The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09/12/89"A politician would do well to remember that he has to live with his conscience longer than he does with his constituents." -Melvin R. Laird AGENDA REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 12, 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: National POW/MIA Recognition Day, September 15, 1989 Constitution Week, September 17 - 23, 1989 Coastweeks, September 16 through October 9, 1989 and "Adopt -A -Beach" Coastal Clean-up Day, September 23, 1989. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES OF APPOINTMENT AND INTRODUCTION OF NEW POLICE OFFICERS: Officer Joseph Gaines Officer Kurt Michel 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. 1 Citizens with comments regarding City management or departmental operations are requested to submit those comments to the City Manager. 1. (a) CONSENT CALENDAR: The following routine matters will be acted upon by one vote to approve with the majority con- sent of the City Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless good cause is shown by a member prior to the roll call vote. (Items removed will be considered under Agenda Item 3.) 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. (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 August, 1989 Monthly Investment Report. Memorandum from City Treasurer Gary L. Brutsch dated September 6, 1989. (e) Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map #20093 for a two -unit condominium located at 618 Sixth Street. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated September 5, 1989. Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map #20092 for a two -unit condominium located at 725 Ninth Street. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated September 5, 1989. Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map #19525 for a three -unit condominium located at 532 - 11th Street. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated September 5, 1989. Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map #20132 for a two -unit condominium located at 640 Sixth Street. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated September 5, 1989. Recommendation to approve reappropriation of unspent funds, 1988-89 Budget. Memorandum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated August 30, 1989. Recommendation to adopt resolution concurring with the State's engineering and traffic survey on Pacific Coast Highway to Maintain the existing posted speed limits. 2 (k) (1) (m) (n) 2. (a) (b) Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated August 21,1989. Recommendation to receive and file information report on City's graffiti removal program. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated August 24, 1989. Recommendation to approve an addendum to the software license and support agreement with Phoenix Group Infor- mation Systems for software development of out-of-state citation processing. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dated August 30, 1989. Recommendation to approve Public Works Department's request for reduced hours clerical employee. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated August '28, 1989. Authorization to contract for professional services with the law firm of Buchalter, Nemer, Fields & Younger for research and clarification of title matters regarding City's purchase of the Railroad Right -of -Way. Memoran- dum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated Septem- ber 7, 1989. CONSENT ORDINANCES. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 19-101, "USING METERS LONGER THAN TIME ALLOWED FOR PARKING". For waiver of full reading and introduction. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dated September 5, 1989. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19, HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 19-61.1, "PERMIT PARKING, DRIVE- WAY". For waiver of full reading and introduction. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dat- ed August 22, 1989. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. (a) Letter from Kathy Rowe, 19 - 6th Street, dated August 11, 1989, regarding storm drain project at Sixth Street and Beach Drive. (Requested by Mayor Williams.) PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. 5. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT RE. NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE 4 0 01 DECLARATION, WITH ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION. Memoran- dum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated Sep- tember 5, 1989. 3 6. PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE FOR THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE MULTI -USE CORRIDOR AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: A. FROM C-3 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL)TO SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (R-2 WITH A DENSITY LIMIT OF 18 UNITS AN ACRE AND 55% MAX. LOT COVERAGE) FOR THE NORTH SIDE OF 21ST STREET 115 TO 220 FT. WEST OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY; B. FROM R-1 (ONE FAMILY) TO R -1A (2 UNITS IF LOTS OVER 6,700 SQ. FT.) FOR THE NORTH SIDE OF 21ST STREET, 220 TO 290 FEET WEST OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY; C. FROM C-3 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) TO R-3 (MULTI -FAMILY) FOR THE VACANT PROPERTY ON THE WEST SIDE OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY ACROSS FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH 19TH STREET. Ordinance for waiver of full reading and introduction. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated September 5, 1989. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 7. INFORMATION REPORT ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROGRAM FOR ALCOHOL LICENSE HOLDERS. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated September 6, 1989. 8. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER (a) Scheduling of joint City Council/Planning Commission and other Council meetings. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated September 6, 1989. 9. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL 10. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: (a) Request by Councilmember Sheldon for discussion regard- ing setting a hearing on enforcement of alcohol -licensed conditional use permits. 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. (b) Request by Mayor Williams for discussion re. use of Tidelands oil recovery money. Recommended Action: 1) Vote by Council whether to dis- cuss this item; 2) refer to staff for a report back on a 4 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 5 September 6, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members Meeting of —of the City Council September 12, 1989 PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES OF APPOINTMENT AND INTRODUCTION OF NEW POLICE OFFICERS On July 7, 1989 two Hermosa Beach Police Recruits completed Class #253 of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Academy. They have now been appointed Police Officers for the City of Hermosa Beach. Officer Joseph Gaines is a world class practical pistol competitor having won over forty distinguished awards in pistol, shotgun and rifle competition. While attending the academy Officer Gaines scored the highest aggregate pistol and shotgun scores in the history of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Academy. The City of Hermosa Beach now claims this score as a standing record. Officer Gaines has lived in the South Bay area for 23 years where he attended West Torrance High School, El Camino Community College and California State Unviersity at Long Beach. He has also served as a Reserve Officer with the department prior to becoming a Regular Police Officer. He and his wife Sherry reside in the City of Torrance. Officer Kurt Michel joined the Hermosa Beach Police Department as a Police Recruit on March 5, 1989. On July 7, 1989 he graduated from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Academy. He has lived in the South Bay his entire life, having grown up in Manhattan Beach. He attended Mira Costa High School, El Camino Community College and earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration with a focus in Accounting from California State University at Dominguez Hills in 1985. Officer Michel joined the Hermosa Beach Police Department with the expressed goal of providing community oriented police services to the residents Hermosa Beach. Officer Michel is single and currently resides in West Los Angeles. NOTED: Revin B. North/craft City Manager Respectfully submitted, NOTED: 44'L nice Silver AQministrative Aide ft: L� j ,L b - Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Director MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, August 22, 1989 at the hour of 5:03 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson, Mayor Williams Absent: None 1. ROUNDTABLE INTERVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICANTS The following applicants were interviewed for appointment to the Planning Commission for an unexpired term ending June 30, 1992. Gila Katz - 1125 - Ninth Street Edmund Aleks - 1617 Raymond Avenue Kevin Rea - 1232 - 3rd Street Carl Moore - 1100 Loma Drive Robert Marks - 88- 19th Street ADJOURNMENT The adjourned regular meeting of the City Council adjourned at the hour of 6:04 P.M. to a regular meeting to be held on Tuesday, August 22, 1989 at the hour of 7:30 P.M., preceded by a Closed Session at 7:00 P.M. AZA.6-451914-- C ty Clerk Minutes 852658P.M. a" MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday August 22, 1989 at the hour of 7:45 P.M. CLOSED SESSION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 - Real Estate negotiations with Hermosa Beach School District - South School Site and Edith Rodaway Park lots; pursuant to 54956.9(b)(1) - Hermosa Hotel Project; at the hour of 7:02 P.M. Present: Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson, Mayor Williams Absent: None PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Personnel Director Robert Blackwood ROLL CALL Present: Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson, Mayor Williams Absent: None COMMENDATION OF CITY CREW WHO LAID NEW SEWER LINE SAVING THE CITY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS - Public Works Superintendent Vern High- field, Dave Anderson, Carlos Herrera, Chris Kelly, Keith Ridnour. They did an outstanding job and saved the City $24,000. INTRODUCTION OF NEW EMPLOYEES: John Giorgino, Building Inspector Carol Williams, Senior Building Inspector Charles Wilhite, Police Services Officer David Doucot, General Services Officer Henry Tubbs, General Services Field Supervisor CITIZEN COMMENTS Ray Park - 1200 The Strand, regarding Item 1(e). 1. CONSENT CALENDAR Action: To approve the consent Calendar recommendations (a) through (o) with the exception of the following items which were pulled for discussion but are listed in order for clarity: (e) Williams; (f) Williams; (k) Williams; (1) Northcraft; (m) Simpson; and (o) Simpson Motion Simpson, second Creighton. So ordered. (a) Recommendation to approve minutes of regular meeting of the City Council held on August 8, 1989. (b) Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants Nos. 30751 through 30752 inclusive, 30878 through 31032 inclusive, and noting voided warrants Nos. 30882 through 30890 inclusive, 30927, 30956, 30958 and 31021. (c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. - 1 - Minutes 8-22-89 7:30 P.M,- 2 (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Recommendation to receive and file the July, 1989 finan- cial reports: 1) Revenue and Expenditure Report; 2) City Treasurer's Report. Recommendation by Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Commission not to pursue a study of the Pier at this time. Memorandum from Community Resources Di- rector Alana Mastrian-Handman dated August 1, 1989. Addressing the Council on this item was: Ray Park - has current concession lease on Pier. Action: Staff to study renovation of pier, come back with consensus, costs., clean up, study multi -use. Motion Creighton, second Williams. AYES'- Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson, Mayor Williams NOES - None Recommendation to adopt a resolution requesting that the South Bay Cities join the City of Hermosa Beach in requesting legislation to exempt Municipal Animal Con- trol violations from the penalty assessments imposed by the courts. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dated August 7, 1989. A staff report was presented by Director Noon. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 89-5301, entitled, "A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE SOUTH BAY CITIES JOIN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH IN REQUESTING LEGISLATION TO EX- EMPT MUNICIPAL ANIMAL CONTROL VIOLATIONS FROM THE PENAL- TY ASSESSMENTS IMPOSED BY THE COURTS."; adding that we also solicit the support of Assemblyman Gerald Felando, League of California Cities, and Animal Control Direc- tors Assn. Motion Sheldon, second Rosenberger. So ordered, noting the objection of Williams. Recommendation to approve lease agreement between the City of Hermosa Beach and Hope Chapel for space in the Community Center. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian-Handman dated August 9, 1989. Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map #19512 for a two -unit condominium on property located at 1021 Loma Drive. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated August 15, 1989. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 89-5302, entitled, "A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #19512 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1021 LOMA DRIVE, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA." 2 Minutes 8-22-89 (i) (j) (k) (1) (m) (n) (0) Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map #19728 for a three -unit condominium on property located at 845 - 15th Street. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated August 15, 1989. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 89-5303, entitled, 'IA RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #19728 FOR A THREE -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 845 15TH STREET, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA." Recommendation to accept work as complete - Sanitary Sewer Improvements, Target Area 3, CIP 87-405. Memoran- dum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated Au- gust 15, 1989. Recommendation to receive and file status report of Capital Improvement Projects - 4th Quarter, FY 88-89. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated August 14, 1989. Action: To receive and file the report. Motion Creighton, second Rosenberger.. So ordered. Recommendation to approve request from Habash Cafe to utilize a portion of City property (parking lot to the rear) for their 20th Anniversary celebration. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dated August 14, 1989. Action: To approve staff recommendation, with amendment that the city be named as additionally insured. Motion Rosenberger, second Creighton. So ordered. It was noted that a certificate of appreciation for being in business 20 years would be prepared. Recommendation to receive and file Fiscal Year 89-90 Capital Improvement Program schedule. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated August 15, 1989. Action: To receive and file. Motion Creighton, second Rosenberger. So ordered. Recommendation to deny the following Claim for Damages and refer to the City's Claims Administrator: 1) Clifford Scott Michel, 155 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, filed August 8; alleged dangerous condition and design flaw of street. Recommendation to approve request of Hermosa Beach Cham- ber of Commerce for closure of llth Street west of Her- mosa Avenue to 20 ft. east of the parking lot entrance. Memorandum from Acting City Manager Alana Mastrian- Handman. 3 Minutes 8-22-89 Action: That the City Manager work out steam cleaning after the Fiesta de las Artes; pursue as soon as pos- sible; jointly with the Chamber of Commerce; to have an agreement with a contractor. Motion Creighton, second Sheldon. So ordered. Further Action: The the City Manager pursue a policy of cleaning sidewalks sa with the Chamber of Commerce. Motion Creighton, second Simpson. be instructed to in downtown Hermo- So ordered. Final Action: To approve the closure of the street as per the request of the Chamber of Commerce. Motion Creighton, second Rosenberger. So ordered. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES (a) (b) ORDINANCE NO. 89-997 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO A PROVISION PRO- HIBITING SKATEBOARDING AND ROLLERSKATING IN PRIVATE PARKING LOTS, AND A PROVISION REGULATING SKATEBOARDING AND ROLLERSKATING IN THE ROADWAY, AND ESTABLISHING PEN- ALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 19-26. For adoption. Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 89-997. Motion Simpson, second Rosenberger. So ordered, noting the abstention of Sheldon. ORDINANCE 89-1003 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR AREAS NE -1 AND NE -3 FROM R-2 TO R-1, AND AREA NE -2 FROM R-2 TO R -2B, AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. For adoption. Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 89-1003. Motion Rosenberger, second Creighton. So ordered, noting the abstention of Sheldon. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. Items (e), (f), (k), (1), (m), and (o) were discussed at this time but are listed in order for clarity. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. (a) Letter from Ray Park, Hermosa Sportfishing, 1200 The Strand, dated August 2, 1989, requesting reduction in rent, with response from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated August 14, 1989. Action: Refer back to staff with recommendation as to whether or not there is any concession due, and how much. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. - 4 - Minutes 8-22-89 (b) Letter from Parker Herriott, dated August 11, 1989, requesting the City Attorney to amend his impartial analysis for his initiative, No. 89-998. Action: To receive and file. Motion Sheldon, second Rosenberger. So ordered. A recess was called at 8:40 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 8:53 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED 17 FT. GARAGE SETBACK AT 1928-1930 MONTEREY BOULEVARD. Arthur E. and Mimi Sanderson, appellants. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated August 14, 1989. Sup- plemental memo from Director Schubach dated August 23, 1989. A staff report was presented by Director Schubach. The Public Hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak were: Arthur Sanderson - 1928/1930 Monterey - Appellant Brent Harris - 416 Monterey Blvd. - supports appeal The Public Hearing was closed. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 89-5304, entitled, "A RESOLUTION CONCURRING WITH THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A VARIANCE TO ALLOW ENCROACHMENT INTO THE REQUIRED 17 -FOOT GARAGE SETBACK AT 1928 MONTEREY BL. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered. 6. EXTENSION OF AN INTERIM ORDINANCE WHICH LIMITS THE IS- SUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR STRUCTURES IN THE COMMER- CIAL CORRIDOR AND ADJACENT AREAS, with ordinance for waiver of full reading and adoption. (4/5 vote). Memo- randum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated August 14, 1989. Supplemental page 6a to Ordinance. 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 waive full reading of Ordinance No. 89-1004, entitled, AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING ORDINANCE NO. 88-963 EXTENDING A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PER- MITS FOR STRUCTURES IN THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR AND ADJA- CENT AREAS, PREVIOUSLY CALLED THE "MULTI -USE CORRIDOR", FOR TWELVE (12) MONTHS." (URGENCY 4/5 VOTE) Motion Creighton, second Simpson. - 5 - Minutes 8-22-89 AYES: Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson, Mayor Williams. NOES: None Final Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 89-1004. Motion Rosenberger, second Sheldon. So ordered. 7. PROPOSED INTERIM ORDINANCE CONTROLLING DENSITY IN THE R-3 ZONE, with ordinance for waiver of full reading and adoption. (4/5 vote). Memorandum from Planning Direc- tor Michael Schubach dated August 15, 1989. A staff report was presented by Director Schubach. The Public Hearing was opened. No one coming forward to speak, the Pubic Hearing was closed. Action: To waive full reading of Ordinance No. 89-1005, entitled, "AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM OR- DINANCE CONTROLLING DENSITY ON R-3 ZONED LOTS WHEN THE NUMBER OF UNITS INCREASES WITH LOT ASSEMBLAGE." (URGENCY 4/5 VOTE) Motion Simpson, second Rosenberger. AYES: Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson, Mayor Williams. NOES: None Final Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 89-1005. Motion Simpson, second Sheldon. So ordered. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 8. FEASIBILITY OF INSTALLING A SIDEWALK ON 21ST STREET BETWEEN PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND ARDMORE AVENUE AND THE RESULTS OF A SURVEY ON EXISTING SIDEWALKS FOR THE SUG- GESTED ROUTE TO SCHOOL PLAN. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated August 7, 1989. A staff report was presented by Director Antich. Action: To improve the sidewalk on the south side of 21st Street for $3,335; and then survey the rest. (Monies for Prospective Expenditures if necessary.) Motion Creighton, second Simpson. So ordered. 9. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER - None 10. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) Designation of Voting Delegate for League of California Cities Annual Conference October 24, 1989 in San Francisco. Action: To appoint Councilmember Rosenberger as dele- gate, and Councilmember Creighton alternate. Motion Rosenberger, second Williams. So ordered. - 6 - Minutes 8-22-89 (b) Planning Commission appointment for a term ending June 30, 1992. Action: To appoint Carl Moore to the Planning Commis- sion for a term ending June 30, 1992. Motion Sheldon, second Rosenberger. So ordered. 11. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Simpson - submitted a letter from Rails to Trails re: reversionary interest on abandoned rights of ways. Williams - written tests re: N.S. 211 Williams - Tideland Oil Money. The Mayor requested in- formation re: the total amount of royalities.to the City, % of onshore/offshore; and list of uses of re- stricted monies. Sheldon - bars & liquor crackdown. Would like to see a hearing on agenda to allow both sides to air their feel- ings. CITIZEN COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Brent Harris - 416 Monterey Blvd. re: Draft EIR on Oil Drilling. Beth Harris - 416 Montery Blvd. re: Draft EIR on Oil Drilling. Larry Sartorius - 446 Monterey Blvd. re: Oil Drilling. Jim Schurk - 446 Monterey Blvd. re: Oil Drilling. ADJOURNMENT The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California adjourned on Tuesday, August 22, 1989 at the hour of 10:52 P.M., to a Regular Meeting to be held on Tuesday, September 12, 1989, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. City Clerk - 7 - Minutes 8-22-89 :y ry ' +� I a FINANCE—SFA340 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH —" DEMANDTIST "7FAGE'—'"-0001—i1 TIME 15:16:32 FOR 09/12/89 DATE 09/07/89 2 J 3 4 PAY VENDOR NAME -" -"' VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER —TRM # AMOUNT INV/REF -P0.4 -CHK-4. 5 DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 6 J e 9 H ROD COLOMA*/CSFMO 7 03031 001-400-1202-4316 00252 $150.00 TR254 00254 31033°� CONF REG/V. COPELAND TR254 08/17/89 FINANCE ADMIN /TRAINING $0.00 09/06/89 1te *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $150.00 �s , to H CA STATE UNIV DOMINGUEZ HILLS 00412 001-400-1202-4316 00254 $261.50 09237 31040 TUIT/S. LAWRENCE 09/07/89 FINANCE ADMIN /TRAINING $0.00 09/07/89 17 ,e ,9 20 H CA STATE UNIV DOMINGUEZ HILLS 00412001-400-1202-4316 00255 $261.50 09237 31040 TUIT/V. MOHLER 09/07/89 FINANCE ADMIN /TRAINING $0.00 09/07/89 2t 22 23 24 ,1 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $523. 00 25 26 27 26 2 H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT 00243 001-202-0000-2030 00298 $25,349.21 31038 ADDL DEP/SAL/8-16 TO 31 09/05/89 /ACCRUED PAYROLL- $0.00 09/07/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $25,349.21 3t 32 33 34 35 H UNIVERSITY BOOK STORE 03033 001-400-1202-4316 00253 $74.60 BOOKS/S. LAWRENCE/MOHLER 09/07/89 FINANCE ADMIN /TRAINING 09238 31039 $0.00 09/07/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** *** PAY CODE TOTAL****************************************************************** $74.60 $26,096.81 36 37 39 40 41 42 43 44 4e 4c 47 49 R A-1 COAST RENTALS MISC CHGS/AUG 89 00029 001-400-8614-4201 00039 $476.04 00081 31044 08/31/89 CIP 88-614 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 09/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $476.04 49 50 a, 52 53 54 ee 5e R COMMANDER ANTHONY*ALTFELD 00774 001-400-2101-4312 01012 $12.48 MILES/COMPUTER APPS 08/30/89 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST 09659 : 31045 $0.00 09/07/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $12. 48 67 56 59 e0 et e2 53 64 R AMERICAN PUB. WORKS ASSOC. PUBLICATIONS/PUB. WORKS 01984 001-400-4202-4305 00407 $26.63 09443 31046 08/30/89 PUB WKS ADMIN /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $26.63 09/07/89 55 en 87 as e9 7, 72 11 73 74 75 7? J fb S • f FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 15:16:32 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 09/12/89 IAGE 0002 DATE 09/07/89 ---ACCOUNT NUMBER—"'TRN-# AMOUNT—iINV/REF PO #---CHK DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 1\ 2 3 4 5 6 7 e *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R AMERICAN STYLE FOODS MISC CHGS/AUG 89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 8129.00 826.63 9 10 11 00857 001-400-2101-4306 00691 8129.00 00083 31047 08/31/89 POLICE /PRISONER MAINTENANCE 50.00 09/06/89 12 13 14 15 1e 17 1e 10 20 R AQUA ENGINEERING, INC. 02981 125-400-8508-4201 00020 87,959.00 2862 09452 31048 ENG SERV/PARKS/JUL 89 2862 07/31/89 CIP 85-508 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 80.00 09/07/89 21 22 24 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** • R AUTOMOTIVE PAINT CENTER MISC CHCS/AVG 89 87. 959. 00 25 2e 27 28 01891 001-400-3104-4309 00306 8275.41 00084 31049 08/31/89 TRAFFIC SAFETY /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 80.00 09/06/89 28 30 31 32 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** * * * 8275.41 33 34 35 36 R B & L CRANE SERVICE 02442 105-400-8202-4201 00041 #550.00 09463 31050 CRANE SERV/PIER LIGHTS 08/29/89 CIP 85-202 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 80.00 09/07/89 37 38 39 40 VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 8550. 00 41 42 43 44 R PAUL*BARR 00952 001-210-0000-2110 03179 850.00 84029 09815 31051 ANIMAL TRAP REFUND 84029 08/30/89 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE 80.00 09/07/89 45 48 47 48 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 850.00 R BENDER & ASSOCIATES 02118 001-400-4201-4316 00157 8179.00 07567 31052 REG/N. KOWATSCHITSCH 08/30/89 BUILDING /TRAINING 80.00 09/07/89 49 5O 51 52 53 54 55 56 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 8179.00 57 56 59 60 R BERIAN PRINTING SERVICE, INC. 02664 001-400-1101-4305 00260 81,901.03 7242/7368 09218 31053 PRINT BUDGETS/FY 89-90 /7368 08/17/89 CITY COUNCIL /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 81,692.29 09/07/89 R BERIAN PRINTING SERVICE, INC. 02664 001-400-1202-4305 00249 8213.00 7362 09220 31053 BUS CARDS/FINANCE DEPT 7362 08/24/89 FINANCE ADMIN /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 8213.00 09/07/89 61 02 63 64 85 06 67 68 66 70 71 72 73 74 76 7p, L •L. 1l 1L 9 •1. 11 L) J 0 "FINANCE—SFA3440 —' TIME 15:16:32 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R BERIAN PRINTINQ SERVICE. INC. BUS CARDS/J. SILVER 7362 R BERIAN PRINTING SERVICE. INC. FIRE INSPECTION REPORTS 7364 - CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH , DEMAND—LIST FOR 09/12/89 —PAGE 0003— DATE 09/07/89 " --ACCOUNT NUMBER --TRW* A NV%REF` PO 8' CHK # DATE INVC PROJ 8 ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 1\ 2 3 4 5 4 7 e 02664 001-400-1203-4305 00224 08/24/89 PERSONNEL 02664 001-400-2201-4305 00288 08/22/89 FIRE $42.60 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $408.46 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 7362 09220 31053 $0.00 09/07/89 0 10 11 12 7364 08349 31053 8408.96 09/07/89 13 14 15 10 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R BETA GROUP ANNUAL DUES/FY 89-90 $2.565.59 17 IS 10 20 00437 001-400-1206-4201 00612 $150.00 08/21/89. DATA PROCESSING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 09509 31054 $0.00 09/07/89 21 22 23 24 *** VENpOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R BIG SEVEN NURSERY PLANTS/FRIENDSHIP PARK *150. 00 25 20 27 20 01453 001-400-3101-4309 00036 8312 08/02/89 MEDIANS $95.85 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 8312 09403 31055 $95.85 09/07/89 20 30 31 32, *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R BOISE CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTS OFF SUPP/STOCK/AVG 89 $95.85 33 34 35 30 00005 001-400-1208-4305 00660 08/31/89 GEN APPROP 81. 121. 84 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 00087 31056 $0.00 09/06/89 37 38 30 40 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R JAMES*BOUZIANE MILES/DISPATCH CLASS $1. 121.84 02766 001-400-2101-4312 01019 08/30/89 POLICE $55.12 /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST 09656 31057 $0.00 09/07/89 41 42 43 44 45 40 47 40 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R R R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 REIMB PETTY CASH/AUG 89 08/31/89 $55.12 40 50 31 5z 001-400-1201-4305 00136 CITY MANAGER • $10.36 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 09817 31058 $0.00 09/07/89 53 s4 55 50 GARY*BRUTSCH. CITY TREASURER REIMB PETTY CASH/AUG 89 GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER REIMB PETTY CASH/AUG 89 02016 001-400-1202-4305 00248 08/31/89 FINANCE ADMIN $15.41 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 09817 31058 $0.00 09/07/89 57 50 50 50 02016 001-400-1203-4305 00223 08/31/89 PERSONNEL $6.66 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 09817 31058 $0.00 09/07/89 01 02 03 04 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER REIMB PETTY CASH/AUG 89 02016 001-400-1207-4316 00037 08/31/89 BUS LICENSE $15.00 /TRAINING 09817 31058 $0.00 09/07/89 05 55 07 00 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 738 -'FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 15:16:32 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND–Llb( FOR 09/12/89 uuu' DATE 09/07/89 VND # ""' ACCOUNT NUMBER "TRN # "AMOUNT— INV/REF —'—'" PO # -- CHK__-# DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 3 4 5 e 7 e R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER REIMS PETTY CASH/AUG 89 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER REIMS PETTY CASH/AUG 89 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER REIMB PETTY CASH/AUG 89 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER REIMB PETTY CASH/AUG 89 02016 001-400-2101-4305 01083 $9.99 08/31/89 POLICE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 02016 001-400-2101-4316 00430 08/31/89 POLICE 09817 31058 $0.00 09/07/89 $47.50 /TRAINING 09817 31058 $0.00 09/07/89 0 11 12 13 14 15 1e 02016 001-400-2201-4309 00728 $15.79 08/31/89 FIRE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 09817 31058 $0.00 09/07/99 02016 001-400-3103-4309 00883 08/31/89 ST MAINTENANCE $10.63 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 17 18 19 20 09817 31058 $0.00 09/07/89 R " GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER REIMB PETTY CASH/AUG 89 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER REIMB PETTY CASH/AUG 89 02016 001-400-4102-4305 00088 08/31/89 PLANNING COMM $12.00 09817 31058 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 09/07/89 02016 001-400-4204-4309 01413 08/31/89 BLDG MAINT $27.75 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 21 22 23 za 26 27 28 09817 31058 $0.00 09/07/89 28 30 31 32 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER REIMB PETTY CASH/AUG 89 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER REIMS PETTY CASH/AUG 89 02016 001-400-4601-4305 00726 08/31/89 COMM RESOURCES $6.36 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 09817 31058 440.00 09/07/29 02016 001-400-4601-4308 00201 08/31/89 COMM RESOURCES $45.62 /PROGRAM MATERIALS 33 34 35 09817 31058 $0.00 09/07/89 311 38 40 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY" TREASURER REIMS PETTY CASH/AUG 89 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER REIMB PETTY CASH/AUG 89 02016 001-400-4601-4316 00112 08/31/89 COMM RESOURCES $10.00 /TRAINING 09817 31058 $0.00 09/07/89 02016 110-400-3302-4309 00585 08/31/89 PARKING ENF $17.57 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 09817 31058 $0.00 09/07/89 41 4 49t ei 46 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R BUREAU OF BUSINESS PRACTICE SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL/PD $250.64 00253 001-400-2101-4305 01084 $173:88 08/30/89 POLICE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 09642 31059 $0.00 09/07/89 49 50 51 52 53 84 55 56 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R BUSINESS SYSTEMS SUPPLY GREEN BAR PAPER #173. 88 57 6e 59 00 00034 001-400-1206-4305 00401 54909 08/21/89 DATA PROCESSING • $943.80 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 154909 09505 31060 $943.81 09/07/89 61 62 03 e4 R BUSINESS SYSTEMS SUPPLY 00034 LETTERHEAD ENVELOPES 55458 08/31/89 001-400-1208-4305 00662 GEN APPROP $253.47 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 155458 09230 31060 $0.00 09/07/89 65 80 67 60 70 71 72 73 74 75 79, 1. L v V v w to • 1r V •' • V FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 15:16:32 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 09/12/89 PAGE"" 0005 DATE 09/07/89 VND tt ACCOUNT NUMBER "TRN 4 AMOUNT — ` INJ/REF ""' "" PO ;t CHK -0 --- DATE INVC PROJ it ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP J le 3 4 5 n - 7 e *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R CA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE. PARKS MAINT/AUG 89 • R CA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE, PARKS MAINT/AUG 89 INC. 00599 001-400-3101-4201 08/31/89 MEDIANS INC. 00599 001-400-6101-4201 08/31/89 PARKS $1,197.27 00022 33, 150. 00 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 00061 31061 $0.00 09/06/89 o 14 - 13 ,6 00150 $10,025.62 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 00061 31061 $0.00 09/06/89 $13,175.62 R " CA MUNICIPAL BUS TAX ASSN INC. 00382 001-400-1207-4317 00021 CONF REG/M. FEHSKENS TR257 08/30/89 BUS LICENSE 890. 00 /CONFERENCE EXPENSE TR257 00257 31062 $0.00 09/07/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $90. 00 15 - 19 20 21 2- 3 24 26 R CA STATE UNIVERSITY/LONG BEACH TUIT/3 POLICE SOTS *** VENDOR TOTAL 00042 001-400-2101-4312 01016 $549.00 08/30/89 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST ******************************************************************** 09649 31063 $0.00 09/07/89 $549.00 R OZZIE*CADENA WORK GUAR REFUND *** VENDOR TOTAL 82515 03023 001-210-0000-2110 03181 $500.00 08/30/89 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $500.00 ******************************************************************** 82515 09812 31064 $0.00 09/07/89 R CAL SURANCE ASSOCIATES, INC. WORK COMP FINAL AUD/FY88 21464 00038 705-400-1217-4201 00056 $2,475.00 1021464 09709 31065 08/15/89 WORKERS COMP /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 09/07/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R R $2, 475. 00 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE WATER BILLS/AUG 89 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE WATER BILLS/AUG 89 00016 001-400-3101-4303 00052 $913.16 08/31/89 MEDIANS /UTILITIES 00016 001-400-4204-4303 00329 $676.74 08/31/89 BLDG MAINT /UTILITIES 00089 31066 $0.00 09/06/89 00089 31066 $0.00 09/06/89 36 37 36 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 49 03 52 53 54 55 06 57 55 59 ni 62 53 R 'CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE WATER BILLS/AUG 89 00016 001-400-6101-4303 00265 $3,749.59 08/31/89 PARKS /UTILITIES. 00089 31066 $0.00 09/06/89 03 65 57 69 BJ 70 71 72 73 74 75 74 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 19:16:32 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND -LIST FOR 09/12/89 PAGE" _• --OW DATE 09/07/89 PAY VENDOR NAME " VND * • ACCOUNT NUMBER'-" TRN * AMOUNT- INV/REF "' —'-' PO 4 " "" "'CHK` -"•'- DESCRIPTION • DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 1\ 2 3 4 6 7 6 *** VENDOR 1(TAL a*ikdF•k*******************l****************************************** * * * H CAVENAUGH AND ASSOCIATES TUIT/JONES/CAHN/DUI SEM $5,339.49 • 02798 001-400-2101-4312 01017 $150.00 09651 31067 08/30/89 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 09/07/89 10 11 12 14 15 16 VENDOR TOTAL********************************•*********************************** $150.00 17 18 16 70 R CELLULAR DYNAMICS COMPANY 02449 001-400-2101-4304 00423 $586.62 00710 31068 MOBILE PHONE CHGS/JUL'89 07/31/89' POLICE /TELEPHONE $0.00 09/06/89 21 23 24 *** VENOM TOTAL******************************************************************** $586.62 25 2e 27 28 R CERTIFIED OFFICE EQUIPMENT 00389 001-400-4201-4201 00203 $29.82 1165 07565 31069 TYPEWRITER REPAIRS/BLDG 1165 08/30/89 BUILDING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 09/07/89 29 20 31 32 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $29.82 R CHAMPION CHEVROLET 00014 001-400-2101-4311 00726 $78.11 00812 31070 MISC CHCS/AUG 89 08/31/89 POLICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE $0.00 09/06/99 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $78.11 41 42 43 44 R CHANDLER'S PV READY MIX 00009 105-400-8202-4309 00077 $322.52 MISC CHCS/AUG 89 08/31/89 CIP 85-202 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00813 31071 $0.00 09/06/89 45 46 47 46 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $322.52 44 50 51 52 R CHEVRON USA, INC. 00634 001-400-2101-4310 00197 $253.85 MISC CHCS/AUG 89 08/31/89 POLICE /MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 00865 31072 $0.00 09/06/89 53 54 55 56 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** • $253.85 57 59 60 R CINTAS CORPORATION Q0153 001-400-1206-4305 00400 $30.88 19995053 07891 31073 LAB COATS/DATA PROC 95053 ; 08/25/89 DATA PROCESSING /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 09/07/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** • $30.88 01 62 63 64 65 66 67 60 R COAST IRRIGATION CO. 00354 001-400-6101-4309 00736 $408.96 A24560 08898 31074 WATER FOUNTAINS/RR ROW 24560 08/04/89 • PARKS /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $475.55 09/07/89 09 70 71 72 73 74 75 77 1 r r 19, • • tr FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 15:16:32 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R COAST IRRIG BACKFLOW DEV/ *** VENDOR TOTAL *** R COINTAINER, BANK BAG/COM R COINTAINER, LOCKING BANK *** VENDOR TOTAL *** R CHAPMAN*COL TUITION/B. P *** VENDOR TOTAL *** R COMPUTER SU SOFTWARE/PUB *** VENDOR TOTAL *** R VIKI *COPEL MON EXP/AUG *** VENDOR TOTAL *** R THE'*COPY SF ANIMAL CONT *** VENDOR TOTAL ***s R ROBERT*CORR WORK GUAR RE *** VENDOR TOTAL *** R STEVE*DAHDA REFUND MAINT 4.0 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH "' "" — _ DEMAND LIST PAGE'— FOR 09/12/89 DATE "0007 — 09/07/89 CHK -' ""—•--" EXP +\ 2 3 4 e - e ._- _— _-_ VND 4 --"`"' ACCOUNT NUMBER-- TRN #----4MOUN'r INV7REF- PO 'F DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE 7 8 _. - • _ . TION CO. ' 00354 125-400-8508-4309 00007 $262.52 A25490 09411 31074 9 i0 PARKS 25490 08/10/89 CIP 85-508 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 09/07/89 1+ 12 *************************************** tarot*atitat*#*a►+ti►a►a►*****i►**** $671.48 14 +a +6 17 INC. 02986 001-400-4601-4305 00728 $21.71 8898 09038 31075 16 RESOURCES 8898 08/28/89 COMM RESOURCES /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $20.02 09/07/89 19 20 2+ INC. 02986 110-400-3301-4305 00077 $32.56 8898 09038 31075 .. BAGS/PKG 8898 08/28/89' VEH PKG DIST /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $30.04 09/07/89 23 24 25 **************************************************************** $54.27 26 27 29 29 EGE 03026 001-400-2101-4312 01018 $216.00 09653 31076 90 IILLIPS 08/30/89 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE ,. POST $0.00 09/07/89 3+ 32 33 **************************************************************** $216.00 34 35 36 37 PORT CORP. 02988 001-400-1206-4201 00611 $105.00 068355 09502 31077 30 IC WORKS 68355 08/21/89 DATA PROCESSING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $105.00 09/07/89 39 eo 41 •**************************************************************** $105.00 42 43 44 45 ND 00041 001-400-1202-4316 00256 $14.50 09232 31078 ae 19 08/31/89 FINANCE ADMIN /TRAINING ' $0.00 09/07/89 47 48 r 49 •*******u•******************************************************** $14.50 a 50 51 52 .. 53 IOP 00022 001-400-2401-4305 00125 $69:23 08771 31079 54 rise TAIL SCHED. 