Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/26/88"It's a strange world of language in which skating on thin ice can get you into hot water." -Franklin P. Jones AGENDA REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 26, 1988 - Council Chambers, City Hall 9.'00 Closed Session rG:30'p.m. Regular Session - 7:30 p.m. MAYOR Etta Simpson MAYOR PRO TEM Jim Rosenberger COUNCILMEMBERS Roger Creighton Chuck Sheldon June Williams CITY CLERK Kathleen Midstokke CITY TREASURER Gary L. Brutsch CITY MANAGER Kevin B. Northcraft 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: INTRODUCTION OF NEW EMPLOYEES: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: Eric Alef, Maintenance I Brian Gengler, Asst. Engineer Ursula Manson-Velete, Clerk Typist Richard Mish FIRE DEPARTMENT: Jerry Clawson, Firefighter/Paramedic Michele Harris, Clerk Typist Tyler Hartley, Firefighter Mark Williams, Firefighter/Paramedic GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT: Kari Ann Propeck, Technical Aide Eric Mldanado, Gen. Svcs. Ofcr. CITIZEN COMMENTS Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any items on the Consent Calendar or within the jurisdiction of the Council not elsewhere considered on the agenda may do so at this time. Citizens may request to speak during Public Hearings and items appearing under Municipal Matters at the time the item is called. Please limit comments to three minutes. Citizens with comments regarding City management or departmental operations are request- ed to submit those comments to the City Manager. 1 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following routine matters will be acted upon by one vote to approve with the majority con- sent of the City Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless good cause is shown by a member prior to the roll call vote. (Items removed will be considered under Agenda Item 3.) (a) Recommendation to approve minutes of Adjourned meeting held on April 7, 1988 and Regular meeting of the City i Council held on April 12, 1988. �U //-- (b) Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants ?1 4'4 Nos. through inclusive. (c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. Recommendation to receive and file the monthly financial reports for March, 1988. 1) Expenditure Report 2) Revenue Report 3) Treasurer's Report Recommendation to approve the Contract Services Agree- ment, County of Los Angeles re. examination of tract and parcel maps, and authorize Mayor to sign. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated April 19, 1988. (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) Recommendation to deny claims and refer to City's Claims Administrator the claims of: 1) Lance Wilhite, 37 - 9th St., Hermosa Beach, filed April 11, 1988; 2) Sandra Vincent, 9804 "E" Ave., S-14, Little Rock, CA, filed April 18, 1988. Recommendation to receive and file Election Calendar for November 8, 1988 consolidated election, with instruc- tions that key dates for Council action be put on Tenta- tive Future Agenda Items. Request by Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce for certain services in conjunction with their 22nd Bi -Annual Fiesta de las Artes May 28, 29 and 30, 1988 and September 3, 4, and 5, 1988. Recommended Action: To approve requested street clo- 7".41-441 sures, participation by merchants in sidewalk sales, assistance of Public Works in hanging banners, Chamber hiring clean-up company and supervising same, and to require appropriate insurance. Recommendation to award bid for City Hall electrical improvements (CIP 86-602) to Shultz Electric in an amount not to exceed $42,859; authorize Mayor to sign, 1 cS and authorize staff to issue change orders as necessary. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated April 18, 1988. (j) Recommendation to award bid for purchase of four inch hose and fittings to L. N. Curtis & Sons and authorize staff to issue change orders and negotiate with vendor as necessary. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated April 19, 1988. Recommendation to receive and file report regarding RCC tTu/= contract extension and authorize City Manager to sign the month-to-month agreement for services with RCC. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski rated April 19, 1988. (1) Recommendation to approve a 3 -year extension of agree- f ment with Executive Suite for housekeeping services and`rci, authorize Mayor to sign; authorize staff to issue adden-f da, as necessary, within budget limitations. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated April 14, 1988. (k) (m) (n) (0) (P) Recommendation to receive and file status Street and 22nd Street restroom repairs. from Public Works Director Anthony Antich 19, 1988 report on 2nd3V4;477 °0 Memorandum dated April Recommendation to extend California Landscape Main- tenance contract for the period from July 1, 1988 to June 30, 1991 and authorize staff to issue addenda asC5=':4V8' necessary within budget limitations. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated April 18, 1988. Recommendation to approve request for 30 -day extension of temporary appointment - Police Records Administrator. Memorandum from Personnel Administrator Robert Blackwood dated April 20, 1988. Recommendation to approve new specifications for the Community Center van; authorize staff to readvertise for lease/purchase of one utility van; and authorize staff E," to issue addenda as necessary.' Memorandum from Public Ad• Works Director Anthony Antich dated April 19, 1988. MOTION TO WAIVE FURTHER READING: After the City Clerk has read the title to any resolution or or- dinance on tonight's agenda, the further reading thereof be waived, reserving and guaranteeing to each Councilmember the right to demand the reading of any such resolution or ordinance in regular order. ***************************************************************** C, 4,024.141 Acc- (d) �iJ 3. 4. PUBLIC ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ORDINANCE NO. 88-922 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 2-2.16, ADDRESSING THE COUNCIL. � For waiver of further reading d adop ion `��� a ORDINANCE NO. 8 - 23 - AN 0 D NANCE AMENDING C PT R 29.5, ARTICLE IV, MERGER OF PARCELS. waiver of fury ther reading a _ • adop ion. /0) A RESO • ON A•••O IHE MERGER OF 1276 - 9TH STREET INTO TWO PARCELS WHICH CONFO •. �__'N G OR N illraMIN17.,0' STREET LIGHT DIS •. 988-1989. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS REGARDING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT A -5 For AND SETT E 14, 1988 FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. Memo- �dt0 andum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated„,,' Apr2, 198x►- h "7 ' 1 HERM SA BEACH CROSSING GUARD MAINTENANSTRICT NO. 1988-1989. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS REGARDING THE EN- GINEER'S REPORT AND SETTING JUNE 14,1988 FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated April X2,/1988. ade A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH FOR FY 1988-89 PROPOSITION A DIS- CRETIONARY FUNDS UNDER THE SUBREGIONAL PARATRANSIT th'-1 INCENTIVE PROGRAM FOR THE "WAVE” DIAL -A -RIDE PROGRAM. For adoption. Memorandum from Planning Dire tor Michae Schubach at _Aril 14,1988.mago i IT MO D ROM THE CbNSENT LENDFOR SEP TE DISCUSSION. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. corAR- '- "elige6' PROPOSED ORDINANCE dum from Planni 19, 1988.-'t4 yr/ FOR ZONE CHANGE OF AREA 2. Meihora-6(-6"4". - 09-e R-2 i ector ''cchha1e1 Schubach dated Ap PROPOSED ODR INANCE-FOR TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING PROJEC- TIONS INTO REQUIRED YARD AREAS. Memorandum from Plan- ning Director Michael Scubach dated April 19, 1988. 7— 6 APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO NOT MERGE LOTS LOCATED AT 1214 - 10 H .TREET AND 1233 - 21ST STREET. Memorandum from Pla ng Director M'chael Schubach dated April 18, 1988. Amy 44444- -/w1,1 MUNICIPAL MATTERS STUDY OF BILTMORE SITE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA. Memorandum- from Plan ng D'prect r Michael ,.Scc#�ubacch/ dated A r1 1988. �� /•iLD//c�.�l i�-GC-�\• �' ril i� 9. " ' •RO�� AMENDMENT TO SIGN ORDINANCE CHANGING IO TIONS FROM MISDEMEANORS TO INFRACTIONS IN ORDER TO IMPROVE ENFORCEMENT CAPABILITIES. Memorandum from Building and Safetydirector Willis G ve dated April 18, 1988. .ado Ytcoi DISCONTINUANC OF THE HERMOSA COMMUTER BUS AND 30 DAY 7R - CONTRACT EXTENSION WITH COMMUNITY TRANSIT SERVICES, INC. TO OPERATE THIS SERVICE. Memorandum from Planning Di- rector Michael Sch ach ted A '1 18, 1988. 11. ANNUAL REVIEW OF vASEK PO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. Memorandum from City Attorney James P. Lough dated April 19, 1988. 12. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER Consideration of adjourning to a meeting for the purpose of reviewing and updating City Council's goals. Memo- randum from Ma ager Kevin B.ort raft dated April 21, 1988. �� . 13. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) Authorization to send letters of support for inclusion of Santa Monica Bay in the National Estuaries Program. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated April 20, 1988. Authorization to send letters regarding AB 2958 and SB 2177 consistent with the League of California Cities positions on these bills. Memorandum from City Manager evin B Northcraf date d A it ?q, 1988. f45 - Chan a of delega e' • SouthJuvenile Di er-ion Po i- cy Board. (Oral report) y Y Discussion of ballot issues reqLL riling B tmore Site and r the railroad ,right 1of-wa . (Orals- port) YL (b) (c) ��dam /714. 'tl '-'Requests (a) OTHER MATTERS -"CITY COUNC from Councilmembers for possible future agenda i ems. Reques •y Councilmember Williams for discussion of bal' r9., lot measu - to allow merged lots to re -subdivide into 3,750 sq. ft Recommended Acti•,: 1) Vote by Council whether to ) d scuss this item; refer to staff for a report back on a future agenda; or 3) resolution of matter by Coun- cil action tonight. ADJOURNMENT k11) 1G11- t/TG+/- 3/ CITY HALL OPERATING HOURS MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY OPEN 7:00 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M. CLOSED FRIDAYS 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. It is the policy of the City Council that no discussion of new items will begin after 11:30 p.m., unless this rule is waived by the Council. The agendas are developed with the intent to have all matters covered within the time allowed. 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 mdves 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 smok »g allowed in the Council Chambers, IP* s THE'HERMOSA BEACH FORM OF GOVERNMENT Hermosa Beach bas the Council -Manager form of government, with a City Manager ap- pointed by and responsible to the City Council for carrying out Council policy. The Mayor and Council decide what is to be done.. The City Manager, operating through the entire City staff, does it. This separation of policy making and administration is considsered the most economical and efficient form of City government in the United States today. GLOSSARY The following explanations may help you to understand the terms found on most agen- das for meetings of the Hermosa Beach City Council. Consent Items A compilation of all routine matters to be acted upon by one vote; approval re- quires a majority affirmative vote. Any Councilmember can remove an item from this listing thereby causing that matter to be considered under the category Consent Cal- endar items Removed For Separate Discussion. Public Hearings Public Hearings are held on certain matters as required by law. The Hearings afford the public the opportunity to appear and formally express their views regarding the matter being heard. Additionally, letters may be filed with the City Clerk, prior to the Hearing. Hearings Hearings are held on other matters of public importance for which there is no legal requirement to conduct an advertised Public Hearing. Ordinances An ordinance is a law that regulates government revenues and/or public conduct. All ordinances require two "readings". The first reading introduces the ordinance into the records. At least one week later Council may adopt, reject or hold over the ordinance to a subsequent meeting. Regular ordinances take effect 30 days after the second reading. Emergency ordinances are governed by different provisions and waive the time requirements. Written Communications The public, members of advisory boards/commissions or organizations may formally communicate to or make a request of Council by letter; said letters should be filed with the City Clerk by the Wednesday preceeding the Regular City Council meeting. Miscellaneous Items and Reports - City Manager The City Manager coordinates departmental reports and brings items to the attention of, or for action by the City Council. Verbal reports may be given by the City Manager regarding items not on the agenda, usually having arisen since the agenda was prepared on the preceding Wednesday. Miscellaneous Items and Reports - City Council Members of the City Council may place items on•ithe agenda for consideration by the full Council. Other Matters - City Council These are matters that come to the attention of a Council member after publication of the Agenda. Oral Communications from the Public - Matters of an Urgency Nature Citizens wishing to address the City Council on an urgency matter not elsewhere con- sidered on the agenda may do so at this time. Parking Authority The Parking Authority is a financially separate entity,.but is operated as an inte- gral part of the City government. Vehicle Parking District No. 1 The City Council also serves as the Vehicle Parking District Commission: It's pur- pose is to oversee the operation of certain downtown parking lots and otherwise pro- mote public parking in the central business district. ti MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, April 12, 1988 at the hour of 7:30 P.M. CLOSED SESSION - 6:00 p.m. pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) regarding litigation Gaskampe vs. City of Hermosa Beach, Pantusco vs. City of Hermosa Beach, Hermosa Beach Elementary School District vs. City of Hermosa Beach, Coast Savings/Gotanda vs. City of Hermosa Beach, McClellen, Steiner, Hastings, et al vs. City of Hermosa Beach and Creighton vs. City of Hermosa Beach, and for matters of personnel and labor negotiations. ROLL CALL Present: Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Absent: None PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Councilmember June ROLL CALL Present: Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Absent: None Williams, Mayor Simpson Williams Williams, Mayor Simpson PROCLAMATIONS: Fair Housing Month, April, 1988 Child Passenger Safety Week, May 1 - 8, 1988 Earthquake Preparedness Month, April, 1988 RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: Laurie Duke - 17th Anniversay as City Employee INTRODUCTION OF NEW EMPLOYEES: Alex Hernandez, Assistant Planner Yu Ying Ting, Clerk Typist, Plan- ing Department RECOGNITION OF SPONSORS OF THE EASTER EGG HUNT: H.B. Jaycees; Scott Ingell of Scotty's Restaurant; Mary Stark of Sir Speedy; Hermosa Valley School. CITIZEN COMMENTS None 1. CONSENT CALENDAR Action: To approve Consent Calendar items (a) through (s) with the exception of the following items which were pulled for discussion but are listed in order for clari- ty: (e) Creighton, (f) Rosenberger, (k) Rosenberger, (1) Sheldon, (r) Sheldon and (s) Sheldon. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered. (a) Recommendation to approve minutes of special meeting of the City Council held on March 17, 1988. 1 Minutes 4-12-88 Recommendation to approve minutes of special meeting of the City Council held on March 21, 1988. Recommendation to approve minutes of regular meeting of the City Council held on March 22,1988. Recommendation to approve minutes of special meeting of the City Council held on March 29, 1988. Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants Councilmember Creighton asked whether the Loreto Plaza water bill was iicluded on these Demands and Warrants. He was advised by the City Manager that it was not and that a system was being set up to monitor the utility bills. Action: To approve Demands and Warrants Nos. 25984 through 25989 and 25991 through 26152 inclusive, noting voided Warrants Nos. 25992 through 25995 inclusive and 26059. Motion Creighton, second Rosenberger. So ordered. (f) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. Councilmember Rosenberger asked to have the kiosk at the pierhead put back on the Tentative Future Agenda. City Manager Northcraft will contact the Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce regarding the kiosk. Action: To receive and file. Motion Rosenberger, second Mayor Simpson. So ordered. (g) Recommendation to receive and file Monthly Investment Report. Memorandum from City Treasurer Gary L. Brutsch dated April 4, 1988. (h) Recommendation to cancel Warrants Nos. 025319, 025361, 025844, 025900, 025918 and 025947. Memorandum from City Treasurer Gary L. Brutsch dated March 21, 1988. (i) Recommendation to receive and file report of a vacancy created on the Cable TV Board and to not fill that vacancy. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dated March 29, 1988. Supplemental information - CATV Board March 21, 1988 Meeting Summary. (j) Recommendation to deny claim for damages and refer to City's Claims Administrator the claim of John Zertuche, 11115 Acame St., #2, No. Hollywood, CA 91602, filed March 23, 1988. (k) Recommendation to authorize call for bids for concrete street repairs (CIP 85-160). Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated April 4, 1988. 2 Minutes 4-12-88 1 Action: To approve the plans and specifications for CIP 85-160, Concrete Street Repair, deleting the sidewalk adjacent to Greenwood Park along Aviation Boulevard, and authorize staff to advertise for bids and issue addenda as necessary. Motion Rosenberger, second Mayor Simpson. So ordered. (1) Recommendation to authorize call for bids for bicycle path repairs (CIP 85-165). Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated April 4, 1988. Action: To approve the plans and specifications for bicycle path repair, and authorize staff to advertise for bids for the bicycle path repair project and to is- sue addenda as necessary. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered. (m) Award of bid for first floor Police Department remodel (CIP 87-606). Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated March 24, 1988. Action: Award bid to Stuart Construction Co. at a cost not to exceed $148,962, authorize Mayor to sign, and authorize staff to issue addenda as necessary within budget limits. (n) Award of bid for asphalt street repairs (CIP 87-171). Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated April 4, 1988. (o) (p) Action: Award bid to Vernon Paving, at a cost not to exceed $82,500, authorize Mayor to sign, and authorize staff to issue addenda as necessary within budget limits. Recommendation to approve Special Event Permit for addi- tional pro beach volleyball tournament. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian dated April 4, 1988. Action: To approve the permit request for a Women's Professional Beach Volleyball Tournament (Group Dynamics) on August 27-28, 1988 and direct staff to negotiate a contract per the conditions of our pro tour- nament policy. Recommendation to approve uniform signage policy for all Hermosa Beach parks per the guidelines submitted by the Community Resources Advisory Commission. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian dated March 31, 1988. Action: To approve•staff recommendation establishing a policy for uniform signage in all parks and parkettes in Hermosa Beach per the guidelines suggested by the Com- mission: "imbedded stone-like" monument signs using the 3 Minutes 4-12-88 (q) (r) (s) Hermosa logo and built in proportion to the size of the park." Recommendation to authorize installation of drinking fountain at Edith Rodaway Friendship Park and allocate funds for same. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian dated April 4, 1988. Action: To approve the installation of a drinking foun- tain at Edith Rodaway Friendship Park, direct the Public Works Department to perform the work, and appropriate $350 from Prospective Expenditures to the Parks budget for this project. Recommendation to include consideration of air con- ditioning for the Civic Theatre in the City's 1988-89 budget. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Alava Mastrian dated April 5, 1988. Speaking to Council was George Schmeltzer, 515 - 24th Place, who asked that the Hermosa Beach Community Resources Commission and the Community Center Foundation be allowed to make a joint presentation to the City Council in June regarding the Civic Theatre. Action: To include in the 1988/89 budget discussions consideration for the installation of air conditioning in the Civic Theater on the recommendation of the Com- munity Resources Advisory Commission. Recommendation to receive and file report on Civic The- atre usage for 88/89 budget deliberations. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian dated April 7, 1988. MOTION TO WAIVE FURTHER READING Action: To waive full reading of any ordinance or this evening's agenda. Motion Creighton, second Rosenberger AYES - Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Williams, NOES - None resolution on Mayor Simpson 2. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS (a) ORDINANCE NO. 88-920 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HER- MOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN REGARD TO THE DEFINITION, LOCATION AND COMPUTATION OF OPEN SPACE AND ADOPTING A NEGATIVE. DECLARATION. For waiver of further reading and adoption. Supplemental information - memorandum from Deputy City Clerk Lois Peek dated April 11, 1988. Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 88-920. Motion Williams, second Rosenberger. So ordered. 4 Minutes 4-12-88 (b) ORDINANCE NO. 88-922 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HER- MOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 2- 2.16, ADDRESSING THE COUNCIL. For waiver of further reading and adoption. This ordinance was read in total by Mayor Simpson for the benefit of the audience. Action: To reintroduce Ordinance No. 88-922 with chang- es on lines 23 through 24 as follows: "granted by majority vote of the council, shall limit his or her remarks to three (3) minutes or a total of fifteen (15) minutes for all 'speakers per subject per session." Motion Sheldon, second Rosenberger (discussion) AYES - Creighton, Sheldon, Mayor Simpson NOES - Rosenberger, Williams (feels this time limitation should not apply to public hearings) (c) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP #18835 FOR A 2 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1026 SUNSET DRIVE, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. Memorandum from Plan- ning Director Michael Schubach dated April 4, 1988. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 88-5126. Motion Rosenberger, second Williams. So ordered. (d) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP #18813 FOR A 2 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM LOCATED AT 1134 SUNSET DRIVE, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 4, 1988. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 88-5125. Motion Sheldon, second Rosenberger. So ordered. (e) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 5 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, "BEACH, BOATS AND MUNICIPAL PIER", ARTICLE I, SECTION 5-24.5(a) TO ADD THE WORD QUADRICYCLE (to allot four -wheeled quadricycles not to exceed 36" in width). For waiver of full reading and introduction. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dat- ed April 1, 1988. Action: To receive and file. Motion Creighton, second Rosenberger AYES - Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Williams, Mayor Simpson NOES - None (f) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING PROPOSED LEGISLATION FOR CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION TO LINE PORTIONS OF THE ALL AMERICAN CANAL AND THE COACHELLA BRANCH. For adoption. 5 - Minutes 4-12-88 Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated March 31, 1988. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 88-5124. Motion Mayor Simpson, second Rosenberger AYES - Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Williams, Mayor Simpson NOES - None 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. Consent Calendar items (e), (f), (k), (1), (r) and (s) were discussed at this time but are listed in order for clarity. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. None PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION NOT TO MERGE LOTS LOCATED AT 1137 NINTH STREET AND 1276 NINTH STREET. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 4, 1988. The staff report was presented by Planning Director Michael Schubach. The Public Hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak were: Martha Northrop, 1276 - 9th Street - requested her three lots not be merged into one lot - agreed to two -lot merger Wilma Burt, 1152 - 7th Street - felt that the City should pay for the survey to set new lot lines and any other costs involved in the Northrop lot merger The Public Hearing was closed. Proposed Action: To accept the staff recommendation regarding 1137 - 9th Street; and to divide 1276 - 9th Street into two lots of equal size if Redondo Beach has no objection, all costs to be borne by the City of Her- mosa Beach. Motion Sheldon, second Rosenberger Withdrawn by the maker of the motion and the second Action: To approve merger of 1137 - 9th Street and adopt Resolution No. 88-5127 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFOR- NIA, APPROVING ON APPEAL THE MERGER OF LOTS COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1137 - 9TH STREET" with changes to delete 1276 - 9th Street; and approve dividing 1276 - 9th Street 6 Minutes 4-12-88 into two lots of equal size, the only caveat being the agreement of Redondo Beach, staff to return at the next meeting with the appropriate resolution. Motion Sheldon, second Rosenberger AYES - Rosenberger, Sheldon, Williams, Mayor Simpson NOES - Creighton Councilmember Williams asked that separate resolutions be prepared for future lots mergers. 6. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 29.5, ARTICLE IV, MERGER OF PARCELS. Memorandum from City Attorney James P. Lough dated March 21, 1988. The staff Lough. The Public were: Wilma Burt citizens Bob Fleck, always a report was presented by City Attorney James P. Hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak , 1152 - 7th Street - State Law gives the the right to not have their lots merged. 620 - 24th Street - stressed density is hard and personal interest. The Public Hearing was closed. Action: To introduce Ordinance No. 88-923 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 29.5-19, 29.5-21, 29.5-25, 29.5-26 AND 29.5-28 TO ESTABLISH AND CLARIFY PROCEDURES REGARDING THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW, APPEAL PROCESSES AND DATES WHEN NOTICES MUST BE EFFECTUATED UNDER LOT MERGER PROCEDURES" with the deletion on page 2, Section 2, lines 16 after subsection (d). through line 22. Motion Sheldon, second Mayor Simpson AYES - Rosenberger, Sheldon, Williams, Mayor Simpson NOES - Creighton Further Action: To reconsider the above action. Motion Sheldon, second Rosenberger. So ordered. Final Action: To introduce Ordinance No. 88-923 enti- tled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CAL- IFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 29.5-19, 29.5-21. 29.5-25. 29.5-26, AND 29.5-28 TO ESTABLISH AND CLARIFY PROCEDURES REGARDING THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW, APPEAL PROCESSES AND DATES WHEN NOTICES MUST BE EFFECTUATED UNDER LOT MERGER PROCEDURES" as submitted by the City Attorney. Motion Sheldon, second Simpson AYES - Rosenberger, Sheldon, Mayor Simpson NOES - Creighton, Williams A recess was called at 9:07 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:25 P.M. - 7 - Minutes 4-12-88 MUNICIPAL MATTERS 7. REPORT REGARDING REQUEST OF MICHAEL LAWTON FOR EXEMPTION FROM STANDARDS FOR PROJECT LOCATED AT 1840 HERMOSA AVENUE. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director William Grove dated April 4, 1988. The staff report was presented by Building and Safety Director Williams Grove. Speaking to Council were: Mike Lawton, 1840 Hermosa Avenue, owner of the property George Spratt, 938 Duncan, Manhattan Beach, architect Action: To approve the staff recommendation and alternative one as follows: 1. Refund plan check fees for the three unit project or apply those fees to a revised project that con- forms with the General Plan. 2. Expedite the plan review of any revised project. 3. Allow the applicant additional time to revise the project to conform to the General Plan while retaining the R-3 development standards already "grandfathered" pursuant to Ordinance No. 88-917. This may need to be accomplished by amending the referenced ordinance with respect to the time limit. 4. Allow the applicant to pursue a two -unit condomini- um project while retaining the R-3 development standards allowed for projects submitted prior to the introduction of Ordinance No. 88-917. The Council would be interpreting the condominium pro- posal as a revision to the previously submitted project and thus "grandfathered" regarding develop- ment standards. This would require processing through the Planning Commission for the Tentative Tract Map and Conditional Use Permit and would also require additional time allowances to obtain a permit. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered. 8. REVIEW OF U.U.T. EXPENDITURES/REVENUES. Memorandum from Assistant City Manager Alana Mastrian dated April 5, 1988. Supplemental information - memorandum from City Treasurer Gary Brutsch dated January 28, 1988. The staff report was presented by Assistant City Manager Alana Mastrian. Action: To receive and file. Motion Creighton, second Mayor Simpson. So ordered. 8 Minutes 4-12-88 9. CONSIDERATION OF SOLUTIONS TO FIRE PROTECTION NEEDS CON- FRONTED WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated April 7, 1988. Sup- plemental information letter from Howard Longacre dated April 12, 1988. Speaking to Council were: Betty Ryan, 588 - 20th Street Moira Nelson, 2415 Silverstrand Wilma Burt, 1152 - 7th Street 9 Action: To (1) direct staff to draft interim agreements for current developments; (2) devise a fee system based on square footage on all new developments in the City based on extensive studies and Water Company participa- tion; and (3) return immediately with suggested interim agreements and, as soon as possible, with this fee structure so that the burden can be shared fairly. Motion Sheldon, second Rosenberger. So ordered. 10. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER (a) Consideration of design review process for new construc- tion. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated March 30, 1988. Action: To direct the Planning Commission and staff to study the appropriateness of a design review process for new construction within the City. Motion Sheldon, second Simpson Amendment to Motion: To emphasize the Planning Commis- sion study on new large residential and commercial con- struction and on lots in excess of 4500 square feet. Motion Rosenberger -not accepted by maker of the motion. So ordered. Final Action: To send to the Planning Commission and encourage them to move expeditiously to adopt a recom- mendation to the City Council and giving them the responsibility for reviewing commercial developments from an architectural standpoint. Motion Creighton, second Sheldon. So ordered. (b) Proposed policy for length of City Council meetings. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated April 5, 1988. Action: To approve the staff recommendation and policy as follows: "It is the policy of the City Council that no discussion of new items will begin after 11:30 p.m., unless this 9 Minutes 4-12-88 rule is waived by the Council. The agendas are devel- oped with the intent to have all matters covered within the time allowed." Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered Final Action: To stay this evening and finish the agen- da in one-half hour. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered. (c) Meeting with Assemblyman Felando City Manager Northcraft advised that he would be meeting with Assemblyman Felando on April 15 and asked Council if they had any 'input. (d) Purpose of 911 City Manager Northcraft advised Council that 911 should be called whenever a police officer or fireman is needed. (e) Water Billing Error/Exchange of Property with Loreto Plaza City Manager Northcraft stated that the City will seek recovery of the costs for the water bills paid in error by the City and advised that an annual audit is being set up for all the City's utility bills. 11. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) (b) Request by Councilmember Williams for discussion of pro- posed SCAG transportation study. (Oral report) Action: To have Councilmember Williams represent the City's vote as being one for the public transportation study. Motion Creighton, second Simpson. So ordered. List of committees that require noticing of their meet- ings. Memorandum from City Attorney James P. Lough dat- ed April 5, 1988. Supplemental information - new second page to City Attorney memorandum with change to City Manager comments. Action: To disband the following committees: City -Community Relations City -County Relations Strand Safety Committee State Legislative Review Transportation & Parking Motion Creighton, second Creighton. So ordered. Final Action: To direct the City Attorney, City Clerk and Councilmember Williams to meet to determine which - 10 - Minutes 4-12-88 (c) (d) (e) committees require noticing per the Brown Act. Motion Creighton, second Williams. So ordered. Appointment of one Member to be the City's represen- tatiave to the Los Angeles County West Mosquito Abate- ment District. Memorandum from City Clerk Kathleen Mid- stokke dated April 6, 1988. Action: To receive and file. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered. Planning Commission Expiration of Terms. Memorandum from City Clerk Kathleen Midstokke dated April 6, 1988. Action: To advertise for applicants. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered. Consideration of ballot measures for November, 1988. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated April 7, 1988. Action: To appoint a temporary subcommittee to work with staff to propose language for clear options on uses of the Biltmore Site, said subcommittee members to be Councilmembers Rosenberger and Sheldon. Motion Mayor Simpson, second Creighton. So ordered. 12. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: (a) (b) Request by Councilmember Sheldon for discussion of beach maintenance with emphasis on graffiti. Action: To have the City Manager bring back to Council the estimated cost and the capability of the City to respond to the grafitti problem on public property. Motion Sheldon, second Simpson. So ordered The direction of the chair to the City Manager was to ask him to help the City Council understand the County maintenance and inspection schedule for the beach rest - rooms, to evaluate the adequacy of this schedule, and consider maintaining the restrooms ourselves. Request by Mayor Simpson for discussion re. prioritizing consideration by Planning Commission of SPA '84. Action: To request a response from the Planning Commis- sion regarding the Specific Plan Area '84. Motion Mayor Simpson, second Creighton. So ordered. City Council was informed that this matter would be returned to Council at the April 26, 1988 meeting. Minutes 4-12-88 The Regular Meeting of the City Council adjourned at the hour of 11:56 P.M. to a meeting of the Hermosa Beach Vehicle Parking District Commission. 13. MEETING OF THE HERMOSA BEACH VEHICLE PARKING DISTRICT COMMISSION. The Regular Meeting of the City Council reconvened at the hour of 11:59 P.M. ADJOURNMENT The Regular Meeting of the City Beach, California, adjourned on hour of 11:59 P.M. to a Regular April 26, 1988 at the hour of 7 Executive Session at 6:00 P.M. Council of the City of Hermosa Tuesday, April 12, 1988 at the Meeting to be held on Tuesday, :30 P.M., preceded by a Closed e/0,_ A( Deputy City Clerk - 12 - Minutes 4-12-88 MINUTES OF THE_MEETING QF_THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, April 26, 1988 at the hour of 7:42 P.M. CLQSSE SESSION - Pursuant to Govt. Code Section 54956.9(a) regarding litigation Hermosa Beach Cit ySoho p1 D strctv. it of.,Hgrmosa"Beaeh and real property negot ations A.T. & S.F. Railroad right-of-way, and Biltmore Site, held at 7:00 P.M. Present: Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Williams, Mayor Simpson Absent: None FaD E_ F_AI,LE _IAN E - Councilmember Creighton ROLL CALL Present: Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Williams, Mayor Simpson Absent: None ACTIQNS_ERQM,CLOSED.SEMOV City Attorney Lough announced that the City Council did discuss negotiating instructions over the potential purchase of the Railroad right-of-way. INTRQQUCTLQN.OF NEW. EMPLOYEES: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: Eric Alef, Maintenance I Brian Gengler, Asst. Engineer Ursula Manson-Velete, Clerk Typist Richard Mish FIRE DEPARTMENT: Jerry Clawson, Firefighter/Paramedic Michele Harris, Clerk Typist Tyler Hartley, Firefighter Mark Williams, Firefighter/Paramedic GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT: Kari Ann Propeck, Technical Aide Eric Maldanado, Gen. Svcs. Ofcr. c'rIZEy COMMENTS None 1. PONSENT_CALENQAR Action.To approve Consent Calendar recommendations (a) through (p) with the exception of the following items which were pulled for discussion but are listed in order for clarity: (a) Williams, (d) City Manager, (n) Shel- don, (p) Rosenberger, and noting a NO vote by Williams on item (k) due to penalities for late payment. Motion Creighton, second Rosenberger. So ordered. - 1 - Minutes 4-26-88 (a) Recommendation to rove minute of Adjourned meeting held on April 7, 198 and Regular meeting of the City Council held on April 12, 1988. Supplemental informa- tion - memorandum from City Clerk Kathleen Midstokke dated April 25, 1988, and Councilmember Williams. At the request of Councilmember Williams, the minutes of April 7, 1988 will be resubmitted with the changes. (b) Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants Nos 25990 and 26153 through 26296 inclusive noting voided Warrants Nos. 26156 through 26163 inclusive and 26214. (0) Recommendation to, receive,. and file Tentative. future Agenda, Items. (d) Recommendation to_reeeive an&_file the monthly financial reports, for., March, .19$$. 1) Expenditure Report 2) Revenue Report 3) Treasurer's Report This item was tabled due to software problems, and will be submitted as soon as possible. (e) Recommendation to. approve the Contract Services Agree- ment, County,of Los Angeles re.. examination of tract and parcel maps, and. authorize Mayor,to,sign, Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated April 19, 1988. (f) Recommendation to deny claims and refer. to City!s.Claims Administrator the claims of: 1) Lance Wilhite, 37 - 9th St., Hermosa Beach, filed.. April 11, 1988; 2) Sandra Vincent, 9804 "E" Ave., S-14, Little Rock, CA, filed April 18, 1988. (g) Recommendation to receive and file Election Calendar for November 8,1988_consolidated election, with instruc- tions that key dates for,Council action. be put_on..Tenta- tive Future Agenda Items. (h) Request by Hermosa Beach Chamber.of Commerce for,certain services.in,conjunction with their 22nd.Bi-Annual Fiesta de las Artes May 28, 29 and 30, 196t and September 3, 4., and 5,_1988. Action: To approve requested street closures, par- ticipation by merchants in sidewalk sales, assistance of Public Works in hanging banners, Chamber hiring clean-up company and supervising same, and to require appropriate insurance. 2 Minutes 4-26-88 (i) Recommendation to award bid for Cit Hall electrical im rovements CIP :6-•02 to Shultz Electric in an amount, not to exceed ,2, .59; _authorize Mayor to sign, and authorize staff. to, issue_ change orders as necessary. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated April 18, 1988. (j) (k) (1) (m) Recommendation to award bid for purchase of four inch hose and fittings to L. N. Curtis &. Sons at a.cost_of $13,899.31. and authorize staff to issue change.prders and ne:otiate with vendor as necessar . Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated April 19, 1988. Recommendation to receive and.file report,regarding,RCC contract,extension and authorize City, Manager to sign the month-to-month agreement -for services with RCC. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated April 19, 1988. Recommendation to.approve.a 3 -year extension ofagree- merit with Executive Suite for housekeeping services to expire June 30, 1991,,and authorize Mayor to sign;.au- thorizestaff_to issue addenda, as necessary, within budget_ limitations. Memorandum from Public Works Direc- tor Anthony Antich dated April 14, 1988. Recommendation to.receive and file status report on 2nd Street and_22nd Street restroom repairs. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated April 19, 1988 (n) Recommendation to_ extend CaliforniaLandsca eMain- tenance.,contract for the period from, July 1, 19 to June 39, 1991 and,authorize staff to issue addenda as necessary,within budget.iimitati:ons (costs to be FY 88- 89 - $140,520, FY 89-90, i147,660, and FY 90-91, $155,160 for a total of $443,340.) . Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated April 18, 1988. Action: To approve staff recommendation with the understanding that at budget time this issue will be addressed and it will be explained how the man hours from in house and the savings will be reallocated. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered. (o) Recommendation to approve request for 30 -day extension of temporary appointment - Police Records, Administrator Gayle Brown. Memorandum from Personnel Administrator Robert Blackwood dated April 20, 1988. Minutes 4-26-88 (p) Recommendation.to approve new_ specifications for the Community.. Center van; authorize, staff. to,.readyertise for leaselpurcha.$e of one utility, van; and authorize_ staff to_iEsue addenda_as,.necessary Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated April 19, 1988. Action; To table this item in order to examine alternatives. Motion Rosenberger, second Sheldon. So ordered. MOTION_.TO WAIVE FURTHERREADING: Action: To waive full reading of any ordinance or resolution on • this evening's agenda. Motion Creighton, second Rosenberger. AYES - Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Williams, Mayor Simpson NOES - None 2. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS (a) ORDINANCE NO. 88-922 -.AN ORDINANCE.OF.THE CITY,OF HER MOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CITY CODE SECTIQN.2- 2.16,. ADDRESSING THE_COUNCIL. For adoption. Prosposed.Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 88-922. Motion Simpson, second Rosenberger. Noting the objections of Creighton, Sheldon, and Williams, motion fails. Action; Staff to bring this back with amendment to make allowances for public hearings. Motion Williams, second Rosenberger. So ordered noting the objection of Sheldon. (b) ORDINANCE NO. 88-923 - AN ORDINANCE.OF THE CITYOF HER- MOSA BEACH,_ CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 29.5-19, 29,5- 21, 29.5-254 29,5-26, AND 29,5-28 TO ESTABLXSH,AND CLARIFY PROCEDURES. REGARDING THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW, APPEAL .PROCESSES AND DATES WHEN NOTICES MUST .BEEFFECTU- ATED UNDER _LOT ,MERGER PROCEDURES.. For adoption. Proposed Action: To take up item 2(c) before 2(b). Motion Williams. Dies for a lack of second. Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 88-923. Motion Sheldon, second Rosenberger. So ordered, noting the objection of Creighton. City Attorney Lough suggested that staff be asked to bring something back with a comprehensive study in regards to 3 - 25foot lots being merged. (c) A RESOLUTION_ APPROVING_ THE MERGER OF,1276 - 9TH STREET INTO TWO PARCELS WHICH CONFORM,_TO_THE ZONING ORDINANCE. for adoption. Supplemental Memorandum from Y1anning with 2 proposed resolutions. 4 Minutes 4-26-88 Requesting to speak to the council on this item was: Martha Lathup - 1276 - 9th St - and asked that her lots be divided equally. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to use the Lot Line Adjustment method for creating standard size lots from several merged undersize lots whenever feasible; and that the property owner of 1276 - 9th Street should be requested to submit a request for a Lot Line Adjustment to the City absent of any required fee, if the owner desires two lots. ; and to change the resolution to reflect dividing the lots equally. Motion Creighton, second Rosenberger. So ordered. (d) HERMOSA BECH STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 1988-1989. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS REGARDING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT AND $E IN _ JUNE _,119::.FOR _A ,PUBLIC _HEARING. Memo- randum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated April 12', 1988. (e) Action: To adopt Resolution No. 88-5129 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS OF SAID CITY MADE PURSUANT TO THE RE- QUIREMENTS OF RESOLUTION NO. 88-5119 OF SAID COUNCIL." Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered. Final,Action To adopt Resolution No. 88-5130 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER CER- TAIN STREET LIGHTING FIXTURES AND APPURTENANCES TO BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED AND ELECTRIC CURRENT TO BE FUR- NISHED FOR STREET LIGHTING FIXTURES THROUGHOUT THE CITY, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1988 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1989; AND APPOINTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A CERTAIN HEARING IN RELATION THERETO" (June 14, 1988).", with the addition on page 2, line 3 following this Resolution, "within the same fiscal year." Motion Rosenberger, second Creighton. So ordered. Councilmember Rosenberger requested a more graphic dis- play of where the street lights are, where deficiencies are, and an understandable report on what we are doing with the money for the Public Hearing. HERMOSA BEACH CROSSING,GUARD„MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1988-1989, ADOPTION.OF RESOLUTIONS REGARDING THE EN- GINE R'S. REPORT AND SETTING JUNE 14 1988 FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. Memorandum from Public Works Antich dated April 12, 1988. Director Anthony Action. To adopt Resolution No. 88-5131 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR - c - MinnF d -7A -RR OF PUBLIC WORKS OF SAID CITY MADE PURSUANT TO THE RE- QUIREMENTS OF RESOLUTION NO. 88-5118." Motion Rosenberger, second Sheldon. So ordered. Final Action: To adopt Resolution No. 88-5132 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER CER- TAIN CROSSING GUARD SERVICES PURSUANT TO THE "CROSSING GUARD MAINTENANCE DISTRICT ACT OF 1974", CHAPTER 3.5, ARTICLES 2, 3 AND 4, SECTIONS 55530 THROUGH 55570, OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AT CER- TAIN LOCATIONS IN THE SAID CITY, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1988 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1989; AND AP- POINTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN RELA- TION THERETO" (June 14, 1988), with the additional word- ing on page 2, line 1 after this Resolution "within the same fiscal year". Motion Rosenberger, second Sheldon. So ordered. (f) ARESOLUTION,OF•THE CITY COUNCIL OF,THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING.AN APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH FOR FY 19$$-8• PROPOSITION A SCRE IONARTFUNDS UNDER HE SUBREGION;, PARATRANSIT INCENTIVE PROGRAM FOR THE "WAVE" DIAL -A -RIDE PROGRAM. For adoption. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 14, 1988. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 88-5133. Motion Creighton, second Williams. So ordered. Councilmember Creighton requested a list of allowable uses of Prop A Funds from the City Attorney. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE, CONSENT_,• CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. Consent Calendar items (n) Sheldon and (p) Rosenberger were discussed at this time but are listed in order on the Consent Calendar for clarity. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE_PUBLIC. None. PUDLIC•HEARING$ 5. PROPOSED ORDINANCE FOR__ZQNE CHANGE OF AREA.2, Memoran- dum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 19, 1988. Supplemental memorandums from Building Direc- tor dated April 26 (grandfather clause) and Planning Director dated April 26 (effective date) and the follow- ing written communications received after the prepara- tion of the agenda item: Mr/Mrs Steven Peterson- 2460 Myrtle - dated April 19 Yvonne Cunningham- 330 -24th St.- dated April 19 Robert Essertier- re: 2159-57 Loma - dated April 19 Mr/Mrs Wm. Stidham- 522 -25th St.- dated April 14 Mr/Mrs John Dunbabin- 2432 Myrtle - dated April 16 - A - Minii1PG A -9A -AA Arthur Sanderson- 1930 Monterey - dated April 24 Mr/Mrs Doug Scott- 222 -24th St. - dated April 25 Mr/Mrs Marshall Smith- re: 504 -512 -25th St.- April 19 Kenneth Parish- re: 565 -25th St. - dated April 21 The staff report was presented by Planning Director Michael Schubach. The Public Hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak were: Area 2A: Robert Garson - 2258 Monterey - opposes Area 2B: H.J. Jordan - 2402 Park Avenue - opposes Andy Harris - 2515 Morningside Dr - opposes Albert Wiemans - 336 -24th St - opposses and submitted a written statement and a petition with appx. 85 signatures objecting to the change in Area 2 from R-2 to R-1. Jeff Urema - 2160 Monterey - req. Grandfather Area 2C: Blair Smith - 316 -25th Street - opposes Leon Miller - 2412 Silverstrand - opposes Harold Stears - 2416 Park - requested notices in future, and submitted letter with pictures Joel Beckett - 2424 Silverstrand Dean Nota - 2467 Myrtle - submitted profile Steve Peterson - ppty owner on Silverstrand John Dunbabin - 2432 Myrtle - req. height rev. Peter Barth - 452 -25th St - opposes Steve Taylor - 2468 Myrtle - opposes Dan Erickson - 2461 Silverstrand - view issue Area 2D: Marshall Smith - owner 504-512 - 25th St. - opposes - submitted chart Terry Bindman - 523 -25th St - opposes Ron Hobbs - 544 -25th St - large lots justify R -1A. Tilly Smith - owner 25th St - mentioned pre- vious filling of land. The Public Hearing was closed. The City Council recessed at 10:13 PM and reconviened at 10:22 PM 'ropQsed,Action; To direct that the Planning Commission study new zones R -1A and R -1B. Motion Williams, dies for lack of a second. At this time the City Attorney was requested to explain the lawsuit which the H.B. School District filed appx. November, 1986. It asks that the People's Initiative on the November, 1986, be declared invalid. It asks that the people's right to vote on General Plan amendments be taken away on School District property, and allow them to request residential zoning based on surrounding areas. The City is defending the results of the vote of the people. _ 7 _ Minutes 4-26-8R Straw-l�ote: To rezone areas 2A and 2B to R-1, and area 2C also go to the R-1 zone. To include a grand- father clause, and the standard 30 days effective date. Motion Rosenberger, second Sheldon. No objections. Action: To direct staff to have the Planning Commission come back to us with a new zone R -1A, specifically they would reflect a 30 foot height limit, R-2 setbacks, and any other appropriate standards. To attempt to create a solution which would allow 2 units. (This pertains to area 2D) Motion Sheldon, second Williams. So ordered. City Attorney Lough explained that this would require a resolution of intention that would come back next time for approval, to be sent to the Planning Commission for study. Final_Action; To rezone areas 2A, 2B, and 2C to R-1 with amendments regarding the grandfather clause and the effective date; and Planning Commission take up issue of 30 foot height limit in the R-1 zones in cases where rezoning may cause view blockage. Motion Rosenberger, second Sheldon. So ordered. City Attorney Lough explained that the motion requires staff to bring back an Ordinance for introduction, and that the Planning Commission study the second issue. 6. PROPOSED ORDINANCE FOR TEXT.. AMENDMENT_REGARDING:PROJEC- TIONS.INTO RFQUIREDTARD AREAS. Memorandum from Plan- ning Director Michael Schubach dated April 19, 1988. The staff report was presented by Planning Director Michael Schubach. The Public Hearing was opened. Noting no one coming forward to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. Action; To introduce Ord. No. 88-924 entitled, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 1209, 1210, 1211 AND 1212 PERTAINING TO ENCROACHMENTS INTO REQUIRED YARD AREAS AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION." Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered. 7. APPEAL _OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO NOT MERGELQT _S LOCATED AF_1214-10TH,_STREET,AND1233 21ST STREET. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 18, 1988. Supplemental information - letter from Laurel Lee Roberts, Attorney at law - 239 Pier Avenue dated April 25, 1988. The staff report was presented by Planning Director Michael Schubach. 0 Minutes 4-26-88 The issue of merging 3 - 25foot lots was discussed at this time. The City Attorney explained that the Lot Line Adjustment regulations are not in Subdivision Map Act, and because of this new lots are not created. His opinion is that 2 lots can be created, and not violate the peoples vote of minimum lot size of 4000 sq. ft. The Public Hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak were: William Simas - 1214 -10th St - requested that Wilma Burt be allowed to present his letter from his attorney. Wilma Burt - 1152 -7th St - challenged that the appeal on this matter is not valid. John Seymour - 1233 -21st St - opposes Barbara Seymour - 1233 -21st St - requested continuance Gerald Compton - 832 -7th St - recommended that a study be done on 25 foot lots not subject to merger. Action: To continue 1214 -10th St - to next regular meeting to have a legal opinion in writing from the City Attorney regarding Mayor Simpson's appeal notice. Motion Sheldon, second Simpson. So ordered. The Public Hearing was closed. Final.ActiOn4, To continue this Public Hearing open in regards to both properties to the next meeting. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered. MUNICIPAL. MATTERS 8. I r f\JO STUDY QF,BILTMORE SITE. SPECIFIC. PLAN., AREA. