The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02/23/88"It's a strange world of language in which skating on thin ice can get you into hot water." -Franklin P. Jones AGENDA REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, February 23, 1988 - Council Chambers, City Hall Closed Session - 6:00 p.m. Regular Session - 7:30 p.m. MAYOR Etta Simpson MAYOR PRO TEM Jim Rosenberger COUNCILMEMBERS Roger Creighton Chuck Sheldon June Williams All Council meetings are open Complete agenda materials are the Police Department, Public Clerk. CITY CLERK Kathleen Midstokke CITY TREASURER Gary L. Brutsch CITY MANAGER Kevin B. Northcraft CITY ATTORNEY James P. Lough to the public. PLEASE ATTEND. available for public inspection in Library and the Office of the City PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: CITIZEN COMMENTS r.Qr Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any items on the Consent Calendar may do so at this time. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following routine matters will be acted upon by one vote to approve with the majority con- sent of the City Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless good cause is shown by a member prior to the roll call vote. (Items removed will be considered under Agenda Item 3.) (a) Approval of Minutes: Special meeting of the City Coun- cil held on February 8, 1988. Recommended Action: To approve minutes. (b) Approval of Minutes: Regular meeting of the City Coun- cil held on February 9, 1988. Recommended Action: To approve minutes. (c) Demands and Warrants: February 23, 1988. Recommended Action: To approve Nos. through Demands and Warrants inclusive. (d) Tentative Future Agenda Items. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (e) Building and Safety Department Monthly Activity Report: January, 1988. Recommended Action: To receive and file. Community Resourc=s D=partment Monthly Activ ty Re ort: January, 1988. (j) Recommended Action: o receive and Finance Department Monthly Activity Report: January, 1988. Recommended Action: To receive and file. Fire Department Monthly Activity Report: January, 1988. Recommended Action: To receive and file. General Services Department Monthly Activity Report: January, 1988. Recommended Action: To receive and file. Personnel Department Monthly Activity Report: January, 1988. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (k) Planning Department Monthly Activity Report: January, 1988. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (1) Police Department Monthly Activity Report: January, 1988. Recommended Action: To receive, and file. • (n) Public Works Department Monthly � Januar , 1988. � �� Ree ended Actio , �'o receiv Activity Report: and file. Monthly Revenue Report: January, 1988. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (r) (s) Monthly Expenditure Report: January, 1988. Recommended Action: To receive and file. City Treasurer's Report: January, 1988. Recommended Action: To receive and file. Award of bid for lease/purchase of the equipment and software for the stand alone dispatch and records sys- tems. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wis- niewski dated February 9, 1988. Recommended 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 Marquette Lease Services, Inc.; 3) authorize City Manager to enter into lease agreement with Mar- quette Lease Services, Inc. for the lease/purchase of computer and communications equipment and software necessary for dispatch and records management. Report and recommendation concerning records of hazard- ous and/or toxic material spills in the City of Hermosa Beach. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated February 10, 1988. Recommended Action: To receive and file report. Cable TV Board summary report and resignation of two board members. Memorandum from General Services Direc- tor Joan Noon dated February 10, 1988. Recommended 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. Informational update and progress report on planned withdrawal from the South Bay Regional Communications Authority. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve sniew$ki d , / r/ 1988 400c eS:;19if Recommen ed Ac ion: To receive and file report. Mf `moi e Claim for Damages: James Jones, represented by Howard /so A. Kapp, Esq., 315 So. Beverly Drive, Suite 406, Beverly Hills, CA 90212. Recommended Action: To deny claim and refer to City's Claims Administrator. (v) Authorization to solicit bids for Police Department re- model, first floor (CIP 87-606). Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated February 11, 1988. Recommended Action: To 1) approve plans and specifica- tions for Police Dept. 1st floor remodel including dis- patch room, 2) authorize call for bids, and 3) authorize staff to issue addenda as necessary. (w) Authorization to solicit bids for traffic signal im- provements (CIP 85-138). Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated February 11, 1988. Recommended Action: To authorize staff to advertise for l)9;1;;Id� bids for Traffic Signal Improvements - CIP 85-138, and 7;1 issue addenda as necessary. /• (x) Preliminary Design Report for Sanitary Sewer Design (CIP 87-405). Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated February 10, 1988. Recommended 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. Recommended 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 Maintenance, Inc. for the 3 -months remaining (April, May & June) remaining in FY 87-88. ***************************************************************** Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any item listed under Consent Ordinances and Resolutions may do so at this time. ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** MOTION TO WAIVE FURTHER READING: After the City Clerk has read the title to any resolution or or- dinance on tonight's agenda, the further reading thereof be waived, reserving and guaranteeing to each Councilmember the right to demand the reading of any such resolution or ordinance in regular order. ***************************************************************** 2. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS (a) 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 - 4.- waiver of further reading and adoption. (Continued from January 26, 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.) (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 waiver of further reading and adoption. (d) 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. (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. (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. F 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. 4. (a) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. Letter from Pam English, 28150 Alaminos ed February 9, 198. . a to in guide beach. ,mss! f1 Recommended Action: Refer t port back to Council. '1 sta Dr., Saugus dat- gs ^n; e ••• /0/fr re iew and re - (b) Letter from Ted Campbell, 102 Third St., Hermosa Beach dated February 17, 1988 re. parking pepnits for people outside of impact zone Recommended Action: Refer to st f for report back to Council. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. 5. CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR AT&SF PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE REQUEST. Memorandum from Plannin Director Michael Sch a h dat r February 17, 1988. --- • `er REZONE OF AREAS 1, 1A AND 1B FROM R-3 TO R-2. Memoran- dum from Planning Director Njichael Schubach dated February 16, 19884 TEXT AMENDMENT REGAARDING DEFINITION OF "RESTAURANT" AND "SNACK BAR", CUP REQUIRED. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael S hubachted February 16, 1988. 4mIlla **************************** **************************** Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any of the remaining items on the agenda may request to do so at the time the item is called. r *************************************************************MSK MUNICIPAL MATTERS f 41"4"1—C er7 le '41° oar A. MID -YEAR BUDGET REVIEW - 1987-88 FISCAL YEAR. CSIP Memorandum from Acting City Manager Alana Mastrian c,� and Finance Administrator Viki Co eland dated February 18, 1988. ii/ez A• �� Recommended Action: To receive and file this and adopt attached revised Budget Summary by Fund (E hibit A-1&2), incl ive of all revisions to Revenues (Exhibit B), Appro riations (Exhibit C-1&2), Transfers (Exhibit D), and Designations (Exhibit E). B. STATUS REPORT ON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS. Memorandum from Public Works Director Antho y An- , tich dated February 16, 1988.E Recommended Action: To receive and file. 9. BALLOT MEASURES - SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION JUNE 7, 1988. Memorandum from City Attorney James P. Lough dat- / AN` it0044 F bruary 17, 1988. /4ADj A) 4% U.U.T. INCREASE EARMARKED FOR PURCHASE OF RAIL- C. g ,,,e, ROAD RIGHT -O -WAY A%111:2? D .BIL ORE PARK,TNI ��1ZBY44M4# HANG D ONLY W :H A VOTE OF PEOPLE. SALE OR TRADE OF BILTMORE SITE, HIGHEST AND BEST USE, FOR PURCHASE OF RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. Recommended Action: For council to decide whether to place these matters on the June ballot. 10. CALLING OF SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION - CONSOLIDATED WITH COUNTY ELECTIONS JUNE 7, 1988. A. RESOLUTIONS Recommended Action: To adopt the following resolutions: 1) Calling and giving notice of the holding of a Special Municipal Election June 7, 1988. 2) Requesting Board of Supervisors to consolidate. ), Authorizing certain members to file written arguments and directing City Attorney to write impartial analysis. 4) Providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments. B. BUDGET - SPECIALZUNICIPAL ELECTION JUNE 7, 1988. Recommended Actions: 1) Approve budget and authorize transfer from Pro- spective Expenditures into Elections Department. 2) Adopt resolution fixing the compensation to be received by the City Clerk for the Special Municipal Election June 7, 1988. C. PLACEMENT OF MEASURES ON BALLOT Recommended Action: City Council to approve a preference for the placement of the measures on the ballot. 11. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER (a) Participation in Medal of Valor Luncheon. Memorandum from Acting City Manager Alana M. Mastrian dated February 17, 1988. Recommended Action: City Council to make a policy decision. 12. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL Tom Sullivan 10-K run, Sunday, March 13, 1988. Memoran- dum from Acting City Manager Alana M. Mastrian datd February 17, 1988. Recommended Action: City Council to make a policy deci- sion on individual sponsorship of Mayor Simpson. Circulation element status report and proposed goals and policies workshop dates. Memorandum from Planning Di- rector Michael Schubach dated February 16, 1988. Recommended Action: To schedule City Council/ ultant workshops on Th sdays, ether March 3, or 17, 1988. - 7 - (c) (d) 13. Requests (a) Appraisal of Biltmore Site./vi449 Status report re. railroad ri ht -of -way. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL L-1 4 from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: Consideration of resolution re. future Planning Commis- sion decisions to unmerge lots. Recommended Action: 1) Vote by Council whether to discuss this item; 2) refer to staff for a report back on a future agenda; or 3) resoluion o matter by Coun- cil ti •. tonight. CS -1' frs."'a APPEARANCE OF INTE STED CITIZENS Citizens wishing to address the City Cox? 1 on Dnp ma er ~i in the jurisdiction of the Council not elsewhere considered on the agenda may do so at this time. Citizens with comments regarding City management or departmental operations are requested to sub- mit those comments in writing to the City Manager. ADJOURNMENT 4040fq-e7;2:1. ��"feZ..-4/(a/1.71g / �� 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 WELCOME! By your presence in the City Council Chambers you are participating in the process of representative government. Your government welcomes your interest and hopes you will attend the City Council meetings often. CITY VISION A less dense, more family oriented pleasant low profile, financially sound community comprised of a separate and distinct business district and residential neighborhoods that are afforded full municipal services in which the maximum costs are borne by visitor/users; led by a City Council which accepts a stewardship role for community resources and displays a willingness to explore innovative alternatives, and moves toward public policy leadership in attitudes of full ethical awareness. This Council is dedicated to learning from the past, and preparing Hermosa Beach for tomorrow's challenges today. Adopted by City Council on October 23, 1986 NOTE: There is no smoking allowed in the Council Chambers THE HERMOSA BEACH FORM OF GOVERNMENT Hermosa Beach has the Council -Manager form of government, with a City Manager ap- pointed by and responsible to the City Council for carrying out Council policy. The Mayor and Council decide what is to be done. The City Manager, operating through the entire City staff, does it. This separation of policy making and hdministration is considsered the most economical and efficient form of City government in the United States today. GLOSSARY The following explanations may help you to understand the terms found on most agen- das for meetings of the Hermosa Beach City Council. Consent Items A compilation of all routine matters to be acted upon by one vote; approval re- quires a majority affirmative vote. Any Councilmember can remove an item from this listing thereby causing that matter to be considered under the category Consent Cal- endar items Removed For Separate Discussion. Public Hearings Public Hearings are held on certain matters as required by law. The Hearings afford the public the opportunity to appear and formally express their views regarding the matter being heard. Additionally, letters may be filed with the City Clerk, prior to the Hearing. Hearings Hearings are held on other matters of public importance for which there is no legal requirement to conduct an advertised Public Hearing. Ordinances An ordinance is a law that regulates government revenues and/or public conduct. All ordinances require two "readings". The first reading introduces the ordinance into the records. At least one week later Council may adopt, reject or hold over the ordinance to a subsequent meeting. Regular ordinances take effect 30 days after the second reading. Emergency ordinances are governed by different provisions and waive the time requirements. Written Communications The public, members of advisory boards/commissions or organizations may formally communicate to or make a request of Council by letter; said letters should be filed with the City Clerk by the Wednesday preceeding the Regular City Council meeting. Miscellaneous Items and Reports - City Manager The City Manager coordinates departmental reports and brings items to the attention of, or for action by the City Council. Verbal reports may be given by the City Manager regarding items not on the agenda, usually having arisen since the agenda was prepared on the preceding Wednesday. Miscellaneous Items and Reports - City Council Members of the City Council may place items on the agenda for consideration by the full Council. Other Matters - City Council These are matters that come to the attention of a Council member after publication of the Agenda. Oral Communications from the Public - Matters of an Urgency Nature Citizens wishing to address the City Council on an urgency matter not elsewhere con- sidered on the agenda may do so at this time. Parking Authority The Parking Authority is a financially separate entity, but is operated as an inte- gral part of the City government. Vehicle Parking District No. 1 The City Council also serves as the Vehicle Parking District Commission. It's pur- pose is to oversee the operation of certain downtown -parking lots 9nd otherwise pro- mote public parking in the central business district. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Monday, February 8, 1988 at the hour of 6:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Councilmember Roger Creighton ROLL CALL Present: Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Williams, Mayor Simpson Absent: None The Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach adjourned to a Closed Executive Session at 6:05 P.M. pursuant to Government Code Section 54945.9, Potential Litigation, and for discussion of the potential AT&SF railroad right-of-way acquisition. ADJOURNMENT The Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach adjourned at 8:00 P.M. to a Regular Meeting to be held on Tuesday, February 9, 1988 at the hour of 7:30 P.M. Deputy City Clerk 1a February 9, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of February 23, 1988 AWARD OF BID FOR LEASE/PURCHASE OF THE EQUIPMENT AND SOFTWARE FOR THE STAND ALONE DISPATCH AND RECORDS SYSTEMS RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Rescind the award of bid to Security Pacific Merchant Bank for the lease/purchase of the equipment and software. 2. Award the bid for lease/purchase to Marquette Lease Services, Inc. 3. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a lease agreement with Marquette Lease Services, Inc. for the lease/purchase of computer and communications equipment and software necessary for dispatch and records management. BACKGROUND: At the regular City Council meeting of May 26, 1987, Council instructed staff to prepare reports and recommendations regarding withdrawal from South Bay Regional Public Communications Authority (RCC). At the regular Council meeting of October 27, 1987, Council adopted a resolution of intent to withdraw from RCC; approved an agreement with California Water Service Company for location of a radio transmitter facility, and directed staff to obtain all necessary equipment to begin in-house dispatch and records manage- ment on July 1, 1988. Council authorized solicitation of bids for acquisition and lease of the necessary equipment at the regular meeting of City Council on January 12, 1988. Bids were approved and awarded at the regular City Council meeting on January 26, 1988. ANALYSIS: When staff began calling the companies which were not awarded a bid, it was discovered that there had been a misinterpretation, by staff, of the bid from Marquette Lease Services, Inc. Marquette listed the lowest interest rate, but there was a paragraph in their bid addressing a buydown of 2.25% up front, in order to secure the lower rate. It was discovered that this buydown only affected the monthly and quarterly rates, not the annual rate. That being the case, Marquette would become the low bidder. The total of the five annual payments to Marquette is $3,265 less than the Security Pacific bid. -1- lq ALTERNATIVES: Other alternatives considered by staff and available to City Council are: 1. Allow the award of bid to Security Pacific to stand as they are a local California based firm. Concur: CZ, Alana Mastrian, Acting City Manager 2 ectfully bmjtted, Steve S. isniewski Director of Public Safety Noted for Fiscal Impac : alZr Viki Copeland, Finance Administrator January 19, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of January 26, 1988 AWARD OF BIDS FOR LEASE/PURCHASE OF COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT FOR DISPATCH AND RECORDS RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a lease agreement with Security Pacific Merchant Bank of Los Angeles for the lease/purchase of computer and communications equipment and software necessary for dispatch and records management. 2. Authorize purchase of equipment from the responsible vendors meeting all requirements of the requests for proposal 3. Authorize staff to issue change orders and negotiate with vendors as necessary. BACKGROUND: At the regular City Council meeting of May 26, 1987, Council instructed staff to prepare reports and recommendations regarding withdrawal from South Bay Regional Public Communications Authority (RCC). At the regular Council meeting of October 27, 1987, Council adopted a resolution of intent to withdraw from RCC; approved an agreement with California Water Service Company for location of a radio transmitter facility, and directed staff to obtain all necessary equipment to begin in-house dispatch and records manage- ment on July 1, 1988. Council authorized solicitation of bids for acquisition and lease of the necessary equipment at the regular meeting of City Council on January 12, 1988. ANALYSIS: On January 19, bids were received and publicly opened. All bids are on file in the office of the City Clerk. The analysis of these bids are divided into the following sections: I. Lease II. Digital Hardware and Software III. Power Conditioning and Distributing Equipment 1 lw A. I. LEASE Receipt of Bids The following bids were received: Vendor 1. EL Camino Resources Ltd. 2. Gelco Municipal Services 3. Security Pacific Merchant Bank 4. Marquette Lease Services, Inc. 5. New Tech Leasing, Inc. Annual Payment $118,227. $116,698. $116,438. $115,785 + 11,404 dn. $ 86,898. Interest rate Except for the bid from #5, New Tech, each of these bids are for and are for the total package. New Tech is only for 3 years and handle the computer equipment and software. 9.75% 7.57% 7.45% 7.125% * 13.590% ** a 5 year period they will only B. Evaluation of Bids * Marquette Lease Services, Inc. have the lowest interest rate. However, the City would be required to do a buydown of 2.25% up front in order to get this rate. This amount, when added to the total of the annual payments, exceeds the next low bidder, Security Pacific. ** New Tech's proposal was not for the total package as specified in the request for proposal, and are disqualified. Security Pacific Merchant Bank has extensive experience with municipalities. They were the successful bidder on the RCC project and are a California based firm. The annual payment method was selected because it is the most cost effective financing plan. C. Recommendation Staff recommends entering into a lease/purchase agreement with Security Pacific Merchant Bank. A. II. DIGITAL HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE Receipt of Bids The following bids were received: Vendor 1. El Camino Resources Ltd. 2. Hamilton/Avnet Electronics 3. Command Data Systems 4. Lex Computer Systems -2 Amount $119,400 $119,921.56 $136,982. $123,119.11 B. Evaluation of Bids It is indicated on the Request for Proposals that the City was seeking bids from "authorized Digital distributors". This was specified because Digital may be sold by many vendors, but the warranty may not be valid if the vendor was not an authorized Digital distributor. The bid from El Camino Resources Ltd. was low bid, but an inquiry with Digital Equipment Corporation indicated that they are not an authorized Digital distributor. That being the case, this bid should be disqualified. The next low bid is from Hamilton/Avnet and is only $521.56 more than the El Camino bid. Hamilton/Avnet is an authorized Digital distributor and the distribution sales manager for Digital indicates that Hamilton/Avnet is a very reliable vendor. C. Recommendation Staff recommends that Council award the bid to Hamilton/Avnet, the low bidder meeting all specifications. III. POWER CONDITIONING AND DISTRIBUTING EQUIPMENT A. Receipt of Bids The following bids were received: Vendor Amount 1. S&J Sales $21,270. Only one bid was received on this equipment. The proposal was delivered to five other vendors. B. Recommendation Staff recommends that Council authorize purchase of the equipment from S&J Sales. Their bid is consistent with the budgetary figures obtained prior to the request for proposals. Concur: Alana Mastri ksi-strant Ci an, ty Manager 3 Steve S. Wisniewski Director of Public Safety Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Finance Administrator February 10, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of February 23, 1988 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING RECORDS OF HAZARDOUS AND/OR TOXIC MATERIAL SPILLS IN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council receive and file this report. BACKGROUND: At the regular City Council meeting of February 9, 1988, Council directed staff to research the history of Hermosa Beach and ascertain if any hazardous and/or toxic material spills have occurred in the City. ANALYSIS: Fire Department staff contacted numerous State and Federal agencies in an attempt to determine if there was record of any hazardous and/or toxic spills in the city limits. They were unable to find any record concerning our City. The following is a synopsis of the agencies contacted and the information obtained: 1. Environmental Protection Agency: Ms. Jerry Campbell of the EPA in Northern California was contacted (there is no local office). She stated that the EPA records system only goes back to 1983 and that it would be impossible to look anything up, unless we had information con- cerning a specific date or incident. 2. Public Utilities Commission: We spoke with Mr. Thomas Hunt of the Safety Section. He stated that he had no way of pulling out any infor- mation unless we could give specific information such as date, exact location, etc. He went on to say that their agency is interested in spills, but to find information, in general, for the City would be like finding a needle in a haystack. 3. Department of Transportation: No information available. They seem to be more interested in air transportation than in railways, etc. 4. Water Quality: No records available. They referred us to the Los Angeles County Health Services. 5. Los Angeles County Health Services: They have no records. We were referred to Toxic Waste Department. 6. Toxic Waste Department: No records available. They referred us to the Los Angeles County Hazardous Materials Control Program. 1 r 4 7. Los Angeles County Hazardous Materials Control Program: Jerry Nunoz informed us that we would have to supply a written request with actual locations and dates of incidents in order for them to confirm any types of spills. He also referred us to the Environmental Engineer for Santa Fe Railway. 8. Santa Fe Railway: We spoke with the Environmental Engineer, Dave Clark. He stated that they have no records dating back to the time that the railway was in use. In summation, it appears that there is no quick and easy way to determine the past history of any spills. All of the agencies either have no records, or we have to know specific information in order to request a check, which is what we were calling them for! To put this all in perspective, the hazardous materials issues have only recently come to so much public attention. Prior to that, there just wasn't much done about it. It's only in the last few years that agencies responsible for this type of activity have been formed and more exact record keeping has been implemented. CONCUR: A and urian Acting City Manager Man r -2 ctfully ub-itted, Steve S. Wisniewski Director of Public Safety February 10, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council of February 23, 1988 RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE ATTACHED CABLE TV BOARD SUMMARY AND TO ACCEPT THE RESIGNATIONS OF TWO BOARD MEMBERS Recommendation: (1) To receive and file summary, and (2) to accept the resigna- tions of Cable TV Board members R. Sylvia Barton and John A. McIntyre, attached, effective February 3 and 5, 1988 respective- ly. The Board also requests that the Council not appoint others to fill those vacancies, thereby having the Board consist of only eight (8) members. Background: At your regularly scheduled meeting of August 11, 1987, Council approved staff's recommendation to appoint a Cable TV Board. Staff then arranged for a notice to be published, advertising the City's desire to institute the Board. Twelve (12) applications were received. Subsequently, at your regularly scheduled meeting of October 27, 1987, Council approved the appointment of all twelve (12) applicants to the Cable TV Board. Analysis: These Board members, due to conflicting work schedules, have been unable to attend but one (1) of the five scheduled Board meet- ings. They therefore desire to resign, in an effort to help the Board maintain a membership more conducive to attaining a quorum. These resignations will reduce the number of Board members from the original twelve (12) members to only eight (8) members. Alternatives: 1. Fill the vacancies left by the two (2) members who resigned, by asking for additional applicants. (all twelve (12) original applicants were appointed) CONCUR: Jo :r Noon, General Services Director eg,47 Alana M. Mastrian, Acting City Manager Respectfully submitted, Joan Noon, General Services Director by Michele D. Tercero, Administrative Aide Staff Liaison, CATV Board SUMMARY OF THE 5TH MEETING OF THE CABLE TV BOARD February 8, 1988 Meeting called to order at 7:24 pm by Dr. Schubert. Present: Charlotte Malone (1) Stephen Gach Robert Fleck Scott Rosenberg Jane Allison Dr. Roy Schubert Chris Rowe (arrived at 8:50 pm.) Absent: C. Evan Wright (2) Also present: John Merritt, General Manager, Multi Visions (formerly M.L. Media) Bert Bramley, Technical Manager Announcement by Dr. Schubert that R. Sylvia Barton and John McIntyre had notified him of their resignation. Staff suggested that the resignations be presented to Council for their approval, asking that no replacements be appointed. No objections. Mr. Merritt explained the name change, from M.L. Media to Multi Visions, as a reflection of some corporate changes (such as new acqusitions). There has been no material change in either the public or private ownership of M.L. Media. Mr. Merritt was asked by Dr. Schubert if he knew why the Board was formed and what they are trying to do. Mr. Merritt said he thought the Board was formed for one of two reasons, (1) to respond to service inadequacies, or (2) to set some direction and tone for local programming. Dr. Schubert explained that his view of why the Board was formed, is because the CATV Ordinance states that a year ahead of the time the franchise is up for renewal, the Council may appoint a Board to advise it on whether or not the franchisee has fulfilled his obligations and what course the City should take. Dr. Schubert then addressed the survey, and explained the objectives, (1) how good or poor is the service, and (2) where would the subscribers like to see a trend in the future. The survey is divided into three groups, (A) the service, (B) the programming, and (C) the future. The questions were reviewed with suggestions for changes in the verbage discussed and implemented. Discussions then moved to the actual format for mailing; folding of the survey; how to be mailed; where the labels are to be placed; the individual cost of each phase; estimate of total cost, $1500. Staff reminded the Board that the City Seal needs to be included on the survey, as well as the City's return address. Motion to have the Chairman of the Board review and approve the survey in it's final form. Second by Fleck. Charlotte Malone had left, at 9:00 pm, and was unavailable for the vote. Gach, Rosenberg, Allison, Fleck, Schubert, and Rowe, all Ayes. Discussion on the Consultant agenda item to be returned to Council after 60 days, and how to arrange for the data entry involved in compiling the survey. Next meeting February 29, 1988 at 7:00 pm, Council Chambers. Meeting adjourned at 9:42 pm. ,c22>40( .e>6 C,‘A. T z27,7e,'; rezz..ez-(arle from the desk of JOHN A. McINTYRE Mewl ('.GL i "7 ef,»lo7,heµ &" Cause I ^'`e 'tom rW Cit re4-f c-eL eAs r • res v ( E L �u �( .�►'�isSe�( r,. cs -1-- co 6 t e tU res ti_GC ep 4- 'rvr. 1 tet ba d. t February 11, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of February 23, 1988 INFORMATIONAL UPDATE AND PROGRESS REPORT ON PLANNED WITHDRAWAL FROM THE SOUTH BAY REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council receive and file this report. BACKGROUND: The City of Hermosa Beach has been one of seven participants in the South Bay Regional Communications Authority (RCC) since its inception in 1975. Two other cities, Redondo Beach and Palos Verdes Estates withdrew from RCC for various reasons leaving only five cities. Over the last eight years, Hermosa's costs have increased an average 12.13% per year. This prompted the City to initiate a study to determine the best course of action. At the regular City Council meeting of May 26, 1987, staff presented a report with recommendations addressing continued participation with RCC. That report recommended that the City withdraw from RCC and establish its own in-house dispatch and records system. Council approved this recommendation and directed staff to prepare final reports and recommendations for the project. At the regular Council meeting of October 27, 1987, Council adopted a resolution of intent to withdraw; directed staff to notify all participating cities and RCC of the planned withdrawal, approved an agreement with California Water Service for a remote transmitter site, and directed staff to obtain bids for all necessary equipment needed to begin in-house dispatch and records management. Council authorized staff to obtain bids for all of the necessary equipment and for the lease purchase of that equipment at the regular Council meeting of January 12, 1988. Bids were awarded by Council at the regular meeting of January 26, 1988. ANALYSIS: The planned remodel of the first floor in the Police Department and placing orders for the equipment are running about two and a half months behind the pro- jected schedule. Because of this, it appears that we may have to adjust the project schedule and that the date for complete takeover will need to be extended. This would mean that we would not throw the switch until the latter part of August or first part of September. (attachment 1) 1 It f This delay might not be all that bad as it would allow us to finish the summer months, which are extremely busy, under the current system. This would allow the new dispatchers a better period of adjustment to become familiar with the equipment and procedures. We would be billed by RCC on a month to month basis until the final withdrawal. There have been several meetings with the various vendors that will be fur- nishing and installing equipment. Everything seems to be well planned and should move smoothly. The existing property and evidence room is currently being relocated in order to expand the telephone and radio equipment room so it will accomodate the new equipment. Construction of the remote transmitter site should begin by the end of February. Plans have been formulated for moving records and all of the other services downstairs during the remodel. There will be some inconvinence to the public and well as the employees, but we are working to minimize it. We are pleased to report that the costs of the project are remaining under the estimates thus far. Overall, the project is progressing as anticipated and staff is prepared for the change and looking forward to completing the project. NOTED: Alana Mastrian, Acting City Manager 2 tfully b itted, Steve S. Wisniewski Director of Public Safety TIME SCHEDULE FOR COMMUNICATIONS/RECORDS PROJECT (February 1988) Council approves withdrawal plan (October 27, 1987) Design for remodel construction (November 1987) Council authorizes RFP's for equipment (January 12, 1988 Council awards bids for equipment (January 26, 1988) Council authorizes RFP's for construction (February 23, 1988) Council awards bids for construction (March 8, 1988) Equipment orders placed (March 1988) Construction begins (last of March 1988) Dispatchers hired (May -June 1988) Training begins for dispatchers (May 1988) Installation of equipment begins ( June 1988) Construction completed (end of June 1988) All equipment on line, begin in house (August -September 1988) 0 N 0 1987 J F M A M J J A S 0 N 0 1988 4 February 11, 1988 HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of Regular Meeting of the HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL February 23, 1988 APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CIP 87-606 - FIRST FLOOR POLICE DEPARTMENT REMODEL INCLUDING DISPATCH ROOM Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Approve plans and specifications for the Police Department first floor remodel including' dispatch room. 2. Authorize call for bids for the Police Department first floor remodel including dispatch room. 3. Authorize staff to issue addenda as necessary Background: On May 26, 1987 City Council instructed staff to begin preparations for in-house dispatching for Fire, Police and General Services and for providing in-house records management services for Fire and Police to become operational July 1, 1988. This Council direction also included instruction to: a. design, construct and remodel facilities as necessary, b. plan for, acquire and install equipment, c. test for, select and train personnel as necessary. On June 23, 1987, City Council approved the Capital Improvement Budget, which included the design only of the first floor Police Departent remodel (CIP 87-606). City Council appropriated $10,000 for design and reserved $77,500 for RCC but did not appropriate the amount for any specific project. On August 11, 1987, City Council approved- $43,900 additional funds for CIP 87-606, (construction -first floor Police Department remodel, including dispatching center). On August. 25, 1987, City Council authorized staff to solicit proposals for the design work. 1 On October 6, 1987, City Council: 1. Authorized the Mayor to sign an agreement with Joncich, Sturm & Associates for architectural services for the design of the Police Department first floor remodel including dispatch room at a cost not to exceed $14,630. 2. Appropriated from the General Fund reserve for contingency to CIP 87-606 as follows: 1. $77,500 Reserved for RCC on June 23, 1987 2. $22,380 Additional appropriation JSA began the design work on December 8, 1987 and completed the design on February 16, 1988. Analysis: Plans & Specs are essentially complete and on file in the office of the City Clerk. The Building Department will complete checking the plans and specs before February 23, 1988. Fiscal Impact: This project is 100% general funded. Revised Project Budget Design Construction Inspection & Administration The Subtotal 10% Contingency TOTAL Spent to Date - 0- - 0- -0- -0- -0- - 0- Existing Appropriation $13,300 115,000 11,500 $139,800 13,980 $153,780 architect's estimate for construction is $119,490 Anti. Final Exp'd. $14,630 119,490 5,680 $139,800 13,980 $153,780 Alternatives: Other alternatives considered by staff and available to City council are: 1. Drop the project. This will result in additional cost and no dispatch operation within the city. 2 2. Modify the scope of the work. This would delay the project. Thereby, negatively impacting the start up of in-house dispatch. Respectfully submitted Brian Gengler Assistant Engineer NOTED FOR FISCAL IMPACT: iki Copeland Finance Administrator Attachments: Project Schedule Project Budget 3 CONCUR: An hony Antich Director of Pu•lic Works Alana M. Mastrian Acting City Manager Steve Wisniewski Public Safety Director //7 Bill Grove Building & Safety Director CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • • CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FY86-87 THRU FY88-89 • SECOND YEAR OF THREE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM • PROJECT NAME: Police Department Remodel PROJECT NUMBER: CIP 87-606 ACCOUNT NUMBER: 001-401-8606-4201. PROGRAM AREA: Public Buildings & Grounds PROJECT DESCRIPTION:' WORK PROPOSED: Phase I Phase II Phase III Completed - Director of Public Safety offices. Demolition end modification of approximately 1,750 square feet of existing apace in the Police Facility (to be bid in two phases) - remodel end ,, dispatching center. • The work will include updating the existing electrical power and mechanical to service the modified square footage, selection of flooring material, wall treatments, fixed storage, ceiling treatment and other appurtenant work. Redesign of basement floor - locker and shower rooms (tor female employees), patrol officer briefing & work area and office spaces for patrol. This work will lead to the construction of these improvements. 70 feet x 30 feet x $100/at . 3210,000. (1) June 23, 1987 Council Action: `$10,000 General Fund (Design only) • August 11, 1987 Council Action,: $43,000 General Fund designation for CIP October 13, 1987 Council Action: 1. $77,500 Reserved for RCC on June 23, 1987 2. $22,380 Additional appropriation • • 7 . • • BUDGET SCHEDULE Col 1 Col 2 Col 3 Col 4 Col 3 Col 6 Col 7 PROJECT ELEMENTS PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING . I PLANS, SPECS & ESTIMATES 1 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION OTHER DIRECT COSTS 1 EXPENDED EST'ED BUDGET THRU THRU FY86-871 2/28/87 6/30/87 EST'ED TOTAL FY86-87 PROJECT BALANCE FY87-88 FY88-89 BUDGET I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 113,3001 1 13,3001 1 1115,0001210,0001325,0001 I 111,5001 1 11,5001' I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1' SUBTOTAL • CONTINGENCY 4 I I TOTAL EXPENDITURE FUNDING SCHEDULE 1 1139,8001210, 1 000349.8001 13,980 13,980 153,780 210,000 363,780 FUND NO. FUNDING SOURCES 001 1 General Fund (1) Unfunded 1 rTTOTAL FUNDING __ 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 FUNDING DISTRIBUTION ************** TOTAL • I I 1 1 I' I 1153,7801 1153, 7801 I 121Q 0001210, 0001 .. I 1--- ---i 1 I 1 1. s�_ 153,780 210,000 363,780 • CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE PROJECT NAME : CIP 87-606: First Floor Police Dept. Remodel, Including Dispatch Room ACCOUNT NUMBER : 001-400-8606-4201 TASKS Final design approval before for construction advertlsing,l1II111111111 LEGEND TENTATIVE SCHEDULE : o v ins ies ACTUAL SCHEDULE : moimmunimie X : 100% COMPLETE I JAN I FEB I MAR 1 I I I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Prepare advertisement date & set bid opening 111111111J1111' I I I I I I I I I I 111111111/ Advertising period (issue addendums as necessary) Accept sealed bids & public bid opening Review bids Award contract I 1 1 111111 1 I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I , 1 1 1111111111 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 111111 I 1 1111111/1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1/1/111111 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I I 1 111111 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 111111111111111111111111111111111111111 I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1111111111111111111111111111111111111 I I 1 1 1 I I 1 I I I I 1' 111111111111111111111111111111111111 Sign contract 1 (bonds,insurance & workers comp. cert.) 1 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 I I I 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 1 I 111111111 I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1/11111111 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 11111111111111 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1111111111111111111111111111111 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .1 February 11, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of February 23, 1988 AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT BIDS TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS CIP 85-138 Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council authorize staff to advertise for bids for the Traffic Signal Improvements - CIP 85-138, and issue addenda as necessary. Background: Historical Background On January 13, 1987, the City of Hermosa Beach entered into an agreement with Mohle, Grover & Associates (MGA), for traffic signal design consultant services at the following locations: Hermosa Avenue at 2nd Street Hermosa Avenue at 11th Street Hermosa Avenue at Pier Avenue Hermosa Avenue at 13th Street Aviation Blvd. at Prospect Pier at Valley/Ardmore (formerly (formerly (formerly (formerly (formerly (formerly CIP 85-138 is now the consolidation of all of CIP S. CIP 85-131) CIP 85-132) CIP 85-133) CIP 85-134) CIP 85-136) CIP 85-138) the above On January 20, 1987, MGA conducted a workshop with the Planning Commission during which the project goals were established. Shortly thereafter, MGA began collecting field and historical data to discuss at a second Planning Commission Workshop on February 3, .1987. The project direction was then more clearly defined and MGA proceeded with the traffic study which included traffic counts, accident history and computer simulation of potential alternatives. The results of this study were presented to the Planning Commission for comments at a third workshop on March 17, 1987. On April 2, 1987, the Planning Commission took formal action to. recommend that the City Council: a. approve the Traffic Signal Study; b. authorize MGA to proceed with the design, and c. authorize additional study regarding angled parking on Hermosa Avenue. MGA proceeded as directed and supplied the information requested. At the May 12, 1987 Council Meeting, City Council took the following formal action: 1. Approve the Traffic Signal Study for CIP 85-138. 2. Authorize Mohle, Grover and Associates (MGA) to proceed with the Traffic Signal Design project for CIP 85-138 as follows: a. Develop drawings, plans and specifications for traffic signal improvements on Hermosa Avenue at 2nd St., 11th St., Pier Ave. and 13th St. b. Develop an increased lighting plan for Pier Ave. at Valley/Ardmore, but do not consider a signal installation at this location at this time. c. Develop a plan to optimize the signal timing at the Aviation/Prospect intersection, but do not consider protected left turn phasing at this time. ***************** The Plans and Specifications were submitted to Caltrans for approval in October, 1987. After several revisions and meetings between Caltrans, the consultant and the City, we received Caltran's approval of the plans and specifications and authorization to advertise for bids on February 4, 1988. (Exhibit A) Analysis: The Plans and Specifications for CIP 85-138 are on file in the Office of the City Clerk. Council authorization to advertise for bids is requested at this time. Fiscal Impact: The Engineer's Estimate of construction costs was provided by MGA and is attached as Exhibit B. This estimate results in the following fiscal impact: Est. . Design Constr. Cost Cost $9,115 $150,525 FY 87-88 CIP 85-138 Estimated Inspection & Contract Admin. $15,750 Total Est. Contingency Cost $11,115 $186,505 City Council Budget Amount $186,505 The estimated construction costs are within the budgeted amount. There is no fiscal impact at this time. If necessary, staff will return to council to request additional funds, after the bids are received. (This project is funded as follows: 86.22% Federal Aid Urban funds, 13.78% State Gas tax). Please refer to Exhibit C for project budget. 