08/02/89 ANIMAL CONTROL /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 09/06/89 57 F**************************************************************** $69.23 59 59 60 61 ' 02889 001-210-0000-2110 03182 8150.00 58962 09811 31080 82 'UND 58962 : 68/30/89 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 09/07/89 e9 e4 65 F**************************************************************** : $150.00 46 67 66 C9 1 03005 001-300-0000-3411 01204 $100.00 81153 09041 31081 70 FEES 81153 08/15/89 /OTHER FACILITIES $0.00 09/07/89 71 72 73 74 7e 712 J v 4f v Y 411, 4'I 4111, 4111, .119 4s 43. • 110 FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 15:16:32 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIS' FOR 09/12/89 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER—"TRN'.0' — AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION PAGE '0008 DATE 09/07/89 !NV/REF' - —" PO # "CHF: # -- AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP a 1� 2 — 3 e 7 8 *** VENDOR TOTAL**********************************•n#*****•n***** *****•u*•n******** *** R DAPPER TIRE CO. 01390 MISC CHGS/AUG 89 08/31/89 $100.00 • 110-400-3302-4311 00518 $198.60 PARKING ENF /AUTO MAINTENANCE 00817 31082 $0.00 09/06/89 9 0 11 12 13 14 Ie *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R DATA SAFE TAPE STOR/AUG 12—SEP 11 44132 $198.60 17 ID 10 00156 001-400-1206-4201 00609 $95.75 44132 00047 31083 08/11/89 DATA PROCESSING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 09/06/89 21 22 23 24 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** * * * R R R R DESK CITY OFFICE FURNITURE/BLDG 24968 $95.75 01097 001-400-4201-5401 00006 08/17/89 BUILDING DESK CITY CHAIRS/PARKING 24497 VENDOR TOTAL $819.42 24968 01777 31084 /EQUIP—LESS THAN .$500 z-. 27 20 $782.66 09/07/89 20 30 31 32 01097 110-400-3302-5401 00032 $611.69 08/14/89 PARKING ENF /EQUIP—LESS THAN $500 ******************************************************************* DIGITAL EQUIPMENT COMP MAINT/AUG 89 DIGITAL EQUIPMENT COMP MAINT/AUG 89 $1,431.11 24497 08741 31084 $0.00 09/07/89 33 34 35 'J 30 37 35 30 "•� 40 CORPORATION 17790 CORPORATION 00269 001-400-2101-4201 08/11/89 POLICE 00269 001-400-2201-4201 17790 08/11/89 FIRE 00432 $832.20 245717790 00006 31085 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 09/06/89 00094 $554.80 245717790 00006 31085 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT ' $0.00 09/06/89 41 42 43 44 45 45 47 48 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1.387.00 R DIVERSIFIED SERVICES, INC. PIER REPAIRS/PMT NO. 3 1025 02879 001-400-8614-4201 00040 $33,853:28 08/10/89 CIP 88-614 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 49 50 51 52 1025 09466 31086 $0.00 09/07/89 53 54 55 53 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R EASTMAN, INC. COMPUTER PRINTOUT RACK 37739 02514 001-400-1202-5401 00005 09/01/89 FINANCE ADMIN $33,853.28 07 58 58 60 $110.76 5237739 09231 31087 /EQUIPMENT—LESS THAN $50 $0.00 09/07/89 R EASTMAN, INC. MISC CHCS/AUG 89 02514 001-400-1208-4305 00661 $267.49 08/31/89 GEN APPROP /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 00866 31087 $0.00 09/06/89 CI C2 63 34 ) 58 60 70 71 72 73 74 75 v • FINANCE–SFA340 TIME 15:16:32 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FOR 09/12/89 PAGE'--- -0009 DATE 09/07/89 PAY VENDOR NAME --' '—"'"VND U "ACCOUNT- NUMBER—' TRNT'# AMOUNT—TN'J7REF— PO A CNK 4 DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROD # , ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 1" 2 4 5 e 7 e *** VENDOR TOTAL**********************a•x**x•*4t******************** ****************** • *378.25 • 10 11 12 R OFCR T0M*ECKERT 01958 001-400-2101-4312 01014 $7.02 09657 31088 MILES/SKILLS CLASS 08/30/89 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE POST $0.00 09/07/89 .. *** VENDOR TOTAL .******************************************************************** $7.02 W w 13 14 1e 16 17 l9 1• 70 R CITY OF*EL SEGUNDO 02783 170-400-2103-4201 00031 $549.54 09636 31089 CAR RENTAL/7-26 TO 8-22 08/30/89 SPEC INVESTGTNS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 09/07/89 21 23 24 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $549.54 25 2e 27 20 R STEVE*ENDOM 01034 001-400-2101-4312 01013 $72.80 09640 31090 __ MILES/ADV OFCR SCHOOL 08/30/89 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE r POST $0.00 09/07/89 R STEVE*ENDOM 01034 001-400-2101-4312 01015 $29.00 09647 31090 MEALS/INFORMANT CLASS 08/30/89 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 09/07/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL 20 30 31 92 33 34 35 36 ******************************************************************** $101.80 31 30 30 40 R JOHN*FEATHERSTONE 00994 001-400-4601-4201 00395 $400.00 09043 31091 08/23/89 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 09/07/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $400.00 VOLLEYBALL TOURN. SERV 41 42 43 44 45 45 47 45 w R MR. RAY*FEINER 03032 110-300-0000-3302 29318 CITE PAYMENT REFUND 16239 08/23/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL $78.00 116239 08735 31092 /COURT FINES/PARKING $0.00 09/07/89 49 50 51 52 ******************************************************************** $78.00 53 a4 55 56 >, R LUCI*FENTON 03025 001-210-0000-2110 03187 $50.00 83594 09816 31093 ANIMAL TRAP REFUND 83594 08/30/89 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 09/07/89 V *** VENDOR TOTAL a7 5• ******************************************************************** $50.00 61 62 e3 64 R FESS PARKER'S RED LION RESORT 03021 001-400-1207-4317 00020 $402.57 TR257 00257 31094 HOTEL ADV/M. FEHSKENS TR257 08/30/89 BUS LICENSE /CONFERENCE EXPENSE $0.00 09/07/89 E5 97 66 fey 70 71 72 73 74 7q U u L u 21 r i» LI y y y 0 FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 15:16:32 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND -GIST PAGE'-001D--�\ FOR 09/12/89 DATE 09/07/89 2 3 —"' VND ' # ----ACCOUNT NUMBER' — TRN''#AMOUNT------INV/REF--------—P0 DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP e 7 8 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $402.57 R FRANKS0NS. INC. 00010 110-400-3302-4311 00519 $210.18 15711 08784 31095 MUFFLERS/CUSHMANS 15711 08/14/89 PARKING ENF /AUTO MAINTENANCE 4201.71 09/07/89 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 1e *** VENDOR TOTAL.******************************************************************** 4210.19 17 18 19 20 R GANDALF DATA, INC. 01432 001-400-1206-4201 00607 $492.00 29204 00019 31096 MODEM MAINT/1ST GTR FY90 29204 08/10/89 DATA PROCESSING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 09/06/89 *** VENIfOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $492.00 21 24 25 20 27 28 R GUILLERMO*GARCIA 00638 001-210-0000-2110 03184 $150.00 74812 09809 31097 WORK GUAR REFUND 74812 08/30/89 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE *0.00 09/07/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $150.00 20 30 91 32 R GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY 00058 001-400-4204-4309 01408 $68.16 00824 31098 MISC CHGS/AUG 89 08/31/89 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 09/06/89 33 34 35 33� 38 30 40 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $68.16 41 42 43 44 R GERBER AMBULANCE SERVICE 02897 001-400-2101-4201 00433 $1,930.06 09660 31099 PRIS. EMERG AMB SERVICES 08/30/89 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT ' $0.00 09/07/89 45 48 47 4r. *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1.930.06 49 50 61 e2 R JOHN*GOREY 03020 001-210-0000-2110 03177 WORK GUAR REFUND 74825 08/30/89 $175:00 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE 74825 09806 31100 $0.00 09/07/89 53 54 55 58 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $175.00 57 58 59 60 R GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1101-4304 00236 $10.64 00825 31102 TELE CHGS/AUG 89 08/31/89 CITY COUNCIL /TELEPHONE $0.00 09/06/89 R GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1121-4304 00223 $26.77 00825 31102 TELE CHGS/AUG 89 08/31/89 CITY CLERK /TELEPHONE. $0.00 09/06/89 61 63 64 66 67 ea t9 70 71 72 73 74 76 7� J --1 v Id 'FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 15:16:32 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R GTE CALIFORNIA, TELE CHCS/AUG 89 R GTE TELE CALIFORNIA, CHCS/AUG 89 R GTE CALIFORNIA, TELE CHGS/AUG 89 R GTE CALIFORNIA, TELE CHGS/AUG 89 R „ GTE CALIFORNIA, TELE CHGS/AUG 89 R GTE CALIFORNIA, TELE CHGS/AUG 89 R GTE CALIFORNIA, TELE CHGS/AUG 89 R GTE TELE CALIFORNIA, CHGS/AUG 89 VND # DATE INVC • ,CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND -LIST- PAGE 001"T ,1 FOR 09/12/89 DATE 09/07/89 J 3 J ACCOUNT NUMBER --TRN # - —AMOUNT— -"`INV/REF "'-" -""" ""PO # "' CHK # " s PROJ 44 ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP • J 0 INCORPORATED INCORPORATED INCORPORATED INCORPORATED 00015 08/31/89 00015 08/31/89 001-400-1131-4304 00154 $13.08 CITY ATTORNEY /TELEPHONE 001-400-1141-4304 00240 $19.66 CITY TREASURER /TELEPHONE 00825 31102 $0.00 09/06/89 00825 31102 .$0.00 09/06/89 3 10 11 12 14 ,5 16 00015 001-400-1201-4304 00258 $23.13 08/31/89 CITY MANAGER /TELEPHONE 00015 001-400-1202-4304 00260 $94.48 08/31/89 FINANCE ADMIN /TELEPHONE INCORPORATED 00015 • 08/31/89 INCORPORATED INCORPORATED INCORPORATED 00015 08/31/89 00825 31102 $0.00 09/06/89 00825 31102 $0.00 09/06/89 17 10 19 70 21 �2 23 24 001-400-1203-4304 00258 $32.81 PERSONNEL /TELEPHONE 00825 31102 $0.00 09/06/89 001-400-1206-4304 00177 $239.73 DATA PROCESSING /TELEPHONE 25 26 27 28 00825 31102 $0.00 09/06/89 29 3C 31 32 00015 001-400-1207-4304 00143 08/31/89 BUS LICENSE /TELEPHONE $24.42 00825 31102 $0.00 09/06/89 00015 001-400-1208-4304 00015 $13.39 08/31/89 GEN APPROP /TELEPHONE 00825 31102 $0.00 09/06/89 33 34 35 36 37 30 34 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHGS/AUG 89 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHGS/AUG 89 00015 001-400-2101-4304 00422 08/31/89 POLICE 82, 044. 55 /TELEPHONE 00825 31102 $0.00 09/06/89 00015 001-400-2201-4304 00191 $210.35 08/31/89 FIRE /TELEPHONE R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHGS/AUG 89 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHGS/AUG 89 00825 31102 $0.00 09/06/89 40 41 42 43 44 45 48 47 48 00015 001-400-2401-4304 00245 $39.98 08/31/89 ANIMAL CONTROL /TELEPHONE 00825 3f102 $0.00 09/06/89 00015 001-400-4101-4304 00262 08/31/89 PLANNING $74:47 /TELEPHONE 49 50 5/ 52 00825 31102 $0.00 09/06/89 53 54 56 50 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHGS/AUG 89 R GTE TELE R GTE TELE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED CHGS/AUG 89 00015 08/31/89 001-400-4201-4304 00256 $123.17 BUILDING /TELEPHONE 00015 001-400-4202-4304 00261 $257.13 08/31/89 PUB WKS ADMIN /TELEPHONE 00825 : 31102 $0.00 09/06/89 • 00825 31102 $0.00 09/06/89 57 58 80 CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4204-4321 00459 CHGS/AUG 89 08/31/89 $17.09 BLDG MAINT /BUILDING SAFETY/SECURIT 00825 31102 $0.00 09/06/89 61 02 63 64 F,5 3, 87 68 69 70 7, 72 73 y .11 1,) u L L J 74 J 78 79' 0 "FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 15:16:32 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION ,CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND -CIS I FOR 09/12/89 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER - -" TRN" #• AMOUNi DATE INVC PROJ # ' ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 'PACE UUld DATE 09/07/89 INV/REF -- - - PO # -- CHK 4 AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP a J R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHGS/AUG 89 R GTE TELE 00015 001-400-4601-4304 00301 08/31/89 COMM RESOURCES 001-400-6101-4304 00166 PARKS CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED . 00015 CHGS/AUG 89 08/31/89 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHCS/AUG 89 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHCS/AUG 89 $200.02 /TELEPHONE $12.18 /TELEPHONE 00825 31102 $0.00 09/06/89 5 6 7 e 9 10 11 12 00825 31102 40.00 09/06/89 13 14 15 16 00015 110-400-3301-4304 00117 08/31/89 VEH PKG DIST $10.00 /TELEPHONE 00825 31102 $0.00 09/06/09 00015 110-400-3302-4304 00260 08/31/89 PARKING ENF R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHGS/AUG 89 $207.98 /TELEPHONE 17 18 19 70 00825 31102 $0.00 09/06/89 • 21 7J 74 00015 145-400-3401-4304 00038 08/31/89 DIAL A RIDE $4.16 /TELEPHONE 00825 31102 $0.00 09/06/89 25 26 27 26 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $3,699:19 R GTEL PHONE CHGS/TELE SYSTEM 68314 R GTEL PHONE CHANGES/CITY CLERK 71122 01340 001-400-1101-4304 00237 07/28/89 CITY COUNCIL 01340 001-400-1121-4304 00224 08/29/89 CITY CLERK $0.78 /TELEPHONE $74.50 /TELEPHONE TM68314 08793 31105 $0.00 09/07/89 TM71122 08798 31105 $0.00 09/07/89 R GTEL PHONE CHGS/TELE SYSTEM 68314 R GTEL PHONE CHANGES/CITY CLERK 71122 R GTEL PHONE CHCS/CTY ATTY 68717 R GTEL PHONE CHGS/TELE SYSTEM 68314 R GTEL PHONE CHGS/TELE SYSTEM 68314 R GTEL PHONE CHGS/CITY MANAGER 68717 01340 001-400-1121-4304 00225 07/28/89 CITY CLERK 01340 001-400-1122-4304 00044 08/29/89 ELECTIONS $1.92 /TELEPHONE TM68314 08793 31105 $0.00 09/07/89 $74.50 /TELEPHONE TM71122 08798 31105 $0.00 09/07/89 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 30 30 a0 4, 42 43 44 45 46 47 4e 01340 001-400-1131-4304 00155 08/16/89 CITY ATTORNEY 01340 001-400-1131-4304 00156 07/28/89 CITY ATTORNEY $48.81 /TELEPHONE TM68717 08791 3f105 $0.00 09/07/89 $0. 96 /TELEPHONE TM68314 08793 31105 $0.00 09/07/89 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 01340 001-400-1141-4304 00241 07/28/89 CITY TREASURER 01340 001-400-1201-4304 00259 08/16/89 CITY MANAGER $1.44 /TELEPHONE $48.81 /TELEPHONE TM68314 08793 31105 $0.00 09/07/89 57 se 59 60 TM68717 08791 31105 $0.00 09/07/89 61 62 03 64 R GTEL PHONE CHCS/TELE SYSTEM 68314 01340 001-400-1201-4304 00260 07/28/89 CITY MANAGER *1.73 /TELEPHONE. • TM68314 08793 31105 $0.00 09/07/89 es G6 67 6e 69 70 71 72 73 74 7e 7� FINANCE-SFA340 _ TIME 15:16:32 I PAY VENDOR NAME i 0, v N .80 v DESCRIPTION R GTEL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND'LIST FOR 09/12/89 PAGE ' ' ' "" 0013 DATE 09/07/89 VND 4# " ACCOUNT NUMBER " TRN #..._--"-` AMOUNT-"----- INV/REF """ " -.PO # -CHK-#--- DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 1\ 2 3 4 8 7 6 01340 001-400-1202-4304 00261 $6.25 PHONE CHGS/TELE SYSTEM 68314 07/28/89 FINANCE ADMIN /TELEPHONE R GTEL 01340 001-400-1203-4304 00259 $48.81 PHONE CHCS/PERSONNEL 68717 08/16/89 PERSONNEL /TELEPHONE R GTEL PHONE CHCS/TELE SYSTEM R GTEL 68314 TM68314 08793 31105 $0.00 09/07/89 TM68717 08791 31105 $0.00 09/07/89 01340 001-400-1203-4304 00260 $2.31 07/28/89 PERSONNEL /TELEPHONE TM68314 08793 31105 $0.00 09/07/09 01340 001-400-1206-4304 00178 $2.88 PHONE CHCS/TELE SYSTEM 68314 07/28/89 DATA PROCESSING /TELEPHONE 6 10 11 12 is 14 IS 16 17 16 16 70 TM68314 08793 31105 $0.00 09/07/89 21 22 23 24 R i GTEL 01340 001-400-1207-4304 00144 $0.96 TM68314 08793 31105 PHONE CHGS/TELE SYSTEM 68314 07/28/89 BUS LICENSE /TELEPHONE $0.00 09/07/89 R GTEL 01340 001-400-1208-4304 00016 $48.82 TM68717 08791 31105 PHONE CHGS/WORD PROC SEC 68717 08/16/89 GEN APPROP /TELEPHONE $0.00 09/07/89 25 26 27 28 26 30 31 32 R GtEL 01340 001-400-1208-4304 00017 $0.96 PHONE CHGS/TELE SYSTEM 68314 07/28/89 GEN APPROP /TELEPHONE R GTEL EQUIP RENT/AUG 89 TM68314 08793 31105 $0.00 09/07/89 01340 001-400-2101-4304 00425 $93.12 08/31/89 POLICE /TELEPHONE 00826 31105 $0.00 09/06/89 33 34 35 36 37 30 32 40 R GTEL PHONE CHGS/TELE SYSTEM R GTEL EQUIP RENT/AUG 89 01340 001-400-2101-4304 00426 $36.51 TM68314 08793 31105 68314 07/28/89 POLICE /TELEPHONE $0.00 09/07/89 01340 001-400-2201-4304 00192 $92.56 08/31/89 FIRE /TELEPHONE R GTEL PHONE CHGS/TELE SYSTEM 00826 31105 $0.00 09/06/89 41 42 43 44 49 46 47 49 01340 001-400-2201-4304 00193 $0.96 68314 07/28/89 FIRE /TELEPHONE TM68314 08793 31105 $0.00 09/07/89 R GTEL 01340 001-400-2401-4304 00246 $1•.44 PHONE CHGS/TELE SYSTEM 68314 07/28/89 ANIMAL CONTROL /TELEPHONE R GTEL 01340 001-400-4101-4304 00263 $4.80 PHONE CHGS/TELE SYSTEM 68314 07/28/89 PLANNING /TELEPHONE TM68314 08793 31105 $0.00 09/07/89 49 50 51 57 53 54 55 36 TM68314 08793 31105 $0.00 09/07/89 R GTEL 01340 001-400-4201-4304 00257 PHONE CHGS/TELE SYSTEM 68314 67/28/89 BUILDING R GTEL $8.65 /TELEPHONE TM68314 08793 31105 $0.00 09/07/89 57 56 59 60 61 67 63 64 .J u 01340 001-400-4202-4304 00262 $195.25 TM68717 08791 31105 PHONE CHANGES/PUB WORKS 68717 08/16/89 PUB WKS ADMIN /TELEPHONE $0.00 09/07/89 66 67 66 70 71 72 73 74 76 7g 1J L L L 0 FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 15:16:32 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 09/12/89 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT-- - INV/REF DATE INVC PROJ # R GTEL 01340 PHONE CHCS/TELE SYSTEM 68314 07/28/89 R GTEL 01340 PHONE CHGS/TELE SYSTEM 68314 07/28/89 R GTEL PHONE CHCS/TELE SYSTEM 68314 ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION PAGE 0014 DATE 09/07/89 PO # CHF. 4 AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 001-400-4202-4304 00263 PUB WKS ADMIN 001-400-4601-4304 00302 COMM RESOURCES 01340 07/28/89 R GTEL 01340 CHANGE SPEED NUMBER 69067 08/16/89 R 7 GTEL PHONE CHGS/TELE SYSTEM 68314 $9.61 /TELEPHONE 1 $1.92 /TELEPHONE TM68314 TM68314 08793 31105 $0.00 09/07/89 08793 31105 $0.00 09/07/89 2 JJ 3 4 a 0 7 0 0 to 11 12 13 14 1s 16 001-400-6101-4304 00167 PARKS 105-400-2601-4304 00120 STREET LIGHTING $0.96 /TELEPHONE TM68314 08793 31105 $0.00 09/07/89 $80.00 /TELEPHONE TM69067 08792 31105 $0.00 09/07/89 01340 110-400-3302-4304 00261 07/28/89 PARKING ENF $11.05 /TELEPHONE ----------------- *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $901.27 R STEVE*HARTT MILES/SKILLS CLASS 10 19 20 21 22 23 74 TM68314 08793 31105 $0.00 09/07/89 25 26 27 20 20 30 31 32 00896 001-400-2101-4312 01023 $18.98 09654 31106 08/30/89 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 09/07/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $18.98 33 34 30 315 37 3a 30 40 R HELCHER, HENZIE & BIEGENZAHN REFUND WITNESS FEES 83262 03018 001-300-0000-3904 09/06/89 00280 $150.00 /GENERAL MISCELLANEOUS *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $150.00 83262 09818 31107 $0.00 09/07/89 R HEWLETT—PACKARD COMPANY 00149 COMP SYS MAINT/AUG 89 W1X64 08/02/89 R HEWLETT—PACKARD COMPANY SYS MGMT TRNG/B. SHEEHAN P8653 001-400-1206-4201 00608 $1,223.00 00W1X64 DATA PROCESSING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 00009 31108 $0.00 09/06/89 00149 001-400-1206-4316 00077 $1,150:00 08/30/89 DATA PROCESSING /TRAINING 7NP8653 09503 31108 $0.00 09/07/89 41 42. 43 44 45 46 47 40 47 30 51 '2 23 24 SS 56 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R DICK *HOLLAND CARPET COVEBASE/CITY HALL •- $2,373.00 6"7 a0 50 60 00062 001-400-4204-4309 01414 09/06/89 BLDG MAINT $114.20 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 09225 31109 $80.00 09/07/89 61 62 63 64 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R HOTEL FORT DES MOINES HOTEL ADV/K. NORTHCRAFT TR253 $114.20 65 ca 87 68 03030 001-400-1201-4317 00194 $203.13 08/29/89 CITY MANAGER /CONFERENCE EXPENSE TR253 00253 31110 $0.00 09/07/89 61. 70 71 72 73 74 75 7$1, J -J FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 15:16:32 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH —_, DEMAND'LIST FOR 09/12/89 PAGE '� -001 DATE 09/07/89 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER - -TRN #---"i—AMOUNT INV/REF---------PO 4 ----CHK 8 DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 3 4 5 9 7 8 *** VENDOR TOTAL******•************************************************************** $203.13 R HOZIES RADIATOR SERVICE 00277 001-400-2101-4311 00727 $146.97 93469 09637 31111 RECORE RADIATOR/HB2 93469 08/22/89 POLICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE $146.97 09/07/89 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** • $146.97 17 18 19 20 R HYPOINT TECHNOLOGY. INC. 03016 001-400-1206-5401 00013 $416.29 5677 09510 31112 WORD TERM/COMM CTR 5677 08/29/89 DATA PROCESSING /EQUIP -LESS THAN $500 $415.00 09/07/89 21 22 24 *** VENti0R TOTAL******************************************************************** $416.29 R DONALD*JONES 02627 001-400-2101-4312 01022 $460.88 09650 31113 MEALS/HOTEL/DUI SEMINAR 08/30/89 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE POST $0.00 09/07/89 *** VENDOR'TOTAL******************************************************************** $460.88 23 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 R JOHN*KEARIN 01032 001-400-2101-4312 01020 $658.00 09624 31114 SRCH WARR CLASS 8 OFCRS 08/07/89 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 09/07/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $658.00 J 37 38 38 40 41 42 43 44 R KELLY BLUE BOOK 03029 705-400-1209-4316 00014 $45.00 09708 31115 USED CAR GUIDE/RISK MGR 08/17/89 LIABILITY INS /TRAINING $0.00 09/07/89 45 46 47 48 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $45.00 49 50 51 72 R WILLIAM*KELLY 00362 001-400-2101-4312 01021 $129,48 09658 31116 MILES/SUPVR DEV CLASS 08/30/89 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE . POST $0.00 09/07/89 wo 53 54 55 56 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $129.48 R KIWANIS CLUB OF HERMOSA BEACH 00380 001-400-4101-4315 00099 $40.00 08630 31117 AUG DUES/M. SCHUBACH 68/03/89 PLANNING /MEMBERSHIP $0.00 09/07/89 57 20 59 60 61 62 63 64 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $40.00 R ROBERT W.*KLEBS 02567 001-210-0000-2110 03178 $1.525.00 70565 09805 31118 WORK GUAR REFUND 70565 08/30/89 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 09/07/89 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 7� J L.4 J J J J J J aJ aJ u L 4' 4 V 4! 4.. 4Y 410 1 FINANCE-SFA340 - TIME 15:16:32 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH _...-- - -- - -- ----: DEMAND - L I ST PAGE ---- -0016- FOR 09/12/89 DATE 09/07/89 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER' •TRN -AMOUNT- •. '. -- PO :t CHK # DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 3 a 3 7 6 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,525.00 R COMMANDER MICHAEL*LAVIN 00792 001-400-2101-4316 00431 $58.40 09646 31119 REIMB BOOKS/FALL SEM 08/30/89 POLICE /TRAINING $0.00 09/07/89 11 12 14 15 16 *** VENDOR TOTAL.******************************************************************** $58.40 R LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES • 00317 001-400-1101-4317 00340 $148.00 TR256 00256 31120 CONF REG/J. ROSENBERGER TR256 08/29/89 CITY COUNCIL /CONFERENCE EXPENSE $0.00 09/07/89 17 I0 10 70 71 23 74 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $148.00 • R LEARNED LUMBER 00167 001-400-2201-4309 00729 $460.95 256090 08325 31121 WOOD PLANKS/FIRE DEPT 56090 08/16/89 FIRE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $460.95 09/07/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $460.95 76 27 28 29 30 31 32 R LEWIS PUBLISHERS, INC. 02965 001-400-4202-4305 00409 $52.50 605634 08883 31122 PUBLICATIONS/PUBLIC WORK 05634 07/31/89 PUB WKS ADMIN /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $49.95 09/07/89 33 34 30 37 33 39 40 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $52.50 R LOS ANGELES CO. ASSESSOR 02769 105-202-0000--2020 00080 $220.00 1680A 09453 31123 PARCEL CHANGE REPORT 1680A 06/13/89 /ACCOUNTS PAYABLE $0.00 09/07/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $220.00 r: 41 42 43 04r 15 R LOUIS THE TAILOR, INC. 00079 001-400-2101-4187 00275 $397:78 00834 31124 MISC CHGS/AUG 89 08/31/89 POLICE /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE $0.00 09/06/89 46 47 .10 417 50 51 52 53 54 55 5C *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $397.78 R MAIN ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. 00426 001-400-4204-4309 01410 $355.93 MISC CHCS/AUG 89 48/31/89 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 57 50 50 6C 00835 31125 $0.00 09/06/89 61 62 63 64 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** • $355.93 R MANHATTAN FORD MISC CHCS/AUG 89 65 66 67 60 00605 001-400-6101-4311 00191 $5.18 08/31/89 PARKS /AUTO MAINTENANCE 00837 31126 $0.00 09/06/89 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 15:16:32 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 09/12/89 PAGE '0017 DATE 09/07/89 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER- TRN 8 ---------AMOUNT------INV/REF--- — PO # CHK # '__ DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROD # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL*********************************•******************•it*******•********* 35.18 R MANTEK 01943 001-400-4204-4309 01415 3113.86 30-09360 09426 31127 MAINT MATERIALS/BLDG MAI 09360 08/22/89 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $109.27 09/07/89 s 17 R MANTEK 01943 105-400-2601-4309 00522 3113.86 30-09360 09426 31127 MAINT MATERIALS/ST LITES 09360 08/22/89 STREET LIGHTING /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 3109.27 09/07/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 3227.72 R " MARKON COMPUTER SCIENCE, INC. 02985 001-400-1206-4201 00610 3984.99 7201 00072 31128 PRINTER MAINT/OCT—DEC 89 7201 08/26/89 DATA PROCESSING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 3984.99 80.00 09/06/89 R MERCURY AIR GROUP 02537 001-141-0000-1401 00055 34,538.85 68088 09444 31129 GASOLINE/CITY YARD 68088 08/22/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** /GASOLINE INVENTORY 30.00 09/07/89 84,538.85 • R MOBIL OIL CREDIT CORPORATION . 00388 001-400-2101-4310 00198 815.53 v MISC CHCS/JUL 89 07/31/89 POLICE /MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $15.53 1/ v • 00763 31130 50.00 09/06/89 74 76 27 28_ 2G 31 32 33 34 37 1.i 36 37 3]rP L 1 41 4: , 43 44 4s 4., R MONARCH BROOM 00084 001-400-3103-4309 00882 8894.60 00838 31131 MISC CHCS/AUG 89 08/31/89 ST MAINTENANCE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 50.00 09/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** • 3894. 60 R NAIL SALON03034 001-210-0000-2110 03175 8250.00 78177 01780 31132 TEMP BANNER REFUND 78177 • 08/30/89 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE 30.00 09/07/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 1 $50.00 49 57 53 45 40 R NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOC 00399 001-400-2201-4316 00198 8369.65 FC56548/235647 08327 31133 PUBLICATIONS/FIRE 35647 08/26/89 FIRE /TRAINING 3397.09 09/07/89 63 64 rs CA 71 72 73 74 76 7� 1 'FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 15:16:32 PAY VENDOR NAME -. DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND -LIST PAGE -0018 FOR 09/12/89 DATE 09/07/89 --VND # ----ACCOUNT-NUMBER-TRN'# AMOUNT------INV/REF-" PO # '" ""CHK "# DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $369.65 * * * R OCHOA & SILLAS 00095 001-400-1131-4201 00510 $50.00 60-0328 09117 31134 LEGAL SERV/JULY89 _ -0328 07/25/89 CITY ATTORNEY /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 09/07/89 VENDOR TOTAL .* ****************************************************************** $50.00 D i\ 2 3 6 7 6 f0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 70 R OLGUIN-RUTHERFORD • 01917 001-210-0000-2110 03183 $375.00 78570 09810 31135 WORK GUAR REFUND 78570 08/30/89 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 09/07/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $375.00 R OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & VOSE 02892 001-400-1131-4201 00511 $7,656.00 09118 31136 LEGAL SERV/JULY 89 07/31/89 CITY ATTORNEY /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 09/07/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $7,656.00 R PACE PUBLICATIONS 02549 001-400-2101-4305 01085 $179.00 09639 31137 SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL 07/13/89 POLICE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 09/07/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $179.00 R PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE 00321 001-400-2101-4304 00424 $171.62 00036 31138 COMP HOOKUPS/AVG 89 08/31/89 POLICE /TELEPHONE $0.00 09/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $171.62 M1 R PAK WEST 00519 001-400-4204-4309 01412 $44.73 00840 31139 MISC CHCS/AUG 89 08/31/89 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 09/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $44.73 R OFCR JOSEPH*PELKA MILES/SKILLS CLASS *** VENDOR TOTAL 00950 001-400-2101-4312 01024 08/30/89 POLICE $18.98 /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST 09655 31140 $0.00 09/07/89 24 25 26 27 26 29 20 3, 32 3J 34 35 36 37 30 39 411 41 42 43 44 45 4u 47 411 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 50 57 50 51. 60 61 04 $18.99 6 7 66 R PERSONAL COMPUTER CENTER 02376 110-400-3302-5402 00018 $531.44 0001-028311 08796 31141 APPLE II COLOR MONITOR 28311 08/30/89 PARKING ENF /EGUIP-MORE THAN $500 $531.43 09/07/89 69 70 7, 72 73 74 75 FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 15:16:32 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 09/12/89 PAGE'-- '0019 DATE 09/07/89 VND # ' ACCOUNT NUMBER—`TRN'# AMOUNT— —INV%REF" ' —'PO at CHK #" DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 11 2 3 6 7 8 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** * * * * * * R RON*PIZER WORK GUAR REFUND R RON*PIZER WORK GUAR REFUND VENDOR TOTAL $531.44 03024 001-210-0000-2110 03185 $1,575.00 78593 09808 31142 78593 08/30/89 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 09/07/89 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 03024 001-210-0000-2110 03186 $1,550.00 78589 09807 31142 78589 08/30/89 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 09/07/89 17 18 10 20 ******************************************************************** $3.125.00 R PMS, INC. SEM REG/ANTICH/TERRY VENDOR TOTAL 03019 , 001-400-4202-4316 00132 $114.00 09468 31143 08/31/89 PUB WKS ADMIN /TRAINING $0.00 09/07/89 $114.00 21 23 24 27 2e 27 78 20 30 31 32 R POM INCORPORATED 00223 110-400-3302-4309 00586 $1,092.24 y PARKING METER PARTS 08143 08/08/89 PARKING ENF /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 1 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,092.24 v * * * R 908143 08767 31144 *1.358.94 09/07/89 33 34 35 36 37 36 30 40 MARIA*PORTILLO 03022 001-210-0000-2110 03180 $100.00 82453 09813 31145 DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND 82453 08/30/89 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 09/07/89 VENDOR TOTAL $100. 00 41 42 43 44 .15 45 47 40 R POSTMASTER 00398 001-400-4601-4305 00727 $1,000.00 09044 3;:146 BULK MAIL POSTAGE/C. RES 08/30/89 COMM RESOURCES /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 09/07/89 40 52 5, 52 VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1, 000. 00 53 54 55 56 R PRINTMASTERS 00350 110-400-3302-4305 00604 $892.17 FORMS PRINTING/GEN SERV 20577 07/26/89 PARKING ENF /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 20577 08749 • 31147 $892.17 09/07/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** v $892.17 R RADIO SHACK 01429 001-400-1206-4309 00138 $45.91 00843 31148 MISC CHCS/AUG 89_________ L08/31/89 DATA PROCESSING /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 09/06/89 57 50 50 60 61 62 63 64 65 C667 67 68 01 70 71 72 73 74 75 J J J Jts J J 7q 1 1.J 4J U v 4) v 4) OW FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 15:16:32 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FOR 09/12/89 PAGE" -0021 DATE 09/07/89 PAY VENDOR NAME VND 0 -"ACCOUNT' NUMBER-._-TRN 4 DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP LA 1'. 23 4 6 7 5 R SAFEWAY SIGN COMPANY 00021 001-400-3104-4309 00309 $1,016.44 34488 08874 31155 STREET SIGN PARTS 34488 08/14/89 TRAFFIC SAFETY /MAINTENANCE,MATERIALS $1,016.43 09/07/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL**********************************************************•********** $2,896.17 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 R SINCLAIR PAINT CO. 01399 001-400-4204-4309 01411 $23.87 MISC CHCS/AUG 89 08/31/89 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00846 31156 $0.00 09/06/89 17 16 16 20 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $23.87 21 22 23 R .v SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY 00114 001-400-2101-4306 00690 $42.10 00847 31157 .. MISC CHGS/AUG 89 08/31/89 POLICE /PRISONER MAINTENANCE $0.00 09/06/89 R SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY 00114 001-400-4204-4309 01409 $51.17 00847 31157 MISC CHCS/AUG 89 08/31/89 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 09/06/89 R SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY 00114 001-400-4601-4308 00200 $99.48 00847 31157 MISC CHCS/AUG 89 08/31/89 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS $0.00 09/06/89 840 840 1141 *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $192.75 24 25 26 28 2: 30 3/ 32 33 35 36 37 35 30 40 R SNYDER PUBLISHING CO. - 02654 001-202-0000-2020 00960 $20.07 9004 04573 31158 PUBLICATIONS/CITY CLERK 9004 08/22/89 /ACCOUNTS PAYABLE $0.00 09/07/89 • *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $20.07 R SOFTWARE GALERIA 02652 001-400-4202-4305 00408 $71.89 11768 09445 31159 FLOPPY DISCS/PUB. WORKS 11768 08/30/89 PUB WKS ADMIN /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $71.89 09/07/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $71.69 4/ 42 43 44 43 42 47 46 49 5c 51 1E f.3 34 55 56 R SOURISSEAU SECURITY SYS, INC. • 02075 001-400-2101-4201 00435 $615.00 1319/1335 09644 31160 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION /1335 08/30/89 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 09/07/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $615.00 57 50 99 60 61 82 43 04 R SOUTH DAY HEATING 02535 001-400-4204-4309 01416 $308.16 9272 09440 31161 EMERG AIR COND. REP/GS 9272 08/16/89 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $308.16 09/07/89 65 66 67 60 49 70 71 72 73 74 75 7� J J J NJ toI on/ r FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 15:16:32 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND -LIST FOR 09/12/89 PAGE 0U2a DATE 09/07/89 ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN 4 AMOUNT--INV/REF 'PO 4 "" - CHn *$ DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R SOUTH BAY HOSPITAL 00107 001-400-2101•-4201 BLOOD ALCOHOL/EMERG SERV 08/30/89 POLICE $308.16 00434 $1,122.65 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL.******************************************************************** $1,122.65 09641 31162 $0.00 09/07/89 11 a 4 rn 17 19 r 19 20 R SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL COURT 00400 110-300-0000-3302 CITE COURT BAIL 08/31/89 29316 $270.00 /COURT FINES/PARKING 08797 31163 $0.00 09/07/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R SOUTH BAY NISSAN REPAIR MANUAL $270.00 00445 001-400-4205-4309 00393 $26.58 61171 08/30/89 EQUIP SERVICE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 21 2: 271 24 28 2e V 27 29 61171 09439 31164 $26.58 09/07/99 29 30 46 31 32 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R R R R P. R SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA .EDISON CO. 00159 08/31/89 ELEC BILLS/AUG 89 $26.59 001-400-3101-4303 00053 MEDIANS $62.65 /UTILITIES 00752 31165 $0.00 09/06/89 3:! 34 4 33 38 37 30 611 30 ._ 4d SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. 00159 08/31/89 ELEC BILLS/AUG 89 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELEC BILLS/AUG 89 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. ELEC BILLS/AUG 89 CO. 00159 08/31/89 001-400-3104-4303 00026 TRAFFIC SAFETY 001-400-4204-4303 00330 BLDG MAINT $569.04 /UTILITIES 00752 31165 $0.00 09/06/89 $6,418.94 /UTILITIES 41 42 43 44 00752 31165 $0.00 09/06/89 45 46 47 48 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. ELEC BILLS/AUG 89 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. ELEC BILLS/AUG 89 00159 001-400-6101-4303 08/31/89 PARKS 00159 08/31/89 00159 08/31/89 00266 $1.321.43 /UTILITIES 00752 31165 $0.00 09/06/89 49 50 51 52 105-400-2601-4303 00203 STREET LIGHTING $193.30 /UTILITIES 00752 31165 $0.00 09/06/89 53 54 55 59 160-400-3102-4303 00112 $30.54 SEWER/ST DRAIN /UTILITIES 00752 : 31165 $0.00 09/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $8,595.90 R SOUTHERN RURAL DEVELOPMENT CTR PUBLICATIONS/INSURANCE 1099 02990 705-400-1209-4316 00013 $23.12 08/15/89 LIABILITY INS /TRAINING 1099 08299 31166 $20.00 09/07/89 37 50 89 80 01 62 63 e4 1•, GO 67 69 69 70 71 72 73 4 5 757 42 Not V J w w 4 iD FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 15:16:32 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROD # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND"GIST FOR 09/12/89 —PAGE— 002 4 DATE 09/07/89 __ VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER —" TRN W AMOUNT—"— INV/REF._--' PO #- --CHK # *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $23.12 R SPARKLETTS DRINKING WATER CORP 00146 001-400-4601-4305 00725 $30.20 WATER COOLER RENT/JUL 89 73985 07/31/89 COMM RESOURCES /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 73985 00033 $0.00 31167 09/06/89 2 3 4 0 7 e e to 11 12 is 14 15 1e *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R SPECIALTY MAINTENANCE CO • SWEEPING SERV/AUG 89 2408 R ., SPECIALTY MAINTENANCE CO SWEEPING SERV/AUG 89 2408 $30.20 00115 001-400-3103-4201 00236 08/31/89 ST MAINTENANCE $2,705.00 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 2408 00029 31168 $0.00 09/06/89 17 18 19 70 21 22 23 24 00115 110-400-3301-4201 00226 $3.695.00 08/31/89 VEH PKG DIST /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 2408 00029 31168 $0.00 09/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $6, 400. 00 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 R SUMMER COMPANY 02989 001-400-3103-4309 00884 $242.82 89814 09435 31169 HEAVY—DUTY SIDEWALK CLNR 89814 08/14/89 ST MAINTENANCE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $242.82 09/07/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $242.82 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 R TODD PIPE & SUPPLY 00124 001-400-6101-4309 00735 $376.91 00857 31170 MISC CHCS/AUG 89 08/31/89 PARKS /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 09/06/89 R TODD PIPE & SUPPLY 00124 160-400-3102-4309 00401 $41.43 00857 31170 MISC CHCS/AVG 89 08/31/89 SEWER/ST DRAIN /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 09/06/89 41 42 43 44 45 4e 47 48 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $418.34 49 50 51 52 R TORRANCE NISSAN 00125 170-400-2103-4201 00030 $1.200.00 00060 31171 CAR RENTAL/SEP—OCT 89 08/18/89 SPEC INVESTGTNS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 09/06/89 53 54 55 56 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,200.00 R UARCO, INCORPORATED 00126 110-400-3302-4305 00605 $5.375.96 808350 08757 31172 PARKING NOTICE MAILERS 08350 08/11/89 PARKING ENF /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $4,933.09 09/07/89 57 58 59 CO 61 62 63 04 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** VERNON PAVING COMPANY ASPHALT/SEWER REPAIRS *5.375.96 65 66 67 66 00019 160-400-3102-4201 00016 $662.42 3748 09442 31173 3748 07/28/89 SEWER/ST DRAIN /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 09/07/89 89 70 7, 72 73 74 75 7� J I J J J ✓ .J .J Nal • FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 15:16:32 .CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST PA.^,r. 004 FOR 09/12/89 DATE 09/07/,0c - PAY VENDOR NAME VND df ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # 'AMOUNT INV/REF P7 3 DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EDP R VERNON PAVING COMPANY 00019 160-400-3102-4309 00400 $159.49 00360 31172 MISC CHOS/AUG 89 08/31/89 SEWER/ST DRAIN /MAINTENANCE 1ATERIALS 30.00 09/04JG? *r VENDOR TOTAL **********************4if#?F•KiF#•1F#•#•****#'.v#ii ll,'F****••:FltihiFdi•1F****iFii•]Fi'.i'**ii?i•Y•tt 1.821.91 R T.M.*WEBB 01055 001-400-2401-4201 00203 $85.00 BEE REMOVAL 8613 08/14/89 ANIMAL CONTROL /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL***••**************************************•***•************************ $85. 00 8613 08781 385. 00 31174 09/07/69 R J. F. *WEBER. CONSULTANT 00134 001-400-1202-4201 00173 $495.00 09234 31175 AVD SER/SOUTHWEST TOWING 08/28/89 FINANCE ADMIN /CONTRACT SERVICE_/PRIVAT $0.00 09/07/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL ************•**** H *****•******••***•*********************************** $495.00 R WESTERN HIGHWAY PRODUCTS 00131 001-400-3104-4309 00307 $48.93 160069 09409 31176 BIKEPATH SIGNS 60069 08/16/89 TRAFFIC SAFETY /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $46.01 09107/2S' *** VENDOR TOTAL ********ata••***** *********•tr•i********•n***********************:******** 348. 93 R CHARLES*WHITE 03028 110-300-0000-3302 29317 $28.00 825337 09233 31177 CITE PMT REFUND 25337 08/30/89 /COURT FINES/PARKING 30.00 09/07/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL **;<•x*• • **a•nor***********ar•u•*•u**#******* *********t•***********•• ******** 328. 00 R SALLY A. *WHITE 00140 001-400-4102-4201 00221 $178.50 08638 31178 " SEC SERV/AUG 15.89 08/31/89 PLANNING COMM /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 40.00 09/07/89 .11 $178.50 R STEVE*WISNIEWSKI 01364 001-400-2101-4316 00432 $55.40 09638 ' 31179 MON EXP/AUG, 89 08/31/89 POLICE /TRAINING 30.00 09/07/89 $55.40 101 44) Ari ..moi • **k VENDOR TOTAL********************************•I**********************4l'*•*********** *** VENDOR TOTAL*****a:**************•n******4***************is*i:****•xi****•r******•*et*•tt** R XEROX CORPORATION 00135 001-400-1208-4201 00580 $17.51 21736252 00764 31180 EXCESS METER USE/JUL 89 36252 08/07/89 GEN APPROP /CONTRACT'SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 09/06/89 7, 4,0 7. I, '0 FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 15:16:32 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R R R R R R R XEROX CORPORATION LEASE PMT/AUG 89 XEROX CORPORATION LEASE PMT/AUG 89 XEROX CORPORATION LEASE PMT/AUG 89 • •••• •••• ten: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ' DEMAND -LIST FOR 09/12/89 ••.• I ...P., PAGE 0025 DATE 09/07/89 VND 8 ACCOUNT NUMBER -TRN —mom"- -INV/REF PO 4. CHK 4 DATE INVC PROJ ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP I.' 00135 001-400-1208-6900 00175 $321.08 42485 08/02/89 GEN APPROP /LEASE PAYMENTS • 00135 001-400-1208-6900 00176 $943.72 41994 08/02/89 GEN APPROP /LEASE PAYMENTS 42484 XEROX CORPORATION LEASE PMT/AUG 89 42481 's XEROX CORPORATION LEASE PMT/AUG 89 XEROX CORPORATION LEASE PMT/AUG 89 XEROX CORPORATION LEASE PMT/AUG 89 00135 001-400-1208-6900 00177 08/02/89 GEN APPROP 00135 001-400-2201-6900 00088 08/02/89 FIRE 00135 42482 08/02/89 $238. 16 /LEASE PAYMENTS 522842485 00049 31180 _ $0.00 09/06/89 522841994 00048 31120 $0.00 09/06/09 522842484 00050 31180 $0.00 09/06/09 $47. 62 /LEASE PAYMENTS 522842481 00053 31100 $0.00 09/06/89 11 12 3 14 70 22 23 24 001-400-2401-6900 00043 ANIMAL CONTROL /LEASE 00135 001-400-4601-6900 00044 42483 OB/02/89 COMM RESOURCES /LEASE $56.15 522842482 00051 31180 PAYMENTS $0.00 09/06/09 $189.21 522842483 00052 31180 PAYMENTS . $0.00 09/06/89 27 2t. 31 00135 42482 08/02/89 110-400-3302-6900 00128 $114.00 PARKING ENF /LEASE PAYMENTS 522842482 00051 31180 $0.00 09/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $1,927.45 37 32 3. 35 37 33 35 *** PAY CODE TOTAL ****************************************************************** • . • *** TOTAL WARRANTS ****************************************************************** $151. 276.91 $177, 373. 