The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/12/89November 27, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the City Council of December 12, 1989 RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD THE BID FOR DESKTOP PUBLISHING HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE TO ARCH ASSOCIATES CORPORATION Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council award the bid for DeskTop Publishing Hardware and Software (with the exception of HPWord PC software), for $12,115.44 tax included to Arch Associates Corporation. Background: As part of the 1989/90 budget, the City Council approved the appropriation of $15,501 for DeskTop Publishing Software, Hardware and peripheral. The city published a public notice inviting bids in the Easy Reader, which appeared on October 19, 1989. In addition, notices were mailed to twenty-one vendors (see attached list). Analysis: Nine bids were received. Arch Associates Corporation bid has met our specifications (with the exception of HPWord PC software) and falls within the budgeted appropriation. No bid submitted for HPWord PC. HPWord PC software will be purchased from Hewlett Packard (HP). HP had the lowest bid of $338.94, which includes sales tax. Purchasing from Arch Associates and Hewlett Packard, the total price will be $12,454.38, from the amount budgeted that would be a savings of $3,046.62. Desktop Publishing Uses: Desktop publishing provides a low-cost method of producing professional looking reports, newsletters and publications. A desktop publishing workstation will give a professional quality to city publications, thus enhancing the City's image. Some of the publications that will benefit from a desktop publishing workstation are: - City community newsletter - Neighborhood Watch newsletter - City employee newsletter - Public notices and information mailings - City Council agenda - City budget report and presentation - Departmental reports to public agencies, city council and the community - Internal forms and manuals if 4. As much as 90% of the City's publications could be typeset in-house on a desktop system. Many printing shops offer chemical developing services that produce high resolution copies of documents generated on desktop publishing systems. A desktop publishing system would reduce or eliminate outside typesetting charges. CONCUR: / /I &It/ / Henry L. Staten 'Kevin Northcraft City Manager Respectfully submitted, Henry L. Staten, Acting Director of General Services by �/�v, /j / /// ''Marguerite Sturges, Computer System Manager Maintenance System ($3540), E -Mail ($600), Apple II ($100), Disc/Omnidex & DBMGR ($2626); All Infocomp Systems Support, modification, upgrades and installation of Payroll ($43,000), PC and Desktop Publishing Software ($5,535), Autocad ($2500), Maintenance Management Sys. ($15000). PLUS: Data Safe offsite back-up storage ($1,673) 4312 Membership Beta Group ( Infocomp Software) 300 Hewlett Packard SIG (Special Interest Group for Municipal 150 Governments and Related Agencies) Association of Municipal Data Processing Directors 120 SCRUG/Interex (Southern Calif. Regional Users Group/ 100 International Association of H.P. Computer Users 4316 Training HP System Manager Class (2 DP Technical Aides) 2,300 Computer Related Training (PC Hardware, Software such 1,000 as Lotus, Microsoft Windows, Graphics, Pagemaker, etc.) 4317 Conference Beta Group (Inforcomp Software, two meeting per year) INTEREX (International Assoc. of Hewlett Packard Computer Users) 5402 Equipment (1) CPU Upgrade to HP Model 70 $106,783; (1) HP Eagle Disc Drive $11,932; (3) LaserJet Printers $8,085; (3) Word terminals $2400; (1) HP2934 Line Printer $2595; (1) Gandalf Switchmux $4,734; DeskTop Publishing Hardware and peripheral $9,966 500 350 146,495 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: 4102 - Increase in personnel not warranted unless cost effectiveness documented; 4201 - encourage continuation of review of costs tc see if other providers or lower level of service would be cost effect- ive. Printer is reduced due to cheaper contract; 4305 - reduce based on expected need. 4110/4111 - reflects reduction in per- sonnel request; 5402 - CPU upgrade and disc drive not recommended pending completion of five year plan; one word terminal ($800) included based upon need for Community Resources; laser jet printers deleted; line printer and switchmux necessary for vehicle maintenance installation 1988-89; desktop publishing included. 64 PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Los Angeles, I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above -entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the Beach. Peoples Easx Reader a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published .we ekl.y in the City of—Hermosa—Beach. County of Los Angeles, and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, under the date of,9/21,, 19 ,72, Case Number WC22.9 40...; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to -wit: 10/19 all in the year 19.89.. I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Hermosa Beach California, this 19th day of OCT . 19 89 Signature Free coo.es of !his Crank form may be secured from: CALIFORNIA NEWSPAPER SERVICE BUREAU, INC. Legal Advertising Clearing House P toy 31 tos Angeles. CA 90053 Telephone 625-2 4 1 PreAse'rovellGENC4ai P•oofof PuoUcJl.ort tet... ., 0•• .no •n.s .or .n This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp 00 Tj97900 54444. Proof *of Publication of - - CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • , NOTICE INVITING BIDS :.NOTICE IS HERESY GIVEN that . -sealed bids will be receNed at the . office of the City aerie of the City a Hermosa Beach. City Hal, 1315 Val- • ley Drive. Room 201, urrl 11:00 am. November 18, 1989, for Desktop • Publishing Hardware and Software, ti accordance with requirements and minimum specification.. • The bids will be publicly opened and read aloud in the Council Cham - bet at 1110 am. on Thursday, No- vember 18, 1989. Each bid must be submitted on the tonna furnished by the City. Proposal forms, require - meats and minimum specifications may be obtained at the General Serv- ices Department, Data Processing, Basement of City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254- 3884; cal (213) 318-0253. The bid will be awarded to the sup- plier who best provides a product meeting the City's needs. MARGUERITE STURGES Computer System Manager Dated: October 19, 1989 ER October 19, 1989 HBL-420 • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH NOTICE INVITING BIDS NOTICE IS HERBY GIVEN that sealed bids will be received at the office of the City Clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach, City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive, Room 201, until 11:00 a.m. on Thursday, November 16, 1989, for Desktop Publishing Hardware and Software, in accordance with requirements and minimun specifications. The bids will be publicly opened and read aloud in the Council Chamber, City Hall, at 11:00 a.m. on Thursday, November 16, 1989. Each bid must be submitted on the forms furnished by the City. Proposal Forms, requirements and minimum specifications may be obtained at the General Services Department, Data Processing, Basement of City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA. 90254-3884; call (213) 318-0253. The City of Hermosa Beach reserves the right to reject any or all bids, to waivei 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. Dated: October 19, 1989 Marguerite Sturges Computer System Manager CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DESKTOP PUBLISHING HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE VENDOR LISTING: Mailed October 17, 1989 Company Name Marketing Department Address OCEONICS, Inc. Classic Solutions NORCO Computer Systems, Inc. CRC Computer Remarketing Corp. Hall -Mark Electronics NAS Computer Systems C. S. U. Industries HyPoint Technology ASCAR Business Systems ConAm Corporation ROMAR Systems International, Inc. MICROTEK AMTEK CompuChange Corp. 519 Seabright, Ste. 209 Santa Cruz, CA 95062 University Tower 4199 Campus Ave., Ste. 550 Irvine, CA 92715 925 D Bassett Road Cleveland, Ohio 44145-1108 23950 Commerce Park Beachwood, Ohio 44122 9420 Topanga Canyon Blvd. Chatsworth, CA 91311 P.O. Box 52415 Livonia, Michigan 48152 135 Rockaway Turnpike Lawrence, New York 11559 4333 E. Royalton Road Cleveland, Ohio 44147 4125 Verdugo Road Los Angeles, CA 90065 1661 Nineteenth Street Santa Monica, CA 90404-3823 4120 Southwest Freeway, Ste. 111 Houston, Texas 77027 8370 Dow Circle Cleveland, Ohio 44136 509 West Terrace Drive San Dimas, CA 91773 13160 56th Court, Ste. 503 Clearwater, FL 34620 Fidelity Systems, Inc. Dav Tech Windemere Systems Corp. Blue Chip Computer Systems T.S.A., Inc. Encore Hewlett Packard 3200 Wilcrest, Ste. 250 Houston, Texas 77042 6314 Hollywood Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90028 P. 0. Box 90430 Los Angeles, CA 90009 9701 West Pico Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90035 4654 Highway 6 North, Ste. 305 Houston, Texas 77084 1311 Colorado Avenue Santa Monica, CA 90404 5651 West Manchester Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90045 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH INTER -OFFICE MEMO TO: Viki Copeland, Finance Director Date: August 10, 1989 Subject: DeskTop Publishing Bids From: Marguerite Sturges, Computer System Manager ************************************************************** Ten bids were submitted on November 16, 1989, for DeskTop Publishing Hardware and Software. 10. Arch Associates, Fernwood Pennsylvania of $11,376.00, with the exception of HPWord PC software. Will honor purchase of single items. 9. Dav-Tech at $12,827.93, with the exception of ReadRight OCR software. Will honor purchase of single items. 4. Hewlett Packard $12,651.04, with the exception of Page - Maker Aldus, Lotus 1-2-3, and ReadRight OCR software. Will honor purchase of single item (HPWord PC). 3. Norco Computer System $13,999.50, with exception of ReadRight OCR software. Will not honor single item purchase. 8. Simplex at $12,090.00, with exception of HPWord PC software. Will not honor single item purchase. 7. Ascar Business System, $16,394.24, purchase of a single item will need a phone call to verify price. 1. Romar System no break down of items. 2. Fidelity Systems no break down of items and no bid on software. 5. C.R.0 no bid submitted. Hewlett Packard verified that Arch Associates is a small reliable company. Total price including sales tax is $12,115.44. HPWord PC can be purchased from Hewlett Packard at $338.94 sales tax included. Overall total price will be $12,454.38, with a savings of $3,046.62. ite Sturges ter Systems Manager cc: LeRoy Staten, Acting Director of General Services v BID OPENING PROJECT NO.• BID OPENING LOG SHEET 74e-wvoti2e'2- 7,17 9 /7'72./i/ BIDDERS NAME BID BOND AMOUNT OF BID • 77; e•-• ex- Yr/al 4/3- e:, Okt-10 L41r 62V(..et0() 2/2! - - 2/ £ L t ••••-• ki_Z / 6 as o o 5 0(42.02/14- RI; d„, ezi 5 ^/- . (/. ci•v) /05/ o4( - A -e) /7/ 34,00 e./35 -,.so) ...--„,,,•,,, /=.....:, / /Q ,u,c,.....) - roc„..,..,„; , --,.- / - . ' 50 - -7r.:'. 1- 1)-i,L- .=1-• ,..--,.) - 1-y.. -- .„ ,..- ,,• . , , ,,,,-.::_, ik___. ........: I, -.._..t. t. .$4?, 41 0 • °I° 2..• i. cza.:-:; _.,-...,, . ,: .. . , log ,f27. 99 i 7) • . - 2) 5- - ...7 2 y . /...'. 7 ,:, ..,. $ /1 /1-/- 316. 0 "•• • 1:: -=4 .• • , }- • t"./, r;"' 1/ / 2 "7 Zl& OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 1315 Valley Drive • Herrnosa Beach, CA 90254 4i --y--; tile) k. FOR THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • ,et: Bidder shall complete the right-hand column indicating specifically the size and/or make and model of all components on which he is bidding. Return this information with the �_. bid form to the City Clerk's office prior to the time indicated on the notice inviting bids. GENERAL: The specifications presented are the MINIMUM acceptable to the City of Hermosa Beach. Hardware shall be equipped with standard and regular parts and software by specifications, but not limited to, the following special considerations: Requirements and Minimum Specifications PC HARDWARE 1 D1462A QS/16S Vectra Personal Computer Model 46 16 MHz 80386 processor, 1 MB RAM, 5.25 -inch, 1.2 MB flexible disc drive, 40 Mbytes hard disk, serial/parallel ports, VGA video adapter, keyboard, and PC Kit Characteristics of Offered Item - r_ 2L?1" 7,43?' 1 Option ABA Includes U.S. English Enchanced Vectra Keyboard and PC Kit. PC Kit includes English Documenta- tion, HP Terminal Program, Setup Disc,monitor and keyboard cables, and U.S. power cord. rA- 1 O1182A VGA compatible Color Display for use with the HP D1180A video graphics adapter. 14", .28 dot pitch tube. 110V attached U.S. power cord and attached video cable. 1 Option ABA 1 D1453A 16MHz Intel 80387SX Math Coprocessor for the HPVecta RS/16. 8- 370 /v y5-7 q- yto 1 24542D Parallel Printer Cable used with 24540B interface to connect a printer equipped with a centronics- type 36 -PIN male connector. Lenoth = 2m. /0-/3' 3- 34',5-0 y- a6,s3-- 1 46060A The HP Mouse is a handheld pointing device for use with the HP -HIL interface. PRINTER 1 33440A LaserJet Series II 8ppm printer. 115V, 50-60Hz, RS232/422 & Centronics interface. Includes EP -S toner cartridge and 1 letter size (8.5x11 inch)paper tray. Order interface cable separately. 1 334448 2 Mbyte Memory Board /0-1177 8- sY? 9- yff0 SOFTWARE 1 D1318A/ABA Microsoft Windows/286 Version 2.1 is a graphics extension to MS-DOS for 80386 -based PCs. It supports Windows and DOS applica- tions,provides multitasking for DO' $$ applications, and improves applic, ion integration. (5.25inch disks) v 1 PageMaker Aldus software for the HP Vectra PC. PageMaker is a page composition software for desktop publishing. Software specified on 5.25' medium. HP MS Windows required but not included. 3-35-0 - . /G-,' ? 7- 4/ f", L -5-3s-- 1 45951D Microsoft MS-DOS 3.3, U.S. Version on 5.25 inch discs. Includes system disc and manuals, Personal Applications Manager, File Manager, and Multiple Character Set Utilities. 1 Lotus 1-2-3 Version 2.01 Elect- tronic Spreadsheet. (5.25 inch disc) 1 D1711A The Gallery Collection 2.0 Charting Gallery,Drawing Gallery, and Business Management Portfolio included. (5.25 inch disc) 1 27536F HP Word/PC HP Word, word processing for PCs. (5.25 in discs) 1 68333F AdvanceLink B.O1.00 (5.25 inch disc) 1 88400A ReadRight OCR Software ,f allows users to convert a scanned image of alphanumeric characters into computer readable form (e.g.ASCII). (5.25 inch disc) - 372 b.Y7c /o- 9 - o -9- 3 y- 33`33 y- 3/8'.2-5- 3- /8'.zs3- 3sa' y7S y. / epo7 l iO.13 /0 -/dig f `li ed /D-33`1 1 88141A JetScript Accessory Kit (PostScript capabilities) includes four 5 1/4 inch disks /0-13/7 9--/335- y-/?72.t S SCANNER J 1 9195A ScanJet Plus Desktop Scanner, installation guide and power cord. Use with Vectra/IBM-PC compatibles. Requires 88295A interface kit. /a- S' -/d sa -/06gG5 1 88295A Interface kit for ScanJet V/ (9195A). Interfaces 9195A to Vectra or IBM PC/AT. /o - 9- 365 PLOTTER 1 7475A HP 7475A Plotter - A/B-size with RS -232-C Interface.Option 001 Cable not included /0- // 90 7 -/azo y- /267. L$ 1 13242-60010 Plotter cable to PC 1 92177X HP 7475A Stand and Graphics Supplies organizer. (3.75 H X 23.5 W X 14.75 D in.) 5-- z9 /0- 7-32. 0-7-32 December 6, 1989 TO: FELLOW COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: COUNCILMEMBER MIDSTORRE RE: REZONING AND DISPOSITION OF THE BILTMORE SITE I respectfully request that my fellow colleagues consider adopting, or sending to staff for refinement, the attached Resolution of Intention to the Planning Commission to Study Rezoning and Disposition of the Biltmore Site. Background At the recent election on November 7, 1989, there were again measures involving the Biltmore Site, and both measures -failed. It is -now time for the City Council to make some policy decisions regarding the management of this resource in the best interests of the citizens of Hermosa Beach. To sit and wait would be reactionary and poor resource management. To wait for another Initiative Petition to begin and circulate would be allowing an abuse of the Initiative process to successfully intimidate elected officials into not making policy decisions. The Biltmore Site has been the subject of numerous ballot measures, none receiving a majority vote of the electorate, since 1972. the most recent example was the latest Biltmore Site Task Force's, refined recommendation of mixed uses, receiving only 28% YES votes. In my opinion, the best management of this resource for the taxpayers of the City of Hermosa Beach would be to rezone the property low-density residentia, sell the property, and use the proceeds to pay off the Railroad right-of-way, retire the 4% Utility User's Tax, and purchase other available lands for Open Space (South School, Valley Park, etc.) The argument that the Coastal Commission would never approve Residential Use on this property is a political one, and is not based on fact. After 2 conflicting letters from Peter Douglas of the Coastal Commission, Charles Damm of the Coastal Commission attended a Biltmore Site Task or�ce Meeting on February 22, 1989. (A copy of the transcript is ). He says, about changing commercial to residential, "the Commission has seen a great number of proposals over the years to change visitor commercial to residential. . And some of those they have said YES, and some of them have said NO." The City has never attempted to present an argument in favor of Residential on this site to the Coastal Commission. The following are among many arguments which could be presented to the Coastal Commission to support the burden of justifying the Residential use: 13 b (1) The City of Hermosa Beach is presenting a package in rezoning the Biltmore Site. They are proposing to rezone a parcel to use the proceeds to acquire 16+ more acres within the Coastal Zone. (2) A Petition Initiative was passed in 1987, mandating that the City acquire the abandoned railroad right-of-way for parkland and open space purposes, and required that the City use all means available, and if necessary, a bond issue. (3) In regards to the additional acreage to be acquired within the Coastal Zone, an additional ballot measure was passed on November 7, 1989 allowing Improvements to two existing parking areas within this area, therefore resulting in additional parking spaces for visitor recreational users. (4) Immediately adjacent to this parcel, currently applying for a Coastal Permit, is an 170 Unit Visitor Serving Recreational Hotel. Visitor Serving Recreational is no longer necessary on the Biltmore Site as it is being provided immediately adjacent to the site. Mr. Charles Damm of the Coastal Commission, on February 22, goes on to say "if they decide that they want to go to Residential .. it's not to say it wouldn't be approved and certainly the scenario of the railroad tracks is an interesting concept I hadn't thought about." When the Biltmore Site Task Force Recommendation was presented to the Planning Commission prior to the November, 1989 vote, the Planning Commission voted to not accept the recommendation of mixed uses, but to recommend Residential as the highest and best use of the property. In summary, it is time for the City Council to make the decision on the Biltmore Site. If it is not accepted by the electorate, they have the opportunity to exercise their right of referendum. We can not sit idle and be an reactionary City Council due to our commitments to the electorate for fiscal management. We have the 4% UUT hanging over our heads; we have excess School Properties available with no funds for purchase; and we have an entire infrastructure system that needs to be replaced. 1 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. A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY REZONING AND DISPOSITION OF THE BILTMORE SITE. WHEREAS, the City Council discussed this matter at the City Council meeting on December 12, 1989; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to have the Planning Commission study rezoning the Biltmore Site to low-density residential; and WHEREAS, the City Council intends, after the rezoning, to sell the site and use the proceeds to pay off the financing of the Railroad right-of-way, therefore eliminating the 4% Utility User's Tax; and also acquire available excess School properties for Open Space Parkland purposes; and WHEREAS, the City Council intends to present this as a "package" to the Coastal Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City Council requests the Planning Commission to study rezoning the Biltmore Site to low-density Residential and amending the General Plan appropriately. They are to study this issue as a "package", with the monies from the sale to be used for paying off the right-of-way, making improve- ments to parking areas on the right-of-way (therefore replacing those lost on the Biltmore Site), and using any other monies to acquire excess available properties for Open Space Parkland uses. SECTION 2. That this is a high priority item to the City Council, and they request the study as soon as possible. 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 3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution; and shall cause the action of the City Council in adopting same to be entered in the official minutes of said City Council. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY tng 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 deve?.oped with the intent to have all matters covered within the time allowed. CITY VISION A less dense, more family .oriented pleasant low profile, financially sound community comprised of a separate and distinct business district and residential neighborhoods that are afforded full municipal services in which the maximum costs are borne by' visitor/users; led by a City Council which accepts a stewardship role for community resources and displays a willingness to explore innovative alternatives, and moves toward public policy leadership in attitudes of full ethical awareness. This Council is dedicated to learning from the past, and preparing Hermosa Beach for tomorrow's challenges today. Adopted by City Council on October 23, 1986 NOTE: There is no smoking allowed in the Council Chambers TEE'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 the United States today. GLOSSARY The following explanations may help you to understand the terms found on most agen- das for meetings of the Hermosa Beach City Council. Consent Items A compilation of all routine matters to be acted upon by one vote; approval re- quires a majority affirmative vote. Any Councilmember can remove an item from this listing thereby causing that matter to be considered under the category Consent Cal- endar items Removed For Separate Discussion. Public Hearings Public Hearings are held on certain matters as required by law. The Hearings afford the public the opportunity to appear and formally express their views regarding the matter being heard. Additionally, letters may be filed with the City Clerk, prior to the Hearing. Hearings Hearings are held on other matters of public importance for which there is no legal . requirement to conduct an advertised Public Hearing. Ordinances An ordinance is a law that regulates government revenues and/or public conduct. All • ordinances require two "readings". The first reading introduces the ordinance into the records. At least one week later Council may adopt, reject or hold over the ordinance to a subsequent meeting. Regular ordinances take effect 30 days after the second reading. Emergency ordinances are governed by different provisions and waive the time requirements. Written Communications The public, members of advisory boards/commissions or organizations may formally communicate to or make a request of Council by letter; said letters should be filed with the City Clerk by the Wednesday preceeding the Regular City Council meeting. Miscellaneous Items and Reports City Manager The City Manager coordinates departmental reports and brings items to the attention of, or for action by the City Council. Verbal reports may be given by the City Manager regarding items not on the agenda, usually having arisen since. the agenda was prepared on the preceding Wednesday. Miscellaneous Items and Reports - City Council Members of the City Council may place items on .the agenda for consideration by the full Council. Other Matters - City Council These are matters that come to the attention of a Council member after publication of the Agenda. Oral Communications from the Public - Matters of an Urgency Nature Citizens wishing to address the City Council on an urgency matter not elsewhere con- sidered on the agenda may do so at this time. Parking Authority The Parking Authority is a financially separate entity, but is operated as an inte- gral part of the City government. Vehicle Parking District No. 1 The City Council also serves as the Vehicle Parking District Commission. It's pur- pose is to oversee the operation of certain downtown parking lots and otherwise pro- mote public parking in the central business district. . ',When you stop and think about it, common sense is really special --not common." -Bob Pearcy AGENDA REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 12, 1989 - Council Chambers, City Hall Closed Session - 7:00 p.m. Regular Session - 7:30 p.m. MAYOR Roger Creighton MAYOR PRO TEM Chuck Sheldon COUNCILMEMBERS Robert Essertier Kathleen Midstokke Albert Wiemans CITY CLERK CITY TREASURER Gary L. Brutsch -CITY MANAGER Kevin B. Northcraft CITY ATTORNEY Charles S. Vose All Council meetings are open to the public. PLEASE ATTEND. Complete agenda materials are available for public inspection in the Police Department, Public Library and the Office of the City Clerk. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: INTRODUCTION OF NEW POLICE OFFICERS: Dorothy Hatano Garth Gaines AND NEW CANINE OFFICER: Le Norbo De La Temerite1(NORBO) ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF DONATIONS TO THE CITY. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE AND PROCLAMATION TO DEPARTING COMMUNITY RESOURCES DIRECTOR ALANA MASTRIAN-HANDMAN 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.) (a) Recommendation to approve minutes of regular meeting of the City Council held on November 28, 1989. (b) Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants Nos. through inclusive, and to 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 November, 1989 Month- ly Investment Report. Memorandum from City Treasurer Gary L. Brutsch dated December 4, 1989. (h) (j) (k) Recommendation to award bid for purchase of computer equipment for the Fire, Police, and Civil Defense Departments. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated November 22, 1989. Recommendation to approve purchase of Desk -Top Publish- ing. Memorandum from Acting General Services Director Henry L. Staten dated Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map #13652 for a two -unit condominium located at 600 llth Street. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated December 4, 1989. Recommendation to receive and file progress report on unreinforced masonry building hazard mitigation program. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director William Grove dated December 4, 1989. Recommendation to approve renewal of property and vehi- cle insurance. Memorandum from Risk Manager Robert Blackwood dated December 5, 1989. Recommendation to approve plans and specifications for CIP 89-142, Sidewalk repair. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated December 5, 1989. Recommendation to receive and file ordinance re. elimination of the video sales/rentals in the C-2 zone. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated December 5, 1989. (m) (n) (o) Recommendation to receive and file report on the housing rehabilitation plan as part of City's Community Develop- ment Block Grant program. Memorandum from Planning Di- rector Michael Schubach dated December 5, 1989. Recommendation to authorize sale of forfeited property pursuant to Section 11489 of the California Health and Safety Code. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated December 5, 1989. Recommendation to deny the following claim and refer to City's Claims Administrator: 1) Gregory W. Moreno, 5146 East Olympic Blvd., Los Angeles 90022, on behalf of the estate of Jocobo Vasquez Palacios, filed December 4, 1989; alleged dangerous condition of roadway. Claim #89-12-1. Recommendation to approve lease agreement between the City and Project Touch for space in the Community Cen- ter. Memorandum from Community,Resources Director Alana Mastrian-Handman dated December 4. 1989. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES. (a) ORDINANCE NO. 89-1021 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 27A, "SANITATION, GARBAGE AND REFUSE" AS IT RELATES TO SALVAGING. For adoption. 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. APPEAL OF DENIAL BY PLANNING COMMISSION OF VARIANCE REQUEST TO 17' SETBACK AT 3133 THE STRAND. Christopher & Janet Coppersmith, appellants. Memorandum from Plan- ning Director Michael Schubach dated December 4, 1989. 6. REVIEW OF DRAFT CIRCULATION ELEMENT. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated December 5, 1989. (Recommendation: to receive testimony and con- tinue to January 9, 1990 meeting.) MUNICIPAL MATTERS 7. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT OF CITY CLERK FOR REMAINDER OF TERM ENDING NOVEMBER, 1991. Memorandum from Deputy City Clerk Linda Riddle dated December 6, 1989. 8. PRESENTATION OF FIRE FLOW CONSULTANT'S REPORT. Memoran- dum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated December 5, 1989. 9. RECOMMENDAT E. UPGRADING VS. INSTA SYSTEM, %'� !J1 ITY CENTER FIRE ALARM Memor ' from Public Works Dire* dated December 6, 1989. A NEW M CIP 89-615. Anthony Antich 10. RECOMMENDATION FOR NEW CITY BUS BENCHES AND SHELTERS. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated December 4, 1989. 11. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER (a) Sample blank form for Closed Session. Memorandum from City Attorney Charles S. Vose dated December 7, 1989. 12. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) City Council reorganization - Committee assignments. Memorandum from Deputy City Clerk Linda Riddle dated December 6, 1989. (b) Scheduling of joint meeting with Planning Commission. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated December 7, 1989. 13. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: (a) Request by Councilmember Midstokke for discussion of allowable uses in the open space zones. Recommended Action: 1) Vote by Council whether to discuss this item; 2) refer to staff for a report back on a future agenda; or 3) resolution of matter by Coun- cil action tonight. (b) Request by Councilmember Midstokke for discussion of rezoning and disposition of the Biltmore site.,. (c) Recommended Action: 1) Vote by Council whether to dis- cuss this item; 2) refer to staff for a report back on a future agenda; or 3) resolution of matter by Council action tonight. Request by former Mayor June Williams for discussion of requiring conditional use permit for new commercial developments such as hotels. (Continued from 11/14/89 meeting.) 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. (d) Request by Councilmember Sheldon for discussion re. zoning standards in residential zones, i.e., lot - 4 - coverage, parking, setbacks, etc.; and height limit, setbacks, parking and bulk in commercial zones. (Continued from 11/14/89 meeting.) Recommended Action: 1) Vote by Council whether to dis- cuss this item; 2) refer to staff for a report back on a future agenda; or 3) resolution of matter by Council action tonight. CITIZEN COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Citizens wishing to address the Council on items not on the agenda but within the Council's jurisdiction may do so at this time. ADJOURNMENT December 5, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council December 12, 1989 SUBJECT: CDBG HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM STATUS REPORT INITIATED: BY CITY COUNCIL PURPOSE: TO DETERMINE HOW MANY RESIDENTS HAVE APPLIED FOR CDBG FUNDS Background At the November 28, 1989 meeting, the City Council requested a status report regarding the number of residents who have applied for CDBG funds. Analysis The City has contracted with the City of Redondo Beach to implement and administer the Housing Rehabilitation Program. Although the program was originally approved on March 28, 1989, the contract between the cities, Redondo Beach and Hermosa Beach was just recently signed in November. Therefore, there has been no opportunity to request CDBG funds to this date. Prior to approval of the contract, staff had several meetings with the City of Redondo Beach to try and have, in place, all of the documents required to start the program. On November 30, 1989, staff met with the Redondo Beach Housing staff to review program description forms and marketing letters. The letters will be sent out within two weeks after the City Attorney's approval. The Housing Rehabilitation Program is comprised of the Emergency Repair Program, the Mobility Access Program, and the Mobile Home Repair Program. The first of which provides homeowners with critical emergency home repairs. Up to $3,000 per low -moderate income household is available for repairs necessary to correct health and safety hazards or to help bring the house up to current building codes. The Mobility Access Program is offered by the City to disabled homeowners for special home repairs. The program will provide up to $1,200 for repairs which improve access to the home and/or mobility within the home. The Mobile Home Repair Program will provide low income mobile home park residents with up to $3,000 of needed repairs to their mobile homes. 1 11 Repairs provided by the programs will be made at no cost to qualified homeowners. However, limited funds are available at this time for the first two programs, and homeowners will be assisted on a first come, first served basis. However, eligible participants from the mobile home parks will be randomly assigned a priority number. Furthermore, mobile home park participants will receive repairs as funds become available. In efforts to market these programs, the City of Redondo Beach will send out marketing letters to 75 randomly selected residents who receive utility tax discounts. In addition, all mobile home park residents of Hermosa Beach will receive letters, and flyers will be posted throughout the city. In addition, the City's Newsletter may be used to further market these programs if there is not a great response to the letters and posted flyers. Due to the holiday season, staff does not anticipate much response until after the first of the year. We will have a good idea of the level of demand for the program by the end of January. NCUR: Michael chu ach Planning Director NOTED: Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager Aer-i/t (-fie 4-11-.42-Lict-U Andrea N. Anderson Planning Aide Attachments 1. Action Minutes of City Council Meeting --11/28/89 a/pcsrCDBG 2 December 12, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council of December 12, 1989 SUPPLEMENTAL TO AGENDA ITEM li RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE RENEWAL OF PROPERTY AND VEHICLE INSURANCE RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council award the renewal of the City's property and vehicle insurance to the Independent Cities Risk Management Authority (ICRMA) broker, Frank B. Hall & Compa- ny. Property insurance to be placed in an amount not to exceed $9,300 for the term 12/18/89 through 7/1/9.0 with renewal 7/1/90 at a premium not to exceed $17,400; Vehicle damage insurance to be placed with St. Paul Insurance Company for an annual premium not to exceed $9,000. BACKGROUND: The City's current property and vehicle damage insurance expires December 18, 1989. Staff has been solicited quotations from two brokers for place- ment of these coverages, Cal-Surance Associates, Inc., and Frank B. Hall & Company. ANALYSIS: Property Insurance: The property insurance coverage quotations received are: Cal-Surance Associates: $17,765 (annual rate) Coverage provided with Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. Frank B. Hall & Company (ICRMA) $ 9,251 (6.5 mo. rate)* ($17,078 annualized) ($17,151 7/1/90 renewal) Coverage provided with RLI Insurance Company Both policies offer the same coverage with a $2,500 deductible. * The actual premium will be based on a 6.5 month period to put the City on a fiscal year term to coincide with the ICRMA pro- gram. The prorated premium will be $9,250.59 for the December 18 -July 1 period. The renewal premium effective July 1, 1990 has been quoted at $17,400. It is anticipated that the property in- surance market will be hardening as a result of the recent cat- astrophic events in North Carolina (hurricane Hugo) and San Fran- cisco (earthquake). The City should benefit by participating with the ICRMA in the group purchase of property insurance. SuPPLEMENTAL INFORM TION _.Vehicle Damage Insurance: The vehicle insurance quotations received are: Cal-Surance Associates: $13,110 Coverage provided with Firemans' Fund Frank B. Hall & Company: $ 8,799 Coverage provided with St. Paul Insurance Co. Both coverages are the same with a $2,500 deductible. Coverage provided is for actual cash value. This coverage is for the city's vehicles (non -safety) with a cost in excess of $30,000. High value fire safety vehicles are covered under a separate program. Respectfully submitted, Concur: ittilLo// Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Director Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager December 5, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council of December 12, 1989 AWARD OF BID FOR RENEWAL OF PROPERTY AND VEHICLE INSURANCE RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council award the bid for the City's Property and Vehicle Insurance per staffs recommendation to be presented orally at the December 12, 1989 City Council meeting. BACKGROUND: The City's current Property Insurance policy and vehicle in- surance for high-value non -safety vehicles, provided by Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, expires December 18, 1989. The City has solicited bids from Cal-surance Associates and Frank B. Hall & Company. Neither of these brokers have been able to complete renewal with their respective underwriters by this date. It is expected that renewal quotes will be received prior to the December 12th meeting. ANALYSIS: Property Insurance: The previous years' premium for property coverage was $16,557 with the following limits and coverages: $12,181,200 Blanket "All Risk" coverage on buildings and personal property. 90% Co-insurance with replacement cost clause. $ 50,000 Cost of Inventory, appraisal and adjustment. $ 402,485 Scheduled articles floater for heavy equipment. $ 1,000 Deductible. $ 687,470 Electronic data processing equipment. $ 135,000 Electronic data processing media. $ 25,000 Electronic data processing extra expense. $ 2,500 Electronic data processing deductible for all losses except earthquake and flood. $ 32,000 Business income. Staff will prepare a recommendation following receipt of the re- newal quotations and deliver this recommendation to the City Council at the December 12th meeting. 1i Vehicle Insurance: Insured vehicles with the Firemans' Fund include the city's sweepers and two public works speciality vehicles. These are insured for with comprehensive and collision coverage with a $2,500 deductible. High-value safety vehicles are insured through the California Public Entity Mobile Equipment Program and that policy is current through June 30, 1990. All other vehicles (passenger cars) are self-insured. At the time of this writing, staff has not received a renewal quotation. As with the property insurance, staff will make a recommendation at the December 12th meeting. Respectfully submitted, Robert A. Blackwood Risk Manager Concur: ;4;P"7/ Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH INTER -OFFICE MEMO TO: Kevin Northcraft, City Manager Date: December 11, 1989 Subject: DeskTop Publishing From: Marguerite Sturges, Agenda item Computer System Manager *************************************************************** This is a request that two items be removed from the DeskTop Publishing agenda item for City Council Meeting of December 12, 1989. The first item to be removed is HPWord PC, this will be replaced with WordPerfect Version 5.0. HPWord documents on the HP3000 can be download with the use of Pagemaker. Older documents that were created on a typewriter or word processing are compatible to WordPerfect. They would not be compatible to HPWord PC. Arch Associates price is $239 without tax, including tax $254.54. Compared to HPWord PC a saving of $84.40. The second item to be removed is ReadRight OCR Software for the ScanJet Plus Desktop Scanner. If printing is faint on a document OCR has a hard time picking up details. If the document has graphics and maps it will try to read the information, but it prints garbage on the screen. TrueScan will pick up faint documents, will also read graphics and maps as they are on the document. TrueScan is software and a card with 2Meg processing memory. Arch Associates price is $1,685 without tax, including tax $1,794.53, price increase of $1,438.82. It is our recommendation to purchase WordPerfect Version 5.0 and TrueScan Software for DeskTop Publishing. uerite Stur s C. puter Systems Manager cc: Henry Leroy Staten, Acting Director of General Services SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION if November 22, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of December 12, 1989 RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD BID FOR PURCHASE OF COMPUTER EQUIPMENT FOR THE FIRE, POLICE, AND CIVIL DEFENSE DEPARTMENTS RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council award the bid for purchase of the computer equipment to the low bidder meeting specifications. BACKGROUND: The purchase of the equipment described herein was authorized and funds were appropriated in the 1989-90 adopted budget. ANALYSIS: The hazardous materials/emergency preparedness program of the city requires several specialized inventory and hazard management programs. The main program for hazardous materials and emergency response is titled 'Cameo'. This program was developed by the federal government specifically for the management of hazardous materials programs and response to emergency incidents involving hazardous materials. This program operates only on the Macintosh computer systems. The recent fire flow study conducted by an outside vendor included the accumula- tion of a multitude of data regarding the fire flow system of Hermosa Beach. All of this data was entered into a fire flow program which operates on the Macintosh system and The vendor will be providing the program and data to the Fire Department. Members of the Fire and Data Processing Departments recently attended a computer seminar and received valuable information regarding the use of the Macintosh system in public safety. One important feature that was discovered is that the Macintosh is capable of communicating with the City's Hewlett Packard system. Six businesses were contacted by mail and a public notice was published in the Easy Reader on November 2, 1989 inviting bids for the public safety system At the bid opening on November 13, 1989 the following bids were received: Charles Emerson (Sun Computers) Jim Preston (Computerland) Angie Dragas (L.A. Computer Center) $23,378.66 $25,967.26 $27,384.35 Upon review of the bids, staff noted that there were some mistakes in the quan- tity of items requested and also learned that there were some items that were not needed. After the necessary corrections were made, the bid totals were: Charles Emerson (Sun Computers) Jim Preston (Computerland) Angie Dragas (L.A. Computer Center) $24,363.79 $25,273.94 $25,808.15 Interest from other vendors was expressed, however they did not provide installation, set-up, and training which was required so they did not submit bids. Staff was concerned that there might be better pricing available through state and and local government contract. It should be noted that the bid from Computerland is based on the government pricing. Staff obtained a copy of the State and Local Government Confidential Price List and verified the information. Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Charles Emerson (Sun Computers) as they are the low bidder meeting specifications. Concur: ter -j 'Kevin cra , ity Manager M. g rite turges, Processing Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Director of Finance 2 bmitted, 1_ ve S. Wi ' iewski Director of Public Safety REQUEST FOR BID The City of Hermosa Beach is soliciting bids from qualified firms to: Provide to the City of Hermosa Beach; computer equipment as specified in Exhibit 1; complete installation, set-up and initial training to be included. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Proposals must be on file in the office of the City Clerk on or before 2:00 on Thursday November 9, 1989. The City of Hermosa Beach reserves the right to extend any time frame. No late proposals will be accepted. Late proposals, if received, will be returned unopened. Proposals are to be submitted in a sealed envelope with "Proposal for Fire and Police Computer Equipment" written or typed in the lower left hand corner of the envelope. For additional information and other particulars regarding this project, contact: Director of Public Safety 540 Pier Ave. Hermosa Beach, CA. 90254 (213) 318-0300 EVALUATION OF PROPOSAL AND BASIS FOR AWARD 1. The City of Hermosa Beach intends to make an award to the responsible vendor meeting all the requirements of the RFP whose proposal is most advantageous to the City of Hermosa Beach. 2 The City of Hermosa Beach reserves the right to negotiate with the overall lowest responsible vendor. 3. The City intends to make an award within 30 days of the bid closing date. 4. The City reserves the right to reject any and all bids, and to waive any informalities. EXHIBIT 1 Qty Product # Description Two(2) M5610 Apple Macintosh IIcx 1MB RAM, 40MB HD One(1) B0052LL/A Apple Macintosh SE/30 4MB RAM, 80MB HD, w/std. keyboard Two(2) M5325 Apple Macintosh SE 2MB RAM, 40MB HD, w/std. keyboard Two(2) M0401 Apple Hi -resolution RGB Monitor 13" Two(2) M5640 Apple 8bit Video Adapter Card Two(2) M0115 Apple Extended Keyboard Three(3) M2577 Image Writer II printer w/cable Two(2) Hewlett Packard Desk Writer printer w/cable and software for interface with IIcx Sixteen(16) ---- 1 Mega Byte Memory Simm (third party) to expand IIcx RAM to 5MB each 2 Easy Reader, November 2, 1989 55 )NNOLLY ming ER 11.2.891 RL -2378 F REDONDO BEACH :E OF PROPOSED iONAL USE PERMIT 0 PARCEL MAP HEREBY GIVEN that the ommission of the City of tech, pursuant to law, will lie hearing on Thursday, 16, 1989, at 7:30 p.m., in it Chambers of the City riamord Street, Redondo !omits, t0 consider the re - Conditional Use Permit Map No. 21731 on Lot 13. ledondo Villa Tract (2101 d Lane) for the purpose of ) whether or not the pro - illy permitted 2 unit resi- ctures are consistent with specifications for condo- For additional information, please bdivisions and should be contact Paul Connolly, Chief of Plan- . ....,. 111,116a7 - -uM condominium at 305 South NOTICE O>rOSEtY ant, and 2) an appeal of the PlanCONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARCEL MAP NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Redondo Beach, pursuant to law, will hold a public hearing on Thursday. November 16, 1989• at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the City Hail. 415 Diamond Street. Redondo Beach, California. to consider the re- quest for a Conditional Use Permit and Parcel Map No. 21648 on Lot 14, Block 73, Redondo Villa 'Tract "B" (2003 Curtis Avenue) for the purpose of determining whether or not the pro- posed legally permitted 2 unit resi- dential structures are consistent with the City's specifications for condo - Maned Hearing - To consider minium subdivisions and should be rtwetmere of Sed 10-2.008 el An approved for condominium usage in Chap. 2. Title 10, of the RBMC the R-2 Land Use District (zone). waling to definitions of "building the and all persons interested in the above -proposed Conditional Use 41" and ..per' for as lard use Permit and Parcel Map may appear grids. and the use and height of and be heard thereon. iblerranean leaels in a building. to If you challenge this Conditional onsider amendment of Sect. 10- Use Permit and Parcel Map in court, .513(8). Art. 2. Chap. 2. Title 10, you may be limited to raising only Mingo height starda is in the MDR those issues you or someone else and Use Districtraised at the public hearing de- scribed in this notice, or in wntten cor- p consider adsreirg Ord. fi10. 2525• respondence delivered to the Plan- idudrp the *with* density el the Hing Commission at, or prior to, the .UR Land Use Det. to 17 urns pa nal public hearing. at and dedan ng the urgency thereat Issued by the Planning Department at the direction of Steven D. Wein- -6 4666 61. please call the CO berg, Chairman of the Planning Corn- ice, 318066. mission of the City of Redondo ER 11.2-89 RL -2389 Beach. California. TY OF REDONDO BEACH For additional Information, please e0TICE OF PROPOSED contact Paul Connolly, Chief of Plan - .HOE IN LAND USE DISTICT Hing, 318-0837. :E IS HEREBY GIVEN that the HARLAN J. CURWI CK ,ng Commission of the City of Community Development Director do Beach, pursuant to law, will By: PAUL CONNOLLY a public hearing on Thursday,J Chief of Planning ober 18, 1989, at 7:30 p.m•, in EP '1.•,t419 / RL -2370 :ouncil Chambers of the City 415 Diamond Street. Redondo n, California, to consider the re - for a Change in Land Use Dis- am S -F (School Facilities) to P- R -0 (Park, Recreation and Open Space) for the east 3.5 acres of Franklin School site (legal description on file in the Planning Division of the Community Development 'Depart- ment). Any and all persons interested in the above -proposed Change in Land Use District may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this Change in Land Use District in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this no- tice, or in written correspondence de- livered t0 the Planning Commission at, or prior to. the public hearing. Issued by the Planning Department at the direction of Steven D. Wein- berg. Chairman of the Planning Com- mission of the City of Redondo Beach, California. Commission's appo.el of a site i reviex and ,,ariance at 1010 br- e Boa wend. B). Conoanera Public eleg on the street vacation of Inn Block of South Susana. Consider the vacation of the 400 di a N. Francisca Saenue (relates 1e Redondo Shores Prof) •idineed Hearing - to consider axing Sed 1021400(0X2) ol An Chap. 2. Title 10 of the RBMC ieilt to encroachments into the re - ted rear yard in the R -1-A land Use attd (zone) AND PARCEL MAP NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Redondo Beach. pursuant to law, will hold a public hearing on Thursday, November 15, 1989, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 415 Diamond Street. Redondo Beach, California, to consider the re- quest for a Conditional Use Permit and Parcel Map No. 21717 on Lot 4, Block 72,\Redondo Villa Tract "B" (2118 Gates Avenue) for the purpose of determining whether or not the pro- posed legally permitted 2 unit resi- dential structures are consistent with the City's specifications for condo- minium subdivisions and should be approved for condominium usage in the R-2 Land Use District (zone). Any and all persona interested in the above -proposed Conditional Use Permit and Parcel Map may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this Conditional "-reit-. • unit f inn' nbrt7Prosth contact Paul Connolly, Chief of Plan- ning, 318.0637. CITY OF REDONDO BEACH NOTICE OF PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HARLAN J. CURWICK Community Development Director By: PAUL CONNOLLY Chief of Planning ER 11.2-89 / RL -2384 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REQUEST FOR BID The City of Hermosa Beach is so- honing bids from qualified firms to'. Provide to the City of Hermosa Beach. computer equipment as spec- ified in Exhibit 1: complete installa- tion, set-up and initial training to be included. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Proposals must be on file in the office of the City Clerk on or before 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 9, 1989. The City of Hermosa Beach re- serves the right to extend any time frame No late proposals will be ac- cepted. Late proposals, if received. will be returned unopened. Proposals are to be submitted in a sealed envelope with "Proposal for Fire and Police Computer Equip- ment" written or typed in the lower left hand corner of the envelope. For additional information and EXHIBIT 1 Qty Two(21 OnelII Twol21 Tins(2) Tiro(2) Two( 2) Three(3) Two(2) Sixteenl16l Product e M5610 80052LL/A CITY OF REDONDO BEACH NOTICE OF PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Redondo Beach, pursuant to law, will hold a public hearing on Thursday, November 18, 1989, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 415 Diamond Street, Redondo Beach, California, to consider the re- quest for a Conditional Use Permit on a portion of Lot 8, Section Wen , Towne Town- ship 3 South, Range 14 legal on file in the Planning Division) (One Space Park) to allow the con- struction of exterior structural modifi- cation to an existing building (M4) -'umy, anmmnmr v, nee rfnr...vg mission of the City of Redondo Beach, California. Other particuiaix iwyaiiiing Ilox prop ect. contact Director of Public Safety 540 Pier Ave. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (213) 318-0300 EVALUATION OF PROPOSAL AND BASIS FOR AWARD 1 The City of Hermosa Beach in, tends to make an award to the responsible vendor meeting all the requirements of the RFP whose proposal is mete' advan- tageous to the City of Hermosa Beach. 2 The City of Hermosa Beach re- serves the right to negotiate with the overall lowest responsible vendor. 3 The City intends to make an award within 30 days of the bid closing date. 4 The City reserves the right to re- pact any and all bids, and to waive any informalities. Descri tion Apple Macintosh 'lIcx 1rB RAM, 4018 iO Apple Macintosh SE/30 418 RAM, 8018 0O, w/std. keyboard M5325 Apple Macintosh SE 218 RAM, 4018 10, r/std. keyboard 10401 Apple Hf -resolution R68 Monitor 13' 145640 Apple Obit video Adapter Card 40115 Apple Extended Keyboard 142577 Image Writer 11 printer w/cable Hewlett softwared forsk Writer interface wltht Irinr /table and Der 1 Mega Byte Memory Sim (third party) to expand Ilcx RAM to 518 each 4 RECAP OF DONATIONS TO THE CITY POLICE K-9 PROGRAM Learned Lumber $1,200 Los Angeles County Lifeguard Association 100 Hermosa Beach Police Officers Association 1,000 Knights of Columbus (Manhattan Beach) 1,000 Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce 1,000 Hermosa Beach Kiwanis Club 1,000 Michael P D'Amico 100 Wilma A. Burt 50 Normand and Carol Brewer 25 Olguin & Rutherford Development Corporation 100 Matthew D. Cruse 100 C. F. Bergesch Construction Company 500 Sandpipers Philanthrophy 2,000 Olympic Auto Center 200 Triangle Hardware 100 Michael and Patricia Roth 200 Granitize Products, Inc. 250 Autocraft of Torrance 1,633 Burk M. Bussiere 100 John and Mary Ellen Workman 100 Rob Putz 10 Anonymous 10 Hermosa Beach Rotary Club 500 Miscellaneous cash donations 150 TOTAL CASH DONATIONS Expenses for the K-9 program to date $11,428 ($7,061) Remaining funds for the program $4,367 Medical care for the K-9 is being donated free of charge by the Alondra Animal Hospital in Gardena POLICE D.A.R.E. PROGRAM Cash Contributions received to date $5,292 Expenses for the DARE program to date ($4,726) Remaining funds for the program r $566 POLICE DEPARTMENT New badges were designed and purchased for the Police Officers by Reserve Police Officer Jack Berkus. This donation is valued at over $5,800. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Betty Martin donated two sidewalk sweepers and a trailer to the Public Works department. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the city of Hermosa Beach, California held on Tuesday, November 28, 1989 at the hour of 7:32 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmember Etta Simpson ROLL CALL Present: Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson, Mayor Creighton Absent: Williams CANVASS OF VOTES AND INSTALLATION OF OFFICERS. Certification of Election Action: To adopt Resolution No. 89-5329, entitled, "A RESOLUTION RECITING THE FACT OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 7, 1989, CONSOLIDATED WITH THE-- SCHOOL HE-- SCHOOL DISTRICT AND GENERAL DISTRICT ELECTIONS DECLARING THE RESULT AND OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW." Motion Sheldon, second Rosenberger. So ordered. Presentation to Outgoing Elected Officials Leah Jefferies, representing Supervisor Dana, presented proclamations to Councilmembers Rosenberger and Simpson. Edie Webber, representing Assemblyman Felando, presented proclamations to Councilmembers Rosenberger and Simpson. City Manager Northcraft announced that Senator Beverly's office would have proper recognition forthcoming. Mayor Creighton Presented tile plaques to City Clerk Kathleen Midstokke, Councilmember Jim Rosenberger and Councilmember Etta Simpson. They then gave their out- going comments. Oath of Office to Incoming Officials & Certificate of Election Deputy City Clerk Linda Riddle swore in newly seated Councilmembers Kathleen Midstokke, Robert Essertier and Albert Wiemans. Mayor Creighton welcomed newly seated Councilmembers and each Councilmember gave a brief remark. A recess was called at 7:50 P.M. the meeting reconvened at 8:20 P.M. - 1 - Minutes 11-28-89 PRESENTATION OF OUTSTANDING EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER AWARD Public Works Leadman Michael Flaherty Mayor Creighton presented Michael Flaherty with an employee award plaque and gift certificate for dinner for two at Classical Restaurante Italiano. City Manager Northcraft congratulated Michael for the visible and positive contributions to the community. Especially the beautiful poinsettia plants and holiday decorations. CITIZEN COMMENTS Burk Bussiere - President Hermosa Beach Youth Basketball League, announced that the basketball season starts in January. Applica- tion will be taken January 2nd and tryouts will be January 3rd at the Community Center gym from 2:00 to 6:00 P.M. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR Action: To approve the Consent Calendar recommendations (a) through (k) with the exception of the following items which were pulled for discussion but are listed in order for clarity: (b) Midstokke, (g) Midstokke and (j) Sheldon. (a) - Recommendation to approve minutes of regular meeting of the City Council held on November 14, 1989. (b) Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants Nos. 31654, and 31789 through 31914 inclusive; noting voided warrants Nos. 31794 through 31797 inclusive, 31841, and 31851. Action: To approve demands and warrants. Motion Midstokke, second Creighton. So ordered. (c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. (d) Recommendation to receive and file the October, 1989 financial reports: 1) Revenue and Expenditure report; 2) City Treasurer's Report. (e) Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map #18844 for a two -unit condominium located at 602 Third Street. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated November 20, 1989. Action: To adopt Resolution No, 89-5330, entitled, "A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #19844 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 602 THIRD STREET, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA." - 2 - Minutes 11-28-89 (f) (g) (h) (i) (i) (k) Recommendation for City to subscribe to the index system for the purpose of registering liability claims. Memo- randum from Risk Manager Robert Blackwood dated November 17, 1989. Recommendation to approve revised class specifications for the positions of Community Resources Director and General Services Director. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dated November 17, 1989. Action: To approve the revised class specifications for Community Resources Director position and the General Services Director position. Motion Midstokke, second Sheldon. So ordered. Recommendation to deny the following claims and refer to City's Claims Administrator: 1) Frank Boccato, Boccato's Groceries, 3127 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, filed October 17, 1989; alleged improper administration of City's Municipal Code. Case #89-10-4. 2) Frank Boccato, Boccato's Groceries, 3127 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, filed October 17, 1989; alleged illegal charges of Utility Users Tax. Case #89-10-3. Recommendation to approve the request for proposals for design of basketball courts, CIP 89-512. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated November 15, 1989. Recommendation to authorize the Mayor to sign a contract employing the Law Offices of Martin J. Mayer as City Prosecutor for zoning and related code enforcement prosecution. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director William Grove dated November 22, 1989. Action: To authorize the Mayor to sign a contract employing the Law Offices of Margin J. Mayer as the City Prosecutor for zoning and related code enforcement for the proposed hourly fee of $110.00. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered noting the objection of Wiemans. Recommendation to adopt resolution supporting relief efforts by the American Red Cross and the Salvation Army on behalf of the victims of the San Francisco Bay Area/ Santa Cruz earthquake. - 3 - Minutes 11-28-89 Action: To adopt Resolution' No. 89-5331, entitled, "A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF RELIEF EFFORTS BY THE AMERICAN RED CROSS AND THE SALVATION ARMY ON BEHALF OF THE VICTIMS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA/ SANTA CRUZ EARTHQUAKE." CONSENT ORDINANCES. (a) ORDINANCE NO. 89-1018 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 1988 EDITIONS OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, UNIFORM BUILDING CODE STANDARDS, UNIFORM HOUSING CODE, UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE, UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE AND THE 1987 EDITION OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE. For adoption. Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 89-1018, entitled, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 7, ARTICLES I,II,III,IV AND CHAPTER 11, AND CHAPTER 24 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO BUILDING, PLUMBING AND ELECTRIC REGULATIONS AND ADOPTING WITH CERTAIN ADDITIONS, DELETIONS AND AMENDMENTS, WHICH ARE SET FORTH HEREIN, THE RULES, REGULATIONS, PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THOSE CERTAIN CODES ENTITLED, "UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1988 EDITION", "UNIFORM BUILDING CODE STANDARDS, 1988 EDITION", "UNIFORM HOUSING CODE, 1988 EDITION", AND "UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, 1988 EDITION", AND "UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE, 1988 EDITION" PROMULGATED AND PUBLISHED JOINTLY BY THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL OFFICIALS AND "NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE, 1987 EDITION" PROMULGATED AND PUBLISHED BY THE NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION." Motion Midstokke, second Sheldon. So ordered. (b) ORDINANCE NO. 89-1019 - ,AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 12 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE, THE 1988 EDITIONS OF THE UNI- FORM FIRE CODE AND THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE STANDARDS, AS AMENDED. For adoption. Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 89-1019. Motion Sheldon, second Midstokke. So ordered. (c) ORDINANCE NO. 89-1020 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 22-5 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED "SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT POLICY". For adoption. Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 89-1020. Motion Sheldon, second Essertier. So ordered. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. Items (b), (g) and (j) were discussed at this time but are listed in order for clarity. - 4 - Minutes 11-28-89 • 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. (a) (b) Letter from Roy A. Judd, 2416 Hermosa Avenue, dated September 27, 1989, regarding bootleg unit, claim for damage and police problems. (Requested by Mayor Williams and Councilmember Sheldon). (Continued from 10/24/89 meeting). Supplemental letter from Mr. Judd dated November 15, 1989. Action: To receive and file. Motion Midstokke, second Sheldon. So ordered. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Donald Schultz, 670 Gould Avenue, dated November 7, 1989, regarding possibility of having a Farmers Market in Hermosa Beach. (Requested by Councilmember Simpson.) Action: Receive and file. Motion Sheldon, second Essertier. So ordered. PUBLIC HEARINGS None MUNICIPAL MATTERS Action: To suspend the agenda and move to item six (6). Motion Creighton, second Sheldon. 5. VACANCY OF THE OFFICE OF CITY CLERK. Memorandum from City Clerk Kathleen Midstokke dated November 8, 1989. (Continued from November 14, 1989.) Action: To approve recommendation to decide to appoint a new City Clerk for the remaining two (2) years of ' the term and instruct the Deputy City Clerk to begin recruitment and advertising for the vacancy. Motion Essertier, second Sheldon. So ordered. Further Action: To adjust City Clerk salary from $1000 per month to one half the top step of the Deputy City Clerk's salary. ($1,244.50) Motion Essertier, second Midstokke. AYES: Essertier, Midstokke, Wiemans, Mayor Creighton. NOES: Sheldon Final Action: To adopt Resolution No. 89-5332, entitled, "A RESOLUTION FIXING THE COMPENSATION TO BE RECEIVED BY THE CITY CLERK AND PROVIDING A JOB DESCRIPTION FOR SUCH COMPENSATION."; with an amendment replacing section 2 with the following: "Effective November 28, 1989, the City Clerk shall receive a salary equal to 50% of the top step of the Deputy City Clerk classification salary range, payable semi-monthly at the same time and in the same manner as the salaries paid to each of the officers and employees of the City." Motion Wiemans, second Essertier. So ordered. - 5 - Minutes 11-28-89 6. STATUS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PURCHASE OF RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. North - craft dated November 20, 1989. A status ing the Santa Fe Action: staff to purchase report was given by Mr. Art Mazirow represent - City in negotiations with Atchison, Topeka, and Railway Company. To approve staff recommendation by directing take all necessary actions to complete the of the Right -of -Way with a close of escrow of December 21, 1989. Motion Sheldon, second Midstokke. So ordered. 7. ORDINANCE PERMITTING SALVAGING OF RECYCLABLE REFUSE. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director William Grove dated November 21, 1989. For re -introduction and waiver of full reading. Action: To re -introduce Ordinance No. 89-1021. Motion Sheldon, second Essertier. So ordered. Final Action: To waive full reading of Ordinance No. 89-1021, entitled, " AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 27A "SANITATION, GARBAGE AND REFUSE" AS IT RELATES TO SALVAGING." Motion Midstokke, second Sheldon AYES: Essertier, Midstokke, Sheldon, Wiemans, Mayor Creighton NOES: None 8. STATUS REPORT OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated November 20, 1989. A staff report was presented by Director Antich. Mayor directed this item be brought back at December 12, 1989 meeting and discussed at Goals meeting on December 9, 1989. Action: To receive and file Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered. A recess was called at 9:40 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:50 P.M. 9. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER (a) Recommendation to approve plan for Goal -brainstorming session. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. North - craft dated November 22, 1989. A staff report was pres- ented by City Manager Northcraft indicating the goals setting meeting was on December 9, at 12:00 Noon. - 6 - Minutes 11-28-89 L Action: To have the Goals Meeting without an outside facilitator and go with the procedural steps suggested by Councilmember Essertier as follows: 1. Have two meetings 2. Survey City department heads regarding their ideas on goals established for their departments. 3. Each Councilmember put together a wish list. 4. Have Mayor Creighton chair both meetings. 5. Setup a format for the first meeting. 6. Between two meetings write a precise statement for each goal distributed to us. 7. Setup format for second meeting. Motion Wiemans, second Essertier. So ordered. 10. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL(a) City Council reorganization. Memorandum from City Clerk Kathleen Midstokke dated November 21, 1989. Mayor directed this item be continued until the meeting of December 12, 1989. 11. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: (a) (b) Request by Councilmember Midstokke to extend an invita- tion to the Chamber of Commerce for a joint meeting with the City Council after the holidays. Action: To extend an invitation to the Chamber of Commerce for a joint meeting with the City Council after the holidays. Motion Midstokke, second Creighton. So ordered. Addressing the council on this item was: Jerry Compton - Executive Committee should be contacted regarding Agenda for Chamber of Commerce. Request by Councilmember Essertier for a change in format for Council requested agenda items. City Manager explained the current procedure and no ac- tion was taken. CITIZEN COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Missy Sheldon - 1800 The Strand, issued an invitation, on behalf of the Community Center Foundation, to a special program on December 16 of a film called, "White Magic" produced by Warren Miller, a local businessman. There will be two showings one at 7:00 P.M. and 9:30 P.M. The price of a ticket is $10.00. Ms. Sheldon also extended an invitation to Mayor Creighton to cut the ribbon on the new screen. - 7 - Minutes 11-28-89 City Manager Northcraft commented on various holiday activities, including the tree lighting ceremony on Tuesday, December 5, at 5:30 P.M., put on by Community Resources Department and Chamber of Commerce. Santa will be arriving at the same time from the Pier. ADJOURNMENT The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, adjourned on Tuesday, November 28, 1989, at the hour of 10:20 P.M., to a Special Meeting on December 9, 1989 at 12:00 Noon. - 8 - Minutes 11-28-89 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 10:03:03 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION H ALPHA BETA CHRISTMAS PROG SUPP/REC. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 12/12/89 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 03176 001-400-4601-4308 00227 $166.25 11/28/89 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** H STATE OF*CALIFORNIA POLICE DETECTIVE VEH. PAGE 0001 DATE 12/07/89 INV/REF PO # CHV. # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $166. 25 03065 170-400-2103-5403 00003 $11,600.00 11/28/89 SPEC INVESTGTNS /VEHICLES *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** H CSULB TUITION/A. ALTFELD H CSULB TUITION/M. ROONEY $11.600.00 03175 001-400-2101-4316 00486 $410.00 11/27/89 POLICE /TRAINING 03175 001-400-4601-4316 00122 $260.00 11/29/89 COMM RESOURCES /TRAINING *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** H DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES USE TAX/DETECTIVE CARS $670. 00 02895 170-400-2103-5403 00004 $1,442.68 11/30/89 SPEC INVESTGTNS /VEHICLES s *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** H PUB EMPLOYEES - RETIREMENT/OCT H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT/OCT H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT/OCT H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT/OCT H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT/OCT H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT/OCT RETIREMENT SYS. 89 RETIREMENT SYS. 89 RETIREMENT SYS. 89 - -- - RETIREMENT SYS. 89 RETIREMENT 89 00026 001-400-1213-4180 00344 -- 11/28/89 RETIREMENT 00026 001-400-1213-4180 00345 11/28/89 RETIREMENT 00026 001-400-1213-4180 00346 - 11/28/89 RETIREMENT 00026 001-400-1213-4180 00347 11/28/89 SYS. 00026 11/28/89 RETIREMENT SYS. 89 RETIREMENT 105-40C-2601-4180 00110 STREET LIGHTING 00026 110-400-3301-4180 00111 11/28/89 VEH PKG DIST $1, 442.68 $86,466.42 /RETIREMENT $68, 609. 31CR /RETIREMENT $16, 237. 83CR /RETIREMENT $100. 54CR /RETIREMENT $1,032.86 /RETIREMENT $217. 38 /RETIREMENT 09095 31918 $0. 00 12/06/89 10175 $0. 00 10174 $0. 00 31919 12/06/89 31915 12/06/89 09094 31921 $0. 00 12/06/89 10182 31923 $0.00 12/06/89 $0. 00 $0. 00 - $0. 00 $0. 00 $0. 00 $0. 00 31917 12/06/89 31917 12/06/89 31917 12/06/89 - 31917 12/06/89 31917 12/06/89 31917 12/06/89 J 1 H J J lb . FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 10:03:03 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. RETIREMENT/OCT 89 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. RETIREMENT/OCT 89 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. RETIREMENT/OCT 89 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. RETIREMENT/OCT 89 - H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. RETIREMENT/OCT 89 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. RETIREMENT/OCT 89 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. RETIREMENT/OCT 89 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. RETIREMENT/OCT 89 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 12/12/89 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 00026 110-400-3302-4180 00110 $5,460.36 11/28/89 PARKING ENF /RETIREMENT 00026 145-400-3401-4180 00084 $156.47 11/28/89 DIAL A RIDE /RETIREMENT 00026 145-400-3402-4180 11/28/89 ESEA 00084 $56.08 /RETIREMENT 00026 145-400-3403-4180 00033 $18.31 11/28/89 BUS PASS SUBSDY /RETIREMENT 00026 155-400-2102-4180 00082 $149.17 11/28/89 CROSSING GUARD /RETIREMENT 00026 160-400-3102-4180 00109 $1,042.49 11/28/89 SEWER/ST DRAIN /RETIREMENT 00026 705-400-1209-4180 00033 $227.60 11/28/89 LIABILITY INS /RETIREMENT 00026 705-400-1217-4180 00033 $291.03 11/28/89 WORKERS COMP /RETIREMENT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** H PURKISS-ROSE ASSOCIATES CONTRACT PMT/OCT 89 PAGE 0002 DATE .12/07/89 INV/REF PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $10,170.49 02982 001-400-4601-4201 00458 $4,144.67 11/30/89 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $4,144.67 H TARGET CHRISTMAS PROG SUPP/REC. - 02368 001-400-4601-4308 00228 $31.92 11/29/89 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $31.92 *** PAY CODE TOTAL****************************************************************** R A & E TROPHIES MISC CHARGES/NOV 89 $28, 226. 01 02744 001-400-1101-4319 00081 $116.68 11/30/89 CITY COUNCIL /SPECIAL EVENTS 31917 $0.00 12/06/89 31917 $0.00 12/06/89 31917 $0. 00 12/06/89 31917 $0. 00 12/06/89 31917 $0. 00 12/06/89 31917 $0. 00 12/06/89 31917 $0. 00 12/06/89 31917 $0.00 12/06/89 09096 31922 $0.00 12/06/89 09092 31920 $0. 00 12/06/89 01171 $0. 00 31928 12/06/89 • • • FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 10:03:03 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R A & E TROPHIES . MISC CHARGES/NOV 89 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 12/12/89 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION PAGE 0003 DATE 12/07/89 INV/REF PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 02744 001-400-1203-4305 00237 $21.33 11/30/89 PERSONNEL /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES *** VENDOR TOTAL ****************************.***************** **** r**************** R AAA AUTO ELECTRIC EMERG GENERATOR REPAIR 7230 01328 001-400-2201-4309 11/28/89 FIRE $138.01 00773 $260.93 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R ACME VISIBLE RECORDS REPAIR PD RECORDS FILES -0000 01574 001-400-2101-4309 11/21/89 POLICE $260. 93 01171 $0.00 7230 08366 31928 12/06/89 31929 $0.00 12/06/89 00248 $147.50 11-742421-0000 10120 31930 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $155.00 12/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R ADVANCED ELECTRONICS MAINTENANCE FEES/NOV 89 R ADVANCED ELECTRONICS MAINTENANCE FEES/NOV 89 00935 001-400-2101-4201 1528 10/31/89 POLICE 00935 001-400-2201-4201 1528 10/31/89 FIRE R ADVANCED ELECTRONICS RADIO MAINTENANCE/NOV 89 1529 $147. 50 00489 $1,061.20 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 00104 $265. 30 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 00935 110-400-3302-4307 00005 10/31/89 PARKING ENF $305. 50 /RADIO MAINTENANCE *** VENDOR TOTAL ************.p.** ... *. ******* *************************************** R AMERICAN STYLE FOODS MISC. CHARGES/NOV 89 00857 001-400-2101-4306 11/30/89 POLICE $1,632.00 00720 $165. 00 /PRISONER MAINTENANCE *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $165.00 R ANASTASI CONSTRUCTION WORK GUARANTEE REFUND 78536 00004 001-210-0000-2110 11/29/89 1528 00070 31931 30. 00 12/06/89 1528 00070 31931 $0.00 12/06/89 1529 00073 31931 $0.00 12/06/89 00113 $0. 00 03422 $325.00 78536 09887 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE 30.00 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $325..00 R HAROLD*ANCHEL 03174 001-210-0000-2110 WORK GUARANTEE REFUND 78549 11/29/89 03421 $350.00 78549 09884 31932 12/06/89 31933 12/06/09 31934 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 12/06/89 FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 10:03:03 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST PAGE 0004 FOR 12/12/89 DATE 12/07/89 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $350.00 R AQUA ENGINEERING, INC. 02981 125-400-8508-4201 00025 $1,873.59 2894/2895 10043 31935 PARK IRRIGATION CONTRACT /2895 12/04/89 CIP 85-508 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 12/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL********************************************4*********************** $1,873.59 R JUDY*ARMSTRONG 02970 001-400-4601-4201 00464 $352.00 09090 31936 FALL PROGRAM INSTRUCTOR 11/22/89 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 12/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL****************************.*************************************** $352. 00 R AUTOMOTIVE PAINT CENTER 01891 001-400-3104-4309 00364 $504.71 00114 31937 MISC CHARGES/NOV 89. 11/30/89 TRAFFIC SAFETY /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 12/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $504. 71 R AWNINGS UNLIMITED 03173 001-300-0000-3115 02297 $100.00 685500 01792 31938 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 85500 11/15/89 /BUSINESS LICENSE $0.00 12/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $100. 00 MICHAEL*BAKER 03172 001-210-0000-2110 03420 $375.00 82574 09885 31939 WORK GUARANTEE REFUND 82574 11/29/89 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 12/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $375. 00 R BELL & HOWELL 00563 001-400-4201-4305 00497 $509.00 ANNUAL MAINTENANCE FEES 16565 11/22/89 BUILDING /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $509.00 916565 07596 $0. 00 31940 12/06/89 R OFCR DAVID*BOHACIK 01983 001-400-2101-4312 01112 $11.70 10205 31941 MILES/TRAINING OFCR CRSE -- - 11/20/89 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST -- - - $0.00 12/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $11.70 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-1101-4305 00277 $12.27 09900 31943 ----PETTY CASH REIMB/NOV 89 12/01/89 - CITY COUNCIL /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES -- -- -- - $0.00 12/06/89 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 10:03:03 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH REIMB/NOV 89 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH REIMB/NOV 89 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH REIMB/NOV 89 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH REIMB/NOV 89 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH REIMB/NOV 89 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH REIMB/NOV 89 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH REIMB/NOV 89 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH REIMB/NOV 89 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH REIMB/NOV 89 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH REIMB/NOV 89 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH REIMB/NOV 89 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH REIMB/NOV 89 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH REIMB/NOV 89 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH REIMB/NOV 89 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER ' PETTY CASH REIMB/NOV 89 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 12/12/89 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION PAGE 0005 DATE 12/07/09 INV/REF PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 02016 001-400-1202-4305 00270 $12.00 12/01/89 FINANCE ADMIN /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 02016 001-400-1203-4305 00238 $5.27 12/01/89 PERSONNEL /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 02016 001-400-1208-4305 00694 $0.46CR 12/01/89 GEN APPROP /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 02016 001-400-2201-4309 00774 $15.98 12/01/89 FIRE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 02016 001-400-3103-4309 00926 $15.37 12/01/89 ST MAINTENANCE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 02016 001-400-4101-4305 00364 $10.10 12/01/89 PLANNING /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 02016 001-400-4101-4316 00165 $31.00 12/01/89 PLANNING /TRAINING 02016 001-400-4102-4316 00019 $15.50 12/01/89 PLANNING COMM /TRAINING 02016 001-400-4201-4305 00498 $5.25 12/01/89 BUILDING /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 02016 001-400-4204-4309 01497 $25.00 12/01/89 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 02016 001-400-4601-4305 00767 $73.96 12/01/89 COMM RESOURCES /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 02016 001-400-4601-4308 00231 $87.91 12/01/89 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS 02016 001-400-4601-4316 00123 $7.50 12/01/89 COMM RESOURCES /TRAINING 02016 001-400-8606-4201 00076 $17.50 12/01/89 CIP 87-606 /CONTRACT SERVICE PRIVATE 02016' 105-400-2601-4309 00550 $10.00 12/01/89 STREET LIGHTING /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 09900 31943 $0.00 12/06/89 09900 31943 $0. 00 12/06/89 09900 31943 $0.00 12/06/89 09900 31943 $0.00 12/06/89 ' 09900 31943 $0.00 12/06/89 09900 31943 $0.00 12/06/89 09900 31943 $0.00 12/06/89 09900 31943 $0.00 12/06/89 09900 31943 $0.00 12/06/89 09900 31943 $0.00 12/06/09 09900 31943 $0.00 12/06/89 09900 31943 $0. 00 12/06/89 09900 31943 $0.00 12/06/89 09900 31943 $0. 00 12/06/89 09900 31943 $0.00 12/06/89 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 10:03:03 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH REIMB/NOV 89 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 12/12/89 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION PAGE 0006 DATE 12/07/89 INV/REF PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 02016 160-400-3102-4309 00429 $1.91 12/01/89 SEWER/ST DRAIN /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R LINDA*BUFFETT CLARK RENTAL REFUND 85357 03138 001-300-0000-3411 11/20/89 $346.06 01265 $275.00 /OTHER FACILITIES *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R CA ASSOC OF POLICE TRNG OFCRS DUES/COMMANDER ALTFELD 02119 001-400-2101-4315 11/14/89 POLICE $275.00 00145 $25.00 /MEMBERSHIP *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R CA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE, INC. PARKS MAINTENANCE/OCT 89 91019 R CA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE, INC. PARKS MAINTENANCE/OCT 89 07910 R CA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE, INC. PARKS MAINTENANCE/OCT 89 76910 00599 001-300-0000-3815 10/18/89 00599 001-400-3101-4201 10/18/89 MEDIANS 00599 001-400-6101-4201 10/18/89 PARKS 00313 00026 00161 $25.00 09900 31943 $0.00 12/06/89 69966/85357 09081 $0.00 $76. 16CR /PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES 10162 $0.00 31944 12/06/89 31945 12/06/89 7691019 00061 31946 $0.00 12/06/89 $3,150.00 0407910 00061 31946 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 12/06/89 $10,025.62 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SEM REG/R. BLACKWOOD D7353 $13,099.46 03162 001-400-1203-4316 00169 $125.00 11/29/89 PERSONNEL /TRAINING *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R CALIFORNIA MARKING DEVICE COUNCIL NAMEPLATES 27282 $125.00 00262 001-400-1101-4305 00276 $47.93 11/15/89 CITY COUNCIL /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE WATER BILLINGS/NOV 89 $47.93 076910 00061 31946 $0.00 12/06/89 4LBAD7353 09757 $0.00 31947 12/06/89 -27282 09325 31948 $0.00 12/06/89 00016 001-400-3101-4303 00066 $631.33 00119 31949 11/30/89 MEDIANS /UTILITIES $0.00 12/06/89 r • r • V V FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 10:03:03 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R CALIFORNIA WATER ZFRVICE WATER BILLINGS/NOV 89 R CALIFOP":1A WATER SERVICE W,TcR BILLINGS/NOV 89 -- CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH - DEMAND LIST FOR 12/12/89 VND # ACCGJNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ 4 ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 00016 001-400-4204-4303 00347 $464.26 11/30/89 BLDG MAINT /UTILITTE;, 00016 001-400-6101-4303 11/30/89 PAP! :S 002/9 32, 595. 96 /UTILITIES *** VENDOR. TOTAL ************************************. ****************************** R CELLULAR DYNAMICS COMPI..":'r MOBILE PHONE CHP9.,'UCT 89 02449 001-400-2101-4304 10/27/89 POLICE PAGE 0007 DATE 12/07/89 INV/REF PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $3,691.55 00456 • $497.16 /TELEPHONE *** VENDO? TUTAL******************************************************************** R CERTIFIED OFFICE EQUIPMENT TYPEWRITER OVERHAUL/PW 1574 $497.16 00389 001-400-4202-4305 00438 $150.00 11/20/89 PUB WKS ADMIN /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R CHAMPION CHEVROLET MISC CHARGES/NOV 89 R CHAMPION CHEVROLET MISC CHARGES/NOV 89 5150. 00 00014 001-400-2101-4311 00765 $241.54 11/30/89 POLICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE 00014 001-400-4601-4311 00071 524.24 11/30/89 COMM RESOURCES /AUTO MAINTENANCE *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R OFCR NANCY*COOK MEALS/3 OFFICERS 02173 001-400-2101-4312 11/07/89 POLICE 01110 $265.78 524. 00 /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R THE *COPY SHOP CHRISTMAS FLYER/REC R THE *COPY SHOP FLYER/SAND& STRAND RUN - 00022 001-400-4601-4302 00058 11/16/89 COMM RESOURCES 00022 001-400-4601-4302 00059 11/29/89 COMM RESOURCES $24.00 585. 20 /ADVERTISING $47.92 /ADVERTISING *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 5133. 12 00119 31949 50. 00 12/06/89 00119 31949 50. 00 12/06/89 01010 $0.00 1574 10067 50. 00 31950 12/06/89 31951 12/06/89 01112 31952 50. 00 12/06/89 01112 31952 50. 00 12/06/89 10202 50. 00 31953 12/06/89 09075 31954 50.00 12/06/89 09088 31954 $0.00 12/06/89 R CROSS ELECTRIC 03171 001-210-0000-2110 03419 $1,525.00 82558 09886 31955 WORK GUARANTEE REFUND --- 82558 - 11/29/89 - - /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE -- -- - 50.00 12/06/89 J FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 10:03:03 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 12/12/89 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R CSFMO 1990 SEMINAR REGISTRATION/V. COPELAND PAGE 0008 DATE 12/07/89 INV/REF PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $1.525.00 02629 001-400-1202-4317 00058 $150.00 • 277 11/20/89 FINANCE ADMIN /CONFERENCE EXPENSE *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R L. N. *CURTIS & SON LADDER SPIKES/ENGINE 11 31805 00850 001-400-2201-4309 11/15/89 FIRE $150.00 00772 $37.28 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R DATA SAFE TAPE STORAGE/NOV12-DEC11 45666 $37.28 277 00277 $0.00 31956 12/06/89 G31805 08364 31957 $37.28 12/06/89 00156 001-400-1206-4201 00649 $115.00 45666 00047 11/16/89 DATA PROCESSING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL CARE & SHELTER COSTS/OCT 89 $115.00 00154 001-400-2401-4251 00115 $634.71 11/10/89 ANIMAL CONTROL /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R DESK CITY SECRETARIAL CHAIR 25311 R DESK CITY COMPUTER PRINTOUT STAND 25459 01097 11/08/89 001-400-4202-5401 00028 $634.71 $232.48 PUB WKS ADMIN /EQUIPMENT -LESS THAN $50 01097 001-400-4601-4305 00766 $99.03 11/09/89 COMM RESOURCES /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R DICTAPHONE, INC. ANNUAL MAINT CONTRACT 02855 001-400-2101-4201 72480 11/15/89 POLICE R DICTAPHONE, INC. ANNUAL MAINT CONTRACT 72480 $331.51 00014 $0.00 25311 10057 31958 12/06/89 31959 12/06/89 31960 $232.48 12/06/89 25459 09071 31960 $97.73 12/06/89 00491 $982.00 P372480 10179 31961 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 12/06/89 02855 001-400-2201-4201 00105 $654.67 • P372480 10179 11/15/89 FIRE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY $1,636.67 02840 001-400-1208-4305 00693 $166.14 013890177 09262 31961 12/06/89 31962 • TONER/IBM 60 COPIER 90177 - -• 11/21/89 GEN APPROP • /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES--- - $0.00 12/06/89 --- FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 10:03:03 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH - DEMAND LIST PAGE 0009 FOR 12/12/89 DATE 12/07/89 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROD # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP • - *** VENDOR TOTAL•******************************************************************* $166.14 R EASTMAN, INC. 02514 001-400-1208-4305 00692 $260.64 • MISC. CHARGES/NOV 89 11/30/89 GEN APPROP /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES • *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $260.64 01166 $0.00 31963 12/06/89 R OFCR TOM*ECKERT 01958 001-400-2101-4312 01109 $11.70 10206 31964 MILES/TRAINING OFCR CRSE 11/20/89 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 12/06/89 -' *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R CITY OF*EL SEGUNDO CAR RENTAL/10-17-11-15 $11. 70 02783 170-400-2103-4201 00043 $549.54 11/20/89 SPEC INVESTGTNS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $549.54 10171 $0.00 31965 12/06/89 ✓ R MARK*EWALD 03170 001-210-0000-2110 03418 $50.00 84358 09889 31966 TRAP DEPOSIT REFUND 84358 11/29/89 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 12/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $50.00 r R EXECUTIVE -SUITE SERVICES INC. 01294 001-400-4204-4201 00345 $1,325.00 042/036 00062 31967 JANITORIAL SERV/OCT 89 2/036 10/31/89 BLDG MAINT /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 12/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,325.00 r R FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. 01962 001-400-1101-4305 00274 $12.00 6-951-80332 09136 31968 DELIVERY SERV/NOV 89 80332 12/05/89 CITY COUNCIL /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 12/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $12.00 +� R STEVE*FILLMAN 03169 001-400-4601-4201 00461 $704.00 09085 31969 FALL PROGRAM INSTRUCTOR 11/21/89 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 12/06/89 - *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $704.00 R JANET*FURNEE' 02610 001-400-4601-4201 00462 $50.00 09093 31970 --- THEATRE TECH/NOV 18, 89 - 11/28/89 • COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT-------- $0. 00 12/06/89 r V a to 1 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 10:03:03 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 12/12/89 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R GBH DISTRIBUTING 02875 001-400-2101-4307 REPAIR DISPATCH HEADSET 2247 11/01/89 POLICE PAGE 0010 DATE 12/07/09 INV/REF PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $50. 00 00198 $40.00 /RADIO MAINTENANCE *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFCRS ASSOC FILING FEE/CAFR REPORT $40. 00 00059 001-400-1202-4201 00191 $375.00 12/04/89 FINANCE ADMIN /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R GTEL EQUIPMENT RENT/FIRE/DEC 15583 $375. 00 01340 001-400-2201-4304 00215 $92.56 12/04/89 FIRE /TELEPHONE *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R HAAKER EQUIPMENT CO. $92.56 00731 001-400-3103-4311 00509 $182.90 STREET SWEEPER PARTS 12917 11/22/89 ST MAINTENANCE /AUTO MAINTENANCE *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R HALPRIN SUPPLY COMPANY TURNOUT BOOTS/N. METZGER 19611 HALPRIN SUPPLY COMPANY FIRE HYDRANT WRENCH 19998 00946 001-400-2201-4187 00176 11/13/89 FIRE 00946 001-400-2201-4309 11/17/89 FIRE $182.90 2247 10139 31971 $42.28 12/06/89 09266 31972 $0.00 12/06/89 2115583 01226 31973 $0.00 12/06/89 1C12917 10071 $0.00 31974 12/06/89 $52.72 18187/CM19611 08361 31975 /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE $52.72 12/06/89 00770 $100.76 19998 08361 31975 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $100.76 12/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R BARRY*HANNA FALL PROGRAM INSTRUCTOR $153. 48 02891 001-400-4601-4201 00463 $129.00 11/21/89 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT .*** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R STEVE*HARTT MILES/SKILLS MODULE CRSE 1- 00896 001-400-2101-4312 11/20/89 POLICE $129.00 01108 $2.34 /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST 09086 31976 $0.00 12/06/89 10209 31977 $0.00 12/06/89 • • L 4' a. • W 1 FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 10:03:03 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 12/12/89 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL********************at*atatat**atjtat#*jtatit*********jtat*it*itat*as*itat************ R HIWAY MARKING SYSTEMS PAINT TRUCK REPAIRS 0 PAGE 0011 DATE 12/07/89 $0.00 12/06/89 1 t.) LJ V INV/REF PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $2.34 00280 001-400-3104-4309 00365 *858.43 H5299 09/11/89 TRAFFIC SAFETY /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *** VENDOR.TOTAL******************************************************************** R DICK *HOLLAND CARPET CARPET SPOT REMOVER $858.43 H5299 10074 31978 00062 001-400-4204-4309 01496 $90.00 1C12917 10004 12917 10/05/89 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $90.00 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELECTRIC WIRE MOLD/STOCK 7/489 $90.00 02458 001-400-4204-4309 01492 3982.84 34462/3337/489 09450 11/20/89 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $982.85 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R INST OF TRANSPORTATION ENGRS MEMBERSHIP DUES/ANTICH $982.84 02479 001-400-3104-4315 00010 $120.00 11/27/89 TRAFFIC SAFETY /MEMBERSHIP *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R INTL CONF OF BUILDING OFFICIAL DUES/W. GROVE 65675 $120.00 00206 001-400-4201-4315 00087 $150.00 11/06/89 BUILDING /MEMBERSHIP *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R OFCR LANCE*JAAKOLA SKILLS MODULE CLASS 02137 001-400-2101-4312 01107 11/20/89 POLICE $150.00 $2.34 /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** JOHN*KEARIN MILES/SUPERVISOR CLASS R JOHN*KEARIN MILES/WARRANT CLASS 01032 001-400-2101-4312 11/20/89 POLICE 01032 001-400-2101-4312 11/20/89 POLICE $2.34 01104 $168.48 /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST 01106 $189.02 /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST 10075 31979 12/06/89 31980 12/06/89 31981 $0.00 12/06/89 M65675 07597 $0.00 10210 $0.00 31982 12/06/89 31983 12/06/89 10211 31984 $0.00 12/06/89 10213 31984 $0.00 12/06/89 v v FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 10:03:03 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST PAGE 0012 FOR 12/12/89 DATE 12/07/89 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC BATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL *********************** t******** *********************************** $357. 50 R WILLIAM*KELLY 00362 001-400-2101-4312 01105 $168.48 10212 31985 MILES/SUPERVISOR CLASS 11/20/89 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 12/06/89 *** VENDOR•TOTAL******************************************************************** $168. 48 R STAN*KIM 02833 001-400-4601-4201 00460 $16.00 09089 31926 FALL PROGRAM INSTRUCTOR 11/21/89 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 12/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $16. 00 R KOBATA GROWER'S INC. 00655 001-400-3101-4309 00041 $1,065.00 10048 31987 HOLIDAY POINSETTIAS 11/21/89 MEDIANS /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $1,065.00 12/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,065.00 R SGT JOHN*KOEBSELL 00629 001-400-2101-4312 01103 $24.00 10203 31988 MEALS/MISSNG PERSON CRSE 11/07/89 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 12/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $24.00 R L.A. BASIN CHAPTER ICBO 02277 001-400-4201-4315 00086 $25.00 07598 31989 DUES/W. GROVE 11/29/89 BUILDING /MEMBERSHIP $0.00 12/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $25. 00 R LIEBERT, CASSIDY & FRIERSON 02175 001-400-1203-4201 00614 $1,085.00 09758 31990 LEGAL SERV/OCT 89 11/21/89 PERSONNEL /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 12/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,085.00 R LOS ANGELES CO DISTRICT ATTY 00386 001-400-1131-4251 00096 $766.45 9-15/10-13 07595 . 31991 LEGAL SERV/BLDG/SEP-OCT 10-13 11/29/89 CITY ATTORNEY /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT $0.00 12/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $766.45 R LOUIS THE TAILOR, INC. 00079 001-400-2101-4187 00295 $281.16 MISC. CHARGES/NOV 89 11/30/89 POLICE 01134 /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE $0.00 31992 12/06/89 -- FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 10:03:03 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R LOUIS THE TAILOR, INC. SAFETY VESTS R LOUIS THE TAILOR, INC. MISC. CHARGES/NOV 89 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 12/12/89 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 00079 001-400-2101-4187 00296 44038 10/23/89 POLICE PAGE 0013 DATE 12/07/89 INV/REF PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $926.55 /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 00079 001-400-2201-4187 00175 $159.75 • 11/30/89 FIRE /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R MAIN ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. MISC CHARGES/NOV 89 $1,367.46 00426 105-400-2601-4309 00549 $232.12 11/30/89 STREET LIGHTING /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R DOUG*MARTES TRAP DEPOSIT REFUND 0316B 001-210-0000-2110 88079 11/29/89 $232.12 244038 10123 *926.55 01134 31992 12/06/89 31992 $0.00 12/06/89 01135 31993 $0.00 12/06/89 03417 $50.00 88079 09888 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 • *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R MERRIMAC PETROLEUM, INC. UNLEADED GAS/CITY YARD 01823 03080 001-141-0000-1401 10/27/89 350.00 00062 $2,809.14 /GASOLINE INVENTORY *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R MICHAELS CHRISTMAS PROG SUPP/REC. 3377 $2,809.14 03167 001-400-4601-4308 00229 $92.83 11/29/89 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS • *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R KIM*MITCHELL MILEAGE/SUPERVISOR CLASS $92.83 00522 001-400-2101-4312 01102 $168.48 11/20/89 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST • *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R MOBIL OIL CREDIT CORPORATION MISC CHARGES/OCT 89 R MOBIL OIL CREDIT CORPORATION MISC CHARGES/OCT 89 $168.48 00388 001-400-2101-4310 00216 $7.99 10/31/89 POLICE /MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 00388 110-400-3302-4310 00105 10/31/89 $10.94 PARKING ENF /MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 001823 10041 31994 12/06/89 31995 $0.00 12/06/89 3377 09091 $0.00 10207 31996 12/06/89 31997 $0.00 12/06/89 01063 31998 $0.00 12/06/89 01063 31998 $0.00 12/06/89 v FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 10:03:03 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH - DEMAND LIST PAGE 0014 FOR 12/12/89 DATE 12/07/89 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $18.93 R MODESTO JUNIOR COLLEGE 03010 001-400-2101-4312 01111 315.00 10204 31999 TUITION/6 OFFICERS 11/13/89 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 12/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $15.00 R JAMES M.*MONTGOMERY 02916 160-400-8405-4201 00054 • 5700.00 91544 10072 32000 CONTRACT PMT/OCT 89 91544 • 10/23/89 CIP 85-405 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 50.00 12/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $700.00 R WALLACE*MOORE 00516 001-400-2101-4312 01101 $168.48 10208 32001 MILEAGE/SUPERVISOR CLASS 11/20/89 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE POST $0.00 12/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 5168.48 R MOTOROLA INC. 00207 001-400-2101-4201 00490 $527.18 839613 10108 32002 MODEM/CAR DATA SYSTEMS 39613 11/06/89 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $527.19 12/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $527.18 R NABER TECHNICAL ENTERPRISES 00656 001-400-2101-4313 00223 $395.84 10214 32003 TUITION/2 POLICE OFCRS 11/21/89 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE. STC 50.00 12/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $395.84 R STEVE*NAPOLITANO 03166 001-400-4601-4201 00459 $372.00 09087 32004 FALL PROGRAM INSTRUCTOR 11/21/89 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 12/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $372.00 R NATIONAL CAREER WORKSHOPS 02203 110-400-3302-4316 00162 $295.00 09951 32005 SEMINAR REG/5 GS OFCRS 11/27/89 PARKING ENF /TRAINING 30.00 12/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 5295. 00 R KEVIN 13.*NORTHCRAFT 02064 001-400-1101-4305 00275 $29.77 09135 32006 MONTHLY EXPENSES/OCT 89 - 12/05/89 CITY COUNCIL /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES -- 80.00 12/06/89 FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 10:03:03 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 12/12/89 PAGE 0015 DATE 12/07/89 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT IN:'/REF PO # CHK # DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL ****•n***************** *********************************** ********* R OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & VOSE LEGAL SERVICES/OCT 89 $29. 77 02892 001-400-1131-4201 00530 $11,908.00 • 11/30/89 CITY ATTORNEY /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR. TOTAL******************************************************************** R PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPUTER' HOOKUPS/NOV 89 $11,908.00 00321 001-400-2101-4304 00457 $168.91 11/30/89 POLICE /TELEPHONE *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $168. 91 09132 32007 $0. 00 12/06/89 00036 32008 $0. 00 12/06/89 R PAK WEST 00519 001-400-4204-4309 01491 $2,271.46 663654/1529/ 10036 32009 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 1529/ 11/17/89 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $2,271.48 12/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $2,271.46 - R PHENIX TECHNOLOGY, INC. PHASE II/FIRE FLOW STUDY 3134 4.0 1 v R PHENIX TECHNOLOGY, INC. PHASE 3/FIRE FLOW STUDY 3142 02690 180-400-2202-4201 00025 $3,800.00 11/15/89 HYDRANT UPGRADE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 02690 180-400-2202-4201 00026 $2,400.00 11/17/89 HYDRANT UPGRADE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R RADIO SHACK MISC CHARGES/NOV 89 R RADIO SHACK MISC CHARGES/NOV 89 R RADIO SHACK MISC CHARGES/NOV 89 R RADIO SHACK MISC CHARGES/NOV 89 01429 11/30/89 01429 11/30/89 001-400-1205-4305 00066 CABLE TV 001-400-1208-4305 00691 GEN APPROP 01429 001-400-2101-4305 01132 11/30/89 POLICE 01429 11/30/89 001-400-4204-4309 01494 BLDG MAINT $6,200.00 $14.83 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $4.88 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $62.94 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $8.47 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $91.12 R RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO MISC. CHARGES/NOV 89 00173 001-400-1203-4305 00236 $29.64 11/30/89 PERSONNEL /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES - 3134 08368 32010 $0.00 12/06/89 3142 08369 32010 $0.00 12/06/89 01143 32011 $0.00 12/06/89 01143 32011 $0.00 12/06/89 01143 32011 $0.00 12/06/89 01143 32011 $0.00 12/06/89 01144 $0.00 32012 12/06/89 • FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 10:03:03 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R R R R R R R R R RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO MISC. CHARGES/NOV 89 RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO MISC. CHARGES/NOV 89 RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO MISC. CHARGES/OCT 89 RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO MISC. CHARGES/NOV 69 RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO MISC. CHARGES/OCT 89 RAINBOW CAMERA & CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 12/12/89 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROD # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 00173 001-400-2101-4305 11/30/89 POLICE 00173 001-400-2101-4306 11/30/89 POLICE 00173 001-400-2101-4306 10/31/89 POLICE PAGE 0016 DATE 12/07/89 INV/REF PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 01131 $122. 15 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 00718 $161.67 /PRISONER MAINTENANCE 00719 $151.80 /PRISONER MAINTENANCE 00173 001-400-3104-4309 00363 11/30/89 TRAFFIC SAFETY 00173 001-400-4101-4305 00363 10/31/89 PLANNING VIDEO 00173 001-400-4202-4305 00436 MISC. CHARGES/NOV 89 RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO MISC. CHARGES/OCT 89 RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO MISC. CHARGES/NOV 89 RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO MISC. CHARGES/OCT 89 RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO MISC. CHARGES/NOV 89 R RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO MISC. CHARGES/OCT 89 11/30/89 PUB WKS ADMIN 00173 001-400-4202-4305 00437 10/31/89 PUB WKS ADMIN 00173 001-400-4204-4309 01493 11/30/89 BLDG MAINT 00173 001-400-6101-4309 00791 10/31/89 PARKS 00173 150-400-8102-4201 00044 11/30/89 CIP 85-102 00173 705-400-1209-4305 00017 10/31/89 LIABILITY INS $42. 64 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $46. 90 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $9. 53 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $7.35 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $42. 65 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $21. 51 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $5. 86 /CONTRACT SERVICE/FRIVAT $11. 84 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $653. 54 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R ROBBINS PRECAST, INC. TRASH BINS/CITY-WIDE 400 01864 125-400-8506-4309 00041 11/21/89 CIP 86-506 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R CITY OF*SANTA MONICA $3,706.20 $3,706.20 01144 $0. 00 01144 $0. 00 01044 $0. 00 01144 $0.00 01044 $0. 00 32012 12/06/29 32012 12/06/89 32012 12/06/89 32012 12/06/89 32012 12/06/89 01144 32012 $0. 00 12/06/89 01044 32012 $0.00 12/06/89 01144 32012 $0.00 12/06/89 01044 32012 $0.00 12/06/89 01144 32012 $0. 00 12/06/89 01044 32012 $0.00 12/06/89 400 09494 $3,686.70 03165 001-400-1101-4315 00090 $1,000.00 09134 MEMBERSHIP CONTRIBUTION 12/04/89 CITY COUNCIL /MEMBERSHIP $0.00 32013 12/06/89 32014 12/06/89 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 10:03:03 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST PAGE 0017 FOR 12/12/89 DATE 12/07/89 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R SUSAN*SAXE-CLIFFORD,PH D PSYCH EVAL/DISPATCHER 120-3 $1, 000. 00 00839 001-400-1203-4320 00283 $275.00 • 9-1120-3 09756 32015 11/20/89 PERSONNEL /PRE-EMPLOYMENT EXAMS $0.00 12/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R SINCLAIR PAINT CO. MISC CHARGES/NOV 89 R SINCLAIR PAINT CO. MISC CHARGES/NOV 89 01399 001-400-2201-4309 •11/30/89 FIRE $275.00 00771 $27.90 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 01399 001-400-4204-4309 01495 $111.45 11/30/89 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY MISC CHARGES/NOV 89 R SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY MISC CHARGES/NOV 89 00114 001-400-2101-4306 00721 11/30/89 POLICE 00114 11/30/89 001-400-4601-4308 00230 $139.35 $112.36 /PRISONER MAINTENANCE $145.31 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R SO CALIF RAPID TRANSIT DISTR. BUS PASS SALES/OCT 89 48970 $257.67 00843 145-400-3403-4251 00055 $1,407.00 10/30/89 BUS PASS SUBSDY /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R SO. BAY MEDAL OF VALOR COMM. MEDAL OF VALOR TABLE $1,407.00 00789 001-400-1101-4317 00354 $250.00 11/30/89 CITY COUNCIL /CONFERENCE EXPENSE *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R SOURISSEAU SUPPORT SERVICES BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION 1B/20 02075 001-400-2101-4201 11/20/89 POLICE $250.00 01146 32016 $0.00 12/06/89 01146 32016 $0.00 12/06/89 01147 32017 $0.00 12/06/89 01147 32017 $0.00 12/06/89 48970 09947 $0.00 09133 $0.00 32018 12/06/89 32019 12/06/89 00487 $877.50 1406/07/18/20 10170 32020 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 12/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R SOUTH BAY FREE CLINIC CDBG COSTS/JUL-SEP 89 $877.50 00779 140-400-4704-4201 00002 $1,050.00 11/06/89 S.B.FREE CLINIC /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 08660 32021 $0.00 12/06/89 J ,.J !. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0018 TIME 10:03:03 FOR 12/12/89 DATE 12/07/89 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF. PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1, 050. 00 R SOUTH BAY HOSPITAL 00107 001-400-2101-4201 00488 $284.75 10168 32022 PRISONER SERVICES 11/20/89 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 12/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $284. 75 R SOUTH BAY JUVENILE DIVERSION 01731 140-400-4705-4201 00002 $55.15 08665 32023 CDBG FEES/SEPTEMBER 89 11/27/89 JUVENILE DIVSN /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 12/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $55. 15 R SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL COURT 00118 110-300-0000-3302 30730 $13,485.00 09268 32024 CITE SURCHARGE/NOV 89 12/05/89 /COURT FINES/PARKING • $0.00 12/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $13,485.00 R SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL COURT 00400 110-300-0000-3302 30728 $110.00 09952 32025 CITATION COURT BAIL • 11/30/89 /COURT FINES/PARKING $0.00 12/06/89 R SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL COURT 00400 110-300-0000-3302 30729 $420.00 09946 32025 CITATION COURT BAIL 11/16/89 /COURT FINES/PARKING $0.00 12/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 3530. 00 R TODD PIPE & SUPPLY 00124 001-400-3101-4309 00040 $234.19 H28824 10050 32026 SPRINKLERS 28224 11/20/89 MEDIANS /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $235.37 12/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $234.19 R TRANSAMERICA OCCIDENTAL 00240 001-400-1212-4188 01570 $107.52 00029 32027 CITY INS/APR-DEC 89 11/15/89 EMP BENEFITS /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 12/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $107.52 R UNION FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK 03164 001-300-0000-3401 00616 $764.38 84194 09883 32028 INTEREST PAYMENT REFUND 84194 11/22/89 /INTEREST INCOME $0.00 12/06/89 .6J U E. FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 10:03:03 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST PAGE 0019 FOR 12/12/89 DATE 12/07/99 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL****•n***********************************±s****#?t•********************* $764.38 R WESTERN HIGHWAY PRODUCTS 00131 001-400-3104-5499 00026 $4,470.34 164221/5218 10010 32029 STREET SIGNS /5218 11/17/89 TRAFFIC SAFETY /NON—CAPITALIZED ASSETS $3,971.92 12/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL************************•n•ir*#*********•x**********•n*************•n***** $4, 470. 34 R SALLY A. *WHITE 00140 001-400-4102-4201 00231 $357.00 SECRETARY SERV/11-8-89 11/20/89 PLANNING COMM /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $357. 00 08663 32030 $0. 00 12/06/89 R C. W.*ZAHN CONSTRUCTION 03000 001-210-0000-2110 03416 $75.00 82577 09890 32031 WORK GUAR DEPOSIT REFUND 82577 11/30/89 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 12/06/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** *** PAY CODE TOTAL****************************************************************** *** TOTAL WARRANTS****************************************************************** $75. 00 $97. 531.32 $125.757.33 I M`:6LMt LLIIIIFY THAT THE DEMANDS OR CLAIMS COVERED BY THE WARRANTS LISTED ON Pt. .•3 v ««.RAN F REGISTER. TUR__ /242. / ��9�INCLARE A OF THE /Mu :OS !ii C f.1?%:..'...:=c FJii . — ARE ACCURATE J .11 THEREOF: FINANCE it/Ur.i.., STRAFOH DATE 42/ 7 g • December 4, 1989 Honorable Mayor and For the Meeting of Members of the City Council December 12, 1989 CANCELLATION OF WARRANTS Please consider the following request for cancellation of the warrants listed below. #031090 - 9/12/89 - Steve Endom - $101.80 - Account Number 001- 400-2101-4312 - Officer unable to attend this class. #031212 - 9/26/89 - Calif. State Polytechnic Univ. - $986.96 - Account Number 001-400-2101-4313 - A portion of this warrant was for meals and lodging. The officers did not stay at the conference site. #031281 - 9/26/89 - Modesto Junior College - $80.00 - Account Number 001-400-2101-4312 - The purchase order was made out for the wrong amount. The warrant was never mailed. #031402 - 10/10/89 - Hotel Diva - $316.35 - Account Number 001-400-1101-4317 - $316.35 - League of California Cities conference in San Francisco was canceled. #031556 - 10/24/89 - William Kelly - $72.00 - Account Number 001-400-2101-4312 - Duplicate payment for meals. Warrant was never mailed. #031560 - 10/24/89 - League of California Cities - $85.00 - Account Number 001-400-1205-4316 - Workshop was postponed due to rescheduling of League's conference. Concur: evin Northcraft City Manager Gary Brut ch City Treasurer Noted for fiscal impact Viki Copeland Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council December 6, 1989 City Council Meeting of December 12, 1989 TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS January 9, 1990 Upgrading vs. installing a new system, Community Center fire alarm system, CIP 89-615 Gyms in C-2, parking requirement review Award of contract for electrical deficiencies, Comm. Center Audit report for 1988-89 Employer/employee organization relations resolution Ordinance for traffic code update and status of traffic safety study's implementation Appropriation for General Services Public Information Program Highland Avenue - accept as complete CIP 85-102 24th Street, all Valley intersections, red curb study Consideration of Bikeway on Valley Dr. Increase in in lieu park fee January 23, 1990 Approval of User Fee Study Award of Pavement Management System Mid -year budget review February 13, 1990 Definition of hardship for fee waiver - 1 - Responsible Agent Public Works Director Planning Director Public Works Director Finance Director Personnel Director Public Works Director Public Safety Director General Services Director General Services Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Building Director Finance Director Public Works Director Finance Director Planning Director lc Amendment to Loreto Plaza agreement Sewer bond analysis Presentation of Parks and Rec. Master Plan Ordinance for fines for builders - required posting March 27, 1990 Fire Sprinkler Ordinance April 10, 1990 1st quarter General Plan Park & Rec. Master Plan to open space element Public Works Director Public Works Director Community Resources Building Director Public Safety Director amendment - Planning Director amendment ***************************************************************** Upcoming Items Not Yet Calendared Certification of oil drilling EIR CIP 88-406 Call for Bids - Sewers Target Area 4 Slurry sealing, call for bids CIP 89-170 Caltrans utility maintenance agrmt. Power Street drainage and grading Vehicle parking on pedestrian streets Historic Preservation Ordinance (with Land Use Element) Value of open space for Park Dedication in lieu fee New marquee proposal Award of design basketball court Planning Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Planning Director Building Director Community Resources Public Works Director ***************************************************************** Initiated by Party Date II II II Sidewalks for Safe School Rte. Recom. 9/12 Report on results of 6th St. storm drain cleaning City Mgr. 11/7 Revision of Handbill ordinance Council 11/14 Sale of ladder truck II It II 11/14 Public Hearing work- shop on oil EIR with School District 11/27 Audit request for proposal 11/27 Award of bid for hand held parking citation writers Public Works Director Public Works Director Public Safety Director Public Safety Director Planning Director Finance Director General Services Director A*. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council December 4, 1989 City Council Meeting of December 12, 1989 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT OF INACTIVE PUBLIC DEPOSITS FOR HERMOSA BEACH Attached is a report of all Inactive Public Deposits for the month of November 1989. Respectfully submitted, JE12411.)