2 Other alternatives Other alternatives condidered by staff and availible to City Council are: 1. Modify the scope of work. This would result in a re -submittal to and approval by Caltrans, which could result in a project delay of up to four months. 2. Drop the project. This would result in a forfeiture of approximately $160,800 Federal Aid Urban (F.A.U.) funds. Respectfully submitted, Concur, Deborah M. Murphy Assistant Engineer Concur, atA/711 926i1;;E- Alana Mastrian Acting City Manager Attachments: Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Letter from Caltrans Engineer's Estimate Project Budget Project Schedule 3 (11:111.1.1" - Anthony Antich Director of Public Works ATT -1-(1) STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY Exhibit A GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7, P.O. BOX 2304, LOS ANGELES 90051 TDD (213) 620-3550 (213) 620-3222 February 2, 1988 07-LA-0-HmB MG -3041(270) Traffic Signals at Various Locations Mr. Anthony Antich Director of Public Works RECEIYEp City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive FEB 0 41988 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. Dear Mr. Antich: This letter is our approval for City to advertise for receipt of bids for this EAU Project. Our approval is contingent upon your complying with the revisions to the Plans and Specifications as specified in our letter dated December 8, 1987. The amount of Federal Funds obligated for this project is $171,075 (includes $13,550 for Preliminary Engineering). Please notify us when advertisement and bid opening dates have been set and forward the following as soon as they are available: 1. Three sets of the As -Advertised P S & E. 2. Project Advisory Letter (Local Programs Manual Volume II Section 2-04). Please note that all addenda must have advance Cal -Trans approval and assurance that all bidders received the addenda prior to the bid opening. Following receipt of bids, please forward the following: 1. Five copies of the bid summary. 2. One copy of the notarized Non -Collusion Affidavit. 3. Date of actual advertisement and actual bid opening date. 4. Your request to award to a specific bidder and a statement as to whether the bidder met the stated DBE goals or made a good faith effort to do so. 5. For that bidder, names of DBE's to be used, with a complete description of work or supplies to provided by each and the dollar value of each such DBE transaction. Mr. Anthony Antich -2- February 2, 1988 Attached are updated copies of Requirements for Disadvantaged Business Enterprises, Section 5-2 Federal Minimum Wages, and Section 6 Federal Requirements for Federal -Aid Construction Projects for inclusion in your Specifications. Sincerely, C. Shearer, Chief Local Streets and Roads Branch Attachments cc: Mr. H. J. Amos, Construction Branch CBL ., Exhibit B ENGINEERING SCOPE OF WORK AND COST ESTIMATE FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL STUDY AND DESIGN CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1. Hermosa Avenue and 2nd Street A. Salvage existing controller and install new 4 -phase actuated controller B. Replace 8" indications with 12" indications C. Modify wiring Intersection Total $ 16,450 2. Hermosa Avenue and llth Street A. Salvage existing controller and install new 4 -phase controller with actuated left turn phasing and non -interconnect coordination B. Install loop detectors and rewire intersection C. Replace 8" indications with 12" indications Intersection Total $ 27,650 3. Hermosa Avenue and 13th Street A. Salvage existing controller and.install new 4 -phase controller with non -interconnect coordination B. Replace 8" indications with 12" indications Intersection Total $ 16,350 4. Hermosa Avenue and Pier Avenue A. Remove and salvage existing signal completely B. Install new signal complete with 8 -phase controller and non -interconnect coordination Intersection Total $ 63,500 5. Pier Avenue - Valley Drive to Ardmore Avenue A. Install additional street lighting B.. Restripe intersection with thermoplastic markings and upgrade signing Intersection Total $ 11,300 6. Aviation Boulevard and Prospect Avenue A. Salvage existing controller and install new 4 -phase controller B. Install emergency vehicle preemption for each approach Intersection Total $ 15,275 SUBTOTAL $150,525 CONTINGENCIES $ 7,000 PROJECT TOTAL $157,525 4#I 1 1 %J ruzirt$vIvQpr+ Iul..r+vI1 • • CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT.PROGRAM FY86-87 THRU FY88-89 SECOND YEAR OF THREE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: ACCOUNT NUMBER: PROGRAM AREA: Traffic Signal Improvements CIP 85-138 150-401-8138-4201 Street & Safety Improvements PROJECT DESCRIPTION: WORK PROPOSED: Project proposes traffic signal upgrade and/or installation at the following intersections. Hermosa Ave. at 22nd St., llth St., 13th St., and Hermosa Avenue at Pier Ave; Aviation at Prospect Ave; and Pier Ave. at Valley/Ardmore. 1 1 BUDGET SCHEDULE Col 1 Col 2 Col 3 Col 4 Col 5 •Col 6 Col 7 EXPENDED EST'ED EST'ED TOTAL PROJECT ELEMENTS BUDGET THRU THRU FY86-87 PROJECT FY86-87 2/28/87 6/30/87 BALANCE FY87-88 FY88-89 BUDGET 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 I PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (. PLANS, SPECS & ESTIMATES 111 X5501 01 30 X8001 1 1 I - 3QL$441 01 1 154,5501 154 ,55Q1 0.543.5591 1-.x..5..5541 DI I- 15,5591-15:4491 1-15,.4991 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION OTHER DIRECT COSTS 1154,5501 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 •. Design (by private traffic engineering consultant) approval SUBTOTAL 1.011.6501 QI_.R.$4Q117_4.14Q1�.��.55D1 129.591 by City Council and Caltrans anticipated in Spring, 1987. CONTINGENCY 18 365 0 1 115 16 955 16 955 Construction anticipated to begin late Summer, 1987. 1 L k_._. TOTAL EXPENDITURE No City funds for construction will be expended on this project until approved by both City and State, and•after staff is authorized to proceed by Council. NOTE: This project formerly known as CIP #'s 85-131, 85-132, 85-133, 85-134, 85-136 and 85-138. FUNDING SCHEDULE 202,015 • 0 30,800 171,215 186,505 217,305 FUND NO. 1501 Grant Fund (1) FUNDING SOURCES 115 1State Gas Tax (2) ****************** FUNDING DISTRIBUTION ************** TOTAL 174 ,1771 1 26, 4191 147,7581 47 , 7 581 160,8051 60 , 8051 1187 , 2241 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 27,8381 1 4,3811 23,4571 25,700,1 30,0811 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TOTAL FUNDING (1) FAU (86.22%) (2) City Match (13.78%) 202,015 30,800 171,215 186,505 217,305 • A • W CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE PROJECT NAME : Traffic Signal Improvements. ACCOUNT NUMBER : CIP 85-138 TASKS LEGEND TENTATIVE SCHEDULE : sm ss si a>' m ACTUAL SCHEDULE sammosomm X : 1009E COMPLETE I JAN 1 FEB 1 MAR I APR I MAY I JUN ( JUL I AUG I SEP I OCT I NOV I I DEC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1------I I I Final design approval before advertisin' for construction MI I= NIB I----Ile------1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I L- 1 1. - 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 Advertising period (issue addendums as necessary) 1 1 1 1 I I I I Accept sealed bids & public bid opening I 1 _, ----� I I I 1 I------1 Review bids Prepare advertisement & set bid opening date 1 I I 61 J 1 I 1- I 1 Award contract I I I 1 ® 1 1 1 I 1 I---j--I Sign contract (bonds,insurance & workers comp. cert.) I 1 I I I I I 1 1 I Preconstruction meeting procedure I I I I I -A ---I Issue "Notice to Proceed" • I I 1 1 1 I Construction Period I I 1 I Monitor progress & maintain records I I I I 1 111112 Progress payment end 611114 change order procedure 11111 1 NJ Acceptance of work as complete I $ I I I 1 . I I 1 I Issusing and recording a "Notice of Completion" 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I` I I 1 Retention Payment ' I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I• 1 1 .1 1 1 1 Project close out • 1 1 1 1 1 I----~1 I 1 oil 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • February 10, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council February 23, 1988 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT SANITARY SEWER DESIGN CIP 86-405 Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. accept the preliminary design report (Exhibit A), and 2. authorize completion of the plans and specifications for CIP 86-405 Background: The purpose of CIP 86-405 is to provide for the rehabilition of the following seven sections of existing sewer main in Hermosa Beach: (see location map, Exhibit B) Approximate Project Length Area Location (lineal feet) A Shakespeare Access Road 1,305 (West side of Hermosa Avenue) B Easement between Ardmore & Pacific 834 Coast Highway (North of 16th Street) C Ardmore Avenue between 2nd Street and 443 1st Street D 3rd Street between Pacific Coast Highway 1,067 and the old railroad right-of-way E Beach Drive between 24th Street and 16th 2,188, Court F Beach Drive between 14th Court and Pier 430 Avenue G Palm Drive between 35th Place and 27th 1,547 Street TOTAL 7,814 At the November 10, 1987 council meeting, City Council authorized the Mayorto sign an agreement with Harris and Associates for the sanitary sewer engineering design services for CIP 86-405 in an amount not to exceed $43,648. A Notice to Proceed was issued to Harris and Associates on December 10, 1987. Analysis: Work began on December 11, 1987 and the preliminary design report is now complete (Exhibit A). In summary, this report includes the following: 1. The following rehabilitation alternatives were considered for each "project area:" Reconstruction Inversion Lining (Insituform) Sliplining "Partial Project" "Deferred Project" "No Project" 2. After analysis of each project area, lining rehabilitation is feasible to a large enough degree that each area could be competitively bid by lining contractors as a prime contractor in direct competition with conventional construction contractors. Both sliplining and Insituform lining are viable alternates. Consequently, the project will be bid as three alternatives: (1) Reconstruction (2) Insituform (3) Sliplining. This could result in more competive bids. Upon councils' acceptance of this report, and authorization to proceed with the completion of the plans and specifications, Harris and Associates will complete their design services. A final copy of the plans and specifications will be presented to City Council, requesting authorization to bid, possibly within the next 45 days. Given this timetable, construction would not be completed until FY 88-89. Fiscal Impact: The Engineer's Estimate, completed by Harris & Associates is presented as Exhibit C. Because construction of this project occurs over two consecutive fiscal years (87-88, 88-89) it appears the estimated construction costs are within the budgeted amounts as follows: Construction Sewer Amount Fund * Estimated ** Estimated Budgeted Balance Revenue Construction Cost FY 87-88 6/30/88 FY 88-89 614,000 - 934,000 525,608 238,870 $800,000 Total available funds for construction $1,564,478, FY 87-88/88-89 * contingent on mid -year budget review by City Council ** based on FY 87-88 funding level from Utility User's Tax 2 Consequently, the $614,000 to $934,000 estimated construction costs are within the $1,564,478 potential available funds, and all project areas will be bid at the same time. There is no fiscal impact at this time. Actual construction costs and fiscal impact will be presented to council after bids are received, prior to award of contract. Other Alternatives Other alternatives availible to City Council and considered by staff are: 1. Do not approve the preliminary design report, thereby delaying the project. 2. Modify the scope of work. Respectfully submitted, Deborah M. Murphy Assistant Engineer Concur: Alana Mastrian Acting City Manager Attachments: Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - ssd/c Concur: Anthony Antich Director of PubD.ic Works Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator Preliminary Design Report Location Map Engineer's Estimate Exhibit A CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 87-405 PRELIMINARY REPORT CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION PRELIMINARY REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. BACKGROUND 2. SCOPE 3. FUNDINGS 4. RECOMMENDATIONS 5. ESTIMATES 6. LOCATION MAP CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 87-405 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT FEBRUARY 1988 BACKGROUND The City of Hermosa Beach has retained Harris and Associates to provide Engineering Design Services for the rehabilitation of seven sections of existing sewer main at various locations throughout the City of Hermosa Beach. Following are the seven project locations, pipe size and approximate footage involved: (see location map) Project Area Location A Shakespeare Access Road (West side of Hermosa Drive) Pipe Diameter Length ( Inches) (Feet) 8" 1,305 B Easement between Ardmore & Pacific Coast 8" 834 Highway (North of 16th Street) C Ardmore Avenue between 2nd Street & 8" 443 1st Street D 3rd Street between Pacific Coast Highway & 10" 1,067 the old railroad right-of-way E Beach Drive between 24th Street & 16.th Court 8" 2,188 F Beach Drive between 14th Court & Pier Avenue 8" 430 G Palm Drive between 35th Place & 27th Street 8" 1,547 1 The selection of these particular sections of sewer main for rehabilitation was based upon recommendations of the "City of Hermosa Beach Sewer System Analysis, Target Area 2n1, combined with maintenance history and actual video inspections completed in August, 1987. It should be noted that these locations represent the current year's priority of projects in a comprehensive long range plan of sewer system rehabilitation; and, therefore, value judgments and standards of rehabilitation established now may well impact future budgets for some time to come. SCOPE, Harris & Associates has conducted a comprehensive preliminary investigation of the targeted project areas. All video tapes and corresponding inspection logs have been carefully reviewed; the 1985 Sewer System Analysis Report and recommendations were reviewed, field observations were made, and City staff members were consulted. In the case of each project area, several alternatives were considered including: o Reconstruction o Inversion Lining (Insituform) o Sliplining o "Partial Project" o "Deferred Project" o "No Project" Detailed discussions of findings, estimated costs for rehabilitation, and recommendations for each project area are included in the following sections of this report. The following general.. comments are applicable to the project as a whole. 1 Prepared by Santina & Thompson, Inc., Jan. 1985 2 First, it is clear that lining rehabilitation (either sliplining or Insituform) will be a competitive and viable alternative on each of the project areas and the preferred alternative on at least two project areas. When considering lining alternatives versus traditional reconstruction, there are a number of intangible benefits to evaluate in addition to anticipated cost savings. The most notable of the intangible benefits is the greatly reduced disruption to traffic, business, and residential concerns adjacent to the work. Although some neighborhood disruption occurs with lining projects, this nuisance factor is far less than that of conventional construction. Another advantage of lining rehabilitation is that the resultant inner pipe has no joints between manholes which, therefore, reduces or eliminates root intrusion, inflow, infiltration, future joint separations and offset joint problems. A major disadvantage of lining rehabilitation is the resultant reduction in pipe inside diameter. The resultant reduction in carrying capacity can eliminate lining rehabilitation as a viable alternative for pipe reaches with existing capacity concerns. Other disadvantages include: o Laterals are not repaired beyond the point of connection with the main (Insituform). o Service can be interrupted for several hours during the lining process. o Existing sags in the pipe profile remain unless dug up and repaired prior to lining. Although the various intangible advantages and disadvantages are somewhat subjective, they should, and have been taken into account in determining the feasibility of lining and in estimating rehabilitation costs. 3 After rehabilitation or replacement, there will continue to be a need for ongoing preventative maintenance. Root intrusion is a problem in many areas. Also, many of the project areas exhibit a significant grease problem, particularly on Beach Drive and Palm Drive. The City should require regularly maintained grease traps at restaurants and similar sources of grease. More important, the City should establish a sewer cleaning program. Effective and efficient hydro cleaning systems can be cost effectively implemented when considering the increased efficiency of the sewer collection system. Such programs result in a significant reduction in "call out" overtime and in private property damage claims. Hydraulic capacities are improved and minor flat grade areas, as well as grease problem areas become more tolerable. FINDINGS Following are individual descriptions of each project area, including an analysis of the feasible alternatives for rehabilitation of the sewer main. Preliminary Construction Cost Estimates are included for each alternative at each project area. AREA A This section consists of four reaches of 8 -inch diameter nonreinforced concrete sewer located in the Shakespeare Access Road on the west side of Hermosa Avenue between 35th Street and 28th Street. The total length is approximately 1,300 lineal feet. The lower reach, the northerly 370 feet between manhole No. 6 and manhole No. 7, was not video taped due to a collapsed section of pipe near manhole No. 6. According to Mr. Vernon Highfield, Maintenance Foreman, this reach has experienced two serious collapses in recent times and is very brittle. Currently there are about 30 feet or more of temporary 6 -inch diameter PVC repair sections in place pending a permanent solution. Much of this reach will have to be reconstructed. It does appear, • however, that any reconstruction will be in the same alignment and grade. 4 The remaining three reaches, although severely corroded, appear to be well suited for the lining options with some preparatory repairs. In summary, with the exception of the lower reach, Area A can be bid for lining alternates and for reconstruction in its current alignment. It is possible that, in the case of lining, the lower reach could be partially repaired and lined for some additional savings, however, the worst case (replacement) is included in the estimate. Rehabilitation of this sewer main is recommended with bid alternates for reconstruction on the same alignment, Insituform lining, and sliplining. AREA B This section consists of three reaches of 8 -inch diameter sewer running approximately 850 feet northerly from 16th Street in an easement between Ardmore and Pacific Coast Highway. The existing pipe is nonreinforced concrete except certain sections have been previously replaced with VCP. There is one section of crushed pipe. There are several joint alignment problems, two of which appear in excess of 1 inch. The most feasible alternatives for corrective action include sliplining and Insituform lining. With either lining method it will be necessary to remove existing roots, and to provide for spot repair of approximately 12 lineal feet of crushed pipe within an area that has restricted physical access. The City should ascertain from records the extent of easements adjacent to this line and determine any restrictions associated with easements. Due to extremely difficult access, reconstruction of this sewer main would not be economically feasible and is not recommended as an option. Rehabilitation of Area B is recommended with bid alternates of Insituform lining, and sliplining combined with necessary repairs. 5 AREA C This section consists of two reaches of 8 -inch diameter concrete pipe in Ardmore Avenue running south from Second Street 190 feet to First Place and then from First Place 250 feet to First Street. Video tape was not available for the reach between 2nd Street and First Place (MH *225 to MH #223). This reach was reported to have sections of broken pipe and was impassable by the video camera. It was assumed that this 190 lineal feet must be replaced. The second reach, although highly corroded at the crown and requiring some minor repair, is definitely suitable for the lining alternatives. Rehabilitation is recommended with bid alternates for reconstruction in place, Insituform lining and sliplining. AREA D This section consists of seven reaches of 10 -inch diameter concrete pipe in 3rd Street between Pacific Coast Highway and the old railroad right- of-way east of Valley Drive. This section of sewer main was previously identified as being under capacity, in the 1985 Sewer System Analysis. The capacity problem reportedly occurred in one short and flat reach of pipe. This reach is 35 feet long and, if on a flat grade, would result in less than 0.10 feet of surcharge during ultimate peak flows. The remaining reaches have more than sufficient capacity for ultimate peak flows as identified in the 1985 report. Actual field elevations reveal that the grade of the short section is, in fact, much steeper than the old data indicated, and no surcharge will occur in peak flows. The existing alignment is generally in the sidewalk area adjacent to the back of curb. Restoration of curb and sidewalk will result in higher than normal costs for reconstruction in place, however, the cost of this alternative compares favorably with construction on a new alignment. 6 Examination of the video tape reveals that, with a few minor repairs of protruding taps, this section of sewer main could be rehabilitated by either sliplining, Insituform lining, or reconstruction. Rehabilitation of Area D is recommended with three bid alternates: reconstruction in place, Insituform lining, and sliplining. AREA E This area includes eight reaches of 8 -inch diameter vitrified clay pipe, totalling approximately 2,200 lineal feet in Beach Drive between 24th Street and 16th Court. There are several areas of flat grades where at minimum flows, the pipe is 50 to 90 percent full. There is also a significant grease problem throughout the area. Due to upstream and downstream controls, new construction would also have to be at a fairly flat grade resulting in continued low velocities. This pipe is suitable for Insituform lining or sliplining with a few minor repairs. Some areas will have flat, but tolerable grades. As reflected in the estimate, the large quantity of services might reduce the cost effec- tiveness of sliplining. Although minor structural cracking is common in this area, rehabilitation could be deferred to a later project. Rehabilitation of Area E by reconstruction, or by one of the lining options, if not included in the current project, should be completed within one or two years. AREA F Area F consists of three reaches of 8 -inch diameter nonreinforced concrete pipe in Beach Drive between 14th Court and Pier Avenue. Due to excessive flow depth, video inspection was not performed these reaches. 7 The two reaches between 14th Court and 13th Court flow southerly to manhole No. 1091 at 13th Court. This section of sewer carries only minor flows and, although it has rather flat grades, capacity is not a problem. The reach between manhole No. 1093 at Pier Avenue and manhole No. 1091 flows northerly to manhole No. 1091 where the flow is carried easterly in 13th Court. The slope of this reach is very flat and it appears to be adequate in capacity, although borderline. The 1985 Sewer System Analysis shows the ultimate peak flow to be 0.45 cfs in the reach on Beach Drive between Pier Avenue and 13th Court, and in the outfall pipe in 13th Court. Under ideal conditions, the theoretical capacity of this pipe reach would be adequate at about 0.45 cfs, when flowing 2/3 full at a below standard velocity. With Insituform lining or sliplining, the theoretical capacity would remain adequate with a slightly increased velocity of flow due to improved pipe smoothness and a slightly higher depth to diameter ratio during the peak flow condition. If the line were replaced with a 10 -inch diameter main, the flow velocity would not be greatly improved over that of the lining alternatives. This is due to the fact that the average grade could not be increased without also replacing the line in 13th Court since it is controlled by the invert elevation of the outfall line in 13th Court. Also, the 10 -inch diameter pipe would not flow full enough for optimum velocity, even at peak flows. Reconstruction would be difficult and more expensive than normal due to existing storm drain improvements which would be in conflict with the work. If reconstruction is desired to assure increased capacity, it would be advisable to defer this project, to be included in a future one, possibly combining it with the outfall line in 13th Court. This approach would allow more flexibility in modifying grades to improve flow characteristics. 8 Provided the ultimate flows as projected in the 1985 report are reliable, the lining alternatives appear to be consistent with the stated goal to "replace/upgrade or rehabilitate as much sewer as possible within the available budget". AREA G This project area consists of eight reaches of 8 -inch diameter vitrified clay pipe in Palm Drive, flowing from manhole No. 30 at 35th Place to manhole No. 22 at 27th Street. This section of approximately 1,580 lineal feet of sewer main is a viable candidate for the lining alternatives. The average pipe slope is .0030 which is substandard for an 8 -inch diameter pipe. Even with replace- ment this average slope could not be appreciably improved without cost prohibitive downstream improvements. As is expected with generally flat grade conditions, there are several grade sags, most of which are minor enough to be hydraulically accept- able under the lining option. Approximately 50 lineal feet, north ofZ Longfellow Avenue, would have to be replaced to correct a significant sag. In addition, at least one protruding tap would have to be repaired. Reconstruction in place would not be feasible due to the close proximity of a water main, therefore, reconstruction, if done, would have to be on a modified alignment in close proximity with other utilities. Other than noted above, this section is generally in fair condition and, if budget constraints dictate, could be deferred for one to two years. 9 RECOMMENDATIONS After careful analysis of each project area, it is clear that lining rehabilitation is feasible to a large enough degree that each area could be competitively bid by lining contractors as a Prime Contractor in direct competition with conventional construction contractors. It is felt that both sliplining and Insituform lining are viable alternates. It should be noted that the possibility of "prime contract" bids from lining contractors adds a new dimension of competition to the bidding arena as opposed to lining options being limited to subcontracts included in larger construction bids with appreciable markup. In reviewing the individual project area estimates, it is noted that the "best case" estimates would total over $620,000 in construction costs for the entire project as identified. This is obviously well over the indi- cated $400,000 construction fund. Without appropriation of additional funding, it would appear necessary to delete some of the project areas. Should it be necessary to delete a portion of the proposed project, Areas E and G are recommended to be deferred to a future project. They should not, however, be deferred beyond two years; and, if funding permits, they should be included in the current project. In summary, rehabilitation, in the current project, of at least Areas A, B, C, D, and F is recommended. The estimated total construction cost of these areas is between $332,000 and $468,000 depending on method of rehabilitation. It is anticipated that the least cost option will be Insituform lining. Areas E and G can, if necessary, be deferred to a later year, however, if included with the current project, the total cost estimate would be between $614,000 with the Insituform option and $934,000 with reconstruction. 10 The bidding format is recommended to include the three alternates as indicated above, while requiring each bidder to bid a minimum of one alternate for each project area. This will permit competitive bidding and should result in the most realistic pricing. COST ESTIMATES The following preliminary cost estimates reflect anticipated relative costs of feasible alternative rehabilitation methods. 11 CITY OF IIERAIOSA BEACH 2:7, its, 1.2 C Et Nil A — • 111r--- I I 'IL hi tl 1./ JLLSUJJ /1 .flfl7j • .'" • • • .1 • ..."'44":". •• r" v• -ti — r. • f 41//St • ••••• r\--, t 4 t r Il - •••••..• • . '1.111111111.1111111ftsie' PF•ve,. .• L 41 • ., ; ri7 I. ----z--..---1-7"---........-c"...-%.. il.-in---r,------0-41-1 i ; • % _.. j .: i 7 ' I' il 4/ ..f. ---,r1, ITI II i!1•!'l ' il, s -k 4 t II t - j• --..,.._i ! ,. I I • ".........' sil."......9 ---7 ri_. ... :i ., t !: il 'II 'I.'. I i, 5., „,.... ,,..5,....... .7........... r... INIMir ••••• ......ii, c........ , . 41....................... • I • i 1 2, 1 '.........r. '''''''.--.........:.." , '. 1 : • f. ---.-:":1------: gr: ....... .. ...... !!.._.1 i„..._:_7_,.L.ALe6'rn."1-,-,-,0 "•-•. •-i..—.s...::m1;7-m2t17-07--.-.,-:.-.,..i.._._.71..-—_-..-.....A.....-.; :.7I•..—ii. ,..., •..i-_..'.l,"i -..','.: '.-. "T,. 1 • 1 , .---."4-1k' "- - ,--•---l...- -11'- -•'-• h.:,1r---.6-:.-- r.--•I.-i-__. _i __I_— _.1- 1 . 1 _ .,:22.r— - .j..„ _Lizr-1.4-71^.c- • :. _ 1 ' t it a ./ I; ' • , i :: - trirl i • a, . - —. F/------4,----1,- •i I. .:.4.... ' •-• • -• • .1 ----J itt LOCATION MAP PROJECT C IP 805 118A HARRIS II:ASSOCIATES °K1,1"01f•V;25-44.4'-' Exhibit C SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES Area Reconstruction Insituform Slinlinina A 132,000.00 106,000.00 137,000.00 B 74,000.00* 62,000.00 90,000.00 C 45,000.00 40,000.00 46,000.00 D 158,000.00 92,000.00 161,000.00 F 51.000.00 32.000.00 34,000.00 Subtotal 460,000.00 332,000.00 468,000.00 E 260.000.00 174.000.00 282.000.00 Subtotal 720,000.00 506,000.00 749,000.00 G 214 000.00 108.000.00 120.000.00 TOTAL 934.000.00 614 000.00 870.000.00 *For purpose of comparison, the Insituform amount plus 20% markup is estimated for subcontracting to that item. 12 AREA "A" SHAKESPEARE ACCESS ROAD (WEST SIDE OF HERMOSA DRIVE) ALTERNATE I, RECONSTRUCT ON SAME ALIGNMENT ITEM DESCRIPTION 1 REPLACE SEWER WYE- NEW MAIN 2 CONST. NEW 8" SEWER MAIN 3 REGROUT/POINT SEWER MAN HOLE 4 CONST. PAVEMENT RESTORATION 5 MOBILIZATION AND CONTINGENCY TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST ITEM UNITS QUANT. UNIT COST EA 47 300.00 LF 1305 60.00 EA 5 500.00 SF 3915 5.00 LS LS 17, 171.25 ALTERNATE II, INSITUFORM LINING DESCRIPTION 1 REPLACE SEWER WYE -NEW MAIN cc REPAIR PROTRUDING TAP 3 OPEN SERVICE LATERALS 4 CONST. NEW 8" SEWER MAIN 5 INSTALL "INSITUFORM LINING" 6 REGROUT/POINT SEWER MAN HOLE 7 CONST. PAVEMENT RESTORATION 8 MOBILIZATION AND CONTINGENCY TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST UNITS QUANT. UNIT COST EA 11 300.00 EA 2 1,000.00 EA 36 325.00 LF 370 60.00 LF 935 48.00 EA 5 500.00 SF 1110 5.00 LS LS 13, 819.50 ALTERNATE III, SLIPLINING ITEM DESCRIPTION 1 REPLACE SEWER WYE- NEW MAIN cc REPLACE SEWER WYE -EXIST. MAIN 3 CONST. NEW 8" SEWER MAIN 4 INSTALL "SLIPLINING" 5 REGROUT/POINT SEWER MAN HOLE 6 CONST. PAVEMENT RESTORATION 7 REPAIR OFFSET JOINT 8 PULL PIT 9 MOBILIZATION AND CONTINGENCY TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST UNITS QUANT. UNIT COST EA 11 300.00 EA 36 1,200.00 LF 370 60.00 LF 935 42.00 EA 5 500.00 SF 1110 5.00 EA 1 1,000.00 LS LS 2,000.00 LS LS 17,853.00 TOTAL 14, 100. 00 78, 300. 00 2, 500. 00 19, 575. 00 17, 171. 2 5 131, 646.25 TOTAL 3, 300. 00 2, 000. 00 11, 700. 00 22, 200. 00 44, 880. 00 2, 500. 00 5, 550. 00 13, 819. 50 105, 949.50 TOTAL 3, 300. 00 43, 200. 00 22, 200. 00 39, 270. 00 2, 500.00 5, 550. 00 1, 000. 00 2, 000. 00 17, 853. 00 136, 873. 00 ITEM AREA "B". EASEMENT BETWEEN ARDMORE AND PACIFIC COAST ALTERNATE I, INSITUFORM LINING DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANT. 1 REPLACE SEWER WYE -NEW MAIN 2 REPAIR PROTRUDING TAP 3 OPEN SERVICE LATERALS 4 CONST. NEW 8" SEWER MAIN 5 INSTALL "INSITUFORM LINING" 6 REGROUT/POINT SEWER MAN HOLE 7 CONST. PAVEMENT RESTORATION 8 REPAIR OFFSET JOINT 9 REPAIR 8LF+/- SEWER MAIN COMP. 10 MOBILIZATION AND CONTINGENCY TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST ITEM EA EA EA LF LF EA SF EA LS LS HIGHWAY UNIT COST 0 0 24 325.00 0 834 48.00 4 500.00 0 0 LS 4,000.00 LS 8,074.80 ALTERNATE II, SLIPLINING DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANT. 1 REPLACE SEWER WYE- NEW MAIN 2 REPLACE SEWER WYE -EXIST. MAIN 3 CONST. NEW 8" SEWER MAIN 4 INSTALL "SLIPLINING" 5 REGROUT/POINT SEWER MAN HOLE 6 CONST. PAVEMENT RESTORATION 7 REPAIR OFFSET JOINT 8 PULL PIT 10 MOBILIZATION AND CONTINGENCY TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST EA EA LF LF EA SF EA LS LS 0 24 0 834 4 0 10 LS LS UNIT COST 1,200.00 42.00 500.00 1,000.00 2, 000.00 11, 674.20 TOTAL . 00 . 00 7,800.00 .00 40, 032.00 2, 000.00 . 00 .00 4,000.00 8, 074.80 61, 906.80 TOTAL . 00 28, 800. 00 . 00 35, 028. 00 22, 000. 00 . 00 10, 000. 00 2, 000. 00 11, 674.20 89, 502. 20 ITEM AREA "C" ARDMORE AVE BETWEEN SECOND STREET AND FIRST STREET ALTERNATE I, RECONSTRUCT ON SAME ALIGNMENT DESCRIPTION UNITS 1 REPLACE SEWER WYE- NEW MAIN 2 CONST. NEW 8" SEWER MAIN 3 REGROUT/POINT SEWER MAN HOLE 4 CONST. PAVEMENT RESTORATION 5 MOBILIZATION AND CONTINGENCY TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST ITEM ALTERNATE DESCRIPTION 1 REPLACE SEWER WYE -NEW MAIN 2 REPAIR PROTRUDING TAP 3 OPEN SERVICE LATERALS 4 CONST. NEW 8" SEWER MAIN 5 INSTALL "INSITUFORM LINING" 6 REGROUT/POINT SEWER MAN HOLE 7 CONST. PAVEMENT RESTORATION 8 MOBILIZATION AND CONTINGENCY TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST ALTERNATE III, SLIPLINING ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANT. EA LF EA SF LS QUANT. UNIT COST 15 300. 00 443 60.00 3 500.00 1329 5.00 LS 5,883.75 II, INSITUFORM LINING UNITS QUANT. EA EA EA LF LF EA SF LS 8 2 7 190 253 3 570 LS 1 REPLACE SEWER WYE- NEW MAIN 2 REPLACE SEWER WYE -EXIST. MAIN 3 CONST. NEW 8" SEWER MAIN 4 INSTALL "SLIPLINING" 5 REGROUT/POINT SEWER MAN HOLE 6 CONST. PAVEMENT RESTORATION 7 REPAIR OFFSET JOINT 8 PULL PIT 9 MOBILIZATION AND CONTINGENCY TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST EA EA LF LF EA SF EA LS LS 15 8 7 190 253 3 570 1 LS LS UNIT COST 300.00 1, 000.00 325.00 60.00 48.00 500. 00 5.00 5, 185.35 UNIT COST 300.00 1,200.00 60.00 42.00 500.00 5.00 1,000.00 21000.00 6,026.40 TOTAL 4, 500.00 26, 580. 00 1, 500. 00 6, 645. 00 5, 883.75 45, 108. 75 TOTAL 2, 400. 00 2, 000. 00 2, 275.00 11, 400. 00 12, 144.00 1, 500. 00 2, 850. 00 5, 185. 35 39, 754. 35 TOTAL 2, 400. 00 8,400. 00 11,400. 00 10, 626. 00 1, 500.00 2, 850.00 1, 000.00 2, 000. 00 6, 026.40 46, 2022. 40 AREA "D" THIRD STREET BETWEEN THE PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND OLD R/R RIGHT 0 ALTERNATE I, RECONSTRUCT ON SAME ALIGNMENT ITEM DESCRIPTION 1 REPLACE SEWER WYE- NEW MAIN 2 CONST. NEW 10" SEWER MAIN 3 REGROUT/POINT SEWER MAN HOLE 4 RESTORE CRG/SIDEWALK/PVMT 5 MOBILIZATION AND CONTINGENCY TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST UNITS QUANT. UNIT COST EA 76 300.00 LF 1067 70.00 EA 6 500.00 LF 1067 35.00 LS LS 20, 675.25 ALTERNATE II, INSITUFORM LINING ITEM DESCRIPTION 1 REPLACE SEWER WYE -NEW MAIN 2 REPAIR PROTRUDING TAP 3 OPEN SERVICE LATERALS 4 CONST. NEW 10" SEWER MAIN 5 INSTALL "INSITUFORM LINING" 6 REGROUT/POINT SEWER MAN HOLE 7 CONST. PAVEMENT RESTORATION 8 MOBILIZATION AND CONTINGENCY TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST UNITS QUANT. UNIT COST EA EA EA LF LF EA SF LS 0 2 1,000.00 76 325.00 0 1067 48.00 5 500.00 0 LS 12, 062.40 ALTERNATE III, SLIPLINING ITEM DESCRIPTION 1 REPLACE SEWER WYE- NEW MAIN 2 REPLACE SEWER WYE -EXIST. MAIN 3 CONST. NEW 10" SEWER MAIN 4 INSTALL "SLIPLINING" 5 REGROUT/POINT SEWER MAN HOLE 6 CONST. PAVEMENT RESTORATION 7 REPAIR OFFSET JOINT 8 PULL PIT 8 MOBILIZATION AND CONTINGENCY TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST UNITS QUANT. UNIT COST EA EA LF LF EA SF EA LS LS 0 76 1,200.00 0 1067 42.00 4 500.00 0 0 LS 2, 000.00 LS 21, 002.10 TOTAL 22, 800.00 74, 690.00 3,000.00 37, 345.00 20, 675.25 158, 510.25 TOTAL . 00 2, 000. 00 24, 700. 00 . 00 51, 216.00 2, 500. 00 . 00 12, 062. 40 922, 478.40 TOTAL . 00 91, 2200.00 . 00 44, 814.00 2,000.00 . 00 . 00 22, 000. 00 21, 002.10 161, 016.10 AREA "D" THIRD STREET BETWEEN THE PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND OLD R/R RIGHT 0 ALTERNATE Ia RECONSTRUCT ON NEW ALIGNMENT ************************** N O T S E L E C T E D******************* ITEM DESCRIPTION 1 RE -CONNECT SERVICE W/NEW WYE 2 CONST. NEW 10" SEWER MAIN 3 CONST. SEWER MAN HOLE 4 ABANDON EXIST. SEWER MAN HOLES 5 CONST. PAVEMENT RESTORATION 6 MOBILIZATION AND CONTINGENCY TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST UNITS QUANT. EA LF EA EA SF LS 76 1067 4 2 3201 LS UNIT COST 1,000.00 70.00 3,000.00 1, 000. 00 5.00 27, 104. 25 TOTAL 76, 000.00 74, 690.00 12, 000.00 2,000.00 16, 005.00 27, 104. 25 207,79'9.25 AREA "E" BEACH DRIVE BETWEEN TWENTY FOURTH STREET ALTERNATE I, RECONSTRUCT ON SAME ITEM DESCRIPTION 1 REPLACE SEWER WYE- NEW MAIN 2 CONST. NEW 8" SEWER MAIN 3 REGROUT/POINT SEWER MAN HOLE 4 CONST. PAVEMENT RESTORATION 5 MOBILIZATION AND CONTINGENCY TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST AND SIXTEENTH COURT ALIGNMENT UNITS QUANT. UNIT TOTAL COST EA 119 300.00 35, 700.00 LF 2188 70.00 153, 160.00 EA 9 500.00 4,500.00 SF 6564 5.00 32, 820.00 LS LS 33, 92 7.00 33, 927.00 ALTERNATE II, INSITUFORM LINING ITEM DESCRIPTION 1 REPLACE SEWER WYE -NEW MAIN 2 REPAIR PROTRUDING TAPS 3 OPEN SERVICE LATERALS 4 CONST. NEW 8" SEWER MAIN 5 INSTALL "INSITUFORM LINING" 6 REGROUT/POINT SEWER MAN HOLE 7 CONST. PAVEMENT RESTORATION 8 MOBILIZATION AND CONTINGENCY TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST 260, 107.00 UNITS QUANT. UNIT TOTAL COST EA EA EA LF LF EA SF LS 0 3 1, 000. 00 119 325.00 0 2188 48.00 9 500.00 0 LS 22, 679.85 ALTERNATE III, SLIPLINING ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANT. 1 REPLACE SEWER WYE- NEW MAIN EA 0 2 REPLACE SEWER WYE -EXIST. MAIN EA 3 CONST. NEW 8" SEWER MAIN LF 4 INSTALL "SLIPLINING" LF 2188 5 REGROUT/POINT SEWER MAN HOLE EA 9 6 CONST. PAVEMENT RESTORATION SF 0 7 REPAIR OFFSET JOINT EA 8 PULL PIT LS 9 MOBILIZATION AND CONTINGENCY LS TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST . 00 3,000.00 38, 675.00 • . 00 105, 024.00 4, 500.00 . 00 22, 679. 85 173, 878.85 UNIT TOTAL COST .00 119 1,200.00 142, 800.00 0 .00 42.00 91, 896.00 500.00 4, 500.00 .00 4 1,000.00 4,000.00 LS 2,000.00 2, 000.00 LS 36, 779.40 36, 779.40 17 281, 975.40 AREA "F" BEACH DRIVE BETWEEN FOURTEENTH COURT AND PIER AVENUE ALTERNATE I, RECONSTRUCT ITEM DESCRIPTION 1 RE -CONNECT SERVICE W/NEW WYE 2 CONST. NEW 8" SEWER MAIN 3 CONST. NEW 10" SEWER MAIN 4 CONST. SEWER MAN HOLE 5 CONST. PAVEMENT RESTORATION 6 REGROUT/POINT SEWER MAN HOLE 7 MOBILIZATION AND CONTINGENCY TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST UNITS QUANT. EA LF LF EA SF EA LS 6 270 160 1 1290 4 LS UNIT COST 300.00 70. 00 75.00 3,000.00 5.00 500.00 6,622.50 ALTERNATE II, INSITUFORM LINING ITEM DESCRIPTION 1 REPLACE SEWER WYE -NEW MAIN 2 REPAIR PROTRUDING TAP 3 OPEN SERVICE LATERALS 4 INSTALL "INSITUFORM LINING" 5 REGROUT/POINT SEWER MAN HOLE 6 CONST. SEWER MAN HOLE 7 CONST. PAVEMENT RESTORATION 8 MOBILIZATION AND CONTINGENCY TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST UNITS QUANT. EA EA EA LF EA EA SF LS 1 0 430 4 1 0 LS ALTERNATE III, SLIPLINING ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANT. 1 REPLACE SEWER WYE -NEW MAIN 1 3 REPLACE SEWER WYE -EXIST. MAIN 4 INSTALL "SLIPLINING" 5 REGROUT/POINT SEWER MAN HOLE 6 CONST. SEWER MAN HOLE 7 CONST. PAVEMENT RESTORATION 8 MOBILIZATION AND CONTINGENCY TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST EA EA LF EA EA SF LS 18 5 430 4 1 0 LS UNIT COST 300.00 325.00 48.00 500.00 3, 000. 00 5.00 4, 134. 75 UNIT COST 300.00 1,200.00 42.00 500.00 3,000.00 5. o� 4,404.00 TOTAL 1,800.00 18, 900.00 12, 000.00 3, 000. 00 6, 450.00 2, 000. 00 6, 622.50 50,772,50 TOTAL 300.00 . 00 1, 625.00 20, 640. 00 2, 000. 00 3, 000. 00 . 00 4, 134. 75 31, 699.75 TOTAL 300.00 6, 000. 00 18, 060.00 2, 000.00 3, 000. 00 . 00 4, 404.00 33, 764. 00 AREA "G" PALM DRIVE BETWEEN THIRTY FIFTH PLACE TO TWENTY SEVENTH STREET ALTERNATE I, RECONSTRUCT ITEM DESCRIPTION 1 RE -CONNECT SERVICE W/NEW WYE 2 CONST. NEW 8" SEWER MAIN 3 CONST. SEWER MAN HOLE 4 CONST. PAVEMENT RESTORATION 5 ABANDON EXIST. SEWER MAN HOLES 6 MOBILIZATION AND CONTINGENCY TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST ITEM UNITS QUANT. EA LF EA SF EA LS 21 1547 9 4641 7 LS UNIT • TOTAL COST • 1,000.00 21, 000.00 70.00 108, 290.00 3,000.00 27, 000.00 5. 00 23, 205. 00 1,000.00 7,000.00 27, 974. 25 27, 974.25 ALTERNATE II, INSITLFORM LINING DESCRIPTION 1 REPLACE SEWER WYE -NEW MAIN 2 REPAIR PROTRUDING TAP 3 OPEN SERVICE LATERALS 4 CONST. NEW 8" SEWER MAIN 5 INSTALL "INSITUFORM LINING" 6 REGROUT/POINT SEWER MAN HOLE 7 CONST. PAVEMENT RESTORATION 8 MOBILIZATION AND CONTINGENCY TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST ITEM UNITS QUANT. EA EA EA LF LF EA SF LS 0 1 21 100 1547 9 0 LS ALTERNATE III, SLIPLINING DESCRIPTION 1 REPLACE SEWER WYE- NEW MAIN 2 REPLACE SEWER WYE -EXIST. MAIN 3 CONST. NEW 8" SEWER MAIN 4 INSTALL "SLIPLINING" 5 REGROUT/POINT SEWER MAN HOLE 6 CONST. PAVEMENT.RESTORATION 7 REPAIR OFFSET JOINT 8 PULL PIT 9 MOBILIZATION AND CONTINGENCY TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST UNITS QUANT. EA EA LF LF EA SF EA LS LS 19 0 21 100 1547 9 0 1 LS LS UNIT COST 1,000.00 325.00 70. 00 48.00 500.00 14, 037.15 UNIT COST 1,200. 00 70.00 42. 00 500.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 15, 701.10 214, 469.25 TOTAL . 00 1, 000.00 6, 825.00 7,000.00 74,256. 00 4, 500.00 .00 14,037.15 107, 618.15 TOTAL . 00 25, 200. 00 7,000.00 64, 974.00 4,500. 00 . 00 1,000.00 21000.00 15, 701.10 120, 375. 10 w Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council February 16, 1988 Regular Meeting of February 23, 1988 DOWNTOWN AREA MAINTENANCE Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 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 Maintenance, Inc. for the three months (April, May & June) remaining in FY 87-88. (Existing contract expires on March 23, 1988.) Specialty Maintenance Company, Inc. has agreed to extend the existing contract through June 30, 1988 on a month-to-month basis. Background: At the January 12, 1988 meeting, City Council took the following action: 1. approved contract and specifications for downtown area maintenance, and 2. authorized staff to advertise for bids and issue addenda as necessary. Analysis: On January 14, 1988, request for proposals were mailed to ten (10) prospective firms. Two bids were received. See attached list (Exhibit 8) for complete list of contractors. Two bids were received. Staff recommends the bids be rejected because of technical errors in the bids received and concerns regarding the wording in the specifications. Staff will prepare minor modifications to the specifications to more clearly delineate funding sources for the individual activities. Respectfully submitted, ,1 1v ik4 Anthony Antich Director -of Pu•lic Works A;11:04 ly Exhibit B DOWNTOWN AREA MAINTENANCE On January 14, 1988, Request for Proposals were mailed to the following firms: A-1 Steam Cleaning 34 Fourteenth Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 A & W Cleaning Service 66A Ninth Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Brimhall Company 2255 Lemon Street Long Beach, CA 90806 R. F. Dickson Company 12524 Clark Avenue Downey, CA 90242 Klean-Sweep Parking Lot Service P. 0. Box 3395 Torrance, CA 90510 RFP picked up on 2/1/88: Steve Renda 1830 Torrance Blvd. Torrance, CA 90501 daml/v 2/8/88 1 Mason Parking Lot Service 5324 West 144th Street Lawndale, CA 90260 Mercury Sweeping Service 13822 South Prairie Hawthorne, CA 90250 South Bay Sweeping Company 1918 West 169th Street Gardena, CA 90247 Specialty Maintenance 115 W. Torrance BLvd., #A2 Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Superior Sweeping, Ltd. 24641 Padron Place Lomita, CA 90717 February 16, 1988 Mayor Etta Simpson City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mayor Simpson: It has come to my attention that the contract for the maintenance of the downtown streets and sidewalks has come to bid. I would just like to add my personal observations in the hopes that the present maintenance organization will continue to be retained. In the last few years, the difference in the cleanliness of downtown has been dramatic. Small details that are not readily apparent to the average visitor are constantly being performed by the present crew. For example, there is never any beach sand on Pier Ave. After our winter storms, it is immediately picked up there and also the Strand area where many of us walk and bicycle. The work that is performed during the Fiestas by the contractor is exemplary and done quickly and efficiently. In the past that has not always been so. I am not sure if this is part of the of their work obligation, but as a citizen and Chamber Member it is very much appreciated. We have often heard the phrase "penny-wisebut und-foolish", however in this case, I feel we have received our money's worth from Mr. Hagman and his nice crew. I urge you and your Council to retain the present contractor and keep Hermosa Beach as clean as it has been. Sincerely, Edie Webber cc: Councilmembers Williams, Sheldon, Creighton and Rosenberger SUPPLEMEN f SIL INFORMATION ty LEARNED LUMBER PLYWOOD LUMBER BUIWINDOWS AND DOORS LD RS HARDWARE 635 Pacific Coast Hwy., Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 • (213) 374-3406 772-1671 • El Segundo yard (213) 322-4595 772-8131 Mayor and City Council February 16,1988 It has come to my attention that you have received several proposals for the cleaning and maintenance of the downtown area. I am a resident who dines and shops in the downtown area and a businessperson who cares about the quality of our entire city. I urge you to vote for Specialty Maintenance because of their outstanding record. I have worked with Ken Handman on several community projects and know that he shares our pride in Hermosa Beach. Si. re y Rick ear ed SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ly 0 February 11, 1988 City Council Meeting February 23, 1988 Mayor and Members of the City Council ORDINANCE NO. 88-915 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ZONE CHANGE FROM R-2 C -POTENTIAL TO C-3 AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 720 8TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK A, REDONDO HERMOSA TRACT. Submitted for waiver of further reading and adoption is Ordinance No. 88-915 relating to the above subject. At the regular meeting of January 12, 1988, this resolution was introduced by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Concur: Rosenberger, Sheldon, Williams, Mayor Simpson Creighton None None kiildze.) )42.) Kat leen Midstokke, City Clerk ALANA MASTRIAN, Acting City Manager j a 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. 