Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10/10/89
"If you don't want anyone to know, don't do it." -Chinese Proverb AGENDA REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 10, 1989 - Council Chambers, City Hall Closed Session - 6:30 p.m. Regular Session - 7:30 p.m. MAYOR June Williams MAYOR PRO TEM Roger Creighton COUNCILMEMBERS Jim Rosenberger Chuck Sheldon Etta Simpson CITY CLERK Kathleen Midstokke CITY TREASURER Gary L. Brutsch CITY MANAGER Kevin B. Northcraft CITY ATTORNEY Charles S. Vose All Council meetings are open to the public. PLEASE ATTEND. Complete agenda materials are available for public inspection in the Police Department, Public Library and the Office of the City Clerk. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: PROCLAMATIONS: Credit Union Day, October 19, 1989. PRESENTATION OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION'S FIGHT GRIDLOCK ORDINANCE AND EXPENDITURE PLAN. CITIZEN COMMENTS Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any items on the Consent Calendar may do so at this time. Citizens may request to speak during Public Hearings and items appearing under Municipal Matters at the time the item is called. Citizen comments on items not on the agenda but within the Council's jurisdiction will be provided time at the end of the agenda. Please limit comments to three minutes. Citizens with comments regarding City management or departmental operations are requested to submit those comments to the City Manager. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following routine matters will be acted upon by one vote to approve with the majority con- sent of the City Council. There will be no separate - discussion of these items unless good cause is shown by a member prior to the roll call vote. (Items removed 1 • will be considered under Agenda Item 3.) (a) Recommendation to approve minutes of regular meeting of the City Council held on September 26, 1989. (b) Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants Nos. through inclusive. (c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. (d) Recommendation to receive and file the September, 1989 Monthly Investment Report. Memorandum from City Treasurer Gary L. Brutsch dated October 3, 1989. (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (1) Recommendation to accept and file the park irrigation system assessment and rehabilitation program, (to be implemented with Recreation/Park Master Plan), CIP 88- 508. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony An- tich dated September 21, 1989. Recommendation to approve renewal of Dial -A -Ride (WAVE) contract with the City of Redondo Beach for a term end- ing June 30, 1993. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated October 3, 1989. Recommendation to receive and file policy on motorcy- cles. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wis- niewski dated October 4, 1989. Recommendation to accept as complete, Municipal Pier Repairs, CIP 88-614, and authorize Mayor to sign the Notice of Completion. Memorandum from Public Works Di- rector Anthony Antich dated October 3, 1989. Recommendation to approve lease agreement between the South Bay Center for Counseling and the City of Hermosa Beach for office space at the Community Center. Memo- randum from Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian- Handman dated October 3, 1989. Recommendation to approve renewal of the City's Employee Assistance Program (EAP) with Personal Performance Con- sultants, Inc. Memorandum from Personnel Director Rob- ert Blackwood dated October 4, 1989. Recommendation to not authorize a reduction in rent for the Pier Concession lease for the current lease, which expires October 31, 1989, nor to approve the request for refund. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated September 25, 1989. Recommendation to approve exterior painting of building located at the end of the pier; direct staff to prepare an RFP for ground lease for operation of a business/ (m) (n) facility at end of pier; appropriate $1,500 from Parks & Rec. Facility Tax Fund to City Clerk's budget for adver- tising; and direct staff to negotiate with present ten- ant for month to month extension of present lease. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian-Handman and Public Works Director Anthony An- tich dated October 3, 1989. Recommendation to receive and file report re. illegal dwelling unit abatement activity. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director William Grove dated October 5, 1989. Recommendation to receive and file report re. overhead angler casting on the fishing pier. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich and Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated October 5, 1989. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES. (a) ORDINANCE NO. 89-1009 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AND ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONES FOR AREAS NW -1 AND NW -2. For adoption. (b) ORDINANCE NO. 89-1010 - AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 89-983, A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AND USES. For adoption. AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONE FROM C-3 TO SPA NO. 6(SPECIFIC PLAN AREA) FOR AREA NW -3, THE VACANT PROPERTY ON THE WEST SIDE OF P.C.H. (FORMERLY THE ST. MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL) AT 1845 P.C.H. For introduction and waiver of further reading. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated October 3, 1989 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. (a) Letter from Roy A. Judd, 2416 Hermosa Avenue, dated Sep- tember 27, 1989 regarding bootleg unit, claim for damage, and police problems. (Requested by Mayor Williams and Councilmember Sheldon.) (b) Letter from Dr. Peter Willman, Mayor of Weil am Rhein in Germany, dated August 21, 1989, thanking the City for making his visit so pleasant. (Requested by Mayor Williams.) PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. 5. APPEAL OF DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR PERMIT TO KEEP MORE THAN TWO HOUSEHOLD PETS. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dated September 28, 1989. 3 6. ZONE CHANGES FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF THE MULTI- USE CORRIDOR AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION: (1) SOUTHWEST QUADRANT - FROM R-3 TO R-2 OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR VARYING DISTANCES WEST OF PACIFIC COAST HWY. BETWEEN 130' TO 300' AND BETWEEN SOUTH CITY BOUNDARY AND 5TH STREET; (2) SOUTHEAST QUADRANT - FROM R-2 TO R -2B OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR 120' TO 240' EAST OF PACIFIC COAST HWY. BETWEEN 6TH STREET AND 8TH STREET AND INCLUDING THE SOUTH SIDE OF 6TH STREET. With two ordinances for introduction. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated October 3, 1989. 7. THIRD QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND ZONE CHANGES - CONSISTENCY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND/OR ZONE CHANGES AS NOTED BELOW OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE OR GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE TO BRING THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING MAPS INTO CONSISTENCY FOR THE NOTED AREAS WEST OF VALLEY DRIVE AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION: AREA 10. LOCATION GENERALLY BETWEEN BARNEY COURT AND MEYER COURT, FROM SOUTH CITY BOUNDARY TO THE REAR OF LOTS FRONTING ON 2ND STREET TO THE NORTH, TO EITHER RE- MAIN R -2B ZONING WITH GENERAL PLAN AMENDED FROM LOW DENSITY TO MEDIUM DENSITY OR CHANGE TO R-1 ZONING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. AREA A. 1) GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION FROM OPEN SPACE TO IN- DUSTRIAL FOR THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF VALLEY DRIVE AND 6TH STREET (THE "CITY YARD"); 2) GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION FROM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO INDUSTRIAL FOR A PORTION OF 725 CY- PRESS AVE., LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 1, BLOCK V, TRACT 2002; AREA B. GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION FROM OPEN SPACE AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO INDUSTRIAL FOR THE PROPERTY AT 552 11TH PLACE (SITE OF "HERMOSA MINI -STORAGE") AND FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO INDUSTRIAL FOR THE WEST SIDE OF BARD STREET (INCLUDING 1309 AND 1319 BARD STREET) 91 TO 218 FT. SOUTH OF PIER AVE. AREA C. 1) GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE EASTERN POR- TION OF 66 9TH ST., 801 HERMOSA AVE. AND 63 8TH ST. (LOTS 16, 25 AND 26, BLOCK 9, HERMOSA BEACH TRACT; 2) GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE NORTH SIDE OF 10TH ST. BETWEEN BEACH DRIVE AND HERMOSA AVE. (LOTS 4 19-27 INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 11, HERMOSA BEACH TRACT); 3) GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE WEST SIDE OF MANHATTAN AVE. AND SOUTH OF PIER AVE. BETWEEN 1125 MANHATTAN AVE. AND 10TH ST. (LOTS 16-25 INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 35, 1ST ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT); AREA D. ZONE CHANGE FROM C-2 TO R -2B FOR 97 16TH ST. AND 1617 HERMOSA AVE. AND FOR 92 16TH ST. AND 1515 HER- MOSA AVE., AND GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR 85 15TH ST. AND FROM COMMERCIAL RECREATION TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE SOUTH SIDE OF 15TH ST. BETWEEN AND INCLUDING 36 15TH ST. AND 60 15TH ST. AREA E. 1) GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION FROM MEDIUM DENSITY TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL FOR THE EAST AND WEST SIDE OF GREENWICH VILLAGE (LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS PORTIONS OF LOTS 4-7, BLOCK 109, SHAKESPEARE TRACT AND POR- TIONS OF LOTS 1-5, BLOCK 67, 1ST ADDITION TO HERMO- SA BEACH TRACT), ZONE CHANGE FROM C-1 TO R-2 FOR 2615 AND 2627 MANHATTAN AVE., THE EAST SIDE OF HER- MOSA AVE. BETWEEN 2640 HERMOSA AVE. AND 27TH ST. (LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 109, SHAKESPEARE TRACT AND LOT 1, TRACT 31943); 2) ZONE CHANGE FROM R-3 TO R-2 FOR THE EAST SIDE OF MANHATTAN AVE. BETWEEN 26TH ST. AND 27TH ST. AREA F. ZONE CHANGE FROM C-1 TO R-3 FOR THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MANHATTAN AVE. AND 33RD ST. (LOTS 13 AND 15, BLOCK 102, SHAKESPEARE TRACT) AND ZONE CHANGE FROM C-1 TO R-2 FOR THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MANHAT- TAN AVE. AND 33RD STREET (LOTS 1 AND 3, BLOCK 119, SHAKESPEARE TRACT). With resolution and ordinances for introduction. Memo- randum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated October 2, 1989. 8. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY A VARIANCE AND PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW A SECOND STORY OFFICE ADDITION PROVIDING LESS THAN THE REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING AT 415 PIER AVENUE, with proposed resolution for adoption. Councilmembers Creighton and Sheldon, appel- lants. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated October 2, 1989. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 9. PROPOSED PROGRAM FOR CLEANING OF DOWNTOWN SIDEWALKS. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antictr- dated September 20, 1989. 5 10. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER 11. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) Appointment of sub -committee to review City Manager em- ployment agreement and approval of revised performance evaluation form. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dated October 4, 1989. 12. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: (a) Request of Mayor Williams regarding public release of closed session draft material. (b) 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) resolution of matter by Coun- cil action tonight. Request of Councilmember Simpson regarding public post- ing of City Council Closed Session agendas. Recommended Action: 1) Vote by Council whether to dis- cuss this item; 2) refer to staff for a report back on a future agenda; or 3) resolution of matter by Council action tonight. CITIZEN COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Citizens wishing to address the Council on items not on the agenda but within the Council's jurisdiction may do so at this time. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, September 26, 1989 at the hour of 7:37 P.M. CLOSED SESSION - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) regarding Litigation, Stinnet Oil; Todd vs City of Hermosa Beach; Gotanda vs City of Hermosa Beach. Pursuant to Government Code. 54956.9(b) regarding potential Litigation. Real Estate Negot- iation with Hermosa Beach City School District re: South School and lots next to Edith Rodaway Park; at the hour of 6:30 P.M. Present: Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson, Mayor Williams Absent: None PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE--Councilmember Rosenberger ROLL CALL Present: Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson, Mayor Williams Absent: None PROCLAMATIONS National Fire Prevention Week October 8-14, 1989 The Hermosa Beach Fire Department will host an Open House on Saturday, October 14. Station tours,_ fire safety videos, films, and handouts will be available,_ as well as refresh- ments for all visitors. The proclamation was accepted by the following Hermosa Beach Fire Department Personnel: Mike Lines - Coordinator, Alan Hill, Paul Osekowsky, Brian Scott Councilmember Simpson announced the 10th anniversary of the Japanese Bilingual School. CITIZEN COMMENTS Gerry Compton - 200 Pier Avenue, #9 - available for questions on item 1(g). 1. (a) (b) CONSENT -CALENDAR - Action: To approve Consent Calendar recommendations (a) through (q) with the exceptions of the following items which were pulled for discussion but are listed in order for clarity: (f) Williams and (q) Rosenberger. Motion Simpson, second Creighton. So ordered. Recommendation to approve the following minutes: 1) Regular adjourned meeting of the City Council held at 5:00 p.m. on August 22, 1989; 2) Regular meeting of the City Council held at 7:30 p.m. on August 22, 1989; 3) Regular meeting of the City Council held on Septem- ber 12, 1989. Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants Nos. 31181 through 31345 inclusive, and noting voided warrant nos. 31184 through 31186 inclusive and 31249. 1 Minutes 9-26-89 (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) Recommendation to receive Agenda Items. and file Tentative Future Recommendation to receive and financial reports: 1) Revenue and Expenditure Report; 2) City Treasurer's Report Recommendation to approve extension of contract for Workers' Compensation Claims Administration service with Gates McDonald and Company. Memorandum from Risk Manager Robert Blackwood dated September 19, 1989. file the August, 1989 Recommendation to authorize request for proposal for Pavement Management System. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated September 19, 1989. Action: To approve staff recommendation by authorizing staff to solicit requests for proposals for a pavement management system. Motion Williams, second Rosenberger. So ordered. Recommendation to approve amendment to Development a Restriction Agreement for property located at 21st Street and Loma Drive. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated September 19, 1989. Recommendation to approve extension of contract for Liability Claims Administration service with J. S. Ward & Company for a term ending June 30, 1992. Memorandum from Risk Manager Robert Blackwood dated September 18, 1989. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving Final Map #19542 for a two -unit condominium located at 215 Manhattan Avenue. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated September 18, 1989. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 89-5310, entitled, •'A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #19542 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 215 MANHATTAN AVENUE, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA." Recommendation to adopt resolution approving request for handicapped parking stall for resident at 2916 Ingleside Drive. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated September 13, 1989. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 89-5311, entitled, HA RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 89-5263 BY ADDING THERETO AN ADDITIONAL CURBSIDE PARKING STALL AND SPACE FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF DISABLED PERSONS, PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 22511.7 AND 22511.8 OF THE CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE, AS HEREIN SET FORTH, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 2916 INGLESIDE DRIVE... - 2 - Minutes 9-26-89 (k) (1) (m) (n) (0) (p) (q) Recommendation to approve lease agreement between the City of Hermosa Beach and the Historical Society for space in the Community Center. Memorandum from the Community Resources Director, Alana Mastrian-Handman dated September 14, 1989. Recommendation to approve lease agreement between the City of Hermosa Beach and Easter Seals organization for space in the Community Center. Memorandum from the Community Resources Director, Alana Mastrian-Handman dated September 14, 1989. Recommendation to authorize the Director of Public Safety to sign addendum to 911 agreement to furnish enhanced 911 emergency telephone re-routing service with the City of Palos Verdes Estates. Memorandum from Public Safety Director, Steve Wisniewski dated September 18, 1989. Recommendation to authorize request for proposal for Engineering Services for Community Center Electrical Upgrade, CIP 89-613. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated September 19, 1989. Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to sign a contract with George Ryon, M. A. I., to conduct an appraisal of the South School site within the next three weeks at a cost not to exceed $3,500. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated September 21, 1989. Recommendation to adopt a resolution designating the City Manager as the authorized agent of the City for all matters pertaining to the State Office of Emergency Services and the Natural Disaster Assistance Act. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated September 21, 1989. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 89-5312, entitled, 'IA RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE CITY MANAGER AS THE AUTHO- RIZED AGENT FOR THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA FOR ALL MATTERS PERTAINING TO THE STATE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THE NATURAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE ACT.” Recommendation to accept donation from Hermosa Video of $386.65 for the D.A.R.E. program, and direct staff to send a letter of appreciation. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated September 21, 1989. Action: To approve staff recommendation by authorizing acceptance of a $365.65 donation from Hermosa Video for use in the D.A.R.E. Program. - Motion Rosenberger, second Creighton. So ordered. - 3 - Minutes 9-26-89 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES. (a) ORDINANCE NO. 89-1006 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 19-101, "USING METERS LONGER THAN TIME ALLOWED FOR PARKING". For adoption. Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 89-1006, entitled, "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 19-101; USING METERS LONGER THAN TIME ALLOWED FOR PARKING SPACES." Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered. (b) ORDINANCE NO. 89-1007 - "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19, SECTION 19-61.1, OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, "PERMIT PARKING, DRIVEWAY". For adoption. Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 89-1007, entitled, "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, "MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC", ARTICLE IV, SECTION 19-61.1, PERMIT PARKING; PRIVATE DRIVEWAY." Motion Creighton, second Rosenberger. So ordered. (c) ORDINANCE NO. 89-1008 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE 13, GENERAL PROVISION, CONDITIONS AND EXCEPTIONS - NON- CONFORMING BUILDINGS AND USES, AND RELATED ORDINANCES AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. For adoption. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated September 19, 1989. Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 89-1008. Motion Creighton, second Rosenberger. So ordered. (d) ORDINANCE NO. 89-1009 - AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONES FOR AREAS NW -1 AND NW -2. For introduction and waiver of full reading. Memorandum from City Clerk Kathleen Midstokke dated September 19, 1989. Action: To introduce Ordinance No. 89-1009. Motion Creighton, second Sheldon. So ordered. Final Action: To waive full reading of Ordinance No. 89-1009, entitled, "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AND ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR THE AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION." Motion Creighton, second Rosenberger. AYES: Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson, Mayor Williams NOES: None• (e) AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 89-983, A MORATORI- UM ON THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AND USES. For introduction. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated September -20, 1989. - 4 - Minutes 9-26-89 Action: To introduce Ordinance No. 89-1010. Motion Creighton, second Sheldon. So ordered. Final Action: To waive full reading of Ordinance No. 89-1010, entitled, AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 89-983, A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR NON -CONFORMING STRUCTURES AND USES." Motion Creighton, second Sheldon. AYES: Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson, Mayor Williams. NOES: None 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. Items (f) and (q) were discussed at this time but are listed in order for clarity. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. None A recess was called at 7:53 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 8:02 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE FROM C-3 TO SPA (SPECIFIC PLAN AREA) FOR AREA NW -3, THE VACANT PROPERTY ON THE WEST SIDE OF P.C.H. (FORMERLY THE ST. MICHAELS HOSPITAL) AT 1845 P. C. H., WITH ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION. (Continued from September 12, 1989 meeting.) Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated September 19, 1989. Councilmember Simpson declared an apparent conflict of interest due to living within 300 feet of the subject property. A staff report was presented by Director Schubach. The Public Hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak was: Gerry Compton - 200 Pier Avenue #9 The Public Hearing was closed. Action: To have staff bring back an altered ordinance which would zone this property R-3 SPA, it would state we would encourage Senior Citizen housing proposals or any other proposal that falls in the scope of that zone not to exclude a combination of commercial and residen- tial proposal. • The final details of the rezoning that would go along in that SPA would be negotiated with the Council. Motion Sheldon, second Rosenberger. AYES: Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon NOES: Mayor Williams 5 Minutes 9-26-89 Noting for the record: Mayor Williams voted no because the intent is to take out the minimum setbacks. 6. TEXT AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO REQUIRE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AS A MEANS TO IMPROVE THE QUALI- TY AND TO REQUIRE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WITH ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION. Memorandum from Plan- ning Director Michael Schubach dated September 18, 1989. Supplemental letter from Jerry and Leslie Newton dated September 25, 1989. A staff report was presented by Director Schubach. The Public Hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak were: Edie Webber - 1201 Seventh Street Gerry Compton - 200 Pier Avenue #9 George Sacks - 225 Valley Drive Action: To receive and file. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. AYES: Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson NOES: Mayor Williams Noting, for the record, the following statement by Councilmember Creighton: The reason for the yes, with hesitation is; I have a tendency to vote for this solely as it applies to a moratorium so we can get the code working rather than the more elaborate applications, such as this, which doesn't do what we want. 7. STATUS REPORT AND EXTENSION OF THE INTERIM ORDINANCE CONTROLLING DENSITY ON R-3 LOTS, WITH ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated September 19, 1989. A staff report was presented by Director Schubach. The Public Hearing was opened. No one coming forward to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 89-1011, entitled, "AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 89-1005, CON- TROLLING DENSITY ON R-3 ZONED LOTS WHEN THE NUMBER OF UNITS INCREASES WITH LOT ASSEMBLAGE, FOR TEN (10) MONTHS AND FIFTEEN (15) DAYS." Motion Rosenberger, second Creighton. AYES: Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson, Mayor Williams NOES: None A recess was called at 9:30 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:45 P.M. MUNICIPAL MATTERS - None - 6 - Minutes 9-26-89 8. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER - None 9. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL - None 10. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: (a) Request of Councilmember Rosenberger for discussion of augmenting annual beach clean-up with Greenbelt clean-up effort. Supplemental from WATCHDOG, dated September 26, 1989. (b) (c) Action: The City will support and coordinate cleanup effort on the Greenbelt, October 14, 1989. Advertise on Channel 10, marquis on P.C.H., signage on Greenbelt and normal places. Motion Rosenberger, second Creighton. So ordered. Mayor Williams suggested overhead casting on the Pier be on the next agenda and requested staff recommendation (an Ordinance to enforce violations). Mayor Williams requested the Council address lack of enforcement regarding bootlegs and garages used for storage, citizen request. CITIZEN COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Edie Webber - Suggested signage in several foreign languages regarding overhead casting on the Municipal Pier, to avoid making ordinance. ADJOURNMENT The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California adjourned on Tuesday, September 26, 1989, at the hour of 10:05 P.M., to a Regular Meeting to be held on Tuesday, October 10, 1989 at the hour of 7:30 P.M. ief Deputy City Clerk - 7 - Minutes 9-26-89 4 September 19, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council October 10, 1989 LOS ANGELES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION'S (LACTC) FIGHT GRIDLOCK ORDINANCE AND EXPENDITURE PLAN Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Review the attached resolution to approve the Fight Gridlock Ordinance and Expenditure Plan and direct staff to return with modifications, if necessary; 2. request more information, or 3. drop the matter. Background: On August 28, 1989 the City received a letter from LACTC requesting that the City approve the final expenditure plan for revenues to be generated by a possible 1/2 cent sales tax. Analysis: The revenue generated by the proposed 1/2 cent sales tax is to be used for maintaining and improving the operation of the aging and deteriorating transportation system in Los Angeles County. According to State law, once resolutions have been adopted by a majority of the population in the County, and by the Board of Supervisors, the sales tax can be placed on the ballot for voter approval. LACTC will decide in November whether to request that the County place a measure on the ballot in 1990. If approved by voters, according to LACTC, approximately $285,000 annually will be available to Hermosa Beach. A staff member from LACTC will be available at the October 10, 1989 to answer any questions. Re •rtfu ly submi fid, ra Irl ��► Ant Tny .ntich Director of Pub is Works Concur: GP -7 evin B. North • aft City Manager Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Director Attachments: Sample Resolution LACTC 1990 Fight Gridlock Ordinance Comments by Other Cities pwadmin/lactc :mv 1 RESOLUTION NO. 89- 2 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH APPROVING THE EXPENDITURE PLAN PROVISIONS OF THE FIGHT GRIDLOCK 4 ORDINANCE AND EXPENDITURE PLAN. 5 WHEREAS, maintaining and improving the operation of our aging 6 and deteriorating transportation system is essential to preserving our standard of living and economic vitality and 7 8 current revenues are not sufficient to meet current and future 9 needs; and 10 WHEREAS, new street, highway, and transportation improvements 11 of at least an additional $7.5 billion are needed for cities and 12 unincorporated areas in Los Angeles County; and 13 14 WHEREAS, approval by the voters of a one-half cent sales tax 15 increase would generate enough revenue to finance essential 16 transportation projects contained in the Fight Gridlock 17 Expenditure Plan; and 18 WHEREAS, the State of California and the federal government 19 alone cannot solve the transportation problems in Los Angeles 20 County and local jurisdictions must develop and implement new 21 local funding programs; and 22 23 WHEREAS, Los Angeles County may forfeit as much as $1 billion 24 over a ten-year period in new revenues generated by the proposed 25 gas tax increase because we will not be able to match state funds 26 available for highways, streets, and roads; and 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHEREAS, the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission has developed a countywide consensus on: (1) the essential projects to adequately deal with current and anticipated traffic congestion; and (2) a proposed Fight Gridlock Ordinance and Expenditure Plan to fund the implementation of these essential projects; and WHEREAS, the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission is requesting the City of Hermosa Beach to support the placement of the Fight Gridlock Ordinance and Expenditure Plan on the ballot for voter approval; • NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Hermosa Beach City Council hereby approves the expenditure plan provisions of the Fight Gridlock Ordinance and Expenditure Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Hermosa Beach City Council urges the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to designate the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission as the Los Angeles County LOCAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 10th day of October, 1989. ATTEST: PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California , CITY CLERK , CITY ATTORNEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: 2 a August 22, 1989 FINAL LOS ANGELES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 1990 FIGHT GRIDLOCK ORDINANCE (This proposition will appear on the ballot in the following form) To fight gridlock, reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality, efficiently operate and improve the condition of the streets and freeways, a one-half cent increase in the sales and use tax is proposed. A Los Angeles County Gridlock Prevention Fund will be created to supplement current transportation funds. Twenty-five percent of the revenues from the 1/2 cent sales and use tax will be used for freeway improvements to fight gridlock, reduce congestion and improve air quality by pro- viding essential county -wide transportation improvements to freeways, and state highways. New freeway lanes, interchange improvements, transitways, and carpool lanes will be con- structed. Thirty percent of the revenue from the 1/2 cent sales and use tax will be used to improve street and freeway system manage- ment. Tow Service Patrols will be established on all free- ways to quickly assist motorists and remove disabled vehicles. Full time, geographically distributed Emergency Response Teams will be established to clean up truck acci- dents and other major incidents rapidly to reduce delay. The operation of major streets and freeways will be improved, traffic signals will be computerized and coordinated and "Smart Street" corridors will be created. Thirty percent of the revenue from the 1/2 cent sales and use tax will be used by cities and the County to reduce conges- tion, increase safety and improve road conditions by repair- ing, properly operating and maintaining all public streets and traffic signals. Fifteen percent of the revenue from the 1/2 cent sales and use tax will be used to fight gridlock and reduce congestion by providing additional capital funds for Commuter Rail and the construction of Transit Centers and Freeway Bus Stops. Shall the Los Angeles County Transportation Authority be autho- rized to establish a one-half of one -percent transactions and use tax, for a period not to exceed twenty years, with the proceeds placed in a special fund solely for transportation projects and programs designed to fight gridlock? Shall the annual appropria- tions limit for the Authority's Gridlock Prevention fund be estab- lished at $2.173 Billion? PAGE TWO LOS ANGELES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FIGHT GRIDLOCK ORDINANCE AND EXPENDITURE PLAN The Los Angeles County Transportation Authority ordains as fol- lows: SECTION 1. TITLE. This ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the Los Angeles County Fight Gridlock Ordinance and Expenditure Plan. (Authority Ordinance 89-1). The Expenditure Plan is set forth in Section 2 herein. SECTION 2. EXPENDITURE PLAN PURPOSES. This ordinance provides for the implementation of the Los Angeles County Fight Gridlock Program which will halt the decay of our streets, improve the operation of our transportation system, improve commuter travel time, reduce congestion, improve air quality and add needed im- provements to our freeways and major streets. A primary objective is to link the freeways and major parallel streets into a single computer -coordinated regional system. This commitment to aggres- sive traffic management shall be funded by a one-half of one percent transactions and use tax established for twenty years. The revenues shall be deposited in a special fund and used solely for transportation projects and programs to fight gridlock. The specific projects and programs are identified in "On The Road To The Year 2000" which was adopted by the Los Angeles County Trans- portation Commission in August, 1987, and hereby incorporated by reference, including any amendments thereto. The projects and programs are also part of the Southern California Association of Governments' Regional Mobility Plan and the South Coast Air Qual- ity Management District's plan for clean air in Los Angeles County. SECTION 3. IMPOSITION OF TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX. In addition to any other taxes authorized by law, there is hereby imposed in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County of Los Angeles, in accordance with the provisions of Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of -Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code which provisions are adopted by reference and Division 19 of the Public Utilities Code (commencing with Code Section 180000), a retail transactions and use tax at the rate of one-half of one percent (1/2%) for twenty years in addition to any existing or future authorized state or local transactions and use tax. PAGE THREE SECTION 4. REQUEST FOR ELECTION. The Authority hereby requests the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to place this Ordi- nance before the voters for approval on the ballot. The proposition to be placed on the ballot shall contain a summary of the transportation projects and programs and shall read sub- stantially as follows: Shall the Los Angeles County Transportation Authority be authorized to impose a one-half of one percent retail trans- actions and use tax for twenty years, with the proceeds used solely for transportation projects and programs to fight gridlock and reduce air pollution? Shall the annual appropriations limit for the Authority's Gridlock Prevention fund be established at $2.173 Billion? SECTION 5. EXPENDITURE PLAN SUMMARY. The revenues received by the Los Angeles County Transportation Authority from this Ordi- nance (estimated to be $7.5 billion over twenty years), after deduction of required Board of Equalization Costs for performing the functions specified in Section 180204 of the Public Utilities Code, and for the administration of the Los Angeles County Fight Gridlock Ordinance, in an amount not to exceed one percent (1%), shall be used for transportation projects and programs as set forth in this Expenditure Plan. A summary of the major projects and programs is provided as follows: A. SYSTEM MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS. Thirty percent of the avail- able revenues (estimated $2.25 billion) will be used to improve the operation, management and flow of traffic on the freeway and street network. The following projects and on- going programs are to be funded: 1. Tow service patrols on every freeway to assist motor- ists and quickly remove disabled vehicles from traffic (to start within 60 days of implementation of the ordi- nance.) 2. Full time Emergency Response Teams to clean up truck accidents and other major incidents rapidly to reduce delay. 3. Computerized, coordinated traffic signals on all major streets (Smart Streets) to reduce stops, delay and congestion. 4. High Tech inter -agency traffic management and operations center(s). PAGE FOUR 5. High Tech traffic management and communications equip- ment including, but not limited to video surveillance, highway advisory radio, traffic advisory signs, fiber- optic communications, upgraded computer and communica- tions hardware for streets and freeways. 6. Bottleneck removal on major streets, including over - crossings. 7. Ridesharing programs. 8. Transportation Management Associations. 9. Bicycle Facilities. B. LOCAL STREETS. It is the intent of the Authority that reve- nues provided from this Ordinance be used to supplement existing local revenues being used for streets and roads purposes, as well maintained streets are vital to the effective operation of our transit system. Thirty percent of the available revenues (esti- mated to be $2.25 billion) may be used by cities and the County to reduce congestion, eliminate bottlenecks on major streets, in- crease safety and improve road conditions by properly operating, maintaining and improving all public streets and traffic signals. Available funds will be allocated to eligible jurisdictions as follows: 1. Each jurisdiction will receive a basic allocation of $50,000 and the remaining funds will be allocated to juris- dictions by formula based fifty percent (50%) on current population and fifty percent (50%) on the square yards of publicly maintained street and roads. 2. Population figures used shall be the most current fig- ures available from the Department of Finance. Road yardage figures shall be the most current figures from the "On The Road To The Year 2000" which was adopted by the Los Angeles County Transportation Authority in August, 1987, including any amendments thereto. 3. Any new incorporation or annexations which take place after July 1 of any fiscal year shall be incorporated into the formula beginning with the subsequent fiscal year. PAGE FIVE C. FREEWAYS. Twenty-five percent of the available revenues (estimated $1.9 billion) will be combined with federal, state and local revenues (estimated $4 billion) for highway pur- poses over the duration of the Ordinance. Revenues shall be made available to complete the following improvements: ANTELOPE VALLEY FREEWAY (ROUTE 14) - Widen through Santa Clarita and Antelope Valleys. Modify existing and construct new interchanges. Add to Smart Street system. ARTESIA FREEWAY (ROUTE 91) - Upgrade eastbound carpool lane, add westbound carpool lane. Improve 91/605 inter- change. Add to Smart Street system. CENTURY (GLENN ANDERSON) FREEWAY (ROUTE 105) - Add to Smart Street system. CORONA FREEWAY/EXPRESSWAY (ROUTE 71) - Upgrade to full freeway. Improve 10/71 and 60/71 interchanges. FOOTHILL FREEWAY (ROUTES 30 & 210) - Extend freeway to San Bernardino County. Construct carpool lane from Pasadena to San Bernardino County line. Widen Baseline Road in interim. Add to Smart Street system. GLENDALE FREEWAY (ROUTE 2) - Improve freeway to freeway interchanges. Construct carpool lane to downtown. Add to Smart Street system. GOLDEN STATE FREEWAY (ROUTE 5) - Remove bottleneck between Simi Valley Freeway (Route 118) and Hollywood Freeway (Route 170). Construct truck climbing lanes between Route 126 and Kern County. Improve Routes 118/5, 2/5, 110/5, 10/5 and East Los Angeles inter- changes. Add bikeway along Los Angeles River. Add to Smart Street system. HACIENDA BOULEVARD (ROUTE 39) - Replace with highway. Add to Smart Street system. HARBOR FREEWAY (ROUTE 110) - Complete transitway to Los Angeles Harbor. Improve 110/10 interchange. Add to Smart Street system. PAGE SIX HOLLYWOOD FREEWAY (ROUTES 101 & 170) - Improve inter- change with Ventura Freeway. Install ramp meters. Add to Smart Street system. LANG BEACH FREEWAY (ROUTE 710) - Widen between Routes 5 and 105. Close gap (route to be determined). Extend freeway south to Ocean Ave. in Long Beach. Add to Smart Street system. PASADENA FREEWAY CORRIDOR (ROUTE 110) - Add to Smart Street system. POMONA FREEWAY (ROUTE 60) - Add carpool lane to downtown Los Angeles. Improve 4 level interchange in East Los Angeles. Add to Smart Street system. PORTS ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS (ROUTES 47 & 103) - Construct ports access improvements, including 16 railroad grade separations. Add to Smart Street system. ROUTE 1 (PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, LINCOLN & SEPULVEDA BLVDS.) - Add lane between Santa Monica and Malibu. Improve interchanges and signals. Install pedestrian undercrossings. Construct new overcrossing and widen tunnel near LAX. Add to Smart Street system. ROUTE 57 FREEWAY (ORANGE FREEWAY) - Add carpool lane from Orange County to Pomona Freeway (Route 60). In- stall ramp meters. Add to Smart Street system. ROUTE 126 (HENRY MAYO DRIVE. MAGIC MTN. PKWY., SAN FERNANDO ROAD) - Widen to four lanes from Newhall to the Ventura County line. Construct expressway through Santa Clarita Valley. Add to Smart Street system. ROUTE 138 ( LANCASTER RD., AVENUE D, PEARBLOSSOM HWY., ANTELOPE HWY.) - Add lanes in each direction between Routes 14 and 18. Construct new bypass north of Palm- dale. ROUTE 605 FREEWAY (SAN GABRIEL RIVER FREEWAY) - Con- struct carpool lane along entire length. Improve 10/605, 105/605, 405/605 interchanges to include direct carpool lane connections. Add to Smart Street system. PAGE SEVEN SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY (ROUTE 10) - Extend El Monte Busway eastward to San Bernardino County. Add lane between Route 57 and Garey. Improve 710/10 interchange. Add to Smart Street system. SAN DIEGO FREEWAY (ROUTE 405) - Add carpool lane. Improve 101/405, 710/405 and 605/405 interchanges. Add ramp meters. Add to Smart Street system. SANTA ANA FREEWAY (ROUTE 5) - Widen entire freeway to add mixed flow and carpool lanes and rail line within existing right-of-way. SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD (ROUTE 2) - Reconstruct. SANTA MONICA FREEWAY (ROUTE 10) - Extend Smart Corridor Demonstration Project to Santa Monica. Improve inter- changes. SIMI VALLEY FREEWAY (ROUTE 118) - Widen to Ventura County line. Improve 405/118 and 5/118 interchanges. Add to Smart Street system. VENTURA FREEWAY (ROUTES 101 & 134) - Add lanes. Improve 101/101, 405/101 and 5/101 interchanges. LANDSCAPING - Install landscaping where needed. SOUNDWALLS - Install where needed. D. TRANSIT. Fifteen percent of the available revenues (estimated $1.1 billion) will be used to fight congestion and reduce demand on our streets and freeways encouraging the use of alternative modes. The following projects could be funded: 1. Right -of -Way Acquisition for Commuter Rail on corridors where track exists. 2. Commuter Rail on existing track. 3. Park and Ride Lots. 4. Transit Centers. 5. Railroad Grade Separations. 6. Freeway Bus Stops. 7. To protect Right -of -Way fQr future transportation pur- poses. PAGE EIGHT SECTION 6. PROJECT PROGRAMMING APPROVAL PROCEDURES. It is the intent of the Legislature and the Authority that revenues provided from this Ordinance be used to supplement existing revenues being used for transportation improvements and programs. Allocation of all revenues as provided under Section 5 (A),(B),(C) and (D) are subject to the following provisions: A. SECTION 5(A) - SYSTEM MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS 1. No revenues as provided for in Section 5(A)(3)(4) or (5) will be approved unless the recipient agency agrees by resolution to implement TSM measures, to the extent practicable, within its jurisdiction, including those measures identified in the Air Quality Plan adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. These measures must include coordination and management of signals with neighboring cities and restriction of parking on major arterials during peak commute hours. 2. No revenues as provided for in Section 5(A)(3) or (6) will be approved unless the recipient agency agrees by resolution to fund the on-going maintenance of any such projects. Funds as provided for in Section 5(8) may be used for such maintenance purposes. 3. In the allocation of TSM funds the sales tax author- ity will take into consideration the varying needs of the geographically distinct portions of the County. In particular, the sales tax authority will consider the special needs of the jurisdictions eligible to receive state Transportation Development (TDA) Article 8 funds. (Currently these jurisdictions include the Cities of Lancaster, Palmdale, Santa Clarita, Avalon, and the surrounding unincorporated areas). Separate TSM guide- lines will be developed in cooperation with the affected jurisdictions." B. SECTION 5(B) LOCAL STREETS 1. Each local agency receiving revenues pursuant to Section 5(8) shall annually maintain as a minimum the same level of local discretionary funds expended for street and road purposes as was reported in the State Controller's Annual Report of Financial Transactions for Streets and Roads- Fiscal Year 1986-87 (maintenance of effort requirement). If any local agency had extraordi- nary local discretionary expenditures during FY, it may use, as a base for determining the minimum level of local discretionary funds, the average amount of such PAGE NINE funds reported to the State Controller for the three year period FY 1984-85 through FY 1986-87. The Author- ity shall not allocate any revenues pursuant to Section 5(B) to any eligible local agency until that local agency has certified to the Authority that it will include in its budget for that fiscal year an amount of local discretionary funding for streets and roads pur- poses at least equal to the minimum maintenance of effort requirement. a. All development impact fees used for capital transportation projects are excluded from the maintenance of effort base. b. The Commission may, on appeal by a local agency, adjust the maintenance of effort base. 2. All eligible local agencies must adopt and implement a Pavement Management Strategy. Revenues from the first year of funding may be used to prepare such a plan. 3. During the first year of the ordinance, any local agency may trade any, or all, accumulated excess local return Proposition A (transit) funds for an equal amount of additional local street funds. Such traded funds are not included in the maintenance of effort base, but are subject to the requirements of Section 5 (B)(5). 4. Any eligible local agency may be permitted to trade to the Authority up to 50% of its annual allocation of local return Proposition A (transit) money for an equal amount of additional local street funds. a. Local agencies must certify that they are maintaining at least the same level of local tran- sit funding as the average of the three year period FY 1984-85 through FY 1986-87. b. The Authority may, on appeal by a local agency, adjust the maintenance of effort base for local transit. c. Traded funds are not included in the mainte- nance of effort base, but are subject to the re- quirements of Section 5 (8)(5). 5. All eligible local agencies will be required to spend the revenue that they receive within three years. Unexpended funds, upon audit, must be returned and will be reallocated to other jurisdictions. PAGE TEN 6. A11 allocations and expenditures under Section 4(B) shall be subject to annual audit. C. SECTION 5(C) - FREEWAYS 1. No revenues as provided for in section 5(C) shall be allocated for any State highway projects until the Authority has certified that Los Angeles County is receiving at a minimum its fair share of highway funds from the state. The determination of fair share shall consider all relevant factors including the degree to which Los Angeles County is receiving it statutory county minimum funding for all budgeted, expended and programmed state and federal highway funds. The poli- cies and project approval actions of the California Transportation Commission and Caltrans will also be reviewed to insure that Los Angeles is receiving full consideration in the allocation of any additional uncom- mitted state and federal highway funding. Part of the certification shall include a finding that the state has not reduced any state highway allocations to Los Angeles as a result of the addition of any local revenues as provided herein. This certification shall be made annually in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program. 2. If, prior to the start of any fiscal year, the Authority does not make the certification finding required in Section 5 (C)(l.), then, except for previous commitments the Authority may redistribute the remaining revenues for purposes as provided in Section 5 (A) and (B). 3. If the Authority finances the construction of high- way facilities by the issuance of bonds or any similar financing device, the Authority shall first allocate the funds necessary to meet all debt service requirements prior to making any redistribution of funds as provided in Section '5 (C) (2) . 4. Once any state highway facility or usable portion thereof is constructed to at least minimum acceptable state standards, the state shall be responsible for the maintenance and operation thereof. PAGE ELEVEN 5. All highway projects funded with revenues as pro- vided in this Ordinance must be consistent with the SCAG Regional Mobility Plan and the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan for the SCAG Region. All projects shall be programmed, as appropriate in the five year Regional Transportation Improvement Program. Project priorities or phasing shall also be consistent with the SCAG Regional Mobility Plan. The Expenditure Plan shall be reviewed on a biennial basis to coincide with the biennial update of the Regional Mobility Plan required by State law. The Expenditure Plan shall be amended as necessary to maintain consistency with the SCAG Regional Mobility Plan. 6. All state highway improvements to be funded with revenues as provided in this Ordinance, including proj- ect development and overall project management, shall be a joint responsibility of Caltrans and the Authority. All major project approval actions including the project concept, the project location, and any subsequent change in project scope shall be jointly agreed upon by Cal- trans and the Authority and, where appropriate, by the Federal Highway Administration and/or the California Transportation Commission. D. SECTION 5(D) - TRANSIT 1. Revenues as provided for in Section 5(D)(1) are to be used for right-of-way, construction, rolling stock, operating expenses or related purposes. 2. Revenues as provided for in Section 5 (D)(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) and (6) are to be used solely to supplement existing local, state and federal revenues. 3. All revenues generated by Section 5 (B)(3) shall be placed in a separate fund and allocated by the Author- ity, to be used to improve the quality of bus service. SECTION 7. PRIVATE SECTOR FUNDING. Revenues provided from this Ordinance shall not be used to replace private developer funding which has been or will be committed for any project. PAGE TWELVE SECTION 8. BONDING AUTHORITY. Upon voter approval of the ordi- nance, the Authority shall have the authority to issue bonds pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 180200. The Authority, in allocating the annual revenues from the Ordinance, shall meet all debt service requirements prior to allocating funds for other projects. SECTION 9. ADI4IINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. Revenues may be expended by the Authority for salaries, wages, and benefits of Authority staff; however, in no case shall such expenditures exceed one percent of the annual revenues provided by the Ordinance. Costs of performing or contracting for project related work shall be paid from the revenues allocated to the appropriate purpose as set forth in Section 4 herein. An annual independent audit shall be conducted to assure that the revenues expended by the Authority under this section are necessary and reasonable in carrying out its responsibilities under the Ordinance. SECTION 10. ESTABLISHMENT OF SEPARATE ACCOUNTS. Each agency receiving funds pursuant to Section 5 shall deposit said funds in a separate Transportation Improvement Account. Interest earned on funds allocated pursuant to this Ordinance shall be expended only for those purposes for which the funds were allocated or shall be returned to the Authority. The Authority reserves the right to audit any such accounts established pursuant to Section 5 (A), (C) and (D) . SECTION 11. IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES. Upon approval of this Ordinance by the voters the Authority shall adopt implementing ordinances and rules and take such other actions as may be neces- sary and appropriate to carry out its responsibilities. SECTION 12. EFFECTIVE AND OPERATIVE DATES. This Ordinance shall become effective on only if a majority of the elec- tors voting on the Ordinance at the election held on vote to approve the Ordinance. If so approved, the provisions of this Ordinance shall become operative on SECTION 13. DESIGNATION OF FACILITIES. Each project or program in excess of $250,000 funded in whole or in part by revenues from this Ordinance shall be clearly designated during its construction PAGE THIRTEEN or implementation as being provided by revenues from the measure. SECTION 14. SEVERABILITY. If any section, part, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitu- tional, the remaining portions shall not be affected but shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 15. ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT. Article XIII (B) of the California Constitution requires the establishment of an annual appropriations limit for certain governmental entities. The maximum annual appropriations limit for the Authority has been established as $2.173 billion. The appropriations limit shall be subject to adjustment as provided by law. All expenditures of the transactions and use tax revenues imposed in Section 4 are subject to the appropriations limit of the Authority. SECTION 16. DEFINITIONS. A. Authority. Means the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission which the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has designated to act as the Los Angeles County Transporta- tion Authority pursuant to Public Utilities Code 180050. B. Commission. Means the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission created pursuant to Section 130050 of the Public Utilities Code or its successor agency. C. Local Streets. Means all purposes necessary and convenient to the maintenance, operation and construction of local streets and roads. Local street and road purposes shall include all purposes allowable under Article XIX, Section 1(a) of the State Constitution. D. Highways. Means all purposes necessary and convenient to the design, right-of-way acquisition and construction of highway facilities, including all state highway routes and any other facilities designated in the Expenditure Plan. E. System Management Improvements. Means all purposes and programs necessary and convenient to improve the operational characteristics and travel on highways and streets. F. Bicycle Facilities. Means all purposes necessary and conve- nient to the design, right-of-way acquisition, and construc- tion of facilities intended for use by bicycles. Bicycle facilities shall also mean facilities and programs which help encourage the use of bicycles such as secure bicycle parking facilities, bicycle promotion programs and bicycle safety education programs. CHANGE TO CODE CITATION Amend page fourteen, Section 16, letter "J" of the definition for Expenditure Plan to read: "...means Expenditure Plan required by Seetien-*88988 Section 180206 of the Public Utilities Code...". PAGE FOURTEEN G. Commuter Rail. Means commuter service provided on existing railroad rights of way. H. Smart Street System. Means computerized traffic signal and motorist information system designed to expedite the flow of traffic on streets and freeways that is jointly managed and operated by two or more public agencies. I. Bonds. Means indebtedness and securities of any kind or class, including but not limited to bonds, notes, revenue anticipation notes, commercial paper, and certificates of participation. J. Expenditure Plan. Means the expenditure plan required by Section 132302 of the Public Utilities Code to be included in 'the transactions and use ordinance to be approved by the Authority. The expenditure plan includes the allocation of revenues for each authorized purpose. K. Regional Mobility Plan. Means the long-range transportation plan document required by Section 65080 of the Government Code to be prepared and adopted by the designated Transpor- tation Planning Agency which is the Southern California Association of Governments. L. Air Quality Management Plan. Means the document adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District designed to meet State and Federal air quality standards. All relevant Transportation Control Measures have been incorporated into the Southern California Association of Governments' Regional Mobility Plan. M. Regional Transportation Improvement Program. Means the five- year programming document required by Section 65080 of the Government Code to be prepared annually by the Southern California Association of Governments, per the Memorandum of Understanding with the Los Angeles County Transportation Authority. 