-4 Gary Bruysch City Treasurer NOTED: 1d INSTITUTION LAIF BALANCE 11/01/89 BALANCE 11/30/89 LACPIF BALANCE 11/01/89 BALANCE 11/30/89 TOTAL INVESTMENT REPORT - NOVEMBER 1989 DATE OF INVESTMENT DATE OF MATURITY INTEREST $1,060,000.00 $1,060,000.00 8.771% $3,644,363.76 3,644,363.76 10.48% SEATTLE 1ST NATL. BANK TRUST U.S. Treasury Note 24,634.28 9/27/89 3/1/90 7.8% U.S. Treasury Note 500,000.00 9/27/89 8/15/94 8.3% U.S. Treasury Note 4,351,928.77 9/27/89 12/21/89 7.036% CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT: Union Federal S&L Investment $ 500,000.00 3/7/89 3/7/90 Community Bank Investment $ 500,000.00 12/8/88 12/8/89 City National Bank Investment $ 500,000.00 3/30/89 3/23/90 9.50% 9.00% 10.30% City National Bank Investment City National Bank Investment CORPORATE NOTES: Ford Motor Credit Co. Investment Merrill Lynch & Co. Investment $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 4/25/89 5/22/89 5/19/88 6/30/88 4/25/90 10.00% 5/17/90 9.45% 5/20/93 9.10% 1/2/90 8.35% U.S. TREASURY NOTE: Investment $ 500,937.94 2/22/89 1/31/91 9.20% Investment $ 505,551.17 3/13/89 3/31/90 9.45% Investment $ 506,721.33 3/21/89 3/31/90 9.61% FHLMC: Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. Investment $ 248,733.64 TOTAL BALANCE $14,842,870.89 Respectfully Submitted, Gary Bruts City Treasurer 3/26/87 3/1/17 8.0% December 4, 1989 HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the Regular Meeting of HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL December 12, 1989 SUBJECT: FINAL MAP #13652 (C.U.P. CON NO. 88-5) LOCATION: 600 11TH STREET APPLICANT: GWC DESIGN REQUEST: APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP FOR 2 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Final Parcel Map #13652 which is consistent with the approved Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, and recommends the City Clerk be directed to endorse the certificate for said map. Background The Planning Commission approved Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #13652 at their May 3, 1988 meeting. Analysis The staff has reviewed the Final Map consistent with the Vesting Tentative Planning Commission and in conformance Map Act. CONCUR: Michael Schu.ac Planning Director Kevin B. Northcrgft City Manager T/srfinmap and found it substantially Parcel Map approved by the with the State Subdivision Respectfully submitte i Z_ - Ken Robertson Associate Planner lg 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #13652 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 600 ELEVENTH STREET, HER- MOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the City Council held a meeting on December 12, 1989 and made the following Findings: A. This project will not violate any of the provisions of Sections 66427.1, 66474, 66474.1, and 66474.6 of the Subdivi- sion Map Act; B. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan required by Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of the Government Code, or any specific plan adopted pursuant to Article 8 (commencing with Section 65450) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of the Government Code; C. The development of the property in the manner set forth on the subject division of land will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any public entity and/ or public utility rights-of-way and/or easements within the subject division of land; D. The approval of said map is subject to all conditions out- lined in Planning Commission Resolution P.C. No. 88-38, adop- ted after public hearing on May 3, 1988; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby resolve as follows: 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. Pursuant to the recommendation of the Planning Commission and to the recommendation of the County Engineer, the City Council does hereby grant final approval of Parcel Map #13652 in the City of Hermosa Beach, State of California, being a Subdivision of a portion of Lot 3, Block 78, Second Addition to Hermosa Beach, as recorded in Book 3, Pages 11 and 12 of Maps, in the Office of the Recorder of Los Angeles, for a two -unit condominium project on land commonly known as 600 Eleventh Street, Hermosa Beach, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 12th day of December, 1989. ATTEST: APPRQYED A$ TO FO T/rsfinmap PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY December 4, 1989 Honorable Mayor City Council meeting and Members of City Council of December 12, 1989 UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDING HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAM PROGRESS REPORT RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city council receive and file this report. BACKGROUND Pursuant to Government Code Section 8875 et seq., all cities are required to identify unreinforced masonry(URM) buildings that are potentially hazardous and to develop and implement a mitigation program to reduce the hazard. On April 25, 1989, the city council retained the firm of Melvyn Green and Associates, Inc. to identify URM buildings and develop a seismic hazard mitigation program. ANALYSIS The consultant has completed a field survey and review of city records to compile a list of unreinforced masonry buildings. There are sixty-five (65) buildings on the list. Each building owner will be notified within the next two weeks that their building may be a "potentially hazardous building" and will be given an opportunity to provide documentation that their building is not a URM building or has previously been strengthened. A summary of the building survey list, including appropriate in- formation, will be forwarded to the State of California Siesmic Safety Commission prior to January 1, 1990 as required by the regulations. A report with recommendations regarding implementing an appropri- ate level of hazard mitigation will be forthcoming to the city council. 1 lh Concur: Respectfully submitted, William Grove Director, Bldg. & Safety 'Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager carole/masonry 2 REPORT TO SEISMIC SAFETY COMMISSION PAGE - 1 Date of Report - 1/05/89 City - Hermosa Beach Contact Person : Name - Street Address Ci ty Telephone - William Grove - 1315 Valley Drive - Hermosa Beach County - • Identifying Buildings • Number of Buildings Identified as "Potentially Hazardous Buildings" Type Use (pr i mar y use) , RETAIL OFFICE RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL: PRE-SCHOOL SCHOOL: K-12 SCHOOL: COLLEGE HOTEL RESTAURANT THEATER INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE GARAGE PUBLIC UTILITY HOSPITAL POLICE DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT JAIL CHURCH OTHER of Bldg by Bldgs Sq Ft TOTAL 41 143903 _ 11273 1 37.260 0 ; O t; O 0 12700 10 43419 1 '26797 O 0 1 3540 O 0 i! ii 0 O 0 1 10800 2 37950 b`_ 322517 Type of Bldg by f Fi dqs 1 Sq. Ft i Structural System BEARING WALL STEEL FRAME CONCRETE FRAME OTHER TOTAL Number Df other- buildings considered to be historic : Approximate Total Square Footage V y Is field survey complete - YES If not, estimated date of completion �]::T.22517 c) i; it ii i; ii ___ _.._.___ _J -__.._ 322517 December 5, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council December 12, 1989 APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CIP 89-142 SIDEWALK REPAIRS Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Approve plans and specifications for'CIP 89-142 Sidewalk Repairs and authorize call for bids for this project. 2. Authorize staff to issue addenda as necessary. Background: In FY 88-89 all sidewalks requiring repair were identified. On May 9, 1989, City Council took action to repair sidewalks, curbs and gutters and to fund the repairs out of the general fund or appropriate funding source as determined by the City Manager. On June 13, 1989, City Council adopted the FY 89-90 Capital Improvement Program which included CIP 89-142. However, no funds were appropriated during the budget process. All background material leading to Council's decision to pay for repairs using City funds is available for review in the City Clerk's office. Analysis: Plans and Specifications have been prepared by the Public Works staff. They are complete, available for review in the office of the City Clerk and are ready to go out for bid. Engineer's Estimate Private Property City -owned Property H.B. School -owned Property Cable TV Damage Water Utility Damage Subtotal: Contingency: TOTAL: Project Itemized Costs $ 269,759 3,995 180 42,144* 411* $ 316,489 32,211 $ 348,700 - 1 - *City to recover these costs. lj Fiscal Impact: CIP 89-142 is currently not funded, however the General Fund, designation for Capital Improvements is a potential funding source. General Fund, Designation for Capital Improvements: Estimated Balance as of 6/30/90 Less: Estimated Project Cost Plus: Reimbursable Amount $ 443,165 (348,700) 42,555 New Balance $ 137,020 Final determination of funding source will be made at mid -year budget review on February 13, 1990 and prior to award of contract. Alternatives: Alternatives considered by staff and available to City Council are: 1. Delay the project. 2. Modify the scope of work. Respectfully Submitted, Brian Gengler Assistant Engineer Noted For Fiscal Impact: AL: Viki Cop land Director of Finance ty/sidwalk Concur: Lynn A. Terry P.E. Deputy City Engineer Anthony Antich Director of Public Works Kevin :. Northcraft City Manager December 5, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council December 12, 1989 SUBJECT: TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 89-1 LOCATION: ALL C-1 AND C-2 ZONE CITY-WIDE INITIATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL PURPOSE: TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE, C-1 ZONE PERMITTED USE LIST BY DELETING "VIDEO TAPES, GENERAL, NO ADULT, RENTALS AND SALES" Recommendation Staff recommends this matter be studied in conjunction with updating of General Plan Land Use Element and that the proposed text amendment be received and filed. Also, allow expiration of the moratorium. Background At the February 14, 1989 City Council meeting, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to review deleting video sales and rentals from the permitted use list. On February 28, 1989 a moratorium was adopted prohibiting issuance of Building Permits or Conditional Use Permits for video sales and/or rental. On April 11, 1989 the ordinance was extended. At the April 18, 1989 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission adopted the attached resolution recommending deletion of video sales in the C-1 and C-2 zones. On May 23, 1989 an ordinance was introduced to prohibit sales and/or rental of video tapes in the C-1 and C-2 zone. Analysis The proposed ordinance will delete video sales and rentals of all types from the C-1 and C-2 zones. However, it will not eliminate those establishments which are already legally in existence at this time. The City Attorney has recommended, in the past, that each use should have its own amortization period, and is in the process of preparing an amortization period for each use based on legal requirements. Since the legally existing businesses cannot at this time be halted, and since the land use element will be revised in the near future and is the appropriate document to study all land lk uses, staff believes that this text amendment should not be adopted at this time. - CONCUR: Respectfully submitted, Michael'" Schubach Kevin orth raft Planning Director City Manager t/ccsrvide 2 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Andrea N. Anderson, Planning Aide SUBJECT: Eligibility Requirements for the Program of Housing Rehabilitation DATE: December 12, 1989 The Housing Rehabilitation Program consists of three improvement programs and the total amount for the whole program is $92,072 for the fiscal Year 89-90. Eligibility requirements are as follows: EMERGENCY REPAIR PROGRAM * Homeowners must own and reside in a house within the City of Hermosa Beach. * Homeowners must have total household income that does not exceed the following levels: YEARLY INCOME NUMBER IN FAMILY $21,300 1 $24,300 2 $27,350 3 $30,400 4 $32,300 5 $34,200 6 $36,150 7 $38,000 8 MOBILITY ACCESS PROGRAM Homeowners must meet the following requirements: * Own and reside in a house in the City of Hermosa Beach. * Have a physical disability that impairs mobility. * Require assistance in the form of a wheelchair, walker, or crutches, or have an obvious need for mobility access improvements. * If requested, can supply a doctor's certification of physical limitation. * Have total household income that does not exceed the levels listed in the above chart. - SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 11 MOBILE HOME REPAIR PROGRAM Mobile home residents must meet the following requirements: * Own and reside in a manufactured home in a mobile home park within the City of Hermosa Beach. * Have total household income that does not exceed the following levels: YEARLY INCOME NUMBER IN FAMILY $13,950 1 $15,950 2 $17,950 3 $19,950 4 $21,550 5 $23,150 6 $24,750 7 $26,350 8 r, December 5, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of December 12, 1989 RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE SALE OF FORFEITED PROPERTY PURSUANT TO SECTION 11489 OF THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council authorize the sale of the forfeited property listed herein through Nationwide Commercial Auction Systems. BACKGROUND: At the regular City Council meeting of May 10, 1988, Council approved the procedures for handling assets which are seized and forfeited by the Police Department as part of a narcotics investigation. These procedures call for the sale of forfeited property to be approved by City Council. The City currently uses the auction services of Nationwide Commercial Auction Systems to dispose of property which is no longer needed. Nationwide has proven to be very efficient in processing the City's items. ANALYSIS: There have been several vehicles seized by the Police Department because they were used to conduct narcotics transactions. Forfeiture proceedings have been filed on each of the seized vehicles, which are stored while waiting final adjudication from the courts. Two of the vehicles, a 1971 Chevrolet Corvette, Vin: 1943719104744; and a 1975 Pontiac Trans Am, Vin: 2W87S5N530966, were awarded to the Department. We have received the Declaration of Forfeiture from the District Attorney's office which directs us to sell the vehicles. Based on evaluation of each of the vehicles, staff feels it in the best interest of the City to sell the vehicles immediately. Because the sale of forfeited property generates public scrutiny, sales are required to be at arms length. Independent auction companies are considered the best way to dispose of forfeited property, and this method has been used by the City in prior disposals. As stated earlier, the City has used Nationwide Auction Systems for past auction services with success and staff recommends that they be used to_sell these vehicles. Concur: even 'or hcr.' , CityaM nager ully Sub • r , v- e isniewski i tt, Director of Public Safety im r4, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES BUREAU OF SPECIAL OPERATIONS MAJOR NARCOTICS AND FORFEITURE DIVISION CRIMINAL COURTS BUILDING 210 WEST TEMPLE STREET, ROOM 18-702 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 (213) 974-7051 IRA REINER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY GREGORY THOMPSON, CHIEF DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY CURT LIVESAY, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY R. DAN MURPHY, DIRECTOR SPECIAL OPERATIONS Hermosa Beach Police Dept. Department P.O. Box 695 Hermosa Beach CA 90254 RE: PEOPLE v.1971 CHEVROLET/CORVETTE VIN: 1943719104744 Your No. DR -89-4417 Dear Sirs: PETER M. GLICK DEPUTY IN CHARGE Please find enclosed a Declaration of Forfeiture directing you to sell the above property, pursuant to section 11489 of the Heath and Safety Code. Upon successful liquidation, please return to me photostated copies of the terms of the sale and a check for the sale proceeds payable to: District Attorney Asset Forfeiture Fund. Please be aware that the sale of forfeited property generates public scrutiny, as a result all sales must be at arms length. If you have any questions about the method of liquidation or a vendor, please contact me. Very IRA E Distri By PETER Deput in Ch-rge Forfei ure Unit Major Narcotics and Forfeiture Division Enclosure OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES BUREAU OF SPECIAL OPERATIONS MAJOR NARCOTICS AND FORFEITURE DIVISION CRIMINAL COURTS BUILDING 210 WEST TEMPLE STREET, ROOM 18-702 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 (213) 974-7051 IRA REINER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY GREGORY THOMPSON, CHIEF DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY CURT LIVESAY, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY R. DAN MURPHY, DIRECTOR SPECIAL OPERATIONS 11/28/89 Control No. AF -89-0739 DECLARATION OF FORFEITURE PETER M. GLICK DEPUTY IN CHARGE On or about 9/07/89, the property described below was seized at: 4633 W. Compton #157, Lawndale, California by officers of the Hermosa Beach Police Dept. Department for forfeiture pursuant to Section 11470 et seq of the Health and Safety Code. Notice of the seizure was sent to all known parties who may have a legal or possessory interest in the property. On 10/10/89, notice of the seizure was published in a newspaper of general circulation in the County of Los Angeles. The property is a 1971 CHEVROLET/CORVETTE VIN: 1943719104744. No verified claim was filed for the property within 30 days from the date of first publication of the notice of administrative forfeiture, nor within 10 days of actual receipt of said notice, it is hereby declared that the property is forfeited to the State of California. This Declaration of Forfeiture is deemed to provide good and sufficient title pursuant to Section 11488.4(j) of the California Health and Safety Code. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed 11/28/89 =t Los Angeles, California Very truly y IRA ER DisAtt By PETE Deputin-Charge Forfei ure Unit Major Narcotics and Forfeiture Division O F F I C E 01 THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES BUREAU OF SPECIAL OPERATIONS MAJOR NARCOTICS AND FORFEITURE DIVISION CRIMINAL COURTS BUILDING 210 WEST TEMPLE STREET, ROOM 18-702 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 (213) 974-7051 IRA REINER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY GREGORY THOMPSON, CHIEF DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY CURT LIVESAY, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY R. DAN MURPHY, DIRECTOR SPECIAL OPERATIONS Hermosa Beach Police Dept. Department P.O. Box 695 Hermosa Beach CA 90254 RE: PEOPLE v.1975 PONTIAC/TRANS AM VIN: 2W87S5N530966 Your No. DR -89-4475 Dear Sirs: PETER M. GLICK DEPUTY IN CHARGE Please find enclosed a Declaration of Forfeiture directing you to sell the above property, pursuant to section 11489 of the Heath and Safety Code. Upon successful liquidation, please return to me photostated copies of the terms of the sale and a check for the sale proceeds payable to: District Attorney Asset Forfeiture Fund. Please be aware that the sale of forfeited property generates public scrutiny, as a result all sales must be at arms length. If you have any questions about the method of liquidation or a vendor, please contact me. Very truly/Yo IRA Distri By PETER \J1. GLICK Deputy in Charge Forfeiture Unit Major Narcotics and Forfeiture Division Enclosure et 'OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES BUREAU OF SPECIAL OPERATIONS MAJOR NARCOTICS AND FORFEITURE DIVISION CRIMINAL COURTS BUILDING 210 WEST TEMPLE STREET, ROOM 18-702 .LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 (213) 974-7051 IRA REINER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY GREGORY THOMPSON, CHIEF DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY CURT LIVESAY, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY R. DAN MURPHY, DIRECTOR SPECIAL OPERATIONS 11/28/89 Control No. AF -89-0740 DECLARATION OF FORFEITURE PETER M. GLICK DEPUTY IN CHARGE On or about 9/08/89, the property described below was seized at: 14814 Hawthorne Blvd., Lawndale, California and at, 4111 W. 147th Street #B, Lawndale, California by officers of the Hermosa Beach Police Dept. Department for forfeiture pursuant to Section 11470 et seq of the Health and Safety Code. Notice of the seizure was sent to all known parties who may have a legal or possessory interest in the property. On 10/12/89, notice of the seizure was published in a newspaper of general circulation in the County of Los Angeles. The property is a 1975 PONTIAC/TRANS AM VIN: 2W87S5N530966. No verified claim was filed for the property within 30 days from the date of first publication of the notice of administrative forfeiture, nor within 10 days of actual receipt of said notice, it is hereby declared that the property is forfeited to the State of California. This Declaration of Forfeiture is deemed to provide good and sufficient title pursuant to Section 11488.4(j) of the California Health and Safety Code. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed 11/28/89, at Los Angeles, California Very trul your IRA Di B5i P Tv' M. D pat( -in -C arge F. feature Unit Major Narcotics and Forfeiture Division December 5, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa City Council of December 12, 1989 CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES The following claim has been submitted to the City Clerk's office: Gregory W. Moreno on behalf of Jocobo Vasquez Palacios 5146 E. Olympic Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90022, filed December 4, 1989; alleged dangerous condition of roadway. Case #89-12-1 Recommendation: To deny claim and refer to City's Claims Administrator. Note: The above claim is available for review in the office of the City Clerk. Respectfully submitted, LAC ROBERT A. BLACKWOOD Risk Manager CONCUR: 'KEVIN B. NO TH AFT City Manager December 4, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council December 12, 1989 PROJECT TOUCH LEASE AGREEMENT ROOM C RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council approve the attached lease agreement between the City and Project Touch for space in the Community Center. BACKGROUND Project Touch presently leases Room C, Room 3 and Room 11 in the Community Center. They have been tenants since October, 1979. ANALYSIS The attached agreement conforms to the present square footage lease rate policy and all other conditions remain the same. Room C is 312 square feet. • Alana Dept. Mastrian-Handman, Director of Community Resources Kevin B. Northraft City Manager 1 Respectfully submi d, Marsha Ernst Administrative Aide Dept. of Community Resources ed for Fiscal Impact: is 6 Viki Cop and Finance Administrator to Y HERMOSA BEACH COMMUNITY CENTER LEASE AGREEMENT This Leasing Agreement is made and entered into on this, the 1st day of January 19 90 , by and between the City of Hermosa Beach, a Municipal Corporation (City) and PROJECT TOUCH (Lessee). A. RECITALS: 1. The City is the owner of a recreational/civic service facility generally referred to as the Hermosa Beach Com- munity Center (referred to herein as the "facility"). 2. The facility is subject to certain agreements and deed restrictions entered into on the 28th day of February 1978, between the City and the Hermosa Beach City School District and is further subject to certain provisions imposed by the Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment as set forth in a document entitled Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Real Property and dated the 28th day of February 1978. These documents are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City and are public documents and by reference are incorporated into this leasing agreement and are referred to herein as the HUD and SCHOOL DISTRICT AGREEMENTS. 3. The Lessee desires to use a portion of the facility on the terms and conditions set out herein. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. TERt4. The term of this lease shall be for a period of one (1) year commencing on the 1st day of January ,1990 , and ending on the 31st day of December ,19 90 2. DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES. The Lessee is leasing from the City that portion of the facility described as: Room C (312 sq. ft.) 3. RENT. Lessee agrees to pay to the City rent accord- ing to the following schedule: January 1, 1990 thru June 30, 1990: $.74 per sq. ft. $231 per month. July 1, 1990 thru December 31, 1990: According to policy approved by Advisory Commission. Payable on the first day of the month. If this lease commences on a day other than the first day of the month, then the Lessee shall pay upon the commencement of the lease the rental on a pro rata basis for the remainder of that month and commence a full rental pay- ment on the first day of the following month. 1 3A. OTHER CONDITIONS. The following additional condi- tions are agreed to by the Lessee: 1. Lessee shall not mark, drill or deface any walls, ceilings, floors, wood or iron work without Lessor's written consent. 2. No signs or awning shall be erected or maintained upon or attached to the outside of the premises except such signs showing the business of the Lessee. All such signs shall be in accordance with the policy established by the Lessor. 4. USE. The Lessee agrees to use the premises only for the following purpose or purposes: Any lawful purpose of Project Touch ,and for no other purpose without the express written consent of the City. Lessee also agrees the premises shall not be used in viola- tion of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or School District Agreements as those agreements are interpreted by either the City or the Hermosa Beach City School District or the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 5. INSURANCE LIABILITY. Lessee shall obtain and maintain at all times during the term of this agreement Comprehensive General and Automobile Liability insurance protecting Lessee in amounts not less than $1,000,000 for personal injury to any one person, $1,000,000 for injuries arising out of any one occurrence, and $1,000,000 for property damage or a com- bined single limit of $1,000,000. Such insurance shall name City of Hermosa Beach and their officers, employees, elected officials and members of Boards or Commissions as additional insured parties. Coverage shall be in accordance with the sample certificates and endorsements attached hereto and must include the coverage and provisions indicated. Lessee shall file and maintain the required certificate(s) of insurance with the other party to this agreement at all times during the term of this agreement. The certificate(s) is to be filed prior to the commencement of the work or event and should state clearly: (1) The additional insured requested; (2) Thirty day prior notice of change or cancellation to the City of Hermosa Beach; (3) Insurance is primary to that of the Additional Insured; (4) Coverage included; (5) Cross -liability clause. WORKER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE. Lessee shall obtain and maintain at all times during the term of this agreement Work- er's Compensation and Employers Liability insurance and fur- nish the City (or Agency) with a certificate showing proof of such coverage. Such insurance shall not be cancelled or materially changed without a thirty (30) day prior written notice to: City Manager, City of Hermosa Beach. INSURANCE COMPANIES. Insurance companies must be rated (B:XIII) or better in Best's Insurance Rating Guide. 6. CONDITION OF THE PREMISES UPON TERMINATION OF THE LEASE. Lessee agrees to keep and maintain the premises in good con- dition and repair and to return to the City the premises upon termination of this lease in the same condition as when Les- see took possession of the premises excepting any repairs or alterations which were approved by the City, reasonable wear and tear excepted, and does promise to pay the City upon de- mand the reasonable sums to repair the premises in the event of a violation of this provision. 7. CONSTRUCTION. Lessee is prohibited from making any al- terations or performing any construction whatsoever on the premises without the expressed written approval of the City. Any such approval shall include provisions to protect the City from potential liens of labor and material persons. 8. DESTRUCTION, PARTIAL DESTRUCTION OR NECESSITY TO REPAIR BECAUSE OF CONDITIONS CAUSED BY OTHER THAN LESSEE. The City has no duty.or obligation to reconstruct the premises in the event of destruction or partial destruction of the premises. The City at its option may reconstruct or repair the prem- ises, whereupon this lease shall remain in full force and effect except that no rent will be owing to the City during said period of reconstruction or repair if such reconstruc- tion or repair interferes with the tenancy created herein to the extent that the premises cannot be used for the purposes intended. In the event the City at its sole discretion determines not to reconstruct or repair the premises then either party at its option may cause this lease to be termi- nated and neither party shall have any liability each to each other. 9. HOLD HARMLESS. Lessee shall hold harmless and indemnify the City, its officers, agents and employees from every claim or demand which may be made by reason of any injury and/or death to persons and/or injury to property caused by any di- rect or indirect act or any omission of the lessee, its of- ficers, agents and employees arising out of the lessee's use of said premises. The Lessee, at its own cost, expense and risk shall defend any and all actions, suits or other pro- ceedings that may be brought or instituted against the City on any such claim or demand, and pay or satisfy any judgment that may be rendered against the Lessor on any such action, suit, or legal proceedings as a result hereof. 3 10. RULES, REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES. The Lessee agrees to comply strictly with all applicable laws and any uniform Com- munity Center rules and regulations adopted by the City Council. 11. TAXES AND CHARGES. Lessee agrees to pay when due any and all taxes, assessments or charges levied by any governmental agency on or to the lease -hold premises. 12. DEFAULT. Should Lessee fail to pay any monies due pur- suant to this lease within three days after written notice from the City or to perform any other obligation required pursuant to the terms of this lease within thirty days after notice from the City, City may immediately cause this lease to be terminated and thereafter take any action and pursue all remedies available under the laws then existent in the State of California. 13. NOTICE. Any notice required to be made or given pur- suant to the provisions of this lease may be either personal- ly served upon the party or deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, LESSOR: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY HALL 1315 VALLEY DRIVE ' HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 LESSEE: Project Touch 710 Pier Avenue Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Attn: Julie Dorr Feys Any notices so given pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph will be deemed served twenty-four hours after the deposit thereof in the United States mail. 14. ATTORNEYS FEES. The parties agree that in the event any action is instituted concerning any of the provisions of this lease agreement, the prevailing party may in the discretion of the court be granted as an additional item of damages its attorneys fees. 15. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING. Lessee may not assign or sublease all or any portion of the premises without the writ- ten consent of the City, which consent may be granted or de- nied at the exclusive and total discretion of the City. 16. SUCCESSORS. Subject to prior provisions, this lease is binding upon the heirs, assigns and successors of interest of the parties. 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Hermosa Beach Community Center Lease Agreement at Hermosa Beach on the day first hereinabove set forth. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, a Municipal Corporation, Lessor By ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY DATE: LESSEE: December 4, 1989 City Council Meeting December 4, 1989 Mayor and Members of the City Council ORDINANCE NO. 89-1021- "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 27A, "SANITATION, GARBAGE AND REFUSE" AS IT RELATES TO SALVAGING" "Submitted for adoption is Ordinance No. 89-1021, relating to the above subject." At the meeting of November 28, 1989, this ordinance was introduced by the following vote: AYES: Essertier, Midstokke, Sheldon, Wiemans, Mayor Creighton NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Respectfully submitted, Linea Riddle, Deputy City Clerk Concur: Kevin B. Northc "aft, City Manager 4Z 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-/0.24 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 27A "SANITATION, GARBAGE AND REFUSE" AS IT RELATES TO SALVAGING. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That Section 27A-5, "Collection by the city or its franchisee" be amended as follows: A. Section 27A-5 is amended by adding the following items to subsection (d). (d) Salvagers may collect recyclable refuse from containers normally placed for residential & commercial refuse collection. Recyclable items not collected by salvagers shall be collected with the regular refuse pickup. Recyclable materials intended for salvage shall not be stored in a manner which interferes with regular refuse pickup. SECTION 2. That Section 27A -6(g) is hereby amended to read as follows: (g) It shall be unlawful for any person engaging in the act of salvaging recyclable materials, or otherwise., to leave or place any refuse not 'intended for salvage outside of an approved refuse container. SECTION 3. That Section 27 -A -6(h) is hereby amended to read as follows: (h) It shall be unlawful for any person other than an officer of the city, or the owner, or the employee 1 4r - •. tea. "�ar'.�M..YI[+.J�q.1[ ova(•-%Yi,':'.N{ j 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 an authorized franchised private collector, to interfere in any manner with any residential or commercial containers or to remove any residential or commercial containers from the location where the same was placed by the -owner thereof. This section shall not be construed as prohibiting salvaging in accordance with Section 27A -5(d). SECTION 4. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. SECTION 5. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law. SE TION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27. 28 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this ATTEST: day of 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: - 3 CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY December 4, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council December 12, 1989 SUBJECT: VARIANCE 89-8 LOCATION: 3133 THE STRAND, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 23, BLOCK 1, SHAKESPEARE TRACT APPLICANT: MR. AND MRS. CHRISTOPHER A COPPERSMITH 3133 THE STRAND HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 REQUEST: TO ALLOW A GARAGE WITH A 9 -FOOT SETBACK FROM_THE STREET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 17 FEET. Recommendation The Planning Commission and Staff recommend denial of the proposed variance. Background Project Details - Zoning - R-1 General Plan Designation - Low Density Residential Lot Size: 2647 square feet (30' X 88') Analysis The applicant is requesting to construct a new single-family structure with only a 9 -foot setback from the Hermosa Avenue access road rather than the required seventeen (17) feet. The house is proposed to be approximately 3,870 square feet in size, and contain 4 bedrooms, 3 1/2 baths, a study and an exercise room. The subject lot is about the average size of the lots in Block 1 of the Shakespeare Tract, which range from 1650 to 3630 square feet. Three other projects located on lots in the same tract are either under construction or in plan check. The projects for 3129 the Strand (adjacent to the subject lot) and 3035 the Strand, provide the required 17 -foot setback. The project at 3323 the Strand, however, was granted a variance to allow a 3 -foot garage setback because of its small lot size (2150 square feet) and lot depth (71 feet) . In order to show that the 17 -foot setback can easily be provided on lots of an 80 -foot depth, examples of nearby projects which provide the setback, and the resulting appearance, are shown in the attached photographs. Since the 17 -foot setback requirement was established in July of 1986 there have been a total of 211 residential projects (426 units) approved. Eight variances have been requested, and six have been approved. One approval was for the lot at 3323 The Strand because of the small lot size of 2150 square feet. Three approvals were for "half -lots" ranging in size from 1200 to 1600 square feet, and the other two were for lots which had unusually steep topography. Based on past decisions, the granting of this variance would set a new precedent for a lot of this size. Staff believes that the findings for a variance from the 17 -foot setback requirement can be made for certain lots with a 70 foot depth or less, however, for a lot with a depth of 88 feet, which is about the average lot depth in the city, those findings cannot be made. Staff would like again to emphasize that to provide the 17 -foot setback would result in a loss of only 192 square feet of floor area, leaving a house with a substantial total of 3,678 square feet, and four available parking spaces rather than the proposed three. Please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report for further background and analysis. It should be noted that the 17 -foot setback requirement is scheduled for a special study in the future. If the Council believes that a 17 -foot setback should not be applied in this case, on what is essentially an average lot in the city, it should be considered as a citywide amendment when this issue is studied in the future, not by granting a special privilege to this particular applicant. CONCUR: Michael Schu•ach Planning Director 'Kevin North9 aft City Manager Associate Planner Attachments 1. Proposed Resolution 2. Site Map 3. Photographs 4. PC Resolution No. 89-82 5. P.C. Staff Report/Minutes 11/8/89 6. Application 7. Public Notice Affidavit a/pcsr3133 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, DENYING THE APPEAL OF, AND THEREBY AFFIRMING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE REQUIRED 17 -FOOT GARAGE SETBACK AT 3133 THE STRAND, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 23, BLOCK 1, SHAKESPEARE TRACT WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on. December 12, 1989 to receive oral and written testimony regarding the appeal of the Planning Commission denial of a variance at 3133 The Strand and made the following findings: — A. The applicant is proposing to construct a 3870 square foot home with a garage setback from the Hermosa Avenue access road of only 9 feet rather than the required 17 feet; B. The physical features of the subject property, including the lot size, shape, and topography, are in no way extraordinary or exceptional, and are no different from adjacent properties; C. A variance is not necessary to preserve a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the vicinity, as the other properties fronting on the same road do not have a right to reconstruct their existing houses while encroaching into the 17 -foot garage setback; D. The applicant's proposal results in the availability of only three parking spaces, one less than would be available with a 17 -foot setback, which would have a potentially detrimental impact on parking availability in the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby resolve to deny an appeal of, and thereby affirming, the Planning Commission denial of a variance to allow an encroachment into the required 17 -foot garage setback. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED, this 12th day of December, 1989 PRESIDENT, of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: a/pers3133 CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY HERMOSA r15 M S ?4' 53' E. IDCN77Cgi, • C.F. /500 n u 0 J i0 n F. i. \O ; s003 U ,. N O ,. .^l — r. O", m ., . ,. ti q O n " _. . ' „ v t� O „ BLK O� � . n O� n 01 op O „ N 6) " 30 N 2 O 3003 tf� Q M T M M HE "ACI FIC oLONGFELLOW PL. AVE. cr- N • Fri o• R • N 30 30 ;'Noia,cp Nq CO kfi N N O O O 3003 3003 "Si..,r�THE3 cn STRAND Par. /Clean h,/yh 7;de Line Pet CSB -/883-/ /Wk /935 OCEAN ti HERMOSA C,/.500 30 S 24.53'E /5 I/5 300.3 CC/TY) M ° M 30 BLK, 3003 AVE. 30 to Pc Cr)" N 3003 7,5 8 STRAN Pon /.97_0,4c ,i4eon .179/7 TCe Line O eiC. 5 B-/92.3-/Nor4935 . PACIFIC - /5 1/5 OCEAN 3003 20 6035- irk, oce ciq 4 iti Lor 9,0472_ Nto,v(4ck. S3' MET Lo -r •••••••• ZS zc44oS A-ve- 130' LoT At 15-3 rALtil 84C/COR0UND. Al 4 TER/4L 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 P.C. RESOLUTION 89-82 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE REQUIRED 17 -FOOT GARAGE- SETBACK AT 3133 THE STRAND, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 23, BLOCK 1, SHAKESPEARE TRACT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 8, 1989 to receive oral and written testimony regarding an application for a variance at 3133 The Strand and made the following findings: A. The applicant is proposing to construct a 3870 square foot home with a garage setback from the Hermosa Avenue access road of only 9 feet rather than the required 17 feet; B. The physical features of the subject property, including the lot size, shape, and topography, are in no way extraordinary or exceptional, and are no different from adjacent properties; C. A variance is not necessary to preserve a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the vicinity, as the other properties fronting on the same road do not have a right to reconstruct or enlarge there existing houses while encroaching into the 17 -foot garage setback; D. The applicant's proposal results in the availability of only three parking spaces, one less than would be available with a 17 -foot setback, which would have a potentially detrimental impact on parking availability in the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California does hereby deny the -7 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 variance to allow an encroachment into the required 17 -foot garage setback . VOTE: AYES: Comms. Ingell,Moore,Peirce NOES: Chmn.Rue,Comm.Ketz- ABSTAIN: None ABSENT None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 89-82 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 November 8, 1989. /1 Michael Schubach,: Secretary Rue, Chairman - Date a/pers3133 8 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission SUBJECT: VARIANCE 89-8 August 7, 1989 Regular Meeting of August 15, 1989 LOCATION: 3133 THE STRAND, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 23, BLOCK 1, SHAKESPEARE TRACT APPLICANT: MR. AND MRS. CHRISTOPHER A COPPERSMITH 3133 THE STRAND HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 REQUEST: TO ALLOW A GARAGE WITH A 9 -FOOT SETBACK FROM THE STREET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 17 FEET. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the proposed variance. Background Project Details -- Zoning: R-1 General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Lot Size: 2647 square feet Present Use: single family dwelling The Staff Environmental Review Committee, at their meeting of July 20, 1989, recommended a negative declaration for the project. Analysis The applicant is requesting approval to construct a new single-family structure with only a 9 -foot setback from the Hermosa Avenue access road rather than the required 17 feet. The house is proposed to be approximately 3,870 square feet in size, and contain 4 bedrooms, 3 1/2 baths, a study and an exercise room. The proposed 9 -foot setback would allow for the parking of one guest vehicle behind the garage. However, it would be a parallel parking space, requiring more difficult maneuvering than a typical guest space. The standard 17 -foot setback would result in the availability of 2 guest spaces. Since the size, shape, and topography of the subject lot is similar to surrounding lots facing the Strand, staff does not - 1 - believe the physical attributes of the property are exceptional or extraordinary. In fact, the size of this lot is about the average size of the lots in Block 1 of the Shakespeare Tract, which range from 1650 to 3630 square feet. The applicant indicates that no other houses along this access road provide the 17 foot garage setback and, therefore, he argues that to provide it would be denying a property right enjoyed by others. Although no other homes along this access road provide the 17 foot setback, it should be noted that most of these homes are older, and much smaller than the one proposed. As such, when owners wish to expand or reconstruct these homes to come closer to the size home being proposed by the applicant, the homeowners will not "enjoy" a right to keep the nonconforming garage setback (unless the addition were to be 50% or less of replacement value). The Planning Commission, on February 17, 1987, approved a variance from the 17 foot setback at 3323 The Strand. The justification for the variance, however, was because of the small lot depth (71 feet) and small lot size (2156 square feet). This size lot was smaller in dimension and area than the lot sizes examined in the special study prior to the adoption of the 17 -foot setback ordinance; the subject lot is similar in size to lot sizes which were studied and found acceptable for the 17 -foot setback. It should also be noted that ground level open space requirements were reduced so that the 17 -foot setback could be imposed. In order to provide the 17 -foot setback the subject plans could be modified in a manner which would result in a loss of only 192 square feet of floor area, leaving a house with a substantial total of 3,678 square feet, and 4 available parkin spaces. CONCUR: 7 Michael'Schubach Planning Director Attachments 1. PC Resolution No. 89-82 2. Site Map 3. Zoning Analysis 4. Staff Review Minutes of 6/22/89 5. Application 6. Public Notice Affidavit /((' 4'4 ise'cl .Ken Robertson Associate Planner a/pcsr3133 VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE SEVENTEEN -FOOT SETBACK AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 3133 THE STRAND Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 7, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the proposed variance. This project is located in the R-1 zone, with a general plan designation of low density residential. The lot size is 2647 square feet. The present use is as a single-family dwelling. The staff environmental review committee, at their meeting of July 20, 1989, recommended a negative declaration for the project. The applicant is requesting approval to construct a new single-family structure with only a nine -foot setback from the Hermosa Avenue access road rather than the required 17 feet. The house is proposed to be approximately 3870 square feet in size and contain four bedrooms, three and a half baths, a study, and an exercise room. The proposed nine -foot setback would allow for the parking of one guest vehicle behind the garage. However, it would be a parallel parking space, requiring more difficult maneuvering than a typical guest space. The standard 17 -foot setback would result in the availability of two guest spaces. Since the size, shape, and topography of the subject lot is similar to surrounding lots facing the Strand, staff does not believe the physical attributes of the property are exceptional. or extraordinary. In fact, the size of this lot is about the average size of the lots in Block 1 of the Shakespeare Tract, which range from 1650 to 3630 square feet. The applicant indicates that no other houses along this access road provide the 17 -foot gerage setback and, therefore, he argues that to provide it would be denying a property right enjoyed by others. Although no other homes along this access road provide the 17 - foot setback, it should be noted that most of these homes are older and much smaller than the one proposed. As such, when owners wish to expand or reconstruct these homes to come closer to the size home being proposed by the applicant, the homeowners will not "enjoy" a right to keep the nonconforming garage setback, unless the addition were to be 50 percent or less of replacement value. The Planning Commission, on February 17, 1987, approved a variance from the 17 -foot setback at 3323 The Strand. The justification of the variance, however, was because of the small lot depth (71 feet) and the small lot size (2156 square feet). This size lot was smaller in dimension and area than the lot sizes examined in the special study prior to the adoption of the 17 -foot setback ordinance; the subject lot is similar in size to lot sizes which were studied and found acceptable for the 17 -foot setback. It should also be noted that ground -level open space requirements were reduced so that the 17 -foot setback could be imposed. In order to provide the 17 -foot setback, the subject plans could be modified in a manner which would result in a loss of only 192 square feet of floor area, leaving a house with a substantial total of 3678 square feet and four available parking spaces. Public Hearing opened at 8:23 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Chris Coppersmith, 3133 The Strand, applicant, addressed the Commission. He gave background information on the adoption of the 17 -foot setback ordinance, stating that it — r P.C. Minutes 11/8/89 was not intended to provide more parking, but rather to prevent cars from parking over public sidewalks. He stated that the ordinance was not adopted to restrict the size, shape, or buildability of housing in his neighborhood. Mr. Coppersmith stated that his property is in a unique area of Hermosa Beach, in that it is fronted by The Strand; alongside is Longfellow Place, which is a walk/drive street; and behind it is Hermosa Avenue alley, which is a 20 -foot wide alley, which goes along a running/bike area. He said that the 20 -foot access road allows additional room for maneuvering to park. The property is 30 -feet wide; therefore, it is no problem to park at this property. There is also additional parallel parking along Hermosa Avenue because there are no driveway curb cuts. Mr. Coppersmith stated that for a five -block area there are 46 houses along the access road. He stated that not one of those houses has a 17 -foot setback. Mr. Coppersmith discussed the staff report, and stated that because of the access road, there is no difficulty in parking alongside this house. He noted that the staff report asserts that he would not be denied a property right enjoyed by others in his neighborhood, who will also have to provide a 17 -foot setback if they decide to reconstruct or enlarge existing houses. He stated that a replacement cost of up to 50 percent could exempt someone from providing the 17 -foot setback. He said that tit is certainly not the intention of the Planning Commission to force homeowners to avoid setbacks with poor construction or architectural substitutes for new houses. Mr. Coppersmith stated that this property is a through property; therefore, the property is severelyrestricted by such things as the 17 -foot setback requirement, the height restriction, and the fact that it is on a ten -foot slope. He said that the open space policy statement is not applicable in this case because this is a through lot and therefore more restrictive in regard to open space. He said that there is a 300 square -foot open space area which is open and clear to the sky with no overhangs on the Strand side. Mr. Coppersmith stated that the garage would be on the main level. Therefore, with a 17 -foot setback, the 20 -foot minimum garage requirement, and the open space requirement for through lots, there would only be 30 by 24 feet of buildable space on the main floor of this house. Mr. Coppersmith discussed the impact of this project on the neighborhood, stating that it can have only a positive impact. He is attempting to make an improvement in this area of the City. The Strand should not be limited to housing subject to myriad restrictions designed for multiple units in other areas of the City; rather, it should be kept within the intent of the general plan and be an asset to the City. Bob Stroyke, neighbor of the applicant, stated that he favors approval of the variance to eliminate the 17 -foot setback. He stated that there is ample parking in this neighborhood. The current house has only one parking space, whereas the proposal would provide four spaces. He stated that the parking problems are created by bootleg units with no garages, and he suggested that the parking problem be addressed by enforcement of the bootleg requirements. Don Hovis, project architect, discussed the access street than runs through the area for 46 houses. He stated another person along that area was granted a variance for seven feet, and this applicant is requesting nine feet. He noted that the other lot is smaller; however, as the lots go to the south, they become larger by approximately a foot and a half. He asked, if that person obtained approval and this person doesn't, where will it 12 — P.C. Minutes 11/8/89 stop. He noted that the proposal will provide parking in excess of the requirements. Also, this is unusual in that Hermosa Avenue has no curb cuts because of the access road; therefore, there is additional parking in front of this house. He stated that the unusual aspect of this particular situation should allow them to have a smaller setback. He said all the existing homes along there do not have 17 -foot setbacks, noting that some are only zero to three feet. Viva Stroyke, 3205 The Strand, stated that many of the properties along the Strand do not have 17 -foot setbacks. Many of the homes are large and older; however, many provide parking for three cars. Those houses have the same square footage as the applicant is requesting. She noted that this will be a good project for the City and will provide additional parking. She asked that the project be approved as it stands. Public Hearing closed at 8:33 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Comm. Peirce asked whether the nine -foot space in back of the garage would be considered as a guest parking space. Mr. Schubach stated that it could be used for parking; however, a standard sized parking space should be a minimum of eleven feet. He stated that the City has no provisions for allowing parallel parking behind garages; however, the City has allowed it to be used for parking. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, stated that parallel parking behind a garage could be considered as a legal parking spot. Chmn. Rue asked whether the two new projects along the Strand meet the 17 -foot setback requirement. Mr. Schubach stated that he could recollect no variances being granted for the 17 -foot setback requirement, other than the one mentioned in the staff report. He said that lot was very small, and three parking spaces were still required. Comm. Peirce noted that the 17 -foot setback ordinance was adopted for a variety of reasons. He said that he did not feel there are exceptions for through lots, or that this particular lot falls under the exceptions section. He did not feel that a finding can be made for this particular lot in regard to this applicant being denied a substantial property right enjoyed by his neighbors. Chmn. Rue stated that, the intent of the 17 -foot setback is to keep cars from parking over the sidewalks. He felt that the intent of the City is to provide as many parking spaces as possible. He noted that the code requires one guest parking space per residence in the R-1 zone. He felt that, even though this may not meet the code exactly, the spirit of the law is being met and it should be permitted. He said that there have been problems with this ordinance in regard to alleys and other areas. He felt that a requirement to have a 17 -foot setback does not apply to all properties in the City. Comm. Ketz agreed that the 17 -foot setback requirement is not applicable to this property, noting that it is on the Strand, on an access road, and on a pedestrian access to the Strand. She noted that the homes along there are uniformly setback; however, she doubted whether any of them are set back more than nine feet. She felt that neither the City nor the residents would benefit by requiring a 17 -foot setback at this property, and not much would be gained by such a requirement. She felt this is a unique situation because of its location on the access road. - (3_ P.C. Minutes 11/8/89 mss.._.. ....• .,,....... __ 2.31 ;:w.:.:.,..¢ :.k. Comm. Peirce, noting that the access road is actually an alley, asked about other alleys in the City and whether they should provide the 17 -foot setback. Comm. Ketz did not feel there should be the 17 -foot setback requirement on alleys. Chmn. Rue felt that if someone meets the intent of the code and provides parking, a need is being met. He had difficulty with an ordinance mandating a 17 -foot setback when an architect or designer can provide parking without it. He felt that the ordinance should have been clearer. Comm. Moore was concerned over the harshness of the 17 -foot setback ordinance being an attempt to solve a very real parking problem in the City. He stated that the real problem is cars overhanging the public sidewalks. He said alleys aren't a problem because there is no sidewalk. He noted that the worst situation is where the garage door is approximately nine feet from the street because people tend to park there and end up blocking the sidewalk. Comm. Moore did not feel a variance is the appropriate method by which to correct a bad ordinance. He stated that it is difficult to make findings when one really wishes to rewrite the ordinance. Comm. Moore stated that this issue hinges on the usefulness of the parallel parking as opposed to the nose -in method of parking. He could see where the parallel parking would work in this case because of the unique access road and the lack of a sidewalk, noting that it would not work in areas with curb cuts and sidewalks. Comm. Moore stated that he would vote against granting of the variance; however, he noted concern over what appears to be arbitrariness of the 17 -foot setback solution. He felt that his hands are tied in this case in terms of making the necessary findings. Comm. Peirce stated that when the 17 -foot setback ordinance was being formulated it was clear that the City did not want nine -foot areas in front of garages because it would invite nose -in parking, thereby having cars hanging out over the sidewalk. He stated that he could not make the finding in regard to exceptional or extraordinary circumstances at this property. Comm. Ingell agreed with the comments made by Comms. Moore and Peirce, stating that he cannot make the findings for approval. He did not feel that the intent would have applied to this particular piece of property. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve staff's recommendation to deny the variance to allow a garage with a nine -foot setback from the street rather than the required 17 feet at 3133 The Strand, Resolution P.C. 89-82. Chmn. Rue did not feel that laws are written in stone. He felt that Strand properties are exceptional and extraordinary because there is an access road at the beach side as well as a full two-lane pedestrian and bike path to the east of the access road. To the east of that is Hermosa Avenue for a full eight blocks. He felt that a variance is appropriate in this case because of the streets. He noted that parking is being provided, and he felt that the code requirements are being met. He strongly felt that the findings can be made in this case. P.C. Minutes 11/8/89 C AYES: Comms. Ingell, Moore, Peirce NOES: Comm. Ketz, Chmn. Rue ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Chmn. Rue stated that the decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. Comm. Moore stated that properties which are providing the 17 -foot setback are going''to three stories with overhanging pillars above the garage area so that they can obtain as much square footage as possible on the lot. He noted concern over these supports;° especially as they relate to earthquakes. He suggested that the Building Department consider safety standards in regard to earthquakes. Recess taken from 8:48 P.M. until 8:58 P.M. -15-- P.C. Minutes 11/8/89 C 76' NEVI '�: 61989•Clerk November 15 ,19 39 Christopher & Janet Coppersmith 3133 The Strand Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254 Honorable Mayor and City Council of Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach, California Re:Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to deny Request for Variance to 17' setback. Planning Commission Resolution Nq.PC-89-82,Dated 11/8/89 Variance Application : 89-8 We would respectfully request your consideration of our request to appeal the ruling of the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach issued on November 8,1989 regarding our property at 3133 The Strand. On the basis of the following, we ask that our appeal be heard before the City Council: 1)Our request for variance meets the four principal prerequisites for granting an exception to this ordinance. 2)The 17' setback ordinance was not designed to restrict the buildability of the small, thru-lots; but rather, to restrict plans that allow for parked cars that might overhang sidewalks. 3)This lot is in an area that is extra -ordinary in Hermosa Beach (with an eight block alley/street that runs parallel to Hermosa Avenue and backs 46 houses, including ours, with not one house in compliance with the 17' setback) 4)Other extraordinary building restrictions (e.r. thru-lot open space requirement, height requirement, setback requirements, 2 story restriction, garage minimum requirements, guest space requirement) all were designed to solve problems in various areas of the city, but combine to seriously limit the buildability of this property and property in this area. Thank you for your help and understanding in this request for appeal hearing. Sincerely, Christopher A. Coppersmith (processing check enclosed) C OF HERMOSA B CH MAY a ' 9ga§ PROJECT ADDRESS 3133 Strand, Hermosa Beach Project Name (If applicable) LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 23, Blk 1, Shakespeare APPLICANT INFORMATION: Name(s) Mr./Mrs. Christopher Coppersmith Mailing Address 3133 Strand, Hermosa Beach Applciant's Relationship to Property APPLICANT'S SIGNATOR CA 90254 ZONING R-1 Phone 379-9119 Owner DATE -5:70,24/79 PROJECT REQUEST Conditional Use Permit -Commercial Conditional Use Permit -Condominium Number of Units Development Agreement Environmental Staff Review Final Subdivision (Parcel/Tract Map) General Plan Lot Line Adjustment Lot Split Parking Plan Precise Plan Specific Plan Specific Plan Amendment Tentative Subdivision (Parcel/Tract Map) Zone Change Zone Variance TOTAL FEES FOR OFFICE USE ONLY- Date of submittal: Received by: DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Single famil resi.ence 3900 SF 2-stor "+basement. 2 -car :ara:e + 1 onsite parking space. Mediterranean architecture. (attach additional pages if necessary) OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT* We/IS/ETLE.,S'4/E C'or,E.esir,being duly sworn, depose and say that _we/I are/am the owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of our/my knowledge and belief. Subscribed and sworn before me this .Z4 " day of ! 73' , 19e% GG iJ NOTARY P BLIC in and for the County of State of California. _ _ * Signature required from current Signe Owne'vYs Addre s : .3133 T Tie. 6 f-t--n.-r c .CA- a& -mc' -f CA- 9 0,1.5 Telephones a/.3 j 3_7Y- '!/ 9 ti property owner, _,not owner:Jr, escrow._„, ,;: DONALD LEE HOVIS, ARCHITECT 1848 SOUTH ELENA AVE., REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA PHONE 373-1076 VARIANCE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MAY 2 3 1989 Applicant: Mr./Mrs. Christopher Coppersmith Project Address: 3133 Strand, Hermosa Beach CA 90254 The following addresses all four required Findings: 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, limited to the physical conditions applicable to the property involved. RESPONSE: The exceptional or extraordinary circumstances existing in this unique area is an access road to the beach side properties. The road parallels the west side of Hermosa Avenue for 8 blocks. This is the only area in Hermosa Beach where this kind of condition occurs. This condition allows for additional parallel parking per building site for property owners, that other areas do not have, because curb breaks are not necessary along the west side of Hermosa Avenue to serve the garages. Our request is for a 9' setback to the garage door instead of 17'. This meets the code requirement for 1 parking space on site. The additional street parking is more than equal to the now required 17' setback. DONALD LEE HOVIS, ARCHITECT 1848 SOUTH ELENA AVE., REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA PHONE 373-1076 Findings - 2 2. A variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial ,, property right possessed by;!, other properties in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question. RESPONSE: The access street is parallel to Hermosa Avenue for all properties on the west side of Hermosa Avenue, to the north and south of Longfellow between 27th Street and 35th Street. This area takes in 46 residences and 1 vacant lot. Not one of these existing residences has a 17' setback to garage door. All these single family residences enjoy a lesser setback off the access road which allows for a roomier residence or more open space. 3. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. RESPONSE: This is a replacement of an older residence with a new architecturally designed single family residence. 4. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan. RESPONSE: R-1 usage of property is in keeping with the General Plan. .•) WV; ARTHUR MAZIROW gala THE STRAND • NEFIMAQA PEACH, CALIEORNIA 90284•203e • (:M 378-8880 December 4, 1989 FAX (2l3 72-6 .86 AND MAIL Planning Department City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center - 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3885 Re: Appeal of Chris & Jan Coppersmith of 3133 The Strand, Hermosa Beach, CA Concerning a Variance to Encroach into the Required 17 -Foot Garage Setback - e rinQ December 12, 1989 DEC 51989 Dear Gentlemen: Please consider this letter as my request that the City Council of Hermosa Beach grant to Chris & Jan Coppersmith a variance to encroach into the 17 - foot garage setback. It seems to me that a requirement of a 17 -foot garage setback on a lot which is as narrow and short as theirs is creates an undue burden on their property. The 17 -foot setback ordinance was not enacted to deal with Strand property. Applying the setback ordinance to a Strand lot, taking into consideration all of the other Planning Department City of Hermosa Beach December 4, 1989 Page 2 limitations on Strand property, results in an owner not being able to build a home reasonably commensurate with the market value of the land. I urge the City Council to grant the variance. Very truly yours, Arthur Mazirow AM: rr 7T C 4 1989 ;_/ / alfo.,/ • ez„?' • - ,,I.--/Vz,N/i/-.442',•,-- • c- /17/7/71 / -711;----z-g- 7 f(: '71-/ ••••••- •::. TAYLOR'S 31 -d HernioE0 11.:oc:1, Ct.:if. 90254 dant& DECO 41989 faty Clerk env ve Names& Duo Mr. and Mrs. Thomas B. Lynch 2210 The Strand Hermosa Beach, California 90254 December 5, 1989 Dear City Council: SEC 5 1989 We live at 2210 The Strand in Hermosa Beach and feel very strongly that a variance at 3133 The Strand should be approved. The set backs for multiple residence use and large lots are reasonable. However, the Strand lots that are R-1 seem to have severe restrictions that we don't feel are the result of planning but just happened when trying to solve other problems. We plan to build our dream house someday on our lot and it seems that every few months our property rights are in jepordy by one faction or another. We would propose the set backs on R-1 be revisited and a more equitable solution be adopted along the lines of this variance request. Sincerely yours, Thomas B. Ly!/h Sandra M. Lynch cc: Mr. and Mrs': Chris Coppersmith Hermosa Beach City Planning TBL/pgk ARTHUR MAZIROw 2916 THE STRAND • HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254-2036 • 1213) 376-6690 December 4, 1989 DEC 051989 51989 BY FAX (213) 372-6186 AND MAIL Planning Department City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center - 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3885 Re: Appeal of Chris & Jan Coppersmith of 3133 The Strand, Hermosa Beach, CA Concerning a Variance to Encroach into the Required 17 -Foot Garage Setback - Hearinq December 12, 1989 Dear Gentlemen: Please consider this letter as my request that the City Council of Hermosa Beach grant to Chris & Jan Coppersmith a variance to encroach into the 17 - foot garage setback. It seems to me that a requirement of a 17 -foot garage setback on a lot which is as narrow and short as theirs is creates an undue burden on their property. The 17 -foot setback ordinance was not enacted to deal with Strand property. Applying the setback ordinance to a Strand lot, taking into consideration all of the other Planning Department City of Hermosa Beach December 4, 1989 Page 2 limitations on Strand property, results in an owner not being able to build a home reasonably commensurate with the market value of the land. I urge the City Council to grant the variance. Very truly yours, Arthur Mazirow AM:rr bcc: Chris & Jan Coppersmith Ann Mazirow Kevin Northcraft i 7e0/ T17/ :C/, D /2/?7,r1,7- �li/L % / 7 s•;/�/}c/C f/d/f)-) L / Tf1 uT C drs' ' 7�//2 /4 1 0 � RAP /S 11/>/ GY is /tee A-1')//9 xi/6/‹ T 1.7\i, /9 x)L--z_ /et= L o AUT f�f//�l!/S y Pi T-A 7/7/e_ GGW SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 5 TO: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Michael Schubach, P1 SUBJECT: Interim Ordinance Regar•ing 17' Setback Variance DATE: December 11, 1989 As an alternative solution to the 17' setback variance which could take effect immediately, i.e., at the time of adoption, staff suggests that an interim ordinance, pursuant to Section 65858 of the State Planning and Zoning Law, could be adopted which waived the 17' setback on alleys, if instead 4 vehicle parking was provided. The ordinance could be brought back at the January 9th meeting, if directed by the City Council, and would be effective for 45 days if not extended for the maximum of 10 months 15 days. This ordinance would be equitable in the sense that developments with access from a street only will require a 17' setback, thus 4 vehicle parking, and development with access from an alley would also still require four vehicle parking. It will also provide staff time to study the matter. Noted: Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 5 LAWRENCE S. GRAY, JR. 2426 THE STRAND HERMOSA BEACH. CA 90254 rtECEIVED DEC 111989 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION /4/c -c 7 :_ `yp-4 041 V- ,L —i . 5 3/33 e- a ve �c.�vC at_ G..t 2.4-- �.� A ' 7 J- An--evtt . CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Michael Schubach, P1'annctor SUBJECT: Supplemental Information Regarding Granting of a Variance by State Law and by City Law DATE: December 11, 1989 The following is quoted from the Planning and Zoning laws of the State: "Variances findings: 65906. Variances from the terms of the zoning ordinances shall be granted only when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated. A variance shall not be granted for a parcel of property which authorizes a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorizes by the zone regulation governing the parcel of property. The provisions of this section shall not apply to conditional use permits." The following is quoted from the City's zoning ordinance: "(1) Exceptional circumstances applicable to the property involved. (2) That the variance is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the vicinity of the subject property. (3) That the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 5 That the granting of the variance will not conflict with the provisions of, or be detrimental to, the General Plan. Conditions to assure nondiscrimination. Any variance or administrative variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located." Noted: A COMPARISON OF HOTEL PARKING REQUIREMENTS Number of parking spaces required for a hotel with 80 rooms and a bar of 450 square feet. Gardena code calls for 98 spaces. Formula: 1 space/room plus 1 employee space/6 rooms plus 1 space/100 sq. ft. of bar. Example: In October 1987 our applicant Henry Chang built the Dynasty Inn of Gardena, and it has 40 rooms, 47 - spaces, with no bar. (He sold it early in 1989.) Manhattan Beach code calls for about 95 spaces for a hotel and at least 103 for a motel. Present* formula: 1 space/room plus 2 for shuttle buses plus 1 space/100 gross sq. ft. of bar plus 1 space for each 2 employees (hotel) or 1 space for each employee (motel). Example: Royal Pacific Inn on Sepulveda has 45 rooms, 53 spaces (but no bar or restaurant). *Manhattan Beach is now considering changing the bar formula to 1 space/50 sq. ft. of seating area, which would add another 4 parking spaces to the example hotel. Torrance code calls for 101 spaces. Formula: 1.2 spaces/room plus 10 spaces/1000' ancillary space. El Segundo code calls for 89 spaces. Formula: 1 space/room plus 1 space/75 sq. ft. bar seating plus 1 space/300 sq. ft. of office plus 2 loading spaces. Redondo Beach code calls for 89 spaces. Formula: 1 space/room plus 1 space for each 4 seats in bar, not less than 1 space/50 sq. ft. of seating. Yuma code calls for 96 spaces. Formula: 1.1 space/room plus 1 space/60 sq. ft. auxiliary commercial use. Hermosa Beach code calls for 76 spaces. Formula: 1 space/room for 1st 50 rooms plus 2/3 space/room over 50 plus 1 space for each 80 sq. ft. of bar. Hotel Hermosa has built 71 spaces total. Their bar will have a fire department occupancy limit of 30 persons (Formula: 1 person/15 sq. ft.) and they will.have 80 rooms. In the calculations above I did not count the area of Hotel Hermosa's 720 sq. ft. sitting room which is connected to the bar via 6' doors, although it is likely that it too would be used for entertaining. If it was, it would need, per our city's formula, 9 more parking spaces. It would have a occupancy limit of 48 persons. Jim Lissner Dec. 7, 1989 376-4626 SUPPLEMENTAL r INFORMATION oc_CEU \ EU DEC 121989 Hermosa Beach City Council Civic Center, 1315 Valley Dr. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Good day, 1246 First St. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 December 11, 1989 This is in reference to the agenda for the December 12, 1989, meeting of the City Council. I may be unable to attend, but I want to comment on the Circulation Element being adopted. I have written to the City ten times in the last 20 months about excessive traffic on Prospect south of Aviation, and I don't feel that the matter was adequately addressed in the circulation element studies. The traffic on Prospect south of Aviation significantly exceeds the maximum volume for a collector. This is due to non-resident traffic using Prospect as a shortcut between two four -lane Redondo arterials. The negative impacts include street wear, noise, congestion, lowered quality of life for residents, decreased functionality as a collector, and decreased exposure for local businesses (since traffic is diverting away from a business corridor by using a residential street). The advantages of allowing such traffic use accrue only to non-residents. When asked about traffic on Prospect during the SeslePlanning Commission meeting, the preparers of the circulation element stated that the only remedy for congestion on Prospect is to lower traffic volume for the entire city. While it is true that reducing congestion on Prospect may result in an increase elsewhere, it is unfair to both residents and businesses to allow this misuse of a collector street. Several remedies can reduce the traffic on south Prospect, and I request that the City take action to investigate and implement an effective method to restore Prospect to its intended use. Thank you, Z104 /P. 444 David R. Suess SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION s December 11, 1989 To: Hermosa Beach City Council From: R.C. Turkolu 624 Gould Avenue Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Ref: December 12, 1989, Circulation Element Meeting Honorable Council Members, Please take steps to move the speed limit on Gould Avenue to 25 mph. I have lived on Gould Avenue for ten years now, and despite what the traffic survey might claim, when there are no officers in presence, the speed limit reaches in excess of 50 mph at times. There have been numerous accidents due to the excessive speed and I have been rear-ended myself in an attempt to turn into my driveway from the center lane. Once the speed limit is modified, I will be happy to contribute funds towards a program of additional enforcement in order to protect my property and life and limb. R.C. Turkolu SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION s Members of the City Council City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Reference: City Council Meeting 12-12-89 Circulation Element of the General Plan, Gould Ave. As a fairly new family with two small children living at 612 Gould Ave., we support the issue of lowering the spped limit on Gould Ave. frau 35 MPH to 25 MPH, and also changing the street from a collector street to a local street. The traffic on Gould is very heavy in the early morning commuter hours, between 4 and 7 p.m. and all day on week -ends. Many a time cars coming west on Gould turn into our driveway at fairly high speeds (to dodge on -coming cars accelerating quickly from Ardmore) to turn around to go east on Gould. This is frightening as our 6 year old likes to plan and ride her bike in our yard and driveway. We don't dare let her ride on Gould for the same reason. We would be willing to pay a monthly fee along with other neighbors for more police patroling on Gould to enforce a lower speed limit of 25 MPH. We are also enclosing photos of (2) accidents that happened in late July on the same week -end. Thank you in advance for making Gould Ave. a better and safer street. Sincerely, 41644- /Ca Allen & Karen White SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 6 HERMOSA &EACH FIRE DEPT PARAMEDIC CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM TO: Anthony Antich, Director of Public Works FROM: Ruzak, City Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: Implementation of Diagonal Parking on Hermosa Avenue between 10th Street and Herondo Street DATE: December 5, 1989 It is recommended that the City Council consider implementation of diagonal parking along the median of Hermosa Avenue between 10th Street and Herondo Street as part of the approval of the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Together with the change in existing parking to diagonal parking would be the reduction of through traffic to one lane in each direction and striping a bicycle lane adjacent to the east and west curbs of Hermosa Avenue. Curb parking along the east and west curbs would be prohibited. In this manner sight distance for vehicles emerging from the cross streets would be improved significantly for visibility of both motor vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. It is anticipated that the diagonal spaces in the median would provide a greater number of parking spaces than the existing configuration. Com .Q, - 1 - DEC 519'89 'SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION s James Lissner 2715 El Oeste Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (213) 376-4626 December 6, 1989 City Council City of Hermosa Beach City Hall Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Honorable Councilmembers: With the Planning Commission's decision of November 21 it appears we may be going ahead with the removal of the p.m. parking on the west side of PCH. This loss of PCH parking spaces will have an immediate effect on my street. In front of Bugge Builders, PJ Bretts and Vasek Polaks there are about 31 parking spaces which are constantly in use except for 5 hours in the middle of the night. We already get 5 to 10 cars of Bretts' parking on a regular basis, and with the elimination of 31 PCH spaces that they have been utilizing in the evening I expect we will see 10 to 15 more. Until Bretts added their new room a few years ago this was a quiet street, with only 3-4 cars, all belonging to residents, parked on it at night. Doubling or tripling the number of bar patrons parked here will cost us our peace and security. Please do not eliminate parking from PCH until a suitable new home has been found for it. And if Caltrans attempts to force the third lane through against our wishes, or before new lots are ready, I hope you will take whatever action is necessary in order to stop them. Sincerely, SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Members of the City Council City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Dr. Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254 DEC 111989 451 Gould Avenue Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254 December 7, 1989 Re: Council Meeting of December 12 Circulation Element of the General Plan -- GOULD AVE. Dear Members of the City Council: Because I will be away on December 12, I am writing to "cast my vote" in favor of designating Gould Avenue a "LOCAL" street. We are living in a residential community. The hill is dangerous. People rush into the merge lane. There is no logic in allowing the current level of speed to continue (or get worse, as some suggest it will). The accidents and property damage on Gould are serious. Slower speeds will cut down on these accidents. Between Valley and Morningside, we have Valley Park, no sidewalks and heavy pedestrian and bicycle traffic. These people who have rushed down the hill keep on rushing as they enter the next block. It's down -right hazardous! Please. It's time to make a change from the hazards and noise we must face daily. There is high risk just backing out of our driveway! PLEASE! Designate Gould Avenue as a LOCAL street. Thank you. Sincerely yours, Emily S. Mager SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION s DEC 111989 451 Gould Avenue Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254 December 7, 1989 Re: Council Meeting December 12 Circulation Element of the General Plan -PARKING ON PCH. Dear Members of the City Council, I am in favor of eliminating the parking on the West side of PCH during rush hour because: (1) it will improve the flow of cars through the city. (2) it will allow us to work for getting two left -turn lanes on westbound Artesia at PCH. These are two valid reasons for eliminating parking on that side of the highway. I know there are more. Please vote in favor of this change on December 12th. Thank you. Sincerely yours, Emily S.'Mager SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION s James Lissner 2715 El Oeste Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 RECEIVED (213) 376-4626 December 5, 1989 City Council City of Hermosa Beach City Hall Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Honorable Councilmembers: DEC 0 51989 On December 12 the city council will hold a public hearing and will consider the adoption of the new Circulation Element of the General Plan. The Circulation Element is the document which specifies the classification of each street in town. Residents of Gould Avenue, the street with the highest surveyed speeds in town, have asked Council to change the classification of Gould from "collector" to "local." We believe that this change will mew better enable the city to eliminate the speeding problem which presently exists on the street. I have written the enclosed "Gould Speed Q & A" in order to address those questions most often asked about the re-classification we propose. It has been updated to discuss the DKS memo of November 13. Call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION s Gould Speed Questions and Answers 11-16-89 Table of Contents Ql: Can the police still use radar? page 1 Q2: Do a new survey, as was done on Monterey? 1 Q3: Must we give federal money back? 1 Q4: Is "collector" designation required by law? 1 Q5: Why not change all Hermosa collectors to "local?" 2 Q6: Is reclassification unprecedented? 2 Q7: Isn't a 25 limit on high volume street unusual? 2 Q8: Why special treatment for Gould? 2 Q9: Why do we have to do anything? 3 Q10: Is there citizen support? 3 011: Why can't residents accept the noise and danger? 3 Q12: Won't it be a speed trap? 3 Q13: Won't most tickets go to Hermosa residents? 4 Q14: If 25 doesn't work, is it difficult to put 35 back? 4 Q15: what about signs, striping, bumps? 4 Q16: Will it divert traffic into other neighborhoods? 4 Q17: Will it cause backup into Artesia? 4 Q18: Isn't the high speed on Gould due to the hill? 5 Q19: Won't closer enforcement of the present limit help? 5 Q20: Hasn't this matter been heard enough? 5 Twenty Questions about Gould Speed 11-16-891 1 Qi: Can the police still use radar? A: When Gould has been reclassified as a residential street, and a 25 prima facie limit has been posted, the police still can use radar. No traffic survey is required to use radar on a local or residential street, per Vehicle Code section 40802. Background: In November and December 1988 city staff wrote memos (exhibits A and B) stating radar could not be used. Later, they were given materials (exhibits C through E) showing that radar could be used. Staff then wrote new memo supporting the use of radar (exhibit F). DKS Associates later concurred (page 1 of exhibit P). Q2: Why not just ask the traffic engineer to do a new survey on Gould supporting a 25 mph limit, as was done on Monterey recently? A: The survey the engineer did in October 1988 contains a lengthly discussion telling why the engineer could not find a 25 limit appropriate for Gould (exhibit H). Q3: If we change the classification of Gould from Collector to Local, won't we have to give federal money back? A: No. See exhibit I. Nor will there be any decrease in the amount of federal highway money the city gets - that appropriation is based solely on our city's population. Q4: Doesn't the law require us to classify any street having more than 2500 cars per day (Gould has 12,000) as a collector street, not a local street, in our general plan? A: Planning convention calls for it, but the "collector" and "local" designations in the general plan are only important if some action, such as building some streets wider than others, is going to be taken on the basis of those designations. There has been no suggestion, from any source, that Gould should be built wider at any time in the future. Designating Gould "local" would not preclude the pity from allowing the present high volumes of traffic, any nore than that "local" designation does anything to limit .he traffic on other "local" streets in town, such as Valley irive, with 9090 cars/day or Ardmore, with 5130. If we did lothave a general plan, Gould would be considered a local street as it meets the criteria set out in Vehicle Code section 40802 (exhibit C). Ruzak (Exhibit A, page two top) ;aid "...it can be seen that in effect Gould Avenue is a -esidence district." DKS Associates said: "Aside from the act that most of the characteristics of Gould Avenue suggest collector street functional classification, there is to technical or administrative reason that it could not be esignated as a local street in the circulation element pdate." (page 2 of exhibit P, emphasis added) 2 Q5: Why not reclassify all the collectors with 35 mph limits as local streets and get speeds down all over town? A: Federal aid to urban highway (FAU) funds can only be used on collectors and arterials. While some other streets in town could possibly benefit from reclassification, we should leave at least some collectors so that we can take advantage of the federal funds, even though they are quite limited - $58,400 per year. In the unlikely case that Gould needs repair and the only funds we have are FAU, we can trade these FAU funds to the county or to any other local agency who will give us gas tax money in exchange - the only hitch being a small discount. This gas tax money can be used on Gould even though it is a "local" street. This information is from LA County Transportation Commission, phone 236-9437. Q6: Is downward reclassification unprecedented? A: Other Hermosa streets have been reclassified downward in the past. They are: Valley Drive, north of Pier, and Ardmore, south of Pier, both changed from collector to local in the 1979 general plan; and Manhattan Avenue, changed from collector to local in 1979 general plan or sometime before then. Q7: Isn't it unusual to have a 25 limit on such a heavily traveled street? A: Manhattan Beach Boulevard between Ardmore and Pacific, and Grand Avenue east of downtown El Segundo, have 25 mph limits. Q8: Many other streets in Hermosa suffer from traffic. What's unique about Gould? A: The measured speed on Gould is much higher than the speeds on every other street in town, including Artesia and Aviation. See exhibit J. We hope that by reducing the posted speed limit by 10 mph we can, with appropriate enforcement, reduce the actual speeds on the street by 8 mph. The table immediately below shows how this would compare to some other streets in town. 85th Percentile speeds from 1988 survey Gould/27th, WEST of Ardmore 34 mph Manhattan Avenue, 27th to Pier 34 Monterey, 19th to Pier 36 Artesia, PCH east to city limits 37 PCH, Artesia to Pier 40 Aviation, PCH east to city limits 41 Gould, Ardmore to PCH, presently 43 Gould, Ardmore to PCH, with 25 mph posted and anticipated 8 mph reduction in 85th percentile speed 35 One reason that it is important to reduce the speed, even by this seemingly small amount, is that the noise generated by the cars is in proportion to the square of the speed. At 43 the noise is 51% greater than it would be at 35. Also, the kinetic energy of the vehicle changes by the same amount, and this increases the severity of accidents. Q9: Why do we have to do anything? A: We don't. But unlike the numerous and divisive density squabbles the council has to resolve, there is no one who will be hurt by the reduction of speed on Gould. To drive the length of Gould at 35 instead of 43 takes an extra 3.5 seconds, while the usual wait at the stop sign or signal at either end of Gould is 60 to 180 seconds! Although this matter has come before the council several times, no member of the public has come forward to object. Staff reports do not support our proposal, but none has suggested an increased liability exposure due to reducing the speed. Q10: Is there citizen support? A: In October Council had petitions from over 30 of us. This June we turned in a petition with another 30 signatures. Posting Gould 25 mph will benefit hundreds more living in this several block area, and will hurt no one. By reducing speed at the entrance to Hermosa it will encourage drivers to travel more slowly on other Hermosa streets after they turn off of Gould. It is an opportunity for the council to do something good without there being a cost. Q11: Why can't Gould residents accept the noise and danger? They saved money when they bought their homes, and must have known that the trade-off was the noise. A: As little as ten years ago the speed was 19% lower so the noise (speed squared) was 36% lower. No one anticipated that Artesia would become so congested that Gould would be the first place where homeward -bound drivers could "let it loose" - and that the speed trap law, enacted in 1978, would allow these drivers to push the permitted speeds to new heights in 1983 and 1988. Also, no one anticipated the 1976 barricading of all four streets paralleling Gould on the south, and the additional pressure this would put on Gould. Q12: Won't it be a speed trap? Won't these moving violations become another opportunity for people to "trash" Hermosa's name, as they do now because of parking tickets? A: With the present speed limit most citations (per the police department) are between 49 and 53 mph. We hope that with a 25 limit they will write tickets for speeds above 42 mph. Should someone call Gould a speed trap, we need only point out identical limits on Manhattan Beach Blvd. and Grand Avenue - see Q7 above. And we wouldn't be the only city strongly enforcing their limits - I was stopped and warned on MB Blvd. about 6 months'ago, and three weeks ago my neighbor got a ticket for doing 42 there. Q13: Won't most of the tickets go to Hermosa residents, with a resultant backlash? A: Presently Hermosans get 60% of the tickets on Gould. However, they are much less likely to be ticketed than non-Hermosans who represent only 15% of the traffic volume but get 40% of the tickets. We would expect this pattern to continue, with no more complaints than there are now. Q14: What if there IS a backlash, after all, and the 25 limit must be raised back up, to 30 or 35? Wouldn't that be a lengthly, costly procedure? A: No. According to Vehicle Code Section 22357 it is necessary only to obtain a survey supporting the higher limit and then the council can ordain a higher limit, which would be effective upon the posting of new signs. Q15: What about using signs, striping, or speed bumps instead of reducing the speed limit? A: Engineers say that after drivers have seen a sign a few times they ignore it - unless there is enforcement. And a sign that says "Entering Hermosa, please drive courteously" can't be enforced. Signs that attempt to divert Artesia traffic oft of Gould by directing it onto PCH will never work on regular commuters - suich tactics serve only to confuse moving van drivers. Gould has been extensively restriped after the slurry sealing, but we have seen no decrease in speed. Speed actually seems to have increased, possibly in response to the more homogeneous appearance of the roadway. Rumble dots impair the ability of cars to brake. "Road bumps," which are a gentler form of speed bump, can't be used on a street used by emergency vehicles. See DKS' discussion, also. (pages 2 and 3 of exhibit P) Q16: What about Ruzak's claim (exhibit F) that reducing the speed and enforcing it heavily will divert traffic onto neighboring streets? A: The lower speed will cause at most, a 3.5 second delay on Gould. There is no alternate route which both crosses the "railroad tracks" and lines up with Route 91, as Gould does. We asked (exhibit K) Ruzak for a detailed discussion of which streets would be infiltrated, and he did not reply. Q17: What about Ruzak's claim (exhibit F) that reducing the speed will make it take more cycles of the signal to get across PCH? 3- A: Every engineering manual says it just isn't so! There will be no increase in delay, at all. See exhibit L, M, and the detailed discussion in exhibit K. 018: Isn't the high speed on westbound Gould mostly the result of coasting down the steep hill? A: A radar survey taken at the TOP of the hill, where it is still flat, shows that the lead cars in the pack are already traveling at an average 37 mph - before they start down the hill! Out of the 23 cars surveyed at the top of the hill, the fastest was 48 and the runner-up was doing 47! And, once they get onto the downhill, they don't just coast down it, they keep heavy on the gas - you can tell because you can hear the engines roaring. See exhibit N. 019: Why not just closely enforce the existing limit of 35 mph, issuing tickets at 40+ mph? A: Such tickets would immediately be thrown out by the court. Since it is presently a collector street, Gould Avenue speed comes under the speed trap law (Exhibit C) and tickets for speeds near or under the surveyed speed (43) are easily challenged. Since the police like to write tickets that "stick," they usually cite for speeds in excess of 49 mph. See also the discussion in exhibit K. 020: Hasn't this matter been heard so many times by the Council that it should be dropped? A: It has been heard many times in the last year, but only once since May 3 when the city's traffic engineer reversed his opinion about one key factor (exhibit F), and not at all since three new councilmembers were elected. Exhibits: A: Ruzak to Antich, 11-4-88 B: Lough to Antich, 12-12-88 C: CVC 40802, version effective to 1-1-93 D: Caltrans manual sec. 8-03, 1989 ed., pages 1 - 3 E: LAPD Radar Handbook, page 59 F: Ruzak to Antich, May 3, 1989 H: 1988 Hermosa Beach speed survey, pages 8 & 9 I: Caltrans to Creighton, May 4, 1989 J: 1988 Hermosa Beach speed survey, table 1 K: Lissner to Ruzak, June 29, 1989 L: Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook, page 501 M: Highway Capacity Manual, pages 1-7 and 9-3 N: Radar speed survey, top of Gould hill, 7-19-89 P: Memo, DKS Associates to Michael Schubach, 11-13-89 • DKS Associates 2/00 Nor (h Moo Stro r. SL1%:e ?OO SJnra aril. C.1 92 70 1 Phone: i714.1, 543-Sif501 'rax: (714) G48-0402 MEMORANDUM TO: Michael Schubach FROM: Michael Meyer, Gary Hamrick DATE: November 13, 1989 RE: Traffic Related Issues Raised During Planning Commission Meeting on 11/3/89 NOV 131989 P87194x0 Per your request, DKS has reviewed the issue of reclassification of Gould Avenue from a collector street to a local street, and a concurrent reduction in the speed limit. We have reviewed the previous public comments and City responses. As a significant amount of research has already been completed, this memo briefly reviews existing information, and also presents the issues relative to the Circulation Element. Issue 1: Is an engineering and traffic survey required in order to issue valid traffic citations on a local street for speeds above the prima facie 25 MPH speed limit? Response: State law, per the Vehicle Code and California Department of Transportation Traffic Regulations, previously found no difference between applying engineering surveys on arterial, collector or local streets. We concur with the City Traffic Engineer's statement that the law has now been amended to specifically exclude local streets from the speed trap law (see California Vehicle Code, Section 40802 and Caltrans Traffic Manual Section, 8- (13). Based on current guidelines, it appears that a 25 MPH speed limit could be enforced with radar without a standard engineering and traffic survey. Issue 2: Can Gould Avenue be reclassified as a local street, thereby enabling the City to lower the speed limit and write traffic tickets for speeds which currently cannot be enforced? Michael Schubach November 13, 1989 Page 2 Response: General Plan Circulation Element guidelines do nut specifically state criteria to he utilized for street classification systems. Each jurisdiction chooses criteria which are most applicable to the character of the individual cities. Some basic planning conventions arc generally followed and modified as appropriate. Street classification systems are usually based on both physical and operational characteristics of the street system. Key factors include: • Street dimensions (curb -to -curb width, number of lanes, right-of-way) • Type of land use adjacent to the street section (residential, commercial, industrial, mixed-use, etc.) • Connection to surrounding street system (i.e., does it dead end, connect to a major roadway, provide access to a freeway, etc.) • Existing traffic volume • Desired functional purpose (e.g., provide through traffic and local access, provide local access only„etc.) Gould Avenue was designated as a collector street in the 1979 Circulation Element and is included as a collector in the Draft Circulation Element update. The Draft Circulation Element includes the following criteria for local and collector street Average Daily Traffic volumes; local streets should carry up to 2,500 vehicles per day, collector streets should carry between 2,500 and 15,000 vehicles per day. The existing traffic volume on Gould Avenue (12,890) is consistent with collector street status, us is its curb -to -curb width (80 feet near PCH and 44 feet near Ardmore Avenue). The land use adjacent to Gould Avenue is primarily residential (which is consistent with local street status), with the exception of some commercial buildings at the intersection of Gould Avenue/PCH. Aside from the fact that most of the characteristics of Gould Avenue suggest collector street functional classification, there is no technical or administrative reason that it could not be designated as a local street in the Circulation Element update. If it is designated as a local street, however, to be consistent with the plan, efforts should be undertaken which would reduce the traffic volume on the street to conform to the 2,500 vehicle maximum for local streets. It is important to consider the probability that reclassification would by itself achieve the desired results. Without supporting actions in the field (e.g., greater police enforcement) the reclassification would not have any effect on speed or traffic volume. Significant enforcement of speeding would act to lower speeds on the street and may cvcn cause some drivers to divert to other streets to avoid the potential of a speeding ticket. The police would be most qualified to determine the level of enforcement which would be required or which could he provided. If the police enforcement was ever reduced, then average speeds would likely rise back to levels similar to the present time. Another method to lower speeds would be physical design changes on the roadway. Measures such as speed bumps or undulations are nut recommended for a roadway such as 20327.P871 Y.QMan Michael Schubach November 13, 1989 Page 3 Gould Avenue due to the potential for loss of control of vehicles as they pass over the bump or undulation. Other measures, such as "rumble strips" which consist of rows of raised dots or small ribs in the pavement, as well as signing and special striping to warn motorists to reduce speed do not have similar problems but arc nut generally considered effective for a street with characteristics such as Gould Avenue. They are more effective when they arc used to warn motorist of a situation which requires drastic speed reductions, such as the end of a freeway. On Gould Avenue such measures would likely be ignored over time as motorists learned that there is no real reason to slow down. One potential design change which may act to reduce average speeds would he construction of a "choker" or "curb bulb" at thewest leg of the Gould Avenue/PCH intersection, and reduction to one lane westbound west of PCH. With such a design, the westbound approach east of PCH would need to be modified to one through lane westbound rather than the present two through lanes westbound. This measure would funnel all through traffic into one lane, thereby eliminating the situation where two lanes transition to one lanc westbound west of ?CH. Motorists would have no reason to accelerate to "beat" the motorist in the adjacent lane to the one lane section. Based on existing turning movement counts, this type of improvement would degrade overall intersection operating conditions at PCH/Gould Avenue due to the loss of capacity on the westbound approach. The current and forecast future westbound peak hour volumes are 510 and 710, respectively. It is not possible to quantify the exact impact such a change would have on speeds without a before and after survey of speeds. In summary, it is our opinion that Gould Avenue could be reclassified as a local street 'and 25 MPH speed limit enforced without a supporting engineering and traffic survey, however, it is also our opinion chat such a classification would be generally inconsistent with the remainder of the Circulation Element and would not reduce travel speeds without significant police enforcement. As a local street, it would not fit within the volume criteria stated earlier and its physical characteristics would also differ from most other local streets. Physical roadway design changes could be implemented on a case study basis. Such measures would require lane restriping and some reconstruction. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this memorandum. Also, please forward copies of the staff report for all upcoming meetings in advance so that we can review and prepare. to respond to key issues. Copies of comments on the Draft Circulation Element in advance of meetings would also he appreciated. 203?l.FB7194xaMem December 5, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council December 12, 1989 SUBJECT: DRAFT CIRCULATION, TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING ELEMENT INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL PURPOSE: UPDATE GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT Recommendation Open the public hearing to allow public input, direct staff and consultants as deemed appropriate, and continue this matter to January 9, 1990 for final input and adoption. Background At the November 21, 1989 meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, and adopted a resolution recommending approval with some changes, modifications and additions (see attached resolution for details). Analysis The Planning staff has examined the draft document and is generally pleased with its overall content. The document does meet state requirements for General Plan circulation elements. However, as noted in the October 3, 1989 Planning Commission staff report, some corrective work as noted by the City's Traffic Engineer is necessary (refer to Exhibit D). Also, comments by the City manager and General Services Director need corrective action, and/or response by the consultant (refer to Exhibits E and F). Once the consultant has responded, all staff comments will be consolidated into a staff recommendation. In regard to the Planning Commission's recommendation found in the attached resolution, the Planning staff does generally concur, and the Public Works staff comments have been included on an attached memorandum from the Public Works Director, dated December 5, 1989. It should be noted that the Public Works staff did receive complaints concerning traffic intrusion on Monterey Blvd. during morning peak traffic hours, and has prepared a response (refer to Exhibit A). Additional data concerning Gould Avenue has also been attached, Exhibit B and C. Once input from the public, and City Council has been received, the consultant will then prepare a response where necessary, and s provide a presentation at the January 9, 1990 City Council meeting. A resolution adopting the final draft document with any deletions, additions, or modifications should then be approved. The adoption of this element is not an absolute commitment, but instead it essentially indicates what should be considered in the next 20 years. The final decision on implementation for each considered project, such as making the parking lane along the west side of Pacific Coast Highway a peak hour driving lane will be made with details included at a future date. Adoption of this element is only the first step. Generally, the consultants would have attended both public hearings, and had indicated they would do so. However, because of a conflicting engagement, the consultant requested a postponement. The City staff in an effort to expedite this matter decided not to postpone the meeting. The consultant will be at the January 9th meeting. Attachments 1. Resolution P.0 89-93. 2. Memorandum from Public Works Director. 3. Exhibits A -F. 4. P.C. minutes of 11/21/89 meeting (which are not available because the recording secretary is hospitalized). 5. P.C. minutes of 10/3/89 meeting. 6. Correspondence. CONCUR: "Kevin B. Northcra'ft City Manager t/ccsrcir 2 R.pspeytfully s bmitt-d, Michael Schubacli Planning Director 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION P.C. 89-93 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE CIRCULATION, TRANSPORTATION, AND PARKING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS, DELETIONS AND ADDITIONS AS NOTED BLOW. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on October 3 and November 21, 1989 to receive oral and written testimony and made the following Findings: A. The said document is a state mandated General Plan Element; B. The document revises the current Circulation Element; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend the adoption of the Circulation, Transportation and Parking Element of General Plan prepared by DKS Associates, June, 1989, subject to the following modifications, deletions and additions as follows (note: Page numbers correspond to the subject document): Circulation 1. Add "No Left Turn" during evening peak hours at certain Pacific Coast Highway intersections as determined appropriate by staff. 2. Eliminate proposed east/west widening as noted on page 33. 3. Eliminate the proposed signalization of intersections as noted on pages 33 though 36. 4. Include studying of widening of Ardmore Avenue from Pier Avenue to Second Street in the near future, and after the recently approved residential development is completed, the widening of Second Street to First Street. Prospect Avenue/Artesia Boulevard unsignalized The Pier Avenue to Second Street widening study should be completed and considered prior to the recommendation noted on page 37. 5. No one-way streets as recommend (page 38). 6. Gould Avenue should remain a collector street with 35 m.p.h. speed limit. 7. Once the parking lane along the west side of Pacific Coast Highway is converted to a southbound lane during peak hour traffic, the left hand turning lane onto Prospect Avenue south bound should be examined if problems persist. 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 Transportation 1. No bike path along the railroad right-of-way as noted on page 60. 2. Eliminate the proposed "limited truck route" as noted on page 62. Parking 1. Add the recommendation that more business should be encouraged through parking, and sites, such as the northwest corner of Manhattan Avenue and Pier Avenue should be considered, for a parking structure, and/or possibly trading land to improve the downtown situation. 2. Eliminate the residential parking structure proposal noted on page 70, and instead add examining requiring additional parking per dwelling via the zoning ordinance. 3. Change the title "Non -Residential..." on page 71 to "Commercial...". VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ingell,Ketz,Moore,Peirce,Chmn.Rue NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 89-93 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning C`mmission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meeting of November 21, 1989. Rue,lig/� �fT 7 Chairman Michael Schubach, Secret y p/perscirc 84 CHOR OUND MATER/A[ CITY OF HEROSA BEACH MEMORANDUM Date: December 5, 1989 From: Tony Antich, Public Works Director (G\ To: Michael Schubach, Planning Director Subject: Comments to Planning Commission Resolution 89-93 **************************************************************** Circulation Item 1: Concur Item 2: Concur Item 3: Concur Item 4: Widening of Ardmore from Pier Ave. to 2nd St. will require parking removal along the entire length and/or construction onto the recently acquired Hermosa Valley Greenbelt. Item 5: Noted Item 6: The issue of the speed limit is not a matter determined by either the Planning Commission or the Circulation Element and should be deleted from the resolution. Item 7: Businesses as well as residents in the area need to be notified prior to implementation. Transportation Item 1: Noted Item 2: Noted Parking Item 1: Noted Item 2: Noted Item 3: Noted Attachment: Resolution P.C. 89-93 cc: Ed Ruzak, City Traffic Engineer EXHIBIT A CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM DATE: November 20, 1989 TO: Michael Schubach, Planning Department Director .'\_' FROM: Anthony Antich, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Circulation Element Attached are two reports from the City Traffic Engineer 1. Gould Avenue Resident's Petitions 2. Neighborhood Traffic Intrusion on Monterey Blvd. Please forward to DKS. cc:: Ed Ruzak, City Traffic Engineer NOV 21 M 011 November 6, 1989 TO: Tony Antich, Director of Public Works FROM: Ed Ruzak, City Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: Neighborhood Traffic Intrusion on Monterey Blvd. The Problem Citizens complaints relative to neighborhood traffic intrusion on Monterey Blvd. at Herondo Street during the morning commuter peak period prompted a study of conditions to define the magnitude of the problem. Field Data Collection On September 19, 20, and 21, 1989, the City conducted a manual turning movement count of vehicles at the subject location with emphasis in the westbound right turns into Monterey from Herondo and the eastbound left turns into Monterey from Herondo. The results of the counts for various periods are shown below: On Herondo Street Westbound Right turns Eastbound Left turns Date Time Period into Monterey Blvd. into Monterey Blvd. 9/19/89 0715-0815 428 12 0815-0915 246 8 Total 774 20 9/20/89 0600-0715 188 6 0715-0815 443 14 Total 737 20 9/21/89 1500-1600 235 11 1600-1700 277 19 - Total 512 30 Discussion Field observations indicate that over 90% of the vehicles making the right turns emerged from Redondo Beach streets. The closure of Ardmore Avenue at Herondo Street due to a condominium development and the change of Valley Drive between 2nd Street and Herondo Street to one-way southbound have in effect eliminated two north/south corridors that commuter traffic used to travel into (and through) Hermosa Beach. C C C These latter corridors, Valley and Ardmore were used as an alternative to the highly traveled Pacific Coast Highway corridor. When Valley and Ardmore were effectively closed to northbound traffic at Herondo, the commuters wisely sought other avenues. The closest corridor was Monterey Blvd. The table shows clearly that during both the AM and PM peak periods that Monterey is being heavily used as the desired northbound corridor (at least to 2nd Street). Monterey Avenue can easily handle the additional traffic volume it is incurring. The issue is whether the additional volume levels create an intrusion to the residential quality of the residents along Monterey Blvd. More importantly is whether the safety for all the users is compromised in this corridor due to the larger volume levels. Thus, it does not appear that turn sign prohibitions will eliminate the intrusion problem through Hermosa Beach. Accident History A review of the reported accident history for the last two and one half years does not show any accidents involving the maneuvers that are directly attributable to the intrusion pattern. The times of occurrence do not coincide with the AM or PM peak periods where the intrusion is taking place. Only one accident in .1987 could be in any way close to being attributed to the extra traffic. A vehicle northbound on Monterey at 0705 hit a parked car. From a logistic standpoint, the drivers who turn left from Francisca at Herondo Street must then turn right onto Monterey, then right onto Second Street, thence left onto Valley Drive, in order to proceed north. This is a reasonable travel pattern by that driver who does not wish to travel the entire length of Monterey due to the prolific number of four way stop controlled intersections along its path. Thus, the circuitous loop necessary to reach Valley Drive exposes drivers to somewhat greater travel distances, but also to greater propensity for accident. The first problem of having to travel in a circuitous manner tends to breed disrespect of stop controls (rolling the stop sign) and accepting gaps in traffic that are not sufficient to enter the traffic stream (greater propensity for broadside accidents). An obvious solution would be to convert Valley Drive from 2nd Street to Herondo Street to two way operation. This would necessitate re-channelization of the Valley/Herondo intersection and a restriping. It could encourage more traffic along Valley Drive through the City. The change in direction could require a change in the Circulation Element of the General Plan, which is currently being reviewed at the Planning Commission level. C Consideration of "No right turn" prohibitions for westbound Herondo Street would serve to relieve Monterey Blvd. of this extra traffic. However, it would force the commuter further west to Hermosa Avenue where he doesn't necessarily choose to travel. Evidence of this is the number of drivers who turn right onto Herondo Street from Redondo Beach and then turn left in to Monterey Blvd. While small in comparision to the westbound right turns, this left turn is still an attempt to avoid travel along Hermosa Avenue. Conclusions The additional traffic along Herondo and Monterey may not lead to accidents along these segments. The circuitous traffic movement and volume of traffic would continue to increase if this routing is perceived as a better way to travel than PCH. In this case it may be difficult for residents to exit their driveways on to Monterey or exit 4th Street into Monterey. Recommendations It is recommended that the Planning Commission and City Council consider the return -of two way traffic on Valley Drive between 2nd Street and Herondo Street by modifying the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Should this not be accomplished, the Traffic Engineeeer will monitor the operation at this location at perodic intervals to insure safe operation. i pworks/memoedr 9 .:6+=...scm.4.v+tV�'..ti�:/i3R3`+.ui-•++t".9M14M':�Siv4r4'}Y.ff.. r C c EXHIBIT B CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Anthony Antich, Director of Public Works FROM: Ed Ruzak, City Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: Gould Avenue Resident's Petition DATE: November 8, 1989 On August 3, 1989 the Public Works Department received a petition from residents on Gould Avenue west of Valley Drive requesting: 1. Convert the present #1 westbound lane on Artesia Boulevard at Pacific Coast Highway to a second non -optional left turn lane, as is provided in the current General Plan. Place this goal in the new General Plan that is being drafted. 