72 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE DEMANDS OR CLAIMS COVERED BY THE WARRANTS LISTED ON GES.4704..SNCLUSIVE OF THE - WARRANT REGISTER FOR RE ACCURATE AND DS ARE AVAILABLE FOR P YMENT THEREOF: FINANCE AD INISTRATOR DATE q/1/11 41 42 43-1 44 48 49 49 50 52 53 54 55 .1 36 57 35 52 60 61 62 63 64 69 29 770, 72 73 77: 7 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE 89-6 September 5, 1989 Regular Meeting of September 12, 1989 LOCATION: NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE "MULTI -USE CORRIDOR": THE RESIDENTIAL AND VACANT PROPERTY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 21ST STREET 115 - 290 FEET WEST OF P.C.H. AND A PORTION OF THE ABANDONED ST. MICHAELS HOSPITAL SITE AT 1845 P.C.H. (SEE ATTACHED MAP) PURPOSE: ZONE CHANGES AS FOLLOWS: FROM C-3 TO SPECIFIC PLAN AREA NO. 5 FOR AREA NW -1, THE NORTH SIDE OF 21ST STREET, 115 TO 220 FEET WEST OF P.C.H. FROM R-1 TO R -1A FOR AREA NW -2, THE NORTH SIDE OF 21ST STREET, 220 TO 290 FEET WEST OF P.C.H. FROM C-3 TO R-3 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. INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation The Planning Commission and staff recommend rezoning Area NW -1 from C-3 to Specific Plan Area No. 5, Area NW -2 from R-1 to R -1A, and Area NW -3 from C-3 to R-3. The Specific Plan Area for Area NW -1 was recommended by the Planning Commission for R-2 zoning standards with a density limit of 18 units per acre, a lot coverage maximum of 55%, and a minimum of 3 parking spaces per unit. Staff originally recommended and continues to recommend a lot coverage maximum of 40%. Background The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on August 1, 1989, and recommendedto the City Council that these areas be rezoned as noted above. The Planning Commission and City Council originally studied these areas as part of the General Plan Amendments for the Multi -Use 1 6 ev ort raft Corridor. Subject area NW -1 was General Plan amended from Multi -Use Corridor to Medium Density Residential and Area NW -2 was amended from MUC to Low Density Residential by a vote of 3-1 (Rosenberger opposed, Simpson abstained). Area NW -3 was amended from MUC to High Density Residential by a vote of 4-0 (Simpson abstained) . This is the second of three 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 Rezoning the subject areas will bring the Zoning Map into consistency with the recently amended General Plan Map. Further analysis is provided in the attached Planning Commission staff report of August 1, 1989. In regards to the lot coverage requirement for Specific Plan Area No. 5, staff believes that its recommendation of 40%, although significantly lower than the normal maximum of 65%, is appropriate in this case because of the size of the combined lots. The lower lot coverage is necessary to control the bulk of the project in order to ensure an appearance consistent with the density of the SPA and consistent with the density envisioned by the City Council when the General Plan was amended for this location. The projects in the Specific Plan Area along 1st Street have a similar density, and are being proposed with lot coverages of less than 40%. CONCUR: Michael'Schubach Planning Director in City Manager Attachments 1. Proposed ordinance with maps 2. PC Resolution No. 89-55 3. PC Staff Report of 7/24/89 4. Excerpt from P.C. Minutes of 8/1/89 5. Excerpt from C.C. Minutes, 5/3/89 6. Public Notice Affidavit 2 Ken Robertson Associate Planner a/ccrzc6 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 - 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 August 1, 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, and 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 the areas NW -1, 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. Rezoning area NW -2 from R-1 to R -1A will carry out the stated recommendations of the City Council to allow development at the high end of the Low Density range when they amended the General Plan from Multi -Use Corridor t� 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 of forty percent (407x), 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-- 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 E. The rezonings will result in a development character for the subject areas which is appropriate for 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 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. 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 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 forty percent (46%I. 35rtb (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 1 2 3 4 5 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. SECTION 2. Rezone the area on the north side of 21st Street, 220 to 290 feet west of Pacific Coast Highway (Area NW -2) from R-1 to R -1A legally described as follows: - lots 23 and 24, Hermosa View Tract No. 1 SECTION 3. 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 R-3, legally described as follows - Lot 19 2nd Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract 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 of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY T/persspa6 R-3 C-3 (tclEsT' ti R -I HILLCREST R -I R -I DRIVE R -I 1. BORDEN 'AVE. PACIFIC • • R -I COAST AMA NW -I: C-3 TO SPAT • AS EArtW•z R-1 TO R -1A1 SPRINGFIELD R -I NW St. Address Lot 24 St. -21 St. Size SS 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 NS 21st St. .2205 P.C.H. 8475 2121 P.C.H. 5750 Corner PCH -21 8050 0 739 21st St. 6860 40 737 21st St. 6860 40 731 21st St. 6860 Vacant 6860 0 Vacant 6860 ".4 COMMERCIAL ElSINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL C k Approx. Use Date Cond. Const. COMM. 1978 Good / 3U 1954 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. MUL'PI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three oc more units) EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY Dist. from PCH Dist. Similar Use from Adjacent Across Slope ECB■ Uses Street Current Use Zone Conform- ing? 0-90 Res/bad Comm. Steep C-3 Yes. 90-165 0 Com/E. SFR Steep .R-1 No 165-190 75 Yes SFR Steep R-1 Yes 190-215 100 Yes SFR Steep R-1 Yes 215-240 125 Yes SFR Steep R-1 Yes 240-265 150 Yes SFR Steep R-1 Yes 265-290 175 Yes SFR Steep R-1 Yes 0-113 - Res bad Mod. C-3 Yes 0-115 Com W/SFR bad Mod. C-3 No 0-115 MFR Mod. C-3 115-150 0 Com/E. MFR Mod. C-3 No 150-185 35 Yes MFR Mod. C-3 No 185-220 70 Yes MFR Mod. C-3 No 220-225 105 MFR Mod. R -1C 255-290 140 MFR Mod. R -1C • .Z 7;, j • • ST. • • ..;•• 41 92 , 92 j 94 = -I ZC>5''° /1i /I a n Vi X PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY AMA NWwa. • 21ST 19 Por ti AMA 014- • 90 AP.ANW.P3 G 1b 6t•3 �'; of IST Q. n . b COMMERCIAL C rn� SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ElMULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (three oc nioce units) EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR/SPA BOUNDARY 1 C) 9 • 0 • • • i ST, o 1 '• • 3 wolf O ID V , 20TH ST. 19 TH ST. 1• 18TH ST.. 17' • • NM Approx. Dist. Dist. Similar Use • Current Use St. Address Lot Use Date Cond. from from Adjacent Across Slope , Zone Conform - 21 St.to Pier Size Const. PCH ECB' Uses Street • ing: • SS 21th St. • 724 21st St. 13410 . 20UApt. 1968 Fair 155=245 Yes SFR/Vac. Mod. R -3C lic 718 21st St. :6705 6UApt. 1961 Fair 245-290 5FR/W. Vac. Mod. •:R -3C t1c Along P.C.H. 2001 P.C.H. 86452.. 95U4pt. 1960 Fair 0-290 Comm/S. Mod. R -3C Nc 1901 P;C.H. 4725 Com/Res. 1935 Poor 0-105 - • MFR/sur: - Mod. R -3C Nc -3C - 1845 P.C.H. 74240 Vac. 0-290 MFR/sur. 7821-FMod. :C.H. 37120 1000Apt. 1970 Fair 0-290 Yes - Mod. R -3C Nc 1.803 P:C.H. 18560 28UApt. 1961 Fair 0-290 - Yes Mod. R -3C N 1731 P.C.H. 18560. 28UApt. 1963 Fair 0-290 - Yes Mod. R -3C N '1707 P.C.H. 43500 72U Condo 1971 Fair 0-290 i- Com/S. Mod. R-3 N 1637 P.C.H. 87000 Comm. 1988 Good 0-290 - MFR/N. - Mod. C-3 - 'Ye 1559 P.C.H./ Plaza Hermosa 255000 Comm. 1987 Good 0-547 Res/N. Com/Res Mod. C-3 Ye 1437 P.C.H.. 34510 Comm. 1963 Fair 0-156 Yes Comm.. Mod. C-3 Ye • 1 2 3 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. 89-55 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 89-6, the northwest quadrant of the "Multi -Use Corridor," on August 1, 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, and 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 the areas NW -1, 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. Rezoning area NW -2 from R-1 to R -1A will carryout the stated recommendations of the City Council 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 of fifity-five percent (5574, and the balance of development standards to MEI /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 (- 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; 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 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. 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 Section 9.65-4. Permitted Uses. The permitted use shall consist of a maximum of eight (8) attached or detached residential dwelling units. -1j- 1 2 3' 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Section 9.65-5. Development Standards (a) The maximum lot coverage shall not exceed fifty-five percent (5570. (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 Resididential Zone, Article 7.2, Condominiums, Stock Cooperatives and Community Apartments, and Article 11.5 Off Street Parking. 2. Rezone the area on the north side of 21st Street, 220 to 290 feet west of Pacific Coast Highway (Area NW -2) from R-1 to R -1A legally described as follows: - lots 23 and 24, Hermosa View Tract No. 1 3. 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 R-3, legally described as follows - Lot 19 2nd Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract VOTE: AYES: Comms. Ingell,Ketz,Chmn.Rue NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm.Peirce CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 89-55 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their reg lar me ting of August 1, 1989. !� Date T/persspa6 Midhael Schubach., Secretary -/Z- Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE 89-6 July 24, 1989 Regular Meeting of August 1, 1989 LOCATION: NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE "MULTI -USE CORRIDOR": THE RESIDENTIAL AND VACANT PROPERTY ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF 21ST STREET 115-290 FEET WEST OF P.C.H. AND A PORTION OF THE ABANDONED ST. MICHAELS HOSPITAL SITE AT 1845 P.C.H PURPOSE:- REZONE THE THREE LOTS AT 731-739 21ST STREET (LOTS 20, 21, AND 22 HERMOSA VIEW TRACT NO. 1) FROM C-3 TO SPECIFIC PLAN AREA WITH A DENSITY LIMIT OF 18 UNITS PER ACRE AND MAXIMUM 407 LOT COVERAGE (AREA NW -1); REZONE THE VACANT LOTS 23 AND 24 HERMOSA VIEW TRACT NO. 1 FROM R-1 TO R -1A (AREA NW -2); REZONE A PORTION OF 1845 P.C.H. FROM C-3 TO R-3 (AREA NW -3) INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation Staff recommends rezoning Area NW -1 from C-3 to Specific Plan Area, Area NW -2 from R-1 to R -1A, and Area NE -3 from C-3 to R-3 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 area NW -1 was General Plan amended from Multi -Use Corridor to Low Density Residential, the subject area NW -2 was General Plan amended from MUC to Low Density Residential and the subject area NW -3 was General Plan Amended from MUC to High Density Residential. This is the second of three 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 AREA NW -1 - /3- 9 IS The proposal is to rezone the three lots located along the north side of 21st Street at 731, 737, and 739 21st Street (known as lots 20, 21, and 22 Hermosa View Tract No. 1) from C-3 to a residential Specific Plan Area with a density limit of 18 units/acre and a maximum 4070 lot coverage. All remaining project elements would be subject to the standards of the R-2 zone. This will bring the zoning into consistency with the recently amended General Plan and will carry out the stated objective of the City Council when they amended the General Plan for this area. It would allow the development of an 8 unit project on the subject site subject to a 4070 maximum lot coverage to minimize the bulk of the project. The project would also be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. Staff previously recommended that these lots, once the site of a proposed hotel, be designated as part of the Commercial Corridor on the "General Plan. However, since the City Council, in accordance with the recommendation of the Planning Commission, designated these lots Medium Density Residential staff is recommending a residential zoning classification for consistency with the amended General Plan. The reason staff is recommending the Council suggested SPA zoning, rather than R-2 or R -2B, is because of the Council's clear indication that maximum density permitted by an R-2 designation is too high (11 units) for this location. Also, staff believes that an R -2B designation, although it would allow only 6 units, is not appropriate for the narrow and deep lots which are connected by ownership and, therefore, could be integrated into one project. Staff agrees that a density which falls near the mid -point of the density range permitted by the Medium Density General Plan designation would be the best use of the property. The actual mid -point of the density range for Medium Density Residential (13.1 units/acre to 25 units/acre) is 19 units per acre, which is approximately one unit per 2300 square feet of land area. For the subject site it calculates out to be 8 units. STATISTICAL DATA FOR AREA NW -1 Total Land Area: 20,605 sq. ft. Number of Lots: 3 Number of Units: 4 Existing Density: 8.5 du/acre Land Use Planning Designation: MD Existing Zoning: C-3 Proposed Zoning: SPA Potential units under C-3 zone: 0 Potential units with proposed SPA: Density under the SPA Number of lots nonconforming under current zoning: Number of lots which would be nonconforming under proposed zoning 0 No. of units constructed in last: 10 years 0 8 17 units/acre 3 10-20 years 20-30 years 30+ years Lot sizes: AREA NW -2 0 0 4 6,860 sq. ft. The proposed rezoning of the two lots located along the north side of 21st Street from R-1 to R -1A will be consistent with the Low Density General Plan designation. The subject lots are the same size as those in area NW -1, 6860 square feet, and would qualify for two -unit developments under the R -1A proposal. Staff recommended Commercial and Planning Commission recommended Medium Density Residential for these lots, however, the City Council General Plan amended these lots from MUC to Low Density Residential. As part of their motion to amend the General Plan the Council clearly indicated that their intent was to allow development at or near the maximum density in the Low Density range. If built with two units per lot the density would be 12.7 units per acre, just under the maximum of 13. In staff's judgement this is an appropriate density for the neighborhood given the slightly higher density to the east and the single-family character to the north and west. STATISTICAL DATA FOR AREA NW -2 Total Land Area: 13,737 sq. ft. Number of Lots: 2 Number of Units: 0 C Existing Density: 0 General Plan Designation: LD Existing Zoning: R-1 Proposed Zoning: R -1A Potential units under R-1 zone: 2 Density under R-1: 6.34 units/acre Potential units with proposed R -1A: 4 Potential density under R -1A: 12.7 units/acre Number of lots 0 nonconforming under current zoning: Number of lots which would be nonconforming under proposed zoning; 0 Lot sizes: 6860 sq. ft. AREA NW -3 The proposed rezoning of this lot from C-3 to R-3 will bring the zoning into consistency with the General Plan and make the zoning consistent with the R-3 designations to both the north and south of the subject property. The subject area represents half of the 1.7 acre South Bay Hospital District property. The other half is currently zoned R-3. The surrounding area is primarily multi -family apartments and condominiums with an average density of 68 units/acre. The site still represents a potential location for a Senior Citizen housing facility, and the R-3 zoning would be consistent with that possibility, although a Specific Plan Area zone may be necessary to accomodate a higher density. STATISTICAL DATA FOR AREA NW -3 Total Land Area: 37,155 sq. ft. Number of Lots: 1 Number of Units: vacant General Plan Designation: HD Existing Zoning: C-3 Proposed Zoning: R-3 Potential units under R-3 zoning: 27 Potential density under R-3 zoning:. 32 units/acre CONCUR: Michael Schubach Planning Director Attachments 1. Site map. 2. PC Resolution No. 89-54 3. Staff Review Minutes of 7/6/89 4. Excerpt from City Council Minutes, 5/3/89 5. Excerpt from P.C. Minutes, 4/4/89 6. Public Notice Affidavit N 4A eifitis K Robertson Associate Planner a/pcsrzc6 ZONE CHANGE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE MULTI -USE CORRIDOR AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION: (A) FROM C-3 TO SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (R-2 WITH A DENSITY LIMIT OF 18 UMTS AN ACRE AND 40 PERCENT MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE) FOR THE NORTH SIDE OF 21ST STREET, 115 TO 220 FEET WEST OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (B) FROM R-1 TO R -1A FOR THE NORTH SIDE OF 21ST STREET, 220 TO 290 FEET WEST OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (C) FROM C-3 TO R-3 FOR THE VACANT PROPERTY ON THE WEST SIDE OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY ACROSS FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH 19TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 24, 1989. Staff recommended rezoning area NW -1 from C-3 to Specific Plan Area; Area NW -2 from R-1 to R -1A; and Area NW -3 from C-3 to R-3. P.C. Minutes 8/1/89 _ _-_ -syr The Planning Commission and City Council originally studied these areas as part of the general plan amendments .for the multi -use corridor. The subject area NW -1 was general plan amended from multi-u`se corridor to low density residential; the subject area NW -2 was general plan amended from MUC to low density residential; and the subject area NW -3 was general plan amended from MUC to high density residential. This is the second of three • 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. AREA NW -1 The proposal is to rezone the three lots located along the north side of 21 Street at 731, 737, and 7.39 21st Street (known as Lots 20, 21, and 22 Hermosa View Tract No. 1) from C-3 to a residential specific plan area with a density limit of 18 units per acrea and a maximum 40 percent lot coverage. All remaining project elements would be subject to the standards of the R-2 zone. This will bring the zoning into consistency with the recently amended general plan and will carry out the stated objective of the City Council when they amended the general plan for this area. It would allow the development of an eight -unit project on the subject site, subject to a 40 percent maximum lot coverage to minimize the bulk of the project. The project would also be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. Staff previously recommended that these lots, once the site of a proposed hotel, be designated as part of the commercial corridor on the general plan. However, since the City Council, in accordance with the recommendation of the Planning Commission, designated these lots medium density residential, staff is recommending. a residential zoning classification for consistency with the amended general plan. The reason staff is recommending the City -suggested SPA zoning, rather than R-2 or R -2B, is because of the Council's clear indication that maximum density permitted by an R-2 designation is too high (11 units) for this location. Also, staff believes that an R -2B designation, although it would allow only six units, is not appropriate for the narrow and deep lots which are connected by ownership and, therefore, could be integrated into one project. Staff agrees that a density which falls near the mid -point of the density range permitted by the medium density general plan designation would be the best use of the property. The actual mid -point of the density range for medium density residential (13.1 units per acre to 25 units per acre) is 19 units per acre, which is approximately one unit per 2300 square feet of land area. For the subject site it calculates out to be eight units. The total land area for Area NW -1 is 20,605 square feet. There are three lots with four units. The existing density is 8.5 dwelling units per acre. The land use planning designation is medium density. The existing zoning is C-3 with a proposed zoning of specific plan area. There are no potential units under the C-3 zone; however there are eight potential units with the proposed SPA. Density under the SPA would be 17 units per acre. There are three nonconforming lots under the current zoning. No lots would be nonconforming under the proposed zoning. All of the units were constructed over 40 years ago. The lot sizes are 6860 square feet. -I? • P.C. Minutes•8/1/89 c Chmn. Rue favored recommending three parking spaces per unit in the specific plan area. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. •Rue, explained the proposed development standards for the specific plan area: a maximum of eight units, lot coverage of 40 percent, and all other standards of development shall be governed by the zoning ordinance, Article 5, R-2, two-family residential. He noted that it could also be recommended that there be three parking spaces per unit. Public Hearing opened at 9:45 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Robert Collins, 2025 Springfield Avenue, also favored three parking spaces per unit. He noted that his street gets a lot ofoverflow parking from surrounding areas. He said that the parking in his area will be worsened by additional units. He felt that people should be required to park in their garages instead of using them as storage. He said that the garage parking rule should be enforced. He suggested allowing additional street parking on 21st Street to ease the parking problems in the area. . Franklin Lawson, 728 24th Street, noted concern over density in his area and the parking problems, especially on 21st Street. He expressed concern over traffic. He was concerned that a project would block his view; therefore, he was interested in the height limit. Chmn. Rue stated that the maximum height will be 30 feet, as allowed by the R-2 standards. He stated that Mr. Lawson could go to the Building Department for information on how the height is measured. Mr. Lawson noted concern over how the rear units will be accessed, noting that the lots are very deep. He expressed interest in the plans for any proposed project. Chmn. Rue stated that the Planning Commission will review the specific project at the appropriate time. AREA NW -2 The proposed rezoning of the two lots located along the north side of 21st Street from R- 1 to R -1A will be consistent with the low density general plan designation... The subject lots are the same size as those in Area NW -1, 6860 square feet, and would qualify for two -unit developments under the R -1A proposal. Staff recommended commercial, and the Planning Commission recommended medium density residential for these lots; however, the City Council general plan amended these lots from MUC to low density residential. As part of their motion to amend the general plan, the Council clearly indicated that their intent was to allow development at or near the maximum density in the low density range. If built with two units per lot, the density would be 12.7 units per acre, just under the maximum of 13. In staff's judgment this is an appropriate density for the neighborhood, given the slightly higher density to the east and the single-family character to the north and west. • Total land area for Area NW -2 is 13,737 square feet. There are two lots with no units and no density. The general plan designation is low density, with an existing zoning of R- 1. Proposed zoning is R -IA. There are two potential units under R-1 zoning; 6.34 units per acre are possible under R-1 zoning. There are four potential units with R -1A zoning; with a potential density of 12.7 units per acre under R -IA. No lots are now — 2o-- P.C. Minutes•8/1/89 .y±ivis: •• • ._ .:_:K..is`•id.Li:4c i± £ii4 C nonconforming, nor would any be nonconforming under the proposed zoning. The lot size is 6860 square feet. Franklin Lawson, 728 24th Street, noted concern over his view and the potential loss of the view. He also noted concern over the access to the rear units. He questioned. whether there would be a public.hearing to address a potential project. Mr. Schubach stated that a two -unit development would require a public hearing if the units are to be sold separately. He addressed the issue of view loss, stating that the City at the current time has no ordinance to protect views. He said that the maximum height in the R -1A zone is 25 feet. He stated that the access will be from 21st Street, probably a driveway running to the rear unit.- Roberta nit.-Roberta Farrell, 732 24th Street, asked why the City cannot protect her view, stating that that_ is the reason she moved there. She said she has a vested interest in the property. .. Chmn. Rue stated that interested citizens can go to the City Council meeting to request consideration of adoption of a view ordinance. Robert Collins, 2025 Springfield Avenue, asked whether the Planning Commission looks at an area in general before taking action on specific portions. He suggested that the lots remain R-1 because 24th Street and 21st Street are almost entirely single-family houses. He noted concern over density and problems in the area. Virgil Daggi, 17645 Palora Street, Encino, stated that across the street from Lots 23 and 24 is dense apartment housing. There is a large vacant R-1 lot to the west of Lot 24. These lots are not impacting any R-1, and he therefore felt that the. current zoning on Lots 23 and 24 is not feasible. He felt that the zoning should be higher than R-1. Larry Rudy, 732 24th Street, noted concern over density in this area. He felt that since 21st Street is so crowded and narrow with parking on only one side, the density should be kept as low as possible. He also noted concern over the height which could impact his view. He noted concern that the new building could abut his backyard. Jim Fucile, 1226 6th Street, Manhattan Beach, owner of the lots in question, addressed the Commission. He stated that he could understand the concerns of the neighbors; however, there is no guarantee that views can be preserved. He stated that people should be able to build on their property so long as they are in compliance with the City requirements. Mr. Fucile discussed the parking problem on Springfield, stating that that is an older section of the City, and most of the houses have only one -car garages; therefore, there are parking problems caused by the existing residents, not from outsiders. Mr. Fucile, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, discussed his feelings on the specific plan area, stating that he would then have to go through another public hearing at an expense to him. He continued by discussing past proposals for the property. Mr. Schubach stated that it is not necessary to have another public hearing for the specific plan area as was required for the precise plan. He continued by explaining what the requirements are. – Z / — P.C. Minutes•8/1/89 lS�ri�CL.srwa; AREA NW -3 • The proposed rezoning 6f dais lot from C-3 to R-3 will bring the zoning into consistency with the general plan and make the zoning consistent with the R-3 designations to both the north and south of the subject property. The subject area represents half of the 1.7 acre South Bay Hospital District property. The other half is currently zoned R-3. The surrounding area is primarily multi -family apartments and condominiums with an average density of 68 units per acre. The site still represents a potential location for a senior citizen housing facility, and the R-3 zoning would be consistent with that possibility, although a specific plan area zone may be necessary to accommodate a higher density. The total land area is 37,155 square feet. There is currently one vacant lot with a general plan designation of high density, with existing zoning of C-3. The proposed zoning is R-3. There is a potential of 27 potential units under R-3 zoning, with a potential density of 32 units per acre.. Chmn. Rue asked whether the City can encourage senior citizen housing on this site. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative, stating that at the time of the general plan update, the issue of senior housing will be addressed. He noted that senior citizen housing does not create the impact of other types of housing because they are smaller units, the people do not drive during peak hours as do workers, and the number of people per unit is generally lower. Chris Nicholson, 809 18th Street, noted that the site is currently vacant. He felt that since half of the site is already zoned R-3 and the other portion is to be zoned R-3, it would be more desirable to develop the parcel as one large project. He favored senior citizen housing; however, he noted concern over parking and. traffic problems in the area. He also noted concern over the potential loss of his view. He felt that there should be a view ordinance in the City. He stated that he would like to be notified when plans are submitted for this site. Public Hearing closed at 10:25 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Chmn. Rue discussed Area NW -1, stating that the SPA is recommending 40 percent lot coverage. He felt that from a design standpoint, 40 percent lot coverage would be onerous. He felt that the area allows for more than two units. He favored.the proposed eight units. He suggested a lot coverage of 55 percent, noting that plans must be reviewed on the SPA. He also favored requiring three parking spaces per unit. Comm. Ingell noted that other projects in the City are allowed a lot coverage of 65 percent; therefore, he felt that the 40 percent in this case is not reasonable. He also favored three parking spaces per unit. Comm. Ketz favored three parking spaces per unit. She agreed that 55 percent lot coverage would be appropriate, especially since the Commission will review the plans. Chmn. Rue favored future senior citizen housing for Area NW -3. Comm. Ketz agreed. • MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-55, with the modification that Area NW -1 have a lot coverage of 55 percent, and three parking spaces shall be required for each unit. — 2 Z-- -P.C. Minutes -8/1/89 .,. rt-:_ c AYES: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue NOES: None : s.. . ABSTAIN: None t ABSENT: Comm. Peirce _ ..:._.P.C. Minutes 8/1/89 _ __'.:..... •�:`3.�N,✓trr -.i` 17th Street to 18th Street Stra Vote: To approve staff recommendation. Motio Sheldon, second Rosenberger. AYES - reighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson, Mayor 'lliams NOES - N. , e • Proposed S. aw Vote: 18th Street to 19 St - General Plan design': tion Medium Density. Motion Willi. ms - dies for lack of send.. 18th Street to 19th Street Straw Vote: T. approve staff rec. endation. Motion Sheldon, econd Rosenberg -f. AYES - Rosenberger, Sheldon, Sison NOES - Creighton,. , ayor Willi - s Proposed Straw Vote. Plan designation to Motion Williams, seco AYES - Creighton, Mayo NOES - Rosenberger, Si 19th reet to 20th St - General diu ensity. eighton. illiams on, Sh'elon 19th Street to 20th ree Straw Vote: To apove st-,f recommendation. Motion Sheldon, s=.'ond Rose `k•erger. AYES - Rosenberg , Sheldon, .impson NOES - Creighton", Mayor Willi s 20th Street 21st Street Straw Vote: General Plan Design. ion Medium Density. Motion Cre'•%hton, second Williams. AYES - Cr ghton, Sheldon, Simpson Mayor Williams NOES - senber.ger 21st reet to 24th Street Stra Vote: To approve staff recommen-.tion. Mo -.n Creighton, second Simpson. So o'•ered. uncilmember Simpson stated that she wou abstain from he North West Area due to abstaining duri`• the Public Hearing. Action: To take the North time. Motion Creighton, second Rosenberger. noting the abstention of Simpson. 24th Street to 24th Place Straw Vote: To approve staff recommendation. Motion Sheldon, second Rosenberger. So ordered, noting the abstention of Simpson. 21st Street to 24th Street Straw Vote: Lots 24 and 23 remain out of corridor. West Quadrant a block at a So ordered, . - ... s:..,.. _Ka......:. �.�. . • Minutes 5-3-89 • Motion Creighton, second.. Williams. So ordered, noting the abstention of Simpson. Further Straw Vote: Remove 22, 21, and 20 from Commer- cial Corridor. Motion Creighton, second Williams. So ordered, noting the objection of Rosenberger and abstention of Simpson. Proposed Further Straw Vote: Lots 24, 23, 22, 21 and 20 redesignate Medium Density Residential (18 d.u. per acre). Motion Sheldon - withdrawn. • Proposed Further Straw Vote: To make these five lots Medium Density Residential. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. AYES - Creighton, Sheldon NOES - Rosenberger, Mayor Williams ABSTAIN - Simpson (Councilmember Sheldon requested that the record reflect that as a product of this motion the intent of the maker is to create an SPA and reduce dwelling units per acre.) Proposed Further Straw Vote: The area between 24th Street and 21st Street on the West side of the Highway have the corridor boundaries drawn at the back of the lots; at the Westerly extreme of the lots; abutting the Highway. Motion Creighton, second Wiliams. AYES - Creighton, Williams. NOES - Rosenberger, Sheldon ABSTAIN - Simpson Proposed Further Straw Vote: To change the .General Plan Designation on lots facing 24th Street; lots 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, and 5 and lots facing 21st Street; 24, 23, 22, 21, and 20 as Low Density. Motion Williams - dies for lack of second. A recess was called at 11:55 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 12:05 P.M. Further Straw Vote: To leave the area between 24th "Street and 21st Street rest. Motion Creighton, second Williams. So ordered, noting the abstention of Simpson. 21st Street to 16th Street Straw Vote: To approve staff recommendation on Lots 13 and 14. Motion Creighton, second Williams. So ordered, noting the abstention of Simpson. r..... _. ...... . ......�.... • • Minutes 5-3-89 • • C 1/4 Further Straw Vote: To approve staff recommendation on Lots 15 through 22. Motion Sheldon, second Williams. So ordered, noting the objection of Rosenberger and abstention of Simpson. ree o Pier Avenue Mot the aw Vote: To approve staff recommendation. n Sheldon, second Rosenberger. So order stention of Simpson. noting Council ` -tuber Simpson returned to the dai ; for the South West Are Action: T•.do this South West Area Motion Rosen erger, second Sheldon. 8th Street to Straw Vote: To Motion Sheldon, AYES - Creighton Williams NOES - None h Street pprove staff remmendation. cond Creighto osenberger,--` heldon, Simpson, Mayor b%ck by block. o ordered. Further Straw Vote: T Medium Density on 5 lot Motion Creighton, seco 6th Street to 5th S eet Straw Vote: To apv ove staf recommendation. Motion Sheldon, s and Creighk:•n. So ordered. Proposed Furth :F Action: To put the remainder of the area not deci =d tonight off unti`. the next quarterly amendment of he General Plan. Motion Cre ton - dies for lack of -cond. Final Ac on: To postpone discussion 5th Street south it next meeting. Motio heldon, second Creighton. So ord - ed. 24tStreet to 21st Street Co cilmember Simpson left th rove staff recommendation of south side of 8th Street. osenberger. So ordered. is due to th=:•revious- is area. Proposed Straw Vote: To designate Medium Density and to design developlment consistend with recently approved large tracts - 18 d.u. per acre and no more than 30 to 40% lot coverage. Motion Sheldon - dies for lack of second. Straw Vote: Lots 22, 21, and 20 be zoned Medium Density Residential; and 23 and 24 be zoned Low Density Residen- tial R -1A. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. AYES - Creighton, Sheldon, Mayor Williams NOES - Rosenberger • - zG- • �a Minutes 5-3-89, ABSTAIN - Simpson (Councilmember Sheldon requested that the record show that the motion would entail his clear feeling that the two lots; 23 and 24; should be the higher zoned low den- rsity designation called R -1A.) •(Councilmember Rosenberger requested that the record show that he is voting no because he consistently en- ocurages commercial development for those lots.) • Further Straw Vote: That the lots fronting the highway between 24th Street and 21st Street be in the Commercial Corridor. Motion Creighton, second Williams. So ordered, noting the objection of Rosenberger and abstention of Simpson. Final Straw Vote: To approve staff recommendatidn on Lots 5 through 12 on 24th Street. Motion Rosenberger, second Creighton. So ordered, noting the abstention of Simpson. CLOSED SESSION To ,eclare that the need to have a Closed Session for Perso•nel: Inte m City Attorney arose after the posting of the agen.-; and to adj• rn for that purpose. Motion C -ighton, second Rosenberger. So ordered. The Adjourne• Regular Meeting of the City Council adjourned at the hour of 12. 5 A.M. on May 4 for the purpose f a Closed Session. The meeting reconven-d at 12:55 A.M; with Closed Session. announcements from A. GENERAL PLAN RED'SIGNATION A ZONE CHANGE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY, R-2, TO GbNERAL COMMERCIAL, C-3, OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED PPROPRIATE BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR LOT 4, BLOCK 1, TRACT 851 AND THE PRECISE PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DRIVE-=�RHRU RESTAURANT AT 1107. -PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND ENV,IRONMBNTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION, with resolution for/adoption nd ordinance for .yvaiver of 'further reading a d introducti• (Straw vote at 4/25/89 meeting - 5-0.) B. This item a continued to May 9, 1 9. GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION FROM LOW DEN TY TO HIGH DEN- SITY AND' ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATIO FOR AREA 6, WEST SIDE OF PROSPECT AVENUE, APPROX. 220 F SOUTH OF ARTESIA BLVD., with resolution for adoption. (Straw vote at 4/25/89 meeting - 5-0.) This item was continued to May 9, 1989. • • -0- • Minutes 5-3-89 C C(y -°-(7 AUG 01. 1989 Z� I, the undersigned, do declare under penalty of perjury that I did on the 31st day of August , 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 a court of com- 1 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 31st day of August , 19 89 at Hermosa Beach, California. Cheryl Vargo (name) , 1 CAT. NO. NN00627 TO 1944 CA (9-84) (Individual) STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES On September 5, 1989 TICOR TITLE INSURANCE } s. before me, said State, personally appeared Cheryl Vargo the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for , personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person_ whose name 1S subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that she exe- cuted the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature L,),A 44 .-43q - OFFICIAL SEAL BEVERLY H. S. MORSE Notary Publ:a-Caiifomia LOS ANGELES COUNTY My Comm. Exp. Nov. 8, 1931 (This area for official notarial seal) i'y A'd0r/ Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission September 5, 1989 Regular Meeting of September 12, 1989 SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY 87-9 AND TEXT AMENDMENT, ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATIONS REGARDING NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends adoption of the attached ordinance. Staff Recommended Alternate The staff concurs with the Planning Commission's Recommendation but also offers an alternative ordinance (attached) which is discussed below under Analysis. Background On May 12, 1987, the City Council adopted an interim ordinance concerning nonconforming uses and/or structures which were demolished more than 50%. The interim ordinance was effective for 45 days. On June 23, 1987, the Staff submitted an alternative emergency ordinance to City Council and recommended that this ordinance be a model for the permanent ordinance. The City Council referred this ordinance to the Planning Commission for study. At the October 6, 1987 Planning Commission Commission requested that this matter be comparison chart be provided. On March 1, 1988, the Planning Commission on request by staff to study this matter downzoning that was occurring. On January 31, 1989, the City Council requested that zoning standards be studied in relation to nonconforming structures. At their April 25, 1989 meeting, the City Council discussed the proposed ordinance and referred the matter back to the Planning Commission for consideration of the nineteen issues raised at the public hearing. At the June 20, 1989 Planning Commission meeting, the matter was continued to allow staff more time to respond to the nineteen issues noted in the attached analysis (see P.C. staff report) meeting, the Planning continued and that a continued this matter more in light of the 1 At the August 1, 1989 meeting the Planning Commission approved a resolution recommending amending the zoning ordinance concerning nonconforming structures and uses. Analysis Essentially the Planning Commission's recommended ordinance and the Staff's version are the same; the significant difference is regarding expansion of nonconforming residential uses. Staff is recommending allowing a 50% of replacement cost expansion, and the Planning Commission is recommending only 10%. Staff has no opposition to being more restrictive with nonconforming uses, and had originally recommended no expansion whatsoever. However, since there was some concern about being too restrictive regarding nonconforming uses, the staff believes that there should be a recommended alternative. For further analysis, refer to the attached Planning Commission Staff report. Attachments 1. Planning Commission recommended ordinance. 2. Staff recommended ordinance. 3. P.C. Resolution No. 89-59 4. Staff report with comparison chart. 5. Planning commission minutes 6. Public notice plandoc/pcsr905 Michael Schubach Planning Director STAFF RECONNENDATION , t 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. 