Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/08/88"Conscience is that still, small voice that is sometimes too loud for comfort." -Bert Murray AGENDA REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, March 8, 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. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: PROCLAMATIONS: Camp Fire Birthday Week, March 13 - 20, 1988- Week of the Young Child, April 10 - 16, 1988 Drug & Alcohol Abuse Awareness Month, March, 1988 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 five minutes. Citizens with comments regarding City management or departmental operations are request- ed 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.) 1 (a) Recommendation to Approve Minutes of regular meeting of the City. Council held on February 23, 1988. (b) Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants Nos. through inclusive. (c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. (d) Recommendation to receive and file Monthly Investment Report: February, 1988. (e) Recommendation to receive and file Status report re. Conditional Use Permit enforcement program. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated February 29, 1988. (f) Recommendation to receive and file Child Abuse Monthly Report. Memorandum from Community Resources Director -A6) 2� Alana Mastrian dated March 1, 1988. (g) Recommendation to approve lease agreement between the L c-;'' City of Hermosa Beach and the South Bay Free Clinic., -a 9 `U` CS Memorandum from Community Resources Director Alana ,�,;'"�'''14 /1 Mastrian dated March 1, 1988. `�`' ',^ (h) (i) (j) (k) X-0-0-1(2/4/)// Recommendation to approve lease agreement between the iL0 City of Hermosa Beach and the Salvation Army. Memoran-2// dum from Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian dated March 1, 1988. Claim for Damage - Recommendation to authorize Self In- �,,� " ?,' surers Services to pay David Bell, 6032 California Avenue, Long Beach an additional loss claim in the ,o- c* amount of $976.20 to close this claim. Memorandum from City Clerk Kathleen Midstokke dated March 1, 1988. Assignment of agreement to process out -of state parking citations from Vertical Management to Computil. Memo- randum from General Services Director Joan Noon dated February 25, 1988. Recommended Action: To 1) approve agreement, 2) approve Consent to Release, and 3) authorize City Manager to sign said documents. 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. Recommended Action: To 1) accept as complete work com- pleted 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. Coun- ty; and 3) authorize staff to release the Labor and Materials Bond and Faithful Performance Bond from Diamond Pacific. 65V- (1) Recommendation to authorize the Fire Department toITtv A ,/rte solicit proposals for purchase of four inch fire hose/ C and fittings. Memorandum from Public Safety Director 4 Steve Wisniewski dated February 29, 1988. (m) Recommendation that the Council approve the ballot guage for the 4% special tax on utilities for the pur- _57 chase of the railroad right-of-way. Memorandum from City Attorney James P. Lough dated March 2, 1988. Authorization to solicit bids for Asphalt Street Repairs CIP 87-171. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated February 16, 1988. Recommended Action: To 1) approve plans and specifica- tions for City-wide asphalt street repairs; 2) authorize call for bids; and 3) authorize staff to iss'e an•en• as necessary. 0416"/-444/ �? /,�,�,, -4 pe (o)\�Authorization to solicit b` ds for elect ical/mocha.-cal improvements for Council Chambers and Community Center (CIPS 86-602 and 86-604.) Memorandum from Public Work Director An o y Antich/ ated F b , 1988. ime4-44" /141 Recommend Action: To 1) make a dec on n whethe to ,mt air condition the Council Chambers and appropriate the adeir c/ necessary dollars; 2) appropriate additional construc- tion dollars for Community Center Theatre air condition- ing and furnace system, consistent with 11/30/87 Council action to appropriate these funds after the design is complete; and 3) advertise for bids. Recommendation to authorize request for proposals for construction of an 6' x 8' building to house radio transmitters. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve W' e i dated b ary 29, 1988. „' ************4� *************************** //-- 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 ordince in regular order. **ICZT;41° 2• ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS - nto• r;).7) 4-4 94."( 3 (a) ORDINANCE NO. 88-915 - 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 waiver of further reading and adoption. (Continued from January 26 and February 23, 1988 meet- ings.) Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated March 1, 1988 77....tipg conti uation of this matter to May 24, 1988. 37:2 (b) RESOLUTION 88-5099 - A RESOLUTION APPROVING A P CISE PLAN FOR 720 EIGHTH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK A, REDONDO HERMOSA TRACT. For ado tion. (Continued from January 26 and February 23, =:8 meet- ings.) Memorandum from Planning Direc_• ichael Schubach dated March 1, 1988 requ ing continuation of this matter to May 24, 1988. ORDINANCE NO. 88-917 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAPS AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRON- MENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. (Areas 1, lA and 1B). For waiver of further reading and adoption. (d) ORDINANCE NO. 88-918 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE DEFINITION OF "RESTAURANT" AND "SNACK BAR AND/OR SNACK SHOP" AND APPROVAL OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. For waiver of further reading and adoption. (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. (f) A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #17678 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 429 BAYVIEW DRIVE, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. For adoption_. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated February 29, 1988. (g) 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. For adoption. (Annual renewal). Memo- randum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated February 23, 1988. (h) A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF A REPORT FOR THE FORMATION OF THE HERMOSA BEACH STREET LIGHTING DIS- TRICT NO. 1988-1989. For adoption. (Annual renewal). Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated February 23, 1988. (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 Wisniewskj dated February 29, 1988. 0 DIRECT STAFF TO AMENDING CHAPTER 29.5, ARTICLE IV, MERGER OF PARCELS. Memorandum from City Attorney Jam P. Lough dated March 2, 1988. Ai A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE 4% INCREASE IN THE UTILITY /i. -e USERS TAX EFFECTIVE MARCH 1, 1988 BE DESIGNATED IN THE PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES TAX FUND SOLELY FOR THE P.1J' PURPOSE OF THE COSTS OF ACQUISITION AND FINANCING OF THE'/ • PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE AT&SF RAILROAD RIGHT-OF- WAY. Memorandum from City Clerk Kathleen Midstokke dat- 7-0 ed March 2, 1988. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. X71D d Letter from Philip and Jean Anne Donatelli, 13238 Min- danao Way, Marina del Rey, dated February 16, 198 re. waiving of building moratorium. Recommended Action:R-e-fe to staff for w response. = ,,4/e`d A Letter from bodi Lazarow, Californians for Quality Government, dated February 25, 1988 requesting support of their initiative "Government Spending Limitation and Accountability Act". Recommended Action: To receive and file. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. /( _ 5. TEXT AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE AND NEGATIVE DECLARA. ,,�' iJGi�-S""D �` TION REGARDING OPEN SPACE DEFINITION, LOCATION AND COM- ,i.0', 44,47. 4e PUTATION. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael i cY�ac bruary 29, 98' . P,gh� _h/ Reco HEARINGS en /I trod ct p of ordinance. TEXT AMENDME TO AR IC i� /2Lt/� OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO,A, ESTABLISH AN ENFORCEMENT INFRACTION PROCESS FOR CONDI- ,t,/yiil 64F TIONAL USE PERMIT VIOLATIONS. Memorandum from P1 nni g i,, Director 'ichael Schubach dated Mar h 1, 1988.E err, /J Recommen•ed iictio: I ro uct'on of ordinance. 5.k - • 7. SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE TO ADD CARETAKER UNIT IN MANUFACTURING ZONE SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND STANDARD CONDITIONS. Memo- randum from Planning Director icsael Schubach dated March 1, 1988. Recommended Action: MUNICIPAL MATTERS Introdu•' ion ofg--01 ordinance. 8. A. MID -YEAR BUDGET REVIEW - 1987-88 FISCAL YEAR. (Continued from February 23, 1988 meeting.) Memo- randa from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft and Finance Administrator Viki Copeland dated March 3, 1988. Recommended Action: To receive and file this report; and adopt attached revised Budget Summary by Fund (Ex- hibit A-1&2), inclusive of all revisions to Revenues (Exhibit B), Appropriations (Exhibit C-1&2), Transfers (Exhibit D), and Designations (Exhibit E). B. STATUS REPORT ON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. 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. Recommended Action: To receive and file. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER Proposed Biltmore Site Appraisal. Memorandum from City -f.' A/ Manager evin Northcr ft da d March 2„ 1988. 4A2- , ” MISCELLANEOUS EM AND RE RTS - Y CO' �IL Report from Councilmember Williams on So. Bay Steerin g'�"-- Committee meeting with request for a vote on whether t direct SCAG to proceed with plans for a So. Bay Area Transportation Study. Report from Mayor Simpsons re. City's adoption of a Moun- r' tain Lion. (c) �_ Report from City Attorney, tee meetinsya r Letter from Councilmember Creighton dated February 29, 1988 re. bonding of City Treasurer with memorandum from 1� City Ma a er Kevi /f4 Nor c ft dated March 1, 1988. (e) Counc'1 t s poli re. City liability arising out of policy of allowing vehicles to encroach upon sidewalks. 3.7 Memorandum from City Attorney James P. Lough dated March 1, 1988. (/1,. , . f V 1 1 reE -4 (f) Planning Commission proposed City Council/Planning Com- mission workshop alternative dates. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated March _ 1988. j 11. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL _J) y _ Requests from Councilmembers for poible'futu a agenda mems: (a) Request by Councilmember Williams for Biltmore Site dis- cussion re. specific plan area and ballot measure. Recommended Action: 1) Vote3 bouncil whether to discuss this item; 2) refer to staff for a report back on a future agenda; or 3) relsplu ion o ijrn tter by cil action tonight. & — �w- RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING, CALL TOO ER VPL'E NG.� 12. MEETING OF THE ��M�f! HERMOSA BEACH PARKING DISTRIC _fVj I•""cif _ i CS- eir oun- C. �J'� :1✓ ADJOURN COMMISSION To approve minutes of the Vehicle Parking District Meet- ing held on October 27, 1987. Recommendation by Business Relations Subcommittee of th City Council that the Vehicle Parking District Commis- sion establish an on-going policy pertaining to sharing th cost q i•.tions. 1 e'l f merchant va MEETING VPD DISTRIC ADJOURNMENT/1e1te/ 3-4, CITY COUNCIL MEETING ,1207e,e0 ,c6y W---Voi 61,7•Attoddletvv4; • NEW CITY HALL OPERATING HOURS 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 Art,,wl_tr& or WELCOME! By your presence in the City Council Chambers you are participating in the process of representative government. Your government welcomes your interest and hopes you will attend the City Council meetings often. CITY VISION A less dense, more family oriented pleasant low profile, financially sound community comprised of a separate and distinct business district and residential neighborhoods that are afforded full municipal services . in which the maximum -costs are borne by visitor/users; led by a City Council which accepts a stewardship role for community resources and displays a willingness to explore innovative alternatives, and moves toward public policy leadership in attitudes of full ethical awareness. This Council is dedicated to learning from the past, and preparing Hermosa Beach for tomorrow's challenges today. Adopted by City Council on October 23, 1986 NOTE: There is no smoking allowed in the Council Chambers THE HERMOSA BEACH FORM OF GOVERNMENT Hermosa Beach bas the Council -Manager form of government, with a City Manager ap- pointed by and responsible to the City Council for carrying out Council policy. The Mayor and Council decide what is to be done. The City Manager, operating through the entire City staff, does it. This separation of policy making and administration is considsered the most economical and efficient form of City government in the United States today. GLOSSARY The following explanations may help you to understand the terms found on most agen- das for meetings of the Hermosa Beach City Council. • Consent Items A compilation of all routine matters to be acted upon by one vote; approval re- quires a majority affirmative vote. Any Councilmember can remove an item from this listing thereby causing that matter to be considered under the category Consent Cal- endar items Removed For Separate Discussion. Public Hearings Public Hearings are held on certain matters as required by law. The Hearings afford the public the opportunity to appear and formally express their views regarding the matter being heard. Additionally, letters may be filed with the City.Clerk, prior to the Hearing. Hearings Hearings are held on other matters of public importance for which 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 tbe ordinance to a subsequent meeting. Regular ordinances take effect 30 days after the second reading. Emergency ordinances are governed by different provisions and waive tbe 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 gral part of the City government. Vehicle Parking District No. 1 is operated as an inte- The City Council also serves as the Vehicle Parking District Commission. It's pur- mote public parking in the central business district. pose is to oversee the operation of certain downtown parking -lots end otherwise pro- February 25, 1988 Kevin Northcraft, City Manager City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hall Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mr. Northcraft: I am writing on behalf of Californians for Quality Government (CQG) to request your formal support and the support of the city council for the initiative we have filed for the June 7 ballot. CQG is composed primarily of the same organizations that defeated Prop. 61 last November. It includes the League of California Cities, California Police Chiefs, California Fire Chiefs, American Association of Retired Persons/CA, California School Boards Association as well as many other education, good government and public safety organizations. As you may remember, in 1979, Proposition 4 -- the Ganri spending limit -- was approved by state voters. Seven years later, what was originally promoted as a measure to cut excessive government spending has slowly evolved into a rigid straight -jacket on economic growth and the ability of government, state and local, to continue providing critical public services. The initiative which our coalition has filed would update the limit -- preserving the basic concept of a check on government spending while adjusting it to reflect our growing economy and changing needs. The measure, entitled the "Government Spending Limitation and Accountability Act" would update the method currently employed to determine annual spending limitations for state and local governments. It would modify the 'cost of living' and 'population' adjustments and provide taxpayers with an effective tool for holding government accountable. Enclosed for your review are background materials and a sample resolution. Should you have any questions or need further information, please call me at (213) 670-8221. Otherwise, I will call you in a few days. Thank you for your serious consideration. Sincerely, Dodi Lazar.w ADDITIONAL MATERIALS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE. On the Coalition... PDATE THE SPENDING UMI 11 1979, Dearly a decade age, California was a dramatically different place. erry Brown was governor lad the state was embroiled in an unprecedented •taxpayer revolt. r Double-digit inflation was considered a permanent fixture of the state and national economy. Over.?E. 90% of the then 23 million Californians were younger than 65. School enrollments were declining ';;; aad prison population was less than one-third of what it is today. Traffic jams did not clog every ireeway. AIDS had not yet been discovered, and the disposal of tonic waste was but a minor problem. Today, `ever ehanglag California s one of the fastest-growing states is the nation. t fez Y, #,.;.;•.;:',.qi• ,• , .': —.- t .., 1i1 i t.y;, 4 1 4N jY F ,Inflation hu seadily eclined since the mid -1980's. The California economy coatinoes to grow. California per capita personal income currently ranks one of the highest is the nation ., r rt r , 4• .\1 ', t ,V -n t' ,:, } ...-:"r;,•; I �t4-'%1 } Mori -than 27 million people now call California home. Over 130,000 new children enter our 4 school sy1tem every year: Oar senior citizen population also has soared, growing twice as fast is 'r the cumber of state residents, and is expected to far outstrip other demographic groups well tat the 'set century. By -the year 2000, 3.8 million Californians win be 65 or older. 1 4 11;• 1 `1"'-,::,..4,-„!';.:-.';' y.:t,iv ..p ,.. ,1''Y,, J SK ti,J 1 )i,. J r1 A., r. I. .t l•t ?` ..1,._1J 1� ,y ti We have 4 millionmore can oa the road today than in 1979. Californians sow waste 300,000 boars every day stuck in traffic jams. And, u Governor Deukmejian recently noted, 'If you think traffic is bad today, is just 13 years we will be sharing the road with 15 minion additional cars iy 5 4 ,.,i , ` li, v ,u , 5 `4� �: 1�,t a 'k"�aYer and trucks.• r t'<"' f A 1 .4et K tRtdAP •a a4 . � • * '% ,} U rt r t fan ' +Y S J • ! ^'°.nut t t :a t „r �. C fy: J F :' a aa.. n ., L�yr F-.:4 YY. Id :j'`a •�h a: "tyY I� r t :.• t t _� • The public's demand for tougher criminal laws and longer prison sentences has tripled our¢ mate population. California now houses one/tenth of all the prisoners in the Dation, making as the state with the worst prison overcrowding problem Just five years ago, the Department of Corrections budget was 8500 million. Today it exceeds 81.4 biUton and continues to skyrocket. r 1 i ',.',.i-..;,-:,::, v t ,..4k ' t : ,,;:?-,y2 ?: 1„;...,,:1,1 -f, -.:,,,;,,,,i,,,4. .�71 ” Y BY�.f„ , t.*, 'n ;t1`. � " State spending on anti -tonics programs have increased 40% and California now accounts fors 1" F A 4 Std :fully 5 �y one-fourth of ell the nation's AIDS cases. rNr ii AE {ai "l4rK. C A , ; i:•;1.'-,',';\,.'...''.,;.;-!,:;,', a :`..,q ,. lack in 1979, the year following the passage of Preposition 13, Californians approved Preposition 4, kaewn as the Gana Spending Limit. It restricted all future state and local government spending of tax revenue to 1979 levels, allowing animal adjustments only forgeaersl population and cost of living changes: (The latter is defined u the change- in the naked • ,b thY -.'•",-,..,,`„:.; w rJ,; States Consumer Price Index (CPI) or Cafoaie per capita persoaincome, whiehovefiset 4 h!s :.i*4 1 ia.ir !r •-,..,..=, F •, .y C tf t Kai•r ,;j,;a.31, r T 4hr Y , -Allowing annual adjustments strictly for general population and ieflatipa'changes might :.. well have seemed a surefire protection back in 1979• Much like the Edsel, the •uasiakable•, Wiz: : Titanic and the slew!' Coke once seemed likeuhood ideas. Such •� "` 1 r; ` .y � � `$,•t $ "• ^ikf'.r� YY r u� }i a'�r J4 �� y..w t ' ¢ f 1 'a g 1, q:;.x:A,'. rrA, tt ?fr.;? 6r ., _'jai, t :c„ .J, t '1 nr 541:.: Today, however, the spending limit has become as oat -..deli ud Inflexible docusint. ° It Is unworkable, unable to meet the changing needs of Californians mad sorely to need of apdati' it prohibits the use of already -collected tax dollars to maintain even the current level of. ..`t' education, law enforcement and other critical s_e,rvicc esr . ,, rftiy r ytiytC.r!r�J•'�ia�t w tar jrylr��`'"fir* '��z�"W{'xr , '1 ;:.;',.'d‘ " a p1 �gi• f� li„' `. r 1 �'.. � ` r. , r,: v :. c� k c>i_Rr In Tact, the Commission oa State Finance's forecast shows that the ezisting limit could force over S23 billion in cuts in current public services during 'the. next decade. r'That means 23 billion; is cutbacks to education, law enforcement. health care. senior programs mud” otber vital'iervices! It would further prevent the state from spending an additional S18 billion of revenue that will,, be available under :listing tax laws as a result of California's growing economy. ,f f , he�yyMy4•.r0. yi . �T�3 t ! : r �`!. I $, •S fJ1,. .. Myd tl ,J'44 4!7 tit o+jr„ We need an effective government spending limitation•,'nne" that-Will:force the politicians set priotiticSJand manage.our tax dollars efficiently. We can IIIaffordthe existing limitation' .. wbleh allows 1979 economics to control what we do today. encourages political shell gimes and' fiscal mismanagement and forces current service cutbacks at suck a critical time for California. • h .:"nr ,'al:•. ! ;',;• y _:.y tl ;' Y ,;�:'7' '!.,. ::.L > _;.: ;. i:r I > Ix At a time when California students struggle in the country's largest classrooms and a whopping one-third of them do not make it to high school graduation, we need a limit that will allow the recent education reform movement to continue .S nz ly Dias � ;_ .1,• At a time when senior citizens are quickly becoming the fastest growing segment in our state, we need a limit that will sot force farther cutbacks la Medi -Cal and health care for the elderly. • Ata time when California ranks No. 50 in per capita expenditures on transportation and the Department of Transportation projects more than $13 billion will be needed to accommodate growth. by 1995, we need a limit that enables us to keep up with the present and build for the future. At a time when the state is in the midst of the largest prison construction program in the nation to enable our prisons, currently bulging with twice their designed capacity, to accommodate our get -tough -on -crime demands, we need a limit that does not threaten to return these criminals to the streets simply because our prisons are toe crowded. 1 ` r,, - r { �• tit , t'. At a time when the cog of research and medical care for the state's `rowing flood of AIDS patients is expected to increase fourfold in the next four years, we need a limit that does net probibit'us from using available resources to combat an unanticipated, deadly epidemic. v : •.At a time when dramatic cutbacks are expected in federal funds which are currently not counted against the limit, we need a limit that will enable the state to help compensate for those lost dollars for education, law enforcement, health care and other critical services. h , That's why a growing coalition of education, law enforcement, business, health can, sealers �, t and good government organizations is placing as initiative on the June, 19$$ ballot that would update the limit. Known u the "Government Spending Limitation and Accountability Act", the "= measure would preserve the check oa government speeding bet adjust it to reflect ear growing economy,'; and changing seeds. It would modify the annual cost of living and population adjustments used under., existing law and provide taxpayers with an effective tool for holding government accountable. • Specifically, the initiative would base annual cost -of -living adjustments on the California Consumer Price Index (CPI), rather than the U.S. CPI, and would be balanced to reflect the real , growth of California's economy. Why should we be held back by a national inflation indicator that reflects the combined experiences of states like Arkansas and Louisiana? (� ' Annual population adjustments to the state limit would include increases in student enrollments. School population is currently growing twice u fast as overall state population We need to take care of those 130,000 new kids.' 12 the case of municipal governments with large commute populations, annual adjustments' would address the growing number of commuters using local services. Developing cities and counties should be able to put their increased resources to use in order to provide law enforcement and other local cervi:es for a growing base. Earmarked motor vehicle and gasoline taxes would be properly treated as user fees without adversely affecting other public services. These revenues would be guaranteed for their intended transportation purpose and still subject to the taxpayer protections provided by Proposition 13. Finally, to ensure the proper accountability to taxpayers, 'the. existing Commission' on State Finance would report annually the manner in which state revenues are spent and the amount of the ..; state appropriations subject to limitation.• California is the fastest growing state in the nation. Common sense dictates that our thriving `economy and increased revenues be used to meet our growing demands. We cannot afford to let a law that has become obsolete bold us back now. N ' Please contact: `:Californians for Quality Government (415) 340-0470 111 Anza Blvd., Suite 406 '"(213) 670-8221 Burlingame,'` CA 94010 :r<. ,-:✓I9tit:'moi:.-,:..e:ea�►�. r in Los Angeleh • • SLE RESOLUTION EQE CITIES WHEREAS, Californians for Quality Government, is sponsoring for the June, 1988 ballot an -initiative that would modify the current Government Spending Limitation that would more accurately reflect California's economic growth and spiraling service populations; and WHEREAS, the current Government Spending Limitation has threatened to halt all real increases and force reductions in health care, educa- tion, senior programs, public safety and other vital services; and WHEREAS, the current Government Spending. Limitation restricts state and local government spending to 1979 levels; adjusted only for population and inflation changes; and WHEREAS, the Commission on state Finance reports that the current limit could force over $23 billion in cuts in critical public services over the next decade; and WHEREAS, the current Government Spending Limitation is inflexible and inhibits the state's ability to use already -collected tax dollars to at least maintain the current level of funding for critical services; and WHEREAS, this proposed initiative would modernize both the cost of living and population formulas to more accurately reflect California's economic growth and changing needs and redefine gas taxes as user fees so to provide much needed transportation dollars without adversely affecting other crucial public services; and WHEREAS, this initiative would ensure accountability to taxpayers by requiring the existing Commission on State Finance to report annually the manner in which state revenues are spent and the amount of state appropriations subject to limitation; and WHEREAS, the League of California Cities, California Police Chiefs Association, California State Sheriffs Association, California Fire Chiefs Association, Californians for Better Transportation, California Tax Reform Association, League of Women Voters of California, California Teachers Association, California School Boards Association, California State PTA, California Community College Trustees, American Association of Retired Persons/CA, Congress of California Seniors, California Seniors Coalition, California Correctional Peace Officer Association, California Association of Homes for the Aging, California Association of Highway Patrolmen, Peace Officers Research Association of California, California State Employees Association, American Association of University Women/CA Division, California State Council of SErvice Employees, California Nurses Association, Lutheran Office of Governmental Ministry, and many others are in full support; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, that fully supports and endorses the "Government Spending Limitation and Accountability Act" for the June 1988 ballot. League of California Cities Gann Initiatives Overview Compiled for Board of Directors Meeting INITIATIVE PROPOSALS TO AMEND THE GANN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT As reported at your July meeting, there were three initiative proposals being sponsored by two groups that would modify the Gann Appropriations Limit (Article XIIIB of the California Constitution). At that meeting, the Board decided the League should not support any of these measures until final language was available. However, the Board did support the provisions of the original proposal of the Californians for Quality Government (CQG) coalition, as recommended by the Revenue and Taxation Committee. Before fully endorsing this proposal, the Board wanted to see whether the CQG original initiative proposal was circulated for signatures, or whether their second proposal was circulated which added language to exclude state gas taxes from the Gann Limit. The CQG coalition has dropped their original measure and has now certified the second proposal (excluding state gas taxes in addition to the provisions of the first measure) and the final language is now known. At the same time, another initiative proposal to amend the Gann Limit is being sponsored by the Committee for California's Future (CCF), a group headed by the organizations of Paul Gann and the late Howard Jarvis. At this time, these appear to be the only possible ballot measures affecting the Gann limit that could be on the June, 1988 ballot. The CQG measure is almost certain to qualify for the June ballot. The following provides a summary of these initiative measures for the Board's consideration. 1. Californian's for Quality Government (CQG) Initiative This measure is titled the 'Government Spending Limitation and Accountability Act,' and a full copy of the text is attached (Attachment 1). In general, the CQG initiative contains all of the four provisions endorsed by the Board at your July meeting, plus a provision that redefines the state's nine cents per gallon on motor vehicle fuel as a users fee and thereby excludes this revenue from the Gann Appropriations Limit. This 'user fee' would be outside the Limit only to the extent that they are used for transportation purposes, as specified in Article XIX of the California Constitution. This means this 'fee' could be increased by the Legislature without regard to the state's Gann Limit. This provision would not affect gasoline tax subvention revenues received by cities and counties, since they are currently excluded from local government limits by the implementing 'statutes of Article XIIIB (Government Code Section 7903). Also, this would not affect local sales tax or Vehicle License Fee revenues to cities and counties since Article XIX, Section 7, states that 'This Article shall not affect or apply to fees and taxes imposed pursuant to the Sales and Use Tax Law or the Vehicle License Fee law..." This provision• of the initiative accomplishes the same purpose as SCA 12 (Foran) which the League supported in 1986. -21- The other fourthe rBoardo in July, whf the ich G initiative remain again summarized here as supportedb Y follows: A. Cost -of -Living Adjustment. The annual cost -of -living adjustment to each entities Gann Limit would be defined as the change in the California Consumer Price Index or the California per capita personal income, whichever is greater. Current law is the change in the United States Consumer Price Index or the California per capita personal income, whichever is less. B. Annual Population Adjustment. In addition to an annual adjustment for the change in resident population, this measure would provide an additional adjustment for the change in persons employed. This will better recognize economic growth and development in the non-residential sector for cities. C. State Reporting Requirement. The Commission on State Finance would be required to annually report to the taxpayers how the state has spent its revenues during the preceding year, and the amount of state appropriations which are subject to the Gann Limit. D. Effective Dates of Changes. The revised calculation of cost -of -living changes and population as described in A and B above would become effective in the 1986-87 fiscal year for purposes of calculating the limit for 1988-89 and each year thereafter. Issue: This measure is generally consistent with the League's policy o jectives for amendments to Article XIIIB. It contains the same language previously supported by the Board plus language to exclude state gas taxes from the state's limit similar to SCA 12 which the League supported last year. Should the League support this measure, the measure described below, or both? Californians for Better Transportation (of which the League is a member) has endorsed both measures. Recsupportndoo fi n: The Revenue the CQG initiative, except Taxation theyCommittee ha have notas acted recommended additional gas tax provision. Board Decision: S u p po rr 2. Committee for California's Future (CCF) Initiative A second initiative proposal affecting the Gann Limit now has title and summary, and is being circulated for signatures. It is titled the 'Paul Gann Spending Limit Improvement and Enforcement Act of 1988.' As originally submitted, it included a provision that allowed the Governor - to enforce Article XIIIB "as necessary." This language, which would likely be opposed by local government has subsequently been deleted, as well as other less substantive changes. A copy of the revised language is enclosed (Attachment 2). The primary focus of the CCF initiative is to provide additional revenues for transportation. It maintains the current Gann Limit formula and does not include any changes in the cost -of -living or population adjustments that are contained in the CQG initiative. The major changes of the CCF. initiative are to (1) redefine the gas tax as a user fee, as with the CQG i initiative, and (2) dedicate sales tax revenues from gasoline to transportation purposes and define the revenues as user fees. Initially II these changes would provide $600 to $700 million annually for transportation, with increases thereafter as the state's economy expands. While this initiative appears to accomplish the same purpose contained in the CQG initiative, of removing gas taxes from the Gann Limit, there is a II technical flaw in the language that would have a negative impact on the state's general fund. The CO initiative has so-called "decompression' language that holds the state general fund harmless after removing gas r capac. However, the CCF y cit of the state generalinitiative fu d afterwould removing actually motorreduce capvehicle taxes. While this measure would have no direct effect on the Gann Limits of a cities it does offer one potentially valuable change for cities and counties in that the local sales tax would be placed in the Constitution by stating, "The Legislature shall not reduce the rate in effect on 11 JanuarySalesandUse Tax.' imposed Overall features ant oofhe theBradley-Burns CCF yinitiative Uniform Localalare Local summarized as follows: IIA. Maintains current Gann Limit formula. B. Placesthe one nt local sales tax in from reducing this rate he Constitution and 1 prohibits the Legislature C. Defines gas taxes as user fees, thus exempting them from the 111 spending limit restrictions. D. Defines sales tax on gasoline as a user fee and requires that these funds. be used for transportation purposes (phased in over a 1 three-year period). hree E. Establishes a state fun budget emergency Appropriations made to thereserve fund eual to treserve will ercent of theegeneral II not be subject to the spending. limit. 111 F. Allows appropriations to be made from the state's reserve (equal to two percent of general fund budget) for -emergency purposes if appropriation would be exempa two-thirds t from the state spending islative vote and the governor. Such appropriation 3 G. Requires that the governor annually calculate the spending limit. al H. Allows any taxpayer to challenge the governor's calculation. Issue: This initiative makes no changes in the Gann Limit provisions ill app icable to local government, but does provide potentially beneficial changes for cities by placing the local sales tax in the California Constitution and increasing the Leaxueu^t of supporttate thisameasure, ail ble for the CQG transportation. Should9 Ell initiative, or both? Recommendation: No policy committee has reviewed the CCF initiative. Board Decision: Took, pp d ati6"- B -23- Hermosa Beach City Schools P.O. Box Number 338 Hermosa Beach, California 90254 MEMBERS OF THE SUPERINTENDENT GOVERNING BOARD OF SCHOOLS Don Ryckman (213) 378-8961 Lynne Gonzales Joe Mark Susan Meyer Georgia Tattu Mary Lou Weiss March 8, 1988 Mayor Etta Simpson City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mayor Simpson, At their regular meeting of February 10, 1988, the Hermosa Beach Board of Trustees adopted Resolution No. 87-88/7 supporting and endorsing the "Government Spending Limitation and Accountability\ Act of 1988. The Board would appreciate any support other public agencies could give to his initiative. f/ ///' Yours trul Don Ryc an Superint= ndent DR/mg Encl. RESOLUTION NO. 87-88/7 GOVERNMENT SPENDING LIMITATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1988 WHEREAS, Californians for Quality Government, is sponsoring,for the June 1988 ballot, an initiative that would modify the current Government spending Limitation and would more accurately reflect our spiraling school population, and WHEREAS, more than one hundred thousand new children are entering our schools each year, and WHEREAS, California classrooms are already the most overcrowded in the nation; and WHEREAS, California schools are already critically underfunded and currently rank 47th in the nation in the percentage of personal income spent on its public schools; and WHEREAS, California school districts are already overburdened and critically reliant on the State Government, and WHEREAS, the current Government Spending Limitation has threatened to halt all real increases in educational spending and force reductions in current levels of educational funding; and WHEREAS, the current Government SpendingLimitation restricts state and local government spending for education to 1979 levels; adjusted only for population and inflation changes; and WHEREAS, the Commission on State Finance reports that the current limit could force over $23 billion in cuts and public services over the next decade; and WHEREAS, the current Government Spending limitation is inflexible and inhibits the state's ability to use already -collected tax dollars to at least maintain the current level of educational funding; and WHEREAS, this proposed initiative would modernize both the cost of living and population formulas to more accurately reflect California's economic growth and changing needs; and WHEREAS, this initiative would permit government entities making appropriations to schools to include increases in school enrollments in determining population adjustments; and WHEREAS, the Association of California School Administrators, California Teachers Association, California State PTA, California Federation of Teachers, California School Employees Association and many others are in full support; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees of the Hermosa Beach CitySchool District fully support and endorse the "Government Spending Limitation and Accountability Act of 1988," and recommends adoption of this resolution , and further be it RESOLVED, that the Hermosa Beach: City School District fully supports and endorses the "Government Spending Limitation and Accountability Act of 1988." t MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, February 23, 1988 at the hour of 7:45 P.M. CLOSED SESSION - 6:00 p.m. Present: Creighton, Rosenberger, Absent: None PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Assistant ROLL CALL Present: Creighton, Absent: None Sheldon, Williams, City Manager Alana Mayor Simpson Mastrian Rosenberger, Sheldon, Williams, Mayor Simpson PROCLAMATION - DARE Participation - Graduation - Wednesday, March 2, 1988 - Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski will present proclamation at Hermosa Valley School ACTIONS FROM CLOSED SESSION City Attorney Lough announced discussions were held regarding the potential purchase of the A.T.&S.F. Railroad right-of-way, and that a Council Subcommittee comprised of Mayor Simpson and Mayor Pro Tem Rosenberger met last week with Brian Weber representing A.T.&S.F. CITIZEN COMMENTS None 1. CONSENT CALENDAR Action: To approve Consent Calendar items (a) through y) with the exception of the following items which were pulled for further discussion but are listed in order for clarity: (f)•Sheldon, (m) Williams and (t) Sheldon. Motion Rosenberger, second Williams. So ordered. (a) Approval of Minutes: Special meeting of the City Coun- cil held on February 8, 1988. (b) Action: To approve minutes. Approval of Minutes: Regular meeting of the City Coun- cil held on February 9, 1988. Action: To approve minutes. 1 (c) Demands and Warrants: February 23, 1988. Action: To approve Demands and Warrants Nos. 25436 and 25547 through 25700 inclusive noting voided Warrants Nos. 25550 through 25566 inclusive. (d) Tentative Future Agenda Items. Action: To receive and file. (e) Building and Safety Department Monthly Activity Report: January, 1988. Action: To receive and file. (f) Community Resources Department Monthly Activity Report: January, 1988. Action: To receive and file. Motion Sheldon, second Rosenberger. So ordered. (g) Finance Department Monthly Activity Report: January, 1988. Action: To receive and file. (h) Fire Department Monthly Activity Report: January, 1988. Action: To receive and file. (i) General Services Department Monthly Activity Report: January, 1988. Action: To receive and file. (j) Personnel Department Monthly Activity Report: January, 1988. Action: To receive and file. (k) Planning Department Monthly Activity Report: January, 1988. Action: To receive and file. (1) Police Department Monthly Activity Report: January, 1988. Action: To receive and file. (m) Public Works Department Monthly Activity Report: January, 1988. Action: To receive and file. Motion Creighton, second Rosenberger. So ordered. - 2 - Minutes 2-23-88 t Monthly Revenue Report: January, 1988. Action: To receive and file. Monthly ExpenditureReport: January, 1988. Action: To receive and file. City Treasurer's Report: January, 1988. Action: To receive and file. Award of bid for lease/purchase of„ the, equipment and software for^thestand alone dispatch and records.sys- tems. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wis- niewski dated February 9, 1988. Action: To 1) rescind award of bid to Security Pacific Merchant Bank for lease/purchase of the equipment and software; 2) award the bid for lease/purchase to Mar- quette Lease Services, Inc.; 3) authorize City Manager to enter into lease agreement with Marquette Lease Ser- vices, Inc. for the lease/purchase of computer and com- munications equipment and software necessary for dis- patch and records management. (r) Report and recommendation coneerning.records_of_hazard- ,toxic mat ousand/or erial spills in the City of Hermosa Beach. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated February 10, 1988. Action: To receive and file report. (s) Cable TV Board summary report, and resignation of two board members. Memorandum from General Services Direc- tor Joan Noon dated February 10, 1988. Action: To 1) receive and file report, and 2) accept the resignations of Cable TV Board members R. Sylvia Barton and John A. McIntyre effective February 3 and 5 respectively. Also to not appoint others to fill those vacancies, thereby having the Board consist of only 8 members. (t) Informational update and. progress report on planned withdrawal from the_ South, Bay_ Regional Communications Authority. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated February 11, 1988. Ac� tion: To receive and file report, set a date of October 1, 1988 to have the system operational, and staff to notify Council of any problems or delays. Motion Creighton, second Sheldon. So ordered. - 3 - Minutes 2-23-88 (u) Claim for Damages: James Jones, represented by Howard A. Kapp, Esq., 315 So. Beverly Drive, Suite 406, Beverly Hills, CA 90212. Action: To deny claim and refer to City's Claims Administrator. (v) Authorization to solicit bids for Police Department_re- model, first floor 01P_$7-606). Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antieh dated February 11, 1988. Action: To 1) approve plans and specifications for Police Dept. 1st floor remodel including dispatch room, 2) authorize call for bids, and 3) authorize staff to issue addenda as necessary. (w) Authori ation to solicit bids for traffic si_nal im- provements CIP :5-13:. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated February 11, 1988. Action: To authorize staff to advertise for bids for rraa7fic Signal Improvements - CIP 85-138, and issue ad- denda as necessary. (x) Preliminary Design Report for Sanitary Sewer Design (CIP 47-405). Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated February 10, 1988. Action: To 1) accept the preliminary design report, and 2) authorize completion of the plans and specifications for CIP 86-405. (y) Award of contract, -.downtown area maintenance. Memoran- dum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated February 16, 1988. Action: To 1) reject bids, 2) authorize staff to re - advertise for bids and issue addenda as necessary, and 3) approve month-to-month extension with Specialty Main- tenance, Inc. for the 3 -months remaining (April, May & June) in FY 87-88. CITIZENS COMMENTS ON CONSENT ORDINANCES AND. RESOLUTIONS Jerry Cohen, Epstein & Associates, Santa Monica, representing Music Plus, asked for a continuance to the next meeting on items 2(a) and 2(b), Ordinance No. 88-915 for adoption and Resolution No. 88-5099 for adoption. Action: To continue agenda items 2(a) and 2(b) to the City Coun- cil meeting of March 8, 1988. Motion Sheldon, second Rosenberger. So ordered. 4 - - Minutes 2-23-88 • t. Action: To suspend the agenda and go to agenda item 5, Public Hearings. Motion Williams, second Creighton. So ordered. MOTION TO WAIVE FURTHER READING Action: To waive full reading of any ordinance or resolution on this evening's agenda. Motion Rosenberger, second Creighton AYES - Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Williams, Mayor Simpson NOES - None 2. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS (a) ORDINANCE NO. 88-915 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HER- MOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ZONE CHANGE FROM R- 2, C -POTENTIAL TO C-3 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PROP- ERTY LOCATED AT 720 EIGHTH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK A, REDONDO HERMOSA TRACT. For waiver of further reading and adoption. (Continued from January 26, 1988 meeting.) Continued to March 8, 1988 meeting. (b) RESOLUTION 88-5099 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRE- CISE PLAN FOR 720 EIGHTH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK A, REDONDO HERMOSA TRACT. For adop- tion. (Continued from January 26, 1988 meeting.) Continued to March 8, 1988 meeting. (c) ORDINANCE NO. 88-916 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HER- MOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DELETING TICKET BROKER FROM THE C-1 ZONE AND ADDING TICKET BROKER/SALES SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO THE C-2 ZONE PERMITTED USE LIST AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. For adoption. (a) Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 88-916 entitled "AN OR- DINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DELET- ING TICKET BROKER FROM THE C-1 ZONE AND ADDING TICKET BROKER/SALES SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO THE C-2 ZONE PERMITTED USE LIST AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMEN- TAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Motion Rosenberger, second Creighton. So ordered. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RELATING TO ACCESS OF CRIMINAL HIS- TORY INFORMATION FOR PURPOSES OF EMPLOYMENT; LICENSING, OR CERTIFICATION. For adoption. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated February 10, 1988. