HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/22/88"When you stop and think about it, common sense is
really special --not common." -Bob Pearcy
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, March 22, 1988 - Council Chambers, City Hall
Closed Session - 6:30 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.
FLAG CEREMONY BY CAMP FIRE GIRLS TROOP "HAPPY BIRDS"
ROLL CALL:
PROCLAMATIONS: Camp Fire Birthday Week, March 13 - 20, 1988
74044‘,4e440044 National Library Week,
April 17 23 9 : 8
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
requested to submit those comments to the City Manager.
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 special meeting of
the City Council held on March 7, 1988.
1
(f)
(g)
(7 )
(k)
(1)
Recommendation to approve minutes of regular meeting of
the City Council held on March 8, 1988.
Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants
Nos. through inclusive.
Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future P
Agenda Items.
Recommendation to receive and file the Monthly Financial
Reports for February, 1988.
1) Expenditure Report
2) Revenue Report
3) Treasurer's Report
Claims for Damages - Recommendation to deny claims and
refer to City's Claims Administrator.
1) John Dwayne Rickett, 3624 E. Pacific Coast Hwy,
Long Beach, 90804, filed March 14, 1988.
2) David K. Kaplan, 412 Hermosa Ave., #6, Hermosa
Beach, filed March 16, 1988.
Recommendation to receive and file report on California
Municipal Treasurer's Association Educational Workshop.
Memorandum from City Treasurer Gary L. Brutsch dated
March 14, 1988.
Recommendation to receive and file two month evaluation
of alternative hours of operation for City Hall opera-
tions. Memorandum from Pe son Director ,-;-ert Black-
wood dated March 15, 1988/—�ce
etriodity
Recommendation to authorize Mayor to sign amendment to
revise the termination clause in the JTPA operational
agreement with the City of Redondo Beach. Memorandum
from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dated March 16
1988.
Recommendation to approve revised agreement with the
firm of Liebert, Cassidy & Frierson to conduct training
and consultation services and authorize City Manager to
sign. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Black-
wood dated
Recommendation to extend for 30 days the temporary ap-
pointment of Acting Police Records Administrator. Memo-
randum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated March
16, 1988.
To approve staff and Community Resources Advisory Com-
mission recommendations in name of new park located at c -
Hollowell and Prospect Avenues the "Prospect Heights
Friendship Park". Memorandum from Community Resources
Director Alana M-str'-n dated March 14, 1.988.
004
(n)
c14())
Recommendation to authorize solicitation of bids for ,
electrical improvements at City Hall (CIP 86-602), and
issue addenda as necessary. Memorandum from Public
Works Director Anthony Antich dated March 14, 1988.
Recommendation to amend the lease agreement between the
City of Hermosa Beach and Hope Chapel to have the lease
commence March 1st. Memorandum from Community Resources
Director Alana Mastrian dated March 10, 1988.
Recommendation to approve revised budget for Special �,�p�,2r
Municipal Election June 7, 1988 and authorize $5200 to JQQ
be transferred from Prospective Expenditures into City
Clerk Election Account. Memorandum from City Clerk f R ��
Kathleen Midstokke da -• arc 15 988. � i,
OOP . d
re.`
Recommendation to receive a d file reporto`
grading and ,��''
on
r C-/
drainage for Tentative Tract #30986 located at 20th and t, czt'
Power Streets. Memorandum from Public Works Director filf'
Anthony Antich dated March 14, 1988. -401te / 1/
p
)7'
praisal update. Memorandum from Assis aft City Manager
Recommendation to receive and file Biltmore Site ap-
Alana Mastrian d t--, - c. , •8=,' if �
ii
/. /
/
Approval of authorization to ti ze se es of Art
Mazirow to represent City in Railway right-of-way dis-
cussions. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. North -
craft dated March 17, 1988.
Recommendation td receive and file the Child Abuse
Monthly Report. Memorandum from Community Resources
Director Alana Mastrian dated March 15, 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.
**************************************************************
2. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
(a) 1 ORDINANCE NO. 88-920 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING
/ ,, ORDINANCE IN REGARD TO THE DEFINITION, LOCATION AND COM-
PUTATION OF OPEN SPACE AND ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARA-
TION. For waiver of further reading and adoption.
ORDINANCE NO. 88-921 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A TEXT
AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING PENALTIES FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT VIOLATIONS. For waiver of further reading and
adoption.
iptk
(b)
(b)
(c)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 2-2.16, ADDRESS-
ING THE COUNCIL. For waiver of full reading and intro-
duction. Memorandum from City Clerk Kathleen Midstokke
dated March 15, 1988.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE
DISCUSSION.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. /tt
Letter from John and Jan McHugh, 718 - 1st Place, Hermo-'
sa Beach, dated March 14, 1988 re. interest in purchas-
ing city -owned property at 745 1st S . d 704 1
w:/may
Recommended Action:•efer to City anage for1response )1r
to cores'ondent-.
Bru e an• vancy DeMille, 1242 - 9th Street
Hermosa Beach, dated March 9, 1988 re. merger of lot.
Recommended Action: Refer to Planning Department for
response to correspondents.
Letter from William K. and Helen L. Peters, 1160 Seventh
Street, Hermosa Beach, dated February 29, 1988 re.
reconsideration of merger of lots, with attached memo-
randum from Pljanning Department d t rch 15, 19
8.
1"'m N+�
ec • r�1,� ended Action: efer o ann ng Depart - f
response to correspondents.
r - ani HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8 • (CS- rdea" ' 7f- g1�
.00 P.M. /�,p
— p f
f APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION NOT TO MERGE !� '
LOTS AT 1220 - 7TH STREET, 1152 - 7TH STREET, AND 1154 -�
TH STREET. Memorandum from Plann ng Director Mic e
Atleepted March 151988. �/APPEAL OF I9 NTAL OF A VA C ' TO ENCROAC N "• T 17'
PARKING SETBACK AT 905 - 15TH PLACE. Memorandum from
Planning DirectorMMic ael Schubach dated March 14, 1988
Jla/ moi, RECOMMENDATION ON HAZARDOUS/WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE.
�i Memorandum from Building andSafetr rector William
P.-- Grove dated Mar h 1988
Cs—d - - . "se �-a
8.RECO'I D"'I•N TO- CCEPT 1986-87 FINANCIAL STATEMENT AND
AUDITOR'S REPORT AND STAFF RESPONSES TO MANAGEMENT LET-
TER RECOMMENDATIONS Memorandum from Finance Administra-J Gbfor Viki Co$elad dated ¢arch 16, 1988.f�^''"'C5--1)
7
MUNICIPAL MATTERS
/4-7" .A*11(1k1Ple(y 11144-"Ztid
A_r944T,
NEW CITY HA L OPERATING HOUR
EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 30, 1987:
MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY
OPEN
7:00 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M.
12:00 NOON TO 1:00 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.
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 maximuiu costs are borne by
visitor/users; led by. a City Council which accepts a stewardship
role for community resources and displays a willingness to
explore innovative alternatives, and moves toward public policy
leadership in attitudes of full ethical awareness. This Council
is dedicated to learning from the past, and preparing Hermosa
Beach for tomorrow's challenges today.
Adopted by City Council on October 23, 1986
NOTE: There is no smoking allowed in the Council Chambers
THE HERMOSA BEACH FORM OF GOVERNMENT
Hermosa Beach bias 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 tbere is no legal
requirement to conduct an advertised Public Hearing.
Ordinances
An ordinance is a law that regulates government revenues and/or public conduct. All
ordinances require two "readings". The first reading introduces the ordinance into
the records. At least one week later Council may adopt, reject or hold over the
ordinance to a subsequent meeting. Regular ordinances take effect 30 days after the
second reading. Emergency ordinances are governed by different provisions and waive
the time requirements.
Written Communications
The public, members of advisory boards/commissions or organizations may formally
communicate to or make a request of Council by letter; said letters should be filed
with the City Clerk by the Wednesday preceeding the Regular City Council meeting.
Miscellaneous Items and'Reports - City Manager _
The City Manager coordinates departmental reports and brings items to the attention
of, or for action by the City Council.
Verbal reports may be given by the City Manager regarding items not on the agenda,
usually having arisen since the agenda was prepared on the preceding Wednesday.
Miscellaneous Items and Reports - City Council
Members of the City Council may place items on the agenda for consideration by the
full Council.
Other Matters - City Council -
These are matters that come to the attention of a Council member after publication
of the Agenda.
Oral Communications from the Public - Matters of an Urgency Nature
Citizens wishing to address the City Council on an urgency matter not elsewhere con-
sidered on the agenda may do so at this time.
Parking Authority
The Parking Authority is a financially separate entity, but is operated as an inte-
gral part of the City government.
Vehicle Parking District No. 1
The City Council also serves as the Vehicle Parking District Commission. It's pur-
pose is to oversee the operation of certain downtown -parking, lots end otherwise pro-
mote public parking in the central business district.
March 15, 1988
City Council Meeting
March 22, 1988
Mayor and Members
of the City Council
ORDINANCE NO. 88-921 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A TEXT AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING PENALTIES FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT VIOLATIONS.
Submitted for waiver of further reading and adoption is Ordinance
No. 88-921 relating to the above subject.
At the regular meeting of March 8, 1988, this ordinance was
introduced by the following vote:
AYES: Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Williams
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mayor Simpson
ABSTAIN: None
'&V4C)*.eie-Z;3r1Z
Kathleen Midstokke, City Clerk
Concur:
I B. NORTHCFT, 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. 88-921
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A
TEXT ADMENDMENT ESTABLISHING PENALTIES FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
VIOLATIONS.
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public bearing on March 8,
1988 to receive oral and written testimony on this matter and
made the following Findings:
A. The City Council desires to create a means of enforcing the
City's Conditional Use Permits;
B. Tbis resolution will aid enforcement efforts to assure
compliance with City regulations;
C. In order to protect the health, safety and welfare related to
odors, noise and aesthetics, the Planning Commission deems
this Resolution necessary;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does
hereby ordain the following:
Section 1. Amend Article 20 Penalty as follows:
1. Change the numbering of Section 2000 to 20-1.
2. Change tbe numbering of Section 2001 to 20-2.
3. Add the following new sections:
Section 20-3. Violation of Conditions of
Conditional Use Permits
No person shall violate any condition of a
Conditional Use Permit. Any person violating any
of tbe said conditions shall be guilty of an
infraction.
Section 20-4. Penalties; Declaration
(1) Each violation is punishable as follows:
a. A fine of fifty dollars ($50.00) for the
first violation;
b. A fine of one hundred dollars ($100.00) for
a second violation of the same condition
within one year;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
c. A fine of one hundred fifty dollars
($150.00) for a third violation of tbe same
condition within one year; and
d. A fine of three hundred dollars ($300.00)
for each additional violation of the same
condition within one year.
(2) Each person guilty of an infraction shall be
guilty of a separate offense for each and
everyday during any portion of which any
violation is committed, continued or permitted
by such person and shall be punishable
accordingly.
Section 20-5. Arrest - Notice to Appear
If any person is arrested for the violation and
such person is not immediately taken before a
magistrate, as is more fully set forth in tbe Penal
Code of tbe State of California, tbe arresting
officer shall prepare, in duplicate, a written
notice to appear in court, containing the name and
address of such person, tbe offense charged, and
the time and place where such person shall appear
in court.
Section 20-6. Appearance - Time Limitation
The time specified in the notice to appear shall be
not less than 11 days after such arrest.
Section 20-7. Appearance - Place
The place specified in the notice to appear shall
be either:
(1) Before a judge of a justice court or a
municipal court judge within tbe county who bas
jurisdiction of tbe offense and who is nearest
and most accessible with reference to the place
where the arrest is made; or
(2) Upon the demand of the person arrested, before
a judge of the municipal court of tbe Los
Angeles judicial district, or before a judge of
a justice court or a municipal court in the
judicial district in which the offense is
alleged to have been committed; or
(3) Before an officer authorized to receive a
deposit of bail.
Section 20-8. Appearance - Promise
The officer shall deliver one copy of the notice to
appear to the arrested person, and the arrested
person, in order to secure a release, must give his
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
written promise to appear in court by signing the
duplicate notice, which shall be retained by the
officer. Thereupon, the arresting officer shall
forthwith release the person arrested from custody.
Section 20-9. Notice - Filing - Bail Depositing
The officer shall, as soon as practicable, file a
duplicate notice with the magistrate specified in
such notice. The defendant may, prior to the date
upon which he promised to appear in court, may
deposit with the magistrate the amount of ball.
Thereafter, at the time when the case is called for
arraignment before the magistrate, if the defendant
does not appear either in person or by counsel, the
magistrate may declare the bail forfeited and may
at his discretion order that no further proceeding
shall be had in this case. Upon the making of sucb
order that no further proceedings be had, all sums
deposited as bail shall forthwith be paid into the
treasury of the county for distribution in the
manner provided by law.
Section 20-10. Appearance
A warrant shall not issue on such charge for the
arrest of a person who, pursuant to the provisions
of this article, has given such written promise to
appear in court unless and until be bas violated
such promise or bas failed to deposit bail, to
appear for arraignment, trial or judgement, or to
comply with the terms and provisions of tbe
judgement as required by law.
Section 20-11. Warrant - Issuance
When a person signs a written promise to appear at
the time and place specified in the written promise
to appear and has not posted ball as provided in
Section .20-9 the magistrate shall issue and have
delivered for execution a warrant for bis arrest
within twenty days after his failure to appear as
promised. If a person promises to appear before an
officer authorized to accept bail other than a
magistrate and fails to do so on or before tbe date
which be promised to appear, then within twenty
days after the delivery of such written promise to
appear by the officer to a magistrate having
jurisdiction over tbe offense, such magistrate
shall issue and have delivered for execution a
warrant for his arrest. When such person violates
his promise to appear before an officer authorized
to receive bail other than a magistrate, the
officer shall immediately deliver to the magistrate
having jurisdiction over the offense charged the
written promise to appear and the complaint, if
any, filed by the arresting officer.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Section 20-12. Authority of Authorized City
Employees to Arrest Without Warrant
City officers or employees, when designated may
arrest persons without a warrant whenever they have
reasonable cause to believe that an infraction has
been committed by such persons.
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full
force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of
its final passage and adoption.
Section 3. The City Council shall designate the City Attorney to
prepare a summary of this ordinance to be published
pursuant to Government Code Section 36933(c) (1) in
lieu of the full text of said ordinance. Prior to the
expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its
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, 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 March, 1988.
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of
Hermosa Beach, California.
ATTEST:
PROVED
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ITY CLERK
CITY ATTORNEY
MUT
INES_OF THE REGULAR MEETING,Q__C
ETHEIT_
YCQVNCIL of the City of
Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, March 8, 1988 at the
hour of 7:30 P.M.
CLQQSQ„ESSION - 6:30 p.m. pursuant to Government Code Section
54856.9(a) for the purpose of discussing potential litigation
(Hermosa Beach vs. Kruger) and give instructions to negotiators
re potential purchase of the A.T.&S.F. Railroad right-of-way.
ROLL CALL
Present: Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Williams
Absent: Mayor Simpson (excused absence)
eLEQC�E_OF�ALLEGIANCE - Councilmember Roger Creighton
SOLL CALL
Present: Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon,'Williams
Absent: Mayor Simpson (excused absence)
CRQCLAMATIONS: Week of the Young Child, April 10 - 16, 1988
Drug & Alcohol Abuse Awareness Month, March, 1988
ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM,CLO$ED,SESSION:
City Attorney Lough announced that the Council had discussed the
potential purchase of the A.T.&S.F. Railroad right-of-way.
CITIEEN COMMENTS
George Schmeltzer, 515 - 24th Place - asked to have Consent Cal-
endar item (o) pulled for discussion.
Jerry Compton, 832 - 7th Street - thanked the Council for chang-
ing the meeting format to allow citizens to speak at this time.
1. CONSENT.CALENDAR •
¢c iornt To approve Consent Calendar items (a) through
(p) with the exception of the following items which were
pulled for further discussion but are listed in order
for clarity: (g) Sheldon, (1) Sheldon, (m) Sheldon, (0)
Sheldon and (p) City Manager Northcraft.
Motion Creighton, second Williams. So ordered noting
the absence of Mayor Simpson
(a) jecpmmendatiotl.tO..AppsoY�_MQ2a
is of regular meeting of
the City Council held on February 23, 1988.
Action: To approve minutes.
1 - Minutes 3-8-88
1b
(b) Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants
Action: To approve Demands and Warrants Nos. 25702
through 25706 and 25708 through 25821 inclusive noting
voided Warrants Nos. 25705, 25708 through 25715 inclu-
sive and 25764.
(c)
(d)
(e)
Reommendation to receive and file Tentative Future
Agenda. Items.
Action! To receive and file.
Recommendation to receive and, file Monthly Investment
Report: February, 1988.
Action1 To receive and file.
Recommendation_to receive.. and file Status report re.
Conditional Use Permit enforcement, program. Memorandum
from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated February
29, 1988.
Action: To receive and file.
(f) Recommendation to receive and.file,Child Abuse Monthly
Report. Memorandum from Community Resources Director
Alana Mastrian dated March 1, 1988.
(g)
(h)
Action; To receive and file.
Recommendation.to,approvelease agreement between the
City of Hermosa Beach and the SouthBay_Free Clinic.
Memorandum from Community Resources Director Alana
Mastrian dated March 1, 1988.
Action: To approve the lease agreement between the City
of Hermosa Beach and the South Bay Free Clinic for Room
9 at the Community Center from March 1, 1988 through
March 31, 1989.
Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered noting the
absence of Mayor Simpson
Recommendation to approve lease_ agreement between the
City ofvHermosa Beach and the Salvation Army. Memoran-
dum from Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian
dated March 1, 1988.
Action: To approve the lease agreement between the City
of Hermosa Beach and the Salvation Army for Room 3 at
the Community Center from March 1, 1988 through March
31, 1989.
- 2 - Minutes 3-8-88
(i) Claim for,Damage.j Recommendation to authorize Self In-
surers Services to pay_David_Bell,_6032,_California
Avenue, Long,Beach an additional loss claim in the
amount ,Qf„$97g.20,.to close•this_claim. Memorandum from
City Clerk Kathleen Midstokke dated March 1, 1988.
Action: To authorize Self Insurers Services to pay
David Bell, 6032 California Avenue, Long Beach an addi-
tional loss claim in the amount of $976.20 to close this
claim.
(j) Assignment of, agreement to proeess.out-of,state,parking
citations from Vertical Management to Computil. Memo-
randum from General Services Director Joan Noon dated
February 25, 1988.
Action: To 1) approve agreement assigning the contract
with Vertical Management to process our out-of-state
parking citations for 32% of the collections to Compu-
til, 2) approve Consent to Release, and 3) authorize
City Manager to sign said documents.
(k)
(1)
Acceptance of work as complete -Underground Storage
Tank closure at Police Station, City Yard (CIP 86-601).
Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich
dated February 24, 1988.
Action: To 1) accept as complete work completed by
Diamond Pacific for underground storage tank closure
(CIP 86-601; 2) authorize staff to release 10% retention
payment pending written approval of L.A. County; and 3)
authorize staff to release the Labor and Materials Bond
and Faithful Performance Bond from Diamond Pacific.
Recommendation to authorize the Fire Department to
solicit proposals for purchase,of four inch fire,hose
and fittings. Memorandum from Public Safety Director
Steve Wisniewski dated February 29, 1988.
Action; To authorize the Fire Department to solicit
proposals for the purchase of four inch fire hose and
fittings.
Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered noting the
absence of Mayor Simpson.
(m) Recommendation_that the Council approve the ballot lan-
guage for the especial tax on utilities forthe pur-
chase of the railroad right-of-way. Memorandum from
City Attorney James P. Lough dated March 2, 1988. Sup-
plemental information - memorandum from City Clerk Kath-
leen Midstokke dated March 7, 1988.
Action: To ratify the•ballot language submitted to the
County of Los Angeles Election Department for the 4%
Special Tax on Utilities for Purchase of Railroad Right -
of -Way.
3
Minutes 3-8-88
Motion Creighton, second Williams. So ordered noting
the absence of Mayor Simpson.
(n) Authorization to solicit bids for Asphalt_StreetRepairs
CI•i. 7-i71. Memorandum from Public Works Director
Anthony Antich dated February 16, 1988.
Action: To 1) approve plans and specifications for City-
wide asphalt street repairs; 2) authorize call for bids;
and 3) authorize staff to issue addenda as necessary.
Motion Sheldon, second Rosenberger. So ordered noting
the absence of Mayor Simpson.
(o) Authorization,to
im•rovements,for
CIPS,_:_. -•02 and
Director Anthony
solicit bids for electrical/mechanical
Council Chambers and Communit Center
0_. Memorandum from Public Works
Antich dated February 11, 1988.
Speaking to this item was George Schmeltzer, 515 - 24th
Place regarding the necessity of air conditioning the
Community Center theater.
Action: To drop the matter of air conditioning the
Council Chamber, the air conditioning of the Community
Center to be returned to Council for the 1988-1989 bud-
get session, and staff to bring back CIP 86-602 (elec-
trical upgrade at City Hall) at the next meeting (March
22, 1988).
Motion Sheldon, second Williams. So ordered noting the
absence of Mayor Simpson.
(p) Recommendation to authorize request for. proposals for
construction of an 6'x.8' buildin: to house radio
transmitters. Memorandum from Public Safety Director
Steve Wisniewski dated February 29, 1988.
Action: To authorize the Police Department to solicit
proposals for the construction of an 6x8 building and
antenna foundation at the remote transmitter site, and
authorize staff to issue addenda as necessary.
Motion Creighton, second Sheldon. So ordered noting the
absence of Mayor Simpson.
MOTION TO WAIVE FURTHER READING
Action: To waive full reading of any ordinance or resolution on
this evening's agenda.
Motion Creighton, second Sheldon
4
Minutes 3-8-88
AYES - Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Williams
NOES - None
ABSENT - Mayor Simpson
2. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
(a) ORDINANCE NO. ,88-915,7 AN.ORDINANCE APPROVING. A ZONE
CHANGE , FROM_ R-2 C -POTENTIAL TO. C-3 AND NEGATIVE DECLA-
RATION FOR, PROPERTY, LOCATED AT 720. EIGHTH STREET,.. LEGAL-
LY DESCRIBED AS,LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK A,,._REDONDO,HERMOSA
TRACT. For adoption. tContinued from January 26 and
February 23, 1988 meetings.) Memorandum from Planning
Director Michael Schubach dated March 1, 1988 requesting
continuation of this matter to May 24, 1988. Supplemen-
tal information - memorandum from Associate Planner An-
drew Perea dated March 7, 1988.
Speaking to Council was Jerry Cohen, 1429 - 4th Street,
Santa Monica, requesting continuance to allow the owner
to get the Conditional Use Permit in place.
Action;_ To continue this item to May 24, 1988.
Motion Williams, second Creighton. So ordered noting
the absence of Mayor Simpson.
(b) RESOLUTION 83-5099 - A, RESOLUTIONAPPROVING.A PRECISE
PLAN FOR.720,EIGHTH_STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS,LOTS.5
AND 4, BLOCK A,.REDONDO,UERMOSA TRACT. For adoption.
(Continued from January 26 and February 23, 1988 meet-
ings.) Memorandum from Planning Director Michael
Schubach dated March 1, 1988 requesting continuation of
this matter to May 24, 1988. Supplemental information -
memorandum from Associate Planner Andrew Perea dated
March 7, 1988.
Action; To continue this item to May 24, 1988.
Motion Williams, second Creighton. So ordered noting
the absence of Mayor Simpson.
(0) ORDINANCE NO..88-917 - AN_.ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING
AP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR AREAS ASE$CRI:ED BELOW
AND SHOWN ON.THE AT ACHED MAPS NDADOPTING AN ENVIRON-
MENTA .NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
Areas 1, 1A and 1B .
For adoption.
Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 88-917 entitled "AN OR-
DINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR
AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAPS
AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
(Areas 1, 1A and 1B).
Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered noting the
absence of Mayor Simpson.
5 Minutes 3-8-88
(d) ORDINANCE NO, 88-918-,AN.ORDINANCE ADOPTINGAA.TEXT
AMENDMENT TO.THE DEFINITION OF "RESTAURANT" AND."SNACK
BAR AND/OR.SNACK.SHOP" AND APPROVAL,OFAN ENVIRONMEN AL
NEGATIVE..QECLARATION. For adoption.
Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 88-918 entitled "AN OR-
DINANCE ADOPTING A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE DEFINITION OF
"RESTAURANT" AND "SNACK BAR AND/OR SNACK SHOP" AND AP-
PROVAL OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION."
Motion Williams, second Creighton. So ordered noting
the absence of Mayor Simpson.
(e) A RESOLUTION OF,INTENT,TO DIRECT THE,PLANNING COMMISSION
AND STAFF_.TO.STUDY.AMENDING,THE ZONING. CODE TO CREATE.AN
AMORTIZATION. PERIOD FOR. BUSINESSES. THAT. REQUIRE A CONDI-
TIONAL USE. PERMIT WHICH HOWEVER WERE IN OPERATION
PRIOR,TO_SUCH REQUIREMENT. For adoption. Memorandum
from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated February
23, 1988.
Action: To adopt Resolution No. 88-5116 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO DIRECT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AND STAFF TO STUDY AMENDING THE ZONING CODE TO CREATE AN
AMORTIZATION PERIOD FOR BUSINESSES THAT REQUIRE A CONDI-
TIONAL USE PERMIT WHICH, HOWEVER, WERE IN OPERATION
,PRIOR TO SUCH REQUIREMENT."
Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered noting the
absence of Mayor Simpson.
(f) A RESOLUTION GRANTING.APPROVAL.OF FINAL PARCEL MAP
17678 FOR ATWO-UNIT. CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 429
BAYVIEW DRIVE,,HERMOSA_BEACH, CALIFORNIA. For adoption.
Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated
February 29, 1988.
Action: To adopt Resolution No. 88-5117 entitled "A
RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #17678
FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1429 BAY-
VIEW DRIVE, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA."
Motion Creighton, second Sheldon. So ordered noting the
absence of Mayor Simpson.
(g) A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF A 'EPORT.FOR
THE FORMATION,_OF A CROSSING GUARD MAINTENANCE,.DISTRICT
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING. JULY.1 1'68 AND ENDING
,JUNE.30, 19:9. For adoption. Annual renewal . Memo-
randum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated
February 23, 1988.
Action: To adopt Resolution No. 88-5118 entitled "A
RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF A REPORT FOR THE
FORMATION OF A CROSSING GUARD MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FOR
THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JULY 1, 1988 AND ENDING JUNE
30, 1989."
Motion Williams, second Creighton. So ordered noting
the absence of Mayor Simpson.
6 • Minutes 3-8-88
(h) A RESOLUTION,QRDERING THE PREPARATION OF,A REPORT..FOR
THE FORMATION OF THE HERMOSA BEACH :.STREET LIGHTING DIS-
TRICT NO.. 1988-19.9. For adoption. (Annual renewal).
Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich
dated February 23, 1988.
Action: To adopt Resolution No. 88-5119 entitled "A
RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF A REPORT FOR THE
FORMATION OF THE HERMOSA BEACH STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT
NO. 1988-1989."
Motion Creighton, second Rosenberger. So ordered noting
the absence of Mayor SimpsOm.
(i) A RESOLUTION, RELATING, TO LEASE WITH THE. OPTION TO_PUR-
CHASE AGREEMENT_ AND,,DESIGNATION AS A_QUALIFIED TAX-
EXEMPT,OBLIGATION. For adoption. Memorandum from
Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated February
29, 1988.
Action; To adopt Resolution No. 88-5120 entitled "A
RESOLUTION RELATING TO LEASE WITH THE OPTION TO PURCHASE
AGREEMENT AND DESIGNATION AS A QUALIFIED TAX-EXEMPT
OBLIGATION."
Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered noting the
absence of Mayor Simpson.
(j) A RESOLUTION OF,INTENT,TO DIRECT THE.PLANNING COMMISSION
AND STAFF TO,,STUDY AMENDING CHAPTER 29.5, ARTICLE IV,
MERGER,QF.PARCELS. Memorandum from City Attorney James
P. Lough dated March 2, 1988.
Speaking to Council in opposition to merging of parcels
were:
Wilma Burt, 1152 - 7th Street
Will Scoggins, 1144 - 7th Street
Martha Northrop, 1276 - 9th Street
Jerry Compton, 832 - 7th Street, spoke regarding the
Planning Commission position on this matter.
Action; To direct staff to bring back to Council a pro-
posed ordinance amending Chapter 29.5, Article IV,
Merger of Parcels.
Motion Williams, second Sheldon. So ordered noting a
NO vote by Creighton and the absence of Mayor Simpson.
(k) A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THEM INCREASE,IN.THE,UTILITY
USERS TAX EFFECTIVE MARCH 1 101 BE DESIGNATED IN THE
PARKS_ AND RECREATION FACILITIES TAX FUND SOLE Y FOR THE
PURPOSE OF THE COSTS OF, ACQUISITION AND FINANCING OF THE
PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN,AS.THE.AT&SF RAIL.�iOADRIGHT-OF-
WAY.�'Memorandum from CitClerk Kathleen Midstokke dat-
ed March 2, 1988. Supplemental information - memorandum
from City Clerk Kathleen Midstokke dated March 8, 1988.
7 Minutes 3-8-88
Action: To adopt Resolution No. 88-5121 entitled "A
RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE 4% INCREASE IN THE UTILITY
USERS TAX EFFECTIVE MARCH 1, 1988 BE MAINTAINED IN A
SEPARATE FUND SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE COSTS OF
ACQUISITION AND FINANCING OF THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN
AS THE A.T.&S.F. RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY."
Motion Williams, second Creighton. So ordered noting
the absence of Mayor Simpson.
3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM. THE CONSENT .CALEN 'AR FOR. SEPARATE
DISCUSSION.
Consent Calendar items ((g), (1), (m), (o) and (p) were
discussed at this time but are listed in order on the
Consent Calendar for clarity.
4. WRITTEN, COMMUNICATIONS_FROM.THE PUBLIC.
(a) Letter from Philip and Jean. Anne Donatelli,, 13238_Min-
danao Way,YMarina,del,Rey,.:dated February 1g 1988 re.
waiving of building moratorium.
Action: Refer to staff for a written response as they
see fit.
Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered.
(b) Letter from Dodi..Lazarow,Californians for Qualil
Government, .dated .Lebruary_.25, _19 requesting support
of their initiative "Government Spending Limitation and
Accountability Act".
Action: To receive and file.
Motion Sheldon, second Williams. So ordered.
A recess was called at 9:10 P.M.
The meeting reconvened at 9:20 P.M.
PUBLIC, HEARINGS
5. TEXT,AMENDMENT_TO ZONING ORDINANCE AND_NEGATIVE DECLARA-
TION REGARDING OPEN SPACE DEFINITION LOCATION AND COM-
PUTATION. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael
Schubach dated February 29, 1988.
The staff report was presented by Planning Director
Michael Schubach.
The Public Hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak
were:
Jerry Compton, 832 - 7th Street, in favor.of adoption
Fleet Nuttall, 905 - 15th Street, questioned enforcement
Wilma Burt, 1152 - 7th Street, asked why setbacks were
not included in open space
The Public Hearing was closed.
- 8 - Minutes 3-8-88
Action: To approve the staff recommendation and intro-
duce Ordinance No. 88-920 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA AMENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE IN REGARD TO THE DEFINITION, LOCATION AND COM-
.PUTATION OF OPEN SPACE AND ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARA-
TION" with amendments to page 1, line 20 adding "in the
R-1 zone." and page 2, lines 5 and 6 as follows: "areas
or over living areas ofti.the same dwelling_unit when ac-
cessible through the interior of the dwelling unit."
Motion Williams, second Creighton. So ordered noting
the absence of Mayor Simpson.
6. TEXT. AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 20 0F.THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO
ESTABLISH, AN_ ENFORCEMENT_ INFRACTION PROCE$SJOR.,CONDI-
TIONAL USE PERMIT,VIOLATIONS. Memorandum from Planning
Director Michael Schubach dated March 1, 1988.
The staff report was presented by Planning Director
Michael Schubach.
The Public Hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak
was William Simas, 1214 - 5th Street.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Action: To approve the staff recommendation and intro-
duce Ordinance No. 88-921 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A TEXT
AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING PENALTIES FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT VIOLATIONS."
Motion Williams, second Creighton. So ordered noting
the absence of Mayor Simpsom.
HEARINGS
7. SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT_TO_ZONING,ORDINANCE TO
ADD CARETAKER UNIT__IN__MANUFACTURING ZONE_SUBJECT�TO_Q
CONDI'_IONAL,USE PERMIT AND. STANDARD_CO_NPITIONS. Memo-
randum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated
March 1, 1988.
The staff report was presented by Planning Director
Michael Schubach.
The Hearing was opened. No one coming forward, the
Hearing was closed.
Action: To receive and file the report.
Motion Creighton, second Williams. So ordered noting
the absence of Mayor Simpson.
MUNICIPAL MATTERS
8. A. MID -YEAR .BUDGET _REVIEW, -_.1987-88 FISCAL YEAR.
ZContinued from February 23, 1968 meeting.) Memo-
randa from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft and
- 9 - Minutes 3-8-88
Finance Administrator Viki Copeland dated March 3,
1988.
Action: To receive and file this report; and adopt at-
tached revised Budget Summary by Fund (Exhibit A-1&2),
inclusive of all revisions to Revenues (Exhibit B), Ap-
propriations (Exhibit C-1&2), Transfers (Exhibit D), and
Designations (Exhibit E).
Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered noting the
absence of Mayor Simpson.
B. STATUS_REPORT.ON CAPITAL,•IMPROVEMENTPROJECTS.
Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony An-
tich dated February 16, 1988. (Continued from
February 23, 1988 meeting.) Memorandum from City
Manager Kevin Northcraft dated March 3, 1988.
Action: To receive and file.
Motion Creighton, second Williams. So ordered noting
the absence of Mayor Simpson.
9. MISCELLANEOUS iTEMS,AND REPORTS -_CITY MANAGER
(a) Proposed Biltmore Site„Appraisal. Memorandum from City
Manager Kevin Northcraft dated March 2, 1988.
Proposed,Aetion To approve the staff recommendation to
obtain the appropriate appraisal on City owned lands
commonly referred to as the Biltmore site from a cer-
tified appraiser, not to exceed $15,000 in total cost
from Prospective Expenditures.
Motion Williams - dies for lack of a second
Action: To direct the City Manager to proceed to talk
with the three appraisers recommended by Art Mazirow
with the intent of obtaining estimates for three dif-
ferent appraisals, R-2, R-3 and Commercial, and to table
the City Manager's recommendation.
Motion Rosenberger, second Sheldon. So ordered noting a
NO vote by Williams, who feels they should go ahead with
the appraisal as recommended by the City Manager, and
the absence of Mayor Simpson.
10. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMSAND REPORTS-.CITY•COUNCIL
(a)
e
ort from Councilmember Williams on So. Ba Stee in
Committee:meeting_with regcest._for.a•vote On whether,to
direct SCAG to proceed_ with-pla_ns for a So._Bay..Area
Transportation Study.
Action: To receive and file until the Commuter Study is
done.
Motion Williams, second Sheldon. So ordered noting the
absence of Mayor Simpson.
- 10 - Minutes 3-8-88
(b) Report_from Mayor. Simpson_ re..City's,adoption of a Moun-
tainrLion.
Action: To continue this matter to the next meeting.
Motion Rosenberger, second Creighton. So ordered noting
the absence of Mayor Simpson.
(c)
Report. from City Attorney_ and Cit yClerk re. Subcommj.t-
tee meetings.
PrQposed_Action: To reconstitute all subcommittees
formed by this City Council to conform with the tem-
porary subcommittee nature as the City Attorney has out-
lined which is to say that they would not be subject to
the Brown Act if all of the four committee requisites
specified in the City Attorney's conclusions are met.
Motion Sheldon, second Williams
AYES - Sheldon, Williams
NOES - Creighton, Rosenberger
ABSENT - Mayor Simpson
Motion fails
Action: To continue without any changes as far as the
structure of the committees, the City Attorney to return
with a list of those subcommittees that must be noticed.
Motion Creighton, second Rosenberger
AYES - Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Williams
NOES - None
ABSENT - Mayor Simpson
(d) Letter_from,Councilmember creightQn datedFebruary,29,
19$8 re.,bondin:.'fCit Treasurerwi h memorandum from
Cit ,Mana:er Kevin Northcraft dated March 1 .1
Aet.ion, To receive and file.
Motion Creighton, second Rosenberger. So ordered noting
the absence of Mayor Simpson.
(e) Council, to, set. policy re. Citlability arising. out, of
policy.of allowing vehicles to encroach upon sidewalks.
Memorandum from City Attorney James P. Lough dated March
1, 1988.
Actioi; To accept the City Manager's recommendation to
rescind the 1984 directive allowing cars to encroach
over a sidewalk as long as 3 feet are allowed for
pedestrian passage, and direct staff to enforce as they
see fit considering the facts and circumstances of each
case.
Motion Williams, second Creighton. So ordered noting a
NO vote by Sheldon and the absence of Mayor Simpson.
- 11 - Minutes 3-8-88
(f) Planning Commission proposed.City Council/Planning Com-
mission workshop alternative, dates. Memorandum from
Planning Director Michael Schubach dated March 2, 1988.
Council was advised that City Council/Planning Commis-
sion workshop has been scheduled for Thursday, April 7,
1988 at 7:00 P.M.
(g) Reappointment„of Inglewood fire_Training,Authority_Dele-
gate_and__Alternate. Memorandum from City Clerk Kathleen
Midstokke dated March 7, 1988.
jetion: To hear this item as the need arose subsequent
to the posting of the agenda.
Motion Creighton, second Sheldon. So ordered noting the
absence of Mayor Simpson.
Final.Action_ To appoint Mayor Simpson as the delegate
and Mayor Pro Tem Rosenberger as the alternate to the
Inglewood Fire Training Authority.
Motion Sheldon, second Rosenberger. So ordered noting
the absence of Mayor Simpson.
Mayor Pro Tem Rosenberger asked for a report back from
the City Manager regarding the rotation of some commit-
tee assignments where a permanent representative would
best serve the committee.
11. OTHER_MATTERS,-_CITY,COUNCIL
Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items:
(a) ,Request b Councilmember Williams for Biltmore Site_dis-
cussion re. specific plan area andballot_measure.
Councilmember Williams asked the City Council to agree
that if a ballot initiative petition approving the sale
of the Biltmore site for purchase of the railroad right-
of-way is not circulated for November, the City Council
will put the question of the sale of the Biltmore site
on the ballot in November.
Action; To discuss this item with a ten-minute limit.
Motion Creighton, second Williams
AYES - Creighton, Sheldon, Williams
NOES - Rosenberger
ABSENT - Mayor Simpson
The four members of the City Council present were in
agreement that this matter would be put on the ballot in
November if it is so indicated.
The Regular Meeting of the City Council adjourned temporarily at
the hour of 11:45 P.M. to a meeting of the Vehicle Parking
District.
- 12 - Minutes 3-8-88
12. MEETING OF THE HERMOSA BEACH VEHICLE PARKING DISTRICT
COMMISSION
The Regular Meeting of the City Council reconvened at the hour of
12:10 A.M.
ADJOURNMENT
The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa
Beach, California, adjourned on Wednesday, March 9, 1988 at the
hour of 12:12 A.M. in memory of Joel Peck, former member and
Chairman of the Board of Appeals, candidate for City Council, and
involved citizen who passed away recently in Connecticut, to a
Regular Meeting to be held on Tuesday, March 22, 1988 at the hour
of 7:30 P.M. preceded by a Closed Executive Session at 6:30 P.M.
Deputy City C
erk
- 13 - Minutes 3-8-88
•
9. APPROVAL OF BUDGET CALENDAR AND REVISED CAPITAL IMPROVE-
MENT PROGRAM FORMAT. Memorandum from Assistant City
Manager Alana Mastrian dated March 17, 1988.
10. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGE
11. MISCELLANEOUS I ) AND PO 8 - CI 'Y CO CIL•
l
---425-W+ ��� /� '112 ��
(a) Report to CityCoun•$1 e din t ossibili of/ a
g , P Y �2�
parking structure at 14th . d Manhattan Avenue. Memo f
randum from Public Works Dir-ctor Anthgny Antich dated
March 9, 1988. 1ft
(b) Report from Mayor S' pso re. Cit 's adoption of a Moun- /,„.4.1
tain Lion. 010.A74; Es 3.14>v-
0) Status report re. railroad ri t -of- ay. (Reserved on
agenda is case there is new information to report).
12.
4 Lt
OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL
ADJOURNMENT
140,01-0, j/.
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Hermosa Beach, California, held on Monday, March 7, 1988 at the
hour of 6:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Steve Filarsky
ROLL CALL
Present: Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Williams, Mayor Simpson
Absent: None
CLOSED SESSION
The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach adjourned to a
Closed Executive Session on Monday, March 7, 1988 at the hour of
6:05 P.M. to discuss parameters in negotiating with the Hermosa
Beach Police Officers' Association.
The Special Meeting of the City Council reconvened at the hour of
7:30 P.M. on Monday, March 7, 1988.
ADJOURNMENT
The Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa
Beach adjourned on Monday, March 7, 1988 at the hour of 7:30 P.M.
to a Regular Meeting to be held on Tuesday, March 8, 1988 at the
hour of 7:30 P.M. preceded by a Closed Session at 6:30 P.M.
Deputy City Clerk
-1- Minutes 3-7-88
la
r:.
March 15, 1988
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting
the Hermosa Beach City Council of March 22, 1988
TWO MONTH EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE HOURS OF
OPERATION FOR CITY HALL OPERATIONS
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this
evaluation.
Background:
On October 27, 1987 the City Council authorized the City Manager
to execute a supplemental to the Teamster Memorandum of Under-
standing (MOU) which established a six month trial period to
change the hours of operation for City Hall and allow employees
working in City Hall to work a ten (10) hour day, four (4) days
per week (Monday -Thursday).
One clause in the agreement called for there to be an evaluation
of the program at two month intervals. This first two month
evaluation covers the period of December 1987 through January 31,
1988.
The criteria used to evaluate the trial period were established
in the agreement. These include an analysis of attendance, ac-
crued overtime required, utilization of accrued sick time, pro-
ductivity, and morale.
To measure the change in the sick time utilized and overtime re-
quired, each of these was compared to selected time periods
during which City Hall was open the traditional eight (8) hour
day, five (5) days per week (Monday -Friday). The time periods
selected were the immediate two month period preceeding the trial
schedule and the same time period one year previous.
Attached are graphic displays of the comparsions. These graphs
are:
Attachment "A":
1. Displays the total number of hours "sick" time utilized
during the initial two month period and compares that utilization
to the two selected time periods.
2 &,3. Displays the total number of "overtime" hours accrued
during the initial two month period and compares that accrual to
the two selected time periods. The difference between "Comp -
time" and "Admin -time" is that "Comp -time" is accrued at a rate
lh
of time -and -one-half while "Admin -time" is accrued on an hour for
hour basis.
Attachment "B":
Displays "overtime" accrued by department during the initial two
month 4/10 trial period compared to the selected time periods.
This chart also indicates the percentage change in the accruals.
Attachment "C"
Displays the comparison of "sick -time" used during the initial
two month trial period compared to the selected comparsion time
periods. This chart also indicates the percentage change is sick
leave utilization.
Attachment "D"
In addition to the above comparisons, the Department Directors
completed a survey which solicited data on employee productivilty
and morale. The results of that survey are dipicted on Attach-
ment "D".
Evaluation:
Compared. to the immediate two months preceeding the 4/10 trial
period:
% Change
Sick Leave Utilization: Down 11.80% (-33.72hrs)
Overtime Accrued:
Comp:
Admin:
Down 21.80% (-26.5hrs)
Down 52.40% (-215.63hrs)
Compared to the same time frame one year previous to the 4/10
trial period:
% Change
Sick Leave Utilization: Down 10.80% (-30.25hrs)
Overtime Accrued:
Comp: Up 101.00% (+47.75hrs)
Admin: Down 10.62% (-23.25hrs)
Results of the survey conducted of the Department Directors (At-
tachment "D") indicate:
- the majority of comments received by the Directors from the
public in regards to the alternative schedule have been positive.
- six of the seven Directors surveyed indicated that it is
their preception that the current schedule is either "good" or
"excellent" in meeting the citizen's need and demands.
- four of the seven indicated that the current schedule cre-
ates a scheduling problem during breaks for lunch.
- all seven indicated that they would recommend continuation
of the 4/10 schedule through the trial period.
Responses to the complete survey are indicated on attachment "D".
Analysis:
This initial evaluation shows that the only increase in the mea-
sured criteria is for accrued comp -time (overtime) compared to
the same time period one year ago. The majority of this increase
is a result of the increase reflected in the Finance Department
(57.25 hrs. current vs. 0.00 hrs. one year ago). All other "time
accrual" measurments indicate decreases in overtime, administra-
tive time, and sick time during the 4/10 trial. Additionally,
the results of the Director's survey supports continuation of the
trial period.
The second evaluation of the trial period will cover February and
March. This time period will be compared to the results of the
initial two month period as well as the same time period one year
previous. Also the second evaluation will include a survey of
the employees working the 4/10 schedule to further measure the
impact of the schedule on employee morale.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert A. Blackwood
Personnel Director
cc: Teamster Union, Local 911
Concur:
Kevin B. Northcraft
City Manager
PAYROLL ACCRUAL DATA ANALYSIS
300
250
200
HOURS 150
100
50
0
HOURS
HOURS
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
SICK LEAVE USAGE
4/10
Plan
2
Months
Prior
TIME PERIOD
COMP. TIME EARNED
1 Year
Prior
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
4/10
Plan
2
Months
Prior
TIME PERIOD
ADMIN. TIME EARNED
1 Year
Prior
lllllll
unu..M.0
4/10
• Plan
2
Months
Prior
TIME PERIOD
1 Year
Prior
r�
DEPT.
OVERTIME ACCRUAL
1 YR. AGO 2 MO. AGO
12/86 - 01/87 10/87 - 11/87
comp. admin. comp. admin.
6
4/10 PLAN
12/87 - 01/88
comp. admin.
Administration
Building/Business Lic.
Community Resources
Finance
General Services
Planning
Public Works
TOTALS
1.50
13.50
.75
0.00
12.50
0.00
19.00
50.50
17.50
32.00
3.00
41.00
28.00
47.00
28.50
3.00
12.00
31.25
38.50
3.00
5.25
149.50
27.75
56.50
3.50
51.50
29.00
93.63
9.00
1.00
0.00
57.25
15.25
0.00
12.50
48.25
10.00
28.00
5.00
26.25
29.00
49.25
47.25 219.00 121.50 411.38 95.00 195.75
NOTE: "Comp" is time accrued beyond an employees normal working hours and is
computed at time and one-half.
"Admin" is time accrued beyond an employees normal working hours and is
computed on an hour for hour basis.
PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN ACCRUAL
The following figures indicate the
earned during the 4/10 work period
ago and 2 months ago.
OVERTIME USAGE IN
RELATION TO
1 YEAR AGO
comp. admin.
+1017 -10.62%
percentage change in comp. and admin time
in relation to the same time period one year
OVERTIME USAGE IN
RELATION TO
2 MONTHS AGO
camp. admin.
-21.8% -52.4%
SICK LEAVE USAGE COMPARISION
1 YR. PRIOR
9
2 MO. PRIOR 4/10 PLAN
DEPT. 12/86 - 1/87 10/87 - 11/87 12/87 - 1/88
Administration 23.00 19.75 20.00
Building/Bus. Lic. 90.50 87.25 52.25
Community Resources 51.00 39.00 10.00
Finance 15.50 29.92 10.00
General Services 78.25 60.50 115.25
Planning 0.00 40.00 0.00
Public Works 17.50 7.50 43.00
TOTALS 280.75 283.92 250.50
PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN USAGE
The following figures indicate the percentage change in sick leave usage
incurred during the start of the 4/10 work schedule in relation to the same time
period one year ago and in the previous two months.
SICK LEAVE USAGE IN SICK LEAVE USAGE IN
RELATION TO 1 YEAR AGO 2 MONTHS AGO
-10.8% -11.87
C
4/10 WORK SCHEDULE DEPARTMENT HEAD SURVEY
»»»> FINAL RESULTS «««<
This report contains the findings of a survey circulated to all Department Heads
to evaluate their opinions concerning the 4/10 work schedule.
A duplicate of the original survey questions have been provided below. The
number of Department Heads' responses have been tallied for each of the questions
and then recorded next to each question.
PART I
In this section, several statements were made in regards to the 4/10 work
schedule listed below. The survey attempted to measure whether Department Heads
agreed or disagreed with these remarks in order to evaluate their "subjective
assessment" of the 4/10 plan. Four choices were offered, and respondents were
asked to place a check mark in the one box which most accurately reflected their
opinion. The results were as follows:
Strongly Don't Strongly
Agree Agree Know Disagree Disagree
(1) The 4/10 schedule is
a "good idea" for our
department
4
2 1
(2) Citizens have been
satisfied with the 4/10
operating hours of our
department 1 5 1
(3) Working a ten-hour day
has increased our de-
partment's respon-
siveness to citizens'
needs 2 3
(4) Working four days a
week has improved our
department's ability to
serve citizens 1 2 4
(5) The 4/10 work schedule
has improved our depart-
ment's efficiency . . . . 1 2 4
(6) The 4/10 work schedule
has helped to decrease
job related stress . . . . 1 1 5
1
PART II
In this section, the survey focused on: Department Heads' opinion concerning
departmental staffing arrangements; perception of citizens' attitudes toward the
4/10 schedule; personal assessment of employees' morale since the start of the
trial period. In all of the questions, several possible responses were offered,
and the respondent was asked to place a check mark in the one box which most
closely fit their evaluation. The findings of this section were:
7) Has the 4/10 work shift created any scheduling problems in your department
NO = 3
YES = 4 > 7a. Please specify the types of
problems you have encountered (if
you require additional space for
comments, refer to Part III)
note:,findings reflect the most common
answers given by respondents "inadaquate hours of field
supervision"
"lunch hour scheduling"
(8) Have you received any comments from the public regarding the new
operating hours of City Hall?
NO = 2
YES = 5
> 8a. In general, what "types" of
comments have you received from
citizens ?
POSITIVE = 5
NEGATIVE = 2
(9) In terms of the current work schedule, what is your opinion of the City's
ability to serve citizen's needs and demands ?
EXCELLENT = 3
GOOD
FAIR
POOR
DON'T KNOW =
3
1
2
(10) How would you rate employees' morale since the start of the 4/10 schedule ?
IMPROVED = 4
NO CHANGE = 3
DECLINED =
(11) In general, how satisfied are you with the current work schedule?
VERY SATISIFIED = 6
SOMEWHAT SATISIFIED = 1
SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED =
VERY DISSATISFIED
DON'T KNOW
_
_
(12) In your opinion, would you recommend the continuation of the 4/10 trial
period ?
NO =
YES = 7 > 12a. How much longer ?
Another two-month evaluation
period
_
Until the completion of the
six month trial period = 7
March 14, 1988
Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting
of the City Council March 22, 1988
REPORT, ON _CALIFQRNI,Q , MUNICIPAL_ TREASURERS ASSOCIAIIQN
EDUCATIONAL WORKSHOP ,ATTENDED , FEBRS�ARX • 26-2�.t 1988
This workshop was attended by approximately ninety California
Municipal finance administrators. Instruction was presented by
experts in the municipal finance field. Much of the discussion
focused on the cause and effect of the recent municipal finance
losses in Lawndale, San Marino, etc. Many financial experts
felt that the cause of these failures was not totally because
of a breakdown in the investment law, but, because there was
a lack of technical and administrative support causing the
individual responsible for investing to lose track of his
investments.
I presented our adopted investment policy and investment
portfolio. I shared that, unlike many cities, these documents
are presented to the council at least monthly. The group agreed
that this was a good policy and will recommend that our policy be
followed statewide.
A great deal of time was spent discussing the need for a team
approach to municipal finance and the absolute necessity of a
check and balance system wherein the treasurer, whether elected
or appointed, must act within the team as an independent
financial resource. Additionally, the need for up to date
financial data tracking systems and adequate administrative
support was discussed at length.
The consensus was that the major economic bench marks indicate
that our economic growth will slow in the next quarter and
flatten toward the end of 1988. This will mean a fall in
interest rates and a reduction in interest earned income.
Respectfully submitted,
/ ..
t7rIAZ4
Gary Bruts,Ch
City Treasurer
Noted:
evin Northera
City Manager
lg
California Municipal Treasurers Association
CMTA EDUCATIONAL WORKSHOP
KELLOGG WEST - CAL POLY POMONA
FEBRUARY 26-28, 1988
FRIDAY. FEBRUARY 26, 1988. AUDITORIUM
9:00 -
10:00 -
10:30 -
11:30 -
1:00 -
10:00 - Registration
10:30 - Welcome/Orientation
11:15 - LAIF
1:00 - Lunch
3:15 - Long and Short of the Market
3:15 - 3:30 - Break
3:30 - 5:00 - Mutual Funds
5:30 - 6:30 - Dinner
6:30 - 7:30 - Investment Terms
7:30 - 9:00 - Establishing Availability of Funds
9:00 - - Getting Acquainted/Wine and Cheese
SATURDAY. FEBRUARY 27. 1988. AUDITORIUM
7:00 - 8:00 - Breakfast
8:00 - 9:00 - The Yield Curve
9:00 - 10:00 - Treasurer's Report
10:00 - 10:15 - Break
10:15 - 11:00 - Computing Prices, Discounts, Yields
11:00 - 12:00 - Broker/Dealer Relationships
12:00 -
1:00 -
2:30 -
1:00 - Lunch
2:30 - Free Time
5:30 - Investment Strategy
5:30 - 6:30 - Dinner
6:30 - 9:30 - What's Your Color???
SUNDAY. FEBRUARY 28, 1988. AUDITORIUM
7:30 - 8:30 - Breakfast
8:30 - 10:00 - Legislative Update
10:00 - 11:00 - Assessment of Needs and Wrap Up
Staff
Staff
Pat Beal, LAIF
Deborah and Ray Higgins
Merrill Lynch
Lester T. Wood III
Fidelity Investment
Hank Stern
City of Lakewood
Jerry Parker
City of Arcadia
Neal Willard
Westcap Government
Securities
John deRussy
City of San Mateo
Hank Stern
City of Lakewood
Mary Turner
City of Anaheim
Hank Stern
City of Lakewood
Mike Cooney
Tom Rupert
City of Torrance
Staff
March 16, 1988
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting
the Hermosa Beach City Council of March 22, 1988
AMENDMENT TO REVISE THE TERMINATION CLAUSE IN THE JTPA
OPERATIONAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor to
execute the attached amendment to the Job Training Partnership
Act (JTPA) operational agreement with the City of Redondo Beach.
Background:
In July 1983, the City entered into a joint powers agreement
with the Cities of Redondo Beach, Inglewood, El Segundo, Gardena,
Hawthorne, Lawndale, and Manhattan Beach to form the South Bay
Service Delivery Area (SBSDA) in order to participate in the
Federal Governments Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA). The
City of Hermosa Beach entered into a subsequest agreement with
the City of Redondo to have that City operate the JTPA program on
its behalf.
Analysis:
Since that time of the original agreements, the State Job Train-
ing Office has revised the conditions used in their termination
clause to comply with requirements issued by the Department of
Labor.
In order to maintain congruence with the State and Federal revi-
sions, the City of Redondo Beach has requested that the original
termination clause in this City's original contract with them be
amended to reflect the updated requirements.
The attached amendment has been submitted by the City of Redondo
Beach for execution.
Respectfully submi -d,
Concur:
Robert A. Blackwood Kevin B. Northc aft
City Manager
Personnel Director
AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
THIS AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT is made and entered into on this
day of , 1988, by and between the CITY OF
REDONDO BEACH, a chartered municipality, ("Redondo Beach") and
the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ("Hermosa Beach").
WHEREAS, Redondo Beach and Hermosa Beach are both parties to
a Joint Powers Agreement executed in July 1983, which was entered
into pursuant to the Job Training Partnership Act of 1982;
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 8 of that agreement, Redondo
Beach and Hermosa Beach entered into an agreement on October 17,
1983, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1;
WHEREAS, pursuant to the agreement set forth in Exhibit 1,
Redondo Beach agreed to operate a job training program on behalf
of Hermosa Beach;
WHEREAS, the City of Inglewood is the grant recipient for
the South Bay Service Delivery Area and by agreement between the
City of Inglewood and Redondo Beach, Redondo Beach receives a
portion of that grant to administer a job training program on
behalf of itself, Hermosa Beach, the City of El Segundo and the
City of Manhattan Beach;
WHEREAS, the City of Inglewood intends to amend its
agreement to provide grant funds to the City of Redondo Beach to
permit termination of the agreement for convenience upon 90 days
notice and for cause upon thirty days notice;
WHEREAS, in the event grant fundswere stopped by the City
of Inglewood, Redondo Beach would be without funds to operate a
jtpa 2/16/88
1
job training program on behalf of Hermosa Beach and yet the
agreement contained in Exhibit 1 does not specify that it may be
terminated upon the occurrence of this event;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
Paragraph V of Exhibit 1 is hereby amended to add the
following language:
In the event that the City of Inglewood
serves Redondo Beach with a thirty day notice
of termination for cause of its agreement with
Redondo Beach to provide the grant funds used
by Redondo Beach to perform the services
described in this agreement, Redondo Beach may
terminate all of its obligations under this
agreement by delivering a thirty day written
notice of termination to the City Clerk of
Hermosa Beach at any time during the term of
this agreement. In the event that City of
Inglewood serves Redondo Beach with a ninety
day notice of termination for convenience of
its agreement with Redondo Beach to provide
the grant funds used by Redondo Beach to
perform the services described in this
agreement, Redondo Beach may terminate all of
its obligations under this agreement by
jtpa 2/16/88
2
delivering a ninety day written notice of
termination to the City Clerk of Hermosa Beach
at any time during the term of this agreement.