09 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ARTICLE 13, GENERAL PROVISION, CONDITIONS AND EXCEPTIONS - NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS AND USES, AND RELATED ORDINANCES AND ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a pub'lic hearing on August 12, 1989' to receive oral and written testimony on this matter and made the following Findings: A. Sections 1300-1310 of the Hermosa leach Zoning Code sets out conditions and exceptions for nonconforming buildings and uses; L. The nonconforming sections referenced above have been interpreted to allow for the demolition of significant portions of structures while retaining the nonconforming status of the building; C. Allowing reconstruction of a building in a manner which allows the property to retain its nonconforming status while circumventing existing planning and development regulations leads to continuation of the nonconformity for the life of the new reconstructed building which compounds any current parking, density, safety and other environmental problems caused by continuation of such noconformities; D. Current sections of said Article 13 are no longer valid as a result of past amendments to the ordinance; E. The existing ordinance has no provisions for historically important structures which may be nonconforming as to use and/or structure; F. The existing ordinance is in need of revising for clarity and consistency; 1 2 3 4 5 •6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby ordain the following amendments to Article 13 of the Zoning Ordinance: SECTION 1. Add "Section 13-0. General Goals. The City Council recognizes that nonconformity exists throughout the City as a result of zone changes, and amendments to the zoning ordinance. In recognition of those changes, the City Council goals in the adoption of this ordinance are as follows: A. To allowthose uses, and/or structures in sound condition which meet certain standards as stated within this article to be maintained. B. To encourage restoration and maintenance of those residential buildings of fine quality which enhance and maintain the long .established historical character of Hermosa Beach. C. To encourage the use of this ordinance to meet the current and future minimum standards of parking, open space, setbacks, height, and all other such similar standards. D. To prohibit the remodeling and expansion of such buildings which by current standards are considered either exceptionally undersized, dilapidated, significantly overdense, or do not meet even the minimal standards of parking, and. setback." SECTION 2. Amend Section number 1300 to number 13-1. SECTION 3. Amend Section 1301 by deleting completely "Exception f 1", changing the Section number to 13-2, and adding the following: "Enlargement of windows and door openings in interior and exterior walls are considered minor and not �• �� a structural alterations; repairs and/or replacement to plumbing, electrical wiring, similar work, and those required by law or as determined by the Building Director are not structural alterations." SECTION 4. Amend Section 1302 by changing the Section number to 13-3, and changing the entire text as follows: "Section 13-3. Nonconforming use of a nonconforming building. The nonconforming commercial or manufacturing use of a nonconforming commercial or manufacturing building may be continued, provided such nonconforming use shall not be expanded or enlarged nor shall any structural alteration be made except those required by law. If such nonconforming use is vacated or 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 discontinued for ninety (90) consecutive days or more, any future use of such building shall conform to the provisions of the zone in which it is located Enlargement of windows and door openings in interior and exterior walls are considered minor and not structural alterations; repairs and/or replacement to plumbing, electrical wiring, similar work, and those required by law or as determined by the Building Director are not structural alterations. A nonconforming residential use of a nonconforming residential structure may be remodeled and/or expanded when it is in compliance with the intent, purpose, standards and requirements as specified in the following: Intent and Purpose of this Section is to allow remodeling and expansion to residential structures in sound condition in a manner that does not ultimately result in significant removal of existing structures. Where a. structure is significantly damaged by dry rot, termites, or similar damage and removal of significant portions of the structure is necessary or recommended, this ordinance does not apply and expansion and/or remodeling is prohibited. All structures shall require a termite and dry rot inspection by a bonafide company, to determine the amount of structural removal, if any, that will be necessary because of damage. A. The following portions of the existing structure may be removed: (1) When adding additional stories, portions of the roof as necessary may be removed. (2) When adding to any side of a structure, walls may be removed to enlarge existing rooms, and/or to provide interior access as necessary for logical expansion of the existing structure. A maximum combination of 1070 of the existing lineal feet of exterior walls and/or floor area may be removed whether necessitated by the inspection or by the remodeling, or both. (3) Removal of any other portions of an existing structure, other than those noted in sub -sections (1) and (2) above, shall require submittal of a demolition plan for review by the Planning Commission to determine whether the proposed plan meets the intent and purpose of this Section. B. Nonconforming uses and structures may be expandedand/or remodeled to a cumulative maximum 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 of fifty percent (50%) of the replacement cost of the existing structure(s) as it existed on (effective date of ordinance) and as determined by the Building Department which shall use current Building Valuation Data provided by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBG). Interior remodeling shall be computed at 50% of the ICBG building valuation for new construction. When computing remodeled area, i.e. relocation of interior walls, fifty percent (50%) of the total area affected by the relocation of the wall shall be included in the computation. For example, if a wall between the dining room and kitchen is removed, the area counted includes fifty percent (50%) of the dining room and kitchen area together (Refer to Section 13-7(B) for example). Any garage expansion for vehicle parking shall not be included as part of the allowed fifty percent (50%) expansion as noted in this section. C. The minimum standard for expansion and/or remodeling are as follows: (1) Refer to Article 11.5 for the Parking requirements. (2) Residential uses shall not exceed a maximum density equivalent to forty-five (45) units per acre. (3) Existing structures which are nonconforming as to yards, lot coverage, open space or height may be expanded or enlarged provided the expansion or enlargement complies with the regulations of the zone in which the structure is located. Existing nonconforming sideyards may be maintained with an addition provided the sideyard is not ''more than ten (10) percent smaller than the current sideyard required." SECTION 5. Change the Section number of Section 1303 to 13-4 and revise the wording as follows: "If a nonconforming manufacturing, commercial or residential use is vacated or removed and it is succeeded by another use, it is evident that the nonconforming use was ended; it thereby immediately loses any vested right to continue. A nonconforming use may be succeeded by a use which is itself nonconforming, provided the degree of nonconformity is less intensive (e.g. requires less parking or results in fewer dwelling units). It is the intent of this section to allow for an improvement in the degree of nonconformity of a use 1 2 3 4 5 '6 . 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 6. SECTION 7. SECTION 8. SECTION 9. utilizing existing structures. It is not intended to allow the construction of new structures in violation of the provisions of this code. The Planning Commission shall make determinations as to whether a use is less intensive upon request." Change the Section number of Section 1304 to..13-5. Delete Section 1306, Board of Zoning Adjustment to Determine Conditions of Abatement. Change the Section number of 1307 to 13-6 and add the following sentence: "The International Conference of Building Officials valuation data shall be used in computing value." Amend Section 1309 by changing the title, the Section number and the text as follows: "Section 13-7. Conforming Use of a Nonconforming Structure. Intent and Purpose of this Section is to allow remodeling and expansion to nonconforming residential structures in sound condition in a manner that does not ultimately result in significant removal of existing structures. Where a structure is significantly damaged by dry rot, termites, or similar damage and removal of significant portions of the structure is necessary or recommended, this ordinance does not apply and expansion and/or remodeling is prohibited. All nonconforming structures shall require a termite and dry rot inspection by a bonafide company, to determine the amount of structural removal, if any, that will be necessary because of damage. Expansion to nonconforming manufacturing or commercial structures shall be prohibited. A. The may (1) following portions of the existing structure be removed: When adding additional stories, portions of the roof as necessary may be removed. (2) When adding to any side of a structure, walls may be removed to enlarge existing rooms, and/or to provide interior access as necessary for logical expansion of the existing structure. A maximum combination of 3070 of the existing lineal feet of exterior walls and/or floor area may be removed whether necessitated by the inspection or by the remodeling, or both. 1 2 3 4 5 -6 . 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (3) Removal of any other portions of an existing structure, other than those noted in sub -sections (1) and (2) above, shall require submittal of a demolition plan for review by the Plannipg Commission to determine whether the proposed plan meets the intent and purpose of this Section. B. Nonconforming structures may be expanded and/or remodeled to a cumulative maximum of 50% of the replacement cost of the existing structure(s) as it existed on (effective date of ordinance) and as determined by the Building Department which shall use current Building Valuation Data provided by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO). Interior remodeling shall be computed at 50% of the ICBO building valuation for new construction. When computing remodeled area, i.e. relocation of interior walls, fifty percent (50%) of the total area affected by the relocation of the wall shall be included in the computation. For example, if a wall between the dining room and kitchen is removed, the area counted includes fifty percent (50%) of the dining room and kitchen area together. Any garage expansion for vehicle parking shall not be included as part of the allowed fifty percent (50%) expansion as noted in Section 13-7(B). The Planning Commission may allow expansions greater than fifty (50) percent, but no more than one hundred percent (1007.), if it is determined that the goals, and the intent and purpose of this article and section are being met. Applicant fees for requests for expansions over fifty percent shall be set by the City Council. The following is an example of the• fifty percent (50%) valuation formula: Example 1: Expansion only Existing Dwelling Size: (X) Cost per Square Foot Total Value: 50% of. Value: Expansion Allowed: ($32,800 - $65.60) 1000 square feet $ 65.60 $ 65,600.00 $ 32,800.00 500 square feet 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 Example 2: Remodeling & Expansion Existing dwelling Unit Size (X) Cost per Square Foot: Total Value: 50% of Value: Proposed 800 Sq. Ft. Remodel (50% floor area) @$77.58 per Square Foot: Proposed 300 Sq. Ft. Expansion: Total Cost: C. The minimum standards for remodeling are as follows: (1) Refer to Article 11.5 requirements. (2) Existing structures which are nonconforming as to yards, lot coverage, open space or height may be expanded or enlarged provided the expansion or enlargement complies with the regulations of the zone in which the structure is located. Existing nonconforming sideyards may be maintained with an addition provided the sideyard is not more than ten (10) percent smaller than the current sideyard required. (3) Where existing walls are a minimum of, or more than three (3) feet from the side property line, the wall may be expanded if at least seventy-five (75) percent of the block as defined by the zoning ordinance, has the same or smaller nonconforming sideyards (excluding commercial and manufacturing uses). Measurement of sideyards shall be approximated by use of aerial photos and field inspections. Fees for such requests shall be set by the City Council." SECTION 10. Add "Section 13-8. Nonconforming Historic Buildings. A. A locally recognized historic building or structure may be substantially preserved, renovated or rebuilt subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. 1000 square feet $ 65.60 $ 65,600.00 $ 32,800.00 $ 11,g04,00 $ 19,680.00 ,�� ypQ $ 8e-ree - i (cost under 50%) expansion and/or for the parking B. In reviewing the application for the historic building or structure, the Planning Commission shall evaluate and make Findings on the following: T(1) The local historical significance of the building or structure. 2o 1 2 3 4 5 "6 . • 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 :6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 11. SECTION 12. SECTION 13. SECTION 14. SECTION 15. (2) The existing architecture. C. In approving a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission may authorize such deviations as necessary to preserve the structure and its historical significance and impose conditions of approval as deemed necessary." Delete Section 1310, Discontinuance of Nonconforming Use of Land. Amend Section 1162(b) of the Article 11.5. Off -Street Parking. As follows: For every residential building hereafter which is structurally altered to increase gross floor area, there shall be provided, permanently maintained and permanently available, two (2) parking spaces for each existing unit, including requirements for turning radius and parking standards as required by Article 11.5. During the life of a building a single addition of not more than one hundred (100) square feet may be constructed without compliance with this section, and a maximum of two hundred fifty (250) square feet may be constructed if at least one parking space is available with the same requirement as noted above for each existing unit, except that nonconforming uses require Planning Commission approval. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. The City Council shall designate the City Attorney to prepare a summary of this ordinance to be published pursuant to Government Code Section 36933(c) (1) in lieu of the full text of said ordinance. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause the summary to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach. 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 1 2 3 4 5 "6 .• 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 :6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ATTEST: APPROED AS TO FORM: P/ccornon • CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 c RESOLUTION P.C.89-59 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDATION AMENDING ARTICLE 13, GENERAL PROVISION, CONDITIONS AND EXCEPTIONS - NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS AND USES, AND RELATED ORDINANCES AND ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on June: 6, June 20 & August 1, 1989 to receive oral and written testimony on this matter and made the following Findings: A. Sections 1300-1310 of the Hermosa Beach Zoning Code sets out conditions and exceptions for nonconforming buildings and uses; B. The nonconforming sections referenced above have been interpreted to allow for the demolition of significant portions of structures while retaining the nonconforming status of the building; C. Allowing reconstruction of a building in a manner which allows the property to retain its nonconforming status while circumventing existing planning and development regulations leads to continuation of the nonconformity for the life of the new reconstructed building which compounds any current parking, density, safety and other environmental problems caused by continuation of such noconformities; D. Current sections of said Article 13 are no longer valid as a result of past amendments to the ordinance; E. The existing ordinance has no provisions for historically important structures which may be nonconforming as to use and/or structure; F. The existing ordinance is in need of revising for clarity and consistency; -23- 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby recommend adoption of the following amendments to Article 13 of the Zoning Ordinance: SECTION 1. Add "Section 13-0. General Goals. The City Council recognizes that nonconformity exists throughout the City as a result' of zone changes, and amendments to the zoning ordinance. In recognition: of those changes, the City Council goals in the adoption of this ordinance are as follows: A. To allow those uses, and/or structures in sound condition which meet certain standards as stated within this article to be maintained. B. To encourage restoration and maintenance of those residential buildings of fine quality which enhance and maintain the long established historical character of Hermosa Beach. C. To encourage the use of this ordinance to meet the current and future minimum standards of parking, open space, setbacks, height, and all other such similar standards. D. To prohibit the remodeling and expansion of such buildings which by current standards are considered either exceptionally undersized, dilapidated, significantly overdense, or do not meet even the minimal standards of parking, and setback." SECTION 2. Amend Section number 1300 to number 13-1. SECTION 3. Amend Section 1301 by deleting completely "Exception 1", changing the Section number to 13-2, and adding the following: "Enlargement of windows and door openings in interior and exterior walls are considered minor and not structural alterations; repairs and/or replacement to plumbing, electrical wiring, similar work, and those required by law or as determined by the Building Director are not structural alterations." SECTION 4. Amend Section 1302 by changing the Section number to 13-3, and changing the entire text as follows: "Section 13-3. Nonconforming use of a nonconforming building. The nonconforming commercial or manufacturing use of a nonconforming commercial or manufacturing building may be continued, provided such nonconforming use shall not be expanded or enlarged nor shall any -2f- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 c structural alteration be made except those required by law. If such nonconforming use is vacated or discontinued for ninety (90) consecutive days or more, any future use of such building shall conform to the provisions of the zone in which it is located Enlargement of windows and door openings in interior and exterior walls are considered minor and not structural alterations; repairs'and/or replacement to plumbing, electrical wiring, similar work, and those. required by law or as determined by the Building Director are not structural alterations. A nonconforming residential use of a nonconforming residential structure may be remodeled and/or expanded when it is in compliance with the intent, purpose, standards and requirements as specified in the following: Intent and Purpose of this Section is to allow remodeling and expansion to residential structures in sound condition in a manner that does not ultimately result in significant removal of existing structures. Where a structure is significantly damaged by dry rot, termites, or similar damage and removal of significant portions of the structure is necessary or recommended, this ordinance does not apply and expansion and/or remodeling is prohibited. All structures shall require a termite and dry rot inspection by a bonafide company, to determine the amount of structural removal, if any, that will be necessary because of damage. A. The following portions of the existing structure may be removed: (1) When adding additional stories, portions of the roof as necessary may be removed. (2) When adding to any side of a structure, walls may be removed to enlarge existing rooms, and/or to provide interior access as necessary for logical expansion of the existing structure. A maximum combination of 1070 of the existing lineal feet of exterior walls and/or floor area may be removed whether necessitated by the inspection or by "the remodeling, or both. (3) Removal of any other portions of an existing structure, other than those noted in sub -sections (1) and (2) above, shall require submittal of a demolition plan for review by the Planning Commission to determine whether the proposed plan meets the intent and purpose of this Section. 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. Nonconforming uses and structures may be expanded to a maximum of ten percent (107e) and/or remodeled to a cumulative maximum of fifty percent (5070) of the replacement cost of the existing structure(s) as it existed on (effective date of ordinance) and as determined by the' Building Department which shall use current Building Valuation Data provided by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO). Interior remodeling shall be computed at: 50% of the ICBO building valuation for new construction. When computing remodeled area, i.e. relocation of interior walls, fifty percent (507) of the tbtal area affected by the relocation of the wall shall be included in the computation. For example, if a wall between the dining room and kitchen is removed, the area counted includes fifty percent (507) of the dining room and kitchen area together. (Refer to Section 13-7(B) for example). Any garage expansion for vehicle parking shall not be included as part of the allowed fifty percent (507) expansion as noted in this section. C. The minimum standard for expansion and/or remodeling are as follows: (1) Refer to Article 11.5 for the Parking requirements. (2) Residential uses shall not exceed a maximum density equivalent to forty-five (45) units per acre. (3) Existing structures which are nonconforming as to yards, lot coverage, open space or height may be expanded or enlarged provided the expansion or enlargement complies with the regulations of the zone in which the structure is located. Existing nonconforming sideyards may be maintained with an addition provided the sideyard is not more than ten (10) percent smaller than the current sideyard required." SECTION 5. Change the Section number of Section 1303 to 13-4 and revise the wording as follows: "If a nonconforming manufacturing, commercial or residential use is vacated or removed and it is succeeded by another use, it is evident that the nonconforming use was ended; it thereby immediately loses any vested right to continue. A nonconforming use may be succeeded by a use which is itself nonconforming, provided the degree of nonconformity 2 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 6. SECTION 7. SECTION 8.. SECTION 9. is less intensive (e.g. requires less parking or results in fewer dwelling units). It is the intent of this section to allow for an improvement in the .degree of nonconformity of a use utilizing existing structures. It is not intended to' allow the construction of new structures in violation of the provisions of this code. The Planning Commission shall make determinations as: to whether a use is less intensive upon request." Change the Section number of Section 1304 to 13-5. Delete Section 1306, Board of Zoning Adjustment to Determine Conditions of Abatement. Change the Section number of 1307 to 13-6 and add the following sentence: "The International Conference of Building Officials valuation data shall be used in computing value." Amend Section 1309 by changing the title, the Section number and the text as follows: "Section 13-7. Conforming Use of a Nonconforming Structure. Intent and Purpose of this Section is to allow remodeling and expansion to nonconforming residential structures in sound condition in a manner that does not ultimately result in significant removal of existing structures. Where a structure is significantly damaged by dry rot, termites, or similar damage and removal of significant portions of the structure is necessary or recommended, this ordinance does not apply and expansion and/or remodeling is prohibited. All nonconforming structures shall require a termite and dry rot inspection by a bonafide company, to determine the amount of structural removal, if any, that will be necessary because of damage. Expansion to nonconforming manufacturing or commercial structures shall be prohibited. A. The -following portions of the existing structure may be removed: (1) When adding additional stories, portions of the roof as necessary may be removed. (2) When adding to any side of a structure, walls may be removed to enlarge existing rooms, and/or to provide interior access as necessary for logical expansion of the -2') 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 existing structure. A maximum combination of 30% of the existing lineal feet of exterior walls and/or floor area may be removed whether necessitated by the inspection or by the remodeling, or both. • (3) Removal of any other portions of an existing structure, other than those noted in sub -sections (1) and (2)• above, shall require submittal of a demolition plan for review by: the Planning Commission to determine whether the proposed plan meets the intent and purpose of this Section. B. Nonconforming structures may be expanded and/or remodeled to a cumulative maximum of 50% of the replacement cost of the existing structure(s) as it existed on (effective date of ordinance) and as determined by the Building Department which shall use current Building Valuation Data provided by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBG). Interior remodeling shall be computed at 50% of the ICBG building valuation for new construction. When computing remodeled area, i.e. relocation of interior walls, fifty percent (50%) of the total area affected by the relocation of the wall shall be included in the computation. For example, if a wall between the dining room and kitchen is removed, the area counted includes fifty percent (50%) of the dining room and kitchen area together. Any garage expansion for vehicle parking shall not be included as part of the allowed fifty percent (50%) expansion as noted in Section 13-7(B). The Planning Commission may allow expansions greater than fifty (50) percent, but no more than one hundred percent (100%), if it is determined that the goals, and the intent and purpose of this article and section are being met. Applicant fees for requests for expansions over fifty percent shall be set by the City Council. The following is an example of the fifty percent (50%) valuation formula: Example 1: Expansion only Existing Dwelling Size: (X) Cost per Square Foot Total Value: 50% of Value: Expansion Allowed: ($32,800 - $65.60) 1000 square feet 65.60 65,600.00 $ 32,800.00 500 square feet 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 c Example 2: Remodeling & Expansion Existing dwelling Unit Size (X) Cost per Square•Foot: Total Value: 50% of Value: Proposed 800 Sq. Ft. Remodel (50% floor area) @$29.50 per Square Foot: Proposed 300 Sq. Ft. Expansion: Total Cost: C. The minimum standards for remodeling are as follows: (3) 1000 square feet $• 65.60 $ 65,600.00 $ 32,800.00 $ 11,800.00 $ 19,680.00 $ 31,480.00 (cost under 50%) expansion and/or Refer to Article 11.5 for the parking requirements. Existing structures which are nonconforming as to yards, lot coverage, open space or height may be expanded or enlarged provided the expansion or enlargement complies with the regulations of the zone in which the structure is located. Existing nonconforming sideyards may be maintained with an addition provided the sideyard is not more than ten (10) percent smaller than the current sideyard required. Where existing walls are a minimum of, or more than three (3) feet from the side property line, the wall may be expanded if at least seventy-five (75) percent of the block as defined by the zoning ordinance, has the same or smaller nonconforming sideyards (excluding commercial and manufacturing uses). Measurement of sideyards shall be approximated by use of aerial photos and field inspections. Fees for such requests shall be set by the City Council." • SECTION 10. Add "Section 13-8. Nonconforming Historic Buildings. A. A locally recognized historic building or structure may be substantially preserved, renovated or rebuilt subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. B. In reviewing the application for the historic building or structure, the Planning Commission shall evaluate and make Findings on the following: (1) The local historical significance of the building or structure.. 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 11 SECTION 12 (2) The existing architecture. C. In approving a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission may authorize such deviations as necessary to preserve the structure and its historical significance and impose conditions of - approval as deemed necessary." . Delete Section 1310, Discontinuance of Nonconforming Use of Land. . Amend Section 1162(b) of the Article 11.5. Off -Street Parking. As follows: For every residential building hereafter which is structurally altered to increase gross floor area, there shall be provided, permanently maintained and permanently available, two (2) parking spaces for each existing unit, including requirements for turning radius and parking standards as required by Article 11.5. During the life of a building a single addition of not more than one hundred (100) square feet may be constructed without compliance with this section, and a maximum of two hundred fifty (250) square feet may be constructed if at least one parking space is available with the same requirement as noted above for each existing unit, except that nonconforming uses require Planning Commission approval. VOTE: AYES: Comms. Ingell,Ketz,Chmn.Rue NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm.Peirce CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 89-59 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California air their regular -eting of August 1, 1989. / ------) W7 -2? -1',45 /4 airman Michael'-Schu ach, Secretary'-- (Ge Date P/ccornon -30- Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission July 25, 1989 Regular Meeting of August 1, 1989 (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 6 & 20, 1989 MEETINGS) SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY 87-9 AND TEXT AMENDMENT, ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATIONS REGARDING NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL - Recommendation Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution, and an Environmental Negative Declaration. Background On May 12, 1987, the City Council adopted an interim ordinance concerning nonconforming uses and/or structures which were demolished more than 5070. The interim ordinance was effective for 45 days. On June 23, 1987, the Staff submitted an alternative emergency ordinance to City Council and recommended that this ordinance be a model for the permanent ordinance. The City Council referred this ordinance to the Planning Commission for study. At the October 6, 1987 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission Requested that this matter be continued and that a comparison chart be provided. On March 1, 1988, the Planning Commission continued this matter on request by staff to study this matter more in light of the downzoning that was occurring. On January 31, 1989, the City Council requested that zoning standards be studied in relation to nonconforming structures. At their April 25, 1989 meeting, the City Council discussed the proposed ordinance and referred the matter back to the Planning Commission for consideration of the nineteen issues raised at the public hearing. At the June 20, 1989 Planning Commission meeting, the matter was continued to allow staff more time to respond to the 19 issues noted below in the analysis.' Analysis The following responds to the issues expressed at the previous public hearings: -31 - 1. Should development with less than the 17 foot setback be considered nonconforming. Eliminating the 17 foot setback as a factor for nonconformity will serve little or no purpose since in almost every case, the development will either have other nonconforming features, .or will have been constructed relatively recently and will already have or almost have maximum lot coverage. 2. Should the area of both rooms be considered toward maximum square footage of remodeling when the wall between the rooms is removed. At least some portion of both rooms needs to be counted toward the maximum 507. valuation to eliminate the potential of gutting the entire structure. Staff believes that a structure that is so obsolete that it needs to be completely gutted on the interior should be limited more so in regard to the amount of expansion allowed. By limiting expansion and remodeling, the opportunity to avoid the new zoning standards by calling a proposed development a remodel when in fact it is virtually a new structure, will be discouraged. Counting at least 50% of the total area of two rooms is an alternative which staff has proposed in the attached resolution (see Section 13-7 (B). 3. Are there any incentives for property owners to conserve ground level open space rather than coaxing the size of development; maybe flexible standards. An incentive to leave ground level open space could be in conjunction with allowing more than 50% expansion. It is already proposed that if the Planning Commission determines the intent of the Ordinance is being met expansion can be as high as 100%. 4. Ordinance needs clarification as to whether garage area is counted toward floor area. The proposed ordinance has been changed to include a notation that garage floor area is not included. 5. City's goals should be included in ordinance. Relevant City goals have now been included in attached Resolution (see Section 13-0). 6. Should flexibility be included in return for property owners giving something in return. By allowing some flexibility in the allowed amount of expansion some 'give and take' is possible. 7. If an entire neighborhood has only a 12 foot setback instead of 17 feet should the entire block be allowed to maintain only a 12 foot setback. A setback of less than 17 feet would.defeat the purpose of the setback. The setback is designed to allow vehicles to park in front of the garage without overhanging the Public Right -Of -Way. It should be noted that the notion the City requires a 17 foot setback be provided for nonconforming structures is a misunderstanding. 8. More detail explanation should be given for calculating the valuation of any addition. An example has been provided with the text. 9. If a 250 square foot addition is allowed without the required parking, then additional bedrooms should be prohibited. It is possible to add a prohibition on additional bedrooms to the ordinance. However, it would be almost impossible to enforce what the ultimate use of the addition will be; proposals can be disguised as dens, family rooms, play rooms, etc. If a prohibition on bedrooms is desirable, then a bedroom should be defined as a room with a closet, and rooms with closets should be prohibited. However, staff has made the following change: Allow 100 square feet of expansion without any required parking and 250 square feet with at least 1 space per unit. 10. Nonconforming structures, and nonconforming uses should be separated into two ordinances. The ordinance has been reorganized into two subsections nonconforming structures, and nonconforming uses. 11. Should task force be formed to study this matter? A task force will prolong the process. The input already received at these public hearings should be adequate. 12. The proposed ordinance should include a statement that all remodeling and expansion must meet current code requirements. An additional Statement has been added (see Section 13-7C.(2) 13. Should criteria be included regarding historical structures for consistency sake, or should historical buildings be judged on a case by case basis. A policy Statement Resolution can be adopted to supplement the ordinance. Exactly what the criteria should be will need additional research, case study, and public input. However, all projects should be examined on a case by case basis, the criteria should only reflect minimum standards. -33- 14. Are property owners remodeling to avoid the 17 foot setback. so that they can save ground level open space? There are a variety of reasons why residents are remodeling instead of demolishing and starting over, but staff does not believe saving ground level open space is one of them. Researching the remodels in the last year indicates that remodels generally cover as much lot as new development. 15. Will property owners with small rental units move away and rent both units because they cannot expand as much as they want? There are no statistical studies to determine what occurs when a property owner finds that he is limited as to the amount of expansion he may have. Some may move to larger homes in Hermosa; others may completely demolish and rebuild to current standards. In any case, the ordinance is targeted at those small, exceptionally old, beach cottages that should not be allowed to expand into large developments without first meeting some minimum requirements particularly regarding parking. 16. Are there "protected" property rights deprived by this ordinance. Staff finds no "protected" rights violated by this proposed ordinance. The ordinance is modeled after the Manhattan Beach ordinance, which has been in existence for some time, except that this proposed ordinance will be more flexible than the Manhattan Beach ordinance, since the Planning Commission may allow more than 50% expansion under certain circumstances. 17. If a use is made less dense, therefore less nonconforming should it still be not allowed to expand. If a use is allowed to expand if it is made less dense, but still nonconforming, the ordinance would not be equitable in regard to other nonconforming uses of equal density, e.g. if a development has 4 dwelling units and it is reduced to 3 units and then allowed to expand, other nonconforming three unit developments should also be allowed to expand, even though they had not been reduced in density. It should be noted that Staff is recommending that Residential nonconforming uses with a minimum of 2 parking spaces, and limited density be allowed to expand; this exception should resolve most problems (refer to Section 13-3). 18. Does Section 13.4 clearly indicate that uses made less intensive still cannot be expanded? A new section is being proposed allowing expansion to nonconforming uses (refer to Section 13-3). 19. Will more square box type dwellings be constructed because of this ordinance. There is no relationship between the proposed ordinance and the "boxcar" shaped dwellings. The "boxcar" style development is a result of large homes placed on small, narrow lots. 20. What percentage of development in the City is nonconforming. Over the last 15 years, and more so in the last 5 years, development standards have .changed significantly in response to a growing recognition of overdevelopment and parking deficiencies. As a result, most development in the City is nonconforming. However, it must be recognized that the most recent development, i.e. last 20 to 25 years, has been built to -the maximum lot coverage, or very close to it. Consequently, under the proposed ordinance the allowed expansion of 50% of the existing floor area will be more than adequate to result in the maximum 65% lot coverage. Also, the noted flexibility provision will allow for additional expansion. This ordinance will impact primarily the relatively old, and small "beach cottage" deelo meet without parking. , v,� 'al"? /(__) Michael Schubach Planning Director P/pcsrnonl c COMPARISON CHART CURRENT ORDINANCE NONEXISTENT PROPOSED ORDINANCE SECTION 1. Add "Section 13-0. General Goals. The City Council recognizes that nonconformity exists throughout the City as a result of zone changes, and amendments to the zoning ordinance. In recognition of those changes, the City Council goals in the adoption of this ordinance are as follows: A. To allow those uses, and/or structures in sound condition which meet certain standards as stated within this article to be maintained. B. To encourage restoration and maintenance of those residential buildings of fine quality which enhance and maintain the long established historical character of Hermosa Beach. C. To discourage the abusive use of this ordinance to avoid meeting the current and future minimum standards of parking, open space, setbacks, height, and all other such similar standards. D. To prohibit the remodeling and expansion of such buildings which by todays standards are considered either exceptionally undersized, dilapidated, significantly overdense, or do not meet even the minimal standards of parking, and setback." CURRENT ORDINANCE. Sec. 1301. Nonconforming use of conforming building. The nonconforming use of a conforming building existing on the effective date of this ordinance may be continued, provided such nonconforming use shall not be expanded or extended into any other portion of the conforming building -nor shall any structural alterations be madeexcept those required by law. If such nonconforming use is vacated or discontinued for' ninety (90) consecutive days or more, any future use of such building shall conform to the provisions of the zone in which it is located. Exception 1. Residential uses may be expanded or structurally altered provided the expansion or alteration complies with the regulations of the zone in which the use is located. Where the residential use located in a "C" or "M" zone, any expansion shall comply with the R-3 regulations. (Ord. No. N.S. 515, § 1, 12-9-75; Ord. No. 84-776, § 1, 9-11-84) PROPOSED ORDINANCE .,.4.41.