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 88-5107. entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA - 5 - Minutes 2-23-88 BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RELATING TO ACCESS OF CRIMINAL HIS- TORY INFORMATION FOR PURPOSES OF EMPLOYMENT, LICENSING, OR CERTIFICATION." Motion Williams, second Creighton. So ordered. (e) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP #18804 FOR 2 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 41 - 8TH COURT. For adoption. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated February 9, 1988. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 88-5108 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP #18804 FOR 2 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 41 - 8TH COURT." Motion Rosenberger, second Williams. So ordered. (f) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTIONS NO. 85-4860 AND NO. 87-5025 RELATING TO AUTHORIZED USERS OF VISA BANK CARD SERVICES FROM BANK OF AMERICA NT&SA. For adoption. Memorandum from Acting City Manager Alana M. Mastrian dated February 17, 1988. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 88-5109 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTIONS NO. 85-4860 AND NO. 87-5025 RELATING TO AUTHORIZED USERS OF VISA BANK CARD SERVICES FROM BANK OF AMERICA NT&SA (adding City Manager Kevin Northcraft). Motion Rosenberger, second Sheldon. So ordered 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. Consent Calendar items (f), (m) and (t) were discussed at this time but are listed in order for clarity. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. (a) Letter from Pam English, 28150 Alaminos Dr., Saugus dat- ed February 9, 1988 re. allowing guide dogs on the beach. Action: To receive and file, staff to write a letter thanking them for their concern. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered. (b) Letter from Ted Campbell, 1022 Third St., Hermosa Beach dated February 17, 1988 re. parking permits for people outside of impact zone. Action: To receive and file. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered. 6 Minutes 2-23-88 PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR AT&SF PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE REQUEST. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated February 17, 1988. Supplemental information - letter from Joe Greco, Turrini & Brink, dated February 19,. 1988 and memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated February 23, 1988. The staff report was presented by Planning Director Michael Schubach. The Public Hearing was continued open. Coming forward to speak were: Doug Boyd, Turrini & Brink, representing the applicant. John Edwards, 501-33 Herondo - in opposition Rosamond Fogg, 610 - 6th Street - in opposition Wilma Burt, 1152 - 7th Street - questioned minimum lot size The Public Hearing was closed. Action: To certify the Environmental Impact Report and adopt Resolution No. 88-5110 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFOR- NIA, CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE REQUEST." Motion Creighton, second Rosenberger AYES - Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Williams, Mayor Simpson NOES - None A recess was called at 8:50 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:05 P.M. Mayor Simpson introduced the new Hermosa Beach City Manager, Kevin B. Northcraft. She also thanked City Clerk Kathleen Midstokke for furnishing the refreshments prior to the meeting. 6. REZONE OF AREAS 1, 1A AND 1B FROM R-3 TO R-2. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated February 16, 1988. Supplemental information - memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schuback dated February 23, 1988 and letter from Michael Lawton, 1840 Hermosa Avenue, dated February 14, 1988. The staff report was presented by Planning Director Michael Schubach. The Public Hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak in opposition to the rezoning were: - 7 - Minutes 2-23-88 Jerry Compton, Chairman, Planning Commission - Area 1 Jerry Compton, Area 1B Wilma Burt, 1152 - 7th Street - Area 1B George Spratt, Architect, Manhattan Beach - Area 1B Dave Olsen, owner of 1720 Hermosa Avenue - Area 1B The Public Hearing was closed. Straw votes were taken individually for the rezoning of each area and all three passed unanimously. Action: To approve the Planning Commission recommenda- tion and introduce Ordinance No. 88-917 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, 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, lA AND B) with amendments to include "inclusive" after multiple lots and adding a new section as read by the City Attorney regarding a "Grandfather Clause". Motion Rosenberger, second Creighton AYES - Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Williams, Mayor Simpson NOES - None 7. TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING DEFINITION OF "RESTAURANT" AND "SNACK BAR", CUP REQUIRED. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated February 16, 1988. The staff report was presented by Planning Director Michael Schubach. The Public Hearing was opened. No one coming forward to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. Action: To approve the staff recommendation and intro- duce Ordinance No. 88-918 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE DEFINITION OF "RESTAURANT" AND "SNACK BAR AND/OR SNACK SHOP" AND APPROVAL OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION." Motion Sheldon, second Rosenberger AYES - Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Williams, Mayor Simpson NOES - None MUNICIPAL MATTERS 8. A. MID -YEAR BUDGET REVIEW - 1987-88 FISCAL YEAR. Memorandum from Acting City Manager Alana Mastrian and Finance Administrator Viki Copeland dated February 18, 1988. Action: To bring this item back at the next meet- ing to include the figures that the Finance Ad- • ministrator presented orally to the Council, and to - 8 - Minutes 2-23-88. give the new City Manager time to become actively involved in the budget review. Motion Creighton, second Mayor Simpson. So ordered. Final Action: To instruct staff to bring back a resolution which would insure that the 4% Utility Users Tax would be isolated in the Parks and Recreation Facilities Tax Fund and shown on the Budget Summary of Accounts made available each month, to include any interest acurred. Motion Sheldon, second Simpson. So ordered. B. STATUS REPORT ON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated February 16, 1988. Action: To continue to the next meeting. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered. A recess was called at 10:55 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 11:05 P.M. 9. BALLOT MEASURES - SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION JUNE 7, 1988. Memorandum from City Attorney James P. Lough dat- ed February 17, 1988. A) 4% U.U.T. INCREASE EARMARKED FOR PURCHASE OF RAIL- ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND TERMINATED UPON DEBT RETIREMENT. B) BILTMORE PARK, CHANGED ONLY WITH A VOTE OF PEOPLE. C) SALE OR TRADE OF BILTMORE SITE, HIGHEST AND BEST USE, FOR PURCHASE OF RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. Proposed Action: To table ballot measures A, B and C. Motion Simpson, second Sheldon Withdrawn by the both the maker and the second Councilmember Williams suggested an amendment to Ballot Measure A as follows: "In the event that these funds are not needed for the purchase of the railroad right-of-way, they are to be used for the purchase of open space." Councilmember Rosenberger suggested various deletions/ amendments regaring the remaining 6% of the tax. The City Clerk read these changes into the record prior to the vote. 9 Minutes 2-23-88 Action;• To approve the ballot measure wording, and place on the June 7, 1988 ballot, ballot measure A "4% U.U.T. INCREASE EARMARKED FOR PURCHASE OF RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND TERMINATED UPON DEBT RETIREMENT" with the inclusion of the above changes, to be reviewed by the City Attorney. Motion Rosenberger, second Sheldon. So ordered. Final,,ActiQn: To remove Ballot Measures B and C from the June Ballot. Motion Sheldon, second Mayor Simpson. So ordered noting a NO vote by Creighton. 10. CALLING OF SPECIAL MUNICIPAL. ELECTION.- CONSOLIDATED WITH COUNTY ELECTIONS JUNE 7, 1988. A. RESOLUTIONS 1) Calling and giving notice of the holding of a Special Municipal Election June 7, 1988. Action Adopted Resolution No. 88-5111 enti- tled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 1988, FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF SAID CITY PROPOSED ORDINANCES RELATING TO USE OF 4% OF THE UTILITY USERS TAX FOR PURCHASE OF THE A.T.&S.F. RIGHT- OF-WAY." Motion Rosenberger, second Mayor Simpson. So ordered. 2) Requesting Board of Supervisors to consolidate. Action; To adopt Resolution No. 88-5112 enti- tled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS= ANGELES TO CONSOLIDATE A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF SAID CITY TO BE HELD ON JUNE 7, 1988, WITH THE STATEWIDE PRIMARY ELECTION TO BE HELD ON SAID DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 23302 OF THE ELECTION CODE." Motion Rosenberger, second Creighton. So ordered. 3) Authorizing certain members to file written arguments and directing City Attorney to write impartial analysis. - 10 - • Minutes 2-23-88 Action: To adopt Resolution No. 88-5113 enti- tled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OF ITS MEMBERS TO FILE WRITTEN ARGU- MENTS REGARDING CITY MEASURES AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS." Motion Creighton, second Rosenberger. So ordered. Further.Action; The City Council declines to author the argument. Motion Creighton, second Rosenberger. So ordered noting NO votes by Sheldon and Williams 4) Providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 88-5114 enti- tied A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR CITY MEASURES SUBMITTED AT THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON JUNE 7, 1988." Motion Creighton, second Williams. So ordered. B. BUDGET - SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION JUNE 7, 1988. The City Clerk suggested deleting $2,400 from the Registrar -Recorder estimated costs due to the removal of two of the three proposed measures. Action: To approve the budget as amended and au- thorize transfer of $6,500 from Prospective Expen- ditures into Elections Department. Motion Creighton, second Simpson. So ordered. Further Action: To adopt Resolution No. 88-5115 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, FIXING THE COM- PENSATION TO BE RECEIVED BY THE CITY CLERK FOR THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF JUNE 7, 1988." Motion Creighton, second Williams. So ordered. C. PLACEMENT OF MEASURES ON BALLOT (Action was no longer necessary on this item. 11. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS -.CITY MANAGER (a) Participation in Medal. of Valor Luncheon. ,Memorandum 'rom Acting City Manager Aiana M. Mastrian dated February 17, 1988. Action; The City of Hermosa Beach to participate in the Medal of Valor Luncheon by purchasing a table at a cost of $200.00, said funds to be appropriated from Prospec- tive Expenditures. - 11 - Minutes 2-23-88 Motion .Rosenberger, second Mayor Simpson. So ordered. 12. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS_- CITY,COUNCIL (a) TomSullivan 10-K run, Sunday, March 13, 1988. Memoran- dum From Acting City Manager Alana M. Mastrian datd February 17, 1988. Councilmembers Creighton and Sheldon offered contribu- tions for sponsorship of Mayor Simpson in the "Mayor's Challenge" portion of the Tom Sullivan 10-K Run. Aotlon; To have staff contact the Chamber of Commerce regarding sponsoring Mayor Simpson in the Tom Sullivan 10-K Run. Motion Creighton, second Mayor Simpson. So ordered. (b) Circulation element statusreport.,and proposed, goals and policies workshop dates. Memorandum from Planning Di- rector Michael Schubach dated February 16, 1988. The City Manager's secretary, Laurie Duke, will coordi- nate setting a workshop date. (0) Appraisal of,_Biltmore.Site. Proposed_¢gtion; To obtain an updated appraisal of the Biltmore site based on all possible zoning. Motion Williams, second Rosenberger. Councilmember Rosenberger later withdrew the second. Action: Direct staff to contact some real estate people for input as to the fair market value of the Biltmore site with both commercial and residential zoning. Motion Creighton, second Sheldon. So ordered. Mayor Simpson requested from the City Manager a "ballpark" estimate of an MAI appraisal. (d) Status, report,re, railroad. right-of-way. Report was given earlier in the meeting under Actions from Closed Session. 13. OTHER.MATTERS.-_CITY COUNCIL Requests from Couneilmembers for possible future agenda items: (a) Consid-ration o resoluti•n re. future Plannin: Commis - 4.2, on s ommis- sions to unmergerots Proposed,Action: To instruct the City Attorney to report back to the City Council regarding the unmergers approved at the last Planning Commission and how any further unmergers can come to City Council. Motion Creighton - dies for lack of a second - 12 - Minutes 2-23-88 City Attorney Lough stated the report would address if you can run those properties through the process again. Cbuncilmember Sheldon would like to see any further unmergers come to council, the previous unmergers looked at, and the previously discussed 4 way test applied to the question of merger and unmerger. Final Aciorti. To ask the City Attorney to return with a report regarding the subject of merger or unmerger of lots. Motion Creighton, second Rosenberger. So ordered. (b) R.C.C. Contract -.Rosenberger Councilmember Rosenberger asked for the expiration date of the R.C.C. contract and that this item be put on a future agenda. Requested council action regarding rescinding the contracts. (0) Fire_Hydrants- Rosenberger Councilmember Rosenberger, in reference to a letter from Howard Longacre, suggested giving the hydrants back to the Water Company. City Manager Northcraft re- ferred this matter to the Safety Director for comments on a future agenda. (d) Volleyball for Drug Free Education - Sheldon Councilmember Sheldon announced the Second Annual Drug Free Education Volleyball Tournament to be held February 27 at 7:00 P.M. between Redondo and Mira Costa. APPEARANCE OF. INTERESTED CITIZENS Bob Fleck, 620 - 24th Place, spoke re the lot mergers and un - mergers - asked Council to look closely at State Law and urged clarification. City Manager will provide minutes of the Planning Commission meeting to Mr. Fleck. ADJOURNMENT The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, adjourned on Wednesday, February 24, 1988 at the hour of 12:40 A.M. to a Regular Meeting to be held on Tues- day, March 8, 1988 at the hour of 7:30 P.M. Deputy City Cierk - 13 - Minutes 2-23-88 r February 29, 1988 HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS OF THE Regular Meeting of HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL March 8, 1988 STATUS REPORT ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION To receive and file. BACKGROUND City Council has requested progress reports on all Conditional Use Permit violations. Staff, is currently reinspecting all violations for compliance. A full report shall be submitted at the completion of this inventory. Staff, however, has begun enforcing conditions on businesses with major violations. These businesses include Casey's IZUSU and Martha's. Both have been scheduled for revocation hearings. STATUS Staff memorandum's, reports, or violation letters have been prepared for the following: - Steve Wisniewski, Public Safety Director (Status of noise measuring equipment) Steve Wisniewski, Public Safety Director (Maximum occupancy violations) - Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce - Jim Lough, City Attorney - William Tedesco, IMAGES - Robert Hoffman, MARTHA'S - John Casement, Casey's IZUSU 1 (Copies of active C.U.P. list and initial inspection report) (List of alcohol establishments subject to the amortization ordinance) (Violation notice) (Violation notice) (Notice of tenative scheduling for revocation hearing) le - Planning Commission - City Council - City Council (C.U.P. infraction process) (Addition to C.U.P. active list) (C.U.P. standard compliance letter) Meeting and seminars attended by Planning staff - Warren Tankersley, District Administrator for A.B.C. (Discuss the possibility of coordinated C.U.P. enforcement effort and discuss ABC standards) (3 day training and certification for infraction issuance) - Rio Hondo Police Academy CONCUR: Ar: Mic ael Schu•ac Planning Director NOTED: City Manager 2 Respectfully submitted, Aex ex Assistant Planner E gm am gm s-- NM 1 NU all S NB— MN En UN IN r CHILD ABU -E PROGRAMS AND SERVICES IN THE SOUTH BAY Compiled by th South Bay Coalition/ALIVEI February 1988 111111 Sill 11111111 VIM SIMI 111. MINI N N Ili O N r N I MI This Directory is produced by the South Bay Coalition/ALIVE! Listing of programs does not imply endorsement. If there are programs inadvertently omitted, no criticism is intended. Programs and services may change at any time. Agencies listed should be contacted for latest information. General questions and comments may be directed to the South Bay Coalition office. The South Bay Coalition/ALIVEI is dedicated to breaking the generational cycle of spouse, child and elder abuse by helping individuals and family find new ways to deal with stress and conflict. Focusing on community education and prevention, ALIVEI provides the following programs and services: Beach Cities ALIVE! Family Violence Council San Pedro ALIVE! Council Legal Aid for battered women Educational conferences for human service professionals and the public Resource and referral informations, ALIVE! was formed in 1978. ALIVE' is a nonprofit organization supported entirely by contributions from individuals, corpor te, and community friends. ALIVE! Alternatives to Living In Bard d Omraesa 1.400a Babb Bi Cale Toa Cooper Doak COY PahiW Omialm Drama Flop Dan" Gem Nara/ Graarb & mg. JaooOs Mmervia Deem Om Jon Popp Heather Saha WdmM Saimaa Roland Summa Jany Tarlov a Violent Environment! South Bay Coalition/ALIVE! 320 Knob Hill Redondo Beach, California 90277 (213) 372-9855 Ark ary Bead Kay Conrad Katy Oeiaeerr Abraham Ooredeld John Omermood Ann Gino Arm Malan EacUM Olmaaor Mary Camps Caordinmak Beach Ola AINEI Marina Camps an gm an am i r s r � IMO MI IIIII MIR In r MIMI 1111 s 1111111 To report suspected child abuse, call Los Angeles County Child Abuse Hotline. Ask operator for ZE 2-1234. AGENCY CONTACT PERSON TREATMENT SERVICES PREVENTION & EDUCATION OTHER California Child, Youth, & Family Coalition 2115 J St., #18 Sacramento, 95816 (916) 443-2711 Legislative advocacy for children, youth, & families Statewide Runaway Hotline: 800-843-5200 Children's Institute International Mary Emmons, 711 S. New Hampshire Los Angeles 90005 (213) 385-5104 Emergency infant/ toddler shelter Therapeutic day care center & home based Outpatient psycho- social and support services Training for pro- fessionals responsible for responding to child sexual abuse victims Resource lending library Coastal Asian/ Pacific Mental Health Program (L.A. County Mental Health) Cecelia Walkup 14112 S. Kingsley Ave. Gardena, 90249 (213) 217-7312 Treatment for individuals and families Children's groups Outreach to neighboring school districts Parenting classes 1 egg eigi egg geg gm SIR ON* 1111 11111 MOO ON 11111 1111 11111 11111 MI 11111 11111 AGENCY CONTACT PERSON TREATMENT SERVICES PREVENTION & EDUCATION OTHER Community Helpline Nancy Lichina, Executive Director P.O. Box 2503 Palos Verdes, 90274 (213) 541-2525 Seminars for parents on adolescent issues Listening & referral hotline -- special support for latchkey children 24 hour hotline: (213) 541-2525 El Nido Services April L'Heureux 8111 Beverly Blvd. Los Angeles 90048 (213) 674-0112 Prevention program in Hawthorne, Inglewood, Lennox, El Segundo, Lawn - dale, Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, and Redondo Beach school districts Harbor/UCLA Child Sexual Abuse Crisis Center Esther Gillies, Dir. 1000 W. Carson St. Torrance 90509 (213) 533-3567 Medical diagnosis, crisis intervention, referral to local agencies for treatment 2 am an in a— r-- MN OM a NIS — _) — N M V ON AGENCY CONTACT PERSON TREATMENT SERVICES PREVENTION & EDUCATION OTHER "Kids on the Block" Marcy Soloman P.O. Box 72 Hermosa Beach 90254 (213) 541-2601 Puppet presentations on disabilities & child abuse target grade 3 in Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach & Redondo Beach districts. Divorce & drug abuse programs for grades 5 & 6 available. Los Angeles County Child Sexual Abuse Program Pat Rivera, LCSW 5427 E. Whittier B1. Los Angeles 90022 (213) 727-4087 Group therapy, coordinated inter- agency treatment planning for molested children, siblings & parents: Daughters & Sons United (ages 12-17) Parents United English/Spanish Professional con- sultation In-service training for treatment agencies Networking Training program for volunteer therapists Referral service Manhattan Beach School District Sara Content (213) 546-3488 x259 Paulette Wanamaker (213) 546-3488 1501 Redondo Ave. Manhattan Beach 90266 Personal Health & Safety education program Family Life Educa- tion for 5th thru 8th grades --skills for self-protection 3 gam --- w. r III ON AO ON NO— r 1 i N r NB 11111 AGENCY CONTACT PERSON TREATMENT SERVICES PREVENTION & EDUCATION OTHER Parents Anonymous Margaret Ready Executive Director 7120 Franklin Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90046 (213) 876-0933 800-352-0386 Self-help groups for potentially abusive parents --court and self-referred Training program for sponsoring thera- pists & agencies Referral to appropriate agencies and/or P.A. groups Parents United Pat Rivera, LCSW Dept. of Children's Services 5427 E. Whittier B1. Los Angeles 90022 (213) 727-4087 Group therapy for sexually offending parents and/or non - offending mothers of incest victims in specialized treat- ment programs. Child abuse report required. English/Spanish Training program for volunteers Speaker's Bureau Annual cdnference Annonymous tele- phone consultations Redondo Beach Community Resources Pat Dreizler, Director 320 Knob Hill Redondo Beach 90277 (213) 372-1171 Referral service 4 m a op —11111 I M P MI W NM E — In MD IN all 1111111 AGENCY CONTACT PERSON TREATLENT SERVICES PREVENTION & EDUCATION OTHER Redondo Beach Police Dept. Child Abuse Program Wilma Kockheim Crime Prevention 401 Diamond Redondo Beach 90277 (213) 379-2477 Instruction on personal safety for Redondo Beach students and others upon request Richstone Family Center Elaine Struhl, MFCC Clinical Director 13620 Cordary Ave. Hawthorne 90250 (213) 970-1921 Individual, family group therapy for sexual & physical abuse & child neglect Parent groups Latency age groups for molested children & Prevention programs: After-school drop-in care, Tues. & Thurs. Spanish speaking counselors Torrance & Palos Verdes school districts Professional consultation Educational Forums Salvation Army Family Services Nancy Rueschenberg, Ph.D. 710 Pier Ave., Rm. 3 Hermosa Beach 90254 (213) 318-2364 Individual & family therapy 5 EN an i gm r IN MN MN all MN e--- N!— S AGENCY CONTACT PERSON TREATMENT SERVICES PREVENTION & EDUCATION OTHER South Bay Center for Counseling • Child Abuse Diagnostic & Treatment Program Barney Bartlett, LCSW, Director 2617 Bell Ave. Manhattan Beach 90266 (213) 545-6575 • Connections for Children Mary Hammer So. Bay represen- tative (213) 546-4585 Diagnosis & treat- ment of child sexual abuse Group counseling: Parents, pre- schoolers Therapeutic day- care Treatment for youth & adult offenders Spanish available Consultation for preschool profes- sionals . CLOUT --legislature advocacy Child Development Center for high- risk children On-site school counselor, Manhattan Beach Training for family day-care & day-care centers Stop by centers: Hermosa Beach: North School Resource & refer- rals South Bay Center for Prevention of Child Abuse Georgann Bruce 1926 S. Pacific Coast Hwy., Ste. 223 Redondo Beach, CA 90277 (213) 540-6001 Matches trained volunteers with families with child abuse problems or who are at risk 6 -- gm gm MI r- --- N E N E NM i S AGENCY CONTACT PERSON TREATMENT SERVICES PREVENTION & EDUCATION OTHER South Bay Child Guidance & So. Bay Children's Health Center Frank Masi, Director 410 Comino Real Redondo Beach 90277 (213) 316-1212 Treatment for individuals & families Dental, hearing & vision screenings Therapeutic day-care to mainstream special ed. students South Bay Coalition/ ALIVE! Mary Castagna Executive Director 320 Knob Hill Redondo Beach 90277 (213) 372-9855 Professional networking & education Presentations on family dynamics & positive communi- cations for groups of all ages Quarterly news- letter--ALIVEI Resource library Referrals Family Violence Council Crisis resource information 7 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i AGENCY CONTACT PERSON TREATMENT SERVICES • PREVENTION & EDUCATION OTHER South Bay Juvenile Diversion Project Dan Smith 320 Knob Hill Redondo Beach 90277 (213) 372-7724 Crisis intervention: youth through 17 Assessment & referral Counseling & referral for youth referred by school, parent or law enforcement Counseling for youth sex offenders Tutoring Victim -Witness Assistance Program Carol Anderson District Attorney's Office 825 Maple Torrance 90501 (213) 533-3599 State restitution funds for victims & witnesses of violent crimes Court escort service 8 +m mg i gm i i i i i i — N — i i i i AGENCY CONTACT PERSON TREATMENT SERVICES PREVENTION & EDUCATION OTHER 1736 Family Crisis Center John Peel 1736 Monterey Hermosa Beach 90254 (213) 372-5843 or 372-4674 Emergency shelters: 6 beds for youth 10- schools 17 for two weeks Presentations to 6 beds for battered women (5 children's beds) for 28 days Second Step housing for battered women up to six months General outpatient counseling 24 hour hotline: (213) 379-3620 9 February 25, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council March 8, 1988 ASSIGNMENT OF AGREEMENT TO PROCESS OUT-OF-STATE PARKING CITATIONS FROM VERTICAL MANAGEMENT TO COMPUTIL Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council (1) approve the attached Agreement, assigning the contract with Vertical Management to process our out-of-state parking citations, to Computil, (2) approve the attached Consent to Release and (3) authorize the City Manager to sign said documents. Background: At your regularly scheduled meeting of September 10, 1985, the City Council approved an agreement with Vertical Management System to process our out-of-state parking citations. It was brought to the attention of the City Council, at that time, that the City had no method of pursuing delinquent parking citations that are issued to out-of-state vehicles. VMS provided us with a mechanism for collection of these oustanding citations since they processed same for several cities and could afford to interface with DMV's from other states. Recently, the city was notified that VMS was selling this portion of their business to Computil. At your regularly scheduled meeting of January 12, 1988, the City Council authorized the acceptance of a Liability Settlement Plan as outlined by Computil (see attached background material). Analysis: During our affiliation with VMS, we had submitted to them an average of 100 outstanding out-of-state citations, per month, for. collection. Our collection rate has been approximately 25%. There is no cost to the city, since the processing agency works on a commission basis, receiving 32% of revenues collected through their efforts. Net revenue to the city has been approximately $6,000. - 1 - Recognizing that prior to our agreement with VMS, the revenue on outstanding out-of-state citations was uncollectable by the city, it would seem prudent to continue this type of arrangement with Computil. Jean Noon General Services Director Concur: ✓'Y "r- Kevin r_ Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager Concur: es Loug y Attorney 2 Noted for fiscal impact: ek:keegireet-xec) Viki Copeland Finance Administrator COMPUTIL CORPORATION A Subsidiary of NUI Corporation February 8, 1988 Ms. Joan Noon: General Service Manager Civic Center Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 RE: Consent to Assignment and Modifications Agreement for Processing Parking Violations. Dear Ms. Noon: Enclosed please find two (2) copies of the above referenced document. I am requesting that you review and execute this document on pages 11, 13, and 15. Please return one copy to my attention at the address listed on this letterhead. Should you have any questions with regards to the enclosed agreement, please contact me at 1-800-221-1725. Additionally, you may contact Mr. Bruce C. Fishelman, legal counsel for Computil Corporation, at 213-476-4700. Thank -you for your patience and cooperation in this matter. We at Computil Corporation look forward to the assignment of your contract. Sincerely, Mark A. Fab(�Xiy Assistant to the President and Chief Executive Officer Encl. 1040 ROUTE 46• CLIFTON, NEW JERSEY 07013 • NJ 1-800-334-0771. OUTSIDE N. J.1-800-2211725 FAX 201-470-0028 1 COMPuTIL CORPORATION A Subsidiary of NUI Corporation Alfonso J. Izzl PRESIDENT & CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Ms. Joan Noon General Service Manager Civic Center Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Ms. Noon: Subject: Acquisition of VMS's Parking Citation Business February 16, 1988 I am delighted to report to you that effective February 12, 1988, Computil Corporation and Vertical Management Systems of Huntington Beach have signed the necessary documents to complete the acquisition of VMS's parking citation business. Therefore, effective immediately, Computil Corporation is now respon- sible for all parking citation activities emanating from the Huntington Beach and San Jose offices (previously VMS locations). All of the processing will, in effect, be under the responsibility of West Computil Corporation, a fully -owned subsidiary of Computil Corporation of Clifton, New Jersey. By structuring our corporation in this manner, we are now making available to you a wide range of products and services that we have nurtured and refined over fifteen years of experience in the parking citation business. I know it has been quite a few months since we started this process, and I have appreciated your patience and understanding. Fortunately, all of that is behind us and we are ready to move forward. The first matter at hand is the signing of the contracts which you have in your possession or will have by the end of this week. For those cities that are owed money by VMS, we have forwarded you a copy of the contract and the associated repayment plan. As soon as you execute the contract and return it to my office, we will begin the release of funds per our agreed up -front payment to each municipality. Also, as part of my agreement with VMS, we have assumed the liabilities from November 1, pertaining to those cities which have had VMS continue to deposit funds into the VMS account. As soon as we complete the formalizatiow of the contract, we will begin releasing the reps. Is and the associated payments for those deposits which were made on behalf of your city. I know I can count on your cooperation. We've been through some difficult times, and we want to continue processing and offering you some enhancements and improvements to the current system. 1040 ROUTE 46•CUFTON, NEW JERSEY 07013 • NJ 1-800.334-0771.OUTSIDE N. J.1- 80 0-221-1725 FAX 201-470-0028 COMPUTIL If you have not received the contract by now, please contact me or Mark Fabiny at 1-800-221-1725. I should mention that we have since the beginning of December been operating the VMS facility in a management overview capacity. As a result, this opportunity has given us a head start on bringing all the processing up to date, and very shortly you should start seeing an improvement in your service and many of the reports which have not been sent to you will be on the way as quickly as possible. I would ask during this transition period you give us an opportunity to work and correct whatever problems you may have. We will be beefing up the operation with additional staff, and I think you will find our service second to none in the industry. Of course, behind West Computil is Computil Corporation. In combining the activities on the West Coast, we have over 225 cities nationwide -- the most cities of any service organization in the parking industry today. Again, I appreciate your patience and your assistance, and hopefully we can get our contracts signed and the money to you as quickly as possible. If you encounter any difficulties, please call me, as I4am sure we both want to conclude this matter as quickly as possible. AJI:JEB Very Alfon .Presiders Chief E Officer CONSENT io ASSIGNMENT AND MODIFICATIONS AGREEMENT FOR PROCESSING PARKING CITATIONS This CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT AND I4DDIFICATIONS OF AGREEMENT FOR PROCESSING PARKING CITATIONS ('The "Agreement") is made and entered into in duplicate original as of the day of , 1988 by and between AMERICAN PARING MANAGEMENT CORP. a California Corp. doing business as Vertica]. Management Systems, Inc. 18700 BEACH BOULEVARD HUNI'INGTON BEACH, CA 92648 (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "ASSIGNOR") AND - CITY OF HESA BEACH Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "PUBLIC ENTITY") COTTIL CORPORATION 1040 Route 46 Clifton, New Jersey 07013 (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "ASSIGNEE") WHEREAS, Assignor and Public Entity entered into an agreement dated September 17, 1985 for the processing of parking citations issued by the Public Entity, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "1", (hereinafter the "Processing Agreement"), WHEREAS, Assignor desires to assign all of its right, title and interest in the Processing Agreement and certain of its obligations and liabilities under the Processing Agreement to Assignee and Assignee desires to ass'Umie all of Assignor's right, title and interest in and certain of its obligations and liabilities under the Processing Agreement, 1 AND - WHEREAS, this Agreement is made pursuant to that certain Agreement of Purchase and Sale of Assets dated December 10, 1987 between Assignor and Assignee, (hereinafter the "Purchase Agreement"), AND - WHEREAS, The Public Entity wishes to approve the assignment of the Processing Agreement to Assignee, upon its terns and conditions arra upon such further terms, conditions and modifications as are hereinafter set forth, AND - WHEREAS, as an inducement and additional consideration for Assignee to enter this Agreement, the Public Entity desires to release Assignee from all claims arising prior to November 1, 1987, _AND - WHEREAS, Assignor desires to make payment in full to the Public Entity of all sums due to it under the Processing Agreement as of October 31, 1987, NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by all parties, the parties agree as follows: 1. Incorporation: The Processing Agreement is incorporated herein as Exhibit "1". Except as herein specifically altered or modified expressly or by direct contextual implication, the terns and conditions of such Processing Agreement shall control. 2. Modifications: It is agreed between the parties that the terms of Mbit "1" shall be modified as follows: A. Term• The Public Entity agrees to an assignment of the contract as modified for a period ending on September 17, 1989. B. Deposit of Funds: The Assignee shall (1) continue to deposit funds in accordance with the procedures presently established between Assignor and Public Entity or (2) Assignee shall utilize a "direct deposit" arrangement with a banking institution mutually selected by the Public Entity and Assignee and appropriately insured by the FDIC. In either case, all monies on deposit from the payment of parking citiation fines and fees collected within a particular calendar month shall be disbursed within the first twenty (20) working days of the next calendar month. C. Payment for Services: The current Processing Agreement between Assignor and Public Entity shall be amended to reflect the following processing costs: 32% for out-of-state collections This modified price structure shall be guaranteed through September 17, 1989, at which time it will be reevaluated by Assignee in discussion with Public Entity. This modification shall supplement and supersede all contrary terms of the Processing Agreement, most particularly those terms set forth in Paragraph(s) 1.b. D. Cancellation: In recognition of the fact that the parties desire to establish a mutually beneficial and economically stable working relationship, it is hereby agreed that, except for termination for good cause, the Public Entity shall not terminate this Agreement on a date earlier than September 17, 1989. Where Public Entity shall have good cause for germination, due to material defect in performance or material breach of obligations by Assignee, the Public Entity shall be free to terminate the Processing Agreement after giving fair notice to Assignee, at the addresses set forth in Paragraph E below, of the specific grounds for termination, by certified mail, return receipt requested. Following receipt of such notice by Assignee, Assignee shall have a period of thirty (30) days in which to cure such material defect or breach. If such material defect or breach is thereafter cured, the Agreement shall remain in full force.and effect. If such material defect or breach shall not hereafter be timely cured, the Agreement shall be terminated. The teems and conditions set forth in the Processing Agreement, and particularly Paragraphs) 5 of the Processing Agreement, are hereby amended. E. Notices to Parties: Any notice required under the Processing Agreement, as modified, to be given to either party shall be given by depositing - same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested, to the addresses set forth below. Alternatively, the parties may satisfy such notice requirement by utilizing personal service, telegraph or a similar - 4 - communication service by which evidence of personal receipt by the notified party is established. In the case of the Public Entity, notice shall be to: CITY OF FiE8N06A BEACH Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3885 ATTENTION OF: or to such other address or addresses as the Public Entity shall hereafter reasonably request in writing. In the case of Assignee, notice shall be to: CCMPUTIL CXRPORATION 1040 Route 46 Clifton, New Jersey 07103 ATTENTION OF: Alfonso J. Izzi, President and Chief Executive Officer with a courtesy copy sent to: Bruce C. Fishelman 9200 Sunset Boulevard Suite 930 Ips Angeles, California 90069 or to such other address or addresses as Assignee shall hereafter reasonably request in writing. F. Assignment; This Agreement may be assigned by conpitil Corporation to a corporation owned or controlled by it or its parent, NUI. - 5 - G. Standard of Good Faith: Assignee and Public Entity agree to be bound by standards of good faith in all aspects or the Processing Agreement. The parties hereto acknowledge that no improper or illegal inducements have been ordered or paid by any representative of the parties hereto in order to consummate or implement any of the terms hereof, nor will any such improper or illegal inducements be offered or paid in the future relating to any aspect of the Processing Agreement. H. Accounts Payable By Public Entity: All current accounts payable under the terms of the Processing Agreement shall be paid to Co putil Corporation in full within thirty (30) days of the acceptance of this Agreement. 3. Outstanding Assignor liability to the Public Entity: The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that the outstanding liability to the Public Entity, as of October 31, 1987, was $10,509.00. It is understood that the amount of the liability as of October 31, 1987 has been obtained by Assignee following its request for a review of specified available records by its accountant, Arthur Andersen & Co. In this regard, it is acknowledged and agreed that neither Assignee nor Arthur Andersen & Co., nor any other of their respective agents or employees were the actual, implied, legal or virtual representatives of the Public Entity in the review of the outstanding Assignor liability. The Public Entity specifically acknowledges that it has had a right to inspect Assignor books and records pursuant to Paragraph(s) 2.F of the Processing Agreement, and has either availed itself of such right or has elected to forego such inspection in establishing the amount of liability as contemplated by this paragraph. - 6 - Payment of Outstandinct Liability by Assignee: Upon the Effective Date of this Agreement, as defined herein, Assignee shall pay to the Public Entity the amount of $5,255.00, which amount is the full amount of Assignee's liability to the Public Entity as agreed upon by Assignee and Public Entity through Exhibit "2" incorporated herein by reference as if set forth fully. As a result, the Public Entity accepts that amount set forth in Exhibit "2" as the complete and total amount due and payable by Assignee, as condition of the Public Entity's consent to the assignment or the Processing Agreement, as modified, to Assignee. In so doing, the Public Entity and its agents, Assignee and/or successors -in -interest shall make no claim against Assignee for any amount of past due liabilities relating to the Processing Agreement in excess of the amounts established pursuant to this paragraph, the payment of which amount shall be deemed an accord and satisfaction. Payment of Outstanding Liability by Assignor: Upon the Effective Date of this Agreement, Assignor shall deliver two (2) promissory notes to Entity, one (1) note to be guaranteed by Arnold E. Spiro and one (1) note to be guaranteed by Carter C. Green. The two (2) notes will total Five Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Two Dollars ($5,622.00) and be in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "5" and incorporated herein by this reference. 4. Conditions and Contingencies: It is acknowledged and understood that this Agreement is conditional and shall become finally effective only upon the final closing of the Purchase Agreement, which is herein referred to as the "Effective Date". 5. Acknowledgment of Legal Authority: All parties hereto stipulate and acknowledge that their respective governing Boards and legal counsel have duly approved the terms and conditions set forth herein. 6. Assignment: Assignor warrants that it has not made any prior assignment of its interest in the processing Agreement and now hereby assigns all of its right, title and interest in the Processing Agre ment as modified herein to Assignee as of the Effective Date. Assignor also assigns all of its obligations and liabilities under the Processing Agreement to Assignee, except as set forth in Assignor's required payments in Exhibit "2"; provided however that Public Entity shall and does hereby release Assignee and its officers, directors, shareholders and agents from all claims; (except for payments due for collections made subsequent to November 1, 1987) upon Assignee's payment to the Public Entity on behalf of the obligations owed by the Assignor in the amount of $5,255.00 as set forth in Exhibit "2". A form of Release of Assignee is attached hereto as Exhibit "3", and is incorporated by this reference. It is further understood that the Public Entity shall release the Assignor and all of its officers, directors, shareholders and agents fio►u all claims except for $5,622.00 as further set forth in Exhibit "2" and shall issue a release in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "4" incorporated herein. 7. Assumption: Assignee, having read the Processing Agreement, accepts the foregoing assignment and assumes all of the obligation of Assignor under the Processing Agreement, except as set forth in Exhibit "2", and agrees to be bound by the terms of the Processing Agreement as modified as of the Effective Date; provided however that the Public Entity shall release the Assignee as set forth above and herein. 8. Indemnity: Assignee shall and does indemnify and hold harmless Assignor and all if its employees, partners (and their subsidiaries,.parents and affiliates), shareholders, officers, directors, attorneys, Assignees, transferees and affiliates • of Assignor against liability, claim, actions or demands against them or any of them arising out of or in anyway connected with Assignor's obligations under the Processing Agreement, which obligations arise after the Effective date of this Agreement. Assignor shall and does indemnify and hold harmless Assignee and all of its employees, partners (and their subsidiaries, parents and affiliates), shareholders, officers, directors, attorneys, assignees, transferees and affiliates of Assignee against all liability, claim, actions or demands against them or any of them arising out of or in anyway connected with Assignor's obligations under the Processing Agreement, which obligations arose prior to November 1, 1987. 9. General Provisions 9.1 Agreement: This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of Assignor, Assignee and Public Entity and their respective representatives, successors and assigns. No Party shall have the right to assign this Agreement or any interest, right or obligation under this Agreement without obtaining the prior written consent of the other parties, except that Assignee may assign its right and obligations under this Agreement to an entity substantially owned and controlled by Assignee or its parent NUI, upon written notice to Assignor and Public Entity. 9.2 Governing Law: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action to interpret or enforce this Agreement shall be solely brought in the State of California. 9 • 9.3 Modifications: Any alteration, change or modification of or to this Agreement, in order to become effective, shall be made in writing and in each instance signed on behalf of each party. 9.4 Severability: If any term, provision, condition or covenant of this Agreement or its application to any party or circumstances shall be held, to any extent, invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of the teen, provision, condition or covenant to persons or circumstances other than those as to whom or which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected, and shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 9.5 Merger of Prior Agreements and Understandings: This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the transaction contemplated by this Agreement. All prior contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged in this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be construed to curtail or denigrate the effect of the Purchase Agreement between Assignor and Assignee. 9.6 Attorneys' Fees: In the event of any action arising out of or connected with this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys' fees. 9.7 Additional Documents: The parties agree to sign any additional documents and to take any additional action as maybe reasonably required to effectuate this Agreement. -10- IN WITNESS WHEREOF THE PARTIES ENTER THIS AGREEMENT, AS OF THE DATE FIRST ABOVE WRITTEN. "ASSIGNOR" AMERICAN PARKOZMNAGEMENT CORP. d/b/a/ VERTICAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. BY: PRESIDENT VICE-PRESIDENT ATTEST: CLERK, CITY OF HIEMSA BEACH EXHIBIT "1" PRIOR CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT '10 BE ATTACHED AGREEMENT This Agreement is made by the City of Hermosa Beach, a municipal corporation, herein called "City" and Vertical Management Sys - terns, -a California corporation with offices at Huntington Beach, California, herein referred to as "VMS". RECITALS City desires to acquire the services of VMS to collect delin- quent parking citations issued to vehicles registered out -of - state. • • B:-r'1/141s,14 ready, willing and able to provide such 'services as set°forth in their Proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and the mutual obligations of the parties as herein expressed, City and VMS agree as follows: t .shall do the following: • a. -Assign to VMS within forty-five (45) days after is- '-"suance, various past due parking citations issued to '.out-of-state vehicles with available information. This. -LP information shall be on computer tape, and printout and will include the vehicle license plate number, make of vehicles, citation number, and the fee amount due. ., vit*utc'.- • ' • . • - e • ; . .• • • 1.