2. ,Reduce the speed limit on Gould Avenue east of Ardmore to 25 mph''by reclassifying it "local" in the new General Plan being drafted. 3. Install "rumble dots" to warn motorists to slow down as they enter Hermosa Beach. 4. On Gould Avenue west of Valley Drive, remove the bike lane markings to replace them with the parking spaces that were lost a few years ago. This letter -type report reflects the results of our investigation of these issues. 1. Discussions and correspondence with Caltrans traffic engineering personnel, indicated that there are some geometric design problems with the proposal as stated. The intersection angle that Artesia Boulevard makes with Pacific Coast Highway is not at 90 degrees. The #1 westbound left turn lane traffic would thus have to travel on a vehicle path that is far outside of the travel path of its companion inside left turn lane. This is also in part due to the "protrusion" of the median island on the south leg of Pacific Coast Highway unto Artesia Boulevard. Caltrans, which has jurisdiction over both State designated highway (SR 91 for Artesia and SR 1 for PCH) also would like to restrict curb parking along the west side of PCH south of Artesia Boulevard. In this manner they believe that the dual left turn traffic would be able to travel in the southbound curb lane for a longer distance prior to having to merge into the existing two lane configuration. - 10- i.:..r+.tyaprai:+a' The City has not been amenable, to date, to restricting curb parking along PCH in this area. Thus, discussions relative to these issues continue. 2. The City Traffic Engineer and City Council have reviewed this issue at length and have deemed that the present roadway classification and posted speed limit are commensurate with the character of the roadway use. 3. The installation of "rumble dots" to warn motorists to slow down as they enter Hermosa Beach was reviewed. The research that has been accomplished with respect to rumble dots has been done primarily on high speed (55 mph) approaches to traffic signals or at the end of freeway conditions. Efforts on the collector and arterial system would produce noise levels that we believe would be undesirable to both residential and commercial users on Gould Avenue. If there is any effectiveness to rumble strips is is the high noise factor that serves to alert motorists to the upcoming STOP at a signal or STOP sign on a high speed approach. Most drivers traveling westbound across PCH onto Gould Avenue are aware of the downgrade and the upcoming STOP sign at Ardmore Avenue. These commuters, in our opinion, would not slow down regardless of the rumble effect. Another negative feature of "rumble strips" is the constant maintenance of the pavement markers (dots) that make up the rumble effect. The continual travel over the dots dislodges them and reduces the rumble effect. Maintenance costs increase dramatically. The pattern of dots to establish the rumble effect is such that most of the pavement would be covered at two to three locations along Gould Avenue. In wet or foggy weather the propensity for loss of control by motorcycles, bicyclists and four wheeled vehicles increases. The slick surface of the dot does not provide the coefficient of friction that asphalt pavement does. 4. The bicycle lane markings on the north side of Gould Avenue between Valley Drive and Morningside Drive are four feet wide. The westbound through lane is only eleven feet wide. The eastbound through lane is approximately 14 feet wide,.but is located adjacent to parking stalls that are perpendicular to Gould Avenue.. There would not be room to adequately place parallel parking on the north side -without restructuring the through lanes and narrowing the perpendicular parking stall lengths. This would lead to parked vehicles protruding into the eastbound through lane. It is difficult in its present configuration to have these parkers/unparkers backing into the Gould Avenue lanes. The trade off is the ability to provide more parking for the park users on the south side of Gould Avenue. Returning parking to the north side of Gould would also visually "close up" what is now an open area to the north. Users that would park on the north side would invariably cross to reach the park mid -block. Perpendicular parking and parallel parking on a narrowed street condition would, in our opinion, contribute to a condition that would reduce sight lines, encourage mid -block crossings and reduce the overall safety and operation in this area. er/pworks -(2 - .-.....�:,_.sJ'R -�� . ,nk .,.4ia.a�::.a :.::�S�: �s+:oi� s— �.....o•�. ,.v_icaics'.Baa,L�..+r�vr..*:.c3lSSS'i.,.ss�;rig•1.4ir.�s.+wr�:�,�.;sciy-+�:ec..:i-+R ...+�... 3 EXHIBIT C DKS Associates 2700 North Main Street, Suite 900 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Phone: (714) 543-9601 Fax: (714) 648-0402 MEMORANDUM TO: Michael Schubach NOV1 f-- 1989 � O FROM: Michael Meyer, Gary Hamrick DATE: November 13, 1989 RE: Traffic Related Issues Raised During Planning Commission Meeting on 11/3/89 P87194x0 Per your request, DKS has reviewed the issue of reclassification of Gould Avenue from a collector street to a local street, and a concurrent reduction in the speed limit. We have reviewed the previous public comments and City responses. As a significant amount of research has already been completed, this memo briefly reviews existing information, and also presents the issues relative to the Circulation Element. Issue 1: Is an engineering and traffic survey required in order to issue valid traffic citations on a local street for speeds above the prima facie 25 MPH speed limit? Response: State law, per the Vehicle Code and California Department of Transportation Traffic Regulations, previously found no difference between applying engineering surveys on arterial, collector or local streets. We concur with the City Traffic Engineer's statement that the law has now been amended to specifically exclude local streets from the speed trap law (see California Vehicle Code, Section 40802 and Caltrans Traffic Manual Section, 8- 03). Based on current guidelines, it appears that a 25 MPH speed limit could be enforced with radar without a standard engineering and traffic survey. Issue 2: Can Gould Avenue be reclassified as a local street, thereby enabling the City to lower the speed limit and write traffic tickets for speeds which currently cannot be enforced? -13- Michael Schubach November 13, 1989 Page 2 Response: General Plan Circulation Element guidelines do not specifically state criteria to be utilized for street classification systems. Each jurisdiction chooses criteria which are most applicable to the character of the individual cities. Some basic planning conventions are generally followed and modified as appropriate. Street classification systems are usually based on both physical and operational characteristics of the street system. Key factors include: • Street dimensions (curb -to -curb width, number of lanes, right-of-way) • Type of land use adjacent to the street section (residential, commercial, industrial, mixed-use, etc.) • Connection to surrounding street system (i.e., does it dead end, connect to a major roadway, provide access to a freeway, etc.) • Existing traffic volume • Desired functional purpose (e.g., provide through traffic and local access, provide local access only, etc.) Gould Avenue was designated as a collector street in the 1979 Circulation Element and is included as a collector in the Draft Circulation Element update. The Draft Circulation Element includes the following criteria for local and collector street Average Daily Traffic volumes; local streets should carry up to 2,500 vehicles per day, collector streets should carry 'between 2,500 and 15,000 vehicles per day. The existing traffic volume on Gould Avenue (12,890) is consistent with collector street status, as is its curb -to -curb width (80 feet near PCH and 44 feet near Ardmore Avenue). The land use adjacent to Gould Avenue is primarily residential (which is consistent with local street status), with the exception of some commercial buildings at the intersection of Gould Avenue/PCH. Aside from the fact that most of the characteristics of Gould Avenue suggest collector street functional classification, there is no technical or administrative reason that it could not be designated as a local street in the Circulation Element update. If it is designated as a local street, however, to be consistent with the plan, efforts should be undertaken which would reduce the traffic volume on the street to conform to the 2,500 vehicle maximum for local streets. It is important to consider the probability that reclassification would by itself achieve the desired results. Without supporting actions in the field (e.g., greater police enforcement) the reclassification would not have any effect on speed or traffic volume. Significant enforcement of speeding would act to lower speeds on the street and may even cause some drivers to divert to other streets to avoid the potential of a speeding ticket. The police would be most qualified to determine the level of enforcement which would be required or which could be provided. If the police enforcement was ever reduced, then average speeds would likely rise back to levels similar to the present time. Another method to lower speeds would be physical design changes on the roadway. Measures such as speed bumps or undulations are not recommended for a roadway such as 20327.P87194x0.Mem - 14-- Michael Schubach November 13, 1989 Page 3 Gould Avenue due to the potential for loss of control of vehicles as they pass over the bump or undulation. Other measures, such as "rumble strips" which consist of rows of raised dots or small ribs in the pavement, as well as signing and special striping to warn motorists to reduce speed, do not have similar problems but are not generally considered effective for a street with characteristics such as Gould Avenue. They are more effective when they are used to warn motorists of a situation which requires drastic speed reductions, such as the end of a freeway. On Gould Avenue such measures would likely be ignored over time as motorists learned that there is no real reason to slow down. One potential design change which may act to reduce average speeds would be construction of a "choker" or "curb bulb" at the west leg of the Gould Avenue/PCH intersection, and reduction to one lane westbound west of PCH. With such •a design, the westbound approach east of PCH would need to be modified to one through lane westbound rather than the present two through lanes westbound. This measure would funnel all through traffic into one lane, thereby eliminating the situation where two lanes transition to one lane westbound west of PCH. Motorists would have no reason to accelerate to "beat" the motorist in the adjacent lane to the one lane section. Based on existing turning movement counts, this type of improvement would degrade overall intersection operating conditions at PCH/Gould Avenue due to the loss of capacity on the westbound approach. The current and forecast future westbound peak hour volumes are 510 and 710, respectively. It is not possible to quantify the exact impact such a change would have on speeds without a before and after survey of speeds. In summary, it is our opinion that Gould Avenue could be reclassified as a local street and 25 MPH speed limit enforced without a supporting engineering and traffic survey; however, it is also our opinion that such a classification would be generally inconsistent with the remainder of the Circulation Element and would not reduce travel speeds without significant police enforcement. As a local street, it would not fit within the volume criteria stated earlier and its physical characteristics would also differ from most other local streets. Physical roadway design changes could be implemented on a case study basis. Such measures would require lane restriping and some reconstruction. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this memorandum. Also, please forward copies of the staff report for all upcoming meetings in advance so that we can review and prepare to respond to key issues. Copies of comments on the Draft Circulation Element in advance of meetings would also be appreciated. 20327.P87194x0.Mem • s ...;.x ?. C EXHIBIT D CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM TO: Michael Schubach, Planning Director FROM: Anthony Antich, Director of Public Works a A ' SUBJECT: Comments to the Draft Circulation Element dated June 1989 DATE: September 26, 1989 1. GENERAL COMMENTS: The document is weak in the area of improvements and does not appear to suggest many long range improvements. 2. WORK REQUESTED BY CITY BUT NOT COMPLETED BY DKS: On February 6, 1989, I wrote you a memo commenting on DKS's January 1989 draft Circulation Element. You forwarded the memo to DKS. Below is a listing of the work still not completed. Table 1: Still has many needed corrections. Spot sampling was done and there are too many errors. This needs to be re -checked and re -done. Attached is a copy of Table 1. Table 2: Define the peak hours, i.e, 3 to 7, 4 to 6 etc...What are the peak hours? Table 2 and Figure 2 do not match. Street Gould Hermosa 2nd Street 3rd Street Artesia Artesia PCH PCH PCH PCH Segment Table 2 W/O Valley 9,105 S/O 2nd -0- PCH/Prospect PCH/Prospect E/O Harper Prospect/PCH Artesia/Pier Pier Aviation Aviation/Herondo South Herondo no reference n It n u n u n n n o n n n n Figure 2 9,110 13,900 600 460 22,700 23,400 47,000 49,000 54,500 55,000 Not shown on table 11 11 n n I, u n n n n n n � n � n Figure 19: Need to include: Parking Lot E (pay public located at the southeast corner of Beach Drive and 15th There is an additional free parking lot located west of on Bard Street. lot) is Street. City Hall Page 31: What findings are supplied to support the statement that 430 vehicles per hour would shift to PCH? I do not agree with DKS's findings because they didn't provide supporting data in the appendix. Changed from 500 (January 1989 draft) to 430 vehicles in the June report. c 3. COMMENTS BY CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER, ED RUZAK: Attached are comments by the City Traffic Engineer. 4. COMMENTS BY DIRECTOR: Page 29: Refers to Table 11 as "Future trip - making resulting from the developments" - this is actually Table 12. Correct Table 11 and 12 to correspond with text. A. DKS defines streets according to the traffic volume. Traffic volume counts were not taken on Monterey north of Pier Avenue. However, DKS is recommending that the street be designated as a collector. Why? 5. APPENDIX: Appendix "A": Table 4: It takes about the through the City (along PCH) during peak hours. The peak Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix "B" "C" "D" "E": "F" No No No No No No comments Comments comments comments comments comments same amount of time to travel during "non -peak" hours as it does hour commuter is not being delayed. at this at this at this at this at this at this /% time. time. time. time. time. time. A. Jul eiy, 4-c, TO: ANTHONY ANT IIC +T D j RECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS near FROM: ED RUZAK 1 SUBJECT: REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY CIRCULATION ELEMENT DRAFT REPORT DATE: JULY 20,1989 I have reviewed the draft circulation element report dated June, 1989 ,prepared by DKS & Associates. My comments are listed below. In brief, This is a much better document than we have received. Not much of the technical content has been changed drastically (or at all) as we requested in our previous critiques. However, it appears that this is the consultants last and final effort. Pg. 3. Last Paragraph- The project is completed and the problems with he jog in PCH, the access into the "Weinerschnitzel" parcel and. efficiency of PCH traffic with the improvement should be touched on. Pg. 4 Under Policy 5 discuss what happened if anything with respect to the policy relative to a median on Aviation Blvd. Was it implemented? Ans. No. Why not? Pg. 5 Policy 10 Mention that no turn prohibitions were ever implemented at Pier Avenue. Pg. 15 Indicate that portions of this bicycle facility are in Redondo Beach and they actively participate in keeping its operation safe. Pg. 19 Policy 19 If the mid -block barriers they speak about are those on the Strand, then the Strand should be specifically mentioned. I do not believe there are mid -block barriers anywhere else in Hermosa Beach. Pg 11 Objective 3.0 Comment. This is clear that the City will provide parking for insiders not outsiders! Only those outsiders that come to Hermosa to use the commercial services would be considered for parking. Thus the reasoning for Implementation of Policy 3.0 Pg 12 Implementation Policy 3.4 Mention that remodeling street spaces means providing more spaces for greater use and revenue. Pg 12 Policy 4.0 LOS "D" may be more reasonable as volume levels and congestion in the South Bay continue into the future. 10061 TALBERTAVENUE SUITE200 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CALIFORNIA 92708 (714) 964.4880 _1g_ 4r C Pg. 13 Policy 4.2 This is very dangerous in its present wording. It means reconstruction of the intersection or "PARKING REMOVALS". If Traffic Engineering doesn't pursue this do we have a liability problem? Does this conflict with the need to maximize parking for residents? Pg. 13 Policy 4.5 Isn't this in conflict with the parking for residents and commercial business objectives? Pg. 13 Policy 4.7 Does the City Council really want to start to build sidewalks? Pg. 13 Policy 4.8 There needs to be guidelines provided in this report to address this problem. The consultant didn't address it nor did he inventory pavement sections in the City. This was left to the City to do. Pg. 20 We need a traffic volume for Monterey Blvd., even if it is an estimate. Same for Fifth Street. • Table 1. Take out the Column on Pavement Condition since City will do this at a later date. A blank should not be left in an entire column in the final report. Figure 3.-- I realize there may not have been recent data for Monterey and Manhattan Blvds.,but a traffic flow map must be continuous and have data for the major street system, i.e collectors and arterials. Show some band widths for Monterey and Manhattan. Pg. 24 Using a peak hour warrant is an easy way out for not collecting a lot of data. The consultant should mention in the body of the text that normally the eight highest hour warrants are used but that this study chose for expediency to do it their way. We do not want to get locked in to having to defend a one hour warrant to install a signal. The consultant does talk•rabout all warrants in the Appendix but not in the main body of the report. Pg. 26. The rates Citywide and for Los Angeles County should be referenced or listed here for this route. Pg. 33 What about mention of PCH diverted traffic using Ardmore in the second paragraph_? Pg. 33 Has Caltrans been consulted to see if they even consider the need to widen the east and west legs of Artesia at Prospect?. Is the right of way available? Reference any Caltrans input. Pg. 34 Here is where using just one warrant, the peak hour warrant is not acceptable. A discussion of the complex Valley/Ardmore intersections with Gould and at Pier necessitates looking at more than one hour of traffic volume. Pg. 35 and Figure 9 & 10. Where is a one common intersection strategy? These two other schemes are woefully lacking in any careful analysis. Example. There is not even one mention of the Hermosa Valley School impacts. The school is "only" adjacent to Valley Drive. Figure 10 shows a large note to provide a crosswalk for joggers. Where did the consultant consider the pedestrian access, bicycle flow to and from school and other uses in this corridor? What does the consultant propose at 16th Ardmore and at his extended 16th Valley intersection? Figure 9 shows transition pavement arrows for two lanes southbound merging in to one at the point where the railroad right of way parking lot driveway is and close to where all of City Hall customers exit onto Valley Drive at Eleventh Place. Doesn't widening Valley Drive fall in conflict .with the objectives to preserve the railroad right of way. The discussion of these issues is not broached by the consultant. Figure 11- Why is Hermosa Avenue listed as a major arterial north of Pier Avenue? It loses its arterial character at Pier. Also why isn't Manhattan Blvd. listed as a collector street? Discussion is needed on these two items.. Figure 11- There needs to be an extension of Ardmore as a collector street to Herondo. It is my understanding that the City still has an easement to the south on Ardmore that could allow extension to Herondo if necessary in the future. Do not preclude future Council's from this opportunity to extend this street. Page 38 & 39 The one way streets discussion skirts the real issue of whether the city should coinsider wholesale one way street conversions due to narrow street width, neighborhood intrusion by commuter traffic and the ability to get more curb parking for residents. The discussion also fails to talk about the advantages and disasdvantages of a Monterey/ Manhattan one way couplet•. The general advantages/disadvantages statements in the text are fine, but do not address the specific situations on each couplet. The recommended one way couplets in the 27th to 35th Street area have been tried and rebuffed by the neighborhood. They are small issues in comparison to Valley /Ardmore and Monterey/Manhattan. Pg. 50, last paragraph. The bicycle route along the Strand is technically a bicycle path. It connects to an on street bicycle "path" on Hermosa Avenue that eventually connects to the Manhattan beach bicycle "path"along the beach north of our City. Figure 17 This figure is not correct for marked crosswalks. They must all be removed from this figure. We have the upgraded school crosswalk location map. It is modified each year. This figure. should simply show the walking corridors. Page 62 In California we use the Caltrans traffic Manual for our signing. rather than the MUTCD. While the MUTCD is referenced in Caltrans manual it would be preferable to reference the truck limit signs from Caltrans Manual rather than the Federal manual. Pg. 67 & 68 Once again the consultant simply used the old 1981 parking study to recommend the need for 800 to 1000 additional spaces. With all of the data that was collected in the DKS parking study, it would appear that a greater discussion to justify this number would have been presented. In addition the possible locations for the sites for structures based upon the curb and offstreet parking data and land availability would have been of greater assistance to the City in determining where and what to consider. Pg. 69 fifth paragraph. I have yet to see "surplus "parking from a new development, nor will this "surplus help alleviate parking deficiencies." The magnitude of deficiency has not clearly been defined by the consultant other than parroting the 1981 study. The Technical Appendix has much of the backup material from the data collection phase of the study . We do need to receive the program and the raw data sheets that DKS used to develop the transportation model for forecasting the future trips in the City. This has not been provided. Table 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CIRCULATION ELEMENT EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS ROADWAY FROM/TO EXISTING LENGTH STRIPING/ (miles) GEOMETRICS EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH WIDTH PAVEMENT (feet) (feet) TYPE EXISTING EXISTING ESTIMATED PAVEMENT FUNCTIONAL DAILY AVG. DAILY CONDITION a CLASSIFICATION VOLUME CAPACITYaa EAST -WEST STREETS Herondo Street Artesia Boulevard/ Gould Avenue 21st Street 21st Court Pier Avenue Hermosa Ave./Valley Dr. Harper Ave./Pacific Coast Hwy. Pacific Coast Hwy./E1 Geste P1. El Oeste P1./Ardmore Ave. Ardmore Ave./Morningside Drive Harper Ave./Rhodes St. Rhodes St./Pacific Coast Hwy. Pacific Coast Hwy./Ardmore Ave. Valley Dr./Power St. Power St./12 ' W. of Power St. STA/4/4 tsig,s- mac Dr.lHeriobsa 4vcr'iNIA17*'/%✓ Pacific Coast Hwy./btwn Ardmore and Valley Btwn Ardmore and Valley/Hermosa Ave. Hermosa Ave./the Municipal Pier Aviation Boulevard Harper Ave./Pacific Coast Hwy. Lynden Street 1st Court D,`we Hermosa Ave./Monterey Bl. Monterey 81./Palm First Street Second Street Fourth Street Fifth Street Strand/Hermosa Ave. Hermosa Ave./Monterey B1. Ardmore/PCH PCH/Barney Ct. Barney Ct./Prospect Ave. The Strand/Valley Drive Valley Dr./PCH PCH/Prospect Ave. Hermosa Ave./Monterey BI. Monterey B1./Culper St. Ardmore Ave./PCH PCH/Ocean View Ave. Hopkins/Prospect Ave. Cochise Ave./Ardmore Ave. 611401rfp/ Lfit?RMDINI Ardmore Ave./PCH PCH/Prospect Ave. 0.09 2 lanes 0.23 0.13 0.17 0.29 4 lanes w/ med. 4 lanes w/ med. 4 lanes w/ It 2 lanes 0.20 2 lanes 0.07 2 lanes 0.13 2 lanes 0.11 2 lanes 0.00r 2 lanes WALK 6T: .0i1 2 L. 0.05PI 9 2 lanes 0.12 0.32 0.10 0.42 0.10 4 lanes 4 lanes 2 lanes 4 lanes 2 lanes 0.08 1 lane 0.03 .ua sWA1-I' ST, 0.10 2 lanes 0.13 2 lanes 0.18 2 lanes 0.13 2 lanes 0.25 0.22 0.32 0.10 0.02 0.14 0.05 0.07 0.03 .0 . 0.14 0.17 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes INAL1< S1. 2 lanes 2 lanes 28 30 Asphalt Arterial 00 100 Asphalt Arterial 80 100 Asphalt Collector 44 100 Asphalt Collector 30 40 Asphalt Collector 40 60 Asphalt Local 36 60 Asphalt Local 30 60 Cement Local 24 40 Asphalt Local 20 40 Asphalt Local 17 b600 cofc aro .. i0 20 Asphalt Local 72 100 Cement Arterial 80 100 Asphalt Arterial 80 100 Asphalt Arterial 64 80 Asphalt Arterial 28 40 Asphalt Local 18 20 Concrete Local 16 60 Concrete Local 38 60 Asphalt Local , 24 40 Asphalt Local 30 60 Concrete Local 28 40 Asphalt Local 40 60 Asphalt Collector 28 40 Asphalt Local 24 40 Asphalt Local 41 60 Asphalt Local 20 30 Asphalt Local 28 40 Concrete Local 23 40 Concrete Local 29 40 Concrete Local 28 40 Asphalt Local /Co 60 coNc_ 5' 27 40 Concrete Local 30 60 Concrete Collector 13,000 29.000 22,000 12,890 22.000 9,105 15,000 2,500 2,500 2,260 2,500 2,500 2.4.0.2 0' 2,500 20.800 12,550 5,350 29.000 29,000 13,000 29,450 29,000 2,500 800 Q, -sea r 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 4,600 15,000 3,000 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2.500 2,500 2,500 2,500 y 2,500 15,000 ROADWAY FROM/TO Table 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CIRCULATION ELEMENT EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS EXISTING LENGTH STRIPING/ (miles) GEOMETRICS EXISTING WIDTH (feet) RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH PAVEMENT (feet) TYPE EXISTING PAVEMENT FUNCTIONAL CONDITION a CLASSIFICATION EXISTING ESTIMATED DAILY AVG. DAILY VOLUME CAPACITYaa Fifth Court Fourth Court Third Street Third Court First Place Sixth Street Eight Street Tenth Street Eleventh Street Ilth Court Drive Thirteenth Street 13th Court Drive Eleventh Place Massey Ave./Reynolds Ln. Hermosa Ave./Strand Beach Dr./Hermosa Ave. Beach Dr./Hermosa Ave. w/o Ardmore deadends Ardmore/PCH PCH/Prospect Ave. 11/SA N48bl/ ',r 4 N D Beach Dr./Hermosa Ave. Ardmore Ave./PCH Barney Ct./Prospect Ave. Hermosa Ave./Valley Dr. Ardmore Ave./Prospect Ave. Prospect Ave./Reynolds Ln. St72/AND/ H/=!=• A'/ Hermosa Ave./Loma Dr. Loma Dr./Valley Dr. Valley Dr./Ardmore Ave. Ardmore Ave./PCH PCH/Prospect Ave. Propsect Ave./Reynolds Ln. STRAND /H0a• A✓. The Strand/Loma Dr. Ardmore Ave./PCH PCH/Propsect Ave. Propsect Ave./Reynolds Ln. The Strand/Hermosa Ave. Monterey/Loma Dr. Loma Dr./Valley Dr. Ardmore/PCH Prospect/Reynolds Ln. Beach Dr./Hermosa Ave. The Strand/Hermosa Ave. PCH/Ocean Dr. Beach Dr./Hermosa Ave. Bard St./Valley Dr. 0.04 0.06 2 lanes 2 lanes 0.04 1 lane 0.03 l lane 0.05 0.12 0.30 •05 0.02 0.10 0.14 0.25 0.11 0.15 .07 0.13 0.11 0.01 0.10 0.19 0.28 .og 0.16 0.10 0.24 0.14 0.07 0.02 0.12 0.10 0.10 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes W/ 414 sr 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes W/11•$‘ sr. 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes wi1.1< 671 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 0.06 1 lane 0 0.08 Z --lamer tzlierl1� 0.12 2 lanes 0.07 2 lanes 0.03 2 lanes 27 16 17 17 24 24 28 16 19 24 26 40 60 20 20 40 40 40 6n 20 40 40 Asphalt Concrete Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt CONG Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt 40 60 Asphalt 29 40 Concrete 24 40 Concrete !6 Lo er 40 60 Asphalt 25 40 Asphalt 30 60 Asphalt 27 40 Asphalt 19 25 Asphalt 25-30 40 Conc.-Asph. 17 6o n 34 60 Asphalt 29 40 Concrete 25 40 Asph.-Conc. 25 40 Asphalt 38 30 24 27 25 20 60 60 40 40 40 20 13-37 60 24 40 20 20 26 60 Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local t. Collector Collector Collector Collector Local Local 1, Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 ? &ds 2.500 2,500 2,500 1,020 2,500 2,500 2,500 ,AC 15,000 4,550 15,000 15,000 4,960 15,000 2.500 2,500. 2.500 2.500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2.500 2,500 2,500 2,500 BOO cm/pc 2,500 Local 2,500 Local 2,500 ROADWAY Table I CITY OF )ERMOSA BEACH CIRCl1LATICN ELEMENT EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS EXISTING LENGTH STRIPING/ FROM/TO (miles) GEOMETRICS w/o PCH 0.05 2 lanes 39 e/o Propsect Ave. 0.07 2 lanes 25 EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY EXISTING EXISTING ESTIMATED WIDTH WIDTH PAVEMENT PAVEMENT FUNCTIONAL DAILY AVG. DAILY (feet) (feet) TYPE CONDITION * CLASSIFICATICe VOLUME CAPACITY** 60 Asphalt 40 Asphalt Local Local 2,500 2,500 t! St rt �vYTh e St, a,d/i He notes 1) ,lh ,l, �tTi,e ,t. �,dllk, muve .ne. CI IC] kmo,Se+eMh 64ree4-p S Phe -Strand/Hermosa 7 0,07 2 lanes NIU FCC VJ T1I Lrete Local ja"16 60 Eonc, ete 7 Loral u&a 900- /Ilermoe-- 26th StreetV1(71-f7 Tt+e Strand/Hereese 23rd Street The Strand/Hermosa 1)A4 t?. 21st Street q) J 17 The Strand/Hermosa ,C• 19th Street a)077 The Strand/Hermosa 18th Street L) P The 6trond/Hermosa 17th Street /ht) p The Strand/Hermesa I 0.05 2 lanes 0,02 2 lanes 0.03 2 lanes oeoa 2 lanes 0.02 0.02 0.10 �e !L 60 't?` 60 Concrete Concrete 16 60 Concrete 17 60 Concrete Local Local Local 1,500 2x500- 2,500 2.500 2 lanes- 2 lanes 2 lanes Porter Lane Morningside Dr./Valley Dr. Ardmore/Gould Ave. Circle Court Monterey B1./Circle Dr. Aubrey Park Deadends on Aubrey Ct. Montgomery Dr. Ocean Dr./Aubrey Ct. Gould Terrace Ardmore Ave./Gould Ave. 0.15 1 lane 0.11 2 lanes 0.02 1 lane 0.01 2 lanes 0.05 2 lanes 0.17 2 lanes 17 60 Concrete }6 14 60 Concrete 16 60 Concrete 15 23 30 18 24 20 20 20-30 60 25 35 20 Local &orient* Unimproved Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Concrete Asphalt Local Local brat Local Local Local Local Local Local 14 00- 2.500 2.500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 Table 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CIRCULATION ELEMENT EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS ROADWAY Marlita FROM/TO Fifteenth Street Sixteenth Street 16th Court Nineteenth Street 24th Place 24th Street 25th Street 26th Street 15th Place 15th Court 17th Street 18th Street 20th Street s/o La Carlita Place The Strand/Hermosa Ave. PCH/Ocean Dr. Prospect Ave./Harper Ave. Hermosa Ave./Lona Dr. Ardmore Ave./PCH PCH/Prospect Ave. `5772A/ 40///..:./4 A L/Beach Dr./ rmosa Ave. Hermosa Ave./Loma Dr. PCH/Rhodes St. ST/Z,ND/ l /212.4si Park Ave./Valley Dr. Ardmore Ave./PCH The Strand/Hermosa Ave. Hermosa Ave./Park Ave. Park Ave./Valley Dr. Ardmore Ave./PCH w/o Hillcrest Dr. (cul-de-sac) Prospect Ave./Harper Ave. Hermosa Ave./Park Ave. Park Ave./Morningside Dr. Morningside Dr./Valley Dr. Deadends e/o Ardmore Ave. Sr>zix/p/ Nl=/2.4✓ Hermosa Ave./Manhattan Ave. Manhattan Ave./Morningside Dr. ST11,9A0/ 114!_z12. ,gV Mira St./Bonnie Brae w/o PCH/between Pier Ave. and 16th St. Beach Dr./Hermosa Ave. PCH/Prospect Ave. Deadends e/o Prospect Ave. .STrzANp/ titSp. 4V Valley ParkAve./Valley Dr. PCN/Prospect Ave. srn/3ua/ Hf?Q,4✓ Power St./Va ley Dr. PCN/Rhodes St. TTkgn(AAk/ EXISTING LENGTH STRIPING/ (miles) GEOMETRICS 0.04 2 lanes 0.09 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.16 .10 0.08 0.10 0.05 .0Z 0.18 0.15 01 0.14 0.02 0.14 0.04 0.08 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes WM.(< sr 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes WAk1t 5 P. 2 lanes 2 lanes 1 L 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 0.19 2 lanes 0.03 2 lanes 0.14 2 lanes 0.07 2 lanes .vs WaLI4- sr. . 0.04 2 lanes 0.13 2 lanes .as W,4it sT. 0.07 2 lanes 0.03 2 lanes 0.08 2 lanes EXISTING RIGHT -OF -NAY EXISTING EXISTING ESTIMATED WIDTH WIDTH PAVEMENT PAVEMENT FUNCTIONAL DAILY AVG. DAILY (feet) (feet) TYPE CONDITION a CLASSIFICATION VOLUME CAPACITY.' 24 30 Asphalt 35 25 28 34 30 24 /6 16 29 15 /6 24 26 30 25 25 27 25 30 26 24 19 /6. 30 25 18 21 20 60 50 40 60 40 60 20 60 40 60 50 40 60 60 40 40 40 40 60 60 50 40 (,o 60 60 40 40 20 0.13 2 lanes 24 40 0.11 lanes 28 40 10 2w't.(4. sr. lb al 0.08 2 lanes 23 40 0.11 2 WAs�. !6 LK bU 0.11 2 lanes 20 30-40 0.05 2 lanes 30 40 UlrALK ST: 16 60 Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Concrete 'r Asphalt Asphalt Concrete Il Asphalt Asphalt Concrete Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt CON Asphalt Concrete. u Asphalt Asphalt Concrete Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt AspN Asphalt Concrete If v. Local Local Local Local Local Local Local r. Local Local Local I, Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local f' Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Lrl Local Local 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,530 2,500 2,500 ? 2,500 2,500 2,509 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 7 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2 2,500 2, ,00 2,500 2,500 Table 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CIRCILATICN ELEMENT EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS EXISTING EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY EXISTING EXISTING ESTIMATED LENGTH STRIPING/ WIDTH WIDTH PAVEMENT PAVEMENT FUNCTIONAL DAILY AVG. DAILY ROADWAY FROM/TO Niles) GEOMETRICS (feet) (feet) TYPE , CONDITION I CLASSIFICATION VOLUME CAPACITY.' Prospect Ave./Harper Ave. 0.11 2 lanes 27 40 Asphalt Local 2.500 0 22nd Street The Strand/Hermosa Ave. 0.04 4--lanc/rKNettyia4,...r' 39 60 Asphalt Local 2,500 Hermosa Ave. /Ftrk-Ave. M ANH/a rT/9lu4s(�0.10 2 lanes 39 80 Asphalt Local 2.500 27th Court Ozone Ct./Morningside Dr. • 0.10 2 lanes 13 20 Concrete Local 2,500 41110, 27th Street Hermosa/Manhattan 0.04 1 lane 25 40 Concrete Local 2,500 Greenwich Village/Morningside Dr. 0.12 2 lanes 31 40 Asphalt Local • 6,L0 2,500 20th Place Harper Ave./Prospect Ave. 0.10 2 lanes 25 40 Asphalt Local 2,500 19th Street Harper Ave./Prospect Ave. 0.12 2 lanes 25 40 Asphalt Local 2,500 20th Court Beach Dr./Hermosa Ave. 0.04 2 lanes 17 20 Asphalt Local 2,500 19th Court Beach Dr./Hermosa Ave. 0.07 2 lanes 20 20 Asphalt Local 2,500 17th Court Beach Dr./Hermosa Ave. . 0.08 2 lanes 17 20 Asphalt Local 2,500 28th Street Hermosa Ave./Valley Dr. 0.26 2 lanes 29 50 Asphalt Local 2,500 29th Street Hermosa Ave./Valley Dr. 0.26 2 lanes 25 40 Concrete Local 2,500 29th Court Palm Dr./Ingleside Dr. 0.23 1 lane 14 15 Asph.-Conc. Local 2,500 Longfellow Avenue Hermosa Ave./Valley Dr. 0.28 2 lanes 38 60 Asphalt Local 2,670 2,500 Admore Ave./PCH 0.31 2 lanes 32 60 Concrete Local 2,500 30th Place Palm Dr./Valley Dr. 0.26 2 lanes 12 15 Asph.-Conc. Local 2,500 30th Street Hermosa Ave./Manhattan 0.12 2 lanes 16 40 Concrete Local 2,500 Manhattan/Morningside Dr. 0.05 2 lanes 25 40 Concrete Local 2,500 Morningside Dr./Ardmore Ave. 0.13 2 lanes 25 40 Concrete Local 2,500 Ardmore Ave./Sepuveda Blvd. 0.30 2 lanes 32 50 Asphalt Local 730 2.500 Alley n/o 30th St. Pacific Coast Hwy./ w/o Tennyson P1. 0.20 1 lane 10 10 Concrete Local 800 31st Place Palm Drive/Valley Drive 0.23 1 lane 9 10 Concrete Local 2,500 31st Street Hermosa Ave./Manhattan 0.05 2 lanes 25 40 Concrete Local 2,500 Manhattan/Valley Dr. 0.23 2 lanes _ 26 40 Concrete Local 2.500 32nd Place Palm Dr./Valley Dr. 0.15 I lane 9 - 10 Asph.-Conc. Local 2,500 33rd Place Palm Dr./Ingleside Dr. 0.22 2 lanes • 14 15 Asph.-Conc. Local r 2,500 Tablet CITY OF HERt1DSA BEACH CIRCULATION ELEMENT EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS EXISTING EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY EXISTING EXISTING ESTIMATED LENGTH STRIPING/ WIDTH WIDTH PAVEMENT PAVEMENT FUNCTIONAL DAILY AVG. DAILY ROADWAY FROM/TO (miles) GEOMETRICS (feet) (feet) TYPE CONDITION a CLASSIFICATION VOLUME CAPACITY*. 33rd Street Palm Dr./Morningside Dr. Morningside Dr./Ingleside Dr. 34th Place Palm Dr./Highland Ave. 34th Street Hermosa Ave./Highland Ave. Highland Ave./Morningside Dr. kiwi,/ 35th Street 18th Court 14th Court 14th Street Alley Adj to Pier 11th Court 10th Court 9th Court 9th Street 8th Court 8th Place 7th Street 7th Court 6th Court 7th Place Hermosa Ave./Manhattan Ave. Manhattan Ave./Highland Ave. Highland Ave./Morningside Dr. Beach Dr./Hermosa Ave. • Beach Dr./Hermosa Ave. Hermosa Ave./Manhattan Ave. PCH/Prospect Ave. Prospect Ave./East Dead End /WA SPRAt4V/ HEKj06n Aor Loma Dr./Bard St. Beach Dr./Hermosa Ave. Beach Dr./Hermosa Ave. Beach Dr./Hermosa Ave. Ardmore Ave./Prospect Ave. Prospect Ave./Reynolds Ln. 57i?- st'D//,'/-=R. AV Beach Dr./Hermosa Ave. Ardmore Ave./Prospect Ave. e/o Ardmore Ave. PCH/Prospect Ave. Prospect Ave./Reynolds Ln. Sr/7Akv/ HM A✓, Beach Dr./Hermosa Ave. Beach Dr./Hermosa Ave. Prospect Ave./Reynolds Ln. 0.14 2 lanes 25 40 Concrete Local 2,500 0.08 2 lanes 35 40 Conc.-Asph. Local 2,500 0.09 1 lane B 10 Asph.-Conc. Local 2,500 0.10 2 lanes 25 40 Concrete Local 2,500 0.05 2 lanes 25 40 Concrete Local 2,500 0.04 2 lanes 28 40 Asphalt Local 2,500 0.05 2 lanes 25 40 Asphalt Local 2,500 0.06 2 lanes 25 40 Asphalt Local 2,500 0.08 2 lanes 17 20 Asphalt Local 2,500 0.08 1 lane 13 20 Asphalt Local 2.500 0.04 2 lanes 25 60 Asphalt Local 2,500 0.24 2 lanes 25 40 Asphalt Local 2,500 0.08 2 lanes 25 40 Asphalt Local 2,500 i .02 1tk4L=70. 2 04Anq 39 66 n if ,kms ? C- 0.10 2 lanes 20 20 Asphalt Local 2.500 N i 0.06 1 lane 17 20 Concrete Local 2,500 0.06 2 lanes 17 20 Asphalt Local 2,500 0.06 2 lanes 17 20 Asphalt Local 2,500 0.33 2 lanes 24 40 Asph.-Conc. Local 2,500 . 0.18 2 lanes 27 40 Conc.-Asph. Local 2.500 •ca WALK 6T: /6 6D if '' r 0.05 2 lanes 18 20 Asphalt Local 2,500 0.31 2 lanes 24 40 Concrete Local 2,500 0.05 2 lanes 25 40 Asphalt Local 2,500 0.19 2 lanes 24 40-60 Asphalt Local 2,500 0.27 2 lanes 26 40 Concrete Local 2,500 07 VIALI{ $ T. /6 6 D 0.05 2 lanes 20 Jeff- 20 Asphalt Local 2,500 0.05 2 lanes 43'Zo 20 Asphalt Local 2.500 0.15 2 lanes 27 40 Concrete Local 2,500 Tablet CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CIRCLLATION ELETIENT EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS EXISTING EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY EXISTING EXISTING ESTIMATED LENGTH STRIPING/ WIDTH WIDTH PAVEMENT PAVEMENT FUNCTIONAL DAILY AVG. DAILY ROADWAY FROM/TO (miles) GEOMETRICS (feet) (feet) TYPE CONDITION a CLASSIFICATION VOLUME CAPACITY.. fi1i r 1' . 2134 Gtrect J 1 211ermosa Ave./Manhattan Ave. 0.04 2 lanes- 30 60 A.p)..lt L,xal 4,400 / 28th Court Palm Dr./Morningside Dr. 0-6 1 lane 12 15 Concrete Local 2,500 Morningside Dr./Deadend 0.02 I lane Il 15 Concrete Local 2,500 29th Court Palm Dr./Ingleside Dr. 0.23 I lane 12 15 Asphalt Local 2,500 35th Place Palm Dr./Manhattan Ave. 0.02 1 lane 9 10 Asphalt Local 2,500 1410, Neptune Ave. Strand/Manhattan Ave. 0.05 1 lane 15 25 Concrete Local 2,500 Boundary Place Ardmore Ave./Pacific Coast Hwy. 0.31 2 lanes 20 20 Asphalt Local 2,500 NORTH -SOUTH STREETS Harper Avenue Artesia Blvd./Ormond Aveiation/to s/o 11th P1. Vista Drive 33rd P1./33rd St. Crest Drive 33rd St./35th St. Bayview Drive 34th St./35th St. El Oeste Street n/o Gould Ave. Ava Avenue s/o 21st St. Springfield Avenue s/o 21st St. Prospect Avenue Artesia Blvd./21st St. 21st St./Aviation Blvd. Aviation Blvd./Anita St. Alley w/o Prospect Av 6th St to north deadend Pacific Coast Highway N. of Artesia Blvd./Artesia Blvd. (State Route I) Artesia Blvd./300' S. of Artesia Blvd. 300' S. of Artesia Blvd./Pier Ave. Pier Ave./Herondo St. Alley w/o PCH Alley e/o PCH Alley e/o PCH 30th St./Gould Ave. 19th St./20th St. 20th St./21st St. 0.35 1 lane 15 20 Asphalt Local 2,500 0.13 2 lanes 24 40 Asphalt Local 2,500 0.02 1 lane 12 20 Concrete Local 800 0.05 2 lanes 20 20 Concrete Local 2,500 0.02 1 lanes 12 20 Concrete Local 800 0.10 2 lanes 30 40 Asphalt Local 2,500 0.10 2 lanes 25 40 Concrete Local 2,500 0.11 2 lanes 25 40 Concrete Local 2,500 0.11 4 lanes 64 80 Asphalt Collector 8,400 22,000 0.55 2 lanes 36 80 Asphalt Collector 15,000 0.66 2 lanes 30 80 Cement Collector 17,250 15,000 .0.03 1 lane 10 10 Concrete Local 800 n/a 3 lanes nb,2 lanes sb wised 74 90 Asphalt Arterial N/A 36,000 0.06 4 lanes wised 74 90 Asphalt Arterial 26,000 0.51 3 lanes nb,2 lanes sb wilt 74 90 Asphalt Arterial. 50,000 36,000 0.78 3 lanes nb,2 lanes sb 74 90 Asphalt Arterial , 46,000 36,000 0.18 1 lane • 10 10 Concrete Local B00 0.02 I lane 10 10 Concrete Local BOO 0.04 1 lane 10 10 Concrete Local 800 Tablet CITY OF IERMX)SA BEACH CIRCIIATION ELEMENT EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS EXISTING EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY EXISTING EXISTING ESTIMATED LENGTH STRIPING/ WIDTH WIDTH PAVEMENT PAVEMENT FUNCTIONAL DAILY AVG. DAILY ROADWAY FROM/TO (miles) GEDMETRICS (feet) (feet) TYPE CZ DITIOH f CLASSIFICATION VOLUME CAPACITY*. Alley e/o PCH 4th St./5th St. 0.06 I lane 10 10 Concrete Local 800 Alley w/o PCH North and South of lith St. 0.05 1 lane 10 10 Concrete Local 800 Alley w/o PCH 6th Street to deadend 0.02 l lane 10 10 Concrete Local 800 Ardmore Avenue Boundary Pl./Gould Ave. 0.21 2 lanes 24 30 Asphalt Collector 8,500 15,000 Gould Ave./Pier Ave. 0.74 2 lanes 24 30 Asphalt Collector 7,250 15,000 Pier Ave./8th St. 0.30 2 lanes 24 30 Asphalt Local 5,150 15,000 8th St./end near 1st St. 0.44 2 lanes 24 40 Asphalt Local 3,200 15,000 %imo,' Valley Drive Longfellow Ave./Gould Ave. 0.23 2 lanes 24 40 Asphalt Local 9,100 15,000 Gould Ave./Pier Ave. 0.74 2 lanes 24 40 Asphalt Local 6,400 15,000 Pier Ave./8th St. 0.30 2 lanes 24 30 Asphalt Collector 6,800 15,000 8th St./Herondo St. 0.47 2 lanes 24 30 Asphalt Collector 5,550 15,000 22nd Street/ Park Ave./Pier Ave. Monterey Boulevard Pier Ave./Herondo St. Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Avenue Ozone Court 0.47 2 lanes 40 80 Asphalt Collector 15,000 0.73 2 lanes 40 80 Asphalt Local 7,200 15,000 1st St. (in Manhattan Beach)/34th St. 0.08 2 lanes 48 80 Asphalt Collector 15,000 34th St./27th St. 0.27 2 lanes 30 40 Asphalt Collector 13,200 15,000 27th St./Pier Ave. 0.76 2 lanes 40 60 Asphalt Local 5,950 15,000 Pier Ave./1st. St. 0.61 2 lanes 40 60 Asphalt Local 1,300 15,000 35th St./27th St. 27th St./14th St. 14th St./10th St. 10th St./Herondo St. 27th St./Loma Dr. 0.36 2 lanes w/med 48 90 Asphalt Local 3,700 2,500 0.66 4 lanes w/sed 84 100 Asphalt Collector 13,200 22,000 0.21 4 lanes wised 80 100 Asphalt Arterial 29,000 0.57 4 lanes weed 84 100 Asphalt Arterial 17,550 29,000 0.16 1 lane 18 20 Asph.-Conc. Local 2,500 Palm Drive Herondo St./1st St. 0.07 2 lanes 18 20 Concrete Local (alley) 2,500 '`/ 1st St./19th St. 0.43 2 lanes 18 20 Asphalt Local 2,500 19th St./21st St. 0.13 2 lanes 18 40 Asphalt Local 2,500 21st St./27th St. 0.26 2 lanes 20 20 Asphalt Local 2,500 27th St./Neptune Ave. 0.30 1 lane 18 20 Asphalt Local 2,500 Sunset Drive 6th St./Pier Ave. 0.37 1 lane 18 20 Asphalt Local 2,500 Circle Drive Manhattan Ave./Manhattan Ave. 0.05 2 lanes 20 60 Asphalt Local 2,500 Morningside Dr. 25th St./Porter Ln. 0.07 2 lanes 23 40 Asphalt Local 2,500 26th St./33rd St. 0.25 2 lanes 25 40 Conc.-Asph. Local 1,640 2,500 Ingleside Dr. 28th St./33rd St. 0.13 2 lanes 23 40 Concrete Local 2,500 Highland Ave. Longfellow Ave./35th St. 0.07 2 lanes 30 60 Asphalt Local 9,140 15,000 Tablet CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CIRCILATION ELEMENT EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS EXISTING EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY EXISTING EXISTING ESTIMATED LENGTH STRIPING/ WIDTH WIDTH PAVEMENT PAVEMENT FUNCTIONAL DAILY AVG. DAILY ROADWAY FROM/TO ( (miles) 6EOMETRICS (feet) (feet) TYPE CONDITION a CLASSIFICATION VOLUME CAPACITY+a --------------------------- -------------- Oceanview Ave. 3rd St./5th St. 1 0.10 2 lanes 20-25 40 Concrete Local 2,500 Hopkins Avenue 3rd St./5th St. 0.09 2 lanes 28 40 Asphalt Local 2,500 Meyer Court s/o and n/o 1st St. 0.03 2 lanes 29 40 Asphalt Local 2,500 Barney Court 1st St./1st P1. 0.04 2 lanes 27 40 Asphalt Local 2,500 limW Gravely Court s/o 6th St. 0.01 1 lane 20 Concrete Local 2,500 Pine Street 5th St./6th St. 0.05 2 lanes 20 40 Asphalt Local 2,500 Ocean Drive 8th St./8th P1. 0.03 2 lanes 23 40 Concrete Local 2,500 8th-P1./Aviation Bl. 0.09 2 lanes 24 40 Asphalt Local 2,500 Aviation 81./14th St. 0.13 2 lanes 19 20 Asphalt Local 2,500 14th St./15th Pl. 0.04 2 lanes 19 20-30 Asphalt Local 2,500 Hermosa View Drive s/o 30th St. 0.06 2 lanes 32 40 Asphalt Local 2,500 Braeholm Place s/o 30th 5t.0.06 2 lanes 22 40 Asphalt Local (I 2,500 1 Aady Place s/o 30th St. 0.06 2 lanes 20 40 Asphalt Local 2,500 Tennyson Place Boundary Av./s/o 30th St. 0.17 2 lanes 20-30 40-50 Asphalt Local 2.500 Alley w/o Tennyson P1 Longfellow/30th St. 0.04 1 lane 10 10 Concrete Local 600 La Carlita Place s/o 30th St. 0.04 2 lanes 28 40 Asphalt Local 2,500 Beach Drive Hermosa/24th St. , 1.20 1 lane 8-12 10-20 Asphalt Local 2,500 Alley e/o Beach Dr. 21st St./22nd St. 0.01 1 lane 10 10 Concrete Local 800 Culper Court 2nd St./4th St. 0.10 1 lane 18 30 Asphalt Local 2,500 Bayview Drive 1st St./I9th St. 0.87 1 lane 15 20 Asphalt Local 2,500 19th St./Circle Dr. 0.01 2 lane 20 40 Asphalt Local 2,500 Loma Drive s/o 6th St. to Pier Ave. 0.42 2 lanes 27 40 ' Asphalt Local 2,500 Pier Ave. to n/o 16th St. 0.02 2 lanes 25 35 Asphalt Local 2,500 s/o 19th St. to Palm Dr. 0.32 2 lanes 18 20-35 Asphalt Local 2,500 ' Cypress Avenue s/o 6th St./n/o 8th St. 0.16 2 lanes 26 40 Asphalt Local 2,500 lith St./Pier Ave. 0.13 2 lanes 25 30-40 Asphalt Local 2,500 • Bard Street 5 Alley/11th Pl. 0.08 2 lanes 44 60 Asphalt Local 2,500 Table 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CIRCULATION ELEMENT EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS EXISTING EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY EXISTING EXISTING ESTIIA(ED LENGTH STRIPING/ WIDTH WIDTH PAVEMENT PAVEMENT FUNCTIONAL DAILY AVG. DAILY ROADWAY FROM/TO (miles) GEOMETRICS (feet) (feet) TYPE CONDITION a CLASSIFICATION VOLUME CAPACITYaa n/o 8th St. 0.05 1 lane 23 40 Asphalt Local 2,500 Hill Street Ardmore Ave./Second St. 0.07 2 lanes 25 40 Concrete Local 2,500 Cochise Avenue w/o 4th St. 0.02 1 lane 20 30 Asphalt Local 2.500 Valley Park Avenue s/o 20th St. 0.14 2 lanes 25 40 Asphalt Local 2,500 stsir/ Power Street 24th St./20th St. 0.13 2 lanes 25 40 Asphalt Local 2,500 Park Avenue 25th St. to Monterey 81. 0.12 2 lanes 30 60 Asphalt Local 2,500 Silverstrand Avenue 24th St./26th St. 0.11 2 lanes 30 60 Asphalt Local 2.500 zb Myrtle Avenue 24th St./254r8t. 0.10 2 lanes 28 60 Asphalt Local 2,500 Gentry Street Prospect Ave./6th St. 0.05 4 lanes 28 30-40 Concrete Local 2.500 3rd St./Prospect Ave. 0.08 4 lanes 28 40 Concrete Local 2,500 Hollowell Avenue Prospect Ave./7th Pt. Prospect Ave./3rd St. 3rd St./2nd St. Massey Avenue Prospect Ave./5th St. 0.13 2 lanes 26 40 Concrete Local 2,500 0.03 2 lanes 26 40 Concrete Local 2,500 0.03 2 lanes 28 40 Concrete Local 2.500 0.08 2 lanes 27 40 Asphalt Local 2,500 Owosso Avenue 9th St./Aviation B1. 0.06 2 lanes 25 40 Concrete Local 2.500 Aviation B1./14th St. 0.11 2 lanes -25 60 Asphalt Local 2,500 Corona Street Aviation B1./Prospect Ave. 0.12 2 lanes 25 40 Asphalt Local 2,500 Bonnie Brae Street Aviation B1./16th St. .0.16 2 lanes 24 40 Asphalt Local 2.500 Campana Street Bonnie Brae St./Prospect Ave. 0.10 2 lanes 30 40 Asphalt Local 2.500 Mira Street 15th Pl./16th St. 0.06 2 lanes 19 40 Asphalt Local 2,500 Raymond Avenue 16th St./17th St. 0.05 2 lanes 25 40 Asphalt Local 2,500 Rhodes Street 18th St./21st St. 0.17 2 lanes 20 40 Asphalt Local 2,500 n/o 21st St. 0.05 2 lanes 20 20 Asphalt Local 2,500 Borden Avenue n/o 21st St. 0.05 2 lanes 30 40 Asphalt Local 2,500 Hillcrest Drive 18th St./21st St. 0.18 2 lanes 25 40 Asphalt Local 2.500 21st St/24th St. 0.03 2 lanes 28 Asphalt Local 2,500 ROADWAY Aubrey Court Golden Avenue Silver Street Table 1 CITY OF IERMOSA BEACH CIRCULATION ELEMENT EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS EXISTING EXISTING RI6NT-OF-WAY EXISTING EXISTING ESTIMA(ED LENGTH STRIPING/ WIDTH WIDTH PAVEMENT PAVEMENT FUNCTIONAL DAILY AVG. DAILY FROM/TO------- ( (miles) GEEOMETRICS (feet) (feet) TYPE CONDITION I CLASSIFICATION VOLUME CAPACITY** Aviation B1./Aubrey Pk. 1 0.06 2 lanes 18 20 Asphalt Local 2,500 n/o 15th St. 0.10 2 lanes 28 40 Concrete Local 2,500 n/o and s/o 17th St. 0.06 2 lanes 25 40 Asphalt Local 2.500 n/o 15th St. 0.07 2 lanes 28 40 Concrete Local 2,500 NOTES: N/A - Not Applicable (outside City boundary) * To be provided by the City ** Capacity figure represents average daily capacity and is based upon facility type and number of lanes EXHIBIT E / CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM ✓' DATE: October 9, 1989 TO: Planning Director Michael S'chubach FROM: City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft OCT 1 0 1989 RE: Comments on Draft Circulation, Transportation and Parking Element of the General Plan ***************************************************************** Overall, I was quite impressed with the thoroughness of the ele- ment as prepared by DKS. I have several comments and suggestions following my review, and am providing them via this memo per your suggestion. 1. On Page 10, Implementation Policy 1.8, bike grade separa- tions would be of little value if not coordinated with other cities. Cost of grade separations would seem to make their likelihood somewhat remote. This is especially considering the short distance traveled between stop signs at most cross streets to the Greenbelt, and the deference paid to pedes- trians and bicyclists at those crossings. 2. On Page 12, Implementation Policy 3.7, suggest requiring the use of garages for parking. An easy and valuable way to encourage this is to require garage door openers on all new housing and remodeling. This suggestion could be added to this implementation policy and then incorporated in our codes. 3. On Page 24, peak hour warrants are met at Ardmore and Pier but. not indicated at Valley and Pier, which seems to have the same if not greater traffic volumes. 4. On Page 25, it indicates approximately 900 vehicles travel entirely through the City on PCH during the afternoon peak hour. This seems to be a low figure, though possibly is correct. 5. On Page 32, the study indicates that accidents will be re- duced and a thousand more vehicles per hour would be able to use PCH during peak periods ifthe parking restriction were implemented. This is not unlike the information we have received many times from Caltrans and others, i.e., conclu- sions without justification. The report needs to answer how these benefits result when the roadway narrows again to two lanes when entering Redondo Beach. 6. This is a minor item, but on Page 33, under the recommenda tions at the top of the page, it indicates Police enforce- ment should be provided to discourage illegal parking. In -33-- 1 our City, parking enforcement is handled by General Services. 7. On Page 64, there is reference to Lots A, B, and C in the downtown area. There are other off-street parking lots owned by the City in or at least near the downtown area that probably should be referenced here. - 8. On Page 65, the first paragraph needs to be checked for ac- curacy. The permit cost appears to be in error, and those eligible to purchase parking permits seems questionable. If near downtown parking were made available via a shuttle, perhaps merchants and employees could be required to use the shuttle by eliminating their eligibility for closer -in parking. Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager KBN/ld EXHIBIT F CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Michael Schubach, Planning Director FROM: Joan Noon, General Services Director SUBJECT: Comments to the Circulation Element DATE: September 27, 1989 1. Annual parking permits cost $25.00. 2. 4 lots missing: Lot "E" - off 3rd Street behind Habash Cafe; lot "F" at corner of 15th & Beach (part of Biltmore Site may not want to include); lot "G" off 4th Street east of Pacific Coast Highway and lot "H" motorcycle lot in 14th behind 7-11. 3. Residential parking permits are also available to merchants and employees of the district in an annual not monthly basis - VPD lot permits are available to merchants and employees in monthly basis. DRAFT CIRCULATION, TRANSPORTATION, AND PARKING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated September 27, 1989. He suggested that the public hearing be opened to allow public input, that staff and the consultants be directed as deemed appropriate, and that this matter be continued to the meeting of November 21, 1989, for the purpose of obtaining additional input and recommendations. In January 1986 the City Council directed staff to submit a budget proposal for FY86-87 regarding revising the Circulation Element. In January of 1987 Requests for Proposals were sent to ten consulting firms. In July 1987 a contract was signed between DKS Associates and the City to prepare the element. The Planning Staff has examined the draft document submitted by DKS Associates and is pleased with the document in general. However, the planning staff does concur with the Public Works Department staff as indicated in the memorandum provided. Public Hearing opened at 10:13 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Michael Meyer and Gary Hamrick, DKS Associates, made a presentation regarding the element. Mr. Meyer showed view -graphs on the overhead projector which included actual pages from the Draft Circulation, Transportation, and Parking Element dated June 1989 and prepared by DKS Associates. Mr. Meyer discussed the actual cover of the document and the table of contents, including the introduction; goals, objectives, and policies; existing circulation system conditions; transportation; parking; and glossary. Mr. Meyer discussed key issues which were addressed in the report: traffic congestion; locations where intersections are above the acceptable level of service; through traffic, and non-residential through traffic; the levels of congestion on Pacific Coast Highway; prohibition of parking during peak hours on P.C.H.; and a projection of future traffic volumes on the City streets. Mr. Meyer discussed the key issues in the transportation section: . various modes of transportation, including rapid transit; truck routes and their locations as well as potential new truck routes to the commercial areas; and bicycle routes and their locations and the types of uses generated by bicycle use. Mr. Meyer commented on the key issues in the parking section: location of existing parking deficiencies and proposed new parking areas; impact of future growth and zoning and what types of parking will be required for the future land uses in the City; evaluation of the pros and cons of changing parking on Hermosa Avenue; and evaluation of the elimination of peak hour parking along Pacific Coast Highway. Mr. Meyer continued: (1) showed the previous traffic circulation element, and he explained the purpose of an element; (2) discussed collector, arterial, and local streets and their purposes; (3) showed a view -graph of the existing traffic volumes, including Pacific Coast Highway and -Artesia; (4) showed an illustration of intersections as they relate to peak hour levels of service and their indicators; (5) discussed likely future developments, projecting into the year 2010; (6) discussed the level of growth as it is factored into adjacent communities and the corresponding projections; (7) talked about the license plate survey done along P.C.H. in an attempt to study the traffic entering the City from the north and where those cars were going; (8) discussed the pattern of distribution of the traffic throughout the City; (9) discussed Valley and Ardmore and their volumes and usage and the recommendation that they both function as collectors throughout the City; (10) recommended that Longfellow and Highland also function as --37 P.C. Minutes 10/3/89 v:.saBFtr collectors and be designated as such; (11) all other arterials should continue to be designated as such. Mr. Meyer briefly summarized the section on goals, policies, and objectives. He said that the overall goal for all three elements is to provide a balanced transportation system for the safe and efficient transport of people and goods consistent with the goals of the Land Use Element. Mr. Meyer stated that there are four main objectives: (1) to maximize the use of alternative transportation modes and multi -passenger vehicles for transportation within and through the City and decrease reliance on single passenger automobiles; (2) to protect the environment on local residential streets by minimizing the intrusion of vehicular traffic and parking into residential neighborhoods; (3) to ensure an adequate supply of parking, both on -street and off-street, to meet the needs of both residents and commercial businesses; and (4) to develop and construct transportation improvements to provide the capacity and performance necessary to meet the service needs of the public while preserving open space and the special environmental quality of the City. Mr. Meyer stated that a summary of recommendations can be found in Section 3, beginning on Page 31. The recommendations include: (1) limiting parking along P.C.H. during peak hours; (2) .various alternatives for Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue; (3) installing signals at various intersections where future traffic volumes will increase; (4) maintaining Valley and Ardmore as two-way streets; (5) putting in one-way streets only in selected portions of the north end of the City; (6) increasing parking requirements for restaurants; (7) continued pursuit of studying parking structures and shuttle systems; (8) suggested that angled parking not be implemented on Hermosa Avenue. Mr. Meyer continued by briefly summarizing some of the other recommendations contained in various sections of the element. Tyna Winters, 425 Gould Avenue: (1) discussed at length the configuration of Gould Avenue and recommended that it have a 25 MPH speed limit; (2) described the noise and traffic problems on Gould Avenue; (3) wanted to have bump patterns on the street in order to reduce the speed; (4) requested that parking at the park continue to be non - metered; (5) asked that there be adequate signage on the street; and (6) requested that the center sign be moved over two feet. Jim Lissner, 2715 El Oeste: (1) did not support the removal of parking along Pacific Coast Highway and continued by discussing problems which would result from such removal; (2) dicussed fumes and noise along Valley and Ardmore; (3) felt that Valley/Ardmore travelers will not use Pacific Coast Highway; (4) discussed the number of traffic lanes in Hermosa and the resulting increase in the number of cars by adding additional lanes by removal of parking lanes; (5) did not think that traffic in the City will decrease; (6) discussed what has happened in Manhattan Beach since parking lanes have been removed from the highway, commenting on the number accidents which have occurred; (7) commented on parking which will spill into the residential neighborhoods if parking is removed from the highway. Mr. Lissner went on: (1) he recommended that the new circulation element provide for two left-hand turn lanes at westbound Artesia to south -bound P.C.H.; (2) he favored a 25 MPH speed limit on Gould Avenue; (3) he discussed methods by which speed calculations are determined; (4) he wanted to reclassify Gould as a local street, so that the speed could be lowered to 25 MPH; (5) he discussed neighborhood attempts to reclassify Gould and the problems which have been encountered in that effort; (6) he urged the -38- . - :+.' �-..