE IS NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AND DETERMINING THAT THE PROJECT CONSTITUTES TWO NEW DWELLING UNITS AND THEREFOR MUST COMPLY WITH THE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR NEW BUILDINGS. WHEREAS, on June 2, 1987 the Planning Commission reviewed plans for a two unit project at 2524/2526 Hermosa Avenue and received written and oral testimony regarding said project; and WHEREAS the Planning Commission determined that the two dwelling units existing on the property could be partially demolished and rebuilt without complying with all aspects of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS the Planning Commission determined that the existing duplex could be converted to a single dwelling and a new unit added to the lot with the net result being two units on the property without the project conforming to the parking standards for new units; and WHEREAS section 1101 of the zoning code requires interpretations to be forwarded to the City Council for final action; and WHEREAS the City Council reviewed this matter at a meeting held on July 28, 1987 and did not concur with the Planning Commission interpretation; and WHEREAS the City Council determined that the existing structure is being demolished to a point where the reconstruction constitutes two new dwelling units; and - 1 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHEREAS the City Council determined that Unit "A" is a new dwelling unit in any case because it is not part of the original structure. NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1) The extent of demolition proposed for the existing buildings renders the reconstruction to actually be two new dwelling units. 2) That Sections 1162(a) and (c) apply to this project because the project constitutes two new dwelling units. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of July, 1987 President of the City Council and Mayor of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: 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- 37 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY O HERMOSA BEACH INTERPRETING THE PROJECT AT 2524/2526 HERMOSA AVENUE TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING CODE. WHEREAS, on June 2, 1987 the Planning Commission reviewed plans for a two unit project at 2524/2526 Hermosa Avenue and received written and oral testimony regarding said project; and WHEREAS the Planning Commission determined that the two dwelling units existing on the property could be partially demolished and rebuilt without complying with all aspects of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS the Planning Commission determined that the existing duplex could be converted to a single dwelling and a new unit added to the lot with the net result being two units on the property without the project conforming to the parking standards for new units; and WHEREAS the zoning code does not clearly address the issues raised by this project nor is the project specifically prohibited; and WHEREAS there has been a lack of clarification of section 1309 of the zoning code; and WHEREAS approval of this project is based on the unique timing of the project and that a precedent could not be set because a moratorium is in effect. NOW THEREFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 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) That Sections 1162(a) and (c) are not interpreted to apply to this project because there are two existing dwelling units and the net result of the project would be two dwelling units. 2) That Section 1309 allows a garage with nonconformiArg setbacks to be maintained even though the existing dwellings served are partially demolished and reconstructed. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comms. Compton, Rue, Chmn. Sheldon Comm. Pierce Comm. Schulte None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 87- is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meeting of June 2, 1987. �/0,' Ch— 'Sheldon, Chairman is ae Schubach, Secretary Date 5!) r, PLANNING COMMISSIN MINUTES - JUNE 2, 1987 PAGE 24 INTERPRETATION OF CODE APPLICATION TO A PROJECT LOCATED AT 2524-2526 HERMOSA AVENUE Mr. Grove gave staff report dated May 28, 1987. The applicants presently own a duplex structure that consists of two 507 square foot units over a four -car garage. The garage has substandard openings of 15 feet in lieu of the required 16 feet. The proposal is to significantly demolish the existing units, covert that area to a portion of a 4270 square foot single unit, and add a new attached unit towards the front of the lot. The proposal would maintain the existing nonconforming sideyards and garage setbacks. All new portions would conform to the current zoning criteria. PLANNING COMMISS1 JN MINUTES - JUNE 2, 1987 PAGE 25 Staff feels that the project should conform to current standards for several reason. One, the proposal, in essence, converts a duplex to a single unit and adds a new unit. .Although the net result is two units, the new unit was in no way a part of the existing structure. All new units should comply with current zoning regulations including having conforming setbacks for its garage. Two, the existing units are being demolished to a point where very little is left other than the nonconforming garages. The demolition plan indicates that 63 percent of the exterior walls at the second -floor level will be completely removed and the remainder will have the interior plaster completely removed. All interior partitions, cabinets, fixtures, ceiling, and roof structure will be completely removed. Approximately ten percent of the floor area at the second level will also- be removed to provide for a deck area. At the garage level, 18 percent of the exterior -walls will be removed including a portion of the foundation. Although not indicated on the demolition plan, it is likely that additional components at the garage level will be replaced to accommodate structural revisions necessary for adding an additional story. The net result of the demolition will leave a portion of the garage standing and two partially complete second story walls. The amount remaining is insignificant given that the proposal would result in a duplex of over 6000 square feet in area including garage area. In _summary, it was staffs' opinion that the structure should conform to current zoning standards because the project is really two new dwelling units maintaining nonconforming garages. It was recommended that the Planning Commission determine that the project must conform to the current zoning standards. Comm. Peirce asked what other substandard violations would exist other than the garage openings. _ Mr. Grove stated that both nonconforming sideyards would remain. He noted that the reason this proposal is being presented in this configuration is due to the 17 -foot setback requirement. Comm. Rue asked whether any mitigating measures are being provided by this project. Mr. Grove replied that nothing in excess of the code requirements is being provided. Comm. Compton asked for background information in regard to the City Council action on demolitions and moratoriums. Mr. Grove gave clarification on that issue and stated that this project would be considered 50 percent demolition as opposed to 50 percent addition. Comm. Compton stated that he has discussed this project with the applicant. Mr. Schubach stated that the Planning Commission is the interpreting body for this particular code section. He noted that the issue is to determine the intent and purpose of the code. Ron Vollmer, 934 Duncan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, addressed the Commission and gave background information for this project. He stated that during all planning stages and until just recently, he was under the impression that what he was doing was acceptable, noting that he had discussed the issue with the Building Department. He also noted that the project had been modified several times. PLANNING COMMISSSON MINUTES - JUNE 2, 1987 PAGE 26 - Mr. Vollmer continued by giving historical background on : the property in question. He again noted that he was under the impression given by the Building Department that this proposal was acceptable. He stated that initially he was unaware of the 17 -foot setback requirement., .He noted that at first he was unaware of the .concept of variances... He stated that much time and money has been expended on this project. Mr. Vollmer stressed that it was his understanding that this proposal was acceptable. He stated that many fees have been paid thus far for architectural drawings and interior design surveys. He stated that construction funds are currently in the bank. He said that the plans were submitted prior to the City Council actions; therefore, this project has been grandfathered in. He stated that this is a 30 -year-old building which he does not want to totally demolish. He continued by discussing the project, stating that it will be necessary to pay even more fees before this is finished. - Mr. Vollmer- presented pictures of the surrounding neighborhood to the Planning Commission.. :. _ _ Comm. Compton felt that this project falls under Section 1302, in that this is an existing structure and this addition would not affect the existing nonconformity. Chmn. Sheldon asked whether this applicant would be before the Commission if it were not for the 17 -foot setback requirement. Comm. Peirce replied in the affirmative. He stated that the question is how much this applicant can demolish and still call it an addition. Chmn. Sheldon and the Commission discussed the action taken by the Commission previously in regard to projects of this type. During previous. -.discussions on this matter, the Commission had decided that projects like this would be studied on a case-by-case basis, and the Building Director was instructed to bring questionable cases to the attention of the Commission. Comm. Peirce stressed that the issue is how much is being demolished. Mr. Vollmer stated that he was not mislead by the Building Department, he was merely naive in matters such as this. He also stated that he has letters from neighbors who do not oppose the project. George Spratt, 938 Duncan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, designer of the plans, addressed the Commission. He stated that he was led to believe by the Building Department that the project was within the code and they could proceed with the project. He stated that the problems began when discussion arose regarding the pending moratorium in the City. Mr. Spratt stated that the existing structure is in fairly good condition and there is no reason to completely demolish it. He continued by discussing the proposed plan, particularly in regard to parking. He described the configuration of the existing structure. He discussed the demolition plans, and stated that he would like to maintain two units. He stated that no on -street parking would be removed. He stressed that no variances are being requested for this project. Comm. Compton noted that there will be one owners' unit and one rental unit as opposed to two rental units. He felt that this is a mitigating measure for the project. He felt that this would be a plus for the City. • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 2, 1987 PAGE 27 Mr. Spratt concluded by stressing that during the initial consultations with the Building Department, he was led to believe that this project conformed to the existing code as far as remodels are concerned. Chmn. Sheldon and the Commissioners discussed the nonconforming sideyards. Mr. Spratt. stated that this project was well underway: beforethese problems surfaced. He noted that time is passing, and they would like to proceed. - Chmn. -Sheldon and Mr. Grove discussed past actions takenin regard to this issue. 'He asked why this issue is now coming before the Commission. Mr. Grove stated that the discussions had mostly occurred between the applicant and the - senior building inspector. In this case, besides the issue of demolition, there is a question regarding the fact that one of the new units is in no way connected to the existing building. He noted concern for future projects in this respect. He stating that adding to something is very different from adding something completely separate. Chmn. Sheldon noted that the applicant has already begun the project and has expended a great amount of money. He noted concern that the issue is only now coming before the Commission. He noted that the only thing in favor of the applicant is timing. Mr. Grove stated that the plans were submitted April 15. He stated that normally within a week or ten days, a pre -zone check is done by the Building Department. If problems are.encountered, revisions can be made to the plans. Comm. Peirce asked when a full and complete package was received by the Building Department. , . Mr. Grove stated that additional demolition plans required by the Building Department were -received the previous Friday. The applicant's original floor plans had indicated the existing walls which were to remain. The Building Director requested more complete demolition plans depicting the proposal more clearly. Chmn. Sheldon noted that the applicant .began discussing this project in September of 1986. He questioned whether the Building Department has given guidance on this project. - . . Mr.. Grove stated that. lot coverage .issues .were discussed. .He was not not. certain whether other aspects were discussed. - - _ Comm. Peirce felt that there have been no unusual delays on the part of the Building Department or the City in regard to this project. Comm. Compton discussed this project and continued by explaining the timing in such projects. He stressed the importance of having interpretations clearly stated so that applicants understand exactly what is required for projects. He also felt that applicants should be advised of requirements regarding Section 1302. He felt that a better interpretation is necessary. Comm. Peirce stressed that the plans were not received until the previous week. Comm. Compton stated that it is the responsibility of the architect to follow the letter of the law, but he noted that Hermosa's codes are not totally clear. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 2, 1987 PAGE 28 Comm. Compton •asked whether Section 1302 specifically addressed this project. Mr. Grove replied that the Section does not specifically address this project, noting that it does not address all possible unusual situations. Mr. Vollmer stated that he had discussed this project many times with personnel in the Building .Department, noting that the plans had been discussed several times even in the initial conversations. He stated that he received no indications that this project could not be done. -Comm. Compton discussed the demolition plans, stating that the plans are prudent and reasonable. Mr. Grove stated that the applicant believes he is in compliance with the letter of the , law. The contention of the Building Department is that the law is not clear. He stated :that there are two options available to the Commission: one, find that this project does indeed conform to the letter of the law and may go forward; or, two, find that the project does not conform, and the project must comply with the current zoning standards. The applicant then would have the choice of either revising the plans or returning with a variance request. - Comm. Peirce felt that the intent of allowing demolitions of a portion of a structure is to allow strictly additions. -He felt that this situation has been oversimplified, noting that the•buildout will be approximately 4,000 square feet. He felt that this in no way can -be- construed as an upgrade, stating that it a new project. He felt that this has been an attempt to contravene the law. i f :Comm. Compton felt that the code does not clearly address-this.specific project, noting that this particular situation is not specifically prohibited. MOTION by Comm. Compton, seconded by Comm. Rue, to allow the project to commence in itspresent condition. Comm. Rue noted that this is an R-3 lot and the proposed addition conforms to the R-3 zone. He stated that the walls were knocked out from necessity. He stated that if law is unclear, then it should be clarified. He felt it would be unfair to penalize this applicant if the law is unclear. :AYES: ::.Comms. Compton, Rue NOES:- - -Comm. Peirce, Chmn. Sheldon ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm. Schulte (MOTION FAILS) Comm. Rue suggested that Section 1302 be clarified. Chmn. Sheldon questioned why the applicant does not build a new duplex, which would be in conformity. He felt that what is being saved from the old duplex is relatively insignificant. He felt that the cost differences would not be that substantial. Susan Vollmer, 934 Duncan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, addressed the Commission. She stated that they have a large family. This home has been in the family for a long time. She felt that this project would be a tremendous improvement in the area. She noted .41 ;i.�iid'�'•s..a...�,......,..� PLANNING COMMIS( .N MINUTES - JUNE 2, 1987 PAGE 29 that the rear of the lot is sand, and it would be difficult to add on in that location. She stated that if two new duplexes were built, five parking spaces would be necessary as opposed to the current four. Further, it would be- necessary to have the 17 -foot setback. She noted that the excavation and shoring required for new duplexes would be quite expensive. Chmn. Sheldon noted concern for setting a precedent if this project is approved as is. Comm. Compton stated that a precedent could not be set, noting that there is a moratorium currently in effect. Mr. Lough explained the legal aspects of this case as it regards the moratorium. He suggested that the applicant could be granted a variance. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Compton, to approve this project as is, based on fact of the unique timing of this project, and on the fact that there has been a lack of clarification on Section 1302. Chmn. Sheldon felt that this is a unique situation, based on the timing and the lack of communication between the City and the applicant. AYES: Comms. Compton, Rue, Chmn. Sheldon NOES: Comm. Peirce ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm. Schulte Comm. Peirce did not feel that the timing was unusual. He also stated that any lack of communication was not deliberate or done intentionally. He ---did : notagree with the basis of the motion. MOTION by Comm. Rue to continue the remaining agenda items. No objections; so ordered. May 25, 1987 City of Hermosa Beach Planning Department Hermosa Beach, Calif. 