•". •Is;V::•:,•.414y2; * • 7.AL. Z, • VMS the sum of thirty-two (32) percent as commission • op all moneys collected by VMS for services provided • .under the terms of this Agreement. This commission will . 44... not be payable on payments remitted directly to the City five (5) days after assignment of the citations to VMS., , Teekc The Finance Administrator shall inform VMS of any direct - remittances made to City on accounts assigned to VMS as • •-• . ..,0*..„:„ • -,a,result of data processed by VMS. Such remittances • 1W; - f . shall be treated as collected by VMS which shall be en- titled to its commission therefore as set forth in sub- paragraph (b) above, and City shall ,remit said commis - on zflonthly. .• • —4CA.V.14:7;Fii` f • ;•-4.4,,,,it,mx . • • VMS phall do the following: ."-'7*- • •!. • _ AV, • ..4 • • , port and remit to the Finance Administrator not later • than the /5th day of each month on citation fees col- leted during the previous month, identifying each cita- 4Vit;:. 'N4, r, jer.• ending balance. These reports are to be submitted on- -- -L. magnetic tape with a check accompanying the tape. The • magnetic tape and the check must balance to each other. • Accept for processing and collection all out-of-state • • parking citations assigned to it by City. tion and the amount collected thereon with beginning and Failure to correctly report and remit each month shall - be cause for termination of the contract. 2 ,Report to the Finance Administrator all citations deemed y :it to be uncollectible with all data pertaining ereto within 360 days from the date of the last col- 'iection notice. Return all citations for which court • Appearances are requested. Such items shall be reassig- ned to City and VMS shall not be entitled to a commis- sion for any sum thereafter collected upon such citations. llssignee, VMS shall have a right to bring or maintain • y action in its own name upon any assigned citation ,and may employ a licensed attorney to invoke legal pro- ssin the collection of these citations. No compensa- • 'op shall be paid by City for the services of any at- orney nor shall any attorney so employed by VMS be deemed to represent City. VMS must also pay any court costs or process service fees incurred. .- -Furnish a bond in the sum of $2,500 payable to City and ecuted by a corporate surety licensed to do business ,,14Z;'4 this state for the faithful performance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the assignments of citations made thereunder. • •. Permit the City Auditor to examine the records, books, .and other data. in its possession pertaining to the col- lection of citations assigned under the terms of this Agreement without advance notice. 3 40. .- contractors and 444 ; • - visions in this • , , s • . . . . • not agents of City hereunder. Any pro - Agreement that may appear to give City ,the right to direct VMS and VMS's employees as to the -details of doing the work or to exercise a.measure of - control over the work mean that VMS shall follow the . direction of the City Manager as to end results of the • „work only. • h.. VMS shall not • • • to. become due written consent. • ; assign this Agreement hereunder or any moneys due or without the City Manager's prior Any assignment by VMS without City's M4nager's prior written approval „s•A'::,!!ari.!,tion '6f In no event " .-tvieen any shall be cause for ter - this Agreement at the sole option of .City. shall any contractual relation be created third party and City. i.. 1In the event that suit is brought upon this Agreement to ,. . enforce is terms,.the prevailing party shall be enti- . . ';••:.j''-'z'ttled to a reasonable sum as attorney's fees. •„:i••:•::12 "•41-417% ••• Zi):-45:44*.A=5 4*V-''VMSshall provide for VMS's employees such amounts of Compensation Insurance as may be required by Workers' .+aw. VMS -agrees to indemnify and save City and its agents and employees harmless from any and all liability, claims, damages or injuries to any person, including injury to VMS's employees and all claims which arise from or are connected with the negligent performance of or failure 4 o'perform the work or other obligations of this Agree - pent, or are caused or claimed to be caused by the :negligent acts of VMS, VMS's agents or employees, and all expenses of investigating and defending against same; provided, however, that this indemnification and =hold harmless shall not include any claim arising from • '-- the sole negligence or willful misconduct of City, its dents or employees. VMS agrees to name City as an ad - L• itional insured on their policy of professional liability thesame. tr ; iL_ • VMS shall agree that any advertisements r• insurance and provide a cerificate to indicate Dollar amount of coverage will be $500,000. eferring to The City of Hermosa Beach as a user of the service provided !i c. =by VMS will require prior written approval of the City ,Akid"r�, .. . ;F Manager. -:.VMS will comply with the objective of the City's Affir- :.:.mative Action Program for Vendors as set forth in Docu- t•No. 746204 recorded with the City Clerk. J: «'!'•`t'"i'�.•'. 3 .. Service Charged . VMS .shall not add service charge or any other additional fees; collection notices must include only the amount due as assigned by City. Exception: A $10.00 service charge pay- . ' able to VMS for "Non -Sufficient Funds", "Account Closed", or "Stop Payment" on a defendant's check. s shall retain thirty-two (32) percent of all remittances `:,m ; _ received nas a result of the services performed for the City as ;payment under the terms of this agreement. Termination. t,. is agreed that this contract may be terminated at any time y:either .party, either with or without cause, by the giving ,a thirty (30) day written notice of intention to terminate 44 Agreement shall -be and remain enforce for a period of one_;(] year from date hereof unless sooner terminated by iving thirty (30) days written notice as aforesaid, but nothing herein contained shall prevent the extension of this _::Agreement by the mutual consent of both parties. Upon the ition of this Agreement or any extension thereof, all -citations shall -be reassigned to City within six (6) months whether or not in process of collection. Notice. :Any: notice or other communication between the parties hereto .. :..shall be sufficiently given if sent by certified or regis- tered mail, postage prepaid. • ;, 6 •.1,—: IW WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed by The City of Hermosa Beach . this jet day of , 192. -acting by • :'and thtough its City Manager pursuant to Resolution No. authorizing such execution, and by Vertical Management • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH By Title /2fk7 Tiggyk ct-ni 144,4446 VERTICAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS By 4)1#1 Title (// ( / (g2G(0/d)•'_ f , ) -I HEREBY APPROVE the form of the foregoing Agreement this /7ze day of -k 197". 7 11 ES LOUGH ttorney lqk i 0 By ty A torney EXHIBIT "2" COPY OF LEITER SEur ON/ABOUT NOVEMBER 25, 1987 TO BE ATTACHED, SETTING FORTH UABI TTTF`_R COMFTIL CORPORATION A Subsidiary of NUI Corporatioc Alfonso J. 1=1 PRESIDENT & CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Ms. Joan Noon General Service Manager Civic Center Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Ms. Noon: JAN 19 1888 Subject: Municipality Liability Settlement Plan -- November 25, 1987 Hermosa Beach Computil signed a Letter of Intent with VMS to purchase the VMS assets associated with their parking citation business. This Letter of Intent will be used to draw up the final contract which is scheduled to be signed on or before December 1, 1987. In order for the final contract to be signed, several issues must be resolved, including but not limited to: o Computil must obtain assignment of VMS contracts to the extent the total dollar value of the assigned contracts_ equals 80 percent of VMS's present revenue base. o Acceptance of the liability settlement plan. o Resolution of outstanding legal matters. The liabilities (as identified by Arthur Andersen's review for Computil only and not to be construed as your representative agent) owed to your municipality by VMS up to and including October 31, 1987, are as follows: Citation $ 10,509 DMV Jail/Court Total Liability $ 10,509 The following is Computil's and VMS's proposal (assuming Computil's revenue goals are met) to reach a settlement for outstanding VMS liabilities. 1040 ROUTE 48 -CLIFTON. NEW JERSEY 07013 • NJ 1-800-334-0771. OUTSIDE N. J.1-800-221.1725 FAX 201-470-0028 CO1NPUTIL 0 -2- Contracts be assigned to Computil for one year and/or a term to be mutually agreed upon between municipality and Computil. Computil's price per citation is $ Computil's percentage for out-of-state collections is 32 percent. All prices are effective upon the assignment date of contract to Computil. ° Upon the signing of the contract between Computil and the munici- pality, Computil will immediately pay 50 percent of VMS's citation liability or $ 5,255 ... N/A percent of VMS's DMV liabilities, or $ N/A and N/A percent of VMS's Jail and Court fund liabilities, or $ N/A . The remaining VMS liability less Computil's up -front payment is $5 254 VMS will pay this amount to your municipality plus 7 percent simple interest quarterly over a ten-year period with a final payment to be made no later than September 30th in the eleventh year. Therefore, the settlement plan for all monies owed by VMS up to and includ- ing October 31, 1987, is summarized below: Category Citation DMV Jail/Court TOTAL Add Simple Interest @ 7% TOTAL REMAINING LIABILITY VMS Liability $10.509 $10.509 VMS remaining liability, $ 5.622 will of $ 97 for each quarter for a total of payment in the eleventh year of $ 1,742 $ 97 x 40 = $ 3,880 plus eleventh year the total VMS remaining liability. Computil's Up -Front Payment VMS Remaining Liability $5,255 $5,254 $5,255 $5,254 368 $5,622 be paid quarterly at the rate forty (40) quarters with a final Recap: Quarterly payments payment 1,742 = $ 5,622 VMS quarterly payments will begin ninety days from the effective date of the signing of the repayment contract between VMS and your municipality. Both offers for repayment are presented as one settlement schedule and cannot be selected individually; that is, accept Computil's terms and reject VMS's terms. -3- COMPUTIL In order. to expedite this process, we need to know if you accept this proposal and thereby agree to assign your contract to Computil. Please keep in mind that Computil must obtain 80 percent of the existing VMS revenue base for us to satisfy our acquisition requirements. Please indicate your decision, and return a copy of this proposal to me as soon as possible. Accept: 1-12-88 Name: Title: Signature: Etta Simpson Reject: If you accept our proposal, we will initiate the contractual/assignment process. I have no objection to your attorney drafting a contract between Computil and your municipality. VMS will be responsible for working out the contract details as it pertains to their repayment plan. The contract between your municipality and Computil should address our services and Computil's partial payment of VMS liabilities to the extent identified in this proposal. I look forward to your favorable acceptanc- of the proposal, and I.am very anxious to begin serving your municipality. AJI:JEB Al Izzi Presi•- and Chief cutive Officer EXHIBIT "3" ODNSENT TO RELEASE This RELEASE is made and entered into as of the day of 19 by and between CITY OF HSA BEACH Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (HEREINAFTER SOMETIMES REFERRED TO AS "PUBLIC ENTITY") AND-- OOMPUTIL CORPORATION 1040 Route 46 Clifton, New Jersey 07013 (HEREINAFTER SOMErn s REFERRED TO AS "ASSIGNEE") WHEREAS, an Agreement between the Public Entity and VMS was entered on or about September 17, 1985, (hereinafter the "Processing Agreement"); and, WHEREAS, an understanding was reached between Public Entity and Assignee regarding the repayment by Assignee of a specified limited amount of money due under the terms of said Agreement; and WHEREAS, Assignee has made payment in full to Public Entity of all such monies required to be paid by it, Now, therefore, the Public Entity for itself and any successors and assigns hereby releases and discharges Assignee or any company owned or controlled by it or its parent NUI, and their agents, attorneys, officers, directors, shareholders, employees, partners and spouses and each of them, jointly and severally LLOut all obligations under the Processing Agreement. Further, the Public Entity for itself and any successors and directors, shareholders, employ, partners and spouses, and each of them, jointly and severally releases Assignee or any company owned or controlled by it or its parent NUI and their respective agents, officers, directors, shareholders, employees, partners, and spouses, and each of them jointly and severally (collectively referred to as the "Released Parties"), of and frown all rights, claims, demands, damages, debts, liens, liabilities, losses, costs, expenses, rights of action and causes of action of whatever, nature, anticipated or unanticipated, ]mown or unknown, -which the Public Entity may have against any of the Released Parties in connection with or related to the Processing Agreament obligations specified in Exhibit "2". Assignee, however, shall be liable for obligations relative to the collection of parking citation revenue on or after November 1, 1987. PUBLIC ENTITY EXPRESSLY WAIVES ANY RIGHTS OR BENEFITS AVAILABLE TO IT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1542 OF THE CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE WHICH PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS: "A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS FAVOR AT THE TIME OF THE EXECUTION OF THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM, M[JST AVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR. Public Entity understands fully the statutory language of Civil Code section 1542 and, with this, understanding, nevertheless elects to, and does, assume all risk for claims heretofore and hereafter arising, ]mown or unknown, from the subject of this release and specifically waives any rights it may have under the California Civil Code Section 1542. Public Entity fully understands that if the facts with respect to which this release is executed are found hereafter to be other than or different from the facts now believed by it to be true, it expressly accepts and assumes the risk of such possible difference in facts and agrees that this release shall be and remain effective notwithstanding such difference in facts. Public Entity represents and warrants that it has not assigned or transferred to any person or entity any claim demand, damage, debt, liability, right of action or cause of -ction, or any part thereof, which is involved or related to the matters released here . Public Entity agrees to indemnify and hold the Released Parties harmless aga any claim, demand, damage debt, liability, right of action or cause of action cluding - •rneys' fees and costs incurred whether or not litigation is commenced bases oor arising out of any such transfer or assignment. gek . • 1"7111 J1 ZZI, • irJ COMPIJ'TIL ("Assignee") BY: ALFONSO ONSO PRESIDENT & CITY OF iA BEACH ("Public Entity") BY: EOCTI'IVE OFFICER NAME TITLE ATTEST: CLERK, CITY OF iSA BEACH EXHIBIT "4" CONSENT TO RELEASE This RELEASE, is made and entered into as of the day of , 19 by and between CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (HEREINAFTER SOMETIMES REFERRED TO AS "PUBLIC ENTITY") -AND- AMERICAN PARKING MANAGEMENT CORPORATION a California Corp. doing business as Vertical Management Systems, Inc. 18700 BEACH BOULEVARD HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 (HEREINAFTER SOMETIMES REFERRED TO AS "ASSIGNOR") WHEREAS, an Agreement between the Public Entity and Assignor was entered on or about September 17, 1985 (hereinafter the "Processing Agreement"); ana, WHEREAS, Assignor has mase or has cause to be made payment in full to Public Entity ot all monies required to be paid by it under the Processing Agreement, NOW THEREFORE, The Public Entity tor itself and any successors and assigns hereby releases and discharges Assignor or its designee and its agents, attorneys, officers, directors, shareholders, employees, partners and spouses and each of them, jointly and severally trom all obligations under the Processing Agreement, upon the payment ot $5,622.00, except as specifically set forth in Exhibit "2". Further, the Public Entity tor itselt and any successors and directors, shareholders, employees, partners and spouses, and each of them, jointly and severally releases Assignor and its respective agents, officers, directors, sharholders, employees, partners, and spouses (collectively referred to as the "Released Parties"), of and from all rights, claims, demands, damages, debts, liens, liabilities, losses, costs, expenses, rignts of action and causes of action of whatever nature, anticipated or unanticipated, known or unknown, which the Public Entity may have against any of'the Released Parties in connection with the Processing Agreement. Public Entity tor itself and any successors and assigns hereby fully releases Arnold E. Spiro from the obligations specified in Exhibit "2" on the date the promissory note guaranteed by him is paid in full. Public Entity tor itselt and any successors and assigns hereby tully releases Carter C. Green from the obligations specified in Exhibit "2" on the date the promissory note guaranteed by him is paid in full. Public Entity tor itselt or any successors and assigns hereby tully releases Assignor trom the obligations specified in Exhibit "2" on the date both promissory notes are paid in full. - 14 - Public Entity EXPRESSLY WAIVES ANY RIGHTS OR BENEFITS AVAILABLE TO IT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1542 OF THE CALSMRNIA CIVIL CODE WHICH PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS: "A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND 10 CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDI'IOR DOES mar Mad OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS FAVOR AT THE TIME OF THE E?CEQ7IIO N OF THE RELEASE, WHICH IF RUIN BY HIM, MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS SETTLEMENT lam THE DEBTOR". Public Entity understands fully the statutory language of Civil Cade section 1542 and, with this understanding, nevertheless elects to, and does, assume all risk for claims heretofore and hereafter arising, known or unknown, from the subject of this release and specifically waives any rights it may have under the California Civil Code Section 1542. Public Entity fully understands that if the facts with respect to which this release is executed are found hereafter to be other than or different from the facts now believed by it to be true, it expressly accepts and assumes the risk of such possible difference in facts and agrees that this release shall be and remain effective notwithstanding such difference in facts. Public Entity represents and warrants that it has not assigned or transferred to any person or entity any claim demand, damage, debt, liability, right of action or cause of action, or any part thereof, which is involved or related to the matters released herein. Public Entity agrees to indemnify and hold the Released Parties harmless against any claim, demand, damage debt, liability, right of action or cause of action (including attorneys' fees and costs immirred whether or not litigation is commenced) bases on or arising out of any such transfer or assignment. AMERICAN PARKING MAMGEMENT CORP., a California Corp. d/b/a/ Verti9LManagement Systems, Inc. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BY: CARNE C. GREEN, PRESIDENT BY: ARNOLD E. VICE PRESIDENT BY: NAME TITLE ATTEST: CLERK, CITY OF HERMJSA BEACH EXHIBIT "5" idinV,W NON-NEGOTIABLE PR MISSORY NOPE NOTE SUBJECT TO FINAL CLOSING OF THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF ASSETS DATED DECEMBER 10, 1987 AS MODIFIED. $2,811.00 Huntington Beach, California . 1988 1. Promise to Pay. For value received, the undersigned ("Maker:) promised to pay to City of Hermosa Beach maim ("Holder"), at Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 or any other place as Holder may from time to time designate in writing, the sum of Two Thousand Eight Hundred Eleven Dollars ($2,811.00—), calculated by adding to Two Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Seven Dollars ($2,627.00------) simple interest of seven percent (7%) of such sum. 2. Terms of Payment. On September 30th following the tenth anniversary of the date of this Note, all sums then remaining unpaid tinder this Note shall be due and payable. All payments shall be made in lawful money of the United States of America without setoff, deduction or counterclaim of any kind whatsoever. 3. Payment Schedule. 3.1 Mandatory Prepayments. Maker shall make prepayments on this Note in forty (40) equal successive quarterly installments in the amount of Forty Nine Dollars ($49.00 each. The first such installment shall be payable ninety (90) days frown the date of this Note, and subsequent installments shall be paid every ninety (90) days thereafter until all such payments have been made. 3.2 Optional Prepayments. Maker may prepay this Note in whole or in part on any date without premium or penalty. 4. Default and Accleration. At the option of Holder, upon prior written notice to Maker, all sums remaining unpaid under this Note shall become immediately due and payable upon the occurrence of a material default of Maker under this Note which has not been cured by Maker within fifteen (15) days of receipt from Holder of written notice of such default. 5. Costs and Attorneys' Fees. In the event of any action arising out of or connected with this Note, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. 6. Successors; Joint and Several Liability; Captions; Miscellaneous. The covenants and agreements contained in this Note shall bind the successors and assigns of Maker and Holder and shall inure to the benefit of Holder and its successors and assigns. This Note shall be binding upon the heirs, personal representatives, successors, and assigns of Maker. The captions and headings of the paragraphs of this Note are for convenience only and are not to be used to interpret or define the provisions of this Note. This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 7. Notices. Any notice, request, demand or other communication provided for in this Note shall be in writing and deemed given when received by the party for whom intended, if personally delivered, or when mailed by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the intended party at the address stated in this Paragraph 7, or to any other address as may have been designated by written notice: _ 16 • To Maker: With a copy to: To Guarantor: To Holder: American Parking Management Corp., doing business as Vertical Management Systems, Inc. 16458 Bolsa Chica Street, #22 Huntington Beach, California 92649 Attention: Carter C. Green, President Drumauy Garrett King & Harrison A Professional Corporation Attorneys at Law 3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 1000 Costa Mesa, California 92628 Attention: Kimberly E. Small, Esq. Arnold E. Spiro 16458 Bolsa Chica Street, #22 Huntington Beach, California 92649 City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Attention: 8. Severability. If any provision or provisions of this Note are held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, this Note shall be construed as not containing that provision or provisions and all other provisions of this Note shall remain in full force and effect, and to this end the provisions of this Note are declared to be severable. AMERICAN PAROMMANALEMENT CORP., a California corporation doing business as VERTIOILMODCENENT SYSTEMS, INC. By: I Cter447)(? C. Greed, President Arnold E. Spiro, Vice President • GUARANTY For value received, the undersigned hereby individually and unconditionally guarantees the obligations of Maker under this Note. DATED: 79-(12-11la)121087 -17- E'cHIBIT "5" A. NON-NEGOTIABLE PROMISSORY NOTE `' " NOTE SUBJECT TO FINAL CLOSING OF THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF ASSETS DATED DECEMBER 10, 1987 AS MODIFIED. $2,811.00 Huntington Beach, California . 1988 1. Promise to Pay. For value received, the undersigned ("Maker:) p ' to pay to City of Hermosa Beach ,,P MEW ("Holder"), at Civic Center. 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 or any other place as Holder may from time to time designate in writing, the sum of Two Thousand Eight Hundred Eleven Dollars ($2,811.00--), calculated by adding to Two Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Seven— Dollars ($2,627.00------) simple interest of seven percent (7%) of such sum. 2. Terms of Payment. On September 30th following the tenth anniversary of the date of this Note, all sums then remaining unpaid under this Note shall be due and payable. All payments shall be made in lawful money of the United States of America without setoff, deduction or counterclaim of any kind whatsoever. 3. Payment Schedule. 3.1 Mandatory Prepayments. Maker shall make prepayments on this Note in forty (40) equal successive quarterly installments in the amount of Forty Nine Dollars ($49.00 each. The first such installment shall be payable ninety (90) days frena the date of this Note, and subsequent installments shall be paid every ninety (90) days thereafter until all such payments have been made. 3.2 Optional Prepayments. Maker may prepay this Note in whole or in part on any date without premium or penalty. 4. Default and Accleration. At the option of Holder, upon prior written notice to Maker, all sums remaining unpaid under this Note shall become immediately due and payable upon the occurrence of a material default of Maker under this Note which has not been cured by Maker within fifteen (15) days of receipt from Holder of written notice of such default. 5. Costs and Attorneys' Fees. In the event of any action arising out of or connected with this Note, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. 6. Successors; Joint and Several Liability; Captions; Miscellaneous. The covenants and agreements contained in this Note shall bind the successors and assigns of Maker and Holder and shall inure to the benefit of Holder and its successors and assigns. This Note shall be binding upon the heirs, personal representatives, successors, and assigns of Maker. The captions and headings of the paragraphs of this Note are for convenience only and are not to be used to interpret or define the provisions of this Note. This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 7. Notices. Any notice, request, demand or other communication provided for in this Note shall be in writing and deemed given when received by the party for whom intended, if personally delivered, or when mailed by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the intended party at the address stated in this Paragraph 7, or to any other address as may have been designated by written notice: -18- To Maker: With a copy to: To Guarantor: To Holder: American Parking Management Corp., doing business as Vertical Management Systems, Inc. 16458 Bolsa Chita Street, #22 Huntington Beach, California 92649 Attention: Carter C. Green, President Drtmnny Garrett King & Harrison A Professional Corporation Attorneys at Law 3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 1000 Costa Mesa, California 92628 Attention: Kimberly E. Small, Esq. Carter C. Green 18627 Brookhurst #287 Fountain Valley, California 92708 City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Attention: 8. Severabilitv. If any provision or provisions of this Note are held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, this Note shall be construed as not containing that provision or provisions and all other provisions of this Note shall remain in full force and effect, and to this end the provisions of this Note are declared to be severable. AMERICAN PARKING mmAGEmarr CORP., a California corporation doing business as VERTICAL SYSTEMS, INC. BY C. Green, President Hold E. Sp' , Vice President GUARANTY For value received, the undersigned hereby individually and unconditionally guarantees the obligations of Maker under this Note. DATED: 79-(12-111)121087 -19- BACKGROUND MATER/AL December 16, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council January 12, 1988 RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT A LIABILITY SETTLEMENT PLAN AS OUTLINED BY COMPUTIL AND TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AGREEMENT Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council (1) accept the liability plan, as outlined by Computil, to satisfy the debt owed by Vertical Management Systems and (2) to authorize the City Manager to sign the attached agreement. Background: At your regularly scheduled meeting of September 10, 1985, the City Council approved an agreement with Vertical Management Systems to process our out-of-state parking citations. It was brought to the attention of the City Council, at that time, that the City had no method of pursuing delinquent parking citations that are issued to out-of-state vehicles (see attached background material). VMS provided us with a mechanism for collection of these outstanding citations since they processed same for several cities and could afford to interface with DMV's from other states. Recently, the city was notified that VMS was selling this portion of their business to Computil. Staff has met with Computil and, assuming that the attached agreement is approved by Council, we will be bringing an assignment of agreement from VMS to Computil to process our out-of-state parking citations, to the City Council, in the near future. Analysis: During our affiliation with VMS, we have submitted to them an average of 100 outstanding out-of-state citations, per month, for collection. Our collection rate has been approximately 25%. There is no cost to the city, since the processing agency works on a commission basis, receiving 32% of revenues collected through their efforts. Net revenue to the city has been approximately $6,000. However, the last payment we received from VMS was in January of 1987. Consequently, we discontinued sending them the citations for collection in July of 1987. This was after many attempts both telephonically and through written correspondence to collect 11 • the money that was outstanding. They continue to send us monthly activity reports which show the number of citations paid. Initially,, Computil indicated they would assume all payments due to the various cities involved, if they closed a deal with VMS. Upon completion of an audit, by the firm of Arthur Anderson and Associates ( a well known accounting firm), they realized the magnitude of outstanding liability. The attached agreement represents their best effort (in staff's opinion) to satisfy the debt. Fortunately, the debt owed to the City of Hermosa Beach is not as substantial as it is for many other cities i.e. the city of San Diego. Especially when one remembers that we had no where withal, other than booting and impounding the vehicles that we find in town, to collect on out-of-state citations. It does not seem prudent to incur enormous legal expenses to sue VMS in order to collect the outstanding revenue. Therefore, staff recommends that "we take the money and run". General Services Director Concur:, Gayle Martin City M � nager Conc s P. Lgh ty Attorney Noted for fiscal impact: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator e February 24, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council March 8, 1988 ACCEPTANCE'OF WORK AS COMPLETE - UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK CLOSURE POLICE STATION, CITY YARD CIP 86-601 Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. accept as complete the work completed by Diamond Pacific for the underground storage tank closure at the police station and the city yard - CIP 86-601 2. authorize staff to release the 10% retention payment for CIP 86-601 to Diamond Pacific (pending written approval from Los Angeles County), and 3. authorize staff to release the Labor and Materials Bond and the Faithful Performance Bond from Diamond Pacific. Background: On December 15, 1987 City Council authorized the Mayor to sign an agreement with Diamond Pacific for the closure of the underground storage tanks at the police station and the City yard in an amount not to exceed $13,530, and authorized staff to issue change orders as necessary. A Notice to Proceed was issued on January 21, 1988, and work began on January 25, 1988. Analysis: The analysis of this report will be divided into the following sections: I. Project Completion II. Release of Bond III. Fiscal Impact IV. Alternatives I. Project Completion. All work is complete to the satisfaction of staff. However, the project specifications require that the closure report be approved by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. The County has a 3-4 week backlog on sending these approvals in writing, but they have given us verbal approval of the closure report submitted by the contractor. In an effort to expedite the project, staff recommends accepting the work as complete at this time, and withholding the 10% retention payment pending written approval from LA County. The contract allowed for 30 calendar days for the contractor to complete construction. The project was completed within 18 calendar days on February 11, 1988. 11 • - 1 - II. Release of Bond The contractor was required to post a bond for 100% of the contract amount to insure his faithful performance for this project. Now that the project has been successfully completed, staff recommends that this bond be released. Bonding Company: Insurance Company of the West I.C.W. Park P.O. Box 81063 San Diego, CA 92138 Bond No. 02 31 73 Original bond amount: $12,300 Project Total (Not to exceed contract amount) $13,530 III. Fiscal Impact CIP 85-402 Final Total Funding Contract Amount Savings Source $12,300 $1,230 SB9O The project was completed within budget. After receiving Council acceptance as complete, staff will apply for 100% reimbursement under SB9O. (Senate Bill 90) Staff has been notified by the state controller's office that they are not able to review our application for SB9O reimbursement until after November 30, 1988, and that actual reimbursement from the state may take until July, 1989. IV. Alternatives Other alternatives available to Council and considered by staff are: 1. Do not accept the work as complete until written confirmation by Los Angeles County; thereby, delaying the retention payment and bond release. Respectfully submitted, i i�- 1/6-0-firerit i ��% Deborah M. Murphy , Assistant Engineer Concur: Kevin North , aft City Manager Concur: Anthony Antich Director of Pu lic Works Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator Attachment: League of California Cities Bulletin (02/26/88) E®INC' UNCUT e MI NIL California Cities Work Together LEISURE' FELLFE League of California Cities 1400 K Street • Sacramento 95814 • (916) 444-5790 February 26, 1988 #8-1988 ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES 8. INFORMATION 1988 SB 90 Funding Proposals. The Governor has recently released his 1988-89 fiscal year budget proposal. Concurrent with this, the Commission on State Mandates has introduced AB 2778 (Vasconcellos), the appropriations bill to fund recently found mandates. As usual, there are mixed blessings with these two state proposals. In the Governor's budget, $139 million has been requested to cover mandated costs during FY 1988-89. Of special interest to cities is that $30 million has been designated for funding firefighter clothing and equipment costs that were held to be a mandate as a result of the recent Supreme Court decision in the Carmel Valley case. In addition to these funds, the Governor's budget contains an additional $30 million for newly funded Commission -approved test claims. It is anticipated that this amount may be amended even higher during the current budget process. Concurrent with this action and somewhat overlapping, AB 2778 contains $92 million for various test claims approved.by the Commission on State Mandates. Of this amount, $15.18 million is for the costs of SB 90 claiming, and $20.7 million for police department domestic violence call. On a more somber note, however, the Governor has deleted funding for underground storage tanks. This is a result of another Supreme Court decision (the County of Los Angeles case, where it was held that a mandate does not exist if it is applied equally to the private and public -sectors. This action raises questions regarding current year funding, deficiency payments and other issues. So far, no action has been taken to eliminate reimbursement for previously claimed costs for which state appropriations have been approved. In other more positive actions, it is anticipated that• funding requests for other newly found mandates will be presented to the Legislature this year as well. Those include: police department motorist assist calls and missing persons reports, business tax reporting requirements, real property mergers, and others. Overall, even with the loss of the underground storage tank funding ($13 million this year), cities should be able to increase reimbursements in 1988-89. The funding of new mandates is approximately $70 million statewide. • As the budget - process continues, more will be known as to the status of these proposals ands. when and how cities can file claims for these costs. - 1 February 16, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council March 8, 1988 APPROVAL OF PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR ASPHALT STREET REPAIRS - CIP 87-171 Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. approve the plans and specifications (on file in the Office of the City Clerk) for City-wide asphalt street repairs; 2. authorize call for bids for asphalt street repair project, and 3. authorize staff to issue addendums as necessary. Background: At the June 23, 1987 City Council meeting, Council adopted the FY 87-88 CIP Budget, which appropriated $82,500 for City-wide street repairs. Analysis: The Department of Public Works conducted a field condition survey to determine which asphalt streets are in greatest need of repair (Attachment I: Locations). Typical unit prices were obtained from which the Engineer's Estimate was developed (Attachment II). These plans and specifications consider only those sections that are to be removed and replaced and crack sealed. Construction hours in the City of Hermosa Beach are from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., as established by City ordinance. However, because Public Works projects are exempt from this ordinance, the agreement has been written such that the contractor may begin work at 7:00 a.m., and must be through for the day by 5:00 p.m. These hours better met the needs of the City, as well as the Contractor. Fiscal Impact: CIP 87-171 Budgeted Amount Amount Expended Engineer's Estimate $82,500 -0- $82,500 111 The engineer's estimate is equal to the budgeted amount. Respectfully submitted, Brian Gendr Assistant Engineer Concur: evin Northc•-ft City Manager asr/v Concur: Anthony Antic Director of • •lie Works Noted for Fiscal Impact: zaa-t Viki Copeland Finance Administrator Attachments: List of Repair Locations Engineer's Estimate Project Budget Project Schedule ASPHALT STREET REPAIR CIP 87-171 FY 87-88 ITEM #1: LOCATIONS TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED ATTACHMENT I LOCATION APPROXIMATE DIMENS IONS APPROX. SQ. FT. 1 340 Massey 2 960 9th Street 4' x 34' 136 2.3' x 20' 46 3 940 9th Street 4 918 9th Street 1.6' x 14.7' 24 1.8' x 24.7' 45 5 1001 10th Street 2' x 15' 30 6 Bonnie Brae @ 14th Street (N. Side) 7 Bonnie Brae @ 15th Street 8 Prospect @ 17th 9 17th St. @ Golden 10 Rhodes @ 18th Street 11 19th @ Prospect (1101) 1 2.7' x 12.7' 1.7' x 3' 39 4.6 x 6.5' 30 17.3' x 11.3' 6.7' x 24.1' 5.0'x 29.8' 506 6.5' x 31' 202 7' x 29.5' 4.5' x 17.5 206 79 12 1205 19th Street 13 1254 19th St. 4.5' x 34.8' 157 4' x 42' 15' x 8' 5' x 5' 3.5' x 12.5' 357 14 20th P1. @ Harper . (124 sq. ft. in Redondo) 116 15 21st Street @ PCH 4' x 7' 28 16 1st P1. @ Ardmore 17 567 2nd Street ASPHALT STREET REPAIR CIP 87-171 FY 87-88 ITEM #1: LOCATIONS TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED ==== 18 LOCATION 2nd St. @ Valley ATTACHMENT I APPROXIMATE DIMENS IONS APPROX. SQ. FT. 19 Manhattan, 122 - north 20 Manhattan @ 2nd Street 21 563 llth Street 22 Monterey @ 10th Street 23 Manhattan @ 10th Street 36' x 30' 1080 2.3' x 50.8' 1.4' x 20' 145 15' x 19' 285 3.3 x 14' 152 5.5' x 26.3' 361 21.5' x 13' 280 24 Loma @ Pier (S. side) 25 Sunset @ Pier (S. side) 4' x 17' 68 5.5' x 19' 105 26 Monterey @ Pier 27 Manhattan @ Pier 28 Monterey @ 16th St. 29 725 30th St. 4.5' x 11' 50 9' x 8' 72 3.3' x 8.7' 13.3' x 10.7' 171 2.3' x 5.3' 12 30 30th St. @ Tennyson 3.6' x 14.8" 3.6' x 12' 96 TOTALS 5060 ASPHALT STREET REPAIR CIP 87-171 FY 87-88 ITEM #2: LOCATIONS TO BE CRACK SEALED LOCATION 1st St. - near Prospect 1st Pl. - Barney to Prospect 2nd St. - Prospect to Hollowell Hopkins Gravely Court 7th St. - PCH to Prospect 9th St. - PCH to Prospect 10th St. - PCH to Prospect 10th St. - Prospect to Border 13th St. - PCH to Ocean 14th St. - PCH to Prospect 14th St. - Prospect to Border 15th St. - PCH to Ocean 15th Pl. - Bonnie Brae to Mira Corona Owosso Bonnie Brae Ocean 17th St. - PCH to Prospect Golden Rhodes ATTACHMENT I 1 1 1 1 SIZE OF 'EXTENT OF) APPROX. 1 APPROX. 1 APPROX CRACKS (CRACKING* WIDTH 1 LENGTH 1 SO. FT 1 1 --- OF STREET --- 1 1 1/4"-3/4" 1 3 1 30 1 10 1 300 1 1 1 1 1/8"-2" 1 3 1 30 1 720 1 21600 1 1 1 1 1/4"-4" 1 4 1 30 I 1240 1 37200 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1/4" 1 2 1 30 1 480 I 14400 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1/4" 1 3 1 30 1 100 1 3000 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1" 1 3 1 40 1 1000 1 40000 1 1 1 1 1/8'-1" 1 4 1 30 1 1160 1 34800 1 1 1 1 1/8"-2" 1 3 1 30 1 1280 1 38400 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1/2" 1 3 1 30 1 640 1 19200 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1.5" 1 4 1 30 1 640 1 19200 1 1 1 1 1/8'-1" 1 3 1 30 1 1280 1 38400 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1.5" 1 4 1 :30 1• 400 1 12000 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1/2" 1 1 1 30 1 620 1 18600 1 1 1 1 1/8"-2' 1 4 1 30 1 400 1 12000 1 1 1 1 1/8'-1" 1 2 1 30 1 600 1 18000 1 1 1 1 1/8'-1" 1 3 1 30 1 640 1 19200 1 1 1 1 1/8'-1" 1 3 1 30 1 1320 1 39600 1 1 1 1 1/8'-1" 1 3 1 20 1 1920 1 38400 1 • 1 1 1 1/8"-1/4" I 3 1 30 1 880 1 26400 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1/4" 1 2 1 30 1 320 1 9600 1 1 1 1 1/8'-1" 1 3 1 20 1 200 1 4000 1 1 1 1 ASPHALT STREET REPAIR CIP 87-171 FY 87-88 ITEM 02: LOCATIONS TO BE CRACK SEALED LOCATION 19th St. - Prospect to border 21st St. a PCH intersection Borden Harper Amby Pl. Braeholm Pl. Gould Terrace 0 Gould intersection Gould - just S. of Ardmore intrscn. 24th Pl. - Ardmore to PCH 24th St. - Ardmore to PCH 11th St. - near Ardmore 7th St. - near Ardmore 6th St. - Ardmore to PCH 3rd St. - Valley to Ardmore 2nd St. - Valley to PCH 1st Pl. - Ardmore to PCH 1st St. - Ardmore to PCH Monterey - Herondo to 2nd - 2nd to 8th - 8th to Pier - Pier to 19th ATTACHMENT I 1 1 1 1 SIZE OF 'EXTENT OF' APPROX. 1 APPROX. 1 APPROX CRACKS 'CRACKING*, WIDTH 1 LENGTH 1 SQ. FT 1 1 --- OF STREET --- 1/8"-1/4" 1 1 1 30 1 600 1 18000 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1/2" 1 2 1 40 1 20 1 800 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1/2" 1 1 1 30 1 240 1 7200 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1/2" 1 2 1 20 1 1640 1 32800 1 1 1 1 1/80-1/4" 1 1 1 30 1 300 1 9000 1 1 1 1 1/80-1/4" 1 1 1 30 1 260 1 7800 1 1 1 1 1/4"-1.5" 1 3 1 20 1 20 1 400 1 1 1 1 1/4"-1.5" 1 4 1 60 1 60 1 3600 1 1 1 1 1/80-1/4" 1 1 1 30 1 760 1 22800 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1" 1 3 1 30 1 700 1 21000 11 1 1 1/8"-1" 1 3 1 30 1 20 1 600 1 1 1 1 1/4"-1.5" 1 3 1 '. 30 1 20 1 600 1 1 ' 1 1 1/8"-1/2' 1 3 1 30 1 620 1 18600 1 1 1 1 1/8"-2" 1 3 1 30 1 920 1 27600 1 1 1 1 1/8"-2" ( 4 1 30 1 1120 1 33600 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1" 1 3 1 30 1 560 1 16800 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1" 1 3 1 30 1 680 1 20400 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1/4" 1 1 1 60 1 760 1 45600 1 1 1 1 1/8"-2" 1 4 1 60 1 1600 1 96000 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1" 1 3 1 60 1 1520 1 91200 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1/4" 1 1 1 60 1 1480 1 88800 1 1 1 1 ASPHALT STREET REPAIR CIP 87-171 FY 87-88 ITEM 12: LOCATIONS TO BE CRACK SEALED LOCATION - 19th to Manhattan Circle Drive Bay View Drive - Circle to 16th - 16th to Pier - Pier to 1st St. Cypress - 6th to 8th - 11th to Pier Loma - 6th to Pier - N. of Pier Bard St. - S. of Pier 11th St. - Valley to Monterey Sunset Manhattan Palm - Greenwich to Neptune - Pier to Greenwich Hermosa - 35th to Herondo Beach Drive - 1st St. to 24th St. Park and 25th St. Myrtle Ozone Court 25th St. - Park to Valley ATTACHMENT I 1 1 1 1 SIZE OF EXTENT OF' APPROX. 1 APPROX. 1 APPROX CRACKS CRACKING*1 WIDTH 1 LENGTH 1 SQ. FT --- OF STREET - 010 1/8"-2" 1 3 1 60 1 1270 1 76200 1 1 1 1/8"-3/4" 1 3 1 40 1 900 1 36000 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1" 1 3 ( 30 1 1320 1 39600 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1" 1 1 ( 20 1 460 ( 9200 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1" ( 3 1 20 1 3360 1 67200 1 1 1 1 1/8"-2" 1 4 1 30 1 1040 1 31200 1 1 1 1 1/8"-2" 1 1 1 30 1 640 1 19200 1 1 1 1 1/811-1" 1 3 1 30 1 2320 1 69600 1 1 1 1/8"-1/4 ( 1 1 30 1 1000 1 30000 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1" 1 3 1 50 1 540 1 27000 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1" 1 3 1 30 1 640 1 19200 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1.5" 1 3 1 20 1 2040 1 40800 1 1 1 1 1/8"-2" 1 3 1 50 1 9000 ( 450000 1/8"-1" 1 3 1 20 ( 1800 1 36000 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1/2" 1 3 1 20 1 3000 ( 60000 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1/4" 1 1 1 60 1 8640 1 518400 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1/2" 1 3 1 20 1 6400 ( 128000 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1/2" 13 1 40 ( 1920 1 76800 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1/2" 1 3 1 40 1 800 ( 32000 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1/2" 1 3 1 20 ( 940 1 18800 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1/4" ( 1 1 30 1 800 ( 24000 1 1 1 1 ASPHALT STREET REPAIR CIP 87-171 FY 87-88 ITEM 02: LOCATIONS TO BE CRACK SEALED LOCATION 24th St. - Park to Valley - Strand to Park 20th St. - Power to Valley 21st St. Morningside - Longfellow to 30th BETWEEN VALLEY & STRAND Lyndon 1st St. 2nd St. 4th St. 6th St. 8th St. 10th st. 16th St. 19th St. 21st St. 27th St. and Gould lower 28th St. 29th St. 29th Pl. ATTACHMENT I 1 1 1 1 SIZE OF (EXTENT OF' APPROX. 1 APPROX. 1 APPROX. CRACKS (CRACKING*I WIDTH 1 LENGTH 1 SG. FT. 1 1 --- OF STREET --- ---______.1 i --=1=-------.1==.------ 1/804-1" -=1__----=1=------- 1/8"-1" 1 3 I 30 1 1000 I 30000 1 1 1 1 1/8"-2' 1 4 1 40 1 720 1 28800 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1/4" 1 2 1 30 1 700 1 21000 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1" 1 3 I 30 1 840 1 25200 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1' 1 3 1 30 1 400 1 12000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1/2" 1 3 1 30 1 400 1 12000 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1/2" 1 3 1 40 1 480 1 19200 1 1 1 1 1/8"-3/4" 1 4 1 40 1 500 1 20000 I 1 1 1 1/8"-1/2" 1 3 1 40 1 500 1 20000 1 1 1 1 1/81-2" 1 4 1 40 1 1340 1 53600 1 1 • 1 1 1/8'-2" I 3 1 40 1 1440 1 57600 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1.5" 1 3 1 40 1 1320 1 52800 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1/2" 1 3 1 40 1 680 1 27200 1- 1 1 1 1/8"-1" 1 3 1 40 1 600 1 24000 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1/4" 1 1 1 40 1 200 1 8000 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1/4" 1 1 1 30 1 1200 1 36000 1 • 1 1 1 1/8"-1/4" 1 1 1 30 1 1440 1 43200 1 1 1 1 1/8"-2" 1 4 1 30 1 200 1 6000 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1" 1 3 1 20 1 760 I 15200 I 1 1 1 ASPHALT STREET REPAIR CIP 87-171 FY 87-88 ITEM #2: LOCATIONS TO BE CRACK SEALED LOCATION 35th St. BETWEEN HERMOSA AND STRAND 22nd St. 21st Ct. 19th Ct. 18th Ct. 17th Ct. .16th Ct. 15th St. 15th Ct. 14th St. 14th Ct. 13th St. 11th St. 11th Ct. 10th Ct. 9th Ct. 8th Ct. 7th Ct. 6th Ct. ATTACHMENT I 1 1 1 1 SIZE OF (EXTENT OF' APPROX. I APPROX. I APPROX. CRACKS (CRACKING*I WIDTH I LENGTH I S0. FT. I I --- OF STREET --- 1/8"-1/4" I 1 I 30 I 240 I 7200 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 0 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1/8"-2" I 4 I 40 I 200 I 8000 1/8"-1/4" I 1 I 20 I 240 I 4800 1/8"-1/4" I 1 I 20 I 300 I 6000 1/8"-1/4" I 1 I 20 I 360 I 7200 1/8"-1/4" I 1 I 20 I 420 I 8400 1/8"-1/2" I 3 I 20 I 420 I 8400 1/8,-2" I 4 1 40 I 500 I 20000 1/8"-1/2" I 3 I 20 I 380 I 7600 1/8"-1.5" I 3 I 40 I 440 I 17600 1/8"-1/2" I 3 I 20 I 380 I 7600 1/8"-1.5" I 4 I 20 I 360 I 7200 1/8"-1" I 3 I 40 I 440 I 17600 1/8"-1/4" I 1 I 20 I 320 I 6400 1/8"-1/2" I 3 I 20 I 300 I 6000 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1/4" I 1 I 20 I 280 I 5600 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1/4" I 1 I 20 I 260 I 5200 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1/4" I 1 I 20 I 240 I 4800 1/8"-1/2" I 3 I 20 I 220 I 4400 1 1 1 1 ASPHALT STREET REPAIR CIP 87-171 FY 87-88 ITEM 82: LOCATIONS TO BE CRACK SEALED LOCATION 5th Ct. 4th Ct. 3rd Ct. ATTACHMENT I 1 SIZE OF IEXTENT OF) APPROX. ( APPROX. ( APPROX. CRACKS ICRACKING*I WIDTH I LENGTH ( SQ. FT. --- OF STREET --- 1/8"-1/4" I 1 I 20 I 180 1 3600 11 1 1/8"-1" ( 3 1 20 1 140 I 2800 1 1 1 1 1/8"-1/4" 1 2 I 20 1 100 1 2000 1 * Extent of cracking: 1 = Good condition, little cracking 4 = Poor condition, extensive cracking kfisur HERMOSA BEACH CALIFORNIA. 