�,ani•�..:'-k.r:•'°a:�::+r:.'.;.8., Commission to consider redesignating Gould; (7) he presented letters from the Prices and the Adams (both residents on El Oeste) requesting that the speed limit on Gould be 25 MPH. (Comm. Peirce left Council Chambers at 10:53 P.M.) Tyna Winters, 425 Gould Avenue: (1) stated that she has appeared several times requesting a 25 MPH speed limit on Gould and 100 percent of the neighbors want to have the speed limit lowered; (2) said that everyone favors the small speed bumps; (3) said that most people do not care for the one -block long bike path, which took away six parking spaces from Gould Avenue; (4) stated that 100 percent of the people on Gould Avenue desire to have two lanes turning onto P.C.H.; (5) questioned the consultant as to why a 25 MPH posted speed limit is not possible on Gould. Mr. Meyer explained how speed limits are determined for various streets, stating that surveys are done before a final decision is made. Jim Lissner, 2715 El Oeste, asked the consultant how streets are reclassified from collector and arterial status to local street status. Mr. Meyer responded by explaining how streets are redesignated, stating that a redesignation would not automatically change how the traffic is handled on the street. He noted that traffic volumes must also be taken into account. He stated that it is not appropriate to reclassify a street, making it at odds with how the street is actually being utilized. Comm. Moore discussed the angle of redesignating streets for the purpose of using radar enforcement, and he asked for the consultant's opinion. • • Mr. Meyer stated that he hE,s not studied that issue, but noted that he could return with additional information at the next meeting. Chmn. Rue stated that this issue will be continued to the meeting of November 21, 1989. Chmn. Rue, noting that Comm. Peirce had to leave the meeting, read the written list of comments given to him by Comm. Peirce: (1) he favored the elimination of parking on the west side of P.C.H. in the evening; (2) he supported a parking structure downtown; (3) he opposed further work on additional signal installation in the city; (4) he opposed one- way streets; (5) he did not favor the widening of Ardmore/Valley; (6) he opposed any new street construction; (7) he opposed any bike path along the greenbelt; (7) he wanted to leave the Gould speed limit as is, 35 MPH. Comm. Ingell: (1) favored a parking structure downtown; (2) opposed the widening of Valley/Ardmore; (3) questioned the wisdom of removing parking on southbound P.C.H. during peak hours without first providing parking elsewhere. Comm. Moore: (1) stated that he will take into consideration how many businesses would be affected by removal of parking along the highway; (2) noted concern over traffic accidents and lack of a safety analysis; (3) noted concern over truck weight on streets and possible damage caused by vibrations; (4) discussed the Pier Avenue crossing by Ardmore and noted concern over additional traffic and its effect on other streets; (5) discussed the limited ability to travel Valley and Ardmore; (6) questioned whether there would be any benefit to the City to have more back -and -forth connections between Valley and Ardmore, especially between Pier Avenue and 27th Street because of the great grade difference. 39 R.C. Minutes 10/3/89 Chmn. Rue: (1) questioned whether the issue of adding one-way streets in the south end of town could be addressed, especially as it would relate to parking; (2) questioned the feasibility of 8th Street being one-way westbound, and 2nd Street being one-way eastbound; (3) commented that crosswalks have been removed along Valley and Ardmore and questioned whether it has been beneficial. MOTION by Chmn. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell; to continue this matter to the meeting of November 21, 1989. AYES: Comms. Ingell, Moore, Chmn. Rue NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Peirce P.C. Minutes 10/3/89 ,A,e; City of 2lermosa Teack ..) David R. Suess 1246 First Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mr. Suess: Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 November 30, 1989 NOV 3 0 1989 I am writing in response to your letter of November 27, 1989, regarding traffic on Prospect Avenue. As your letter reflects, the long awaited circulation element is finally being processed through for approval. It has now been before the Planning Commission, and goes before the City Council for public hearing at the meeting of December 12, 1989. Your appearance and testimony at that meeting is invited. I have discussed your letter with the Planning Director, who con- firms that all correspondence from you and others regarding cir- culation element matters was provided both to the consultant and to the Planning Commission as part of their packet. While the plan may not be reflecting the recommendations that you favor, that should not be confused with the fact that the concerns you have were considered. Unfortunately, traffic is a very complex matter, and our City, like others, has learned that mitigating a traffic concern in one area frequently aggravates similar con- cerns in other areas. Thank you for your patience and interest in this important issue for our community. Sincerely yours, Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager KBN/ld cc: Planning City Council NOV 28 1989 Kevin B. Northcraft, City Manager Civic Center, 1315 Valley Dr. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Good day, 1246 First St. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 November 27, 1989 I have been writing to ask what is being planned to mitigate traffic problems on Prospect south of Prospect for almost two years. The response has been that the new Circulation Element was being awaited. Now that study has been delivered; unfortunately, it paid little attention to Prospect. It has been my contention that Hermosa should not be providing a service to non-resident commuters at Hermosa taxpayer expense and to the detriment of the quality of life for residents of that neighborhood (and negative impact on local businesses, as well). It has been pointed out that Prospect is a collector. This is the intent and the plan, but it is not the current use of the street south of Aviation. A collector is designed for local traffic, but the traffic on that stretch is primarily traffic taking a shortcut between a North Redondo arterial (Aviation) and South Redondo arterials (190th, and the 4 -lane Prospect corridor in Redondo). Further, the maximum traffic volume for a collector (as the updated Circulation Element shows) is being exceeded by a significant amount along 'south Prospect. Together, these show that the circulation plan is not working as intended: local residents are not being served by a collector that is overloaded on a daily basis, and local businesses are not being served by allowing the diversion of non -local traffic through a residential, rather than business, corridor. Certainly, residents along Prospect are ill -served by the commuter traffic (commuters at least have a choice between PCH and Prospect: since I live on a one-way street that empties onto Prospect, I have no choice) that makes noise, pollution, congestion, and a cracking, battered road surface a daily reminder that our interests are not being adequately considered by the City in allowing this condition to persist. Not only is the Circulation Element deficient in addressing the south Prospect traffic problem, the preparers of the element, DKS Associates, made a statement in the November 21 meeting of the Planning Commission that seems outrageous. The representative (Mr. Meyer) stated that the only real way to reduce traffic volume on Prospect was to reduce the volume of traffic across the board. This is certainly not true: I can think of several possibilities off the top of my head: • Make Prospect one-way south from Aviation to 5th St. and one-way north from Anita(190th) to 5th St (or vice versa). • Install a barricade to through traffic at 5th St., along with signage to prevent circumvention by using 6th St. • Repeat the attempt from 1979 by preventing rush-hour left turns from Aviation onto Prospect (and this time use signage to prevent use of Ocean as a circumvention). • Obtain the cooperation of Redondo Beach in discouraging through traffic (such as a rush-hour right -turn -only condition at the south end of Prospect at Anita and measures to discourage morning -hour traffic as well). • Install a barricade at 2nd St. • Strictly enforce traffic laws (speeds, stops, weights). Although the above do not serve as long-term solutions to finding routes for through traffic, they will discourage commuter shortcuts. The utility of Prospect as a collector may suffer, but that utility is already suffering. The Easy Reader of November 23 ran a story on how Redondo Beach was addressing commuter congestion in their community, listing several of the approaches being considered (and the chart showing the traffic volume for their problem streets shows that their volumes are all less than that of south Prospect here). I hope and expect that Hermosa Beach will take similar action. Finally, I have written nine letters to the City in the last twenty months. The last two, written in August and September, directly concerned the updated Circulation Element. Those last two letters, sent to the Planning Director, with copies to the City Manager (and a copy of the September letter to the City Council, as well), have received no response. In a letter from the City Manager a year ago last spring, it was stated that the City would pass my comments about traffic on Prospect to the preparers of the Element. As far as I know, this was never done; certainly, the Element in its current version is inadequate at addressing the topic. I would appreciate acknowledgment of the receipt of my last two letters and information about any action that was taken as a result of my comments, and I would appreciate an answer to my question: What are the City's plans for mitigating traffic problems on Prospect south of Aviation? Thank you, David R. Suess cc: Michael Schubach, Planning Director Hermosa Beach City Council iriAz4e, 01'7-774 7-- 2 e ts-Ly 6z - 21:0 21- e-1"'-'1":4-- - - e A • 4)2 a 6-2-7 es> . Charlotte Musser 401 Gould Ave. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 NOV 8 1g89 1801 Rhodes Street Hermosa Beach, Ca 90254 Chairman and Members, Planning Commission City of Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach City Hall Hermosa Beach, Ca 90254 October 22, 1989 Dear Sirs: I support every effort to eliminate weekday afternoon parking on the West side of Pacific Coast Highway from the Northern city limits, South to Herondo. We need to reduce traffic on residential side streets adjacent to PCH, and not incidently, ease the South bound rush hour traffic flow. Sincerely, (--liNE2) ,-- Bruce Beatty OCT 2 5 1989 a�.....oLr G.nn..w Members of the Planning Commission City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Dr. Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254 Dear Members: 451 Gould Avenue Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254 October 23, 1989 OCT 2 c=, 1989 On behalf of my husband, Stephen, and myself, I urge you to limit the speed on Gould Avenue/27th St. to 25 MPH. This is a beach community gone awry. My husband bought here in 1970 before Hermosa Beach was discovered. In the last 19 years, there has been enormous growth, bringing increased traffic and noise. We no longer use our deck overlooking the park because of the noise from drivers who "gun" it from Valley Dr. to the stop sign at Morningside. There have been numerous accidents caused by speeders, resulting in property damage to homes and vehicles parked outside on our block. We have lost 3 pets to hit-and-run drivers. Our garage door was bashed in by a speeder (who fortunately could not get away because he got caught up on the curb of our driveway). Police records will confirm other serious accidents and damage over the last few years. It is time to start showing some concern for the property owners in this area. Put aside your big development plans for a minute and become concerned for the people who live here and those who are out for recreational purposes on Gould Avenue (bicyclers, joggers, Moms with carriages, families using Valley Park). And, remember, there is no sidewalk on this block. WE NEED SPEED CONTROL! It's time to make a change, to put a stop to this insane and unnecessary speed and noise. This is NOT a collector street, like Pier Avenue. It is a RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY. Signage is not the answer. dots to slow these people down. -67—The road. Please. Give it a try!!! I urge you to install rumble Paint "25" in large letter Sincerely yours, Emily S. Mager � w4.%.4.�%a1�Ah4 i%Mt.Y4W.g yyi�ra+ �j ,:•,;;;:"i '-.:J_.�_ •� eFA9/iii�.NYaW / sydlq�iLfiM • X-'(21%—'c"0—+oK eA 9 • OCT Q 3 1989 F .c., a_a.�.„,_Q 11-12.— A.e_e_ 41x-v.c_ 7 41..,....,„ c.„,,, ia--a) .P71 .p h kit- ,Wit_ eel 4,y, 1444._ /0- �-'^ #...f.4•• 1--e_e.... e0 met Orr s., c• -a_ owe s� 4a -f- SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION l17-ez& 7S<AtrW644._ ‘V124LN / t1 18?._ A al.e- -%Pc/Ca4Y%t' 0(L . 4;14-1/ t;47 0 \? L), .5y0.? 4e_ e_splevs zl?_0c1 El. . c J o tAfL0 't 1 • Jim Lissner 2715 El Oeste Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 376-4626 September 26, 1989 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission: City Hall Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Honorable Commissioners: SEsp26ia On October 3 you will be considering the new Circulation Element of the General Plan. Residents of this neighborhood will be coming before you to talk about the effort to reduce the speeding on Gould Avenue. I have enclosed materials which are an attempt to reply to the many questions that have come up in the past. Please call me if you have any questions. C Recent history o.f the speed limit_on..Gould Avenue,. a. -, collector street in Hermosa Beach, California. By Jim Lissner. 1978: The required radar survey (every 5 years per Vehicle Code Section 40802) reflected an 85th percentile speed of 36 mph. 1983: Sur•.'eyed 85th percentile was up to 39 mph. 1988: Surveyed 85th percentile was up to 43 mph, the highest of any street in town. Speed limit remains posted at 35 mph. 10-10-88: Petition to City Council asking them to change city's general plan to.reclassify Gould as a local street so that the speed limit can be reduced. This petition is referred directly to staff for their reports. 11-4-88: City traffic engineer (a registered traffic engineer) report says that even if Gould was reclassified as a local street that a speed survey would still be required in order for us to continue to use radar for enforcement. (Gould is only 1000' long and radar has proven to be the only successful means of enforcement.) 12-12-88: City attorney report concurs with engineer. 1-9-89: Lissner (a citizen who resides near Gould) tells public works director (a registered civil engineer) that Section 40802 of Vehicle Code, which requires speed surveys on most radared streets, makes a specific exception for local streets. Public works director will ask police chief to call a judge at the municipal court to get his opinion. 1-17-89: Public works director relays the word from the judge, that as staff has claimed, radar can't be used on a local street unless there is a survey. 1-17-89: Lissner calls judge for confirmation, can't talk to judge, so writes to judge. 1-24-89: City Council meeting. Council is presented a staff report from the public works director. It summarizes the traffic engineer and city attorney's reports, and says "Judge Thompson said the court will not accept a ticket issued by radar on'a street not surveyed, unless the street is an authorized "speed trap" as defined in Vehicle Code Section 40832..." Council turns us down. 2-6-89: Lissner receives letter from Judge Thompson saying: "Recently the court liason for the city requested a generalized, informal opinion from me regarding the use of radar enforcement without a traffic engineering survey. I referred him to California Vehicle Code Section 40802. Other than that generalized request I have no information regarding any specific location or any specific traffic problem that the city was attempting to address." 2-20-89 and 3-15-89: Lissner writes to Councilmembers -50- giving detailed. analysis of why engineer is incorrect. 3-28-89: City Council meeting. One council member says, as they turn us down, "On the basis of the presumption of the rightness of our staff...." _ 4-19-89: Lissner turns in a copy of the Los Angeles PD Radar Handbook to the public works director. The handbook has a list of 7 "Speed trap exceptions," and number six is "local streets .and.roads."- . 5-1-89: Lissner has meeting with city traffic engineer. Engineer says he will be revising his November 1988 report. 5-3-89: Engineer's new report admits that he erred by relying on a 1974 edition of.the Caltrans manual, and shows that he has reversed himself about the lecali y of the use of radar. However, now he has other objections that he had n:;t brought up before. 5-22-89: Lissner gets copy of engineer's 5-3 report and writes detailed rebuttal, addressed to the public works director, which concludes: "While we agree with the reversal of the November 4 conclusions, the other �..cluaions Ruzak has drawn in this new memo are just as clawed as those he drew in November. Rather than wait another 6 months, and have to explain basic traffic law and engineering principles to Mr. Ruzak, we recuest that the record copy of the May 3 report be amended to drop all but the first three paragraphs, or, that the report be redrawn, within 30 days, by any other licensed traffic engineer." 6-22-89: Lissner talks to public works director who has talked to traffic engineer. They will not change the adverse portion of the 5-3 report. 6-23-89: Lissner writes to council, asking for new hearing, because: "Staff has now revised its reports..." 6-29-89: Lissner mails a.detailed critique of the 5-3 report direct to the engineer's office by certified mail. The critique ends: "Our city officials and staff will rely on your staff report... TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. The city's new general plan for traffic is "in" and will be coming up for public hearing and amendment very soon." 63:0-t,,Jd a/60 761f i4' .d,A-ntieT LlinA Sapn coe/ execit4, c727(s- et_ 635- G,000 T. , (c. 30 00 Gtc_ b 447Y r2/C2/ 27; -ge °Cot C24o 4-51 GiouLD Avf ?Th •Mo.fk 061\c_forr Jc PNtibrija S-`15. Markt4 1-0-15 Goa_.0 11 VT I crAisk - 64-0) 41 ‘0 4' die I/ It 84, C - Gould Speed Questions and Answers 9-26-89 Table of Contents Q1: Can the police still use radar? page 1 Q2: Do a new survey, as was done on Monterey? 1 Q3: Must we give federal money back? 1 Q4: Is "collector" designation required by law? 1 Q5: Change Hermosa collectors to "local?" 1 Q6: Is reclassification unprecedented? 2 Q7: Unusual to have 25 limit on high volume street? 2 Q8: Why special treatment for Gould? 2 Q9: Why do we have to do anything? 3 Q10: Is there citizen support? 3 Q11: Why can't residents accept the noise and danger? 3 012: Won't it be a speed trap? 3 Q13: Won't most tickets go to Hermosa residents? 3 Q14: If 25 doesn't work, difficult to put back 35? 4 Q15: What about signs, striping, bumps? 4 Q16: Will it divert traffic into other neighborhoods? 4 Q17: Will it cause backup into Artesia? 4 Q18: Isn't the high speed on Gould due to the hill? 5 Q19: Won't closer enforcement of the present limit help? 5 Gould Speed Questions and Answers 9-26-89 Q1: Can the police still use radar? A: when Gould has been reclassified as a residential street, and a 25 prima facie limit has been posted, the police still can use radar. No traffic survey is required to use radar on a local or residential street, per Vehicle Code section 40802. Background: In November and December 1988 city staff wrote memos (exhibits A and B) stating radar could not be used. Later, they were given materials (exhibits C through E) showing that radar could be used. Staff then wrote new memo supporting the use of radar (exhibit F). Q2: Why not just ask the traffic engineer to do a new survey on Gould supporting a 25 mph limit, as was done on Monterey recently? A: The survey the engineer did in October 1988 contains a lengthly discussion telling why the engineer could not find a 25 limit appropriate for Gould (exhibit H). Q3: If we change the classification of Gould from Collector to Local, won't we have to give federal money back? A: No. See exhibit I. Nor will there be any decrease in the amount of federal highway money the city gets - that appropriation is based solely on our city's population. Q4: Doesn't the law require us to classify any street having more than 2500 cars per day (Gould has 12,000) as a collector street, not a local street, in our general plan? A: Planning convention calls for it, but the "collector" and "local" designations in the general plan are only important if some action, such as building some streets wider than others, is going to be taken on the basis of those designations. There has been no suggestion, from any source, that Gould should be built wider at any time in the future. Designating Gould "local" would not preclude the. city from allowing the present high volumes of traffic, any more than that "local" designation does anything to limit the traffic on other "local" streets in town, such as Valley Drive, with 9090 cars/day or Ardmore, with 5130. If we did not have a general plan, Gould would be considered a local street as it meets the criteria set out in Vehicle Code section 40802 (exhibit C). Ruzak (Exhibit A, page two top) said "...it can be seen that in effect Gould Avenue is a residence district." Q5: Why not reclassify all the collectors with 35 mph limits as local streets and get speeds down all over town? A: Federal aid to urban highway (FAU) funds can only be used on collectors and arterials. While some other streets in town could possibly benefit from reclassification, we should leave at least some collectors so that we can take advantage of the federal funds, even though they are quite limited - $58,400 per year. In the unlikely case that Gould needs repair and the only funds we have are FAU, we can trade these FAU funds to the county or to any other local agency who will give us gas tax money in exchange - the only hitch being a small discount. This gas tax money can be used on Gould even though it is a "local" street. This information is from LA County Transportation Commission, phone 236-9437. Q6: Is downward reclassification unprecedented? A: Other Hermosa streets have been reclassified downward in the past. They are: Valley Drive, north of Pier, and Ardmore, south of Pier, both changed from collector to local in the 1979 general plan; and Manhattan Avenue, changed from collector to local in 1979 general plan or sometime before then. Q7: Isn't it unusual to have a 25 limit on such a heavily traveled street? A: Manhattan Beach Boulevard between Ardmore and Pacific, and Grand Avenue east of downtown El Segundo, have 25 mph limits. Q8: Many other streets in Hermosa suffer from traffic. What's unique about Gould? A: The measured speed on Gould is much higher than the speeds on every other street in town, including Artesia and Aviation. See exhibit J. We hope that by reducing the posted speed limit by 10 mph we can, with appropriate enforcement, reduce the actual speeds on the street by 8 mph. The table immediately below shows how this would compare to some other streets in town. 85th Percentile speeds from 1988 survey Gould/27th, WEST of Ardmore 34 mph Manhattan Avenue, 27th to Pier 34 Monterey, 19th to Pier 36 Artesia, PCH east to city limits 37 PCH, Artesia to Pier 40 Aviation, PCH east to city limits 41 Gould, Ardmore to PCH, presently 43 Gould, Ardmore to PCH, with 25 mph posted and anticipated 8 mph reduction in 85th percentile speed 35 One reason that it is important to reduce the speed, even by this seemingly small amount, is that the noise generated by — ss - l the cars is in proportion to the square of the speed. At 43 the noise is 51% greater than it would be at 35. Also, the kinetic energy of the vehicle changes by the same amount, and this increases the severity of accidents. Q9: Why do we have to do anything? A: We don't. But unlike the numerous and divisive density squabbles the council has to resolve, there is no one who will be hurt by the reduction of speed on Gould. To drive the length of Gould at 35 instead of 43 takes an extra 3.5 seconds, while the usual wait at the stop sign or signal at either end of Gould is 60 to 180 seconds! Although this matter has come before the council several times, no member of the public has come forward to object. Staff reports do not support our proposal, but none has suggested an increased liability exposure due to reducing the speed. Q10: Is there citizen support? A: In October Council had petitions from over 30 of us. This June we turned in a petition with another 30 signatures. Posting Gould 25 mph will benefit hundreds more living in this several block area, and will hurt no one. By reducing speed at the entrance to Hermosa it will encourage drivers to travel slightly more slowly on other Hermosa streets after they turn off of Gould. It is an opportunity for the council to do something good without there being a cost. Q11: Why can't Gould residents accept the noise and danger? They saved money when they bought their homes, and must have known that the trade-off was the noise. A: As little as ten years ago the speed was 19% lower so the noise (speed squared) was 36% lower. No one anticipated that Artesia would become so congested that Gould would be the first place where homeward -bound drivers could "let it loose" - and that the speed trap law, enacted in 1978, would allow these drivers to push the permitted speeds to new heights in 1983 and 1988. Also, no one anticipated the 1976 barricading of all four streets paralleling Gould on the south, and the additional pressure this would put on Gould. Q12: Won't it be a speed trap? Won't these moving violations become another opportunity for people to "trash" Hermosa's name, as they do now because of parking tickets? A: With the present speed limit most citations (per the police department) are between 49 and 53 mph. We hope that with a 25 limit they will write tickets for speeds above 42 mph. Should someone call Gould a speed trap, we need only point out identical limits on Manhattan Beach Blvd. and Grand Avenue - see Q7 above. And we wouldn't be the only city strongly enforcing their limits - I was stopped and warned s6- 3 on MB Blvd. about 6 months ago, and three weeks ago my neighbor got a ticket for doing 42 there. Q13: Won't most of the tickets go to Hermosa residents, with a resultant backlash? A: Presently Hermosans get 60% of the tickets on Gould. However, they are much less likely to be ticketed than non-Hermosans who represent only 15% of the traffic volume but get 40% of the tickets. We would expect this pattern to continue, with no more complaints than there are now. Q14: What if there IS a backlash, after all, and the 25 limit must be raised back up, to 30 or 35? Wouldn't that be a lengthly, costly procedure? A: No. According to Vehicle Code Section 22357 it is necessary only to obtain a survey supporting the higher limit and then the council can ordain a higher limit, which would be effective upon the posting of new signs. Q15: What about using signs, striping, or speed bumps instead of reducing the speed limit? A: Engineers say that after drivers have seen a sign a few times they ignore it - unless there is enforcement. And a sign that says "Entering Hermosa, please drive courteously" can't be enforced. Signs that attempt to divert Artesia traffic off of Gould by directing it onto PCH will never work on regular commuters - suich tactics serve only to contuse moving van drivers. Gould has been extensively restriped after the slurry sealing, but we have seen no decrease in speed. Speed actually seems to have increased, possibly in response to the more homogeneous appearance of the roadway. Rumble dots impair the ability of cars to brake. "Road bumps," which are a gentler form of speed bump, can't be used on a street used by emergency vehicles. Q16: What about Ruzak's claim (exhibit F) that reducing the speed and enforcing it heavily will divert traffic onto neighboring streets? A: The lower speed will cause at most, a 3.5 second delay on Gould. There is no alternate route which both crosses the "railroad tracks" and lines up with Route 91, as Gould does. We asked (exhibit K) Ruzak for a detailed discussion of which streets would be infiltrated, and he did not reply. Q17: What about Ruzak's claim (exhibit F) that reducing the speed will make it take more cycles of the signal to get across PCH? A: Every engineering manual says it just isn't so! There will be no increase in delay, at all. See exhibit L, M, and the detailed discussion in exhibit K. 418: Isn't the high speed on westbound Gould mostly the result of coasting down the steep hill? A: A radar survey taken at the TOP of the hill, where it is still flat, shows that the lead cars in the pack are already traveling at an average 37 mph - before they start down the hill! Out of the 23 cars surveyed at the top of the hill, the fastest was 48 and the runner-up was doing 47! And, once they get onto the downhill, they don't just coast down it, they keep heavy on the gas - you can tell because you can hear the engines roaring. See exhibit N. Q19: Why not just closely enforce the existing limit of 35 mph, issuing tickets at 40+ mph? A: Such tickets would immediately be thrown out by the court. Since it is presently a collector street, Gould Avenue speed comes under the speed trap law (Exhibit C) and tickets for speeds near or under the surveyed speed (43) are easily challenged. Since the police like to write tickets that "stick," they usually cite for speeds in excess of 49 mph. See also the discussion in exhibit K. Exhibits: A: Ruzak to Antich, 11-4-88 B: Lough to Antich, 12-12-88 C: CVC 40802, version effective to 1-1-93 D: Caltrans manual sec. 8-03, 1989 ed., pages 1 - 3 E: LAPD Radar Handbook, page, 59 ., F: Ruzak to Antich, May 3, 1989 H: 1988 Hermosa Beach speed survey, pages 8 & 9 I: Caltrans to Creighton, May 4, 1989 J: 1988 Hermosa Beach speed survey, table 1 K: Lissner to Ruzak, June 29, 1989 L: Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook, page 501 M: Highway Capacity Manual, pages 1-7 and 9-3 N: Radar speed survey, top of Gould hill, 7-19-89 -S8 - NOVEMBER 4,1988 TO. ANTHOIANTICH, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS FROM: ED RUZAK, CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER SUBJECT: ENGINEERING .& TRAFFIC SURVEY/GOULD AVENUE CONCERNS A recent- petition by citizens in the Gould Avenue area 'suggested that the City remove the existing Federal Aid classification of Gould Avenue as a collector street. Tis would require procedural changes, which will .tbe discussed.,later. However, the' intent of the classification removal was to then declare Gould Avenue as a residential or local street. As a local street, the residents believed that a posting of 25 mph would be applicable. They wished this speed limit posted and enforced using radar. :fhe City _Traffic Engineer has researched the applicable vehicle code sections and Caltrans Manual for Engineering and Traffic Surveys in order to prepare this. report. The reports intent is for use by the City Attorney in evaluating the legal aspects of what the petitioners have requested. DISCUSS _ON The applicable 1987 vehicle code sections that were reviewed include the following: . 22352(b)(1) Prima Facie Speed Limits . 235 Business District . 515 Residence District • . 240 Method to Determine Business or Residence District . 22358 Decrease of Local Limits . 22357 Increase of Local Limits . 22358.5 Downward Speed Zoning 627 Engineering & Traffic Survey . 40802 Speed Trap . 40803 Speed Trap Evidence Each section is attached to this report for reference. Prima Facie Speed Limit A review of 22352(b)(1) shows that 25 mph prima facie speed limit is applicable in a business or residence district "unless a different speed is determined by local authority under procedures set in this code" Residence or Business District The question arises as to whether Gould Avenue from El Oeste to Ardmore is a residence or business district. Gould is zoned for R-1 land uses. Field investigations indicate that approximately 17 homes front along the south side of Gould between the --;above 0.25 mile limits. By referring -to the definitions in Sections 515 and 225 it can be seen that in effect Gould Avenue is a residence district. The question then becomes whether this collector street from a❑ engineering functionalclassification should be considered as a. 25 mph speed limit under Section 22352. From recent speed surveys, the 85th percentile speed is well above 25 mpg:. Thus, almost all vehicles are traveling at or below a speed that is well in excess of 25 mph. From an engineering standpoint a "different speed determined by under procedures set in this code",could be applicable. Procedures to Determine Speed Limit . The next question is what procedures are to be used. If the 25 mph prima facie limit is to beincreasedto a higher limit then Section 22357 applies. However, the existing speed limit on Gould Avenue is 35 mph. This was established five years ago based on an Engineering and Traffic Survey. If the existing speed limit is to bereducedto the prima facie speed limit of 25 (or 30) then Section 22358 applies. Notwithstanding which of the above scenarios is chosen, it is clear that an "Engineering & Traffic Survey" must be the basis for determining the speed limit. This is clear in both Sections 22357 and 22358. Engineering & Traffic Survey The E & T survey is defined in Section 627. The first paragraph of this section establishes the methods determined by the California Department of Transportation. Reference is made to the Caltrans procedures(attached). If Gould remains as a collector street then the E & T survey is defined by a speed zone survey and engineering judgment. See page 8-7 number 2a. This allows the engineer to speed zone Gould higher than 25 mph if the findings so indicate. If Gould Avenue is in a residence district can, its functional classification still be a collector street? From an engineering standpoint the answer is yes. There are many streets carrying 10000 to 15000 vehicles per day on two to four lane cross sections that have residential units fronting the street. These are theoretically residence districts from the vehicle code standpoint, but operationally they function as collectors or even as arterials. t Change Gould to a. Local Street • / The next step in the scenario is to consider a change in the functional - classification of Gould Avenue so it is treated as a residential or local street. This is what the petitioners have suggested. Section 40802(b) becomes applicable in this discussion. Without an E & T survey on a roadway other than a local street it can be assumed that the street is a "speed trap". Thus in a court of law no evidence could be admitted to uphold the citation if it came from a "speed trap " condition. See Section 40803. • if the Federal Aid maps in Hermosa Beach are changed to reflect Gould Avenue as a local street then the provisions of Secti_in 40802 do not apply. Local streets are not speed traps in this sense. It should be pointed out that =hanging the functional classification maps requires a change to the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan via an amendment. A review by Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration are also required. While these changes are procedural they are subject to their interpreation. Thus, if a street such as Gould Avenue, is deemed to'be a local street, in or out of a residence district, then how is the posting established? Section 22352 provides for prima facie posting of 25mph but does not give guidelines for how to enforce it. The petitioners suggest radar enforcement. Enforcement by radar, however, for local streets is clearly defined in Caltrans Manual for local streets on page 8-7, paragraph 3(a). It states in part that if a street to be posted under Section 22352 of 25 mph is enforced by radar then it must be justified by an engineering and traffic survey. The Caltrans procedures for anc engineering and traffic survey have been defined as the accepte: methods for determining posted speeds and enforcing same. Conclusion Thus, based upon my engineering interpretation of vehicle code and Caltrans sections, it is my opinion as a professional engineer that an engineering and traffic survey is necessary to post speed limits on arterials,' collectors and local streets in a City's jurisdiction if they. are to be enforced by radar. Respectfully submitted, 28824 0202 30 NORTH RAYMOND AVENUE , SUITE 708 PASADENA, CALIF. 9no3-393) JAMES P. LOUGH ATTORNEY AT LAW December 12, 1988 MEMORANDUM TO: Anthony Antich, Director of Public Works FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney Linda LeVanway, Paralegal RE: Legal Opinion on Gould Avenue Concerns TE_: (6:4) 7;2-4728 (Si) 7=-2-4776 FAN: (::`) ....4,3-6873 INTRODUCTION: This office was asked to address whether or not an Engineering and Traffic Survey per Vehicle Code Section 627 is required to change the speed limit if Gould Avenue were to remove it's classification as a collector street and become a residential or local street. ANALYSIS: In order to change a speed classification, in a residental or collector street, an Engineering and Tra`fj.c _Th Survey is,re ,sed (Veh. Code Sections 22357, 22358 and (Traffic Manual,'pg. 8-7) 2b). A residential or collective street with a speed l -t—not-justified by a engineering and traffic survey is a "speed trap" and prohibited (Veh. Code Sections 40800, 40801, 40802). Therefore, it is not allowable to enforce any speed limit by radar without a survey justifing the speed limit of a street. If Gould Avenue was determined a 'local street', again it would be deemed so though a certain criteria per Veh. Code 40802(b) and that criteria would have to be determined by an Engineering and Traffic Survey. CONCLUSION: An Engineering and Traffic Survey is required to change any speed limit. Without said survey, radar cannot be used because enforcement would be deemed a "speed. trap". Respectfully submitted,'' LAW OFFICES OF JAMES P. LOUGH /--LfS P. LOUGH, City Attorney CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH cc: Kevin B. Northcraft, Ci Manager L40/trfsur • sp:. `..?i; .. U\ the not tv to ,:ffi er a_ n=•d exclasi\ eiv to the d t\• Sc c evidence in reference to any the.t of a vehicle • failure of a person to stop in the event of an accident or violation of Section 109 or in reference to any felony charge, or to any officer engaged =r•ing any warrant when the officer is not engaged in patrolling the :ighways for the purpose of enforcing the traffic laws. , Amended Ch. 202, Stats. 1961. Effective September 15, 1961. • :eed Trcp Prohibition 40801. No peace officer or other person shall use a speed trap in arresting. participating or assisting in the arrest of, any person for any alleged ^ration of this code nor shall any speed trap be used is securing evidence to the speed of any vehicle for the purpose of an arrest or prosecution =.aer this code. - deed Trcp 4)S02. A "speed trap" is either of the following: (al A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order that th:, speed e: a vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known distance. (b) A particular section of a highway with a prima facie speed limit provided by this code or by local ordinance pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 22352, or established pursuant to Section 22354, 22357, 22355, or 22.35S.3, which speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within five years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and where enforcement involves the use of radar or other electronic devices which measure the speed of moving objects. The . provisions of this subdivision do not apply to local streets and roads. For purposes of this section, local streets and roads shall be defined by the latest functional usage and federal -aid system maps as submitted to the Federal Highway Administration. When these maps have not been submitted, the following definition shall be used: A local street or road primarily 'provides access to abutting residential property and shall meet the following -three conditions: (1) Roadway width of not more than 40 feet. (2) Not more than one-half mile of uninterrupted length. Interruptions shall include official traffic control devices as defined in Section 445. (3'. Not more than one traffic lane in each direction. This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 1993, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, which is enacted before January 1, 1993, deletes or extends that date. Amended Ch. 13.15, Stats. 1972. Effective March 7, 1973. Amended Ch. 203, Stats. 1973. Effective Jul. 9, 1973, by terms of an urgency clause. Amended Ch. 1210, Stats. 1978. Effective January 1, 1979. Repealed Ch. 1210, Stats. 1978. Operative January 1, 1932. Amended Ch. 357, Stats. 1951. Effective January 1, 1982. Repealed Ch. 357, Stats. 1951. Operative January 1. 1957. Amended Ch. 833, Stats. 1986. Effective January 1, 1987. NOTE: This section remains in effect only until January 1, 1993,•at which time it is repealed and the following section becomes effective. 40802. A "speed trap" is either of the following: (a) A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known distance. • (b) A particular section of a highway with a prima facie speed limit provided by this code or by local ordinance pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 99352, or established pursuant to Section 22354, 22357, 2235S, or 22358.3, which speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within five years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and where enforcement involves the use of radar or other electronic devices which measure the -speed of moving objects. This section shall become operative on January' 1, 1993. Amended Ch 357, Stats. 1951. Operative January 1, 1957. Amended Ch. 633, Stats. 1956. Effective January 1, 1957. Speed Trap Evidence 40803. (a) No evidence as to the speed of a vehicle upon a highway shall be admitted in any court upon the trial of any person for an alleged violation of this code when the evidence is based upon or obtained from or by the maintenance or use of a speed trap. (b) In any prosecution under this code of a charge involving the speed of a vehicle, where enforcement involves the use of radar or other electronic devices which measure the speed of moving objects, the prosecution shall establish, as part of its prima facie case, that the evidence or testimony presented is not based upon a speed trap as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 40802. Evidence that a traffic and engineering survey has been • L l Div. 17 —— conducted within five years of the date of that the offense was committed on a lc subdivision (b: of Section 40502 shall cora evidence or testimony is not based up subdivision (b; of Section 1502. Amended Ch. 3r7. Stats. 1951. Effective January I. Testimony Eased on Speed Trap 40504. (a) In any prosecution under t: the speed of a vehicle. any officer or othe a v.'itness if test:ncm' is based up: maintenance cr use of a speed trap. (b) Every officer arresting, or participa person so charged while on duty for th enforcing the provisions of Divisions 10 az if at the time of such arrest he was not w•ea using a motor vehicle not painted the d commissioner. This section does not apply to an officer of investigating and securing evidence in r or failure of a person to stop in the event of: 23109 or in reference to any felony char serving any warrant when the officer is highways for the- prr rose of enforcing the Amended Ch. 58, Stas. I'.161. Effective September Amended Ch. 84, Stats. 1973. Effective January 1, 15 Admission a&Speed imp Evidence • 40805. Every court shall be without jun conviction against any person for a violation of a vehicle if the court admits any evi violation of, or which is inadmissible unde Police Reports . 40806. In the event a defendant chargee pleads guilty, the trial court shall not at sentence receive or consider any report,.vt traffic officer or witness -of the offense witilc of all statements in the report or statemen the defendant an opportunity to make witnesses in rebuttal, and for such pu: continuance before pronouncing sentence Use of Evidence Regarding Departmental Ac 40807. No record of any action taken person's privilege to operate a motor vehic the proceedings at, or concerning, or pre connection with such action, shall be adrnis any criminal action. No provision of this section shall in any w records or testimony as is necessary to eni relating to operating a motor vehicle withot: the driving privilege is suspended or rev records or testimony in any prosecution for such a hearing when required by law to dc records and testimony when introduce impeaching the credibility of a witness. Added Ch. &)4, Stats. 1977. Effective January 1. 1976 .CTCDC, MINUTES July 14, 1988 86-17 Traffic Manual, Chapter 8 Bruce Fredrickson stated that input from the last committee meeting and a meeting between Perry Lowden, John Kaufman, Paul Fowler and himself on June 23, 1988 were incorporated into this latest and hopefully, final draft. He recommended approval and requested Caltrans to include it in the next Traffic Manual update. Paul Fowler commented that it may be well to call attention to the significant changes agreed to at the June 23, 1988 meeting which he proceeded to summarize. Section 8-03.1 (first paragraph, second sentence): "These CVC sections are influenced by the National Maximum Speed Limit, which became effective January 1, 1974..." Section 8-03.3, A-7 (second paragraph, second sentence): "Local streets and roads [as defined in CVC 40802(b), primarily serving abutting residential], property are exempt from this requirement until January 1, 1993." Section 8-03.3, B -2-C (sixth paragraph, second sentence): "In no case should the sample for any survey contain less than 50 vehicles." Motion: .by Chuck Bartell, second by Paul Fowler to accept this final revision of Chapter 8. Motion carried 8-0. John Kaufman expressed his appreciation to Chuck Bartell and Perry Lowden for their good work in helping to expedite the completion of Chapter 8. Action: Item completed. - Traffic Manual 8-03.1 Introduction TRAFFIC REGULATIONS Speed Limits and Zones 8-03 Speed limits In California are governed by the California Vehicle Cce, Sections 22348 through 22413. These CVC sections are influenced by the National Maximum Speed Limit , . which became effective January 1, 1974, as stated in section 154 of Chapter 1, Title 23 of the United States Cade. The statutes establish or provide means of esta- blishing speed limits by: 1. Blanket regulations set by statute that apply on statewide basis for special areas. 2. Prima facie speed limits established by the state or local authorities within their respective jurisdictions, on the basis of an engineering and traffic survey. 8-03.2 Blanket Regulations Section 22350 of the Vehicle Code Provides that no person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent, having due regard for weather, visibility, traffic and the surface and width of the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property. Section 22349 of the Vehicle Code provides that "Except as provided in Section 22356 no person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than 55 miles per hour." Section 22406 of the Vehicle Code provides that no person shall drive any of the following vehi- cles on a highway at a speed in excess of 55 miles per hour: (a) A motortruck or truck tractor having three or more axles or any motortruck or truck tractor drawing any other vehicle. (b) A passenger vehicle or bus drawing any other vehicle. (c) A schoolbus transporting any school pupil. (d) A farm labor vehicle when transporting passengers. (e) A vehicle transporting explosives. Pg. 1 of 6 8-03.3 Establishment of Prima Facie and Maximum 60 or 65 M.P.H. Speed Zones " A. Legal Authority 1. State Highways -Section 22354 of the Vehicle Code Provides that: "Whenever the Department of Transportation determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey that the limit of 55 miles per hour is more than is reasonable or safe upon any portion of a state highway wherethe limit of 55 miles per hour is applicable, the department may determine and declare a prima facie speed limit of 50, 45, 40, 35, 30 or 25 miles per hour, whichever is found more appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement -of traffic and is reasonable and safe, which declared prima facie speed limit shall be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected upon the highway." 2. Freeways -Section 22355 of the Vehicle Code provides that whenever the Department of Transportation determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey that a variable speed limit would facilitate the orderly movement of traffic on any State highway which is a freeway, the Department may erect signs displaying the different speed limits at various times of day and night. 3. Local roads and Streets -Section 22352 establishes prima facie speed limits as follows: a. Fifteen miles per hour. o At a railroad grade crossing with an obstructed view. o At an uncontrolled highway intersection with an obstructed view. o On an alley. C Traffic Manual TRAFFIC REGULATIONS Pg. 2 of 6 b. Twenty-five miles per hour. o On any highway other than a State highway in any business or residence district, unless a different limit is established by procedures described elsewhere in the code. o In a school zone. (Refer to Traffic Manual, Section 10-02.1) Vehicle Code Sections 235 and 515 define a "business district" and a "residence district" re- spectively. Section 240 of the Code prescribes a method for determining whether a highway is within a business or residence district. Sections 22357 and 22358 authorize local au- thorities to establish prima facie speed limits on streets and roads under their jurisdiction, on the basis of an engineering and traffic survey. Section 22358.3 authorizes local agencies to reduce prima facie speed limits to 20 or 15 mph on narrow streets on the basis of a engineering and traffic survey. Section 22358.4 authorizes local agencies to reduce prima facie speed limits to 20 or 15 mph in school zones on the basis of an engineering and traffic survey. 4. Truck Speed Limits -Under Section 22407 of the Vehicle Code, the Department may, on the basis of engineering studies and a traffic survey, establish speed limits of 50, 45, 40, 35, 30, 25 or 20 miles per hour for trucks, with three axles or more and a manufacturers gross weight rating 10,000 pounds or more, on descending grades. 5. Minimum Speed Limits -Section 22400 of the Vehicle Code provides that the Department may , on the basis of an engineering and traffic survey, establish a minimum speed limit, below which it shall be unlawful for any vehicle to be driven, except when necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law, when appropriate signs are posted. 6. 60 and 65 MPH Maximum Speed Limits - Section 22356 of the Vehicle Code allows the Department of transportation, after consultation with, and the approval cf, the California Highway Patrol, upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey on existing rural freeway segments, or upon the basis of appropriate design standards and projected traffic volumes in the case of newly constructed rural freeway segments, to declare 60 or 65 mph maximum speed limits. Freeways to be considered for60 or 65 mile per hour maximum speed limit shall meet the following criteria: 1. They shall be rural freeways constructed to Interstate Freeway standards. 2. The traffic volumes shall be moderate in relation to the capacity of the facility. 3. The accident rate shall be lower than average for rural freeways. 4. The interchanges shall be widely spaced. On existing rural freeways it is required that a speed zone survey report be made. This report should include, where applicable, the following items: 1. Average daily peak hour and traffic volum 3s. 2. Percentage of trucks. 3. Accident and fatality rates (three years if available). ' 4. Speed checks. 5. Minimum sight distance. 6. Smallest radius curve. 7. Maximum grade. 8. Statement of Highway Patrol approval. 9. Comments and recommendations. The District's requests for 60 or 65 mile per hour speed limits must include the exact description of the limits of the zone with ties to easily identifiable features such as structures or stream crossings. The District Director of each transportation district is authorized to issue orders regulating the speed of traffic on State highways as described in 1, 2, 4 and 5. 7. Speed Trap -Section 40802(b) provides - Traffic Manual C TRAFFIC REGULATIONS Pg. 3 of 6 that prima facie speed limits established under Sections 22352(b)(1), 22354, 22357, 22358 and 22358.3 may not be enforced by radar unless the speed limit has been justified by an engineering and traffic survey within the last five years. An "Engineering and Traffic Survey" is required where enforcement involves the use of radar or other electronic speed measuring devices, under CVC 40802(b). Local streets and roads, as defined in the second paragraph of CVC 40802(b), primarily serving abutting residential property, are exempt from this requirement until January 1, 1993. This exemption is subject to deletion or extension. B. Engineering and Traffic Surveys Section 627 of the Vehicle Code defines the term "Engineering and Traffic Survey" and lists requirements therefor. Following are two methods of conducting engineering and traffic surveys to be used to establish or justify prima facie speed limits. These methods are presented as required by the Vehicle Code. 1.State" Highways -The engineering and traffic survey for State Highways is made under the direction of the District Traffic Engineer. The data shall include: a. One copy of the Standard Speed Zone Survey Sheet (See Figure 8-1A, 8-1B) showing: o A north arrow. o Engineer's station or post mileage. o Limits of the proposed zones. o Appropriate notations showing type of roadside development, such as "scattered business", "solid residential", etc.Schools adjacent to the highway should be shown, but other buildings need not be plotted unless they are a factor in the speed recommendation or the point of termination of a speed zone. o Accident rates for the zones involved. o Average daily traffic volume. o Location of traffic signals, signs and markings. o If the highway is divided, the limits of zones for each direction of travel. o Plotted 85 percentile and pace speeds at location taken showing speed profile. b. A report to the District Director shall: o State the reason for the initiation of speed zone survey. o Give recommendations and reasons therefor. o List the enforcement jurisdictions involved and the attitude of these officials. o Give the stationing or mileage at the beginning and at the end of each proposed zone and any intermediate equations. Ties must be given to readily identifiable physical features. In determining the speed limit which is most appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and is reasonable and safe, important factors are prevailing speeds, unexpected conditions, and accident records. Speed limits should be established preferably at or near the 85 percentile speed, which is defined as that speed at or below which 85 percent of the traffic is moving. The 85 percentile is often referred to as critical speed. Pace speed is defined as the 10 -mile increment of speed containing the largest number of vehicles (See Figure 8-2). The lower limit of the pace is plotted on the Speed Zone Survey Sheets as an aid in determining the proper zone limits.Speed limits higher than the 85 percentile are not generally considered reasonable and safe and limits below the 85 percentile do not facilitate the orderly movement of traffic. Speed limits established on this basis conform to the consensus of those who drive highways as to what speed is reasonable and safe, and are not dependent on the judgement of one or a few individuals. The basic speed law states that no person r. LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT • RADAR HANDBOOK Compiled By: Officer C.A. "Chuck"Massar Traffic Coordination Section 1985 �-�s- LS73 -,7- (a) A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundries marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known distance. (b). A particular section of a highway with a prima facie speed limit provided by this code or by local ordinance pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 22352, or established pursuant to Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3, which speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within five years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and where enforcement involves the use of radar- or other electronic devices which measure the speed of moving objects. SPEED TRAP "EXCEPTIONS" The use of radar in the following locations is legal and not considered to be a violation of 40802 CVC. 1. Streets that are posted with a speed limit certified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within five years '�. prior to the alleged violation. People vs. Shutt. 