-1 Sec. 13-2 Nonconforming use of.conformingAbuilding. • The nonconforming use of a conforming building existing; on the effective date of this ordinance may be continued, provided such nonconforming use shall not be expanded or extended into any other portion of the conforming building' nor shall any structural alterations be made except those required by ,aw. If such nonconforming use is vacated or discontinued for 'ninety (90) consecutive days or more, any •• future use of such building shall conform to the provisions of the zone in which it is located. • Enlargement of windows and door openings in interior and exterior walls are considered minor and not structural alterations; repairs and/or replacement to plumbing, electrical wiring, similar work, and those required by law or as determined. by the Building. Director are not structural alterations. 37 CURRENT ORDINANCE c. Sec. 1302. Nonconforming use of a nonconforming building: The nonconforming use of a *nonconforming building may be continued, provided such nonconforming use shall not be expanded or extended nor shall any structural alterations be made except those required- by law. If such nonconforming use Is vacated or. discontinued for ninety (90) consecutive days or more, anyfiiture use of such building shall conform to the provisions of the zone in which it is located. - ' • • • "' • • • • Exception 1. Residential uses maybe expanded or structurally altered provided -the expansion or alteration complies with the regulations of the zone' in which -the use is located. Where the residential use located in a "C" or "M" zone, any expansion shall comply with R-3 regulations. (Ord. No. 84-776, § 2, 9-11-84) PROPOSED ORDINANCE Sec. 13-3 Nonconforming use of a nonconforming building. The nonconforming commercial or manufacturing use of a nonconforming commercial or manufacturing building may be continued; provided such nonconforming use shall not be expanded or extended nor shall any structural alteration be made except those required by law. If such nonconforming use is vacated or discontinued for ninety (90) consecutive days or more, any future use of such building shall conform to the provisions of the zone in which it is located Enlargement of windows and door openings in interior and exterior walls are considered minor and not structural alterations. repairs and/or replacement to plumbing, electrical wiring, similar work, and those required by law or as determined by the Building Director are not structural alterations. A nonconforming residential use of a nonconforming residential structure may be remodel and/or expanded when it is in compliance with the intent, purpose, standards and requirements as specified in the following: Intent and Purpose of this Section is to allow remodeling and expansion to residential structures in sound condition in a manner that does not ultimately result in significant removal of existing structures. Where a structure is significantly damaged by dry rot, termites, or similar damage and removal of significant portions of the structure is necessary or recommended, this ordinance does not apply and expansion and/or remodeling is prohibited. All structures shall require a termite and dry rot inspection by a bonafide company, to determine the amount of structural removal, if any, that will be necessary because of damage. -38- i A. The following portions of the existing structure may be removed: (1) When adding additional stories, portions of the roof as necessary may be removed. (2) When adding to any side of a structure, walls may be removed to enlarge existing rooms, and/or to provide interior access as necessary for logical expansion of the existing structure. A maximum combination of 10% of the existing lineal feet of exterior walls and/or floor area may be removed whether necessitated by the inspection or by the remodeling, or both. Removal of any other portions of an existing structure, other than those noted in sub -sections (1) and (2) above, -shall require submittal of a demolition plan for review -by .the Planning Commission to determine whether the proposed plan meets the intent and purpose of this Section. B. Nonconforming uses and structures may be expanded and/or remodeled to a cumulative maximum of 50% of the replacement cost of the existing structure(s) as it existed on (effective date of ordinance) and as determined by the Building Department which shall use current Building Valuation Data provided by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO). Interior remodeling shall be• computed at 50% of the ICBO building valuation for new construction. When computing remodeled area, i.e. relocation of interior walls, fifty percent (50%) of the total area affected by the relocation of the wall shall be included in the computation. For example, if a wall between the dining room and kitchen is removed, the area counted includes fifty percent (50%) of the dining room and kitchen area together (Refer to Section 13-7(B) for example). Any garage expansion for vehicle parking shall not be included as part of the allowed fifty percent (50%) expansion as noted in this section. C. The minimum standard for expansion and/or remodeling are as follows: (1) Refer to Section 1162 for Parking requirement. (2) Residential uses shall not exceed a maximum density equivalent to forty-five (45) units per acre. (3) (3) Existing structures which are nonconforming as to yards, lot coverage, open space or height may be expanded or enlarged provided the expansion or enlargement complies with the regulations of the zone in which the structure is located. Existing nonconforming sideyards may be maintained with an addition provided the sideyard is not more than ten (10) percent smaller than the current sideyard required." CURRENT ORDINANCE Sec. 1303. Change in status of nonconforming use. If a nonconforming use is vacated or removed and is suc- ceeded by another' and more restrictive use it is evidence that the heavier nonconforming use was ended and thereupon im- mediately loses any vested right as such. If' the substitute use is itself nonconforming, the degree of nonconformity may nut be subsequently increased by changing to a less restricted use. PROPOSED ORDINANCE . Change the Section number of Section 1303 to 13-4 and revise the wording as follows: "If a nonconforming manufacturing, commercial or residential use is vacated or removed and it is succeeded by another use, it is evident that the nonconforming use was ended; it thereby immediately loses any vested right to continue. A_nonconforming use may be succeeded by a use which is itself. nonconforming, provided the degree of nonconformity is less' intensive (e.g. requires less parking or results in fewer dwelling units). It is the intent of this section to allow for an improvement in the degree of nonconformity of a use utilizing existing structures. It is not intended tol allow the construction of new structures in violation of the provisions of this code. The Planning Commission shall make determinations as to whether a use is less intensive upon request." 't -o CURRENT ORDINANCE Sec. 1304. Nonconforming alcohol beverage establishment, on and off -sale. This conditional use permit process, established pursuant t 1 this ordinance, shall apply to establishments which sell alcohol and fall into any category of use which requires a conditional use permit in order to sell alcoholic beverages in the City of Hermosa Beach. All establishments which do not possess a conditional use permit for the sale of alcoholic beverages on the effective date of Ordinance No. 86-865 shall be required to apply for a conditional use permit within two (2) years of the effective date of this ordinance. Editor's note—It should 'be noted that § 4 of Ord. No. 86-865, provides that "This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption." Such ordinance bears an adopting date of Dec. 16, 1986. • Upon the filing of an application, each establishment must diligently prosecute its application and receive a conditional use, permit under the standards in effect at the time of the effective date of this ordinance. Said application must be heard before the. planning commission within six (6) months of the filing of the application. Any applicant may be granted an extension of time within which to receive their conditional use permit if they can demonstrate to the planning commission there is good cause fo an extension of time necessary to receive the permit.• If no permit is either sought. or granted within the time periods specified above, such esfablishment shall no longer have the • legal authority to sell alcoholic beverages within the boundaries of the City of Hermosa Beach. (Ord. No. 86-865, § 1, 12-16-86) PROPOSED ORDINANCE Changes Section number from Section 1304 to 13-5. CURRENT ' ORDINANCE' • Sec 1306. Board of zoning adjustment tctermine condi- tions of abatement. When any nonconforming condition exists in any zone, other than the nonconforming use of land when no structure is in- . volved, it shall be the responsibility of the board of zoning ad- ;' justment, on its own initiative, to fix a date upon which the nonconforming building was established. If any • use that would normally be designated as nonconforming but lies .with: in an area indicated on the zoning map as being in an area' containing an indicated potential classification for a zone in which such use would be permitted, the abatement provi- sions of the zoning ordinance as they would affect use would not apply. It shall also be the responsibility of the board of zoning adjustment .to determine whether, by reason of Struc- tural alterations, or enlargements, or the installation of -major . equipment designed into the building prior to the date this or- dinance becomes applicable thereto, it is deemed necessary to establish a later. date. for abatement than that prescribed herein for the building itself in order to assure that the in- vestment represented by such structural .alterations, enlarge- ments or. equipment installations may be amortized. In per- forming this function the board shall consider all pertinent data in connection therewith to provide the opportunity for the owner of record, or lessee if there be such, to present such evidence as they may possess and which properly relates to such case. When the date of abatement has been determined the board, by resolution, shall establish such date and shall set forth such facts as bear upon the case upon which the determination of such date of abatement is based, and shall formally notify the owner of such nonconforming property of the action of the board by mailing to such owner a copy of the formally adopted resolution not later than ten (10) days following the date of such action. (Ord. No. N.S. 509, § 1, 9-23-75) PROPOSED ORDINANCE DELETED C CURRENT ORDINANCE • Sec. 1307. Reconstruction of nonconforming building partial- ly destroyed. A nonconforming building destroyed to the extent of not more than fifty (50) percent of its reasonable replacement value at the time'of its destruction by fire, explosion or other casualty or'Act of God; or the public enemy, may be restored and the occupancy or use of Such building or part thereof which existed at the time of such partial destruction may be continued subject to all other provisions of this article. -PROPOSED ORDINANCE Change the Section number of 1307 to 13-6 and add the following sentence: "The International Conference of Building Officials valuation data shall be used in computing value." CURRENT ORDINANCE' PROPOSED ORDINANCE Sec.' 1309. Existing nonconforming structures. Existing structures which are nonconforming as to yards. lot coverage, open space or height may be expanded or enlarged provided the expansibn or enlargement complies with the regula- tions of,the zone in which the structure is located. Existing non- conforming sideyards may be maintained with an addition pro- vided the sideyard is not more than ten (10) percent smaller than the current sideyard required. (Ord. No. N.S. 234, § 3, 2-6-62; Ord. No. 84-776, § 4, 9-11-84) Amend Section 1309 by changing the title, the Section number and the text as follows: "Section 13-7. Conforming Use of a Nonconforming Structure. Intent and Purpose of this Section is to allow remodeling and expansion to nonconforming residential structures in sound condition in a manner that does not ultimately result in significant removal of existing structures. Where a structure is significantly damaged by dry rot, termites, or similar damage and removal of significant portions of the structure is necessary or recommended, this ordinance does not apply and expansion and/or remodeling is prohibited. All nonconforming structures shall require a termite •and dry rot inspection by a bonafide company, to determine the amount of structural removal, if any, that will be necessary because of damage. Expansion to nonconforming manufacturing or commercial structures shall be prohibited. A. The following portions of the existing structure may be removed: (1) When adding additional stories, portions of the roof as necessary may be removed. (2) When adding to any side of a structure,walls may be removed to enlarge existing rooms, and/or to provide interior- access as necessary Cor logical expansion of the existing structure. A maximum combination of '30% of the existing lineal feet of exterior walls and/or floor area may be removed whether necessitated by the inspection or by the remodeling, or both. Removal of any other portions of an existing structure, other than those noted in sub -sections (1) and (2) above, shall require submittal of a demolition plan for review by the Planning Commission to determine whether the proposed plan meets the intent and purpose of this Section. (3) B. Nonconforming structures may be expanded and/or remodeled to a cumulative maximum of 50% of the replacement cost of the eeisting structure(s) as it existed on (effective date of ordinance) and as determined by the Building Department which shall use current Building Valuation Data provided by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO). Interior remodeling shall be computed at 50% of the ICBO building valuation for new construction. When computing remodeled area, i.e. relocation of interior walls, fifty percent (50%) of the total area affected by the relocation of the wall shall be included in the computation. For example, if a wall between the dining room and kitchen is removed, the area counted includes fifty percent (50%) of the dining room and kitchen area together. Any garage expansion • for vehicle parking shall not be Included as part of the allowed fifty percent (50%) expansion as noted in Section 13-7(B). The Planning Commission may allow expansions greater than fifty (50) percent, but no more than one hundred percent (100%), if it is determined that the goals, and the intent and purpose of this article and section are being met. Applicant fees for requests for expansions over fifty percent shall be set by the City Council. The following is an example of the fifty percent (50%) valuation formula: Example 1: Expansion only Existing Dwelling Size: (X) Cost per Square Foot Total Value: 50% of Value: Expansion Allowed: ($32,800 - $65.60) Example 2: Remodeling & Expansion Existing dwelling Unit Size (X) Cost per Square Foot: Total Value: 50% of Value: Proposed 800 Sq. Ft. Remodel (50% floor area) 029.50 per Square Foot: Proposed 300 Sq. Ft. Expansion: Total Cost: C. The minimum standards for remodeling are as follows: 1000 square feet $ 65.60 $ 65,600.00 $ 32,800.00 500 square feet 1000 square feet $ 65.60 $ 65,600.00 $ 32,800.00 $ 11,800.00 $ 19,680.00 $ 31,480.00 (cost under 50%) expansion and/or (1) "Refer to Section 1162 for Parking requirement" (2) Existing structures which are nonconforming as to yards, lot coverage, open space or height may be expanded or enlarged provided the expansion or enlargement complies with the regulations of the zone in which the structure is located. Existing nonconforming sideyards may be maintained with an addition provided the sideyard is not more than ten (10) percent smaller than the current sideyard required. (3) Where existing walls are a minimum of, or more than three (3) feet from the side property line, the wall may be expanded if at least seventy-five (7) percent of the block as defined by the zoning ordinance, has the same or smaller nonconforming sideyards (excluding commercial and manufacturing uses). Measurement of sideyards shall be approximated by use of aerial photos and field inspections. Fees for such requests shall be set by the City Council." • CURRENT ORDINANCE NONEXISTENT • PROPOSED ORDINANCE "Section 13— 8, Nonconforming Historic Buildings. A. A locally recognized historic building or structure may be substatially preserved, renovated or rebuilt subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. B. In reviewing the application for the historic building or structure, the Planning Commission shall evaluate and make Findings on the following: • '(1) The local historical significance of the building or structure. (2) The existing architecture. C. In approving a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission may authorize such deviations as necessary to preserve the structure and its ,.historical significance and impose conditions of .. approval as deemed necessary." CURRENT ORDINANCE • Sec. 1310. Required discontinuance •of nonconforming use of • land. • A nonconforming use of land where no structure thereon is employed in such use, existing at the time this ordinance' . takes effect, may be continued for a .period of not more than two (2) years thereafter, provided: • (1) No nonconforming use of the land shall in any way be expanded or extended either on the same or adjoining property ; and (2) If the nonconforming use of land existing at the time this ordinance takes effect is thereafter discontinued for six (6) months or more, or changed, any future use of such land shall conform with the provisions of this ordinance. PROPOSED ORDINANCE DELETED CURRENT ORDINANCE Sec. 1162. Off-street parking, requirements for new hnd ex- isting construction. (b) For every residential building hereafter which is structur- ally altered to increase gross floor area, there shall be provided, permanently maintained and permanently available, one (1) park- ing space for each existing unit, including requirements for turn • - ' ing radius as provided by this article and parking standards' herein. During the life of a building a single addition of not more • than one hundred (100) square feet may be constructed without compliance with this section. PROPOSED ORDINANCE Sec. 1162. Off-street parking, requirements for new and existing construction. For every residential building hereafter which is structurally altered to increase gross floor area, there shall be provided, permanently maintained and permanently available, two (2) parking spaces for each existing unit, including requirements for turning radius and parking standards as required by Article 11.5. During the life of a building a single addition of not more than one hundred (100) square feet may be constructed without compliance with this section, and a maximum of two hundred fifty (250) square feet may be constructed if at least one parking space is available with the same requirement as as noted above for each existing unit. TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION (CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS OF JUNE 6 AND 20, 1989 Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 25, 1989. Staff recommended adoption of the proposed resolution and environmental negative declaration. On May 12, 1987, the City Council adopted an interim ordinance concerning nonconforming uses and/or structures which were demolished rnore:than 50 percent. The interim ordinance was effective for 45 days. On June 23, 1987, staff submitted an alternative emergency ordinance to City Council and recommended that this ordinance be a model for the permanent ordinance. The City Council referred this ordinance to the Planning Commission for study. At the October 6, 1987, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission requested that this matter be continued and that a comparison chart be provided. On March 1, 1988, the Planning Commission continued this matter on request of staff to study this matter more in light of the downzoning that was occurring. On January 31, 1989, the City Council requested that zoning standards be studied in relation to nonconforming structures. At their April 25, 1989, meeting, the City Council discussed the proposed ordinance and referred the matter back to the Planning Commission for consideration of the issues raised at the public hearing. - At the June 20, 1989, Planning Commission meeting, the matter was continued to allow staff additional time to respond to the 19 issues specified. Mr. Schubach stated the questions which were raised and staff's response: 1. Should development with less than the 17 -foot setback be considered nonconforming? 6 �. - - P.C. Minutes 8/1/89 • • Eliminating the 17 -foot setback as a factor for nonconformity will serve little or. no purpose since in almost every case, the ,development will either have other nonconforming featuies or will have been constructed relatively recently and will already have or almost have maximum lot coverage. 2. Should the area of both rooms be considered toward maximum square footage of remodeling when the wall between the rooms is removed? At least some portion of both rooms needs to be counted toward the maximum 50 percent valuation to eliminate the potential of gutting the entire structure. Staff felt that a structure that is so obsolete that it needs to be completely gutted on the interior should be limited more so in regard to the amount of expansion allowed. By limiting expansion and remodeling, the opportunity to avoid the new zoning standards by calling a proposed development a remodel when in fact it is virtually a new structure, will be discouraged. Counting at least 50 percent of the total area of two rooms is an alternative which staff has proposed in the resolution. 3. Are there any incentives for property owners to conserve ground -level open space rather than maxing the size of development, maybe flexible standards? An incentive to leave ground -level open space could be in conjunction with allowing more than 50 percent expansion. It is already proposed that if the Planning Commission determines the intent of the ordinance is being met, expansion can be as high as 100 percent. 4. Ordinance needs clarification as to whether garage area is counted toward floor area. The proposed ordinance has been changed to include a notation that garage floor area is not included. 5. City's goals should be included in the ordinance. Relevant City goals have now been included in the proposed resolution. Comm. Ingell favored including the City goals. He also felt it would be appropriate to include the City goals elsewhere and "tag" them in the computer so that when the goals are revised and updated, they can be updated in each pertinent location. Mr. Schubach stated that the goals will be incorporated at the time the City's general plan is updated and revised. He stated that staff is currently working on computerizing all data and indexing all information. 6. Should flexibility be included in return for property owners giving something in return? Be allowing some flexibility in the allowed amount of expansion,. some "give-and- take" is possible. 7. If an entire neighborhood has only a 12 -foot setback instead of 17 feet, should the entire block be allowed to maintain only a 12 -foot setback? _¢7_ P.C. Minutes 8/1/89 A setback of less than 17 feet would defeat the purpose of the setback. The setback is designed to allow vehicles to park in front of the garage without overhanging the Public right-of-way. It should be tioted that the notion the City requires a 17 -foot setback for nonconforming structures is a misunderstanding. Comm. Ketz asked for clarification on expansions when someone does not have the necessary setbacks. Mr. Schubach explained the various methods which an applicant can use to expand without the required 17 -foot setback. An applicant can also appear before the Planning Commission with such a request. 8. More detailed explanation should be given for calculating the valuation of any addition. An example was included in the text. Mr. Schubach explained, in response to a question from Comm. Ketz, that real dollar figures are not used in the calculations. He stated that the ICBO figures are used. He continued by explaining the differences between structural changes and upgrading things such as plumbing and electrical to bring a structure up to code standards. 9. If a 250 square -foot addition is allowed without the required parking, then additional bedrooms should be prohibited. It is possible to add a prohibition on additional bedrooms to the ordinance. However, it would be almost impossible to enforce what the ultimate use of the addition would be; proposals can be distinguished as dens, family rooms, play rooms, etc. If a prohibition on bedrooms is desirable, then a bedroom should be defined as a room with a closet, and rooms with closets should be prohibited. However, staff has made the following change: Allow 100 square feet of expansion without any required parking and 250 square feet with at least one space per unit. 10. Nonconforming structures and nonconforming uses should be separated into two ordinances. The ordinance has been reorganized into two subsections -- nonconforming structures and nonconforming uses. 11. Should a task force be formed to study this matter? A task force would prolong the process. The input already received at the public hearings should be adequate. 12. The proposed ordinance should include a statement that all remodeling and expansion must meet the current code requirements. An additional statement has been. added to Section 13-7C(2). 13. Should criteria be included regarding historical structures for the sake of consistency, or should historical buildings be judged on a case-by-case basis. P.C. Minutes 8/1/89 A policy statement resolution can be adopted to supplement the ordinance. Exactly what the criteria should be will need. additional research, case study, and public input. However, all projects should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and the criteria should only reflect the minimum standards. • 14. Are property owners remodeling to avoid the 17 -foot setback so that they can save ground -level open space? There are a variety of reasons why residents are remodeling instead of demolishing and starting over, but staff does not believe saving ground -level open space is one of them. Researching the remodels in the last year indicates that remodels generally cover as much lot as new development. 15. Will property owners with small rental units move away and rent both units because they cannot expand as much as they want? There are no statistical studies to determine what occurs when a property owner finds that he is limited as to the amount of expansion he may have. Some may move to larger homes in Hermosa Beach; others may completely demolish and rebuild to current standards. In any case, the ordinance is being targeted at those small, exceptionally old beach cottages that should not be allowed to expand into large developments without first meeting some minimum requirements particularly regarding parking. 16. Are there "protected" property rights deprived by this ordinance? Staff finds no "protected" rights violated by the proposed ordinance. The ordinance is modeled after the Manhattan Beach ordinance, which has been in existence for some time, except this proposed ordinance will be more flexible than the Manhattan Beach ordinance, since the Planning Commission may allow more than 50 percent expansion under certain circumstances. Mr. Schubach stated that property development is actually a privilege controlled by city and state regulations. Mr. Vose, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue. gave an explanation of "protected" property rights. He gave an example of someone being prohibited from, expanding a nonconforming property. 17. If a use is made less dense, and therefore less nonconforming, should it still be not allowed to expand? If a use is allowed to expand if it is made less dense, but still nonconforming, the ordinance would not be equitable in regard to other nonconforming uses of equal density; i.e., if a development has four dwelling units and it is reduced to three units and then allowed to expand, other nonconforming three unit developments should also be allowed to expand, even though they had not been reduced in density. It should be noted that staff is recommending that residential nonconforming uses with a minimum of two parking paces and limited density be allowed to expand; this exception should resolve most problems (refer to Section 13-3). 18. Does Section 13.4 clearly indicate that uses made less intensive still cannot be expanded? — �"/ ' P.C. Minutes•8/1/89 c A new section is being proposed allowing expansion to nonconforming uses (Refer to Section 13-3). _ • 19. Will more square -box type dwellings be constructed because of this ordinance? There is no relationship between the proposed ordinance and the "boxcar" shaped dwellings. The "boxcar". style development is a result of large homes placed on small, narrow lots. . 20. What percentage of development in the City is nonconforming? • Over the past 15 years, and more so in the past five years, development standards have changed significantly in response to a growing recognition of over- development and parking deficiencies. As a result, most development in the City is nonconforming. However, it must be recognized that the most recent development, i.e., that past 20 to 25 years, has been built to the maximum lot coverage, or very close to it. Consequently, under the proposed ordinance the allowed expansion of 50 percent of the existing floor area will be more than adequate to result in the maximum 65 percent lot coverage. Also, the noted flexibility provision will allow for additional expansion. This ordinance will impact primarily the relatively old, small "beach cottage" development without parking. Mr. Schubach noted that the Commissioners had received copies of the revised ordinance, which contains the procedural changes. He continued by pointing out the changes which were made to the ordinance. He said that the main change is that nonconforming residential uses can now expand, as is allowed for nonconforming structures, with somewhat more limitations than on structures. Nonconforming structures are allowed 30 percent demolition; on residential uses, there can only be 10 percent demolition. Staff felt that since a nonconforming structure is also a nonconforming use, it should not be allowed to be torn down and greatly expanded and/or remodeled. Mr. Schubach stated that staff also felt it was appropriate to include a maximum allowed density. The most recently allowed density was 46 units to the acre; in 1986 it was changed to 33 units per acre in the R-3 zone. Staff therefore felt that nothing over that density amount should be allowed. He noted some portions of the City have a density level of 80 units per acre. Staff therefore did not feel it would be appropriate to allow remodels and expansions in such dense areas for nonconforming uses. Mr. Schubach continued by giving examples of nonconforming uses which would be allowed to expand 50 percent or above if the Commission feels such expansion would meet the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Schubach noted that garage area is not now included as floor area in regard to expansion. Mr. Schubach stated that another change pertains to allowing 100 square feet of expansion without requiring additional parking; any expansion of 250 square feet or more will require additional parking. Comm. Ketz asked about interior remodels, with no exterior structural changes. She asked whether such projects would fall under this ordinance. Minutes•8/1/89 Mr. Schubach stated that such projects would come under this ordinance; however, the owner would be allowed to remodel. He continued by explaining what would be allowed, stating that the owner wouid still have quite a percentage to expand. Comm. Ketz asked about people who want to add a wall, noting that the ordinance really only addresses removing a wall.. Mr. Schubach stated that walls can be added. Mr. Vose noted that it doesn't make sense just to add a wall, stating that people would usually want to add a bathroom or something else. Comm. Ketz asked what would happen if a nonconforming structure burns. Mr. Schubach stated that 50 percent reconstruction would be allowed, based on the ICBG figures. _ Comm. Ingell asked about garage expansions from one car to two cars in order to remodel one's house, as it relates to the 17 -foot setback requirement. He felt that this is an issue which could be addressed. Mr. Schubach stated that staff did not include such an item, since it would not be desirable to encourage people to expand their garages in order to avoid the 17 -foot setback requirement and therefore remodel. He stated that such instances could be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Chmn. Rue commented that people might be encouraged to add parking if there is the incentive of being allowed to add square footage to the house. • Comm. Ingell noted concern that people might keep adding on to their homes a little bit at a time. Mr. Schubach stated that there can be more than one remodel; however, it cannot be expanded over 50 percent over the lifetime of the building. He stated that the percentage will be based on what is existing as of the date of the ordinance. He noted that people will reach the maximum lot coverage before they ever reach the 50 percent; therefore, staff did not have great concerns over this problem. Comm. Ingell asked for clarification of Section 5 pertaining to the vacation of commercial uses. Mr. Schubach gave examples of situations to which Section 5 would apply. He also gave examples of nonconforming uses in nonconforming structures. Mr. Schubach, in response to comments from Chmn. Rue, explained that the wording in Section 4 (B) was changed so that it now reads: "Any garage expansion for vehicle parking shall not be included as part of the allowed fifty percent (50%) expansion as noted in this section." He explained that this is an attempt to encourage people to provide additional parking. • Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Ketz, explained that open decks do not count as expansions; the section refers only to covered areas. Public Hearing opened at 8:25 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. S3 - P.C. Minutes•8/1/89 Jim Sullivan, 1051 8th Street, Hermosa Beach, asked staff for clarification of lot coverage. He noted that he had sent a letter; dated July 25, 1989, to the Planning Commission regarding plans he has for his house. He noted concern, however, that he would not be able to proceed with his plans because of the values used in determining the cost. Mr. Schubach stated that real dollars are not used in the calculations; the ICBO figure of $65 a square foot is used. Mr. Sullivan continued by explaining what he would like to do to his own home in terms of remodeling. He felt that the 100% limit on expansion is an arbitrary figure if someone wants to add more but still meets the intent of the ordinance. Comm. Ingell noted, however, that one can appear before the Planning Commission to request additional expansion percentage. Mr. Schubach stated that the figure is not arbitrary; there must be a limit on how much a nonconforming structure can be allowed to expand. Mr. Sullivan noted concern over Question and Response No. 15, stating that there are many small homes, especially in the R-1 zone, but they cannot be considered as "exceptionally old beach cottages." He felt that these homes would be impacted by this ordinance. He felt that some these homes should be allowed to expand beyond 100 percent. He again stated that he feels the 100 percent is an arbitrary figure, especially if one can expand more than 100 percent and still be within the City requirements. Mr. Sullivan noted that he could tear down the older home and build a new house of almost 4000 square feet with minimum sideyards and setbacks rather than retaining the older house because he would be allowed to expand only 100 percent of the old house for a total of 2200 square feet. He noted concern over this issue, because many times people tend to max out the building rather than retaining large sideyards and setbacks. Chmn. Rue discussed this section with Mr. Sullivan as its relates to the particular remodel Mr.. Sullivan wants to do. Mr. Vose noted that the purpose of a code relating to nonconforming buildings is to eliminate nonconforming buildings over a period of time. The code, however, allows for remodels and expansions up to a certain limit so that people can still live in the nonconforming homes. Public Hearing closed at 8:37 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Chmn. Rue discussed the 100 percent maximum. He continued by giving examples of instances where this section would apply. He noted that in certain cases people can apply for a variance, or they can tear the house down and build something new. Comm. Ketz noted concern over counting the removal of interior walls as part of the percentage. • Mr. Vose explained that some level of standard must be established for nonconformities. He further noted that if the findings can be made, people can request variances. Comm. Ketz felt that the issue revolves around the current size of someone's house in relationship to how much they would be allowed to expand. -- 54- P.C. Minutes•8/1/89 Comm. Ingell noted that the purpose of the ordinance is an attempt to have new homes built to replace the nonconforming homes. Mr. Schubach stated that it must be determined how much people should be allowed to remodel and expand, therefore prolonging the lifetime of nonconforming homes. Chmn. Rue stated that the City is attempting to obtain parking as well as conforming houses. He felt that the figure of 100 percent is a reflection of those goals. He stated that the older homes will be allowed to remodel somewhat; however, if they want extensive remodels and expansions, people will be required to comply with the parking standards. Comm. Ingell felt that the standards make good long-term planning sense for the City. • Comm. Ketz questioned allowing the expansion of nonconforming uses, stating that it has been a clear direction from the City Council that the goal is to reduce density. She noted that many areas have already been downzoned, and she noted concern over allowing the uses already there to expand. Mr. Schubach explained how the ordinance would apply to nonconforming uses, stating that staff would not want to see a nonconforming use removed and rebuilt. He stated that this section relates to, for example, homes along the highway. He stated that the ordinance would not apply greatly to those homes, explaining that those homes come under the specific plan area. Comm. Ketz and Comm. Ingell agreed that they do not feel it is appropriate to allow nonconforming uses to expand. Comm. Ingell stated that to allow them to expand would only encourage them to remain longer. Mr. Schubach stated that the 50 percent figure for expansions of nonconforming uses is merely staff's recommendation. He noted that the figure can be changed if it is deemed excessive. Mr. Schubach noted, however, that many of the uses are already at the maximum density; therefore, they could not be greatly expanded. Comm. Ingell stated that if nonconforming uses could provide the required. parking, he would not be as opposed to their expansion. Comm. Ketz did not favor any expansion of nonconforming uses; however, if they are allowed to expand, she felt they should be required to provide the required parking. Chmn. Rue, noting that someone with a nonconforming use can remove only 10 percent of the existing lineal footage of exterior walls and/or floor area, asked how much one would actually be able to expand and/or remodel. Mr. Schubach stated that Section A(1) addresses this issue. Comm. Ketz stated that in an attempt to meet the goal of reducing density, no expansion of nonconforming uses should be allowed. Chmn. Rue questioned whether relocation and/or replacement of walls up to 50 percent should be allowed if there is no expansion allowed. He continued by discussing various scenarios by which someone could not expand, but they could rearrange the square footage or floor plan. P.C. Minutes 8/1/89 .4.x. Comm. Ketz saw nothing wrong with allowing a rearrangement of the floor plan. Mr. Schubach stated that'staff's recommendation is more liberal than Chmn. Rue's suggestion. Comm. Ingell felt that allowing a 50 percent expansion, going up to 100 percent with Planning Commission approval, is excessive. He felt, however, that some minor expansions should be allowed. Comm. Ketz stated that she had no objection to allowing interior remodeling. Chmn. Rue stated that the City doe's not want to encourage expansion thereby increasing the bulk and/or density; however, he did not feel there would be a problem with interior remodeling. He noted that by allowing increased square footage, though, density can be increased. Chmn. Rue and the Commissioners discussed the ordinance section by section while making their recommended changes. Comm. Ketz discussed the goals section, stating that Item C should contain a more positive statement. Comm. Ingell discussed Item D, stating that he would like to see additional clarification of items such as "dilapidated and significantly overdense." Chmn. Rue discussed Section 4, Paragraph 1, and asked about the wording "provided such nonconforming use shall not be expanded or extended." He did not feel the word "extended" is appropriate, and he suggested using "enlarged." The Commissioners discussed the expansion of nonconforming uses and structures and modified the language contained in Item B. The Commissioners discussed the parking requirements for nonconforming uses and structures. Comm. Ketz questioned whether additional parking should be required for additional square footage. Mr. Schubach noted that there is currently a requirement relating to the the parking, and people must provide the required parking. Comm. Ingell discussed Section 4 C(2) and questioned whether the density should be broken down by the applicable zones and whether the density should be the same in all zones, noting that it would not be desirable for people to exceed the density requirements in their particular zone. Chmn. Rue noted, however, that other sections of the code are specific in the requirements and people must provide the required parking. He therefore did not feel it is necessary to specify the density in each particular zone. Comm. Ketz discussed Section 9, Conforming Use of a Nonconforming Structure, and stated that she had a problem with not allowing some interior remodeling without coming under this ordinance. She felt that people should be allowed to remodel the interior of their homes without adding additional square footage. -- r6 - *•P.C. Minutes•8/1/89 Chmn. Rue stated, however, that staff feels it is desirable to discourage the continued use of nonconforming buildings. Comm. Ketz noted that there is a requirement for termite inspections to ensure that the buildings are safe. She felt that the ordinance restricts the amount of remodeling which can be done to the interior. Chmn. Rue stated that the goal is to discourage the prolonged use of these older nonconforming buildings. He continued by discussing a past project in town where someone essentially rebuilt a nonconforming building without meeting the current code requirements. Mr. Schubach pointed out that the ordinance provides for allowing someone to expand up to 100 percent with Planning Commission approval. He continued by explaining how much someone can expand, stating that he feels the staff proposal is reasonable. Public Hearing reopened at 9:20 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Greg Grinnell, 349 29th Street, addressed the Commission and stated that he thought the Planning Commission and City Council were going •to jointly address this issue on August 1 and August 8. He was unclear as to when this matter was going to be heard by the Planning Commission. Mr. Schubach clarified that the City Council meeting is on August 8. Mr. Grinnell stated that many interested people would have discussed this matter at the hearing; however, they too were probably unaware that this issue was going to be addressed tonight. Mr. Grinnell commented on a point made by Chmn. Rue that older buildings, if they are in good shape, would not need to be remodeled. He disagreed, stating that many older buildings are very chopped up because of the way homes were designed many years ago. Today's floor plans are much more open, and people tend to separate living areas by furniture arrangements. Therefore, there is a greater tendency today to remove walls during a remodel. Mr. Grinnell noted concern that someone will be penalized for removing interior walls. Chmn. Rue urged Mr. Grinnell to attend the City Council meeting to give his comments. Mr. Grinnell was concerned about the lack of public notification for this hearing. Public Hearing closed at 9:24 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-59, with the following changes: Section 1(c): "To encourage the use of this ordinance to meet the current and future minimum standards of parking, open space, setbacks, height, and all other such similar standards." Section 1(d): "To prohibit the remodeling and expansion of such buildings which by current standards are considered...." S",-- P.C. Minutes 8/1/89 a Section 4, Nonconforming Use of a Nonconforming Building, Paragraph 1: "The nonconforming com vercial or manufacturing•use of a nonconforming commercial or manufacturing building may be continued, provided such nonconforming use shall not be expanded or enlarged...." Section 4, Paragraph 4:. "A nonconforming residential use of a nonconforming ,/ residential structure maybe remodeled and/or expanded...." Section 4B: Nonconforming uses and structures may be expanded by 10 percent '2' and/or remodeled to a maximum of 50%...." Section 4C(1): "...including requirements for turning. radius and parking standards_ as required by Article 11.5, Seetiom-1 t6-2 for the parking requirements." 