APPRO
,amity Attorne
eco 1/14/88
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, a
chartered mun•al corporation,
At
k
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
(SEAL)
Mayor
3
City Clerk
(SEAL)
3I
41
51
6
7
8
9
10 '
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2I201
1
22
23
24
25
26
2?
29
29
..7
G-1
Attachment A
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on this 17
day of October
, 1983 by and between the CITY OF.REDONDO
BEACH ("Redondo Beach") and the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ("Hermosa Beach")
WHEREAS, Redondo Beach and Hermosa Beach are both parties
to a Joint Powers Agreement executed in July, 1983 which was entered
into pursuant to the Job Training Partnership Act of 1982; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 8 of that agreement
is desirous of obtaining the services of Redondo Beach for the plan-
ning, coordination, and implementation of a job training program de-
signed to deliver comprehensive employment and training services for
the benefit of Hermosa Beach ; and
WHEREAS, Redondo Beach has had experience in operating said
programs and is ready. willing and able to perform said services for
Hermosa Beach.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
I. `SCOPE OF SERVICES -
A. Redondo Beach agrees to perform the following services:
1. Develop a proposal process for service providers for
the City of Hermosa Beach and make recommendations to
the Private Industry Council for the South Bay Service
Delivery Area for selecting appropriate providers.
2. Adopt and implement an applicant intake process for
Hermosa Beach.
3. Design and implement an orientation procedure for part-
icipants and service providers.
11. Design and implement job development, placement and fol-
low-up services.
5. Prepare and enter into necessary contracts for delivery
of service,; and ensure that appropriate contract mon-
itoring occurs.
32 C. Develop and maintain a management information system as
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
. 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
`'4
25
26
27
28
29
J'1
32
.1
well as fiscal and programmatic accountability to the City of
Inglewood(Administrative entity) and appropriate Governmental agencies.
7 Negotiate employment and training agreements .as needed with
the City of Inglewood, service providers and the State of California.
8. Provide quarterly reports to Hermosa Beach identifying
the number of participants in the program and the funds spent
thereon beginning with the quarter ending December 31, 1983.
9. Perform any and all other functions as required and in the
manner contemplated by the Job Training Partnership Act of
1982, and the California Family Economic Security Act as
amended, and the Job Training Plan for the South Bay Service
Delivery Area.
B. The City of Hermosa Beach in consideration for the services
described above agrees:
(1) To cooperate. and assist Redondo Beach in the development and
implementation of Hermosa -Beach's Job Training Program.
(2) To relinquish in favor of Redondo Beach its rights to receive
any employment and training funds under the Job Training Part-
nership Act of 1982 in order that such funds shall be paid to
Redondo Beach by the City of Inglewood for performing above -
referenced services.
II. COMPENSATION.
The funds referred to in paragraph I B(2) above shall represent the
total compensation to which Redondo Beach shall be entitled for operating the
program provided, however, that'these ?unds are in addition to
Hermosa Beach
any funds to which Redondo Beach might otherwise be entitled under the Joint
Powers Agreement executed in July, 1983 for the general administration and
supervision of the Job Training Program of all cities located within the South
Bay Service Delivery Area.
III. TERM.
This agreement shall become effective on the date of execution pro -
2
1
•
vided however that its terms shall not become operative until and unless the
2 Joint Powers Agreement referred to above becomes effective.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
2.
17
18
19
2 0
ti
21
22
23
24
J
r, C
4.
26
27
23
29
'1
JL
IV. LIABILITY.
4.46ftelagYa
T
will assume liability and defend and hold the other
harmless from loss, cost or expense caused by the negligent or wrongful acts
0kJ" or omissions of Ulcers, agents, and employees which occur, in
the course and scopelof the duties required to be performed by this agreement.
V. TERMINATION
This agreement may be terminated by either party only at the end of
the then current contract period as•that term is defined in the Joint Powers
Agreement referred to above; provided however, that notice of said termination
shall be in writing delivered to the City Clerk of the other party no later
than 90 days prior to the end of the then current contract period. Upon such
termination Redondo Beach shall cause an audit to be performed to determine the
financial condition of the program and any'surplus funds may be disbursed
according to law.
VI. ENTIRE AGREEMENT.
This agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement on the
date and year first above written.
AIIEST:
c� •=e2C r 2—
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney (11)/fl Cl u�
61e141/a, )1(2,
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
BY of ! . , - .�•'
Mayor
ATTEST:
City lerk
3
I
March 16, 1988
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting
the Hermosa Beach City Council of March 22, 1988
APPROVAL OF REVISED AGREEMENT WITH THE FIRM OF LIEBERT, CASSIDY &
FRIERSON TO CONDUCT TRAINING AND CONSULTATION SERIVCES
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Man-
ager to execute the attached agreement.
Background:
On December 15, 1987 the City Council authorized the City Manager
to execute an agreement for special services with the firm of
Liebert, Cassidy & Frierson.
These special services include five (5) days of training work-
shops for the City's managers and supervisors as well as un-
limited consultation with members of the firm in regards to labor
and employment issues.
The original contract stipulated that the commencment of the
agreement was contingent upon a minimum of six (6) other cities
entering into substantially the same agreement with the firm.
Analysis:
Ultimately eleven other cities joined into agreement with Lie-
bert, Cassidy & Frierson for this service. The coordination of
the various contracts was not completed until February 1988 which
necessitated changing the term of the contract to commence
February 15, 1988 (rather than the original date of January 1,
1988).
Because of this change in the original term, this item must again
be brought before the Council for approval.
In addition to the revised contract, a copy of the tentative
workshop schedule has been attached for the Council's
information.
Respectfully subted,
z
Robert A. Blackwood
Personnel Director
Concur:
7 r
Kevin B. North'craft
City Manager
1j
AGREEMENT FOR SPECIAL SERVICES
This Agreement is entered into between the CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, A Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as
"City", and the law firm of LIEBERT, CASSIDY & FRIERSON, A
Professional Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Attorney".
WHEREAS City has the need to secure expert training and
consultative services to assist City in its relations and negotia-
tions with its employee organizations; and
WHEREAS City has determined that no less than ten other
public agencies in the South Bay Area have the same need and have
agreed to enter into identical agreements with Attorney; and
WHEREAS Attorney is specially experienced and qualified to
perform the special services desired by the City and is willing to
perform
such services:
NOW, THEREFORE, City
Attorney's Services
During the year beginning February 15, 1988, Attorney
provide the following services to City (and the other aforesaid
public agencies):
1. Five days of group training workshops covering such
employment relations subjects as negotiation strategies, employment
discrimination and affirmative action, employment relations from the
perspective of elected officials, performance evaluation, discipline
and grievance administration for supervisors and managers, planning
for and responding to concerted job actions, current court,
and Attorney agree as
follows:
will
administrative and legislative developments in the personnel
relations area, etc., with the specific subjects covered and lengths
of individual workshop presentations to be determined by the City
and the other said local agencies;
2. Availability of Attorney on an unlimited basis, for
City to consult by telephone.
Fee:
Attorney will provide these special services to City for a
fee of One Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($1,400.00), payable in one
payment on or before March 1, 1988. Said fee will cover Attorney's
time in providing said training and consultative services.
Additional Services:
Attorney shall, as and when requested by City, make itself
available to City to provide representational and other employment
relations services at its normal hourly fees.
Independent Contractor:
It is understood and agreed that Attorney is and shall
remain an independent contractor under this Agreement.
Term:
The term of this Agreement is twelve (12) months commenc-
ing February 15, 1988. The term may be extended for additional
periods of time by the written consent of the parties.
Condition Precedent:
It is understood and agreed that the parties' aforesaid
rights and obligations are contingent on no less than ten (10)
other local agency employers entering into substantially identical
Agreements with Attorney on or about February 15, 1988.
DATED:
DATED:
Z- 0 -.1Y
APPROVED AS Ts..RM:
y
ttorn
LIEBERT, CASSIDY & FRIERSON
A Professional Corporation
By
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
A Municipal Corporation
By
JOHN 1.15
OANIC1. C. CASSIDY
L ARRY .1. PRI
LINDA
A. SARSOOK
/ZONA 0. w1
DAV. M. OSTROY
MART 4 OOWCt<
JUOITH ISLAS
MICMAC. 4 OWCN1
O CSRA 4 *RAY
111C0INA1.0 T. MUR•Mv
DIRECTO* O► TRA1M1M0 1.100011*Y/
LAW OFFICES
LIEBERT, CASSIDY & FRIERSON
A 0RO•CSSIONAL CORPORATION
6033 WCST CCNTURY BOULEVARD
SUITE 000
LOS ANGELES, GLIPORNIA 90043
12131 646-0492
March 1, 1988
TO: SOUTH BAY EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS CONSORTIUM MEMBERS
SUBJECT: TENTATIVE 1988 WORKSHOP SCHEDULE
SAN •RANCISCO O••ICC:
PDX PLAZA
1300 T STREET. SUITE 1010
SAN •RANCISCOI CA4.1.0111NIA 9410/.9304
14151 061-3117
Date/Time Subject
Thursday Management/Supervisory Rights and
April 14 Obligations in Employment Relations
9 am - 4 pm
Carson Community
Center
1LOAN
MARK C. O1.111
Thursday Effectively Administering the Evaluation
May 26 Process and Disciplinary Actions
9 am - 4 pm
Carson Community
Center
Thursday
June 2
9 am - Noon
Hawthorne
Memorial Center
Safety Employee Disabilities:
Issues and Procedures
Thursday Supervisors'/Managers' Guide to Avoiding
September 22 Employment Discrimination Liability
9 am - 4 pm
Carson Community
Center
Thursday Effectively Utilizing Performance
October 12 Evaluation As a Management/Supervisory
9 am - Noon Tool
Hawthorne
Memorial Center
Tentative 1988 Workshop Schedule
Page Two
Wednesday
November 16
9 am - Noon
Hawthorne
Memorial Center
Thursday
January 12 (1989)
9 am - Noon
Hawthorne
Memorial Center
Effectively Addressing Common
Disciplinary Problems
Supervisors'/Managers' Guide to
Effectively and Legally Handling
the Interviewing and Selection
Process
March 16, 1988
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting
the Hermosa Beach City Council of March 22, 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 six-month temporary appointment of Acting Police Records
Administrator Gayle Brown; such extension commencing March 25,
1988.
Background:
The previous Police Records Administrator resigned on September
25, 1987. Police Services Officer Gayle Brown was appointed as
Acting Police Records Administrator on Se em er 25, 1987 pending
a review of the class specification for that position. This re-
view is necessitated by the reorganization of the Police Depart-
ment 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:
A revised Class Specification for the Police Records Administra-
tor position has not been finalized and no Civil Service examina-
tion has been scheduled.
The Personnel Director is currently working with the Director of
Public Safety to complete the analysis of the duties and respon-
sibilities of the position'.
Respectfully submitted, Noted Re: Civil S
Kevin B. Nort craft Robert A. Blackwood
City Manager
Personnel Director
1I(
March 14, 1988 •
Honorable.Mayor and Members City Council Meeting
of the City Council March 22, 1988
NAME THAT PARK
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by the Community Resources Advisory Commission
that City Council approve the following name selected by the
Commission for the new park located on Prospect and Hollowell:
"PROSPECT HEIGHTS FRIENDSHIP PARK"
Further that Council direct the Parks Division of the Public
Works Department to have a sign made for the park at a cost not
to exceed $150; appropriate $150 from Prospective Expenditures
into the Parks Department; and direct the Department of Community
Resources to arrange for dedication ceremonies for the official
opening and naming of the park.
BACKGROUND
On August 26, 1987, City Council referred the naming of the park
at Prospect and Hollowell to the Community Resources Advisory
Commission. The Commission and City Council then approved
guidelines for a "Name That Park Contest" in which residents
could submit suggestions for a name to the Commission.
Citizens of Hermosa Beach responded by filling out applications
published in the Easy Reader. Their submittals were accompanied
by an explanation for the selections.
Per the contest guidelines, the Commission (at their February,
1988 meeting) selected one name to be forwarded to City Council
for final approval. Their choice was:
"PROSPECT HEIGHTS FRIENDSHIP PARK"
ANALYSIS
Twelve (12) responses were received from the public and they are
as follows:
1. Rodaway Park (nine submittals)
2. Constitution Park or Constitution Square (one submittal)
3. Friendship Park (one submittal)
4. Prospect Park (one submittal)
The guidelines for the contest indicated the submittals would be
reviewed by the Prospect Park Committee and they in turn would
choose three names for the Commission's consideration. As there
were a total of four names submitted, staff submitted all four to
the Commission.
•
The Commission chose the name Prospect Heights Friendship Park
primarily for the reasons stated in the submittal letter.
Attached for your information are all the applications received.
Concur:
2;(0.,
Alana M. Mastrian, Director
Dept. of Community Resources
evin Nbrthcraf
City Manager
Res•e bmitted,
Alre
Mary
Dep
'a•
ey, Coordinator
ommunity Resources
Noted ,,fory Fiscal Impact:
Viki Copeland
Finance Administrator
A
320 Hopkins Avenue
Hermosa Beach, CA
January 10, 1988
"Name that Park"
710 Pier Avenue
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Gentlmen:
I would like to name our park at Prospect and Gentry
"Friendship Park." The name calls to mind one of the
elements of most importance to kids, indeed to adults too,
friends. Warmest childhood memories for me Include meeting
my friends for a ball game, or Jump rope, or just talk at
our neighborhood park. As a young mother, it was a perfect
spot to get out of the somewhat messy house to talk to my
friends or make some new ones while my children played
happily in the dirt.
In Hermosa with our mobile population and necessarily
working parents, the park provides a perfect spot for
children to meet and make neighborhood friends. Unlike the
less urban areas, we don't always automatically know our
neighbors.
I already see our new park being happily used by basketball
players in their twenties, skateboarders of middle school
age. and elementary kids playing with their trucks. Old
friends or new friends --their enjoyment of the park will fit
the name.
(And If someone on your committee is leaning toward a place
Identification name for the park, we could always call It
"Prospect Heights Friendship Park," but friendship is the
heart of it.)
Yours truly.
Marcia Hines
Phone 372-6522
"NAME THAT PARK"
710 Pier Avenue
• Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
The deadline is January.15,
1988. You might even use this as
your official entry form.
Name:%4//C//e &&,,'/--
Address vcvaf�G'/rLu
City hone S S'5_
State G_e
I��vo d name that
ePc
You may attach as many addi-
tional sheets as you wish to ex-
plain your choice.
January 8, 1988
med.". ChapEer, 11321,412
REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA
5307 Calle Mayor
Torrance, CA. 90505
Name That Park
c/o Barbara Gonzales
710 Pier Avenue
Hermosa Beach, CA. 90254
Dear Ms. Gonzales:
On behalf of the El Redondo Chapter, National Society
Daughters of the American Revolution, I would like to
suggest that Hermosa Beach consider naming the park at
Prospect and Hollowell Streets, "Constitution Park,"
in honor of the Bicentennial of The Constitution of
the United States of America. Or if there should be
plans for any new park or city square, to so name it
"Constitution Park" or Constitution Square."
Such recognition would be a daily and constant reminder
of the many blessings of liberty all of us enjoy today,
as well as to future posterity. In looking through the
Thomas Atlas, it appears no street or park up to now
carries that designation in the South Bay. We hope that
Hermosa Beach might be the first city to name a
"Constitution Park."
We appreciate very much your kind consideration of
this suggestion.
Sincerely,
Mary Bhuta
Constitution Week Chairman
P. E. O. SISTERHOOD
CHAPTER
I.Q.
Corresponding Secretary
Betsy Miller
640 Porter Lane
Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254
January 14, 1988
"NAME THAT PARK"
710 Pier Avenue
Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254
STATE
CALIFORNIA
The P.E.O. Sisterhood, Chapter I.Q. of Hermosa Beach
would name that park: RODAWAY PARK in memory of Miss
Edith Rodaway who died December 10, 1987.
She was an outstanding citizen with some of her ac-
complishments listed here. She was a charter member
of P.E.O. Chapter I.Q., a teacher with the Hermosa
Beach school district for 35 years, a volunteer in
the school libraries after retiring from teaching,
an active member of the St. Cross Epicopal church
and she helped to start the Hermosa Beach library.
The Rodaway family moved to Hermosa Beach in 1907
when Edith was 3 years old. Her father was a builder
in the area and her aunt was the first postmistress
of Hermosa Beach. In 1915 they moved to 920 17th St.
where she lived until her death.
Enclosed you'll find a list of all members that
attended our January meeting. Again, we present
the name RODAWAY PARK for your careful consideration.
Edith Rodaway's life contained the unique blend
of community dedication, pioneering spirit and long
term residency which make her a fine example for
Hermosa Beach residents.
Sincerely,
Betsy Miller
t"NADAEZIAAT.PAAK" -*
• 710 Pier Avenue
Hermosa Beach,.CA90254
The deadline is January 15,
• 1988. You might even use this as
your official entry form.
Name -4 .Z4 5 I#E-/
Address9i7e - `7"-N 5. '
City if,- 47.__Phone 74e --PF/
0 6
State '4" fo.zg-y, • -
I would name that park: •
I ..P/r/I Roo,/ 1.4./A r -,49-/K
-e-
a-r-e-
4:5-4-A-c-4";
Beca SS"
'445
You may attach as many addi- .
tional sheets as you wish to ex-
plain your choice.
714-4--a-7
a- Az -z -4 -2a ----e e4
g -e7
-e callers•
Eby Corulie G F.bey - .....,� �J
Easy Reader; beeeniber4?,•,1987;
A little spat of eland, a park, in ' •
Hermosa Beach is nameless for •
the nonce. That's enough to spark
a spat under any conditions. Any
vacant plot .not.being developed
for a condo—or a hotel—is signifi- .
cant. •
This darling little thing of land
has always been a park, in one : -
way or another. A long time ago a
bunch of school kids cleared out
the weeds and tried to make a
baseball field out of it. The weeds
and kids all grew up at the same •
time and interest in mitts was re-
placed by interest in misses.
Next, Prospect Heights Elemen-
tary School claimed dibbles on
this dabble of land which is situat-
ed between Hollowell Avenue,
Prospect Avenue and Gentry
Street..Actualiyits not that small. ._
It's a prime plot in the midst of
plenty—traffic, rising property
values, lack of green space. For
some time it was a playground for
the school.
But now it's an official city park.
The dilemma facing the city is
that it has no official name. .
The Hermosa Beach Communi-
ty Resources -Commission say's
the park "will continue to attract .
. ' play and recreation. The park's •
amenities include a grass area,
basketball court and hopscotch."
People inthe neighborhood
want to name it something sim-
ple. .Something like "Prospect
Park," that would allow an oasis
of greenery and (turnery and no •
• "big deal," like BBQ areas -and
restrooms. They would like a local
spot for kids to get to know each
other, hop and hoop, and enjoy
the harmony of a tight commu-
nity.
It's true that the lack of lands-
caping without trees or bushes,
surrounded by chain link fences,
make the name "Stark Park" (sug-
gested) appropriate. But that's
hardly the type of name the Com-
mission had in mind as they is-
sued the call for suggestions. ".
They are asking residents to be-
come part of history by naming
the park.
"All applicants must be Hermo-
sa Beach residents. Each submit-
tal must include a reason for
name selection. All applicants will
be reviewed by a screening : com...,
mittee composed of members aE
.. .
the city's Prospect Park Commit- •
. tee. This screening committee will
- select three names and forward
• them to the Community Resourc-
es CoMmission. The Commission
will select one name which will
be forwarded to City Council for
final approval. The person who
submits the winning name will'
receive a plaque recognizing their
contributibn at thepark's ribbon-
• cutting ceremony tentatively
scheduled for March, 1988," the
press release continues. • .
Maybe an entry like "Pine
Park" will help spruce the place
up a little. Who knows what crea- .
tivity lurks in the hearts of Her•
mosans?
Take a drive by the little plot --
nestled between Hollowell Ave-
nue, Prospect Avenue and Gentry
Street while you're out looking ai •
Christmas lights. You won't 'ie
able to miss it. It will be that dark
area. Then send your name and
suggestions to::-
- "NAME.THAT
a.--"NAME.THAT PARK"
710 Pier Avenue
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
The deadline is January 15,•
1988. You might even use this as
your official entry form..: . -
Name:"kRl5rIAl A.C. OI"UI.Y - -'
Address q49 I6TH ST'.
City /4. /3 • Phone 3'7b:90?0
State C 4 " Tap '10.a5
I. I would name that park:
i. 'Ron AWAY" PARK
The Daily Breeze
~Saturday, December 12, 1987
•
Edith Rodaway
• Services will be today for
Edith Rodaway, a Hermosa
Beach resident for 80 years.
Born June 27, 1904, in En-
• gland, she died Dec. 10, 1987, at
a local hospital.
Ms. Rodaway was a teacher
for 35 years with the Hermosa
Beach School District.
She was a charter member of
P.E.O. Chapter I.Q.and St.
Cross Episcopal Church in Her-
: mosa Beach, where she served
as church higtorian, choir mem-
ber, 9rganjst and - unday school
teacher.
ters,h
esurvived
Grace
Grace Rodawa
sa Be
South Ga
Services will be at 11 a.m. at
St. Cross Episcopal Church..
Burial will follow at Inglewood
Park Cemetery. -
• • White and Day Mortuary is
handling arrangements.
y two sis-
of Hermo-
a Conner of
Because_.s'/t ll o4"c/ /u r.+ f t*r S!j 2
. ytui S 4. tlix is enie I•c err. • • •.
• 4 e Ili i Veteltej' !.' :A,4 see- At, 4l 71/44 All 0 61 htiµr •
You may attach as many addi- . •
tional sheets as you* wish to ex-
plain your choice.•
WARREN BARR, O.D.
PAUL C. BARR, O.D.
DOCTORS OF OPTOMETRY
(21 S) 372.5213
Member
American Optometric Association
BOX 515, HERMOSA BEACH, CA. 90254
1500 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
NAME THAT PARK
710 Pier Avenue 12/30/87
Hermosa Beach, Ca 90254
Name: eetty & Paul Barr
922 17th. St.
Hermosa Beach, Ca 90254
376 6263
I would name that park: RODAWAY PARK
Because it would honor an outstanding citizen.
Edith RODAWAY came to Hermosa as a child around
1910. She graduated from Redondo Hi then from
"Normal School" (UCLA). She taught school
in Hermosa for more than 30 years. Generationsof
children would be pleased to honor her by
having a park named for her. She was an outstanding
citizen and a pioneer of our city. Her Aunt
was the first postmistress of Hermosa. Her father
built the original St. Cross Church.
Edith passed away Dec. 10, 1987.
Sincerely,
901 16th Street
Hermosa Beach, CA 9025'1
December 31, 1987
"NAME THAT PARK"
710 Pier Avenue
Hermosa Beach, CA 9025'1
Dear Committee Members:
It would be most Fitting to name the park RODAWAY PARK, in memory
of Edith Rodaway, who died December 10, 1987.
Miss Rodaway was not only an 80 -year resident of Hermosa Beach
but also a teacher For 35 years with the Hermosa Beach School
District.
She was always interested in young people and continued as a
volunteer in one of the school libraries after her retirement
some 20 years ago.
She was a person of many skills and talents, which she shared
most generously with one and all. She was a talented musician,
seamstress, and cook. She had a "green thumb" as evidenced by
the variety of exotic plants in her yard.
It is a matter of interest that many of her former students still
live in Hermosa Beach and they range in age From grandparents to
youngsters in their thirties.
Sincerely,
Lois M. Clemons
•1
s
• .:;*1011 PlaY/41.q:
aLLyon
stiOrial sheets as wsb to
71W.c...,..4107 ., •
4.:Is•t4;k:.5
..t..„-.,•„... and
...:futin-'s—ery7nd-'n:
. ... •-
'
_„
.":;?:4:"4.:**':4,:--7::::th. l'!'"*IT.II. 16, f....119:(*::‘:(36sP°-.b:he,:i'liea;:r..'-hnth:orinit.s,,Ilia;71Pgtha:t'7-rtic-S,°:•7.-1—'45!."..-74.::
,.....„ ,...,..,...--...--' :
It's .8.:Finle • • !,' 'trig 13,1".913. - - ,i,,iiity.-...,:;th-t-iatic:t7. •
.....„ • ••••daffic;:p§......,,, space.:Fot ...*.•\,-,.. ,- true :that .....,,,,.„ or lenty-7. ",i -,4 --..,,fn .--....*,,-it?dt s ...., ...,-1-,...ees or .0 . .
c
•-•.,5;'1:4-,.:..... -tam.- ' V:it AFa.s 4-15.-.I.i..-.'C - - did by - . - -
:.d;s8thi:4'::h,7:::i:11..o4.tt"'mtciaicilli::.v‘„j.i...iy.,frpi,:a:rty:ictll!::::::::;::;.1..buiu.iwiaice.'jbe:s;tr:!t..9:.fdun°.:er.::ki:pi..''d5eT::::j1:7e:e:,.,.i.*.,.i:34s:,..6:4r;4:::d.::.:ifr:Blike_Aue'islft.'as:jij::i---ijn9caadst,.
..,.„6--; '.i2cic,pk..,b.....f,-, r••dun"sci..toF.A11.,..al:iiii....wi.. .-triou,tiiin... ,...iink,... fence
Park" (suf
t0 get fqT9:.en'ea)01.
'1:1;.:, ,e , : .., c•eimna....i....i.,..s: ,..aalfaaan.1.•th;4,..,:oci.i..07.__Ls.;..7....1:,,it.zt.;,..t,i7lipg..e.art:a1,.,..te..,ydith.:.a..e.p:typepdr:p:i?rxhinftairani......a..).s.„..th..:ihe...,e7.1.
-k.:44...4f.i,tt:n-h4H-uu"sSWeln- .1,...119a42-; B'r:#11:,Ii7:-4-yatii...:i;dssitoline"helk4..s.,...11,.. 0,t-es.ti,.daddis.tit:6.;:b,..
.:-S5AitirtIP..._,....,•A t..i7tOniff.',. lb'? .4',Itikt.r...sti. • " 6 -aililig rFs1. .
F.„,11.,..-• itZifirinuei.9.'?...,-kis vlkeY, ,!ir..- I hfstiiii4! M7);
kille...-41.1fic4•7:40.6. ;15.1i•VETea-.1gOlitaf--.1f.,07'.--. '-biiternq',
4... 1314Y .g11.....i,v-atideat".Z!as ,-. 4i;k:„,tx,?,the pa! applicants ifitst, .......tini
.etii...tiek.r.„..,,.,a h9:prAttk.a.p4p,v.s,:iAll:, ,f.s.-..sieh .F.
fri:4,1,..„,1 tiske.; p: ot-oi3itballt2.7•4;ii!11.4:66:rkv...,,t37t;tatilliiiiel7/1-e.iiha__.±;...6-..kg-ill..trii7.:. :1.1t:r.,:t.sa:r1s1i74isiVi.....sn. 171,..T.:Alide .ia01.p...riecin"-6* tiii:iy:f:
•;..e: --;_c.‘,' Inetp1.1:1$ _„.. • -..--"'an-oasis.4,...- s ..
iP...P5..f.;-iiii:0-'4e141!()41.N?:§:f'`A"..'''''
,I•Vie..,1, ..- :.,.....• • uld auOW .4,0. rrt kv, - • 0,
. mat •wo , ......,0:9,,-..,.,47... ,
4.ipaik,:a44,,..,...41.-.4ks----,7- 4.-.•koz:',....tal.
It • -
41-4-4 lee,wew-Lr
,127-,64- j-4
XLe
wtene.,0"1,4,:c, 64-
et,ce c.-ece
a rrie callers
.by Combe C..E1Xy
Easy Reads; Decembert9,• J987'
4 little spat of land, a park, in
Hermosa Beach is nameless for
• the nonce. That's enough to spark
a spat under any conditions. Any.
vacant plot .not. being developed
for a condo—or a hotel—is signifi-
cant.
This darling little thing of land •
has always been a park, in one
way or another. A long time ago a •
. bunch of school kids cleared out
the weeds and tried to make a
baseball field out of it. The weeds
andkidsallgrewupatthesame
time and interest in mitts was re-
placed by interest in misses.
Next, Prospect Heights Elemen-
tary School claimed dibbles on
this dabble of land which is situat-
ed between •Hollowell Avenue,
Prospect Avenue and Gentry
_Street.Actually; its not that small.
It's a prime plot in the midst of
plenty—traffic, rising property
values, lack of green space. For
• some time it was a playground for
the school. • -
But now it's an official city park: •
The dilemma facing the city is
• that it has no official name:.- .. r .
The Hermosa Beach Communi-
ty Resources -Commission say' . •
the park "will continue to attract •
play and recreation. The park's
amenities :include a grass area,
basketball court andhopscotch."
•
People in. the neighborhood
want to name it something sim-
• ple.. Something like . "Prospect
Park," that would allow an oasis _•
of greenery and funnery and no
"big deal," like BBQ areas and-
restrooms. They would like a local `.
spot for kids to get to know eact
other, hop and hoop, and enjoy
the harmony of a tight commix.- ,
nity. •
It's true that the lack of lands-
caping without trees or bushes,
surrounded by chain link fences,
make the name "Stark Park" (sug-
gested) appropriate. But that's
hardly the type of name the Com-
mission had in mind as they is-
sued the call for suggestions.
They are asking residents to be-
come part of history by naming
the park. •
"All applicants must be Hermo-
sa Beach residents. Each subqut-
�tal must include a reason for
name selection. All applicants will
•
:` be reviewed by a screening com-
mittee composed .of members of
the city's Prospect Park Commit-
tee. This screening committee will
select three names and forward
them to the Community Resourc
• es Coriunission.. The Commission
will select one name which will
be forwarded to City Council for
final approval. The person who
submits the winning name will
receive a plaque recognizing their
• contribution at the park's ribbon-
' -cutting ceremony tentatively
- scheduled for March; 1988," the
press release continues. •
Maybe an entry like "Pine
Park" will help spruce the place
up a little. Who knows what crea-
tivity lurks in the hearts of Her-
mosans?
Take a drive by the little plot .
nestled between Hollowell Ave-
nue, Prospect Avenue and Gentry
Street while you're out looking at •.
• Christmas lights. You won't be
able to miss it; It will be that dark
• area. Then send your name and
suggestions ta:= .
• `-_"NAME THAT. PARK" . •
710 Pier Avenue -
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
The deadline is January 15,
1988. You might even use this as
your official entry form. •
N•ame: (=I d v r✓ AM h F•. 11'
:•Address /`1,Maf; ert•r'nitud`
City !.t. R Phone '17'7 —r]cp.1)
State • _t''i t . • Zip 9 r-': 9 '1 .
I would name that park:
• -1 w/. PA } lac
Because_
You may attach as many addi- .
tional sheets as you wish to ex-
plain your choice. . r - yy
, LL Li . K,„�y cz4e. •.iLLL
CALLA- Le_ (4, ALte't eCCy 1 LLl
-9724 yL' -t cc- � am, , I7
2, a.CC
cC1M 1,
l
(-A4 Cc, CZ -C At (4
:The Daily Breeze
Saturday, December 12, 1987
Edith Rodaway
• Services will be today for
Edith Rodaway, a Hermosa
Beach resident for 80 years.
Born June 27, 1904, in En-
gland, she died Dec. 10, 1987, at
a local hospitaL
Ms. Rodaway was a teacher
for 35 years with the Hermosa
Beach School District.
She was a charter member of
P.E.O. Chapter I.Q.and St.
Cross Episcopal Church in Her-
- mosa Beach, where she served
as church historian, choir mem-
b3r, organist and Sunday school
teacher. -
, She is survived by two sis-
ters, Grace Rodaway of Hermo-
sa Beach and Hilda Conner of
South Gate.
Services will be at 11 a.m. at
St. Cross Episcopal Church..
Burial will follow at Inglewood
' Park Cemetery.
White and Day Mortuary is
handling arrangements. .
R0DA1utY PARK
uM r U
k.;-)1•14.121CLP%24/er” .vL -cG ,'Z1it
•
Name callers •
Ycm*cr y .....• �.
' Easy Reader; Deanaber'19; .19R7
A little spat of land, a park, in
Hermosa Beach is nameless f
• the nonce. That's enough to spar
a spat under any conditions. A
vacant plot not being developed
for a condo—or a hotel—is signifi
cant.
. This darling little thing of
has always been a park, in o
way or another. A long time ago
. bunch of school kids cleared ou
the weeds and tried to make a •
baseball field out of it. The weeds
and kids all grew up at the same
time and interest in mitts was re-
placed by interest in miens
' be reviewed by a screening coin
mittee composed of members of -
or the city's Prospect Park Commit-
tee. This screening committee will
nY 'select three names and forward
them to the Community Resourc-
es Commission. The Commission
will select one name which will
Ian be forwarded to City Council for
ne final approval. The person who
a submits the winning name will
t'
Next, Prospect Heights Elemen
tary School claimed dibbies o
this dabble of land which is situat
ed between Hollowell Avenue
Prospect Avenue and Gentry
__Street Actually,it's not that small.
It's a prime plot in the midst o
plenty—traffic, rising property
values, lack of green space: For
some time it was a playground fo
the schooL
But now it's an•of icial city park.
• The dilemma facing the city is
that it has no official name.
The Hermosa Beach Common
ty Resources •Commission say's
the park "will continue to attract
play and recreation. The park's
amenities include a grass area,
basketball court andhopscotch."
People in the neighborhood
want to name it something sim-
• ple..Something like. "Prospect
Park," that would allow an oasis
of greenery and funnery and no
"big deal," like BBQ areas and
restrooms. They would like a local
spot for kids to get to know earl±
other, hop and hoop, and enjoy
the harmony of a tight commu-
nity.
It's true that the lack of lands-
caping without trees or bushes,
surrounded by chain link fences,
make the name "Stark Park" (sug-
gested) appropriate. But that's
hardly the type of name the Com-
mission had in mind as they is-
sued the suggestions.
call for
They are asking residents to be-
come part of history by naming
the park. -
"All applicants must be Hermo-
sa Beach residents. Each submit-
tal must include a reason for
name selection. All applicants will
receive a plaque recognizing their
contribution of the. park's ribbon-
' cutting ceremony tentatively
scheduled for March, 1988," the
press release continues. •
Maybe an entry like "Pine
Park" will help spruce the place
---.
n I * up a little. Who knows what crew -
1 . tivity lurks in the hearts of Her-
o�? -
Take a drive by the little plot -
f • - nestled between Hollowell Ave-
nue, Prospect Avenue and Gentry
Street while you're out looking at •
r Christmas lights. You won't be
able to miss it. It will be that dark
. area. Then send' your name and
suggestions tac..- - : •
:- "NAIVIE.THAT PARK"
710 Pier Avenue
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 • J
3
• The deadline is January 15, '
. Y-1988. You might even use this as
E your official entry foam..
Name:- I -o ren:
• •Addrpa I ''•t H'//crer,
Cityf-Fer m'sc Phone l 7% :-977
State i_";•/.1. i L•. Zip HiQ u.
I vxoulname that k
Koda:L;ay. r.K .
J 9 7n
Because
:j a en 'n n ap d .tirt
• You ma ch as many addi-
tional shees you wish to ex-
pour choice.
Tiro
o
4.1VAME THAT PAFiK'''.‘':-41"
• ,
14474/40191rAVerige
:74 tz
Beach, CA 90254
'Fhe • deadline is -January' 15 A-0
1988. Youmight even use this as
our official entry form
•
AlankAde•
Ndr
QtyriPPAIABck Phon
t:4`q.4tp
I Votild name:that parlsL:-=-447454:
t'A R k
•.=.13edause:PLid 77/4/1 'RPS irfrArr
• '-'110-pes ilz../r4 a K A c, A
),/,‘Aeyx.46 4.41
76;z4Z;vt-
e-/ gatd
lAcz.&y r
jefLOVe
,4 -a, i&Ce4&
/el/ leadt4t., Sce.. tract•e%
C 2
xxizt-aeL‘z- Ad/Lee
1
"NAME•THAT PARK" •_
•
.740 -Pier Avenue ' '
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
The deadline is January 15,'--
• 1988. You might even use this as
your official entry form. s'
Name:' AUDRIE F. WING
`•Address_915 Ninth -St:-
City H.B. • Phone 176-9715.,
State CA . •ip .90254
I would name that park:: _;
•
NAME THAT PARK"
EDI 1H KODAWAY PARK • . 10 Pier Avenue
• Because She was - ari outstanding ermosa Beach, CA 90254
.friend of children and exception
Xal teacher and ri ti man 'nf HermosE
You may attach as many addi- . Beach.
tional sheets as you wish to ex- •.:
plain your choice.
f
CC :1744;T,ING --
ALL.
March 14, 1988
Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of
the Hermosa Beach City Council March 22, 1988
AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT BIDS -ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS, CITY HALL
CIP 86-602
Recommendation:
It is recommended that City Council authorize staff to advertise
for bids for the electrical improvements for the City Hall. (CIP
86-602), and issue addenda as necessary.
Background:
At the March 8, 1988 Council meeting, City Council took formal
action to:
1) Drop the air-conditioning in the Council Chambers.
2) Bring back the air-conditioning in the Community Center,
for review at budget time.
3) Direct staff to bring back the electrical improvements at
the next meeting.
Analysis:
The plans and specifications for the electrical improvements at
City Hall have been revised by the architect (JSA), reviewed by
the Building Department and are on file in the Office of the City
Clerk. In summary, these electrical improvements consist of the
following:
1) New autotransfer switch and generator for Police dispatch
area and City Hall computer room. (Est. Cost:
$19,000)
2) New uninterruptable power supply (U.P.S.) for City Hall
computer room (Est. Cost: $26,000)
3) New automatic restart for City Hall computer room
air-conditioning (Est. cost: $1,000)
4) Separate computer electrical loads from panel in City A
Hall. (Est. Cost: $3,500)
(Misc. costs, including overhead and profit: $13,000)
These components act together as follows:
In the event of a power outage the autotransfer switch
"automatically" turns on and activates the generator. As long as
there is fuel in the generator, the generator provides power
directly to the Police dispatch area. The generator also provides
"uninterruptable" power to the City Hall computer room via the
U.P.S. The air-conditioning in the City Hall computer room is
maintained by the automatic restart, which -is powered by the
generator as well.
(Note: The salvage value of the 10 KW generator being replaced by
the 30 KW generator is included in the Contractor's bid as
a credit to the City.)
The U.P.S. was listed as an option in the City Hall electrical
deficiencies study performed by Black O'Dowd & Associates in
1987. The project bid specifications now list the U.P.S. as an
option; that is, the contractor will bid on the project both with
and without the U.P.S. If the U.P.S. is not installed, this could
reduce costs by approximately $20,000. (Note: Even if the U.P.S.
is not installed the electrical wiring from the generator to the
computer room is still necessary. The cost for this wiring is
approximately $6,000.)
A separate electrical panel for computer room loads only is
proposed to avoid any interference from other electrical loads.
Project Schedule is attached as Exhibit A.
Fiscal Impact:
The architects' estimate of construction costs was prepared by
JSA and is attached as Exhibit B. This estimate results in the
following fiscal impact:
CITY HALL ELECTRICAL UPGRADE, CIP 86-602
Design Cost
Estimated Construction Costs
Estimated Inspection Costs
Contingency
Total Project Cost
City Council Budget Amount
$ 5,000
62,500
3,000
3,750
$71777
$74,250
The architects' estimated construction costs ($62,500) are within
the budgeted amount.
Alternatives:
Alternatives considered by staff and available to City Council
are:
1) Modify the scope of work.
2) Drop the project.
Respectf
earct
fitted,
JZ,aL. �t
Deborah M. Murphy
Assistant Engineer
Concur :
j\-1. /1/ q (1/V1,,IN
Anthony Antich
Public Works Director
Concur: Concur:
/ / i 1 1
r ��i _ l .2C.it-0 1_e
Kevin B. Northcraft Wil'Tiam Grove
City Manager Building and Safety Director
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
1. Improved security for the emergency generator should be
considered by staff as a separate project.
2. Back-up systems for power loss and air-conditioning failure
should be developed to ensure that such failures are noticed
and start-ups verified. These back-up systems should be
considered by staff as a separate project.
cc:
Viki Copeland - Finance Administrator
Steven Wisniewski - Public Safety Director
Joan Noon - General Services Director
DMM/umv
Attachments: Exhibit A - Project Schedule
Exhibit B - Architects'Estimate
3
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
LEGEND
PROJECT NAME : 41441/141/44— GC..477GTRAr.A9(_/AaPANOWE NEP47:
c/P erG-6d2 TENTATIVE SCHEDULE ::s".:a•.s s"■i m
ACCOUNT NUMBER : 06/ — q Q/- eca6Z—¢2O / ACTUAL SCHEDULE s mumummeinem
cil X : 100% COMPLETE
I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1
{'
• ` TASKS JAN
N FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
I ---
Final design approval before advertisin: _ amJ_ I I I I I I I-- -I I
for construction
(i
Prepare advertisement & set bid opening
I, I I I I I I
date
I I I ::� e. I. I I I I I I I 0I
Advertising period
(issue addendums as necessary)
Accept sealed bids & public bid openings I I 1 a■ 1, -•----I I I I i II
Review bids I I I II in a ----J
IIII 1
Award contract
I I I
..I
Sign contract
• (bonds insurance & workers comp. cert.) I 1
Preconstruction meeting procedure
• I I I
Issue "Notice to Proceed" •
Construction Period
Monitor progress & maintain records I I
I Iry J I I I I 1 I
I 1 IN I. I I I I 1
I I 1 .1 I I I I I I
III I I I I I , 1
1 LINI.J...1uI I I I - •1
N. II .,la.,ar 1 I
Progress payment and I I I I I I ■ IIIIII=IELI NM I I I I I
' • change order procedure
1 I I I 1 I I I,m. I I I I
Acceptance of work as complete
..I I I I I I I I I I I
Issusing and recording a o ■
"Notice of Completion"
I I I I I I. 1 I I I----••- I 1
Retention Payment ■ ma
i Project close out I• I I • I I I I I i I I
1------I I I ------I 1 I I I I I
PROJECT
G I+:1 tl arijOmmvnitii Get/ rer
�GCAfl rMOr-ad 13eac4I I CA
AlE
IG
IMMITI ]1
WarligUNI
VRIFZEff
DESCRIPTION
FI
meta r ember�!
otryf star]
tl(aweovs
'Len it
ftvt CC fravoII 1&t'
A/E ESTIMATE
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
CONCEPT CONCCEPT
PLAN NO.
QUANTITY
U
•
_ 033
MATERIAL
UNIT
TOTAL
0 DETAIL
DATEfb25(
INTERMEDIATE0
FINAL ESTIMATOR W
0 SUMMARY
LABOR
UNIT
TOTAL
CHECKED
SUB CONTRACTOR
UNIT
TOTAL
a
UNIT
OF
TOTAL
TOTAL
BSc al
jotiOVER
% PRoF
70T
irt cow►w+vw1fi cif
vviecihay, c
Roo rte-
NGW • • f/
.14,4isceabl, 17-1: "
A.
5o••0•
$o•o
\ 200
2 `,000
\ ono
Doo
700
March 15, 1988
City Council Meeting
March 22, 1988
Mayor and Members
of the City Council
BUMP BUDQE7 . - SPgCIAL, MUNJCIPAL. E48CTIQ1LJUNE. 7, ..1988
RECQMMIENDATCON
It is recommended that the City Council Adopt the attached
revised budget for the Special Municipal Election June 7, 1988
and authorize that an additional $5,200 be transferred from
Prospective Expenditures into the Elections Account for the
estimated cost of the Los Angeles County Registrar -Recorder for
the Consolidation.
BACKQ RQUND
On February 23, 1988, City Council approved a Budget for the
Special Municipal Election June 7, 1988 in the amount of $6,500.
Included in this estimate was $3,000 for the Los Angeles County
Registrar -Recorder for the Consolidation.
On March 9, 1988, I received a letter from the Registrar that the
estimated cost for the consolidation would be $6,805, with
additional costs for extra pages in the voters pamphlet.
The new cost estimate is broken down as follows:
Estimated cost for consolidation
Addl. Page for Measure
Addl. Page for Argument
Addl. Page for Impartial Analysis
Previously budgeted
Difference
AdiatiQn?l.AuthQrizatiQn
$6,805.00
468.96
468.96
4.684§.
$8,211.8
3,000...Q0
5,211.88
$5,200.00
KATHLEEN MIDSTOKKE, City Clerk
NOTED: ��� NOTED FOR FISCAL IMPACT:
�� ��
41i4041:4-41:4,)
EVIN NO HCR'FT,. ity Manager VIKI COPELAND, Finance Admin.
FA Note: Balance in Prospective Exp.
as of 2/28/88 $77,248
10
REVISED BUDGET SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
CONSOLIQATED W17H..GENERAL _PRIMART JUNE 7,.1988
REGISTRAR -RECORDER (One Measure)
Election Administration
Ballot Preparation & Proofing
Vote Recorder Pages
Sample Ballot Printing
Ballot Material Processing
ELECTION SUPPLIER
Calendar of Election Events
Sample Forms, Resolutions, Notices
Consultation Services
$ 8,200
500
CASSETTE AND FRAME REPORT (Current list of registered 250
voters)
SALARIES - CITY CLERK FOR 4 MONTH ELECTION PROCESS 2,000
DELIVERY & MILEAGE - REGISTRAR/RECORDER & BD. OF 100
SUPERVISORS
PUBLICATION - LEGAL NOTICES 300
MISC., REPRODUCTION, OFFICE SUPPLIES, TELEPHONE, 350
POSTAGE
11,700
3-15-88
km
REGISTRAR -RECORDER COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
5557 FERGUSON DRIVE - P.O. BOX 30450, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
CHARLES WEISSBURD
REGISTRAR•RECORDER
March 8, 1988
Ms. Kathleen Midstokke,
City Clerk
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, California 90254
Dear Ms. Midstokke:
RE: ESTIMATED COST TO CONSOLIDATE WITH
THE JUNE, 1988 PRIMARY ELECTION
The estimated cost for your agency to consolidate with the June,
1988 Primary election is $6,805.
The estimate is based on current registration, the calculated
number of precincts required to accommodate your voters, and the
estimated number of jurisdictions sharing prorated costs with
your agency. Any change in these factors will affect election
costs.
Printing costs are based on the assumption that your agency will
require not more than one page of the County's Self -Mailer
Pamphlet.
If the County has agreed to print your Measure Arguments and
Analysis, or if your agency has offices on the ballot, refer to
the attached for additional estimated costs.
If you require additional information regarding these estimates,
please contact me at (213) 725-5688. All other election related
questions should be directed to Margarite Brown, Chief Elections
Division, at (213) 725-5805.
Very truly yours,
C S WEISSBURD
Retrar-Recorder
bg/R2:QA
Attachment
cc: Margarite Brown
JANICE M. CULL, Chief
Budget, Accounting & Contracting
JUNE, 1988
PRIMARY ELECTION
The following charges should be added to consolidation estimates
provided by this office: 1
,1 �.i1
1
Printing -
Campaign Reporting -
Candidate Nomination
Add $.04 per Registered Voter for
each Measure Analysis and Argument
page if provided in County's self -
mailer pamphlet and for each additional
sample ballot page required to list
large numbers of candidates running
for office.
Add $68.00 per candidate if the County
provides campaign reporting for your
agency.
Add $60.00 per candidate if the County
provides candidate nomination services
for your agency.
i
BUDGET SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
ONSOLIDAT D WI EN R�, PR. ARY J,NE
approved by C ty Council 2 -23 -
REGISTRAR -RECORDER (One Measure)
Election Administration
Ballot Preparation & Proofing
Vote Recorder Pages
Sample Ballot Printing
Ballot Material Processing
ELECTION SUPPLIER
Calendar of Election Events
Sample Forms, Resolutions, Notices
Consultation Services
$ 3,000
500
CASSETTE AND FRAME REPORT (Current list of registered 250
voters)
SALARIES - CITY CLERK FOR 4 MONTH ELECTION PROCESS 2,000
DELIVERY & MILEAGE - REGISTRAR/RECORDER & BD. OF 100
SUPERVISORS
PUBLICATION - LEGAL NOTICES 300
MISC., REPRODUCTION, OFFICE SUPPLIES, TELEPHONE, 350
POSTAGE
g,5bb
2-17-88
km
March 14, 1988
Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of
the Hermosa Beach City Council March 22, 1988
STATUS REPORT ON GRADING AND DRAINAGE
FOR TENTATIVE TRACT # 30986
LOCATED AT 20TH STREET
AND POWER STREET
Recommendation:
It is recommended City Council receive and file this report.
Background:
At the January 26, 1988 Council meeting, City Council took the
following formal action:
"Public Works Director is delegated the authority to meet with
the engineers for the developer and County to approve corrections
assuming that the grading plan meets all the necessary
engineering requirements. The plan is to be referred back to City
Council for final approval".
Analysis:
The analysis for this report is divided into the following
sections:
1. Historical Background: Revised Grading Plan
2. Meeting with Los Angeles County
3. Alternative (Drainage ) Solutions
4. Staff Requirements
5. Developer's Response
6. Effect on Tentative Tract Map
7. Summary
1. Historical Background: Revised Grading Plan
On March 24, 1987, the City Council adopted Resolution No.
87-5026 (Exhibit A) approving the conceptual grading plan for an
eight lot subdivision at Power and 20th Street (tentative tract
# 30986) with certain conditions. One of these conditions is that
"development shall be substantially in conformance with the
submitted plans"; this includes the conceptual grading plan.
The developer's proposal results in the street along the easterly
subdivision boundary being up to 16.25 inches higher than the
adjacent properties (at the cul-de-sac bulb) and up to a 3 feet
grade differential at the southeast subdivision corner. Staff
considered this to be a substantial change from the conceptual
1
ip
grading plan and City Council approval of a final grading plan
will be requested at a later time.
A storm drain is necessary and the street must be raised for
proper storm water drainage coming from the proposed tentative
tract. Residents whose properties front Valley Park Drive
expressed concern that the proposed higher street elevation and
the block wall will cause drainage problems on their property.
2. Meeting with Los Angeles County
On March 3, 1988 the Public Works Director met with the
developer, his engineer and representatives from the Los Angeles
County Department of Public Works (City Services Division, Design
Division and Land Development Division). Following is a summary
of that meeting:
1. The County will ultimately maintain the proposed
storm drain, therefore County design approval is
necessary. (Exhibit B is a subsequent letter from the
County, indicating their design approval.)
2. The question "Will the proposed storm drain and resulting
street elevation adversely affect the adjacent property
owners?", was discussed at length. The following was
determined:
a) In the County's opinion, it appears that the
proposed storm drain could actually be improving
the drainage, because it could intercept all
runoff west of the easterly property line that
might presently be flowing easterly and possibly
collecting on these adjacent properties. The
County did suggest that the developer could
be required to provide an off-site topographic
survey, before and after hydrology and
supporting calculation. (County
Representatives declined staff's request to
state this in writing.)
b) The developer's recent on-site topographic map
indicates flow (on his property) in a generally
south-easterly direction. However, there is no
current off-site topography of the adjacent
properties available. (Both County and City
topographic maps are in excess of 20 years
old.)
c) Because a comprehensive topographic map
(including study of the subdivision as well as
the adjacent properties) Is not available,
and the fact that the "low point" is yet
unknown, it is not possible to "guarantee" that
there will be no adverse effects to the adjacent
properties resulting from the proposed storm
raised street elevation.
d) The Director of Public Works agreed to solicit
the professional opinion of the City Building
Department (and possibly an independent
consultant) regarding the drainage issue.
3. Alternate Drainage Solutions
In addition to the proposed storm drain design, the
following alternatives were discussed at the March 3, 1988
meeting:
1. Maintain street at existing grade resulting in the
proposed storm drain creating a sump condition requiring
a flapgate. (In other words, in a flood -type situation,
water collecting in the proposed Power Street storm drain
could be at a lower elevation than that in the County's
drain on 20th Street. A flapgate would be necessary so
that water in the 20th Street pipe would not infiltrate
into the proposed Power Street pipe.) This solution was
unacceptable to both the city and the County since it
would exacerbate any current flooding.
2. Maintain street at existing grade and connect proposed
storm drain to drain on Valley Park Drive. This would
require the developer to obtain or purchase an easement to
construct a storm drain across private property. The
developer did not consider this to be a viable
alternative.
4. Staff Requirements
The Building and Safety Director concurred with the views
expressed by the County Department of Public Works regarding the
likelihood that drainage would be improved; however, indicated
that there is insufficient offsite information available to
reasonably guarantee that adjacent properties will not be
affected by the raised street grade. Consequently, Public Works
staff obtained the professional opinion of Harris & Associates
Consulting Engineers (Exhibit C) which is summarized below.
1) The plans and supplemental information furnished by
developer do not show any specific details of topography
or existing elevations on the adjacent property in
question.
2) The burden of producing such engineering data, studies,
documentation and plans as are necessary to demonstrate
design adequacy within the above context lies with the
developer and his consultants.
3) In order for the City to complete a responsible design
review, sufficient engineering information such as
detailed site specific topography of the potentially
affected property, a hydrology study, or such other
engineering data as will clearly demonstrate that the
3
adjacent drainage will not be impeded is necessary, and
should be required of the developer.
Staff has requested the developer to provide this additional
information, to be submitted to the Director of Public Works, and
eventually' to City Council.
5. Developer's Response:
The developer has expressed concern regarding his neighbor's
consent to a survey of their property performed by the
developer's staff.
Chapter 805, Section 8774 of the Business and Professions Code
states as follows:
(a) " The right of entry upon or to real property to
investigate and utilize boundary evidence, and to perform
surveys, is a right of persons legally authorized to
practice land surveying, and it is the responsibility of
the owner or tenant who owns or controls property to
provide reasonable access to without undue delay. The
right of entry is not contingent upon the provision of
prior notice to the owner or tenant. However, the owner or
tenant shall be notified of the proposed time of entry
where practicable."
It appears that state law allows the developer's licensed
surveyor to enter onto his neighbor's private property. The
developer has agreed to provide staff with the additional
information required.
6. Effect on Tentative Tract Map:
On April 15, 1986 (Resolution No. PC 86-25, Exhibit D), the
Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map # 30986. This
map expires on April 15, 1988, unless the developer applies to
the Planning Commission for a one-year extension. The developer's
request for an extension of his tentative tract map has been
calendared for the April 5, 1988 Planning Commission agenda.
Prior to the expiration of an approved tentative map, upon an
application of a developer to extend that map, the map shall
automatically be extended for 60 days or until the application
for the extension is approved, conditionally approved, or denied,
whichever occurs first. If the Planning Commission denies a
developer's application for an extension, the developer may
appeal to the City Council within 15 days after the Planning
Commission has denied the extension.
4
7. Summary:
1. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works has
indicated preliminary design approval of the proposed
storm drain design (Exhibit B).
2. It is the opinion of the Director of Public Works,
the Director of the Building and Safety Department and an
independent licensed civil engineer (Harris & Associates,
Exhibit C) that the developer has not provided sufficient
information to guarantee that the properties fronting
Valley Park Drive will not suffer adverse effects from
the raised street elevation.
3. The developer has agreed to supply the Public Works
Director with sufficient engineering information to
complete a responsible design review. This will involve
off-site surveying on the private properties fronting on
Valley Park Drive.
Respectfully submitted,
Deborah M. Murphy
Assistant Engineer
Concur:
Concur:
en_e,
William J. Gro'.rfe
Building & Safety Director
DMM/umv
Concur:
An'"'ony Antich
Director of Pub is Works
Concur:
N., Of
J. 7es P. Loug 1'
40 y Attorney
cc: Mike Schubach , Planning Director
Attachments: Exhibit A: Resolution # 87-5026
Exhibit B: Letter from Los Angeles County
Exhibit C: Letter from Harris & Associates,
Consulting Engineers
Exhibit D: Resolution PC 86-25
-5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 87- 5026
EXHIBIT A
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE GRADING PLAN FOR AN EIGHT LOT
SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 532,534-540 TWENTIETH STREET SUBJECT TO
CONDITIONS.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach,
California, held a meeting on March 24, 1987 and made the
following Findings:
A. The grading plan is adequate;
B. The impact to the sandhill will be minimized.
1.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY APPROVE the
grading plan subject to the following conditions:
Development shall be substantially in conformance with the
submitted plans and the following conditions:
2. All Lot 5 retaining walls parallel to Power Street shall be
located a minimum of 45 feet from the front property line;
3. The small terraced areas located in the northwest corner of
Lots 6 and 7 shall be landscaped in a manner so as to
minimize the visual impact of the retaining walls; •
a.
Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Director
reiew and approval.
4. The soils report prepared for the project shall be amended to
address the revised grading plan;
5. Three (3) copies of the revised grading plan and landscaping
plan in conformance with all conditions approved shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for approval prior to
obtaining Building Permits.
for
PASSED, AP ROVED and
PT ' this 24th day of March, 1987.
r/
PRESIDENT' o the City/ ouncil and MAYOR o the City
-Hermod each, Califo Ta.
ATTEST:
PPROVED A TO FORM:
CLERK
CITY ATTORNEY
1
THOMAS A. TIDEMANSON, Director
CECIL E. BUGH, Chief Deputy Director
MAS NAGAMI, Assistant Director '
March 15, 1988
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Tony Antich
Director of Public Works
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-0299
Dear Mr. Antich:
900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE
ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91803-1331
Telephone: (818) 458.5100
LATERAL DRAIN CONNECTION TO PROJECT NO. 440
EXHIBIT B
ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO:
P.O. BOX 1460
ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91802-1460
IN REPLY PLEASE
REFER TO FILE:
This is in reply to your request made at the meeting with Mr. Mike
Saruwatari on March 3, 1988, concerning a proposed lateral drain in Power
Street.
We have reviewed preliminary plans submitted on March 8, 1988, by Westco
Engineering for the proposed lateral drain.
D-1
275-440.431
The proposed 24 -inch lateral drain can be connected to Project No. 440,
Line C, in 20th Street. It is our understanding from the discussion at the
meeting that the discharge rate from the lateral drain is in the range of
two to three cubic feet per second.
For further information, please contact Mr. Mike Saruwatari at (818) 458-7849.
V truly yours,
. A. TI[y€MANSON
Directo v' of Public Works
MS:ip5/LETTER8
cc: Westco Engineering
Attention Mr. Saiki
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
sik
HARRIS
& ASSOCIATES
EXHIBIT C
CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS
March 11, 1988
Mr. Anthony Antich
Director of Public Works
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Dear Mr. Antich:
Subject: Power Street Drainage, (Tentative Tract No. 30986)
On March 9, 1988, I met with Deborah Murphy, at her request, to review
drainage and street plans for the subject location.
Miss Murphy requested that I review the information available and make
recommendations as to sufficiency of information furnished and to relate
my observations on the drainage issue.
The following summarizes the key points of fact noted:
o The existing county outfall storm drain in 20th Street is approxi-
mately a 10 year frequency design. The 50 year design storm
would surcharge that pipe, resulting in the hydraulic grade line
being about 7 feet above the top of pipe.
o The originally designed street grade would result in the 50 year
(surcharged) hydraulic grade line being about 16 -inches above the
street elevation. In response to concerns of the Los Angeles
County Flood Control District, the developer has proposed to
raise the design street grade of Power Street to a point above
the hydraulic grade line.
o The residential property owners adjacent to the east side of the
proposed Power street have expressed concern, maintaining that
the revised higher street grade could adversely affect their
natural drainage.
o The plans and supplemental information furnished by developer do
not show any specific details of topography or existing elevations
on the adjacent property in question.
4281 KATELLA AVENUE, SUITE 207 ■ LOS ALAMITOS, CALIFORNIA 90720
(714) 229-0900 ■ (213) 402-2600 ■ FAX (714) 229-0995
Mr. Anthony Antich
City of Hermosa Beach
March 11, 1988
Page 2
o The developer's engineer has stated that based on general
topographic mapping of the area, the drainage is generally
flowing towards the east and south and, therefore, drainage of
the adjacent property would not be adversely affected.
Based upon the preceding statements, I offer the following observations:
First, the City is obliged to prudently review the submitted plans and
supporting information and to approve, conditionally approve, or
disapprove the submitted plans. In doing so the City has a responsibility
to assure, as best it can, that the design is consistent with state and
local regulations, is consistent with sound engineering practice, and that
the proposed improvements are not detrimental to the public health or
safety.
The burden of producing such engineering data, studies, documentation
and plans as are necessary to demonstrate design adequacy within the
above context lies with the developer and his consultants.
Particularly in the light of voiced public concern, additional information
should be required of the developer. Sufficient engineering information
such as detailed site specific topography of the potentially affected
property, a hydrology study, or such other engineering data as will
clearly demonstrate that the adjacent drainage will not be impeded is
necessary.
In addition, it appears that other alternatives, such as lowering the street
design to a conforming grade, could be further considered.
In summary, I recommend that additional data be required in order for
the City to complete a responsible design review.
If you have any questions or require any additional information, please do
not hesitate to call me.
Very truly yours,
HARRIS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Edgar E. Edwards, P.E.
EEE/dc
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
L 27
28
EXHIBIT 0
RESOLUTION P.C. 86-25
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NUMBER 30986 AND
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH MITIGATING MEASURES FOR AN 8 LOT SUB-
DIVISION AT 532,534-540 20TH STREET.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach
held a public hearing on April 15, 1986 to consider this matter
and made the following Findings:
1. The map is consistent with applicble general and specific
plans;
2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of
the subdivision;
3. The subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environ-
mental damage;
4. The subdivision is not likely to cause serious public health
problems;
5. The subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access
through or use of property within the proposed subdivision;
6. Design of the proposed subdivision is compatible and consis-
tent with applicable elements of the City's General Plan, and
is compatible with the immediate environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission
of the City of Hermosa Beach, California does hereby approve a
Tentative Tract Map #30986 and a Negative Declaration for an 8
Lot subdivision located at 532,534-540 20th Street subject to
the following conditions:,
STREET IMPROVEMENTS.
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
Pursuant to Section 29.5-8(b) of the Hermosa Beach Municipal
Code, all proposed street right-of-ways shall be dedicated as
public. As required by Section 66439 of the California Govern-
ment Code (the Subdivision Map Act), the developer's offer to
dedicate shall be indicated by a certificate on the final map.
All street improvements shall be designed and built to "public"
street standards and subject to the approval of the Director of
Public Works.
1. All proposed street right-of-way shall be a minimum of 40
feet.
2. All proposed street improvements shall be 30 feet in width
measured from flow -line to flow -line.
3. All proposed streets shall be designed in substantially the
same alignment as shown on the approved Tentative Tract map
and to the condition and dimensions as shown above.
4. The plan shall show all signage. • All signage shall be pre-
pared by a California Registered Traffic Engineer.
5. Street lights shall be provided at all intersections and cul-
de-sacs per City lighting standards. Existing street lights
shall be replaced with lights meeting City standards.
6. Sidewalks shall be provided on all sides except the east side
of the street.
7. Curb -cuts shall be prohibiited on the east side of the
street.
8. Landscaping shall be provided along the entire east side of
the street.
Prior to work beginning at the subdivision, the developer shall
submit plans and specifications for the street improvements to
the Director of Public Works for checking. All improvements
shall comply with the Director's standards.
Improvement Security. The developer is required to:
a. Enter into an agreement specifying the work to be completed.
b. Submit a faithful performance bond equal to 1007 of the esti-
mated construction cost which will guarantee the installation
of the street improvements.
Said bond form shall be as specified in Section 66499.1 of
the California Government Code. The developer shall submit a
cost breakdown of the estimated construction cost.
c. Submit a laborers and.materialsmen bond equal to 1007 of the
estimated construction cost. Said bond shall be as specified
in Section 66499.2 of the California Government Code.
SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The developer shall design and construct a sanitary sewer as re-
quired by the Director of Public Works. Said sanitary sewer im-
provement shall consist of the following as identified on the
City sewer atlas:
1. Replacement of manhole number 504 with a new precast concrete
manhole.
2. Replacement of manhole number 503 with a new precast concrete
manhole.
3. Replacement of the existing 15" NCP with new 15" VCP.
4. The alignment of the sanitary sewer shall be along the east-
erly property line of said subdivision.
5. Dedication of a 10' wide sanitary sewer easement. Said offer
of dedication shall be indicated by a certificate on the
final map.
Prior to work beginning at the subdivision, the developer shall
submit plans and specifications for the sanitary sewer improve-
ments to the Director of Public Works for checking. All improve-
ments shall comply with the Director's standards.
Improvement Security. The developer is required to:
a. Enter into an agreement specifying the work to be completed.
b. Submit a faithful performance bond equal to 1007 of the esti-
mated construction cost which guarantees installation of
sanitary sewer improvements.
Said bond form shall be as specified in Section 66499.1 of
the California Government Code. The developer shall submit a
cost breakdown of the estimated construction cost.
c. Submit a laborers and materialsmen bond equal to 100% of the
estimated construction cost. Said bond shall be as specified
in Section 66499.2 of the California Government Code.
WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS.
All lots shall be served by adequately sized water system facili-
ties which shall include fire hydrants of the size and type and
location as determined by the Fire Chief. The water mains shall
be of sufficient size to accommodate the total domestic and fire
flows required for the land division. Domestic flows require-
ments are to be determined by the Fire Chief.
Prior to work beginning at the subdivision, the developer shall
submit plans and specifications for the water system facilities
to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval. Im-
provements shall comply with the Director's standards. Approval
for filing of the land division is contingent upon approval of
plans and specifications mentioned above.
Improvement Security. The developer is required to:
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. Enter into an agreement specifying the work to be completed.
b. Submit a faithful performance bond equal to 100% of the esti-
mated construction cost which guarantees installation of the
water system improvements.
Said bond form shall be as specified in Section 66499.1 of
the California Government Code. The developer shall submit a
cost breakdown of the estimated construction cost.
OR
An agreement and other evidence satisfactory to the Director
of Public Works indicating that the subdivider has entered
into a contract with the serving water utility to construct
the water system, as required, and has deposited with such
water utility security guaranteeing payment for the installa-
tion of the water system.
c. Submit a laborers and materialsmen bond equal to 100% of the
estimated construction cost. Said bond shall be as specified
in Section 66499.2 of the California Government Code.
DRAINAGE FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS
All drainage swales shall have the concrete colored to earth
tones. All drainage swales shall be privately owned and
operated.
SOILS REPORT
Pursuant to Section 66490 of the California Government Code, the
developer is required to submit a soils report prepared by a reg-
istered Colifornia Civil Engineer.
FIRE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
1. A required width of 15 feet for roadway access shall be re-
quired. The access road shall be posted with "NO PARKING"
signs along the cul-de-sac. 1982 U.F.C. Sec. 10.207.
2. The turn -around area (hammerhead) provided for emergency
equipment shall conform to the specification required by the
Hermosa Beach Fire Department.
3. Provide an address on the front of each building to be
legible from the street, using minimum 3 inch numerals in
contrasting color to the background. All dwellings shall
have a Power Street address.
4. A new fire hydrant is required to meet the fire flow demand
(2000 GPM) and the spacing requirement. This hydrant is to
be located at either the s/w or s/e corner of 20th Street and
Power Street (type 4" X 2 1/2" on a 6" main).
BUILDING AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
1. A grading plan shall be submitted, approved and implemented
or bonded prior to recordation of the final map.
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
2. All utilities including gas, electric, telphone and cable
television shall be placed underground.
Improvement- Security. The developer is required to:
a. Enter into an agreement specifying the work to be completed.
b. Submit a faithful performance bond equal to 100% of the esti-
mated construction cost which will guarntee the installation
of the street improvements.
Said bond form shall be as specified in Section 66499.1 of
the California Government Code. The developer shall submit a
cost breakdown of the estimated construction cost.
c. Submit a laborers and materialsmen bond equal to 1007 of the
estimated construction cost. Said bond shall be as specified
in Section 66499.2 of the California Government Code.
GENERAL
1. Pursuant to Section 66451.2 of the California Government Code
(the Subdivision Map Act) and City of Hermosa Beach REsolu-
tion No. 86-4901, the developer is notified that City will
charge subdivider fees in an amount necessary to defray costs
directly attributable to employing or contracting for ser-
vices relating to the subdivision.
2. As outlined in Section 29-5-11 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal
Code, the developer shall be required to install all public
improvements in accordance with signed subdivision agree-
ments. Said reasonable time shall be within two years of the
date of approval of the Tentative Tract map. In no event
shall a certificate of occupancy be issued until said im-
provements have been accepted as complete by the City Council
of Hermosa Beach.
3. The developer shall be required to coordinate with the
Southern California Gas Company to realign the easement 12
feet north of the southerly line of the portion of 20th
Street which is to be vacated.
4. The approval of this Subdivision is subject to the City Coun-
cil approving the street vacation of the relevant portions of
both Power Sreet and 20th Street.
5. A substitute physical and legal access for continued use of
the garage located on the existing parcel adjoining 20th
Street adjacent to Lot 1 of the proposed subdivision shall be
provided in the form of a private, appurtenant easement a
minimum of 19 feet in width for vehicular and pedestrian in-
gress and egress. -
A. The developer shall provide curbing, paving and a drive
approach for the said access easement.
1
) 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
C 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VOTE: AYES: Comms.Rue,Schulte,Compton,Peirce,Chmn.Sheldon
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 86-25 is a
true and complete record of the actions taken by the Hermosa
Beach Planning Commission at their regular meeting of April 15,
1986 meeting.
^Q.
Chuck Sheldon, Chairman Michael Schubach, Secretary
Date
March 17, 1988
Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of
of the City Council March 22, 1988
APPRAISAL UPDATE
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended City Council receive and file this report.
BACKGROUND
At the Council meeting of March 8, 1988, City Council directed
staff to contact the three appraisers recommended by Attorney Art
Masirow for estimates on the Biltmore Site for.&k, R3 and
commercial uses. I 1%frfa'r\
ANALYSIS
Staff was able to contact two of the three appraisers
recommended.
The verbal estimates offered were:
$5,000 to $10,000
$4,000 to $ 7,500*
*This estimate was provided by the appraiser who performed the
Manhattan Beach appraisal for the Railroad Right -of -Way.
Concur:
evin Northcra
City Manager
Respectfully submitted
Alana M. Mastrian
Assistant City Manager
lq
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Hermosa Beach City Council
March 17, 1988
City Council Meeting
of March 22, 1988
AUTHORISATION TO UTILIZE SERVICES OF ART MASIROW
TO REPRESENT CITY IN RAILWAY RIGHT OF WAY DISCUSSIONS
Recommendation:
That the City Council formally accept the offer of Art
Mazirow to provide volunteer assistance as the Ci +-s
4rpoltimilomMlam in discussions with the AT & SF Railway Company
regarding City acquisition of the surplus right of wa , and
au •r = , • 00 e • =n = from Prospe • tiv= Ex ho ld
su a ded.
Background:
During the Council's March 8 closed session, instructions we e
given to the City's representatives to accept the offer of Mr.
Mazirow to utilize his highly qualified services in our
discussions with the Railway Company over acquisition of the
Right of Way. This recommendation confirms publicly those
instructions and appropriates funds for expenses.
Analysis:
Art Mazirow, a Hermosa Beach resident, is a highly respected
attorney with specialized expertise in real estate negotiations.
He lectures on this subject at workshops within the state, and is
noted for his knowledge in this area.
Mr. Mazirow has offered his services to the City to assist with
our discussions with the Railroad. His assistance can only
benefit the City in making sure the best agreement possible for
the City is reached, and staff feels the City is fortunate to
have such talent available to represent our interests. The
appropriation of $5,000 for expenses may not be necessary. It is
requested in the event some costs become necessary during our
discussions.
evin B. North •• aft
City Manager
KBN/ld
March 15, 1988
City Council Meeting
March 22, 1988
Mayor and Members
of the City Council
ORDINANCE NO. 88-920 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN REGARD TO THE
DEFINITION, LOCATION AND COMPUTATION OF OPEN SPACE AND ADOPTING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
Submitted for waiver of further reading and adoption is Ordinance
No. 88-920 relating to the above subject.
At the regular meeting of March 8, 1988, this ordinance was
introduced by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Williams
None
Mayor Simpson
None
Kathleen Midstokke, City Clerk
Concur:
9
{KEVI B. f
NO THC�ddi �, City Manager
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- 920
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA AMENDING
THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN REGARD TO THE DEFINITION, LOCATION AND
COMPUTATION OF OPEN SPACE AND ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on March 8,
1988 to receive oral and written testimony on this matter and
made the following Findings:
A. The Zoning Ordinance has no general definition of Open Space;
B. The Zoning Ordinance does not specify how or where Open Space
should be counted;
C. The proposed Ordinance will provide definition, location and
computation for Open Space in conjunction with proposed
developments;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does
hereby ordain amending the Zoning Ordinance by adding the
following language to the following Sections:
1. Add the following subsection to Article 2. Definitions.
Section 272. Open Space.
"Areas which are from ground to sky free and clear of any
obstructions or obstacles unless otherwise specified within
each zone classification."
"Minor obstacles such as telephone and power lines or similar
obstacles, and obstructions such as eaves or entryway
overhangs, a maximum of 30 inches wide, may encroach into
Open Space areas in the R-1 zone."
2. Article 4, R-1, One -Family Residential Zone. Modify the
following subsection to Section 4-3. Development Standards,
(Subsection) 12. Open Space. The following shall be added.
"Required front, and/or side yards, driveways, turning areas,
and parking areas shall be excluded from Open Space
computation."
a. Lots of 2,100 square feet or less in area shall be
allowed a minimum of 300 square feet of open space with
a minimum dimension of 7 feet and 33% of the open space
may be provided in balconies or decks, when all other
minimum standards are met.
3. Modify and/or add the following subsections to Article 5.
8-2, Tiro -Family Residential Zone.
- 1 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Section 507(4) shall read as follows:
"Common Open Space areas may include pools, spas, gardens,
play equipment, courtyards (a minimum of 20 feet wide), decks
over non -living areas, and/or similar areas but shall not
include driveways, turning areas, parking areas and required
front, rear, and side yard areas."
Section 507(5) shall read as follows:
"Private Open Space areas may include patios, pools, spas,
and garden areas; also balconies and decks over non -living
areas or over living areas of the same dwelling unit when
accessible through the interior of the dwelling unit."
Section 507(7) shall read as follows:
"When computing Open Space in conjunction with yard areas,
only an area which exceeds the minimum required yard area may
be counted toward Open Space and only if the overall
dimension of the required setback and the exceeding area
together has a dimension of at least seven (7) feet in width
and length."
Section 507(8) shall read as follows:
"Circular, triangular, odd and/or unusual shaped Open Space
areas shall have a minimum of forty-nine (49) square feet in
areas as well as minimum seven (7) foot dimensions."
Section 507(9) shall read as follows:
"Decks, balconies or similar areas which extend over more
than one dwelling unit shall have a minimum S.T.C. rating of
58."
4. Modify and/or add the following subsections to Article 5.5,
R-23, Two -Family Residential Zone.
Section 557(4) shall read as follows:
"Common Open Spare areas may include pools, spas, garden,
play equipment, courtyards (a minimum of 20 feet wide), decks
over non -living area, and/or similar areas but shall not
include driveways, turning areas, parking areas and required
front, rear, and side yard areas."
Section 557(5) shall read as follows:
"Private Open Space areas may include patios, pools, spas,
and garden areas; also balconies and decks over non -living
areas or over living areas when accessible through the
interior of the dwelling unit and over only the dwelling unit
for which there is interior access."
Section 557(7) shall read as follows:
"When computing Open Space in conjunction with yard areas,
only an area which exceeds the minimum required yard area may
be counted toward Open Space and only if the overall
- 2 -
dimension of the required setback and the exceeding area
together has a dimension of at least seven (7) feet in width
and length."
Section 557(8) shall read as follows:
"Circular, triangular, odd, and/or unusual shaped Open Space
areas shall have a minimum of forty-nine (49) square feet in
area as well as minimum seven (7) foot dimensions."
Section 557(9) shall read as follows:
"Decks, balconies or similar areas which extend over more
than one dwelling unit shall have a minimum S.T.C. rating of
58."
5. Modify and/or add the following subsections to Article 6,
R-3, Multiple Family Residential Zone.
Section 607(4) shall read as follows:
"Common Open Space areas may include pools, spas,ardens,
play equipment, courtyards (a minimum of 20 feet wide), decks
over non -living area, and/or similar area but shall not
include driveways, turning areas, parking areas, and required
front, rear, and side yard areas."
Section 607(5) shall read as follows:
"Private Open Space areas may include patios, pools, spas,
and garden areas; also balconies and decks over non -living
areas or over living areas when accessible through the
interior of the dwelling unit, and over only the dwelling
unit for which there is interior access."
Section 607(7) shall read as follows:
"When computing Open Space in conjunction with yard areas,
only an area which exceed the minimum required yard area may
be counted toward Open Space and only if the overall
dimension of the required setback and the exceeding area
together bas a dimension of at least seven (7) feet in width
and length."
Section 607(8) shall read as follows:
"Circular, triangular, odd, and/or unusual shaped Open Space
areas shall have a minimum of forty-nine (49) square feet in
in area as well as minimum seven (7) foot dimensions."
Section 607(9) shall read as follows:
"Decks, balconies or similar areas which extend over more
than one dwelling unit shall have a minimum S.T.C. rating of
58."
6. Modify and add the following subsections to Article 7.2,
Condominium, Stock Cooperatives and Community Apartments.
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 7.2-6. Minimum Design Standards. (E) Recreation
Space.
"(1) Private: Each unit shall have at least one hundred
(100) square feet of private space for a specified unit, in
addition to Open Space required by the Zoning Ordinance.
Such required recreation space shall have no dimension less
than seven (7) feet; the space may be partially covered up to
fifty percent (50%). Patio, pool, spa, balcony and a deck
area over non -living area or over living areas when
accessible through the interior of the dwelling unit for
which there is interior access may be included.
(2) Common: Each development of five (5) or more condominium
units s a l provide one hundred (100) square feet of common
recreation area or facility per unit in addition to required
common Open Space and private recreation space. The common
recreation area may include play area, pool, spa, recreation
room, gym, garden and similar amenities for the common use of
all owners, but shall not include driveways, turning areas,
parking areas, and required front, rear, and side yard areas.
When computing recreation space in conjunction with yard
areas, only an area which exceeds the minimum required yard
area may be counted toward recreation space and only if the
overall dimension of the required setback and tbe exceeding
area together has a dimension of at least seven (7) feet in
width and length.
Circular, triangular, odd, and/or unusual shaped recreation
space shall have a minimum of forty-nine (49) square feet in
area as well as minimum seven (7) foot dimensions.
Decks balconies or similar areas which extend over more than
one dwelling unit shall have a minimum S.T.C. rating of 58."
7. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force
and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final
passage and adoption.
8. The City Council shall designate tbe City Attorney to prepare
a summary of this ordinance to be published. pursuant to
Government Code Section 36933(c) (1) in lieu of the full text
of said ordinance. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15)
days after the date of its 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.
9. 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.
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 tbis day of Marcb, 1988.
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of
Hermosa Beach, California.
ATTEST:
PPROVED A Q, FORM:
CI
CLERK
ITY ATTORNEY
.4
'y
•
1. Location
a. Address: CiLv-wide, City of Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
• • b. • •_• Legal •
2. Description,
•. -
Am a •� •
Space.
3. Sponsor
a. Name: Michael Schubach, Plannina Director
b. Mailing Address: Plannina Department, City of Ramona oarh
- I • 11 - 1
.� • • -
•1 .
• II . _ • . •
1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach 90254 Phone: (2131 17A-f9A4
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
In accordance with Resolution 79-4309 of the City of Hermosa beach, which im-
plements the California Environmental quality Act of 1970 in Hermosa Beach,
the Environmental Review Committee must make an environmental review of all
_private projects proposed to be undertaken within the City, and the Planning
Commission must make an environmental review of all public projects proposed
to be undertaken within the City, which are subject to the Environmental
quality Act. This declaration is documentation of the review and, if it be-
comes final, no comprehensive Enviromnental Impact Report is required for
this project.
FINDING OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
.We have undertaken and completed an Environmental Impact Review of this pro-
posed project in accordance with Resolution 79-4309 of the City Council of
Bermosa Beach, and find that this project does not require a comprehensive
Environmental -Impact Report because, provided the attached mitigation meas-
ures are included in the project, it would not have a significant effect on
the environment. Documentation sup •oring thi= f 'din • is on file in the
.Building Depar$ment.
-'May 7, 1987 _
bate of Finding Chairman, nviron ental Review Committee
j FINDING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
We have undertaken and completed an Environmental Impact Review of this pro-
ject in accordance with Resolution 79-4309 of the City Council of Hermosa
Beach, and find that this project does not require a comprehensive Environ- •
mental Impact Report because, provided the attached mitigation measures are
included in the project, it would not have a significant effect on the en-
vironment. Documentation supporting this finding s on file in the Build-
ing Department. �• _ 1 ' •
June 2, 1987
Date of Finding
C ' irman, Planning Commissio
FINDING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
We have undertaken and completed an environmental Impact Review of this pro
posed project in accordance with Resolution 70-4309 of the City Council of •
Hermosa Beach, and find this project does not require a comprehensive En-
vironmental Impact Report because, provided the attached mitigation meas-
ures are included in the project, it would not have a significant effect on .'
the environment. Documentation supporting this finding is on file in the
Building Department.
*+'bate of Finding
Mayor, Hermosa Beach City Council
March 15, 1988
City Council Meeting
March 22, 1988
Mayor and Members
of the City Council
CHANGING TIME ALLOTED FOR ADDRESSING THE CITY COUNCIL
TO THREE MINUTES, AND TOTAL OF FIFTEEN MINUTES PER SUBJECT
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council Introduce Ordinance No.
88- , entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 2.2.16. ADDRESSING THE
COUNCIL."
BACK089VND _ t.
When new Sections of the Government Code were passed amending the
"Brown Act" Open Meeting Laws effective January 1, 1987, the City
Council adopted Resolution No. 86-5001 establishing policy for
the new requirements. Section 4 of the Resolution referenced the
providing on each agenda a period for the public to directly
address the legislative body on items of interest not appearing
on the posted agenda within the jurisdiction of the Council. The
policy was set to allow three (3) minutes per person and a total
of fifteen (15) minutes per subject per session.
We have attempted to follow this policy since that time, and this
ordinance brings the city code in compliance with current policy.
This time limit does not affect Public Hearings, and allows that
more time may be allotted by majority vote of the council.
Concur:
evin orthcraf / ity Manager
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
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 council. 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
remarks to three (3) minutes. A total amount of fifteen
(15) minutes per subject per session shall be allocated.
All remarks shall be addressed to the council as a whole
and not any member thereof. No question shall be asked a
couneilpersOn 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:
AV!._.._....ata ...s...�� ��. •••• Mk.
PPROVED AS T
R SID N of the C ty COunei
and MAYOR Of Hermosa Beach.
City Clerk
City Attorney
I
2
9
4
5
6
RESOLUTION NO. 86-, 5001
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REAFFIRMING AND
ESTABLISHING POLICY FOR ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 2674,
ALSO KNOWN AS "THE BROWN ACT."
7 WHEREAS, the Governor of the State of California approved
8 Assembly Bill 2674, Chapter 641 on August 29, 1986, and it was
g filed with the Secretary of State on September 2, 1986; and
10
11 WHEREAS, on January 1, 1987, Assembly Bill 2674 (AB2674)
12becomes effective and amends Sections 35144, 35145, 72121 and
I3 72129 of the Education Code to Sections 54956, 54956.5 and
14 54960.5 and adds Sections 54954.2, 54954.3 and 54960.1 to the
15 Government Code relating to local agencies; and
16
17 WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 2674 mandates that cities adopt new
18 open meeting requirements; and
19
20 WHEREAS, in order to comply with Assembly Bill 2674, the
21 City of Hermosa Beach must adopt policy to insure its execution;
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Assembly Bill 2674, Sections 5 and 7 provide
that legislative bodies post an agenda containing a brief
general description of each item of business to be transacted or
12/RESO6 -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
discussed at any regular or special meeting. The City of
Hermosa Beach designates the City Clerk responsible for posting
all agenda and keeping records for public reference.
Section 2. That in reference to Section 5 of AB2674 where no
action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the posted
agenda, an "emergency situation" is defined by Government Code
Section 54956.5.
Section 3. That when a subject is brought to the attention
of the local board that does not appear on the posted agenda,
the City of Hermosa Beach shall have the policy that the chair-
person automatically refer the inquiry or subject to staff and
at staff's discretion, they may either respond to the question
themselves or schedule the subject for a future agenda.
Section 4. That in reference to Section 6 of AB2674 provid-
ing on each agenda of a regular meeting a period exist for the •
public to directly address the legislative body on items of
interest not appearing on the posted agenda, Subsection (b)
allows the adoption of time allocated for public testimony. It
will be the policy of the City of Hermosa Beach to allow three
(3) minutes per person per session and a total of fifteen
(15) minutes per subject per session.
///
///
///
///
12/RESO6 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
121
131
14
Section 5. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage
and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of
original resolutions.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THIS 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER,
1986.
ATTEST:
A4 411i
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS • FORM:
1
17
1
19
20
21
22
23
RN Y
24
25
26
27
28
12/RESO6 -3-
cDe
P SIDE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
AND MAY R OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH
12-2.15 HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE 1 22-17
Sea 2-2.15. Failure to observe rules of order.
Rules adopted to expedite the transaction of the business of
the council in an orderly fashion are deemed to be procedural
only and the failure strictly to observe such rules shall not
affect the jurisdiction of the council or invalidate any action
taken at a meeting that is otherwise held in conformity with
law. (Ord. No. N. S. 411, § 2, 11-16-71)
Sec. 2-2.16. Addressing the council.
(a) Manner of addressing council. Each person desiring to
address the council shall step up to the microphone in front
of the rail, state his name and address for the record, state
the subject he wishes to discuss, state whom he is represent-
ing if he represents an organization or other persons, and,
unless further time is granted by majority vote of the council,
shall limit his remarks to five (5) minutes. All remarks shall
be addressed to the council as a whole and not to any member
thereof. No question shall be asked a councilman or a member
of the city staff without the permission of the presiding offi-
cer.
(b) Spokesman for group of persons. In order to expedite
matters and to avoid repetitious presentations, whenever any
group of persons wishes to address the council on the same
subject matter, it shall be proper for the presiding officer to
request that a spokesman be chosen by the group to address
the council and, in case additional matters are to be presented
by any other member of said group, to limit the number of
such persons addressing the council.
(c) After motion. After a motion has been made or a pub -
lie hearing has been closed, no member of the public shall ad-
dress
ddress the council from the audience on the matter under con-
sideration without first securing permission to do so by a
majority vote of the city council. (Ord. No. N. S. 411, 11 2,
11-16-71)
Sec2-2.17. Rules of decorum.
(a) Councilmen. While the council is in session, the mem-
bers must preserve order and decorum, and a member shall
Supp. No. 646. 12.2
§ 54954.2
GOVERNMENT CODE
(3) The item was posted pursuant to subdivision (a) for a prior meeting of the legislative body
occurring not more than five calendar days prior to the date action is taken on the item, and at the
prior meeting the item was continued to the meeting at which action is being taken.
(Added by Stats.1986, c. 641, § 5.)
§ 54954.3. Opportunity for public to address legislative body; regulations
(a) Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to
directly address the legislative body on items of interest to the public that are within the subject
matter jurisdiction of the legislative body, provided that no action shall be taken on any item not
appearing on the agenda unless the action is otherwise authorized by subdivision (b) of Section
54954.2. However, in the case of a meeting of a city council in a city or a board of supervisors in a
city and county, the agenda need not provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the
council or board on any item that has already been considered by a committee, composed exclusively
of members of the council or board, at a public meeting wherein all interested members of the public
were afforded the opportunity to address the committee on the item, unless the item has been
substantially changed since the committee heard the item, as determined by the council or board.
(b) The legislative body of a local agency may adopt reasonable regulations to ensure that the
intent of subdivision (a) is carried out., including, but not limited to, regulations limiting the total
amount of time allocated for public testimony on particular issues and for each individual speaker.
(Added by Stats.1986, c. 641, § 6.)
§ 54956. Special meetings; call; notice
A special meeting may be called at any time by the presiding officer of the legislative body of a
local agency, or by a majority of the members of the legislative body, by delivering personally or by..
mail written notice to each member of the legislative body and to each local newspaper of
general
circulation, radio or television station requesting notice in writing. The notice shall be dehvere,
personally or by mail and shall be received at least 24 hours beforeTt to time of the meeting , aq.
specified in the notice. The call and notice shall specify the time and place of the spetFmeeting and ::: `:
the business tobe transacted. No other business shall be considered at these meetings by tb
legislative body. The written notice may be dispensed with as to any member wlw at or prior to the
time the meeting convenes files with the clerk or secretary of the legislative body a written waiver of
notice. The waiver may be given by telegram. The written notice may also be dispensed with as to
any member who is actually present at the meeting at the time it convenes. Notice shall be required
pursuant to this section regardless of whether any action is taken at the special meeting.
The call and notice shall be posted at least 24 hours prior to the special meeting in a location that ie,
freely accessible to members of the public.
(Amended by Stats.1986, c. 641, § 7.)
Notes at Decisions
Closed does with ettass s
•
5. aosed dem with dtlaen
It would be a violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act
(§ 54950 et seq.) for member of a city carnal to bold a
,T.,
series of doted data with citizens having m.ttors bt
business pending before them together or convey iafbrmit
tion regarding those mattes whore the discussions are hdd
an successive dates and are so planned to insure that.,.
quorum of the council will not be -present at any
mating. 65 Ops.Atty.Oeo. 63. 1-22-82.
§ 54956.5. Emergency greetings in emergency situations
•
In the case of an emergency situation involving matters upon which prompt action is necessary doe
to the disruption or threatened disruption of public facilities, a legislative body may hold an
emergency meeting without complying with either the 24-hour notice requirement or the 24-hour
posting requirement of Section 54956 or both�o the notice and posting requirements.
For purposes of this section, "emergency situation" means any of the following:
(a) Work stoppage or other activity which severely impairs public health, safety, or both, as
determined by a majority of the members of the legislative body.
(b) Crippling disaster which severely impairs public health, safety, or both, as determined by a
majority of the members of the legislative body.
Underline Indicates changes or addtlon: by amendment
140
.li
City of Hermosa Beach
City Clerks Office
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3885
Dear City Council Members:
March 9, 1988
I have recently been notified that you intend to or have already
merged my lot located at 1242 9th Street. I would like to point
out that you did not notify the current owner as of December 29,
1987. The owners as of that date were my wife and myself. You did
notify Union Federal Savings and Loan. They were on title
approximately nine to twelve months ago before we purchased the
house from them.
I believe you have a legal and moral obligation to notify the
owners of record before you start proceeedings to undermine their
property values. I expect the following:
1). Proper notification.
2). The full 30 days to determine if I choose to appeal.
Bruce and Nancy De Mille
1242 9th Street
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-4335
213-379-1022
4 b
February 29, 1988
Hermosa Beach Board of Planning 74u
Hermosa Beach, California
Attn. -Gerry-Eomptom-
Dear Members,
RE: RECONSIDER MERGING OF LOTS (RESIDENTIAL)
I would appreciate consideration of my disapproval
of the city combining my two lots at 1160 Seventh
Street, Lots # 59 & #60, Block #39, Redondo Villa
Tract.
The registered letter requesting a survey plat plus
all the names of owner/occupants of property within
300 feet created such a problem not only in time,
but effort and cost. It would have been much simpler,
if the question had been stated if we were for or
against this proposal.
These lots represent a goodly portion of our financial
foundation for our retirement. You must all be aware
of the value involved.
We have worked many, many years to be sure that we
would be self-supporting in our latter years and not
dependent upon monetary assistance from city, county,
or state. These goals can still be achieved, if you
would please reconsider your former decision regarding
such a very few members of Hermosa Beach.
With appreciation,
Wm. K. Peters
P,thz,4 J).Lped
1160 Seventh Street
Hermosa Beach, Calif.
90254
(213) 379 5880
Helen L. Peters
4c
•
t
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kevin Northcraft, City Manager
FROM: Andrew Peres, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Letter Regarding Reconsideration of Lot Mergers
DATE: March 15, 1988
As per your request, this memo is in regards to the letter
received from Mr. and Mrs. William Peters, 1160 7th Street. In
the letter, Mr. and Mrs. Williams are requesting reconsideration
of their lot merger.
The following outlines the schudule staff followed in regards to
the merger of their parcel:
12/3/87 - Mailed Notice of Intent to Merge Parcel to property
owners. Certified mail return cards indicate that
Mrs. William received the notice on December 5,
1987. A copy of the Notice of Intent was mailed to
the Los Angeles County Recorders.
1/4/88 Last day to file appeal. 27 Notice of Intent were
mailed. Only 3 property owners requested a hearing
before the Planning Commission.
2/2/88 The Planning Commission merged the lots of the
property owners who did not request a hearing.
3/3/88 - Mailed notification of the Planning Commission's
decision to merge the lots to the property owners.
A copy was sent to the Los Angeles County Recorders
for final recording.
Staff feels that reconsideration of this lot merger hearing will
set a precedent for all other property owners to request mergers
after the appeal period have elapsed and documents have been
recorded. The property owners have been properly notified of the
actions of the staff related to lot mergers and were given ample
time to request their hearing as required by law and our zoning
ordinance.
ATTACHMENT
CC: Michael Schubach, Planning Director
City Council Members
1
March 15, 1988
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of
Hermosa Beach City Council March 22, 1988
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION NOT TO
MERGE LOTS - GROUPS LM 87-1 AND 87-2
LOCATION/ 1220 7TH STREET
OWNER: PAUL AND MARY HULKA
1152 7TH STREET
WILMA A BURT
1154 8TH STREET
PATRICK AND BARBARA VIGNERY
INITIATED BY MAYOR ETTA SIMPSON
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council merge the lots on appeal
pursuant to Sections 29.5-19 through 29.5-29 of the Hermosa Beach
Municipal Code.
Background
The Planning Commission, at their meeting of February 16, 1988,
approved the property owner's appeal request not to merge the
subject lots.
Staff has been notifying property owners of the City's Intent to
Merge Lot since December 1987. The first group of appeals were
heard by the Planning Commission on February 16, 1988.
Abstract
The Planning Commission decision will allow the property owners
to create two substandard parcels rather than merging the lots as
intended by the Lot Merger Ordinance.
Analysis
The Planning Department has determined that the lots included in
LM 88-1 are subject to merger pursuant to Hermosa Beach Municipal
Code Sections 29.5-19 through 29.5-28 (LOT MERGER ORDINANCE) and
State Government Code Section 66451.11-66451.21.
Staff finds these lots to be subject to merger since less than
80% of the block has been split and the contiguous parcels are
held by the same owner. The parcels located at 1220 7th Street
and 1152 7th Street are on a block where 12% of the lots have
been developed with 25' wide lots. The parcel at 1154 8th Street
1
5
41.
is on a block where 29% of the lots have been developed with 25'
wide lots.
The property owners were notified of the appeal by certified
mail. Staff cannot determine any reasons to exempt the subject
properties from being subject to merger.
Additional background and analysis is provided in the attached
Planning Commission staff report of February 16, 1988.
Attachments
1. Resolution No. 88-
2. PC staff report of 2/16/88
3. PC minutes of 2/16/88
4. Background
a. Letter from Mayor Simpson requesting appeal
b. Letter to property owners with notification of appeal
c. Lot Merger Letter 1
d. Intent to Merge Lot
e. Appeal of Intent to Merge Lot from Property Owners
f. Tax Assessor's Map
g. Aerials
coNC$' �,/%
Mich'ae Schu
'Kevin Northcraft
City Manager
ac
Planning Director
2
Res
tfull• Submitted,
A'='"ew Per -a
Associate\ lanner
•
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 LOTS COMMONLY KNOWN
AS 1220 7TH STREET, 1152 7TH STREET AND 1154 8TH STREET.
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public bearing on March 22,
1988 to receive oral and written testimony regarding this matter
and made the following Findings:
A. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of February 16,
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
perscribes the procedures for the merger of parcels;
C. The City Council finds all these parcels to be consistent
with the criteria for merger:
1. The main structure is sited on contiguous parcels.
2. Not more than 80% of the lots have been unmerged and
developed separately.
3. One of the contiguous parcels comprises less than 4000
square feet.
4. The contiguous parcels are held under common ownership.
D. The parcels are legally described as follows:
1. 1220 7th Street - Lot 54 & 55, Block 139, Redondo Villa
Tract;
2. 1152 7th Street - Lots 61 & 62, Block 139, Redondo Villa
Tract;
3. 1154 8th Street- Lots 57 & 58, Block 140, Redondo Villa
Tract;
E. The merger of these 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
23
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby approve the
merger of 1220 7th Street, 1152 7th Street and 1154 8th
Street.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of March, 1988.
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of
Hermosa Beach, California.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS 0 i 0
Y ATTO EY
C- c
Honorable Chairman and Members of the
Hermosa Beach Planning Commission
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF INTENT TO MERGE LOTS
February 9, 1988
Regular Meeting of
February 16, 1988
GROUP: LM 87-1 AND LM 87=2
1100-1200 BLOCK OF 7TH AND 8TH STREET
REQUEST: TO MAINTAIN PARCELS AS TWO OR MORE LOTS
LOCATION: SUBJECT ADDRESS, OWNER, LEGAL DESCRIPTION, AND
ASSESSORS NUMBER
1220 7th Street 1152 7th Street
Paul and Mary Hulka Wilma A Burt
Lot 54 and 55
Block 139
Redondo Villa Tract
Lot 61 and 62
Block 139
Redondo Villa Tract
4160029023 4160030015
1137 7th Street 1154 8th Street
Helen Finley Patrick and Barbara Vignery
Lot 13 and NE 2'x 34' lot 14 Lot 57 and 58
Block 140 Block 140
Redondo Villa Tract Redondo Villa Tract
4160032024 4160032014
Recommendation
To deny the applicants' request to maintain their parcels as two
or more separate lots.
Background
LOT MERGER GROUP 87-1
-Notification of Intent to Merge Lots mailed on December 3, 1987
- Number of notification of Intent to Merge Lots mailed - 27
-Number of bearing requests for appeals received - 3
LOT MERGER GROUP 87-2
- Notification of Intent to Merge Lots mailed on December 17, 1987
-5-
12
c c
-Number of notification of Intent to Merge Lots mailed - 23
-Number of hearing requests for appeals received - 1
Analysis
The Planning Department has determined that the lots included in
LM 87-1 and LM 87-2 are subject to merger pursuant to Hermosa
Beach Municipal Code Sections 29.5-19 through 29.5-28 (LOT MERGER
ORDINANCE) and State Government Code Section 66451.11-66451.21.
Staff finds these lots to be subject to merger since less than
80% of the block has been split and the contiguous parcels are
held by the same owner. The following information is provided
for the specific sites.
1152 7th Street -
The parcel is comprised of two 25' by 100' lots. Aerials
indicate that the main structure staddles the property line.
Building records indicate this structure is a single family
dwelling.
1220 7th Street and 1154 8th Street -
The parcels are comprised of two 25' by 100' lots. Aerials
indicate that the main structures staddle the property lines.
Building records indicate these parcel to each contain a
nonconforming duplex. Building records also indicate that 1154
8th Street was originally merged under the now repealed Combined
Lot Ordinance.
1137 7th Street -
This parcel is comprised of one 25' by 100' lot and a portion of
an adjacent lot measuring 2' by 34'. The main structure
straddles the property line. Building records indicate this
structure to be a single family dwelling.
Staff cannot determine any reasons to exempt t ese parcels from
being subject to merger.
An'rew Per =•a
CONCUR: /J Associate anner
Michael Schubach
Planning Director
Attachments:
1. Lot Merger Letter 1
2. Intent to Merge Lots
3. Requests for appeals
4. Tax Assessor's Map
5. Aerials
PLANNING COMM( -ON MINUTES - FEBRUARY 16, 19f : PAGE 16
APPEAL OF LOT MERGER DETERMINATION FOR LOT MERGER GROUPS L.M. 87-1
AND 87-2
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 9, 1988. The Planning Department
determined that the lots included in L.M. 87-1 and L.M. 87-2 are subject to merger
pursuant to Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Sections 29.5-19 through 29.5-28 and State
Government Code Section 66451.11-66451.21.
Staff found those lots to be subject to merger since less than 80% of the block has been
split, and the contiguous parcels are held by the same owner.
Staff consulted the most recent tax assessor roles to determine the owners of the
property. Registered letters were then sent to each of the property owners in December
of 1987. In this particular area, four requests for a hearing appeal have been received.
46 lots have been merged uncontested in this particular area.
Mr. Perea noted that of approximately 180 lots which have already been merged, about
five percent of the owners requested a hearing.
Mr. Schubach stated that staff finds no reason not to merge these lots, stating that they
meet all criteria for lot mergers such as being substandard in size; having dwellings
straddling the lot line; and being on a block where less than 80: percent of the lots have
already been split. Staff is therefore recommending that these lots be merged.
Mr. Schubach suggested that the Commission take each of the four lots in question
separately.
Comm. Peirce asked what would be required of the Commission in order to grant the lot
merger appeals.
Mr. Schubach discussed the findings which would be necessary in order for the
Commission to grant an appeal to the lot merger. He continued by reading various
requirements which are necessary to grant the appeal.
Mr. Lough stated that this process differs from a variance request; in that it is not
necessary for the Commission to make findings as required by State law. He continued
by explaining that the Commission may grant an appeal; however, it is best that some
criteria are used in such a granting. He noted, too, that a public hearing is not required
by State law; a hearing is held so that applicants do not need to pay for the noticing.
Hearing opened at 10:05 by Chmn. Compton.
1220 7th Street -- Owners: Paul and Mary Hulka. Lots 54 and 55, Block 139, Redondo
Villa Tract, 4160029023.
This parcel is comprised of two 25' x 100' foot lots. Aerials indicate that the main
structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate that these parcels
contain a nonconforming duplex.
PLANNING COMLv.,ION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 16, 19( PAGE 17
Jack Wood, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and opposed the
proposed lot mergers. He discussed the lot ordinance of 1957 and stated that it is within
the purview of the Commission to grant the requests of these people to not have their
lots merged. He stated that there is no reason not to grant the requests of these four
owners who do not want their lots merged. He stated that to merge the lots would
create an economic hardship on these people. He asked the Commission to grant the
appeals; stating that the fact that this has been appealed is reason enough to leave them
alone.
Mr. Schubach noted that a registered letter was sent to Mr. Paul Hulka informing him of
the date, time, and place for this hearing. The Planning Department received a letter of
appeal; however, Mr. Hulka was not present at the hearing.
Wilma Burt, 1152 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission on behalf
of the Hulkas. She stated that the Hulkas do not live in town and the house in question is
a rental. She stated that they have not appeared either because they were ill or because
they were intimidated by the City's actions.
Ms. Burt stated that many people did not respond either in writing or by coming forward
at the hearing because they are intimidated and feel that they would have to pay fees in
order to request an appeal to the lot mergers.
1154 8th Street -- Owners: Patrick and Barbara Vignery. Lots 57 and 58, Block 140,
Redondo Villa Tract, 4160032014.
This parcel is comprised of two 25' by 100' foot lots. Aerials indicate that the main
structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate these parcels contain a
nonconforming duplex. Building records also indicate that 11.54 8th.Street was originally
merged under the now repealed combined lot ordinance.
Mr. Wood stated that he was present representing Mr. and Mrs. Vignery. He stated that
this property differs from the others because there is a duplex on the property. He
continued by discussing the intent of the lot merger ordinance. He stated that the
Vignerys have two lots and two dwellings and are exercising their property rights to the
fullest.
Mr. Wood stressed that this owner does not even belong here protesting this lot merger.
He noted that the City is dense now, and density will not be lowered by merging lots. He
stated that a merger would impose a huge economic hardship on this owner.
Mr. Wood stated that if the lots are merged, the duplex will then become
nonconforming. He stated that this homeowner should be exempt from this requirement,
asserting that Mr. Vignery is here through no fault of his own.
Patrick Vignery, 547 South Helberta, Redondo Beach, owner of 1154 8th Street, Hermosa
Beach, addressed the Commission and opposed the lot merger based on the following
reasons: (a) this particular case differs in that there is a duplex on the property; (b) if
the lots are merged, there will be a financial loss on his investment; (c) he wants his
property to remain as it is, since he would like to will this property to his children.
Mr. Schubach• stated that this property is located in the R-1 zone; and the duplex is a
legal nonconforming use. He said that the two parcels are combined as one lot, thereby
making it a nonconforming use. He stated that the duplex was built many years ago, and
the Building Department does not elaborate on what the structure actually was
constructed as.
PLANNING COM(,ION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 16, 19C PAGE 18
Mr. Vignery stated that this property has had two families living there ever since he has
owned it. If the lots are merged and the property is developed, the end result would still
be two families living there; therefore, the density would not be lowered by requiring the
lots to be merged.
Chmn. Compton explained to Mr. Vignery that if the lots were merged and the property
is redeveloped, there could only be one unit on the site since it would then be only one
parcel..
Mr. Schubach continued by explaining that technically this duplex was built on one
parcel.
Mr. Wood vehemently disagreed with Mr. Schubach's explanation, stating that that
assertion cannot be proved, nor can any section of the code be found to support this
assumption.
Chmn. Compton noted that the duplex was built at a time when there were no accurate
building records delineating what was and was not allowed.
Mr. Schubach stated that this property is listed in the records as a duplex under the
combined lot ordinance because it was a legal nonconforming use. It is stated that way
in the building records, which can be checked by anyone desiring to do so. He noted that
it is up to the Commission to determine whether or not to require this lot to be merged.
1152 7th Street -- Owner: Wilma Burt. Lots 61 and 62, Block 139, Redondo Villa Tract,
4160030015.
This parcel is comprised of two 25' by 100' lots. Aerials indicate that the main structure
straddles the property line. Building records indicate this structure is a single family
dwelling.
Ms. Burt, 1152 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, homeowner, opposed the proposed lot merger
based on the following reasons: (a) she provided plans depicting her property, stating
that at one time it was her intention to build an apartment above the garage; the garage
was built to have that unit, and even though an apartment has not been built, it may be in
the future; (b) requiring the lots to be merged would create an economic hardship and
loss to this property owner; (c) the schools were not required to have 4,000 square foot
minimum lots.
Ms. Burt read a statement to the Commission: "I did not send any of the material to you,
as I am not unaware of the prevailing bias and the unequitable land decisions that the
Planning Commission and the present council have been making. I object to the changes
of my lots. This is not a less density issue that you are deciding. It is an act against the
long-term owners and basically retired citizens who held this town together when the
avid developers and the redevelopers wanted it. Large lots with homes on them
encourage large families to try to buy them and move in."
Ms. Burt continued by discussing what the Planning Commission has done in the last ten
or fifteen years, or since the low density people came to town, such as the start of
PUDS, the condos, and the lowering of densities for R-2 and R -2B zones. She felt that
the proposed combining of lots smacks of spot zoning.
Ms. Burt noted that when she purchased her house in 1956, the lot size of 25' by 100' was
legal; there was not a 4,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement. She continued by
stating that her 33 year old house is constructed better than anything being built today.
PLANNING COM1VCION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 16, 19E PAGE 19
Ms. Burt stated that she wants to develop her property to its original plans, explaining
that she would like to add a unit over the garage. She said that she has a right to live in
her house without being told what to do.
Ms. Burt stated that no good has come to the City since the inception of the requirement
that lots must be 4000 square feet. She stated that it is time for the City to take action
now based on what is happening today; • rather than basing every decision on what will
happen in 50 years. She asked that the older people can keep their property the same as
it is now.
1137 7th Street -- Owner: Helen Finley. Lot 13 and NE 2' x 34' Lot 14, Block 140,
Redondo Beach Tract, 4160032024.
This parcel is comprised of one 25' by 100' lot and a portion of an adjacent lot measuring
2' by 34.' The main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this
structure to be a single family dwelling.
Mary Mandel, daughter of owner Helen Finley, addressed the Commission and opposed
the proposed lot merger. This property has been in the family for 65 years. She did not
favor the taking of property rights of the older citizens in town. She stressed the
importance of protecting the rights of senior citizens.
Mr. Perea stated that what is proposed to be merged in this case is a small strip 2' by 34'
which is adjacent to Ms. Finley's 25' by 100' lot.
Chmn. Compton asked whether these homeowners opposed the proposed lot merger.
Ms. Mandel stated that she opposed all of the lot mergers ongeneral principle.
Mr. Wood again addressed the Commission and stressed the fact that if these lots are
combined, property rights will be taken away from these homeowners. He stated that
there is nothing in the code requiring them to be combined.
Violet Isgreen, 726 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and
stated that she agreed with the comments made by others who oppose the proposed lot
mergers.
Mr. Seemus, 1214 10th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and stated that
many of the people who received notices were afraid to appear before the Commission
because they were intimidated and thought they would have to pay for something to be
done. He said that the City, instead of trying to help citizens, causes them problems.
He stated that it is important to protect the rights of senior citizens.
Comm. Peirce asked what the City has done to intimidate citizens.
Mr. Seemus stated that the letters imply that the property owner must pay for noticing
in their areas.
Comm. Peirce stated that there is no such requirement for any homeowner to pay such
fees.
Mr. Seemus stated that no one was informed by the City that they didn't have to pay. He
said that he has gone to City offices, and no one informed him of this fact.
PLANNING COM(ION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 16, 19C PAGE 20
Chmn. Compton noted concern over the wording contained in the letters sent out to
citizens. He stressed that noticing is not required for proposed lot mergers. He was
deeply concerned that some citizens were afraid to come before the Commission on this
very important issue. He suggested that a new letter be sent out informing people that
no survey is required, and noticing will not cost them anything. He urged interested
people to call the Planning Department for clarification on this issue.
Mr. Wood suggested that people be sent forms instead of letters; if they want their lots
merged, they can simply sign the form and return it. Those not returning the form can
then be assumed to oppose the merger for whatever reason. He said that registered mail
can be quite intimidating.
Hearing closed by Chmn. Compton.
Comm. Rue stated that these people do not want their lots merged; merger will create
an economic hardship; it is a taking somewhat of property rights; and it is not required
that the lots be merged.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Compton to not merge the following
parcels: 1220 7th Street, Lot 54 and 55, Block 139; 1152 7th Street, Lot 61 and 62, Block
139; and 1154 8th Street, Lot 57 and 58, Block 140.
Comm. Peirce spoke against the motion, stating that there are several different types of
property in this case. He stated that 1152 7th Street has a structure clearly across the
property line, and the zoning is R-1. There is only one family dwelling there with no
assertion of a duplex. In the case of duplexes, he felt that it makes no difference
whether the property is R-1 or R-2, noting that the intent of the ordinance was to merge
those types of lots. Therefore, he stated that he would vote.to:•.merge all of these lots.
He said that it was not demonstrated to him that these mergers would create a financial
hardship. He stated that the main issue for the Commission is to base their decisions on
planning matters and what is in the best interests of the City for the future.
Chmn. Compton favored the motion, stating that the mergers would be a potential taking
of property values and what is already a potential unit. He stated that he would not be in
favor of the merger until a new ordinance is placed on the books.
Comm. DeBellis stated that he would favor the motion.
Comm. Inge11 stated that he would support the motion, even though he is a proponent of
lower density; however, he does not favor the taking of property rights.
Comm. Peirce stressed that this issue should be addressed as to whether it is good
planning or bad planning, not whether or not there is an economic hardship imposed.
AYES: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Compton
NOES: Comm. Peirce
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Peirce, that 1137 7th Street, Lot 13
and NE 2' by 34' of Block 140 be merged.
PLANNING COMM( DN MINUTES - FEBRUARY 16, 198( PAGE 21
AYES: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. DeBellis for purposes of discussion, to
direct staff that a new letter shall be sent to all persons who have already been notified
for lot merger; this new letter shall inform them that it is not necessary for them to pay
any fees. The letter shall also state that anyone can call the Planning Department for
further help and clarification.
Mr. Lough noted that if this motion will result in significant staff time and expenditures,
it probably has not been budgeted; the Planning Commission is not authorized staff to
overrun its budget.
Comm. DeBellis suggested that this is a more appropriate action for the City Council to
take, since they are the body who set the parameters for this issue and the guidelines. If
there is concern, the Planning Commission should notify the Council of their concerns;
rather than the Commission directing staff to take action on the matter.
MOTION WITHDRAWN by Chmn. Compton.
MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. Rue, to direct staff to prepare a letter
to be submitted to the City Council informing them of the concerns of the Planning
Commission
Comm. DeBellis suggested that staff prepare a report for the Council delineating the
concerns expressed by the Commission. The Council can then_ be ..asked. to act on: those
matters by whatever method they feel appropriate.
There being no objections to the motion; so ordered.
p
k.
E atkgr tett Yt h
Ft tP rims
•
COMA
John C1o111, Mayor
Etta Simpson, Mayor Pro Tian
J hn Rosenberger
June Mama
lbny Oee.os
Norex Goldbemh, Cky Treasurer
Kathleen M Idstokke, City Clerk
City Clerk Midstokke
City of Hermosa Beach
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
City o f armosaTeach.)
Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885
February 17,-1988
Dear City Clerk Midstokke:
%)
0.L FEB 1 7 19880.
.1 Clty Clerk
9'. City of Hermosa Beech
r..
I request an -appeal to the City Council from the
decisions to unmerge lots made by the Planning Commis-
sion on February 16, 1988.