4 PAGE FIFTEEN PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Los Angeles County Transportation Authority, the day of , 1989 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Christine Reed Chairman STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) I, Neil Peterson, the Executive Director of the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of an Ordinance adopted by the Los An- geles County Transportation Authority on , 1989 at the time and by the vote stated above, which said Ordinance is on file in the Office of the Los Angeles County Transportation Commis- sion. _ DATED: Neil Peterson Executive Director GG:me Ballot/Ballot4 r AGENCY Sip FPS Q C ENTS ON FIGHT GRIDLOCK ORDINANCE COMMENTS RESPONSE RECOMMENDED CHANGE TO ORDINANCE ALHAMBRA population of: 74,888 ARCADIA population of: 49,112 CLAREMONT population of: 36,530 COMPTON population of: 93,007 • Maintenance of effort question. Is there a match for the local program? Concerns as to the distribution and allocation of funds for TSM and Transit. The proposed measure is not clear as to what agency or agencies would be eligible to receive funds, how much is estimated to be available to each agency, & what regulations would apply. Ready to adopt the Resolution. $50,000 base allocation doesn't go very far for street improvement construction. Can a local agency be given latitude to spend local funds for other purposes such as alley im- provements, construction and/or repair of sidewalks, The guidelines will establish the maintenance of effort. Nol LACTC will adopt guidelines in conjunction with local agencies and Caltrans. The County, all cities and Caltrans are eligible for these funds. It is called for in Section 11, page 12 of the draft. Arcadia will be eligible to apply for TSM funds. Thank you for the letter of support. Compton's allocation is estimated to be $1,150,272 annually. As suggested by Long Beach, we are adding the word "improving" to Section 5b to broaden the eligible uses for the local program. The city No Change No Change No Change Change section 58. AGENCY COMMENTS ON FIGHT GRIDLOCK ORDINANCE COMMENTS RESPONSE RECOMMENDED CHANGE TO ORDINANCE curbs and gutters in residential areas or for bus shelters, median construction and landscaping right-of-way acquisition and street widening? City should be given sole discretion to appor- tion their allocations among the city programs that will best serve the citizens; and, not be restricted to bureaucratic guidelines. Please elaborate on how a local agency can be permitted to trade the Commission up to (50%) of its annual allocation of local return Prop. A funds. Elaborate on minimum maintenance of effort base for local funds. Can an agency borrow against its future al- locations to pay for a project it does not have the money for? Can this revenue be budgeted for staff salaries working on projects funded by the program? What is the "Level of local discretionary funds?" is also eligible to apply for many street improvements. These transportation funds, by law, can only be spent on specifically eligible transportation expenses which are defined by law, and in the expenditure plan and guidelines. Trade procedures and maintenance of effort re- quirements will be detailed in the guidelines which will be prepared in cooperation with cities if the program is approved by the voters. The intent of the maintenance of effort is to prevent cities from substituting funds currently used to fix streets for other things. Guidelines to be developed will explain procedures. See Section B5, b. Surel It will be put in the guidelines to allow borrowing against future apportionments similar to the FAU provision. Yesi Local discretionary funds are not tied to a spe- cial discretionary project. For example, gas tax No Change No change. No Change No Change No Change No Change i i 002 • AGENCY COMMENTS ON FIGHT GRIDLOCK ORDINANCE COMMENTS RESPONSE RECOMMENDED CHANGE TO ORDINANCE CUDAHY population of: 20,685 DIAMOND BAR population of: 65,000 Why can't the revenues received be expended or saved at the discretion of a local agency for its street improvements and transportation programs through a 20 year period, instead of returning unused funds to LACTC if not ex- pended in three years? Proposed split is unsatisfactory. Not in favor unless at least 50% of the revenue is allocated for discretionary use by the local agencies. Add Pathfinder and Grand Avenue overpass widening to Route 57 of the freeway plan. What maintenance of effort base year will be used for new cities such as Diamond Bar incorporating after 1986-1987. and FAU are local discretionary while Federal Demonstration bridge funds are not. Prompt expenditure requirements retain the value of the projects delivered to the residents of Los Angeles. The guidelines will allow for flexible procedures to address individual needs, including "banking" of funds for long term projects. 30% goes to local funds, based on a study of needs, No Change (See, "On The Road To The Year 2000") Cities are eligible to apply for TSM funds which is an additional 30% of the revenue. Pathfinder overcross widening is identified in "On the Road to the Year 2000" as funded with local funds. This plan was used as a base for the expenditure plan. Both projects are eligible for TSM funds. This issue will be addressed in the program guidelines. One option is to have the City estimate a base of previous County expenditures. We understand you are a new city. The MOE re- quirement may always be appealed. No Change i i 003 AGENCY COMMENTS ON FIGHT GRIDLOCK ORDINANCE COMMENTS RESPONSE RECOMMENDED CHANGE TO ORDINANCE DOWNEY population of: 86,839 EL MONTE population of: 95,420 LAKEWOOD population of: 76,512 Using State Department of Finance Estimates of population estimates of the first year of incorporation leads to conflicts. Favor the first year swap of 100X of Prop. A funds for local street money. Would like to see the transit share of this funding reduced Ii Prop. A funds that aren't being used cur- rently, be eligible for funding the transit programs proposed in this legislation if they can't be legally used at this time. What numbers will be used for maintenance of effort requirement for local streets. (phone call) Question on use it or lose it, ways to prevent losing it. (phone call) Since the measure will not take affect until after the '90 census, and the numbers ere ad- justed annually, this will not be an ongoing problem. We recognize the problems, but De- partment of Finance population estimates are the best currently available. Unfortunately the Prop. A and 1/2 Cent Sales Tax transit programs are not interchangeable due to limits imposed in Prop. A. The 1/2 Cent Sales Tax transit program would allow funding for transit projects not specifically identified in Prop. A. Cities who are not using the Prop. A funds may trade them with other jurisdictions. (referred to Section 6B) Use it or lose it policies are designed to insure that funds are spent promptly for needed im- provements. The program guidelines will contain procedures for "banking", funds for major projects. No Change No Change No;Change No Change 004 AGENCY COMMENTS ON FIGHT GRIDLOCK ORDINANCE COMMENTS RESPONSE RECOMMENDED CHANGE TO ORDINANCE LA MIRADA population of: 42,595 Supports the plan with the following exceptions: If Orange County voters do not approve the 1/2 Cent tax on their November ballot, the existing 6% Orange County tax compared to Los Angeles, 7% would place the County cities on the County boarder at a tax disadvantage which could negatively impact consumer spending decisions in these cities; Draft expenditure plan calls for the widening of the Santa Ana Freeway by adding mixed flow and carpool lanes and a rail line. Widening should only occur in the existing right-of-way and other alternatives for improving traffic flow should receive priority consideration. Rail services should be provided along existing rail rights-of-way and existing rail lines which run parallel or in proximity to the freeway rather than on the freeway. The plan should be amended to re- flect that other options are available for reducing congestion on the'Sante Ana Freeway. Polling indicates that more than 60% of the public throughout the county feel that such a measure would have no effect on where they purchase goods including big ticket items such as cars. Car sales taxes are based on the place of registration regardless of where they purchase it. So, if someone from Orange County buys a car in La Mirada they pay 6 1/2 percent - conversly if someone from Le Mirada buys a car in Buena Park, they would pay the current 6%. No problem, We will emend Section 5C to state that improvements should be focused on solutions within existing right-of-way. No Change Amend Section 5C 005 AGENCY COMMENTS ON FIGHT GRIDLOCK ORDINANCE COMMENTS RESPONSE RECOMMENDED CHANGE TO ORDINANCE LANCASTER population of: 82,182 LONG BEACH population of: 419,819 LOS ANGELES CITY population of: 3,400,485 The Antelope Valley should be treated specially. Would like 66% of the monies generated from new sales tax to go to Antelope Valley cities to use at their discretion because Prop. A took them to the cleaners. Interested and recommended: Section 5B states that cities may use local streets funds to properly operate i maintain all public streets and traffic signals. We would suggest adding the word "improving" to this language. Modify section 5, paragraph D-1 of the ordinance so that there are provisions to amend the list of specific rail projects listed so that pro- jects could be added, deleted or substituted. This would allow more flexibility for the • kind of rail projects funded. We have incorporated the revision to ordinance to address concerns. Many new State highway projects are located in the North County including improvements to Routes 126, 138, and 14 the Routes 126, 138, and 14. Yes1 We concur and are using the wording, "IMPROVING" in the language. We concur, "COULD" is more flexible wording than shall include the following routes. Add proposed wording to Section 6A, 3 "The Authority will take into consideration the varying needs of the geographically distinct portion of the County. The Authority will consider the special needs of the jurisdictions eligible for TDA Article 8 funds. Separate TSM1I guidelines will be developed in co- operation with the affected juris- dictions. Change Section SB to add "Improving as an eligible local street expen- diture. Changed to delete reference to specific lines in Section 5D, 1. 'J U o AGENCY COMMENTS ON FIGHT GRIDLOCK ORDINANCE COMMENTS RESPONSE RECOMMENDED CHANGE TO ORDINANCE Term "commuter rail", as used in section 5, paragraph D-1 end in the ballot measure does not adequately fit some of the rail lines listed such as the Exposition Blvd. line. We sug- gest the term "Rail Transit" be used. Add to section 5, paragraph D, a number 6, "Railroad right-of-way preservation protection", so that Southern Pacific Transportation Company's re- cent rail right-of-way sale offer may be res- ponded to. Add to section 5, paragraph D, a number 7, "Circulation/Distribution rail systems" since there is no available funding for rail shuttle and people mover systems in selected and activity centers and central business districts. For the local Streets program, increase the period required to spend monies from three to five years. This would provide more time to construct those major projects that require right-of-way end environmental documentation. This would allow local agencies to have greater flexibility in types of projects that they could implement and provide a more reasonable time limit to spend Commuter Rail is our preference. Rail Transit could mean Metro or light rail. It is not the intent of this money to be used for Metro Rail. It is for public transportation purposes. We concur. No, if a project is fundable under Prop. A rail programs it is not eligible under the 1/2 Cent Sales Tex commuter rail program. No, this ordinance is designed to deliver street improvements rapidly. Three years should be a sufficient amount of time to use up an allocation. Advanced planning and project phasing should allow time for right-of-way and environmental pro- cedures. This provision will protect the public interest in obtaining the maximum value of project for each 51 paid in taxes. The LACTC No Change Clarify Section 5D, 6. No Change No Change 007 AGENCY COMMENTS ON FIGHT GRIDLOCK ORDINANCE COMMENTS RESPONSE RECOMMENDED CHANGE TO ORDINANCE these monies. LOS ANGELES COUNTY Informal Comments from County Public Works Staff population of : 994,443 County staff believes local return should be larger, at about 40-50%, because needs are greater in rural areas, so the unincorporated county would be at a disadvantage for local road improvements. The formula to be used should be based on Population and square footage of major arterials and not the total arterial square footage. MANHATTAN BEACH We support the proposed sales tax increase. currently has a similar timely use of funds policy for FAU funds, and to date, no local agency has ever lapsed any FAU funds. The highway portion of the dollars benefit the entire county not just the urbanized areas. Many new state highway projects are located in the North County. We believe that the language used in the ordinance is the most equitable for all agencies. The draft ordinance allows agencies to claim up to 60% of the revenues - 30% for local street improvements and up to 30% through the TSM program. The amount of the local return program targeted to meet the local street needs identified in "On The Road To The Year 2000". Not all cities have major streets and those that don't also have small populations. No formula is perfect and will satisfy everyone, we feel that this is the most equitable formula. The total square footage was used to calculate main- tenance needs in "On The Road To The Year 2000" and this method was accepted by the majority of the technical experts. Thank you for the letter of support. No Change No Change No Change on3 AGENCY COMMENTS ON FIGHT GRIDLOCK ORDINANCE COMMENTS RESPONSE RECOMMENDED CHANGE TO ORDINANCE population of: 35,142 MAYWOOD population of: 24,634 PALMDALE population of: Proposed split is unsatisfactory. Not in favor of sales tax Mess at least 50X of the revenue is al- located for discretionary use by the local agencies. Proposed language should be stronger to provide flexibility to the North County. CITY OF PARAMOUNT Amend the allocation method to provide local 30X of funds would go to local jurisdictions. The dollar amount for this program was set through a needs assessment in "On the Road to the Year 2000". Cities are eligible to apply for TSM funds which are an additional 30X of the revenue. With the proposed format cities would be eligible for up to 60X of the proposed revenues. We revised the ordinance to address concerns. Many new State highway projects are located in the North County including improvements to the Routes 126, 138, and 14. The intent of the sales tax ordinance is to allow No Change t i Add proposed wording to Section 6A, 3. "The Authority will take into consideration the varying needs of the geographically distinct portion of the County. The Authority will consider the special needs of the jurisdictions eligible for TDA Article 8 funds. Separate TSM guidelines wilt be developed in co- operation with the affected juris- dictions. No Change �(19 AGENCY COMMENTS ON FIGHT GRIDLOCK ORDINANCE COMMENTS RESPONSE RECOMMENDED CHANGE TO ORDINANCE population of: 44,466 governments with more than 30% of the funds, in light of the fact that local governments are responsible for much more than 30% of the roads. Recommend that all maintenance of effort requi- rements be eliminated. Recommend that the Prop. A expenditure guidelines be amended to permit the same type of expen- ditures on highways as are being proposed for your one-half cent sales tax increase. flexiblitiy. The draft ordinance allows local agencies to claim up to 60% of the revenues -30% for local street improvements and up to 30% through the TSM program. The amount dedicated for the local agencies was developed through a needs assessment in "On The Road To the Year 2000" which was supervised by engineers from throughout the County. The street maintenance shortfall identified in "On the Road to the Year 2000" shows that beyond current expenditures are required in almost all Cities. There is an Appeals procedure written into the ordinance. (Section B -5B, 1)b. states that the Commission may adjust the maintenance of effort level based on local agency appeal). SB 300 (gas tax bill) already includes similar requirements. The purpose of the maintenance of effort requirement is to assure the public of the cities, continued committment to maintenance, not to replace the current resources. Prop. A funds are for transit and 1/2 cent sales tax funds are for highways. Prop. A is not adequate for both transit and street needs. However, LACTC Prop. A/Federal Aid Urban trade allows cities with surplus transit dollars to trade for road dollars without losing revenue, while keeping funds for transit in the No Change No Change 1 0 AGENCY COMMENTS ON FIGHT GRIDLOCK ORDINANCE COMMENTS RESPONSE RECOMMENDED CHANGE TO ORDINANCE PARAMOUNT CITY HALL SANTA CLARITA population of: 115,722 SANTA MONICA While we welcome every source of infrastructure funding and certainly to do not object to a decision by the electorate, we feel that the gas tax is an appropriate, equitable funding source for highway improvements. Asked about definition of major street. No problems with the Ordinance, support it. Question concerning the use of State Department of Finance estimates of the first year of incorporation leads to conflicts. Concerned that the County share of State Highway funds is not reduced due to the potential for County. State gam tax is not sufficient to meet needs because L.A. County receives back less project for $ because L.A. County $ are used to subsidize other Counties. Current Legislative authority precludes a local gas tax. Refer to the FAU system and federal functional classification system. Thank You for your Cities support Since the measure wilt not take affect until after the '90 census, and the numbers are ad- justed annually, this will not be an ongoing problem. We recongnize.the problems, but the Department of Finance estimates are the best currently available. Actually, the County's ability to compete for highway funds will be reduced unless Los Angeles No Change No Change No change No Change AGENCY COMMENTS ON FIGHT GRIDLOCK ORDINANCE COMMENTS RESPONSE RECOMMENDED CHANGE TO ORDINANCE population of: additional revenues generated through the 96,461 proposed increase in sales tax. The enabling legislation should not be restricted to just retail but should be revised to allow for the potential taxing of services in the future. Clarification of the eligibility of a possible Exposition light rail line that the city is exploring on the abandoned Southern Pacific right-of-way between Santa Monica and Los Angeles. Since the Exposition alignment at the present time is not specifically part of this project funding from the proposed new sales tax is unclear. Not clear whether or not the new funds could be used for the implementation of transportation management programs at the local level. The funds are earmarked for systems management im- provement and specifically identify ridesharing programs and transportation management associations as eligible projects. It is also appropriate to identify the implementation of transportation management plans under this same category. WEST NOLLYWOOD Do not allocate local funds based on amount of sales tax generated by a local jurisdiction because has a local option sales tax for state highways, since many of the new state funding programs re- quire substantial amounts of matching funds. Thank you, we concur. No Change Existing is defined to mean "track" which can be an Clarify Section 5D, 7 as abandoned line. If tracks are there and could be requested. easily used for service. Section 50, 7 will be clarified to State "To protect right-of-way for future transportation purposes". Yes! They can be. Eligibility will be defined in the TSM guidelines. We concur that the formula should not be based on the amount of sates generated by a juris- No Change No Change 1 1 1 r) • AGENCY COMMENTS ON FIGHT GRIDLOCK ORDINANCE COMMENTS RESPONSE population of: 38,381 Rene Wilson it discriminates against areas of great need. Prop. A policies already cover exchanges allowed and trade of Prop. A for available FAU funds to support Commuter Computer. There should be no further variables re: Prop. A and certainly no lessening of dollars to transit/ paratransit. LACTC should not attempt to reg- ulate policy for Prop. A under the Fight Gridlock Ordinance. People voting on the 1/2 cent tax would be misled by the upfront characterization of the Ordinance even if Prop. A transit fund di- version language was included in the fine print. diction. All local share funds would be dis- tributed based on 50% population share and 50X road mileage. RECOMMENDED CHANGE TO ORDINANCE The traded Prop A. funds would still be used for No Change transit purposes so no loss of value would occur. The Prop. A funds will be protected through language in the guidelines. The intent is to have a balanced transportation system; we will not sacrifice one mode for the other. No Change • LOCAL STREET 1/2 CENT SALES TAX (30% - FIRST YEAR ESTIMATES) $ AMT. % OF COUNTY % OF CO 50% POP TOTAL AGENCY POPULATION STREETS 50% SQ Y ALLOCATION AGOURA HILLS 0.22% 0.17% 224,481 274,481 ALHAMBRA 0.87% 0.74% 907,214 957,214 ARCADIA 0.57% 0.71% 719,356 769,356 ARTESIA 0.17% 0.17% 193,939 243,939 AVALON 0.03% 0.02% 26,282 76,282 AZUSA 0.44% 0.37% 460,906 510,906 BALDWIN PARK 0.73% 0.56% 730,656 780,656 BELL 0.33% 0.21% 304,641 354,641 BELLFLOWER 0.70% 0.47% 662,852 712,852 BELL GARDENS 0.44% 0.29% 415,795 465,795 BEVERLY HILLS 0.40% 0.42% 459,817 509,817 BRADBURY 0.01% 0.02% 15,896 65,896 BURBANK 1.09% 1.11% 1,237,562 1,287,562 CARSON 1.03% 1.16% 1,238,246 1,288,246 CERRITOS 0.68% 0.70% 776,376 826,376 CLAREMONT 0.42% 0.68% 622,190 672,190 COMMERCE 0.14% 0.32% 259,124 309,124 COMPTON 1.08% 0.87% 1,100,566 1,150,566 COVINA 0.50% 0.57% 602,787 652,787 CUDAHY 0.24% 0.06% 171,282 221,282 CULVER CITY 0.47% 0.38% 483,456 533,456 DIAMOND BAR 0.72% 0.50% 688,805 738,805 DOWNEY 1.00% 1.06% 1,167,394 1,217,394 DUARTE 0.25% 0.23% 270,385 320,385 EL MONTE 1.10% 0.67% 1,000,473 1,050,473 EL SEGUNDO 0.18% 0.29% 266,467 316,467 GARDENA 0.59% 0.47% 596,475 646,475 GLENDALE 1.92% 1.51% 1,939,820 1,989,820 GLENDORA 0.54% 0.63% 664,887 714,887 HAWAIIAN GARDENS 0.14% 0.09% 130,306 180,306 HAWTHORNE 0.78% 0.42% 679,640 729,640 HERMOSA BEACH 0.23% 0.19% 235,413 285,413 HUNTINGTON PARK 0.59% 0.33% 523,863 573,863 INDUSTRY 0.00% 0.34% 193,236 243,236 INGLEWOOD 1.18% 0.88% 1,164,580 1,214,580 IRWINDALE 0.01% 0.16% 97,484 147,484 LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE 0.24% 0.26% 285,335 335,335 LA HABRA HEIGHTS 0.06% 0.18% 135,997 185,997 LAKEWOOD 0.88% 0.91% 1,013,178 1,063,178 LA MIRADA 0.49% 0.53% 576,182 626,182 AGENCY LOCAL STREET 1/2 CENT SALES TAX (30% - FIRST YEAR ESTIMATES) % OF COUNTY % OF CO POPULATION STREETS LANCASTER LA PUENTE LA VERNE LAWNDALE LOMITA LONG BEACH LOS ANGELES CITY LYNWOOD MANHATTAN BEACH MAYWOOD MONROVIA • MONTEBELLO MONTEREY PARK NORWALK PALMDALE PALOS VERDES ESTATES PARAMOUNT PASADENA PICO RIVERA POMONA RANCHO PALOS VERDES REDONDO BEACH ROLLING HILLS EST'S ROSEMEAD SAN DIMAS SAN FERNANDO SAN GABRIEL SAN MARINO SANTA CLARITA SANTA FE SPRINGS SANTA MONICA 'SIERRA MADRE SIGNAL HILL SOUTH EL MONTE SOUTH GATE SOUTH PASADENA TEMPLE CITY TORRANCE VERNON WALNUT WEST COVINA 0.95% 1.47% 0.39% 0.32% 0.35% 0.40% 0.32% 0.24% 0.23% 0.13% 4.86% 4.36% 39.33% 41.23% 0.62% 0.50% 0.41% 0.33% 0.28% 0.13% 0.39% 0.40% 0.67% 0.67% 0.75% 0.60% 1.05% 0.86% 0.53% 0.74% 0.17% 0.43% 0.51% 0.32% 1.53% 1.36% 0.66% 0.51% 1.39% 1.60% 0.53% 0.64% 0.75% 0.52% 0.09% 0.16% 0.55% 0.42% 0.38% 0.54% 0.24% 0.23% 0.40% 0.31% 0.16% 0.34% 1.34% 0.90% 0.19% 0.53% 1.12% 0.78% 0.13% 0.22% 0.09% 0.20% 0.22% 0.21% 0.92% 0.57% 0.28% 0.30% 0.37% 0.29% 1.65% 1.70% 0.00% 0.21% 0.31% 0.23% 1.09% 1.21% $ AMT. 50% POP 50% SQ Y TOTAL ALLOCATION 1,367,921 402,505 427,763 311,957 206,911 5,208,231 45,517,283 635,640 415,654 234,726 450,425 756,703 763,147 1,079,326 715,445 339,512 468,728 1,632,399 664,913 1,689,896 663,677 717,053 143,474 547,074 517,109 266,861 402,671 282,847 1,264,385 405,212 1,071,971 199,610 163,883 241,440 837,802 327,814 373,139 1,889,093 121,955 300,753 1,299,690 1,417,921 452,505 477,763 361,957 256,911 5,258,231 45,567,283 685,640 465,654 284,726 500,425 806,703 813,147 1,129,326 765,445 389,512 518,728 1,682,399 714,913 1,739,896 713,677 767,053 193,474 597,074 567,109 316,861 452,671 332,847 1,314,385 • 455,212 1,121,971 249,610 213,883 291,440 887,802 377,814 423,139 1,939,093 171,955 350,753 1,349,690 LOCAL STREET 1/2 CENT SALES TAX (30% - FIRST YEAR ESTIMATES) $ AMT. % OF COUNTY % OF CO 50% POP TOTAL AGENCY POPULATION STREETS 50% SQ Y ALLOCATION WEST HOLLYWOOD 0.44% 0.23% 378,889 428,889 WESTLAEE VILLAGE 0.09% 0.14% 132,802 182,802 WHITTIER 0.86% 0.92% 1,005,360 1,055,360 TOTAL CITIES UNICORPORATED L.A. TOTAL ALL AGENCIES 89.08% 88.07% 100,086,996 10.92% 11.93% 12,913,004 100.00% 100.00% 113,000,000 104,286,996 12,963,004 117,250,000 113,000,000 i %. v Ir. Y 3 37 36 4 4 4 31 s e '_T-111 11 iirU sA MIAM FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0001 TIME 13:49:33 FOR 10/10/89 DATE 10/05/09 s FAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN 8 AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTJON DATE INVC PROD # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP H STEVE*HARTT 00896 001-400-2101-4312 01053 540.00 10113 31349 ------ - MFALS/CHILD ABUSE -CLASS 0842834-89. POLICE /TRAVEL-EX•RENSE POST 40.00 10/04/89 . 44** VENDOR TOTAL #*#*•z•#at• **##•**•tt••n#***•tt••x••tt•>F**•u•*•tt•u###*•><*•u••u•at••naa+s*•n#***•r••nat••u •IFx**•r.K**•n**• •n* $40.00 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 001-400-1213-4180 00326 $84.842.17 31346 RETIREMENT -4400-8- 40.00 10/-04/89 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 001-400-1213-4180 00327 $59.929.15CR 31346 RKTIREt4GNT/AU^ 89 09/26/89 R TIPEM4NT /FFTIRGMEPIT• 4{9.49$ 10/I11/,9 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 001-400-1213-4180 00328 819.154.71CR 31346 RETIREMENT/AUG-89 09/26/89 RETFRE4 NT—/RET-LLiEMENT 4.000-104-04489-- H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 105-400-2601-4180 00106 5952.97 31346 RETIRFMCWT/AUG 8W 09/24/89 CT.RECT LiCNT,INC /AGTIdEMENT 4_.98 19/81/u/ H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 110-400-3301-4180 00107 4192.46 31346 PE REMENTA40G-89 09/24/89 VEH 8646 DI^8T /RETII-REMENT 11.090-1440.4489000e 10/$4/89N PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 110-400-3302-4180 00106 54,943.73 31346 H RETIREMENT/AUC 89 09/26/8 - • - - -046NT 40.00 10/01/89 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 145-400-3401-4180 00080 5143.71 31346 RET•IREMENT1A 4 8- .. - IAL A RIBE - /RETIREMENT 9 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 145-400-3402-4180 00080 552.10 31346 RET o 09/26/89 EEA /RETIREMENT 40.00 10/01/89 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 145-400-3403--4180 00029 516.40 31346 RCT-IREMENT/AUC-89 091 -26/89r -DY RE19EN-T 9 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 155-400-2102-4180 00078 $137.40 31346 RCTIRCMCNT/AUC 89 07/26 . a.A - -EMENT 40.00 10/01/89 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 160-400-3102-4180 • 00105 5806.04 31346 RETIREMENT/AUG-89 0'7/26/89 CEWER/ST—ARA-iN-- RETIREI4ENT 40.00 10/01.189 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 705-400-1209-4180 00029 $206.69 31346 RETIREMENT/AUC 89 09/24/89 LIABILITY INS /RETIREMENT 40.00 10/01/89 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 705-400-1217-4180 00029 5263.17 31346 RETIREMENT -4440-8- . -- OPKER•6 COMP /RET/REM€f4r $0.90-19/04/89 ; 1 , ____ 111 . 1 3 4 87 e b 4J 1 • 2 3 ii• 0 3 ., 5 7 n :I• (7i 8 v M 7 4 3 4 5 1 r r' r r r.. 2 3 FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0002 TIME 13:49:33 FOR 10/10/89 DATE 10/05/89 4 a 6 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT Uf-IENC DATE EXP 7 6 • *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $13,472.98 ,o " u H STATE OF CALIFORNIA 03086 001-400-2101-5403 00007 $5,395.00 10111 31347 ,. - • . - - - -, - • .. la 14 is 4404/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL ***at***************stat*****tit*****************-*gat******************* 45,395.00 16 " 18 H UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIF. 02202 001-400-2101-4312 01052 $276.00 10114 31348 TUITION/S. HARTT 09/38/89 POLICE- /TRAVEL EXPENSE POST *0.00 1 /04/89-- 19 zo 2, _ *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 4276.00 22 23 24 *** PAY CODE TOTAL****************************************************************** 419,183.98 25 26 27 R A-1 COAST RENTALS 00029 001-400-8614-4201 00050 467.05 582515 00091 31353 41SG-CHGB/SEP -89 02.54-0-------019A34/89 CIP-88-614 /CONTRACT 2ERVICE/PRIVAT 29 2• 30 *O. 00 10/05/89-- - *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 467.05 31 32 33 R A-1 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 02180 110-400-3301-4309 00021 $978.74 101302-0 08754 31354 OFC--RANEL-8/PARA4NC 302 0 09/15/89 VEH PKO DICT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 34 35 s6 *0.00 10AG5/89- *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 4978.74 37 30 39 R ADAMS PLUMBING 03067 001-300-0000-3206 01556 $52.00 85101 07578 31355 P-L,U4B-ING--PERMIT REFUND 85101 09/21/39 /PL4M4BiN6 PERMITS $0.00 10/45/89-- w a, 42 *** VENDOR TOTAL**********•********************************************************** $52.00 43 44 45 R ADVANCED ELECTRONICS 00935 001-400-2101-4201 00451 41,061.20 31531 00070 31356 RADIO-t4AINT-BSEP--89 31531 46 47 40 09/20/89 POL4CE V-I-CE/PRIYAT $0.44 10405/89-- R ADVANCED ELECTRONICS 00935 001-400-2101-4307 00190 $784.93 31262 09693 31356 INWALL--RADIO-F0UIPt4Et4T--S1 • '' '.. /RADIA-1.441-NTENAWCE 40 aO " - • E 40.00 10/05/t33---•- R ADVANCED ELECTRONICS 00935 001-400-2201-4201 00097 4265.30 I 31531 00070 31356 RADIO-MAINT-/SER--8- • - •E /CONTRACT RiliCE/DRIVAT $0. 52 33 34 00 10/0-5/89-- 85 se 1 • P r` r r r 2 3 rt3 Cl TY UF HERMUBA BEACH FINANCE-SFA340 03 TIME 13:49:33 DEMAND LIST DATE 10/05/89PAGE / FOR 10/10/89 s e PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 7 o ADVANCED ELECTRONICS 00935 110-400-3302-4307 00001 14916.50 31532/33/34 00073 31356 RAD43--MMA. N 10 " 12 • _ . .. R ADVANCED ELECTRONICS 00935 110-400-3302-4309 00599 $350.39 6783 08787 31356 RECHARGEABLE RIES 13 14 15 -BATT 6783 09/20/89 PAR 1.354-29----1-040.5/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL **********************shat*** ****** *ate`#grit*******u******** ******** $3, 378. 32 1e 17 'a R AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSN 00401 001-400-4202-4305 00419 $30.00 10008 31357 PUBLICATIONS-1PM WORKS' 09/26/89 P e . • ■ ■ • - - - 19 20 21 ---$0,-00-1-0/-04.18-9- *** VENDOR TOTAL*****************************************at•************************** $30.00 22 24 R AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOC. 03068 001-400-3103-4316 00022 $230.00 TR262 00262 31358 CnNF R ^ • . • .- •, .- • t- AITEAIAI�CCs /TRAIDIIMC 25 2O 27 40.00 10/05�t�3-- • R AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOC. 03068 001-400-6101-4316 00022 $230.00 TR263 00263 31358 • - CONF R - - •- -ARKS /TRAIMINC 29 z9 30 $0.00 10/05/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $460.00 3, 32 33 R BANK OF HEMET 00549 001-400-2101-6900 00466 $15,170.00 00038 31359 FINAL DMT/COMP G©UIP/PD 1-0/01-/89 POL4CE .LEASE PAYMENTS 94 3e 35 C0.00 10/05/89-- 1 1. *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $15,170.00 37 3e 39 R BEACH TRAVEL 00252 001-400-1101-4317 00346 $98.00 TR256 00256 31360 AIRFARE/ROSENB�ER TR - • •$0.00I• J(PEWSC 40 41 42 10/05!94 -- *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $98.00 43 44 4e R BENDER & ASSOCIATES 02118 001-400-4201-4316 00166 14179.00 07577 31361 SEM-AFG/4' 4e ., 441 49 eo a' -.CEORGIAIO 09/30/89 BUILDINC /TRAININC $0. 00 40405<89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $179.00 R BERIAN PRINTING SERVICE, INC. 02664 001-400-1207-4305 00173 $42.60 7495 07568 31362 BUS-CARDS/M—FE116KEN6 7995 8'„-oU,TL458 5s 53 54 09/07/0'? 8116 L--ICENSE .'OFF'^-.vE-.0PE� W42,-60---1-0/04429--- , 55 5e t7 4 CI- ( 0-44EERMOSA BEACH FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST 1 TIME 13:49:33 PAGE 0004 FOR 10/10/89 DATE 10/05/89 3 ° PAY VENDOR NAME • VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # s DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 7 AMOUNT UNENC Dq�'t= EXP 7 R 9 R BERIAN PRINTING SERVICE, INC. 02664 001-400-1208-4305 00671 $905.25 7583 09 2 " -----------LETTERHEAD--ENV/PAPER 7583 43 31352 !' -091-x0189 CEN -APPROP—;ORRICE-OPER-SUPRI4ES $0-00---40J05189----'' 2 •, R BERIAN PRINTING SERVICE, INC. 02664 001-400-2201-4305 00303 $170.4014 BUS-CARDS/FIRE PERSONNEL 7495 09/07/89 7495 083520.4 31362 +s FERE <D�3LE--®RSR-S61P-�LiES '6.17©,--�70 19-105-f&- ,`. R BERIAN PRINTING SERVICE, INC. 02664 001-400-4201-4305 00484 $85.20 7495 07568 31362 1lo 9 BUS_CRDSI3NSP-/SR- 2NSP 7A95 08/07,489 BUIL,DIAIG rE 17 ID 40XR naERr aPL4ES $85:-20-10/04/89--- 2'- z' R BERIAN PRINTING SERVICE, INC. 02664 001-400-4202-4305 00421 $42.60 7559 09461 31362 227 3 7551 9/15.,89 [ ..0 • . -- _ $42-40----10405 -- 24 25 *** VENDOR TOTAL****-n*at•x•*tt**u-•»•x•#•x•at•tt•*#*•»**jt-***•xchat•*•x•-u•**-q-*****tt•#at********#at•****ao-*attt•p•*+r•u 7 27 ze 7, R GAIL*DR0WN-KOEBSELL 01004 001-400-2101-4317 00131 $200.00 TR251 00251 31363 3' IJ DIEM ADVANCE g Tp7+ n/n nrn� 1 u0t IAF /CMIFsREpI - ' .. • • 17 *** VENDOR TOTAL*******ar*****u***************ah******ah*****************ah******#at at*****200.00 3. . 31 , , 3/ R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-1202-4305 00255 $49.90 09839 31364 3 RE4M8 PETTY C FILE ^PER �3 SUP" .. ., -- 4 41 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-1203-4305 00230 $12.36 02' REIMB-PETTY--CASH/SEP-89 09839 31364 e. Je 1• -A/01 -/.BB PERSONNEL- OFFICE npEi ..SUPPLIES 44 s 3+ $0.00 10/-04/89-- R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-1206-4316 00030 $23.77 09839 31364 B 45 47 • 37 --P 1010 1£39 DAC _ • • • • 9 4n 30 11 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-2101-4305 01099 $122.39 09839 31364 RE/MB-PETTY 49 SO 51 CASH/SEP-99 10/01/89 R®LT.CE J0FEICE 0pE 47 42 43 LIES $0 00 10/14/-89 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-2101-4311 00739 $4.53 09839 31364 REIMS PETTY CASH/SEP 89 10/01/89 POLICE 1AUTU 57 5i 4 , 55 44 "5 MA.INTEMAD'CE- *0.00 10/04/89 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-2101-4316 00443 $44.00 . 09839 31364 REIMB-PETTY-CASH/•SEP 5` 57 50 • 50 17 40 43 89 1,0/01/89 POLI -CE /TRAINING $0.00 10/04/89----6"' R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-3103-4309 00903 $24.99 09839 31364 pEIMn-FETTY CASH/SSP-89 10!^1/4Q CT MAINTP'AIAMrt= /J+ TAtTS AI!`G 61 62 e3 so 01 pATF•Rrpt $0. 00 10/04/ 9 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-3103-4311 00487 $12.64 09839 31364 RC 6e 65 66 e, • ,.z 53 54 -PE 10/01/89 $0 00 10/04/29 r A° 70 71, 53 36 56 71 74 75 72 ' ! ZY 4 • w 1.. r1 • • • • • • • • r • • • 0 4 .4 55 56 N•" L - FINANCE-SFA340DEMAND LIST PAGE 0005 TIME 13:49:33 FOR 10/10/89 DATE 10/05/89 PAY VENDOR NAME • VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ #{ ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-4101-4316 00157 $16.50 09839 31364 ___.______ ....._.REIMS-PETTY-CASH/aFP-..39 40/01189. PLANNING /TRAINING 0-10/04189------ -$0. 00---40/04/89----- R R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-4204-4309 01440 $8.09 09839 31364 RE-IML-RETTV CAST EP 39 10/01/89 DLDC MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 10/04/14— R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-4205-4309 00404 $14.91 09839 31364 RE4M0-PES '9 10/0-148g EGUIP - 8E. - . $0.00 110/04/89 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-4601-4308 00207 $20.52 09839 31364 RE4MB--PJs -CAS EA --3.9 10/01/09 COMM RESOURCES /PROCRAM MATERIALS 10.00 10/04/89— R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-4601-4316 00116 $15.00 09839 31364 ---•---• REIMM PETTY--CASH/SEP-89 10/011-$9 GOMM-R€SOURGES---ATRAI-NIN6 40.00-10/O4/89--- R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 105-400-2601-4311 00150 $2.20 09839 31364 - -- - - - 0/01/87 CTRECT LICHTINC /AUTO MAINTENANCE 10.00 10/04/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************•************************************************** $371.80 R BUSINESS RADIO SYSTEMS 02992 110-400-3302-5402 00020 $1,119.95 1855 08769 31365 *** VENDOR TOTAL**********•***********************************.*********************** $1,119.95 R BUSINESS SYSTEMS SUPPLY 00034 001-400-2101-4305 01098 $199.37 156297 09672 31366 I8M-NHEEL,WR-I-TEi--R4_88ONS/ 56297 09/29/89 POLICE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $199.37 10/04/89 R BUSINESS SYSTEMS SUPPLY 00034 001-400-2201-4305 00301 $99.68 155986 08354 31366 IBM-WHECLWR-I-TER---RIBBONS 55986 09/35/89 -- PInE /OFFICE OPE- - - - 0/04/89 R BUSINESS SYSTEMS SUPPLY 00034 001-400-4101-5401 00019 $706.10 155887 08633 31366 FILE CABINE3C/PLANNIWC 55887 09/25/89 PLANNING AEGQ4P LESS THAN 4508 $406.10 10/04/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL**************#*#****#**#*********#*****#***#1111*******•************ . $1,005.15 ' i R CA MUNICIPAL STATISTICS, INC. 03066 001-400-1202-4201 00179 $50.00 09247 31367 *** VENDOR TOTAL****************************************************•*******•********* $50.00 I R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 00016 001-400-3101-4303 00058 $714.75 00099 31368 WATER DILLINCS/SER-89 09/30109 T. _ T. -- 0 1 7 4 5 1a 1 10 13 70 1 31 3 0 1 3 5 Tar 410. ,• 7 4 n 3 r 4 a• 3 1 • 5 r 1 0 0 0 AIM 40 w 0 Alb 2 3 w _20 -S�N FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0006 TIME 13:49:33 FOR 10/10/89 DATE 10/05/89 6 e PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 7 0 ° w " 12 R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 00016 001-400-4204-4303 00335 $583.34 00099 31368 WATER SILLINGS/SEP 89 09/30/89 BLDG MA;WT /UTILITIES $0.00 101054.89-- R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 00016 001-400-6101-4303 00271 $4,145.91 00099 31368 WATER r - =- - 13 14 1e -BILL -LW -LW • • s - . - UTZLIT-IES $0,-00---10/05/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************** *********************** $5.444.00 16 17R 18 CELLULAR DYNAMICS COMPANY 02449 001-400-2101-4304 00437 $436.57 00810 31369 MOBIL.s-RHONE-CHGS.1AUC 89 08/31/09 POLICE /TELEPHONE 19 21 10.00 1410-9 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 5436.57 22 23 24 R CENTER FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE 02000 001-400-2101-4312 01059 $549.00 10110 31370 TUITI-0413 PGRSACEMINAR 09/26/09 - • -= ss ze 27 • • •-13104Lt1'R-- *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $549.00 28 29 ao R CERTIFIED OFFICE EQUIPMENT 00389 001-400-2201-4305 00304 $13.04 1246 00911 31371 MIS'-.C--CHGSISEP-89 3, 32 33 12-16 09/30/89 FIRE /0FFICE nPER oL3 8 $0.00 10105/89----- *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $13.04 34 35 76 • R CHAMPION CHEVROLET 00014 001-400•-2101-4311 00740 $96.62 00912 31372 MIO 8a— 37 30 39 -CHCS/SEB 0- •• •■ ENANCE 10 00 10<051E39—. *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $96.62 M 42 R TERRY*CHARLES 00957 001-400-2101-4316 00442 $393.75 09698 31373 MEALS/HOTEL4TRAFF CLASS 09/24/09 PONCE /TRAINING 3 44 4s S0-00 10/04/89- *** VENDOR TOTAL***************************.***************************************** $393.75 46 47 48 • R VIKI *COPELAND 00041 001-400-1202-4316 00270 $19,07 09244 31374 Mg4--EXP1$ =. 24-Q-9-30.8-9 49 so 51 091G0489 F-INANGE-AGNIN /TRA4N4NC 0-00 l0/45/09 1 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $19.07 52 53 ea • R THE *COPY SHOP 00022 001-400-4601-4305 00741 $117.15 09049 31375 • TEMP NO PARKIUG--SIGNS- 55 50 0912.0/09 COMM-RF..SQURCE6 DIOPP /O F, ICEER-SUPPLZ $117. 15 1$104/43$---... 421, i 7 e — 1 • l' '1 2 2 .6 4 LJY UF MERMUb'A BEACH FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0007 TIME 13:49:33 FOR 10/10/89 DATE 10/05/89 4 6 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROD # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 7 a*** 10 11 12 VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $117.15 R DAPPER TIRE £0. 01390 001-400-3103-4311 00488 $199.79 00917 31376 MISC--CHGSISGR-EV `+' E /AUTO MAINTENANCE 17 14 to $0.00 10/ 63 -949 *** VENDOR TOTAL ******** lat•*at•a!•***#•tt•***** ••gat***•n`**•p•;gat**** t+t#*•a••tt******* •it•n•*•u•**** •*•it••u•*iran $199.79 16 .17 16 R DATA SAFE 00156 001-400-1206-4201 00623 $100.25 44615 00047 31377 •' -• •' 20/89 DATA PROCEI afa ,o 1i0 21 RVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 10/05/J.;9--- *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $100.25 22 27 24 R DICTAPHONE, INC. 02855 001-400•-2101-4305 01097 $127.80 M864632 09663 31378 RECORDER -{4E a 6 27 a • ° - FS *137.80 10404f84 *** VENDOR TOTAL***********************************************************d:******** $127.80 26 9 'O R DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION 00269 001-400-2101-4201 00450 $832.20 246358290 00006 31379 GOND- 4II4T/SER--0V 58390 09/08/89 POLICE /CONTRACT-BERM-ICE/PRIVAT 01 32 33 40.00 14/05/S9 R DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION 00269 001-400-2201-4201 00096 $554.80 246358290 00006 31379 P 89 58290 09/08/89 FIRE /CONTRACT a 6 SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 10/051-89— *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,387.00 7 70 3.). R DIVERSIFIED SERVICES, INC. 02879 001-400-8614-4201 00049 $14,175.00 1032 10016 31380 RIER-RERA3R v • •- - ., 11 42 - - -• 110,400 —1-04-041-439----- *** VENDOR TOTAL************************************************************* z****•r•* $14,175.00 43 O4 ,e R DUNN-EDWARDS PAINT CO. ,00161 001-400-4202-4309 00019 $766.05 140280264 09470 31381 PAINTT/CONMUNI —ENT , • ... • • 46 47 ao _• .'-'e - . . • /-34/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL************u•******************************************************* $766.05 4 DO 51 a1 R DYNAMED 01498 001-400-2201-4309 00742 $36.41 00921 31382 Mi$6-6H09-/8E- - • . - . az D3 54 . _ _ -0/48489---, 56 50 3 7 u • rj 4 2 54 3 4 4 7 0 D FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 13:49:33 CITY OF WERM0SA DEACF4 DEMAND LIST FOR 10/10/89 PAGE 0008 DATE 10/05/89 10 11 12 13 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL **********. *•n*•x•***************************#*•n•*****•u-**************** $36.41 R EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY MIBC CI4 /SEP 89 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 3t 33 .14 35 30 37 38 3D w 41 42 43 44 4s 02840 001-400-1208-4305 00672 $452.55 00968 31383 09130/89 0E14--APRROP /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES *0.00 19/05/83 *** VENDOR TOTAL*******************tt************************************************* $452.55 • R CITY OF*EL SEGUNDO NARC-CAR-R EU7-J-9- 02783 170-400-2103-4201 00036 .$274.77 10106 31384 :RV,ICE.LPR ISIA7 *0.00 10/04/89---- *** VENDOR TOTAL**********•********************************************************** $274.77 R FAXRITE 03085 001-400-1208-4305 00670 $126.50 2657 08015 31385 G4X-M4C44. 4 PAPER 2657—. 09/20/09 GENA $ OP /QFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 30.00 10604/404/ 89-.L_ *** VENDOR TOTAL*********************************************************•*********** $126.50 R FLEXIBLE SYSTEMS PARTE-€.7R-SEWER RUDDER 11363 01207 160-400-3102-4309 00411 $142.87 09/21/09 11363 09479 31386 BEWERIST' DR 'IA AI EI4ANCE-14,4TER-Z.61.6 $442.87 10/04/89 7f R FLEXIBLE SYSTEMS 01207 160-400-3102-4309 00412 $916.97 11240 09469 31386 STEEL—SEWER-ROD - WER/ST DRAIN /MAINTENANc-4AT4<R-I-A68 *944. 97 117/04/8$ *** VENDOR TOTAL***************************=**************************************** $1. 059. 84 R RESERVE OFCR GEORGE*GARRETT 02665 MEALS-ACWFLD-ABUSS CLASS 09 001-400-2101-4312 01058 $24. 00 *** VENDOR TOTAL*****************is•******************•****•**************************** $24. 00 10101 31387 1-0/04/89- • 8 .. 46 47 45 R COLIN P.*GATES 03079 110-300-0000-3302 29774 $18.00 CITE PAYMENT -REFUND -32575 09-/38/89 **ii VENDOR TOTAL 49 50 51 5t r 53 34 55 r. :O /GAUR1-•FINES/PARKINC $18. 00 832575 09910 31388 $0.00 10/04/89-- --- R GOLDEN WEST COLLEGE —TUITION/T---TUREK 03084 001-400-2101-4312 01054 $20.00 09690 3138'.+ 09/20/89 POLICE 'Y— rR "' cXRENSE-. PO8T 16A. 96 14/04/89--- -- 17 2 �+ �• 4--Y-W0-01L-4,1141415A-BEACH FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST TIME 13:49:33 FOR 10/10/89 PAGE 0009 DATE 10/05/89 •DESCRIPTION PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # e DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 7 a *** VENDOR TOTAL *******•u**.**•n**•n******•n*******************•u***•u*****•n*0•n*****•a***** $20.00 10 " 12 R GOLDEN WEST COMMUNITY COLLEGE 01982 001-400-2101-4316 00441 $20.00 TUI-T-IGN/T. CH.'.RLES 09/35491 ROL-I * 09699 31390 • • • '189---- 13 4 15 - *** VENDOR TOTAL************************************•w** •************jt•**********•rt* ••x•* $20.00 10 10 R GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFCRS ASSOC 00059 001-400-1202-4316 00269 $25.50 PUBLICATIONS 38970 09/26/09 FINANCE ADM1N /TRAININC 38970 09245 31391 10 20 2, #** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $25. 50 *0.00 10/01489— 22 ' 4 R GREENWOOD'S UNIFORMS 00569 001-400-2201-4187 00172 $353.05 UNIFORM P• ., P2566 08326 31392 -- zs z6 n s *** VENDOR TOTAL*************•******************************************************* $353.05 - •., 20G 2 O ,'7 R GSA SUPPLY 03063 001-400-6101-5401 00002 $223.44 DR3LL/PARKS 4R455------091-28/09 PA.^K•8 c"11. U- ES8 THAN *500 69455 09482 31393 $222,-44---1-04 442 ` 31 33 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $223.44 34 o' 5 R • GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1101-4304 00242 $3.05 FAX-Z-ILLING/SER-89 -4184------09-430449 372-6186 00969 31395 37 3O 39 C444COUNCIL /TEL &4GN€ R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1121-4304 00231 $3.15 FAYI1 DTTRIP/QED EM - - . -• 372-6186 8.0.00-10/051.89--- 00969 31395 - - 40 41 42 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1131-4304 00162 $3.40 FAX -6186 09/30/89 CITY ATTORNEY /TELEP='ONE 372-6186 00969 31395 43 O4 45 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1141-4304 00246 $3.06 FAX B IL1=I • - - - - 6444- TREASURER /TELEPHONE 372-6186 $0.04-10405/84 00969 31395 46 47 41 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1201-4304 00266 $3.06 FAX-BILLIN0/-SER•-89 6484 09/30/99 CITY Mf.NACER 440NE 372-6186 89 . 00969 31395 40 5O SI -/T,L• R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1202-4304 00266 $6.68 FAX--13iL.4t40.BE - - - - - - - 372-6186 *0.00 19/05/89- 00969 31395 - 52 G3 54 r . • 9- , 11 50 56 • Gi A b2 `11 ~2° CIT.' OF-HERMOSSA BEACU FINANCE-SFA340 PAGE 0010 DEMAND LIST TIME 13:49:33 FOR 10/10/89 DATE 10/05/89 wo 6 7 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP ba ° R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1203-4304 00266 44.56 372-6186 00969 31395 FAY BIL89 -6186 09/30/89 10 13 1�ri PERSONNEL40.00 10/95489-- R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1206-4304 00183 $3.06 372-6186 00969 31395 7 FAY BILLING/SEP 89 -6184 09/_0/89 DATA PROCESSING 1 ►14 's Is -4 -TELEPHONE 41004---14/05469---- ��5fa9----- R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1207-4304 00149 43.06 372-6186 00969 31395 FAX PILLIMCISEP 89 -6164 02/30/89 SUB LICENSE b 17 19 19 /7ELERNONE 40.00 10/05/69-- R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1208-4304 00023 33.06 372-6186 00969 31395 FAX B ILLNG/SEP 89 --6184 09/30/09 CEN ARPROP o" 21 22 /ZGLERHON6 *0.00 10f05189 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-2101-4304 00434 33.06 372-6186 00969 31395 FAX-B4L4-1NG/SE-P 89 -6184 09/30/89 c^. ' *CE 623 24 25 2a 27 /TELEPHONE 40.00 10/05/$9— R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-2201-4304 00199 43.06 372-6186 00969 31395 FAX--RILL4NG./SE- •E /TELEPHONE 40. 00--10405/89_ -- R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-2401-4304 00251 33.06 372-6186 00969 31395 FAX BILLING/SER-89 28 -6184 09/30/89 ANIf4AL CONTROL /TELEPHONE 40.00 10/05/89— R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4101-4304 00268 43.06 372-6186 00969 31395 FAX-BILLINGXSEP-89 31 '32 33 6.186 09/30/89 PLANNING AXELEPWONE 40.00 10/05/89---- R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4201-4304 00262 43.06 372-6186 00969 31395 FAX-BILLINGJSEP-89 34• '3 -6486------09/30/89 BUILDING � EPHONE 40. 00 10405/89-- 36 GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4202-4304 00269 43.20 372-6186 00969 31395 f « i3ILLINGLSf 37 39 38 8-89 -6286 03f30/E'9 PUB--WKS-ADMIN--.LTF.L.E?HONE-*0 00 10105.189-.--- R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4601-4304 00309 33.06 372-6186 00969 31395 FAX-BILLING/SEP-89 40 41 42 -62 - - * - --ESAURGE8 /TELEPHONE 40. 00 10445489---- . R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-6101-4304 00172 43.06 372-6186 00969 31395 FAX-81LLING4SER-8$ 43 44 45 4464 09/34/89 BARKS /TELEPHONE 0,40---4-0405/89--- t00-4- 0405/891.-'--_44 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED '00015 110-400-3302-4304 00266 43.06 372-6186 00969 31395 rAx BILLING- 46PHO 47 40 BER -89 -6186 �}9AS0/89 PARKING-ENF /TELEPHONE 40,40----104-05/89--- 0. 00 10485/89-_-.-.47 **;1 VENDOR TOTAL *****st-r.******** a******* o-*-1tat***************iEat-tt**********rat*********** $63.82 40 70 61 52 sJ 50 55 Sr, t R GTEL 01340 001-400-2101-4304 00436 446.89 1251557 00926 31396 E/3U1P-RENTAL4SEF-89 51557 09/33469 POLICE /TELEPHONE *0.00 10405/84---1 �. -11 1 4' 4N L• r rr • 2 I'4 A FINANCE—SFA340 DEMAND LIST TIME 13:49:33 FOR 10/10/89 PAGE 0011 , DATE 10/05/89 e PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC CHK # DATE EXP 7 ° *** VENDOR TOTAL********•**********************•*****************•x•*•u****************** $46.89 , 1 Io " 12 R TIM*HALLORAN, 03078 110-300-0000-3302 29773 $18.00 ' •- - -9 /CnUBT FINES/PARKIIu0 851196 09911 $0.00 , 31397 1 LA/011/89 1 9s. 15 *** VENDOR TOTAL********************�I•*******************************R***at*at********•x• $18.00 16 17R 16 HEKIMIAN &ASSOCIATES, INC. 02541 001-400-8601-4201 00047 $665.00 7057 _ZAB01INF TANK Tgs Irma 7057 08/20/80 CIP 86-601 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PPIVAT 08893 +640.00 31398 10/04/89 to 2O 1 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $665.00 22 27 4 R DR. JANET*HENKIN 03046 001-400-2101-4316 00440 4*60.00 09687 31399 u 6 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $60.00 36 o o R HERMOSA BCH FIREFIGHTERS ASSOC 00615 001-300-0000-3904 00291 $35.00 81494/71668 REIMB—KNOX-00X44-VENUE 71468 09/20/8.9 08356 $0.00 31400 10/01/89-- 4 a 1 'z 3 /&ENERA6—NI.8GE6.LANFa0U8 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $35.00 34 nR '6 HEWLETT—PACKARD COMPANY 00149 001-400-1206-4316 00079 $1,150.00 COMPUTER— RN61MORCAN 81442 09/27/89 7PB4462 09504 31401 37 'B 3° *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,150.00 $0.00 10/01/89 40 41 42 R HOTEL DIVA 01848 001-400-1101-4317 00345 $316.35 H0-TEL—ADWR06CNSEg6ER TR256 10/04/89 CITY COUNCIL /CONFERENCE—EXPENSE TR256 00256 31402 10/05/89 43 4+ 45 *** VENDOR TOTAL****•n*************************************************************** $316.35 $0.00 46 47 40 R INTERNATIONAL CONF OF BUILDING 00667 001-400-4201-4316 00165 $85.00 SEN—REQ/-4.-0EORGINO 07576. 31403 : 49 '° 51 09/20/89 BUILDINC /TRAININC *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $85.00 $0.00 10/04/89---- 52 73 ea R INTERNATIONAL PERSONNEL 02551 001-400-1203-4315 00042 860.00 DUES/R,—BLACKWOOD 01 3•--91X 0.22/89 101233 09729 31404 55 56 -PERSONNEL AMEMB6R6HIP $0.00 1-0/04/89 .r, 4. Nur v • v r r • 0. • • i SS 1. [S cc�� o8 e. 'O$ 60/S0/0 00 JSN3dX3-53N3a3dN0O7'— 3dld 6t1/bof@-i---- -8a8lii 30MtfnUy iJ3IQ-H7H I TOT£ 8SZ00 8SZa1 00 'S8$ ZE000 LTEb--TO!l-0017-TOO 59900 8311VH DI1*331 a S! 'tEZ$****************************-********+rpt**•***********a**********aux**** 1'101 a0Ur13A *** - .--68fC0/0 - o. L. e. - : - 33 ' X08-H3tIW OTtTE t b'60 ZE6TL8 S!'17EZ$ L0000 T0IS-b0217-0017-TOO y L9I00; a3QWfl1 Q3JaV31 a c► w cr 00 'S'ET$****,**********•*•*************,**************** tit•***it•******stat********.t* 1V101 800N3A *** zr I. 0• -13 88/EO/OI 1792 3> Ff09 6017TE 69!00 69Z81 OS'!9$ LE000 •LTEb-ZZTT-0017-TOO LICOO S3I1IO VINiO4I1V3 d0 3l0V31 a '-----68, --t30'=0$ cic cc Lc 0O 0 38N3d5F3-$5fd3a-33.10-kt1-9 fs87'ZOYtTr------179Ea1 •--3-1UQilt=fiieaa- tNO3 60tTE 69200 t9Zd1 OS'Z9$ L6000 LTEb-TETT-0017-TOO LTE00 S3I1I3 VIN?O4I1V0 30 3l0V31 a . oc Sc VC 9E '0G$ ******************************************************************** 1V101 80QN3A *** --68/S0/ cc zc `c oc Oz SZ 3-99N3119MNEtW 3t -id M3i-1tAaV-1310H 80OTC 8SZ00 BSlal 9Z'OS$ EE000 LTEb-TOZZ-006-TOO L80EO 1310H VHONVW V1 a 9£'OSE$********************************************************************* 1V101 aOQN3A *** —. ZZ Sr Sr. rr cz, az 68/SO/0 05'Elt-----g VN3±N-IVW/--NIy jU' i3 9d3M33--tet9Eit lrLBEC -a3M33-8X'Vd1U dWt LOtTE EOOOI ELSEGI 9E'OSE$ tib00 60E17 -!OTE -00b -09T l9ZZ0 SMHOM 3NIH3VW 1 dWfld 1S8c}1 a 00'0S$******************************************************************** 1V101 a0QN3A *** --$8/b0tO1 'O'bl Iz o: eI B1 LI, 01 00 3Lt-t1VNt-iVWINV 90bTECC860 ZISS8 00.0S$ S9ZC0 01TE-0000-0TE-100 LLOEO i13IOIZON3l1*'W a 00 '91$ ************************************�t******************************* 1V101 UOQN3A *** —f�8/b@/0i ' el rl `I zl u, OI 00'0$ 15Qd 93N3dX3 13AVM 9JI10d -81/t0 8`Stt'Y9-d�1VM-ti9a0'3sYE31V3F1 SOOIE EOTOT00 '9I$ LSOIO Mt -TOTE -0017-100 LCIE0 V10YIVV(`*3ONV1 a34O a 00'09$******************************************************************** 1V101 80QN3A *** a, dX3 31Va ON3N(1 1NflOWV NOI1dIHOS3Q INl000V # (`Oad 3ANI 31VQ NOI1dIH3SBO # NH0 it Od d3a/ANI1Nl0WV # Nal a3OWfN iNl000V # QNA 3WVN d0QN3A AVd L • 0. 68/S0/0I 31VQ68/0T/OT a0d CC:617-Ei 3WI1 Zt00 30Vd1SI1 QNVW3Q OtCV4S-30NVNId c z - H V98-vnowm1M-0 Al IO 4. Nur v • v r r • 0. • • i r •17 •�44 �''' FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0013 TIME 13:49:33 FOR 10/10/89 DATE 10/05/89 s e •N PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNTUMBER TRN 3k AMOUNT INV/REF PO 44 CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 7 • 6 R LEE*LICKHALTER 00665 001-400-2201-4317 00034 $38.00 TR258 00258 31411 AIRFARE/-L,—L-ICKNA1 ER TR258 1.0/04/89- FIRE AGONFER E-EXPEWSE 10 11 1z $0.00 10405/84 R LEE*LICKHALTFR 00665 001-400-2201-4317 00035 810.00 TR258 00258 31411 G67NF-RE&4L,—�10KWAL4ER TR258 10/04.48.9 FIRE 4CDNFER€NCE EXPENSE 13 '15 t4 $090 1.0/05/89- *** VENDOR TOTAL ##-n********•n•********** ►•x•*****3a*x•*********** tit•***at•***p•m•at*** •**u*u••w**u $133.00 16 16 R LISTEN TO LEARN 03075 001-210-0000-2110 03262 8500.00 85261 09836 31412 DAMAGE -DEPOSIT -RE UND-85261 09•428K8Q /DEPOSIT6/WORK-GUARANTEE 2O i. $0.00 10404/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******•************************************************************** $500.00 22 `' 24 R LOS ANGELES AIR CONDITIONING 02764 001-400-8610-4201 00015 $2,236.50 9312 10017 31413 M-- COMTR-A4R-'.OND/PMT 3 9313-07-426-1-9R 4.42-88-619 /CONTRACT SERi,LI.0 /RR.P.44T 25 26 27 $0-000 1.94-04489- *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 82.236.50 2a 29 30 R MAIL BOXES ETC.. USA 03082 001-210-0000-2110 03266 8250.00 83731 01787 31414 RC-FUND-UANNER-837•2483731 99.431/89 31 32 33 /DEPAS4TS/40RA-44ARAWTEE $0.00 164055/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $250.00 34 'a 76 R • MAIN ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. 00426 001-400-3104-4309 00333 $100.27 00935 31415 M� ISCHGS/-SEP-89 Q7/30/89 37 38 36 TRA — ENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 10/05/89--- R MAIN ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. 00426 001-400-6101-4309 00757 4*122.93 00935 31415 14ISG--6Jd68iSEP 99 09/30/89 PARRS /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 10455/84--] 40 41 42 43 .16 R MAIN ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. 00426 105-400-2601-4309 00532 8340.80 00935 31415 MSC-CMGS/SEP--80 09/30/89 CTRE� 1I814Td-W6-/NA1N ENANCE-MATER-AL8 $0.00-40/05/89 .... , *** VENDOR TOTAL*************************************•a********************1t********* $564.00 46 47 illMISC-CHOSAJUL-AUG-89-- 49 aO 51 R MANHATTAN CAR WASH 01146 001-400-2101-4311 00741 859.70 00836 31416 09/18/89- POLICE /-AUTO?-MAINTENANCC $0.00 10/05/89-- *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $59.70 52 54 aa 56 a, R MANHATTAN FORD 00605 001-400-3103-4311 00489 $39.47 00937 31417 MI6C--CHCS/SEP-89 CT 44A4HTENANGE /AUTO-4A-I-NTENANCE 1-O/-05/89--- —09.420/07 $0.00 r Er` r 41 i 2 3 4 ••1 4/0 0 T 41.0 z 3 41,e FINANCE-SFA340 vDEMAND LIST PAGE 0014 TIME 13:49:33 FOR 10/10/89 DATE 10/05/89 4 e PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 7 ° 9 *** VENDOR TOTAL **************************************** --eta ************************** $39. 47 10 11 12 R ROMI*MATSUNO' 03071 110-300-0000-3302 29771 $15.00 812943 09248 31418 C-IIE-RMS-REFUND 12943 09/28/89 / PARKIN° 13$0,-00,---40/04/89- 14 le *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $15.00 10 17 18 R MERRIMAC PETROLEUM, INC. 03080 001-141-0000-1401 00058 $3.676.48 1658 09485 31419 CtSOLINEILITY YARD 1658 09/20/89 /CASOLiNE-INVENTOPY 19 to 21 $0.00 10/-04/83 *** VENDOR TOTAL***********************************;********************************* $3,676.48 22 27 24 R MOBIL OIL CREDIT CORPORATION 00388 001-400-2101-4310 00202 $61.34 883930784-3 00963 31420 1-I-6C.—CWGS4A - - - MT - zs za 27 - - • e u0 �- -.FUELS--ANTI-LUBES $0.00 10/05/89----- *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $61.34 2e 29 30 R MONARCH BROOM 00084 001-400-3103-4309 00904 $582.56 00938 31421 MISC_CHGSISEP-89 09/30/89 ST MAI 4TENANCE /MAINTENANCE 31 u 33 -MATERIALS $0.00 10/05/89-- -- -I *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $582.56 34 33 76 - MOORE BUSINESS FORMS 00423 001-400-2101-4305 01100 $474.61 54449949 08923 31422 COMPUTER-PARER/POLICE 49949------091.12/89 37 3e 39 P'01 ICE /OFFICE OPER-SUPPLIES *404r10---40/05/89--- *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $474.61 40 .z R KEVIN 13.*NORTHCRAFT 02064 001-400-1201-4317 00196 $53.77 TR253 09122 31423 rEIMR-GONE-.-MEAL: 43 44 es TR253------10402/89 CITY MANAGER-- E. /C0NFERENGSXRENSE $0--00 —10/05/09 R KEVIN B.*NORTHCRAFT 02064 001-400-1201-4317 00197 $24.75 09123 31423 MON EXP/SEPT--89 4C. 47 4e 19/02/89 CCK -MANAGER 1G ONFEREN€E- EXPENSE *8.90 —10/05/89 - *i*s* VENDOR TOTAL**i***a********•i***-*****a*********-***********-*****************i********** $78.52 49 V V s: 5:1 '14 55 54. R NORTHROP RECREATION CLUB 02846 001-210-0000-2110 03264 $100.00 82502 09834 31424 DAMAGE DEPOSIT --REFUND 02502 09/28/ — 87/DEPOSI-T-8/WORK-GUARANTEC $0.00 10/04/89- r iw r 4 2 '3 G -1 -TY OF r RM08A-BEACH FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0015 TIME 13:49:33 FOR 10/10/89 DATE 10/05/89 • S PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 7 0 10 11 12 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 5100.00 R PACIFIC BELL•TELEPHONE 00321 001-400-2101-4304 00435 5168.85 00036 31425 CDMF-WOOKUPSLSEP-•89 13 1 15 e 14,4)54$9--- *** VENDOR TOTAL******************•***•************•*********************************** 4168.85 '5 1 ' IB0 R PAGENET 02487 705-400-1210-4324 00001 5233.24 14234-C 10112 31426 RGP�J PAGER ^ ' - • - • _ - • . - - n 1110=4 G l Z41 icrTTcMENTn 19 20 21 $0. 00 10L45L8$- *** VENDOR TOTAL********************************************************************• 5233.24 24 24 2a • R PENNYSAVER 03037 001-400-1203-4201 00573 542.00 35796 09715 31427 CROSS 2e :7 -MG -GUARD -ABS 35794 09L34L89 PERSONNEL /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 493.00 19fG5189 — *** VENDOR TOTAL***a•*************•x***************•*********•*:r*************•r******** 542.00 :0 Z9 3° R PMW ASSOCIATES 01183 001-400-2101-4312 01061 5350.00 09629 31428 TUI-14E-0N/BST--KE 311 32 33 RIN 10/• • - : - • . PEN6E-,-ro^e; 40. 00 10f05f84-- *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 5350.00 34 35 3a R • PROJECT TOUCH 03081 140-400-4702-4201 00002 4275.00 08645 31429 f E4MB-EXR/AUG—d9 37 38 3a ao 01 42 09/19/89 -PUBLIC SVC POGG--LCQNTR1CT CERVICE/PRIVAT $G -GO 10/05189— R PROJECT TOUCH 03081 140-400-4702-4201 00003 5625.00 08644 31429 R IME-EXP-LJUL 89 09/19/89 PUBLIC c'��OC /CONTRACT CERVICE/PRIVAT *0.00 10/05/89-- 0/05/89---41 *** VENDOR TOTAL*******************************************************************•* 5900.00 43 04 45 - R READICARE MEDICAL GROUP -LAX _02390 001-400-1203-4320 00272 5469.00 94-28508 09723 31430 PRE-EMP-PHYSICALSIAUG-89 07 40 44 51 5. 1.3 54 55 50 28508 09/12/89 PERSONNEL /PRE-EMPLOYMENT EXAMS 0. 00 1-0/05/89 — *** VENDOR TOTAL ***'.*************************************************it************** 4469.00 R tR1CH GRAPHICS 00224 001-400-4601-4305 00742 41,900.00 2203 09040 31431 FALL-REC-PROG—PRIN NG 3203 09-(3'89 G0MM-RE66URCE6 /OrFIICCE-OPER S � 72.900.00 10/05/89 --- 3 1. 7 0 1.. 1, 1 l' r r h r' 3 w FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST -‘4 PAGE 0016 TIME 13:49:33 FOR 10/10/89 DATE 10/05/89 e 6 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROD # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 7 ° 9 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************tt* $1,900.00 ,0 12 R ED*RUZAK & ASSOCIATES 01578 001-400-3104•-4201 00035 $162.50 89347 10009 31432 HOTEL SS-I-TE-REU-IE4/AU0-8$ 29347 49/ TRA ITRACT 13 1O is -/. ,9 AFETV / S.RVICE/PRIVAT $0 --- 00 10/04/89- R ED*RUZAK & ASSOCIATES 01578 001-400-3104•-4201 00036 $300.00 89346 09498 31432 TPOF= FT -• . - . - . • - - .... .. RVICFa/PRIVAT ,6 ,7 16 $0.00 10/94/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL ************************************* -r**** -******n****************** $462.50 19 c0 31 R SUSAN*SAXE-CLIFFORD, PH D 00839 001-400-1203-4320 00271 $187.50 9-0906-6 09725 31433 PS5ACH-EVALf8-28-89 906-6 00/28 PERSONNEL zz 23 24 -ASP /PRE-ENPLO4MENT EXAMS $0.00 10/01/89 R SUSAN*SAXE-CLIFFORD,PH D 00839 705-400-1217-4182 00115 $862.50 9-0925-3 09728 31433 PSYCHEVAL-/8-31-89 9-.5 3 09/25/89 WORKERQ-COMP /WORKERS 25 26 27 -COMP -CURRENT VR 40,00---40/04/89-- *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1.050.00 28 29 30 R ALBERT*SCHUMACHER 03073 001-210-0000•-2110 03260 $50.00 72382 09831 31434 /NINAL--TRAP-REFUND 31 32 .3 72302 09-120/89 1DEP063--61WORK-GUARANTEE $0.00 10/04/89— *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $50.00 34 ;,5 >a R SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT 00151 001-202-0000-2020 00964 $26.30 20093 00035 31435 BC3UKING/MAINT--FEES/MAY89-2009309/20/8!7 37 '0 39 /-AGGOUNTS-PAYABLE—$0.00----10/05/89- *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $26.30 40 41 42 R SINCLAIR PAINT CO. 01399 001-400-4204-4309 01441 $219.87 00946 31436 MSC CHCS/SEP-89 43 44 45 09-/30/89 DLDG MAIM/MAINTENANCE-MATER-ALS $0--00-10/05/89--- *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $219.87 46 47 ao R SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY 00114 001-400-2101-4306 00700 $96.39 00947 31437 mIhC CHGS/SEP 89 09/3018? 