88-915 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, A ZONE CHANGE FROM R-2, C -POTENTIAL TO DECLARATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 720 DESCRIBED AS LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK A, REDONDO CALIFORNIA, APPROVING C-3 AND A NEGATIVE 8TH STREET, LEGALLY HERMOSA TRACT. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on January 12, 1988 to receive oral and written testimony on this matter and made the following Findings: A. The City Council wishes to expand commercially zoned property within the Multi -Use Corridor; B. The C -Potential designation indicates that this property's ultimate use is commercial; and C. The proposed zone change is consistent with the General Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The official Zoning Map the property at 720 8th Lots 5 and 6, Block A, R-2, C -Potential zone to shall be amended by rezoning street, legally described as Redondo Hermosa Tract, from C-3, General Commercial zone. 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. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after tbe 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 tbe City of Hermosa Beach, in tbe manner provided by law. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the pass$ge.and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which tbe same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of y=am- 1988. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: CITY CLERK CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Michael Schubach, P1cyg Director SUBJECT: DATE: February 23, 1988 Music Plus Zone Change Please find attached the correspondence from the representatives of Music Plus regarding the operation time of the parking lot, and a request for further continuance. cc: City Manager Assistant City Manager SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 2b 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 FOUNDING MEMBER OF CHAIN LINKS ere < Member ,0t0,0.0„.., pl T'1 0� sn000��y CMItrS OFFICES IN: SAN DIEGO (619) 544-1449 SAN FRANCISCO (415) 673-1000 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. GC/sl cc: Lou Fogelman Terry Pringle Michael L. Epsteen Alex Byer February 11, 1988 City Council Meeting February 23, 1988 Mayor and Members of the City Council RESOLUTION NO. 88-5099 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING OF A PRECISE PLAN FOR 720 - 8TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK A, REDONDO HERMOSA TRACT. Submitted for approval as to form is Resolution No. 88-5099 relating to the above subject. The change has been made that the business must eliminate lighting at 10:00 p.m. with the exception of security lighting, and a clerical change has been made to require decorative trash can locations. At the regular meeting of January 12, 1988, this resolution was adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Sheldon, Williams, Mayor Simpson Creighton None Rosenberger Kat leen Concur: ALANA MASTRIAN, Acting City Manager Midstokke, dstokke, City Clerk 2b 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 88-5099 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING OF A PRECISE PLAN FOR 720 - 8TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK A, REDONDO HERMOSA TRACT. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on January 12, 1988 to receive oral and written testimony regarding this matter 2nd made the following Findings: A. This Precise Plan is approved in conjunction with a zone change from R-2, C -Potential to C-3 at 720 - 8th Street; B. The Zoning Ordinance requires properties designated "C -Potential" to submit a Precise Plan for approval; C. The applicant proposes to develop the site as a parking lot in conjunction with an adjacent retail business at 729 Pacific Coast Highway; D. The proposed parking lot will provide additional parking for the business and therefore, be a benefit to the community by reducing the demand for the already impacted on -street parking; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED tbat the City Council of tbe City of Hermosa Beacb, California, does bereby approve a Precise Plan for property at 720 - 8tb Street, legally described as Lots 5 and 6, Block A, Redondo Hermosa Tract subject to tbe following conditions; 1. A lot merger prohibiting the separation, sale, and/or lease of individual lots which constitute the overall subject property as shown on submitted plans shall be recorded prior to tbe issuance of Building Permits. 2. The existing residential structure shall be completely removed within one year of approval of this Precise Plan. 3. Parking spaces shall be striped in conformance with the Zoning Code. 4. The entire parking area shall be paved, and/or resurfaced. a. Any cracks and/or potholes shall be repaired. 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 5. Lighting, either existing or proposed, for the parking lot shall comply with all of the following: a. Conform to building regulations. b. Directed away from all residential properties to avoid all glare. c. The business must eliminate lighting at 10:00 p.m. with the exception of security lighting. d. Light must be on a timer. e. Security lighting shall be provided and maintained after 10:00 p.m. 6. Fencing along the north side of the parking area shall be a maximum of 5 feet wrought iron to provide visibility into the entire parking lot and set back 3 or 4 feet from property line to reduce the impact of it's height. 7. Security gates shall be provided. a. The security gates shall be closed after 10:00 p.m. 8. Landscaped areas shall be as shown modified plans and shall be subject to approval by the Planning Director a. Landscaped areas shall be maintained in a heat and clean manner. b. An automatic landscape sprinkler system shall be provided. c. 6 inch, raised concrete curbing along the perimeter of all landscaped areas shall be provided. d. Minimum size of trees shall be 15 gallon with locations as specified on plans. e. A minimum of three to four, 24 inch boxed trees along the north side. 9. Landscaped areas shall be modified to include wide planted areas the deeper the project intrudes into the existing residential neighborhood. 10. The proposed block wall shall be of a split -face, earth tone block, other than grey, and shall be maintained in undamaged condition free of graffiti. 11. A grading plan resolving any and/or all water ponding problems at the subject location shall be submitted to the Building Department for review and approval prior to obtaining Building Permits. 12. Circulation of the parking lot shall ge as follows: a. The westerly driveway shall be designated as the entrance. b. The easterly driveway shall be designated as the exit. c. Painted arrows and signs shall be provided to direct circulation. 13. Two decorative trash can locations shall be provided subject to approval by the Planning Director. 1 14. Development shall substantially conform with approved revised plans and shall conform to all of the conditions set forth in this resolution. Any modifications are subject to approval by the Planning Director. 2 15. Owner management shall implement effective strategies to control loitering at the site due to special event ticket 3 sales. 4 a. Ticket sales shall be prohibited prior to 11:00 a.m. daily for special events, or other acceptable methods to 5 eliminate overnight camping, loitering, or similar behavior of patrons shall be provided. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 b. Regular event, low demand, ticket sales may commence if no problems arise. c. Any alternate method shall be subject to approval of the Planning Director prior to implementation. d. Signage shall be placed clearly stating "No loitering, camping, or trespassing on neighborhood property". 16. Owner shall request a Conditional Use Permit for ticket sales. a. A Conditional Use Permit application shall be submitted within 90 days of the adoption of the proposed Text Amendment. 7. Owner shall obtain a Businesss License for special event ticket sales. 18. Three (3) copies of the revised site plan conforming to the conditions set forth herein shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to issuance of any Building Permits. 19. This Precise Plan shall become null and void unless substantial effort to implement said plan has occurred within one year. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 1988. 14( PRESI EN o the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. TTEST: 6 PPROVED 27 LERK ITY ATTORNEY 3 February 11, 1988 City Council Meeting February 23, 1988 Mayor and Members of the City Council ORDINANCE NO. 88-916 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA 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. Submitted for waiver of further reading and No. 88-916 relating to the above subject. At the regular meeting of January 12, 1988, introduced by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Concur: adoption is Ordinance this resolution was Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Williams, Mayor Simpson None None None &g44-‘- 7//tew.. Ka hleen Midstokke, City Clerk ALANA MASTRIAN, Acting City Manager 0 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. 88-916 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA 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. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on February 9, 1988 to receive oral and written testimony regarding this matter and made the following Findings: A. Ticket Brokers are currently allowed in C-1 zones and do not require a Conditional Use Permit; B. Established ticket brokers are experiencing problems related to overnight camping; C. Requirement of a Conditional Use Permit and the imposition of conditions will mitigate any problems that may arise in conjunction with the said use; NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby ordain the following: Section 1. Delete the following permitted use: Article 8, Section 8-2. Neighborhood Commercial Zone - "Ticket Broker" Section 2. Amend Article 8, Section 8-3, Restricted Commercial Zone by adding in alphabetical order the following: "Ticket Broker/Sales, Conditional Use Permit required subject to Article 10." Section 3. 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 4. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law. Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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 February, 1988. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY February 10, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of February 23, 1988 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH RELATING TO ACCESS OF CRIMINAL HISTORY INFORMATION FOR PURPOSES OF EMPLOYMENT, LICENSING, OR CERTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Adopt the attached resolution. 2. Receive and file this report. BACKGROUND: Following an article published in the Daily Breeze on January 6, 1988 concerning an ordinance adopted by the City of El Segundo and relating to records checks, staff was directed to determine if the City of Hermosa Beach had or needed similar legislation. ANALYSIS: The ordinance adopted in El Segundo addressed the issue of authorizing the City Manager to access state and local summary criminal history information for preemployment screening purposes. Staff determined that the City of Hermosa Beach does not have an ordinance, resolution, or rule which authorizes access to criminal record information for employment, licensing, or certification purposes. The Department of Justice, Bureau of Criminal Identification section was contacted regarding this issue. They informed us that the City needs to adopt a resolution if we desire to obtain criminal history information for the above listed purposes. In order to obtain criminal history information for use by the City Manager and Personnel Director, we recommend that Council adopt a resolution. CONCUR: Atana Mastria , Acting City Manager Director of Public Safety 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 RESOLUTION NO. 88 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RELATING TO ACCESS OF CRIMINAL HISTORY INFORMATION FOR PURPOSES OF EMPLOYMENT, LICENSING, OR CERTIFICATION. WHEREAS, Penal Code Sections 11105(b)(10), and 13300(b)10 authorize cities, counties, and districts to access state and local summary criminal history information for employment, lic- ensing, or certification purposes, and WHEREAS, Penal Code Section 11105(b)(10) requires that there be a requirement or exclusion from employment, licensing or certification based on specific criminal conduct on the part of the subject of the record, and WHEREAS, Penal Code Sections 11105(b)(10) require the City Council, board of supervisors, or governing body of a city; county, or district to specifically authorize access to summary criminal history information for employment, licensing, or certification purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the City Manager and Personnel Director are hereby authorized to access summary crim- inal history information for employment, licensing, or certifi- cation purposes, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, the City of Hermosa Beach shall not consider a person who has been convicted of a felony or mis- demeanor involving moral turpitude eligible for employment or licensing; except that such conviction may be disregarded if it is determined that mitigating circumstances exist, or that the conviction is not related to the employment or license in question. 1 2 3 4 5 6 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of 1988. ATTEST: APPROVED AS 10 1 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California CITY CLERK , CITY ATTORNEY Subject: Resolution Adoption Penal Code Sections 11105(b)(10) and 13300(b)(10) authorize cities/counties to access state and local summary criminal history information for employment, licensing, or certification purposes if the governing board has implemented an ordinance or regulation that expressly refers to specific criminal conduct and contains requirements or exclusions or both, expressly based upon such criminal conduct. If the City/County wishes to obtain criminal history information for purposes of employment, licensing, or certification, the city council could adopt a resolution similar to the attached example. Upon receipt of the resolution, the Department of Justice would notify the City Personnel Officer of the procedures for submitting fingerprints and the fee schedule. Very truly yours, JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP Attorney General DENNIS O'CONNELL, Applicant Operations Record Control Section Bureau of Criminal Identification jeg Attachment 9 February 17, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of February 23, 1988 AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL FOR USE OF VISA BANK CARD Recommendation It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution thereby adding the City Manager, Kevin Northcraft, to the list of authorized personnel eligible to utilize the City's VISA bank card. Background The City has had possession of a bank card since 1981. Bank re- quirements dictate that each eligible user be specifically iden- tified by name and title via a City Council resolution. Analysis As the former City Manager's name was on the list of authorized personnel eligible to use this card, we are simply requesting the new City Manager's name be substituted. Alana M. Mastrian Acting City Manager AMM/ld 2f 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 88- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 87-5025 RELATING TO AU- THORIZED USERS OF VISA BANK CARD SERVICES FROM BANK OF AMERICA NT&SA. WHEREAS, the City of Hermosa Beach, a Municipal Cor- poration, was issued Commercial BANKAMERICARD VISA bank cards from Bank of America NT&SA for use by certain officers and em- ployees by Resolution 81-4489 as amended by Resolution 85-4860 and Resolution 87-5025; and WHEREAS, a new City Manager has been hired and his responsibilities require frequent purchases that could effective- ly utilize a commercial bank card service; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the authorized signatures in Section 1 of Resolution 87-5025 be amended to read as follows: AUTHORIZED SIGNATURES: Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager Robert Blackwood Personnel Director Steve Wisniewski Public Safety 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 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 23rd day of February, 1988. PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY Pam English 28150 Hlaminos Or. Saugus, Ca gl:::50 FebruarY 9, 1988 Olar CitY Council Members; As a frequent visitor to the CitY of Hermosa Beach and the uife of a Hermosa Beach native (a 22 Year Strand resident) I was quite shocKed recentiv to learn of Your citY ordinance concerning the beach, boats and municiPal Pier. Sec. 5-5. Animals. While it is certainly understandable that dogs are not allowed on the beach, not allowing the trained guide -dog came as quite a suPrise. As You can read bY the enclosed COPY of the California State Lau guide -dogs are Protected bY law. It seems as though Your code is in direct conflict with this law. Hs a Girl Scout trooP we are curentlY raising an International Guiding EYe PuPPY from the International Guiding EYe facilitY in SYlmar California. In doing so we are hoPing to teach the girls in our troop about the equalitY and diversity of all individuals. CertainlY You must realize the imPortance of involving our Youth in the issues of todaY. While we realize that the PuPPY is not Protected bY law to visit all Public Places we have never been refused admittance to anY Public Place with our PuPPY "Trooper": that is until we visited Your citY on Jan. 17. When we were asKed to take the dog off the beach we showed our identification card to no avail (coPY enclosed). The PuPPY was wearing a*. Yellow identification jacKet and I.O. tag also. Infact we asKed about a trained guide dog for a blind Person and were told "The sign over there saYs 'No Dogs' and that means all dogs". Do You exPect a blind Person to read this sign? Prior to this visit mY husband and I had had "Trooper" out, we had sPoKen to another animal control officer about our dog and were treated very courteouslv and not given anY indication that our PuPPY or a trained 9uide-do9 would not be allowed. We asK You to Please evaluate the validitY of this lam. Please remember that in 1935 laus began to reflect the need to accomodate these sPecial dogs. We would also asK that as You consider this aPPeal that You do consider the PuPPY in training, a Program essential in the training Process of a guide-do9. Enclosed You will find letters from most rif the girls in our troop. These unaltered letters reflect the Personal thoughts and views of the girls. Please KeeP in mind the age and maturitY level of our diversified and differentiallY abled troop. 4a ° We would aPPreciate a rePly from You regarding this matter. You ma./ direct rePlies to mY address' Girl Scouts TrooP 167 28150 Hlaminos Or. �augus, Ca 91350 Should You require additional information or have anY questions conernin9 guide dogs or the PuPPY training Program You mav contact' International Guiding EYes Foundation 13445 GlenoaKs Boulevard Svlmar, California 91342 (818) 362-5834 SincerelY, ` i, Pam English, leader Girl Scouts -- Joshua Tree Council Junior TrooP 167 ilupnisei R1.! _ (garb This card vWiii fdentit: '.::.,:,, Vic.. Namn Bob' English Address ! SO>` Iaminos Dr. `'saucus,‘ Ca. as : • tunteet Puppy Raiser" for dy�y, y` w< Yii. This family is responsible for the early training of the guide dog puppy that is currently in their charge. The cooperation of all merchants and public officials is necessary in allowing the puppy access to stores, blic buildin. and public transportation. %I_ , _ L r Pay Program Manager Director of Training 063000 • CALIFORNIA California Statutes of 1968, Chapter 461, Part 2.5 of California Civil Code, Sections 54 through 54.7, and Sections 55 & 55.1, amended 1969, 1972, 1974, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, and 1983. California law guarantees a blind person the legal right to be accompanied by a specially trained dog guide in all public accommodations and on all public transportation. Also guaranteed is the right of a dog guide user to equal availability to commercial hous- ing, but the landlord is not required to modify the premises or to maintain a higher standard for care than they provide other tenants. No extra charge can be levied by a public accommodation, common car- rier or landlord because of the dog guide's presence, and the dog guide user -is liable for any property damage caused by the dog. For purposes of Califor- nia state income tax, all costs for the maintenance of a dog guide are deductible as medical expenses. Public accommodations include hotels, motels, restaurants, stores, places of resort and recreation, and all other places to which the public is invited. Zoos are the only exception, but if a zoo excludes dog guides, the facility must provide an ade- quate kennel area for housing the dog guides, and must pro- vide a sighted escort if the dog guide user is not accompanied by a sighted person. (§54.1, §54.7) Common carriers or public transportation includes air- planes, trains, taxis, buses, and all other forms of trans- portation offered for public use. (§54.1) Housing includes all property offered for rent or use, except private, single-family dwellings of no more than one room for rent. (§54.1) Violation: The above enumerated rights are enforceable under the provisions. of the California Civil Rights Code. (§54.3, §55, §55.1) • 1- 6 • f .` .`•fit• • • ANL ttAgit, aijitw _Jag. fp (j.ns.:0.- I u . --- liuus eL Ar.2,1W) '!‘ 4 74 4C1., • f t l'‘‘)1 J r„ t 716, - rii-1;tige Tit „cot -4,1:402Ataujc ci 'i cb-mmizA/.ki6.LCZ2J _CL 'QL cidyNizb uiob, TVE"_ca, nsmituzzi, azuh' „ to" 1-‘,ZaijA...._ 0.1i7112, • oazzic, A9-eizzmie>2)_. .1x-cr-Ok d1Lor O�Z 4eZ< C 69Z a,ei:&)zcG ten, NIT : Maw C r arrn c. iriAlt-liq 2.t. , 0 n i. • •-. • iiIi i terij CeZ ...1 / -:r i••• .-it ,....12...,& - ( i 0 ::..tLet-i 1/ / / C W i rZle_.• ,..)12.j).1....,et.stah . d - , ,k, -21)-4_ ,- -A-- ./ : .....-, J..-- %.,..,-,...1.--` ,f / ..-4:..../ / - - '..-. 'ti- 0 / J./ ,•--' 1 ,, \ , A f en. rr.„ .. r . . \ i t-,..,itii-V 0 '7:-0a:L,'r..),..J 7)11 -:tr.'17_.) 0 ' J ,-,-i -- ,c ,_ . •-/L•--,....•4./-.,g„. • •/ L i%- - L-I •D-, . c_7. --(71,--,l--A4/) .- ,i , ,8Un../...d • 2 CI . ...:r,.\.) * )/7 c-?! CUr---i:. ... ._•; i_:_,_ -i: • .-:--.:L.- . . .. .`?•--<-,s. 211CL r 619 :i 0 lhba. czafiqc -", L., •• L --l-f---..%.,4•-- r)'‘) -1-7-0 -0.../-,Q 171 -._ 3 -01)(1.r. -k, i r.,-• u / • TANK GIG= OOGS hz301-13 8"" PILLOW 'D :ON ,?au \OK S= ez f��_tai P:5(45.:14 wRNtS l0 Cro Yi ,c T .i'Jpr NJ 7'gs\ _ �s�� -c� rt:Q'.J /'its ROU 5:, -zoo L-0 ? UtJ `fir ULR�`'�� 1`�l� vo5P 1,,j14:-., t)3 Pc 0 cavo 44EL9 t SLx 410 C' a6� \Ayr:7`A MA Qt -t, r _.,� tJ • SiNceQLt1 Ei=r��R L 140wCn • Deco- W.R.7656z... ne tholc -t h sdTd2.. dcE3 e do 5 in --c; rgt -Me • }1 beach . btri)1O'�/ c m7- ht. ibco-\-\- D Rc to ID,ccA (Lind r 1)0, 13 4 Lj....1 I" if yr lit 2 -I -,•,. 112 Or. CO U ".1'11)0f• f?1"; C - • . 0 0 (..) • k. ••J --/-/1-:t7f/1). 630 P(so doL -95 0 ir• c rue„6115 and nr..^1 CJC 07'e 14. Luv) Cte_: I () ytxde: s roolo: (re. • • ••• ;••• " , • -• : 6. 'PlecL6e i2O:icAcr s , ips, Tiea3 aons`kke '7Q+ `A," \ 411 e CO LA ncLii Y Li 0 I ; ‘4\ 6 r) 4-- - (1. \ )91 cd cL • • 9 C -6-1(1.A3 1 !f �r�• Q.' ..C' aY (5V 1./ • -1 Y _ • f1 i RPh ,-n�,� � /�r1,1 t-t'� , { i i_? u_Le ♦.; • :� Q Q �•'r,�r�L�'L� 7:ItX 41,4 • %-.11 /T,P\-(4-- (-0.--K-,-Ci-0,1_71-k-ua. .-r �� 191• � -/V Y•"; L 6'• cLit.!t l t t.•`-��r�..• �,1`t _ (,,s -^'_ . .�_rV ' " fyvytF ' _ /Y i -v rt rpr-;2_p•-) ,-6\) l.: j 1 L.{.A.,fr.t''r ot4e r`t i it '~11. - t, -•Ci.. ,,� • c.u/P-4 A.,:tE•••,:,•,.. -�'UFFt?'fj 4y�, fE i E J--1'\:%_/ ' �-` ' r+ 1 i" ;• r{•y �„r fir„' .t ...-1.. ... �„i �..�%.... •+1.:� � L 1(6 } C C CLULI 0—v4- U�-r-�� 1 ugyre_ (7-( .,�.y._c�-L.Y..-a.�,t-� " I ( bLddn )/DL&or / 66€) V/1 tk2 'CZ cL oLik Ca n ,. cd LA Id 01091 • th-C h e_ cgrck -421- rropi.n.) Cher,3Litsik -e - I d 47, tr.-40• COLA OCI Oucr rtSCoc_ti f C 11: Re Lt.) k clic) t 0LAc". oloQL in -1-cco C PGtr. 171€1-171GSQ 'ecv!1`,... `- (-&r c r.1 I Ir; I, t.:�1 d .l r+ a f.. k ..-. _ .2_ _J o Ll. -2'e �scn_' y' r'_ - -- -- `�0 eac._VN.o2— ��.0...-- _c\__ Lt i CSC.-- - - C.,. 03 A._5 T ___ --i•l-- ---..=----- !:ir-c __A 1.00 d -- ', \...l E�( _<_a " ._i- r --- g=.,, -‘ - CX Sack- --- I_) .. _._-i i.. _'e._ c 1.gt lz — • - I mow__t_kc4f_— _ .1g r. _—darn a _ ..._ dQ.►1.e_____w - cf id .e. — -- _ Lt. -1:r_ k.- \ --b –.Lj , 'lei-. _ 1z),j _+- he...._ a- (..cic e-- -8. ost - - ----- - c_ r`a-.f a «.iii --�� 17J. • no + _o.. , iz( _ .9c)__ r...t.j.‘ -- ..: \-,) c. k___. Q----.. -_.me. ( Cn - -• k i vi, .1 7s _ ./ n•---- .H. = cryi_cy_ (_____.____:a„,_,N.3 i -%--N_ N'ci.....11- ._ \?. _ _ .c7.'o 1 c., _ -t- o. _ . 9 0 _ . __-t..$) ..... _ k.e.. -- --- - - 1c b ecce g. p i 6 7 cd e Peck, r vv\ 0 rry Q, 0 n4,', rnj .1-40 woc)lb you 1 I. he C 4- i -F you ( .11AQ 4-w `-c-- k you \tv er-Q_ 13 I ‘srid, and- you aooki no+ 90 on ct bctch,...rr, +-he C ci I ; cor 0 ic4 3++G L a w oc 1 i.eld. pprsori 4.-h .e... leo ql r ;..9 6+ -3/4--0 _b -e . QC C. 0(11 PCs ti i cd by el .1$:::1 CC I ci 1 ly +(g in,sei C109. 30 lid Q_ _ith _ci i I pobNc ci c c ci tin ,,o_d 4.4f6'n a Acl al/ p) h 1:c A- ra r\ 4c -P ol'''4T:4 4- k.c) nt TV b1)1 • (7- t ..2.113-Csk /r\O't _th-re-tcy.; _1(0`7 ecxc ".•*/0•1-1C . , r7" -s \3 -eThCk et n mc -k 0 \C\ \-)rNQ.- '' cQ bQ..• \ t* 0c\ ‘....,„ 9 .0 ..0 eN ••••• 014. \AO‘f \ 131 ? i CS1 /0" 1/- '-) ;.h ! C • • • • r I heacke LJQIYI fo # , , on IT a u, )Ci beCIQ.;:t. I 1 • I )C . -f-n-eJ p C(011,• 00t1 trCO ii tyl Qyo.s c/o oc-)4 (3 \..) •• • do°, hc to 0 P -1-11 ) '41 LbQe1).9 cot 01/ I c.1 d I e• , - • • •4--,,N / .1 3 , 5o -on Ltsi ck,._ _ UT rr Wk.cx.*- c-\‘‘,‘, \-‘ C • -( Fsr C t) s_G t "0<\'\s Nk\\C-id \ 0 r, \''‘ A" €_-`.\ (tit Q (--0 Ot Nir-Nrx-3 \i'N(2 • 0\-.) ftk7 rxq.Aca‘ e IA • R. S. Pe-ck..pe L.,.(2)\-$ 4.\c7 os • 1 re,stNocx\D • +\i-oLL-.9 Cerwrt-c(;t -te-L 42:A4 ;t, 4c4f2cea, WrIe itAvv-e.... 1-2:14.4toe..-- tftiot-- JA2 4„,7-eceel 16;t' te- iteet,C Cttit 4,A2 _ rct,_ _ i.i/Cr7a Ie at" ..q444&7 _ ic7 0 16 UJhe7T , vsk (AC,e'{1 ,,Cf CYNt-Q9 sidSlet OTh (2CfC h dit rr ) II, - -‘•• • - 7.r --' I (-4 1 L.1 m Ciiir e .;;fl At.riVIQ), e -r\ hQ Ca1n171jjJJQ — dki) J-0 c Luc, LO -_- - --_--_'-__- (j)(i � _ -_ --' - ~~~.`~_ .~~~-~ _ _ - - -. .~ /� x CikALUSLC (94-u � �^, `! ' - 0_0(Jz_H � �� - QAtexu-t4 Jr, .,outt -2AeuLL. _At/P.4.dt' Atv-rtet att.& zwo-riltrL (LV iL nikd C - ---.- a.__.em fit_ __cern t_y-vzi y -t qv y� c,P `� iced a cicx --Q.x email 4 e e 1� - - .be __I \L 4ha+OC1 ,sroo ✓t, e \-Deoc \1..1 -he Pr 1D1 i` r$d — 1�� L.0 ,b A'h a ;z 0 aPyGJ\1\4\ e. -e ca -D • CALIFORNIA California Statutes of 1968, Chapter 461, Part 2.5 of California Civil Code, Sections 54 through 54.7, and Sections 55 & 55.1, amended 1969, 1972, 1974, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, and 1983. California law guarantees a blind person the legal right to be accompanied by a specially trained dog guide in all public accommodations and on all public transportation. Also guaranteed is the right of a dog guide user to equal availability to commercial hous- ing, but the landlord is not required to modify the premises or to maintain a higher standard for care than they provide other tenants. No extra charge can be levied by a public accommodation, common car- rier or landlord because of the dog guide's presence, and the dog guide user -is liable for any property damage caused by the dog. For purposes of Califor- nia state income tax, all costs for the maintenance of a dog guide are deductible as medical expenses. Public accommodations include hotels, motels, restaurants, stores, places of resort and reci eation, and all other places to which the public is invited. Zoos are the only exception, but if a zoo excludes dog guides, the facility must provide an ade- quate kennel area for housing the dog guides, and must pro- vide a sighted escort if the dog guide user is not accompanied by a sighted person. (§54.1, §54.7) Common carriers or public transportation includes air- planes, trains, taxis, buses, and all other forms of trans- portation offered for public use. (§54.1) Housing includes all property offered for rent or use,,_except private, single-family dwellings of no more than one room for rent. (§54.1) Violation: The above enumerated rights are enforceable under the provisions of the California Civil Rights Code. (§54.3, §55, §55.1) 1 6 3e6 17, 1988 i%,cmo4a Beach City Council: 9 nerentLy attempted to pwccha4e a paAking 4ticheA. to paah c.Lo4e to the 6eachbut .Learned that now only people LivLnp, in. the 40 railed "9mpacted Asea" ane allowed to punchwie the 4tLchead. We /cave been icenidente at /022 3icd St. fot 15 teats, have paid oua taxe t, and now Anal we aim Geeing, dL4ca urinated agaimt because we Live in the wrong area. 9, we want to go and enjoy out beach we mutt pay 11.50 to 12.00 to pack. 9, you believe the impacted area 4hould 6e moved panking, eve un9a and wee rends, you 4hould utue anothea, panA ng, itiche'i. to NeAmo4a Beach 4e4i,dent4 only good Aon -3.t4 gam to 4pm. Aid. would aL6aw all neeident4. to enjoy the beach, not just. a 4peciaL AID° ed4Stpwsoil 1022 3 d St. Phone 376-7436 P.S. P.lea4e .lei me know th ae4ta te. o, thie..LetteA. 4b Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council February 17, 1988 Regular Meeting of February 23, 1988 (CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FROM JANUARY 26, 1988) SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY Recommendation 1. Open public hearing. 2. Allow comments to responses and to the revised sections only; comments to other aspects of the Environmental Impact. Report should no longer be allowed. 3. Adopt the attached Resolution which certifies the following: a. The final Environmental Impact Report bas been completed in compliance with CEQA; and b. The final Environmental Impact Report was presented to the City Council, and was reviewed and will be considered prior to approving the project. or If the City Council believes that additional revisions are necessary, then, direct staff to investigate and prepare a report concerning the needed revisions and continue the public hearing to a date certain. Background The City Council at their January 26, 1988 meeting continued this matter to allow adequate time for review and consideration of the final Environmental Impact Report. On February 1, 1988, the final version of the Environmental Impact Report was distributed to the City Council, the library, Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company, OSPAC Chairperson Rosamond Fogg, City Manager and City Clerk. In addition copies were made available in the Planning Department. Analysis. The California Environmental Quality Act requires that in this case the City Council must certify the adequacy of the final Environmental Impact Report and certify that the City Council has - 1 - 4 reviewed and considered the final Environmental Impact Report in reaching its decision on the project. These two separate elements of certification have always been required. Since the project itself is not being considered simultaneously with the Environmental Impact Report, the attached Resolution indicates that the Environmental Impact Report was reviewed and will be considered in conjunction with the future decision regarding the railroad company's General Plan and zone change request. Attachments 1. City Council Resolution. 2. Planning Commission Resolution. 3. Minutes of January 5, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. 4. Minutes of January 26, 1988 City Council meeting. 5. Comments received at January 26, 1988 City Council meeting. 6. Staff report for City Council meeting of January 26, 1988. CONCUR: Alana Mastrian Acting City Manager pec f lly subnpitted Mic Aei Schubac� Planning Director 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 88- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE REQUEST. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on February 23, 1988 and made the following Findings: A. The document's adequacy and accuracy is certifiable; B. The City Council has reviewed the Environmental Impact Report and will consider its contents in conjunction with the future decision regarding the proposed General Plan Amendmend and Zone Change request for which the document was written; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby certify the Environmental Impact Report for the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company General Plan Amendment and Zone Change request. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of February, 1988. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: APPROVED 4 FORM• CkTY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RESOLUTION P.C. 88-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SUBJECT TO THE CHANGES AS RECOMMENDED BELOW FOR THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE REQUEST. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 5, 1988 and made the following Findings: The document's adequacy and accuracy is certifiable once the following changes are made: 1. All comments and responses shall be made a part of the document; 2. All necessary revisions shall be integrated into the document, and the draft sections shall be removed; 3. A revised Air Quality section shall be added identifying the worst case scenario prior to final approval; 4. The Noise section shall be carefully examined for accuracy of the data presented; 5. Revisions to the Traffic section shall be subject to the Public Works Director's review and approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby recommend certification of the Environmental Impact Report subject to the changes as recommended above for the Atchison, Topeka and Santa. Fe Railway Company General Plan Amend and Zone Change request. VOTE: AYES: Comms.DeBellis,Peirce,Rue,Chmn.Compton NOES:. Comm.Ingell ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 88-11 is a d cpm•lete record of the action taken by the Planni n tru ion' g the City of Hermosa Beach, Califo-Fnia mat their of anuary 5, 1988., �7 �! erald Compton, Chairman 7 -!? at -1S —4—. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 5, 1988 PAGE 3 CERTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY (CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 1, 1987, MEETING) Mr. Schubach read into the record the following statements: "The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines do not require a public hearing for E.I.R.'s according to Section 15202. However, if a public hearing is provided as the City has opted to do in the case of the Railroad Right -of -Way E.I.R., Section 15202 suggests that the same procedures be used as are used for other city public hearings. "The City, however, has gone beyond its regular public noticing for adoption of resolutions in the following manner: 1. Provided a schedule of all public hearing dates and times to Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company. 2. Provided a written reminder to the railway company of the continued public hearing date of January 5, 1988, already specified at the December 1, 1987, public hearing. 3. Posted the subject property three times: once for the 45 -day review period; once for the December 1, 1987, public hearing; once for the January 5, 1988, continued public hearing. • 4. Publicly noticed in the local newspaper three times: once for the 45 -day draft E.I.R. review period; once for the December 1, 1987, public hearing; and once for the continued January 5, 1988, public hearing. "Since the CEQA guidelines recommend the same noticing process as for other public hearings, the appropriate process is noted in Section 1605(A) of the zoning ordinance. Note this is not a hearing for the actual zone change, but only for the E.I.R." Mr. Schubach continued by giving staff report dated December 30, 1987. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 16 and 18, 1987, to accept input concerning the • draft Environmental Impact Report prepared by the consultants, Sanchez Telarico. The report was found to be erroneous and inadequate. The major problems were the use of PLANNING COMMLON MINUTES - JANUARY 5, 1988 C PAGE 4 the wrong project description and winter traffic counts instead of summer counts. These two problems caused all related sections such as noise and air quality to be in error. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council certification of the Environmental Impact Report subject to additional modifications as noted in the reports received by the Commissioners and any other changes deemed necessary based on public hearing testimony. The document has now been rewritten. Because the document had to be rewritten, another 45 -day public review period and public hearing were provided. At the December 1, 1987, meeting, the Planning Commission continued this matter to January 5, 1988, so that all comments could be responded to. The responses are generally adequate except for areas noted. However, the format should be modified prior to submittal to the City Council. The document should have the current text which needed revising removed and the new text integrated into the document. Also, a revised table of comments identifying all parts of the document should be provided. The revised noise section is complete; however, some of the numerical figures seem low. For instance, the increase in traffic between Ardmore and Pacific Coast Highway on 8th Street is almost doubled, but the increase in noise is only 1.8 bda. Some explanation should be given. The Air Quality Section is still being revised, as more time than was anticipated was necessary. Mr. Schubach stated that it is important to expedite this matter and be within the legal parameters; therefore, staff recommended the Planning Commission to recommend certification of the EIR, subject to the necessary modifications. Comm. Rue asked whether other matters could be brought up and discussed in the future if the Planning Commission recommends certification of the EIR at this time. He noted that it is possible that other areas of concern could be discovered at a future time. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative, noting that the Commission is merely making a recommendation to the Council at this time. He noted that if anyone has additional comments, those comments should be related to the responses given, not to. the draft EIR, since the 45 -day review period is over. If anyone feels that the responses are inadequate, they have a right to comment upon that. Comm. Rue asked whether new issues could be included in the EIR which may arise as a result of new public hearing information or information based on the comments of the reports relating to noise, traffic, and air quality. Mr. Bruce Tepper, consulting attorney to the City, replied in the affirmative. He stated that the public response period has technically ended; however, in view of the flexibility provided by CEQA, a public body considering a document of this type has the ability to incorporate comments which are received late, with some exceptions, into the report. Mr. Tepper noted that the areas of concern in the document are statistical data supporting .the conclusions, not changes in conclusions reached by the document. In terms of the ultimate substance, the document will not change one bit. Some of the PLANNING COMMON MINUTES - JANUARY 5, 1988 ( PAGE 5 statistical data may change somewhat, but not much. He noted that staff recommended certification subject to these additional details because it is staffs' opinion that the data to be included is not of a material nature, but merely additional back-up information for the conclusions that are reached in the document itself. Comm. Ingell asked when the EIR would go before the City Council if the recommendation to certify is approved tonight. Mr. Schubach stated that it would go to the Council in one month. Comm. Peirce asked about the placement of the responses within the document. Mr. Tepper stated that the comments and responses to comments are a part of the body of the EIR, not part of the appendices. The comments are of no less import than any of the initial portion of the document. He continued by explaining the locations of the comments within the document, stating that they are a separate portion of the EIR. Chmn. Compton asked whether it is the opinion of Mr. Tepper that the document is certifiable. Mr. Tepper replied in the affirmative. Public Hearing reopened at 7:56 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Frank Greco, representing Turini and Brink, 1920 East 17th Street, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission. He stated that late last week he had received a package of information, and there has not been adequate time to review the materials. However, the applicant does not object to this document going forward to the City Council for certification at this time, subject to several conditions. If there are to be any substantive changes, the applicant would like to request an opportunity to review and comment on any changes at such time the comments are forwarded to the City Council. This would include any changes to the summary of the traffic and circulation, noise elements, and air quality, as well as any other changes that might be made to the document. Mr. Greco felt that in fairness to the applicant and to the public, it is appropriate that the applicant and citizens have an adequate period of time in which to comment on those changes. Mr. Greco stated that the issue of air quality information is somewhat undecided at this point as to when it might be completed. He urged that there be no delay in the continued process of the matter. Rosamond Fogg, 610 6th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission. She stated that she feels the document is indeed certifiable. She commented on Page 9, No. 8, "Toxic and Hazardous Substances," and read a portion of that response: "...The act of approval or disapproval of this Project will not in itself result in any disturbance of the soil of the site. While the potential for subsurface contamination due to toxic or hazardous substances exist, approval of the land use changes will not activate such toxic and hazardous conditions...." Ms. Fogg stated that the reason behind not doing the soils testing appears to be somewhat faulty. She felt that there should be another, more sound reason given for not doing the testing. PLANNING COMMIC.ON MINUTES - JANUARY 5, 1988 ` PAGE 6 Public Hearing closed at 8:01 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Comm. Rue commented that the issue of how noise would affect the surrounding neighborhoods was not addressed. He hoped that that issue would be addressed in the final noise study. Comm. Ingell stated that he favored the soils testing, noting that he feels a potential problem could exist at the site, and it should be addressed. Comm. Ingell stated that the document as presented is difficult for the layperson to read and understand. Chmn. Compton noted that soils testing would be required at such time when an actual structure is proposed for the site. He noted that he would be very much in favor of doing everything possible to ascertain whether a problem does actually exist with toxic waste. He noted, however, that it is a question of when the testing would be required, suggesting that now might not be the appropriate time. He noted that it is not even certain whether the applicant will apply for the zone change. Comm. Ingell felt that soils testing should be done regardless of whether or not any structure is put on the site because of the water structure. Also, people use that area for jogging, and they could be kicking up toxic dust. Comm. DeBellis stated that he has read the documents presented and the previous minutes of this matter, as well as watched the meetings on television. He asked, however, if he was eligible to participate in discussion of the issue. Mr. Lough replied in the affirmative. Comm. DeBellis stated that this EIR has been studied at length, and there comes a time with any project when a decision must be reached. He noted that the Commission is being asked to make a recommendation based solely on whether or not it is felt that the report is adequate. He noted that legislative acts are not at issue at this time. Comm. DeBellis read from Page 9, Alternatives: "...What is clear from the discussion of alternatives is that any development constructed on the site will be environmentally inferior to the existing condition. The question before the City is whether it should change the existing Open Space uses in the proposed Project. The alternatives presented are reasonable and feasible to this determination. If the land use changes are approved, it is ATSF's responsibility to prepare and submit a specific development plan for the site which would integrate the development objectives with City policies...." Comm. DeBellis noted that Page 9 states: "...CEQA does not require that the City conduct every test and perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended to it to determine true and full environmental impact before it can approve or disapprove the proposed Project. It can properly, as here, identify the potential impact and require subsequent testing and research prior to any work or construction and development on the site...." Comm. DeBellis believed that more than adequate information has been presented in order to enable the City Council to make a decision on the impacts of approving or disapproving a requested zone change request and general plan change. PLANNING COMMI1.0N MINUTES - JANUARY 5, 1988 C PAGE 7 Comm. DeBellis was somewhat dismayed that nobody has expressed a concern that the soils testing should be done immediately since there could be a daily problem with the dust. He stated that every times it rains, something could be percolating into the well system. He noted that it is not appropriate to delay the EIR; however, if there is indeed concern, testing should be done to ascertain whether or not a problem does actually exist, because the problem will exist whether or not anything is built on the site. Comm. DeBellis concluded by stating that he feels the EIR to be adequate and certifiable. Comm. Peirce stated that he had no comments, noting that he agreed with the comments made by the other Commissioners. He felt that the EIR is certifiable. Chmn. Compton discussed the lease of this land, stating that there could be a major impact on the salt water intrusion project if the railroad decided to exercise its option to end the lease. He asked for clarification of this issue. Mr. Tepper stated that there is a license which is not an interest in land which is terminable. He continued by speculating what the railroad may or may not do in this regard. He discussed the issue of eminent domain. He stated that the response points out the fact that the equipment used in the salt water intrusion program is quite cumbersome and bulky. A particular governmental body does have the power of eminent domain itself, and there does not appear to be in the adjacent property areas of ent open open space sufficient to bring in that equipment on a regular basis in order to perform the work. He stated that this may prove to be more of an impediment to development on this property than most people realize. The response given, however, is accurate. Chmn. Compton discussed the issues of toxic waste, literature-. searches, and interviews of long-time residents. He agreed that if there is a potential problem with toxic waste, study should be given to the matter. He suggested that effort be given to trying to determine whether there have been toxic problems in the past. Chmn. Compton concluded by stating that he feels the EIR is a certifiable document. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Rue, to certify the Environmental Impact Report for the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Right -of -Way and recommend that it be referred to the City Council. AYES: Comms. DeBellis, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton NOES: Comm. Ingell ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Comm. DeBellis returned to the issue of hazardous waste and suggested that there be a resolution or recommendation sent to the City Council stating that the Planning Commission has expressed concern that there may be a problem existing, and that the Council should take appropriate steps to make a determination by whatever means are necessary. He noted also that animal feces may pose a danger at the site. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Chmn. Compton, to direct staff to prepare a resolution or recommendation (whichever is deemed appropriate by staff) to be sent to the City Council as noted above. PLANNING COMM( ON MINUTES - JANUARY 5, 1988 \ PAGE 8 Comm. Peirce agreed that this is a good idea; however, he felt that the issue should not be restricted to the railroad. He noticed that there are several other areas, specifically on 6th Street west of Valley, where there are probably just as high a potential for ground contamination. Therefore, he felt that the resolution should be for a City-wide survey. Mr. Schubach stated that staff could either prepare a memo to be sent to the City Council which relays the concerns expressed by the Commission, or staff could draft a resolution. Mr. Lough stated that either way is acceptable, so long as the issue remains separate from the action taken on the railroad right-of-way EIR. Chmn. Compton favored a resolution. He also felt that it is appropriate to conduct interviews of long-term residents. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Peirce to include all areas of the City in the survey. Agreed to by Comm. DeBellis as maker and Chmn. Compton as second. Frank Greco addressed the Commission and asked for clarification on the intent of the motion. He noted concern that there could be a delay in the EIR process and the project. Chmn. Compton noted that the issue of the railroad EIR is separate from the action being taken in regard to a City-wide survey on hazardous waste. John Edwards, 501 Herondo, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and discussed hazardous waste, stating that there is a difference between what is existing and what there would be with a project. He felt that the difference with this particular project, though, is that by digging up earth, hazardous particles could be. lofted through the air. Mr. Edwards stated that he would like to see a copy of the final EIR. He felt that the intent of CEQA is to ensure that the impacts of a project are completely understood before it is started. He favored a literature search prior to in depth testing. Comm. DeBellis stated that the purpose of his motion is to investigate to determine whether there is an existing problem; and that if a change is approved, that any future development on the project would require additional testing. He stated that it is up to the City Council to approve or disapprove any final project; and he feels that the EIR presented is adequate for the City Council to make its determination. Comm. Rue felt that if anything detrimental turns up in the literature search, the City Council should at that point decide upon a mechanism by which responsibility is determined in addressing the matter. AYES: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. 5. CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR ATCHI- SON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY CO.'S PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN THE NORTH AND SOUTH CITY LIMITS, AND ARDMORE AVENUE AND VALLEY DRIVE ON THE EAST AND WEST RESPECTIVELY. Memorandum from Planning Direc- for Michael Schubach dated January 19, 1988. Supplemen- ' tal information - memorandum from Turrini and Brink dat- ed January 22, 1988. The staff report was presented by Assistant Planner An- drew Perea. The Public Hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak were: In favor: Frank Greco, Turrini & Brink, 1920 E. 17th Street, Santa Ana Brian Webber representing AT&SF, 2 North Lake Avenue, Pasadena. In opposition: Rosamond Fogg, 610 Sixth Street Action: To continue this Public Hearing to February 23, 1988. Motion.Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered noting the absence of Mayor Simpson. - fl - Minutes 1-26-88 s' m:00m glk tra�z 4L pROd) 0 8 JAN 1988 c UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 215 Fremont Street San Francisco. Ca. 94105 Mayor Etta Simpson City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3885 Dear Mayor Simpson: This letter is in response to your letter of November 28, 1987, to Elaine Schimmel of my staff, addressing your concerns regarding the application of the Santa Fe Southern Pacific Company to convert its right-of-way within the City of Hermosa Beach from open space to residential and commercial development. In your letter and in your telephone conversation with Elaine Schimmel, you indicated that over the years this property has been used for many purposes. We can comment on two of these uses. 01 Railroad ties: While plants where railroad ties are treated do generate hazardous wastes which, when improperly managed or disposed, can cause contamination, the ties in place on a track should not present a problem. Weed killers: There are many weed killers, some more toxic and persistent than others. Inquiry should be made as to the type of weed killer Santa Fe Southern Pacific used. If a highly toxic substance such as 2,4,5-T was used, then soil sampling is in order. Finally, you state that Santa Fe Southern Pacific was required to submit an Environmental Impact Report relative to this project. That EIR should be reviewed by a qualified consultant and should address all your questions -- a history of the site, including the pesticides used and the types of sampling required at various sites on the property in accordance with previous use; the record of similar projects previously undertaken by Santa Fe Southern Pacific and/or other railroads. If the EIR doe's not address these issues, your consultant should request additional information. C - 2 - Questions regarding the company's responsibility and liability for any clean-up that may be required should be addressed to the California Department of Health Services, Toxic Substances Control Division, 107 South Broadway, Room 7012, Los Angeles, California 90012. If you have any questions, please call Elaine Schimmel, California Enforcement Section, at 974-7963. Sincerely, elf Zelikson Director Toxics and Waste Management Division 13- i iW`d111i 0tiuwil 1{11l011240 tot, umr.lelaon a111llleaamo cowl®— ..--.....- -- �uI1IIII1■I///. -EBj • OSPAC Open Space People's Action Committee 610 Sixth Street, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (213) 379-5698 "No matter where you live in Hermosa Beach the Greenbelt depends on you." January 26, 1988 Re: Final Environmental Impact Report Comments, Santa Fe Railway Company Zone and Plan Amendment Request I. Loss Of Open Space Vol. 4, page 17, Santa Fe comments that 'Santa Fe may legally terminate the use of its property as open space, regardless of whether or not its project is approved. Hence, the potential loss of the property for recreation purposes as a result of the project is not a valid consideration.' It is our observation that the City of Hermosa Beach has leased this property from Santa Fe for a dollar a year, plusnall property taxes, for a number of years. The fact that Santa Fe could theoretically erect some sort of enclosure along the Right of Way and prevent its use by the public does not alter the fact that it has been a valuable community resource that would be lost if it were used for commeroial a rede,A.va1 development. II. Toxic Substances .Again, it is important to stress the importance of performing a thorough records search to indicate the presence or absence of toxic substances on the premises, and, as previously (and frequently) stated, the taking of soil samples from the subject property is a reasonable and prudent measure to take prior to approving a zone and. Plan ammendment change. Open Space People's Action Committee - OSPAC Page Two Final Environmental Impact Report III. Land Use 610 Sixth Street, Hermosa Beach, C4 90254 (213) 379-5698 The proposed zoning' is wildly disproportionate to the surrounding area. Reviewers would be well advised. to consider the maximum development allowable under the proposed change, and compare this with the actual square footage of property as it exists. IV. Population Before granting the proposed. zone change, the city ought examine the most recent population and dwelling unit tables, and. take into consideration and growth that has occured within the last eighteen months, for the purpose of determining how close this city is to the number permitted under the General Plan. OSPAC would like to thank Christine Ketz, an Urban Planner specializing in land use for reviewing the Final Draft, our comments, and contributing to these last few remarks. 41'gb vbi ; r: baert umi-t �, L9 MR PLANNING CONSULTANTS C C • 1920 EAST 17TH STREET. SUITE 200 • SANTA ANA. CALIF. 92701-6699 • (71418351691 MEMORANDUM Job No. 188-010 TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers of the City of Hermosa Beach FROM: Frank J.A. Greco, Project Manager SUBJECT: CERTIFICATION OF FINAL E.I.R. FOR THE AT&SF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE DATE: January 22, 1988 On February 19, 1986, the applicant filed with the City an application for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Following that filing the City selected the consultant firm of Sanchez/Talarico to prepare the requisite E.I.R. at a cost of S56,000 to the applicant and against objections of the applicant, who argued that Sanchez/Talarico was least qualified of the finalists selected by the City to draft the E.I.R. The results were predictably deficient, and the Screencheck E.I.R. was so poorly drafted that the Planning Department staff and Planning Commission discharged the consultant firm and sought preparation of a completely new document. This regretable episode cost the applicant precious time and the City added expense. While continuing to await a decision regarding the applica- tion, the applicant has participated in the public hearing, concerning the E.I.R. preparation and certification process conducted by the City over a period of 16 months which has finally culminated in a hearing before the City Council. The applicant through Turrini and Brink, its consultant, has painstakingly and carefully documented for the record a number of concerns and issues, which questioned the valid- ity of the Final E.I.R. and supporting document. Without Page -2- recapitulating those thoroughly documented concerns, the applicant offers the following summary of issues related to the process and document as they exist as of this date: 1. The document inappropriately addresses General Plan policies, treating these legislative acts as environ- mental issues instead of planning guidelines. 2. The document is woefully deficient in its discussion and consideration of project alternatives. (See Sec. 7 of Exhibit A.) 3. The document lacks essential elements (including fur- ther detail on air quality) which have not been made available for review by the applicant or the public as of this date. 4. Despite testimony on the record that City staff wrote the Draft and Final E.I.R. documents with the assis- tance of subconsultants, we understand that the docu- ments were drafted by Ms. Erma Lake, an employee or "in-house" consultant of the City's special legal counsel. 5. The Final E.I.R. is deficient in its response to com- ments as detailed in Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto. 6. The City has not complied with any of the requests addressed in our letter of January 8, 1988 to Mr. Michael Schubach, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B." In summary, the applicant has stated clearly from the outset of this unnecessarily elongated process that it seeks by its application to merely establish a basis upon which to gain the right to develop its land. Certification of a Final E.I.R. is an absolute necessity in reaching this goal, which is not an extraordinary demand by a private property owner. Yet almost two years after initiating this process, the applicant is apparently going to be required =ta •..accept .a document which consists of a patchwork quilt assembled by committee and hemmed together by an author directly associated with the City's legal advocate. We ask that the City Council seriously consider the issues raised in this Memorandum and its attachments. /tml Att. Exhibit "A" COMMENTS TO CITY COUNCIL ON RESPONSES TO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL POINTS RAISED DURING REVIEW As documented by the record, the applicant through its consultant filed "Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Rail- road Right -of -Way General Plan Amendment and Zone Change" (November 16, 1987). These comments have been included within "Volume IV - Comments and Responses Final E.I.R., dated December 1987. Also contained within Vol. IV are the Responses to these comments (See Sec. C., "Responses to Significant Environmental Points Raised During Review"). The purpose of this document is to address the apparent inadequacy of the Responses contained in Sec. C. and, therefore, of the Final E.I.R. Comments to Responses: 1) Response to Comment No. 1 states "Comment Noted", however, it does not include the brief explanation, as suggested in the comment. In this way the response is not wholly adequate. 2) The Response to Comment No. 2 partially addresses the concern stated, however, does not offer a complete, reasoned "areas of controversy and issues to be resolved" discussion. The City does point out the "major area of controversy" as "whether the City should approve the pro- posed project", but does not detail the issues to be re- solved, such as the Salt Water Barrier. In order to be in compliance with CERA, the actual specific areas of contro- versy and issues to be resolved should be explained in this section in sufficient detail for the public and applicant to understand. 3) The Response to Comment 4, paragraph 1, does not appear to be the subject of a response. It should also be noted that a "Program" EIR can and often does include more specific information when such information is available to eliminate the requirement for additional EIRs. We offer the following'CEAA definitions to clarify this: C 7) No written description of the effects found not to be significant is given. Therefore, the response to Com- ment No. 17 is inadequate. Exhibit "B" C TUPfl d'IR PLANNING CONSULTANTS • 1920 EAST 17TH STREET. SUITE 200 • "SANTA ANA. CALIF. 92701-6699 • (7141835-1691 Job No. 188-010 January 8, 1988 Mr. Michael Schuback Planning Director City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center 1315 Valley Dr. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3885 RE: ATSF E.I.R. FOR G.P.A. AND REZONE We are writing this letter on behalf of the applicant in the aforenamed matter to request your assistance as enumer- ated in the items below. In order to properly prepare for the City Council hearing for certification of the E.I.R., we need the following information: 1. Would you please provide Turrini and Brink as soon as they are available: a.) The revised air quality study. b.) Any revisions to the noise and traffic data previ- ously provided to Turrini and Brink. c.) Any other proposed revisions to the E.I.R. or support documents. d.) A copy of the staff report, final EIR and any other materials in the form to be submitted to the City Council for the hearing. e.) The staff report prepared for and/or presented to the Planning Commission for its January 5 hear- ing. C Mr. Michael Schuback January 8, 1988 Page 2 f.) The resolutions adopted by the Planning Commission and any related support memoranda/correspondence relative to certification of the E.I.R. and the recommended soils analysis. g.) A copy of the public hearing notice to be pub- lished by the Easy Reader. 2. We also request that you notify Turrini and Brink immediately of any proposed change in the City Council hearing date, time or place. We understand the hearing to be set for January 26, 1988, at 7:30 P.M. in Council Chambers. The applicant has offered to reimburse the City for any duplication or mail/delivery costs necessitated by this request. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, TURRINI8&8$-INK Frany2 `. Gre Project Manager FJAG/tml cc: Ben Salvaty Brian Weber Bruce Tepper c c January 19, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of the. Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council January 26, 1988 SUBJECT: CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE APPLICANT: ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY Recommendation 1. Open public hearing. 2. Allow comments to responses and to the revised sections only; comments to other aspects of the Environmental Impact Report should no longer be allowed. 3. Continue public hearing to a date certain so that the public and City Council will have adequate opportunity to review the entire document in its completed form. Background The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 5, 1988 to review the draft final Environmental Impact Report, and recommended approval subject to several additional revisions to the air quality, noise, traffic and the overall document. Analysis At the time the schedule for preparation of the Environmental Impact Report and for the public hearing was made, it was envisioned that the document would be in its completed form when it was certified by the Planning Commission; it could then be immediately sent to the City Council for review prior to the public hearing. However, the document was in need of additional work at the time the Planning Commission certified it. At this time, the Air Quality Section and Noise Section which needed revision have been revised to the satisfaction of staff. The integration of the revised sections and the removal of the original sections is still necessary. Also the Traffic Section needs additional effort. The document should be in its completed form, available for public review, and submitted to the City Council on January 29, 1988. The comments received at this public hearing should only be directed towards the responses provided to the original comments. In other words, the public had an opportunity to review and comment during the 45 day review period, and at the Planning 5 C C Commission public hearing. Therefore, at this time, only the responses to the original comments, and the revisions resulting from those comments should be commented on again if it is believed that the responses and/or revisions are not adequate, and/or are erroneous. Attachments I. Planning Commission Resolution. II. Exhibit A: Final draft document submitted to Planning Commission December 1, 1987. III. Exhibit B: 1. Statement concerning changes to be made in Summary Section. 2. Comments by staff and responses by consultant to Traffic Sections. 3. Revised Noise Section (considered adequate by staff) to be integrated into final document. (Above received by Planning commission at January 5, 1988 public hearing.) IV. Exhibit C: Revised Air Quality Section (considered adequate by staff) to be integrated into final document (not received by Planning Commission). V. Exhibit D: 1. List of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on final Environmental Impact Report. 2. Comments received from public and Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company. 3. Responses to comments by public and Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company. (Above received by Planning Commission at January 5, 1988 public hearing.) VI. Exhibit E: Comments by staff on Traffic Section responses received from consultant (received by Planning Commission at January 5, 1988 public hearing). VII. Minutes of January 5, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. Respectfully sub tt CONCUR: (7z6.•#7,Z. Alana Mastrian Acting City Manager Mi ael Schubach Planning Director SIN PLANNING CONSULTANTS • 1920 EAST 17TH STREET, SUITE 200 • SANTA ANA. CALIF. 92701.6699 • (714) 8351691 MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers of the City of Hermosa Beach FROM: Frank J.A. Grec oject Manager Job No. 188-010 SUBJECT: CERTIFICATION OF FINAL E.I.R. FOR THE AT&SF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE DATE: February 19, 1988 The purpose of this memorandum is to respond on behalf of the applicant to relevant issues concerning the Final E.I.R. for the aforenamed project. Turrini and Brink has reviewed the following items bound in three (3) volumes, dated January 29, 1988, and purported to be the Final E.I.R.: Vol. I., Part I, Vol. II., Part II, Part III, Vol. III., Part IV, Revised Text Comments & Response, Final EIR Comments & Response, Draft EIR Appendices Upon conclusion of that review, Turrini and Brink has the following comments, which either supplement or clarify written comments previously placed on the record by Turrini and Brink on behalf of the applicant: 1. Page 6 of the Revised Text still omits the level of significance after mitigation, though an explanation is given on page IIC-2 of the responses to comments. The SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 5 document's author apparently believes that the Traffic section did not lend itself to such a discussion, however, other similar EIR sections did include such a discussion. 2. In supplement to the comment made in Exhibit ."A", Item No. 3 of our January 22 Memorandum, it is apparent that the document's author has chosen a different definition of a "Program" EIR than as described under CEQA. It has been our experience that a Program EIR is used to eliminate future EIRs wherever possible, whereas the document's author is using the Program EIR as almost a Staged EIR (CEQA Section 15167)., 3. As regards the new air quality data, the revised text does not include updated vehicle daily emission esti- mates based on the revised 1987 Air Quality Handbook for Preparing EIRs. The revised handbook includes lower emission factors based on improvements in vehicle exhaust emission controls, which would result in lower project air quality impact estimates than stated in the revised text. In addition, the carbon monoxide analy- sis is based on the CALINE 3 model, which similarly has been replaced with the CALINE 4 model to reflect lower emission factors. The response correctly notes that the carbon monoxide impacts will be mostly from non= project sources. /tml Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council February 23, 1988 Regular Meeting of February 23, 1988 SUBJECT: GRANDFATHER CLAUSE FOR DEVELOPMENT IN REZONED AREAS Recommendation Adopt "Grandfather Clause" wording as noted in attached memorandum from Building Director. Background The City has received request from property owners which are in the process of developing their property, and may not be able to continue if the proposed zone changes take place. Analysis The proposed "Grandfather Clause" wording would resolve in part the problems with the two property owners which currently have plans on file. Mr. Lawton would still have to resolve the question of what size his parcel actually is (see attached memo). In the future, staff could add this wording to each zone change so that these kinds of problems would not occur for those who actually have submitted plans to the City. However, there will always be those who may have been planning to build for several years, but have never submitted any plans. Although they may not have incurred substantial cost according to the law, they still may have incurred significant cost by having the plans prepared by an architect. The solution to making certain that no one suffers is elusive. In the past, when the density reduction ordinance was passed, the City allowed approximately two monthss after the ordinance was passed for property owners to submit plans. The Building Department received 50 proposed developments within that time period. Since the purpose of the rezoning is to reduce density, to adopt a Grandfather Clause which is an incentive to develop would seem to be in conflict. However, since there is already a moratorium allowing only the lower density to be constructed in areas of General Plan/zone change inconsistency, only the more intense zoning standards, but not the density, would be permitted under the "Grandfather Clause". Hense staff has an alternative recommendation if the City Council wants to allow all the areas under consideration for this year to have the same time to submit plans. 1 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION s This alternative gives all the subject areas the same time limit whether they are the first zone change or the last, unless the City is unable to follow the adopted schedule. Alternative Recommendation Provide the same wording as noted in the attached memo, but change the date to December 13, 1988 for submitting plans. Attachment 1. Memo from Building Director CONCUR: Kevin Northcraft City Manager 2 Respegt y,'ubm, fted ichael Schubach Planning Director CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Michael Schubach, Planning Director FROM: William Grove, Director of Building and Safety RE: Projects affected by rezoning areas 1, lA and 1B. DATE: February 23, 1988 Per your request, Building Department plan check files were reviewed to determine how many projects could be affected by the proposed zone changes in areas 1, lA and 1B. It appears that there are two projects currently in plan check which could be affected by the proposed zone change: 1) Single family residence at 1622 Hermosa Avenue Howard Longacre, owner. 2) Three unit apartment building at 1840 Hermosa Mr. and Mrs. Michael Lawton, owners. It was recently discovered that the Lawton project appears to have a problem with the maximum density allowed pursuant to the moratorium enacted by Ordinance No. 87-873 (extended by Ord. No. 87-881). Due to the irregular shape of the lot we are currently awaiting additional documentation from the land surveyor to ascertain the exact lot size which is critical. If the lot size is determined to be too small for three units pursuant to the moratorium, the project could not be permitted even if the zone change contained a "grandfather clause". If the council decides to add a "grandfather clause" to the proposed zone change ordinance for areas 1, lA and 1B, I would recommend the following wording: "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." CC: Kevin Northcraft, City Manager James P. Lough, City Attorney 1 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council February 16, 1988 Regular Meeting of February 23, 1988 SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE 87-5 -- CHANGING THE ZONING FOR AREAS 1, lA & 1B INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends changing the zoning for areas lA & 1B from R-3 to R-2 and that area 1 remain zoned R-3, and finds that a more appropriate change for area 1 would be to change the General Plan from medium density to high density. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance changing the zoning for areas 1, lA & 1B from R-3 to R-2, except that Lot 25, Block 10 of the First Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract located in area 1 should be rezoned and redesignated commercial since it was developed in conjunction with adjacents lots to the east for commercial use. Background The Planning Commission at the their January 19, 1988 meeting held a public hearing for rezoning the subject areas and adopted the attached Resolutions 88-9 and 88-9(a). Analysis The Staff has prepared an analysis of the subject areas which is found in the attached staff report to the Planning Commission; that analysis explains staff's recommendation for all three areas to be rezoned to R-2 and should be referenced. In addition to that report, the information concerning the nonconforming status of the subject areas in regard to building standards should be noted. If areas 1, lA & 1B are rezoned to R-2, current development may not only be nonconforming because of the number of dwelling units per lot, but also because of height, since the R-3 zone allows 35 feet and the R-2 zone only allows 30. feet. However, existing development may also be nonconforming because of setbacks, open space, minimum floor area, etc., even if the property remains zoned R-3, since these types of standards have btmodified several times over the years. 1 Public Noticing Public noticing of the three subject areas resulted in 1,952 letters being sent for each public hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff received a complaint from a Mr. Longacre that he did not receive a letter. The staff examined the mailing list and discovered that his address was missing, but the unit address was listed for the occupant. Mr. Longacre indicated that he obtains the mail from his unit in area 1B, but also did not receive a letter at that location. Staff maintains all returned mail, and could not find a returned letter for Mr. Longacre's rental unit which should mean it was delivered. Note Refer to attached recommended Ordinance for maps of subject areas. Attachments 1. Proposed Ordinance 2. Staff report 3. Planning Resolutions 88-9 & 88-9(a) 4. Background Information: a. Planning Commission Minutes of January 19, 1988 b. Public Notice c. Affidavit of public noticing d. Letters from public CONCUR: %L - 7 Alana Mastrian Acting City Manager 2 Res�p�ctfu11y submitted; Mic i e Sc u acts, 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 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 descibed as Lots 1-15 & 18-24, Block 10, First Addition to Hermosa Beach; Lots 1-15 & 18-22, Block 9, First Addition to Hermosa Beach; Lot 1, Parcel Map #10098; 2. Area ].A, (Map 2) Rezone from R-3 Zone to R-2 Zone, legally described as Lots 1-5, Tract #2649; Lots 1-8, 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, northerly 10' of Lot 37, & Lot 39, Tract #1132; - Lots 1-15 & 30, Block 32, First Addition to Hermosa Beach; - Lot 1, Parcel Map #12381; (Map 3B): This area is legally described as: - Lots 1-16, Block 61, First Addition to Hermosa Beach; - Lots 1-5, Block 31, First Addition to Hermosa Beach; (Map 3C): This area is legally described as: - Lots 1-3 & 6-11, Block 30, First Addition to Hermosa Beach; - Lot 1, Parcel Map #14210; - Lots 1-11, First Addition to Hermosa Beach; - Lots 1-7,• Block 28, First Addition to 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 (Map 3D): This area is legally described as: - Lots 14-18, Block 22, First Addition to Hermosa Beach; (Map 3E): This area is legally described as: - Lots 8-13, Block 23, First Addition to Hermosa Beach; - Lots 8-14, Block 24, First Addition to Hermosa Beach. 4. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. 5. 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. 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of February, 1988. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City. of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: APPROVED ,4S TO FO CITY CLERK ITY ATTORNEY 4- V) O MAP 1 AREA 1 Rezone from Multiple- Family Residential (R-3) to Two Family Resdential (R-2) S6 6l S6 FP, O Sb V6 0 0 O 0 a► 96 M 0 0 yZ'S6_ ti- O�E _ ^ ! .0 �.1 ( 1) N CJ R1 N • C) Z F- 0 oa Q 0 A •96 01 0 Oa 5.(a•C1+ O nr N 09 0 09 0 • ! t�.r -rhe- 2 rhe- 116 D) N. 1 N O el 0 N co J V 4- 0 kr) 4 . a o F S6 1. Q) °M0 • ao oa t M rs • s6 Gs in 1► --I— cin U N N 0 N 1 0 a 35 r AREA lA ; Cf Rezone from Multiple Family ;3 Residential (R-3) to Two Family Residential (R-2) Ch .16TH s MAP 2 Storm Drain Easement MAP 3 AREA 1B: AREA OVERVIEW Rezone from Multiple Family Residential (R-3) to Two Family Residential (R-2) Zto4-h 5i-reet rn a •3 o � o r -( /(0 N&1LYHNtIW x.1.4* Jti...WYI.A.U. r' IYirYIAF�i - "— ♦e. .we...�..•.y.. ti.LL.YW.:c.��.rri�.:-►��..�. ti F N / MAP 3A AREA 1B Detail Map c c MAP 3B AREA 1B Detail Map 9 MAP 3C AREA IB Detail Map -10 - 1 MAP 3D AREA 1B Detail Map 22. hcd 5 free -f- Zis�. S. ire �f N MAP 3E .' 4 f÷" S tre --�- 3 O 2 2 rid 3 f-ree.f- AREA 1B Detail Map 3 c Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission January 12, 1988 Regular Meeting of January 19, 1988 SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE 87-5 -- CHANGING THE ZONING FOR AREAS 1, 1A&1B INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation Rezone area 1 from R-3, Multiple -Family Residential to R-2, Two -Family Residential except for Lot 25 of Block 10 of 1st addition to Hermosa Beach Tract (attached map 1). Rezone all of area lA from R-3 to R-2 zone (attached map 2). Rezone area 1B from R-3 to R-2 (attached map 3). Background According to the City Council schedule of zone changes, the above noted areas require rezoning consideration at this time. Analysis AREA 1 STATISTICAL DATA Total Land Area: 123,188 sq. ft. Total Lots: 44 Typical Lot Size: 30' x 80' & 30' x 95' Current No. of Dwelling Units: 118 Average No. of Units per Lot: 2.65 Existing Density: 41.7 Units per Acre Existing Zoning: R-3 General Plan Designation: Medium Density Potential No. of Units under Current R-3 Zoning Ordinance (1,320 sq. ft. per Unit): 74 or 26 Units per Acre Potential No. of Units under Previous R-3 Zoning Ordinance (1,089 sq. ft. per Unit): 92 or 32.5 Units per Acre -12- c Potential No. of Units under Proposed R-2 Zone Change (1,750 sq. ft. per Unit by Ordinance): No. of Lots with Nonconforming Units under Current R-3 Ordinance: No. of Lots with Nonconforming Units under Current R-2 Ordinance: No. of Units Constructed in the Last 10 Years: No. of Units Constructed in the Last 20 Years: No. of Units Constructed More Than 30 Years Ago: Surrounding West East North South Uses: Surrounding Zoning: West East North South Surrounding General Plan Designation: West East North South c 44 or 15.5 Units per Acre 17 26 7 32 79 Units on 23 Lots Beach Residential except Small Commercial Strip Residential Residential Open Space C-2, Commercial R-3, Residential R-3, Multiple -Family Residential Open Space General Commercial General Commercial High Density Residential According to the General Plan the subject area should be zoned to R-2, Two -Family Residential. The rezoning would also be in accord with advisory measure E E passed by the electorate in 1980. Under R-2 zoning, a maximum of 1 unit per lot could be constructed. If two of the 30' x 95' lots were assembled a total of 3 units could be constructed; three of the 30' x 80' lots assembled would yield a total of 4 units. There is a mixture of old and new units which would be nonconforming if the zoning is changed to R-2. However, 67% of all existing units were constructed more than 30 years ago which is generally an adequate amortization period for most types of construction. Also as noted in the above data, some lots will' have nonconforming uses under either R-3 or R-2 zoning. Lot 25 of Block 10 of 1st addition to Hermosa Beach Tract is zoned R-3, medium density designated; however, it is developed in -13 - (7 ("- conjunction with the C-2 zoned, commercially used lots fronting on Hermosa Avenue. This lot should be General Plan amended and rezoned for commercial use in the near future. AREA lA STATISTICAL DATA Total Land Area: 42,200 sq. ft. Total Lots: 12 Typical Lot Size: 28' x 108' (approx.), 40' x 100' Current No. of Dwelling Units: 23 Average No. of Units per Lot: 2 Existing Density: 23 Units per Acre Existing Zoning: R-3 General Plan Designation: Medium Density Potential No. of Units under Current R-3 Zoning Ordinance (1,320 sq. ft. per Unit): 29 Potential No. of Units under previous R-3 Zoning Ordinance (1,089 sq. ft. per Unit): Potential No. of Units under proposed R-2 Zone Change (1,750 sq. ft. per Unit by Ordinance): No. of Lots with Nonconforming Units under Current R-3 Ordinance: 1 32 18 No. of Lots with Nonconforming Units under Current R-2 Ordinance: 5 No. of Units Constructed in the Last 10 Years: No. of Units Constructed in the Last 20 Years: No. of Units Constructed More Than 30 Years Ago: Surrounding Uses: 0 1 17 on 9 Lots West Residential East School North Church South Residential Surrounding Zoning: West East North South Surrounding General Plan Designations: West East North South R-2 Open Space R-1 R-3 Medium Density Open Space Low Density High Density According to the General Plan, the subject area should be zoned R-2 Two -Family Residential. And also the rezoning would be in accord to advisory measure E E. Based on the lot sizes, six or half of the lots in this area could have a maximum of 2 units per lot. If the other half of the lots were assembled in pairs, 3 units could be built on each pair. Of the existing 12 nonconforming units under the proposed R-2 zoning, 75% are older than 30 years, which as stated previously is considered an adequate amortization period for most types of construction. The other 25% are over 20 years old. It should be noted that staff is not suggesting these nonconforming dwellings should be demolished, but is attempting to indicate that relatively new dwelling units which have not had an adequate amortization period are not being made prematurely nonconforming in many cases. Also, it should be noted that there are actually 13 lots, however, one lot has an easement for a sewer line running from the northeast to the southwest corner of the lot making it virtually an unbuildable lot; this lot is owned by the school district (refer to Map 2). AREA 1B STATISTICAL DATA Total Land Area: 304,197 sq. ft. Total Lots: 124 Typical Lot Size: Varies Current No. of Dwelling Units: 279 Average No. of Units per Lot: 2.25 Existing Density: 40 Existing Zoning: R-3, Multiple Family Residential General Plan Designation: Medium Density -j .- c Potential No. of Units under Current R-3 Zoning Ordinance (1,320 sq. ft. per Unit): Potential No. of Units under previous R-3 Zoning Ordinance (1,089 sq. ft. per Unit): Potential No. of Units under proposed R-2 Zone Change (1,750 sq. ft. per Unit by Ordinance): 195 250 139 No. of Lots with Nonconforming Units under Current R-3 Ordinance: 44 No. of Lots with Nonconforming Units under Current R-2 Ordinance: 58 No. of Units Constructed in the Last 10 Years: 13 No. of Units Constructed in the Last 20 Years: 26 No. of Units Constructed in the Last 30 Years: 71 No. of Units Constructed More Than 30 Years Ago: 169 Surrounding Uses: Essentially Residential North, South, East & West Surrounding Zoning: Surrounding General Plan Designations: A Mix of R-1, R-2 & R-3 A Mix of Low Density, Medium Dinsity and High Density As in the other two subject areas, the General Plan indicates that the area should be zoned R-2. Also, rezoning to R-2 would be consistent with advisory measure E E. Only 60% of the within this area are over 30 years old. However, adding those which are over 20 years old, the percentage jumps t� 86%. As with the other areas, lots could be assembled to generate additional units. However, it should be noted that 98 of 124 lots would be too small to have more than„1 unit. _ /.? Michael Schub Planning Director .4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION 88-9 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAPS AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public bearing on January 19, 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, BE IT RESOLVED that the Plannning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby recommend that the Zoning Map shall be amended for various areas as shown on the attached maps and described as follows: Area 1A, (Map 2) Rezone from R-3 Zone to R-2 Zone, legally est cribed as Lots 1-5, Tract #2649; Lots 1-8, Hiss Addition to Hermosa Beach; 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, northerly 10' of Lot 37, & Lot 39, Tract #1132; - Lots 1-15 & 30, Block 32, First Addition to Hermosa Beach - Lot 1, Parcel Map #12381; (Map 3B): This area is legally described as: - Lots 1-16, Block 61, First Addition to Hermosa Beach; - Lots 1-5, Block 31, First Addition to Hermosa Beach; (Map 3C): This area is legally described as: - Lots 1-3 & 6-11, Block 30, First Addition to Hermosa Beach; Lot 1, Parcel Map #14210; - Lots 1-11, First Addition to Hermosa Beach; Lots 1-7, Block 28, First Addition to Hermosa Beach; (Map 3D): This area is legally described as: - Lots 14-18, Block 22, First Addition to Hermosa Beach; 1 2 3 •4 5 6 7 8 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (Map 3E): This area is legally described as: - Lots 8-13, Block 23, First Addition to. Hermosa Beach; - Lots 8-14, Block 24, First Addition to Hermosa Beach; VOTE: AYES: Comms.Rue,DeBellis,Chmn.Compton NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comms.Ingell,Peirce CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 88-9 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular/ ing1January 19, 1988. re!