1 • ..t4PS 'leo? ."0 SCALE: 1 INCI0400 FEET • /MO • . .7.1„A +I; ), ASPHALT STREET REPAIR CIP 87-171 FY 87-88 ITEM #1: REMOVE AND REPLACE ASPHALT ATTACHMENT II ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE 5060 sq. ft. @ $2.80 per sq. ft. = $14,168. ITEM #2: SEAL CRACKS IN ASPHALT PAVEMENT AVERAGE EXTENT OF CRACKING* 2.69 TOTAL LENGTH OF CRACK (FT.) TOTAL ESTIMATED COST++ 117,551 * Extent of 1 - approx. 2 - approx. 3 - approx. 4 - approx. cracking .1' of crack per sq. yd. - .2' of crack per sq. yd. .35' of crack per sq. yd. .55' of crack per sq. yd. $68,332 good condition - poor condition ++ Estimated cost: $ .58 per lineal foot of crack. Crew size = Number of crews = Composite hourly rate = (Including labor, materials, equipment, O&P, etc.) Total crew -days = Number of weeks construction = SUMMARY 7 1 $70 18 4 ITEM #1: REMOVE AND REPLACE ASPHALT • ITEM #2: SEAL CRACKS IN ASPHALT PAVEMENT $14,168 $68,332 TOTAL FOR CIP 87-171 $82,500 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE PROJECT NAME : CIP .11 t T ASP HALT- REPAID. 1 LEGEND TENTATIVE SCHEDULE : animmiatemi ACCOUNT NUMBER : ACTUAL SCHEDULE : mummoimmomm X : 100% COMPLETE n • I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I TASKS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC I I 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1------1 1 I Final design approval before advertising for construction I 1 I I I I I 1 I I Prepare advertisement & set bid opening) IIIIIIII__ 1 I 111 ! 1. - I I I 1 1 1 I I date Advertising period (issue addendums as necessary) I 1 1-" TIT 1.--.----1 I 1 I 1 I I------ I Accept sealed bids & public bid opening 1 1I II I� I I 1 I I 1------1 Review bids 1 1Hill1 J 1 1 I I 1 1 I Award contract l I 1 IIIII I 1 1 I I 1 I I ' I Sign contract (bonds,insurance & workers comp. cert.)) I1 I I I 1 1 1 I 1 I Preconstruction meeting procedure inn 1 1 111111 1 1 1--i----I 1 1 1 I Issue "Notice to Proceed" 1 1 1-7111i1`itlr-1 1 1 1 I 1 11 Construction Period I II I 1 ' I 1 1 1 I Monitor progress & maintain records l l Progress payment and I I 1 111.111111111111 1 1 I I I I I change order procedure• I 1 1 1 I_ .II 11Th -----1 I I I 1 I Acceptance of work as complete I I I II IIII�II.I 1 I I 1 I 1 Issusing and recording a "Notice of Completion" I 1 1 II I illlllt!n 1 1 1---i--I I nt Reteion Payment Project close ;out 1, 1 1 1 Ii111111111111111111110ll-1 1 1 1 I 1 I I . 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • • CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FY86-87 THRU FY88-89 • SECOND YEAR OF THREE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM • PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: ACCOUNT NUMBER: PROGRAM AREA: Various Street Repairs - Citywide CIP 87-171 115-401-8171-4201 Street & Safety Improvements PROJECT DESCRIPTION: WORK PROPOSED: This project will consist of repairing damaged streets Citywide. BUDGET SCHEDULE Col 1 Col 2 Col 3 Col 4 Col S •Col 6 Col 7 PROJECT ELEMENTS PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING I PLANS. SPECS'& ESTIMATES CONSTRUCTION: INSPECTION OTHER DIRECT COSTS EXPENDED EST'ED EST'ED BUDGET THRU THRU FY86-87 FY86-87 2/28/87 6/30/87 BALANCE TOTAL PROJECT FY87-88FY88-84BUDGET 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 75,0001 75,0001 150,0001 1--i 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I' MMIMMINIIIIIIIM.MMM.M.1•••••MM.MMM.M..M.MMMINIMM --------MMM. SUBTOTAL 1. 75.„2091. 75 000 150 000 TOTAL EXPENDITURE • 82,500 82,500 165,000 CONTINGENCY 1 FUNDING SCHEDULE FUND NO. 115 FUNDING SOURCES State Gas Tax M.M.M... TOTAL FUNDING I I FUNDINGDISTRIBUTION*************i TOTAL 1 , I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I- 82 L5001- 82,5001 J65 L0001 .....M.M..M.MM.M....MMM...... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 82,500 82,500 165,000 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council FROM: Andrew Peres, Associate Planner SUBJECT: City Council Agenda item #2 a and b DATE: March 7, The attached Agenda item - #2 a and b, 720 8th Street Zone Change and Precise Plan - has been revised for clarification. Staff has noted the revisions in bold print. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 2a -b March 1, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council March 8, 1988 SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE 87-3 LOCATION: 720 -8TH STREET APPLICANT: TERRY PRINGLE; MUSIC PLUS REQUEST: TO CONTINUE TO THE SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 88-915 AND ADOPTING RESOLUTION 88-5099 APPROVING A ZONE CHANGE AND PRECISE PLAN Recommendation Staff recommends approving a continuation of this matter to May 24, 1988 on the condition the applicant obtain a Conditional Use Permit for ticket sales. Background The applicant, at the City Council meeting of February 23, 1988, requested that the City Council continue the second reading of Ordinance No. 88-915 and approval of Resolution No. 88-5099, and requested that the condition limiting the hours of the parking lot be included in a Conditonal Use Permit rather than the Precise Plan. The City Council, at their meeting of February 23, 1988, adopted a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which will require a Conditional Use Permit for businesses which sell special event tickets. The City Council, at their meeting of January 12, 1988, introduced a zone change from R-2, C - Potential, to C-3 and a precise plan at 720 -8th Street. Analysis The Ordinance which will require a Conditional Use Permit for ticket sales will become effective March 24, 1988. Staff has prepared a preliminary time line in which the applicant can apply for the Conditional Use Permit. Effective date of Ordinance Receive application for CUP Staff Review Meeting Planning Commission March 24, 1988 by March 24, 1988 April 7, 1988 April 19, 1988 As a condition of approval, staff is recommending that the Condtional Use Permit require the City Council to review the CUP in conjunction with the zone change and precise plan. A tentative date for the City Council is May 24, 1988. This will enable the applicant to Publicly Notice this item after the Planning Commission meeting. Attachment 1. Letter from Gerry Cohen dated February ;3, 1988 CONC; 1MichaeSc u•ac Planning Director evin Northcraft City Manager An rew Pere Associate Planner COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE — SALES, SITE SELECTION AND LEASE NEGOTIATIONS FOR CHAIN STORES AND OTHERS February 23, 1988 Mr. Michael Schubach Hermosa Beach City Hall City Planning Department 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 RE: PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE TO 720 8TH STREET AND RESTRICTIONS ON HOURS OF OPERATION OF THE PARKING LOT Dear Michael, 1429 4TH STREET SANTA MONICA CALIFORNIA 90401-2393 (213) 451-8171 FAX (213) 395-6361 The petitioner's desire at this point is to construct a parking lot which will be open to customers up to ten o'clock P.M. Sundays thru Thursday, and up to eleven o'clock P.M. Fridays, Saturdays, and for the month beginning December 15 thru January 15 each year. These are the hours of operation the tenant, Music Plus, has been operating for the past eight years. Recent council action, if enacted, would require the parking lot to close at ten o'clock P.M. each day, negatively impacting the tenant's ability to service customers and create sales tax dollars. In addition, these restrictions are to be put on the fee interest thru the precise plan, rather than on the user of the property, Music Plus, through a C.U.P. At council's suggestion at the January 12th meeting, we entered into discussions with a neighbor who has claimed substantial negative impact to her property and lifestyle due to the proposed parking lot, with the intent of finding ways to ameliorate her difficulties. While we are optimistic about creating a satisfactory situation for her, we are still in discussion and are unsure of the outcome. The petitioners find themselves facing the prospect of the Tenant's decreasing hours of available parking for customers (won't this result in increased street traffic?) in order to attempt to alleviate a parking problem, which is an unacceptable position. In addition, the restriction placed in the precise plan, rather than in a C.U.P., places restrictions on the fee which are commercially unreasonable in light of current mortgage and investment practice. SAVE THE PIER & PAY COMMISSIONS PROMPTLY EOU\OI%C MEMBER Of CHAIN LINKS •��rP r qqf II < OFFICES IN SAN DIEGO (619) 544-1449 SAN FRANCISCO (415) 673-1000 • . .f Mr. Michael Schubach Page Two February'23, 1988 We will, therefore, ask council 1) to allow the construction of the parking lot with hours of operation as noted above, 2) to place the restriction in a C.U.P. and not in the precise plan and 3) to make the zoning change process and C.U.P. process concurrent for orderly administration and protection of all the parties interests. Please call me with any comments or questions you may have. regar , GER COHEN GC/sl cc: Lou Fogelman Terry Pringle Michael L. Epsteen Alex Byer March 1, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council March 8, 1988 SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE 87-3 LCOATION: 720 -8TH STREET APPLICANT: TERRY PRINGLE; MUSIC PLUS REQUEST: TO CONTINUE TO THE SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 88-915 AND ADOPTING RESOLUTION 88-5099 APPROVING A ZONE CHANGE AND PRECISE PLAN Recommendation Staff recommends approving a continuation of this matter on the condition the applicant obtain a Conditional Use Permit by May 24, 1988. Background The applicant, at the City Council meeting of February 23, 1988, requested that the City Council continue the second reading of Ordinance No. 88-915 and approval of Resolution No. 88-5099, and requested that the condition limiting the hours of the parking lot be included in a Conditonal Use Permit rather than the Precise Plan. The City Council, at their meeting of February 23, 1988, adopted a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which will require a Conditional Use Permit for businesses which sell special event tickets. The City Council, at their meeting of January 12, 1988, introduced a zone change from R-2, C - Potential, to C-3 and a precise plan at 720 -8th Street. Analysis The Ordinance which will require a Conditional Use Permit for ticket sales will become effective March 24, 1988. Staff has prepared a preliminary time line in which the applicant can apply for the Conditional Use Permit. Effective date of Ordinance March 24, 1988 Receive application for CUP by March 24, 1988 Staff Review Meeting April 7, 1988 Planning Commission April 19, 1988 1 a�b As a condition of approval, staff is recommending that the Condtional Use Permit require the City Council to review the CUP in conjunction with the zone change and precise plan. A tentative date for the City Council is May 10, 198: his will enable the applicant to Publicly Notice is em a ter the Planning Commission meeting. Michael Schubach Planning, Director 'Kevin Northcraft City Manager 2 'er=a Associate Manner COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE — SALES, SITE SELECTION AND LEASE NEGOTIATIONS FOR CHAIN STORES AND OTHERS February 23, 1988 Mr. Michael Schubach Hermosa Beach City Hall City Planning Department 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 RE: PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE TO 720 8TH STREET AND RESTRICTIONS ON HOURS OF OPERATION OF THE PARKING LOT Dear Michael, 1429 4TH STREET SANTA MONICA CALIFORNIA 90401.2393 (213) 4518171 FAX (213) 395 6361 The petitioner's desire at this point is to construct a parking lot which will be.open to customers up to ten o'clock P.M. Sundays thru Thursday, and up to eleven o'clock P.M. Fridays, Saturdays, and for the month beginning December 15 thru January 15 each year. These are the hours of operation the tenant, Music Plus, has been operating for the past eight years. Recent council action, if enacted, would require the parking lot to close at ten o'clock P.M. each day, negatively impacting the tenant's ability to service customers and create sales tax dollars. In addition, these restrictions are to be put on the fee interest thru the precise plan, rather than on the user of the property, Music Plus, through a C.U.P. At council's suggestion at the January 12th meeting, we entered into discussions with a neighbor who has claimed substantial negative impact to her property and lifestyle due to the proposed parking lot, with the intent of finding ways to ameliorate her difficulties. While we are optimistic about creating a satisfactory situation for her, we are still in discussion and are unsure of the outcome. The petitioners find themselves facing the prospect of the Tenant's decreasing hours of available parking for customers (won't this result in increased street traffic?) in order to attempt to alleviate a parking problem, which is an unacceptable position. In addition, the restriction placed in the precise plan, rather than in a C.U.P., places restrictions on the fee which are commercially unreasonable in ,light of current mortgage and investment practice. SAVE THE PIER & PAY COMMISSIONS PROMPTLY FOUNDING MEMBER OF CHAIN LINKS 01052114 /<�( Me., .5,,, 7, e 01 ot C' $.Dad^p CslP•a OFFICES II; SAN DIEGO (619) 544.1449 SAN FRANCISCO (415)673-1000 Mr. Michael Schubath Page Two February 23, 1988 We will, therefore, ask council 1) to allow the construction of the parking lot with hours of operation as noted above, 2) to place the restriction in a C.U.P. and not in the precise plan and 3) to make the zoning change process and C.U.P. process concurrent for orderly administration and protection of all the parties interests. Please call me with any comments or questions you may have. GC/sl cc: Lou Fogelman Terry Pringle Michael L. Epsteen Alex Byer February 29, 1988 City Council Meeting March 8, 1988 Mayor and Members of the City Council ORDINANCE NO. 88-917 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, 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. Submitted for waiver of further reading and adoption is Ordinance No. 88-917 relating to the above subject. At the regular meeting of February 23, 1988, this ordinance was introduced by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Concur: Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, None None None N ORTHC F , City Manager Williams, Mayor Simpson Kathleen Midstokke, City Clerk 11. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 88- 917 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, 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. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on February 23, 1988 and made the following Findings: A. The State law requires consistency between the zoning and the General Plan; B. Rezoning the subject properties as indicated on the attached Maps 2 through 3E will result in consistency between the zoning and General Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby ordain amending the Zoning Map for various areas as shown on the attached maps and described as follows: 1. Area 1, (Map 1) Rezone from R-3 Zone to R-2 Zone, legally esc ed as Lots 1-15 inclusive & 18-24 inclusive, Block 10, First Addition to Hermosa Beach; Lots 1-15 inclusive & 18-22 inclusive, Block 9, First Addition to Hermosa Beach; Lot 1, Parcel Map #10098; 2. Area 1A, (Map 2) Rezone from R-3 Zone to R-2 Zone, legally described as Lots 1-5 inclusive, Tract #2649; Lots 1-8 inclusive, Hiss Addition to Hermosa Beach; 3. Area 1B, (Map 3 - 3E) Rezone from R-3 Zone to R-2 Zone: (Map 3A): This area is legally described as: - Lots 16-36 inclusive, northerly 10' of Lot 37 & Lot 39, Tract #1132; - Lots 1-15 inclusive & 30, Block 32, First Addition to Hermosa Beach; - Lot 1, Parcel Map #12381; ▪ (Map 3B): This area is legally described as: - Lots 1-16 inclusive, Block 61, First Hermosa Beach; - Lots 1-5 inclusive, Block 31, First Hermosa Beach; (Map 3C): This area is legally described as: - Lots 1-3 inclusive & 6-11 inclusive First Addition to Hermosa Beach; - Lot 1, Parcel Map #14210; - Lots 1-11 inclusive, First Addition Beach; Addition to Addition to to Hermosa Block 30, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25. 26 27 28 - Lots 1-7 inclusive, Block 28, First Addition to Hermosa Beach; (Map 3D): This area is legally described as: - Lots 14-18 inclusive, Block 22, First Addition to Hermosa Beach; (Map 3E): This area is legally described as: - Lots 8-13 inclusive, Block 23, First Addition to Hermosa Beach; - Lots 8-14 inclusive, Block 24, First Addition to Hermosa Beach. 4. This ordinance shall not apply to any projects that have a completed building permit package on file with the city prior to February 23, 1988. Said package must include a completed building permit application form, completed conceptual plans (plot plan, floor plans, elevation plans and other similar plans) and a lot survey. Projects that have submitted a completed building permit package must pursue their application in a diligent manner and must be issued a bilding permit within six months of the effective date of this ordinance. 5. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. 6. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law. 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of tbe passage and adoption thereof in the records of tbe proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of .. 1988. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 2 February 29, 1988 City Council Meeting March 8, 1988 Mayor and Members of the City Council ORDINANCE NO. 88-918 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE DEFINITION OF "RESTAURANT" AND "SNACK BAR AND/OR SNACK SHOP" AND APPROVAL OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Submitted for waiver of further reading and adoption is Ordinance No. 88-918 relating to the above subject. At the regular meeting of February 23, 1988, this ordinance was introduced by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Concur: Creighton, None None None Rosenberger, Sheldon, Williams, Mayor Simpson &zios& Kathleen Midstokke, City Clerk IN NORTHCRAFi City Manager 2d 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. 88-918 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE DEFINITION OF "RESTAURANT" AND "SNACK BAR AND/OR SNACK SHOP" AND APPROVAL.OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on February 23, 1988, to receive oral and written testimony regarding this matter and made the following Findings: A. The present Zoning Ordinance does not distinguish between a "restaurant: and "snack bar and/or snack shop"; B. A distinction between "restaurant" and "snack bar" is required because of potential parking impacts. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN THE FOLLOWING TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND APPROVES AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. SECTION 1. The following shall be added to Article 2, Definition. A. Add the following to existing definition of Section 270. Restaurants: "The establishment shall serve either one of the following: breakfast, lunch, or dinner or has a kitchen with equipment capable of serving breakfast, lunch, or dinner." B. Add anew section to read as follows: "An establishment that serves a snack usually for consumption between meals; specifically, items such as donuts, ice cream, yogurt, or cookies are considered snacks, and the Planning Commission may consider additional items as snacks." SECTION 2. Add the following to Section 8-2. Neighborhood Commercial Zone: "Snack bar/Snack shop; Conditional Use Permit required subject to Article 10." SECTION 3. Add the following in alphabetical order to Article 11.5, Section 1152, off-street parking, commercial, and business uses: "Snack bar/Snack shop: The parking requirements for a snack bar and/or snack shop shall be the same as 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 that for "restaurant" unless it can be shown to the Planning Commission that tbe characteristics of the building, it's location, and other mitigating factors result in less parking being necessary for the business." PASSED,APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 1988. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of tbe City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: PROVED AS TO) FO CLERK }/ / CITY ATTORNEY 1• .' ACTIVITY IDENTIFICATION Location a. Address: City-wide, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 b. Legal: N/A 2. Description Text Amendment to add Definition of "Restaurant" & "Sanck Bar" to Zoning ordinance 3. Sponsor a. Name: City of -Hermosa Beach b. Mailing Address: 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Phone: (213) 376-6984 • 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 Ile have undertaken and completed an Environmental Impact Review of this pro . posed project in accordance with Resolution 79-4309 of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, and find that this project does not require a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report because, provided the attached mitigation meas- ures are included in the project, it id not have a significant effect on the environment. Documentation supp ' ngfthi nding is on file in the .Building Department. October 8, 1987 Date of Finding • Chairman, Enviro, 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 wo not h- =10! ignificant effect on the en- vironment. Documentation s •portin•, i diis on file in the Build- ing Department. I- II -g8 Date of Finding a'rman, Planning Commission FIND 'G OF THE CITY COUNCIL We have undertaken and •,•leted an environmental Impact Review of this pro- posed project in accordance with Resolution 70-4309 of the City.Councii of _, Hermosa Beach, and find this project does not require a comprehensive En- vironmental Impact'Report because, provided the attached mitigation meas - urea are included in the project, it would not have a significant effect on. the environment. Documentation supporting this finding is on file in the: Building Department. Date of Finding Mayor, Hermosa Beach City Council .,.. Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Febuary 23, 1988 Regular Meeting of March 8, 1988 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO CREATE AN AMORTIZATION PERIOD FOR THE EXISTING BUSINESSES THAT REQUIRE A C.U.P. BUT ARE OPERATING WITHOUT SUCH PERMIT. INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation Staff recommends that the attached Resolution of Intent be adopted. Background At their meeting of January 12, 1988 the City Council directed staff to return with a Resolution of Intention to send to the Planning Commission for their recommendations on an amortization period for all existing businesses that under our present Zoning would require CUP's but do not possess one. Analysis Currently, there are 80 active Conditional Use Permits in Hermosa Beach. However, staff recognizes the fact that many other bussinesses are operating absent of a CUP. Regarding alcohol related businesses alone, there are 20 establishments requiring CUP's under current Code, which are lacking such permit. Therefore, staff supports the effort to create an amortization ordinance that will, in turn, bring all businesses into conformance with the current Code. Michael Schubach Planning Director l Kevin Northcraft City Manager Respectfully submitted, AlaHern- and ez 41.11, Assistant Planner 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 88- A RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO DIRECT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF TO STUDY'AMENDING THE ZONING CODE TO CREATE AN AMORTIZATION -PERIOD FOR BUSINESSES THAT REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS WHICH, HOWEVER, WERE IN OPERATION PRIOR TO SUCH REQUIREMENT. WHEREAS, at the January 12, 1988 City Council meeting, the City Council requested a Resolution of Intent to study amending the Zoning Ordinance to create a Amortization Period, after which businesses requiring a Conditional Use Permit will be required to obtain one within a specified time and made the following Findings: 1. The City businesses, Council is desirous which are subject to of the regulating all Conditional Use Permit requirement. 2. The imposition of a Conditional Use Permit will allow the City to place conditions on the businesses to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby direct the Planning Commission and staff to study amending the Zoning Code to create an amortization period for businesses that require Conditional Use Permits which, however, were in operation prior to such requirement. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of March 1988. PRESIDENT of the City Council and Mayor of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: PPROVED 0 F rte. ITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY February 29, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of March 8, 1988 RESOLUTION RELATING TO LEASE WITH OPTION TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND DESIGNATION AS QUALIFIED TAX-EXEMPT OBLIGATION RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution. BACKGROUND: At the regular City Council meeting of February 23, 1988, Council awarded the bid for the lease/purchase of the equipment and software necessary for the stand alone dispatch and records systems to Marquette Lease Services, Inc. ANALYSIS: All lease companies require the execution of certain legal documents as part of their standard leasing practice. Among these various legal documents is the requirement that the City Council adopt a resolution relating to the lease. The attached resolution, furnished by Marquette Lease Services, Inc., fulfills that requirement CONCUR: Kevin B. Northcr:ft, City Manager.- ames P. Lough, City Attorney tfully Su 1 Steve S. isniewski Director of Public Safety mitted, 21 CERTIFICATION OF MINUTES RELATING TO LEASE WITH OPTION TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT DATED AS OF LESSEE: City of Hermosa Beach V GOVERNING BODY: KIND, DATE, TIME AND PLACE OF MEETING: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: ✓DOCUMENTS ATTACHED: Minutes of said meeting (including): RESOLUTION RELATING TO LEASE WITH OPTION TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND DESIGNATION AS QUALIFIED TAX-EXEMPT OBLIGATION I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting recording officer of the Lessee under the Lease with Option to Purchase Agreement referred to in the title of this certificate, certify that the documents attached hereto, as described above, have been carefully compared with the original records of said corporation in my legal custody, from which they have been transcribed; that said documents are a correct and complete transcript of the minutes of a meeting of the governing body of said corporation, and correct and complete copies of all resolutions and other actions taken and of all documents approved by the governing body of said meeting, so far as they relate to said Lease; and that said meeting was duly held by the governing body at the time and place and was attended throughout by the members indicated above pursuant to call and notice of such meeting given as required by law. WITNESS my hand officially as such recording officer this/ day of , 1988. CTSEAL) i/ Signature Name and Title Page two Resolution tf resolution and moved its adoption: introduced the following RESOLUTION RELATING TO LEASE WITH OPTION TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND DESIGNATION AS QUALIFIED TAX-EXEMPT OBLIGATION BE IT RESOLVED by the governing body of (the Issuer), as follows: Section 1. Recitals and Authorization. The Issuer, as lessee, has heretofore entered into a Lease with Option to Purchase Agreement dated as of (the Lease), with Marquette Lease Services, as lessor. It is hereby determined that it is necessary and desirable and in the best interests of the Issuer to enter into the Lease for the purposes therein specified, and the execution and delivery of the Lease by the Issuer are hereby approved, ratified and confirmed. Section 2. Designation as Qualified Tax -Exempt Obligation. Pursuant to Section 265(b) (3) (b) (ii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code), the Issuer hereby specifically designates the Lease as a "qualified tax-exempt obligation" for purposes of Section 265(b) (3) of the Code. In compliance with Section 265(b) (3) (D) of the Code, the Issuer hereby represents that the Issuer will not designate more than $10,000,000 of obligations issued by the Issuer in the calendar year during which the Lease is executed and delivered as such "qualified tax- exempt obligations." Section 3. Issuance Limitation. In compliance with the requirements of Section 265 (b) (3) (C) of the Code, the Issuer hereby represents that the Issuer (including all "subordinate entities" of the Issuer within the meaning of Section 265 (b) (3) (E) of the Code) reasonably anticipates not to issue in the calendar year during which the Lease is executed and delivered, obligations bearing interest exempt from federal income taxation under Section 103 of the Code (othcr than "private activity bonds" as defined in Section 141 of the Code) in an amount greater than $10,000,000. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of all such obligations issued by the Issuer (including any "subordinate entity") during such calendar year. Chairperson ttest: N./' 1 Page three Resolution The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by✓ voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. M Law Offices of James P. Lough JAMES P. LOUGH February 26, 1988 MEMORANDUM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 30 NORTH RAYMOND AVENUE SUITE 708 PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91103 (213) 381-6131 (818) 792-4728 (818) 7924776 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 8, 1988 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney RE: Lot Merger Appeals Recommended Action: To approve the attached resolution. This matter was referred to the City Attorney for a report back to the City Council on various issues dealing with the Lot Merger procedures. After a careful review of the City's proc- esses for lot mergers, I have come to the following conclusions: 1. Any member of the City Council may file an appeal of a determination of nonmerger within ten (10) days of a Planning Commission decision under Section 29.5-28 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. 2. The City Council, after referral of the matter to the Planning Commission, may repeal Section 29.5-21(d) which allows a determination of nonmerger even though the lots meet all of the criteria for merger. This matter arose when the Planning Commission determined that three properties should not be merged even though they met all the merger criteria. An appeal was filed by Mayor Simpson in a timely manner (HBMC 29.5-28). Since this was the first such appeal, the City Attorney had some questions about whether the appeal process was appropriate in this instance. After a - review of the state code and local ordinances, it is apparent such an appeal may be taken by an individual councilmember. Section 29.5-28 differs from other appeal sections in that it allows an individual councilmember to appeal a merger matter to the City Council. Other appeal sections in the code do not allow for such an appeal except by payment of fees like any other citizen. This section will allow council appeals in a manner similar to Manhattan Beach where one member of the council can appeal a planning matter. The appeal section is also not affected by the mandatory filing requirements found in other sections. The filing 22/SR0308A -1- February 26, 1988 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 8, 1988 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney RE: Lot Merger Appeals requirements under Sections 29.5-25 and 29.5-26 do not take effect if an appeal is taken. No decision of the Planning Commission is final until after the ten-day appeal period has run. If no appeal is filed, the notice provisions telling the County Recorder the result of the hearing are never sent until after the City Council determination. The recent decisions of the Planning Commission to not merge certain properties, which are the subject of Mayor Simpson's appeal, were done in a manner consistent with the applicable ordinances and state laws. The decision to unmerge can be made even though the properties meet all of the requirements for merger. This is based on Government Code Section 66451.16. While the state laws allow the City to unmerge lots in this manner, it is not a state requirement and the City could amend the ordinance and remove this loophole. To do so, the matter - should be referred to the Planning Commission for its advice and recommendation. NOTED: 00 KEVI11 B. NO HCRAFT, City Manager Respectfully-sibmitted, Attachment 22/SR0308A -2- AMES P. LOUGH, City At orney ITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 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 - RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO DIRECT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF TO STUDY AMENDING CHAPTER 29.5, ARTICLE IV (MERGER OF PARCELS). WHEREAS, at the March 8, 1988 City Council meeting, the City Council requested a Resolution of Intent to study amending the Merger of Parcels Ordinance to apply said ordinance in a more uniform manner and made the following findings: 1. The City Council is desirous of applying the lot merger process in a more uniform manner to all similarly situated property owners. 2. The failure to merge lots that meet all criteria for merger creates differing standards for mergers of like properties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby direct the Planning commission and staff to study amending Chapter 29.5, Article IV (Merger of Parcels) to make its application more /// /// /// /// /// /// 22/RES08 -1- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 uniform so that all properties subject to the merger ordinance will be treated equally. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THIS 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 1988. ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVEDTO FORM: 13 1 •r 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TY ATTO EY 22/RES08 -2- PRESIDENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH March 8, 1988 City Council Meeting. March 8, 1988 Mayor and Members of the City Council RESOLUTION ISOLATING THE 4% UTILITY USERS INCREASE IN A SEPERATE FUND RECQMMENDATWQN It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING THE 4% INCREASE IN UTILITY USERS TAX EFFECTIVE MARCH 1, 1988, BE MAINTAINED IN A SEPERATE 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." pAS GROUND At the City Council meeting of February 24, 1988, staff was given the direction to prepare a resolution which would insure that the 4% Utility Users Tax would be isolated in the Parks and Recreation Facilities Tax Fund and shown on the Budget Summary of Accounts made available each month, to include any interest accured. After several drafts, all parties agree that this resolution best serves the purpose of the direction of Council. Concur: evin orther-"ft, City Manager Concur: Gar i y Treasurer eted4z,zer Kathleen Midstokke, City Clerk Concur: 14/2!x_ G . 14/4C Viki Copel nd, Finance Admin. RESOLUTION NO. 88- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING THE 4% INCREASE IN UTILITY USERS TAX EFFECTIVE MARCH 1, 1988, BE MAINTAINED IN A SEPERATE 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. WHEREAS, the Utility Users Tax in the City of Hermosa Beach was raised from six percent (6%) to ten percent (10%) by the electorate at the General Municipal Election held on November 3, 1988; and WHEREAS, the intent of the City Council is that this additional amount of money collected be used for the costs of acquisition and financing Of the property commonly known as the A.T. & S.F. Railroad right-of-way; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the additional 4% Utility Users Tax which begins March 1, 1988 in the City of Hermosa Beach be designated Utility Users Railroad Right -Of -Way Funds, and be kept in a separate fund by that name. SECTION 2. That the monies collected in this special fund, including all interest accrued, be used solely fOr the purpose of the costs of acquisition and financing of the property commonly known at the A.T. & S.F. Railroad right-of-way. SECTION 3. That the City Treasurer shall report the fund balance to the City Council on a monthly basis. // // // SECTION 4. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book Of Original resolutions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS day Of , 1988. ATTEST: CITY C ERK PRESIDEN of the City COune l,'and MAYOR Of the City of Hermosa Beach PPROVED AS RM: 1111114 A ORN Y lopf February 11, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council March 8, 1988 AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICITS BIDS ELECTRICAL/MECHANICAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS & COMMUNITY CENTER CIP 86-602, 86-604 Abstract: This item is before City Council for the following purposes: 1. A decision on whether to air condition the Council Chambers and to appropriate the necessary dollars. 2. Appropriate additional construction dollars for the Community Center Theatre air conditioning and furnace system, which is consistent with the November 10, 1987 Council action (Exhibit A) to appropriate these funds after the design is complete. 3. Advertise for bids for any or all of the following: a. City Hall electrical upgrade. b. Council Chambers air conditioning. c. Community Center Theatre air conditioning and furnace. Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. authorize proceeding with the installation of an air conditioning system in the Council Chambers; and 2. authorize the following appropriation of funds: a. $44,947 from the designation for contingency in the General Fund to CIP 86-602 (for the Council Chambers' air conditioning), and b. $50,290 from the designation for contingency in the General Fund to CIP 86-604 (Community Center Theatre air conditioning and furnace); and 3. authorize staff to advertise for bids for the electrical/mechanical improvements for the Council Chambers (CIP 86-602) and Community Center (CIP 86-604), and issue addenda as necessary. 1 10 Background: Historical Background On June 23, 1987, City Council approved the FY 87-88 Capital Improvement Budget, which included the following: Community Center Air Conditioning $45,000 Community Center Furnace Replacement $ 8,000 On August 11, 1987, City Council was presented a report outlining deficiencies in the City Hall electrical system. City Council appropriated $74,250 for the provision of electrical upgrade at City Hall. On August 25, 1987, City Council authorized solicitation of a request for proposal for various electrical/mechanical/structural improvements. In addition to the work described above, City Council appropriated an additional $6,000 for the provision of designing (only) an air conditioning system In the City. Hall Council Chambers and investigating extending the Council Chambers into the foyer. *********** On November 10, 1987 City Council authorized the Mayor to sign an agreement with Joncich, Sturm and Associates (JSA) for architect- ural services for the various electrical/mechanical/structural capital improvements for the Hermosa Beach Council Chambers and Community Center Theatre, at a cost not to exceed S19,250, and to consider appropriation of construction dollars after the design is completed. (A copy of this agenda item is attached as Exhibit A.) A Notice to Proceed was issued December 8, 1987, and design work began on December 14, 1987. On January 26, 1988 City Council took formal action to not proceed with final design for the Council Chambers/Foyer area renovation, (and to proceed only with the electrical/mechanical design for the Council Chambers & Community Center.) Analysis: The plans and specifications for CIP 86-602 and 86-604 are now complete, have been approved by the Building Department, and are on file in the Office of the City Clerk. (Exhibit B indicates a summary of the work involved). A Project Schedule is attached as Exhibit C. 2 The remainder of this analysis is divided into the following sections: 1. Council Chambers 2. Community Center Theatre 3. Fiscal Impact 4. Alternatives 1. Council Chambers To date, no construction funds have been appropriated for the installation of an air conditioning system in the Council Chambers, since Council took formal action ( on November 10, 1987) to consider appropriation of construction dollars after the design is complete. The design is now complete, and $44,947 must be appropriated to CIP 86-602 to proceed with construction. 2. Community Center Theatre In the November 10, 1987, agenda item, staff indicated to Council that the architect's estimated construction cost for the air conditioning/furnace system in the Community Center Theatre was approximately $59,000. Now that the design has been completed, the estimated construction costs have increased to $83,700. This represents a cost increase of $24,700 or 427. Reasons for this increase are indicated in a letter from the architect presented as Exhibit E, and include the following: 1. The larger new condensing unit must be located on the roof, and not in the mezzanine, as originally assumed. Approximate cost increase: $5,000 2. A new duct system (including fan, filter plenum and economizer) is required, rather than utilizing the existing duct system, as originally assumed. Approximate cost increase: $14,000 3. A new electrical power service had to be added to the project to handle the new equipment load; rather than modifying the original power service, as originally assumed. Approximate cost increase: $5,700 Total approximate cost increase: $24,700 Simmons Architects, the original architects for the. Community Center renovation were contracted to review JSA's design and notified staff that JSA's design concept is appropriate. They also indicated that their mechanical engineer (the original Theatre remodel project engineer) was consulted by JSA throughout the design phase, in order to provide design continuity. 3 3. Fiscal Impact The architecture's estimate of construction costs was prepared by JSA and is 'attached as Exhibit D. This estimate results in the following fiscal impact: ESTIMATED ESTIMATED TOTAL CITY COUNCIL ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION ESTIMATED BUDGET FUNDS PROJECT DESIGN COST COSTS COSTS COST AMOUNT REQUIRED CIP 87-602 a. City Hall elec. upgrade $ 5,000 $ 62,500 $1,650 $ 69,150 $74,250 -0- ($5,100 excess) b. Council Chambers air conditioning $ 4,800 $ 38,965 $1,400 $ 45,165 $6,000 $39,165 (design only) Subtotal $ 9,800 $101,465 $3,050 8114,315 $80,250 *34,065 Approx 10% contingency $ 430 $_1(12211Z $ 305 $ 10.882 0 $10,882 TOTAL ,2 1030 $111612 $3,355 $125,197 $80,250 $44,947 CIP 87-604 a. Community Center, air cond. & furn. $8,200 $83,700 Approx 10% contingency $820 $ 8.370 TOTAL $9,020 $ 92,070 $2,000 $93,900 $53,000 $40,900 $ 200 $ 9.390 0 $ 9.390 $2,200 $103,290 353,000 •$50,290 Staff recommends that $44,947 be transferred from the designation for contingency in the General Fund to CIP 86-602 and $50,290 from designation for contingency in the General Fund to CIP 86-604, as follows: Funding Source 6/30/88 Fund Balance Contingency in the General Fund * $368,088 Remaining Requested Fund Amount Balance $ 44,947 (CIP 86-602) 50,290 (CIP 86-604) $ 95,237 $272,851 * Contingent upon Council approval of the 03/08/83• mid -year 'budget review. 4. Alternatives Other alternatives considered by staff and available to City Council are': 1. Modify the scope of work. 2. Postpone the project until a later time, possibly resulting in no air conditioning in the Community Center for the upcoming theatre season. 3. Drop the project. Respectlly submitted, Deborah M. Murphy Assistant Enginee Concur: Bill Grove Director of ilding and Safety Concur: 1 - Viki Copeland Finance Administrator Attachments: Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - emi/c Concur: hony Antich Public Works Director Concur: 'kevin B. ort _ ' raft City Manager CITY MANAGER COMMENT: The current fiscal year budget already has funded many capital projects that will reduce City reserves. In order to review and prioritize all capital needs together and get the input of our newest Councilmembers, it is suggested that these items be deferred until FY 88-89 budget considerations, unless a case for urgent action is proven. KBN November 10, 1987 Agenda Item Summary of Scope of Work Project Schedule Architect's Estimate Project Cost Increase letter from JSA c.c. Alana Mastrian - Director of Community Resources Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Exhibit A November 3, 1987 Regular Meeting of November 10, 1987 AWARD OF DESIGN AGREEMENT FOR CIP 602 & CIP W604 VARIOUS ELECTRICAL/MECHANICAL/STRUCTURAL IMPOVEMENTS FOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND COMMUNITY CENTER Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Authorize the Mayor to sign an agreement (Attachment I) with Joncich, Sturm and Associates for architectural services for the various electrical/mechanical/structural capital improvements for the Hermosa Beach Council Chambers and Community Center Theatre at a cost not to exceed $19,250. 2. Consider appropriation of construction dollars after the design is completed. Background: On June 23, 1987, City Council approved the FY 87-88 Capital Improvement Budget, which included the following: Community Center Air Conditioning $45,000 Community Center Furnace Replacement $ 8,000 On August 11, 1987, City Council was presented a report outlining deficiencies in the City Hall electrical system. City Council appropriated $74,250 for the provision of electrical upgrade at City Hall. On August 25, 1987, City Council authorized solicitation of a request for proposal for various electrical/mechanical/structural improvements. In addition to the work described above, City Council appropriated an additional $6,000 for the provision of = designing (only) an air conditioning system in the City Hall Council Chambers and investigating extending the Council Chambers into the foyer. It was estimated that the construction cost of the Council Chambers air conditioning could cost nearly $31,000. The request for proposal was mailed to eight firms on August 28, "- 1987 and written proposals were received on September 22, 1987. 