Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/11/89"Life is like a jewel - the number of facets determines its sparkle." -Arnold H. Glasgow AGENDA REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 11, 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 Kathlgen Midstokke CITY TREASURER Gary L. Brutsch CITY MANAGER• Kevin B. Northcraft CITY ATTORNEY James P. Lough All Council meetings are open to the public. PLEASE ATTEND. Complete agenda materials are available for public inspection in the Police Department, Public Library and the Office of the City Clerk. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: PROCLAMATIONS: Earthquake Preparedness Month, April, 1989 California Trails Days, April 22 - 23, 1989 CITIZEN COMMENTS Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any items on the Consent Calendar may do so at this time. Citizens may request to speak during Public Hearings and items appearing under Municipal Matters at the time the item is called. Citizen comments on items not on the agenda but within the Council's jurisdiction will be provided time at the end of the agenda. Please limit comments to three minutes. Citizens with comments regarding City management or departmental operations are requested to submit those comments to the City Manager. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following routine matters will be acted upon by one vote to approve With the majority con- sent of the City Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless good cause is shown by a member prior to the roll call vote. (Items removed will be considered under Agenda Item 3.) 1 (a) Recommendation to approve minutes as follows: 1) Adjourned regular meeting of the City Council held on March 22, 1989. 2) Regular meeting of the City Council held on March 28, 1989. (b) Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants Nos. through inclusive, and cancel certain warrants as recommended by the City Treasurer. (c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. (d) Recommendation to receive and file the,March, 1989 in- vestment report. Memorandum from City Treasurer Gary L. Brutsch dated April 5, 1989. Recommendation to award agreement for park irrigation system assessment and rehabilitation program in an amount not to exceed $35,310, CIP 87-508. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated March 29, 1989. (f) (g) (h) (i) (k) Recommendation to award bid for Cushman parts to Pacific Equipment and Irrigation. Memorandum from General Ser- vices Director Joan Noon dated April 3, 1989. Recommendation to adopt resolution establishing a red zone on Aviation Boulevard in the vicinity of Owosso and Ocean Drive for the provision of improving sight distan- ces at the Ocean Drive crosswalk. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated April 3, 1989. Recommendation to adopt resolution establishing a 25 mile per hour speed limit on Monterey Boulevard. Memo- randum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated April 4, 1989. Recommendation to receive and file election calendar for November, 1989 General Municipal Election. Memorandum from City Clerk Kathleen Midstokke dated April 6, 1989. Recommendation to approve class specification for posi- tion of Finance Director; salary range for that posi- tion; and reclassification of Finance Administrator. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dat- ed April 3, 1989. Recommendation to adopt resolution establishing a policy to implement Ordinance No. 88-941 regarding increases in business license taxes that are imposed on a flat fee basis. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director William Grove dated March 30, 1989. 2 ANN Recommendation to accept and file information report on the resolution of the Quanta v. City of Hermosa Beach litigtion and approve staff recommendation on designa- tion of funds. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated April 5, 1989. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES. (a) ORDINANCE NO. 89-978 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4 OF ORDINANCE NO. 88-917 PERTAINING TO THE TIME LIMIT TO Tni G PERMIT. For adoption. (b) ORDINANCE NO. 89-979 - AN ORIINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4- 6.1(1) OF HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO REQUIRE THE POSSESSION OF A SUITABLE MEANS OF REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF A DOG OR AN MAL IE (DEFECATION). For adoption. /1. CitSAN 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. 5. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO GRANT A CON- DITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #20644 FOR A 2 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1722 GOLDEN AVENUE. (Continued from 3/28/89 meeting.) Memorandum from Plan- ning Director Michael Schubach dated April 4, 1989. 6. ZONE CHANGE FROM R-2, M-1 AND OPEN SPACE TO EITHER R-1, R-2, SPA OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 603 FIRST STREET, WITH ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 3, 1989. 7. ZONE CHANGE FROM M-1 AND OPEN SPACE TO EITHER.SPA, R-2 OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DEC- LARATION AT 540 FIRST STREET, WITH ORDINANCE FOR INTRO- DUCTION. (Continued from 3/28/89 meeting.) Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated March 20, 1989. 8. PROGRESS REPORT AND MORATORIUM EXTENSION FOR VIDEO SALES IN C-1 AND C-2 ZONES, WITH INTERIM ORDINANCE FOR ADOP- TION. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 4, 1989. 9. TEXT AMENDMENT RE. NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WITH ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 3, 1989. HEARINGS 3 10. POLICY STATEMENT CONFIRMATION RE. REMODELLING AND EXPAN- SION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AND/OR USES AND AP- PLICABILITY TO 45 - 14TH STREET REMODELLING. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 4, 1989. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 11. SELECTION OF A REAL ESTATE BROKER FOR THE SALE OF CITY - OWNED SURPLUS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director Williams Grove dated April 3, 1989. 12. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND ORDERING VACA- TION OF 21ST STREET. Memorandum from Public Works Di- rector Anthony.Antich dated April 4, 1989. 13. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION AND EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT'ALLOW- ING PARTICIPATION IN THE INDEPENDENT CITIES LEASE FINANCING AUTHORITY; APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTOR AND ALTER- NATE DIRECTOR. Memorandum from Finance Administrator Viki Copeland.dated April 5, 1989. 14. DEMONSTRATION OF NEW NOISE EQUIPMENT. Oral report from Public Safety Department. 15. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER 16. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL 17. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: (a) Request by Councilmember Sheldon for discussion of ex- panded anti -graffiti program. 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. 18. 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 4 CITY HALL OPERATING HOURS MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY OPEN 7:00 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M. CLOSED FRIDAYS Where there is no vision the people perish... HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA WELCOME! By your presence in the City Council Chambers you are participating in the process of representative government. Your government welcomes your interest and hopes you will attend the City Council meetings often. It is the policy of the City Council that no discussion of new items will begin after 11:30 p.m., unless this rule is waived by the Council. The agendas are developed with the intent to have all matters covered within the time allowed. • C]TY VISION A less dense, more family oriented pleasant low profile, financially sound community comprised of a separate and distinct business district and residential neighborhoods that are afforded full municipal services in which the maximum costs are borne by visitor/users; fled by a City Council which accepts a stewardship role for community resources and displays a willingness to explore innovative alternatives, and moves toward public policy leadership in attitudes of full ethical awareness. This Council is dedicated to learning from •the past, and preparing Hermosa Beach for tomorrow's challenges today. Adopted by City Council on October 23, 1986 NOTE: There is no smoking allowed in the Council Chambers r• THE'HERMOSA BEACH FORM OF GOVERNMENT Hermosa Beach has the Council -Manager form of government, with a City Manager ap- pointed by and responsible to the City Council for carrying out Council policy. The - Mayor and Council decide what is to be done.. The City Manager, operating through the entire City staff, does it. This separation of policy making and administration is considsered the most economical and efficient form of City government in tbe United States today. GLOSSARY • The following explanations may help you to understand tbe terms found on most agen- das for meetings of the Hermosa Beach City Council. • Consent Items A compilation of all routine matters to be acted upon by one vote; approval re- quires a majority affirmative vote. Any Councilmember can remove an item from this listing thereby causing that matter to be considered under the category Consent Cal- endar items Removed For Separate Discussion. Public Hearings Public Hearings are held on -certain matters as required by law. The Hearings afford the public the opportunity to appear and formally express their views regarding the matter being heard. Additionally, letters may be filed with the City -Clerk, prior to the Hearing. Hearings Bearings are held on other matters of public importance for which there is no legal requirement to conduct an advertised Public Hearing. Ordinances An ordinance is a law that regulates government -revenues and/or public conduct. All ordinances require two "readings". The first reading introduces the ordinance into the records. At least one-week later Council -may adopt, reject or hold over the ordinance to a subsequent meeting. Regular ordinances take effect 30 days after the second reading. Emergency ordinances are governed by different provisions and waive the time requirements. Written Communications The public, members of advisory boards/commissions or organizations may formally communicate to or make a request of Council by letter; said letters should be filed with the City Clerk by the Wednesday preceeding.the Regular City Council meeting. Miscellaneous Items and Reports r. City Manager The City Manager coordinates departmental reports and brings items to the attention of, or for action by the City Council. Verbal reports may be given by the City Manager regarding items not on the agenda, usually having arisen since. tbe agenda was prepared on the preceding Wednesday. Miscellaneous Items and Reports - City -Council Members of the City Council may place items on 'the agenda for consideration by the full Council.• Other Matters - City Council These are matters that come to the attention of a Council member after publication of the Agenda. Oral Communications from the Public - Matters of an Urgency Nature Citizens wishing to address the City Council on an urgency matter not elsewhere con- sidered on the agenda may do so at this time. Parking Authority The Parking Authority is a financially separate entity, but is operated as an inte- gral part of the City government. Vehicle Parking District No. 1 The City Council also serves as the Vehicle Parking District Commission. It's pur- pose is to oversee the operation of certain downtown parking lots and otherwise pro- mote public parking in the central business district. . "Life is like a jewel - the number of facets determines its sparkle." -Arnold H. Glasgow ' AGENDA REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 11, 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 James P. Lough All Council meetings are open to the public. PLEASE ATTEND. Complete agenda materials are available for public inspection in the Police Department, Public Library and the Office of the City Clerk. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: PROCLAMATIONS: Earthquake Preparedness Month, April, 1989 California Trails Days, April 22 - 23, 1989 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 commentson items not on the agenda but within the Council's jurisdiction will be provided time at the end of the agenda. Please limit comments to three minutes. Citizens with comments regarding City management or departmental operations are requested to submit those comments to the City Manager. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following routine matters will be acted upon by one vote to approve with the majority con- sent of the City Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless good cause is shown by a member prior to the roll call vote. (Items removed will be considered under Agenda Item 3.) 1 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) 59-'° (k) Recommendation to approve minutes as follows: 1) Adjourned regular meeting of the City Council held on March 22, 1989. 2) Regular meeting of the City Council held on March 28, 1989. Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants Nos. through inclusive, and cancel certain warrants as recommended by the City Treasurer. Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items; Recommendation to receive and file the March, 1989 in- vestment report. Memorandum from City Treasurer Gary L. Brutsch dated April 5, 1989. Recommendation to award agreement for park irrigation system assessment and rehabilitation program in an amount not to exceed $35,310, CIP 87-508. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated March 29, 1989. Recommendation to award bid for Cushman parts to Pacific Equipment and Irrigation. Memorandum from General Ser- vices Director Joan Noon dated April 3, 1989. Recommendation to adopt resolution establishing a red zone on Aviation Boulevard in the vicinity of Owosso and Ocean Drive for the provision of improving sight distan- ces at the Ocean Drive crosswalk. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated April 3, 1989. Recommendation to adopt resolution establishing a 25 mile per hour speed limit on Monterey Boulevard. Memo- randum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated April 4, 1989. Recommendation to receive and file election calendar for November, 1989 General Municipal Election. Memorandum from City Clerk Kathleen Midstokke dated April 6, 1989. Recommendation to approve class specification for posi- tion of Finance Director; salary range for that posi- tion; and reclassification of Finance Administrator. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dat- ed April 3, 1989. Recommendation to adopt resolution establishing a policy to implement Ordinance No. 88-941 regarding increases in business license taxes that are imposed on a flat fee basis. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director William Grove dated March 30, 1989. 2 (1) Recommendation to accept and file information report on the resolution of the Quanta v. City of Hermosa Beach litigtion and approve staff recommendation on designa- tion of funds. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated April 5, 1989. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES. (a) ORDINANCE NO. 89-978 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4 OF ORDINANCE NO. 88-917 PERTAINING TO THE TIME LIMIT TO OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT. For adoption. (b) ORDINANCE NO. 89-979 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4- 6.1(1) OF HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO REQUIRE THE POSSESSION OF A SUITABLE MEANS OF REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF A DOG OR ANIMAL NUISANCE (DEFECATION). For adoption. 3. ITEZS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. 5. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO GRANT A CON- DITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #20644 FOR A 2 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1722 GOLDEN AVENUE. (Continued from 3/28/89 meeting.) Memorandum from Plan- ning Director Michael Schubach dated April 4, 1989. 6. ZONE CHANGE FROM R-2, M-1 AND OPEN SPACE TO EITHER R-1, R-2, SPA OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION "tom AT 603 FIRST STREET, WITH ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 3, 1989. 7. ZONE CHANGE FROM M-1 AND OPEN SPACE TO EITHER.SPA, R-2 OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE CITY 1f COUNCIL AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DEC- LARATION AT 540 FIRST STREET, WITH ORDINANCE FOR INTRO- DUCTION. (Continued from 3/28/89 meeting.) Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated March 20, 1989. PROGRESS REPORT AND MORATORIUM EXTENSION FOR VIDEO SALES IN C-1 AND C-2 ZONES, WITH INTERIM ORDINANCE FOR ADOP- TION. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 4, 1989. 9. 'TEXT AMENDMENT RE. NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WITH ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 3, 1989. HEARINGS 3 10. POLICY STATEMENT CONFIRMATION RE. REMODELLING AND EXPAN- SION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AND/OR USES AND AP- 5e?' TO 45 - 14TH STREET REMODELLING. Memorandum �O' from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 4, 1989. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 11. SELECTION OF A REAL ESTATE BROKER FOR THE SALE OF CITY - OWNED SURPLUS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director Williams Grove dated April 3, 1989. 12. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND ORDERING VACA- TION OF 21ST STREET. Memorandum from Public Works Di- rector Anthony Antich dated April 4, 1989. sa 13. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION AND EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT ALLOW- ING PARTICIPATION IN THE INDEPENDENT CITIES LEASE FINANCING AUTHORITY; APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTOR AND ALTER- NATE DIRECTOR. Memorandum from Finance Administrator Viki Copeland dated April 5, 1989. 14. DEMONSTRATION OF NEW NOISE EQUIPMENT. Oral report from Public Safety Department. 15. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER 16. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL 17. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: (a) Request by Councilmember Sheldon for discussion of ex- panded anti -graffiti program. 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. 18. 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 4 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, March 28, 1989 at the hour of 7:30 P.M. CLOSED SESSION for the purpose of Real Estate Negotiations with the Hermosa Beach School District involving Prospect and South School sites; and A.T. & S.F. involving the area commonly known as the Railroad right-of-way; held at the hour of 6:31 P.M. Present: Absent: PLEDGE OF Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson, Mayor Williams None ALLEGIANCE - Don MacPherson, Sr. ROLL CALL Present:- Absent: Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson, Mayor Williams None PROCLAMATIONS - Week of the Young Child, April 1 - 8, 1989 PRESENTATION OF BILTMORE SITE CITIZENS' ADVISORY TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS - Presented by George Schmeltzer, Chairman Action: To have the City. Manager send letters thanking all the committee members for their efforts and time. Motion Rosenberger, second Creighton. So ordered. Further Action: That we take the committee's 'recommendation and send it down with a Resolution of Intent that the Planning Com- mission study their recommendation, hold Public Hearings and come back to us at their earliest possible convenience for our deliberations on their recommendations. Motion Sheldon, second Simpson. So ordered. CITIZEN COMMENTS Wilma Burt - 1152 7th Street - asked that items J & L be pulled from the consent calendar for discussion; and items 2A & 2B. Howard Longacre - 1221 7th Place - asked that items J & K be pulled from the consent calendar. Julie Feys - 211 8th St, asked that item L be pulled from the consent calendar'for discussion. Tom Arp - requested discussion on 2A & 2B. Michael Pitton - requested discussion on Vasek Polak item. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR Action: To approve Consent Calendar recommendations (a) through (m) with the exception of the following items which were pulled for discussion but are listed in order for clarity: (e) Rosenberger; (i) Williams; (j) Williams; (k) Williams; (1) Williams; and (m) Williams. Motion Rosenberger, second Simpson. So ordered. 1 la Minutes 3-28-892 (a) Recommendation to approve the following minutes: 1) Regular meeting of the City Council held on March 14, 1989; (b) Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants Nos. 29431 through 29591 inclusive, and 29304, noting voided warrants 29439 through 29442 inclusive and 29495 and 29508. (c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. (d) Recommendation to receive and file the February, 1989 financial reports: 1) Revenue and Expenditures reports; 2) City Treasurer's report. (e) Recommendation to accept and file the 1989-1990 Budget Calendar. Memorandum from Finance Administrator Viki Copeland dated March 15, 1989. (f) (g) (h) Action: To eliminate meeting of the 25th and set 2nd meeting date at meeting of 22nd, if needed; and receive and file the budget calendar. Motion Rosenberger, second Creighton. So ordered. Recommendation to award agreement for contract adminis- tration and inspection services for municipal pier repairs, CIP 88-614. Memorandum from Public Works Di rector Anthony Antich dated March 21, 1989. Action: To authorize the Mayor to sign an agreement with Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers. for contract adminis- tration & inspection services at a cost not to exceed $33,374. and authorize staff to issue addenda as neces- sary within budget limitations. Recommendation to adopt a resolution establishing a one- hour parking zone on the west side of Pacific Coast Highway► between Artesia Boulevard and 24th Place. Memo- randum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated March 15, 1989. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 89-5246, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. N.S.2435, AS AMENDED BY ESTABLISHING A ONE HOUR PARKING ZONE ON THE WEST SIDE OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY BETWEEN ARTESIA BOULEVARD AND 24TH PLACE, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION." Recommendation to approve revision of class specifica- tions for Police Officer and Public Safety Dispatcher. Memorandum from Personnel. Director Robert Blackwood dat- ed March 20, 1989. 2 Minutes 3-28-89 4' (i) (j) Recommendation from Planning Commission to City Council re. relocation assistance for senior citizens and fixed income people. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated March 21, 1989. Action: To have staff come back with any options they deem necessary. Motion Sheldon, second Rosenberger. So ordered. Recommendation to adopt resolution of intent for Plan- ninCommission to stud downtown •arkin. re• irements for revitalization of downtown. Memorandum from Plan- ning Director Michael Schubach dated March 22, 1989. Addressing the Council on this item were: Wilma Burt - feels another study is not needed Action: To allow the Council to discuss the subjects being brought forward by people at the time they bring them forward. Motion Creighton, second Simpson. AYES - Creighton, Simpson, Rosenberger NOES - Sheldon, Mayor Williams Howard Longacre - 1221 -7th Place - also feels no study is necessary but supports saving Historical Buildings Further Action: To amend Resolution No. 89-5247, enti- tled "A RESOLUTION OF INTENT. OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO STUDY DOWNTOWN PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR REVITALIZATION OF DOWNTOWN." adding to line 6, A. The lack of parking for chane of uses appears ... and adding to the end of line 10, B. and historic building preservation. Motion Sheldon, second Williams. AYES: Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson, Mayor Williams Noes: None Final Action: To adopt Resolution No. 89-5274 as amended. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton:. So ordered. (k) Recommendation to hire consultants for audit of sales tax and state subvention receipts. Memorandum from Finance Administrator Viki Copeland and City Treasurer Gary L. Brutsch dated March 22,1989. Addressing the Council on this item was: Howard Longacre - had questions about item • Action: 1) To approve a contract with Revenue Allocation Manage- ment for an audit of subventions received from the State Controller for motor vehicle license fees, cigarette tax, gas tax and off-highway motor vehicle license fees. (1) (m) 2) Approve a contract with Hinderliter, deLlamas and Assoc. for an initial audit of sales tax collections received from the State Board of Equalization and for on-going reporting and auditing. 3) Adopt Resolution No. 89-5248, entitled " A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING CERTAIN CITY OFFICIALS AND A CITY CONTRACTOR ACCESS TO SALES AND USE TAX RECORDS PURSUANT TO REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE SECTION 7056." 4) Appropriate $900 form the Designation for Contingen- cies to the Finance budget for reporting during April - June at a cost of $300 per month. And 5) Authorize the City Manager to sign the contracts. Motion Williams, second Creighton. So ordered. Recommendation to approve programs to be funded by CDBG. Memorandum from Assistant City Manager Alana Mastrian- Handman dated March 20, 1989. Addressing the Council on this item were: Julie Feys - Project Touch - available for questions Wilma Burt - does not support CDBG funding Action: To approve the programs and funding levels for the CDBG Program as follows: 1) Housing Rehabilitation Program $92,072 2) Public Service Programs $18,414 3) Administration $12,276 and 4) Authorize the Mayor to sign all contracts pertinent to implementation of these programs. Motion Sheldon, second Rosenberger. So ordered, noting the objection of Creighton. Recommendation to deny waiver of fee to appeal condi- tional use permit and Tentative Map #20554 for two con- dominium units at 2902 Hermosa Avenue, by Robert Benz and others, appellants. Memorandum from Planning Direc- tor Michael Schubach dated March .23, 1989. Addressing the Council on this item was: Robert Benz - 2901 Manhattan Avenue • Action: To approve the staff recommendation and deny the waiver of fee to appeal CUP and Tentative Map # 20554 for 2 condos at 2902 Hermosa Avenue. Motion Creighton, second Simpson. So ordered. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES. • • r Minutes 3-28-89 (a) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4.8 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE DESIGNATING AS AN OFF -LEASH AND TRAINING AREA THE SOUTHERN PORTION (PIER AVENUE SOUTH TO HERON - DO) OF THE OPEN SPACE PROPERTY ALSO KNOWN AS THE RAIL- ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY/GREENBELT. For waiver and full read- ing and introduction. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dated March 16, 1989. Supplemental letter from Gary Burritt 432 Hollowell dated March 23, 1989; Lawrence Burritt 535 Hollowell Avenue received March 28, 1989; and group named WATCHDOG dated March 28, 1989. Addressing the Council on this item were: Wilma Burt - 1152 -7th Street - concerns regarding not owning land yet and health problems. Tom Arp - 233 Ardmore - supports alternate ordinance Howard Longacre - dely until we own land, do city-wide survey George Schmeltzer - opposes dogs being off -leash Proposed Action: To receive and file. Motion Sheldon, second Williams. AYES - Sheldon, Mayor Williams NOES - Creighton, Rosenberger, Simpson Action: After January 1, 1990 or the City assumes title to the Railroad right-of-way to apply the City-wide leash law as written to the Railroad right-of-way. Motion Creighton, second Simpson. AYES - Creighton, Simpson, Mayor Williams NOES - Rosenberger, Sheldon Final Action: To receive and file the staff report. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton: So ordered, noting the objection of Rosenberger. (b) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4-6.1 HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO REQUIRE THE POSSESSION OF A SUITABLE MEANS OF REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF A DOG OR ANIMAL NUISANCE (DEFECATION). For waiver of full reading and introduction. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dated March 16, 1989. Action: 'To waive full reading of Ordinance No. 89-979 entitled 'AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, AMENDING SECTION 4-6.1(1) OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO REQUIRE THE POSSESSION OF A SUITABLE MEANS OF REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF A DOG OR ANIMAL NUISNACE (DEFECATION). Motion Creighton, second Simpson., AYES - Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson, Mayor Williams NOES - None Final Action: To introduce Ordinance No. 89-979. Motion Creighton, second Rosenberger. So ordered. 5 Minutes 3-28-89 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. Items e,i,j,k,l, and m were pulled and discussed immediately after item 1; but are listed in order for clarity. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. (a) Letter from Jim Lissner re. Gould Avenue speed limit. Action: To communicate with Mr. Lissner that at this time no justification can be found in the application as presented to change the classification of the street to lower the speed limit to 25 MPH. Motion Creighton, second Sheldon. AYES - Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson, Mayor Williams NOES - None PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO GRANT A CON- DITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #20644 FOR A 2 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1722 GOLDEN AVENUE. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated March 21, 1989. (Continue for required public noticing.) Action: To open and continue this public hearing to the next meeting to allow for required Public Noticing. • Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. A recess was called at 8:55 P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 9:05 P.M. 6. ZONE CHANGE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LO- CATED AT 540 FIRST STREET: (A) ZONE CHANGE FROM M-1 AND OPEN SPACE TO EITHER SPA, R-2.OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WITH ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUC- TION,; AND Action: To open and continue this public hearing to the next meeting to hear with the other similar project. Motion Sheldon, second Rosenberger. So ordered. (B) APPEAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPOSED PROJECT BY THE APPLICANT. (Appeal withdrawn) Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated March 20, 1989. It was noted that the appeal has been withdrawn, so this item will not need to come back on April 11. 6 Minutes 3-28-89 At this time item 2A and 2B were addressed, but they are listed in order for clarity. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 7. REPORT ON STATUS OF GREENBELT ACQUISITION AND RECOMMEN- DATION FOR FINANCING. Memorandum from City Manager Ke- vin B. Northcraft dated March 23, 1989. Action: That the City Council authorize staff to pro- cess the necessary documents for possible financing(s) with the Independent Cities Lease Financing Authority and proceed with review of financing options. Motion Creighton, second Sheldon. So ordered. 8. CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF SIGNATURE VERIFICATION OF PEOPLE'S INITIATIVE TO REZONE BILTMORE SITE OPEN SPACE. Memorandum from City Clerk Kathleen Midstokke dated March 17, 1989. Addressing the Council on this item was: Parker Herriott - explaining his intention on some ques- tions regarding the Initiative. Action: To request the City Clerk to begin preparation of necessary documents and schedules to place the matter on the November 1989 ballot; and request a report from City staff and the City Attorney, pursuant to Government Code Sec. 4009.5, on the petition's (a) fiscal impact, (b) effect on internal consistencies and limitations on City actions; (c) legality; and (d) such other matters as Council deems appropriate. Motion Sheldon, second Rosenberger. So ordered. 9. REQUEST BY MICHAEL AND CASSANDRA LAWTON FOR AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 88-917 PERTAINING TO PERMIT DEADLINE. With ordinance for introduction. Memorandum from Build- ing and Safety Director William Grove dated March 23, 1989. Action: To waive full reading of Ordinance No. 89-978 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY•OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA AMENDING SECTION 4 OF ORDINANCE NO. 88-917 PERTAINING TO THE TIME LIMIT TO OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT." Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. AYES - Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson, Mayor Williams NOES - None Final Action: To introduce Ordinance No. 89-978. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered. Minutes 3-28-89 10. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER (a) Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce Old-timers Luncheon, March 30, 1989. Annual South Bay Medal of Valor Luncheon April 6 at 11:00 A.M. at the Torrance Marriott. Received notice of League of Cities that Congress is holding a committee hearing on the effect of Cable TV deregulation; staff is drafting letter for Mayor's sig- nature regarding concerns and problems that Hermosa Beach is currently having with their cable franchise. 11. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL (a) City Council Reorganization - March, 1989. Memorandum .from City Clerk Kathleen Midstokke dated March 17, 1989. Action: To accept the committee appointments as submitted. Motion Creighton, second Sheldon. So ordered. Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: (b) (c) Request by Councilmember Rosenberger for discussion of increase in housing values in the past year. Supplemen- tal information newspaper article from Easy Reader dated 3-9-89. Action: To receive and file. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered. Request by Mayor Williams for discussion re. Vasek Polak BMW parking of cars on City right-of-way. Supplemental letters from Citizens Concern Group of 30th Street dated March 15 and March 27, 1989. Action: To discuss this item. Motion Creighton, second Sheldon. No vote was taken on the motion. Addressing the Council on this item were: Michael Pitton - 729 -30th Street - concerns regarding parking on sidewalk and public right-of-way Jim Deutch - 707 -30th Street - concerns regarding em- ployees using the residential streets for parking and non -enforcement of the CUP Action: To ask the City Manager to call Mr. Vasek Polak personally regarding concerns of conforming to all the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit; and pose the following questions/answers: Does he have off-street parking available for his employees, where, when will he begin? - 8 - Minutes 3-28-89 Does he understand that his cars for sale can not be parked on residential streets, and that he should cease doing it, and where would he put them if he did? Does he understand the questions and what solutions will be instituted to remedy? Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. Before the vote was taken on this item, Councilmember Creighton made a motion that: The City enforce the park- ing law as the State law applies it to sidewalks. Vote on original motion on the floor: So ordered. Further Action: That City staff start enforcing commer- cial usage of the sidewalk with encroachment permits and ticket or tow those who violate it after they have had a notice. Motion Creighton, second Simpson. So ordered. 12. CITIZEN COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Wilma Burt - 1152 -7th Street - concerns regarding safety of pedestrians due to cars overhanging sidewalks Howard Longacre - announced that the water company is no longer using asbestos cement and lead in their water mains Further Action: To dissolve the Biltmore Committee. Motion Rosenberger, second Creighton. So ordered. ADJOURNMENT The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California adjourned on Tuesday, March 28, 1989 at the hour of 11:45 P.M. to a Regular Meeting to be held on Tuesday, April 11, 1989 at the hour of 7:30 P.M. City Clerk - 9 - Minutes 3-28-89 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Wednesday, March 22, at the hour of 4:10 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Creighton, Rosenberger, Simpson, Sheldon, Mayor Williams Absent: None REVIEW OF CITY GOALS WITH CITY MANAGEMENT TEAM There was general discussions regarding the attached list of City of Hermosa Beach Goals as revised February 14, 1988. Each Department Head gave an explanation of what they understand the goal to be, how they are attempting to achieve them, and the staffing and funding needed. ADJOURNMENT The Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, adjourned at the hour of 6:20 P.M. on Wednesday, March 22 to a Regular Meeting to be held on Tuesday, March 28, 1989 at the hour of 7:30 P.M. - re I Wee. p *tee 1479X• City Clerk 1 la Minutes 3-22-89 11 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH GOALS ESTABLISHED 1988 APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT THEIR MEETING OF JULY 12, 1988 AS REVISED FEBRUARY 14, 1989 Priority No. (1 = highest) 1 IMPROVE CITY FINANCIAL PICTURE Goal: Balance City budget for FY '89-'90. 2 DEVELOP BILTMORE SITE Goal: By January 1, 1989, the citizens will direct the future development of the biltmore site. 3 GROWTH MANAGEMENT/DENSITY REDUCTION Goal: o t'nu methods designeda to reduce density. ancrease dna iooi a w yys 1n wfl ch to .reduce b lk and 4 -tie IMPROVE ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESSspace wih new construction. Goal: Complete evaluation of organizational effectiveness by January 1, 1989. - Implement policy whereby policies of the League of California Cities and other cities are utilized first. - City to develop and advise City Council regarding status of records management efficiency and needs. 4 -tie ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS Goal: Review enforcement and assignment of proper enforcement personnel for the laws of the City of Hermosa Beach. 4 -tie COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF GENERAL PLAN Goal: Schedule comprehensive review of various elements of the General Plan to begin January 1, 1989 and be completed by January 1, 1990. - (1) Land use element and (2) circulation element 7 STANDARDIZED PROCEDURES FOR CITY DEPARTMENTS (INSTRUCTIONAL SHEETS). Goal: Develop instructional form on how to get a building permit by January 1, 1989. 8 -tie ADD OPEN SPACE Goal: Acquire Railroad right-of-way by Jan. 1, 1989. 8 -tie COMPLETE INCONSISTENCIES AND LOT MERGERS IN 1988 8 -tie IMPROVE AND ENHANCE RELATIONSHIP WITH SCHOOL DISTRICT Goal: Through ongoing dialogue with the School District, creatively decide how the City can combine the need for preserving and acquiring`Open space with the School District's need for instructional money. •11 PROMOTE POSITIVE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS Goal: Promote quality commercial development. - Develop awards to encourage upgrades. - Enforce fire codes, abate nuisances. - Improve infrastructure in commercial areas. - Ask Chamber of Commerce to review and study in lieu parking fees. - Revise and enhance landscaping in commercial and residential areas by upgrading ordinances. 12 TRAFFIC CONCERNS Goal: Make decision regarding Pacific Coast Highway traffic patterns by January 1, 1989. 13 -tie IMPROVE PUBLIC POLICY PROCESS Goal: Continue to promote public access via town hall meeting, cable, our abundant public noticing, improved press relations (releases and relations). 13 -tie PARK AND RECREATION PROCRAM Goal: Community Resources to audit recreational programming of other cities and League of California Cities toward increasing activities available to Hermosa Beach residents (youths, adults and senior citizens). - Comparison of current programs available in Hermosa Beach to what is available to be completed by January 1, 1989. 13 -tie REDUCE COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL CONFLICTS Goal: Via General Plan review, look at buffer, mixed use, commercial potential. 16 -tie IMPROVE CITY IMAGE/BEAUTIFICATION Goal: Implement and enforce landscape upgrade, nuisance abatement ordinances. - Develop routine for inspection of condition of City owned property toward maintenance of landscape,safety, buildings, etc. • - Institute public safety awareness and appreciation thru open house (Police, Fire). .16 -tie INFRASTRUCTURE INPROVEMENTS Goal: Clear report of conditions of all infrastructure.` systems to be completed by January 1, 1989. 16 -tie ULTILIZATION OF VOLUNTEERS Goal: Conduct appreciation and recognition ceremony for City Commissioners, volunteers. - Solicit volunteer help and expertise on selected subjects from resources within the community. 19 -tie PARKING CONCERNS Goal: Increase public parking spaces by 130 spaces (Compact spaces/structure). 19 -tie PUBLIC SAFETY• Goal: Promote fire prevention to include business inspection and licensing. - Consider cleaner burning fuels for fleet/recommend ways to lower pollution. - Expedite use of forfeiture funds for drug enforcement. 19 -tie MORE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT/EVENTS Goal: Request Foundation and Community Resources Commission to supply methods to increase community events. 22 CONSIDER ARCHITECTUAL REVIEW Goal: Complete A.S.A.P. 23 STREAMLINING COUNCIL MEETINGS Goal: Implement more expediting procedures for Council meetings. 24 IMPROVE PUBLIC COMMUNICATION PROCESS Goal: City departments to prepare report to City Council providing information on cost, format. etc. toward implementing community newsletter FINANCE-SFA340 r TIME 14:36:32 7 -PAY -- VENDOR NAME �.i DESCRIPTION 44/ ..I H JAMES*BOUZIANE MEALS/BASIC DISPATCH CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 04/11/89 VND * .-- ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE INVC PROJ * PAGE 0001 DATE 04/06/69 TRN * • -•-•- --- --AMOUNT- INV/REF PO N CHK * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNFNC DATE EXP ---] 02766 001-400-2101-4312 00892 $263.00 04/06/89 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE . POST *** VENDOR TOTAL ** *******#********* ***4t* ****4**44144*** ** ****4 *****4*4*******•» $263.00 H OFCR NANCY*COOK MEALS/NARCO INVEST 02173 • 001-400-2101-4312 00891 $357.25 03/28/89 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST ' *** VENDOR TOTAL**##*#*****•**************4****•M*•*E*4-**4*****4***4*4*R4*** ****4#**** H GOLDEN WEST COMMUNITY COLLEGE TUITION/J. BOUZIANE • *357. 25 08568 29598 $0.00 04/06/89 07988 29596 $0.00 04/06/89 01982 • 001-400-2101-4312 00893 $35.00 29599 04/06/89 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 *** VENDOR TOTAL **************4****4**** ****4*****4***•********##4*** ****+*#4***** *35. 00 H HOLIDAY INN 02767 001-400-2101-4312 00894 $726.00 HOTEL/J. BOUZIANE 04/06/89 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST - - --- *** VENDOR TOTAL*****#*****************4*•4***4#*;►#*4#44*****•4*****4**#******#*4***4* $726.00 - H POSTMASTER 00398 001-400-4601-4302 00041• $946.37 BULK MAIL POSTAGE 03/27/89 COMM RESOURCES /ADVERTISING • - *** VENDOR TOTAL *****#****##********#**#*****•*****4*#4******-**4*4*****»*****4***** � 11 !t •I e •, H H H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT/FEB PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT/FEB PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT/FEB PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT/FEB H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT/FEB RETIREMENT SYS. 89 RETIREMENT SYS. 89 RETIREMENT SYS. 89 RETIREMgNT SYS. 89 RETIREMENT SYS. 89 • $946.37 00026 001-400-1213-4180 00285 $76.318.50 03/27/89 RETIREMENT /RETIREMENT • • - 00026 001-400-1213-4180 00286 $74.143.04CR 03/27/89 RETIREMENT /RETIREMENT 00026 105-400-2601-4180 00094 $736.21 03/27/89 STREET LIGHTING /RETIREMENT • 00026 110-400-3301-4180 00095 $162.35 03/27/89 VEH PKG DIST /RETIREMENT 00026 110-400-3302-4180 00095 $4.733.74 03/27/89 PARKING ENF /RETIREMENT J J J 6 0 29599 04/06/89 ai 08567 29600 $0.00 04/06/89 07742 29592 *0.00 04/06/89 t J Io 29593 $0.00 04/06/89 O 29593 $0.00 04/06/89 29593 $0.00 04/06/89. 29593 $0.00 04/06/89 29593 $0:00 04/06/89 d ' G iti 6 1 FINANCE-SFA340 • TIME 14:36:32 PAY --VENDOR NAME -------- DESCRIPTION ----- -DESCRIPTION H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. RETIREMENT/FEB 89 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. RETIREMENT/FEB 89 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT RETIREMENT/FEB 89 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT RETIREMENT/FEB 89 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT RETIREMENT/FEB 89 H PUB EMPLOYEES CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 04/11/89 • J PAGE 0002 DATE 04/06/89 --• - VND M - ACCOUNT NUMBER - TRN * ------ AMOUNT--- INV/REF PO # CHK 4 .DATE INVC PROJ N ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 00026 03/27/89 00026 03/27/89 145-400-3401-4180 00069 447.91 DIAL A RIDE /RETIREMENT 145-400-3402-4180 00069 415.85 ESEA /RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 145-400-3403-4180 00019 015.94 03/27/89 BUS PASS SUBSDY /RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 :155-400-2102-4180 00067 4211.24 03/27/89 CROSSING GUARD /RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 160-400-3102-4180 00094 4813.34 03/27/89 SEWER/ST DRAIN /RETIREMENT . RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 705-400-1209-4180 00018 4110.34 RETIREMENT/FEB 89 03/27/89 LIABILITY INS /RETIREMENT • RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 705-400-1217-4180 00018 $164.42 RETIREMENT/FEB 89 03/27/89 WORKERS COMP /RETIREMENT ' H PUB EMPLOYEES *** VENDOR TOTAL ***************MAIN[*4*4*4 44*44**4* 4*4A*44**************4*k1**44*4* 49.186.80 H SACRAMENTO INN HOTEL/N. COOK 00990 001-400-2101-4312 00890 $703.40 03/28/89 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE . POST *** VENDOR TOTAL 4****4********-*M**4**1t*4***4*****M*4M*-44**fit*6***4*4M4*4*****M*4M**4* 4708.40 • H J. S. *WARD & CO. AS AGENT FOR 02466 705-400-1209-4201 00087 $12,018.50 REIMB LIAB/FEB 89 03/27/89 LIABILITY INS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT H J. 8. *WARD & CO. AS AGENY FOR 02466 705-400-1209-4324 00093 $2.037.35 REIMB•LIAB/FEB 89 03/27/89 LIABILITY INS /CLAIMS/SETTLEMENTS *** VENDOR TOTAL 4**************4*******4*M****4*44*4M4•*44*44*4* F****-**MM***44449**** *** PAY CODE TOTAL******R**************4M4****4****4**4*********4*4*********4404**** R A-1 COAST RENTALS MISC. CHRG/MARCH 89 $14.055.85 *26.278.67 • 29593 40.00 04/06/89 29593 40.00 04/06/89 29593 40.00 04/06/89 29593 40.00 04/06/89 29593 *0.00 04/06/89 29593 40.00, 04/06/89 29593 40.00 04/06/89 • 07989 29595 40.00 04/06/89 08220 29594 40.00 04/06/89 08220 29594 �II 40.00 04/06/89 00029 001-400-3103-4309 00819 *163.35 00031 03/31/89 ST MAINTENANCE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 40.00 • 29606 04/06/89 ap • FINANCE-SFA340. TINE 14:36:32 I ---PAY —VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 04/11/89 PAGE 0003 DATE 04/06/89 VND * --- ACCOUNT NUMBER- TRN * ------------AMOUNT—INV/REF -- PO * CHK N . DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION MOUNT MEM: DATE EXP ----] *** VENDOR TOTAL ************************* ***4x****4• *4#******* .1*4#*4************** $163:35 AP ADVANCE ELEVATOR ELEV MAINT/APR 89 • 00003 001-400-4204-4201 00314 21478 04/01/89 BLOC HAINT $80.00 21478 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT. *** VENDOR TOTAL**************4*,t******4a****4*****4************4*4x4**#***4**4***** $80.00 ADVANCED ELECTRONICS. • , REPAIR DISPATCH 00935 ; 001-400-2101-4307 00163 $470.00 03/31/89 POLICE /RADIO MAINTENANCE *** VENDOR TOTAL**********#*****************#4***#*44*4•x****4****#4******m****4***** $470.00 R COMMANDER ANTHONY*ALTFELD 00774 001-400-2101-4312 00896 $23.66 • „A LAW ENFOR/SEMINAR 03/31/89 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE. POST *** VENDOR TOTAL********************44*4***4*-*4*44*4*44#*#**4*4*44*x**4****4*444**4* $23.66 dIP BEN*ALVAREZ CITE PMT REFUND 02763 110-300-0000-3302 26520 $41.00 25885 03/29/89 /COURT FINFS/PARKING *** VENDOR TOTAL***********4***********4***4*******4**4***4*4***4*4#4**4x4*4#s44*•*4* AP AMERICAN STYLE FOODS MISC. tCHRG/MARCH 89 $41. 