49 �' POLICE /PRISONER-MA-INT-ENANCC $0.00 -40/05/89 - R (SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY 00114 001-400-2201-4309 00743 $20.71 00947 31437 1 MISC-CHCS/SER-89 °' 33 fit 53 6n i/ O^/ -3A189 CIRC—fMAINTENANGE-MATER4AL6 *G-00-10/05/89-- - I `l: . • r i r• r ii C±i Y UV 1ILfNWSA-$EACH FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0017 TIME 13:49:33 FOR 10/10/89 DATE 10/05/89 4 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 7 6 6 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $117.10 10 1 12 R SO CAL TRANItG CENTER FOR 03069 001-400-2101-4312 01060 $30.00 10102 31438 TU4440N/C. CADRETT 09AR-5489 P0646E /TRAVEL 13 1O*** EXPENSE-,-POGT $0.00 10f -05f89- VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $30.00 I6 117 16 R SOUTH BAY FIRE EXTINGUISHER 00113 001-400-2101-4309 00235 $29.82 00948 31439 MI8G—CHGS/SEP 89' 09/30-A89 R06.1 19 20 L1 -GE /MAI-NTENANGE-MATERIALS $0.00 18/95/89--- *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** *29.82 22 3 24 R SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL COURT 00118 110-300-0000-3302 29772 $16,164.00 09249 31440 CIT€£URCHARG6/SEPT. 89 10/02/09 25 28 27 /COURT FINE&/PARKINC $0.00 10/-04/89-- *** VENDOR TOTAL**************************************************•****************** $16,164.00 6 O 30 R SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL COURT 00400 110-300-0000-3302 29775 $92.00 09912 31441 CI1-CQUR4-BAXL 09/28189 0� 4 „ .32 33 f6Ok1R�-F Ii�IEB�PARl41NG +6A-w—:8f84f$9-- 1 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $92.00 34 35 s R • SOUTH BAY WELDERS 00018 001-400-3104-5401 00003 $491.87 3353 09472 31442 WELDING-OUTF-I 37 3e 30 53 09/07/89 TRAFFIC £AFET-V—i«'»:�T'T>.PMEJ'J E- ' - 0f04/89---. *** VENDOR TOTAL******************aE************************************************* *491.87 40 41 ez R SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. 00171 150-400-8102-4201 00037 8239.36 09486 31443 43 a 45 -RISER_FEES/FFIGMLAND-35TH 09/06/84 64P-85-402 -/CONTRACT-SERVIGE-/P1lIVAT $239,-a6---40/04489-- *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $239.36 46 17 .e 40 30 51 R SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO. ' 00170 001-400-4204-4303 00336 $321.71 00853 31444 6AS-&ILLINGSLSEP-89 04/30/89 BL-DG-MA-INT--/UTILITIE 'It e . 0/05/89 --_ *** VEND& TOTAL******************************************************************** $321.71 52 57 as R STATE OF CALIFORNIA 00364 001-400-2101-4251 00283 $37.00 873141 00023 31445 FINCERPR-INT-APRf3/-JUl.-89 233-03-09L34i/..89 66 66 X17 { CE /60NTRAGT-BER4-ICE/COVT *0.00 10/04-/89- 3 4 7 1 -1' 11 14 1p 11. 7 1. lb 4 — .i-►-4-1.lr—+./trcwu—1sft#iw9r - 2 FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0018 3 TIME 13:49:33 FOR 10/10/89 DATE 10/05/89 4 ° PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # ° DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 7 ° *** VENDOR TOTAL *•*•CHs•**********************•****aria•*•**••t*********•*********************** $37.00 6 w 11 R TODD PIPE & SUPPLY 00124 001-400-6101-4309 00758 $265.19 00957 31446 u MISC-6HGSJSER-89 09/-39,/89 IF�G' MATGCTAI 13 PARKS ANAINTEWANGE-. „18 $0-00--10/05/89 14 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $265.19 15 16 17 16 R J. E.*TOMMEY 03072 001-210-0000-2110 03259 $50.00 85518 09832 31447 ANIMAL -TRAP -REFUND -------8504-8------09428/89 /DEP08446/WOR ' 'T • ' 24/89 — ID 20 21 R J. E.*TUMMEY 03072 705-400-1209-4316 00017 $30.00 09730 31447 :,EM REO/R-- 0,/ BLACKWOOD 102.107-LTAB3-444-I;;S /TRAININO $0. 00 10/04/89- ,2 -- 23 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $80.00 24 25 26 27 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE 00123 001-400-3103-4309 00902 $73.01 28005 09456 31448 SHOVELS— 28GO-5 09A1-9/89 CT 10404/89 MAINTENANCE /MAINTENANCE -MATERIALS $73.01 20 2° 30 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE 00123 001-400-6101-4309 00755 $421.21 28004 09460 31448 TRASH 30001 PARKS -CONTAINERS 0944-9489 /MAINTENANCE--MATER-C $424--21 10/04/89-- 31 72 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE 00123 001-400-6101-4309 00756 $73.02 28005 09456 31448 33 SHOVELS 28005 09/19/G9 PARKS LMAiNTENANEE-MATERIALS 8.73.02 10/04/89--- -- 3e 35 36 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE 00123 160-400-3102-4309 00413 $73.02 28005 09456 31448 SHOVELS 28003 09-/-19/89 CEWERd21 DRAIN—/4IAINTENANCE MATER $73:42-10/04/89. -IAL -S— — _ 37 35 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 8640.26 36 40 41 R OFCR TIMOTHY R.*TUREK 01830 001-400-2101-4312 01056 8393.75 09691 31449 42 *4 ALS/HOTEL-/TRAFF-GLASS 09/49/89 P064 /TRAVEL $000 - 43 -GE -EXPENSE -,-POST- --40/04/89- • 44 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $393.75 45 46 47 eu R TYPEWRITER CITY 03062 001-400-2101-5402 00044 4*2.343.00 L67686 09686 31450 i WHEELWRITERS/PD: 1..768609/-22/89• f'01:4CC /EQUIP—MORE—THAN-4500 $27343,-00---40/04/89- - -:{-— 1.1.1 49 o *** VENDOR TOTAL************•x•******************************************************* . $2.343.00 ,1 5: 53 R UNIFORCE CORPORATION 01720 001-400-1206-4201 00624 8980.50 890809 00074 31451 54 DATA $0.00 10/05/89 -- ----- — COMP MAINT/OCT-DEC-84- 0009 09/30/84— -PROCESSING-/GONTRAGT-SERVIGE/PRI-VA; 51 56 r n 410, 414 "1 I '1 4- = i14 •° ;;- 0-etMNUsn REACT FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0019 TIME 13:49:33 FOR 10/10/89 DATE 10/05/89 4 ° PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 7 *** VENDOR TOTAL **************•gat******•************************************•nor******** $988.50 10 2 R MOHAMMED*URSANI 03076 001-210-0000-2110 03263 3100.00 85253 09835 31452 DAMi10Se-DEPOSIT-REFUND 85352 09.'28L89 13 ID $0.00 10/04.89— *** VENDDR TOTAL***************•*****•xp•*#*********u**•JF******it•it#•�t*********it*�t***#•u•1F*9r* $1100.00 1° 17 10 R MARY LU*WADDELL 03074 001-210-0000--2110 03261 350.00 82550 09837 31453 ANIMAL-CRAP-REFUND82530 09/28/89 /DEPOSITS/WORK 19 ' 1 CUARANTEE $0-00 10104/89- *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $50.00 22 ' 4 R SALLY A. *WHITE 00140 001-400-4102-4201 00225 3221.00 08647 31454 SEG-SERV/4-44-89 -89 09/37/89 P6AWN� 22. 7 TRAGI-SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 10/05/89--- *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $221.00 20 -' 30 R CHARLES*WILHITE 02955 001-400-2101-4312 01055 $40.00 09676 31455 MEA6ot8ASIG-REGOR-DS 09/29/89 POLICE NR6VE.-EXPENSE 31 32 33 . POST SO.00 10/84/89- *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $40.00 34 3' 36 JUNE*WILLIAMS 01507 001-400-1101-4317 00342 3161.00 TR268 00268 31456 SISTER C-ICU•-LODCINC TR3-- • ENCE r c 37 3tl JO • - - 0n i IL /CONGER�..o�XPEN6�, $0-o4—#A>44t84--- R JUNE*WJLLIAMS 01507 001-400-1101-4317 00343 3192.00 TR268 00268 31456 SISTER CITY AIRFARE TR268 10/03.8-9 - - 40 41 42 0/09/89 R JUNE*WILLIAMS 01507 001-400-1101-4317 00344 830.00 1R268 00268 31456 SISTER--C&TY-PEC & FEES a3 44 45 TR268 10/03/89 CITY COUNG-I-L /CONFERENGE-EXPENSE $0,-0010/04489 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $383.00 46 07 48 49 W 51 R WRAY PRINTING 00132 001-400-4202-4305 00420 3747.63 4305 09478 31457 f RJNT'-SERV-/PUB---WORAC •8FF ^PER-8UPPEICC 1305 09/29/89 PIIS-WKS-AHA31N 0r $747.63 10404/89-- *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************#************* $747.63 1 e: e7 �� R XEROX CORPORATION 00135 001-400-1208-4201 00586 854.42 22059962 00864 31458 EXCESS--METER-USE/AUG-89-19962 56 09/�F0'7 OCPI AIPROP /CONTRAGT-SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.63 10/05/139 4 w 1 '4 17 a Il T re n 0, T = 3 FINANCE-SFA34O DEMAND LISTvv^ �c^VPAGE 0020 TIME 13:49:33 FOR 10/10/89 DATE 10/05/89 • 6 6 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN Si AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 7 6 6 to I 11 12 R XEROX CORPORATION 00135 001-400-2201-4305 00302 *298.20 139272776 08355 31458 COPIER-4NK-f-FIRS-DEPT o �� 1D�1 •rc n 72776 0942 89 FARE /OFFICE OP€R-moo *298. 20 10A04/-8- O?O4, 8' *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************* *352.62 13 ,• 15 R ZUMAR INDUSTRIES 01206 001-400-3104-5499 00019 *3,526.74 11606 09465 31459 NO PARKINC CICNC 11606 09/27/09 TfArrIC CAf 10 17 ETY /NDN CAPITALIZCD ACCETO $3,C;26.75 18/O4/89-- *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** *3,526.74 10 20 21 *** PAY CODE TOTAL****************************************************************** *96,488.63 22 23 24 *** TOTAL WARRANTS****************************************************************** *115,672.61 25 26 27 ' 28 29 30 1 HtRtbY CERTIFY THAT THE DEMANDS OR CLAIMS COVERED BY al 32 34 335 36 1 HE -WARRANTS -EIS' to uN macs -1- . NCEDSIVE OF, INE i..— WARRANT REGISTER FOR EACOURATE AND FUNDS E AVAILABLE FOR PAYMENT THEREOF: • BY FINANCE ADMINISTIATOR wu.V- /0/5/4 37 36 30 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 40 40 50 51 I . 52 53 54 55 56 OIL oft • 1.^ 1! 1;. A October .5, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the City Council of October 10, 1989 TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Responsible Agent October 24, 1989 Presentation of fire flow consultant's report Public Safety Director Review of Special Event Policy Community Resources Dir. Recommendation on organization of General Services and Code Enforce- ment function City Manager - Ordinance permitting recyclers in City Building Director Recommendation to prepare Compre- hensive Annual Financial Report Finance Director Trash Enclosures Downtown,- ---- CIP -89-148 Public Works Director Approval of modification to L. A. County Lifeguard bldg. to house emergency "911" equipment RFP for cost allocation plan Sewer bond analysis General Services Public information program Employer/Employee Organization Relations Resolution Info. update of Parks and Rec. Master Plan Building Director Finance Director Public Works Director General Services Director Personnel Director Community Resources Recommendatin re. upgrading vs. installing a new system, Community Center fire alarm system CIP 89-615 Public Works Director November 14, 1989 Appointment of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem City Clerk - 1 - 1c Committee appointments requiring Mayor as delegate Entry Signs Award design contract for basket- ball courts, CIP 89-512 Adoption of Uniform Fire, Building and Plumbing Codes. Fire Sprinkler Ordinance Slurry sealing, call CIP 89-170 November 28, 1989 for bids Canvass of votes and installation of officers Fireworks ordinance CIP 88-406 Call for Bids - Target Area 4 Circulation element December 9, 1989 Goal setting session December 12, 1989 Certification of oil drilling Sewers EIR Conditional Use Permit and Text amendment January 9, 1989 Highland Avenue - accept as complete CIP 85-102 City Clerk Community Resources Public Works Director Public Safety/Building Public Safety Director Public Works Director Public Safety Director Public Works Director Planning Director City Manager Planning Director Planning Director Public Works Director ***************************************************************** Upcoming Items Not Yet Calendared Unreinforced masonry building hazard mitigation program Caltrans utility maintenance agrmt. Power Street drainage and grading Building Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Traffic code update Vehicle parking on pedestrian streets Approval of County -wide Hazardous Waste Plan Definition of hardship for fee waiver Historic Preservation Ordinance (with Land Use Element) Value of open space for Park Dedication in lieu fee New marquee proposal Public Works Director Public Works Director Building Director Planning Director Planning Director Building Director Community Resources ********************************************i***A**************** Initiated by Party Date Council 8/8 Status of donated fire truck u 11 Analysis of Vasek Polak complaints by Michael_Pitton 8/22 Bus bench & shelter design & locations Sidewalks for Safe School Rte. Recom. 9/12 Setting of joint meeting w/Planning Commission 9/12 Report on results of 6th St. storm drain cleaning 3 Public Safety Director Building Director. Public Works Director Public Works Director City Manager Public Works Director Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council October 3, 1989 City Council Meeting of October 10, 1989 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT OF INACTIVE PUBLIC DEPOSITS FOR HERMOSA BEACH Attached is a report of all Inactive Public Deposits for the month of September 1989. Respectfully submitted, Z?2Je/ dVerCi Gary Bru sch City Tr asurer NOTED: 0/4 even Northcraft City Manager ld INSTITUTION INVESTMENT REPORT - SEPTEMBER 1989 TOTAL DATE OF INVESTMENT DATE OF MATURITY INTEREST LAIF BALANCE 9/01/89 $3,830,;000.00. Investment 500,000.00 9/22/89 Withdrawal (1,645,000.00) ,, 9/26/89 Investment 200,000.00 9/28/89 i. Balance 9/30/89 $2,760,000.00 8.833% LACPIF BALANCE 9/1/89 $ -0- Investment 1,644,363.76 9/26/89 Balance 9/30/89 1,644,363.76, 10.06% SEATTLE 1ST NATL. BANK TRUST U.S. Treasury Note 24,634.28 9/27/89 3/1/90 7.8% U.S. Treasury Note 500,000.00 9/27/89 8/15/94 8.3% U.S. Treasury Note 4,351,928.77 9/27/89 12/21/89 7.036% CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT: Union Federal S&i Investment $ 500,000.00 3/7/89 3/7/90 Community Bank Investment $ 500,000.00 12/8/88 12/8/89 9.50% 9.00% City National Bank Investment City National Bank Investment City National Bank Investment $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00. 3/30/89 3/23/90 4/25/89 4/25/90 5/22/8.9 5/17/90 CORPORATE NOTES: Ford Motor Credit Co. Investment $ 500,000.00 5/19/88 5/20/93 Merrill Lynch & Co. Investment $ 500,000.00 6/30/88 1/2/90 Summit Bancorporation Investment $ 500,000.00 9/15/88 10/16/89 10.30% 10.00% 9.45% 9.10% 8.35% 8.90% U.S. TREASURY NOTE: Investment $ 500,937.94 2/22/89 1/31/91 9.20% Investment $ 505,551.17 3/13/89 3/31/90 9.45% Investment $ 506,721.33 3/21/89 3/31/90 9.61% FHLMC: Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. Investment $ 248,733.64 TOTAL BALANCE $15,042,870.89 Respectfully Submitted, C14, Gary" Brutoh City Treasurer 3/26/87 3/1/17 8.0% Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council SUBJECT: RENEWAL OF WAVE CONTRACT October 3, 1989 Regular Meeting of October 10, 1989 Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached agreement, for the term 11/01/89 to 06/30/93 in order to continue the Dial -A -Ride service between Redondo Beach and Hermosa Beach. Background The Dial -A -Ride service, known as the WAVE, is a shared -ride service available to the general public. This service has been operated by Redondo Beach and Hermosa Beach as a joint venture system since February 1987. Analysis The projected cost for the Dial -A -Ride service for FY 89-90 is $74,619.00, which is $2,756.60 less than the services for FY 88-89. Total ridership for FY 88-89 for the total system was 68,446 and the city staff expects ridership to continue to increase while the costs of providing the service decreases. C0NCIj7, Michae c u•ach Planning Director 'Kevin Northcr ft City Manager plandoc/pcsrWAVE / 1/(41, `"1/. Andrea N. Anderson Planning Aide l�c.l����t.•-J lf AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of October, 1989, by and between the City of Redondo Beach, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as REDONDO BEACH and the City of Hermosa Beach, a municipal corporation, herein after referred to as HERMOSA BEACH. WITNESSETH RECITALS: 1. REDONDO BEACH and HERMOSA BEACH have operated the Redondo and Hermosa Beach Dial -A -Ride system (hereinafter referred to as WAVE SYSTEM) since February 1987; and 2. HERMOSA BEACH desires to provide its proportionate share of the net cost based on the relative population of the City; and 3. REDONDO BEACH desires to contract for, administer and oversee the WAVE SYSTEM and provide its proportionate share of the net cost based on the relative population of the City; and 4. The Cities acknowledge that the continuous operation of the WAVE SYSTEM is contingent upon the continued receipt by both Cities of grants and allocations from the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, REDONDO BEACH and HERMOSA BEACH agree as follows: I PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to assist in clarifying the roles, responsibilities, and financial participation between 1 REDONDO BEACH and HERMOSA BEACH. The WAVE SYSTEM was approved by REDONDO BEACH on July 8, 1986, and approved by Hermosa Beach on June 24, 1986. Exhibit A defines the service area and satellite points to be served. TERM The term of this Agreement shall be from November 1, 1989, to June 30, 1993, inclusive. III ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT ROLLS A. The parties agree that the City of Redondo Beach shall perform and/or administer as follows: 1. Provide a Program Manager to administer, monitor, and evaluate the WAVE service. 2. Contract with service provider for the operation of the WAVE SYSTEM. 3. Have full authority to monitor and enforce all provisions of the WAVE SYSTEM Service Contract. 4. Sell tickets and issue vouchers. Redondo Beach shall also identify and verify all eligible elderly and handicapped Redondo Beach residents. 5. REDONDO BEACH's Project Manager shall meet monthly with designated representatives from HERMOSA BEACH. to review the status and quality of service provided, invoices received from the service contractor, and all expenses incurred in the administration, operations, monitoring, and evaluation of the WAVE SYSTEM. 6. Annually prepare and submit an application for Subregional Incentive funds. 7. Submit to the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission the necessary Proposition A project descriptions as required. 8. Be responsible for distributing WAVE marketing materials to its residents. 9. Provide and use the uniform tickets, the elderly and the handicapped registration forms, brochures and information cards which are to be specifically designed for the WAVE SYSTEM. 10. Design and produce or cause the production of marketing materials i.e., tickets registration forms brochures and information cards for the WAVE system. 11. Submit quarterly reports to the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission as required under the Subregional Incentive Program. 12. Review and evaluate the performance of the WAVE SYSTEM quarterly with HERMOSA BEACH designated representatives. 13. Have full authority to make necessary service changes to the WAVE SYSTEM that do not result in an increase in service cost. REDONDO BEACH shall consult with HERMOSA BEACH prior to implementing service changes and adjustments. 14. Provide HERMOSA BEACH with a complete report of trips originating in Hermosa Beach. The form and detail of the monthly report shall be mutually agreed upon by REDONDO BEACH and HERMOSA BEACH consistent with Service Contract reporting systems. B. HERMOSA BEACH The parties agree that the City of Hermosa Beach shall perform and/or administer as follows: 3 1. Designate a staff person to be the HERMOSA BEACH Transit Coordinator. The Transit Coordinator shall assist REDONDO BEACH in reviewing all aspects of the WAVE SYSTEM. 2. Sell tickets and issue vouchers. HERMOSA BEACH will also identify and verify all eligible elderly and handicapped HERMOSA BEACH residents. 3. HERMOSA BEACH's Transit Coordinator shall meet monthly with REDONDO BEACH to review the monthly information provided by the REDONDO BEACH Project Manager. 4. Submit to the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission the necessary Proposition A project descriptions as required. 5. Annually adopt a resolution supporting REDONDO BEACH's application for Proposition A Subregional Incentive funds. 6. Be responsible for distributing the WAVE marketing materials to its residents. 7. Provide and use the uniform tickets, the elderly and the handicapped registration forms, brochures and information cards which are to be specifically designed for the WAVE SYSTEM. 8. Shall attend WAVE management meetings with Contractor at sole descretion of HERMOSA BEACH. IV CALCULATING PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF PROGRAM COST The parties agree that each City's proportionate share of the cost shall be based upon population as identified by the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission. The formula for determining the proportionate share based on population is the population of the respective City divided by the combined total 4 population of both cities. The parties further agree that for purposes of this agreement the FY 1990 population for REDONDO BEACH is 64,720; and HERMOSA BEACH is 19,764. V PAYMENT FOR SERVICES REDONDO BEACH shall invoice HERMOSA BEACH for all sums due under this Agreement. Said invoice shall contain the following: o service contract costs; o REDONDO BEACH'S administrative costs; o dispatch center office lease; o marketing costs; o other direct applicable costs; o farebox recovery; o the Subregional incentive grant amount; and o proportionate share of cost due for both cities. HERMOSA BEACH shall pay within thirty (30) days of receipt of said invoice. The City of Hermosa Beach and the City of Redondo Beach shall each pay a proportionate share of costs for: 1. service provider; 2. REDONDO BEACH'S administrative costs; 3. dispatch office lease; and 4. marketing; which includes design and production of marketing materials. Subregional Incentive grant funds and farebox revenues received by REDONDO BEACH shall be credited to the total system costs prior to calculating the proportionate percentages for each City. 5 VI INDEMNIFICATION A. REDONDO BEACH agrees to indemnify and hold HERMOSA BEACH harmless from and against all losses, damages, actions, and expenses (including attorney's fees) on account of bodily injury to, or death of any person to, or loss of use of property incident to, or arising from actions of REDONDO BEACH under the terms of this Agreement. B. HERMOSA BEACH agrees to indemnify and hold REDONDO BEACH harmless from and against all losses, damages, actions, and expenses (including attorney's fees) on account of bodily injury to, or death of any person to, or loss of property incident to, or arising from actions of HERMOSA BEACH under the terms of this Agreement. VII NOTICES A. Written notices to REDONDO BEACH shall be given by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, and addressed to: City of Redondo Beach Tim Casey Office of the City Manager 415 Diamond Street Redondo Beach, CA 90277 with duplicate notice to Cara Rice, Transit Manager. B. Written notices to HERMOSA BEACH shall be registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, City of Hermosa Beach Kevin Northcraft Office of the City Manager 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 with duplicate notice to Michael Schubach, Planning Director. and given by addressed 6 to: VIII AUDIT HERMOSA BEACH shall have the right to review, audit, and inspect the books, records, invoices, and other written documentation related to the WAVE SYSTEM during normal business hours at REDONDO BEACH. IX CONTRACT TERMINATION FOR FAILURE OF CONTINGENCY In the event the two cities do not receive transportation subsidies from the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission this agreement can be terminated upon a 60 day written notice. X ENTIRE AGREEMENT AND AMENDMENTS This Agreement may be amended upon the approval in writing of both parties and executed by the appropriate authorities of each party here to. This Agreement integrates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein and incidental hereto and supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements. /////////////// / / / / / / / / / / 7 r IN WITNESS THEREOF, the City of Redondo Beach and the City of Hermosa Beach hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective officers and shall be effective as of the date first above written. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BY: BY: MAYOR CITY CLERK CITY CLERK CITY OF REDONDO BEACH BY: MAYOR BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: CITY ATTORNEY CITY ATTORNEY BY: Date Council Adopted: Date Council Adopted: HB/RBWAVECON89-93 8 October 3, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council RECOMMENDATION City Council Meeting of October 10, 1989 LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SOUTH BAY CENTER FOR COUNSELING AND CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH It is recommended by the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission that the City Council approve the attached lease agreement between the City and the South Bay Center for Counseling. BACKGROUND The South Bay Center for Counseling has requested space in the Community Center to provide a referral service for families in the Hermosa, Redondo and Manhattan Beach cities. Their goal is to locate families with very young children up to six years of age and refer them to counseling, day care and medical services. They have received a three year grant from the South Bay Hospital District. ANALYSIS The attached lease agreement will provide space in the Community Center (room 9) and a centrally located office for convenient access to their clientele. The lease rate adheres to the present square foot lease rate policy. The lease rate is up for review by the Commission in January as the present policy extends only to June 30, 1990. The remainder of the lease, beyond June, 1990, will conform to the new lease rate policy to be approved by the Commission and the City Council. This organization will occupy the room recently vacated by the Free Clinic's Teen Advocate program. Concur: an, Director esources Kevin B. North raft City Manager Respectfully submltted, Martha Ernst Administrative Aide Dept. of Community Resources Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator 1i Ss V1/4:6 -Ad L tZ a. rte{ (- f Cu-k-4u.tivier er �tk-t-z, aEft, � 1 '�- -�`�- . v C L tki. (ferIMASOv) grobov,A0 , G.. td7 ' l tu, ci T —e G 0--y �bti 6 -(at-k.k_, 4.6 0_ c-"-vek C 6-Y1 V1,‘4 t G C. nil Ate'- ,-V CL_ t> „ 0 (1-'1- ClitY ti CL4,74- L_) -4C V "•-.0 Jev t -c hc= i -t S`E1 Ips'. ! `c c t€•/- 2-Q-(7 z 111,16,--v,6 , t ea -c G� $ HERMOSA BEACH COMMUNITY CENTER LEASE AGREEMENT This Leasing Agreement is made and entered into on this, the 10th day of October , 1989 , by and between the City of Hermosa Beach, a Municipal Corporation (City) and South Bay Center for Counseling(Lessee). A. RECITALS: 1. The City is the owner of a recreational/civic service facility generally referred to as the Hermosa Beach Com- munity Center (referred to herein as the "facility"). 2. The facility is subject to certain agreements and deed restrictions entered into on the 28th day of February 1978, between the City and the Hermosa Beach City School District and is further subject to certain provisions imposed by the Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment as set forth in a document entitled Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Real Property and dated the 28th day of February 1978. These documents are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City and are public documents and by reference are incorporated into this leasing agreement and are referred to herein as the HUD and SCHOOL DISTRICT AGREEMENTS. 3. The Lessee desires to use a portion of the facility on the terms and conditions set out herein. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. TERM. The term of this lease shall be for a period of Three (3) years commencing on the 15th day of Oct. ,1989 , and ending on the 30th day of September ,1992 2. DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES. The Lessee is leasing from the City that portion of the facility described as: Room 9 419 sq. ft. in Community Center 3. RENT. Lessee agrees to pay to the City rent ac- cording to the following schedule: $310 per month $.74 per sq. ft. thru June 30, 1990 July 1, 1990 through Sept. 30, 1992: according to policy approved by Advisory Commission. Payable on the first day of the month. If this lease commences on a day other than the first day of the month, then the Lessee shall pay upon the commencement of the lease the rental on a pro rata basis for the remainder of that month and commence a full rental pay- ment on the first day of the following month. 3A. OTHER CONDITIONS. The following additional condi- tions are agreed to by the Lessee: 1. Lessee shall not mark, drill or deface any walls, ceilings, floors, wood or iron work without Lessor's written consent. 2. No signs or awning shall be erected or maintained upon or attached to the outside of the premises except such signs showing the business of the Lessee. All such signs shall be in accordance with the policy established by the Lessor. 4. USE. The Lessee agrees to use the premises only for the following purpose or purposes: Interviewing and assessment of pre-school children and their parents in order to make referrals to appropriate counseling agencies. And for no other purpose without the express written consent of the City. Lessee also agrees the premises shall not be used in violation of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or School District Agreements as those agreements are interpreted by either the City or the Hermosa Beach City School District or the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 5. INSURANCE LIABILITY. Lessee shall obtain and maintain at all times during the term of this agreement Comprehensive General and Automobile Liability insurance protecting Lessee in amounts not less than $1,000,000 for personal injury to any one person, $1,000,000 for injuries arising out of any one occurrence, and $1,000,000 for property damage or a com- bined single limit of $1,000,000. Such insurance shall name City of Hermosa Beach and their officers, employees, elected officials and members of Boards or Commissions as additional insured parties. Coverage shall be in accordance with the sample certificates and endorsements attached hereto and must include the coverage and provisions indicated. Lessee shall file and maintain the required certificate(s) of insurance with the other party to this agreement at all times during the term of this agreement. The certificate(s) is to be filed prior to the commencement of the work or event and should state clearly: (1) The additional insured requested; (2) Thirty day prior notice of change or cancellation to the City of Hermosa Beach; (3) Insurance is primary to that of the Additional Insured; (4) Coverage included; (5) Cross -liability clause. WORKER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE. Lessee shall obtain and maintain at all times during the term of this agreement Work- er's Compensation and Employers Liability insurance and fur- nish the City with a certificate showing proof of such coverage. Such insurance shall not be cancelled or material- ly changed without a thirty (30) day prior written notice to: City Manager, City of Hermosa Beach. INSURANCE COMPANIES. Insurance companies must be rated (B:XIII) or better in Best's Insurance Rating Guide. 6. CONDITION OF THE PREMISES UPON TERMINATION OF THE LEASE. Lessee agrees to keep and maintain the premises in good con- dition and repair and to return to the City the premises upon termination of this lease in the same condition as when Les- see took possession of the premises excepting any repairs or alterations which were approved by the City, reasonable wear and tear excepted, and does promise to pay the City upon de- mand the reasonable sums to repair the premises in the event of a violation of this provision. 7. CONSTRUCTION. Lessee is prohibited from making any al terations or performing any construction whatsoever on the premises without the expressed written approval of the City. Any such approval shall include provisions to protect the City from potential liens of labor and material persons. 8. DESTRUCTION, PARTIAL DESTRUCTION OR NECESSITY TO REPAIR BECAUSE OF CONDITIONS CAUSED BY OTHER THAN LESSEE. The City has no duty or obligation to reconstruct the premises in the event of destruction or partial destruction of the premises. The City at its option may reconstruct or repair the prem- ises, whereupon this lease shall remain in full force and effect except that no rent will be owing to the City during said period of reconstruction or repair if such reconstruc- tion or repair interferes with the tenancy created herein to the extent that the premises cannot be used for the purposes intended. In the event the City at its sole discretion determines not to reconstruct or repair the premises then either party at its option may cause this lease to be termi- nated and neither party shall have any liability each to each other. 9. HOLD HARMLESS. Lessee shall hold harmless and indemnify the City, its officers, agents and employees from every claim or demand which may be made by reason of any injury and/or death to persons and/or injury to property caused by any di- rect or indirect act or any omission of the Lessee, its of- ficers, agents and employees arising out of the Lessee's use of said premises. The Lessee, at its own cost, expense and risk shall defend any and all actions, suits or other pro- ceedings that may be brought or instituted against the City on any such claim or demand, and pay or satisfy any judgment that may be rendered against the Lessor on any such action, suit, or legal proceedings as a result hereof. 3 10. RULES, REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES. The Lessee agrees to comply strictly with all applicable laws and any uniform Com- munity Center rules and regulations adopted by the City Council. 11. TAXES AND CHARGES. Lessee agrees to pay when due any and all taxes, assessments or charges levied by any governmental agency on or to the lease -hold premises. 12. DEFAULT. Should Lessee fail to pay any monies due pur- suant to this lease within three days after written notice from the City or to perform any other obligation required pursuant to the terms of this lease within thirty days after notice from the City, City may immediately cause this lease to be terminated and thereafter take any action and pursue all remedies available under the laws then existent in the State of California.. 13. NOTICE. Any notice required to be made or given pur- suant to the provisions of this lease may be either personal- ly served upon the party or deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, LESSOR: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY HALL 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 LESSEE: South Bay Center for Counseling 2617 Bell Avenue Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Any notices so given pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph will be deemed served twenty-four hours after the deposit thereof in the United States mail. 14. ATTORNEYS FEES. The parties agree that in the event any action is instituted concerning any of the provisions of this lease agreement, the prevailing party may in the discretion of the court be granted as an additional item of damages its attorneys fees. T5. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING. Lessee may not assign or sublease all or any portion of the premises without the writ- ten consent of the City, which consent may be granted or de- nied at the exclusive and total discretion of the City. 16. SUCCESSORS. Subject to prior provisions, this lease is binding upon the heirs, assigns and successors of interest of the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Hermosa Beach Community Center Lease Agreement at Hermosa Beach on the day first hereinabove set forth. ATTEST: APP'.' ED TO F 611 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, a Municipal Corporation, Lessor By CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY DATE: LESSEE: 5 DIRECTOR i October 4, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council of October 10, 1989 RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE RENEWAL OF CONTRACT FOR THE CITY'S EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (EAP) WITH PERSONAL PERFORMANCE CONSULTANTS, INC. RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City to execute the renewal of the current contract for the EAP program with Personal Performance Consultants, Inc. Background: Manager City's In October 1986 the City contracted with the City of Gardena to provide Employee Assistance Program services. In July 1988 the City of Gardena assigned performance of the contract to Personal Performance Consultants, Inc. (PPC). The current contract expired September 30, 1989. Attached is a renewal letter from PPC to continue the contract through September 30, 1991. The EAP program provides counseling and referral services to City employees and their eligible dependents in such areas as al- coholism, substance abuse, emotional, financial and legal problems. Employees may elect to contact the EAP confidentially or they may be referred by their supervisor for behaviors which have effected job performance and productivity. Analysis: The fee for the City's EAP services has remained unchanged since the inception of the contract in 1986. That fee has been $24.00 per employee per year based upon 162 employees ($3,880/yr) with a provision to adjust the fee should the number of employees increase or decrease more than 10%. The terms of renewal are for a 2% increase in the annual fee to $3,960 ($24.44/employee/year). All other terms of the original agreement remain unchanged. Respectfully submitted, Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Director Noted for fiscal Concur: Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Director Kevin B. Northrcraft City Manager 1j September 15, 1989 Robert Blackwood City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 RE: GARDENA VALLEY EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM CONSORTIUM RENEWAL AGREEMENT Dear Robert: This letter is to serve as a renewal of the current contract for the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) between the City of Hermosa Beach and Personal Performance Consultants of California, Inc. which is effective for the period of July 1, 1988 through September 30, 1989. The new contract term will be from October 1, 1989 through September 30, 1991. The annualized professional fee will be $3,960.00, payable in equal monthly installments of $330.00 due on the first day of each contract month. All remaining terms of the original Agreement remain unchanged and in effect. If this letter reflects your understanding of the new terms of our agreement, please have each letter signed and witnessed by the appropriate person and return one to Stevon Stewart at 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 1845, Los Angeles, California 90025. We appreciate your continued confidence in PPC and are proud to be able to list the City of Hermosa Beach as one of the members of the Gardena Valley Employee Assistance Program Consortium. Sincerely, PE AVU / ONAL PERFORMANCE CONSULTANTS OF CALIFORNIA, INC. STUDEBAKER Pr •ent PERSONAL PERFORMANCE CONSULTANTS, INC. The Westwood Gateway 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 1845 Los Angeles. CA 90025 213-479-2254 Robert Blackwood September 15, 1989 Page 2 (Renewal of Contract) PERSONAL PERFORMANCE CONSULTANTS OF IFORN INC. BY: WITNESS CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DATE: BY: WITNESS APPROVED AS TO FORM: (1440LAULL 6011• Vi CITY ATTORNEY GARDENA PALLET EMPLOTEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM SERVICE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is by and between the City of Hermosa Beach, *municipal Corporation, hereinafter "Employer" and City of Gardena, a municipal corporation, hereinafter "City." WHEREAS, the Employer and City find that lost economic pro- " ductivity is a detriment to the Gardena Valley's economic wellbe- ing; and WHEREAS, the Employer and City have determined that a sub- stantial portion of lost productivity is attributable to the per- sonal family problems of employees such as alcohol abuse, drug abuse, marital discord, financial mismanagement and legal prob- lems; .and WHEREAS, many of the employee's personal and family problems may be productively dealt with and resolved with the assistance and consultation of professionals and service agencies; and WHEREAS, City has the Gardena Employee's Assistance Program staff and facilities to assist in the identification of troubled employees and refer such employees to the professionals and agen- cies best able to assist them; and WHEREAS, the Employer desires to utilize the resources of City to deal with and assist troubled employees and recoup lost productivity; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the consideration and covenants contained herein, Employer and City agree as follows: 1. City Performance The City shall provide the services and facilities of the Gardena Valley Employee's Assistance Program, hereinafter "EAP", which shall include: A. The training of Employer's supervisors to enable those trained to identify troubled employees. B. Assist in the publicizing of the EAP which will in- clude, but not be limited to, a manual for supervisors and a brochure for employees. C. The availability of EAP staff on Monday through Fri- day except holidays between the hours of 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. at the City's Human Services Department. A direct telephone line will be provided for the hcurs above and an answering machine for all other hours. EAP staff will be available by appointment during both the business hours set forth above and other hours by advance arrangement. D. The screening of all referred employees to assess their individual problem, develop an initial plan of action and make appropriate referrals for services. E. The outlining of the employees options for paying for the services of the professionals and agencies outside the EAP staff. F. Monitoring of employees, availing themselves of the EAP services, adherence to the agreed course of assistance and providing information of progress to referring employers. Prog- ress reports shall be limited to the employee's cooperation with EAP. G. Conducting, when appropriate, back -to -work conferen- ces between the referring Employer and the troubled employee after the employee has completed the recommended course of assistance. - 2 H. Conducting periodic promotional meetings with em- ployees at times determined by the employer to promote and answer questions about the EAP. I. The preparation and transmittal to the Employer of quarterly reports of services to the Employer including the num- ber of employees served. These reports shall protect the con- fidentiality of the employees and their families. 2. Employer Performance The Employer shall: A. Assign a management person to act as liaison and principal contact person with the City as the EAP is conducted. B. Cooperate in the distribution of EAP literature and in the scheduling of employee meetings. 3.% Term of Agreement. This agreement shall commence on April 1, 1988, and shall be for a period of eighteen (18) months. This agreement may not be terminated by either party within the first six months, except for cause. Thereafter, this agreement may be terminated by either party with or without cause upon thirty days written notice to the other party. 4. Fees and Payments Employer shall pay City a fee of 011Ir calculated at the rate, based upon the yy of $24.00 1111111111pper year. City will invoice the Employer every quarter for one-fourth of that sum: provided, however, if the number of employees decreases or increases more than 10% from the number stated herein, the billing will be decreased or increased to reflect this change. In such case, the billing shall be adjusted •t the rate of $24.00 per year for each employee added to or deleted from Employer's payroll in excess of 10% of the number stated herein, prorated to the portion of the year remaining after such employees are ao added or deleted. 5. Miscellaneous Provisions A. The Gardena Valley Employee Assistance Program, Poli- cy Statement, attached hereto as "Exhibit A" shall govern the operation of this program. B. Both parties agree that confidentiality is the key element to the EAP. The confidentiality of all transactions with and identity of every person utilizing EAP serices shall be strictly maintained by the City and the Employer. C. Fees and charges for services provided by outside practitioners or agencies are the responsibility of the employee, not the Employer or the City. D. If either party terminates this agreement, the parties shall promptly review all work in progress. Employer shall be required to pay for any work in progress and all charges are payable within ;he thirty -day notice of termination period set forth in 3 above. 6. Notices All notices shall be delivered to each party either per- sonally or mailed to these addresses: A. City of Gardena Human Services Department 1651 West 162nd St. Gardena, CA 90247 8. City of Hermosa Beach Personnel Department 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 7. Indemnification It is understood and agreed that neither the City of Gardena, nor any officer of employee thereof, is responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by the City of Hermosa under or• 4n connection with any services performed by the City of •Hermosa. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Goverment Code Section 895.4, the City of Hermosa shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Gardena, its officers and em- ployees, from all claims, suits or actions of every nature, kind, and description brought for or on account of injuries to or death of any person or damage to property resulting from any- thing .done or omitted to be done by the City of Hermosa under or in connection with any work under this agreement except as otherwise provided by statute. It is understood and agreed that neither the City of Hermo- sa, nor any officer or employee thereof, is responsible for any- thing done or omitted to be done by the City of Gardena under or in connection with any services performed by the City of Gardena. It is also understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, the City of Gardena shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Hermosa, its officers and em- ployees, from all claims, suits or actions of every nature, kind, and description brought for or on account of injuries to or death of any person or damage to property resulting from anything done or omitted to be done by the City of Gardena under or in connec- tion with any work under this agreement except as otherwise pro- vided by statute IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City Council of the City of Gar-' dena, California, has caused this agreement to be subscribed by its Human Services Department and seal of said Council to be hereto affixed, and attested by the City Clerk thereof and the Employer has subscribed the same through its authorized officer on )44444 11,1468. EMPLOYER: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH a municipal corporation B APPROVED AS TO FORM: James P. Lough City Attorney CITY CITY OF GARDENA a municipal corporation By: Pe A160:A____ Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Michael J. Barger City Attorney . • •. GARDENA '. .s.LEY EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE IOGRAM POLICY STATEMENT 1. Alcoholism. substance abuse, emotional, financial and legal problems and other concerns effect employee job performance, company pro- ductivity and profitability; and, consequently. these problems are appropriate concerns for employers. 2.••:'Whether it is the employee or a member of the employee's family who • is affected by any of the above problems, the problem may eventually • ! burt the employee's job performance. Therefore. the EAP is designed to serve the employee or family members. 3. Supervisors should not attempt to diagnose alcoholism, family troubles. or other problems. Supervisor -initiated referral for diagnosis and treatment should be based strictly on unsatisfactory or deteriorating job performance resulting from apparent medical or behavioral problems. whatever their nature. 4. No employee with a problem affecting job performance should have his or her job security or promotional opportunities jeopardized by a request for help. S. Employee's rights to confidentiality and privacy will be protected. Confidential information and records of employees receiving EAP services will not be released without employee knowledge and consent. 6. = Employees are encouraged to self -refer themselves for appropriate services as needed. 7. It will be the responsibility of the employee to comply with the referral for diagnosis and to cooperate with the prescribed treatment. An employee's refusal to accept diagnosis or treatment. or failure to respond to treatment, wiU be handled in the same manner as for all other employee problems when job performance continues to be adversely affected. S. Employee participation in EAP services will not require or result in any specialregulations. privileges. or exemptions from the standard administrative practices applicable to job performance requirements. EXHIBIT A AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT THIS AMENDMENT is dated this 21 day of January 198 8 by and between the City of Gardena, a municipal corporation of the State of California ("City") and the City of Hermosa Beach ("Employer") . WHEREAS, the parties have entered into an agreement dated October 1 , 1986, entitled "Gardena Valley Employee Assistance Program Service Agreement ("Agreement") and WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend a portion of said Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE. the parties hereto do agree as follows: 1. Paragraph 7 is added to said Agreement, said paragraph to read as follows: '7. The Agreement may be assigned by the City by pro- viding sixty (60) days prior written notice to Emplter. Should Employer not agree to the assignment, the Agreement shall be ter- minated according to the provisions contained therein." 2. All other provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto affixed their • hands and seals the day and year Bret above written: APPROVED AS TO FORM: MICHAEL J. KARGER CITY ATTORNEY • CITY OF GARDENA. a municipal corporation Byi Mayor &Z.e.e E"/A5 mp o CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • ADDENDUM TO GARDENA VALLEY EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM SERVICE AGREEMENT This Agreement entered into this LG' day of Pc4Em101Er` 1988 between PERSONAL PERFORMANCE CONSULTANTS OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Missouri corporation with offices at 11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1845, Los Angeles, California 90025 (PPC ) and ,CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 (EMPLOYER). RECITALS 1. Employer has heretofore entered into a certain Agreement effective April 1, 1988 (the Service Agreement) with the City of Gardena for an Employee Assistance Program (EAP). 2. The City of Gardena assigned to PPC all its rigilts and responsibilities under said Service Agreement effective July 1, 1988. 3. The parties now desire to amend said Service Agreement. AGREEMENT THEREFORE, in consideration of these. premises and the mutual promises contained in this Addendum, and other good and valuable considerations, the receipt and sufficiency of which each party acknowledges, the parties agree as follows: 1. PPC is substituted for the City of Gardena. 2. Paragraph 3 of the Service Agreement is hereby amended to extend the term of the Service Agreement through September 30, 1989, as follows: 3. Paragraph 4 of the Service Agreement is hereby amended to provide that PPC will invoice Employer at the end of every six month period. In the event that Employer has heretofore paid the City of Gardena for any period after July 1, 1988, PPC will credit Employer for such payment. 4. Paragraph 6 of the Service Agreement is amended to provide that all notices to PPC shall be delivered personally or mailed to the following address: Personal Performance Consultants of California, Inc. 11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1845 Los Angeles, CA 90025 5. Except as set forth in this Addendum. the terms and conditions of the Service Agreement remain unchanged and in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Addendum effective as of July 1. 1988. PERSONAL PERFORMANCE. CONSULTANTS OF CALIFO$NIA, INC. By: •V.'?! /%r Dougla" E. Studebaker,i 1r Vice President. Witness: / c 'JJ ,/ . Date: /L EMPLOYER By: 1, Witness: Date: Nth'. ADE 1980 Honorable Mayor and Members of the_Hermosa Beach City Council October 5, 1989 Regular Meeting of October 10, 1989 ANGLER CASTING ON THE FISHING PIER Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council receive and file this report. Background: At the September 22, 1989 meeting City Council requested a report on an easy way to prevent overhead angler casting on the fishing pier. The Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, Section 5-39 states: "It shall be unlawful for any person on the municipal pier to...cast the line overhead or side -armed from a pole or from the hands...The violation of this section shall be an infraction". The dollar amount of the fine was not specified in the section. Staff checked with the City's Court Liaison and was told that unless otherwise stated or specified in the code section, the fine is $100. Fine for this infraction is $100. The back of the benches on the pier are signed "No Overhead Casting". Analysis: The Police Department will give directed enforcement. Fencing and/or netting was suggested as a solution; however, this is not practical from an operational or an aesthetic viewpoint. Staff has contacted Community Resources to see if there might possibly be a class available on proper casting procedures. There is not. Staff has been contacted by a resident who has volunteered to check into the possibility of having signs made in foreign languages to let anglers know that no overhead casting is allowed. Staff will pursue this possibility. Respectfully submitted, (LA AALIA&i Ant -7-4: Dir ny Antich ctor of Pub Works Steve Wisnie Director of Public Safety Concur: Levin B. North c aft City Manager AA:mvcast 1.n September 25, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council October 10, 1989 PIER CONCESSIONAIRE'S REQUEST FOR RENT REDUCTION Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Not authorize a reduction in rent for the Pier Concession lease for the current lease, which expires October 31, 1989, nor 2. approve the request for refund. Background: At the August 22, 1989 Council meeting, Mr. Ray Park's letter requesting a rent reduction and or free rent was introduced. Prior to the scheduled meeting Mr. Park had received a letter dated August 14, 1989 from the Director of Public Works indicating that his request had been received and reviewed and in essence, there would be no reduction or free rent. Council Action August 22, 1989: Mayor Williams - If Mr. Park can show from receipts that his gross was reduced due to pier repairs we might consider a decrease. Motion: Refer to staff to come back with recommendations if any money due back. All background material is available for review in the City Clerk's office. Analysis: This analysis will be divided as follows: 1. Mr. Park's Request and Response by Staff 2. Reasons for Staff's Response 3. City Council's Request for Gross Receipts 1. Mr. Park's Request and Response by Staff Mr. Park's August 2, 1989 letter (in City Clerk's office) asked for consideration in reducing the rent, or two months free rent (rent averages $800/month) due to the following: 1. The pier being shut down for three months due to the storm of January 1988. Response: Mr. Park was notified in January 1988 that electricity would not be available for at least a week or perhaps longer and to please contact Public Works if he had lk any questions. No response was received from Mr. Park. No response indicated no concern. 2. The pier being shut down for two weeks due to the grounding of electricity during the summer of 1988, during which he claims to have lost two weekends of business. Response: A year ago. No concern expressed by Mr. Park at the time. 3. Fencing off of the end of the Pier in November 1988. Response: After reviewing the lease, it was determined by staff that the repair in progress did not interfere with the tenancy to the extent that the premises could not be used for the purpose intended. 2. Reasons for Staff's Response Since the original lease with Mr. Park dated October 25, 1983, the rent has been reduced twice, as follows: October 25, 1983: $14,700 March 27, 1984 - annual rent reduced to: $13,800 October 9, 1984 - annual rent reduced to: $ 9,600 This represents a revenue decrease, since 1983, of $5,100 or 35%. The City has been very responsive to Mr. Park's requests for rent reductions in the past and has dealt with these requests in a timely manner. Mr. Park's most recent requests (number 1 and 2 above) have certainly not been timely in that a year has passed since the incidents occurred. Mr. Park was contacted by staff on August 29, 1989 and reminded of the Council action to show from receipts that his business had decreased due to pier repairs and again by letter dated September 25, 1989 (mailed and hand delivered). Mr. Park was asked to supply pertinent information to staff by October 2, 1989. Mr. Park has been non-responsive in providing documentation to validate his claim that business has decreased due to pier repairs as requested at the August 22, 1989 Council meeting. 3. City Council's Request for Gross Receipts Determining whether or not Mr. Park has lost business as a result of the pier being closed off will be a guesstimate at best. In an effort to obtain information to base a comparison on, the Business License Division was contacted regarding the amount of income reported to the State Board of Equalization by Mr. Park during 1988 and 1989. This information is confidential pursuant to Section 7056 of the Revenue Taxation code and in accordance with Resolution No. 86-4963. Also, only the first quarter of each year can be used as the 2nd quarter reporting for 1989 has not been completed; therefore, no information is available for further comparison. With the information available, it appears that Mr. Park's income was reduced approximately 1 percent com- paring the first quarter of 1989 with the first quarter of 1988. 2 It is impossible to pinpoint the cause of this decrease and staff cannot cite the closing off of the end of the pier as the cause. Furthermore, due to Mr. Park's failure to provide staff with documentation to substantiate his claim, staff has no recourse but to recommend that City Council not authorize a refund or rent reduction. Alternatives: Alternatives available to City Council: 1. Lower rent or authorize a refund. Respectfully submitted, By Merelyn V ole Anthony Antich Administrative Aide Concur: con/pwadmin cc: Mr. Ray Park Director of Publ. Works ;? flj; %,g; 'Kevin B. No craft City Manager October 3, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council October 10, 1989 ACCEPT CONSTRUCTION WORK AS COMPLETE, MUNICIPAL PIER REPAIRS CIP 88-614 Recommendations: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Accept as complete the construction work on CIP 88-614, Municipal Pier Repairs, as constructed by Diversified Repair Services, Inc. 2. Authorize the Mayor to sign the attached Notice of Completion. 