Sincerely
•
Etta Simp-on
Mayor
March 7, 1988
C C
City of 21ermosa l3eacl
*
Patrick and Barbara Vignery
1154 8th Street
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885
RE: Appeal to the City Council of Hermosa Beach of Planning
Commission decision - to not merge Lots 57 and 58, Block 140,
Redondo Villa Tract, commonly known as 1154 8th Street
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Vignery
An appeal of the Planning Commission decision on February 16,
1988 - not to merge the above mentioned lots - has been filed by
Etta Simpson, Mayor of Hermosa Beach, and has been submitted to
the City Clerk. A Public Hearing before the Hermosa Beach City
Council has been set for March 22, 1988 at 8:00 P.M., or as soon
thereafter as the matter may be heard. This hearing will be held
in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive.
If you wish any written evidence to be considered by the City
Council at this meeting, we request that it reach the Planning
Department by noon on Tuesday, March 15, 1988 for inclusion in
the City Council agenda packets.
A staff report may be obtained on/or about March 17, 1988 from
the Planning Department. If you have any questions regarding
this matter please call (213) 376-6984.
Sincerely,
An ew Per
Associate P anner
cc: Kathleen Midstokke, City Clerk
Kevin Northcraft, City Manager
7.
City Hall (213) 376-6984 • Community -Center 379-3312 / 376-6984 • Fire Department 376-2479 / 376-6984 • Police Department 376-7981 1376-6984
• City of 2-iermosarl3eacly
y
•
A
March 7, 1988
Wilma A Burt
1152 7th Street
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885
RE: Appeal to the City Council of Hermosa Beach of Planning
Commission decision - to not merge Lots 61 and 62, Block 139,
Redondo Villa Tract, commonly known as 1152 7th Street
Dear Ms. Burt
An appeal of the Planning Commission decision on February 16,
1988 - not to merge the above mentioned lots - has been filed by
Etta Simpson, Mayor of Hermosa Beach, and has been submitted to
the City Clerk. A Public Hearing before the Hermosa Beach City
Council has been set for March 22, 1988 at 8:00 P.M., or as soon
thereafter as the matter may be heard. This hearing will be held
in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive.
If you wish any written evidence to be considered by the City
Council at this meeting, we request that it reach the Planning.
Department by noon on Tuesday, March 15, 1988 for inclusion in
the City Council agenda packets.
A staff report may be obtained on/or about March 17, 1988 from
the Planning Department. If you have any questions regarding
this matter please call (213) 376-6984.
Sin rely,
An•rew Per =a
Associate Tanner
cc: Kathleen Midstokke, City Clerk
Kevin Northcraft, City Manager
City Hall (213) 376-6984 • Community Center 379-3312 / 376-6984 • Fire Department 376.2479 / 376-6984 • Police Department 376-7981 / 376-6984
- ls--
March 7, 1988
C
City oPiermosarl3each.
Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885
Paul and Mary Hulka
13431 Gilbert Street
Garden Grove, CA 92644
RE: Appeal to the City Council of Hermosa Beach of Planning
Commission decision - to not merge Lots 54 and 55, Block 139,
Redondo Villa Tract, commonly known as 1220 7th Street
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hulka
An appeal of the Planning Commission decision on February 16,
1988 - not to merge the above mentioned lots - has been filed by
Etta Simpson, Mayor of Hermosa Beach, and has been submitted to
the City Clerk. A Public Hearing before the Hermosa Beach City
Council has been set for March 22, 1988 at 8:00 P.M., or as soon
thereafter as the matter may be heard. This hearing will be held
in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive.
If you wish any written evidence to be considered by the City
Council at this meeting, we request that it reach the Planning
Department by noon on Tuesday, March 15, 1988 for inclusion in
the City Council agenda packets.
A staff report may be obtained on/or about March 17, 1988 from
the Planning Department. If you have any questions regarding
this matter please call (213) 376-6984.
Si1}eeely,
ewt'e
Associate\1Planner
cc: Kathleen Midstokke, City Clerk
Kevin Northcraft, City Manager.
City Hall (213) 376-6984 • Community Center 379-3312 1376-6984 • Fire Department 376.2479/376-6984 • Police Department 376-7981 / 376-6984
-lb-
•
�4
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER LOTS SHALL BE MERGED
C
City o f armosa l�eacli..)
Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
RE:
Dear Property Owner:
The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach intends to
determine if the parcels described above shall be merged into one
parcel according to Sections 29.5-19 through 29.5-28 of the
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code.
When two or more lots merge, they become a single parcel to be
developed, sold, leased, or financed together. Sections 29.5-20
and 29.5-21 allow lots to be merged if two or more contiguous
parcels of land are held by the same owner where the following
occur:
1. The parcels were created under the •provisions the City's
Subdivision Ordinance or any prior state law or ordinance
regulating the division of land, or which were not subject
to any prior law regulating the division of land.
2. At least one of the contiguous parcels or units of land
held by the same owner does not conform to standards for
minimum parcel size to permit use_ or development under the
City's Zoning and/or Subdivision Ordinance.
3. The main structure is partially sited.on the contiguous
parcel and not more than 809• of the lots on the same block
of the affected parcel have been split and developed
separately.
4. One or more of the following conditions exist with respect
to one or more of the contiguous parcels:
a. Comprises less than 4000 square feet in area at the time
of the determination of merger.
b. Was not created in compliance with applicable laws and
ordinances in effect at the time of the creation.
City Hall (213) 376-6984 • Community -Center 379-3312 / 376-6984 • — Pule Department 376.2479 / 376-6984
-I(--
••• 44.1.•0•••,•••• vy.r. i..J.•arp..4• 4(..... i L1iiM.J.' 4.•i✓.L.<•.s.1.:,4.. -..w . �..•
• Police Department 376-79811376.698
C; C
c. Does not meet current standards for sewage disposal and
domestic water supply.
d. Does not meet slope stability standards.
e. Has no legal access which is adequate for vehicular and
safety equipment access and maneuverability.
f. It's development would create health or safety hazards.
g. Is inconsistent with the applicable General Plan and any
applicable specific plan, other than minimum lot size or
density standards.
Information available to the City of Hermosa Beach indicates that
your property meets the criteria for merger. If you wish to
present evidence that the property does not meet the criteria for
merger, you may schedule a hearing before the Planning
Commission. Your written request for a bearing must be received
by the Planning Department within 30 days from the date of this
notice. With your request for a hearing, please include a letter
stating the reasons why the property is not eligible for merger.
t is the property owner's responsibility to provide a site
survey if one is needed to determine the exact location of
property lines. If you request a bearing, you will be sent a
letter stating the date, time, and location of the hearing.
If you do not request a hearing, a determination of whether or
not to merge the parcels will be made by the Planning Department
within 60 days of the date of this Notice.
A copy of the attached "Intention to`Merge Lots" form has been
filed with the Los Angeles County Recorder. A Notice of the
outcome will be sent to you, and a copy will be filed with the
Los Angeles County Recorder.
If you have questions regarding this matter, please contact the
Planning Department at (213) 376-6984.
Si • rel
Andrew rea•
Associat- Planner
C
547 South Helberta
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
January 12, 1988
•
City Council
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Re: 1154 8th Street
Hermosa Beach
'1.4 IV 1 r 103
Job #88-2691
We are in receipt of your letter dated December 17, 1987,
which was sent to our post office box rather than our home
address. We are responding as quickly as we could in light
of the circumstances. We are also in receipt of a copy of
your noticeof intent to merge our lots. �.
It is our position that our lots are exempt from your merger
lot ordinance and should not be merged. We (1) protest and
request a hearing on the matter and (2) are prepared to de-
fend our legal rights in court.
The property as presently sited has one structure which
covers parts of both Lots 57 and 58. There are two dwelling
units in this improvement which have been rented continuously
since the construction of the building. We, therefore, own
two pieces of property legally subdivided which have been
openly operated and occupied as two units since construction.
To merge these lots in an R-1 zone and create a nonconforming
lot would take away the right to one of the dwelling units.
That would constitute a taking of a property right. This is
not the intent of the lot merger ordinance! It is against
the law and must be compensated for if taken by government
action! We have no desire for this action to be taken and
there are no reasonable public purposes served by the taking
of this dwelling right! Therefore, our property should be
considered exempt from the intent of the merged lots ordinance,
the intent of which was to combine lots where a single family
residence crossed the property lines of more than one lot.
This is not the case in this situation.
Continued...
. City Council
City of Hermosa Beach
January 12, 1988
Page 2 .
r' 1n4&
We protest your acts vehemently. We request a hearing at
your earliest possible convenience, and request that the
city bear all expenses with regard to appropriate notifi-
cations, hearing, etc. Please be advised that our address
is 547 South Helberta Avenue, Redondo Beach, CA 90277. All
correspondence should be directed to that address for timely
delivery. We are fully prepared to defend ourselves at a
hearing and in a court of law, if necessary.
yerytruly y
Patrick and Barbara Vignery
"CY"
cc: Mr. Kevin Northcraft, City Manager
Mr. William Grove Building Director
Mr. Michael Schubach, Planning Director—
Mr. James Lough, City Attorney
modem
0, M" t -v
C
seen •'I
e
e ez.),(2.0//
,L 14 a-� .
69-1
LieL
1'G /i6 I
G
C,7 L t/eztct .700
ti/ 6bd
a/5 ' e zl s bL
JAN 4 1293
6ezd moi/
Ad iced/'
%3y3/ /-//yJai ,
S,
C .
-c milt ,
.5L/VA"5-5 `3c/
• e 09)( r
-22-
•
r ,
•
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City of Hermosa B
Planning Department
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA
DEC 101987
Beach
90254 \-87-1951354
�.....
NOTICE OF IN '.
-MERGE LOTS: - • a :,�; io; i
,i1 original
Notice is hereby given that th pOD4�bim£i'iioi' o:;,fig,}City
of Hermosa Beach intends to det {egD.Mu ;Tall , ,gt fttgbed
lots are eligible for merger--pu-rsunt tv the Hermosa Beach
Municipal Code Sections 29.5-19 through 29.5-28 (LOT MERGER
ORDINANCE) and State Government Code Sections 66451.11-66451.21.
Assessor's No: 4160029023
Copy of Document Recorded
Property Owner: PAUL AND MARY HULKA
13431 GILBER STREET
GARDEN GROVE, CA. 92644.
Legal Description: LOTS 54 AND 55, BLOCK 139,
REDONDO VILLA TRACT
A Notice of the outcome of the decision of the Hermosa Beach
Planning Commission will be mailed to be recorded with the deeds
of the above mentioned lots within 90 days of the date of this
instrument. Questions regarding this matter may be addressed to
the Hermosa Beach Planning Deparment at (213) 376-6984.
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
BY
Andrew Peek
Associate Planner
DATE December 3, 1987
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
On this 3rd day of Novmeber, 1987, before me, the undersigned, a
notary public in and for said county and state, personally
appeared Andrew Perea, personally known to be the Associate
Planner of the City of Hermosa Beach and known to me to be the
person who executed the instrument on behalf of the City of
Hermosa Beach and acknowledged to me that such City of Hermosa
Beach executed the same.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
o-oo.•
OFFICIAL. SEAL
Kathleen L. Reviczky
NOTAW1 PUBLIC. .4AUiArv...
LOS ANGELES COON
My Commission Expires Sept. 16. 1988
•
(FREE RECORDING IS REQU STED PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
-27383 - BENEFITS CITY AND IS OFFICIAL CITY BUSINESS) •
723-
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City of Hermosa Beach
Planning Department
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Notice is
of Hermosa
lots are
Municipal
ORDINANCE)
tax ov4B7.4
COPY of Document Reccrired -
-87-195o
Has no; been compared with original.
I morn Bof Wss i.rvhen. �/�
`IY1.
hereby given that latZ -has been ^vCii'I�'iicicCi.."
. ng„ i&saa4chnn _^�;ttf City
„_.
Beach intends to d ��r�t tit ... i39 2�4b; .g ascribed
eligible for merger pursuant to -the Hermosa Beach
Code Sections 29.5-19 through 29.5-28 (LOT MERGER
and State Government Code Sections 66451.11-66451.21.
NOTICE OF
Assessor's No: 4160030015
Property Owner: WILMA A BURT
1152 7TH STREET
HERMOSA BEACH, CA. 90254
Legal Description: LOTS 61 AND 62, BLOCK 139,
REDONDO VILLA TRACT
A Notice of the outcome of the decision of the Hermosa Beach
Planning Commission will be mailed to be recorded with the deeds
of the above mentioned lots within 90 days of the date of this
instrument. Questions regarding this matter may be addressed to
the Hermosa Beach Planning Deparment at (213) 376-6984.
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
BY
132
Andfew Pei -ea
Associate Planner
DATE December 3, 1987
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
On this 3rd day of Novmeber, 1987, before me, the undersigned, a
notary public in and for said county and state, personally
appeared Andrew •Perea, personally known to be the Associate
Planner -of the City of Hermosa Beach and known to me to be the
person who executed the instrument on behalf of the City of
Hermosa Beach and acknowledged to me that such City of Hermosa
Beach executed the same.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
7:Fl(,' SEAL
Kathleen L. Reviczky
A.W)NNIA
°�`r•b/ mac, toitJCoLLS COUNTY
My Commission Expires Sept. 16. 1988
L
(FREE RECORDING IS REQUESED PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT. CODE SECTION
27383 - BENEFITS CITY AND IS OFFICIAL CITY BUSINESS)
•
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City of Hermosa Beach
Planning Department
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
RECORDED IN OFFICIA4.,L
IL
RECORDER'S OFFICE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
CALIFORNIA
31 AST. 9 A.M. DEC 18 1987
NOTICE OF INTENT TO MERGE LOTS
7 2002172
s'i - 2062(17 -
FREE 1 J
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City
of Hermosa Beach intends to determine if the following described
lots are eligible for merger pursuantto the Hermosa Beach
Municipal Code Sections 29.5-19 through 29.5-28 (LOT MERGER
ORDINANCE) and State Government Code Sections 66451.11-66451.21.
Assessor's No: 4160032014
Property Owner: PATRICK AND BARBARA VIGNERY
P.O. BOX 401
HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254
Legal Description: LOTS 57 AND 58
BLOCK 140
REDONDO VILLA TRACT
A Notice of the outcome of the decision of the Hermosa Beach
Planning. Commission will be mailed to be recorded with the deeds
of the above mentioned lots within 120 days of the date of this
instrument. Questions regarding this matter may be addressed to
the Hermosa Beach Planning Deparment at (213) 376-6984.
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
BY ( /
Anew Pe}}jjea
Associate �Pl
anner
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
DATE December 15, 1987
On this 15th day of December, 1987, before me, the undersigned, a
notary public in and for said county and state, personally
appeared Andrew Perea, personally known to be the Associate
Planner of the City of Hermosa Beach and known to me to be the
person who executed the instrument on behalf of the City of
Hermosa Beach and acknowledged to me that such City of Hermosa
Beach executed the same.
WITNESS piy ,hand and /official seal.
!� '.�~-�''W-J-'t.-via'—•�'.-*^.a.�,...,.,r•P�
OFFIC!/L SEAL.
LOIS
R. PES
, s •=t}? • •a NO14.r. .UP
K
f..� LUS ANGELES COUNTY i
;S My Commission Expires Sept. 16, 1988
aSEAL
(FREE RECORDING IS REQUESTED PURSUANT TO GOVEINMENT. CODE SECTION
27383 - BENEFITS CITY AND IS OFFICIAL CITY BUSINESS) .
•
71"
t•'
131-i Y.60
.MORGAN Pit -344- z$t
LN. '
_;r
W' Prot. N/y. LIne .
11/J/3/, M O /0.90-9i
may.Prof
8/K 1?9,
•
1�
PL" .
HAVEMEYEF
LN.
REDON DO VI LLA » TRACT
M.B. 10-90-91
.
•
•
oz
4340
8060
L..
BK.
4186
•
DE
40
•. /eK tkta0
rJ��J E '3U
=S.U,
•
60
7TH
a 7TH
' REDON DO VILLA TRACT
M.B. 10-90-91
:
W
J•Q
8TH
Common Area
(P,L D)
rolJl
f
! •�.. a.0',ST• •
ti 't •� '• ' Y .(
t ,.
t
s f l.,, '
15
66
«
65
,
64
BL
o
83
K.
I «•
82
140
ov:
61
z
,23
i
80
59'
,
r .w.
l, �-
.✓y.�V+.�
58-
'„ ,,•
„..,5 kr,
'
0
•,
457.
,
:►
25
58
25
Mr to a
.eti 3
'u• . .Z,
I ,at* $
Q "541
h 3
A. 1 /1996t
.
.6oe1O 4
/W
4/704•••,
�5til
/2907
O
49
2.5
'1'0.-0
10
.
11
12
.
1
U
24
g° 13
23
32
14
r
O9
15
«
i0
16
«
//
17
«
' �2 ti
18
25
/6
19•
Por
/6 1
I
7447
: 61.
1 83.6
• ,
80.01
6,/POto• 2ler2 7
00.0
1
• 10
1/4;e.s78
89.1Z I
l
83.6
7 TH
ST.
•
��DoNDo VILLA TRACT
w+• 8. Io—qo- 41 .
•>erRcaL M Rp
P.m. poi—s3
►
4 ` (Y�'v. r 1H
•
.,
.'t
ti
1
March 14, 1988
•Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of
Hermosa Beach City Council March 22, 1988
SUBJECT: VARIANCE 87-7
LOCATION: 905 -15TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 23 OF
E.B. SMITH'S TRACT
APPLICANT: FLEET NUTTALL
905 -15TH STREET
HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254
REQUEST: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO
DENY A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED
SEVENTEEN (17) FOOT PARKING SETBACK
Recommendation
Staff recommends adoption of the attached Resolution confirming
denial of the variance request.
Background
The Planning Commission, at their meeting of February 16, 1988,
denied the variance request to encroach into the required
seventeen (17) foot setback and approved a variance to allow a
9.7' front yard setback to be counted as open space rather than
the required 10 feet.
Abstract
The Planning Commission denied the variance because they were
unable to establish the required finding to justify granting the
variance to the seventeen foot parking setback requirement. The
Planning Commission noted that alternative designs are available
for this site which would allow for a substantial addition
without requiring the variance.
A draft resolution is attached confirming the Planning
Commission's decision to deny the variance. An additional draft
resolution is attached should the City Council approve the
variance appeal.
Analysis
Analysis is available in the attached Planning Commission Staff
Reports of February 16, 1988, January 5, 1988, and August 18,
1987.
Attachments
1. Resolution 88- confirming the Planning Commission decision
to deny the variance request.
2. Resolution 88- approving the variance request on appeal.
6
4 905 -15TH STREET - VARIANCE APPEAL (CONTINUED)
3. Resolution P.C. 88-14 denying the variance request
• 4. Background
a. Planning Commission Staff Reports dated 2/16/88, 1/5/88,
and 8/18/87.
b. Planning Commission Minutes of 2/16/88, 1/5/88, and
8/18/87.
c. Letter from F. Nuttall dated 2/23/88
d. Letter to applicant dated 11/3/87
e. Application
f. Public Notice Affadivit
CONC
Micbdel Sclubach
Planning Director
'Kevin Northcraft
City Manager
2
Respectful' bmitted,
An re Per
Associate 1 lanner
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, DENYING ON APPEAL A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE
REQUIRED SEVENTEEN FOOT PARKING SETBACK AT 905 15TH PLACE.
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on March 22,
1988 to receive oral and written testimony regarding this matter
pursuant to applicable law and made the following Findings:
A. The applicant proposes to maintain a five (5) foot parking
setback rather than the required seventeen (17) foot setback;
B. The design of the proposed structure shows a potential to be
easily converted to a bootleg unit;
C. There are no unusual features of size, shape or topography
which justify a variance for the property since the subject
property is a typical rectangular 40' x 80' (approximately)
flat lot;
D. The property owner is not denied of any sustantial property
right since alternative designs are available to create a
living area addition of the same desired size and meet all
required setbacks and Open Space requirements;
NOW,' THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY DENY A VARIANCE TO
ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED 17 FOOT PARKING SETBACK AT 905 15TH
PLACE.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of March, 1988.
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of
Hermosa Beach, California.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
CITY ATTORNEYVOTE: AYES:
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 A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO
ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED SEVENTEEN FOOT PARKING SETBACK AT 905
15TH PLACE.
WHEREAS,
California,
both oral
Commission's
Findings:
1. (To be
Council)
2.
3.
4.
the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach,
held a public hearing on March 22, 1988 to receive
and written testimony regarding the Planning
denial of this request and made the following
completed upon Findings established by the City
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY APPROVE A
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO REQUIRED SEVENTEEN FOOT
PARKING SETBACK AT 905 15TH PLACE.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of March, 1988.
PRESIDENT of the City Council .and MAYOR of the City of
Hermosa Beach, California.
ATTEST:
PPROVED ASFO'M:
IP
CITY CLERK
CITY ATTORNEY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RESOLUTION P.C. 88-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED
SEVENTEEN FOOT PARKING SETBACK AT 905 15TH PLACE.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on
February 2, 1988 and February 16, 1988 to receive oral and
written testimony regarding this matter pursuant to applicable
law and made the following Findings:
A. The applicant proposes to maintain a five (5) foot parking
setback rather than the required seventeen (17) foot setback;
B. The design of the proposed structure shows a potential to be
easily converted to a bootleg unit;
C. There are no unusual features of size, shape or topography
which justify a variance for the property;
D. The property owner is not denied of any sustantial property
right since alternative designs are available to create a
living area addition of the same desired size and meet all
required setbacks and Open Space requirements:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission
of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby deny
variance to encroach into the required 17 foot parking setback at
905 15th Place.
VOTE: AYES: Comms.DeBellis,Ingell,Peirce,Rue,Chmn.Compton
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 88-14 is a
true complete record of the action taken by the Planning
C•����is-i• the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their
ing of February 16, 1988. ,,/
..---------1/
Compton, C airman jct.'s 1`c ach, Secretary
Date
5
C C
Honorable Chairman and Members of the
Hermosa Beach Planning Commission
SUBJECT: VARIANCE 87-7
February 10, 1988
Regular Meeting of
February 16, 1988
LOCATION: 905 -15TH PLACE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 23 OF E.B.
SMITH'S TRACT
APPLICANT: FLEET NUTTALL
905 15TH PLACE
HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254
REQUEST: TO PROVIDE A 5' SETBACK RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED
17' SETBACK AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the variance for the original plan
(Plan A) subject to the finding listed in the attached
resolution.
Background
The Planning Commission at their meeting of August 18, 1987,
denied a variance request to encroach into the required seventeen
foot setback and to have less than the required 400 square feet
of open space.
At the Planning Commission meeting of January 5, 1988, the
applicant was allowed a new hearing of his variance request.
This matter was continued to allow for the request to be publicly
noticed.
The Planning Commission, at their meeting of February 2, 1988,
continued this item to allow the applicant to meet with the
Planning Director and Building Director to clarify any
misunderstanding.
Analysis
Mr. Nuttall met with the Planning Director and the Building
Director to discuss plans submitted on November 2, 1987. The
plans submitted on November 2, 1987 are a third plan which
incorporates the existing garage. Both Building and Planning
Departments are in concurrence and find the plans submitted on
Noveeber 2, 1987 to be in violation with the zoning code sections
listed in the letter dated November 3, 1987 (attached).
The different plans submitted by the applicant all incorporate
the center open courtyard area. The courtyard area is a specific
design feature that the applicant desires, but will require a
variance. There are several other design alternatives available
-6-
which will allow a substantial increase in the floor area of the
existing structure without requiring any variances, or removal
and/or modification of any type for the purpose of conformance
with current ordinances. Staff is recommending denial of this
variance since there are no unusual circumstances to justify
granting this variance.
Additional analysis is provided in the staff reports dated
2/2/88, 1/5/88, 11/3/87 and 8/18/87.
Mic ael Schu ach
Planning Director
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution 88-14
2. PC Staff Report of 1/5/88
3. PC Mintues of 1/5/88
4. PC Minutes of 11/17/87
5. Letter to applicant dated 11/3/87
6. Resolution PC 87-49
7. PC Staff Report of 8/18/87
8. PC Minutes of 8/18/87
9. Application
10. Public Notice Affidavit
Andrew Pere
Associate Panner
c c
January 25, 1988
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of
Hermosa Beach Planning Commission February 2, 1988
SUBJECT: VARIANCE 87-7
LOCATION: 905 -15TH PLACE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 23 OF E.B.
SMITH'S TRACT
APPLICANT: FLEET NUTTALL
905 15TH PLACE
HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254
REQUEST: VARIANCE TO PROVIDE A 5' SETBACK RATHER THAN THE
REQUIRED 17' SETBACK AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the variance for the original plan
(Plan A) subject to the finding listed in the attached
resolution.
Background
The Planning Commission at their meeting of August 18, 1987,
denied a variance request to encroach into the required seventeen
foot setback and to have less than the required 400 square feet
of open space.
At the Planning Commission meeting of January 5, 1988, the
applicant was allowed to have a rehearing of his variance
request. This matter was continued to this meeting to allow for
the request to be properly noticed.
Analysis
The applicant requested a rehearing of this matter because he
states that he was not able to properly present alternative
designs for his project.
Staff has reviewed the proposed plans and find that the design is
similar to the plans previously submitted to the Planning
Commission during the earlier request for the variance. The
applicant has now also included an alternative design with his
plans, "Plan B".
The analysis for the original design is included in the attached
staff report dated August 11, 1987. The alternative plan, Plan
B, is in conformance with the seventeen foot setback, but still
has the open space problems. The open space for Plan B is a
175.0 square foot courtyard (10' by 17.5') and the front yard.
area of 402.5 square feet (9.7' by 41.5'). The width of the
front yard is less than the 10' as required by the zoning code.
..
c
Plan B will have the parking accessed from the west. The width
of the lot will barely accomodate this type of parking layout;
the site is 41.5' wide. After the 17' setback, the 20' depth
required for the parking spaces and the 4.2' required sideyard
setback, the applicant is left with 0.3'. 0.3' is not enough
area to construct typical garage walls, although, the zoning code
does not require this area to be enclosed.
The applicant is saying that the original design is superior to
Plan B since Plan B will cause the elimination of two on -street
parking spaces. The applicant is using Plan B as a "bargaining
tool" to obtain the variance on the original design. A third
alternative design which will not require any variances is the
design discussed in the Staff Report of August 18, 1988.
Staff is recommending denial of this variance since there are no
unusual circumstances to justify granting t,4s vance.
ATTACHMENTS -
1. PC Staff Report of 1/5/88
2. PC Mintues of 1/5/88
3. PC Minutes of 11/17/87
4. Letter to applicant dated 11/3/87
5. Resolution PC 87-49
6. PC Staff Report of 8/18/87
7. PC Minutes of 8/18/87
8. Application
9. Public Notice Affidavit
Anew P a
Associate' Planner
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach
Planning Commission
FROM: Andrew Perea, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Addendum to Planning Commission packets
DATE: February 1, 1988
The following items are addendums to be added to your
Planning Commission packets for the meeting of February 2,
1988.
1) Staff Item No. 11 - Conditions for•caretaker unit.
- Please remove the Resolution included in your packets
and replace it with the attached Resolution.
2) Staff Item No. 9 - Variance for 905 15th Place.
Correction to the Staff Report - This item is a new
hearing, not a rehearing as noted in the staff report
dated January 25, 1988. Also, the report states that
the court yard has a 175 square foot open space area
(10' by 17.5'). The correct dimension is 201 square
feet (11.5' by 17.5'). Since the plans did not show all
dimensions this area was calculated in error, although
it should be recognized that this has no relevance to
the zoning variance. The zoning code requires R-1
developments to provide 400 square feet of open space.
The open space must have a minimum dimension of 10',
also 25% of this open space may be on decks and
balconies.
Also the City Council, at their meeting of January 26, 1988,
directed staff to select 3 dates for the City joint City
Council/Planning Commission workshop. Staff will be asking
the Planning Commission to select 3 choices for the date of
the meeting. This item will be included on the agenda for
the next meeting for discussion.
December 23, 1987
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of
January 5, 1988
Hermosa Beach Planning Commission
SUBJECT: VARIANCE 87-7
LOCATION: 905 -15TH PLACE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 23 OF E.B.
SMITH'S TRACT
APPLICANT: FLEET NUTTALL
905 15TH PLACE
HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254
REQUEST: TO REHEAR A VARIANCE REQUEST TO PROVIDE A 5'
SETBACK RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 17' SETBACK AND A
VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE
Recommendation
1. Based on the Zoning Ordinance, Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission deny the applicant's request to rehear
this item.
2. To advise the applicant to apply for a rehearing of this
matter six months after the denial of the variance request.
Background
The Planning Commission at their meeting of August 18, 1987,
denied a variance request to encroach into the required seventeen
foot setback and to have less than the required 400 square feet
of open space.
At the Planning Commission meeting of November 17, 1987, the
applicant requested that the Planning Commission consider
rehearing this matter. Since this matter was not placed on the
adgenda, the item was referred to staff for a report and
recommendation.
Analysis
The applicant is requesting a rehearing of his variance after
alternative designs of the project were prepared. The major
changes to his design are the access to the garage. The original
plan shows the garage being accessed from the north. The
applicant's new proposal will be accessed from the west. The
Planning Department has not received the revised plans. The
applicant has reviewed his plans with the Building Department.
The applicant also stated at the meeting of November 17, 1987,
that he had difficulty in understanding comments made by the
Planning Commission because of a hearing impairment.
Section 1402.4 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code states the
following "After the denial of a variance...no further
application for the same variance shall be filed for the same
property for the ensuing six (6) months, unless the project has
been redesigned so as to eliminate the Board of Zoning
Adjustment's (Planning Commission) or Zoning Administrator's or
City Council previous objection to the project. Said redesign
will require a completed new application process."
On August 20, 1987, the applicant was mailed a letter notifying
him of the decision of the Planning Commission. The letter also
stated that the decision of the Planning Commission could be
appealed to the City Council. The applicant never filed an
appeal.
February 18, 1988 will conclude the six month period since the
denial of the variance. Staff is recommending that Planning
Commission advise the applicant to rehear this matter after the
six month time period has elapsed. At that time, the applicant
should refile a new application and pay new fees.
If the Planning Commission decides to rehear this item prior to
the expiration of the six months, fees will have to be repaid.
The fee can only be waived by the City Council , the Planning
Commisson does not have the authority to wa,fte f
r (1
CONCUR:
Michael Schubach
Planning Director
ATTACHMENTS
1. PC Minutes of 11/17/87
2. Letter to applicant dated 11/3/87
3. Resolution PC 87-49
4. PC Staff Report dated 8/18/87
5. PC Minutes of 8/18/87
An:—ew Pe ea
Associate Planner
Y
C
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach
Planning Commission
FROM: Andrew Perea, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Letter from F. Nuttall, dated November 12, 1987
DATE: November 17, 1987
Recommended Action: Receive and File
The attached letter was received from the Planning Department on
Friday, November 13, 1987. In this letter Mr. Nuttall is
notifying Staff of his intent to appear before the Planning
Commission to request a rehearing of this variance request which
was denied on August 18, 1987.
In the letter Mr. Nuttall states that there was some error in
arguments regarding curbside parking. After reviewing the
Planning Commission minutes of August 18, 1987, it appears that
this was never an issue.
Staff is recommending that his request be denied. Mr. Nuttall
was advised of the ten day period to file an appeal before the
City Council and did not file. Section 1402.4 of the Municipal
Code regarding reapplication upon denial for variances states the
following, "After the denial of a variance...no further
application for the same variance shall be filed for the same
property for the ensuing six (6) months, unless the project has
been redesigned so as to eliminate the Planning Commission's
objection to the project. Said redesign will require a complete
new application process."
Alternative: Schedule this matter to be added to the agenda for
discussion at a future Planning Commission meeting.
c
August 11, 1987
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of
Hermosa Beach Planning Commission August 18, 1987
SUBJECT: VARIANCE 87-7
LOCATION: 905 15TH PLACE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 23 OF E.B.
SMITH'S TRACT
APPLICANT: FLEET NUTTALL
905 15TH PLACE
HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254
REQUEST: A VARIANCE TO PROVIDE A 5' PARKING SETBACK RATHER
THAN THE REQUIRED 17' SETBACK AND A VARIANCE TO THE
REQUIRED AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the variances
to provide a 5' parking setback rather than the required 17'
setback and provide open space with a dimension of 9.7' rather
than the required 10'.
Background
Project Details
Zone: R-1 One -Family Residential Zone
General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential
Parcel Size: 3410 square feet (41.5' by 82.17')
The Staff Environmental Review Committee, at their meeting of
June 7, 1987, recommended that a Negative Declaration be prepared
for this project.
The original variance request was for the 17' parking setback
requirement only. Staff also noted a need to request a variance
for open space. The Staff Environmental Review Committee
requested the applicant to revise his application and plans to
indicate the additional variance request.
Analysis
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing two car garage to
construct a new four (4) car garage and construct a 970 sq. ft.
addition over the proposed garage. The existing 884 sq. ft.
residential structure will be completely remodeled. The proposed
design of the structure will be Mediterranean contructed around a
courtyard.
r4
c
The applicant proposes to remove the kitchen in the existing
structure and relocate it in the proposed addition. The existing
kitchen will be converted to a bedroom. The existing structure
has a nonconforming easterly setback.
The existing structure and proposed addition will be two detached
structures that are connected by a common hallway. The original
plans submitted showed two completely detached units. Staff
required that the plans be revised to show some method of
attachment to conform to the Zoning Code. The hallway is shown
to be enclosed and doors at both ends have been removed.
Entrance to the dwelling will be along the hallway adjacent to
Mira Street.
Staff is quite concerned about a potential bootleg development.
The proposal is essentially two separate structures. An illegal
unit could be easily created by adding doors at opposite ends of
the hall and restoring the original kitchen. Potentially two
units of approximately 900 square feet would be created.
The site can easily accommodate the 17' parking setback. The
distance from the rear of the house to the property line is 46.5
feet. Subtracting the required 17' setback, an area 29.5' will
remain. This area can easily accommodate a three (3) car garage.
The required depth of a garage is twenty (20) feet. Additional
guest parking can be provided in the seventeen (17) foot setback
behind the garage.
The additional variance requested is for open space. The site
currently contains over 1490 sq. ft. of countable open space.
This area does not include the front yard setback. The plan
proposes to eliminate all open space except a courtyard with 201
sq.. ft. of open space, open to the sky. A deck is also provided
in the proposed addition, but does not meet the minimum
dimensions to be counted. The applicant wishes to count the
front yard area with a dimension of 9.7' as open space. The
minimum dimension for countable open space in an R-1 zone is 10
feet.
The Planning Commission, at their meeting of May 19, 1987,
reviewed open space and defined it to be "areas which are from
ground to sky free and clear of any obstructions unless otherwise
specified. Open space in R-1 zones was defined as "...a minimum
of four hundred (400) sq. ft. of usable open space with a minimum
dimension of ten (10) feet...Front and rear yard setbacks with a
minimum dimension of ten feet may be counted toward open space."
This item is scheduled for Public Hearing before the City
Council; therefore, an Ordinance has not been adopted. Until
such ordinance is adopted, there is nothing in the zoning code,
at this time, which permits the required yard areas to be
utilized for open space; the code is permissive, i.e. what is not
noted is not permitted.
Staff is unable to meet all the required Findings for granting
these variances. Staff is aware that the existing dwelling is
small, but alternative designs are available which can easily
-15-
create an addition of the same size. There are no unusual or
exceptional circumstances applicable to this property. The size
of the lot is not unusual in size or topography. Other parcels
in the area are the same size, if not smaller. The applicant is
not being denied of any property right since alternative designs
are available which can easily create the living area desired.
The granting of these variances will set a •receden g or similar
developments in the area.
CO UR:
Micha-1 chu
Planning Director
An• rePeres
Associate Pla' ner
PLANNING COMM ON MINUTES - FFRRI IARY IA .40
n4eC 4
VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE 17 -FOOT PARKING SETBACK AT 905 15TH
PLACE (CONTINUED FROM THE MEETING OF 2/2/88)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 10, 1988. The Planning Commission, a:
their meeting of August 18, 1987, denied a variance request to encroach into the require.:
seventeen -foot setback and to have less than the required 400 square feet of open space.
At the Planning Commission meeting of January 5, 1988, the applicant was allowed a nc:.
hearing of his variance request. This matter was continued to allow for the request to lr
publicly noticed.
The Planning Commission, at their meeting of February 2, 1988, continued this iter;.:.
give the applicant an opportunity to meet with the Planning Director and Bulic.•
Director to clarify any misunderstanding.
Mr. Perea continued the staff report, explaining that Mr. Nuttall met with the Planr.:r ;-
Director
Director and the Building Director to discuss plans submitted on November 2, 19S7. Tri
plans submitted on November 2, 1987, are a third plan which incorporates the
PLANNING COMM(,ION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 16, 19C PAGE 9
garage. Both Building and Planning Departments are in concurrence and find the plans
submitted on November 2, 1987, to be in violation of the zoning code sections listed in
the letter dated November 3, 1987.
Mr. Perea continued by discussing the detached garage and the proposal to attach it to
the main structure, which would then render it nonconforming.
The different plans submitted by the applicant all incorporate the center open courtyard
area. The courtyard area is a specific design feature that the applicant desires, but
which will require a variance. There are several other design alternatives available
which will allow a substantial increase in the floor area of the existing structure without
requiring any variances or removal and/or modification of any type for the purpose of
conformance with current ordinances. Staff is recommending denial of this variance
since there are no unusual circumstances to justify granting this variance.
Comm. Peirce asked whether the applicant could leave the existing garage and attach
the garage, with the proper setbacks on the new construction, to the existing house
without having to tear down the garage thereby triggering the 17 -foot setback
requirement.
Mr. Schubach stated that if the garage is attached to the house, the house would then
become even more nonconforming. He noted that this fact was asserted in Item No. 2 of
the letter sent from the Building Department to the applicant. If the garage is partially
town down so that it is not as close to the property line, there would not be much
remaining; the east and west walls would then need to be torn down, and then the garage
door would be on the alley side and would need to be removed. All that would remain
would be a small portion of wall on the south side.
Comm. Peirce asked: if the garage remains as it is, and was stepped back to the sideyard
setback from that point, and then attached to the house, would the proper sideyard
setback for that particular extension exist.
Mr. Schubach explained that doing so would involve removing a. portion of the garage,
which would then make the garage too small.
Comm. Peirce and Mr. Schubach continued by discussing the garage and its attachment
to the house.
Mr. Perea explained that the garage is currently 1.6 feet from the side property line. As
a detached structure, it can remain as a conforming structure; however, once it is
attached to the main structure, it would no longer be a detached structure, and it would
become nonconforming.
Mr. Schubach stated that the garage can be added to; however, it must meet the current
setback requirements.
Chmn. Compton noted that he has never run into this problem before. He continued by
discussing the interpretation with Mr. Schubach.
Bill Grove, Building Director, addressed the Commission. He explained that the zoning
code provides for different regulations for main buildings and accessory buildings in some
cases. He continued by discussing the letter he wrote, wherein it states a detached
garage meeting the seven criteria can be located either on a side or rear property line.
Clearly, a main structure cannot do that. At the present time, however, the garage
PLANNING COMMCON MINUTES - FEBRUARY 16, 1983 PAGE 10
complies with six out of seven of the requirements. It is very nearly a conforming
structure as it exists now; but by attaching it to the main structure, it would become
part of the• main structure and thereby be nonconforming because the main structure
would then become 1.6 feet from the side property line in lieu of the current 2.7 feet.
Mr. Grove stated that the use would become that of a nonconforming building as opposed
to a nonconforming use. He continued by explaining why this would not be permitted
under the current zoning code regulations.
Comm. Peirce noted that any new structure would need to comply with current zoning;
therefore, he could see no difference between this and a case where someone tears down
the entire garage and claims he was just improving his property in order to avoid
triggering the 17 -foot setback requirement. He stated that he could see the point of the
zoning ordinance in this case; however, he does not agree with it.
Chmn. Compton asked which one of the seven requirements this garage does not meet.
Mr. Grove replied that the garage does not comply *ith the one-hour fire resistant
construction requirement for the property line location.
Mr. Grove stated that Mr. Nuttall presented a set of plans to the Building Department
which differed from those presented to the Planning Commission. The Building
Department noted that that plan would also require variances. He noted that the
applicant can proceed with a project which would require no variance; however, the
applicant doesn't want to do that; he wants to build the project he originally proposed.
The problem is that the applicant wants to maintain an interior courtyard, which takes up
too much of the lot. He said that the applicant can add substantially to the property in a
way which would be in compliance with all the requirements.
Chmn. Compton felt that the concept of the courtyard is admirable, and he does not feel
that the applicant's request is unreasonable based on what the City has allowed in the
past. The fact that this applicant has a nonconforming garage setback is also not unusual
in the City. He asked whether the main concern of the Building Department is in regard
to access.
Mr. Grove stated what he felt to be the intention of the original drafters of the
ordinance.
Comm. Rue asked about the 17 -foot setback requirement for garages which are added on
to.
Mr. Schubach discussed his interpretation of the 17 -foot setback requirement as it
applies to nonconforming uses.
Comm. Peirce noted that he could see no difference between this plan and the plan that
the Commission has discussed several times already.
Mr. Schubach agreed, stating that the applicant still desires to build his original plan,
Plan A.
Public Hearing opened at 8:38 P.M. by Chmn. Compton.
Fleet Nuttall, 905 15th Place, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission. He
stated that he had nothing new to add to what he has already said to the Commission. He
PLANNING COMM BION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 16, 198( PAGE 11
summarized his previous testimony, and he showed a plan of what he would like to do.
He stated that Plan A would best satisfy the needs of his neighborhood. He noted that
Plan B would remove two on -street parking spaces. He felt that the spirit of the
ordinance is best met by Plan A. He further noted that he would prefer to have an
enclosed four -car garage.
Comm. DeBellis noted that Plan A has raised concern among the Commission because of
a potential bootleg unit. He noted that the code requires only two enclosed parking
spaces with two guest parking spaces which can be open. He noted concern over such a
large enclosed garage.
Mr. Nuttall continued by discussing various parking options at this project. He noted,
however, that if the intent is there, a bootleg can be made from any available space.
Chmn. Compton asked whether the applicant would consider having two of the four
parking spaces open.
Mr. Nuttall stated that he would very much resist the idea of having two open parking
spaces.
Alicia Green, 846 16th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and opposed
the granting of the variance for the following reasons: (a) rules and regulations
mandated by the City should be adhered to; (b) the applicant has other options available
to him which would require no variances; (c) having a garage so close to 16th Street,
which is very busy, would be a detriment to the neighborhood; (d) negative impacts on the
City's reputation if too many nonconforming uses are allowed; (e) negative impacts on
the City's reputation for not following its own general plan; (f) even though the atrium
idea is nice, the lot is not large enough for it; (g) the existing garage is in very bad
condition and should be torn down as opposed to expanded.
Jeff Green, 846 16th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and opposed the
granting of the variance for the followingreasons: (a) possible use as a bootleg; (b) the
setback rules should be complied with; (c) the City's rules and regulations should be
adhered to; (d) alternative `options are available to this applicant for designing an
attractive project; (e) the lot is simply not large enough to accommodate the atrium; (f)
the design is not appropriate for this property; (g) this item has been continued three
times already, and the plans have been exactly the same each time; (h) there are no
extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property.
Public Hearing closed at 9:01 P.M. by Chmn. Compton.
Comm. Peirce stated that the Commission must make its decision based on the plans and
the request before the Commission at this time. It is not up to the City to redesign a
project for an applicant. He noted that there are two problems involved in this matter:
(1) trying to maintain the 17 -foot setback; and (2) having a legal project. He felt that,
after hearing all the testimony and looking at the plans, that the variance should be
denied because it is not necessary for the enhancement of this property.
Comm. Peirce noted that this project can be redesigned to include almost everything
that the applicant desires. He stated that he is somewhat opposed to the large enclosed
garage, and he questioned whether it is really necessary for this property. Based on
these reasons, he said he would find it difficult to approve this project as submitted and
to find grounds to grant the variance for the 17 -foot setback requirement.
PLANNING COMMCION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 16, 19( PAGE 12
MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staff's
recommendation to deny the variance to encroach into the 17 -foot parking setback for
property located at 905 15th Place.
Comm. Rue noted concern over the potential bootleg if this variance is approved. He
stated that he liked the design; however, the four -car garage could lead to problems. He
agreed that an alternative project can be designed which would not need a variance. He
concluded by stating that he does not think adequate findings can be made to grant this
variance.
Comm. Ingell noted concern over the bootleg potential. He could also find no reason not
to enforce the 17 -foot setback requirement, noting that the lot is not that small. He
could find no reason to grant this variance.
Chmn. Compton said that he tends to be an advocate of people's rights. He felt that
there are some problems with the 17 -foot setback which need to be modified. He felt
that an extraordinary circumstance in this case is that the property is surrounded on
three sides by public streets. He noted concern, however, that he could not make the
necessary finding in regard to this variance being necessary so that the applicant can
have property rights enjoyed by others in the same vicinity. He felt that the applicant
can redesign this project and comply with all the regulations, without needing a
variance. He noted, however, that he tends to oppose Plan B, even though it needs no
variance, because it will cause two on -street parking spaces to be lost.
AYES: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. Nuttall addressed the Commission and noted that if he proceeds with the alternative
Plan B, it is still necessary for him to obtain a variance for the front yard setback of 9.7
feet, since ten feet is required. He wanted to ensure that this would pose no problem for
his project.
Mr. Grove stated that he discussed Plan B with Mr. Nuttall. He continued by explaining
what was discussed in regard to the garage walls and door. He noted, however, that Plan
B does not eliminate the need for a variance on the open space.
Mr. Schubach stated that in the R-1 zone, a ten -foot setback is required; in this case the
setback is 9.7 feet. He noted staff does not feel there is a problem in approving the
variance for the 9.7 feet. He further noted that there is approximately 200 square feet
of open space in this proposal.
Chmn. Compton could see no problem with allowing the 9.7 foot front setback.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve a variance for the 9.7
foot setback on the front yard, the reasons being: (a) there was a conflicting
measurement between the old City survey and the new City survey; (b) this is an existing
building; (c) there is adequate open space provided for in the rest of the design.
AYES: • Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
PLANNING COMMIS(.) MINUTES - FEBRUARY 2, 1988 PAGE 4
..I. ,. • ..•,i6
- OOT S B
.r.
•4 • t •1 1
SEVENTEEN -FOOT PARKING SETBACK FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 905 15TH
PLACE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 25, 1988. The Planning Commission at
their meeting of August 18, 1987, denied a variance request to encroach into the required
seventeen -foot setback and to have less than the required.400 square feet of open space.
At the Planning Commission meeting of January 5, 1988, the applicant was allowed a
rehearing of his variance request. This matter was continued to this meeting to allow for
the request to be properly renoticed. It was noted, however, that this should be
considered as a new hearing of the matter.
The applicant requested a rehearing of this matter because he states that he was not able
to properly present alternative designs for his project.
Staff has reviewed the proposed plans and found that the design is similar to the plans
previously submitted to the Planning Commission during the earlier request for the
variance. The applicant has now also included an alternative design with his plans,
Plan B.
The analysis for the original design was included in the staff report dated August 17,
1987. The alternative plan, Plan B, is in conformance with the seventeen foot setback,
but still has the open space problems: The open space for Plan B is a 175.0 square foot
courtyard (10' by 17.5') and the front yard area of 402.5 square feet (9.7' by 41.4'). The
width of the front yard is less than the ten feet as required by the zoning code.
Plan B will have the parking accessed from the west. The width of the lot will barely
accommodate this type of parking layout; the site is 41.5 feet wide. After the 17 -foot
setback, the 20 -foot depth required for the parking spaces and the 4.2' required sideyard
setback, the applicant is left with 0.3'. 0.3' is not enough area to construct typical
garage walls; although, the zoning code does not require this area to be enclosed.
The applicant is saying that the original design is superior to Plan B since Plan B will
cause elimination of two on -street parking spaces. The applicant is using Plan B as a
"bargaining tool" to obtain the variance on the original design. A third alternative design
which will not require any variance is the design discussed in the staff report dated
August 18, 1987.
Mr. Schubach noted that another area of concern had been that of the minimum open
space; however, the open space has been determined to be acceptable by the Building
Department's interpretation of the issue, noting that it was determined that the setback
could be included as part of the open space calculation.
PLANNING COMMI(.JN MINUTES - FEBRUARY 2, 1988 ` PAGE 5
Mr. Schubach noted that the minimum front setback must be ten feet; in this case there
is 9.7 feet. The Commission must make a determination on this matter. He noted that
there is adequate area; however, the dimensions do not meet the requirement.
Mr. Schubach stated that it is the determination of staff that the applicant can redesign
the project so that it is in compliance with all regulations. Therefore, staff
recommended denial of this variance since there are no unusual circumstances to justify
granting the variance.
Comm. Ingell asked about the potential for a bootleg unit if this project is approved.
Mr. Schubach stated that there is such a potential, explaining that the configuration of
the proposed design could be accommodated to split the project in two in order to turn it
into two separate units.
Chmn. Compton noted that the updated plans apparently reflect a change in the deck
size.
Mr. Schubach agreed that there was a change, noting that the first plan did not have the
dimensions on it. Instead of 175 square feet of open space, there is actually 201 square
feet, for an additional 26 square feet of open space. In either case, there is still more
than enough open space when the front yard and court yard are both counted.
Public Hearing opened at 7:58 P.M. by Chmn. Compton.
Fleet Nuttall, 905 15th Place, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission.
Comm. DeBellis asked if Mr. Nuttall would prefer that he abstain from discussion on this
issue.
Mr. Nuttall stated that he had no objection to Comm. DeBellis taking part in this action,
noting that he had no reason to make such a request.
Mr. Nuttall displayed a scale model depicting his lot, the size of which is 41.5 by 82
feet. He showed various views of what currently exists and what is proposed on this
site. He discussed the garage, stating that an awkward situation would occur if he
complies with the 17 -foot setback requirement. He also noted that such compliance
would rule out the possibility of the atrium. He explained how he would like to proceed
in order to have the atrium, noting that he feels nothing significant will be changed by
the proposal. He said that the four -car garage he desires will be accessed by 16th
Street. He noted that this plan is referred to as Plan A.
Mr. Nuttall continued by discussing Plan B, stating that if Plan A is not approved, access
from the garage would be from the west, thereby resulting in the loss of two on -street
parking spaces. He showed a model depicting Plan B, stating that no variance would be
required for it.
Mr. Nuttall stated that Plan A is preferable to the neighborhood because there is no loss
of on -street parking involved in that plan. He felt that the spirit of the 17 -foot setback
ordinance is better met by Plan A, even though a variance is necessary.
Mr. Nuttall handed out copies of letters signed by the neighbors who favor Plan A.
PLANNING COMMICON MINUTES - FEBRUARY 2, 1988( PAGE 6
Mr. Nuttall stated that on the plans submitted this evening, he had made a change which
has turned out to be unnecessary. The change in question is that he extended the balcony
from 6 1/2! by 11' to 10' by 11.' He said he thought that that change was required;
however, after discussing the matter with the Planning Department, he discovered that
the change was not necessary. He noted, therefore, that that change would not be made.
Comm. Peirce asked how large the present garage is.
Mr. Nuttall replied that the garage is approximately 18' by 20'. He stated that at one
point he had submitted plans which would incorporate the existing garage into the
remodel; however, he was informed that the plan could not be done, apparently because
the existing garage is detached from the house.
Comm. Peirce asked for clarification on the matter of the Building Department denying
the applicant the ability to build away from the existing garage.
Mr. Nuttall stated that on November 2, he submitted to the Building Department a
complete proposal which would incorporate the existing garage, which is structurally
sound and conforms in every way, by expanding and attaching to it, which would avoid
triggering the setback rule. He was informed by the Building Director that it would be
necessary to obtain permission from the Planning Commission to do such a project
because of the fact that the garage is detached. Mr. Grove later informed Mr. Nuttall
that the Planning Commission had denied the request.
Comm. Peirce asked for clarification, questioning why an addition to an existing
detached garage would trigger the 17 -foot setback rule.
Mr. Schubach stated that the rule would not be triggered -by. such an addition. He
continued by explaining that if the use is current non -conforming, and there is an
addition, the setback requirement would,not be triggered. The reason the rule would be
triggered is because the applicant wants to tear down the existing garage and build a new
four -car garage in its place.
Comm. Peirce quoted from a written statement submitted by Mr. Nuttall regarding the
necessary findings: "All over this City building additions are being made without
triggering the garage setback ordinance by building around existing garages. I have been
denied that alternative though I have an existing, legal, and structurally sound garage,
apparently because it is detached. Had the planning department not denied that
alternative I would not be destroying my garage." Comm. Peirce asked for clarification
of those statements.
Mr. Nuttall stated that he has the denial letter dated November 2 that he received from
the City. He further noted that there is a set of plans which were dated November 2.
He continued by explaining what he was told by Mr. Grove in regard to the plans.
Comm. Peirce noted that the main issue here is to determine what has triggered the 17 -
foot setback requirement. He was puzzled over this entire issue.
Comm. DeBellis was under the impression that an expansion of 50 percent or more
triggered the setback rule.
Mr. Schubach stated that it is not an expansion; rather, it is a demolition of 50 percent or
more which would trigger the rule. He noted that the issue of non -conforming uses is one
of the ordinances which will soon be returned to the Commission for further study.
PLANNING COMMI(ION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 2, 1988
PAGE 7
Mr. Nuttall passed out a copy of the letter he had received from Mr. Grove, wherein the
Building Director wrote that the main problem with the project is: "The proposed
addition would exacerbate the non -conforming condition of the main structure by
connecting it to a detached garage which is at least partially in conformance with
Section 1157(e)."
Chmn. Compton continued by reading aloud the letter from the Building Director,
wherein it is delineated which code sections are not being complied with.
Chmn. Compton stated that the letter does not specifically deny the project, only that
there are certain problems which need to be corrected.
Chmn. Compton and Mr. Nuttall discussed the plans for this project and the front and
side yard setbacks.
Mr. Nuttall stated that that is not his understanding of the matter. He was informed by
the Building Director, that because of Statement No. 2 in the letter, the matter was out
of the purview of the Building Department, and it had become a matter for the Planning
Department to approve. Mr. Grove at that point told Mr. Nuttall that the Planning
Department had denied approval. However, Mr. Nuttall was not aware of who told Mr.
Grove the project was denied.
Chmn. Compton could see nothing which would preclude the applicant from modifying
the plans and getting approval. He noted that the letter from the Building Department
does not specifically deny the approval, other than the fact that there were zoning code
questions which need to be addressed.
Mr. Nuttall stated that when he received the letter,_ called Mr. Grove for
clarification. He was informed by Mr. Grove that Statement No. 2 was the item which
was preventing approval of the project. At this point Mr. Nuttall asked if a variance
would be feasible; whereupon he was told that it would be hard to obtain a variance,
since it is hard to define what is actually being requested.
Chmn. Compton asked Mr. Schubach to look at the plans and determine what is actually
meant by Statement No. 2.
Mr. Nuttall stressed that he would prefer to do Plan A. He stated that he has met with
misfortune all along the way on this project.
Chmn. Compton could see no problem with the plan, except for the question involving
bringing the second floor out into line with the garage, which cannot be done. He stated
that any new work to be done must conform to all the existing setback requirements.
The existing building is acceptable so long as it is structurally sound.
Mr. Schubach and the Commissioners discussed possible configurations for the garage in
order for it to meet the code requirements based on_ the interpretation given by the
Building Director.
Comm. DeBellis felt that the best approach at this time is for the applicant to meet with
both the Planning Director and Building Director at the same time in order to alleviate
the problem of miscommunication. The applicant could then determine whether it is in
fact necessary that he return to the Commission to request a variance.
PLANNING COMMC.ON MINUTES - FEBRUARY 2, 1988( PAGE 8
Chmn. Compton noted to the applicant that he cannot remove more than fifty percent of
the existing garage; if he does, all the current requirements would then need to be
complied with and all current setback requirements must be met.
Chmn. Compton felt that there has been a problem of miscommunication in regard to
this matter. He noted, however, that it would still be necessary for the Planning
Commission to rule on the question of the 9.7 foot setback versus the required ten foot
setback, noting that that might be the only necessary variance for this project.
Comm. Peirce favored the idea of the applicant meeting with both the Planning and
Building Directors in order to determine the best approach to this project. He favored
saving the existing garage and renovating the home without triggering the 17 -foot
setback requirement. Chmn. Compton concurred.
Comm. DeBellis asked whether Mr. Nuttall had any objection to a continuance of this
matter so that he could meet with the Building and Planning Directors to try to resolve
this issue.
Mr. Nuttall stated that he had no objection to a continuance; however, he noted he would
like to proceed with this project before he gets too old to do so.