/d Compton, Chairman 2 Z Oc� Date Michael Schubach, Secretary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 RESOLUTION 88-9(a) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR THE AREA AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 19, 1988 and made the following Findings: A. The area is adjacent to a high density area to the south and General Commercial to the east and north; B. A more appropriate change to correct the inconsistency is to change to General Plan from Medium Density to High Density; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Plannning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby recommend that the Zoning Map not be amended, but rather amend the General Plan to conform with the R-3 zoning for the area as shown on the attached map and described as follows: Area 1, (Map 1) Rezone from R-3 Zone to R-2 Zone, legally descib d as Lots 1-15 & 18-24, Block 10, First Addition to Hermosa Beach; Lots 1-15 & 18-22, Block 9, First Addition to Hermosa Beach; Lot 1, Parcel Map #10098; VOTE: AYES: Comm.Rue,Chmn.Compton NOES: Comm.DeBellis ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comms.Ingell,Peirce CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 88-9(a) is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular j ing of January 19, 1988. er:ld'Compton, Chairman Date 24 25 26 27 28 Micha'lTSchubach, Secre'ary 4 PLANNING COMMISLN MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1988 C PAGE 10 REZONE OF AREAS 1, IA, AND 1B FROM R-3 TO R-2 AREA 1 -- (Bordered on the west by The Strand; on the east by Hermosa Avenue; on the south by 8th Street; and on the north by 10th Street) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 12, 1988. He stated for the record that the public noticing was done and submitted to the Easy Reader informing that the public hearing would take place this evening. He stated that all neighbors within 300 feet of the subject areas were given notice, and an affidavit was prepared stating that the notices were sent. He noted that copies of all applicable noticing documentation have been attached to the staff report. Mr. Schubach suggested that each of the three areas be discussed separately in order to avoid confusion. Mr. Schubach stated that the first .recommendation is to rezone Area 1 from R-3, multiple -family residential to R-2, two-family residential, except for Lot 25 of Block 10 of 1st addition to Hermosa Beach Tract. ' Mr. Schubach gave statistical data on Area 1. He stated that according to the general plan, the subject area should be zoned to R-2, two-family residential. The rezoning would also be in accord with advisory measure EE passed by the electorate in 1980. Under R-2 zoning, a maximum of one unit per lot could be constructed. If two of the 30 - foot by 95 -foot lots were assembled, a total of three units could be constructed; three of the 30 -foot by 80 -foot lots assembled would yield a total of four units. There is a mixture of old and new units which would.be nonconforming if the zoning is changed to R-2. However 67 percent of all existing units were constructed more than 30 years ago which is generally an adequate amortization period for most types of construction. Also, as noted in the statistical data, some lots will have nonconforming uses under either R-3 or R-2 zoning. Lot 25 of Block 10 of 1st addition to Hermosa Beach Tract is zoned R-3,, medium density designated; . however, it is. developed in conjunction with the C-2 zoned, commercially used lots fronting on Hermosa Avenue. This lot should be general plan amended and PLANNING COMMISCN MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1988 PAGE 11 rezoned for commercial use in the near future. Chmn. Compton noted the importance of this area, stating that he feels the rezoning could have an impact on the downtown area in regard to the amount of population permitted to live near the downtown area. Public Hearing for Area 1 opened at 9:06 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Susan McFarland, 31 8th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission. She reminded the Commission that the current number of dwelling units per acre is 41 in the area, well within the guidelines of high density. She stated that 30 -foot by 80 -foot lots are the Strand lots, compared to the walk -down streets where the lots are 30 by 90 feet. She continued by discussing various lot sizes in the subject area. Ms. McFarland stated that if this area is downzoned to R-2, the square footage requirements will change. She continued by discussing the number of units which would be allowed under the new zoning. She stated that the area would actually be reduced to single-family use because of the minimum square footage requirements. She noted that this area is adjacent to a commercial use, and she asked if the Commission really wants to make this zoning change. She stated that this particular proposal is somewhat questionable. Ms. McFarland felt that if the area is rezoned to R-2, it will not lead to the improvement of property; it could possibly increase the number of bootlegs, because as single-family homes are constructed, bootleg uses could spring up. She noted that in such cases, there probably will not be adequate parking. She also felt that it is possible that property improvements will be done without the required permits. Ms. McFarland noted concern over the wording used in the letter sent out to citizens. She pointed out, however, that this would be a decrease in possible use and because this area is adjacent to a commercial area, which is not necessarily more desirable to live in, even if it is called R-1, and she would assume that there would be a loss of property value. She noted that the new State law addresses the issue of compensation. She noted that the letter she received stated that the issues must be brought up at the hearing; if they are not, those issues may not be addressed at a later time in court. Ms. McFarland questioned whether this is the action that the City really wants to take. She questioned whether such action would really lead to improvements. She asked whether the City really wants single-family dwellings going in that area, especially in the areas already developed in the area with 41 dwelling units per acre. Ms. McFarland discussed Proposition EE and stated that she has been a proponent of density reduction in the City since the 1970's. She agreed that some areas should be designated as single-family; however, other areas should be multiple -family. She asked that the City clarify the general plan and zoning. She noted that this process has been going on for many years now. She stressed that there must be logic in the planning of the City. She did not feel, however, that a pocket of single-family residences should be next to a commercial zone, regardless of what EE says. Larry Michaelson, attorney representing the SRM Number 4 Limited Partnership with property located at 2217 Monterey Avenue, addressed the Commission and asked in which area is 2217 Monterey. Chmn. Compton stated that it is in Area 1A, which will be addressed after Area 1. • PLANNING COMMISSCN MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1988 PAGE 12 Mike Laughton, 1840 Hermosa Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission, stating that his property is actually in Area 1B. He asked if it is the intention of the Commission, if this issue passes, to make all properties neither meeting the density nor zoning requirements nonconforming. Chmn. Compton stated that those properties would immediately become nonconforming. Cathy Nelson, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission, and stated that she agreed with the comments expressed by Ms. McFarland, noting that she objected to the rezone for the same reasons. She stated that she would expect to be compensated for the loss of property value in accordance with the new State law. Mr. Lough explained the recent Supreme Court decisions regarding just compensation. Public Hearing closed at 9:23 P.M. for testimony regarding Area 1. Comm. Rue noted that the responsibility of the Planning Commission is one of planning, rather than political. Based on that, and several other factors, such as the recycling of existing housing, he felt the proposed zone change would be detrimental because old houses will stay as long as possible. If bootlegs can be put in, they will be. This proposal would put single-family dwellings in a high-density area. This particular area is right in the midst of high density to the south and general commercial to the east and north, which is C-2. If it were C-1, he could see the argument for single-family dwellings and downzoning; however, the C-2 melds very nicely with the high density R-3. This would also limit new building heights. Based on these facts, he would very strongly argue against the staff recommendation to rezone from R-3 to R-2. He suggested that the general plan for this area be changed to high density. Comm. DeBellis stated that this issue very clearly underscores the lack of planning in this City. The fact that this area happens to be near downtown is incidental; this is probably no different from other inconsistent areas. If things were going to be done properly, the general plan would be studied in depth and it would be decided which areas should be left as is if that is what the people say they want. He agreed that the general plan and zoning should be consistent; ,however, it can't be both ways. A situation cannot exist where the goal is to reduce density yet people do not want to comply with the 17 - foot setback requirement. Comm. DeBellis continued by expounding on the 17 -foot setback requirement, stating that the requirement was enacted to alleviate the major problem of off-street parking in the City. He noted that the people voted to reduce density; therefore, that is what should be done. Comm. DeBellis stated that rezoning this area will not actually do anything; merely, it will do what should be done, and that is to make the zoning consistent with the general plan. Comm. DeBellis noted that only a few people attended this public hearing, stating that it is hard to believe from the turnout that very many people oppose this proposal. In fact, it would tend to lead one to believe that the proposal is actually favored by a majority of the people. Comm. DeBellis agreed that this is a dilemma; however, he noted that State law requires the general plan and zoning to be in conformance. He stated that this is what the people want; therefore, he will support the recommendation. PLANNING COMMISCJN MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1988 - PAGE 13 Chmn. Compton stated that this particular area presents a problem for him. He stated that it is not known what the historical background of the zoning in this area is and how there came to be a small pocket of medium density in an area surrounded by high density. He personally felt this to be a mistake. Chmn. Compton felt that the Planning Commission should do what is best for the town, whether or not it is viewed as a political action. He stated that he would not base his decision on politics; rather, he felt that Council should be advised as to what the Commission feels to be the best recommendation in this particular area. He felt it is important to look at the long-term impacts. Chmn. Compton stated that the only zoning designation he felt comfortable with in this area is R -2B, which would be consistent with medium density. It would also be consistent with the entire section of town. He noted that the only differences are design differences. He stated that he would more apt to leave the zoning R-3 because it is more consistent with the commercial zone and its relationship to all of the rest of the high density zoning totally surrounding it. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Compton, to reject staff's recommendation to rezone Area 1 from R-3 to R-2; rather, that Area 1 should remain R-3. Further, that the Planning Commission suggest to the City Council that during the next general plan change, Area 1 be introduced as a candidate for redesignation from medium density to high density. Comm. DeBeliis stated that he would oppose the motion, noting that only one out of 44 property owners appeared to oppose the downzoning. He stated that it is difficult for him to make a case against not lowering the zoning. He felt that the reason more people did not appear to oppose the recommendation is because they already have what they want on their property. Comm. DeBellis stated that he has difficulty with the idea that the Council should take special notice of this particular area. He felt that the recommendation proposed by staff is the only viable proposal. AYES: Comm. Rue, Chmn. Compton NOES: Comm. DeBellis ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Peirce Chmn. Compton stressed that property owners should take their concerns to the City Council on this particular area. He felt that more input would be very beneficial, noting that there is no historical background available on this area. AREA IA Mr. Schubach continued with the staff report dated January 12, 1988. He stated that according to the general plan, the subject area should be zoned R-2, two-family residential. Also, the rezoning would be in accordance with advisory measure EE. Based on the lot sizes, six, or half of the lots in this area, could have a maximum of two units per lot. If the other half of the lots were assembled in pairs, three units could be built on each pair. PLANNING COMMISLN MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1988 \ PAGE 14 Of the existing 12 nonconforming units under the proposed R-2 zoning, 75 percent are older than 30 years, which as stated previously is considered an adequate amortization period for most types of construction. The remaining 25 percent are over 20 years old. It should be noted that staff is not suggesting these nonconforming dwellings should be demolished, but staff is attempting to indicate that relatively new dwelling units which have not had an adequate amortization period are not being made prematurely nonconforming in many cases. Also, it should be noted that there are actually 13 lots; however, one lot has an easement for a sewer line running from the northeast to the southwest corner of the lot making it virtually an unbuildable lot. This lot is owned by the school district. Public Hearing for Area IA opened at 9:40 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. There being no citizens appearing to speak either in favor of or in opposition to this matter, the Public Hearing was closed. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation to recommend that Area 1B be rezoned from R-3 to R-2. AYES: Comms. DeBellis, Rue, Chmn. Compton NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Peirce AREA 1B Mr. Schubach continued with the staff report dated January 12, 1988. He stated that the total land area is 304,197 square feet. There are a total of 124 lots, of which the sizes vary. There are currently 279 dwelling units, with an average number of 2.25 units per lot. The existing density is 40. The existing zoning is R-3, multiple -family residential with a general plan designation of medium density. The potential number of units under the current R-3 zoning ordinance (1,320 square feet per unit) is 195; the potential number of units under the previous R-3 zoning ordinance (1,089 square feet per unit) is 250. The potential number of units under the proposed R-2 zone change (1,750 square feet per unit by ordinance) would be 139. There are 44 lots with nonconforming units under the current R-3 ordinance. There are 58 lots with nonconforming units under the current R-2 ordinance. Thirteen units have been constructed in the last ten years; 26 units have been constructed in the last 20 years; and 71 units have been constructed in the last 30 years. There are 169 units constructed more than 30 years ago. The surrounding uses are essentially residential. The _zoning is a mix of R-1, R-2, and R- 3. The surrounding general plan designations are a mix of low density, medium density, and high density. As in the other two subject areas, the general plan indicates that the area should be zoned R-2. Also, rezoning to R-2 would be consistent with advisory measure EE. Only 60 percent of the lots within the area are over 30 years old. However, adding those which are over 20 years old, the percentage jumps to 86 percent. PLANNING COMMISEN MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1988 C PAGE 15 As with other areas, lots could be assembled to generate additional units. However, it should be noted that 98 of 124 lots would be too small to have more than one unit. Comm. Rue noted that the Commission had received a letter from someone who wanted to do a remodel in this area. He asked what affect the zone change would have on remodels in the area. Mr. Schubach stated that the property owner would be unaffected if he had obtained a vesting tentative map. On the other hand, this proposal still needs to go before the City Council. It would take approximately two and a months before the ordinance becomes effective. If the property owner has obtained building permits or is in the process of construction, he can still go forward with the project. If the person has not met these requirements, he could request a grandfather clause at the City Council level. Mr. Lough continued by explaining legal points in regard to this matter. He also discussed the issue of "substantial funds" expended on a project as a criterion for allowing a project to commence. Public Hearing on Area 1B opened at 9:47 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Michael Laughton, 1840 Hermosa Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission. He asked for clarification on the issue of nonconforming buildings in this area. Mr. Schubach explained what would become nonconforming. Mr. Laughton continued by discussing what would be nonconforming, stating that if this is enacted, all buildings in the area would become nonconforming. Mr. Laughton stated that he was appalled at the lack of speakers who attended this meeting, noting that millions of dollars in property value is at stake. He felt that more people did not appear because they already have what they want. Those who are not building are being unrewarded. Mr. Laughton discussed the topography in this area, stating that most of the lots are on a gradient. Most people develop to maximize their views. Mr. Laughton stated that his concern is that he has a project in the works, and he hoped that it would be approved if this ordinance becomes effective. He stated that he is waiting for approval of his building permit. He stated that he wished this action had occurred sooner. Mr. Laughton stated that if he must conform to the proposed R-2 requirements, his project would need to be substantially modified. He noted that many requirements must be met when a project is proposed, and he continued by discussing the various limits enforced ih the City. Mr. Laughton stated that he would be disadvantaged in terms of lifestyle if he is unable to go to two stories because his project would be face a wall on either side. Mr. Laughton stated that there would be significant loss of property value if this proposal is enacted. Mr. Laughton concluded by stating that he only wants the Commission to make a fair decision and to consider the individual when making its decision. PLANNING COMMISCN MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1988 PAGE 16 Chmn. Compton noted that density would not be changed via this proposal, only design standards. Chmn. Compton noted that there are other options available to the Commission. He continued by discussing the viability of an R -2C zone whereby development standards in a given zone would be retained, but density would be maintained at the medium density level. Comm. DeBellis asked whether Mr. Laughton would have appeared before the Commission if he had already obtained his building permit. Mr. Laughton stated that he would have appeared to discuss this issue, whether or not he was doing a project. He continued by discussing his philosophical viewpoint of the situation. He stated that he desires to live in Hermosa Beach, and he feels a person should be able to develop his/her property in order to enhance his/her investment. Larry Michaelson, 23545 Crenshaw Boulevard, Suite 206, Torrance, attorney, addressed the Commission. He stated that he represents Steven R. Mitchell as general partner of SRM No. 4 Limited Partnership. He asked for clarification on the location of 2217 Monterey, which is the property owned by his client. Mr. Schubach stated that 2217 Monterey is not actually in Area 1B; the client received notice of this hearing because all residents within 300 square feet are notified. Mr. Michaelson noted that even though his client's property is not directly affected, he wanted to state his position in regard to this matter. He stated that he was concerned over the discussion regarding philosophical positions in this matter. He also noted concern over the mention of the number of people appearing to speak on this issue. Mr. Michaelson stated that he is somewhat dismayed over the current trend of thinking. He did not feel that the number of people supporting or opposing this issue should weigh very heavily on the decision-making process of the Commission. Mr. Michaelson stated that this issue is one of a taking of rights. He stated that the Commission must decide what is "best" for a certain area. He stated that the future trend of the law should be away from the unbridled discretion which has been given governmental action in this regulation area in the past. He stated that there will certainly be more cases regarding this taking issue. He felt that the recent decisions are an example of a relaxation of that trend away from that unbridled governmental action. Mr. Michaelson stated that his position is that he would challenge the findings on this issue as to the general plan. He would challenge the timeliness of those findings. He would challenge the necessity of another EIR. If his client is impacted by such ruling, he would certainly seek compensation to the furthest legally possible extent. Mr. Michaelson stated that he would like to reserve any constitutional challenge until the appropriate forum, which he did not believe the Planning Commission is. Mr. Michaelson stated in conclusion that he would suggest that any person involved in any Commission or Council voting on this issue who is the owner or interested beneficiary of any property of R-2 or greater should abstain from voting on such issue. Ron Vollmer, 934 Duncan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, addressed the Commission. He discussed the comments made by Mr. Laughton, stating that Mr. Laughton has just spent PLANNING COMMISCN MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1988 ( PAGE 17 $25,000 designing a house and was given R-3 guidelines. He felt that Mr. Laughton could lose everything; therefore, he felt there should be a period of time to act as a buffer for people who have spent a great deal of money designing a project only to have the requirements change. Mr. Vollmer asked for clarification on what happens when a nonconforming structure burns down or is otherwise destroyed. Chmn. Compton stated that if a nonconforming structure is destroyed by more than 50 percent, it cannot be rebuilt as a nonconforming structure; it must be rebuilt to conform with current standards. Public Hearing on Area 1B closed at 10:15 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Comm. Rue asked about the differences between R-2 and R -2B. Chmn. Compton stated that the nuances are very tightly -knit between R-2 and R -2B. The main difference is in R -2B the units must be a little larger than R-2. The setback requirements are essentially the same for both zones. Also, the height is the same for R- 2 and R -2B. Chmn. Compton continued by discussing the reasoning behind having an R -2B zoning designation, stating that the purpose was to allow for an owners' unit with a rental at the rear which could be smaller to be on the property. He noted, though, that the unit was to be of a certain size. Chmn. Compton felt that an R -2C zone could be created just as easily as R -2B, allowing for the kind of development standards now in place in most of this area and still affect the density, which is what EE is all about. He noted that many people are concerned about bulk; however, the bulk is already existing, and the impact created by an R -2C zone would be quite minimal. Chmn. Compton stated that he would have a tendency in this area to look at something such as an R -2C zone. He suggested that a motion be fashioned allowing for the creation of a new zone. Comm. Rue questioned what the chances of creating a new R -2C zone actually are. He felt that such a zone is a viable option to mitigate certain problems in the area. Comm. DeBellis did not think it is possible to create such a new zone. He felt that each of the staff recommendations would be passed by council. He continued by discussing the political realities involved in such a matter. Comm. DeBellis continued by discussing EE, stating that he felt if it were put on the ballot today, it would pass overwhelmingly. Comm. Rue suggested that the Commission proceed and act as a planning body. Chmn. • Compton asked what would be necessary in order for the Commission to recommend a new zoning designation. Mr. Schubach suggested that the Commission direct staff to study the matter and bring it back as a special study to amend or modify standards, or have a zone which is R-2 density but has modified standards of some sort: After the Commission review, if a text PLANNING COMMIS; uN MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1988 ( PAGE 18 amendment is voted in, staff could then be requested to return with a text amendment and a public hearing could be scheduled. The text amendment could then be adopted and recommended to the City Council. Chmn. Compton noted concern over the timing involved in this matter. Mr. Schubach suggested, then, that the Commission approve the R-2 zoning. He noted that the Commission may always add to the R-2 zoning at a future time. Further, the Commission can direct staff to consider standards at a later date. Comm. DeBellis suggested that this issue be discussed at the upcoming Planning Commission/City Council subcommittee meeting. Depending on the feedback, the Commission could decide whether or not to direct staff to proceed with this matter. Comm. Rue asked whether it is possible to recommend to the City Council that this issue be studied further at the subcommittee meeting. He noted that he would not want this issue to get tossed aside at this point. He felt that this particular area is important to many people. Comm. DeBellis stated that it is not possible to condition zoning. Comm. Rue agreed; however, he wanted to make a recommendation that the issue be studied further. Mr. Lough suggested that the Commission make a decision on what is before the Commission. Alternatives can then be addressed as a separate matter. He noted that there are certain requirements regarding noticing and agendaized items. Chmn. Compton questioned whether the Commission could send a recommendation to the Council regarding this issue of various zoning. Mr. Lough replied in the negative; however, he stated that the Commission could begin the process now if desired. Chmn. Compton stated that he did not necessarily feel uncomfortable rezoning Area 1B to R-2; however, he strongly felt that a new zone should be created. He felt that whatever process can be started tonight to begin action on this matter, should be started. Mr. Lough stated that the Commission could direct staff to begin studying the issue. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 88-9, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TI -IE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR AREAS DESCRIBED ON THE MAPS ATTACHED TO THE RESOLUTION, with the amendment that Lines 14, 15, and 16 (Area 1) therein be deleted from the Resolution. Further, to approve the negative declaration. AYES: ' Comms. DeBellis, Rue, Chmn. Compton NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Peirce PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1988 PAGE 19 MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Compton, to direct staff to study the possibility of a new zone labeled R -2C which would encompass some of the design standards of R-3; specifically related to building height, number of floors, and setbacks. AYES: Comm. Rue, Chmn. Compton NOES: Comm. DeBellis ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Peirce Comm. DeBellis disagreed with the statements made by Mr. Michaelson, and stated that he felt the low turnout of interested parties would indicate that the general feeling of the community is in fact correct; and that there is a need to reduce density in the City. He further disagreed with the statements Mr. Michaelson made regarding the need for an environmental impact report, stating that when density is being reduced it is difficult to make the required findings. Easy Reader Run Date: February 11, 1988 DISPLAY Acct: 7010-2110 PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the CITY COUNCIL of the City of•Hermosa Beacl shall hold a public hearing on February 23, 1988 to consider the following: 1. Text amendment to Zoning Ordinance & Environmental Negative Declaration regarding the definition of a "restaurant" & "snack bar" and to require a Conditional Use Permit. 2. Certification of Environmental Impact Report for Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company's proposed General Plan amendment & Zone Change request (continued from 1-26-1988 meeting). -4 3. *Zone change of areas 1, lA & 1B from R-3 to R-2. *Map on file in Planning Department in City Hall. SAID PUBLIC HEARING shall be at 8:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chamber, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. ANY AND ALL PERSONS interested are invited to participate at that time and place or to write to the City Council in care of the Planning and Environmental Services Department at the above address PRIOR to Thursday, February 18, 1988 at 12:00 noon . IF YOU CHALLENGE the above matter(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Department•at, or prior to, the public hearing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact the Planning Department at 376-6984, Ext. 242. Alana Mastrian •Acting City Manager City of Hermosa Beach —3c:— • PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PUBLIC NOTICE AREAS 1, lA & 1B, ZONE CHANGE REZONE OF AREAS 1, lA & 1B FROM R-3 TO R-2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach will hold a public hearing on February 23, 1988 to consider a request for a Zone Change for Areas 1, lA & 1B to rezone from R-3 to R-2; a map of these areas is available at the Planning Depart- ment for review by the public. SAID HEARING shall be at 8:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California. ANY AND ALL PERSONS interested are invited to participate and speak at this hearing at the above time and place. Persons wishing to send written communication on this project should write to the Planning Department in care of City Hall at the above address prior to Thursday, February 18, 1988 at 12:00 noon. IF YOU CHALLENGE THIS PROJECT IN COURT, you may be limited to rais- ing only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this Notice, or in written correspondence de- livered to the'Planning Department at, or prior to, the public hearing [Government Code Section 65009 (b) (c)]. FOR•FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact the Planning Department at 376-6984, Ext. 242. CITY F HERMOSAEACH Mic adl 8cbubac Planning'Director Ack Individual I, the undersigned, do declare under penalty of perjury that I did on the llth day of February, 1988 , deposit into the United States post office, first class postage prepaid, a copy of the public notice attached as Exhibit "A" to each and every person attached as Exhibit "B". I warrant that the persons named on Exhibit "B" are all the persons required by applicable law to receive the public notice attached as Exhibit I understand and agree that it is my responsibility to cause these public notices to be made in an accurate and timely fashion and agree to hold the City harmless against any liability what- soever for any defect of said notice or notices. In the event an action is instituted in a court of competent jurisdiction which questions the legality of the public notices, then the City may in its exclusive discretion suspend all hearings or cause the cessation of any construction or of any use which was permitted as a result of a hearing which was held in accordance with the public notice. In the event that the court declares the notice or noticing procedure to be effective, then the City may in its exclusive discretion revoke any permits granted • and cause any approvals given pursuant to those public notices to be declared null and void and I agree on behalf of myself and my heirs, assigns or successors -in -interest to hold the City harmless in connection therewith. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. I have executed this declaration on this the llth day of F'eb*-uary, 1988 , at Hermosa Beach, California. TRIAD D'SIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. Fran o-ker (N. e (Signature) STATE OF CALIFOHfjll��`� /SS. COUNN OF ��////�• 4= Ony//rnl/f • before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public r4fo urr State, personally appeared /f =�/ personally known to me (or proved'to me on the basis of satjfactory evidence) to be the person • whose name /j subs, r' ed to the within instrument -and acknowledged that /4i/ executed the same. Signature a • co -. ` z— s'r�•1�•n- p�� r YV �� WORLD TITLE COMPANY FOR NOTARY SEAL OR STAMP .1!;. 'Ld►rL +R..t.LI!_JL.I./1�1 A� �.�V�AJ L03 A%z":.:1�S 41 My Commire cn Exnlres tA; rch 7 1/144t . -c - . & s� >,w 1: //:;It.:(?; : ItOoh �f �°'�' �` i�iiCHAEr. P. LA�OTON 1840 HERbMOSA AVENUE HERDIOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 O1 2 1988 /9Bfl attwaz 6%1444-004 -€4Z4 Xadect; akd A6G;a&14cae 6"tellal" Jlt /tItetLifc.t �'.�074144�uacu 79.Gk o./ �` ,favf; ,eve iyuf 04“/frsr6aau�c /z`°u+! -94'`"4' 'k-cz -44e.44104tceceide 1 � rA,e dar-pg4zti4:zd /2-okoa c�ride.tsa4x2> /,yt,cZ`z.$c o7 u#"4/ C°''uV2Z4t4 aer''t!'a72httsvt 41%/¢ ua.vzcovt' .Gsu1d€4t/ //erwi- !?.'%'""tAt'�ccta ceoy „elt¢ iycc+*scL•.,c444414 _4' A, /yycurlc ,iru^cc ./4$&414'!'v.2 ite4PC BicG /lite (1-64e-.11‘,11-e,Co6'.ia auc (sO�.r /00 / geexa-pas‘4b4 a4tdi OW_ fa44/2.i4,4 �yyyc�/ 74S i74i4u4 e • ) .i Ai /y/t¢Accist, ea. /'....- ..rwrltt.�a.t de.lilfi0dzHtLtGfd, letaJ Adl�' de -.Kofi .xru/� �lw.�fe 2lt �� .444c444- .Gad o' JlF- �33-- c c 47/1/4 <442r,e- Z:•• -72-z t4; a °"frilictiat-4 du ay . i, /(4441 144(1 Q Aotd .cd .0 .54 , 'oZ a 4.epol-a:ue ,ut /,r 1 '€ /e4.4t A6tt4Zit, 3 P(-CDelor»ctiGf 4ir � 3 6(4,41-14, g -d444 4-e4:24c4acdzd 4,4044 Xt Ate' c�ersuGte. ,0/. 44e .izac xcsli4C2 AczeflcGozltoor/ .cst .Seze,k% ,(�ScLtt i1-a%aGlc'J J4-<‘44zz41 4/2,144114 4‘t,*siCe 4-k4147 d�'fce Cesfriiif4344°rs,Loua.-.zcdfz.mw401 APAiLaau.�/ 4,0•1 a0,e44(//r,ci ��aLrt�sccsa-. ��yW�� L�^e /lt4eL /Ll�` � 442st .Ceu�-�1.�sa 4444.4 de"Idf!i 12P, Afa plteL, e2.40tt vo,e4LA. AP /2ce-st,- j4eek oriatzi. ate ` �'� 44o,i` �!�"uu%'� y��/c/.Hciat�uw1.�2�(.t sct1,uU .w,ry-a7�lct�Yirw. t>`kC ��'lur.E Sua ��,cd 14 MICHAEL P. LAWTON 1840 HERMOSA AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 JAN 1 91988 feA, 1984' tid 0: da‘aoL .13.47 e�� `1?;41‘osc-0_00.4.. &14/04414 90225 414444,-*afkoceic , .44of,"00.4G ,y•oeGt aZGIA,e• //1,00-ei eft a �%.r censpra lout eit.ofc .roc • .444s4te 'Lc ) -ice .Lethe, eta' 6-/-P'"1 CCIee'L er-tootte-4 le,x4d ,u � � dl�eu,4r 10146 ofd Ave der.elva tiwa- 7.4117d4 ,te. ,csc (14017) eitua 7htz 4, iwsei 40" f-ileiss4 doPitthoie ava vs -0-0-0f1 • 4/1Zz 44ot-ui 74r Az .‘eAE, .r..d. ,ci.e awe d'eb4,iq .�� s a�ti,.vaQ, c Loscarc.'cr�G�lc_ • a ,& - j ,,vote a444 7titz Cab, 6.t4fieeL, dee rtelidaz eoliz;ieeie lt44,41td 0.04e4s4te ,tikrefizie evek&r.el 4 c ditt ".k.L` � �idt444 Alta Z /01 .ua�c .t�zwift �l� arm Z��4&ectdr- air i�iouu 4/-a .r4c.f/ 11%uilsAirr dpetzaitt-, .�uae .4ulule4, .G4-eatSD �-.w%a'c a� a ;rte �x.��.��7-A, d1445‘er ctvx44;tida Atte sue 1-€4(1--,e-wde-0€102zee/ ,Coetk .44-(44te Sat, .444- Azu exe- laud, .016c, Aria - 4 .-4444W' 4 4 s #A4tdese.el fridect) 44‘.ei owe& a /46 46rie./ Ou 41. GO L/2 4 2 41.1&el, A &el AA" 4tze(A -402(4:2, ofremrizz.+N.4,, of a4.4d/ Airw,t4oz 4.42rc:. G . �l'� ace .ezir.ed• 26 44441 ssieascuce/.tf ,Gaa?` 4sf.dtwee�f rev,e le4ad- Jiiiveeldet=e444vto 7-4,c4e44,44,17,4 .ficitteA411&' .Ge t000 - tzoO.a.4peasc A,�,C. • ,�pc, L'`6!t A!Lli '""dy' du `t" GL`n"'Y,e. d4t. a 'Gvtu7 •YU.il7 � Weidiltfra=44.2C 40.1'46 rad1044‘Seee - wvcr-t.e/ ,fpu tea- �tzo4.ztey Q4-iltosc- Cc�cstiL�cu�,41020t, /6-e irr4444e4h`5 444- •454tp4 /rot AZu,- 64iu Gxiclp 7fL ilt�tf� �2— Z i2��u�s�.ssuscf�-Ce�rcu4cae . d�.✓.cc.z; AiLth t91+ 4v0u441-t�. uu 1€.44tc a duAL 4.as oftrcica, ,woa..� ce � ssu� �- euteze Atemia 444zeigAl. oz 444 74tt !'f�ifa414 Sesrtic ywsvla" i14fren`4 'ut ittztwr` �;�uat�cve Gdscdras�Gvsr�> .fes .tom-L0e24t ,.,a� didce. .wsu/41tie EiuttaSt 1.44 ddel .4A t&Avsot Votie J4- le",e, 444. • 49144., — 36— MICHAEL P. LAWTON 1840 HERMOSA AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 a ds ,u4c1-19eA4..��i4� '�`lr��`�4otde‘g7 y1 gtf,t ,i�e�- .,.:4 .aile6i %em �ci* nuc. 84. A-carz &d.zie,d,uizt (a„..i.A.,,d,1._,Avootaitoo LZiL -20centA4ee-45 v r� aha .l e ec2414, S.,44 a/,40.4, ARiz ,ua.2t2 �iwew p�i, a -- 2.oy xstLG•i Ox.L mus T9�7� `.'—.�iruca- .cu�C ao-c..G ,&L44.0ff�lrellrccjL�iuc .r.►t 7ftti, ‘44.44- 614140Aru rAletaw---A,9-4.4o# .4cc114 - ccuuuof.ucl�` Agaidifi dtt sx.L-�-v ,014.404 ,0-r�rssclati�` nctrf�or�ie+�e✓�ucC� /Zwtuc a .u41r4444:vE 44‘4? .uc-•�.�r�l� �Yial,C- • � , � ex flu .4L444tC u4cj/ri i Ale44t i - 444t4. 4~12- c.cu'1.t. './suG' t•/ 46tv0 "MD ,i;e, 1w? (7. 94„da, ,rte i1+a74,fie(3D�� tiusse2J �La- .4s� � mecca- +._4/40ift4 '?ll.! 4/Ga€6 A.Ae ,t,/iet404144-iat4) ,9/._ 4 dgi"ea.z.t., sue � � a�� e /tetca'. /mac 44C.e ��,G, Grt.ziftdl4catGfl*�*u atcLGJ _31- a.ea' .��1*, .amu „GUittateet A.,epzas- 0/. 4 • poe2 Qeasrrf � couLf cast a.tcd clP- ccs4eu -t*‘444 #1?-0,4"lc..# f644t" C44‘4444 /6,e la'atie42-4/ .4244 ,zzi_ce, (te Aier /2-ezet00" )44,•tZsgc4 efte.Pb deZ64•Ctnt 6et 4141- el,4444,414e4d Che, a4tdAte Ga -a‘ "Yfeelo.PI P4-4 ethlos4siit .04ft .rte a ,may '' oz. A4CDICafte .f/ttiamol- bit d44-- 4 -v -e 76P-- .4e44aht/Z5e e*c i ..1talue 4" '% - eoll-o4441€V 1 9 d1 4``Lv"Wes" ,40.41-4- �,4‘,41 44totz ,ace; Q,u.�.. et - 1447.a .641, 44Z1liaDL- e-4106 .0-7 A /-249104(1 ta a 4zw-e out ,41E44.4.44. AW4lee __ _iltAti .4,04;e1- 4,-/etz.4.4e7 .-fru.��.044teerit4a/.t.�eusc d�vrala _,-4177). �cr��os�c �.o�cct .cHeed, .isiraG9-.te awe, t .ea .ry.. February 16, 1988 City Council City of Hermosa Beach I am against rezoning of areas 1, IA & 1B from R-3 to R-2 as it may have an adverse effect on property values in those areas affected by the proposed change. Sincerely, aul J.fr— Lupo Hermosa Beach Property Owner 700 Torrance Blvd A Redondo Beach, CA 90277 FEB 17 1988 2-17-88 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 FEB 1u1988 PLANNING BOARD: IN REFERENCE TO YOUR NOTICE (REZONE FROM R-3 to R-2) Areas 1, 1A, 1B To send a public notice and ask homeowners to respond on such a touchy issue as this in one week is obsene. This is typical of the way Hermosa Beach City works. In life one either goes ahead or falls behind, one never stays the same. A good example is Venice Beach and areas of Santa Monica beach wereblighted areas have set in and drugs etc. follows. To down zone any area of Hermosa Beach is on the border of criminal Hermosa Beach has only one way to go, UP! To the few people who would like to down zone properties look at south Hermosa and its problems. We have a city with no major industry and the only way our creative city thinks to make money is parking tickets. This is the wrong attitude to the cities problems. Look at our downtown. area and see all the stores going down the tubes over the last 18 years. What did downgrading do for our City property on the Strand. Vacant for over 18 years. People must wake up before this way of thinking helps ruin the city. When the City goes bankrupt I have Buyers Waiting. People who bought properties with R-3 should not have to give up their properties rights for anyone, let alone a CITY thats lost in the confusion and can not focus on priorties of the present and future. No one wants to take advantage of anyone in life, but sometimes people do and that is a mis-justice. Since the City is trying to run this rezone issue through so quickly, I.am asking that any and all legal rights not be waived or lost until each person in these areas have all the information needed to make a reasonable decision. I am asking for an extention of 120 days Amimmimommimml to extend these issuses. So that normal people can under- stand all economic, social, and legal aspects of the issuses. An example of the City's planning is the Strand Hotel project. Still vacant and a non -producing asset which is an eye sore for 18 years or more. The City has takes many yearsto develope this project to where it is now, no where. Examples of older Cities moving with the times and succeeding are Glendale and Pasadena. Hermosa is small and has lots of potential, please don't stunt its growth and future success with issuses like these. Respectively, 373 - 7‘ 4/ -4 _23 0 V Ne44,17 o.s�. v. r Howard L. Longacre 1221 Seventh Place Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254 18 February 1988 Members of the Council 1 j City of Hermosa Beach s' City Hall Hermosa Beach, Ca. '1101 Re: Zone change - R3 -Medium -density zone to R2 zone. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Council: This letter is to be entered into the public hearing before the council scheduled for 23 February 88 at 8PM. Thank you again for your service to the community. Once again I am writing to you to express my concern over the method being used to change the zone of my property. I totally support the rezoning of properties for conformity however what the rezoning now in process will do has nothing to do with the number of units that could be built on my property, but instead changes significantly the design of the single family house that can be built on the property. As I discussed in a letter to you dated 6 November 87 when a modification to the current moratorium was being proposed, I purchased the property at 1622 Hermosa Avenue in 1986 for the specific purpose of building a home for myself to live in. Since that time I've been in the long complicated process of getting the design settled and the drawings completed. The working drawings are complete and submitted to the city. My preliminary plans and pre -zone approval was completed previously. At any given moment of a zone change it is highly likely that someone is going to be in the process of submitting plans for a proposed home. This is not a process that I have been doing' as a result of hearing that the zone was going to change. You can be assured, that had I known of this zone change I never would have purchased this property nor proceeded for the last thirteen months on this project. In all my inquiries to the city I was led to believe that under no circumstances would I have trouble building a single family home of the design I have submitted. The new zone while still permitting a single family home makes all the work I have done on this design completely worthless. I was at the November 24th meeting and at the time I was -2- Longacre to Council 18 Feb 88 under the firm belief that I would be notified of the planning commission hearings so that I could at least voice my concerns. Well six days ago I found out that the planning commission public hearing has already taken place for the properties in my category. I never received notice even though my address is on the Hermosa Beach tax roll computer data base. When I inquired at the planning desk, sure enough I was not on their mailing list. Why I don't know, especially when you consider the fact that I have been challenging this matter since last December. Notwithstanding the lack of notice, and not being able to have my say to the planning commission on the rezoning of my property, I have also become aware of the fact that some of these rezonings may not take place until next December. Thus I am likely to get rezoned in a week while others will not, just because my area happens to be in a coastal area and the city wants to execute these first. I fully support the down -zoning, and my property is only permitted a single family home currently even though all the neighboring lots of the same size have 2, 3 and 4 units, but I would have preferred the zone change to be such as to downzone and preserve the building standards for single family homes as those standards now exist. It is only proper in my mind that should you carry through with this zone change, that you 'grandfather' those projects that have been in the pipeline by those whom have made a good faith effort to live up to the objectives of the codes of this city. Especially those having single family homes in process. I am writing this letter in lieu of speaking publicly at the meeting and I thus hope that in lieu of the time I won't be taking at the hearing that you will read this carefully. I believe I have been caught in the whirlwind of this re -zoning process. I have expended much time and money. I hope you will in your careful decision making include 'grandfathering'. Six}cee y, Howard Longacre (property owner and resident) cc City Attorney - James Lough Director of Building and Safety - Bill Grove Planning Director - Michael Schubach City Clerk - Kathleen Midstokke MICHAEL P. LAWTON 1840 HERMOSA AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 1#,(04.44447 , i9gB ei40 (4044 C14- i/ scAtC -xl..ceA. yvs- 4/4/.4 dai4oe "1361-$4coa4 eitiel#44ax e aur` o/ . a .err'e'd' o -u Ate ego- Aee41#, SCC aa- dAtit.sfie i€1C IS. -Zree4.6e4zo f ire ' /04447, At.thic 0-)c ,44(. our. ~et sr're ,rte Azi-44.0•44g. die( 2Z /9157, f 6 /WO d zZsfriae047 /996 a.ti 4‘44(04 /.(4444;e4t) -14.4144e tc#Atzo, Aoidieft- 44-040bit. elo Sat- 4-1-oze e,11-0ee Atte A.ted /9866.60_, „*/ /JAzdoleill gosaciee‘re.&400 ,if.drAgft, 4 ‘14,04te'r""g4e -401-444j r ff/t‘c Atom/ ir4'i it, c0;090,..44 Ge l.e/.001 ,a;4 zisei .744owy ,litz 764,401i e&•;- -4-soov 0./ 441,a!ei o64c4i41 7/0 Aecoi 0•44Z4 �g�,1ccaL 4te .41-c0147�G2ci00- 1;t-ci-t~ •LrG uolein,fittc+zc�u Agir 144f,ti ak.Pe ..rrry I Akeot, ,hafr 47#.4/fibtg-) 404,40t A&I Z-A.frvea&lAic,k4te ,4t/ "Air e**Ate is1.04(4, I/ 4 • eyA44•c•401/ 'woes" 41.04,4. f;Comeit*. e44te44) .7ity AA4-e A.Aleg4..doi At A"‘"44/ 41°4,*°°(4) 1/1 2Aerr #104,Adria/iV 'zitleit"t Ireige4v, vei-sfki4, Au • A.04i,der _./t110 A4-€ is4a4saft7 ,s44edupsv. ,44.w644. ce,rcdueid44k /..61441tetv God, chi a" 41,a444Ae,O01tgyf�y�cey� J�Eua �Zf01�0.O1v MICHAEL P. LnwTox 1840 xcaMOsn AVENUE FEnxosa Bence, CALIFORNIA 90254 40carc /Z* I4Z40‘ os�c a�•U -a4,,e ./414/1/' AltdAPICege eAplgo•-ealr‘f /9947, dea 4&tlez4 AF dere eigdayed do,•44fe A441,644 -114‘446k 70.4 Ag46e atztededi, aresi"ezai „%eigpz.e capirgadoo '2 Ike ‘"nae ��cca iesie".144, ~44k449 „444iiCv rAmeole4-- ,e,tegd, izitfec j-eid '&00--/PALATP44 '*4/44"4,2'1441`' Zkveatead b�j /wait- stot 4 re44.41 54# Et-/ �uw,cr�. a11/� sue aur ,G, tia-ezcl.u.i.cAc- TP- 3: ediedde•sf.e. .44 tera, Airdaiet 40072,44e-a4to;i daz 0_ 70.topeedy-e41L"- � j jet#We414A4- /i4,01- EV2.4.040i.j A C 4 .44;,/.tt49 .4-10teou'Ag- eadreg44- ste4eveitp040‘404eitgayat- o&pli4d d0•144‘,/ Ate dedai4essaz,,b. Alafe-od-71)iesicjvat~/74:74 Asiditez iAte eirolse4g O .�`"� �%bfv, iJ�uisc�� c+L Oic � loozig02, s .eptic ,Atezdee-.- 71.9*ur�. 714F 4°7`46 At, dAr&cf rssacs /asaSej 411ttC Ate fq_, 400%406c0�c4+t ,4644cr r, "0444riZA$4. 'AU t4fiteee GI‘Afel •‘;0 ./3t4Pset- 40711•14#0r • .4004* "a deoz 414 ,ezp "plod*/ (1/Arie tiK,tiW f Q Icc44*aAt./ Iwta44- ,optsees-itat; Ailicott.,404- .44;er /lie 40c4-/Aze, Aosogita t4.4‘4)N-"GbagiA444"0. 