3. Authorize staff to: A. Release the retention payment to Diversified Repair Services, Inc. B. Release Diversified Repair Services, Inc. from the Faithful Performance Bond and the Labor and Materials Bond. Background: On March 14, 1989 City Council awarded a contract to Diversified Repair Services, Inc. at a not -to -exceed cost of $ 83,509 for repair of storm damage to the municipal pier. On August 8, 1989, Council increased the contract amount for construction with Diversified Repair Services, Inc. to a cost not to exceed $140,265. The cost of the construction change orders was originally recommended by Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers at total of $ 96,081. However through following negotiations, the City's staff was able to reduce the cost of all change orders down to the present total of $ 39,186. A breakdown and summary of the change orders is shown in Attachments "A" and "B". The staff pursued funding and financial assistance for this project from a number of both state and federal agencies. The following agencies will reimburse the City for eligible costs up to the percentages stated: The Federal Emergency Management agency through the Disaster Relief Act (up to 75%) the State of California Office of Emergency Services through the National Disaster Assistance Act (up to 18.75%) and the State of California Conservation Board through the Cooperative Operation and Maintenance Agreement (up to 3.12%). 1!� Analysis: This section is divided as follows: 1. Construction A. B. C. D. Built According to Plans and Specifications Time Schedule Notice of Completion Release of Bonds 2. Inspection 3. Final Construction Cost 1. Construction A. Built According to Plans and Specifications The project has been built according to the plans and specifications prepared Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers and change orders as approved by the Public Works Department staff. Construction was verified by both underwater and above -water inspection. B. Time Schedule C. Below is a summary of the project time schedule: Start Date Contract Time Original Contract Completion Date Days Added by Change Orders Adjusted Contract Completion Date Actual Completion Date The project was completed within the Notice of Completion May 20, 1989 45 Calendar Days July 4, 1989 86 Calendar Days September 28, 1989 September 25, 1989 adjusted time schedule. Staff recommends that a Notice of Completion be approved by the City Council and recorded with the County Recorder's Office. D. Release of Bonds Pending City Council authorization, after the Notice of Completion is recorded, staff will release Diversified Repair Services from the obligation of the following bonds: Faithful Performance Bond Bonding Company Amwest Surety Insurance Company Original Bond Amount $ 83,509 Amount to be Released $ 83,509 Bond No. 1177899 Labor and Materials Bond Bonding Company Amwest Surety Insurance Company Original Bond amount $ 83,509 Amount to be Released $ 83,509 Bond No. 1177899 Also, pending Council approval, the retention payment, in the amount of $11,929.50 will be released to Diversified Repair Services, Inc. 30 days after recordation of the Notice of Completion (provided no stop notices or mechanics liens are received within that time period). 2. Inspection Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers was the company responsible for contract administration and inspection services on this project until August 27, 1989. Beginning on August 28, 1989; the Public Works Department, with assistance from the Building Department,took over all above -water inspection. American Divers continued to perform the required underwater inspection. Final inspection of the project on September 25, 1989, indicates the construction is in compliance with the plans, specifications and change orders. The City Council needs to be made aware that there is additional major maintenance repairs required on the remainder of the pier. A full and complete study of the pier is proposed by the City staff in the 4th quarter of this year after the winter storms have taken place. 3. Final Construction Cost Below is a summary of final construction costs, for the project: Original Contract Amount Quantity Adjustments Change Orders (12 total) Final Construction Cost Less Amended Not -To -Exceed Amount Amount Under Budget $ 83,509.00 (3,400.00) 39,186.00 119,295.00 140,265.00 $ 20,970.00 See Attachments "A" and "B" for more detailed information on change order costs. Engineering staff is presently preparing applications for federal and state reimbursement of project construction costs. Contract administration and inspection costs have not been finalized at this time. No funds have been paid at this time to Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers for design, contract administration or inspection. Alternatives: Other alternatives considered by staff and available to City Council are: 1. Do not accept construction as complete. Respectfully Submitted, /4/1; Brian Gengler Lyn ii A. Terry 4°227. ------ Concur: Assistant Engineer Noted For Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Director ty/awcmpr Deputy City Engineer Conc r: At AI n&L/ AAA.1.Lkai Anthony Antich Director of Pu• is Works Concur: "4416/ even B. Nor craft City Manager CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 89-614 MUNICIPAL PIER REPAIRS Original Contract With Quantity Reductions Contract Calendar Days Costs 45 days $ 80,109 Change Order #1 -0- days $ 2,000 Temporary safety shims between deck and pile cap. Change Order #2 Remove underwater obstructions. Change Order #3 Time adjustment for additional repair work review. Change Order #4 Repair cracks in top 6 ft. of six piles. Change Order #5 Epoxy coating on outside of pile cap. Change Order #6 Epoxy injection of large cracks in pile cap. Change Order #7 Repair grout pad. Change Order #8 Repair spalls on top 8 ft. of pile N.B. Change Order #9 Repair additional underwater cracks in piles. Change Order #10 Repair of Additional Cracks in Pile Cap. -0- days $ 2,100 48 days $ -0- 6 days $ 5,183 3 days $ 4,724 7 days $ 11,403 -0- days $ -0- 3 days $ 8,276 6 days $ . -0- 6 days $ 4,800 Change Order #11 2 days $ 700 Repair Bolt Holes Change Order #12 5 days -0- Time adjustment for city activities. Status: 9-25-89 Total change orders = $ 39,186 131 days $ 119,295 Attachment "A" NEGOTIATED CHANGES IN CHANGE ORDERS MUNICIPAL PIER REPAIRS CIP 89-614 Change Order #1 Install temporary safety shims between deck and pile cap. Change Order #2 Remove underwater obstructions from around the piles before jacking the piles back into the original position. Change Order #3 Adjustment of time due to review of additional repair work by engineering design consultant. Change Order #4 Epoxy repair of cracks in the top 6 feet of six piles. Change Order #5 7-17-89 $ 6,500 (M.& N.) 7-26-89 $ 2,000 (City Staff) 7-17-89 $ 4,000 (M.& N.) 7-26-89 $ 2,100 (City Staff) 7-15-89 7-31-89 6-16-89 7-26-89 8-24-89 $ 5,124 (M.& N.) $ -0- (City Staff) $ 5,956 (M.& N.) $ 5,956 (City Staff) $ 5,183 (City Staff) Epoxy coating on the outside of 8-08-89 $ 4,724 (M.& N.) the pile cap to seal small hairline cracks. Change Order #6 Epoxy injection of cracks in the pile cap to restore the struc- tural integrity of the concrete beam. Change Order #7 Repair of the grout pad between the bottom of the deck slab and the top of the pile cap. 8-24-89 $ 4,724 (City Staff) 6-16-89 $ 28,049 (M.& N.) 7-26-89 $ 28,049 8-08-89 $ 13,711 8-24-89 $ 11,403 6-16-89 7-26-89 8-08-89 8-17-89 8-24-89 (City Staff) (M.& N.) (City Staff) $ 36,284 (M.& N.) $ 4,977 (City Staff) $ 15,323 (M.& N.) $ 9,926 (M.& N.) $ -0- (City Staff) NOTE: Change order costs as negotiated by either (Moffatt & Nichol) or (City Staff). Attachment "B" (1 of 2) Change Order #8 Repair of spalled area on the top 8 feet of pile NB. Change Order #9 Epoxy injection of additional cracks found underwater below the sand line. Change Order #10 Repair of 16 additional cracks in pile cap. Change Order #11 6-16-89 7-26-89 8-08-89 8-21-89 8-24-89 $ 15,291 (M.& N.) $ 5,000 (City Staff) $ 12,887 (M.& N.) $ 8,451 (City Staff) $ 8,276 (City Staff) 8-21-89 $ -0- (City Staff) 8-24-89 $ -0- (City Staff) 9-18-89 $ 4,800 (City Staff) Repair of 28 bolt holes in con- 9-21-89 $ 700 (City Staff) crete deck. Change Order #12 Time adjustment for city activi- 9-25-89 -0- (City Staff) ties. SUMMARY OF IN CHANGE 6-16-89 7-17-89 7-26-89 8-8-89 8-17-89 8-24-89 9-18-89 9-21-89 NEGOTIATED CHANGES ORDER TOTAL COSTS $ 85,581 $ 96,081 $ 48,105 $ 56,698 $ 43,612 $ 33,686 $ 38,486 $ 39,186 (M.& N.) (M.& N.) (City Staff) (M.& N.) (M.& N.) (City Staff) (City Staff) (City Staff) NOTE: Change order costs as negotiated by either (Moffatt & Nichol) or (City Staff) Attachment "B" (2 of 2) October 2, 1989 City Council Meeting October 10, 1989 Mayor and Members of the City Council ORDINANCE NO. 89-1009- "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AND ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONE FORTHEAREAS AS -DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION." (NW -1 and NW -2 of the former "Multi -Use Corridor) "Submitted for adoption is Ordinance No. 89-1009, relating to the above subject. At the meeting of September_ 26, introduced by --the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Concur: Creighton, Rosenberger None None None 1989, this ordinance was Sheldon, Simpson Mayor Williams Respectfully submitted, Lind. Riddle, Dep evin B. hcraft,:City Manager 1 ty City Clerk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 - 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 89-1001 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AND ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR THE AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on Zone Change 89-6, the northwest quadrant of the "Multi -Use Corridor," on September 12, 1989, and made the following Findings: A. Subject area NW -1 was General Plan amended from Multi -Use Corridor to Medium Density Residential, and area NW -2 was General Plan amended from Multi -Use Corridor to Low Density Residential; - - - - - B. Rezoning the areas NW -1, as described below will bring the zoning into consistency with the General Plan and state law requires consistency between zoning and the General Plan; . C. Rezoning area NW -2 from R-1 to R -1A will_carry out the stated recommendations of the City Counc=il to allow development at the high end of the Low Density range when they amended the General Plan from Multi -Use Corridor to Low Density Residential for the area; D. The rezoning of area NW -1 to a Specific Plan Area limiting the density to 18 units/acre, the lot coverage to 3.5 percent (357), requiring 3 parking spaces per unit, and the balance of development standards to the provisions of the R-2 zone will carry out the stated objective the City Council when they General Plan amended this area from Multi -Use Corridor to Medium Density residential - E. The rezonings will result in a development character for the subject areas which is appropriate for the surrounding residential areas; 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 5= 26 27 28 NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby ordain that the zoning map be amended as shown .on the attached map and described as follows: SECTION 1. Rezone the area on the north side of 21st Street 115 to 220 feet west of Pacific Coast Highway, at 731, 737 and 739 21st Street (Area NW -1) from C-3 to Specific Plan Area and legally described as lots 20, 21, 22 Hermosa View Tract No. 1, and the following text shall be added to the Zoning Ordinance: Article 9.6, Chapter 5, Specific Plan Area No. 5 Section 9.65-1. Authority. This Specific Plan Area is an instrument for implementing the General Plan pursuant to Article 8, Chapter 3, of the State of California and Zoning Law (California Government Code Sections 65450 et. seq.). Section 9.65-2-. Location and Description. The subject property is fronting on 21st Street and generally known as 731, 737, and 739 21st Street. The property contains three lots, and has a total of 20,605 square feet. Refer to attached map. Secgon 9.65-3. Purpose The purpose of this Specific Plan Area is -to set forth the -development -requirements, standards and permitted uses for the subject property Section 9.65-4. Permitted Uses. The permitted use shall consist of a maximum of eight (8) attached or detached residential dwelling units. Section 9.65-5. Development. Standards (a) The maximum lot coverage shall not exceed thirty-five percent (35%)-. (b) A minimum of three (3) parking spaces shall be required for each dwelling unit. (c) All other standards, including but not limited to open space, placement of buildings, setbacks, building height, and parking, shall be governed by the zoning ordinance, Article V, R-2 Two -Family Residential Zone, Article 7.2, Condominiums, Stock Cooperatives and Community Apartments, and Article 11.5 Off Street Parking. SECTION 2. Rezone the area on the north side of 21st Street, 220 to 29-0 feet west of Pacifi-c Coast Highway (Area NW -2) from R-1 to R -1A legally described as follows: 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 1:3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - lots 23 and 24, Hermosa View Tract No. 1 Section 3. Amend Ordinance No. 89-1004, regarding the moratorium on the issuance of building permits in the "Multi -Use Corridor," to exclude the above described properties rezoned by this ordinance. Section 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. Section 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. Section 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 September, 1989. - PRESIDENT -of the City Council and MAYOR of the City Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: CITY CLERK p/ccordzc6 :,P,EDTO F CI Y T EY St. Address Lot :u St. -21 St. Size S5 24th St. 2309 P.C.H. 9500 740 24th St. 8100 732 24th St. 2700 730 24th St. 2700 728 24th St. 2700 724 24th St. 2700 720 24th St. 2700 %S -21st St. .2205 P.C.H. 8475 2121 P.C.M.: 5750 Corner PCH -21 8050 . 739 21st St. 6860 41 737 21st St. 6860 40 731 21st St. 6860 11 Vacant 6860 40 Vacant 6860 COMMERCIAL Approx. Use Date Cond. Const. COMM. 1978 Good / 3U t954 Fair SFR 1986 Good SFR 1987 Good SFR 1986 Good SFR 1986 Good SFR 1987 Good Comm. 1985 Fair 7UApt-. 1971 Fair Vac. - SFR 1924 Poor SFR 1924 Poor 2Det. 1923 Fr/Pr Vac. Vac. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (thcee oc more units) EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY Dist. from PCH Dist. Similar Use from Adjacent Across ECB' Uses Street Slope 0-90 Res/bhd Comm. Steep 90-165 0 Com/E. SFR Steep 165-190 75 Yes SFR Steep 190-215 100 Yes SFR Steep 215-240 125 Yes SFR Steep 240-265 150 Yes SFR Steep 265-290 175 Yes SFR Steep Current :-3 0-113 Res bhd Mod. C-3 0-115 Com W/SFR bhd Mod. C-3 0-115 MFR Mod. C-3 115-150 0 - Com/E. MFR Mod. _ C..3 150-185 35 Yes MFR Mod. C-3 185-220 70 Yes MFR Mod. C-3 220-225 105 MFR Mod. R -1C 255-290 140 MFR Mod. R -1C 24TH . O. 9P . 7 301 94" •4 - N d1 fb Vtt ee•e•e PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY AREA NW w7- 144 to izsi. I 2IsT 19 Pae ..s dj • AILEA N1NJ-1 90 s,. ..onfor-1- vo Ye Ye Ye Ye Ye October 2, 1989 City Council Meeting October 10, 1989 Mayor and Members of the City Council ORDINANCE NO. 89-10.10- "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 89-983, A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AND USES. "Submitted for adoption is Ordinance No. 89-1010, relating to the above subject. At the meeting of September 26, 1989, this ordinance was introduced by the following vote: AYES: Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon,. Simpson, Mayor Williams_ NOES: None- ABSENT:....-None one-ABSENT: None - ABSTAIN: None Concur: Kevin B. North raft, City Manager Respectfully submitted, "IP Linea Riddle, D-puty City Clerk 2b 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19- 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 89 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 89-983 , A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AND USES. WHEREAS, the City Council has introduced Ordinance No. 89-1008 amending Article 13, General Provisions, Conditions and Exceptions - Nonconforming Buildings and Uses, culminating the study for which the moratorium was adopted and, therefore, the problem of uncontrolled remodeling and expansion of nonconforming structures and uses has been remedied and; WHEREAS, because of the adoption of said ordinance, the moratorium on the remodeling and -expansion of nonconforming structures and uses is no longer necessary; NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby ordain the following: 1. Ordinance No. 89-983 is hereby repealed-. 2. -Thin ordinance shall- not - take _effect. prior to the effective date of Ordinan<'e 89-1008. 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. 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 publis ed and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law. 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 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 , 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: • CITY TORNEY - '� October 3, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE 89-6 Regular Meeting of October 10, 1989 LOCATION: AREA NW -3: NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE "MULTI -USE CORRIDOR": A PORTION OF THE ABANDONED ST. MICHAELS HOSPITAL SITE AT 1845 P.C.H. (SEE ATTACHED MAP) PURPOSE: ZONE CHANGE C-3 TO SPECIFIC PLAN AREA NO. 6 INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation Staff recommends rezoning area NW -3 from C-3 to Specific Plan Area No. 6. Background This item was continued by the City Council, and staff was directed to prepare revisions to the proposed Specific Plan Area which would allow the property to be developed to R-3 standards for a multi -family project, or a senior citizens housing project of higher than the allowed density under R-3 zoning. Also, to ensure a project design which would be compatible with the R-1 area to the west the Council indicated that review of a specific project proposal would be necessary. The use of a Specific Plan Area for Area NW -3 rather than the proposed R-3 zoning was recommended by the City Council at their September 12, 1989 meeting to consider the setback and buffering at the rear of the property because of the adjacent R-1 use. Analysis In regards to the specific provisions for Specific Plan Area No. 6, staff has proposed language that would allow development of the property with multi -family dwellings subject to R-3 standards, and the requirement of a Conditional Use Permit to ensure compatibility with the single-family residences located to the west. However, the S.P.A. would allow multiple dwellings designed and limited to senior citizens at a higher density, and with fewer parking spaces, than allowed ynder R-3 standards with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Mic ael Schu•ac Planning Director a/ccsrzc6 1 Keri Robertson Associate Planner evin Nort cr City Manager ORDINANCE NO. 89 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AND ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR THE AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on Zone Change 89-6, the northwest quadrant of the "Multi -Use Corridor," on September 12, 1989, and made the following Findings: A. Subject area NW -3 was General Plan Amended from Multi -Use Corridor to High Density Residential by the Hermosa Beach City Council on May 9, 1989; B. Rezoning area and NW -3 as described below will bring the zoning into consistency with the General Plan and state law requires consistency between zoning and the General Plan; C. The rezoning of area NW -3 to a Specific Plan Area to require a review of specific project design to ensure compatibility with the single-family residential development immediately to the west is necessary to ensure compatible high density residential development; D. The rezonings will result in a development character for the subject areas which are compatible with the surrounding residential areas. NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby ordain that the zoning map be amended as shown on the attached map and described as follows: SECTION 1. Rezone the area on the west side of Pacific Coast Highway across from its intersection with 19th Street (Area NW -3) from C-3 to Specific Plan Area No. 6, legally described as follows - Lot 19 2nd Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract; and the following text shall be added to the zoning ordinance: 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 Article 9.6, Chapter 6, Specific Plan Area No. 6 Section 9.66-1. Authority. This Specific Plan Area is an instrument for implementing the General Plan pursuant to Article 8, Chapter 3, of the State of California and Zoning Law (California Government Code Sections 65450 et. seq.). Section 9.66-2. Location and Description. The subject property is fronting on Pacific Coast Highway and is generally known as a portion of 1845 Pacific Coast Highway. The property consists of one (1) lot, and has a total of 37,155 square feet. Refer to attached map. Section 9.65-3. Purpose The purpose of this Specific Plan Area is to set forth the development requirements, standards and permitted uses for the subject property, and to ensure development of the subject property in a manner compatible with the adjacent residential property located to the west. Section 9.65-4. Permitted Uses. The permitted uses shall be as follows: (a) Attached and/or detached multi -family dwelling units, with a maximum density of 33 units per acre, if approved by a Conditional Use Permit subject to the provisions of Article 10 of the Zoning Ordinance. (b) Multiple dwelling units designed for, and limited to occupancy for senior citizens, with no maximum density, if approved by a Conditional Use Permit subject to the provisions of Article 10 of the Zoning Ordinance, and if consistent with the General Plan. (c) Service commercial uses subordinate and secondary to the primary use as a senior citizen housing project, designed primarily for use by residents and guests of the project, if approved by a Conditional Use Permit. Section 9.65-5. Development Standards (a) All standards, including but not limited to open space, placement of buildings, setbacks, building height, and parking, shall be governed by the zoning ordinance, Article V, R-3 Multiple -Family Residential Zone, Article 7.2, Condominiums, Stock 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 Cooperatives and Community Apartments, and Article 11.5 Off Street Parking, (b) The Planning Commission may require conditions more restrictive than the above standards to address parking, setbacks, landscaping, architectural design, density, and any other project characteristic to ensure the compatibility of a project with its surroundings, and to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Hermosa Beach. (c) The Planning Commission may waive requirements pertaining to density and parking only for a senior citizen housing project, designed for and limited to occupancy for senior citizens. Section 2. Amend Ordinance No. 89-1004, regarding the moratorium on the issuance of building permits in the "Multi -Use Corridor," to exclude the above described property rezoned by this ordinance. 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 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 October, 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: CITY CLERK T/persspa6 3 C Y ATTORNEY (A 0 COMMERCIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three or more units) EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY •••••••• • • ST. 20TH ST. 19T!-1 ST. 18114 ST, . . , 17' 20TH ST. r7,r- COMMERCIAL D .i..g 1 1 a rn''1 ElSINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENPIAL y ` „•% , ACZ R7 740 -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three or more units) EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY . PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY 19 TI-! ST. 1 18TH 5T. 17 S oaf September 28th, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council October 10th, 1989 City Council Meeting of APPEAL OF DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR A PERMIT TO KEEP MORE THAN TWO (2) HOUSEHOLD PETS Recommendation: That the City Council deny the appeal for more than two household pets at 1841 Harper Avenue (six cats and two dogs). Background: Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, section 4-2 states that there shall be no more than two adult household pets at any residential dwelling. In June of 1985 the Hermosa Beach City Council decided that applications for household/non-household pets will be conducted by an administrative hearing process, and not through Council, as had been the case in previous years since the appeals process allowed for a public hearing at the City Council level if need be. The standard operating procedure for the processing of household/non-household applications is the following: 1. Contact the L.A. County Health Department, and request an inspection of the property. A member of the Health Department checks the property for any type of health associated problems pertaining to the pets which may affect people and or the neighborhood. 2. The General Services Department also inspects the property to insure that the pets will be safe and there is enough room for the pets to live without problems. We also check to make sure that the pets can not access public property at will. 3. A supervisor assigns someone to put out surveys in the area around the residence where the application has been filed. This will tell us if there are any neighbors who object to the granting of a permit, and why. 4. We set up an administrative hearing and post signs on the property and for two hundred feet at fifty foot intervals across the street, on the same side of the street, and on the street to the rear. These signs give the date of the hearing and ask for any written comments. Upon receiving an application from Mr. and Mrs. Lens, 1841 Harper Ave., to keep more than two household pets,( six cats and two dogs ) the General Services Department began collecting the appropriate data for processing the application. 5 A representative from the General Services Department contacted the Los Angeles County Health Department. A request was made for an environmental inspection on the property. Another representative from the G.S. Department was given the assignment of inspecting the property, as well as surveying and posting the surrounding area. After receiving the environmental impact inspection, the surveys and comments from the neighbors, an administrative hearing was set up. The administrative decision was not to grant a permit because of the impact on the neighborhood (barking dogs and cat defecation). Analysis: Documented in our files previous to the application, are problems of the dogs being at large, the dogs not being licensed and early morning barking. We also have documented complaints of their cats defecating on neighbors property. In addition the neighborhood survey's received complained of the Lens's dogs barking in the early morning and their cats defecating on property other than that of the Lens's, as well as the fact that of the (9) nine neighbors surveyed, (7)seven responded and (4)four of those that responded did not want the permit to be granted. Based on these facts the application was denied. This scheduled Public Hearing was noticed by re -posting the area notifying the neighbors involved of the date and time of the hearing. In addition the appropriate noticing was advertised in the Easy Reader on September 28th, 1989. Respectfully submitted, Concur: enrL Staten a-� Joasrlioon G.S. Coordinator G.S. Director 44‘ed: Kevin B. Nor'thcra f t City Manager 10 I -ae vl2d J-utncam. trio/mos. (3e.c,cc 0,4 qoz ry hep f�u�4�� C (985' CaeGc1. c5,Aizo, cis va-c(1O ErWr A.o ra bfaczct, Soni `f' are r f)U : LJk4.,Lcs-u( p, ( (u C.. v (U1,v . (,o l Uc t, _ friA c6c,a-LIA, act_t;ct si2.4 IA) kut.a. bvt, f Z cClnea. rL 6--,eficf 1S-0 i'lt71/14Af Of cb-cii frzA f- u! .ctgit Lo e 14 cod s-iwu r s14431,nce -4t.Q M Q (IY1 &j `� �Zn'''" fr mei G.),k? OpG'Srct'i e c vL 4/1/0-YvLcL -x/AA to S ((A j luck- •() "(kat , c 14-0- pl o s -a-t T'l4 V l.0 ii 4bo v1 ,a3.1 has w- 1V1 -S' Cam (Ai MA) frt (µ f SIA /14(4 6mx(ft~.4,00 da) -N u b6(4 -t k -63 ca ivfAA.,) a./Acyz (-1? 2-r, k ?-1w.ct LotA.-() int c3 (7 do 5s s Lea* at.rac c e a 54,1 i 1145T- (.4.,c,c (Lc/. L t out (44, h ( (o a t - Dv ,. .( LXL,c.1 fz�r,L Gl4a..- orf (AA. 1. Iota. tad g L i o V h o oc( 1 `1Ck¢ r F I boc 1,, (' t wap _ f v I/l,( ' c,c�x �72Al /t.c.c.1 d o CAA) II fry I- le Dr/ . ( 1f" S`b 12 (awe, l 1,_;01.4./4 c_ /ot 1b 'PV(CCQ a VLCEO 0 ' -7,th .- 1 DA4 &I/Li n-ta ( '714.74 Wo ' 10 ry S Ls -14, lira. Tk 1»<i 8-1.4 Lor It ock( 1,0(, MA WB- (vim t /IurviCL (AA tb lk fujjLo,/roof O v via F t'I( kb 100 v fbThu l -?cC, c c� eo> (ate t Ou-v Ct Te tiu.d ls. 9 042 lA4 au.4._ ("so Ivy_ lit, tn,,. (A . p ,c0z71-1. w away 'lam 1m it ed 7 p rti L L4,,,<.t. 0A-trx.ecua .. Li _damcte.01 sL.e IAA cc0g. at vu.rzti -Lce 7),u -e& jLu�I i' ruusxu. b o'- 0 v IAA) O kQ 1;tL S L. 4,0 h aterid- 6;1»51s av4_11 2) Cc-�' eca f Ciu pry qact r 2e tTZ✓v-a ( . Of- TA_ -f ( cool a p ��6-ty,- Cat) � -ft) 1 (AA n unit/0 - • C f 9 �� cc.is �,00 v Ca .h cA S L (tit c laat-c...p pt,. 014A- c o,i" (9 A. fi rCV-e G.(.c.2 /tl r ,� d GL �° f -ucC � 0.1 aft 47-t,(u2-1Ask 1),111:t w c LL littx714, Gt-ect.l, 1 y U.t to �Le l.% E c[1Pvt. C C31,21.3/ 6�uc� arc lea(L (-10,,,cI. 1 Litt v -c. 2 1,c:1:r L)e 6vUvu.c- n'`'`1 ccs' ID C . �3 bT2 � 7kQ. P b o ?1A -Ce -C- cut-ec( Cho a a LL 14.(2_ c� f 1- cL e;1 ex.cz ho 14. 'C ,t CjO vc V, alea4 d �La� Iaxe bTh-- Z c c 5— c c¢a et.Yc(� l-ic 1�t.c�- 1�����/0l c�.-h � %fie � 1 J s"..12._ Cclit, V'o4e_cd -fes " -;i a't,t_ joa--c,u,t. 3- 14 ,E ioor, 1,7O0d *.Q..0) w14A.6.. Loin Lq) fut.! 67Zw IARAnt.iz,ot . I cuz,t, 4LGt.a_ 1-1L0A-v ` -h �� • � ( (-vt»t---1-ya-vcr ff�u I k.truOw c 9614.,Q4 G wa4.i- Lc -(-F' 02,044 ice rtt Lu ham. ��c� --( (' -iYa.to,,ct_ -t)? cLo &o fruAfrovi,,chcp (,,,1 C2-44, Ce-Cpa-v1L1.424.0L 4 rn._ Akcg t Lc aW 0_4x_ wz ( t i s 62A f a scL44..Tu1 p2 -t- . e UWj OUB C d L; a (-4ca2 (,6-u 1 . oo c6t.e v st7.144. c i (,( ova. (,c( ` , 17 -Le Lei, l-� p cct 6-rvc-£ ov�!L� fckr,o-( Cjo-ec( BACKGROUND MATERIAL QLD At,ORL.., includes �e� .. nboos e hold animals Lys oh°'nseots% des Led: address, dd d the oP ICY if not kept' f su°h Pr ,ll be Wne{. o W owner -of ani mals: bats of th e{ Ole ger oWne� he _ Q . e ►s interest animals: ;n the s• concerning ;c.ant • to tr S�a°44 ar;mals b t�°� k es u� all .. final �t eme Moan . ng a%fea for by �► t�`e ho structure used ce of ` stC d;Stan o'� othe exact l l � n9 'v S the t d'`i e .e ,. from des O nearest ' tot • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH-, CALIFORNIA APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO KEEP NONHOUSEHOLD ANIMALS'OR MORE THAN TWO HOUSEHOLD PETS ('the term nonhousehold animals includes birds, poultry, reptiles, bees and other insects) Name, Address and Telephone Number of Applicant: L L128 . els (213 -A376 --q(_,)- 10141ftfJk Avon LX -e' � � 027 � � as P C%� `}7 � Y 1/ The number and general description of all animals for which this permit, is requested: 4cater 2/ . Address where animals will be kept, and the name, address, and telephone number of the owner• of such property if not the property of the owner of the animals: S av4a v-zL 3/ The applicant's interest in the animals: (Owner, keeper, trainer, etc.). 'Ii/ Any information known to the applicant concerning vicious or dangerous qualities of all such animals: • 5/ Describe the housing arrangements for all such animals: Ca, h oul e.. Po - cntib /do. baho 6/ Give the exact distance of the housing arrangements from the nearest dwelling or other structure used for human habitation: So f „pi() s- .• .4 •s 5 - AP;3LICATION FOR PERMIT TO KEEP NONHOUSEHOLD ANIMALS OR MORE THAN �4WO HOUSEHOLD PETS (Cont'd) 7/ Describe noises and/or odors related to -keeping of such animals ��-,� a++nd.,the precautions ktiat- 14-c to be taken: • 8/ List any prior history of -incidents involving the public health or safety involving any of the animals: We- vu t ha,,c-' o . c . we ci a • aw They - a -1a2.e . aa.. , fl Ql d v ca4 vt- k h4.40t8--o - 7 W1,(- a— Gat— - 14-43 - j ? vl,.ccQs 9/ LIst an additional pertinent information: J • (_.L Signature of Applicant Hailing Address: l7q i�f-�,q-�r�. Re/1/4401a ?C4, (q024-44( • PERMIT FEE: Payable' to City of Hermosa Beach.- 8 to Noon 1 to 5pm Monday.thru Friday at City Hall 1315 Valley Dr. or General Services Dept. 1035 Valley Dr.. •Nonhousehold Animals - $50:00 Non-refundable:processing fee More than (2) Household Pets - $50.00 Non-refundable processing fee Date fee Paid: Received by: Office Use Only (2) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES • DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES L> 313 NORTH FIGUEROA STREET • LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 • (213! 974 - Refer Responses to: Torrance Health Center 2300 W. Carson St. Torrance, Ca. 90501 March 15, 1989 General Services City of Hermosa Beach c/o Vince Balvin 1035 Valley Dr. Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254 Dear Mr. Baivin: In response to a request by your department that an evaluation be made of the condition of the yard at 1841 Harper, an inspection was made on March 6, 1989, and the premises were observed to be in a clean and sanitary condition. Very truly yours Linda Ramirez, R.S. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEPARTMENT .OF ANIMAL CONTROL INSPECTION REPORT' Name of Applicant (Print) Home Phone . ;LZGA1:3k:TH-. LENS 376-9657 Home Address • 1841 HARPER 'Zip Code 90254 ANIMAL INFORMATION STRUCTURAL NFORiMATION Department of Animal Control I Recommend: Approval Approved By Date Date 3/3/89 Denial Number Kind Size of Property b DOMESTIC CATS 2 DOGS Zone Cacres: Over 4 months: . S Runs: Under 4 months: Number vaccinated: 2 • Sanitary Conditions: General Appearance: CLEAN AND Drainage: • ` . HEAL -THY Ventilation: . Coat: - Fencing: Flesh: Thin Normal Heavy • Parasites: Exercise Area: Available: Iniuries: Used: RESTRICTIONS: RESTRICTIONS: • Department of Animal Control I Recommend: Approval Approved By Date Date 3/3/89 Denial 1 . • o • ANIMAL CONTROL .. CITY OF HEi10SA BEACH • Civic Center 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254 • .0 Dear Hermosa Beach Resident:. The City has received an application to keep more than two` --- household pets and/or non -household pets with the City of Hermosa Beach. This questionnaire is to determine whether or not you have an objection to the above application. If so please answer the following questions. 1. Are you annoyed by any pets at V YES NO 1841 Harper Ave. 2. How often are you disturbed by the pet(s)? Give specif. . dates and times of annoyance, if possible 3. .How long has the problem existed? 4. Describe pet(s), if possible 5. Have you contacted the A/C regarding this problem? YES NO 6.- Have you contacted City Hall? YES NO • 7. Have you discussed the problem with the pet owner? YES NO 9. NAME 10. Comments • ADDRESS PHONE NO.., s. Thank you, oan Noon General Services Director f• ANIMAL CONTROL • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Civic Center 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Dear Hermosa Beach Resident: The City has received an application to 1eep more than household pets and/or non -household pets with the City of Hermosa Beach. This questionnaire is to determine whether or not you have an objection to the above application. If so please answer the following questions. 1. Are/you annoyed by any pets at V YES NO 1841 Harper Ave. 2. How often are you disturbed by the pet(s) ? G,1i."ve specific dates and times of a noyance, i Possible �. O 3. _How long hasQthe problem existed? Describe pet(s), Lble 5. Have you contacted the A/C regarding this problem? YES NO 6.- Have you contacted City Hall? YES NO 7. Have you discussed the problem with the pet owner? YES NO 9. NAME • 1.24 19. .614— s7(cidgz5ks.7-. ADD • S PHONE NO... Thank you, oan Noon General Services Director 6-5 Mgt: wgiFAI fl -NY 0 o a- sflvy /bvf 41 c s Pf�f.s I N 4 i- t-MX-vic L sc./44361._ yi*Zt w N., c t; .8 d izEAS Bd r N- o (JR PRd e . 4110 rf HS 5 r'vf r Alat ccu .S D11-1 Ly utwiv iloN / P& P`E C)S E r/41 J yA R -D Pf}R-k- * S k Do 6-4-1E L. t ri F - 6e X: (( Go M M EyvD f t4-ctN G 7-141A/ veerfou. poitiveLs 1. -WK FrrUCE l P(ZZVENT VISv, L co,in4cr) 0 i c 2- C4 -r1 F(ir /Pi £i - TffeviS is err Oily. L'! CdPtS Tt/MI 4tiEa2 OO 'S uSE A- I-1 77 g.Q. -Y ' <-Nc._ R -T e4tt h-ov21 ( re 7 /_ pg4Pyri ES. o,va e /hell cc) ( -AR— 5Ec-,-to41 of rnr Sgva8eiap /4-5 66K- ( -Th PRS 7ftt r *Throiemo Bcocrc FirravD Wwoo OFylf Po/tic e 7b 6/Zt v,v0 AND /9- w(e6 ,vcE ?? FIrre/vD vta Tbr) Q -r fEt4- c-if'rJ 011f4 -$ MY (,tt# t G9 -r cif -vs -06- cp,e4r NG Ay chi- OgOeolt-S) 670) -j j - c 4-rs 6m-Pooes) Vie A vidBElz- of EP/7�n?Ic 5-4 z- IX Vey def/L•egshv6-. Fi*l. iq vEST P2ro/Z Aron f>Ef-o xe 1071-6 Ott- OF Tff5t 2 9,PUc,P770N 50 St£K Atr 1 ve 4664c_ i cou2te- j ,E AA/m? O F orf rote14)6..- dccva.lfr ces. 7b �E�DcX E ANIMAL CONTROL • •CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • Civic Center 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Dear Hermosa Beach Resident: • .v The City has received an application to keep more than two'`' --- household pets and/or non -household pets with the City of Hermosa Beach. This questionnaire is to determine whether or not you have an objection to the above application. If so please answer the following questions. 1. Are you annoyed by any pets at 1841 Harper Ave. •?'. < YES NO 2. How often are you disturbed by the pet(s)? Give pecific dates and times of annoyance, if aossi•le 44 cam, ,A- ..u: << e ng hos the pr g lem existed?/3,-L1.Z.. t , 4. Describe pet( s) , if possible AefAT /Ar,� d , ' a-&- • 5. Have you contacted the A/C regarding this problem? YES 6.- Have you contacted City Hall? YEST_N0 • 7. Have you discussed the problem with the pet owner? YES NO 9. Ph�.; �� /g6 C�1t 12 V DDRESS : f X/ PHONE NO.. • 10. Comments cr' NAME 411 Je:LeILZfre tc./ ,f4 Thank you, oan Noon General Services Director ANIMAL CONTROL • •CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • Civic Center • 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Dear Hermosa Beach Resident: • The City has received an application to keep more than two household pets and/or non -household pets with the City of Hermosa Beach. This questionnaire is to determine whether or not you have an objection to the above application. If so please answer the following questions. 1. Are/ you annoyed by any pets at 1841 HARPER '?7 11 YES NO 2. How often are you disturbed by the pet(s)? Give specific dates and times of annoyance, if possible 02 3. How long has the problem existed? 4. Describe pet(s), if possible 5. Have you contacted the A/C regarding this problem? YES NO 6.- Have you contacted City Hall? YES NO 7. Have you discussed the problem with the pet owner? YES NO • 9. Wit • NAME 10. Commens laud ue-74 3> 74? ,-- 57j;?,;?__ ADDRESS 7jy - ADDRESS PHONE NO.. • Thank you, 7 van Noon General Services Director City of Hermosa Beach s • ANIMAL CONTROL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • Civic Center 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Dear Hermosa Beach Resident: The City has received an application to keep more than two household pets and/or non -household pets with the City of Hermosa Beach. This questionnaire is to determine whether or not you have an objection to the above application. If so please answer the following questions. 1. Are you annoyed by any pets at 1841 Harper Ave. '?'.., X YES NO. • 2. How often are you disturbed by the pet(s)? Give specific dates and times of annoyance, if possible L,..resi • 3. How long has the problem existed? / , Ccr 2- t-ncy4livls Describe pet(s), if possible GF1�� 5. Have you contacted the A/C regarding this problem? '/ YES NO 6.- Have you contacted City Hall? YES_NO • 7. Have you discussed the problem with the pet owner? 1" YES • NO 70 9. C,s b. 12_ NAME • ADDRESS PHONE NO... a� 10. Comments i1A' A. �' �Q,Qr_ :cam rnl-,11-� - GANs r_11. 6's lir r — � lr,Aa rc` a, �N\ \ CIN �v . 4lxJr ht7 \i) • Thank you, oan Noon General Services Director f • Ig33• ' fl Or ANIMAL CONTROL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • Civic Center (1315'Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Dear Hermosa Beach Resident: • .0 The City has received an application to keep more than two 5,......'" - household pets and/or non -household pets with the City of Hermosa Beach. This questionnaire is to determine whether or not you have an objection to the above application. If so please answer the following questions. 1. Are you annoyed by any pets at 1841 Harper Ave. YES k/ NO 2. How often are you disturbed by the pet(s) ? Give specific dates and times of annoyance, if possible • 3. _How long has the problem existed? 4. Describe pet(s), if possible 5. Have you contacted the A/C regarding this problem? YES ✓NO 6.- Have you contacted City Hall? YES,/ NO • 7. Have you discussed the problem with the pet owner? YES ti/ NO 9. (160-6,1 N �_ :�.4 N-e/NA \C1'2")-7-1 (0Y15 NAME ESS PHONE NO., 10. Comments 6 Ai S cI'+}S \'1- r� ,.,4 N( ?i►..1_ A\c,4 , ham, dc,e-s t 1c t..iPv-' 4-o c crY, �, Ia' - c-� �� �I o t'f.�� \ r. �� o-•� • • Thank you, oan Noon General Services Director L i ANIMAL CONTROL w • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • Civic Center 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Dear Hermosa Beach Resident: The City has received an application to keep more than two household pets and/or non -household pets with the City of Hermosa Beach. This questionnaire is to determine whether or not you have an objection to the above application. If so please answer the following questions. 1. Are you annoyed by any pets at YES ', / NO 2. How often are you disturbed by the pet(s)? Give specific dates and times of annoyance, if possible 1841 Harper Ave. 3. How long has the problem existed? 4. Describe pet(s), if possible (-42.- -&, ( e tzrer 5. Have you contacted the A/C regarding this problem? YES ) NO 6.- Have you contacted City Hall? YES NO 7. Have you discussed the p 9b1ua- pettowner? ✓ YES NO 9. g. u s 10. Comments NAME lK31//A//7 re4-V ADDRESS PHONE NO... g -7c/ / 737 Thank you, oan Noon General Services Director City of Hermosa Beach \10 ANIMAL CONTROL CITY OF HERI•IOSA BEACH Civic Center '1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Dear Hermosa Beach Resident: The City has received an application to keep more than two`--- household wo`'`--household pets and/or non -household pets with the City of Hermosa Beach. This questionnaire is to determine whether or not you have an objection to the above application. If so please answer the following questions. 1. Are you annoyed by any pets at YES \/NO 1841 Harper Ave. 2. How often are you disturbed by the pet(s) ? Give specific dates and times of annoyance, if possible 3. .How long 4. Describe has the problem existed? pet(s), if possible Have you contact d the A/C regarding this problem? 6.- Have you contacted City Hall? • YES NO YES NO • 7. Have you discussed the problem with the pet owner? YES NO 9 . 10. Comments NAME 125, ADDRESS 42;)4 1—Uot, PHONE NO... Thank you, oan Noon General Services Director August _* .49 Dear Ms. Lens, City o f2iermosarl3eaclt.� Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 We regret to inform you that your application for a permit to keep more than two household pets has been denied. The decision was based on the following: Neighborhood surveys showed that the majority of your neighbors are opposed to our granting the permit due to barking problems especially in the early mornings and evenings; and cat defecation problems. On April 23rd of this year, one of your dogs was impounded by our department while it was at large on Hermosa View School grounds. You have the right to appeal this decision under HBMC section 4-4.1.(see attached) Vincent P. Balvin General Services Field Supervisor City Hall (213) • Community Center 379-3312 / 376-6984 • Fire Department 376-2479 / 376-6984 • Police Department 376-7981 / 376-6984 4 4-4.1 HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE f 4-5 eral services department at any time without cause or liability should the department find that the keeping of such animal within the city unduly menaces, threatens or endangers lives or property or the life or property of any person. (Ord. No. N. S. 506, § 1, 5-13-75; Ord. No. 82-683, § 2, 2-23-82; Ord. No. 84-774, § 2, .Q .tra.B $1, 514.85) Oft % f ('1111((iil((id dud( 6! a wadi GF t64u6atiti;i, !(�� iltaiti all all ar t �� p E al% axprestl>,g toncern shall be notified of the decision by the general services director in writing. Appeals shall be in writing, including specific items of dis- agreement with the general services director's decision or find- ings. Appeals shall be filed with the city clerk's office within fifteen (15) days of the issuance of the report of decision and findings. The fee for appeals shall be fifty dollars ($50.00). The filing of an appeal with the city clerk shall stay the decision of the general services director until the appeal has been acted on. When an appeal is filed, the general services director shall for- ward the record of the case to the city council. The city council shall conduct a public hearing. Such hearings shall be held within forty (40) days of the council's receipt of the written appeal. The city council shall announce its decision and findings within sixty (60) days of the closing of the hearing, unless good cause is shown for an extension of time. The council may incorporate by refer- ence the findings of the general services director. Within thirty (30) days of the final decision on the administrative process, the city council shall mail notice to the appellant and applicant. A copy of this notice shall be included in the general services direc- tor's files. (Ord. No. 85-793, § 1, 5-14-85) Sec. 4-5. Unlawful to permit nonhousehold animals to en- danger persons. It shall be unlawful for any person owning, possessing or having the custody or control of any nonhousehold animal to allow or permit such animal to be or run at large, or per- mit it to run loose or be tethered, or caged, in or on or within the premises of such person or in, on or within any Supp. No. 6-85 58 C1 September 20, 1989 Dear Resident: On October 10, 1989, the City Council will consider an appeal regarding the denial of a permit to keep more than two household pets at 1841 Harper. As you were involved in the neighborhood survey pertaining to this application, you are invited to attend this public hearing which will be held in the City Council Chambers at 8pm. If you have any questions, please call 318-0209. Vincent P. Balvin General Services Department CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL OF GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT DECISION - TO DENY A PERMIT TO KEEP MORE THAN TWO (2) PETS PER HOUSEHOLD NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, will on Tuesday, October 10, 1989, hold a Public Hearing to consider the following: APPEAL OF GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT DECISION - TO DENY A PERMIT TO KEEP MORE THAN TWO (2.) PETS PER HOUSEHOLD (2 DOGS AND 6 CATS) AT 1841 HARPER AVENUE, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ROBERT AND LIZA-LENS, APPELLANTS SAID HEARING TO BE HELD at 8:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California. ANY AND ALL PERSONS interested in the above matter are invited to participate at that time and place. or to write teethe General - Services Department at City Hall prior to -noon on Tuesday, October 3, 1989 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, contact the General Services Department at 318-0252. Kathleen Midstokke City Clerk Run Display 09-28-89 - 4 4-2 ANIMALS AND FOWL 4 4-4 Sec. 4-2. Household pets. Pursuant to the uses permitted in residential zones, no more than two (2) adult (six (6) months or older) dogs or two (2) adult cats, or a combination thereof amounting to no more than two (2) shall be permitted as household pets in a residential dwelling. Any person keeping or maintaining more than two (2) adult dogs or two (2) adult cats or a combination of both shall make applica- tion for a permit to keep and maintain such animals, following the procedures set forth in section 4-4 of this article. The applica- tion fee for said permit shall be fifty dollars ($50.00). (Ord. No. 84-774, § 1, 8-28-84; Ord. No. 85-793, § 1, 5-14-85) Sec. 4-3. Permit required to keep nonhousehold animals. It shall be unlawful for any person owning, possessing or hav- ing the custody or control of any animal other than household pets to keep, harbor, possess or maintain any such animal within the city without first obtaining a written permit. A violation of this section shall be an infraction. Exceptions: The provisions of this article shall not apply to the temporary keeping of nonhousehold animals in bona fide educational or medical institutions for the purpose of instruc- tion or study, provided such animals are securely confined and are properly cared for in a manner satisfactory to the animal control supervisor. (Ord. No. N. S. 506, § 1, 5-13-75; Ord. No. 84-771, §§ 1, 3, 8-14-84; Ord. No. 85-793, § 1, 5-14-85) Sec. 4-4. Permit. (a) Application. Any person desiring to keep, harbor, possess, or maintain any nonhousehold animal as required under the provisions of this article shall make application for such permit in writing, addressed, and file the same with the general services department on a form to be supplied by that office. Each applica- tion shall be accompanied by an application fee, payable to the city, in the sum of fifty dollars ($50.00), which shall be retained by the city to cover its costs in connection with the processing of such application and which shall not be refunded. Such applica- tion shall state the kind of animal for which the permit is de - Supp. No. 6-85 55 4 4-4 HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE 4 4-4 sired, the location of the premises where the same is to be kept or maintained, and the manner in which the applicant proposes to keep the same, giving details as to enclosures, tethers, cages or other means which the applicant proposes to employ in the event the permit is granted and their distance from the nearest dwell- ing or other structure used for human habitation. (b) Hearing granting or denial of permit Upon the filing of the application and the necessary accompanying reports, notices shall be posted in all directions for a distance of at least three hundred (300) feet from the place where such animals or fowl are proposed to be kept, and not more than fifty (50) feet apart, and shall notify the public that comments must be received by the general ser- vices director within ten (10) days of the date appearing on the notice. Comments must be in writing, and must be specific. In addition, the general services department will conduct a neigh- borhood survey and report their findings in writing to the gen- eral services director within ten (10) days of the date appearing on the notice. If a permit is granted, the general services director may pre- scribe such terms and conditions in connection with any permit, including but not limited to the following: (1) That the animal is at all times kept or maintained in a safe manner and that it is at all times confined securely so that the keeping of such animal will not constitute a dan- ger to human life or the property of others, and that the animal shall not be kept within thirty-five (35) feet of any residence or other building used for human habitation or within one hundred (100) feet of any school building, hos- pital building, or similar institutional building. (2) That adequate safeguards are made to prevent unautho- rized access to such animal by members of the public. (3) That the health or well-being of the animal is not in any way endangered by the manner of keeping or confinement. (4) That the keeping of such animal does not constitute a nuisance and will not harm the surrounding neighborhood. Supp. No. 6-85 56 f 4-4 ANIMALS AND FOWL 4 4-4 (5) That the keeping of such animal will not create or cause offensive odors or constitute a danger to public health. (6) That the quarters in which the animal is kept or confined are adequately lighted and ventilated and are so constructed that they may be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. (7) That the applicant for such special permit prove his ability to respond in damages for bodily injury or death of any person or persons or for damage to property owned by any other person which may result from the ownership, keep- ing or maintenance of such animal. Proof of liability to respond in damages may be given by filing with the ani- mal control supervisor a certificate of insurance stating that the applicant is, at the time of his application, and will be during the period of such special permit, insured against liability to respond to such damages, or by posting with the animal control supervisor a surety bond condi- tioned upon payment of such damages during the period of such special permit. Such certificate of insurance or bond shall provide that no cancellation of the insurance or bond will be made unless ten (10) days' written notice is first given to the animal control supervisor. It shall be unlawful for any person to whom any such permit may be issued to fail or refuse t� comply with any of the terms and conditions so imposed. (c) Reserved (d) [Number of animals allowed.] In no event shall a permit be issued for the keeping of more than two (2) wild or nonhousehold animals or more than five (5) domestic fowl (chickens, ducks or geese) at any single location. (e) Endorsement Before any permit becomes effective the same must be accepted in writing by the permittee by the endorsement of the permittee accepting the permit upon the terms and condi- tions subject to which the same is granted, and agreeing to com- ply with and observe each and all of its terms and conditions. (f) Revocation. All permits issued under the provisions of this article shall be temporary only and may be revoked'by the gen- Supp. No. 6-85 57 * 4-4.1 HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE 4 4-5 eral services department at any time without cause or liability should the department find that the keeping of such animal within the city unduly menaces, threatens or endangers lives or property or the life or property of any person. (Ord. No. N. S. 506, § 1, 5-13-75; Ord. No. 82-683, § 2, 2-23-82; Ord. No. 84-774, § 2, 8-28-84; Ord. No. 85-793, § 1, 5-14-85) Sec. 4-4.1. Appeals. Upon the granting or denial of a permit or revocation, the applicant and all parties expressing concern shall be notifiedof the decision by the general services director in writing. Appeals shall be in writing, including specific items of dis- agreement with the general services director's decision or find- ings. Appeals shall be filed with the city clerk's office within fifteen (15) days of the issuance of the report of decision and findings. The fee for appeals shall be fifty dollars ($50.00). The filing of an appeal with the city clerk shall stay the decision of the general services director until the appeal has been acted on. When an appeal is filed, the general services director shall for- ward the record of the case to the city council. The city council shall conduct a public hearing. Such hearings shall be held within forty (40) days of the council's receipt of the written appeal. The city council shall announce its decision and findings within sixty (60) days of the closing of the hearing, unless good cause is shown for an extension of time. The council may incorporate by refer- ence the findings of the general services director. Within thirty (30) days of the final decision on the administrative process, the city council shall mail notice to the appellant and applicant. A copy of this notice shall be included in the general services direc- tor's files. (Ord. No. 85-793, § 1, 5-14-85) Sec. 4-5. Unlawful to permit nonhousehold animals to en- danger persona It shall be unlawful for any person owning, possessing or having the custody or control of any nonhousehold animal to allow or permit such animal to be or run at large, or per- mit it to run loose or be tethered, or caged, in or on or within the premises of such person or in, on or within any Supp. No. 6-85 58 -- Cfu lc C l`vi (3;1 [fa --L[51 ' O? EtTiF'ttota %czct ctti Soli /- 3SI i� (A/LAc. cut p. ((u 1 104 1 -F(ztviz_v,�t rtv� -j-VvyaLvsa (k c . Q- l '! ozr y gept-4 u41,' C ns, (zec c&, Yl/Lv . aol u( ( —DAL (c -c,6117 -vv t W d /7 {1> VIcRAA-e • di2, . (ec{ Kr (io. ( 1-1- frt C, c (t4Gud /w( Ja ..&/2_ (:1 X1441 OJ C ✓l (4� CIY1�v,,w ti a cc( Gt Sv 14_ ,)4/7 0pcseCi I� ✓h.6 � h v I. Lc/u., &1 peCACI((.-c1 kt- PLO— �cw I /j/LtrYvl-l �,� i L �v t l ys (t1/0OIA.4 -11) -1 fi, l 14477- n,tt s T14 �" �-✓� ho p(o ��'�4 �- to �,s �,6o v `_ cLv- (Ai (tA UY frt. ( .1. A-tAc . C.4.1E4A ;(10j (4- ': G,• A 1,fubtefl,�L*Ov1 15 11 1 Sack (�✓ Dr‘a't �12,e� �/1tv. 1 '(v� a.- - (/il lN SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION U • ' 'a �t o r ucC (4 t p14 -6 4sz �� vvc c w, c -u cg ' . f iZ. 6D-v k, ?l'tol &wt. tiDIA.-%n: cz L d.0 SS S (Lap inx t cue ✓l�w�ue ct' ate. v1,61- Loi. (e` out C o a or t ,. 1 fv-ti,-6-11 1-14-i 1�-a-✓ ti-� OA. 1k 6 L t s L o 1, h o od I majt, ( f 2 �ooc 4,,,t l wa c (J _ lv 1.12..GiAA 72-1.s:( /u r Geo y'1 CA> jl ' Loa v4 . if s (lcc2.0._ 1 joum ry v( a Li CCU° 1 The o12t r n1� ( 1)474' Cct,r,4.1 (`lp DAL t/ L„,e_ ' h ry S tvz-t, v4_ 1 1/tc.r Lc, y lt 604 1.11)1/1(54.L. .1V1 1(51/,t WI ! i t 11A1incl vz i-tb l k lit tcS t,,Loy/poi Dv I vt_oacf- AP s 4a, 1/1-(2s-IJO/ty I'D L?•CL, 0.01417 l2AU 1, ha-cc. vu 7l MLc iLa. ° t -{ t".0)-1..c k t/1,, . s' bo-2)1.2. aWCLU _ 09 l k litJZ ►'f r ect' deiffs sL.ee t tr-p at vl/ti L',tce 7k-4. 1 YVADA.1 o- 0 v o"!tD--v cU.cd t., r-, depot ba>v-, t 1. II 2) " Ca-t ecG fi prrvi l wL (4 auc Oe.,(nr ( Ca> . Cif 7L� ItA, n un, r� v r. 1A-Ci J v�. tAL a.Yd. ckt-04A31,,ft, `-° saM-e--h e-D r cze 64,t,2 it) i;� aucc t IA)t:i a ham, Ivo*'D 4't w t LL 111,24.1 tiA,to �(� u II� • di /14,C C71,21.v 6�.�uc� anc,� fern fau a e.,:tz-h„, ate.' 1)a:(-) o c a.24_-ecf ct s,0l -1 . C,oa . att. Th_o_ cc.f 4 Ct.i d arm ho "ate_ czvC-t alcc d c cuL i 1UCe bn- i- Z ©LC. --b c in ! ? tj2 Liel4Pd I S-ee.- Tk L Lt..:(,( Ccc u-. Q Nat of cti.t- 71.1 Lo -Lax .V'cr...ed. -(b 1.4-e_ ? wf._ uv e hp MA -1 a4A-- jaa.vhtc.s-va- , i y -o,_ 04144,2 i e -t o V Leo cie v h n� i ' .-U d �cc3� � -2sL Atti 6 Au. frte-ASIA-1 0 l C -r7 ��tct leo-t c� caw as c a -14d flt Lu T -� Lc �c,V , cLt f cezt� �v� `� -iYC�t�toc� 1)7 so •3) {- -rvu Kc U3 ,rt 06 . , L (10Ufr (a,vipj, a V 14,(A) -kit t j F3 4 / A -c c -L c t Lc a -W a/Le_ Wz a seal tfa,tcc . —c ke 5 T L,f- itArz-, A hi, 4.-)u 1-; L4cax 1,6zA- • C -o ok ' s t (c (, (ave,C.c., ` . The L-461-. T p (a1( �-rbuvLc( IAA 'Thto fcki o-( cicu-c( L2 (..t 1tOUfD 7k1C214. 1 " tte-4' 1'5iZ24- - L/tr? 174-- p ikezu.Lr Loa 01.1. "IL (fed- crixt peLvIA-3--Li kvv Lttr crt, t ik-124-1 IAJCA-4-. -1-1>uec./.3 7),„.1:,4g, Lt. /70 It." t1b fl fr PICA -re I c TkQ akz517/ tt //IA. ib Pak- az c !al,OL. ,r..14/ -Auk,/ duct et,t,tec cm- puk cia4-0. .14 -Lot 1,vp... t rkcszt c( 6.ct I kra, mut- -tvLo-z,_ a Li_ce /1.4-4 • l')OV IA. a 1 inAg-tt_t a<Act./vt V ate Ctu c &act cy 1, &-1 14.i t„tre..YiccLTL,c Lt4.e pa,4 A( -cd EuvUei % 11. p c.t -ID t.A...r SIA.,tr_e rnAs-t.AnA-1-1 L /D t- c)uceA, 42-o ,f Li 11U 4,QL 6e,t,c, frQ 9cLA 7ke. cio cC_ ft az-Li` Ole. (..ualt az( Tk Sclit.2xiY( h • ,C /A -wiz MAxt.-1- Lt tt.D0-T. Dt- )4.1. . -,uct 72 WAS -1.4 LOY kt•DCA 5 (v 1.apffa tb , En -2-4- ; IA0 v . /WI D4.41 Pt..ta La1/2. . Gi.ce_ ; Nuti-Le_ 10 . 1,4f-- cisr -nAst '1 am_ fvt(.2a 14431.,c -e_ Gi.ts-Zct It4) W ti & . &244.4_e dwo -i c 7 lcLc v , Ws 6ot to-L.A cv opp cif ``'1 bo! , 2 "vet-uc t l dlit-caE.• a r2 6ere" 11> kYatx, Lc- . W4; Lout, o.w atit.1Y1AQLS . Q a tf c� yz/uj l ' AA (0A.,2 a.- c.t • s/-z/z. c c.c J 1 ccc4 g b ' 6s t,f . (i ca- you. 0,-74 -. 61.1 COLti . j 1/1Z -e• c L -t` c._ ?ti ' t -t,¢ hzd , 1,4 4. cd!e,`it� v 14.. (ZIA. c C coo ,v Pal 6u° Dt-t Q l L/001-L.(.q a -v DIA,L1 l4 -("i K f' U/ n cI Lel 71/.e calf ?kaf W 4 :' 1.01)-(- 4A-0 f c-ocr/ /vah 12 -(12- c -'01:1S -tv a.L.L Uw- ni-t d L,10 Ov :-t-a.u_el - L a lawo -hut o • 7h_ar c.1 p-1--1/1141 I a4.. cJL D S'retAA.1$ �� bU l'u (.(I tet l ur. . 44.6 a z lwLLtti Ititfl wt-61(ct d -vu -j C .4- - icyy- 51A- / Iv %� 411f 1 '3 114-t1(/ G(� Z.(� 0 ✓j G (,- 1 moi=- CGu & /- cLo C4 o-ze 1-5 IAA cin (tel- W t. U �� "(13 CCov/ - -t- cl I / CRD Iat' /7-e-° (-{�,ya�,t✓t n�-c. %�-� --Lc. 11C -of n.1..4_,1 -6) kidcki L' JUS -1 1 c.a4A_ qtr - LLL f p_A-3 . 'tze-Lh & - 111- i -u-, Gv 1. C (.c)uviol1 /7t£crcn,.Sra I4w6?