7 Section 4C(2): "...if at least one parking space is available with the same requirements as noted above for each existing unit, except nonconforming uses (1_ /shall require Planning Commission approval if the parking requirements are not , met." AYES: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm. Peirce Comm. Ketz stated that she basically favors the ordinance; however, she still has concerns over how the ordinance will affect interior remodels of conforming structures and how it will affect expansion of nonconforming structures with conforming uses. Chmn. Rue suggested that if there is a better way to address this issue before this matter goes before the City Council, it could be discussed with staff in an attempt to clarify that portion of the ordinance. However, he cautioned against creating loopholes in the ordinance. Recess taken from 9:28 P.M. until 9:37 P.M. P.C. Minutes•8/1/89 • • EASY READER RUN DISPLAY DATE: August 31, 1989 DISPLAY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach shall hold a public hearing on September 12, 19890 consider the following: 1. Zone changes for the northwest quadrant of the Multi -Use Corridor and adoption of the Environmental Negative Declaration: (1) 'From C-3 to Specific Plan Area (R-2 •with a density limit of 18 units -an acre and 55% maximum lot coverage) for the north side of 21st Street, 115 to 220• • feet west of Pacific Coast Highway. (2) From R-1 to R -1A for the north- side orth" side of 21st Street, 220 to 290 feet west of Pacific Coast Highway. (3) From C-3 to R-3 for the vacant property on the west side of Pacific Coast Highway across from its intersection with 19th Street.* -� 2. Text amendment regarding nonconforming uses and structures and adoption of the Environmental Negative Declaration. *Map on file in Planning Department in City Hall. SAID PUBLIC HEARING shall be at 8:00 PM in the City Hall Council Chamber, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. ANY AND ALL PERSONS interested are invited to participate at that time and place or to write to the City Council in care of the Planning and Environmental Services Department at the above address PRIOR to: Thursday, September 7, 1989 at 12:00 noon IF YOU CHALLENGE the above matter(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Department at, or prior to, the public hearing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact the Planning Department at 318-0242. KATHLEEN MIDSTOKKE CITY CLERK CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 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 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ARTICLE 13, GENERAL PROVISIOn, CONDITIONS AND EXCEPTIONS - NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS AND USES, AND RELATED ORDINANCES AND ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on August 12, 1989 to receive oral and written testimony on this matter and made the following Findings: A. Sections 1300-1310 of the Hermosa Beach Zoning Code sets out conditions and exceptions for nonconforming buildings and uses; 0 B. The nonconforming sections referenced above have been interpreted to allow for the demolition of significant portions of structures while retaining the nonconforming status of the building; C. Allowing reconstruction of a building in a manner which allows the property to retain its nonconforming status while circumventing existing planning and development regulations leads to continuation of the nonconformity for the life of the new reconstructed building which compounds any current parking, density, safety and other environmental problems caused by continuation of such noconformities; D. Current sections of said Article 13 are no longer valid as a result of past amendments to the ordinance; E. The existing ordinance has no provisions for historically important structures which may be nonconforming as to use and/or structure; F. The existing ordinance is in need of revising for clarity and consistency; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ,16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby ordain the following amendments to Article 13 of the Zoning Ordinance: SECTION 1. Add "Section 13-0. . General Goals. The City Council recognizes that nonconformity exists throughout the City as a result of zone changes, and amendments to the zoning ordinance. In recognition of those changes, the City Council goals in the adoption of this ordinance are as follows: A. To allow those uses, and/or structures in sound condition which meet certain standards as stated within this article to be maintained. B. To encourage restoration and maintenance of those residential buildings of fine quality which enhance and maintain the long established historical character of Hermosa Beach. C. To encourage the use of this ordinance to meet the current and future minimum standards of parking, open space, setbacks, height, and all other such similar standards. D. To prohibit the remodeling and expansion of such buildings which by current standards are considered either exceptionally undersized, dilapidated, significantly overdense, or do not meet even the minimal standards of parking, and setback." SECTION 2. Amend Section number 1300 to number 13-1. SECTION 3. Amend Section 1301 by deleting completely "Exception 1", changing the Section number to 13-2, and adding The following: "Enlargement of windows and door openings in interior and exterior walls are considered minor and not structural alterations; repairs and/or replacement to plumbing, electrical wiring, similar work, and those required by law or as determined by the Building Director are not structural alterations." SECTION 4. Amend Section 1302 by changing the Section number to 13-3, and changing the entire text as follows: "Section 13-3. Nonconforming use of a nonconforming building. The nonconforming commercial or manufacturing use of a nonconforming commercial or manufacturing building may be continued, provided such nonconforming use shall not be expanded or enlarged nor shall any structural alteration be made except those required by law. If such nonconforming use is vacated or -J- 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 discontinued for ninety (90) consecutive days or more, any future use of such building shall conform to the provisions of the zone in which it is located Enlargement of windows and door openings in interior and exterior walls are considered minor and not structural alterations; repairs and/or replacement to plumbing, electrical wiring, similar work, and those required by law or as determined by the Building Director are not structural alterations. A nonconforming residential use of a nonconforming residential structure may be remodeled and/or expanded when it is in compliance with the intent, purpose, standards and requirements as specified in the following: Intent and Purpose of this Section is to allow remodeling and expansion to residential structures in sound condition in a manner that does not ultimately result in significant removal of existing structures. Where a structure is significantly damaged by dry rot, termites, or similar damage and removal of significant portions of the structure is necessary or recommended, this ordinance does not apply and expansion and/or remodeling is prohibited. All structures shall require a termite and dry rot inspection by a bonafide company, to determine the amount of structural removal, if any, that will be necessary because of damage. A. The following portions of the existing structure may be removed: (1) When adding additional stories, portions of the roof as necessary may be removed. (2) When adding to any side of a structure, walls may be removed to enlarge existing rooms, and/or to provide interior access as necessary for logical expansion of the existing structure. A maximum combination of 10% of the existing lineal feet of exterior walls and/or floor area may be removed whether necessitated by the inspection or by the remodeling, or both. (3) Removal of any other portions of an existing structure, other than those noted in sub -sections (1) and (2) above, shall require submittal of a demolition plan for review by the Planning Commission to determine whether the proposed plan meets the intent and purpose of this Section. B. ,Nonconforming uses and structures may be expanded to a maximum of ten percent (10%) and/or remodeled to a cumulative maximum of fifty 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 percent (50%) of the replacement cost of the existing structure(s) as it existed on (effective date of ordinance) and as determined by the Building Department which shall use current Building Valuation Data provided by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO). Interior remodeling shall be computed at 50% of the ICBG building valuation for new construction. When computing remodeled area, i.e. relocation of interior walls, fifty percent (50%) of the total area affected by the relocation of the wall shall be included in the computation.. For example, if a wall between the dining room and kitchen is removed, the area counted includes fifty percent (50%) of the dining room and kitchen area together (Refer to Section 13-7(B) for example). Any garage expansion for vehicle parking shall not be included as part of the allowed fifty percent (5070) expansion as noted in this section. C. The minimum standard for expansion and/or remodeling are as follows: (1) Refer to Article 11.5 for the Parking requirements. (2) Residential uses shall not exceed a maximum density equivalent to forty-five (45) units per acre. (3) Existing structures which are nonconforming as to yards, lot coverage, open space or height may be expanded or enlarged provided the expansion or enlargement complies with the regulations of the zone in which the structure is located. Existing nonconforming sideyards may be maintained with an addition provided the sideyard is not more than ten (10) percent smaller than the current sideyard required." SECTION 5. Change the Section number of Section 1303 to 13-4 and revise the wording as follows: "If a nonconforming manufacturing, commercial or residential use is vacated or removed and it is succeeded by another use, it is evident that the nonconforming use was ended; it thereby immediately loses any vested right to continue. A nonconforming use may be succeeded by a use which is itself nonconforming, provided the degree of nonconformity is less intensive (e.g. requires less parking or results in fewer dwelling units). It is the intent of this section to allow for an improvement in the degree of nonconformity of a use 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 6. SECTION 7. SECTION 8. SECTION 9. utilizing existing structures. It is not intended to allow the construction of new structures in violation of the provisions of this code. The Planning Commission shall make determinations as to whether a use is less intensive upon request." Change the Section number of Section 1304 to•13-5. Delete Section 1306, Board of Zoning Adjustment to Determine Conditions of Abatement. Change the Section number of 1307 to 13-6 and add the following sentence: "The International Conference of Building Officials valuation data shall be used in computing value." Amend Section 1309 by changing the title, the Section number and the text as follows: "Section 13-7. Conforming Use of a Nonconforming Structure. Intent and Purpose of this Section is to allow remodeling and expansion to nonconforming residential structures in sound condition in a manner that does not ultimately result in significant removal of existing structures. Where a structure is significantly damaged by dry rot, termites, or similar damage and removal of significant portions of the structure is necessary or recommended, this ordinance does not apply and expansion and/or remodeling is prohibited. All nonconforming structures shall require a termite and dry rot inspection by a bonafide company, to determine the amount of structural removal, if any, that will be necessary because of damage. Expansion to nonconforming manufacturing or commercial structures shall be prohibited. A. The following portions of the existing structure may be removed: When adding additional stories, portions of the roof as necessary may be removed. When adding to any side of a structure, walls may be removed to enlarge existing rooms, and/or to provide interior access as necessary for logical expansion of the existing structure. A maximum combination of 30% of the existing lineal feet of exterior walls and/or floor area may be removed whether necessitated by the inspection or by the remodeling, or both. 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 (3) Removal of any other portions of an existing structure, other than those noted in sub -sections (1) and (2) above, shall require submittal of a demolition plan for review by the Planning Commission to determine whether the proposed plan meets the intent and purpose of this Section. B. Nonconforming structures may be expanded and/or remodeled to a cumulative maximum of 507 of the replacement cost of the existing structure(s) as it existed on (effective date of ordinance) and as determined by the Building Department which shall use current Building Valuation Data provided by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBG). Interior remodeling shall be computed at 507. of the ICBG building valuation for new construction. When computing remodeled area, i.e. relocation .of interior walls, fifty percent (50%) of the total area affected by the relocation of the wall shall be included in the computation. For example, if a wall between the dining room and kitchen is removed, the area counted includes fifty percent (507) of the dining room and kitchen area together. Any garage expansion for vehicle parking shall not be included as part of the allowed fifty percent (507) expansion as noted in Section 13-7(B). The Planning Commission may allow expansions greater than fifty (50) percent, but no more than one hundred percent (100%), if it is determined that the goals, and the intent and purpose of this article and section are being met. Applicant fees for requests for expansions over fifty percent shall be set by the City Council. The following is an example of the fifty percent (50%) valuation formula: Example 1: Expansion only Existing Dwelling Size: (X) Cost per Square Foot Total Value: 50% of Value: Expansion Allowed: ($32,800 - $65.60) 1000 square feet $ 65.60 $ 65,600.00 $ 32,800.00 500 square feet 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Example 2: Remodeling & Expansion Existing dwelling Unit Size (X) Cost per Square Foot: Total Value: 50% of Value: Proposed 800 Sq. Ft. Remodel (504 floor area) @$29.50 per Square Foot: Proposed 300 Sq. Ft. Expansion: Total Cost: C. 1000 square feet $ 65.60 $ 65,600.00 $ 32,800.00 $ 11,800.00 $ 19,680.00 $ 31,480.00 (cost under 5070) The minimum standards for expansion and/or remodeling are as follows: Refer to Article 11.5 for the parking requirements. Existing structures which are nonconforming as to yards, lot coverage, open space or height may be expanded or enlarged provided the expansion or enlargement complies with the regulations of the zone in which the structure is located. Existing nonconforming sideyards may be maintained with an addition provided the sideyard is not more than ten (10) percent smaller than the current sideyard required. (3) Where existing walls are a minimum of, or more than three (3) feet from the side property line, the wall may be expanded if at least seventy-five (75) percent of the block as defined by the zoning ordinance, has the same or smaller nonconforming sideyards (excluding commercial and manufacturing uses). Measurement of sideyards shall be approximated by use of aerial photos and field inspections. Fees for such requests shall be set by the City Council." SECTION 10. Add "Section 13-8. Nonconforming Historic Buildings. A. A locally recognized historic building or structure may be substantially preserved, renovated or rebuilt subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. B. In reviewing the application for the historic building or structure, the Planning Commission shall evaluate and make Findings on the following: (1) The local historical significance of the building or structure. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 11. SECTION 12. SECTION 13. SECTION 14. SECTION 15. (2) The existing architecture. C. In approving a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission may authorize such deviations as necessary to preserve the structure and its historical significance and impose conditions of approval as deemed necessary." Delete Section 1310, Discontinuance of Nonconforming Use of Land. Amend Section 1162(b) of the Article 11.5. Off -Street Parking. As follows: For every residential building hereafter which is structurally altered to increase gross floor area, there shall be provided, permanently maintained and permanently available, two (2) parking spaces for each existing unit, including requirements for turning radius and parking standards as required by Article 11.5. During the life of a building a single addition of not more than one hundred (100) square feet may be constructed without compliance with this section, and a maximum of two hundred fifty (250) square feet may be constructed if at least one parking space is available with the same requirement as noted above for each existing unit, except that nonconforming uses require Planning Commission approval. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. The City Council shall designate the City Attorney to prepare a summary of this ordinance to be published pursuant to Government Code Section 36933(c) (1) in lieu of the full text of said ordinance. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause the summary to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach. 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: APPROED AS TO FORM: P/ccornon 28 CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY September 7, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of Septemer 12, 1989 AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH BUCHALTER, NEMER, FIELDS & YOUNGER FOR TITLE RESEARCH REGARDING THE CITY'S PURCHASE OF THE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Manager be authorized to contract with Buchalter, Nemer, Fields & Younger for title research and clarification regarding the City's purchase of the railroad right-of-way, to be funded by a transfer of $15,000 from the 4% U.U.T. fund to the City Attorney account. Background: The City's purchase of the 19.5 acre railroad right-of-way Green- belt is continuing to proceed. The sale of the Certificates of Participation to finance the purchase is to be conducted on Sep- tember 12, 1989, and the escrow is to close on December 20, 1989. The City is now in receipt of a Preliminary Title Report, and under the acquisition agreement has thirty days in which to ac- cept the report or list exceptions. The Preliminary Title Report lists sixteen exceptions and exclusions, and the proposed Grant Deed provided by the railway company reflect thirty-one existing licenses. Analysis: The City is faced with the choice of assuming that there are no problems existing with these easements and licenses or spend the time and money now to research, clarify, and eliminate to the extent possible these issues. Staff favors the latter. It will clean up and clarify the title for the future and assure us that we know precisely what conditions the land carries with it at the time of purchase. The three principal participants in our discussions with the railway were Jim Lough, our former City Attorney, real estate attorney and citizen volunteer Art Mazirow, and myself. The fastest and most thorough method to research and clarify these title questions appears to be utilizing Mr. Mazirow's firm. This is because of their large specialization in real estate matters as well as Art's thorough knowledge of this transaction. While it is not reasonable to expect this additional laborious work to be continued to be "pro bono" via Mr. Mazirow, neither is it usually appropriate to offer payment for services initially offered on a volunteer basis. While staff has concerns about this issue, we are also convinced that the payment is not for past quality services provided by Mr. Mazirow but for additional needed services that can be well provided by his firm and under his supervision. We also have consulted with the City Attorney, and he has no objections to this recommendation and feels the costs are reasonable. For these specialized legal services the firm is willing to charge a fee of $150 per hour, which is considerably under their standard rates, with a not to exceed figure of $15,000. Because of the importance of clarifying title and the time constraints, this seems to be a wise investment to assure the permanent, fu- ture clear title for the 7.5 million dollar purchase. Confirming the legal descriptions and mapping the parcels is a related necessity that will be fulfilled by the City's Deputy Engineer, Lynn Terry. Mr. Terry is licensed for land survey work and has considerable experience in this area. KBN/ld 2 No ed for fiscal impact: AA') 410 Viki Cope and Finance Director Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council September 6, 1989 City Council Meeting of September 12, 1989 TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Responsible Agent September 26, 1989 Approval of request for preliminary engineering proposals, Community Center electrical upgrade, CIP 89-613 Presentation of fire flow consultant's report Approval of extension fo contract for liability claims administration services with J. S. Ward & Co. for a term ending June 30, 1992 Approval of extension of contract for workers' comp. claims admin- istration services with Gates McDonald & Co., for a term ending June 30, 1992 Approval of amendment to Development Restriction Agreement for property located at 21st St. and Loma Dr.) Accept irrigation report as complete CIP 87-508 Report on upgrading vs. installing a new system, Community Center Fire Alarm System, CIP 89-615 Approval of request for preliminary engineering proposals, Community Center electrical upgrade, CIP 89-613 Award design contract for basket- ball courts, CIP 89-512 CIP 88-406 Call for Bids - Sewers Target Area 4 Accept Pier Repairs as complete CIP 87-614 RFP for cost allocation plan 1 Public Works Director Public Safety Director Personnel Director Personnel Director City Clerk Public Works Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Finance Director ic Development of design standards and criteria by which to review projects for EIRS (Precise Dev. Plan) Policy on motorcycles Review of Special Event Policy Pier Renovation Recommendation October 10, 1989 Recommendation on organization of General Services and Code Enforce- ment function Review of filming policy Fireworks ordinance cleanup Ordinance permitting recyclers in City Entry Signs October 24, 1989 Sewer bond analysis General Services Public information program Employer/Employee Organization Relations Resolution Info. update of Parks and Rec. Master Plan November 14, 1989 Certification of oil drilling EIR Conditional Use Permit and Text amendment Adoption of Uniform Fire, Building and Plumbing Codes Fire Sprinkler Ordinance Slurry sealing, call for bids CIP 89-170 November 28, 1989 Circulation element Planning Director Public Safety Director Community Resources Dir. Community Resources Dir. City Manager Community Resources Dir. Public Safety Director Building Director Community Resources Public Works Director General Services Director Personnel Director Community Resources Planning Director Planning Director Public Safety/Building Public Safety Director Public Works Director Planning Director January 9, 1989 Highland Avenue - accept as complete CIP 85-102 Public Works Director ***************************************************************** Upcoming Items Not Yet Calendared Unreinforced masonry building hazard mitigation program Caltrans utility maintenance agrmt. Power Street drainage and grading Traffic code update Vehicle parking on pedestrian streets County Lifeguard 911 alternate location 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 Building Director Public Works Public Works Public Works Public Works Director Director Director Director Building Director Building Director Planning Director Planning Director Building Director ***************************************************************** Initiated by Party Date Council 8/22 Bus bench & shelter design & locations Pier lessee request for rent relief Sidewalks for Safe School Rte. Recom. Public Works Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council September 6, 1989 City Council Meeting of September 12, 1989 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT OF INACTIVE PUBLIC DEPOSITS FOR HERMOSA BEACH Attached is a report of all Inactive Public Deposits for the month of August 1989• Respectfully submitted, Gary Bru -ch City Treasurer NOTED: • Kevin Northcraft_ City Manager 1d INSTITUTION TOTAL INVESTMENT REPORT - AUGUST 1989 DATE OF INVESTMENT DATE OF MATURITY INTEREST LAIF BALANCE 8/01/89 Withdrawal Investment Balance 8/31/89 $3,830,000.00 (375,000.00) 250,000.00 $3,705,000.00 CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT: Union Federal S&L Investment Union Federal S&L Investment Community Bank Investment City National Bank Investment City National Bank Investment City National Bank Investment CORPORATE NOTES: $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 8/30/89 9/22/88 3/7/89 12/8/88 3/30/89 4/25/89 5/22/89 8/9/89 9/22/89 3/7/90 12/8/89 3/23/90 4/25/90 5/17/90 9.204% 8.50% 9.50% 9.00% 10.30% 10.00% 9.45% Ford Motor Credit Co. Investment $ 500,000.00 5/19/88 5/20/93 9.10% Merrill Lynch & Co. Investment $ 500,000.00 6/30/88 1/2/90 8.35% Summit Bancorporation Investment $ 500,000.00 9/15/88 10/16/89 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 TOTAL BALANCE $ 248,733.64 $ 9,966.944.08 Respectfully Submitted, Alir 1/, _ LI .w Gary Bru .c City Tr-asurer 3/26/87 3/1/17 8.0% HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: REQUEST: September 5, 1989 Regular Meeting of September 12, 1989 FINAL MAP #20093 (C.U.P. CON NO. 88-24) 618-620 6TH STREET JOSEPH MOGEL APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP FOR 2 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Final Parcel Map #20093 which is consistent with the approved Tentative Parcel Map, and recommends the City Clerk be directed to endorse the certificate for said map. Background The Planning Commission approved Tentative Parcel Map #20093 at their October 18,1988 meeting. Analysis The staff has reviewed the Final Map and found it substantially consistent with the Tentative Parcel Map approved by the Planning Commission and in conformance with the State Subdivision Map Act. CONCUR: Michaet Schubach Planning Director 'Kevin B. Nor ' craft City Manager T/srfinmap Respectfully ubmitted, #Robertson Associate Planner 1 2 3 4 5 '6 . 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ]6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL •OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #20093 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 618 6TH STREET, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the City Council held a meeting on September 12, 1989 and made the following Findings: A. This project will not violate any of the provisions of Sections 66427.1, 66474, 66474.1, and 66474.6 of the Subdivi- 'sion Map Act; B. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan required by Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of the Government Code, or any specific plan adopted pursuant to Article 8 (commencing with Section 65450) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of the Government Code; C. The development of the property in the manner set forth on the subject division of land will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any public entity and/ or public utility rights-of-way and/or easements within the subject division of land; D. The approval of said map is subject to all conditions out- lined in Planning Commission Resolution P.C. No. 88-85, adop- ted after public hearing on October 18, 1988; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the. City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby resolve as follows: 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 1. Pursuant to the recommendation of the Planning Commission and to the recommendation of the County Engineer, the City Council does hereby grant final approval of Parcel Map #20093 in the City of Hermosa Beach, State of California, being a Subdivision of Lot 25, Dr. Dougherty's Hermosa Bay View Tract, for a two -unit condominium project on land commonly known as 618 6th Street, Hermosa Beach, California. . PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 12th day of September, 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermo- sa Beach, California. ATTEST: APP' a FORMAre T/rsfinmap CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 2 V HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: REQUEST: September 5, 1989 Regular Meeting of September 12, 1989 FINAL MAP #20092 (C.U.P. CON NO. 88-32) 725 9TH STREET JOE MOGUL APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP FOR 2 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Final Parcel Map #20092 which is consistent with the approved Tentative Parcel Map, and recommends the City' Clerk be directed to endorse the certificate for said map. Background The Planning Commission approved Tentative Parcel Map #20092 at their November 15, 1988 meeting. Analysis The staff has reviewed the Final Map and found it substantially consistent with the Tentative Parcel Map approved by the Planning Commission and in conformance with the State Subdivision Map Act. . CONCUR: 1 Mic ae Sc u.ac Planning Director evin . Nortbcraft City Manager T/srfinmap Respectfully submitted, en Robertson Associate Planner if 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #20092 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 725 9TH STREET, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the City Council held a meeting on September 12, 1989 and made the following Findings: A. This project will not violate any of the provisions of Sections 66427.1, 66474, 66474.1, and 66474.6 of the Subdivi- _. Sion Map Act; B. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan required by Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of the Government Code, or any specific plan adopted pursuant to Article 8 (commencing with Section 65450) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of the Government Code; C. The development of the property in the manner set forth on the subject division of land will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any public entity and/ or public utility rights-of-way and/or easements within the subject division of land; D. The approval of said map is subject to all conditions out- lined in Planning Commission Resolution P.C. No. 88-96, adop- ted after public hearing on November 15, 1988; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby resolve as follows: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ,16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. Pursuant to the recommendation of the Planning Commission and to the recommendation of the County Engineer, the City Council does hereby grant final approval of Parcel Map #20092 in the City of Hermosa Beach, State of California, being a Subdivision of Lot 19, Tract 223, for a two -unit condominium project on land commonly known as 725 9th Street, Hermosa Beach, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 12th day of September, 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermo- sa Beach, California. ATTEST: T/rsfinmap CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 2 -10 HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: REQUEST: FINAL MAP #19525 (C.U.P. CON NO. 532 11TH STREET BILL ALNES APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP FOR 3 -UNIT September 5, 1989 Regular Meeting of September 12, 1989 88-11) CONDOMINIUM PROJECT Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Final Parcel Map #19525 which is consistent with the approved Tentative Parcel Map, and recommends the City Clerk be directed to endorse the certificate for said map. Background The Planning Commission approved Tentative Parcel Map #19525 at their June 21, 1988 meeting. Analysis The staff has reviewed the Final Map and found it substantially consistent with the Tentative Parcel Map approved by the Planning Commission and in conformance with the State Subdivision Map Act. Respectfully submitted, 7 CONCUR: • �db tson Michael' Schubach 6 Associate Planner Planning Director evin B. or craft City Manage T/srfinmap lg 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #19525 FOR A THREE -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 532 11TH STREET, HERMO- SA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the City Council held a meeting on September 12, 1989 and made the following Findings: A. This project will not violate any of the provisions of Sections 66427.1, 66474, 66474.1, and 66474.6 of the Subdivi- _..sion Map Act; B. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan required by Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of the Government Code, or any specific plan adopted pursuant to Article 8 (commencing with Section 65450) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of the Government Code; C. The development of the property in the manner set forth on the subject division of land will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any public entity and/ or public utility rights-of-way and/or easements within the subject division of land; D. The approval of said map is subject to all conditions out- lined in Planning Commission Resolution P.C. No. 88-50, adop- ted after public hearing on June 21, 1988; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby resolve as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 -6 •• 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .J6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. Pursuant to the recommendation of the Planning Commission and to the recommendation of the County Engineer, the City Council does hereby grant final approval of Parcel Map #19525 in the City of Hermosa Beach, State of California, being a Subdivision of Lot 7, Knutsen Tract,for a three -unit con- dominium project on land commonly known as 532 11th Street, Hermosa Beach, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 12th day of September, 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermo- sa Beach, California. ATTEST: T/rsf inmap CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY September 5, 1989 HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the Regular Meeting of HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL September 12, 1989 SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: REQUEST: FINAL MAP #20132 (C.U.P. CON NO. 88-29) 640 6TH STREET EDWARD SARKISIAN & BENJAMIN GILMORE APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP FOR 2 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Final Parcel Map #20132 which is consistent with the approved Tentative Parcel Map, and recommends the City Clerk be directed to endorse the certificate for said map. Background The Planning Commission approved Tentative Parcel Map #20132 at their November 1, 1988 meeting. Analysis The staff has reviewed the Final Map and found it substantially consistent with the Tentative Parcel Map approved by the Planning Commission and in conformance with the State Subdivision Map Act. " CONCUR: 0),?-(41=e/c,-,, en Ro ertson Michael Schubach Associate Planner Planning Director Res►ectfully submitted, /.1p,f .1# 'Kevin B. North aft City Manager T/srfinmap 11a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #20132 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 640 6TH STREET, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the City Council held a meeting on September 12, 1989 and made the following Findings: A. This project will not violate any of the provisions of Sections 66427.1, 66474, 66474.1, and 66474.6 of the Subdivi- -• sion •Map Act; B. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan required by Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of the Government Code, or any specific plan adopted pursuant to Article 8 (commencing with Section 65450) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of the Government Code; C. The development of the property in the manner set forth on the subject division of land will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any public entity and/ or public utility rights-of-way and/or easements within the subject division of land; D. The approval of said map is subject to all conditions out- lined in Planning Commission Resolution P.C. No. 88-90, adop- ted after public hearing on November 1, 1988; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby resolve as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6 . 