00 00857 001-400-2101-4306 00628 $108.00 03/31/89 POLICE /PRISONER MAINTENANCE *** VENDOR TOTAL***********************4***4**4****44*444**44#**4***4•*#*44***44**44* $108.00 R AUDIO INTELLIGENCE DEVICES • BODY WIRE KIT 41766 02614 001-400-2101-5402 00031 03/13/89 POLICE 00003 29607 $0.00 04/06/89 07435 29608 $0.00 04/06/89 07997 29609 $0.00 04/06/89 625883 07368 " 29610 $0.00 ' 04/06/89 00033 29611 �. $0.00 04/06/89 1 -- $4.605.88 -- 41766 - 07456 29612 _ /EGUIP-MORE THAN $500 $0.00 04/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL.***##4*4*4*444*4***********4*4*4*4*4*#4#*#4*4*4*4*4#4*44*4444*4***** $4,605.88 AVIATION LOCK & KEY RISC CHCS/FEB 89 R AVIATION LOCK & KEY RISC CHCS/FEB 89 00407 001-400-2101-4306 00631 .02/28/89 POLICE 00407 001-400-4204-4321 00437 02/28/89 BLDO MAINT $2.13 /PRISONER MAINTENANCE 00025 29613 $0.00 04/06/89 $4.25 00025 • 29613 /BUILDING SAFETY/SECURIT $0,00 04/06/89 .r 411. 411. 41111, 4111, .J 14. J ■ FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:36:32 f -PAY VENDOR -NAME- VND 41- ---ACCOUNT NUMBER ---- TRN * -- - - ---AMOUNT DESCRIPTION • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 04/11/89 -DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL***.*************************4**4444* I4*414**4*****41 **********•*1**** BANK OF HEMET LEASE PMT/COMP EQUIP PAGE 0004 DATE 04/06/89 INV/REF PO M CHK N - AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $6.38 00549 001-400-2101-6900 00411 *15.169.00 04/01/89 POLICE /LEASE PAYMENTS *** VENDOR TOTAL **4**4********41***4***41**444******4*4***444***4*4*********4*44**** „I R BEACH CITIES MISC :,HGS/MAR BEACH CITIES MISC CHCS/MAR R BEACH CITIES MISC CHCS/MAR R BEACH CITIES MISC CHCS/MAR R BEACH CITIES MISC CHGS/MAR R BEACH CITIES MISC CHCS/MAR • *** VENDOR TOTAL 4*** OFFICE SUPPLY 89 . 02509 001-400-1131-4305 00098 03/31/89 CITY ATTORNEY OFFICE SUPPLY 02509 001-400-2101-4305 00962 89 03/31/89 POLICE OFFICE SUPPLY 02509 001-400-4201-4305 00421 89 03/31/89 BUILDING OFFICE SUPPLY 02509 89 03/31/89 OFFICE SUPPLY 02509 89 03/31/89 OFFICE SUPPLY 89 001-400-4205-4309 00354 EQUIP SERVICE 001-400-4601-4305 00653 COMM RESOURCES 02509 11.0-400-3302-4309 00527 03/31/89 • PARKING £NF $15. 169. 00 $18.81 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $21:51 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $36.63 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES. • $19.68 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $37.66 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES • $22.06 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *****1****4*****4***444**4*****4**4*****4***4*444714~*4*4**444*4* R JOHN*BELTON CITATION REFUND 02756 110-300-0000-3302 03/31/89 $156.35 26519 $89.00 /COURT FINES/PARKING 4*4 VENDOR TOTAL ************4*****4*44**44**444*44*41*444*4*****•*444**44***4*4444*** $89.00 R ROBERT*BLACKNOOD •00366 001-400-1203-4317 00046 $29.75 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 03/31/89 PERSONNEL /CONFERENCE EXPENSE *4* VENDOR TOTAL**************t*********44t*144*4**44*4***4****4*4444*44******4*4*4* $29.75 R OFCR DAVID*BOHACIK 01.983 001-400-2101-4312 00898 TRAINING OFFICER SCHOOL 03/31/89 POLICE $36.25 /TRAVEL EXPENSE . POST 00038 29614 $0.00 04/06/89 00349 29615 $0.00 04/06/89 00349 29615 $0.00 04/06/89 00349 29615 $0.00 04/06/89 00349 29615 $0.00 04/06/89 00349 .29615 $0.00 04/06/89 00349 29615 $0.00 04/06/89 07373 29616 $0.00 04/06/89 08221 29617 $0.00 04/06/89 08501 • 29618 30.00 04/06/89 • 1 FINANCE-SFA340. TIME 14:36:32 T--PAY----VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 04/11/89 PAGE 0005 DATE 04/06/89 VND # - --ACCOUNT NUMBER . - TRN # --• - --. AMOUNT------INV/REF . - PO # CH* # DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL#*4*#*********4***#4*#*******4K*4*****4***K***#* (*4**»***4*.****K1!*i* +'� R Op BOISE CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTS OFF SUPP/FEB-MAR 89 $36:25 00005 001-400-1208-4305 00619 $2.657.40 03/31/89 GEN APPROP /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES *** VENDOR TOTAL 44**##*###44K*****##4K*4#e##K4+t*4**4##4K*##*4*##4#4#w4******4*tic*#** r R MARK*BRIGG8 & ASSOCIATES. INC. BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM $2.657.40 02478 . 001-400-1201-4201 00044 $3.391.00 03/31/89 CITY MANAGER /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL***********#u*•s*****4********44*.r*****4*****4*****4**s*K**414**4x**** R BROOKES ELECTRIC • I EMERGENCY PER TONY • *3.391.00 00355 001-400-8611-4201 00001 $1.094.36 03/31/89 CIP 8S-611 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL*******************44**4*****4**4**4*y4*****4***4*4***********4K***4 - R • • BROWNING & FERRIS INDUSTRIES TRASH PICKUP/APR 89 R BROWNING & FERRIS INDUSTRIES TRASH PICKUP/APR 89 00155 001-400-1208-4201 00534 04/01/89 GEN APPROP 00155 110-400-3301-4201 00206. . 04/01/89 VEH PK0 DIST • $1.094.36 $574.25 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $465.98 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL **#**4***#*****4**#*##**#****4#44*#4**4*********4*444k*****4*�r4***** - $1.040.23 • • R BUREAU OF BUSINESS PRACTICE 00253 001-400-2101-4305 00961 *169.80 OFFICE SKILLS PROGRAM 03/31/89 POLICE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES *** VENDOR TOTAL**4*#**************4*********4**.**it4**4*****4*****4***********4***** - $169.80 •_I R CA STATE ASSOC OF LOCAL ELEC MEMBERSHIP FEE R CA STATE ASSOC OF LOCAL ELEC MEMBERSHIP DUES 1989 00785 001-400-1121-4316 00025 03/31/89 CITY CLERK 00785 001-400-1141-4315 00026 .03/31/89 CITY TREASURER $40.00 /TRAINING $40.00 /MEMBERSHIP *** VENDOR TOTAL*********************4***#*4*44*4**4************4*4*k•*.*.*4*-a**4***** R -CALIF MUNICIPAL TREASURERS ANNUAL DUES/TREASURER $80.00 01167 001-400-1141-4315 00025 $75.00 03/31/89 CITY TREASURER /MEMBERSHIP • 00037 29619 $0.00 04/06/89 07748 29620 *0.00 04/06/89 08137 $0.00 • 1 29621 04/06/89 00005 29622 *0.00 04/06/89 00005 29622 $0.00 04/06/89 .. 07995 t0.00 29623 04/06/89 04593 29624 $0.00 04/06/89 • --7 07191 29624 $0.00 04/06/89 • 07192 $0.00 04/06/89 • 29625 - r I •, • FINANCE-SFA340. • TIME 14:36:32 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R CALIF MUNICIPAL TREASURERS REVISIONS TREAS/HANDBOOK CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 04/11/89 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 01167 001-400-1141-4316 00033 $15.98 •03/31/89 CITY TREASURER /TRAINING ### VENDOR TOTAL##4#*4####if4##4#4##44##4##44#4#114444#444*##1F******4#4* ** *4#*44M•lf** R CALIF NARCOTICS OFCkS ASSOC. DUES/N. COOK R CALIF NARCOTICS OFCRS ASSOC. TUITION/N. COOK 01797 001-400-2101-4315 00129 03/29/89 POLICE 01797 .001-400-2101-4316 00350 03/29/89 POLICE PAGE 0006 DATE 04/06/69 INV/REF PO it CH:( * AMOUNT UNEt:C DATE EXP *90.98 $25.00 /MEMBERSHIP $20'00 /TRAINING • *** VENDOR TOTAL + #*****fru#ir##n******** r4x, #4ir4**44**##4#+ ***4##*4*41***4******t11ax4ir R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE' WATER BILLINGS/MAR 89 R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE WATER BILLINGS/MAR 89 R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE WATER BILLINGS/MAR 89 00016 001-400-3101-4303 00034 03/31/89 MEDIANS 00016 001-400-4204-4303 00301 03/31/89 BLDG MAINT 00016 03/31/89 $45.00 $817.72 /UTILITIES $281.69 /UTILITIES ' 001-400-6101-4303 00247 $1.463.49 PARKS /UTILITIES #*# VENDOR TOTAL ##44#4#####4#*4#4##*4#*4x44##44#4##*#,1411#w##s###,r#4***41 r+r**A414**4#* R CHAMPION CHEVROLET MISC CNGS/MAR 89 R CHAMPION CHEVROLET MISC CHCS/MAR 89 $2.562 90 00014 001-400-2101-4311 00636 $350.18 03/31/89 POLICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE 00014 110-400-3302-4311 00466 $74.97 03/31/89 PARKING ENF /AUTO MAINTENANCE *** VENDOR TOTAL*****4*****4##***************4********4******#****4#4*#4** *4*.*.* 11# R CHANDLER'S PV READY MIX MISC. CHRG/MARCH 89 $425.15 00009 001-400-3103-4309 00820 $653.06 03/31/89 ST MAINTENANCE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL ##4##4##*##4•*#4##*#444#4##4##4##44##*44*****4###4#4441###4#4441144### R CLEAN FUEL COMPANY CLEAN FUEL TANKS $653.06 07193 29625 $0.00 04/06/89 08506 29626 $0.00 04/06/89 08506 29626 $0.00 04/06/89 00039 29627 $0.00 04/06/89 00039 29627 $0.00 04/06/89 00039 29627 $0.00 •04/06/89 00312 29628 $0.00 04/06/89 00312 29628 $0.00 04/06/89 00313 29629 $0.00 04/06/89 02749 001-400-3101-4309 00014 $500.00 1260 08129 •29630 1260 03/27/89 MEDIANS /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 04/06/89 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:36:32 r---PAY--VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION ,i R CLEAN FUEL COMPANY CLEAN FUEL TANKS 4 R CLEAN FUEL COMPANY CLEAN FUEL TANKS • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 04/11/89 PAGE 0007 DATE 04/06/89 VND * --ACCOUNT -•ACCOUNT NUMBER --- - TRN it - - - -- -- AMOUNT------INV/REF PO * CHK * . DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 02749 001-400-3103-4309 00824 41.421.13 1260 •03/27/89 ST MAINTENANCE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS _ 02749 001-400-8601-4201 - 00041 5403.87 1260 1260 03/27/89 CIP 86-601 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT'' 1260 08129 29630 40.00 04/06/89 04/06/89 1 *** VENDOR TOTAL #********************x*4*** «+(#•*uorf**441****-******4•X4* ***4*-* *k**** $2•325.00 R THE*CLIFFS HOTEL HOTEL/H. L. STATEN • TR242 02724 ;001-400-2401-4317 00026 4208'65 03/16/89 ANIMAI CONTROL /CONFERENCE EXPENSE *** VENDOR TOTAL***********4e*******•***4a****4**441x4*414***x*****4***** ****-***44**x* R _ COPY SUPPORT• SUPPLEMENT MUNIC/CODE $206.65 01729 001-400-1131-4201 00476 $153.13 03/31/89 CITY ATTORNEY /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL*************41***•x*+***********r•*4*.******41*4***************441441x*** 1 R ELLEN*DALE REFUND PARKING PERMIT 02755 110-300-0000-3843 03/31/89 $153.13 - - - - --------- 06212 $25.00 /PARKING PERMITS:.ANNUAL *** VENDOR TOTAL ***********************4*******•***4******+I*******************fit**41* R DAPPER TIRE CO. MISC. CHRG/MARCH 89 $25. 00 01390 001-400-2401-4311 00142 5100.52 03/31/89 ANIMAL CONTROL /AUTO MAINTENANCE *** VENDOR TOTAL**.**********x*•*******41*******4e****4**4*****4**•et•a*4414*********4***** 1 R DATA SAFE - ! TAPE STOR/FEB 12 -MAR 11 41556 00156 - 001-400-1206-4201 00523 $81.00 41556 00047 29635 03/12/89 DATA PROCESSING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 04/06/89 $100.52 08129 29630 $0.00 TR242 00242 29631 40.00 04/06/89 04581 29632 $0.00 04/06/89 07877 29633 $0.00 •04/06/89 00317 29634 $0.00 04/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL *41******************4********441414x****4****************x**»*x•414***41* 481.00 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 00267 ELECTRICAL MAINTENANCE .03/31/89 R DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ELECTRICAL MAINTENANCE 19 001-400-3104-4251 - 00011 TRAFFIC SAFETY 00267 105-400-2601-4251 00080 03/31/89 STREET LIGHTINO • $676.03 /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT 4676. 02 /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT 08135 29636 40.00 04/06/89 08135 . 29636 40.-00 . 04/06/89 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:36:32 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMQSA BEACH DEMAND LIST PAGE 0003 FOR 04/11/89 DATE 04/06/89 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT INV/REF PO * CHK * DATE INVC PROJ M ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT Ut:Et:C DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL**4**4**************4**4**.*4****4**4px4**4********4*4**x***.***4*41*.$* ** *1,352.05 R OFCR MICHELE*DERKS '02134 001-400-2101-4312 00895 467.08 07996 29637 DRUG SEMINAR 03/31/89 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 04/06/89 VENDOR TOTAL**4**4********4**************44*******4*****4***4*4*r*******4******* $67.08 R DIVE N' SURF 00604 001-400-2201-4309 00663 $124.00 00320 29638 MISC. CHRG/MARCH 89' 03/31/89 FIRE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 04/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL****************************x4*****4******•x*******4.x***4*****k4***4* . $124.00 R EASY READER 00181 001-400-1121-4323 00061 $972.85 04585 ' 29639 PUBLIC HEARINGS 03/31/89 CITY CLERK /PUBLIC NOTICING *0.00 04/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL ****4*******•***4******4n*****4*4**4**4*********4x4**4***4*4*14***** $972.85 R EFRAM MOBIL 01400 001-400-2101-4310 00173 $90.68 GASOLINE CHARGES 03/31/89 POLICE /MOTOR FUELS AND LUDES *** VENDOR TOTAL**4*****4*****4*****4**4*44**4***4*4**4*****4***4************44****•x $90.69 07990 29640 $0.00 04/06/89 R EL CAMINO COLLEGE 01469 001-400-2201-4316 00167 $50.00 08303 29641 ENROLLMENT FEES 03/31/89 FIRE /TRAINING $0.00 04/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL**4***********4*****4**4*•****44****4**4*a•x******4*4* 4*****4**4**•*** • *50.00 R • OFCR LAURETTA*ELLINGSON 02760 001-400-2101-4316 00349 $7.25 07979 29642 MEALS/WOMEN LAW ENFORCMT 03/15/89 POLICE /TRAINING $0.00 04/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL********************44*4***4*4*****4**4*********4*4********-***44**** $7.25 R STEVE*ENDOM 01034 001-400-2101-4312 00900414.50 08503 29643 OFFICERS WARRANTS CLASS 03/31/89 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE., POST 10.00 04/06/89 R STEVE*ENDOM 01034 001-400-2101-4315 00130 $20.00 08509 29643 DUES/CNOA 03/29/89 POLICE /MEMBERSHIP 40.00 04/06/89 • • FINANCE-SFA340• TIME 14:36:32 DESCRIPTION • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAUD LIST FOR 04/11/89 PAGE 0009 DATE 04/06/89 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT------INV/REF PO # CHK # DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNE*: DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL ****arta*******say#*+r** *****4*4+1x4***M*A *******************4e*4*yrs** R EXECUTIVE -SUITE SERVICES INC. JANITOR SERV/MAR 89• *34.30 01294 001-400-4204-4201 00313 *1.325.00 03/31/89 BLDG MAINT /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT•- *4* VENDOR TOTAL #*4#*4******444#4##4##*444###44*4*44#444**##44*4*44******Q#44444#Wf* R RON*FOX CONTRABAND RECOGNITION *1.325.00 01007 . 001-400-2101-4313 00189 *21.75' 03/31/89 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE. STC *** VENDOR TOTAL**4****#***44*A***4**4*4*4*4**4*4#4t*JR4*4#4*4*** ********4*4**4444#* R i R FRANKSONS. INC. CUSHMAN PARTS FRANKSONS. INC. CUSHMAN PARTS FRANKSONS. INC. CUSHMAN PARTS *** VENDOR TOTAL 00010 14756 03/24/89 110-400-3302-4311 00467 PARKING ENF /AUTO 00010 110-400-3302-4311 00468 03/24/89 PARKING ENF /AUTO 00010 03/24/89 110-400-3302-4311 00469 PARKIN() ENF /AUTO **4**#*****************4**#4*4*****4*#4**#4*4****44*********t44*a•Ir** R GATES MC DONALD 02538 705-106-0000-1104 INCREASE IMPREST 03/31/89 *21. 75 - -- $49.47 MAINTENANCE *464. 39 MAINTENANCE *136.99 MAINTENANCE *650. 85 00005 $10,000.00 /DEPOSIT WKRS COMP CLAIMS *** VENDOR TOTAL*44***********#*****4**4****444**444****#*4*4***#*4*#****4*t4*4a**** *10.000.00 R GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY' ELECTRICAL SUPP/HBCC 06961 R GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY MISC. CHRG/MARCH 89 R GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY �.' ST LITE FIXTURES 06932 * * * 00058 001-400-8604-4309 00120 03/30/89 CIP 86-604 00058 105-400-2601-4309 00464 03/31/89 STREET LIGHTING 00058 105-400-2601-4309 00466 .03/28/89 STREEI LIGHTING *258. 14 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *168. 40 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *267. 58 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS VENDOR TOTAL#*#************#****#*#4###**.***4#•A4#*4*****4***4*4*IFA***4*4#4444.4* R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY DIR-IN-DIAL COST/APR 89 -0200 *694. 12 ' 00015 001-400-1101-4304 00212 *5.89 04/01/89 CITY COUNCIL /TELEPHONE 00062 29644 *0.00 04/06/89 08000 29645 *0.00 04/06/89 14756 07865 29646 *43.29 04/06/89 07850 29646 *448.10 04/06/89 07853 29646 *123.49 •04/06/89 08223 29647 *0.00 04/06/89 406961 08101 29648 *248.95 04/06/89 411. • • --1 • • • 00324 29648 *0.00 04/06/89 • 406932 07696 29648 • *0.00 04/06/89 318-Q200 00462 29651 *0.00 04/06/89 • FINANCE-SFA340 ' TIME 14:36:32 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHCS/MAR 89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY DIR-IN-DIAL COST/APR 89 -0200 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE'CHGS/MAR 89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY DIR-IN-DIAL COST/APR 89 -0200 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHGS/MAR 89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY DIR-IN-DIAL COST/APR 89 -0200 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHGS/MAR 89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY DIR-IN-DIAL COST/APR 89 -0200 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHGS/MAR 89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY DIR-IN-DIAL COST/APR 89 -0200 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHGS/MAR 89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY DIR-IN-DIAL COST/APR 89 -0200 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHCS/MAR 89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY DIR-IN-DIAL COST/APR 89 -0200 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHGS/MAR 89 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 04/11/89 VNO # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN k AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 00015 '03/31/89 00015 04/01/89 00015 03/31/89 001-400-1101-4304 00213 CITY COUNCIL 001-400-1121-4304 00202 CITY CLERK 001-400-1121-4304 00203 CITY CLERK 00015 '001-400-1131-4304 00133 04/01/89 CITY ATTORNEY 00015 03/31/89 00015 04/01/89 00015 03/31/89 00015 04/01/89 001-400-1131-4301 00134 CITY ATTORNEY 001-400-1141-4304 00205 CITY TREASURER 001-400-1141-4304 00206 CITY TREASURER 001-400-1201-4304 00220 CITY MANAGER 00015 001-400-1201-4304 00221 03/31/89 CITY MANAGER 00015 001-400-1202-4304 00225 04/01/89 FINANCE ADMIN 00015 001-400-1202-4304 00226 03/31/89 FINANCE ADMIN 00015 001-400-1203-4304 00223 04/01/89 PERSONNEL .00015 001-400-1203-4304 00224 03/31/89 PERSONNEL 00015 '04/01/89 00015 03/31/89 001-400-1206-4301 00155 DATA PROCESSING 001-400-1206-4304 00156 DATA PROCESSING $10.67 /TELEPHONE *14.73 /TELEPHONE *31.25 /TELEPHONE 87 37 /TELEPHONE *229,14 /TELEPHONE *11.78 /TELEPHONE *23.50 /TELEPHONE *13. 25 /TELEPHONE *28.31 /TELEPHONE *49.35 /TELEPHONE $100.65 /TELEPHONE *27.38 /TELEPHONE *39.98 /TELEPHONE *22.83 /TELEPHONE *223. 56 /TELEPHONE PAGE 0010 DATE 04/06/89 INV/REF PO # CI4: # AIiOUNT UNFNC DATE EXP 00325 29651 $0.00 04/06/89 318-0200 00462 29651 $0.00 04/06/89 00325 29651 $0.00 04/06/89 318-0200 00462 29651 $0.00 04/06/89 00325 29651 $0.00 04/06/89 318-0200 00462 29651 $0.00 04/06/89 00325 29651 $0.00 04/06/89 318-0200 00462 " 29651 $0.00 04/06/89 00325 29651 $0.00 04/06/89 318-0200 00462 29651 $0.00 04/06/89 00325 29651 80.00 04/06/89 318-0200 00462 29651 $0.00 04/06/89 00325 29651 *0.00 04/06/89 318-0200 00462 29651 $0.00 04/06/89 00325 29651 $0.00 04/06/89 7 40. 1�r FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:36:32 t --•PAY•--- VENDOR -NAME DESCRIPTION I • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 04/11/89 VND N - -- -•ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * - - • -- - •-- AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ M ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY 00015 DIR-IN-DIAL COST/APR 89 -0200 04/01/89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY 00015 TELE CHCS/MAR 89 03/31/89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY DIR-IN-DIAL COST/APR 89 -0200 GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHCS/MAR 89 • v , 001-400-1207-4301 00121 BUS LICENSE 001-400-1207-4304 00122 • BUS LICENSE 00015 001-400-2101-4304 00354 04/01/89 POLICE 00015 001-400-2101-4304 00357 03/31/89 POLICE R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY • 00015 DIR-IN-DIAL COST/APR-89 -0200 04/01/89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY 00015 TELE CHCS/MAR 89 03/31/89 001-400-2201-4304 00160 FIRE 001-400-2201-4304 00162 FIRE R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY •' DIR-IN-DIAL COST/APR 89 -0200 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHCS/MAR 89 v I R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY DIR-IN-DIAL COST/APR-89 -0200 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHCS/MAR 89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY DIR-IN-DIAL COST/APR 89 -0200 • GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHCS/MAR 89 r --R- V,r R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY DIR-IN-DIAL COST/APR 89 -0200 r R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHCS/MAR 89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHCS/MAR 89 • 11' 00015 001-400-2401-4304 00210 04/01/89 ANIMAL CONTROL 00015 03/31/89 001-400-2401-4304 00211 ANIMAL CONTROL 00015 001-400-4101-4304 00226 04/01/89 PLANNING 00015 001-400-4101-4304 00227 03/31/89 PLANNING 00015 04/01/89 001-400-4201-4304 00221 BUILDING 00015 001-400-4201-4304 00222 03/31/89 BUILDINO • 00015 001-400-4202-4304 00226 04/01/89 PUB WAS ADMIN 00015 001-400-4202-4304 00227 03/31/89 PUB WKS ADMIN 00015 001-400-4204-4321 00439 03/31/89 BLDG MAINT INV/REF' PACE 0011 DATE 04/06/89, PO N CHK M AMOUNT UNFNC DATE EXP *15.47 318-0200 /TELEPHONE $37.56 /TELEPHONE 00462 29651 *0.00 04/06/89 00325 29651 40.00 04/06/89 $302.63 318-0200 00462 29651 /TELEPHONE 40.00 04/06/89 $844;118 /TELEPHONE 00325 29651 40.00 04/06/89 47.37 318-0200 00462 29651 /TELEPHONE $0.00 04/06/89 $253.15 /TELEPHONE *11.78 318-0200 /TELEPHONE $21.87 /TELEPHONE 00325 • 29651 40.00 04/06/89 00462 29651 40.00 04/06/89 00325 29651 40.00 04/06/89 430.20 • 318-0200 00462 29651 /TELEPHONE 40.00 04/06/89 478.36 00325 29651 /TELEPHONE 40.00 04/06/89 *61.13 /TELEPHONE $126.56 /TELEPHONE 318-0200 00462 29651 40.00 04/06/89 00325 29651 $0.00 04/06/89 $68.50 318-0200 00462 29651 /TELEPHONE $0.00 04/06/89 *260.06 /TELEPHONE $18.50 /BUILDING SAFETY/SECURIT • 00325 29651 $0.00 04/06/89 00325 29651 $0.•00 04/06/89 gut esir s`r v gir 40 i • IW FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:36:32 �PAY VENDOR NAME [-- DESCRIPTION • R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY DIR-IN-DIAL COST/APR 89 -0200 •.,I • GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHCS/MAR 89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY DIR-IN-DIAL COST/APR 89 -0200 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHGS/MAR 89 • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • DEMAND LIST FOR 04/11/89 VNO * --ACCOUNT NUMBER - TRN * . --•- AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ M ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 00015 04/01/89 •00015 03/31/89 00.1-400-4601-4304 00259 COMM RESOURCES 001-400-4601-4304 00260 • COMM RESOURCES 00015 . 001-400-6101-4304 00135 04/01/89 PARKS 00015 001-400-6101-4304 00136 03/31/89 PARKS R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY ' 00015 TELE CHCS/MAR 89 . 03/31/89 r_ - _.. . _.-- . -- __._- --.. • i R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY 00015 DIR-IN-DIAL COST/APR 89 -0200 04/01/89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHCS/MAR 89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHCS/MAR 89 00015 03/31/89 110-400-3301-4304 00107 VEH PKO DIST 110-400-3302-4304 00225 PARKING ENF 110-400-3302-4304 00226 PARKING ENF 00015 145-400-3401-4304 00028 03/31/89 DIAL A RIDE PACE 0012 DATE 04/06/89 3 3 INV/REF - --- PO M CHK *-----] AMOUNT UNFNC DATE EXP $14.73 318-0200 00462 29651 /TELEPHONE $0.00 04/06/89 $259.15 /TELEPHONE 00325 29651 $0.00 04/06/89 $7.37 318-0200 00462 29651 /TELEPHONE $0.00 04/06/89 t13. 61 /TELEPHONE 00325 29651 $0.00 04/06/89 1 $10.27 00325 29651 /TELEPHONE $0.00 04/06/8.9• $79.55 318-0200 00442 -29651 ---1 /TELEPHONE $0.00 04/06/89 $195.51 /TELEPHONE /TELEPHONE *** VENDOR TOTAL w 4+r*******4***** r*,4***********4**4**********sa4*4***4**1****41**** • HAAKER EQUIPMENT CO. ST SWEEPER PARTS *** VENDOR TOTAL **4**4******** t. • • HARRIS & ASSOCIATES STREET REPAIRS R HARRIS & ASSOCIATES STREET REPAIRS R HARRIS & ASSOCIATES STREET REPAIRS R HARRIS & ASSOCIATES STREET REPAIRS $3.562.31 00731 001-400-3103-4311 00455 $595.05 10356 03/21/89 ST MAINTENANCE /AUTO MAINTENANCE •*****44*4*,****4**4*444*4***4*****4*444.**4***4**44**** 02102 001-400-8176-4201 00010 03/31/89 CIP 96-176 02102 115-400-8170-4201 00013 03/31/89 CIP 87-170 02102 115-400-8171-4201 00026 03/31/89 CIP 85-171 02102 160-400-8405-4201 00025 03/31/89 CIP 85-405 $595.05 $176.80 . .. /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $899.00 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PR/VAT $453.00 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *884. 00 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 00325 29651 $0.00 04/06/89 00325 29651 $0.00 04/06/89 1C10356 08143 29652 $0.00 04/06/89 08154 29653 $0.00 04/06/89 08151 29653 $0.00 04/06/89 08151 29653 $0.00 04/06/89 08155 29653 $0.•00 04/06/89 •.• • • -3 7 1=3- m .,t1711 FIAANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:36:32 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST PAGE 0013 FOR 04/11/89 DATE 04/06/89 r --••-PAY— VENDOR NAME VND #- --ACCOUNT NUMBER --- TRN * --- --- --•---AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK #-- DESCRIPTION . DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNF_t:C DATE EXP R HARRIS & ASSOCIATES 02102 160-400-8406-4201 00014 $2.068.06 08152 29653 STREET REPAIRS •03/31/89 CIP 86-405 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT • $0.00 04/06/89 ;** VENDOR TOTAL *+r+►*******:***************, ***41ar***4**** ***4*+r********4***4**4***4* *4.480.86 R MICHAEL*MAUGEN 00721 001-400-2101-4313 00192 *21.79 08507 29654 MEALS/ADV INST CLASS 03/29/89 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE. STC *0.00 04/06/89 r *** VENDOR TOTAL ***********4**r********* .***•******4**4*********.**4****4******'***•*** $21.75 k.,"1 • ' R DR. JANET*HENKIN 02765 001-400-2101-4316 00348 *50.00 07980 29655 TUITION/L. ELLINGSON 03/15/89 POLICE /TRAINING *0.00 04/06/89 + *** VENDOR TOTAL**************•r****r•*******4****,►*****4*********4*41*******•tx*44*•x** *50.00 R HERMOSA CAR WASH 00065 001-400-2101-4311 00637 *72.00 00328 29656 MISC CHCS/MAR 89 03/31/89 POLICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE $0.00 04/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL***********************4*****4**4.r.tt**4*****4***4*4****s***.►**4**x** *72.00 • R PARKER*HERRIOTT 02754 001-210-0000-2110 02775 . $200.00 • 04592 29657 �' REFUND BILTMORE SITE 03/31/89 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 04/06/89 ./ .r - j *** VENDOR TOTAL ***********4*** ****#**4*****-* 44444**4*********4*4* ***tar*4**4**:4*-- - $200.00 R INGLEWOOD TRANSMISSION 02095 001-400-2101-4311 00638 $935.75 3955 07952 29658 ‘.' OVERHAUL TRANS/POLICE 3955 03/10/89 POLICE /AUTQ MAINTENANCE *958.50 04/06/89 1*** VENDOR TOTAL **************•ti******4#****4**•s***�4***********x4********4*+44**•a** $935.75 V i R ANGELA*JANULEWICZ .02758 001-400-2101-4313 00190 *21.75 08504 29659 �'•, TRANSPORTATION INMATE 03/31/89 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE. STC $0.00 04/06/89 F*** VENDOR TOTAL*****4*******#•s**************44*44*4**4*****4****M4**�r***4****4**4** • `r ' .1.75 • R TEREA*JOHNSON 00444 001-400-2101-4313 00191 $319.25 DETENTION CLASS 03/31/89 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE. STC v 0 1 08505 • 29660 $0.00' 04/06/89 I .14w - r 110 FINANCE-SFA340 • TIME 14:36:32 -••- PAY --VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST PAGE 0014 FOR 04/11/89 DATE 04/06/89 VND * - -- ACCOUNT NUMBER-- TRN * - - - - -- AMOUNT INV/REF PO * CH/. 41-- DATE t-•--- DATE INVC PROJ N ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION **# VENDOR TOTAL##****#*******•******4*#4d********444#4t4e*###-****4#-t#4*1***#41*44#*1# *319. 25 1 R JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 01553 001-400-4204-4309 01282 *141.80 '.. 1 FAN/HBCC KITCHEN 67196 03/29/89 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS of *** VENDOR TOTAL. *************k1****•**44***4*4*#4.144**4####**4*4**4*4*4**4*4•x*4***** *141. 80 AMOUNT UNFNC DATE EXP 67196 08148 29661 *0.00 04/06/89 R KANE BALLMER & BERKMAN 00130 '001-400-1131-4201 00475 $92.70 06681 29662 LEGAL SERVICES FEB 89 03/31/89 CITY ATTORNEY /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 04/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL ##*****#**#4**4*******#4#14*444#4#*44444*44**44*4*4#4x14*14,1*4x44.1# *92.70 13 13 R OFCR BONNIE#KENDALL 02174 001-400-2101-4312 00897 $35.88 07998 29663 DUI SEMINAR 03/31/89 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE . POST• *0.00 04/06/89 I•. *#* VENDOR TOTAL 4***4***#****4*****4********4*4*4#*#*4*****44*4**4*****44*4#*4x4### $35. 88 R P. K.*LINDSAY CO.. INC. 02747 001-400-3103-4311 00456 $128.39 SAND BLASTER PARTS 75055 03/28/89 ST MAINTENANCE /AUTO MAINTENANCE 75055 08141 29664 1 *132. 14 64/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL***4#**##4#******#**********44**4*44*44****#4****44*******#4#-t4***** *128.39 R LOS ANGELES AIR CONDITIONING 02764 001-400-8610-4201 00006 *45.817.65 9066 08150 29665 COMM THEATRE AIR COND 9066 03/22/89 CIP 88-610 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *0.00 04/06/89 I *4* VENDOR TOTAL *****4*#*4*4**t*4#444******4#•t4#4*#4*44****44***4#444#4#4***4#44***# *45.817.65 R COUNTY OF*LOS ANGELES 01896 001-400-2201-4316 00168 $400.00 RECERT/CLAWSON/WILLIAMS 03/21/89 FIRE /TRAINING *#* VENDOR TOTAL *4*4*4*4**#44***4*##444.4*4*44*#*-4**4.1#444*4**#*#4*1#**#4*44*41144**** R JAMES P. *LOUGH LEGAL RETAINER *400. 00 08304 29666 $400.00 04/06/89 00938 001-400-1131-4201 00474 $5.002.00 06683 29667 '03/31/89 CITY ATTORNEY /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT ' *0.00 04/06/89 *#* VENDOR TOTAL 4*4*44***#44*4*4*#****#*******4*4*4*4*4###*#f*#*4*4#4r#4**#44****4** • $5.002.00 R LOUIS THE TAILOR. INC: 00079 001-400-2101-4187 00238 $119.28 MISC CHGS/MAR 99 04/02/89 POLICE /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 00334 29668 ---] $0.00 04/06/89 L L 4.. V b• FPNANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:36:32 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R R R *** R R R * * * LOUIS THE TAILOR. INC. NEW HIRE UNIFORMS LOUIS THE TAILOR. INC. MISC CHGS/MAR 89 LOUIS THE TAILOR. INC. MISC•CHGS/MAR 89 VENDOR . CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 04/11/89 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 00079 001-400-2101-4187 00239 03/17/89 POLICE '00079 001-400-2101-4305 00632 04/02/89 • POLICE 00079 110-400-3302-4187 00171 04/02/89 PARKING ENF PAGE 0015 DATE 04/06/89 INV/REF PO # CHK # MOUNT UNr_f.0 DATE EYP $1.683.16 /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE $64.97 /PRISONER MAINTENANCE $45.80 /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 41.913. 21 TOTAL**4********4**4*****4**4*44**44****4**4.z K*********4****4•*k**•A•A4*4*** MERCURY AIR GROUP CITY YARD GASOLINE . MERCURY AIR GROUP CITY YARD GASOLINE MERCURY AIR GROUP JANITORIAL SUPPLIES VENDOR TOTAL 63512 62628 02537 001-141-0000-1401 00030 03/31/89 02537 001-141-0000-1401 00031 02/28/89 02537 001-400-4204-4309 01283 03/21/89 BLD MAINT $5.193.94 /GASOLINE INVENTORY $3.291.39 /GASOLINE INVENTORY • $1.069.17 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS **4**4*****4**4*****44*4*4*4*44*4**4*44*****4***4***4******4******4* R MOBIL OIL CREDIT CORPORATION MISC CHARG/JANUARY 89 00389 001-400-2201-4310 03/31/89 FIRE $9.555.50 00088. $38.07 /MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES *** VENDOR TOTAL**4**4*****4**4*4**�F•***4•x*******4*** •*****•ii4***********4**t** R MOHLE. GROVER & ASSOCIATES TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROV 01499 150-400-8138-4201 00041 03/31/89 CIP 85-138 • *** VENDOR TOTAL **********4********4**•******44*4*****4*****4***4*4*4**4******4**1F** $38.07 $6.341.50 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT R MONARCH BROOM $6.341.50 00084 001-400-3103-4309 00821 $234.30 MISC. CHRG/MARCH 89 03/31/89 ST MAINTENANCE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL **4************ ******4*4** ***4x44•x*4**********•x4*** *****444***** $234.30 R CLARANCE D.*NARAMORE CITE PMT REFUND 02761 110-300-0000-3302 56071 03/29/89 26522 $46.00 /COURT FINIS/PARKINO 07465 29668 $1.862.25 04/06/89 00334 29668 $0.00 04/06/89 00334 29668 $0.00 04/06/89 63512 08147 29669 $0.00 04/06/89 62628 08119 ' 29669 $0.00 04/06/89 00519 29669 $0.00 0.1/06/89 00366 29670 $0.00 04/06/89 08145 29671 $0.00 04/06/89 00338 29672 $0.00 04/06/89 J 1 r 1 r .w 41, 756071 07370 29673 $0:00 04/06/89 %1► tie • v' FIWANCE-SFA340. TIME 14:36:32 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST PACE 0016 FOR 04/11/89 DATE 04/06/89 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL **** **** ******, ********* **4a*4+r***** arc**** ************4******* * * * $46.00 J R PACIFIC EQUIP & IRRIGATION 00406 110-400-3302-4311 00470 $50.47 06960 29674 CUSHMAN PARTS 03/21/89 PARKING ENF /AUTO MAINTENANCE $0.00 04/06/89 VENDOR TOTAL *****4*****4********•**** ***** ***4**4X4*******4*4***********4**** $50.47 R PACIFIC MOBILE OFFICES. INC. 02753 . 001-400-4204-5601 00002 $3.685:97 12496 08131 29675 OFF QTRS/CITY YARD 12496 03/22/89 BLDO MAINT /BUILDINOS $0.00 04/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL **4*********4*•*******X***4**•x44*44****4*****4***444*4x**x**444*****x R MARTHA CECILIA*PAEZ 02762 110-300-0000-3302 26521 CITE PMT REFUND 50990 03/29/89 $3.685.97 $41.00 /COURT FINS/PARKINO • *** VENDOR TOTAL *********'* 4****4*•x*4*****4 44***4*+t•x4***ass***4•x4*4•******4**4x*•*X* R PAK WEST MISC. CHRG/MARCH 89 $41. CO 00519 001-400-4204-4309 01278 $23.20 03/31/89 DL00 MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL *************** *******4****** **•Q*4*** **********4*4******4X•x4d**** $23.20 750990 07369 29676 $0.00 04/06/89 00340 29677 $0.00 '04/06/89 R PERVD PAINT CO. 01316 001-400-3104-4309 00209 $64.97 69384 08149 29678 STENCIL,.. GUARD 69384 03/30/69 TRAFFIC SAFETY /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 0./06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL *****4********* ******4a**4*4**44 t4*•********X**4x* ********• ******* $64.97 R POLYTECH 00421 001-400-8604-4309 00121 $2.111.30 153443 07639 29679 PAINT/CITY HALL COURT 53443 03/24/89 CIP 86-604 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 04/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL **4*** **4*4******4***x*******4***•**4*********1(*4***X****44•x4***** $2.111.30 R POSTAL INSTANT PRESS 00296 001-400-4202-4305 00377 *104.96 8082 09124 29680 PRINTING SERV/PUB. WORKS 8082 .03/23/69 PUB WAS ADMIN /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $104.96 04/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL**************4*.a********,******4**•*•**4*****4*•*** 4*44*****444*X**** $104.96 R PRINTMASTERS 00350 001-400-2101-4305 00965 *130.57 020058 07934 29681 PRINTING SERV/POLICE 20058 03/02/89 POLICE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES . $119.92 04/06/89 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:36:32 34.4 r --PAY--- VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • DEMAND LIST FOR 04/11/89 VNO * --- --ACCOUNT NUMBER - TRN * - - --• AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL ******i***** par**4************ *+ *•a.N****4*II *a*4*****4****** •**• ****** gle r R RADIO SHACK MISC CHGS/MAR 89 • R RADIO SHACK MISC •CHCS/MAR 89 R RADIO SHACK MISC CHCS/MAR 89 R RADIO SHACK MISC CHCS/MAR 89 •01429 001-400-2101-4305 00964 03/31/89 POLICE 01429 001-400-2201-4309 00664 03/31/89 FIRE 01429 001-400-4201-4305 00422 03/31/89 BUILDING • 01429 .001-400-4204-4309 01280 03/31/89 BLDG MAINT INV/REF $130. 57 $34.03 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $19.55 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $9.72 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $32.88 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS --------- • *** VENDOR TOTAL **************************************************************44****44**** 1196.18 R RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO MISC CHCS/MAR 89 R RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO MISC CHCS/MAR 89 R RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO MISC CHCS/MAR 89 RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO MISC CHGS/MAR 89 00173 001-400-2101-4305 03/31/89 POL;CE 00173 001-400-2101-4306 03/31/89 POLICE 00963 $49.20 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 00630 8406.80 /PRISONER MAINTENANCE 00173 001-400-4102-4305 00076 03/31/89 PLANNING COMM 00173 001-400-4601-4305 00654 03/31/89 COMM RESOURCES • $42.64 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $47.13 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $545.77 *** VENDOR TOTAL **4**4********4****N******4*4**4*44X*4*****4***4*4**********14***** * * * RAMADA INN LODGING/M. STURGES PAGE 0017 DATE 04/06/89 PO * CHK * -- AMOUNT UNFNC DATE EXP 02759 001-400-1206-4317 00046 8149.04 TR244 TR244 04/04/89 DATA PROCESSINO /CONFERENCE EXPENSE • VENDOR TOTAL***********4**4*****•***4***4*44*4*al.***4***********4A•***********4**** R REGISTRAR -RECORDER SIGNATURE VERIFICATION ' $149. 04 00225 001-400-1122-4201 00172 $1.635.60 03/31/89 ELECTIONS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL**************4*****•*****4***44*•***4**4*** *******4*4•******•*x******* R OFCR DAVID*RICKEY - j MEALS/MOTORCYCLE COURSE • 00949 001-400-2101-4312 03/31/89 POLICE $1.635.60 00889 $14.50 /TRAVEL EXPENSE . POST 00343 29692 40.00 04/06/89 00343 29682 $0.00 04/06/89 00343 29682 $0.00 04/06/89 00343 29682 $0.00 04/06/89' 00344 29683 $0.00 04/06/89 00344 • 29683 $0.00 04/06/89 00344 29683 $0.00 04/06/89 00344 29683 $0.00 04/06/89 00244 29684 $0.00 04/06/89 00034 29685 $0.00, 04/06/89 08566 29686 $0.00 04/06/.89 1 3 v 1 Nof 41.4 1 .4404 .50 gof .00 FINANCE—SFA340. TIME 14:36:32 �-- PAY--- - VENDOR NAME -_ - --• ---- — ✓ I DESCRIPTION ti CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 04/11/89 PAGE 0018 DATE 04/06/89 VND * ---ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * -- AMOUNT-- --INV/REF PO M CH/. DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNEWC DATE EXP **# VENDOR TOTAL ##4**4******4*44**4*4*4444***4d *.**.* *4*44#4#4###*x4*4****4**-x#444*#* R RITE—WAY AUTO 02757 001-400-2101-4311 DETECITIVE VEHICLE REP 75851 03/16/89 POLICE $14;50 00639 $79.87 /AUTO MAINTENANCE *** VENDOR TOTAL##4#R4###4*4**.4****4**44***444*44**4.*4*****4*** 4*** ****4#i44*•*4* R RMRS SYSTEMS POSTAGE METER MONIES *79.87 00300 ; 001-400-1208-4305 00618 $2.000'00 03/31/89 GEN APPROP /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES *** VENDOR TOTAL##4*******#4**.******4****.x4##•*##**44•x4444*4**4##4•x41(4*#4*4*•*4*•HI**4* R *** JIMMIE LEE*SHAW JAIL TRAINING 00960 001-400-2101-4313 03/31/89 POLICE 1/2.000.00 00188 *319.25 /TRAVEL EXPENSE. STC . VENDOR TOTAL ***#44*****4*4*#*4*4#*#44 **4**44 ***4*4*4*4*444*4*44******##44141**** R SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT RATE CHG/FY 87-88 *319.25 00151 001-400-2101-4251 00259 3158.83 10558 03/21/89 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT *** VENDOR TOTAL********************4****x***44#*4444*4###4*4*4*4•x444*4*4*****44**#* R SINCI.AIR PAINT CO. MISC. CHRG/MARCH 89 $158. 83 01399 001-400-4204-4309 01279 *164.64 03/31/89 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL****#4*####44#*4*###4#1*.F**a**•x# 4**#x4##*4#*##*4*********#41t*4a#-x•x# R SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY 00114 001-400-2101-4306 MISC. CHR9/MARCH 89 03/31/89 POLICE $164.64 00629 3169.72 /PRISONER MAINTENANCE. ### VENDOR TOTAL*#4********44*4*4#*******x•*4***#•*4444*4******#**4*4**•*4*#**4**•**** R SO DAY REG PUB COMM AUTHORITY CHARD/ EMERGENCY LINE R SO DAY REG PUB COMM AUTNQRITY EMERGENCY CHARGES 00112 001-400-2101-4304 .03/31/89 POLICE 00112 001-400-2101-4304 03/31/89 POLICE 00355 00356 :169.72 $68.04 /TELEPHONE *203 29 /TELEPHONE 75851 07956 $0.00 29697 04/06/89 08005 29688 $0.00 04/06/89 07999 29689 ,s $0.00 04/06/89 I 10558 00035 29690 $0.00 '04/06/89 00346 29691 $0.00 04/06/89 00347 29692 $0.00 04/06/89 07993 29693 $0.00 04/06/67 07992 • 29693 $0.00 04/06/89 �v . • I= IIQANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:36:32 L - PAY VENMOR.NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • DEMAND LIST PACE 0019 FOR 04/11/89 DATE 04/06/89 VND * ----.ACCOUNT NUMBER - TRN * -- - ---- AMOUNT INV/REF PO * CHK DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP R SO DAY REG PUB COMM AUTHORITY 00112 001-400-2201-4304 00161 $125.16 07993 29493 CHARG/EMERGENCY LINE 03/31/89 FIRE /TELEPHONE $0.00 04/06/89 r-- _ ___ ..__ __ . ** VENDOR TOTAL ##4#*#**#*****4** **** **+►******4x*• **•**********#*4444a******+* *s** $396.49 R SO CALIF RAPID TRANSIT DISTR. 00843 145-400-3403-4251 00039 $1.581.00 07866 29694 MONTHLY PASS SALE 03/31/89 BUS PASS SUBSDY /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT ' $0.00 04/06/89 - i *** VENDOR TOTAL **************.*************4#*4*#4#44***4*44****4*4****#****4i**IC* $1.581.00 R SOURISSEAU SECURITY SYS. INC.. 02075 . 001-400-2101-4201 00364 $90.00 07994 29695 BACKGROUND/WARNER 03/31/89 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 04/06/89• *** VENDOR TOTAL********#**#**4N4**********4*4#*-**********K****#4*****K****4**4****.» $90.00 R SOUTH BAY HOSPITAL 00107 001-400-1203-4320 00250 5249.80 08211 29696 1.. SERVICE RENDERED 03/31/89 PERSONNEL /PRE-EMPLOYMENT EXAMS $0.00 04/06/89 .i *** VENDOR TOTAL *******************#***********•4*****4*****4**HF**4***************** $249.80 I' R SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL COURT 00118 110-300-0000-3302 26523 . $15.126.00 07372 29697 V CITE SURCHARGE/MAR 89 04/01/89 /COURT FINES/PARKINO $0.00 04/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL**************4********4*****4**************4*******4*********4**•x** $15.126.00 R SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL COURT 00400 110-300-0000-3302 26518 $230.00 07885 29698 COURT BAIL POSTED 03/31/89 /COURT FINES/PARKING $0.00 04/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL**+t**4*****4**4********4*****4#***4**4****t****4*************4***** $230.00 R SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO. 00170 001-400-4204-4303 00300 $1.234.22 00353 29699 MISC. CHRG/MARCH 89 03/31/89 BLDO MAINT /UTILITIES $0.00 04/06/89 r*** VENDOR TOTAL**************4***********4**44*4**4*#4*****4**************4*##**•*** $1.234.22 R SOUTHWEST REG OCC TRNO CENTER 02295 001-400-2101-4312 00899 $223.00 TUITION -FOR OFFICER 03/31/89 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE . POST I 1 -1 08502 29700 $0.00 04/06/89 .� FINANCE—SFA340. •TIME 14:36:32 r--- PAY y I VENDOR NAME - DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 04/11/89 VND N ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE INVC PROJ N TRN k AMOUNT --- ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL lFit********** *•******** t***. **** ******4*** ****g***** ***** *44**** R STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 3RD QTR TAX DUE R STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 3RD QTR TAX DUE R STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 3RD QTR TAX DUE *** R 00707 001-400-1206-5401 00003 03/31/89 00707 001-400-2101-5402 00030 03/31/89 POLICE 00707 110-400-3302-4305 00553 03/31/89 PARKING fNF DATA PROCESSING PAGE 0020 DATE 04/06/89 INV/REF PO M CH✓, 4 AMOUNT UNC DATE EXP $223. 00 $19.00 /EQUIP—LESS THAN $500 $159.00 /EQUIP—MORE THAN $500 $6.00 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES VENDOR TOTAL***************K*******•M4**4*4***-x44**4**** 4*****4*** *4***4441[***•* HENRY L. *STATEN PER DIEM ADVANCE TR242 $184.00 00500 001-400-2401-4317 00025 $140.00 03/16/89 ANIMAL CONTROL /CONFERENCE EXPENSE *** VENDOR TOTAL**4**4*********it4***it******4*4****44********4*****4it4*x+t****>t*****1r* R MARGUERITE*STURGES PER DIEM ADVANCE *** VENDOR TOTAL **4*********4** I R i TR244 00620 04/04/89 • $140. 00 001-400-1206-4317 00045 $90.00 DATA PROCESSING /CONFERENCE EXPENSE ••***4**********4**4***********4***********4***** $90. 00 TAK'S LAWNMOWER SALES & SERV. 00169 001-400-4204-4309 01277 $23.95 MISC. CHRG/MARCH 89 03/31/89 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS R TAK'S LAWNMOWER SALES & SERV. 00169 001-400-6101-4309 00669 $21.57 MISC. CHRG/MARCH 89 03/31/89 PARKS /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS I *** VENDOR TOTAL **************4*4**#*1F***********4**4*****4***4*4*•**********4***11* 44.'` i r TODD PIPE & SUPPLY MISC. CHRG/MARCH 89 '00124 001-400-6101-4309 03/31/89 PARKS $45.52 00670 • $107.03 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $107.03 *** VENDOR TOTAL*****4*****4**4*****4***4****4**4*****4*****4***4*4*****»***1t,t4***** R CITY OF*TORRANCE COMMUTER TRANSPORTATION 00841 145-400-3402-4201 03/31/89 ESEA 00134 $4.807.00 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 07374 29701 $0.00 04/06/89 07374 29701 • $0.00 04/06/89 07374 29701 $0.00 04/06/89 I .� TR242 00242 29702 $0.00 04/06/89 I '4 TR244 00244 29703 $0.00 04/06/89 00356 29704 $0.00 04/06/89 00356 29704 $0.00 04/06/89 00357 29705 $0.00 04/06/89 06091 29706 $0.00 04/06/89 a�! 0 I" FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:36:32 -PAY— VENDOR NAME• --- DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • DEMAND LIST FOR 04/11/89 VND * ---ACCOUNT NUMBER - TRN M ----•---- --AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL + *4********44***** *.*********4*a *4.*4**..4..*•xx *****»444*******4*4* **** a.. I R TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC CHCS/MAR 89 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC-CHGS/MAR 89 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC CHCS/MAR 89 . R TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC CHCS/MAR 89 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE' MISC CHCS/MAR 89 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC CHCS/MAR 89 TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC CHGS/MAR 89 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC CHGS/MAR 89 TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC CHCS/MAR 89 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC CHCS/MAR 89 TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC CHCS/MAR 89 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC CHCS/MAR 89 n TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC CHCS/MAR 89 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC CHCS/MAR 89 •00123 001-400-2101-4309 00206 03/31/89 POLICE 00123 001-400-2201-4309 00665 03/31/89• FIRE 00123 001-400-2401-4309 00103 03/31/89 ANIMAL CONTROL • 00123 001-400-3103-4309 .00823 03/31/89• ST MAINTENANCE 00123 001-400-3104-4309 00208 03/31/89 TRAFFIC SAFETY 00123 03/31/89 00123 03/31/89 00123 03/31/89 001-400-4204-4309 01281 BLDG MAINT 001-400-4204-4321 00438 BLDG MAINT 001-400-6101-4309 00671. PARKS 00123 001-400-8604-4309 00119 03/31/89 CIP 86-604 00123 001-400-8606-4309 00035 03/31/89 CIP 87-606 00123 001-400-8611-4309 00001 03/31/89 CIP 88-611 00123 105-400-2601-4309 00465 03/31/89 STREET LIGHTING 00123 110-400-3302-4309 00528 03/31/89 PARKING ENF 00123 160-400-3102-4309 00364 03/31/89 SEWER/ST DRAIN PAGE 0021 DATE 04/06/89 • INV/REP PO * CHK N -----] AMOUNT UNFNC DATE EXP 1$4. 807: 00 $19.61 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $17.73 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS • $2.20 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $7.96 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $60.12 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $210.06 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS --- - - $9.38 ._._. - /BUILDING SAFETY/SECURIT $47.55 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $50.06 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $10.69 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $39.24 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $17.29 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 413.76 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00358 29707 $0.00 04/06/89 1 -- 00359 29707 $0.00 04/06/89 00358 29707 $0.00 04/06/89 00358 29707 $0.00 04/06/89 00358 • 29707 $0.00 04/06/89 00358 29707 $0.00 04/06/89 00358 29707 $0.00 04/06/89 00358 29707 $0.00 04/06/89 00358 29707 $0.00 04/06/89 00358 $0.00 00358 $0.00 29707 04/06/89 _ 29707 --- — I 04/06/89 1 00358 29707 $0.00 04/06/89 00358 29707 $0.00 04/06/89 00359 29707 $0:00 04/06/89 1 •:/ S9 FINANCE-SFA340• TIME 14:36:32 -PAY --VENDOR NAME- ! DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 04/11/89 ------ •--- ---- VNO * - ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT------ • DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION PAGE 0022 DATE 04/06/89 INV/REF PO 4 C14. * AMOUNT UNEtC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL **-***.