90254 Gentlemen: We would like to express our approval of the proposed home to be built by Ron and Susan Volmer at 2524-2526 Hermosa Avenue. There will be a marked improvement in appearance over the building now existing on that site. Sincerely yours, Ted and Cynthia Bishop 2524 Manhattan kve. Hermosa Beach, Calif. 90254 LAW OFFICES ROBERT E. COURTNEY, INC. 120 FISHERMAN'S WHARF REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90277 (213) 375-0222 (213) 772-9505 May 27, 1987 Planning Commission City of Hermosa Beach Dear Sirs, Concerning the matter of Mr. Ronald Volmer, re: proposed residence at 2526 Hermosa Avenue Hermosa Beach, CA., we live 3 doors north and on the Strand, we have no objections, and are in approval of the new dwelling, since it will be a positive influence in the city, we are all for it. Anything further in this matter, please contact me directly. Thank you, ROBERT E. COURTNEY, INC. rte? /2 Robert E. Courtney �1 REC/bs Sec. 1162. Off-street parking, requirements for new and ex- isting construction. (a) For every residential dwelling hereafter erected, parking spaces shall be provided, permanently maintained and perma- nently available as set forth in section 1151, including require- ments for turning radii, as provided by this article, and the parking standards contained herein. (b) For every residential building hereafter which is structur- ally altered to increase gross floor area, there shall be provided, permanently maintained and permanently available, one (1) park- ing space for each existing unit, including requirements for turn- ing radius as provided by this article and parking standards herein. During the life of a building a single addition of not more than one hundred (100) square feet may be constructed without compliance with this section. (c) Before any additional units may be added to a lot where there now exists a building or buildings used for human habita- tion, there shall be provided, permanently maintained and per- manently available, two (2) parking spaces for each existing unit, including requirements for turning radius and size, as provided by this article and parking standards herein. Exception to (b) and (c) above: Existing garages or parking spaces for existing units eight and one-half (81) feet wide by . eighteen (18) feet deep inside measurement, having access from any alley or street and having a distance of not less than twenty (20) feet from the far side of such alley or street, with a minimum eight (8) feet wide driveway, in the clear, will be considered to meet the parking requirements and turning ra- dius of this ordinance. (d) For every building in a "C" or "M" zone hereafter erected, or reconstructed, or expanded, the parking requirements and turning area for the entire building shall be as set forth in this ordinance. In no case shall new construction reduce the parking serving an existing use below the requirements of this ordinance. (e) When the use of an existing building or structure is changed to a more intense use with a higher parking demand, the re- quired parking as stated in this article for that particular use shall be met prior to occupying of the building unless otherwise specified in this article. (Ord. No. N.S. 284, § 1, 5-18-65; Ord. No. N.S. 464, § 3, 6-19-73; Ord. No. 84-781, § 1, 12-13-84; Ord. No. 85-820, §§ 10, 11, 12-16-85) Sec. 1309. Existing nonconforming structures. Existing structures which are nonconforming as to yards, lot coverage, open space or height may be expanded or enlarged provided the expansion or enlargement complies with the regula- tions of the zone in which the structure is located. Existing non- conforming sideyards may be maintained with an addition pro- vided the sideyard is not more than ten (10) percent smaller than the current sideyard required. (Ord. No. N.S. 234, § 3, 2-6-62; Ord. No. 84-776, § 4; 9-11-84) Supp. No. 9-84 546.1 July 21, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting.of July 28, 1987 Hermosa Beach City Council Status Report on Lot Merger Interim Ordinance Staff Recommendation Staff Recommends that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Direct Staff to set for Public Hearing on August 25, 1987, an interim ordinance extending the moratorium for one year regarding the issuance of demolition permits for the development of lots in which at least one of the contiguous parcels held by the same owner does not conform to standards for minimum lot size. 2. Direct Staff to study and make recommendations regarding the Public Hearing process and policy guidelines for merging and unmerging lots; to be brought back to the City Council Meeting of August 25, 1987. Background 1. The City Council, at their meeting of August 26, 1986 adopted Ordinance 86-851, regarding the merger of substandard lots. 2. On September 9, 1986, the City Council approved Ordinance 86-861, establishing a moratorium on the issuance of demolition permits on lots subject to the lot merger ordinance. 3. On December 16, 1986, the City Council adopted Resolution 86-5004 establishing a procedure for lot mergers. Status The Planning Department has prepared applications and forms required for the lot merger procedures. The procedures for lot mergers have been established and approved. A priority list has been created for the processing of lot mergers, beginning with voluntary lot mergers. A Trust Account has been established with the County of Los Angeles Recorder's Office to pay for recording fees for the lot mergers. Therefore, separate checks will not be required for recordation of each lot merger application. The Planning Department has experienced a delay in the actual processing of lot merger applications. The Planning Department experienced a 257 reduction in staff during the months of January to April due to a vacancy in the Associate Planner position. The 1 6 Associate Planner position has been filled and the Planning Staff is prepared to begin lot merger application processing. One application has been submitted for merger, but was subsequently withdrawn because the applicant is revising his plans. The Planning Department will first begin the process of voluntary lot mergers. Staff has targeted early August to include press articles in our local newpapers regarding lot mergers. 'Attached for your information are applications and various form letters to be used for processing lot mergers. Because of the Planning Commission's foreseeable workload, Staff believes that a separate body may be necessary to process the Public Hearing requests. Instead of a permanent body, an ad hoc board consisting of one or three members may be the best method. An example of a one member board is a single Planning Commissioner who could review all protests on a once a month basis, using a set of policy guidelines setforth by the City Council describing appropriate reasons for granting or denying the unmerger of lots. Appeals, of course, will be made to the City Council. An example of a three member board could consist of one Councilmember one Planning Commissioner, and one appointed resident. No matter what, method of review is chosen, it is important that a set of policies be established to uniformly grant the merger/unmerger of lots. Attachments 1. Ordinances 86-851 and 86-861 2. Resolution 86-5004 3. Lot Merger Application and Form Letters Michael Schubach Planning Director Gre ory T.171e er Cit Manager 2 Respectful, Submitted, Anew Pe ea Associate Planner 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 c � ORDINANCE NO. 86-851' AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 29, SUBDIVISION OF LAND, TO REQUIRE THE -'MERGER OF CON- TIGUOUS PARCELS OF LAND PURSUANT TO SECTION 66451.10,.ZHROUGH SEC- TION 66451.21 INCLUSIVE OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public meeting on August 12, 1986, and made the following Findings: 1. Section 1203.1, Combined Lot Area, and Section 1203.2, Planned Development of Combined Lots, does not comply with the new state law regarding lot mergers; 2. The City of Hermosa Beach cannot merge any lots pursuant to its current ordinances and pursuant to newly enacted State law; 3. The development of individual lots of substandard size by owners who possess such substandard lots held in common ownership that arecontiguous causes increased problems to the health, safety and welfare of the general public;-......: 4. The merging of contiguous lots of the same ownership which are less than 4,000 square feet in size will act to preserve the character of existing neighborhoods by maintaining cur- rent density and preserving public on -street parking; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby adopt the following: Section 1. The attached Lot Merger Ordinance. Section 2. Deletion of the following Sections of the Zoning Ordinance: , A. Section 1203. Combined lots. B. Section 1203.1. Combined lot area. C. Section 1203.2. Planned development of combined lots....= 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 PASSED APPROVED and ADOPTED this 26th 1986. day of August PRESIDENT of the.City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermo- sa Beach, California. CITY CLERK f PPROVED al s ITY ATTORNEY 2 '_a3�e�:e..� :•s�.,':�i��tii',�.-,mss 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 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 r4. 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 immediately upon adoption by a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach. 6/ORDS -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 ection 3. That this ordinance be effective for a period o (10) months fifteen (15) days from today's date unless xtended pursuant to the provisions of California Government (Section 65858. atio 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 /// 1/1 1/1 /1/ /1/ /1/ /1/ 1/1 /1/ /1/ /// 6/ORDS -4- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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: PSA �-& ?r.} J TY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: f 1 \,._i-- CIpY A'T'TORNEY `•,t` / L. 6/ORDS -5- PRESIDEtiDiTJ OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 86- 5004 440.414v -;s A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A PROCEDURE FOR MERGING -LOTS UNDER SECTIONS 29.5-19 THROUGH 29.5-28 OF -THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE. WHEREAS, the City Council held a hearing on this matter on December 16, 1986, and made the following Finding: 1. It is necessary to establish procedures to implement the new Lot Merger Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby establishes the following procedure to implement the Lot. Merger Ordinance: 1. The Planning Department shall establish a trust account with the Los Angeles County Recorder and deposit initial funds. 2. The Planning Department shall accept applications for lot merger. 3. The Planning Department shall map out blocks in each area, according to the schedule, and determine which lots are substandard, and whether 80% of the lots on the block have been split. 4. The following schedule for merging and/or unmerging lots shall be followed: a. Properties which owners request to be merged. b. Properties which owners claim are located on blocks on which 807 or more of the lots have been unmerged. c. Properties which owners claim do not straddle property lines. d. Properties which owners claim are not subject to the lot merger ordinance for other reasons. e. Properties all in a geographical area, to be determined by the Planning Director. 5. The Planning Department shall identify which parcels are eligible for merger and determine which contiguous parcels are owned by the same owner. - 6. The Planning Department shall mail a Notice of Intent to the County Recorder; including an additional copy for certification, a self-addressed stamped envelope, and a transmittal letter authorizing expenditure from the trust - 1 - ed 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 account. Two (2) days later, a Notice shall be sent by certified mail to the property owner. 7. a. If the property owner requests a hearing,,the Planning Department shall schedule the case for a Planning Commission hearing within 60 days of receipt: No more than 3 merger hearings shall be scheduled per Planning Commission meeting. It shall be the property owner's responsibility to provide names and addresses of property owners within 300 feet and to send notices. b. If the property owner does not request a hearing, the Planning Department shall file a Notice of Lot Merger with the Los Angeles County Recorder within 30 days after the deadline to request a hearing and shall include an additional copy for certification, self-addressed stamped envelope, and transmittal letter authorizing expenditure from the trust account. A Notice shall be sent by certified mail to the property owner. 8. a. If the Planning Commission determines the properties shall be merged, the Planning Department shall send a Notice of Planning Commission Determination to Merge Lots by certified mail to the property owner within 5 days. A_copy shall be filed with the Los Angeles County Recorder within 30 days, including an additional copy for certification, self-addressed stamped envelope, and transmittal letter authorizing expenditure from the trust account. b. If the Planning Commission determines the properties shall not be merged, the Planning Department shall send a Notice to the property owner by certified mail within 5 days. A Release shall be filed with the Los Angeles County Recorder within 30 days, including an additional copy for certification, self-addressed stamped envelope, and transmittal letter authorizing expenditure from the trust account. 9. If the Planning Commission's determination is appealed to the City Clerk within 10 days, the City Clerk shall schedule a City Council hearing and prepare any required public notices. 10. a. If the City Council determines that the properties shall be merged, the Planning Department shall mail a Notice to the property owner by certified mail within 30 days. b. If the City Council determines that the properties shall not be merged, the Planning Department shall mail a Notice to the owner by certified mail and to the County Recorder within 30 days. The Notice to the Recorder shall include an additional copy for certification, a self-addressed stamped envelope, and a transmittal letter authorizing an expenditure from the trust account. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of December , 1986. 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 PRESIDENT of thee' City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, 'California. ATTEST: PROVED AS 7'0 ORM: evoi 3 CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY Applicant CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH APPLICATION FOR LOT MERGER Address & phone Legal description of property Number of parcels existing Number of parcels to be created Name, address of legal owner PROCEDURE FOR LOT MERGER REQUEST: Applications for lot merger must be submitted with proof of ownership to the Planning Department, City of Hermosa Beach, 1315 Valley Drive. The Planning Department will record the - appropriate documents with the County Recorder. Signature of Owner Date Signature of Owner Date Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 198 , Notary Public in and for the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My Commission expires . PLANNING DEPARTMENT USE: Date of submission Received by NOTICE OF INTENTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER LOTS SHALL BE MERGED DATE BY CERTIFIED MAIL OWNER(S) NAME Mailing Address Re: PROPERTY ADDRESS, LEGAL DESCRIPTION Dear Property Owner(s): The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach intends to determine if the parcels described above shall be merged into one parcel according to Sections 29.5-19 through 29.5-28 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. When two or more lots merge, they become a single parcel to be developed, sold, leased, or financed together. Sections 29.5-20 and 29.5-21 allow lots to be merged if two or more contiguous parcels of land are held by the same owner where: 1. The parcels were created under the provisions of Sections 29.5-19 through 29.5-28 or any prior State law regulating the division of land or were not subject to any prior law regulating the division of land. 2. At least one of the contiguous parcels or units of land held by the same owner does not conform to standards for minimum parcel size to permit use or development under the City's Zoning and/or Subdivision Ordinance. 3. The main structure is partially sited on the - contiguous parcel and not more than 807 or the lots on the same block of the affected parcel have been split and developed separately. 4. One or more of the following conditions exist with respect to one or more of the contiguous parcels: a. Comprises less than 4000 square feet in area at the time of the determination of merger. b. Was not created in compliance with applicable laws and ordinances in effect at the time of the creation. c. Does not meet current standards for sewage disposal and domestic water supply. 