2. Within 100 ft. of a railroad crossing that has a visual obstruction along its right of way for 400 ft. in both directions (22352(a)(1) CVC). 3. Within 100 ft. of an -intersection that has a visual obstruction of the intersection and any traffic upon all of the highways entering the intersection for a distance of 100 ft. (22352(a)(2) CVC). 4. To any alley (22352(a)(3) CVC) 5. To a distinctly marked school zone when children are present going to or coming from and at the lunch break, also at any time if there is no fence to protect the students (22352(b)(2) CVC). El --- 6. Local streets and roads, definition in 40802 CVC. 7. Where speed limit is above 55 mph or above. NOTE: Radar can be used in the above sections #2-7 with no engineering and traffic survey and it will not be a speed trap. These locations are considered to be exceptions of 40802 CVC. may 3, 1989 Tot Anthony Antich, Director of Public Lio From: Ed Ruzak, City Traffic Engineer Subject: Gould Avenue Citizen Concerns M RECEIVED "AY 04 ttE9 PUB? iC WflR(SDEPT. Hr. Lissner and his researchers have provided staff with excerpts from section 40802 of the California Vehicle Code relative to speed traps. Copies are attached for your perusal. In addition I hive discussed the issues of Gould Avenue at length with Mr. Lissner last week. tical Street Concent Kr. Lissner is correct that local streets can be enforced by rz.dar without necessarily conducting an engineering and traffic curvey. . This section was effectuated in a 1978 amendment to the CVC. Caltrans manual information for conduct of an engineering & traffic survey does not reflect the information Mr. Lissner -found since the Caltrans Manual date is 1974. Caltrans is updating their manual to reflect the change, but it has not been distributed to all users at this time. What all this means with respect to the speed limit on Gould is that if the City Council chooses to make Gould a local street they can past it at 25 mph and enforce the limit without conducting an engineering & traffic survey. As City Traffic Engineer I appreciate Mr. Lissner's research to uncover this information. However, as City Traffic Engineer, I cannot and have never considered Gould Avenue a local street:. I have always believed from an engineering standpoint that its function should be and remain a collector street. The traffic volume levels, roadway width and operating speeds alone are much different than found on a local, residential street." Subjectively speaking, most local streets are low volume( E:D to 3400 vehicles per day), low speeds (20 to 30mph),and two lane roadway cross sections. The traffic volumes on increasing. Travel speeds "oh. The roadway width is turn lane approaching "sed median near PCH. • Gould exceed 12,000 per day and are reflect an 85th percentile speed of 43 two lane in nature with a separate left Ardmore and a wide cross section with a 461 TALBERTAVENUE SUITE200 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CAUFORNA 92708 (714) 964.4880 _'7j_ C c� ,oedway Status/Funding Considerations with Gould as a Local Street Considering a reduction in the speed limit to 25 mph on Gould would necessitate removing Gould from the Federal Aid Urban system. This would mean some paper work and correspondence to Caltrans and the FHWA in order to delete the street from the FAU mapping system. If this is done then FAU money for improvements to the street could not be used. I would speculate that there are other areas where FAU monies can be spent in Hermosa Beach if not on Gould. However, when and if resurfacing or other improvements are deemed worthwhile on this street, then other funding sources would be required. Enforcement of the 25 moh Speed Limit While I would formally defer to the Chief of Police relative the ability to enforce a 25 mph limit of Gould I would offer following comments for discussion: to the In order to "bring down"the. 43 mph 85th percentile speed there would have to be visible police manpower in the area along with numerous citations given for a long, consistent period of time. A one day per week or per month effort will not do it! The fear of getting a moving violation citation would have to be great among the users to slow them down sufficently to keep them in the 25 to 30 mph range. Heavy citations along this route could have the effect of diverting traffic from Gould onto other streets. A diversion onto PCH instead of local streets would be most desirable. However, as PCH volumes continue to increase due to outside development the delay would also increse. This could foster Gould users to choose other nearby streets. As you are well aware, the narrow adjacent residential streets with curb parking and many driveways would not be suited to handled diverted traffic. The safety aspects,not the capacity aspects of this type of diversion are of critical concern. It should be pointed out that not all Gould users are passing through Hermosa Beach. The DKS circulation element study provided information relative to a license plate survey they conducted that showed a relatively low number of their sample passing through the City via Gould in comparison to the total traffic on the street. • raact to PCH/Artesia Intersection Westbound traffic leaving Artesia Blvd. would basically have to travel very slowly down the Gould Avenue grade as they proceeded westerly toward Ardmore Ave. This assumes that they are afraid of being ticketed for travelling in excess of 30 mph. Thus, there will be less vehicles that can clear the PCH/Artesia intersection. This will have an effect on the operation" of not - only Artesia Blvd,but the entire intersection. Increased delaywith stop and -go operation, increases the noise levels, air .pollution, etc. It is difficult to convey the cost of stops and delays to the motoring public. However, as extreme congestion in the South Bay area begins to relate more and more to time lost waiting in ones car, the effort to increase efficiency becomes a .greater factor. More important is the safety aspect. Drivers on Artesia will soon realize that they may have to wait three or four or more signal cycles in order to get through PCH. They may choose to divert onto Prospect Avenue or simply run the red light when they get close to the intersection. The potential for accidents increases markedly in this situation. Conclusion I believe that conversion of Gould Avenue to a local street would create not only problems for enforcement, but could also create a safety problem at the PCH/Artesia intersection and along the adjacent City street system. Diverted traffic is not going to travel at 25 mph down a narrow street when they want to "make time" to avoid Gould Avenue. I cannot support reducing the speed limit on Gould Avenue and converting the street to local street status. • ARDMORE AVENUE N.City Limits -9th Streit The B5th percentile speed in this section is slightly above the existing posted speed limit of 35 mph. RECOMMENDATION- Retain Existing 35 MPH Limit Eth Street -End Street The 85th percentile speed in this section is slightly above the existing posted speed_ limit of 30 mph. RECOMMENDATION- Retain Existing 30 MPH Limit. ARTESIA BOULEVARD (STATE ROUTE 91) . E. City Limits -Pacific Coast Hiohgway (State Route 1) The 85th percentile speed in this section of State highway is slightly below the existing posted speed of '+0 mph. RECOfMENDATION- Retain Existing 40 MPH Limit. Notify Caltrans AVIATION BOULEVARD East City Limits -Pacific Coast Hiohway (PCH) The 85th percentile speed in this section is 41 mph while the posted limit is currently 35 mph. The 85th percentile is the same in the eastbound and westbound direction for each of the 100 car sample. In the westbound direction, 80% of the vehicles travel between 32 and 42 mph. For eastbound, 73% travel between 30 and 40 mph. Aviation Boulevard is a four lane non -divided facility with marked, uncontrolled pedestrian crossings at Ocean Drive and Owosso Avenue. The roadway is a downhill curvilinear roadway from the East City limits to PCH. As such drivers speeds tend to be higher due to the downgrade and the need to accelerate uphill in the eastbound direction. The combination of horizontal and vertical curvature, roadway grade, pedestrian activity, •curb parking and unparking, and absence of left turn lanes precludes, a higher posting than the existing limit despite the 85th percentile speed. RECOMMENDATION -Retain Existing 35 MPH Limit GOULD AVENUE PCH -Ardmore Avenue The 85th percentile speed in this section is 43 mph. The posted limit is 35 mph. The roadway is a wide four lane section that travels on a downgrade from Artesia Blvd. Between the signal at I Artesia Blvd. and Ardmore Avenue there are no controls. The road also narrows to one lane in each direction in the vicinity of Gould Terrace. It is heavily traveled and downhill speeds contribute to the high 85th percentile speeds. During thetwo year study period four accidents have been recorded in this section. Two were classified as unsafe speed as the primary factor. The pace speed indicates that 76/. of the drivers travel between 34 and 44 mph. The average speed is 3B mph along this section. It is clear from the present and past surveys that traffic volumes in this corridor as well as speeds are high. In part this is due •to the steep downgrade and vehicle accelerating characteristics traveling up the hill to PCH. A reduction in speed limit to 25 mph on this route would be totally inconsistent with reasonable engineering practices. The results of the speed survey indicate that over 95 percent of the vehicles sampled travel in excess of 25 mph. It is evident that there are problems in this corridor that require other operational concerns,i.e. signing,striping, roadway modification. However, it is not believed that reduction of the the present limit to 25 mph will improve operations nor safety conditions. RECOMMENDATION -Retain Existing 35 MPH Limit. Ardmore Avenue -Manhattan Avenue The 85th percentile speed in this westernmost section is 34 mph. The posted limit is 25 mph. The street is a narrow two way street that has but two intersections. Traffic must stop at Morningside and then stop at 27th/Greenwich/Manhattan Avenue. The propensity to speed up between stop signs may have resulted in the higher 85th percentile speeds. Eighty five percent of the vehicles travel between 26 and 36 mph in this section with an average speed of 30 mph. An accident history involving speed does... not exist. There are few cross street or driveway conflicts in this section. However, a park is located on the south side of this section for its entire length. The sidewalk area on the north side is narrow, placing walkers closer to the narrow westbound vehicular lane. The high propensity of pedestrians and park users along with the possibility of crossings from one side to the other preclude an increase in speed along this section. RECOMMENDATION -Retain Existing 25 MFH Speed Limit. • (213) 620-2181 • May 4,.1989 Mr. Roger Creighton. City Council City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 RECEIVED MAY 09 19.8.p" Polo wnRKS DEPT. Dear Mr. Creighton: This is in.response_to your April 22, 1989 inquiry concerning the financial consequences of removing Gould Avenue from the Federal -aid Urban Route System. Should the City decide to remove the.route from the system:, 1. The City would not be required to return Federal funds pre- ' viously.expended for Capital improvements on thir. route. 2.1:The City would be ineligible to receive future funds for Capital improvements on this route for as long as it re- mains off system. I trust that this fully answers your questions..: Should you have any further 'questions, they should be discussed with your Direc- tor of'.Public Works. Sincerely,'. O�s,j•i.>. W. B: BALLANTINE, :Chief Local Streets and Roads Branch Attachment cc:-Anth`Ony:Antich, City of Hermosa Beach, w/attachment • CN:if -76 LOCATION TABLE 1 HERMOSA BEACH SFEED SURVEY RESULTS -1988 j'.-' 85TH L PACE PERCENT; E POSTED RECOMMENDED SPEED PERCENT SPEED SPEED SPEED RANGE VEH.IN PACE / - ARDMCRE AVENUE N.City Limits -Gould •ve. 39 Gould Ave. -21st St. 39 21=_t c}, -Pier 36 ier Ave. -8th St. 39 (8th St. -2nd St. 32 ARTEEIA BLVD(SR 91) E.City Limits-FCH(SR1) 37 AVIATION BLVD. 35 30to40 -77 35 30to40 71 35 27to37 75 35 30to40 73 30 24to34 • 87 40 40 2Bto3B 77 E.City Limits -PCH 41EB/41W3 35 35 32to42 W3 60 COULD AVENUE 30to40 EB 73 PCH-Ardnore Ave. 43 35 35 34to44 76 Ardmore Ave. -Manhattan Ave. 34 25 25 26to36 85 HERMOSA AVENUE 35th St. -27th St. 27th St. -22nd St. 22nd St. -16th St. 16th St. -Pier Ave. Pier Ave. -8th St. Hth St.-Herondo Ave. HE STEEET Valley Dr. -Hermosa Ave. LO 3= ELLO J AVENUE 33NB/31SB 25 25 24to34 NB 76 21to31 SB 78 36NB/36SB 30 30 26to36 NB 77 26to36 SB 81 39N9/37S8 30 30 29to39 NB 75 29to39 SB ES 39N8/37S3 25 25 29to39 NB 75 29to39 SH 83 33N8/30SB 25 25 25to35 NB 88 21to31 SB 88 36NB/36SB 30_ 30 27to37 NB 7= 27to37 S3 39 35 35 30to40 Sepulveda Blvd. -Ardmore Ave. 32 NP 25 201 Valley Dr. -Hermosa Ave. 32 NP 25 201 74 LOCATION 85TH PACE PERCENTILE POSTED RECOMMENDED SPEED PERCENT SPEED SPEED SPEED RANGE VEH.IN PACE MANHATTAN AVENUE N.City Limits -Longfellow Ave. Longfellow'Ave.-27thSt. 27th St. -Pier Ave. Pier Ave.-lst St. MCNT-"-y CLYC . Ate ' 111//10c) •IT .r i ., .•.. ^. , 1-t- Et. 4 -r 2t. rol 30 29 34 30 30 30 25 25 MORNINGSIDE DRIVE Lor_=eile. Ave -Gould Ave. 'R='=FIC COAST HIGHWAY(SR 1) 2sia Blvd. -Pier Ave. Ave.-Herondo St. R AVENUE FL. -Ardmore Ave. Ar.:more Ave. -Monterey Blvd. Monterey Blvd. -Hermosa Ave. PROSPECT AVENUE Artesia Blvd. -21st St. 21st St. -Aviation Blvd. Aviation Blvd. -6th St. 6th St.-S.City Limits 97-_ULVE2A ELVD. (SR 1) 26 NP 39NB/40SB 35 36N8/36S13 40 30 30 25 25 30 2-0 El to31 21to30 27to37 23to33 86 90 86 93 2rt:-1c -G . U122;. lt/ 22.(' ., c cc•t(221 25 20to30 95 35 30to40 N3 76 31to41 83 72 35 27to37 NB 78 28to38 SB 76 26 25 25 20to30 90 31 25 25 23to33 87 32 25 25 26to36 88 31 35 32 23 25 25 25 25 Lon fe_1o:. Ave. -Artesia Blvd. 42NB/442B 35 25 25 25 25 23to33 27to37 E5to35 El to31 86 86 ES 92 35 31to41 NE 69 35to45 SE E3 LOCATION 000 85TH /7 PACE PERCENTILE POSTED RECOMMENDED SPEED PERCENT SPEED SPEED % SPEED RANGE VEH.IN PACE VALLEY- DR IV- ,N.City Limits -Gould Ave. 40 )Gould Ave. -21st St. 38 21st S - ier Ave.- 38 pier ve.-8th 37 Sth St. -2nd St. 38 2nd St.-Herondc St. 33 SECOND STREET PCH -Valley Dr. Valley Dr.-Hermcsa Ave. c I r_HTH STREET 35 3� 35 35 32to42 80 30 31to41 77 30 29to39 83 35 29to39 91 35 30to40 50 35 25to35 95 30 25 25 22to32 86 31 25 25 24to34 86 E.City Limits -PCH 26 25 25 20to30 95 FCH-Arcmore Ave. 26 25 25 20to30 94 Ardmore Ave. -Hermosa Ave. 26 25 25 20to30 98 THIRTIETH STREET PCH -Ardmore Ave. 31 25 25 20to30 74 ALL SPEEDS ARE IN MILES PER HOUR NP=Not Posted Nor Under. Ordinance NB= Northbound Speed Survey SB= Southbound Speed Survey All Other Surveys Include Both NB & SB Vehicles t James Lissner Box 264 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 (213) 376-4626 June 29, 1989 CERTIFIED MAIL/RETURN RECEIPT Mr. Ed Ruzak Ed Ruzak & Associates, Inc. 10061 Talbert Avenue, Suite 200 Fountain Valley,., California 92708 Dar nuza..: This letter is about your May 3 staff report to Artnuny Antich, Public Works Director, Hermosa Beach, discussing Gould Avenue. I am a citizen who lives near Gould Avenue. Beginning on page 2, in your position as City Traffic Engineer, you discussed the side effects of our proposed lower speed limit, 25 mph. You assumed as the basis of your discussion, that this neighborhood expected speeds to be held to the 25 to 30 mph range, and that there would be sufficient enforcement to do that. This neighborhood has never suggested that there would, or should be ticketing at such low speeds. We are aware that, at present, Gould speed citations fall in the 49 to 53 mph range, with an 85th percentile surveyed speed of 43, up from in 1978. We will be pleased, once the posted limit is lowered from 35 to 25, if the police write tickets just 8 mph lower than they do presently, which would be 41 to 45 mph. As a professional traffic engineer you know the many reasons why a very low speed range such as 25 to 30 would not be attainable on our street, or any other. Some reasons are: (1) the courts dismiss Mickey Mouse tickets; (2) the police allow at least 11 mph over the posted limit because they don't like to have their tickets thrown -cut; (3) Hermosa Beach doesn't have the police manpower to devote to running such a speed trap, and (4) wnile it might not Lit the official aetinition of a speed trap (CVC Sec. 40802), such enforcement is unprecedented in recent times and would result in tremendous political fallout. I know of high volume streets in this area that are posted 25 like we suggest for Gould (Manhattan Beach Blvd. east of -80 Ardmore in Manhattan, Grand Avenue east of Main in El Segundo) but I challenge you to name any street similar to Gould where the speed has been enforced down to anywhere near the 25 to 30 range you chose as the basis for your discussion. Even though the May 3 report is compromised by being based' on an unrealistically low speed range to be attained by an impossibly high level of enforcement, let us discuss the assertions -you made,.an.yway.. You wrote: "Heavy. citations along this route could have the effect of diverting traffic from Gould onto other streets." - But you didn't say where these other streets might be. Are you aware that the four streets parallel to and south of Gould were barricaded 10 years ago and no longer are through streets? I would be interested to see even a short discussion which discloses what you think are the quicker alternate routes that traftic will use in order to avoid the 3.5 second delay caused by having to slow down 8 mph smile passing down the 1000 Loot length of Gould. Is there some other route nearby which both (1) crosses the "railroad tracks" and (2) lines up with Route 91, as Gould does? You also warned that (as a result of the 25-30 mph enforcement on Gould): "Westbound... drivers on Artesia will soon realize that they may have to wait three or more signal cycles in order to get through PCH. They may choose to divert onto Prospect Avenue or simply run the red light when they get close to the intersection. The potential for accidents increases markedly in this situation." You seem to be theorizing that the speed limit on the portion of the road up ahead affects the number of cars that can get across an intersection feeding that road, during the green light. The Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, by the Transportation Research Board, seems to be the "Book" on this subject. The 1985 edition discusses intersection capacity under interrupted flow, on both pages 1-7 and 9-3, and gives formulas allowing us to calculate how many cars can get through during a given length of green. None of these formulas contain any factor allowing for the speed limit or actual speed of the street. It we are to believe this scientific and thorough -going Manual, intersection capacity under interrupted flow is not influenced by the ultimate top speed that will be attained up ahead. But rather than take the word of the Manual alone, I asked some traffic engineers. They said that one "Rule of Thumb" for capacity was something like "7-5-3-2-2-2-2," these integers being the number of seconds that has. to allowed to get each. succeeding car .in a stopped line-up through the intersection. Top speed does not appear to be a factor here, either. Thus it would appear that even if we could reduce speeds on Gould to the 25 to 30 mph range, and we can't and don't want to either, it would not increase delay at PCH. Conclusion Our. city. officials and staff will.rely on your staff report. They are not traffic engineers nor do they often have the time to give staff reports the sort of scrutiny I have given yours of May 3. They have indicated that, because of your special relationship as a member of staff they may give the conclusions you report far greater weight than any differing opinions voiced by outsiders such as myself or a consulting traffic engineer that I might hire. If you intend to stand behind the assertions you made in your May 3 report, I hope you will take the tirr.e to add the detail that is badly needed to support them. Please, as a professional, retract or revise those you cannot document. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. The city's new general plan for traffic is "in" and will be coning up for public hearing and amendment very soon. Also, this matter may be considered by the City Council on July 11. Sincerely, CERTIFIED MAIL/RETURN RECEIPT r INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC C— 7,i1"7": w� � w T e4 �4' w..• ?C vN.Enia min Et. I-IANDB 00K SECOND EDITION Wolfgang S. Homburger Editor Louis E. Keefer and William R. McGrath Associate Editors PRENTICE-HALL, INC., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632. must be handled by judgment in the absence of specific criteria. In the second category, the proportioning of green time is the single most important factor. Cycle length, phasing, and "lost -time" features are somewhat less significant. Traffic factors include the pattern and composition of arriving traffic, turning movements, presence of pedestrians, and general driver characteristics. The latter appear to be related to the size of and location within an urban area and, although not well quantified, can be estimated from these factors. The pattern of traffic arrivals is strongly influenced by nearby traffic signals and their coordination. „.,,A, Of major concern in evaluating intersection capacity and service volume is the proper measure to describe traffic performance at intersections. Speed, density and volume (or v/c ratio), the criteria used in free-flowing traffic situ- ations, are not directly applicable and surrogate measures must .be.employed.-Several-offer-potential-for-the future, but have _ complications that have impeded current appli- I cation. These include delay, queue length, and cycle fail- . I. ures. are. Delay. Although some form of delay would probably be the most satisfactory measure, its determination under field conditions is arduous, and since it is defined in a variety of ways, it is subject to frequent misinterpretation. Recent research25 has been directed at this problem, both to draw user attention to the several different delay measures in use in the field, all loosely described simply as "delay," although the absolute values differ, and to evaluate the sev- eral delay determination methods. The work examined both the relative accuracy and the relative ease of field data gath- ering of the following delay measures: stopped delay (point sample), percent of vehicles stopping, time -in -queue delay, and approach delay. "W. R. Reale. C. C. GARDNER. AND J. H. KELL. A Technique for Measurement of Delay at Intersections. prepared for Federal Highway Administration (San Fran- cisco. Calif. and Tucson. Ariz.: JHK Associates. 1976). Stopped delay was found to be the most practical method for field use. Basically, it involves recording, at specified intervals, the number of fully stopped vehicles on an ap- proach. It was determined, however, that the stopped time directly obtained by this method needed to be adjusted by the factor 0.92 to represent actual stopped delay more ac- curately. Approach delay was found to provide the best represen- tation of overall intersection perforrnance, although it is difficult to record in the field. Important from an applications standpoint, it was established that approach delay can be approximated by multiplying the stopped -delay value, easily obtained, by the factor 1.3. It is hoped that the availability of this new insight into delay in its several forms may soon result in more wide- spread empirical analyses of delay in the field. A variety of other measures of delay have been developed through theory and/or simulation: A British method is the well-known Webster eauation,26 which calculates the av- erage delay per vehicle on an approach to a fixed -time sig- nalized intersection, described as equivalent to approach delay. This delay can be computed from a simplification of the basic Webster equation as follows: d = (c1 + f2)100 - ff (16.18) q 100 where d = average delay per vehicle on approach. s C = cycle length, s (1 - GEIC)2 fl = 2(1 - q/s) (see Table 16-20) GE = effective green time, s, as discussed below q = approach flow, veh/s 'F. V. Weasrtx AND B. M. Coaee. Traffic Signals. Road Research Laboratory. Ministry of Transport Road Res. Tech. Pap. No. 56 (London: Her Majesty's Su - dowry Office. 1966). TABLE 16-20 Tabulation a . (1 - q/s)' r fi 2 (1 - q/s) 201 GEC 0.1 0.2 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.80 0.90 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 0.409 0.413 0.418 0.422 0.426 0.429 0.431 0.433 0.435 0.438 0.440 0.443 0.445 0.446 0.447 0.448 0.449 0.327 0.333 0.340 0.348 0.356 0.360 0.364 0.368 0.372 0.376 0.381 0.386 0.390 0.392 0.394 0.396 0.398 0.253 0.219 0.188 0.158 0.132 0.107 0.085 0.066 0.048 0.022 0.005 0.261 0.227 0.196 0.166 0.139 0.114 0.091 0.070 0.052 0.024 .0.006 0.269 0.236 0.205 0.275 0.147 0.121 0.098 0.076 0.057 0.026 0.007 0.278 0.246 0.214 0.184 0.156 0.130 0.105 0.083 0.063 0.029 0.008 0.288 0.256 0.225 0.195 0.167 0.140 0.114 0.091 0.069 0.033 0 009 0.293 0.262 0.231 0.201 0.172 0.145 0.119 0.095 0.073 0.036 0.010 0.299 0.267 0.237 0.207 0.179 0.151 0.125 0.100 0.078 0.038 0.011 0.304 0.273 0.243 0.214 0.185 0.158 0.131 0.106 0.083 0.042 0.012 0.310 0.280 0.250 0.221 0.192 0.165 0.138 0.112 0.088 0.045 0.014 0.316 0.286 0.257 0.228 0.200 0.172 0.145 0.120 0.095 0.050 0 015 0.322 0.293 0.265 0.236 0.208 0.181 0.154 0.128 0.102 0.056 0 018 0.329 0.301 0.273 0.245 0.217 0.190 0.163 0.137 0.111 0.063 0.021 0.336 0.308 0.281 0.254 0.227 0.200 0.174 0.148 0.122 0.071 0 026 0.338 0.312 0.285 0.258 0.231 0.205 0.179 0.152 0.126 0.076 0 029 0.341 0.315 0.288 0.262 0.236 0.210 0.183 0.157 0.132 0.081 0.032 0.344 0.318 0.292 0.266 0.240 0.215 0.189 0.163 0.137 0.086 0.037 0.347 0.322 0.296 0.271 0.245 0.220 0.194 0.169 0.143 0.093 0 042 Sova: Research on Road Traffic Road Research Laboratory (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1965). p. 301. Gs s Highway Capacity and Levels of Service 5C1 Special Report 209 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD National Research Council Washington, D.C. 1985 reed FLOW, DEFINITIONS AND CCNCEVTS r CAPACITY FLOW • • \ • 1e CRITICAL DENSITY DENSITY CRITICAL DENSITY Figure 1-1. Relationships among speed, density, and rate of flow on uninternrpted flow facilities. JAM DENSITY DENSITY 1 • NOTE: } CRITICAL SPEED FORCED FLCn STABLE FLOW FLW RATE VI OCCU=S UNDER TWC DIFFERENT F_OW CONDITIOI5, ILLUSTRATED AS A AND 3. is considered to be unstable. This represents forced or break- down flow. The low-density, high-speed side of the curves is the stable flow region. It is this flow region on which capacity analysis focuses. Levels -of -service A through E are defined on the stable side of the curves, with the maximum flow boundary of level -of -service E placed at capacity for uninterrupted flow facilities. Characteristics of Interrupted Flow Interrupted flow is far more complex than uninterrupted flow. Flow on an interrupted flow facility is usually dominated by points armed operation, such as traffic signals, STOP, and YIELD signs. These all operate quite differently, and have .differing impacts on overall flow. Chapter 9 contains a detailed discussion of flow at signalized intersections, and Chapter 10 contains similar information for STOP and YIELD signs. Chapter 11 dis- cusses arterial flow. 1. The concept of green time at signalized intersections—The most significant source of fixed interruptions on interrupted flow facilities is traffic signals. At traffic signals. flow in each move- ment or set of movements is periodically halted. Thus, move- ment on a given set of lanes is only possible for a portion of total time, because the signal prohibits movement during some periods. Only the time during which the signal is effectively green is available for movement. For example. if one set of lanes at a signalized intersection receives a 30 -sec green phase out of a 90 -sec total cycle, only 30/90 or one-third of total time is available for movement on the subject lanes. Thus, out of each hour of real time, only 20 min are available for flow on the lanes. If the lanes could accommodate a maximum rate of flow CRITICAL SPEED SPEED 1-7 > SPEED of 3.000 vph when the signal is green, they could accommodate a total rate of flow of only 1100 vph, as only one-third of each hour is available as green. As signal timings are subject to change, it is convenient to express capacities and service flow rates for signalized intersec- tions in terms of "vehicles ler hour of green" (vphg). In tine previous example, the maxim= rate of flow would be stated as 3,000 vphg. This can be ;converted to a real-time value by multiplying by the ratio of elective green time to cycle length for the signal. 2. Saturation flow rate attic' lost times at signalized intersec- tions—At signalized intersections, traffic on all lanes will be periodically stopped. When de signal turns green, the dynamics of starting a standing queue of vehicles must be considered. Figure 1-2 illustrates a queer of vehicles stopped at a signal. When the signal turns green. the queue begins to move. The beadways between vehicles .cut be observed as they cross the curb line of the intersection. The first headway would be the elapsed time, in seconds, betveen the initiation of the green and the crossing of the rear of tie first vehicle over the curb line. The second headway would be the elapsed time between the crossing of rear of the first and second vehicles over the curb line. Subsequent headways would be similarly measured. The driver of the first vei:cie in the queue must observe the signal change to green and react to the change by taking his/ her foot off the brake, and accelerating throuzh the intersection. The first headway will be crrnparatively lone as a result of this process. The second vehicle in the queue follows a similar pro- cess. except that the reactirn and acceleration period can par- tially occur while the first vehicle is beginninc to move. The second vehicle will be movixo faster than the first as it crosses the curb line, because it ins an additional vehicle length in SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS and signal coordination being selected and controlled by the computer. In such systems, the computer serves as a master or supervisory controller. It is not only the allocation of green time that has a significant impact on capacity and operations at a signalized intersection, but the manner in which turning movements are accommodated within the phase sequence as well. Signal phasing can provide for either protected or permitted turning movements. A permitted turning movement is made through a conflicting pedestrian or opposing vehicle flow. Thus, a left -turn movement that is made at the same time as the opposing through movement is considered to be "permitted," as is a right -turn 'Movement made at the same time as pedestrian crossings in a conflicting crosswalk. Protected turns are those made without these conflicts, such as turns made during an exclusive left -turn phase or a right - turn phase during which conflicting pedestrian movements are prohibited. Permitted turns experience the friction of selecting and pass- ing through gaps in a conflicting vehicle or pedestrian flow. Thus, a single permitted turn often consumes more of the avail- able green time than a single protected•turn. Either permitted or protected turning phases may be more "efficient" in a given situation, depending on the turning and opposing volumes, in- tersection geometry, and other factors. The preceding discussion emphasizes this primary concept: the capacity of an intersection is highly dependent on the sig- nalization present. Given the range of potential signal control schemes, this capacity is far more variable than for other types of facilities, where capacity is mainly dependent on the physical geometry of the roadway. In effect, signalization, which can be changed frequently and quickly, allows considerable latitude in the "management" of the physical capacity of the intersection space and geometry. Thus, the concept of "capacity" is some- what different from that discussed in previous chapters. The capacity analysis procedures of this chapter are based on known or projected signalization plans. Appendixes are provided to assist the analyst in establishing signalization plans. State and local policies or methods should also be consulted in making such determinations. The appendixes herein are provided to assist in capacity analysis, and should not be construed to suggest nationally accepted standards, criteria, or guidelines for signal- ization. CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE The concepts of capacity and level of service are central to the analysis of intersections, as they are for all types of facilities. In intersection analysis, however, the two concepts are not as strongly correlated as they are for other facility types. In pre- vious chapters, the same analysis results yielded a determination of both the capacity and level of service of the facility. For signalized intersections, the two are analyzed separately, and are not simply related to each other. It is critical to note at the outset, however, that both capacity and level of service must be fully considered to evaluate the overall operation of a signalized intersection. Capacity analysis of intersections results in the computation of v/c ratios for individual movements and a composite v/c ratio for the sum of critical movements or lane groups within C 9-3 the intersection. The v/c ratio is the actual or projected rate of flow on an approach or designated group of lanes during a peak 15 -min interval divided by the capacity of the approach or designated group of lanes. Level of service is based on the average stopped delay per vehicle for various movements within the intersection. While v/c affects delay, there are other param- eters that more strongly affect it,' such as the quality of pro- gression, length of green phases, cycle lengths, and others. Thus, for any given v/c ratio, a range of delay values may result, and vice -versa. For this reason, both the capacity and level of service of the intersection must be carefully examined. These two con- cepts are discussed in detail in the following sections. • • Capacity of Signalized lntersectIons Capacity at intersections is defined for each approach. Inter- section approach capacity is the maximum rate of flow (for the subject approach) which may pass through the intersection un- - der prevailing traffic, roadway, and signalization conditions. The rate of flow is generally measured or projected for a 15 -min period, and capacity is stated in vehicles per hour. Traffic conditions include volumes on each approach, the dis- tribution of vehicles by movement (left, through, right), the vehicle type distribution within each movement, the location of and use of bus stops within the intersection area, pedestrian crossing flows, and parking movements within the intersection area. Roadway conditions include the basic geometries of the in- tersection, including the number and width of lanes, grades, and lane -use allocations (including parking lanes). Signalization conditions include a full definition of the signal phasing, timing, type of control, and an evaluation of signal progression on each approach. The capacity of designated lanes or groups of lanes within an approach may also be evaluated and determined using the pro- cedures of this chapter. This may be done to isolate lanes serving a particular movement or movements, such as an exclusive right - or left -turn lane. Lanes so designated for separate analysis are referred to as "lane groups." The procedure herein contains guidelines for when and how separate lanes groups should be designated in an approach. Capacity at signalized intersections is based on the concept of saturation flow and saturation flow rates. Saturation flow rate is defined as the maximum rate of flow that can pass through a given intersection approach or lane group under prevailing traffic and roadway conditions, assuming that the approach or lane group had 100 percent of real time available as_ effective green time. Saturation flow rate is given the symbol s, and is expressed in units of vehicles per hour of effective green time (vphg). The flow ratio for a given approach or lane group is defined as the ratio of the actual flow rate for the approach or lane group, v, to the saturation flow rate. The flow ratio is given the symbol, (v/s)„ for approach or lane group i. The capacity of a given lane group or approach may be stated as: where: c, = s, x (g/C), • (9-1) Radar Speed Survey, Top of Gould Survey date Wednesday July 19, 1989, 5:10 to 5:40 p.m. Location: the crest of the downhill portion of westbound Gould Size of_sample: 23 vehicles Average speed: 37.22 mph Individual speeds were: 37, 47, 39, 37, 31, 36, 41, 33, 39, 39, 37, 40, 34, 48, 41, 33, 31, 43, 36, 33, 37, 34. exhibit N 4 Michael Schubach, Planning Director Civic Center, 1315 Valley Dr. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Good day, 1246 First St. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 September 22, 1989 SEP 251989 Thank you, again, for the notification and early opportunity to read the current draft of the updated Circulation Element for the city, prepared by DKS Associates. I have some more questions about portions of the report that deal with Prospect Ave., near which I live, that you might consider passing on to DKS for their act' on, ?nd.y :c^ fu tiia City staff. In particular, I question the validity of figures presented for traffic flow on Prospect south of Aviation. The total volume is reported to be 17,250 vehicles per day (in excess of the 15,000 maximum for collector streets). Yet, for the "through traffic" study in the report, the afternoon peak hour southbound traffic volume is given as 630 (see Table 10, following page 25). This figure is extremely low for a peak level, compared to the daily flow. I witnessed part of the "through traffic" testing, since I could observe the counter who parked near my house last August --- it was my impression that the person was inattentive, and the observations (see Appendix A, Table 2) seem to bear this out (even though the summary volume reports a number for through traffic, the appendix data shows none). I have counted cars myself, in August on two occasions during the afternoon rush hour, and my count exceed 800 per hour even after 6pm! The reported figure for through traffic leads one to believe that almost all of the southbound traffic is local. As I mentioned in my letter of August 2, the 7% figure given in Table 10 has no validity. Even if the number were derived from legitimate data, the utility of such a measurement would be anecdotal, at best. Measuring "through" traffic on Prospect south of Aviation by counting cars that start from Prospect and Artesia misses the significant contribution of traffic that comes from Aviacioli (tela ca c pei traffic light cycle would be no exaggeration). To make matters worse, this part of the traffic study was performed in August, when commuter traffic is lighter than at any time of the year but the Christmas/New Year's holidays. Prospect was not included in the report's discussions on unsignaled intersections. The study inadequately examined the traffic on Prospect south of Aviation: the particular nature of a collector street being used primarily as an arterial by non -local traffic feeding from arterials in Redondo Beach was never even mentioned, let alone addressed adequately. The update report is not thorough in reporting raw data or the basis for its statistics --- for my neighborhood, some sampling of traffic was reportedly done, but no serious attempt at characterizing the methods used or their validity was included in the report (statistics are meaningless without information about assumed distributions and the standard error involved). Finally, my questio or the City has to do with the(7)79 circulation element report mentioned in this update. That report recommend mitigating traffic on south Prospect by prohibiting left turns from Aviation onto Prospect during the afternoon peak period (4:15 to 6:15 pm). The outcome was that commuters continued to use Prospect by turning left on Ocean. Despite obvious fixes (like prohibiting left turns on Ocean, too), this outcome led the City to give up on trying to address this traffic problem. It appears that the City did not seriously pursue that study's recommendation. The new study does not make any new recommendations. What is the City's intent for mitigating traffic problems on Prospect south of Aviation? I still maintain that providing south Prospect as a commuter shortcut is bad for the City: • traffic is primarily non-resident and belongs on an arterial, not a collector, • traffic volume exceeds the maximum recommended for a cr'ltor.}or street, and • diverting commuter traffic through a low-density residential area instead of through a commercial corridor is both bad for local businesses and horrible for the lifestyle in a low-density neighborhood. I would be interested in hearing about the City's near-term and far -term plans for addressing this problem. Many methods for addressing the excess and badly=planned traffic flow here have not been tried (one-way streets, barricades, restrictions on traffic that are enforced) --- I would be interested in hearing why that is so. Thank you, ‹) )44,46 David R. Suess cc: Kevin B. Northcraft, City Manager Hermosa Beach City Council Chairman Geoffrey Rue and Planning Commission members City of Hermosa Beach Dear Geoff, September 20, 1989 EP201989 As you may know, I have a long-standing interest in land use issues that impact our community, traffic flow and congestion being one such issue. I have reviewed much of the documentation relating to the proposed Circulation Element revisions, in particular the question of removing the parking on PCH during the P.M. rush hours. I believe both the DKS data and our personal experience present a very persuasive case for pursuing this action. I strongly encourage the Planning Commission to adopt those implementing policies to restrict peak hour PCH parking, amend the current Circulation Element of the General Plan accordingly, and recommend Council concurrence and City action in a timely fashion. Approximately two years ago' the Planning Commission considered amending the Circulation Element in order to implement the then -stated policy goal of restricting parking on the west side of PCH and thus provide an additional driving lane during the P.M. rush hours. Two major concerns were raised at that time and were subsequently discussed by DKS, among others. First, the impact on available parking for adjacent properties. DKS reviewed the recent (1936) "Economic Impact Study" in which Caltrans focused on potential economic impacts to businesses located along PCH adjacent to the proposed parking restriction zone.(See Appendix J) The study concluded that, overall, the adverse impact would be minimal. "There is always an implicit assumption that such a restriction will adversely affect business activity or sales volume. This impact perception is more apparent than. real ... Under conditions of under -utilization of available off-street parking spaces, front store parking restriction has no adverse effect on sales ... a parking restriction can be accommodated in a. pattern with no adverse effect on business activity." Furthermore, empirical observation by Commission members would clearly indicate that, due to both new developments and improvements to available off-street parking made by existing businesses over the past several years, as well as the positive impact that future developments would have on the availability of off-street parking --- that because of these market forces, any adverse effects of a parking restriction would obviously be extremely limited and highly selective in the short-term, and virtually insignificant in the long-term. Finally, the City has at its disposal a variety of actions, including funding mechanisms, that could be taken, perhaps in cooperation with Caltrans, to mitigate the short- and long-term impact, if that was necessary. Secondly, the possibility of a "bottleneck" at Herondo. DKS addresses this concern, observing that "the southbound volume (of traffic) on PCH is reduced by 25 percent at Catalina Avenue." For many residents of south-west Redondo, as well as commuters continuing to Palos Verdes, Catalina Avenue is the major parallel alternate to PCH. Thus, for the foreseeable future, the potential traffic "bottleneck" at our southern boundary is more illusion than reality because of the Catalina "diversion". In the long-term, as DK5 notes, Caltrans is securing additional right-of-way dedications in order to widen FCH to three lanes in each direction. In the short-term, however, I would suggest that the Commission concur in the DKS suggestion that the curb lane be implemented as a through lane in Hermosa, ending in a right -turn -only lane at Catalina Avenue in Redondo. Obviously other related issues also need to be reviewed: reduction of communter traffic on adjacent residential streets, safety/accident considerations, potential City liability if no action is taken, City costs, environmental impacts, and the experience of Manhattan Beach since 1985. Upon review of the available information,.I believe the reasonable conclusions on these issues are: measurably beneficial, substantial improvement/reduction, very real if Hermosa fails to act, nominal, negligible, and historically proven to be a sound decision to effectively control those traffic problems imposed primarily by residential/commercial growth in surrounding areas. Geoff, on balance I believe the benefits of the P.M. rush hours parking restriction do outweigh the few negative impacts. I respect- fully request that the Planning Commission amend the General Plan to include those polices recommended in the proposed Circulation Element revisions; in particular, those policies that would "implement a parking restriction program on PCH in the southbound direction during the evening peak commute hours." Hopefully, with Council concurrence, the City would then be able to cooperate with Caltrans to implement this policy in a timely fashion. Sincerely, Lance Widman 1015 4th Street Hermosa Beach Michael Schubach, Planning Director Civic Center, 1315 Valley Dr. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Good day, t 1246 First St. Hermosa Beach, August 2, 1989 AUG U; 1989 • 664& 640'2— CA 90254 S %/,4/),,/7'/ Thank you for the notification and early opportunity to read the current draft of the updated Circulation Element for the city, prepared by DKS Associates. I plan on following the hearings on tb: subjects raised in the report with great interest, especially since my complaints about traffic on south Prospect are substantiated (the report shows that the current traffic level is 15% over capacity). I noted that DKS Associates stated that they were only "90 percent complete." It would be in the city's interests, I believe, if part of that remaining effort could provide an explanation of a discrepancy I noted in my brief perusal of the report. Table 10, following page 25 in the main report, is inconsistent with the information in Appendix A, to which it refers. Table 2 in that appendix, on the second page following page three, shows a measurement (for southbound "through traffic") on Prospect that is zero for half of the monitored interval (3 to 4 pm) and nothing, due to insufficient sample size, for the other half (5 to 6 pm). Table 10 in the main report claims that a volume of 44 "through" trips were measured -- where did this number come from? (It is my impression that the number was "cooked" to fill in Table 10.) (Moreover, the measurement shown here for Prospect is not useful. The flow of "through traffic" trips should not have been measured from the Artesia end of Prospect for southbound traffic; the significant through traffic diverts from Aviation southward onto Prospect, not from Artesia. It is evident when traffic volumesthe t--"=."- _ intut report are T':o�.�iiii.0 that ..the portion of Prospect south of Aviation has two to three times the volume of the northern extension, and the measurement of "through traffic" from the Artesia end, even if done properly, will be misleading.) Confidence in the figures presented should be ensured, however. The discrepancy between reported figures and raw data needs an explanation, and I think the City should request one. Thank you, David R. Suess cc: Kevin B. Northcraft, City Manager Mayor and Members of the City Council December 6, 1989 City Council Meeting December 12, 1989 APPOINTMENT OF CITY CLERK Recommendation It is recommended that the after the City Council interviews the applicants, that they appoint a City Clerk to fill the unexpired term ending November, 1991. Linda Riddle`-�De ut City Clerk eputy fur: Kevin B. Northbraft, City Manager December 5, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of December 12, 1989 RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE REPORT REGARDING THE FIRE FLOW STUDY RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council receive and file this report BACKGROUND: In recent years, there has been a substantial amount of building in the City. Several new commercial buildings and numerous multiple residence housing units have been constructed. Basically, our City has grown from a beach cottage town of the 1930's to a bustling, densely populated residential community. The fire flow system of the 1930's was designed to protect the sparsely placed 800 square foot beach cottages. In 1989, the fire flow demand is much greater with the multistoried dwellings built closely together throughout the City. The fire flow system has grown some and there have been many improvements; however, there are some areas that have been determined to be deficient. Based on the knowledge that deficiencies existed, the City began an aggressive program to improve the fire flow system for the protection of the commmunity. ANALYSIS: The move to improve the fire flow system began in September 1985. At that time, the Fire Department recommended that a fiscal program be established to upgrade the water mains in the City and that a fire flow study be conducted. Due to budgetary constraints, these tasks were not accomplished. In July 1987, the Fire Department recommended testing of large diameter fire hose as a possible improvement for providing water to fight fires. Additionally, the department recommended that the City continue to require builders to pay for the upgrades to the fire flow system made necessary by their projects, and that the department be authorized to contact outside firms regarding the possibility of a complete fire flow study. All of these recommen- dations were approved by Council. In October 1987, the Fire Department began conducting plan checks of all construction over 500 square feet. This procedure was established due to some very large homes being built in the northern part of the City without sufficient fire flows and/or no fire hydrants to protect them. In January 1988, a single family builder made an appeal to City Council regarding the requirement to pay for fire flow upgrades made necessary by their project. Council directed the department to return with proposals for obtaining funds for upgrading the fire flow system. Following successful testing of the large diameter hose, Council authorized the purchase of four inch fire hose and fittings in March 1988. 1 tf In May 1988, staff provided Council with an informational report and recommen- dations regarding the establishment of a fire flow fund based on a fee process for building projects. Council approved this and instructed staff to prepare an ordinance. An ordinance establishing a fire flow fee was introduced and approved by Council on May 24, 1988. Additionally, Council appropriated $10,000 to fund the City portion of any required upgrades to the fire flow system and directed staff to request proposals for study and recommendations of long term solutions for the fire flow issue. Goals for the fire flow system and standardized plan check procedures were established. In June 1988, the large diameter fire hose was received and placed into service. There were several meetings between the City and California Water Service to discuss the fire flow issue, and Fire personnel worked closely with the Water Company in order to standardize the fire flow test procedures. A subcommittee of the Council was established in July 1988 to meet with the Water Company to discuss fire flows and other water related issues. Those _ meetings resulted in the establishment of three fire flow goals: 1) Achieving minimum flows of 1500 GPM @ 20 psi at each hydrant; 2) Replacement of hydrants without 4" connections; and 3) Maximum hydrant spacing of 300 feet. The Water Company agreed to replace at least five hydrants per year at their expense in addition to the budgeted improvements in order to assist the City in achieving those goals and indicated a willingness to alter their improvement plans when feasible In September 1988, the contract to conduct a fire flow study was awarded to Phenix Technology, Inc. and they began the project in October 1988. THE STUDY AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS The fire flow study was recently completed and received. In the study were 18 recommendations dealing with the following areas: * Standardized methods of calculating fire flows * Recalculation of existing records * Adoption of code enforcement standards * Adoption of standardized hydrant installation diagram * Notification of Water Company during major operations * Enhanced working relationships between Fire and Water * Mutual hydrant numbering system * Use of Computer for the Fire Department * Adoption of comprehensive sprinkler ordinance * Use of NFPA Pamphlet 13 D and 13 R * Contract with Fire Protection Analyst * Request water system upgrades * Elimination of sub -standard mains * Accelerate expenditure of Fire Flow funds * Educational and Training opportunities * Medic -Engine companies * Full time command Officer * Full time fire inspector Each of these recommendations is discussed fully in the final report. 2 't. The Fire Department has already begun to implement some of the recommendations such as the use of computers, working relationships with the Water Company, expenditure of fire flow funds, standardized methods for calculating fire flows, and requester for full time command officer. In addition to these 18 recommendations, the study recommends that the minimum fire flows from any hydrant in the city should be no less than 1,000 gallons per minute(gpm) at 20 psi, and that the minimum flow should be 1,500gpm in any dense portions of the community. These are the minimum flows that were established as a goal by the City and communicated to the Water Company several months ago. The replacement of all hydrants without 4" outlets, which the Department and the Water Company are currently working on, is a continued recommendation in the Fire Flow Study. To date, sixteen (16) hydrants without 4" outlets have been replaced. Hydrant spacing of 300 to 500 feet is a recommendation of the Study and is -- another area that the Fire Department and Water Company have already started to address. To date, twenty-one (21) new hydrants have been installed in order to meet the spacing requirements. As mentioned in the Study, replacement of sub -standard water mains is recom- mended. City Council decided that no funds from the fire flow fund should be used to replace mains and the entire expense of water mains should be borne by the Water Company or the developer. To date, 731 feet of 6" water main; 836 feet of 8" water main; and 1538 feet of 12" water main has been installed. The Fire Flow study will be used as a master plan for concentrating the fire flow funds and the efforts of the Fire Department on the areas where the greatest improvement and increased flows to the system are required for the safety of the community. Concw : 1 Kevin B. Northcraft, City Manager NOTE: tfullySumitted, 4 Steve S.isniewski Director of Public Safety THE AUTHOR OF THE REPORT, PHENIX TECHNOLOGY, WILL PRESENT AN EXPLAINATION AND SUMMARY OF THEIR STUDY AND THE REPORT. 3 December 4, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council December'12, 1989 BUS SHELTERS, CIP 90-149 Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Direct staff to construct City type benches at all bus stop locations, where it is safe to do so. 2. Have the existing advertisement type bus benches removed only as the City type bus benches are constructed at each site. 3. Direct staff to install a prototype bus bench shelter at the site in front of the Library and to evaluate it's use before considering shelters at the other locations. Background: On February 21, 1989, the City Council directed the staff to review and determine where sheltered bus benches should be located. This action was based on a report initiated by the City Manager and prepared by the Planning Department dated January 11, 1989, of which a copy is attached. The City Council stated that there was to be no advertising on the benches. Analysis: The analysis is divided as follows: 1. Advertising 2. Locations Where Sheltered Bus Benches Could be Installed. 3. Other Alternatives 1. Advertising On December 5, 1972, the City Council approved an ordinance to control the advertising to be allowed on benches within the public right of way. This section of the Municipal Code was further modified on August 14, 1984. RTD has informed the City that they do not own any of the benches located in Hermosa Beach. Therefore, they have no objection to the City's requirement to replace the existing units. - 1 - 10 • The Municipal Code states that an advertising bench may be installed only as follows in items 1 through 3 and in accordance with items 4 and 5. 1. Installed only at an established bus stop. (Section, 3-3.1 (c)) 2. At places where the right of way distance from the curb to the property line is eight (8) feet or more. (Section 3-3.1 (b)) 3. A permit must be obtained from the City Council for each bench. (Section 3-3.2 (b)) 4. The advertising shall not be more then fifty percent (50%) of the front of the two inch wide surface nearest the curb. (Section 3-3.6) 5. The advertising may only state "Courtesy of (Name of Business)" (Section 3-3.6) In order to comply with City Council's action that there is to be no advertising on the benches, section 3-3.6 will have to be repealed or rewritten. Staff will return with an ordinance providing this change. A copy of the existing Municipal Code is attached. The Municipal Code also states that bus benches shall be: 1. No more then twenty (20) inches high. 2. No more then eighteen (18) inches wide. 3. No more then eight (8) feet long. 4. That each bench shall be backless. 