*** *************4******4*******r .**•.*.e***4***4*. ***•*4*4**» * $514. 35 R UNIFORM DELIGHT MISC. CHRG/MARCH 89 02486 001-400-2201-4187 03/31/89 FIRE 00133 $323.81 /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE *** VENDOR TOTAL **************4****4K*4itt-rt4*******4#if4***If*4***4*4*4*******•**49**.X* R R R UNION METAL CORPORATION STREET LITE POLES 39083 UNION METAL CORPORATION ST LIGHT POLE 39090 UNION METAL CORPORATION MARBELITE ST. LITE POLES 39081 00405 105-400-2601-5400 00029 03/29/89 00405 03/29/89 00405 03/29/89 STREET LIGHTING 105-400-2601-5400 00030 STREET LIGHTING 105-400-8201-4201 00059 CIP 85-201 $323. 81 $2•696.19 /EQUIPMENT $1.119.31 /EQUIPMENT $4,561.40 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL**a***********4**********w.►**44*4**4**4*****4a**4*4******4s4******** R VERNON PAVING COMPANY MISC. CHRG/MARCH 89 $8, 370. 90 00019 001-400-3103-4309 00822 $38.08 03/31/89 ST MAINTENANCE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *38.08 *** VENDOR TOTAL***********************4*****4**.***4*44*****4***4****•*I*****1*$ **** R J. 8. *WARD & COMPANY INCREASE TRUST ACCOUNT R J. 8. *WARD & COMPANY 3RD GTR PMT/APR-JUN 89 • 02507 03/31/89 705-106-0000-1102 00014 02507 705-400-1209-4201 00088 03/24/89 LIABILITY INS $10,000.00 DEPOSIT -LIABILITY CLAIMS $2,700.00 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT • *** VENDOR TOTAL*******************x*********4•r****4**4*****4*****4***********4t**** $12.700.00 tV I 4 00359 29708 1 $0.00 04/06/89 1 4 39083 06430 29709 • $2.690.19 04/06/89 : 39090 07685 29709 . $1.119.31 04/06/89 39081 06714 29709 $4.561.40 04/06/89 R WESTERN HIGHWAY PRODUCTS .00131 001-400-3104-5499 00003 $1.759.38 152435 03/31/89 TRAFFIC SAFETY /NON -CAPITALIZED ASSETS *** VENDOR TOTAL**•************************************4*********.i*4********•4**-*4**** $1.759.38 STREET SIGNS 52435 R JUNE*WILLIAMS 40 REIMBURSEMENT 41) 01507 001-400-1101-4317 00310 $15.00 03/31/89 CITY COUNCIL /CONFERENCE EXPENSE I4 00360 , 29710 $0.00 04/06/89 I vi 08224 29711 $0.00 04/06/89 00042 29711 $0.00 04/06/89 08142 29712 $0.00 04/06/89 06682 ' 29713 $0.-00' 04/06/89 4 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE-SFA340 • DEMAND LIST PAGE 0023 TIME 14:36:32 FOR 04/11/89 DATE 04/06/89 • PAY-- - VENDOR NAME - --- - ----. • --- .- VND * -- ACCOUNT NUMBER TAN * -- ---AMOUNT------INV/REF. PO * CHK * - DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROD * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNlNC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL **4*4******4**4*4**44444*****4*******44***4*4***4*441444***4*44******IF R XEROX CORPORATION LEASE PMT/APR 89 R XEROX CORPORATION LEASE PMT/APR 89 •00135 60119 04/02/89 001-400-1208-6900 00149 GEN APPROP /LEAS 00135 001-400-2201-6900 00069 60116 04/02/89 FIRE *15..00 *238. 16 E PAYMENTS *47. 62 /LEASE PAYMENTS *** VENDOR TOTAL **44144*****************4***Il*4**4 44****** **** **4*4*****.*4 .*** *k* - -- $285. 78 *** PAY CODE TOTAL 4***********4*****1.**4********4**4a*4****4Ft*****4*41►*4******4***** *191.534.85 ' *** TOTAL WARRANTS ************.******.***14****4********4*********4*4*********4t******* *217.813.52 r-- 217.813.52 r--. -. _. 321760119 0005' 40. 00 521760116 00053 *0.00 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE DEMANDS THE WARRANTS LISTED ON PAGE WARRANT REGISTER FOR AND FUNOS F AVAI BY 29714 04/06/89 29714 04/06/89 LAMS COVERED BY LUSIVE OF THE RE ACCURATE 1 • HEREOF; 1. April 5, 1989 Honorable Mayor and For the Meeting of Members of the City Council April 11, 1989 CANCELLATION OF WARRANTS Please consider the following request for cancellation of the warrants listed below. #029284 - 2/28/89 - Tai -Su Yu Richfield Builders - $7,775.00 Account Number 001-210-0000-2110. Request for refund was issued with the wrong name. #0293847 - 3/14/89 - Alana Mastrian-Handman - $393.40 - Account Number 001-400-4601-4317. Unable to attend conference. #029386 - 3/14/89 - Monterey Sheraton Hotel - $114.00 - Account Number 001-400-4601-4317. Unable to attend conference. Concur: City Manager GaryBrutsch • City Treasurer �� C• .23r - Note kms Noted fbr fiscal impact Viki Copeland April 6, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the City Council of April 11, 1989 TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Responsible Agent April 25, 1989 Consideration of a "press pass" for parking purposes Resolution to update through streets and school zone parking Police Dept. remodel, CIP 87-606, partial release of retention Future plans for Old Prospect School Special Order of Business Review of grading plan for Power Street subdivision, Tract #30986 Accept slurry seal as complete CIP 87-170 Accept traffic signal improvements as complete CIP 85-138 General Services Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Community Resources Dir. Public Works Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Street Lighting District Assessment a) Resolution approving report b) Resolution setting public hearing Public Works Director Crossing Guard District Assessment a) Resolution approving report b) Resolution setting public hearing Public Works Director Ordinance on home alarm systems Public Safety Director Annual request for Fiesta de las Artes City Manager Report on open space initiative City Attorney Use of City property for Chamber of Commerce event City Manager • 1 c Public Hearings Continuation of current hours of operation for City Hall 2nd quarter General Plan revisions six items including multi -use corridor May 9, 1989 Accept Community Center air condi- tioning as complete CIP 88-610 May 22, 1989, 6:00 p.m. Budget and CIP Program study session May 25, 1989, 6:00 p.m. Budget and CIP Program study session June 13, 1989 Public Hearings 1989-1990 Budget Crossing Guards District Assessment Street Lighting District Assessment June 27, 1989 Adopt regulations for candidate statements Suggested last meeting to decide on ballot measures and direct City Atty. to prepare wording Accept CIP 88-614 as complete - Pier Storm Damage CIP 88-406 Call for Bids - Sewers Target Area 4 July 11, 1989 Suggested last meeting to approve ballot measures and wording July, 25, 1989 Personnel Director Planning Director Public Works Director Fin.Adm/City Mgr./ Asst. City Mgr. Public Works Director Public Works Director City Clerk City Clerk Public Works Director Public Works Director City Clerk Suggested last meeting to call election and adopt resolutions with final ballot wording Review of City Goals October 24, 1989 Last meeting to adopt resolution re. tie vote City Clerk City Manager City Clerk ***************************************************************** Upcoming Items Not Yet Calendared Sale of forfeited property pursuant to Section 11473.3 of California Health and Safety Code RFP for cost allocation plan Recreational Vehicle ordinance Development of design standards and criteria by which to review projects for EIRS Adoption of Uniform Fire, Building and Plumbing Codes Fire Sprinkler Ordinance Ordinance amending provision against selling gasoline and alcohol at same location Stuart construction bill Followup on sidewalk repair program Award of contract - Community Center fire alarm system CIP 88-604 Award of contract - Traffic signal pre-emption CIP 86-176 RFP Municipal fishing pier concession Refuse contract renewal Audit of dispatch system Public Safety Director Finance Administrator General Services Director Planning Director Public Safety/Building Public Safety Director City Attorney Public Works Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Building Director Public Safety Director ***************************************************************** Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 5, 1989 City Council Meeting of April 11, 1989 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT OF INACTIVE PUBLIC DEPOSITS FOR HERMOSA BEACH Attached is a report of all Inactive Public Deposits for the month of March 1989. Respectfully submitted, Gary rutsch City Treasurer NOTED: evin N•rthcra City Manager id INSTITUTION TOTAL INVESTMENT REPORT - MARCH 1989 DATE OF INVESTMENT DATE OF MATURITY INTEREST LAIF BALANCE 3/01/89 Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Investment Withdrawal Investment Balance 3/31/89 $3,370,000.00 (500,000.00) (500,000.00) (600,000.00) 300,000.00 (500,000.00) 200,000.00 $1,770,000.00 CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT: Union Federal S&L Investment Union Federal S&L Investment Union Federal S&L Investment Community Bank Investment Community Bank Investment $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 3/23/89 3/31/89 9/22/88 10/27/88 3/7/89 12/8/88 1/26/89 3/7/89 3/13/89 3/20/89 3/30/89 9/22/89 10/1/89 3/7/90 12/8/89 7/25/89 8.4570 8.5070 8.40% 9.5070 9.0070 9.157 City National Bank Investment 1 $ 500,000.00 3/30/89 3/23/90 10.30% CORPORATE NOTES: Ford Motor Credit Co. Investment $ 500,000.00 5/19/88 5/20/93 Merrill Lynch & Co. Investment $ 500,000.00 6/30/88 1/2/90 Summit Bancorporation Investment $ 500,000.00 9/15/88 10/16/89 BANKERS ACCEPTANCES: Marine Midland Investment $ 489,829.72 1/18/89 9.1070 8.3570 8.9070 4/10/89 9.1270 U.S. TREASURY NOTE: Investment $ 500,937.94 2/22/89 1/31/91 9.2070 Investment $ 505,551.17 3/13/89 3/31/90 9.4570 Investment $ 506,721.33 3/21/89 3/31/90 9.6170 Investment $ 501,895.72 3/23/89 11/15/89 9.4270 FHLMC: Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. Investment $ 248,733.64 Investment $ 249,320.88 TOTAL BALANCE $9,272,990.40 Respectfully Submitted, Gary :rutsch City Treasurer 45° - r 3/26/87 5/26/87 3/1/17 8/2/16 April 3, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting of of the City Council April 11, 1989 AWARD OF BID FOR CUSHMAN PARTS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,306.38 INCLUDING TAX, PLUS FREIGHT, TO TORO PACIFIC EQUIPMENT & IRRIGATION Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council accept the bid from Toro Pacific Equipment and Irrigation, for cushman parts, in the amount of $13,306.38 including tax, plus freight. Background: Funds for three replacement cushmans was approved in the 1988/89 budget. However, it has come to our attention that the three -wheeled cushman vehicles cannot meet California Emission Standards and therefore cannot be sold in California until the necessary modifications are made. Cushman is currently working on these modifications. Further efforts to purchase three -wheeled vehicles from two other vendors, Daihatsu and "Go -For", proved futile for comparable reasons. Consequently, it was determined both by our staff and the City Yard mechanics that the best course of action, to effect an efficient fleet for parking enforcement, would be to repair and refurbish the current vehicles. Senior Equipment Mechanic Lindsey appraised all eleven current vehicles and established a parts list necessary to bring them to proper working condition. This list comprised our bid specifications. Requests for bids were sent to Frankson's Scooter Mart, Toro Pacific Equipment and Irrigation, Inc., and Golf Cars & Industrial Truck, Inc. In addition a public notice inviting bids was published in the Easy Reader on March 16 and 23. Two bids were received (see attached). Frankson's Scooter Mart at $14,256.41 plus tax and freight and Toro Pacific Equipment & Irrigation at $13,306.38 including tax. 1 if Analysis: The purchase of these parts represents a budget savings of $15,193.62. The parts cost is $13,306.38 as opposed to $28,500 for the purchase of three new cushmans. Staff feels confident that the repair and refurbishment of our current vehicles will provide an adequate working fleet until such time as replacement vehicles can meet California Emission Standards. an Noon General Services Director Concur: Noted for fiscal impact: Kevin B. Nor craft Viki Copeland City Manager 2 Finance Administrator BID OPENING PROJECT NO. BIDDERS NAME BID OPENING LOG SHEET i‘71/ BID BOND AMOUNT OF BID %/-340/eq 137.6 ecit4eie) 61/2eAtif gip el Ldp. OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK I 1315 Valley Drive • Hermosa Beach, CA 9Q254 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH NOTICE INVITING BIDS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that sealed bids' will be received at the office of the City Clerk, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 until Thursday, March 30, 1989 at 2:00 pm. The bids will be publicly opened and read for performing work as follows: To.provide'the City with various cushman parts'needed to refurbish/rebuild eleven cushmans, to include delivery. All bids must include delivery date. Parts list, including quantity, may be obtained at the General Services Department, Room 01, City Hall, (213)'318-0257. The City of Hermosa Beach reserved the right to reject any or all bids, to waive any irregularities in a bid, and to award the sale. The bid will be awarded to the supplier who best provides a product meeting the City's needs. Joan Noon Director of General Services Dated: March 7, 1989 Run Dates: March 16, 1989 March 23, 1989 Pacific Equipment & Irrigation, Inc George Normandin Director of Sales & Service CommerciaVIndustrial Products P.O. Box 8000 (714) 594-5811 City of IndustryCA91748-0800 (818) 912-8533 /lc 1 JA -da TORO© flp PACIFIC EQUIPMENT & IRRIGATION, INC. COMMERCIAL • CONSUMER • IRRIGATION • INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT • SALES & SERVICE March 17, 1989 City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Atten: Ms. Joan Noon General Services Director Dear Joan: In reference to yoar upcoming Bid Proposal for Cushman Parts due March 30, 1989, we are offering a fifteen per cent (15%) discount on the various parts listed. Delivery time quoted will be four (4) days for parts that are in stock and ten (10) working days for parts that will be coming in from the factory. Incidentally Joan, Pacific Equipment and Irrigation, Inc. is the only AUTHORIZED dealer in the area for Cushman parts, which means that we seri genuine Cushman parts - NOT will -fit parts. 'This may be an important consideration as you begin re -furbishing your eleven Cushmans. Should we be the successful bidder, would you please direct all notification to Mr. Jim Foley, Sr., Customer Service Representative at Pacific Equipment & Irrigation, Inc. He will be handling all of the ordering and discounts, etc. Thank you Joan, and we will look forward to working with you in the future. Best regards, Ron Brooks, Commercial Representative RB:kb Toro • Amerind!Mackissic • Beeline • Byho • Chicopee • Cushman • Dandl • Dedoes Drainage Material Echo • Fayette • FMC Bean • Foley • Gandy - H & R • Hahn • Holland • Irrigation Wire & Accessories • K & 0 Kurb Keystone • Lasco Fittings • Lely • Lewis • Line King • Mars • McLane • Master • Mitsubishi • Olathe • Par -Aide • Peco PowerTrim • PVC Pipe • Rockwell Fittings • Ryan • °<.iowco • Standard • Stewart • TurfVac • Vicon • Woods • Vnsimo • Zieman Main Office: 19515 East Walnut Drive N. • Inrii,stry, California • (818) 912-8533 • (714) 594-5811 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 8000, Industry, California 91748-0800 Branch Office: 74-780 42nd Avenue • Palm P '•ert, California 92260 • (619) 340-3392 PARTS REQUIRED TO REFURBISH EXISTING CUSHMANS Part #. Qty. Description 162276/ 1 Control Throttle 817119✓ 4 Spring Return 878855/ 3 Lever Throw -out 878854/ 7 Yoke Release 812903✓, 21 Spring Clutch 812902✓ '21 Spring Clutch 306971/ 44 Pin Roll 3/16 X 1 1/8 886992/ 2 Cover Air Cleaner 823765/ 16 Pad Engine Mount 806493/ 16 Transmission Mount Waher Rubber 8877421 1 Engine Assembly 884183V 2 Battery Box 884480✓ 4 Backrest Assembly 824829V 7 Slave Cylinder - Spider Assy. 886371/ 9 Cylinder Wheel 805030V 13 , Brake Drums 8266441 7 Brake Drums 884169Y 1 Manifold Exhaust Right 884170v • 1 Maniford Exhaust Left 111761/ - 41 Gasket Manifold 825853, 1 Pipe Exhaust 812899v 1 Bearing Pilot 8858331 1 Panel Body Front 826284: 4 Kit U -Joints 829004/ 12 Paint - Ermine Spray 885516/ 1 Engine Short Block 887258/ 1 Fuel Pump 22 HP 826994✓ 2 Rear Backing Plate 886041/ 6 Rod Assy. Upper 886042v 6 Rod Assy. Lower 8847021 6 Plate Assy. Latch 826514 / 6 Cover Latch 826517/ 6 Handle Latch 826516" 6 Spring Latch 887333, 7 Carburetor 886104' 1 Support 810152v 11 Cover Pedal 825982/ 6 Bracket 8101491 6 Bumper Rubber 886173•/ 7 Cylinder Master 825768V 1 Panel Rear Filler 8258911 1 Bumper Police 8874571 3 Switch Turn Signal 886906 ✓ 2 Engine Assy. 22 HP 886152/ 5 Seat Assy. 828493 ✓ 7 • Wiper Blade 884274 / 4 Shoe Brake Kitoes 876325 / 6 Brake Assy. 885900 ✓ 4 Timer Governor 18 HP 886018 ✓ 1 Linkage Gas Pedal Rod Throttle 8874804 3 Rod Set Clutch 8823431 5 Disc Assy. 8823391 7 Plate Assy. 882134 7 Throw -out Bearing 817117V 1 Connector Pin Rode 800303) 4 Washer 1/4 Spring 828736 ✓ 1 Through Drip -RT. 828972 / 1 Through Drip -Lt. 306971 ✓ 3 Clutch Roll Pin 823089/ 4 Spring 8300954 2 Ignition Switch 8850021 2 Motor Starter Set 886891/ 3 Body Air Cleaner 825927/ 3 Paint Police -Blue Spray 2 6 % -hip 2 / 3 D M S / 3 8 CUSTOMER SERVICE PRICE CHECK • '15675000 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ITEM • WEIGHT UNIT NUMBER OR QTY UNIT PRICE CU828736 1 EA 12.250 CU82897Z ' 1 EA CU306971 U823089 12.250 3 EA 4 • .200 1.750 ORDER 99999 —SELLING TOTAL PRICE AMOUNT 10.410 EA 10.41 CO 1 TROUGH. DRL.P."'RT 10.410 104)4I. TROUGH LEFT u8A6.495. 2 EA / %1OCU 8 86 89 1 U885002 .719 ¼iI9 2 EA 3 EA 23.500 95.750 17.850 .170 EA .51 PIN ROLL 3/16 X 1.490 EA 5.96 SPRING • : 19.980 EA 39.96 SWITCH . IGNITION 4025927 : - 3 EA — 6.950 • :22046 1 RESUME ENTRY 5 CREDIT CHECK • 17 FILE INQUIRY -•%24 ' 25 1.4101 26 v • ao 81.390 EA 162.78 STARTER /58170 EA 45.51 AIR CLEANER—AY ENO — — 5.910 EA 17.73 PAINT POL BLU S 3 (if 213 • .30 32 • • 4;41 :42 43 44 v.4 " ' • • 46 1 • '. • • 47 :•;,• .48 49 yip: 50 15. 56 • 0 6 , DMS/ 3 8 CUSTOMER PRICE CHECK „3A:15675000 '''CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH .WE/GHT• iliVa,,NUMBER: UNIT • OR QTY UNIT CE :,411, U162276' 1. EA 21.500 SERVICE ORDER 99999 SELLING-- TOTAL PRICE AMOUNT 18.280 EA 18.28 . y$W0A0k . .g4affie."4,...i.v. , *1(14/878855 — 3 EA 19.400 4...., .., ' CU878854 7 "'i..13 . tyrt•:‘,4y,,,,,i',•: ;.4.,,:: :-• 7 .• •btU8L29O321 41 .,.--(,.,:,..;.. '!j..H. .... U8129.02 21 1.000 41.47,... se 44 EA .200 -le 40 U886992 . . 2 EA 7.650 :21 ':'!•t'.:;" •:.:"•'"''.' ''.•"•`• ' -4 . .CMD 1 RESUME ENTRY 5 CREDIT CHECK O 23- -- ,17 FILE INQUIRY 14' 4 •EA 2.100 EA EA 11.050 CO1 CONTROC:THR 1.790 EA 7.16 SPRING RETURN 16.490 EA 49.47 —7— LEVER THROWOUT 9.390 EA 65.73 .950• • YOKE RELEASE .810 EA 17.01. SPRING CLUTCH .850 EA 17.85 SPRING CLUTCH .170.. BA 7.48 PIN ROLL 3/16 X 6.500 EA 13.00 COVER AIR CLEANER EA -25 tv 31 • 32 .33 ••34 • '37 4P:3q .4*io " • e.1.1 r • '•41.;r714.,'4s •'''1".".91."'r'•`ii':%1-.-tkvyq • .fla..•..t, . - 0- to • • • • wDJ '• • •• 1567500 4 . ITEM d► 5 / NUMBER 40CUB23765 U806493 D M S/ 3 8 CUSTOMER SERV PRICE CHECK 0 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH WEIGHT OR QTY UNIT 16 EA C 887742 . 11 U884183 UNIT PRICE 1.400 16 EA 1.800 1 EA 19769.750 2 EA 27.900 I C E ORDER_ 99999 SELLING TOTAL PRICE AMOUNT 1.190 EA • 19._04_ PAD ENG 1.530 EA 24.48 WASHER RUBBER__ 1+504.290 EA14504.29 ENGINE ASSY 23.720 EA 47.44 U88480 CU82 829•,' 4 EA 4 '♦ 17 . GCU886371 • .0805030 . n CMD '1 RESUME ENTRY n 1.7 FILE INQUIRY 24 T EA 9 EA 19.150 95.000 15.300 BATTERY BOX 16.280. EA BACKREST AY 13 EA 13.300 5 CREDIT CHECK 25 +26 27 28 • 29 313 31 32 33 X35.: 80.750 EA SPIDER AY 13.010 EA WHEEL CYLINDER 11.310 EA 147.03 DRUM BRAKE 65. /2 565.25 117.09 44 :+c F�M 45 • 47'... • 45 '.. 49 41110 50 51 2r` wt .62 41. r. r 4u. 0: 0 6 ' D M S/ 3 8 CUSTOMER SERVICE O 2 PRICE CHECK 3 15675000. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ORDER 99999 4ITEM . WEIGHT UNIT SELLING TOTAL 0 s/ NUMBER OR QTY UNIT PRICE PRICE AMOUNT VCU826644 7 EA . 53.500 45.480 EA • 318.36 7 ' HUB QCU884169- 1 EA 11.500 9.780 EA 9.78 /Clir' MANIFOLD EXH RT U884170 1 EA 23-.100 19.640—EA 19.64 0_111 MANIFOLD EXH LT '1CU111761 41 EA1.150 .980 EA 40.18 GASKET MANIFOLD X14' 0825853 . ' 1 EA 15.000 12.750 EA /5 - .PIPE .EXHAUST CU812899 1 E4 5.100 4.340 EA O .17 BEARING PILOT C 885833 I EA 89.100 75.740 EA____ 19 BODY ASSY.. 0. U826284- 4 EA 15.000 12.750 EA 21 • — — CROSS._ k -JOINT CMD 1 RESUME ENTRY 5 CREDIT CHECK O 23 17 FILE INQUIRY 24 Q 26 27 26 0 29 30 31 O 32 33 Q 35 35 37 C01 12.75 4.34 51.00 0 36 39 40 O 41 42 O 47 45 O 50 X51 52 O 53 54 55 0 56 57 0 -6e 2 3 •• -OMS/38 CUSTOMER PRICE CHECK 15675000 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ITEM ' WEIGHT UNIT NUMBER OR QTY UNIT PRICE 8 9004 2 EA 6.950 U88.5516 • CU887258 ".4riaC U826994 1 EA 1 EA 954.150 2 EA SER VICE ORP ER_99999 SELLING TOTAL PRICE AMOUNT 5.910 EA ' 70.92 PAINT ERMINE SPRAY 811.030 EA 811.03 SHORT BLOCK 23.000 1.250 .• • CU886041- 1/ 441886042 "/ IWCU884702 6 EA 19.000 6 EA 6 EA 19.550 EA 19.55 FUEL .PUMP W/GASKETS *** 1.060 EA DECAL 16.150 EA R00 UPPER DOOR 24.050 4.550 CU826514 , - • CMD 1 RESUME ENTRY 11. 17 F1 LE INQUIRY 25 *26 gr <„. • ';26 ) 29 .,30 '. 31 644"2 33 • 'EA . 5 CREDIT CHECK 1 850 20.440 EA R0D AY LOWER 3.870 EA 23.22 PLATE AYLATCH-- 1.570 EA 9.42 COVER LATCH 2.12 96.90 122.64 5. , .41 11, . , • !Aliv ;35 • !.; 4' :30 .40 • • • ;4:49 -..7.' -"- •-.N.E:. •f•' ^-,;41,; 'ef.;f•‘1,`:,.., - 1.,..• •-•. 'A''''....4 -.;",!...e;-, 0.4i.i...,..• ',!•7-.:, re-.., i 'P.', .....',1-`47-rir::1 •63 .54 .55 V4111' .56 67 •P' ,.• `'N't .••• , • „ . • 0 6 1 • 2 3 D M S/ 3 8 CUSTOME PRICE CHECK 15675000 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ITEM • 5 NUMBER CU826517 R SERVICE WEIGHT UNIT OR QTY UNI T PRICE 6 EA 1.500 3 ICU826516. VjCU887333 • 11/ CU886104 13 EA EA 1 EA .350 196.300 81.250 ORDER 99999 SELLING PRICE 1.280 EA HANDLE LATCH .300 EA SPR.ING LATCH U810152 U825982 O 17 "'CUB 10149 a 10886173 11. EA 6 EA 6 EA 3.200 5.950 .500 7 EA 59.750 .CMO 1. RESUME ENTRY 5 CREDIT CHECK ZO 23 17 FILE INQUIRY 24 TOTAL AMOUNT --- 7.68 1.80 166.860 EA .. 1,168.02 CARS, .E CONN. ASSY 69.060 EA 69.06 SUPPORT AY 2.720 EA 29.92 COVER PEDAL PAD 5.060. EA 30.36 BRKT .430 EA BUMPER SIDE ARM 50.790 .EA MASTER CYLINDER 28 29 30 31 32 33 L• 34 • ' .• 3s 37 • 09 39 • 41 ` 42 43 • 44 45 46 • 47 1 49 50 b1 .52 ) :g.,.;... 64 55 56 57 i C v •�f8 l D M S/ 3 8 CUSTOMER SERVICE PRICE CHECK C01 .3 "1.5675000 •' CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • ORDER 99999 4 ITEM •WEIGHT UNIT SELLING TOTAL ,r 5/ NUMBER OR QTY • UNIT PRICE PRICE AMOUNT tJ CU825768 1 EA 8.350 7.100 EA 7.10 8CU825891' PANEL REAR 1 EA 29.600 25.160 EA 25.16 BUMPER POLICE_ V+oCU887457 - r VJCU886906 u886:152: '16CU828493 ,:2t/ U884274 3 EA 98•.200 83.470 EA 250+41 SWITCH—TURN SIGNAL 2 EA 19859.550 19580.620 EA 3,161.24 ..ENGINE ASSY 5 EA 56.300 47.860 EA 239.30 SEAT ASSY 7 EA 8.000 6.800 EA 47.60 BLADE WIPER 4 EA 43.950 37.360 EA 149.44 t1► .. CU87b325 2t ,. SHOES BRAKE KIT 6 EA 88.400 75.140 EA 450.84 BRAKE 6 SHIELD AY • 22 CMD 1. RESUME ENTRY 5 CREDIT CHECK rr 23 ' '17 FILE INQUIRY 24 • 25 MP 26 27 28 • 29 30 31 45 32 33 34 . 35t 311 37 • 38 39 r 41 .7. 42• 43 • 44 45 46 r► 47 48 49 • 50 51 5 Pe ';g7 6 3'15675000 4 ITEM O M S/ 3 8 CUSTOMER SERVICE PRICE CHECK CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH.' ORDER 99999 WEIGHT UNIT SELLING TOTAL 5) NUMBER OR QTY UNIT PRICE CU885900 4 EA 243.600 PRICE AMOUNT 207.060 EA 828.24 8CU886018, 1 0887480 a 11/1 ICU812906 1 EA 3 EA 5 EA -11.100 19.800 30.350 0 CU812 9.07: EA 16CU812908 j 11 -. ICU817117' EA I EA 87.450 48.600 5.250 TIMER GOV 2WT 9.440 EA 9.44 ROD, THR 16.830 EA __..___.----- 50.49 R00 SET CLUTCH 25.800 EA 129.00 DISC AY. 74.330 EA 520.31 PLATE AY 19 J CU800303 21 22 CMD 1 RESUME ENTRY Z12.3 17 FILE INQUIRY 24 4 EA 5 CREDIT CHECK .150 41.310 EA 289.17 SLEEVE AY 4.460 _EA 4.46 CONNECTOR. THROT .130 EA .52 WASHER 1/4 SPRG 25 D 26 ... 27 '28 3 28 30 31 332 33 34 • 35 31i 37 • 38 39 .40 • 41 • • 42 -r. 4:' 44 45 48. • 47. ..i." es 49 ti M 50 51 52 : r`'. 53 51 55 A 56 57 O . 4) 6 O 2 O M S/ 3 8 CUSTOMER SERVICE PRICE CHECK 15675000 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH.' ORDER 99999 4 0 5SOLD TO— e CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 7 - PURCHASI M6 DEPT e 4315 VALLEY DRIVE 9 -HERMOSA—BEACH 10 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 O 17 18 19 i2° 21 22 O 23 • 24 25 0 26 27 2s 029 30 31 O 32 33 M CA 90254 SHIP TO— CITY_ OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY YARD 555 6TH ST HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 til®_ S.P EC I AL CH ARG_€ S "STATE SALES TAX 'LOCAL—SALES TAX — TAX 2 LOCAL SALES TAX — TAX 3 _12_,494.25 812.13 .00 .00 TRAOE DISCOUNT ORDER 99999 — TOTAL AMOUNT C MO 1 RESUME 5 CREOIT ENTRY 2 REVIEW PRICES CHECK 17 FILE INQUIRY .00 G01 13.306.38 34 O 35 , 38 37 O 39 39 40 • 41 0 42 4344 45 46 • 47,, 46 49 0 50 51 52 O 53 54 55 O 56 0 BID OPENING LOG SHEET BID OPENING ef,e441.� ®G2i2 PROJECT NO. BIDDERS NAME BID BOND •AMOUNT OF BID %V-giorn ____Ed./244$1".0 ei-o OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 1315 Valley Drive • Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH NOTICE INVITING BIDS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that sealed bids will be received at the office of the City Clerk, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 until Thursday, March 30, 1989 at 2:00 pm. The bids will be publicly opened and read for performing work as follows: To•provide the City with various cushman parts'needed to refurbish/rebuild eleven cushmans, to include delivery. All bids must include delivery date. Parts list, including quantity, may be obtained at the General Services Department, Room 01, City Hall, (213) 318-0257. The City of Hermosa Beach reserved the right to reject any or all bids, to waive any irregularities in a bid, and to award the sale. The bid will be awarded to the supplier who best provides a product meeting the City's needs. Joan Noon Director of General Services Dated: March 7, 1989 Run Dates: March 16, 1989 March 23, 1989 1 • Part # 162276 817119 878855 878854 812903 812902 306971 886992 823765 806493 887742 884183 884480 824829 886371 805030 826644 884169 884170 111761 825853 812899 885833 826284 829004 885516 887258 826994 886041 886042 884702 826514 826517 826516 887333 886104 810152 825982 810149 886173 825768 825891 887457 886906 886152 828493 884274 876325 885900 886018 PARTS REQUIRED TO REFURBISH EXISTING CUSHMANS Qty. 1 21,50 4 2.10 3 19.yO 7 t1•QS 21 .95- 21 95'21 1.10 44. .ZOO 2 1-65.- 16 .6516 1.20 16 I.W 1 18409.74. 2 2i.90 4 tq•,T 7 8s,ao 9 l S.lo 13 13.30 7 53s'o 1 11. SO 1 23.10 41 .1.00 1 is:co 1 6,00 1Y1,10 4 15 -,co 12 &•9C 1105(.1.15" 1 21.00 2 ycco4- 6 19.00 6 2-4.1.05- 6 1.056 '1.55' 6 1.11- 6 •$S6 i. TO 6 .35 7 1%.3o 1 FfL2S 11 3-zo 6 5.95 6..445- 7 (/-2.0 1$.35 12.940 3 9w.2o 2 ,5'5 SS 5 31030 7 7.00 4 33,95'- 6 3.956 *AO 4 2443-(4O 1 1%.10 Description Control Throttle- `' G Spring Return b'• e.e'o Lever Throw -out s,!r..7c) Yoke Release 77.35 Spring Clutch 19.95 Spring Clutch "z3•/o Pin Roll 3/16 X 1 1/8 p " Cover Air Cleaner /5-. 3 Pad Engine Mount /y•d° Transmission Mount Waher Rubber A r.e0 Engine Assembly , ' - /Tr6, 5. 74 Battery 'Box 6.".- . X a Backrest Assembly 76.60 Slave Cylinder - Spider Assy. f 95 ao Cylinder Wheel i 37 Brake Drums / Brake Drums :7V' rG Manifold Exhaust Right Maniford Exhaust Left Gasket Manifold Pipe Exhaust Bearing Pilot Panel Body Front Kit U -Joints Paint - Ermine Spray Engine Short Block- ' /05/ Fuel Pump 22 HP -/'"� Rear Backing Plate Rod Assy. Upper //4/ ' Rod Assy. Lower 57Q "o Plate Assy. Latch a 1. 3 a Cover. Latch 1/ /6 Handle Latch 9.00 Spring Latch a•io Carburetor /, 37 ye, /6 Support 8/.a; Cover Pedal Bracket 3s. 7o Bumper Rubber a• 7a Cylinder Master 43Y bo Panel Rear Filler T' 3 5 - Bumper Police d a Switch Turn Signal "99. d G Engine Assy. 22 HP- 3 5 /y Seat Assy. so Wiper Blade `' �• °'� Shoe Brake Kitoes . / 3 { So Brake Assy. i Timer Governor 18 HP r7v Linkage Gas Pedal Rod Throttle // /0 70 - 1 - 7�� - 9:0(4.0/40e0 i o so /o.rsAski 8B . c/o 887480 3 1.SC Rod Set Clutch Ste• './a 882343 5 27.31 Disc Assy. / 3 6 - 5'0 ' 882339 7 /5r.70 Plate Assy. 3 Sa . yo 882134 7 35.S1- • Throw -out Bearing ala, i6 817117 1 5,25 Connector Pin Rode ,'2' 800303 4 ./5 Washer 1/4 Spring ' 40 828736 112-2-5 Through Drip -RT. /.2-25- 828972 Z '2S828972 1I2,LT Through Drip -Lt. i;•2s� 306971 3 .2.0 Clutch Roll Pin 60 8230894 t 75 Spring 7 `z' 830095 223.S-00 Ignition Switch -/7, 6 G 885002 2511,04-7 Motor Starter Set /7..2 15/ 886891 311.t5- Body Air Cleaner 5-3 , cc - 825927 3 c,RS Paint Police -Blue Spray ,10 .Q'S )(-%—lid Co► ac ' e c-414*00-N3.0,4432,1 4nnor.A . 2 i April 3, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City,Council April 11, 1989 AVIATION BOULEVARD TRAFFIC SAFETY REVIEW FOLLOWUP Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 89- , establishing a red zone on Aviation Boulevard in the vicinity of Owosso Avenue and Ocean Drive for the provision of improving sight distances at the Ocean Drive crosswalk. Background: A traffic engineering study of Aviation Boulevard was prepared and presented to City Council on November 9, 1988. The Council approved: 1. prohibiting left turns out of Aubrey Court onto Aviation Boulevard, and 2. directed the issue of red curb back to staff for further analysis. Analysis: This analysis is divided as follows: 1. Introduction 2. Red Curb Analysis a. Where was red curb recommended and why? b. Re -check of Recommended Sight Distances c. Public Works Department Survey d. Affected Businesses e. Installation and Maintenance Cost 3. Other Alternatives Considered a. Petition b. Pedestrian Signal Analysis c. Installation and Maintenance Cost 4. Summary and Conclusion 1. INTRODUCTION A traffic engineering report of Aviation Boulevard from the easterly City limits to Pacific Coast Highway was prepared by Ed Ruzak & Associates, Inc. at the request of the Director of Public Works responding to public concerns of safety on this street. A 1 lg copy of this October 17, 1988 the City Clerk's office. The traffic engineer's report about the following: . 1. Stopping Sight Distance 2. Crosswalk Utilization 3. Traffic Signal Considerations 4. Flashing Beacon Considerations 5. Additional Signing/Pavement Markings 6. Re -striping Aviation Boulevard 7. Other Improvements, i.e., Turn Prohibitions report is available for review in analyzed and made recommendations The traffic engineer's recommendations have been installed and are working. City Council directed that staff further analyze installation of red curb in advance of the crosswalk at Ocean Drive. 2. RED CURB ANALYSIS 2a. Where was red curb .recommended and why? Red curb was recommended on the approaches to the Ocean Drive crosswalk to improve sight distances for pedestrians and vehicles. There is existing red curb both east and west of Ocean Drive.From Ocean Drive to Bonnie Brae the north curb is already painted red. This is shown on Attachment No. 1. 2b. Re -check of Recommended Sight Distances: The traffic engineer's report indicated red curb footages necessary for safe stopping sight distances. These footages were field verified with a temporary installation. 2c. Public Works Department Survey: The Public Works Department conducted a survey of the adjacent business and property owners in the vicinity of the Ocean Drive crosswalk regarding whether they think the painted crosswalk is needed at Ocean Drive. Forty seven surveys were hand delivered on January 30, 1989. The results are: In Favor [17] Opposed [ 2] Nineteen surveys (40%) were returned. Some respondants said a flashing light or traffic signal is needed. This is discussed further in the report. 2d. Affected Businesses: South side of Aviation Boulevard west of Ocean Drive: Length of proposed additional red curbing: 25 feet Number of On -Street Parking Spaces Lost: 1 space Name: Hermosa Plaza Type: Office Building Years in Operation: 9 years 2 On site required parking per 1989 zoning code: 30 spaces Available on site Parking: 27 spaces North side of Aviation Boulevard east of Ocean Drive: Length of proposed additional red curbing: 46 feet Number of On -Street Parking Spaces Lost: 2 spaces Name: Paul's Rentals Type: Equipment Rental Years in Operation: 40 years On site required parking per 1989 zoning code: 8 spaces Available on site Parking: 7 spaces 2e. Installation and Maintenance Cost: The estimated cost for installing the red curb is $300 for labor and material. The annual maintenance cost is estimated at $100. The work can be done by City crews within the existing appropriation. 3. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 3a. Petition: On Nover',ber 2, 1988 a petiition regarding the intersection at Aviation Boulevard and Ocean Drive was hand delivered to the Public Works Department. The petition contained 464 signatures expressing concerns regarding what the petitioners feel is a potentially hazardous condition. Their thought is to install a pedestrian signal. 3b. Pedestrian Signal Analysis: Pedestrian signals are found at mid -block - not intersections. At an intersection it must be a traffic signal which is unwarranted at this location. In order to install a traffic signal solely for pedestrians, two alternatives were prepared. See attached drawing for Alternative "A" and Alternative "B". Both drawings show a necessary reconstruction of the intersection. Benefits - Full pedestrian protection - Pedestrian actuated Note: The November 9, 1988 the Ocean Drive crosswalk. Date/Time of Day Day of Week May 10, 1988 - Tuesday 1030 thru 1300 July 22, 1988 - Friday 1000 thru 1400 Non -Benefits - Users of Ocean Drive must find alternate routes - Also requires parking & removal - Possible condemnation of private lands. agenda item counted pedestrian use of - 3 - # of Pedestrians Crossing 20 27 2c. Installation and Maintenance Cost: The estimated construction cost is between $90,000 and $100,000. Design, inspection and administration could push the cost up to $120,000. Annual maintenance cost is estimated between 2 and $3,000. 4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The pedestrian signal alternative needs further study and public comment regarding traffic circulation in the immediate area. However, based on this preliminary analysis and cost, this alternate cannot be recommended. Red curb has the lowest cost and improves both pedestrian and driver safety. Based on cost, installation of red curb is recommended. Alternatives: Other alternatives considered by staff and available to City Council are: • 1. Consider the pedestrian signal as part of the five-year CIP. Resp-ctfully submitted, l x'11 /AWL An u' •ny tich Director of Pu1ic Works Attachments: AA:mv avi/pwa� drain Concur: Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager Resolution No. 89 - Attachment No. 1 Drawing Showing Alternative 4 uAu & Alternative nBn 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, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. N.S. 2435, AS AMENDED BY ADDING THERETO A NO STOPPING RESTRICTION ON AVIATION BOULEVARD AS HEREIN DESCRIBED SET FORTH. THE CITY COUNCL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That Resolution No. N.S. 2435, as amended shall be and is hereby further amended by adding the following subsection to Section 5, No Stopping Zone. ADD: Section 5.1c - Aviation Boulevard, South Side. Starting from a point of beginning measured from the northerly prolongation along the westerly curb face of Ocean Drive. Existing "no stopping anytime" (red curb) for 53 feet west of the point of beginning. Thereafter, new red curb for an additional 25 feet. Section 5.1d - Aviation Boulevard, North side. Starting from a point of beginning measured from the southerly prolongation of the easterly curb face on Bonnie Brae. Existing "no stopping anytime" red curb for 41 feet east of the point of beginning. Thereafter, for 34 feet of a driveway approach. New red curb for an additional 46 feet. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this llth day of April, 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO CITY CLERK TY ATTORNE ATTAC{M NT Nfl _ 1 AVE. EXISTING RED CVRD 111111111. • fROPOSEb/k1 SWOPPING 1�----'f .FR a TRAFFIC SIGNAL .:- • STOP SIGN. owoss '. AVE. BONNIE BRAE ST. OCEAN •1 DR. ^s. •� AVIATION BLVD. ROPOSED NO STOPPING PACIFIC COAST • • HWY. • • Alternative "A' AVIATION • BLVD. OCEAN DR. LEGEND TRAFFIC SIGNAL co -0 PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL 1111111 MARKED CROSSWALK ISLAND OCEAN DR. Alternative "B" AVIATION BLVD. OCEAN/AVIATION CHANNELIZATION ALTERNATIVES April 4, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council April 11, 1989 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY - MONTEREY BOULEVARD RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 25 MPH SPEED LIMIT Recommendation: It is recommended that.the City. Council 1. adopt Resolution No. 89- , establishing a 25 mph speed limit on Monterey Boulevard. Background: The City Traffic Engineer has field reviewed and updated the speed survey and portion of the engineering and traffic survey as City Council directed at its December 1988 meeting. Analysis: The new speed survey continues to exhibit 85th percentile speed limits in excess of the posted 25 mph limit. There are environmental and safety issues along the corridor that were reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer. They are discussed in his attached report. Briefly, they include: - residential land uses with many driveway openings spaced close together; - high percentage of curb parking along Monterey Boulevard; - lack of clear sight distance for traffic emerging from driveways and for Monterey Boulevard traffic; - foggy night time conditions inherent to Beach cities restrict visibility despite existing street lighting; and - school children cross Monterey at some uncontrolled locations even though it is not on the suggested route to school plan. Caltrans guidelines for conduct of an engineering and traffic survey allow reduction of posted speed limits from values other than the 85th percentile speed when roadside development results in conflicts and unusual conditions. lh Alternatives: Alternatives considered by staff and available to Council are: 1. Continue enforcement to see if 85th percentile speed can be reduced before formally accepting speed'limit. 2. Raise speed limit to 30 mph. Respectfully submitted, (;kcP/ Anthony Antich Director of Pukblic Works Concur: cc: Steve Wisniewski, Public Safety Director Attachments: Resolution No. 89 - Engineering & Traffic Survey Update -Monterey Blvd. mont/pwadmin 2 1 RESOLUTION NO. 89- 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, 3 CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SPEED SURVEY • ON MONTEREY BOULEVARD. 4 5 6 7 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 8 every five years; 9 WHEREAS, the most recent survey was presented to and adopted by City Council on November 22, 1988, with the exception of Monterey Boulevard. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 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 Monterey Boulevard. SECTION 2. Direct that a copy of the resolution be forwarded to the presiding judge of the South Bay Municipal Court. SECTION 3. That this resolution take effect immediately. 19 20 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 11th day of April, 1989. 21 22 II PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California 23 24 25 26 27 28 ATTEST: APPROVED A/ T FORM: IIIP City Clerk y Atto ED RUZAK & ASSOCIATES; INC. MARCH 30,1989 TO; ANTHONY ANTICH, DIREC OF PUBLIC WORKS FROM: ED RUZAK, CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER SUBJECT: ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY UPDATE -MONTEREY BLVD. This letter type report represents an update of speed survey data taken on Monterey Blvd. At its regularmeeting. of the Hermosa Beach City Council in December, 1988 it was decided to re -survey • the _travel speeds on Monterey Blvd. This report reflects the results of that survey and the Traffic Engineer's recommendations for speed limit posting. The City's Police department have been providing additional selective enforcment of the present limits since the Council's recommendation to re -survey the street. To assist this effort and to provide a higher degree of awareness to the motoring public, the City Public Works Department installed additional 25MPH speed limit signs along the Monterey Blvd. corridor. SURVEY RESULTS The sections of Monterey Blvd. were re -surveyed on December 22, 1988 with the results shown below: LOCATION 85TH PACE SPEED PERCENT OF PERCENTILE RANGE VEH. IN PACE SPEED Manhattan Ave. -19th St. 33 25to35 19th St. -Pier Ave. 35 28to38 Pier Ave.-Herondo St 33 25to35 80 78 88 The existing posted speed limit on all three sections is 25 MPH. DISCUSSION The new survey shows that critical speeds, i.e the 85th percentile speed are still well in excess of the posted speed limit. The 50 percentile speed, i.e that speed at which one half of the drivers are traveling at or below is 30,31 or 30 mph for the three sections respectively. The speeds still are relatively consistent along the entire length of Monterey Blvd. Our field reviews during the course of this and previous updates indicate that there are several factors that could warrant posting a speed limit lesser than the 85th percentile speed on this route. 10061 TALBERT AVENUE SUITE200 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CALIFORNIA 92708 (714)964.4880 The land use along Monterey consists primarily of residential dwellings on small lots. Driveway spacing is close and curb parking is utilized to the maximum during evening periods and summer months. This combination contributes to limited sight distance of Monterey Blvd. vehicles for emeging traffic. Likewise, Monterey Blvd traffic has a difficult time determining when cross driveway traffic may be entering the roadway. School children do have "back door" access to the elementary school at Loma and 16th Street. This is one short block east of Monterey Blvd. The City has taken measures to sign and mark this crossing to alert drivers to the presence of school children in the area. However, school children can and do cross Monterey Blvd. at the uncontrolled intersections even though the suggested route to school plan suggests crossing only at the controlled stop locations. The street is well lighted with lighting poles positioned on one side of the street. A factor not previously addressed in earlier evaluations of the speed was the visibilty conditons at night when coastal fog envelopes the City. Visibilty is restricted considerably despite the street lighting. RECOMMENDATIONS In view of these roadside development and environmental conditions which are somewhat unique to Beach cities, it is recommended that the City retain the existing 25 mph speed limit despite the higher 85th percentile speed limit. After careful consideration of these factors, the City Traffic Engineer believes that the lesser speed limit is the more prudent limit to enforce rather than solely utilizing the radar speed information. A condition of this recommendation is continued periodic enforcemen tof the posted limit to ensure that the accident potential is reduced. MARCH 30, 1989 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL APRIL 11, 1989 ANNUAL PERCENTAGE INCREASES ON BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council: Adopt the attached resolution, establishing a policy to implement Ordinance No. 88-941 regarding increases in business license taxes that are imposed on a flat fee basis. Background On November 7, 1989 the voters of the City of Hermosa Beach at their general municipal election passed, approved, and adopted Ordinance 88-941. Analysis Ordinance No. 88-941 provides that busines license taxes that are imposed on a flat fee basis shall be adjusted annually using the percentage increase in the cost of living. Summary The attached resolution indicates that the annual period will be from April 1 to March 30 of each year. The percentage increase during that period will be determined, included in renewal notices and implemented effective July 1 of each year. The amount will be rounded to the nearest whole dollar amount to minimize confusion. Concur: Respectfully Submitted / ?57 1.(! 'v ' Jiok /7o) Mary Feliskens Administrative Aide Noted for fiscal impact: 014:10401,04) William Grove Viki Copeland Director of Building & Safety Finance Administrator Concur: even port cr City Manager lk 2 RESOLUTION NO. 89 - 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A POLICY PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 4 88-941 PERTAINING TO THE ANNUAL PERCENTAGE INCREASES ON BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES IN CHAPTER 17 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE. 5 WHEREAS, the voters of the City of Hermosa Beach at their 6 general municipal election of November 7, 1988 passed, approved 7 and adopted Ordinance #88-941; and 8 9 WHEREAS, Ordinance #88-941 provides that for those business 10 license taxes that are imposed on a flat fee basis or other 11 methods besides a percentage of gross fees or receipts, the 12 amount of tax shall be adjusted on an annual basis using the 13 percentage increase in the cost of living. The City shall 14 calculate the adjustment using cost of living percentage change 15 Figures as calculated by the United States Bureau of Labor 16 Statistics for the Los Angeles -Anaheim -Riverside Standard 17 Metropolitan Statistical Area; and 18 WHEREAS, all annual license taxes shall be due and payable 19 one year from the first day of the month in which issued; 20 21 NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa 22 each, California, DOES RESOLVE as follows: 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 1. The percentage increase in the consumer price ndex, 1982-84 base for all urban consumers, all items, as alculated by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics for os Angeles -Anaheim -Riverside Standard Metropolitan Statistical 1 f 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Area for the period of April 1 of the preceeding year to March 3 of the following year will be implemented annually on July 1. SECTION 2. The fee as calculated pursuant to Section 1 abov shall be rounded to the nearest whole dollar amount. SECTION 3. Said cost of living will be reflected on the renewal notifications. SECTION 4. That this resolution shall be effective immediately. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and shall make a minute entry in the records of the proceedings of the City Council in the minutes of the meeting at which this resolution is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of March 1989 ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 88- 941 AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING AND AMENDING CHAPTERS 17 (LICENSES AND PERMITS) AND 30 (TAXATION) CONCERNING BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES, TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAXES, AND PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES TAXES. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DO HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance Numbers 85-819, 86-842 and 86-857 are hereby readopted and confirmed. Said ordinances establish busi- ness license fees for those businesses which do business within the boundaries of the City of Hermosa Beach. Said taxes shall continue to be imposed and collected in the same manner as set forth in the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. Section 2. Ordinance Number 86-826, increasing the Tran- sient Occupancy Tax from six (6%) percent to eight (8%) percent, is hereby readopted and confirmed. Said tax shall continue to be imposed and collected in the same manner as established under the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. Section 3. Ordinance Number 86-849, increasing the Park and Recreation Facilities Tax from five hundred ($500.00) dollars to thirty-five hundred ($3,500.00) dollars for each new residential dwelling unit, is hereby readopted and confirmed. Said tax shall continue to be imposed and collected in the same manner as established under the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. /// /// 26/ORD22 -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 4. For those taxes herein specified that are imposed on a flat fee basis or other methods besides a percentage of gross fees or receipts, the amount of tax shall be adjusted on an annual basis using the percentage increase in the cost of liv- ing. The City shall calculate the adjustment using cost of liv- ing percentage change figures as calculated by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics for the Los Angeles -Anaheim -Riverside Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area. The taxes subject to this section are those taxes found in Chapter 17 (Licenses and Permits) as follows: Section 17-19(b) [Classification "A," (Groups 2, 3, 3(a), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14(a), 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 19(a)); Classification "B," (Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25); Classification "C," (Groups 1, 2 and 3); Classification "D," (Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11); Classification "E," (Group 1); Classification "F," (Groups 1 and 2)), Sections 17-19.1, 17-19.2, 17-50.3, 17-52; and Chapter 30 (Taxes), Section 30-40 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. Section 5. This ordinance shall be effective upon approval by the electorate in the manner provided by law. Section 6. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. 26/0RD22 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ordinance No. 88-941 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE ELECTORATE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 8, 1988 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES- 5,288 NOES- 3,267 ATTEST: 6)(.22/&Z7tde2__ CI Y CLERK April 6, 1989 City Council Meeting April 11, 1989 Mayor and Members of the City Council ELECTION CALENDAR NOVEMBER 7, 1989 GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION June 8 Suggested last day to file Initiative petitions regarding measures June 27 Adopt regulations for candidate statements June 27 Suggested last meeting to decide on ballot measures and direct City Attorney to prepare wording July 11 Suggested last meeting to approve ballot measures and wording July 17 - Aug. 11 Nomination period for candidates for 3 City Council seats July 25 Suggested last meeting to call election and adopt Resolutions with final ballot wording July 27 Post notice for filing arguments Aug. 7 Arguments - last day to submit Aug. 17 Rebuttals - last day to submit Sept. 11 - Oct. 24 Write -In candidates Oct. 9 Last day to register to vote Oct. 10 - Oct. 31 Voters may request absentee ballots Oct. 24 Last meeting to adopt Resolution re: Tie vote Nov. 7 Election Day Nov. 20 Completion of Official Canvas Noted: evin B. Northcra City Manager Ka ileen Midstokke, City Clerk 1i April 4, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council April 11, 1989 AWARD OF AGREEMENT FOR PARK IRRIGATION SYSTEM ASSESSMENT AND REHABILITATION PROGRAM CIP 87-508 Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Authorize the Mayor to sign an Agreement with Aqua Engineering, Inc., for Park Irrigation System Assessment, CIP 87-508, in an amount not to exceed $35,310. 2. Authorize staff to issue addenda as necessary within budget limitations. Background: On November 9, 1988, the City Council authorized staff to solicit proposals for a Park Irrigation System Assessment, CIP 87-508. Five proposals have been received. The Request for Proposal (RFP) and the five proposals are available for review in the office of the City Clerk. Analysis: The analysis is divided as follows: 1. Scope of Work 2. Discussion of the Firms and their Proposals 3. Decision Analysis 4. Weighing Benefits vs Consequences 5. Tentative Choice and Fiscal Impact 6. Summary and Recommendations 1. Scope of Work 1. Provide reproducible base maps of each individual site in sufficient detail to adequately identify the site, existing park improvements, and the extent of existing and planned irrigation improvements. 2. Conduct a detailed inventory and evaluation of all existing irrigation system improvements. 1 to Evaluate general adequacy, identify deficiencies, develop recommendations on upgrading, repairs, maintenance, replacement, or other corrective action. Evaluate layout and hydraulic design, coverage, physical condition, and control equipment. 3. Prepare a comprehensive recommendation on needed improvements, estimated cost and overall priority, including a variety of approaches such as: (a) System replacements (b) Retrofit upgrading (c) System repairs (d) Routine maintenance 2. Discussion of the Firms and their Proposals All proposals are available for review in the City Clerk's office. Five firms submitted proposals: Stewart Jackson Company $10,000(est.-survey only) Jon Kawada Associates $14,805 BSI Consultants, Inc. $28,507 Aqua Engineering, Inc. $32,100 Cardoza-DiLallo-Harrington, Inc. $81,060 All five firms were interviewed by staff and by an independent consultant. Below is a brief description of each firm and the proposed project team. A. Stewart Jackson Company is a sprinkler -specialty firm located in Torrance, California. The firm has over 30. years of experience in sprinkler design, installation and maintenance. The project manager for this project has 11 years of similar experience. Reference checks indicate that they have an excellent reputation in the South Bay area for work in their specialty. However, the proposal is not responsive to the RFP in that it does not provide for any base maps or comprehensive recommendations of needed improvements. The proposed fee is based only on hourly charges for mechanics to survey the existing system. The proposal does not call out a not -to - exceed cost, although a verbal estimate of approximately $10,000 was given for the survey only. All other work would have to be subcontracted at an undetermined cost. While this firm is deemed capable in its specialized field, it is not considered responsive for this particular project and is not recommended. 2 B. Jon Kawada Associates is a relatively small firm specializing in landscape architecture design and located in Tustin, California. The firm has been in existence only since May, 1987, although its principal has a number of years of experience with other firms and with Caltrans. They indicated that they could begin the project almost immediately and complete it in approximately three months. The proposal was not as complete or detailed as it should have been for a project of this type. The proposed fee is $14,805, but does not include the cost of surveys that might be necessary to provide information sufficient to compile the base maps. The proposal was not sufficiently thorough nor clear to demonstrate that the firm fully understands the requirements of the City and the complexities of this project. Although reference checks indicated that the firm has done satisfactory work, it is felt that there are simply too many uncertainties for it to be considered for this particular project in Hermosa Beach. C. BSI Consultants, Inc. is a multidisciplinary firm that provides a wide va iety of services to governmental agencies. They have eight offices throughout the state, and would be managing this project from their Santa Ana office. Their proposal was very detailed and responsive to the City's RFP. They have done projects of a similar nature in several cities in Southern California. Reference checks indicated that the landscape architecture division of the firm is responsive and generates high-quality work. The proposed cost is $27,007 plus reimbursable expenses estimated at $1,500, for a total of $28,507. They indicated that they could begin the project within two -three weeks of Notice to Proceed and estimated completion within six -eight weeks thereafter. The proposed project manager has only recently begun work with BSI, which is a drawback to retaining this firm. In follow-up phone conversations to BSI made after the interview, it was found that key personnel are not entirely familiar with the proposal or the project methodology. It was difficult to obtain satisfactory answers to questions about the proposal. This raises some concern about how effectively BSI would perform during the project itself, when the project manager would be expected to represent the firm and to make field judgments based on his knowledge of the proposal and of the firm's capabilities. In addition, BSI would furnish the City with drawings of the existing irrigation system based on tracings of the City's aerial photographs, which are at a scale of approximately 1"=40'. It is doubtful whether this level of detail on the drawings would be satisfactory for the City's purposes, but BSI would not generate larger -scale drawings at their quoted price. .They have stated that they do not consider a computer-aided design process, such as AutoCad, to be cost-effective for this project. 3 D. Aqua Engineering, Inc. is a firm of irrigation consultants specializing in irrigation engineering and water management. The company has been in business approximately 15 years. The assigned project manager has 10 years experience with the company. The firm has a great deal of experience with computerized central control irrigation systems. The proposal is extremely thorough and responsive to the RFP. They have extensive experience in several states and overseas in evaluation and design of irrigation systems. Aqua could begin work on this project within one week of being issued a Notice to Proceed and could complete the project within 90 days thereafter. The firm is based in Fort Collins, Colorado, which does raise some concerns about response time and availability. They are currently expanding their operations into California and are in fact now performing several projects in Southern California that were checked as references. The general consensus of the references checked was that the firm's quality of work is outstanding. There were some concerns expressed, however, about the fact that the firm is located out-of-state. While the firm has apparently made considerable, effort to compensate for its distant location, some references felt that the work could possibly have progressed more smoothly if the firm had a local office. However, in making several phone calls to Aqua to discuss the proposal, it-was found that the President and Vice President were quite available and responsive and eager to answer any questions. The proposed cost was originally set at $28,550, including reimbursable expenses, but during the interview it became apparent to both sides that the City required a slightly broader scope of work than Aqua had assumed. Aqua immediately submitted a clarification of the scope of work with a modified cost now set at $32,100. Aqua would furnish the City with 1"=20', 24"x36", mylar sheets as well as AutoCad drawing files on disk that the City could use to update the drawings. Aqua suggests a value engineering approach to the project, considering: a) age of the system components, maintenance history, and potential additional economic life, b) application efficiency and design considerations, and c) public concerns such as visibility, importance to the City, and intensity of use. E. Cardoza-DiLallo-Harrington is a landscape architecture and planning firm with several offices in California. This particular project would be managed from their Costa Mesa office. The project manager has eleven years of experience with the firm. They indicate that they could begin work immediately and could complete the project within 2-3 months. References checked reveal that the firm and the project manager have an excellent reputation and that their quality of work is outstanding. The proposed cost, however, of over $80,000, is clearly excessive, particularly when compared to other qualified firms like BSI and Aqua.Engineering. 4 3. Decision Analysis Consultant selection was based on the following criteria: 1. The proposed approach to the project and the firm's experience in providing comparable services for projects of similar complexity: 0 - 35%. 2. Experience of assigned personnel on projects of a similar complexity: 0 - 35%.. 3. Analysis of cost for proposed services: 0 - 30%. The five firms were ranked as follows: 1. Aqua Engineering 2. BSI 3. Cardoza-DiLallo-Harrington 4. Jon Kawada Associates 5. Stewart Jackson Score 84.0 79.0 70.0 63.0 52.0 Tentative Choice First Second Third Not Recommended Not Recommended The maximum score possible is 100 points. The complete analysis is available for review in the Department. Public Works 4. Weighing Benefits vs Adverse Consequences When comparing the benefits versus adverse consequences it becomes clearer which firm is best for this project. Firm: Aqua Engineering Benefits: Excellent reputation. Reasonable cost. High-quality drawings. Will supply AutoCad files. Will supply 1"=20' mylars. Experienced Project Manager. Adverse Consequences: Out-of-state firm. 13% higher cost than BSI. 5 Firm: BSI Consultants Benefits: Many similar projects. Lowest cost among recommended firms. Established in Southern California. Detailed approach to project. Adverse Consequences: Project designer new to firm. No AutoCad. Only 1"=40' tracings. Internal coordination suspect. Firm: Cardoza-DiLallo-Harrington Benefits: Adverse Consequences: Firm: Jon Kawada Associates Benefits: Adverse Consequences: Firm: Stewart Jackson Excellent reputation. Established in Southern California Experienced project manager. Highest cost of all firms proposing. Low cost. New firm. Poorly written proposal. Unclear comprehension of project. Benefits: Hands -on -experience. Local firm. Adverse Consequences: Uncertain cost. No landscape architecture ability. Would require subcontracting. 5. Tentative Choice and Fiscal Impact CIP 87-508 Amount currently budgeted FY 88-89: $121,000 Funding Source: Park Facilities Tax Fund Contract amount for tentative choice not to exceed: Proposal: $32,100 Contingency: 3,210 TOTAL: $35,310 6 PROJECT ELEMENTS Preliminary Engineering Plans, Specifications and Construction Inspection Other Direct Costs SUBTOTAL: CONTINGENCY: TOTAL EXPENDITURE: ESTIMATED UNEXPENDED FY 88-89 FUNDS, BALANCE TO REAPPROPRIATED FOR FY 89-90: BUDGET FY 88-89 Estimates $10,000 100,000 $110,000 11.000 $121,000 ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES THROUGH 6-30-89 $121,000 -35,310 $ 85,690 $32,100 $32,100 3.210 $35,310 6. Summary and Recommendations This project will inventory and assess the condition of the existing park irrigation system. The project will map the irrigation system as well as the parks boundaries and major facilities, assisting the City Council, Commissions, the public and the staff during consideration of the parks master plan. The drawings will reduce the time and cost•of designs of future parks improvement projects. A plan of the City's park and irrigation system is essential for the proper operation and budgeting of the Public Works Department. The end product of this study will provide the City with information regarding the condition of the irrigation system and the rehabilitation cost, information which can be used for grant applications. Healthy landscaping enhances the quality of life of residents and the aesthetic appearance of the City. This valuable resource covers approximately 40 acres of parkland, including the greenbelt. The irrigation and landscaping in the parks are estimated to be worth over 5 million dollars. Open space is a valuable public asset that must be protected through regular maintenance. The landscaping requires a well-designed and regularly -maintained irrigation system in order to survive and thrive. The existing system is old and in need of repair. Irrigation repairs are estimated by the Parks and Median Leadman to require approximately 40% of the crew's time. It is the opinion of the Public Works Director that an adequate system should reduce irrigation maintenance time approximately 15-20%. 7 Jon Kawada Associates and Stewart Jackson are sufficiently responsive to the City's needs for project. Cardoza-DiLallo-Harrington is a qualified firm but cost is not competitive. not considered this particular in this case the Both BSI and Aqua Engineering are qualified firms able to complete this project in a satisfactory manner at a reasonable price. BSI has some advantages because of their location and the slightly lower cost, but overall Aqua Engineering is considered the better firm for this particular project because of their strong commitment to computer-aided design and the experience of the project manager. Alternatives: Another alternative available to the City Council and considered by staff is: 1. Award agreement to another consultant. Respectfully submitted: Byron L. Woosley Consultant to the Hermosa Beach Department of Public Works Concur: evin B. Nort aft City Manager Concur: A ony Antic Director of blic Works Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator cc: Alana Mastrian-Handman, Community Resources Director Michael Flaherty, Parks and Median Leadman 8 Honorable Mayor and Members Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council April 5, 1989 City Council of April 11, 1989 SETTLEMENT OF QUANTA V. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AND RECOMMENDATION TO DESIGNATE FUNDS Recommendation: That the City Council 1) accept and file the following infor- mation report on the resolution of the Quanta v. City of Her- mosa Beach litigation, and 2) approve staff recommendation to designate the $125,000 funds received as settlement as follows: $60,000 to the General Fund, $65,000 to the senior housing designation in the General Fund Unappropriated Reserve. Background: This litigation is almost ten years old and extremely com- plex. In brief, the City and Quanta entered into an agree- ment to accomplish the condo conversion of the Commodore Apartments on Ardmore, with the City being provided senior housing rental units for a period of time and cash to support senior housing efforts. For reasons in dispute, full payment was not received. Analysis: In closed session, the City Council, attorneys, and staff evaluated this case and determined it to be an extremely com- plex one on which it would be very expensive to complete litigation. Due to our agreement, it was unlikely that the City would recover its litigation costs, even if successful. Further, it was doubtful that the City would be able to receive funds from the Corporation in the event an award was achieved. For these reasons, staff and the principal partner of Quanta Corporation negotiated a settlement not involving further attorney costs. The settlement causes a release of the City's claims against Quanta and Quanta's cross claims against the City, with $125,000 in cash to be received by the City. This settlement has previously been approved by the City Council in closed session, and a cashier's check has been received and deposited by the City. To properly account for these funds, staff would recommend that the litigation cost to the General Fund be reimbursed in the amount of $60,000. This leaves $65,000 to be added to the $50,000 previously received from Quanta and maintained in 11 a designation within the General Fund Unappropriated Reserve. If this recommendation is approved, the designation for af- fordable housing would total $111,831. evin B. Northdraft City Manager KBN/ld cc: Finance Department City Attorney • __' April 4, 1989 City Council Meeting April 11, 1989 Mayor and Members of the City Council ORDINANCE NO. 89-978 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 4 OF ORDINANCE NO. 88-917 PERTAINING TO THE TIME LIMIT TO OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT. Submitted for adoption is Ordinance No. 89-978 relating to the above subject. At the meeting of March 28, 1989, this ordinance was introduced by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Concur: Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson, Mayor Williams None None None Respectfully submitted, (71;4214%kAt4442W6 Kathleen Midstokke, City Clerk even B. Nort •:a t, City Manager . fa 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 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA AMENDING SECTION 4 OF ORDINANCE NO. 88-917 PERTAINING TO TH TIME LIMIT TO OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT. WHEREAS, the City Council considered this matter on September 27, 1988 and March 28, 1989 and made the following Finding: A. The revision to the time limit to obtain a building permit is consistant with the City Council action of April 12, 1988 regarding property located at 1840 Hermosa Avenue. NOW, THEREFORE, The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby ordain as follows: 1. Section 4 of Ordinance No. 88-917 shall be amended to read as follows: "This ordinance shall not apply to any projects that have a completed building permit package on file with the city prior to February 23, 1988. Said package must include a completed building permit application form, completed conceptual plans (plotlan, floor plans, elevation plans and other similar plans) and a lot survey. Projects that have submitted a completed building permit package must pursue their application in a diligent manner and must be issued a building permit within eighteen (18) months of the effective date of this ordinance. 2. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. 3. Prior to the expirat1on 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. 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. 1 1 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 2 3 4 1989. o t e ity ounci an Hermosa Beach, California 5 ATTEST: 6 7 CITY CLERK 8 9 APPROVED AS TOORM ,/ 10 11 CZrY-ATTORNEY' L 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 • 1. t e City April 4, 1989 City Council Meeting April 11, 1989 Mayor and Members of the City Council ORDINANCE NO. 89-979 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 4-6.1(1) OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO REQUIRE THE POSSESSION OF A SUITABLE MEANS OF REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF A DOG OR ANIMAL NUISANCE (DEFECATION). Submitted for adoption is Ordinance No. 89-979 relating to the above subject. At the meeting of March 28, 1989, this ordinance was introduced by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson, Mayor Williams None None None Respectfully submitted, sk25(//tee&Z Kathleen Midstokke, City Clerk Concur: *evin B. Northcraft, City Manager 2b 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE 89-979 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, AMENDING SECTION 4-6.1(1) OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO REQUIRE THE POSSESSION OF A SUITABLE MEANS OF REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF A DOG OR ANIMAL NUISANCE (DEFECATION) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That Chapter 4 "Animals and Fowl", Article I., Section 4-6.1(1). Animal nuisances, of the Hermosa Beach City Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: ANIMALS AND FOWL Section 4-6.1. Animal nuisances. (1) It shall be unlawful for the owner or person having custody of any dog or other animal to permit either willfully or through failure to exercise due care or control; _ (a) Any such dog or animal to commit any nuisance, and to allow such nuisance to thereafter remain, upon any public or private property not owned or possessed by the owner or person in control of said animal, except that the person who owns, harbors, keeps or has charge or control of a dog (other than a sightless person who has charge or control of a guide dog) shall immediately and securely enclose all feces deposited by such dog in a bag, wrapper, or other container and dispose of the same, all in a sanitary manner. (b) Any person (other than a sightless person with a guide dog) who has charge or control of a dog in a location other than on the property of such person or the property of the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8� 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 owner of the dog shall have in his or her possession, carried in full view a suitable wrapper, bag, or container (other than articles of personal clothing) for the purpose of complying with the requirements of this section. Failure of such person to carry such wrapper, bag, or container when in charge or control of a dog in a location other than on the property of such person or the property of the owner of the dog or animal shall constitute a violation of this section. For the purpose of this section a "nuisance" committed by a dog or animal shall mean defecation by said animal. SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this th day of , 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: 2 , CITY CLERK , CITY ATTORNEY April 4, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council April 11, 1989 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-1 AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #20644 FOR A TWO UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1722 GOLDEN AVENUE. APPELLANT: PAUL E. NORMANDIE 1714 GOLDEN AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision to allow the construction of a two unit condominium. Background The Planning Commission, at their meeting of February 21, 1989, adopted Resolution P.C. 89-16 approving a Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #20644 for a two unit condominium at 1722 Golden Avenue. This decision was appealed by. Mr. Normandie on February 28, 1989. The City Council, at their meeting of March 28, 1989, continued the public hearing on this matter because the appellant did not mail the public notice letters. Analysis The Planning Commission approved this Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Tract Map based on findings that the proposal meets, or exceeds, all zoning standards for this zone, and that its compatible with the neighborhood. The reason for the appeal, according to the appellant, is because the proposed building configuration and design will impact the view from his duplex. Staff visited the appellant's property, and its clear that the appellant currently does enjoy a view of the ocean to the northwest and the mountains to the north, especially from his raised deck in the front yard. This view would be partially obstructed by the front unit of the proposed project, although it appears that a view of the ocean to the northwest will remain. An alternative design which would reduce this view obstruction would require either a major reduction in square footage, the attachment of the two units to increase the front setback, or significant excavation. It would be extremely difficult in any of these scenarios to provide the required parking and an attractive design. Since the zoning ordinance currently does not contain any specific provisions for the protection of scenic views staff does not feel it would be warranted to force the 1 5 applicant to redesign this project to accomodate the neiors view. Attachments: 1. City Council staff report dated 3/21/89 2. Resolution P.C. 89-16 3. Planning Commission staff report dated 2/9/89 4. Planning Commission minutes of 2/21/89 5. Correspondence CONCUR: Mic :e Schu•ach Planning Director Kevin $. ort cra t City Manager a/pcsr1722 2 Repppect u ly Submitted, �''tt Ro e tson Advanced Planner 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CONCURRING. WITH THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #20644 FOR A 2 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1722 GOLDEN AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 26, ANGELA HEIGHTS. TRACT. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on. April 11, 1989 to•receive oral and written testimony on this matter and made the following Findings: A. The -map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; B. The site is zoned R -2B and is physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed development; C. The development shall pose no threat to the public safety and welfare; D. The subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems; E. The subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; F. Design of the proposed subdivision is compatible and consistent with applicable elements of the City's General Plan; G. The project will conform to all zoning and condominium criteria and will be compatible with adjacent residential properties; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council for the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby concur with the Planning Commission's decision to approve a Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #20644 for a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 -unit condominium project at 1722 Golden Avenue subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The project shall be subject to all conditions listed in Resolution P.C..' 89-16. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this the llth day of April, 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. . CITY CLERK 4- Honorable Mayor and Members of the March 21, 1989 Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beacb City Council March 28, 1989 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #20644 FOR A TWO UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1722 GOLDEN AVENUE APPELLANT: PAUL E. NORMANDIE 1714 GOLDEN AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council continue this public hearing to allow for required Public Noticing. Background The Planning Commission, at their meeting of February 21, 1989, adopted Resolution P.C. 89-16 approving a Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #20644 for a two unit condominium. Analysis This item must be continued because the appellant did not mail the public notice letters. However, since this item was noticed in the Easy Reader, the public hearing must be opened. Res• c fu ly S,bmitted, CONCLIRA -ZtVir") Michael Schubach Planning Dire tor evin B. Nortl�cra t City. Manager a/pcsr1722 .dk •new P -ea Associate Planner 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION P.C. 89-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #20644 FOR A 2 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1722 GOLDEN AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED• AS LOT 26, ANGELA HEIGHTS TRACT. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February.21, 1989 to receive oral and written testimony on this matter and made the following Findings: A. The map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; B. The site is zoned R -2B and is physically suitable for type and density of the proposed development; C. The development shall pose no threat to the public safety and welfare; D. The subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems; E. The subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; F. Design of the proposed subdivision is compatibleand consistent with applicable elements of the City's General Plan; G. The project will conform to all zoning and condominium criteria and will compatible with adjacent residential properties; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #20644 for a 2 -unit condominium project at 1722 Golden Avenue subject to the following conditions of approval: d 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. The proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with submitted plans; any modifications shall be submitted to the Planting Director for approval. 2. The project shall meet all requirements of the Condominium Ordinance. • a. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions in compliance with the Condominium Ordinance shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. b. Proof of recordation. of approved CC&R's shall be submitted to the Planning Director within six (6) months' after City approval of the Final Map. c. Requiremennts of Section 7.2-6(G) shall be shown on structural plans and reviewed at the time.of Building Department Plan_Check. 3. There shall be compliance with all requirements of the Public Works Department and Fire Department. 4. Three (3) copies of a landscaping plan indicating size, type and quantity of plant materials shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. a. An automatic landscape sprinkler system shall be provided, and shall be shown on plans. 5. Architectural treatment shall be identified on elevations and shall be subject to approval by the Director: a. Precise height shall be reviewed at the time of Plan Check, and plans shall be submitted satisfaction of the Building Director. building Planning Building to the 6. Any satellite dish and/or similar equipment shall comply with the requirements of Section 1227 of the Zoning Ordinance. 7. Conduit shall be installed in each unit for cable television. 8. Automatic garage door openers shall be provided. 9. Three (3) copies of revised plans, including site, elevation, floor and landscape plans, which are consistent with the conditions of approval of this Conditional Use Permit, shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to issuance of any Building. Permits. a. Revised plans shall show a guest parking space, compact or full-sized, on the north side of the rear of the property, i.e., underneath the overhang and in front of the trash area. 0 I 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 10. An "Acceptance of Conditions" form shall be executed and submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 11. The Conditional Use Permit shall be null and void two years from the date of approval unless Building Permits have been obtained and approval of the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map shall become null and void one and a half year from the date of approval unless the map is finaled. The applicant may apply in writing for an extension of time to the Planning CQmmission prior to the date of expiration. VOTE: AYES: Comms.Edwards,Irigell,Ketz,Rue,Chmn.Peirce NOES: •None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 89-16 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meeting of February 21, 1989. .tom.. /' 4 Ja s Peirce, hairman i6ASchdbacb ecretary Date T/pers1722 c February 9, 1989 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of February 21, 1989 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CON 89-1 AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP # 20644 LOCATION: 1722 GOLDEN AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 26 ANGELA HEIGHTS TRACT • APPLICANT: MARK KAVANAUGH 912 TORRANCE BLVD. REDONDO BEACH, CA 90233 • REQUEST: CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO UNIT CONDOMINIUM Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #20644 for a two (2) unit condominium subject to the conditions listed in the attached Resolution. Background Project Details -- Zoning: R -2B General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential Lot Size: 4586 sq. ft., irregular shaped lot, approximately 35' by 144' Environmental Determination: Categorically Exempt Analysis The proposed condominium units will be apprximately 2500 sq. ft. The units will be detached. Each unit will have 3 bedrooms and 2 1/2 baths, and a mezzanine. The basic construction of the units will be two floors and a mezzanine over a partial subterranean garage. The design of the building is mediterranean. Architectural details have not been identified on the plans, however, the plans show architectural features to include glass block, decorative banding between floors, arched windows and tile roofing. A condition of should requires all architectural features to be identified and subject to approval from the Planning Director. • 'N The Plans conform to requirements for open space. Open space for the rear units is provided on a 214 sq. ft. deck and 248 sq. ft. located on grade in the rear of the building. The front unit also has a 214 sq. ft. deck and 160 sq. ft. of open space located on grade in the front yard area of this unit. The area calculated as open space in the front yard does not include required setbacks. Additional open space is provided on other decks, however, these decks are not open to the sky by more than 507., therefore, they are not included in open space calculations. Staff has some concern over the proposed parking layout. The applicant is proposing to provide two -three car garages, two spaces to be•used as required parking and one space as guest parking, no open guest parking will be provided. As proposed, guests would not be able to park on-site without previously obtaining access to the garage either by key or•automatic garage door opener. Staff is •recommending a condition of approval to require that the plans be revised to provide an open, guest parking space. Only one guest parking space is required since no on -street parking will be lost. The plans have provided a 13' front yard setback rather than the minimum 5' setback as•required by the Zoning Ordinance. Most structures on this block have front yard setbacks greater than 5'. An on-site inspection of the setbacks on this block indicates that setbacks vary from 9' to 25', with the average setback approximatly 14'. The 13' setback is appropriate for this parcel since it is in keeping with surrounding parcels. Also, the R-1 zone, which is the most restrictive zone, does not require any front yard setback to be greater than 10'. The site is located in an area that was recently rezoned from R-2, Low Density General Plan Designation to R -2B, Medium Density Residential. The surrounding parcels on the block are developed with half single family homes and half with duplexes built during the early 1950's. The proposed structure is larger in height and bulk than most of the surrounding dwellings. However, views of the surrounding structures should not be impacted s1-cnQe this site is located on top of a hillside. Michael Schubach Planning Director Attachments: 1. Resolution P.C. 89-16 2. Zoning Analysis 3. Application 4. Public Notice Affidavit a/pcsr1722 An ew era Associate 5.anner CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #20644 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1722 GOLDEN AVENUE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 9, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve a conditional use permit and vesting tentative parcel •map for a two -unit condominium, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. This project is located in the R -2B zone, with a general plan designation of medium density residential. The irregularly-shaped lot size is 4586 square feet, approximately 35 feet by 144 feet. The proposed condominium units will be approximately 2500 square feet. The units will be detached. Each unit will have three bedrooms, two and a half bathrooms, and a mezzanine. The basic construction of the units will be two floors and a mezzanine over a partial subterranean garage. The design of the building is mediterranean. Architectural details have not been identified on the plans; however, the plans show architectural features to include glass block, decorative banding between floors, arched windows, and tile roofing. A condition of approval should require all architectural features to be identified and subject to approval of the Planning Director. The plans conform to the open space requirements. Open space for the rear units is provided on a 214 square foot deck and 248 square feet located on grade in the rear of the building. The front unit also has a 214 square foot deck and 160 square feet of open space located on grade in the front yard area of this unit. The area calculated as open space in the front yard does not include required setbacks. Additional open space is provided on other decks; however, these decks are not open to the sky by more than 50 percent; therefore, they are not included in open space calculations. Staff has some concern over the proposed parking layout. The applicant is proposing to provide two three -car garages, two spaces to be used as required parking and one space • as guest parking. No open guest parking will be provided. As proposed, guests would not be able to park on-site without previously obtaining access to the garage, either by key • or automatic• garage door opener. Staff is recommending a condition of approval to require that the plans be revised to provide an open guest parking space. Only one guest parking space is required since no on -street parking will be lost. 1�- P.C. Minutes 2/21/89 c The plans have provided a 13 -foot front yard setback rather than the minimum five-foot setback as required by the zoning ordinance. Most structures on this block have front yard setbacks greater than five feet. An on-site inspection of the setbacks on this block indicates that setbacks vary from nine feet to 25 feet, with the average setback approximately 14 feet. The 13 -foot setback is appropriate for this parcel since it is in keeping with surrounding parcels. Also, the R-1 zone, which is the most restrictive zone, does not require any front yard setback to be greater than ten feet. The site is located in an area that was recently rezoned from R-2, low density general plan designation, to R -2B, medium density residential. The surrounding parcels on the block are developed with half single-family homes and half with duplexes built during the early 1950s. The proposed structure is larger in height and bulk than most of the surrounding dwellings. However, views of the surrounding structures should not be impacted since this site is located on top of a hillside. • • Chmn. Peirce asked whether other condominium projects have been allowed . to have enclosed guest parking spaces. Mr. Schubach stated that he was aware of no others in the City. He noted, however, that the City is very careful in its guest parking requirements. Public Hearing opened at 8:38 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, project architect, stated that he is surprised staff had concerns over the parking, because he was told by a staff member that there were no problems with the proposal in this particular area. Mr. Compton stated that one area which was not designated as a guest space is an area in the rear which is not the full nine feet; however, it could be used as a guest parking space if it could be designated as a compact space. He stated that the space would be approximately eight feet, six inches. If this space is allowed, the project will provide two guest spaces in excess of the requirement. Mr. Compton and the Commissioners continued by discussing the site plan. He also noted that it will be necessary to put in a retaining wall on the north side of the property, and the size of the wall will affect the width of the parking space. He stated that the plans could be modified if so desired by the Commission; however, he would prefer not to modify them. Mr. Compton stated that the design of the project will be very attractive. Mr. Compton discussed the northerly property line, stating that the house to the north and the existing house share a common driveway. The building to the north has a substandard setback from the edge of the house to the property line. He stated that he has talked to the owner of the property to the north, and they will attempt to obtain an easement for the driveway use. Chmn. Peirce questioned whether it would be possible to obtain the additional six inches for a full-sized parking space in that area. Mr. Compton said that care was taken in the design of this project. He stated that the design will be mediterranean. All of the bands step out at least two inches, and most are double stepped. The colors will vary on the banding and around the windows. There will be a red tile roof. He also stated that there will be additional storage area in the rear of Unit B. _�Z— P.C. Minutes 2/21/89 c c Steve Pettis, 1724 Golden Avenue, northerly neighbor of this project, stated that he has spoken to the builder and architect. His concerns involve the driveway and the agreement which will be reached. The developer is negotiating giving him approximately one foot over his property line in order to put in the retaining wall. Also, during the construction phase Mr. Pettis will not be able to park in his driveway; therefore, the developer will allow him to park in their driveway during that time, which will be approximately three weeks. Mr. Pettis stated that, pending the agreement reached with the developer, he favors approval of this project. Paul Normandy, 1714 Golden Avenue, adamantly opposed the project as it currently is proposed. He stated that he will lose his view when this project is completed. He stated that he has met several times with Mr. Compton about this projeot. Mr. Normandy stated that his rights to light and air will be affected, and the project should be studied further. He stated that his house is set back about 13 feet from the property line. The sideyard is very narrow, approximately three feet. The house does not go all the way to the rear property line. Mr. Normandy stated that thi$ project will have one unit all the way to the front of the property; the other unit is set all the way back on the property. He said that this configuration will be very detrimental to his view. He stated that he does not oppose an R-2 development on this property; however, he would favor working with the developer to reach an agreement. Mr. Normandy stated that if no agreement can be reached, he will take legal action. Mr. Normandy continued by discussing the various views from his property which will be obstructed, explaining that approximately 90 percent of the view will be lost. He stated that another plan could be devised in order to minimize view loss; however, it would not be two detached units. John Walter, 1240 17th Street, Hermosa Beach, asked for clarification of the project's size, number of units, and parking. He stated that, in the absence of further information, he would oppose the project at this time. Gerry Compton discussed the property currently owned by Mr. Normandy. He stated that he has met with Mr. Normandy regarding the view blockage; however, not much can be done in terms of redesigning this project in order to avoid the loss of view. He stated that the real issue is whether or not the designer should be required to design a proposed project around someone else's view. He noted that the City currently has no ordinance protecting views. He said that the Normandy property is actually a duplex which is older and has substandard parking. Mr. Compton stated that there is actually no feasible way to redesign this project so that the units are attached, explaining that detached units are much more desirable to the buyer. He said that he sympathized with someone whose view would be blocked; however, there is no easy solution. Public Hearing closed at 8:58 P.M. by Chinn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce noted that there is no view ordinance in Hermosa Beach. -/3- P.C. Minutes 2/21/89 Chmn. Peirce stated that he would favor the developer designing a parking space at the north side of the property, underneath the overhang and in front of the trash area. In this way, there would be an actual guest parking space plus three spaces for each unit. Comm. Inge11 had no concern over the parking, stating that the area in question will be used for parking anyway. Comm. Ketz agreed that she would like to see the area made into a guest parking space. She noted that the City has no current ordinance regarding .view, and this project meets the height requirements. She could see no way to redesign this project in order to save the neighbor's view. • Comm. Rue agreed on the issue of the guest parking space. He also felt it is unfortunate about the view loss; however, there is no ordinance protecting viws at this time. • MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm.. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-16, with the addition of a condition requiring the applicant to work with staff to provide a parking space, compact or full-sized, on the north side of the rear of the property. AYES: Comms. Edwacds, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None f�1"^ P.C. Minutes 2/21/89 BACKcR avNn MATER/AC February 28,1989 City Clerk; I wish to appeal to the Hermosa Beach City Council the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission's February 22, decision to grant a condional use permit for a construction project at 1722 Golden avenue. My property is contiguous to the subject property'and would be greatly impacted by the proposed projects as it is now designed. Thankyou, Paul E. Normandie pi, Z/4 42g24- 4% OH MAR 21989. VPt', • •ty t �. �► ► y March 29, 1989 c City o f 2-iermosa rl3eacly c Mr. Paul E. Normandie 1714 Golden Avenue Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254.3885 MAR 30 1989 RE: Appeal to the 'City Council of Hermosa Beach of the Planning Commission Decision approving a Conditional Use Permit and vesting tentative parcel map # 20644 for a 2 -unit condominium at 1722 Golden Avenue, Hermosa Beach. Dear Mr. Normandie: The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, at their regular meeting of March 28, 1989, acted on the subject request as follows: ACTION: TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONTINUE UNTIL THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 11, 1989 TO ALLOW FOR PROPER PUBLIC NOTICING. You must pick up the notice, labels, and posters from the City Clerk's office and do the noticing no later than March 31, 1989 to allow for 10 days notice prior to the meeting. An affidavit of noticing must be signed and notorized and re- turned to the Planning Department by noon, Tuesday, April 4, for inclusion in the staff report to City Council. Also, any written evidence you wish to submit should be presented at this time. A copy of the the staff report may be obtained on/or about Mon- day, April 10, 1989 from the Planning Department. If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact the Department of Planning at 318-0242. Very truly yours, KATHLEEN MIDSTOKKE City Clerk CC: Planning Department Building Department -16- • I, the undersigned, do declare under penalty of perjury that I did on the 31 day of deposit into the United States po s�fice, first9Al-- 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 fn a court of com= petent jurisdiction which questions the legality of the public notices, then the City may in its exclusive discretion suspend all hearings or cause the cessation of any construction or of any use which was permitted as a result of a hearing which was held in accordance with the public notice. In the event that the court declares.the notice or noticing procedure to be effective, then the City may in its exclusive discretion revoke any permits granted and cause any approvals given pursuant to those public notices to be declared null and void and I agree on behalf of myself and my heirs, assigns or successors -in -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 Lt day of �.�Pj` , 198 q at IIermosa Beach, California. SUP &22 `aoGvy 6/710‘7i7a.z . State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) SS Pm) WORM144146: (name (S nature) (Capacity) On thithe '7=" day of v//e 198, before me, �7'--/ i,d� 1 "" , the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared raa..e E•. N AAA D/ E- proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name (j 1 subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that SS my hand and official seal. (SEAL) OFFICIAL SEAL KATHLEEN L. MIDSTOKKE NOTARY PUBLIC • CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES COUNTY My Commission Expires SEPT. 29. 1992 Notary Public _19_ . 4 April 3, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council April 11, 1989 SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE ZON 88-6 LOCATION: 603 FIRST STREET INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL PURPOSE: TO CONSIDER LOW DENSITY AND R-1 ZONING FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY • Recommendation The Planning Commission and staff recommends that the zoning be consistent with the General Plan Medium Density designation, and that the subject property be rezoned to Specific Plan Area (SPA) with the following standards imposed: 1. A maximum of 13 units (equal to 22 units per acre). 2. A minimum of 3 parking spaces per unit. 3. A minimum 10 foot setback along all property lines abutting streets. Background At the March 21, 1989 meeting, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending a Specific Plan Area for the subject property. Additional background is found in the attached Planning Commission staff report dated March 21, 1989. Analysis The attached Planning Commission staff report provides an analysis of the proposed zone change consideration. In addition, staff has examined the subject property to determine the number of R-1 lots which would result if the property were to be subdivided and verified that 6 lots could be created. However, it must be noted that the subject property currently is comprised of 4 lots, two of which are already zoned R-2. These two lots, if combined, could have a total of 5 units. The remaining 17,119 square feet could be divided into 4 lots all of which would exceed 4,000 square feet. Therefore, a total of 9 units could be constructed if the 17,119 square foot portion, currently zoned M-1 and Open Space, was subdivided into 4 R-1 lots and the two existing R-2 lots were combined for 5 units. If s all the lots were zoned R-2 or R -2B, and not combined, 12 units could be constructed. Attachments 1. Proposed ordinance with maps 2. Staff report dated March 21, 1989 3. Planning Commission Resolution P.C. 89-31 3. Planning Commission minutes of March 21, 1989 6. Affidavit 7. Public communication Nd 414 evin B. North 'raft City Manager T/ccsr603 a total of .Respectfully submitted, Michael S hu ac Planning Director CITY MANAGER NOTE: As an alternative, I suggest the Council consider rezoning to SPA but limiting density to the level allowed by R -2B. This helps keep the density lower per Council's Goal No'. 3 while maintaining zoning consistency with the General Plan density. By using SPA rather than R -2B zoning, this alternative would still allow for attractive designs that add open space and limit curb cuts that reduce onstreet parking. i(v) z/e - 2 • 1 2 3 4 . 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 89 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FROM M-1, OPEN SPACE AND R-2 TO SPECIFIC PLAN.AREA (SPA) FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAPS AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on April 11, 1989 and made the following Findings: • A. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of January 3, 1989,• approved a Conditional Use Permit and recommended a zone change for a 13 unit condominium; B. The City Council, at their meeting of February 14, 1989, denied the proposed zone change and directed the Planning Commission to study rezoning the subject area to R-1; C. The General Plan designation for the area is Medium Density Residential; D. The adjacent parcels are 2oned R-2 as are most of the properties east of Ardmore Avenue in the immediate area; E. The subject parcel is more in keeping with the size of the adjacent Medium Density Residential properties rather than the nearby Low Density Residential properties; F. The proposed Specific Plan Area will allow for less lot coverage, fewer curb cuts, and more parking; G. State Law requires consistency between the zoning and General Plan; aE . Rezoning the subject parcel to a Specic Plan Area for dwelling units will result in consistency between the zoning and General Plan; // NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby ordain amending the Zoning Map as shown on the attached maps and legally described as Lots 131 and 133 of Walter Ransom -3- 1 2 3 4 . 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Co's Venable Place Tract and a portion of Lots 41, and 42, Block 78, Second Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract (603 First Street) and the following text shall be added to the Zoning Ordinance. 1. Article 9.6, Chapter 3, Specific Plan Area No. 3 Section 9.63-1. Authority. This Specific Plan Area is an instrument for implementing the General Plan pursuant to Article 8, Chapter 3, of the State Planning and Zoning Law (California Goverment Code Sections 65450 et seq.). Section 9.63-2. Location and•Description. The subject property is fronting on First Street and First Place and is. generally known as 603 First Street. The property 'consists of four (4) lots, and has a total area of 26,519 square feet. Refer to attached map. Section 9.63-3. Purpose. The purpose of this Specific Plan Area is to set forth the development requirements, standards and permitted uses for the subject property. Section 9.63-4. Permitted Uses. // The Permitted Use shall consist of a maximum of dwelling units. Section 9.63-5. Development Standards. (a) Parking dimensions shall comply with Article 11.5 of the zoning ordinance, and a minimum of two (2) parking spaces per unit plus one additional guest space shall be provided per dwelling unit. (b) A minimum ten (10) foot building setback shall be provided along all prpoperty lines abutting a public street. d() All other standards including but not limited to open space, lot c-oe-r-a,ge, placement of building, setbacks 'other than noted above, and building height shall be governed by the zoning ordinance, Article 5, R-2 Two -Family Residential Zone, and Article 7.2, Condominiums, Stock Cooperative and Community Apartmenpe (64-VOt 2. Tis ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. 3. 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 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 general circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law. 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of. this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 1989. day of PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: CITY ATTORNEY OVERVIEW 603 FIRST STREET 6 N 603 FIRST STREET DETAILED MAP OF THE REZONING AREA FROM M-1/ OPEN SPACE & R-2 TO RESIDENTIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AREA NO. 3 • • SUBJECT AREA PL:Ac . . ... . ' a0 J9.6/ w . V - 131 130 A 10 ig 129 , .12 8 . 127 126 125 . 124 123 122 ' . 6 is 6 6 6 0 N i s0.3 - • 6© ® ® !i t3 t6 O ® �e . 134 L 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 . . - 4 .. 40 41.70 March 15, 1988 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 21, 1989 SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE ZON 88-6 LOCATION: 603 FIRST STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 131 AND 133, WALTER RANSOM COMPANY'S VENABLE PLACE TRACT AND A PORTION OF LOTS 41 AND 42, BLOCK 78, SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT INITIATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL PURPOSE: TO CONSIDER. LOW DENSITY AND R-1 ZONING FOR THE SUBJECT. PROPERTY Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend rezoning the subject parcel to Specific Plan Area for 13 units rather than an R-1 zone. Said Specific Plan Area shall have the following standards: 1. A maximum of 13 units. 2. Minimum of 3 parking spaces per unit. 3. A minimum 10' setback on all property lines abutting streets. Background The Planning Commission, at thier meeting of January 3, 1989, approved a Conditional Use Permit for 13 condominium units and recommended that the City Council rezone the subject area to R-2 subject to conditions. Said conditions included that the site be limited to 13 dwelling units and that the site would revert back to M-1 and Open Space zones if the permits were not issued for the project before the Conditional Use Permit expired. Staff concurred with the decision of the Planning Commission, except recommended a change in the method of implementation of the zone change. Conditional zone changes are prohibited by State Law, therefore, staff recommended that a Specific Plan Area be adopted with all the standards recommended by the Planning Commission. The condition that the site revert back to it's original zoning, i.e., M-1 and 0.S., was also to be eliminated since the reversion would again make the site nonconforming. The City Council, at their meeting of February 14, 1989, denied the proposed zone change and directed the Planning Commission to study rezoning the subject area to R-1 and amending the General Plan to Low Density Residential. Analysis The property is designated in the General Plan as Medium Density; the corresponding number of dwelling units is 14 - 25 per acre. Currently, the property is zoned M-1, R-2 and Open Space. Surrounding parcels are zoned and designated as follows: East: R-2; Medium Density Residential South: R-2, 0.S., and M-1; Medium Density Residential (O.S. and M-1 zones are inconsistent) West: Planned Development Residential, MD Residential North: R-2, 0.S., and M-1; MD Residential (0.S. and M-1 zones are inconsistent) As an R-1 zone, the site is lare enough to provide six (6) 4000 sq. ft. lots, provided a 40'street frontage is provided. However, R-1 development will have more lot coverage and less on-site parking than the proposed condominium. Also, single family homes would eliminate much of the existing on -street parking spaces because of curb cuts for driveway aprons. The proposed condominium development will have only one curb cut. The proposed curb cut is located on a curb with no parking, therefore, there will be no loss of on -street parking. Staff has reviewed some of the plans for various developments recently approved in the immediate area. Building plans show that most of the recently constructed developments vary in lot coverage from 60% - 65%. There are two small parcels in the area where two single family homes were constructed. All on -street parking from in front of these homes was eliminated and lot coverage was 65%. The proposed condominium has a lot coverage of only 39%. To rezone this parcel to R-1 may also raise some -questions regarding "spot zoning". There are some R-1, LD residential parcels located to the northwest of this site, however, these parcels are smaller, averaging approximately 2500 sq. ft. Therefore, these parcels would only allow for one unit anyway if zoned R-2 because of the lot size. The R-2 parcels located to the east of the site are more in keeping with the size of the subject parcel; these lots are larger, averaging 4600 sq. ft. It should be noted that the City Council has recently rezoned other inconsistent M-1 parcels located on Ardmore Avenue to R-2. If the R-1 zone is recommended, then the entire block, and also the south side of 1st Street, should also logically be rezoned R-1 which would result in many non -conforming uses and structures. To rezone only the subject parcel violates good planning principles. The proposed SPA of the site is in keeping, or less in many cases, with surrounding densities of other R-2 parcels. The City has the legal obligation to rezone the entire parcel or amend the General Plan to bring this site into consis - y. F:'lure to do so in violation of State Law. CONCR; Michael Schufiach Planning Direetor • Attacbments 1. Resolution 89-27 ' 2. CC Staff Report of 2/14/89 3. PC Staff Report of 1/3/89 4. CC Minutes of 2/14/89 5. PC Minutes of 1/3/89 6. Application 7. Public Notice Affidavit 8. Public Correspondence t/pcsr603 An• - Pe ea Associate 1Planner 10 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 RESOLUTION P.C. 89-31 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FROM M-1, OPEN SPACE, AND R-2 TO SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAPS AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on March 21, 1989, and made the following Findings: A. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of January 3, 1989, approved a Conditional Use Permit and recommended a zone • change for a 13 unit condominium; B. The City Council, at their meeting of February 14, 1989, denied the proposed zone change and directed the Planning Commission to study rezoning the subject area to R-1; C. The General Plan designation for the area is Medium Density Residential; D. The adjacent parcels are zoned R-2 as are most of the properties east of Ardmore Avenue in the immediate area; E. The subject parcel is more in keeping with the size of the adjacent Medium Density Residential properties rather than the nearby Low Density Residential properties; F. The proposed Specific Plan Area will allow for less lot coverage, fewer curb cuts, and more parking; G. State Law requires consistency between the zoning and General Plan; H. Rezoning the subject parcel to a Specic Plan Area for 13 dwelling units will result in consistency between the zoning and General Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby recommend 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 that the Zoning Map shall be amended as shown on the attached maps and legally described as Lots 131 and 133 of Walter Ransom Co's Venable Place Tract and a portion of Lots 41, and 42, Block 78, Second Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract (603 First Street) and the following text shall'be added to the Zoning Ordinance. 1. All zoning requirements contained in the R-2 standards'shall be adhered to with the following modifications: a. A maximum of 13 units b. Minimum of 3 parking spaces per unit.. c. A minimum 10' setback on all property lines abutting' streets. VOTE: AYES.: Comms.Ingell,Ketz,Rue,Chmn.Peirce NOES: None ABSTAIN: Comm.Edwards ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 89-31 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, t their meeting of March 21, 1989. 4-----7% Michael Schubach, Secretary Date t/pers6O3 -12 - ZONE CHANGE FROM R-2, M-1 AND OPEN SPACE TO EITHER R-1, R-2, SPECIFIC PLAN AREA OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 603 FIRST STREET . Comm. Edwards stated that he would abstain fromdiscussion on this matter, explaining that he lives within 300 feet of the project site. Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 15, 1989. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of January 3, 1989, approved a conditional use permit for 13 condominium units and recommended that the City Council rezone the subject area to R-2, subject to conditions. Said conditions included that the site be limited to 13 dwelling units and that the site would revert back to M-1 and open space zones if the permits were not issued for the project before the CUP expired. Staff concurred with the decision of the Planning Commission, except recommended a change in the method of implementation of the zone change. Conditional zone changes are prohibited by State law; therefore, staff recommended that a specific plan area be adopted with all the standards recommended by the Planning Commission. The condition that the site revert back to its original zoning, i.e., M-1 and open space, was also to• be eliminated since the reversion would again make the site nonconforming. The City Council, at their meeting of February 14, 1989, denied the proposed zone change and directed the Planning Commission to study rezoning the subject area to R-1 and amending the general plan to low density residential. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend rezoning the subject parcel to Specific Plan Area for 13 units rather than an R-1 zone. Said SPA should have the following standards: (1) a maximum of 13 units; (2) minimum of three parking spaces per unit; and (3) a minimum ten -foot setback on all property lines abutting streets. Mr. Schubach stated that as an R-1 zone, the site is large enough to provide six 4000 square foot lots, provided a 40 -foot street frontage is provided. However, R-1 development will have more lot coverage and less on-site parking than the proposed condominiums. Also, single-family homes would eliminate much of the existing on -street parking spaces because of the curb cuts for driveway aprons. The proposed condominium development will have only one curb cut. The proposed curb cut is located on a curb with no parking; therefore, there will be no loss of on -street parking. Staff has reviewed some of the plans for various developments recently approved in the immediate area. Building plans show that most of the recently constructed developments vary in lot coverage from 60 to 65 percent. There are two small parcels in the area where two single-family homes were constructed. All on -street parking from in front of these homes was eliminated and lot coverage was 65 percent: The proposed condominium has a lot coverage of only 39 percent. To rezone this parcel to R-1 may also raise some questions regarding "spot zoning." There are some R-1, low density residential parcels located to the northwest of this site; -- (3 — P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 however, these parcels are smaller, averaging approximately 2500 square feet. Therefore, these parcels would only allow for one unit anyway if zoned R-2 because of the lot size. The R-2 parcels located .to the east of the site are more in keeping with the size of the subject parcel; these lots are larger, averaging 4600 square feet. It should be noted that the City Council has recently rezoned other inconsistent M-1 parcels located on Ardmore Avenue to R-2. If the R-1 zone is recommended, then the entire block and also the south side of 1st Street should also logically be rezoned R-1, which would result in many non -conforming uses and, structures. To rezone only the subject parcel violates good planning principles. The proposed SPA of the site is in keeping, or less in many cases, with surrounding densities of other R-2 parcels. The City has the legal obligation to rezone the entire parcel or amend the general plan to bring this site into consistency. Failure to do so is in violation of State law. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Peirce, stated that the staff report has not changed, other than to substantially reinforce the opinion that the area should remain as it currently is. Public Hearing opened at 10:55 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Patrick Killin, 312 South Catalina, Redondo Beach, project architect, addressed the Commission. He said that a public meeting was held with the neighbors in order to discuss the possibilities for the area. He personally has walked the area and has discovered a number of R-2 lots with several units and very little parking. He said that the area is in a state of transition. He felt that most of the area there is R-2 and to spot zone this site does not appear to be appropriate. He said that signatures were obtained from neighbors indicating that they support this project, and it should stay R-2. Mr. Killin agreed that there are problems in the area which go beyond what this project will do. He noted the problems of parking, traffic, and density. He stated he did a study, and if the buildings in this area were all developed to the same standards as this project, there would be no parking problem in the area. Public Hearing closed at 10:58 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce felt that the Planning Commission made the right decision the first time this matter was addressed. Comm. Rue stated that this applicant went to extraordinary lengths to design this project. He said it is probably the best -designed project ever seen in the City. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's resolution, P.C. 89-3i. AYES: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce NOES: None ABSTAIN: Comm. Edwards ABSENT: None -"14-- P.C. Minutes 3/21/89 84CHOROUND. MATER/AC I, the undersigned, do declare under penalty of ury that I did on thec7711) day of /3144cy • 19 ___ 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 "F3" 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 liabilitl whatsoever for any defect of said notice or notices. • In the event an action is instituted in a court of corn •• - petent jurisdiction which questions the legality of the public notices, then the City may in its exclusive discretion suspend all hearings or cause the cessation of any construction or of • any use which was permitted as a result of a hearing which was held.in accordance with the public notice. In the event•that the court declares the notice or noticing procedure to be effective, then the City may in its exclusive discretion revoke any permits granted and cause any approvals given pursuant to those public notices to be declared null and void and I agree on behalf of myself and my heirs, assigns or successors-in-intere to hold the City harmless in connection therewith. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. I* have executed this declaration on this the ItiLea day of J . 198? at IIermosa Beach, California. 03 /s Ya- y/AIS (name) • (SigtAtTufe� /�rI%v'Sr %i VE- (Capacity) E(Capacity) State 'of California ) County of Los Angeles ) SS t.. On this the 7 day of 41-44• ,~ • ,( me, /� • 198 9, before o/s�,tt2- � the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared Lot.--fr. ,4107 . proved to me on the ba _ of sati facto y idenc to be the person(s) whoser•subscribed to the within instrument an • acknowledged at 6-4G executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (S . 24 ' OFFICIAL SEAL" j KATHLEEN L. MIDSTOKKE •{�1 NOTARY PUBLIC • CALIFORNIA 3 LOS ANGELES COUNTY. My Commission Expires SEPT. 29, 1992 Notary Public 7 4/////'1/G CD.1/i/lsszo,r p7,07 • 772/5 z ,' Ou ,/%7-"(45e) ac,o , 'T _ 03 /57-57 f C Planning Commission City Council City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center HB, CA 90254 Planning Commissioners and Council Members; This letter is to inform you•that we do support the.General Plan designation of RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY which allows the R-2 ZONING for the property located at 1st. Street and Ardmore (603 1st. Street.) We do.not support the proposal to decrease the zoning to R-1. We are also aware of the residential development proposal for 603 1st. Street, which is for a maximum of 13 units and which includes THREE PARKING SPACES for each unit. We are satisfied that this development would be appropriate for the area. • 675. _ Address *Planning Department has received 39 of these letters signed by residents as located on the attached map. Y4 Planning Commission City Council City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center HB, CA 90254 Planning Commissioners and Council Members; This letter is to inform you that we do support the.General Plan designation of RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY which allows the R-2 ZONING for the property located at' 1st. Street and Ardmore (603 lst. Street.) We do not support the proposal to decrease the zoning to R-1. We are also aware of the residential development proposal for 603 1st. Street, which is fora maximum of 13 units and which includes THREE PARKING SPACES for each unit. We are satisfied that this development would be appropriate for the area. Respectfully, z tedJ. Address 6d2- getiLeiL-Z-- fek-4– %J.01,4A1 41-44- - /8- I April 4, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council April 11, 1989 SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT, AND EXTENSION, INTERIM ORDINANCE TO ELIMINATE VIDEO SALES AND RENTALS IN THE C-1 AND C-2 ZONES INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation Staff recommends that the interim ordinance be extended for 10 months and 15 days to allow for the study and preparation of a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Background The City Council, at the February 28, 1989 meeting, passed a 45 -day emergency ordinance which established a moratorium on the issuance of building permits and conditional use permits for the development of businesses that sell and/or rent video tapes in the C-1 and C-2 zones. Current Status The Staff Environmental Review Committee, at their March 23, 1989 meeting, recommended an Environmental Negative Declaration for the subject text amendment. Planning Commission consideration of the.. text amendment is scheduled for their April 18, 1989 regular meeting. / / n Ro ettson Advanced Planner UR: chubach Planning Director evin ort cr City Manager a/srvideo 1 a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 89- .✓ .l !j AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO EXTEND TEN (10) MONTHS AND FIFTEEN (15) DAYS ORDINANCE NO. 89-976 ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF BUSINESSES THAT SELL AND/OR RENT.VIDEO TAPES IN THE C-1 AND C-2 ZONES. WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that a special study is needed to determine whether video tapes should be sold and/or rented in neighborhood and restricted commercial zones; WHEREAS, the City Council and Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach are currently studying the impacts of locating such uses inneighborhood and restricted commercial zones and their general impact upon the community; WHEREAS, during the period of this study, a proliferation of video tape rental and/or sale uses could occur which would be incompatible with the nature and use of the neighborhood and restricted commercial zones of C-1 and C-2; WHEREAS, the City Council considers the potential prolifera- tion of video tape rental and/or sale uses in the neighborhood and restricted commercial zones as posing a potential, immediate threat to the health, safety and welfare of its citizens, espe- cially adjoining residential uses which may be affected by potential, secondary effects of placement of these uses in neighborhood and restricted commercial zones; WHEREAS, Section 65858 of the Government Code authorizes the adoption of an interim ordinance as an emergency measure which /// 35/ORD29 -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 can act to prevent conflicts with the contemplated proposal that the City Council has directed the Planning Commission to study; WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 89-976 was adopted by the City Council of Hermosa Beach on February 28, 1989, whereupon it prohibited for a period of forty-five (45) days the issuance of Building Permits and Conditional Use Permits -for the development of businesses that sell and/or rent video tapes in C-1 and C-2 zones; WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65858(a) provides for an urgency measure extension of ten (10) months, fifteen (15) days upon adoption by a four-fifths (4/5) vote following notice pursuant to Government Code Section 65090 and a public hearing; WHEREAS, Government Code Section 36937 allows this extending ordinance to take immediate effect for the preservation of pub- lic peace, health and safety, and upon a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Ordinance No, 89-976 be extended an additional ten (10) months, fifteen (15) days pursuant to Government Code Section 65858(a). Section 2. That the Planning Commission continue to study the impacts of locating businesses that sell and/or rent video tapes in neighborhood commercial zones and their general impact upon the community. Section 3. That pursuant to Government Code Section 36937, this ordinance is designed to protect the health and safety of /// 35/ORD29 -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 the citizens of Hermosa Beach and becomes effective immediately upon adoption by a four. -fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council. Section 4. That this ordinance be effective for a period of ten (10) months, fifteen (15) days from today's date unless extended pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code Section 65858. Section 5. That 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. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, shall make 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 ON THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 1989. ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY 35/ORD29 -3- PRESIDENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA r CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Michael Schubach, P1: n •tor SUBJECT: Comparison Chart of Densities Allowed Under Various Zones DATE: April 11, 1989 Attached is a chart outlining the number of units allowed under the zones R-1, R-2, and R -2B zones for both 540 First Street and 603 First Place as well as the number of units originally pro- posed and number of units recommended by the Planning Commission for a Specific Plan Area. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION COMPARISON CHART OF DENSITIES ALLOWED UNDER VARIOUS ZONES R-1 1 PER LOT R-2 14 PER ACRE R-2 1 25 PER ACRE R -2B 1 2 PER LOT NO. OF UNITS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION SPA 540 FIRST STREET ( 4 LOTS ) - .4 7 13 8 13 12 603.FIRST 6 8 15 12 15 13 ( 6 LOTS ) TRAFFIC VOLUME CHANGES DEVELOPMENTS IN THE 1ST AND ARDMORE AREA PER DAY Current VPD Rating* ISCO Other Total New Project Projects Increase Total Rating* % Chg. Ardmore 578 Good (2) 26 69 95 673 Acceptable(3) 16% (N/O 1st St.) 1st Street 677 Acceptable(3) 62 69 131 808 Acceptable(3) 19% (E/O Ardmore) * Based on 4 ratings - Excellent (1) to Poor (4), used in traffic study prepared by Justin Farmer, 11-88. SUPPLEMENTAL �+ INFORMATION v 67," CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of he City Council FROM: Michael Schubach, P1tor SUBJECT: Comparison Chart of Densities Allowed Under Various Zones DATE: April 11, 1989 Attached is a chart outlining the number of units allowed under the zones R-1, R-2, and R -2B zones for both 540 First Street and 603 First Place as well as the number of units originally pro- posed and number of units recommended by the Planning Commission for a Specific Plan Area. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION COMPARISON CHART OF DENSITIES ALLOWED UNDER VARIOUS ZONES R-1 1 PER LOT R-2 14 PER ACRE R-2 25 PER ACRE R -2B i 2 PER LOT NO. OF UNITS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION SPA 540 FIRST STREET. ( 4 LOTS ) - .4 7 13 8 13 12 603.FIRS.T PLACE ( 6 LOTS ) 6 • 8 15 12 15 13 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Michael Schubach, P1 n .I PP. tor SUBJECT: Comparison Chart of Densities Allowed Under Various Zones DATE: April 11, 1989 Attached is a chart outlining the number of units allowed under the zones R-1, R-2, and R -2B zones for both 540 First Street and 603 First Place as well as the number of units originally pro- posed and number of units recommended by the Planning Commission for a Specific Plan Area. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION COMPARISON CHART OF DENSITIES ALLOWED UNDER VARIOUS ZONES R-1 1 PER LOT R-2 14 PER ACRE R-2 I 25 PERI ACRE R -2B 2 PER LOT NO. OF UNITS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION SPA 540 FIRST STREET ( 4 LOTS ) - .4 7 13 8 13 12 603 _FIRST PLACE ( 6 LOTS ) 6 8 15 12 15 13 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of he City Council FROM: Michael Schubach, P1= n .tor SUBJECT: Comparison Chart of Densities Allowed Under Various Zones DATE: April 11, 1989 Attached is a chart outlining the number of units allowed under the zones R-1, R-2, and R -2B zones for both 540 First Street and 603 First Place as well as the number of units originally pro- posed and number of units recommended by the Planning Commission for a Specific Plan Area. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION COMPARISON CHART OF DENSITIES ALLOWED UNDER VARIOUS ZONES R-1 1 PER LOT R-2 14 PER ACRE R-2 1 25 PER ACRE R -2B 1 2 PER LOT NO. OF UNITS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION SPA 540 FIRST STREET (4 LOTS) - .4 7 13 8 13 12 603 _FIRST PLACE ( 6 LOTS ) 6 8 15 12 ' 15 13 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of he City Council FROM: Michael Schubach, P1: n .tor SUBJECT: Comparison Chart of Densities Allowed Under Various Zones DATE: April 11, 1989 Attached is a chart outlining the number of units allowed under the zones R-1, R-2, and R -2B zones for both 540 First Street and 603 First Place as well as the number of units originally pro- posed and number of units recommended by the Planning Commission for a Specific Plan Area. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION COMPARISON CHART OF DENSITIES ALLOWED UNDER VARIOUS ZONES R-1 1 PER LOT R-2 14 PER ACRE R-2 i 25 PER ACRE R -2B . 1 2 PER LOT NO. OF UNITS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION SPA 540 FIRST STREET. - .4 7 13 8 13 12 ( 4 LOTS ) 603 .FIRST 6 8 15 12 - 15 13- 3- . PLACE PLACE ( 6 LOTS ) CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Michael Schubach, P1- n • pp. tor SUBJECT: Comparison Chart of Densities Allowed Under Various Zones DATE: April 11, 1989 Attached is a chart outlining the number of units allowed under the zones R-1, R-2, and R -2B zones for both 540 First Street and 603 First Place as well as the number of units originally pro- posed and number of units recommended by the Planning Commission for a Specific Plan Area. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION! s�� COMPARISON CHART OF DENSITIES ALLOWED UNDER VARIOUS ZONES R-1 1 PER LOT R-2 14 PER ACRE R-2 , 25 PER ACRE R -2B 1 2 PER LOT NO. OF UNITS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION SPA 540 FIRST STREET ( 4 LOTS ) - .4 7 13 8 13 12 603 FIRST PLACE ( 6 LOTS ) 6 8 15 12 15 13 3 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of he City Council FROM: Michael Schubach, P1 n .,4 10P. tor SUBJECT: Comparison Chart of Densities Allowed Under Various Zones DATE: April 11, 1989 Attached is a chart outlining the number of units allowed under the zones R-1, R-2, and R -2B zones for both 540 First Street and 603 First Place as well as the number of units originally pro- posed and number of units recommended by the Planning Commission for a Specific Plan Area. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION COMPARISON CHART OF DENSITIES ALLOWED UNDER VARIOUS ZONES R-1 1 PER LOT R-2 14 PER ACRE R-2 25 PER ACRE R -2B i 2 PER LOT NO. OF UNITS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION SPA 540 FIRST STREET ( 4 LOTS ) - .4 7 13 8 13 12 603 FIRST PLACE ( 6 LOTS ) 6 8 15 12 15 13 - April 4, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council .' April 11, 1989 (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 14, 1989) SUBJECT: POLICY STATEMENT PS 88-3 -- PLANNING COMMISSION INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 1302 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES, LOCATION: 45 14TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 21, BLOCK 15, HERMOSA BEACH•TRACT APPLICANT: DAVID SCHUMACHER 1612 STRAND HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 REQUEST: TO ALLOW EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO BE RAISED TO LOCATE PARKING BELOW Planning Commission Recommendation To approve the proposed project and direct staff to study developing a policy statement. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Policy Statement and, thereby, deny the proposed development. Abstract Adoption of the proposed Policy Statement will clarify Section 1302 of the Zoning Ordinance for this project. The project was applied for before the moratorium was placed on nondonforming structures and uses. Background The City Council, at their meeting of March 14, 1989, continued the Public Hearing to notify the applicant to be present at the Council meeting when this matter is to be discussed. The applicant has been so notified. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of February 21, 1989, recommended that the proposed Policy Statement P.S. 88-3 not be adopted and recommended approval of the proposed alteration to the dwelling at 45 14th Street and to direct staff to develop a policy statement. 10 Analysis The Planning Commission did not recommend adoption of the proposed Policy Statement stating that the proposed development is in compliance with the current Section 1302 of the Zoning Ordinance. However, it is staff's opinion that Section 1302 does not apply where the result will be substantial demolition of the existing building. The Zoning Ordinance is a permissive code, and Section 1302 does not note permission of any type of demolition to the existing structure; it only allows for expansion or structural alteration. However, staff recognizes some demolition is necessary when expanding structures, and therefore, policy direction is needed. Staff's recommendation for denial of this project is consistent with the provisions of the proposed ordinance for nonconforming structures and uses. The new ordinance would eliminate "Exception 1" of Section 1302 which allows nonconforming residential uses to be expanded or altered. Additional background and analysis is provided in the attached City Council staff report dated 3/6/89. Attachments 1. Proposed Policy Statement 2. Letter to Mr. David Schumacher 3. City Council staff report dated 3/6/89 7' Mi ael Schubach Planning Director evin B. Northc aft City Manager a/pcsr45 2 Advanced Planner 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,. CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A POLICY STATEMENT INTERPRETING SECTION 1302 REGARDING DEMOLITION OF NONCONFORMING USES AND NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES. WHEREAS, the City Council, at their meeting of April 11, 1989, considered this matter and made the following Findings: A. Section 1302 regarding nonconforming uses and buildings, currently does allow for nonconforming residential uses to be expanded provided the alteration complies with the regulations of the zone in which the use is located. B. Section 1302 currently permits residential expansions but makes no statement regarding demolition or reconstruction of the existing structure. C. Section 1302 does not address relocations, including the raising of nonconforming structures and/or uses. D. Extensive demolition, relocation, and reconstruction of nonconforming uses and structures can be a detriment to the quality of life by extending the life of said structures for many generations to come. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby adopt the following policy interpretation regarding Section 1302 of the zoning ordinance: 1. Section 1302 shall allow for residential expansions and/or relocations, including raising the structure, only when such change does not result in major demolition or reconstruction 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of over 20% of either the existing floor area, or exterior walls, or a combination thereof. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of April, 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: PPROVED AS F•RM 4- March 23, 1989 City oPermosaTeacly Mr. David Schumacher 1612 The Strand Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mr. Schumacher: Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254.3885 The City Council, at their meeting of March 14, 1989, continued a hearing for consideration of a policy statement of Section 1302 of the Zoning Ordinance• regarding nonconforming uses and structures. Specifically, this interpretation was to determine if Section 1302 was applicable to your proposed construction at 45 14th Street. The City Council would like your attendance at their meeting of April 11, 1989 at 8:00 p.m. where this matter will be discussed. A copy of the staff report regarding this matter will be available of April 6, 1989 in the afternoon. If you have questions regarding this matter, please call 318-0242. Sincerely, 44,76_ Andrew Perea Associate Planner BacKCRavNn 4i4 TERI4L PUBLIC HEARINGS - None HEARINGS 6. PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY STATEMENT CONFIRMATION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR MORATORIUM REGARDING REMODELL- ING AND EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AND/OR USES. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael.Schubach dated March 6, 1989. Supplemental letter form Lorraine Roberts, 1656 Bayview Dr., H.B.; dated March 13, 1989. Action: To continue Policy Statement and re -notify applicant; to look at moratorium tonight. Motion Sheldon, second Rosenberger. AYES - Creighton, Sheldon, Simpson, Rosenberger. NOES - Mayor Williams Further Action: To waive full reading of Ordinance No. 89-977 entitled "AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR NONCONFORMING STRUCTRURES AND/OR USES." Motion Sheldon, second Simpson. AYES - Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson, Mayor Williams NOES - None Final Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 89-977. Motion Creighton, second Sheldon. AYES - Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson, Mayor Williams NOES - None 6_ Minutes 1 -14 -no C March 6, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council March 14, 1989 SUBJECT: POLICY STATEMENT PS 88-3 -- PLANNING COMMISSION INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 1302 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES, AND MORATORIUM REGARDING ADDITIONS AND EXPANSIONS OF EXISTING NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES LOCATION: 45 14TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 21, BLOCK 15, HERMOSA BEACH TRACT APPLICANT: DAVID SCHUMACHER 1612 STRAND HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 REQUEST: TO ALLOW EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO BE RAISED TO LOCATE PARKING BELOW MORATORIUM REQUESTED BY STAFF Planning Commission Recommendation To approve the proposed project" and direct staff to study developing a policy statement. Staff Recommendation 1. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Policy Statement and, thereby, deny the proposed development. 2. Adopt the attached Emergency Moratorium regarding the expansion of non -conforming uses and structures. Abstract Adoption of the proposed Policy Statement will clarify Section 1302 of the Zoning Ordinance for this project. Adoption of the proposed moratorium will prohibit the issuance of any building permits for a nonconforming dwelling or use until the nonconforming section of the Zoning Ordinance can be studied. Background The Planning Commission, at their meeting of February 21, 1989, recommended that the proposed Policy Statement P.S. 88-3 not be adopted and recommended approval of the proposed alteration to the dwelling at 45 14th Street. 7 Analysis POLICY STATMENT: The Planning Commission did not recommend adoption of the proposed Policy Statement stating that the proposed development is in compliance with Section 1302 of the Zoning Ordinance. However, it is staff's opinion that Section 1302 does not apply where the result will be substantial demolition of the existing building. The Zoning Ordinance is a permissive code, and Section 1302 does not note permission of any type of demolition to the existing structure; it only allows for,expansion.. However, staff reconizes some demolition is necessary when expanding structures, and therefore, policy direction is needed. The subject parcel is• an existing nonconforming two unit residential use in a C-2 zone. The proposed development will require approximately 40% of the floor area and exterior walls of the existing structure to be demolished. Also, the proposed development will require the existing structure to be raised from it's foundation to allow for a car port below. Due to the extent of demolition and relocation via air space of the existing structure, staff has determined that the development will result in the creation of a new dwelling. Therefore, Section 1302 should not be applicable to this development. MORATORIUM: Staff is also recommending the adoption of a moratorium to prohibit the issuance of any building permit for a nonconforming structure or use. Staff is presently working on a revision to the City's Nonconforming section of the Zoning Ordinance. A study and recommended resolution will be heard before the Planning Commission at their meeting of March 7, 1989. The adoption of the moratorium will prevent an influx of new permit application for nonconforming developments in an attempt to submit applications before the new ordinance is adopted Additional background and analysis is provided in the attached Planning Commission staff report of 2/21/89. Alternatives 1. Adopt the attached Policy Statement and deny the adoption of the nonconforming moratorium. This alternative will encourage many new applications for the expansion of nonconforming structures and uses which will attempt to beat the proposed revisions to the nonconforming section of the H.B.M.C. 2. Deny the adoption of the attached Policy Statement and adopt the attached nonconforming moratorium. This alternative will allow for the proposed development at 45 14th Street since the proposed moratorium provides a grandfather clause for project submitted prior to March 14, 1989, and because there will be no clarification of Section 1302. 3. Deny the proposed moritorium and Policy Statement. Attachments 1. Policy Statement 89-1 2. Moratorium Ordinance 89- 3. Section 1302 of the zoning ordinance 4. Staff report dated 2-21-89 5. Building Department memo 6. P.C. minutes of 2-21-89 & 1-17-89. CONCUR+• icHael Schubach Planning Director Kevin gortft City Manager a/pcsr45 OP An ere Associate P1=nner Sec. 1302. Nonconforming use of a nonconforming building. The nonconforming use of a -nonconformingbuilding may .be continued, provided such nonconforming use shall not be expanded or extended nor shall any structural alterations bemade-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: - • "' "" 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. 