1 d. Does not meet slope stability standards. e. Has no legal access which is adequate for vehicular and safety equipment access and maneuverability. f. Its development would create health or safety hazards. g. Is inconsistent with the applicable general plan and any applicable specific plan, other than minimum lot size or density standards. Information available to the City of Hermosa Beach indicates that your property meets the criteria for merger. If you wish to present evidence that the property does not meet the criteria for merger, you may make an appointment for a hearing before the Planning Commission. Your written request for a hearing must be received by the Planning Department within 30 days of the date of this Notice. Please state the reasons why the property is not eligible for merger and include 8 (eight) copies of background materials. It is the property owner's responsibility to provide a site survey if one is needed to determine the exact location of property lines. It is also the owner's responsibility to provide names and addresses of property owners and occupants within 300' of the property and to send public notices. If you do not request a bearing, a determination of whether or not to merge the parcels will be made by the Planning Department within 60 days of the date of this Notice. A copy of this Notice has been filed with the Los Angeles County Recorder. A Notice of the outcome will be sent to you, and a copy will be filed with the Los Angeles County Recorder. If you have questions regarding this matter, please contact the Planning Department at 213/ 376-6984. Sincerely, Michael Schubach Planning Director 2 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION TO MERGE LOTS DATE BY CERTIFIED MAIL NAME OF OWNER(S) MAILING ADDRESS RE: PROPERTY ADDRESS, LEGAL DESCRIPTION Dear Property Owner(s): On (date) the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach determined that the property described above shall be merged into one parcel according to Sections 29.5-19 through 29.5-28 of the Hermosa Beach City Code. The effect of this determination is that the lots described above shall become one parcel to be developed, sold, leased, or financed together. You may appeal the Determination to the City Council. Your written request for an appeal must be received by the City Clerk within 10 days of the Planning Commission decision. A copy of this Notice has been filed with the Los Angeles County Recorder. If you have questions regarding this matter, please contact the Planning Department at 213/ 376-6984. Sincerely, Michael Schubach Planning Director 1 NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL DETERMINATION TO MERGE LOTS DATE BY CERTIFIED MAIL NAME OF OWNER(S) MAILING ADDRESS RE: PROPERTY ADDRESS, LEGAL DESCRIPTION Dear Property Owner(s): On (date) the City council of the city of Hermosa Beach determined on appeal that the property described above shall be merged into one parcel according to Sections 29.5-19 through 29.5-28 of the hermosa Beach Municipal code. The effect of this determination is that the lots described above shall become one parcel to be developed, sold, leased, or financed together. Sincerely, Michael Schubach 1 NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNER OF CITY COUNCIL DETERMINATION NOT TO MERGE LOTS DATE BY CERTIFIED MAIL NAME OF OWNER(S) MAILING ADDRESS RE: PROPERTY ADDRESS, LEGAL DESCRIPTION Dear Property Owner(s): On (date) the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach determined on appeal that the property described above shall not be merged into one parcel according to Sections 29.5-19 through 29.5-28 of the Hermosa Beach City Code. The effect of this Determination is that there has been no change in the status of the property described above. A Public Notice of City Council Determination Not to Merge Lots has been filed with the Los Angeles County Recorder. If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact the Planning Department at 213/ 376-6984. Sincerely, Michael Schubach Planning Director PUBLIC NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL DETERMINATION NOT TO MERGE LOTS (To County Recorder) _ DATE NAME OF OWNER(S) MAILING ADDRESS RE: PROPERTY ADDRESS, LEGAL DESCRIPTION On (date) the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach determined on appeal that the property described above shall not be merged into a single parcel according to Sections 29.5-19 through 29.5-28 of the Hermosa Beach City Code. This Notice supercedes the Notice of Planning Commission Determination Not to Merge Lots, filed (date) . Michael Schubach Planning Director 1 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION NOT TO MERGE LOTS (CLEARANCE) DATE BY -CERTIFIED MAIL NAME OF OWNER(S) MAILING ADDRESS RE: PROPERTY ADDRESS, LEGAL DESCRIPTION Dear Property Owner(s): On (date) the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach determined that the property described above shall not be merged into one parcel according to Sections 29.5-19 through 29.5-28 of the Hermosa Beach City Code. The effect of this Determination is that there has been no change in the status of the property described above. A Release of the Notice of Intention to Determine Whether Lots Shall be Merged has been filed with the Los Angeles County Recorder. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact the Planning Department at 213/ 376-6984. Sincerely, Michael Schubach Planning Director 1 NOTICE OF LOT MERGER DATE - BY CERTIFIED MAIL NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER(S) MAILING ADDRESS Re: PROPERTY ADDRESS, LEGAL DESCRIPTION Dear Property Owner: The City of Hermosa Beach bas determined that the property described above shall be merged into, a single parcel according to Sections 29.5-19 through 29.5-28 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. A copy of this notice has been filed with the Los Angeles County Recorder. If you have any questions, please contact the Planning Department at (213) 376-6984. Sincerely, Michael Schubach Planning Director RELEASE OF NOTICE OF INTENTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER LOTS SHALL BE MERGED (To County Recorder) DATE NAME OF OWNER(S) MAILING ADDRESS RE: PROPERTY ADDRESS, LEGAL DESCRIPTION On (date) the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach determined that the property described above shall not be merged into a single parcel according to Sections 29.5-19 through 29.5-28 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. The Notice of Intention to Determine Whether Lots Shall Be Merged, filed (date) is hereby released. Michael Schubach Planning Director 1 4008. ELEQTIrONS COD 986 equals or is in excess of the minimum number of signatures required, the clerk shall accept the petition for filing. The petition shall be deemed as filed on that date. Any sections of the petition not so filed shall be void for all purposes. (Added by Stats. 1976, c. 248, §3.) 4609. Examination of signatures. After the petition has been filed, as herein provided, the clerk shall examine the petition in the same manner as are county petitions in accordance with Sections 3707 and 3708 except that, for the purposes of this section, references to the board of supervisors shall be treated as references to the legislative body of the city. The petition shall be preserved by the city clerk in the same manner as are county measures as set forth in Section 3756. (Added by Stats. 1976, c. 248, §3.) Petition signatures; adopt ordinance or order special election. If the initiative petition is signed t ess ttnn T percent of the voters of the city according to the county clerk's official repo of registration to the Secretary of State effective at the time the notice specified in Section 4002 was published, or in a city with 1,000 or less registered voters the signatures of 25 percent of the voters or 100 voters of the city, whichever is the lesser number, and contains a request that the ordinance be submitted immediately to a vote of the people at a special election, the legislative body shall either: (a) Introduce the ordinance without alteration at the regular meeting at which it is presented and adopt the ordinance within 10 days after it is presented; or (b) Immediately order a special election, to be held not less than 88 nor more than 103 days after the date of the order, at which the ordinance, without alteration, shall be submitted to a vote of the voters of the city. (Amended by Stats. 1981, c. 1045, §4.) X4011: s Petition signatures; ordinance submitted at next regular municipal election. If the initiative petition is signed 5 noritg-than 1-0-pereentrof the voters of the city according to the county c1e?r official ieport of -registration to the Secretary of State effective at the time the notice specified in Section 4002 was published, or in a city with 1,000 or less registered voters by the signatures of 25 percent of the voters or 100 voters of said city, whichever is the lesser number, and the ordinance petitioned for is not required to be, or for any reason is not, submitted to the voters at a special election, and is not passed without change by the legislative body, then the ordinance, without alteration, shall be submitted by the legislative body to the voters at the next regular municipal election occurring not less than 88 days after the order of the legislative body. (Amended by Stats. 1981, c. 1045, §5.) 4012. Mayor may veto. In cities having a mayor, or like officer, with the veto power, when the passage of an ordinance petitioned for by the voters is vetoed, the failure of the legislative body to pass the ordinance over the veto shall be deemed a refusal of the legislative body to pass the ordinance within the meaning of this article. (Added by Stats. 1976, c. 248, §3.) 100 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 9 s 4015.5. E LECIIONS CODE 1986 thereafter, unless later repealed by the legislative body in accord with the procedures of this subdivision. (Added by Stats. 1977, c. 701, 4016. Conflicting ordinances. If the provisions of two or more ordinances adopted at the same electior conflict. the ordinance receiving the highest number of affirmative votes shah control. (Added by Stats. 1976, c 248, §3.) Legislative body may submit proposed ordinance to voters. The legislative body of the city may submit to the voters, without a petition therefor. a proposition for the repeal. amendment, or enactment of any ordinance, to be voted upon at any succeeding regular or special city election, and if the proposition submitted receives a majority of the votes cast on it at the election, the ordinance shall be repealed, amended or enacted accordingly. A proposition may be submitted, or a special election may be called for the purpose of voting on a proposition, by ordinance or resolution. (Added by Stats. 1976, c. 248. 4018. Copy of ordinance mailed with sample ballot. Whenever any ordinance or measure is required by this article to be submitted to the voters of a city at any election, the clerk of the legislative body shall cause the ordinance or measure to be printed. He or she shall mail a copy of the, ordinance or measure with a sample ballot to each voter. The legislative body may direct that its clerk include in such mailing, as official matter, the provisions of the proposed ordinance or measure, showing therein the difference from existing provisions of law, by the use of distinguishing type styles. If such ordinance or measure exceeds 1,000 words in length, the local legislative body may direct that a synopsis of the ordinance be prepared, to be mailed to the voters in lieu of the ordinance. The synopsis shall be prepared by the city attorney unless the ordinance affects the office of the city attorney, in which case the clerk shall prepare the synopsis. Immediately below the synopsis there shall be printed in 10 -point bold type a legend substantially as follows: 'The above statement is a synopsis of Ordinance or Measure Number and is not the complete text of such ordinance or measure. If you desire a complete copy of the ordinance or measure, return the enclosed prepaid postcard and a copy will be mailed at no cost to you." If the clerk, at the direction of the legislative body, mails only a synopsis of an ordinance or measure, the clerk shall enclose a postage -paid postcard which may be used by the voter to request a complete copy of the ordinance or measure which shall be mailed to such voter with postage prepaid. (Amended by Stats. 1984, c. 32, §4.) 4019. Enacting clause of ordinance. The enacting clause of an ordinance submitted to the voters of a city shall be substantially in the following form: "The people of the City of do ordain as follows:" (Added by Stats. 1976, c. 248, §3.) 102 ELECTIONS CODE 1986 40> Conditions for special election; consolidation with regular election. When a special election is to be called under this article, it shall be held not less than 88 nor more than 103 days after the date of the presentation of the proposed ordinance to the legislative body, and shall be held in accordance with the provisions of this code. To avoid holding more than one special election within any six months, the date for holding the special election may be fixed later than 103 days, but at as early a date as practicable after the expiration of six months from the last special election. When it is legally possible to hold a special election under this chapter within six months prior to a regular municipal election, the legislative body may submit the proposed ordinance at the regular election instead of at a special election. (Amended by Stats. 1981, c. 1045, §6.) 4021. Scope of article. This article does not apply to any statewide initiative measure. (Added by Stats. 1976. c. 248, §3.) 4050.1. Article 2. Referendum 4050. Date ordinance becomes effective. No ordinance shall become effective until 30 days from and after the date of its final passage, except: (a) An ordinance calling or otherwise relating to an election. (b) An ordinance for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, which contains a declaration of, and the facts constituting, its urgency and is passed by a four-fifths vote of the city council. (c) Ordinances relating to street improvement proceedings. (d) Other ordinances governed by particular provisions of state law prescribing the manner of their passage and adoption. (Added by Stats. 1976, c. 248, §3.) 4050.1. Time ordinance becomes effective; when ordinance subject to referendum. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 4050, ordinances authorizing the issuance of revenue bonds by a city as part of a joint powers entity pursuant to Section 6547 of the Government Code shall not take effect for 60 days. (b) When the number of votes cast for all candidates for Governor at the last gubernatiorial election within the boundaries of the city described in subdivision (a) exceeds 500,000, such ordinance is subject to referendum upon presentation of a petition bearing signatures of at least 5 percent of the entire vote cast within the boundaries of the city for all candidates for Governor at the last gubernatorial election. When the number of votes cast for all candidates for Governor at the last gubernatorial election within the boundaries of the city is less than 500,000, such ordinance is subject to referendum upon presentation of a petition bearing signatures of at least 10 percent of the entire vote cast within the boundaries of the city for all candidates for Governor at the last gubernatorial election. (c) For the purpose of submitting the question to the voters pursuant to subdivision (b), the ballot wording shall approximate the following: "Shall the , as a member of the (city name) (joint powers entity name) authorize the issuance of revenue bonds by the joint powers entity in the amount of $ pursuant to ordinance number , dated 103 =r Law Offices of James P. Lough JAMES P. LOUGH July 23, 1987 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 28, 30 NORTH RAYMOND AVENUE SUITE 708 PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91103 (213) 381-6131 (818) 792-4728 (818) 792-4776 1987 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney RE: Proposed Open Space Initiative on Railroad Right of Way This memo is a brief legal discussion on some of the issues regarding the OSPAC Initiative which will be presented to the council tonight by a group of citizens. This measure raises some serious questions which need discussing regarding legal issues facing the City Council. Another issue dealing with this initiative is its uncer- tainty. The measure does not contain any specific legislative acts to be taken by the city. Rather, the measure directs certain administrative acts be taken by the City Council at future dates. First, the city must try to raise money to purchase the property through non -bond means. If the city cannot do that, a bond issuance must be placed in front of the people. The steps listed above are administrative steps and cannot be the subject of an initiative (Housing Authority of Eureka v. Superior Court (1948) 32 Cal 2d 550, 219 P2d 457; Simpson v. Hite (1950) 36 Cal 2d 125, 222 P2d 225; Gibbs v. Napa (1976) 59 Cal App 3d 148, 130 Cal Rptr 382). Because of the administra- tive nature of the measure, the initiative measure could be attacked and invalidated. The administrative steps in this measure basically relate to the individual actions required G2/SR0728B -1- ,-r TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney RE: Proposed Open Space Initiative on Railroad Right of Way which give discretion to the City Council. One of those steps is to raise whatever money is necessary. What is "necessary" is not something that is concrete enough to be considered a "legislative" action. The ballot measure in question is probably more one of an advisory nature rather than a mandatory step. If the measure were considered advisory only, these administrative/legal problems would disappear. This city and other cities have often had advisory measures directing a city council to do something while leaving the discretion up to the city council. Recently, the General Plan/Zoning Initiative comes to mind in Hermosa Beach. If litigation were to ensue, the city would be put in a position of having to defend the ordinance if adopted by the people. The California Supreme Court has stated that once an initiative is adopted, the city has a mandatory duty to defend it (Arnel Development Co. v. City of Costa Mesa (1980) 28 Cal 3d 511, 169 Cal Rptr 904). The mandatory duty exists because the city attorney or legal counsel is defending the people and not the city council. This raises another question where the city attorney drafts the impartial analysis. If the impartial analysis states that the measure in question is not valid, the issue is raised as to whether or not the city attorney should be the person to defend the ordinance. I would recommend that before any such measure with such questions be placed on the ballot, careful considera- tion be given to who should draft the impartial analysis and who should be standing by to defend the matter when attacked in the courts. While these issues exist and should be dealt with by the council, there is nothing to prevent the council from putting such a measure on the ballot. Once a measure is placed on the ballot, a citizen group could then attack to have it removed. G2/SR0728B -2- CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 28, 1987 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney RE: Proposed Open Space Initiative on Railroad Right of Way Neither the city attorney nor any other official, besides a judge of the superior court, can prevent the placement of a measure on a ballot if the city council so desires. I hope this memo addresses some of the questions that council needs to consider before placing this measure on the ballot. JPL/gp / / cc: Gregory T. Meyer, City Maiiager Respectful T s mitte 4"' ) FAMES P. LOUGH, City Attorney /CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ( July 24, 1987 Honorable John Cioffi Mayor City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 JUL 2 41987s. City Clerk City of Hermes• Beach' Dear Mayor Cioffi: I was pleased to learn that on July 28, 1987, the City Council will debate the merits of placing several topics of peoples initiatives on the November ballot. By placing these items on the ballot, you will act as a positive conduit between the voters and the election process. I feel there is strong community concern for the preservation of open space. I urge you to place the initiative requiring "a vote of the electorate to affirm any changes in the open space zones of the General Plan" on the November ballot. The intent of this initiative is to preserve existing open space for future generations. Thank you in advance. Sincerely, y L B 3112 ermosa Avenue Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 372-6468 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 9 A /mg "NO MATTER WHERE YOU LIVE IN HERMOSA BEACH, THE GREENBELT DEPENDS ON YOU" July 20, 1987 Mayor John Cioffi, City Council Members Hermosa Beach City Hall • 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, Calif. 