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 19, 1988. Action; To accept the staff recommendation, and have staff prepa - a resolution of intention to study amend- ing •r repealing the Specific Plan Area on the Biltmore Site, u•i g proposed amendments to include the ele- ments of the proposed 1985 Specific Plan. This is a high priority with the City Council due to the deadlines for the November ballot. Motion Sheldon, second Rosenberger. So ordered, noting the objection of Williams. Coming forward to address the council on this issue was: Parker Herriott - 224 -24th St - submitted a letter that will be distributed to council and staff. 9. PROPQSED.AMENDMENT TO,SIGN ORDINANCE CHANGING. VIOLATIONS FRIM MISDEMEANORS TO INFRACTIONS N 0 D TO IMPROVE ENFORCEMEN_.,CAPABILITIES. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director William Grove dated April 18, 1988. Supplemental draft of Ordinance adding Section 1d) regarding fines. 9 Minutes 4-26-88 Councilmember Rosenberger requested that on page one of the staff report second to last paragraph "After a mini- mum of two warning ..." that a.minimum be deleted. There was concurrance from the remainder of the council. Action; To introduce Ordinance No. 88-925 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 28A "SIGNS" AS IT RELATED TO PUNISHMENT OF VIOLATIONS OF SIGNING REGULATIONS." , with the new section ld) regarding fines. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered. 10. DISCONTINUANCE OF THE HERMOSA COMMUTER_„BUS_AND,30 DAY CONTRACT EXTENSION WITH. COMMUNITY TRANS T. SERVICES INC. SERVICE. Memorandum from Planning Di- rector Michael Schubach dated April 18, 1988. Action To approve staff recommendation. Motion Sheldon, second Williams. So ordered. Councilmember Creighton requested information regarding the possibility of trading Prop A funds like we do CDBG. 11. ANNUAL,REVIEW OF VASEK POLAg BMW DEVELOPMENT, AGREEMENT. Memorandum from City Attorney James P. Lough dated April 19, 1988. Action: .To approve staff recommendation with the addi- tion that any written agreement be brought back to the Council for approval. Motion Creighton, second Simpson. So ordered. 12. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS_ANDBEPORTS.-.CITY,MANAGER (a) Consideration of adjourning,.to.a.meeting for_ the. purpose a reviewing and updating City Council's,goals. Memo- randum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated April 21, 1988. Action: To have the City Manager set a date agreeable to all parties. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered. 13. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS_. AND REPORTS,_- CIT)( COUNCIL (a) Authorization,to send letters,of support,for inclusion of Santa .,Monica .Ba in the Nationa Estuaries Pro ram. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft date• April 20, 1988. Action; To approve staff recommendation. Motion Sheldon, second Rosenberger. So ordered. - 10 - Minutes 4-26-88 (b) Authorization_to send lei rs,regarding AB 2958 and S_B 2177 consistent with the League, of California Cities positions onheseb-.11s. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated April 20, 1988. Action; To approve staff recommendation. Motion Simpson, second Sheldon. So ordered. Councilmember Creighton requested that he be informed as to how must "substantial" is and bonding problems. (c) Chane of dele:ate to South Ba Juvenile Diversion Poli- cy Board. Oral report Act on_ To table this item. Motion Sheldon, second Simpson. So ordered. (d) Discussion of,ballot_issues regarding Biltmore Site and/ or the railroad right -of_ -way. ZOral report) Councilmember Sheldon gave a subcommittee report. He read a resolution that was prepared for adoption and release to the press. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 88-5134 entitled "A RESOLUION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BECH, CALIFORNIA, STATING THE COUNCIL'S INTENT REGARDING THE CITY -OWNED PROPERTY COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE "BILTMORE SITE". Motion Sheldon, second Simpson. So ordered, noting the objection of Williams due to her feeling that the City Council should zone the Biltmore Site. Final__.Actioni To direct the City Manager to obtain a second legal opinion regarding residential and other uses on the Biltmore Site. Motion Sheldon, second Rosenberger. So ordered. Addressing the council on this issue was: Parker Herriott - 224 -24th St 14. OTHER MATTERS. - CITY,COHNCIL (a) Request. by Councilmember Williams for, discussion„of ,,.bel- lot measure; to, allow merged lots , tp, re-sut?divide into 3,750_sg..ft.s_ Action: Councilmember Williams requested that this item be withdrawn. Minutes 4-26-88 ADJOURNMENT The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California adjourned on Wednesday, April 27, 1988 at the hour of 12:39 A.M. to a Regular Meeting to be held on Tuesday, May 10, 1988 at the hour of 7:30 P.M. (preceded by a Closed Ex- ecutive Session at 6:30 P.M.) 1 itedehelt.) -AL) 1 Kathleen Midstokke, City Clerk 1 - 12 - Minutes 4 -26 -AP Law Offices of James P. Lough JAMES P. LOUGH April 19, 1988 30 NORTH RAYMOND AVENUE SUITE 708 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91103 (213) 381-6131 (818) 792-4728 MEMORANDUM (818) 792-4776 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney RE: Status Report on Vasek Polak Development Agreement Recommended Action:/ To of horize the city manager to enter into a written agreementAto extend construction time periods and to process all necessary maps and easements that incorporate the redesign to improve fire access. Background: Attached is a copy of the development agreement entered into between the city and Vasek Polak. This agreement was adopted by the council to serve several purposes: first, to require tougher standards on the operation of the BMW dealership to cut down complaints from the neighborhood; second, to allow for expansion of the dealership in a way which would eliminate rather than add to commercial versus residential problems; third, the agreement was designed to require that Mr. Polak maintain his dealership at the present location for a period of ten years after his reconstruction is finally finished. This ten-year period does not begin to run until after completion of the construction. During the first term of this agreement, Mr. Polak has imple- mented his portion of the restrictions placed upon the dealer- ship. During this time period, he has also begun construction of the improvements in question. At the city's request, the project has been redesigned to improve fire access to the rear of the dealership. Analysis: Staff has worked with the BMW dealership to ensure that the project meets the requirements of the development agree- ment and improves the quality of the environment, especially safety concerns. Because of fire access concerns by the Fire Department and Public Works Department,•access to the rear of the project was redesigned to allow fire vehicles to safely enter and leave the development. These changes have occasioned some delays in the project and project construction was not able to be com- pleted on time. Since these changes were in the best interest of the city, staff pursued them in a diligent manner and with the full cooperation of the dealership. Because of the delays occa- sioned by these issues, the construction time periods in the agreement will have to be extended from the April 15, 1988 dead- lines. These extensions may be done by mutual written agreement of the parties. Staff recommendation is that the council author- ize the city manager to enter into such an extension. It is important to note that the ten-year period in which Mr. Polak must leave his dealership in town does not begin until construc- tion is finalized. Therefore, the extension of the date does not penalize the city in any manner. Because of the changes due to the fire access requirements, the nature of the easements necessary for the project must be modified. The location of easements has been expanded slightly to allow for fire access. Staff recommendation is to allow city staff to execute the appropriate documents so that the city may maintain proper access to the facility. Changes in the drawings and the necessary documentation do not change the project or modify it in any significant way. The original development agreement was drafted so that such changes, which are -normal to a project such as this, can be made in the development process as long as those changes are a logical progression of the original conceptual drawings. Enclosures NOTED: Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICE /1A,42-7 JAMES P. LOUGH, City Attorney CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH KEVIN B. NORTHCRAFT, City Manager cc: Anthony Antich, Public Works Director Michael Schubach, Planning Director Vasek Polak City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach Ca 90254 Attn: City Manager Re: .development Agreement Dated 15 April 1986 Dear Sir: Our Development Agreement expiration date is April 15 of this year and it is hereby requested that an extension of time be granted to accomplish the work shown on the accompanying Drawing R1, revised 2-22-88. Please note that a substanial portion of the improvements provided by the agreement have been completed. This drawing, revising concrete block walls at the west property line and on our westerly property area, willpprovide a proper turn around for trash trucks and required parking in conformance with the above agreement. We propose to have Edison Company move a pole as indicated, thus giving an unobstructed turn around area. We propose to redesign the retaining walls in this area so as not to require soldier poles since there are no structures near. If futher information is required, please contact my Architect, Mr. Kline, who is working on the above proposal as well as a time schedule for its accomplishment. Yours Truly, Vasek Polak �t� 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OCHOA & SILLAS ATTORNEYS AT LAW lO$ ANGELES. CALIF. $ACRANENTO. CALIF. a3 . ORDINANCE N0. 86-830 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ENTERING INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH VASEK POLAK REGARDING CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS TO THE VASEK POLAK B.M.W. AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP." WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing on March 11, 1986 regarding the underlying development agreement; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said agreement on March 4, 1986 and made its recommendations; WHEREAS, the City Council desires to enter into said agreement with Vasek Polak regarding certain improvements and assurances contained in said agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the development agreement be entered into by and between the City of Hermosa Beach and Vasek Polak. Said agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth at this point. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption. A copy of the development agreement shall remain on file with the City Clerk's office and open to. inspection by the public. /1/ - -86- -86- 76928 L1FIft /nrAR4.I -1- 2b 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 . Section 3. 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. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance; shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city; shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED AND AA PTED ON THE 15th DAY OF APRIL, 19:6 // /5aLtt: 2 PRESIDENT f the City Council and MAYOR of he City of Hermosa Beach, CA ATTEST: CI CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: VN./ 4 \ 1 7,A.• ATTORNEY t, 86- _ _976928 -2- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 1 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ) I, KATHLEEN REVICZKY, City Clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 86-830 was duly and regularly passed, approved, ,and adopted by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach at a regular meeting of said Council held at the regular meeting place thereof on the 15th day of April, 1986 and was published in the Easy Reader on April 24, 1986. The vote was as follows: q31 - AYES: Ciotti, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor DeBellis NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None DATED: May 14, 1986 ____867__976928 274,teee."0",E?" kathleen Midstokige, 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 SYNOPSIS OF ORDINANCE NO. 86-_830 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ENTERING INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH VASEK POLAK REGARDING CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS TO THE VASEK POLAK B.M.W. AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP. This is a summary of the above -referenced ordinance and underlying development agreement between the City of Hermosa Beach and Vasek Polak B.M.W., Inc. It is published as a summary pursuant to Government Code Section 36933(c)(1) in lieu of the full text of the ordinance. The above -referenced ordinance was adopted so that a development agreement could be entered into between the City of Hermosa Beach and Vasek Polak B.M.W. A copy of this ordinance and underlying development agreement is available at the Office of the City Clerk for inspection. The purpose of the development agreement is to allow Vasek Polak Enterprises, Inc. to complete certain improvements, including the expansion of the dealership, pursuant to the conceptual plans attached to the development agreement. Under the agreement, the dealership is allowed to fully develop an expansion plan and submit said plan for a building permit under the general guidelines established by the development agreement. The agreement requires the City of Hermosa Beach to dedicate over to the B.M.W. Dealership a strip of land behind the dealership which is no longer needed for street purposes. In exchange for this dedication and allowing the dealership to 1 -/-syn 6- -976928 -`'M / -1- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 25 26 27 28 • proceed with its basic development plan, the City of Hermosa Beach has obtained agreements from the dealership to ensure that certain steps be taken to limit the impact of the dealership on the surrounding neighborhood. Among those steps are the requirement that hours be limited pursuant to the development agreement and that no road testing of vehicles will take place on local residential streets within the City of Hermosa Beach. Also, the remodeling and improvements must be completed within twenty-four (24) months of the date of the development agreement. The agreement also specifies that deliveries of automobiles shall not be made on 30th Street and that the dealership shall try to prevent the stacking of vehicles back up onto Pacific Coast Highway that are attempting to enter the dealership. This agreement shall be in force and effect for a period of ten (10) years. During that ten-year period, the B.M.W. Dealership must maintain auto sales at this location unless another dealership is to be assigned this development agreement. No such assignment will take place without the approval of the City of Hermosa Beach. ATTEST: PPROVED ". 0 FORM: &11.k:Ort, /1 TY ATTO EY 1/syn86186- .976928 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council April 21, 1988 City Council Meeting of April 26, 1988 CONSIDERATION OP ADJOURNING TO A MEETING FOR THE PURPOSE OP REVIEWING AND UPDATING CITY COUNCIL'S GOALS Goals for the City as approved by the City Council were recently updated with the input of our two new Councilmembers, but no discussion among City Councilmembers has taken place since their last formal approval. Also, since I was not present during discussion of the goals, it would be helpful to have some better description of their intent. The Management team will be scheduling a retreat as provided for in their M.O.U., and it would be helpful to have the City Council review their goals prior to the Management retreat. Accordingly, I suggest the Council consider a future Saturday morning 10 a.m. meeting for this purpose. Suggested dates are April 30 or May 14. ilt!;;21r41 evin B. Northc aft City Manager RBN/ld 12a 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. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA AMENDING CHAPTER 28A "SIGNS" AS IT RELATES TO PUNISHMENT OF VIIOLATIONS OF SIGNING REGULATIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HER.-IOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: • SECTION 1. That Section 28A -2(d) Violations and Penalties is hereby amended to read as follows: (d) Violations and penalties. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert, demolish, equip, use or maintain any sign or structure in the city or cause or permit the same to be done, contrary to or in violation of any of the provisions of this chapter. Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of an infraction. 1) Each violation is punishable as follows: a) A fine of fifty dollars ($50.00) for the first violation; and b) A fine of one hundred ($100.00) for a second violation of the same condition within one year; and c) A fine of one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00)for a third violation of the same condition within one year. d) A fine of three hundred dollars ($300.00) for each additional violation of the same condition within one year. 2) Each person, firm or coporation found guilty of an i.=raction shall be guilty of a separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which any violation is committed, continued or permitted by such person and shall be punishable accordingly. SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall become shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days offits final passage and adoption. /// /// 1 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 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 1988. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermos^_ Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY aiia D-ttortweet '_ 1 fo 674 /140/P , I✓, $49 /r_ 'Ms Je#r cods tufts aH _ o[' goat okiecfco_ fo rrr/yosrq/ 'r ez o,11 o f 1 Area .? r^o. 1? -� 71.0 R-1 _ . 714_. __-4 o4rr_. of S6 __AS`1i St rs o.so?e cl 44.4c4 - is /h t.'4.� _ - 1. Ont._-n?ador reason -- r /pi -Jaffa/ _ 1:41 /ry4 I« _t4 .Plot Plod _ wos_ 4 e ,o sem_ __it '._ Zosia/ 1z.-- 7. o i s 20p ri IS - - Q'K 14 Printtw. est D•+ 1✓!f• riles - a pr'er owe, as it ._dict^-pasef. Yet r ot - - Va be _c ortiG%rrab l , 3. -%4i 1 (1.11d15 of f rof<rf _ 0.4Jncrs Pi 71r4.4 .Z __- . 51:4d/J �o P 't - _ --- Ire *ft _ 1`Pn��Ps h-1ireaA ~ r _ -ats CPI'fai. 0 ton Ck?p4 e mss a/rro✓4c/_yoti Go* Le ter ( d ci/D s, 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. 88- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER CERTAIN STREET LIGHTING FIXTURES AND APPURTENANCES TO BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED AND ELECTRIC CURRENT TO BE FURNISHED FOR STREET LIGHTING FIXTURES THROUGHOUT THE CITY, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1988 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1989; AND APPOINTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A CERTAIN HEARING IN RELATION THERETO. HERMOSA BEACH STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 1988-1989 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the public interest and convenience require, and that it is the intention of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, to order certain street lighting fixtures and appurtenances, all as shown on DIAGRAM and PLAN NO. 1988-1989 and SPECIFICATIONS NO. 1988-1989, on file in the Office of the City Clerk, to be provided and installed and maintained; and that electric current be furnished for street lighting fixtures and appurtenances throughout the City for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1988, through June 30, 1989. All of the work and improvements above specified shall be done in accordance with Specifications and Plans therefor referred to in the Report of the Director of Public Works dated April 12, 88, on file in the Office of the City Clerk and which is hereby referred to and by this reference incorporated herein and made a part hereof. SECTION 2. To expedite the making of said improvement, the City Council may at any time transfer into the "Hermosa Beach Street Lighting District No. 1988-1989 Fund", -1- out of money in the ON lol Li 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 General Fund, such sums as it shall deem necessary,and the sums so transferred shall be deemed a loan to such Fund, and shall be repaid out of the proceeds of the assessments provided for in this Resolution, and pursuant to the provisions of Section 22657, California Streets and Highways Code, "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", referred to herein. SECTION 3. That said contemplated work and improvement, in the opinion of the City Council, is of more than local or ordinary benefit, and said City Council hereby makes the expense of said work and improvement chargeable upon a district, which district said Council hereby declares to be the district benefited by said work and improvement, and to be assessed to pay the• costs and expenses thereof. Said district is all of the City of Hermosa Beach as shown on DIAGRAM and PLAN NO. 1988-1989, on file in the Office of the City Clerk, on which exterior boundaries thereof are described as the boundary lines of the said City, excepting from said district any portion of any public street or alley which may be included therein. Reference is hereby made to the said DIAGRAM and PLAN for a complete and detailed description of said district. The said DIAGRAM and PLAN so on file shall govern for all details as to the extent of said assessment district. SECTION 4. Any lots or parcels of land known as public property, as the same is defined in Section 22663, Part 2, Division 15, Streets and Highways Code, (Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972), herein after referred to, which are included in the said assessment district, shall be omitted and exempt from the assessment to be made to cover the costs and expenses of said 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 contemplated improvement. SECTION 5. The improvement contemplated by this Resolution of Intention shall be done under tbe provisions of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972". (now Part 2 of Division 15, Section 22500 et seq. of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California). SECTION 6. That Tuesday, the 14th day of June, 1988 at the hour of 8:00 P.M. Is hereby appointed as the time, and the City Council Chamber in the City of Hermosa Beach, California, is hereby appointed as the place for hearing protests as to the question of approving and confirming the assessment district and the levying of the proposed assessment, in reference to said improvement. SECTION 7. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized, designated and directed to give notice of said hearing in time, form and manner as required by law. SECTION 8. That the BEACH PEOPLE'S EASY READER, a weekly newspaper of general circulation, circulated within the said City of Hermosa Beach, California, is hereby designated as the newspaper in which said notice shall be published. SECTION 9. That this Resolution shall take effect immediately, and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall cause the original of the same to be entered among the original resolutions of the City Council of said City and shall make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council of said City in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is passed and adopted. 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 26th day of Aoril , 1988. PRESIDENT of the city council, and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: ! PPROVED 0 FO CITY CLERK / CITY -ATTORNEY TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF HERMOSA•BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Michael Schubach, Planni i tor Alternative Subsection to Ordinance for Rezoning of Area 2, Agenda Item #5 DATE: April 26, 1988 Staff has prepared an alternative subsection to the ordinance to when the rezoning of the various subareas should become effective. This wording is probably superior because it will not leave a large "window" open for last minute submittals of plans for areas which are rezoned to R-1, whereas the original proposed wording will. Suggested change in wording: "5 This ordinance shall not become effective until after thirty (30) days of final passage and adoption except that in areas included in this rezoning which require amendments to the text of the zoning ordinance shall not become effective until all necessary amendments to the zoning ordinance pertaining to said new zones have become effective through final passage and adoption." S 9PPa E -.I %J - L L ORi ATION 5 JJ/s— 141 APR -16 1988 2- /• ,i4,44‘./a/4,7 "0-A,zdg. /4) /113 , -7tic„ - � ,._4L ,&4,;,...„rL. ,z4 eLe 7`426 - ,tom r� ,z.4/ 6) Ziee44-a_ ooPn We, Ah44-4. a,4" -s3 ;es-Lfe ZQA- %-.e v 2 9 s ( 4#-":2A— et 1 _ _ 2� �o o °1‘1yy�.l-PSL A 4 c— GtX1-te.. /Z4 ge/L, f /2s% ov,a." 71-1 c 6-dj i 7o,JA cf*5 7�S" April 19, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council April 26, 1988 CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES RE: EXAMINATION OF TRACT AND PARCEL MAPS Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1) authorize the mayor to sign the Contract Services Agreement with Los Angeles County Public Works Department regarding the examination of tract and parcel maps. Background: In 1978, the City entered into a contract with the County of Los Angeles for the purpose of checking City tract and parcel maps. This was a five year contract which expired June 30, 1983. At the May 17, 1983 meeting, Council agreed to extend the agreement for an additional five years. This agreement expires on June 30, 1988. Analysis: Utilizing the County facilities to provide these services eliminates the need for in-house staff with the expertise to perform all that is necessary for the preparation of tract and parcel map checking. If approved, this contract will commence July 1, 1988 and be automatically renewed at one-year intervals until cancelled by either party and eliminate the need to renew the agreement every five years. This agreement is used on an "as needed basis" and all costs are passed along to the developer so that the City incurs no costs. This agreement is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. Respectfully submitted, Merelynanole Administrative Aide laco/m my 1 Concur: An hony Antic Y� 2,4 ' JO Director of Public Works "Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager le ELECTION CALENDAR CITX.OF HERMOSA BEACH CONSQL4DATED LECTION.- NQVE�lBR 8_ 1988 June 14 Council Action regarding staff preparation of ballot measures June 15 Suggested last day to file pet.tions regarding measures June 28 Draft of proposed Council measures presented for approval/changes in wording July 12 Council approves final wording of Council measures and questions for ballot July 14' Clerk declares Initiative Petition sufficient and prepares Notice for next regular meeting July 26 Pass resolutions calling election and requesting connidation for all measures (Council and People's Initiatives) July 26 Aug 8 Aug 18 Oct 10— Nov 1 Oct 11 Nov 2— Nov 8 Nov 8 Pass re40.0ion4 regarding arguments, authors, and rebuttals Last day to file arguments Last day to file rebuttals Voters may request absentee ballots LAST DAY TO REGISTER TO VOTE Voters may request emergency absentee ballots ELECTION DAY lg April 18, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council April 26, 1988 AWARD OF BID • CITY HALL ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS CIP 86-602 Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council 1. authorize the Mayor to sign the contract with Shultz Electric Inc. for the City Hall Electrical Improvements (CIP 86-602) in an amount not to exceed $42,859 and 2. authorize staff to issue change orders as necessary. Background: The purpose of CIP 86-602 is to provide for the following electrical improvements in City Hall: 1. New autotransfer switch and generator for police dispatch area and City Hall computer room. • 2. New automatic restart for existing City Hall computer room air-conditioning. 3. Separate computer electrical loads from panel in City Hall. On March 22, 1988 City Council authorized staff to advertise for bids for CIP 86-602 and to issue addenda as necessary, with the deletion of the uninterruptible power supply in the City Hall computer room. The contract for Schultz Electric is on file in the Office of the City CLerk. 1i Analysis: A Notice Inviting Bids was published in local newspapers and trade -journals and plans and specifications were sent to 5 contractors. On Thursday, April 14, 1988 (bid due -date) one bid was received, publicly opened and read aloud as follows: Contractor: Bid: Shultz Electric, Inc. $38,963 The State Contractor's License Board has indicated that Shultz Electric has a valid Class C-10 (electrical) contractor's license and that they have taken no disciplinary action against Shultz Electric, Inc. Staff has conducted a reference check and received outstanding reports from 4 references contacted, including similar projects for the Irvine. Water District, Long Beach Water Department, the City of Santa Monica and the Department of Airports. Fiscal Impact: Architect's Estimate (without U.P.S.) $42,500 Shultz Electric, Inc. Amount of Bid $38,963 + 10% Contingency 3,896 Total Contract Amount Not To Exceed: $42,859 This results in the following fiscal impact: CITY HALL ELECTRICAL UPGRADE, CIP 86-602 Design Cost $ 5,000 Construction Costs 42,859 Estimated Inspection Costs 3,000 Contingency 23,391 Total Project Cost $74,250 City Council Budget Amount $74,250 The construction contract ($42,859) is within the budgeted amount $74,250. 2 Alternatives: An alternative considered by staff and available to City Council is: 1. Rebid the project with the hope of receiving additional bids. This will result in a delay of the installation of the police dispatch area generator which must be installed by July 1, 1988 to assure proper functioning of the new police dispatch system. Respectfully submitted, ('--\ r v� /r. orah M. Murphy j Assistant Engineer Concur: Concur: An ony Antic Director of Publi Works Concur: 'Kevin B. Northcraft Viki Copeland Finance Administrator City Manager cc: Steve Wisniewski Public Safety Director DMM/umv Attachments: Exhibit A - Project Budget Exhibit B - Project Schedule 3 eITY OF HERMOSA BEACH . CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM •FY86-87 THROUGH FY88-89 SECO N D YEAR OF THREE YEAR:CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT NAME: Electrical Upgrade at City Hall EXPENDITURE SCHEDULE PROJECT NUMBER: CIP 86-602 • •I ADOPTEDIFY 85-861EXPECTEDI 1 1 COST ELEMENTS FY EXPENDED THRU ACCOUNT NUMBER: 001-401-8602-4201 BUDGET6 02/28/86 06/30/86 FY 86-87 FY e'1-88 FY 88-89 PROJECT COST, PROCRAM AREA: Park Buildings & Grounds Improvements PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING 110 I 1,209.1. 6 8001 0001 1_12.0..i As a result of the private electrical engineering CONSTRUCTION I I I I- 5L000_ 1 5,000 1 consultant's study to determine the feasibility 1 I 02_,_5_00_ 162,500 1 and consequences of upgrading the electrical capacity INSPECTION of the City Hall Buildings, the following work is OTHER DIRECT COSTS I I I I I. •�I proposed based on the recommendations of the report: I I I I I I 1. Design -N I I I I I 1 2. Separation of computer load from panel "B" 1 I I 1 1 I I 3. Automatic transfer switch and generator SUBTOTAL 10,1000 3,200 6,800 67L500 70,•700_ 4. Uninterruptiblepower supply * I-- I I I- 0-I 1-- 1 P PP Y CONTINGENCY 5. Automatic restart for computer I I I I • I- %.. 0-I 1.61750.1 TOTAL 10,000 3,200 6,800 74,250 77,450 1 1 TOTAL 1 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PLANS, SPECS 8 ESTIMATES * Deleted by City Council 03/22/88 FUNDING SOURCES I FUNDING IDISTRIBUTION 1 1 TOTAL 001 General Fund 110,0001 I 3,200 6,800 I 1 3,200 001 General Fund I ( i I I Designation for CI1P. 1 174,250 174,250 I I I I 1 I TOTAL 110,000 3,200 6,800 74,250 77,450 1 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE PROJECT NAME : air)/ /4'164-CLC'/Tit/C#4C__/rt.002(:/EME rrs c/P ACCOUNT NUMBER : OCA/ ¢0/ ec,oZ-¢20/ LEGEND TENTATIVE SCHEDULE : imm aim mu v ACTUAL SCHEDULE : X : 100% COMPLETE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TASKS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC a ! l ■aim U i 1 1 1 1 1 1 I----- Final design I I approval before a�vertisin for construction 1f 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I; 1 Prepare advertisement & set bid opening • date 1111111 1 I I _1 1. _ III 1 1 1. 1 Advertising period • (issue addendums as necessary) Accept sealed bids & public bid opening) 1 1 1 a 1.--..----I I I I I I 1 I ■ 1 1 1 1 1------J 1 1 1---,--1 1 1 I Review bids ■ IMO ■ . Award contract 1 1 1 1 • i. 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 ..1 1 1 111 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Sign contract 1 IIIII (bonds insurance & workers comp. cert.) 11111111 1 1 111 Preconstruction meeting procedure iMI 1 1 1 1 1 _I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I Issue "Notice to Proceed" Construction Period (1) Monitor progress & maintain records MICEMMIIMUMMJ 1 1 1 I I I....i__:_:__.I 1 I 1 1 1 1 IasmmlinswElmom I 1 I I I Progress payment and change order procedure Acceptance of work as complete. 1 1 1 1 1 I ia�a I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 I Issusing and recording a I. ■ "Notice of Completion" 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 Retention Payment Elm • 1 'Project close out 1 i 1 1 I 1 1 1 ia� I i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (1) Work associated with police d`ispateh area to ,be completed by July 1, 1988. April 19, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of April 26, 1988 AWARD OF BID FOR PURCHASE OF FOUR INCH FIRE HOSE AND FITTINGS RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Authorize purchase of equipment from the responsible vendors meeting all requirements of the requests for proposal. 2. Authorize staff to issue change orders and negotiate with vendor as necessary. BACKGROUND: At the regular Council meeting of March 8, 1988, Council authorized solicitation of bids for acquisistion of four inch (4") fire hose and fittings for the Fire Department in order to improve the firefighting capabilities of the Department. ANALYSIS: On April 11, 1988, bids were received and publicly opened. All bids are on file in the office of the City Clerk. The analysis of these bids is as follows: A. Receipt of Bids The following bids were received: Vendor Amount 1. W.S. Darling 2. L.N. Curtis and Sons 3. Western Fire Equipment 4. San Diego Fire Equipment 5. Halprin Supply Co. * - incomplete bids ** - unacceptable substitutions *** - bid an unacceptable hose 1 $13,534.20 * 13,899.31 1,681.00 * 15,830.40 *** 13,443.50 ** hose lj B. Evaluation of Bids L.N. Curtis and Sons was the only company who bid on all parts and specifica- tions listed in the request for proposal. C. Recommendation Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to L.N. Curtis and Sons. CONCUR: Kevin B. Northcraft, City Manager fully ;ub itted, Steve S. Wisniewski Director of Public Safety hosel COMPLETE SERVICE & SAFETY EQUIPMENT NICIPAL & INDUSTRIAL FIRE DEPT. SUPPLIES QUOTATION OATE 3/21/88 EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT AND SERVICE d� 4133 BROADWAY - OAKLAND, CALIF. - 94611 (415) 655-5111 - (213) 622-9732 / ESTABLISHEC 1929 TERMS Net 30 F.O.B. Destination OEUVERY 45 to 75 days A/R/0 TO: f City of Hermosa Beach Director of Public Safety 540 Pier Ave. Hermosa Beach, Calif. 90254 QUANTITY CATALOG NO. contingent quota subject to acceptance within 45 days. Ship reasonable cupt of of ikkthes f idents or other delays be LN. Curtis and S. Rnny until full fams - ershipUnt and title to all equip fully.paid for i _ � al mon : � the United States of America. All prices • sub.'? o applicable Federal, State. Count URTIS AND SONS Paul F. Curtis UNIT PRICE TOW Re: Your request for proposal due 2:00 PM 3/24/88, we offer: Per Exhibit I Hose 18 each #14FM4 4" Fire Hose, in 100 ft length, National Flo -Master per attached literature and specification @383.00 6894.0 4 each #14FM4 same, except in 50' length @235.00 940.0 2 each #14FM4 same, except in 25' length @161.50 323.01 Note: Hose is in full accord with your specifications - FD -Spec #1988, except: 1. Para. 2.5 Adhesion - We take exception to your specification. National F1oMaster hose is manufactured to adhesion standard required by NFPA 1961 (1987 Edition) which is the current issue. 2. Para. 3.1.(a) - We take complete exception to this paragraph. Tests of hose by all manufacturers 1<7.44r have been inconclusive and may or may not comply dependent upon the sample tested. /i„A, gyp®„/ Per Exhibit I Fittings 2 #37 Red Head hard coated alum. adapters 4” male X 21" female, rocker lug @ 58.00 116.00 4 #36 Red Head hard coated alum. adapters 4" double male @ 55.00 220.00 4 #35 Red Head hard coated alum. adapters 4" double female @ 58.00 232.00 2 #FSGR Piston intake 30° elbow gated valve with relief valve & air bleeder @710.00 1420.00 4 2 4" spanner wrenches @ 12.00 48.00 4" hose clamps @160.00 320.00 COMPLETE SERVICE F. ' i SAFETY EQUIPMENT FOR 11. _'CIPAL & INDUSTRIAL FIRE DEPT. SUPPLIES QUOTATION DATE 3/21/88 F - TO: EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT AND SERVICE 4133 BROADWAY - OAKLAND, CALIF. - 94611 (415) 655-5111 - (213) 622-9732 I TERMS F.O.B. Net 30 Destination City of Hermosa Beach Director of Public Safety 540 Pier Ave. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 QUANTITY CATALOG NO. 2 2 4 #HTFT-VPG1 #HTFT-A #BH -125 DESCRIPTION By IOEUVERY 45 to 75 This quotation subject to a contingent upon strikes, fi reasonable control of the LN. Curtis and Son until fully paid for in 1 All prices quot City Taxes and Li ESTABLISHEI 1929 PAGE 2 days A/R/0 within 45 days. Shir or other delays Ix and title to all equip States of Federal. s,oun acciden AND SONS ul F. Curtis Task Force nozzle with pistol grip Task Force tapered adapters 21/2" F X 111" Task Force nozzles 10-125 GPM 111 M Subtotal 6.5% TOTAL UNIT PRICE @482.00 @ 57.00 @365.00 TOTA 964. 114. 1460. 13,051 848 ( C 13,899 5e /3 7 r April 19, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of April 26, 1988 REPORT REGARDING RCC CONTRACT EXTENSION RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Authorize the City Manager to sign the attached month to month agreement for services with RCC. 2. Receive and file this report. BACKGROUND: At the regular Council meeting of October 27, 1987, Council adopted a resolution of intent to withdraw from the Regional Communications Center (RCC). Following that, staff has worked diligently on all of the necessary plans and arrange- ments. As with all plans, there have been delays. This has caused the proposed timetable and start up date to be extended past the original projections. ANALYSIS: In order to continue the operation of the Fire and Police Departments, it is necessary to have access to outside dispatch services until the remodel is completed and all necessary equipment is installed and operable for in house dispatching. Councilmember Rosenberger and staff met with the Director of RCC to discuss possible month to month services from RCC until Hermosa Beach is ready to become operational with the dispatch center. The Director of RCC submitted a month to month contract agreement which meets the needs of the City. The monthly costs are based on previous rates and costs billed to the City for the services provided. The costs are reasonable and approval of the agreement will be in the best interest of the City. CONCUR: Kevin B. Northcraft, City Manager Steve S. Wisniewski Director of Public Safety rcc 1I( CONTRACT AGREEMENT 1. The City of Hermosa Beach ("City") hereby requests and the South Bay Regional Public Communications Authority ("Authority") hereby agrees to provide public safety telecommunications service to City on a month-to-month basis during Fiscal Year 1988- 1989. Services to be provided are limited to: a. Twenty-four hour answering of all incoming calls for service received on 9- 1-1 telephone lines, City seven -digit emergency lines (376-9454, 376-9455, 376-9456, 372-2188, 372-2189), and alarm circuits. b. Twenty-four hour dispatching of all City Fire and Police calls for service, arid alarm notifications. c. Maintenance of all presently serviced electronics equipment; equipment for City communications center use is specifically excluded. d. Complaint investigation service. 2. This agreement does not convey to City any duties, responsibilities or privileges of membership in Authority; City is contracting for service only. On and after July 1, 1988, City will have no membership or voting rights on any Authority Board or Counuittee. As a contracting agency, City will be welcome to attend any meeting. 3. As established by the Board of Directors, monthly contract costs are set as follows: July 1988: $29,300 August 1988: 28,300 September 1988: 24,250 October 1988: 23,250 November 1988: 24,250 Contract service beyond November 30, 1988, assumes incremental computer system developmental costs, and is as follows: December 1988: $146,500 January through June 1989: $ 26,500 monthly 4. Invoices for monthly service will be furnished 30 days prior to the service month, and are due and payable fifteen days before the beginning of the service month. (July 1988 service invoice furnished June 1, 1988, payable June 15, 1988.) Payments received by Authority Treasurer from one to seven days late will require a 5% penalty; more than seven days late incurs a 10% penalty. 5. Authority requires and City agrees to provide 45 -day written notice to Authority's Executive Director to end service agreement. Penalty for insufficient notice shall be as determined by Authority Board of Directors. Provision of service for less than one month will still incur the full monthly charge. Agreement entered into this day of , 1988 City Au thori t:y April 14, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council April 26, 1988 EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT WITH EXECUTIVE SUITE SERVICES, INC. FOR HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES AT CITY HALL AND THE CLARK STADIUM BUILDING Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. authorize a three year extension of the existing agreements (see attached) for housekeeping services at City Hall and the Clark Stadium Building with Executive -Suite Services, Inc., 2. authorize the Mayor to sign the attached agreements for housekeeping services with the extended agreement to expire June 30, 1991. (The existing contract expires on June 30, 1988.), and 3. authorize staff to issue addenda, as necessary, within budget limitations. Background: On August 12, 1986, (after competitive bidding) City Council authorized the Mayor to sign an agreement with Executive Suite Services, Inc. for housekeeping services in the City Hall offices and authorized the Director of Public Works to execute contract amendments and addenda within the authorized budget limits. Contract services at City Hall began on September 1, 1986, and in March 1987, for Clark Stadium. At the May 12, 1987 meeting, City Council authorized the extension of the existing agreement, which included both the City Hall Complex and the Clark Stadium Building. A copy of the agreement and scope of work is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. Analysis: This analysis will be divided as follows: 1. Contractor's Work Performance 2. Fiscal Impact a. Cost of Annual Contract Service b. Cost of Annual In -House Service c. Annual Cost Comparison 3. Summary 1. CONTRACTOR'S WORK PERFORMANCE The contractor's work performance has been good. Staff recently conducted a survey whereby City employees were asked, "Are you pleased or reasonably satisfied with the level of service being - 1 - 11 provided by Executive -Suite, Services, Inc.?" In general, the responses were positive. Whenever there is any dissatisfaction with the contractor's performance, Executive Services, Inc. is notified. It should be noted at this point, that generally speaking complaints are seldom made and that Public Works is not being barraged with complaints. The existing contract expires on June 30, 1988. 2. FISCAL IMPACT: a. Cost of Annual Contract Services Existing Annual Cost Proposed Annual Cost FY 87-88 FY 88-89 FY 89-90 FY 90-91 City Hall Clark Building Total Costs $ 9,300 $ 4,980 $14,280 $10,320 $10,320 $10,320 $ 5,580 $ 5,580 $ 5,580 $15,900 $15,900 $15,900 The 117 increase will be the only incease in the contract over the next three fiscal years; representing a 3.677 increase each year. The minimum wage increase has been taken into consider- ation by the contractor. (The minimum wage will increase approximately 27%.) The 117 increase also includes expendable cleaning materials and supplies (furnished by the contractor), i.e., mops, shampooing equipment, vacuum cleaners, ajax, wax, strippers, ammonia, etc. b. Cost of Annual In -House Service One (1) Custodian 44% Fringe Benefits Total Yearly Cost FY 88-89 FY 89-90 FY 90-91 $15,264 $16,032 6,716 7,054 $21,980 $23,086 $16,836 7,408 $24,244 The above (b.) represents the minimum cost in the event an additional custodian was hired to perform in-house services. Historically, custodians assigned to City Hall have worked swing shift, which, in addition to the above pays a shift differential. This shift differential would increase the above minimum. Additionally, the contract service is working on weekends, which if the City employee were required to do, would necessitate the payment of overtime. c. Annual Cost Comparison Monthly Cost In -House Contractor FY 88-89 $21,980 15.900 Total Savings to City $ 6,080 2 FY 89-90 $23,086 15,900 $ 7,186 FY 90-91 $24,244 15,900 $ 8,344 Over the three year period the contract cost represents a total savings to the City of at least $21,610. Amount proposed for FY 88-89 Budget $15,900 Amount of Proposed Housekeeping Services $15,900 3. SUMMARY In summary, Executive Suite Services has agreed to a three year extension of the existing agreement with no increase in price after the first year as follows: City Hall $860/month for 36 months effective July 1, 1988 Clark Building$465/month for 36 months effective July 1, 1988 The services will normally continue on a year-to-year basis, but may be terminated by either party at any time, for any reason, upon a 30 -day written notice to the other party. Staff is in the process obtaining quotes to include the lobby areas and Council Chambers. Alternatives: Other alternatives available to City Council and considered by staff are: 1. direct staff to go out to bid for housekeeping services; 2. direct staff to include the necessary personnel in the Public Works Department Building Maintenance FY 88-89 budget for custodial services, or 3. modify the scope of services, or increase the scope of services to include the Police Department and other public buildings. Respectfully submitted, Mere yn =no e Administrative Aide Concur: Kevin B. Northcra City Manager :mv hk/v 3 Concur: An ony Antic Director of Pub is Works Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator April 19, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council April 26, 1988 STATUS REPORT 2ND AND 22ND STREET -RESTROOM REPAIRS Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council receive and file this report. Background: On January 17, 1988 the City of Hermosa Beach suffered storm damages to the public restrooms on the beach at 2nd Street and at 22nd Street. Analysis: These damages necessitated repairs to the electrical boxes in the restrooms and also replacement of the exterior doors. Under the terms of the County Beach Maintenance Agreement between the City and the Los Angeles County Department of Beaches and Harbors, it was the City's responsibility to repair the electrical boxes, and the County's responsibility to repair the doors. The City completed the electrical repairs several weeks ago. The County indicated that they expect the doors to be repaired and the restrooms to be open by May 1, 1988. All public restrooms on the beach are currently being cleaned on a daily basis during the winter months (Oct. 1 through April 30) and will be cleaned four times a day during the summer months by a private maintenance contract between the County and Specialty Maintenance, Incorporated. Respectfully submitted, Concur: De•orah M. Murphy U An •ny Antich Assistant Engineer Director of Pub is Works Concur: evin B. Northcraft City Manager DMM/ umv 1 im April 18, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council April 26, 1988 EXTENSION OF CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT FOR THE PERIOD FROM JULY 1, 1988 TO JUNE 30, 1991 Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. extend the existing contract with California Landscape Maintenance for maintaining City parks and the railroad right-of-way to include median maintenance for a three-year period beginning July 1, 1988 and ending June 30, 1991. Following are the costs by fiscal year: FY 88-89 FY 89-90 FY 90-91 $140,520 $147,660 $155,160 Total: $443,340 2. authorize Staff to issue addenda as necessary within budget limitations. Background: This item is before City Council for the purpose of: 1. extending the existing landscape maintenance agreement for three years 2. contracting for median landscape maintenance currently performed in-house. On August 27, 1985, City Council awarded a contract to California Landscape Maintenance for park landscape maintenance. On May 20,1986, City Coupcil authorized an addendum to the contract to include landscape maintenance of the railroad right-of-way. The existing contract allows for a three-year extension with approval by City Council and Contractor. A copy of the scope of work and proposal are on file in the Office of the City Clerk. Analysis: The analysis is divided into the following sections: I. CONTRACTOR SERVICE II. CONTRACTOR COSTS III. COST COMPARISON: IN HOUSE VERSUS CONTRACT IV. COST SAVINGS V. FISCAL IMPACT I. CONTRACTOR SERVICE California Landscape Maintenance has provided a good level of service for landscape maintenance activities on Parks and the Railroad Right -of -Way. The contractor has successfully maintained these areas with the proper frequency and attention. When problems have arisen, the contractor has responded quickly to correct them. The quality of service has been high enough to justify the extension of the existing contract. II. CONTRACTOR COSTS California Landscape Maintenance's proposed contract amounts are listed below by fiscal year. FY Parks and R.R. R -O -W Medians Total 88-89 $104,520 $36,000 $140,520 89-90 $109,860 $37,800 $147,660 90-91 $115,560 $39,600 $155,160 TOTAL: $329,940 $113,400 $443,340 III. COST COMPARISON: In -House versus Contract A. Parks and Railroad Right -of -Way 1. Costs The attached chart (Exhibit A) compares City in-house costs versus contract service costs for landscape maintenance on Parks and the Railroad Right -of -Way. The comparison shows that landscape maintenance costs less using contract services. 2. Increases The "percent increase" column compares monthly increases in costs for each period to the first period of contract service. Monthly cost includes California Landscape Maintenance's contract amount plus City costs oflabor, equipment and materials required to administer the contract. The increase from FY 87-88 to FY 88-89 is approximately 17.5%. 