--q i M -a_ ..fro C a.g 11. -�- n4-4 D-rA c /IA Q_c iti _C f a y 1111-5 �-�- W A - Le_ e_ . cc /L' 1 LLu, l mac( (caw e ham, gouca v 92)t se e — tggr,949ar Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beacs City Council, SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE 89-7 Regular Meeting of October 10, 1989 LOCATIONS: SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE "MULTI -USE CORRIDOR," WEST OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY BETWEEN SOUTH CITY BOUNDARY AND 5TH STREET AND; THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE MUC, EAST OF P.C.H. BETWEEN 6TH STREET AND 8TH STREET (SEE ATTACHED MAP) PURPOSE: TO CONSIDER REZONING THE AREAS IN THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT FROM R-3 TO R-2 AND THE AREAS IN THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT FROM R-2 TO R -2B INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation SOUTHWEST QUADRANT: The Planning Commission and Staff recommend rezoning the subject areas in the Southwest Quadrant from R-3 to R-2 by adopting the attached ordinance. SOUTHEAST QUADRANT: The Planning Commission recommends maintaining the existing R-2 zoning while staff is recommending rezoning the subject areas from R-2 to R -2B by adopting the attached ordinance. Background The Planning Commission and City Council originally studied these areas as part of the General Plan Amendments for the Multi -Use Corridor. The subject areas in the Southwest Quadrant were General Plan amended from Multi -Use Corridor to Medium Density Residential, and the subject areas in the Southeast Quadrant were also General Plan amended from MUC to Medium Density Residential. This is the last of the residential rezonings to carry out the General Plan Amendments approved by the City Council on May 9, 1989. The rezoning of the commercial areas along Pacific Coast Highway will be considered after the residential rezonings.. Analysis Southwest Quadrant Please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report_for the analysis of this subject area. In response to testimony at the Planning Commission hearing made by residents concerned about their properties becoming - 1 - nonconforming by this proposal staff would again like to emphasize the following: 1. Several lots are currently built in excess of current R-3 densities and are therefore currently nonconforming uses (5 lots which contain 37 units). 2. Only two (2) 3 -unit lots which currently conform to R-3 densities will become nonconforming if changed to R-2 (at 726 4th Street & at 710 1st Place) , and the lot at 710 1st Place is connected by ownership to two 2 -unit lots which if combined with 710 1st Place has enough square footage for the existing 7 units under R-2 standards. 3. The remaining 11 lots (including the 8 -unit condominium at 701-715 4th Street) would conform to the R-2 density requirements. Also, please note the attached memo to the Planning Commission in response to Mr. and Mrs. Spangberg's letter. Southeast Quadrant Please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report for the analysis of this subject area. The Planning Commission favored keeping the zoning R-2 for this area rather than R -2B by a 3-2 margin. Their reasons included that it would not accomplish much density reduction, and that it is not necessary for zoning and general plan consistency. Staff continues to recommend rezoning this area to R -2B primarily to be consistent with the zoning to the east. Also it would not make any more lots nonconforming, it would protect the neighborhood from large multi -unit projects, and it is consistent with the City's goal of reducing density. CON,C ,4? / (C.:)- Michael Schubach Planning Director e'��:•ertso ssociate Planner Kevin Northcraft City Manager Attachments 1. Proposed Ordinances 2. Maps 3. PC Resolution No. 89-64 4. P.C. Staff Report 9/5/89 5. Excerpt from City Council Minutes, 5/3/89 & 5/9/89 6. Public Notice Affidavit p/perszc7 STAFF RECOMMENDATION ti ii - r/ _ ■ ■ his `i yi ORDINANCE 89 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR THE AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND RECOMMENDING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on Zone Change 89-7 for the southea quadrant of the "Multi -Use Corridor," on October 10, 1989, and made the following Findings: A. Subject areas in the southeast quadrant were General Plan amended from Multi -Use Corridor to Medium Density Residential by the Hermosa Beach City Council on May 9, 1989; B. Rezoning the subject areas in the southeast quadrant as described below will make the zoning consistent with the adjacent areas to the west; C. The rezonings will result in a slightly lower potential density for the subject areas and therefore will encourage development for the subject areas appropriate for and compatible with surrounding residential areas currently of lower density zoning designations; NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby ordain that the zoning map be amended as shown on the attached map and described as follows: SECTION 1. Rezone the area on the east side of Pacific Coast Highway, behind the Commercial Corridor, to a depth of no more than 240 feet, between 6th Street and 8th Street, including the south side of 6th Street, from R-2 to R -2B legally described as follows: - The easterly 80 feet of lots 11, 12, and 13, Camino Real Tract - Easterly 48.5 feet of the Westerly 170.3 feet of lot 7, Block 85, 2nd Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract - Lots 11, 12,.20, 21, and 22 Wilson and Lind's Tract - lot 1, Parcel Map 113-81-82 -t- 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 SECTION 2. Amend Ordinance No. 89-1004 regarding the moratorium on the issuance of building permits for the "Multi -Use Corridor"to exclude the above described properties rezoned by this ordinance. 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 ATTEST: 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 October, 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California plandoc/perszc7a CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY Approx. Dist. Dist. Similar Use Current I Lot Use Date Cond. from from Adjacent Across Slope Zone Confor Size Const. PCH ECB; Uses Street SS 1st St it 7 P.C.H 12640 Comm. 1945 Fair • 0-190 Res/bad Comm. Flat C-3 Y * 710 1st St. 9350 8UApt. 1975 Fair 190-300 Com/E. Com/Res Mod. R -3C N ip p . • N.76.3a E "4 0 COMMERCIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three or nom units) • EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY ••••••• —PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY • 1st P1. to 45 P.C.H. 35000 Com/Auto •1976 Fair • 0-150 Res/bad Comm. Flat C-3 Ye SS 1st Place I. 720 1st P1. 4080 2Units 1935 Poor 150-190 0 Com/S/E Comm. Mod. R -3C • Ye 41 718 1st P1.4025 2Units 1927 Fair 190-230 40 Com/S. SFR Mod. R -3C Ye • 710 1st P1. 4600 3Units 1939 Fair 230-270 80 Yes SFR Mod. R -3C Ye NS 1st• St. 719 1st St. 5865 Com/Auto Car/str Fair 150-192 - Res/W. Comm. Mod. R -3C Ye 0 715 1st St. 4600 SFR 1929 Fair 190-230 Com/E. MFR Mod. R -3C Ye Lot Size Use Approx. Dist. Dist. Similar Use Current ' U Date Cond. from from Adjacent Across Slope Zone i Const. PCH ECB' Uses Street 4- 4IRat a ao Q' \ • 7 000 1 QRST M.7PU E. PL. a 7 40' '• '• fird.M4 1 131 130 129 128 • 127 126 125 .. 124 i• %� �� o do /9 /N /7 ® /4 ' r f'�. ii m f It Ir I7 ylAO '� / ON m .1133 Ii 134 @ 135 136 0I6 137 l38 139 '140 :f�11: '� // XigOr.dri-r, Adli .44 -Ir '71 rair• • 40' • .. 1 fly. /,'e of A.rE..[/. Ry. Sive Troek A. / Pee 0R. 0759.1 ' •' . • • • • II 7 ST. v COMMERCIAL EDSINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL . TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three or acre units) 90 • R-3 it• RNZ EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY .10000• PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY .- ;W ;t. Address Lot ;rd St.- 1st P1. Size Use Approx. Dist. Date Cond. - from Const. PCH Dist. Similar Use Current Use from Adjacent Across Slope Zone Conf'- ECB* Uses Street ing? letween 2nd St 1st P1. IA P.C.H. 48300 Com/Auto 1970 Fair 0-230 Res/bad Com/Res Flat C-3 Yes 7115 2nd St. 4600 2Units 1969 Fair 230-270 0 Com/E. SFR Mod. C-3 No 725 1st P1. 4600 abnd/SFR <1913 Poor 150-190 0 Com/E. 2FR Mod. C-3 No 719 1st P1., 4600 2Units 1954 Fair 190-230 40 Com/N. 2FR Mod. R -3C Yes 7d19 1st P1.1010. 4600 2Units Poor 230-270 80 Com/N. MFR Mod. R -3C Yes J t ST. ,, 2ND • sP7 • Via 2 69.70 40 b P5 103 , _ 102 0 �, y d �- 12 101 35 114 2! :221::: }� 100 + .i: ? .r ea ; 36 '' .:. II5 ;1 ' • . 1//%.� ':::.:.; t j} d9 1:1$••• E d:' �17l+ �j dr 7 1J/. �O 10 6 q 26 c V x665 zi 104 ri 0 10 7 0 °r ��3.8/ r 3660 _ �� / r ,0� ... Ai, ." f407" % y9B/ 87.es/ „ "-e a Z9 108 •/r 33. 112 ® 113 ro32 9 '$) III o - tIO 0 o 112.79 366 40 . _ __ ... ... .� .r v: re, i • COMMERCIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ElMULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three or more units) 715 PL. 90 R-3 is It1.1 EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY .•••••• —2ROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY r 1 PACIFIC COAST 2N0 W Approx. Dist. Dist. Similar Use Current Use t. Address • Lot Use Date Cond. from from Adjacent Across Slope Zone Conf'- rd St.- 1st P1. Size •Const. PCH ECB' Uses Street S 3rd St. 43 P.C.H./ • / 42 3rd St. 3500 Comm. 1949 Fair 0-110 Yes Comm. Flat C-3 Yes '33 P.C.H. 2960 Comm. 1956• Fair 0-74 Yes Flat C-3 Yes '29 P.C.H. 4000 Comm. 1939 Fair 0-100 Yes Flat C-3 Yes 1pprox. 710 3rd 10820 Com/Pkg Fair 110-190 Res/bad Comm. Flat C-3 Yes )T20 3rd St. 4600 5UApt. 1962 Fair 190-230 0 Comm/E. MFR Flat R -3C No )710 3rd St. 4600 4UApt. 1964 Fair 230-270 40 Yes MFR Flat R -3C No NS 2nd St. 217 P.C.H. 4400 Comm. 1945 Fair 0-110 Yes Flat C-3 Yes 211 P.C.H. 4400 Comm. 1945 Fair 0-110 - Yes Flat C-3 Yes 201 P.C.H. ' 4400 Com/Auto 1944 Fair 0-110 Yes Comm. Flat C-3 Yes Approx. 725 2nd 4600 Com/Auto Car/str Fair 110-200 0 Res/W. Comm. Flat C-3 Yes )717 2nd St. 3450 SFR 1968 Fair 200-230 90 Com/E. Comm. Mod. R -3C Yes I )71T 2nd St. 4600 SFR <1942 Good 230-270 220 Yes SFR Mod. R -3C Yes • }' .96 " 36,119/ S S/ 20 a• sci N F- { at. i • IB © 16 o N• W' Z ' W a4 3 2 C . IN ..Itn•82 83 %4Jtot•• i ltot•' out., 060x•'. , Pao 96 •'• 86 96.09 . 1—pax/3 20 - 40 COMMERCIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1WO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (thcee or more units) EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY .•••••• PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY • SW St. Address Lot 4th St.- 3th St. Size Use Approx. Dist. Dist. Similar Use Current Use Date Cond. from from Adjacent Across Slope Zone Conf' Const. PCH ECB* Uses Street ing? SS 4th St. 339 P.C.H./ 750 4th St. 4400 Comm. n/a<45 Fair 0-75 Yes Comm. Flat C-3 Yes 333 P.C.H. 4400 Comm. 1941 Fair 0-110 Res/bhd Flat C-3 Yes 325 P.C.H. 2250 Comm. 1927 Fair 0-110 Res/bhd Flat C-3 Yes 746 4th St. 1050 Comm. 1981 Fair 75-110 Res/bhd Comm. Flat C-3 Yes 736 4th St. 4600 2Units 1938 Fair 110-140 0 Comm/E. Comm. Flat C-3 No )726 4th St. 4600 3Units 1957 . Fair 140-180 40 Yes SFR Flat R -3C Yes 718 4th St. 4600 2Units 1979 Fair 180-220 80 Yes MFR Flat R -3C Yes 1710 4th St. 4600 SFR n/a<56 Fair 220-260 120 Yes MFR Flat R -3C Yes NS 3rd St. 307 P.C.H. 3600 Comm. 1944 Fair 0-90 Yes Comm. Flat C-3 Yes 303 P:C.H. 7200 Com/Auto 1965 Fair 0-90 - Yes Comm. Flat C-3 Yes 737 3rd St. 11500 Comm. 1968? Fair 90-190 Res/N&W Comm. Flat C.3/R-3C Yes ) 715 3rd St. 9200 8UCon. 1985 Good 190-270 100 Church/E MFR Flat R -3C *e•• No *Existing Commercial Boundary ,4TH. ST• 1n 7 f B 72(• 7 3 6 '74b 750 /?O . 40.74 40174 40 a 3e 37 a ©i 36 n Q 35 ;�: a • • se 34 • M ® 33 :3' : :d+i:;:{•: #`:`:<`!': .... > �0:;`{ >'>' •'tiM1 . \ ?w:E` :, ""Kni 'N. • • 42 ai n h 40 39 38 CS 4�* ,1 . ,i i.- /20 A1741.34 '17 2653 2653 40 !, . z . 60 hI 30 30 4reas 4633 N •. 4 10�� 4.\...,, .?," •''y:%t :: .fir �\ a ',a?::�}}•w •. .\ �t}i2 frM}.: :::.. �. a � z 53 '�.:�:�:}: � >n• ' C}� Cb�}C: h £ 444 h 14 r.- ao i/ 52 � 49 40 50 51 1 / ifor JJ`` N ae 4� Q 1ae_= 47 .48 R � I Q,SO/n 1,300.. • ' . A. 416 I h 40 a 60 %30 90 3/.92 3193 3RD. EJ COMMERCIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENITIAL IWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three or more units) ST. iJ 90 1Z-3 lbRr2, EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY PACIFIC COAST Lot Size Use Approx. Dist. Dist. Similar Use Current Use Date Cond. from from Adjacent Across Slope Zone Conf Const. PCH ECB• Uses Street ing? SS 5th St. 429 P.C.H. 14040 Comm. 1971 Fair 0-130 Res/bhd Comm. Flat C-3 Yes 0710 - 732 5th 12870 12UApt. 1986 Fair 130-250 0 Comm/E. Comm. Flat R -3C No 706 5th St. 4320 2Units 48/76 Fair 250-290 120 Yes Comm. Mod. R -3C Yes NS 4th St. 421 P.C.H. 4250 Com/Auto 1953 Poor 0-100 Yes Flat C-3 403 P.C.H. 13600 Comm. 1945 Fair 0-140 Res/bhd Comm. Flat C-3 '31 4th St. 5120 SFR n/a<49 Fair 140-180 0 Com E/MFR N&W MFR Flat R -3C 0701 - 715 4th 13952 8UCon. 1979 Good 180-290 40 Yes MFR Flat R -3C *Existing Commercial Boundary 5TH Cis 2514. ,• M76•J1C ' `7o& n I -'1 �5 Yes Yei Yes Yes /!lf 4 • j 0 _ `O • • •• • Mr 40 • �u6r • . �::•::•i:t•. 'G$tN<QS•.x}:i:�i;L';;CVngi•{!CvF�<;Y;;C.li4iJ: Yt%fv�'....•i'• 84%.n.w:a.J:::•:•.: • • v �yJ�fa\ \ \ •' :q.\'•4G:y>vi �i{i T . v !�(- ax :�:rYvhh.44.}y ,{ :.% • 10 • 7J.$ E•O/O - ?•• ?.••'' :Ca� l•`V¢v •pta^. .(l J>�. 3362 9 g^Cr. :t,E.;;..'.:'.;•.';•: x�y; q��r' ?i.sv�Sv�'i.�k,4••trYy;jt't'r;'<:4.: i.%' ¢-_- \1 •• •- •• �\ _\ ,"/•• :I: S —1 T1 4 0004 • OO I$ If O 17 OO.O I /1I ( 19 • .I 'O 20 6.N6 1 !s I !J 12 1,!/O -, II 1 ,: :�+}:::j\q•..�o,• 7 •• x a: r / i $40 J, 64 , � I / I r k••;:>h•'<s ,.:;g I mo, � rer, r 1 14I, _h K769>'E. $ 4TH t-7115 •I— sr $ vI4 COMMERCIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL . TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - (thcee oc Oats units) $ Z9 Z iti-Sufb%402, EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY .••••C• PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA• BOUNDARY 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 89 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR THE AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND RECOMMENDING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on Zone Change 89-7 for the (southwest! quadrant of the "Multi -Use Corridor," on October 10, 1989, and made the following Findings: A. Subject areas in the southwest quadrant were General Plan amended from Multi -Use Corridor to Medium Density Residential by the Hermosa Beach City Council on May 9, 1989; B. Rezoning the subject areas in the southwest quadrant as described below will bring the zoning into consistency with the General Plan and state law requires consistency between zoning and the General Plan, and it will make the zoning consistent with the adjacent areas to the west; C. The rezonings will result in a slightly lower potential density for the subject areas and therefore will encourage development for the subject areas appropriate for and compatible with surrounding residential areas currently of lower density zoning designations; NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby ordain that the zoning map be amended as shown on the attached map and described as follows: SECTION 1. Rezone the area on west of Pacific Coast Highway, behind the Commercial Corridor, to a depth of no more than 300 feet, between the south city boundary and 8th Street from R-3 to R-2 legally described as follows: - lots 30, 31, 32, 66, 67, 86, 87, 116, 117, 121, 122, 123, 141, and 146 Walter Ransom Co's Venable Place 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 - lot 1, Tract No. 37389 - lot 1, Tract No. 26438 - lots 5, 6, 7, 8, Koepke's Tract SECTION 2. Amend Ordinance No. 89-1004 regarding the moratorium on the issuance of building permits for the "Multi -Use Corridor" to exclude the above described properties rezoned by this ordinance. 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 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 October, 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: plandoc/perszc7 CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY SE Approx. St. Address Lot Use Date Cond. 5th St.- 6th St. Size Const. SS 5th St. 504 P.C.H. 15000 Comm. 1984 Gdod 518 P.C.H. 5625 Vac/Com. 1946 Fair 530 P.C.H. 5625 Comm. 1922 Fair 833 5th St. 13500 10UApt. 1988 Good NS 5th St. 536 P.C.H. 4440 Com/Res bhd 1922 Fr/Pr 544 P.C.H. 4440 Com/Res bhd 1922 Pr/Pr 588 P.C.H.• 4440 Com/Res bhd <1955 Fr/Pr 822 6th St. 4400 SFR 1937 Poor *541 Gravely Ct. 2960 SFR 1952 Fair 41 544 Gravely Ct. 2960 SFR 1924 Fair 40 549 Gravely Ct. 2960 SFR 1952 Fair 1 5TH 5T. Dist. Dist. Similar Use from from Adjacent Across PCH ECB* Uses Street 0-160 Yes Comm. 0-120 Yes 0-120 Yes 160-250 0 Com/W/SFR/N SFR Current Use Slope Zone Con ing Flat C-3 Yee Flat C-3 Yes Flat C-3 Yes Mod. R-3 Yes '0-120 SFR/bhd Mod. 0-120 SFR/bhd Mod. 0-120 - SFR/bhd Comm. Mod. 120-160 0 Yes 2FR Mod. 160-240 40 MFR/S. Mod. 160-240 40 Yes Mod. 160-240 40 Yes SFR Mod. C-3 C-3 C-3 R -2C R -2C R -2C R -1C r4 COMMERCIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 411 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL n MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL .. (thcee-or na4 units)• EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY .•••••• -PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA .. BOUNDARY No No *No Yes Yes Yes Yes C C SE Approx. Dist. Dist. Similar Use Current U St. Address Lot Use Date Cond. from from Adjacent Across Slope Zone C 1 6th St.- 8th St. Size Const. PCH ECB' Uses Street 'i NS 6th St. 600 P.C.H. 12100 Com/Auto 1978 Fafr 0-122 Res/bad Comm. Mod. C-3 Y 620 P.C.H. 9600 Com/Auto 1965 Fair 0-122 Res/bad Mod. C-3 Y.! • 817 6th St. 7275 2Units 1946 Fair 122-170 0 Com/W/MFR/E SFR Mod. R -2C Y• • 831 6th St. 8400 6UCon. 1982 Good 170-226 48 SFR/N SFR Mod. R -2C SS 7th St. 638 P.C.H. 6000 Comm. <1950 Fair 0-120 2FR/bad Mod. C-3 Ye 650 P.C.H./ 814 6th St.- 4800 Com/SFR bad 45/32 Fr/Fr 120-160 SFR/bad Comm. Mod. C-3 1 • 824 7th St. 4800 2Unit1958 Poor 120-160 0 Com/W. MFR Mod. R -2C Ye • 832 7th St. 4800 SFR 1928 Fair 160-200 40 MFR/E. 2FR Mod. R -2C Ye • 840 7th St. 4800 4UApt. 1987 Good 200-240 80 MFR/E. 2FR Mod. R -2C h lab 7TH " el44024 131 ST. 25 26 `J /O ar-2 I ?s X71 8 WI ft. h� 4.7 SHEET 3 •1Pi c. -r • S0 1 • 4 6TH . /4 • COMMERCIAL EEOSINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1W0 -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 877o 27 28 29 30 31 `32 000eo .c) w w w 44 i 45.9 45 40 4Z ioa 0Z7 i lkok ri Q • O 5 I01 1-•" 2 1 4'41 hle:• cv 43 4 1 75.4 aCf40 4e 7/0e N.l6^•.i4'E. ST. >- •w V 1 >H Z'H n EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY "PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY (three or acts units) SE Approx. Dist. Dist. Similar Use Current • Us St. Address Lot Use Date Cond. from from Adjacent Across Slope Zone Co NS 7th St. Size Const. PCH ECB* Uses Street in 700 P.C.H. 14400 Com/Auto <1960 Fair 0-120 Res/bad Comm. Mod. C-3 Yes IP 821, 825 7th St. 4800 3UCon. 1977 Fair 120-160 0 Com/W. 2FR Mod. R -2C No 0 829 7th St. 4800 2Units 1961 Fair 160-200 40 Yes SFR Mod. R -2C Yes • 839 7th St. 4800 2Units 1924 Fair 200-240 80 Yes MFR Mod. R -2C Yes 3 lkj- 110. 40Z lb gel* ti $TH • - b 7TH ST. COMMERCIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - (three or more units) -/6 EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY •••••• "PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY !?j% ... n .23 1 6 • 7121. 4[•JQ stl.Q N_76'Le•r • • b 7TH ST. COMMERCIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - (three or more units) -/6 EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY •••••• "PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY BACKGR d UND. AI/ITER/4i 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. 89-64 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AND ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR THE AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND RECOMMENDING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Zone Change 89-7 for the southwest quadrant of the "Multi -Use Corridor," on September 5, 1989, and made the following Findings: A. Subject areas in the southwest quadrant were General Plan amended from Multi -Use Corridor to Medium Density Residentialby the Hermosa Beach City Council on May 9, 1989; B. Rezoning the subject areas in the southwest quadrant as described below will bring the zoning into consistency with the General Plan and state law requires consistency between zoning and the General Plan, and it will make the zoning consistent with the adjacent areas to the west; C. The rezonings will result in a slightly lower potential density for the subject areas and therefore,will encourage development for the subject areas which are appropriate for and compatible with surrounding residential areas currently of lower density zoning designations; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby recommend that the zoning map be amended as shown on the attached map and described as follows: 1. Rezone the area on west of Pacific Coast Highway, behind the Commercial Corridor, to a depth of no more than 300 feet, between the south city boundary and 8th Street from R-3 to R-2 legally described as follows: - lots 30, 31, 32, 66, 67, 86, 87, 116, 117, 121, 122, 123, 141, and 146 Walter Ransom Co's Venable Place 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 lot 1, Tract No. 37389 lot 1, Tract No. 26438 lots 5, 6, 7, 8, Koepke's Tract VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ketz,Moore,Peirce NOES: Comm. Ingell,Chmn.Rue ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 89-64 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular mp-ting of September 5, 1989. Date Michael Schu ach, Secretary plandoc/perszc7 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE 89-7 c August 24, 1989 Regular Meeting of September 5, 1989 LOCATIONS: SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE "MULTI -USE CORRIDOR," WEST OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY BETWEEN SOUTH CITY BOUNDARY AND 5TH STREET AND THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE MUC, EAST OF P.C.H. BETWEEN 6TH STREET AND 8TH STREET (SEE ATTACHED MAP) PURPOSE: REZONE THE AREAS IN THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT FROM R-3 TO R-2 AND REZONE THE AREAS IN THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT FROM R-2 TO R -2B INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation Staff recommends rezoning the subject areas in the Southwest Quadrant from R-3 to R-2 and the subject areas in the Southeast quadrant from R-2 to R -2B. Background The Planning Commission and City Council originally studied these areas as part of the General Plan Amendments for the Multi -Use Corridor. The subject areas in the Southwest Quadrant were General Plan amended from Multi -Use Corridor to Medium Density Residential, and the subject areas in the Souteast area were also General Plan amended from MUC to Medium Density Residential. This is the last the residential rezonings to carry out the General Plan Amendments approved by the City Council on May 9, 1989. The rezoning of the commercial areas along Pacific Coast Highway will be considered after the residential rezonings. Analysis Southwest Quadrant The proposal is to rezone several lots located behind the Commercial Corridor to the west of P.C.H. These lots are the last lots in this area between P.C.H. and Ardmore to retain the R-3 zoning which at one time extended from P.C.H. to Ardmore Avenue in this area. Rezoning the lots to R-2 will bring them into consistency with the recently amended General Plan and will make the lots consistent with the zoning to the west. Several lots are currently built in excess of current R-3 densities and are therefore currently nonconforming uses (5 lots -I1f- which contain 37 units). Only two 3 -unit lots currently conforming to R-3 densities will become nonconforming uses under the proposed R-2 zone change. The remaining 11 lots will conform to the R-2 density requirements. Rezoning from R-3 to R-2 would result in a reduction of potential density of about 33 percent. STATISTICAL DATA FOR SW SUBJECT AREA Total Land Area: Number of Lots: Number of Units: Existing Density: Land Use Planning Designation: Existing Zoning: Proposed Zoning: 107,247 sq ft (2.5 acres) 18 67 27 du/acre MD Residential R-3 R-2 Potential additional units if current nonconforming and built -out lots remain: Under R-3 Under R-2 Potential units under R-3 zoning assuming Individual lots: 74 Combining lots: 79 Potential units under R-2 zoning assuming Individual lots: 50 Combining lots: 58 Number of lots which are non- conforming uses under current zoning: Number of lots which would be nonconforming under proposed zoning No. of units constructed in last: 13 (80 total) 3 (70 total) 10 years 10-20 years 20-30 years new construction new construction 5 (37 units) 7 (43 units) 30 8 10 30+ years Lot sizes: Housing types: 19 3,500 to 14,000 sq. ft. single-family, duplexes, and multiple units--apts. and condos Southeast Quadrant The proposal is to rezone several lots located behind the Commercial Corridor east of P.C.H. from R-2 to R -2B between 6th Street and 8th Street (including the south side of 6th Street) to make the zoning consistent with the lots to the east up the slope. The proposed rezoning will carry out the recommendation of the Multi -Use Corridor study and will be consistent with the General Plan designation of MD Residential. The subject lots are all similar in size as those lots zoned R -2B located to their east. Three out of the eleven subject lots are currently nonconforming to R-2 density. No additional lots will be made noncomforming by the proposed R -2B designation. The R -2B zoned areas located to the east are included in the moratorium which limits the height of any new construction to 25 feet. The subject area was not included in that moratorium. Given that the subject area is located further down the slope from the R-1 areas staff believes it was correct to exclude these lots from the moratorium. Rezoning from R-2 to R -2B would result in a reduction of potential density of about 33 percent. STATISTICAL DATA FOR SE SUBJECT AREA Total Land Area: 53,355 sq. ft. (1.2 acres) Number of Lots: 11 Number of Units: 25 Existing Density: 20 du/acre General Plan Designation: MD Existing Zoning: R-2 Proposed Zoning: R -2B Potential additional units if current nonconforming and built -out lots remain: Under R-2 7 (32 total) Under R -2B 1 (26 total) Zf Potential units under R-2 zoning assuming new construction Individual lots: Combining lots: 23 30 Potential units under R -2B zoning assuming Individual lots: Number of lots which are non- conforming uses under current zoning: Number of lots which would be nonconforming under proposed zoning No. of units constructed in last: 10 years 10-20 years 20-30 years 30+ years Lot sizes: Housing types: CONCUR: Michael Schubach Planning Director Attachments 1. maps 2. PC Resolution No. 89-64 3. Staff Review Minutes of 8/3/89 4. Excerpt from City Council Minutes, 5. Excerpt from P.C. Minutes, 4/4/89 6. Public Notice Affidavit new construction 19 3 (13 units) 3 (13 units) 10 3 2 8 2960 to 8400 sq. ft. single-family, duplexes, and multiple units--apts. and condos ndos Robertson Associate Planner plandoc/pcsrzc7 5/3/89 & 5/9/89 The Public Hearing was closed. A recess was called at 10:07 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 10:24 P.M. Action: To address this item quadrant by quadrant. Motion Rosenberger, second Sheldon. So ordered, noting the objection of Williams. Straw Vote: To accept staff's and Planning'Commission's recommendations on the South East Quardrant. Motion Sheldon, second Rosenberger. Proposed Amendment: To eliminate lot 42 & 43. Motion Williams, second Rosenberger. The second was withdrawn. Vote on above Straw Vote: AYES - Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson NOES - Creighton, Mayor Williams tion: To take the North East Area block y block. M. ion Sheldon, second Williams. So ord ed. 14th treet to 15th Street Straw ote: To approve staff recomm- dation. Motion eldon, second Rosenberger. AYES - C -ighton, Rosenberger, Sh don, Simpson, Mayor Wi iams NOES - None 15th Street t• 16th Street Straw Vote: P nning Comm'ssion recommendation to Low Density south of 5th P1- e, rest Planning Commission and staff recommen atio Motion Sheldon, sec ••d Creighton. AYES - Creighton, Ro - berger, Sheldon, Simpson NOES - Mayor Willia 16th Street to 17 h Street Straw Vote: To .pprove sta recommendation. Motion Rosenbe'ger, second Cr-ghton. So ordered. Action: To ake 17th St to 21st -t in one group. Motion Cre'ghton, second Rosenberg- . So ordered. Propose • Straw Vote: To approve staf recommendation. Motion osenberger, second Sheldon. AYES Rosenberger, Sheldon NOE - Creighton, Simpson, Mayor Williams rther Proposed Straw Vote: 18th Street to = st St - General Plan changed to Medium Density Resident -1. Motion Williams - dies for lack of second. -23- Minutes 5-3-89 DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND RECDM= MENDING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION." Motion 'lliams, second Rosenberger. So order Further Actio To waive full reading • Ordinance No. 89-989 entitled ORDINANCE AMENDIN THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE T- 2 FOR THE -AREA AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACv., MAP -AND ADOPTING AN EN- VIORNMENTAL NEGATIVE DEC •' TION." Motion Simpson, second, 'eigh AYES - Creighton, oS`enberger, S'= don, Simpson, Mayor Williams NOES - None Final,Ation: To introduce Ordinance No. 89- Motron Creighton, second Simpson. So ordered. F. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CONSIDER THE LOCATION AND POLICIES REGARDING MULTI -USE CORRIDOR AND TO CON- SIDER A SPECIFIC PLAN AREA AND TO ADOPT THE EN- VIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION, with resolution for adoption. 5th Street to 4th Street - West Side Straw Vote: To approve staff recommendation. Motion Sheldon, second Rosenberger. AYES - Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson NOES - Creighton, Mayor Williams 4th Street to 3rd Street Proposed Straw Vote: To extend the boundary as staff recommends on Lots 56 & 57 to include in the SPA Commer- cial Corridor. Motion Williams, second Creighton. AYES - Creighton, Mayor Williams NOES - Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson • Straw Vote: To approve staff recommendation. Motion Sheldon, second Rosenberger. AYES - Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson, Mayor Williams NOES - None 3rd Street to 2nd Street Straw Vote: To approve staff recommendation. Motion Rosenberger, second Creighton. AYES - Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon,, Simpson, Mayor Williams NOES - None 2nd Street to 1st Street Straw Vote: To remove 709 and 719 from the Commercial Corridor SPA but to include 710 so the line would trail the existing zoning boundary line; and change 709 and 719 from High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. -2�- Minutes 5-9-89 / x Motion Sheldon, second Rosenberger. AYES - Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson NOES - Mayor Williams 1st Place to 1st Street Straw Vote: The line for the Commercial Corridor SPA be as follows: Follow the existing zoning boundary at the boundary of the Commercial at 720 and then jog westward to the boundary of 715 coming south then at th proper- ty line boundary and to include 719 and that both 715, 710, 718 & 720 be redesignated Medium Density Residential. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. AYES - Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson, Mayor Williams NOES - None 1st Street to South City Boundary Straw Vote: To approve staff recommendation. Motion Rosenberger, second Creighton. So ordered. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 89-5268 entitled "A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN BY CHANGING THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION FROM MULTI -USE CORRIDOR TO COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR FOR THE AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION." Motion Creighton, second Rosenberger. So ordered. Further Action: To adopt Resolution No. 89-5269 entitled "A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN BY CHANGING THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION FROM MULTI -USE CORRIDOR TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION." Motion Rosenberger, second Creighton. So ordered. Final Action: To adopt Resolution No. 89-5270 entitled "A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO ELIMINATE THE LAND USE CATEGORY OF MULTI -USE CORRIDOR AND CREATE A LAND USE CATEGORY OF COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR AND TO ADOPT A STATEMENT OF POLICIES FOR THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION." Motion Rosenberger, second Sheldon. So ordered. 11. RECC1 NDATION_TO APPROVE THE REQUEST_EOR PR&p(rS7 g6R THE POSITION OF CI T6 Memorandum from Person - or Robert rs i ackw000d da e a 1,989 -2S Minutes 5-9-89 ZONE CHANGE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF THE MULTI -USE CORRIDOR AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR (A) SOUTHWEST QUADRANT AND (B) SOUTHEAST QUADRANT Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 24, 1989. Staff recommended rezoning the subject areas in the southwest quadrant from R-3 to R-2 and the subject areas in the southeast quadrant from R-2 to R -2B. The Planning Commission and City Council originally studied these areas as part of the general plan amendments for the multi -use corridor. The subject areas in the southwest quadrant were general plan amended from multi -use corridor to medium density residential, and the subject areas in the southeast area were also general plan amended from MUC to medium density residential. This is the last of the residential rezonings to carry out the general plan amendments approved by the City Council on May 9, 1989. The rezoning of the commercial areas along Pacific Coast Highway will be considered after the residential rezonings. SOUTHWEST QUADRANT: From R-3 to R-2 for varying distances west of Pacific Coast Highway between 130 feet to 300 feet and between south city boundary and 5th Street The proposal is to rezone several lots located behind the commercial corridor to the west of P.C.H. These lots are the last lots in this area between P.C.H. and Ardmore to retain the R-3 zoning, which at one time extended from P.C.H. to Ardmore Avenue in this area. Rezoning the lots to R-2 will bring them into consistency with the recently amended general plan and will make the lots consistent with the zoning to the west. Several lots are currently built in excess of the current R-3 densities and are therefore currently nonconforming uses (five lots which contain 37 units). Only two three -unit lots currently conforming to R-3 densities will become nonconforming uses under the proposed R-2 zone change. The remaining 11 lots will conform to the R-2 density requirements. _2 6— P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 c Rezoning from R-3 to R-2 would result in a reduction of potential density of about 33 percent. Chmn. Rue asked what effect the proposed rezoning would have on nonconforming uses. Mr. Schubach stated that once the new nonconforming uses and structures ordinance is adopted, the new regulations must be complied with. Chmn. Rue noted that several residentially zoned areas fall within the commercial corridor areas. Mr. Schubach explained that those particular properties will be within the specific plan area and will be treated somewhat differently since they will be properties in transition and can be either maintained as residential or converted to commercial. Comm. Ingell, noting that he lives within 300 feet of the properties at 1st Place, 1st Street, and 2nd Street, asked whether he must abstain from discussion on this matter due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Lee, after discussing the matter with Comm. Ingell, stated that there would be no conflict of interest because Comm. Ingell rents the property and therefore would not be materially or financially impacted by this decision. He further noted that the decision is also based upon whether or not the Commission's decision would have the same impact on one individual as it would upon a significant number of the public at large. Public Hearing opened at 8:03 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Mrs. Spangberg, 704-706 5th Street, opposed a rezone to R-2, stating that all other surrounding lots, except hers, have four units on them. Also, her property faces commercial. She stated that the current R-3 zoning is consistent with other properties in the area. Her property currently has only two units. Mr. Spangberg felt he would be penalized by being downzoned from R-3 to R-2. John McHugh, 718 1st Place, owner of 710, 712, 714, 718, 720 and 720 1/2, stated that he favors retaining the current R-3 zoning, stating that his property is at the top of the hill and a downzone would impact his property value. Robert Kaufman, 715 2nd Street, stated that he would agree if everything were downzoned to R-2; however, there are inconsistencies in the area. He favors retaining the R-3 since properties near his have multiple units, and there is also commercial property on the other side of the street. He felt a downzone would devalue his property. Richard Bowman, 701 4th Street, president of the condo association at 701-715 4th Street, opposed rezoning to R-2 because if the building were destroyed only six of the current eight units could be rebuilt. He stated that the residents are very concerned with their property values if the building becomes a nonconforming structure. He questioned why the City would downzone a property with eight relatively new units which are well maintained. He stated that if the downzone is approved, he. will bring legal action against the City. He did not feel density would be reduced by changing the zoning of a property which currently has eight units on it. Mr. Schubach felt that this property would still be able to rebuild eight units under R-2 zoning. P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 Jan McHugh, 718 1st Place, objected to a rezone from R-3 to R-2 because the property was purchased as R-3 with the intention of building on it some day in the future. She stated that they have older houses which will need to be replaced to improve the area. A rezone would limit their ability to build something nice. She stated that the bottom of the hill is very narrow and cannot accommodate so many units. She said that the • cumulative impacts will be great. At the top of the hill near the commercial is where the higher density should be located. She favored retaining the R-3 zoning. Gerry Compton, 832 7th Street, stated that people will have difficulty in making loans on these properties if they are downzoned. He suggested that the Planning Commission leave this area as R-3 and stated that the City Council should make the decision on this area. Ian Felton, 703 4th Street, stated that a rezone would be a nonsensical downgrading of R-3 property to R-2 where there are eight townhouses on three lots, which' could result in• a real problem if the condos are destroyed. He favored retaining the R-3 zoning and if the zoning is changed, he will join in a lawsuit against the City. Mr. Schubach stated that the eight -unit complex can be rebuilt with eight units under R- 2 zoning. Further, only two three -unit lots will become nonconforming under this rezoning to R-2. He stated that the McHughs' property can still have seven units. He stated that staff very carefully studied this area before making its recommendation. He noted that it is the right of a city to downzone. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, stressed that the city can change the general plan to bring it into conformity with the zoning, rather than changing the zoning to bring it into compliance with the general plan. She stated that these people are surrounded by multiple units, and the zoning should remain the same. Mrs. Spangberg stated that her property is the only one with two units, and all the others have four units. She therefore felt that if her property is rezoned, it would be discriminatory. She stated that it will be difficult to sell her property with this rezone, and it would create an adverse financial impact. Robert Kaufman 715 2nd Street, stated that if the object is to lower density, and the properties in this area already have high density with the exception of just a few properties, downzoning those few people will not really make much of an impact at all, other than just looking good on paper. Sid Colby, 719 1st Place, bought his property as R-3, and he doesn't want to sell it as R-2. He therefore opposed a rezone to R-2. He stated his property is high on the hill next to commercial and should remain R-3. Public Hearing closed at 8:25 P.M. Chmn. Rue stated that he felt some of these areas should not be changed because of the nonconformities which would be created. He once felt that higher density next to commercial would be good planning; however, opinions on this have now changed. Chmn. Rue discussed the eight -unit condo built in 1979 on 4th Street and another eight - unit condo on 3rd Street built in 1985. He was surprised to learn that those could be rebuilt to eight units in the event they were destroyed. He stated that there is a general feeling in the city to reduce the density. He still felt, however, that the higher density belongs up along the highway as a buffer. He noted that there are some fairly new =28 — P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 apartment buildings in that area, and he felt that rental units are good for a city. Comm. Ingell agreed and stated that the potential units under R-3 zoning assuming new construction would be 74 with individual lots or 79 units by combining lots. He felt that R-3 belongs between the commercial and R-2 areas as a buffer. Chmn. Rue stated that the zoning code has been amended and continues to be amended to address the question of bulk, parking, square footages, and dwelling units per acre. He felt that it would be appropriate to address these concerns in the zoning code rather than by downzoning. Comm. Peirce pointed out that if state law had allowed the zoning and general plan to be changed at the same time, this hearing would not have been necessary. This exact same matter was addressed six months ago, and the Commission decided that medium density was appropriate for this area; that decision was then affirmed by the City Council. He• stated that nothing has changed in the past six months. He felt that the correct planning action is to reaffirm the position that the Commission took on this matter the first time it was heard and change the zoning from R-3 to R-2. Comm. Ketz stated that the direction from both the Council and residents has been to downzone. She constantly hears complaints from citizens that too many condos are being built. She questioned whether R-3 buffers R-2 from the commercial area. She stated that it is difficult to differentiate between R-2 and R-3 lots throughout the area. She agreed that the area should be rezoned from R-3 to R-2. Comm. Moore questioned R-3 buffering R-2 from commercial. He felt that putting more people next to the commercial does not seem to do R-2 any favors. With the City's small two-, three-, and four -unit developments, he questioned how high density next to commercial really helps. Chmn. Rue felt that the lots along the highway are usually less desirable. With R-3 zoning, they can be built five feet higher and oriented away from the commercial corridor. The view is to the west, and there is a trade-off. When a building is built adjacent to commercial, things can be done to make the structures pleasant. He felt that the height allowance would be just enough to make the area desirable and livable. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation to rezone the southwest quadrant from R-3 to R-2. AYES: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce NOES: Comm. Ingell, Chmn. Rue ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None SOUTHEAST QUADRANT: From R-2 to R -2B for 120 feet to 240 feet east of Pacific Coast Highway between 6th Street and 8th Street and including the south side of 6th Street The proposal is to rezone several lots located behind the commercial corridor east of P.C.H. from R-2 to R -2B between 6th Street and 8th Street (including the south side of 6th Street) to make the zoning consistent with the lots to the east up the slope. The proposed rezoning will carry out the recommendation of the multi -use corridor study and will be consistent with the general plan designation of MD residential. - zq P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 The subject lots are all similar in size to those lots zoned R -2B located to their east. Three out of the eleven subject lots are currently nonconforming to the R-2 density. No additional lots will be made nonconforming by the proposed R -2B designation. The R -2B zoned areas located to the east are included in the moratorium which limits . the height of any new construction to 25 feet. The subject area was not included in that moratorium. Given that the subject area is located further down the slope from the R-1 areas, staff believes it was correct to exclude these lots from the moratorium. Rezoning from R-2 to R -2B would result in a reduction of potential density of approximately 33 percent. Public Hearing opened at 8:37 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Gerry Compton, owner of 832 and 840 7th Street, which is a single large property which. has been combined and has five units, addressed the Commission. The property is R-2. He was surprised to see the Commission taking this action. He stated that this area is not inconsistent, noting that. it is R-2 in a medium density zone. He resented the fact that this totally political action is occurring in the City. He stated that there is no question of inconsistency in this area at all. • Public Hearing closed at 8:39 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Ingell, stated that the area was brought back in order to make it consistent with the adjacent area. He continued by explaining what could be placed on these lots. He noted, however, that this area was never zoned R-3. He stated that it has been the consensus of both the Commission and the Council to make this area R -2B. Chmn. Rue, referring to the Planning Commission minutes of the previous time this area was addressed, noted that the Commission recommended a medium density general plan designation. Comm. Peirce noted that many citizens have expressed concern over so many large projects in their areas. The way to halt the large projects is to rezone the area to R -2B, which would be consistent with the desires of the residents who do not want large structures in the midst of a two -duplex area. Comm. Peirce, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, stated that if the area is R-2, lots could be assembled, thus allowing large projects. With R -2B, such assembly would not be possible and the area would clearly be a two-family, residential area. Comm. Peirce noted that at one time a large project was built in this area which created an uproar with the neighbors and Council. Since that time, it appears that R -2B is the desired zoning. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, stated that the only difference between R-2 and R -2B is that on an R -2B lot, there can be a maximum of only two units, regardless of the size of the lot. Chmn. Rue noted, however, that the bulk of the buildings could be same, regardless of whether the zoning is R-2 or R -2B. He noted, therefore, that the tool for limiting density should be the zoning code, not the R -2B designation. He said that the zoning code should address building bulk and intrusion of large buildings into smaller scale areas. -3e- P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 C Chmn. Rue stated that if bulk and intrusion are the issue, the zoning code should be amended to address these intrusions into smaller neighborhoods. He stressed that the zoning code should be the limiting document in these cases. In this particular area, he said that R -2B zoning would only slightly reduce the number of units. Comm. Peirce noted, however, that under R-2 zoning, lots could be assembled in order to have more units; the R -2B zoning would preclude this from happening. Chmn. Rue stated that on only three or four of these lots could there be one additional family there if the lots are assembled. He stated that the building bulk would be the same. Mr. Schubach stated that there is great concern over bulk and building appearance in the City; therefore, Council has directed that all standards in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones be studied. Also to be studied are height, density, and parking. Chmn. Rue stated that a designer can put together more attractive projects by assembling lots, rather than putting two units per lot all the way up the hill. He felt that there is more diversity with combined lots. If bulk is going to be addressed, it should be done via the zoning code, especially in this area. Comm. Moore asked what action has been taken in other areas where the areas are inconsistent. Mr. Schubach explained what has occurred in the past, explaining that some areas will remain the same, some will be specific plan area, and others will be addressed in the future. He continued by pointing out specific areas on the map. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Moore, discussed the R -2B zoning. He gave background history on Proposition EE, stating that staff is now following the outcome of that proposition. He stated that some of the lots were quite large; therefore, the R -2B designation was used as a compromise so that people could build more than one unit on a very large lot, but there can be no more than two units. This was an alternative to rezoning the area to R-1. Mr. Schubach noted that R-2 can have more than two units, depending on the lot size. R - 2B allows only two, no matter what the size of the lot. Comm. Ketz stated that since the area immediately east of this area is R -2B, this area should also be R -2B in order to be consistent. If this entire area were R-2, she could see the point being made by Chmn. Rue. She noted that this area is only three lots deep and should therefore be consistent. Comm. Ingell felt that action is being taken too far in this area. He stated that there can only be a very small number of additional units, which he could not see adversely affecting the area. Comm. Peirce stated that there can be 30 new units if lots are combined; there are only 19 potential units under R -2B zoning. He noted that there could be a 40 percent increase. Chmn. Rue felt that better projects can be designed by combining lots. They can have more open space and less lot coverage with better amenities. He stated that even though he has recommended downzoning for some areas, he did not feel it is necessary in this particular area. – 31 — . P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 C Comm. Moore stated that he favors these particular lots remaining R-2. He noted that even though there is R -2B up the hill, this area should remain R-2. He stated that there is enough square footage on some of these lots to have more than two units per lot. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Inge11, to reject staff's recommendation, and to retain the current R-2 zoning in the southeast quadrant. Comm. Peirce suggested that the motion be withdrawn so that a positive motion could be made. MOTION WITHDRAWN BY COMM. MOORE. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation to approve staff's recommendation to rezone the southeast quadrant from R-2 to R -2B. AYES: Comms. Ketz, Peirce NOES: Comms. Inge11, Moore, Chmn. Rue ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None (MOTION FAILS.) Recess taken from 8:57 P.M. until 9:07 P.M. 4-3 2 - P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 I, the undersigned, do declare under penalty of perjury that I did on the 28th day of September , 1989 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 "A". I understand and agree that it is my responsibility to cause these public notices to be made in an accurate and timely fashion and agree to hold the City harmless against any liability whatsoever for any defect of said notice or notices. In the event an action is instituted in acourt of com- petent jurisdiction which questions the legality of the public notices, then the City may in its exclusive descretion 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 cuase 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 28th day of September , 1989 at Hermosa Beach, California. NOTARY: 11,4 Vet 1-� Donna Rowland (name) (Si113-Y11(k 6\- t-VJ 1"- gnature) (Capacity) OFFICIAL SEAL CHERYL A. VARGO • NOTARY RU3UC • CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES COUNTY • My Con -n1 !3:Ion Expires Sept. 10, 1993 i!i�:i'li:: a>ay.i:::ai'i:$•i:ili?i b::::•S as.h...t•:i:::4i1:i -33— CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Ken Robertson, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Response to the attached letter from Mr. and Mrs. Spangberg DATE; September 29, 1989 In the attached letter dated September 15, 1989, the Spangbergs misrepresent some facts regarding the rezoning of the southwest quadrant of the Multi -Use Corridor from R-3 to R-2. First, the statement that the down -zoning would result in less than a 10% reduction of density is not correct. Even under the "worst case," i.e., no currently nonconforming lots replaced with new structures of lesser units, the maximum build out under R-3 is 80 units, under R-2 it would be 70 units, a reduction of 12.5 percent. Currently the area contains 67 units. In the longer term, the overall potential reduction, assuming turnover of noncomforming lots to lesser units would be as high as 37% if changed to R-2. Second, the projects at First and Ardmore were approved for a total of 21 units, not 24, and the density of these projects is 18 units per acre -- significantly less than the maximum allowed under R-2, 25 units/acre. Third, only 10 out of the 20 lots currently zoned R-3 in the southwest quadrant have 3 or more units. Fourth, the rezoning is reasonable and does not take away the use of anyone's property -- all property owners subject to the rezoning would still maintain a significant, and valuable right to develop their properties as two units -- which is what all the property owners to the west of this area are limited to, including the properties immediately to the west of Mrs. Spangberg's property. -- 311- — September 15, 1989 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission and City Council Members SEP 181903 This letter is to appeal the planning decision to down zone lot 704-706 Fifth Street. On Tuesday, September 5, 1989, we attended and presented our views, as Hermosa Beach property owners, at the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission meeting. We spoke specifically in relation to down zoning from R-3 to R-2 in the corridor west of Pacific Coast Highway from 6th St. to 1st St. Every speaker who either lives and/or owns property directly affected by down zoning from R-3 to R-2 was against the proposed action. Facts and rationale were presented but the Planning Commission would not be swayed by facts, and they voted 3 to 2 to down zone the corridor as recommended by the Planning Department staff. A number of facts were presented at the Planning Commission meeting on 09/05/89 and they were: 1) The total number of R-3 units in the corridor would be 74 and by down zoning from R-3 to R-2, the total units would be 67, less than a 10% reduction. 2) Located at the base of 1st St., 1st P1. and Ardmore, 24 condominiums are under construction on R-3 lots. How does this reduce density? 3) The vast majority of existing R-3 lots in the corridor described above have 3 or more units build on them and to down zone these lots would have zero effect on density reduction. 4) The City of Hermosa Beach, the Hermosa Beach City Council, and the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission will be sued by property owners who are directly impacted by the proposed down zoning from R-3 to R-2. This action will be very costly to the City of Hermosa Beach and very time consuming. In conclusion, reducing density in Hermosa Beach was a good idea 10 years ago but not today. The horses have all been stolen including the barn, why now penalize a few property owners who for whatever reasons choose not to build the permissable number of units on their lots? Your down zoning intentions are mis-directed, mis-applied and are out of touch with the structure and reality of Hermosa Beach today. We request that our property located at 704 and 706 5th St. remain as an R-3 lot and not be down zoned to R-2. Very truly your;, #711.:147; �I.a r7'1'L ahw2-uY.) Mills M. Spangberg Marilyn J. Spangberg ,/21/11,1e, City of 2iermosa 1�3each, �1 Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 Mr. and Mrs. Mills and Marilyn Spangberg 706 Fifth Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 August 8, 1989 AUG 1. 01989 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Spangberg: We received your letter regarding your concern for a possibility of a zone change at 704-706 Fifth Street on August 8, 1989. As I believe your discussions with City staff have made you aware, your property is in the area of the multi -use corridor, which has been the subject of an extensive study and a series of public hearings by our Planning Commission and City Council. The purpose of this effort was to eliminate the confusion that the indefinite designation of properties within the multi -use corridor have endured, and clarify the appropriate designation and zoning of these properties. It is my understanding that you have been informed that your property will be the subject of a future public hearing, and you will certainly be en- titled to submit written or oral testimony at the Planning Commission and the Council level regarding your viewpoint. If the staff recommends a less dense zoning than you desire, I hope you will understand it is in response to a well established public concern, reflected unanimously by the current City Council, that our community desires a less dense, more open environment than the recent trends would reflect. Accordingly, thousands of properties have been merged and downzoned in order to protect the quality of life in our community now and in the future. While cities are not concerned about private owner property values, obviously the market reflects that the more restrictions on land does not prevent the increased value of our properties in the long run. Also, I am sorry that you are caught in an indefinite situation while consideration of the rezoning is being conducted. This is a necessary evil in our process, and is unfortunately one in which many properties go through until the Council has finally approved a designation and zoning. We are trying to complete this study as quickly as possible, and the result hopefully will give you a long range, secure answer on what type of construction is permitted on your property. Sincerely yours, K vin B. Northcraft City Manager KBN/ld cc: Planning Department 36- City of Hermosa Beach Kevin Northcraft 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254 JUly 14, 1989 This letter is a request for consideration regarding a now kiG proposed zoning change from R-3 to R-2 on 5 lots in Hermosa ' Beach. This arbitrary zone change will affect only 1 lot,OURS. The other 4 lots presently have 4 or more units on them. We are the owners of the property at 704-706 5th Street. We bought this property as part of a commercial corridor R-3 lot with the intention of some day developing it further. It is presently on the market for sale. We have had two interested parties, one went to the city to be informed the lot is only good as an R-2 lot and not developable other than an R-2. We requested to be put on the agenda for R-2 zoning and were told this hearing has nothing to do with us as we have an R-3 lot. The rules, moritorium etc.for R-2 are being established now. September the R-3 will be downgraded to R-2 and we will be subject to all the rules already made. We are asking our lot remain R-3 as it has commercial develop- ment across the street and has apartments and townhoused of huge proportions around it. Our home at 706 5th St. was the largest on the block when we bought it and is now one of the smallest on the street. To keep it uniform with the rest of the street, it should be developable. When downzoning or making changes of these proportions, we feel we should be notified formally. We were told it was in the newspaper. We have the property advertised as R-3, which it is, but it really is not. How can we sell this propertynow? We need your help promptly to remove this lot from this state of flux. Please call us personally for your suggestion on what we can do to allieviate this situation. Come visit 706 5th St. The property is open on Sat. & Sun. as it is advertised in the papers. No one wants to buy a piece of property not knowing what they can do with it. How would you like to be in this situation? We are being discriminated against as this lot belongs in the commercial area and is sitting looking at commercial. No one would want to build a single home on a street that is almost all apartments. Financially, this is a great loss to us and the city. Our lot is the only R-3 not developed with 4 or more units per lot on 5th St. Please see enclosed map. Thank you for your help and assistance. We need you. Sincerely, Nills� n art yn •angrg 213-318-3264 If we're not home, the recorder is on, please leave your message. Thanks 37_ OE in 89 LoNDOMINIUM PARCEL MAP P. M. 166.