90254 Dear Councilmembers: In re: Open Space People's Action Committee Acquisition Initiative I am requesting that you consider the subject issue for inclusion in the July 28, 1987 City Council meeting agenda. Collection of signatures began on July 18, 1987, and is progressing apace. Our committee has been scrupulous in its selection of signature collectors, and is working diligently to ensure that all signers are registered voters residing in the city of Hermosa Beach. It is a virtual certainty that we will obtain support from a minimum of 15% of the electorate, and feel that the City Council, in light of this, may wish to consider the subject Initiative for inclusion on the November ballot, thereby saving what I understand is a considerable expense of holding a special election. Thank you for your anticipated attention to this request. I look forward to receiving your reply very soon. Sincere Rosamond Fogg Chairperson OSPAC 610 Sixth St. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 • D 04 "NO MATTER WHERE YOU LIVE IN HERMOSA BEACH, THE GREENBELT DEPENDS ON YOU" OSPAC NEWS HOORAY FOR US! The June 15 Penguin's Fundraiser broke all Penguins sales records. Thank you all who helped and all who participated! One more time, it is apparent that the Greenbelt is an important issue to this community, and saving it is a big, big priority for all of us. On June 16, the Planning Commission declared the Draft EIR incomplete and postponed its certification. Certification will be reconsidered'in September. OSPAC is working hard to ensure that all aspects of the EIR;are investigated, especially Hazardous Waste residue and Toxic soil testing. This is a long and complex process, and will serve not only to protect the community from the Tofting of toxic substances during a proposed construction, but evidence of hazardous -waste will affect the fair market value of the Greenbelt. THE OSPAC INITIATIVE was filed with the city on June 26. Circulation will begin on July 17. The Initiative stresses the deficiency of parkland in Hermosa, and instructs each city official to immediately begin work on the acquisition of the Greenbelt for use as parkland. For more detail, call the Information line: 379-5698, or visit the City Clerk's office. OSPAC NEEDS 100 VOLUNTEERS TO COLLECT AT LEAST 30 SIGNATURES EACH! Over the weekend of July 18-19, we intend to collect at lease 3,000 signatures of registered voters. In addition to targeting the "heavy foot traffic areas" like the Strand and various malls, our strategy involves dividing the city into sectors, providing volunteers with precinct sheets, and going door-to-door. If you would like to make a commitment to being one of these 100 volunteers for theis ambitious project, contact Betty Thomas at 374-6547 or the OSPAC Information Line: 379-5698. If you would like to help (and we do need it!) organize and put on the OSPAC picnic on July 26 in Valley Park from 4:00 p.m. please call Karen White at 376-9217, or the OSPAC line. The picnic will be a combination rally/fundraiser and we will all be on hand to respond to comments and questions about the Initiative and related issues. On July 28, 7:30 p.m., at the Council Chambers, OSPAC will request that the City Council place its Initiative on the November ballot. If this request is rejected, we will continue to obtain signatures until we qualify to call a special election. Your praseace at this meeting wail be a positive influence. OSPAC...THE VIDEO! A short-subject.;film being made by Jane Allison, Bob Fleck and Kathleen Kane has captured the i:ter:st of KCET and will be aired on other local stations soon. Preservation of Open Space is becoming a serious issue in communities throughout the state and nation. What occurs in our little corner of the world is important, and will affect other communities. Air dates will be announced on the. OSPAC Information line. If your ordered a T -Shirt, there is an excellent chance it is in, so give Karen a call (number above). She wants to get them out of her living room as badly as you want to get them on your backs! Until the next time, thank you for your concern for your community. Rosamond Fogg Chairperson, OSPAC INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS P4)TION TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF HERMOSA BEACH MANDATING THE PURCHASE AND INSTITUTION OF THE MEANS OF PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNO THE A.T. & S.F. SANTA FE RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY FOR PARKLAND AND O g5 INITIATIVE ORDINANCE THE PEOPLE OF HERMOSA BEACH DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Parks and open space lands are vital to maintaining the quality of life in the Cit oma^. 'MA/ 2Ftisryrcraerk w/ Beach. There is at present a deficiency of parklands and open space in the City of Hermob',each and.e @ee". there is a threat of reduction of available parkland and open space because of the p?e: - of comercial development. Parkland and open space conservation and acquisition is in the public interest and acquisition of land for such purposes is necessary for the enjoyment and use of the people of Hermosa Beach. Among the lands particularly suited to the public recreational needs of the people is the 20 -plus acres of unused Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Right of Way in the City of Hermosa Beach. Said land is a vital recreational, aesthetic, cultural and historic resource and it is the intent of this initiative that the City of Hermosa Beach acquire the Railroad Right of Way so as to insure its use as parkland and open space in perpetuity. The people of Hermosa Beach find that the public interest demands such acquisition. Section 2. The people of Hermosa Beach direct the City of Hermosa Beach to acquire the Railroad Right of Way for public use as parkland and open space. It is the intent of the people in enacting this initiative that the acquisition be carried out in the most expeditious manner possible and that all city officials implement this initiative to the fullest extent of their authority. Section 3. The City shall take all measures necessary and appropriate to obtain funds needed for acquisition of the Railroad Right of Way. In so doing, the City shall use its best efforts to raise funds needed for acquisition by means other than a bond issue but, if necessary, the people direct the City to place on the ballot a bond issue for the amount necessary to acquire, but not to exceed, fair market value for the sole purpose of acquiring the Railroad Right of Way. Section 4. If any provisions of this act or the application thereof is declared invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the initiative which can be given effect without the invalid ::roviQion cr application, and ;o this end the provisions of this initiative are severable. Section 5. There shall be no modification, amendment or repeal of any provisions of this initiative except by a vote of the people. NOTICE OF INTENT TO CIRCULATE PETITION PETITION TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF HERMOSA BEACH MANDATING THE PURCHASE AND ;NSTITUTION OF THE MEANS OF PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE A.T. & S.F. SANTA FE RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY FOR PARKLAND AND OPEN SPACE Jotice is hereby given of the intention of the persons whose names appear hereon of their intention to circulate a )etition within the City of Hermosa Beach for the purpose of providing the electorate with the opportunity to present o their representative governmental officers a mandate to purchase the Railroad Right of Way for Parkland and Dpen Space. A statement of the reason of the proposed action as contemplated is as follows: Ne, the undersigned, being duly qualified and registered voters of the City of Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California, are circulating this petition for the City of Hermosa Beach mandating that the City of icrmosa Beach purchase the Railroad fright of Way for Parkland . nd Open Space by a bond issue if necessary. N° 0000579 A INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS PETITION TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF HERMOSA BEACH TO INSTITUTE THE METHOD OF AFFIRMING CHANGES IN THE EXISTING DESIGNATED OPEN SPACE ZONES OF THE GENERAL PLAN OF ALL LANDS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS BY THE ELECTORATE INITIATIVE ORDINANCE The people of the City of Hermosa Beach do ordain as follows: Section 1. A vote of the City of Hermosa Beach's electorate shall be required to affirm any change in the existing open space zones designated in the general plan. Section 2. Approval by the City of Hermosa Beach electorate shall be required to modify, amend or repeal this City of Hermosa Beach ordinance, when any portion of the "Subject Property" or portion thereof, is affected. Section 3. If any section or portion of this initiative ordinance is declared invalid by a court of proper jurisdiction, the remaining sections or portions are to be considered valid. Section 4. There shall be no modification, amendment or repeal of any provision herein except by vote of the people. NOTICE OF INTENT TO CIRCULATE PETITION PETITION TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF HERMOSA BEACH TO INSTITUTE THE METHOD OF AFFIRMING CHANGES IN THE EXISTING DESIGNATED OPEN SPACE ZONES OF THE GENERAL PLAN BY THE ELECTORATE Notice is hereby given of the intention of the persons whose names appear hereon of their intention to circulate the petition within the City of Hermosa Beach for the purpose of providing the electorate with the opportunity to tell their representative governmental officers that any and all changes in the existing zones designated open space in the general plan shall occur only after a vote to affirm by the electorate of the City of Hermosa Beach. A statement of the reasons of the proposed action as contemplated in the petition is as follows: We, the undersigned, being duly qualified and registered voters of the City of Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California, are circulating this petition for the City of Hermosa Beach to institute the method of mandating any changes in the existing designated Open Space zones of the general plan be affirmed by a vote of the electorate of the City of Hermosa Beach. ACTION:' RECEIVE & FILE, STAFF TO PREPARE ORDINANCE RE: RESTRICTION OF ti Law Offices of James P. ONSHORE OR UPLANDS ROYAL. Lough �ONIE8 , EXCL. TAXES & FlyS JAMES P. LOUGH or TO OPEN SPACE. 1605 WEST OLYMPIC BLVD. May 4, 1987 SUITE 9018 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90015 (213) 381-6131 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH M -E M O R A N D U M REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF I4V 12, 1987 TO: Members of the City Council FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney RE: Legal Issues Regarding Placement of Oil Revenue Limitation on November Ballot RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report. This memo is in response to the Council's request for an opinion regarding the above-mentioned matter. The City Council is contemplating putting an initiative on the ballot which would limit use of any oil revenue received from onshore development to be used only for open space development and/or acquisition. This memo does not address the issue of revenues derived from oil taken from the tidelands. There are two types of revenues that the City could receive from onshore oil development. One type could be the royalties from the agreement signed with Macpherson Oil Company. The second type would be taxes and fees charged to Macpherson for doing business in the City or applying for various permits. Under the first category (royalty), a ballot measure could restrict these funds to whatever use the City Council desires. There is nothing in any state rule, law or constitutional pro- vision which would prevent such an earmarking of funds. Such royalty payments are contractual rights rather than taxes or fees and, therefore, not subject to all of the restrictions found under Proposition 13 and other similar laws. As to fees and taxes, the problem would become more diffi- cult. If the Council were to restrict taxes, such as business license taxes, received from Macpherson Oil to any particular type of use would probably run afoul of the California Consti- tution. No city may pass a special tax without a two-thirds votes of the people. Earmarking the money in question for a particular use would probably make such a tax a special one and subject to this two-thirds vote requirement. As to fees gener- ated, a legal problem would arise in that fees generated are supp5sed to only be used to defray the actual cost of providing the servjce in question. If we were to charge fees to raise 17/SR0512A _1_ SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 9 Oa, REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 12, 1987 TO: Members of the City Council FROM: James P. Lough,;.City Attorney RE: Legal Issues Regarding Placement of Oil Revenue Limitation on November Ballot open space funds, they would be subject to challenge as not relating to the cost reasonably borne for providing the services (permit review). The question would then become whether it is good policy to approve such a measure in the opinion of the City Council. One factor that should be noted is that the current oil well producing revenue for the City (the Stinnett well) currently only provides about ten dollars a month in royalties to the City of Hermosa Beach. The City Council might want to -consider deferring this issue until test wells are sunk to determine whether or not there is enough oil above the mean high tide line to justify the expense of an election on this subject. JPL/gp Respectfully submitted, cc: Gregory T. Meyer, City Manager .14 <'' 17/SR0512A -2- AMES P. LOUGH, City Attorney CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH STATUS REPORT REGARDING THE PARKING OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES.ON:CITY STREETS. Memorandum from General Ser- vices Director Joan Noon dated May 28, 1987. Action: Direct staff to pursue alternative solutions to the problem of parking recreational vehicles on City streets, noting Council concern regarding this problem. • Motion DeBellis, second Cioffi. So ordered. 12. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER None 13. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) (b) (0) Legal issues regarding placement of oil revenue limita- tion on November..ballot. Memorandum from City Attorney James P. Lough dated May 4, 1987. (Continued from 5/12/ 87, 5/26/87 and 6/9/87 meetings.) Action: To receive and file report. - Motion DeBellis, second Simpson.- So ordered noting NO • votes by Rosenberger and Williams. Final Action; Staff to prepare an ordinance regarding the restriction of onshore or uplands royalty monies, excluding taxes and fees, *to the purchase of open space. Motion Rosenberger, second Williams. So ordered. uest by Ma June Williams to consider Re or Pro Tem Etta Sim son and Councilmember re aration of a re ort b City Attorney James p. Lough and Planning Director Michael.Schubach re. establishing a threshold for re- quirement of a PEIR. Action: Staff to put together a discussion paper to include information about categorical exemptions and ministerial vs. discretionary abilities, this matter to be calendared by the City Attorney for return to Council for debate within 90 days. Motion DeBellis, second Simpson: So ordered. Letter from Mr. Tadao Hara, Principal, International Bilin:ual School Los An:eles dated June 5 1987 re. Sister City;Program. Memorandum from City Manager •Gregory T. Meyer dated June 16, 1987. Supplemental in- formation - letter from Jimmy R. Cruz, Chairman, Sister City Committee, Filipino -American Societydated 15 June 1987 . Action: To communicate to both Mr. Hara, Principal, International Bilingual School Los Angeles, and Mr. Cruz, Chairman, Sister City Committee, Filipino -American Society that the City Council is interested in working with these groups and will pursue possible interest in - 15 - Minutes 6-23-87 OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Vacancies - Boards and Commissions Community Resources Commission - One unexpired term ending June 30, 1989• Nominations: Vote: Rosenberger - Andrew J. Lesser, M.D. Cioffi - Joe Cascio Williams - Laurie Byren Rosenberger - Lesser Simpson - Byren Cioffi - Cascio Williams - Byren Mayor DeBellis - Cascio Final Vote: Rosenberger - Byren Simpson - Byren Cioffi - Cascio Williams - Byren Mayor DeBellis - Cascio Laurie Byren was appointed to fill the Community Resources Commission unexpired term ending June 30, 1989. Civil Service Commission - One unexpired term end- ing July 15, 1987. Nominations: Simpson - Brand Mayor DeBellis - Stifano Vote: Rosenberger - Brand Simpson - Brand Cioffi - Brand Williams - Brand Mayor DeBellis - Stifano Ruth Brand was appointed to fill the Civil Service Commission unexpired term ending July 15, 1986. (b) Oil Drilling Revenue - City Maintenance Yard (Williams/ Simpson) Councilmembers Williaffg and Simpson requested discussion on the possibility of a ballot measure for a special election regarding the oil drilling revenue from the City Maintenance Yard. Action: To put this matter on a future agenda for discussion. Motion Williams, second Rosenberger. So ordered noting a NO vote by Mayor DeBellis - 7 - Minutes 11-13-86 MUNICIPAL MATTERS 6. 