Jeff Green, 846 16th Street, Hermosa Beach, builder/developer and homeowner,
addressed the Commission. He opposed the granting of this variance based on the
following reasons: (a) the applicant has tried to request the City to design this project,
and that .is not the responsibility of the City; (b) there have already been too many
continuances of this matter; (c) it is the responsibility of the applicant to properly design
a project and submit it for approval; (d) the applicant has not been adequately prepared;
(e) the applicant wants to have it all, meaning the four garages. and the atrium; (f) the
applicant can provide a new plan which meets all City requirements; (g) by continuing
this matter and/or granting the variance, developers will receive a message that they can
get whatever they want merely by requesting a variance; (h) blatant violations of the
code should not be allowed; (i) an adequate house can be designed for this property which
meet all requirements; (j) potential for a bootleg and excessive number of proposed
garages which could be rented out; (k) favored a deed restriction prohibiting the leasing
of the garages if approved; (1) proposed parking situation of Plan B is not compatible with
the surrounding neighborhood; (m) neighbors who signed letters of approval of this project
could be biased because they do not understand the intricacies of building and zoning
code requirements; (n) another meeting between the applicant, Building Director and
Planning Director will simply be a redo of what has already been discussed; (o) the
Commission should vote on what currently is before them; (p) if the garage is moved
back, there would then be a problem with the open space.
Joseph Collector, 919 15th Place, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission. He
favored approval of the variance based on the following reasons: (a) the only problem has
been miscommunication; (b) the character of the applicant is honest and above -board,
and he has not tried to misinform anyone; (c) the overall plan is a positive one which adds
character and diversity to the neighborhood; (d) the parking problem will be alleviated by
the four -car garage; (e) the applicant does not rent out his garages and does not propose
to do so, nor will he have a bootleg; (f) the project will be an improvement to the City;
(g) a letter was submitted and read by Mr. Collector from Pam and John Harlan of 922
15th Place who favor approval of this project.
MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to continue this issue to the
meeting of February 16, 1988, in order that the applicant may meet with the Planning
PLANNING COMMISS1JN MINUTES - FEBRUARY 2, 1988
PAGE 9
Director and Building Director for clarification of this matter to determine whether or
not a variance is necessary. No objections; so ordered.
Public Hearing continued by Chmn. Compton at 8:45 P.M. to the meeting of February 16,
1988.
7!)
PLANNING COMMCON MINUTES - JANUARY 5, 1988 C PAGE 20
905 15TH STREET, VARIANCE RECONSIDERATION •
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated December 23, 1987. The Planning Commission at
their meeting of August 18, 1987, denied a variance request to encroach into the required
seventeen -foot setback and to have less than the required 400 square feet of open space.
At the Planning Commission meeting of November 17, 1987, the applicant requested that
the Planning Commission consider rehearing this matter. Since this matter was not
placed on the agenda, the item was referred to staff for a report and recommendation.
The applicant is requesting a rehearing of his variance after Alternative designs of the
project were prepared. The major changes to his design are the access to the garage.
The original plan shows the garage being accessed from the north. The applicant's new
proposal will be accessed from the west. The Planning Department has not received the
revised plans. The applicant has reviewed his plans with the Building Department.
The applicant also stated that at the meeting of November 17, 1987, he had difficulty in
understanding comments made by the Planning Commission because of a hearing
impairment.
Section 1402.4 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code states that: "After the denial of a
variance...no further application for the same variance shall be filed for the same
property for the ensuring six months unless the project has been redesigned so as to
eliminate the Board of Zoning Adjustment's (Planning Commission's) or Zoning
Administrator's or City Council's previous objection to the project. Said redesign will
require a completed new application process."
On August 20, 1987, the applicant was mailed a letter notifying him of the decision of
the Planning Commission. The letter also stated that the decision of the Planning
Commission could be appealed to the City Council. The applicant never filed an appeal.
February 18, 1988, will conclude the six-month period since the denial of the variance.
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission advise the applicant they will
rehear the matter after the six-month time period has elapsed. At that time, the
applicant should refile a new application and pay new fees.
If the Planning Commission decides to rehear this item prior the expiration of the six
months, fees will have to be repaid. The fee can only be waived by the City Council; the
-Zg
PLANNING COMMC,ON MINUTES - JANUARY 5, 1988 C PAGE 21
Planning Commission does not have the authority to waive fees.
Based on the zoning ordinance, staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny
the applicant's request to rehear this item.
Mr. Schubach discussed various ways this project could be redesigned to eliminate the
need for a variance; however, if a different design is used, two on -street parking spaces
would be lost.
Mr. Lough stated that if there are changes in a project, the issue could be reheard.
However, in this case a public hearing is necessary in order to grant a variance. He
stated that the agenda for the next meeting is full, and the following meeting would be
after the required six-month period has expired.
Mr. Schubach noted that if a project is changed, it would be a new hearing not a
rehearing.
Fleet Nuttall, 905 15th Place, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission. He
stated that everyone involved in this issue has a different impression of this project. He
passed out copies of the revised plans for this project. He said that he is requesting now
exactly what was requested last August. He continued by discussing the plans for this
project. He said that if the first request is denied, he would proceed with Plan No. 2,
which does not require a variance. However, he was cut off at the last meeting from
discussing Plan 2.
Comm. Peirce stressed that the project discussed last year was Plan 1, not Plan 2. At
that time, the applicant was supposed to provide information showing why Plan 1 was the
better plan.
Mr. Nuttall stated that he was prevented by the Commission from discussing Plan 2 at
that previous meeting.
Chmn. Compton explained that the application was submitted for Plan 1, not Plan 2. It
was noted that Plan No. 2 could have been built without obtaining a variance.
Mr. Nuttall did not feel that Plan 2 is very desirable for the neighborhood, noting that
two on -street parking spaces would be lost if Plan 2 is built. That is why he wants the
variance for Plan 1. He stressed that he was prevented from making his presentation on
Plan 2 at the time this item was previously heard by the Commission.
Mr. Lough explained that this item could not be placed on the agenda for the next
meeting. He noted, however, that the item could be set for the first meeting in
February. If it is heard in February, the six-month period would have expired. So long as
the applicant is willing to pay the fee, no other action is necessary other than to set the
hearing for the first meeting in February. At that time the applicant may present any
project he so desires. He stated that the only issue is that of the fee.
Comm. DeBellis explained to Mr. Nuttall that nothing could be done at this time because
the issue was not publicly noticed. Furthermore, it is too late to notice the item for the
next meeting. He stated that the item would need to be set for the first meeting in
February.
Chmn. Compton noted that the expiration of the six-month period is actually February
18, 1988, as noted in the staff report.
PLANNING COMMCON MINUTES - JANUARY 5, 1988 ( PAGE 22
Mr. Lough stated that the issue could be heard at the first meeting in February as a
changed plan; or at the second meeting in February as a new hearing.
MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. DeBellis, to continue this matter to
the Planning Commission meeting of February 2, 1988. No objections; so ordered.
PLANNING COMM
1 MINUTES - NOVEMBER 17, 198k. PAGE 4
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
Fleet Nuttall, 905 15th Place, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission. He stated
that he was denied a variance by the Planning Commission in August of 1987. He stated
that the variance was denied because the Commission felt that his lot was not wide
enough for his proposal. He stated that he has the right to build on his lot; however, two
curbside parking spaces will be lost. He has the alternative option of requesting a
variance which will not cause the two parking spaces to be lost. He felt everyone would
benefit by approval of such a variance.
Mr. Nuttall asked that the Planning Commission consider rehearing his request for a
variance.
Comm. Peirce asked whether entry to the garage was from the north side of the garage
when this variance request was heard in August.
Mr. Nuttall replied in the affirmative, stating that his is a corner lot. He stated that
now, though, entry into the garage is being proposed from the west.
Mr. Lough noted that the information on this matter now before the Commission was not
received until Friday, November 13, 1987; therefore, it was not received soon enough to
post on the agenda or notice. He stated that a motion would be necessary in order to
discuss this issue further at this time.
MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to hear Mr. Nuttall's comments
at this time, based on the fact that the information was not received by the Planning
Department until Friday, November 13, 1987; and that the materials were placed on the
table for the Commissioners just prior tb tonight's meeting. After hearing comments,
the Commission will then decide what course of action to take on the matter. No
objections; so ordered.
PLANNING COMM( MINUTES - NOVEMBER 17, 19871. PAGE 5
Mr. Nuttall stated that he thought the presentation he made before the Commission
three months ago was a strong argument in favor of his request.
Comm. Peirce noted, however, that the proposal three months ago involved garage
access from the north side of the lot rather than from the west side.
Mr. Nuttall stated that that is correct and that he would not need a variance to enter
from the west. However, with an entrance from the west, several curbside parking
spaces will be lost. He stated that he wants a variance to avoid destroying the parking
spaces.
Chmn. Compton stated that in the original hearing, he did not feel the lot was wide
enough to accommodate the seventeen -foot setback and the depth of the garage. He
noted that it now appears that Mr. Nuttall has discussed the issue with the Building
Director, and they have come to an arrangement which would permit garage access from
the west.
Comm. Peirce noted that Mr. Nuttall is proposing the west garage entrance as a
bargaining chip to get the variance approved for entering from the north.
Mr. Nuttall agreed; however, he stated that he is not attempting to bargain. He said he
would be willing to enter from the west, but he wanted to save the parking spaces.
Comm. Peirce asked whether there were other various issues at the previous hearing.
Mr. Nuttall replied in the affirmative; however, he noted that the Commission at that
time agreed there was no problem with the usable open space.
Mr. Lough noted several options available to the Commission on this matter: (1) receive
and file; (2) refer the issue back to staff for a staff report; or (3) set the matter for a
variance hearing. He suggested that the matter be referred back to staff for additional
information.
Mr. Schubach stated that the zoning ordinance is very clear in stating that one must wait
six months before reapplying for a variance request.
Comm. Rue noted that at the hearing in August there was a problem in that Mr. Nuttall
had a great deal of difficulty in understanding the comments made by the Commission
because of a hearing impairment. He considered this to be an unusual and exceptional
circumstance.
(Mr. Nuttall now has equipment provided by the Department of Public Works enabling
him to better hear the proceedings by using headphones.)
Mr. Lough stated that the six-month requirement can be waived if sufficient reasons are
found to do so.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to refer this item back to staff for
a staff report and recommendation. No objections; so ordered.
Comm. Peirce favored continuing the item to a date certain.
Mr. Lough suggested that, since the applicant has discussed the project with the Building
Director, it might be desirable to request a staff report from the Building Department on
whether or not there are sufficient grounds to waive the six-month re -filing requirement.
PLANNING COMM N MINUTES - NOVEMBER 17, 19( PAGE 6
Chmn. Compton requested information from the Building Department regarding the
garage depth and the width of the lot.
Chmn. Compton and Comm. Rue both noted that Mr. Nuttall had difficulty in hearing the
proceedings at the meeting last August.
C
PLANNING COMM(_ J MINUTES - AUGUST 18, 1987
PAGE 3
VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED I7 -FOOT PARKING SETBACK AND
TO PROVIDE LESS THAN REQUIRED UNCOVERED OPEN SPACE AT A PROJECT
LOCATED AT 905 15TH PLACE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 11, 1987. This project is located in the R -I,
one -family residential zone. The general' plan designation is medium density
residential. The parcel size is 3410 square feet, 41.5 feet by 82.17 feet.
The staff environmental review committee, at their meeting of June 7, 1987,
recommended that a negative declaration be prepared for this project. The original
variance request was for the 17 -foot parking setback requirement only. Staff also noted
a need to request a variance for open space. The staff environmental review committee
requested the applicant to revise his application and plans to indicate the additional
variance request.
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing two -car garage to construct a new four -
car garage and construct a 970 square -foot addition over the proposed garage. The
existing 884 square -foot residential structure will be completely remodeled. The
proposed design of the structure will be Mediterranean and constructed around a
courtyard.
The applicant proposes to remove the kitchen in the existing structure and relocate it in
the proposed addition. The existing kitchen will be converted to a bedroom. The existing
structure has a nonconforming easterly setback.
The existing structure and proposed addition will be two detached structures that are
connected by a common hallway. The original plans submitted showed two completely
detached units. Staff required that the plans be revised to show some method of
attachment to conform to the zoning code. The hallway is shown to be enclosed, and
doors at both ends have been removed. Entrance to the dwelling will be along the
hallway adjacent to Mira Street.
Staff is quite concerned about a potential bootleg development. The proposal is
essentially two separate structures. An illegal unit could be easily created by adding
doors at opposite ends of the hall and restoring the original kitchen. Potentially two
units of approximately 900 square feet would be created.
The site can easily accommodate the I7 -foot parking setback. The distance from the
rear of the house to the property line is 46.5 feet. Subtracting the required I7 -foot
setback, an area of 29.5 feet will remain. This area can easily accommodate a three -car
garage. The required depth of the garage is twenty feet. Additional guest parking can
be provided in the 17 -foot setback behind the garage.
The additional variance required is for open space. The site currently contains over 1490
square feet of countable open space. This area does not include the front yard setback.
The plan proposes to eliminate all open space except a courtyard with 201 square feet of
open space, open to the sky. A deck is also provided in the proposed addition, but does
not meet the minimum dimensions to be counted. The applicant wishes to count the
front yard area with a dimension of 9.7 feet as open space. The minimum dimension for
countable open space in an R -I zone is ten feet.
The Planning Commission, at their meeting of May 19, 1987, reviewed open space and
defined it to be "areas which are from ground to sky free and clear of any obstructions
unless otherwise specified." Open space in R-1 zones was defined as "...a minimum of
C
PLANNING COMMI( . MINUTES - AUGUST 18, 1987 ( PAGE 4
four hundred square - feet of usable open space with a minimum dimension of ten
feet....Front and rear yard setbacks with a minimum dimension of ten feet may be
counted toward open space." This item is scheduled for public hearing before the City
Council; therefore, an ordinance has not been adopted. Until such ordinance is adopted,
there is nothing in the zoning code, at this time, which permits the required yard areas to
be utilized for open space; the code is permissive, i.e., what is not noted is not
permitted.
Staff is unable to meet all the required findings for granting these variances. Staff is
aware that the existing dwelling is small, but alternative designs are available which can
easily create an addition of the same size. There are no unusual or exceptional
circumstances applicable to this property. The size of the lot is not unusual in size or
topography. Other parcels in the area are the same size, if not smaller. The applicant is
not being denied of any property right since alternative designs are available which can
easily create the living area desired. The granting of these variances will set a
precedent for similar developments in the area.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the variances to provide a five-
foot parking setback rather than the required I7 -foot setback and provide open space
with a dimension of 9.7 feet rather than the required ten feet.
Chmn. Compton discussed a statement made in the staff report, that "the code is
permissive, that is, what is not noted is not permitted." He took exception to this
statement, stating that that statement would imply that nothing is therefore allowed.
He stated that, from his past experience, front yard setbacks in R -I zones have been
allowed to be used as open space.
Chmn. Compton stated that Planning Department site plan interpretations have differed
from those proffered by the Building Department. He asked for clarification from staff
regarding how the calculations were determined in regard to this particular project.
Mr. Schubach stated that builders and planners vary in their interpretations of these
issues, mainly because planners have somewhat more expertise. He stated that the
zoning ordinance is very specific in stating that it is a permissive code insofar as what is
allowed. He noted that this is common in various codes.
Mr. Schubach stated that it is difficult to justify a wrong with a wrong. He noted that if
this interpretation is an issue of concern to the Commission, the code should be
amended. He stated that the Commission has recommended to the City Council that the
front yard setbacks be used as open space in some cases. He stated that this is an issue
well within the purview of the Commission to make such a recommendation to the
Council.
Mr. Schubach stated that a portion of the area could be used as part of the open space
calculation.
Chmn. Compton noted concern over the fact that the applicant proceeded with this
particular design based on the information he received from the Building Department.
He noted concern over the fact that this applicant was not informed by the Building
Department that there was a problem with the open space. He felt that this in and of
itself is an exceptional circumstance in this case.
Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Compton.
C
PLANNING COMMI ICM\ MINUTES - AUGUST 18, 1987 PAGE 5
•
Fleet Nuttall, 905 15th Place, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission. He
passed out information to the Commissioners, including a scaled view of the project.
Mr. Nuttall stated that he felt everyone would benefit by this project if it is approved.
He stated that he applied for a variance thinking it would be a logical step to take;
however, after all he has been through, he would not recommend anyone to apply.
•
Mr. Nuttall gave background history on this property. He stated that he has spent much
time and money on his property, noting that the house is very small. He further noted
that he uses the garage for parking as well as for storage, and it is very crowded. He
stated that it is now time to expand.
Mr. Nuttall stated that he wants to keep the existing home. He stated that it is
structurally impossible to add a second floor to this home, noting that it was built in the
1920's.
Mr. Nuttall stated that he tentatively hired an architect to prepare plans to submit to
the City for a preliminary check. The architect reported that there was a problem with
the seventeen -foot setback, and he told Mr. Nuttall to contact the Planning Department
within two weeks. He went to the Planning Department, paid $550, and received an
optimistic opinion from the Planning Department regarding the project. At the
environmental review committee meeting, he was surprised when Mr. Perea
recommended denial of the variance. He stated that he was informed by Mr. Perea that
Mr. Perea felt, after more study of the plans, there was adequate room to comply with
the seventeen -foot setback requirement.
Mr. Nuttall continued by discussing the plans and the proposed project. He noted that
there would be difficulty with his atrium if he must comply to the seventeen -foot
setback rule. He stated that the atrium would be 30 feet long and only seven feet wide.
He stated that he wants a closed garage in which to park.
Mr. Nuttall discussed the history of Mira Street and what has been done on this street to
improve it. He continued by discussing the photographs which he had provided to the
Commission.
Chmn. Compton stated that it might not be possible to enter the garage from Mira Street
without a variance. He stated that 21 feet is necessary for the garage, and the required
setback is seventeen feet, for a total of 38 feet. This lot is 41.5 feet. This leaves three
and a half feet; and at least a four and a half foot setback would be necessary.
Mr. Nuttall and Chmn. Compton discussed the dimensions of the lot.
Mr. Nuttall stated that he was surprised when he was informed that he needed a variance
for open space, noting that he felt the open space to be adequate. He expressed dismay
over the term "usable open space." He stated that he has received no adequate definition
from the Planning Department of "usable open space." He stated that he was informed
that 75 percent of the open space must be located at the ground level; however, he was
under the impression that the code had been amended to state that only 50 percent must
be at ground level.
Chmn. Compton explained that the 50 percent figure was only recommended to the City
Council, not formally adopted in the code.
c
PLANNING COM!(. N MINUTES - AUGUST 18, 198 _ PAGE 6
Mr. Nuttall also noted concern over the wording "uncovered open space." He asked for
clarification of usable open space.
Mr. Schubach stated that there must be 400 square feet of uncovered usable open space.
He continued by explaining the requirement, noting that 75 percent of the total must be
on the ground, and the remaining 25 percent can be on balconies or decks, all with a
minimum dimension of ten feet.
Mr. Nuttall continued by discussing projects in the surrounding area of his property. He
stated that other properties in the area without the required open space and setbacks
have been granted building permits.
Comm. Peirce noted that a new project at 943 15th Street was approved before the open
space and setback requirements were adopted; therefore, that is not applicable in this
argument.
Chmn. Compton noted that there have been no changes in the open space requirements,
only in the setback requirements.
Chmn. Compton noted that this project was designed based on a Building Department
interpretation. The Planning Department interpretation differs from the Building
Department; therefore, these discrepancies have arisen. He noted that this is a problem,
and the Planning Director is working on the issue.
Mr. Nuttall continued by discussing a survey map which he presented to the
Commission. He discussed the street setbacks on 15th Place and Mira. He stated that
there are survey markers in that intersection, and if one uses the survey marker to the
right of the intersection, his house actually has more than a ten -foot setback. He
continued by discussing the streets surrounding his house. He said that the lot sizes vary
in the area, noting that by the time one reaches Bonnie Brae Street, the Tots are
approximately six inches deeper.
Mr. Nuttall suspected that when his house was built in 1924 the setbacks were ten feet,
but over time and with the addition of streets, the lot falls just short of the required ten
feet.
Chmn. Compton asked if the code specifically states that a front yard cannot be counted
as usable open space.
-Mr. Schubach explained that the code states only what can be used. He stated that in the
R -I zone, balconies and/or decks can be used for 25 percent of the open space, and that
there must be a minimum of 400 square feet. He continued by discussing the code
requirements.
Comm. Rue noted that the minimum dimension required for the front yard in this case is
8.1 feet. He asked whether the remaining area could be used in the open space
ca Iculation.
Mr. Schubach replied that that would be left to an interpretation of the Commission. He
stated that that is generally acceptable.
Comm. Rue asked whether there is adequate open space in the sideyards at this project.
C
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 18, 1987 PAGE 7
Mr. Peres stated that the courtyard area has just over 200 square feet of countable open
space.
Mr. Schubach stated that if the balance of the front yard setback, that is not the setback
area itself, were included in the open space calculations, there would be approximately
75 percent of usable open space at the ground level, explaining that the atrium area has
200 square feet, and the addition of the 80 square feet of the front yard would be 75
percent. The remaining 100 square feet would need to be provided in an upper deck.
Mr. Nuttall stated that this explanation seems ambiguous to him. He stated that other
houses in the area have obtained building permits without the required open space. He
stated that there is green space at his property which should be included in the
calculations.
Mr. Nuttall discussed the required findings, stating that there are exceptional and
extraordinary circumstances, in that his is the only lot on the block which borders Mira
Street. This is the only lot in the area with six adjacent legal curb parking spaces. Also
this is an existing home. He stated that others are enjoying substantial property rights in
this area that he would be deprived of by denial of the variance. He stated that this
project is not detrimental to the public welfare, and he passed out a petition signed by
his neighbors supporting this project.
Comm. Rue asked whether it is possible that the proposed balcony of 8 1/2 by 11 feet
could be increased to 10 by 11 feet.
Mr. Nuttall replied in the affirmative.
Chmn. Compton asked whether Mr. Nuttall would agree to a condition requiring him to
provide the additional required open space on the upper level by increasing the size of
the deck.
Mr. Nuttall stated that he would agree to such a condition.
Comm. Rue asked whether the exterior of the existing building will be changed.
Mr. Nuttall stated that it will be restuccoed and the windows will be replaced. There
will be some landscaping changes also. He stressed that he wants to make his home
attractive.
Jeff Green, 846 16th Street, Hermosa Beach, builder/developer and homeowner,
addressed the Commission. He opposed the project based on the fact that the City has
rules and regulations which must be adhered to. He felt that the guidelines are set to
provide for the future good of everyone concerned. He stated that he is a builder, and in
the past 12 years he has applied for only one variance. He felt that it is up to applicants
to adhere to the rules and design projects within the parameters of the code. He stated
that this is done all of the time by builders. He felt that this applicant can design a very
nice house within the rules and regulations of the City.
Mr. Green continued by discussing Mira Street and the actions taken by citizens to
improve the street. He also felt that the open space at the proposed project is not within
the rules and regulations promulgated by the City.
Mr. Green felt that by approving the variances for the setback and open space, builders
and developers would receive a message that this is the usual method of operation, that
C
C
PLANNING COMM& ., 1 MINUTES - AUGUST 18, 1987 k PAGE 8
they could get variances any time they so desired. He stated that the first step for any
builder or architect should be to design projects which conform to the established rules.
Mr. Green suggested that the applicant retain a qualified, experienced architect and
proceed with this project within the regulations of the City. He stated that there are
many possibilities for this property without having to obtain variances. He did note that
there are problems with this lot in regard to the setbacks and sideyards. But he noted
that there are many construction techniques which can be utilized in these
circumstances.
Mr. Green stated that he has seen the plans and discussed them with the City.
Chmn. Compton stated that the proposed project is not a huge project. He also stated
that the seventeen -foot setback requirement was imposed to provide more parking. This
applicant is proposing a four -car garage.
Mr. Green stated that guests tend to park either on the street or in the driveway;
therefore, four garages does not really help the area. In fact, it is taking away from
open space area.
Chmn. Compton noted that, even though developers and architects keep abreast of new
rules and regulations, homeowners normally do not. He stated that it is very frustrating
for homeowners who are taking their time with their projects to have the rules changes
when they are in the middle of the project.
Mr. Green stated that new rules and regulations must be abided by. He felt that the
seventeen -foot setback requirement should be the bare minimum. To go Tess than that is
not a good idea.
Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Compton.
Comm. Rue asked if the garage is moved up to the sevenfoot-mark, would the seventeen -
foot paved driveway be included as open space.
Mr. Schubach replied in the negative. He stated that the project could be redesigned to
meet all the requirements. He felt that the resulting design would be satisfactory to
both the City and the applicant.
Comm. Peirce stated that a decision must be made on the proposal before the
Commission at the present time, not on a redesign.
Comm. Peirce felt that open space is not the issue here. He felt that the problem is pure
and simple the seventeen -foot setback. He stated that it would be easy to condition the
applicant to provide the required open space. He stated that the intent of the City is to
make the City attractive. He noted that the real question is whether the applicant
should be given a variance on the seventeen -foot setback requirement. He did not feel
that this is an unusually small lot, noting that it is 3410 square feet. He stated that he
would vote against the variance for the reason that there is no reason to grant it since
this lot is not unusual or extraordinary in either its size or configuration. He further
stated that even if this is the smallest lot on the street, it is smaller only by one foot.
The only finding that he could make was .that this project would not be detrimental to the
general plan.
PLANNING COMMI( ' MINUTES - AUGUST 18, 1987 ir
PAGE 9
Chmn. Compton agreed that open space is not the issue in this case. He agreed that the
intent of the seventeen -foot setback requirement is to provide more parking; however, he
noted that this applicant is proposing a four -car garage. He stated that to require a
seventeen -foot setback on this eighty -foot long lot with an existing structure presents a
very definite problem. He stated that very little area would be left after open space,
garage, and setback allowances are made.
Chmn. Compton noted concern that the applicant proceeded based on information given
to him at the Building Department and was then informed by the Planning Department
that he needed two variances. He stated that there seems to be a problem regarding
various interpretations on the matter. He stated that the applicant has expended much
time and money based on the faulty information he received. He considered that to be
an exceptional circumstance.
Chmn. Compton felt that this property has exceptional and extraordinary circumstances,
based on the fact that it is bordered on three sides by streets, all forty feet wide. He
stated other houses are bordered by alleys, not streets. He felt that the applicant has
presented a good design based on what he had to work with. He stated that he would be
amenable to approval of this project.
Comm. Rue stated that the applicant has spent much time and effort on this project and
he sympathized with the applicant; however, he felt that there are rules and
requirements regarding the seventeen -foot setback requirement. He felt that the project
could be redesigned to be in conformance with the City requirements. He noted concern
over the four -car garage, stating that the garages might tend to be used for storage, not
guest parking. He noted difficulty in making the required findings, stating that he can
not support approval of this variance request.
Comm. Rue agreed that open space is not the issue in this case.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to deny the request for a variance
to encroach into the required seventeen -foot parking setback and to provide Tess than the
required uncovered open space for a project located at 905 15th Place.
Comm. Peirce stated that his motion for denial is based on the seventeen -foot setback
issue, not that of open space.
AYES: Comms. Peirce, Rue
NOES: Chmn. Compton
ABSENT: Comm. Sheldon
Mr. Lough noted that all decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed by
writing to the City Council within ten days.
`C0
T Elie �y ded lien -maw 8�aa4
•
a eah to /he Gy/he Nit -
.Gan» i Orpm 11.o 6 iOn / V
decision of The
variance re ves/ /6-B
my
my
., e Goyylyrli S5 i`pYJ disaizote
.' ei
en CT OCC lir to 1/7e /7
0
e,rve .501
Flee/ Nv//d,CL
`41t3gs. 6-0
C_-
ono- OF hEIRMO$J1 13E!KZ1
CIVIC CENTER HERMOSA BEACH CALIFORNIA 90254
CITY HALL: (213) 376-6984
POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS: 376-7981
November 3, 1987
Fleet Nuttall
905 15th Place
Hermosa Beach, CA. 90254
RE: Revised plans dated November 2, 1987.
Dear Mr. Nuttall,
I have reviewed the referenced plans and find that they are in
violation of the following zoning code sections:
1) The addition encroaches into the required sideyard setback
in violation of section 4-3 (3).
2) The proposed addition would exacerbate the nonconforming
condition of the main structure by connecting it to a detached
garage which is at least partially in conformance with section
1157 (E).
3) The usable open space does not appear to have been revised
from your variance request which was denied. (section 4-3(12))
4) The "utility room" and "studio" are not in conformance with
section 215 due to lack of interior access through an interior
doorway.
It was also noted that the plans were not completely dimensioned.
If you have any questions regarding this matter feel free to con-
tact me at 376-6984.
CC: Andrew Perea, Associate Planner
Yours trul
(0
William Grove, Director
Dept. of Bldg. & Safety
Project Address:
RESIDENTIAL ZONING ANALYSIS
0105 15-n4 �.
Legal Description: L&sr 23 E. f3. 1-124:r
Type of Project: Ade, ekkk.gri' fT-Rpeie No. Units:
Property Owner: FLEErt3t)rratLL
Applicant(s):1�
Designer: ft -,jt L
Date of Plans:
Zoning:
R-1
tilt I as
Analysis Prepared by:
********************************
General Plan Designation: Lbv. DEI4S11Y
Maximum
R-1
R-2
R-3
Dwelling Units per Acre Allowed (DU/AC):
Lot Area:
13 DU/AC
25 DU/AC
33 DU/AC
1 Dwelling Unit per Lot
1 Unit per 1750 sq. ft. of land
1 Unit per 1320 sq. ft. of land
34109‘ (4tsS2.i-O
Proposed Density -Dwelling Units/Acres tsJO CJ/-fi1G
Maximum Allowable Lot Coverage: 65%
Proposed Lot Coverage: Sal
Minimum Unit Size:
a) 1 bedroom - 900
b) 2 bedroom - 1100
c) 3 bedroom - 1400
d) 4 bedroom - 1600
sq. ft.
sq. ft.
sq. ft.
sq. ft.
Proposed Unit Size(s) : AAPP✓? ,( 21D7
Useable Open Space Required
a) R-1 - 400 sq. ft., minimum dimension of 10'
75% ground - 25% balconies, open to the sky
b) R-2 & R -2B - 200 sq. ft., minimum dimension of 7'
c) R-3 - 200 sq. ft., minimum dimension of 7'
d) R -P - 200 sq. ft., minimum dimension of 7'
Condominium developments requires 100 sq. ft. of additional
private open space, minimum dimension of 7`.
Each condominium development of five (5) units or more
requires 100 sq. ft. of common open space per unit.
Open Space per Unit:
Required Proposed - = 4e2.s5ii
G.7 x4I•S
Private: ACC, MInA. 1mird .hi IOC neo to'c(?_S= 115% Pnr,
25% yvv2.(4 bo._ i✓3 ba lcca4K5 - - c X 12- = 1261°
tr. deaK-s.. ?fig
Common: KVA.. 144/4._
******************************
Maximum Allowable Height
a) R-1 - 25 feet, maximum 2 stories
b) R-2 & R -2B - 30 feet, maximum 2 stories
c) R-3 - 35 feet
d) R -P - 35 feet, maximum 3 stories
Condominium developments located along walk streets shall not
exceed the maximum height of 25 feet within the front half of
the lot.
Proposed Building Height: Z4/
Note: Height shall be verified by the Building Department
during Plan Check.
*******************************
Building Setbacks
Where garages or parking stalls front on a public street or
alley, the minimum setback shall be 17 feet provided roll -up
doors are installed; a minimum of 20 feet shall be required shere
standard doors are installed.
Setbacks -
Front:
Rear:
Side:
continued
Required
6.22
11 Elx4-1-41‘-
4.2'
Proposed
9.7
s'
: -.i P 1s17n1C� s' pt_
4.2 Odea.) �2t> b
*********************************
Parking
a) Two parking spaces per unit, minimum dimension of 8 1/2
feet wide by 20 feet deep -enclosed, 8 1/2 feet wide by 18
feet -open.
Total Required:
b) One guest space for each two units (round up; e.g. 3 unit
site must provide 2 guest spaces)
One guest space shall also be required for each on -street
parking space eliminated because of new driveways or curb
cuts.
Total Required:
Parking Proposed: ^-
a) Spaces per Unit ad e.vc .
b) Guest Parking -
Required Turning Radius - 23'
Proposed Turning Radius -
45
*********************************
Required Sound Insulation Required:
a) The minimum wall insulation rating between units shall be
52 STC.
b) The minimum floor/ceiling rating between stacked units
shall be 58 STC.
Proposed Sound Insulation
Note: Sound Insulation requirement shall be verified by the
Building Department during plan check.
Storage Area Required per Unit:
a) 200 cubic feet of storage area per unit
Storage Area Proposed per Unit -
Location of Trash Facilities - ��- 4o�3V1
Staff Comments: X1}v zek-wra c 22,o2
t-tru.AAri- V cioesei %pt.-74L7;alctli-U
►� h e� civ c . - ra,k- ytrx r0L are -c
v w4l,.i. In ,
(LessAINI-4(1 $ tA y ric"
kwatA.Dre +44.
gc.vKo n'CAPM r 1 • % r�r4-
REVISED - September 1987 °" '
-46-
v
TO THE
C
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
APPLICATION .FOR VARIANCE .
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
FLer+ Notta LL
The applicant ($)
is (are) the owner (s) of property situated at 4405 1$7—' ?Late
Street
between SPFOLvedd Street
FPp5 Street ;
the exact legal description of said property being Lot 23 of
and
g.13. 5rnI-111'4 re ?Lai- M.13. 9/7
and the present zoning on the property is RI
The above described property was acquired by applicant (s) on the
Qi day of Oct 19 '?l .
REQUEST: The applicant (s) request (s) a variance to use the
above described property for the following purposes: (Stated should
be exactly what is intended to be done on or with the property whicL,..
does not conform with existing zoning regulations.)
1. 17' Setback: To replace an existing double garage with a 4
car garage having a 5' setback rather than: 1, construct a
2 car garage with a 17' setback or 2,construct around the
existing garage.
2. 10' Minimum dimension: To recognize the existing front yard
with its dimensions of 9.7' x 41.5' as contributing to the
"Usable open space" requirements although its 9.7' dimension
is 3 inches shy of meeting the 10' minimum dimension requirement.
NOTE: Th Board_of
written findings of
beyond a reasonable
evidence you desire
hereto.
1) That there are exceptional or
Zoning Adjustments is required by law to make a
facts from the showing applicant (s) make (s) that
doubt the BELOW ENUMERATED CONDITIONS APPLY. Any
to submit substantiating these may be attached
extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved.
2) That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the
same vicinity and zone, and denied to the, property in question.
JUL i 1987)
r .
•
r
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
PAGE TWO
3) That the granting of such variance will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the proper-
ty or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the
property is located.
4) That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect
the compre::cnsive General Plan.
The applicant(s) shall furnish seven (7) ::o pies :.: a survcy
showing locations of corners of existing building in reference to
the property lines, and said survey shall be signed by a Califor-
nia registered land surveyor or civil engineer. Also, supply
seven (7) copies of conceptual plans including a plot plan show-
ing boundaries and dimensions of the property, location and size
of existing and proposed structures on the site and indicate
where exceptions to the ordinance are requested, floor plans of
existing and proposed sturctures and exterior elevations of all
sides of the building(s).
WE THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS OF ADJACENT PROPERTY, hereby certify
that we have read the foregoing petition and believe the applica-
tion SHOULD BE GRANTED. (Add additional sheets where necessary.
These signatures are desirable, but not necessary.)
APPLICANT() FLee 1 I4V It t LL
SIGNATURE
MAILING ADDRESS
}l erwic `EC 1.) CA , cI c 254
: TELEPHONE NO. ( ). ) 374—X161
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that the foregoing application has been in-
spected by me and has been found t¢ be thorough and complete in
every particular and to conform to"the rules and regulations of
the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach governing the filing of such'
application
FILING FEE: RECEIPT d DATE RECEIVED BY
4 • • el'
v.
•
. .
.14* t.
TO
(c. -ek•at)(r,-o
1'LP
(1?
""!-
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
APPLICATION AMVAKUWICE
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE crxr O BERmosA BEACH
The applicant (s) FLeel LL
(are) the owner (s) of propertj, situated at
€40 6-
between Stop" L Veda
And Pm 0 pee t
' Staseer
Street
Rtreet:
.the exact legal description of said property being
Lan HTIt 1E5 K6
and the present zoning on the property is
tetr.
E 1
•
The above described property was acquired by applicant (s) on the
/V I
A- day of °et 197/ .
REQUEST: The applicant (s) request (s) a variance to use the
s
above described property for the following purposes:
be exactly what is intended to be done on or with the
does not conform with existing zoning regulations.)
(Stated should
.property whichw,e,
VAR. IA N CE
XP'Apit iruii• r?-1ARA(2-5 c.c.EAT/ ot4TV
4 SPAG S RATHER_ THAN SE T 13ACK_ Z CAIFL.
E
z : r
A, "
. • • •
•r ,•• f- 2!-:•••
NOTE: Th t Boird.pf
written findings of
beyond a reasonable
evidence
hereto.
1) That there
Zoning Adjustments is required by law to make a
facts from the showing applicant (s) make (s) that
doubt the BELOW ENUMERATED CONDITIONS APPLY. Any
you desire to submit substantiating these may be attached
are exceptional or extraordinary eircuffstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved.
2) That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of'a substantial property right possessed by other property in the
1
same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question.
-7.* • JO%
'• I
• •
• •
tir—tt •
411wPrci
I
•
•` . APPLICATION FOR vARIANCE
PAGE TWO
3) That the granting of such variance will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the proper-
ty or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the
property is located.
4) That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect
the comprehensive General Plan.
The applicant(s) shall furnish seven (7) :::.Pies :+i a :.ur..4
showing locations of corners of existing building in reference to
the property lines, and said survey shall be signed by a Califor-
nia registered land surveyor or civil engineer. Also, supply
seven (7) copies of conceptual plans including a plot plan show-
ing boundaries and dimensions of the property, location and size
of existing and proposed structures on the site and indicate
where exceptions to the ordinance are requested, floor plans of
existing and proposed sturctures and exterior elevations of all
sides of the building(s).
WE THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS OF ADJACENT PROPERTY, hereby certify
that we have read the foregoing petition and believe the applica-
tion SHOULD BE GRANTED. (Add additional sheets where necessary.
These signatures are desirable, but not necessary.)
APPLICANTS) FLeef E, NUltei I,G
SIGNATURE:'!/ . / ►s/or
MAILING ADDRESS 9o5' /5 njee
/l4rneo6a ,heti., CA . ciez6-4
?TELEPHONE NO. 3374/.77/t/
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that the foregoing application has been in-
spected by me and has been found to be thorough and complete in
every particular and to conform to the rules and regulations of
the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach governing the filing of such
applicatlo %
FILING FEE: _ECEIPT p!%P4`7DATE RECEIVEgy /N
•
•
• _. •
Easy' Reader
Run Date: March 10, 1988 DISPLANY
Acct: 7010-2110 - •
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beacl
shall hold a public hearing on March 22, 1988 to consider th4
following: .
1. Appeal of denial o variance to encroach into the 17' parking setback
at 905 15th Place.
2. Appeal of unmerger of lots located at 1220 7th Street, 1152 7th SFreet
and 1154 8th Street.
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.
March 17, 1988 at 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
4
(SEAL)
C C
I, the -undersigned, ll�Ylk 9
do declare under penaltyofperjury
that I did on the 9 da of
deposit into the Uni ed States post office, first class
postage prepaid, a copy of the public notice attached as
Exhibit "A" to each and every person attached as Exhibit "B".
I warrant that the persons named on Exhibit "B" are all the
persons required by applicable law to receive the public notice
attached as Exhibit "A".
I understand and agree that it is my responsibility to •
cause these public notices to be made in an accurate and timely
fashion and agree to hold the City harmless against any liability.
whatsoever for any defect of said notice or notices.
In the event an action is instituted in a court of coml.
petent jurisdiction which questions the legality of the public
notices, then the City may in its exclusive discretion suspend
all hearings or cause the cessation of any construction or of
any use which was permitted as a result of a hearing which was
held *in accordance with the public notice. In the event that
the court declares the notice or noticing procedure to be
effective, then the City may in its exclusive discretion revoke
any permits granted and cause any approvals given pursuant to
those public notices to be declared null and void and I agree
on behalf of myself 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'h ve executed this declaration on this the -(T day of
N , 19848 at IIermosa Beach, California.
•
State 'of California )
County of Los Angeles ) SS
On this the c, day of
me, Lois K_ eek_
Public, personally appeared
FLtf E, N Ufa LL
(name)
nature)
!4ea Owner
(Capacity)
proved to me on the basis of
rr_11 , 198', before
the undersigned Notary
Flee+ .1,( -4a -ll •
satisfactory evidence to be
the person(s) whose name(s) IS• subsc ibed to the
within instrument and acknowledged that
my hand and offici,a-i sea
OFCICIAL
.LOIS R. PEEK
/ .:i ' LOS ANGELES COUNTY
. J
My TCommission Expires Sept. 16, 1988 ,1
•
Notary Public
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
PUBLIC NOTICE
905 15TH PLACE
APPEAL OF DENIAL OF A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED 17'
PARKING SETBACK AT 905 15TH PLACE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Hermosa
Beach will hold a public hearing on March 22, 1988 to consider a
request for an appeal of denial of a variance to encroach into the
required 17' parking setback at 905 15th Place, legally described
as Lot 23, E. B. Smith's Tract.
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 Beach, 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, March 17, 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 HERMQSA BEACH
Michael Schubacb
Planning Director
Jun. 10, '87
Rev. Nov. 2, '87
Rev. Jan. 11, '88
PRELIMINARY PLANS
905 15th PLACE
HERMOSA BEACH
Introductory letter Page 1
PLAN "A" - garage entry from north -- variance req'd.
Plot 2
First floor, existing & proposed 3
Second floor 4
Elevation looking east (max. height) 5
Elevation looking west 6
Elevation looking north & south 7
Proposed findings 3
PLAN "B" - garage entry from west -- no variance req'd.
Plot
Survey
Fleet Nuttall '
14
Owner, occupant
•
9
10
Oa
a ��
t,
Fleet E. Nuttall
905 95th Ploce • Hermosa Beoch, California 90254 • (213) 3747019
January 10, 1988
Gentlemen of the Planning Commission:
After years of considerations, I have evolved two alternative
plans that would satisfy my need for an addition to my existing
home. Plan "A" would require a variance, .plan "B" would not;
yet I feel that Plan "A" is the preferred alternative for every-
one concerned, the neighborhood, the city, and myself.
The variance concerned is the recent city ordinance requiring
a garage set back sufficient to permit off street parking in
front of the garage doors. As applied to my particular R-1 lot
this means two parking spaces in front of a double garage for
a total of four potential on site parking spaces. Both plans
"A" and "B" provide these four spaces, but plan "B" does so at
the cost of loosing 2 curbside public parking spaces. Hence,
though plan "A" does not conform to the specifics of the garage
set back ordinance, I believe it fulfills the intent of that
ordinance better than the conforming plan "B".
Very truly yours,
Fleet Nuttall
i
f
N
w
_>? K9.errR_TY !attic
4 cAR
GATZAGE
0 0
ATR I V M
0 0
5
EKISTIN G
Hou5E
S 1 CO ENiAt.I(
\\\\ `\\\PARKING PERMITEP
MIR A ST.
•
cos 1519 PL.
SCALE Fd,"=
GkRAGE__ENTRY FROM NORTH
4 CAR GARAGE
NO Cui 5IDE PARKING LOST
VARIANCE REQUIRED
PLAN A'
FLEX NUT TALL
Owner
t0
—4.21
GARAGE
2,
4.8'
CL CL
-\f
BD
L1V
p},AT}•
SERVICE
poRCH
KITCH
EN1Rr
PORCH
ENTRY
PORCH
9.7'
PROPERTY LINE 82.15'
EXISTING
62.lq'
O
tO
5'
, sr�K-
4.2' ST131C.
GLAss $Lock WAL%.
4 CAR GARAGE
U
P
a
OPEN —.
TO
AIR '� I _
1-a 1-4
F-. 1- 4 1-11-T
CL. I I CF-
T.V. ROOM
GARDEN/CRAFT
Roo1A
0
DAN
7
0
OATH
A
0
CL
•
z.7'
I
J
42' smile -
PROPOSED mil
tot_.
PROPOSED
1/ji11.1 colter- corner to
comply with rocinc
floor corner setback.
P[ZOPERrY LINE BZ. 15'
PLOT/ FIRST FLOOR PLANS
c105' 151 -It PLACE
SCALES ("= 8'
Jul. I - CLosed (ItriOrn COY''irlcr) fCtiehP',i :-Iort().
JUN
J ev. J'01 '1'87
Fleet NLt au-
Occupar t , o nCr,
fob
'"y
tki Pg
$D
6
d
o
CL
c�.
1 '•
CL ,, "„G) vN
Lv
REF
RQ i sed eel LIvt a6
in kftdi ;n.
rrNi
00
00
powsl
BA LC
t"'WPC12T' LINE
PROPOSED 2- FLOOR. PLAN
<40 5 1511 PAGE
SCALE I"= 8'
FEC ' 6r
Rev Apr '87
Rev .ran 1'8 •
4.2;
Fleet. Nottu LL
Ck-wparst, owrier, Glesi ; nel"
2n-1° FL$,=ZS'6,"
1
00000000
at_
i1
•— - pI.00R.— --_
a
— -^^--A-�EJ �H -
El 26'95
ELEVATION L0014.1 1.1G EAST
ct05 15T" PLACE
Scale !''= 8'
— ce/smG zy'S
I❑
F4 ook /L'/"
DEC / 86"
Rev AP' 417
1Pev Jun%�87
Vey Nov I B
RemJgn Il' 8
- .4AAP49+( cd.fea Top
E1..EV 12.9
Fleet Nt., to LL
Occ.0 vit, owner, d est ner,
•
8.2'
GLASS BLOCK WALL
__._. FL.00fi _. ... ._
AEG / 'BS
Rev Apr 87 •`
1Pev.Tun1'87
f?v Nov /17 -
Qoof SLOP
ELEVATION LOOKING WEST
qo 15121 PLACE
SCALE I" = 8'
1
FLeet i Jutta LL
oRot oc 7ef de/,st8vier.
3'
Srr
/6'3
SIB K
110.
ELEVATION LOOKING SOUTH
DEC 1 '85
?rev /pr 87
Rev Jun 7' 87
Eav Nov I 7
ROY tan II'8
gst.
x2'3"
tie
J
• —7554/"- PL -0O —
QQQQQ
t
,S'0"
EL.EVAT101.1 LOOKING NORTH
q05 1511 PLACE
sC.ALE 'r= 8'
FLcct NuttLL
Ocuupsn'i, owner, cie jce►ier.
POTENTIAL and/or SUGGESTED FINDINGS
Exceptional or extraordinary:
Three of the four sides of my lot are bordered by public streets.
On two of those streets curbside public parking is available for
a total of seven cars. Unless I am granted a variance, two of
those public parking spaces will be lost.
Property right possessed by others:
All over this city building additions are being made without trig-
gering the garage set back ordinance by building around existing
garages. I have been denied that alternative though I have an
existing, legal, and structurally sound garage, apparently because
it is detached. Had the planning department not denied that alter-
native I would not be destroying my garage.
Public welfare:
The granting of this variance is in the public interest. Denial
of the variance would negatively impact my neighbors.
General Plan:
No effect.
1,a)/
Fleet Nutta 1
a
CO
C105
GARAGE ENTRY FROM 1 WEST
2 CURBSIDE PARKING SPACES LOST
3 STORY POTENTIAL
MQ VARIAtNCE REQUIRED
LESS ATTRACTIVE
I5 PL.
ScALe y6,"= 1'
ELAN
FLEET NUTTALL
Owner.
KUGLER SURVEYING E. MAPPENG
227 W. Carson Street Car.;on, CA 90745 (213) 5119-6000
/6 rH 572EEr
K
W
rl
Ser L d TAG 154/42 yv#
cvEt. /Z.39 T, c.
o
g° 714Th& L544. h
EL. /7..76 Il
4/.50'
Z 1'
Q
d
20'
N.
TzEE
/8.0'
.4:NE)
34o'
/ 5 roRY
STuc co RE5.
\9
X905
FF: /6.04
34.0'
4/50' —
5erl'O.TAG L54/42;'
Et. /4.53
�-WAct
6/0.00 T.y!
4ssuMEo 9'
ti:
/5TH
oh PLACE
..CAGE /"=f0' •
SURVEY PLAT
OF
Lor 25 OF E.5. .5M1TH'S RE -PL,
M.B. 9/Z
ti dr/
CLARKE G. KUGLaR, J. . Z.5/4/42
(/" /AV Ri
S
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
March 14, 1988
City Council Meeting
March 22, 1988
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Consider appointing a Hazardous Waste Management Subcommittee
and/or direct staff to:
a) Review the proposed County Hazardous Waste
Management Plan and meet with a County representative
b) Attend the Redondo Beach joint City Council/Planning
Commission meeting to be scheduled in April to study the
proposed plan and discuss the feasibility of a South Bay
hazardous waste collection program.
c) Meet with staff to formulate comments to L.A. County on
on the proposed Hazardous Waste Management Plan
2) Direct staff to explore funding needs and sources for a
community hazardous waste education program in conjunction
with Browning-Ferris Industries
3) Direct staff to work with neighboring cities to explore the
feasibility of a regional a periodic household hazardous
waste collection or drop-off center
BACKGROUND
At the February 9, 1988 City Council Meeting, Councilmember
Williams, having read a Los Angeles Times article describing the
widespread problem of improper and illegal hazardous waste dis-
posal, requested that staff study the feasibility of a City
household hazardous waste collection program.
The hazardous waste disposal problem is currently being addressed
by L.A. County as mandated by state law. AB 2948 (Tanner, 1986)
requires that the County with the approval of a majority of its
incorporated cities submit a County Hazardous Waste Management
plan to the California Department of Health Services by September
30, 1988.
This report will address the City's interest in and responsibili-
ty for participating in the finalizing of the County Hazardous
Waste Management Plan. It will also explore steps which can be
taken at the City level to help address the hazardous waste dis-
posal dilemma.
1
ANALYSIS
The current state of hazardous waste management in California is
critically inadequate. Recognizing the seriousness of the prob-
lem, the State of California via AB 2948 (Tanner, 1986) has man-
dated that California counties in conjunction with their incorpo-
rated cities have a Hazardous Waste Management Plan prepared for
Department of Health Services approval by September 30, 1988.
Comments from cities on the first version of the proposed plan
will be accepted through April, 1988. A copy of Volume 1 of the
proposed plan is attached. The remainder of the proposed plan
(large technical supplement and appendix) is located in the
Building Department. Public Hearings on the final version will
be held in August, 1988.
According to the plan, "The consequences of hazardous waste mis-
management in the past are well documented and are reflected in
polluted ground and surface water, soil and air. Improper dis-
posal has been associated with elevated levels of toxics in hu-
mans, aquatic species and livestock. Illegal dumping of hazard-
ous waste along roadsides or in open fields has resulted in ex-
plosions, fires, contaminated groundwater and air polution."
"Prudent management," the plan asserts, "is critical to the pro-
tection of public health, the environment and the economy."
What is hazardous waste?
The Tanner bill defines hazardous waste as "any substance which
is toxic, corrosive, flamable, reactive, an irritant or a strong
sensitizer and which thereby poses a threat to human health and
the environment."
The bill requires that cities take one of the following actions
within 180 days of Department of Health Services approval of the
County Hazardous Waste Management Plan:
1) Incorporate applicable portions of the CoHWMP, by reference
into the City's General Plan; or
2) Adopt a city hazardous waste management plan which is consis-
tent with the CoHMP; or
3) Enact an ordinance which requires that all applicable zoning,
subdivision, conditional use permit and variance decisions
are consistent with the applicable portions of the CoHWMP.
The County plan which projects through the year 2005, contains a
host of recommendations including establishing additional waste
management facilities, residual storage facilities, recycling
facilities, educational centers and programs. The fact is since
there is yet to be a funding source for the proposed programs,
implementation is at least a few years away.
In the meantime the problem of illegally dumping hazardous waste
into the sewer system and landfills continues at an alarming
rate.
2
As the L.A. Times article addressed by Councilmember. Williams
describes, a large volume of hazardous waste is generated by
households. "Household hazardous wastes from cleansers to car
oil, ammonia to antifreeze, pool chemicals to pesticides - make
up just one-tenth'of l% of the 45,000 tons of waste dumped in the
county daily. Yet they have caused enormous headaches to unsus-
pecting homeowners, scores of serious injuries to refuse handlers
and ... worry among specialists who are concerned that the im-
properly dumped wastes could contaminate the ground water running
beneath the landfills."
Without hazrdous waste collection services, "Los Angeles home-
owners have had no choice but to let the materials accumulate or
throw them away illegally. Those curious about the law have been
told they cannot throw away their househod hazardous waste, but
not told what they can do with it."
"By law, homeowners can cart no more than five gallons or 50
pounds of hazardous wastes per trip to a dump or site licensed to
accept them...Los Angeles County has no such dumps, and the
closest-Kettleman in Kings County and Casmalia in Santa Barbara
County do not accept pesticides." •
Household Hazardous Waste Includes:
Auto Supplies: Gas, diesel fuel, new and used motor oil,
kerosene, antifreeze, auto batteries, transmission fluid; House,
Garden Supplies: insecticides, pest poison, soil fumigants, tur-
pentine, latex, oil -base and alkyd paints, spot removers, paint
thinner; Cleaning Supplies: Lye, ammonia, chlorine bleach, dis-
infectants, tub and tile cleaners, toilet bowl cleaners, rug
cleaners, furniture and floor polish; Miscellaneous: rubbing
alcohol, perfume, cologne, after -shave lotion, medicated sham-
poos, hearing aid batteries, flea powder, photo chemicals, nail
polfsh remover, hair waving lotions, swimming pool acid.
The counties of San Diego, San Bernardino and Orange have in-
stituted some form of Household Hazardous Waste Collection pro-
gram as well as the cities of Glendale, Santa Monica, and El
Segundo. The City of Los Angeles will begin a program in a few
months.
Golden Empire Health Planning Center, a Sacramento -based non-
profit agency which advises cities and counties preparing hazard-
ous waste management programs, describes a household hazardous
waste collection program in it manual, "Alternatives To Landfill-
ing Household Toxics":
"To divert hazardous waste from solid waste landfills, wastewater
treatments plants, and the environment, many communities across
the country are conducting household hazardous waste collection
programs often referred to as "Amnesty Days", "Clean Sweep" or
"Toxics Roundup". Collection sites for household toxics involve
identifying a specific date, time and location where residential-
ly generated hazardous materials...can be taken by community
residents who no longer want them.
The availability of the collection site services is announced to
community residents well in advance of the service date. The
sites are staffed by qualified hazardous waste professionals who
accept the waste from comminity residents, sort and package it,
and transport the waste to an approved hazardous waste treatment,
storage or disposal facility. This is generally done immediately
following the day's collection program. In most instances, but
not all, the hazardous waste professional are employed by a haz-
ardous waste management firm. The program is offered to area
residents as a free community service.
By and large, the waste that is collected is lab -packed, meaning
compatible products are placed (in their original containers) in
special drums approved to contain hazardous waste and surrounded
with compatible absorbant material before being transported to a
hazardous waste management facility by a licensed hazardous waste
hauler.
Some communities accept limited quantities of commercial hazard-
ous waste along with their household collection program. While
safe and economic disposal mechanisms are urgently needed by
small quantity generators such as businesses and farmers, collec-
tion program operators should be aware that commingling of com-
mercial or industrial waste (with household hazardous waste)
would place the entire collection program's wastestream into a
large quantity generator regulatory system•if the small quantity
generator wastestream exceed 100 kilograms (about 1/2 of a 55
gallon drum)."
Staff believes that the way to proceed is to explore the
feasibility of providing the community with with a household haz-
ardous waste collection program or drop-off center in conjunction
with neighboring cities. Redondo Beach has already expressed an
interest.
Regarding an effort by Hermosa Beach to provide its own service,
the City contracted refuse company, B.F.I. indicates is presently
has no facilities to pick up hazardous waste. The city would
have to hire a hazardous waste disposal specialist. The cost and
liability could be staggering for the City (anywhere from $5,000
to $80,000 per collection depending on amount collected, volun-
tary help, trained personnel,etc.). There is currently no state
funding available for such a program though there may be in the
future.
However:
There are some productive steps the City can take on its own.
The household hazardous waste problem can be ameliorated by
Educating the community regarding the following practices:
Reduce: There are alternatives to using toxic products (e.g.,
instead of a liquid drain opener, try a plunger, look for bio-
degradable products, buy only what you need).
Reuse: If you have a surplus of a product, give it away. Don't
stock up on "economy" sizes or buy items "2 for 1" if you seldom
use the item. Don't buy another box until the first is used up.
Recycle: Used motor oil will be accepted by some gas stations,
as well as Redondo Beach Recycling Center. The City may also
want to explore the feasibility of accepting motor oil during
specified hours at the city yard.
4
Staff has spoken with the District manager of Browning-Ferris
Industries regarding his willingness to participate in a communi-
ty education program. He is enthusiastic and willing to cooper-
ate with the city in any way he can (hazardous waste is also a
headache for his company).