3. Reasons for Increase The contractor's price increased by $1,447 per month. Reasons for the increase include: increased scope of work, Edith Rodaway Friendship Park, at Prospect and Gentry ($220.00 a month), increased labor wage rates and leaf blower ban, which requires increased man-hours for collecting leaf -debris; ($1,127.00 a month) and increased equipment and materials ($100.00 a month) costs. The percent increases for FY 89-90 and 90-91 are reasonable: 5.0% and 5.1% respectively. B. Medians Exhibits B, C and D compare in-house costs versus contract service costs for landscape maintenance on medians. Contract service costs less than in -House service for each year considered from FY 88-89 to FY 90-91. IV. COST SAVINGS A. Parks and Railroad Right -of -Way Contract service would provide an estimated cost savings to the City of $100,762 over the three-year period beginning on July 1, 1988 and ending on June 30, 1991. B. Medians Contract Landscape maintenance cost an estimated $14,624 less than in-house maintenance over the three- year period beginning on July 1, 1988 and ending on June 30, 1991. V. FISCAL IMPACT A. Parks and Railroad Right -of -Way No change will occur in the FY 87-88 budget. The FY 3 88-89 budget will require $104,520 for contract services for Parks and Railroad Right -of Way. B. Medians No change will occur in the FY 87-88 budget. The Public Works Department will include in the FY 88-89 budget the cost of contract landscape maintenance service for medians. The amount.of $36,000 is required. Any personnel changes, due to reduced man-hours, will be addressed in the FY 88-89 budget. Summary_ Extending the existing contract with California Landscape Maintenance for Parks and the Railroad Right -of -Way will insure a continued high level of service with a cost savings to the City of $100,762 over the three-year period. Including median maintenance in the contract will provide a high service level at a cost savings to the City of $14,624 over the three-year period. Contract service will better provide for the City's needs by maintaining high quality parks and medians at a lower cost. Alternatives: Other alternatives considered by staff and available to City Council are: 1. re -bid landscape maintenance services for the parks and railroad right-of-way, and/or 2. continue in-house service for medians. Respectfully submitted, Concur: c 014 Brian Gengler Ant ony Antic Assistant Engineer Concur: / Director of Pu•lic Works Noted for Fiscal Impact: Kevin B. Northcraft Viki Copela d City Manager BW G/ umv cal/v 4 Finance Administrator EXHIBIT A PARKS AND RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE PERIOD CONTRACT SERVICE MONTHLY COST (1) PERCENT INCREASE EXISTING CONTRACT .10/85 to 12/85 1/86 to 12/86 1/87 to 12/87 1/88 to 6/88 NEW PROPOSAL 7/88 to 6/89 7/89 to 6/90 7/90 to 6/91 8,159 8,008 8,278 8,679 10,194 10,708 11,251 -1.8 3.4 4.8 :17.5 5.0 5.1 IN-HOUSE MONTHLY COST (2) 11,036 11,381 11,950 12,398 12,863 13,506 14,181 PERCENT INCREASE (3) 3.1 5.0 3.8 3.8 5.0 5.0 COST SAVINGS FOR CONTRACT SERVICE FOR PERIOD 8,631 40,471 44,062 22,312 32,022 33,579 35,161 TOTAL SAVINGS OVER THREE YEAR EXTENDED CONTRACT PERIOD: $100,762 (1) Includes contract amount plus City costs of labor and equipment to administer contract. (2) Includes all City labor, equipment and material costs. (3) Percent increase assumed at 5% per year. Increases are not in equal 5% increments because because periods are unequal. MEDIAN MAINTENANCE JULY 1, 1988 TO JUNE 30, 1989 IN-HOUSE (CITY CREWS) Direct Costs: - Labor 19'56 Man -Hours @ $11.40 =$22,298 - Equipment 960 Hrs. @ $5.00/hr= 4,800 - Materials ' 4,300 Subtotal $31,398 Indirect Costs: 44 % Labor Fringe Benefits Garage Services* $ 9,811 4,860 Subtotal$ 14,671 Total546,069 * Garage Services: Assume 50% of M.S.I. (April 84) Report to City 50% x $9,720 = $4,860 VS, EXHIBIT B• CONTRACT SERVICE Direct Costs: Contract Contract Administration $36,000 Labor** - Equipment 208 hrs. @ $5.00/hr. = - Materials 2,371 1,040 -0- Subtotal: $39,411 Indirect Costs: 44 % Labor Fringe Benefits Garage Services*** $1,043 972 Subtotal: $2,015 Total: $41,426 ** Labor: 4 Hours per week x 52 weeks per year x $11.40 per hour = $2,371 ' Garage Services:Assume 10% of M.S.I. (April 84) Report to City. 10% x $9,720 = $972 *** COST SAVINGS $4,643 MEDIAN MAINTENANCE JULY 1, 1989 TO JUNE 30, 1990 Assumes a 5% increase for City costs above the FY 88-89 level. IN-HOUSE (CITY CREWS) Direct Costs: - Labor - Equipment - Materials • $23,413 5,040 4,515 Subtotal: $32,968 Indirect Costs: 44 % Labor Fringe Benefits $10,302 Garage Services* 5,103 Subtotal: 15,405 Total: $48,373 * Garage Services: Assume 50% of M.S.I. (April 84) Report to City 1.05 x50% x $9,720 = $5,103 VS. EXHIBIT C CONTRACT SERVICE Direct Costs: Contract $37,800 Contract Administration ▪ Labor** 2,490 - Equipment 1,092 - Materials - 0 - Subtotal: $41,382 Indirect Costs: 44 % Labor Fringe Benefits Garage Services*** Subtotal: Total: $1,096 1,021 2,117 $43,499 ** * * * Labor: 4 Hours per week x 52 weeks per year x $11.40 per hour x 1.05 = $2,490 Garage Services:Assume 10% of M.S.I. (April 84) Report to City. 1.05 x 10% x $9,720 = $1,021 COST SAVINGS $4,874 MEDIAN MAINTENANCE JULY 1, 1990 TO JUNE 30, 1991 Assumes a 10% increase for City costs above the FY 88-89 level. IN-HOUSE (CITY CREWS) Direct Costs: - Labor . - Equipment - Materials $24,528 5,280 4,730 Subtotal: $34,538 Indirect Costs: 44 % Labor Fringe Benefits Garage Services* $10,792 • 5,346 Subtotal: Total: 16,138 $50,676 * Garage Services: Assume 50% of M.S.I. (April 84) Report to City 1.10 x 50% x $9,720 = $5,346 VS.. EXHIBIT D CONTRACT SERVICE Direct Costs: Contract $39,600 Contract Administration Labor** - Equipment - Materials Subtotal: 2,608 1,144 -0- • $43,352 Indirect Costs: 44 % Labor Fringe Benefits $ 1,148 Garage Services*** 1,069 Subtotal: 2,217 Total : $45,569 ** *** Labor: 4 Hours per week x 52 weeks per year x $11.40 per hourx 1.1 = $2;608 Garage Services:Assume 10% of M.S.I. (April 84) Report to City. 1.1 x 10% x $9,720= $1,069 COST SAVINGS $5,107 • Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council April 20, 1988 City Council Meeting of April 26, 1988 REQUEST FOR 30 DAY EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT POLICE RECORDS ADMINISTRATOR Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council extend for thirty (30) days the temporary appointment of Acting Police Records Ad- ministrator Gayle Brown. Background: The previous Police Records Administrator resigned on September 25, 1987. Police Services Officer Gayle Brown was appointed as Acting Police Records Administrator on September 25, 1987 pending development of the class specification for that position. This review is necessitated by the reorganization of the Police Department to include in-house dispatching of Police and Fire units. Section 2-33 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code precludes the temporary appointment of an individual for more than six months without, on a 30 day at a time basis, approval from the City Council. Analysis: The revised class specification for the Police Records Ad- ministrator position has not been finalized and no Civil Serivce examination has been scheduled. The Personnel Director and the Director of Public Safety are con- tinuing to examine the requirements for this position. Respectfully submitted, Noted Re: Civil Service Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Director la t April 19, 1986 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council April 26, 1988 AUTHORIZATION TO READVERTISE FOR BID FOR COMMUNITY RESOURCES DEPARTMENT VAN Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Approve the new specifications for the Community Resources Department van. 2. Authorize Staff to readvertise for lease/purchase of one utility van for the Community Resources Department van. 3. Authorize Staff to issue addenda as necessary. Background: At the January 26, 1988 Regular Meeting City Council authorized Staff to readvertise for bid for the Community Resources Department utility van. No bids were received on the previous advertisement. Analysis: After review of the original specifications by the Community Resources Department staff, some modifications have been made. The modified specifications are on file in the Office of the City Clerk. The proposals sought are for either leasing for a five-year period with a zero dollar buyout or purchasing. Fiscal Impact: In the FY 87-88 Adopted Budget, Exhibit A attached, City Council approved $3,000 from the General Fund for the lease of a van for the Community Resources Department. The total amount requested was $12,500. Alternatives: Alternatives available to City Council and considered by Staff are: 1p 1. Change the Specifications and postpone the request for proposals for the lease/purchase of the van. 2. Drop the lease/purchase recommendation. Respectfully submitted, Brian Gengler Assistant Engineer Concur: cc: Alana Mastrian Community Resources Director BWG/umv 2 Concur: AIWA Ant ony Antic Director of Pub is Works Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator EXHIBIT A HERMOSA BEACH BUDGET SYSTEM CAPITAL OUTLAY 1987/88 DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY RESOURCES (PAGE 2) 001-401-4601 OBJECT ACCOUNT DEPARTMENT AMOUNT FUNDING CITY CITY CODE TITLE ITEM REQUESTED SOURCE MANAGER COUNCIL JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDED APPROVED 6900 LEASE PAYMENT Van (purchase) $12,500 General Fund $3,000 (lease) $3,000 s BMS — 6 TOTAL $12,500 $3000 $3,000 April 19, 1988 City Council Meeting April 26, 1988 Mayor and Members of the City Council ORDINANCE NO. 88-922 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 2-2.16, ADDRESSING THE COUNCIL. Resubmitted for waiver of further reading and adoption is Ordinance No. 88-922 relating to the above subject. At the regular meeting of April 12, 1988, this ordinance was reintroduced by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Creighton, Sheldon, Mayor Simpson Rosenberger, Williams None None J K hleen Midstokke, City Clerk Concur: Kevin B. Northcraft, City Manager 2a 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. 88- 922 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 2-2.16. ADDRESSING THE COUNCIL. WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to adopt rules to expedite the transaction of the business of the Council in an orderly fashion; and WHEREAS, Section 54954.3 of the California Government Code authorizes that the legislative body may adopt reasonable regula- tions limiting the total amount of time allocated for public testimony on particular issues and for each individual speaker; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 86-5001 on December 16, 1986, and has been following the policy of allowing three (3) minutes per person per session and a total Of fifteen (15) minutes per subject per session; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 2-2.16. Addressing the eOuncil. shall be amended as follows: (a) Manner of addressing council. Each person desiring to address the council shall step up to the microphone in front of the rail, shall be asked to state his name and address for the record, state the subject he wishes to discuss, state whom he is representing if he represents an organization or other persons, and unless further time is granted by majority vote of the council, shall limit his or her remarks to three (3) minutes or a total amount of fifteen (15) minutes per subject per session, for all persons. All remarks shall be addressed to the council as a whole and not any member thereof. No question shall be asked a eouncilperson or a member of the city staff without the permission of the presiding officer. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and operation from and after thirty days after its final passage and adoption. SECTION 3. 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, California. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption Of this ordinance; shall enter the same in the book of Original ordinances of said City; 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 , 1988 ATTEST: PPROVED AS TFOR : PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of Hermosa Beach. City Clerk City Attorney $_ 4 April 19, 1988 City Council Meeting April 26, 1988 Mayor and Members of the City Council ORDINANCE NO. 88-923 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 29.5-19, 29.5-21, 29.5-25, 29.5-26, AND 29.5-28 TO ESTABLISH AND CLARIFY PROCEDURES REGARDING THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW, APPEAL PROCESSES AND DATES WHEN NOTICES MUST BE EFFECTUATED UNDER LOT MERGER PROCEDURES. Submitted for waiver of further reading and adoption is Ordinance No. 88-923 relating to the above subject. At the regular meeting of April 12, 1988, this ordinance was reintroduced by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Rosenberger, Sheldon, Mayor Simpson Creighton, Williams None None Kathleen Midstokke, City Clerk Concur: Kevin B. North -craft, City Manager. 2b 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 88- 923 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 29.5-19, 29.5-21, 29.5-25, 29.5-26, AND 29.5-28 TO ESTABLISH AND CLARIFY PROCEDURES REGARDING THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW, APPEAL PROCESSES AND DATES WHEN NOTICES MUST BE EFFECTUATED UNDER LOT MERGER PROCEDURES. WHEREAS, the city council has determined that, in order to reduce density and improve the quality of life within the boundaries of the City of Hermosa Beach, a lot merger procedure should be implemented; WHEREAS, the city council adopted a lot merger procedure consistent with the provisions of the state government code on August 26, 1986; WHEREAS, the city council has determined that it needs to establish more uniformity in decision making so that the standards apply equally to all citizens and property owners within the boundaries of the City of Hermosa Beach; WHEREAS, the city council desires to clarify its previous intention regarding appeal notices and procedures, including the timing of notices of determination to be sent to affected property owners; WHEREAS, the city council wishes to clarify that no appeal fees need to be paid by any person challenging a decision of the planning commission regarding the merger or nonmerger of parcels; and /// 23/ORD21 -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, it has been determined that lot merger procedures do not have a significant detrimental impact upon the environ- ment of the City of Hermosa Beach but shall improve said environment and, therefore, a negative declaration is hereby approved. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 29.5-19 (Intent and purpose) is hereby amended to add the following language: Any procedure found within this article which is inconsistent or not authorized under the California Government Code shall not be followed. If any such procedures conflict with or are not authorized by the Government Code, the rules and procedures established under the Government Code shall be followed when implementing this article. Section 2. Section 29.5-21 (Requirements for merger) is hereby amended with the deletion of subsection (d) and the addition of a new subsection (d) as follows: (d) If the merger of parcels results in the creation of a parcel that is at least eight thousand (8,000) square feet in size, the planning commission and/or city council may, with the consent of the property owner, redivide the parcel into separate parcels that are at least four thousand (4,000) square feet in size. Section 3. Section 29.5-25 (Merger; notice, effective date) is hereby amended to read as follows: (a) If the planning commission or city council determines that the affected parcels are merged, the director of planning shall file for record with the county recorder's office a notice of merger specifying the names of the record owners and particularly describing the real property to be merged. 23/ORD21 -Z- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (b) The notice of merger for any parcel merged by the planning commission or city council shall be filed no later than thirty (30) days after the conclusion of the final hearing on determination of status. (c) A merger of parcels becomes effective on the date the notice of merger is duly filed with the county recorder's office. (Ord. No. 86-851, Sec.]., 8-26-86) Section 4. Section 29.5-26 (When parcels are not merged; release and clearance of notice of intention to determine status) shall be amended to read as follows: If the planning commission or city council determines that the affected parcels are not to be merged, the director of planning shall: (a) File for record with the county recorder's office a release of the notice of intention to determine status, recorded pursuant to section 29.5-23 of this article, specifying the names of the record owners and particularly describing the real property to be merged; and (b) Mail a clearance letter 'to the then current owner of record; (c) The release and clearance letter shall be filed and mailed, respec- tively, within five (5) working days of the date of the city council's determination or within five (5) working days after the appli- cable 10 -day appeal period has run following a determination of the planning commission. (Ord. No. 86-851, Sec.l, 8-26-86) Section 5. Section 29.5-28 (Appeal) shall be amended to read as follows: /1/ /1/ /1/ 23/ORD21 -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 (a) The property owners, a member of the city council or any interested person may appeal a decision of the planning commission within ten (10) days of such decision, file an appeal with the city clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach. The city council shall con- sider the appeal within thirty (30) days. This appeal shall be a hearing held at no cost to the appellant with notice being given pur- suant to section 29.5-24 and with additional notice to be given to the property owner. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the city council shall declare its findings at a time not later than the next regularly scheduled city council meeting after the hearing is held. The city council may sustain, modify, or reject or overrule any recommendations or rulings of the planning commission and may make such findings as are consistent with the provisions of this chapter or the state Subdivision Map Act. (b) All decisions of the planning commis- sion regarding the merger or nonmerger of parcels shall be final, unless appealed from as prescribed in this section, or until any condition precedent to its effectiveness has been fulfilled, whichever is later in time. After final resolution of an appeal by the city council, the director of planning shall file all appropriate notices within the time limits established under Sections 29.5-25 and 29.5-26. Section 6. Effective date. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and operation from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. Section 7. Publication. The city council does hereby desig- nate the city attorney to prepare a summary of this ordinance to be published pursuant to Government Code Section 36933(c)(1) in lieu of the full text of said ordinance. Prior to the expira- tion 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. 23/ORD21 -4- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 Section 8. The city clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the city council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE DAY OF APRIL, 1988. ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 23/ORD21 -5r PRESIDENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members .o a City Council FROM: Michael Schubach, Plnni 'or SUBJECT: Supplemental Material for Agenda Item #2C DATE: APRIL 26, 1988 Attached are two alternative resolutions; one allowing two standard size lots via a combination of merger and lot line adjustment; the other merging all three lots and vacated street. CC: Kevin Northcraft, City Manager SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 2c RESOLUTION NO. 88- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ON APPEAL THE MERGER OF LOTS 39 AND 38 EXCEPT THE EASTERLY 5 FEET OF THE REDONDO VILLA TRACT, AND ALLOWING,A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR LOT 37 OF THE REDONDO VILLA TRACT MOVING THE WESTERLY LOT LINE 5 FEET TO THE WEST, THUS CREATING IN TOTAL TWO STANDARD LOTS FROM LOTS 39, 38 AND 37 PLUS 10 FEET OF VACATED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, A TOTAL OF 4,500 SQUARE FEET AND 4,000 SQUARE FEET IN AREA RESPECTIVELY AS SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on April 26, 1988 to receive oral and written testimony regarding this matter and made the following findings: A. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of March 1, 1988, approved on appeal from the property owners, the unmerger of the subject lots; B. Section 29.5-19 through 29.5-29 of the Zoning Ordinance prescribes the procedures for the merger of parcels; C. The City of Redondo Beach has granted the vacation of a 10 foot wide section of Reynolds Lane to the owners of 1276 9th Street; D. The City Council finds these parcels to be consistent with the criteria for merger into two parcels which conform to the the zoning and subdivision ordinances: 1. Each parcel shall contain a minimum of 4000 square feet, and; 2. Each parcel shall be a minimum of 40 feet wide. E. The merger and adjustment of these lots into two parcels will preserve the character of the existing neighborhoods by maintaining current densities and preserving public on -street parking; 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, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, Calfornia, does hereby approve the merger and lot line adjustment said lots, addressed of 1276 9th Street into two parcels which conform to the zoning and subdivision requirements. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of April, 1988. PRESIDENT of the City Council and Mayor of the City Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: APPROVED A. TO FO CITY CLERK AT 2 • MAP 1 L.cer $64:6X,ST/44014T- 10 41132Z.. • SPEYER LN . • • 41 so 40 ' t - ''' .. = ..,,, - .....:. ;,......t., ?:,.:: t--.,- 39 ..t*v,.i.•,,,t-f,1 s., "A•• . - - ,-.: = - ' - • ' , 3 •,A•a... 14-4„•, 4,7-FAF - ' -.... ., 7 c_ . P- • - 1.• ..,1 i ..•=4'.1..,. ‘.. ;Iviij.'=- ::-,..N. k '7+ 4.4 1. 1 3....0 :;•,- it o 37 ..;,...,v..5. , . -:•-iY•L*4.` ; .....1.4: -...- • :' Cli 32o • ..25,. 3 3 • ® 34 It ,,,,,......................s 0 35 .. 41 0 36 . N. ST. 13k 41(e pck_cie. 30 11-=.501 . • N edondo vdiet, VCC)4 m6. io-q0-qi • tAnzetw- Lor .444r, 0 evce-pr ei 5 c)F-- Lor 313. -- Id HAYNLN. ES —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. 88- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ON APPEAL THE MERGER OF THREE LOTS AND A PORTION OF VACATED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AT 1276 9TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 37,38 AND 39, BLOCK 143, REDONDO VILLA TRACT. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on April 26, 1988 to receive oral and written testimony regarding this matter and made the following findings: A. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of March 1, 1988, approved on appeal from the property owners, the unmerger of the subject lots; B. Section 29.5-19 through 29.5-29 of the Zoning Ordinance prescribes the procedures for the merger of parcels; C. The City of Redondo Beach has granted the vacation of a 10 foot wide section of Reynolds Lane to the owners of 1276 9th Street; D. The merger and adjustment of these lots will preserve the character of the existing neighborhoods by maintaining current densities and preserving public on -street parking; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, Calfornia, does hereby approve the merger of three lots addressed 1276 9th Street into one parcel which conforms to the zoning and subdivision requirements. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of April, 1988. PRESIDENT of the City Council and Mayor of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beacb City Council April 21, 1988 Regular Meeting of April 26, 1988 SUBJECT: LOT MERGER OF 1276 9TH STREET AND METHODS OF REDIVISION OF SEVERAL MERGED LOTS INTO LARGER STANDARD SIZE LOTS INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation 1. Staff recommends using the Lot Line Adjustment method for creating standard size lots from several merged undersize lots whenever feasible. 2. The property owner of 1276 9th Street should be requested to submit a request for a Lot Line Adjustment to the City absent of any required fee, if the owner desires two lots; otherwise all three parcels should be merged. Background At the April 12, 1988 City Council meeting, the issue of how three undersize lots equaling 8,500 sq. ft. could be redivided into two standard size lots equaling 4,000 sq. ft. or greater was discussed, and staff was requested to recommend a resolution. Analysis Staff believes there are two methods to creating standard size lots from substandard lots which fall within the criteria for merger. The easiest method which results in only a document recordation fee is the Lot Line Adjustment method. According to the State's Subdivision Map Act, Section 66412 (refer to Exhibit A) as long as more lots are not being created, no tract map is necessary, thus no significant costs are incurred. This method may not be useful in every case; however, it can be used in the current case of 1276 9th Street. The lot line between lot 37, which already includes 10' x 100' of vacated right-of-way, and lot 38 could be adjusted 5' to the west making lot 37 a total of 40' wide and 4,000 sq. ft. in area. The remaining 20' x 100' of lot 38 could then be merged with lot 39 making it 45' wide, and 4,500 sq. ft. in area (refer to attached Map 1 for further understanding). This method may also be useful in allowing the division of three twenty-five foot lots into two 37.5', 3,750 sq. ft. lots. 1 However, this method should be more carefully studied for dividing lots into smaller than 4,000 sq. ft. The second method requires a lot division map which is costly and would probably conflict with proposition Q if the lots are under 4,000 sq. ft. Also it would conflict with the City subdivision ordinance unless the ordinance was amended. CONCUR: Loug ty Attorne Respectfully s mit 2-/-'./P-1---4,---- 2:' Mic ael Schubach Planning Director MAP 1 euttle L err 1.114E A0.31) M Ga'srr 1• Ir 2 • SPEYER LN. _.: to ,. , A -x .�- "Z5 ZZ 0•. 1 • 12 F.• , 41 40 .39. 3 ' 437 s2.` t.rte= C - # 1 'A�y 0 0 32 33 34 35 36° • le ,. 25 Zs • ST. I3k 41 (e-pCt_ 5 c 30 • 1 0 1ctorc10 1/� Ila frockc�F' m13. 10--Go-ciI !� M C Corr :8 ravcEar 1-1. Si S 1 } ofLair 38. W CC HAYNES L.N. Exhibit A (Excerpt from Subdivision Map Act) Timing of improvements construction of *** offsite and onsite improvements for the parcels being created. Requirements for the construction of such offsite and onsite improvements shall be noticed by *** statement on the parcel map, on the ins t evidencing the waiver of *** the parcel •, or by a separate instrument and shall •= «•n3ed on, concurrently with, or prior to parcel map or instrument of waiver of a _ cel map being led for record. ) Fulfillment of ** the construction requ = ents shall not . required until *** the time ** a permit o other grant of approval for developmen•f - parcel is issued by the local agency or, w. e provided by local ordinances, until *** e ti - *** the construction of *** the i • ovements s required pursuant to an ag ent between the ubdivider and the local ncy, except that in e absence of such an agreement, a local agency m_ require fulfillment of *** the construction req ements within a reasonable time following approvof the parcel map and prior to the issuance o - permit or other grant of approval for the dwelt:). ,ent of a parcel upon a finding by the local age that fulfillment of the construction requiremen is necessary for either of the following reasons: (1) The public health and safety ***. (2) The required construction is a necessary prerequisite to the orderly development of the surrounding area. Inapplicability (Amended by Stats. 1977, Ch. 234. Effective July 7, 1977; Amended by Stats. 1987, Ch. 982.) 66412. This division shall be inapplicable to: (a) The financing or leasing of apartments, offices, stores or similar space within apartment buildings, industrial buildings, commercial buildings, mobilehome parks, or trailer parks. (b) Mineral, oil or gas leases. (c) Land dedicated for cemetery purposes under the Health and Safety Oode. (d) A lot line adiustment between two or more existing adjacent parcels, where the land taken frau one parcel is added to an adjacent. parcel, and where a greater number of parcels than originally existed is not thereby created, provided the lot line adjustment is approved by the local agency, or advisory agency. A local agency or advisory agency shall limit its review and approval to a determination of whether or not the parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment will conform to local zoning and building ordinances. An advisory agency or local agency shall not impose conditions or exactions —4— C on its approval of a lot line adjustment except to conform to local zoning and building ordinances, or except to facilitate the relocation of existing utilities, infrastructure, or easements. No tentative map, parcel map, or final map shall be required as a condition to the approval of a lot line adjustment. The lot line adjustment shall be reflected in a deed or record of survey which shall be recorded. e) Boundary line or exchange agreements to which the State Lands Commission or a local agency holding a trust grant of tide a submerged lands is a party. (f) Any separate assessment under Se ion 2 =8.7 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. Unless a parcel or final map was •proved e legislative body of a local - • ency, the ion of a c anrn uiity apartment • roj ect, as in Section 11004 of the =usiness and ns Code, to a condanini , as defined in of the Civil Code, • t only if all of requirements - - met: st 75 percent •f the units in the cupied by ecord owners of the 31, 198 . parce map of the project was de•-, if the property was ed in Section 66424, after th all of the conditions of in effect after the by cone defin Professi Section 7 the follow (1) At le project were project on Mar (2) A final properly reco subdivided, as def January 1, 1964 that map rem conversion. (3) The 1.•- agency ' rtifies that the above requiremes were satisf ed if the local agency, by ordi ce, provides for at certification. (h) less a parcel or ' nal map was approved by legislative body of a local agency, the co ersion of a stock coopera• ve, as defined in ion 11003.2 of the Business and Professions e, to a condaninium, as defi in Section 783 of the Civil Code, but only all of the following requirements are met: (1) At least 51 percent of the its in the cooperative were occupied by stockhol•-rs of the cooperative on January 1, 1981, or ind idually owned by stockholders of the cooper- ive on January 1, 1981. As used in this parag ..h, a cooperative unit is "individually owned" and only if the stockholder of that unit own or partially owns an interest in no more than •.e unit in the cooperative. (2) No more than 25 percent of the shares o the cooperative were owned by any one person, as defined in Section 17, including an incorporator April 12, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council April 26, 1988 HERMOSA BEACH STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 1988-1989 ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS REGARDING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT AND SETTING JUNE 14, 1988 FOR A PUBLIC HEARING Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 88- , a resolution of the City Council approving the report of the Director of Public Works of said City made pursuant to the requirements of Resolution No. 88-5119. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 88- ,a resolution of intent to order certain street lighting fixtures and apprutenances to be installed and maintained and electric current to be furnished for street lighting fixtures throughout the City for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1988 through June 30, 1989; and setting a public hearing for June 14, 1988, to accept public input on the matter of the proposed Street Lighting District. Background: On March 8, 1988, City Council adopted Resolution No. 88-5119 ordering the preparation of a report for the formation of the Hermosa Beach Street Lighting District No. 1988-1989. The report contains costs and estimated assessments for the Street Lighting District. Analysis: The attached resolution (Attachment 1) approves the report of the Director of Public Works prepared by the City's Street Lighting Assessment Engineer. This report covers matters relating to the proposed Street Lighting Maintenance District and is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. The adoption of the resolution (Attachment 2) provides for the setting of a public hearing for June 14, 1988 to accept public input on the matter of the proposed Street Lighting Maintenance District and assessment. At the conclusion of the public hearing on June 14, 1988, the City Council will be provided with a resolution it may adopt concerning the assessment district. Should there be any quesions regarding these matters, the Director of Public. Works and Mr. Patrick N. Rossetti, the City's Assessment Engineer, will be present. 1 V Alternatives: Other alternatives available to Council are to let the district lapse; thereby causing a potential increased General Fund obligation of approximately $365,079. Respectfully submitted, Concur: (VAk't,tjkcyv,,I Anthony Antich Director of Publ c Works Noted for Fiscal Impact: aluarfia4/14_) Viki Copeland Finance Administrator even B. Northpraft City Manager Attachments: Resolution No. 88- , Approval of Report Resolution No. 88- , Setting of Public Hearing 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 88- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS OF SAID CITY MADE PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF RESOLUTION NO. 88-5119 OF SAID COUNCIL. HERMOSA BEACH STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT, 1988-1989 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, did in Resolution No. 88-5119, adopted March 8, 1988, pursuant to the provisions of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", of the State of California (Part 2 of Division 15, Section 22500, et seq. of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California) require the Director of Public Works to make and file with the Clerk of the City Council a report in writing, presenting certain matters relating to the proposed installation of certain street lighting fixtures and appurtenances and the proposed maintenance thereof, including the maintenance of all fixtures and appurtenances throughout the City, as contemplated under the provisions of said "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972"; and WHEREAS, said Director of Public Works, pursuant to the requirements of said City Council as expressed in Resolution No. 88-5119 and of said law, did make and on the 13th day of April, 1988 file in the Office of the City Clerk (who is ex -officio Clerk of the City Council) of said City, his report in writing responsive to the requirements of said Resolution No. 88-5119 and of said law referred to in said Resolution No. 88-5119 and as contemplated under the provisions of said "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972"; and WHEREAS, said City Council has presented the said report to the City Council of said City, and said Council has proceeded to Attachment 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 carefully examine, inspect and consider the said report and is satisfied with said report and with each and all of the items therein set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the report of the Director of Public Works of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, bearing the date the 12th day of April, 1988 which said report was prepared and filed pursuant to the requirements of the provisions of Resolution No. 88-5119 of the City Council of said City and in conformity with the provisions of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", (Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of said State) and which said report was filed in the Office of the City Clerk of Hermosa Beach, California, on the 13th day of April be and is hereby approved as so prepared, presented and filed. SECTION 2. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall cause the same to be entered among the original resolutions of the City Council of said City and shall make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council of said City in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 26th day of April, 1988. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: CITY CLERK PPROVED A -674 CITY ATTORNEY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 88- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER CERTAIN STREET LIGHTING FIXTURES AND APPURTENANCES TO BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED AND ELECTRIC CURRENT TO BE FURNISHED FOR STREET LIGHTING FIXTURES THROUGHOUT THE CITY, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1988 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1989; AND APPOINTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A CERTAIN HEARING IN RELATION THERETO. HERMOSA BEACH STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 1988-1989 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the public interest and convenience require, and that it is the intention of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, to order certain street lighting fixtures and appurtenances, all as shown on DIAGRAM and PLAN NO. 1988-1989 and SPECIFICATIONS NO. 1988-1989, on file in the Office of the City Clerk, to be provided and installed and maintained; and that electric current be furnished for street lighting fixtures and appurtenances throughout the City for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1988, through June 30, 1989. All of the work and improvements above specified shall be done in accordance with Specifications and Plans therefor referred to in the Report of the Director of Public Works dated April 12, 88, on file in the Office of the City Clerk and which is hereby referred to and by this reference incorporated herein and made a part hereof. SECTION 2. To expedite the making of said improvement, the City Council may at any time transfer into the "Hermosa Beach Street Lighting District No. 1988-1989 Fund", out of money in the Attachment II ;eneral'fund, such sums as it shall deem necessary, and the sums :o trans err-d shall be deemed a loan to such Fund, and shall be !-epaid eat • �oceed of the assessments provided for in r :his Resolution; and pu suant t the provisions of Section 22657, :alifornia Streets and Highways Code, "Landscaping and Lighting 1,ct of 1972", referred to herein. SECTION 3. That said contemplated work and improvement, in i:he opinion of the City Council, is of more than local or ordinary benefit, and said City Council hereby makes the expense of said work and improvement chargeable upon a district, which iistrict said Council hereby declares to be the district benefited by said work and improvement, and to be assessed to pay the costs and expenses thereof. Said district is all of the City of Hermosa Beach as shown on DIAGRAM and PLAN NO. 1988-1989, on file in the Office of the City Clerk, on which exterior boundaries thereof are described as the boundary lines of the said City, excepting from said district any portion of any public street or alley which may be included therein. Reference is hereby made to the said DIAGRAM and PLAN for a complete and detailed description of said district. The said DIAGRAM and PLAN so on file shall govern for all details as to the extent of said assessment district. SECTION 4. Any lots or parcels of land known as public property, as the same is defined in Section 22663, Part 2, Division 15, Streets and Highways Code, (Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972), herein after referred to, which are included in the said assessment district, shall be omitted and exempt from the assessment to be made to cover the costs and expenses of said esolution )ivision ode of the 38 at the :he City 1, is the rict and said d, n time, weekly said City ;age and the same Council idoption mncil of is 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 26th day ofApril , 1988. PRESIDENT of the city council, and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. �1 ATTEST: (LPPROVED 0 FORD CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY April 12, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council April 26, 1988 HERMOSA BEACH CROSSING GUARD MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1988-1989 ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS REGARDING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT AND SETTING JUNE 14, 1988 FOR A PUBLIC HEARING Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Adopt the attached Resolution No 88- , a resolution of the City Council approving the report of the Director of Public Works of said City made pursuant to the requirements of Resolution No. 85-5118. 2. Adopt the attached Resolution No. 88- , a resolution of intent to order certain Crossing Guard Services pursuant to the "Crossing Guard Maintenance District Act of 1974", Chapter 3.5, Articles 2, 3, and 4, Sections 55530 through 55570, of the Government Code of the State of California, at certain locations in the said City, for the fiscal year begining July 1, 1988 through June 30, 1989; and appointing a time and place for a public hearing in relation thereto. Background: On March 8, 1988 City Council adopted Resolution No. 88-5118, ordering the preparation of a report for the formation of the Hermosa Beach Crossing Guard'Maintenance District No. 1988-1989. The report contains costs and estimated assessments for the* Crossing Guard Maintenance District. Analysis: The attached resolution (Attachment #1) approves the report of the Director of Public Works prepared by the City's Crossing Guard Assessment Engineer. This report covers matters relating to the proposed Crossing Guard Maintenance District and is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. The adoption of the resolution (Attachment #2) provides for the setting of a public hearing for June 14, 1988, to accept public input on the matter of the proposed Crossing Guard Maintenance District and assessment. At the conclusion of the public hearing on June 14, 1988, the City Council will be provided with a resolution it may adopt concerning the assessment district. Should there be any questions regarding these matters, the Director of Public Works and Mr. Patrick N. Rossetti, the City's Assessment Engineer will be present. 1 1 Alternatives: Another alternative available to City Council is: 1. let the district lapse; thereby, causing a potential increased General Fund obligation of approximately $74,733. Respectfully submitted, 1.4 An ony •htich Director of Public Works Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator Concur: City Manager Attachments: Resolution No. 88- , Approval of Report Resolution No. 88- , Setting of Public Hearing cg/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 RESOLUTION NO. 88- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS OF SAID CITY MADE PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF RESOLUTION NO. 88-5118. HERMOSA BEACH CROSSING GUARD MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1988-1989 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, did in Resolution NO. 88-5118, adopted March 8, 1988, pursuant to the provisions of the "Crossing Guard Maintenance District Act of 1974", Chapter 3.5, Article 2, 3, and 4, Sections 55530 through 55570, of the Government Code of the State of California, did require the Director of Public Works to make and file with the Clerk of the City Council a report in writing, presenting certain matters relating to the proposed "Crossing Guard Maintenance District Act of 1974"; and WHEREAS, said Director of Public Works, purusant to the requirements of said City Council as expressed in Resolution NO. 88-5118 and of said law, 'did make and on the 13th day. of April, 1988, file in the Office of the City Clerk (who is ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of said City), his report in writing responsive to the requirements of said Resolution No. 88-5118, and of said law referred to in said Resolution No. 88-5118, and as contemplated under the provisions of said "Crossing Guard Maintenance District Act of 1974"; and WHEREAS, said City Clerk•has presented the said report to the City Council of said City, and said Council has proceeded to carefully examine, inspect and consider the said report and is satisfied with said report and with each and all of the items therein set forth; Attachment 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 23 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the report of the Director of Public Works of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, bearing the date the 14th day of June, 1988, which said report was prepared and filed pursuant to the requirements of the provisions of Resolution NO. 88-5118 of the City Council of said City and in conformity with the provisions of the "Crossing Guard Maintenance Distrcit Act of 1974", (Chapter 3.5, Articles 2, 3, and 4, Sections 55530 through 55570, of the Government Code of the State of California), and which said report was filed in the Office of the City CLerk of the City of Hermosa Beach, California on the 13th day of April, 1988, be and the same is hereby approved as so prepared, presented and filed. SECTION 2. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall cause the same to be entered among the original resolutions of the City Council of said City and shall make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of+the proceedings of the City Council of said City in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 26th day of April, 1988. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: CITY CLERK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER CERTAIN CROSSINC GUARD SERVICES PURSUANT TO THE "CROSSING GUARD MAINTENANCE DISTRICT ACT OF 1974", CHAPTER 3.5, ARTICLES 2, 3 AND 4, SECTION 55530 THROUGH 55570, OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AT CERTAIN LOCATIONS IN THE SAID CITY, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY1, 1988 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1989; AND APPOINTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN RELATION THERETO. HERMOSA BEACH CROSSING GUARD MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1988-1989 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the public interest and convenience require, and that it is the intention of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, to order certain Crossing Guard Maintenance Services, as shown on DIAGRAM and PLAN NO. 1983-1989, on file in the Office of the City Clerk, to be provided and maintained at certain Street Crossings throughout the City, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1988, through June 30, 1989. All of the services above specified shall be done in accordance with Specifications and Plans therefor referred to in the Report of the Director of Public Works dated April 13, 1988,. on file in the office of the City Clerk and which is hereby referred to and by this reference incorporated herein and made a part hereof. SECTION 2. To expedite the making of said improvement, the City Council may at any time transfer into the "Hermosa Beach Crossing Guard Maintenance District No. 1988-1989 Fund", out of • any money in the General Fund, such sums as it shall. deem necessary, and the sums so transferred shall be deemed a loan to such Fund, and' shall be repaid out of the proceeds of -the Attachment II• 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 assessments provided for in this Resolutio i and pursuant to the provisions of Section 55561 of the Crossing Guard Maintenance District Act of 1974. SECTION 3. That said contemplated service, in the opinion of the City Council, is of more than local or ordinary benefit, and said City Council hereby makes the expense of said service chargeable upon a district, which district said Council hereby declares to be the district benefited by said Crossing Guard Services, and to be assessed to pay the costs and expenses thereof. Said district is all of the City of Hermosa Beach as shown on DIAGRAM and PLAN NO. 1988-1989, on file in the Office of the City --Clerk, on which exterior boundaries thereof are described as the boundary lines of the said City, excepting from said district any portion of any public street or alley which may be included therein. Reference is hereby made to the said DIAGRAM and PLAN for a complete and detailed description of said district. The said DIAGRAM and PLAN so on file shall govern for all detailes as to the extent of said assessment district. SECTION 4. The Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, shall levy an annual special assessment to pay the costs of maintaining said Crossing Guards. The annual assessment shall be levied and collected at.the same time and in the same manner and with the same interest and penalties as general taxes of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. (Said taxes as collected by the Los Angeles County Tax Collector for the City of Hermosa Beach.) SECTION 5. Any lots or parcels of land known as public property, as the same is defined in Section 55560 of said Crossing Guard Maintenance Act of 1974, hereinafter, referred to, 2 1 2 3 4 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 which are included in the said assessment district, shall be omitted and exempt from the assessment to be made to cover the costs and expenses of said contemplated improvement. SECTION 6. The improvement contemplated by this Resolution of Intention shall be done under the provisions of the "Crossing uard Maintenance District Act of 1974", Chapter 3.5, Articles 2, and 4, Sections 55530 through 55570, of the Government Code of the State of California. SECTION 7. That Tuesday, June 14, 1988 at the our of 8:00 P.M. of the said day•be and the same is hereby ppointed as the time, and the City Council Chamber in the City •f Hermosa—Beach, California, is hereby appointed as the place or hearing protests as to the question of approving and onfirming the assessment district and the levying of the •roposed assessment, in reference to said improvement. .SECTION 8. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized, Designated and directed to give notice of said hearing in time, orm and manner as required by law. SECTION 9. That the BEACH PEOPLE'S EASY READER, a weekly ewspaper of general circulation, circulated within the said City f Hermosa Beach, California, is hereby designated as the ewspaper in which said notice shall be published. SECTION 10. That this Resolution shall take effect mmediately; and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and doption of this Resolution; shall cause the original of the same o be entered among the original resolutions of the City Council f said City and shall make a minute of the passage and adoption hereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council. of. 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 City in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 26th day of April, 1988 PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California APPft , CITY CLERK OVED AS TO FORM: , CITY ATTORNEY ATTEST: April 14, 1988 HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the Regular Meeting of HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL April 26, 1988 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF PROPOSITION A DISCRETIONARY FUND APPLICATION FOR THE "WAVE" DIAL -A -RIDE PROGRAM INITIATED BY: HERMOSA'BEACH PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached Resolution No. 88- endorsing an application for FY 88-89 Proposition A Discretionary Funds under the Subregional Paratransit Incentive Program for the Hermosa/Redondo joint Dial -a -Ride. ABSTRACT The Cities of Hermosa Beach and Redondo Beach are sponsoring a demand response, curb to curb, Dial -a -Ride Program. Both Cities are eligible for Incentive Funds according to the Los Angeles Transportation Commission Guidelines. As a condition of approval, the City Council must approve this application. The proposed Resolution fullfills this requirement. BACKGROUND On February 2, 1987, the Cities of Hermosa Beach and Redondo Beach commenced service of the "WAVE" Dial -a -Ride Program. On October 28, 1986, the City of Hermosa Beach entered into a three year contract with the City of Redondo Beach to. operate the "WAVE" Dial -a -Ride Program. ANALYSIS Redondo Beach Staff submitted an application for Proposition A Discretionary Funds under the Subregional Paratransit Incentive Program for the joint Dial -a -Ride Program. The Incentive Program provides up to 20% of operating costs for paratransit systems sponsored by two or more cities. 1 t2 1 Available Subregional Funds: Hermosa Beach Receives: $72,843 $36,421.5 (50 of above funds) ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 88- 2. Subregional Application for the "WAVE Dial -a -Ride CONC Michae Schubach Planning Director, A I�� Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager 2 Res tfully submitted _ 2 sa Breis cher Planning ide 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 RESOLUTION NO. 88- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH FOR FY 1988-89 PROPOSITION A DISCRETIONARY FUNDS UNDER THE SUBREGIONAL PARATRANSIT INCENTIVE PROGRAM FOR THE "WAVE" DIAL -A -RIDE PROGRAM. WHEREAS the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California held"a meeting on this matter and made the following Findings: A. The City of Hermosa Beach receives Proposition A Local Return Funds to operate local transit programs; B. The Cities of Hermosa Beach and Redondo Beach operate the "WAVE" Dial -a -Ride demand response service for the general public, senior citizens and disabled; C. The Cities of Hermosa Beach and Redondo Beach have been operating this joint venture Dial -a -Ride since February 2, 1987 and have executed an Agreement to continue service until FY 1989; D. The City of Redondo Beach as the lead agency applied for funds under the Subregional Paratransit Incentive Program totalling up to 20% of the FY 88-89 proposed "WAVE" Dial -a -Ride total operating budget in conformance with the guidelines of the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City of Hermosa Beach authorizes the application by the City of Redondo Beach to the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission for FY 88-89 Proposition A Discretionary Funds under the Subregional Paratransit Incentive Program for up to 20% of the FY 1988-89 total proposed budget. 2. The Cities shall restrict the expenditure of Subregional Incentive Funds to not more than 20 percent (20%) of the FY 1988-89 proposed project's operating budget. 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 City shall' provide funds proportionately for any resulting shortfall in operating revenues or overruns in operating expenses subject to City Council approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 26th day of April, 1988. PRESIDENT of the City Council and the Mayor of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY SECTION 1 GENERAL APPLICANT INFORMATION PART ONE - (Complete this section for all Incentive Projects) CITY OF REDONDO BEACH 1. Applicant: 2. Principal Contact Person: CARA RICE Title: TRANSPORTATION GRANTS MANAGER Phone Number: (213 ) 372-1171 3. Date: 4. Type of Incentive Project 5. Estimated Duration of Project: 6. Amount of Incentive Program Funds Requested: $145,687 MARCH. 