404f .441Pot.4.;•Aiees; co/ #latt 4,44#14~4t. "14044A444A /pap_ -4/4 ricet464/ irfad.4eace rei4u4oiCto µ llsc .[l‘tal[sd lepisst,04• ,9610 dolt" eta/ 'Xv-Z,fs toxia6.2ioti4pored 2. 444- At-it44 dusit101-4- A4- /1."'i 444‘44#4frb j:94fisakof AOSOf .A6* /14tditot raldt"' adeCof — A divGlr7wt.4c�,a..t«.kotik4,1.444;+0 ?Ago- 4Ic ~u 70200.40 � t. cw� Act �kC.of•11,414;0144-. 44Pa Alk 6070t".4""g- �de�tt 2� ski stAgr./ yrs ix�''4.sl'L41 ioteepociffam# 4/41 Ilizele440‘.401/ ,4f/x11- Aar 01444~1 .014 4441* ad- •VA4m4/444't. AtiliApe itqfr444 ( /14 'UW07 ,A4t411 uxaa.f, 1044/04ida acd .14.0,600.si« /14144441r• 417 ids CteZiii6 At, pitiagi.y. ,I*fCt e-OroW—sleswt�, SoAt►odibeleru,4 to7a Adtwi4a&i4tXte/ 04-Gc- 4~vize 42444S' "e&P a"."411V4a4 4C140,16 44441 .tiar14.4l.,.72v ,wae ,i4c14t4t4 .%1149 ,tvtlad ift".1414) 12.27f.46-ey- .46616 Uc ns.- ad -4,424;,a c.a,� y� oz 44107.cy4 �cu. ag- .14str, C ,ca� usz; /00)Ca t/SO oiu 41247014 115' 0,2(41' it Ca -J. .uc oL ..+c_ .urkisk 710' 476au .149scc6ls�rf j Ad-- a iu r41nAztudez4e4i' ,cam ,Grrprtia' r4i9d 6z 1,At �- cytttnusu) �ypy� 414,1(1P wGezfrLl47041cLiGe Nv (,i4t.z>zz.vas. , 7tatL LLOcsC!•slt A;te 0114‘44 4*-/ na-4?146vw Aistd ,444ad atvi, 41w44644- Oy G4441.• glAt( 'Zte4c- COW 44.-0, erz_ 44444a44 Cr) ,deoc,o ,f -lea,,' .fvt g'etah-44:�' ,Lrlco- oLo rel Aseeat, .414=-1-P 'a,� C4 "�!/'`a"w� ��3) a"ert sff 11444/et G 7iort ,.,, /2.44144,v al.Q, cw.oc .rx.aiG '��G. lvtt�'�coucL tifeist4 .44•1441 40441 datzeitp-mooe ad- ja4scdp) 2444-#1Z-fy 4,44te /ta- ,ylir,Gia lskc out 4, -cote eAf a1si.� 92.44.tAdi mow' Ge.,ceae .ref- aa. 7/11 -tlitte 6 #14- -et•te‘t ..4sae414t Aro•tf Aza �c .L-eesf .4;rt, 0,71eu~a-a Wc404 4r — -1114$ (17 veg•t4- ovPtd A0;4 07Witiflutavu 2re•teec. 4-r 1444 (sr') _9(.44.i., .Aestotrze 7#4.&ey ,t;e2fr7 "at 4A40/. "Fgo.f.‘t- ,atut Pc&ei‘ .02e444c4d44#1f /2iF SZott44,74+ „7iti 441401,404.X.. 0/ 4 4 e (14°74"14)11 -`"id., 'ter 4e140-- 114*€ 110-t- 44444ctt‘ D-1 ,Lug- �-co��✓�0447,"tc 44t,•14.4itAd,f GiZsatitZ12740•14 444‘0011, 0L, 47-.tYswt ,cse-� lc a,LCc Q a�°" . eit4 4441 1-4144);a446 4946t? Asia .4f -out eu.se c-a4444414lima ,tirAdo# ew-e 06.41-‘41 - et, yA441(4.6.1¢ a%rAcleery4"c0 /2 1,72-01# < /4roode.- .rte .44.- Q� 41641"e ACL ati~,�' ai.44a � J Autd.rte,w7Isee+ fiui6 it/X41/.7.4teXeadfa Cyi'Amsade..04 0 ai / 840 NS & ,4 .s o& 4i rrm Irl/11a'/oH ooe 7x/o4D • 44)14444.6e- fel& (Cooceeika/ Roos- lows , u�v � 2� r�i ue S6eo c Io itA4. CMy - Sit4- /if g ) ,t1e4 L nom• 5.4V Afee - f9$ CoH/ ' 5.#44.17' Z9.14444 4441 f 987 P .-si Concelovtea/ x/es.L.--fihrew n``'or del (987 1tL�G '�'�P'%1WU,EdN�L(/il" 61Avria 6UPtPRubGtNrl6u`tr•n /1491;4•441 /°/Afi, Ornik 64(44°040k 4 Mid AR . c%g List sssaced ,4lq f$1L %q87 moppieetti (,f 1) atm 1 AO/dkt, golltotettS, SelgAde, tom, G• Find 997 e 5/6 I: Ir !/ppm C/ . t/� - / OAr L of P/ouvf fl/ s 4 Cheir ioleZezewo.tisef, fle7 /987 /mss Se*frw 742 A,ws0.114 :0, (eS.4) ,,,/d , /Co M s,i D&( kwte•w .03 P#6$ ► >9 /Ltdss�yc � �vd'— a yew (/0 fl4QH1Jt 5 �a C.�ty 444401f) OVev "ZOe SD06rox.K 6j Wiemaffis Cleti ites1�a sSrd �syii[e) {iuGG�ie�oo1,ttif �va� /OreO lzc,atl�tw� 1(144s/+ Klaiis /Q AGbfrurs y /9640 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Michael Schubach, Planning Director FROM: William Grove, Director of Building and Safety (,' RE: Projects affected by rezoning areas 1, lA and 1B. DATE: February 23, 1988 Per your request, Building Department plan check files were reviewed to determine how many projects could be affected by the proposed zone changes in areas 1, lA and 1B. It appears that there are two projects currently in plan check which could be affected by the proposed zone change: 1) Single family residence at 1622 Hermosa Avenue Howard Longacre, owner. 2) Three unit apartment building at 1840 Hermosa Mr. and Mrs. Michael Lawton, owners. It was recently discovered that the Lawton project appears to have a problem with the maximum density allowed pursuant to the moratorium enacted by Ordinance No. 87-873 (extended by Ord. No. 87-881). Due to the irregular shape of the lot we are currently awaiting additional documentation from the land surveyor to ascertain the exact lot size which is critical. If the lot size is determined to be too small for three units pursuant to the moratorium, the project could not be permitted even if the zone change contained a "grandfather clause". If the council decides to add a "grandfather clause" to the proposed zone change ordinance for areas 1, lA and 1B, I would recommend the following wording: "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." CC: Kevin Northcraft, City Manager James P. Lough, City Attorney 1 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council February 16, 1988 Regular Meeting of February 23, 1988 SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY SS 87-22 AND TEXT AMENDMENT - TO DEFINE "SNACK BAR" AND TO THE DEFINITION OF "RESTAURANT" LOCATION: CITY WIDE - COMMERCIAL ZONES INITIATED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION Recommendation The Planning Commission and Staff recommend adopting the attached Ordinance. Background On January 19, 1988, the Planning Commission approved Resolution P.C. 87-65 recommending approval of a text amendment to the definition of "restaurant" and "snack shop and/or snack bar" and approval of a Negative Declaration. Analysis The Zoning Code does not currently distinguish between restaurants and snack bars. The primary concerns are based on the required parking and when does a "snack bar and/or snack shop" become a "restaurant". Additional Analysis is provided in the Planning Commission staff reports dated 1/19/88, 12/1/87, 11/17/87, and 11/4/87, and 9/1/87. Attachments 1. City Council Ordinance 88- 2. Resolution P.C. 87-65 3. P.C. Staff Reports of 1/19/88, 12/1/87, 11/17/87, 11/4/87 and 9/1/87 4. P.C. Minutes of 1/19/88, 12/1/87, 11/17/87, 11/4/87 and 9/1/87 CONI UR : /7 ' 9 Re ^ ctfully- Submitted, �An rew Perca Associate Manner Iola ae Sc ubach Planning Director If 7ileg..)-- na Mastrian Acting City Manager ORDINANCE NO. 88 - 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 a new 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. Commercial Zone: "Snack bar/Snack shop; Conditional 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 Neighborhood Use Permit — Z—. 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 the 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 23rd day of February, 1988. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: PROVED C CLERK FO CITY ATTORNEY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION P.C. 87-65 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE DEFINITION OF "RESTAURANT" AND "SNACK BAR AND/OR SNACK SHOP" AND APPROVAL OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 4, 1987 , November 17, 1987, and January 19, 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 distincition between "restaurant" and "snack bar" is required because of potential parking impacts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby recommend the following: 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 breadkfast, lunch, or dinner." B. Add a new 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. Commercial Zone:. "Snack bar/Snack shop; Conditional required subject to Article 10." Add the following in alphabeticalorder to Article 11.5, Section 1152, off-street parking, commercial, and business uses: Section 3. Neighborhood Use Permit 1 2 3 VOTE: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Snack bar/Snack shop: The parking requirements for a snack bar and/or snack shop shall be the same as that for "restaurant" unless it can be shown to the Planning Commission that the characteristics of the building, it's location, and other mitigating factors result in less parking being necessary for the business." AYES: Comms.Rue,DeBellis,Chmn.Compton NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comms.Ingell,Peirce CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 87-65 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commils:/ion_44 the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their egular, et g/of January 19, 1988. rald Compton, Chairman Date Michael'Schubach, Secretary Tilarkgroutzb a tr r.iais Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission January 12, 1988 Regular Meeting of January 19, 1988 UNFINISHED BUSINESS (Continued from 12/1/87, 11/17/87, and 11/4/87) SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY SS 87-22 AND TEXT AMENDMENT LOCATION: CITY-WIDE APPLICANT: INITATED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION REQUEST: TO DEFINE "SNACK BAR" AND TO ADD TO THE DEFINITION OF "RESTAURANT" Recommendation Staff recommends adoption of the attached Resolution. Background This matter was continued from the meeting of December 1, 1987 to allow ample time for the Public Hearing for the ATSF Railroad Right -of -Way E.I.R. which was scheduled for the same meeting. Additional background information is included in the attached Staff Reports dated 12/1/87, 11/17/87 and 11/4/87. Analysis Pursuant to the request of the Planning Commission, the attached resolution has been revised to include a section dealing with parking. Addition analysis is included in the attac -i Staff reports. CONCUR: Michael" Schubach Planning Director An•'T''^ Pe a Associate .Tanner ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution P.C. 87-65 2. PC Staff Reports of 12/1/87, 11/17/87, 11/4/87, 9/1/87 3. Minutes of 12/1/87, 11/17/87, 11/4/87, 9/1/87 4. Staff Review Minutes of 10/8/87 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beacb Planning Commission UNFINISHED BUSINESS (Continued from 11/4/87 and 11/17/88) SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: REQUEST: November 25, 1987 Regular Meeting of December 1, 1987 SPECIAL STUDY SS 87-22 AND TEXT AMENDMENT CITY-WIDE INITIATED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DEFINE "SNACK BAR" AND TO ADD TO THE DEFINITION OF "RESTAURANT" Recommendation Continue this matter to the second meeting in January. Background At their meeting of November 17, 1987, the Planning Commission continued this matter to this meeting. Analysis Staff is recommending that this matter be continued since the ATSF Public Hearing has also been sched ed to is meeting. Staff is expecting a lengthy discussion o t AAl .I.R. CONC 04 Michae .hu ach Planning Dirtor An:rew Pe Associate ea lanner Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission UNFINISHED BUSINESS (Continued from November 4, 1987) November 10, 1987 Regular Meeting of November 17, 1987 SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY SS 87-22 AND TEXT AMENDMENT LOCATION: CITY-WIDE APPLICANT: INITIATED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION REQUEST: TO DEFINE "SNACK BAR" AND TO ADD TO THE DEFINITION OF "RESTAURANT" Recommendation Staff recommends adoption of the attached Resolution. Background At the Planning Commission meeting of September 1, 1987, staff requested the Commission to interpret the Ordinance regarding the definition of "restaurant". At that meeting, Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a text amendment to clarify the definition of "restaurant" and add a definition for "snack bar". The Planning Commission recommended requiring a Conditional Use Permit for snack bars. Analysis The present definition of restaurant is as follows: Sec. 270. Restaurant An establishment which primarily sell prepared food; where beer and wine are sold, a minimum of 65% of the total gross sales, computed monthly, shall result from the sale of prepared food; where other alcoholic beverages, not exclusively beer and wine, are sold, a minimum of 50% of the total gross sales, computed monthly, shall result fron the sale of prepared food. The Zoning Code does not distinguish between restaurants and snack bars. The primary concerns for a definition to distinguish the two is parking. Presently, establishment such as donuts shops and ice cream shops are considered retail, thus requiring 1 parking space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area. A restaurant, on the other hand, requires either 1 parking space for each 100 square feet of gross floor area or 1 parking space for each 50 square feet of c c gross floor area depending on whether the restaurant is "dine -in" or "take-out". Restaurants require more parking because of the number of customers and duration of the customer's visit. A problem arises in defining when a snack bar becomes a restaurant. The planning staff has had two requests from proprietors who currently have snack bars and are requesting expansion of their food service. The proposed zoning code will provide a distinction between the two. Staff is recommending that "snack bars" are subject to a Conditional Use Permit. This will give staff the ability to place conditions on the snack bar which will restrict attempts to create a "restaurant". A condition of approval should be to limit the number of seating available, based on the specific type of snack. Staff did a random survey of snack bars established in the City. The average number of seating available is about 20. There are a few snack bars that exceed 20 seats, for example Dunkin' Donuts. Dunkin' Donuts has 28 seats, but they have more than the required' parking available. Staff is recommending to limit the seating allowed in "snack shops" to 20, but this may be increased if additional parking is provided and based on the type of establishment proposed. Additional background and analysis is ided in the attached staff report dated September 1, 1987 CO UR: Mic ` = elScliubach Planning Director Attachments 1. Resolution P.C. 87-65 2. Staff Review Minutes of 10/8/87 3. P.C. Staff Report of 9/1/87 'Auk. Anew Per0a Associate Planner c October 28, 1987 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission November 4, 1987 SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY SS 87-22 AND TEXT AMENDMENT LOCATION: CITY-WIDE APPLICANT: INITIATED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION REQUEST: TO DEFINE "SNACK BAR" AND TO ADD TO THE DEFINITION OF "RESTAURANT" Recommendation Staff recommends adoption of the attached Resolution. Background At the Planning Commission meeting of September 1, 1987, staff requested the Commission to interpret the Ordinance regarding the definition of "restaurant". At that meeting, Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a text amendment to clarify the definition of "restaurant" and add a definition for "snack bar". The Planning Commission recommended requiring a Conditional Use Permit for snack bars. Analysis The present definition of restaurant is as follows: Sec. 270. Restaurant An establishment which primarily sell prepared food; where beer and wine are sold, a minimum of 65% of the total gross sales, computed monthly, shall result from the sale of prepared food; where other alcoholic beverages, not exclusively beer and wine, are sold, a minimum of 50% of the total gross sales, computed monthly, shall result fron the sale of prepared food. The Zoning Code.does not distinguish between restaurants and snack bars. The primary concerns for a definition to distinguish the two is parking. Presently, establishment such as donuts shops and ice cream shops are considered retail, thus requiring 1 parking space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area. A restaurant, on the other hand, requires either 1 parking space for each 100 square feet of gross floor area or 1 parking space for each 50 square feet of gross floor area depending on whether the restaurant is "dine -in" or "take-out". Restaurants require more parking because of the number of customers and duration of the customer's visit. —I I— c A problem arises in defining when a snack bar becomes a restaurant. The planning staff has had two requests from proprietors who currently have snack bars and are requesting expansion of their food service. The proposed zoning code will provide a distinction between the two. Staff is recommending that "snack bars" are subject to a Conditional Use Permit. This will give staff the ability to place conditions on the snack bar which will restrict attempts to create a "restaurant". A condition of approval should be to limit the number of seating available, based on the specific type of snack. Staff did a random survey of snack bars established in the City. The average number of seating available is about 20. There are a few snack bars that exceed 20 seats, for example Dunkin' Donuts. Dunkin' Donuts has 28 seats, but they have more than the required parking available. Staff is recommending to limit the seating allowed in "snack shops" to 20, but this may be increased if additional parking is provided and based on the type of establishment proposed. Additional background and analysis is provided the attached staff report dated September 1, 1987 CONCUR: ichae Schubach Planning Director Attachments 1. Resolution P.C. 87-65 2. Staff Review Minutes of 10/8/87 3. P.C. Staff Report of 9/1/87 A" 'e ea Associate Planner C t August 26, 1987 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission September 1, 1987 SUBJECT: ORDINANCE INTERPRETATION LOCATION: CITY-WIDE APPLICANTS' LOCATION: 901 HERMOSA AVENUE & 1401 HERMOSA AVENUE APPLICANTS: MR. DAHLE AND MRS. VILAI REQUEST: FOR PARKING REQUIREMENT PURPOSES, DETERMINATION AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES A RESTAURANT Recommendation The Staff recommends that a restaurant be interpreted as a business which has either of the following characteristics: A. Serves at least one of the following: 1. Breakfast 2. Lunch 3. Dinner B. Installation of kitchen equipment capable of producing full meals which would constitute breakfast, lunch, and/or dinner. In regard to Mrs. Vilai's request, it may be possible to allow her request with her acknowledgement in writing that she has only a barbeque. For the future, Staff recommends a text amendment to the Parking Ordinance and to the definition section of the Zoning Ordinance to better distinguish between restaurants and similar uses. Background Both applicants are interested in adding additional food items at their respective locations. Mr. Dahle owns a now defunct yogurt shop and would like to install a stove, oven, and vent for the purpose of selling breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Mrs. Vilai would like to install a barbeque and vent to cook skewered meat in conjunction with her existing ice cream business, but does not intend to sell breakfast, lunch or dinner. The Zoning Ordinance states that to change the occupancy of an existing structure to a more intensive use, requires all the required parking spaces to be provided. C f Analysis Staff has made the distinction between snack shops, donuts, ice cream, deli's, etc. and restaurants by the type of meals being served and the kitchen equipment. Once a business has the capability to produce breafast, lunch, and/or dinner, it would be difficult to limit these businesses to only snacks, etc. On the other hand, to put, for example, a donut shop in the same category with restaurants would cause a hardship. Restaurants require more parking because of the number of customers and the duration of the customers' visit. Mr. Dahle believes he should be considered a restaurant because he already has some of the equipment needed, and therefore, he should be "grandfathered" in. Mrs. Vilai believes that she is only selling snacks and therefore, she is not a restaurant, even though she would have the capability to serve more than just snacks. It should be noted that once the vent is in, there is no permit required for installing an oven, stove, etc, making enforcement difficult. There is already a proliferation of restaurants in the downtown area. More restaurants without additional parking can only make it more difficult for the existing restaurants to survive /." is ael Schu'ach Planning Director PLANNING COMMISEN MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1988 ` PAGE 2 TEXT AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING DEFINITION OF "RESTAURANT" AND "SNACK BAR" (CONDITIONAL. USE PERMIT REQUIRED) (CONTINUED FROM 12/1/87, 11/17/87, AND 11/4/87) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 12, 1988. This matter was continued from the meeting of December 1; 1987, to allow ample time for the public. hearing for •the ATSF Railroad Right of Way EIR; which was scheduled for the same meeting. Additional information was provided to the Commission including past staff reports. PLANNING COMMISSCI MINUTES - JANUARY .19, 1988 ` PAGE 3 Pursuant to the request of the Planning Commission, the proposed resolution has been revised to include a section dealing with parking. Staff recommended that the Commission adopt the proposed resolution. Mr. Schubach stated that it became necessary to differentiate between restaurants and snack bars, explaining that shops selling items such as ice cream or cookies only, would probably not need as much parking as a full restaurant. He stated, however, that a condition has been added to the Resolution stating that: "The parking requirements for a snack bar and/or snack shop shall be the same as that for a restaurant unless it can be shown to the Planning Commission that the characteristics of the building, its location, and other mitigating factors result in less parking being necessary for the business." Mr. Schubach noted that the Planning Commission is being given more discretion as to what constitutes a snack bar and what constitutes a restaurant. Public Hearing opened at 7:52 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. There being no citizens who appeared either in favor of or in opposition to this matter, the Public Hearing was closed. Comm. Rue favored the idea of requiring conditional use permits for snack bars, stating that each individual establishment should be studied on a case-by-case basis to determine parking and traffic needs. Chmn. Compton also favored CUPs for these establishments, noting that potential problems can be addressed at the six-month review hearings. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Rue, to accept staff's recommendation to approve Resolution P.C. 87-65, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE DEFINITION OF "RESTAURANT" AND "SNACK BAR AND/OR SNACK SHOP" AND APPROVAL OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. AYES: Comms. DeBellis, Rue, Chmn. Compton NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Peirce PLANNING COMMISS?vN MINUTES - DECEMBER 1, 1987 I• PAGE 2 TEXT AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING DEFINITION OF "RESTAURANT do SNACK BAR, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUIRED" (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 17, 1987, MEETING) Mr. Schubach recommended that this item be continued since the ATSF Public Hearing has been scheduled for this meeting and is expected to be quite lengthy. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Rue, to continue this item to the meeting of January 19, 1988. No objections; so ordered. PLANNING COMMI�.ON MINUTES - NOVEMBER 17, 198( PAGE 14 TEXT AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING DEFINITION OF "RESTAURANT" AND "SNACK BAR, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUIRED" (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF NOVEMBER 4, 1987) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 10, 1987. At the Planning Commission meeting of September 1, 1987, staff requested the Commission to interpret the ordinance regarding the definition of a "restaurant." At that meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a text amendment to clarify the definition of "restaurant" and add a definition for "snack bar." The Planning Commission recommended requiring using a conditional use permit for snack bars. The present definition of a restaurant is: (Section 270.) "An establishment which primarily sells prepared food; where beer and wine are sold, a minimum of 65 percent of the total gross sales, computed monthly, shall result from the sale of prepared food; where other alcoholic beverages, not exclusively beer and wine, are sold, a minimum of which 50 percent of the total gross sales, computed monthly, shall result from the sale of prepared food." The zoning code does not distinguish between restaurants and snack bars. The primary concern for a definition to distinguish the two is parking. Presently, establishments such as donut shops and ice cream shops are considered retail, thus requiring one parking space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area. A restaurant, on the other hand, requires either one parking space for each 100 square feet of gross floor area or one parking space for each 50 square feet of gross floor area depending upon whether the restaurant is "dine -in" or "take-out." Restaurants require more parking because of the number of customers and duration of the customer's visit. PLANNING COMMCION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 17, 19C PAGE 15 A problem arises in defining when a snack bar becomes a restaurant. The planning staff has had two requests from proprietors who currently have snack bars and who are requesting expansions of their food service. The proposed zoning code will provide a distinction between the two. Staff is recommending that "snack bars" be subject to a conditional use permit. This will give staff the ability to place conditions on snack bars which will restrict attempts to create a "restaurant." A condition of approval should be to limit the number of seats available, based on the specific type of snack. Staff did a random survey of snack bars established in the City. The average number of seating available is about 20. There are a few snack bars that exceed 20 seats; for example, Dunkin' Donuts, which has 28 seats; but they have more than the required amount of parking. Staff is recommending to limit the seating allowed in "snack shops" to 20, but this may be increased if additional parking is provided and based on the type of establishment proposed. Comm. Ingell discussed parking requirements and stated that the location of a snack bar is the most important factor. Public Hearing opened and closed at 10:00 P.M. by Chmn. Compton, as there were no citizens who appeared to speak on this matter. Comm. Ingell continued by discussing various snack bar locations throughout the City. Comm. Peirce asked why a snack bar use would be considered less intensive than a take- out use. Mr. Schubach stated that people tend to stay for a shorter period of time at a snack bar. Chmn. Compton agreed that take-outs and snack shops have more of a turnover than restaurants. Comm. Peirce suggested that snack bars be permitted only the C-2 zone. Comm. Ingell stated that if establishments in zones other than C-2 can meet the parking requirements, they could be permitted in other zones. Chmn. Compton stated that conditional use permits could be required in both the C-2 and C-3 zones. Comm. Ingell noted that there is a large turnover in snack bars because during certain times of the year, those establishments cannot draw people to them and they in turn go out of business. Mr. Schubach stated that there could be a standard condition pertaining to parking requirements in all CUP's for snack bars. Comm. Peirce noted, though, that the location is the key factor. Chmn. Compton suggested wording in the resolution that states parking shall be determined on a case-by-case basis. He agreed that location is the most important factor in determining the success of a snack bar. q— PLANNING COMM(.ON MINUTES - NOVEMBER 17, 1981. PAGE 16 Mr. Schubach suggested that there be a policy statement addressing the issue of snack bar locations. Chmn. Compton discussed the resolution and recommended the addition of a Section No. 3 stating that "parking requirements shall be decided on a case-by-case basis depending upon the location and shall be controlled by a conditional use permit." Mr. Lough stated that it is favorable to have as much wording in the ordinance as possible. Comm. Ingell favored the most stringent parking requirements available. Mr. Lough suggested that the item be continued so that there can be more study on the wording of the ordinance. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Compton, to continue this matter to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission so that the City Attorney can return with language dealing specifically with parking, which would enable the City to require parking or not require parking depending upon the location, business flow, and adjacent businesses. Chmn. Compton noted that the public hearing on this matter would be reopened and continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. Comm. Rue questioned whether it would be desirable to have exact wording regarding what items can be sold at an establishment. Comm. Peirce replied in the affirmative, stating that it is important to spell out clearly what is to be allowed. He stated that whatever is to be served should be approved by the Planning Commission. Comm. Ingell stated that he does not favor a separate section in the code for snack bars, stating that he feels them to be take-out restaurants. He noted that he had difficulty in making a distinction between snack bars and restaurants. He stated that patrons will either eat on the premises or take away; those are the only two choices. Comm. Ingell favored leaving things as they are, noting that there are already parking requirements in place for take-out establishments. Chmn. Compton noted, however, that conditional use permits are currently required only for those establishments selling alcoholic beverages. He continued by giving background information on this matter for the benefit of Comm. Ingell. AYES: Comms. Ingell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None PLANNING COMMICON MINUTES - NOVEMBER 4, 1987( PAGE 18 Comm. Rue asked about enforcement of conditions of the CUP. Mr. Schubach stated that problems could be addressed at the six-month review hearing. Comm. Rue asked whether Music Plus would be required to replace the public right of way if there is damage incurred as a result of construction. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Chmn. Compton as maker, and agreed to by Comm. Rue as second, to add a condition requiring that Music Plus shall replace the public right of way if damage is incurred as a result of construction. AYES: Comms. Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton NOES: None ABSTAIN: Comm. Ingell ABSENT: Comm. Sheldon Recess taken from 10:40 P.M. until 10:51 P.M. TEXT AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING DEFINITION OF "RESTAURANT," "SNACK BAR," (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUIRED) Chmn. Compton stated that this item would be continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. INTERPRETATION REGARDING ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTIONS Mr. Grove gave staff report dated October 29, 1987. The zoning code contains several sections which prescribe allowing projections into required yards. The provisions most widely utilized are Sections 1209, 1210, and 1212. An interpretation of Section 1209 is requested because of the vague wording of "other similar architectural features." This did not appear to constitute a problem in previous years; however, current building designers are more likely to utilize all building area allowed by the zoning code. In order to provide relief to the building and aesthetic interest, designers often incorporate elements that may or may not appropriately be called "architectural features." The setbacks prescribed by the zoning code are minimal when compared to most cities, largely because of the prevalent small lot sizes. The small setbacks nuke the issue of projections even more important. It is clear from reading Section 1209 that cornices, eaves, sills, et cetera, are allowed to project into required yards. What is not clear are the elements which might constitute similar architectural features. Items that may be considered as similar but are not listed include chases from mechanical equipment, greenhouse or bay windows, pilasters, and columns. Another concern regarding the section is that it contains no parameters other than the • allowable projection. In other words, if a greenhouse window is an allowable projection, what are the appropriate limitations on its size? Obviously, as the projections become • i. v‘ .. • • .. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — SEPTEMBER 1; 1987 PAGE 10 IMP • ORDINANCE. INTERPRETATION FOR PARKING REQUIREMENT PURPOSES, DETERMINATION AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES A RESTAURANT Chmn. Sheldon stated that a staff report was in order. Mr. Schubach stated that there are two ice cream and yogurt shops that have come before the staff, and those shops asked if they could sell other items besides the ice cream and yogurt they already sell. The first applicant is a Mr. Dahle at 901 Hermosa Avenue, which is now a defunct yogurt shop. He wanted to be declared a restaurant because be has some of the equipment. Therefore,. 'he feels that he -has the facilities 'to sell other foods besides the yogurt he sells at the present. Mr. Schubach stated that the other applicant, Mr. Vilai, of King Cone, 1401 Hermosa Avenue, sees herself not as being a restaurant but just a snack shop, and she would like to sell other foods because in the wintertime, she feels. she does not get enough business through ice cream and yogurt sales alone. She would like to sell Teriyakibeef on a stick. ZZ— C; LANNING COM'IISSION MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 1, 1987 PAGE 11 Mr. Schubach stated that Mr. Vilai doesn't want to put in an oven. She would like to be able to use a barbeque. She will need a vent for that barbeque, and she will need a permit. He stated that staff feels that there should be a definition given to distinguish between a bar, restaurant, snack shop, etc. He stated that one of the three things should prevail to be considered a restaurant: 1. That the shop have the capacity to serve breakfast, lunch, or dinner. 2. Or if the installation of kitchen equipment is capable of serving breakfast, lunch, or dinner. He also stated that the adequate amount of parking should be provided. Mr. Schubach stated that the ordinance should be refined and provide a definition as to what constitutes a.restaurant as opposed to a bar or snack shop. Comm. Compton asked of Mr. Schubach if the definition of "meal" includes sandwiches and salads, and whether or not that needs to be stated in the definition. Mr. Schubach stated that the whole section should be refined and make the definition more clear. Chmn. Sheldon wanted to know if there is a different code for parking facilities for ice cream shops as opposed to restaurants. Mr. Schubach stated that there are certain requirements based on every 250 square feet. Comm. Rue wondered if there is a differentiation by a shop that has sit-down -booths, i.e., number of booths or tables. Mr. Schubach stated that there could be a definition added to distinguish that fact. He stated that he felt it was okay to have some seating at a snack shop. Chmn. Sheldon wanted to know why there were two individual applications before the Commission. He wanted to know if the matters should be taken up together or separately. Mr. Schubach stated that whatever decision is made, it is going to fit both of them or none of them. The determination is going to by one made city wide. Chmn. Sheldon wanted to make it clear that they are not hearing individual cases, per se, but rather the Commission is hearing the cases which were. present that evening, which will be precedents for any future cases which may come'. before the Commission at any'other time. He also wanted.to make it clear that they are interpreting an already existing code. Mr. Lough stated that the Commission is not taking up the issue whether or not on making specific determinations whether or not this is or should or • should not be a restaurant. The Commission is just making a general definition. • Chmn. Sheldon asked of Mr. Schubach if the Commission should take each applicant's testimony and restrict it to the general category of what should be a restaurant or testimony as to their individual circumstances. C`� PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - a 1; ER 1, 1987 PAGE 12 Mr. Lough suggested that the Commission should take both into consideration. He stated to Chmn. Sheldon that the main purpose would be to make a general definition. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Sheldon at 9:40 P.M. Greg Dahle, 3408, 229 Street, Torrance, addressed the Commission and stated that he had the premises for lease and a couple wanted to open a frozen yogurt shop. So they came to the City to get a business license for the sale of frozen yogurt. They were told that they would have to provide all the health requirements, and they were offered a business license that was unrestricted. So he went ahead and made the property.ready to be used by the new owners. He claims that the space is suitable for a restaurant. He stated that he previously had a license to operate at the time he sold the premises to the new owner, and now he can't understand why there- need' be any type of definition when he had the go ahead in obtaining the business license prior. He had made improvements and has spent a lot of money and effort to get the ball rolling. He believes he obtained his business license in August, 1985. Mr. Dahle stated that he feels much like the other applicant does in that in the wintertime, sales of ice cream and yogurt are not high. Therefore, if one could sell something else, such as hot items in the wintertime, the business could function at a normal rate. He basically feels that if a grill can be put in, he would be happy. He would really like to make this a restaurant. Comm. Rue was not clear as to the City Council allowing the yogurt store or a restaurant as a grandfather use after they passed the parking restriction. _Mr. Schubach stated that when this applicant first came in, their business was going to be a restaurant, then it was a question whether he fell under the new parking standard. Then they defined the fact that he is not a restaurant, but a yogurt shop. As a yogurt shop, he doesn't fall under the same category . as far as parking goes. Charlie, King Cone, stated that he has the same problem as Mr. Dahle in that during the wintertime business is not so good. He stated that his wife would like to put a barbeque in so they can cook specialty items during the winter -- i.e., Teriyaki sticks. He stated that the old owner told'him that his license:' would fall under a business license. Kevin Cody, 54 17th Court, addressed the Commission on Charlie of King Cone's behalf and stated that he works down the street and stated that he felt it didn't matter if Charlie sells hot dogs, which Charlie already sells, or beef sticks. He also feels that a vented grill would be a better idea for. safety purposes. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Sheldon at 9:57 P.M. Comm. Compton stated that the need to make a clear definition of what a restaurant is. He then read from a document stating that a restaurant consists of the following: It serves breakfast, lunch, or dinner. Another would be installation of kitchen equipment for producing full meals. Anther suggestion might be that in cases where there is a question regarding the C.U.P, condition the applicant so they could be no more than a snack shop. C'- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 1, 1987 PAGE 13 Mr. Lough said that the Commission could most certainly make a definition, but if it didn't fit the criteria regarding the C.U.P., then you're delegating the staff quasi-judicial authority, which they should not have. Comm. Compton suggest that they make the definition somewhat open-ended. He also stated that another problem with this business space is that there is no adequate parking. Mr. Schubach stated that what they need to do.is define the difference between snack bar and restaurant and make it a conditional use permit process to have a snack bar so that the business owner doesn't convert'the business• into some other type of. business. Chmn. Sheldon wanted to know that since King Cone wants to use a barbeque and what they already have, would that constitute kitchen equipment. Mr. Schubach stated no to that question. He discussed it with the Business and Licensing, and felt that people will start cooking things other than that which was specified in the C.U.P. He also stated that a way to solve this would be by specifically what they can and cannot sell. Chmn. Sheldon then summarized what a restaurant is as follows: 1. An establishment that serves breakfast, lunch, or dinner. 2. Or has the • kitchen equipment capable of producing full meals, which constitute breakfast, lunch, or dinner. If one were to fall into that category, he will have to supply'adequate parking. He stated that the Commission would have to add the category "Snack Bar." And if one chooses the category of snack -bar, it would require a conditional use permit, which the Commission would condition that snack bar. Mr. Lough said that one could do that, but there is no category. in the code right now that that needs a C.U.P. Staff would have to come back with a zoning amendment. Chinn. Sheldon stated that the main purpose is to define a restaurant and to ask staff to come up with a text amendment regarding a snack bar. • MOTION by Chmn. Sheldon, seconded by Comm. Rue, stating that a definition of a restaurant be, one, that a business serve either breakfast, lunch, or dinner, or all; and, two, has kitchen equipment capable'of producing full meals, which constitute breakfast, lunch, or dinner. Chmn. Sheldon felt that if a person came into a business with a similar business, that he is all for the permit to be used in the new business. But to change a business that is primarily a yogurt shop into a restaurant, he does not favor it. Comm. Rue stated that the applicants must apply for a conditional use permit at a later date if this goes through City Council. Mr. Schubach stated that it wouldn't take too long to add the definition, but it takes a few months to go through the hearing process. • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 1, 1987 PAGE 14 On the MOTION, previously submitted, no objections; so ordered. MOTION by Chmn. Sheldon, seconded by Comm. Compton t� direct staff to prepare • a text amendment to the zoning code regarding a snack bar added to the C.U.P. and redefine restaurants and meals. No objections; so ordered. • Chmn. Sheldon stated that no one can do what they want to do with their business at this time until staff comes back with the text amendment and the permit worded correctly to apply to the particular businesses at hand. It could be six months. 11. 1 PROJECT SS 87-22 Text Amendment re: definition of "restaurant", "snack bar", "deli", etc. Mr. Perea explained that this has arisen from parking problems. The Planning Commission has directed staff to prepare a text amendment that address' these concerns. They want staff to deter- mine what the defenition of a restaurant is. Mr. Grove asked what the current interpretation of a restaurant is. Mr. Perea replied that it refers to a place that serves entrees, hot food, and also refers to take out. Motion by Mr. Perea to approve a negative declaration. Second for discussion by Mr. Anticb. Mr. Grove asked what the reasoning was behind the parking re- quirements between a take-out restaurant and a snack shop. Mr. Peres was unsure of what the Planning Commission reasoning was. Mr. Antich withdrew his prior motion, and asked that the Planning Commisssion study this further. Motion by Mr. Peres prepare a negative declaration for a res- taurant and ask that the Planning Commission study the parking requirements for each use. AYES: Mr. Grove Mr. Peres Capt. Chesson Lt. Lavin OPPOSED: Mr. Antich si-z440 01r1f? $ Law Offices of James P. Lough JAMES P. LOUGH 30 NORTH RAYMOND AVENUE SUITE 708 PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91103 February 17, 1988 (213) 381-6131 (818) 792-4728 MEMORANDUM (818) 792-4776 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 23, 1988 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney RE: Proposed Ballot Initiatives Recommended Action: For council to decide whether to place these matters on the June ballot. The three initiatives approved by council, in concept, at the last meeting are attached for your consideration. A poten- tial fourth measure suggested by Councilmember Rosenberger was not prepared. (a) Parkland Tax Override: This measure was prepared based on council direction and, pursuant to the Government Code, re- quires a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the people. Please be advised that this matter has not been reviewed by bond counsel or any financial consultants. Without such review, no positive recom- mendation can be made regarding any benefits which may accrue to the city from such a special tax. Any bond issuance based on such a tax would still probably pledge the full faith and credit of the city since such a tax could be repealed at a subsequent election. (b) Biltmore Site Park Measure: The attached measure re- quires that the City Council maintain the Biltmore Site as a park. It does not change the zoning, general plan or coastal plan for the property. The level to which the park is developed under this measure is left to the City Council and its discretion. (c) Biltmore Site Sale or Trade for the Railroad Right -of - Way: This measure establishes a requirement that the city meet and negotiate with the railroad in good faith to attempt to reach agreement regarding acquisition of the railroad right-of-way. This requirement does not include the steps necessary for eminent domain which cannot be addressed by a local initiative. If the city is successful in negotiating a deal, the sale and/or trade of the Biltmore Site would be used to finance the transaction. Under the initiative, the sale or trade could only be based upon a qualified appraisal of the property. The appraisal in question would be based on the sale price and/or trade price at fair market value and not include any values based on future - 1• - 9 revenues from the property. If no deal was made with the owners of the railroad right-of-way after good faith negotiations, this ordinance would have no further force or effect. NOTED: Respectful) witted S P. LOUGH, City Attorney ITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ,Z5e9E)ALANA MASTRIAN, Acting City Manager 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 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS BY THE CITY COUNCIL, AMENDING SECTION 30-62 AND ADDING SECTIONS 64 AND 65 TO CHAPTER 30 - TAXATION, ARTICLE VI - UTILITIES TAX, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE USE OF 4% OF THE 10% UTILITY USERS TAX ONLY FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE A.T. & S.F. RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. A new section shall be added to Chapter 30 (Taxation) of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code to read as follows: 30-64. USE AND PURPOSE OF THE TAX The ten percent tax upon the use of utilities imposed by this chapter shall be accounted for and used by the City of Hermosa Beach in two different manners. The first six percent (6%) shall be accounted for and deposited in the general fund of the city to be used for any valid municipal purpose at the discretion of the City Council. The remaining four percent (4%) of the tax shall be collected and placed in a special fund only to be used for the acquisition of the property commonly known as 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. For that portion of the utility user tax which is a special tax and only to be used for the purchase of the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 railroad right-of-way (4%), the special tax 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 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 space lands for the benefit of the citizens of Hermosa Beach. Notwithstanding the termination of the four percent (4%) special tax, the remaining six percent tax for general revenue purposes shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. Pursuant to Government Code Section 53722, this ordinance must be adopted by a two-thirds affirmative vote. Its provisions may not be amended or repealed without a subse- quent vote of the electorate. SECTION 4. Section 30-62 (Fund and Purpose) shall be amended to state as follows: All of the proceeds of the taxes levied under this article shall be placed in the general fund of the city and shall be utilized for general governmental purposes except as herein set forth in Sections 30-64 and 30-65. SECTION 5. If any of the provisions of this ordinance are declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining parts or sections shall remain in full force and effect. 