Staff would recommend the creation of a City education program
which may include:
1) The creation of a hazardous waste disposal information
telephone line
2) Creation of an educational mailer to be sent to all residents
3) Creation of informational stickers for all refuse receptacles
to be attached by B.F.I.
4) Press releases
5) Public service announcements on the local Cable service.
In summary, the hazardous waste disposal problem constitutes a
serious threat to human and environmental health. Clearly it is
time to take practical steps at the state, county and local
levels.
While the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan offers hope of
solutions in the future and it behooves the city to participate
fully in that process, there are steps the City can take on its
own right now to address the problem.
The most practical immediate step is a program of community
education.
A South Bay or Beach cities periodic hazardous waste collection
service should also be explored.
Concur:
i(evin Northcraft
City Manager
Respectfully submitted,
Ja ce Silver, Admin. Aide
De ! . of Building & Safety
Concur:
5
William Grove, irector
Dept. of Building & Safety
BACKGROUND
MATERIALS
LOS ANGELES COUNTY.
RDOUSWASTE MANAGEMENT
_....,.............,
P�,-ti-�-- .
._ .., _ .
1 ,_. ___,,.....--..;
-4 %A., 7 1-; : , i g":„ ,,, z.----_ ii
1-' - rri T -/--''/ 1
1 - ice. ; `:, ' _
Yr
eti
.1
:,.,
--- -
•
L.
.l_
L LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
DRAFT
DECEMBER 1987
• V' • • • • • ,
•
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Hazardous Waste Management Advisory Committee wishes to thank
the staff of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.
In particular, the efforts of Michael Mohajer and Alice Chung are
greatly appreciated.
The Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan was
prepared during the period of June 1987 through December 1987.
Unless indicated otherwise, Plan information is current as of
December 1987.
Please direct all comments, and questions to:
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
Waste Management Division
P.o. Box 1460
Alhambra, CA 91802-1460
Attention:
Mr. Kenneth Kvammen or Mr. Michael Mohajer
Assistant Deputy Director Supervising Civil Engineer III
.(213) 226-4011 (213) 226-4281
or
(818) 458-5100 (after February 1, 1988)
{
r�
r
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Michael D. Antonovich
Deane Dana
Edmund D. Edelman
Kenneth Hahn
Peter F. Schabarum
COUNTY STAFF
T.A. Tidemanson, Director of Public Works
Cecil Bugh, Chief Deputy Director
Orville McCollom, Deputy Director •
Kenneth Kvammen, Assistant Deputy Director,
Project Director
David Yamahara, Supervising Civil Engineer IV
Michael Mohajer, Supervising Civil Engineer III,
Project Manager
Alice Chung, Supervising Civil Engineer II,
Project Engineer
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
APPOINTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Chairman
T.A. Tidemanson, Director of Public Works
Angelo Bellomo, State Department of Health Services
Charles Carry, County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles
County
Robert Gates, County Department of Health Services
Robert Ghirelli, California Water Quality Board (L.A. Region)
Lynne Goldsmith, League of Women Voters of L.A. County
Norman Murdock, County Department of Regional Planning
Clarence Gieck, Hazardous Waste Association of California
Steve Kaufman, Sierra Club
Robert Litzenberg, BCL Associates, Inc.
John Woodyard, IT Corporation
Connie Worden, Public Affairs Specialist
APPOINTED BY THE CITY SELECTION COMMITTEE
Ruth Aldaco, City of Commerce
Robert Bacon, City of West Covina
John Hitt, City of Duarte
William Jennings, Sierra Club
Fran Pavely, City of Agoura Hills
Joy Ficus, City of Los Angeles
Archie Snow, City of Redondo Beach
LOS ANGELES COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
VOLUME I
PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
PLAN
LOS ANGELES COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
VOLUME II
TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
GLOSSARY
LIST OF ACRONYMS
CHAPTER 1 - REGULATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT .PROGRAMS
CHAPTER 2 - HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITIES, TYPES AND SOURCES
CHAPTER 3 - HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
CHAPTER 4 - OVERVIEW OF TECHNOLOGY
CHAPTER 5 - NEEDS AND ASSESSMENT
CHAPTER 6 - SITING CRITERIA AND PERMITTING PROCESS
CHAPTER 7 - WASTE MINIMIZATION
CHAPTER 8 - TRANSPORTATION
CHAPTER 9 - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
CHAPTER 10 - EMERGENCY RESPONSE
CHAPTER 11 - INACTIVE HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
CHAPTER 12 - SMALL QUANTITY HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATORS
REFERENCE LIST
LOS ANGELES COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
VOLUME III
APPENDIX
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
1A
1B
1C
1D
2A
3A
APPENDIX 4A
APPENDIX 4B
APPENDIX 6A
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
6B
6C
7A
APPENDIX 7B
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
8A
8B
10A
APPENDIX 10B
AID
ISM
IND
APPENDIX 10C -
APPENDIX 11A
APPENDIX 11B
APPENDIX 11C
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
11D
12A
12B
0110
APPENDIX 12C -
APPENDIX 12D -
REFERENCE LIST
FEDERAL, STATE AND COUNTY REGULATORY AGENCIES
ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY
ADDRESSES AND PHONE NUMBERS FOR FEDERAL, STATE,
AND COUNTY AGENCIES INVOLVED IN REGULATING AND
ENFORCING THE MANAGEMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
DEFINITIONS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
ESTIMATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES IN LOS
ANGELES COUNTY
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
INCINERATION FEASIBILITY FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY SITING
CRITERIA
THE DISCRETIONARY PERMIT PROCESS
CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF PERMIT ASSISTANCE GUIDELINES
COMMERCIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE RECOVERY FACILITIES IN
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
ACTIVE USED OIL HAULERS, RECYCLERS AND TRANSFER
STATION FACILITY OPERATORS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY
LOS ANGELES COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE HAULERS
SCHWMP TRANSPORTATION STUDY
LOS ANGELES COUNTY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENT
CONTINGENCY PLAN
EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAMS IN LOS ANGELES
COUNTY
EMERGENCY RESPONSE DIRECTORY
LIST OF ABANDONED AND CLOSED SITES IN LOS ANGELES
COUNTY
LIST OF REPORTED HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES COMPILED
PER CHAPTER 1048 OF THE 1986 STATE STATUTES
HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES LISTED IN CLEAN-UP BOND ACT
EXPENDITURE PLAN
LIST OF SITES WITH UNDERGROUND TANK LEAKS
SMALL QUANTITY HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATOR SURVEYS
WASTE QUANTITIES OF SMALL QUANTITY HAZARDOUS
WASTE GENERATORS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAMS
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS IN
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
d
•1
1
{
L
J
L
J
1
t
LOS ANGELES COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
VOLUME I - PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
VOLUME I - PLAN
I. Introduction
A. What is Hazardous Waste?
B. Legal Basis
C. City/County Planning Responsibility
D. Background
E. Overview
F. Outline of CoHWMP
II. Objectives
III. Needs and Policies
IV. Goals and Recommendations
Regulations and Enforcement - Chapter One
Hazardous Waste Quantities, Types, and Sources -
Chapter Two
Hazardous Waste Management Facilities - Chapter Three
Overview of Technology - Chapter Four
Siting Criteria and Permitting Process - Chapter Five
Needs Assessment - Chapter Six
Waste Minimization - Chapter Seven
Transportation.- Chapter Eight
Public Participation - Chapter Nine
Emergency Response - Chapter Ten
Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites - Chapter Eleven
Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Generators - Chapter
Twelve
V. Assessment of Needs for Off -Site Hazardous Waste
Management Facilities
VI. Off -Site Hazardous Waste Management Facilities
Consistent with the CoHWMP
VII. Implementation Plan and Schedule
VIII. Plan Implementation Monitoring Program
IX. Staff and Funding
1.
Number
1
2
PLAN
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Information Requirements for Finding of
Conformance 21
Implementation Schedule and Funding Source.... 22
ii
r
Number
1
PLAN
LIST OF FIGURES
General Sites Potentially Suitable for
Hazardous Waste Management Facilities 19
iii
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
I. INTRODUCTION
Los Angeles County enjoys a high standard of living and good environmental
quality. These characteristics can be attributed to a strong, diversified
economic base which includes a myriad of industries, manufacturing plants, and
commercial businesses. This economic base provides many of the positive
aspects of the "Southern California Lifestyle" which also contribute to
negative environmental effects such as improper waste management.
The consequences of hazardous waste mismanagement in the past are well
documented and are reflected in polluted ground and surface water, soil and
air. Improper disposal has been associated with elevated levels of toxics in
humans, aquatic spedies and livestock. Illegal dumping of hazardous waste
along roadsides or in open fields has resulted in explosions, fires,
contaminated groundwater and air pollution. Prudent management is critical to
the protection of public health, the environment and the economy.
Los Angeles County generates more hazardous waste than any other county in the
State. Some of this waste is shipped untreated to distant disposal facilities
in other counties and states. With continued Federal and State
restrictions/regulations on waste 'management facilities, the County cannot
continue to rely on distant disposal as its principal waste management method.
Most of the waste can be treated and managed entirely within the County and
efforts must continue for the County to assume its responsibility in managing
its own waste for the future.
The Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan (CoHWMP) describes and
defines existing conditions, future conditions, needed management facilities
and recommended action programs on a .County -wide basis. Program goals and
objectives are presented together with policy statements that show how to
implement the Plan and provide guidance and means for achieving the goals and
objectives.
The CoHWMP also establishes siting criteria for development of needed off-site
hazardous waste management facilities and designates general geographic areas
within the cities and County unincorporated areas where the siting criteria
might be met. However, the CoHWMP does not designate specific sites for
facility locations since any future proponent must show a proposed project to
be consistent with the CoHWMP. In addition, each project must undergo a
rigorous site-specific assessment and permittee process at local, State and
Federal levels, including addressing all environmental concerns as mandated by
the California Environmental Quality Act.
A. What is Hazardous Waste?
Various definitions of hazardous waste exist under different governmental laws
(For a more precise definition, please refer to Appendix 1D of the Technical
Supplement). In general, hazardous waste is defined as any waste, or
combination of wastes, which because of its quantity, concentration, or
physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics may exhibit one or more of
the following characteristics: toxicity, corrosivity, flammability, and
reactivity. Hazardous waste includes a spectrum of wastes ranging from
-1-
household wastes like pesticides and used motor oil to industrial wastes such
as spent cleaning solvents and plating shop waste.
Many commonly used materials, such as garden pesticides and paint, become
hazardous waste when they are discarded. Similarly, when hazardous materials
are spilled or discarded, they are considered hazardous wastes. If a waste is
determined to be hazardous, its management is governed.by Federal, State and
local hazardous waste laws.
B. Legal Basis
Chapter 1504 of the 1986 State Statutes (AB 2948, Tanner), as amended by
Chapter 1167 of the 1987 State Statutes (SB 477, Greene), requires that each
county, in lieu of preparing the hazardous waste portion of the solid waste
management plan prepare and adopt by September 30, 1988, a county hazardous
waste management plan. The law requires this plan to be prepared in
accordance with the State Department of Health Services' (SDOHS) Guidelines,
dated June 30, 1987. The SDOHS has been vested with the ultimate
responsibility for approval of the plan. The CoHWMP is subject to approval by
a majority of the cities within the County which contain a majority of the
population of the incorporated areas of the County.
C. City/County Planning Responsibility
Chapter 1167 of the State Statutes of 1987 requires that within 180 days of
CoHWMP approval by the SDOHS, the County shall either incorporate applicable
portions of the CoHWMP, by reference, into the County's General Plan or enact
an ordinance requiring all applicable zoning, subdivision, conditional use
permit, and variance decisions to be consistent with CoHWMP.
The Cities are also required to take one of the following actions within 180
days after approval of the CoHWMP by the SDOHS:
1. Incorporate applicable portions of the CoHWMP, by reference, into the
City's General Plan; or
2. Adopt a city hazardous waste management plan which is consistent with
the CoHWMP; or
3. Enact an ordinance which requires that all applicable zoning,
subdivision, conditional use permit, and variance decisions are
consistent with the applicable portions of the CoHWMP.
D. Background on CoHWMP Development
The State Solid Waste and Resource Recovery Act of 1972, as amended, requires
each county to prepare a waste management plan to address both hazardous and
non -hazardous waste with triennial review and update if required.
In February 1984, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (DPW)
under the auspices of the Hazardous Waste Management Advisory Subcommittee of
the Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee (Committee) undertook
preparation of the County Solid Waste Management Plan, Hazardous Waste Element
(Element). The preparation of the Element was completed in June 1986, and was
distributed to all 84 incorporated cities in the County, the SDOHS, public
agencies, environmental groups and citizens for review and comment.
-2-
Additionally, a series of ten public hearings was conducted throughout the
County seeking citizens' input and comments during the months of September and
October 1986.
The Element was prepared in accordance with the Draft Guidelines issued by the
SDOHS in April 1979• The Element was formally submitted to the SDOHS on
August 19, 1986. However, due to the enactment of AB 2948, the County was
informed by the SDOHS that the Element would be reviewed in accordance with
the Guidelines prepared pursuant to AB 2948. As a consequence, further work
on the Element was stopped.
On March 10, 1987, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (Board)
formally elected to prepare the CoHWMP in lieu of the Element since an
independent CoHWMP could better provide the basic framework for the proper
management of hazardous waste in the County. The Board also notified the
Cities and SDOHS of its decision in March 1987. On May 27, 1987, the Board
established the CoHWMAC and appointed members representing private industries,
governmental agencies, the Sierra Club, the League of Waxen Voters, and other
interested citizen groups. On June 4, 1987, the City Selection Committee
appointed seven members, representing the Cities in Los Angeles County, to the
CoHWMAC.
Active participation by all cities within the County as well as extensive
public education has been strongly emphasized by AB 2948 as the CoHWMP is a
county -wide document and many of the hazardous waste management facilities
will be found to be most appropriately located within cities near the sources
of waste generation. The County conducted a series of four Community
Information/Workshops (during October and November 1987) in the Cities of West
Covina, Palmdale, Carson and Los Angeles, and made presentations to various
Chambers of Commerce, to encourage public input and policy directives for
hazardous waste management practices in Los Angeles County during the
preparation of the Draft CoHWMP.
E. Overview
Los Angeles County alone generates approximately 9.4 million tons of hazardous
waste annually. Of this amount, approximately 93 percent is managed on-site
with the remaining sent off-site for treatment and disposal. In 1984, 561,183
tons of hazardous waste were, generated in Los Angeles County and manifested
for off-site management; in 1986, the amount was 616,195 tons. Nearly half of
these wastes are generated in the southern portion of the Coastal Plain (i.e.,
south of Artesia Freeway). However, with no Class I or Class II hazardous
waste disposal facilities and inadequate treatment capacity in Los Angeles
County, much of the waste is shipped outside of the County for land disposal.
With the enactment of Chapter 1509 of the 1986 State Statutes (SB 1500,
Roberti) prohibiting direct land disposal of untreated hazardous waste by May
8, 1990, potential uncertainties inherent in the current' hazardous waste
management system leave the economic viability of the County in a precarious
situation.
Comprehensive planning is needed to address all factors ranging -from health to
economics. Hazardous waste generators may encounter financial and logistic
obstacles when trying to dispose of their waste. Small generators, in
particular, may be unaware of the regulations and may not have the resources
to comply. Arbitrary planning guidelines would only increase management cost,
causing closure of small businesses and increasing illegal dumping incidents.
-3-
Planning offers a, means by which hazardous waste management facilities,
projects, and programs be developed in an orderly fashion compatible with
surrounding land uses to effectively serve the needs of the County.
F. Outline of CoHWMP
The CoHWMP presents an overview of the existing hazardous waste management
system, as well as planning through the year 2005. The CoHWMP consists of
three volumes: The Plan, a Technical Supplement, and accompanying Appendix.
The Plan contains the objectives, needs and policies, plan recommendations and
the implementation schedule of the Plan's programs, and it addresses the
consistency requirement for future off-site hazardous waste management
facilities and expansion of existing facilities.
The Technical Supplement presents the basic hazardous waste management
strategy and discusses the various issues and concerns. It identifies general
areas in the County's unincorporated areas and cities which may meet siting
criteria for potential sites for development of new off-site hazardous waste
facilities or expansion of the existing ones.' The Appendix contains the
background information from which the Plan and the Technical Supplement was
developed.
The CoHWMP emphasizes the following hierarchy of hazardous waste management
practices: reduction at the source; recycle to the greatest extent possible;
evaluate all generated waste prior to storing the residuals in a respository
for possible retrieval at a later date. Avoiding the production of hazardous
waste by eliminating its generation at the source of manufacturing or chemical
processes, where technically feasible and economically viable, is the most
desirable option. Where complete source reduction is not feasible and waste
continues to be produced, effective on-site management is preferred over
off-site management. The most beneficial on-site management processes are, in
order of priority, recycling, followed by on-site treatment, off-site
recycling, and off-site treatment, respectively. Residuals repositories,
storage facilities and transfer stations are required to support these
practices.
With this Plan, the CoHWMP aims to achieve a County -wide multi -faceted,
balanced and effective system of hazardous waste management that will provide
protection to the citizens of this County and their environment.
II. OBJECTIVES
To assist in sound planning efforts and to improve the efficiency regarding
organizational aspects of hazardous waste management, a comprehensive system
is needed. The objectives of the CoHWMP are presented below:
1. To protect the health, welfare and safety of all citizens;
2. To protect significant environmental resources, particularly our water and
air quality;
3. To ensure that the generation of hazardous waste in the County is reduced
to the maximum extent feasible.
41. To ensure that all hazardous wastes generated in this County are recycled
and/or treated to the maximum extent possible and that the need for land
-4-
.r
r
disposal of untreated hazardous waste is completely eliminated by May 1990
as mandated by• State law."
5. To endure that safe, effective, and economical facilities for the
management of hazardous waste are available when they are needed and that
these facilities are -operated in a manner which protects public health and
the environment.
6. To make information regarding hazardous waste management widely available
to the public so that informed decisions can be made.
7. To encourage public involvement/participation in the planning, siting and
permitting of hazardous waste management facilities.
III. NEEDS AND POLICIES
The needs and policies provided herein are seen as the critical issues. They
represent the framework in developing the CoHWMP and is the basis that forms
the overall hazardous waste management strategy of the County.
Policy 1 - Establish Waste Minimization Practices
a. Adopt waste minimization as first priority in waste management
strategy in the County;
b. Develop programs/incentives to assist industries (large & small);
c. Provide information needed to the public/industries to take
rational steps to minimize, recycle, treat, otherwise manage
hazardous wastes.
Policy 2 - Develop and Adopt Siting Criteria
a. Consider human, social, and environmental factors;
b. Consider routing criteria;
c. Ensure placement of treatment facilities near generators.
Policy 3 - Provide Basis for Planning
a. Develop electronic system to effectively monitor current on- and
off-site waste generation;
b. Monitor hazardous waste management facilities;
c. Determine the need for waste management facilities;
d. Develop a system to project future needs;
e. Work cooperatively with other jurisdictions to assess regional
needs;
f. Provide for triennial update of the CoHWMP.
Policy 4 - Establish Needed Hazardous Waste Management Facilities
a. Establish a workable system to provide for the development of
needed facilities;
b. Monitor compliance of existing facilities with Federal, State and
local regulations;
c. Ensure consistency of future facilities with siting criteria and
the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan;
d. Develop incentives for the acceptance of needed facilities.
Policy 5 - Review Permitting Procedures
a. Prioritize the permitting process of needed facilities;
b. Consider routing criteria;
c. Ensure placement of treatment facilities near generators;
-5-
d. Ensure development of transfer/storage facilities to handle the
needs of small generators.
Policy 6 - 'Encourage Alternative Technology
a. Investigate new and innovative technologies;
b. Implement proven technology;
c. Ensure appropriate pre-treatment prior to disposal
Policy 7 - Review Transportation Procedure
a. Develop routing criteria for hazardous waste;
b. Coordinate and work cooperatively with Federal, State and local
efforts in meeting transportation needs.
Policy 8 - Develop Emergency Response Capability
a. Enhance existing emergency response capabilities;
b. Ensure maintenance of equipment and adequate training of
personnel;
c. Promote continuous update of business plans by businesses using
and/or generating hazardous materials/wastes, and emergency
response plans, public agencies;
d. Establish evacuation routes for emergencies and coordinate
emergency response on a regional basis.
Policy 9 - Ensure Active Public Participation
a. Develop a public education program for the public and industries;
b. Ensure ample opportunities for citizen participation in the
planning, siting, and permitting processes;
c. Develop a school curriculum on hazardous waste management;
d. Establish a resource/information center to centralize available
information/literature regarding hazardous waste management.
Policy 10 - Provide Agency Coordination
a. Encourage coordination among agencies and the sharing of
information;
b. Coordinate permitting of facilities.
Policy 11 - Cleanup of Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites
a. Identify and monitor improperly closed, inactive sites and
contaminated sites;
b. Support clean-up efforts.
Policy 12 - Establish a Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Generators' Program
a. Identify and develop programs for household hazardous waste;
b. Identify and develop programs for small industrial and commercial
hazardous waste generators.
IV. GOALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT: CHAPTER SUMMARIES)
The following section of this Plan presents a brief summary of each chapter
presented in the Technical Supplement. Each summary outlines the main issues
of hazardous waste management covered by that chapter. The summary is then
followed by a statement of goals and a list of recommendations to aid in
achieving the goals. Those recommendations that have a chapter number after
-6-
them indicate that the same recommendation can also be applied to that
chapter.
County and/or cities will be charged with the implementation of these
recommendations. The more detailed specifics are to be developed at the
discretion of the appropriate jurisdiction.
REGULATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS - (CHAPTER ONE)
An overview of the major statutory laws and regulations governing the
management of hazardous waste is presented in this Chapter. Additionally, the
various agencies charged with the implementation and enforcement of these
regulations are also identified and an overview of their programs have been
provided.
GOAL: To identify and maintain a listing of all major Federal, State and
County regulations concerning hazardous waste, and identify specific
roles and responsibilities of institutions which protect California's
citizens and environment from the dangers of hazardous waste.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. County to sponsor and cities to support and promote legislation
which clearly identifies (or clarifies) roles of the State
agencies responsible for the enforcement/regulation of hazardous
wastes with the goal of the creation of one State agency so that
the effectiveness of regulatory controls is increased and the
overlap of jurisdictions is avoided.
2. County to make available the County Hazardous Waste Management
Plan at all County/cities libraries and Universities/college
libraries (Chapter 9).
3. County to sponsor and the cities to support an information
center to advise businesses and, the public of the regulations
and other matters regarding hazardous waste (Chapter 9).
4. County and cities to establish strict compliance to current
regulations by imposing maximum penalties provided by the law
with respect to illegal disposal of hazardous waste.
5. County and cities to provide for more resources/manpower to
better enforce existing laws/regulations with respect to illegal
disposal of hazardous waste.
HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITIES, TYPES, AND SOURCES - (CHAPTER TWO)
The task of determining both present and future rates of hazardous waste
generation is often complicated by the lack of relevant data. The accuracy of
these projections has a direct impact on the efficiency with which hazardous
waste may be planned and managed.
GOAL: To. develop a centralized.data base regarding generation rates of
hazardous waste as this would serve to improve the accuracy in
projecting present and future quantities, types and sources of
hazardous waste.
-7-
RECOMMENDATIONS:
6. County to sponsor and cities to support legislation to establish or
delegate the responsibility to an existing State agency to compile
and coordinate a centralized data base on (on-site and off-site)
hazardous waste as well as data on waste management facilities
including types and quantities of waste generated in Los Angeles
County and other counties throughout the State. This agency should
also be responsive to the general public and provide information as
requested so that there is a single common data base in the State,
counties, and cities.
7. County to sponsor a study (Appendix 2A) specifically geared to
correlate hazardous waste generation with economic activities in the
County. This study is to be undertaken to discern the probable trend
of hazardous waste generated in the County.
8. County to sponsor a study to correlate.between consumer consumption
and the production of hazardous waste quantities.
9. The County Department of Health Services Hazardous Materials Control
Program be enabled to complete the licensing of all hazardous waste
generators in the County and for a compatible data system to be
developed to allow sharing of information.
10. Each city is to require owners/operators of all hazardous waste
generating facilities located within its jurisdiction to submit a
status report of their facilities to the County DPW after the
approval of the CoHWMP by the SDOHS or from the completion of the
facility and thereafter on an annual basis.
The report should contain type and quantity of hazardous waste
generated, stored, treated, recycled, and/or disposed of. This
information should be submitted in a uniform electronic system
format, to be specified at a later date.
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES - (CHAPTER THREE)
This Chapter identifies and presents an overview of the existing, planned, and
proposed hazardous waste management facilities in Los Angeles County.
GOALS: To continuously maintain a database of all the hazardous waste
management facilities in Los Angeles County and nearby areas, so as
to provide for more adequate planning in the future.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
County to monitor and cities to provide information on the
status of all existing, planned or proposed hazardous waste
management facilities and to maintain the listing of all said
facilities in the County.
-8-
12. County/Cities to ensure all planned and proposed facilities
comply with the siting criteria contained in this Plan. (Chapter
OVERVIEW OF TECHNOLOGY - (CHAPTER FOUR)
The dangers of hazardous waste can be significantly reduced by the integration
of new and proven technologies. The treatment of all treatable hazardous
waste prior to disposal would also serve to lessen the excessive dependence on
land disposal, and enable the County to comply with the restrictions on land
disposal of hazardous waste by May 8, 1990, as stipulated by the State law.
GOAL: To promote the use of safe or new and proven hazardous waste
management technologies for on-site and off-site storage, treatment,
and residuals repository facilities to comply with the May 8, 1990
State land disposal restriction.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
13. County to inform generators of hazardous waste as to the
alternatives available for proper management of hazardous waste.
14. County to sponsor and cities to support and promote legislation
to encourage programs of economic incentives, such as grants,
loans, and to encourage hazardous waste generators to employ
safe and new technologies in waste management problems in their
existing on-site and off-site hazardous waste management
facilities.
15. County and cities to inform generators within their
jurisdictions as to the May 8, 1990, land disposal ban of
untreated hazardous waste and to provide information on the
treatment of hazardous wastes and changes in treatment processes
which would reduce the remaining residues.
16. County to promote maximum on-site treatment so as to minimize
the generation of hazardous waste.
NEEDS ASSESSMENT - (CHAPTER FIVE)
As illustrated in Chapters Two and Three, the aggregate hazardous waste
treatment/disposal capacity of Los Angeles County is inadequate .to cope with
present and projected rates of waste generation. This Chapter evaluates
available capacity for treatment/disposal and projects future needs for waste
treatment/disposal facilities in Los Angeles County.
GOAL: To provide for more effective management of hazardous waste by
evaluating present, planned, and proposed waste management
capacity, as well as projected needs so as to .identify and
establish needed facilities.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
17. County and cities to promote and expedite development of transfer,
storage, and treatment facilities close to the areas of generation in
-9-
accordance - with the siting criteria chapter and in compliance with
all Federal, State, and local laws and regulations.
18. County/cities to coordinate efforts with Federal and State
governments to promote private firms to make liability insurance
coverage available to owners/operators of hazardous waste management
facilities.
19. County to continue sponsor and cities to support Federal and State
legislation which would address joint and several liability and would
provide limited liability for hazardous waste generators who have
their waste treated in accordance with Federal and State laws and
regulation, and who take the stabilized residuals to an approved
repository.
20. County to locate a residuals repository in a suitable area of the
County in accordance with the approved CoHWMP. If the residuals
repository cannot be located within the County, negotiation must be
initiated with appropriate agencies for the proper management of
stabilized residuals.
21. County to join the Southern California Hazardous Waste Management
Authority.
22. The Department of Public Works to coordinate County waste management
planning efforts.
SITING CRITERIA AND THE PERMITTING PROCESS - (CHAPTER SIX)
To be responsible for waste generated within its jurisdiction, an adequate
number of various types of hazardous waste management facilities using the
most current technology are needed to accommodate the waste generated. The
Chapter presents the siting criteria to be used to evaluate the suitability
and compatibility of off-site facilities with surrounding land uses. This
Chapter also includes an overview of the permits necessary for the development
of these facilities.
Siting refers to the process to select the location where an off-site
hazardous waste transfer, storage, treatment, recycling or residuals
repository facility is to be located. Permitting refers to the process where
permit requirements and regulatory compliance are evaluated before permission
is granted for the facility to commence operations.
GOALS: To prioritize the siting and permitting process in the development of
state-of-the-art hazardous waste management facilities in Los Angeles
County, including treatment, storage, recycling, or residuals
repository facilities.
To increase public involvement in the siting and permitting process
so as to aid in selecting sites which are favorable to both local
governments and residents (Chapter 9).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
-10-
.r
r
t
It
23. County to sponsor and cities to support and promote the
enactment of incentives for jurisdictions accepting needed waste
management facilities.
24. County to sponsor and cities to support and promote legislation
to require coordination by all agencies in the review of
hazardous waste management facility permit applications (Chapter
1).
25. Each jurisdiction to accept the responsibilities for the
management of waste generated within its jurisdiction.
26. County/Cities to adopt a siting process which balances the
complying with environmental requirements and public
participation with the need for prompt and timely siting of the
hazardous waste management facilities.
WASTE MINIMIZATION - (CHAPTER SEVEN)
Minimization of hazardous waste generation levels is the primary goal of the
County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. The waste minimization methods
discussed in this Chapter include:
1) Source reduction;
2) Process Modification;
3) Substitution (raw material/end products);
4) Material recovery and recycling; and,
5) Source segregation
GOAL: To promote waste minimization by including measures to reduce waste
generated at the source; reuse, recycle, and treat on-site; or
recycle off-site in that order of preference.
27. County to provide and cities to support education/information
programs and workshops for the public and industries to increase
awareness on options open to industry for waste minimization
(Chapter 9).
28. County, County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, and
cities with industrial waste enforcement programs to establish a
training program on waste minimization for their inspectors with
the appropriation of adequate funding or expansion of existing
fee, if necessary.
29. County to sponsor and cities to promote legislation that will
offer economic incentives/disincentives, such as low interest
loans, taxes, and tax exemptions to industries that implement
waste minimization techniques.
30. County/Cities to recommend to the SDOHS to periodic update the
list of materials that can be recycled.
31. County to encourage .and promote educational institutions to
become more involved in waste minimization efforts as well as
workshops and the training of private waste
reduction/minimization consultations.
-11-
TRANSPORTATION - (CHAPTER EIGHT)
This Chapter presents an overview of the current regulations which are
designed to promote safety in the transportation of hazardous waste.
GOAL: To establish safe routing and criteria for the waste transporters to
ensure the safe transportation of hazardous waste.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
32. Law enforcement agencies (State, County and cities) are to
strictly enforce regulations regarding inspection of vehicles,
as well as training and licensing of transportation personnel.
33. County to sponsor and cities to support and promote legislation
granting the local law enforcement agencies authority to remove
vehicles from transportation routes upon failure to pass
inspection.
34. County and cities should promote development of future hazardous
waste. management facilities in areas that will reduce the total
regional haulage (Chapter 6).
35. County, cities, and private industries should adhere to routing
criteria developed in this Chapter when considering planning and
siting of hazardous waste management facilities including the
use of designated transportation routes indicated in this
Chapter.
36. County to sponsor and cities to support and promote Federal and
State legislation to require certification of designated
managers of personnel who handle hazardous waste.
37. County, along .with the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) and other jurisdictions, is to determine the
feasibility of rail transport within the County, where
applicable, and require development of regulations regarding
both inspection and personnel training for the hazardous waste
rail transportation (Chapter 1).
38. County and cities are to take necessary measures to require the
.California Department of W for Vehicles and the U.S. Department
of Transportation to expedite the adoption of regulations
regarding certification program for drivers of hazardous waste
vehicles as mandated by Section 12804.1 of the Vehicle Code.
39. County to coordinate planning and determine routing
arrangements, future transportation system needs and
improvements, and identify funding sources with the California
Highway Patrol, SCAG, Caltrans, State and local law enforcement
agencies, local transportation commissions, public works
departments and health services.
40. County to sponsor and cities to support and promote legislation
which would require the shippers and haulers of explosive and/or
-12-
extremely hazardous material/waste to inform local emergency
response agencies seven days in advance of transportation of
such material/waste within and/or through their jurisdictions.
41. County to sponsor and cities to support and promote legislation
which would require all pressure vessels used for transportation
of hazardous material/waste to comply with design and
maintenance standards established by the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers.
42. County, with the support of cities, to request the U.S.
President, the Governor, Federal and State legislatures and
appropriate governmental agencies to review existing regulations
concerning transportation of hazardous material/waste with the
intent to modify, expand, consolidate and streamline, whenever
possible, to improve the safe transportation of hazardous
material/waste and/or increase the enforcement capabilities.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION - (CHAPTER NINE)
It is very important to improve the level of understanding and awareness of
the general public on matters concerning hazardous waste so that they can
fully participate In decisions regarding its management. This Chapter
.presents the various aspects of public participation and emphasizes the need
for public education. Public education has became a necessary element in
hazardous waste management and an essential part in the implementation of an
acceptable Hazardous Waste Management Plan. As such, education and
participation should be given high priority with adequate funding.
GOAL: To provide resources and ensure that the public has an opportunity to
participate knowledgeably in decisions on hazardous waste management
issues.
RECOMMENDATION:
43. County to'develop and implement an on-going program to increase
public awareness of issues and involvement in hazardous waste
management decisions on a County -wide basis. The program, among
other things, must address issues concerning small quantity
generators including household hazardous waste.
44. County to establish a central resource/information center for
the dissemination of accurate disposal information, proper
referrals, and individualized education including subjects on
waste minimization, regulation and other waste management
practices.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE - (CHAPTER TEN)
The purpose of this Chapter is to identify the responsibilities of Federal,
State, County and local governments with respect to their role in the response
to a hazardous waste/material incident and outline the elements that should go
into the development of an emergency response program for hazards posed by the
unauthorized releases or discharges and accidental spills of hazardous
waste/material. The Chapter and its appropriate appendices further describes
-13-
the Emergency Response Plan currently being authorized in the County and
cities.
GOAL: To -ensure the development of an effective and efficient emergency
response program.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
45. County to sponsor and cities support annual training programs
for public safety agencies on emergency response as well as
promote State legislation to allow Administrative Agencies, as
defined in Section 25500 of the Health and Safety Code, to
provide adequate funding in addition to those currently being
collected from businesses using/generating hazardous
material/waste to adequately provide for the implementation of
said program.
46. County and cities are to encourage private industry and
independent transporters to sponsor and attend informational
seminars scheduled at regular intervals on handling hazardous
waste/material emergency incidents, so as to keep them abreast
of current developments.
47. County to sponsor and cities to support and promote State
legislation to allow for the use of red -lights and sirens on
health services vehicles which have been specifically designated
by responding agencies as "Hazardous Materials Emergency
Response Vehicles", as opposed to the presently used amber
lights. Funding should also be provided to allow adequate
training of these responders. This would enable the vehicle to
gain faster access to a site where emergency response is
required.
48. County to consolidate/eliminate the Los Angeles County Hazardous
Waste Materials Contingency Plan following adoption of the Los
Angeles County Area Plan by the State Office of Emergency
Services.
49. County to sponsor and cities to support and promote legislation
to eliminate the existing exemption granted to railroad
companies pursuant to Section 25503.7(a) of the Health and
Safety Code by requiring a business plan for railroad cars
containing hazardous material/waste that remain with the same
facility for 30 days or less.
50. County to sponsor and cities to support appropriate legislation
to eliminate duplication of efforts relevant to the Federal or
State Community Right -to -Know Laws by considering the following
alternatives:
a. Declare State law the "functional equivalent" of Title III
and continue current implementation efforts.
b. Abandon the State program and implement a uniform Statewide
program based upon Title III.
-14-
c. Attempt to merge the two programs.
51. Los Angeles County Forester and Fire Warden, with the assistance
of the Fire Chiefs Association, to review and ensure
compatibility of other County agencies, local agencies, and
neighboring counties' hazardous material response plans.
INACTIVE HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES - (CHAPTER ELEVEN)
Inactive and/or contaminated hazardous waste sites can pose a serious threat
to the environment as well as to the health of the citizens of Southern
California. The exact location of many such sites, some of which might have
been closed improperly, is not presently known. Problems with these sites
include incompatible land use of surrounding areas, potential risks to nearby
residents, and the contamination of natural resources.
GOAL: To clean-up or control inactive and/or contaminated hazardous waste
sites.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
52. County/cities to promote community relation meetings and
establish a communication system with local officials, civic
leaders, and residents in order to provide a forum for
discussing the public's concerns regarding the identification of
hazardous waste sites and their clean-up.
53. County/cities to promote the use of on-site treatment technology
for clean-up activities.
54. County/cities to monitor clean-up activities of all contaminated
hazardous waste sites within their respective jurisdictions that
are listed on the Federal National Priorities List or State
Superfund.
55. County/cities to adopt land use policies for the development of
property on or adjacent to inactive and/or contaminated sites.
56. County, with support of the cities, to request United States
Department of Defense to notify the county and affected cities
of any hazardous waste stored in or to be transported to any
federal reservations in that county.
SMALL QUANTITY GENERATORS - (CHAPTER TWELVE)
Due to limited resources and the high cost of disposal, many small hazardous
waste generators face unique hazardous waste management problems. The same
concern is also shared by the cities and County for management of household
hazardous waste. These are significant concerns with regard to the successful
implementation of any comprehensive hazardous waste management plan.
GOALS: 1. To establish programs, systems and procedures to increase
awareness and bring. about the safe management of hazardous
waste generated by small quantity generators.
-15-
2. To insure that the County and cities or County in cooperation
with cities develop and implement a household hazardous waste
management and reduction program.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
57. County to sponsor and cities to support informational programs,
including newsletters, pamphlets, hotlines, and/or workshops to
increase the small quantity waste generator's awareness of
hazardous waste management and regulations. (Chapter 9)
58. County and cities through their regulatory functions are to
require small quantity waste generators to participate in
seminars and workshops, and to provide input as to their needs
and keep them abreast of current programs and technologies.
(Chapter 9)
59. County to sponsor and cities to promote incentives to small
quantity waste generators to reduce, recycle and treat
hazardous wastes and participate in waste exchanges. (Chapter
7)
60. County and cities to sponsor collection and disposal services
for small quantity generators. (Chapter 5)
61. County and cities to encourage private sector to develop
treatment, collection, transfer, recycle and other alternative
technology, including on-site and off-site mobile facilities
for small quantity generators.
62. County to sponsor and cities to support the siting and
permitting of a system of convenient collect/transfer locations
for small quantity generators of hazardous waste.
63. County and cities to promote manufacturers, wholesalers, and
retail stores to take back unused chemical, oil, paint, and
solvents that are in original unopened containers.
64. County to sponsor and cities to support an in-depth program to
monitor the small quantity generators hazardous wastestream in
Los Angeles County.
65. County to develop and implement an on-going program to increase
public awareness of issues and involvement in hazardous waste
management decisions on a County -wide basis. The program,
among other things, must address issues concerning small
quantity generators including household hazardous wastes and
means of reducing the generation of hazardous waste. (Chapter
9)
66. County to develop and implement a County -wide Household
Hazardous Waste Management Program (HHWMP) which would consist
of citizens awareness programs as well as a collection program
on a year round basis. Cities are to support and promote such
a HHWMP by allowing the County to impose tipping fee on all
solid waste landfill operators operating within the cities
-16-
If
ei
pursuant to Chapter 1319 of the 1987 State Statutes (AB 2448,
Eastin). Upon request, County to reimburse cities that have
existing HHWMP based on the quantity of solid waste generated
within those cities and disposed of at solid waste facilities
under the jurisdiction of the County.
67. County to promote and local governments to sponsor programs to
help residents properly dispose of household hazardous waste
(applicable only if Recommendation No. 66 is not implemented.)
These might include one -day round -ups, collection centers,
and/or door-to-door collections.
68. County to continue funding of Agricultural Commissioners
Pesticide Pick -Up Program.
69. County to sponsor and cities to support and promote legislation
addressing the liability problems associated with household
hazardous waste programs.
V. ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS FOR OFF-SITE HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
The primary goal'of establishing a system for hazardous waste management is to
protect the public health, safety, and welfare as well as protecting the
natural resources and environment while maintaining the economic viability of
the planning area. The Technical Supplement of the CoHWMP presents the
information gathered on current waste generation in Los Angeles County as well
as an estimate of waste generation for the short (1988-1990), mid (1991-1995)
and long-term (1996-2005) planning periods (Chapter 2). The Technical
Supplement also and includes all the current, planned and proposed management
facilities in Los Angeles County (Chapter 3). The Needs Assessment Chapter
then translates the waste generation data into the total management and
capacity needs for the short-term, mid- and long-term planning periods
(Chapter 5) .
Although the CoHWMP only addresses the needs for Los Angeles County, it is
acknowledged that it would also meet the responsibility of the regional and
State need as Los Angeles County generates over 70% of the waste in Southern
California. As a result, the COHWMP's intent is to manage all hazardous
wastes generated in the County as well as provide additional treatment
capacity for manifested waste imported into the County in 1986. Without a
planned system, excessive costs may encourage illegal disposal and put Los
Angeles County businesses at an economic disadvantage.
Based on the current hazardous waste quantities, there is an existing need for
the following off-site hazardous management facilities:
Aqueous Treatment
Metal/Neutralization
Incineration
Solvent Recovery
Other Recycling
Number of Facilities (Size)
1 (70,000 tons/year or greater)
4 (30,000 tons/year)
or 1 (150,000 tons/year or greater)
1 (70,000 tons/year)
3 (75,000 tons/year)
or 1 (170,000 tons/year)
-17-
Stabilization .
Residuals Repository
1 (15,000 tons/year)
2 (75,000 tons/year)
or 1 (170,000 tons/year)
The CoHWMP establishes the waste minimization as the most liable waste
management alternative to manage hazardous waste generated in this County
during the planning period. Assuming this policy is implemented to the
fullest, the need for additional off-site hazardous management facilities
would remain unchanged during the short, mid- and long-term planning period
except for residuals repositories. Based on the analysis provided in Chapter
5 of the Volume II, Technical Supplement, starting in 1991 and for the
remaining portion of the planning period, the following need for residuals
repositories has been established:
Number of Facilities Capacity
(Tons/year)
4 75,000
or 2 170,000
or 1 360,000
The CoHWMP also recognizes a need for additional hazardous waste transfer
stations and storage facilities. The needed number of these two types of
facilities will be developed concurrently with the development of the other
types of off-site facilities previously listed.
As noted in Chapter 5, it is rece®ended that all storage, transfer, recycling
and treatment facilites are to be located as close to the areas of generation
as possible. Residuals repository, as proposed, is anticipated to be located
in more distant areas from urbanized zones that are geologically compatible
with the siting criteria developed in Chapter 6 and meeting requirements of
all State and Federal regulations.
VI. OFF-SITE HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES CONSISTENT
WITH THE CoHWMP
•
Pursuant to Chapter 1167 of the 1987 State Statutes (SB 477, Greene), the
CoHWMP is required to include general areas in the unincorporated areas of the
County and incorporated cities which might be suitable for the development of
needed future off-site hazardous waste management facilities or expansion of
the existing off-site facilities. To accomplish this, the DPW requested all
cities as well as the County Department of Regional Planning to identify
suitable development areas within their jurisdictions. Figure 1 identifies
the general areas within the cities and the County unincorporated areas
potentially suitable for the siting of these off-site facilities. (Please
refer to Volume II, Technical Supplement, Chapter 5, Figure 5-9 for large
scale map.)
Section 25135.4 of the Health and Safety Code states that "no person shall
establish an off-site facility unless the legislative body of the city or
county in which the new off-site facility, or the expansion of an existing
off-site facility, is proposed makes a determination that the facility or
expansion is consistent with the county hazardous waste management plan
approved by the Department of Health Services." Furthermore, it is the intent
of Chapter 1504 of the 1986 State Statutes (AB 2948, Tanner) that the primary
-18-
•
•
•
•
•
•
r- r r-• r- r r-- r r r- r` r-- c-- r- r-- r- r- r-- r
FIGURE I
GENERAL AREAS POTENTIALLY SUITABLE FOR OFF-SITE HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
f
r
C
•
i•
l
1
l
•
responsibility for„.„
lnd use decisions regarding the management of hazardous
waste falls on local',
-"`-dAdditionally, Chapter 1167 of the State
Statutes of 1987 (SH 477, Vne) provides for local jurisdictions to lipase
additional. requirements beyond 4.'se identified by the COHWMP for siting of
off-site facilities as long as the �►tioa of additional requirenents are
solely for protection of public health an the ens . TOensure
consistency of new off-site facilites or exp�sion of existing oafs efts
facilities, the proponents must apply to the DPW for a Finding of coutormency
to ensure consistency with the CoHWMP. The informati.om. to be submitted.
includes but are not limited to those listed in Table 1. The DPW will also
ensure that these facilities are monitored and the information included in the
next update of the COHWMP. Cities may use the "finding” by the DPW or make
their own determination as to the consistency of the off-site facility with
the CoHWMP.
VII. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND SCHEDULE
The following section presents an outline .of the schedule for the
implementation of the recommendations. The recommendations proposed for
implementation are listed by chapter in the same ordinal sequence which they
appear in the section entitled "Goals and Recommendations" so as to enable
easier reference.
The left column of the implementation schedule (Table 2) lists the
recommendations to be implemented. Moving to the right, the next three
columns indicate the role of each of the major entities responsible for
hazardous waste management (the County Government --CG; the Cities within the
County --Cities; Private Industry PI) will be participating in. The funding
source for the programs is denoted by existing County (CF) or existing City
(cf) general funding or new (New) funding sources to be •established. The
specifics of the programs are to be developed with the implementation of the
Plan.
In the implementation process, each entity will act in one of the following
three capacities:
1. Lead Entity (L) -
2. Major Support (S)
3. Advisory (A) -
The entity with the overall responsibility for
the successful implementation of the
recommendations.
- The entity providing manpower and/or other
resources to assist the Lead Entity in the
implementation of the recommendation.
The entity serving in advisory or consultative
capacity.
The next group of columns comprise the actual schedules in which the
recommendations are to be implemented. The first group of columns represent
the Short Term which is subdivided by year from 1988 through 1990. The Medium•
and Long Term columns cover the periods from 1991 through 1995, and 1996
through 2005, respectively.
-20-
TABLE 1
INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR FINDING OF CONFORMANCE
Proponents 'of off-site hazardous waste facilities, except otherwise exempted
by the State Department of Health Services, must submit proposals to the Los
Angeles County Department of Public Works. The facility proposal shall
contain the following information as a minimum:
1. Identity of project proponent, owner, and operators.
2. Description of project location.
3. Evidence of filing notice with the California Office of Planning and
Research.
4. Project implementation schedule including planned dates for
construction start, construction completion, start-up, planned
expansion, and closure.
5. Project design capacity.
6. Identification of waste type to be handled by California Waste Code.
7. Identification of waste sources.
8. Projection of waste quantity to be handled at start-up and at 5 -year
intervals in project life.
9. Identification of waste transport corridors and destinations.
10. Technology to be used for management.
11. Environmental documentation (initial study, negative declaration,
categorical exemption, or a draft environmental impact report and
health risk assessment).
12. Identification of waste reduction and resource recovery efforts.
13. Expected method of financing.
14. Information and operation plan for meeting applicable
permit/regulatory requirements.
15• Identification of evacuation routes and inclusion of emergency
response plan.
16. Consistency with appropriate city's general plan.
17. A program for training of personnel.
18. Description of types of permits obtained/applied for.
Source: Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, December 1987
-21-
TABLE 2
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND FUNDING SOURCE
CG CITIES PI
THE PLAN (Policies 2, 3)
1. County to sponsor legislation to L S A
provide funding and resources for the
implementation of the CoHWMP (Policy 3).
2. County to sponsor legislation to L S A
provide funding and resources for annual
monitoring and the trlannual update of
the CoHWMP (Policy 3).
3. County to ensure consistency finding L A A
of new facilities (Policy 2).
4. County to adopt CoHWMP pursuant to L S A
Chapter 1504 and Cahpter 1167 of the
1986, 1987 State Statutes, respectively
(Policy 3).
a. Submittal of draft to SDOHS and Cities (12/31/87)
b. Public Hearings (1/1/88 - 3/31/88)
c. Public Hearings for EIR (2/1/88 - 3/31/88)
d. Prepare Final CoHWMP (7/1/88)
d. City Approval (9/10/88)
e. County Approval (9/30/88)
f. Submittal of Final CoHWMP SDOHS (10/1/88)
g. Approval of CoHWMP by the MONS (12/31/88)
h. CoHWMP incorporation Into the County
General Plan (6/31/89)
5. Cities to adopt CoHWMP (or Ordinance) S L A
pursuant to Chapter 1167 of the 1987 State
Statutes (6/30/89) Policy 3)
FUNDING
SOURCE
SHORT TERM
MEDIUM
LONG
TERM
'96-2005
'88
'89
'90
TERM
'91-'95
CF
CF
CF & New
CF
•
cf
•
rowleaNieg
CHAPTER 1
• CHAPTER 2
41r r 0.0, 1
Pwbutil 11' M 4 �on
TABLE 2 (CONT.)
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND FUNDING SOURCE
CG CITIES PI
FUNDING
SOURCE
SHORT TERM
MEDIUM
LONG
TERM
'96-2005
'88
'89
'90
TERM
'91-'95
REGULATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS (Policies 1, 3,
8, 10)
A
S
S
A
A
S
S
CF
New
New
CF & cf
New
CF
New
.
1. County/cities to promote legislation to L S
Identify roles of State agencies with the
goal of one State agency responsible for ,
overseeing (Policy 3).
2. County to make CoHWMP available at all L S
County/cities libraries (Policy 1).
3. County/cities to sponsor information L A
center. (Policy 10).
4. County/cities to establish compliance L L
for current regulations by imposing
maximum penalties with respect to
illegal disposal of hazardous waste (Policy 3)
5. County/cities to provide more L L
resources/manpower to enforce existing
laws with respect to illegal disposal
of hazardous waste (Policy 3).
HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITIES, TYPES AND SOURCES
__
(Policies 3, 10)
6. County/Cities to promote legislation to L S
have an existing State agency to compile
and coordinate a centralized data base for
on-site, off-site waste and hazardous waste
management facilities (Policies 3, 10)
7. County to sponsor a study to correlate L A
hazardous waste generation with economic
activities (Policy 3)
CHAPTER 3
CHAPTER 4
TABLE 2 (CONT.)
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND FUNDING SOURCE
CG
CITIES
PI
FUNDING
SOURCE
SHORT TERM
MEDIUM
TERM
'91-'95
LONG
TERM
'96-2005
'88
'89
'90
8. County to sponsor study to correlate
hazardous waste generation and consumer
consumption (Policy 3).
9. County Department of Health Services
to sponsor legislation to complete
licensing of all hazardous waste generation.
10. Each city to submit data on their
respective hazardous waste generating
facilities and thereafter on an annual
basis (Policies 3, 10).
EXISTING FACILITIES (Policies 2, 3, 4, 10)'
L
L.
S
L
L
L
L
A
S
L
A
L
S
S
S
A
S
S
S
S
S
New
CF
cf
CF
CF 6'cf
New
CF
•
.
11. County to monitor and maintain listing
on all hazardous waste management
facilities (Policy 3).
12. County/cities to ensure all
new facilities comply with siting
criteria of CoHWHP (Policies 2, 4).
OVERVIEW OF TECHNOLOGY (Policies 1, 4, 6, 9)•
13. County to inform generators of
waste management alternatives
(Policies 1, 6, 9).
•
14. County/cities to promote legislation
to provide economic incentives to
encourage alternative technology
(Policies 1, 6, 9).•
CHAPTER.5
r•••••fir-.^ •�,• ralaVQ11 4,twig.* mism
TABLE 2 (CONT.)
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND FUNDING SOURCE
CG
CITIES
PI
FUNDING
SOURCE
SHORT TERM
MEDIUM
LONG
TERM
'96-2005
'88
'89
'90
TERM
'91-'95
15. County/cities to inform generators L
of land ban and to minimize waste
generation (Policies 1, 6, 9).
16. County/cities to promote on-site L
treatment (Policies 1, 6, 9). .
NEEDS ASSESSMENT (Policies 2, 5, 10, 11)
L
L
L
S
S
S
A
S
A
A
S
S
S
A
A
A
CF & cf
CF & cf
CF & cf
CF
CF
CF & New
New
New
.
17. County/cities to promote and expedite L
development of transfer, storage, and
treatment facilities close to the areas of
generation (Policy 5).
18. County/cities to coordinate efforts L
with State and Federal governments to promote
private firms to make liability insurance
coverage available to owners/operators of
waste management facilities (Policy 11).
19. County/cities to continue to support L
Federal and State legislation to limit
liability for generators who have treated
waste in accordance with regulations
(Policy 11).
20. County to locate residuals repository L
in.a suitable area in the County or
negotiate with appropriate agencies
(Policy 2).
21. County to join Southern California L
Hazardous Waste Management Authority.
22. Department of Public Works to coordinate L
County waste management efforts (Policy 10).
CHAPTER 6
CHAPTER 7
TABLE 2 (CONT.)
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND FUNDING SOURCE
•
CG
CITIES
PI
FUNDING
SOURCE
SHORT TERM
MEDIUM
TERM
'91-'95
LONG
TERM
'96-2005
'88
'89
'90
SITING CRITERIA OR PERMITTING PROCESS
L
S
L
L
S
L
S
A
A
A
A
S
S
A
CF & cf
CF
CF & cf
CF & cf
New
New
CF
(Policies 3, 5, 9, 10)
23. County/cities to provide incentives L
for jurisdictions to accept needed waste
management facilities (Policies 3, 5, 9)
24. County/cities to promote legislation to L
allow coordination of agencies in
the review of permits (Policy 10).
25. Each jurisdiction to accept L
responsibility of waste generated with
its jurisdiction (Policy 3 ).
26. County/cities to adopt siting process L
balancing environmental requirements
and the timely siting of needed
facilities.
WASTE MINIMIZATION (Policies 1, 3, 4, 9)•
27. County/cities to provide education/ L
information programs, workshops to
increase awareness on waste minimization
options open to industry (Policies 1, 3, 4, 9)
28. Appropriate agencies to establish L
waste minimization training programs for
industrial waste inspectors (Policy 1)
29. County/cities to promote legislation L
to offer incentives/disincentives for
waste minimization (Policy 1)
•
CHAPTER 8
J
TABLE 2 (CONT.)
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND FUNDING SOURCE
•
•
CG
CITIES
PI
FUNDING
SOURCE
SHORT TERM
MEDIUM
LONG
TERM
'96-2005
'88
'89
'90
TERM
'91-'95
30. County/cities to recommend to SDOHS
to periodically update the list of
recyclable materials (Policy 1)
L
S
S
CF
31. County to
L
S
S
New
promote educational
institutions to become more involved in
waste minimization efforts (Policy 1, 9)
TRANSPORTATION (Policies 1, 3, 6, 7, 9)
32. Law enforcement agencies to strictly
enforce vehicular safety, personnel
training and licensing (Policies 3, 7).
L
L
A
CF & cf
33. County/cities to promote legislation
allowing the removal of unsafe vehicles
from circulation (Policies 3, 7).
L
S
A
CF
34. County/cities to promote facilities
that can reduce total regional haulage
L
S
A
CF
(Policies 1, 6, 9).
35. County/cities and industries to adhere
to routing criteria (Policy 7).
L
"S
S
CF
36. County/cities to promote legislation
to require certification of designated
managers who handle hazardous waste
L
S
A
CF
(Policy 7).
37. County, along with Southern California
L
S
A
New
Association of Governments and others, to
determine rail feasibility (Policy 7).
CHAPTER 9
TABLE 2 (CONT.)
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND FUNDING SOURCE
CG CITIES
PI
FUNDING
SOURCE
SHORT TERM
MEDIUM
LONG
TERM
'96-2005
'88
'89
'90
TERM
'91-'95
38. County/cities to expedite adoption of L
certification program for hazardous waste
drivers (Policy 3, 7).
S
A
CF
39. County to coordinate with State agencies L
on future planning of transporation needs
S
A
CF
(Policies 3, 7).
40. County/cities to promote legislation L
requiring shippers/haulers of explosives
and extremely hazardous materials to inform
local emergency response agencies prior to
transportation through their jurisdiction
S
A
CF
(Policies 3, 7).
41. County/cities to promote legislation L
requiring pressure vessels used for
transportation of hazardous material/waste
to comply with design/maintenance standards
of the American Society of Mechanical
S
A
CF
Engineers (Policies 3, 7).
•
42. County/cities to request President, L
S
A
CF
Governor, State and Federal legislators
and government agencies to review existing
regulations concerning transportation of
hazardous materials and wherever possible•
to improve the transportation of hazardous
materials and increase enforcement
capabilities (Policies 3, 7).
PUBLIC EDUCATION (Policy 9)
43. County to develop and implement public L
awareness program regarding hazardous waste
S
A
New
(Policy 9).
CHAPTER 10
•
""n•"'�� ^�'� '..o.� m X01"1
TABLE 2 (CONT.)