14-1988 SU°REGIONAL PARATRANSIT ON-GOING PART TWO - (Complete this section for all Incentive projects except Non -Service Demonstration Projects) 7. Participating City(ies), Transit Operator(s), or Los Angeles County: CITIES OF HERMOSA BEACH AND REDONDO BEACH 8. . Geographical Area of Service: HERMOSA BEACH AND REDONDO BEACH 9. Start-up Date of: Current Services: Proposed FY 1988-89 Services: FEBRUARY 1, 1987 JULY 1, 1988 10. Type(s) of Service(s) to be Provided in FY 1988-89: (refer to Range of Transit Services, Appendix II) 100 % Demand -Responsive % Fixed -Route % User -Side Subsidy % Other Describe ' 5 SECTION 1 General Applicant Information (Continued) 11. ServiceParameters o Days and Hours of Transportation Services: Elderly/Disabled 6 AM - 12 midnight, 7 -days a -week. General Public 7AM-7PM Mon. -Fri. on' o Eligible Riders (check appropriate category(ies)) General Public X Low Income X Youth (age limit) X Elderly (age limit) X Handicapped X Other (describe) o Transfer arrangements with contiguous systems (fixed - route and demand -responsive) RTD, Gardena Municipal, Lawndale trolley 12. Service Provider o Operated directly by applicant o Service contracted 13. Vehicles Operated Owned Vans Owned Buses (27'+) Leased Vans Leased Buses (27'+) Other (describe) Sedans GRAND TOTAL Check Box(es) Total No. I_Y No. w/Lifts 4 2 4 0 Page 20. SECTION 3 PROJECT BUDGET To be completed by all new and continuing applicants for all project alternatives except Subregional Paratransit Grants. Existing Budget (if applicable) Proposed Budget Year 1 Costs Administration Planning Maintenance Marketing Operations Other(specify) Total Project Cost Costs 78,524.60 23.455.40 7,380 15,000 468,930 6,000 599,290 Authorizing Signatur Costs, 2,7,357 26.04 7,430 15,000 505,725 $ 648,606 Funding Sources Local Contribution Incentive Page 19. SECTION 2. INCENTIVE PROGRAM PROJECT DESCRIPTION FY 88-89 (To be completed for all Incentive project alternatives except Service Restructuring) Same as description from FY 87-88 grant application. Please incorporate. S SECTION 4 TABLE 2 - SERVICE AND RIDERSHIP DATA (Subregional Paratransit Grant Applicants Only) OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS 1. Patronage Unlinked Passengers Revenue Passengers Elderly Handicapped 2. Vehicle Miles Total Vehicle Miles Total Revenue Vehicle Miles 3. Vehicle Hours Total Vehicle Hours Total Revenue Vehicle Hours 4. Vehicle Occupancy TP)tal No. of Vehicle Trips* No. of Exclusive Rides No. of Group Rides 5: Employees Total No. of Paid Employees Total Drivers 6. Fare Structure Base Zone Transfer (within system) Transfer (to other system) Handicapped Elderly Student Discount (other than E&H) Monthly Pass Other *Vehicle trip is defined as one - Note: New project applicants complete Proposed and Planned columns only. Audited FY 86-87 Current FY 87-88 Proposed FY 88-89 Planned FY 89-90 19,980 61,510 63.300 `63.300 65.200 65.200 19.827 60,816 12,293 42.156 x2,156 42055 133 698 698 698 92.702 236,734 243.800 251.100 82.330 207,008 213.200 _ 219.600 6.977 16.500 17,000 17,500 6,846 16,203 16,700 17,200 17,642 52,628 52,628 52,628 8,174 37.630 37,630 37,630 3,672 19.358 19,358 19,358 23 23 23 23 17 17 17 17 1_no 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 _FT) I .50 .50 .50 n n _50 1 .50 .50 _50 1 .50 .50 .50 9 c. Page 22. SECTION 4 • Cr • „ TABLE 3 - OPERATING EXPENSES (Subregional Paratransit Grant Applicants on OPERATING EXPENSES OPERATIONS (If not included in contractor costs) a. Drivers & Dispatch' b. Schedules & Psgrs. Counting c. Driver Supervisors 113. Subtotal MAINTENANCE (If not included in . contractor costs) a'. Fuel & Oil b. Mechanics & Management c. Materials & Supplies d. Other -114. Subtotal • ADMINISTRATION (If not included in contractor costs) a. General Management. b. Accounting Services c. Marketing d. Planning & Coordination 115. Subtotal CONTRACT SERVICES a. Operations b. .Maintenance c. Administration d. 'Other 116. Subtotal 120: Interest' Expenses Leases and Rentals a. Vehicles b. Equipment Van Conversion c. d. Other 121. Subtotal 125. TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES Note: New project applicants • • Audited FY 86-87 253,715 Current FY 87-88 Proposed FY 88-89 Planned FY.89-90 • 42.860 78,524.60 87,357 99,700 7.380 . 7 430 7,600 16,437 15,000 15 000 15,000 23.455.40 26,094 31,900 59,297 124,359 , 135,881 154,200. 107,018 _ 4,735 58,672 23,993 194,418 468,930 505,730 523,000 6.000 7 005) 599,290 648,611 677,200 complete Proposed and Planned columns only. Page 23. SECTION 4 TABLE 4 - REVENUE SOURCES FOR OPERATING (Subregional Paratransit Grant Applicants Onl OPERATING REVENUE SOURCES 142. Passenger Farebox Revenue 143. Special Rider Subsidies 144. Charter Service Revenues 145. Auxiliary Transportation Revenues Local Revenue 147. Prop. A Discr. (formula) 148. Prop. A Discr. (incept.) 149. Prop. A Local Return 150. General Fund Subsidy 152. Other HB Construction TDA Revenues 154. Article 4 155. Article 4.5 New Allocations Carryover Investment Income 156. Article 8 159. Other State Funds (specify) a. b. Federal Revenues 160. UMTA Section 3 Operating 161. UMTA Section 9 Operating 162. UMTA Section 8 Tech. Stud. 165. Area Agency on Aging 166. Revenue Sharing 167. Community Dev.Blk.Grant 168. Other Federal Funds a. b. In-kind Contribution (Attach explanation) TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES Note: New project applicants complete Proposed and Planned columns cr.1. Audited FY 86-87 Current FY 87-88 Proposed FY 88-89 Planned FY 89-90 1(1.675 35.000 35.000 35,000 la ,nnn 22,865 27,000 27,000 34,nnn 98.020 145,687 150,000 280,d1Q 316.405 320.941 _ 330,200 40.823 P4 5)00 69.978 85,000 0 43,000 40,000 4(1,000 in QQLt 10.000 384,937 599,290 648,606 672,200 Page 24. DEFINITIONS OF CATEGORIES AND TERMS (Refer to Tables 2, 3 and 4) TABLE 2 - OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS Unlinked Passengers: The number of boarding passengers carried whether revenue producing or not. Passengers are counted each time they board a vehicle even though it may be on the same journey from origin to destination. Revenue Passengers: The number of boarding passengers who put cash in the farebox or provide other revenue such as a pass or other method of payment for rides. . APPENDIX I Page 1 of 3 Total Vehicle Miles: The total miles actually traveled. Total Revenue Miles: The total miles traveled while carrying passengers. Total Vehicle Hours: The total hours actually operated. Total Revenue Hours: The total hours operated while carrying passengers. Number of Exclusive Rides: The number of vehicle trips completed with only one passenger aboard. Number of Grouped Rides: The number of vehicle trips completed with more than one passenger aboard. Total Number of Eralovees: The total number of employees employed in connection with the transportation system based on the assumption that 2,000 person -hours of work in one year shall constitute one employee. Total Number of Drivers: Means the total number of drivers employed by the transportation system based on the assumption that. 2,080 person -hours of work in one year shall constitute one driver. Fare Categories: Base: The minimum cash fare paid by adult passengers. Zone: Amount (in addition to the base) required for travel in one additional zone. Transfer (within system): Amount (in addition to the base) required for transfer from one route operated by Transit System A to another route operated by Transit System B. Elderly: Cash fare for elderly persons. iod -AREA *6AL-E, ' 151 rixe Amp' _--IgweAstor?-. (v4,0 4751 cor) dff 1 • (t.6-.01 tailor) 4 w' 14‘ • - :,FAR14:114G \‘‘, 1- / 20' ‹erroot..1 151 t.zrr APEA ar 17501 de 1/01- ApErt „... .25.-5er 1 __131)1ete ar _if 6471 if (14:2 a 1.36c, 01 FrVIA. Flea,lik sr (64,, 1,y) K(2.0e) a lipera 1 - . ' " - - 1(2- '= wt7-41 as K 1,4 • zi, 2,560 a !Jar 4- -1-rE • FLfitt4 111.4 14010/ 05' • D54144 NerA APartilr:r HFRAMil erefiati g74,ss3S 4 April 19, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council April 26, 1988 SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE 87-6 -- REZONING THE ZONING FOR AREA 2 INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends the following: 1. Rezone sub -area 2A from R-2 to R-1 (refer to Map 1). 2. Rezone sub -area 2B and 2C from R-2 to a proposed new zone called R -1B which would allow for R-1 density, but R-2 height and setback standards (refer to Map 2 & 3). 3. Rezone sub -area 2D to a proposed new zone called R -1A which would allow for a maximum of 2 units on lots of 6,700 sq. ft. or greater (refer to Map 4). Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the following: 1. Rezone sub -areas 2A, 2B and 2C from R-2 to R-1. 2. Rezone sub -area 2D from R-2 to a proposed new zone called R -1A which would allow for a maximum of 2 units on lots of 6,700 sq. ft. or greater. 3. Direct staff to study permitting a 30 foot height limit instead of 25 feet in the R-1 zones in cases where rezoning may cause view blockage. 4. The Planning Commission's intent was to create an R -1A Zone for the large lot area of sub -area 2D as recommended by staff, but when voting also included an area of small lots which would not benefit whatsoever from R -1A Zoning; therefore Staff is recommending this smaller lot area be included with sub -area 2B, and has shown it as such on Map 2; this area should be included in sub -area 2B whether the City Council adopts the Planning Commission's recommendation or the Staff's recommendation. Background The Planning Commission approved the attached resolution 88-26 recommending rezoning of the subject area at their April 5, 1988 meeting. 1 Analysis Staff's recommendation is based on field observations. View blockage will most likely not occur as a result of a 5' difference in height between R-1 and the R-2 zones particularly is sub -area 2B. The biggest benefit of having a 30 foot height limit is it allows for a "mezzanine" which is a method of circumventing the maximum of 2 stories standard. However, staff believes this issue should be more carefully examined, since there are property owners who actually believe their views will be blocked, but staff finds it unnecessary to create an entirely new zone which will become a constant request whether it helps relieve view blockage or not. As for allowing R-2 setback standards, staff believes this will allow more bulk, and do nothing for improving views. Additional analysis concerning the height issue as well as other issues are found in the attached staff report to the Planning Commission. Attachments 1. City Council Ordinance & maps of sub -areas of area 2. 2. P.C. Resolution 88-26. 3. Staff reports dated April 5 & March 15, 1988. 4. Minutes of P.C. meeting of March 15 & April 5, 1988. 5. Public hearing affidavit and copy of notice. 6. Correspondence from residents. CONCUR: Kev n B. Northcraft City Manager City Manager Comments AREA 2 Respe t ull unfitted, Michael Schubach Planning Director Recommendation Sub -Areas 2A 2B 2C 2D Planning Commission R-1 R -1B R -1B R -1A Staff R-1 R-1 R-1 R -1A The Planning Commission and staff recommendation for creation of new zone lA (3,350 sq. ft. minimum per unit) represents a reasonable compromise between zoning this large lot, historically R-2 area as R-1 (4,000 sq. ft. minimum per unit) and leaving it zoned R-2 (1,750 sq. ft. minimum per unit). While 1986 Measure Q did not reflect an R -1A zone, creation of this zone reflects a reduction of density as intended by Measure Q and sets as the minimum lot size the one specified in the General Plan for low density. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 88 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR THE AREA AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAPS AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on April 26, 1988 and made the following Findings: A. The State law requires consistency between the zoning and the General Plan; B. Rezoning the subject properties as indicated on the attached Maps will result in consistency between the zoning and General Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby ordain that the Zoning Map shall be amended as shown on the attached maps and legally described as follows: 1. Rezone area 2A from R-2 to R-1, legally described as follows: - Lots 1-6 inclusive of Block 64 of First Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract. 2. Rezone area 2B from R-2 to a proposed new zone called R -1B which would allow for R-1 density but R-2 height and setback standards; the area is legally described as follows: - Lots 1-9 inclusive of Block 5, 1-5 inclusive of Block 4, 1-12 of Block 3, 25-27 inclusive of Block 2, and 22-29 inclusive of Block 1 of the Hermosa Terrace Tract; Lots 21 of Block 51 of the First Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract. - Lots 20-26 inclusive, 30 and 12-18 inclusive of Tract #1868; Lots 1-11 and 27-34 inclusive of Tract #1131; Lots 1-4 inclusive of Block 2 of Hermosa Terrace Annex. 3. Rezone area 2C from R-2 to a"proposed new zone called R -1B which would allow for R-1 density but R-2 height and setback standards; the area is legally described as follows: - Lots 1-22 inclusive and 37-40 inclusive of Tract #113. - Lots 23-60 inclusive of Tract #820. 4. Rezone area 2D from R-2 to a proposed new zone called R -1A which would allow for a maximum of 2 units on lots of 6,700 sq. ft. or greater; this area is legally described as follows: 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 - Lots 1, 2, 4-7 inclusive and 10-12 inclusive of Block 1 of Hermosa Park Tract. - Lots 5-7 inclusive of Block 2 of Hermosa Terrace Annex. - Lot 1 of Tract #33436. - Lot 1 of Tract #31684. - Lot 1 of Tract #14277. - Lots 1-14 inclusive of C.C. Hunt's Addition to Hermosa Terrace Tract. - Lot 1 of Tract #12261 5. This ordinance shall not become effective until after thirty (30) days of final passage and adoption and not until all necessary amendments to the zoning ordinance pertaining to said new zones R -1A and R -1B have become effective through final passage and adoption. 6. 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. 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, 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 , 1988. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY • 'AREA 2 - AREA OVERVIEW • .REZONE FROM TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-2) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) LD . • SILVERSTRANO ' . AVE • V MYRTLE AVE. MAP 1 AREA 2A LOMA DR' MONTEREY MAP 2 • AREA 2B 4 _ f J a '6 g ORIGINALLY PART OF AREA 2D r MAP 3 'AREA 2C • • ®22 .see, `j' 2h �eO tig(1 q 6704( Vo 2 40 4© 0 0 ?g G 3 s 43.41 O a 4 . 40 07 O r 5 . 4o.5, .O II 6 s . 64a I Oe 7 p'" O'as� 40 tl 8?4 t2 • "Ti,,‘ Y, .. • "• a 20 r0 21 S' 30 iii 3 20 z 30 30 19 b0 18 40 17 . 16 15 14 - l3 13 40 • 30 12 12 3o 1� J I1 3o 30 l0 10 AO 410 .1 cam- O sa ea Ss =i; 23 h Ui .rsss 0 4 25 24 lin JD N 60 59:458 ago V. .1D �. • 26 57 27 O• 56 SILVERSTRAND ; AVE. 0 28 O 55 29 O 53 MYRTLE AVE. • MAP 4 AREA 2D Eatitgrouttb a tr riahh 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. 88-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR THE AREA AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAPS AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public bearing on March 15 & April• 5, 1988 and made the following Findings: A. The State law requires consistency between the zoning and the General Plan; B. Rezoning the subject properties as indicated on the attached Maps will result in consistency between the zoning and General Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby recommend that the Zoning Map shall be amended as shown on the attached maps and legally described as follows: 1. Rezone area 2A from R-2 to R-1, legally described as follows: - Lots 1-6 inclusive of Block 64 of First Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract. 2. Rezone area 2B from R-2 to a proposed new zone called R -1B which would allow for R-1 density but R-2 height and setback standards; the area islegally described as follows: - Lots 1-9 inclusive of Block 5, 1-5 inclusive of Block 4, 1-12 of Block 3, 25-27 inclusive of Block 2, and 22-29 inclusive of Block 1 of the Hermosa Terrace Tract; Lots 21 of Block 51 of the First Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract. - Lots 20-26 inclusive, 30 and 12-18 inclusive of Tract #1868; Lots 1-11 and 27-34,.,inclusive of Tract #1131; Lots 1-4 inclusive of Block 2 of Hermosa Terrace Annex. 3. Rezone area 2C from R-2 to a proposed new zone called R -1B which would allow for R-1. density but R-2 height and setback standards; the area is legally described as follows: - Lots 1-22 inclusive and 37-40 inclusive of Tract #113. - Lots 23-60 inclusive of Tract #820. 4. Rezone area 2D from R-2 to a proposed new zone called R -1A which would allow for a maximum of 2 units on lots of 6,700 sq. ft. or greater; this. area is legally described as follows: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28. - Lots 1, 2, 4-7 inclusive and 10-12 inclusive of Block 1 of Hermosa Park Tract. - Lots 5-7 inclusive of Block 2 of Hermosa Terrace Annex. - Lot 1 of Tract #33436. - Lot 1 of Tract #31684. - Lot 1 of Tract #14277. - Lots 1-14 inclusive of C.C. Hunt's Addition to Hermosa Terrace Tract. - Lot 1 of Tract #12261 AREA 2A AREA 2B -2D VOTE: AYES: Comms.DeBellis,Ingell,Peirce,Rue, Chmn.Compton NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ingell,Rue,Chmn.Compton NOES: Comms.DeBellis,Peirce ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: NONE CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 88-26 is a tru nd •.mplete record of the action taken by the Planning miss of the City of Hermosa Beach, Califgrniat their re: is meetin o ril 5, 1988. " )7 r /3:82 Ger�l� on, Chairman Mich.eltSchubach '1' , Secretary Date i r March 30, 1988 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermos Beach Planning Commission April 5, 1988 (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 15, 1988 MEETING) SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE 87-6 -- CHANGING THE ZONING FOR AREA 2 INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation Rezone area 2 from R-2, two family to R-1, single family residential. (Alternatives noted in analysis.) Background At the previous Commission meeting, the Planning Commission continued this matter, and requested additional information. Analysis The following information divides the subject area into 4 sub -areas based primarily on lot sizes and/or view corridors. Area 2A (see attached map #1) Total Number of Lots 9 Current Number of Units 10 Number of Lots 3500 sq. ft. or Larger 4 Historical Factor: a. 1930 Land Use Map R-1 b. 1943 Land Use Map R-2 c. 1956 Zoning Map R-2 d. 1978 Zoning Map R-2 Age of Dwelling Units All over 35 years except 1 unit Average Age of Dwelling Units 44 years Percent of Lots with Single Family Dwellings 88"/0 - /3 - This area is unique in comparison to the surrounding subdivision; the original 6 lots were approximately twice as large as the abutting lots. Two of the lots have been divided into 5 smaller lots, leaving 4 lots of which 3 could have 3 dwelling units each; the fourth large lot could have 2 dwelling units. In regard to height, this area should not have any additional view blockage caused by adjacent taller R-2 structures since the blocks to the south and southwest are zoned R-1. Beyond the fact that 4 of the existing 9 lots are large enough to meet existing R-2 standards, there seems to be no other justifiable factors for maintaining the R-2 zoning. However, the factor of the existing 1 dwelling unit per lot except on one lot, and the age of the existing dwelling units would qualify for potential rezoning. Further, the rezoning would help the City provide a mixture of large R-1 zoned, single family lots, the City has only a small supply of large R-1 lots, particularly west of Vally Drive. Area 2B (see attached map #2) Total Number of Lots, 61 Current Number of Units 91 Number of Lots 3500 sq. ft. or larger 1 Historical Factor: a. 1930 Land Use Map -- - between 1 th St. & Park Ave. on Monterey Blvd. R-1 -between Park Ave. & Ozone..Ct. on 24th St. R-1 - between Loma & 24th St. on Park Ave. R-2 b. 1943 Land Use Map -- - between 19th St. & Park Ave. on Monterey Blvd. R-1 - between Park Ave. & Ozone Ct. on 24th St. • R-2 - between Loma & 24th St. on Park Ave. R-2 c. 1956 Zoning Map All R-2 d. 1978 Zoning Map All R-2 Age of Dwelling Units 70 units over 30 years old Average Age of Dwelling Units 45 years Percent of Lots with Single Family Dwellings 50% The lots within this sub -area all fall within the approximate range of 2,600 sq. ft. to 3,100 sq. ft. in size; most lots are slightly more than 2,900 sq. ft. If two of these lots were assembled, enought area would exist to have three units under current R-2 standards. Along Park Avenue, the slope is easterly, resulting in the dwellings on the west size to be at a mucb higher grade, thereby blocking the westerly ocean view even if an additional 5 sq. ft. of height were allowed as it is in the current R-2 zone. Along Monterey, the west side is already zoned R-1, and is on the down side of the slope; view blockage should be therefore minor to none on the east which rises above street grade. Twenty-fourth Street faces a north/south direction. A "windshield" survey indicates that the slope of the area, and the adjacent R-1 zoning would limit any substantial view blockage. Overall, staff cannot find reasons that this sub -area should be spared from downzoning. It does not possess features which make it different from other areas slated for downzoning. To the contrary, the dwelling unit age, historical factor, lot size, and number lots with single family dwellings indicates the potential opportunity for rezoning. Alternative: Because some view blockage may occur because of the lower height (25 feet) allowed for R-1 versus the 30 feet allowed for R-2, the Planning Commission may recommend studying this matter carefully to consider possibly allowing a 30 foot height limit in the R-1 under certain circumstances. Area 2C (see attached map #3) • Total Number of Lots 58 Current Number of Units 82 Number of Lots 3500 sq. ft. or larger None Historical Factor: .. a. 1930 Land Use Map .A11 R-2 b. 1943 Land Use Map All R-2 c. 1956 Zoning Map All R-2 d. 1978 Zoning Map All R-2 Age of Dwelling Units 69 units over 30 years old +, Average Age of Dwelling Units 40 years old Percent of Lots with Single Family Dwellings 59% The lots within this sub -area fall within the approximate range of 2,250 sq. ft. to 3,000 sq. ft. Some of these lots, therefore are so small that even prior to the "density reduction" ordinance, only one unit could be built. Assembling two of these lots would still only result in two units being allowed. Assembly of three lot's in some cases would result in enough area for 4 units, but not in all instances. Myrtle Avenue along the west side will remain R-2 zoned but will not cause view blockage to the proposed R-1 area on the east side of the street, because of the significant slope of the lots on both sides of the street in conjunction with the City's method of measuring height. Dwellings on Silverstrand and 25th Street should not have view blockage impact because of rezoning since the abutting lots will also be R-1. It should be noted that in this sub -area or the other areas, it has been observed that there are virtually no developments at this time built to a 30' height. The area is currently. surrounded by R-2 zoning. However, if the area to the south and southeast were to be rezoned to R-1 as proposed, then, this area would be an extension to that area. Staff cannot find grounds for exempting this area from rezoning except for the fact that it will result in some nonconformity in the area. However, if this factor is of primary concern, then, the opportunity to lower density throughout the City is lost. Staff believes the nonconformity issue can and should be resolved by other means than avoiding downzoning areas. Area 2D (see attached map #4) Total Number of Lots 48 Current Number of Units 82 Number of Lots over 3500 sq. ft. 43 Number of Lots over 6700 sq. ft. (3350 sq. ft. is minimum area for 1 unit in General Plan) 32 Historical Factor: a. 1930 Land Use Map R-2 b. 1943 Land Use Map R-2 c. 1956 Zoning Map R-2 - )6_ d. 1978 Zoning Map R-2 Age of Dwelling Units 36 units over 30 years old Number of Lots with Two or More Units 30 This sub -area does have some significant differences in comparison to the other three sub -areas. All but a few of the lots within this area are large enough to have 2 units, and almost half are large enought to have 4 units under the current R-2 standards. View blockage would not seem to be an issue since only a few of the lots may possibly have an ocean view. Fifty-six percent of the lots are less than 30 years old, and 62.5% of the lots have 2 or more units. Of the large (over 6,700 sq. ft.) lots, 59% have at least 2 units, and 63% are less than 30 years old. The average age for units on the large (6,700 sq. ft.) lots is 24.8 years which is relatively new compared to the other subareas. Alternative: Because of the relative young age of the dwellings; the large size of the lots; the number of lots already having two units, and the General Plan minumum standard of 3,350 sq. ft. of area per dwelling unit in the low density areas, a new zone e.g. "R -1A" may be possible for the easterly portion of sub -area 2D; this area would include only the large lots over 6,700 sq. ft. except 3 smaller lots adjacent to Valley Drive (refer to map #4 for "R -1A" zone boundary potential). The maximum number of units recommended for this area would be 2 units per lot for lots of 6,700 sq. ft. or larger. This recommendation would reduce density from 33% to 50% since under R-2 zoning these lots could have 3 to 4 units. A text amendment would be necessary to create an R -1A zone. If the City Council were to adopt such a recommendation, staff would then prepare and set for public bearing before the Planning Commission an ordinance for recommended adoption. ichae Sc ubach Planning Director C C Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 10, 1988 Regular Meeting of March 15, 1988 SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE 87-6 -- CHANGING THE ZONING FOR AREA 2 INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation Rezone area 2 from R-2, two family residential to R-1, single family residential. Background According to the City Council schedule of zone changes, the above noted area requires rezoning consideration at this time. Analysis STATISTICAL DATA Total Land Area: 625,684 sq. ft. Total Lots: 176 Typical Lot Size: Varies Current No. of Dwelling Units: 267 Average No. of Units per Lot: 1.5 Existing Density: 18.6 Units per Acre Existing Zoning: R-2 General Plan Designation: Low Density Potential No. of Units under Current R-2 Zoning Ordinance (1,750 sq. ft. per Unit): Potential No. of Units under Previous R-2 Zoning Ordinance (2,400 sq. ft. per 2 Units): Potential No. of Units under Proposed R-1 Zone Change (1 unit per lot by Ordinance): 281 or 19.56 Units per Acre 322 or 22.4 Units per Acre 176 or 12.25 Units per Acre 'No. of Lots with Nonconforming Units under Current R-2 Ordinance: No. of Lots with Nonconforming Units under Current R-1 Ordinance: No. of Units Constructed in the Last 10 Years: No. of Units Constructed in the Last 20 Years: No. of Units Constructed More Than 30 Years Ago: Surrounding Uses: West East North South Surrounding Zoning: West East North South Surrounding General Plan Designation: West East North South C. 50 • 80 15 32 220 Units on 116 Lots Residential Residential except Small Portion Open Space (Railroad Right -Of -Way) Open Space Residential R-1 & R-2 Open Space & R-1 Open Space & Unclassified School R-1 Low & Medium Density Open Space & Low Density Open Space Low Density According to the General Plan the subject area should be zoned to R-1, Single -Family Residential. The rezoning would also be in accord with advisory measure E E passed by the electorate in 1980. Eighty-seven percent (87%) of the existing dwelling were constructed more than 30 years ago which is generally an adequate amortization period for most types of constructions. If this area is rezoned to R-1, a potential reduction in density of 37% will be recognized. The subject area is surrounded almost completely by low density, R-1 zoned and Open Space areas. Rezoning the subject area would be a logical extension to the already low density surrounding areas. Michael Schubach Planning Director c REZONE OF AREA 2 FROM R-2 TO R-1 AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION (CONTINUED FROM 3/15/88 MEETING) Mr. Schubach stated that, as requested by the Commission at their previous meeting, Area 2 has been divided into four sub -areas based primarily on lot sizes and/or view corridors. He used an overhead projector to show the various areas as they were discussed. Area 2A Mr. Schubach gave staff report on Area 2A. This section has a total of nine lots with ten units. There are four lots of 3500 square feet or larger. All of the units are over 35 years old except one unit. The average age of the dwelling units is 44 years. Eighty-eight percent of the lots have single-family dwellings. Historically, the 1930 land use map was R-1; 1943 land use map was R-2; 1956 zoning map was R-2; and 1978 zoning map was R-2. This area is unique in comparison to the surrounding subdivision; the original six lots were approximately twice as large as the abutting lots. Two of the lots have been divided into five smaller lots, leaving four lots, of which three could have three dwelling units each; the fourth large lot could have two dwelling units. In regard to height, this area should not have any additional view blockage caused by adjacent taller R-2 structures since the blocks to the south and southwest are zoned R-1. Beyond the fact that four of the existing nine lots are large enough to meet existing R-2 standards, there seems to be no other justifiable factors for maintaining the R-2 zoning. However, the factor of the existing one dwelling unit per lot, except on one lot, and the age of the existing dwelling units would qualify for potential rezoning. Furthermore, the rezoning would help the City provide a mixture of large R-1 zoned, single-family lots. The City has only a small supply of large R-1 lots, particularly west of Valley Drive. Public Hearing reopened at 9:23 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Robert Garson, 2258 Monterey Boulevard, Hermosa Beach, strongly opposed the proposed downzone of Area 2A. He described his property and gave background information on the history of the property. He purchased this site specifically for the purpose of the second structure providing income during his retirement years. He opposed the fact that if the structure was destroyed, he could not rebuild to what it is now. He noted that he could lose a great sum of money. He has invested much money into the main structure and the rear structure. —20— P.C. Minutes 4/5/88 1 Area 2B Mr. Schubach gave staff report for Area 2B. There are currently 61 lots in the area, with 91 units. There is one lot in excess of 3500 square feet. There are 70 units over 30 years old, and the average age of the units is 45 years. Fifty percent of the lots have single- family dwellings. Mr. Schubach discussed the historical issue of the land use maps and zoning maps and their varying zoning during the years. The lots within this sub -area all fall within the approximate range of 2600 to 3100 square feet; most lots are slightly larger than 2900 square feet. If two of these lots were assembled, enough area would exist to have three units under the current R-2 standards. Along Park Avenue, the slope is easterly, resulting in the dwellings on the west side to be at a much higher grade, thereby blocking the westerly ocean view even if the additional five feet of height were allowed as it is in the current R-2 zone. Along Monterey, the west side is already zoned R-1 and is on the downside of the slope; view blockage should therefore be minor to none on the east which rises above street grade. 24th Street faces a north/south direction. A "windshield" survey indicates that the slope of the area and the adjacent R-1 zoning would limit any substantial view blockage. Overall, staff cannot find reasons that this sub -area should be spared from downzoning. It does not possess features which make it different from other areas slated for the downzoning. To the contrary, the age of the dwelling units, historical factors, lot sizes, and number of lots with single-family dwellings indicates the potential opportunity for rezoning. There is an alternative. Because some view blockage may occur because of the lower height of 25 feet allowed in the R-1 zone versus 30 feet allowed in the R-2 zone, the Planning Commission may recommend studying this matter carefully to consider possibly allowing a 30 -foot height limit in the R-1 zone under certain circumstances. Harold Sterns, owner of 2416 Park Avenue, Hermosa Beach, opposed the proposed downzone. He recently retired and would like to return to Hermosa. He read to the Commission a letter dated April 4, 1988, he wrote opposing the downzone. He also handed out photographs showing that there are houses in this area which have built to three stories. He stated that on Silverstrand, across from Mr. Sterns' property, there is a 30 -foot structure. Mr. Sterns requested that he be allowed to build three stories to a height of 30 feet. There are many other three-story houses in this area, some of which are single-family and some which are multiple -family dwellings. He felt that he should be allowed to also build to three stories, noting that it would improve the neighborhood and increase the City's tax base. Mr. Sterns also requested that he be sent notices of any Planning Commission or City Council actions taken in regard to this property, noting that he does not presently live in the City. Mr. Sterns submitted to the Commission the plat map, letter which he read, and the photographs which he discussed. P.C. Minutes 4/5/88 _Z/ — c Chmn. Compton stated that the houses Mr. Sterns discussed are not technically three stories; they most likely have subterranean levels. The Commission and Mr. Sterns continued by discussing the photographs and the issue of three stories versus three levels. Albert Wiemans, 336 24th Street, Hermosa Beach, opposed the proposed downzoning. He asked why a timetable is being adhered to and why there is so much pressure to act on this matter immediately. Mr. Wiemans referred to a letter he wrote dated April 1, 1988, which outlines his objections to the proposed downzoning. He passed out copies of the letter and then read the salient points aloud. He also passed out a copy of a petition signed by 26 people in the neighborhood who oppose the downzone. Mr. Wiemans suggested that the general plan be changed to conform to the zoning, rather than changing the zoning to comply with the general plan. He stated that the downzone will create a financial burden on many people in the area. Mr. Wiemans stated that in the event the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council to approve a plan seeking to downzone any portion of Area 2, he and the property owners will consider taking legal action by filing a petition with the court seeking an order to restrain such vote by the City Council. Mr. Wiemans continued by discussing zoning and various height limitations. Mr. Wiemans concluded by demanding the following: (1) that the proposed downzoning of Area 2 be abandoned; (2) that the general plan be developed along more realistic objectives by taking into consideration (a) the fact that Area 2 has had R-2 zoning for more than 30 years; (b) most of the property owners have already made use of the R-2 zoning to develop their lots; (c) Area 2 is particularly suitable for R-2 zoning because most of the lots have rear access; (d) Area 2 is adjacent to the school site, which is slated for R-2 zoning to attract purchasers in the event that the school activities are discontinued; (3) that the general plan. be brought into conformity with the existing R-2 zoning for Area 2; (4) that the additional limitations and restrictions on the R-2 zoning brought about in 1979 be repealed. Blair Smith, 316 25th Street, Hermosa Beach, opposed the downzoning. He stated that he will try to obtain additional signatures on a petition to oppose this proposal. He questioned whether the City Council would acknowledge such a petition from so many citizens who oppose this measure. Mr. Smith felt that it is ridiculous the way the city has attempted to shove this matter down the throats of citizens. He suggested that if ten separate areas are going to be downzoned, they should all be addressed at one time, as opposed to the current piecemeal process. Mr. Smith stated that he is contemplating suing the City in regard to this downzone. He suggested that the City change the general plan rather than the zoning. He also noted that EE was merely an advisory measure, not mandatory. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, strongly opposed the downzone. She has been fighting this issue.. for many years. She stated that it is wrong for the City to downzone, thereby making the property legal non -conforming. People who want to do work on their properties must then pay large fees to the City because the property is non -conforming. She stated that most of these properties will remain, whether they are remodeled or not. 2z- P.C. Minutes 4/5/88 Ms. Burt stated that the general plan designation for the area is R-2. She suggested that the City go after the condominiums, not the homes. She stated that the density problem is not people; it is cars, garages, and parking. Much of the problem could be alleviated if people were required to park in their garages. Ms. Burt stated that leaving the area R-2 will not make the area more dense since the land can only accommodate a certain number of units; therefore, why downzone and make the properties legal non -conforming? Ms. Burt stressed that this proposal is harassing the citizens of the City. She felt that long-term citizens should be left alone. Area 2C Mr. Schubach gave staff report on Area 2C. Area 2C has a total number of 58 lots with 82 units. There are no lots 3500 square feet or larger. The 1932 land use map designated this area all R-2; the 1943 land use map designated this area all R-2. The 1956 zoning map designation was R-2, as was the 1978 zoning map. There are 69 units over thirty years old in this area. The average age of the dwelling units is 40 years. Fifty-nine percent of the lots have single-family dwellings. The lots within this sub -area fall within the approximate range of 2250 square feet to 3000 square feet. Some of these lots, therefore, are so small that even prior to the density reduction ordinance, only one unit could be built. Assembling two of these lots would still only result in two units being allowed. Assembly of three lots in some cases would result in enough area for four units, but not in all instances. _ Myrtle Avenue along the west side will remain R-2 zoned, but will not cause view blockage to the proposed R-1 area on the east side of the street because of the significant slope of the lots on both sides of the street in conjunction with the City's method of measuring height. Dwellings on Silverstrand and 25th Street should not have view blockage impact because of rezoning since the abutting lots will also be R-1. It should be noted that in this sub -area or the other areas, it has been observed that there are virtually no developments at this time built to a 30 -foot height. The area is currently surrounded by R-2 zoning. However, if the area to the south and southeast were to be rezoned to R-1 as proposed, then this area would be an extension to that area. Staff cannot find grounds for exempting this area from rezoning except for the fact that it will result in some nonconformity in the area. However, if this factor is of primary concern, then the opportunity to lower density throughout the City is lost. Staff believes the nonconformity issue can and should be resolved by means other than avoiding downzoning areas. John Dunbabin, 2432 Myrtle Avenue, Hermosa Beach, opposed the downzone. He discussed the issue of view blockage. His house is built to 30 feet, so there probably will not be a blockage in front of him; however, he felt that fifty percent of the neighbors will have a view blockage. He suggested that the issue be studied further. With the present height interpretation, there is bound to be a view obstruction to many. He. noted —z3 — P.C. Minutes 4/5/88 c that the ocean view adds substantially to property value. He felt that the laws should be fair to everyone. He felt that there are inconsistencies with the property across the street which is 30 feet, and the other side of the street will be limited to 25 feet. Steve Peterson, 2460 Myrtle Avenue, Hermosa Beach, opposed the downzoning. He felt that the lower density issue has already been met; now the issue is conformity with the general plan. He feels that there has been an oversight because of the height issue. He suggested that the City Council be advised to address the issue of consistency in the general plan in this specific area. Mr. Peterson then suggested that the size and height of the buildings be addressed. He stated that the downzoning will substantially affect property values. He, felt that many people will lose their views because of the downzoning. He suggested that consideration be given to a special zoning designation in the R-1 zone to allow for R-2 setbacks and height in certain R-1 zones. Steve Taylor, 2468 Myrtle Avenue, Hermosa Beach, opposed the downzoning. He noted concern over the different height limits on the same street and the potential view blockages. He suggested studying the possibility of allowing a higher height for the east side of Myrtle Avenue. Ned Taylor, 2468 Myrtle Avenue, Hermosa Beach, opposed the downzoning. He questioned how the density issue would be resolved by lowering the height. Dean Nota, 2467 Myrtle Avenue, Hermosa Beach, opposed the downzoning. He passed out copies of a drawing he did depicting measurement of height and street elevations. He continued by discussing the drawing. Mr. Nota felt that the reduction in height limit, the increase.. of open space, the parking ordinance as it now exists, and the issue of the small lots will squeeze the people in the area too much. He felt that the properties would not be able to be redeveloped within a reasonable level. He felt that the marketability will go beyond the capabilities of the area. Mr. Nota continued by discussing the staff report. He felt that, contrary to the staff report, the views on the street will be, adversely affected. He explained this by discussing the measurement of height in relation to the various street elevations. Mr. Nota stated that his two main concerns are the view and the ability of the residents to improve or redevelop their property in a manner which is consistent with existing single-family homes. He feels that there is a necessity for an overlay zone in this particular area. Area 2D Mr. Schubach gave staff report on Area 2D. There are a total of 48 lots with 82 units in this area. There are 43 lots over 3500 square feet. Thirty-two lots exceed 6700 square feet. 3350 square feet is the minimum area for one unit in the general plan. The 1930 and 1943 land use map designations for the area were R-2. The 1956 and 1978 zoning map designations were R-2. Thirty-six units in the zone are over 30 years old. Thirty lots have two or more units. P.C. Minutes 4/5/88 This sub -area does have some significant differences in comparison to the other three sub -areas. All but a few of the lots within this area are large enough to have two units, and almost half are large enough to have four units under the current R-2 standards. View blockage would not seem to be an issue since only a few of the lots may possibly have an ocean view. Fifty-six percent of the lots are under 30 years old, and 62.5 percent of the lots have two or more units. Of the large (6700 square feet) lots, 59 percent have at least two units, and 63 percent are less than 30 years old. The average age for units on the large lots is 24.8 years which is relatively new compared to the other sub -areas. Because of the relative new age of the dwellings, the large size of the lots, the number of lots already having two units, and the general plan minimum standard of 3350 square feet of area per dwelling unit in the low density areas, a new zone such as R -1A may be possible for the easterly portion of sub -area 2D. This area would include only the large lots over 6700 square feet except three smaller lots adjacent to Valley Drive. The maximum number of units recommended for this area would be two units per lot for lots of 6700 square feet or larger. This recommendation would reduce density from 33 percent to 50 percent, since under R- 2 zoning these lots could have three to four units. A text amendment would be necessary to create an R -1A zone. If the City Council were to adopt such a recommendation, staff would then prepare and set for public hearing before the Planning Commission an ordinance for recommended adoption. Comm. DeBellis asked for more clarification of a new zone designation. Mr. Schubach explained the reasoning behind proposing an R -1A zone. Ron Hobbs, 544 25th Street, Hermosa Beach, discussed the lot sizes in area 2D, explaining that they are very large. He agreed with the new proposal presented by staff for Area 2D. He also felt that the City Council would agree with the proposal. 1-[e asked that the Commission consider this option as an innovative alternative as opposed to straight downzoning. Dorothy Gunot, 527 25th Street, Hermosa Beach, asked what happens if this proposal is not approved. She felt the area would then just be downzoned to R-1. She continued by discussing the fact that she lives in a condo, and she is not clear as to what the status on her property will be. Joel Beckett, 2424 Silverstrand, Hermosa Beach, noted concern over the school property, stating that if that site is not rezoned to open space, there could be a problem with the surrounding properties. Public Hearing closed at 11:08 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Comm. DeBellis thanked the Planning Staff tor the fine job they did in preparing the additional information as requested by the Commission. He felt that a better decision can be made by the Commission based on this further input. Chmn. Compton agreed, stating that he felt a real analysis has now been provided. P.C. Minutes 4/5/88 c Comm. Rue stated that he has discussed this issue with many people over the past few. weeks, and there are many who feel that downzoning may be a short-term loss of capital; however, it usually turns out to be a long-term gain. He noted that developers will lose, because they can put only one unit on a piece of property. He believes that people have property rights which should be respected. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to accept staff's recommendation that Area 2A be rezoned to R-1 since these large lots are bounded on three sides by R-1. Comm. DeBellis agreed that downzoning can result in a long-term gain. He noted that this very thing happened to him when he sold his property. Comm. Ingell stated that most of the objections voiced by citizens regard the height and setbacks. The issue of two units does not appear to be the main issue. He felt that in the long run, downzoning will not lower the value of property. He suggested that the method of evaluating height be studied. Chmn. Compton agreed that Area 2A should be rezoned to R-1 based on the fact that it is surrounded on three sides by R-1. Also, this area has some of the largest R-1 lots in the City. Based on these factors, he would support the downzone of this particular area to R-1. AYES: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Comm. DeBellis stated that Area 2B is more complicated because of the fact fifty percent of the lots have single-family dwellings, and fifty percent have multiple dwellings. In reality, however, by the zoning passed a year and a half ago, the issue is one of non -conformity, rather than what the zoning should be. Chmn. Compton stated that he has a client who purchased a duplex in this area for an extraordinary amount of money. The client is planning to tear down the duplex and construct a single-family dwelling. The completed value will be almost $800,000. He noted that many sales in the area have been that high; therefore, he did not feel that the property values would drop by rezoning. Chmn. Compton felt that the areas should be addressed in terms of a second scale of zoning in the R-1 area. He intended to include a motion to begin the process of starting an R -1B zone which would allow for a 30 -foot height limit and R-2 setback standards in the R-1 zone. Comm. Rue agreed with Chmn. Compton's suggestion; especially considering views, the height of existing buildings, and the effect on future development in the area. Comm. Rue stated that discussion has not taken place on the issue of low-cost housing, especially granny flats. Because of the present zoning, the lots are not large enough to support a second unit; therefore, the best that can be done is to attempt to maximize the view so that the view corridor can at least be maintained. Comm. Ingell felt that the main issues are the height and views. He noted that because of the present restrictions, only one unit can currently be put on the lots. Therefore, he would support a motion to downzone the area to R-1. P.C. Minutes 4/5/88 C C MOTION y Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to accept staff's recommendation to rezone Area 2B from R-2 to R-1. Comm. Ingell asked how to begin the process of studying the height issue. Mr. Lough explained that after the motions on the zone changes are approved, another separate motion should be made recommending that a height study be done. Chmn. Compton noted that in all of Area 2B, there is one lot, out of a total of 61, on which two units could be built. Comm. Rue stated that the motion could include a recommendation that the height limit, as well as other parameters, be studied. Mr. Lough agreed; however, he thought Comm. Ingell's suggestion was to undertake a separate study of the height issue. He noted, though, that the motion can be amended. Comm. Ingell wanted to convey to the City Council the fact that height limit appears to be the main concern involved in this issue. He suggested that this fact be incorporated into the recommendation. Chmn. Compton asked if the maker of the motion would be amenable to an amendment to the motion to include the alternative staff suggestion in regard to height. Comm. DeBellis stated that it would depend on the wording. Comm. Rue hoped that the amendment would be to recommend that the zoning be to R- IB, with a height limit of 30 feet. Comm. DeBellis discussed the issue of leaving the area R-2, stating that only one unit can be put on the lots in any event. The only difference in leaving the area as R-2 would be that it would be inconsistent with the general plan. MOTION WITHDRAWN by Comm. DeBellis to allow a substitute motion to be made. MOTION by Comm. Rue to recommend to the City Council a rezone of area 2B from R-2 to R -1B; further that the R -1B zone have a 30 -foot height limit and R-2 setback requirements. (MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND.) Comm. Peirce stated that such a motion cannot be made because there is currently no zoning designation of "R -1B" in the City. He said a zone cannot be created without first having a public hearing. Mr. Schubach noted, however, that the motion is merely a recommendation to the Council. Chmn. Compton suggested that two separate motions be made; one to establish an R -1B zone, and another to recommend that this area be rezoned to R -1B. MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. Inge11, that the proposed R -1B zone be established with the attendant text amendments; that the zone would allow for a 30 -foot height limit; that the zone would have the R-2 setback standards; that the zone be low- density, single-family, with a minimum lot size of 4000 square feet. P.C. Minutes 4/5/88 c Comm. DeBellis noted, however, that if the square feet is included, people can combine lots. He suggested that the motion contain all desired development standards. Comm. Inge11 suggested that the R -1B zone be the same as R-1, with the exception of the height and setback requirements. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Chmn. Compton and Comm. Ingell, as maker and second, to clarify that the motion suggests that the R -1B zone is to be the same as R-1, with the exception of height and setback standards. Comm. Peirce asked about all the other people in the City who have not had the benefit of being rezoned to the proposed R -1B zone. He felt that the motion is merely to recommend the studying of an R -1B zone, noting that such a zone cannot be created at this time. He felt that a recommendation to R -1B would be a "non -action" because there is currently no such zone. The area would then go into limbo. Mr. Schubach stated that this would not be the case, noting that the action is merely a recommendation to the City Council. The Council will then decide whether or not they agree with the Planning Commission's recommendation. This would be no different from other recommendations to the Council. Comm. DeBellis stated that the noticing could be a problem, though, noting that people were advised that the area was being rezoned from R-2 to R-1, not R -1B. Mr. Schubach stated that the notice contained a proviso stating that the area would be rezoned to R-1 or such other zone as deemed appropriate. Mr. Lough stated that the issue has been addressed at the public hearing so there is not a problem. A problem could arise, however, if the Council agrees that the area should be rezoned to R -1B because there is currently no R -1B designation in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Lough suggested that the recommendation be to rezone the area to R-1; then a separate motion can be made to recommend to the Council that the proposed R-1 B standards be adopted. Comm. DeBellis felt that Mr. Lough's recommendation is appropriate. If desired, the new zone could be created; other property owners would then have the possibility of being rezoned to R -1B as opposed to R-1. He felt that the proposed designation does not apply just to this particular area, but also to other areas of the City as well. SECOND TO THE MOTION WITHDRAWN by Comm. Ingell. MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Chmn. Compton feels it is important to let the City Council know that this particular area is sensitive; therefore, he feels the recommendation should include the R -1B zone wording. Mr. Lough strongly recommended that the Planning Commission send a spokesman to the City Council hearing on this matter so that their view can be made known. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Compton, to recommend that Area 2B be rezoned to R -1B. The R -1B would have all of the development standards of R-1, with the exception of the 30 -foot height limit and the setback standards of R-2. P.C. Minutes 4/5/88 C Comm. Rue stressed that Area 2B is very sensitive to view; therefore, he favored making this recommendation. AYES: Comms. Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Compton NOES: Comms. DeBellis, Peirce ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. Rue, to recommend the establishment of an R -1B zone, including'text amendments that would contain all the elements of the R-1 zone with the exception of the height which would be 30 feet, and the setbacks, which would be those of the R-2 zone. Chmn. Compton stated that the motion is intended to create a general category of R -1B for the entire City, not just Area 2B. AYES: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Compton NOES: Comm. Peirce ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to rezone Area 2C from R-2 to R-1. Comm. DeBellis noted that Area 2C is 59 percent single-family, and the majority of the lots are not large enough to construct more than one unit. Comm. Rue stated that Area 2C is also one which is height.sensitive, noting that the west side of Myrtle Avenue is R-2 and can be developed to 30 feet. He felt that that issue should be addressed. Comm. DeBellis did not feel that the west side of Myrtle Avenue has lots large enough to build more than one unit. He noted that that side of the street could be built to 30 feet; however, the west side of Myrtle Avenue is not at issue tonight. He suggested, then, that this might be an area which is a candidate for the proposed new zone designation. AYES: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Peirce, Rue NOES: Chmn. Compton ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Chmn. Compton asked whether the Commission deems Area 2C to be sensitive. Comm. Rue felt that it is. He had hoped there would be a recommendation to the Council to study the west side of Myrtle Avenue in regard to the height issue and its being rezoned to the proposed R -1B standard. Comm. Ingell was under the impression that that was the intent of the previous vote. He therefore withdrew his vote on the previous motion. He agreed that Area 2C is indeed height sensitive. Comm. DeBellis did not feel it would be appropriate to recommend a rezone to R -1B until such time that the proposed R -1B zone has been studied. That is the reason for his making a motion to rezone to R-1. P.C. Minutes 4/5/88 C MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Rue, to reconsider the vote on the previous motion. AYES: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Compton NOES: Comm. Peirce ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to rezone Area 2C from R-2 to R-1. • AYES: Comms. DeBellis, Peirce NOES: Comms. Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Compton ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. Rue, to recommend that Area 2C be rezoned to R -1B (with the same specifications as voted for in Area 2B). AYES: Comms. Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Compton NOES: Comms. DeBellis, Peirce ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. Rue, to recommend that Area 2D be rezoned from R-2 to R -IA as proposed by staff. This pertains only to lots in excess of 6700 square feet, and there will be a maximum of two units on those lots in excess of 6700 square feet. AYES: Comms. Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Compton NOES: Comms. DeBellis, Peirce ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None • MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve negative declarations for Areas 2A through 2D. AYES: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton - NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Comm. Peirce explained his "no" votes, stating that he feels all four areas should be rezoned to R-1. He felt that by increasing the height and setbacks, the bulk is being increased; therefore, the areas would be essentially downgraded. Even though one would be living in an R-1 area with a view, such a recommendation to rezone to R -1B would be penny wise and pound foolish. Comm. DeBellis explained his "no" votes, stating that he would have preferred to have Areas 2A, 2B, and 2C all be R-1; and have area 2D be R-2. If a subsequent zone had been created, he would have favored rezoning to the new zone. P.C. Minutes 4/5/88 —30— < r REZONE OF AREA 2 FROM R-2 TO R-1 AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 10, 1988. He stated that this is the second of ten areas which the City Council has directed the Planning Commission to address. He stated that a large map has been posted and copies have been provided for the benefit of the public. Mr. Schubach discussed Area 2 in detail: The total land area is 625,684 square feet. Total number of lots is 176. The typical lot size varies. There are currently 267 dwelling units in Area 2, and the average number of units per lot is 1.5. The existing density is 18.6 units per acre. The existing zoning is R-2, with a general plan designation of low density. The potential number of units under the current R-2 zoning ordinance (of 1,750 square feet per unit) is 281, or 19.56 units per acre; the potential number of units under the previous R-2 zoning ordinance (of 2,400 square feet per two units) is 322, or 22.4 units per acre. The potential number of units under the proposed R-1 zone change (one unit per lot by ordinance) would be 176, or 12.25 units per acre. There are a total of 50 lots with nonconforming units under the current R-2 ordinance; under the current R-1 ordinance there are a total of 80 nonconforming units. Fifteen units were constructed in the last ten years; 32 units were built in the last 20 years; and 220 units on 116 lots were constructed more than 30 years ago. e. The surrounding use to the west is residential, with a zoning of R-1 and R-2 and a general plan designation of low and medium density. The surrounding use to the east is residential except for a small portion of open space (the railroad right-of-way). The zoning to the east is open space and R-1, with a general plan designation of open space and low density. To the north the surrounding use is open space. The .northerly portion is zoned as open space and unclassified school use, with a general plan designation of open space. The surrounding use to the south is residential and is zoned R-1, with a general plan designation of low density. According to the general plan, the subject area should be rezoned to R-1, single-family residential. The rezoning would also be in accord with advisory measure EE passed by the electorate in 1980. Eighty-seven percent of the existing dwellings were constructed more than thirty years ago, which is generally an adequate amortization period for most types of construction. P.C. Minutes 3/15/88 � C If this area were rezoned to R-1, a potential reduction in density of 37 percent will be recognized. The subject .area is surrounded almost completely by low density, R-1 zoned and open space areas. Rezoning the subject area would be a logical extension to the already low density surrounding areas. According to the City Council schedule of zone changes, Area 2 requires rezoning at this time; therefore, staff recommended that the area be rezoned from R-2, two-family residential, to R-1, single-family residential. Chmn. Compton asked what the effect of this zone change will be, based on the idea that there is a current number of 267 dwelling units, and the proposed number is 176. Mr. Schubach stated that the existing two -unit lots will probably remain as two -unit lots, unless they are extremely old. He noted, however, that staff is still studying the issue of non -conforming property as it relates to this issue. He stated that it is hoped staff will return in the near future with some considerations for non -conforming uses. He noted it is very difficult to deal with the issue of condominiums sharing air space in the event the structure burns down, and the issue must be addressed of what can be rebuilt. Chmn. Compton discussed the multi -family dwellings in this area and questioned whether they could be rebuilt in the event of fire, earthquake, or other devastation. Mr. Lough explained that each particular situation would need to be addressed individually. Apartments could only be rebuilt to the current standards. In the case of condominiums, the current condominium ordinance would need to be consulted. He felt, however, that in most cases the structures could be rebuilt according to current state law. The trend is towards more property rights rather than less.. Chmn. Compton noted that staff had mentioned the lot sizes "vary." He asked for further clarification on the sizes. Mr. Schubach stated that this area is extremely mixed, ranging from very large to very small lots. Some lots are approximately, 5,000 square feet and over. Other lots have been split and are quite small. He noted that Area 2 is quite large. Chmn. Compton asked whether there are any tracts in this area which have been developed and could be reasonably split off from this area and left as medium density. Mr. Schubach stated that many of the smaller lots, whether zoned R-1 or R-2, would not be able to accommodate two units in any case. The larger lots to the east would be able to accommodate two units. Comm. DeBellis asked about the process by which this issue is before the Commission. He asked when the general plan was adopted in the City. Mr. Schubach stated that the most recent plan was adopted in 1979. The document was then certified by the Coastal Commission in 1980. He stated that the previous plan was adopted in 1976, and the original general plan was created in 1965. Comm. DeBellis stated that it is mostly likely, then, that the low density designation was placed in this area in 1965. P.C. Minutes 3/15/88 Mr. Schubach stated that it would be necessary to consult the 1965 general plan in order to determine when the area was actually designated low density. Comm. DeBellis asked what the zoning was in 1965. Mr. Schubach suspected that the zoning was R-2 at that time. Comm. DeBellis noted that the City has waited 23 years before attempting to correct this discrepancy between the general plan and zoning. Mr. Schubach explained that the the City is under the state requirements to reconcile the zoning the general plan designation. Further, the citizens passed advisory measure EE to lower the density. Comm. DeBellis questioned how many eligible citizens actually voted in the election in which EE was passed. He doubted whether the actual voter turnout was more than thirty percent of the registered voters, noting that that is why he is against ballot box voting. Comm. DeBellis asked what planning studies the Planning Department has actually done in order to substantiate why the zoning or general plan should be changed. Mr. Schubach stated that all statistical background data has been provided in order for the Commission to study and make a decision based on that. Public Hearing opened at 8:42 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Coming Forward to Speak in Favor of the Proposed Zone Change: Elizabeth Dunbar, 2524 Morningside Drive, lives in a single-family dwelling which cannot be turned into a duplex because there is not adequate parking. Therefore, she favored the area being rezoned to R-1. Dominick Sarensioni, 577 25th Street, noted concern over the quality of life issue and the low density intention. If the general plan calls for low density, then it should be because of parking and traffic problems. He wanted to maintain low density and focus on reducing pollution, noise, traffic, and parking problems. Melissa Miller, 318 24th Street and 2222 Loma Drive, could not favor or oppose the proposed zone change until more information is made available. She questioned whether other areas will be upzoned as a result of this downzone. She questioned whether the impacts of this downzone have been studied as it relates to other areas which will be addressed in the future. She felt that the proposal is capricious and arbitrary at this time. Todd Kalish, 541 24th Place, noted that the area currently zoned R-1 has two -unit duplexes which occurred after all the rezoning took place. It is a very long, time consuming process for duplexes to disappear and be replaced with single-family residences. He said there is a tremendous property value in the single-family area. He said the area is very attractive and still very valuable even if it can only be developed with single units. He noted concern over traffic in the area. He said it would be appropriate to downzone the area to keep it in conformance with the family and child oriented atmosphere of the area. -33 - P.C. Minutes 3/15/88 Joel Beckett, 2424 Silverstrand Avenue, felt the downzone would improve the quality of life in the area. He felt that it would further improve transportation and parking. However, he noted concern over the zoning of the North School site, and questioned whether condos would be built on that site. He felt that condos would be detrimental if the rest of the area is rezoned R-1. 4 Coming Forward to Speak in Opposition to the Proposed Zone Change: Walt Taylor, 2468 Myrtle Avenue, noted concern that he received no notice of this public hearing. Mr. Schubach stated that thousands of notices were sent out; however, he will check to ensure that Mr. Taylor is on the list. He noted that the notice could have been lost in the mail. Mr. Taylor felt that downzoning would decrease his property value, and he stressed that he would like to be notified of any such future actions. He opposed not only the City's rezoning of his property and mandating the number of units he can put on his property, but also limiting the height to which he can build. Jim Calhoune, 566 25th Street, has a large undeveloped parcel specifically purchased by him in 1973 because of the fact it is zoned R-2. He has chosen at this time not to develop the property because he enjoys the open space; however, to rezone his property from R-2 to R-1 would substantially reduce his property value should he decide to sell the parcel. Mr. Calhoun continued by discussing the square footage of his parcel. He noted that the general plan has not been in effect since 1965. He cited advisory measure EE and questioned how many people actually voted for that item. He felt that EE should be placed on the ballot again because there have been severe_: changes since 1980. He stressed that there must be a consensus of all the citizens of the City before any drastic measures are taken, and he felt that more information is necessary before making a decision on this area. He felt that additional clarification is in order. He felt that the 1965 general plan does not meet 1988 requirements. Ron Hobbs, 544 25th Street, referred to the area on the south side of 25th Street from Lots 3 through 10, and then Lots 1 through 4. He noted that all of those lots are 50 by 150 and very large. He presented a petition signed by 17 people living on that block, all opposed to any rezoning of that area. The opposition is because the downzoning does not take into consideration the lot sizes, which is the major factor in this issue. He stated that lots of many different sizes, ranging from 50' by 150' to 30' by 42', have all been lumped together in Area 2. Many of the lots conform to existing low density requirements. He suggested that some of the areas be considered separate and apart from others in Area 2. Mr. Hobbs stated that some of the residents desperately need the income derived from their rental properties, and without that income many of the people probably could not even afford to live in Hermosa Beach. John Dunbabin, 2432 Myrtle Avenue, noted his single-family dwelling is already built to the 30 -foot height limit. By downzoning, his property would become non -conforming. He lives on the east side of Myrtle; across the street is zoned medium density, which is five feet higher. As a result of the downzoning of Area 2 from R-2 to R-1, the east side of Myrtle Avenue will be limited to a height of 25 feet; while the west side, which is zoned R-2 and not subject to rezoning at this time, will have a height restriction of 30 feet. P.C. Minutes 3/15/88 � C Since the view is important for its beauty and the value it adds to the property in the area, and if Area 2 must be rezoned to R-1, he asked the Commission to consider a height variance for the east side of Myrtle Avenue and the area east of Myrtle and to set the height limit at 30 feet instead of 25 feet. He said that the lower heights should be in front of areas with a higher designation. Harold Sterns, owner of 2416 Park Avenue, bought his property in 1962 and it was zoned R-2. He is retired and was hoping to return to Hermosa Beach; however, the proposed downzoning would impact his property value. He asked how the government can take property from individuals without just compensation. He stated that the downzoning would not permit the maximum use of his lot. Mr. Sterns felt that the various areas should be addressed individually because of the vast difference in lots sizes. He stated that he lives in San Diego and has been receiving notices from the City with no problems. Leon Miller, 2412 Silverstrand Avenue, purchased his property in 1972, at which time it was zoned R-2 and had the minimum square footage requirements for a duplex. He noted concern over his height limitation being affected, and he felt this would impact the value of his property. He noted concern over the rezone of his property and the height of surrounding buildings. He suggested that this issue be placed on the ballot as opposed to being acted upon piecemeal. Walter Adam, owner of 2419 and 2421 Silverstrand Avenue, opposed; because if one cannot rebuild to the same standard if a structure is destroyed, he felt it is an arbitrary taking of property rights and property value. He stated that if a duplex suddenly becomes nonconforming, it will be worth far less. He said that all of the duplexes at issue were built under the code, some of which were completed within the past year. He noted concern over the loss of value if they become nonconforming. Mr. Adam said that the downzoning will not decrease the density because buildings being constructed today will last at least a hundred years. He said the only way to decrease the number of duplexes would be if they burned down. Bill Pomatri, owner of 2112 Monterey Boulevard, stated that this same downzoning proposal arose seven years ago but did not come to pass. He felt that downzoning would accomplish nothing except to take away the incentive to develop or build on a lot. Therefore, there will be an increase in the number of absentee landlords, with no incentive to ever return to live on the property because those owning duplexes will milk the property for rent. Mr. Pomatri stated that the new duplexes are very beautiful, and they also help the parking situation because they must provide off-street parking. He stated that the shape of the lots themselves actually limits the types of construction which can go in. John Vandewhile, 2426 Silverstrand Avenue, objected to the change in height from 30 feet to 25 feet. He is across the street from new homes which are at least 30 feet or more due to variances. He also noted concern over the requirement of additional living space combined with the setback requirements, noting that if had to rebuilt, a home would have to be very small to be in compliance. He noted that his house and lot are very small. Elizabeth Dunbar, 2524 Morningside Drive, which is an irregularly-shaped lot, originally spoke in favor of the zone change; however, she now opposed based on the fact she is _3S - P.C. Minutes 3/15/88 • C C adjacent to the open space area near the North School property, and she noted concern over the duplexes which would be able to build to a greater height. She noted that she wants to take advantage of her front yard. Phil Simovich, 505 24th Place, and owner of 2460 and 2460 1/2 Park Avenue, opposed because he felt that if the North School property becomes available, developers will offer a very attractive package to the City so they can develop the site into a high density development. He noted concern that a person can buy an R-2 lot at top dollar and then be downzoned. He felt that a new general plan will probably be imposed in another ten years. He felt that the plan should be adhered to and there should not be so many variances granted thereby enabling people to avoid the rules and regulations. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, has fought the proposed downzoning for years. She stated that the general plan can be changed to conform with the zoning; the zoning does not need to be changed. Furthermore, by downzoning this area, all the houses will become legal nonconforming. If they do become nonconforming, people will have to pay very high fees to the City in order to obtain variances if they want to do any improvements. Mrs. Burt discussed the various lot sizes and stated that the 4000 square foot lot requirement was never intended for developed land, but only for open, undeveloped parcels. Mrs. Burt discussed advisory measure EE and stated that many people did not understand the issues; they merely wanted lower density and to reduce the traffic problems. Those who voted for EE did not realize they were, in effect, voting for downzoning. Mrs. Burt stressed that the general plan should be changed, not the zoning. Viva Stroiky, 3205 The Strand, a realtor, stated that she is attempting to sell a property at 2211 Loma, on the corner of Park and Loma, which is in a very bad state of disrepair. If the downzoning is approved, the property will then become R-1. She asked whether a grandfather clause has been proposed for this downzoning proposal, noting that the structure could then be torn down and replaced with a beautiful new building. Albert Wiemans, owner of 336 24th Streets bought the house for the specific purpose that it was zoned R-2. On either side of his house are duplexes. There are only two single- family dwellings on his block. Across the street is medium density housing. He asked whether the City actually has a definition of "low density." He felt low density is R-2, R -2B, and R-1. He stated that the downzoning will decrease his property value. Mr. Wiemans stated that the Commission is acting under a fiduciary agreement to protect the rights of property owners. He stated that the electorate will turn against City government if they lose their property rights. Mr. Wiemans discussed EE and stressed that the measure was merely advisory, not mandatory. He stated that, if necessary, he will take legal action to halt this downzone. Blair Smith, 316 25th Street, owner of two duplexes in this area, opposed the downzoning of his property, noting that he has spent a great deal of time and money on his properties. He stated that if his duplexes burned down and he could not rebuild them, he would stand to lose a quarter of a million dollars, explaining that that amount includes future income, not only property value. _36- P.C. Minutes 3/15/88 • Mr. Smith stated that the general plan originally set out is the one that should be followed. He noted that things cannot be changed as easily as people think, because these buildings are not just going to go away. He stated that attention should be given to the general • plan instead of attempting to alleviate the problems in the City by downzoning. He stated that the City government is making decisions which affect everyone in the City, and more consideration should be given to the issues. Mr. Smith stressed that the City cannot be changed at this point because it is already 99 percent developed. Pat Price, 719-718 8th Street, completely opposed the downzoning. She stated that the Commission does not care about the people who live in the City. She noted concern over what will happen in her neighborhood in the future. She stated that she, along with many others in the City, wants the City to remain as it is. She stated that the complaints and protests of the citizens fall on deaf ears. Laura Gunot, 527 25th Street, with a 50 percent undivided interest in a condo, noted concern over the fact that she lives in a condominium and owns "air space," and she questioned what would happen if this condo were to burn down or is otherwise destroyed. She stressed that there must first be clarification on this matter before any action is taken. Sal Mayo, 525 25th Street, joint owner of the condo in question at 527 25th Street, wanted clarification of his rights. He noted concern if his condo burns down and posed several questions: Would he move in with Ms. Gunot? What happens when the building has exceeded its useful life? Must the two owners decide who will move out? Who actually owns the property? How would refinancing take place? What does legal nonconforming really mean? Mr. Lough explained that the Supreme Court is currently studying this issue. He continued by stating that, more than likely, if the unit burns down, the property owners would be able to rebuild. He noted, however, that the rules are subject to change. Jeff Green, 846 16th Street, felt that the preparation for this issue has been inadequate. He stated that the City Council is putting pressure on the Planning Commission to get through this issue quickly; therefore, the Planning Department has been forced to prepare incomplete packets of information for the matter to be voted on. Mr. Green stated that the City Council is anti -development and is therefore taking advantage of this situation. He felt that by having a vote tonight on this matter, it would result in a 5-0 vote at the Council level. Mr. Green felt it would be appropriate for the Planning Department to analyze not only this particular area, but also other areas as they relate to this blanket downzoning. He felt that the Planning Department should submit additional information to be studied. He felt that there are lots in Area 2 which are certainly large enough to be zoned R-2. Comm. Peirce disagreed that preparation has been inadequate. In fact, he complimented staff on the fine work they have done in regard to this issue. He felt that the materials are ample and adequate. Mr. Green felt that staff did a fine job within the time parameters which were available; however, he felt there is doubt as to whether all available information had been provided and made available. But he noted that, after listening to all the comments, more P.C. Minutes 3/15/88 F.) information and clarification is necessary before a final decision can be made. He said that the staff report does not address the impact of the downzone as it relates to other areas; it does not address the City as a whole; and •it does not address the impacts should the general plan to be modified. Mr. Green discussed at length zoning as it pertains to developers. He stated that in the event this downzoning occurs, there should be a recommendation to the City Council to have a grandfather clause. Harold Sterns, 2416 Park ' Avenue, questioned why single-family residences are not allowed to go to 30 feet. Susan Miller, 2020 Monterey, which is a duplex on which she would like to put an addition. She questioned whether she would still be able to do the addition if the downzoning is approved. Sally Reinberg, owner of property on the 2400 block of Myrtle Avenue, opposed the downzoning for all the reasons stated by other speakers this evening. She requested that the Commission not pass this recommendation to the City Council. She stated that she depends on the income from her rental property. Public Hearing closed at 10:40 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Comm. Rue discussed the loss of view corridors and asked whether there are any provisions either in the Coastal Commission regulations or general City policy pertaining to this issue. Mr. Schubach stated that the City has only the minimum standards; and the general plan does not specifically address the issue of height or view corridors.- Comm. orridors.Comm. Peirce stated that view corridors are mentioned in the coastal plan; however, the issue of building height is not addressed. The section relates mainly to areas in which the City desires to maintain the view in tact from the highway and other areas. Chmn. Compton did not feel comfortable with the idea of taking away people's property rights and at the same time property values. He noted that of the 176 lots Area 2, only 45 to 48 lots are not already single-family lots based on their size. He continued by discussing the various lot sizes in Area 2. Chmn. Compton stated that he would feel more comfortable taking the lots individually because of the vast differences in size. He questioned whether there are any reasonable alternatives for the larger lots as opposed to those lots which are already essentially single-family dwelling unit lots. Chmn. Compton did not favor the idea of creating additional nonconforming lots in the City. He felt that density is actually created by parking problems, not people. He stated that when structures are recycled, more parking is obtained thereby alleviating some of the parking problems. By downzoning, he felt that buildings will last much longer; therefore, the parking problems will remain. He noted, however, that he does not feel comfortable with this situation. Comm. Peirce felt that lot sizes should be taken into consideration as background information; however, he felt that the area itself should be looked at from a, good planning standpoint as regards to whether it should be R-1 or R-2, regardless of the -3g - P.C. Minutes 3/15/88 general plan. The lots on 25th Street are larger than those on top of the hill; but the area, although there are duplexes and condos, appears to be surrounded on the south, east, and de facto on the west by R-1 property. Therefore, the larger lots on 25th Street, if zoned R-2, would be an island surrounded by R-1. He felt it would be more consistent from a planning standpoint to have that area R-1. If the lots are large enough to be redivided into 4,000 square foot lots, that is an option for the developers. Comm. Peirce discussed the view situation and stated that the height limit does not appear to be an issue because the lots are large and there is actually no view to protect other than the view down the hill and into the valley. He felt that the R-1 designation would not appear likely to block anyone's view in that area. Comm. Ingell commented that he did not agree that downzoning from R-2 to R-1 would actually decrease property values. He stated that other cities have done this, and there are beautiful large homes being built on the larger lots. He felt that the sections should be addressed individually, rather just looking at the lot sizes. Chmn. Compton noted that lots vary in size from 2100 square feet to almost 8300 square feet, stating that it is very difficult to lump them all together in one zone. He was bothered by the fact that this issue was not taken into consideration. He noted that the only staff analysis given is that the lot sizes vary. He felt more information is necessary. Comm. Rue stated that he would prefer to look at the areas individually. He felt that more time should be devoted to this issue; therefore, he felt a continuance of this issue would be appropriate so that more information could be obtained from staff. He noted that there is a vast difference between the various areas being discussed. Comm. DeBellis had no objection to continuing this matter in_order to obtain additional information. He noted that the staff report says 87 percent of the dwellings in this area were constructed more than thirty years ago, which would predate the general plan. Therefore, the general plan was prepared with an existing situation which was not real or accurate. The City is now attempting to cure a problem which wasn't real in the first place. Comm. DeBellis noted that the Planning Department has been directed by the Council to proceed with this ambitious proposal quickly; therefore, staff has not had adequate time to study this issue with a free mind, and staff is merely presenting statistical data to the Commission on which to base its recommendation to bring the zoning into conformance with the general plan. Comm. DeBellis questioned whether the City is really getting the best it can in this matter because staff has not had time to professionally analyze all the possibilities. He felt that staff is under pressure from the Council to move these matters through very quickly without giving a thought to all the ramifications. Comm. Peirce opposed a continuance, stating that he feels all the necessary information has been provided. He asked what information could be included that has not already been provided. Comm. DeBellis stated .that there could be a staff recommendation, other than merely recommending that the area be rezoned to be in compliance with EE. He wanted a staff report based on a planning standpoint. P.C. Minutes 3/15/88 w Comm. Rue felt that there is additional information which can be provided on the various areas within Area 2. He suggested that the area be divided into three separate areas, so that they can be more adequately discussed and studied. He noted that it is difficult to make a decision on an area which is so large and diverse. M Mr. Schubach stated that additional information can be provided on each of the individual areas within the overall Area 2. Comm. Ingell favored including information related to the North School site. Chmn. Compton suggested various ways to break up Area 2 for further study. Comm. DeBellis discussed the various zoning in the area of Myrtle Avenue and noted that the general plan actually isolates individual blocks with different zoning. Comm. DeBellis noted that in the future, it would be helpful if staff provided information as to the number of structures and the age of the structures on a block by block basis. Mr. Lough suggested that the public hearing be reopened at continued if this matter is to be continued. He also noted that the hearing should be continued to a date certain. Mr. Schubach cautioned that if this item is continued, a decision must be reached at the next meeting. He noted that there is a strict time schedule for completing the ten areas. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Rue, to continue this item to the Planning Commission meeting of April 5, 1988, in order to obtain additional information from staff on this matter; further, that the public hearing be reopened and continued until April 5, 1988. Noting the objection of Comm. Peirce, so::or-dered. Recess taken from 11:11 P.M. until 11:22 P.M. ... w.• :•••,•41•!? ..., s.. aw-x... • i ______•._.rett_fv". • . P.C. Minutes 3/15/88 A.— _ e _ _ _ ,;.%i -aa.. . ... Easy -Reader Run Date: April 14, 1988 DISPLAY Acct: 7010-2110 • PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach shall bold a public hearing on April 26, 1988 • to consider the following: 1. Zone change of area 2.from R-2 to R-1.* • 2. Appeal of Planning Commission unmerging of lots located 1214 10th Street and 1233 21st Street. 3. Text amendment to Zoning Ordinance & Environmental *Negative Declaration regarding projections into required yard areas. *Map on file in Planning Department in City Hall. • SAID PUBLIC HEARING shall be at' •8:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chamber, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. ANY AND ALL PERSONS interested are invited to participate at that time and place or to write to the City Council in care of the Planning and Environmental Services Department at the above address PRIOR to Thursday, - • April 21, 1988 at 12:00 noon IF YOU CHALLENGE the above matter(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Department at, or prior to, the public bearing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact the Planning Department at 376 -6984, - Ext. 242. Kevin Northcraft City Manager City of Hermosa Beach PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PUBLIC NOTICE ZONE CHANGE FOR AREA 2 REZONE OF AREA 2 FROM R-2 TO R-1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach will hold a public bearing on April 26, 1988 to consider a zone cbange of area 2 from R-2 to R-1. A map of this area is on reverse side for your reference. A large scale map is on file in the Planning Department. SAID HEARING shall be at 8:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beacb, California. ANY AND ALL PERSONS interested are invited to participate and speak at this hearing at the above tithe and place. Persons wishing to send written communication on this project should write to the Planning Department in care of City Hall at the above address prior to Thursday, April 21, 1988 at 12:00 noon. IF YOU CHALLENGE THIS PROJECT IN COURT, you may be limited to rais- ing only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this Notice, or in written correspondence de- livered to the Planning Department at,•or prior to, the public hearing [Government Code Section 65009 (b) (c)]. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact the Planning Department at 376-6984, Ext. 242. CITY OF HERMO A , ACH 4..7.70( Michael Schubach Planning Director I, the undersigned, do declare under penalty of perjury tL t1 I1 •did on the 12th day of April, 1988 , deposit ti.nitow the United States post office; first class postage prepai.dl„ a copy of the public notice attached as Exhibit "A" to ealt:thl and every person attached as Exhibit "B". I warrant that the. persons named on Exhibit "B" are all the persons required b applicable law to receive the public notice attached as ExAiit lit: I understand and agree that it is my responsibility to came these public notices to be made in an accurate and timely fi:atsItlent and agree to hold the City harmless against any liability Wadi_. soever for any defect of.said notice or notices. In the event an action is instituted in a court of competent. jurisdiction which questions the legality of the public nice,, then the City may in its exclusive discretion suspend all heantims or cause the cessation of any construction or of any use wititrait was permitted as a result of a hearing which was held in accpudhame with the public notice. In the event that the court declines: the notice or noticing procedure to be effective, then tbe; City may in its exclusive discretion revoke any permits panted and cause any approvals given pursuant to those public natal ee; to be declared null and void and I agree on behalf of myeetUff and my heirs, assigns or successors -in -interest to hold the. City harmless in connection therewith. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true. and correct. I have executed this declaration on this the 17f-1, April, 1988 , at Hermosa Beach, California. Ack Inco ,dual STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANCELES TONY MTT.T.S day ast Pie4r7' /94(/ (Capacity) 1SS. On 4/12/88 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared TONY MILLS personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name _i c subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledg hat he executed the same. Signature in WTC 067 4.0 WTC WORLD TITLECCITEMIVAIW FOR NOTARY SEAL OR SAINT' 1 :IX::r..ar.✓.r r:.?C✓..•..•.::5.'r.......::•'....... '.t+•..... Ali. is oFFir_Ir�.. '1L' 4in g FFFF• „,6 ' . FRANCEN E ':. E; 1i{+c loh?}_' ;1 1. NOTARY PU9G1::-4AQJT.ORNIM 1s a'!% LOS AN *ELFT, q 24 My Ccmmission Expires NC•:. 2Z MIR x City Council and Planning Commission Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Harold & Nicka Stearns 11768 Shadow Glen Road El Cajon, CA 92020 April 4, 1988 Sirs: My wife and I have been residents of and owners of 2416 Park Avenue Hermosa Beach for 25 years. We request that the Commission and Council reconsider the new recent zoning restric- tions they wish to place on our property. We request that we be allowed to build to thirty feet, three stories, as a single family residence in the future. The house is approximately 36 years old and is coming to an age when upgradina is a logical approach. We are almost surrounded by single family and multi -family units that are 3 stories high. 1. Across from 2416 Park on Park and Silverstrand is a structure that approaches 30 feet and is multi -unit. 2.. Next to 2416 Park, at 2412 Park is a 3 story home that was in existance when we purchased in 1963. toLVF 3. On the South 4t corner of Park and 24th Street, 2313 Park, is the Pugh house which is a 3 story level. 4. On the North East corner of Park and 24th Street next to 2412 Park is a duplex. 5. On the South East corner of Park and 24th Street is a multi-level multi -family dwelling. 6. At 2425 Park an older house.is currently being turned into a 3 story structure. There are many other duplexes and multi-level dwellings that rise to three stories extending down Park and 25th Streets and to Monterey. In fact, we are almost enclosed by these taller buildings. We feel that we should also have the right to build to 3 .tories as other have done. Our house is a small 2 bedroom one bath that does not meet the needs of my family and myself since I am contemplating returning to my old home. If we are to enlargen and provide adequate parking, we cannot do so with a two story restriction on such a narrow lot. The building across from us on Park and Silverstrand appears to be some 30 feet high and completely dominates the corner. If we can build 3 stories we can help upgrade the area while providing an increased tax base. Park Avenue to the North is on a ridge and construction to 3 stories on the East side of the street would not block any view from the East down the hill towards Valley and the railroad tracks. Therefore we request that 3 story single family residences be permitted in any changes being made in the composition of this area. We also request a notice of the results of the Planning Commission's hearings and those hearings and decisions of the City Council. Sincerely, ma. ld and Nicka Stearns Enclosures: Pictures of 2416 Park; 2412 & 2416 Park, Corner of Park and Silverstrand from front of 2416 Park, Park and Silverstrand from South Park, 2313 Park, 2425 Park; address and locations appear on the back of the photographs. The tract map locates adjacent properties that are 3 story in relation to 2.416 Park Avenue. 4182 124 SCALE 1" 50' 'ria1�t ®29 24 rot ®28 Vs 27 f �Zj A �oycs f CODE 4340 FOR PEEV. ASSMT. SU: 159-3, 40 & 41 PL. 4 .COgre; x rs BLK. 3 1 1 ' 7c,75.11� ® mil'. 1® 13 14 1 ® 13 12 ®',-. 1 1 , 1 I 1 .v0 � �� 415 wr i1r wr i AP BLK. )IIa*vi . •i © 1 !! 0 18 ® 17 ® k 16 0 . 0 15 0 14 �� 1 1 1• I IONO ' AO 1 .EEs ,III 40 s0 .. Jo HERMOSA TERRACE TRACT ALL 10-16 ST. HERMOSA PARK TRACT M.B. 8-176 PARCEL MAP P M 53-56 ALBERT G. `VIEMANS ATTORNEY AT LAW UNION BANK TOWER, SUITE 1$20 21S1S HAWTWORNE BOULEVARD TORRANCE. CALIFORNIA 90503 .TEIERWONE: (2131 316-7727 April 1, 1988 Members of the City Council City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Re: Proposed Down -Zoning of Area 2 Ladies and Gentlemen: OBJECTION TO PROPOSED DOWN -ZONING FROM R-2 TO R-1 OF AREA 2 SHOWN ON CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REZONING MAP The undersigned owners of real property in Area 2, do each hereby object to the proposed down -zoning from R-2 to R-1 of Area 2 as shown on the City of Hermosa Beach Rezoning Map. GENERAL PLAN Area 2 consists of a variety of lot sizes; some as small as 1,090 square feet (corner of Park Avenue and Loma Drive), many as small as 2,950 square feet (South side of 24th Street), some as large as 5,500 square feet (North side of Monterey Boulevard), and some even larger (Twenty Fifth Street east of Park Avenue). For more than thirty years, Area 2 has been zoned as R-2. The proposed down -zoning to R-1 will impose a very heavy financial burden on the property owners involved. For most of the property owners. the Hermosa Beach real property represents a very substantial part of their wealth; for some it represents virtually all of their wealth. For more than thirty years, the R-2 zoning constituted "low- density" use of property. Down -zoning has been attempted in the past and was abandoned in light of objections by affected property owners. However, in 1979, the permissible uses were curtailed to some extent. Now, following the passage of an "open space" initiative, which had been understood by most of the electorate as being related solely to the City's acquisition of the right-of-way owned by Southern Pacific Railroad, City Council is once more taking efforts at down -zoning. c Members of the City Council City of Hermosa Beach April 1, 1988 Page Two With reference to the existing City's General Plan, the current development of Area 2, and the desires of affected property owners regarding the appearance of their community, as the same may be affected by the proposed down -zoning, the property owners respectfully submit as follows: 1. R-2 zoning for Area 2 is a permissible zoning under the City's General Plan as Low -Density Zoning. A further down - zoning is not required to comply with Low Density Zoning. 2. The proposed down -zoning from R-2 to R-1 for Area 2 is not consistent with reasonable zoning laws enacted under the "police powers" of local government; it has the effect of forcing less affluent property owners away from Area 2. 3. Reasonable zoning laws must take into consideration the existing property owners, and their desire for the appearance of their community. THE GENERAL PLAN MUST BE DEVELOPED ON THE BASIS OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT IN AREA 2; R-2 ZONING IS PARTICULARLY APPROPRIATE WHERE LOTS HAVE REAR ACCESS, such as the lots along Monterey Boulevard (with rear access to Loma Drive), and the lots along 24th Street West of Park Avenue (with rear access to Loma Drive). These lots offer greater opportunity for more off-street parking (e.g. 2 garages at the front of the lot, 2 garages at the rear of the lot, together with guest parking space). 4. Down -zoning for Area •2 should not be based on election results of a ballot proposal for an ADVISORY VOTE of the electorate, particularly where it was generally assumed that the ballot proposal was tied in to the City's acquisition of the railroad owned right-of-way. THE ELECTORATE DID NOT ANTICIPATE OR SUSPECT THAT PROPOSED DOWN -ZONING WAS THE OBJECTIVE BEHIND THE BALLOT PROPOSAL. NO ONE VOTED WITH AN EYE ON HIS POCKETBOOK. 5. By reason of the fact that more than 100 fewer dwelling units are permitted under the proposed down -zoning, the down - zoning appears to be the equivalent of an inverse condemnation, for which the City may be forced to compensate affected property owners. 6. The proposed down -zoning amounts to a taking of property without due process of law, unless numerous "non -conforming" units are permitted to continue to exist. THIS MAY VERY WELL INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO HAVE EXISTING "NON -CONFORMING" UNITS REBUILT IN THE FUTURE BY SIMILAR "NON -CONFORMING" UNITS. As such, EVEN UNDER THE BEST CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEARANCE OF AREA 2 WILL BE R- 2 DEVELOPMENT WITH R-1 DEVELOPMENT INTERSPERSED. Members of the City Council City of Hermosa Beach April 1, 1988 Page Three THE PROPOSED DOWN -ZONING IS DESIGNED TO CAUSE MORE THAN 100 DWELLING UNITS TO BE VACATED, AND THE OBJECTIVE OF THE PROPOSED DOWN -ZONING IS NOT VIABLE. 7. INSTEAD OF IMPOSING SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP ON PROPERTY OWNERS, CITY COUNCIL CAN AMEND THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN TO CONFORM WITH EXISTING R-2 ZONING. THIS IS A VALID OPTION, WHICH SHOULD BE EXPLORED. 8. IT IS UNCLEAR WHY CITY COUNCIL IS PROCEEDING WITH A VERY RAPID TIME TABLE TO COMPLETE THE DOWN -ZONING. Is blind adherence to a time table more important than a thorough investigation of the ultimate effect of the down -zoning the financial burden placed on affected property owners? During a recess of the March 15, 1988 hearing before the Planning Commission, one of the members of the Commission stated off the record that "the City had certain 'visions' of what it believed Hermosa Beach should look like.° The property owners submit that such °visions° should be published, and should be the subject of a public hearing. Another member of the Commission appeared to suggest that he had made a greater profit, on the sale of his property after the property had been affected by down -zoning. The property owners submit that such suggestion is misleading. More disturbing still, one member of the Commission suggested to the writer hereof, that City Council had already made up its mind with respect to the down -zoning, and that the down -zoning was a °foregone conclusion.° If such Commission member was correct in making his assessment, the conclusion is irresistible that: 1. CITY COUNCIL IS ACTING WITH CONTEMPT FOR DUE PROCESS. 2. CITY COUNCIL APPEARS TO BE ACTING TO ASSERT THE INDIVIDUAL DESIRES OF ITS MEMBERS, INSTEAD OF ACTING AS A FIDUCIARY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ELECTORATE. HISTORY OF AREA 2 Purchase prices of real property in Area 2 have risen dramatically over the past years. Area 2 is a highly desirable place to live with the tranquility of the Pacific Ocean, in close proximity to downtown Los Angeles. ( c Members of the City Council City of Hermosa Beach April 1, 1988 Page Four It does not take extended debate, that property is only as valuable as the uses to which the property can be developed under applicable zoning laws. Many, if not most, of the property owners purchased property in Area 2 because of the R-2 zoning. Some have constructed two dwellings on one parcel, others have not had the opportunity to develop their parcels to the ultimate use permitted, either by lack of time, finances, or otherwise. Indeed, until down -zoning notices were received, property owners did not generally worry about potential financial losses which may be associated with owning property in Area 2. Owning property in Area 2 was almost better than having °money in the bank.° Some property owners have considered redevelopment of their lot, replacing one dwelling unit by two dwelling units, and selling of the second unit and pay off all of the debt incurred in the reconstruction efforts. Others had considered redevelopment at some later time, e.g. after retirement, when affordable financing can be obtained, etc. Some property owners have lived in Area 2 for over 40 years, and to them their property is their °only nest -egg.° Other property owners, who may have been unable to purchase property in Area 2 on their own, had combined efforts with other parties, and now share dwelling units built on a single lot without the benefit of having obtained a lot split. Did City Council consider, what could happen if the dwellings (or one of them) should burn down? Which one of the owners will remain on the lot and which one will be forced to leave? How would a property value be established when the two property owners are to part? What if the affected owners were not the original owners, but transferees of them? Assume, for instance under the circumstances set forth in the last paragraph, that City Council Should permit the affected homeowners to rebuild two dwelling units on one lot, where only one dwelling unit would be permitted under the down -zoning. At this point the purpose behind the down -zoning has effectively been emasculated. ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF CONTINUED R-2 ZONING At the March 15, 1988 hearing before the Planning Commission, counsel for the City noted that while Area 2 still contains a number of totally undeveloped lots, and many under- developed lots (i.e. lots not developed to the extent permitted by applicable zoning laws), AREA 2 IS ALREADY °OVER -DEVELOPED,° since under the proposed down -zone, the permitted number of Members of the City Council City of Hermosa Beach April 1, 1988 Page Five dwelling units is MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED LESS than the number of dwelling units presently permitted under existing R-2 zoning. UNDER THE PROPOSED DOWN -ZONE, THE MAJORITY OF PARCELS WILL CONSTITUTE NON -CONFORMING USES. At this point, it is submitted that the down -zoning marks the beginning point of a new direction of permitted building uses, and THE NET RESULT COMES CLOSE TO AN INVERSE CONDEMNATION, FOR WHICH THE CITY MAY BE REQUIRED TO PAY COMPENSATION TO AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS. Alternatively, it is submitted that the down -zoning is not a reasonable exercise of "police powers" of local government since the result of the down -zoning is that numerous parcels are allowed to exist as non -conforming uses, while other parcels are forced to comply with the more restricted uses under the down - zoning. DOWN -ZONING IS PARTICULARLY OBNOXIOUS, WHERE THE REDUCED NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS FOR AREA 2 CAN NEVER BE OBTAINED, SINCE THE PROPOSED DOWN -ZONING CAN BE CHALLENGED AS "A TAKING OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW," UNLESS NON -CONFORMING UNITS ARE ALLOWED TO EXIST AND UNLESS SUCH UNITS CAN BE REPLACED WITH SIMILAR NON -CONFORMING UNITS. On the basis of the existing development in Area 2, the ultimate objective of the proposed down -zoning in reducing the number of the permissible dwelling units, cannot be achieved. Hermosa Beach can not be transformed to the equivalent of a "Beverly Hills -by -the -Sea." With very few exceptions, the present property owners, do not command enough financial resources to build $600,000.00 dwellings on each parcel. In Hermosa Beach, as in other beach communities, the value of each lot bears a direct relationship to the ocean view it can command. As such, we have seen very few 1 -story buildings being built in Area 2. Most, and perhaps all, of the new construction in Area 2 consists of 2 -story buildings, designed to optimize a view of the ocean. The 1979 and 1986 zonincx ordinances. which placed a higher minimum square footage of land per building unit, should be reviewed in light of the existing high costs of land, and changed back to pre -1979 laws. For instance, the sections now requiring 1,750 sq. ft. per unit should be lowered to the more affordable minimum dwelling unit sizes applicable to multi -family dwellings, e.g. 1,200 sq. ft. for a 3 -bedroom unit. Members of the City Council City of Hermosa Beach April 1, 1988 Page Six In short, the PROPOSED DOWN -ZONING IS DESIGNED TO FORCE MOST OF THE EXISTING PROPERTY OWNERS AWAY, AND TO ATTRACT OTHER MORE AFFLUENT OWNERS AND TAXPAYERS WHO CAN AFFORD TO HOLD AND MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY UNDER AN R-1 ZONING. AS SUCH, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPOSED DOWN -ZONING AMOUNTS TO AN INVERSE CONDEMNATION, FOR WHICH THE CITY MAY HAVE TO COMPENSATE AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS. As a direct result of the proposed down -zoning, property owners owning non -conforming dwellings (particularly multiple non -conforming dwellings) will no doubt chose to leave those dwellings "as -is," refusing to upgrade the same, let alone, to conform them to the proposed R-1 zoning. THE PROPOSED DOWN -ZONING WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE PROPERTY OWNERS WANTING TO REMAIN IN AREA 2. Most of the non- conforming dwellings may become "rentals," attracting a less desirable transient population, for which greater police protection may be required. The proposed down -zoning of Area 2 makes no sense, particularly, where the adjacent school site now marked as "open space," may be zoned as R-2 to attract purchasers in the event that the school activities are discontinued. DOWN -ZONING BASED ON AN ADVISORY VOTE ON A MISLEADING BALLOT PROPOSITION IS A BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY ON THE PART OF CITY COUNCIL AND A FRAUD UPON THE ELECTORATE. SUMMARY The property owners listed below demand as follows: 1. That the proposed down -zoning of Area 2 be abandoned; 2. That the City General Plan be developed along more realistic objectives, by taking into consideration: (a) The fact that Area 2 has had R-2 zoning for more than the past thirty years, (b) Most of the property owners have already made use of the R-2 zoning to develop their lots, (c) Area 2 is particularly suitable for R-2 zoning because most of the lots have rear access, (d) Area 2 is adjacent to the school site, which is slated for R-2 zoning to attract purchasers in the event that the school activities are discontinued. Members of the City Council City of Hermosa Beach April 1, 1988 Page Seven 3. That the City General Plan be brought into conformity with the existing R-2 zoning for Area 2; 4. That the additional limitations and restrictions on the R-2 zoning brought about in 1979, be repealed. CONCLUSION In the event that the Planning Commission should make a recommendation to City Council to approve a plan seeking to down - zone any portion of Area 2, the property owners listed below will consider legal action by filing a petition with the Superior Court at Torrance, California, seeking an order to restrain such vote by the City Council, alleging irreparable injury. Res•ectfully Submitted, AL : ERT G. WIEMANS 33• - 24th Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 • PROPERTY OWNERS ON WHOSE BEHALF THE FOREGOING PETITION IS SUBMITTED SIG ATURE• PRINTED NAME: RESIDENCE ADDRESS: kA- • J • J 6a1 1 )402. PARA-Qat uL Jaz Perrewt Uwr ' VA.3ap_„1. • _-?9e cit lktufa.at: c20`-' r'c— '1 P.Ae t: ss •A rtit, 1 1i. 1/4-1,4rN . . `�Jc� �lif14..c4-€0. of5. ry y /3. ,41 t . 