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 6. This ordinance shall take effect in the manner provided by law. SECTION 7. The method of collection of the taxes im- posed shall remain the same as provided under Chapter 30 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2$ ORDINANCE NO. 88 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS BY THE CITY COUNCIL, TO REQUIRE THAT THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BILTMORE SITE BE USED AS A PARK. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That a public park be maintained by the City of Hermosa Beach at the location commonly known as the "Biltmore Site." The "Biltmore Site," as defined by this ordinance, shall include those lots described in Exhibit "A" to this ordinance which is incorporated herein by reference. Copies of Exhibit "A" can be obtained from the office of the Hermosa Beach City Clerk. SECTION 2. That if any of the provisions of this or- dinance are declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdic- tion, the remaining parts shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. That there shall be no modification, amend- ment, or repeal of any provision herein except by a vote of the people. EXHIBIT "A" CITY -OWNED PROPERTY Lots 1 through 9, inclusive, Lots 19, 20, and 32, all in Block 15 of -Hermosa Beach, in the City of Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 1, Pages 25 and 26 of Maps, in the office of the County Re- corder of said county, together with: (a) The north one-half of 14th Street lying between the southerly prolongation of the west line of Lot 1 and the southerly prolongation of the east line of Lot 32; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28. (b) All of Beach Drive adjoining said Lots 1 through 7, inclusive, and Lots 8 and 19 and lying between the easterly prolongation of the south line of said Lot 1 and the easterly prolongation of the north line of said Lot 7; (c) All of 15th Court adjoining said Lots 8, 9, 19, and 20 lying between the southerly prolongation of the west line of said Lot 8 and the southerly prolongation of the east line of said Lot 9; and (d) The south (1/2) one-half of 15th Court that would pass with a conveyance of Lot 32 in Block 15 of Hermosa Beach, in the City of Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 1, Pages 25 and 26 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said county. 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, MANDATING THAT THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH SELL OR TRADE THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE "BILTMORE SITE" FOR PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City of Hermosa Beach is hereby mandated to sell or trade the city -owned property commonly known as the "Biltmore Site" for the purpose of acquiring the property located in the City of Hermosa Beach commonly known as the A.T. & S.F. Railroad Right -of -Way. The Biltmore Site is that property shown on Exhibit "A," which can be obtained from the office of the Hermosa Beach City Clerk and is incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. The City of Hermosa Beach shall follow all state and local laws and regulations in accomplishing its sale or trade of the Biltmore Site. The valuation of the Biltmore Site for the purposes of sale or trade under this ordinance shall be based upon a qualified appraisal that is accepted by the Hermosa Beach City Council. No sale or trade of the Biltmore Site shall be made for less than the appraised fair market value of the property. SECTION 3. If, after good faith negotiations between the city and the owners of the right-of-way, no sale or trade of the Biltmore Site is accomplished, this ordinance shall be of no force or effect. SECTION 4. Nothing in this ordinance shall compel the City of Hermosa Beach to institute any action to condemn and take the property of any legal entity by way of eminent domain procedures. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 5. If eminent domain procedures are instituted by the Hermosa Beach City Council, nothing shall prevent the City Council from authorizing the sale of the Biltmore Site in order to apply the proceeds to the acquisition of the railroad right-of-way. SECTION 6. If the A.T. & S.F. Railroad Right-of-way is acquired pursuant to this ordinance, it shall only be used for open space and parkland purposes. SECTION 7. If any section or portion of this initiative ordinance is declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, all other sections or portions shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 8. There shall be no modification, amendment, or repeal of any provision herein except by a vote of the people. February 17, 1988 City Council Meeting February 23, 1988 Mayor and Members of the City Council 4% U UT, . IN�4�E4$E..EARMAR� 4..FOR U�t PCHASE or aA1� ROAD RIGH' -OF -WAY RECOMMENDeION It is recommended that the City Council receive and file the attached text of Assembly Bill ACA 4. BACUROQND At the City Council Meeting of February 9, 1988, Mayor Simpson brought this bill to the council's attention from a League of California Cities Bulletin, and the council took a position of opposing this bill (Councilmember Creighton objecting). Councilmember Sheldon requested some more information on this proposed legislation and how it might affect our Utility User's Tax, and this proposed ballot measure. It does appear to be a Constitution Amendment which will be put to a vote of the people of the State of California. If passed, it does exempt residential use of electricity, gas, water, and telephone from utility user's tax after January 1, 1992. It does permit municipalities to submit to the voters the question of whether the residential user's tax should be continued at any time before January 1, 1992. NOTED: • AGARAJ14A0AtAr4; Ac ing`L £y ►ana�er MIDSXOKKE, City Clerk SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 9a BILL NUMBER: ACA 4 BILL TEXT AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY FEBRUARY 1, 1988 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 11, 1987 INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Moore JANUARY 6, 1987 PAGE 1 Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 4 A resolution to propose to the people of the State of California an amendment to the Constitution of the State, by amending Section 9 of, and adding Section 10 to, Article XII thereof, relating to public utilities. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST ACA 4, as amended, Moore. Public utility services and commodities: sales and use and local taxes. Existing California Sales and Use Tax Law imposes a state sales or use tax on the sale or use of tangible personal property in the state, unless that sale or use is exempted from that tax. Moreover, counties, cities, and certain transit districts are authorized to impose local sales and use taxes in conformity with the state's taxes 1and cities may levy fees or taxes for revenue purposes. This measure would exempt electricity, gas, water, and telephone service furnished for residential use or consumption from sales or use taxes and from utility users' taxes imposed by local government on and after January 1, 1992 , and would permit the imposition of sales or use taxes and utility users' taxes on those services and commodities furnished for commercial, industrial, agricultural, or public use or consumption at a rate not exceeding the° rate applicable to the sale or use of other commodities and services. Municipalities would be authorized to submit the question of whether to continue existing taxes to the voters at t me before January _1,1992. Vote: 177 Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State -mandated local program: no. BILL NUMBER: ACA 4 BILL TEXT PAGE 2 Resolved by the Assembly, the Senate concurring, That the Legislature of the State of California at its 1987-88 Regular Session commencing on the first day of December 1986, two-thirds of the members elected to each of the two houses of the Legislature voting therefor, hereby proposes to the people of the State of California that the Constitution of the State be amended as follows: First That Section 9 of Article XII is amended to read: SEC. 9. The provisions of Sections 1 to 8, inclusive, of this article, as adopted in 1974, restate all related provisions of the Constitution in effect immediately prior to that date and make no substantive change. Second That Section 10 is added to Article XII, to read: SEC. 10. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution constitution , electricity, gas, water, or telephone service furnished for residential use or consumption is not subject to a sales or use tax or to any other tax imposed by a local government on the use or consumption of those public utility commodities and services on and after January 1 1992 . A sales or use tax or utility users' tax may beimposed on electricity, gas, water, or telephone service furnished for commercial, industrial, agricultural, or public use or consumption at a rate not to exceed the rate applicable to the sale or use of other commodities and services. Municipalities imposing a utility users' tax on electricity, gas, water, or telephone service furnished e T ential use or consumption on the effective date of tETi section may, at any time before January 1, 1992, submit to tie voters t e question of whether the tax shOUT3-be continued. PAGE 1 COMPLETE BILL HISTORY BILL NUMBER : A.C.A. No. 4 AUTHOR : Moore BILL HISTORY 1988 Feb. 2 Re-referred to Com. on REV. & TAX. Feb. 1 From committee chairman, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on REV. & TAX. Read second time and amended. 1987 Mar. 12 Re-referred to Com. on REV. & TAX. Mar. 11 From committee chairman, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on REV. & TAX. Read second time and amended. Feb. 9 Referred to Com. on REV. & TAX. Jan. 7 From printer. May be heard in committee February 6. Jan. 6 Read first time. To print. Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Subject: Biltmore Site Ballot Measure February 11, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: As a resident and employee of the City of Hermosa Beach, I would like to request that you explore in more depth the potential im- pact of a mandatory ballot measure requiring the use of the Bilt- more site as a park. The success of such a measure would not only eliminate potential revenue for the City, but would create an ongoing expense the size of which you may not have adequately considered. Would it not be appropriate to query the Public Works and Public Safety Directors as to their projection of the potential impact of such a park? I am concerned that the voters would not for the most part be informed as to the potential ramifications of such a neat sound- ing idea. As for recreating it as a commercial site down the road, once the park is there, who knows how tough it may be to remove it. In summary, I hope you'll proceed with caution on something that will have a major impact on the city...possibly forever. Yours truly, j!!-124A-e./k__.) J ice Silver 630 First Street Hermosa Beach SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 9 February 17, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of February 23, 1988 TOM SULLIVAN 10-K RUN Mayor Simpson has indicated she will be participating in the "Mayor's Challenge" portion of this race which is a 3 mile walk. Not only is this an easy, fun way to raise money, but by the Mayor participating, it will also give some recognition to the City. Perhaps the other members of the City Council may want to "sponsor" Mayor Simpson? 7dd(sf* 71LAlana M. Mastrian Acting City Manager AMM/1d 12a 0 CC �TO-RANCE ii... it Q,bBiDEN ctob" Dear M- -•f' Simpson: CITY OF TORRANCE 3031 TORRANCE BOULEVARD, TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA 90509-2970 KATY GEISSERT, MAYOR TELEPHONE (213) 618-2801 February 1, 1988 For the past eight years, the Tom Sullivan 10-K Run to benefit the Family Center for Blind Children has been held in the City of Torrance. This run has become one of the major 10 -K's in southern California with over 7,000 participants in last year's race. Last year the "Mayor's Challenge" - a 3 mile walk - was added to give some of us less athletic folks a chance to participate. The event netted $75,000 for blind children, with the Stride accounting for $9,750 of the total. I am encouraging you to join with me and other southern California mayors in walking to help meet this year's goal of $100,000 on March 13 for a very worthy cause. The walk, or "Stride", is on a flat course and designed for fun, camaraderie, and friendly competition among cities. The early registration deadline is March 2, and I am enclosing two application forms for your convenience. If you plan to attend, please contact my office at 618-2801 so that your name may be used in advance publicity. All mayors who participate will be recognized at the awards ceremony and will be guests at a post -race brunch at the Torrance Holiday Inn. I look forward to an early morning walk with you and your family and friends on Sunday, March 13, 1988. Sincerely, Katy Ge Mayor Enc. -2 KG:cg ssert aweN weal uptde) weal pfrrGv lwro( Anna ia8 noA pp alagM LAM 113 143V30 O0NOolg'iSLo00L x00'O'd'SVISIA :01 A111N3 NOM 11VW ONV SVISIA 01 310WAVa )103H) 310VONnl3g-NON 3xVW 3SVlld uaappy) pugs an; rasua) Agwe1 ail os paleuop spaa3ord IIv s s oe 4 $ O]SO1UN31V101 Nit11O11H3 aNne 1101 SVLSIA 0$ ugleuop afgJtanpa j tel — 1x-1—W-5:3ZIS 99/Z/£ arolaq 00'Sls NS4steam+s .quaAnos „ueAmns mol.. RPM — ix-1—W-5:1215 99R/E rade 00'SZLS 99/Z/£ arolaq 0013OL$ Artug weal 99/7/E rage OO'SL$ 99R/E arolay 0019 $ NlyS-1 oN/LWO Lrpy 99R/E rade oo'Sls 99R/E arolaq OSZL$ lu!ys t panaals 8uol sapnpul) Laps R^P!AlPu1 :sial p JletplaayM ❑ 'sql +00Z O +OL 69-59 O 179-09 O 6S -SS O 175-05 ❑ 617-S17 O 1717-017 O 6E -SE ❑ 17E -OE O 6Z -SZ O 17Z-61 ❑ 91-171 ❑ JapuflEl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O N3WOM N3N1 faun rag)) :NOISIAIa •Aressaxau p wawleart 4wa8rawa az!roylne 01 uo!ss!wred Aw aAey slep!so ager tett pue'uo!t!puoa IemsAyd pool) u! s! •apu15 alryy f pue ung got 4e01.13111e4 15 ueAepn5 tutu asp u! atadwo3 01 uo!ss!w ad Aw se4 raty9nep/uos Aw tet1 Anna) of ti s!ql 4139V g30Nn SI 3111HIV 1I (ueaA gt sapun p ue!pten8 (o wand (o as u8151 ate ala yty 10 arnteu8!5 L 740/ ',J x-•04 •Asolaq arnleu8n Aq awe!Idwoa Aw Aptras pue wax.) asp 101 pap!Aord uou roust! A t pear aaey 1 •alaldwo) pue ann s! wlol s!y1 of papykord uonewrolw pe reit Apuw I atalyle 8ulledrnued a sy •algepun(ar•uou s! aa( Anua ayt sew puelsrapun osle! pue 'sarnq osq •sradedsexau •slseiapl •sneapeorq u! sarnp!d pue aweu Aw Io asn asp ',mad Alleuo!nppe II!As1luanas!y1waladwoaAlalesosa!gewepueuon!puoapool)u!we!tett4puaaAgaray! apu15allWfPueunaX0140s•3uled •15 ueAy n5 wou ay1 u! uonedp!ued Aus (o gnsar a se rasps Lew 1 sa9ewep so saunlui Aue Jos Augq!suodsar wog (sllenp!A!pu! ro (sal) AauaSe 9uuosuods-oa JO 2uuosuods milt pue'pasn are puuosrad so/pue Auadold asogArsapua9e ledrnunw pe pue Dyu •ue9euel l uuki wD ••aul •uonops u1 •Lama) uwtsel owy p0 •aweuou (o AIID'• ADO 03o® 4 9 9 :wow a3tpo Nit ua1Pu!gD pupa 10) sels!A ail asealar Agaraq 1 Orth -IL ELITEMF auoyd °wolf y v ,E3 aW a X416 puz Aub 1 0111 ON ISJIA :a]AIVM t d Pll °1D($ VHS 1 sM 1 zequmN xo9/sSPPy 1mozlS '11s s eWDN tsD'l MINIS 311W£ 17jj Nflb AOl xoq auo 1pa43 : Wb03 A211N3 9TH ANNUAL TOM SULLIVAN ST. PATRICK'S DAY 10K RUN/3 MILE STRIDE SPONSOR FORM SPONSORED RUNNERS & STRIDERS YOU CAN WIN!!! By raising money as a sponsored runner or strider, you can be guaranteed fabulous prizes. Ask your company, co-workers, relatives, friends, neighbors or anyone to sponsor you in helping blind children. Collect the following amounts and you receive: MOO—Official Tom Sullivan St. Patrick's Day sweatshirt. commemorative mug & ASICS Tiger running shorts. $150.00—Tom Sullivan St. Patrick's Day sweatshirt. mug. ASICS Tiger running shorts & a pair of ASICS Tiger training shoes. $250.00—Tom Sullivan St. Patrick's Day sweatshirt, mug, ASICS Tiger running shorts, training shoes & fila Sportime watch. $500.00—Tom Sullivan St. Patrick's Day sweatshirt. mug. ASICS running shorts, training shoes. fila Sponime watch, & two round trip tickets to Phoenix on Southwest Airlines. $1,000.00—Tom Sullivan St. Patrick's Day sweatshirt, mug. ASICS running shorts, training shoes. fila Sportime watch. plus two round trip tickets to any Southwest Airlines destination. $2,500.00—Tom Sullivan 5t. Patrick's Day sweatshirt. mug. ASICS running shorts, training shoes. fila Sportime watch, & two round trip tickets any Southwest Airlines destination. a Color TV & VCR! 9111 ANNUAL TOM SULLIVAN SE. PATRICK'S DAY 10K RUN A,IB-1 MILE TRI) ONSORS e 376,4,7/ Sponsored RunnereCr' r S / //J if ,�"[/�,� g� 7" a Address (D 5 1 ><.1- S T — /�Q ¢.. "-Atte( /3 J'J• d' / 4 _ / )&a( Phone l }%%fj Add./3,,r � Ja /,r A[. �' �! Amount for additional sponsor sheets duplicate this form or call 714-548-4897. Total Amount Collected: $ AU sponsor p funds should be turned in or mailed to: Mn. John Waterman. 2228 Via Acalones, Palos Verdes Estates. CA 10274 Igo Cash Please.lPrizes will not be awarded until funds are received. Deadline k March 27,1988. Please join Hayley & me in making the difference for blind children. Tom Sullivan CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Council Member Jim Rosenberger FROM: Michael Schubach, Planning, SUBJECT: 1. Lot Merger Ordinance Appeal Section. 2. Original and New Letter Sent to Property Owner Regarding Merger. 3. Question & Answer Information Regarding Recent Supreme Court Cases in Connection with Down Zoning. DATE: February 22, 1988 Please find attached the requested information. cc: City Council City Manager V Assistant City Manager § 29.5-27 SUBDIVISION OF LAND § 29.5-28 Seca 29.5-27. Planning commission determination without hearing; notice to owner. If the property owner fails to file a request for hearing within the thirty -day period as provided in section 29.5-24 of this article, the planning commission may, at any time thereafter, make a determination as to whether the affected parcels are to be merged. (a) If the planning commission makes a determination of merg- er, the director of planning shall file a notice of merger no later than ninety (90) days after the mailing of the notice of opportunity for hearing as provided in section 29.5-27 of this article, and shall notify the property owner of such determination by certified mail. (b) If the planning commission makes a determination of nonmerger, the director of planning shall follow the proce- dure set forth in section 29.5-26 of this article. (Ord. No. 86-851, § 1; 8-26-86) Sec. 29.5-28. Appeal. (a) The property owners, a member of the city council or any interested person adversely affected by a decision of the planning commission with respect to the merger, may within ten (10) days of such decision, file an appeal with the city clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach. The city council shall consider the appeal within thirty (30) days. This appeal shall be a public hearing with notice being given pursuant to section 29.5-24 and with additional no- tice to be given to the property owner. Upon conclusion of the public hearing, the city council shall within ten (10) days declare its findings. The city council may sustain, modify, reject or over- rule any recommendations or rulings of the planning commission and may make such findings as are consistent with the provi- sions of this chapter or the state Subdivision Map Act. (b) All decisions of the planning commission regarding the merger or nonmerger of parcels shall be final, unless appealed from as prescribed in this section, or until any condition precedent to its effectiveness has been fulfilled, whichever is later in time. (c) If the city council affirms the decision of the planning com- mission or the action of the commission becomes final, the direc- Supp. No. 4-87 342.53 § 29.5-29 HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE § 29.5-31 tor of planning shall within thirty (30) days of the decision of the city council, file for record a notice of merger with the county recorder's office, and mail a copy of such notice to the property owner. (d) If the city council reverses the decision of the planning commission, the director of planning shall, within thirty (30) days of the decision of the city council, file for record a release of the notice of intention to determine status with the county re- corder's office, and mail a copy of such release to the property owner. (Ord. No. 86-851, 1, 8-26-86) Sec. 29.5-29. merger. Two or more contiguous parcels, under common ownership, may be voluntarily merged without reverting to the procedures of this chapter. Such merger requires that the recordation of an instrument evidencing the merger be made with the county re- corder. (Ord. No. 87-876, § 1, 4-14-87) Sec. 29.5-30. Reserved. Sec. 29.5-31. Development involving contiguous parcels. It shall be prohibited to separately sell or separate two (2) or more contiguous lots owned by the same person or legal entity that have an existing structure or improvements straddling their common property line. For property not owned by the same per- son or legal entity which has been conveyed in violation of this section, no permits for the demolition, construction or addition to the structure shall be issued by the Hermosa Beach Building Department. (Ord. No. 87-875, § 1, 4-14-87) Supp. No. 4-87 342.54 78,6 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER LOTS SHALL BE MERGED DATE BY CERTIFIED MAIL OWNER(S) NAME Mailing Address Re: PROPERTY ADDRESS, LEGAL DESCRIPTION Dear Property Owner(s): The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach intends to determine if the parcels described above shall be merged into one parcel according to Sections 29.5-19 through 29.5-28 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. When two or more lots merge, they become a single parcel to be developed, sold, leased, or financed together. Sections 29.5-20 and 29.5-21 allow lots to be merged if two or more contiguous parcels of land are held by the same owner where: 1. The parcels were created under the provisions of Sections 29.5-19 through 29.5-28 or any prior State law regulating the division of land or were not subject to any prior law regulating the division of land 2. At least one of the contiguous parcels or units of land held by the same owner does not conform to standards for minimum parcel size to permit use or development under the City's Zoning and/or Subdivision Ordinance. 3. The main structure is partially sited on the contiguous parcel and not more than 807. or the lots on the same block of the affected parcel have been split and developed separately. 4. One or more of the following conditions exist with respect to one or more of the contiguous parcels: a. Comprises less than 4000 square feet in area at the time of the determination of merger. b. Was not created in compliance with applicable laws and ordinances in effect at the time of the creation. c. Does not meet current standards for sewage disposal and domestic water supply. 1 .. 4 C c d. Does not meet slope stability standards. e. Has no legal access which is adequate for vehicular and safety equipment access and maneuverability. f. Its development would create health or safety hazards. g. Is inconsistent with the applicable general plan and any applicable specific plan, other than minimum lot size or density standards. Information available to the City of Hermosa Beach indicates that your property meets the criteria for merger. If you wish to present evidence that the property does not meet the criteria for merger, you may make an appointment for a hearing before the Planning Commission. Your written request for a hearing must be received by the Planning Department within 30 days of the date of this Notice. Please state the reasons why the property is not eligible for merger and include 8 (eight) copies of background materials. It is the property owner's responsibility to provide a site survey if one is needed to determine the exact location of property lines. It is also the owner's responsibility to provide names and addresses of property owners and occupants within 300' of the property and to send public notices. If you do not request a hearing, a determination of whether or not to merge the parcels will be made by the Planning Department within 60 days of the date of this Notice. A copy of this Notice has been filed with the Los Angeles County Recorder. A Notice of the outcome will be sent to you, and a copy will be filed with the Los Angeles County Recorder. If you have questions regarding this matter, please contact the Planning Department at 213/ 376-6984. Sincerely, Michael Schubach Planning Director .x-26) /gA8 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER LOTS SHALL BE MERGED February 1, 1988 NAME STREET CITY RE: ADDRESS Dear Property Owner: The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach intends to determine if the parcels described above shall be merged into one parcel according to Sections 29.5-19 through 29.5-28 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. When two or more lots merge, they become a single parcel to be developed, sold, leased, or financed together. Sections 29.5-20 and 29.5-21 allow lots to be merged if two or more contiguous parcels of land are held by the same owner where the following occur: 1. The parcels were created under the provisions the City's Subdivision Ordinance or any prior state law or ordinance regulating the division of land, or which were not subject to any prior law regulating the division of land. 2. At least one of the contiguous parcels or units of land held by the same owner does not conform to standards for minimum parcel size to permit use or development under the City's Zoning and/or Subdivision Ordinance. 3. The main structure is partially sited on the contiguous parcel and not more than 80% of the lots on the same block of the affected parcel have been split and developed separately. 4. One or more of the following conditions exist with respect to one or more of the contiguous parcels: a. Comprises less than 4000 square feet in area at the time of the determination of merger. b. Was not created in compliance with applicable laws and ordinances in effect at the time of the creation. 1 c. Does not meet current standards for sewage disposal and domestic water supply. d. Does not meet slope stability standards. e. Has no legal access which is adequate for vehicular and safety equipment access and maneuverability. f. It's development would create health or safety hazards. g. Is inconsistant with the applicable General Plan and any applicable specific plan, other than minimum lot size or density standards. Information available to the City of Hermosa Beach indicates that your property meets the criteria for merger. If you wish to present evidence that the property does not meet the criteria for merger, you may schedule a hearing before the Planning Commission. Your written request for a hearing must be received by the Planning Department within 30 days from the date of this notice. With your request for a hearing, please include a letter stating the reasons why the property is not eligible for merger. It is the property owner's responsibility to provide a site survey if one is needed to determine the exact location of property lines. If you request a hearing, you will be sent a letter stating the date, time, and location of the hearing. If you do not request a hearing, a determination of whether or not to merge the parcels will be made by the Planning Department within 60 days of the date of this Notice. A copy of the attached "Intention to Merge Lots" form has been filed with the Los Angeles County Recorder. A Notice of the outcome will be sent to you, and a copy will be filed with the Los Angeles County Recorder. If you have questions regarding this matter, please contact the Planning Department at (213) 376-6984. Sincerely, Andrew Perea Associate Planner 2 • • Q&A: Commentary on Vol. 1, No. 1 August 1987 ole_aur, kI: UTLl NS silt NS E .1 DO THE DECISIO\S HERALD A KEVOLUTIO\ IN LAID USE PLAN\kG A\D KEGULATION? Changes in California Land Use Planning Laws //eer_ ) REGULATION OF LAND USE AFTER THE RECENT SUPREME COURT CASES • First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles • Nollan v. California Coastal Commission LJune, the United States Supreme Court issued two major deci- sions concerning the regulation of land use by local govemments: • In First English, the Court said property owners are entitled to some compensation if their property has been "taken" by govern- ment regulation. • In Nollan, the Court determined that a particular regulation requiring dedication of public access was in fact a taking because them was no relationship between the dedication and the project. When first issued, these decisions were hailed by some as heralding a revolu- tion in city and county land use planning and regulation. The two cases were seen by those observers as the most significant court decisions on private property rights since the early part of the century. As land use decisionmakers, planners, and public attorneys have studied the opinions, however, a different view has emerged: neither Supreme Court decision alters govemment's fundamental power to regulate land use, and neither changes the basic rules defining when a land use regulation "goes too far" and violates the United States Constitution. continued on next page Q&A is published by People for Open Space/Greenbelt Congress (POS/GC), a 30 year old non-profit citizen organization concerned with the regional planning and open space needs of the nine county San Francisco Bay Area. The organization is working for a permanent metropolitan Greenbelt and for policies to encourage appropriate development. This report was authored by Marc Mihaly and Clement Shute of the law firm of Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger, and by Larry Orman POS/GC Executive Director. The following persons served as advisors in reviewing the report, and their assistance is continued on back page People for Open Space/Greenbelt Congress • 512 Second Street • San Francisco CA 94107 • continued from front page First English: The Remedy is Now Money In First English 1/, a six -to -three vote of the Court decided a question lawyers have been quarreling over for several decades. The Supreme Court said that now, when a regulation is so oppressive that it crosses the constitutional line and becomes a taking, the landowner has a right to compensation for damages to the property during the time the offending regulation was in effect. Previously, the solution was to direct a local government to adopt a new regulation. Contrary to early press reports about the case, the Court did not redefine where that constitutional line is; the Court did not hold that temporary ordinances or moratoria constitute a taking; and, the Court did not hold that landowners must be allowed to develop their land for its most profitable use. The decision leaves intact the traditional rule -- only regulations that deny a property owner all economic use and fail to advance clear public objectives will be overturned Nollan: The Development and the Dedication Must be Related In Nollan 2/, the Supreme Court tested the California Coastal Commission's requirement that a beachfront property owner allow the public to use a portion of the beach for public access as a condition for building his house. On a close five- to- four vote, the Court reaffirmed a long-standing limit on actions by cities and counties which requires that conditions imposed on any development be designed to alleviate the problems created by that development. The Supreme Court struck down the Coastal Commission's dedication requirement because the Court could not find any connection between the requirement and the problems to the public created by the Nollans' house. In doing so, however, the Court restated government's broad authority to regulate land for a wide variety of public purposes -- even when such regulations greatly reduce the value of private Property Government Regulation and Private Property Rights: What is a "Regulatory Taking?" These two recent Supreme Court decisions both deal with "regulatory takings." Governmental power to protect the public health, safety, and welfare (usually through zoning), and private property rights often conflict, and courts are called upon to adjudicate who wins. When courts side with the private property owner, they usually find that a "regulatory taking" has occurred. While such decisions are very rare, the concept of regulatory taking defines the limits of what govern - 2 ments can do, and is therefore of great importance to public decisionmakers and to professionals in the field of land use planning. State, federal and local governments have the power through the exercise of "eminent domain" to take privately owned property for the use or benefit of the public. When the government exercises this power, it is constitutionally required to pay the property owner "just compensation" for the property taken.3/ For example, when government wants to acquire land for parks or highways, it must initiate condemnation proceed- ings to obtain title to the property in return for payment of the fair market value. In contrast to a direct condemnation, an "inverse condemna- tion" may result when the government appropriates an interest in private property, or destroys or physically damages private property, without formally condemning the property and paying the property owner. Such governmental action is referred to as a "taking" of the property without just compensation. The property owner is entitled to damages in the amount of the fair market value of the property taken. Neither decision alters government's fundamental power to regulate land use, and neither changes the basic rules defining when a regulation goes "too far" Sometimes the taking is a physical invasion of property due to governmental action, such as inadvertent flooding from a nearby dam. However, a regulatory taking occurs if govern- ment oversteps its power to zone or plan. Generally, government enacts such regulations to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Land use controls and zoning ordinances which further these broad "police power" goals are presumed to be valid. Even land use regulations which drasti- cally limit the activities that a private property owner can conduct on property, and substantially reduce the market value of the property, are usually not seen to be takings.4/ For example, single family zoning may make a parcel of land worth less than a quarter of what it would be worth if an apartment or a shopping center were allowed. Yet the single family zone does not constitute a taking. In fact, courts have upheld the validity of zoning ordinances that reduce the value of private property by as much as 90 percent.5/ Nonetheless, if a regulation "goes too far," it may become a regulatory taking.6/ The courts decide if a regulation amounts to a such taking on a case-by-case basis by looking at the following tests: A taking has occurred if a regulation does not substan- tially advance legitimate public interests and deprives a property owner of substantially all of the market value or use of his land.7/ In this test, courts give wide discretion to cities and counties to make judgments about what regulations are necessary. A taking occurs if the regulation interferes with "rea- sonable investment- backed expectations" — a concept put forward by the United States Supreme Court but defined in relatively few cases. In fact, courts have been better at defining what does not constitute such expecta- tions; for example, a landowner is not justified in expect- ing xpecting that the zoning on property will remain constant, and is not protected from changes in zoning laws. A taking may occur when the regulation results in a permanent physical occupation of private property.8/ A physical occupation of property will, nonetheless, not be a taking if the physical occupation is a legitimate condi- tion to a development permit — such as a requirement that a certain portion of a housing tract be dedicated to public park use. This is the test discussed in the Nollan case. But despite much discussion in governmental and legal circles, the fact remains that only in extremely rare situations do. courts find that zoning ordinances or other planning regulations actually step over the constitutional line and create a taking of private property. FIRST ENGLISH : What a Landowner Gets When a "Regulatory Taking" Has Occurred — The Rule Changes What happens if a court determines that a state law or local ordinance fails these tests and that a regulatory taking of private property has occurred? Is the offensive ordinance simply invali- dated, or must the government in addition pay damages to the property owner? At least in California prior to First English, the only remedy available to a landowner for a regulatory taking was the invalida- tion of the unconstitutional regulation. Local government was not required to pay monetary compensation to the property owner.9/ In reaching this conclusion, the California Supreme Court weighed the benefits of compensating property owners against the chilling effect that rule could have on enactment of necessary measures to protect the public health, safety and welfare. In First English, the Supreme Court changed this "no damages" rule. The First English case involved church property in a canyon that was subject to flooding. After a severe flood killed several persons and destroyed the buildings on the property, the County of Los Angeles enacted an interim ordi- nance creating a flood protection area and prohibiting rebuilding any structures there. The church sued the county, alleging that the regulation was a taking of its property. It did not request invalidation of the ordinance, but asked only that the Court award it damages. The Court held that, when a land use regulation is a taking in violation of the constitution, the property owner is entitled to damages occurring from the time the unconstitu- tional ordinance is applied to his property until it is withdrawn by the public agency which enacted it.10/ If the agency chooses to keep the ordinance in effect, it has the option to use its power of eminent domain, pay the owner fair market value and acquire the property. What the First English Case Did Not Say The Court did not add any new law to the question of whether an ordinance constitutes a taking. The lower courts and the Supreme Court did not decide whether the flood protection ordinance destroyed the use or value of the property and did not decide whether it was a valid safety measure. The California courts, and therefore the Supreme Court, were concerned solely with the question of whether money dam- ages would be available to the property owner if it were ultimately determined in a trial that a taking had occurred.11/ Ironically, it is unlikely that the Los Angeles ordinance is a taking under established law which is especially deferential to city and county ordinances enacted to protect life and safety. A second misunderstanding about First English relates to the Court's use of the word "temporary." Some have taken the Court's opinion to mean that moratoria or interim ordinances constitute regulatory takings just because they are temporary prohibitions. While it so happened that the Los Angeles ordi- nance challenged in this case was a temporary ordinance, the Court's opinion would apply to any ordinance that violated the Constitution. In fact, temporary ordinances are not likely to violate the Constitution because they usually have a small effect on market value. IN SUM: If -- and only if – a taking by regulation can be proven, a landowner can now claim compensation for any value lost during the time the regulation affected his or her property. NOLLAN : The Supreme Court Decides That One Required Dedication Flunks the Constitutional Test In Nollan, the Supreme Court looked at the constitutional- ity of one type of governmental regulation, namely, dedica- tions of real property attached as conditions to development permits designed to lessen the adverse impacts of develop - 3 ment in the community. These dedications reflect the view that development should help take care of the increased burdens it places on society, such as increased traffic, need for park space, schools, police, and other services. The Nollans are owners of beachfront property and wanted to replace a small cottage with a substantially larger and taller home. A state law, administered by the California Coastal Commission, requires public access to be a condition of permits under certain circumstances. The Commission, after reviewing the Nollans' application, detennined that the larger home would block the public's view of the beach and diminish the public's awareness of the nearby coastline which is open to the public.12/ To offset these negative effects, the Commission required the Nollans to grant an easement to the public, consisting of a narrow strip of their oceanfront in between two adjoining public beaches. The Nollans sued, claiming that the permit condition was a taking.13/ By a five- to- four vote, the United States Supreme Court found that the permit condition constituted a permanent physical invasion of the Nollans' property rights which would constitute a taking unless the condition "substantially ad- vanced" a "legitimate governmental interest." The Court concluded that the dedication didn't pass this test. Nollan expressly affirms the validity of require- ments for scenic protection, landmark preservation and zoning in general The problem did not lie with the goal of increasing public access. The Court assumed that providing the public with visual and psychological connection to the beach was indeed a legitimate governmental goal. However, the Court concluded that requiring the Nollans' to dedicate an easement for public access along the beach had no relationship to any problems created by the new house they wished to build -- the Commission's condition "utterly failed" to address the problem of interference with the goal of public views to the ocean which might result from construction of the home. The Nollan decision recognizes the broad scope of gov- ernmental authority to regulate land use. It expressly reaf- firms, for example, the validity of requirements for scenic zoning, landmark preservation and zoning in general. It also strongly suggests (while not expressly deciding) that develop- ment near beaches could be denied altogether where it blocks views, or creates psychological barriers to beach access, or promotes congestion on public beaches so long as the denial does not deprive the owner of all economically viable use of the property. Significantly, the Nollan Court even endorsed require- ments for dedication where they do address the burden created 4 by the particular project. The Court stated that the Commission could properly require dedication of a viewing area on the Nollans' property as a condition of permit approval since such a viewing area would substantially advance a legitimate govern- mental interest in preserving the view of the beach and ocean which might be wholly or partially blocked by the Nollans' home. It is unclear whether the Nollan test applies to any condi- tions other than dedications of real property. The reasoning of the Court appears limited to physical appropriations of