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND FUNDING SOURCE
CG
CITIES
PI
FUNDING
SOURCE
SHORT TERM
MEDIUM
TERM
'91-'95
LONG
TERM
'96-2005
'88
'89
'90
44. County to establish a central resource/
information center (Policy 9).
L
S
S
New
EMERGENCY RESPONSE (Policies 1, 7, 8, 9, 10)
45. County/cities to promote legislation
to provide funding to conduct annual
training program on emergency response
L
S
A
CF
(Policy 8).
46. County/cities to encourage infor-
L
S
A
New
mational meetings on handling hazardous•
waste/material emergency incidents
(Policies 1, 8).
47. County/cities to promote legislation to
allow the use of red lights and sirens on
designated hazardous materials emergency
response vehicles (Policy 8).
L
S
A
CF
48. County to consolidate/eliminate County
L
A
A
CF
Contingency Plan after adoption of Area
Plan (Policy 8). .
49. County/cities to promote legislation to
eliminate railroad companies exemption from
emergency planning for less than 90 days
L
S
A
CF
(Policies 7, 8).
50. County/cities to promote legislation to
clarify the requirements of Federal and
L
S
,
A
CF
State's Right -to -Know programs and merge to
enact one program (Policies 1, 8).
CHAPTER 11
TABLE 2 (CONT.)
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND FUNDING SOURCE
CG
CITIES
PI
FUNDING
SOURCE
SHORT TERM
MEDIUM
TERM
'91-'95
LONG
TERM
'96-2005
'88
'89
'90
51. LAC -Forester and Fire Warden with Fire
Chiefs Assistance to review and ensure
capabIltly of other Counties/local and
neighboring agencies hazardous response
plan (Policies 8, 10).
INACTIVE HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
L
L
L
L
L
L
S
L
S
L
L
L
A
A
A
A
A
A
CF
New
CF
CF & cf
CF & cf
CF & cf
(Policies 1, Z, 3, 9, 11)
52. County/cities to promote community
forum and establish a communlcation'system
to address public concerns on
cleanup of sites (Policies 1, 9, 11).
53. County/cities to promote on-site
treatment of cleanup activities (Policy 11).
54. County/cities to monitor cleanup
activities within their jurisdiction
(Policies 3, 11).
55. County/cities to promote land use
policies for adjacent properties to
contaminated sites (Policies 1, 2, 11)
56. County/cities to request U. S.
Department of Defense to notify county
and affected cities of hazardous waste
stored, transported to any Federal
reservations in the county.
CHAPTER 12
TABLE 2 (CONT.)
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND FUNDING SOURCE
CG
CITIES
PI
FUNDING
SOURCE
SHORT TERM
MEDIUM
LONG
TERM
'96-2005
'88
'89
'90
TERM
'91-'95
SMALL QUANTITY HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATORS
S
L
S
L
S
S
A
A
A
A
S
A
New
New
CF
New
'
CF
CF
(Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12)
57. County/cities to promote informational L
programs to increase small quantity
generators awareness in hazardous waste
management/regulations (Policies 1, 9, 12).
58. County/cities to require small quantity L
generators to participate In seminars/work-
shops to keep them abreast of programs/
technologies (Policies 1, 9, 12).
59. County/cities to promote incentives to L
small quantity generators to reduce/recycle/
treat hazardous waste and to participate in
waste exchange (Policies 1, 9, 12). •
60. County/cities to sponsor collection L
and disposal services for small quantity
generators (Policies 1, 9, 12).
61. County/cities to encourage private L
sector to develop alternative technologies
for small quantity generators
(Policies 1, 6, 9, 12).•
52. County/cities to support siting and L
)ermitting of a system of convenient
collection/transfer locations
(Policies 2, 4).
TABLE 2 (CONT.)
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND FUNDING SOURCE
CG CITIES PI
63. County/cities to promote manufacturers, L L A
wholesalers and retail stores to buy back
unused materials which are no longer of
use to consumers (Policy 6).
64. County/cities to support program to L S A
monitor small quantity generators waste -
stream 1n Los Angeles County (Policies 3, 12).
65. County to develop and implement L S A
programs to Increase public awareness of
Issues and involvement in hazardous
waste management decisions on County -wide
basis (Policies 3, 12).
66. County to develop and implement a L S A
County -wide household hazardous waste
management program consisting of citizens
awareness programs and collection programs.
Cities to allow the County to Impose tipping
fee on solid waste landfill operators within
the cities (Policies 1, 9, 12).
67. County to promote and local govern- S L A
ment to sponsor program to help residents
to dispose of hazardous waste properly
(applicable only 1f No. 60 is not imple-
mented. (Policies 1, 9, 12).
FUNDING
SOURCE
SHORT TERM
MEDIUM
TERM
'91-'95
LONG
TERM
'96-2005
'88
'89
'90
CF&cf
CF
New
CF & New
New
.
TABLE 2 (CONT.)
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND FUNDING SOURCE
Note:
L - Lead Agency
S - Supporting Entity
A - Advisory Entity
CG - County Government
PI - Private Industry
Cities - Cities Government
CF - Existing County Fund
cf - Existing cities fund
New - New revenue source to be established
Source: Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, December 1987
CG
CITIES
PI
FUNDING
SOURCE
SHORT TERM
MEDIUM
TERM
'91-'95
LONG
TERM
'96-2005
'88
'89
'90
68. County to continue funding of Agricul-
tural Commissioners Pesticide Pick
L
L
S
S
A
A
CF & New
CF
-Up
Program (Policy 12).
69. County/cities to promote legislation
addressing liability of household hazardous
waste management programs (Policy 12).
Note:
L - Lead Agency
S - Supporting Entity
A - Advisory Entity
CG - County Government
PI - Private Industry
Cities - Cities Government
CF - Existing County Fund
cf - Existing cities fund
New - New revenue source to be established
Source: Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, December 1987
VIII. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING PROGRAM
The final 'CoHWMP must be approved by a majority of the cities within the
County which contain a majority of the population of the incorporated area of
the County. In order for the Plan to be effective, regular review and update
of data must be maintained. Monitoring is a key component of implementation
as it enables the County and cities to respond to changes, to update and
adjust.
As part of the monitoring process, the following is to be specifically
monitored by the DPW with the assistance of all cities on an annual basis:
1. Waste quantities generated and their management methods;
2. Management costs and alternatives;
3. New legislation that affects current practices; and
4. Development and promotion of waste reduction/resource recovery
programs.
To be consistent with the State hazardous waste management plan, it is
recommended that the COHWMP be revised every three years with the suggested
schedule for the first and second revision to synchronize with that of the
State Plan.
First Triennial Update to be submitted to the SDOHS - September 30, 1990.
Second Triennial Update to be submitted to the $DOHS - September 30, 1993.
IX. STAFF AND FUNDING
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (DPW) is designated, as the
lead agency for preparation, maintenance and administration of the CoHWMP on
the County wide basis. The DPW shall coordinate its efforts with the cities
and each city concurrent with adoption of the CoHWMP or its own Hazardous
Waste Management Plan shall designate a city agency to coordinate the city's
efforts with the DPW. Upon such action, the city shall formally notify the
DPW.
It should be noted that implementation of the majority of recommendations has
been vested to the County. However, sufficient funds are needed in order for
the County to be able to move forward. Therefore, the County's initial
efforts, in cooperation with the California League of Cities, Los Angeles
Division, to sponsor or support legislation included in this Plan which will
provide the County with the necessary funds to implement the CoHWMP's
recommendations. To this end, all 85 incorporated cities must support and
promote the County's efforts in accomplishing this goal. Upon enactment of
the legislations, it is the County's responsibility to work with the cities
and others to accomplish the objectives.
Additionally, the County will continue with its efforts through the Los
Angeles County Hazardous Waste Siting Project [22], Chapter 2, to assist
private developers and/or public organizations to site needed off-site
facilities. However, without sincere cooperation by the cities and private
industries, the Project cannot move forward.
C
1
f•
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND
AUDITORS' REPORT
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
JUNE 30, 1987
1
C
r
C.
CONTENTS
REPORT OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
COMBINED BALANCE SHEET - ALL FUND TYPES AND
ACCOUNT GROUP
COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - ALL GOVERNMENTAL
FUND TYPES
PAGE
3
4
5
COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL -
ALL GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPES 6
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN
RETAINED EARNINGS - ALL PROPRIETARY FUND TYPES 8
STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION -
ALL PROPRIETARY FUND TYPES
9
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 10
1
c
c
c
Suite 1100
18300 Von Karman
P.O. Box 19585
Irvine. CA 92713-9585
714 553-1600
GrantThornton T
REPORT OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
To the City Council
City of Hermosa Beach, California
Accountants and
Management Consultants
Member Firm
Grant Thornton International
We have examined the general purpose financial statements of
the City of Hermosa Beach, California (the City) as of and for
the year ended June 30, 1987, as listed in the foregoing table of
contents. Our examination was made in accordance with generally
accepted auditing standards and, accordingly, included such tests
of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as
we considered necessary in the circumstances except as explained
in the following paragraphs.
As described more fully in Note J, the general purpose
financial statements referred to above do not include the
financial statement of the general fixed assets account group,
which should be included to conform with generally accepted
accounting principles.
The proprietary fund has recorded as expenditures, additions
to property, plant and equipment, which, in our opinion should be
capitalized in order to conform with generally accepted
accounting principles. The effect of this treatment on the
financial position, results of operations and changes in
financial position is not reasonably determinable.
In our opinion, except for the effects of not capitalizing
expenditures for property, plant and equipment in the proprietary
fund as discussed in the preceding paragraph and the omission of
the financial statement described in the second preceding
paragraph, the general purpose financial statements referred to
above present fairly the financial position of the City of
Hermosa Beach, California at June 30, 1987 and the results of its
operations and the changes in financial position of its
proprietary fund types for the year then ended, in conformity
with generally accepted accounting principles applied on a basis
consistent with that of the preceding year.
Irvine, California
September 28, 1987
-lebkiVi CA441 Vie
City of Hermosa Beach
COMBINED BALANCE SHEET - ALL FUND TYPES AND ACCOUNT GROUP
June 30, 1987
ASSETS
Cash and short-term investments (notes A5, L and N)
Reimbursable grants
Interest receivable
Other receivables (note 8)
Deposits
Amount to be provided for retirement of
long-term debt (notes A7, D, H)
Investments in deferred compensation plan (note I)
Prepaid expenses
Due from other funds (note L)
Total assets
' LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY
LIABILITIES
Workers' compensation claims (note H)
Accounts payable
Due to other funds (note L)
Accrued wages and benefits (note A7)
Obligations under capital leases (note D)
Deposits (note C)
Long-term debt (note B)
Liability under deferred compensation plan (note I)
General liability claims (note 8)
Contracts payable
Total liabilities
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (notes D, F, H and 0)
FUND EQUITY (notes A8, A10, G, J, M and N)
Contributed capital
Retained earnings - reserved
Retained earnings - unreserved
Fund balances
Reserved
Unreserved
Designated
Undesignated
Total fund equity
Total liabilities and fund
The accompanying notes are an
equity
Governmental Fund Types
Special
General Revenue
$2,220,894
30,981
383,005
3,560
$3,095,525
34,191
53,542
43,320
Proprietary
Internal
Service
$323,447
4,161
86,124
Account
Group
Fund Types Fund Type General
Long-term (Memorandum Only)
Enterprise Agency Debt (Note A4)
$270,948 $
9,93- 4
6,386
- • 811,321
- - - 168,047 -
1,015 7,708 22,358 - - -
260,402 - 86,401 - -
$2,899,857 $3,234,286 $522,491 $287,268 $168,047 $811,321
$ 250,000 $
302,003
86,401
303,249
100,072
1,041,725
70,984
260,375
32,797
30.997
aaaaaaa aaaaaaa
$ - $ - $
91,042 109,853
- 50,974
117,319
395,153 208,361 160,827
5,501
275,000 -
14,846
39,130 111,595
954,542 50,000 -
903,590 2,783,632 -
1,858,132 2,839,133 314,130 126,441
$2,899,857 $3,234,286 $522,491 $287,268 $168,047 $811,321
168,047
$109,974
547,598
152,406
1,343
168,047 811,321
integral part of this statement.
-4-
$5,910,814
34,191
98,618
432,711
89,684
811,321
168,047
31,081
346.803
$7,923,270
aaaaaaaaa
$ 359,974
573,882
346,776
934,618
152,406
100,072
1,343
168,047
117,319
30.997
2;785,434
275,000
14,846
150,725
5,501
1,004,542
3,687,222
5,137,836
$7,923,270
1..
City of Hermosa Beach
COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES
IN FUND BALANCES - ALL GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPES
Year ended June 30, 1987
Revenues (notes A3, A5, A9 and E)
Property taxes
-Other taxes
Licenses and permits
Fines and forefeitures
Use of money and property
From other agencies
Charges for services
Other
Interest
Expenditures (notes A3, B, D, H, J and M)
Legislative and legal
General government
Public safety
�• Public health and welfare
Community development
Culture and recreation
Public works
Parking
Sanitation
Capital expenditures
Excess of revenues over expenditures
Other financing sources (uses)
Operating transfers in
Operating transfers out
Excess of reveues and other sources over
expenditures and other uses
Fund balance at beginning of year
Residual equity transfer (notes A8 and H)
Fund balance at end of year (notes G, J and M)
General
$2,225,490
3,470,028
421,167
155,355
314,930
760,873
370,786
55,958
81,365
7.855.952
Special
revenue
Capital Debt
projects service
$ 456,848 $ - $
563,694
137,19- 1
33,842 -
185,671 8,970
1,377,246 8,970
433,148 -
1,894,389 -
3,566,172 -
76,155
357,95- 4 253,861
390,314 -
645,257 468,104
216,709
226,20- 0 -
7,513,434 1,014,829
266,428
7,513,434 1,281,257
342,518 95,989
1,865,535 1,070,712
(1,466,998) (733,684)
398,537 337,028
741,055
852,825
264.252
$1,858,132
===ari=a=
The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement.
-5-
•
433,017
2,406,116
8,970
5.972
5.972
5,972
8,970 5,972
254,700 169,610
(263,670) (175,582)
$2,839,133 $ - $ -
a====wawa
a=eQaaa aaaaaaa
Total
(memorandum only)
(note A4)
$2,682,338
4,033,722
421,167
155,355
314,930
898,064
370,786
89,800
281,978
9,248,140
433,148
1,894,389
3,566,172
76,155
611,815
390,314
1,113,361
216,709
226,200
8,528,263
266,428
8,7.94,691
453,449
2,936,247
(2.200,682)
735,565
1,189,014
3,683,251
(175,000)
$4,697,265
CHANGES
Revenues (notes A3, A5, A6,
Property taxes
Other taxes
Licenses and permits
Fines and forfeitures
Use of money and property
From other agencies
Charges for services
Other
Interest
IN
City of Hermosa Beach
COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND
FUND BALANCES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL - ALL GOVERNMENTAL
Year ended June 30, 1987
General fund
Budget
A9 and E)
$2,081,029
3,403,626
363,000
117,000
320,360
722,976
367,492
38,607
27,488
7.441.578
Expenditures
(notes A3, A6, B, D, H,
J and M)
Legislative and legal
General government
Public safety
Public health and welfare
Community development
Culture and recreation
Public works
Parking
Sanitation
Capital expenditures
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over expenditures
Other financing sources (uses).
Operating transfers in
Operating transfers (out)
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
and other sources over
expenditures and other uses
Fund balance at beginning of year
Residual equity transfer (note A8)
Fund balance at end of year
(notes G. J and M)
The accompanying notes are an integral
-6-
324,272
1,988,195
3,687,283
394,087
412,241
657,480
220,84- 0
7,684,378
7,684,378
Actual
$2,225,490
3,470,028
421,167
155,355
314,930
760,873
370,786
55,958
81,365
7,855,952
433,148
1,894,389
3,566,172
357,954
390,314
645,257
226,20- 0
7,513,434
7.513.434
(242,800) 342,518
1,733,022 1,865,535
(1,408,391) (1,466,998)
324,631 398,537
$ 81,831
_________
$ 264,252
_________
741,055
Variance
favorable
(unfavorable)
$ 144,461 $ 503,343
66,402 527,989
58,167 -
38,355
(5,430)
37,897
3,294
17,351
53,877
FUND TYPES
Special
revenue funds
Budget
414.374
(108,876)
93,806
121,111
36,113
21,927
12,223
(5,36- 0)
170,944
170,944
585,318
132,513
(58,607)
73,906
670,561
60,53- 3
84,082
1,846,508
85,770
488,65- 0
237,758
812,178
1,889,647
2,701,825
(855,317)
1,047,144
(737,934)
309,210
$ 659,224 $ (546,107)
_________
852,825
264,252 $ -
$1,858,132
_________
part of this statement.
_________
_________
Actual
$ 456,848
563,694
137,191
33,84- 2
185,671
1,377,246
76,15- 5
253,861
468,104
216,709
1,014,829
266,428
1.281,257
95,989
1,070,712
(733,684)
337,028
433,017
2,406,116
$2,839,133
_________
Variance
favorable
(unfavorable) �1
$ (46,495)
35,705
(533,370)
(26,691)
101,589
(469,262)
9,615
(253,861)
20,546
21,049
(202,651)
1,623,219
1.420.568
951,306
23,568
4,250
27,818
$ 979,124
_________
1
1
V
•
4
•
Capital projects fund Debt service funds Totals
Variance Variance
favorable favorable
Budget Actual (unfavorable) Budget Actual (unfavorable)
4,553
4.553
4.553
8,97- 0
8.970
4,41- 7
4,417
8.970 4.417
$ 4,553 8,970
3,031
3.031
5,972
5.972
3.031 5.972
$ 4,417 $ 3,031
________ _______ _______
254,700
$(263,670) (263,670)
$ - $(175,582)
=============== ________
$
======- _
5,972
169,610
(175,582)
$
______- _
2,942
2.942
(memorandum
Budget Actual
$ 2,584,372
3,931,615
363,000
117,000
320,360
1,393,537
367,492
99,140
119,154
9,295,670
324,272
1,988,195
3,687,283
85,770
394,067
412,241
1,146,130
237,758
220,840
8,496,556
1,889,647
10,386,203
2,942 (1,090,533)
$ 2,941
=======
$
______=
2,780,166
(2,146,325)
633.841
$ (456,692)
==_======_
$ (175,000)
==========
$2,682,338
4,033,722
421,167
155,355
314,930
898,064
370,786
89,800
281,978
9.248.140
433,148
1,894,389
3,566,172
76,155
611,815
390,314
1,113,361
216,709
226,200
8,528,263
266,428
8,794,691
453.449
2,936,247
(2,200,682)
735.565
1,189,014
3,683,251
(175,000)
$4,697,265
=========
only)
Variance
favorable
(unfavorable)
$ 97,966
102,107
58,167
38,355
(5,430)
(495,473)
3,294
(9,340)
162,824
(47,530)
(108,876)
93,806
121,111
9,615
(217,748)
21,927
32,769
21,049
5,360)
(31,707)
1,623,219
1,591,512
1.543,982
156,081
(54,357)
101.724
$1,645,706
$ (175,000)
L.
City of Hermosa Beach
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES
IN RETAINED EARNINGS
ALL PROPRIETARY FUND TYPES
Year ended June 30, 1987
Internal Total
Service Enterprise (Memorandum only)
Fund Fund (note IC (note A4)
Operating revenue (notes A2 and H)
Charges for services $ - $2,350,841 $2,350,841
From other agencies - • 201,119 201,119
2,551,960 2,551,960
Operating expenses (notes A2, F, H, I and J)
Personal services 228,485 620,390 848,875
Contractor services 248,399 249,317 497,716
Supplies - 37,971 37,971
Repairs and maintenance - 293,867 293,867
Capital expenditures - 24,445 24,445
Other 20.932 20.932
476,884 1,246,922 1,723,806
Operating (loss) income (476,884) 1,305,038 828,154
Nonoperating revenue - interest 5,231 49,379 54,610
(Loss) income before transfers (471,653) 1,354,417 •882,764
Other financing sources (uses)
Operating transfers in 624,395 156,742 781,137
Operating transfers out (113,612) (1,444,581) (1,558,193)
510,783 (1,287,839) (777,056)
Net income 39,130 66,578 105,708
Increase in reserves for capital improvements and
parking facility - (14,846) (14,846)
Net change in retained earnings for year 39,130 51,732 90,862
Retained earnings unreserved at beginning of year - 59,863 59,863
Retained earnings unreserved at end of year
6,
The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement.
-8-
IP
$ 39,130 $ 111,595 $ 150,725
======= _________ _________
City of Hermosa Beach
STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
ALL PROPRIETARY FUND TYPES
Year ended June 30, 1987
Internal Total
Service Enterprise (Memorandum only)
Fund Fund (note A4)
Sources of working capital
Income (loss) before other financing sources $(471,653) $1,354,417 $ 882,764
Transfers in 624,395 156,742 781,137
Residual equity transfer in - contributed capital 175,000 - 175,000
Total sources 327,742 1,511,159 1,838,901
Applications of working capital
Transfers out . (113,612) (1,444,581) (1,558,193)
V
INCREASE IN WORKING CAPITAL $ 214,130 $ 66,578 $ 280,708
========
Increase (decrease) in elements of working capital
Cash and short-term investments $ 223,525 $ 98,477 $ 322,002
V Receivables 4,161 (2,088) 2,073
Prepaids, deposits and other. 108,404 - 108,404
Accounts payable and accrued expenses (4,641) (18,992) (23,633)
Accrued wages and benefits - (10,819) (10,819)
General liability claims (117,319) - (117,319)
INCREASE IN WORKING CAPITAL
The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement.
-9-
IP
$ 214,130 $ 66,578 $ 280,708
aacaaaaa
==o==cane =a===en=a
r
City of Hermosa Beach
• NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 1987
NOTE A - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
This summary of significant accounting policies of the City of
Hermosa Beach (the City) is presented to assist in
understanding the City's annual financial report. The
financial statements and notes are representations of the
City's management, which is responsible for their integrity and
objectivity. These accounting policies conform to generally
accepted accounting principles.
1. Description of the Reporting Entity and its Organization
and Operations
The City of Hermosa Beach (the City) was incorporated in 1907
in the State of California as a general law city. Included in
the financial entity of the City is the Hermosa Beach Vehicle
Parking District, Hermosa Beach Crossing Guard District,
Hermosa Beach Parking Authority and Hermosa Beach Street
Lighting District. Although these entities are legally
separate from the City, the City has oversight responsibility
and/or direct legislative authority through the City Council.
The oversight responsibility is determined on the basis of
budget adoption, taxing authority, special financial
relationships, scope of public services and appointment of the
governing boards.
The financial statements of the South Bay Regional Public
Communication Authority (SBCA) and the Hermosa Beach Civic
Center Building Corporation are not included in these financial
statements. These agencies either determine their own budget
or have their own independently elected governing board and are
not subject to oversight responsibility by the Hermosa Beach
City Council. The City appoints one member of the five member
governing board of SBCA, which determines the SBCA budget.
The accounts of the City are organized and operated on the
basis of funds and account group, each of which is defined as a
fiscal and accounting entity with a self -balancing set of
accounts established for the purpose of carrying on special
activities or attaining certain objectives in accordance with
special regulations, restrictions or limitations.
r
C
City of Hermosa Beach
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CONTINUED
June 30, 1987
NOTE A - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - Continued
2. Description of Funds and Account Group
The accounting records of the City are organized on the
basis of funds and account groups classified for
reporting purposes as follows:
Governmental Fund Types
General Fund - Used to account for all financial
resources except those required to be accounted for in
another fund.
Special Revenue Funds - Used to account for the
proceeds of specific revenue sources that are legally
restricted to expenditures for special purposes.
Debt Service Fund - Used to account for the
accumulation of resources for and, the payment of,
general long-term debt principal and interest.
Capital Projects Funds - Used to account for financial
resources used for the construction or acquisition and
improvement of major capital facilities.
Proprietary Fund Types
Used to account for operations that are organized to be
self-supporting through user charges. The funds included
in this category are the Enterprise Funds and Internal
Service Funds.
Enterprise Fund - Used to account for operations that
are financed and operated in a manner similar to
private business enterprises where the intent is that
costs of providing the services to the general public
on a continuing basis be financed or recovered
primarily through user charges. Funds included in this
category are the City's Transit and Parking Funds.
r
r
t
City of Hermosa Beach
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CONTINUED
June 30, 1987
NOTE A - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - Continued
2. Description of Funds and Account Group - Continued
Proprietary Fund Types - Continued
Internal Service Fund - Used to account for operations
that are financing the goods and services provided by
one department to other departments of the City on a
cost -reimbursement basis. The fund included in this
category is the City's Self -Insurance Fund.
Fiduciary Fund Types
Agency Fund - Used to account for assets which in
substance are held by the City as an agent for
individuals, private organizations and other
governmental units.
Account Group
General Long-term Debt Account Group - Used to record
the principal amount of future minimum lease payments
due under lease purchase agreements and to account for
the unmatured portion of installment purchase contracts
and other long-term debt.
3. Basis of Accounting
All governmental fund types and agency funds are accounted for
using the modified accrual basis of accounting wherein revenues
are recognized in the accounting period in which they become
measurable and available. Revenues considered susceptible to
accrual included property and sales taxes and interest.
Expenditures are recognized in the accounting period in which
the liability is incurred except expenditures for debt service
(e.g., interest and lease obligations) which are recognized
when paid.
Proprietary funds are maintained on the accrual basis of
accounting wherein revenues are recognized in the accounting
period in which they are earned and expenses are recognized in
the period incurred.
t
City of Hermosa Beach
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CONTINUED
June 30, 1987
NOTE A - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - Continued
4. Total (memorandum only) columns
Columns on the accompanying combined financial statements
captioned "Total (memorandum only)" are presented only to
facilitate financial analysis. The data in these columns do
not present financial position, results of operations, or
changes in financial position in conformity with generally
accepted accounting principles. Neither is such data
comparable to a consolidation. Interfund eliminations have not
been made in the aggregation of this data.
5. Cash and Short-term Investments
The City pools cash resources of its various funds in order to
facilitate the management of cash. Cash applicable to a
particular fund is readily identifiable. The balance in the
pooled cash account is available to meet current operating
requirements. Cash in excess of current requirements is
invested in various interest-bearing accounts and other
investments for varying terms.
6. Budgeting
The City Manager submits a preliminary budget to the City
Council for approval prior to May 15. The City Manager is
authorized to transfer budgeted amounts between object accounts
and departments within the same fund. All appropriations lapse
at the end of the fiscal year to the extent they have not been
expended or encumbered.
Budget information is presented on the same basis as generally
accepted accounting principles for the general, special
revenue, debt service and capital project fund types. Budgeted
revenue and expenditure amounts represent the original budget
modified for adjustments during the year.
-13-
City of Hermosa Beach
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CONTINUED
June 30, 1987
NOTE A - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - Continued
7. Compensated Absences
City employees have vested interests in varying levels of
vacation, sick leave and compensatory time based on their
length of employment. The liabilities for these items are
recorded as the obligations are incurred. These amounts are
recorded as current liabilities of the appropriate funds and in
the general long-term debt account group for governmental fund
types.
8. Extinguishment of Funds
The Debt Service and Capital Projects Funds of the City were
extinguished and the residual equity transferred to the General
Fund by City Council action on March 2, 1987. The City closed
the funds since they were unnecessary and resulted in
inflexibility, undue complexity and inefficient financial
administration. Portions of the General Fund's equity have
been designated for Debt Service and Capital Improvements.
9. Property Taxes
Property taxes attach as an enforceable lien on property as of
March 1, each year. Taxes are levied on July 1, and are
payable in two installments no later than December 10, and
April 10, of each year. The County of Los Angeles bills and
collects the property taxes and remits them to the City in
installments during the year. City property tax revenues are
recognized when received in cash except at year-end when they
are accrued pursuant to the modified accrual basis of
accounting.
The County is permitted by State law (Proposition 13) to levy
taxes at 1% of full market value (at time of purchase) and can
increase the property tax rate no more than 2% per year. The
City receives a share of this basic levy proportionate to what
it received in the 1976 to 1978 period.
C
f
City of Hermosa Beach
NOTES- TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CONTINUED
June 30, 1987
NOTE A - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - Continued
10. Fund Equity
The unreserved fund balances for governmental fund types
represent the amount available for budgeting future
operations. Unreserved retained earnings for proprietary fund
types represent the net assets available for future operations
or distribution. Reserved retained earnings for proprietary
funds represent the net assets that have been legally
identified for specific purposes.
Reservations of fund balances of governmental funds are created
to either (1) satisfy legal covenants that require that a
portion of the fund balance be segregated or (2) identify the
portion of the fund balance that is not appropriate for future
expenditures. Specific reserves of the fund balance accounts
are summarized below.
C
•
Reserve for Bike Path
A reserve for $5,501 was created to represent the portion of
the fund balance that is not available for expenditures
because the City expects to use these resources within the
next budgetary period.
NOTE B - LONG-TERM DEBT
Long-term debt of $1,343 consists of an installment purchase
agreement dated January 28, 1982, payable in monthly
installments of $737, collateralized by a Xerox copier, net of
interest of $728 at the rate of 12.5%. This obligation will be
fully paid in fiscal 1988.
Long-term debt as of July 1, 1986
Less principal retired
Long-term debt as of June 30, 1987
NOTE C - DEPOSIT LIABILITIES
$107,307
105,964
$ 1,343
General fund deposit liability consists of amounts received by
the City to assure compliance with City code requirements.
-15-
x
r
C
City of Hermosa Beach
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CONTINUED
June 30, 1987
NOTE D - OBLIGATIONS UNDER CAPITAL LEASES
The City has entered into noncancellable, long-term leases for
the acquisition of various items of equipment. The following
is a schedule of future minimum rental payments relating to
obligations under capital leases:
Year ending June 30,
Obligations
under
capital
leases
1988 $ 74,756
1989 74,756
1990 31,920
1991 760
Net minimum lease obligations 182,192
Less amounts representing interest 29,786
Present value of net minimum lease
obligations $152,406
The City records the obligation under capitalized leases as a
liability of the long-term debt group but does not capitalize
the cost of the leased property as a fixed asset. Payments
under capitalized leases are recorded as expenditures at the
time the payment is made; an accounting method which is not in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles
(GAAP). At year-end, the City adjusts the expenditure and
capital lease obligation account to conform to GAAP.
Rent expense for operating leases for the year was $10,053.
City of Hermosa Beach
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CONTINUED
June 30, 1987
NOTE E - LEASES RECEIVABLE
The City leases portions of the Hermosa Beach Community Center
to civic and cultural organizations. Included in other
receivables are leases receivable. The future minimum rentals
receivable under noncancellable operating leases are as
follows:
Year ending June 30,
1988 $ 68,386
1989 43,390
1990 39,790
1991 33.074
$184,640
NOTE F -.PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM
The Governmental Accounting Standards Board recently issued
Statement Number Five entitled "Disclosure of Pension
Information by Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) and
State and Local Government Employees". This Statement, which
will be effective for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1988,
requires substantial new disclosures in the general purpose
financial statements. The following disclosures relate only to
the current disclosure standards and does not include those of
the new pronouncement.
Substantially all city employees are members of the State of
California Public Employees' Retirement System. The City
contracts with the system separately for retirement plans for
the public safety employees and for employees not in the public
safety category. The plan is funded by city and employee
contributions.
The contribution rates, as actuarially determined for the year
ended June 30, 1987 were 26.59 percent of compensation for
public safety employees and 11.48 percent of compensation for
other employees. These rates have been decreased to 25.38
percent and 9.64 percent, respectively effective July 1, 1987.
The City's contribution for the year was $738,170.
r
City of Hermosa Beach
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CONTINUED
June 30, 1987
NOTE F - PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM - Continued
Net assets available for benefits at June 30, 1986, the date of
the latest actuarial valuation were $7,511,995 for public
safety employees and $4,728,493 for nonpublic -safety employees
and the actuarially determined employer unfunded liability was
$2,256,490 and $516,310, respectively. The assumed rate of
return used for determining the actuarial values of plan
benefits is 8.5 percent.
Actuarial information on the present value of vested
accumulated plan benefits and the present value of nonvested
accumulated plan benefits is not available. The City makes
monthly contributions to the plan equal to the amounts accrued
for pension expense, which provide for retirement of unfunded
actuarial benefits by the year 2011.
NOTE G - FUND EQUITY
The composition of reserved and designated fund equity in the
following funds at June 30, 1987 are as follows:
Designated for
Asset replacement
Capital improvements
Affordable housing
Debt service
Open space/parks
Reserves for
Capital improvements
Parking facility
Bike Path
-18-
Special
General Revenue Enterprise
Fund Funds Fund
$120,000 $ - $
522,706
46,831 -
-65,005
200,000 50,000
954,542 50,000
5,501
MID
9,592
5,254
5,501 14,846
$954,542 $55,501 $14,846
City of Hermosa Beach
NOTES•TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CONTINUED
June 30, 1987
NOTE H - SELF INSURANCE
Effective in 1986, the City established an internal service
fund to account for the City's general liability claim
activities. In fiscal 1987, all current workers' compensation
and other insured claims activity were also accounted for in
this fund. In this regard, the City's general fund contributed
$175,000 to this fund through a residual equity transfer.
Workers' compensation obligations at June 30, 1986 aggregating
$359,974 are currently recorded in the general fund as a
liability with the balance recorded in the long-term debt
group. These obligations have not yet been transferred.
The City is self-insured for individual workers' compensation
claims up to $150,000 and for each general liability claim up
to $100,000. The City is insured to a maximum of $4,900,000
through June 30, 1987, and from July 1, 1987 through June 30,
1988, to a maximum of $9,900,000. The City during fiscal 1987,
committed to a three-year membership with the Independent
Cities Risk Management Authority (ICRMA) for only general
liability insurance coverage.
The ICRMA is a joint exercise of powers authority organized and
operating pursuant to the California Government Code. ICRMA
was formed in 1980 pursuant to joint exercise of power
agreement for insurance and risk management purposes, which as
amended, enables ICRMA to provide programs of risk sharing,
insurance and risk management services in connection with
liability, property, and workers' compensation claims and to
assist members in establishing financial reserves through the
sale of Certificates of Participation. In January, 1987,
Certificates of Participation in an aggregate principal amount
of $30,210,000 were sold by ICRMA to fund the joint self-
insurance programs. After costs of issuance and other
expenses, the trustee has over $28,000,000 retained from the
issuance. Under the coverage agreement, member cities are
required to make basic payments to the trustee (an assignee of
ICRMA), which amounts, together with certain amounts available
therefrom under the trust agreement, are intended to be
sufficient in both time and aggregate amount to pay, when due,
the principal of and the interest with respect to the
certificates. The participation percentage that the City has
in ICRMA aggregates 3.5848 percent. The City is liable for
possible subsequent assessments and withdrawal costs under the
terms of the membership agreement.
-19-
r
i
t
C
C
City of Hermosa Beach
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CONTINUED
June 30, 1987
NOTE H - SELF-INSURANCE - Continued
The City has entered into contracts with service agents who
supervise and administer the City's Workers' Compensation
Insurance Program. The City believes that provisions for
workers' compensation is sufficient to cover all claims
insurred.
NOTE I - DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS AND INVESTMENTS HELD THEREIN
The City offers its employees two deferred compensation plans
created in accordance with Internal Revenue Code Section 457.
The plans, available to qualified City employees, permit them
to defer a portion of their salary until future years.
Deferred compensation is not available to employees until
termination, retirement, death, disability or other events as
provided in the plans.
All amounts of compensation deferred under this plan, all
property and rights purchased with those amounts, and all
income attributable to those amounts, are (until paid or
available to the employee or other beneficiary) solely the
property and rights of the City (without being restricted to
the provisions of benefits under the plan), subject only to the
.claims of the City's general creditors. Participants' rights
under the plan are equal to those of general creditors of the
City in an amount equal to the fair market value of the
deferred account for each participant.
•
It is the opinion of management that -the City has no liability
for losses under the plan but does have the duty of due care
that would be required of any ordinary prudent investor. The
City believes that it is unlikely that it will use the assets
to satisfy the claims of general creditors in the future.
(
(
(
t
(
(
City of Hermosa Beach
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CONTINUED
June 30, 1987
NOTE I - DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS AND INVESTMENTS HELD
THEREIN - Continued
Investments in the deferred compensation plans are held
primarily in various mutual investment funds through a contract
agent. Participants are allowed to choose investment
objectives. However the investments selected are limited to
those authorized by the Government Code. The investments are
not insured by the contract agent nor federal or state
regulatory agencies. The mutual fund investments are however
backed by the particular securities invested in by the
particular mutual fund. The market value of the investments
approximates their cost at June 30, 1987.
NOTE J - FIXED ASSETS
The City has recorded its fixed assets as expenditures of the
current period in the accounting records and therefore a
statement of general fixed assets as required by generally
accepted accounting principles is not included in the
accompanying financial statements. The Proprietary Fund has
also recorded as expenses additions to property, plant and
equipment and therefore the presentation of fixed assets as
required by generally accepted accounting principles is not
.presented in the balance sheet. The City has subsequently
engaged an independent firm to assist in updating the inventory
and costing of such assets for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1988.
City of Hermosa Beach
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CONTINUED
June 30, 1987
NOTE K - SEGMENT INFORMATION FOR ENTERPRISE FUNDS
The City maintains two Enterprise funds which provide parking
and transit services. Segment information for the year ended
June 30, 1987 is as follows:
Operating revenue
Charges for
services
From other
agencies
Total
Operating expenses
Operating income
(loss)
Nonoperating revenue
Other financial
sources (uses)
Transfers in
Transfers (out)
Net income
Property, plant
and equipment
(note J)
Depreciation (note. J)
Net working capital
Total equity (note J)
Total assets
Total
Enterprise
Parking Fund Transit Fund funds
$2,337,339
2,337,339
1,030,849
1,306,490
41,198
111,739
(1,444,581)
14,846
INN
14,846
14,846
94,635
Charges for sevices in the Parking
forfeitures of $1,437,014.
NOTE L - POOLED CASH OVERDRAFTS
,$ 13,502 $2,350,841
201,119 201,119
214,621 2,551,960
216,073 1,246,922
(1,452) 1,305,038
8,181 49,379
45,003 156,742
(1,444,581)
51,732 66,578
111,595
111,595
192,633
fund includes
126,441
126,441
287,268
fines and
The City has recorded a receivable (due from other funds) and a
payable (due to other funds) for the overdrawn pooled cash
account for the Special Revenue Fund - Grant Fund as required
by generally accepted accounting principles.
City of Hermosa Beach
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CONTINUED
June 30, 1987
NOTE M - DEFICIT FUND BALANCES AND EXCESS OF EXPENDITURES
OVER APPROPRIATIONS OF FUNDS INCLUDED IN THE
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND
The Community Development Block Grant Fund increased its
deficit in 1987 to $221,955 from a 1986 balance of $29,217.
The Crossing Guard District Fund decreased its deficit in
fiscal 1987 to $890 from a 1986 balance of $10,098. The
Community Development Block Grant Fund's increase in its
deficit as well as its expenditures over appropriations of
$221,052 are substantially due to a grant receivable ultimately
not qualifying for reimbursement from a•County agency.
NOTE N - CASH AND SHORT-TERM INVESTMENTS
The City follows the practice of pooling the cash and short-
term investments of all funds with the Treasurer except for
certain restricted funds which are held and invested by
independent outside custodians through contractual
agreements. Such restricted funds include deferred
compensation plan deposits (note I). The Treasurer's
investment policy reflects the City's goal of obtaining the
highest yield with the greatest safety and least risk.
Accordingly, the investments made by the treasurer are limited
to those allowable under state statutes as incorporated into
the City's investment policy. Each separate fund's claim to
the pooled cash and investments detailed below is represented
by the cash and cash overdraft balances presented in the
combined balance sheet at June 30, 1987.
The City's cash and short-term investments are detailed as
follows:
Demand deposits - banking institution
Certificates of deposit - banking institution
Securities firm
Local Agency investment fund
$ 313,003
100,000
497,811
5,000,000
$5,910,814
C
(
City of Hermosa Beach
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CONTINUED
June 30, 1987
NOTE N - CASH AND SHORT-TERM INVESTMENTS - Continued
The demand deposits and certificates of deposit held in the
banking institution are insured or adequately collateralized by
securities held for the benefit of the City in accordance with
state regulations. Investments held at the securities firm
consist of Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation participating
pool certificates. These securities have an aggregate face
amount of $510,000. The securities bear interest at rates
ranging from 8 percent to 9.5 percent. Interest is payable
monthly. The certificates mature in the years 2016 and 2017.
The market value of the securities at June 30, 1987 aggregated
approximately $485,000. The securities are registered in the
name of the City, but held by the investment firm for the
account of the City. The securities are not separately insured
by the investment firm.
Money not required immediately by the City is remitted to the
State Tresurer for deposit in the Local Agency Investment Fund
(L.A.I.F.). Money placed with the State Treasurer is not
subject to impound or seizure by any State official or State
agency. The City also has the sole discretion as to the length
of time such month will be on deposit in the Fund. The State
Treasurer is responsible for the control and safekeeping of all
instruments of title of all investments of the L.A.I.F. fund.
Earnings are distributed quarterly to the City. An amount
equal to the reasonable costs of carrying out the activities of
the L.A.I.F. not to exceed one-quarter of one percent of the
earnings of the fund, are deducted from the earnings upon
quarterly distribution. See note I for disclosures about
investments associated with the City's deferred compensation
plans.
NOTE 0 - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
In the normal course of business, various claims and suits have
been filed against the City. In the opinion of City
management, based upon information received from legal counsel,
the recorded liability is sufficient to cover such claims and
suits.
-24-
March 16, 1988
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting of
the Hermosa Beach City Council March 22, 1988
1986-87
Report on Internal Accounting Control
(Management Letter)
Grant Thornton
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council accept the staff
recommendation relating to the 1986-87 Report on Internal
Accounting Control submitted by the city's independent auditor,
Grant Thornton.
BACKGROUND
Internal controls are those methods and procedures used to
safeguard assets and other resources. During the course of the
audit engagement, Grant Thornton observes and tests controls in a
manner sufficient to support reliance on the accounting records
for preparation of the financial statements. Management requests
that any observations of areas that could be improved be reported
in the management letter with recommendations of ways to
strengthen the particular control.
ANALYSIS/ RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the following in response to the recommendations
by Grant Thornton:
FIXED ASSETS
The appraisal of assets is complete. Installation of the
software is scheduled for week of March 28. The auditors will
begin the review of the appraisal data after the installation is
complete. It is anticipated that, with the recording of the
fixed assets for 1987-88, the qualified opinion in the financial
statement will be removed.
SEGREGATION OF DUTIES
Recommendations are generally made every year with regard to
segregation of duties since improvements can always be made.
Responding to the three recommendations:
1) Cancellation of invoices is currently performed by the
accounts payable clerk. This will be done in the future by
the City Treasurer or Deputy at the time of warrant signing.
2) The auditor suggested that two signatures should be required
on securities and negotiable instruments. The City Treasurer
agrees. The Deputy City Treasurer will become the second
signature on all documents requiring a second signature.
3) With respect to legislative approval of authorized
individuals, the City Treasurer states that he is accountable
for invested monies and responsible for the control of
negotiable instruments. The City Treasurer has designated his
Deputy City Treasurer as a co -signature on all documents
requiring a second signature.
INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLAN
Management Services Institute prepared a report on fees and
finances which included an overhead cost allocation for the City
in 1984. It is not known if the report would meet federal
regulations. Management intends to evaluate the cost of updating
the MSI report versus engaging another firm to develop a new
indirect cost allocation plan. A recommendation will be made to
the City Council when the evaluation is complete.
TRANSFERS
Separate accounts for operating transfers and residual equity
transfers have been created as recommended by Grant Thornton.
The lack of separate accounts in 1986-87 created extra work
during the audit which will now be eliminated.
INTERNAL SERVICE FUND
Prior to creation of the Insurance Fund, legal fees relating to
worker's compensation claims were paid from the General Fund as
were all insurance costs. Costs for legal fees relating to
worker's compensation are now being charged to the Insurance Fund
for 1987-88 as recommended by Grant Thornton.
At Midyear Budget Review, a liability for the current portion of
worker's compensation claims existing in the Gen�Fund as of
6/30/87 was transferred to the Insurance Fund since all insurance
costs are now shown there. However, the long term (over one
year) liability of $109,974 was not transferred. It is
recommended that this liability be shown in the Insurance Fund
and a transfer of $109,974 be made from the General Fund
Designation for Contingencies. No expenditure of funds is
required - the transfer of assets is simply necessary to fund the
liability.
ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING
The Data Processing Division will include in their 1988-89 budget
a request for a software package that will aid in preparing
formalized EDP contingency planning documents. As part of the
contingency plan, negotiations are in process for contractual
backup agreements with two Hewlett Packard cities. One is nearby
2
and can be utilized in temporary or localized situations, the
other is up north and can be used in area disaster situations.
Included in the formal operating procedures manual, now being
prepared by the Computer System Manager, a system for periodic
changes to passwords will be established. This will be in
addition to our current policy of changing passwords when there
is a turnover in personnel. Finally, a non -disclosure affidavit
is being prepared to be signed by those employees who have
computer access to sensitive areas.
The only remaining physical access risk to the data processing
area is that of unprotected windows. During the next fiscal
year, we will investigate the feasibility of some kind of alarm
system.
Noted:
tevin Vrthcraft
City Manager
Viki Copeland
Finance Administrator
REPORT ON INTERNAL ACCOUNTING CONTROL
.AND MEMORANDUM OF ADVISORY COMMENTS
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
JUNE 30, 1987
Suite 1100
18300 Von Karman
P.O. Box 19585
Irvine, CA 92713-9585
714 553-1600
GrantThornton S
Accountants and
Management Consultants
Member Firm
Grant Thornton International
To the City Council
City of Hermosa Beach, California
We have examined the general purpose financial statements of
the City of Hermosa Beach for the year ended June 30, 1987, and
have issued our report thereon dated September 28, 1987. As part
of our examination, we made a study and evaluation of the City's
system of internal accounting control to the -extent we considered
necessary to evaluate the system as required by generally
accepted auditing standards. The purpose of our study and
evaluation was to determine the nature, timing, and extent of the
auditing procedures necessary for expressing an opinion on the
City's general purpose financial statements. Our study and
evaluation was more limited than would be necessary to express an
opinion on the system of internal accounting control taken as a
whole.
The management (i.e., City Council or designate) of the City
of Hermosa Beach is responsible for establishing and maintaining
a system of internal accounting control. In fulfilling this
responsibility, estimates and judgments by management are
required to assess the expected benefits and related costs of
control procedures. The objectives of a system are to provide
management with reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that
assets are safeguarded against loss from unauthorized use or
disposition, and that transactions are executed in accordance
with management's authorization and recorded properly to permit
the preparation of financial statements in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles.
Because of inherent limitations in any system of internal
accounting control, errors or irregularities may nevertheless
occur and not be detected. Also, projection of an evaluation of
the system to future periods is subject to the risk that
procedures may become inadequate because of changes in conditions
or that the degree of compliance with the procedures may
deteriorate.
Our study and evaluation made for the limited purpose
described in the first paragraph would not necessarily disclose
all material weaknesses in the system. Accordingly, we do not
express an opinion on the system of internal accounting control
of the City of Hermosa Beach taken as a whole. However, our
study and evaluation disclosed no conditions that we believe to
be a material weakness. Other comments and observations which
came to our attention during our examination are set out on pages
5 through 7. These conditions were considered in determining the
nature, timing and extent of the audit tests to be applied in our
examination of the June 30, 1987 general purpose financial
statements, and the report does not affect our report on these
financial statements dated September 28, 1987.
This report is intended solely for the use of management and
should not be used for any other purpose.
(f -t44= -4,/c -A. --:A.....,/,,.
Irvine, California
September 28, 1987
OTHER COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS
Some of the following recommendations were included in our
prior year report dated September 22, 1986. Internal control
procedures implemented during the past year in response to our
prior year recommendation have been noted, where applicable.
Fixed Assets
The City does not record the cost of purchased, constructed
or leased fixed assets in either a general fixed asset account or
asset accounts of its proprietary funds.
Recommendation
Although the City accounts for the physical existence of
substantially most of its fixed assets (i.e. equipment, vehicles,
etc.) in order to safeguard such assets, we recommend that the
City formally create asset accounts for its proprietary funds as
well as fixed asset account group, using historical cost
valuation. Generally accepted accounting principles require that
fixed assets be capitalized and recorded in the general fixed
asset account group and the balance sheets of the proprietary
funds. We understand management of the City has engaged a firm
to completely update its physical inventory and ultimately cost
the inventoried assets of both the account group and proprietary
funds.
Segregation of Duties
Individuals perform a variety of accounting and
administrative functions which does not in all aspects completely
segregate duties to provide for the full and complete safekeeping
and protection of City assets. Management has previously
implemented and continues to use several other controls (e.g.
finance administrator review of receipts and deposits and review
of bank reconciliations) which substantially mitigate the
significance of this type of weakness.
Recommendation
We recommend that at the time additional finance department
staff are hired that duties and responsibilities of the finance
department staff once again be reviewed such that selected
functions currently performed by this individual can be
reallocated to one or more new staff. Examples of certain duties
which could be reallocated among existing staff would be (1) the
cancellation of invoices and supporting documents by perforation
or paid stamp either in the presence of the check signer at the
time of signing or subsequent thereto in the presence of another,
(2) the requirement of dual signatures in order to obtain release
of securities or other negotiable instruments from independent
custodians, and (3) approval by City legislature of authorized
individuals.
Indirect Cost Allocation Plan
The City currently does not have a formalized indirect cost
allocation plan that would conform to federal regulations.
Recommendation
The City should develop a formal plan which conforms to
existing federal regulations. This will assist management in
determining costs not only on federal programs, but also those
associated with other state and county programs on a consistent
basis.
Transfers
During our examination of fund equity, it was noted that
residual equity transfers between funds could not be readily
distinguished from each other in the existing general ledger
unappropriate fund balance accounts.
Recommendation
We recommend that the City establish separate accounts in
the general ledger to properly differentiate the nature of the
transfers. We understand that accounts of this nature have been
implemented and will be reconciled on a monthly basis.
Internal Service Fund
In fiscal 1986, the Internal Service Fund was created to
account only for general liability self-insurance costs of the
City's various funds. The City is also self-insured with respect
to certain claim levels of its workmens' compensation insurance
program as well as other insurance coverages. During fiscal
1987, all such insurance activity was accounted for through the
internal services fund on a current basis. Past obligations of
this nature, both the general fund as well as those obligations
reflected in the long-term debt group of accounts, should also be
analyzed and reviewed by management and staff instructed as to
their disposition.
City management also engages attorneys to varying degrees to
assist in litigation, negotiating and settling the above referred
to claims. Legal fees for such services have been and are
currently accounted for through the general fund's city attorney
expenditure accounts. Management should analyze and review with
staff how such costs would be best recognized by the various
funds so as to provide a true picture of all costs associated
with self-insuring.
Recommendation
Since the City is now accounting for new self-insurance
claims and premiums through the Internal Service Fund, management
may also want to include prior workmans' compensation claims as
well as continuing legal fees for all facits of its self-
insurance program through this particular fund. The inclusion of
such costs in the Internal Service Fund will better ascertain the
full cost of insuring either through self-insurance and/or
ICRMA. All claims and costs if filed through the fund's
independent administrating agent could then also provide a basis
for more accurately ascertaining user charges for the various
departments and funds based on this fund's costs.
Electronic Data Processing
During our examination, it was noted that there is a need
for improvement in certain controls normally found in EDP
installations. We observed that there currently does not
exist: (1) formalized EDP computer backup_agreement, although it
is being negotiated; (2) formalized EDP contingency planning
documents; and (3) complete physical security access controls,
although recently a wall and lock were installed.
Recommendation
We recommend that the City develop and implement a formal
EDP contingency strategy, along with contractual backup
arrangements and operating procedures. There should also be
additional physical security controls as well as formalized
policies and procedures associated with the physical access
controls. We also recommend that the City, in considering the
development of a new EDP/computer room, include a formal
documented risk assessment for physical security requirements.
4.
March 17, 1988
Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting
of the Hermosa Beach City Council of March 22, 1988
Recommendation
1988/89 BUDGET PREP,of) ION B D LE
ei
(,)
i
It is recommended City Council approve the attached budget prepa-
ration schedule for the 1988-89 fiscal year, including prepara-
tion of a revised five year Capital Improvement Program.
Analysis
As part of budget deliberations for fiscal year 88/89, staff has
designated two study sessions with City Council. The purposes of
the study sessions are to review the proposed 88/89 budget docu-
ment and make changes if necessary; and to develop a five year
Capital Improvement Program for the City.
The latter document will be separate from the current CIP enter-
ing its third and final year. While only the first year of the
new CIP will be appropriated each year, the longer projections of
needs, updated annually, will help citizens, the Council, and
staff enumerate and_mioritize long term needs and,passible fund-
ing sources. The desired result will -be -Letter public discussion
'and analysts of theity's competing capital needs. Hopefully
this planning tool wil re u1t n et er anti I lion of future
expenses and revenue needs.
Concur:
n B. N'orthcraft
City Manager
KBN/AMM/ld
Respectfully submitted,
Alana M. Mastrian
Assistant City Manager
1988/89 BUDGET PREPARATION SCHEDULE
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
MARCH 17, 1988
Budget instructions given to all departments.
MARCS 24, 1988, 12:00 NOON
Revenue projections due
MARCH 28, 1988, 12:00 NOON
Budgets due
APRIL 4, 1988
7:00 a.m. - 11:00 a.m.
Staff budget mini -retreat in Room 12 of the Community Center for
budget discussions.
APRIL 5 - 6, 1988
Individual department budget review with City Manager
APRIL 14, 1988
Budget revisions due
APRIL 28, 1988
Budget to printer
MAY 9, 1988
Budget to City Council
NAY 23 AND 26, 1988, 6:00 P.N.
Budget and CIP Program study sessions with Council
JUNE 14, 1988
Council Meeting: Public Hearing on budget and budget adoption.
1988/89 BUDGET PREPARATION SCHEDULE
REVISED
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
MARCH 21, 1988
Budget instructions given to all departments.
MARCH 28, 1988, 12:00 NOON
Revenue projections due
APRIL 4, 1988, 12:00 NOON
Budgets due
/6;
APRIL 11,-
1988, 7:00 A.M.11:00 A.M.
Staff budget mini -retreat in Room 12 of the Community
budget discussions.
APRIL 12 - 14, 1988
Individual department budget review with City Manager
APRIL 21, 1988, 12:00 NOON
Budget revisions due
APRIL 28, 1988 re-,7-e9ce.4
1a Z_ _i
tad
Budget to printer
MAY 13, 1988
Budget to Cit Council
23 AND 26 88, 6:00 P.M.
Bu ge and CIP Program study sessions with Council
JUNE 14, 1988
Council Meeting: Public Hearing on budget and budget adoption
Center for
SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION
9
UPDATE GOTANDA PROPERTY
All principals involved in the sale of the Gotanda Property site
on the southwest corner of PCH and Gould Ave. have agreed to hold
an auction on Thursday, April 28, 1988.
The minimum bid for the property shall be $1.7 million.
All principals involved have agreed to use Anderson/Ryan Realty
of Hermosa Beach as the broker.
Anyone interested in all details regarding this auction are to
contact Anderson/Ryan Realty at 376-7988.
UPDATE GOTANDA PROPERTY
All principals involved in the sale of the Gotanda Property site
on the southwest corner of PCH and Gould Ave. have agreed to hold
an auction on Thursday, April 28, 1988.
The minimum bid for the property shall be $1.7 million.
All principals involved have agreed to use Anderson/Ryan Realty
of Hermosa Beach as the broker.
Anyone interested in all details regarding this auction are to
contact Anderson/Ryan Realty at 376-7988.
AGREEMENT OF SETTLEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE
THIS AGREEMENT OF SETTLEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE (the
"Agreement") is made, entered into and effective this day of
�Q , 1987, by and between THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, a municipal corporation (the "City"), COAST MORTGAGE &
REALTY INVESTORS, a California corporation ("CMRI") and CHARLES
GOTANDA, an individual and doing business as TERRACO INVESTMENTS
("Gotanda").
RECITALS
A. The property which is the subject of this Agreement is
that certain real property located within the boundaries and
jurisdiction of the City, which property is more particularly
described as Lot 2 of Tract No. 33744 as per map filed in Book
907, Pages 65 and 66, of Maps of the records of the County of Los
Angeles, California (the "Property").
B. On or about October 18, 1978 the City Council for the
City (the "City Council") adopted Resolution No. 78-4231
approving the application of Gotanda for Final Tract Map 33744
pertaining to the Property, subject to the conditions in Planning
Commission Resolution P.C. 77-37 and Gotanda's execution and
performance of a document concerning the Property entitled
"Trust Agreement".
C. On or about November 17, 1978, -and pursuant to the
terms of the Trust Agreement, Gotanda executed and delivered to
the City a document entitled "Grant Deed" which constitutes a
Trust Deed concerning the Property. On or about December 26,
1978 the Grant Deed was duly recorded as Document No. 78-
1427421 in the Office of the Recorder for the County of Los
Angeles, California (the "Recorder's Office").