84-77.6, § 2, 9-11-84) c < February 14, 1989 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission February 21, 1989 (CONTINUED FROM 1/17/89 and 2/7/89) SUBJECT: POLICY STATEMENT PS 88-3 -- PLANNING COMMISSION INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 1302 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES LOCATION: 45 14TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 21, BLOCK 15, HERMOSA BEACH TRACT APPLICANT: DAVID SCHUMACHER 1612 STRAND HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 REQUEST: TO ALLOW EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO BE RAISED TO LOCATE PARKING BELOW Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the proposed development and adopt the attached Policy Statement. Background Project Details -- Zoning: C-2 General Plan Designation: Commercial Recreation Present Use: Residential; plans indicate 2 units (unable to verify by building permits since construction predates building records) Analysis The applicant is proposing to raise a portion of the existing structure and provide 6 parking spaces below. The structure is a nonconforming residential duplex in a C-2 zone. The existing structure has one parking space. Section 1302 of the Zoning Ordinance states "The nonconforming use of a structure 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..." This section also provides an exception which states "Residential uses may be expanded or structurally altered provided the expansion or alteration complies with the regulation of the zone in which the use is located." It is the opinion of the Planning Department that this provision does not allow for this type of proposed development where the structure is physically removed and relocated, including relocations via air space, especially where extensive demolition of walls occurs. Staff has reviewed the plans and has determined that approximately 4070 of the existing floor area will be demolished. The Building Department has also reviewed the plans and in their opinion, the proposed raised structure would require "major reconstruction," including foundation work and complete reconstruction of one wall which presently attaches the two units. Also, approximately 4070 of the exterior walls of the remaining lower level unit will also be demolished. Essentially, the proposed development will be the demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of new residential units within a Commercial zone. Approval of thi& request would maintain the nonconformity for many years to come. The attached Policy Statement will clarify Section 1302 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding structural alteration. The Policy Statement will prohibit the relocation of any nonconforming use or structure, air space relocation included, if the Planning Commission determines that extensive demolition of floor area and exterior walls will occur. CONCUR- / /' f/ / Aj11:1L ndrew Pe a -� Associate ` Manner Mic all SchuDach Planning Director a/pcsr45 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Micheal Schubach, Director, Planning Dept. FROM: Norbert Kowatschitsch, Building Inspector RE: 45 14th Street DATE: November 22, 1988 After field inspection of the site located at 4.5 14th Street, it is my opinion that the .existing rear unit which they propose to elevate and move forward will not sustain such a move without major reconstruction. It is our concern that the project will essentially be the demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of a new dwelling in a commercial zone. It is our suggestion that the Planning Commission determine if this type of project is permissable pursuant to the zoning regulations. INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 1302 REGARDING A NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL USE IN THE C-2 ZONE AT 45 14TH STREET (CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS OF 1/17/89 AND 2/7/89) Mr. Schubach. gave staff report dated February 14, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the proposed development and adopt the proposed policy statement. 4 - P.C. Minutes 2/21/89 c The project is located in the C-2 zone, with a general plan designation of commercial recreation. The present use is that of residential. The plans indicate two units; however, staff was unable to verify by building permits, since construction predates the building records. The applicant is proposing to raise a portion of the existing structure and provide six parking spaces below. The structure is a nonconforming residential duplex in a C-2 zone. The existing structure has one parking space. Section 1302 of the zoning ordinance states: "The nonconforming use of a structure 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...." This section also provides an exception which states: "Residential uses •may be expanded or structurally altered provided the expansion or alteration complies with the regulation of the zone in which the use is located." It is the opinion of the Planning Department that this provision does not allow for this type of proposed development where the structure is physically removed and relocated, including relocations via air space, especially where extensive demolition of walls occurs. Staff has reviewed the plans and has determined that approximately 40 percent of the the existing floor area will be demolished. The Building Department has also reviewed the plans and in their opinion, the proposed raised structure would require "major reconstruction," including foundation work and complete reconstruction of one wall which presently attaches the two units. Also, approximately 40 percent of the exterior walls of the remaining lower level unit will be demolished. Essentially, the proposed development will be the demolition of an. existing dwelling and construction of new residential units within a commercial zone. Approval of this request would maintain the nonconformity for many years to come. The proposed policy statement will clarify Section 1302 of the zoning ordinance regarding structural alteration. The policy statement will prohibit the relocation of any nonconforming use or structure, air space relocation included, if the Planning Commission determines that extensive demolition of floor area and exterior walls will occur. The policy statement states that no more than 20 percent of existing exterior walls or existing floor area may be demolished or reconstructed. Hearing opened at 12:00 A.M. by Chmn. Peirce. David Schumacher, 1612 The Strand, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission and introduced his architect Rick Coleman. Rick Coleman, 39 14th Street, Hermosa Beach, architect, addressed the Commission and stated that he was first approached by Mr. Schumacher approximately two years ago on this project. At that time, the applicant desired to develop this property commercially and plans were drawn for a six -unit motel. The applicant paid fees to structural and mechanical engineers as well as to the architect and others. The applicant even began the bidding process before coming to the realization that it was not economically feasible to develop this property commercially. Mr. Coleman stated that an informal survey of other 30- by 90 -foot C-2 lots in the City showed that there are no similar lots which can be developed commercially because of the City requirements. Therefore, he felt that this proposal is a sensible use of the property. P.C. Minutes 2/21/89 Mr. Coleman stated that the proposal is to reduce 700 square feet of a nonconforming residential use and to create five additional parking spaces. He displayed a color rendering of the proposal. He also showed a photograph of the existing structure. He stated that there is no incentive for Mr. Schumacher to develop this property, if the request is denied, other than to maintain the structure exactly as it is with a minimum of maintenance. Mr. Coleman added that, as an architect, he was not as enthusiastic about this project as he was about the commercial development. He stressed, however, that he feels this project would be an improvement over what is currently there. He said he would not be willing to risk his reputation if he did not feel this was a good project. Mr. Coleman passed out photographs of a similar residential project on 9th Court. Mr. Schumacher stated that •the project on 9th Court was in process during an earthquake, and the building withstood the movement. • Hearing closed at 12:06 A.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Comm. Rue asked whether this project complies with R-3 standards. He read from Section 1302, which states that any expansion of a residential use located in the C or M zone must comply with the R-3 regulations. Mr. Schubach stated that the project complies as best as possible. Comm. Rue noted concern over the way in which the code is written in regard to nonconforming use of a nonconforming building, stating that the code mentions no specific percentages. He said that the code requirements should befollowed; and that if the Commission feels the code is in error, then the code should be amended. Comm. Rue felt that the applicant has done quite a job on this project, and the applicant must do as best as possible with the guidelines available. He noted, however, that he feels the code is inadequate in this regard. He felt that to subject someone to unwritten conditions is ludicrous. Chmn. Peirce disagreed, stating that he felt the opposite way. He said that this project would involve extensive structural alterations; therefore, it falls directly under Section 1302. Comm. Edwards stated that this project would increase the parking in the area and would probably improve the appearance of the structure. He noted that the applicant said at the last meeting, if the building did not survive the move, he would remove the fallen structure. Based on these facts, and on the fact that the code mentions no specific percentages, he would support the project. Comm. Rue noted that this proposal is unusual; however, he noted that the code mentions no specific numbers in regard to the percentage of what can be structurally altered. Comm. Ketz felt that by elevating this structure and putting parking under it, the structure will be rehabilitated and it would extend the life of a nonconforming use, which is something she did not favor encouraging. Comm. Rue stated that the code mentions only "major structural changes," but it does not specify what those changes can be. He did not feel this project involves major structural changes. P.C. Minutes 2/21/89 Comm. Edwards felt that the zoning in this particular area has not been firmly settled at this time, due to its proximity to the Biltmore site. Chmn. Peirce noted, however, that this project is not within the Biltmore site zoning area. Comm. Edwards stated that the project would provide additional parking and improve the appearance of the building. Comm. Rue noted that Exception No. 1 to Section 1302 states that residential uses may be expanded or structurally altered provided the expansion'or alteration complies with the regulations of the zone in which it is located. It says nothing about the percentage of the alteration. ' Mr. Schumacher stated that nothing is being built, there will be only demolition. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation, Policy Statement 89-1 (which would therefore deny this project). AYES: Comm. Ketz, Chmn. Peirce NOES: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Rue ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None (MOTION FAILS.) MOTION by Comm. Edwards, seconded by Comm. Rue, to find that this project is in conformance with Section 1302 of the zoning code as it is written. Mr. Lough, in response to a question from Comm.' Edwards,. explained that conditions cannot be imposed on the motion. Comm. IngelI felt that this project is in conformance with the R-3 standards; therefore, he would vote for the motion. In regard to the Policy Statement 89-1, however, he did not feel 20 percent demolition or reconstruction is a realistic figure in order to do any type of remodel. AYES: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Rue NOES: Comm. Ketz, Chmn. Peirce ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Chmn. Peirce directed staff to return at a future date with additional information regarding a policy statement for Section 1302 of the zoning code. P.C. Minutes 2/21/89 t INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 1302 REGARDING A NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL USE IN THE C-2 ZONE AT 45 14TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 10, 1989. The project is located in the C-2 zone, with a general plan designation of commercial recreation. The present use is as residential; plans indicate two units, but staff is unable to verify by building permits since construction predates building records. The applicant is proposing to raise a portion of the existing structure and provide six parking spaces below. The structure is a nonconforming residential duplex in the C-2 zone. The existing structure haa one parking space. Section 1302 of the zoning ordinance states: "The nonconforming use of a structure may be continued, .provided such nonconforming use shall not be expanded or extended nor any structural alternations be made except those required by law...." This section also provides an exception which states: "Residential uses may be expanded or structurally P.C. Minutes 1/17/89 • • altered provided the expansion or alteration complies with the regulations in which the use is located." It is the opinion of the Planning Department that this provision does not allow for this type of proposed development where the structure is physically removed and relocated, including relocations via air space. The Building Department has also reviewed the plans and in their opinion, the proposed raised structure would require "major reconstruction," including foundation .work and complete reconstruction of one wall which presently attaches the. two units. Also, approximately 40 percent of the exterior walls of the remaining lower level unit will also be demolished. Essentially, the proposed development will be the demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of new residential units within a commercial zone. The policy statement proposed by staff will clarify Section 1302 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding structural alteration. The Policy Statement will prohibit the relocation of any nonconforming use, air space relocation included. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the proposed development and approve the proposed policy statement. Chinn. Peirce asked how much of the original building will remain.. • Mr. Schubach noted that that is the issue which needs to be determined. Hearing opened at 12:13 A.M. by Chin. Peirce.' David Schumacher, 1612 The Strand, applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that he acquired this building in 1962. He stated that the property is at 45 14th Street, which is one lot east of the Biltmore Site, and is a single-family residence of approximately 850 square feet. He stated that it is a shed -type structure on the back. The shed is between the building and the small apartment in the rear, which is approximately 500 square feet and has a garage. Mr. Schumacher plans to demolish the shed -type portion of the building and move the existing apartment building forward, lift it up, and build a platform for six automobile parking spaces. Mr. Schumacher stated that he would like to have the parking spaces since he owns ten units on The Strand, and he now has only one parking space. He felt this proposal would ease the parking problem in the area. He also owns other units on The Strand which do not have enough parking. He currently rents garages for his tenants to use. Mr. Schumacher stated that the parking problem will only become worse when something is built at the Biltmore site. He felt that his proposal would be of benefit to the area. Rick Coleman, 39 14th Street, project architect, addressed the Commission and stated that this proposal would be very favorable to the City. They are proposing to demolish 700 square feet of a nonconforming residential use in order to provide five additional parking spaces. The existing structure will be refurbished and upgraded. He disagreed with the staff report, stating that the building will be able to withstand the move. He stated that Bell House Movers is also confident that it will withstand the move, and they - /9_ P.C. Minutes 1/17/89 • • have examined the building and find no problem with elevating this building. Mr. Coleman said that Bell has even put forth a contract, attesting to their confidence that this project can be done. He stated that new foundation work will be necessary; however, the structure will definitely survive the move. He stated that there is a conventional foundation currently underneath the building. He stated that the proposal will greatly enhance the appearance of the site. Chmn. Peirce asked what would happen if the house cannot stand the move and it cracks in half. • Mr. Schumacher stated he is so certain that will not happen that he is willing to pay to have the. work performed. • He continued by stating that he works as a real estate appraiser and is well versed in this type of work, since he wdrked on the project of relocating houses which ,were near the airport. He noted that that work was also done by Bell House Movers, who have been in business almost one hundred years. He stated that with his experience, he believes the building will not fall apart. Comm. Rue noted that the Commission must follow the guidelines set forth in the ordinance. He asked how the applicant felt this ordinance is not applicable in this instance. He read aloud Section 1302 of the ordinance. • Mr. Coleman stated that structurally, the structure stays exactly as •it is. Also, the intent of the code section is sufficiently vague in this case to ask staff to recommend• that the Commission deny the request. He felt that the ordinance is not clear in this instance. He also stated that when this process was started several months ago, •the Planning Director agreed that this was an unusual case, and. it took several days before he informed the applicant that he could find nothing in the code which prohibited this type of project; therefore, the applicant proceeded in good faith with the plans. But when the plans were submitted to the Building Department, the issue of the building not being able to withstand the move arose. Therefore, the applicant is now appearing before the Commission. Mr. Schtibach stated that after the building was examined, the Building Department determined that extensive work would be necessary, contrary to the intent of the ordinance. Therefore, the issue is before the Commission at this time for interpretation. Chmn. Peirce noted that the real issue here is whether a person can raise a house and provide parking underneath it. Comm. Ingell felt that anything which increases parking in the City is something which should be studied. Chmn. Peirce stated that this property is in the C-2 zone and could be turned into a parking lot. He questioned whether the Commission really wants to encourage the type of project being proposed Hearing closed at 12:24 A.M. Comm. Ingell stated that many years ago his parents had their house moved by Bell Movers, and the home is still lived in today. He noted that Bell's reputation is very fine, and if they felt it can be moved safely, he tended to agree. . -20 P.C. Minutes 1/17/89 • • ( C Chmn. Peirce stated that this proposal involves a substantial modification being made to a structure, which is in violation of Section 1302. Therefore, he could not support this type of project. Comm. Rue questioned whether structural alterations include demolition. Mr. Schubach stated that the policy statement does not currently address the specific point of demolition. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question 'by Chmn. Peirce, stated that once parking is added to the lot, it is required to be maintained there for use by•the residents on that lot according to the parking ordinance; also, once the parking is added, it cannot be removed. Comm. Edwards noted that •the code does not actually specify the meaning of "alteration." He stated that this project does not appear to be substantial. Chmn. Peirce asked, however, whether this is the type of project the City wants to • encourage. Comm. Rue•agreed that there are other alternatives which would be more conducive to the area. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce to approve staff's recommendation to deny the•'proposed • development and to adopt the proposed policy statement, P.C. 89-I. Comm. Rue stated that it could be added that substantial structural changes are being made. Comm. Ingell stated that he did not want to make a decision on the policy statement at this time, noting the lateness of the hour. He felt the issue should be studied further. MOTION WITHDRAWN BY CHMN. PEIRCE. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce to deny the proposed development, based on the fact that Section 1302 prohibits a development such as this where a building is lifted, torn down 40 percent, and then reconstructed. Comm. Ingell did not feel that is the intent of Section 1302. He again noted the lateness of the hour for making such a decision. He continued by reading aloud from the code. He felt that the item should be continued so that the Commission can further study this issue. MOTION WITHDRAWN BY CHMN. PEIRCE MOTION by Chmn. Peirce to deny the project at 45 14th Street based on the fact that it violates the structural alteration portion of Section 1302. MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to continue this item to the next meeting of the Planning Commission. — 21 -- P.C. Minutes 1/17/89 AYES: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue NOES: Chmn. Peirce ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Comm. Ingell suggested that this item be placed at the beginning of the agenda at the next meeting. Comm. Edwards stated that he would be absent from the next meeting. • 22- P.C. Minutes 1/17/89 April 3, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council of April 11, 1989 City Council meeting SELECTION OF A REAL ESTATE BROKER FOR THE SALE OF SURPLUS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council: 1) Select the firm of Anderson -Ryan Realty Co. to act as broker in the marketing and sale of three surplus residential proper ties located at 705 1st Street, 704 1st Place and 634 1st Street via a public auction. 2) Determine whether the auction should be limited to principals only with a 2% commission to the broker or listed on the Multiple Listing Service allowing for an additional 270 commission to an outside selling broker (total of 470 commission). BACKGROUND The City Council authorized the solicitation of real estate broker proposals at the regularly scheduled meeting of December 13, 1988. On January 23, 1989, a request for proposals was sent to sixty- five (65) firms or individuals. The RFP was sent to firms or in- dividuals which have a current Hermosa Beach business license in the real estate category or who had specifically requested the information. Seven (7) firms responded to the RFP. ANALYSIS The proposals were reviewed and evaluated by Robert Blackwood, Personnel and Risk Management Director and William Grove, Direc- tor of Building and Safety. The proposals, as indicated in the RFP, were evaluated on the following criteria: 1) Quality and quantity of services offered. 1 1 1 2) Likely effectiveness of obtaining maximum value for the city by virtue of the methodology of (a) marketing, (b) setting of the minimum price and (c) auctioning. 3) Cost to the City for the services. 4) Experience of both the company and personnel that would be directly involved in providing services to the City. The proposal of Marie Horowitz Realty was disqualified for failure to indicate the cost to the City for services in their proposal. The remaining six (6) proposals were all judged to be adequate in terms of quality/quantity of services and experience of both the firm and personnel in providing the required services. The pro- posals were disparate mainly in terms of cost to the City for the services requested. The proposal with the lowest potential cost to the city was an option submitted by Century 21 Coast Properties called "Builder Re -list". This option would have the broker solicit bids from reputable local builders and contract with them to re -list their completed projects with the broker at 67 of the sales price. The cost to the city for the services would be zero (0). Staff did not feel that this approach would be appropriate for the sale of public property due to the limited exposure to potential buyers and the potential appearance that the best interests of the City were not being served. The same broker proposed a 5% commission if the sale were conducted by auction or multiple listing service. The lowest cost proposal other than the above described option was submitted by Anderson -Ryan Realty Company. Their proposal indicated a 2% commission to handle dual agency by offering the land to principals only via a public auction. If the City Council wishes to have the property listed on the Multiple Listing Ser- vice and invite all members to act as selling agents, the broker fee would be increased to accomodate a 2% outside selling broker fee (4% total commission). Staff feels that sale to principals only with a 2% total commis- sion will net the City the highest return due to the liklihood that the property will be purchased by a local builder. This is the same method utilized for the sale of the Seaview property. If the City Council feels that the wider exposure of the Multiple Listing Service warrants the increased commission, an additional 2% commission to accomodate an outside broker fee should be authorized. All of the proposals are available in the City Clerk's office for review. Respectfully submitted, William Grove Director, Bldg. & Safety Concur: evin B. Nortkraft, Robert Blackwood, City Manager Director, Personnel & Risk Mgmt. rt 3 April 4, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council April 11, 1989 • RESOLUTION AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND ORDERING VACATION OF TWENTY-FIRST STREET AT LOMA DRIVE • RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Approve the Development Restriction Agreement between Applicant and the City of Hermosa Beach reflecting development conditions to be placed on Lots 6, 7, and 8 of Tract 1868. The agreement is attached, marked "Exhibit A", and contains . the conditions as recommended by staff. 2. Require that the Development Restriction Agreement be recorded as a deed restriction against the affected properties prior t recording the Resolution Ordering Vacation. 3. Adopt Resolution No. 89. , a resolution amending the General Plan and ordering the vacation of a portion of Twenty -First Street. BACKGROUND: On November 22, 1989 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 88-5199, a Resolution of Intention to vacate a portion of Twenty -First Street, and setting a Public Hearing on the matter for the January 10, 1989 Council Meeting. On December 6, 1988 the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing receiving testimony that there was a potential public use for an improved walkway within the right-of-way. The Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the General Plan Amendment and the vacation be denied. Notice of the City Council's Public Hearing was given by publication in the Easy Reader, by posting at the subject location, and by mailing to all residents and property owners within a 300 foot radius of the location. A Public Hearing was held January 10, 1989, by City Council on the following two issues: 12 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council April 11, 1989 Page 2 1. A General Plan Amendment removing the subject right-of-way from the circulation element of the General Plan and designating the land use as low density 'residential. 2. Vacation of the right-of-way. • Upon conclusion of. the Public Hearing, the City Council postponed the matter to the February 14, 1989 Council Meeting, established conditions of approval for said vacation, and directed that the appropriate resolution be prepared for the General Plan Amendment and for ordering the vacation of the described portion of Twenty -First Street. On February 14, 1989 Council considered adoption of a resolution ordering the vacation and containing certain conditions, as reflected in the January 10 minutes. The Applicant requested that the conditions as stated be modified. Council then directed staff to research the matter and to advise on the appropriate action. ANALYSIS: The Analysis is divided into three parts as follows: 1. The January 10, 1989 Minutes 2. Applicant's Position 3. Recommendation 1. The January 10. 1989 Minutes The City Clerk has reviewed the record and has determined that the minutes, as previously approved would reflect the following conditions: (a) That no more than three houses, in total, be placed by the Applicant upon the three southerly adjacent lots (Lots 6, 7, and 8 of Tract No. 1868). (b) That the maximum square footage of any house constructed upon said southerly adjacent lots does not exceed. 3 9A -square efy7 ycr---0 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council April 11, 1989 Page 3 2. Applicant's Position The Applicant has stated that the condition as specifically •stated in item (b) above imposes unnecessarily stringent design restrictions. The Applicant requests that Council take a broader stance on the specific wording of that condition to allow at least the size of structures that he cduld build on the existing lots. Staff has also confirmed with the Building Department that the maximum size of footprint that would be permitted on the existing 102 x 33 foot lots is 2,039 square feet. 3. Recommendation It is recommended that the conditions restricting development size. be specifically addressed in a Development Restriction Agreement, separate from the resolution itself; that the resolution be conditioned on the Applicant signing the agreement. This approach would assure compliance in advance of recordation of the Resolution Ordering Vacation, which is consistent with provisions of the Streets and Highways code. The recommended agreement is attached and provides for the recommended building limitations. It is anticipated that the enforcement of the agreed limitations would be assured by the building official during permit review. The agreement, as written, would be binding on future home owners. Staff recommends that the condition be stated so as to limit the building footprints to the maximum square footage which would be permitted on the existing 102 x 33 foot lots; with the added condition that the total side yard setbacks on the three lots is at least that which was shown on the Exhibit presented to Council on January 10, 1989. Staff examined the Exhibit in a meeting with the Applicant on February 22, 1989, and confirmed that the total of minimum setbacks shown for all three lots was approximately 32 feet. Staff has also confirmed with the Building Department that the maximum size of footprint that would be permitted on the existing 102 x 33 foot lots is 2,039 square feet. It should be noted that a conservative estimate of the actual maximum square footage that could be feasibly and legally constructed on these existing lots would be in excess of 4,200 square feet (exclusive of the garage). Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council April '11, 1989 Page 4 The justification for the above recommendation is twofold. First, it would appear reasonable and fair that the overall size limitation on the lots not be more restrictive than now exists without the vacation. Second, the additional provision that the side yard setbacks be maintained as sho*n on the Exhibit preserves the "open space" concept which appeared to be of significant concern at the January 10 meeting. The following recommended conditions have been included in the proposed agreement. (a) That no more than three houses, in total, be placed by the Applicant upon the three southerly adjacent lots (Lots 6, 7, and 8 of Tract No. 1868). (b) That the maximum square footage of the feet -of any house constructed upon said southerly adjacent lots shall not exceed 2,039 square feet; and that the total combined minimum side yard setbacks on the three lots shall not be less than 32 feet. ALTERNATIVES: The other alternative considered by staff and available to Council is: 1. Modify paragraph 2 of the agreement to reflect conditions consistent with Council's desire. Respectfully submitted, Noted: Edgar E. Edwards An ony Antich Harris & Associates Director of Public orks Concur: Kevin Northcraft GJ 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 RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND ORDERING THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF TWENTY-FIRST STREET IN SAID CITY. WHEREAS Resolution No. 88-5199, a resolution of intention to vacate a portion of Twenty -First Street, was adopted on November 22, 1988, and; WHEREAS, a public hearing after due notice has been held upon said General Plan Amendment and resolution of intention to vacate the hereinafter -described street, and all persons having had the opportunity to be heard, and the City Council having determined, pursuant to Section 8324 of the Streets and Highways Code, that the hereinafter -described street is unnecessary -for present or prospective public use, including use for non -motorized transportation facilities, and; WHEREAS, the Staff Environmental Review Committee met on November 3, 1988, to consider the environmental information check list for the subject General Plan Amendment and street vacation; and recommended that a Negative Declaration is appropriate, and; WHEREAS, a full and complete title report has been furnished showing underlying fee title of the subject right-of-way to be vested with the adjacent subdivision lots, now therefore; BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, 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 SECTION 1. That the removal of the portion of Twenty -First Street, hereinafter described, from the circulation plan, and the proposed vacation thereof would result in no significant environmental impact; and a Negative Declaration is hereby approved. SECTION 2. That the General Plan is hereby amended as follows: • A. The hereinafter described portion of Twenty -First Street is deleted from the circulation element of the General Plan. B. The Land Use Element of the General Plan is amended to designate said portion of Twenty -First Street as Low Density Residential. SECTION 3. That the public interest and convenience require the vacation of that certain portion of Twenty -First Street in the City of Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California, more particularly described as follows, and the same is HEREBY VACATED AND ABANDONED: A portion of Twenty -First Street shown as `Portland Street' on that certain map entitled Tract No. 1868 recorded in Book 26 at page 21, Los Angeles County Records, being a 40 foot wide strip of land more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot 34 of said Tract 1868; thence South 22° 00' East 40.52 feet to the Northwest corner of Lot 6 of said tract 1868, thence - 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 North 77° 10' 30" East 101.13 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot 6, thence North 24° 30' 30" West 40.85 feet to the Southeast corner of said Lot 34, thence South 77° 10' 30" West 99.31 feet t� the Point of Beginning. SECTION 4 . That said vacation and abandonment is conditioned upon the following: • A. That the applicant for said vacation, (being .the owner of Lots 6, 7, and 8 of Tract 1868); execute a Development Restriction Agreement limiting the size and scope of development upon said Lots 6, 7, and 8 as approved by the City Council of The City of Hermosa Beach; and that said Development Restriction Agreement is recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County prior to recordation of this resolution. B. That all costs, including title search, title guarantee, and all City costs involved with the vacation are borne by the applicant. SECTION 5. In effecting this order and determination, the City Council has made the following findings: A. That said portion of Twenty -First Street is unnecessary for present or prospective public use. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. That the vacation and abandonment of said portion of Twenty -First Street is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Hermosa Beach, as herein amended. SECTION 6. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution, shall enter the same in the book of original resolutions of said City, shall make a minute record of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the City . Council of said City in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is passed and adopted, shall cause a certified copy thereof, attested by the City Clerk under the seal of said City, to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County, State of California, after recordation of the hereinbefor referenced Development Restriction Agreement. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1989 PRESIDENT of the City Council and the MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of , 1989 by and between the City of Hermosa Beach ("City") and Mr. Otto Palmer ("Applicant"). RECITALS A. Applicant desires and has requested that City vacate and abandon that portion of Twenty -First Street described in Exhibit "A", attiched hereto and made a part hereof. B. Applicant owns Lots 6, 7, and 8 of Tract No. 1868, being immediately adjacent lots located southerly and adjacent to said requested vacation. C. Applicant proposes to distribute the gained "half width" of the vacated right-of-way between said Lots 6, 7, and 8 by processing a "lot line adjustment". This would benefit the three lots by adding approximately 6.7 feet to the width of each lot. D. The City Council has considered said request, conducted a public hearing on the matter, and has determined that such vacation would be in the public interest provided certain development restrictions are imposed upon said Lots 6, 7, and 8, as particularly set forth below. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the comments and agreements set forth below, City and Applicant agree as follows: 1. City agrees to vacate and abandon said right-of-way by adopting a Resolution amending the General Plan and ordering vacation of Twenty -First Street at Loma Drive. 2. Applicant agrees to limit the size and scope of development on Lots 6, 7, and 8 of Tract 1868 as follows: 1 (a) That no more than one single family dwelling shall be placed on each of the three southerly adjacent lots (Lots 6, 7, and 8 of Tract No. 1868). (b) That the maximum square footage of the footprint of any house constructed upon said .southerly adjacent lots shall not exceed 2,039 square feet; and that the total combined minimum side yard setbacks on the three lots shall not be less than 32 feet. • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto do hereby agree to the full performance of the covenants herein contained and have caused this Agreement to be executed this day of , 1989. APPLICANT By: Otto Palmer Date CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH By: Mayor Attested: By: City Clerk Date Date Approved as to Form: By: City Attorney Date 2 EXHIBIT "A" Proposed Twenty -First Street Vacation Legal Description A portion of Twenty -First Street shown as `Portland Street' on•that certain map entitled Tract No. 1868 recorded in Book 26 at page 21, Los Angeles County Records, being a 40 foot wide strip of land more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot 34 of said Tract 1868; thence South. 22° 00' East 40.52 feet to the Northwest corner of Lot 6 of said tract 1868, thence North 77° 10' 30" East 101.13 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot 6, thence North 24° 30' 30" West 40.85 feet to the Southeast corner of said Lot 34, thence South 77° 10' 30" West 99.31 feet to the Point of Beginning. Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council • April 5, 1989 City Council Meeting of April 11, 1989 PARTICIPATION IN THE INDEPENDENT CITIES LEASE FINANCING AUTHORITY (ICLFA) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Adopt resolution.89- which approves the ICLFA Joint Powers Agreement and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement. 2. Appoint a Director (member of the City Council) and Alternate Director, Viki Copeland, to the governing body of the Authority. BACKGROUND On March 28, 1989, the City Council authorized staff to process the necessary documents for possible financing through the Independent Cities Lease Financing Authority. ANALYSIS The City is a member of the Independent Cities Association which is required for membership in the Authority. Adoption of the attached resolution and execution of the Joint Powers Agreement allows for participation in the ICLFA. There is no fee or assessment for joining. These documents, and an application to be prepared by staff, allow the City to use either of the Authority's two financing programs - the designated pool (longer term, fixed rate) or ELVIS (Exempt Lease Variable Interest Securities) - shorter term (9 years), variable rate. This action does not obligate the City in any way to future financings. It is also necessary to appoint a Director (must be a Council member) and an Alternate Director (must be a staff member) to serve on the Board of the Authority. The alternate attends, participates and votes at meetings when the Director is absent. By-laws of the Authority are attached. If approved by the City Council a 2/3 vote of the City Councils of the member Cities is required for membership. As a member of the Authority, the City will have the option available of selecting these methods of financing for future land or equipment acquisitions. Concur: Kevin B. Northcrat. City Manager Viki Copland Finance Administrator 13 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 RESOLUTION NO. 89 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT CREATING THE INDEPENDENT CITIES LEASE FINANCE AUTHORITY, APPROVING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE CITY IN SUCH AUTHORITY, APPOINTING THE CITY'S REPRESENTATIVE AND ALTERNATE REPRESENTATIVE TO THE AUTHORITY'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AND RELATED MATTERS. WHEREAS, the City of Hermosa Beach (the "City") is a municipality duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California (the "State") [and the Charter of the City]; WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 6500 et. seq. (the "Act"), the City is authorized to enter into an agreement with one or more other public agencies to jointly exercise any power common to the contracting parties and to create an agency or entity which is separate from the parties to the agreement to administer the agreement; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City proposes to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement Creating the Independent Cities Lease Finance Authority (the "Agreement") with each of those cities listed on the attached Exhibit A as shall also approve the Agreement, and thereby create the Independent Cities Lease Finance Authority (the "Authority") to administer the Agreement WHEREAS, the Authority is empowered to issue its lease revenue bonds pursuant to the provisions of the Marks -Roos Local Bond Pooling Act of 1985 (Califort►ia Government Code Section 6584 et. seq., as amended (the "Bond Act") to finance the cost of 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 public capital improvements of any local agency as defined therein; WHEREAS, the City Council proposes to enter into the Agreement for the purpose of creating the Authority so as to provide low-cost sources of financing for the acquisition, construction, installation and/or equipping of public capital improvements of the City and other local agencies as defined in the Act and for the other purposes described in the Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Declaration of Council. This Council hereby specifically finds and declares that the actions authorized hereby constitute and are with respect to public affairs of the City, and that the statements, findings and determinations of the City set forth in the preambles above and of the documents approved herein are true and correct. SECTION 2. Agreement. The form of Joint Powers Agreement Creating the Independent Cities Lease Finance Authority, among the City and one or more of the Cities listed in Exhibit A, pursuant to which the Authority is created, presented to this meeting and on file with the Clerk of the City Council is hereby approved. The Mayor, City Manager, City Clerk and any other City officer or official of the City authorized by the Mayor are hereby authorized and directed, for and in the name and on behalf of the City, to execute, acknowledge and deliver said Agreement in substantially said form, with such changes therein as such 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 officer may approve, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof. The Clerk of the City Council is hereby authorized and directed to attest the signature of the authorized signatory, and to affix and attest the seal of the City, as may.be required or appropriate in connection with the execution and delivery of said Agreement. SECTION 3. Membership in Authority. The participation of the City as a Member in the Authority is hereby approved. The officers of the City are hereby authorized to direct the performance of the obligations of the City under the Agreement, including the payment of any annual membership fees and expenses set by the Board of Directors of the Authority. SECTION 4. Appointment of Representatives. The Council hereby appoints , a member of the Council, to serve as the representative of the City on the Authority's Board of Directors, and Viki Copeland , a member of the staff of the City, to serve as the alternate representative of the City on the Authority's Board of Directors. Such appointments shall be effective until the death, resignation, disqualification or subsequent removal by the City Council of such representative. SECTION 5. Further Actions. The Mayor, City Manager and City Clerk and any other officer or official of the City authorized by the Mayor, are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, to do any and all things and to execute and deliver any and all documents which they may deem necesary or 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 advisable in order to effect the creation of the Authority and otherwise to carry out,'give effect to and comply with and intent of this resolution and the Agreement. Such heretofore taken by such officers are hereby ratified, and approved. the terms actions confirmed SECTION 6. Effective .Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. 1989. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED THIS day of PRESIDENT of the City Council and, MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY i IDB461/SNW/700997-c/7/032288 • JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT CREATING THE INDEPENDENT CITIES LEASE FINANCE AUTHORITY This Agreement is executed in the State'of California by and among those- cities organized and. existing under the Constitution of the' State of California which are parties signatory to this Agreement. All such cities, hereinafter called Members, shall be listed in Appendix A, which shall be attached hereto and made a part hereof. • RECITALS WHEREAS, Articles 1 and 2, Chapter 5, Division 7, Title 1 of the California Government Code (Section 6500 et seq.) permits two or more public agencies by agreement to exercise jointly powers common to the contracting parties; and WHEREAS, cities executing this Agreement desire to join together for the purpose of assisting public agencies to finance the acquisition, construction, installation and/or equipping of public capital improvements and to encourage and promote other joint and cooperative endeavors among such public agencies for their mutual benefit; NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 DEFINITIONS "Authority" shall mean the Independent Cities Lease Finance Authority created by this Agreement. "Board of Directors" or "Board" shall mean the governing body of the Authority. "Executive Committee" shall mean the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of the Authority. "Fiscal Year" shall mean that period of twelve months which is established by the Board of Directors or the Bylaws as the fiscal year of the Authority. "Government Code" shall mean the California Government Code, as amended. "Joint Powers Law" shall mean Articles 1 and 2, Chapter 5, Division 7, Title 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of the Government Code. "Member" shall mean any California city which has executed this Agreement and has become a member of the Authority. "Local Agency" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 6585(f) of the Government Code. ARTICLE 2 PURPOSES This Agreement is entered into by the Members in order that they may jointly develop programs to assist in the raising of capital to finance the capital improvement needs of Local Agencies, to provide a forum for discussion and study of problems common to the Members and to assist in the development and implementation of solutions to such problems. ARTICLE 3 PARTIES TO AGREEMENT Each Member, as a party to this Agreement, certifies that it intends to and does contract with all other Members as parties to this Agreement and, with such other cities as may later be added as parties to this Agreement. Each Member also certifies that the withdrawal of any party from this Agreement pursuant to Article 17 shall not affect this Agreement or the Members' obligations hereunder. ARTICLE 4 TERM This Agreement shall become effective when executed and returned to the Authority by at least four Members. The Authority shall promptly notify all Members in writing of such effective date. This Agreement shall continue in effect until terminated as provided herein; provided that the termination of this Agreement with respect to an individual Member upon its withdrawal from membership in the Authority shall not operate to terminate this Agreement with respect to the remaining Members. -2- • ARTICLE 5 CREATION OF THE AUTHORITY Pursuant to the Joint Powers Law, there is hereby created a public'entity separate and apart from the parties hereto, to be known as the "Independent Cities 'Lease Finance Authority," with such'powers as are hereinafter set forth. ARTICLE 6 POWERS OF THE AUTHORITY (a) Powers. The Authority shall have all of the powers common to its Members and all additional powers set forth in the Joint Powers Law and other statutes applicable to the joint powers authority created hereby, and is hereby authorized to do all acts necessary for the exercise of said powers. Such powers include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) To make and.enter into contracts. (2) To incur debts, liabilities, and obligations and to encumber real or personal property. (3) To acquire, hold, or dispose of real or personal property, contributions and donations of real or personal property, funds, services, and other forms of assistance from persons, firms, corporations, and government entities. (4) To sue and be sued in its own name, and to settle any claim against it. (5) To receive and use contributions and advances from Members as provided in Government Code Section 6504, including contributions or advances of personnel, equipment or property. (6) To invest any money in its treasury that is not required for its immediate necessities, pursuant to Government Code Section 6509.5. (7) To acquire, construct, manage, maintain or operate title to real or personal property or rights or any interest therein. (8) To employ agents and employees. (9) To receive, collect and disburse moneys. -3- (10) To finance the acquisition, construction or. installation of real or personal property for the benefit of one or more Local Agencies through the sale of its revenue bonds, certificates of participation or other obligations and to enter into any agreement or instrument in connection with the execution, issuance, sale or delivery of such bonds, certificates of participation or other obligations. (11) To lease, sell, convey or otherwise transfer title or rights to or an interest in real or personal property, including, but not limited to, property financed'by the Authority for the benefit of its' Members or other Local Agencies, and to enter into any agreement or instrument in connection with any such lease, sale, conveyance or transfer. (12) To exercise all powers of entities, such as the Authority, created under the Joint Powers Law including, but not limited to, those powers enumerated under the Marks -Roos Local Bond Pooling Act of 1985, as amended. (13) To exercise other reasonable and necessary powers in furtherance or support of any purpose of the Authority or power granted by the Joint Powers Law, this Agreement or the Bylaws of the Authority. (b) Restrictions on Powers. Pursuant to and to the extent required by Government Code Section 6509, the Authority shall be restricted in the exercise of its powers in the same manner as the City of Manhattan Beach is restricted in its exercise of similar powers; provided that, if the City of Manhattan Beach shall cease to be a Member, then the Authority shall be restricted in the exercise of its power in the same manner as the City of Indio. ARTICLE 7 BOARD OF DIRECTORS (a) Composition of Board. The Authority shall be governed by the Board of Directors, which shall be composed of one.director representing each Member. The City Council of each Member shall appoint a member of such City Council as a director to represent such Member on the Board of Directors. Such director shall serve at the pleasure of such City Council. The City Council of each Member shall also appoint an alternate director who shall have the authority to attend, participate in and vote at any meeting of the Board when the director is absent. Each alternate director shall be an official or staff person of the Member which such alternate director represents. -4- Any vacancy in a director or alternate director position shall be. filled by the appointing Member's City Council, subject. to the provisions of this Article. Immediately upon admission of a new Member pursuant to Article 16, such Member shall be entitled and required to appoint a director and alternate.director. (b) Termination of Status as Director. A director and/or alternate director shall be removed from the Board of Directors upon the occurrence of any one of the following events: (1) the Authority.receives written -;notice from the appointing Member of the removal of the director or alternate director, together' -with a certified copy of the resolution of the City Council of the Member effecting such removal; (21 the withdrawal of the Member from this Agreement; (3) the death or resignation of the director or alternate director; (4) the Authority receives written notice from the Member that the director or alternate-clirector is no longer qualified as provided in the first paragraph of this Article. (c) Compensation. Directors and their alternates are not entitled to compensation. The Board of Directors may authorize reimbursement of expenses incurred by directors or their alternates. (d) Powers of Board. The Board of Directors shall have the following powers and functions. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the Board shall exercise all powers and conduct all business of the Authority, either directly or by delegation to other bodies or persons. (2) The Board may form an Executive Committee, as provided in Article 10. If an Executive Committee is established by the Board, the Executive Committee may exercise all powers or duties of the Board relating to the execution, issuance, sale or delivery of bonds, certificates of participation or other obligations of the Authority and the entering into by the Authority of all agreements, leases, indentures, conveyances, security documents and other instruments relating thereto or relating to the financing of capital improvements for the Members or other Local Agencies. If an Executive Committee is established by the Board, the Board may delegate to the Executive Committee and the Executive Committee may discharge any additional powers or duties of the Board except adoption of the Authority's annual budget. Any additional powers and duties so delegated shall be specified in a resolution adopted by the Board. -5- (3) The Board may form, as provided in Article 11,• such other committees as it deems appropriate to conduct the business of the Authority or it may delegate such power to the Executive Committee in the Bylaws or by resolution of the Board. The membership of any such other committee may consist in whole or in part of persons who are not members of the•Board; provided that the Board and the Executive Committee may delegate decision-making powers and duties only to a committee a majority of the members of which are Board members. Any committee a majority of the members of which are not Board members may function only in an advisory capacity. (4) The Board shall elect the officers of the Authority and shall appoint or employ necessary staff in accordance with Articles 9 and 12. (5) The Board shall cause to be prepared, and shall review, modify as necessary, and adopt the annual operating budget of the Authority. Adoption of the budget may not be delegated. ' (6) The Board shall receive, review and act upon periodic reports and audits of the funds of the Authority, as required.under Articles 13 and 14 of this Agreement. (7) The Board shall have such other powers and duties as are reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes of the Authority. ARTICLE 8 MEETINGS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS (a) Regular Meetings. The Board of Directors shall hold at least one regular meeting each year. The Board of Directors shall fix by resolution or in the Bylaws the date upon which, and the hour and place at which, each regular meeting is to be held. (b) Ralph M. Brown Act. Each meeting of the Board of Directors, including without limitation regular, adjourned regular, and special meetings shall be called, noticed, held, and conducted in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, Section 54950 et seq. of the Government Code. (c) Minutes. The Authority shall have minutes of regular, adjourned regular, and special meetings kept by the Secretary. As soon as practicable after each meeting, the -6- Secretary shall forward to each Board member a copy of the* minutes of such meeting. (d) Quorum. A majority of the members of the Board is a quorum for the transaction of business. However, less than a quorum may adjourn from time to time. A voteof the majority of a quorum at a meeting is sufficient to take action. (e) Voting. Each member of the Board shall have one vote. ARTICLE 9 OFFICERS The Board shall elect a President and Vice -President from among the directors at its first meeting. Thereafter, except as may be otherwise provided in the Bylaws of the Authority, the Board shall elect a new President and Vice - President, at the annual meeting in each succeeding alternating fiscal year. Each officer shall assume the duties of his office upon election. If either the President or Vice -President ceases to be a member of the Board, the resulting vacancy shall be filled at the next regular meeting of the Board held after the vacancy occurs or at a special meeting of the Board called to fill such vacancy. In the absence or inability of the President to act, the Vice -President shall act as President. The President shall preside at and conduct all meetings of the Board. The Board may appoint such other officers as it considers necessary. ARTICLE 10 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE The Board may establish an Executive Committee of the Board which shall consist solely of members selected from the membership of the Board. If an Executive Committee is established by the Board, the terms of office of the members of the Executive Committee shall be as provided in the Bylaws of the Authority. If an Executive Committee is established by the Board the Executive Committee shall conduct the business of the Authority between meetings of the Board, exercising all those powers as provided for in section (0(2) of Article 7, or as otherwise delegated to it by the Board. ARTICLE 11 COMMITTEES The Board may establish committees, as it deems appropriate to conduct the business of the Authority or it may, in the Bylaws or by resolution, delegate sych power to the Executive Committee. Members of Committees shall be appointed by the Board or the Executive Committee, as the case may be. Each Committee shall have those duties as determined by the Board or the Executive Committee, as the case may be, or as otherwise set forth in the Bylaws. Each Committee shall meet on the call of its chairperson, and shall report to the Executive Committee and the Board as directed by the Board or the Executive Committee, as the case may be. ARTICLE 12 STAFF (a) Principal Staff. The following staff members shall be appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Board of Directors: (1) Program Administrator. The Program Administrator shall administer the affairs of the Authority, subject to the general supervision and policy direction of the Board and the Executive Committee; shall coordinate the activities of all consultants and staff of the Authority; shall be responsible for required filings by the Authority with the State of California; shall prepare all meeting notices, minutes and required correspondence of the Authority and shall maintain the records of the Authority; shall assist Local Agencies in the preparing and filing of applications for participation in the financing programs of the Authority and shall expedite the processing of such applications; and shall perform such other duties as are assigned by the Board and Executive Committee. (2) Treasurer. The duties of the Treasurer are set forth in Articles 13 and 14 of this Agreement. The Treasurer shall be appointed by the Board of Directors and shall be eligible to serve as Treasurer as provided in the Joint Powers Law. (3) Auditor. The Auditor shall draw warrants to pay demands against the Authority when approved by the -8- Treasurer. The Auditor shall be appointed by the Board• of Directors and shall be a person eligible to serve as Auditor as provided in the Joint Powers Law. (b) Other Staff. The Board, Executive Committee or Program Administrator shall provide for the appointment of such other staff as may be necessary for' the administration of the Authority. (c) Compengation. The Program Administrator, the Treasurer, the Auditor and any other members of the staff or employees of the Authority shall be compensated in such manner as shall be approved by the Board as permitted by applicable law. ARTICLE 13 ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS (a) Annual budget. The Authority shall annually adopt an operating budget pursuant to Article 7 of this Agreement. The Treasurer, in cooperation with the Program Administrator, shall prepare the annual operating budget for review and approval by the Board of Directors as provided in Article 7 of this Agreement. (b) Funds and Accounts. The Auditor of the Authority shall establish and maintain such funds and accounts as may be required by good accounting practices and by the Board. Books and records of the Authority in the hands of the Auditor shall be open to inspection at all reasonable times by authorized representatives of the Members. The Authority shall adhere to the standard of strict accountability for funds set forth in the Joint Powers Law. (c) Auditor's Report. The Auditor, within one hundred and twenty (120) days after the close of each Fiscal Year, shall give a complete written report of all financial activities for such Fiscal Year to the Board and to each Member. (d) Annual Audit. If then required by the Joint Powers Law, the Authority shall either make or contract with a certified public accountant to make an annual Fiscal Year audit of all accounts and records of the Authority, conforming in all respects with the requirements of the Joint'Powers Law. A report of the audit shall be filed, if then required by law, as a public record with each of the Members and with the county auditor of the county or counties in which each of the Members is located. -9- Costs of the audit shall be considered a general expense of the' Authority. ARTICLE 14 'RESPONSIBILITIES FOR FUNDS AND PROPERTY (a) Custody of Authority Funds. The Treasurer shall have the custody of and disburse the Authority's.funds. Proceeds of bonds, certificates of participation or other similar obligations of the Authority may be deposited with an indenture trustee, agent or other depositary and shall not be considered the Authority's funds for purposes of this Article. The Treasurer may delegate disbursing authority to such persons as may be authorized by the Board or the Executive Committee to perform that function,.subject to the requirements of (b) below. (b) Duties of Treasurer. The Treasurer shall perform all functions then required to be performed by the Treasurer under the Joint' Powers Law. The Treasurer shall review the financial statements and the annual audit of the Authority. (c) Authority Property. Pursuant to Government Code Section 6505.1, .the Program Administrator, the Treasurer, and such other persons as the Board may designate shall have charge of, handle, and have access to the property of the Authority. The Authority shall secure and pay for a fidelity bond or bonds, in an amount or amounts and in form specified by the Board of Directors, covering all officers and staff of the Authority who are authorized to hold or disburse funds of the Authority and all officers and staff who are authorized to have charge of, handle and have access to property of the Authority. ARTICLE 15 MEMBER RESPONSIBILITIES Each Member shall have the following responsibilities: (a) To appoint its director and alternate director to or remove its director and alternate director from the Board as set forth in Article 7. (b) To consider proposed amendments to this Agreement as set forth in Article 23. (c) To make contributions in the form of annual membership assessments and fees, if any, determined by the Board for the -10- purpose of defraying the costs of providing the annual• benefits accruing directly to each party from this Agreement. ARTICLE 16 NEW MEMBERS With the approval of two-thirds of the members of the Board, any qualified city may become a party tp this Agreement. Membership is restricted to cities which are members of the Independent Cities Association. A city requesting membership shall apply by presenting to the Authority a resolution of the City Council of such city evidencing its approval of this Agreement. The date that the applying city will become a Member will be determined by the Board. ARTICLE 17 WITHDRAWAL A Member may withdraw from membership in the Authority upon thirty (30) days advance written notice to the Authority. A Member must withdraw if it discontinues its membership in the Independent Cities Association. No such withdrawal however shall relieve such Member from its obligations under any outstanding agreements relating to the Authority's bonds, certificates of participation or other obligations except in accordance with such agreements. ARTICLE 18 OBLIGATIONS OF AUTHORITY The debts, liabilities and obligations of the Authority shall not be the debts, liabilities and obligations of the Members. Any Member may separately contract for, or assume responsibility for, specific debts, liabilities or obligations of the Authority. ARTICLE 19 TERMINATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS This Agreement may be terminated at any time that no bonds, certificates of participation or other similar obligations of the Authority are outstanding with the approval of two-thirds -11- of the Members. Upon termination of this Agreement, all assets of the Authority shall, after payment of all unpaid •costs, expenses and charges incurred under this Agreement, be distributed among the parties hereto in accordance with the respective contributions of each of said parties. ARTICLE 20' LIABILITY OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS, OFFICERS AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS The members of the Board of Directors, officers and committee members of the Authority shall use ordinary care and reasonable diligence in the exercise of their powers and in the performance of their duties pursuant to this Agreement. They shall not be liable for any mistake of judgment or any other action made, taken or omitted by them in good faith, nor for any action taken or omitted by any agent, employee or independent contractor selected with reasonable care, nor for loss incurred through investment of Authority funds, or failure to invest. No director, officer or committee member shall be responsible for any action taken or omitted by any other director, officer or committee member. No director, officer or committee member shall be required to give a bond or other security to guarantee the faithful performance of his or her duties pursuant to this Agreement. The funds of the Authority shall be used to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Authority or any director, officer or committee member for their actions taken within the scope of the authority of the Authority. Nothing herein shall limit the right of the Authority to purchase insurance to provide such coverage as hereinafter set forth. ARTICLE 21 BYLAWS The Board may adopt Bylaws consistent with this Agreement which shall provide for the administration and management of the Authority. ARTICLE 22 NOTICES The Authority shall address notices, billings and other communications to a Member as. directed by such •Member. Each Member shall, provide the Authority with the address to which communications are to be sent. Member shall address notices and other communications to the Authority, at the office address of the Authority as set forth in.the Bylaws. ARTICLE 23 AMENDMENT This Agreement may be amended at any time by vote of two-thirds of the Memibers, acting through their City Councils. Any amendment of this Agreement shall become effective upon receipt by the Authority of notice of the approval of such amendment by the City Councils of two-thirds of the Members. ARTICLE 24 SEVERABILITY Should any portion, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or in conflict with any law of the State of California, or be otherwise rendered unenforceable or ineffectual, the validity of the remaining portions, terms, conditions, and provisions shall not be affected thereby. ARTICLE 25 PROHIBITION AGAINST ASSIGNMENT No Member may assign any right, claim or interest it may have under this Agreement, and no creditor, assignee or third party beneficiary of any Member shall have any right, claim or title to any part, share, interest, fund or asset of the Authority. ARTICLE 26 AGREEMENT COMPLETE This Agreement constitutes the full and complete agreement of the parties. ARTICLE 27 FILING WITH SECRETARY OF STATE The Program Administrator of the Authority shall file a' notice of this Agreement with the office of the California Secretary of State within 30 days of its effective date, as required by Government Code Section 6503.5 and within 70 days of its effective date as required by Government Code Section 53051. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned party hereto has executed this Agreement on the date indicated below. DATE: Seal: ATTEST: CITY OF BY: Its EXHIBIT A MEMBER CITIES Baldwin Park Compton El Segundo Hawthorne Huntington Park Indio Lynwood Manhattan Beach • IDB462/SNW/700997-d/6/031888 BYLAWS OF THE INDEPENDENT CITIES LEASE FINANCE AUTHORITY ARTICLE I. DEFINITIONS The definitions of terms used in these Bylaws shall be the same as those contained in the Joint Powers Agreement Creating the Independent Cities Lease Finance Authority, hereinafter called the Agreement, unless otherwise expressly provided. ARTICLE II. OFFICES The Authority's principal office for the transaction of business is located at 14156 Magnolia Boulevard, Suite 103, Sherman Oaks, California 91423. The Board of Directors may change the location of the principal office from time to time. The Board may establish one or more subordinate offices at any .place or places where the Authority is qualified to do business. ARTICLE III. MEETINGS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1. Regular Meetings (a) Time Held The Board of Directors shall hold at least one meeting per year. The regular annual meeting of the Board of Directors (the "Annual Meeting") should, if practicable, be scheduled at least one year prior to such meeting. Unless otherwise changed by a majority vote of the Board of Directors at a regular meeting, the Annual Meeting shall be held at .m. on the first in of each year. Should such day fall upon a legal holiday, the Annual Meeting of the Board shall be held on the next following business.day. (b) Business to be Transacted At each Annual Meeting of the Board, the Board shall review, modify if necessary, and adopt the annual operating budget of the Authority and, in each alternating fiscal year, shall elect officers and, if an Executive Committee is established by the -Board as provided in the Agreement, every second year shall elect Executive Committee members, as required by the Agreement and these Bylaws. At any meetings, the Board may transact any .other business within its powers, and receive reports of the operations and affairs of the Authority. (c) Notice Written notice of each regular meeting of the Board shall be delivered to each director and/or alternate director at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting. The notice shall specify: (i) The place, date and hour of the meeting. (ii) Those matters which are intended to be presented for action by the Board. (iii) The general nature of any proposal for action by the Board concerning a change in the Agreement or these Bylaws, a change in the membership of the Authority, or any other matter substantially affecting the rights and obligations of the Members. (iv) If officers or Executive Committee members are to be elected, the names of the persons nominated for such positions at the time the notice is sent. 2. Special Meetings A special meeting of the Board of Directors may be called at any time by the President of the Board, or by a majority of the directors on the Board subject to the requirements for 24-hour written notice to the directors and/or alternate directors and to requesting representatives of the -2- media provided in Section 54956 of •the Government Code. The notice of a special meeting shall specify the time and place of the meeting and the business to be transacted. No other business shall be considered at the meeting. A member of the Board may waive notice as• provided in Section 54956 of the Government Code.. Notice of the calling of any special meeting shall be posted as provided in said Section. 3. Place of Meeting Each regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors shallbe held at a place within the State of California designated by the Board at its preceding meeting, or if no such designation is made, as designated by the Executive Committee or the President of the Board. 4. Adjourned Meetings The Board of Directors may adjourn any regular or special meeting to a time and place specified in the order of adjournment, whether or not a quorum has been established. If a quorum is not established, no business other than adjournment may be transacted. A copy.of the order for adjournment shall be posted as required by Section 54955 of the Government Code. No other notice of an adjourned meeting shall be necessary, unless the .adjournment is for a period of 30 days or more, in which case notice of the adjourned meeting shall be given in the same manner as notice of the original meeting. 5. Ralph M. Brown Act Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, all meetings of the Board of Directors shall be held in strict compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code Section 54950 et seq.), as amended and then in effect. 6. Alternate Director The alternate director appointed by a Member as its alternate representative on the Board of Directors may, in the absence of the director, attend, vote and participate in any meeting of the Board of Directors as the representative of the Member. -3- ARTICLE IV. THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 1. Membership If the Board of Directors of the Authority establishes an Executive Committee as ,provided in the Agreement, such Executive Committee shall consist of five members of the Board of Directors .of the Authority, one of whom shall be the President and one of whom shall be the Vice President of the Authority and the others=•of whom shall be appointed by the Board of Directors: 2. Terms of Office The terms of office of the members of the Executive Committee shall be for two (2) years. 3. Removal, Vacancies and Alternates A vacancy in any position on the Executive Committee, because of death, resignation, removal, disqualification, or any other cause, shall be filled by.election of the Board. Pending action by the Board, the remaining members of the Executive Committee may fill a vacancy on an interim basis, except in the case of a vacancy caused by removal, which may only be filled by the Board. 4. Alternate Director The alternate director appointed by a Member as its alternate representative on the Board may, in the absence of the director of such Member who is a member of the Executive Committee, attend, vote and participate in any meeting of the Executive Committee in place of such director. 5. Meetings The Executive Committee shall meet on the call of the President of the Board, at such times and places as are designated by that officer. The Executive Committee shall also meet on the call of a majority of its members, at such time and place as they may designate. Written notice of the time and place of an Executive Committee meeting, and of the business to be transacted, shall be delivered to each member of the Executive Committee and to requesting representatives of the media at least 24 hours in advance as required by Section 54956 of the -4- • Government Code, and subject to the other provisions of that Section. No other business shall be considered at the meeting. A member of the Executive Committee may waive notice as provided in said Section 54956. Notice of the calling of the special meeting shall be posted as provided in said Section. 6. Quorum and Voting Requirements A majority of the'members of the Executive Committee shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. All actions of the Executive Committee shall require the affirmative votes of a'majority of the members present at a meeting duly held at which a quorum is present. 7. Adjourned Meetings The Executive Committee may adjourn any meeting to a time and place specified in the order for adjournment, whether or not a quorum has been established. If a quorum is not established, no business other than adjournment may be transacted. A copy of the order for adjournment shall be posted as required by Section 54955 of the Government Code. No other notice of an adjourned meeting shall be necessary, unless the adjournment is for a period of 24 hours or more, in which case notice of the adjourned meeting shall be delivered to the members ..who were not present at the time of adjournment. 8. Ralph M. Brown Act Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, all meetings of the Executive Committee shall be noticed and held in strict compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code Section 54950 et seq.), as amended and then in effect. ARTICLE V. OFFICERS 1. Duties of the President The President shall preside at and conduct all meetings of the Board and shall chair the Executive Committee. -5- t • 2. Duties of Vice President In the absence of the President, the Vice President shall perform all duties assigned to the President by the Agreement and these Bylaws or by the Board. 3. Terms of Office The terms of office of the President and Vice -President shall be for two (2) years. 4. Removal and Vacancies The Board of Directors may remove an officer at any time. A vacancy in any office, because of death, resignation, removal, disqualification, or any other cause, shall be filled by election of the Board. ARTICLE VI. COMMITTEES 1. Establishment of Committees The Board of Directors or, if an Executive Committee is established by the Board of Directors as provided in the Agreement, the Executive Committee may appoint any additional committees and determine the committees' structure, charge, size and membership. Committees may be established to consider any matter within the jurisdiction of the body establishing such committee. Each committee shall operate according to the policies adopted by the body establishing such committee and shall submit their reports and recommendations to the body establishing such committee. Committees shall meet on the call of their respective chairpersons, each of whom shall be a member of the Board of Directors and a member of such committee. Each Committee shall meet on the call of its chairperson, at such times and places as are designated by the chairperson. Written notice of the time and place of a Committee meeting, and of the business to be transacted, shall be delivered to each member of the Committee and to requesting representatives of the media at least 24 hours in advance as required by Section 54966 of the Government Code, and subject to the other provisions of that Section. No other business shall be considered at the meeting. A majority of the members of a Committee shall -6- 0 constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. All actions of the Committee shall require the affirmative votes of a majority of the members present at a meeting duly held at which a quorum is present. All Committee meetings shall be duly noticed and held in accordance with. the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code 54950 et seq.), as amended and then in effect. ARTICLE VII. MISCELLANEOUS 1. Execution of Contracts The Board of Directors or the Executive Committee may authorize any officer, staff member, or agent of the Authority to execute any contract in the name of and on behalf of the Authority, and such authorization may be general or specific in nature. Unless so authorized, no officer, staff member or agent shall have any power to bind the Authority by contract. 2. Rules of Procedure for Meetings All meetings of the Board of Directors, Executive Committee, and other Committees or bodies of the Authority shall be conducted in accordance with Robert's Rules of Order, provided that in the event of a conflict, such rules shall be superseded by the Agreement, these Bylaws, and California law. ARTICLE VIII. FINANCES (1) Fiscal Year. The Fiscal Year of the Authority shall be from July 1 to June 30. (2) Budget At least forty-five (45) days prior to the Annual Meeting of the Board of Directors in each Fiscal Year, the Program Administrator shall submit to the Board of Directors or, if an Executive Committee has been established, to the Executive Committee a proposed general budget for the next Fiscal Year of -7- the Authority. The proposed general budget shall include annual membership fee and assessment schedules, if any, and a summary of revenue and expenditures, actual or projected, for the preceding, current, and next Fiscal Years. If an Executive Committee has been established, the Executive Committee shall review the proposed general budget, amend it as, necessary, and submit it to the Board for review and adoption at the Annual Meeting of the Board in each Fiscal Year. The Program Administrator shall manage all expenditures, subject to control of the Board or, if established, the Executive Committee. The Board or, if established, the'Executive Committee shall have power to transfer funds within the total detailed budget to meet unanticipated needs or changed situations. Such action shall be reported to the Executive Committee, if established, and the Board of Directors at their next succeeding meeting. ARTICLE IX. AMENDMENTS These Bylaws may be amended at any time by a majority vote of the Board of Directors. Following adoption of amendments, the Program Administrator shall prepare and distribute a revision of the Bylaws to all Members of the Authority. ARTICLE X. EFFECTIVE DATE These Bylaws shall go into effect immediately upon adoption by majority vote of the Board of Directors. March 20, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council March 28, 1989 SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE ZON 88-7 LOCATION: 540 FIRST STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF LOT 42, BLOCK 78, SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT. APPLICANT: THOMPSON OF CALIFORNIA REQUEST: TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM M-1 AND O.S. TO R-2 Recommenation The Planning Commisson and Staff recommend that the City Council rezone the subject property to Residential Specific Plan Area with the following modifications to the R-2 standards: 1. A maximum of 12 dwelling units; i.e., 22 dwelling units per acre rather than 25. 2. A minimum of three parking spaces per unit. Abstract The recommended zone change will bring the site into consistency. Background The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on February 21, 1989 and recommended rezoning the subject area to Residential Specific Plan Area for a 12 unit condominim and approved a Conditional Use Permit subject to approval of the zone change. A similar project was considered by the City Council at their meeting of March 14, 1989. The City Council denied the proposed zone change and directed the Planning Commission to study rezoning the subject area to R-1. This study has been scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting of March 21, 1989. Analysis The property is designated in the General Plan as Medium Density Residential; the cprresponding number of dwelling units per acre is 14-25. Surrounding area is zoned and designated as follows: East: R-2; Medium Density Residential South: R-2, 0.S., and M-1; Medium Density Residential (0.S. and M-1 zones are inconsistent) 1 t West: Planned Development Residential; MD Residential North: R-2, 0.S., and M-1; MD Residential (0.S. and M-1 zones are inconsistent) The proposed SPA is in keeping, or less in many cases, with surrounding densities of other R-2 parcels. The City has the legal obligation to rezone the entire parcel or amend the General Plan to bring the site into consistency. Failure to do so is in violation of State Law. Alternatives 1. Continue the Public Hearing regarding this matter until City Council considers the Planning Commission's study to rezone 603 1st Street to R-1 since these projects are similar. Additional background, analysis, and alternatives are provided the the attached Planning Commission staff report of February 21,1989. Attachments 1. Proposed Ordinance 2. P.C. Staff Report of 2/21/89 3. P.C. Minutes of 2/21/89 4. Resolution P.C. 89-19 5. Background 1. Resolution P.C. 89-18 2. Zoning Analysis 3. Staff Review Minutes 4. Traffic Study Summary 5. Application 6. Public Notice Affidavit CONCUR: Michael Schubach 1, Planning Director Iwiar" evil.' B. Nort raft City Manager a/pcsr540 Resp ee-tful Submitted, An ea Associate\ lanner CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: For your information, Planning reports that the area could be subdivided into a maximum of four legal lots, which would allow eight units under R -2B standards. r 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 ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FROM M-1 AND OPEN SPACE TO RESIDENTIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AREA NO. 4 FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on March 28, 1989 and made the following Findings: A. State law requires consistency between the zoning and General Plan; B. Rezoning of the subject area from M-1 and Open Space to Specific Plan Area will result in consistency between the zoning and General Plan; C. The property is adequate in size and shape for a Specific Plan Area zoning; 0-0g NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby ordain that the Zoning Map shall be amended to Residential Specific Plan Area for the parcel shown on the attached maps and legally described as a portion of lot 42, Block 78, Second Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract (540 First Street), subject to the following conditions: The official Zoning Map shall be amended from M-1 and Open Space to Specific Plan Area No. 4, and the following text shall be added to the Zoning Ordinance: 1. "Article 9.6, Chapter 4, Specific Plan Area No. 4 Section 9.64-1. Authority This Specific Plan Area is an instrument for implementing the General Plan pursuant to Article 8, Chapeter 3,of the State Planning and Zoning Law. (California Government Code Section 65450 et seq.). Section 9.64-2. Location and Description The subject property is fronting on 1st Street and has a side property line adjacent to the Ardmore Avenue public right-of-way. The site is 24,251 sq. ft. The property is commonly known as 540 1st Street and is legally described as a portionof lot 42, Block 78, Second Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract. Section 9.64-3. Purpose The purpose of this Specific Plan Area is to set forth the development requirements, standards, and permitted uses for the subject property. -3— 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Section 9.64-4. Permitted Uses. The Specific Plan Area shall allow for a maximum of dwelling units. Section 9.64-5. Development Standards 1. The developments standards shall be similar to development standards for the R-2 zone with the following modifications: a. One guest parking space shall be provided per unit. to b. A maximum of 11' dwelling units shall be permitted. c. A minimum ten foot (10') setback shall be provided on 1st 0 Street. ection 9.64-6. Development Requirements 1. Any residential use shall be subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit." 2. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. 3. 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. 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make miniutes 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 Counci an MAYOR o the City o Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: t/pcsr54Oa CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY .4 a 0� •l(4. C ti C 540 FIRST STREET SUBJECT AREA IsT 1B t 0' 380! •• 5.ease . • 740s - 1 93. 443, ti� 1/4u4 NERONDO ST.• ;; slope 4- a0 r\ \1 k vl� M 2 2713.670:' 68401%'%1 23.31 • / 25 sT• 3 0.41 38 • • 23 4,59.E • 40 -r 22 • 4,3730' • 035 • • February 14, 1989 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission February 21, 1989 SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: REQUEST: Recommenation 1. That the Planning Commission recommend a zone change to a Specific Plan Area to allow (12) units and Environmental Negative Declaration. 2. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tenative Tract Map #46826 subject to the conditions listed in the attached Resolution. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CON 88-34 AND ZONE CHANGE ZON 88-7 540 FIRST STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF LOT 42, BLOCK 78, SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT. THOMPSON OF CALIFORNIA 2555 DOMINGUEZ HILL DRIVE COMPTON, CA 90220 1. CONSTRUCTION OF A THIRTEEN (13) UNIT CONDOMINIUM 2. ZONE CHANGE FROM M-1 AND O.S. TO R-2 Alternatives 1. Rezone the subject property to R-2, thereby allowing thirteen (13) dwelling units. 2. Leave the property zoned M-1 and Open Space and amend the General Plan Designation from Medium Density Residential to Manufacturing and Open Space for those portions of the parcel with corresponding zoning. 3. Redesignate and rezone the property R-1, Low Density Residential including the remaining block. Background Project Details -- Zoning: M-1 and Open Space General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential Lot Size: 24,251 sq. ft., irregular shaped lot Environmental Determination: The Staff Environmental Review Committee, at their meeting of January 5, 1989, recommended an c Enviromental Negative Declaration with mitigation measures to dedicate a portion of land along First Street for public sidewalk use and enlargement of the proposed driveway. Also, neighoring residents to the west had some concerns about the location of the pool equipment. It should be noted that a 40' undeveloped right-of-way separates this parcel from the adjacent condominium development, therefore, noise generated from the pool equipment should be minimal. The Staff Environmental Review Committee did not require a traffic study for this project because a traffic study was recently prepared for a condominium development across the street from this site which addressed cumulative impacts which included this project. Analysis The property is designated in the General Plan as Medium Density Residential; currently the property is zoned M-1 and Open Space. Surrounding properties are also zoned R-2, MDR. In the past, M-1 zoning had some logic since there was a railroad sub -spur line abutting the subject property to the south. The railroad line has since been abandoned and part of the line, including the sub -spurs have been sold to private parties. All of the original railroad property, sub -spurs included, were zoned Open Space when the main spur line, now known as the "Green Belt" was zoned Open Space. It may be argued that it was never the intent of the City to rezone these now privately owned sub -spurs to Open Space since they were never discussed or shown on any map, including the General Plan Map. It was not until staff researched these parcels that it was discovered that these parecels were part of the railroad, and therefore, were inadvertantly zoned Open Space. The previous designation was railroad right-of-way, therefore, uses were limited to railroad purposed only. The railroad should have requested that these parcels be rezoned prior to their sale. The City has the legal obligation to rezone the entire parcel to bring it into consistency. Failure to do so is in violation of State Law. Staff is recommending a Specific Plan Area zone for this parcel. The intent of the SPA is to limit the site to 12 dwelling units, one unit per each 2000 sq. ft. of land. A similar development was recently recommended for approval; a parcel located across the street, 603 1st Street. An R-2 zone would allow 13 unit; one dwelling unit per each 1750 sq. ft. of land.The recommended SPA would allow for other conditions to be plac in the recommended zone change without illegally conditioning an R-2 zone change. Surrounding parcels are zoned R-2. The surrounding parcels may appear to have lesser densities, however, these lots are much c smaller, therefore, they have lesser units. In most cases, the densities equate to 25 du/ac. Analysis of Alternatives 1. To extend the R-2 zoning; the R-2 zone would permit 13 dwelling units on this size lot. The designation of a Specific Plan Area will allow for zoning standards to be added as conditions to the SPA, i.e., lesser density. Either the R-2 or the proposed SPA is consistent with the General Plan. 2. To amend the General Plan; the property could have a General Plan Amendment so that the designation corresponded to the current zoning. This would result in, most likely, inverse condomnation for the Open Space zoned portion since none of the permitted used under the designation would be economically viable on that small portion of a lot. However, the City could buy the Open Space portion of the property and create a small park. If the M zoned protion was redesignated, the resulting manufacturing uses could have a very detrimental impact to surrounding residential properties. The adjacent streets are narrow, thus not suitable for truck traffic. Other potential impacts of a manufacturing development include noise, signage, and potential exposure to harmful chemicals and/or odors. 