1 q Analysis: The three firms submitting proposals and their cost are as follows: Joncich, Sturm & Associates Black, O'Dowd & Associates Richard T. Santos, Architect, Inc. Design Fee Not to Exceed $13,300 $33,070 $27,300 The lowest cost proposal was submitted by Joncich, Sturm & Associates (JSA). All supplied references for similiar work commented highly of the architect's work. After reviewing all proposals and interviewing each architect, staff refined the original scope of work and received a revised proposal from JSA in the amount of $17,500. JSA is still the lowest cost proposal and is the architect that best meets the needs of the City. Fiscal Impact: Project Estimated Design Cost Architect's Estimated Constr. Cost Total Est. Cost CIP 87-602 a. City Hall, elec. upgrade b. Council Chambers, air cond. & Council Chambers structural remodel $ 5,000 4,300 CIP 87-604 a. Community Center, air cond. & furnace 8,200 Total $17,500 107. contingency 1,750 Grand Total $19,250 $ 70,400 30,080 59,000 $159,480 included $159,480 $ 75,400 34,380 67,200 City Council Budget $ 74,250 6,000 (design only) 53,000 $176,980 $133,250 1,750 N/A $178,730 $133,250 The total project design cost is not to exceed $19,250, which is within the total project budgeted costs of $133,250. More accurate estimated construction costs cannot be determined until the preliminary design is complete. Staff will return to Council after the design is complete for additional construction dollars, if necessary. 2 Alternatives: Other alternatives considered by staff and available to Council are: 1. Modify the scope of work. 2. Drop the project. Respectfu ubmitted, De•orah M. Murphy Assistant Engineer cur: Gayl®►T. Martin Interim City Manager DMM:AA:mv award/m Concur: t ony Antich Director of Public Works Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator Attachments: Attachment 1 - Professional Services Agreement Attachment 3 - Project Schedule cc: Alana Mastrian 3 .JSA 839 So. Beacon Street Joncich. Sturm & Associates Suite 214 Architecture San Pedro. California 90731 213 831-2372 ft Y YYYY YYY N# February 10, 1988 City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Exhibit B Attn: Ms. Deborah Murphy Subj: City Hall/Community Center Mechanical/Electrical Renovation Dear Ms. Murphy: The list below describes the provisions included in the contract documents for the subject project: 1. Remove community center theater furnace, fan, motor and limited ductwork, piping and wiring. 2. Add new 30 ton heat pump on community center roof with electrical/mech- anical hook-ups. 3. Add new economizer controls, new filter plenum, new exhaust return fan and some new ductwork and piping in community center theater mechanical mezzanine. 4. Add new 16 ton cooling condensing unit to City Hall council chambers roof with electrical/mechanical hook-ups. 5. Add new direct expansion cooling coil in existing city hall mechanical.room. 6. Revise city hall controls and ductwork for economizer controls. 7. Add new structural support system for new rooftop mechanical units on commu- nity center and council chambers roofs. 8. New autotransfer switch and generator. 9. New uninterruptable power supply for police station dispatch area. 10. New automatic restart for computer in city hall. 11. Separate computer electrical loads from panel in city hall. JSA Joncich, Sturm & Associates Architecture February 10, 1988 City of Hermosa Beach Attn: Ms. Deborah Murphy Page Two 12. New 400 amp electrical service for community center theater HVAC unit. 13. New 3 phase electrical service for council chambers HVAC unit. If you have any questions about these items, please contact our office. Sincerely, %a44;t_io tilivi.Qnn �7r) Daniel Whalen Project Architect DW/jp •rt ..Q CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE {� Cst l.../n/LZMs}4/C.q/MA2O✓E.MENTS PROJECT NAME t t 201.ti n Ail /13c�5. l W1 ntuAbry CFVTE.e-. G/ 86-002, ACCOUNT NUMBER : dOl — 40,- 646- 4,20/ TASKS Final design approval for construction LEGEND TENTATIVE SCHEDULE : suommintim ACTUAL SCHEDULE':ammiminimin X : 100% COMPLETE 1 JUL 1 AUG 1 SEP 1 OCT 1 NOV I I DEC 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 1. I I I I I t' I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1.. 1 I 1 JAN I FEB 1 MAR 1 APR 1 1 MAY JUN before advertising (� L e 1 1 1 vi Prepare advertisement date w • i • & set bid opening Advertising period (issue addendums as necessary) Accept sealed bids & public bid opening Review bids Award contract Sign contract (bonds,insurance & workers comp. cert.) Preconstruction meeting procedure Issue "Notice to Proceed" Construction Period . Monitor progress & maintain records Progress payment and change order procedure Acceptance of work as complete Issusing and recording a "Notice of Completion" Retention Payment Project close out ■ kirk -I- -i 1-rfr--1 1 IN MI MN NM ILI MI MINN MI MI6 �OM IN. 1 —I 1 1------I 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I I 1 PRO&CIT lolliComm v rer A LOCmumOSa• 1?ea I CA A1E QUANTITY Ouised from *b88 A/E ESTIMATE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE PLAN NO. DESCRIPTION g37—l0'3 MATERIAL CONCEPT 0 ❑ DETAIL INTERMEDIATE 0 SUMMARY FIfL DATE bL�J¢l m 84 1 ESTIMATOR � , �J_ a tzti CHECKED ((/'� OF LABOR - SUB CONTRACTOR TOTAL "LEH court • _�.,��IT �•✓ e�era /AV v 4, o 4 �O.+i - of 4er starl ► C l ava.GO vs /D/0 Ol/F-C/fii/?O oh /o% Pearl UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL Count I c a ne I lew vhechav4tcal s stews 1. h c a / ort.- a=ooao 2, Si ra I svrpor/ A' •• lee .air 4. Mw 3 ha power aid 5 ISc I/ Bvs /o/0 v,E, !> lel %n RoF IOTA- . zr Ceviw►vwjl Coyote "Mott tiet1 a bawl c a) sy 6144 1 1, Ora In ' cat 0 -. 2• Stew ra sv pportS _3, goa cF to ali- t. NW 40o sip Powe - 5 ,est, stet/ an eau: i .lg.'''. • I /1J 7v 'RoFrr 7OTirL 500 'Pi 000 26 0 00 3, 00 o s -,o 00 s-, o00 6 2, 50 0 1; 7.6 30 000 000 3, 2 3, 200 •Erl 145 • !RAND ToT/1-4..• so poo 1, So o f.2 -0o 2 D ooO 0 00 Is 700 11111111714. JSA Joncich, Sturm & Associates Architecture February 24, 1988 City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ATTN: Ms. Deborah SUBJECT: Hermosa Project Dear Ms. Murphy: Murphy 839 So. Beacon Street Suite 214 San Pedro, California 90731 213/831-2372 Exhibit E Beach Community Center Theatre Air Conditioning Cost Increase In our office's request for proposal, dated November 3, 1987, we estimated the construction cost for new air conditioning in the Hermosa Beach Community Center Theatre by making the following assumptions of the existing conditions: a) b). c). d). Locating new condensing unit in mechanical mezzanine. Existing duct system is adequate for new air conditioning system. Existing mechanical mezzanine can support new equipment loads. Existing electrical service is adequate for new air conditioning equipment. Item "a" above was changed due to inadequate air flow in the mezzanine for the new condenser. Instead, the new condenser is to be located on the roof. Item "b" was changed. The attached letter from our mechanical consultant outlines the necessity for new work. Item "c" was changed since new condenser unit could not be located inside building mechanical mezzanine. New structural supports and roof repairs became necessary when the new .condenser unit was to be positioned outside on an existing roof. Item "d" was changed. The existing electrical service could,not handle the new mechanical equipment loads. A new 400 amp electrical power service had to be added to the project to handle the new equipment loads. Please find attached a letter from our mechanical consultant which specifically outlines the changes in the new mechanical system, from their initial site visit to their final design. JSA Joncich, Sturm & Associates Architecture City of Hermosa Beach,. February 24, 1988 Page -2- Please contact our office if you have any further questions. Sincerely, aniel alen PROJECT ARCHITECT DW/crf Enclosures • N. 010..410, • , • • ,N .;. ft ,.,,0•,,,,,,f41,4 February 29, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of March 8, 1988 REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT PROPOSALS FOR PURCHASE OF FOUR INCH FIRE HOSE AND FITTINGS FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council authorize the Fire Department to solicit proposals for the purchase of four inch fire hose and fittings. BACKGROUND: In order to improve the firefighting capabilities of the Hermosa Beach Fire Department, Council authorized funding in the 1987-88 budget for the purchase of four inch fire hose. ANALYSIS: There are some fire hydrants in the City with very low fire flow capabilities. This, coupled with the friction losg which results as water flows through small diameter fire hose, prompted the Fire Department to consider use of large diameter fire hose. The use of large diameter fire hose, with its superior flow/loss charac- teristics, allows a water main to be laid almost instantly between the hydrant and the pumper, even if the pumper is hundreds of feet away. This allows an adequate supply of water to be brought to the scene of a fire, and enables the firefighters to successfully extinguish the fire with minimal property damage. Experience throughout the country has shown that four inch fire hose is capable of producing the desired results for fire fighting. We feel that the purchase of this size hose will increase the department's capability to protect the pro- perty of Hermosa's citizens. CONCUR: ,ate Kevin B. Northc aft, City Manager Steve S. Wisniewski Director of Public Safety 11 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL The City of Hermosa Beach is soliciting bids from responsible distri- butors to: Furnish to the City of Hermosa Beach; 4 inch fire hose and fittings as specified. SUBMISSION OF PROPROSALS Proposals must be on file in the office of the Director of Public Safety on or before 2:00 PM on March 24, 1988. The Director of Public Safety re- serves the right to extend any time frame. No late proposals will be accepted. Late proposals, if received, will be returned unopened. Proposals Inch Fire the lower are to be submitted in a sealed envelope with "Proposal for 4 Hose & Fittings for the Fire Department" written or typed in left hand corner of the envelope. A summary and description of the equipment to be purchased is attached to this RFP as Exhibit I and II. For additional information and other particulars regarding this project, contact: Lee Lickhalter 540 Pier Avenue Hermosa Beach, California 90254 (213) 376-2470 or 376-2479 EVALUATION OF PROPOSAL AND BASIS FOR AWARD 1. The City of Hermosa Beach intends to make an award to the responsible vendor meeting all the requirements of the RFP whose proposal is most advantageous to the City of Hermosa Beach. 2. The City of Hermosa Beach reserves the right to negotiate with the overall lowest responsible vendor. 3. The City intends to make an award within 30 days of the bid date. 4. The City reserves the right to reject any and all bids, and any informalities. 5. All bids must comply with HBMC Art. IV, Purchasing. -1- closing to waive EXHIBIT I EQUIPMENT LIST SUMMARY Quantity "HOSE" 18 4 inch fire hose in 100 ft. lengths 4 4 inch fire hose in 50 ft. lengths 2 4 inch fire hose in 25 ft. lengths All hose, couplings and fittings as specified in exhibit II. FITTINGS 2 4" to 2 1/2" male/female adapters 4 4" to 4" double male adapters 4 4" to 4" double female adapters 2 4" gated relief valves 4 4" spanner wrenches 2 4" hose clamps 2 2 1/2" "T.F.T." #HTFT-VTGI with pistol grip (no substitutions) 2 2 1/2" to 1 1/2" tapered adapters #HTFT-A (no substitutions) 4 1 1/2" "T.F.T." 10-125 G.P.M. nozzle (no substitutions) HERMOSA BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT II 4" HOSE F.D. Spec #1988 1. HOSE CONSTRUCTION 1.1. Hose meeting this specification shall consist of a 100% syn- thetic high tensile yarn reinforcement circular woven in a "TWILL CONFIGURATION" to maximize hose flexibility and elimi- nate any left hand twist. 1.2. The woven reinforcement shall be totally encased in a matrix of ozone resistant nitrile rubber utilizing a single, THROUGH THE WEAVE EXTRUSION PROCESS, thereby eliminating the possibil- ity of delamination. 1.3. The unitized finished product shall thereby optimize hydrostatic properties, abrasion resistance and rubber yarn adhesion. 2. LINING AND COVER PROPERTIES When tested in accordance with the procedures listed in NFPA 1961-79 and other related standards, liner and cover shall have the following properties: 2.1. Ultimate Tensile Strength: Tensile strength of lining and cover rubber compound shall not be less than 1750 psi. 2.2. Ultimate Elongation: Ultimate elongation of liner and cover shall not be less than 500%. 2.3. Permanent Elongation: Permanent elongation of liner shall not be greater than 25%. 2.4. Accelerated Ageing Test: The tensile strength and ultimate elongation of the vulcanized rubber compound which has been sub- jected to the action of oxygen at a pressure of 300 + 18 psi and a temperature of 70 + 1 C (158 + 18 F) for a period of 96 hours shall not be less than 65% of the original value. 2.5. Adhesion: Adhesion between reinforcement and either cover or liner shall be a minimum of 15 lbs. when tested using the NFPA 1961-79 procedure. The strip will however be 1" wide not 1 1/2". 2.6. Ozone Resistance: Hose shall show no visible signs of crack- ing of the lining or cover when tested in accordance with ASTM D1149-81 and ASTM D518-83, Precedure B, 100 pphm/118 F/70 hours. 2.7. Chalking: Hose furnished to this specification shall not react adversely to environmental changes (chalking caused by exposure to sunlight). 2.8. Chemical Resistance: Exposure to sea water and contamination by most chemical substances, hydrocabons, oils, alkalis, acids and grease must have no effect on the short or long term perfor- mance of the hose. Standard chemical resistance charts shall be provided by manufacturer. 3. SAFETY FACTORS 3.1. Abrasion Resistance Safety Factors: Abrasion resistance bears a direct relationship to the safe performance of the hose on the fireground and as such will not be compromised. The Reciprocat- ing Test - listed first - is felt to most closely reproduce this fire departments actual fireground conditions and is therefore considered of prime importance to the Purchasing Authority. Hose meeting all the abrasion resistnace safety factors listed below shall do so without exceeding the average weights listed in para- graph 6.3. of this specification. 3.1.(a) Safety factor to damage - Reciprocating Test. Safety factor to damage Reciprocating Test: Hose shall withstand 7,000 cycles on a reciprocating abrasion tester as specified in UL Std 219 resulting in no delamination or damage to the reinforcing yarns. 3.1.(b) Safety factor to exposure - Taber Test Safety factor to exposure Taber Test: Hose shall with- stand 18,000 cycles on the taber abrasion machine H22 wheels, 1,000 gm total load per wheel without any exposure of the synthetic reinforcement fibers. 3.1.(c) Safety factor to damage - Taber Test Safety factor to damage Taber Test: Hose shall withstand 26,000 cycles on the taber abrasion machine H22 wheel, 1,000 gm total load per wheel without damage to the synthetic reinforcement fibers. 3.2. Cold Resistance Safety Factor: 3.2.(a) Cold resistance bears a direct relationship to the safe performance of the hose on the fireground and as such will not be compromised. Hose meeting the cold resist- ance safety factors listed below shall do so without exceeding the average weights listed in paragraph -673. 3.2.(b) Hose shall have a capability of safe use down to -36 F. Hose shall have no apparent damage to cover cold bending test: A 50 foot length of dry hose is to be firmly coiled and placed in a cold box at -36 F for a duration of 24 hours. Immediately after removal of the hose from the box, hose should be uncoiled and laid out by one operator. Following this procedure, the hose shall not leak or show any damage to the reinforcement when subjected to hydro- static acceptance test pressure as herein listed in item 4.1. 3.3. Heat Resistance Safety Factor: 3.3.(a) Heat resistance bears a direct relationship to the safe performance of the hose on the fireground and as such will not be compromised. Hose meeting the heat resist- ance safety factors listed below shall do so without exceeding the average weights listed in paragraph6.3. of this specification. 3.3.(b) The hose when subjected to a static pressure of 100 psi shall be capable of safely withstanding a surface temper- ature of 1200 F for a minimum of two minutes without bursting. Heat resistance to be demonstrated on request of Purchasing Authority. 3.4. Proven Performance Safety Factor: Proven performance is of prime concern to the Purchasing Authority. A list of at least ten fire departments, complete with addresses and telephone numbers that currently have in service the product you intend to supply to this specification, shall be submitted with the bid. Include type of product, size, footage, and date delivered. 4. PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS 4.1. Hydrostatic Pressure Test: The hose shall comply with the per- formance requirements of Chapter 5 of the National Fire Preven- tion Association Specification; NFPA 1961 (1979). Diam Acceptance Pressure 4" Hi -Vol 400 psi Kink Proof Short Length Pressure Burst Pressure 400 psi 700 psi minimum 4.2. Friction Loss: The friction loss characteristics of the hose at 100 psi residual pressure shall ensure that the hose performs to the figures detailed below: Loss in Pressure psi Over 100 feet for Diam. Shown 50 100 125 150 200 300 400 4" Hi -Vol Flow in U.S. Gals/Min 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1500 2000 3.0 4.4 6.0 7.8 10.0 12.2 27.5 48.8 4.3 Repairability: Cover damage, punctures and other small holes must be able to be repaired with a vulcanizable patch technique inside and out and thereby be restored to full operational per- formance. 4.4. Training: To insure proper performance of the hose on the fire - ground, the successful bidder shall provide at no cost to the fire department, full "hands on" training in the use of the large diam- eter hose system. Upon completion of the training program, suc- cessful bidder shall provide the fire department, free of charge, a full length training video detailing all aspects and uses of the large diameter hose system. 5. INSPECTION 5.1. Inspection: Purchasing Agent shall reserve the right to visit the manufacturing plant during each phase of the production operations. Hose construction, lining and cover properties, safety factors and performance characteristics will all be taken into consideration, in insuring that the hose to be supplied is made exactly to these specifications. Such inspection at vendor's expense. 5.2. Warranty: The manufacturer warrants the hose to be free from de- fects in materials and workmanship for a period of ten years. This warranty shall provide for the repair or replacement of hose and couplings proven to have failed due to faulty material or workman- ship. The manufacturer further warrants the hose for the first two years of its service life against failure due to exposure to chemical attack or burning (hot embers, etc.). Hose proven to have failed due to chemical attack or burning during this two year period will be replaced at no cost to the fire department. 5.3. Sample: Bids for alternate brands of hose require that 3 foot sample of the hose to be supplied shall be submitted with the bid, accompanied by detailed construction specifications. The Purchas- ing Authority reserves the right to perform destructive tests on the submitted sample to insure that it meets all aspects of this specification. 6. GENERAL 6.1. Couplings: Couplings to be NST threaded rocker lug couplings with field repairable bindings. Bindings shall consist of a three part collar securely held in place with three recessed bolts preloaded at the factory. Collar shall be designed to prevent damage to heads of bolts when hose is being deployed, used or loaded. Coupling must be able to be assembled and dis- assembled using a alien wrench only. Maximum overall con- nected length: 4" = 7 1/4". 6.2. Color: Yellow. 6.3. Hose Size, Weight and Coil Diameters; Diam. 4" + 1/32" Avg. Weight Coupled 100" 85 lbs. Coil Size Coupled 100" 24 inches 6.4. Fittings: All fittings to be N.S.T. threaded with rocker lugs and of hard coated aluminium alloy. March 7, 1988 City Council Meeting March 8, 1988 Mayor and Members of the City Council APPROVAL OF UUT BALLOT MEASURE QUESTION BecQr@gnded.: AgtiQn To ratify language in the ballot measure question submitted to County of Los Angeles Election Department, and amending Resolution No. 88-5111, 88-5112, and 88-5113 accordingly. The question submitted is: "Shall 4% of the existing 10% Utility Users Tax be limited to Railroad right-of-way purchase and expire thereafter?" SaokgrOund At the City Council meeting of February 23, 1988, one ballot measure was approved for consolidation with the June 7, 1988 Primary Election. Since that time, I have been in contact with the Registrar -Recorders Office, Election Administration, and they have informed me that due to the large amount of offices already on this ballot, the City is limited to 20 words in the question proposed to the voters. (Normally they allow 100 words). The resolutions that were adopted February 23, 1988 had the "proposed question of: SSE QE .4% OF UTILITYS �RS..TAX. TO I41ROHASR-A.TAS.F.. RIGHT-OF-�i►AI hall Ordinance No. 88-919, an ordinance of the City o Hermosa Beach be adopted which requires the use of 4% of the Utility Users Tax only for the purchase of the property commonly known as the A.T. &S.F. Railroad right-of-way by the City of Hermosa Beach and providing for termination of such tax? (51 words) I condensed the wording to comply with the 20 word limit as follows: Shall 4% of the existing 10% Utility Users Tax be limited to Railroad right-of-way purchase and expire thereafter? The entire text of the proposed Ordinance will appear in the Voter's Sample Ballot and Information Pamphlet. Noted: kevin NorthcraCity Manager A.4F.c Ka hleen Mi•stokke, City Cler oug ; C Attor ey SUPPLEMENT L INFORMATION Law Offices of James P. Lough JAMES P. LOUGH March 2, 1988 MEMORANDUM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 30 NORTH RAYMOND AVENUE SUITE 708 PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91103 (213) 381-6131 (818) 792-4728 (818) 792-4776 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 8, 1988 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney RE: Approval of Ballot Language for 4% Special Tax on Utilities for Purchase of Railroad Right -of -Way Recommended Action: To ratify language submitted to the County of Los Angeles Election Department. This item was discussed at the last City Council meeting and the council voted to place the attached measure on the June ballot. Since the language had not been reviewed by bond coun- sel, the City Attorney had questions about its impact on any bonds or financial instruments that would necessarily be a part of such a purchase. The measure has been reviewed by a qualified bond counsel and three changes were made to the ordinance. Two of the changes were to the title eliminating the wording "Submitted To The Voters By The City Council" and adding at the end of the title, "And Providing For Termination Of Such Tax." The third change was to the text. Added to Section 30-64 was language amending "acquisition" to state "costs of acqui- sition and financing" (see, p.1, line 15). This change uses language common to special taxes which would be tied to a bond - issuance. Bond issuances of the type that would be used in this instance necessarily include payment of the underwriter and bond counsel fees as part of an issuance. The fees are only paid if the voters approve the bonds in question. Without this added language, the city would have to pay an underwriter and bond counsel out of city general funds prior to a determination of voter approval. This matter was intended by the council to be brought back at a special meeting if language changes were made.. After con- sulting with the City Clerk and the City Manager, it was felt by the City Attorney that this matter could be processed prior to this meeting without having to call a special meeting. By 22/SR0308D -1- REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 8, 1988 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney RE: Approval of Ballot Language for 4% Special Tax on Utilities for Purchase of Railroad Right -of -Way ratifying the language changes, no special meeting would then be required. CONCUR: �� // KEVIN B. NORT'°CRAFT, City Manager Respectfully submitte CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: S P. LOUGH, City Attorney ITY OF HERMOSA BEACH The City Attorney's above comments make reference to voter -approved bonds. Some forms of available financing would not require voter approval. Since the voters twice already have given direction to finance the right-of-way acquisition if necessary, it seems unnecessary to commit to a new voter authorization to finance this point. KBN 22/SR0308D -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 88-919 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 30-62, ADDING SECTIONS 64 AND 65 TO CHAPTER 30 - TAXATION, ARTICLE VI - UTILITIES TAX, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE USE OF 4% UTILITY USERS TAX ONLY FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE A.T. & S.F. RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND PROVIDING FOR TERMINATION OF SUCH TAX. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. A new section shall be added to Chapter 30 (Taxa- tion) of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code to read as follows: 30-64. USE AND PURPOSE OF THE TAX The four percent tax upon the use of utilities imposed by this chapter shall be accounted for and used by the City of Hermosa Beach as follows: The tax shall be collected and placed in a special fund only to be used for the costs of acquisition and financing of the property commonly known as the the A.T. & S.F. Railroad Right -of -Way by the City of Hermosa Beach. SECTION 2. A new section shall be added to Chapter 30 (Taxa- tion) of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code to read as follows: 30-65. TERMINATION OF THE FOUR PERCENT SPECIAL FUND PORTION OF THE TAX. This 4% portion of the utility user tax which is a special tax and is to be used only for the purchase of the railroad right-of-way will terminate upon a finding by the Hermosa Beach City.Council that the special tax is no longer necessary for its adopted purpose. After a resolution is adopted by the 1 2 3 City Council finding that the need no longer exists for the special tax fund, all monies that remain in the special fund, or are later placed in said fund, shall be used for the acquisition and maintenance of open 4 space lands for the benefit of the citizens of Hermosa 5 Beach. 6 SECTION 3. Pursuant to Government Code Section 53722, this 7 ordinance must be adopted by a two-thirds affirmative vote. Its 8 provisions may not be amended or repealed without a subsequent 9 vote of the electorate. 10 SECTION 4. Section 30-62 (Fund and Purpose) shall be amended 11 to state as follows: 12 All of the proceeds of the taxes levied under 13 this article shall be placed in the general fund 14 of the city and shall be utilized for general 15 governmental purposes except as herein set forth 10 in Sections 30-64 and 30-65. 17 SECTION 5. If any of the provisions of this ordinance are 18 declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the 19 remaining parts or sections shall remain in full force and 20 effect. 21 SECTION 6. This ordinance shall take effect in the manner 22 provided by law. 23 24 25 26 SECTION 7. The method of collection of the taxes imposed shall remain the same as provided under Chapter 30 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. 27A PROVED AS CITY ATTORNEY 2 -february 29, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council of March 8, 1988 City Council Meeting REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT PROPOSALS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN 6X8 BUILDING TO HOUSE RADIO TRANSMITTERS RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council authorize the Police Department to solicit proposals for the construction of an 6X8 building and antenna foundation at the remote transmitter site. BACKGROUND: In order to locate the radio transmitters for the Fire and Police Departments in the highest location in the City, we have received permission from the California Water Service to locate the site on their property. ANALYSIS: As part of the planned withdrawal from RCC, it is necessary for us to establish a remote radio transmitter site on California Water Service property. This property is the highest elevation in the City and offers the best location for us to place our radio transmitters. By having the transmitters at this location, we will have excellent coverage of our area for the radio signals. In order to provide proper protection from the weather, and security for the radio equipment, we must construct a block building with a concrete floor and an antenna foundation for the antenna tower. CONCUR: Kevin B. Northcra t, City Manager ctfully i tted , eve S. 'isniewski Director of Public Safety 1p REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL The City of Hermosa Beach is soliciting bids from qualified firms to: Furnish materials and construct an 6 foot by 8 foot building and an antenna foundation at 16th and Prospect in accordance with the specifications in attachment A. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Proposals must be on file in the office of the Director of Public Safety on or before 2:00 PM on March 22, 1988. The Director of Public Safety reserves the right to extend any time frame. No late proposals will be accepted. Late proposals, if received, will be returned unopened. Proposals are to be submitted in a sealed envelope with "Proposal for construc- tion of radio building" written or typed in the lower left hand corner of the envelope. A summary and description of the building to be built is attached to this RFP as attachment A. For additional information and other particulars regarding this project, contact: Director of Public Safety 540 Pier Ave. Hermosa Beach, CA. 90254 (213) 376-2470, 2479, or 7981. EVALUATION OF PROPOSAL AND BASIS FOR AWARD 1. The City of Hermosa Beach intends to make an award to the responsible vendor meeting all the requirements of the RFP whose proposal is most advantageous to the City of Hermosa Beach. 2 The City of Hermosa Beach reserves the right to negotiate with the overall lowest responsible vendor. 3. The City intends to make an award within 30 days of the bid closing date. 4. The City reserves the right to reject any and all bids, and to waive any informalities. 5. All Bids must comply with HBMC Art. IV, Purchasing. 4 ATTACHMENT A - SPECIFICATIONS THE DISPATCH TRANSMITTER SITE: GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS: 1. The new construction shall conform to the City Building Code. 2. Contractor shall verify all dimensions and conditions at the job site and resolve discrepancies before proceeding with work. 3. Building and site to be designed and built within 30 days. 4. Cost of design and construction shall not exceed estimated cost. 5. All contractors must be licensed by the State and shall have Workman's Comp. FOUNDATION: Concrete slab shall be 10 ft. x 10 ft. and extend 4 to 6 inches in depth below natural grade or compact fill. The antenna slab will be 2 ft. x 2 ft. and 3 ft. in depth. Reinforcing steel shall be hi -bond intermediate grade bars. BUILDING: Outer dimensions, 6 ft. x 8 ft., shall be constructed with concrete block Grade "A" lightweight concrete masonry units. Grout all cells below grade and all reinforced cells. Block shall be slumpstone or approved alternate. Framing lumber shall be construction grade and common nails shall be used for all framing. Roofing shall be 5/8" "T & G Structural" with conventional composition shingle roof. Steel door and frame shall be mortized for lockset. Locks furnished by owner and installed by contractor. One concrete block wall shall contain galvanized metal vent slat louvers with bird screen. All interior and exterior painting shall be done in accordance with California Water Service Company specifications. Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council February 29, 1988 Regular Meeting of March 8, 1988 SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY NO. 87-3 & TEXT AMENDMENT -- OPEN SPACE DEFINITION, LOCATION AND COMPUTATION INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the attached proposed Ordinance -- amending the zoning ordinance in regard to the definition, location and computation of Open Space be introduced. Background On September 8, 1987, the City Council approved Staff's recommendation regarding Open Space standards including allowing an exception to Open Space standards for small R-1 lots, and referred this matter back to the Planning Commission for recommendation. On January 19, 1988, the Planning Commission reviewed the exception to Open Space standards in the R-1 zone and recommended approval. The Planning Commission also recommended a modification to the proposed definition of Open Space regarding minor obstacles. Analysis The Planning Commission was concerned about minor obstacles such as eaves, telephone lines, etc. interfering with Open Space requirements. Staff has analyzed this concern since the meeting and believes that the allowable 50'% Open Space coverage will almost completely resolve any problem of this nature in the R-2 and R-3 zones. However, staff has added a subsection to .section 272 in the attached ordinance in compliance with the commission's recommendation, but suggests that the eaves and entryway overhang exception be limited to the R-1 zone since the 50% coverage does not apply in that zone. It should be realized that, for example, a 7' wide Open Space area at ground level with a 3 1/2' (50% coverage) second floor overhang and a 30" wide eaves on the second floor roof would result in 12 inches of uncovered Open Space. For additional analysis, refer to the attached staff reports of June 2, 1987, September 8, 1987 and January 19, 1988. Attachments 1. Proposed Ordinance 2. Planning Commission Resolution 88-4 3. Staff Reports of 6/2/87, 9/8/87 & 1/19/88 4. Planning Commission Minutes of June 2, 1987 & February 2, 1988 5. City Council Minutes of September 8, 1987 CONCUR: ev n North. aft City Manager 2 Respec ully s bmied,A Mic'ael 'c u Planning Director 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 88 - 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 obstaclesksuc la telep one 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." 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 337. 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. R-2, Two -Family Residential Zone. -3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Section 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 when accessible through the interior of the dwell ing,11unit - - e s racresi• 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 -2B, Two -Family Residential Zone. Section 557(4) shall read as follows: "Common Open Space 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 _�-- 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 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 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 has 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. 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 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 (507.). 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 1 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 the 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 tbe 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 this day of March, 1988. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: PPROVED A fist'. FORM: .� ITY ATTORNEY CLERK 7 01. Eachgrauttb zttP. taXs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION P.C. 88-4 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN REGARD TO THE DEFINITION, LOCATION AND COMPUTATION OF OPEN SPACE AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 19, 1988 and February 2, 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, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby recommend that the City Council amend the Zoning Ordinance by amending and 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." 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. R-2, Two-Family Residential Zone. Section-5O7(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 when accessible through the interior of the dwelling unit for which there is interior access." 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 -2B, Two -Family Residential Zone. Section 557(4) shall read as follows: "Common Open Space 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: 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 "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 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 has 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." 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 6. Modify and add the following subsections to Article 7.2, Condominium, Stock Cooperatives and Community Apartments. 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 (507.). 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 shall 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 the exceeding area togetherhas 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 areaas 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." VOTE: AYES: Comms.DeBellis,Ingell,Peirce,Chmn.Compton NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm.Rue I hereby true and Commi r CERTIFICATION certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 88-4 is a complete record of the action taken by the Planning the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their ng of February 2, 1988. , Compton, Chairman Michael Schubach, Secretary C December 3, 1987 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission January 19, 1988 SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY NO. 87-3 & TEXT AMENDMENT -- OPEN SPACE DEFINITION, LOCATION AND COMPUTATION INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation Staff recommends that the attached Resolution be adopted allowing an exception to open space for lots of 2,100 square feet or less. Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission direct staff to set for public hearing consideration of an exception to the 17' setback for lots of 2,100 square feet or less. Background On September 9, 1987, the City Council approved Staff's recommendation regarding Open Space standards including allowing an exception to Open Space standards for small R-1 lots, and referred this matter back to the Planning Commission for recommendation. Analysis The major difficulty is providing open space on small 30'x70' R-1 lots when the access is from a 10' or 15' wide alley. To avoid deleting on -street parking, ideally the alley should be utilized. However, an alley which is only 10' wide would require an additional 13' of turning area plus the 17' parking setback. Since lots of 2,100 square feet or smaller can be considered unusually small, a variance could be justified. To avoid the variance procedure, the staff believes that an exception to the minimium open space standards and also to the 17' setback is appropriate. A minimium dimension of 8 feet and a total of 300 square feet of Open Space would be acceptable. In conjunction with the lesser open space, lots of 2,100 square feet or less with 10' or 15' wide alleys could be given an exception to the parking setback. However, three parking spaces.,. would still be required. If a 2,100 square feet lotwith a 10' wide alley were to have a 23' turning area and a 17' parking setback, the back wall of the garage would be only 20' from the front property line. In other words, the garage would be setting in the middle to the front of the lot. --12- Michael Schubach Planning Director August 3, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council September 8, 1987 UNFINISHED BUSINESS CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 11/ 1987 SUBJECT: TEXT AMENDMENT FOR OPEN SPACE DEFINITION, LOCATION AND COMPUTATION PLANNING COMMISSION INITIATED PLANNING COMMISSION LIAISON: GERALD COMPTON Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that the attached ordinance be adopted regarding Open Space definition, location and computation. Staff Recommendation The Staff is recommending the same ordinance as the Planning Commission except that in the R-1 zone, only the required rear yard could be counted toward a portion of the required Open Space, and the current ground level/deck, balcony Open Space ratio of 75% and 25% respectively would be maintained. In the R-2, R -2B, and R-3 Zones, no required yard areas could be counted toward Open Space. Background At the March 3, 1987 meeting, the Planning Commission requested that Open Space requirements be studied. Analysis R-1 ZONE: When analyzing Open Space in relation to lot sizes, the w ole spectrum from the small to the large lots should be examined. In analyzing the Planning Commission recommendation, it can be seen that concern for the smaller size lots was given but not for the larger lots. Staff examined the recently constructed single family development at the old Prospect Heights School site. Those 25'x100' lots - have 575 square feet of ground level Open Space in the rear yard and a front setback ranging from 17 feet to 20 feet; the floor area of these units is over 2,200 square feet. Staff contacted a local real estate agent for their opinion as to the amount of floor area that is considered minimally desirable; 1800 square feet was indicated. Staff has also prepared examples "(see attachments) of both the Staff's and Planning Commission's recommendations in relation to various sized lots. It can be seen from these examples that lots of 4000 square feet, or greater, in the R-1 Zone would literally -13- 4 C C need no Open Space whatsoever under the Planning Commission recommendation; by allowing the front setback to be used for Open Space, there is no need for a rear yard. Under Staff's recommendation, a minimum 10 foot rear yard could be provided, and the potential floor area would be 4,661 square feet. There was concern that along walk streets, there would be a problem providing the required Open Space. However, as Staff indicated there are no R-1 Zones along walk streets and only a small northernmost part of the Strand has small R-1 Zoned lots. Staff examined two other typical, small size lots, 30'x70' and 30'x80', and found that the Staff's recommended requirements could be met, and a potential 1,934 square feet of floor area could be constructed on the 30'x70' lots and 2,136 square feet on the 30'x80'lots. R-2, R -2B and R-3 Zone: In these zones, the Planning Commissions recommendation is to allow one of the setbacks to be counted toward Open Space if it has a minimum dimension of 7 feet. The result of this standard, for example, on a 40x100 square foot, R-3 zoned lot would be one side yard, 7 feet wide; one 7'x100' long side yard would provide more than the minimum 600 square feet of Open Space needed for 3 units. Obviously, a 7 foot side yard would not provide any visible or useable Open Space, and would most likely be nothing more than the walkway to the units. Currently the Zoning Ordinance allows decks and balconies to be counted toward Open Space. Staff believes that to allow yard areas to be included also would render the Open Space requirement almost worthless. Attachments 1. Planning Commission recommended Ordinance 2. Staff recommended Ordinance 3. Staff Report and Comparison Chart 4. Examples of Open Space standards for various size lots 5. Planning Commission Minutes 6. Planning Commission Resolution CONCUR: Gre ory7T4.1M yer el - Ci Manager Respectfully mi ted, Mich Planning Director CURRENT None General COMPARISION CHART PROPOSED Definition of Open Space R-1 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." Zone Open Space. There shall be a minimum of four hundred (400) square feet of usable open space with a minimum of dimension of ten (10) feet. Twenty five percent (25%) of this open space may be provided in balconies or decks with a minimum dimension of 10 feet. NOTE: The following was the old ordin- ance which was changed upon Building Department request because what did "portion" equal? (10' x 10' area equaled 257.). There shall be a minimum of 400 square feet of usable open space with a mini- mum dimension of 10 feet. A portion of this open space may be provided in bal- conies or decks with a minimum dimen- sion of 10 feet. R-2, R -2B (4) Common open space areas may in- clude pool, spa, garden, play equipment, courtyards (a mini- mum of 20 feet wide), decks over non -living areas, and/or similar areas but shall no include re- quired driveways, and/or park- ing areas. Private open space areas may in- clude patio, pool, spas, balcon- ies, garden, and deck areas over non -living areas. (5) Add following sentence: "Required front, and/or side yards, driveways, turning areas, and park- ing areas shall be excluded from open space computation." and R-3 Zone "Common Open Space areas may include pools, spas, gardens, play equipment, courtyards, (a minimum of 20 feet wide), decks over non -living area, and/or similar areas but shall not in- clude driveways, turning areas, park- ing areas, and required front, rear, and side yard areas." "Private Open Space areas may include patios, pools, spas, and garden areas; also balconies and decks over non -liv- ing areas or over living areas when accessible through the interior of the dwelling unit for which there is - interior access. (7) None (8) None (9) None (1) CURRENT PROPOSED Section 507(7) shall read as follows: "When computing Open Space in con junction with yard areas, only an are 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 bas a dimension of at least 7 feet in width and length." Section 508(8) shall read as follows: "Circular, triangular, odd and/or unusual shaped Open Space areas shall have a minimum of 49 square feet in area as well as minimum 7 foot dimensions." Section 508(9) shall read as follows: "Decks, balconies or similar areas which extend over more than one dwelling unit shall have a minimum ST rating of 58." CONDOMINIUM ORDINANCE 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 (50) percent. Patio, pool, spa, balcony and a deck area over non -living area may be included as private recreation space. (2) Common: Each development of five (5) or more con- owinium units shall 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 recre- ation area may include play area, pool, spa, recre- ation room, gym, garden and similar amenities for the common use of all owners. 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. Sucb required recreation space shall have no dimension less than seven (7) feet; the space may be partially covered up to fifty percent (50L). 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 and over only the dwelling unit for which there is interior access may be included. Common: Each development of five (5) or more' condominium units shall 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 comput only an area be counted dimension of together has and length." ing Open Space in conjunction with yard aro which' exceeds the minimum required yard area toward Open Space and only if the ovet the required setback and the exceeding t a dimension of at least seven (7) feet in w: "Circular, triangular, odd, and/or unusual shaped Open Sp areas shall have a minimum of forty-nine (49) square feet area as well as minimum seven (7) foot dimensions." "Decks, balconies or similar areas which extend over t than one dwelling unit shall have a minimum S.T.C. ratio 58." EXAMPLES OF OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR VARIOUS SIZED LOTS /0d 4 doe :: f --- 40'-----1 Staff Recommendation 1st Floor 2,441 sq. ft. - 340 sq. ft. 2,101 sq. ft. 2,560 sq. ft. Potential Floor Area 4,661 sq. ft. Dash Line 2nd Floor -- 400 sq. ft. 2nd -:.Floor Total Open Space Planning Commission Recommendation 1st Floor 2nd Floor 2,650 -340 2,310 2,816 -191 2,625 sq. sq. sq. sq. sq. sq. ft. ft. ft. ft ft. ft. Potential Floor Area 4,935 sq. ft. Total Open Space 400 sq. ft. (garage) (garage) (balcony) 1 EXAMPLES (Continued) 10' 3, 1t 30=1 3' 3' C Staff Recommendation 1st Floor 2nd Floor 1,102 sq. - 340 sq. 762 sq. 1,272 - 100 1,172 sq. sq. sq. ft. ft. (garage) ft. ft. ft. balcony ft. Potential Floor Area 1,934 sq. ft. Total Open Space 400 sq. ft. Dash Line 2nd Floor Planning Commission Recommendation 1st Floor 2nd Floor 1,179 -340 839 1,497 -200 1,297 sq. sq. sq. sq. sq. sq. Potential Floor Area 2,136 sq. Total Open Space 400 sq. Dash Line 2nd Floor ft. ft.