4).1.. �.. tL C J ' t om -a1 IL c. 14 e t.4f l! 2.2z Z M wI "ile,e c 131► ci REGISTERED VOTER: C C STEVEN C. CROSBY 531 - 24th Street Hermosa Beach, CA •90254 Michael Schubach Planning Director City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mr. Schubach: I just want to voice my concern over the proposed zone change from R-2 to R-1 for area 2. As a resident of Hermosa Beach who lives close to the proposed zone change I feel it's my duty to oppose the zone change. The zoning in that area is appropriate in my view and hope the "Planning Commission" is not short sighted so as to vote for the zone change. R-2 zones can help raise revenue for the city - which is needed by all cities these days. By taking away a possible source of revenue for the city would jeopardize Hermosa Beach's future financial well-being. Please transmit my response to the board. Thank you. Sincerely, SCC/ls STEVEN C. CROSBY MAR 1 1988 et, /3(.4‘.44_, /3�.- , fo )-sy 1988 `t% &.'s-- 1'lri- -14 A-eef a -m -f-- re_ 2_, o R- 1 W-4_ G�..e -,tee. v_-�.. +►� i- $ L, -�- 12- Z- • (A)a- 3 & .,k J 4-- act • VJ4_ U. -40 -Ls_ • elvt- X�'� a.- so g iso 41- -e� j,79 o� K' 31-11 -�.' - 021,3 or _ea-Lorti,/ aJt_e_ C C 44 .�s NI44.4* 12415 f`` o-. tAj.4+4L -�-� 1&� 44,..c. ert,‘4, "4.-Ij4j1Ls_ Uist trt- ' •,300 e 0-0 0 4 fors --00, do o, -c.�. Gc�a.� • ev . 4t. • .3Lt.c_4_ :a - Ufa 0' • ye_t_ �• 114 ' rte -`-e PII.3- —s`i— u€et sic. e- Li , 70-1--r7 C 639 t L‘"j`Lct 131CVal� �.e.ck l £ ��-tsaLci I &. g02S4 ertrt - .. . 1A;"& V't&Cg4 11): bvvc4i.QA-Uzg_ se.114,44 LIAJzi, a.eL42 6tA4.41 eudta • 0- L % ckosT ez7tiddrs % tL 2 uktL futIA4k:51 &Kea_ a 1 Gzvuea- u,:aLt g 6 -wt_ rie).7;. tqqg MAR oS1988 8. March, 1988 Planning Department City of Hermosa Beach: For the record,please be advised that we are completely opposed to the proposed R-2 to R-1 zone change in the five hundred block of 25th.. Street,Hermosa Beach.. Of -the 27 parcels of land in this block, there are, only, 8', (your count), that do not have two existing units.. These parcels are all 50 x 150 feet or larger.. We have ben residents of Hermosa Beach for forty eight years: We purchased our land to build our home forty two years ago, in good faith as an R-2 Parcel.. After these many years of meeting our obligations to this City, it seems deplorable and unconstitutional that a small body of people have the power to take away our investment;';. Sincerely yours, D Stidham am F. Stidham 522, 25th, Street Hermosa Beach,Calif.. 8861e08v W t Planning Department City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Attention: SUBJECT: Sirs: Kindly be informed of our objection to your department's proposal to down -zone Area 2 from R-2 to R-1. Michael Schubach, Planning Director ZONE CHANGE FOR AREA 2 March 8, 1988 Our residence is located at 2258 Monterey Boulevard with a secondary rental structure at the rear, facing 2247 Loma Drive. Your insistance to pursue this issue has come to a state of general harassment - again and again the property owners resist, yet you continue to pressure us, annually it seems, with this senseless and most damaging ....(particularly to property value)... issue. Please list us, once again, as a NO vote for this proposal - which should be posed to the community at the next general election. Most emphatically and sincerely, Robert L. & Diane Garsen 2258 Monterey Boulevard Hermosa Beach March 8, 1988 Planning Department City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254 Attention: Michael Schuback Planning Director Subject: Zone Change for Area 2. Gentlemen: Kindly be advised of my objection to your department's proposal to down -zone Area 2 from R-2 to R-1. My residence is located at 2.240 Monterey Boulevard. Your insistance to pursue this issue has come to a state of gen- eral harassment - again and again the property owners resist yet you continue to pressue us, annually it seems , with this senseless and most damaging, particularly to property value issue. Please list ine, once again, as a NO vote for this proposal which should be posed to the community at the next general electio n. Most sincerely LINDA McCAULL (Ivy) 2240 Monterey Blvd. Hermosa Beach, Ca. 88a 0 0 8'V'4 C Plan'nin'g Commission Cit9 Council.Chambers Cita Hall, 1315 Valle9 Drive, , Hermosa Feach.CA. Gentlemen: HAVtell `icy 9 81, MAR 0 9 1988 This letter is to -go -on Record as m9 oPPositior to the RE -ZONING of AREA 2... P er 'dour Notice I received a few da9 s ago. Due to Illness I am unable to attend the Public Hearing to be held March 15, 1988 in the Cit9 Council Chambers so I'm sending this Written OB.JECTICGN to this UNFAIR RE -ZONING of SILVER$TRAND AVE. where M9 home i=. located. This P roP er't9 has been in m9 Fa.m i l 9 since 1917, and as it is now in ma •nar'le... I want 'EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW'... and need to know wh_a m9 area is. being RE -ZONED SPECIFICALLY while adjacent streets are NOT included in this UNWANTED change of Zoning! The results of this RE -ZONING will reduce the VALUE of M9 P roP' rt.9 , Plus wi11 restr i ct.. as I j.nder•s Land it... to allow on l 9 building -height to be 25 f t . as against. the 30+ limit as it now stands. This I was told bv a neighbor. I resent this 'RAILROADING' of a ver imP'or•tant issue both for me, ' a•nd m9 neighbors on SILVERSTRAND AVE. This notice was o•n l 9 received .a couP l e of dans ago... w i t..hout an'' Prior knowledge from 9 our• office as to what the Planning Commision and the Cit9 Council intended to do as far as m_i P roP erts is concerned b' RE -ZONING AREA 2 without the P eoP l e of that AREA having 7.o. chance to state their feelings in the matter. I suggest that the DEVALUATION of our PROPERTIES b9 this unwelcome move on 9 ou.r Part... be SHELVED until we... THE RESIDENTS) of this area on SILVERSTRAND AVE. be given cuff i cent. time to PROTECT our INTERESTS and our PROPERTY! In closing I again remind 'd ou that I want. 'EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW'! 9 S i '�� er•strand Ave., Hermosa Beach, CA. 90254. C C MAR 1 01988 Sally Reinburg 316 25th Street Hermosa Beach, CA. 90254 (213)318-3449 March 9, 1988 Planning Department City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA. 90254 To The Planning Department: I am opposed to the rezoning of area 2 from R-2 to R-1. I live at the above address but I own a duplex at 2470/2472 Myrtle Ave. I depend on the income from this duplex. If this rezoning is going to occur I would like the City Council also to discuss how we can be reimbursed for any losses we will have due to this rezoning. Sincerely, ji, Sally Reinburg Resident 43 C C MAR 1 0 1988 March 9, 1988 Planning Department City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA. 90254 To The Planning Department: Blair Smith 316 25th ST. Hermosa Beach, CA. 90254 (213) 372-3988 I am very much opposed to rezoning area 2 from R-2 to R-1. I have lived in Hermosa Beach for eighteen years. I have purchased two duplexes in this area that I depend on for income. One is my residence the other is 2470/2472 Myrtle Ave. I have spent many hours of hard labor on these duplexes to make them what they are today. It makes me sick to think that five people on the city council could take my right to profit away with the stroke of a pen. If people don't like the congestion that we have in this community they should move to a different city. Hermosa is ninty percent developed today, it is too late to try to change the entire makeup of the city. If you are going to rezone and reduce our height limits, please discuss and plan for a way to .reimburse the owners of property that are going to suffer a loss. I can't speak for other people but I feel that I should be paid for my losses. Sincerely, t /C z'L may, Blair Smith Resident g. C SDX /se , 6 L' h f" q/.4 ad, A"-`) ed3 _.4<>1 AA4_ 4:"j 4.e"44;'e-Z41. e4ig • -4/> 4tt'' /1247:j 61 0' / o/Y G 1 Gam- A 4- X isa 14" sok 0 jV li(Le."611-.44-11"4-44T--.4-1.-4-4-11"j4 1l if M Ad 4/yam 76/ C71''r� G,6rCG144 : MAR 1 5 1988 ..44/ci43x--3/7 As5az•20_ 4414 ede.,,e-tatta* ,A-e-Laaeifehti-3 elre 4--x/C-, ,e,.. ruc-ivsked" die_ du�c� ' tt(, iiii;a' x.if,,-/*- A- 007,66646/2,0_,„2,4--46,e, Ze_, altsfatej 1 aipig4 gibe 41 - /' _e2A-.1 e e e it j i 71--.4/1:6- ,e . it - (,le4 > ,dr 0'1' ii1 ille:op' p ,gie- Now,e0,( iLy.c.5e.e/e-u .6-0.0--, - ii4J-e-e- %Pi' he -e__ myµ deete% s�,a�7ti-/(dceet, -67- N'u-s�✓�.e-�� C r March 14, 1988 Planning Department City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 To The Planning Department, We want you to know that we are totally opposed to your proposal to down -zone our property at 566 25th St. from R-2 to R-1. This property was purchased SPECIFICALLY because it was an R-2, and should we ever wish to do any further building, then_that option would be ours. Our lot is 50x150; 7,500 square feet. According to the Building Department, Low Density R-2 requirements are 3,351 square feet per unit. In this, we have ample room for two units, as well as 798 square feet more than we need to qualify for Low Density R-2. We fail to see the fairness in taking away our options, (as well as threatening our property value,) by something that was voted on eight years ago. Meanwhile, during those eight years, most of the developable lots HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED already. The few of us left who meet all the requirements SHOULD NOT be cheated of our right to utilize the option of our R-2 zoning. Sincerely, Oct Lim F. Calhoun Patricia N. Calhoun 566 25th St. Hermosa Beach 372-0618 vol- \I* Ramona E. Jackson 505 Oak Creek Lane, Ojai, California 93023 Se4.4 & MAR 14 1988 c., ® I , /%/ic/ ^/ /44'—'1 X 2- ..6 ir / . ‘, 4- 17):� -e .n.444re4°( ' °Y ---414 -.C,1,44 4.c./ . .OL•e ate. et, 744e,t4 /tez ,g4z) .A.,c....,4...e "1,1 deffie-7c.e,, i:4-4 ctdd4tA-) /177 1M /14.4.1u,,(.4,__ de."-i-ei March 10, 1988 Planning Department City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beachv CA 90254 Dear Mr. Schubach, MAR 1 �� ������! ^ x����� As a result of the rezoning of Area 2 from R-2 to R-1, the east side of Myrtle Avenue will be limited to a height of 25' while the west side (zoned R-2 and not subject to rezoning at this time) will have a height restriction of 30'. Since the view is important for its beauty and the value it adds to the property in this area, and if Area 2 must be rezoned to R-1, please consider a height variance for the east side of Myrtle Avenue and the area east of Myrtle and set the height limit at 30' instead of 25'.. Sincerely, 171 1C)±-1 Kathyunbabin and John "unbabin 2432 Myrtle Ave. Hermosa Beach, CA \�.`~--_` /` \`t \+_ II-I.:A..4.c, .czf 1.-Letd..t. • /-g c 4- , MAR 1 0 1988 4-14 •;L••2 ( /2k-cL7a c1.(.,1,7 11-(A^4 R-12- 27 tA ssg-5-60 i-/ ;ijzttrLd ie 4€11.de", c>?$4.25 oeseK Ark= Per-otes» ae_79. April 25, 1988 Dear Council Member, We are long time residents of Hermosa Beach and have been planning a renovation of our home on 24th Street. This is in the area that has been proposed for down -zoning. This will have a major affect on our proposed plans recently submitted to the Building Department. We ask that you recommend that plans currently under consideration by the Building Department be allowed to proceed under existing building codes. Thank youl Sincerely, L1-// )14;-;V Tammy & Doug Scott 222 24th Street, Hermosa Beach. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 5 April 1e,1P88 Hermn5a Beach City Council Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: Downzoning Area 2C from R-2 to R -1B Dear Ms. Simpson, The General Plan was created In 1965 before $300,000 lots and million dollar homes in the beach area. In Area 2-C where lots are less that 3500 square feet (area needed to build 2 units), a substantial portion of the property value on the eastside of Myrtle comes from the ability to build a 30' structure with R-2 setbacks which will have a wonderful view. Downzoning to R-1 will remove all three of these assets- the 30' height, the R-2 setbacks, and the view. The view from the eastside of Myrtle will be destroyed if the General Plan which mandates low density is implemented in Area 2-C. There will be finger of R-2 lots (westside of Myrtle between 24th and 25th Streets) surrounded by R-1 lots. These lots on Myrtle's westside are no longer buildable R-2 lots because of their size (less than 3500 square feet); however, single unit buildings can still be built 30' high on the westside of Myrtle blocking the view from Myrtle's eastside which will only be buildable to 25' due to the proposed r{ownzoning of the eastside. If you decide that Area 2-C must be downzoned to R-1,' please vote in favor of the Planning Commission's recommendation that the.area be zoned R -IB. This new zoning would limit this area to single family homes built with a 30' height limit and R-2 setbacks. Area 2-C would be low density, but property owners on both sides of Myrtle would have the same height limit and setbacks. It is unreasonable, unfair, Inequitable, and inconsistent with the zoning In the area If Myrtle's .Test.side is allowed to remain P-2 '•7hi lY the eastslae 1 s ciownzoned to P-1 without the :30' height limit and R-2 setbacks. I f you feel you must ciownzone Area 2-C, a l l ow 2-C to retain it's three major assets -view, 301 height limit, and the R-2 setbacks. Please vote yes for R -1B zoning instead of R-1. Sincerely, t<QA_SiNti John and Kathy Dunbabin 2432 Myrtle Ave. Hermosa Beach, CA Area - SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ' Ef�AL PLAN MAP e • :: r ti • : •:. • .• t..• • ,... • � i'•��ti • •••'•:y. � t r •,; .1�••'f• • tlt•'•!:•t•' •r. . �' , ' i•. { � • Q. ' AMENDED ' : i • �! ; ;�•••••••,••:,., . � . � , • „ •ti • ••:•• ..• t... .:.••r S j• :i ••••. • :•1. • • • St.•• • •.iw. .•.!• . i .•• •_•.. • •+i • '•�t•' • • •,•.••.�. �r.•i °.1''•t�'.'••0*•.: �,:•.•.w:•'i.••• •1t• •• • t.f• i'�.et •�•.• :;:•"••.• • �• .�' • •y. t'. t•2N•: •..� •., 1•?,•:.. j 1. is li•.•y !+ io••,•b� «w j!•'S•ipw•. �•tia �•.. t «.,• :fi•••• 1•N'• y:i/, . j•• 4i's7F'•.-.ii': i .i.ti� : tiyS:r�• �.'Si•.:.•�/ . �it� iy .t �,• •It .l r /t �. •• •.}. • • • • II I O R i V II i t•.i• t the PlanningD r;,"'z"�•'��`' l,1 ••,(•••PdC.t • t� • �r� ris••• •ii•ifJ r•., •,z, w, ..ns f. i •'�I' �• *• `4' :..•a • is !' r: ..•;, !.• ..• .• :w• .• ••,_:.••=r• 1'i l P. 'l.R-2 Lor R-1 �1•••••••.-.4(�, Ev ii.�r'::: �...y 1• h.•r't a•w:t • t•••:•:...;..2. W �: R-3 j'o R-2 i• :'�i• i'''•1e�r.:t •: •'r •'s• '• •'o !` ( , � ; � R 3 �• • •R •'..''. t ts�,�.}arty . •� 3 v • • • — •• �• • 4 )lDa'• 1a C-3• ri: •;,r** --••••••.;s zci..,.._.f._z ...,...........:. .........::: ..,•;,...:4;;:z...:.,......;,H11,:•.;'.....1)..;•,..:::..:4,..:..i.......".,:h.,., .!•:!...:-. l7.11°L 4.q-2-/ 1 • fry ••e��-�I �•' l 1 '• • • of 444 ••.� l' • :.:4 ` ' "y/ ` 41 to 4 •4° :1 i • j i' `'I "' it •• Rsr••l. •.•'.."4:2'"'"1••••. •I•0 o ,3.. ii t, 1 ! •a • wl/,/', Yl 'h ! VS •I r! w .: 1.1 •; %_,7'oc, � 1 p 1 • ft to ► • • ! ..r ••t•.-• • •••1; '•^�•AAi.••/. •i.f•••• ;t 1 :� •, t440; J4•: • , N:. • i •••t os :-•U •ru. •as/ • • 1 GC _ 'C• / r • IG_-/ 1 • �� •• lf •' 1 • ' Ill •• i , 1i • I i• My Mut ac 1•' : ffi AMMO - • • 16:0 1 •� ♦ CC s a,•e •J " ei.lta • •r • os 11 1 ..lrf°: e . 110 1.411...., MM s� • 003 ,n f' Loi74, mod. 1 jj ti; l.t t 1.0 io I: OAP rig I No 1••la ~ 1 ••• . ael �• 1• • 1 li to�•.1k if •d!;'GC =� L l• Il I. 1—~�•—.•• w; 110 2 ASS - 'UNCLASSIFIED POTENTIAL • SETBACI(. IN FEET .FOR FRONT YARD,. REQUIREMENTS. AMENDED •%%> -vitr R -I 1 • • • • 60 _...,.• • AVE. • . S4•// BLK.. 0 10 . .:mss=�' 40 40 65 ' 9 40' JO 12 JO - 11 -• 8 - 7 - .. .6. - . 5 - • o h h ,� 13 �n' „ f �' ?$ J ',soil /,j h 14 /4 h JO /S ° « /6 16' /7 •, ' � 17 /8 � 18 . /9 19 - a ry 2 • 20 O 20 ! tl O 21 . • Q 22 ?3 23 . • ©4 24 - 30 4,l�9°• a 25 06-11‘z.27 . 28701�•'9'� ^''i 32 Z X8.88 rya fib• t99orr' 667 ,� .i0 . SO.43 ppb • . S4•// BLK.. 0 10 . .:mss=�' 40 40 65 ' 9 40' JO 12 JO - 11 -• 8 - 7 - .. .6. - . 5 - - _ .4 30 3 . . 30:11C27306;..9? 0 .... .et --90.4- 9oB--` � BLK.6� a . 69.97 . 01 • 40/S MANHATTAN • . A • 0 r TRwcr bW 1O3 Ack r-�a a m.R l- Q -.In II • • - • Os ze b 23 sassNO .4 25 24 • sets •k 17.1! •b ti ini in VI N 60 59,E so • ,� Jo 458 SILVERSTRAND 26 57 MYRTLE O 27 O• 56 28 0 55 O 29 O 53 •••• :.,:. N27./Vise 52 JA 51 31 O 32 13 50 /O 33 49 �0 /i 34 O 48 35 47 M 8k 141$a. P�< <µ Ppe- AVE. • ' 4i Honorable City Council City of Hermosa Beacho' 14.,. April,1988 The enclosed letter is a copy of a communication. we sent to Hermosa Beach Planning Department on March 8, 1988. At that time, the same letter was sent to the Hermosa Beach City Council. To be sure that the Council is aware, at this date, April 14, 1988, that we are still vehemently opposed to the zone change, we have sent the letter again. Please take under consideration the facts that we have stated. Sincerely yours, Dorothy .. Stidha% William F.. Stidham 522,. 25th.. Street Hermosa Beach, California•. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 5 8, March, 1988 Planning Department. City of Hermosa Beach: For the record,please be advised that we are completely onrosed to the proposed R-2 to R-1 zone change in the five hundred block of 25th. Street,Hermosa Beach.. Of"the 27 parcels of land in this block, there are only $, (your count), that do not have two existing units.. These parcels are all 50 x 150 feet or larger. We have been residents of Hermosa Beach for forty eight years. We purchased our land to build our home forty two years ago, in good faith as an R-2 Parcel.. • After these.many years of meeting our obligations to this City, it seems _deplorable and unconstitutional that a small body of people have the power to take away our investment;=;: Sincerely yours, i Dorothy K,. Stidhan Wt!fl&m F.. Stidharn i 522. 25th, Street Hermosa Beach, Calif.. YVONNE CUNNINGHAM 330 Twenty Fourth St. Hermosa Beach California 90254 April 19, 1988 Members of the City Council Planning Department City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: ZONE CHANGE FOR AREA 2 FROM R-2 to R-1 Dear Members: Enclosed is a copy of my letter of March 29, 1988 to the Planning Commission for your information and consideration. Respectfully submitted, `YTonne Cunningham SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION, 5 YVONNE CUNNINGHAM 330 Twenty Fourth Street Hermosa Beach California 90254 March 29, 1988 Planning Department City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: ZONE CHANGE FOR AREA 2 FROM R-2 to R-1 Gentlemen: In 1974 1 bought my property because I loved the neighborhood. I believed that I would have a nice place to live and have some income from my rental to supplement mysocial security in my retirement years. Your proposed plan to down zone the property in my. neighborhood could destroy my future plan. I believe that more consideration should be given to the uniqueness of lots in my block which have a rear access(Loma Drive). The lots on my block are only 30x90, but these lots provide greater opportunities for more off street parking (2 garages at the rear and 2 on the street) than most of the lots in this district. Could the General Plan have been processed and approved without enough regard and consideration to the pre-existing conditions of Hermosa Beach? I strongly recommend that the General Plan be reconsidered for a modification to more closely reflect the City as it has evolved over the years. I feel Hermosa Beach is a highly desirable city to live in. The high real estate values confirm the desirability of our community. The 1979 and 1986 zoning ordinances, which placed higher minimum square footage of land per unit and higher minimum square footage in each unit, should be reviewed and changed back to the pre 1979 laws. The sections that now require greater land area per unit(1700 sq.ft.per unit)could be lowered to 1000-1250 sq.ft. and the section which currently requires minimum size apartments and homes should be reduced to a more affordable size(possibly 1000 sq. ft. for the first unit and 500 ft. for the second unit). I believe smaller units, properl designed, should be the objective with adequate off street parking. Also, smaller parking area size requirments and garage sizes, should be seriously considered. After all, our autos are getting smaller not larger. These recommended changes will bring the zoning and General Plan into conformity, which seems to be the reason for these hearings. This would also encourage owners to make improvments and keep upgrading their properties with pride. I believe the recent trend to change the zoning laws that tend to take away property rights only move to discourage property owners from improving their properties and letting them get run down. I support the concept of more off street parking but not to the point where much of the current value is lost or destroyed. I strongly oppose this proposed zone change! Sincerely, C Yvonne Cunningham April 19, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: 1 have submitted an application for a remodel to my home (duplex) in the area that is currently being considered for a downzone from R2 to R l . I am concerned that the enormous energy and money that 1 have invested may be in vain. This Is in spite of the fact that all of my planning has been in strict compliance with all zoning and ordinances currently in force. If it happens that the downzoning proposal is approved by the City Council, I would hope that my plans would be allowed to proceed under today's existing standards. My plans do not call for adding more units (the building is currently a legal duplex), but I do plan on adding a mezanine whose height will exceed the 25 feet height limit required by Rl standards, but in conformity with the R2 standards. If I were not allowed to exceed the 25 feet height limit these plans would be impossible to modify, and would defeat the purpose for which I bought the property. The property is located on the corner of Park and Loma at 2159-2157 Loma. I am asking the Councilmembers to "grandfather" these remodel plans in the event that the downzoning of this area is approved. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Robert Essert i er Mr. & Mrs. Steven P. Peterson 2460 Myrtle Avenue Hermosa Beach, Ca. Members of the City Council City of Hermosa Beach Subject: Re -zoning of Area 2 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, April 19, 1988 oa- spa ?, 11aq* City dark ,each �F� ut . , C1tY /i 4. This letter is a request that, in considering the subject re -zoning, particular attention be given to the Planning Commission' deliberations, conclusions and recommendations with respect to Area 2. Their process was both deliberate and insightful, and in our opinion, their recommendation represents a reasonable approach for individual property owners as well as the city at large. Some Background: My wife and I own both a single family home on Myrtle and a 30+ year old duplex on Silverstrand. Both properties were purchased at a time when building new duplexes would have been possible. Since that time, parking space and lot size codes have made the properties buildable only as single family homes. This change is one we understand and do not consider a current issue. Therefore, we would like to make dear our position as follows: 1. Area 2 is too diverse to be considered as a single issue. The Planning Commission divided the area into logical segments. This letter concerns Area 2C only. 2. Area 2C has very small lots where view is a primary value. Without exception, no lot in Area 2C is big enough for build two units. However, each of us will vigorously defend our view, either current or potential. 3. Density is no longer an issue in Area 2C. Since only single family homes can now be built in Area 2C, density (population per area) can only remain constant or be lessened. It would appear that an R-1 zone would be appropriate and consistent with the General Plan. Page 1 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 5 April 19, 1988 EXCEPT: 4. The West side of the 2400 block of Myrtle is an inconsistency in the General Plan. Why this narrow strip was idesignated medium density while the blocks west, south and east were specified as low density is a matter for historians. The fact is that these lots are also too small on which to build multiple units. 5. Building standards, especially height, become the issue. If the zoning for the west of Myrtle strip remains R-2, then new single family homes will be built to R-2 height and set -back limits, while those to the west, south and east must build to R-1 limits. 6. Views for those on the east side of Myrtle, will be affected by higher buildings on the west. Although the Staff has expressed an opinion to the contrary, the slope of the lots, especially on the north end of the block, is insufficient to guarantee that a 25 foot high building on the. east is not blocked by a 30 foot building on the west. THEREFORE: We agree with the Planning Commission's recommendation to create an R-1 zone for Area 2C which has the height and setbacks of R-2. Alternatively: change the General Plan and zoning for the block west of Myrtle to be consistent with the surrounding areas. Please keep in mind, density will not be affected by your decision, but property values will be. Please don't put the east side of Myrtle in the shade. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Page 2 Arthur E. Sanderson and Mimi Sanderson Poon 1930 Monterey Blvd. Hermosa Beach, CA 90245 telephone (213)376-5808 April 24, 1988 Planning Department City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90245 Subject: Rezone Area 2 from R2 to R1 Re: Our Property At 1928/30 Monterey Blvd., Hermosa Beach Gentlemen: We are writing this letter to protest your plans to rezone our property for the following reasons: 1. The rezoning amounts to confiscation of our property rights. 2. We were not properly notified of this, and previous, rezoning plans. The reference property is a street (Monterey Blvd.) to alley (Loma) lot with two separate houses. When we bought the property in 1978, it conformed to current zoning (with the exception of one small section of side yard). We bought the property with the long range plan of remodelling it into a large home for our family and a nice rental house (or home for our parents when they needed our support). With the proposed zone change, we will not be able to economically develop the property as a home for our family and will be forced to buy a home in a less desirable location. (We had previously counted on the income from the second house to help us with financing.) We are aware that some courts are now deciding that rezoning projects such as these do, in fact, reduce the value of the property and are, therefore, unconstitutional confiscations of property rights. We urge you to include a "grandfather" provision in your ordinance to protect the vested interests of current property owners or compensate current property owners for their loss of property rights as a result of the rezoning. Without such equitable consideration, we think the governing body of Hermosa Beach would be negligently exposing the City and its population SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ij 1 to a real threat of numerous and substantial lawsuits and adverse court judgements. We also protest the manner in which we were notified of the proposed rezoning. Attached hereto is a copy of the notice we received. It was sent to an address that is over a year out of date (we have always kept our address up to date with the appropriate government agencies and do not know where you found this old address). You will note that the post office did not even forward the letter to us until 4/21/88. We also worry that the City may have been similarly negligent in notifying us of other previous hearings that may have impacted our property. Yours truly, ().-t--- Arthur E. Sanderson Mimi Sanderson Poon AKA: Emilia Y.M. Sanderson PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PUBLIC NOTICE ZONE CHANGE FOR AREA 2 232 E.&EMILIA Y. SANDERSON. P.O. Angeles, 90083 Ws Angel SAN*79 83212941 04/21/88 NOTIFY SENDER OF NEW ADDRESS SANDERSON P 0 BOX 843 EL SEGUNDO CA 90245-0843 REZONE OF AREA 2 FROM R-2 TO R-1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach will bold a public bearing on April 26, 1988 to consider a zone change of area 2 from R-2 to R-1. A map of this area is on reverse side for your reference. A large scale map is on file in the Planning Department. SAID HEARING shall be at 8:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Cbambers, City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beacb, California. ANY AND ALL PERSONS interested are invited to participate and speak at this hearing at the above time and place. Persons wishing to send written communication on this project should write to the Planning Department in care of City Hall at the above address prior to Thursday, April 21, 1988 at 12:00 noon. IF YOU CHALLENGE THIS PROJECT IN COURT, you may be limited to rais- ing only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this Notice, or in written correspondence de- livered to the Planning Department at, or prior to, the public bearing [Government Code Section 65009 (b) (c)]. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact the Planning Department at 376-6984, Ext. 242. CITY OF HERMO0SA EACH, A. Michael Schubach Planning Director April 19, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council April 26, 1988 SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY 87-24 & TEXT AMENDMENT -- PROJECTIONS INTO REQUIRED YARD AREAS INITIATED BY PLANNING COMMISSION Recommendation Adopted the attached ordinance. Background At their March 1, 1988 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission adopted the attached resolution recommending amending the zoning ordinance pertaining to projections into required yards. Analysis Refer to the attached staff report dated March 1, 1988 for analysis. Attachments 1. Proposed ordinance 2. P.C. Resolution 88-17 3. Staff report of March 1, 1988 4. P.C. Minutes of March 1, 1988 5. Copy of public hearing notice CONCUR: frAr Kevin B. Northdraft City Manager Respectfully submitted Mic:ae Sc u•ac Planning Director -ccsrproj. 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. 88 - AN ORDINANCE OF CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTIONS 1209, 1210, 1211 AND 1212 PERTAINING TO ENCROACHMENTS INTO REQUIRED YARD AREAS AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on April 26, 1988 to receive oral and written testimony on this matter and made the following Findings: A. The Zoning Ordinance is in need of revision in light of current methods of construction and architectural treatment to structures; B, Modifying the Zoning Ordinance regarding encroachments into yard areas will eliminate confusion regarding such encroachments, and will enhance architectural treatment of proposed development; NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby ordain the following Text Amendment: Section 1: Amend Section 1209 to read as follows: "Section 1209. Architectural Encroachments into Required Yards. Required yards areas shall be unobstructed from ground to sky except specifically allowed as follows: 1. Cornices, eaves, belt courses, sills and buttresses may encroach into any required yard area not more than thirty (30) inches provided that in no case may such encroachments be closer than thirty (30) inches to any lot line. 2. Bay windows, greenhouse windows and similar windows which are no wider than eight (8) feet, spaced a minimum of ten (10) feet apart, and which do not create additional floor area may encroach within three (3) feet of the side or rear lot line, and three (3) feet from the front lot line, but in no case shall the depth of such windows be more thirty (30) inches. 3. Pilasters, columns and chases for mechanical equipment which have a depth of six (6) inches or 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 less, a width of one (1) foot or less, may encroach, but in no case shall such encroachment be closer than thirty (30) inches to the lot line. 4. Encroachments into required yards which are determined to be architectural projections by the Planning Director shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet apart." Section 2: Amend Section 1210 to read as follows: "Section 1210. Fireplace Encroachment into Yards. Fireplace structures which are not wider than eight (8) feet, are spaced a minimum of Ten (10) feet apart, and are part of the main building may project into the required yards a distance of thirty (30) inches provided such encroachments are no closer than thirty (30) inches to the lot line." Section 3: Amend Section 1211 to read as follows: "Section 1211. Fire Escape Encroachment into Yards Fire escapes may encroach into yards thirty (30) inches provided that in no case such encroachment is closer than thirty (30) inches to the lot line." Section 4: Amend Section 1212 as follows: "Section 1212. Stairway and Balcony Encroachments into Front Yard Areas. An open uncovered balcony may encroach intoa required front yard thirty-six (36) inches, but in no case shall such encroachment be closer than three (3) feet to the front property line and shall be a minimum of seven (7) feet above finished grade. An unenclosed stairway or steps uncovered leading from grade to the first floor level only may encroach into a required front yard thirty-six (36) inches, but in no case shall such encroachment be closer than'three (3) feet to the front Koperty line." Section 5. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. Section 6. 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. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Section 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, 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 , 1988. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEYVOTE: AYES: • c Tgathgrauttb Mairr.taig 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. 88-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING A TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 1209, 1210, 1211 AND 1212 PERTAINING TO ENCROACHMENTS INTO REQUIRED YARD AREAS AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public bearing on February 16 and March 1, 1988 to receive oral and written testimony on this matter and made the following Findings: A. The Zoning Ordinance is in need of revision in light of current methods of construction and architectural treatment to structures; B, Modifying the Zoning Ordinance regard encroachments into yard areas will eliminate confusion regarding such encroachments, and will enhance architectural treatment of proposed development; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby recommend the following Text Amendment: Section 1: Amend Section 1209 to read as follows: "Section 1209. Architectural Encroachments into Required Yards.. Required yards areas shall be unobstructed from ground to sky except specifically allowed as follows: 1. Cornices, eaves, belt courses, sills and buttresses may encroach into any required yard area not more than thirty (30) inches provided that in no case may such encroachmetts be closer than thirty (30) inches to any lot line. 2. Bay windows, greenhouse windows and similar windows which are no wider than eight (8) feet, spaced a minimum of ten (10) feet apart, and which do not create additional floor area may encroach within three (3) feet of the side or rear lot line, and three (3) feet from the front lot line, but in no case shall the depth of such windows be more thirty (30) inches. 3. Pilasters, columns and chases for mechanical equipment which have a depth of six (6) inches or less, a width of one (1) foot or less, may • encroach, but in no case shall such encroachment be closer than thirty (30) inches to the lot line. - 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 28 C (- 4. Encroachments into required yards which are. determined to be architectural projections by the Planning Director shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet apart." Section 2: Amend Section 1210 to read as follows: "Section 1210. Fireplace Encroachment into Yards. Fireplace structures which are not wider than eight (8) feet, are spaced a minimum of Ten (10) feet apart, and are part of the main building may project into the required yards a distance of thirty (30) inches provided such encroachments are no closer than thirty (30) inches to the lot line." Section 3: Amend Section 1211 to read as follows: "Section 1211. Fire Escape Encroachment into Yards Fire escapes may encroach into yards thirty (30) inches provided that in no case such encroachment is closer than thirty (30) inches to the lot line." Section 4: Amend Section 1212 as follows: "Section 1212. Stairway and Balcony Encroachments into Front Yard Areas. VOTE: I hereby true Com r An open uncovered balcony may encroach into a required front yard thirty-six (36) inches, but in no case shall such encroachment be closer than three (3) feet to the front property line and shall be a minimum of seven (7) feet above finished grade. An unenclosed stairway or steps uncovered leading from grade to the first floor level only may encroach into .a required front yard thirty-six (36) inches, but in no case shall such encroachment be closer than three (3) feet to the front property line." AYES: Comms.Ingell,Peirce,Rue,Chmn.Compton NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm.DeBellis CERTIFICATION certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 88-17 is.a -' c-+:., ete record of the action taken by the Planning the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their ng of March 1, 1988. A '7 o► • -ral: Compton, Chairman ac h; Secretary February 23, 1988 Honorable Chairman and Members of the • Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 1, 1988 (CONTINUED FROM 2/16/88) SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY & TEXT AMENDMENT PROJECTIONS INTO REQUIRED YARD AREAS INITIATED BY PLANNING COMMISSION Recommendation Staff recommends that the attached resolution modifying various sections of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to encroachments into yard areas be adopted. Background At the November 4, 1987 meeting, the Planning Commission requested that a text amendment be prepared in response to the Building Department's request for an interpretation of the zoning ordinance regarding architectural projections. Analysis Section 1209 It is clear from reading section 1209 that cornices, eaves, sills, etc. are allowed to project into required yards. What is not clear are the elements which might constitute similar architectural features. Items that may be considered as similar but are not listed include chases for mechanical equipment, greenhouse or bay windows, pilasters and columns. Another concern regarding the section is that it contains no parameters other than the allowable projection. In other words if a greenhouse window is an allowable projection what are the appropriate limitations on its size? Obviously as the projections become bulkier they appear to be less of a projection and more like a main part of the building. Section 1210 Currently, fireplaces are allowed to encroach into the side yard, but not into the front or rear yard. Staff believes firplaces are acceptable in the front and rear yards as well as the side yards. Section 1211 This section allows fire escapes to encroach three feet into the side yard which could ultimately block all access along one side _?_ 1 of a dwelling which could be a fire hazard. This provision has also resulted in applicants calling a stairway to the roof a fire escape. Further, there is no provision to allow a fire escape to encroach in the rear setback. When this section was originally conceived a fire escape was probably envisioned as a ladder with a platform, not a stairway. Section 1212 This section allows stairways and balconies to come within one foot of the front property line. One foot is generally not visible to the naked eye, and generally has caused concern by neighboring residents, particularly when a development has a subterranean garage, and the balcony is on the first floor only several feet from ground level; the front yard appears completely covered. Attachments 1. Comparison Chart 2. Resolution P.C. 88-17 Michael Schubach CONC Planning Director COQ Bill Grove Building Director TEXT AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING PROJECTIONS INTO REQUIRED YARD AREAS (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF 2/16/88) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 23, 1988. At the November 4, 1987, meeting, the Planning Commission requested that a text amendment be prepared in response to the Building Department's request for an interpretation of the zoning ordinance regarding architectural projections. ' Section 1209: It is clear from reading Section 1209 that cornices, eaves, sills, etc., are allowed to project into the required yards. What is not clear are the elements which might constitute similar architectural features. Items that may be considered as similar but are not listed include chases for mechanical equipment, greenhouse or bay windows, pilasters and columns. PC Minutes 3/1/88 C Another concern regarding the section is that it contains no parameters other than the allowable projection. In other words, if a greenhouse window is an allowable projection, what are the appropriate limitations on its size? Obviously, as the projections become bulkier, they appear to be less of a projection and more like a main part of the building. Section 1210: Currently, fireplaces are allowed to encroach into the side yard, but not into the front or rear yard. Staff believes fireplaces are acceptable in the front and rear yards as well as the side yards. Section 1211: This section allows fire escapes to encroach three feet into the side yard which could ultimately block all access along one side of a dwelling which could be a fire hazard. This provision has also resulted in applicants calling a stairway to the roof a fire escape. Further, there is no provision to allow a fire escape to encroach in the rear setback. When this section was originally conceived, a fire escape was probably envisioned as a ladder with a platform, not a stairway. Section 1212: This section allows stairways and balconies to come within one foot of the front property line. One foot is generally not visible to the naked eye, and generally has caused concern by neighboring residents, particularly when a development has a subterranean garage and the balcony is on the first floor only several feet from ground level. The front yard then appears completely covered. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the proposed resolution modifying various sections of the zoning ordinance pertaining to encroachments into yard areas. Comm. Ingell noted that all but one of the projections mentioned in the proposed resolution can go to within 30 inches of the lot line except fireplaces and stairways, which can go to 36 inches. He questioned the difference. Chmn. Compton felt that everything should be uniform. He continued by stating that he feels Section 1212 should be separated, noting that stairways and balcony encroachments are two entirely different issues. Chmn. Compton discussed the areas of the city which are affected by right of ways and the problems which are posed by the right of way areas. Chmn. Compton discussed fireplace encroachments, stating that the proposed resolution states they may project into the required yard a distance of 18 inches. He felt that 30 inches would be more appropriate. He continued by discussing the placement and construction of fireplaces. He felt that 30 inches would allow designers more flexibility in designing attractive projects. Public Hearing opened at 9:50 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission. She wanted the Commission to ensure that balconies and overhangs are high enough so as not to interfere with people walking along the sidewalk below. She noted safety concerns over the overhangs being so low. Ms. Burt also felt that there should be uniformity in the setbacks throughout the City, noting that it would make the City more attractive. She asked that the current setbacks be maintained. - (o - PC Minutes 3/1/88 • ( Maraya Strickland, 845 8th Street, Hermosa Beach, agreed 100 percent with the proposed text amendment. Public Hearing closed at 9:53 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Chmn. Compton discussed the setbacks and stated that if there is less than five feet in the front setback and the zero setback is actually going to be used, not much can be allowed in the way of projections. He continued by discussing what has been allowed in the past. He noted, too, that there are many currently conflicting requirements in the City. Mr. Schubach and the Commission discussed figures for balconies and projection encroachments into required yards. Chmn. Compton and Mr. Schubach discussed the separations between projections. MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-17 with the following modifications: • Section 1: Section 1209. Architectural Encroachments into Required Yards, Condition No. 2: "Bay windows, greenhouse windows, and similar windows which are not wider than eight (8) feet, spaced a minimum of ten (10) feet apart, and which do not create additional floor area may encroach within three (3) feet of the side or rear lot line, and three (3) feet from the side, rear or front lot line, but in no case shall the depth of such windows be more than thirty (30) inches." Add a Condition No. 4 to Section 1: "Any architectural projections/features shall require a minimum ten (10) foot separation." Section 2: Section 1210. Fireplace Encroachment into Yards. "Fireplace structures which are not wider than eight (8) feet, are spaced a minimum of ten (10) feet apart, and are part of the main building may project into the required yards a distance of thirty (30) inches, provided such encroachments are no closer than thirty (30) inches to the lot line." Section 4: Section 1212. Stairway and Balcony Encroachments into Yard Areas. (This Section shall become two paragraphs.) "Stairways: An unenclosed stairway leading from grade to the first floor level may encroach into a required front yard thirty-six (36) inches, but in no case shall such encroachment be closer than five (5) feet to the front property line." (Concrete steps shall be included in this section.) "Balconies: Shall have a minimum of seven (7) •feet clear under it from the final grade; shall have a maximum three-foot projection from the building face; and shall be a minimum of thirty-six (36) inches to the property line." (Canopies shall be included in this section.) AYES: Comms. Ingell, Rue, Peirce, Chmn. Compton NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm. DeBellis - I I - PC Minutes 3/1/88 c Easy' Reader Run Date: April 14, 1988 DISPLAY Acct: 7010-2110 • • PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beact- shall hold a public hearing on April 26, 1988 • to consider the following: 1. Zone change of area 2,from R-2 to R-1.* 2. Appeal of Planning Commission unmerging of lots located 1214 10th Street and 1233 21st Street. 3. Text amendment to Zoning Ordinance & Environmental Negative Declaration regarding projections into required yard areas. • *Map on file in Planning Department in City Hall. SAID PUBLIC HEARING shall be at -8:oo P.M. in the City Hall Council Chamber, 1315 Valley.Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. ANY AND ALL PERSONS interested are invited to participate at that time and place or to write to the City Council in care of the Planning and Environmental Services Department at the above address PRIOR to Thursday, April 21, 1988 at 12:00 noon . IF YOU CHALLENGE the above matter(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Department at, or prior to, the public hearing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact the Planning Department at 376 -6984, - Ext. 242. Kevin Northcraft City Manager City of Hermosa Beach —12— -• /2— ., mss.-., ,x.K:a.:'.rm6.:::x:ii+�',�1. �.,R -• Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council SUBJECT: April 19, 1988 Regular Meeting of April 26, 1988 SPECIAL STUDY 88-3 -- REPEAL OF BILTMORE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation Staff recommends a comprehensive study of this matter including amendments to Local Coastal Program and certified Land Use Plan prior to repealing Specific Plan Area. Background At the Planning Commission's April 5, 1988 meeting the Planning Commission adopted staff's recommendation and voted it to be a low priority. Analysis Refer to attached Planning Commission report. Attachments 1. Staff report of April 5, 1988. 2. Planning Commission Minutes of CONCUR: Keviiz B. Northcraft City Manager — r— April 5, 1988. Respectfully submi ted, Michael Schubach Planning Director a Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 29, 1988 Regular Meeting of April 5, 1988 (CONTINUED FROM 3/15/1988 MEETING) SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY 88-3 -- REPEAL OF BILTMORE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (SPA) INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation Staff recommends a comprehensive study of this matter including amendments to Local Coastal Program and Land Use Plan prior to repealing the Specific Plan Area. Background The City Council at their December 15, 1987 meeting adopted a resolution of intent to study repealing the Specific Plan Area originally adopted in May, 1984. Analysis Zoning (Map 1 attached) If the Specific Plan Area is repealed, the area will revert to its original zoning according to the City Attorney. The original zoning is C-2. Hotels and accessory uses such as restaurants, cocktail and entertainment lounges which currently are the only uses permitted under the Specific Plan Area are among the many other uses which are allowed in the C-2 zone. Since the various uses permitted under the G-2 zone are non -discretionary, only a building permit would be needed prior to construction. The C-2 zone would allow a maximum of 35' in height, and a setback with landscaping where the subject property abuts residential. Local Coastal Program (LCP) There are several relevant policy statements found within the Local Coastal Program. The Local Coastal Program policies state the following: "Hermosa Beach shall maintain its current high level of recreational access to the coast and its recreational (- facilities facilities and be consistent with maintaining the beach in its most natural state. - Maximum access and recreational opportunities shall be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse. The City shall protect its coastal resources for recreational activities. Policy: That the City should promote beach and recreational facilities related commercial development by refining the commercial (C-2) zone to encourage commercial -recreational uses. Policy: The Biltmore Site is a vital asset of the people of Hermosa Beach which will play a substantial role in maintaining the City as a financially feasible entity. The City has determined that the most beneficial, economic and environmental coastal use for this site is a hotel/conference use. Policy: That the City encourage coastal related commercial land uses within the downtown area. Policy: Develop design standards for development of the Biltmore Site and other City owned property which are in keeping with the scale and character of the area. Policy: That the City will maintain the existing commercial -recreational orientation in the downtown area. Program: Zoning and Building codes limit the height of all structures, depending on zone. The maximum height in each residential R-1, R-2 and R-3 zones are 25 ft., 30 ft. and 35 ft., respectively. The maximum height in the City is 45 ft. or three stories in the commercial zone with the exception of the hotel site (between Thirteenth and Fifteenth Streets and Hermosa Avenue and the Strand). This development shall conform to the 45 ft. height limit with the exception of the nine (9) foot mansard roof. The mansard roof will be used to screen from public view elevator penthouses and other equipment necessary to operate the building as permitted in Section 1201 of the City Code. Additionally, the development will include buildings and parking structures which may contain up to five (5) stories." Even if the Specific Plan Area were repealed, the City would still have to either amend or comply with the above stated policies. To amend these policies would require approval by the Coastal Commission. The Commission in some instances may not be willing to allow changing policy, particularly if it would be contrary to their goals and objectives. c (- General Plan/Land Use Plan (LUP) (Map 2 attached) The subject Specific Plan Area was adopted and submitted to the Coastal Commission as an amendment to the City's certified General Plan/Land Use Plan. If the City were to repeal the Specific Plan Area, it would be necessary to request an amendment to the certified General Plan/Land Use Plan from the Coastal Commission. (Refer to attached Ordinance 84-751 for Specific Plan Area details.) The underlying General Plan/Land Use Plan designation for the subject property is part commerial recreation and part general commercial. The City owned portion abutting the, Strand is commercial recreation. It should be noted that the commercial recreation designation corresponds to the Local Coastal Program policies noted above. Existing Land Use (Map 3 attached) The Specific Plan Area consists 37 lots, on which a variety of uses exist -- commercial, office, multiple family residential, single family residential and public parking. The residential uses are considered nonconforming under both the Specific Plan Area and C-2 zoning. Refer to attached map #3 for location of existing uses. Proposed Use of Subject Property At this time, it is uncertain as to what the final use of the subject property will be. Several suggestions for the City owned portions along the Strand have been made by City Council members public park, residential development, highest and best use, trade for railway property, and sell City owned portion are generally the suggestions which have recently been made. Further, the idea that a hotel may be constructed on the property is still somewhat viable. Overview When considering the repeal of the Specific Plan Area, all the above noted factors should be considered. As it is noted, just repealing the Specific Plan Area will not resolve this matter completely in any direction. It will also be necessary to amend the Local Coastal Program and General Plan/Land Use Plan and obtain Coastal Commission approval for those amendments; in that regard, what those amendments should be needs to be determined. Amendments that do not further the goals of the Coastal Commission may not be acceptable to the commission. The commission (staff) should, therefore, be consulted. Once it is determined what the Local Coastal Program and General Plan/Land Use Plan amendments should be, and what ultimately the use of the subject property should be, then, those changes in -4'- conjunction with the repeal of the Specific Plan Area could be resolved at one time, and reviewed and approved by the Coastal Commission at one time. It may be discovered that instead of repealing the Specific Plan Area it may be wiser to amend it. Resolving this matter comprehensively instead of "piece meal" will be more efficient and probably more palatable to the Coastal Commission. Michael Schu•ach Planning Director .r I _J 1 R- 3 API MAP 1 MANHATTAN R- 3 R- 3 R-3' HERMOSA C-2 1 AP' R-3 I • I I dr c-2 230,- C-2 R -P _ • C IC4 R F C - LEGEND C-2 fl -2B R-3 R -P EXISTING ZONING -6- GENERAL COMMERCIAL LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL PROFESSIONAL v V C eerear Amer dr...m.y„ rm, Av. Ado MAP 2 ye 0 1• s„ 11 pro • • • • • • • • • • •• •. • ••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••, • • • • • • • • • •_• • •• • • • •_•_• • • • •* • • • • •L • LEGEND •__ J • • • • .