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ,16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. Pursuant to the recommendation of the Planning Commission and to the recommendation of the County Engineer, the City Council does hereby grant final approval of Parcel Map #20132 in the City of Hermosa Beach, State of California, being a Subdivision of Lot 27, Dr. bougherty's Hermosa Bay View Tract for a two -unit condominium project on land commonly known as 640 6th Street, Hermosa Beach, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 12th day of September, 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermo- sa Beach, California. ATTEST: T/rsf inmap CITY_CLERK CITY ATTORNEY Hornorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council RECOMMENDATION August 30, 1989 City Council Meeting of September 12, 1989 REAPPROPRIATION OF UNSPENT FUNDS 1988-89 BUDGET It is recommended that the City Council reappropriate listed below from the 1988-89 Budget: Department/Account GENERAL FUND FINANCE Contract Services DATA PROCESSING Equipment over $500 Contract Services ANIMAL CONTROL Vehicles COMMUNITY RESOURCES Contract Services Vehicles EQUIPMENT SERVICE Vehicles CIP 8176 Traffic Signal Pre-emption Contract Services CIP 8606 Police Remodel Contract Services CIP 8610 Theatre Air Conditioning Contract Services Amount $30,000 Reason amounts User fee study/cost allocation plan, RFP to be issued first half of 89-90 Hardware/Software for 1,423 Personnel, ordered 88-89 96 not delivered until 89-90 13,000 8,978 8,000 5,800 37,468 Animal Control truck ordered, not delivered Master Plan, work to start 89-90, $25,000 included in 89-90 Adopted Budget Used utility van not purchased 88-89 Used van, not purchased 88-89 Project not complete $33,000 included 89-90 Adopted Budget Miscellaneous items to 8,550 complete remodel 13,905 Project not complete - 1 - 11 4 Department/Account CIP 8612 City Wide Signs Contract Services PARKING FUND PARKING ENFORCEMENT Contract Services STATE GAS TAX CIP 8160 Concrete Street Repairs Contract Services CIP 8170 Slurry Seal Contract Services CIP 8171 Asphalt Street Repairs Contract Services PROP A FUND CIRCULATION ELEMENT Contract Services GRANT FUND CIP 8102 Widen Highland Avenue Contract Services CIP 8516 6th/Prospect Park Contract Services Amount Reason Project not complete, $8,000 included in 8,700 89-90 Adopted Budget $135,920 Office chairs ordered, not 611 delivered 88-89 978 Office panels/accessories ordered, not delivered 88- $1,589 89 79,493 Project not complete $320,000 included 89-90 17,219 Adopted Budget 21,305 Needed for continuing project $118,017 Project not complete, 5,000 $12,735 included in 89-90 Adopted Budget $5,000 138,043 Project not complete, $50,008 included in 89-90 Adopted Budget State Grant approval 7,958 pending Department/Account CIP 8517 Recreation Facilities Contract Services CIP 8518 Recreation Facilities Contract Services CIP 8519 Hermosa Parks Contract Services SEWER FUND CIP 8405 Target Area 3 Contract Services CIP 8406 Target Area 4 Contract Services CIP 8407 Sewer Bond Issue Contract Services FIRE PROTECTION FUND HYDRANT UPGRADE Contract Services HYDRANT UPGRADE Contract Services BACKGROUND Amount Reason State Grant 8,742 pending State Grant 12,305 pending State Grant 2,108 pending $31,113 174,808 426,834 25,000 $626,642 approval approval approval Project not complete Project not complete $1,773,758 included in 89-90 Adopted Budget Project not complete Funds for the fire flow 7,300 study that was not com- pleted in the last fiscal year as budgeted. Funds for fire hydrant 63,492 replacement/upgrades that were ordered but are not complete. $ 70,792 Budget appropriations for 1988-89 expire June 30, 1989. Equipment and supplies or services must be received by June 30th in order to be charged to the 88-89 budget. Departments, therefore, may have items that were ordered but not delivered or services and projects that were not complete by year end. Amounts unexpended for specific items may be reappropriated if not included in the 89-90 budget request. ANALYSIS All of the amounts to be reappropriated are funds unspent from the 1988-89 budget. If departments are aware that 88-89 items will not arrive by year end, the item can be included in the new budget making reappropriation unnecessary. In these cases, the department expected completion by June 30, 1989, therefore items were not requested in the 1989-90 budget. Concur: / Kevin B. Northoraft City Manager' Viki Copeland Finance Director • August 21, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council September 12, 1989 ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY - PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council approve Resolution No. 89- , concurring with the State's engineering and traffic survey on Pacific Coast Highway, thereby, maintaining the existing posted limits of: a) Herondo to 14th Street b) 14th Street to Longfellow Background: 30 mph 35 mph Caltrans recently conducted updated speed surveys along Pacific Coast Highway in order to satisfy the conditions of an engineering and traffic survey along that corridor. There is a need to certify such results by the City Council in order to enforce the limits. The speed survey is available in the City Clerk's office for review. Analysis: In a letter to the City, Caltrans says that the intensified land uses has brought about greater pedestrian traffic and an increased vehicular traffic entering and exiting Pacific Coast Highway from cross streets and driveways. In the interest of safety for all users, it is believed that, the existing,limits would better serve their needs. Limits Herondo to 14th Street Existing Posted Caltrans Recommended Speed Limit Speed Limit 30 30 14th Street to Longfellow 35 35 Staff concurs with Caltrans' recommendation. 1 Alternatives: Other alternatives considered by staff and available to City Council are: 1. Perform another engineering and traffic speed survey. 2. Recommend the higher speed limit to the State. Respectfully submitted, Lag' ULAJ At1144 Ant -b/w Antich Director of Pub is Works eng/pwadmin 2 Concur: Kevin B. Northctaft City Manager ' Steve Wisniewski Public Safety Director 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SPEED SURVEY ON PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING POSTED SPEED LIMITS. WHEREAS, enforcement of speed limits by radar must be justified by an engineering and traffic speed survey; WHEREAS, Section 40802 of the California Vehicle Code requires an engineering and traffic speed survey to be performed every five years; WHEREAS, the most recent survey was presented to and adopted by City Council on November 22, 1988; WHEREAS, Caltrans conducted similar surveys in April, 1989 which reflected that Pacific Coast Highway land uses have intensified and become more commercial. This has increased pedestrian traffic crossing Pacific Coast Highway and has increased vehicular traffic crossing, entering, and exiting Pacific Coast Highway via intersecting City streets and driveways; WHEREAS, increase in potential for vehicular and vehicle/pedestrian conflict dictates that the posted speed limits should remain the same in the interest of safety; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. To certify the attached engineering and traffic survey for Pacific Coast Highway (attached as Exhibit "A"). SECTION 2. Direct that a copy of the resolution be forwarded to 1 2 3 4 the presiding judge of the South Bay Municipal Court, Beach Cities Branch. SECTION 3. That this resolution take effect immediately. 5II PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of September 1989. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk rney APRIL 1989 TABLE A ROUTE 1 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY/SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD ' ANITA/HERONDO STREET TO LONGFELLOW AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH LOCATION ROADWAY ADT ACCIDENT RATE POSTED SPEED PACE SPEED 85TH PERCENTILE RECOM SPEED ROUTE 1 WIDTH FT. NO. OF LANES VPD ACC/MVM MPH MPH MPH MPH HERONDO ST. -14TH ST. 14TH ST.-LONGFELLOW AVENUE 74 74 4 4 54,500 46,300 2.67 2.50 30 35 24-34 31-41 34 40 30 35 .1H1t LISIHX3 _SE :■11iiiiiUI1' ■■■■■■1111■■■■■■■■11■■■ I 1111W11■■■11■1111■■■■■■111111■� W■■■■11■ I' I ■■1111■ 1111M0■■■■■■ ■■11■■■■■■11�■■ 1111■11■■■1111■■■■■1111 ■I ■ JE.IIR.I.PORU.IIIIH. ■s ■ 11■--■1111■■■■■■■,1111■■11,_111■ ■1111■■i11■■ ■ ■■I■11■■■■II o ■■ ■ ■■■■■■■■■11Iil■■■ ■■■1111111111■ 1111111111111111111111111101111111m1/11111111111•11 I r° 111111 IIIU1111■ IdigintiavaNalzazoPMEMAIIIIIIM � I i ° ■■■■1111■■■■■ 11111■1111/ ■ I ■ ! 111111111111111111111111 I 1. 11111111111/mme I I ■ � ■■■11■■ 1■■■■■[1■ ■11■■■■11■■ 11111111111110111111111111111111 11� ■11■■■■■■■�1■■ 11i■■■®■11■■ 1111■ . MR ■11■■■■■■■I1■■ ■ 1111■■■■■ ■ , ■■■■■■11■■11�d1■11■■/ ■® ■■ ■■■■■■■■■■11,1■11■■1I■■■■■ I 1111■ I 111111111111111111114M111111111M1111111111111E Q■■■■11:■ 0-:::111111 a.0 1111■ ! 1111■■■11111111111111111■► ��= 'MIME IIi 11111111 • oi 111111E11111111 - • ■IR■■■■■■ SI•e-d NMPH) OHM Eng i11111111■■■ 1111111111■■11■11■■■ ■11■■■■1111■■■1111■■■■■1111111111■■■■■ 1111■'' ■11111111116■■1111■■■ 11 D' - ui� namoni P, - dig' - . • - m ■■■m111111n■■■■■■■■■■ 11111 D . t = Ell11111111111111111111LEMEMEEM ■■■■111111■■■■■11■■■■■11■■■■■■■11111 II ■■■■11■■■11■11111111■■■■■11■11111111■ I! 100 -r . II I I L cation I MPH. ' O C) CUMULA IVLSPEVE.. ■ I 0 0 •14 iJ .0, 0. 4.11 of 4+1 I 4.11 0! (Di 11a p �We T AO NWW Q 2 11. e 20 r I' 1, I� C� SP To 0: D to 9 er oVehicles 0 lc-) SEO: ROAM.. 41.C. CO 01/45.+ vJ� MOTOR WHOLE SPEED LOCATION: 03£RVER: i B Sevkvvk-ee►\ ��+�cYlntiosn� C�eacl�)' CAIC.DY: _ FILE NO., 10: 30 �� qq * "IUE: c�" /��.�L tSTART FINISH • WEATHER: PO4n CONDITION:. _S'Id ' ' 1'" CH/CrED BY: -1-'11)41.11e-r• N/5 6-Y6 )74 274. DIRECTION: 1% VEHICLES 10 I! 20 NO. TOTAL YEN. serer) m. ■■■■...■■ ■■.■....n■ ■.m.■ eoC:': ■_ ::_: m.ma1 :' � .■■.. 11 1 .11.2111111.■.■ ... s ■. ... ■■■ l■■■■� l.■ �miu� .■■.■■■■ .■i1Ii11111IiFu__ ' :i.m cl,■ mil11 n ill Elilina C .d mil ins _ Nip .: m __ a6 1 Irma Un- ilin • mi Win �1,.°111 ... pg mu._ ■i OR .111"clir zfi li famorgpipWr y 1 . P 111 1'!1: ,1►,► gunII 4 7411)§`.►.4 4p . J4 ♦ I Wi3f.i i'i'I ■ _ T 6 1 ■ ■.. masa"II ft- . .m._ �4l 262 6 1...� . I■ �. •—�• 2.rI:::.■.... O.�.�,E...; - ;mL ts..■■.■.. J_WIWI ■■ �i.■■■.� a II. iilliiiin ■.■.■ :.3 LEGEND X PASS CAR P • PICKUP ecSUS SP 2 AXLES !•3AXLES 4 • 4 AXLES S•SAXLES ..L� TOTALS_ SOD ». _. _--_ _• , . . Aurone Crh.cot S ,ed _ _ Q Pcte Saeed • % Over Roc* GIRECTIOtt P2 :o 70 74 74 72 70 04 60 Lal 02 00 St 54 se Sl r" LS 46 42 40 2! 7a 34 32 S .■. ■ ..■■■. I=::IU 1 '■:1::_mmun1111 Bush:41111.. . unnin IMO s �• a u ':■ mi■ MON II r...■■ NE ■ TOTAL SPEED ,410046 WM MI,Mn mAlmnplimm mvomA4#.740 is 2AgoilwrAto5 was 141 P I let. 47.26.4te,-0,F4g iminglill ME • ■ m R■ a ■ inaminpria NATIMM N■■I:a.UlSWIM r■1 ■ .NEM ■ r■.■ ■111 ismi 111:111• e. Ann" .1_ TOTALS__. -L a2 , Average Steod_— 3�- --- Critical Speed --- Poe. Speed % Over Pec• % In Pxe 10- 11 11 LEGEND X a PASS CAR P * PICKUP SOUS t AK4C$ 1' 3 A*4o 1*4Al(4Es sasAXLES • TOTALS- !De" • .. ArKoje Crtt%col Swed 41____'_.. . Pce.S. • Over Pot• gInPtro (01 0 ------ -- z b H (D fA ((D 4 fi 0 0 (D 0 0 (D—� ci_ TOTALS %"/!___.__� Ainroas Spew, ZS.. 1 Critical Snood- 4 O Poe. SP.•d % Over Pot. ..�. % In Poc. CuMULAfIV= SEE !1 -10 0 0 aro tip 1A -K C J . 1 EDU C i { fA -01 J lb 2 i 1 { 20 Speed ct ion a IFt,C7sT .i a • -41 40 30 MPH)` � I Time u z (JI Present igned ZonLi Q1 MPH. cpEtActrA To Numker_ oT Veh' cies \OO SED: ROAo- . PAc ‘ Nc_ Co AST \--kw Y . MOTOR - VEHICLE SPEED . /142>{'FV018(‘)/0M'E: -5-dck S �ki Tr � �'C j�4��L 'IME: _ � 5 �✓/� ...START• LOCATION: _�% _PS.6S�- �-L' 'L) cmc. BY. T _ WEATHER: ‘-‘ci POO CONDITION: _GOO 0 QRy • FILE NO.1 PTh • , c!' .J2 ' 2 O N1F ' t:lNt pt CNfCKED BY: _ `7 ..._. DIRECTION: N./ S/O 6 t1n 5T' VCIIICLES 10 IS 20 :3 Co62 74 72 ��■■■.■ . �..■■�.■ 74 C.'C::=r1111111111111 ::.1' 11 .11 111111111h NNIIII 70 w■��■■■ ■'Ille ia :� �� ppm �m c• a 64 a.aiu111111a■C e211C1■' ■rC u ■ C■C C =■■..�. ■■ ■r! ■ �� ■..■ C 46 46 111.1 ■■53 ■ �■■ : August 30, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council September 12, 1989 AN ADDENDUM TO THE SOFTWARE LICENSE AND SUPPORT AGREEMENT WITH PHOENIX GROUP INFORMATION SYSTEMS FOR SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT OF OUT-OF-STATE CITATION PROCESSING Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached addendum to the software license and support agreement with Phoenix Group Information Systems for software development of Out -Of -State citation processing at no cost to the city. Cost to be absorbed by Phoenix Group Information Systems percentage of collection on outstanding Out -Of -State parking citations. Background: At your regularly scheduled meeting of March 8, 1989, the City Council approved an agreement with Computil to process our out-of-state parking citations. The contract which agreed upon will expire September 17, 1989. We have notified Computil that we will not be renewing our contract with them. We have had minor problems with Computil not honoring the contract but the problem that has lead us to discontinuing our service is the failure to remit what is due to the City in the time frame established in the agreement. The contract states that Computil is to report and remit to the Finance administrator not later than the 15th day of each month on citation fees collected during the previous month. Payments that we receive are two and three months delinquent. The City has notified Computil of this however, no attempt has been made to rectify the problem. Analysis: We have negotiated with our current provider of citation software and support to develop programs to process out-of-state citations, at no cost to the city. Their development costs will be recouped through a percentage of collections on said citations. The agreement would be for a term of one year after which time the programs would be given to the City of Hermosa Beach. The City would then have the option of processing their own out-of-state citations or continuing the agreement. The amount charged by our two previous vendors has been 32% of the revenue collected. The amount charged by Phoenix Group Information Systems will remain at the same rate. During the time we have been with Computil our rate of collection has been 5%. Since the rate of collection has not been determined by Phoenix Group we cannot make a comparison. However, if the amount of collection does not increase after a period of one year we will have the option of processing our own out-of-state citations. - 1 - 11 We have been with our current provider, Phoenix Group previously Universal Computer, since March of 1987. In the past it has been our experience that a change in vendor results in a need for a program modification. This would not be necessary when working with only one vendor. With the access, that our current provider has to our system, any updates or change in procedure can be done direct without going through a middle man, which in the past has resulted in a delay. CONCUR: G. S. Director elf - l:,72,7 - , CONCUR: ,/,.7,-/,-.4-y/ . ' Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager Approved as to form Respectfully submitted, • a,vc,,7 . Marcia Hite Citation Records Administrator Noted for fiscal impact: Viki Copeland Finance Director Cha les Vose City Attorney PHOENIX GROUP INFORMATION SYSTEMS August 29, 1989 Ms. Joan Noon City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Blvd. Hermosa Beach, CA Dear Joan: Enclosed please find the revised agreement (in duplicate) for your review. The term and fees for the current agreement will remain in effect for the software service. As an amendment, the city will add software development for out of state processing. This will not affect the current agreement for software services and support. The amendment to include out-of-state processing will not be an additional charge, but will be provided to the city on a contingency fee of the collections brought in for the out-of-state citations. This is outlined in section 4. In addition, the city will receive a monthly return of collections for out-of-state citations. In other words, the city will submit Phoenix a quarterly check for software support services and Phoenix will submit to the city a monthly check for out-of-state citation collections. I did not add anything regarding on-line citation updates or payment processing, however we will look into providing these options at a later date. When and if the option is a reasonable method of operation and all security is in place, we can look to modify the agreement at that time. If you have any questions please call me, otherwise I will expect to make any changes necessary after review by legal council. Sincerely, 7)1 attpLka-Y/76Tq Mary Houghton Vice President of Marketing cc: Bob Murphy 369 VAN NESS WAY, SUITE 707 • TORRANCE, CA 90501 • TELEPHONE (213) 320-9344 r, • PHOENIX GROUP INFORMATION SYSTEMS ADDENDUM TO SOFTWARE SERVICE AGREEMENT SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT FOR OUT-OF-STATE PROCESSING PHOENIX GROUP Information Systems, a California Corporation 369 Van Ness Way, Suite 707 Torrance, CA 90501 (213) 320-9344 (hereinafter referred to as "PHX"), agrees to provide to: The City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Avenue Hermosa Beach, 90254 (213) 318-0252 (hereinafter referred to as "City") Addendum to SOFTWARE SERVICE AGREEMENT dated September 1, 1988 to include Software development and processing for out- of-state parking citations. Software and services are defined throughout the following amendment. 1.0 PROCESSING SERVICES PROVIDED PHX shall develop all software and process parking citations issued to out-of-state vehicles. After one year of processing the out-of-state citations, the communication set- up for all states programed by PHX will be provided to the City. This will not be provided for use by any agency other than the City of Hermosa Beach. 1.1 Citation referral and Reconciliation: PHX will provide all programs necessary to receive magnetic tape communications from the City, for monthly communication to PHX. Any reconciliation of the number of citations received from City will also be reported monthly. The City will update PHX with any new citations, payments, reductions, cancellations, dismissals, or other relevant information pertaining to the citation(s). PHX will provide the City with a magnetic tape on a monthly basis with all cleared citations. 1.2 Registered Owner Information: PHX will be responsible for requesting all DMV registered owner information, communications, and costs for each state. If PHX is unable to obtain the information necessary, the citation may be returned to the City for proper disposition or registered owner information. 369 VAN NESS WAY, SUITE 707 • TORRANCE, CA 90501 • TELEPHONE (213) 320-9344 1.3 Delinquency Notices: PHX will generate and mail the notices for citations which have been referred to PHX by the City. The mailed notice will include: a. citation number, b. date and time of issuance, c. violation and description, d. the amount of fine/fee due, and e. how to pay the citation 1.4 Notices: are sent to the owner that DMV has on record at the time the Citation is written. 2.0 PAYMENT PROCESSING ' PHX will_ collect citation payments and deposit into an account controlled by PHX. Payments are defined as the following: 2.1 Cash payments: Cash payments are any payment made by check, money order, or cash and accepted as full payment. 2.2 Partial payments: Partial payment will be accepted as full payment unless the amount is less than the original bail. 2.3 Court Requests: All court requests will be forwarded to the City for processing. 2.4 Payments y U.S. Mail: The postmark will be the criteria to establish any delinquent fees due. 2.5 Deposit of funds: PHX will bank account controlled by PHX. Section 4.0 Fees. 2.6 Disposition retention: PHX information for a period of one returned to the City, whichever deposit all revenue into a Disbursements are defined in will maintain all citation year, or until data is• occurs first. 2.7 Revenue Reporting: PHX will forward revenue reports to balance the deposits for the month. These reports will also determine the percentage retained by PHX for services. 3.0 REPORTING PHX will supply the City with the following reports: a. b. c. d. e. TC210 Paid Batch Report (Payments input) Notices Citation status report TC140 Repeat Offender Report TC210 Analysis by Location -2- Additional reports may be supplied to the City provided they are currently part of the UNICITE program. 4.0 FEES In consideration of the services provided, City agrees to the following fees and disbursements of funds: 4.1 Contingency fee: PHX shall charge thirty-two percent (32%) of the revenues collected for citations issued to out- of-state vehicles. PHX will disburse the remaining sixty- eight (68%) to the city. PHX will not charge the City for any costs related to obtaining registered owner information. 4.2 Deposits of payments: PHX will deposit payments into.a. bank account controlled by PHX. PHX will deduct contingency fees and disburse remaining funds to the city by the 15th of each month for the previous months collections. 4.3 Postal increases: In the event of a postal increase, PHX may request an adjustment to the fees to off -set the postal increase. Such request will be in writing with 30 days notice. 4.4 Late penalties: PHX agrees to disburse all revenues by the 15th of each month for the previous months collections. In the event PHX fails to comply to such schedule, under this Agreement, PHX, upon demand shall pay interest at the rate of 1.5% per month (but not exceeding the maximum allowed by Law) on any delinquent amount from the due date until date of payment. If the 15th falls on a non -working day (weekends and holidays) disbursement shall be due on the next working day following the 15th of the month. 4.5 NSF checks: The City will process all checks which have been returned by the bank. City will be responsible for all service charges incurred for such returned checks. PHX will forward all registered owner information to the City. 5.0 TERM AND RENEWALS Except as otherwise stated these terms and conditions shall be in effect between both parties for a period of one year from date of this Agreement, which shall commence on Date: Unless either party delivers to the other party notice in writing sixty (60) days prior to cancellation date advising that it does not wish to continue service, this Agreement shall automatically renew for subsequent one year periods. In conjunction with this automatic extension, of the terms of the agreement , PHX may give 30 day notice of reasonable price adjustments for -3- services. Unless City rejects renewal and/or rate increase in writing, the term shall be extended with the price adjustments as stated. 5.1 Cancellation: Upon a material breach or upon sixty days written notice to PHX, the City may cancel or terminate this agreement. The PHX shall have thirty days to cure any material breach or defect setforth in the written termination; notice provided by the City. 5.2 Exclusivity: City agrees to utilize only the services of PHX during the term of this agreement for the processing of citations issued to out-of-state vehicles. City also agrees during the term of the agreement to not directly or indirectly assist a competitor of PHX in the performance of the services provided by PHX under this agreement, and not to divulge the trade secrets or property of PHX to any unauthorized person or entity. This Non -Disclosure obligation shall survive the termination of this agreement. 6.0 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY PHX's sole liability to City or any third party for claims, regardless of form, arising out of errors or omissions in the services provided, shall be to furnish a correct report or data and to correct City's files, provided that City promptly advised PHX thereof. 7.0 CONFIDENTIALITY/FILE SECURITY Reasonable security provisions will be provided by PHX to ensure that access to City computer records and files will be available only to City. PHX will hold all City's data in strict confidence and shall not provide any data to any other party unless directed by City in writing or as ordered by any Lawful Agency. 8.0 SECTION HEADINGS Section headings appearing in this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall not be construed to be interpretations of text. 10.0 MISCELLANEOUS 10.1 This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 10.2 The waiver of any breach of any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or other provisions in this Agreement. -4- 10.3 If any provision of this Agreement shall not be enforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall remain in full force. 10.4 All provision of this Agreement shall be binding upon both parties. 10.5 This Agreement contains the entire understanding between PHX and City with respect to out-of-state citation processing, and upon the commencement date, will be in addition to prior agreement, regarding warranty or Services. Return Address on Notices: Name: Address Line 1: Address Line 2: City, State, Zip: Send Reports To: Name: Address Line 1: Address Line 2: City, State, Zip: Accepted: PHOENIX GROUP Information Systems SIGNATURE Accepted: City OF HERMOSA BEACH SIGNATURE TYPED OR PRINTED NAME TYPED OR PRINTED NAME DATE -5- DATE Appr Ci y tto ney August 28, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council September 12, 1989, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT'S REQUEST FOR REDUCED HOURS CLERICAL EMPLOYEE Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Increase the personnel limit currently authorized to meet current FY 89-90 and future clerical needs of the Public Works department by authorizing the hiring of one (1) permanent, reduced -hour (20 hours/week) clerical employee. 2. Appropriate an additional $4,910 from the General Fund fund balance to Public Works Department's FY 89-90 administrative budget effective October 1, 1989 for the additional staffing. Background: In the last few years, Public Works has increased the number and scope of activities. The work necessary for analysis, monitoring and scheduling of these projects has required additional clerical (part-time) help. To meet these needs, the Public Works Department has hired temporary, part-time employees beginning in 1987 continuing to this date. The number of hours utilized from this type of personnel from 1987 to the present is as follows: Calendar Year Hours 1987 492.0 hours 1988 791.25 hours 1989 417.5 hours (ending July 31, 1989) Analysis: This analysis will cover the following: 1. Total Annual 2. Temporary vs Clerical Needs Permanent Considerations 1. Total Annual Clerical Needs Table 1, which follows, shows the total hourly allocation necessary to meet the clerical and administrative needs of the department during FY 89-89 and the foreseeable future. The 1 hours required for various activities by the current, part time employee are also shown as percentages of the total hours available to the proposed position. The cost column shows the annual base salary for the proposed position and indicates how it would be allocated for the department's activities. TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF HOURS ANNUALLY EXPENDED TO MEET P.W. OFFICE NEEDS 1 1 1 1 1 1 ADMIN. AIDE CL. TYPIST WRD. PROCESS.*REDUCED HRS REDUCED HRS REDUCED HRS ACTIVITIES Hours Hours SEC. - Hours Clerical % of Tot Hrs $ Cost 1 1 1 1 1 Traffic Engineering 52 20 139 0.0% 0 Personnel 240 0.0% 0 Maintenance 358 165 15.9% 1,658 Special Projects 125 100 68 60 5.8% 603 CIP's 247 740 247 23.8% 2,482 Permits 20 70 0.0% 0 Engineering/Special 0.0% 0 Projects (support) 150 20 215 20.7% 2,161 Meetings (staff & 0.0% 0 other) 65 24 3 0.3% 30 Clerical 240 358 0.0% 0 Budget 200 20 10 1.0% 101 Leases & Agreements 97 0.0% 0 Misc. Projects 360 150 230 22.1% 2,312 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUB TOTAL: 1,796 1,860 207 930 89.4% 59,347 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DESIGNATED ADMIN. AIDE CL. TYPIST WRD. PROCESS. REDUCED HRS REDUCED HRS REDUCED HRS ACCRUED TIME -OFF Hours Hours SEC. - Hours Clerical % of Tot Hrs $ Cost 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 Sickleave 72 72 8 36 3.5% - 362 Vacation 112 48 5 24 2.3% 241 Holidays 100 100 11 50 4.8% 503 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUB TOTAL: . 284 220 24 110 10.6% 51,106 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TOTAL: 2,080 2,080 231 1,040 100.0% 510,452 Base Salary * These hours are considered "unmet" without additional personnel As Table 1 shows, there is a need for additional clerical hours but full time employment is not currently required to meet this need. A few points about the nature of the various positions are noted below that could not be included in the table. Administrative Aide: A large proportion of the activities require creating and generating reports, contracts, and correspondence; also inspection and approval of encroachment permits. - 2 Clerk Typist: It is imperative that the public counter/front desk be staffed at all times. Because of the physical location of the department, it serves as the general reception area of City Hall, requiring frequent, daily direction of pedestrian traffic. This work is in addition to responding to specific Public Works concerns expressed at the public counter. Proposed Reduced Hours Clerk Typist: 'The department's "unmet" needs require the creation and modification of P.C. documents, data entry and some analysis with minimal supervision. There is also a need for clerical back-up and support of full time staff, such as phone answering, counter inquiries, issuing permits, etc. Word Processing Secretary: The preceding points indicate the limitations imposed on the type of work that can be allocated to this position; i.e., much of the department's work cannot be "taken" to the employee in that position. On the other hand, the word processing secretary cannot leave her station to provide the help needed. 2. Temporary vs Permanent Considerations Continuing to use temporary, part-time clerical help on a regular basis (1987 to present) is clearly not in the spirit of the City's Memorandum of Understanding with the General Bargaining Unit. Article 40 of the General Employees Bargaining Unit states "Part time employees may be hired on an "as needed" basis for a maximum of six (6) consecutive months..." The Teamster's Business Agent has been contacted by the Personnel Department regarding this matter and Public Work's proposal has been approved in concept by the Union. For the reasons above, the Public Works Department requests authorization to hire from the current Civil Service eligibility list for Clerk Typist. Fiscal Impact: It is requested that this employee's start date become effective on October 1, 1989. It is estimated that this will require a total FY 89-90 expenditure of approximately $10,485. Table 2, which follows, analyzes the total City expenditures required to fill this proposed position, both annually and for FY 89-90. Table 3 summarizes funding. TABLE 2 Additional City Expenses to hire Reduced Hour Clerical Employee ANNUAL BASIS FY 89-90 (Oct 1, 1989 thru June 30, 1990) Annual Base Salary 10,452 (See Table 1) 7,839 (780hrs x $10.05/hr) PERS 1,254 (12% of base salary) 941 (12% of $7,839) Insurance 2,109 (Total) 1,581 (Total) Medical 1,829 (152.42 monthly) 1,372 (152.42 x 9 mos) Dental 194 (16.15 monthly) 145 (16.15 x 9 mos) Psychological 86 (7.14 monthly) 64 (7.14 x 9 mos) Long Term Disability 161 (1.55/$100 of salary) 121 (1.55/$100 of salary) Life Insurance 4 (.38/$1000 of salary) 3 (.38/$1000 of salary) TOTAL: $13,980 ANNUAL EXPENDITURE $10,484 (39 weeks) 3 FY 89-90 Budgeted Funding Sources CIP's General Fund (Public Works Budgeted Amount) Total Unfunded (at present) TABLE 3 Funding Sources FY 89-90 Estimated (10/1/89) Appropriated Unexpended $ 2,482 $ 1,894 $ 5,000 $ 3,681 $ 7,482 $ 5,575 $4,910 (10,485 - 5,575) A total of 1,040 hours would. require funding in future fiscal years. Alternative: Other alternatives considered by staff and available to City Council are the following: 1. Hire a contracted self employed person for FY 89-90 who would provide own benefits. Advantage: 1. Temporary Disadvantages: 1. Objections from the General Bargaining Unit. 2. Higher hourly rate. 2. Deny the request. Respectfully submitted, O"1( �VL Anthony Antich Director of Pufilic Works Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Director of Finance Concur: evin B. Northcrtaft City Manager Robert Blackwood Director of Personnel tb/pwadmin CITY MANAGER NOTE: :thb The additional Assistant Engineer funded this fiscal year and the ambitious capital program necessitate some add'l clerical support. This proposal is one-third the cost of the requested aide, which was not funded in this year's budget, and represents a good solution to fill the need while conserving expenses. - 4 - Honorable Mayor and Members of of the City Council AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA OF THE HERMOSA BEACH Recommendation: September 5, 1989 City Council Meeting of September 12, 1989 BEACH AMENDING SECTION 19-101 MUNICIPAL CODE It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance amending Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, Section 19-101 - Using meters longer than time allowed for parking spaces. Background: It was recently brought to our attention, by the General Services Officers, that the current Presiding Judge of the South Bay Municipal Court Annex, is dismissing citations issued for Section 19-101 - Using meters longer than time allowed for parking spaces. We were further advised that his reason for dismissal is that the language used in this section of the code is unintelligible. This section of the code is cited when a vehicle has parked longer than is allowed in a time limit metered parking space. For example, in the downtown area, the meters are posted with a three hour limit. This is to insure a turn over of parking spaces for customer parking. Consequently, if the meter is paid or not, a vehicle parked over three hours will be cited. In order to verify that these citations were being dismissed, I contacted Chris Crawford, Deputy Administrator of the Court. He confirmed this fact after talking to the Presiding Judge. He further advised that they could not suggest language but that we might get a copy of Beverly Hills and Los Angeles ordinances pertaining to this violation. The attached ordinance is patterned after the Los Angeles Ordinance. Analysis: We agree that the current language in Section 19-101 leaves much to be desired. The attached ordinance contains language that is more specific and comprehensible. Jon Noon General Services Director Concur: evin $. Northcraft City Manager 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE 89 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 19-101. USING METERS LONGER THAN TIME ALLOWED FOR PARKING SPACES. WHEREAS, it has been determined that the current ordinance does not clearly state its prohibition; WHEREAS, the current Presiding Judge of the South Bay Municipal Court Annex, is dismissing all citations brought before the court, issued for the above violation, because the language is unclear; WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City to enforce all violations contained within the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That Chapter 19, "Motor Vehicles and Traffic" of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended as follows: Chapter 19 MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC Article IV. Stopping, Standing and Parking, Division 3. §19-96 -- S19-107 Section 19-101. Using meters or parking spaces longer than posted time limits. Whenever authorized signs are in place giving notice thereof, it shall be unlawful for any person to stop or stand or park any vehicle for a period of time in excess of the parking time limit indicated by such sign. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall take effect thirty days after the date of its adoption. SECTION 3. That prior to the expiration of fifteen days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 12th day of September, 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 2 Sec. ,J -1U1. Using meters it .ger than time anoweu for park- ing spaces. No person shall follow the operational procedure or any part of the operational procedure for the purpose of increasing or Supp. No. 10-87 268 § 19-102 MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC § 19-102 extending the parking time of any vehicle beyond the legal parking time which has been established for the parking space adjacent to which such parking meter is placed. (Ord. No. 238 N.S., § 14.4; Ord. No. 82-710, § 4, 11-23-82; Ord. No. 85-787, § 1, 2-12-85) (Ex //;), Supp. No. 10-87 268.1 ,*144e-- /,� Honorable Mayor and Members of L 9 the Hermosa Beach City Council • August 22, 1989 City Council Meeting of September 12, 1989 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 19-61.1, PERMIT PARKING; DRIVEWAY Recommendation: That the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance amending Chapter 19, HBMC "Motor Vehicles and Traffic", Article IV, Section 19-61.1, Permit Parking; Private Driveway. Background: At the request of the City Council, staff was to re-evaluate the existing ordinance allowing permit parking in front of a driveway. On May 26, 1981, the City Council, pursuant to Section 22507.2 of the California Vehicle Code, adopted Ordinance 81-664, authorizing the issuance of driveway parking permits. This section of the Vehicle Code (attached), "allows the owner/lessee to park a vehicle in front of the owner's or lessee's private driveway when the vehicle displays a permit issued pursuant to the ordinance authorizing such parking." Although the ordinance has been amended since then, the basic purpose, as stated above, has remained consistent. Over the years, with the changes in the CVC, the City has amended their ordinances accordingly. As well as creating additional parking in a congested parking atmosphere, the permit issued created an exclusive parking space available only to the permit holder. Unfortunately, the size of some vehicles, is not consistent with the size of the driveways. In other words, some homes have mere 12 foot wide driveways, which may accommodate very small vehicles; others have 18 foot driveways, which can accommodate most average size vehicles. The width of single residential driveways is twelve (12) feet minimum and twenty (20) feet maximum. The width of a double residential driveway such as used for multiple dwellings is twenty (20) feet minimum and thirty (30) feet maximum. Analysis: Since 1986, through a joint effort between the General Services and Public Works Departments, the city has been exercising strict control over the issuance of these permits. In addition to the completion of an application for a permit by the requestor, a visual inspection is made by an Engineering Technician from the Public Works Department, to determine if the proposed parking space created by the permit, will accommodate the average size vehicle (18 feet). This has caused inconvenience to the permit requestor by delaying issuance of the permit; an increase in staff time usage; and prohibits the issuance of a permit if the driveway is less than eighteen (18) feet. Realizing this, the two departments again joined together to resolve this incongruity. . It is intended, that the changes to the HBMC Section 19-61.1, will define a "driveway" for the purpose of issuing a permit granted by the ordinance, and allow the issuance of permits for driveways less than eighteen (18) feet, provided the driveway is of sufficient width to accommodate the length of the vehicle displaying the permit. The Public Works Engineering Technician will continue to inspect the area, to determine that no traffic or safety hazard will exist by issuing the permit. Adopting and implementing the ordinance as changed, will allow for an increase in the number of permits that may be sold. Since the driveway permit creates a parking space where none previously existed, available street parking spaces will be increased. Alternatives: 1. Continue current practice. 2. Adopt a less stringent (less than 18') driveway width re qui r emen t . Charge an administrative fee of $15.00 for the purpose of infecting the driveway location, and processing the inspection forms and related paperwork. CONCUR: Jo oon, Director General Services Department even B. Northc aft, City Manager CITY MANAGER COMMENT: Respectfully submitted, JoanNoon, Director ` By /, ,e:c 6) . /5P.c-44?-4-4- Michele D. Tercero, Administrative Aide NOTED; An o y Antich, Public Works Dir ector If adopted, staff will publicize the new provisions via Cable TV, news release, etc. 2 RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY Property Line 4'Walk 20 Max. 4 WWik Street Lich WIDTH OF DRIVEWAY ORDINANCE NO. 89 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 19, OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, "MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC", ARTICLE IV, SECTION 19-61.1, PERMIT PARKING; PRIVATE DRIVEWAY WHEREAS, it is known that certain driveways are of limited width; WHEREAS, vehicles parking in front of these driveways may constitute a hazard, or create difficulty for vehicles using the area immediately adjacent for the purpose of parking; WHEREAS, the City desires to maintain a safe and hazard free environment; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That Chapter 19, " Motor Vehicles and Traffic", of the Hermosa Beach City Code shall be and hereby is amended as follows, by adding subsection (e), to Section 19-61.1; and additional language: Chapter 19 MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC Article IV, Stopping, Standing and Parking, Division 1. §19-1 -- S19-82 Sec. 19-61.1. Permit parking; private driveway. Parking in front of a private driveway shall be allowed only when a vehicle has prominently displayed [on the front dashboard] a valid parking permit which includes the address of the owner or lessee of the private property, [at which the vehicle is to be parked. Permits are valid only at the 1 address contained upon the permit, and] is effective while the holder owns or leases the property for which the permit is issued. [Permits may be revoked without notice or hearing if it is determined that parking authorized by the permit creates traffic safety or other public health and • safety problems. Vehicles creating a traffic hazard may be towed pursuant to S19-20 (b) HBMC.] Permit does not authorize parking on a sidewalk in violation of CVC S22500F. Requirements to obtain a permit are: (a) Proof of current residence [at or ownership of the Hermosa Beach property for which the permit is requested,] or a current business license [at the location for which the permit is requested.] (b) Payment of fee[s] as determined by Ordinance 84-762. (c) [Verification that the applicant's registered vehicles have no outstanding parking violations.] [(d) Driveway must be appurtenant to a] legally established dwelling unit or legally established commercial use [structure]. [(e) The length of the vehicle utilizing the privileges granted by said permit, shall not extend beyond the width of the driveway at any point. The width of the driveway shall be that portion between the curb slopes, measured at the street level.] 2 EXCEPTIONS: 1. Where signs are posted restricting parking for any other reason, i.e., No parking this side, [etc.]; or during certain hours. 2. Entrance to driveways on alleys. 