(garage) ft. ft. ft, balcony ft. ft. ft. < C EXAMPLES (Continued) 80 3 i I --'30'--I 1 3 Staff Recommendation 1st Floor 1,272 sq. ft. -340 sq. ft. (garage) 932 sq. ft. 2nd Floor 1,488 sq. ft. -100 sq. ft. ()alcony - 1,388 sq. ft. Open Space; Potential Floor Area 2,320 sq. ft. Total Open Space 400 sq. ft. Dash Line 2nd Floor Planning Commission Recommendation 1st Floor Area 1,419 sq. ft. -340 sq. ft. (garage) 1,079 2nd Floor Area 1,620 sq. ft. -200 sq. ft. (balcony - 1,420 sq. ft. Open Space Potential Floor Area 2,499 sq. ft. Total Open Space 400 sq. ft. Dash Line 2nd Floor 417 September 1, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council September 8, 1987 Addendum to Staff Report for Text Amendment for Open Space Definition, Location, and Computation Recommendation 1. Review the attached examples of meeting Open Space requirements under the Staff's recommendation. 2. Refer to the Planning Commission for study allowing an exception to the Open Space requirements in the R-1 Zone for small lots. Background The Planning Commission liaison has noted to Staff that more diagrams were needed to show the difficulty of providing open space under the Staff's recommendation for small lots which front on the Strand, narrow alleys, or front on a street and alley and prefer to have the parking off the alley, thus not removing any on -street parking because of curb cuts. Analysis Staff agrees that smaller lots may have difficulties meeting the Open Space requirements especially in conjunction with the 17' parking setback. However, by examining the first 3 examples of 3 typical size lots in the City with frontage on a walk street, Strand, or street, and with a minimum 20' wide alley to the rear, it can be seen that all three lots could provide the required Open Space for the most part without utilizing the required setbacks. The only difficulty based on the attached diagrams is that the thickness Cif the garage walls on 30' lots would result in slightly less than a minimum 10' dimension. However, Staff believes some exception could be given for smaller lots, particularly those that abut 10' or 15' wide alleys (see example 4). Ideally parking should be accessed via alleys so that on -street parking is not lost because of curb -cuts. Also,.,. on small lots the minimum width for open space could be reduced. However, if an exception is given for open space, no variance to the 17' parking setback should be allowed, since it should not be difficult on any lot except for the extremely small lots to meet the setback requirements with an exception to the Open Space requirements. It is probably impossible to have an ordinance which applies to all different size and shape lots within the City without a need for variances. The variance procedure is available for exactly this reason. -2o - c; In regards to exception for Open Space requirements in other zones, Staff does not believe that it is necessary since the ordinance already allows balconies and decks to count toward Open Space and that is in itself an exception. CONCUR: Gre o" rye T Ie er Cit Manage Attachments 1. Examples 1-4 Planning Director EXAMPLES OF OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR VARIOUS SIZE. LOTS EXAMPLE 1 . STRAND, WALK -STREET, OR STREET 100 4 ------1 20' WIDE ALLEY 1st Floor 2,351 sq. ft. 340 sq. ft. (garage) 2,011 sq. ft. 2nd': Floor 2,523 sq. ft. Potential Floor Area 4,874 sq. ft. Dash Line 2nd Floor Total Open Space 400 sq. ft. EXAMPLE 2 STRAND, WALK -STREET, OR STREET 7, O •/ 30' . 0 i________30,___7:1 20' WIDE ALLEY 1st Floor 1,013 sq. ft. -340. sq. ft.. (garage 673 sq. ft. • 2nd Floor 1,285 sq. ft. -100 sq. ft. balconl 1,185 •sq. ft. Potential Floor Area 1,858 sq. ft.• Total Open Space 400 sq. ft. Dash Line 2nd Floor EXAMPLE 3 r STRAND, WALK -STREET, OR STREET 3 -r 8 i II 1.4pt 17'1 17440-1( 30 200 WII AL 1st Floor 2nd Floor Potential Floor Area Total Open Space Dash Line EXAMPLE 4 STRAND, WALK -STREET, OR STREET 1st Floor Area 2nd Floor Area Potential Floor Area Total Open Space' Dash Line 10' or 15' WIDE ALLEY 1,229 sq. ft. -340 sq. ft. (garage) 889 sq. ft. 1,501' sq ft. -100 sq. ft. (balcony - 1,401 sq. ft. Open Spac 2,290 sq: ft. 400 sq: ft. 2nd Floor 843 sq..ft. -340 sq. ft. (garage) 503 1,285 sq. ft. .-100 sq. ft.. '(balcony: 1,185 sq.' ft..;:Open .Sa 1.688 -sq. ft. 400 sq. ft. 2nd Floor C C Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission May 25, 1987 Regular Meeting of June 2, 1987 Unfinished Business (continued from 5/19/87 Meeting SUBJECT: TEXT AMENDMENT; OPEN SPACE DEFINITION, LOCATION AND COMPUTATION APPLICANT: PLANNING COMMISSION -INITIATED Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution recommending an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance in regard to the definition, location and computation of Open Space. Background On March 3, 1987, the Planning Commission directed Staff to clarify what is usable Open Space. On May 7, 1987, the Staff Environmental Review Committee reviewed the proposed amendment and recommended a Negative Declaration. On May 19, 1987, the Planning Commission continued this matter because of several issues which needed clarification. Also at that meeting, in regard to a separate matter, the issue of deck areas over more than one dwelling unit was discussed. Clarification The following addresses the- issues raised at the May 19th meeting: R-1 ZONE OPEN SPACE ALONG WALK STREETS: There is virtually no R-1 zones along the walk streets. Therefore, the concern for use of the front yards for Open Space is moot. Further, a good example of what can be built in the R-1 Zone is the new units on the Prospect Heights school property. Those 25' x 100' lots have 575 square feet of ground level Open Space in the rear yard and 17 to 20 foot front setbacks; the floor area of these units is over 2200 square feet. Staff believes that 2200 square feet of floor area is more than adequate. Smaller lots, of course, may have less obtainable floor area, but this only,seems logical. If a lot was so small that an adequate size dwelling could not be constructed, it would be ripe for a zone variance. CURRENT ORDINANCE: Attached is a comparison chart showing the current ordinance and what is proposed. In summary, the changes are to provide an Open Space general definition, exclude yard areas as countable Open Space, allow private Open Space over - - c r living areas, and to provide a method of counting unusually shaped Open Space areas. DECKS OVER MORE THAN ONE UNIT: Concern was expressed about the noise factor when a deck is extended over more than one dwelling unit. Staff believes that a deck so described constitutes a "stacked unit" and therefore, requires a ceiling/floor sound attenuation of 58 S.T.C. even though the space is not counted toward any Open Space requirements. Analysis GENERAL DEFINITION: Currently, the Zoning Ordinance does not have a specific definition of Open Space, and in some instances, it bas been necessary to interpret what is Open Space in conjunction with residential developments. Under the proposed definition, Open Space is area free and clear from ground to sky unless otherwise specified which means that balconies and decks can continue to be counted toward Open Space if it is so stated. This definition is the traditional definition of Open Space and is useful in conjunction with the Open Space Zone as well as with residential development. COMPUTATION and LOCATION: Clarification as to what is countable toward Open Space is also needed. Currently, Staff has been counting the entire required yard areas if the yard areas had the minimum required dimensions for Open Space. This situation has resulted in developments having nothing more than an extra wide side yard with no beneficial impact. Since the Ordinance does allow decks and balconies to count toward Open Space and allows 65% lot coverage (many cities allow 40%), the yard areas should not be counted toward Open .Space. However, counting those areas that exceed the required yard area when the entire yard equals the minimum dimension for Open Space should be allowed. This computation therefore, would still benefit developments with larger yard areas. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE: Currently, the Ordinance includes balconies or decks over non -living areas. This requirement has been, for example, a balcony with only interior access from one dwelling unit. Staff believes that areas which have interior access solely through a dwelling unit should be allowed over living area of the unit from which it is accessible. .For example, a second story balcony may be over the living room of the dwelling unit. •Common Open Space should continue to be over non -living areas. CIRCULAR, TRIANGULAR and ODD SHAPED AREAS: Many times unusually shaped areas are difficult to determine as to whether they meet the Open Space requirements. For example, a circular Open Space area may have a minimum dimension of 7 feet; however, the dimension is actually the diameter and is much less in square feet than a square which has 7 foot dimensions. Staff believes that an Open Space area of this type should have at least 49 square feet as well as having a. 7 foot dimension since any square or rectangular area would have to have 49 square feet of area if it met the minimum 7 feet Open Space dimension. Areas less than 49 square feet are hardly usable as Oepn Stace ., Michel Schubach Planning Director PLANNING COMMIrJN MINUTES - FEBRUARY 2, 1988 C PAGE 9 TEXT AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING OPEN SPACE DEFINITION, LOCATION, AND COMPUTATION AND POLICY STATEMENT 87-3 REGARDING COVERAGE OF OPEN SPACE IN CONJUNCTION WITH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF 1/19/88) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 26, 1988. He stated that this item was renoticed; however, renoticing was not necessary. He noted that it is not necessary that this be a public hearing; it is merely a hearing at which people may give comments if they so desire. Mr. Schubach discussed the text amendment, stating that the action before the Commission at this time is to give comments on whether or not there should be open space exceptions for lots of 2100 square feet or less. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to direct staff to set a study session and public hearing for a text amendment allowing an exception to the 17 -foot setback requirement on lots of 2100 square feet or less (Agenda Item 10[aD; then to deal with Items 10 (b) through (d) as another, separate issue. No objections; so ordered. Chmn. Compton stated that he would like to have a special study on exceptions to the 17 -foot setback requirement; especially in cases where compliance with the 17 -foot setback requirement would remove parking from the street. He noted that the main purpose of the requirement was to alleviate the problem of people parking over the sidewalk; therefore, he questioned how the 17 -foot setback requirement was ever applied to alleys where there are no sidewalks. He felt that if the requirement ends up removing parking from the street, it makes no sense whatsoever to have the requirement. He felt that allowances should be made in these instances. He felt that there are still some problems which need to be worked out in regard to the 17 -foot setback requirement. Chmn. Compton stated that he basically favors the requirement; however, his biggest concern is requiring the 17 -foot setback in alleys. He felt that this situation needs to be further addressed, stating that there should be a method by which a person does not have to go through the variance procedure. He noted that there are a number of irregularly- shaped lots in the City, and those lots need to be looked at separately. MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to consider together with the text amendments being suggested, a study on how a text amendment would apply that would allow for an exception of the 17 -foot setback requirement off of an alley. Noting_ the objections of Comms. DeBellis and Peirce, MOTION DIES. Chmn. Compton asked for clarification on how a 17 -foot setback off of an alley relates to the original problem of alleviating parking over a sidewalk. Comm. DeBellis stated that the reason was never to prevent parking over a sidewalk. The reason the 17 -foot setback requirement was adopted was to provide additional guest parking in the setback area, whether it is in the front or the rear. 27- PLANNING COMM15. _JN MINUTES - FEBRUARY 2, 1988( PAGE 10 Chmn. Compton asked if the goal was to provide more guest parking, why wasn't a requirement adopted to just require four parking spaces. Chmn. Compton and Comm. DeBellis discussed the merits and problems of the 17 -foot setback requirement. Comm. DeBellis stated that he would not pretend to assert that the 17 -foot setback requirement is perfect; however, it is the best method which was available at the time. He feels that the requirement is of absolute benefit to the City as a whole. He stated that irregularly-shaped lots would be prime candidates for a variance. Chmn. Compton noted, however, that almost all requests for variances to the 17 -foot setback requirement have been denied by the City Council. Comm. DeBellis asked whether Planning Commission Policy Statement 87-3 should be changed numerically to reflect the fact that it has not yet been adopted and it is now 1988. Mr. Schubach stated that the number is merely for filing purposes; it is not necessary to change it to reflect that it is in the 88-** sequence. MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. Peirce to include Item No. 10(b) in the study which will be returned for a text amendment regarding open space. No objections; so ordered. Mr. Schubach gave staff report on the issue of definition, computation, and location of open space. On September 9, 1987, the City Council approved staff's recommendation regarding open space standards including allowing an exception..to open.space_standards for small R-1 lots, and referred this matter back to the Planning Commission for recommendation. The major difficulty in providing open space on small 30' by 70' R-1 lots when the access is from a 10' to 15' wide alley. To avoid deleting on -street parking, ideally the alley should be utilized. However, an alley which is only 10' wide would require an additional 13' of turning area plus the 17' parking setback. Since lots of 2100 square feet or smaller can be considered unusually small, a variance could be justified. To avoid the variance procedure, the staff believes that an exception to the minimum open space standards and also to the 17 -foot setback is appropriate. A minimum dimension of 8 feet and a total of 300 square feet of open space would be acceptable. In conjunction with the lesser open space, lots of 2100 square feet or less with 10' or 15' wide alleys could be given an exception to the parking setback. However, three parking spaces would still be required. If 2100 square foot lot with a 10 -foot wide alley were to have a 23 -foot turning area and a 17 -foot parking setback, the back wall of the garage would be only 20 feet from the front property line. In other words, the garage would be sitting in the middle to the front of the lot. Staff recommended that the proposed resolution be adopted allowing an exception to open space for lots of 2100 square feet or less. Staff also recommended that the Planning Commission direct staff to set for public hearing consideration of an exception PLANNING COMMI(.JN MINUTES - FEBRUARY 2, 1988 ( PAGE 11 to the 17 -foot setback for lots of 2100 square feet or less. Comm. DeBellis noted that his only concern with the proposed resolution is the definition for open space: "Areas which are from ground to sky free and clear of any obstructions or obstacles unless otherwise specified within each zone classification." Further on in the resolution there is wording stating that there may be covered open space. He asked for clarification of this issue. Mr. Schubach stated that the key wording is "...unless otherwise specified within each zone classification." He noted that more specific definitions would be contained within each particular zone classification. He stated that this particular section is just a very basic definition of open space. He continued by discussing the open space requirements for the various zones. He gave background information on how the original ordinance in regard to how much open space can be covered was adopted. Comm. Ingell noted concern over the wording "...obstructions or obstacles..." He noted that trees or utility poles could be construed as obstructions or obstacles. He asked how obstructions and/or obstacles are defined. Mr. Schubach stated that additional wording could be added to more. clearly define obstructions and obstacles. Comm. DeBellis suggested that eaves and related features also be included in the definition, noting that in some cases they can encroach into open space. Comm. Ingell stated that thought must be given to the suggestion to add eaves, noting that the intention is to provide open space free from ground to sky. Chmn. Compton suggested wording denoting that there are to be no eaves over four feet. He agreed that the definition of obstacles and obstructions is quite important. Mr. Schubach stated that he would further study the issue of eaves and other minor obstructions as related to the definition in question; it could then be included in the recommendation to the City Council.. Mr. Schubach and the Commission discussed various things which could be considered as obstructions. Comm. Ingell asked why decks cannot be built over living areas. Mr. Schubach stated that it would be necessary to install soundproofing which can be very expensive. However, there is an exception where open space can be over one's own unit. Comm. Peirce noted that the purpose of open space is to provide area clear from ground .to sky; therefore, caution should be exercised in regard to what should be included in the definition. Comm. DeBellis and Chmn. Compton discussed the measurements of various types of eaves. Chmn. Compton stated that no roof eaves are counted in lot coverage no matter what their size. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 88- 4, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE. CITY OF HERMOSA PLANNING COMMICON MINUTES - FEBRUARY 2, 1988( PAGE 12 BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN REGARD TO THE DEFINITION, LOCATION, AND COMPUTATION OF OPEN SPACE AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, with the amendment to Article 2, Definition, Section 272, Open Space, to include further definition of obstructions and obstacles encroaching into the open space areas. No objections; so ordered. Recess taken from 9:29 P.M. until 9:35 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSItol MINUTES - JUNE 2, 1987 PAGE 2 TEXT AMENDMENT TO DEFINITION, LOCATION, AND COMPUTATION OF USABLE OPEN SPACE (CONTINUED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 19, 1987 Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 25, 1987. On March 3, 1987, the Planning Commission directed staff to clarify what is usable open space. On May 7, 1987, the staff environmental review committee reviewed the proposed amendment and recommended a negative declaration. On May 19, 1987, the Planning Commission continued this matter because of several issues which needed clarification. Also at that meeting, in regard to a separate matter, the issue of deck areas over more than one dwelling was discussed. PLANNING COMMISSSIQN MINUTES - JUNE 2 • 198 � 7 PAGE 3 Mr. Schubach clarified several issues raised at the meeting of May 19, 1987: R-1 Zone Open Space Along Walk Streets: There are virtually no R-1 zones along the walk streets. Therefore, the concern for use of the front yards for open space is moot. Further, a good example of what can be built in the R-1 zone is the new units on the Prospect Heights school property. Those 25- by 100 -foot lots have 575 square feet of ground -level open space in the rear yard and 17- to 20 -foot setbacks; the floor area of these units is over 2200 square feet. Staff believes that 2200 square feet of floor area is more than adequate. Smaller lots, of course, may have less obtainable floor area, but this only seems logical. If a lot was so small that an adequate -sized dwelling could not be constructed, it would be ripe for a zone variance. Current Ordinances: A comparison chart showing the current ordinance and what is being proposed was prepared and provided to the Commissioners. In summary, the changes are to provide an open space general definition, exclude yard areas as countable open space, allow private open space over living areas, and provide a method of counting unusually -shaped open space areas. Decks Over More Than One Unit: Concern was expressed over the noise factor when a deck is extended over more than one dwelling unit. Staff believes that a deck so described constitutes a "stacked unit" and therefore requires a ceiling/floor sound attenuation of 58 S.T.C., even though the space is not counted toward any open space requirements. Currently, the zoning ordinance does not have a specific definition of open space, and in some cases, it has been necessary to interpret what is open space in conjunction with residential developments. Under the proposed definition, open space is area free and clear from ground to sky unless otherwise specified, which means that balconies and decks. can continue to be counted toward open space if it is so stated. This definition is the traditional definition of open space and is useful in conjunction with the open space zone as well as with residential development. Clarification as to what is countable toward open space is also needed. Currently, staff has been counting the entire required yard areas if the yards areas had the minimum required dimensions for open space. This situation has resulted in developments having nothing more than an extra wide side yard with no beneficial impact. Since the ordinance does allow decks and balconies to count toward open space and allows 65% lot coverage (many cities allow 40%), the yard areas should not be counted toward open space. However, counting those areas that exceed the required yard area should be allowed. This computation, therefore, would still benefit de.velopments with larger yard areas. • Currently, the ordinance includes balconies or decks over non -living areas. This requirement has been, for example, a balcony with only interior access from one dwelling unit. Staff believes that areas which have interior access solely through a dwelling unit should be allowed over living area of the unit from which it is accessible. For example, a second -story balcony may be over the living room of the dwelling unit. Common open space should continue to be over non -living areas. Many times unusually -shaped areas are difficult to determine as to whether they meet the open space requirements. For example, a circular open space area may have a 3z PLANNING COMMIS vN MINUTES - JUNE 2, 1987 PAGE 4 minimum dimension of seven feet; however, the dimension is actually the diameter and is much less in square feet than a square which has seven -foot dimensions. - Staff believes that an open space area of this type should have at least 49 square feet as well as having a seven -foot dimension since.any square or rectangle area would have to have 49 square feet of area •if it met the, minimum •seven -foot open space dimensions. Areas less than 49 square feet are hardly usable open space. • •° _ •- .. _ - . . Mr. Schubach stated that staff recommends approval of the resolution recommending an amendment,to the •zoning ordinance in regard to the definition,' location, and'computation of open space. Comm. Compton asked about open space along the Strand. Mr; Schubach stated that the issue originally raised was in regard to walk streets. The Commission could address • the Strand if • so desired, but he. felt that the . same interpretation would be applicable to the Strand as well as the walk streets in regard to what can be done with the lots. He noted that in some instances, variances could be granted_because of unusually -shaped or small -sized lots. • Comm. Comptoiithoted concern over property along the Strand. • Comm: Compton discussed percentages allowed by other cities in regard to open space provided by decks and balconies. He stated that percentages allowed by inland cities do not pertain to beach cities. - - - - • Comm. Peirce asked for clarification of the proposed Section 507(7): "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 feet in width and length." • Mr. Schubach stated that an area must have a minimum of at least seven feet in any dimension in order for it to be counted as open space. Comm: Compton discussed a case he prepared regarding the new R-1 requirements. Public Hearing opened at 7:53 P.M. by Chmn. Sheldon. There being no citizens who came forward to speak either in favor of or in opposition to this issue, the Public Hearing was closed at 7:53 P.M. by Chmn. Sheldon. . Comm. Compton explained the handout he made, stating that he presupposed a 20 -foot alley and determined the minimum setbacks required off • an alley. He continued by discussing the allowable setbacks in regard to upper level decks and open space open to the sky. He stated that his example reflected a home on a 30- by 70 -foot lot. He • concluded by stating that 1400 -square -foot homes were not feasible on these lots because of the land values. Comm. Rue questioned whether the street side would include the seven -foot setback in the open space calculation. He asked whether the ordinance has provided for that. Mr. Schubach replied that no suggestion has been made to allow the front yard for open space calculation. He stated, though, that the Planning Commission would have the purview to grant a variance in such cases where it is necessary and is deemed PLANNING COMM1SS1kN MINUTES - JUNE 2, 1987 PAGE 5 appropriate, especially in cases where the Commission determines that a 1400 square - foot house is too small for the lot. He stated that rear yards in the R-1 zone are typically acceptable in the open space calculations. Comm. Rue discussed the proposed Section 507(7), which applies only to R-2, R -2B, and R-3 zones, and questioned what the effects would be if open space is allowed in areas over :seven feet. • • Mr. Schubach stated that it would be acceptable. He continued by explaining the calculations which would be used. He stated that there would be a gain in the acceptable square footage. Chmn. Sheldon statedthat there is no problem with walk streets in the R-1 zone. Comm. Compton felt that the Strand is a walk street. Chmn. Sheldon stated that there is no R-1 zoning on the Strand south of 22nd Street, stating that most of the Strand is R-2, with only three blocks being R-1 north of 22nd Street. - Chmn. Sheldonfelt that there is not enough R-1 zoning in the City. Comm. Compton felt that the R-1 zones would be too restrictive. He felt that a solution might be to • redefine the front and/or rear yards based on the number of automobile accesses.. He could see no reason why the front yards should not be included in the open space calculations. He felt that in most cases there is a public right of way, and in most cases people will use the area out to the property line. He stated that based on the proposed changes, people could be required to provide up to twenty- feet of -open space along the fronts of their property. . .:..:,:,;., : ,..,. „• • Comm. Compton asked whether it is possible to add to the definition of "rear yard." He suggested wording stating that "rear yard areas as pertaining to open space calculations may be designated by being opposite to the automobile access end of the site." He stated that space could, therefore, be added. He stated that most people prefer to build homes of at least 2000 square feet. He stated that the more builders are limited, the more they will be forced to use decks and mezzanines and build upwards in order to add to the square footage. He stated that it is preferable that there be open space adjacent to living areas, noting that ideally it could be provided in a second level. He felt that the main goal is to be reasonable. He felt :that specific, worst-case situations , must be addressed. . Mr. Schubach agreed that in some cases there may be a problem. But he noted that in many instances a variance could prove to be the solution. He stated that the main issue becomes how much one should be allowed to build on a lot. Comm. Compton felt that the issue boils down to individual property rights. He stated that although the City has the authority to impose such restrictions, there is a very fine line as to how far the City should go in taking away one's property rights, particularly in regard to the very expensive property in this City. Comm. Compton stated that the larger the lot, the less severe this problem is because larger lots have larger sideyards, and the 65 percent lot coverage issue does not apply. He stated that parity is gradually achieved between lot coverage and open space as the lots become larger. PLANNING COMMISS‘vN MINUTES - JUNE 2, 1987 PAGE 6 Comm. Compton .agreed with staff's definition of open space, but he felt it should.also provide that fifty percent of the private open space can be covered.. .,. Mr. Schubach stated that staff attempted to analyze small lots in the City, though not necessarilythe smallest. .. ..•. . . Comm. Peirce stated that if a lot is small, the house should be scaled down to the size of the lot. He did not feel that it is appropriate to allow the same size house on small lots as are allowed on the larger lots. In the R-1 area, there are not as many small lots which would.come under. the 30- by 70-foot.lot size provisions. Chmn. Sheldon stated that he agrees with the staff recommendation. He felt that the variance procedure is available. in •those cases -of exceptionally small . lot size or extremely unusual circumstances. Comm. Compton felt that if a person thought he had to obtain a variance in order to build, he might decide against purchasing the property; and whatever existed on the property would remain on the property. He stated that this would create an economic pressure. Chmn. Sheldon stressed that codes are not written for.a gross minority of lots. Comm. Compton suggested that the R-1 zone allow for private open space to be partially covered up to fifty percent. He stated that too much area is being taken from the ground already, noting particularly the 17 -foot setback requirement. Comm. Compton suggested that on the ground level, in all zones .the open space be held to ten . feet,. and. seven feet. for decks. . This would accomplish.ctarity throughout all. the zones. He -felt a seven -foot deck would be reasonable amount of open space. He stated that it is used in R-2 and R-3 zones, and there is no reason it would not be acceptable in the R-1 zones. Comm. Compton further -suggested that there be open space of 75 percent in decks and 25. percent on the ground.. -.He. stressed what the 17 -foot setback requirement is. doing in town, and he felt that less open space on the ground is acceptable because of the 17 -foot requirement. , .. _ . • Comm. Compton discussed the possibility of the inclusion of one setback in the private or common open space calculations in the R-2 and R-3 zones. He felt that this might work particularly well with rear yard setbacks. He suggested a requirement that when setbacks are used, there must be a ten -foot minimum setback as opposed to the required seven when it is not used. He stated that this would be reasonable for all zones. Comm. Compton asked whether it is necessary to have this information in the condominium ordinance since it will be in the zoning code. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative, stating that it is important to have clarity in both. Comm. Rue stated that if additional setback space is required, from seven feet to ten, to use it in the open space calculation, then the partial coverage stipulation for deck space would be unnecessary. • PLANNING COMMISS'ivN - MINUTES JUNE 2, 1987 PAGE 7 Comm. Peirce stated that the ten -foot deck requirement in the R-1 zone has been in effect for quite some time, noting that it has not been changed in the recent past. Comm. Peirce. felt that. the way.. the ordinance is written in this regard is acceptable. He felt that the code should address reasonable size lots; in instances of very small lots, people can utilize the variance procedure. He stated that the main issue becomes one of how..much bulk the City wants to allow on lots.. He opposed any changes. in the R-1 zones.. . Churn.=.Sheldon stated that -he disagrees with the current 75 percent versus 25 percent open space coverage issue. Mr. Schubach suggested that. there be a policy statement delineating the circumstances of when a variance would be allowable and under what circumstances variances are to be granted. Chmn. Sheldon stated that he would support an increase in the percentage of decks which can be included in the open space calculation for the R-1 zone. Comm. Compton favored allowing one setback to be used as a portion of the common open space calculation in the R-2, R -2B, and R-3.zones. • .• Mr. Schubach clarified: exactly what could be used in the calculations. Comm. .Peirce stated .that Section 507(7) could be modified to reflect that any one sideyard could be used in the common open space calculation. MOTION by .. Comm.. Compton, seconded by:. Commd..::.:R.ue,.:_:.•to approve staff's recommendation with the following modifications: - . . `to change the current requirements to reflect that 75 percent (as opposed to the current 25%) of open space may be provided in balconies and decks provided there is - • •,a minimum dimension of ten feet; • . to allow the yard Opposite the automobile access end of the site to be considered as a rear yard for purposes of open space calculations in the R-1 zone; Chmn. Sheldon stated that he would not support a 75-25 split in regard to the open space calculation. He noted, though, that he would support a 50-50 split. Furtherhe would support the use of the front yard setback in the open space calculation.. . • r - AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Chmn. Sheldon, accepted by Comms. Compton and Rue as maker and second, that the split be 50-50 in regard to open space; that the use of the front yard setback can be used in the open space calculation. Chmn. Sheldon noted that the motion and amendment apply only to the R-1 zone. AYES: Comms. Compton, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Sheldon NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm. Schulte • PLANNING COMMIS( J MINUTES - JUNE 2, 1987 PAGE 8 MOTION by Chmn. Sheldon, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to accept staff's recommendation as submitted in regard to the R-2, R -2B, and R-3 zones, with the modification that one setback may be used in the common open space calculation. AYES: Comms. Compton, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Sheldon NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm. Schulte Mr. Schubach stated that the R -P zone is included within the R-3 zone requirements. He stated that the R -P zone needs only to be addressed separately in regard to height. Chmn. Sheldon stated that the R -P zone is included in the above motion. Comm. Compton questioned whether the condominium ordinance needs to be addressed. Mr. Schubach stated that the above motion will be included in the condominium ordinance. MOTION by Comm. Compton to include in the condominium ordinance the above motion regarding R-2, R -2B, R-3, and R -P zones. No objections; so ordered. a� eUBLIC .HEARINGS 5. The staff report was presented by Planning Director Michael Schubach. The Public Hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak were: Gerald Compton, Planning Commissioner, 832 - 7th Street - reiterated the Planning Commission recommendation. The Public Hearing was closed. Action: To approve the staff recommendation referring this matter to the Planning Commission for study allow- ing an exception to the Open Space requirements in the R-1 zone for small lots. Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger AYES - DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Mayor Cioffi NOES - Williams 1 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council March 1, 1988 - Regular Meeting of March 8, 1988 SUBJECT: TEXT AMENDMENT 88-1 -- INFRACTION PROCESS FOR VIOLATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION Recommendation Staff recommends introduction of the attached ordinance -- text amendment establishing penalties for Conditional Use Permit violations. Background The Planning Commission at their February 2, 1988 meeting recommended approval of an infraction process for enforcement of Conditional Use Permits. Abstract The attached ordinance will enable the City to issue tickets for violations of the conditions of approval which were imposed in conjunction with the granting of a Conditional Use Permit. Refer to attached Planning Commission staff report for analysis. Attachements 1. City Council Ordinance No. 88- 1. Planning Commission Resolution 88-12 2. Staff Report of February 2, 1988 3. Planning Commission Minutes of February 2, 1988 CONCUR: '4°4 evin North a t City Manager 1 Respect 1 y su �it r Mic "ae Schu i ac' Planning Director 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 88 - 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 hearing 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. This 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 the 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 the 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 the 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 the State of California, the arresting officer shall prepare, in duplicate, a written notice to appear in court, containing the name and address of such person, the 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 the county who has jurisdiction of the 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 1 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 - Ball 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 bail. 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 tbis case. Upon the making of such 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 he has violated such promise or has failed to deposit ball, to appear for arraignment, trial or judgement, or to comply with the terms and provisions of the 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 bail as provided in Section 20-9 the magistrate shall issue and have delivered for execution a warrant for his 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 the date which he 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 the 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. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 0 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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 tbe City Attorney to prepare a summary of this ordinance to bepublished 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 tbe 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: c tttitgt` tTit tt h at ais 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 RESOLUTION P.C. 88-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING A TEXT ADMENDMENT ESTABLISHING PENALTIES FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT VIOLATIONS. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 2, 1988 to receive oral and written testimony on this matter and made the following Findings: A. The Planning Commission desires to create a means of enforcing the City's Conditional Use Permits; B. This 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 Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby recommend the following: Amend Article 20 Penalty as follows: 1. Change the numbering of Section 2000 to 20-1. 2. Change the 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 the 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 c c. A fine of one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) for a third violation of the 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 the Penal Code of the State of California, the arresting officer shall prepare, in duplicate, a written notice to appear in court, containing the name and address of such person, the 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 the county who has jurisdiction of the offense and who is nearest and most accessible with reference to the placewhere the arrest is made; or (2) Upon the demand of the person arrested, before a judge of the municipal court of the 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 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 bail. 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 bad in this case. Upon the making of such order that no further proceedings be bad, 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 he has violated such promise or has failed to deposit bail, to appear for arraignment, trial or judgement, or to comply with the terms and provisions of the 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 bail as provided in Section 20-9 the magistrate shall issue and have delivered for execution a warrant for his 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 the date which he 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 the 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. 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. VOTE: AYES: Comms.DeBellis,Ingell,Peirce,Chmn.Compton NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm.Rue 1 2 3 c c CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 88-12 is a true and com•lete record of the action taken by the Planning Commi the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their re:• arJ�ng of February 2, 1988. j7 Compton, Chairman 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ach.'Secre January 28, 1988 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission February 2, 1988 SUBJECT: TEXT AMENDMENT 88-1 -- INFRACTION PROCESS FOR VIOLATIONS OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION Recommendation Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution. Background Both the City Council and Planning Commission have had serious concern regarding enforcement of conditions imposed via Conditional Use Permits, particularly with respect to alcohol establishments in the downtown area. Staff was requested to investigate this matter and provide solutions. Analysis The attached resolution provides a method for enforcing Conditional Use Permits and is more efficient and effective than the current method. Under the current method, if someone violates the conditions of a Conditional Use Permit, a public hearing to revoke the Conditional Use Permit is necessary; this entails public notice to the newspaper, and to all property owners and tenants within 300' of the subject use; it also entails allowing public testimony by the applicant and others no matter what the violation is. Further, the only legal recourse, under the current method, the Planning Commission has is to revoke the Conditional Use Permit, thus putting the violator out of business even though the violation may be of minor significance, such as failure to post a particular sign. Under the proposed method, the City could issue a ticket, similar to a parking ticket, to the violator. The violator would be forced to post ball of a certain amount depending on whether it is a repeated violation. The violator would also have an.. opportunity to plead not guilty and have the case heard before a magistrate. This method allows the punishment to more appropriately fit the violation. If this proposed infraction process is approved, staff will then provide the proper procedures to follow in implementing the process, e.g. how many warnings prior to issuance of a ticket. -to- C C It should be noted that the Planning Commission will still have the opportunity to revoke a permit if dee ed necessary„ /'► Mi !-e Schubch Planning Director r PLANNING COMMLON MINUTES - FEBRUARY 2, 19880 PAGE 2 TEXT AMENDMENT 88-1 — INFRACTION PROCESS FOR VIOLATIONS OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 28, 1988. Both the City Council and Planning Commission have had serious concern regarding enforcement of conditions imposed via conditional use permits, particularly with respect to alcohol establishments PLANNING COMM( .ON MINUTES - FEBRUARY 2, 1988 PAGE 3 in the downtown area. Staff was requested to investigate this matter and provide solutions. The proposed resolution provides a method for enforcing conditional use permits and is more efficient and effective than the current method. Under the current method, if someone violates the conditions of a CUP, a public hearing to revoke the CUP is necessary; this entails public notice to the newspaper and to all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the subject use; it also entails allowing public testimony by the applicant and others no matter what the violation is. Further, the only legal recourse, under the current method, the Planning Commission has is to revoke the conditional use permit, thus putting the violator out of business even though the violation may be of minor significance, such as failure to post a particular sign. Under the proposed method, the City could issue a ticket, similar to a parking ticket, to the violator. The violator would be forced to post bail of a certain amount depending on whether it is a repeated violation. The violator would also have an opportunity to plead not guilty and have the case heard before a magistrate. This method allows the punishment to more appropriately fit the violation. Mr. Schubach continued by explaining the monetary penalties imposed for violations. If this proposed infraction process is approved, staff will then provide the proper procedures to follow in implementing the process, e.g., how many warnings prior to the issuance of a ticket. It should be noted that the Planning Commission will still have the opportunity to revoke a permit if deemed necessary. Mr. Lough stated that this is a procedure which many cities are beginning to follow. He stated that the wording in the resolution is appropriate. He stated that the fine structure is within the guidelines of State law. Mr. Schubach stated that the model used for the proposed ordinance is based on the current ordinance in use in Monterey Park, noting that it has been in place in that city for approximately seven years. Chmn. Compton asked who would actually be responsible for enforcement. Mr. Schubach stated that a designated person from the Planning Department would be responsible, in conjunction with the police department. He continued by explaining the ticketing procedure which would be used. Comm. Peirce asked by what method would someone be designated as the authorized person responsible for enforcement. .Mr. Schubach stated that specific wording in that regard would be incorporated into the resolution. One person in the Planning Department will be designated, and the police department would also be authorized personnel. Chmn. Compton asked who will develop the evidence in the event a violation is contested. Mr. Schubach stated that coordination of evidence will be done by the Planning Department in conjunction with the police department. PLANNING COMMI(.JN MINUTES - FEBRUARY 2, 19880 PAGE 4 Public Hearing opened at 7:52 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. There being no citizens who appeared to speak either in favor of or in opposition to the issue, the Public Hearing was closed. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. DeBellis, to accept staff's recommendation to approve Resolution P.C. 88-12, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING A TEXT AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING PENALTIES FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT VIOLATIONS. No objections; so ordered. Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council • March 3, 1988 City Council Meeting of March 8, 1988 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ON MID -YEAR BUDGET REVIEW Recommendation It is recommended that City Council receive and file this report; and adopt the revised Budget Summary by Fund (Exhibit A - 1 & 2), inclusive of all revisions to Revenues (Exhibit B), Appropria- tions (Exhibit C - 1 & 2), Transfers (Exhibit D), and Designa- tions (Exhibit E) per memorandum from Council meeting of February 23, 1988. Also, please note the attached supplemental memo of Finance Administrator Viki Copeland dated March 3, 1988 Background Mid -year budget review was presented to the Council at the February 23 1988 meeting and was tabled to March 8, 1988 to ob- ain fur her nformation and comments of the new City -Manager. Analysis The concern expressed by Councilmember Sheldon regarding the de- cline in fund balances during the current fiscal year is an ap- `ptopriate one, an eserves further explanation. The Finance Administrator's attached memo provides further detail on these fund balance declines. In brief, the attached information indicates that the General Fund capital expenditures increased from $60,817 to $360,391 from the prior fiscal yeasrro the current one, and this trend con- tinues with several other funds. This appears to be the most significant factor in the declining balances. In approving the budget, the City Council determined that the capital items were necessary. By converting cash balances to publicac'iii£ies and services, the Council is attempting to meet community needs within the resources available. These decisions were made at the start of the year and do not reflect changes being made at mid- i" ar. Should the new Council wish to set new directions, it would be most appropriate for those directions to be initiated during the soon to be underway preparation of the FY 88-89 budget. Regarding other comments on the mid -year review, the mid -year adjustments are positive in that revenue is u $474,749_and ex- penditures are down $61,177 in the General Fund. The recommended designations_changes-are simply to restore the levels approved at -the-start of the fiscal year. The lone exception is the Debt Service designation which was eliminated due to a lack of rationale for continuing it. r - 1 - 8 a As stated above, the best opportunity for new councilmembers and staff input into the budget will begin shortly with the prepara- tion of the next year's budget. Things that appear to be worthy of review at that time include (1) the adequacy of a 3% unap- propriated balance goal; (2) the establishment of an equipment replacement fund consistent with the new fixed asset list; (3) refinement of the capital program to include a longer city-wide view of the needs; (4) review of fees and transfers to assure no unintentional subsidy of service is being provided by the General Fund; and (5) an aggressive look at City costs, especially "hid- den" or "buried" costs such as employee benefits, liability and workers compensation costs, as well as the adequacy of staffing and efficiency of operations. evin B. Nort /raft City Manager KBN/ld NOTE: To save costs we have not re -duplicated the Feb. 23 agenda packet material on this topic. If you no longer have it avail- able, please notify the City Manager's office. March 3, 1988 Honorable.Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council March 8, 1988 MIDYEAR REVIEW FUND BALANCES 1987-88 It was observed at the meeting of February 23, 1988 that estimated fund balances for 6/30/88 are lower than the actual fund balances for 6/30/87. If current revenue and transfers are less than expenditures, the result is a decrease in the fund balance. Fund balances are developed and approved as part of the budget process. According to the Government Finance Officers Association, fund balances should provide an adequate "cushion" against economic recessions or unanticipated revenue shortfalls. If fund balances are surplus, they should first be committed to capital needs. Excessive funds balances may reflect poor management or lack of policies. Use of the fund balances in 1987-88 is primarily for non-recurring capital improvement projects. A summary of these CIP's and other non-recurring items is shown below: GENERAL FUND CIP 602 ELECTRICAL UPGRADE 604 DEPARTMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS 606 POLICE REMODEL Capital Improvement Expenditures for 1986-87 Totalled $60,817 INSURANCE FUND (TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND) Increase, Liability Premium ICRMA, Additional Premium CDBG (TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND) Balance Due After Fund Exchange $ 74,250 $105,550 $180,591 $ 78,000 $115,000 $ 44,765 LIGHTING FUND CIP 201 LIGHT CONVERSIONS, NEW INSTALLATIONS 202 HERMOSA AVENUE LIGHTING 203 PIER LIGHTING REPAIRS Capital Improvement Expenditures 1986-87 Totalled $47,479 STATE GAS TAX FUND CIP 160 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 165 BIKEWAY CONSTRUCTION 171 STREET REPAIRS 176 TRAFFIC CONTROL PRE-EMPTION 302 6TH STREET STORM DRAIN Capital Improvement Expenditures In 1986-87 were $134,230 COUNTY GAS TAX CIRCULATION ELEMENT REVENUE SHARING CAPITAL OUTLAY, POLICE/FIRE SEWER FUND CIP 402 REPLACEMENT OF PIPE 404 TARGET AREA I 405 REPLACEMENT, SEWER LINES Capital Improvement Expenditures for 1986-87 were $36,744 Concur: /Kevin Nort c •a t City Manager VC/kc 2 $ 55,000 $115,500 $ 13,200 $ 60,000 $ 9,766 $ 82,500 $ 46,200 $397,588 $ 37,000 $ 75,000 $652,951 $ 17,660 $528,000 Viki Copeland Finance Administrator Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council MID -YEAR BUDGET REVIEW 1987-88 FISCAL YEAR February 18, 1988 City Council Meeting of February 23, 1988 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council receive and file this report; and adopt attached 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). It is further recommended City Council receive and file Status Report on Capital Improvement Projects (Exhibit F - 1 thru 5). BACKGROUND This is the seventh mid -year budget review conducted by the City Council. This review is an opportunity for both City Council and City staff to analyze the financial operation of the City mid -way through the fiscal year and make adjustments as deemed necessary. ANALYSIS The overall short term financial picture for the City of Hermosa Beah is good. Revenue (Exhibit B) The net increase for projected revenue is $474,749. As you will note on Exhibit B, the two areas that show the largest increases are Business License at $139,500 and the additional 4% Utility Users Tax at $195,213. Business License Business License reflects a substantial increase due to this being the first full year of the increase in license fees and an increase in the number of licenses issued. Utility User Tax The estimate for the 4% U.U.T., $195,213, is conservative based on the final three months of revenue for last fiscal year. This is an estimate only which is needed for fund balance purposes. Each month the total U.U.T. receipts for the month will be calcu-• lated and the exact amount representing 4% transferred into the Park & Recreation Facility Tax Fund. 1 •a The final actual figure will differ from the estimated figure listed above. Appropriations (Exhibit C - 1 & 2) Appropriations are the monies City Council has approved for ex- penditure by all City departments. All departments are operating within budget and are expected to do so through the end of the fiscal year. However, some adjust- ments are needed and staff is recommending the City Council ap- prove the following additional appropriations: City Treasurer + $ 700 Employee Health Benefits + $ 37,812 CIP 87-606, Police Remodel + $ 26,811 Parking Fund - $133,000 Insurance Fund + $ 6,500 City Treasurer +$700 This request is for general operating expenses within the depart- ment and is based on the present rate of expenditures which is expected to hold constant through this fiscal year. Employee Health Benefits +$37,812 CS Health benefits were originally underestimated. The calculation omitted one health plan thereby creating an understated appropriation. CIP 87-606 Police Remodel +$26,811 As part of the City's plan to withdraw from RCC and the major remodel project taking place in the Police Department because of that withdrawal, the Records Bureau and Property rooms also need to be updated/converted. Additional funds are needed for this project. Exhibit G - 1 through 8 provides the details of this project and the additional funds requested. Parking Fund -$133,000 As part of the adopted 87/88 budget, the Parking Fund contained $133,000 earmarked for the beginning design phase of a parking structure at the Community Center. As this is no longer a priority with the City Council, staff felt it more prudent to unappropriate those funds which means they will be transferred back into the General Fund. Insurance Fund +$6,500 Medicare costs appear to be underestimated. These costs are dif-. ficult to project because only new employees are subject to the contribution. The amount of turnover has a direct impact on the costs. This appropriation, based on the January, 1988 payroll, should be adequate for the remainder of the year. Transfers (Exhibit D) General Fund - Transfer In Revenue projections for the Parking Fund are estimated to in- crease by $25,900 and that combined with the action to unap- propriate $133,000 for the Community Center Parking Structure results in a net amount of $158,900 being transferred from the Parking Fund into the General Fund. General Fund - Transfer Out o The additional 41 Utility User Tax of $195,213 will be trans- ferred out of the General Fund and into the Park & Recreation Facility Tax Fund and earmarked for the purchase of the AT&SF. o The CDBG deficit will be reconciled with a transfer of $44,765 from the General Fund into the CDBG Fund. o It is necessary to transfer $95,969 from the General Fund into the Insurance Fund to provide funding for the estimated work- er's compensation liability as of 6/30/87. The workers com- pensation liability is being moved from the General Fund to the Insurance Fund since all costs are reflected there. As this cost is now reflected on the City's Financial Statement in the Insurance Fund, we are simply transferring same. Designations (Exhibit E) The anticipated General Fund balance as of June 30, 1988 is proj- ected at $978,084. The previous City Council earmarked several designations for this fund balance. They were: Asset Replacement Capital Improvements Reserve for Contingency (includes 3% reserve) Open Space Acquisition Debt Service Affordable Housing It is important that City Council understand that designations and their amounts are determined by the City Council. You may change the designations and the amounts as you wish. The only designation that should not be adjusted at this point is Afford- able Housing at.$46,831 since the matter is in litigation. Staff therefore suggests the following designations and amounts for the General Fund Balance: Asset Replacement $120,000 City Council may want to adjust this figure once the fixed asset replacement study is completed. The results of that study are expected within the next six weeks. Capital Improvements $243,165 This is the amount originally in the 87/88 budget. Amounts ap- propriated from this designation since July 1, 1987 ($133,280) have been restored. Reserve For Contingency $368,088 Of this total amount, 3% or $258,236 is "earmarked" as the City's reserve. Prospect Park Acquisition $200,000 Affordable Housing $46,831 Funds relating to condominium conversions were designated in this account. Please note staff has omitted the designation of Debt Service and folded those monies into the Reserve for Contingency. There is no apparent need for this type of designation. Revenue/Appropriation Charts Attached are two pie charts depicting the sources of revenue for all funds and appropriations by function for all funds. The charts are only meant to provide a pictorial representation of where the City's funds come from and where they are spent in general. CONCLUSION We believe this mid -year budget review reflects the continuing effort on the part of the City Council and City staff to provide services to the citizens of Hermosa Beach in an efficient and cost effective manner. Alana M. Mastrian Viki Copeland Acting City Manager Finance Administrator Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Re: Revised Revenues, Midyear Review Below are the recommended revisions to the estimated revenues: GENERAL FUND February 16, 1988 City Council Meeting of February 23, 1988 ESTIMATED MIDYEAR INCREASE REVENUE REVISION (DECREASE) 12-31-87 Taxes 3101 Current Year Secured $1,991,978.00 $1,991,978.00 3102 Current Year Unsecured $139,157.00 $154,756.00 $15,599.00 3103 Prior Year Collections $150,000.00 3104 Interest/Penalties $1$5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 3105 Other Property Taxes $100.00 $100.00 3106 Supplemental Roll SB813 $30,000.00 $60,000.00 3107 Transfer Tax $70,000.00 $30,000.00 3108 Sales Tax $1,717,522.00 717,522.00 $22,576.00 3110 Cable TV Franchise $ $1,$78,000.00 $78,000.00 $78,000.00 3111 Electric Franchise $30,000.00 $33,200.00 3112 Gas Franchise 3113 Refuse Franchise $98,000.00 $98,000.00 102,208.00 $98,000.00 3114 Transient Occupancy 3115 Business Licensy $102,208.00 $131,324.00 $29,116.00 e 3120 Utility User Tax $1,084,320.00 $1,279,533.00 $195,213.00 Licenses and Permits 3202 Dog Licenses $13,500.00 3203 Bicycle Licenses $200.00 $ $13,500.00000.00 3204 Building Permits $160,000.00$ 3205 Electric Permits $38,000.00 $160,000.00 3206 Plumbing Permits $30,000.00 $38,000.00 $30,000.00 3207 Occupancy Permits $3,000.00 $5,000.00 3209 Garage Sales $100.00 $100.00 3210 Bingo Permits $200.00 $200.00 3211 Banner Permits $500.00 $500.00 3212 Animal /Fowl Permits $100.00 $185.00 3213 Animal Redemption Fee $3,500.00 $3,500.00 3214 Amplified Sound Permit $0.00 $0.00 $5,889,985.00 $6,321,989.00 $432,004.00 Fines & Forfeitures 3301 Vehicle Code Violations $90.000.00 3303 Court Fines/Police Dept $40,000.00 $100,000.00 $10,000.00 $40,000.00 $2,000.00 $85.00 $249,100.00 $251,185.00 $2,085.00 $130,000.00 Exhibit B-1 $140,000.00 $10,000.00 ESTIMATED REVENUE MIDYEAR INCREASE 12-31-87 REVISION (DECREASE) GENERAL FUND Use of Money & Property 3401 Interest Income $40,000.00 $56.000.00 $16,000.00 3402 Rents & Concessions $5,700.00 $6,900.00 $1,200.00 3403 Pier Revenue $9,960.00 $9,960.00 3404 Comm Ctr Leases $60,000.00 $60,000.00 3405 Comm Ctr Rentals $50,000.00 $50,000.00 3406 Comm Ctr Theatre $12,000.00 $12.000.00 3411 Other Facilities $59,000.00 $59,000.00 3412 Tennis Courts $12,500.00 $12,500.00 3416 Oil Royalties $5,000.00 $5,000.00 ,*254.160.00 $271,360.00 $17,200.00 Intergovernmental/State 3504 In Lieu Off Highway $409.00 $409.00 3505 In Lieu Motor Vehicle $629,826.00 $629,826.00 3507 Highway Maintenance $6,000.00 $6,000.00 3508 Mandated Costs $0.00 $2,171.00 $2,171.00 3509 Homeowner Prop Tx Relief $64.000.00 $64,000.00 3510 Post $15,000.00 $15,000.00 3511 Stc-Svc Off Training $10,000.00 $10,000.00 3514 Cigarette Tax $52,000.00 $52,000.00 3515 Supplemental Subvention $25,254.00 $25,254.00 $802,489.00 $804,660.00 Current Service Charges 3801 Residential Inspection $12,000.00 $12,000.00 3802 Sign Review $700.00 $700.00 3803 Environmental Impact $11,960.00 $8,280.00 3806 Board of Appeals $1,325.00 $900.00 3808 Zone Variance Review $3,000.00 $3,000.00 3809 Tentative Map Review $5,640.00 $4,515.00 3810 Final Map Review $625.00 $625.00 3811 Zone Change Review $1,800.00 $1,800.00 3812 Conditional Use Review $10.000.00 $10,000.00 3813 Plan Check Fees $100,000.00 $100,000.00 3814 Planning/Zoning Appeal $1,500.00 $1,500.00 3815 Public Works Services $12,000.00 $12,000.00 3816 Curb/Sidewalk Repair $100.00 $100.00 3817 Special Curb Marking $500.00 $500.00 3818 Police Services $15,000.00 $15,000.00 3819 Jail Services $28,000.00 $28,000.00 3820 Trusty Admin Fee $2,000.00 $2,000.00 3821 Fingerprint Service $2,500.00 $2,500.00 3823 Special Event Security $13,500.00 $13,500.00 3824 Vehicle Inspection Fees $2,000.00 $2,000.00 3825 Public Notice Posting $100.00 $100.00 3827 Library Grounds Maint $5,510.00 $5,510.00 3831 Street Cut Inspection $27.000.00 $27,000.00 P 2 $2,171.00 ($3,680.00) ($425.00) ($1,125.00) GENERAL FUND ESTIMATED REVENUE MIDYEAR INCREASE 12-31-87 REVISION (DECREASE) 3834 Encroachment Permit $1,500.00 $1,500.00 3836 Fumigation Inspect Fee $7,000.00 $7,000.00 3837 Returned Check Charge $760.00 $760.00 3838 Sale of Map/Publications $600.00 $600.00 3839 Photocopy Charges $1,000.00 $1,000.00 3840 Ambulance Transport $6,500.00 $6,500.00 3841 Police Towing $25,000.00 $32,000.00 3857 Parking Plan Application $1,090.00 $1,090.00 3858 Tenant Refuse Billing $0.00 $1,250.00 $300,210.00 $7,000.00 $1,250.00 $303,230.00 $3,020.00 Other Revenue 3901 Sale of Real/Pers Property $8,000.00 $8,000.00 3902 Refunds/Reimb Prev Yr $1,000.00 $6,669.00 3903 Contributions Non Govt $1,000.00 $1,000.00 3904 General Miscellaneous $100.00 $2,700.00 $10,100.00 $18,369.00 FUND TOTALS $7,636,044.00 LIGHTING DISTRICT FUND $5,669.00 $2,600.00 $8,269.00 $8,110,793.00 $474,749.00 Taxes 3101 Current Year Secured $397,647.00 $397,647.00 3103 Prior Year Collections $40,000.00 $40,000.00 Use of Money & Property 3401 Interest Income PARKING FUND $437,647.00 $437,647.00 $60,000.00 FUND TOTALS $497,647.00 $50,000.00 ($10,000.00) $487,647.00 010,000.00) Fines & Forfeitures 3302 Court Fines/Parking $1,400,000.00 $1,400,000.00 Use of Money & Property 3401 Interest Income $47,000.00 $30,000.00 ($17,000.00) 3407 Parking Lot Rental $31,104.00 $29,104.00 ($2,000.00) 3409 Lot B $18,411.00 $18,411.00 3413 VPD Lease $65,000.00 $65,000.00 $161,515.00 P 3 $142,515.00 ($19,000.00) PARKING FUND ESTIMATED REVENUE MIDYEAR INCREASE 12-31-87 REVISION (DECREASE) Current Service Charges 3842 Parking Meters $500,000.00 $550,000.00 3843 Parking Permits: Annual $150,000.00 $150,000.00 3844 Daily Parking Permits $3,500.00 $3,500.00 3845 VPD Lot Permits/Daily $3,500.00 $3,500.00 3846 VPD Lot Permits/Monthly $7,000.00 $7,000.00 3847 Validation Stamps $6,000.00 $2,000.00 3848 Driveway Permits $1,800.00 $500.00 3849 Guests Permits $1,500.00 $1,500.00 3850 Contractor's Permits $500.00 $780.00 3851 Key Cards $100.00 $20.00 FUND TOTALS STATE GAS TAX FUND $673,900.00 $2,235,415.00 $718,800.00 $2,261,315.00 $50,000.00 ($4,000.00) ($1,300.00) $280.00 ($80.00) $44,900.00 $25,900.00 Use of Money & Property 3401 Interest Income $25,000.00 $25,000.00 Intergovernmental/State 3501 Section 2106 Allocation $83,274.00 $83,274.00 3502 Section 2107 Allocation $169,593.00 $169,593.00 3503 Section 2107.5 Allocation $4,000.00 $4,000.00 3522 TDA Article 3(SB 821) $0.00 $4,869.00 $4,869.00 FUND TOTAL COUNTY GAS TAX FUND Use of Money & Property 3401 Interest Income Intergovernmental/County 3601 County Aid to Cities FUND TOTAL PARK & RECREATION FACTY FUND Taxes 3116 Park Rec Facility Tax Use of Money & Property 3401 Interest Income Other Revenue 3910 Park Recreation in Lieu FUND TOTAL $256,867.00 $261,736.00 $281,867.00 5286,736.00 $700.00 $16,000.00 $16,700.00 $70,000.00 $10,000.00 $70,000.00 $1,400.00 $16,000.00 $17,400.00 $85,000.00 $15,000.00 $185,000.00 5150,000.00 $285,000.00 P4 $700.00 $700.00 $15,000.00 $5,000.00 $115,000.00 $135,000.00 REVENUE SHARING FUND 3401 CDBGFUND 3414:' PROP A FUND Use of Money & Property Interest Income Fund Exchange ESTIMATED REVENUE MIDYEAR INCREASE 12-31-87 REVISION (DECREASE) $0.00 $1,916.00 $1,916.00 $0.00 $177,190.00 $177,190.00 Taxes 3117 Proposition A Transit $183,176.00 $183,176.00 3121 Subregnl Incentive Fds $108,680.00 $108,680.00 Use of Money & Property 3401 Interest Income $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Current Service Charges 3852 Fares ESEA $3,000.00 $1,810.00 3854 Fares Dial A Ride $3,500.00 ($4,300.00) $ $7,800.00 $4,300.00 3855 Bus Passes 3,500.00 $3,500.00 $291,856.00 $291,856.00 $10,000.00 $13,110.00 $3,110.00 Other Revenue 3911 Inner -City Revenue $30,000.00 $30,000.00 FUND TOTAL $336,856.00 GRANT FUND Use of Money & Property 3401 Interest Income Intergovernmental/State 3523 Clark Courts 86-1-19095 $20,000.00 3524 Parks Irrig 86-1-19096 $31,000.00 $51,000.00 Intergovernment/Federal 3701 Federal Aid Urban $322,241.00 FUND TOTAL $373,241.00 P5 $339,966.00 $3.110.00 $17.00 $17.00 $20,000.00 $31,000.00 $51,000.00 $322,241.00 $373,258.00 $17.00 CROSSING GUARD FUND ESTIMATED REVENUE MIDYEAR INCREASE 12-31-87 REVISION (DECREASE) Taxes 3101 Current Year Secured $73.495.00 3103 Prior Year Collections $5.464.00 Use of Money & Property $78,959.00 3401 Interest Income $0.00 FUND TOTAL $78.959.00 SEWER FUND Use of Money & Property 3401 Interest Income $20.000.00 Intergovernmental/Co 3602 Beach Outlet Mtce $10.000.00 Current Service Charges 3828 Sewer Connection Fee $20,000.00 3829 Sewer Demolition Fee $1.200.00 3832 Sewer Lateral Inatalltn $8,000.00 $29.200.00 Other Revenue 3906 In Lieu Sewer Fee $10.000.00 FUND TOTAL $69.200.00 INSURANCE FUND Use of Money & Property 3401 Interest Income $73,495.00 $5,464.00 $78,959.00 $233.00 $233.00 $79,192.00 $233.00 $25,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 ($5.000.00) $30,000.00 $1,200.00 $8,000.00 $10,000.00 $39,200.00 $10,000.00 $63,000.00 $53.000.00 $132,200.00 $63,000.00 $0.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 GRAND TOTALS $11,675,929.00 P6 $12,562.613.00 $886,684.00 001 GENERAL FUND 105 LIGHTING 110 PARKING FUND 115 STATE GAS TAX 120 COUNTY GAS TAX CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BUDGET SUMMARY BY FUND 1987 - 88 BUDGET . MIDYEAR REVIEW ACTUAL ESTIMATED PROPOSED TRANSFER ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE REVENUE APPROPRIATIONS IN - (OUT) FUND BALANCE JUNE 30, 1987 1987-1988 1987-1988 JUNE 30, 1988 • $1,858,132 $8,110,793 $8,607,874 $1,724,424 $ 978,084* (2,107,391) 1,242,674 487,647 520,606 (100,500) 1,109,215 14,846 2,261,315 939,308 (1,322,007) 14,846** 440,667 286,736 863,535 . 358,404 38,294 (183,978) 63,165 17,400 (53,000)' 27,565 *Fund balance includes designation for: Asset Replacement 120,000 Capital Improvements 243,165 Reserve for Contingency 368,088 (3% reserve 258,236] ** Fund balance includes $9,592 Parking Capital Improvements 5,254 Parking Facilities Prospect Park Acquisition Affordable Housing EXHIBIT A -1 200,000 46,831 Revised 2/23/88. ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE JUNE 30, 1987 ESTIMATED REVENUE 1987-1988 PROPOSED TRANSFER APPROPRIATIONS IN - (OUT) 1987-1988 125 PARK RECREATION FACILITIES 130 REVENUE SHARING 140 CDBG 145 PROPOSITION A FUND 150 GRANT FUND 155 CROSSING GUARD 160 SEWER FUND 705 INSURANCE FUND $ 303,958 116,908 (221,955) 111,594 4,123 ( 890) 890,683 314,130 TOTAL 5,138,035 $ 285,000 1,916 177,190 339,966 373,258 79,192 132,200 10,000 12,562,613 $ 163,000 479,339 449,224 87,958 1,329,361 768,615 14.208,820 *Fund balance includes designation for: Prospect Park $50,000 ATSF $195,213 **Fund balance includes reserve for self-insured retention $300,000 EXHIBIT A-2 $ (134,422) 195,213 (92,122) 44,765 59,298 110,983 (35,000) (4,500) 800,000 (254,652) 994,485 -0- ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE JUNE 30, 1988 $ 486,749* 26,702 -0= 31,519 4,140 (14,156) 238,870 550,000** 3.491.828' Revised 2/23/88 MIDYEAR REVIEW 1987-88 REVISIONS TO APPROPRIATIONS APPROPRIATIONS REVISIONS TOTAL. 12/31/87 APPROPRIATIONS GENERAL FUND $8,542,382 CITY TREASURER + $700 EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFITS + 37,812 CIP 606, POLICE REMODEL + 26,811 $65,323 PARKING FUND $1,072,308 COMMUNITY CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE - $133,000 INSURANCE FUND $762,115 • MEDICARE + $6,500 EXHIBIT CI $8,607,705 $939,308 $768,615 GENERAL FUND - DEPARTMENT CITY COUNCIL CITY CLERK/RECORDS ELECTIONS LEGAL - ATTORNEY LEGAL - PROSECUTOR CITY TREASURER CITY MANAGER FINANCE/ADMINISTRATION PERSONNEL CABLE TV DATA PROCESSING BUSINESS LICENSE GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFITS RETIREMENT PROSPECTIVE EXPENDITURES POLICE FIRE ANIMAL CONTROL CIVIL DEFENSE STREET MAINTENANCE PLANNING PLANNING COMMISSION BUILDING PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION BOARD OF APPEALS BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT SERVICE COMMUNITY RESOURCES COMMUNITY RESOURCES COMMISSION PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS TOTAL RECAP OF APPROPRIATIONS 1987-88 BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS SPECIAL FUND - DEPARTMENT 80,612 56,505 17,900 335,146 29,790 36,470 120,496 216,587 108,854 11,313 239,864 82,776 71.997 363,702 984,045 87,948 2,352,483 1,137,805 91,453 57,073 277,318 160,970 7,120 255,518 138.673 400 255,533 114,639 321,780 150 216,833 376.121 8,607,874 STREET LIGHTING FUND STREET LIGHTING DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS PARKING FUND VEHICLE PARKING DISTRICT PARKING ENFORCEMENT COMM CTR. PKG STRUCTURE STATE GAS TAX FUND MEDIANS TRAFFIC SAFETY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS PARKS RECREATION FACILITY TAX FUND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS PROPOSITION A FUND DIAL -A -RIDE ESEA BUS PASS COMMUTER BUS STUDY CIRCULATION ELEMENT GRANT FUND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CROSSING GUARD DISTRICT SEWER FUND SEWER/STORM DRAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS INSURANCE FUND LIABILITY INSURANCE AUTO/PROP/BONDS WORKER'S COMPENSATION UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE MEDICARE EXHIBIT C2 OTHER FUND TOTAL GRAND TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS 336.906 183,700 58,100 881,208 -0- . 125,761 141,720 596,054 163.000 148,449 164,269 14,121 82,500 70,000 449,224 87,958 130,750 1,198,611 440,765 56,850 182,000 75.000 14,000 5,600,946 14,208,820 Revised 2/23/88 MIDYEAR REVIEW 1987-1988 REVISIONS TO BUDGET TRANSFERS TRANSFERS REVISION TOTAL 12/31/87 - IN (OUT) GENERAL FUND TRANSFER IN $1,565,524 FROM PARKING FUND REVENUE REVISIONS + $25,900 DELETE PARKING - 133,000 STRUCTURE 158,900 TRANSFER OUT ($1,771,444) TO PRK REC FAC TAX FUND 47. UTILITY USER TAX TO CDBG BALANCE DUE AFTER FUND EXCHANGE TO INSURANCE FUND WORKERS COMP.LIABILITY PARKING FUND TRANSFER OUT ($1,163,107) TO GENERAL FUND PARK RECREATION FACILITY TAX FUND TRANSFER IN -0- FROM GENERAL FUND CDBG FUND TRANSFER IN -0- FROM GENERAL FUND INSURANCE FUND TRANSFER IN $898,516 FROM GENERAL FUND . EXHIBIT D + $158,900 $1,724,424 +($195,213) + ($44,765) + ($95,969) ($335,947) ($2,107,391) +($158,900) ($1,322,007) +$195,213 $195,213 + $44,765 $44,765 $95,969 $994,485 MIDYEAR REVIEW 1987-88 REVISIONS TO DESIGNATIONS BALANCE REVISION BALANCE • COMMENT AS OF 12/31/87 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS $109,885 + $133,280 $243,165 Replaces amounts appropriated since 7/1/87 . CONTINGENCY 181,492 + 186,596 368,088 Restores 3% reserve, includes $65,005 from debt service contin- gency and balance of unappropriated funds ' .DEBT SERVICE 65,005 - 65,005 -0- Deleting this design- ation, shown in de- signation for cont- ingency PARK REC FACILITY TAX FUND ATSF -0- + 195,213 195,213 Estimate of 470 UUT effective 3/1/88 EXHIBIT E REVENUE - ALL FUNDS 1987-88 MIDYEAR BUDGET REVIEW SVC CHARGES L % 1074 USE/MONEY.PROP 6&891 724 INtTGVT/FFD 2.6% 822 OTHER REVENUE 24% 296 LIC/PERMITS 2.0% 251 `IeTGvricouNrY 0.2% APPROPRIATIONS ALL FUNDS 1987-88 MIDYEAR BUDGET REVIEW CAP IMPROVIANT 20.1)16 OEN OW 25.4% Odor to 'Washed kw for doparbsed Dstlng TNANOPTII 14.7116 COMM DEV OAS ---- IN THOUSANDS CULTURE/LENIN UM 2111 PUBLIC *AMITY MO% MOB 4 KEY TO APPROPRIATIONS BY FUNCTION Departments listed in each category generally this grouping follows the Controller. GENERAL GOVERNMENT * CITY COUNCIL CITY CLERK ELECTIONS CITY ATTORNEY CITY PROSECUTOR CITY TREASURER CITY MANAGER FINANCE PERSONNEL CABLE TV DATA PROCESSING BUSINESS LICENSE GENERAL APPROPRIATION LIABILITY INSURANCE AUTO/PROPERTY/BONDS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS RETIREMENT PROSEPECTIVE EXPENDITURES UNEMPLOYMENT WORKERS COMPENSATION MEDICARE CULTURE/LEISURE PARKS are arguable, however, report required by the State PUBLIC SAFETY POLICE FIRE CROSSING GUARDS ANIMAL CONTROL STREET LIGHTING CIVIL DEFENSE TRANSPORATION MEDIANS SEWER/STORM DRAIN TRAFFIC SAFETY STREET MAINTENANCE VEHICLE PARKING DISTRICT PARKING ENFORCEMENT DIAL A RIDE ESEA BUS PASS SUBIDY CIRCULATION ELEMENT COMMUTER BUS STUDY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PLANNING COMMISSION BUILDING PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION BOARD OF APPEALS BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT SERVICE COMMUNITY RESOURCES COMMUNITY RESOURCES COMMISSION * This category is overstated since insurance and employee benefits are not distributed departmentally. The distribution schedule for insurance is being developed at this time and employee benefits will follow. DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 1988 TO: FROM: STEVE WISNIEWSKI, PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR VIKI COPELAND, FINANCE ADMINISTRATOR CAPTAIN VAL STRASER, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SUBJECT: CIP 87-606 PROJECT COST ESTIMATES FOR RECORDS BUREAU AND PROPERTY ROOM CONVERSIONS RECORDS BUREAU CONVERSION In order for the Records Bureau to function properly while temporarily housed in the E.O.C. room and Anderson Hall, the following listed items must be either added and/or corrected. DISPATCHING 1. The Police UHF radio console receives/transmits only to Hermosa units. RCC cannot be heard nor can they receive 1 PDX's transmissions. Existing portable radios are inadequate because of the inability to transmit from the basement area. Two new UHF frequency crystals have to placed into our existing repeater broadcast system. Repair by Advanced Electronics: Estimated Cost: $250.00 2. The Clemars VHF radio does not transmit or receive. This radio needs to be repaired so it can be used in cases of emergency and for area helicopter air to ground commu- nications. Repair by Advanced Electronics: Estimated Cost: $100.00 (1) EXHIBI•T G1 TELEPHONE INSTALLATION 1. An RCC hotline needs to be installed for direct phone communication with dispatch. 2. There are presently two (2) RC multiline phones on the E.O.C. console, one of those phones needs to be converted to 376-7981 direct Hermosa Beach Police business line with extensions 317, 318, 311 and 312. This telephone also needs to be relocated on the main desk. 3. One (1) additional multiline telephone with the 376-7981 Police business line, and extensions 317, 318, 311, and 312. This phone would be located on the Records desk in Anderson Hall. 4. Two (2) single line phones (with 1-6 pickup capability)• are also needed - 1 for the Records Supervisor desk and (1) for the console. 5. One (1) single line phone (with 1 line capability) in Offi- cer's room briefing area. Installation by G.T.E.: Estimated Cost: $1,050.00 'Per G.T.E., it is unknown if new :cables have to be installed. Best estimate is $150.00 per telephone. 7 telephones requested. Estimated Total: $1,050.00 (2) F.XNTRTT (:2 COMPUTER TERMINALS/PRINTERS 1. All existing computer terminals and printers need to be relocated downstairs for records use and Officer's room. Installation by Cable Exchange: 70 ft. Trunk line for 7 devices Harness $150.00 Harmonica 30.00 Labeling 35.00 Connectors 98.00 Labor 300.00 Estimated Cost: $588.00 Return installation back upstairs: Estimated Cost: $200.00 Estimated Total: $788:00 2. Temporary JDIC (WARRANTS) terminal and printer on -loan from L.A. County Sheriff's Department until Countywide Warrant System is operative on Records computer terminal. Install downstairs and return upstairs into new Records Bureau. Installation by DATA COM: Estimated Total: $500.00 RECORDS OFFICE EQUIPMENT Installation and removal by ACME Visible: Moveable files containing all records case/folders. ACME Visible File "Magic Aisle 820" Install existing file container in Anderson Hall Estimated Cost: $•2,500.00 (3) EXHIBIT G3 Install back upstairs after construction Estimated Cost: $2,500.00 Estimated Total: $5,000.00 OTHER RECORDS EQUIPMENT Extra Steel Shelves Steel Racks High Stack Boxes Warrant Boxes Booking Form Boxes Employee Mail Box Purchase From Business Systems Supply Estimated Cost: $1,677.00 $95.00 295.00 1,035.00 32.00 85.00 135.00 SECURITY 1. Two dutch doors are needed to provide security and counter space for records. Installation by Public Works: Estimated Cost: $300.00 MISCELLANEOUS COSTS Includes incidental labor costs not listed and minor equipment costs not listed. Estimated Cost: $600.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: $10,265.00 (4) EXHIBIT G4 PROPERTY ROOM CONVERSION The present Police Department Property/Evidence storage room is needed to house telephone and computer equipment due to major remodeling that is planned for the Police Station. The present Police pistol range has been closed forinadequate ventilation and a portion of the range has been set aside for a new property room. Metal shelves providing 878 square feet of storage area will provide the most effective use of the new area. The boxes are needed to insure an organized storage system that facil- itates quick retrieval and maintains a secure "chain of custody" environment. To accomplish this, the below items need to be purchased and/or installed in the new property room. Shelves $2,500.00 Boxes 900.00 Purchase from Business Systems Supply Total: $3,400.00 Present plans call for high security area within the Property room. This is to be accomplished by fencing off a corner of the room. Firearms, money, drugs and any other item(s) of high value will be stored in this area. •Installation by California Fence Company: Wire Mesh Fence $1,000.00 Total: $1,000.00 Urine jars from drunk driving cases provide some unique problems for storage. If stored together in a cardboard box and breakage occur, the box would weaken and possible cause other jars to (5) EXHIBIT G5 break. To prevent this, a file card cabinet would be a safe and simple method of storage. File Card Cabinet (used) $200.00 Purchase from Business Systems Supply Total: $200.00 One file cabinet would store cash and the other would store high grade drugs. The heavy duty locking bars along with the locks would provide additional security. Two File Cabinets (5 drawer) $626.00 Two File CAbinet Locking Bars 60.00 Two Padlocks 20.00 Purchase from Business.Systems Supply Total: $706.00 The present lock on the range door is only an "entry lock" and not adequate for a property room. Deadbolt Lock $30.00 Heavy Duty Strike Plate 10.00 Purchase from Aviation Lock & Key Total: $40.00 The phone lines are needed in the new Property room. One for a phone and the other for a computer terminal for the Property records. Two Telephone Lines $300.00 G.T.E. Estimate The present ceiling tiles are contaminated with lead deposits (6) EXHIBIT G6 from the firearms use and should be replaced to prevent health hazards. Ceiling Tiles $450.00 Best Estimate - No Contacted Vendor TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS: $6,096.00 (7) EXHIBIT G7 DISPATCHING TR.ANSMITTER_SITE The Dispatch Transmitting Site will be located at the California Water Service property at 16th St. and Prospect Ave. The Transmitter facility will include the following: 1. Foundation: Concrete slab, 10 ft. X 10 ft., 4 to 6 inches in depth except for the area of the antenna tower base which will be 3 ft. in depth. The tower case will require a 2 ft. X 2 ft. area of the concrete slab. 2. Building: To be constructed of concrete block, reinforced and with conventional asphalt shingle roof. Outer dimen- sions 6 ft. X 8 ft. The building would be painted as per color requirements of California Water Service. Installation by Dave Garrett Construction Estimated Cost: $9,000.00 3. Antenna System: Rohn tower, model 25, 30 ft. section self supporting with no guy lines. (Refer to enclosed engin- eering plans.) Estimated Cost: $400.00 One V.H.F. Stationmaster antenna, 22 ft. in length mounted top -center to give an overall height of 52 ft. Estimated Cost: $350.00 One U.H.F. Stationmaster antenna, 7 ft. in length, side mounted. Estimated Cost: $350.00 One 800 megahertz antenna, 8 ft. in length, side mounted. Estimated Cost: $350.00 The antenna structure to be grounded and antenna systems lightning protected Manufactureres Actual Costs Installation by Advanced Electronics Total Estimated Costs: TOTAL PROJECT COST: EXHIBIT G8 /O\ $1,450.00 $10,450.00 March 3, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of March 8, 1988 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ON STATUS OP CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Recommendation: To receive and file Public Works Director Antich's report of sta- tus on Capital Improvement Projects dated February 16, 1988. Background: This information report was presented to Council on February 23, 1988 with the Mid -year Budget Review, and was tabled to March 8 to allow input from the City Manager. Analysis: The report represents a quick synopsis of the capital projects funded in the current fiscal year, and reflects considerable progress on most at this point in the year. Considerable prog- ress on all projects is contemplated in the current year, which is impressive given the number and size of projects approved for this fiscal year. Being an information report, there are no changes being recommen- ded to alter previous Council direction on ese prof etc s. As i cated in my comments on the mid -year review, the best oppor- tunity for new Councilmembers and staff to provide input in the City's budgetary procedures and priorities is forthcoming with the start of the Fiscal Year 1988-89 budget process. While I hope to limit changes in the format of the annual budget due to the extraordinary time such changes in an already compli- cated process can consume, I anticipate considerable changes in the Capital Improvement Program. These changes will be designed to expand the utility of this document as a long range planning and financial forecasting document for Citywide capital needs. evin = . North aft City Manager RBN/ld 811 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM TO: Alana Mastrian, Acting City Manager FROM: Anthony Antich, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Status of Capital Improvement Projects Mid -year Budget Review FY 87-88 DATE: February 16, 1988 Street and Safety Improvements CIP 85-102 FAU, Widen Highland Ave., from Longfellow to 35th Street Status: Preliminary design report to City Council on October 13, 1987. Final design approval by City Council on December 15, 1987. Plans submitted to Caltrans in February 1988. Anticipate City Council authorization to bid in May 1988. Budget g $104,819 Expended to date $ 3,691 Anticipated Expenditure by June 30, 1988 $ 10,041 CIP 85-137 FAU, Valley/Ardmore at Gould Avenue Status: Project dropped by City Council on October 13, 1987. Budget S72,600 Expended to date $ 3,759 Anticipated Expenditure by June 30, 1988 $ 3,759 CIP 85-138 FAU, Traffic Signal Improvements Status: Design plans and specifications being reviewed by Caltrans. Anticipate City Council approval and authorization to bid in March 1988. Budget g $186,505 Expended to date $ 6,966 Anticipated Expenditure by June 30, 1988 $186,505 CIP 85-160 Roadway Improvements & Appurtena ices Budget Expended to date $60 -00 Anticipated Expenditure by June 30, 1988 $60,000 EXHIBIT F1 -.1 - CIP 87-165 Budget Expended to Anticipated CIP 87-170 Status: CIP 87-171 Status: Hermosa Beach Miscellaneous Bikeway Construction date $9,766 -0- Expenditure by June 30, 1988 $9,766 Street Sealing Not Funded. Various Street Repairs Deficiencies are being inventoried. Anticipate City Council authorization to bid in February 1988. Budget Expended to date $85,500 Anticipated Expenditure by June 30, 1988 $85,500 CIP 88-173 Status: CIP 88-174 Status: CIP 86-176 Status: AC Overlay for Portions of Valley/Ardmore FY 88-89 AC Overlay for Portions of Prospect Avenue FY 88-89 Traffic Control Pre-emption Anticipate including with CIP 85-138. Design plans and specifications being reviewed by Caltrans. Anticipate City Council approval and authorization to bid in March 1988. Budget g $46,200 Expended to date $ 4,604 Anticipated Expenditure by June 30, 1988 $46,200 CIP 85-201 Status: Street Lighting Improvements Light Conversion and New Installations Pacific Coast Highway, Herondo Street re -lighting completed. Strand between 27th and 35th is scheduled next. Letter to be sent residents. Budget j $35,938 Expended to date $ 9,297 Anticipated Expenditure by June 30, 1988 $35,938 CIP 85-202 Hermosa Avenue Lighting Status: Installed energy saving high pressure sodium lights and rewired from series to parallel circuit on Hermosa Avenue between 10th Street & 14th Street. Hermosa Avenue between 15th St. & EXHIBIT F2 27th St. Is scheduled next to be followed with Pier Avenue. Budget $115,500 Expended to date $ 23,702 Anticipated Expenditure by June 30, 1988 $100,000 CIP 85-203 Pier Lighting Grounding Status: Grounding of Pier necessary prior to installation of lighting. Award of bid February 9, 1988. Anticipate construction start March 10, 1988. Budget Expended to date $36,323 Anticipated Expenditure by June 30, 1988 $32,262 Sewers/Storm Drains Beach Drive Improvements Council award of construction contract January 12, 1988 to Colich & Sons at a cost not to exceed $302,397. Council award of contract for Inspection and Contract Administration Services to BSI Consultants, Inc. on January 26, 1988, at a cost not to exceed $24,745. Anticipate construction start March 1, 1988. CIP 86-302 Budget Expended to Anticipated CIP 85-402 Status: date $397,588 $ 5580 Expenditure by June 30, 1988 $397,588 Sewer Replacement, Target Area 2 Construction complete. City Council to accept work as complete on January 12, 1988. Budget $652,951 Expended to date $469,666 Anticipated Expenditure by June 30, 1988 $575,126 CIP 84-404 Status: Budget Target Area 1, Sanitary Sewer Replacement Not acceptable as complete Expended to Anticipated (J & J Sewer) date $17,660 $ 2,190 Expenditure by June 30, 1988 1 S 2,190 CIP 86-405 Replacement and Upsizing of Sanitary Sewer Lines City wide Status: Council award of design contract to Harris & Associates on November 10, 1987 in an amount not to exceed $43,648. Design scheduled for completion March 31, 1988. EXHIBIT F3 - 1 - Budget S528,000 Expended to date $ 11,174 Anticipated Expenditure by June 30, 1988 $200,000 Park Improvements CIP 85-502 Prospect Park Development Status: Opening expected March 1988. Rain caused delay. Newly seeded grass areas not yet established. Budget $153,000 Expended to date $ 40,066 Anticipated Expenditure by June 30, 1988 $ 53,000 CIP 86-506 Various Park Improvements Status: In Progress. Budget $10,000 Expended to date S 4,490 Anticipated Expenditure by June 30, 1988 $10,000 CIP 87-507 Clark Field Tennis (Kelly) Court Resurfacing Status: Bids received September 11, 1987. Request to City Council for authorization to re -bid October 13, 1987. Bids received November 20, 1987. City Council awarded contract on January 12, 1988 to Richard Zanio at a cost not to exceed $51,480. Budget $56,300 Expended to date $ 72 Anticipated Expenditure by June 30, 1988 $56,300 (transfer of $31,000 Parklands Grant Fund from CIP 87-508 to CIP 87-507; Council action 1/12/88 - see CIP 87-508) CIP 87-508 Park Irrigation Restoration Status: No work to date. Anticipated start date March 1988. Budget $29,000 Expended to date -0- Anticipated Expenditure by June 30, 1988 $29,000 Public Buildings and Grounds' CIP 86-601 City Fuel Dispensing Equipment Status: Fuelforce fuel dispensing equipment project complete and accepted by City Council on July 13,. 1987. Construction contract for closure of tanks at the Police Department yard and City yard (paint thinner tanks) awarded a contract on December EXHIBIT F4 -.4 - Budget 15, 1987 to Diamond Pacific at a cost not to exceed $13,530. Anticipate completion February 1988. Expended to Anticipated CIP 86-602 Status: Budget Expended to Anticipated CIP 86-604 Status: Budget Expended to Anticipated CIP 87-606 date $ 2,135 Expenditure by June 30, 1988 $14,435 Electrical Upgrade at City Hall City Council awarded design contract on November 10, 1987 to Joncich Sturm & Associates at a cost not to exceed $19,250. Design to be completed by February 1988. Anticipate authorization to advertise for bids February 23, 1988. $15,730 date $74,250 $ 306 Expenditure by June 30, 1988 $74,250 Building Improvements at Various Locations In progress. date $105,550 $ 19,874 Expenditure by June 30, 1988 $105,550 Police Department Remodel City Council awarded design contract to Joncich Sturm & Associates on October 13, 1987 at a cost not to exceed $14,630. Design to be completed by March 1988. Budget $153,780 Expended to date -0- Anticipated Expenditure by June 30, 1988 $153,780 cip/m EXHIBIT F5 -5- I Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Recommendation: March 2, 1988 City Council Meeting of March 8, 1988 PROPOSED BILTMORE SITE APPRAISAL That the City Council authorize the City Manager to obtain the appropriate appraisal on City owned lands commonly referred to as the Biltmore site from a certified appraiser, not to exceed $15,000 in total cost from Prospective Expenditures. Background: At the Council meeting of February 23, 1988, the City Council requested that staff obtain market estimates of the Biltmore site from local realtors, and obtain an estimate on what an M.A.S. appraisal would cost. Analysis: Market estimates from local realtors are now in process, and the staff is estimating a complete appraisal will cost approximately $15,000. Since the last meeting, discussions with the Railway Company on City acquisition of the surplus right of way has in- creased the possible benefit of obtaining a complete appraisal as soon as possible. To accomplish this, staff contacted Art Mazirow, a citizen and expert real estate negotiation attorney who has volunteered his assistance to the City. Three recommendations for appraisers were received from Mr. Mazirow, and we anticipate selection of one of them based on cost and speed of work considerations. Kevin B. North raft City Manager KBN/ld NOTED FOR FISCAL IMPACT: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM DATE: March 1, 1988 TO: Councilmember Roger Creighton FROM: City Manager Kevin Northcraft C RE: Response to memo of February 29, 1988 regarding the City Treasurer's bond Your memo pertains to the City's failure to have the new City Treasurer bonded prior to assuming office. As you may know, this error has been corrected and the City Treasurer has been bonded since mid-February, 1988. Responses to inquiries indicate that bonds of this type were not handled by the City's insurance broker but had been arranged di- rectly by the City Manager. Terms of the bonds coincide with elected officials terms, but had not been adjusted since the elected officials terms were changed. When the error was discovered, Personnel transferred the bonds to our insurance broker and had them updated. In addition, I have approved the attached administrative memorandum that includes an emphasis on obtaining bonds for the Clerk and Treasurer prior to assumption of office. The City Attorney indicates it is doubtful the Council has any liability for this error, but the point is moot since nothing improper occurred during the "unbonded" period. Since the Coun- cil has approved the bond amounts, no further Council action is needed. While a series of rare circumstances permitted this oversight, the changes that have been made --City Manager via Personnel to handle bonds through City's insurance broker pursuant to Ad- ministrative Memorandum --give assurances that the error will not be repeated. Kevin Nort cr City Manager KN/ld cc: City Council Personnel Director 10d • C r ADMINISTRATIVE MEMORANDUM TO: ALL DEPARTMENTS FUNCTION: ADMINISTRATION FROM: KEVIN B. NORTHCRAFT CITY MANAGER SUBJECT : NEWLY ELECTED OFFICIALS NO: A-12 The City Manager's Office shall be responsible for. orienting new- ly elected officials to their respective positions and ensuring that necessary processing is accomplished by the appropriate em- ployee or department. When a newly elected official is approved by the voters, contact shall be made to arrange a meeting to take care of necessary pro- cessing. Processing shall include the following points, which shall be amended as appropriate to assure a comprehensive checklist is maintained: 1. Introductions to City staff & City Rosters 2. Availability of conferences/workshops • for new officials 3. City Code, manuals, and procedures as appropriate 4. Bonds; NOTE: The City Clerk and Treasurer's bonds are required BEFORE entering office. See Gov. Code Sec. 36518. 5. Budget materials 6..City Vehicles, parking as appropriate 7. Schedule of meetings as appropriate 8. Salary and benefit information 9. Keys as appropriate. 10.Organization Charts 11.Business Cards/City Stationery/Nameplates Kevin B. Nor City Manager /' craft ISSUED : REVISED : March 1, 1988 February 29, 1988 Fellow Councilmembers: I am deeply concerned regarding the apparent lack of compliance with State Law regarding the execution of a bond for the City Treasurer. As you know, a new City Treasurer was elected on November 3, 1987. Government Code § 36518 states: "Before entering upon the duties of their offices, the City Clerk and City Treasurer shall each execute a bond to the city." (Underlining added) Our City Code §2-3 sets the amount of the bond to be $2,000 for City Clerk and $50,000. for City Treasurer. Government Code § 36520 requires that the City Council approve all bonds. Since we have not approved any bond for the new treasurer, I must assume that one has not been obtained. Has our treasurer been doing the duties of his office since November 24, 1987 without being bonded? I request that my fellow Councilmembers join me in the following actions: 1. That an approval for a bond for the City Treasurer be on our next City Council agenda. 