• • ••••• • • •_ . • i e i • •• • • • • •• •• • • • • • ••• • • •••••• • • _• _• _• • • • • GENERAL COMMERCIAL K>q COMMERCIAL RECREATION \� `I MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (14-25 du/ac) HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (26-40 du/ac) LAND USE ELEMENT -GENERAL PLAN raVA Atik •Nrrn...-"WENENNINNI WNW .1111railGv/ 11111,27r_7EMONNININI iN INNZ.NEUNNSIBMINI IMPW.71IMM/11111MMI WOG NI/JK.TWINOMONI 111 1•1/141/41G.IICANNWI•1 r',011LIBENIMNI AA. EvrIM VAAP MAP 3 I NTFIlliNINNINNENII, I IIII 41/111/K......111N•11 lorevencasam I NI ...58/1/IMIIIININI I I NN..._,-MNNINSNBIBN --=.1•101111MMINIINWINIrn. I MIKIMMOMMINI 011 MAC NIIIMIMENNII EPA I NM /11//M111.7•M MAI IN NINNINNEN,N0011111MN INVERIMIONPN•N I __RN..&NUN,W1 LEGEND NUMBER OF STORIES PARKING COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL/OFFICE MF RESIDENTIAL EXISTING LAND USE -g- IIIIIIININNEEM HIENMINNNINNII IN IN I ON 111011MINN/NNI SF RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC PARKING LOT VACANT 1 2 3 4 5 •6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 EXHIBIT " H r''. ORDINANCE �;, .4-751' `` AN ORDINAJCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH WHICH ADOPTS A SPECIFIC PLAN TO REGULATE DEVELOPMENT IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA BETWEEN I5TH AND 13TH STREETS AND THE STRAND AND HERMOSA AVENUE AS INDICATED ON EXHIBIT 1 .MAP AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT 2. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission .has held a public hearing on April 12, and April 19, 1984; and WHEREAS, the City Council hald a public hearing on lune 12;1984; and WHEREAS, implementation of the Specific Plan described herein will further the goals of .the City's General Plan and Local Coastal Plan; and WHEREAS, the City desires to achieve a systematic execution of the goals and policies of the General Plan in this downtown area which can only bye achieved through detailed regulations and conditions; and WHEREAS, the City desires to only specifically regulate that area indicated on Exhibit 1 and 2; NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa does hereby ordain: Section 1. A hotel/convention center complex built pursuant to this specific plan Will accomplish the following General Plan policies: a) Land Use Element 16 The designation of commercial/recreation which meets the needs of local residents and 17 beach visitors. • 18 b) Urban Design Element 19 Upgrade the visual character of the area, convert under-utilized street space to ped - 20 estrian-oriented activity areas and other public uses, address building scale and fcrm 21 and the revitalization of the business district 22 c) Transportation and Circulation Element 23 II Provide for improved pedestrian circulation and opportunities for landscaping. 24 II d) Parking • 25. Provide parking necessary for the project. as well as additional parking to meet future 26 demands. 27 e) Economic Element 23 II Revitalize commercial district, provide economic stability, provide policy for future • 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 • commercial growth. Sectiob 2. The development standards and uses for the Specific Plan area as identi- fied in Exhibit 1 shall be the following: 1) the same as those for the C-2 zone described in Section 800-C, 801, 803, 804, and 805. 2) Section 802 regulate the height of 45' but an exception shall be made to the story limit. Up to = five- (5) stories shall be allowed. Section 3. Public streets may be altered to accommodate the project consistent with the project as finally approved by the ity. Section 4. The local Coastal Plan shall be amended to included this Specific Plan. Section 5. That a development agreement and appropriate Conditional Use permit be enacted pursuant to this Specific Plan. Section 6. That any project approved pursuant to this Specific Plan shall comply with the following conditions: in a manner a. that the additional levels of parking be constructed on Lot C (a fifth level at 36') and on Lot B (a fourth level) if economically feasible for City/VPD to build. The parking spaces to be built on Lot C and Lot B will be sufficient to accommodate the general public, conference center, and hotel demand, however any future development in the downtown area will require additional parking. There is an in -lieu fee provision within the VPD which allows new development to purchase spaces from the VPD rather than provide them on site. However if additional levels are built on Lot C and B, then those spaces could accommodate new development b. that realignment of loading dock be updated on the plans and the trash storage areas be screened so as to minimize the view from the neigh- boring residential uses. c. that 15th Court be made one-way east bound to ensure a circular flow of traffic for the service vehicles. C c 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 d. the parking spaces to be developed by the Developer are 390.. The total amount ofparking provided for the Project ( Hotel and Conference Center) will meet or exceed the current code requirements of the City . by approximately twenty-folxpoiccsixperees:t(24.6%)1'he Developer anticipates a normal operating parking requirement of two hundred sixty (260) spaces for the Hotel and Conference Center, exclusive of parking provided in • the project garage for public parking. To the extent that additional 8 parking is needed for utilization by the project, the developer: agrees 9 to provide shuttle service and/or valet service in order to utilize a new 10 parking structure when built at the Commurtiy Center or other available 11 parking facilities. As part of the operational plan of the project and as 12 suggested by the EIR, the Developer shall institute a free airport shuttle 13 for hotel guests, provide for bicycle parking and storage, encourage 14 off-site employee parking, and attempt to utilize bus services and/or 15 off-site parking facilities whenever possible for large functions. The 16 II City and the Developer shall jointly agree on the standards by which the 17 • 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25. 26 ' 27 23 City will manage the Lot C parking garage. e. the parking facilities of the project may contain up to thirty percent (30%) compact car spaces, i.e. parking spaces which are 7 feet 6 inches wide by 15 feet in length. f. in order to buffer the neighboring uses from noise generated by a hotel use, the following conditions are recommended. 1. No public access on 15th Street or Beach Drive between 15th Street and 15th Court will . be part of project. 2. Windows on ground floor which face onto 15th Street will be non-operable. 3. Hotel rooms on north side will not be used as hospitality suites. the signage on the hotel project improvements shall not exceed :hat cur - i 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 2S c rently permitted by 'the relevent City Code. The calculation of allowable signage shall be based on the "Building Frontage" of the improvements fronting on to the Strand on the Leased Property. In addition to the signage provided for above, the Developer shall have the right to place supplemental signage at the following Iocations and in the following manner: A. 13th Street and Hermosa Avenue: Signage may be located on any or all of the three (3) sides of the parking. garage. The size of such signage will be calculated under the relevant City Code assuming the parking garage as a separate commercial building, with its "Building Frontage" on 13th Street. The total allowed square footage may be distributed on the three (3) sides of the garage at Hermosa Avenue, at the Developer's discretion. B. Pacific Coast Highway and Pier Avenue (Community Center): the size and design of such signage will be jointly approved by the - City and the Developer and costs will be shared equally by the City and the Developer. C. Other Locations: as may be agreed upon by City and the Develop- er, the costs of such additional signage will be borne by the De- , veloper. D. Reasonable "construction signs" shall be allowed during construc- tion, both on the Strand and at Hermosa Avenue. ORDINANCE 84-751, SECTION 7 shall be amended as "The project shall not exceed 45 feet in height mansard roof or similar structure and shall Section 1201 of the Zoning Ordinance." =t2— follows: including any, comply with C C c 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Section 8. That this ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. Section 9. That prior to the expiration of fifteen days after the date of its adoption the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader,. a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circu- lated in the City of Hermosa Beach. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED T IS26 DAY OF June, 1984. Ce47 77,/t/ti PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: • CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FC1 i:�( 0- �� CITY ATTORNEY 61/dirc; DATE SPECIAL STUDY 88-3 — REPEAL OF BILTMORE SITE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (CONTINUED FROM 3/15/88 MEETING) MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Compton, to accept staff's recommendation to undertake a comprehensive study of this matter including amendments to Local Coastal Program and Land Use Plan prior to repealing the Specific Plan Area. Further, to direct staff that this matter should be handled as a low -priority item. AYES: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. DeBellis, to continue the remainder of the agenda to the next meeting of the Planning Commission, and to adjourn at 12:48 A.M. No objections; so ordered. P.C. Minutes 4/5/88 -a Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 18, 1988 City Council Meeting April 26, 1988 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE RECOPMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council introduce the attached ordinance which changes violations of the sign ordinance from misdemeanors to infractions. BACKGROUND This item is proposed by staff to improve sign enforcement capabilities. ANALYSIS Pursuant to the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, the penalty for a violation of the sign ordinance is a misdemeanor with a $300 fine or ninety day imprisonment or both; every day constituting a sep- arate offence. Misdemeanors are prosecuted through the District Attorney's office; a relatively long and costly process. Staff is exploring means of increasing compliance with the city's sign regulations and believes the proposed amendment will aid in that effort. Additionally, a misdemeanor has serious legal implications and may inappropriately "stigmatize" a violator throughout his/her life. It should also be noted that in order to gain increased com- pliance with conditions of Conditional Use Permits, the Planning Commission recently recommended and the City Council adopted a text amendment making violations of such conditions infractions. Staff believes it would be inappropriate for violation of signing provisions to carry a substantially more severe penalty than violations of C.U.P. conditions. The proposed infraction process and fine schedule is now used for C.U.P. violations: After mart--- e` two (2) warning notices the violator is issued a citation (similar to a parking ticket) which is processed through the court system. Upon conviction, the punishment is as follows: a) (after appropriate notification) $50.00 for the first violation b) a fine of $100 for a second violation of the same condition within one year c) a fine of one hundred and fifty dollars for a third violation of the same condition within one year d) a fine of $300.00 for each additional violation of the same condition within one year. A violator who fails to abate the violation is subject to con- tinuing daily citation. Additionally, the city will have the option of addressing the problem as a civil violation. Enforcement will be coordinated with the Planning Department. In summary, staff believes the proposed amendment will provide for more timely and cost effective resolution of signing viola- tions. It would also serve to make the punishment more appropri- ate for the "crime". Concur: Concur: `Xevin B. Northcraft City Manager 2 Respectfully submitted, Jafi'ce Silver, '•min. Ai De t. of Bldg. & Safety William Grove, Director Dept. of Bldg. & Safety 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA AMENDING CHAPTER 28A "SIGNS" AS IT RELATES TO PUNISHMENT OF VIOLATIONS OF SIGNING REGULATIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That Section 28A -2(d) Violations and Penalties is hereby amended to read as follows: (d) Violations and penalties. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert, demolish, equip, use or maintain any sign or structure in the city or cause or permit the same to be done, contrary to or in violation of any of the provisions of this chapter. Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of an infraction. 1) Each violation is punishable as follows: a) A fine of fifty dollars ($50.00) for the first violation; and b) A fine of one hundred (5100.00) for a second violatio of the same condition within one year; and c) A fine of one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00)for a third violation of the same condition within one year. 2) Each person, firm or coporation found guilty of an infraction shall be guilty of a separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which any violation is committed, continued or permitted by such person and shall b - punishable accordingly. SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall become shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. 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 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of 1988. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: 2 CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY A April 18, 1988 HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the Regular Meeting of HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL April 26, 1988 SUBJECT: DISCONTINUANCE OF THE HERMOSA COMMUTER BUS AND 30 -DAY EXTENSION WITH COMMUNITY TRANSIT SERVICES, INC. TO OPERATE THIS SERVICE INITIATED BY STAFF • RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Approve a 30 -day extension of the Hermosa Commuter Bus 2. Approve discontinuance of the Hermosa Commuter Bus effective May 27, 1988. ABSTRACT The 30 -day extension will give adequate notice of discontinuance to the riders of this service. The elimination of the Hermosa Commuter Bus will enable Staff to allocate an adequate amount of Proposition A Funds for the new commuter bus program proposed in FY 88-89. BACKGROUND On June 23, 1988, City Council approved a 90 -day contract extension with Community Transit Services, Inc. to operate The Hermosa Commuter Bus. On August 25, 1988, City Council approved Ekistic consulting firm to develop a Commuter Transportation Implementation Plan. ANALYSIS The current contract expires April 30, 1988. A contract extension is proposed because adequate notice needs to be given to the riders of the existing commuter service. The proposed elimination date of the Hermosa Commuter Bus is Friday, May 27, 1988. When the City hired Ekistic consulting firm to develop the Commuter Transportation Implementation Plan, it was thought that the final report would be completed by February. Staff projected expenditures for the existing commuter service based on this information. Because of delays throughout the development of this Plan, the final report has just recently been completed, thus, postponing the proposed implementation date to October 1, 1988. As it is, additional funds have to be expended to keep the existing commuter bus service in operation. The approximate expense to continue the existing service is $24,000 for 4 more months of service. This program has been very costly (appproximately $12.50 per passenger), especially since Manhattan Beach dropped out January 22, 1987. Besides, the final report submitted by the consultant confirms that the service is not working the way it is presently operating. The City can no longer afford to continue the program without drawing funds dedicated for the new commuter program. Furthermore, the new proposed commuter bus program is an expanded and improved service for approximately a quarter of the price the City is paying for the existing commuter bus program. A detailed report of the new program will be on the agenda for the first or second meeting in May. i ae Schubach Planning Director 'Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager Respectfully submitted, 1L 4 t b.2e(Aa2� /i4-11. Lisa Breisacher Planning Aide 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 EXTENSION OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA AND COMMUNITY TRANSIT SERVICES, INC. THIS EXTENSION OF AN AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 26 day of April, 1988 by and between the City of Hermosa Beach, a municipal corporation of the State of California ("CITY"), and Community Transit Services, Inc., a California Corporation ("CONTRACTOR"). WITNESSETH Recital: 1. The CITY is the recipient of Proposition A Local Transit Return Funds. 2. The CITY has budgeted Proposition A Local Return Funds to administer transit programs. 3. CONTRACTOR and CITY have previously entered into an Agreement on the 23rd day of June, 1987. Said extension shall be from May 2, 1988 through May 27, 1988. The previous Agreement is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as "Exhibit 1". NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: A. CITY and CONTRACTOR agree to enter into an extension of the previous Agreement which is attached hereto as "Exhibit A". Said extension shall run from May 2, 1988 through May 27, 1988. The CONTRACTOR agrees to run a fixed -route transportation service. B. The maximum price to be paid by the CITY to the CONTRACTOR shall not exceed: 8 hours/day x $36.25 per vehicle service 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 hour x 20 days ($6,000). C. The parties hereby agree that all terms are consistent with this extension shall not be extended throughout the life of the extension as found in the original contract which is attached in accordance with' any competitive bid procedure initiated by the CITY. D. This Agreement and the 'underlying Agreement which is incorporated herein as "Exhibit I" shall be the sole and only contract between the parties. Any other agreements regarding this matter shall not be binding upon the parties. If there is a conflict between this extension and the previous contract which is attached hereto as "Exhibit I", this contract shall control. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year first written above. ATTEST: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH A Municipal Corporation State of California CITY CLERK MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM: COMMUNITY TRANSIT SERVICES, INC. A California Corporation CITY ATTORNEY CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR V. PRESIDENT/SECRETARY TOttrhortiuttb Mairr.ittt • • V o u "EXHIBIT,I"• SERVICE AGREEMENT This Agreement is made this day of , 1987, by and between the City of Hermosa Beach hereinafter referred to as "CITY" and Community Transit Services, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR". • ••. •WITNESSETH • •ts:x='�-'=-'`!':¢ WHEREAS, • CONTRACTOR has the management and technical • personnel, expertise, and other assets useful for -the support o - WHEREAS, the CITY is desirous of obtaining such services for said project for an interim period until a permanent contractor is hired; and the CITY'S Rermosa Commuter Bus :; and • . • y . ••••, WHEREAS,, CONTRACTOR is desirous of providing such services; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of theforegoing recital and covenants and agreements of each of the parties 'herein set forth, the parties hereto do agree as follows: 1. Purpose: The CITY• hereby contracts with CONTRACTOR to provide transportation management and operations services upon . the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. • 2. Scope of Work: CONTRACTOR will provide the services to be rendered as set forth in Exhibit "A" (Scope of Work), attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein and made a part hereof, said Scope of Work is hereinafter referred to as Basic Services in this contract, or by proposal drafted by winning bidder as amended. 3. Contract Start: -The start of the Agreement shall be ctobeF , lg$'7 .CONTRACTOR : •••', Y ..commenced service operations of CITY Sos3 -:Commuter Shuttle on November 24,1986 and shall •`' ' terminate with at:least 30 days notice from the ITY. 4. Maximum Obligation: The CITY agrees to pay CONTRACTOR in •i consideration for its services as described herein. The maximum :price to be.,paid.._by-•the .CITY_to.--CONTRACTOR shall not exceed: - "��`" ''' =�' 8 `hours/da x $36-25./hour x " y 136 -days, 040 ; 000) for services as • set orth in Exhibit "A" (Scope of Work) for the term of the :: '. contract except as specifically provided in. paragraph 14 entitled '` • "Changes". - - 5. Price Formula: The CITY agrees to pay CONTRACTOR for • performance of the services set forth in this Agreement as . follows: , • w• • • •� � L • 00 ••a. Payment of a fixed' tate of $ 36.25 per vehicle service hour. Vehicle service hours will be computed by using the time each vehicle leaves the garage for its first route starting point •each day and until such time as each vehicle returns to the . • garage at the end of each operational day and/or route excluding time for driver breaks. The hourly rate shall includevehicle operators'. direct and indirect wages; vehicle operators' • ' •. non -service wages; employees'.fringe benefits; overhead costs; •:bus washing and cleaning supplies;. uniforms; report reproduction; -.0w .,,. dispatch office supplies; radio maintenance; oil;,,project • . telephones; office; garage and parking facilities; and all other related operational costs. •• -1,4p"..-:0%-:. '.•:. rb_. The CITY shall provi• de marketing, tickets, passes, brochures, and related collateral materials. . 6. -Invoices: CONTRACTOR shall submit invoices to the CITY•as • follows: •• a. Hourly costs shall be directly traceable by driver trip . sheets and employee sheets, copies of which will be submitted with each monthly invoice to the CITY. • b. Charges for extra services as authorized by the Agreement shall be billed monthly with charges and handling fees directly traceable to receipts, bills, etc., copies of which shall be attached to the invoice. Each such statement shall contain a certification that all amounts billed are in accordance with the • Agreement. r.Z • -• 7. Payment: All payments by the CITY shall be made in • •. arrears, after the service has been provided. Payment shall be • •• made by CITIES no more than thirty (30) days from the CITY's 1. • receipt of invoice. If the CITY disputes any items on an invoice -: for a reasonable cause, the CITY may, deduct that disputed item •£.. from the payment, but shall not delay payment.for the undisputed portions. The amounts and reasons for such deletions shall be '.... documented to CONTRACTOR within thirty (30) working days after . receipt of invoice by the CITY. The CITY shall assign a •~• sequential reference number to each deletion. Payments shall be t•:-� by voucher or check payable to and mailed first class to: - 4:1.:: • 'Accounts Receivable.• _ �.j.: • 8. Operating~ Revenues: A11 operating revenues collected by • - CONTRACTOR are the property of the CITY. Operating revenues =._:: • . include, but are not limited to, all fares, sales of tickes and' passes, advertising sales-, and rental of equipment. They shall •• be counted and kept separately under appropriate security. Once ~ a week, or more frequently if so directed by the CITY, reports on the revenues collected and deposited shall be provided to the "t- ..,•••• •�`"•' CITY. Any shortage in operating revenues are the responsibilit •`, .:-..,.......-.of the CONTRACTOR. Such shortage will be deducted from the -'-'",Y.,► y; CONTRACTORS'S billings. • %_ .,:tt. 'L.i. , .. �.'•: `•'''' »'Y..`. Y'.. „„,'• • ' w• • -w✓y....74.,�:�.`.',�:h��i�'��'(?T�,: f++'Vii•. •-i^ 'Ri ' ry 9. Extra Services: Extra services, such as a charter and • promotional services will be provided by CONTRACTOR upon prior written authorization by the CITY's authorized representative at the hourly rate'of $54.25. All extra services shall be provided in addition to basic services as defined in.Exhibit "A", -and ' costs shall be treated as a change to -this Agreement as defined under."Changes" and shall be in excess of maximum price defined as "Maximum Obligation" (paragraph 4) herein.. • ;,.�;..10. Control:•.. . _ • •.:.a. All services to be rendered by CONTRACTOR under this ,��_:r Agreement shall be subject to the control of the CITY. • :• CONTRACTOR shall advise the CITY of matters of importance and_ make recommendations when appropriate; however, final authority. . shall. rest with the CITY. • • b. The CITY shall not attempt to directly discipline or • terminate CONTRACTOR employees. The CITY may advise CONTRACTOR of any employee's inadequate performance which has a negative j .effect on the service being provided, and CONTRACTOR shall take • prompt action to remedy the situation. In extreme case, the CITY may demand removal of a CONTRACTOR employee, and CONTRACTOR shall effect removal immediately. •.11 -Management: During the term of this Agreement, CONTRACTOR • shall provide sufficient executive and administrative personnel as shall be necessary and required to perform its duties and obligations under the. terms hereof. • • 12. Medical Assistance to Passengers: CONTRACTOR'S employees shall not be require to pertorm any medical or quasi= medical functions for passengers. In the eventrof a medical emergency, driver shall notify dispatcher immediately by radio. Dispatcher shall call 911 and direct medical/emergency services to location - of bus. +.13. Uniforms: CONTRACTOR shall purchase uniforms for employees and shall require the employees to wear them. .The design, type and logo of the uniforms shall be subject to CITIES',:.';: approval. • •, :R»y::• ... - •14. Changes: In the event of changes, the CITY shallpromptly �•• • notify CONTRACTOR in writing by change order. ` g Compensation in excess of "Maximum Obligation" shall be allowed for under "Extra Services" as defined in paragraph 9. Any changes in Basic services shall be subject -to subsequent negotiation. Compensation for changes shall be in addition to the "Maximum . Obligation". • • • • ,' - ••h• • • • • A t. W • ' "15: --Qualification for Future Contracts:' As a result of - having entered into this Agreement, CONTRACTOR' shall not be in-• hibited, penalized, or disqualified from bidding subsequent • transportation, management, and operation programs under the jurisdiction of the. CITY. • ` • • ••,. • 16.. Succession:" CONTRACTOR shall not assign this Agree- ' • menta in whole or in part, without the prior.written consent of • the CITY. .. •• • _ • •- • •r3.::...P:.:ti ••A ....A.• • : •.moi---. - .:. , . •• . • • . .0 .. • • 17. Disputes: -•= • '' ••= �', '= : Rat =' a.. -Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to '1... . • the provisions of this Agreement, or the breach thereof, shall be .settled by arbitration at the election of either party in accor- •::.'~ • dance with the Rules of the American Arbitration Association and judgement upon the award rendered by the arbitrators may be en- 'tered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. 1 --t•• = •_ • The losing parties shall bear the cost of any•� '• tion proceedingor arbitra- • judicial action commenced hereunder, such cost to include without limitation the arbitrator's fees, attorney's. .-- fees; incurred by the prevailing party, as well as other rea-•• • sonable costs incurred by the prevailing. party. • • •b.• -The Federal Procurement Regulations shall be used where •• applicable to define, resolve, and settle procurement issues. • `' ' • 18. Ston Work: • 'CITIES may •stop work on =TVs.. transporta- • tion• system upon forty-eight (48) hours written notice to CON- TRACTOR. The CITY shall be liable for,all relevant costs incurred ' . prior to the stop -work period and for restart, cif any. The CITY shall be obligated for the costs of severance for personnel as- signed to CITY'•s Transportation system in accordance with the • published policy and procedures of CONTRACTOR. Additionally, the •• cost associated with operations and facilities close down shall • ' be the obligation of the CITY. : .CONTRACTOR shall.make all rea- sonable efforts' to minimize costs to the -CITY. • . •• • 19. Termination: 1. . • ; • • • ' • a- The CITY ma terminate this ~• • Y Agreement upon -thirty (30) :_ -.:T • :.era- days' •written notice to CONTRACTOR and shall be liable for hourly costs for operations during that 30 day period and all costs ref- ;1.:::- ' erenced in Article 19.• In the event the Agreement'is terminated, all pertinent data prepared for the project shall be made avail- ,• able. to C_ITY . without additional cost- Should Proposition A funds become unavailable, CITY :nay terminate this Agreement • immediately. _ . _... • • . • •• •b. - "In •the event the CITY _ .delinquent :. • -''�. _ ••:.• '" . :' in' paying CONTRACTOR =:'+� by more than fifteen (15) calendar days and have received a ---:!:•:.4i71 • statement by certified mail of the delinquency then CONTRACTOR may serve, by certified mail Y from, CONTRACTOR, `.: --• intent to suspend operations at least seven ( a notice of its .''4? -1; .z--•• • subsequent to notice to (7) calendar days •• t q =CITY. If CITYdoes not the `� ,•n4 • correct ti�;- , mss. i i•• :•• .:.:�..:' ••_•• •............ ;`. •. ,_..•• _. +. •..,• -. .•.,t..,;.,„:-..-••••: -•. • ;: ••:••• ')�i. !?.. •1 :•4••_1�••'• :-', hj.•. '•i.•• •..•= • • r•• • •, delinquency or if the parties do not agree to arbitrate the dis- •.'pute under the provisions of this Agreement,.then CONTRACTOR . maysuspend operations without further notice or penalty on the date indicated on the noti•ce. . • 20. Communications:.. All notices hereunder and communica- tions with respect to this Agreement shall be effective upon the- - mailing thereof by registered or.certified mail, return receipt :requested, and postage prepaid to the persons.named below: . If to CONTRACTOR: Contract Administrator .... Transit Coordinator City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive -- Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 .. 21. Information and Documents: A11 information, data, re-- .• -ports, records, maps, survey results as are existing, available, and necessary for carrying out the work as outlined in Exhibit A hereof, shall be furnished to CONTRACTOR without charge by the•• CITY and CITY -shall cooperate in every way possible in the car - ...fa .+4 rying out of the work without undue delay. '22. Proprietary Rights: A11 inventions, improvements, dis- - coveries, proprietary rights, patents, and copyrights made by CONTRACTOR under'this Agreement shall be made available to CITIES;• with no royalties, charges, or other costs, but shall be owned by • CONTRACTOR. All manuals prepared by CONTRACTOR for use by CON- TRACTOR in other locales shall not be copied, disclosed, or released by CITY' or CITY's representative or participating ▪ organization without prior written consent of -CONTRACTOR. Re- • ports and manuals prepared by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement for specific use .in the CITY ..transit system shall become of CITY. CONTRACTOR,'however, shall have the right toprint• and issue copies of these reports. CONTRACTOR may make Perot •' • tions and releases relating to theothernta- ' formal publications shall be a project. Papers and other •= approved by CITY . before the %... released. ,. _ theyare .• If to •CITx� .- , y 23. Emergency Procedure ' s: In the event of a major •' -cy, such as an earthquake, or man-made catastrophe, CONTRACTOR n_ -; .---shall make transportation and communication resources available to the degree possible for emergency assistance. If the line of direct authority from CITy- normal '•�� follow instruction of CITY. If the 1normal cline Oof direc NTRACTOR Shall thority is broken, CONTRACTOR -shall make..the best use of tau - transportation resources following to the degree . direction of an organization such as the g Possible the National Guard,which appearspolice, Red Cross,�� to have assumed responsibility. r•. .< Emergency uses of transportation may jured, and movement of people to food and evacuation of in- shall be reimbursed in accordance w• and shelter; ,CONTRACTOR `�~�, nth the normal "Price Formula and "Payment" or, if the normal method does ", of emergency services involved, then on the not. cover the types :•;: and prompt ement of CONTRACTOR'Sasa s of fair, equi-:;41 - table,reimbursbasis • actual: costs ....L TIS,: N % • it 'Reimbursement for such major emergency service shall be over and .above "Maximum Obligation" of this contract. Immediately when the emergency condition ceases, CONTRACTOR shall reinstitute nor- -mai transportation service.. 24. Audit:•. CONTRACTOR shall permit the authorized rep- 'Yesentatives of eITY_ ., . •the U. S .. ;Department . of Transporta- - '7tion,the Comptroller General of.the•United States and the Cal- • ••ifornia State Controllers' office, and the Los_Angeles County • •'=Transportation Commission to inspect and audit 411 data and records of the contractor relating to performance under this Agreement. --- 2... + .. • -25. Transportation Data Reporting:CONTRACTOR shall report transportation data to CITIES in accordance with requirements of CITIES as specified in Exhibit "A". 26. Licenses: .Any franchise or business license fees t• hat '"'CITY might ordinarily require for operation in accordance with this Agreement are hereby expressly waived by CITY. . ' .. • • .27. 'Workers' Compensation: CONTRACTOR certifies that it is ...t. ire aware of the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of Cal- • ifornia which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self- insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and it - 'certifies that it will comply with such provisions before com- mencing the performance of the work of this Agreement. • ". '"28. Liability Insurance: Throughout the term of this .Agreement CONTRACTOR shall name CITY as an additional insured • on a five million dollar combined single limit coverage General • 'and Auto Liability policy, .covering all operations of the insured •or contractors or subcontractors or anyone acting on their behalf • -under .the contract whether=liability is attributable to the in- .sured or the •.CITY7: excepting sole negligence of the CITY (To include the elected officials, appointed officials, and em .ployees.)..Said Liability policy shall indemnify and save harm- less the CITY against any and all claims, including but not - limited to any injury, death, loss or damage as a result of . wrongful or negligent acts or Omissions by CONTRACTOR. This hod' -harmless assumption on the part of the underwriters shall include :all costs of investigation and defense, until reasonable deter - 'urination is made that the CITY•: are solely negligent. CONTRAC_ TOR shall provide evidence of 'such insurance policies. -*Such policies may not be cancelled without 30 days written notice to CITY. • • L. ... r.. .. • : tit • ••29. Status of ~Firm and Liabilit : Firm is an independent contractor in all respects in the performance of this Agreement .and shall not be considered an employee of .the CITY ::' for any ~�::' • purpose.' No employee benefits shall be available to CONTRACTOR ...' an connection with the performance of this Agreement: ..:.:y CITY _' shall not be called upon to assume any' �� 'rect payment of•any salaries, wages liability for di- . , or other -compensation to any • CONTRACTOR 'personnel or subcontractor -performing services. • �' 1$ • .. • • C • 1 C C hereunder for. .CITY , or any liability other than provided for in this Agreement. CITY shall not be liable for compensation or indemnity to any CONTRACTOR employee or subcontractor for injury or sickness aris- •ing out of his/her employment, or for any negligent actions of CONTRACTOR or its employees. ��.�•• ' •z All persons employed in thepvEces and• • functions shall be employees offCONTRACTOR andormance of , as asrsuch, shall not for any purposes be considered employees of ••CITY• and there— : >..•' •r. • fore shall have . no right to any CITY • service • ._ or other CITY' -status. • civil service, *:-1..7 • -..� • 30. Nondiscrimination: • a. In connection with the execution of this Agreement, CON- TRACTOR shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant' for employment because of age, race, religion, color, sex, or. • national origin. CONTRACTOR shall take affirmative actions to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during their employment, without regard to their'age, race, religion, color, sex, or national origin. Such actions shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment; upgrading, demotions or transfer; recruitment or recruitment ad- • vertising; layoff or termination; rate of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. . • • • • . b. CONTRACTOR shall also comply with the requirements of • • Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 P. L. 8-352) all applicable regulations,:'statutes, laws, etc.,8promulgd gated with pursuant to the civil rights acts of the state .adfederal government now in existence or hereafter enacted. Further TRACTOR shall also comply with the . CON- i'• the the California Labor Code. Provisions of Sections 1735 of • i _ . 31. Minority Business Enterprise:In . •= :T...- performance of this contract, CONTRACTOR will°cooperate withnnection with tthe ��••. CITY in meeting any of CITY , commitments and goals with regard ._� to the maximum utilization of minority business enterprises and •...: will use its best efforts to ensure that minority business enter- prises shall have the maxopPortu imum practicable for subcontract work under this Agreement.nity to compete 32. . a. • hire any : employee • Cross-Hirin of Employees, Officers, Members During the term of the Agreement'•.::. supervisory employee of CITY , CONTRACTOR shall not '"•:.�L of .CITY without '•or former supervisory prior written approval of CITY. �.;�'• .: •�• •:, t• :.• •.i• ``�ljw r�!eS1.aii•�:i`'• s �:`i=SY • • N .. •• • • V • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MAYOR i:,,..,:,..; ,::::•._ :L .ATTEST: • , CITY CLERK •APPROVED: CITY ATTORNEY • DATE • *COMMUNITY TRANSIT SERVICES • Walter R. L. Diangson ► %.Vice President • • • L ` • L,• • • - •• • • t=••t•N ~•• .31.• tee. • • a "EXHIBIT A" BASIC._ SERVICES (SCOPE OF WORK) • C CONTRACTOR shall provide the necessary management and administra- • r.:»::: •••• tive personnel whose expertise will assure efficient operation of the service specified herein. All Facilities, equipment, •supplies and services required in•the operation .of the "HER- MAN Commuter Bus transportation service will be furnished. by CON- . •.....TRACTOR. Service shall be managed by CONTRACTOR in accordance' with the % guidelines and parameters established herein and the . attachments hereto. CONTRACTOR shall strive at all times to provide service in a man - n er which will maximizeproductivity and at the same time provide, high quality passenger service. • • .CONTRACTOR and CITY shall periodically meet to evaluate perfor- n1'ance of the program. CONTRACTOR: may be vice improvement modifications for the service. SUPERVISION Supervision of THE Hermosa Commuter Bus to -day operations will be vested in CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR shall • asked to recommend ser- • Beach Cities Commuter Bus • ;•:ti: TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM day-' assign an individual to this operation,~sand action to be competent show by decision and • .. _yam r CCT'•': :S".: �f+:r••• •• ••'�Z- . • said individual shall in all aspects of the • t • 111. Hermosa Computer Bus TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM. The assigned individual or a designee selected by CONTRACTOR shall be 'available by phone or in person during all hours of the operational day to make decisions or provide coordination as necessary. • ADVERTISING/PROMOTION • • •M K •. . tit : •. - : CONTRACTOR shall provide. distribution of advertising and promotional ..materials. CONTRACTOR shall make all materials • available on board vehicles for any passengers using or desiring . • to use Hermosa Commuter Bus • The CITY will coordinate with • • • the CONTRACTOR and will provide or arrange to provide materials for use. TRAINING/SAFETY • CONTRACTOR shall maintain on-going training procedures which will • train and prepare all .newly hired and current drivers, • maintenance personnel,administration, management, • manner that conforms with all state and local laws and assures �.'. that CONTRACTOR'S employees will perform all obligations stated in this Agreement. A safety program shall be implemented by CONTRACTOR and appropriate manuals will be provided by CONTRACTOR • to its personnel. The CITY is not responsible for driver training or the driving performance of -drivers. -If inadequacies are found in the performance of drivers, etc., the Lead Agency may request -. additional training be carried out .or that _the employee be removed from the Hermosa Commuter Bus project. • • PERSONNEL POLICY • •!t ..,,2— . .. -4 1,1it:el:t, .{ii.`•4 ^iST::*•s'i??':�•_t »J.�f'j (4- -r • • Upon request, CONTRACTOR shall supplyCITY with CONTRACTOR'S V 0. personnel policies including reimbursement policies for any sick pay, overtime pay, and wage scales. A list of current personnel shall be maintained. CONTRACTOR'S personnel policies shall be in conformance with state and federal taws. • ACCIDENT REPORTING In the event of a traffic accident or a serious passenger =.incident, CONTRACTOR shall notify the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH by telephone immediately and prepare all reports as may be required by the appropriate insurance company. Copies of accident reports shall be transmitted to the CITY no later than 24 hours after the incident occurs. A11 applicable state laws shall be complied with in the case of any accident. DATA COLLECTION/REPORTING t:• Information concerning vehicle activities shall be collected for the 'Hermosa Commuter: Bus program and. provided to the CITY on a monthly basis: •Such forms are required by the CITY to fullfill requirements for Proposition A funds. • An operations summary of each service day including passenger counts by CITY shall be maintained and transmitted in completed %..,:-.. form to the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH each month with the operations summary. A summary of each month shall be forwarded to the CITY.'F OF HERMOSA BEACH designated representative(s) when complete. The . monthly summary may be of CONTRACTOR'S design with. approval of . ' - •• the CITY. Any and all missed trips will be recoreded and accompanied by an explanation. In no event shall -the monthly ="" summary reports be incomplete or unavailable OF •` 'E' p p nava able to the CITY OF • ...•.:.• • • • • 1 Y • •Y.�. •.� �•••• •. •'fes• • • s t. _� Yom. �1`. ':7 aw a e T;'I • • ... ,�-i•si:i > ?+� Vii► �` �".=�t• .i :: .. .i: • • • . , • • • iMte vi .�• y.�:L S:!%:•"ti ri'••:4io :v.- :•it `i4' . . • • CT • HERMOSA BEACH later than ten (10) calendar days after the end of • • the operating month. CONTRACTOR shallbe required to complete origin and destination of passengers on a daily basis. Thisrmonthly report shall include •critique and evaluation of the system and service,along with ,m,,,,„_,recommended corrective action when appropriate. ;Rroblems will be • highlighted along with suggested solutions. The monthly report 1,*;'" ', shall_ summarize the daily operations information and shall be forwarded within ten (10) days of the reporting month. 4. . •• -:• • • ACCOUNTING 1 All costs incurred in furtherance of this Agreement shall be recorded in accounts separate from those used for other business activities and in conformance with the State of California, State Controller's Chart of Accounts for Public Transit Operators and the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission's Proposition A Guidelines. All accounts will be available for inspection and/or independent audit at. CITY'S election. LIAISON CONTRACTOR shall cordinate closely with the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH on all commuter bus program matters and operations status. •••: • INVOICES INVOICES • The invoice for service rendered must follow a format provided by 'Q, the CONTRACTOR but approved by the CITY OF•HERMOSA BEACH and all relevant back-up documentation must be included with invoice for •,• that particular month. • • •.• • • OPERATIONS• CONTRACTOR shall provide all personnel necessary to operate vehicles in service. Hermosa Commuter Bus drivers must be _knowledgeable on fares, equipment, passenger service requirements ..�.....and the street network in 'the service area. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for the mechanical conditions and cleanliness of all vehicles or any substitute or back-up vehicles. CONTRACTOR shall -mot assign any vehicle into service where the performance of a component part is likely to cause damage to other components, jeopardize public safety, or be contrary to the California Vehicle Code. CONTRACTOR shall not deploy any vehicle into service when its -.appearance is contrary to the :CITY'S standards, The CITY may periodically inspect service vehicles during regular • • business hours. HOURS OF OPERATION/HOLIDAYS' t-. Service shall be based upon five (5) days per week operation. This weekday service is to be scheduled as follows: . . • Weekdays: Monday - Friday: 6:30 a m - 8:30 a.m.-(morning - . •L. ; • . .• .run) and 4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. (evening run). .• • • • There are six (6) holidays as designated by CITY each year when • the service will not be in operation: New Year's Day, Memorial • • Y • 4th of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. No Saturday or Sunday service will be provided by the' Hermosa ' Commuter Bus Program. The Cities reserve the right to make ad- justments to the service schedule as needed. SERVICE AREA (Route Map Attached). • The Hermosa Coiranuter Bus will travel through the Cities of Hermosa • Beach and Manhattan Beach into the El Segundo Employment area, as depicted in the attached route map. The ''CITY reserves the right to make changes in the service area as seen fit for fiscal, jurisdictional, geographic or passenger travel patterns, and'for reasons of coordination with other area operators. SERVICE ADHERENCE If at any time during the period of the contract CONTRACTOR is found to be unable to complete the service schedule due to short- age of drivers or vehicles, or for other such reasons, CONTRACTOR Y y shall notify CITY immediately. The CITY may then require the • CONTRACTOR to find appropriate supplemental -services or the CITY • may elect to secure the necessary service elsewhere; in either . -case, replaced service shall be at the expense of the CONTRACTOR. VEHICLES . • .'1, Service will be provided with CONTRACTOR -supplied vehicles. Vehicles supplied by the CONTRACTOR are subject to approval by' the CITY . All vehicles shall be equipped with 2 -way radios for • • s•. contact with dispatcher. Radios shall always be kept in good ==�* • 4• • . • .• ... ••rti3�;'..'. •.r.. . 1!`�:•i".i t Y.' :'aia 1. '•S: •� j • • • ` w working order. All vehicles are to be in exceptional exterior and interior condition. Signage and paint may be negotiated upon award of this contract. Cost of signage and paint would be the responsibility of the CITY . Vehicles shall be of a quality attractive and comfortable to the commuting public. The CITY reserves the right to request and receive additional tripper service if necessary, within a reasonable time, from CONTRACTOR. Vehicles used for this service must be equipped with air conditioning and have comfortable commuter compatible rather than standard transit seating. Vehicles shall be equipped with locked fareboxes to accommodate passengers paying cash.. DISPATCH CONTRACTOR shall•. provide the personnel necessary to schedule and deploy drivers and vehicles in accordance with the Service Schedule. This activity will include the arranging of driver reliefs and replacement of failed vehicles when and if necessary. -A local telephone number must .be available for communication •between CONTRACTOR'S manager and the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH. • • FARES •'� 1: The CITY. has determined that the fare will be fifty cents • ($.50) one-way any place along the service route. Fares shall be. collected by CONTRACTOR and paid to the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH on • gEMP • • • • 4 h monthly basis. Monthly passes and multi -ride tickets may be developed by the CITY and operated by the.CONTRACTOR. K MAINTENANCE All maintenance and repair of CONTRACTOR vehicles must be 'completed to manufacturer's specifications or to normal repair • standards, whether performed by CONTRACTOR or an organization •• • • subcontracting to CONTRACTOR. The CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH will be .informed of all sub -contractors relating •to the Hermosa Commuter Bus Service. • CLEANING • Vehicle interior cleaning will be done on a daily basis. Vehicle exterior . will be washed and scrubbed i minimum of two times per week, as. well as after each rain. The CITY shall monitor. c - vehicles cleanliness. If vehicles do not meet mutually agreed standards, CONTRACTOR will have one (1) week to remedy the situation. After such time, the CITY . may elect to have vehicles • cleaned and deduct such charges from CONTRACTOR'S billings. DAILY MAINTENANCE. Drivers will inspect the vehicle prior to beginning daily service, for.noticeable defects. If the driver finds a problem with the vehicle, he/she will note the comments on an operator's defect report. - 44 • Service inspection: prior to the "in-service" operation of any . vehicle, all fluid levels must be checked, _preferably • by a 'ti maintenance professional, and restored to proper levels.'' the; operator's defect. report must be inspected and appropriate •'° .l9 .. » •A t..:••,tk;.• !i'4 tiC►••i/.••: •.".P."... :Nt.4,:.. a i`.Y•s\l: • . •• • 4 ;.. is t ; action taken on items noted on this report prior to operation of the vehicles. Records of Daily Checkouts shall be maintained in compliance with California Highway Patrol *requirements. L PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE Preventive maintenance inspection shall be performed at regular '•m:`:::'—" � intervals. -•A final determination of intervals of maintenance inspection •shall be made by the lead agency when executing the contract with selected operator. The work performed at each -inspection shall be in conformance with work .specified on ,the. CONTRACTOR'S preventive maintenance inspection report. Records of preventive maintenance shall be in compliance with California Highway_Patrol requirements. REPAIRS All repair work must be performed by maintenance personnel who have demonstrated experience and training in the work to be done. Maintenance personnel will have the necessary equipment and tools to perform any authorized work. If work is subcontracted, lead :- agency shall be informed of the subcontractor, the section titled Maintenance. PARTS and MATERIALS For purposes of this Agreement, gasoline (fuel), fluids, oils, lubricants, repair parts and software (nuts, bolts, springs, • .: • ,:ti • • • • • "' ....•' .•' •;s 1.0 ..• r r • • • • bulbs, etc.) are part of the vehicle's operating costs and will be supplied by CONTRACTOR. ROAD CALLS and BACK-UP SERVICE •j In the event of a vehicle failure while in service, CONTRACTOR —shall deploy a back-up vehicle,. immediately upon�notification, replace the failed vehicle.. • . DATA COLLECTION and REPORTS The need for maintenance to or repairs shall be collected on some 1 type of a Trouble Card, Operator's Vehicle Defect Card, or Preventive Maintenance Card of the CONTRACTOR'S choosing. Once it has been established that maintenance or repair work is required, work must be completed in a timely manner. When work is complete,a useful description of the work performed will be documented in CONTRACTOR records and included in monthly operation summaries to the CITY. • April 20, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of April 26, 1988 AUTHORIZATION TO SEND LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR INCLUSION OF SANTA MONICA BAY IN THE NATIONAL ESTUARIES PROGRAM Recommendation: That the City Council authorize the Mayor to send letters of sup- port for inclusion of Santa Monica Bay in the National Estuaries Program. Analysis: In response to the attached letter received from Congressman Le- vine, Mayor Simpson has asked staff to seek Council authorization to send letters urging the U. S. Environmental Protection Agen- cy's acceptance of the Santa Monica Bay into the National Es- tuaries Program. The attached information provides additional background on this program. In brief, the program would fund a conference and plan for protecting and improving the quality of the Bay. It does not appear that this plan would conflict with current recreational uses of the Bay. KBN/ld :tet sem, 13a MEL LEVINE 27TH DISTRICT, CAUFORNIA COMMITTEES: COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE ON NARCOTICS ABUSE AND CONTROL MAJORITY REGIONAL WHIP Congos of tht United tStates %oust of Rtprtstntatives Washington, Be 205)5 April 5, 1988 Mayor Etta Simpson ' City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Dr. Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Dear Etta: WASHINGTON OFFICE 132 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON. DC 20515 TELEPHONE 202-225-6451 DISTRICT OFFICE 5250 WEST CENTURY BOULEVARD SURE 447 LOS ANGELES. CA 80046 TELEPHONE. 213-410-9415 213-393-4135 (SANTA MONICA) I am writing to apprise you of my efforts to include Santa Monica Bay in the new National Estuaries Program and to ask for your help. The NEP was created last year in the Clean Water Act reauthorization. Under its provisions, the Environmental Protection Agency will set-up a five year Management Conference for each bay or estuary accepted to the Program. Each Conference will be charged with developing a long-term Management Plan to submit to the EPA for approval. We are only all too familiar with the long struggle to clean-up and protect our Bay. The NEP now provides an invaluable opportunity to take a comprehensive look at the Bay and plan for its long-term management. The NEP will provide the framework under which government agencies on all levels, the public at large, commericial interests, dischargers, and environmentalists will sit at the same table to work out solutions to the Bay's complex problems. The Management Conference can prioritize the problems, coordinate the individual projects and efforts, and review all possible sources of funding. Most importantly, the NEP establishes a body that can make the tough policy decisions. As you may be aware, at the end of last year I was successful in adding Santa Monica Bay to the pivitol "priority list" which the EPA must consider for inclusion in the Program. As the law also provides for gubenatorial nominations,,I worked with Governor Deukmejian to gain his nomination of the Bay. Since then our offices have worked closely and I have been able to develop a unique bipartisan coalition of support on the state and federal level. The task now is to gain the support of all the local communities to insure EPawgggaptance.ef anta.Monica.Bay to the Program. 40"--1", therefore, respectively ask that ° P Y you offer and your 'councilmembers) pass a resolution urging the EPA to includ tee. - THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE WITH RECYCLED FIBERS Mayor Etta Simpson April 5, 1988 Page 2 Santa Monica Bay in the NEP. I would be most happy to make my staff available to provide any assistance or additional information. For your information, I have enclosed a packet of background materials. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you. v� Mel Levine Member of Congress ML:baf enclosure For Release: Contact: '1 v+enty-Scvcntli I)istriet, (-'alilc�i nia 132 Cannon House Office Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20515 5250 W. Century Blvd., Suite 447, Los Angeles, Ca. 90045 IMMEDIATELY Lisa Weil (213) 410-9415 Im>;; January 4, 1986(PR88/1) Patricia Allison (202) 225-6451 CONGRESS DESIGNATES SANTA MONICA BAY AS "PRIORITY" FOR NEW BAY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Congressman Mel Levine(P-santa Monica/South Bay) today announced that he has successfully included Santa Monica Bay as aH"ppriority" in the new federal program to manage distressed bays. is legislative provisions were included in the omnibus federal spending bill which was signed into law on December 22. "Inclusion in the Estuaries program as a priority site is a critical step in my efforts to clean up the Santa Monica Bay. "Given the extraordinary consumption of fish from, and direct human contact with the waters in and around the Bay, it is critical that a management authority be created to clean-up and manage the Bay's natural resources," Levine said. Under the new National Estuaries Program, the Environmental Protection Agency will bring local, state, and federal agencies with jurisdiction over a distressed bay, environmentalists, and industrial dischargers together at a management conference.. The conference will have five years to develop a management plan for its bay. Once the plan is approved by the EPA, it will be eligible for federa-1 implementation grants. The Estuaries Program was created this year as part of the Clean Water Act. In it Congress included several priorities for EPA review. Levine's actions add Santa Monica Bay as an additional priority for EPA consideration. Last month as part of the EPA's requirements for approval, Levine successfully gained Governor Deukmejian's nomination of the Bay for the program. "Because of the overwhelming state and local support for bringing all parties together to clean-up the Bay, and because of the dire condition of the Bay, our prospects are good for inclusion in the program," Levin( said. The state must now develop a "designation package" outlining the steps it will take to insure the success of a management conference should the EPA accept it into the program. The final EPA decision is expected sometime this summer. 44 Public Law 100-4 100th Congress •• avv s ♦£J . £VV• An Act To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide for the renewal of the quality of the Nation's waters, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembles. SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS; AMENDMENTS TO FED- ERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT; DEFINITION OF ADMINISTRATOR. (a) SHORT Tnl s. -Thi* Act may be cited as the ' . at„g&Qualjtt Act of_198, " "'(b) Tams or NTENTe.- • Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents; amendments to Federal Water Pollution Con- trol Act; definition of Administrator. Sec. 2. Limitation on payments. TITLE I -AMENDMENTS TO TITLE I Sec. 101. Authorizations of appropriations. Sec. 102. Small flows clearinghouse. Sec. 103. Chesapeake Bay. Sec. 104. Great Lakes. Sec. 105. Research on effects of pollutants. TITLE II-ONSTRUCIION GRANTS AMENDMENTS Sec. 201. Time limit on resolving certain disputes. Sec. 202. Federal share. Sec. 203. Agreement on eligible caste. Sec. 204. Design/build projects. Sec. 205. Grant conditions; user charges on low-income residential users. Sec. 206. Allotment formula. Sec. 207. Rural set aside. Sec. 208. Innovative and alternative projects. e orgading. nization 209. Regional 'CSO s a esu Sea 211. Authorization for construction grants. Sec. 212. State water pollution control revolving funds Sec. 213. Improvement projects. Sea 214. Chicago tunnel and reservoir project. Sec. 215. Ad valorem tax dedication. TITLE III -STANDARDS AND ENFORCEMENTS Sec. 301. Compliance dates. Sec. 302. Modification for nonconventional pollutants. Sec. 303. Discharges into marine waters. Sec. 305. Filing deadline for treatment works modification. Sec. 306. Fundamentally different factors liance deadlines for direct dischargers. Sec. 307. Coal remining operations. Sec. 308. Individual control strategies for toxic pollutants Sec. 309. Pretreatment standards. Sec. 310. Inspection and entry. Sec. 311. Marine sanitation devices. Sec. 312. Criminal penalties. Sea 313. Civil penalties. Sec. 314. Administrative penalties. Sec. 315. Clean lakes 91-1.390-87-1 (4) 1V1 01111. 1 Feb. 4, 1987 tater Quality Act of 1987. 33 USC 1251 note. 1. • r 1 i [H.R. 11 t B. 4, 1987 tgement practices being :he States in adhering to management practices; f rphis ose of awarded Information is available, utast loads and improv- •aters; as need to be taken to ble waters (i) applicable goals and requirements of the Administrator ding enforcement pro- nonpoint sources; and 'l�ted Stof ates whi rtmentsh nt programs submitted ifications so that such nt with and assist the tanagement programs. :NEL—Not less than 5 subsection (j) for any listrator to maintain :tion Agency at levels such year.". lc= of POLLUTION.— "and" at the end of end of paragraph (6) y adding at the end ms for the control of and implemented in ;oafs of this Act to be nonpoint sources of last sentence of sec - lace it appears and "or"; and odewsections 19 (anh) ive and alternative rces of pollution),". amended by adding ddition to the sums rater shall reserve the sums allotted der this section for =tuber 1, 1986, or Yee of carrying out State in any fiscal ' use of such sums, PUBLIC LAW 100-4—FEB. 4, 1987 to the extent such sums exceed $100,000, may be used by such State for other purposes under this title.". (e) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 804(kX1) is amended by33 inserting "and nonpoint source USC 1811. approved under section 819 of this Act" management programs • after 208 of this Act". Ante, p. ii2; 33 sEC. 1 I T1Ql SYNPROG• C 1266. (a) PURPOSF. AND POLtCIFB.— 88 USC 1330 UB (1) FINDINGS. --Con note. Gress finds and declares that— (A) the Nation's estuaries are of great importance for J andM ou nd ,recreation and o.pot;tunity; - economic (B) malntal nIn g the health and ecological these estuaries is in the national interest• integrity of (C) increasing coastal populat%n; devefop em nt, and other �" direct and indirect uses of these estuaries threaten their health and ecological integrity; (D) long-term planning and management will contribute to the continued productivity of these areas, and will maxi- mize their utility to the Nation; and (E) better, coordination amongi;Fedend To - grams affecting"es'i'uailes » lincrease the effectiveness emir -- efficiency of the national effort to protect, preserve, and restore these areas. (2) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this section are to— (A) identify nationally significant estuaries that are threatened by pollution, development, or overuse; (B) promote comprehensive planning for, and conserva- tion and management of, nationally significant estuaries; (C) encourage the preparation of management plans for estuaries of national significance; and "-"(D) enhance the coordination of estuarine research. (b) MANAGEMENT PROGRAM,—Tyne III is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section: "SEC. 320. NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM. "(a) MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE: 33 USC 1330. "(1) NOMINATION OF ESTUARIES.—The Governor of any State State and local may nominate to the Administrator an estuary, lying in whole or in part within the State as an estuary, of national significance and request a management conference to develop a comprehen- sive management plan for the estuary. document the need for.the conference.tThe nomination shall and information relating to the factos ara %suocess`� "(2) CoriVENIIJGi OT►�OONFEREiTaz.— h (2). (A) IN GENERAL.—In any case where the Administrator Fish and Wig. determines, on his own initiative or upon nomination of a State under paragraph (1), that the attainment or mainte- nance of that water quality in an estuary which assures protection of public water supplies and the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shell- fish, fish, and wildlife, and allows recreational activities, in and on the water, requiredd ;the-controLo(' _ int,.: nonpoint_sources,.of pollution to_ supplement existingd "' ofpollution'in more than -one State, the A con - troll; shall select such estuary and convene a management d nagement �" conference. agement 101 STAT. 61 governments. Wildlife. 101 STAT. 62 • PUBLIC LAW 100-4—FEB. 4, 1987 New York. Connecticut. Rhode bland. Massachusetts. Washington. New Jersey. Delaware. North Carolina. Florida. r California. Texas. 3 CFR, 1982 Comp., p. 197. "(B) PRIORITY CONSIDERATION.—The Administrator shall give priigtatxsorisideration under this section to Long Island Sound, New York iTiVrbf necticut; Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island; Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts; Puget Sound, Washington; New York -New Jersey Harbor, New York and New Jersey; Delaware Bay, Delaware and New Jersey; Delaware Inland Bays, Delaware; Albemarle Sound, North Carolina; Sarasota Bay, Florida; San an ' :.. Ba , Califor- nia; and Galveston Bay, Texas. "(3) BOUNDARY DISPUTE EXCEPTION.—In any case in which a boundary between two States passes through an estuary and such boundary is disputed and is the subject of an action in any court, the Administrator shall not convene a management con- ference with respect to such estuary before a final adjudication - has been made of such dispute. "(b) PURPOSES OF CONFERENCE.—The purposes of any management conferencedvened withyrespectzzo an estuary under this subsec- tion shall be to— "(1) assess trends in water quality, natural resources, and uses of the estuary; "(2) collect, characterize, and assess data on toxics, nutrients, and natural resources within the estuarine zone to identify the causes of environmental problems; "(3) develop the relationship betweena _lnplace,; oa and point.andi onpoih ]o orpollutajiis, ffiga-Aatuarine.sone and the potenti zone, water quality, and natural resources; "(4) develop a comprehens ve, ne al .o andjiva 3agement plan that recommends priority corrective actions and compli- ance schedules addressing point and nonpoint sources of pollu- tion -^to` recto and maintain the chemical, physical, and biolog3F egrity,oj the estuary, including restoration and maintenance of water quality, a balanced indi'genous.population of shellfish, fish and wildlife, and recreational "activities"lnrtheam estuary, and assureihat the designated uses of the estuary are protectl; "(5) develop plans for the coordinated implementation of the , plan by the States as well as Feder-aria:id local agencies partici- pating in the conference; "(6) monitor the effectiveness of actions taken pursuant to the plan; and-- "(7) review all Federal financial assistance p and Federal deveeopment projects in accordance wi the re- quirements of Executive Order 12372, as in effect on Septem- ber 17, 1983, to determine whether such assistance program or project would be consistent with and further the purposes and objectives of the plan prepared under this section. For purposes of'paragraph (7), such programs and projects shall not be limited to the assistance programs and development projects subject to Executive Order 12372, but may include any programs listed in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance which may have an effect on the purposes and objectives of the plan developed under this section. "(c) MEMBERS or CONFERENCE.—The members of a management conference convened under this section shall include, at a minimum, the Administrator and representatives of— I 1-4—FEB. 4, 1987 :AT/ON —The Administrator shall 1 under this section to Long Island Connecticut; Narragansett Bay, lay, Massachusetts; Puget Sound, ew Jersey Harbor. New York and lay, Delaware and New Jersey; •laware; Albemarle Sound, North orida; San Francisco Bay, Califor- !aas. EPTIoN —In any case in which a passes through an estuary and is the subject of an action in any not convene a management con- tuary before a final adjudication the purposes of any management to an estuary under this subsec- quality, natural resources, and 1 assess data on toxics, nutrients, he estuarine zone to identify the ms; between the inplace loads and pollutants to the estuarine zone :one, water quality, and natural conservation and management corrective actions and compli- t and nonpoint sources of pollu- the chemical, physical, and iary, including restoration and balanced indigenous population nd recreational activities in the signated uses of the estuary are rdinated implementation of the deral and local agencies partici- of actions taken pursuant to the ncial assistance p and in accordance with the re - 12372, as in effect on Septem- her such assistance program or 5 and further the purposes and ander this section. programs and projects shall not ims and development projects nit may include any programs f Federal Domestic Assistance poses and objectives of the plan he members of a management m shall include, at a minimum, s of— PUBLIC LAW 100 -4 --FEB. 4, 1987 101 STAT. 63 "(1) each State and foreign nation located in whole or in part in the estuarine zone of the estuary for which the conference is convened; "(2) international, interstate, or regional agencies or entities having jurisdiction over all or, a.signiticaptpatt +ffh: ' t� ri . "(3) each 'inteited''"Federal"agency, as determined °appro priate by the Administrator; • "(4) local,govern}en mbayipgAtirj d ctio ver any land or Wekr. Kithundherestuarine zone; as determined appropriate by the Administrator; and "(5) affected industries, public and private educational institu- tions, and the gene 1 ublic as determined appropriate by the . Administrator. ` "(d) UTILIZATION OF EXISTING DATA.—In developing a conservation Conservation. and management plan under this section, the management con- State and local ference shall survey and utilize existing re rts, data, and studies governments. relating to the estuary that have beetftieft foe _ able to Federa =lntel`state State,and local a "encldes 1- "(e) PERIOD OF CONFERENCE.—managemen eiiiiference convened under this section shall be convened for a period not to exceed 5 years. Such conference may be extended by the Administrator, and If terminated after the initial period, may be reconvened by the Administrator at any time thereafter, as may be necessary to meet the requirements of this section. "(1) APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PLANS.— "(1) APPROVAL.—Not later than 120 days after the completion of a conservation and management plan and after providing for public review and comment, the Administrator shall approve such plan if the plan meets the requirements of this section and the affected Governor or Governors concur. "(2) IMPLEMENTATION.—Upon approval of a conservatjo>x and management,:plan_undeL.this section, su& 11an staff be,imple_ mented.-Xuntakauthorized to be appropriated under tI VI ;and sectionbe nc��. Elie applicable rreequ cements of this Act toed in assiist States with t e antes, v 1281; implementation of such plan. "(g) GRANTS.— State and local "(1) RECIPIENTS.—The Administrator is authorized to make grants to State, interstate, and regional water pollution control agenciesinterstatand entities, Statee.coastaLzone management agencies agencies, other public or nonprofit. private agencies, institutions, organizations, and individuals. "(2) PURPOSES.—Grants under this subsection shall be made to pay for assisting research, surveys, studies, and modeling and other technical work necessary for the development of a con- servation and management plan under this section. "(3) FEDERALsi#.A.-The amount of grants to any person (including-a"Stage, interstate,`or regional agency or. entity), under this subsection for a focal sear shall of exceed 75 percent of, tiltcosts of such research, survey, studies, and"orTir� and shall be made on con tioirtliai' hh Ion Federal share of such costs are provided from non -Federal sources'-'`' "(h) • GRAIVTItEPORTtxo:=Any"person -(including a State, inter- state, or regional agency or entity) that receives a grant under subsection (g) shall report to the Administrator not later than 18 months after receipt of such grant and biennially thereafter on the progress being made under this section. governments. C -Z 47 101 STAT. 64 T PUBLIC LAW 100-4—FEB. 4, 1987 "(i) AUTHORIZATION OF APPRQ aI.lIs —There are authorized to be appropriateckgrthrAdillifiiiiriiitor not to exceed $12,000,000 per f scaL'eareachh of fiscal years 19i37;�1988;'I snza 19901iiid" '9g "(1) expenses „selated.4to::thezadministration4,:,uanagement conferences miler this section, not to exceed 10 percent ofthe ' amounrappropriated under this siibsectio" "(2) making grants under subsection (g); and "(3) monitoring the implementation of a conservation and management plan by the management conference or by the Administrator, in any case in which the conference has been terminated. The Administrator shall provide up to $5,000,000 per fiscal year of the sums authorized to be approriated under this subsection to the Administrator of the Natiotta"e±c,Ad V is- tratioi to carry out subsection (jjj . (j) RESEARCH.— "(1) ESEARCH—"(1) PROGRAMS.—In order to determine the need to convene a managemnce under this such a managemenconfet conference, the Administrator shan or at the ll coorof di - nate and implement, through the National Marine Pollution Program Office and the National Marine Fisheries Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as appropriate, for one or more estuarine zones— "(A) a long:termprrooram of trend as pen t ring measuring variations in" kollutanf concentrations marine IIecology; =-and-otherphysica it t1olognt entr nrnelila aramet'ers which may affeC "estuarine zones, the"Administrator the capacity to determine the `provide and actual effects of alternative management potential and measures; strategies "(B) a progra;,gLeeosYsteessmeAt,assisting in the development of (i) baseline sudi which determine the state of estuarine zone-refill'theeffects of natut ,,,.ads anthropogenic changes, and (ii) predictive.> grielscapailleo f translating nfo imation on specific discllacges or general pollutant loadings within estuarine zones into a set of probable effects on such zones; "(C) a compre ensiye„ &rater. quality.samplin , program for the continuous monitorin gr ,$ v p�ret3,ts;�c arrle$�I`d� `• precipitation di solved ozygen.�an potent ,ly t01i,poflut- ants (inciuding -oiganic chemicals and me -,s) In`es-`�ivarine 3 ZofleC8fter consultation with interested State,-loca!•, inter- state, or international agencies and review and anatysis of all environmental sampling data presently collected from estuarine zones; and "(D) a programof research-to.identify.the mgyeiq ep of nutrients sediments and pollutants though' st_glAn zones -an pact of the � imnutnents, seciments, and poi ut- ants on water quality, the ecosystem, and designated or potential�uses of the estuarine zones. "(2)) REPORTS.—The Administrator, in cooperation with the Adminis'fi for of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, shall submit to the Congress no less often than biennially a comprehensive report on the activities authorized under this subsection including— "(A) a listing of priority monitoring and research needs; ��t� "''1 S o'c —FEB. 4, 1987 •IONS.—There are authorized to ✓ not to exceed $12,000,000 per 987, 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1991 administration of management sot to exceed 10 percent of the subsection; ction (g); and station of a conservation and agement conference or by the vhich the conference has been to $5,000,000 per fiscal year of ed under this subsection to the nic and Atmospheric Adminis- :termine the need to convene a his section or at the request of the Administrator shall coordi- he National Marine Pollution it Marine Fisheries Service of nospheric Administration, as arine zones— )f trend assessment monitoring lutant concentrations, marine 1 or biological environmental ct estuarine zones, to provide pity to determine the potential iative management strategies :m assessment assisting in the studies which determine the id the effects of natural and ii) predictive models capable of specific discharges or general estuarine zones into a set of s; r quality sampling program for of nutrients, chlorine, acid n, and potentially toxic pollut- iicals and metals) in estuarine h interested State, local, inter- ies and review and analysis of data presently collected from i to identify the movements of pollutants through estuarine trients, sediments, and pollut- ecosystem, and designated or e zones. ator, in cooperation with the 1 Oceanic and Atmospheric he Congress no less often than rt on the activities authorized tonitoring and research needs; r PUBLIC LAW 100-4—FEB. 4, 1987 "(B) an asseas.ent of the state and health of the Nation's estuarine —zoties, F4 'The extent evaluated under this subsection; "(C) a dist fpollution problems al�4,trends in pollutant concentrations with a direct or Indirect effect on walmAimality..the ecosystems, and `designiT d or:potentia uses of each estuarinezone, to the exten't'`et%aTuated under this'uubsecf ion;' -stint ' '(D) an gyaluatiotrof pollution abatement activities and management measures sefifFiliWpItstnentedettilletermine the degree of improvement toward the objectives expressed `'stibsetion. (bX4) of this section. -�,1k4>„For purposes of this section, the terms 'estu- ary an • estuarine zone' have the meanings such terms have in section 104(nX4) of this Act, except that the term 'estuarine zone.33 U C 1 shall also include associated aquatic ecosystems and those'"por{ions of tributari December 21, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOU ENVIRONMENTAL P • Rorte roti Answer NriestwOU, ataiarAN(Z SUPERIIIND r SALARIES AND EXPENSES for necessary expenses. not otherwise pro. rioted for. including hire of passenger molar vehicles: hire maintenance. and operation of aircraft: ur,ljorms, or allowances therefor. as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902: aervicea as oulhonzed by 5 U.S.C. 3109. but at rales /or Ind., ;duals not to exceed the per diens rule equivalent to the rate /or OS -18: put.. chose o/ reprints: library memberships in so efrlira or associations which issue publsea• 8 !suns to members only or ata price to me• e m ben laver than to nubs o u members: construction, alteration, repair. rehabilitation, and renovation of facilities, a not to exceed 525.000 per project: and not to exceed 83.000 /or official reception and rep. rrarnlation expenses,• 8765,000.000.' Provld- ed. That none of these funds may be expend. a ed for purposes of Resource Conservation fu and Recovery Panels established under sec. be tion 2003 of the Resource Conservation and Ice Recovery Acl. as amended 142 U.S.0 6913. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT o For necessary expenses to carry out Comprehensive Environmental Reaper Compensation. and Liability Act Of ICEIICLA,. as amended, including sect 111 lc•J(31, ICY(51, tel(61, and KISS/ 142 86111, 81.128.000,000 to be derived from Hazardous Substance Suprrfund, concis of 8888,900.000 as authorized by sec 517/x/ of the Superlurid Amendments Reauthorization Act of 1986 ISARAI 239,100,000 as a payment from general nun to the Hazardous Substance Su rid as authorized by section 5171b RA. with all of such funds to sellable until expended: Provided, count be allocated to other federal agds appropriated under this encies in cordance with section 111(x) of CERCLA mended' Provided further. That• none of rids appropriated under this heading J121aof CElableRCLAor `cas sections IPr of furlhce Thal• notwithstanding sect 111mi of CERCLA, as amended, or thrr Ne rise. 1980 tons U.S. C the ling lion and and rev. per. 1 I of A remain the That A may a aC• u ,04 the shall or • dcd a ton u any a aw. not to exceed *43.000.000 of the funds appropriated under n this heading shall be available to the Agency Co for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry a to carry out activities described in sections 1 104(il, 1JJ/c1141, 111(clll4l. and 118(/) of a SARA: Provided further. That no more than u $182.400,000 of these funds Mall be available 1 for administrative expenses: Provided fur- me they. That title I of CERCLA, as amended by 19 section 119 of SARA. is amended by adding ll the following subparagraph to section qu 1191012,1Ar: "/fill Recipients of grants tin - eluding sub -grantees, under section 126 for na the training and education of workers who ei are or may be engaged in activities related en to hazardous waste removal, containment, sec or emergency response under this Act: and": to Provided further, Thal section 126(d1(3/ of ei SARA is amended by adding a new sentence to at the end thereof as follows: "The cerlfica- D 11on procedures shall be no le cribers who are not A SE H 12451 No restriction or prohibition on construe. lion. permtftno. or funding under sections 110(x112/11,, 173/11, 1761a1. 176(61. or 316 of the Clean Air Act shall be imposed or take effect dun's( the period poor to August 31. 1988. by reason of III the failure of any non• attainment arca to attain the national pri. mary ambient air quality standard under the Clean Air Act for photochemical oxi- dants (ozone/ or carbon monoxide for both, by December 31. 1987. (21 the failure of any Stale to adopt and submit to the Admfnis• rator of the Environmental Protection genes* an implementation plan that meets requirements of part D of title 1 of cel and ch tandards by December 31. 1887(3. the fail. re of any Slate or designated local govern meat to impiemen( the applicable fmplc• mentation plan. or (41 any combination of the foregoing. During such period and con - talent with the preceding sentence. the issu- nee of a permit (including required of/sets) ndcr section 173 of such Act for the con• (ruction or modification of a source fn a onattainmenl area Mall not be denied solely or isartiaily by reason of the reference ntained in section 171/1/ of such Act to the pplicable date established in section 72(a/ This subsection shall not apply to ny restriction or prohibition in effect ndcr sections 110/a/12/111, 173141, 1761a1. 76(b/. or 316 of such Acl prior to the enact- nt of this section. Prior to August 31. 88. the Administrator of the Environn,en- Proteclion Agency Mall evaluate air ality data and make determinations with re eluding to which areas throughout the tion have attained, or failed to attain, ther or both of the national primary ambi- t air quality standards referred to in sub - tion la/ and shall take appropriate steps designate those areas failing to attain Sher or both of such standards as nonal- inmenl areas within the ',waning of part of title 1 of the Clean Air Act. Notwithstanding any other provision of none of the funds made available by s or any other appropriations Act shall be affable to the Environmental Protection Ag prior to September 15, 1988. for the rposc of cancellation or suspension of any tfcide registration for failure of any nvt/acturer, formulator, registrant or user comply with PR Notices 87-4 and 87-5 re- in° to labeling of such substances. nor for purpose of enforcement actions against y user o/ any pesticide whose use is sub- nlially in conformance with label in- clions in existence as of August 1. 1987, Sed -to endangered species. as cited in PR ices 87-4 and 87-5, nor to propose or er any other revision in such labeling for reasons cited in PR Notices 87-4 and 87- t that the Agency may propose seri- where there is no disagreement between Agency and the state departments rele- t to implementation In that state. EXECUTIVE O177CE OF 171E PRESIDES? COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY For necessary expenses of the Council on Environmental Quality and the Office of Environmental Quality, in carrying out their functions under the National Environ- mental Policy Act of 1969, the Environmen- t! Quality Improvement Act of 1970, and Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977, includ- ing not to exceed 8500 for official reception and representation expenses, and hire of passenger motor vehicles, 8826,000. OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY . For necessary expenses of the Office of Sci- ence and Technology Policy. in carrying out the purposes of the National Science and nologv Policy, Organization. and Prior - For research and development actiritics. $186.350.000. to remain available until Sep. ,ember 30. 1989: Prorided, That not more than 52.000.000 of these funds Mall be avail- able for replacement of laboratory equip - meat. ABATEMENT, CONTROL, AND COMPLIANCE For abatement, control, and compliance activities, 8606,192.000, of which 840.000,000 Mali be available for the purposes of the As- bestos School Hazards Abatement Act o/ 1984. as amended. including not more than 815.000.000 to defray the costa of school as- bestos reinspection and management plans required by section 2 of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act of 1986 and not more ,hon 82.400,000 /or administrative ex- penses. with all of such funds to remain available until September 30, 1989: Prorid• ed. Thal school asbestos abatement loan and grant awards shall be made no tat March 1. 1988: Provided further, That none Litt of the funds appropriated under this head tel Mall be available to the National Oceanic to and Atmospheric Administration pursuant ing to section 118/h1(3/ of the Federal Water Em Pollution Control Act, as amended: Provided LEA further, That none of these funds may be ex- pended for purposes of Resource Conerva• Fo tion and Recovery Panels established under inp section 2003 of the Resource Conservation tiri and Recovery Act, as amended (42 U.S.0 Pert 69131. or for support to State. regional, local Act and interstate agencies in accordance with unt subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, ilia as amended. other than section 4008(c0(2) or is1 4009 (42 U.S.C. 6948. 69491: Provided fur- ther. That not more than 82.000,000 of these . F funds shall be availa . or re .la ,t meet ve than those adopted by the Envipre n- ronmeri- law Protection Agency in its Model Accredi- thi ion Plan /or Asbestos Abatement Train- av as required under the Asbestos Hazard A crpcncy Response Act of 1986." Pu KING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANX TRUST Pes FUND ma r necessary expenses to cavy out leak- to underground storage tank cleanup ac- Sal lies authorized by section 205 of the Su- tie ts and Reauthorization an of 1986und m8�400 000. to remain available ala it expended Provided. That no more stru n 84,800.000 shall be available for admin- rela retire expenses. Not CONSTRUCTION GRANTSthe Ord or necessary expenses to carry out title II laboratory equi. roes •e- ur q, That sec ion a B/ of "pseFederal Water Pollution con ACT�ts�a' -'mended by insertiriiraSa&la:MQn CO Bay, Cali/ornniia after "San Francisco Bay: Califoriiq , ,,,. .� � -avreo/NGS AND FACILITIES W the Federal Rater Pollution Control Act, si exeep as amended, other than sections 201(m)(1- mO7 31, 201/n/121, 206, 208. and 209, the $2.304.000.000. to remain available until ex- pended. van •/STRA771E PROVISIONS one of the funds in this Act Mall be fable for any indemnity payment under ion 15 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungi - and Rodenticide Act. 1 to exceed 825.000.000 in fees and rgcs is authorized to be assessed and col- d by the Administrator in fiscal year for services and activities carried out want to the statutes which are adminis- by the Environmental Protection th cy for deposit in a special fund in e Treasury which shall be available for ropriation. to remain available until ex - ed. to carry out the Agency'sactivities c programs for which the fees or charges ade. For construction. repair. improvement. ex- oral tension. alteration. and purchase of fixed sect equipment for facilities of or use by, the En• cidr. vironmental Protection Agency. $21500,000. No to remain available until expended: Prorid• chs ed. That the appropriating paragraph under leek this head in the Department of Housing and 1988 Urban Derelopment—Independent Agencies purs Appropriations Act. 1987, as made effective tcred by section 101/0 of Public Laws 99-500 and Awn 99-591. is amended by repealing the follow- U.S. ing: 92.000.000 Mall be for construction of app a laboratory addition at the Environmental pend Research Center at the University of in th N.•rada. Las Vegas. and arc m • Tech • n., P•' •..1 t (A11 PAt•. (tl..II tI 11• • ttw.r telt (Mt toot 0104 ulAa• 1.40V • 111 /tb hitt.. O. A..,. Nr .a Aa .•, A•.• I... t • • • t•I .t 1111 lot. M.c• 1.11• • ...•t .N' tt1At1. .. N• .... •. h1....1... W.,.• December 30, 1987 Con j rcoo tof the Unita gyms boost of 1tcprescntotiuts il)ashin ton, I) 205)5 Mr. Lee Thomas Administrator Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20640 Dear Mr. Thomas: II, (AMM11M MVlgl 09,11 ►.•41\ WA►Nty(.iptt 01 ,1111 bst.1R(t 091(1 NM. W1! 1 11M/1M1 •OW I1 •• 1.1.11 1.1 11' A•1,.111•. 11•11,..• 11111t1.•N• 717 •11. t••• I1 • 1....11• p.41141A V.•% • We were very pleased that as part of the so-called Continuing Resolution, ,Siagtaw o ax gAgz t. e .31st rsi.or, -z.Y:=A suari:es,14r th National Estuaries Program established un er Section 320 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. As Members of Congress, representing portions of the Santa Monica Bay community, we are very concerned about the decline of the Bay's natural resources. As its beaches are the most heavily used recreational beaches in the nation, and the nearby waters are prince fishing grounds, more must be done to clean-up and restore the Bay's ecosystem and insure its integrity. We are delighted that Congress has chosen to include Santa Monica Bay as a priority for the National Estuaries Program. The Program has already proven itself to be very successful and we are committed to making it work for Santa Monica Bay. We look forward to working with you and your staff to insure prompt and careful establishment of the management conference, and development of a comprehensive management plan which will expedite the protection and clean-up of Santa Monica Bay. Please let us know what we can do to be of assistance on this very significant matter. Sincerely, Mel Levine, M.C. C2AilP L„ n C. Dixon, M.C. •tom At'‘'`') 64;6"— Anthony C. Beilenson, M.C. !'*k THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE WITH RECYCLED FIBERS Mr. Lee Thomas December 30, 1987 page two . Henry A. Waxman, M.C. ' a4.„ Glenn M. Anderson, M.C. Esteban E. Torres, M.C. Edward R. Roybal&kAt ,. Howard L. Berman, M.C. C/i171 dI '4, Elton Gallegly, -Nal% S4/(01 Matthew G. Martinez, M.C. Mervyn M. Dymally, .C. .61j( f UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE \It/i National Dasank and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE • to 011KI 01 0L1ANCICNA1s4y Alit, MAPP41 !AY! IV kU(:VIIII IMAitri 7,04* AUG 5 1981 Ms. Betsy Ford Legislative Assistant 132 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515-0527 Dear Ms. Ford: This letter responds to your questions raised in our telephone conversation today. e'sectionia4p114) of the Clean Water Act ) meatlixyl as "...all_or Rprt prii4 meibt 450#43.2UPf Yatr-'7klana.MatiaRaa. opeii-tea and w ;,..,111D.,.Which,Ah ea wn _ A,, . . . ..o, fregrmk4tOK der;Y1244179264444,447411nR." measurable quantity of salt in their watt marineand estuarine scientists, usually than 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand). CWALde1nes Ord riiiiii1"-dr'ilYeam or REAliPm imeK1017-vith the Estuaries rs. "Measurable," among is defined as greater The CWA 0.st4lAtUg69,Xwegt.uaries is purposefully broadan, in facte-Veral of the coastal waii'lffddietsliffted-ithaei'the new CWA amendments are not "estuaries" in the strictest, scientific definition. I'm sure that Congress intended the definition to be inclusive of many coastal water bodies, not exclusive. tx,00,41though not identified in the CWA, $n Monica Bay„ a relatively small coastal embayment is similar tO2E14ffdie-Y3-6r-thi other embayments listed there. It is listed as one pfa4out 100 estuaries in the NationalEstuarine Inventory QEEI)..of Natlofial'Oceanic'and'AfM4pliefieldianieti-itah. liehave also includedilialrWITU7WheaTite—BrIUMportance as a nearshore -'habitaelBrIriiiirkegbaiCes of "tfirgrsreoaseorlirelnr, Ind-II/an-4 some estuarine species, and its relatively stressed state of environmental quality. If you have additional questions, let me know. Sincerely, 1504Skitiel Charles N. Ehler Director Enclosure April 20, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of April 26, 1988 AUTHORIZATION TO SEND LETTERS REGARDING AB 2958 AND SB 2177 CONSISTENT WITH THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES POSITIONS ON THESE BILLS Recommendation: That the City Council authorize the mayor to send letters regard- ing current state legislative bills: (1) in support of AB 2958 to increase city revenues from fines and forfeitures, and (2) in opposition to SB 2177 regarding more strenuous standards for Public Safety Officer discipline. Analysis: Mayor Simpson has requested the staff seek Council authorization to draft letters regarding these two legislative bills, which are summarized in the attached copy of the April 15, 1988 League of California Cities' bulletin excerpt. Our review of these bills indicate that the League's position is very consistent with the potential direct impact these bills would have on the City of Hermosa Beach. evin B. North raft City Manager KBN/ld 13b or s long -argued against "presumptive injuries" in workers' many iinstances retto it i ten to ar rement laws. umen ts A presumption makes the court b -relatedness jur . As a result, many workers are compensated for as to thejinjuries which hing to with employment. League indicated •.at it would be willing to work with the author on B 2092 to address three :'cerns: 1. The state -mandated cost i the bill. Currently, the state shares the cost for the cancer presumption firefighters on a 50-50 basis. 2. The application of the bill shou : be narrowed to exclude positions which fall under the peace officer de tion such as municipal court marshals, judicial district constables, dis 'ct attorney investigators, carcinogenic materials. and other peace officers who are not in dire danger of exposure to 3. Peace officers with a history of tobacco use or ab se should not be permitted to take advantage of the presumption in law. As you will remember, last year a measure was si ned b the Governor which established se the cancerhe Legis lure and firefighters on a permanent basis. The initial law extending this benefit firefighters had a January 1, 1988 sunset date. T presumption for try to push.its proposed amendments to the bill. he League will continue�o 10. OPPOSE Dismissal of Public Safet Officers: Standard of Proof. SB 2177 McCor uodale . Passed b Senate Committee. Judiciary SB 2177 was passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, April 12. The bill requires an employer, in dismissal Proceedings against thubli safety officer, to prove by clear and convincin evidence the actsr or omissions of the employee upon whicht e charge is based. This legislati establishes a significantly high threshold for proving that a dismissal ofoa public safety officer is warranted. a All public employees now have very clear and strict guidelines which followed in any disciplinary or dismissal must that,be peace officers are covered by the Peacep Officer Bill ofadd�Rights, tion o whic establishes an even more elaborate procedural hearing when taking action against a public safety officer. SB 2177r standard when a dismissal proceeding is initiated�da provides another, higher officer. This bill would make it extremely difficult to dismissanofficer who has violated relevant personnel procedures or committed a crime. facer In addition to opposition from the League and the County Suer Association of California, the American Civil Liberties Union o os bill. The ACLU argues that peace officers must be held to an extraordinary p visors pp standard of scrutiny because of the position of public trust whic es the The vote on the bill was as follows: Voting "Aye" were Keen Roberti, Torres, Watson, and Lockyer. Voting "No" wereh they hold. Richardson_-- - Absent or not voting was Doolittle. Marks,eDavis, and , Petris, Presley, 11 APRIL 15, 1988 11. SUPPORT Fines and Forfeitures. Limit on County Use of Unsu ervised Summar Probation to Divert Cit Revenue to t e County. AB 2958 (Ba er). Hearing: Assemb y Public Safety Committee, Monday, April 25. The League has sponsored AB 2958 to deal with serious disagreements that have arisen in recent years over the distribution of municipal court fines and forfeitures. The primary issue is whether fines imposed under orders of summary probation should be allocated under Penal Code Section 1463 or Section 1203.1. Penal Code Section 1463 provides that all fines and forfeitures collected upon convictions or forfeiture of bail in any municipal court shall be distributed on a monthly basis in accordance with the statutorily -prescribed percentages set forth in Section 1463. Penal Code Section 1203.1, however, provides that notwithstanding any other provision of the law, all fines collected by a probation officer as a condition of granting probation or as part of the terms of probation, shall be placed in the county general fund for the use of the county. Several counties have relied on Section 1203.1 as the justification for retaining all of the fine monies collected under orders of summary probation when the fines are paid in installments. Where true "formal" probation is involved, Penal Code Section 1203.1 applies. It has been the cities' position that Penal Code Section 1203.1 applies only to formal probation and not to summary probation. When Section 1203.1 was enacted in. 1939, there was no such thing as summary probation, so the Legislature could only have meant formal probation when it enacted Section 1203.1. AB 2958 amends Penal Code Section 1203.1 by limiting any county's retention of city fines and forfeitures to "fines collected by a county probation officer who is supervising that case pursuant to an order of any court . . ." AB 2958 is scheduled for hearing by the Assembly Public Safety Committee on Monday, April 25. Cities should write the members in support of AB 2958: Larry Stirling, Chair; Campbell, Friedman, Leslie, Margolin, Roos,. and Zeitner. (Referred to previously in Bulletin #6-1988.) 12. NFORMATION School Fees Conference Committee Resuming Activity. AB 112 (Campbell), SB 97 (Bergeson), AB 303 (Leonard), SB 20 (L. Greene). On April 19, the conference committee addressing needed modifications to the school fee law will resume its meetings. The committee will first schedule the topics it plans to discuss over the next several months. Interested parties will be submitting ftoposed changes. League staff will keep readers updated as changes occur. (Referred to previously in Bulletin #5-1988.) 13. Changed Status of Bills Previously Reported. (a) Professional Sports Facilities. Limitation`on the Ability of Cities and Other Local Agencies to Finance Construction. AB 3770 (Roos). Amended and A''roved b Assembl Governmental Or'anization Committee. 0..ose. AB 3770 has been amended to now apply only to the financing of professional sports facilities when the city does not hold title to the facility. AB 3770 12 APRIL 15, 1988 Honorable Mayor and April 19, 1988 Members of the City Council ACTIVITY REPORT DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY MARCH, 1988 Attached for your information are recap sheets of department ac- tivity for the month of March as well as the quarterly report of buildings completed and demolished during the 1st quarter of 1988. Overall permit activity remained steady during March as the department issued 80 permits of which 25 were building permits. Four permits were issued for single family dwellings, one permit was issued for a duplex, one permit was issued for a triplex and fifteen permits were issued for alteration or additions to exist- ing dwelling units. Two dwelling units were demolished resulting in a net increase of four dwelling units. Bui.lding.Department general fund revenue for 75% of the fiscal year is $254,797.06 or 76.5% of projected revenue for the fiscal year. The Business License division reports that 199 licenses were is- sued during March resulting in revenue of $23,173.51. Business license revenue to date is $335,519.15 or 67.1% of the projected revenue for the fiscal year. The department logged 22 new code enforcement complaints during March of which three were for suspected illegal dwelling units. The department closed four investigations during March and plans were submitted for a project to abate two additional illegal dwelling units. The department has 32 illegal dwelling unit cases under investigation. Noted: 'Kevin Northcraft City Manager Res ecttffull Submit ed, e,Tim_ William Grove Director, Bldg. & Safety CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED Month of MARCH, 1988 TYPE OF STRUCTURE DWELLING UNITS PERMITS PROVIDED VALUATION 1. Single Dwellings 4 4 $497,616 2. Duplex Dwellings 1 2 257,000 3. Triplex Dwellings 1 3 349,000 4. Four Units 5. Five Units or More 6. Commercial Buildings 7. Industrial Buildings 8. Publicly Owned Buildings 9. Garages - Residential 10. Accessory Buildings 11. Fences and Walls 1 700 12. Swimming Pools 13. Alterations, additions or repairs to dwellings 15 126,000 14. Alterations, addit ons or repairs to Commercial Bldgs. 2 11,500 15. Alterations, additions or repairs to indus. bldgs. 16. Alterations, additions or repairs to publicly owned bldgs. 17. Alterations, additions, repairs to garages or accessory bldgs. 18. Signs 19. Dwelling units moved 20. Dwelling units demolis ed 1 (duplex) 21. All other permits not listed TOTAL PERMITS 25 TOTAL VALUATION OF ALL PERMITS: 1,241,916 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS PERMITTED : 6 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS DEMOLISHED: NET CHANGE: + NET DWELLING UNIT CHANGE FY 87/88 +27 CUMULATIVE DWELLING UNIT TOTAL: 10,01 (INCLUDES PERMITS ISSUED) CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REVENUE REPORT Month Ending MARCH, 1988 NUMBER OF PERMITS Building 23 Plumbing 35 Electric 27 Plan Check 6 Sewer Use 2 Res. Bldg.Reports 28 Comm. Inspections 17 Parks & Recreation 0 In lieu Park & Rec. 2 Board of Appeals 0 Sign Review 1 LAST MONTH THIS MONTH 25 31 24 16 3 60 26 2 3 2 1 THIS YEAR DATE 242 242 195 102 39 281 195 5 24 8 21 TO THIS MONTH LAST YEAR 29 31 35 -12 5 39 17 0 0 3 LAST YEAR TO DATE 302 310 286 127 115 305 107 83 19 18 TOTALS 143 193 1,354 171 1,672 FEES Building** Plumbing Electric Plan Check Sewer Use Res. Bldg. Reports Comm. Inspections Parks & Recreation In lieu Park & Rec Board of Appeals Sign Review 6,263.11 2,438.00 4,618.00 3,704.00 1,586.00 1,040.00 425.00 0 .19,602.00 0 25.00 13,210.58 3,056.00 2,396.00 12,599.00 2,209.03 2,400.00 650.00 10,500.00 16,335.00 150.00 25.00 107,219.78 22,631.50 29,648.00 78,227.76 18,833.22 11,070.00 4,875.00 31,500.00 159,083.00 600.00 525.00 7,929.37 3,199.00 5,428.00 10,121.95 475.00 1,560.00 425.00 0 0 75.00 183,283.99 37,113.00 42,057.00 122,983.60 22,570.40 12,180.00 2,700.00 149,500.00 1,425.00 450.00 TOTAL 39,701.11 63,530.61 464,213.26 29,223.32 574,262.99 VALUATIONS 460,700 1,241,916 10,029,916 545,900 17,459,318 **Includes State Seismic Fee $87.84 QUARTERLY REPORT FOR HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA BUILDINGS COMPLETED AND BUILDINGS DEMOLISHED JANUARY 1, 1988 THRU MARCH 31, 1988 ADDRESS NO. OF UNITS 625 7th Street (A&B) 625 7th Street (C&D) 943 15th Place 434 28th Street 438 28th Street 41 19th Street 565 24th Place 1056 7th Street 1237 1st Street 2006 Hillcrest 2000 Hillcrest 358 28th Street 2318 Manhattan Avenue 438-440 30th Street 933 6th Street 1029 Loma Drive 1031 Loma Drive 708-712 8th Street DEMOLISHED: ADDRESS 2526 Hermosa Avenue 546 llth Street 3520 Strand, 3518 Strand, 116 Neptune 1558-1558 1/2 Bonnie Brae 2 (Condos.) 2 (Condos.) 1 (S.F.R.) 1 (S.F.R.) 1 (S.F.R.) 2 (Duplex) 1 (S.F.R.) 1 (S.F.R.) 1 (S.F.R.) 1 (S.F.R.) 1 (S.F.R.) 1 (Apt.) 1 (S.F.R.) 2 (Duplex) 3 (Apts.) 1 (Condo) 1 (Condo) 2 (Duplex) NO. OF UNITS 2 (Duplex) 1 (SFR) 3 (Apts.) 2 (Duplex) DATE COMPLETED 1/6/88 1/6/88 1/12/88 1/14/88 1/14/88 1/14/88 1/21/88 1/26/88 1/27/88 2/4/88 2/16/88 2/22/88 2/29/88 3/7/88 3/7/88 3/21/88 3/21/88 3/30/88 DATE COMPLETED 2/9/88 2/22/88 2/22/88 3/88/88 BUSINESS LICENSE REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH 1988 TO: Wm. Grove, Building & Safety Director FROM: Mary Fehskens, Administrative Aide DATE: April 4, 1988 NEW BUSINESS LICENSES ISSUED: Out of City Licenses Issued: Home Occupation Licenses Issued: New Business' Opened: New Owners of Existing Business': TOTAL NUMBER OF NEW LICENSES ISSUED BUSINESS LICENSE RENEWALS MAILED: 142 DELINQUENT NOTICES MAILED: 171 NEW & RENEWAL LICENSES ISSUED: 199 REPORTS SOLD: 1 BUSINESS LICENSE REVENUE: $ 23,173.51 BUSINESS LICENSE REVENUE YEAR-TO-DATE: $335,519.15 41 15 20 5 81 HERMOSA BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 323 PIER AVENUE/P.O. BOX 404 HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 (213) 376-0951 April 11, 1988 Mayor Etta Simpson and Council City Hall/Civic Center Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mayor Simpson and Council Members: The 22nd Bi -Annual Fiesta de las Artes is being planned for May 28, 29 & 30 1988 and September 3, 4 & 5, 1988. The City has traditionally provided space and revised traffic patterns as requested by the Chamber of Commerce, to accomodate artists, craftspeople and visitors to the show. Again, this year, we plan to "T" the show, which will entail closing Pier Ave. from the Strand to Manhattan Ave. and Hermosa Ave. from 10th Street to 14th Street. City support would be: 1. Closure of the above mentioned streets to thru traffic from 6:00 am to 8:00 pm on the three days of the show. 2. Approval for participation by local merchants in sidewalk sales on the show dates. 3. Assistance from Public Works in hanging the signs and banners. 4. The Chamber of Commerce will hire a commercial clean-up company and supervise street clean-up. As was done in previous shows, this company will clean the streets on Saturday, Sunday, Monday and Tuesday mornings. The Chamber of Commerce will supply the City of Hermosa Beach with a one million dollar liability rider. We will cooperate fully with merchants in the affected area to keep as many streets as possible open to provide access to parking lots and businesses. 1 - rMP ih The Chamber, along with the City, is proud to present this event twice a year. Nothing we do brings more positive attention to our beautiful city than the production of these two Fiestas. We attract over 100,000 people to our city over the holiday weekends and generate over $500,000.00 in sales during the same period. We thank the City and the Council for their continued support. Since -1 William C. Fowler Exec. V.P. CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: 1) To approve closure of Pier Avenue from the Strand to Manhattan Avenue and Hermosa Avenue from 10th Street to 14th Street; 2) approve participation by local merchants in sidewalk sales on the show dates; 3) to approve assistance of Public Works in hanging the signs and banners; 4) require the Chamber to hire a commercial clean-up company and supervise street clean-up; and 5) require appropriate insurance. 1