1986-87 QUARTERLY BUDGET REVIEW. • A. STATUS REPORT RE. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony An- tich dated October 6, 1986. Action: To receive and file this report. Motion Cioffi, second Rosenberger. So ordered. B. SUMMARY REPORT. Memorandum from Assistant City Manager Alana Mastrian dated October 22, 1986. Action: To receive and file this report. Motion Mayor DeBellis, second Cioffi. So ordered. C. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS. Memorandum from Assistant City Manager Alana Mastrian dated October 22, 1986, 4) TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OIL BIDDERS FEE INCOME. Action: The $100,000 oil platform fee to be used for acquisition, maintenance and improve- ment of available excess school or other prop- erties for open space and parkland purposes. Motion Williams, second Simpson. So ordered. Minutes 10-28-86 4 October 22, 1986 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City Council Meeting of October 28, 1986 QUARTERLY BUDGET REVIEW Recommendation It is recommended that City Council amend the 1986/87 General Fund Budget as follows: Q Revenue: $100 000 Oil Platform Fe 20,000 Plan Chec ees Expenditure: +$15,000 to Building and Safety Department budget, contract services +$52,000 to City Attorney budget, (extra- ordinary expenditures $28,000/other legal services $24,000) Background City Council, in order to maintain the fiscal integrity of the City, has requested that staff review the City Budget on a quar- terly basis and to suggest amendments to the adopted budget, if needed. Analysis Oil Bidders Platform Fee In preparing the 86/87 City Budget, the revenue projections as- sumed no oil related income. As the oil drilling contract has just recently been awarded, the City is now guaranteed a platform fee of $100,000. And based on this, staff is requesting the revenue amount be adjusted accordingly. Plan Check Fees Because of the unanticipated heavy volume of construction activi- ty due in large part to Density Reduction and Parking Standard Ordinances recently passed by the City Council, the Building Department has encumbered a large part of its Contractual Ser- vices appropriation and is requesting an additional $15,000 to see the Department through the remainder of the fiscal year. The better part of this equation is the increase in building'ac- tivity'will result in at least an additional $20,000 in revenue in the Building Department Plan Check Fees Account. Staff is recommending the General Fund budget be amended to reflect both of these increases as described above. Oc 1 2 3 4 ORDINANCE NO. 84-758 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS BY THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE PROHIBITION AGAINST OIL WELLS TO ALLOW FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF OIL AND GAS FROM CERTAIN CITY OWNED LANDS. The people of the City of Hermosa Beach do ordain as follows: SECTION 1. There shall be added to Municipal Code section 5 21-10, Oil Wells Prohibited, Exceptions, a new paragraph to read 6 in full as follows: "(a). There shall also be excepted from the 7 prohibition of this Section 21-10, wells drilled from a site not 8 to exceed one acre in size at the present City maintenance yard, 9 which yard is located at the corner of Valley Drive and 6th Street. 10 The drilling of wells bottomed in the Tidelands may produce revenu( 11 the use of which is limited by the State. General Fund revenue fol 12 which Tidelands revenue is substituted shall be used first to 13 reduce any bonded indebtedness resulting from the enactment of 14 Community Facilities District No. 1, which District would acquire 15 the South School site, the Seaview Parkette, and the Railroad 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Right -of -Way; and, second, when the bonded indebtedness is paid, the acquisition, maintenance and improvement of available excess school or other properties for open space and parkland purposes. SECTION 2. This ordinance may be amended only by a vote of the people. SECTION 3. If any portion of this ordinance is declared invalid, the remaining portion is to be considered valid. SECTION 4. Upon certification that this ordinance has been adopted by the voters of the City, the Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage and cause the ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader not later than the fifteenth day after its adoption. // 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Attest: Page 2 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE ELECTORATE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AT THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 6, 1984 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES - 4743 NOES - 3222 PRESIDES of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach leen Reviczk Approved as to F 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ttorney P OIL DRILLING - CITY MAINTENANCE YARD Shall Ordinance No. 84-758, an Ordinance submitted to the voters by the City Council, be adopted which amends the prohibition against oil wells to allow for the drilling of oil and gas from a one -acre site at the City maintenance yard, the revenue derived used first to reduce any Bonded indebtedness resulting from the enactment of Community Facilities District No. 1, (Proposed to acquire South School site, Seaview Par- kette, and railroad right-of-way); and second, acquisi- tion, maintenance and improvement of available ex- cess school or other properties for open space and parkland purposes? YES NO ORDINANCE NO. 84-758 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH SUB- MfITED TO THE VOTERS BY THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND- ING THE PROHIBITION AGAINST OIL WELLS TO ALLOW FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF OIL AND GAS FROM CERTAIN CITY OWNED LANDS. The people of the City of Hermosa Beach do ordain as follows: SECTION 1. There shall be added to Municipal Code Section 21-10, Oil Wells Prohibited, Exceptions, a new paragraph to read in full as follows: "(a). There shall also be excepted from the prohibition of this Section 21-10, wells drilled from a site not to exceed one acre in size at the present City maintenance yard, which yard is located at the corner of Valley Drive and 6th Street. The drilling of wells bottomed in the Tidelands may produce revenue the use of Which is limited by the State. General Fund revenue for which Tidelands revenue is substituted shall be used first to reduce any bonded indebtedness resulting from the enactment of Community Facilities District No. 1, which District would acquire the South School site, the Seaview Parkette, and the Railroad Right -of -Way; and, second, when the bonded indebtedness is paid, the acquisition, maintenance and improvement of available excess school or other properties for open space and parkland purposes. SECTION 2. This ordinance may be amended only by a vote of the people. SECTION 3. If any portion of this ordinance is declared invalid, the remaining portion is to be considered valid. i CITY ATTORNEY'S IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURE P Tliis ordinance is placed on the ballot by the City Council and would allow the drilling of oil or gas `wells from the site of the present City Maintenance Yard located at the corner of Valley Drive and 6th Street. The use of revenue generated by wells bottomed in the tidelands (the area generally under the ocean and west of a defined mean high tide line) is restricted by the State of California. This measure would require the City to use any General Fund money for which tidelands oil revenue might properly be substituted, first to reduce any bonded indebtedness resulting from the enactment of Community Facilities District No. 1, which district would acquire the South School site, the Seaview Parkette, and the railroad right-of-way; and, second, when the bonded indebtedness is paid, for the acquisition, maintenance and improvement of avail- able excess school or other properties for open space and parkland purposes. The site could not be larger than one acre in size. ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE P This measure allows one oil well site on the city owned Maintenance Yard, the site of an existing well, all revenues from which would go first toward debt retirement for the Mello -Ross Community Facilities District and secondly, after all debt is retired, toward acquisiton, maintenance and improvement of open space and parklands. The City Council is asking you to vote for a measure that will provide a method to help pay the debt service costs to acquire 25 acres of land for permanent open space. Voting in favor of this measure will reduce the amount required (from the taxpayers through property taxes) to buy the railroad right-of- way, the South School site, and Seaview Parkette. If we want to insure that these lands will always remain as permanent undeveloped open space and parklands, the City will have to own them. If the City 'doesn't own them, it has to allow the owners some development. When those lands are developed they will no longer be the public open space and parklands we want and need. JOHN A. CIOFFI ANTHONY C. DeBELLIS JR. GEORGE G. BARKS GARY BRUTSCH ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE P MEASURE P IS NOT ADVISORY. It permits oil drilling from the City Maintenance Yard. The people's ordinance of 1932 prohibits oil drilling: VOTE NO! FIRST, LET US KNOW WHAT WE'RE VOTING FOR. LET THEM COME UP WITH A CONCRETE PROPOSAL. An overwhelming majority of voters upheld the people's ordinance against the oil drilling proposal of 1957, despite efforts by major oil companies, presti- gious law firms and lure of multi-million dollar bonuses. Consider the potential impact on our small beach community. Oil drilling operations include pipeline corridors for transporting oil under the city and homes. The city's July 1984 petroleum consultant's report indicated "... the his- tory of oil drilling in Hermosa Beach is not encouraging. Even with advanced technology, drilling would probably not result in high volume wells. At best, settled production rates [onshore] would be marginally commercial." The City Attorney's analysis states, "Revenue generated by wells bottomed in the tidelands [ocean] is restricted by the State of California." Tidelands and submerged lands of the State, within Hermosa Beach boundaries were granted in trust to Hermosa Beach in 1919, SOLELY FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT, IMPROVEMENT, AND CONDUCT OF A HARBOR, FOR THE PROMOTION OR ACCOMMODATION OF COMMERCE AND NAVIGATION. Only State legislation can modify that trust. The city cannot spend tidelands revenue for city purposes (police, roads, beaches, parks). If the City Yard is used for oil drilling, what about yard relocation costs? How many wells might be required to develop the property? The city's consultant declared as "doubtful" it could accommodate 25 or 30 wells at the yard site. Necessary on-site equipment would then NECESSITATE ACQUISITION OF NEARBY PROPERTY FOR A TANK FARM. VOTE NO! FIRST, LET US KNOW WHAT WE'RE VOTING FOR. LET THEM COME UP WITH A CONCRETE PROPOSAL. CORALIE C..EBEY ETTA L. SIMPSON Member Oil Recovery Member Oil Recovery Investigation Committee Investigation Committee 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 Jul` 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 At\ 7 18 1 19 20 D 21 (q. s-9 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SOLUTION NO. 87-5065 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1987, FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF SAID CITY PROPOSED ORDINANCES RELATING TO GROSS RECEIPTS TAX FOR MOTION PICTURE THEATERS, MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMITS IN THE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL/PROFESSIONAL ZONES, MANDATING THE PURCHASE OF THE ATSF RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY, AND CHANGING THE UTILITIES TAX FROM SIX PERCENT (6%) TO TEN PERCENT (10%). WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach desires to submit to the qualified electors of said City at a General Municipal Election proposed ordinances relating to gross receipts tax for motion picture theaters, maximum height limits in the commercial and residential/professional zones, mandating the purchase of the A.T.S.F. Railroad Right of Way, and changing the rate of utilities tax from six percent (6%) to ten percent (10%); and WHEREAS, the City Council of said City is thereupon authorized and directed by statute to submit the Ordinances to the qualified voters; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That pursuant to the requirements of the the State of California relating to General Law Cities within said State, there shall be, and there is hereby called and ordered held in the City of Hermosa Beach, California on Tuesday, November 3, 1987, a General Municipal Election of the qualified electors of said City for the purpose of the election of two Members of the City Council, a City Clerk, and a City Treasurer for four-year terms ending November, 1991 (called by Resolution No. 87-5047); and submitting the following proposed Ordinances relating to gross receipts tax for motion picture theatersc,�1� ^` 1NFpRN`► 1 - a 4- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 maximum height limits in the commercial and residential/profes- sional zones (R/P Zone), mandating the purchase of the A.T.&S.F. Railroad Right of Way, and changing the utilities tax from six percent (6%) to ten percent (10%); and SECTION 2. That the City Council, pursuant to its right and authority, does order submitted to the voters at the General Municipal Election the following questions: GROSS RECEIPTS TAX FOR MOTION PICTURE THEATERS Shall Ordinance No. 87-893, an ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach submitted to the voters by the City Council, be adopted which establishes a gross receipts tax for motion picture theaters? YES NO MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMITS IN THE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL/ PROFESSIONAL ZONES Shall Ordinance No. 87-894, an ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach submitted to the voters by the City Council, be adopted which requires a vote of the people to raise the maximum height limit for the C-1, C-2, C-3, and residential/professional zones? YES NO MANDATING THE PURCHASE AND INSTITUTION OF THE MEANS OF PURCHASE OF THE A.T.&S.F. RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY Shall Ordinance No. 87-895, an ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach submitted to the voters by the City Council, be adopted which mandates the purchase and institution of the means of purchase of the property commonly known as the A.T.&S.F. Santa Fe Railroad Right of Way for parkland and open space? YES NO CHANGING THE UTILITY USERS TAX FROM SIX PERCENT (6%) TO TEN PERCENT (10%) Shall Ordinance No. 87-896, an ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach submitted to the voters by the City Council, be adopted which changes the rate of utilities tax from six percent (6%) to ten percent (10%)? YES NO ACL SECTION 3. The proposed ordinances submitted to the voters shall be as follows: // 0\C, l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 191 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 87-893 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS BY THE CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING A GROSS RECEIPTS TAX FOR MOTION PICTURE THEATERS. The People of the City of Hermosa Beach do ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That Chapter 17 (Licenses) of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, Section 19, subsection (b), Classification B, Group 11(a) be amended to read as follows: Group 11. (a) Vaudeville shows and legitimate theaters $250.00 per annum. SECTION 2. That Chapter 17 (Licenses) of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code be amended to add Section 19, subsection (b), Classification B, Group 26 which shall read as follows: Group 26. Motion picture theaters -- $100.00 for the first $20,000.00 of gross receipts per annum plus $1.50 for each additional $1,000.00 of gross receipts per annum. SECTION 3. That the taxes imposed by this ordinance shall be applicable to all covered businesses beginning on January 1, 1988. All businesses that apply for a new license or renew an existing license after January 1, 1988 shall pay the fees estab- lished under this ordinance beginning on the date of renewal or issuance of a new license. //// G2/ORD19 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 4. That if any section or portion of this initiative ordinance is declared invalid by a court of proper jurisdiction, the remaining sections or portions are to be considered valid. SECTION 5. That there shall be no modification, amendment or repeal of any provision herein except by a vote of the people. APPROVED AS TO FO JAMES P. LOUGH, CITY ATTORNEY G2/ORD19 -4- 1 2 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ORDINANCE NO. 87- 894 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO REQUIRE A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE TO RAISE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT FOR THE C-1, C-2, C-3, AND RESIDENTIAL PROFESSIONAL ZONES. The People of the City of Hermosa Beach do ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Any amendment of Section 8-5(6) of the Hermosa Beach Zoning Code which raises the maximum building height limit in the C-1, C-2, or C-3 Commercial Zones shall only be approved by a vote of the People through the initiative process. The current building heights are 30 feet in the C-1 Zone, 35 feet in the C-2 Zone, and 145 feet in the C-3 Zone. SECTION 2. Any amendment of Section 701 of the Hermosa Beach Zoning Code which raises the maximum building height in the (Residential/Professional Zone shall only be approved by a vote of the People through the initiative process. The current building height in the Residential/Professional Zone is 35 feet. 17 i 181 19 20 21 22 23 24 SECTION 3. This ordinance does not preclude normal zoning variance procedures. SECTION 4. If any section or portion of this initiative ordinance is declared invalid by a court of proper jurisdiction, the remaining sections or portions are to be considered valid. SECTION 5. There shall be no modification, amendment, or repeal of any provision herein except by a vote of the people. APPROVED AS TO FORM: _ 5 _ 1 2 3 4 tr 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. 