-97-98 , L117S • • Comflorlimium -Pca3 e. .31 TRAct c z'7 40 rkly . 1, a 1, WALTER RANSON COS VENA6LE PLACE M.B, 9 - 150 ••• ••••• WE' THORNE'S HILL SIDE 'TRACT NO. M.B. 10 - 113 •• KOEPKE'S TRACT CONDOMINIUM roar -7 In -le A • MB., 13,-. 2Z• 'rB.Silt' —12 —19 • st % "�'t18 1 It,* u! folcia 1,, 11, PlAns .PCIed. .111 .14141 a.d inl,t,lls 4,,AAl sol Or,11. dued% .1 (.0,,,e Aria Cuntion.neun Pion Refer,,.,. tla 1 IV, C111%.e. C..... V0141110 /141•1: 18 !1049C70 9-27.77 707262. C-311.112. 4229903' 3-649 26438 91919 em. 166-97. 98 •• • ..fl. 1'. • • tao TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council Yu-Ying Ting, Administrative Aide Agenda Item #6 -- Zone Change for SW & SE Quadrants of MUC October 9, 1989 Regarding subject staff report, please reverse pages 4 & 5 with pages 12 & 13 which have been inadvertently placed in the wrong order. Sorry for the inconvenience. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 6 October 9, 1989 Open Letter to the Hermosa Beach City Council: OCT 1 01989 We, The 4th Street Estates HOA, present the following arguments against the proposed zone change for the residential portion of southeast and southwest quadrants of the Multi -Use Corridor and against adoption of the environmental negative declaration. 1. The Planning Commission vote on 9/5/89 was split 3-2 in favor. This is hardly a mandate for approval and in fact leaves the proposal highly questionable. 2. The rational in favor expressed by at least 2 of the 3 Commissioners who voted yes was dubious at best. For example: Commissioner Ketz's contention that she was directed by both "Council" and "residents" to vote for rezoning implies in the first case a lack of objective impartiality to the hearing speakers and in the second case the statement (with respect to residents) is unbelievable since % 100% of all the residents who have spoken at these several hearings since they began have been adamantly against the proposed rezoning. To what residents does she refer? If she refers to residents who live outside the affected areas I suggest that it is very easy for people whose lives and economic status are not directly affected by decisions of this type to "wax noble" and allow their neighbors to suffer hardship as long as they themselves are not called upon to make any sacrifice. But just let any of these "noble" outsiders be adversly affected and how quickly their tune would change. Is the reason that none of these residents have come forward to speak in favor of downzoning because they are cowards and fear their neighbors wrath or are they merely figments of Commissioner Ketz's imagination? Therefore, this decision by Commissioner Ketz can hardly be argued as a mandate of the people/residents as is falsely implied - (a mandate from from special interest perhaps?). Furthermore, Commissioners Ketz and Moores' argument that R-3 zoning does nothing to buffer the R-2 zones from the commercial C-3 zones is wrong and can be refuted as follows: R-3 zoning and the usual accompanying multiple interest in large units implied makes it much more difficult for commercial interests to purchase isolated smaller units and single family dwellings adjacent to the commercial zone, obtain the necessary commercial permits, and encroach into the R-2 zones placing undesirable businesses and their associated negative environmental factors adjacent to the single family units or small apartments in these R-2 zones. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION At a previous council meeting the 4th Street Estates HOA (Dick Bauman and myself as representatives) argued vehemently against rezoning to C-3, the notch containing a single family dwelling between the C-3 and R-3 sections north of 4th Street, because of the potential negative environmental impact. The council apparently agreed with us at that time and excluded that section from C-3 rezoning. On the other hand, the presence of townhouses or 3 -story apartments next to commercial ventures, while not the best of situations, can be made more acceptable with careful planning in construction. (e.g. The 4th St. Estate Townhouses) Support of this view was explained quite clearly by Commissioner Rue at the Sept. P.C. Meeting but was blithely ignored by at least two of the commissioners. The presence of townhouses and/or apartments on the hill between the C-3 zone and the lower density R-2 units closer to Ardmore is a far superior alternative to having single family houses adjacent to the garbage cans, noise, parking lots of fast food restaurants, auto body shops, 7- 11's, or porno shops which exist along P.C.H. at present. At least the townhouses and large residential dwellings can be so constructed as to minimize the adverse effects, where smaller units can be dominated and ruined by adjacent commercial structures. If there is any doubt of this I refer the Council to the one-time single level residence at 736 4th Street, which is now jammed against and overwhelmed by the commercial buildings at the corner of PCH and 4th Street. The previous owner finally gave up trying to rent or sell this as a residence and sold it to a commercial undertaking and it is now an office. 3. A local Torrance Real Estate Agent and also an instructor at the Lumbleau School of Real Estate have both ventured the opinion that shortly after implementation of the proposed downzoning the assessed value of the affected properties will be devalued by about 20%. (There is precedent for this opinion from a similar occurence in Laguna Beach several years ago). Therefore based on recent presale appraisals the eight units of the 4th St. Estates townhouse complex could potentially lose in value about $500,000 cumulative. Extrapolating from this, since the 4th Street Townhouses represent only a small fraction of the real estate affected, the city could face a very large class action lawsuit or costly multiple litigation if the assumed property devaluation occurs. We therefore strongly argue against the proposed rezoning and caution the council of the potential consequences if this proposal passes. Sincerely, et-;. M 4 -rt. 4th Street HOA 4th Street Estates Homeowners Association 701-715 4th Street Hermosa Beach, California 90254 October 9, 1989 Planning Department City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 OCT 1 01989 Attention: Mr. Michael Schubach Planning Director Subject: Proposed Zone Change 701 through 715 4th Street Dear Mr. Schubach: I have attended each of the Planning Commission meetings and the City Council meetings to voice my concern with the effect of downzoning on our ability to rebuild our buildings in case of a disaster and also the possibility of financial loss through downzoning. At the Planning Commission meeting on September 5, 1989, you statedthat--if rezoned R2 --our townhome complex would conform to the R2 zone (reference pages 9 and 10 of the P. C. Minutes dated 9/5/89). Based on your statement, our assumption is that in case of fire, earthquake or other disaster we would be able to rebuild our townhome complex exactly as it is from the existing drawings without incurring the expense of redesigning the buildings. We further assume that our views, setbacks, building height and all other considerations would be unchanged and allowed under the R2 zone. Therefore, our townhomes were built in conformance with Hermosa Beach's R2 zoning requirements. And we will not be required to disclose any zoning nonconformance when we list our individual properties for sale. Should litigation result from such non -disclosure, then we will hold the City of Hermosa Beach responsible for any damages that might result. Very truly yours, Richard H. Bauman President cc: Mayor of Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach City Council Members -3- SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION s 314'4-1- Aciopf Reso . J .� 2 • Imes �s raft. LiN2 1 1.Pa9 NOS 4 s fr 014 rs ( ; ) i Cf"('se. f"- 6-1,C-2)&3 41; A)i, I Aid /429X-. A4‘. • S"v "off 36ifiks, 'OPS l?e o . -Cer .1)-- 6` R6/6 gws: S/4/dc#.J 4p t Alegi . mar SICK 11"v erd. iroc/ eh/yySc77o.' ,rC-3 65Gt %ye /feae% arra), eenuil_cf \;TottA944 ?IlLt V.)e" ' 141),/tt A ifs : S� GUeiye. /'14I)' c /A't : A il A,'ds E-6 Ez, F. • • iLv-/" Gird. ' &d`6.1) / _sf October 2, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council October 10, 1989 SUBJECT: THIRD QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND/OR ZONE CHANGES FOR GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING INCONSISTENCIES LOCATIONS: "AREA 10," AND VARIOUS INCONSISTENT AREAS WEST OF VALLEY DRIVE (SEE ATTACHED MAPS) PURPOSE: TO GENERAL PLAN AMEND AND/OR ZONE CHANGE THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES TO BRING THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING MAPS INTO CONSISTENCY INITIATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION Recommendat ion The Planning Commission and Staff recommend that the City Council amend the Land Use Map of the General Plan and the zoning map for the subject areas as noted on the attached maps by adopting the attached Resolution and Ordinance. Background State law allows cities to amend the General Plan four times per year. The areas of concern include "Area 10," located between Barney Court and Meyer Court on both sides of First Street, for which the City Council directed staff to bring up as a 3rd Quarter General Plan Amendment or Zone Change, and the remaining inconsistent areas west of Valley Drive, in the Coastal Zone (areas A through F) as identified by staff. The recommendations, analysis, and location maps for each area are contained in the attached reports on each area, which is the same report submitted to the Planning Commission reorganized so that the analysis and the maps for each area are together. Recommendations as to whether to amend the General Plan or Zoning map were made primarily based on consistency with current land uses of the subject areas, although other concerns included consistency with surrounding land uses, and prevailing lot sizes. Alternatives • Since each area was publicly noticed with a statement "...or to such other zone or general plan designation as deemed appropriate by the City Council," the City Council may amend the general plan or zoning maps in whatever way they deem appropriate to bring the general plan and zoning into consistency. Procedure for Adoption of the Amendments Staff suggests that the Council open the public hearing for each area separately and take a "straw" vote on that area. When all the areas have been heard, the Council could then take a final vote on the adoption of the proposed Resolution, or an amended Resolution, for the General Plan Amendments; and then take a final vote on the adoption of the proposed Ordinance, or an amended Ordinance, for the Zone Changes. CONCUR: Mic "ael Schu•ach Planning Director Kevin Northcr City Manager Associate Planner Attachments 1. Recommendations/Analysis for Area 10, and Areas A - F 2. Proposed Resolution and Ordinance 3. P.C. Resolution No. 89-66 4. P.C. Minutes, 9/5/89 5. Public Notice Affidavit 6. Public Correspondence p/pcsrgpa8 CITY MANAGER COMMENT: This item was not resolved during its last discussion on May 3, 1989 due to consecutive motions failing by a vote of 2-2. Barring a change in sentiment by a Councilmember, the Council may wish to postpone this item to the 4th quarter amendments when at least one new viewpoint will be on the Council in hopes of ending the stalemate. AREA 10 Recommendation Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the subject area be general plan redesignated from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential to be made consistent with the R -2B zoning. Background On December 13, 1988, the City Council downzoned the subject area from R-2 to R -2B consistent with the recommendation of Staff and the Planning Commission. The subject area was considered for downzoning to R-1, however, the R -2B designation was chosen because of the large lots and because with R -2B zoning the density would not significantly exceed the maximum of 13 for the Low Density range. On May 3, 1989, the City Council considered a General Plan redesignation from Low Density to Medium Density for consistency. After public testimony generally opposed to such a redesignation the Council decided to postpone action to the third quarter general plan amendments to include an option for a zone change to R-1. The option to rezone the area to R-1 is available to the Council as this area was advertised for either a general plan amendment or a zone change. Analysis The current R -2B zoning would permit the addition of only 3 additional units to this area. Staff does not believe this would be a significant impact if it were to occur. Currently one lot is nonconforming to density; if the area was changed to R-1, four additional lots would become noncomforming to density. The surrounding residential areas consist of an R -P zoned area directly to the west (allowing R-3 residential development) and a R-1 zoned area to the east and north. Because of the small lots the density for the R-1 area to the east along 1st Place and 1st Street is currently about 17.5 units/acre. The density along 2nd Street to the north is about 15.5 units/acre. Therefore, the 16.5 units/acre permitted by R -2B for the subject area is consistent with or less than surrounding areas. If zoned R-1, the 9.2 units/acre density would be significantly less. STATISTICAL DATA FOR AREA 10 General Plan Designation: LD Zoning Designation: R -2B 3 Number of Lots: 10 Total Area: 47,290 sq. ft. Lot Sizes: 2900 - 6700 sq. ft. No. Existing Units/Density: 16 units / 14.7 du/acre Potential maximum additional units: under R -2B: 3 if R-1: 0 Potential Units/Density assuming all new construction: under R -2B: 18 units / 16.6 du/acre if R-1: 10 units / 9.2 du/acre Nonconforming under R -2B: 1 lot / 3 units Nonconforming if R-1: 5 lots / 11 units 4L AREA 1 0 CURRENT ZONING CURRENT GP PROPOSED CHANGE: GPA: LD TO MD R -2B LD 0a 5 • R-1 - ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R12 - TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL .R-28 - LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIALI R-3 - MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL' �R-P - RESIDENTIAL PROFESSIONAL C-1 - NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAB• C-2 - RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL Q -i - GENERAL COMMERCIAL 8-1 - LIGET MANUFACTURING. OS - OPEN SPACE PDR - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL SPA - SPECIFIC PLAN AREA LNCLASS - UNCLASSIFIED •�°p - POTENTIAL .. ..`'A _: SETBACK IN FBBT POR FRONT YARD REQUIREMENT$ • AMENDE 14;:g424126. 41 L c V A • • • Recommendation Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Yard be General Plan redesignated from Open Space to Industrial, and that the north portion of 725 Cypress be redesignated from High Density Residential to Industrial. Analysis A-1, THE CITY YARD: General Plan Designation: Open Space Zoning Designation: M-1 Lt. Manuf. The available options to make this area consistent would be to general plan amend from OS to IND, or zone change from M-1 to OS. The recommended general plan amendment from OS to IND is based on the existing use of the city yard. The City Yard is currently used by the city for storage, vehicle service and maintenance, and other miscellaneous purposes. The uses are generally consistent with the current zoning designation of M-1, and would not be consistent with an Open Space zoning classification. Nothing on this property could considered as open space or public use. It is not clear why this area was designated as Open Space on the 1979 General Plan. On the 1966 General Plan this area was designated for Industrial. A-2, 725 CYPRESS (NORTH 25 FEET): General Plan: HD residential Zoning: M-1 Since the property is currently a part of Rubio's Coach Work's property which stretches to the south staff is recommending a general plan amendment from HD to IND and maintaining the property's current zoning of M-1. 7 MD MD HD• BARD ST. HD. HD 1_01.0114. . • HD HD. Morar`- - f HD HD MIN ii-ATTAN 1`'11 MD AREA A la,l N 1- x_ MD MD O AVE. A -z HP IND . DRIVE MD HD BOULEVARD HD HD AVENUE g IND 0 4- A MD a IND OS HD . HD p R i V HD LEGEND HD - HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 33 du/ac MD - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 25 du/ac LD - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 13 du/ao • GC - GENERAL COMMERCIAL NC - NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL s J O N Ho AREA A-1 cr.�;I N.1% �5 V' fic.rr. CURRENT ZONE M-1 CURRENT GP OS PROPOSED CHANGE: GPA: OS TO IND -17 m 30 _9 C � AREA A-2 CURRENT ZONE: M-1 CURRENT GP: HD GPA: HD TO IND 40 e 0 C 40 b O67.S� i 36.5 Nb 1110 '')O __ 675 /00 0 1 to 0 1 COL I /06 ( a N ® ® r' U m 4 ca ® A 1 L u . O w 0 ® O N Z >,a.s 1 4 __ ! N <� W . __ ar ® A . 4 ■ CD • ® : O U • • • u N V ® ® o 4 CO u N © Q 76 u 0 o W * ® Fe O CO 0 ®SSa CO ® ® cr . .4. ® ® A 42 CI CO ® ® ly . s . — /CM ® t /00 o 6TH ST 40 n- crN v 40 (-) N AREA B Recommendation Staff and Planning Commission recommend that the property which contains Hermosa Mini -Storage be general plan amended from Open Space and General Commercial to Industrial, and that the 3 lots on the south side of Bard Street be General Plan amended to General Commercial and rezoned to C-2. Analysis 552 11TH PLACE: General Plan: HD and OS Zoning: M-1 Since the current use of the property for a self -storage business is consistent with the M-1 zoning, staff believes that it would be most appropriate to general plan amend the site from OS to IND and maintain the M-1 zoning. Self -storage businesses are a permitted use only in the M-1 zone. 1301-1319 BARD ST: General Plan: GC and HD Zoning: M-1 The current use of the property consists of a storage and handling area in the rear of "Mrs. Gooch's" and two buildings currently used for storage. 1309 Bard is used for storage for "Body Glove," and the building on lot 10 is used by the City for storage. In staff's judgement neither the general plan designation or the zoning are appropriate for these lots. High Density Residential uses would not seem appropriate for a location adjacent to the Police and public parking area. Although the current M-1 zone permits the storage uses, which are not incompatible with adjacent public parking and residential areas, other manufacturing uses might be incompatible. Therefore staff is recommending that the general plan be amended from HD to General Commercial (for the portion not already GC) and the zoning changed from M-1 to C-2. This would make the zoning and general plan designations consistent with the adjacent designations for the property which fronts on Pier Avenue. Realistically, the lots will then be used for commercial purposes if in conjunction with a commercial use which fronts on Pier Avenue. •.ve HD z W GC\ MD z 1_ z W t - MD A RDMQRE T 1_. 21 zj OS OS CIVIC CENTER .a. VALLEY OS CLARK � STADIUM CYPRESS GC H D sola ilat +, C00% GC LOMA HD 5JM ,GC `011._ r 1 -ID z z tu I' TAN HD •,VE HD GC GC 7....771j/ G� I-fD LEGN� HD - HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 33 du/ac MD- MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 25 du/ac LD - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 13 dura. GC - GENERAL COMMERCIAL NC - NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CR - COMMERCIAL RECREATION MHP - MOBILE HOME PARK IND - INDUSTRIAL OS - OPEN SPACE Z ,10 AREA B tfiv 1 2, ; ® 0 2° 0 00 r CURRENT ZONE: M-1 CURRENT GP: GC and HD PROPOSED CHANG2�S: GPA: HD to GC and �y ZC: M-1 to C-2 lea • AREA C Recommendation Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the area located generally between 8th and 9th Streets along Hermosa Avenue be general plan amended from General Commercial to MD Residential (Area C-1), that the south side of 10th Street west of Hermosa Ave. be general plan amended from GC to HD Residential (Area C-2), and that the west side of Manhattan Avenue between Pier Ave. and 10th St. be general plan amended from GC to HD Residential and rezoned from R -P to R-3 (Area C-3). Analysis AREA C-1: General Plan: GC Zoning: R-2 This area consists of two lots on 8th Street at the Corner of Hermosa Avenue, and a half lot on 9th Street located behind "Fat Face Fenner's Falloon." Since the current use of the subject properties is residential staff believes that the properties should be general plan amended from GC to MD residential. Apparently these areas were designated Commercially because of their proximity to Hermosa Avenue and the downtown district. All of these properties have been zoned residentially, however, since at least 1956. The lots on 8th Street show up as residentially zoned on the oldest city zoning maps. The lot at 63 8th Street, and the half lot at 30 9th Street are currently developed with single dwelling units and conform to the R-2 zoning. The lot at 801 Hermosa Avenue is developed with a nonconforming 3 -unit structure. AREA C-2: General Plan: GC Zoning: R-3 This area consists of eight lots developed residentially and one lot that contains a portion of a motel. The residential uses include single-family and two-family dwellings and an apartment buildings with 10 units. The density is 39 units per acre. As such, staff believes that the general plan should be amended from GC to HD residential and the R-3 zoning maintained. The General Commercial designation shows up on both the 1979 and 1966 General Plan maps. This reflected the thinking of the time that the downtown commercial area could be expanded into this area. The subject area was designated commercial on the 1943 and 1948 zoning maps. The 1956 zoning map, however, classifies it as R-3. AREA C-3: General Plan: GC Zoning: R -P The subject area consists of 13 residentially developed lots, containing 36 units, for a density of 40 units/acre. Given the established residential character staff believes the general plan should be amended from GC to HD Residential and rezoned from R -P to R-3. This area is located adjacent to the alley which accesses the parking areas for the commercial uses which front on Hermosa Avenue, but the front of the lots are on Manhattan Avenue which is essentially a residential street. Commercial development would be conflicting with the general nature of Manhattan Avenue. The subject area is a remaining part of the General Commercial designation which extended all the way to 10th Street between the Strand and Monterey Boulevard on the 1966 General Plan map. Staff is uncertain why this area was not taken out of that designation on the 1979 General Plan Map along with similar areas to the east. Apparently it was seen as a possible area for commercial expansion because of its proximity to Hermosa Avenue. However, to be an expansion to the commercial uses on Hermosa Avenue would require tying the properties together. A Specific Plan Area similar to that being developed along the P.C.H. Commercial Corridor may be useful. This possibly could be considered in the future revision to the General Plan. On May 3, 1989, the City Council considered a general plan redesignation from low density to medium density for consistency. After public testimony generally opposed to such a redesignation, the Council decided to postpone action to the third quarter general plan amendments to include an option for a zone change to R-1. The current R -2B zoning would permit the addition of only three additional units to this area. Staff does not believe this would be a significant impact if it were to occur. Currently, one lot is nonconforming to density; if changed to R-1, four additional lots would become nonconforming to density. The surrounding residential areas consist of an R -P zoned area directly to the west (allowing R-3 residential development) and an R-1 zoned area to the east and north. Because of the small lots, the density for the R-1 area to the east along 1st Place and 1st Street is currently about 17.5 units per acre. The density along 2nd Street to the north is about 15.5 units per acre. Therefore, the 16.5 units per acre permitted by R -2B for the subject area is consistent with or less than surrounding areas. If zoned R-1, the 9.2 units per acre density would be significantly less. Area 10 has a general plan designation of low density, with a zoning of R -2B. There are ten lots with a total area of 47,290 square feet. There are 16 units, with a density of 14.7 dwelling units per acre. There is a potential maximum of three additional units under R -2B zoning; no additional units would be allowed under R-1 zoning. With all new construction, there is a potential of 18 units under R -2B, with a density of 16.6 dwelling units per acre. Under R-1, there is a potential of ten units, with a density of 9.2 units per acre. Under R -2B zoning, there is one lot and three units nonconforming; under R-1, five lots and eleven units would be nonconforming. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, stated that the City Council was concerned with several matters: (1) that there was an assumption made that the area was going to be changed to low density, R-1, no matter what; and (2) there was no public notice made of the matter. Chmn. Rue noted that he had been handed a petition signed by a number of people on 1st Street opposed to the redesignation of Area 10 from low density to medium density because they believe such a redesignation will further deteriorate the family atmosphere in that area and will decrease property values. Public Hearing opened at 9:15 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Sam Edgerton, 1118 2nd Street, stated that the petition was signed by 55 registered voters to fight this proposition. He noted that there is a huge objection to changing the general plan from low density to medium density. He noted concern that the area will become too crowded if the designation is changed. He noted that the lots in this area are larger than in other areas, and the area could be turned into all condos in the future. He noted concern over density and height. He noted that this area is on the plateau of a hill and is mostly single-family homes. He said that this area differs from the area across the highway. He noted concern over the intrusion of condos creeping up the hill. 4 .— P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 c THIRD QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND/OR ZONE CHANGES AS RECOMMENDED OR AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 24, 1989. Staff recommended general plan amendments and zone changes for the subject areas. State law allows cities to amend the general plan four times per year. The areas of concern include Area 10, located between Barney Court and Meyer Court on both sides of 1st Street, for which the City Council directed staff to bring up as a third quarter general plan amendment or zone change, and the remaining inconsistent areas west of Valley Drive, Areas A through F. AREA 10: (Location generally between Barney Court and Meyer Court, from south city boundary to the rear of lots fronting on 2nd Street to the north): To either remain R -2B zoning with general plan amended from low density to medium density or change to R-1 zoning to be consistent with the general plan Staff recommended that the area be general plan redesignated from low density residential to medium density residential to be made consistent with the R -2B zoning. On December 13, 1988, the City Council downzoned the subject area from R-2 to R -2B, consistent with the recommendation of staff and the Planning Commission. The subject area was considered for downzoning to R-1; however, the R -2B designation was chosen because of the large lots and because with R -2B zoning the density would not significantly exceed the maximum of 13 for the low density range. 4-1 P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 b) Zone Change from C-1 to R-2 for a portion of area "E-1," legally described as follows: - portions of lots 11 and lot 12, Block 67 1st Additiona to Hermosa Beack Tract; lots 1 and 2, Block 109, Shakespeare Tract; and lot 1, Tract 31943 VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ingell,Ketz,Moore,Peirce,Chmn.Rue NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 10. Zone Change from R-3 to R-2 for area "E-2," legally described as follows: - portion of lot 1, lots 2,4,5 and 6 Block 112 Shakespeare Tract; and lot 1, Parcel Map 128-78-79 VOTE: AYES: Comms. Ingell,Ketz,Moore,Peirce NOES: Chmn.Rue ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 11. a) Zone Change from C-1 to R-2 for a portion of Area "F," legally described as follows: - lots 1 and 3, Block 119 Shakespeare Tract b) Zone Change from C-1 to R-3 for a portion of Area "F," legally described as follows: - lots 13 and 15, Block 102, Shakespeare Tract VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ingell,Ketz,Moore,Peirce,Chmn.Rue NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 89- is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at t.eir regular me ting of September 5, 1989. 4-7771 plandoc/persgpa8 LD c u•ach, Secretary • 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 ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 6. General Plan amend from General Commercial to High Density Residential for area "C-2," legally described as follows: -lots 19-27 inclusive, Block 11, Hermosa Beach Tract VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ingell,Ketz,Moore,Peirce,Chmn.Rue NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 7. General Plan amend from General Commercial to High Density Residential and Zone Change from R -P to R-3 for area "C-3," legally described as follows: - the southerly 30 feet of lot 16, and lots 17-25 inclusive, Block 35, Hermosa Beach Tract VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ingell,Ketz,Moore,Peirce,Chmn.Rue NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 8. a) General Plan amend from Commercial -Recreation to High Density Residential a portion of area "D," legally described as follows: - lots 10-14 inclusive, and lot 30, Block 15, Hermosa Beach Tract; lot 1, Parcel Map 196-58 b) General Plan amend from General Commercial to High Density Residential for a portion of area "D," legally described as follows: - lot 20, Block 16, Hermosa Beack Tract c) Zone Change from C-2 to R -2B for a portion of area "D," legally described as follows: - lots 17 and 18, Block 16, Hermosa Beach Tract; and lots 29 and 30, Block 17, Hermosa Beach Tract VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ingell,Ketz,Moore,Peirce,Chmn.Rue NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 9. a) General Plan Amend from Medium Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial a portion of area "E-1," legally described as follows: - portions of lots 4-7 inclusive, Block 109, Shakespeare Tract; and portions of 1-5 inclusive, Block 67, 1st Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract 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 ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 2. General Plan amend from Open Space to Industrial for Area "A-1," legally described as follows: - lots 11-18 inclusive, Block R, Tract 2002; lots 11-18 inclusive, Block U, Tract 2002; the southerly 240 feet of the vacated portion of Bard Street north of 6th Street; and a portion of lot A, Tract 2002. VOTE:AYES: Comms.Ingell,Ketz,Moore,Peirce,Chmn.Rue NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 3. General Plan amend from High Density to Industrial for Area "A-2," legally described as follows: - lot 1, Block V, Tract 2002 VOTE:AYES: Comms.Ingell,Ketz,Moore,Peirce,Chmn.Rue NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 4. a) General Plan amend from Open Space and High Density to Industrial for a portion of Area "B," legally described as follows: - the southwest portion of lot 2, Block 74, Second Addition to Hermosa Beach, measuring 34,500 square feet b) General Plan amend from High Density Residential to General Commercial for a a portion of Area "B," legally described as follows: - easterly 79.6 feet of lots 10 and 11, Tract No. 780 c) Zone Change from M-1 to C-2 for a portion of Area "B," legally described as follows: - the easterly 79.6 feet of the southerly 43 feet of lot 12, Tract No. 780, and the easterly 79.6 feet of lots 10 and 11, Tract No. 780 VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ingell,Ketz,Moore,Peirce,Chmn.Rue NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 5. General Plan amend from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential for area "C-1," legally described as follows: - lots 16, 25 and 26, Block 9, Hermosa Beach Tract VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ketz,Moore,Peirce NOES: Comm. Ingell,Chmn.Rue e, 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. 89-66 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN BY AND AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE DESIGNATIONS FOR THE AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAPS AND RECOMMENDING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Third Quarter General Plan amendments, GPA 89-8, on September 5, 1989, and made the following Findings: A. The subject areas have inconsistent General Plan and Zoning map designations, and state law requires consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance; B. In order to make the subject areas consistent requires either an amendment to the General Plan Map or the Zoning Map; C. General Plan amending and rezoning the subject areas as described below will bring the zoning and and General Plan into consistency; D. The general plan amendments and zone changes are appropriate for the subject areas as they are consistent with existing and potential land uses and compatible with surrounding areas, and are consistent with the objectives and policies of the General Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby recommend that the land use map of the general plan and the zoning map be amended as shown on the attached maps and described as follows: 1. General Plan amend from Low Density Residential to, Medium Density Residential for "Area 10" legally described as follows: -lots 22-25 and 28-31 inclusive and a portion of lots 26 and 27, Trafton Heights Tract VOTE:AYES: Comms.Ingell,Ketz,Moore,Peirce,Chmn.Rue NOES: None 8ACKCR avND MATER/AC HD u u ELEVENTH ST ELEVENTH HD HD HD SAV VS.( HD GC GC It IO GC t-! a.RKOSA n v._ • VPD GC GC i r— H ELEVENTH 1 GC GC HD HD • McNTEQE`( 1411:1, H p H L EG EN 0 HD - HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 33 -du/ac MD - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 25 du/ac `LJ - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 13 du/ao GC - GENERAL COMMERCIAL NC - NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CR - COMMERCIAL RECREATION MHP - MOBILE HOME PARK IND - INDUSTRIAL OS — OPEN SPACE HD M Aw i -t ALTA t4 HD 94 GC $ • GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION BOUNDARIES HD • HD AVENUE • HD c-ls HD GGtaP4D HD HD e-1: 4'C+oHD HD as HD HD CURRENT ZONE: R-2 CURRENT GP: GC e6 z cc e6 AREA C-1 GPA: GC TO HD ST co 8TH ST I00 0 i OC W' r 0 ca AREA C-2 CURRENT ZONE: R-3 CURRENT GP: GC GPA: GC TO HD (STH J ST. 26 8857 7 8738 1 L 6.) 86./9 t 411 0 Q 4 0 8383 N of o 3 26 N 82.6 O1 5 85 0 831 a6 I4 80 O 10TH 20 cr 0 2 0.33. 0 .30- Cagy 02.2, OV" GSA. 2967 056' 30 46 30 24 /ay/ 30 /9 "1. Ni `! f f 1 8 ''' 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 h O O 0 0 /o 0 CI0•P7 1 2s 3 of °274 3/r °V x37 BLK. II • 25 11 O30 t2.6 30 ' 275 30 •• 90 29 67) 30 30 24 30 JITH 0.33 269 .30 •• 30 235,r Si 30 23 30'v /9 "1. Ni `! 1 j 19°' 20 21 °�-22— 23 24 25 26 I 27 28 29'0 /6 /7 18 V c 2/ O 23 1 2s 3 °274 3/r °V x37 61/1/ °V 42.17 25 11 O30 t2.6 30 0 ST. • /00 /00 W Q• H ti W c CURRENT ZONE R -P CURRENT GP GC VSOV' d 3H AREA C-3 GPA: GC to HD and ZC : R -P to R-3 • 3f o P� Gl2 N. Vo trC iv \2.1,;. `: Aco 7. C.D.) t. 0 tv� 4�U tr' ; vi, I0 1 ST. 60 z 2 Z AREA D Recommendation Staff and the Planning Commission Recommend: 1) general plan amendments from Commercial -Recreation to HD Residential for the south side of 15th Street between and including 36 and 60 15th Street, and from General Commercial to HD Residential for 85 15th Street, and 2) zone changes from C-2 to R -2B for the northwest and southwest corners of 16th Street and Hermosa Avenue (91 and 92 16th Street, and 1515 and 1617 Hermosa Avenue) Analysis AREA D-1, 36 TO 60 15TH ST.: General Plan: Commercial -Recreation Zoning: R-3 This area consists of 5 lots containing 28 units with housing types ranging from single-family to a 16 -unit apartment. Total density calculates to be 56 units per acre. Given this high density residential character which is consistent with the character across 15th street, staff believes that the general plan should be amended from Commercial -Recreation to HD Residential and the R-3 zoning maintained. AREA D-2, 85 15th STREET: General Plan: General Commercial Zoning: R-3 This lot is developed with a single family home in good condition and property on both sides is developed residentially. C-2 zoned property is immediately adjacent to the east. This lot perhaps could serve as a commercial parking area for a business facing Hermosa Avenue, however, given its current residential usage and residences to the east and west, and its small size, staff believes the general plan should be amended from GC to HD Residential and the R-3 zoning maintained. AREA D-3, SOUTHWEST AND NORTHWEST CORNERS OF HERMOSA AVENUE AND 16TH STREET General Plan: Medium Density Residential Zoning: C-2 This area consists of 4 lots, two on each corner, which are developed residentially with 1, 1, 2, and 8 units. Given the current residential usage, and the surrounding residential usage and residential zoning and density, staff does not believe commercial development would be appropriate. Additionaly, the small lot sizes would not be conducive to quality commercial development that could meet the City's zoning codes. As such, staff believes this area should be zone changed from C-2 to R -2B with the MD Residential general plan designation maintained. Historically, the zoning on this property was residential until it appeared on the 1956 zoning map as Commercial. It has remained that way since and no commercial development has occurred. A• 1 AREA D EIGHT T. 0 4\ fq.k \ • lir, Cr 0 SEVENTEENTH ST • 7rPf 0 n zone change: C-2 to R -2B d 0 o GC to HD 91 D_ 3 qz I t Io CR to HD •II LEGEND HD — HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 33 du/ac MD — MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 25 du/ac LD — LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 13 du/ac GC - GENERAL COMMERCIAL NC - NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CR - COMMERCIAL RECREATION FOURTEENTH Gni I It �� cr - 21 - T� V ft ISIS VSQW N3 h 0 ST. r"1 , 9..q0.... Cs) 1,2O jg . 30 8 9 31 32 38 30 3s a R'. 17TH 3s GO 33 10 11 BL 3J AREA D 12 13 14 15 I 30 18 S3 T. 1(a 17 oil 0-11 033 oN\ 04d 0614 (03 071 073 o7( AREA D-3 CURRENT ZONING: C-2 q / CURRENT GP MD 16th 5+:e Of . 4 - Of . e -2. (0' •_ Cbz vN PROPOSED CHANGE: C-2 to R -2B 155 01 H 053 B5 ' ST. '• 36- 5 AREA D-2 CURRENT ZONE: R-3 CURRENT GP: GC PROPOSED CHANGE: GC to HD �✓ AREA D—'1 CURRENT ZONE: R-3 CURRENT GP: CR PROPOSED CHANGE: AREA E Recommendation Staff and the Planning Commission recommend amending the General Plan from MD Residential to Neighborhood Commercial for current commercially developed properties on Greenwich Village, zone changes from C-1 to R-2 for residentially developed properties, and a zone change from R-3 to R-2 for the lots on the north side of Manhattan Avenue between 26th and 27th Street Analysis AREA E-1: General Plan: MD Residential Zoning: C-1 and C-2 This area, which is bounded by Manhattan Avenue on the east, 27th Street on the north, Hermosa Avenue on the west, and 26th Street on the south consists of a mix of commercial and residential uses, with the focus of commercial activity located along Greenwich Village. Given that the extent of viable and compatible commercial development seems to have been established, staff believes that the zoning and general plan should be consistent with existing uses. This requires general plan amending the commercially developed properties from MD Residential to Neighborhood -Commercial and rezoning the residential properties from C-1 to R-2. The commercial uses include a restaurant/bar ("Critter's"), a beauty salon, a surf shop, a mini -market (Mi -T -Mart), a restaurant ("El Gringo"), and a dry cleaners. Although staff is aware that these businesses are not perfectly compatible with surrounding residences they all generally fall under the Neighborhood Commercial type of activities envisioned by the General Plan. The surrounding residential uses currently zoned C-1 consist of 8 small lots containing structures which range from single-family to a 7 -unit condo. Although the commercial zoning of these properties could potentially allow commercial expansion and more parking, staff does not believe this to be desirable for a neighborhood commercial area which exists for the convenience of nearby residents and not as an attraction center. Also the small lot sizes would not be conducive to making it a quality commercial area even if it were desirable. E-2, NORTH SIDE MANHATTAN AVENUE BETWEEN 26TH AND 27TH STREETS General Plan: MD Residential Zoning: R-3 This area consists of five 3000 square -foot lots, four of which contain two units, and one which contains a single-family house, for a total of 9 units. The structures vary in age, but all seem to be in good condition. Surrounding zoning includes C-1 and R-2 to the south, R-3 to the northwest, and all other surrounding properties east of Manhattan Avenue are either R-1 or R-2. The subject area is the only R-3 -23- zoned area east of Manhattan Avenue in this part of the City. Because of the R-3 zoning the height limit for the subject properties is 35 feet rather than 30 feet for the areas inland. Given the lot sizes, only two units per lot are allowed under the current R-3 zoning. If all 5 lots were combined as one development a total of 11 units could be built. Even with the R-3 zoning, a developer would have to combine at least four of the lots to gain an additional unit over 2 per lot. As such, the R-3 zoning does not encourage a significantly higher density than the two-family character that exists. If the property were rezoned to R-2 the 2 -unit sites would become nonconforming uses. If compatibility with surrounding areas were the primary concern, downzoning to R-2 would be the logical decision, however, if lot sizes and existing uses are considered, maintaining the R-3 zone seems appropriate. As such, staff feels this is a borderline situation, but feels that the overriding concern is the City's stated policy for inconsistent areas to be zoned or general planned to the lower density. This would mean a rezoning to R-2 with the General Plan designation of MD residential maintained. • AIJ MD z W MD 1 -ID MD • LC HD • HD LD HfiCH C • MD MD LEGEND HD — HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 33 du/ac MDn— MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 25 du/se LD — LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 13 du/ac GC — NC — CR — MHP GENERAL COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL RECREATION MOBILE HOME PARK IND — INDUSTRIAL OS — OPEN SPACE OM IMB GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION BOUNDARIE M.ANI-VATrANI e_. -.izMnsa LD z5— 011 MD to NC zone change C-1 to R-2 zone change R-3 to R- AREA E-1 CURRENT ZONING: C-1 CURRENT GP MD PROPOSED CHANGES AS NOTED I I 77TH ST. dsowa3H too GPA: ND TO NC 26Th C C AREA E-2 CURRENT ZONING: R-3 CURRENT GP : MD PROPOSED CHANGE: R-3 to R-2 AREA F Recommendation Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the northwest corner of Manhattan and 33rd Street be rezoned from C-1 to R-3, and that the northeast corner be rezoned from C-1 to R-2. Analysis NW CORNER MANHATTAN/33RD General Plan: HD Zoning: C-1 This area consists of two lots currently developed with one single-family structure. The remainder of this block between 33rd Street and 34th Street is zoned R-3 and developed with a mix of housing types. As for area E, staff believes that the extent of commercial development for this primarily residential neighborhood has reached its saturation point. Therefore, staff recommends a zone change from C-1 to R-3 consistent with the zoning on the block, and maintaining the HD Residential designation. NE CORNER MANHATTAN/33RD General Plan: MD Zoning: C-1 These two lots contain a 6 -unit apartment and a single-family home. The remainder of this block between 33rd and 34th streets east of Manhattan is zoned R-2. As noted for the NW corner of Manhattan and 33rd, Staff does not believe this corner is appropriate for commercial development, and recommends a zone change from C-1 to R-2 consistent with the zoning on the block, and maintaining the MD Residential general plan designation. • R-2 Nu R-2 11 HIGHLAND AVE. R-2 R -I R -I R -I R -I R-3 THIRTIETH R-3 • N D' RESIDENTIAL• RESIDENTIAL 1MILY RESIDENTIAL 'L PROFESSIONAL )D COMMERCIAL, R-1 1 ( R -I • C • • VSOW2f3H 9 90 330 2 AREA F • CURRENT ZONE;;;!... C-1 CURRENT GP: HD• and MD PROPOSED CHANGES AS NOTED 34TH n tun, - D p'8 1t BLK 65 1 0 , O T. /I /3 /5 %7 W 0 11 13 15(Y+ 2 4 a. 30 10 3 331? « o « O ,. O 4 3'311 -- w 5 t 5 85 33 RD /5 D r IZL t 65°07'5.3 0 'E3 1 30 „,CD z- 30 - D p'8 1t BLK • /0 10 " /P - 12 « 30 /0 30 o 4 P 30 102 « ” OO • /I /3 /5 %7 9 11 13 15(Y+ 2 4 t 30 10 « 30 ZC: C-1 TO R-3 0 1 34TH .230 „P 30 « 1 ,. •1.,f "W 11 tok 255 • uO `" O O O 0 O 2 4 6 8 10 12 30 « « « 8LK ,. 30 PPO 1 3 - 5 1• • O 7 1 • 119 9 ' 1• "W 11 tok 255 o2a y AL AL ZC: C-1 TO R-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 26 27 28 RESOLUTION 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN BY CHANGING THE DESIGNATIONS FOR THE AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAPS AND RECOMMENDING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the Third Quarter General Plan amendments, GPA 89-8, on October 10, 1989, and made the following Findings: A. The subject areas have inconsistent General Plan and Zoning map designations, and state law requires consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance; B. In order to make the subject areas consistent requires either an amendment to the General Plan Map or the Zoning Map; C. General Plan amending the subject areas as described below will bring the General Plan into consistency with the current zoning. D. Amending the general plan designations is more appropriate for the subject areas than changing the zoning, as the current zoning is consistent with existing and potential land uses and is compatible with surrounding areas;, NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby resolve that the land use map of the general plan be amended as shown on the attached maps and described as follows: AREA 10: General Plan amend from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential, legally described as follows: -lots 22-25 and 28-31 inclusive and a portion of lots 26 and 27, Trafton Heights Tract AREA A-1: General Plan amend from Open Space to Industrial, legally described as follows: 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 I 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 5 26 27 28 - lots 11-18 inclusive, Block R, Tract 2002; lots 11-18 inclusive, Block U, Tract 2002; the southerly 240 feet of the vacated portion of Bard Street north of 6th Street; and a portion of lot A, Tract 2002. AREA A-2: General Plan amend from High Density to Industrial, legally described as follows: AREA B: I (a) I - lot 1, Block V, Tract 2002 General Plan amend a portion of "AREA B" from Open Space and High Density to Industrial, legally described as follows: - the southwest portion of lot 2, Block 74, Second Addition to Hermosa Beach, measuring 34,500 square feet (b) General Plan amend a portion of "AREA B" from High Density Residential to General Commercial, legally described as follows: - easterly 79.6 feet of lots 10 and 11, Tract No. 780 AREA C-1: General Plan amend from General Commercial to Medium Density, legally described as follows: - lots 16, 25 and 26, Block 9, Hermosa Beach Tract AREA C-2: General Plan amend from General Commercial to High Density Residential, legally described as follows: -lots 19-27 inclusive, Block 11, Hermosa Beach Tract AREA C-3: General Plan amend "AREA C-3" from General Commercial to High Density Residential, legallydescribed as follows: -the southerly 30 feet of lot 16, and lots 17-25 inclusive, Block 35, Hermosa Beach Tract AREA D-1: General Plan amend from Commercial -Recreation to High Density Residential, legally described as follows: - lots 10-14 inclusive, and lot 30, Block 15, Hermosa Beach Tract; lot 1, Parcel Map 196-58 AREA D-2: General Plan amend from General Commercial to High Density Residential, legally described as follows: - lot 20, Block 16, Hermosa Beach Tract - 3Z - 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 AREA E-1: General Plan Amend from Medium Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial, legally described as follows: portions of lots 4-7 inclusive, Block 109, Shakespeare Tract; and portions of 1-5 inclusive, Block 67, 1st Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this , 1989. ATTEST: day of PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California APP ` ,, VED /IS � TO FO plandoc/persgpa8 CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY -33- 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 89 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE DESIGNATIONS FOR THE AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAPS AND RECOMMENDING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the Third Quarter General Plan Amendments, GPA 89-8, to bring the Land Use Map of the General Plan and the Zoning Map into consistency on October 10, 1989, and made the following Findings: A. The subject areas have inconsistent General Plan and Zoning map designations, and state law requires consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance; B. In order to make the subject areas consistent requires either an amendment to the General Plan Map or the Zoning Map; C. Amending the Zoning Map for the subject areas as described below is a more appropriate alternative than amending the General Plan because the existing and surrounding land uses are more compatible with the General Plan designation than the current zoning designation; D. Rezoning the subject areas as described below will bring the zoning and and General Plan into consistency; E. The zone changes are appropriate for the subject areas as they are consistent with existing and potential land uses and compatible with surrounding areas, and are consistent with the objectives and policies of the General Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, The City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby ordain that the zoning map be amended as shown on the attachedmaps and described as follows: pII 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 1. Rezone a portion of "AREA B" from M-1 to C-2 legally described as follows: - the easterly 79.6 feet of the southerly 43 feet of lot 12, Tract No. 780, and the easterly 79.6 feet of lots 10 and 11, Tract No. 780 SECTION 2. Rezone "AREA C-3" from R -P to R-3, legally described as follows: - ..the southerly 30 feet of lot 16, and lots 17-25 inclusive, Block 35, Hermosa Beach Tract SECTION 3. Rezone "AREA D-3" from C-2 to R-2B,legally described as follows: - lots 17 and 18, Block 16, Hermosa Beach Tract; and lots 29 and 30, Block 17, Hermosa Beach Tract SECTION 4. Rezone a portion of "AREA E-1" from C-1 to R-2, legally described as follows: - portions of lots 11 and lot 12, Block 67 1st Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract; lots 1 and 2, Block 109, Shakespeare Tract; and lot 1, Tract 31943 SECTION 5. Rezone "AREA E-2"from R-3 to R-2, legally described as follows: - portion of lot 1, lots 2,4,5 and 6 Block 112 Shakespeare Tract; and lot 1, Parcel Map 128-78-79 SECTION 6. Rezone a portion "AREA F" from C-1 to R-2, legally described as follows: - lots 1 and 3, Block 119 Shakespeare Tract SECTION 7. Rezone a portion of "AREA F" from C-1.to R-3, legally described as follows: - lots 13 and 15, Block 102, Shakespeare Tract SECTION 8. 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 9. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law. ,3,9)/D at_ez 03, �o /. . 0-0 (e* -ale& -j Coeya 4 /0 57-0 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 SECTION 10. 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 , 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APP A TO FORM fird. CP, plandoc/ccgpa8 CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY - 36- October 2, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council October 10, 1989 SUBJECT: VARIANCE 89-5 AND PARKING PLAN LOCATION: 415 PIER AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 23 OF HISS'. ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT APPLICANT: LAWRENCE M. DAVID M.D. 415 PIER AVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 APPELLANT: COUNCILMEMBERS CREIGHTON AND SHELDON REQUEST: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL TO ALLOW A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY ADDITIONAL PARKING Recommendation Staff recommend that the City Council affirm the Planning Commission's decision and deny the Variance and Parking Plan. Background At their meeting of September 5, 1989, the Planning Commission denied this request for a Variance and Parking Plan. Their reasons included that findings could not be made to support the variance, and that the ride -sharing proposal was unworkable and not enforceable. The Planning Commission originally heard this variance request on July 5, 1989. It was continued to allow the applicant to submit additional information for a parking plan to address the deficiency in parking. The Staff Environmental Review Committee, at their meeting of May 18, 1989, recommended denial of the variance and that approval should only be considered if an environmental impact report is prepared to address the cumulative impacts of similar additions without the provision of parking. Analysis The applicant is requesting a Variance and Parking Plan to allow a second story addition. The parking deficiency of ten spaces is proposed to be resolved partially with a Variance from the standard size parking stalls, allowing the use of up to 10 spaces behind the building, and partially through a Parking Plan which would set up an employee ride -sharing program to reduce parking demand by up to 7 cars (see the attached letter from the applicant.) Please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff reports of the July 5, 1989, and September 5, 1989, meetings for the analysis of this proposal. The September 5th report supplements the previous analysis, and was a response to the applicant's Parking Plan proposal.-�i CO.jCCUR : ` Michael Schubac Planning Director Kevin Northc raft City Manager C/ en Robertson Associate Planner Attachments 1. Proposed Resolution 2. Site Map 3. Resolution P.C. 89-48 4. Application and letter re: parking plan 5. P.C. Staff report 9/5/89 6. P.C. Staff report 7/5/89 7. P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 8. P.C. Minutes 7/5/89 9. Public Notice Affidavit 10. Correspondence plandoc/pcsr415 CITY MANAGER COMMENT: While a variance, with criteria for granting set in state law, is not the appropriate tool, the problem confronted here needs study to develop options. Hopefully, the planned study will produce viable solutions. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF, AND THEREBY AFFIRMING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A VARIANCE AND PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING WITHOUT PROVIDING ADDITIONAL OFF-STREET PARKING AT 415 PIER AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 23 OF HISS' ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on October 10, 1989 to receive oral and written testimony regarding an appeal of a Planning Commission denial of an application for a variance and parking plan at 415 Pier Avenue and made the following findings: A. The applicant is proposing to construct a second story addition to an existing one-story office building without proposing any additional off-street parking and the building is currently nonconforming to parking; B. The proposed addition will increase the square footage of the office building by over 70 percent and will likely increase parking demand, and although the applicant has proposed certain measures to reduce that demand, they will not likely be effective nor easily enforced for the life of the building; C. The physical condition of the subject property has no exceptional or extraordinary circumstance which distinguishes it from surrounding properties which are essentially similar in size and volume of use; D. A variance is not necessary to preserve a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the vicinity; 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 E. The increased parking demand without off-street parking would be potentially detrimental to neighboring properties; NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach, California does hereby resolve to deny an appeal of, thereby affirming, the Planning Commission denial of a variance and parking plan to allow second story addition without the provision of additional off-street parking. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPRW D e5...!be A/pers415 FORM CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY day of October, r 14 N 26/.93 53/ ) • 40 50 32 - /50 60 1 30 30 • 40 3, 330 to m X22 S4‘ 40.14 tsic.. i //3, yy SZ 7 . �5b 5 7 3 �0 603// rve yl� L 5 /7 32.4 z,600t0, 24 12.920 40 co o O 25 40 26 „ C)1 27 „ 28 it 16 29 11 /7 30 I) 40 31 40 . PIER r• LOMA hi 1 HISS' ADDITION u SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH. TO HERMOSA BEACH. M.B.4-19 M.B.3-11-12 . ASSMT. SEE: 15 9 — O oCF- Q�N 60 co BACKGROUND MATER/AC 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 r RESOLUTION P.C. 89-48 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIANCE AND PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING WITHOUT PROVIDING ADDITIONAL OFF-STREET PARKING AT 415 PIER AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 23 OF HISS' ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearings on July 5 and September 5, 1989 to receive oral and written testimony regarding an application for a variance and parking plan at 415 Pier Avenue and made the following findings: A. The applicant is proposing to construct a second story addition to an existing one-story office building without proposing any additional off-street parking and the building is currently nonconforming to parking; B. The proposed addition will increase the square footage of the office building by over 70 percent and will likely increase parking demand, and although the applicant has proposed certain measures to reduce that demand, they will not likely be effective nor easily enforced for the life of the building; C. The physical condition of the subject property has no exceptional or extraordinary circumstance which distinguishes it from surrounding properties which are essentially similar in size and volume of use; D. A variance is not necessary to preserve a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the vicinity; E. The increased parking demand without off-street parking would be potentially detrimental to neighboring properties; 6 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 r NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California does hereby deny a variance and parking plan to allow second story addition without the provision of additional off-street parking. VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ketz,Moore,Peirce,Chmn.Rue NOES: Comm.Ingell ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 89-48 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meeting September 5, 1989. oje Date , Rue, Chairman A/pers415 Michael Schubach, Secretary • • • August 28,1989 C C COMPASS ENGINEERING CO., INC. Civil Engineering and Planning Consultants City of Hermosa Beach Planning Department 1315 Valley Drive .Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Attn: Mike Shubach RE: Job 188-2915 The purpose of this letter is to outline a commuting plan to resolve the parking problem created by Variance request #89-5 which is an application to construct a building in excess of the provided parking at 415 Pier Ave. At the meeting held for the Variance, the Planning Commission grated continuance of time for the applicant to propose a solution to the parking shortage that would be created by the construction of the proposed 2nd story on the existing building. This letter addresses that solution. In order to clearly understand the reasoning involved it would be beneficial to outline the basic facts. The property presently consists of 1 story structure of approximately 1,600 sq. ft. Based on the City's present code this would have a parking requirement of 8 parking spaces. The rear of the property can park 10 cars and has done so for some years. However, only 4 spaces meet the City code. The new plan proposes a second floor of 1,145 sq. ft. which require an additional 6 parking spaces. Total 14. Therefore, the existing project is somewhere.between 4 and 10 parking spaces short. Although the applicant feels he need only to provide- the 4 additional spaces from the 10 practical spaces he has to provide the 14 required; he in deference to the City's severe parking problem and in a sincere effort to assist in alleviating same, proposes to replace 7 parking spaces as follows.-"' The applicant will induce 7 or more employees to car pool, commuter plan, walk or bike each working day in order to remove 7 automobiles from the parking lot 200 Pier Avenue, Suite 40 • Hermosa Beach, California 90254 • Telephone: (213) 374-9781 so that no more than 9 autos will park at the site on any working day. The van and car pool shall operate all working days throughout the year On a quarterly basis the applicant will provide to the Planning Department a letter of certification that the commuter service is in fact in operation and explaining any days of non -operation if applicable during the period The applicant agrees that all files in the City Departments be flagged to indicate that no Business License, Building Permit or other Use Permit be issued against the property unless a satisfactory commuter plan or other alternative has been instigated and properly secured The applicant agrees that if the City requests; to record a covenant against the property wherein the use of the upper level of the structure is restricted to storage unless there is operable an approved parking or commuter plan in place and operating with reasonable assurances to the City. Said covenant will attach to the land and be restrictive over it until the City revokes it. If you think about this proposal you can see that it is innovative and in the right direction to solve a lot of problems concerning Hermosa Beach and the community in general. It promotes the van pooling concept It provides for an employers sponsored activity which tends to have better participation It has innovation in solving the City's problems It provides for a solution to a problem with a minimum involvement of the City's bureaucracy and therefore budget. Dr. David would also like to remind the Planning Commission that this particular expansion is not to increase the size of his work force but merely provide him with additional space which he needs for his existing staff and storage space for the numerous records that the has accumulated over his practice. He is perfectly willing if necessary to covenant that he will not increase the staff size for some period of time and that he will only use the second floor for storage and his own personal office. Since Dr. David has been here for 14 years and has no contemplation of terminating the practice at this time it is perfectly reasonable ,to expect his business to be in operation for some 15 or 20 years in the future on an as is basis. . Lots of things can happen in that period of time including parking districts and other solutions to parking problems. Therefore, there would seem to be little harm in entering into a progressive type of arrangement such as this for an extended period. At the end of that time it is quite possible that the toll of economics may dictate that the building is no longer economically feasible and some other method ,'of solving parking problems may have occurred in the meantime. If the City of Hermosa Beach is going to encourage business and give itself a commercial facelift it is going to have to have inventive ideas such as this approved and operational. After the first one is operational we can all point with pride to its operation and give the idea to other businesses that it is possible to operate. There will probably not be another chance to provide a solution to such a good business person within the community. If you think carefully about it the kind of operation represented by the applicant is probably one of the more benign uses of the commercial area. •Further, it is a clean non- polluting business and one which is very responsible toward the community. To start with a business like that and demonstrate the City has the ability and desire to work within the system in order to provide a healthy business climate is a good signal to 'all. Recently there have been many negative activities which have had an effect on the business climate within Hermosa Beach. Discouragement of Music Plus in buying a parking lot, zoning of residential areas along the highway and rezoning of some commercial industrial to residential have been steps in a different direction for business. This is an opportunity for little pain but a lot of gain to demonstrate to business that they are both welcomed and needed in order to provide a fully balanced community. I strongly urge a positive vote on this plan the Variance it supports and the Negative Declaration of the En -ntal Impact that is needed to facilitate the activity. Jack ood JW/mmz TRIAD DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. 200 Pier Avenue, Suite 38 Hermosa Beach, California 90254 (213) 376-8849 April 25, 1989 Planning Commision City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 MAY 21989 RE: Job #2915 This leter accompanies the variance application of Dr. David to expand the building that houses his practice at 415 Pier Ave. Dr. David is a well established physician located in the City of Hermosa Beach for 16 years. He has a highly respected internationally known practice and has no desire to leave the community. He is proposing to install some stairs at the back of his building and build an office for him- self across the rear of his existing building. Although he is adding square footage to a building that already has substandard parking, he does not anticipate an increase in the level of his practice nor the number of employees in the building. The purpose is to provide a separation from his associates, to provide him with little peace and quiet to accompany his research and writing tasks, for the 16 years of practice have accumulated vast amounts of records which need storage. The property in question is unique perhaps to this particular portion of Hermosa Beach. There is ample parking in the front which has reg- ular use but constant turn over. The present meter regulations allow two hour parking and most of Dr. Davids' patients park there and since their stay is usually shorter than two hours this represents no problem. Further, although the rear of his building will only show 4 legal park- ing spaces, as a practical matter he is able to park 10 automobiles to the rear of the building on his own property. His staff coordinates their coming and going carefully and the arrangement has worked well for years. This arrangement has been plotted on the plans for your edification. Further, the parking spaces adjacent to his property on the front have been plotted for 1/2 block in both directions to provide you with an idea of the ammount of parking available. • Dr. Davids' normal working hours are 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. His patients arrive usually by appointment only. Few are scheduled during the evening and weekends when the use of the parking out front is higher. Therefore, Dr. Davids' patients find themselves in little conflict with the available parking here for the majority of the year. It is indeed inderstood that the parking will be more diificult in the summertime but at this point Dr. David has been operating for several years and has had no complaints from his patients. Tandem parking in the rear is sufficent to handle the employees on site. �� - C C Planning Commision Hermosa Beach page 2 Based on these facts, Dr. David feels that granting of a variance would be an appropriate undertaking to provide this additional space. We hope the Planning Commission will agree with him and we have pre- pared suggested findings. 1. There are exceptional and extrodinary circumstances regarding this lot. The lot is constructed with an alley to the rear and a building which fronts the front of the lot. The only parking access is from the rear and although a better layout could of been made the present layout only provides for 4 legal parking spaces under the city code. Since a lot of this size would normally support more than 1,000 square feet of building it is an extrodinary circumstance that the lot is not sufficient nor is the building as constucted sufficient to provide the necessary parking under the zoning code. 2. A variance is necessary to enjoy a substantial property right possessed by other properties in similar vacinity and zone. This particular property is one of the smallest on block and has no other way of providing parking. Since the improvment is of such quality, the economic life of it so long and has been maintained at such high standards; it is unfeasable to expect the structure to be demolished and replaced. There are numerous properties in the area who have a smaller ratio of parking to square footage then does Dr. David and he is therefore being denied a substantial property right enjoyed by others in similar vacinity and zone if this variance is not issued. 3. The granting of this variance will not be material detremental to the public welfare nor injurious to the property or improvements in the vacinity.The proposed change to this property will be an aesthetic improvement to be enjoyed by the entire community, just as previous improvements to Dr. David's properties have been. This has been recognized by the community in the past by the awarding -of the 1983 Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce Environmental Enhancement Award to Dr. David for remodeling of this same property. Also, en- closed are the signatures of all business owners in the area re- cognizing the positive nature of this proposal. 4. The granting of this variance does not represent a change in use and therefore has no effect on the general plan which it conforms to now. We trust that the Planning Commission will see the favorable aspects of this application, understand the limits of Dr. Davids' fully occupied building a new structure, understand his need for it and see the merits of the proposed parking plan which is feaseable and practical but non-standard. Dr. Davids' practice is low volume, low traffice, non-offensive operation. He is one of the types that_ should be encouraged to stay in the community to balance against high commercial uses elsewhere on the street. C C Planning Commission Hermosa Beach Page 3 Thank you in advance for your careful consideration with this project and we hope you will grant the variance so that Dr. David can continue opera'.n in the City of Hermosa Beach. ack Wood President JW/lp /• t, Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission August 30, 1989 Regular Meeting of September 5, 1989 SUBJECT: VARIANCE 89-5 AND PARKING PLAN LOCATION: 415 PIER AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 23 OF HISS' ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT APPLICANT: LAWRENCE M. DAVID M.D. 415 PIER AVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 REQUEST: TO ALLOW A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY ADDITIONAL PARKING Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the Variance and Parking Plan. Background Project Details - Zoning: C-2 General Plan Designation: General Commercial Lot Sizes: 3239 square feet Current Use: one-story medical office Floor Area: 1600 square feet Parking Spaces: 4 Proposed Addition: 1145 square feet Required Parking Spaces: 14 The Planning Commission continued this item from the July 5, 1989 meeting to allow the applicant to submit additional information for a parking plan to address the deficiency in parking. The Staff Environmental Review Committee, at their meeting of May 18, 1989, recommended denial of the variance and that approval should only be considered if an environmental impact report is lJ 1 prepared to address the cumulative impacts of similar additions without the provision of parking. Analysis This analysis supplements the previous analysis contained in the July .5 staff report, and is in response to the Parking Plan proposal. Please refer to the previous report for a more detailed description of the project and of the variance issue. The applicant is requesting a Variance and Parking Plan to allow a second story addition. The parking deficiency of ten spaces is proposed to be resolved partially with a Variance from the standard size parking stalls, allowing the use of up to 10 spaces behind the building, and partially through a Parking Plan which would set up an employee ride -sharing program to reduce parking demand by up to 7 cars. The applicant has submitted a letter proposing that car-pooling, biking, or walking to work be required of employees to address the parking deficiency. Staff agrees that these suggestions may be innovative solutions to parking problems, but would question whether or not they fit within the scope of the provisions in Section 1169 pertaining to Parking Plans. Staff does not believe substantial evidence has been provided in this case to support the feasibility of the ride share program. For example, no information has been provided regarding where the employees live and whether or not any live close enough to walk or bike, whether or not they are clustered for possible ride -sharing, or if a nearby satellite parking area is available. Also, staff questions the feasibility of any employee staff this small being able to arrange car-pools now and in the future since there are limited possibilities of matching commuters with similar schedules and locations. Staff greatest concern, however, is with the enforcement of such a program even if proven possible. It would be extremely difficult for staff to accurately determine ,whether or not the ride -sharing is actually being carried out. The program would essentially depend on voluntary compliance, and as the years pass and employees and ownership changes, the awareness of the required program would likely diminish. Staff does not feel that a covenant which restricts the upstairs area to storage if the program is not being carried out would help the situation, precisely because it would be so difficult to determine if the program is working. As such, how could the City find evidence to stop the use of the upstairs office? Staff strongly believes that once the second story is constructed it will be extremely difficult to stop its use under any circumstance. Staff agrees that this business is a desirable business to support and encourage to stay in the community. However, there are several other businesses in similar situations that also deserve such support. As such, staff does not think this case 1 warrants special consideration, or that this particular business deserves a special privelege, which amounts to circumvention of the zoning laws, possibly to the detriment of others. The Planning Department spends a lot of time at the counter and on the phone discouraging this type of parking variance or parking reduction request. If a precedent is set that the City will grant special consideration for questionable innovative solutions, the City will hear a lot more of these types of requests. Staff feels that a comprehensive solution to downtown parking problems which is fair to all businesses is needed. Staff intends to study this issue in the near future in conjunction with the revision to the Gen-ral P1,n son Associate Planner Attachments 1. Site Map 2. Resolution P.C. 89-69 3. Application and letter re: parking plan 4. P.C. Staff report 7/5/89 5. P.C. Minutes 7/5/89 6. Staff Review Minutes 5/18/89 plandoc/pcsr1301 June 28, 1989 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission July 5, 1989 SUBJECT: VARIANCE 89-5 LOCATION: 415 PIER AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 23 OF HISS' ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT APPLICANT: LAWRENCE M. DAVID M.D. 415 PIER AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 REQUEST: TO ALLOW A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY ADDITIONAL PARKING. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the proposed variance. Background Project Details -- Zoning: C-2 General Plan Designation: General Commercial Present Use: One-story medical office Floor Area: 1,600 square feet Proposed addition: 1,145 square feet The Staff Environmental Review Committee, at their meeting of May 18, 1989, recommended denial of the Variance because of the impact of additional square footage without additional parking with the added statement that approval should only be considered if an environmental impact report is prepared which addresses the cumulative impact of similar additions without the provision of parking. Analysis The applicant is requesting to construct a second story addition to an existing medical office building to provide space for a personal office and additional storage. The subject property contains a 1600 square foot building on a 3,240 square foot lot. The commercial structure is currently non -conforming as to the number of parking spaces. Four (4) standard size parking spaces are available accessed via the rear alley. Under current parking requirements eight (8) parking spaces would be required. The applicant indicates that as many as ten (10) cars can actually be parked behind the office if parked in tandem, assuming a parking space size of 8' by 15'. The proposed addition of 1,145 square feet results in the need for an additional six (6) parking spaces for a total requirement of fourteen (14). The applicant is not proposing any additional parking. The applicant's representative, Triad Associates, notes that the addition is for the purpose of providing a personal office for Dr. Lawrence and for providing additional storage area and, therefore, argues that it will not increase parking demand. In response, staff believes that by adding space upstairs some additional space will be freed up downstairs. Also, the use or tenant of the building may eventually change. Additionally, the plans show separate stairway access to the top floor which would potentially allow an owner of the building to lease it to a separate tenant. In staff's judgement the applicant has clearly not provided any justification for the granting of the variance. There is nothing about the property in question which is unusual or unique relative to surrounding properties. The subject lot is one of 11 lots located between Bard Street and Loma Drive on the north side of Pier Avenue which have alley access, 40 feet of street frontage, and depths of about 80 feet, and containing primarily one-story buildings. As a result, the granting of a variance would conceivably set a strong precedent, thereby making it extremely difficult to deny future variance requests for these other similar properties along Pier Avenue to add square footage without any additional parking. The expansion of businesses in the Hermosa downtown area is a critical issue for Hermosa Beach. Staff intends to study the issuein detail in the upcoming General Plan review, and will investigate the possibility of providing additional parking in the area to accomodate commercial improvements like those proposed. Until that time, however, staff believes that allowing a parking variance would worsen the current parking problem in the area and certainly would not contribute towards a viable solution to parking in the downtown area. CONCUR: Michael Schubach Planning Director Attachments 1. Site map 2. PC Resolution No. 89-48 3. Staff Review Minutes of 5/18/89 4. Application 5. Public Notice Affidavit a/pcsr415 Rose-ts:n Associate Planner VARIANCE AND PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW A SECOND -S1 UK Y urrn.c r.LI-CIL .., • PROVIDING LESS THAN THE REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING AT 415 PIER AVENUE (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF JULY 5, 1989) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 30, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny this variance request and parking plan. This project is located in the C-2 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The current use is as a one-story medical office. The floor area is 1600 square feet. There are four parking spaces. The proposed addition is 1145 square feet, and the required number of parking spaces is 14. The Planning Commission continued this item from the July 5, 1989, meeting to allow the applicant time to submit additional information for a parking plan to address the deficiency in parking. The staff environmental review committee, at their meeting of May 18, 1989, recommended denial of the variance and that approval should only be considered if an environmental impact report is prepared to address the cumulative impacts of similar additions without the provision of parking. The applicant is requesting a variance and parking plan to allow a second -story addition. The parking deficiency of ten spaces is proposed to be resolved partially with a variance from the standard -size parking stalls, allowing the use of up to ten spaces behind the building and partially through a parking plan which would set up an employee ride sharing program to reduce parking demand by up to seven cars. The applicant has submitted a letter proposing that carpooling, biking, or walking to work be required of employees to address the parking deficiency. Staff agrees that these suggestions may be innovative solutions to parking problems but would question whether or not they fit within the scope of the provisions in Section 1169 pertaining to parking plans. Staff does not believe substantial evidence has been provided in this case to support the feasibility of the ride -share program. For example, no information has been provided regarding where the employees live and whether or not any live close enough to walk or bike, whether or not they are clustered for possible ride sharing, or if a nearby satellite parking area is available. Also, staff questions the feasibility of any employee (q_ P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 l staff this small being able to arrange carpools now and in the future since there are limited possibilities of matching commuters with similar schedules and locations. Staff's greatest concern, however, is with the enforcement of such a program, even if proven possible. It would be extremely difficult for staff to accurately determine whether or not the ride -sharing is actually being carried out. The program would essentially depend on voluntary compliance, and as the years pass and employees and ownership changes, the awareness of the required program would likely diminish. Staff does not feel that a covenant which restricts the upstairs area to storage if the program is not being carried out would help the situation, precisely because it would be so difficult to determine if the program is working. As such, how could the City find evidence to stop the use of the upstairs office. Staff strongly believes that once the second story is constructed, it will be .extremely difficult to stop its current use under any circumstance. • Staff agrees that this business is a desirable business to support and encourage to stay in the community. However, there are several other businesses in similar situations that also deserve such support. . As such, staff does not think this case warrants special consideration or that this particular business deserves a special privilege which amounts to circumvention of the zoning laws, possibly to the detriment of others. The planning department spends a great deal of time at the counter and on the phone discouraging this type of parking variance or parking reduction request. If a precedent is set that the City will grant special considerations for questionable, innovative solutions, the City will hear many more of these types of requests. Staff feels that a comprehensive solution to downtown parking problems which is fair to all businesses is needed. Staff intends to study this issue in the near future in conjunction with the revision to the general plan. Comm. Moore, noting that he was not present at the first hearing of this matter, stated that he has reviewed all materials and minutes prepared for this item. He asked whether he would be able to participate in the decision-making process. Mr. Lee stated that if Comm. Moore has reviewed all the materials and feels confident that he is informed, it would not be necessary for him to abstain from this item. Public Hearing opened at 7:19 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Noting that the applicant was not yet present and that no one else appeared to speak on this issue, Chmn. Rue stated that this public hearing would be continued t� later in the meeting. (See Page 32.) — 20 — P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 C VARIANCE AND PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW A SECOND -STORY OFFICE ADDITION PROVIDING LESS THAN THE REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING AT 415 PIER AVENUE (CONTINUED FROM EARLIER IN THE MEETING — SEE PAGE 3) Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Ingell, stated that the applicant's representative was aware that this matter would be heard tonight. Comm. Ingell favored continuing this item, noting that the applicant's representative was not present in the audience. MOTION by Comm. Ingell to continue this matter to the next meeting since the applicant was not present. MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Comm. Moore opposed a continuance, stating that the matter has already been continued once, and the applicant was aware that it was going to be heard at this time. He suggested that a decision be made at this time. Public Hearing opened and closed at 12:03 A.M. by Chmn. Rue, who noted that no one appeared to address the Commission. Chmn. Rue stated that the van -pooling idea proposed was interesting. Comm. Peirce noted, however, that car pools are not enforceable. Chmn. Rue felt that van pooling is a good concept; however, it is something that the City must become involved in to make it feasible. He further suggested that a parking structure might be conducive to ride sharing. Mr. Schubach stated that the issue of ride sharing will be studied in the future. —2/— P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 • ( C Comm. Ingell stated that he did not have enough information to make a decision at this time. He noted the trouble encountered by applicants having to go through the required procedures all over again. He did not feel that a continuance would be a burden on the Commission or the City. He felt that a notice could be sent to the applicant informing him that if he does not appear at the next meeting, the request will be denied. Comm. Peirce commented that the he felt this request was very close to being denied when it was first heard. The applicant was given an opportunity to respond with additional information. Had the applicant been present to answer questions may have been somewhat helpful, but he still felt that this is a very thin project and a long way from being a viable variance. He did not feel there are sufficient findings to grant this variance, whether or not the applicant is present. Comm. Ketz agreed with the comments made by Comm. Peirce, stating that the applicant should have submitted additional materials. Mr. Schubach noted that the applicant can appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council if the variance request is denied. Chmn. Rue stated that, had additional materials been submitted, he would have considered a continuance; however, no materials had been presented. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to deny Variance Request 89-5 and the parking plan. Comm. Moore stated that a small ride -sharing program would be completely unworkable in the City. He also felt such a program would not be enforceable. He could see no reason why this business should be granted a variance when there are many other businesses in the area in the same situation. He did not feel that the City is in a position to grant variances to all the other similar businesses. He felt there are strong reasons to deny this request, and he hoped the same logic would prevail at the City Council level. Comm. Ingell opposed the motion, explaining that he feels the applicant should be present to represent himself. AYES: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue NOES: Comm. Ingell ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None LOT ADJUSTMENT AT 1137 10TH STREET Mr. Schubach gav- . ff report dated August 20, 1989, and - ommended that the Planning Commission aPpr• - the proposed lot line adjust This project is located in the R-1 zon-, . it. : general plan designation of low density residential. The lot sizes are 2500 s • - ee . • d 5000 square feet. The current use is as a single-family home on the 5square-foot lot. environmental.determination is categorically exempt. The applican proposing to adjust the lot line separating a 25 foot wi• d a 50 foot wide 1. ereby creating two new lots of 35 and 40 feet in width. The 50 foo 'de lot ade up of two smaller lots (Lots 12 and 13) which were recently merged by the 1 33 Z2 P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 NDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1/21270 FOR A UNI ONDOMINIUM AT 704 1ST PLACE Mr. Schubac -xplained that this project is an exact mirror image of th •roject located at 705 1st Stree with the exception that staff is recommending a e -foot setback for this particular proje Public Hearing opened at 7: P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Richard Laraba, 2428 W. 250th Str - - , Lomita, a stated that this project will be exact -s sh deck at this project. Public Hearing closed at 7:27 P.M. Chmn. Rue. MOTION by Comm. Ingell conded by Comm. Ketz, to a Resolution P.C. 89-31. cant, addressed the Commission and on the plans, and there will be no roof ove staff's' recommendation, • AYES: 'omms. Ingell, Ketz, Peirce, Chmn. Rue NOES: None ABST k • . None • AB T: None VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SECOND -STORY OFFICE ADDITION PROVIDING LESS THAN THE REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 415 PIER AVENUE Comm. Ingell stated that he had been called by the applicant, who requested that this matter be continued until 8:30 this evening so that he could be present. Mr. Lee stated that the public hearing could be opened and continued, as requested by the applicant. Heather Johnston, citizen, stated that she would be unable to stay until 8:30 and would like to testify at the public hearing. Chmn. Rue, noting no objections, stated that the Commission would now hear the staff report. The public hearing would then be opened for input and continued until 8:30 P.M. as requested by the applicant. Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 28, 1989. Staff recommended that the Commission deny the proposed variance. This project is located in the C-2 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The present use is as a one-story medical office. The floor area is 1600 square feet, and the proposed addition is 1145 square feet. The staff environmental review committee, at their meeting of May 18, 1989, recommended denial of the variance because of the impact of additional square footage without additional parking with the added statement that approval should only be considered if an environmental impact report is prepared which addresses the cumulative impact of similar additions without the provision of parking. 23— P.C. Minutes 7/5/89 The applicant is. requesting to construct a second -story addition to an existing medical office building to provide space for a personal office and additional storage. The subject property contains a 1600 square foot building on a 3240 square -foot lot. The commercial structure is currently non -conforming as to the number of parking spaces. Four standard size parking spaces are available accessed via' the rear alley. Under current parking requirements, eight parking spaces would be required. The applicant indicates that as many as ten cars can actually be parked behind the office if parked in tandem, assuming a parking space size of eight feet by fifteen feet. The proposed addition of 1145 square feet results in the need for an additional six parking spaces, for a total requirement of fourteen. The applicant. isnot proposing any additional parking. The applicant's representative, Triad 'Associates, notes that the addition is for the purpose of providing a personal office for the doctor and for providing additional storage area and, therefore, argues that it will not increase parking demand. In response, staff believes that by adding space upstairs, some additional space will be freed up downstairs. Also, the use or tenant of the building may eventually change. Additionally, the plans show separate stairway access to the top floor which would potentially allow an owner of the building to lease it to a separate tenant. In staff's judgment, the applicant has clearly not provided any justification for the granting of the variance. There is nothing about the property in question which is unusual or unique relative to the surrounding properties. The subject lot is one of eleven lots located between Bard Street and Loma Drive on the north side of Pier Avenue which have alley access, 40 feet of street frontage, and depths of about 80 feet, and containing primarily one-story buildings. As a result, the granting of a variance would conceivably set a strong precedent, thereby making it extremely difficult to deny future variance requests for these other similar properties along Pier Avenue to add square footage without any additional parking. The expansion of businesses in the Hermosa Beach downtown area is a critical issue for Hermosa Beach. Staff intends to study the issue in detail in the upcoming general plan review and will investigate the possibility of providing additional parking in the area to accommodate commercial improvements like those proposed. Until that time, however, staff believes that allowing a parking variance would worsen the current parking problem in the area and certainly would not contribute towards a viable solution to parking in the downtown area. Chmn. Rue asked what would be required for the applicant to obtain an environmental impact report. • Mr. Schubach stated that the EIR would be a cumulative impact of all the structures along both sides of the street; i.e., air quality, trip generation, parking, and traffic. There would also be mitigation measures included. Staff felt, however, that this project would never gain approval from the Coastal Commission, noting that they do not grant parking variances as a rule. Public Hearing opened at 7:33 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Heather Johnston, 405 Pier Avenue, stated that she works in the office right next door to the applicant's office. She noted that they are constantly being hounded by Dr. David's patients, employees, and interns to park in their lot. Parking and traffic is already very 21. P.C. Minutes 7/5/89 bad in this area, • especially with the new condos in the area. She stated that approval of this variance request would be ridiculous, especially since this owner could sell the building. She felt it would be inappropriate to add to the City's already horrendous parking problem. She strongly opposed approval of the variance. Public Hearing continued at 7:36 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. (Continued on• Page .12.) 7 P.C. Minutes 7/5/89 VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SECOND -STORY OFFICE ADDITION PROVIDING LESS THAN THE REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 415 PIER AVENUE (This item continued from earlier in tonight's meeting; see Page 5) Jack Wood, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission}.. He questioned whether anything could actually be done at this time to facilitate the granting of • this variance, noting that there seems to be a question regarding the environmental impact report. He said that he was surprised when he was informed that it would be necessary to first obtain the EIR because he had been under the impression that staff saw no problems. He first became aware of staff's recommendation that an EIR should be performed when he read the staff report. • ..w.i+e,:yam,: tVtts ai.•ir".•/I:1Vb✓S/jf tiii w s *dasosoP.T�, f�sa +W�w:r�.,•ra r�:,r: - - — • Mr. Schubach clarified that the staff environmental review committee denied an environmental negative declaration for this project; therefore, an EIR has been recommended if the applicant wishes to proceed. Mr. Wood stated that it is not within the purview of the staff environmental review board to pass judgment on variance requests. • Mr. Wood discussed the variance, stating that he is not sure whether it is possible to convince the Commission of the four required findings necessary .for approval at this time: .He noted that staff has prepared no findings; consequently, he felt that this matter is at an impasse and that the applicant has been unfairly put upon. He could think of n� more than three projects in the entire City which. have been required to submit. an EIR, and those have all been very large projects. This request is to add a second story to an existing building on Pier Avenue. Mr. Wood -noted that the City is almost completely developed, and the impact of a project of this size is relatively small. He said that it is rare for a project of this type to be turned down. He said that the project site does not represent a typical stretch of Hermosa Beach, noting that there is very little development behind the site, and it is almost an exclusively commercial enclave. Mr. Wood stated that it has been the contention of staff that any project in the City must provide the required parking. However, when one thinks of the history of the City, parking problems are usually in residential areas and are caused by beach goers during the summer months. He stated that there are no parking problems in the City during the other nine months of the year, nor on most weekdays on Pier Avenue. Mr. Wood stated that this is the type of business that the City needs and which should be encouraged. Dr. David is a world-famous dermatologist and has been in the City for a long time. His practice does not generate a great deal of traffic. Mr. Wood noted that businesses under conditional use permits are those which the City feels need to be under a great deal of control. He did not feel that a doctor's office falls into this category. He stated that this is a very benign use, which takes place only during the hours of 9:00 and 5:00. The doctor has only a few employees, and they can park in the back of the office. Ten cars can physically be parked in that area, even though the City does not acknowledge them as ten legal sized parking spaces. Mr. Wood stated that most of the customers park in front and enter through the front door; the doctor has not received any complaints from patients regarding parking problems. He stated that this type of use is prime for variance approval, noting that it is not desirable for this type of use to leave town. Mr. Wood discussed the unique quality of Pier Avenue in this area. He stated that the building is worth more than a tear down, and if this applicant leaves town, another less desirable use might take its place. Mr. Wood stated that the doctor merely wants to add storage room and office space, which will not generate additional traffic. He stated that the applicant is even willing to stipulate to a condition which says the addition can be used only for storage and office space. He stated that the applicant is willing to attempt to work this out with the City. However, he felt that a focused EIR for Pier Avenue would be more appropriate than requiring a full EIR for an expanded area. He also noted that traffic studies have been prepared and those studies could be utilized. P.C. Minutes 7/5/89 Mr. Wood stated that the buildings in this area are not to a point of deterioration, and it would not be feasible to tear them down. He felt that the City should help businesses in this area. Mr. Wood .suggested that the Commission send this matter back to the staff environmental review committee for a .rehearing with a recommendation that this project will not adversely impact the area, if that is the desire of the Commission at this time. He stressed that a full EIR would not be appropriate for this project, noting that the request is only for a 1000 square foot addition. Chmn. RUe noted that other businesses in the area have provided the Commission with data' indicating why they do not need additional parking; such as a large portion of walk - In traffic or people riding bikes to the business. He stated that those people do surveys to back up their positions. He noted that. the Commission had earlier heard testimony from Ms. Johnston that there are in fact parking problems in this -area. Chmn. Rue stated that the Commission has no basis upon which to make a decision at this time. He noted that it is up to the applicant to provide reasons for approval. Mr. Wood noted, however, that he had been under the impression that the staff environmental review committee was going to approve the environmental negative declaration for this project. Mr. Wood stated that even if the Commission moved to approve this variance, there is still no environmental clearance for the project to go forward. Mr. Schubach explained that the Planning Commission is the ultimate decision maker in this instance; if the Commission desires to do so, they can grant this project a negative declaration with no mitigation measures. The variance could then be approved tonight with the negative declaration. Or, the Commission could tentatively approve the project and request an environmental assessment with mitigation measures, to consist of a focused EIR with cumulative impacts. After the study is complete and mitigation measures have been determined, this project can begin to go through the necessary process for approval. Chmn. Rue suggested that the applicant either present more information at this time or request a continuance. Mr. Wood did not feel that a continuance would accomplish much, explaining that a plan has been presented showing what the applicant would like to do and where the parking would be. City Attorney Lee stated that the Commission must first determine whether or not there are sufficient findings upon which to grant this variance. He continued by outlining the four findings. If the Commission believes it can make the findings to grant the variance, the Commission must then decide whether it can accept the staff environmental review committee's recommendation, either to do a full EIR or to accept a negative declaration for this particular application. Mr. Wood disagreed with the attorney's method of procedure. He stated that the thing to do is clear all environmental hurdles prior to the hearing, so that the only remaining question is whether or. not to approve the variance. He felt that if the environmental issue is not first resolved, the ability to make the findings for the variance would not be possible. 2 / r P.C. Minutes 7/5/89 • CT C Mr. Wood stated that if this project truly hinges on a focused EIR being done, then it should be done; or, this matter should be sent back to the environmental review committee on the environmental issue alone asking that this matter be resolved so that the applicant can proceed with the hearing process. Mr. Wood discussed past projects and how•those were handled in regard to environmental issues. Mr. Lee agreed with Mr. Wood in terms of making the environmental finding for this projectprior to exercising the discretion for approval; however, if the Commission feels there is a basis for approval, they should first determine whether a full EIR must be done or whether the matter should be sent back to the staff environmental review committee for a negative declaration. The Commission can then make a decision as to whether or not the variance should be granted. Mr. Wood stated that if this variance is denied and appealed to the City Council before the environmental issue has been resolved, the Council will probably refer it back to the Commission. He stated that there is no sense in discussing the variance until this issue is resolved. He continued by discussing other projects in the City and the impacts they have created. He said that only the very large projects create a great impact and thus require full EIRs. He did not feel a project of this small size should require such a report to be prepared. He said that the question is one of six parking spaces. Mr. Wood suggested that the Commission first resolve the environmental issue either by granting a negative declaration and proceeding on the variance request, or by referring the matter back to the staff environmental review committee with a recommendation that a focused EIR be prepared. Mr. Wood stated that if a focused EIR is recommended, he would like to make a presentation regarding the necessary findings. Hearing left open at 9:00 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Comm. Ingell felt that this is the type of business that the City would like to have in the area, noting that it is not an intense use or one creating additional density. He also noted that the traffic is very low for this type of use. He felt that the project would qualify for a variance if it is possible to tie the variance to the use. He felt that the findings could be made; however, he felt that the environmental questions regarding the parking need to be addressed. Comm. Ketz noted that staff is currently studying the parking requirements for the downtown area. She questioned how high on. the priority list that study is. Mr. Schubach stated that that issue will be addressed along with the general plan review; so it will be discussed within six months to a year. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, stated that the ten parking spaces in the rear of this business are not legal size, either in width or length; therefore, they cannot be counted as ten spaces. Mr. Schubach and the Commissioners discussed the size requirements for parking spaces. Mr. Schubach stated that the correct size for a compact tandem space is seven and a half feet by fifteen and a half feet, none of which these spaces are. He said that the spaces are a half foot short. P.C. Minutes 7/5/89 • Mr. Wood stated that there are four legally -sized spaces. Comm. Peirce stated that this is not a question of how many spaces are there now, but rather how many will be required under the code for this addition, noting that fourteen spaces w i' I be required. Even though he felt the environmental issue is interesting, he questioned whether the four findings could be made to grant. the variance. He stated that . if the applicant feels he can provide mitigation measures, he can ask for ' a continuance of this hearing. Comm. Peirce stated that this is not a question of environmental issues, but whether the applicant can meet the City requirements. • Mr. Schubach explained that the environmental review committee felt that this variance would be denied, and they were attempting to save the applicant the 'expense of having •an EIR done only to find that the variance would be denied; therefore, they proceeded by recommending a focused EIR, in the event the Commission recommended that the variance be approved. Comm. Peirce suggested that the applicant provide a parking plan with mitigation measures. He felt that unless it can be proved that all the patients walk to the office, there is no way to provide the required 14 parking spaces. He did not feel that Findings 1 and 2 can be made in any case. He further noted that testimony was given that there are parking problems in that area. Comm. Ketz agreed with the comments made by Comm. Peirce. She stated that even though the City wants to encourage certain types of businesses, there must be some place for the people to park. Comm. Peirce cautioned that the variance runs with the land; therefore, this business would be able to operate without the required number of parking spaces; but that would also mean that some future, more intense use would be able to continue operating with less than the required number of parking spaces. Mr. Schubach agreed that a variance is permanent and runs with the land, not with the structure or use. Comm. Ingell asked whether a deed restriction could be placed on the property.. Mr. Lee explained that a variance runs with the property, and any future use would be able to use the property without having to comply with the parking requirements. If the building is demolished totally, the variance can be reconsidered. But so long as there is an existing structure, the variance runs withthat structure. Mr. Lee, in response to a question by Chmn. Rue, stated that a conditional use permit cannot be used to tie this use to the variance, explaining that that is not covered under the conditional use permit procedures. He stated that the question remains whether this business can provide the code -required parking. If the variance is approved, this and all future uses will not have to provide the code -required parking. Mr. Lee stated that the Commission must make the findings based on facts which can be legally substantiated. Mr. Wood disagreed with the comments given by Mr. Lee, stating that the variance goes with the structure, not the land. He stated that a building cannot be structurally altered P.C. Minutes 7/5/89 without first addressing the parking issue. If the building is demolished, then the new parking requirements must be met. He continued by discussing the issue of conditional use permits as related to such uses. • Mr. Lee and Mr. Wood discussed the issue of variances and adhering to code requirements. Mr. Wood stated that it is possible to condition variances and to add a covenant to the land if the City desires to approve this project. Mr. Schubach, •in response to questions from Chmn. Rue, stated that the parking code standards are based on gross floor area, including storage area. Comm. Ingell noted that the business does- not now comply with the parking, nor would • another use coming in. Mr. Lee explained that it is very difficult to enforce a use mandated by a covenant. It could also place a burden on the City to have to enforce those types of covenants. He continued by discussing parking requirements based on use. Chmn. Rue stated that if there were alternative parking plans to mitigate the parking problems, the Commission would try to accommodate this business. Mr. Wood stated that such an alternative is possible. He noted that there are only. four legal parking spaces now, and by today's standards he needs ten. With the addition, he would need fourteen spaces. He noted that the patients will not park in the rear in any event, preferring instead to park in the front and enter the front door. By parking in the rear, it is also inconvenient to walk around the block to get to the front door. The customers, therefore, will continue to park in the front regardless of any rules the City imposes. The real issue, then, is that of the employee parking. He stated that there is currently enough space for the employee parking. Mr. Wood stated that the applicant could buy spaces in the parking district, even though he is not in the VPD, if the City allows him to do so. The applicant could also purchase parking spaces elsewhere. He discussed other areas which could be used for parking. Mr. Wood also noted that a covenant could be added to this property, specifying the amount of area which can be used for storage. Mr. Wood discussed parking concepts in the City, stating that in reality street parking is for businesses, not residents. Mr. Wood stated that he is more than willing to work with the City on this matter; however, he needs direction from the City. Comm. Ingell stated that he would have no problem with the project if there was a parking plan. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, stated that staff can work with the applicant to work out a parking plan and to mitigate the parking problems. Mr. Wood asked that it be recognized that there are ten parking spaces; they can then proceed to obtain the additional four required spaces for employee parking. P.C. Minutes 7/5/89 Comm. Peirce stated that to call those spaces ten spaces would require a variance. He stressed that they are not ten legal spaces. He noted, however, that he would be willing to listen to alternatives. He noted that if this variance is approved, then a flood of people would be requesting the same type of variance. He noted that it is important to adhere to the code. If a parking arrangement is proposed, it must be one which will work. Comm. Ingell stated that cars have gotten smaller, and he would have no problem with approving a variance to allow the parking in the rear for eight or ten. cars. That, coupled with a parking plan to provide the additional spaces, might be a solution. He felt that if the use could be tied into the property, there would not be a problem. Comm. Ketz stated that she would like to see a parking plan. Comm. Peirce stated that even if ten cars can park there, they are still. not legal parking spaces. • Comm. Ingell felt that it is up to staff to study flexible alternatives if it is desired to see the downtown grow. He felt that no new businesses will want to come to town if there is no parking. He felt that alternatives must be addressed. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to continue this matter two weeks in order to give the applicant and staff time to work out a solution in regard to the parking. Mr. Schubach stated that the applicant has applied for a variance, and deals cannot be made on variances. A parking plan is an entirely different issue, and that is what should have been applied for. Chmn. Rue stated that the Commission is attempting to find a mitigation for the parking problem. Comm. Peirce asked whether this application can be converted into a parking plan so that the applicant does not have to reapply and submit new paperwork. Mr. Schubach stated that they can begin to go through the process and not charge the applicant again if he wishes to change the application. Comm. Ingell questioned whether it will be necessary to have both a variance and a parking plan. He questioned whether two weeks would be enough time to study this matter. Mr. Lee stated that if a parking plan is desired, it should be noticed so that there is a proper public hearing as required by law. Mr. Wood stated he had no objection to renoticing this matter as a parking plan hearing; however, he felt that even if a parking plan is approved, a variance will still be necessary once the environmental issue is resolved with the parking plan. He stated that this issue is definitelyone of a variance. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Peirce as maker and agreed to by Comm. Ingell as second, to continue this matter to the meeting of September 5, 1989. - 3 1 P.C. Minutes 7/5/89 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None None SPECIAL STUDY TO ADD GYMNASIUM TO C-2 ZONE PERMITTED USE LIST Mr. Sshubach gave staff report dated June 28, 1989. Staff recommended t : t the Planning\Commission direct staff to prepare a text amendment to permit gym : slum in the C-2 ne with a conditional use permit and add "gymnasium," one space f .r each 50 square feet f gross floor area to the parking section of the ordinance. At the April 1989, Planning Commission meeting, a letter from S ane McColgan requesting addin "gymnasium" to the permitted use list was discussed and the Planning Commission direct d staff to study the issue. The staff has investig any more intrusive than hall, or tanning salon. been an attraction for unsa more recently there has bee gymnasiums. More recently gy ed the proposed use and has found that a ther uses found in the C-2 zone such wever, it should be noted that in ory characters similar to the some connection between asiums have become fa mnasium would not be dancing academy, pool e past gymnasiums have* d "pool hall" clientele, and e illicit sale of steroids and ily-oriented health spas. A survey of other cities in the area 'ndicates that th parking for a gymnasium should be one space for each fifty square fee of gross flo• area. Significant parking problems have been noted in cases where adequ e parkin has not been provided. Lakewood and Torrance have both in the past allowed ;ymn. Tums to be located in shopping centers with one space for each 250 square feet f loor area and found that the parking was seriously inadequate. The gymnasium utiliz, • almost all of the parking. Mr. McColgan indicated to staff that h- intende to locate at 1106 Hermosa Avenue and that his clientele would be limited a,d would ut 'ze the facility generally only in the early morning hours. Staff could .t recommend _ e noted location for a gymnasium since there is inadequate parking 9,e that location. Hoever, it may be possible to permit a gymnasium at the proposed tocation if there was con of on the hours of operation and the number of members viaconditional use permit, although staff believes that enforcement would be difficc t. id at Hearing opened and close 9:36 P.M. by Chmn. Rue, who n• ed that no one appeared to speak on this matter, / Chmn. Rue noted that the downtown area has a real parking pro ► em, and it is very difficult for businesses to get started in the City. He felt that this p ticular operation with a CUP and,/parking plan would be good in the downtown area; howe er, he felt that the entire downtown area parking situation needs to be addressed in attempt to mitigate the problem. Comm. Peirce favored a text amendment for gymnasiums; however, he did not eel that this applicant would ever be able to obtain enough parking for this business 'n the downtown area. He felt that the applicant is being misled if he is being told his bu 'ness can go in at that location. He noted that the applicant will have to provide 20 par 'ng spaces to comply with the parking requirements. He noted that complicated parki •plans just do not work in the City. - 32- ' P.C. Minutes 7/5/89 (SEAL) • I, the undersigned, do declare under penalty of perjury that I did on the 9.f!•, day of, . 9o deposit into the United States pc -6,71T -c% -e, s first class postage prepaid, a copy of the public notice attached as Exhibit "A" to each and every person attached as Exhibit "B". I warrant that the persons named on Exhibit "B" are all the persons required by applicable law to receive the public notice attached as Exhibit "A". I understand and agree that it is my responsibility to cause these public notices to be made in an accurate and timely fashion and agree to hold the City harmless against any liability whatsoever for any defect of said notice or notices. In the event an action is instituted in a court of coin petent jurisdiction which questions the legality of the public notices, then the City may in its exclusive discretion suspend all hearings or cause the cessation of any construction or of any use which was permitted as a result of a hearing which was held 'in accordance with the public notice. In the event•that the court declares the notice or noticing procedure to be effective, then the City may in its exclusive discretion revoke any permits granted and cause any approvals given pursuant to those public notices to be declared null and void and I agree - onbehalf of myself and my heirs, assigns or successors-in-intere: 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 3r4 day of � , 3.989 at IIermosa Beach, California. 