D. On or about December 6, 1978, and pursuant to the City
Council's approval of Final Tract Map 33744, the City and
Gotanda executed the Trust Agreement. On or about December 26,
1978 the Trust Agreement was duly recorded as Document No. 78-
1427421 in the Recorder's Office.
E. On or about December 26, 1978, and after Culver
Financial Corporation, CMRI's predecessor in interest, executed
and delivered to Gotanda a Grant Deed conveying the Property to
Gotanda, the Grant Deed executed and delivered to the City by
Gotanda referenced in Paragraph C hereinabove was duly recorded
in the Recorder's Office as Document No. 78-142719.
F. Gotanda has developed a condominium development (the
"Condominium Project") adjacent to the Property on Lot 1 of
Tract No. 33744 as per map filed in Book 907, Pages.65 and 66 of
Maps of the Recorder's Office ("Lot 1").
G. The City, CMRI and Gotanda acknowledge the pendency in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles (the "Court") of Case No. C 442 290 [consolidated
with Case No. C 448 756], entitled Coast Mortgaae & Realty
Investors, etc. v. The City of Hermosa Beach, etc., et al. (the
"Lawsuit"). Certain disputes and controversies have arisen
between the City, CMRI and Gotanda with regard to the Property,
including, but not limited to, the disputes alleged in the
Lawsuit. CMRI filed its Complaint against the City and Gotanda
on or about February 11, 1983, and filed its First Amended
Complaint against these parties on or about May 25, 1984. On or
about February 25, 1983 Gotanda filed his Complaint in the
Lawsuit, naming the City and CMRI as Defendants. On or about
December 16, 1986 the City filed its Cross -Complaint in the
Lawsuit, naming CMRI and Gotanda as Cross -Defendants. The
parties have filed several additional pleadings and other matters
since the commencement of the Lawsuit.
H. As used herein, "subject" or "subject matter", or any
reference to these terms, shall refer to the events, claims,
transactions and occurrences relating to the Lawsuit and all
matters, transactions, claims and events related and incidental
thereto or giving rise thereto.
I. The City, CMRI and Gotanda now wish to settle and
resolve all differences and disputes between them, and to
compromise any and all rights and obligations they have in
connection with the subject hereof. The,parties hereto have
accordingly agreed fully and finally to resolve said differences,
disputes, rights and obligations regarding the subject hereof and
to memorialize their agreement in this Agreement.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises,
covenants and agreements herein contained, the parties hereto
agree as follows:
1. Conditions Precedent to Settlement.
This Agreement is subject to the conditions precedent of the
consummation of the sale of the Property and of the distribution
to the parties hereto of the sale proceeds in accordance with the
terms and conditions of this Agreement.
'2. Mutual Release and Waiver of Claims.
(a) The City. Subject to the Conditions Precedent to
Settlement as set forth in Paragraph 1 of this Agreement, except
as to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and effective
upon entry by the Court of the Dismissal with Prejudice of the
-2-
entire Lawsuit, the City, for itself and on behalf of its
predecessors, successors, assigns, Council members, officers,
employees, agents and representatives as applicable, hereby fully
releases CMRI (and its parent companies, subsidiaries and
affiliates) and Gotanda and their respective predecessors,
successors, heirs and assigns, shareholders, officers, directors,
employees, agents and representatives as applicable from any and
all sums of money, accounts, contracts, controversies, actions,
causes of action, claims, demands, judgments, executions,
attachments, debts of every kind and nature, known and unknown,
suspected or unsuspected, which the City now has or claims to
have, or at any time heretobefore had or claimed to have had, or
at any time hereafter will have or claim to have against CMRI
(and its parent companies, subsidiaries and affiliates) and
Gotanda by reason of any matter or thing related to, or directly
or indirectly connected with or arising out of the events,
transactions or occurrences constituting the subject matter
hereof.
(b) CMRI. Subject to the Conditions Precedent to
Settlement as set forth in Paragraph 1 of this Agreement, except
as to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and effective
upon entry by the Court of the Dismissal with Prejudice of the
entire Lawsuit, CMRI (and its parent companies, subsidiaries and
affiliates) for itself and on behalf of its predecessors,
successors, assigns, shareholders, officers, directors,
employees, agents and representatives as applicable, hereby fully
releases the City and Gotanda and their respective predecessors,
successors, heirs and assigns, shareholders, officers, directors,
employees, Council members, agents and representatives as
applicable from any and all sums of money, accounts, contracts,
controversies, actions, causes of action, claims, demands,
judgments, executions, attachments, debts of every kind and
nature, known and unknown, suspected or unsuspected, which CMRI
(and its parent companies, subsidiaries and affiliates) now has
or claims to have, or at any time heretobefore had or claimed to
have had, or at any time hereafter will have or claim to have
against the City and Gotanda by reason of any matter or thing
related to, or directly or indirectly connected with or arising
out of the events, transactions or occurrences constituting the
subject matter hereof.
(c) Gotanda. Subject to the Conditions Precedent to
Settlement as set forth in Paragraph 1 of this Agreement, except
as to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and effective
upon entry by the Court of the Dismissal with Prejudice of the
entire Lawsuit, Gotanda, for himself and on behalf of his
predecessors, successors, heirs and assigns, shareholders,
officers, directors, employees, agents and representatives as
applicable, hereby fully releases the City and CMRI (and its
parent companies, subsidiaries and affiliates) and their
respective predecessors, successors, assigns, shareholders,
-3-
officers, directors, employees, Council members, agents and
representatives as applicable from any and all sums of money,
accounts, contracts, controversies, actions, causes of action,
claims, demands, judgments, executions, attachments, debts of
every kind and nature, known and unknown, suspected or
unsuspected, which Gotanda now has or claims to have, or at any
time heretobefore had or claimed to have had, or at any time
hereafter will have or claim to have against the City and CMRI by
reason of any matter or thing related to, or directly or
indirectly connected with or arising out of the events,
transactions or occurrences constituting the subject matter
hereof.
(d) As between Gotanda and CMRI only, this Agreement,
including without limitation any release or dismissal between
them provided for herein, shall be subject to and limited by the
terms of the separate Agreement Modifying and Limiting Release
and Dismissal entered into by Gotanda and CMRI concurrently with
this Agreement of Settlement and Mutual Release.
3. Sale of the Property
(a) Auction Sale. The Property shall be offered for sale
pursuant to an auction by an auctioneer acceptable to all
parties hereto. The sale shall be advertised by public notice,
as described in Paragraph 3(b) of this Agreement, which shall
invite the submission of written sealed bids, specify the minimum
acceptable price for the Property and be published during the
periods and in the manner stated in Paragraphs 3 and 4 of this
Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall prohibit any party
from privately advising others of the auction and encouraging
their submission of bids.
(b) Notice of Sale. The Notice of Sale shall invite the
submission of sealed bids for the purchase of the Property in an
amount not less than the sum stated in the Notice, shall state
the terms and conditions of the Sale, shall state the time and
place of sale and shall state the deadline by which the sealed
bids must be submitted. The Notice of Sale shall further state
that oral bids may be called at the time and place of sale
following the opening, examination and declaration of the written
— sealed bids. The Notice of Sale shall be published in a
newspaper of general circulation serving the City and vicinity at
least one day of each week for a period of not less than 30 days
before the date of the Sale.
.(c) Wri ten Sealed Bids. The written sealed bids shall be
served on the auctioneer before or at the time specified in the
published Notice of Sale. Each sealed bid shall be accompanied
by a cash deposit,.cashier's check, letter of credit or cash
equivalent in the amount of 5% of the purchase price of the
Property stated in the Notice of Sale as a guarantee that the
person making such bid will purchase the Property upon the terms
and conditions specified in the Notice of Sale. No sealed bid
shall be considered unless accompanied by such cash deposit,
cashier's check, letter of credit or cash equivalent.
(d) Oral Bids. The auctioneer shall call for oral bids at
the time and place of sale following the opening, examination and
declaration of the written sealed bids if no sealed bid is
received that offers the requisite minimum purchase amount, or a
sum exceeding such amount, and is not accompanied by the 5%
deposit described in Paragraph 3(c) of this Agreement. The
auctioneer may also call for oral bids in the event that at least
one sealed bid offers the requisite minimum purchase amount, or a
greater sum, and is accompanied by such deposit. However, no
oral bid shall be considered at the time and place of sale
unless:
(1) such oral bid exceeds the highest bid, whether
written or oral, declared at the time and place of
sale by an amount of not less than $10,000; and
(2) prior to the call for oral bids, the 5% deposit
described in Paragraph 3(b) of this Agreement
shall have been caused to be delivered to the
auctioneer by the person submitting such oral bid.
(e) Conduct of the Sale. The auctioneer, at the time and
place set forth in the Notice of Sale, shall open, examine and
declare the written sealed bids. If no such sealed bid offers
the requisite minimum purchase amount, ora greater sum, and is
not accompanied by the 5% deposit described in Paragraph 3(c) of
this Agreement, the auctioneer shall call for oral bids in
accordance with Paragraph 3(d) of this Agreement. The
auctioneer may call for oral bids in the event that at least one
sealed bid offers the requisite minimum purchase amount, or a
greater sum, and is accompanied by such deposit in accordance
with Paragraph 3(d) of this Agreement. The highest qualified
bidder shall be deemed the purchaser of the Property (the
"Purchaser"). No person or entity in any way connected with any
of the parties to this Agreement shall be deemed the Purchaser,
regardless of whether such person or entity submits the highest
bid in accordance with the terms and conditions of this
—Agreement.
4. Purchase Price of the Property.
(a) First Offer of Sale. The Property shall be offered for
sale in accordance with Paragraph 3 of this Agreement within 15
days of the execution of this Agreement for an initial period of
30 days at a minimum purchase price of one million and seven
hundred thousand dollars ($1,700,000).
-5-
(b) Second Offer of Sale. If no bid, either written or
oral, which meets the requirements of Paragraph 3 of this
Agreement and offers the amount set forth in Paragraph 4(a) of
this Agreement, or any greater amount, is received by the
auctioneer before or at the time and place of the sale within the
30 -day period stated in Paragraph 4(a) of this Agreement, the
Property shall be offered for sale in accordance with Paragraph 3
of this Agreement for the next succeeding 30 days at a minimum
purchase price of one million and six hundred thousand dollars
($1,600,000).
(c) Third Offer of Sale. If no bid, either written or
oral, which meets the requirements of Paragraph 3 of this
Agreement and offers the amount set forth in Paragraph 4(b) of
this Agreement, or any greater amount, is received by the
auctioneer before or at the time and place of the sale within the
30 -day period stated in Paragraph 4(b) of this Agreement, the
Property shall be offered for sale in accordance with Paragraph 3
of this Agreement for the next succeeding 30 days at a minimum
purchase price of one million and five hundred thousand dollars
($1,500,000).
5. Distribution of the Sale Proceeds.
The proceeds of the sale of the Property shall be
distributed amongst the parties as follows:
(a) In the event the purchase price is between one million
and five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000) and one million
and six hundred thousand dollars ($1,600,000), the City shall
receive two hundred and twenty thousand dollars ($220,000) less
20% of the difference between the actual purchase price and one
million and six hundred thousand dollars ($1,600,000), CMRI
shall receive three hundred and seventy thousand dollars
($370,000) less 30% of the difference between the actual purchase
price and one million and six hundred thousand dollars
($1,600,000) and Gotanda shall receive the balance.
(b) In the event the purchase price is between one million
and six hundred thousand dollars ($1,600,000) and one million and
seven hundred thousand dollars ($1,700,000) the City shall
receive two hundred and twenty thousand dollars ($220,000) and
—47.5% of any excess over one million and six hundred thousand
dollars ($1,600,000), CMRI shall receive three hundred and
seventy thousand dollars ($370,000) and 12.5% of any excess over
one million and six hundred thousand dollars ($1,600,000), and
Gotanda shall receive the balance.
(c) In the event the purchase price is between one million
and seven hundred thousand dollars ($1,700,000) and one million
and eight hundred thousand dollars ($1,800,000) the City shall
receive two hundred sixty seven thousand and five hundred
-6-
dollars ($267,500) and 32.5% of any excess over one million and
seven hundred thousand dollars ($1,700,000), CMRI shall receive
three hundred eighty two thousand and five hundred dollars
($382,500) and 17.5% of any excess over one million and seven
hundred thousand dollars ($1,700,000) and Gotanda shall receive
the balance.
(d) In the event the purchase price is between one million
and eight hundred thousand dollars ($1,800,000) and one million
and nine hundred thousand dollars ($1,900,000) the City shall
receive three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) and 25% of any
excess over one million and eight hundred thousand dollars
($1,800,000), CMRI shall receive four hundred thousand dollars
($400,000) and 25% of any excess over one million and eight
hundred thousand dollars ($1,800,000) and Gotanda shall receive
the balance.
(e) In the event the purchase price is between one million
and nine hundred thousand dollars ($1,900,000) and any
greater sum, the City shall receive three hundred and twenty
five thousand dollars ($325,000) and 27.5% of any excess over one
million and nine hundred thousand dollars ($1,900,000), CMRI
shall receive four hundred and twenty five thousand dollars
($425,000) and 22.5% of any excess over one million and nine
hundred thousand dollars ($1,900,000) and Gotanda shall receive
the balance.
6. Costs of Sale.
Any costs of sale shall be subtracted from the gross
purchase price prior to the distribution of the sale proceeds
described in Paragraph 5 of this Agreement.
7. Disposition of Deposit.
(a) The deposits made by all unsuccessful bidders shall be
returned to such bidders at the completion of the auction. The
deposit of the highest bidder shall be transferred to the escrow
agent in accordance with Paragraph 9 of this Agreement, and shall
be retained by the escrow agent as a guarantee that the highest
bidder will complete the purchase. At the opening of escrow the
— deposit of the highest bidder shall be used as part of the
purchase price of the Property.
(b) In the event the highest bidder fails to complete the
purchase of the Property, the deposit shall be deemed liquidated
damages, and shall be distributed to the City, CMRI and Gotanda
in accordance with the formulae that would have governed the
distribution of the sale proceeds set forth in Paragraph 4 of
this Agreement, had such sale been completed.
-7-
(c) In the event the highest bidder fails to complete the
purchase of the Property, the next highest qualified bidder, if
any, shall have the right of first refusal as to the purchase of
the Property at the amount of the highest bid. If the next
highest qualified bidder fails to exercise the right to purchase
the Property by opening escrow in accordance with paragraph 9
within 10 days of receipt of notice of such right of first
refusal, the Property shall be offered for sale in accordance
with Paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Agreement, but in no event shall
the Property be offered for sale if the Property had been
previously and unsuccessfully offered for sale in accordance
with Subparagraphs (a) through (c), inclusive, of Paragraph 4 of
this Agreement. If the next highest qualified bidder exercises
the right to purchase the Property and thereafter fails to
complete such purchase, the deposit of such bidder shall be
deemed liquidated damages, and shall be distributed in accordance
with Paragraph 7(b) of this Agreement.
8. Distribution of Previously Acauired Funds.
Any funds previously received by the City from the rental of
all or any portion of the Property during the pendency of the
Lawsuit shall be distributed among the City, CMRI and Gotanda
according to the same percentages actually used for the
distribution of the net sale proceeds described in Paragraph 5 of
this Agreement only if the Property is sold and the sale proceeds
are distributed in accordance with the terms and conditions of
this Agreement.
9. Escrow
Not more than five (5) days after the highest qualified bid
is accepted in accordance with Paragraph 3 of this Agreement,
the person submitting such bid shall open an escrow with an
escrow agent (the "Escrow Agent") satisfactory to the City, CMRI
and Gotanda.
(a) Auctioneer Deposits. The auctioneer shall deliver to
the Escrow Agent:
(i) the written bid of the highest bidder, or in the case
of an oral bid, the oral bid as memorialized by the
auctioneer and executed by the highest bidder; and
(ii) the highest bidder's 5% deposit described in
Subparagraphs (c) and (d) of Paragraph 3 of this
Agreement.
(b) Purchaser Deposit. The Purchaser shall, within forty
five (45) days of opening Escrow, deliver to the Escrow Agent a
cash deposit, cashier's check or cash equivalent in the amount of
the purchase price of the Property.
-8-
(c) City Deposits. The City shall deliver to the Escrow
Agent the following:
(i) Dismissals and Releases of CMRI and Gotanda from
the City in accordance with Paragraph 2 of this
Agreement; and
(ii) A deed sufficient to convey all interests held by
the City in the Property to the Purchaser.
(d) CMRI Deposits. CMRI shall deliver to the Escrow Agent
the following:
(i) Dismissals and Releases of the City and Gotanda
from CMRI in accordance with Paragraph 2 of this
Agreement; and
(ii) A deed sufficient to convey all interests held by
CMRI in the Property to the Purchaser.
(e) Gotanda Deposits. Gotanda shall deliver to the Escrow
Agent the following:
(i) Dismissals and Releases of the City and CMRI from
Gotanda in accordance with Paragraph 2 of this
Agreement; and
(ii) A deed sufficient to convey all interests held by
Gotanda in the Property to the Purchaser.
(f) Escrow Instructions. Upon the receipt of the all of
the Deposits described in Paragraph 9 of this Agreement within
forty five (45) days of the opening of this Escrow the Escrow
Agent is instructed to:
(i) file the Dismissals described in Paragraphs 2 and
9 of this Agreement with the Court and serve each
of the parties hereto with conformed copies
thereof;
(ii) record such deeds as necessary to vest title or
other interest in the Purchaser in accordance with
the terms and conditions of this Agreement; and
(iii) distribute the sale proceeds to the City, CMRI and
Gotanda, or such other person as any of them may
designate in writing, in accordance with Paragraph
5 of this Agreement.
10. Release and Waiver of Claims Reaardina Lot 1.
CMRI and Gotanda shall release and waive any and all claims
against the City in connection with the Condominium Project on
Lot 1.
11. Confidentiality.
The terms of this Agreement shall remain confidential,
until and unless otherwise required by law.
12. Permissible Uses of the Property.
The sale documents and marketing materials shall set forth
the permissible land uses of the Property under the City's
Ordinances, Code and regulations.
13. Abeyance of Litigation.
Except as otherwise provided in this Paragraph 13, and
except as to any other proceedings necessary to effectuate the
purpose and intent of this Agreement, no further discovery or
other proceedings relating to the Lawsuit shall be conducted.
(a) Stipulations. Concurrently herewith, the City, CMRI
and Gotanda shall, through their respective counsel, execute
stipulations or other appropriate documentation or take other
appropriate action to:
(i) continue the Trial date for the Lawsuit to the
first available date of the Court on or after
August 1, 1988;
(ii) waive the provisions of the five-year rule,
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 583.330, to
the extent necessary up to and including November,
1988 to allow the setting of the new Trial date in
accordance with this Paragraph 13; and
(iii) modify the discovery date, pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedure § 2024(d), to apply to such new
Trial date.
(b) Stipulations Upon Opening of Escrow. In the event an
escrow for the purchase of the Property is opened in accordance
with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the City, CMRI
and Gotanda shall, within 10 days thereof, through their
respective counsel, execute stipulations or other appropriate
documentation or take other appropriate action to:
(i) continue the Trial date for the Lawsuit until at
least 90 days after the scheduled close of escrow;
-10-
(ii) waive the provisions of the five-year rule,
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 583.330, to
the extent necessary to allow the setting of the
new Trial date in accordance with this Paragraph
13; and
(iii) modify the discovery date, pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedure § 2024(d), to apply to such new
Trial date.
14. Termination of the Agreement.
If the Property is not sold pursuant to the terms and
conditions and within the time limits of this Agreement, this
Agreement shall be terminated and be deemed null and void, and
shall not be introduced into evidence or used in connection with
the Lawsuit in any manner or for any purpose whatsoever.
15. Waiver of Rights Under California Civil Code § 1542.
The parties hereto do hereby further agree as follows in
connection with the releases set forth in Paragraph 2 of this
Agreement, and subject to the provisions of paragraph 2(d).
A. There is a risk that subsequent to the execution of
this Agreement, one or more parties will incur or suffer losses,
damages, or injuries which are in some manner caused by the
actions or omissions referred to herein and in the Lawsuit which
are unknown or unanticipated at the time"this Agreement is
signed.
B. Each party has had the opportunity to obtain the
advice of legal counsel prior to the execution of this Agreement.
Each party hereby assumes the above-mentioned risk and
acknowledges that this Agreement SHALL APPLY TO ALL UNKNOWN OR
UNANTICIPATED RESULTS OF THE ACTIONS, OMISSIONS AND OCCURRENCES
DESCRIBED HEREIN AND IN THE LAWSUIT, AS WELL AS THOSE KNOWN AND
ANTICIPATED, and all parties hereto do hereby waive any and all
rights under California Civil Code § 1542, which Section has been
duly explained, and reads as follows:
A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS
WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOWN OR SUSPECT
TO EXIST IN HIS FAVOR AT THE TIME OF
EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM
MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS SETTLEMENT
WITH THE DEBTOR.
C. Each party executes this Agreement voluntarily, with
full knowledge of its significance and with the express
intention of effecting the legal consequences provided by
-11-
California Civil Code § 1541 (i.e., the extinction of all
obligations).
16. Affected Parties.
Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Agreement,
all of the terms of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of,
be binding upon and be enforceable by the parties hereto and
their spouses, families, heirs, executors, administrators,
employees, agents, representatives, successors, officers,
directors, shareholders and Council members, as applicable, and
any other person claiming by or through such parties.
17. Prohibition Against Assignment or Transfer.
Each party hereto represents and warrants that no claim,
right, demand, action or cause of action, or any portion
thereof, that it, he or she has or might have arising out of any
matter relating to the subject of the Lawsuit, to which each
party might or claims to be entitled, has been assigned or
transferred to any other person, firm, or corporation of law or
otherwise, except as disclosed in the following paragraph. In
the event that any claim, demand or suit should be made or
instituted against any of the parties hereto because of any such
purported assignment or transfer, including but not limited to
that disclosed herein, the party causing the assignment or
transfer agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the party against
whom such claim, demand or suit is made, and to pay and satisfy
any such claim, demand or suit, including necessary expenses of
investigation, attorneys' fees and costs.
Gotanda hereby discloses that such an assignment has been
made by Gotanda to Roy and Mary Gotanda.
18. Successors and Assignees.
Neither this Agreement nor any of the rights and
obligations hereunder shall be assignable by any of the parties
hereto without the prior written consent of the other parties
first obtained, and any attempted assignment without the written
consent shall be void and confer no rights upon any third party.
__Subject to the foregoing, this Paragraph shall be binding upon
and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their
respective spouses, families, heirs, executors, administrators,
employees, agents, representatives, successors, officers,
directors, shareholders, Council members and permitted
assignees.
19. Nonadmission of Liability.
This Agreement is a result of a compromise and shall never
at any time for any purpose be considered as an admission of
-12-
liability or responsibility on the part of each of the parties
hereto, who continue to deny such liability and to disclaim such
responsibility.
20. Costs and Attorneys' Fees.
Each party hereto agrees to bear its or his own expenses,
costs and attorneys' fees.
21. Amendments.
No amendment, supplement or modification of any term,
provision or condition of this Agreement shall be binding or
enforceable unless executed in writing by the parties hereto.
22. Entire Agreement.
This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the
parties hereto and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous
agreements, arrangements, negotiations and understandings between
the parties hereto. There are no other understandings,
statements, promises or inducements, oral or otherwise, contrary
to the terms of this Agreement. No representations, warranties,
covenants or conditions, expressed or implied, whether by statute
or otherwise, other than as set forth herein, have been made by
any party hereto.
23. Severability.
Should any part, term or provision �f this Agreement or any
document herein to be executed be declared invalid, void or
unenforceable, all remaining, parts, terms and provisions hereof
shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be
invalidated, impaired, or affected thereby.
24. Applicable Law.
This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in
accordance with, the laws of the State of California. Each party
hereto agrees, as material inducement to every other party, that
an action to enforce this Agreement or any of the rights and
obligations hereunder must be brought in a Court having its situs
within the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and no
other Court.
25. Upon the full execution of this Agreement by.all
parties and their attorneys, that certain Subdivision Bond issued
by Capital Bond and Insurance Company, bearing Bond No. 001316 in
the sum of $30,000, and dated April 4, 1985, shall be released
and discharged by the City.
-13-
IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Agreement on the date and at the place mentioned hereinabove.
THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
By:
Etta Si son, ayor
COAST MORTGAGE & REALTY INVESTORS
By: 4,tta
APS.1
in ividually and doing
busines as RRACO INVESTMENTS
By:
Approved as to Form and Content.
KANE, BALLMER & BERKMAN
Murray O. Kane
By: MOL.vv..
7 o . 4.0•I
Mu ray O. Kane
Attorneys for THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH
QUINN, KULLY AND MORROW
Laurence . Hutt
By: i -/
Laur nce Hutt
Attorne or COA MORTGAGE
REALTY & INVESTORS
—FRIED, KING & HOLMES
Howard King
By:
Howard ing
Attorneys for CHARLES GOTANDA,
individually and doing business
as TERRACO INVESTMENTS
-14-
The undersigned hereby expressly acknowledge and consent to
this Agreement of Settlement and Mutual Release and to each of
its terms and hereby hold the City and CMRI (and its parent
companies, subsidiaries and affiliates) harmless from any matter
or payment that may arise from or be related to the subject
matter thereof.
Dated:
Roy Gotanda
Dated: l 2
ry Gotanda
is\rt\HB-Agt.Rel
'
4
AGREEMENT OF SETTLEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE
THIS AGREEMENT OF SETTLEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE (the
"Agreement") is made, entered into and effective this �A day of
, 1987, by and between THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, a municipal corporation (the "City"), COAST MORTGAGE &
REALTY INVESTORS, a California corporation ("CMRI") and CHARLES
GOTANDA, an individual and doing business as TERRACO INVESTMENTS
("Gotanda").
RECITALS
A. The property which is the subject of this Agreement is
that certain real property located within the boundaries and
jurisdiction of the City, which property is more particularly
described as Lot 2 of Tract No. 33744 as per map filed in Book
907, Pages 65 and 66, of Maps of the records of the County of Los
Angeles, California (the "Property").
B. On or about October 18, 1978 the City Council for the
City (the "City Council") adopted Resolution No. 78-4231
approving the application of Gotanda for Final Tract Map 33744
pertaining to the Property, subject to the conditions in Planning
Commission Resolution P.C. 77-37 and Gotanda's execution and
performance of a document concerning the Property entitled
"Trust Agreement".
C. On or about November 17, 1978, -and pursuant to the
terms of the Trust Agreement, Gotanda executed and delivered to
the City a document entitled "Grant Deed" which constitutes a
Trust Deed concerning the Property. On or about December 26,
1978 the Grant Deed was duly recorded as Document No. 78-
1427421 in the Office of the Recorder for the County of Los
Angeles, California (the "Recorder's Office").
D. On or about December 6, 1978, and pursuant to the City
Council's approval of Final Tract Map 33744, the City and
Gotanda executed the Trust Agreement. On or about December 26,
1978 the Trust Agreement was duly recorded as Document No. 78-
1427421 in the Recorder's Office.
E. On or about December 26, 1978, and after Culver
Financial Corporation, CMRI's predecessor in interest, executed
and delivered to Gotanda a Grant Deed conveying the Property to
Gotanda, the Grant Deed executed and delivered to the City by
Gotanda referenced in Paragraph C hereinabove was duly recorded
in the Recorder's Office as Document No. 78-142719.
F. Gotanda has developed a condominium development (the
"Condominium Project") adjacent to the Property on Lot 1 of
Tract No. 33744 as per map filed in Book 907, Pages 65 and 66 of
Maps of the Recorder's Office ("Lot 1").
.%
G. The City, CMRI and Gotanda acknowledge the pendency in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles (the "Court") of Case No. C 442 290 [consolidated
with Case No. C 448 756], entitled Coast Mortgage & Realty
Investors, etc. v. The City of Hermosa Beach, etc., et al. (the
"Lawsuit"). Certain disputes and controversies have arisen
between the City, CMRI and Gotanda with regard to the Property,
including, but not limited to, the disputes alleged in the
Lawsuit. CMRI filed its Complaint against the City and Gotanda
on or about February 11, 1983, and filed its First Amended
Complaint against these parties on or about May 25, 1984. On or
about February 25, 1983 Gotanda filed his Complaint in the
Lawsuit, naming the City and CMRI as Defendants. On or about
December 16, 1986 the City filed its Cross -Complaint in the
Lawsuit, naming CMRI and Gotanda as Cross -Defendants. The
parties have filed several additional pleadings and other matters
since the commencement of the Lawsuit.
H. As used herein, "subject" or "subject matter", or any
reference to these terms, shall refer to the events, claims,
transactions and occurrences relating to the Lawsuit and all
matters, transactions, claims and events related and incidental
thereto or giving rise thereto.
I. The City, CMRI and Gotanda now wish to settle and
resolve all differences and disputes between them, and to
compromise any and all rights and obligations they have in
connection with the subject hereof. The,parties hereto have
accordingly agreed fully and finally to resolve said differences,
disputes, rights and obligations regarding the subject hereof and
to memorialize their agreement in this Agreement.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises,
covenants and agreements herein contained, the parties hereto
agree as follows:
1. Conditions Precedent to Settlement.
This Agreement is subject to the conditions precedent of the
consummation of the sale of the Property and of the distribution
to the parties hereto of the sale proceeds in accordance with the
terms and conditions of this Agreement.
2. Mutual Release and Waiver of Claims.
.(a) The City. Subject to the Conditions Precedent to
Settlement as set forth in Paragraph 1 of this Agreement, except
as to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and effective
upon entry by the Court of the Dismissal with Prejudice of the
-2-
entire Lawsuit, the City, for itself and on behalf of its
predecessors, successors, assigns, Council members, officers,
employees, agents and representatives as applicable, hereby fully
releases CMRI (and its parent companies, subsidiaries and
affiliates) and Gotanda and their respective predecessors,
successors, heirs and assigns, shareholders, officers, directors,
employees, agents and representatives as applicable from any and
all sums of money, accounts, contracts, controversies, actions,
causes of action, claims, demands, judgments, executions,
attachments, debts of every kind and nature, known and unknown,
suspected or unsuspected, which the City now has or claims to
have, or at any time heretobefore had or claimed to have had, or
at any time hereafter will have or claim to have against CMRI
(and its parent companies, subsidiaries and affiliates) and
Gotanda by reason of any matter or thing related to, or directly
or indirectly connected with or arising out of the events,
transactions or occurrences constituting the subject matter
hereof.
(b) CMRI. Subject to the Conditions Precedent to
Settlement as set forth in Paragraph 1 of this Agreement, except
as to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and effective
upon entry by the Court of the Dismissal with Prejudice of the
entire Lawsuit, CMRI (and its parent companies, subsidiaries and
affiliates) for itself and on behalf of its predecessors,
successors, assigns, shareholders, officers, directors,
employees, agents and representatives as applicable, hereby fully
releases the City and Gotanda and their respective predecessors,
successors, heirs and assigns, shareholders, officers, directors,
employees, Council members, agents and representatives as
applicable from any and all sums of money, accounts, contracts,
controversies, actions, causes of action, claims, demands,
judgments, executions, attachments, debts of every kind and
nature, known and unknown, suspected or unsuspected, which CMRI
(and its parent companies, subsidiaries and affiliates) now has
or claims to have, or at any time heretobefore had or claimed to
have had, or at any time hereafter will have or claim to have
against the City and Gotanda by reason of any matter or thing
related to, or directly or indirectly connected with or arising
out of the events, transactions or occurrences constituting the
subject matter hereof.
(c) Gotanda. Subject to the Conditions Precedent to
Settlement as set forth in Paragraph 1 of this Agreement, except
as to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and effective
upon entry by the Court of the Dismissal with Prejudice of the
entire Lawsuit, Gotanda, for himself and on behalf of his
predecessors, successors, heirs and assigns, shareholders,
officers, directors, employees, agents and representatives as
applicable, hereby fully releases the City and CMRI (and its
parent companies, subsidiaries and affiliates) and their
respective predecessors, successors, assigns, shareholders,
-3-
officers, directors, employees, Council members, agents and
representatives as applicable from any and all sums of money,
accounts, contracts, controversies, actions, causes of action,
claims, demands, judgments, executions, attachments, debts of
every kind and nature, known and unknown, suspected or
unsuspected, which Gotanda now has or claims to have, or at any
time heretobefore had or claimed to have had, or at any time
hereafter will have or claim to have against the City and CMRI by
reason of any matter or thing related to, or directly or
indirectly connected with or arising out of the events,
transactions or occurrences constituting the subject matter
hereof.
(d) As between Gotanda and CMRI only, this Agreement,
including without limitation any release or dismissal between
them provided for herein, shall be subject to and limited by the
terms of the separate Agreement Modifying and Limiting Release
and Dismissal entered into by Gotanda and CMRI concurrently with
this Agreement of Settlement and Mutual Release.
3. Sale of the Property
(a) Auction Sale. The Property shall be offered for sale
pursuant to an auction by an auctioneer acceptable to all
parties hereto. The sale shall be advertised by public notice,
as described in Paragraph 3(b) of this Agreement, which shall
invite the submission of written sealed bids, specify the minimum
acceptable price for the Property and be published during the
periods and in the manner stated in Paragraphs 3 and 4 of this
Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall prohibit any party
from privately advising others of the auction and encouraging
their submission of bids.
(b) Notice of Sale. The Notice of Sale shall invite the
submission of sealed bids for the purchase of the Property in an
amount not less than the sum stated in the Notice, shall state
the terms and conditions of the Sale, shall state the time and
place of sale and shall state the deadline by which the sealed
bids must. be submitted. The Notice of Sale shall further state
that oral bids may be called at the time and place of sale
following the opening, examination and declaration of the written
sealed bids. The Notice of Sale shall be published in a
newspaper of general circulation serving the City and vicinity at
least one day of each week for a period of not less than 30 days
before the date of the Sale.
(c) Written Sealed Bids. The written sealed bids shall be
served on the auctioneer before or at the time specified in the
published Notice of Sale. Each sealed bid shall be accompanied
by a cash deposit, cashier's check, letter of credit or cash
equivalent in the amount of 5% of the purchase price of the
Property stated in the Notice of Sale as a guarantee that the
-4-
person making such bid will purchase the Property upon the terms
and conditions specified in the Notice of Sale. No sealed bid
shall be considered unless accompanied by such cash deposit,
cashier's check, letter of credit or cash equivalent.
(d) Oral Bids. The auctioneer shall call for oral bids at
the time and place of sale following the opening, examination and
declaration of the written sealed bids if no sealed bid is
received that offers the requisite minimum purchase amount, or a
sum exceeding such amount, and is not accompanied by the 5%
deposit described in Paragraph 3(c) of this Agreement. The
auctioneer may also call for oral bids in the event that at least
one sealed bid offers the requisite minimum purchase amount, or a
greater sum, and is accompanied by such deposit. However, no
oral bid shall be considered at the time and place of sale
unless:
(1) such oral bid exceeds the highest bid, whether
written or oral, declared at the time and place of
sale by an amount of not less than $10,000; and
(2) prior to the call for oral bids, the 5% deposit
described in Paragraph 3(b) of this Agreement
shall have been caused to be delivered to the
auctioneer by the person submitting such oral bid.
(e) Conduct of the Sale. The auctioneer, at the time and
place set forth in the Notice of Sale, shall open, examine and
declare the written sealed bids. If no such sealed bid offers
the requisite minimum purchase amount, ora greater sum, and is
not accompanied by the 5% deposit described in Paragraph 3(c) of
this Agreement, the auctioneer shall call for oral bids in
accordance with Paragraph 3(d) of this Agreement. The
auctioneer may call for oral bids in the event that at least one
sealed bid offers the requisite minimum purchase amount, or a
greater sum, and is accompanied by such deposit in accordance
with Paragraph 3(d) of this Agreement. The highest qualified
bidder shall be deemed the purchaser of the Property (the
"Purchaser"). No person or entity in any way connected with any
of the parties to this Agreement shall be deemed the Purchaser,
regardless of whether such person or entity submits the highest
bid in accordance with the terms and conditions of this
Agreement.
4. Purchase Price of the Property.
(a) First Offer of Sale. The Property shall be offered for
sale in accordance with Paragraph 3 of this Agreement within 15
days of the execution of this Agreement for an initial period of
30 days at a minimum purchase price of one million and seven
hundred thousand dollars ($1,700,000).
-5-
(b) Second Offer of Sale. If no bid, either written or
oral, which meets the requirements of Paragraph 3 of this
Agreement and offers the amount set forth in Paragraph 4(a) of
this Agreement, or any greater amount, is received by the
auctioneer before or at the time and place of the sale within the
30 -day period stated in Paragraph 4(a) of this Agreement, the
Property shall be offered for sale in accordance with Paragraph 3
of this Agreement for the next succeeding 30 days at a minimum
purchase price of one million and six hundred thousand dollars
($1,600,000).
(c) Third Offer of Sale. If no bid, either written or
oral, which meets the requirements of Paragraph 3 of this
Agreement and offers the amount set forth in Paragraph 4(b) of
this Agreement, or any greater amount, is received by the
auctioneer before or at the time and place of the sale within the
30 -day period stated in Paragraph 4(b) of this Agreement, the
Property shall be offered for sale in accordance with Paragraph 3
of this Agreement for the next succeeding 30 days at a minimum
purchase price of one million and five hundred thousand dollars
($1,500,000).
5. Distribution of the Sale Proceeds.
The proceeds of the sale of the Property shall be
distributed amongst the parties as follows:
(a) In the event the purchase price is between one million
and five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000) and one million
and six hundred thousand dollars ($1,600,b00), the City shall
receive two hundred and twenty thousand dollars ($220,000) less
20% of the difference between the actual purchase price and one
million and six hundred thousand dollars ($1,600,000), CMRI
shall receive three hundred and seventy thousand dollars
($370,000) less 30% of the difference between the actual purchase
price and one million and six hundred thousand dollars
($1,600,000) and Gotanda shall receive the balance.
and s(b)huInrththe
teventntthe
eopurchase price is between one million
seven hundred thousand dollars s ($1'600,000) and one million and
receive two hundred and twenty thousand1,700,Odollars ( City
22Oshall
47.5% of any excess over one million and six hundredthousandd
dollars ($1,600,000), CMRI shall receive three hundred and
seventy thousand dollars ($370,000) and 12.5% of any excess over
one million and six hundred thousand dollars ($1,600,000), and
Gotanda shall receive the balance.
(c) In the event the purchase price is between one million
and seven hundred thousand dollars ($1,700,000) and one million
and eight hundred thousand dollars ($1,800,000) the City shall
receive two hundred sixty seven thousand and five hundred
-6-
dollars ($267,500) and 32.5% of any excess over one million and
seven hundred thousand dollars ($1,700,000), CMRI shall receive
three hundred eighty two thousand and five hundred dollars
($382,500) and 17.5% of any excess over one million and seven
hundred thousand dollars ($1,700,000) and Gotanda shall receive
the balance.
(d) In the event the purchase price is between one million
and eight hundred thousand dollars ($1,800,000) and one million
and nine hundred thousand dollars ($1,900,000) the City shall
receive three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) and 25% of any
excess over one million and eight hundred thousand dollars
($1,800,000), CMRI shall receive four hundred thousand dollars
($400,000) and 25% of any excess over one million and eight
hundred thousand dollars ($1,800,000) and Gotanda shall receive
the balance.
(e) In the event the purchase price is between one million
and nine hundred thousand dollars ($1,900,000) and any
greater sum, the City shall receive three hundred and twenty
five thousand dollars ($325,000) and 27.5% of any excess over one
million and nine hundred thousand dollars ($1,900,000), CMRI
shall receive four hundred and twenty five thousand dollars
($425,000) and 22.5% of any excess over one million and nine
hundred thousand dollars ($1,900,000) and Gotanda shall receive
the balance.
6. Costs of Sale.
Any costs of sale shall be subtracted from the gross
purchase price prior to the distribution of the sale proceeds
described in Paragraph 5 of this Agreement.
7. Disposition of Deposit.
(a) The deposits made by all unsuccessful bidders shall be
returned to such bidders at the completion of the auction. The
deposit of the highest bidder shall be transferred to the escrow
agent in accordance with Paragraph 9 of this Agreement, and shall
be retained by the escrow agent as a guarantee that the highest
bidder will complete the purchase. At the opening of escrow the
deposit of the highest bidder shall be used as part of the
purchase price of the Property.
(b) In the event the highest bidder fails to complete the
purchase of the Property, the deposit shall be deemed liquidated
damages, and shall be distributed to the City, CMRI and Gotanda
in accordance with the formulae that would have governed the
distribution of the sale proceeds set forth in Paragraph 4 of
this Agreement, had such sale been completed.
(c) In the event the highest bidder fails to complete the
purchase of the Property, the next highest qualified bidder, if
any, shall have the right of first refusal as to the purchase of
the Property at the amount of the highest bid. If the next
highest qualified bidder fails to exercise the right to purchase
the Property by opening escrow in accordance with paragraph 9
within 10 days of receipt of notice of such right of first
refusal, the Property shall be offered for sale in accordance
with Paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Agreement, but in no event shall
the Property be offered for sale if the Property had been
previously and unsuccessfully offered for sale in accordance
with Subparagraphs (a) through (c), inclusive, of Paragraph 4 of
this Agreement. If the next highest qualified bidder exercises
the right to purchase the Property and thereafter fails to
complete such purchase, the deposit of such bidder shall be
deemed liquidated damages, and shall be distributed in accordance
with Paragraph 7(b) of this Agreement.
8. Distribution of Previously Acquired Funds.
Any funds previously received by the City from the rental of
all or any portion of the Property during the pendency of the
Lawsuit shall be distributed among the City, CMRI and Gotanda
according to the same percentages actually used for the
distribution of the net sale proceeds described in Paragraph 5 of
this Agreement only if the Property is sold and the sale proceeds
are distributed in accordance with the terms and conditions of
this Agreement.
9. Escrow
Not more than five (5) days after the highest qualified bid
is accepted in accordance with Paragraph 3 of this Agreement,
the person submitting such bid shall open an escrow with an
escrow agent (the "Escrow Agent") satisfactory to the City, CMRI
and Gotanda.
(a) Auctioneer Deposits. The auctioneer shall deliver to
the Escrow Agent:
(i) the written bid of the highest bidder, or in the case
of an oral bid, the oral bid as memorialized by the
auctioneer and executed by the highest bidder; and
(ii) the highest bidder's 5% deposit described in
Subparagraphs (c) and (d) of Paragraph 3 of this
Agreement.
.(b) Purchaser Deposit. The Purchaser shall, within forty
five (45) days of opening Escrow, deliver to the Escrow Agent a
cash deposit, cashier's check or cash equivalent in the amount of
the purchase price of the Property.
-8-
(c) City Deposits. The City shall deliver to the Escrow
Agent the following:
(i) Dismissals and Releases of CMRI and Gotanda from
the City in accordance with Paragraph 2 of this
Agreement; and
(ii) A deed sufficient to convey all interests held by
the City in the Property to the Purchaser.
(d) CMRI Deposits. CMRI shall deliver to the Escrow Agent
the following:
(i) Dismissals and Releases of the City and Gotanda
from CMRI in accordance with Paragraph 2 of this
Agreement; and
(e)
Agent the
(ii) A deed sufficient to convey all interests held by
CMRI in the Property to the Purchaser.
Gotanda Deposits. Gotanda shall deliver to the Escrow
following:
(i) Dismissals and Releases of the City and CMRI from
Gotanda in accordance with Paragraph 2 of this
Agreement; and
(ii) A deed sufficient to convey all interests held by
Gotanda in the Property to the Purchaser.
(f) Escrow Instructions. Upon the receipt of the all of
the Deposits described in Paragraph 9 of this Agreement within
forty five (45) days of the opening of this Escrow the Escrow
Agent is instructed to:
(i) file the Dismissals described in Paragraphs 2 and
9 of this Agreement with the Court and serve each
of the parties hereto with conformed copies
thereof;
(ii) record such deeds as necessary to vest title or
other interest in the Purchaser in accordance with
the terms and conditions of this Agreement; and
(iii) distribute the sale proceeds to the City, CMRI and
Gotanda, or such other person as any of them may
designate in writing, in accordance with Paragraph
5 of this Agreement.
10. Release and Waiver of Claims Regarding Lot 1.
CMRI and Gotanda shall release and waive any and all claims
against the City in connection with the Condominium Project on
Lot 1.
11. Confidentiality.
The terms of this Agreement shall remain confidential,
until and unless otherwise required by law.
12. Permissible Uses of the Property.
The sale documents and marketing materials shall set forth
the permissible land uses of the Property under the City's
Ordinances, Code and regulations.
13. Abeyance of Litigation.
Except as otherwise provided in this Paragraph 13, and
except as to any other proceedings necessary to effectuate the
purpose and intent of this Agreement, no further discovery or
other proceedings relating to the Lawsuit shall be conducted.
(a) Stipulations. Concurrently herewith, the City, CMRI
and Gotanda shall, through their respective counsel, execute
stipulations or other appropriate documentation or take other
appropriate action to:
(i) continue the Trial date for the Lawsuit to the
first available date of the Court on or after
August 1, 1988;
(ii) waive the provisions of the five-year rule,
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 583.330, to
the extent necessary up to and including November,
1988 to allow the setting of the new Trial date in
accordance with this Paragraph 13; and
(iii) modify the discovery date, pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedure § 2024(d), to apply to such new
Trial date.
(b) Stipulations Upon Opening of Escrow. In the event an
escrow for the purchase of the Property is opened in accordance
with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the City, CMRI
and Gotanda shall, within 10 days thereof, through their
respective counsel, execute stipulations or other appropriate
documentation or take other appropriate action to:
(i) continue the Trial date for the Lawsuit until at
least 90 days after the scheduled close of escrow;
-10-
(ii) waive the provisions of the five-year rule,
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 583.330, to
the extent necessary to allow the setting of the
new Trial date in accordance with this Paragraph
13; and
(iii) modify the discovery date, pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedure § 2024(d), to apply to such new
Trial date.
14. Termination of the Agreement.
If the Property is not sold pursuant to the terms and
conditions and within the time limits of this Agreement, this
Agreement shall be terminated and be deemed null and void, and
shall not be introduced into evidence or used in connection with
the Lawsuit in any manner or for any purpose whatsoever.
15. Waiver of Rights Under California Civil Code & 1542.
The parties hereto do hereby further agree as follows in
connection with the releases set forth in Paragraph 2 of this
Agreement, and subject to the provisions of paragraph 2(d).
A. There is a risk that subsequent to the execution of
this Agreement, one or more parties will incur or suffer losses,
damages, or injuries which are in some manner caused by the
actions or omissions referred to herein and in the Lawsuit which
are unknown or unanticipated at the time'this Agreement is
signed.
B. Each party has had the opportunity to obtain the
advice of legal counsel prior to the execution of this Agreement.
Each party hereby assumes the above-mentioned risk and
acknowledges that this Agreement SHALL APPLY TO ALL UNKNOWN OR
UNANTICIPATED RESULTS OF THE ACTIONS, OMISSIONS AND OCCURRENCES
DESCRIBED HEREIN AND IN THE LAWSUIT, AS WELL AS THOSE KNOWN AND
ANTICIPATED, and all parties hereto do hereby waive any and all
rights under California Civil Code § 1542, which Section has been
duly explained, and reads as follows:
A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS
WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOWN OR SUSPECT
TO EXIST IN HIS FAVOR AT THE TIME OF
EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM
MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS SETTLEMENT
WITH THE DEBTOR.
C. Each party executes this Agreement voluntarily, with
full knowledge of its significance and with the express
intention of effecting the legal consequences provided by
-11-
California Civil Code § 1541 (i.e., the extinction of all
obligations).
16. Affected Parties.
Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Agreement,
all of the terms of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of,
be binding upon and be enforceable by the parties hereto and
their spouses, families, heirs, executors, administrators,
employees, agents, representatives, successors, officers,
directors, shareholders and Council members, as applicable, and
any other person claiming by or through such parties.
17. Prohibition Against Assignment or Transfer.
Each party hereto represents and warrants that no claim,
right, demand, action or cause of action, or any portion
thereof, that it, he or she has or might have arising out of any
matter relating to the subject of the Lawsuit, to which each
party might or claims to be entitled, has been assigned or
transferred to any other person, firm, or corporation of law or
otherwise, except as disclosed in the following paragraph. In
the event that any claim, demand or suit should be made or
instituted against any of the parties hereto because of any such
purported assignment or transfer, including but not limited to
that disclosed herein, the party causing the assignment or
transfer agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the party against
whom such claim, demand or suit is made, and to pay and satisfy
any such claim, demand or suit, including necessary expenses of
investigation, attorneys' fees and costs.
Gotanda hereby discloses that such an assignment has been
made by Gotanda to Roy and Mary Gotanda.
18. Successors and Assignees.
Neither this Agreement nor any of the rights and
obligations hereunder shall be assignable by any of the parties
hereto without the prior written consent of the other parties
first obtained, and any attempted assignment without the written
consent shall be void and confer no rights upon any third party.
Subject to the foregoing, this Paragraph shall be binding upon
and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their
respective spouses, families, heirs, executors, administrators,
employees, agents, representatives, successors, officers,
directors, shareholders, Council members and permitted.
assignees.
19. Nonadmission of Liability.
This Agreement is a result of a compromise and shall never
at any time for any purpose be considered as an admission of
-12-
liability or responsibility on the part of each of the parties
hereto, who continue to deny such liability and to disclaim such
responsibility.
20. Costs and Attorneys' Fees.
Each party hereto agrees to bear its or his own expenses,
costs and attorneys' fees.
21. Amendments.
No amendment, supplement or modification of any term,
provision or condition of this Agreement shall be binding or
enforceable unless executed in writing by the parties hereto.
22. Entire Agreement.
This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the
parties hereto and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous
agreements, arrangements, negotiations and understandings between
the parties hereto. There are no other understandings,
statements, promises or inducements, oral or otherwise, contrary
to the terms of this Agreement. No representations, warranties,
covenants or conditions, expressed or implied, whether by statute
or otherwise, other than as set forth herein, have been made by
any party hereto.
23. Severability.
Should any part, term or provision �f this Agreement or any
document herein to be executed be declared invalid, void or
unenforceable, all remaining, parts, terms and provisions hereof
shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be
invalidated, impaired, or affected thereby.
24. Apnlicable Law.
This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in
accordance with, the laws of the State of California. Each party
hereto agrees, as material inducement to every other party, that
an action to enforce this Agreement or any of the rights and
obligations hereunder must be brought in a Court having its situs
within the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and no
other Court.
25. Upon the full execution of this Agreement by.all
parties and their attorneys, that certain Subdivision Bond issued
by Capital Bond and Insurance Company, bearing Bond No. 001316 in
the sum of $30,000, and dated April 4, 1985, shall be released
and discharged by the City.
-13-
IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Agreement on the date and at the place mentioned hereinabove.
THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
By:
Etta Sin son, Mayor
COAST MORTGAGE & REALTY INVESTORS
0a-01 By: I.J �r �., I
individually and doing
busines=.. as RRACO INVESTMENTS
By:
Approved as to Form and Content.
KANE, BALLMER & BERKMAN
Murray O. Kane
By: 14/AAA/Ai o . AWAN-
M.
ay O. Kane
Attorneys for THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH
QUINN, KULLY AND MORROW
Laurence . Hutt
By:
Hutt
Laur-nce
AO° '7
Attorne or COA MORTGAGE
REALTY & INVESTORS
FRIED, KING & HOLMES
Howard King
By:
Howard fCing
Attorneys for CHARLES GOTANDA,
individually and doing business
as TERRACO INVESTMENTS
-14-
The undersigned hereby expressly acknowledge and consent to
this Agreement of Settlement and Mutual Release and to each of
its terms and hereby hold the City and CMRI (and its parent
companies, subsidiaries and affiliates) harmless from any matter
or payment that may arise from or be related to the subject
matter thereof.
Dated:
Dated: l�
is\rt\HB-Agt.Rel
2tmi.L75,4014>
ary Gotanda
March 9, 1988
Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting
the Hermosa Beach City Council March 22, 1988
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE POSSIBILITY
OF A PARKING STRUCTURE
AT 14TH STREET AND MANHATTAN AVENUE
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that City Council receive and file this report.
BACKGROUND:
On the regular meeting on February 9, 1988 Council made a motion
directing staff to investigate and report back on the possibility
of a multi-level parking structure at 14th Street and Manhattan
Avenue.
ANALYSIS:
Staff conducted a site investigation and counted 22 metered
parking spaces. Staff has prepared a drawing (attached) of a
three-level parking structure with separate entrances on Palm
Drive, 14th Street and Manhattan Avenue. The balance of this
analysis will consider the following:
a) Parking Stalls
b) Estimated Construction Cost
c) Annual Maintenance Cost
d) Potential Annual Revenue
e) Economic Breakeven Analysis
f) Summary
g) Conclusion
a) PARKING STALLS
Due to the small lot size (100 ft. x 80 ft. = 8000 S.F.) the
total parking space of all three levels amounts to 68 stalls.
There are 22 existing stalls on the lot less 2 on -street parking
stalls lost to curb cuts leaves a net gain of 44 parking stalls.
EXAMPLE
Parking Stalls in new 3 -level structure 68
Existing parking stalls on the lot -22
Parking stalls City will lose from the street - 2
Additional parking stalls 44
1
lia
b) ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST:
The Building Department says a 3 -level parking structure must
consist of Type II construction. Type II construction is steel,
iron, concrete and/or masonry and costs approximately $20.00 1
S.F. to build.
8000 S.F. x 3 Floors = 240,000 S.F.
240,000 S.F. x $20.00 = $480,000
Cost for each additional stall 480,000 =
44 10,909
Cost for each parking structure stall 480 000 =
68 7,059
c) ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COST
Meters
a) Replacement
Assume two annual replacements
Meter cost = $210.00
Annual cost
b) Service and Collection
Assume $50 1 year 1 meter,
hence: $50 x 68 meters
c) Structure and Parking Lot Maintenance
d) POTENTIAL ANNUAL REVENUE
$ 420
3,400
1,000
Total: $4,820
a) Meters
Assume silver posted meters $336.00 1 meter
68 meters x $336.00 (1 meter @ year $22,848
b) Parking Tickets
Assume 16 tickets 1 meter 1 year
(each parking ticket costs $ 18.00) 16 x 68 x $18 19,584
Total: $42,432
e) ECONOMIC BREAKEVEN ANALYSIS
With a building cost of $480,000, an 8% average annual rate of
return and an annual net revenue of $38,948 per year, 55 years
would be required to recover the $480,000. If the average annual
rateof return rose above 8.1.1% the building cost would never be
fully recovered.
2
f) SUMMARY
Parking Stalls
Costs
Existing Lot - New Structure = Net
22 68 +44
a) Building Cost 0 480,000 -480,000
b) Maintenance Cost per Year 1,168 3,610 - 2,442
Revenues
a) Revenue per Year
b) Net Revenue -Cost per Year 12,601
g) CONCLUSIONS
Construction of a parking structure with silver posted meters
represents the largest revenue generator for the City. However,
it would take over 55 years to recover the initial construction
cost of $480,000. A 3 -story parking structure on this small site
is not a good investment.
13,769
42,558
38,948
+ 28,789
26,347
ALTERNATIVES:
Other alternatives considered by staff and available to City
Council are:
1) Consider this project with the circulation element
2) Do Nothing
3) Modify Project
4) Consider other Sites
Respectfully submitted,
Gary W eaton
Engineering Technician
Concur:
../
Concur:
4
An6tiiny Antich A
Director of Pu lic
Kevin B. Northcraft
City Manager
GW/umv
cc: Joan Noon, General Services Director
Viki Copeland, Finance Administrator
POPS/v
Works
Attachment: Drawing of
3 -level
Parking
Structure
,C.Ci_vtv0610.1 bYbEt5 CO
c :5.cR b: «A hbOL'VVE
--
.
.
`
-_'
--
_....—____~_
--
'.-
°
'' --�- r ^-
_.^
1
-
-
.
.
(
'
^—
�-.
- -
+~-
•
•
.
,
L
-`_ I.-, -
•
_
'-
-..
_
. `
•-_`.
•
�-.
-
}
---
.-`_-^-
.
•
_f-
.'.
| ] {
—�--!'-�-�'
_
1
p--�~-'
_
~
-
_
—
-_
.
' «.4.4
-4- -
-�-
-
._
-_^
,� --` _ ^-
....• .
_
__
-__
_.
-~-
.
,
-
--
.
.
_
to,
_
_.____-_.
.
` ^ ^
.
.
--` '^-
^^ _._--.1
. �
'
.
|
-_.
._`
•
.
_-_`_..�_.
`
•
•
__ _--•
..
-,
_~-
-
.
1
_
_
�
-r
_+-
-r�
:"."-
*-7
=-•�� /r»
-�� -
*` -
c
.
' ��
---
-~_
1
r
.
|
,
_^•
-.'
-
.4
-
,__�_�_- �«'�^
\
.---^-_-
_
.~ -_—,—
__~__~___-__
---- ,.•
,
_'_---., .^ .
_^ '
~
-
.
,
_
_____•,•••__.__�__~___~-_-�_
-
--f
. .'
.
.• -
� ^
';-----)
__-
-,
.
—'
'
'