87-895 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS BY THE CITY COUNCIL, MANDATING THE PURCHASE AND INSTITUTION OF THE MEANS OF PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE A.T.&S.F. SANTA FE RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY FOR PARKLAND AND OPEN SPACE. THE PEOPLE OF HERMOSA BEACH DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Parks and open space lands are vital to maintain- ing the quality of life in the City of Hermosa Beach. There is at present a deficiency of parklands and open space in the City of Hermosa Beach and there is a threat of reduction of available parkland and open space because of the pressures of commercial development. Parkland and open space conservation and acquisition is in the public interest and acquisition of land for such purposes is necessary for the enjoyment and use of the people of Hermosa Beach. Among the lands particularly suited to the public recreational needs of the people is the 20 -plus acres of unused Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Right of Way in the City of Hermosa Beach. Said land is a vital recreational, aesthetic, cultural and historic resource and it is the intent of this initiative that the City of Hermosa Beach acquire the Railroad Right of Way so as to insure its use as parkland and open space in perpetuity. The people of Hermosa Beach find that the public interest demands such acquisition. SECTION 2. The people of Hermosa Beach direct the City of Hermosa Beach to acquire the Railroad Right of Way for public use as parkland and open space. It is the intent of the people in enacting this initiative that the acquisition be carried out 1 2 :i 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 APPROVED A TO ORM: in the most expeditious manner possible and that all city officials implement this initiative to the fullest extent of their authority. SECTION 3. The City shall take all measures necessary and appropriate to obtain funds needed for acquisition of the Railroad Right of Way. In so doing, the City shall use its best efforts to raise funds needed for acquisition by means other than a bond issue but, if necessary, the people direct the City to place on the ballot a bond issue for the amount necessary to acquire but not to exceed fair market value for the sole purpose of acquiring the Railroad Right,of Way. SECTION 4. If any provisions of this act or the application thereof is declared invalid, this invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the initiative which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this -initiative are severable. SECTION 5. There shall be no modification, amendment or repeal of any provisions of this initiative except by a vote of the people. 26 27 28 h, City Att••rney 7 1 2 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. 87-896 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS BY THE CITY COUNCIL, AMENDING CHAPTER 30 - TAXATION, ARTICLE VI - UTILITIES TAX BY CHANGING THE -RATE OF TAX IMPOSED FROM SIX PERCENT (6%) TO TEN PERCENT (10%). THE PEOPLE OF HERMOSA BEACH DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 30, Sections 30-46(a), 30-47(a), 30 -48(a),30 -49(a) and 30-50(a) of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code are amended changing the rate of the utilities tax imposed on telephone service, electrical energy, gas energy, water and cable television service from six percent (6%) to ten percent (10%). SECTION 2. Pursuant to Government Code Section 53723, this ordinance shall only be amended by a vote of the people. SECTION 3. If any of the provisions of this ordinance are declared invalid or ineffective by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining parts or sections shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4. The increase imposed under this initiative measure shall take effect on March 1, 1988. SECTION 5. The method of collection of this tax shall remain the same as provided for under Chapter 30 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. The remaining provisions of Chapter 30, as adopted by Ordinance Nos. 85-804, 86-832 and 86-837 shall remain in full force and effect. APPROVED AS TO FORM: es P. ous', City 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 4. That the City Clerk is authorized, instruct- ed, and directed to procure and furnish any and all official ballots, notices, printed matter and all supplies, equipment and paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election. SECTION 5. That in all particulars not recited in this Resolution, said election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections in said City. SECTION 6. That notice of the time and place of holding said election is hereby given and the City Clerk is hereby authorized, instructed and directed to give such further or additional notice of said election, in time, form and manner as required by law. SECTION 7. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions of said City. // // // // // // // // // // // .1/ // 9 i • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF JULY, 1987 PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: 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 RESOLUTION NO. 87- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO -BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER .3, 1987, FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF SAID CITY PROPOSED ORDINANCES RELATING TO GROSS RECEIPTS TAX FOR MOTION PICTURE THEATERS, AND MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMITS IN THE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL/PROFESSIONAL ZONES. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach desires to submit to the qualified electors of said City at a General Municipal Election proposed ordinances relating to gross receipts tax for motion picture theaters, and maximum height limits in the commercial and residential/professional zones; and WHEREAS, the City Council of said City is thereupon authorized and directed by statute to submit the Ordiances to the qualified voters; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That pursuant to the requirements of the the State of California relating to General Law Cities within said State, there shall be, and there is hereby called and ordered held in the City of Hermosa Beach, Californiaon Tuesday, November 3, 1987, a General Municipal Election of the qualified electors of said City for the purpose of the election of two Members of the City Council, a City Clerk, and a City Treasurer for four-year terms ending November, 1991 (called by Resolution No. 87-5047); and submitting the following proposed Ordinances relating to gross receipts tax for motion picture theaters, and maximum height limits in the commercial and residential/ professional zones (R/P Zone). 96 1 2 3 . • 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 2. That the City Council, pursuant to its right and authority, does order submitted to the voters at the General Municipal Election the following questions: GROSS RECEIPTS TAX FOR MOTION PICTURE THEATERS Shall Ordinance No. 87-893, an ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach submitted to the voters by the City Council, be adopted which establishes a gross receipts tax for motion picture theaters? _ YES NO MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMITS IN THE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL/ PROFESSIONAL ZONES Shall Ordinance No. 87-894, an ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach submitted to the voters by the City Council, be adopted which requires a vote of the people to raise the maximum height limit for the C-1, C-2, C-3, and residential/professional zones? YES NO SECTION 3. The proposed ordinances submitted to the voters shall be as follows: // // // // // // // // // // -1/ // // // // -2- 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. 87-893 AN ORDINANCE OF THE -CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS BY THE CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING A GROSS RECEIPTS TAX FOR MOTION PICTURE THEATERS. The People of the City of Hermosa Beach do ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That Chapter 17 (Licenses) of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, Section 19, subsection (b), Classification B, Group 11(a) be amended to read as follows: Group 11. (a) Vaudeville shows and legitimate theaters -- $250.00 per annum. SECTION 2. That Chapter 17 (Licenses) of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code be amended to add Section 19, subsection (b), Classification B, Group 26 which shall read as follows: Group 26. Motion picture theaters -- $100.00 for the first $20,000.00 of gross receipts per annum plus $1.50 for each additional $1,000.00 of gross receipts per annum. SECTION 3. That the taxes imposed by this ordinance shall be applicable to all covered businesses beginning on January 1, 1988. All businesses that apply for a new license or renew an existing license after January 1, 1988 shall pay the fees estab- lished under this ordinance beginning on the date of renewal or issuance of a new license. /1/1 G2/ORD19 1 SECTION 4. That if any section or portion of this initiative 2 ordinance is declared invalid by a court of proper jurisdiction, 3 the remaining sections or portions are to be considered valid. -4 SECTION 5. That there shall be no modification, amendment or 5 repeal of any provision herein except by a vote of the people. 6 7 8 9 10 APPROVED AS TO (--'- { I 11 12 JAMES P. LOUGIt, CITY ATTORNY 13 14 i. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 G2/ORD19 -4- 1 2 3 '4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDINANCE NO. 87- 894 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO REQUIRE A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE TO RAISE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT FOR THE C-1, C-2, C-3, AND RESIDENTIAL PROFESSIONAL ZONES. The People of the City of Hermosa Beach do ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Any amendment of Section 8-5(6) of the Hermosa Beach Zoning Code which raises the maximum building height limit in the C-1, C-2, or C-3 Commercial Zones shall only be approved by a vote of the People through the initiative process. The current building heights are 30 feet in the C-1 Zone, 35 feet in the C-2 Zone, and 45 feet in the C-3 Zone. SECTION 2. Any amendment of Section 701 of the Hermosa Beach Zoning Code which raises the maximum building height in the Residential/Professional Zone shall only be approved by a vote of the People through the initiative process. The current building height in the Residential/Professional Zone is 35 feet. SECTION 3. This ordinance does not preclude normal zoning variance procedures. SECTION 4. If any section or portion of this initiative ordinance is declared invalid by a court of proper jurisdiction, the remaining sections or portions are to be considered valid. SECTION 5. There shall be no modification, amendment, or repeal of any provision herein except by a vote of the people. APPROVED AS TO FORM: '41/`7 /- ATTOR EY 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 4. That the City Clerk is authorized, instruct- ed, and directed to procure and furnish any and all official ballots, notices, printed matter and all supplies, equipment and paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election. SECTION 5. That in all particulars not recited in this Resolution, said election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections in said City. SECTION 6. That notice of the time and place of holding said election is hereby given and the City Clerk is hereby authorized, instructed and directed to give such further or additional notice of said election, in time, form and manner as required by law. SECTION 7. That the City -Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions of said City. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28RD DAY OF JULY, 1987 PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, Californ ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO ORM: City Clerk Attorney Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the City Council July 28, 1987 ESTABLISHING PREFERENCE FOR ORDER OF BALLOT MEASURES Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council determine a preference for the placement of the measures on the ballot for the General Municipal Election to be held on November 3, 1987. Based on Council action at the meeting of July 14, 1987, as of this date, there are only two ballot measures: GROSS RECEIPT TAX FOR MOTION PICTURE THEATERS MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMITS IN THE COMMERCIAL AND YM). < a RESIDENTIAL/PROFESSIONAL ZONES YM). 0 FI AT -c U Or -2j 3 o tL \AD 1)- D `_ Respectfully submitted, Ka hleen Midstokke, City Clerk Noted: 1- - :'fi• 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 t -t) NS*C- RESOLUTION NO. 87-5066 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO CONSOLIDATE A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF SAID CITY TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY NOVEMBER 3, 1987, WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND GENERAL DISTRICT ELECTIONS TO BE HELD ON -SAID DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 23302 OF THE ELECTION CODE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING CERTAIN MEASURES TO THE ELECTORATE. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach called a General Municipal Election in said City to be held on November 3, 1987 for the purpose of election of two Members of the City Council, a City Clerk, and a City Treasurer for four- year terms ending November, 1991; and for the purpose of submit- ting to the qualified voters of said City the following measures: establishing a gross receipts tax for motion picture theaters, maximum height limits in the commercial and residential/ professional zones, mandating the purchase and institution of the means of purchase of the A.T.S.F. Railroad Right of Way, and changing the utility users tax from six percent (6%) to ten percent (10%); and WHEREAS, it is desirable that said General Municipal Election be consolidated with the School District and General District Elections to be held on the same date and that within the City the precincts, polling places and election officers of the two elections be the same; and that the Registrar of the County of Los Angeles canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election; and that said School District and General District Elections be held in all respects as if there were only one election; • NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BRACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWSO, 1 1 2 4 5 6 i 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 1. That pursuant to the requirements of Section 23302 of the Election Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles be and it hereby is requested to consent and agree to the consolidation of a General Municipal Election with the School District and General District Elections on Tuesday, November 3, 1987 for the purpose of the election of two Members of the City Council, a City Clerk, and a City Treasurer for four-year terms ending November, 1991; and submitting to the electors of the City of Hermosa Beach measures to appear on the ballot as follows: GROSS RECEIPTS TAX FOR MOTION PICTURE THEATERS Shall Ordinance No. 87-893, an ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach submitted to the voters by the City Council, be adopted which establishes a gross receipts tax for motion picture theaters? YES NO MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMITS IN THE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL/ PROFESSIONAL ZONES Shall Ordinance No. 87-894, an ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach submitted to the voters by the City Council, be adopted which requires a vote of the people to raise the maximum height limit for the C-1, C-2, C-3, and residential/professional zones? YES NO MANDATING THE PURCHASE AND INSTITUTION OF THE MEANS OF PURCHASE OF THE A.T.&S.F. RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY Shall Ordinance No. 87-895, an ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach submitted to the voters by the City Council, be adopted which mandates the purchase and institution of the means of pur- chase of the property commonly known as the A.T.&S.F. Santa Fe Railroad Right of Way for parkland and open space? YES NO 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 CHANGING THE UTILITY USERS TAX FROM SIX PERCENT (6%) TO TEN PER- CENT (10%) Shall Ordinance No. 87-896, an ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach submitted to the voters by the City Council, be adopted which changes the rate of utilities tax from six percent (6%) to ten percent (.10%)? YES NO SECTION 2. Said Registrar is hereby authorized to canvass the returns of said General Municipal Election which it is hereby requested to consolidate with said School District and General District Elections. Said elections shall be held in all respects as if there were only one election, and only one form of ballot shall be used. SECTION 3. Said Board of Supervisors is hereby requested to issue instructions to the Los Angeles County Registrar to take any and all steps necessary for the holding of said consolidated election. SECTION 4. The City of Hermosa Beach recognizes that additional costs will be incurred by the County by reason of this consolidation and agrees to reimburse the County for any such costs. // // // // // // // // // // 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 5._ That the City Clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Board of Supervisors and the Registrar of the County of Los Angeles. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach on the 30th day of July, 1987. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: City Clerk // // // // // APPROVED 0 FORM: y Atto } "`1 1 2 3 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, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO CONSOLIDATE A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF SAID CITY TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY NOVEMBER 3, 1987, WITH THE SCHOOL.' DISTRICT AND GENERAL DISTRICT ELECTIONS TO BE HELD ON.SAID DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 23302 OF THE ELECTION CODE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING CERTAIN MEASURES TO THE ELECTORATE. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach called a General Municipal Election in said City to be held on November 3, 1987 for the purpose of election of two Members of the City Council, a City Clerk, and a City Treasurer for four- year terms ending November, 1991; and for the purpose of submit- ting to the qualified voters of said City the following measures a measure establishing a gross receipts tax for motion picture theaters; and a measure to establishing maximum height limits in the commercial and residential/professional zones; and WHEREAS, it is desirable that ,said General Municipal Election be consolidated with the School District and General District Elections to be held on the same date and that within the City the precincts, polling places and election officers of the two elections be the same; and that the Registrar of the County of Los Angeles canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election; and that said School District and General District Elections be held in all respects as if there were only one election; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That pursuant to the requirements of Section 23302 of the Election Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles be and it hereby is requested to consent 9 and agree to the consolidation of a General Municipal Electio 1 2 3 4` 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. 13 14 15 16 17 with the School District and General District Elections on Tuesday, November 3, 1987 for the purpose of the election of two Members of the City_Council, p City Clerk, and a City Treasurer for four-year terms ending November, 1991; and submitting to the electors of the City of Hermosa Beach measures to appear on the ballot as follows: GROSS RECEIPTS TAX FOR MOTION PICTURE.. THEATERS Shall Ordinance No. 87-893, an ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach submitted to the voters by the City Council, be adopted which establishes a gross receipts tax for motion picture theaters? YES NO MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMITS IN THE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL/ PROFESSIONAL ZONES Shall Ordinance No. 87-894, an ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach submitted to the voters by the City Council, be adopted which requires a vote of the people to raise the maximum height limit for the C-1, C-2, C-3, and residential/professional zones? YES 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NO SECTION 2. Said Registrar is hereby authorized to canvass the returns of said General Municipal Election which it is hereby requested to consolidate with said School District and General District Elections. Said elections shall be held in all respects as if there were only one election, and only one form of ballot shall be used. SECTION 3. Said Board of Supervisors is hereby requested to issue instructions to the Los Angeles County Registrar to take any and all steps necessary for the holding of said consolidated election. SECTION 4.. The City of Hermosa Beach recognizes that additional costs will be incurred by the County by reason of thi consolidation and agrees to reimburse the County for any such costs. -2- 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 5. That the City Clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach fs hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Board of Supervisors and the Registrar of the County of Los Angeles. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach on the 28th day of July, 1987. • PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, Californi ATTEST: APPROVED AS To SRM: City Clerk Attorne 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 RESOLUTION NO. 87-5067 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OF ITS MEMBERS TO FILE WRITTEN ARGUMENTS REGARDING CITY MEASURES AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS. WHEREAS, a General Municipal Election is to be held in the City of Hermosa Beach, California, on November 3, 1987, at which there will be submitted to the voters the following measures: GROSS RECEIPTS TAX FOR MOTION PICTURE THEATERS Shall Ordinance No. 87-893, an ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach submitted to the voters by the City Council, be adopted which establishes a gross receipts tax for motion picture theaters? YES NO MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMITS IN THE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL/ PROFESSIONAL ZONES Shall Ordinance No. 87-894, an ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach submitted to the voters by the City Council, be adopted which requires a vote of the people to raise the maximum height limit for the C-1, C-2, C-3, and residential/professional zones? YES NO MANDATING THE PURCHASE AND INSTITUTION OF THE MEANS OF PURCHASE OF THE A.T.&S.F. RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY Shall Ordinance No. 87-895, an ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach submitted to the voters by the City Council, be adopted which mandates the purchase and institution of the means of pur- chase of the property commonly known as the A.T.&S.F. Santa Fe Railroad Right of Way for parkland and open space? YES NO CHANGING THE UTILITY USERS TAX FROM SIX PERCENT (6%) TO TEN PER- CENT (10%) Shall Ordinance No. 87-896, an ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach submitted to the voters by the City Council, be adopted „ which changes the rate of utilities tax from six percent (6%) to ten percent (10%). YES NO SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 9e 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 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City Council authorizes members of said body to file written arguments in favor of the City measures set forth in the recitals hereof in accordance with Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 5 of the Election Code of the State of California as follows: Ordinance No. 87-893 - Gross Picture Theaters Councilmember invited to sign z_ Rece3 a forMotion TP45C- ith all Councilmembe Ordinance No. 87-894 ximum.Hei ht_L wits in Commercial and Residential/Professional-Zones Councilmember \� with all Councilmembers invited to sign4,-c, S-vJ Ordinance No. 87-895 - stitution of the Means Railroad Right of Way Councilmember invited to sign -C9 (4-0 Ce_d Mandating the Purchase and In - of Purchase of the A.T.&S.F. with all Councilmembers bS-PRC Ordinance No. 87-896 - Changing the Utility Users Tax from Six Percent (6%) to Ten Percent (10%) Councilmember with all Councilmembers invited to sign +{","0 /(VaSti6Ma CC, bk1, jv3/ Said written arguments in favor of said be changed until and including the Clerk after which no arguments for be submitted to the City Clerk. date T -1)-(r* docLe_ locAA S2" City measures may fixed by the City or against said measures may 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 2. That the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measures to the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall prepare impartial analyses of the measures showing the effect of the measures on. the existing law and the operation of the measures. The impartial analyses shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for the filing of primary arguments. SECTION 3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON the 30th day of July 1987: ATTEST: City Clerk PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California APPROVED AS FORM: ._I •;y At or el,: 1986 California Election Manual MEASURES, ANALYSES & ARGUMENTS The City Council must place a measure on the ballot (Form 3) after the proponents submit sufficient signatures on a petition through the charter amendment, initiative or referendum process. Voters may submit an ordinance to the voters directly (initiative) or challenge an ordinance adopted by the Council within 30 days of its adoption (referendum). Provisions of the Government Code and the Elections Code specify the method of placing Charter Amendments on the ballot by the petition process. Questions regarding Bond elections should be submitted to a qualified bond attorney. The law establishes no procedures for submitting other measures through the petition process, however, courts have ruled that questions such as establishing council districts or direct election of the Mayor, which, under the Government Code could only be placed on the ballot by Council order, can now be placed on the ballot through the petition process. The clerk may ask questions of Martin & Chapman Co. regarding advisory elections, tax rate, senior citizens housing, etc., by petition, or bring them to the attention of the City Attorney. Any measure In the above catagories except the referendum may be placed on the ballot by the City Council on Its own order. The law gives the Council greater leeway in setting an election date where there is no petition Involved. Initiative measures, whether by petition or council order, and referendum measures are exempt from the requirement that they be held on a specified election day. Section 10235 specifies the wording of the ballot measure for an Initiative ordinance, Section 10236 specifies the wording of the ballot measure for a referendum and Section 5353 requires that any advisory measure be labeled "Advisory Vote Only". The Elections Code allows proponents and Council Members to submit arguments regarding Initiative and referendum measures submitted by petition in Section 4015 and for groups or voters eligible to vote on the measure to submit arguments regarding other measures in Sections 5010-5016, 5350 and 5351. Sections 4015.5 and 5014.5 allow the Council to adopt provisions to permit rebuttal arguments to be filed (Form 4). These provisions must be adopted (by resolution) at the saw rneetina at which the resolution calling the election is adopted. Section 5015 states "Based on the time reasonably necessary to prepare and print the arguments and sample ballots and to permit the 10 -calendar -day public examination as provided In Article 6 (commencing with Section 5025) for the particular election, the city clerk shall fix and determine a reasonable date ..." as a deadline for submitting arguments. It is suggested that the clerk post a notice (Form 9) on the city hall bulletin board as to this date. The Clerk may also wish to send a copy of the notice to Interested parties. Most proponents and opponents of measures can file arguments within 7-10 days of the call of the election. You will find a suggested date in your "Calendar of Election Events", however, it is to your advantage to set the date even earlier if possible in order to give as much time to the translating, typesetting and proofing process as you can. (In those counties required to comply with the Voting Rights Act, let your translator know if Spanish is to be printed or "will be available ..." so that translating priorities can be established). Section 5025 provides that the Clerk shall allow a 10 -calendar -day public examination period for specified official election materials (i.e., arguments, rebuttals, analyses). During that 10 -calendar -day period, any voter of the jurisdiction or the clerk may seek court action to require any or all such materials be amended or deleted. We can use that 10 day period to begin the translating, typesetting and proofing process. DO NOT wait until the expiration of the 10 -calendar -day period to forward these materials to us (or, when necessary, to your translator). The council "may direct the city clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to the city attorney.... The city attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure." The analysis shall not exceed 500 words in length. It is suggested that the Attorney file the analysis with the Clerk by the deadline for filing arguments. Section 5016 sets up priorities as to which argument Is chosen for printing by the clerk tf two or more arguments are submitted in favor of or against a measure. Section 5013 states that "The legislative body, or any member or members of the legislative body authorized by that body, (Emphasis added) or any Individual voter who is eligible to vote on the measure or bona fide association of citizens, or any combination of voters and associations, may file a written argument for or against any city measure." Consequently, for council members to have fjrst priority in submitting arguments, it is necessary for the council to take formal action to that effect It has been customary for that action to be In the form of a resolution (Form 5). Martin & Chapman Co. / 2131 Bixby Rd. / Lakewood, CA 90712-4168 / 213-426-2511 (5-85/0011e) —16— 1995 California Election Manual No argument shall exceed 300 words in length. The Code specifies the title of the argument (Section 5013), requires that at least one but not more than five persons sign It (Section 5014), requires that consent be obtained to mention the name of an individual or group in the argument (Section 5014.1), provides for the withdrawal of an argument (Sections 5015, 5351) and requires the authors to submit written certification (Section 5350, Form 10). If rebuttals have been authorized, the City Clerk shall give copies of the "Argument in Favor" and the "Argument Against" to the opposing authors as soon as the "direct" arguments are known. The rebuttal arguments (not to exceed 250 words) are due not more than 10 days after the direct arguments are due. When the "Last Day to File Arguments" is set by the Clerk, care should be taken to insure that the deadline for rebuttal arguments does not fall on a weekend or holiday. The law specifies the order In which the items will be printed In the pamphlet and mailed to the voter with the sample ballot (ordinance or charter amendment, analysis, argument "A", rebuttal to argument "A", argument "B" and rebuttal to argument "B"). Martin & Chapman Co. / 2131 Bixby Rd. / Lakewood, CA 90712-4168 / 213-426-2511 (8-85/0011•) -17- 4091. ELECTIONS CODE 1986 4091. Examination of petition. After the petition has been filed, the clerk shall examine the petition in the same manner as are county petitions in accordance with Sections 3707 and 3708, except that, for the purposes of this section, references in those sections to the board of supervisors shall be treated as references to the legislative body of the city or city and county. The expenses of signature verification shall be provided( by the governing body receiving the petition from the clerk. (Added by Stats. 1981, c. 136, §11.) 4092. Preservation and destruction of petition. The petition shall be preserved and destroyed in accordance with the provisions of Section 3756. (Added by Stats. 1981, c. 136, §12.) 4093. Petitions not accepted. Petitions which do not substantially conform to the form requirements of this article shall not be accepted for filing by the clerk. (Added by Stats. 1981, c. 136, §13.) Article 4. Arguments Concerning City Measures 5010. "City measure" definition. As used in this article, "city measure" includes any proposed city charter, any proposed amendment to a city charter, any proposition for the issuance of bonds( by the city, any advisory question, or any other question or proposition submitted to the voters of a city. (Amended by Stats. 1976, c. 916, §2.) 5011. City attorney to prepare impartial analysis. Whenever any city measure qualifies for a place on the ballot, the governing body may direct the city clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to the city attorney, unless the organization or salaries of the office of the city attorney are affected. The city attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure. If the measure affects the organization or salaries of the office of the city attorney, the governing board may direct the city clerk to prepare the impartial analysis. The analysis shall be printed preceding the arguments for and against the measure. The analysis shall not exceed 500 words in length. (Added by Stats. 1976, c. 248, §3.) 5012. If not otherwise provided, voters may submit arguments. If there is no other method provided by general law, or, in the case of a chartered city, by the charter or by city ordinance, arguments for and against any city measure may be submitted to the qualified voters of the city pursuant to this article. If a method is otherwise provided by general law, or, in the case of a chartered city, by charter or city ordinance, for submitting arguments as to a particular kind of city measure, that method shall control. (Added by Stats. 1976, c. 248, §3.) 108 ELECTIONS CODE 1986 5014.5. 5013. Written arguments. The legislative body, or any member or members of the legislative body authorized by that body. or any individual voter who is eligible to vote on the measure, or bona fide association of citizens, or any combination of voters and associations, may file a written argument for or against any city measure. No argument shall exceed 300 words in length. The city clerk shall cause an argument for and an argument against the measure to be printed along with the following statement on the front cover, or if none, on the heading of the first page, of the printed arguments: "Arguments in support or opposition of the proposed laws are the opinions of the authors." The city clerk shall enclose a printed copy of both arguments with each sample ballot; provided, that only those arguments filed pursuant to this section shall be printed and enclosed with the sample ballot. The printed arguments are "official matter" within the meaning of those words used in Section 10010. • Printed arguments submitted to voters in accordance with this section shall be titled either "Argument In Favor Of Measure " or "Argument Against Measure ," accordingly, the blank spaces being filled in only with the letter or number, if any, which designates the measure. At the discretion of the clerk, the word "Proposition" may be substituted for the word "Measure" in such titles. Words used in the title shall not be counted when determining the length of any argument. (Amended by Stats. 