4-15- +�l(^ yptJC- 77A/6- (name) 7 v - (name) . (Sign-ture) G4 ,1A (Capacity) State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) SS On this the :3/10Jj day of OQe4) , l98q, before me, Lty% bbd , the un ersi ned Notary Public, personally appeared t.r� /na' - r/la proved to me on the basis of sate factory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) s within instrument and acknowledged that SNE executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. 1• subscribed to the 1.10.01111•10. 4OWNIM•00111:04111.4.11.11••••••••.4•110001101110 OFFICIAL SEAL LINDA RIDDLE NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA • PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY My Comm. Exp. April 9. 1993 33- second storyMAY 2 1989 We have seen the proposed addition for Dr. David's office. We feel the addition enhances the building and we have_no objections. 1 c s % v //.l _ .. - , `' • A.. / /'3 7lC'ivJ _ _ cinFle Ii •) - Die" 4e, I .. I--' -''VS_. _ss /' . < Apirgrf / .e . MMOWRi �.1 16 C ..0IV •:. I 5II1P a Fla ' & . � .406111111,1111 k L. ►. . d OI1i NJW `� ''lrrl9..it• l •5 g 7-S 1(3v P e-1,5 - �! 1 iidf / 1L r .11i,/. q� ' / I`�' t 46t —� i, -e..—,--AL ' r�/,i cve ( 1'• CA n 4" ,'QV4 _-.....___.t_.. ". ypz.i__., 11..i- - - C We have seen the proposed second story addition for Dr. David's office. We feel the addition enhances the building and we have no objections. /WIttri.AN) M\LLeit ► f .9 Aly .09/04104'y 5K ?lea - 33 F 1tori-33F °tee '/1 C'2 ��2ri GORDON DOUGLAS JOHNSTON, M. D. 405 Pier Avenue Hermosa Beach, California 90254 (213) 372-0727 Octobea 3kd 1989 Dean S.i44: Thio .tetter 44 written to voice !fin objection to the con4tauc tion o4 a 4econd 6to'ty -addition to the outpatient Su'tgety Centex at 415 nen Ave. A6 you ane awake, th 4 5u4tding has M4 exi4ting 4.c.deyaatd 4oa acce44 to teat peaking. Att add tionat pata<onage to thio 4aeU ty must ase mating 4tareet pa'tking which iA vent' Limited even with diagonat panting and a 2 Mout .time Limit. Thank You ion gout con4idenati,on in ttu.6 ma t€1t. SL+zceaety, 9/1. Y9 G. Doug1 a4 John6ton M.D. Pkopeaty Ownert 405 Piet Ave. Hertmo4a Beach, CatLi. GDJ/.h j Mr. Edgerton stressed that the area should remain low density. He said that the zoning should be in conformance with the general plan, not the other way around. Mike Meyers, 1104 1st Street, stated that the original notice was misleading and people thought the area would be rezoned to R-1. He stated that Proposition EE should be upheld. He stressed that residents favor lower density. He stated that the area should be low density to prevent the increase in density in the area. He urged the Commission to recommend that this area remain low density. Carey Downs, 1036 2nd Street, favored the area being designated low density in an effort to reduce density. He stated that the high density proponents are interested only in profits. He urged the Commission to reduce density. Ruth Brandt, 1231 1st Street, favored low density. She stated that the area is becoming too dense with worse parking troubles. She stated that this area is mostly single-family usage, regardless of what the zoning is. She urged the Commission to follow Proposition EE and recommend low density R-1. Joanne Zambrana, 1118 2nd Street, favored low density, stating that if this area slides through, it will happen over and over again. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, discussed this area, stating that staff's recommendation is reasonable and it will remove eight or nine units from this area. He continued by discussing: (1) what can be built on these properties; (2) the difference between low density and medium density; (3) the size of the lots; (4) the reasons why this area was rezoned R -2B instead of R-1, because of the large lot sizes; (5) the high density located down the hill from this area; (5) views which can be created with the medium density designation; (6) the problems encountered by developers when their property is redesignated or rezoned; (7) the City Council's original 5-0 decision to make this area R - 2B and their subsequent change in opinion; (8) possible condo development in this area; and (9) the topography of this area. Steve Harrison, 23 Barney Court, discussed a project he built at 1st Street and how much the neighbors liked the project. He stated that he attempts to design the projects so that they look like single-family residences. He stated that he has already been downzoned once, from R-2 to R -2B, which means that a unit would be lost if the project were destroyed. If the property is downzoned to R-1, there will be a further loss of two-thirds of his ability to rebuild what is already there. He did not feel he should downzoned again; therefore, he suggested that the property remain as it currently is, R -2B. Mike Cleland, 3520 Strand, developer and partner, stated that when he purchased the property it was R-2. There was then a moratorium placed on the property. He continued by discussing what could have been built at his property and what was actually built there. He discussed the lot sizes and what can be built in the area. He supported the R - 2B zoning, noting his financial stake in the property. Carey Downs, 1036 2nd Street, commented on: (1) the difference in the slope of the lots between Barney and Meyer; (2) the project built by the developers who testified; (3) his desire to stop further large development; (4) a split lot in the area and what might be built on it; (5) potential monstrosities being built which can impact him; (6) the buffer zone between low density and high density; (6) views and view blockage; and (7) neighbors' feelings on new developments. ff 3 ^ P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 0 Sam Edgerton, 1118 2nd Street, stated that this matter was fully briefed the last time it was heard, and he suggested that everyone read those materials to become fully informed. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, stressed that three units cannot be built in an R -2B zone. He continued by discussing the potential size of projects. - Public Hearing closed at 9:45 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Comm. Peirce gave background information on Proposition EE and stated that it ultimately left the final decision up to the elected or appointed body. He stated that it is important to avoid injustices. He said this particular area has large lots. Even if the area were developed to R -2B standards, the density would be almost exactly the same as the surrounding area, except to the west where it would be much higher density. He therefore did not see this as a density issue, noting that only three additional units could be added in this area. He stated that he intends to reaffirm the previous action of the Commission to make. this area R -2B. Comm. Moore asked for clarification on the previous action taken by the City Council and how this issue was returned to the Commission. Comm. Moore felt that the real issue which will affect this neighborhood will be the height of future developments. He asked whether there are any statistics on the current height to which the existing developments were built. Mr. Schubach stated that the heights are mixed. The newer developments are closer to the maximum height allowed. Chmn. Rue stated that he agrees with the comments made by Comm. Peirce, noting that these lots are larger than average. Therefore, the zoning went from R-2 to R -2B in an attempt to lessen density. He felt that R -2B is the appropriate zoning for this area. Comm. Ketz, noting the large size of the lots in this area, felt that R -2B is the appropriate zoning. She noted that if the zoning were R-1, there would be five nonconforming lots and 11 nonconforming units. MOTION by Chmn. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to reaffirm that Area 10 remain zoned R -2B, and that the general plan designation be changed from low density to medium density. AYES: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None AREA A-1 General Plan redesignation from Open Space to Industrial for the northwest corner of Valley Drive and 6th Street (the "City Yard'") Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 24, 1989. The city yard is zoned M -i, light manufacturing, with a general plan designation of open space. The available options to make this area consistent would be to general plan amend from open space to industrial, or zone change from M-1 to open space. The recommended - P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 C general plan amendment from open space to industrial is based upon the existing use of the city yard. Mr. Schubach stated that there are several other available options, one being to zone it open space, even though that makes no sense. Another alternative would be to remove this area from consideration at this time. He said it could be returned at a later date. He noted that neither M-1 nor open space classifications would permit oil drilling at this site. The only way oil drilling can be permitted at this particular location, at this particular time until otherwise advised by counsel, is by a vote of the people allowing an exception. • The city yard is currently used by the city for storage, vehicle service and maintenance, and other miscellaneous purposes. The uses are generally consistent with the current zoning designation of M-1 and would not be consistent with an open space zoning classification. Nothing on this property could be considered as open space or public use. It is not clear why this area was designated as open space on the 1979 general plan. On the 1966 general plan, the area was designated as industrial. Chmn. Rue clarified that even if this area is general plan designated as industrial, neither industrial nor open space designations permit oil drilling at this time. Comm. Moore noted that the Planning Commission must look ahead many years in its planning process. He asked whether it is in the best interests of the city to have a manufacturing area, as defined by the zoning code, and have the general plan follow; or whether it would be better planning to have this parcel of open space surrounded by the U-shaped industrial zone currently existing. He stated it is important to address what will happen at this site if the city yard is removed, and whether it would be desirable to have light manufacturing at this site. Mr. Schubach stated that the current general plan did not intend for this site to be anything other than what it is; i.e., the city yard. He noted that both the city yard and city hall are open space; however, it is not known why they were classified as open space. He did note that "public facilities" is a permitted use for the open space zone. Chmn. Rue stated that this proposal is not relevant to the oil drilling issue. He therefore asked that people address the issue at hand, and he noted that the oil drilling issue will be addressed in two weeks. Public Hearing opened at 10:03 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Tom Morley, 516 Loma Drive: (1) stated that this issue is associated with the oil drilling issue; (2) noted that he has considered this issue in conjunction with the Coastal Commission Plan; (3) discussed implementation of the local Coastal Plan and its guidelines; (4) stated that this area should not be considered at this time prior to consideration of the entire coastal area in a more general manner; (5) discussed parking and primary uses; (6) discussed secondary uses of the coastal plan area; (7) stated that designation of this area now as industrial would preclude future possible use of the site as a recreational or parking areas; (8) stated that the zoning should be consistent with actual uses; (9) noted that a rezone to open space would conform with the general plan, still leaving the possible future option of using it for coastal access; (10) discussed needs and long-term planning for the City; (11) passed out a copy of the general plan, which he had marked showing open space areas zoned as open space; (12) stated that this area is zoned in the coastal plan as a scenic area; therefore, a rezone to industrial could affect the coastal plan permit to the City; and (13) stated that possibly no action would be the proper action at this time. _45-. . P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 C Les Berry, 237 Valley Drive, noted concern over this piece of property, stating that it is a former city dump and landfill. If a major structure were to be erected there, it could be potentially dangerous. Before action is taken on this site, the proper measures should be taken. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street: (1) stated that the 6th Street yard has always been industrial, and it was then used as a dump, after which time it was used as the city maintenance yard; (2) stated that the land has almost certainly settled now after 30 years; (3) stated that the area used to be the outlet for the sewer system and would not be appropriate for a picnic area or park; (4) asked who has more open space than Hermosa Beach, noting that the beach is over a mile long; (5) stated that people should take into account the existing open space and what can be built on it; and (6) stated that an oil well at the site will not hurt anyone. Larry Sartorius, 446 Monterey, read portions of a document he had obtained from the Environmental Conservation Open Space Element, 1980, regarding the open space philosophy and conservation element. He could not see redesignating anything from open space to industrial, stating that open space is very necessary in the City. J.R. Reviczky, 600 Ardmore: (1) stated that he feels it is necessary to look beyond near- term events and more to the future; (2) stated that, as a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission, the City is wholly inadequate in open space, discounting the beach; (3) felt that for most of the year, the beach does not really belong to the citizens of the City; (4) stated that the parks and recreation fund is designated to purchase and improve open space; (5) felt it is counterproductive to rezone any open space to another designation; and (6) urged the Commission to retain the open space zoning at this site. Ken Conklin, 501 4th Street, reminded the Commission that an EIR is pending regarding this property, and he did not feel any redesignation should be considered until the EIR has been certified and accepted by the City. George Sacks, 225 Valley Drive, noted that the oil drilling people were in the audience, even though the planning director stated that this matter has nothing to do with oil drilling. He felt that in order to avoid any appearance of favoring the oil issue, this issue should be postponed to a future date. Beth Harris, 416 Monterey, felt that a redesignation from open space to industrial would be inconsistent with the general downzoning being done in the City. She noted that Proposition EE favors lowering density. She felt that the site should remain open space. Don Little, 215 Valley Drive, felt that a decision should be postponed until the EIR is certified and until the lot is checked to ensure that it is not polluted. Public Hearing closed at 10:22 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, stated that the city yard is a consistent use with the open space designation. He continued by explaining that even though it makes no sense, it is a permitted use. He stated that more research is necessary to obtain all the information on why the area was zoned open space years ago. He clarified that public facilities are permitted in the open space zone. • Comm. Peirce felt that a city should be run as if it were a business, and the city should have no special rights that an individual property owner does not possess. P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 • C C Comm. Peirce, in response to a point raised during the public hearing, stated that the sewage has never gone to the city yard; it goes to White's Point. He further felt that the issue at hand and the oil drilling issue are not related. He felt that the correct zoning for this property is industrial, noting that it is amid other industrial. He stated that there are other open space areas which are available. He therefore favored a designation of industrial. Comm. Moore stated that he would support industrial, noting that the city yard is a long- term use, the surrounding area is industrial, this is a logical area for long-term industrial development. He agreed -that the City needs open space; however, the City also needs other uses, such as rental and commercial as well as industrial. Comm. Ketz favored industrial, noting that the city yard is an industrial use, and she could not envision the site being used as a park with an open space use in the near future. She stated that the City needs facilities of this type. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, stated that future industrial uses would need to comply in every way, including parking. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation to change the general plan designation of the the city yard from open space to industrial. Chmn. Rue noted that the entire area is industrial, light manufacturing. However, he questioned whether the option of open space should be left open for the future. Comm. Peirce noted that a zone change can be done in the future if so desired. AYES: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None AREA A-2 General Plan redesignation from high density residential to industrial for a portion of 725 Cypress Avenue, legally described as Lot 1, Block V, Tract 2002 Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 24, 1989. This area is zoned M-1, with a general plan designation of high density residential. Since this property is currently a part of Rubio's Coach Work's property which stretches to the south, staff recommended a general plan amendment from high density to industrial andto maintain the property's current zoning of M-1. Public Hearing opened and closed at 10:31 P.M. by Chmn. Rue, who noted that no one appeared to speak on this area. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation for 725 Cypress Avenue. -4-'1- P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 C AYES: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None AREA B: (General Plan redesignation from Open Space to Industrial for the property at 552 11th Street (site of "Hermosa Mini Storage") and from High Density Residential and General Commercial to General Commercial, and zone change from M-1 to C-2 for the west side of Bard Street (including 1309 and 1319 Bard Street), 91 to 218 feet south of Pier Avenue Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 24, 1989. Staff recommended that the property which contains Hermosa Mini Storage be general plan amended from open space to industrial, and that the three lots on the south side of Bard Street be general plan amended to general commercial and rezoned to C-2. 552 11TH STREET This property is zoned M-1, with a general plan designation of open space. Since the current use of the property for a self -storage business is consistent with the M-1 zoning, staff believes that it would be most appropriate to general plan amend the site from open space to industrial and to maintain the M-1 zoning. Self -storage businesses are a permitted use only in the M-1 zone. Public Hearing opened at 10:33 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Tom Morley, 516 Loma Drive, stated: (1) that the Planning Commission has a responsibility to abide by the philosophy statement of the open space element of the general plan, and any opportunity which arises to preserve or enhance open space should be taken; (2) that removing this open space designation by changing the open space in the general plan, rather than changing the zoning to open space, might prejudice the ability to come up with a comprehensive coastal plan in the future; (3) that it is the responsibility of the Commission to realize that this site could be used as a city maintenance yard in the future; (4) asked about the lease conditions imposed on the current user; and (5) stated that this might be a desirable location for a parking structure in the City, noting that importance of coastal access. Public Hearing closed at 10:38 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Chmn. Rue stated that the City should go towards open space; however, some areas in the City just are not conducive to open space, such as this parcel. In this case, the use is well-maintained. When the current lease runs out, the City could attempt to do a general plan amendment and zone change. Public Hearing reopened at 10:38 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Tom Morley noted concern that it would be redundant and wasteful to take action now and then attempt to make a change in the future, especially when it has not yet been determined whether or not the current city yard will need to be relocated. He suggested that the issue be studied further and acted upon once the other issues have been decided. Public Hearing closed at 10:40 P.M. P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 1 c C Comm. Ingell referred to the zoning map and commented on the zoning and open space. He compared the zoning map with the general plan map and asked for clarification. Mr. Schubach clarified that the assessor's map is not absolutely accurate. He continued by pointing out the area in question on the map. He stated that Bard Street has never been a dedicated street, since it is owned by the City. Mr. Schubach and the Commissioners discussed the maps and parcels in question. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation for 552 11th Street, to change the general plan designation from open space to industrial. AYES: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 1301-1319 BARD STREET This property is zoned M-1, with a general plan designation of general commercial and high density. The current use of the property consists of a storage and handling area in the rear of "Mrs. Gooch's" and two buildings currently used for storage. 1309 Bard is used for storage by "Body Glove," and the building on Lot 10 is used by the City for storage. In staff's judgment, neither the general plan designation nor the zoning are appropriate for these lots. High density residential uses would not seem appropriate for a location adjacent to the police and public parking area. Although the current M-1 zone permits the storage uses, which are not incompatible with adjacent public parking and residential uses, other manufacturing uses might be incompatible. Staff therefore recommended that the general plan be amended from high density to general commercial (for the portion not already general commercial) and the zoning changed from M-1 to C-2. This would make the zoning and general plan designations for the property which fronts on Pier Avenue consistent. Realistically, the lots will then be used for commercial purposes if in conjunction with a commercial use which fronts on Pier Avenue. Public Hearing opened and closed at 10:50 P.M. by Chmn. Rue, who noted that no one appeared to speak on this area. MOTION by Chmn. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation for 1301-1319 Bard Street, to amend the general plan from high density to commercial, for the portion not already general commercial, and to change the zoning from M-1 to C- 2. AYES: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 4 P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 C t AREA C-1: General Plan redesignation from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential for the eastern portion of 66 9th Street, 801 Hermosa Avenue, and 63 8th Street (Lots 16, 25, and 26, Block 9, Hermosa Beach Tract) Area C-1 is zoned R-2, with a general plan designation of general commercial. This area consists of two lots on 8th Street at the corner of Hermosa Avenue and a half lot on 9th Street located behind Fat Face Fenner's Falloon. Since the current use of the subject properties is residential, staff felt that the properties should be general plan amended from general commercial to medium density residential. Apparently these lots were designated commercially because of their proximity to Hermosa Avenue and the downtown district. All of these properties have been zoned residentially, however, since 1956. The lots on 8th Street appear as residentially zoned on the oldest city zoning maps. The lot at 63 8th Street and the half lot at 30 9th Street are currently developed with single dwelling units and conform to the R-2 zoning. The lot at 801 Hermosa Avenue is developed with a nonconforming three -unit structure. Public Hearing opened at 10:55 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Lee Lyndon, 837 and 801 Hermosa, noted confusion over the placement of the lots being discussed. Mr. Schubach explained that the maps are accurate. He continued by clarifying that ownership is not being discussed; the issue is zoning and general plan designation. Mr. Lyndon continued by explaining what is in the surrounding area, stating that the area is commercial, and he could not see why the City would want to change his property to residential. He stated that if his property is redesignated from commercial to residential, his property value would be adversely impacted. Mr. Lyndon, in response to a question from Comm. Rue stated that he has owned the property at 801 for approximately two years; he has owned the property at 837 for nearly twenty years. Mr. Schubach clarified that Lots 25 and 26 are not joint, noting that they have separate owners. He noted that staff was not aware that Lot 17 had any connection with Lot 26. Lot 26 is too small to have commercial development, because there is not enough room for parking. This is one of the reasons staff recommended that it not be allowed to remain commercial. However, if the owner wanted to use that parcel in conjunction with Fat Face Fenner's, such as using it for parking, that might be a possibility. Mr. Lyndon stated that he might very possibly use the parcel for parking in the future; however, such an option would not be possible if the commercial designation is removed. Mr. Schubach clarified that staff is not proposing that the property be rezoned to residential; the recommendation is to change the general plan designation to residential since it is already zoned R-2 and has been since 1979. Therefore, the parcel cannot be used commercially unless it is rezoned to commercial. Hilda Shupps, 70 8th Street, owner of the property directly across from Mr. Lyndon's property, stated that that property is too small for any commercial use. She noted that there is already too much traffic, and there are disturbances from people leaving the P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 bars at 2:00 A.M. She hoped that commercial use would not be allowed at that site. John Bowler, 833 Hermosa Avenue, operator of Fat Face Fenner's Falloon, stated that it appears that the intention of the city is to have a distinction between commercial and residential zones. He felt it would be logical to allow the commercial to run up to 8th Street, as it does to the other side of the street. He stated that the current commercial uses create a very limited impact to the neighborhoods. Public Hearing closed at 11:04 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Comm. Ingell stated that it appears that the owner desires Lot 26 to be commercial; therefore, he could see no reason why it should not be rezoned to commercial since it is in a commercial area at 8th Street. He suggested that the general plan remain as it is. Comm. Peirce stated that the downtown business people assert that the downtown area is already too big, and there currently are many vacancies. He agreed that it is arbitrary to cut off the commercial area at 9th Court versus 8th Street; however, the line must be drawn somewhere. Even though Fat Face Fenner's is in a commercial area, it is not a retail use, such as a store. He noted that there has been a duplex for quite some time on Lot 26. He could see no reason to expand the downtown area any further. He felt that the downtown area is already too big, and the economics will support that fact. Comm. Ingell noted, however, that the owner of Fat Face Fenner's has stated that he may at some time in the future desire to use that lot for parking. Comm. Peirce stated that the property owner can request a zone change in the future if so desired. He felt that the question is whether it is desirable to expand the downtown area down Hermosa Avenue, and not to base the decision on what a property owner might want to do in the future. Comm. Ingell, in response to a question from Comm. Moore, stated that this property owner is not within the bounds of the downtown vehicle parking district. Chmn. Rue felt that if the owner thinks he can make a viable use out of the property, and there is commercial across the street, he felt that the best use of the property is residential; although, he could see no reason to not allow commercial if that is what the owner desires. He noted that the designation could be changed in the future. Comm. Ketz stated that this area must be consistent. She noted that it is not easy to change back in the future. Comm. Peirce asked whether it is desirable to have the commercial extend further down Hermosa Avenue. Even though the owner's proposal may be interesting, the decision should be based upon what is best for the City. Comm. Ingell and Chmn. Rue both agreed that the expansion of commercial in this area would be logical. Comm. Ketz could see the commercial going to 8th Street; however, she could not support a height of 35 feet on the commercial lot. She noted that it is already residential and questioned whether that therefore might not be the best use of the property. She noted that this is a very small lot for a commercial usage. -51- P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 C Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, stated that he has designed projects on very small lots such as this one, and projects on those lots are both feasible and possible. Chmn. Rue felt that the extension would be logical. He noted that it is on a through - street with a stop sign, it is a coastal access, and it goes right to the downtown area. Hilda Shupps stated that there is already a shortage of parking in this area. She stated that there is no room for additional commercial uses. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve staff's recommendation for Area C-1, to leave the zoning R-2 and to change the general plan designation from general commercial to medium density residential. AYES: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce NOES: Comm. Ingell, Chmn. Rue ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None . AREA C-2: General Plan redesignation from General Commercial to High Density Residential for the north side of 10th Street between Beach Drive and Hermosa Avenue (Lots 19-27, inclusive, Block 11, Hermosa Beach Tract) Area C-2 is zoned R-3, with a general plan designation of general commercial. This area consists of eight lots developed residentially and one lot that contains a portion of a motel. The residential uses include single-family and two-family dwellings and an apartment building with ten units. The density is 39 units per acre. As such, staff believes that the general plan should be amended from general commercial to high density residential and the R-3 zoning maintained. The general commercial designation appears on both the 1979 and 1966 general plan maps. This reflected the thinking of the time that the downtown commercial area could be expanded into this area. The subject area was designated commercial on the 1943 and 1948 zoning maps. The 1956 zoning map, however, classifies it as R-3. Public Hearing opened and closed at 11:15 P.M. by Chmn. Rue, who noted that no one appeared to speak on this area. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to accept staff's recommendation for Area C-2, to amend the general plan from general commercial to high density residential and to maintain the R-3 zoning. AYES: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 AREA C-3: General Plan redesignation from General Commercial to High Density Residential for the west side of Manhattan Avenue and south of Pier Avenue between 1125 Manhattan Avenue and 10th Street (Lots 16-25, inclusive, Block 35, 1st Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract Area C-3 is zoned residential/professional, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The subject area consists of 13 residentially developed lots, containing 36 units, for a density of 40 dwelling units per acre. Given the established residential character, staff felt that the general plan should be amended from general commercial to high density residential and rezoned from R -P to R-3. This area is located adjacent to the alley which accesses the parking areas for the commercial uses which front on Hermosa Avenue, but the front of the lots are on Manhattan Avenue which is essentially a residential street. Commercial development would be conflicting with the general nature of Manhattan Avenue. The subject area is a remaining part of the general commercial designation which extended all the way to 10th Street between the Strand and Monterey Boulevard on the 1966 general plan map. Staff is uncertain why this area was not taken out of that designation on the 1979 general plan map along with similar areas to the east. Apparently it was seen as a possible area for commercial expansion because of its proximity to Hermosa Avenue. However, to be an expansion to the commercial uses on Hermosa Avenue would require tying the properties together. A specific plan area similar to that being developed along the Pacific Coast Highway commercial corridor may be useful. This possibly could be considered in the future revision to the general plan. Public Hearing opened and closed at 11:18 P.M. by Chmn. Rue, who noted that no one appeared to speak on this area. MOTION by Chmn. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation for Area C-3, to amend the general plan designation from general commercial to high density residential and to rezone the area from from R -P to R-3. AYES: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None • Recess taken from 11:19 P.M. until 11:25 P.M. AREA D: Zone change from C-2 to R -2B for 97 16th Street and 1617 Hermosa Avenue and for 92 16th Street and 1515 Hermosa Avenue, and General Plan redesignation from General Commercial to High Density Residential for 85 15th Street and from Commercial Recreation to High Density Residential for the south side of 15th Street between and including 36 15th Street and 60 15th Street Staff recommended: (1) general plan amendments from commercial -recreation to high density residential for the south side of 15th Street between and including 36 and 60 15th Street and from general commercial to high density residential for 85 15th Street; and (2) zones changes from C-2 to R -2B for the northwest and southwest corners of 16th Street and Hermosa Avenue (91 and 92 16th Street, and 1515 and 1617 Hermosa Avenue). -r3_ P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 C AREA D-1: Area D-1, 36 to 60 15th Street, is zoned R-3, with a general plan designation of commercial recreation. This area consists of five lots containing 28 units, with housing types ranging from single family to a 16 -unit apartment. Total density calculates to be 56 units per acre. Given the high density residential character, which is consistent with the character across 15th Street, staff felt that the general plan should be amended from commercial -recreation to high density residential and the R-3 zoning maintained. AREA D-2: Area D-2, 85 15th Street, is zoned R-3, with a general plan designation of general commercial. This lot is developed with a single-family home in good condition, and property on both sides is developed residentially. C-2 zoned property is immediately adjacent to the east. This lot perhaps could serve as a commercial parking area for a business facing Hermosa Avenue; however, given its current residential usage and residences to the east and west and its small size, staff felt the general plan should be amended from general commercial to high density residential and the R-3 zoning maintained. AREA D-3: Area D-3, southwest and northwest corners of Hermosa Avenue and 16th Street, is zoned C-2, with a general plan designation of medium density residential. This area consists of four lots, two on each corner, which are developed residentially with one, one, two, and eight units. Given the current residential usage and the surrounding residential usage and residential zoning and density, staff did not feel commercial development would be appropriate. Additionally, the small lot sizes would not be conducive to quality commercial development that could meet the City's zoning codes. As such, staff felt this area should be zone changed from C-2 to R -2B with the medium density residential general plan designation maintained. Historically, the zoning on this property was residential until it appeared on the 1956 zoning map as commercial. It has remained that way since, and no commercial development has occurred. Public Hearing opened and closed at 11:29 P.M. by Chmn. Rue, who noted that no one appeared to speak on this area. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation for all of Area D. AYES: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 AREA E: Staff recommended amending the general plan from medium density residential to neighborhood commercial for current commercially developed properties on Greenwich Village, zone changes from C-1 to R-2 for residentially developed properties, and a zone change from R-3 to R-2 for the lots on the north side of Manhattan Avenue between 26th and 27th Streets. AREA E-1: General Plan redesignate from Medium Density to Neighborhood Commercial for the east and west side of Greenwich Village (legally described as portions of Lots 4-7, Block 109, Shakespeare Tract and portions of Lots 2-5, 1st addition to Hermosa Beach Tract), zone change from C-1 to R-2 for 2615 and 2627 Manhattan Avenue, the east side of Hermosa Avenue between 2640 Hermosa Avenue and 27th Street (Lots 1 and 2, Block 109, Shakespeare Tract and Lot 1, Tract 31943) and the lot at the northeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and 26th Street (Lot 1, Block 67, 1st addition to Hermosa Beach Tract) This area is zoned .0-1 and C-2, with a general plan designation of medium density residential. The area, which is bounded by Manhattan Avenue on the east, 27th Street on the north, Hermosa Avenue on the west, and 26th Street on the south, consists of a mix of commercial and residential uses, with the focus on commercial activity located along Greenwich Village. Given that the extent of viable and compatible commercial development seems to have been established, staff felt that the zoning and general plan should be consistent with existing uses. This requires general plan amending the commercially developed properties from medium density residential to neighborhood commercial and rezoning the residential properties from C-1 to R-2. The commercial uses include a restaurant/bar, a beauty salon, a surf shop, a mini market, a restaurant, and a dry cleaners. Although staff is aware that these businesses are not perfectly compatible with surrounding residences, they all generally fall under the neighborhood commercial type of activities envisioned by the general plan. The surrounding residential uses currently zoned C-1 consist of eight small lots containing structures which range from single-family to a seven -unit condo. Although the commercial zoning of these properties could potentially allow commercial expansion and more parking, staff does not feel this to be desirable for a neighborhood commercial area which exists for the convenience of nearby residents and not as an attraction center. Also, the small lot sizes would not be conducive to making it a quality commercial area even if it were desirable. Mr. Schubach and Comm. Peirce discussed the map for this particular area and commented on a small triangular portion owned by the City. Mr. Schubach discussed one parcel in the neighborhood commercial area. He stated that the property at the corner of 26th and Hermosa was recently purchased by someone who intends to live upstairs and use the downstairs commercial use as a personal office. He continued by giving background information on why this building was designated as it is. Public Hearing opened at 11:36 P.M. by Chmn Rue. Gene Gregory, 2604 Hermosa Avenue, stated that he is a building contractor, and he would like to have his construction company office downstairs, and he will live upstairs. He noted that the commercial space is very small; therefore, there is no potential for expanding into anything more than an office. He noted that the structure has three outdoor spaces. He requested that the building be left as is, commercial. )v -;S- P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 C C tS Chmn. Rue questioned whether this type of use is R -P. Mr. Schubach stated that the proper zoning is neighborhood commercial for this type of use. He noted that mixed use is allowed in the C-1 zone. He stated that staff had originally suggested that the property be zone changed from C-1 to R-2; however, staff is now recommending that the property be general plan amended neighborhood commercial and the zoning remain C-1. The entire area would then be consistent. Mr. Gregory noted that the commercial space is only 200 square feet; therefore, other commercial uses would not be feasible. Public Hearing closed at 11:40 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation for Area E-1, to amend the general plan for commercially developed properties from medium density residential to neighborhood commercial and to change the zoning for the residential properties from C-1 to R-2, with the exception of Lot 9 which shall be neighborhood commercial and zoned C-1. AYES: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None AREA E-2: Either General Plan redesignate from Medium Density to High Density Residential or zone change from R-3 to R-2 for the north side of Manhattan Avenue between 26th Street and 27th Street This area is zoned R-3, with a general plan designation of R-3. The area consists of five 3000 square -foot lots, four of which contain two units and one which contains a single- family house, for a total of nine units. The structures vary in age, but all seem to be in good condition. Surrounding zoning includes C-1 and R-2 to the south, R-3 to the northwest, and all other surrounding properties east of Manhattan Avenue are either R-1 or R-2. The subject area is the only R-3 zoned area east of Manhattan Avenue in this part of the City. Because of the R-3 zoning, the height of the subject properties is 35 feet, rather than 30 feet, for the areas inland. Given the lot sizes, only two units per lot are allowed under the current R-3 zoning. If all five lots were combined as one development, a total of eleven units could be built. Even with the R-3 zoning, a developer would have to combine at least four of the lots to gain an additional unit over two per lot. As such, the R-3 zoning does not encourage a significantly higher density than the two-family character that exists. If the property were rezoned to R-2, the two -unit sites would become nonconforming uses. If compatibility with surrounding areas were the primary concern, downzoning to R-2 would be the logical decision; however, if lot sizes and the existing uses are considered, maintaining the R-3 zone seems appropriate. As such, staff felt that this is a borderline situation, but feels that the overriding concern is the City's stated policy for inconsistent areas to be zoned or general planned to the lower density. This would mean a rezoning to R-2 with the general plan designation of medium density residential being maintained. -56- P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 r Comm. Peirce discussed zoning this area to R-2 standards, but with the R-1 density. Chmn. Rue noted, then, that the existing properties would become nonconforming. Mr. Schubach and Comm. Peirce discussed the issue of nonconforming uses in the R-2 area. The Planning Director discussed the lot sizes versus the number of units. Comm. Peirce stated that the units would not be nonconforming, but the use would be nonconforming. Public Hearing opened and closed at 11:47 by Chmn. Rue, who noted that no one appeared to speak on this area. Comm. Peirce and the other Commissioners discussed this area as depicted on the map. Comm. Peirce felt that the proper zoning should be R-2, with a maximum height of 30 feet. He did not feel that the area would be conducive to R-1 development. Mr. Schubach stated that the development standards will be addressed in the future. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Moore, to accept staff's recommendation for Area E-2, that it be zoned R-2. Chmn. Rue noted that the units would then become nonconforming. He continued by asking about the lot at the corner of 27th Street. AYES: Comms. Inge11, Ketz, Moore, Peirce NOES: Chmn. Rue ABSTAIN: None • ABSENT: None AREA F: Zone change from C-1 to R-3 for the northwest corner of Manhattan Avenue and 33rd Street (Lots 13 and 15, Block 102, Shakespeare Tract) and zone change from C-1 to R-2 for the northeast corner of Manhattan Avenue and 33rd Street (Lots 1 and 3, Block 119, Shakespeare Tract) Staff recommended that the northwest corner of Manhattan Avenue and 33rd Street be rezoned from C-1 to R-3 and that the northeast corner be rezoned from C-1 to R-2. NW CORNER -- MANHATTAN/33RD This area is zoned C-1, with a general plan designation of high density. The area consists of two lots currently developed with one single-family structure. The remainder of this block between 33rd Street and 34th Street is zoned R-3 and developed with a mix of housing types. Staff believes that the extent of commercial development for this primarily residential neighborhood has reached its saturation point. Therefore, staff recommended a zone change from C-1 to R-3, consistent with the zoning on the block and maintaining the high density residential designation. NE CORNER -- MANHATTAN/33RD This area is zoned C-1, with a general plan designation of medium density. The two lots contain a six -unit apartment and a single-family home. The remainder of this block between 33rd and 34th Streets east of Manhattan is zoned R-2. As noted for the NW P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 corner of Manhattan and 33rd, staff does not believe this corner is appropriate for commercial development and recommends a zone change from C-1 to R-2, consistent with the zoning on the block and maintaining the medium density residential general plan designation. Public Hearing opened and closed at 11:54 P.M. by Chmn. Rue, who noted that no one appeared to speak on this area. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation for Area. F. AYES: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None rQ P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 (SEAL) I, the undersi ned, do dec re under penalty of perjury a`I'A that I did on the day of . 1974 deposit into the United States p st:office, first class postage prepaid, a copy of the public notice attached as Exhibit "A" to each and every person attached as Exhibit "B". I warrant that the persons named on Exhibit "B" are all the persons required by applicable law to receive the public notice attached as Exhibit "A". • I understand and agree that it is my responsibility to cause these public notices to be made in an accurate and timely fashion and agree to hold the City harmless against any liability whatsoever for any defect of said notice or notices. In the event an action is instituted in a court of com= ' petent jurisdiction which questions the legality of the public notices, then the City may in its exclusive discretion suspend all hearings or cause the cessation of any construction or of any use which was permitted as a result of a hearing which was held'in accordance with the public notice. In the event that the court declares the notice or noticing procedure to be effective, then the City may in its exclusive discretion revoke any permits granted and cause any approvals given pursuant to those public notices to be declared null and void and I agree • on .behalf of myself and my heirs, assigns or successors-in-intere: 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 3r1 day of , 1989 at IIermosa Beach, California. State 'of California ) County of Los Angeles ) SS (name) u-yy� (Sig atfireU ;-,-e_ (Capacity) On this the Areo Areday of 0 , 1989, before me, L.f)A .LODGE. , the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared '.((,U (4(VG TING proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) _ subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that s({, executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. OFFICIAL SEAL LINDA RIDDLE 9^`'NOTAPY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY My Comm. Exp. April 9, 1993 Nary Public 59- • "d41, (SEAL) • I, the undersigned, do declare under penalty of perjury that I did on the .V49/4 day of ;, 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 "II" are all the persons required by applicable law to receive the public notice attached as Exhibit "A". I understand and agree that it is my responsibility to cause these public notices to be made in an accurate and timely Fashion and agree to hold the City harmless against any liability whatsoever for any defect of said notice or notices. In the event an action is instituted in a court of com= petent jurisdiction which questions the legality of the public notices, then the City may in its exclusive discretion suspend all hearings or cause the cessation of any construction or of any use which was permitted as a result of a hearing which was held' in accordance with the public notice. In the event that the court declares the notice or noticing procedure to be effective, then the City may in its exclusive discretion revoke any permits granted and cause any approvals given pursuant to those public notices to be declared null and void and I agree on behalf of myself and my heirs, assigns or successors-in-intere. 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 ?P'gi_ day of 1989 at IIermosa Beach, California. Vu (name) . (Sig ature (Capacity) State''of California ) County of Los Angeles ) SS • On this the 1V11110 day of COC) , 1989, before me, 1..Iymo#1 etbOCE , the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared —_4( glfnrs iii' proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. • OFFICIAL SEAL V �'� �`� LINDA RIDDLE NOTARY PUBLIC • CALIFORNIA PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN tog •NRELES COUNTY My Comm. Exp. Apt1I 9. 1993 i A60 ry Public .04,1 Michael Schubach, Planning Director Civic Center, 1315 Valley Dr. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Good day, 1246 First St. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 August 25, 1989 AUe 2 1989 This is in reference to the published agenda for the September 5, 1989, meeting of the Planning Commission. I will be unable to attend, but I want to comment about item five, zoning for Area 10 (between Barney Court and Meyer Court). I live up the street from the affected area. Because of unacceptable current levels of traffic on First Street, the lack of parking in the area, and the inevitable exacerbation of those conditions if density higher than R-1 is encouraged or allowed in the area, I am against amending the General Plan to increase the density (from low to medium) in this area. Along with a majority of those who voted, I am in favor of resolving conflicts between the General Plan and the zoning so that the lower density is the result. In this case, that would involve changing the zoning to be consistent with the Low Density designation of the General Plan. I, too, have been affected by the actions taken to lower density --- my two lots were merged, with possible negative financial ramifications. However, the quality of life in the neighborhood is worth a great deal --- both in the case of my merged lots and in the cases of the property owners in Area 10. A quality neighborhood has positive financial ramifications --- and anything to cut the traffic and parking problems on First Street will improve that quality. Thankyou, 11II 51)4 David R. Suess Gi r S vat i--� p_cz_ p,„A 0 6 O 9 -7 - S t/ wA- P4--o elf2Vr-,A. 4--0 - J2_0--e-e-‘, 1 )7 0 {-e-a-j-, . OUL c +& 69 , • r -s. , ?n a7? C ,c t- a�, r E� AU1@291989 cIA^ or-) ~ Planning Commission City of Hermosa Beaqch •. 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Sir: August 28. 1989 M, " o 1989 I received notice that the Planning Commission considering redisignation from open space to industrial for the `northwest corner of Valley Dr. and 6th St. and a portion of 725 Cypress Avenue in Hermosa Beach. I want you to know that I am adamantly oppossed to this change. I feel that industry does not belong in the middle of a residential area and especially near the beach. Redondo Beach is extremely unsightly because of the plant located there and black soot is constantly being blown into Hermosa Beach as is. Hermosa Beach does not need industry. It is bad enough that it is changing to a high density area. Please don't approve this change in zoning. Thank you for your consideration. � �~ /� �° ^ ^� U ` ~ A cPncer6ed citizen, Jeanne Van Dersal 0 Bth St. :,r R - sa -ca(c ) .: a AUG 01989 .x/1. -f2. C-04-tr- 0--(5 e - RAY } /6\NGut3S -I �4- - 1-I, 4, 1 c/cl-N 7 i-/-e.frIte-,-e- !let() • .77sl _ - - _ . /i.) z. _ _ • _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - _‘` • • ;• 1•••• ci. • . I ' I • (7. r • ',1" - -- • - -6,- ▪ _ P _ 6,2/12,efl. . . . AUG TO vgg Rf: f'v 1.uc /g4,2/.v&, 52W -17-C, `lBJc 3-7-7,./ ' .. 3- C . '/7 CD,-Avo i9? /3o/ C r #? s /5 , c A-70- / wfr/f PII f ' ,1 3-a"',7" C4',u'ae, -v.'i7- Co,.iav 4-7 Thi ,9d° z nacze, 55 /9.5 Ao/✓6-- /95 711g2E. 5,e75 "- 5 9 E: c •,. S.ia P4rC.:-/A,lr (FQv/RfoiE,vT 4-5 S/.vGAE /t o F "6-/F73." -7771-494./;<" rov• Ron Felsing 249 27th Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 AUG 3 01989 NORMAN F. SPRAGUE. JR. M.D. 2049 CENTURY PARK EAST SUITE 2760 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90067 213 201-0530 August 29, 1989 Planning Department City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Attention: Michael Schubach, Planning Director Dear Mr. Schubach: AUG 3 01989 I oppose the propsed zone planning change from C-1 to R-3 for the Northwest Corner of Manhattan Avenue and 33rd Street, (lots 13 & 15, Block 12 Shakespeare Tract) and zone change from C-1 to R-2 for the Northeast corner of Manhattan Avenue and 33rd Street (losts 1 & 3 Block 119, Shakespeare Tract.) The population density is already excessive. NFS:scb '7 Sincerely, %Z 1/7nh&-h 441At Norman F. Sprague, 3301 Hermosa Avenue Hermosa Beach, Calif. i •14a. a ;Via eburnc alevA 64s, .r‘ )14 Re-‘f14(1Se ATLQ.P• 2.1:41:n de+epo- cti-1 1.W-) fUr2- L.; c, )104 tLi 116 Sepi'el*1 ff gt 10e- ..)eft)/1---- 9P" 140 tf- efe, Zon ; 6rhtvli. _ g GetcJPL-414cjtc ft-ct5p47. o _ 414, g•IAv atTh pebct.4-(_„c_ ix. 0,46h • LIG 3 1 1989 en_c,f2_ ez }1-124, 1/3 i s rttesairt2-5. 1? -1 016 "4 $.4.(„( _ det,.66. De D " CO\ n ci2o 65)1 tielz-5; crk R -2 bdit-ais%s LoD 0 ettgiEeck,i cPluid2e, pi-orti,- eLpa rec. k e /Lc . Qe0A.; c,CAuLpwav spiJ;‘t eA9J0K, womi-S oh La CARA j.e. der, sil). Duo, P114.69 ow, Di/IA(71, ck.e _ evio /A- 2. ;,4'1,A 11-e-r_wasto.L.,eo )1.L. cTe ea at La ) k )42- e e 4 4.1" sevl_s 1:-; zeS to 4-L s lc/ ewlict-Q. Lo vR-ke (he vti _ zDh ;1 to ott Inakice. 00 oz. ftesAikA- a eth cfe&e.Lt (t)aetAni 9-oLL GdiltjA-ine‘ 1-OtAv M 6-11.1 M iSK\t 5 U P I' E L I N FO FaviATI ON in *ota ‘,/,00.ey /yzeki 1/6,./v Az.t_t ile9k.-W61‘al 4)9 70,e///' Le-(- 1)4c/&-t,c, 1- 9 ad (-i i F ✓r / 7t7 F.P 1. 1 198g g.J.tie1,4" T A/Az, slic dMeice 1,6a,(// -4/w7' 44/(7JP‘tKe's Ai.ekcw/..,/„07/zzi, e'er fa/ 07-e- ( #.1, ,f 1 ■ • September 21, 1989 63 Eigth Street Hermosa Beach, CA Hermosa Beach Planning Commission Hermosa Beach City Council Hermosa Beach, California Re: General Plan Amendment 89-8 (C) Dear Sirs; SEP 2 1%9 Unfortunately I am unable to attend the meeting regarding the re-zoneing of this propterty due to my work schedule. My property is loacated at 63 - Eight Street and 801 Hermosa Ave. is next door to me. First, may I point out both of these properties are currently residentual. Also, presently there is new residential constrution as well as up grade of propterties in general area. I bought my home four years ago. It had long been used as a rental and was extremlly run-down, the repairs are endless. To date the house and garage has been painted and re -stuccoed, the yard has been lanscaped with roses, seasonal flowers and hedges. A brick wall has been built around the front yard. And to my delight, I frequently receive complements on my home and garden. As you may already be aware, this area is extremly congested, parking is at a premium and the foot traffic on Eigth rivals that of Pier Ave. This is residentual area and to be zoned for General Commercial will only add to the congestion. I prefer to see General Commercial use removed and zoned for Residential only. Sincerely, /e1-4-4 Ms. Brice Torres rJD DATE: Sept. 27, 1989 TO: Planning Department City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Dr Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 FROM: Carol Kirsch 939 1st Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 OCT 0 21989 SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment for Area 10 Area 10 should be re -zoned to R-1 to be consistant with the general plan. As a homeowner (condominuim) in this neighborhood, I am very concerned about this proposed change to the general plan. There are several reasons to keep the housing density as low as possible in this area. Traffic on First Str. from Pacific Coast Highway east to Area 10 is already heavy for a residential street. Because of the hill on First Street, the cars and numerous trucks that use the road usually use low, noisy gears to ascend the street. The noise from this traffic is very disturbing to the neighborhood. Parking is another issue to consider not allowing an increase in the density of the area. Parking is very scarce because many of the streets are narrow. Parking is only permitted on one side of the street, in many cases. This makes parking for guests of residents hard :to find. As a homeowner change. It is not good for the neighborhood, and then= •re, not good for the city. in this general area, I strongly oppose this potential Thank you, -7)- OCT 021989 11 Nei 1-1m,), )04-2- )./1 p-, (14 t Yklca . ,f0 1)- 5 Vci Iret 4)2/QC _HeA(jLosil- tcJ.1 et, . ctD.2sli ct.A, la.. _,-00„,; L.. )1)c tio h(-42 s OCT 0 2 1989 ' '2 (1 '1 ge S:/>1yL "1-e AL, 10‘) 6i. 0/1 C) () f/Ct,), . D, (C1g9 gc cardh., i Pi 43. wi (7(01 I 64 elvt," cs Aiic 0- ' 0 (z-» si5+ Qv+ uoij fL (2.12 f51-12- J) 7C10 V p— 0 fi &CI eir1 s i R. eZeL4 (9'0Z 1-05k01:2- _ -Sob .01. cigaAs q ett,k,L, )IJica il1pJQc.,;( • -1. CIA:e 14- SI (!-Pe,4tc-d--11p1;11;11c6 t3 i4 (0 ki>+ s jtv,Le 04,4.)\..c‘..6.04:0 CrP p 1)4 •rDe p 1-1-e cito ic e )IA j \A- ri, cegic / OCTOBER 3, 1989 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1315 VALLEY DR. HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 GENTLEMEN: ©CTC REFERENCING YOUR PLAN TO CHANGE AREA 10 - PLEASE LET ME SAY I AM ADAMANTLY IN FAVOR OF CHANGING TO R-1 ZONING. THERE IS ENOUGH POPULATION DENSITY IN THE CITY ALREADY!!! WE NEED MORE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, NOT MULTI -DWELLINGS. I LIVE AT 1120 1ST ST AND THERE IS ALREADY NO PARKING ON THE.STREET! I AM OPPOSED TO ANY MORE CONDOMINIUMS AND APARTMENT DWELLINGS IN THIS CITY!!! WE NEED MORE STABLE FAMILIES, NOT TENANTS. SINCERELY, ZwttAA-4-t-- SUSAN SWANSON 1120 1ST ST. HERMOSA BEACH, CA MP.