real property which eliminate the owner's right to exclude others. The opinion may not apply to requirements for in lieu fees or other exactions, such as payment for or construction of capital improvements. The test for such monetary exactions may remain as before Nollan. The remedy in the event such monetary exactions are judged irrational appears to remain invalidation. IN SUM: Exactions on development must address a problem created or contributed to by the development. or the cumulative effects of development. The dedication in Nollan failed the test because the Court could find no connection between the problem -- a large house blocking the public's views to the beach from the inland -- and the condition -- al- lowing the public already on the beach to walk in front of the house. Questions and Answers About the Cases What Constitutes a Taking? Q. What is an example of a regulation that would be a taking of private property without just compensa- tion? A. A zoning ordinance that made someone's property into a public park -- that is, that required the property owner to admit the public, without charge, to his or her property for rec- reational use.14/ Q. If a town enacts an emergency interim ordinance prohibiting certain uses of property, to protect against an immediate threat to the public health and safety, such as flood danger or other hazards, is that a taking of private property? A. No. As discussed above, the interim nature of an ordinance does not lead to the conclusion that a taking has occurred. More important, actions taken to protect the public health and safety -- rather than the public "welfare" concerns (such as density of housing) -- may be much more harsh if nec- essary to protect life and property. A fire department, for example, may in an emergency destroy a house to prevent the spread of the fire without paying for it. This stems from the legal concept that one may not use one's property in a manner that poses danger to life or property.l5/ Q. If a local government enacts a temporary morato- rium ordinance prohibiting the issuance of building permits to maintain the status quo for a reasonable period (for example, two years) and to enable the city or county to proceed with planning to address con- cerns about the impacts of increased development, is that a taking of private property rights? A. No. First English did not single out temporary moratoria for special treatment. The usual takings tests apply, and it is unlikely that a temporary moratorium undertaken for planning purposes would meet the requirements for a taking.l6/ Although a moratorium could temporarily depress property prices, such fluctuations usually fall far short of destroying "substantially all" the market value of property and are constitu- tionally permissible. Q. If a local government enacts a slow -growth ordinance limiting the number of building permits to be issued per year, is that a taking of private property rights? A. Not unless the "slow growth" ordinance is so restric- tive as to constitute essentially "no growth." If an ordinance were so restrictive that a landowner could demonstrate that the waiting period for development was so long that the property had been deprived of substantially all its value, a taking could be established. Even if residential or commercial development were permanently prohibited but the property could be used for a beneficial use such as agriculture, a taking would not have occurred. Q. If a local government enacts an ordinance halting development until a certain service level (such as sewer capacity, schoolroom capacity, street improvements) is attained, is that a taking? A. Such ordinances should be carefully drafted and enacted only after thorough study. As long as there is a probability that development will be permitted in the short-term future and that the designated level of service goals are reason- able, the ordinance will survive a takings attack. A connection must also exist between the halted development and the stated community problem (e.g., traffic). In contrast , a development moratorium of indefinite duration attached to goals for commu- nity service levels that are obviously unlikely to be attained could constitute a taking. Q. If the voters of a community pass an initiative measure to temporarily halt development in their area, is that a taking? A. The fact that an ordinance is passed by initiative does not change the applicable constitutional standard. As discussed above, a temporary halt on development is unlikely to ever be a taking because it usually has only a small effect on market values. Q. Is a down -zoning of land — such as from rural residential to exclusive agricultural, or from intensive residential to less intensive residential, or from com- mercial to residential uses — a taking? A. Changing the zoning designation of a parcel does not become a taking simply because the designation is for a less intensive use. In order to constitute a taking, the new zone would have to be so restrictive as to violate one of the tests discussed above, including depriving the land of substantially all its value 17/. What Are the Implications of First English? Q. Does First English increase the likelihood that a land use regulation would be found to be a taking? A. No. The case does not discuss the criteria for how to analyze whether a taking has occurred. It does not change the test for the validity of a regulation. In particular, Califomia law holding that temporary interim regulations and downzon- ings are not takings is unaffected by the decision. Q. Does First English mean that a local government must zone real property to allow the use potentially most profitable to the owner? A. No. The test for a regulatory taking is still whether the governmental action deprives the owner of substantially all reasonable use of the property, or substantially all economic value. Unless there is a physical invasion, any regulation that leaves the owner some reasonable use or economic value will be upheld. The First English decision does not address this traditional test or change it in any way. continued 5 How Will Damages For Takings Be Deter- mined? Q. Now that local governments are liable for dam- ages for regulatory takings, will they face liability for damages for regulations already enacted? A. Theoretically, governments would be liable for damages for an existing regulation if the property owner can prove in court that the regulation has deprived him or her of substantially all reasonable use of the property. In practice, it is likely that there will be some cases. However, statutes of limi- tations, which require litigants to bring their claims to court within a certain period of time after they learn they have a claim, may limit the amount of litigation over existing regula- tions. The more significant issue lies in the future, as land- owners consider whether to challenge new regulations or permit conditions. Q. What will be the basis for evaluating the amount of the interim damages required under First English? A. Interim damages might be calculated according to traditional practices in eminent domain proceedings. For example, interim damages in condemnation proceedings often focus on the rental value of the property interest taken for the period of time in which it was occupied. The specific applica- tion of these principles to regulatory takings will have to evolve over time and may involve legislation specifying proce- dures to be used to determine any damage awards. What Are the Implications of Nollan? Q. Has Nollan changed government's ability to impose quid pro quo requirements in connection with land use development approvals? A. No. The court reaffirmed the ability of government to impose conditions ("exactions") on development as long as those conditions address the problems that development creates. The development does not need to be the sole source of the problem, nor does the fit between the developer's contribution to the problem and the developer's contribution to the solution have to be precise. Sound planning would dictate that a staff report, an environmental impact report, or other document describe the nature and extent of the burden created by the development and the way in which any proposed exaction addresses the burden. Formal findings should be made to demonstrate the linkage between the the conditions imposed on and the impacts of development. After Nollan, it is important that these practices be followed carefully -- especially in connection with exactions involving dedications of real estate. 6 Q. Does Nollan affect the validity of governmental re- quirements other than the dedication of real property, such as the imposition of in lieu fees or the provisions of on- or off-site public facilities?18/ A. Nollan may not apply to exactions other than those requiring dedications of real property. If Nollan were to apply, an in lieu fee would be constitutional as long as it relates to a problem caused by the development and is in reasonable propor- tion to the impact of the development. In California, it is always advisable that fees which address community -wide problems be supported by documentation which connects the development project to those problems.19/ Q. Did Nollan change the law of takings? A. Not significantly. As a result of First English , govern- ment must compensate a landowner for a regulation or exaction which "goes too far" for any damages to the property for the period of time that the regulation affected the property. Nollan applied the takings rule in a specific instance involving the dedication of real property. Under Nollan, when there is no clear connection between the public burdens imposed by a particular land use approval and the required dedication of real property, there may be a taking. Under First English, cities and counties would then be required to compensate the landowner for the damage to the property for the period of time that the dedication was actually in effect. Q. Will the following types of dedications be valid after Nollan ? ...Roads in a subdivision? A. Yes. Land dedications for such uses as roads, side- walks, and schools should easily satisfy the requirement that they address a burden created or contributed to by the develop- ment. ...Public parks? A. Yes. Park dedications inside a subdivision should easily pass the requirement. Dedication of park lands adjacent to a project or at some other location would be supportable as long as they are reasonably in proportion to the needs generated by the effects of the project. In lieu fee contributions are discussed in a question above. ...Viewing easements? A. Yes. The Nollan court specifically mentioned the pos- sibility of conditioning development approvals on the creation of a public viewing area on private property in order to protect the public's view. The court indicated that such a requirement would be valid even though it involved a conveyance of an interest in real property -- if it offset the obstruction of the view to the beach caused by the development. ...Open space easements which prevent development on portions of private property? A. Yes. Dedications for either passive or active open space uses would survive the NoIlan test as long as they meet open space needs created individually or cumulatively by the development. To the extent development would damage or destroy open space resources such as creeks, unique vegetation or wildlife habitat, dedications should be upheld if the owner is allowed a reasonable use elsewhere on the property or is able to transfer development rights. Likewise, where dedications are required to allow development on hazardous areas such as unstable slopes, areas prone to slide or earthquake faults, they should be sustained if the owner is otherwise allowed a reason- able use. Q. Does Nollan affect the validity of assessment districts created for funding improvements such as flood control, drainage, or roads? A. No. Again, Nollan may apply only to dedications of interests in real property. Even if Nollan were to apply to assessments or other fees in connection with districts, there is usually a very close connection required between the burdens imposed by the new development and the creation of an as- sessment district to pay for necessary improvements. NOTES 1. First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles 107 S.Ct. 2378 (1987). 2. Nollan v. Coastal Commission 55 U.S.L.W. 5145 (June 26, 1987). 3. United States Constitution, 5th Amendment. California Constitution, Article I, 19. 4. See, e.g., Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926); HFH, Ltd. v. Superior Court. 15 Cal. 3d 508 (1975). 5. WilliamC. Haas Co. v. City of San Francisco, 605 F.2d 1117,1120-1121 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. den. 445 U.S. 928 (1979). 6. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 413-14 (1922). 7. Agins v. Tiburon, 24 Cal. 3d 266 (1979), aff'dAgins v. Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980). 8. See Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City ofNew York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978); Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982). 9. Agins v. City of Tiburon, 24 Cal. 3d 266 (1979). See Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980). 10. The Court explicitly refrained from "resolv[ing] the takings claim on the merits." 107 S.Ct. at 2384. It "ha[d] no occasion to decide whether the ordinance at issue actually denied appellant all use of its property" or not. Id. 11. The Court did not explicitly state when the "taking" would begin. For example, where a procedure for receiving a permit is provided, a property owner would have to go through that process and be turned down before a taking could have occurred. Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985). 12. The Commission also found that the larger residence would increase private use of the beach, contributing to the public beach users' impres- sion that they had no right to use the strip of beach and tidelands seaward of the private property line. Increasing the size of the house could also create congestion on the public beaches. In addition, the Commission found that increased private use of the beach might fuel disputes between the public and the private owners over the boundary line. However, the Court's opinion does not focus on these findings. 13. Specifically, the Nollans argued that the dedication required them to give up the right to exclude others from the property, and that the condition could not be justified since the new home would do nothing to interfere with public access. 14. Zoning for commercial recreation areas is valid, however. Activities such as amusement parks, golf courses, tennis clubs, etc. may or may not be open to the public at the discretion of the owner, give land substantial economic value, and are not a taking. See Freedman v. Fairfax, 81 Cal. App. 3d 667 (1978). 15. See, e.g., Turner v. County of Del Norte, 24 Cal. App. 3d 311 (1972) (zoning restrictions that protect people and property from flooding are a proper exercise of the police power). 16. An interim measure restricting or halting construction pending further land use planning is not a taking. State v. Superior Court, 12 Cal. 3d 237, 254-55 (1974); CEEED v. California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission, 43 Cal. App. 3d 306, 314 (1974). 17. See for example, Joyce v. City of Portland 546 P.2d 1100 (Ct. App. Or. 1976) where 800 acres were downzoned from agricultural to residential; and Gisler v. County of Madera, 38 Cal. App. 3d 303,112 Cal. Rptr. 919 (1974), where exclusive agricultural zoning was held not to be a taking. 18. For example, a local government may require developers to pay fees for school facilities as a condition of development of residential subdivi- sion (see Candid Enterprises, Inc. v. Grossmont Union High School Dist., 39 Cal. 3d 878 (1985)) or to pay special assessment for public improve- ments necessitated by new development (see J.W. Jones Companies v. City of San Diego, 157 Cal. App. 3d 745 (1984)). 19. Fees which fail that test could be held to be a special tax under Proposition 13 and related law. 7 continued from front page gratefully acknowledged. Responsibility for the report's accuracy, however, rests solely with its authors. Judith Corbett, Exec. Dir. Calif. Local Government Commission James Dougherty, attorney, Washington , DC Rebecca Falkenberry, Chairperson, Sierra Club Urban Environment Committee Michael Mantel, The Conservation Foundation, Washington, DC Michael Remy; Remy & Thomas, Sacramento Katherine E. Stone, Burke, Williams & Sorenson, Los Angeles Edward Thompson, American Farmland Trust, Washington, DC Funding for this edition of Q&A has been provided by a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. Additional sup- port was provided from the POS/GC Technical Assistance Grant fund, supported by the San Francisco Foundation. ORDERING COPIES OF THIS REPORT: Single copies of Q&A are available from POS/GC by sending a self-ad- dressed, $.39 stamped envelope to 512 Second St., San Francisco CA 94107. Multiple copies are available by special order; call (415) 543-4291. People for Open Space/Greenbelt Congress POS/GC is a 501(c)(3) organization and contributions to it are tax-deductible. Founded in 1958, POS/GC has 3,000 members. Memberships begin at $15 and include a subscription to Greenbelt Action, the quarterly newsletter, as well as notice of upcoming conferences and other events. BOARD OF DIRECTORS Bob Mang President David Bomberger Barbara Eastman William D. Evers Clement Shute Vice Presidents Ed Fox Sec. -Treasurer At -Large Members Roberta Borgonovo Mary Jane Brinton Patricia Compton Paul De Falco Kit Dove John Erskine Bob Girard Clarence Heller Bud Johns T. J. Kent, Jr. Bonnie Mitsui Jo Schreck Jerry Tone County Representatives Bob Berman Andrew Butler Zach Cowan Don Dickenson Volker Eisele Linda Elkind George Ellman Mike Gleason Jay Goetting Enid Pearson Lennie Roberts Laura Selfridge Ellen Straus Dee Swanhuyser Renate Woodbury Gary Zimmerman Larry Orman Executive Director Judith Kunofsky Associate Director PEOPLE FOR OPEN SPACE/ GREENBELT CONGRESS 512 Second Street San Francisco CA 94107 (415) 543-4291 Address correction requested Noo-profit Organization U.S. Postage Paid Sm Premised CA Permit No. 9294 February 17, 1988 City Council Meeting February 23, 1988 Mayor and Members of the City Council CALLING,,QIVINGNOTICE AND_ REQUESTING_ CONSOLIDATION AND CERTAIN,OTHER RESOLUTIONS NECESSARY FOR TUE SPECIAL MUNICIPAI., EUCTION, _JUNE_7, 1988 BECQMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the following resolutions: 1. 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 10% UTILITY USERS TAX FOR PURCHASE OF THE A.T.&S.F. RIGHT-OF-WAY; REQUIRING THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BILTMORE SITE BE USED AS A PARK; AND MANDATING SELLING OR TRADING THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BILTMORE SITE FOR PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE A.T.&S.F. RIGHT-OF-WAY. 2. 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. 3. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OF ITS MEMBERS TO FILE WRITTEN ARGUMENTS REGARDING CITY MEASURES AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE IMPARTIAL ANALYSES. 4. 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. Note: Per Mayor Simpson's request, the County has said that the last date toemove any measures from this election would be Maroh 11,4198$. 44) Concur: Lid`! ALANA MASTRIAN, Acting City Manager KAT LEEN -1- MIDSTOKKE, City Clerk l0e 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 1110. 88- 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 10% UTILITY USERS TAX FOR PURCHASE OF THE A.T.&S.F. RIGHT-OF-WAY, REQUIRING THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BILTMORE SITE BE USED AS A PARK, AND MANDATING SELLING OR TRADING THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BILTMORE SITE FOR PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE A.T.&S.F. RIGHT-OF-WAY. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach desires to submit to the qualified electors of said City at a Special Municipal Election proposed ordinances relating to use of 4% of the 10% Utility Users Tax for purchase of the A.T.&S.F. right-of-way, requiring the property commonly known as the Biltmore Site to be used as a park, and mandating selling or trading the property commonly known as the Biltmore Site for property commonly known as the A.T.&S.F. right-of-way; and WHEREAS, the City Council of said City is thereupon authorized and directed by statute to submit the Ordinances to the qualified voters; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That pursuant to the requirements of the the State of California relating to General Law Cities within said State, there shall be, and there is hereby called and ordered held in the City of Hermosa Beach, California on Tuesday, June 7, 1988, a General Municipal Election of the qualified electors of said City for the purpose of submitting the follow- ing proposed Ordinances relating to use of 4% of the 10% Utility Users Tax for purchase of the A.T.&S.F. right-of-way, requiring the property commonly known as the Biltmore Site to be used as a park, and mandating selling or trading the property commonly known as the Biltmore Site for property commonly known as the 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A.T.&S.F. right-of-way; and SECTION 2. That the City Council, pursuant to its right and authority, does order submitted to the voters at the Special Municipal Election the following questions: USE OF 4% OF UTILITY USERS TAX TO PURCHASE A.T.&S.F. RIGHT-OF-WAY Shall Ordinance No. 88- , an ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach submitted to the voters by the City Council, be adopted which requires the use of 4% of the 10% Utility Users Tax only for the purchase of the property commonly known as the A.T.&S.F. Railroad right-of-way? YES NO USE OF CITY -OWNED PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE BILTMORE SITE AS A PARK Shall Ordinance No. 88- , an ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach submitted to the voters by the City Council, be adopted which requires that City -owned property commonly known as the Biltmore Site be used as a park with no modification, amendment or appeal except by a vote of the people? YES NO MANDATING THE SALE OR TRADE OF THE BILTMORE SITE FOR THE A.T.&S.F. RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY Shall Ordinance No. 88- , an ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach submitted to the voters by the City Council, be adopted which mandates the sale or trade of the city -owned property commonly known as the Biltmore Site for the purpose of acquiring the property known as the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way? YES NO SECTION 3. The proposed ordinances submitted to the voters shall be as follows: // // // // // // // _3_ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 88 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS BY THE CITY COUNCIL, AMENDING SECTION 30-62 AND ADDING SECTIONS 64 AND 65 TO CHAPTER 30 - TAXATION, ARTICLE VI - UTILITIES TAX, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE USE OF 4% OF THE 10% UTILITY USERS TAX ONLY FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE A.T. & S.F. RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. A new section shall be added to Chapter 30 (Taxation) of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code to read as follows: 30-64. USE AND PURPOSE OF THE TAX The ten percent tax upon the use of utilities imposed by this chapter shall be accounted for and used by the City of Hermosa Beach in two different manners. The first six percent (6%) shall be accounted for and deposited in the general fund of the city to be used for any valid municipal purpose at the discretion of the City Council. The remaining four percent (4%) of the tax shall be collected and placed in a special fund only to be used for the acquisition of the property commonly known as 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. For that portion of the utility user tax which is a special tax and only to be used for the purchase of the -4- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 railroad right-of-way (4%), the special tax 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 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 space lands for the benefit of the citizens of Hermosa Beach. Notwithstanding the termination of the four percent (4%) special tax, the remaining six percent tax for general revenue purposes shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. Pursuant to Government Code Section 53722, this ordinance must be adopted by a two-thirds affirmative vote. Its provisions may not be amended or repealed without a subse- quent vote of the electorate. SECTION 4. Section 30-62 (Fund and Purpose) shall be amended to state as follows: All of the proceeds of the taxes levied under this article shall be placed in the general fund of the city and shall be utilized for general governmental purposes except as herein set forth in Sections 30-64 and 30-65. SECTION 5. If any of the provisions of this ordinance are declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining parts or sections shall remain in full force and effect. -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 6. This ordinance shall take effect in the manner provided by law. SECTION 7. The method of collection of the taxes im- posed shall remain the same as provided under Chapter 30 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. -6- 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, SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS BY THE CITY COUNCIL, TO REQUIRE THAT THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BILTMORE SITE BE USED AS A PARK. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That a public park be maintained by the City of Hermosa Beach at the location commonly known as the "Biltmore Site." The "Biltmore Site," as defined by this ordinance, shall include those lots described in Exhibit "A" to this ordinance which is incorporated herein by reference. Copies of Exhibit "A" can be obtained from the office of the Hermosa Beach City Clerk. SECTION 2. That if any of the provisions of this or- dinance are declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdic- tion, the remaining parts shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. That there shall be no modification, amend- ment, or repeal of any provision herein except by a vote of the people. EXHIBIT "A" CITY -OWNED PROPERTY Lots 1 through 9, inclusive, Lots 19, 20, and 32, all in Block 15 of Hermosa Beach, in the City of Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 1, Pages 25 and 26 of Maps, in the office of the County Re- corder of said county, together with: (a) The north one-half of 14th Street lying between the southerly prolongation of the west line of Lot 1 and the southerly prolongation of the east line of Lot 32; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (b) All of Beach Drive adjoining said Lots 1 through 7, inclusive, and Lots 8 and 19 and lying between the easterly prolongation of the south line of said Lot 1 and the easterly prolongation of the north line of said Lot 7f (c) A11 of 15th Court adjoining said Lots 8, 9, 19, and 20 lying between the southerly prolongation of the west line of said Lot 8 and the southerly prolongation of the east line of said Lot 9; and (d) The south (1/2) one-half of 15th Court that would pass with a conveyance of Lot 32 in Block 15 of Hermosa Beach, in the City of Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 1, Pages 25 and 26 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said county. -8- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 88 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, MANDATING THAT THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH SELL OR TRADE THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE "BILTMORE SITE" FOR PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City of Hermosa Beach is hereby mandated to sell or trade the city -owned property commonly known as the "Biltmore Site" for the purpose of acquiring the property located in the City of Hermosa Beach commonly known as the A.T. & S.F. Railroad Right -of -Way. The Biltmore Site is that property shown on Exhibit "A," which can be obtained from the office of the Hermosa Beach City Clerk and is incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. The City of Hermosa Beach shall follow all state and local laws and regulations in accomplishing its sale or trade of the Biltmore Site. The valuation of the Biltmore Site for the purposes of sale or trade under this ordinance shall be based upon a qualified appraisal that is accepted by the Hermosa Beach City Council. No sale or trade of the Biltmore Site shall be made for less than the appraised fair market value of the property. SECTION 3. If, after good faith negotiations between the city and the owners of the right-of-way, no sale or trade of the Biltmore Site is accomplished, this ordinance shall be of no force or effect. SECTION 4. Nothing in this ordinance shall compel the City of Hermosa Beach to institute any action to condemn and take the property of any legal entity by way of eminent domain procedures. 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 S. If eminent domain procedures are instituted by the Hermosa Beach City Council, nothing shall prevent the City Council from authorizing the sale of the Biltmore Site in order to apply the proceeds to the acquisition of the railroad right-of-way. SECTION 6. If the A.T. i S.F. Railroad Right-of-way is acquired pursuant to this ordinance, it shall only be used for open space and parkland purposes. SECTION 7. If any section or portion of this initiative ordinance is declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, all other sections or portions shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 8. There shall be no codification, amendment, or repeal of any provision herein except by a vote of the people. -10- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 4. That the City Clerk is authorized, instruct- ed, and directed to procure and furnish any and all official ballots, notices, printed matter and all supplies, equipment and paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election. SECTION 5. That in all particulars not recited in this Resolution, said election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections in said City. SECTION 6. That notice of the time and place of holding said election is hereby given and the City Clerk is hereby authorized, instructed and directed to give such further or additional notice of said election, in time, form and manner as required by law. SECTION 7. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions of said City. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS TH DAY OF PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk ty Attorney -11- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 88- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO CONSOLIDATE A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF SAID CITY TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY JUNE 7, 1988, WITH THE STATEWIDE PRIMARY ELECTION TO BE HELD ON SAID DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 23302 OF THE ELECTION CODE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING CERTAIN MEASURES TO THE ELECTORATE. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach called a Special Municipal Election in said City to be held on June 7, 1988 for the purpose of submitting to the qualified voters of said City the following measures: the use of 4% of the 10% Utility Users Tax for purchase of the A.T.&S.F. right-of-way, requiring the property commonly known as the Biltmore Site to be used as a park, and mandating selling or trading the property commonly known as the Biltmore Site for property commonly known as the A.T.&S.F. Railroad right-of-way; and WHEREAS, it is desirable that said Special Municipal Election be consolidated with the Statewide Primary Election to be held on the same date and that within the City the pre- cincts, polling places and election officers of the two elections be the same; and that the Registrar of the County of Los Angeles canvass the returns of the Special Municipal Election; and that said Special Municipal Election be held in all respects as if there were only one election; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That pursuant to the requirements of Section 23302 of the Election Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles be and it hereby is requested to consent and agree to the consolidation of a Special Municipal Election 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 with the Statewide Primary Election on Tuesday, June 7, 1988 for the purpose of submitting to the electors of the City of Hermosa Beach measures to appear on the ballot as follows: USE OF 4% OF UTILITY USERS TAX TO PURCHASE A.T.&S.F. RIGHT-OF-WAY Shall Ordinance No. 88- , an ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach submitted to the voters by the City Council, be adopted which requires the use of 4% of the 10% Utility Users Tax only for the purchase of the property commonly known as the A.T.&S.F. Railroad right-of-way? YES NO USE OF CITY -OWNED LAND KNOWN AS THE BILTMORB SITE AS A PARK Shall Ordinance No. 88- , an ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach submitted to the voters by the City Council, be adopted which requires that property commonly known as the Biltmore Site be used as a park with no modification, amendment or appeal ex- cept by a vote of the people? YES NO MANDATING THE SALE OR TRADE OF THE BILTMORE SITE FOR THE A.T.&S.F. RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY Shall Ordinance No. 87-895, an ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach submitted to the voters by the City Council, be adopted which mandates the sale or trade of the City -owned property com- monly known as the Biltmore Site for the purpose of acquiring the property known as the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way? YES NO SECTION 2. Said Registrar is hereby authorized to canvass the returns of said Special Municipal Election which it is hereby requested to consolidate with said Statewide Primary Election. Said elections shall be held in all respects as if ere were only one election, and only one form of ballot shall be used. SECTION 3. Said Board of Supervisors is hereby requested to issue instructions to the Los Angeles County Registrar to - 13- 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 take any and all steps necessary for the holding of said consolidated election. SECTION 4. The City of Hermosa Beach recognizes that additional costs will be incurred by the County by reason of this consolidation and agrees to reimburse the County for any such costs. SECTION 5. That the City Clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Board of Supervisors and the Registrar of the County of Los Angeles. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach on the th day of PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk // // // // // 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 88- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OF ITS MEMBERS TO FILE WRITTEN ARGUMENTS REGARDING CITY MEASURES AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE IMPARTIAL ANALYSES. WHEREAS, a Special Municipal Election is to be held in the City of Hermosa Beach, California, on June 7, 1988, at which there will be submitted to the voters the following measures: USE OF 4% OF UTILITY USERS TAX TO PURCHASE A.T.&S.F. RIGHT-OF-WAY Shall Ordinance No. 88- , an ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach submitted to the voters by the City Council, be adopted which requires the use of 4% of the 10% Utility Users Tax only for the purchase of the property commonly known as the A.T.&S.F. Railroad right-of-way? YES NO USE OF CITY -OWNED PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE BILTMORE SITE AS A PARK Shall Ordinance No. 88- , an ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach submitted to the voters by the City Council, be adopted which requires that City -owned property commonly known as the Biltmore Site be used as a park with no modification, amendment or appeal except by a vote of the people? YES NO MANDATING THE SALE OR TRADE OF THE BILTMORE SITE FOR THE A.T.&S.F. RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY Shall Ordinance No. 88- , an ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach submitted to the voters by the City Council, be adopted which mandates the sale or trade of the city -owned property commonly known as the Biltmore Site for the purpose of acquiring the property known as the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way? YES NO NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City Council authorizes members of said body to file written arguments in favor of the City measures set forth in the recitals hereof in accordance with Article 4, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Chapter 3, Division 5 of the Election Code of the State of California as follows: Ordinance No. 88- - Use of 4% of Utility Users Tax to Purchase A.T.&S.F. Right -of -Way Councilmember with all Councilmembers invited to sign Ordinance No. 88- - Use of City -Owned Property known as the Biltmore Site as a Park Councilmember with all Councilmembers invited to sign Ordinance No. 88- - Mandating the Sale or Trade of the Biltmore Site for the A.T.&S.F. Railroad Right-of- Councilmember with all Councilmembers invited to sign Said written arguments in favor of said City measures may be changed until and including the date fixed by the City Clerk after which no arguments for or against said measures may be submitted to the City Clerk. SECTION 2. That the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measures to the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall prepare impartial analyses of the measures showing the effect of the measures on the existing law and the operation of the measures. The impartial analyses shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for the filing of primary arguments. SECTION 3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON the th day of 1988. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 •PPROVED AS .Li ✓ Atto ne FORM: 17_ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 88- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR CITY MEASURES SUBMITTED AT THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON JUNE 7, 1988. WHEREAS. Section 4015.5 and 5014.5 of the Elections Code of the State of California authorizes the City Council, by majority vote, to adopt provisions to provide for the filing of rebuttal arguments for city measures submitted at municipal elections; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That pursuant to Sections 4015.5 and 5014.5 of the Elections Code of the State of California, when the clerk has selected the arguments for and against the measure which will be printed and distributed to the voters, the clerk shall send copies of the argument in favor of the measure to the authors of the argument against, and copies of the argument against to the authors of the argument in favor. The authors may prepare and submit rebuttal arguments not exceeding 250 words. The rebuttal arguments shall be filed with the City Clerk not more than ten (10) days after the final date for filing direct arguments. Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the direct arguments. Each rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the direct argument which it seeks to rebut. SECTION 2. That all previous resolutions providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments for city measures are repealed. SECTION 3. That the provisions of Section 1 shall apply only to the election to be held on June 7, 1988 and shall then be repealed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 1 1 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 4. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this h day of 1988. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS OR14: y Attorney February 17, 1988 City Council Meeting February 23, 1988 Mayor and Members of the City Council BUDGET -_SPECIAL MUNICIPAL_ELEGTION,JUNE_7,.1988 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council 1) Adopt the attached budget for the Special Municipal Election June 7, 1988 and authorize that $8,900 be transferred from Prospective Expenditures into Elections Account and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 88- , entitled " A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, FIXING THE COMPENSATION TO BE RECEIVED BY THE CITY CLERK FOR THE SPECIAL ELECTION OF JUNE 7, 1988." BACKGROUND At the City Council Meeting of February 9, 1988 City Council directed staff to prepare 3 ballot measures and appropriate resolutions for calling a Special Municipal Election to be consolidated with the Primary Election June 7, 1988. Since this election was not anticipated or budgeted, it is necessary to approve a budget at this time and authorize the funding. It has been traditional that the City Clerk receives extra compensation during election periods. The City Clerk has responsibility for conducting the election properly and lawfully, with numerous mandatory time deadlines which must be met. Duties during this election will include coordination with the Los Angeles County Registrar -Recorder regarding overall election procedures; request and obtain approval for consolidation of election; publishing all legal notices; advertise, inform, receive, proof, and deliver arguments to County before deadlines; approve printer's proofs of measures and arguments for sample ballot pamphlet; provide Absentee Ballot Applications; assist voters regarding voter registration and polling place information; prepare canvass of votes for council approval. NOTED: KATHLEEN MIDSTOKKE, City Clerk ALANA MAST IAN, Acting C fty Manager 106 PROPOSED BUDGET SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION CONSOLIDATED WITH GENERAL PRIPIART 4UNE_T,,d988 REGISTRAR -RECORDER (Appx. $1,800 per measure) $ 5,400 Election Administration Ballot Preparation & Proofing Vote Recorder Pages Sample Ballot Printing Ballot Material Processing ELECTION SUPPLIER 500 Calendar of Election Events Sample Forms, Resolutions, Notices Consultation Services CASSETTE AND FRAME REPORT (Current list of registered 250 voters) SALARIES - CITY CLERK FOR 4 MONTH ELECTION PROCESS 2,000 DELIVERY & MILEAGE - REGISTRAR/RECORDER & BD. OF 100 SUPERVISORS PUBLICATION - LEGAL NOTICES 300 MISC., REPRODUCTION, OFFICE SUPPLIES, TELEPHONE, 350 POSTAGE ,900 2-17-88 km 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 88- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, FIXING THE COMPENSATION TO BE RECEIVED BY THE CITY CLERK FOR THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF JUNE 7, 1988. WHEREAS,' the matter of the Special Municipal Election of June 7, 1988 as it relates to additional duties and staffing was reviewed by the City Council on February 23, 1988, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That pursuant to Ordinance No. 78-603 of the City of Hermosa Beach, adopted December 14, 1978, the compensation of the City Clerk shall be fixed by resolution of the City Council. SECTION 2. That the City Clerk shall receive an additional monthly salary of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) per month for the four-month election process commencing March 1, 1988 through June 30, 1988, payable semi-monthly at the same time and in the same manner as the salaries paid to each of the officers and employees of the City. SECTION 3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this th day of , 1988. PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY February 17, 1988 City Council Meeting February 23, 1988 Mayor and Members Of the City Council PLACEMENT_ QF,MEASVRES.. QN .BALLOT $PECIAL_NUNICIPAL.EI.ECTION JUNE 7, 1 88 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve a preference for the placement of the measures on the ballot. THE MEASURES ARE: 1. 4% U.U.T. INCREASE EARMARKED FOR PURCHASE OF RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND TERMINATED UPON DEBT RETIREMENT. 2. BILTMORE PARK, CHANGED ONLY WITH A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE. 3. SALE OR TRADE OF BILTMORE SITE, HIGHEST AND BEST USE, FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. NOTED: ad‘e LANA MASTRIAN, Acting City Manager 1 0 c February 17, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of February 23, 1988 MEDAL OF VALOR LUNCHEON Recommendation It is recommended that City Council make a policy decision regarding expenditure of City funds for city officials to attend the annual Medal of Valor Luncheon. If approved, City Council must appropriate the funds from Prospective Expenditures to the City Council budget. Background This is the second year staff is before City Council with this matter. Last year the City Council authorized an expenditure of $180 for a table for City officials. Analysis This is a policy decision for the City Council. The cost per table for this year is $200.00. Alana M. Mastrian Acting City Manager AMM/1d. 11 a 14th Anniversary Medal Of Valor Luncheon A Southland Event Sponsored by the Cities and Chambers of Commerce of: El Segundo • Gardena Torrance • Hermosa Beach Manhattan Beach Hawthorne • Inglewood Redondo Beach Palos Verdes Peninsula To honor police officers and fire fighters who have distinguished themselves by conspicuous acts of bravery. To show our support for law enforcement and fire protection agencies. Thursday, April 7, 1988 No Host Cocktail Hour -11 a.m. Lunch—Noon HYATT AT LOS ANGELES AIRPORT 6225 West Century Boulevard Los Angeles Luncheon—Program: $20 per person $200 per table CELEBRITIES RESERVATIONS DEADLINE: March 15, 1988 PARKING VALIDATION 0 0 co 0 3 0 0 0 0 N I ADDRESS: z a 0 Check Enclosed w Lu 1- 1- 0 0 cc 0 O • Q CD Qh- 0 wa pMN Cl) N.� N 0Q co >� -V 0 co) co o N O 10 ram E roc ,2o (1) EO c• u. [.: i 7:570 co= it cn rz 1 y 1 cad . /