1983, c. 812, §6.5.) 5014. Argument not accepted without names. A ballot argument shall not be accepted under this article unless accompanied by the name or names of the person or persons submitting it, or, if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization and the name of at least one of its principal officers. No more than five signatures shall appear with any argument submitted under this article. In case any argument is signed by more than five persons the signatures of the first five shall be printed. (Added by Stats. 1976, c. 248, §3.) 5014.1. Argument not accepted without consent from person included in text. A ballot argument or, if applicable, a rebuttal argument which includes in its text the name of a person, other than the author of the argument, who is represented as being for or against a measure, shall not be accepted unless the argument is accompanied by a signed consent of such person. The consent of a person, other than an individual, shall be signed by an officer or other duly authorized representative. "Person" as used in this section means any individual, partnership, corporation, association, committee, labor organization, and any other organization or group of persons. (Added by Stats. 1978, c. 172, §3.) 5014.5. Rebuttal arguments. (a) If any person submits an argument against a city measure, and an argument has been filed in favor of the city measure, the clerk shall immediately send copies of that argument to the persons filing the argument in favor of the city measure. The persons filing the argument in favor of the city measure may prepare and submit a rebuttal argument not exceeding 250 words. The clerk shall 109 5014.5. ELECTIONS CODE 1986 send copies of the argument in favor of the measure to the persons filing the argument against the city measure, who may prepare and submit a rebuttal to the argument in favor of the city measure not exceeding 250 words. The rebuttal arguments shall be filed with the clerk not more than 10 days after the final date for filing direct arguments. Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the direct arguments. Each rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the direct argument which it seeks to rebut. (b) The provisions of subdivision (a) shall only apply if, not later than the day on which the legislative body calls an election, the legislative body, by a majority vote, adopts its provisions; in which case, the provisions of subdivision (a) shall apply at the next ensuing municipal election and at each municipal election thereafter, unless later repealed by the legislative body in accord with the procedures of this subdivision. (Added by Stats. 1977, c. 701, §2.) 5015. Final date for arguments. Based on the time reasonably necessary to prepare and print the arguments and sample ballots and to permit the 10 -calendar -day public examination as provided in Article 6 (commencing with Section 5025) for the particular election, the city clerk shall fix and determine a reasonable date prior to the election after which no arguments for or against any city measure may be submitted for printing and distribution to the voters as provided in this article. Arguments may be changed or withdrawn by their proponents until and including the date fixed by the city clerk. (Amended by Stats. 1981, c. 1114, §10.) 5016. Clerk to select if more than one argument. If more than one argument for or more than one argument against any city measure is submitted to the city clerk within the time prescribed, the city clerk shall select one of the arguments in favor and one of the arguments against the measure for printing and distribution to the voters. In selecting the argument the city clerk shall give preference and priority in the order named to the arguments of the following: (a) The legislative body, or member or members of the legislative body authorized by that body. (b) The individual voter or bona fide association of citizens, or combination of voters and associations, who are the bona fide sponsors or proponents of the measure. (c) Bona fide associations of citizens. (d) Individual voters who are eligible to vote on the measure. (Amended by Stats. 1983, c. 812, §7.) Article 5. Mailings 5020. One copy of official material per household. Whenever the clerk is required to mail official matter, as provided in Sections 4015, 4015.5, 4018, 5011, 5012, 5013, and 5014.5, only one copy of each such official matter shall be mailed to a postal address where two or more registered voters have the same surname and the same postal address. 1.10 C C ELECTIONS CODE 1986 5151. The provisions of this section shall only apply if the legislative body of the city adopts the provisions of this section and the election official conducting the election approves of the procedure. (Added by Stats. 1978, c. 1279, §2.) Article 6. Public Examination 5025. Public examination of arguments, ordinance and analysis. Not less than 10 -calendar days before the clerk submits the official election materials referred to in Sections 4015, 4015.5, 4018, 5011, 5012, 5013, and 5014.5 for printing, the clerk shall make a copy of such material available for public examination in the clerk's office. Any person may obtain a copy of such materials from the clerk for use outside of the clerk's office. The clerk may charge a fee to any person obtaining a copy of the material, which fee shall not exceed the actual cost incurred by the clerk in providing the copy. During the 10 -calendar -day examination period provided by this section, any voter of the jurisdiction in which the election is being held, or the clerk, himself or herself, may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all such materials to be amended or deleted. A peremptory writ of mandate or an injunction shall be issued only upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading or inconsistent with the requirements of this chapter, and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing or distribution of official election materials as provided by law. The clerk shall be named as respondent and the person or official who authored the material in question shall be named as real parties in interest. In the case of the clerk bringing the mandamus or injuctive action, the board of supervisors of the county shall be named as the respondent and the person or official who authored the material in question shall be named as the real party in interest. (Amended by Stats. 1981, c. 1114;-§11.) Chapter 4. District Elections Article 1. Initiative 5150. Scope of article. In addition to any other method provided by law, ordinances may be enacted by any district pursuant to this article, except that the provisions of this article shall not apply to irrigation districts, to a district formed under a law which does not provide a procedure for elections, to a district formed under a law which does not provide for action by ordinance, to a district governed by an election procedure which permits voters, in electing the district's directors or trustees, to cast more than one vote per voter, or to a district in which the directors are empowered to cast more than one vote per director when acting on any matter. (Added by Stats. 1976, c. 248, §3.) 5151. "District" definition. For the purposes of initiative and referendum under this chapter, "district" includes any regional agency which has the power to tax, to regulate land use, or to condemn and purchase land. (Added by Stats. 1976, c. 248, §3.) 111 July 30, 1987 Honorable John Cioffi Mayor City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive • Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mayor Cioffi: Sorry I will be unable to attend tonights council meeting. You will be considering language for initiatives to be placed .on the ballot. I would like to be considered as a signatory on the initiative supporting the UUT increase to purchase the railroad right-of- way. Thank you. Sincerely, Gary Br.' sc 3112 ermosa Avenue Her sa Beach, CA 90254 372-6468 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 RESOLUTION NO. 87- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OF ITS MEMBERS TO FILE WRITTEN ARGUMENTS REGARDING CITY MEASURES AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS. WHEREAS, a General Municipal Election is to be held in the City of Hermosa Beach, California, on November 3, 1987, at which there will be submitted to the voters the following measures: GROSS.. RECEIPTS TAX FOR MOTION PICTURE THEATERS Shall Ordinance No. 87-893, an ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach submitted to the voters by the City Council, be adopted which establishes a gross receipts tax for motion picture theaters? YES _. NO MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMITS IN THE.COMME'cIAL AND. RESIDENTIAL PROFESSIONAL ZONES Shall Ordinance No. 87-894, an ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach submitted to the voters by the City Coun- cil, be adopted which requires a vote of the people to raise the maximum height limit for the C-1, C-2, C-3, and residential/professional zones? YES _ NO NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City Council authorizes members of said body to file written arguments in favor of the City measure set forth in the recitals hereof in accordance with Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 5 of the Election Code of the State of California as follows: JP Ordinsnee_. No 87-893 .-_.Gross Reeea.pts_ Tax . for M9tior} PictureTheaters Couneilmember with all Councilmembers invited to sign -1- 9 1 2 3 4' 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ordnance_No., 877x8 ?}._r_ laximum, Pei ght_Limits .in. the ,Commercial... and Residentj,al/P_r. ofessiOnal.. Zones Councilmember with all Councilmembers invited to sign Said written arguments in favor of said City measures may be changed until and including the date fixed by the City Clerk after which no arguments for or against said measures may be submitted to the City Clerk. SECTION 2. That the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measures to the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall prepare impartial analyses of the measures showing the effect of the measures on the existing law and the operation of the measures. The impartial analyses shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for the filing of primary arguments. SECTION 3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON the 28th day of July 198 7. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO—' 'ORM: T Atorne 1•• July 23, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the City Council July 28, 1987 REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR BALLOT MEASURES Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council make a policy decision as to whether or not to allow rebuttal arguments for the measures at the November 3, 1987 General Municipal Election. The City Clerk recommends that the Council not authorize rebuttal arguments for these measures, due to the added cost which much be borne by the City. Background The City Council, any group of citizens, or any qualified elector may submit an argument for or against any measure. (Election Code 5013). Rebuttal arguments are allowed only if the City Council authorizes them on the same day it calls an election. (Election Code 5014.5(b)). If rebuttals are authorized, it would result in one more extra page in the Sample Ballot Pamphlet for each argument submitted. For two measures, this could result in 4 extra pages at an estimated cost of $1000 to $2000. Respectfully submitted, (i;ZI6?-11/ Kc hleen Midstokke, City Clerk Noted: Greeyer, Cijy anager DL!E —\(J1 Agkei, TsfrQb eec,) AIAL f •l. 1 2 3 4 RESOLUTION NO. 87— A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR CITY MEASURES SUBMITTED AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 3, 1987. WHEREAS. Section 4015.5 and 5014.5 of the Elections Code 6 of the State of California authorizes the City Council, by 7 majority vote, to adopt provisions to provide for the filing of 8 rebuttal arguments for city measures submitted at municipal elections; 10 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND 11 ORDER AS FOLLOWS: 12 SECTION 1. That pursuant to Sections 4015.5 and 5014.5 13 of the Elections Code of the State of California, when the clerk 14 has selected the arguments for and against the measure which will 15 16 be printed and distributed to the voters, the clerk shall send copies of the argument in favor of the measure to the authors of 17 the argument against, and copies of the argument against to the 18 authors of the argument in favor. The authors may prepare and 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 submit rebuttal arguments not exceeding 250 words. The rebuttal arguments shall be filed with the City Clerk not more than ten (10) days after the final date for filing direct arguments. Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the direct arguments. Each rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the direct argument which it seeks to rebut. SECTION 2. That all previous resolutions providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments for city measures are repealed. SECTION 3. That the provisions of Section 1 shall apply only to the election to be held on November 3, 1987 and shall then be repealed. 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 4. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28nd day of July, 1987. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: City Clerk PPROVED AS/ TO (FORM: C4 ty Attorne 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 h 0 EL-17-1- SOLUTION NO. 87- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, FIXING THE COMPENSATION TO BE RECEIVED BY THE CITY CLERK FOR THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 3, 1987. WHEREAS, the matter of the General Municipal EleCtion of November 3, 1987 as it relates to additional duties and staffing was reviewed by the City Council on June 23, 1987, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That pursuant to Ordinance No. 78-603 of the City of Hermosa Beach, adopted December 14, 1978, the compensation of the City Clerk shall be fixed by resolution of the City Council. SECTION 2. That the City Clerk shall receive an additional monthly salary of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) per month for the four-month election process commencing August 1, 1987 through November 30, 1987, payable semi-monthly at the same time and in the same manner as the salaries paid to each of the officers and employees of th SECTION L . That City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of July, 1987. CITY CLERK PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach N° 0002524 B INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITT DIRECTLprjr Y TO THE VOTERS PETITION TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF HERMOSA BEACH TO INSTITUTE THE AMENDING OF ORDINANCE 84-758 BY MANDATING THAT ALL FUNDS THAT THE CITY DERIVES FROM HYDROCARBON RECOVERY GOES INTO THE '•E FUND NO MATTER WHERE THE WELLS ARE BOTTOMED, EXCEPT UP TO THE FIRST ' i 0.00 OF BUSINESS LICENSE, FEES 1 AND ANY FUNDS REGULATED BY THE STATE LANDS • OMISSION. -> INITIATIVE ORDINANC ne people of the .City tit Hermosa iii ach uv v�uaiii da ifrililifra: POW 1/ pa -F 71 Section 1 (a). Any and all funds derived, acquired, received, awarded, or given to the City of Hermosa Beach from or for hydrocarbon recovery, (including but not limited to drilling, platform fees, royalties, bonuses, etc.), except those fees listed under Section 1 (b), shall be deposited in the Special Funds for the acquisition, maintenance, and improvement of available excess school or other properties for open space and parkland purposes. Section 1 (b). Up to $0.00 annually per business license fees paid by the oil well operator -and/or his subordinates, and any monies regulated by the state lands commission are the only monies that are not to be placed in the above special fund, and may be placed as required. Section 2. If any section or portion of this initiative ordinance is declared invalid by a court of proper jurisdiction,, the remaining sections or portions are to be considered valid. Section 3. There shall be no modification, amendment or repeal of any provision herein except by vote of the people. NOTICE OF INTENT TO CIRCULATE PETITION PETITION TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF HERMOSA BEACH TO INSTITUTE THE AMENDING OF ORDINANCE 84-758 BY MANDATING THAT ALL FUNDS THAT THE CITY DERIVES EXCEPT UP TO THE FIRST $200.00 OF BUSINESS LICENSE FEES, AND ANY MONIES REGULATED BY THE STATE LANDS COMMISSION FROM HYDROCARBON RECOVERY GOES INTO THE OPEN SPACE FUND, NO MATTER WHERE THE WELLS ARE BOTTOMED. Notice is hereby given of the intention of the persons whose names appear hereon of their intention to circulate the petition within the City of Hermosa Beach for the purpose of providing the electorate with the opportunity to tell their City Officers that any and all funds that the city derives (except up to the first $200.00 of business license fees) from hydrocarbon recovery goes into the open space fund no matter where the wells are bottomed. A statement of the reasons of the proposed action as contemplated in the petition is as follows: We, the undersigned, being duly qualified and registered voters of the City of Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California, are circulating this petition for the City of Hermosa Beach to institute the method of mandating that funds derived by the city except for the first $200.00 for business license fees, and any monies regulated by the state lands commission must go into the open space fund no matter where the wells are bottomed. —01)130j -2kw,;.cLAAd a%i sq"iv.A ..»Q7 01,L0 61 43 9a(3)