2. That appropriate staff prepare a written explaination as to why this has not been done, whose responsibility it was to do, and how procedure can be corrected that this does not happen again. 3. That the City Attorney give us an opinion as to our liability as Councilmembers should something have happened during this period of not having a bond. Thank you for your consideration. Roger D. Creighton cc: City Treasurer 1 ' s OFFICERS—GENERAL § 3655 18 Title 4.-''' ,.s�;�t�> Div. 3 § 522 at t. from la: s members t the goy. :at agency. • Historical Note The 1955 amendment inserted the clause Derivation: reading "if the offices of city clerk and 36514. city treasurer are elective" in the second sentence. lusive, of addition ampensa- ncil or by `< nunicipal• - § 534. ni during an during I shall not E a council ;uch coon 276,1 5.. Cross References Enactment of ordinances, see § 36931 et seq. Notes of Decisions 1. In general Where it was found on sufficient evi- dence that duties of city clerk of city of the sixth class and of city purchasing agent were not incompatible, city clerk was entitled to receive extra pay for per- forming the functions of city purchasing agent.288, �Raymond 2d Bartlett (1947) 175 283. In action by treasurer for fees, the fact that after his taking office, the salary had been changed, would not be a defense un- der Municipal Corporations Act 1883, § 855. Greene v. Town of Lakeport (1925) 239 P. 702, 74 C.A. 1. "Until it became a law, the compensa- tion fixed for the office of city clerk re- mained at the sum at which it had been 19ed by the ordinance of February 9, 920—the sum of $150 per month. It fol- lows, therefore, that the increase in the city clerk's compensation took place after, one $.523 et ated .etv'e, such , ,> ek,eia t=on 145, § 1, as • See Derivation under § and not before, petitioner's election and the commencement of his term of office, and that, as to him or any other incum- bent during the term for which petitioner was elected, the old ordinance measures and determines the compensation to be r easid e er (e 1925)clerk." 235 P. 665, 71 C.A. 234. The percentage allowed to a city treas- urer, under Municipal Corporation Act, § 876, was to be computed on the amount paid out by him from that which had been received. City of Sierra Madre v. Lehmer (1912) 129 P. 287, 20 C.A. 377. Although there is no express authority permitting a city council to regulate the working hours and the place of work of a city clerk, §§ 6702, 40812 and this section implicitly recognized existence of such au- thority in city council. 43 Ops.Atty.Gen. 119, 3-19-64. § 36518. Bonds; clerk and treasurer Before entering upon the duties of their offices, the city clerk and city treasurer shall each execute a bond to the city. Except as other- wise provided, the bonds shall conform to the provisions of this code re- lating to bonds of public officers. The penal sum of the bond shall be in a reasonable amount recommended by the city attorney and fixed by the city council, by resolution, and may be changed during their terms of office. (Added Stats.1949, c. 79, p. 145, § 1; as amended Stats.1965, c. 457, p. 1766, § 1.) Historical Note days before the election or appointment of the officers" in the third sentence. Derivation: Stats.1883, e. 49, p. 267. § 853: Stats.1931, c. 132, p. 16 , Stats; Stats.1933, c. 516, p. 1321, § 1941, c. 156, p. 1194, § 1; Stats.1947, c. 1441, p. 3008, § 1. The 1965 amendment substituted the word "bonds" for "bond" in the second sntence; substituted the words reasonable" for "the" preceding "amount." and the words "resolution, and may be changed during their terms of office" for "ordinance adopted not less than thirty 35 CaI.Code-25 385 Title 4 'aLLaw Re- $, PP• 299. surer is not by a bond dully "per - !e of trens- the oblign- reasurer is taken from dissenting. (1898) 45 .. 461. In therefore sting upon le city of which the a as bailee f the stat - r the mon- al capacity •ested upon ce of these lid not en - of his sur - 3 violently city in his the action. letense, of is sureties. sea upon a which al - re, as uow !e conced- r or em - Div. 3 OFFICERS—GENERAL § 36522 § 36520. Bonds; approval; filing The city council shall approve all bonds. When approved, the clerk's bond shall be filed with the mayor, and other bonds shall be filed with the city clerk. (Added Stats.1949, c. 79, p. 145, § 1.) Derivation: See Derivation under § 38518. Cross References Approval of bonds, see § 1451. Official bonds, generally, see § 1450 et seq. § 36521. Bonds; laws applicable Except as otherwise provided, all laws relating to the official bonds of officers apply to bonds required by this chapter. (Added Stats.1949, c. 79, p. 145, § 1.) Derivation: See Derivation under § 36518. Cross References Official bonds, see § 1450 et seq. § 36522. City money; deposit; report; accounting Any officer or employee collecting or receiving any money belong- ing to, or for the use of, the city shall deposit it immediately in the treasury in the manner prescribed by ordinance for the benefit of the funds to which it belongs. He shall report such deposits to, and settle with, the city clerk, or director of finance if that office has been estab- lished by ordinance, on the first Monday in each month or at such shorter intervals as are prescribed by ordinance. (Added Stats.1949, c. 79, p. 145, § 1, as amended Stats.1959, c. 1294, p. 3445, § 1.) Historical Note The 1959 amendment added the provi- Derivation: Stats.1883, c. 49, p. 279, § cions authorizing settlement with the 885; Stats.1933, c. 516, p. 1339, § 38; director of finance. Stats.1943, c. 184, p.1079, § 2. Cross References Public moneys of city to be deposited with treasurer, see Const. art. 11, § 16. Library References Municipal Corporations 4=0172. C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 546. Notes of Decisions Draper v. Grant (1949) 205 P.2d 399, 91 C.A.2d 566. 1. In general Where money collected by city judge as a fine was deposited with city treasurer u required by statute and thereafter city judge had no authority to withdraw it from treasury, mandamus would not lie against judge to compel such action. Recorder of sixth -class city had duty to receive and to pay over fines, in absence of statutory provision for collection. People v. Floyd (1926) 247 P. 917, 78 C. A. 11. 387 12-2.26 ADMINISTRATION 4 2-3 either to accept, reject or modify the planning commission rec- ommendation ecommendation at a regularly scheduled or adjourned regular meet- ing within sixty (60) days following the close of the public hear- ing, then in that event the city council shall lose jurisdiction and the recommendation of the planning commission shall be of no further force or effect. (Ord. No. N. S. 418, 4 2, 4-4-72) Sec. 2-2.25.. Review of administrative orders or de- cisions. . The Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, pertaining to the time limits for the judicial review of administrative orders or decisions, is hereby made applicable to any person who seeks judicial review of such decision, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.5. (Ord. No. 81-658, f 1, 3-24-81) Sec. 2-2.26. City council waiver of appeal fees. In those instances where the city council, by resolution, deter- mines it in the public interest to accept applications, appeals or petitions without the requisite filing fee, the city shall accept such applications, appeals or petitions through the city council subject to the requirements specified in said resolution. The city council, in making its determination as to whether to waive the required fee, shall only do so based on a finding of demonstrated financial hardship shown by the applicant, appellant or petition- er. In making its determination, the city council may waive all or part of the fee normally charged for the application, appeal or petition to the city council. (Ord. No. 85-812, $ 1, 8-27-85) Sec. 2-3. Bonds of city clerk and city treasurer. Pursuant to section 36518 of the state Government Code, the bonds of the city clerk and the city treasurer are hereby fixed at the following amounts: City treasurer $50,000.00 City clerk 2,000.00 (Ord. No. 62 N. S., 1 1; Ord. No. N. S. 365, 41, 7.15-69) Supp. No. 4-86 12.9 Law Offices of James P. Lough JAMES P. LOUGH March 1, 1988 MEMORANDUM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 30 NORTH RAYMOND AVENUE SURE 708 PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91103 (213) 381-6131 (818) 792-4728 (818) 792-4776 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 8, 1988 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney RE: City Liability Arising Out of Policy of Allowing Vehicles to Encroach Upon Sidewalks Recommended Action: For council to set policy. At the first meeting in February, the City Council directed the City Attorney to look at potential liability under the current policy of allowing cars to encroach over a sidewalk as long as 3 feet are allowed for pedestrian passage. This section possibly conflicts with the Vehicle Code as pointed out in the staff report at the council meeting of February 9, 1988. A copy of the staff report is attached to this memo. The city policy is one where the City Council has basically directed parking enforcement personnel to not ticket vehicles which overhang sidewalks if there is at least 3 feet passage for pedestrians. The question would be whether this contradiction with state law would give rise to any legal liability for the city. After a review of the state tort claims laws, I feel that such a resolution would not give rise to liability. Under Government Code Section 818.2, it states as follows: A public entity is not liable for an injury caused by adopting or failing to adopt an enactment or by failing to enforce any law. This section and its companion section of Government Code �. Section 821 would seemingly exempt the city from liability under this scenario. However, the fact that these immunities exist does not mean that personswould not attempt to use city policy to gain a settlement or to establish liability by invalidating the statutes. If the primary policy goal is to eliminate liability or suits under this city policy, the City Council should repeal its 22/SR0308C -1- REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 8, 1988 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney RE: City Liability Arising Out of Policy of Allowing Vehicles to Encroach Upon Sidewalks policy and allow parking personnel to enforce as they see fit considering the facts and circumstances of each case. In other words, leave the discretion with city personnel. Such a course of action is always safer in that opinions may vary on the application of the code section listed above to the particular circumstances of any case. CONCUR: Respectful lubmitte VIN B. NORT RAFT, City Manager Attachment S P. LOUGH, City Attorney ITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: The policy of using discretion in enforcing encroachment violations is no doubt reasonable in a beach area, but I concur in the City Attorney's concern that the Council giving specific direction can be misinterpreted as failure to enforce state law. I recommend the Council rescind the '84 directive and direct staff to enforce as they see fit considering the facts and circumstances of each case. KBN 22/SR0308C -2- el January 28, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council February 9, 1988 REPORT REGARDING PARKING ENFORCEMENT POLICY PERTAINING TO VEHICLES BLOCKING THE SIDEWALK Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report. Background: At your regularly scheduled meeting of January 26, 1987, the City Council directed staff to submit a report clarifying the department's policy pertaining to vehicles parked on the sidewalk. Our written parking enforcement policy, Section 1 -Responsibility, item 3, states to enforce all "clearly defined violations" observed. Section 3 -General Guidelines, item 2 states Sidewalk Violations -The City Council has directed that "where there is a clearly defined sidewalk and a vehicle is parked so as to not allow 3' for pedestrian access, that vehicle should be cited". The first instruction, stated above, is very clear, it is the officer's responsibility to cite all clearly defined violations that they observe. The second instruction, stated above, is equally as clear. The basis for the second instruction, as stated, is found in the attached minutes from the City Council Meeting of March 13, 1984. We have been following this direction of the Council since that date. Analysis: While it is true that we are a demand/response department i.e. = response to complaints, we also deploy personnel to regular enforcement routes. The officers assigned to parking enforcement concentrate their efforts from Pacific Coast Highway west. The officer assigned to animal control is also assigned to cite any parking violations (that he/she observes) east of Pacific Coast Highway. This is because the officer assigned to animal controls patrols the whole city approximately four or five times during a shift. Our statistics indicate that this person so assigned does, in fact, issue parking citations. The officer assigned to animal control, for the last quarter of 1987, wrote a total of 176 parking citations, for the quarter. Our written policy directs that all officers are to cite any clearly defined violation that they observe, this would include going to and from a complaint/response. 1 IMP The California Vehicle Code, Section 22500F(see attached), prohibits the parking or standing of a vehicle on a sidewalk. It does not specify how much of the vehicle must be parked on the sidewalk. If one observed the letter of the law, two inches could be a citable offense. In March of 1984, when a previous City Council directed us to enforce Section 22500F of the CVC where the parked vehicle will not allow a three foot passage, it is my opinion that they were directing us to follow the spirit/intent of the law, rather than the letter of the law. The City Attorney, at the time, stated that the motion was a reasonable one, at least in the short run. It is very likely that if our officers are passing up vehicles parked on the sidewalk, it is because those vehicles are not encroaching on the three foot passage way. Alternatives: 1. Recind the direction of the to follow the letter of the 2. Direct staff to deploy more Highway. Jo aft Noon General Services Director /9./ Concur: G:e4e * 0!/-4J Alana Mastrian Acting City Manager previous council law. enforcement east 2 and direct staff of Pacific Coast �' HERMOSA BEACH SCHOOL DISTRICT (continued) The Public Hearing was opened. Speaking were: Wayne Smith, 65 Monterey Boulevard - re South School sale - ,against large development, wants low density use, asked for careful consideration. Betty Schweisthal, 21 Durado Place, Rolling Hills Estates - Owner and Operator of St. Clare's Preschool - stated she had a new lease for additional classrooms at South School for an infant care center and a family counseling center. Hank Doerfling, 1011 - 2nd Street - urged further communication with the School District. Frances Parker, 521 Loma Drive - advised Council that the revenue from the sale of the school sites could only be used for capital improvements, not books, teacher's salaries, etc - recommends light industrial. The Public Hearing was closed. ACTION - (1) To reject the School District proposal and uphold the decision of the Planning commission; (2) instruct the City Manager to communicate to the Board of Trustees and Superintendent of the Hermosa Beach School District the City Council'_s interest in a purchase of the entire South School site, the lower playgrounds at Prospect Heights School at Hollowell and Prospect, the Seaview Parkette at 19th and Prospect, for a price not to exceed $3,500,000 (including $100,000 of Z'Berg funds for purchase of Seaview Parkette); and (3) that the City Manager make recommendations regarding potential financing techniques to acquire the school sites. Motion Mayor Brutsch, second Barks AYES - Barks, Schmeltzer, Mayor Brutsch NOES - Webber, Wood PUBLIC HEARING RE ENFORCEMENT POLICY PERTAINING TO VEHICLES BLOCKING THE SIDEWALK AND ALSO TO PERMIT PARKING ON BOTH SIDES OF SECOND AND THIRD STREETS BETWEEN PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND PROSPECT. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dated March 5, 1984. Supplemental informa- tion - see Written Communications from the Public. - The staff report was presented by General Services Director Joan Noon who showed slides of the area under consideration. Fire Chief Simmons stressed the need for enough room for the fire engines to navigate the streets throughout the City and Police Captain Straser indicated the major impact of •parking on both sides of the street would be the safety of the children in the area of the parkette. • -6-. Minutes 3-13-84 2ND AND 3RD STREET PARKING (continued) The Public hearing was cpened. Coming forward to speak were: Roy Palmer, 1909 Bayview - asked Council to address problem City-wide. Alicia Dean, 1122 - 1st Place - stressed need to park in driveway across sidewalk because of ill husband. Steve Cresi, 1148 - 2nd Street - alleged selective enforcement. Tony DeBellis, 629 - 3rd Street - apply standards City-wide and recommended setback building codes be examined. Wayne Smith, 65 Monterey - residential driveways too short so developers can furnish sufficient in -door parking places. Dick Sullivan, 824 - 3rd Street - violations should be cited only on complaint Thomas Anderson, 1144 - 2nd Street - against citing violators and parking on both sides of the street Gene Gennetti, 1025 - 7th Street - suggested policy be established City-wide - his van will not fit in driveway. Don Kissler, 917 - 6th Street - objects to tax to park in your own driveway or in front of it and suggested red -zoning to to alternate parking on both sides of street John Toman, 311 - 27th Street - 65% of City traffic is on 30' wide streets with parking on both sides Dan Johnson, 925 - 3rd Street - new construction on 3rd Street does not have enough setback to open garage doors with car in drive, suggested changing legislation. Rebecca G. Duarte, 929 - 3rd Street - has camper and comatose grandaughter, needs to park in driveway and both sides of street Bonnie Wolfe, 1212 - 3rd Street - inadequate analysis of problem, wheelchairs safer in street, not in favor of parking on both sides of street. Joe Angeletti, 959 - 2nd Street - has vans thus need for parking on both sides of street. Hank Doerfling, 1011 - 2nd Street - parking on both sides of street necessary. ' • Parker Herriott, 224 - 24th Street - over the sidewalks. Roger Creighton, 1101 - 2nd Street pedestrians who must have access the blocking of the sidewalks. against allowing parking - sidewalks belong to - fatalities result from The Public Hearing was closed. PROPOSED ACTION - (1) Establish an interim policy, City-wide, that where there is a clearly defined pedestrian access walkway, vehicles blocking the access to a point where a -- pedestrian cannot safely pass without.going into the street, be cited under Section 22500F of the California Vehicle Code; (2) the City *Attorney to seek an exception to Section 22500F of the California Vehicle Code; and (3) staff to study the feasibility of changing the Building Code -for garage setbacks for new construction. Motion•Barks, second Schmeltzer AYES - Barks NOES - Schmeltzer, Webber, Wood, Mayor Brutsch Motion fails. • -7- Minutes 3-13-84 r +. 2ND AND 3RD STREET PARKING (continued) ACTION - Prepare a resolution asking the Planning Commission to review the appropriate ordinances to determine if the setbacks for parking are currently adequate. Motion Schmeltzer, second Barks AYES - Barks, Schmeltzer, Webber, Mayor Brutsch NOES - Wood FURTHER ACTION - To direct appropriate staff to review parking in that instance where there is parking on one side of the street and the need to move on street cleaning day,to allow parking on the other side of the street. Motion Schmeltzer, second Barks AYES - Barks, Schmeltzer, Webber, Wood, Mayor Brutsch NOES - None PROPOSED ACTION - To direct appropriate staff question of reducing the width of streets and size of pedestrian ways so that at some point it would be possible to allow parking on what public right-of-way and allow parking on both street where appropriate. Motion Schmeltzer, second Barks AYES - Barks, Schmeltzer NOES.- Webber, Wood, Mayor Brutsch Motion fails to review the increase the in the future is now the sides of the General Services Director Noon, upon questioning of Council, advised that the enforcement policy for the past two years, prior to this particular issue, was to respond on a complaint basis only. FURTHER ACTION - To enforce Section 22500 of the California Vehicle Code where the parked vehicle will not allow a three- foot passage. Motion Schmeltzer, second Mayor Brutsch AYES - Schmeltzer, Webber, Mayor Brutsch NOES - Barks, Wood (with stipulation this motion abrogates law) Prior to the vote on the above motion, City Attorney Post ystated that the motion was a reasonable one, at least in. the vshort run. City Manager Meyer expressed concern that this enforcement would cause a dramatic increase in citations. • FINAL ACTION - To direct the Planning Commission to review various alternatives for improving the parking situation throughout the community, one of these alternatives to be extending the width of the sidewalk area and reducing the width of the street. 'Motion Schmeltzer, second Webber AYES - Barks, Schmeltzer, Webber, Mayor Brutsch NOES - Wood -8- Minutes 3-13-84 (b) A local authority may, by ordinance or resolution, adopt additional requirements for the public safety regulating any type of vending from vehicles upon any street. Added Ch. 362, Slats. 1984. Effective January 1, 1985. Amended Ch. 495, Slats. 1985. Effective January 1, 1986. CHAPTER 9. STOPPING, STANDING, AND PARKING Prohibited Stopping, Standing, or Parking 22500. No person shall stop, park, or leave standing any vehicle whether attended or unattended, except wnen necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic ori`n compliance with the irections of a peace officer or official traffic•' con ro evice, in any of the tollowing places: (a) Within annersection except adjacent to curbs as may be permitted by local ordinance. (b) On a crosswalk, except that a bus engaged as a common carrier or a taxicab may stop in an unmarked crosswalk to load or unload passengers when authorized by the legislative body of any city pursuant to ordinance. (c) Between a safety zone and the adjacent right-hand curb or within the area between the zone and the curb as may be indicated by a sign or red paint on the curb, which sign or paint was erected or placed by local authorities pursuant to ordinance. (d) Within 15 feet of the driveway entrance to any fire station. This paragraph does not apply to any vehicle owned or operated by a fire department and clearly marked as a fire department vehicle. (e) In front of a public or private driveway, except that a bus engaged ,is a common carrier, schoolbus, or a taxicab may stop to load or unload passengers when authorized by local authorities pursuant to ordinance. In unincorporated territory, where the entrance of a private road or driveway is not delineated by an opening in a curb or by other curl) construction, so much of the surface of the ground as is paved, surfaced, or otherwise plainly marked by vehicle use as a private road or drivessay entrance, shall constitute a driveway. (f) Onasidewalk except electric carts when authorized by localordinance, as sppecifiedin Section 21114.5. -�g�Alongsidc or opposite aiiy street & higliway excavation or obstruction when such stopping, standing, or parking would obstruct traffic. (h) On the roadway side of any vehicle stopped, parked, or standing at the curb or edge of a highway. (i) Except as provided under Section 22500.5, alongside curb spice authorized for the loading and unloading of passengers of a bus engaged a a common carrier in local transportation when indicated by a sign or red paint on the curb erected or painted by local authorities pursuant to ordinance. (j) In a tube or tunnel, except vehicles of the authorities in charge, being used in the repair, maintenance, or inspection of the facility. (k) Upon a bridge, except vehicles of the authorities in charge, being used in the repair, maintenance, or inspection of the facility, and except that buses engaged as a common carrier in local transportation may stop to load or unload passengers upon a bridge where sidewalks are provided, when authorized by local authorities pursuant to ordinance, and except that local authorities pursuant to ordinance or the Department of Transportation pursuant to order, within their respective jurisdictions, may permit parking on bridges having sidewalks and shoulders of sufficient width to permit parking without interfering with the normal movement of traffic on the roadway. Local authorities may, by ordinance or resolution, permit parking» on such bridges on state highways in their respective jurisdictions if the ordinance or resolution is first approved in writing by the Department of Transportation. Parking shall not be permitted unless there are signs in place, as may be necessary, to indicate the provisions of local ordinances or the order of the Department of Transportation. (1) In front of that portion of 'a curb which has been cut down, lowered, or constructed to provide wheelchair accessibility to the sidewalk and which is designated for wheelchair access by either a sign or red paint on the curb pursuant to an ordinance of the local authority. Amended Ch. 1661, Stats. 1963. Effective September 20, 1963. Amended Ch. 1092, Stats. 1965. Effective September 17, 1965. Supersedes Ch. 85 and 295. Amended Ch. 490, Stats. 1972. Effective March 7, 1973. Amended Ch. 545, Stilts. 1974. EffectiveJanuary 1, 1975. Amended Ch. 822, Stats. 1982. Effective anuary 1, 1983. Amended Ch. 852, Stats. 1984. Effective January 1, 1985. • Additional Prohibited Stopping, Standing, or Parking: Fire Lane 22500.1. In addition to Section 22500, no person shall stop, park, or leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the directions of a peace officer or official traffic control device along the edge of any highway, at any curb, or in any location in a publicly or privately owned or operated off-street parking facility, designated as a fire lane by the fire department or fire district with jurisdiction over the area in which the place is located. The designation shall be indicated (1) by a sign posted immediately adjacent to, and visible from, the designated place clearly stating in letters not less than one inch in height that the place is a fire lane, (2) by outlining or painting the place in red and, in contrasting color, marking the place with the words "FIRE LANE", which are clearly visible from a vehicle, or (3) by a red curb or red paint on the edge of the roadway upon which is clearly marked the words "FIRE LANE". Added ('h. 328, Slats. 1983. Effective January 1, 1984. Amended Ch. 129, Slats. 1984. Effective May 21, 1984, by terms of an urgency clause. Schoolbuses: Loading and Unloading of Passengers 22500.5. Upon agreement between a transit system operating buses engaged as common carriers in local transportation and a public school district, local authorities may, by ordinance, permit schoolbuses owned by, or operated under contract for, that public school district to stop for the loading or unloading of passengers alongside any or all curb spaces designated for the loading or unloading of passengers of the transit system buses. Added Ch. 822, Stats. 1982. Effective January 1, 1983. local Regulation of State Highways 22501. No ordinance enacted by local authorities pursuant to subdivisions (e) and (k) of Section 22500 or Section 22507.2 shall become effective as to any state highway without prior submission to and approval by the Department of Transportation in the same manner as required by Section 21104. Nothing contained in this section and Section 22500 shall be construed as authorizing local authorities to enact legislation which is contrary to the provisions of Sections 22512 and 25301. Amended Ch. 1500, Stats. 1965. Effective September 17, 1965. Amended Ch. 545, Stats. 1974. Effectiveanuary 1, 1975. Amended Ch. 158, Stats. 1980. Effective June 11, 1980 by terms of an urgency clause. Curb Parking 22502. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter every vehicle stopped or parked upon a roadway where there are adjacent curbs shall be stopped or parked with the right-hand wheels of such vehicle parallel with and within 18 inches of the right-hand curb, except that motorcycles shall be parked with at least one wheel or fender touching the right-hand curb. Where no curbs or barriers bound any roadway, right-hand parallel parking is required unless otherwise indicated. (b) The provisions of subdivision (a) or (e) do not apply to a commercial vehicle if a variation from the requirements of subdivision (a) or (e) is reasonably necessary to accomplish the loading or unloading of merchandise March 7, 1988 City Council Meeting March 8, 1988 Mayor and Members of the City Council REAPPOINTMENT OF INGLEWOOD FIRE TRAINING AUTHORITY DELEGATE & ALTERNATE Rgcpmm_nded Action 1. Declare by a 2/3 vote that the need to take action on this item arose after the posting of the agenda. The issue arose on Monday, March 7, 1988. 2. Appoint a or $ m s as delegate and MaYor,pro.�em Rosenberger as alternate to the glewood,Fire�.train ng Authprity Comms ion. This will enable Mayor Simpson to attend the ng ewood Fire Training Authority Meeting on Wednesday, March 16, 1988, immediately following the South Bay Sanitation District Meeting. Baokgr9und On December 15, 1987, the City Council reorganized and committee appointments were made. Mayor Simpson and Mayor Pro Tem Rosenberger were appointed the delegate and alternate to the South Bay Cities Sanitation District. Councilmembers Williams and Sheldon were appointed the delegate and alternate to the Inglewood Fire Training Authority. On Monday, March 7, 1988, the City received notice that there will be a meeting of the Fire Training Authority on Wednesday, March 16, immediatgly fofl outing the Sanitation District Meeting. It is apparent that the delegates should be the same due to the scheduling of succeeding meetings. I will try to make a notation that these appointments should be the same in the future. Noted: Kev Northera ty Manager a hleen Midstokke, City Clerk MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE HERMOSA BEACH VEHICLE PARK- ING DISTRICT #1 held on Tuesday, October 27, 1987 at the hour of 11:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman John Cioffi - Present Commissioner Etta'Simpson - Present Commissioner Tony De Bellis - Present "Commissioner Jim Rosenberger - Present Commissioner June Williams - Present A. Consent Calendar 1) Approval of minutes of August 25, 1987 meeting Action: To approve minutes of August 25, 1987 Motion Commissioner Cioffi, second De Bellis, so ordered. B. Discussion regarding validation program Proposal from the Business Relations Sub -Committee that the VPD provide free validations to the merchants for the month of January. Said validations to be unique, to be distinguished from the normal validation stamps and and used for the month of January only. VPD to distri- bute the stamps, and to credit Allright Parking for the stamps used during that month. Action: To accept the recommendation of the Business Relations Sub -Committee. Motion Commissioner Rosenberger, second DiBellis, so ordered. C. Recommendation to direct staff to negotiate amendments to contract with Allright Parking. Action: To direct the Business Relations Sub -Committee to meet with representatives of Allright Parking to 1) review their performance under the present contract, and 2) req- uest a report from Allright, recommending what rates should be applicable for the next operating year, in order to review and adjust those rates and fees. ADJOURNMENT: 11:05 P.M. 1 j7a February 16, 1988 Honorable Chairman and Members Vehicle Parking District of the Vehicle Parking District Meeting of March 8, 1988 RECOMMENDATION TO ESTABLISH A POLICY REGARDING THE CITY CONTINUING TO SHARE THE COST OF MERCHANT VALIDATIONS Recommendation: It is recommended, by the Business Relations Subcommittee of the City Council, that the Vehicle Parking District Commission establish an on-going policy pertaining to sharing the cost of merchant validations. Background: In March of 1987, the cost of validations increased to 20 cents per stamp or $8.00 per book. This increase was automatic as provided by contract. As a result of several meetings between the Business Relations Subcommittee and the Downtown Merchant's Association, at which the merchants expressed their displeasure with the rate increase, the VPD Commission took the following actions; 1) At your regularly scheduled meeting of March 10, 1987 the Commission voted to give two for one validations for the months of April, May and June. The merchant paid $6.00 for one book, the City absorbed the addit- ional $2.00 per book and Allright Parking contributed the second book. 2 3 ) At your regularly scheduled meeting of August 25, 1987 the Commission voted to reinstate the $2.00 subsidy, per book, commencing September 1, 1987 though November 30, 1987. This action was taken as a result, again, of the merchants dissatisfaction with the rate increase. DECEMBER FREE PARKING At your regularly scheduled meeting of October 27, 1987 the Commission voted to provide free validations for the month of January, 1988. For your review, we have attached documentation, see background material. It was brought to the attention of the subcommittee that at the beginning of February, when the merchants were responsible for purchasing their validations at full price, Allright was still under the impression that the City was continuing to pay the additional $2.00 per book. The minutes reflect that there was no 1 12b authorization for this assistance to continue therefore, the subcommittee advised Allright to charge full price (20 cents) for the merchant validations until the matter could be resolved. The validation stamps are due to be increased again on March 1, 1988 to 25 cents per stamp or $10.00 per book. There are two additional increases scheduled in the contract, over the next two years, to a total of 35 cents per stamp or $14.00 per book. However, per the Commissioners direction, the subcommittee has met with Allright Parking to discuss several issues pertaining to the contract. The contractor has recommended a freeze on the price of validations at $8.00 per book/20 cents a stamp (see attached letter from Roger Schneider). Analysis: The only analysis that staff can offer is the effect that previous action taken has had on revenue. The average revenue, from the sale of validation stamps, over the past few years has been approximately $12,000 per year. For this fiscal year, July 1, 1987 through February 11, 1988, the revenue from the sale of validations is $ 37 During the month of January 1988, th7ew a 681.225 books of validations used at a cost of $5,449.80. The City absorbed this cost in conjunction with the action taken to provide free validations to the merchants for the month of January. It is the opinion of staff that twenty cents per each half hour of parking, to provide a customer with free parking, is not unreasonable. The Vehicle Parking District Commission has made many changes, over the past two or three years, to accomodate the merchants and encourage shoppers to come to Hermosa Beach. These changes have not seemed to make any impact on the business climate or resulting sales tax revenue. Staff would recommend that the Commission take no further action in this matter. Jo a 'Noon General Services Director Concur: even B. ort• raft City Manager .=1 LLJ7.1& 3 PALIEJT ALLRIGHT CAL., INC. / 610 SOUTH MAIN, SUITE 217 / LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90014 213/627-5481 February 18, 1988 Ms. Joan Noon General Services Director City Hermosa Beach Civic Center 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 Dear Joan, In response to your letter dated January 25, 1988 I have pre- pared a proposal regarding parking rates and validations for the fiscal year 1988-89 year: I. PARKING RATES - After extensive analysis of cash tickets for the prior year, Allright Parking recommends the following rate structures according to the following time periods: a. April 1 - Sept. 30 b. October 1 - March 31 $1.00 each half hour 12.00 maximum $.50 each half hour 5.00 maximum II. VALIDATIONS - After careful review of the past year. Allright Parking recommends a continuation of the current rate of $8.00 per book. This "freeze" allows the City of Hermosa Beach the option to continue its $2.00 per book rebate or allow this cost to pass to each merchant. III. HOURS OF OPERATION A. Summer schedule (April 1 - September 30) 1. Sunday -Thursday 8:00 A.M. - 12:00 Midnight 2. Friday and Saturday 8:00 A.M. - 3:00 A.M. Ms. Joan Noon February 18, 1988 B. Winter Schedule (October 1 - March 31 1. Sunday 2. Monday - Tuesday 3. Wednesday - Thursday 4, Friday and Saturday 10:00 A.M. 10:00 A.M. 10:00 A.M. 10:00 A.M. Page 2 - Midnight - 6:00 P.M. - 12:00 A.M. - 3:00 A.M. Allright Parking recommends a flexibility in closing hours to permit collection of monies due from late departing customers. Allright Parking agrees to maintain set opening hours to the best of our ability. We further recommend the use of our own standardized signs detailing hours of operation as stated above. In summary, I wish to emphasize that our recommended rate changes were the direct result of careful analysis of CASH TICKETS ONLY. A separate analysis of validated tickets showed an average charge of 10 cents per ticket above the validated time, indicating that the time limits for regular and extended validations are properly set. I hope this brief letter satisfies your needs. If you should need additional information or have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely yours, ALLRIGHT CAL INC. oger A. Schneider Vice President RAS:js BAcgcRavmn 41arFRiAc October 7, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members Vehicle Parking District of the Vehicle Parking District Meeting of October 27, 1987 RECOMMENDATION REGARDING REVIEW OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN ALLRIGHT PARKING AND CITY Recommendation: It is recommended that the Vehicle Parking District Commission, direct the Business Relations Sub -Committee of the City Council, to meet with representatives of Allright Parking to (1) review their performance under the present contract and (2) request a report from Allright, recommending what rates should be applicable for the next operating year, in order to review and adjust those rates and fees. Background: At your regularly scheduled meeting of August 25, 1987, the Commission directed the Business Relations Sub -Committee to meet with staff re. developing a strategy for negotiating contract amendments. This meeting was held on September 10th. At this time, staff was directed to poll the rest of the commissioners to try to determine what contract concerns they might have and what direction future negotiations should take. Analysis: The input received from individual commissioners prompts staff to make the above recommendation. The current amended contract has been in effect for approximately eighteen (18) months and to date, we have not conducted a formal performance evaluation. The contract provides for the requested review and adjustment annually, upon receipt of a report from the contractor. This provision of the contract has not been exercised. It would then seem prudent, at this time, to meet with the contractor, to review his performance under the contract. If the Commission 1 11 c approves the recommendation, staff will request Allright Parking to submit a report. Joa Noon General Services Director artin im City Manager 2 October 8, 1987 Honorable Chairman and Members Vehicle Parking District of the Vehicle Parking District Meeting of October 27, 1987 PROPOSAL FROM THE BUSINESS RELATIONS SUB -COMMITTEE, TO GIVE FREE MERCHANT VALIDATION FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY Recommendation: The Business Relations Sub -Committee of the City Council has recommended that the VPD purchase and provide free validation stamps to the merchants, for the month of January. Said validations to be unique, to be distinguished from the normal validation stamps and used for the month of January only. VPD to distribute the stamps, and to credit Allright Parking for the stamps used during that month. Background: On September 10, 1987, a meeting was held between the members of the Business Relations Sub -Committee and staff for the purpose of reviewing the parking lot contract. During that meeting there was discussion in general, regarding validation. In reviewing the validation program, over the past year and the conciliations made for the merchants, with respect to validation, the issue of free parking for the month of January arose. The merchants requested two hours of free parking in the lots for the month of January, 1987. The Vehicle Parking District Commissioners, at their regularly scheduled meeting of December 16, 1986, voted to grant the request of the merchants. Allright Parking agreed to accomodate this request, on a one time basis only. Analysis: It is my understanding that the committee's recommendation is based on the following; a. A desire to encourage customer shopping in the downtown area, for the after Christmas sales, in the month of January. b. A desire to assist and cooperate with the merchants by offering free customer parking at no cost to the merchant. c. A desire to promote validated parking. 1 11i The contractor has advised the committee that they would not be willing to close the lots during the month of January 1988, due to the lost income and personnel problems caused by the January 1987 closing. The present contract provides for the lots to be closed during the month of December only. Based on an average number of books (821), issued to the merchants over a 12 month period begininng in May 1986, it will cost the City approximately $6,500.00 to subsidize this proposal. Assuming that the majority of the Vehicle Parking District Commissioners are in agreement with the, goals of the Businiess Relations Sub -Committee, the recommendation appears to be viable. Jo Noon General Services Director Concur.; GaylgJT. Martin Interim City Manager Noted for Fiscal Impact: £&c a f -x cx.,c� Viki Copeland, Finance Administrator MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE HERMOSA BEACH VEHICLE PARK- ING DISTRICT #1 held on Tuesday, August 25, 1987 at the hour of 10:35 p.m., ROLL CALL Chairman John Cioffi - Absent Commissioner Etta Simpson - Present Commissioner Tony De Bellis - Present Commissioner Jim Rosenberger - Present Commissioner June Williams - Present A. Consent Calendar 1) Approval of minutes of August 11, 1987 meeting Action: To approve minutes. Motion Commissioner Rosenberger, second De Bellis, so ordered. B. Discussion re. validation program Commissioner Rosenber and Commissioner De Bellis gave a recap of the last meeting between the Business Relations Sub -Committee and the Downtown Merchants Association. They indicated that the current problem was the cost of validations. The vals have been increased, according to contract, from 15 cents to 20 cents each, with subsequent increases due each March, at 5 cents per year, to a max- imum of 35 cents. Commissioner Rosenberger_ stated that he felt that this charge is unreasonable and needed to be dealt with in terms of the contract. Action: To reinstate the 5 cent subsidy commencing Sept- ember 1, 1987 thru November 30, 1987, Business Relations Sub -Committee to meet with staff re. developing a strategy for negotiating contract amendments with Allright Parking and return to the VPD Commission to seek direction to to negotiate with the contractor. Motion Commissioner De Bellis, second Rosenberger, so ordered. ADJOURNMENT: 11.10 p.m. 11a • Honorable Chairman and Members of the Vehicle Parking District February 27, 1987 Vehicle Parking District Meeting of March 10, 1987 RECOMMENDATION TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS RELATIONS SUB -COMMITTEE AND THE DOWNTOWN MERCHANT'S ASSOCIATION Recommendation: It is recommended that the Vehicle Parking District Commissioners consider the following proposal as agreed upon by the City Council Business Relations Sub -Committee and the Downtown Merchant's Association, re. Parking Validations ( the rate having been increased from 15 cents to 20 cents per stamp, effective 3/1/87): 1. For a three month period, commencing April 1 and ending June 30, for each purchase of a 40 ticket book of parking validations, merchants will receive one free 40 -ticket book, to be provided by Allright Parking Company. 2. Commencing March 11 and continuing through June 30, the merchant will be charged $6 for the $8 validation book and Allright Parking will be entitled to a credit of $2.26, from the City, for each $6 received from the merchant. 3. Permit all merchants, on the periphery of the District, from 10th Street on the south to 16th Street on the north and east to Manhattan Avenue, to participate in the validation program, for the period of this experi- ment. Background: As you are aware, the Business Relations Sub -Committee and the Downtown Merchant's Association have been meeting over the past year in an effort to solve some of the problems perceived by the merchants. The last meeting was held on Thursday, February 26, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. While there was an extensive agenda (see attached) presented by the merchants, the only issue that was discussed was the validation program, item 7. The VPD Commissioners, at their regularly scheduled meeting of February 25, 1986, approved a validation stamp rate increase of 5 cents per year, for the next five years, commencing March 1, 1986. As of March 1, 1987, the validation stamps will cost 20 cents a piece. - 1 - Analysis: The current request from the Downtown Merchant's Association was to A. Reduce winter validations to 5 cents/half hour and summer validations to 15 cents/half hour and B. Summer rates to begin Memorial Day weekend and end Labor Day weekend. After much discussion, an agreement was made which resulted in the above recommendation. In consideration of the above agreement, the Downtown Merchants Association agrees to (1) distribute to its merchants a minimum of 50 store -window signs indicating that the merchants validate, and (2) agree to increase the number of merchants participating in the validation program by 25%. The goal, of the meeting participants, is to increase utilization of downtown parking lots by shoppers. The results of the proposed program is scheduled to be reviewed, upon it completion, by the Downtown Parking Committee and the Business Relations Sub -Committee. As previously stated, per contract as of March 1, 1987, the validations stamps increased to 20 cents a piece or $8.00 per book of 40 stamps. What is proposed here, is that the merchant will continue to pay 15 cents per stamp or $6.00 per book of 40 stamps, from March 11 through June 30, 1987. The difference of $2.00 plus the cost of printing the book, 26 cents, will be credited by the City toward Allright's next month rent. oon, Parking Administrator Concur: vv Gr ory'T. Meyer Ci y Manager Noted for fiscal impact: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE HERMOSA BEACH VEHICLE PARK- ING DISTRICT #1 held on Tuesday, March 10, 1987 at the hour of 9:58 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman John Cioffi - Absent Acting Chairman Etta Simpson - Present Commissioner Tony De Bellis - Present Commissioner Jim Rosenberger - Present Commissioner June Williams - Present A. Consent Calendar 1) Approval of minutes of February 24, 1987 meeting. Action: To approve minutes. Motion Commissioner De Bellis, second Williams, so ordered. 2) Recommendation re. two for one validations for the months of April, May and June. Action: To approve staff recommendation. Motion Commissioner De Bellis, second Rosenberger, so ordered. ADJOURNMENT: 10:18 p.m. 14 aro