3. To Rezone R-1, Low Density; the property and adjacent block could be rezoned and redesignated R-1, Low Density Residential. There is a small portion of Ardmore Avenue, north of the site, which is zoned R-1. These R-1 lots are significantly smaller in size, therefore, would not allow multiple units. Redesignation to R-1 should be included with a study to rezone the entire block R-1 since redesignation of this parcel only may result in spot zoning. This parcel as an R-1 zone may be subdivided into six lots assuming minimum street frontages can be met. Proposed Project Analysis The proposed development consists on 13 dwelling units which is equal to 25 units per acre. Lot coverage is 4270 which is significantly lower than other typical developments which generally have lot coverages of 6370 to 6570. The reduced lot coverage is a result of the relatively large lot compared to the typical size in the City. Open Space also significantly exceed the minimum requirements because of the large size of the lot; 426 sq. ft. per unit is proposed. Typically other project provide the minimum 300 sq. ft. of open space which is usually located on decks. This project has 4150 sq. ft. of open space on the ground level. i The overall design of the development is attractive. Ample landscape is being provided in all the setback areas. Architectural treatments are also superior. It includes dome and pyramid rood structures, stucco projections, ins & outs, sconce lights, sand finish stucco, cross -hatched windows, and a unique multi -colored paint finish. The applicant has provided two enclosed parking spaces per unit and seven guest parking spaces. A condition of approval should require that one guest parking space be provided per unit. A similar condition was imposed on the 603 1st Street project. Also, parking in the area should be maximized whenever possible. One advantage of the proposed development is that there will only be one curb cut. As single family homes, each parcel will have a separate curb cut, thus eliminating on -street parking. The plan conforms to other planning and zoninL equirements. Michael Schubach Planning Director Attachments 1. Resolution P.C. 89-18 2. Resolution P.C. 89-19 3. Zoning Analysis 4. Staff Review Minutes 5. Traffic Study Summary 6. Application 7. Public Notice Affidavit a/pcsr540 q An•rew 'er Associate anner I .t o I ZONE CHANGE FROM M-1 AND OPEN SPACE TO R-2 OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #46826 FOR A 13 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 540 FIRST STREET Comm. Edwards stated that he would abstain from discussion because he lives within 300 feet of the proposed project site. Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 14, 1989. Staff offered two recommendations: (1) that the Planning Commission recommend a' zone change to a Specific Plan Area to allow twelve units and environmental negative declaration; and (2) to approve the conditional use permit and vesting tentative tract map, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Staff offered three alternative recommendations: (1) to rezone the subject property to R-2, thereby allowing thirteen dwelling units; (2) to leave the property zoned M-1 and open space and amend the general plan designation from medium density residential to manufacturing and open space for those portions of the parcel with corresponding zoning; or (3) to redesignate and rezone the property to R-1, low density residential, including the remaining block. The project is located in the M-1 and open space zone, with a general plan designation of medium density residential. The irregularly-shaped lot is 24,251 square feet. Most of the R-1 lots in this area are 25' by 100'. The staff environmental review committee, at their meeting of January 5, 1989, recommended an environmental negative declaration with mitigation measures to dedicate a portion of land along First Street for public sidewalk use and enlargement of the proposed driveway. Also, neighboring residents to the west had some concerns about the location of the pool equipment. It should be noted that a 40 -foot undeveloped right-of-way separates this parcel from the adjacent condominium development; therefore, noise generated from the pool equipment should be minimal. The staff environmental review committee did not require a traffic study for this project because a traffic study was recently prepared for a condominium development across the street from this site, and the study addressed cumulative impacts which is included in this project. The property is designated in the general plan as medium density residential; currently the property is zoned M-1 and open space. Surrounding properties are also zoned R-2, MDR. In the past, M-1 zoning had some logic since there was a railroad sub -spur line abutting the subject property to the south. The railroad line has since been abandoned and part of the line, including the sub -spurs, has been sold to private parties. All of the original railroad property, sub -spurs included, were zoned open space when the main spur line, now known as the "Green Belt," was zoned open space. It may be argued that it was never the intent of the City to rezone these now privately owned sub -spurs to open space since they were never discussed or shown on any map, including the general plan map. It was not until staff researched these parcels that it -1(- P.C. Minutes 2/21/89 was discovered that these parcels were part of the railroad and therefore were inadvertently zoned open space. The previous designation was railroad right-of-way; therefore; uses were limited to railroad purposes only. The railroad should have requested that these parcels be rezoned prior to their sale. The City has the legal obligation to rezone the entire parcel to bring it into consistency. Failure to do so is in violation of State law. Staff is recommending a Specific Plan Area zone for this parcel. The intent of the SPA is to limit the site to 12 dwelling units, one unit per each 2000 square feet of land. A similar development was recently recommended for approval; a parcel 'located across the street at 603 First Street. An R-2 zone would allow 13 units, one dwelling unit per each 1750 square feet of land. The recommended SPA would allow for other conditions to be in place in the recommended zone change without illegally conditioning an R-2 zone change. Surrounding parcels are zoned R-2. The surrounding parcels may appear to have lesser densities; however, these lots are much smaller; therefore, they have fewer units. In most cases, the densities equate to 25 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Schubach discussed the alternative of extending the R-2 zoning. The R-2 zone would permit 13 dwelling units on this sized lot. The designation of a Specific Plan Area will allow for zoning standards to be added as conditions to the SPA; i.e., lesser density. Either the R-2 or the proposed SPA is consistent with the general plan. The alternative of amending the general plan: The property could have a general plan amendment so that the designation corresponded to the current zoning. This would result in, most likely, inverse condemnation for the open space zoned. portion since none of the permitted uses under the designation would be economically viable on that small portion of the lot. However, the City could buy the open space portion of the property and create a small park. If the M zoned portion was redesignated, the resulting manufacturing uses could have a very detrimental impact to surrounding residential properties. The adjacent streets are narrow, thus not suitable for truck traffic. Other potential impacts of a manufacturing development include noise, signage, and potential exposure to harmful chemicals and/or odors. • The alternative of rezoning to R-1, low density: The property and adjacent block could be rezoned and redesignated R-1, low density residential. There is a small portion of Ardmore Avenue, north of the site, which is zoned R-1. These R-1 lots are significantly smaller in size and therefore would not allow multiple units. Redesignation to R-1 should be included with a study to rezone the entire block R-1 since redesignation of this parcel only may result in spot zoning. This parcel as an R-1 zone may be subdivided into six lots assuming minimum street frontages can be met. The proposed development consists of 13 dwelling units, which is equal to 25 units per acre. Lot coverage is 42 percent, which is significantly lower than other typical developments which generally have lot coverages of 63 to 65 percent. The reduced lot coverage is a result of the relatively large lot compared to the typical size in the City. Open space also significantly exceeds the minimum requirements because of the large size of the lot; 426 square feet per unit is proposed. Typically other lz- P.C. Minutes 2/21/89 projects provide the minimum 300 square feet of open space which is usually located on decks. This project has 4150 square feet of open space on the ground level. The overall design of the development is attractive. Ample landscaping is being provided in all the setback areas. Architectural treatments are also superior. It includes dome and pyramid roof structures, stucco projections, ins and outs, sconce lights, sand finish stucco, cross -hatched windows, and a unique multi -colored paint finish. The applicant has also provided two enclosed parking spaces per unit and seven guest parking spaces. A condition of approval should require that one guest parking space be provided per unit. A similar condition was imposed on the 603 First Street project. Also, parking in the area should be maximized whenever possible. One advantage of the proposed development is that there will only be one curb cut. As single-family homes, each parcel would have a separate curb cut, thereby eliminating.on- street parking. The plans conform to other planning and zoning requirements. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Chmn. Peirce, explained the strip of property behind the project site is actually owned by the City of Redondo Beach, and not much of anything can be built there. ' Public Hearing opened at 9:53 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Patrick Killin, 1320 South Catalina, Redondo Beach, project architect, addressed the Commission. He stated that they went through a number of various studies in an attempt to design the best project for this site. He stated that the concerns of the neighborhood have been taken into account, as well as the issues of parking, density, and creating the least number of curb cuts possible. At this project, there will be only one curb cut. Mr. Killin discussed the strip of land in the City of Redondo Beach which is owned by the individual who owns the office building which fronts on the corner of Herondo and Pacific Coast Highway. He noted that that strip, therefore, has not been deeded for use on this project. He stated that the strip is very narrow and serves as an entrance into the parking lot. Mr. Killin continued by discussing the separation between this project and the planned development across the street, which was an issue that was addressed during the planning stage of this project. That separation is the area of Ardmore, which is 40 feet. This project will be required to have five-foot setbacks from the property lines. He continued by discussing the other surrounding areas of this project site. He stated that the project's only curb cut will be on First Street. Mr. Killin stated that the lot coverage for this project will be only 42 percent, well under the allowed 65 percent. Therefore, he felt that the request for 13 units on this site is a valid request. He said that the project is designed so that there will be two four -unit buildings, one three -unit building, and one two -unit building. By designing the project with smaller units, there is not a feeling of massive density as with other projects in the City. He stated that an attempt was made to avoid the feeling of row houses. Mr. Killin stated that the project has been designed so that there is actually usable recreation space for the owners of the units. There will be a pool and a small area with a highly landscaped zone around the facility. He stated that an attempt was made to meet 13- P.C. Minutes 2/21/89 the intent of the' code requiring that there be usable recreation space. The area was designed so that it is not in shadows all day long; therefore, there was planning in the placement of the pool and recreation area. Mr. Killin continued his presehtation by showing the site plan. He discussed the driveway and stated that it will be patterned concrete. The area along First Street will have a minimum ten -foot setback, and there will be a guest parking space there. The only buildings which will not have a minimum ten -foot setback are B and G, and those will have five-foot setbacks. He stated that an attempt was made to minimize the impacts of this project on the neighbors. Mr. Killin stated that some residents of The Mooring building attended a staff environmental committee review meeting and had requested that some of the pool equipment be relocated away from the property line in order to minimize the amount of noise. A suggestion was made that the pool equipment be placed in a room, which is something he would be willing to do. Mr. Killin, at that meeting, also pointed out to the neighbors that the pool equipment will be 50 feet away, so there will not be a close proximity. Mr. Killin noted that the plans for the project are self-explanatory; therefore, he did not discuss them in detail. Mr. Killin commented on the proposed architectural treatment for the buildings, stating that the fronts as well as the sides will be treated. He stated that there will be ins and out on the buildings, as well as balconies which recess in and out. He stated that there will also be a mixed use of color. Mr. Killin stated that the area near First Street and Ardmore currently allows M-1 usage. He stated that it may not now be used to its fullest potential because of the fact that it has been existing in the present condition for quite some time. He said that the owner now desires to develop the property, not only to the betterment of the community and to create an exemplary development, but also to bring the zoning into conformity with the rest of the neighborhood. Mr. Killin noted that the project meets all current rules and regulations and that it does not go to the maximum allowable lot coverage. The project has been designed so that it is not bulky. He therefore urged the Commission to approve the 13 units as requested and as is allowed under the proposed R-2 zoning. Warner Lombardi, 1849 Valley Park, Hermosa Beach, urged that the Commission not only address this project as a single development, but also look at it in relation to all of the other developments currently being built in the area and the resulting impacts. He noted concern over traffic, parking, sewers, and drainage. Mr. Lombardi asked whether the applicant has provided drainage and hydrology reports, and whether the project will be approved prior to the submission of those reports. Mr. Schubach explained that those issues will be addressed during the inspections by the County engineers, Public Works Department, Fire Department, Building Department, and other engineers. Mr. Lombardi noted the importance of having the proper studies done. He urged the City to require the studies before final approval is given. P.C. Minutes 2/21/89 l Pierre Forchette; 501 Herondo, Hermosa Beach, discussed the site plan for this project. He said that his homeowners association has for the past two and a half years taken on part of the responsibility of maintaining the small strip of land in question near this project site. He said he regrets the loss of that open space area. He said he thought that strip of land was open space owned by the City that his association was maintaining as a condition of maintaining the number of units at his building. Chmn. Peirce suggested that Mr. Forchette examine the conditional use permit to gain information in regard to the maintenance of the area in question. Mr. Lough gave some background information in regard to the development Mr. Forchettes lives in, The Mooring, explaining that the requirements for that development differ from the City -imposed requirements because the project was not approved by the City Council but by the court system. Mr. Forchette noted concern over the location of the pool and the related noise. He said, however, that he feels the project will be a great improvement over what is currently existing there. Mr. Forchette noted concern over parking in the area and questioned whether the proposed guest parking will be sufficient for this project, stating that the parking situation is already quite bad in the area. Kathleen Forchette, 501 Herondo, Unit 66, Hermosa Beach, noted concern over several issues: (1) irrigation, trees and grass; (2) the amount of space being called a five-foot setback along the side facing The Mooring; (3) the lighting fixtures which will face The Mooring, and which might cause a problem with glare or lighting intensity; (4) the proposed number of parking spaces seems to be inadequate; (5) she felt there should be three parking spaces required per unit plus guest parking; (6) the historical value of the existing building, and whether the Historical Society could photograph the building before it is town down; (7) maintaining adequate open space in the area; (8) she suggested an eight -foot block wall along the side facing The Mooring; (9) possible noise from the pool area; (10) maintaining privacy in The Mooring and ensuring that aesthetics are maintained. Nick Canetti, 540 First Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that the project site does not abut any R-3 property as asserted by staff. He continued by explaining what does exist in the area, stating that residential exists only on one side. He noted concern over the historical significance of the existing building, stating that it was built in 1883. He stated that the traffic and parking is currently very bad in this neighborhood. He questioned whether emergency vehicles would have access into this area. He strongly opposed this project. He stated that the area is already too crowded. Susan Lapes, 501 Herondo, Unit 7, Hermosa Beach, stated that she does not oppose the project per se; however, she noted concern over traffic, explaining that there is excessive traffic on the dead-end street already. She said people test drive cars in the area. She noted concern over noise in the area. She noted concern over parking. She said that when this project is completed, it will bring the number of new units to 29 in that very small area. She noted concern over the bootleg potential at the new project. She felt that the proposed parking is not adequate. She noted concern over possible noise problems caused by the swimming pool. She noted that the applicant did tell her they would relocate the pool equipment. She also said that the construction period will cause problems. She said that this area gets very rowdy in the summer. - /5- P.C. Minutes 2/21/89 c Ms. Lapes suggested that options be explored in regard to erecting a wall and relocating the pool and pool equipment. She suggested that the number of units be reduced. Patrick Killin addressed the concerns raised during the hearing. He said that a traffic study was done for this area, not only for this particular site, but also for the surrounding projects. The traffic study was reviewed by the Public Works Department and deemed acceptable. The traffic study indicated that there would not be any significant impact on the existing streets. Mr. Killin stated that a grading plan was provided and looked at when the tentative tract map was submitted. The drainage was taken into consideration when the grading plan was done, and the developer is aware of the drainage situation. The grades were actually set for the units, and the pads were set as well. Mr. Killip stated that the City has instituted a hydrant upgrade plan, wherein -the developer pays a portion of the cost to upgrade the fire hydrants based on the square footage of the project. .Mr. Killin discussed the open space currently being maintained. He stated that it is his understanding that his client was never required to landscape any other properties or to irrigate the area. He said that the developer will attempt to minimize the impacts of this project as well as maintain the aesthetics. Mr. Killin discussed the issue of on-site parking and stated that various options have been proposed. He stated that the applicant desires approval of the 13 -unit development with the existing proposed parking. He stated that all R-2 standards are being met for this project, and he requested that the standards be followed in this instance. He noted that the lot coverage is well below the allowed maximum, and . extra amenities are being provided. Mr. Killin commented on the concern raised that the proposed units would have a bootleg potential. He said an open stairwell is proposed so that it will be difficult to turn the lower -level bedroom into a bootleg. He said the entryway will be open all the way to the third level. Mr. Killin encouraged the Planning Commission to address the project as proposed. Public Hearing closed at 10:41 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce noted that this proposed 13 -unit project is in an area which .will have another 13 -unit development across the street. He noted that this area is very crowded, and it is becoming more congested. Soon there will be no on -street parking left. He felt quite strongly that additional guest parking should be required on-site for this project. Comm. Ketz agreed and stated she felt there should be a minimum of three parking spaces per unit. Comm. Ingell also felt there should be a minimum of three parking spaces per unit. Chmn. Peirce reiterated some options available to the Commission: (1) to leave the property zoned M-1/open space; or (2) downzone to R-1. _16- P.C. Minutes 2/21/89 � c Comm... Rue felt that M-1 would be absurd zoning in this area. He did not feel R-1 would be appropriate either, since most of the area is surrounded by R-2. Further, Herondo is a very busy street. He felt that R-2 would be the most logical zoning for this area. Chmn. Peirce agreed, stating he could not see rezoning this property to R-1, since it is basically surrounded by R-2. Chmn. Peirce noted that the main issues center around the number of parking spaces that should be required, the number of units which should be allowed, and the placement of the pool. Comm. Rue discussed the parking, noting that the Commission has spent a great deal of time in the past addressing parking for various projects. He stated that if the current parking standards are deemed inadequate, they should be changed to require additional parking. He said that the parking situation will probably improve in time because of the new parking standards; however, since the parking requirements are on the books, projects should be allowed if they comply with the requirements. He felt the City needs to be consistent in its requirements. Comm. Rue noted that this project provides ample open space and has lot coverage well below the maximum allowed. He stated that he does not feel this developer should be penalized because he has attempted to go the extra mile in developing a good project with open space and less lot coverage. Comm. Rue felt that the developer should not be required to do more, when he has already done a lot in regard to developing a good project. He felt that imposing additional requirements with no real findings or fact will not encourage recycling of the older and more undesirable properties in the City. ...,,. Comm. Ingell stated that units of the proposed size are actually more homes than condominiums. He said that there is a problem with homes of this size because owners tend to rent out rooms, and there is then not adequate parking. He felt that the code requirements need to be studied, and the tendency seems to be to require three parking spaces per unit. Comm. Rue did not feel this project can be compared to other projects which were built with other requirements. Comm. Ketz noted that the purpose of a conditional use permit is to allow the Commission the opportunity to address areas which may be of concern and to rectify those which are deemed to require mitigation measures. In this case, she felt it would be appropriate to require additional parking. Comm. Ketz stated that there would be no point in the Commission reviewing conditional use permits if they were to review only whether a project complies with the requirements. She felt the Commission should add conditions when deemed necessary in order to reduce the chance of problems arising in the future. Chmn. Peirce commented that the pool appears to be located in an appropriate area. Chmn. Peirce felt that the number of units should be reduced to 12, and additional parking should be required. He asked whether it would appropriate to move that the area be rezoned to a specific plan area, and then move to lower the number of units. — / 7— P.C. Minutes 2/21/89 t - c Mr. Lough suggested that the Commission approve a specific plan area if it is desired to reduce the number units. He stated if the number of units is reduced in the conditional use permit, the CUP could expire; there would then be R-2 zoning, and 13 units could be built. MOTION by Comm. Rue, to approve the plan as a specific plan area for thirteen units with the parking as proposed in the plans. Also, to add a condition requiring that the pool equipment be relocated in order to reduce sound. Further, to require that there be landscaping or a fence provided in order to mitigate noise problems emanating from the pool area to the west. MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-19, recommending a zone change from M-1/Open Space to a Specific Plan Area. Further, the zone change will conform with the general plan. Also, each unit shall be required to provide three parking spaces. Comm. Ingell stated that it might not be necessary to reduce the number of units at this project if the developer can add more parking, noting that the lot coverage is only 42 percent. Comm. Rue noted, however, that to allow thirteen units with the requirement of additional parking, would only add more concrete to the project. In so doing, the green area would be reduced. Chmn. Peirce agreed with Comm. Rue's comments. Mr. Lough stated that it is necessary to vote on the zone change separately from the conditional use permit. Comm. Ingell stated that he would like to have input from the developer in regard to whether additional parking can be provided without lowering the number of units. Comm. Rue agreed and stated that he would like to know what affect there would be on the property if an additional six parking spaces are required. Public Hearing reopened at 10:55 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Patrick Killin, architect, addressed the Commission and stated that he had penciled out the proposal on the plans. He said it would be possible to get 13 parking spaces in. He stated that it would be necessary to downscale some areas around the pool in order to obtain the extra space for five parking spots where none are currently proposed. It would then be necessary to reconfigure another area to provide another space. Mr. Killin agreed with Comm. Rue's observation that additional parking adds concrete, thus taking away from the green space areas. He said that one of the intents of this project was to try to minimize the impact of it. Mr. Killin stated that it is possible to add more parking; however, the trade-off is to have more concrete and to reduce the landscaped areas. Mr. Lombardi approached the Commission and stated that to rezone this property would create spot zoning. P.C. Minutes 2/21/89 c r Mrs. Forchette addressed the Commission and suggested that the project be reduced to 11 units so that no landscaping would be lost. Public Hearing closed at 10:58 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. AYES: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Peirce NOES: Comm. Rue ABSTAIN: Comm. Edwards ABSENT: None Comm. Ingell said that he voted to approve 12 units because he did not favor losing the open space and landscaping which is associated with this property. Mr. Schubach discussed various options available for a wall to minimize the noise impacts from the pool area to the west. He stated that landscaping could be provided in order to absorb the noise. Chmn. Peirce asked who would be required to landscape the open space area along Ardmore. He asked for clarification on the matter. He noted that both projects will obtain benefits from the open space. Mr. Schubach gave background information on The Mooring project, stating that there is no requirement, as far as he is aware, that requires this developer to provide landscaping. He noted, however, that he could investigate the matter further. Mr. Lough cautioned that there could be problems with requiring the developer to maintain the area, because it is not known whether the street is owned in fee by the City or whether it is merely an easement where the underlying property rights belong to the adjacent property owners. He stated that it would be necessary to perform a survey to determine the exact location of the street. He questioned whether a condition can be imposed to landscape City property. Chmn. Peirce asked that something be included in the conditional use permit addressing the issue of the landscaping on Ardmore. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-18, approving a conditional use permit and vesting tentative map for a twelve -unit condominium project at 540 First Street, with the modifications that (1) a condition be added requiring the applicant to work with staff to devise a mutually agreeable method of landscaping the property in question on Ardmore; (2) a condition shall be added requiring an architecturally treated wall to be constructed which will minimize the sound transmission from the pool area to the west. AYES: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce NOES: None ABSTAIN: Comm. Edwards ABSENT: None Comm. Rue stated that he actually opposes requiring only 12 units for this project; however, he feels it will still be a good project. He felt that the original proposal for 13 units should have been approved. Chmn. Peirce stated that the zone change only will be heard before the City Council. The item will be noticed again, and there will be a public hearing on the matter. P.C. Minutes 2/21/89 Mr. Schubach, in response to a request from Chmn. Peirce, gave information on the surrounding projects for the benefit of the audience. P.C. Minutes 2/21/89 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION P.C. 89-19 A RESOLUTION. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FROM M-1 AND OPEN SPACE TO SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 21, 1989 and made the following Findings: A. State law requires consistency between the zoning and General Plan; B. Rezoning of the subject area from M-1 and Open Space to Specific Plan Area will result in consistency between the zoning and General Plan; C. The property is adequate in size and shape for a Specific Plan Area zoning; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT -RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby recommend that the Zoning Map shall be amended as shown on the attached map and legally described as a portion of Lot 42, Block 78 of the Second Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract (540 First Street), and the following text shall be added to the zoning ordinance: 1. All zoning requirements contained in the R-2 standards shall be adhered to with the following modifications: a. One guest parking space shall be provided per unit. b. One dwelling unit shall be permitted per each two thousand (2,000) square feet of land area. VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ingell,Ketz,Chmn.Peirce NOES: Comm.Rue ABSTAIN: Comm.Edwards ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 89-19 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meeting of February 21, 1989. fr Ja �s Peirce, Chairman Micha- Schu•ac , Secretary Date - 2/- - ; :ti i 1 •�c/r j/247.0' 380t •• 5. rose 740: • • 540 FIRST STREET SUBJECT AREA IST Oa2 Por. • 93•4 Q0 \ 4i \ H .41 � u 27 6701., 6,B404a. Z�3� ST - O N 25 t53 4 091 O1 4038 T. 11 Lase _ --- -_ HERONpO S __ fi- - Slope •. ERONpO 141 24 8 /J 2. 4 ' N Z3 4,393'• m 18) 22 \ O 4.73 01 • 055 84cKCRavNn. 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 RESOLUTION P.C. 89-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #46826 FOR A 12 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 540 FIRST STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF LOT 42, BLOCK 78, SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 21, 1989 to receive.oral and written testimony on this matter and made the following Findings: A. The map is consistent with applicable general and .specific plans; B. The site is located within a General Plan/Zoning consistency area, and the development is consistent with the General Plan density requirements; C. The development shall pose no threat to the public safety and welfare; D. The subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems; E. The subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; F. Design of the proposed subdivision is compatible and consistent with applicable elements of the City's General Plan; G. The project will conform to all zoning and condominium criteria and will compatible with adjacent residential properties; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California does hereby approve a Conditional Use .Permit and Vesting Tentative Tract Map#46826 for a 12 -unit condominium project at 540 First Street subject to the following conditions of approval: 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. The proposed plans shall be in substantial compliance with' the submitted plans and all the following conditions. 2. Vesting Tenative Map #46826 shall be revised to indicate a maximum of twelve (12) •units. 3. The project shall meet all requirements of the Condominium Ordinance. a. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions in compliance with the Condominium Ordinance shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of Building• Permits. b. Proof of recordation of approved CC&R's shall be submitted to the Planning Director within six (6) months after City approval of the Final Map. • c. Requirements of Section 7'.2-6(G) shall be shown on structural plans and reviewed at the time of Building Department Plan Check. 4. There shall be compliance with all requirements of the Public Works Department and Fire Department including the following: a. Dedication of a portion of land for public sidewalk. 5. The (3) copies of a landscaping plan shall indicate size, type and quantity of plant materials shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. a. An automatic landscape sprinkler system shall be provided, and shall be shown on plans. b. The applicant shall work with staff to develop a mutually agreeable method of landscaping the undeveloped portion of the Ardmore Avenue public right-of-way. 6. Architectural treatment shall be as shown on submitted plans; any modification are subject to approval by the Planning Director: a. Precise height shall be reviewed at the time of Building Plan Check, and plans shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Building Director. b. The entire driveway shall be constructed with an aestheticly decorative material such as brick, pressed concrete or similar material reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. c. An architecturally treated wall shall be added which will minimize the sound transmitted from the pool area to the west. 7. Any satellite dish and/or similar equipment shall comply with the requirements of Section 1227 of the Zoning Ordinance. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 c c 8. Conduit shall be installed in each unit for cable television. 9. Automatic garage door openers shall be provided. 10. Three (3) sets of revised plans including site, elevation, floor and landscaping plans, which are consistent with the conditions of approval of this C.U.P., shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of any Building Permits. Revised plans shall indicate the following: a. Plans shall indicate a maximum of twelve (12) units. b. Three (3) parking spaces shall provided for each unit, two per unit and one guest space. c. The driveway approach shall be a minimum of 25 feet wide and shall provide a rounded curb; curve radii rather than a simple "x" cut driveway shall be provided. 11. An "Acceptance of Conditions" form shall be executed and submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 12. This Conditional Use Permit is subject to a rezoning of the parcel to R-2 or Specific Plan Area. 13. The Conditional Use Permit shall be null and void one and a half years from the date of approval unless Building Permits have been obtained and approval of the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map shall become null and void twenty-four months from the date of approval unless the map is finaled. The applicant may apply in writing for an extension of time to the Planning Commission prior to the date of expiration. VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ingell,Ketz,Rue,Chmn.Peirce NOES: None ABSTAIN: Comm.Edwards ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 89-18 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, Califor, at their regular meeting of February 21, 19 r rP-2-ti--•-"-- Ja s Peirce,ChairMic ael chu•ach, Secretary Date T/pers540 e c Project Address: RESIDENTIAL ZONING ANALYSIS 54-c, l± Legal Description: l 42- 7LIrX t 2 cd -6-> Type of Project: . ( - - /Zovneo_ r No. Units: I� -Chc�rL r1 a� c AL3m Property Owner: Applicant(s): Designer: Date of Plans: Zoning: ************ *1************** 114-k d o • 3 Analysis Prepared by: General Plan Designation: jv�,D res ic4e . • Maximum Dwelling Units per Acre Allowed (DU/AC): 'R-1 R-2 R-3, Lot Area: 13 .DU/AC 25 DU/AC 33 DU/AC 1 Dwelling Unit per 1 Unit per 1750 sq. 1 Unit per 1320 sq. 2-51YS Proposed Density -Dwelling Units/Acres Maximum Allowable Lot Coverage: 65% Proposed Lot -Coverage: 42-'h - Minimum Unit Size: a) 1 bedroom - 900 b) 2 bedroom - 1100 c) 3 bedroom - 1400 d) 4 bedroom - 1600 Proposed Unit Size(s) : 61110prW, 11504 sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. Lot ft. of land ft. of land Useable Open Space Required ' a) R-1 - 400 sq. ft., minimum dimension of 10' 75% ground - 25% balconies, open to the sky b) R-2 & R -2B - 200 sq. ft., minimum dimension of 7' c) R-3 - 200 sq. ft., minimum dimension of 7' d) R -P - 200 sq. ft., minimum dimension of 7' •- .:..;••••• d•..�..��..•••..-••.Harr. a — . • • Condominium developments requires 100 sq. ft. of additional private open space, minimum dimension of 7'. Each condominium development of five (5) units or more requires 100 sq. ft. of common open space per unit. Open Space per Unit: Required Private: 200 4- too 9( Common: V1,1 Proposed e 2)fl 4t ********************************* Maximum Allowable Height a) R-1 - 25 feet, maximum 2 stories b) R-2 & R -2B - 30 feet, maximum 2 stories c) R-3 - 35 feet d) R -P - 35 feet, maximum 3 stories Condominium developments located along walk streets shall not exceed the maximum height of 25 feet within the front half of the lot. • Proposed Building Height: Note: ( Height shall be verified by the Building Department during Plan Check. ******************************* Building Setbacks Where garages or parking stalls front on a public street or alley, the minimum setback shall be 17 feet provided roll -up doors are installed; a minimum of 20 feet shall be required shere standard doors are installed. _.............. -27- c .. ..... ._ ........_w.....s,_a.....:.,,,...o.iba:.rio.orsi.f:...;::....r.Vr:a;,:".:ts:b: • c c Setbacks - continued Required Proposed Front: \Of ID/ Rear: Side: 5 5 Parking a) Two parking spaces per unit, minimum dimension of 8 1/2 _.feet wide by 20 feet deep -enclosed, 8 1/2 feet wide by 18 .feet -open. Total Required: Apr-U� �" ********************************* b) One guest space for each two units (round up; e.g. 3 unit site must provide 2 guest spaces). One guest space shall also be required for each on -street parking space eliminated because of new driveways or curb cuts. Total Required: . 7 Parking Proposed: a) -Spaces per Unit - 2- '.o --rt5T(_. b) Guest Parking - Required Turning Radius Proposed Turning Radius **************_******************* Required Sound Insulation Required: a) The minimum wall insulation rating between units shall be 52 STC. b) The minimum floor/ceiling rating between stacked units shall be 58 STC. Proposed Sound Insulation - Note: Sound Insulation requirement shall be verified by the Building Department during plan check. • Storage Area Required per Unit: 'a) 200 cubic feet'of storage area per unit _ .. ......ci....�: 0'��..•L•..a+�i�w+%:4=•v�iiia`R.i�.i+.as..�...r iil.ii..r:.f w.w.i Storage Area Proposed per Unit , , l� V Location of Trash Facilities Staff Comments: 0 (an -t - NI (lAt F- . - S177 _ l r/ 44 ' Ve'_ri -PR( 1 rrt CL'- Iro on -1 4r) �aY't�lc� PSC C!%1 • • REVISED - September 1987 c ZON 88-7 AND CON 88-34 APPLICANT: Pat Killen, architect ZONE CHANGE FROM M-1 & OPEN SPACE TO R-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT & VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #46826 FOR A 13 UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 540 1ST STREET t N } Mr. Perea stated that they are proposing 13 units, 26 enclosed parking spaces and 8 guest spaces. Mr. Perea advised that the current map shows the area as R -2B,, which is incorrect, therefore the need to change the R -2B to manufacturing zone. Mr. Grove asked if the open space is currently developed as grass and trees. Mr. Killen replied yes. Mr. Pereas asked what the size of the units were. Mr. Killen replied approximately 1740 square feet. Mr. Peres asked that Mr. Killen provide the dimension of the floor plan, parking and open space for the Planning Commisssion. • Mr. Perea expressed concern over the location of the garbage dumpster. Mr.•Killen volunteered to add an additional bin to the sideyard of Building G or in the landscaped area. Mr. Antich requested that the Planning Commission require a. dedication of the sidewalk at the northwest corner of the property, so that it follows the same curviture of the back sidewalk. In addition, they should increase the driveway access to 25 feet. The developer should pay for all public improvements. Mr. Perea invited the public to come foward with any concerns or comments. Interested parties were: Kathleen Forgette - 501 Herondo Susan Leeks - 501 Herondo Nick Conneti - 540 1st Street The general concerns were parking, the enforcement of the stop sign located on First Street, possible bootleg units in the garage, and the pool noise to the units located directly across from Building E. Motion by Mr. Perea to reccomend a negative declaration with a mitigating measure that a portion of the land along First Street be dedicated for sidewalk use and that the driveway access be enlarged to 25 feet. In addition, note that staff will work with the architect on the placement of the pool equipment. Second by Mr. Grove. No objections, so ordered. c c SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION A proposal has been made to construct 15 residential condomi- nimum units on a 26,019 square foot site east of Ardmore Avenue and north of First Street in Hermosa Beach. A total of 3$ parking spaces will be provided, 30 of which will be for residential use and 8 for guests. A trip forecast for tie project is as follows: AM PM Daily IN OUT IN OUT Residential 88 1 6 6 3 o Because of the very minimal number of trips associated with the project; there will be virtually no impact on the adjacent streets. o Two cumulative projects were assessed, both of which have quite nominal future trip generation.. o No mitigation measures are needed to accommodate project or cumulative volumes along the site frontage. o Adequate parking is provided on-site for residents and users of the site. o There will be a nominal amount of project traffic using local residential streets, except on First Street between the site and Pacific Coast Highway. The conclusion, therefore, is that the project. can be accommodated at the site without any undue adverse impact. Respectfully submitted, JU 1. F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. ustin F. Farmer, P.E., President JFF:dr - 3a -- JUSTIN F. FARMER 18 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS; INC. M• Ja, • PROJECT ADDRESS . CITY • OF HERMOSA B ACH 540 - 1st Street, Hermosa Beach 4/t36 Project Name (If applicable) LEGAL DESCRIPTION see attached APPLICANT INFORMATION: Name(s)THOMPSON OF CALIFORNIA ATTN: 1IILLIAM H. JOHNSON, 111 Mailing Address 2555 Dominguez Hills Applciant's Relationship to Property APPLICANT' S SIGNATURE .edll _ 7y� DATE 12/15/88 • Phone ZONING 213/604-0289 Drive, Compton, CA 90220 OWNER PROJECT REQUEST Conditional Use Permit -Commercial 320.Conditional Use Permit -Condominium 2080. Number of Units 13 x $160. _ $2080. Development Agreement 2Q.Environmental Staff Review • Final Subdivision (Parcel/Tract Map) General Plan Lot Line Adjustment Lot Split Parking Plan Precise Plan Specific Plan Specific Plan Amendment 2777 Tentative Subdivision (Parcel/Tract Map) 450. Zone Change Zone Variance TOTAL FEES .$3305.00 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY- Date of submittal: IZ�f%,Y) Received by: DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Change of zone to R-2, approval -of tentative vesting tract 46826 and construction or 13 condominium units. (attach additional pages if necessary) STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES On December 15, 1988, before me, the undersigned, a notary public for the State, we/ personally appeared RANDOLPH S. MCCLELLAN, personally known to me to be the person that la tion whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, as a witness thereto, who being dulyl a dg e sworn by me, deposes and says that he was present and saw WILLIAM H. JOHNSON III, the same person described in whose name is subscribed to the within and annexed instrument as a party thereto, execute the same, and that said affiant subscribed his name to the within instrument as a witness at the request of WILLIAM H. JOHNSON III. OFFICIAL SEAL "..9"4..9 ELIZABETH C. SRO . Notary Public -California LOS ANGELES COUNTY My Comm. Exp. Nov. 2. 1990 -33- Dail/'/L /f2l1$ :e.S. T!/�tir� yoy 5"/ /'/.�0/wo BAR 2 itcqg (SEAL) I, the undersigned, do declare under penalty of perjury that I did on the 16th day of March ► 198.9 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 coni petent jurisdiction which questions the legality of the public notices, then the City may in its exclusive discretion suspend all hearings or cause the cessation of any construction or of any use which was permitted as a result of a hearing which was held in accordance with the public notice. In the event that the court declares the notice or noticing procedure to be effective, then the City may in its exclusive discretion revoke any permits granted and cause any approvals given pursuant to those.public notices to be declared null and void and I agree on behalf of myself and my heirs, assigns or successors -in -interest to hold the City harmless in connection therewith. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. I have executed this declaration on this the 16th day of March , 198 9 at Hermosa Beach, California. 1) 'Aloe Lcetx is add d) atxf W? • State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) SS On this the 16th day me, FRANCENEL D. BAKER Public, personally appeared ELIZABETH SROUR proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) she pbscribed to the within -instrument and acknowledged t =t she ELIZABETH SROUR REPRESENTATIVE (Capacity) ofmarch ► 198 9 before , the undersigned Notary executed it. WITNESS my hand and o OFFICIAL SEAL FRANCENE D. BAKER NOTARY PUBUC•CALIFCt.N LOS ANGELES CCUMTY MY COMM. EXP. JAN. 16.1!--14?. -36- No ary Public Srour & Associates Business and Real Estate Development Services Elizabeth C. Srour Fran Baker 820 Manhattan Avenue Suite"00'b" • Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 (213) 372-8433 March 17, 1898 City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ATTN: CITY CLERK SUBJECT: Appeal to City Council re: Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 46826 for property located at 540 First Street Dear Madam City Clerk: This correspondence is submitted to you on behalf of the property owner and applicant, THOMPSON OF CALIFORNIA, to inform the City Clerk and the City Council that the applicant wishes to withdraw the appeal filed on March 6, 1989. Mr. William Johnson, President of Thompson of California, has reviewed the Planning Commission's action in approving the proposal subject to certain conditions, including the condition that the project be reduced to 12 units. It is his opinion that the approval of the Planning Commission is acceptable to Thompson of California, and that their appeal is to be withdrawn with no further action required with regard to the Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Tract 46826. Respectfully, C 6144_ Elizabeth C. Srour ECS/mk cc: Thompson of California, Attn: William H. Johnson III Architrave, Attn: Patrick Killen Real Estate West, Attn: Robert Schuman MAR 2 01989•.rI Qty Clerk DIV of Mamma/lama / 0'1/ W N