3. Driveways to multiple dwelling parking spaces or multiple commercial use parking spaces. SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall take effect thirty days after the date of its adoption. SECTION 3. That prior to the expiration of fifteen days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 12th day of September, 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY 3 BACKGROUND MATER/AL 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 29 30 31 32 .41 L..td- z ORDINANCE NO. 81- 664 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 19, "MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC" BY ADDING A NEW SECTION THERETO RELATING TO PERMIT PARKING: PRIVATE DRIVEWAY. WHEREAS, the State of California has recently enacted legislation, as incorporated into the Vehicle Code, Section 22507.2 to,permit local governments, by ordinance, to authorize the owner or lessee of property to park a vehicle in front of the owner's or lessee's private driveway when the vehicle displays a permit issued pursuant to the ordinance authorizing such parking; and WHEREAS, the local authority may charge a nonrefundable fee to defray the costs of issing and administering the permits. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That Chapter 19, "Motor Vehicles and Traffic" of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code shall be and is hereby amended by adding a new Section to Article IV. Stopping, Standing and Parking, to read as follows: "Section 19.61.1 Permit Parking: Private Driveway Parking in front of a private driveway shall be allowed only when a vehicle has prominently displayed in front of the windshield a valid parking permit which includes the name and address of the owner or lessee of the private property. Said permit is effective for a period of one year from the date of issuance, but may be revoked without notice or hearing if it is determined that parking authorized by said permit creates traffic safety or other public health and safety problems. Requirements to obtain a permit are: (a) Proof of current residency (b) Payment of fee per annum as,determined by Resolution of the City Council (c) Verification that applicant has no outstanding parking citations: (d) Legally established dwelling unit. 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 29 30 31 32 Exceptions: 1. Where signs are posted restricting parking for any other reason, ie, posted no parking this side or during certain hours. 2. Entrance to driveways on alleys. 3. Driveways to underground parking or multiple dwelling parking spaces. SECTION 2. That this ordinance will take effect thirty days after the date of its adoption. SECTION 3. That prior to the expiration of fifteen days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Hermosa Beach Review, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 26th day of 1981 PRESIDENT of the City ouncil, and MAYOR of the. City • Hermosa Beach, California • ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY VOTE: Ayes: Barks, MacFaden, Schmeltzer, Tyson, Widman Noes: None Div. ll — 479 — § 22507.5 or portions thereof, during all or certain hours of the day. The ordinance or resolution may include a designation of certain streets upon which preferential parking privileges are given to residents and merchants adjacent to the streets for their use and the use of their guests, under which the residents and merchants may be issued a permit or permits which exempt them from the prohibition or restriction of the ordinance pr resolution. With the exception of alleys, no such ordinance or resolution shall apply until signs or markings giving adequate notice thereof have been placed. A local ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to this section may contain provisions which are reasonable and necessary to ensure the effectiveness of a preferential parking program. Amended Ch. 1070, Stats. 1963. Effective September 20, 1963. Amended Ch. 541, Stats. 1969. Effective November 10, 1969. Amended Ch. 1102, Stats. 1976. Effective January 1, 1977. Amended Ch. 140, Stats. 1980. Effective January 1, 1981. Amended Ch. 181, Stats. 1984. Effective January 1, 1985. Amended Ch. 912, Stats. 1985. Effective January 1, 1986. Amended Ch. 455, Stats. 1987. Effective January 1, 1988. Permit Parking: Private Driveway _ 22507.2. Notwithstanding subdivision (e) of Section 22500, a local authority may, by ordinance, authorize the owner or lessee of property to park a vehicle in front of the owner's or lessee's private driveway when the vehicle displays a permit issued pursuant to the ordinance authorizing such parking. The local authority may charge a nonrefundable fee to defray the costs of issuing and administering the permits. A local ordinance adopted pursuant to this section may not authorize parking on a sidewalk in violation of subdivision (f) of Section 22500. Added Ch. 158, Stats. 1980. Effective June 11, 1980 by terms of an urgency clause. Amended Ch. 219, Stats. 1984. Effective June 20, 1984, by terms of an urgency clause. Amended Ch. 45, Stats. 1985. Effective January 1, 1986. November 4, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council November 10, 1987 • REPORT ON 18 FOOT DRIVEWAYS RE: ISSUANCE OF DRIVEWAY PARKING PERMITS Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council -receive and file this report. Background: At the October 27, 1987 meeting, City Council asked for a report on the 18 foot requirement when applying for a driveway parking permit. Analysis: The program of issuing permits to park in front of a driveway approach is handled by the General Services Department. The Public Works Department provided input on the parking stall size and is involved only in the measuring of these driveways when a permit is requested. A recommendation is then made to the General Service Department on whether or not to issue the permit, based on the driveway width, as well as the other requirements listed on Attachment #2. .. The 18 foot requirement for parking in front of private driveways is consistent with City practice of placing 18 foot long stalls on the street. Approximately 50% of the driveways in Hermosa Beach are 12' wide or less. A legal parking stall for a compact car is 18' x 8'. The average length of a compact car -is 14-1/2'; whereas, all other cars average 17.' in length. Thus, the 18' stall allows a margin of safety for the driver (and other parked cars) when backing up (to either park or leave) and prevents the driver from becoming trapped in the stall by other parked cars. Using these dimensions and practical experience of the problems that occur when a smaller than minimum size stall is allowed, 18 feet is the desired length when recommending approval of a driveway parking permit. 1 Alternatives: 1) Refer to staff for further study. 2) Do nothing. Respectfully submitted, Gary eaton Engineering Technician Concur: Gay1T. Martin Inteiim City Manager Attachments: #1 - Drawings #2 - Permit Application drive/v GW:mv o cur: A ony Antich Director of Pu•lic Works Concur: JoaiVNoon Director of General Services 2 DATE: August 25, 1989 TO: Anthony Antich, Director of Public Works FROM: Lynn A. Terry, Deputy City Engineer / SUBJECT: 6th Street Storm Drain complaint. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA In response to your memo on 8-24-89, I went to Kathy Rowe's house located at #19 6th Street. At 11:40 am I knocked on her door, but no one was home. I returned at 12:00 am and still no one was home. I stood on top of the catch basin and was not able to determine a distinctive odor. There was a "very" faint smell at a point directly above the grate but not anywhere else. A large stuffed doll was laying on the bottom of the catch basin and should be removed along with some sand and other minor debris. I returned to the site at 3:40 pm and met with Mrs. Rowe until 4:30 pm. She was very nice and pleasant about explaining the problem but would like to see a workable solution. On Monday August 28, 1989; I will contact Vern Highfield, the Maintenance Superintendent, to become aware of the maintenance problems that occur with the field personnel. Also, I will contact the County Department of Public Works to aquire a set of construction plans for the drain. And in addition, I will talk with the county design staff in order to understand how the drainage line was designed to work. Based on the above information, I will then be able to review the problem from an informed position. Recommended actions and alternative methods will be provided after a sufficient review period. Can we have a CIP project number or a Public Works project number assigned to this item so that we can account for the time spent. ty/smell Director's Note: The drains are cleaned monthly. Staff is working with the County to reduce odors from the stagnant water. - 1 - 19 - 6th Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 August 11, 1989 - 379-2910 (home)/512-3161 (work) Anthony Antich Uirectcr of Public Works City of Hermosa Beach 1345 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3885 Dear t'r. Antich: In 1987 the storm drain project at 6th Street was comrleted. This vroject, which :as funded by existing Flood Control District assess- ments, was supervised by the Los An!ieles County Public l :orks Departrent. Soon after completion, a serious problem arose --a noxious, possibly tcxic odor began emanatinr from the now enlaroed onenino on 6th Street and Beach Drive. I have spent almost two years trying tr find someone willing to take action to correct this problem. I have discussed the problem with you, members of your staff, and even the County on several occasions and yet the problem remains unsc'lvec. Even though r^v complaints are usually acknowledged by a work order to clear the drain, the problem to be solved --that the drain doesn't work properly --remains. Because I have been told that I am the only person complaining about the drain, I have attached a petition signed by my neighbors and people that use the beach at 6th Street to show you that they are as offended by the situation as I am (see attachment). On September 16, 1987, I called your office and talked to Debbie Murphy and then a gentler:ran named Vern, a supervisor in your office. Coth of these individuals told me that it was the county's responsibility that the -drain didn't work properly; the anti -flushing valves, which were installer with the new store drain, did not work, thus the odor fror the drain. That sare dav, I spoke with a Mr. Hartley, the crurty supervisor nn this job, who anreed that the anti -flushing valve syster c'ic not work but that the maintenance of the drain fell under the jurisdiction of the city of Eerrosa Beach, Thus began the endless Catch-22. hien I caller' your denartcient bac!: the sane c'a" (Senterber 16, 1907), Vern a7reec+ that the city teas res'-rnsible for the syster r.intenance enc s.nic' that !,e anc a crew would cone and flush out thc c'rain. Ile said Cr.! onl.- wa.v to clear the drain vas t,'i th hoses hooker. un to the fire hvcrant at 6th Street. Mien I asked if properly installed anti -Flushing valves would: alleviate the need for this flushing, he said probably not. +It seems the drain pipe ends at tide level and therefore fills um. A. gate that was installed to regulate this proLlen didn't work. This seemed incredible to re. The County had spent millions of dollars replacinC storm drains in Hermosa Beach, had inconvenienced all of us with the construction project, and now the new system didn't even function properly anc' was, as a natter of fact, a biec'er nuisance because of the foul odors. Page 2 From project completion (sometime in July 1907) to my call in late September 1987, the water in the drain had not moved into the ocean -- it couldn't. Instead it remained in the dtain and stagnated. ..The odor emanating from the opening is so foul that on some days it can be smelled from the corner of 7th Court. Residents in the area are sometimes unable to open their windows even in the worst heat since the stagnant water cFeates a foul stench (rotten eggs or worse) that permeates the houses 40 sinetimes (in my case) causes sore throats. This seems to be a serious problem to me, especially since my house sits directly across the alley from the drain and I have a young child that likes to play outside. This drain was "to provide for the safe discharge of storm flows into the ocean and serve local drainage areas". This clearly is not happening. Instead the drain is causing a sewer stench and possibly even health problems. On September 29; 1987, I again called Vern to complain of the persistent smell. He informed me that his crew HAD flushed the drain out three days earlier but that this method was only moderately effective. Apparently, the drain is constructed in such a way that it can never be 100% cleared. During the winter months, the smell dissipated somewhat. Se from October 1987 to mid -summer 1988, the situation was tolerable. However, when I called your office on Auoust 25, 1988, the odor had been particularly strong for four to five weeks. Gary in your office sent a crew out the following week to clear the drain and all seemed to be ok again until early October. By October 17, 1988 when I spoke with you, the drain was at its worst. Then after I talked to you again on November 1, 1988, Vern called to tell me that it was almost impossible to empty the drain because it was packed too tightly with sand. He suggested that I wait for the first rains to open the drain. This is not a reasonable solution to the problem nor is the comment that the pier area is much worse --this is a residential area and the pier area is not. From my numerous conversationswith your department, it seems to be generally agreed upon that the drain should have been cut off half way up the beach but the NEW system has the drain ending at tide level and therefore it is always packed with sand. The gate that was put over the end has deteriorated and it is a very difficult and time-consuming task to flush the drain properly. In one case I was told that it took three days for the drain at Pier Avenue to be cleared for flushing and before it could even be cleaned, the tide came in. I have made three calls this year, including one in tlav to request that the drain be cleared. A crew came out and cleared it on May 22, 1989. This temporarily worked but by mid-July when I called (July 24, 1989), the smell was back. I called again August 3, 1989 because the odor was particularly bad and I was hoping a crew would come out imrediately. Vern has promised that the drain will be cleared next week. This whole effort seems an obscene and continuing waste of manpower, time, and restricted water usage --all because no one wants to fix what is obviously a poorly constructed or engineered drain. Why doesn't this drain flush out properly? How can I be certain that fumes and odors cooing from the opening are not hazardous and toxic (e.g., hydrogen sulfide)? Why isn't there a regular biweekly maintenance schedule maintained from spring to fall? Why should the residents have to endure the polluted air and obnoxious fumes until someone calls to have the drain cleared? Page 3 I have waited patiently fcr the city to take sone initiative in resolving this problem and to address these questions - but to no avail. I believe the city is responsible for ensuring that its residents have a'healthy environment in which to live. What_can you do to remedy this problem? I look forware to a rapid response. Sincerely, katiue_ RA2,(AA, Kathy Rowe cc: City Council - Hermosa Beach City Manager - Hermosa Beach Supervisor, Public Works, Los Angeles County P. 0. Box 2413, Teririnal Annex, LA 90351 PETITION TO CITY or HERMOSA BEACH TO CORRECT STOP DPAIN PPOCLE!! AT 6TH/CEACI' DRIVE The people who have signed below want the city of Hermosa Beach to investigate and resolve the problem relating to the storm drain located at Beach Drive and 6th Street. This storm drain emits the most foul sriells and we are concerned about our health as well as the environment. The City has been unresponsive in -initiating corrective action (see cover letter) even though it admits there is a problem. THEREFORE, we arc formally requesting that the City respond to our complaints and provide an acceptable solution to the "problem.." store drain located in our neighborhood. NAI ; ADDRESS /y%-,„ Ark(ct M e. lJ,C/ (Print)0- 12, / F r/d7ece f�' e e�t- in)o MaA;DatO 54-2. jleikilf) 7d3 Arfi 5:27 '3P PHONE 1:222d,92,6 474-.773g 3/,-3ysy errr6 t 37Z -a5, PETITION) TO CITY OF HERFIOSA CEACI: TO COPPECT STORr DRAIN PROBLEM AT 6th/&EACH DRIVE NAPE ADDRESS PHO„E L -C4k SLA / 9 sly'3/o 7 . )Diva i7 I -JF FI' 67tSr 3713 E 4,E/cam- ,3c// C,1t1 /h1 04/n47065� Li14/7,1/ks-44.14-5., (P5019Vdi 33‘ r� SA-�1��,49de/X tttty 336 4e--4/7/3,14.1 43-07d -01' 544 e 37962‘ 44(- S+ 37/i-00 PETITION TO CITY OF HERIMOSA MACE TO COPPECT STORM DRAIN PROBLEM AT 6th/CEACH DRIVE NAME ._gal To/ s 6,41 �boN^cs1v �BeC4A .Ee -J`tS c OPt.)ri ,197 15 C.Gzirzra G &riz'Ii7 X •5/ ; ADDRESS s/ i SciSexs-A. 4 Sig( vSksa ns, /Car/4 04,60. PHONE. s yv l spa-�s81 Sac Pv-' 37z-95 537 R1nur�u -sz.-5052 He, et* /AA- 6 �- �: §'Z u 97 -/4 37? -/z ?z 4 u, . mee m n 25 e_4 Sf- /(e 37f. 46'55- PETITION TO CITY OF HERMOSA BEAM TO COPPECT STORI; DRAIN PROBLEM AT 6th/BEACH DRIVE ADDRESS el?L( &?cY, gig. ij)$1( Cark.,ody ad G t45f Hi3 ),G4* -7/ &W,4„ L PHONE • 51W° 376-7/77 22 Vaj Sf(Lr 1L.. 374- li z 7 6 wf ?— 6 ckhci.B. 37 9-A 9/o eCia- 1 �crELA- 19-y Ate --11,-1047 f)46/ fit a? S a7f1 S74 h 13, S? LtausavhaTammig 3/j_ ?A , 7 Sci--3797 PETITION TO CITY OF HERI.IOSA BEACH TO COPPECT STORM DRAIN PROBLEII AT 6th/BEACH DRIVE NAME ADDRESS PHONE. �AN Gol/f%-/ , zg 7 cr. otzx'1'1 rano 37/ /7g -'f -- ?7 Sr m Si. vieg,o 97 syw, vc /11Ae 1-k Q4 P 1ktc� grn 6yy V14 LoS M, naCES 373-2-2S2- � REOdNov N4 7cTrz-;z!gt s=2,1) s7Y siai x,13 Sc��e111 ZZ ��'' e47 HiQ PI -MC PETITION TO CITY OF HERMM OSA DEAD: TO COPPECT STORr DRAIN PROBLEM AT 6th/CEACH DRIVE NAPE Ruck- �4 ?(/. S4th,e Tavi GE- w(imPsh:ro Reityz Fe • •NC gi/41\ L -r-r LE (.101' d /422 -/- ADDRESS PHONE. 9J -3-1L- etwiff— 3-149-Plyr q6E edloo/IS S4-\ ect 27 9-7438 3* --1P835 (1 - 6/7/ cra ��2 37A- Vi PETITION TO CITY OF HERMOSA EEACE TO COPPECT STORK DRAIN PROBLEM AT 6th/LEACH DRIVE NAPE ADDRESS PHONE l 64-A- g5r 710 K faril*: Nei' /VPStf zz 5 G6o7%,57-j,,4/y� c2c,6Aczurl_ sAt n-7 376 -1�3iO September 7, 1989 To The Honorable Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council: June Williams, Mayor Roger Creighton, Mayor Pro Tempore Jim Rosenberger, Member Chuck Sheldon, Member Etta Simpson, Member Re: Agenda item No. 5. Amendments to the "Remodeling Ordinance" We wish to register with you our concern and disapproval of some parts of the proposed changes to Article 13 of the Zoning Ordinance that have been recommended to you by the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission. Our property at 926 Monterey Blvd., an 18 year old triplex, is in excellent condition and is well maintained due in part to our residence on this property for the past 13 years. Our building has not been remodeled or altered in any way since construction, but due to zoning legislation. is now considered to be a "Legal, Non -Conforming" structure ever though it still has less than the stated maximum ieve: of 45 living units per acre as stated in Article 13. 143.5/Acre) It is cur desire to expand our personal living unit by adding a partial upper story consisting of a bedroom and bathroom of 615 square feet that equals approximately 20% of the existing square footage of the building. This expansion is within the height limit and does not involve any change to the footprint of the existing structure. We feel this addition wi11:got add to the life of the existing building or change its current and future use. but will with our expanding family, greatly enhance the quality of our lives in Hermosa Beach. The Hermosa Beach Planning Commission, at its August 1st meeting changed the Hermosa Beach Planning Department's recommendation in Section 4, item B of Article 13 that would al)ow expansion of residential property tc a maximum of 50% of the existing structure down to a highly restrictive 10% expansion of the existing structure. One might as well assume there is to be no expansion allowed at all!; ,-,. • This recommended change from 50% to 10% expansion is extremely restrictive, allowing owners with well -kept. contemporary buildings, no opportunity for reasonable expansion and/or remodeling and seriously undermining their motivation for continued residence in Hermosa Beach. This proposed change in the ordinance, we feel, will assure that families, finding this ordinance too restrictive will move on to other communities, leaving behind more rental units in poorer condition. As a resident of Hermosa Beach for 19 years and a homeowner for 13 years we would like the City to maintain an incentive for homeowners to remodel and update their property to accomodate their families' needs. (Can enough be said about the 'Pride of Ownership"?) We recognize the need to restructure the current ordinance to eliminate the shady practices of some homeowners and/or contractors who tear down an entire building except for the fireplace and call it a "remodel" when it is in fact entirely new construction and should be considered such and should meet all the current building and zoning requirements. We feel that homeowners in our situation have not been the problem but are being unfairly penalized by the proposed ordinance. In reviewing the current resolution of the Planning Commission, we hope you will recognize the value of adopting guidelines that are much less restrictive and that encourage home ownership in Hermosa Beach. We hope you will raise the 10% limit to a more reasonable figure. Sincerely, Tom Thompson Lesley Hamil Thompson Paae - Gv%\VSC N r September 6, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of September 12, 1989 INFORMATIONAL REPORT ON ENFORCEMENT OF CITY CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND STATE LAWS RELATING TO THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council receive and file this report. ANALYSIS: In response to complaints from various citizens and Council direction, the Police Department initiated an aggressive enforcement program aimed at reducing the number of Conditional Use Permit violations and the number of alcohol sales to minors in the City. Following concerns that minors were freely able to purchase alcohol in the City, the Police Department began the use of "Decoy" programs under guidelines and direction of the State Alcoholic Beverage Commission. The first program was conducted in late December 1988. Prior to conducting the program, courtesy warning letters were sent to all ABC license holders in the City over two weeks in advance. (copy attached) Two female teenagers were then given marked money, and under the supervision and surveillance of plain clothes police officers, they went to various licensed establishments in the City attempting to purchase alcohol. The teenagers had their true identification with them and, when asked, presented it. When asked their age, the teenagers gave true information. When the "decoys" made a successful purchase, the officers immediately took control of the evidence(alcohol) and cited the seller. This first program was done on two consecutive evenings and involved 35 loca- tions. 22 of the locations were off -sale licensees and 8(36%) sold to the minors. 13 of the locations were on -sale licensees and 7(54%) sold to the minors. The overall non-compliance rate was 43%. A courtesy 'thank you' letter was sent to all of the establishments that did not sell to the minors during the operation. A second "decoy" operation was conducted in late July 1989. The same courtesy letter was sent, this time over three and a half weeks in advance of the operation. Two male teenagers were utilized in this program, which was conducted iden- tically as the one before. 30 locations were involved over a two day period. 18 were off -sale establish- ments and 5(27%) sold to the minors. 12 were on -sale establishments and 6(50%) sold to the minors. The overall non compliance rate was 36%. 1 In conjuction with the second decoy program, the department initiated an active Conditional Use Permit enforcement program in addition to the regular C.U.P. monitoring that has been conducted on a continual basis on Friday and Saturday nights for the last couple of years. A courtesy letter was sent to all on and off sale alcoholic beverage licensees informing them of the new emphasis on C.U.P. enforcement by the Fire, Police, and Planning Departments and asking for their cooperation(attached). On Saturday July 22nd, 5 Police officers, 1 Fire investigator, the Chief and the Patrol Commander went into the field to inspect C.U.P. holders for compliance with the provisions of their C.U.P. and various city codes and to watch for any violations of law in the downtown area. The Chief and Commander Altfeld did the inspections and presented each manager with a courtesy warning notice for any violations found(attached). None of the establishments were cited by the inspection team. There were many conversations with the managers in which the purpose of the program was explained. During the course of the evening the team was responsible for 2 DUI arrests, a narcotics arrest and seizure of 1 kilo of cocaine, 2 arrests for battery which occurred in one of the bars, 1 theft arrest, 1 arrest for public drunk, 1 warrant arrest of a Watts gang member, and 7 citations for various traffic and skateboard violations. The next program was conducted on Friday July 28th. This team consisted of the Chief, Commander Altfeld, and 4 uniformed officers. The Chief and Commander Altfeld revisted all of the locations that received warnings the prior week to check for compliance. All locations were found to be in compliance with the items they had been warned on. In addition to keeping a highly visible presence in the downtown area and checking for C.U.P. compliance, the emphasis of the team on this evening was to respond to any party calls in the City and enforce the City's Second Party Call Ordinance. During the evening, the team made 6 arrests, issued 10 citations, responded to 14 party calls, cited two persons under the Second Call Ordinance, and cited P.J. Bretts for a C.U.P. violation. These enforcement activities have caused the various ABC license holders to form a Hermosa Beach Restaurant and Tavern Owners Association aimed at creating pressure on the Council and City to cease in the enforcement efforts. The Association is claiming harrassment and there are many false rumors being generated about what has been done or is panned. In addition to meetings with owners/managers and the Chief to discuss the problems and the enforcement efforts, the City Manager, the Chief, and Commander Altfeld met with the Association and the Chamber of Commerce to discuss the con- cerns and the future enforcement plans. 2 Based on the high non-compliance rate with state laws relating to sale of alco- hol to minors we will continue to conduct the ABC Decoy program on a periodic basis. Based on the alcohol related problems in the downtown area, we will continue to deploy special impact teams on a periodic basis in order to maintain order in the area and we will continue to monitor the C.U.P. holders for violations. CONCUR: �.� 7 Kevin B . Northcralt, City Manager 3 Director of Public Safety • • '�• City of 21ermosaTeaclt� December 1, 1988 Dear Licensee: Police Department, 540 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, Califomia 90254-3885 213-376-7981/376-6984 The Hermosa Beach Police Department during the holiday season will once again initiate its alcoholic beverage control enforcement program. The Hermosa Beach Police Department is particularly concerned about the youthful drinking driver and the resultant highway trauma. The purpose of this ongoing program is to reduce the intentional and unintentional sales of alcoholic beverages to minors. Simply stated, the Police Department will conduct supervised purchases of alcoholic beverages by minors. When a minor successfully purchases an alcoholic beverage from a licensed premises, there will be immediate and appropriate enforcement. Additionally, violations will be reported to the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. The program, as outlined by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, consists of the following steps for selecting and choosing the decoy and the method of operation. 1. Be 18 or 19 years of age. 2. Have the general appearance, mannerisms and dress of a person well under 21 years of age. 3. Not be big in stature, have a beard or moustache. If female, no make-up and minimal jewelry. 4. Be of good character, preferably a cadet, explorer scout, reserve officer or government employee. 5. Have never purchased alcoholic beverages or possessed false I.D. 6. Not have been a regular customer in the targeted premises. 7. Be willing and able to testify in court if necessary. The program has been designed to be as fair as possible. Your is solicited and appreciated. • If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact my Comm-nder J Mebius, Operations Division Commander. STEVE W EWSKI PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR HERMOSA BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT cooperation office or June 23, 1989 Dear Licensee: City of 2lermosa i3eack.... Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254.3885 • The Hermosa Beach Police Department in the near future will once again initiate its alcoholic beverage control enforcement program. The purpose of this ongoing program is to reduce the intentional and unintentional sales of alcoholic beverages. to minors. Simply stated, the Police Department will conduct supervised purchases of alcoholic beverages by minors. When a minor successfully purchases an alcoholic beverage from a licensed premises, there will be immediate and appropriate enforcement. Additionally, violations will be reported to the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. The program, as outlined by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, consists of the following steps for selecting and choosing the decoy and the method of operation. 1. Be 18 or 19 years of age. 2. Have the general appearance, mannerisms and dress of a person well under 21 years of age. 3. Not be big in stature, have a beard or mustache. If female, no make-up and minimal jewelry. 4. Be of good character, preferably a cadet, explorer scout, reserve 'officer or government employee. 5. Have never purchased alcoholic beverages or possessed false I.D. 6. Not have been a regular customer in the targeted premises. 7. Be willing and able to testify in court if necessary. The program has been designed to be as fair as possible. Your cooperation is solicited and appreciated If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office or Commander John Mebius, Support Services Commander. STEVE WIEWSKI PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR HERMOSA BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT .o A ► ► • Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 July 20, 1989 Citi o fr1%rmosarl3eacly NOTICE TO ALL ON -SALE AND OFF -SALE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSEES Manager/Owner BUSINESS STREET Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Manager/Owner: The City of Hermosa Beach is a highly dense residential community which co -exists with commercial development. In order that we maintain a high quality environment within the community, it is our goal to maintain separate and distinct business and residential districts. In order to develop and sustain this standard and appropriately balance their separate needs, it is necessary that specific monitoring and enforcement actions take place. Currently, there are a high number of establishments in the City which are licensed for either on -sale or off -sale distribution of alcoholic beverages. It has become increasingly apparent within the community that a majority of the City's police -related problems are precipitated by alcohol in some way. Since the City continues to be deluged with complaints from its citizens regarding the impact that alcohol sales is having on the quality of life in the both residential and commercial districts of the community, the monitoring and enforcement of all conditional use permits is now a top priority. Effective immediately, an aggressive enforcement program designed to reduce and eliminate citizen complaints regarding on -sale and off -sale alcoholic beverage licensees will be jointly conducted by the City's Police, Fire, and Planning Departments. Police and Fire Officers and Planning Department staff will regularly monitor all conditional use permitees and their business operations. Where violations are found, Police and Fire Officers will be authorized to issue citations immediately to responsible employees within the violating establishment. When multiple violations are observed over the course of a single monitoring period, separate citations may be issued. While it is our hope that the issuance of citations does not become necessary, it is our goal and the purpose of this enforcement program to gain sustained and long term compliance. This pertains not only to conditional use permit requirements, but all municipal codes and state laws applicable to the operations of your individual businesses. The intent of this letter is to provide you with an appreciation and understanding of why these monitoring and enforcement actions are necessary. We encourage each of you voluntarily to comply with all of the specifications of your conditional use permits and avoid unnecessary citations and costly monetary loss to your business and establishments. It is our sincere hope that through this process, both business and residential interests may be respected and the quality of life for all citizens will be maintained and enhanced. Mic ael ch qac Planning Director City of Hermosa Beach Steve Wisniewski Director of Public Safety City of Hermosa Beach cc: City Council City Manager WARNING NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS HBMC 19#-6(a) WARNING REQUIRED. If sound levels inside the place of business exceed 95 dBA, a conspicuous and legible sign must be located outside each public entrance which states: "WARNING, SOUND LEVELS WITHIN MAY CAUSE PERMANENT HEARING IMPAIRMENT." HBMC 21-33(a) DUTY TO POST. all places that sale or dispense alcoholic bevera- ges, including beer and wine, to the public must post conspicuous and legible signs that state: "WARNING. DRINKING WINE, BEER AND OTHER ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES DURING PREGNANCY CAN CAUSE BIRTH DEFECTS." Signs must be placed so they are visible to persons buying alcoholic beverages at a counter, to persons sitting at a bar, to persons sitting at tables, and to persons entering the establishment. HBMC 21-23(c) all off -sale establishments must have signs clearly visible to patrons of the establishment and to persons in or on any parking lot or sidewalk adjacent to the premises that inform persons that they are not allowed to drink any alcoholic beverage or have any open container of alcoholic beverage on the street, sidewalk, parking lot, park, or in any place open to the public that is not licensed for consumption of alcohol. UNIFORM FIRE CODE Sec. 12.203(a) the occupant load approved for the business shall be posted in a conspicuous location. OTHER VIOLATIONS NOTED: BUSINESS NAME RESPONSIBLE PARTY You are being given this courtesy warning notice on at You are being given notice that failure to correct the deficiencies and viola- tions noted will result in criminal action for each future violation. Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council September 6, 1989 City Council Meeting of September 12, 1989 SCHEDULING OF JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION AND OTHER COUNCIL MEETINGS Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council review the attached dates for future meetings and advise staff of preferences so the meet- ing dates can be finalized. Background: At the Council meeting of May 9, 1989, the City Council deferred a decision on the date for a joint meeting with the Planning Com- mission until a list of prioritized projects could be refined. At your meeting of May 23, 1989, the Council again deferred a decision on the meeting until all members of the Planning Commis- sion were appointed. The prioritized list of projects have now been approved by the City Council, and the fifth member of the Planning Commission was appointed by Council action on August 22, 1989. In addition, Council's procedures for determining City Goals dic- tate that the goals be reviewed whenever there is a change in officials on the City Council. As there will be at least one new member of the City Council this December, it is appropriate to schedule that meeting and the other December meeting of the City Council in advance. Analysis: Regarding the meeting with the Planning Commission, in order to avoid two meetings for one of the bodies in the same week, it is advisable for us to look at the months in which there are five Tuesdays, such as October, 1989. While the fifth Tuesday is Hal- loween night, perhaps the Monday (30th), Wednesday (Nov. 1), or Thursday (Nov. 2) would be advisable dates. If the Council wishes to meet sooner, Wednesday, September 27 or Thursday, Sep- tember 28 are possible dates, though I would not be available. Regarding the update of the goals, staff suggests that the Coun- cil reserve Saturday, December 9 as a possible date for such meeting, subject to scheduling with the new Councilmember(s). Finally, regarding the December regular Council meetings, the Council normally does not hold its second meeting, which this year would occur on December 26, 1989. Staff would recommend the Council hold its regular meeting on December 12, with the pos- sibility of an adjourned regular or special meeting on December 19 if business necessitates. Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager cc: Planning Department a Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council INFORMATION REPORT ON CITY'S GRAFFITI Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council receive and file the at- tached information report on the recently revised City graffiti removal program. August 24, 1989 City Council Meeting of September 12, 1989 REMOVAL PROGRAM Background: Due to City Council and citizen concerns regarding the existence of graffiti in our community, City staff has reviewed the exist- ing abatement program and has revised it to increase the City's response to this visual blight in our community. The national solution to graffiti that is considered to be the most successful is to remove graffiti as soon as it appears. This both limits its negative impact and tends to reduce its recurrence. Analysis: The attached administrative regulation sets forth the City's cur- rent procedure for handling graffiti. It is an aggressive pro- gram designed to apprehend when possible the individuals involved in creating graffiti, as well as encourage reporting of graffiti to allow for its quick removal. One problem in quickly resolving graffiti is determining the per- son or agency responsible, and obtaining appropriate approvals to eliminate the graffiti. We are using the City of Inglewood's procedure, where more than a thousand locations are eradicated of graffiti annually. Our program is designed to remove graffiti by City forces if it is on public property, adjacent to the public right-of-way, or is clearly a visual blight on our community. This will create some exposure for complaints from property owners who may feel we did not appropriately remove the graffiti. However, it is likely that a more common occurrence will be ac- ceptance by the property owner of the City's quick actions, and appreciation by the community for the quick removal. Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager KBN/ld lk T0: FROM: ADMINISTRATIVE MEMORANDUM ALL DEPARTMENTS KEVIN B. NORTHCRAFT CITY MANAGER SUBJECT : GRAFFITI REMOVAL PROGRAM FUNCTION: ADMINISTRATION NO: A-14 1. Graffiti is defined as unauthorized painting of drawings or words on surfaces. Graffiti should be broadly defined to include such things as interfering with concrete pouring by placing names or pictures as well. 2. All employees share the responsibility of reporting graffiti within our community to the appropriate party, as well as helping publicize this program to businesses and residents of the community. 3. If an employee or citizen is witness to the placement of graffiti within our community, the Police Department should be notified immediately at 911. The Police Department, during their regular patrols of the City, will attempt to prevent graffiti whenever possible. If perpetrators are apprehended, the City will attempt to file charges and seek recovery of costs from the individuals involved or their parents in the case of minors. 4. Citizens or employees who view existing graffiti in our com- munity should call the "graffiti hot line" at 318-0214 during City business hours. 5. On receiving notice of graffiti, the Public Works Department will issue a work order for the removal of graffiti by the City maintenance workers, who are to consider such an as- signment as a priority. When applicable, call -ins reporting graffiti are to be phoned immediately to the City Yard for quicker action. When possible, graffiti should be eradi- cated within two business days of notification, though health and safety issues clearly are given a higher priority. 6. Public Works employees are to report sightings of graffiti to the office so work orders can be written. The Public Works Superintendent is to inspect the downtown business (10th to 14th Street and Manhattan Avenue to Strand), Strand, and the 'municipal fishing pier on a weekly basis for evidence of graffiti. ISSUED : REVISED : 7. Graffiti shall be removed from public property and from pri- vate property adjoining public property in the most accept- able method. Graffiti shall be removed from other property where its location creates an obvious impact and visual blight on the community. In the case of privately owned walls and fences, the owner's permission shall be obtained when possible as long as this does not inordinately delay the graffiti removal. The Public Works Superintendent shall have discretionary authority to resolve graffiti on private property in the most expeditious and acceptable method. / 477 Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager KBN/ld