5. That each bench shall be three (3) two by six wooden planks on permanent slumpstone bases. STANDARD BUS BENCH 2. Locations Where Sheltered Bus Benches Could be Installed It is the staff's opinion that any proposed bus bench shelters should only be located at sites where there is a minimum of ten (10) feet of clearance from the curb to the right of way line. Those seven (7) locations with ten (10) feet or more are as follows: 1. Eastbound on Artesia Blvd. at Pacific Coast Highway. 2. Southbound on Pacific Coast Highway at Artesia Blvd. 3. Eastbound on Pier Avenue at Valley Avenue. 4. Eastbound on Pier Avenue at Monterey Blvd. 5. Westbound on Pier Avenue at Pacific Coast Highway. 6. Westbound on Pier Avenue at Ardmore Avenue. 7. Westbound on Pier Avenue at Monterey Blvd. Based on RTD information, the following are the six most used bus stop locations in the City: 1. Northbound PCH/Artesia 121 persons per day 2. Northbound PCH/9th 54 persons per day 3. Southbound PCH/Artesia 53 persons per day 4. Northbound Hermosa/10th 50 persons per day 5. Southbound PCH/9th 45 persons per day 6. Northbound PCH/16th 37 persons per day For the latest status on the number of existing bus stops and the number of existing bus benches see Attachment "A". The proposed new bus bench shelters could improve the image of the City and will provide weather protection for the citizens. The upgrading of the bus stop locations may help promote the use of public transit services to alleviate some of the City's traffic congestion. The proposed bus bench shelter is clear plexiglass on three sides with a roof. There shall be no advertising allowed of any type. The staff recommends that a prototype be installed at the site on Pier Avenue in front of the Library before any other sites have a shelter installed. 3. Other Alternatives 1. The City Council may wish to change the style of the City standard bus bench. Three possible types are shown below. Any change from the existing bench standard would require changing the present City code. 2. The City Council may wish to delete the construction of all bus bench shelters due to the small number of locations where there is adequate space to install the shelter. 3. The City Council may wish to acquire additional right of way from the adjacent property owners to install the bus bench shelters. 4. The City Council may wish to allow advertising of the type on the existing benches to be removed. This would require changing the present City code. Fiscal Impact: Bus stop improvements are classified as an eligible Proposition "A" project. The City must coordinate all bus stop improvements with the existing transit operator. Existing bus benches are estimated to cost approximately $ 300. installed. ($300)(37 new locations) = $ 11,100 Currently, the City has $ 55,000 in Proposition "A" funds budgeted for this project. The City may use these funds for the purchase and maintenance of the bus bench shelters at the 7 proposed locations and also use the funds to provide new City bus benches at the existing 43 bus stops. (7 new bench shelters)($ 5,500) = $ 38,500 (43 new bus benches)($ 380) = 16,340 Summary: $ 54,840 Council may wish to provide a different style - possibly more attractive - bus bench. A bench with a back will make sitting and waiting for a bus more comfortable and this may encourage ridership and enhance the City's image. Based on cost, staff recommends continued use of the existing style. Respectfully Submitted: Con ynn A. Terry, P.E. Anthony Antich Deputy City Engineer Noted For Fiscal Impact: NOT AVAILABLE FOR SIGNATURE Viki Copeland Director of Finance Director of Public Works Do not concur. Please see attached memo Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager December 7, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of December 12, 1989 ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION BUS BENCHES AND SHELTERS Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council: 1) Direct staff to purchase bus benches of Style No. 3 for all bus stop locations where it is safe to do so. 2) Have the existing advertising bus benches removed as the City bus benches are installed and install an attractive prototype bus shelter in front of the Library. 3) Direct that an ordinance be prepared to repeal the cur- rent provisions for bus benches in the City Code and reflect that only Council approved bus benches and shel- ters shall be installed within the City, none of which shall be allowed to contain advertising. This letter is to provide an alternative recommendation to the recommendation of the Public Works Department. The criteria used by Public Works was cost and space available. I feel it is more appropriate to consider ridership needs, functionality, and aes- thetics. Since Proposition A funds are provided the City for promoting of transit uses, going with the cheapest and least functional benches does not seem to be consistent with the pur- pose of these funds. After consulting with the Planning and Community Resources Departments, we feel that the current wood benches in place on the Greenbelt would be much more functional for our riders. Also, they have received very positive reviews by citizens within the community and would be the type of street furniture that would be a positive amenity to our City. There is almost $200,000 available in Proposition A Funds. Prototype bus shelter to be placed in front of the Library would seem to be appropriate, as this would increase the public input on what might be placed throughout the City. The prototype should be selected for its function and attractiveness; not for being the cheapest available. The shelters obviously would best assist where ridership is greatest in the City. If inadequate space is available at these locations, staff should be directed to work with adjacent land owners to see if arrangements could be made. Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager KBN/ld cc: Planning CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS C.I.P. 90-149 EXISTING BUS ROUTES: 1. Number of Existing Bus Routes 6 EXISTING BUS STOPS: 2. Total Number of Bus Stops (all routes) 77 3. Total Number of Combined Bus Stops 43 4. Total Number of Bus Stops with Benches 34 5. Number of Bus Stops without Benches 9 6. Number of Locations without City Benches 37 EXISTING BUS BENCHES: 7. Total Nnmher of Existing Bus Benches 76 8. Total Number of Advertising Bus Benches 70 9. Total Number of City Bus Benches 6 STATUS: December 4, 1989 ATTACHMENT "A". 13.3 HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE - 1332 See. 3.3. Advertising benches—Definitions: (a) Advertising bench is hereby defined to be a seat located upon public property along any transportation, on which ad- vertising is displayed in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance (sections 3-3 through 3-3.9]. (b) Street is any public thoroughfare, or way, including the sidewalk, the parkway and any public property bordering upon a public way. (Ord. No. N.S. 435. § 1. 12-5-72) Sec. 3-3.1. Same—Location restrictions. It shall be unlawful to install, erect. or maintain any such bench in any of the following locations: (a) In any alley. (b) At any place where the distance from the face of the curb to the property line is less than eight (8) feet. (c) On any street or highway except at an established bus atop. • (d) At any place or places which the city council may from time to time specify. A violation of this section shall be an infraction. (Ord. No. N.S. 435. § 1, 12-5-72; Ord. No. 84-771. §§ 1. 3, 8-14-84) Sec. 3.3.2. Same—Permit required. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to install. erect or maintain any such bench in the city with- out first securing a license therefor as set forth in Chapter 17, section 17-19, Classification "A", Group 15 of the Municipal Code of said city. (b) A permit must be obtained from the city council for each bench. pursuant to procedures set forth in Chapter 17, section 17-29 of the Municipal Code of said city and not more than two (2) such benches shall be allowed for any one loca- tion. (c) No such permit shall be issued except upon written ap- plication to the city council showing proposed location of each bench. the advertising. if any. to appear thereon, and such Supp. No. 984 52 1335 HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE 33.9 Sec. 3-3.5. Same—Maintenance. It shall be the duty of the permittee to maintain each such bench at all times in safe condition and its proper lawful loca- tion. and to inspect each such bench periodically. (Ord. No. N.S. 435, § 1, 12-5-72) Sec. 3.3.6. Same—Advertising. It shall be unlawful to display any advertising matter or sign on any bench other than "Courtesy of (Name of Business)'on the front surface area of the two by six t2 x 6) plans nearest to the curb. Not more than fifty (50) per cent of such surface shall be used for such purpose, and such advertising shall not extend above or below the actual thickness of the seat plank. [A violation of this section shall be an infraction.) (Ord. No. N.S. 435, § 1, 12-5-72; Ord. No. 84-771, §§ 1. 3. 8.14-84) Editor's note --Ord. No. 8-771. 44 1. 3. pro.,ded (or the addition o(inincmoo ptov,s,ons to 4 316.6. Inumueu as the Code conta,ned no 4 3-6.6, tutu pravu,oas were deemso to amend 4 33.6. Sea 3-3.7. Same—Supervision. The department of public works shall supervise the main- tenance and erection of all benches licensed hereunder. (Ord. No. N.S. 435, § 1, 12-5-72) Sec. 3-3.8. Same—Location of benches. The city council shall designate locations where such benches shall be erected and reserve the right to change, alter, or amend designation of said location as public convenience and necessit;• may from time to time require. (Ord. No. N.S. 435, § 1, 12-5-72) Sec. 3-3.9. Same—Indemnity agreement. No advertising bench permit shail be issued hereunder un- less applicant shall post with the city treasurer a public lia- bility bond approved by the city council. Supp. No. 9-84 62.2 ! 33.3 ADVERTISING ,e l 3-3.4 other information as the council may require. Details, plans and specifications of each such bench must be supplied by the applicant No installation will be permitted which will cause damage to the property of the city. (d) No permit shall be issued if the city council shall find that the maintenance of the bench would tend to obstruct the passage along any public way, or create a hazard, or would otherwise be detrimental to the public safety, weifare or con- venience. (e) A violation of this section shall be an infraction. (Ord. No. N.S. 435, § 1. 12-5-72; Ord. No. 84771, §§ 1, 3, 8-14-84) Sec. 3.3.3. Same—Permit revocation. Any permit may be revoked or renewal thereof denied for any violation of any of the provisions of this article (sections 3-3 through 3.3.9], for any fraud or misrepresentaticn in this application or any reason, by the city council. If any permit is revoked or renewal thereof denied in accordance with the pro- visions of this ordinance [sections 3.3 through 3-3.9], the per- mittee shall remove the bench from public property within ten (10) days from the date he is so ordered, or the city shall remove and store the bench at the permittee's expense. Any permit issued under this ordinance [sections 3-3 through 3-3.9] shall be cancelled and revoked if the permittee fails to install such bench within sixty (60) days after the date of issuance of the permit. (Ord. No. N.S. 435. § 1. 12-5-72) Sec. 34.4, Same --Construction. (a) Each bench shall be constructed to comply with City of Hermosa Beach Standard Plan No. _...... (b) No such bench shall be more than twenty (20) inches high. nor more than eighteen (18) inches wide, nor more than eight (8) feet long overall. (c) Each such bench shall be backless and composed of three (3) two by six (2 x 6) foot wooden planks on permanent slumpstone bases. (Ord. No. N.S. 435. § 1. 12.5-72) Supp. No. 9$4 62.1 319 ADVERTISING 1 33.9 Such public liability bond shall provide that the permittee will indemnify and save harmless the city, its officers, agents and employees from any loss, cost, damages or expense which may result or arise out of granting the permit on the existence. installation or maintenance of the advertising bench for which the permit is issued. and that permittee will pay all loss or damage that may arise out of such existence, installation or maintenance. The said insurance policy shall be maintained in its original amount by the permittee at his, their or its own expense. at all times during the period for which the policy is in effect. One such policy may be furnished to cover two (2) or more benches, and if poiicy of insurance shall be of such type, coverage shall be automatically restored imme- diately from and after the report of any accident from which liability shall thereafter occur. (Ord. No. N.S. 435, § 1, 12-5-72) Supp. No. 984 52.3 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council January 11, 1989 Regular meeting of January 24, 1989 SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY OF BUS BENCHES AND SHELTERS INITIATED BY CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending the City Council gran[ authorization to pursue obtaining new bus benches and .shelters, to be owned and maintained by a private company. Background December 5, 1988, the City Manager directed staff to identify all bus stop locations, high volume locations, and to examine• the posibility of installing new benches and shelters. Since that time, staff has held discussions 'with the Southern California Rapid Transit District, the Los Angeles Transportation Commission, and two private bus bench companies to examine the alternatives and feasibility of upgrading our existing condition. In addition, the Public Works Department has conducted field inspections of our bus stop locations, to determine the possibility of providing benches and shelters as well. Analysis EXISTING BENCHES AND PROPOSED BENCHES & SHELTERS The existing bus benches contain advertising and are made of wood and concrete. The proposed bus benches and shelters can provide attractive advertising in a variety of different models. These models are made of fiberglass and tinted glass. (refer to attached exhibits) ADVANTAGES OF PROPOSED BENCHES AND SHELTERS The proposed new bus benches and shelters will improve the image of the City. In addition, they will provide weather protection for our citizens and hopefully, this upgrading of our bus stop locations will also promote the use of public transit services and in conjunction with the nine city commuter bus program will eliviate some the City's traffic congestion. An additional incentive for installing the proposed benches and shelters is additional revenue for the City. (see below for details) - 1 - 1] RTD RTD informs us, they do not own any of the benches located in , Hermosa Beach. Therefore, they have no objection to the City's request to replace the existing units. Based on RTD information, the following are the six most used bus stop locations in the City: 1. Northbound 2. Northbound 3. Southbound 4. Northbound 5. Southbound 6. Northbound *=' Hermosa Beach routes.) PCH/Artesia PCH/9th •PCH/Artesia Hermosa/10th PCH/9th PCH/16th 121 54 53 5Q 45 37 persons persons persons persons persons persons per per per per per per day day day day day day is served by 6 RTD lines. (see attachment for LACTC FUNDS Bus stop improvements are classified as a conditionally eligible Propsition "A" project. The City must coordinate all bus stop improvements with the existing transit operator by submitting a letter of coordination from the affected transit operator, along with a project description. If the City proposes to use Proposition "A" funds to replace a bench or shelter currently supplied by a private provider, that provider must be notified before final City Council approval is given to the project. The private provider has seven (7) days to respond to the notification received from the City before the City can take action. Currently, the City has $117,940 in Proposition "A" reserve. If the City wishes, it may use these funds for the purchase and maintenance of these units, provided project descriptions are approved. PROPOSED PRIVATE BUS BENCH AND SHELTERS (with advertising) Two companies were approached, Gannett Transit and Shelter Vision. Both companies basically provide the same service and offer the following: 1. They incur total cost of the purchase and installation of the units. 2. Provide insurance for the units. 3. Supply maintainance free -of -charge. 4. Grant the City full veto power over all forms of advertising installed (neither company permits alcoholic or tobacco advertisements). - 2 - 5. Pay the City a percentage of the gross money earned from advertising or a flat figure; estimated revenue for the City is in the range of $700 to $1000 dollars per year, per bench/shelter. Both companies provide a variety of different models and options of benches and shelters. One option discussed was the allowance of advertising only on Pacific Coast Highway and Aviation Blvd. Such options shall be examined further, if staff is authorized to pursue the use. CITY OWNED AND MAINTAINED BENCHES AND SHELTERS The price of each unit (installed) is roughly $5,500 and maintenance costs are estimated as high as $140 per month, per bench depending on the amount of vandelism. Insurance cost is unknown at this time. The City currently has 42 bus stop locations. Therefore, the estimated costs of purchasing and installing the units is $231,000 ($5500 per unit installed) and maintainance costs are estimated to be as high as $5880 per month. ($140 per unit) The. City does not possess the Proposition A funds needed to purchase all the units at one time, however they possibly could be bought over time. CONCUR: Michael Schubach Planing Director 0 yra Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager Repectfu 9 A 1� submitted, Alex'Hernan.ez Assistant Planrfer Attachments 1. RTD routes map. 2. Examples of existing bus benches and advertising. 3. Examples of potential bus benches and shelters A/BUSES - 3 - BUS 'BENCH INVENTORY (EXISTING) LOCATION E AP.Tr, ) •". F. p 1 • Ar,oNJuMRR-- BUS hi ENCI-I I NV E NTORY (ExIsTING) LOcAT I 0 w! Ste- COPIJEZ. gKNiez: e f-dx-r-H • NUM S ' A OC Cit.LS /3Z.41 C FLE.S.: s -r- (onie s 1- ei F ?_ OW' Cr 2) NU MI3 k./q nr C7f_ IS Iga-AIC U.S.: r. • . • A 1 4 .1 . a L • . • I 4 i • a • A 0 4 . . 1111 - a: L • . 41, . . , ST' \ ,•+r.: • • ' ET" o:- -ar^r* Li r Z. i r..1 /00 E: CP PCI-: , 2,— f;f7"- v.: Mcn-E-1 • •. ?..,....,..,‘ ,.. Cr (.,,. 5E-- (Nr- -rii L'•1" is NOT" Cil S;DEWAI k • LoCATF) • • .. .0.....: P....4 , • =or 1;• ,,- -....:"r• ' ' ,i - .A ' ' ..t. ' `P:rufri, • ......r A 1, irr•-•.-t7 ' • SKETCH It.r. T=.7 • 2 0/.4,0040, • • 0467.• ....--,. ,••• •r-..- .. ....,,-.• • •••• ,' % • . -- --'," _ • •••- ---.4v,--- - (_,- - - - 't :,..: '- S K E T C H PI-10TO . ••• „,,,,•.-er A '%:`'"9" ••••• :-: .471.- • i 0•01,: •f ,, • -. ..,....„••:. 010 4. J.?, , % •• ''.;; --" -.,". .. .. R LUCKY PAKi;V; Lor ..J.., ,r•".v.A.11'..,.-.., -4-... " 4 ; _ S ". .1 ..1 ... .• ./.....,r-- 1 1 • r s - •• Lowal-, r...)C I `,/r,A1 Al . X ACFY oc WALK - 'i•e- - : . ;4 . . ... \ . , , < 1 I 1" ot. ..", I • - i• - • ,.., .7•Fti e r • -2p4";k4,z-1... H • -4--.30,1- ..., I i \ 31:' I .."...i. - ''".• • ',--. - •-•:.-- 1 16 '. , I :„: .t, ....‘ ...i,--,.-- • .. .:•'-'71. S - i I tj I 1- ..• -.4, ,,..el 7 - • ...- .. .: ` .. •73.c. z -, . 1 ' - • ' ' • o ." 7.• 1 f''''...7 .. , ,, . 13- 4. . . c . , - , . . , ( 1 I I _______ • r I . or . -:-2........„,„..s_ , 27_ - i'z4144 --- -77- . .an%M.- .....• ' r.mt s/ 4.4....).ty, - ., • • ig.....? - - -;;;:e. t,7t- . n'., ---1 . • -...,cow_fr I ot)li .. , 4 i: , ....f-,,•!" 1....c. , .<- -.... -•,a' I A R. E S 1 P. , •••• e••.' .. . . _,.....,- ,...f..VIVAIS*- ' - • 11,W- - 4i_1.1,; tiEK rt 0 5 A AVE. - • -Ap .:.4 .11".....,.. a -.I- _ - 3--. -C. '- . • ., ,i,_' ; 1 • - r • 5.-:-..r . - rt.,1•7- • ^:t 'i'. .1-----Z ... ..- .„4, r;•••,4, ..., • ., rvitirc . . - 5-- • - 6 - . .__ .... _ • • _ BUS BENCH INVENTORY (EXISTING) LOr ATION :°ISIDE OF ?cm. JUST" S. or GooLD LOCATION NUP,13Rf 39 MVP/113E74 nF it7LJ tqL=A/ C14 F_S • riry owtvgn pgAtc,)•1 ri PRivAretv Ciwittf:h .6-.A/f6H NOTE-! !DON S. SKETcy PHOTO EDGE Or VIALK P. C. H. - •POTENTIAL UNITS THOMAS W. STOEVER WILLIAM B. BARR CHARLES 5. VOSE CONNIE COOKE SANDIFER ROGER W. SPRINGER EDWARD W. LEE HERIBERTO F. DIAZ JAMES DUFF MURPHY JANICE R. MIYAHIRA LAW OFFICES OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & VOSE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1000 SUNSET BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 (213) 250-3043 MEMORANDUM To Kevin Northcraft, City Manager From C arles S. Vose, City Attorney Date December 6, 1989 Re Agenda Format for Closed Sessions TELECOPIER (213) 482-5336 The prior City Council requested that I prepare a brief example of a possible agenda format for closed sessions. Apparently, it was the desire of the prior City Council to provide some form of written notice to the public as to the specific reasons for a scheduled closed session by the City Council. The Brown Act requires that certain announcements be made (orally or in writing) depending upon the type of matter to be considered at the closed session. The format that is attached is intended to be consistent with the legal requirements of the Brown Act in designating the reason for the specific closed session. I have limited the examples of proposed closed session matters to legal, real estate negotiations and personnel issues since these areas dominate the items to be considered in closed sessions by most City Councils. In addition to these areas, there are potential issues of licensing matters, safety of public buildings, and other specified matters which rarely become issues for the City Council to discuss in closed session. Obviously, if such a matter arose, I would work with staff to prepare an appropriate written description to be included on any closed session agenda. The provisions of the -Brown Act do not limit the amount of information or the specificity which the City Council may disclose at the time that it enters into closed session. However, I would not encourage the City Council to have a more lengthy detailed description of the item to be considered in executive session since it may impact the position of the City 11 a OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & VOSE Memo to Kevin Northcraft December 6, 1989 Page 2. with respect to the matter under consideration. It would appear that the attached agenda format would be sufficient for the purpose of disclosing to the public the general matter to be discussed by the City Council in closed session. Should you or the City Council members have further questions concerning this issue, please do not hesitate to contact me. CSV:ilf POSSIBLE AGENDA FORMAT FOR CLOSED SESSIONS 1. Legal Matters A. Pending Litigation - "The City Council will recess to a closed session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to confer with its legal counsel regarding the case of John Doe vs. City of Hermosa Beach." (title of case not required if to so identify would jeopardize settlement negotiations). B. Potential Litigation - "The City Council will recess to a closed session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1) to confer with its legal counsel regarding potential litigation." 2. Real Estate Negotiations "The City Council will recess to a closed session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 to give instructions to its negotiator regarding the real property located at The person with whom its negotiator may negotiate is 3. Personnel "The City Council will recess to a closed session pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 to discuss a personnel matter." (Appointment, employment, evaluation, or dismissal). December 7, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of December 12, 1989 SCHEDULING OF JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve a date for a joint meeting with the Planning Commission. Background: The City Council -has previously held joint meetings with the Planning Commission, at which they have recommended that such meetings continue on a periodic basis. Scheduling of a meeting was deferred three times during 1989 due to vacancies and other priorities. The last such referral was at the Council meeting of September 12, 1989, when the Council suggested that the joint meeting be held after the November, 1989, election of Councilmembers. Analysis: Due to the holidays and a heavy schedule of hearings in January, 1990, staff is suggesting that the Council consider a joint meet- ing of the Planning Commission and Council during the month of February, 1990. A suggested date would be February 15, 1990, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. "Bevin B. Northcraf't City Manager KBN/ l d cc: Plannning Department 12 6 MICHAEL J. VIZZINI ASSOCIATES AN APPRAISAL REPORT OF THE BILTMORE SITE AND • THE CITY OWNED PARKING.LOT AS PART OF THE 1985 SPECIFIC HOTEL PLAN LOCATED IN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS OF JUNE 15, 1988 PREPARED FOR MR KEVIN B. NORTHCRAFT CITY MANAGER CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY MICHAEL J. VIZZINI ASSOCIATES 721 SOUTH PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SUITE C REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90277 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 13 b July 12, 1988 Mr. Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager MICHAEL J. VIZZINI ASSOCIATES CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Civic Center 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 RE: File No. VL -88-151 Vacant Land Appraisal Biltmore Site and City Owned Parking Lot As Part of The 1985 Specific Hotel Plan Hermosa Beach, California Dear: Mr. Northcraft:" We are pleased to present our appraisal of the fee simple interests in the above captioned real properties. The legal descriptions of the properties are in the Site Description paragraph's within this report. It is our opinion that the Fair Market Values of the subject properties, based upon market conditions evident as of June 15, 1988 are indicated as follows: Biltmore Site as R-1 Zoning: FOUR MILLION FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS $4,550,000 Biltmore Site as R -2B Zoning: FOUR MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS $4,730,000 Biltmore Site as C-2 Zoning: THREE MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS $3,700,000 Biltmore Site as part of the 1985 Specific Hotel Plan: .THREE MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS $3,700,000 r MICHAEL J. VIZZLNI ASSOCIATES Parking Lot as part of the 1985 Specific Hotel Plan.: THREE MILLION SIX HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS $3,650,000 A complete analysis of the subject's physical and economic characteristics was made to arrive at the estimated Market Values. A study was made of existing properties comparable to the subject properties. This letter of transmittal is part of the attached report containing data, our analysis and conclusions. This report is subject to the Certification and Limiting Conditions. Very truly yours, MICHAEL J. VIZZINI ASSOCIATES //42 Michael J. Vizzifii, SRPA i. i i I I i 1 i i LOCATION: 'OWNER: PROPERTY TYPE: LAND AREA: MICHAEL J. VJZZI I ASSOCIATES SUMMARY OF DATA AND CONCLUSIONS Biltmore Site Parking Lot PRINCIPAL IMPROVEMENTS: HIGHEST AND BEST USE: VALUE INDICATED BY: Direct Sales Comparison Approach • VALUE DATE: 1 Biltmore Site: Northeast corner of The Strand and 14th Street, Parking Lot: North- west corner of Hermosa Avenue and 13th Street. City of Hermosa Beach Vacant Land • 36,820± square feet 36,285± square feet Biltmore Site, Currently Vacant Land Parking Lot, Asphalt paved open parking lot Commercial and/or Residential Development with Re -Zoning Approval from the City of Hermosa Beach and The California Coastal Commission. Cost Approach N/A Income Approach N/A Biltmore Site as R-1' Zoning $4,550,000 Biltmore Site as R -2B Zoning $4,730,000 Biltmore Site as C-2 Zoning $3,700,000 Biltmore Site as part of the•1985 Specific Hotel Plan $3,700,000 Parking lot as part of the 1985 Specific Hotel Plan $3,650,000 Juno 15th 1988 e s 0 v u i MICHAEL J. VIZZLNI ASSOCIATES DIRECT SALES COMPARISON APPROACH (continued) Under present zoning laws, the minimum lot size for R-1 zoned sites is 4,000 square feet. A Site Plan overlay was submitted by the City of Hermosa Beach Planning Department. This overlay divides the site into eight separate lots. As requested, this overlay was utilized'by us in analyzing the property as if it were zoned R-1. The Site Plan overlay designating the eight individual lots is on the following page. The selected sales are then summarized and discussed. • 25 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 15 TH MICHAEL J. VIZZINI ASSOCIATES BILTMORE SITE -EIGHT LOT OVERLAY • PER CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT STREET A L E 'to • 15 TH COURT 3o 11-5 !` 14 TH STREET' 411, • 26 I MICHAEL J. VIZZINI ASSOCIATES BILTMORE SITE -EIGHT LOT OVERLAY LOT SIZES PER CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT LOT AREAS • LOT A LOT B LOT C LOT D LOT E LOT F LOT G LOT. H 27 4040 SQ. FT. 4000 SQ. FT. 4000 SQ. FT. 4000 SQ. FT. 4000 SQ. FT. 4608 SQ. FT. 4795 SQ. FT. 4156.25 SQ. FT. November 22, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of December 12, 1989 RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD BID FOR PURCHASE OF COMPUTER EQUIPMENT FOR THE FIRE, POLICE, AND CIVIL DEFENSE DEPARTMENTS RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council award the bid for purchase of the computer equipment to the low bidder meeting specifications. BACKGROUND: The purchase of the equipment described herein was authorized and funds were appropriated in the 1989-90 adopted budget. ANALYSIS: The hazardous materials/emergency preparedness program of the city requires several specialized inventory and hazard management programs. The main program for hazardous materials and emergency response is titled 'Cameo'. This program was developed by the federal government specifically for the management of hazardous materials programs and response to emergency incidents involving hazardous materials. This program operates only on the Macintosh computer systems. The recent fire flow study conducted by an outside vendor included the accumula- tion of a multitude of data regarding the fire flow system of Hermosa Beach. All of this data was entered into a fire flow program which operates on the Macintosh system and The vendor will be providing the program and data to the Fire Department. Members of the Fire and Data Processing Departments recently attended a computer seminar and received valuable information regarding the use of the Macintosh system in public safety. One important feature that was discovered is that the Macintosh is capable of communicating with the City's Hewlett Packard system. Six businesses were contacted by mail and a public notice was published in the Easy Reader on November 2, 1989 inviting bids for the public safety system 1 At the bid opening on November 13, 1989 the following bids were received: Charles Emerson (Sun Computers) Jim Preston (Computerland) Angie Dragas (L.A. Computer Center) $23,378.66 $25,967.26 $27,384.35 Upon review of the bids, staff noted that there were some mistakes in the quan- tity of items requested and also learned that there were some items that were not needed. After the necessary corrections were made, the bid totals were: Charles Emerson (Sun Computers) Jim Preston (Computerland) Angie Dragas (L.A. Computer Center) $24,363.79 $25,273.94 $25,808.15 Interest from other vendors was expressed, however they did not provide installation, set-up, and training which was required so they did not submit bids. Staff was concerned that there might be better pricing available through state and and local government contract. It should be noted that the bid from Computerland is based on the government pricing. Staff obtained a copy of the State and Local Government Confidential Price List and verified the information. Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Charles Emerson (Sun Computers) as they are the low bidder meeting specifications. Concur: Kevin B. Nort Noted for Fiscal Impact: y Manager Processing Viki Copeland, Director of Finance 2 fully S bmitt S -ve S. Wi ' iewski d, Director of Public Safety REQUEST FOR BID The City of Hermosa Beach is soliciting bids from qualified firms to: Provide to the City of Hermosa Beach; computer equipment as specified in Exhibit 1; complete installation, set-up and initial training to be included. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Proposals must be on file in the office of the City Clerk on or before 2:00 on Thursday November 9, 1989. The City of Hermosa Beach reserves the right to extend any time frame. No late proposals will be accepted. Late proposals, if received, will be returned unopened. Proposals are to be submitted in a sealed envelope with "Proposal for Fire and Police Computer Equipment" written or typed in the lower left hand corner of the envelope. For additional information and other particulars regarding this project, contact: Director of Public Safety 540 Pier Ave. Hermosa Beach, CA. 90254 (213) 318-0300 EVALUATION OF PROPOSAL AND BASIS FOR AWARD 1. The City of Hermosa Beach intends to make an award to the responsible vendor meeting all the requirements of the RFP whose proposal is most advantageous to the City of Hermosa Beach. 2 The City of Hermosa Beach reserves the right to negotiate with the overall lowest responsible vendor. 3. The City intends to make an award within 30 days of the bid closing date. 4. The City reserves the right to reject any and all bids, and to waive any informalities. 1 EXHIBIT 1 Qty Product # Description Two(2) M5610 Apple Macintosh IIcx 1MB RAM, 40MB HD One(1) B0052LL/A Apple Macintosh SE/30 4MB RAM, 80MB HD, w/std. keyboard Two(2) M5325 Apple Macintosh SE 2MB RAM, 40MB HD, w/std. keyboard Two(2) M0401 Apple'Hi-resolution RGB Monitor 13" Two(2) M5640 Apple 8bit Video Adapter Card Two(2) M0115 Apple Extended Keyboard Three(3) M2577 Image Writer II printer w/cable Two(2) Hewlett Packard Desk Writer printer w/cable and software for interface with IIcx Sixteen(16) -- 1 Mega Byte Memory Simm (third party) to expand IIcx RAM to 5MB each 2 • It I! Easy Reader, November 2, 1989 55 )NNOLLY ming ER 11-2-891 RL -2378 c REDONDO BEACH 710F PROPOSED 'ZONAL USE PERMIT 0 PARCEL MAP HEREBY GIVEN that the 'omission of the City of each, pursuant to law, will 'ic hearing on Thursday, 18, 1989, at 7:30 p.m., in it Chambers of the City iiamord Street, Redondo torula, to consider the re - Conditional Use Permit Map No. 21731 on Lot 13, ledondo Villa Tract (2101 'd Lane) for the purpose 01 1 whether or not the pro - illy permitted 2 unit resi- mission of the City of Redondo ctures are consistent with Beach, California. specifications for condo- For additional information, please 'divisions and should be contact Paul Connolly, Chief of Plan - "NO CE nigOlaosE6- - - U1A condominium at 305 South CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT au, and 2) an appeal d the Plan- AND PARCEL MAP ConYras50nS appro✓al d a site NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Tey and Banana at 1010 bn- Planning Commission of the City of e lionlevairt. M. Connrrerrl Public Redondo Beach, pursuant to law, will ehg On the street '4e -31W of iM hold a public hearing on Thursday. Bbd( of South Susana co Sider the vacation ot the 400 A d N. Francisca kenos (relates he Redondo Shores Prosed) Minded Hearing — To consider aiding Sed 10-2 1400(0)(21ot An Chap. 2. Title 10 of the RBMC ding to encroachments into the re- ared rear yard in die R -1-A Land Use tfid (zone)_ iallnsed Hearing — To consider nedniestI of Sed 10-2.005 of An Chao 2. Tolle 10. ot the RBMC lasing to definitions of budding '*" and story for as land use stride. and the use and height 0f lbterranean leets in a building. to onsider amendment of Sect 10- 513(B), Art. 2. Chap 2. Title 10. tiling to height standards in the MDR and Use 0istnd R-0 (Park, Recreation and Open Space) for the east 3.5 acres of Franklin School site (legal description on file in the Planning Division of the Community Development(Depart- ment). Any and all persons interested in the above -proposed Change in Land Use District may appear and be heard thereon. 11 you challenge this Change in Land Use District in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this no- tice, or in written correspondence de- livered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Issued by the Planning Department at the direction of Steven D. Wein- berg, Chairman of the Planning Com - AND PARCEL MAP NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Redondo Beach, pursuant to law, will hold a public hearing on Thursday, November 15, 1989, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 415 Diamond Street, Redondo Beach, California, to consider the re- quest for a Conditional Use Permit and Parcel Map No. 21717 on Lot 4, Block 72, Redondo Villa Tract "B" (2118 Gates Avenue) for the purpose of determining whether or not the pro- posed legally permitted 2 unit resi- dential structures are consistent with the City's specifications for condo- minium subdivisions and should be approved for condominium usage in the R-2 Land Use District (zone). Any and all persons interested in the above -proposed Conditional Use Permit and Parcel Map may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this Conditional ' 'PrP"'ADQRfdllia rodiftnitt oi:`PmeSe contact Paul Connolly. Chief of Plan- ning, 318-0637 November 16. 1989. at 7-30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 415 Diamond Street. Redondo Beach, California. to consider the re- quest for a Conditional Use Permit and Parcel Map No. 21648 on Lot 14, Block 73, Redondo Villa 'Tract "B" (2003 Curtis Avenue) for the purpose of determining whether or not the pro- posed legally permitted 2 unit resi- dential structures are consistent with the City's specifications tor condo- minium subdivisions and should be approved for condominium usage in the R-2 Land Use District (zone) Any and all persons interested in the above -proposed Conditional Use Permit and Parcel Map may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this Conditional Use Permit and Parcel Map in court. you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing de- scribed in this notice. or in written cor- s consider odelidin0 Ord. N� 2525. respondence delivered to the Plan - nixing the 31000b1/ derrsrty In the ning Commission at, or prior to, the .10R Land Use (1st to 17 urns per net public hearing. ,rye and dedannrl9 the urgency tiered. Issued by the Planning Department at the direction of Steven D. Wein- er information. please call the Gry berg, Chairman of the Planning Com - 1 318-0656. mission of the City of Redondo ER 11.2.89 RL -2369 Beach, California. TY OF REDONDO BEACH For additional information. please .OTICE OF PROPOSED contact Paul Connolly, Chief of Plan- NOE IN LAND USE DISTICT ning, 318-0637. :E IS HEREBY GIVEN that the HARLAN J. CURWICK ng Commission of the City of Community Development Director ido Beach, pursuant to law, will By: PAUL CONNOLLY s public hearing on Thursday, Chief o1 Planning 'bet 18, 1989, at 7:30 P.m., in EP -1 '<-891 RL -2370 'until Chambers of the City 015 Diamond Street, Redondo n, Catitornia. to consider the re - tor a Change in Land Use Dis- om S -F (School Facilities) to P - HARLAN J. CURWICK Community Development Director By: PAUL CONNOLLY Chief of Planning ER 11.2-891 RL -2384 CITY OF REDONDO BEACH NOTICE OF PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Redondo Beach, pursuant to law, will hold a public hearing on Thursday, November 16, 1989, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 415 Diamond Street, Redondo Beach, California, to consider the re- quest for a Conditional Use Permit on a portion of Lot 8, Section 20, Town- ship 3 South, Range 14 West (precise legal on Zile in the Planning Division) (One Space Park) to allow the con- struction of exterior structural modifi- canon to an existing building (M4) -very, vnen u.m. v, ore r.m......g vv."- — _. mission of the City of Redondo Beach, California. CITY OF REDONDO BEACH NOTICE OF PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REQUEST FOR BID The City of Hermosa Beach is so- liciting bids from qualified firms to. Provide to the City of Hermosa Beach computer equipment as spec- ified in Exhibit 1: complete installa- tion. set-up and initial training to be included. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Proposals must be on file in the office m. he on Thu 2Clerk on or before :0000p..rsday. No emberr 9. 1989. The City of Hermosa Beach re- serves the right t0 extend -any time frame No late proposals will be ac- cepted. Late proposals. if received, will be returned unopened. Proposals are to be submitted in a sealed envelope with "Proposal for Fire and Police Computer Equip- ment" written or typed in the lower left hand corner of the envelope. For additional information and Ott T00)2) Onel1) 100(2) 100(2) 10012 ) T0012) Three(3) T00(2) Usher perlicuiai0 reyaidiug Ilii, proj- ect. contact Director of Public Safety 540 Pier Ave. Hermosa Beach. CA 90254 (213) 318-0300 EVALUATION OF PROPOSAL AND BASIS FOR AWARD The City of Hermosa Beach in- tends t0 make an award t0 the responsible vendor meeting all the requirements of the RFP whose proposal is m0* advan- tageous to the City of Hermosa Beach. 2 The City of Hermosa Beach re- serves the right to negotiate with the overall lowest responsible vendor. 3 The City intends to make an award within 30 days of the bid closing date. 4 The City reserves the right to re- lett any and all bids, and to waive any informalities. EXHIBIT 1 Product 4 Description 45610 Apple Macintosh 11cu 1545 RAM, 40545 i4 B00S2LL/A Apple 5Maacint51/30 OP RAM, 8014 HD, v/std. keyboard 45325 App1eMcinkeyboardtos51 � 6 RAM, 401 wID, M0401 Apple Hi -resolution ROB Monitor 13' 145640 Apple Volt Video Adapter Card 145115 Apple Extended Keyboard 42577 Image Writer II printer r/cable Hewlett Packard Desk Writer printer w/cable and software for interface with lick I Mega Byte Memory Sine (third party) to expand Ilcx RAM to 5545 each Sixteen(16) ---- November 27, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the City Council of December 12, 1989 RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD THE BID FOR. DESKTOP PUBLISHING HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE TO ARCH ASSOCIATES CORPORATION Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council award the bid for DeskTop Publishing Hardware and Software (with the exception of HPWord PC software), for $12,115.44 tax included to Arch Associates Corporation. Background: As part of the 1989/90 budget, the City Council approved the appropriation of $15,501 for DeskTop Publishing Software, Hardware and peripheral. The city published a public notice inviting bids in the Easy Reader, which appeared on October 19, 1989. In addition, notices were mailed to twenty-one vendors (see attached list). Analysis: Nine bids were received. Arch Associates Corporation bid has met our specifications (with the exception of HPWord PC software) and falls within the budgeted appropriation. No bid submitted for HPWord PC. HPWord PC software will be purchased from Hewlett Packard (HP). HP had the lowest bid of $338.94, which includes sales tax. Purchasing from Arch Associates and Hewlett Packard, the total price will be $12,454.38, from the amount budgeted that would be a savings of $3,046.62. Desktop Publishing Uses: Desktop publishing provides a low-cost method of producing professional looking reports, newsletters and publications. A desktop publishing workstation will give a professional quality to city publications, thus enhancing the City's image. Some of the publications that will benefit from a desktop publishing workstation are: - City community newsletter - Neighborhood Watch newsletter - City employee newsletter - Public notices and information mailings - City Council agenda - City budget report and presentation - Departmental reports to public agencies, city council and the community - Internal forms and manuals - 1 - If As much as 90% of the City's publications could be typeset in-house on a desktop system. Many printing shops offer chemical developing services that produce high resolution copies of documents generated on desktop publishing systems. A desktop publishing system would reduce or eliminate outside typesetting charges. CONCUR: iii -// / .//,/i/ Henry L. Staten `Kevin Northcraft City Manager Respectfully submitted, Henry L. Staten, Acting Director of General Services by,'I/0 4 Marguerite Sturges, Computer System Manager 4312 Membership 4316` Training 4317 Conference 5402 Equipment Maintenance System ($3540), E -Mail ($600), Apple II ($100), Disc/Omnidex & DBMGR ($2626); All Infocomp Systems Support, modification, upgrades and installation of Payroll ($43,000), PC and Desktop Publishing Software ($5,535), Autocad ($2500), Maintenance Management Sys. ($15000). PLUS: Data Safe offsite back-up storage ($1,673) Beta Group ( Infocomp Software) 300 Hewlett Packard SIG (Special Interest Group for Municipal 150 Governments and Related Agencies) Association of Municipal Data Processing Directors 120 SCRUG/Interex (Southern Calif. Regional Users Group/ 100 International Association of H.P. Computer Users HP System Manager Class (2 DP Technical Aides) 2,300 Computer Related Training (PC Hardware, Software such 1,000 as Lotus, Microsoft Windows, Graphics, Pagemaker, etc.) Beta Group (Inforcomp Software, two meeting per year) 500 INTEREX 350 (International Assoc. of Hewlett Packard Computer Users) (1) CPU Upgrade to HP Model 70 $106,783; (1) HP Eagle Disc Drive $11,932; (3) LaserJet Printers $8,085; (3) Word terminals $2400; (1) HP2934 Line Printer $2595; (1) Gandalf Switchmux $4,734; DeskTop Publishing Hardware and peripheral $9,966 146,495 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: 4102 - Increase in personnel not warranted unless cost effectiveness documented; 4201 - encourage continuation of review of costs to see if other providers or lower level of service would be cost effect- ive. Printer is reduced due to cheaper contract; 4305 - reduce based on expected need. 4110/4111 - reflects reduction in per- sonnel request; 5402 - CPU upgrade and disc drive not recommended pending completion of five year plan; one word terminal ($800) included based upon need for Community Resources; laser jet printers deleted; line printer and switchmux necessary for vehicle maintenance installation 1988-89; desktop publishing included. 64 PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Los Angeles, I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above -entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the Beach. Peoples Easx Reader a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published .weekly in the City of ..Uemuosa.Beach. County of Los Angeles, and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, under the date of,9./21,, 19 .72, Case Number SWC22,9 40 ..; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to -wit: 10/19 all in the year 19.8.9.. I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Hermosa Beach California, this cc 19th day of OCT . 19 89 Signature Fret copes of 1Mt Clank form mar Pe secured from: CALIFORNIA NEWSPAPER SERVICE BUREAU, INC. Legal Advertising Clearing House P Box 31 los Angeles. CA 90053 Telephone 675-2541 oreise 'eaves! GE'+E ff at. P,00, of PVCl,canan This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp Proof of Publication of 0 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH. NOTICE INVmNG 9iw8 ;NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that -sealed bids will be received et the office r1f the City Clerk of 6a City of Hermosa Beach. City Hall. 1315 Val- • ley Drive, Room 201, until 11:00 am. November 18, 1989. for Desktop Publishing Hardware and Sowar., in accordance with requirements and minimum specifications. • • The bids will be publicly opened end read aloud in the County Cham- beE at 11:00 am. on Thursday, No- vember 18, 1989. Each bid must be submitted on the forms furnished by the City. Proposal forms, require- ments and minimum specifications may be obtained at the General Serv- ices Department, Data Processing, Basement of City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254- 3884; cal (213) 318-0253. The bid will be awarded to the sup- plier who best provides a product meeting the City's needs. MARGUERITE STURGES Computer System Manager Dated: October 19, 1989 ER October 19, 1989 HB1-420 • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH NOTICE INVITING BIDS NOTICE IS HERBY GIVEN that sealed bids will be received at the office of the City Clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach, City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive, Room 201, until 11:00 a.m. on Thursday, November 16, 1989, for Desktop Publishing Hardware and Software, in accordance with requirements and minimun specifications. The bids will be publicly opened and read aloud in the Council Chamber, City Hall, at 11:00 a.m. on Thursday, November 16, 1989. Each bid must be submitted on the forms furnished by the City. Proposal Forms, requirements and minimum specifications may be obtained at the General Services Department, Data Processing, Basement of City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA. 90254-3884; call (213) 318-0253. The City of Hermosa Beach reserves the right to reject any or all bids, to waive any irregularities in• a bid, and toaward the sale. The bid will be awarded to the supplier who best provides a product meeting the City's needs. Dated: October 19, 1989 Marguerite Sturges Computer System Manager CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DESKTOP PUBLISHING HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE VENDOR LISTING: Mailed October 17, 1989 Company Name Marketing Department Address OCEONICS, Inc. Classic Solutions NORCO Computer Systems, Inc. CRC Computer Remarketing Corp. Hall -Mark Electronics NAS Computer Systems C. S. U. Industries HyPoint Technology ASCAR Business Systems ConAm Corporation ROMAR Systems International, Inc. MICROTEK AMTEK CompuChange Corp. 519 Seabright, Ste. 209 Santa Cruz, CA 95062 University Tower 4199 Campus Ave., Ste. 550 Irvine, CA 92715 925 D Bassett Road Cleveland, Ohio 44145-1108 23950 Commerce Park Beachwood, Ohio 44122 9420 Topanga Canyon Blvd. Chatsworth, CA 91311 P.O. Box 52415 Livonia, Michigan 48152 135 Rockaway Turnpike Lawrence, New York 11559 4333 E. Royalton Road Cleveland, Ohio 44147 4125 Verdugo Road Los Angeles, CA 90065 1661 Nineteenth Street Santa Monica, CA 90404-3823 4120 Southwest Freeway, Ste. 111 Houston, Texas 77027 8370 Dow Circle Cleveland, Ohio 44136 509 West Terrace Drive San Dimas, CA 91773 13160 56th Court, Ste. 503 Clearwater, FL 34620 Fidelity Systems, Inc. Dav Tech Windemere Systems Corp. Blue Chip Computer Systems T.S.A., Inc. Encore Hewlett Packard 3200 Wilcrest, Ste. 250 Houston, Texas 77042 6314 Hollywood Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90028 P. 0. Box 90430 Los Angeles, CA 90009 9701 West Pico Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90035 4654 Highway 6 North, Ste. 305 Houston, Texas 77084 1311 Colorado Avenue Santa Monica, CA 90404 5651 West Manchester Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90045 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH INTER -OFFICE MEMO TO: Viki Copeland, Finance Director Date: August 10, 1989 Subject: DeskTop Publishing Bids From: Marguerite Sturges, Computer System Manager *************************************************************** Ten bids were submitted on November 16, 1989, for DeskTop Publishing Hardware and Software. 10. Arch Associates, Fernwood Pennsylvania of $11,376.00, with the exception of HPWord PC software. Will honor purchase of single items. 9. Dav-Tech at $12,827.93, with the exception of ReadRight OCR software. Will honor purchase of single items. 4. Hewlett Packard $12,651.04, with the exception of Page - Maker Aldus, Lotus 1-2-3, and ReadRight OCR software. Will honor purchase of single item (HPWord PC). 3. Norco Computer System $13,999.50, with exception of ReadRight OCR software. Will not honor single item purchase. 8. Simplex at $12,090.00, with exception of HPWord PC software. Will not honor single item purchase. 7. Ascar Business System, $16,394.24, purchase of a single item will need a phone call to verify price. 1. Romar System no break down of items. 2. Fidelity Systems no break down of items and no bid on software. 5. C.R.0 no bid submitted. Hewlett Packard verified that Arch Associates is a small reliable company. Total price including sales tax is $12,115.44. HPWord PC can be purchased from Hewlett Packard at $338.94 sales tax included. Overall total price will be $12,454.38, with a savings of $3,046.62. A' a •u= ite Sturges Co pater Systems Manager cc: LeRoy Staten, Acting Director of General Services BID OPENING PROJECT NO. BID OPENING LOG SHEET BIDDERS NAME /ri,9 /7 oa/i/i/ it71 (26(A etzia,L BID BOND AMOUNT OF BID • r /:-ct.. e t( ,..r.., Q.( �•i�., `.��. ...; .1. �.•+n.... Cin-.... 4/3.24 X26-c'- f) �) •.t �r.`,c "< • Lk. ..�� ✓ g L' ) "1' • :� awe arETA. 50 /S/. o4 •f h 0 Z.rd 1 (Q• /7, 33 4,. Do 6. /3 YS6.5U) Sc• �439e/ D9a. 00 cep'vy is 'c��:-:_ _� ..: •:. 1,... )5-- %��. �'.. P!1 1 •r; h0U 011 1.619b9 �- , CttY of V imps Beeob �;f . N OA 0-44C -/-Ati-o 71, P,4- $/// 376. r• / 2J . OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK I 1315 Valley Drive . Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 „es: FOR THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bidder shall complete the right-hand column indicating specifically the size and/or make and model of all components on which he is bidding. Return this information with the bid form to the City Clerk's office prior to the time indicated on the notice inviting bids. GENERAL: The specifications presented are the MINIMUM acceptable to the City of Hermosa Beach. Hardware shall be equipped with standard and regular parts and software by specifications, but not limited to, the following special considerations: Requirements and Minimum Specifications PC HARDWARE 1 D1462A QS/16S Vectra Personal Computer Model 46 16 MHz 80386 processor, 1 MB RAM, 5.25 -inch, 1.2 MB flexible disc drive, 40 Mbytes hard disk, serial/parallel ports, VGA video adapter, keyboard, and PC Kit Characteristics of Offered Item /o-�s28' - �. �•'� 1 Option ABA Includes U.S. English Enchanted Vectra Keyboard and PC Kit. PC Kit includes English Documenta- tion, HP Terminal Program, Setup Disc,monitor and keyboard cables, and U.S. power cord. 1 D1182A VGA compatible Color Display for use with the HP D1180A video graphics adapter. 14", .28 dot pitch tube. 110V attached U.S. power cord and attached video cable. 1 Option ABA 1 D1453A 16MHz Intel 80387SX Math Coprocessor for the HPVecta RS/16. '-37o ys7 q- yto 1 24542D Parallel Printer Cable used with 24540B interface to connect a printer equipped with a centronics- type 36 -PIN male connector. Length = 2m. to- .3- 36, so y - 36,8)5-- \ 6,8'5' \ 46060A The HP Mouse is a handheld pointing device for use with the HP -HIL interface. PRINTER 1 33440A LaserJet Series II 8ppm printer. 115V, 50-60Hz, RS232/422 & Centronics interface. Includes EP -S toner cartridge and 1 letter size (8.5x11 inch)paper tray. Order interface cable separately. 1 33444B 2 Mbyte Memory Board /o -1'77 67- $" S? 9 - ySe SOFTWARE 1 D1318A/ABA Microsoft Windows/286 Version 2.1 is a graphics extension to MS-DOS for 80386 -based PCs. It supports Windows and DOS applica- tions,provides multitasking for DO applications, and improves applicon integration. (5.25inch disks) sij 1 PageMaker Aldus software for the HP Vectra PC. PageMaker is a page composition software for desktop publishing. Software specified on 5.25' medium. HP MS Windows required but not included. 1 45951D Microsoft MS-DOS 3.3, U.S. Version on 5.25 inch discs. Includes system disc and manuals, Personal Applications Manager, File Manager, and Multiple Character Set Utilities. 1 Lotus 1-2-3 Version 2.01 Elect- tronic Spreadsheet. (5.25 inch disc) 1 D1711A The Gallery Collection 2.0 Charting Gallery,Drawing Gallery, and Business Management Portfolio included. (5.25 inch disc) 1 27536F HP Word/PC HP Word, word processing for PCs. (5.25 in discs) 1 68333F AdvanceLink 8.01.00 (5.25 inch disc) 1. 3-325-- - -325:- 372 (�-1174- /o- �8q b- 30‘, 9- 3_0 y-- 33'/ 73 y- 3/3.1-5- 3- /g.zs3- 3sa y,s e 4.v, 7"1".13 /o -leg 1 88400A ReadRight OCR Software \* allows users to convert a scanned image of alphanumeric characters into computer readable form (e.g.ASCII). (5.25 inch disc) 1 88141A JetScript Accessory Kit (PostScript capabilities) includes four 5 1/4 inch disks /o -I3/7 9-1335 -,g7Z.bs SCANNER 1 9195A ScanJet Plus Desktop Scanne installation guide and power cord. Use with Vectra/IBM-PC compatibles. Requires 88295A interface kit. J r, 1 88295A Interface kit for ScanJet J (9195A). Interfaces 9195A to Vectra or IBM PC/AT. /b -f53 Is - 6'—/o Sv y -/0(,S 6. /o- 35-5- -365 y- 398, 4's- PLOTTER s PLOTTER 1 7475A HP 7475A Plotter - A/B-size with RS -232-C Interface.Option 001 Cable not included /o- //90 7-/Zzv y_ /2.67. Lc 1 13242-60010 Plotter cable to PC z9 /v-Yy 7-32 1 92177X HP 7475A Stand and Graphics Supplies Organizer. (3.75 H X 23.5 W X 14.75 D in.) CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH INTER -OFFICE MEMO TO: Kevin Northcraft, City Manager Date: December 11, 1989 Subject: DeskTop Publishing From: Marguerite Sturges, Agenda item Computer System Manager *************************************************************** This is a request that two items be removed from the DeskTop Publishing agenda item for City Council Meeting of December 12, 1989. The first item to be removed is HPWord PC, this will be replaced with WordPerfect Version 5.0. HPWord documents on the HP3000 can be download with the use of Pagemaker. Older documents that were created on a typewriter or word processing are compatible to WordPerfect. They would not be compatible to HPWord PC. Arch Associates price is $239 without tax, including tax $254.54. Compared to HPWord PC a saving of $84.40. The second item to be removed is ReadRight OCR Software for the ScanJet Plus Desktop Scanner. If printing is faint on a document OCR has a hard time picking up details. If the document has graphics and maps it will try to read the information, but it prints garbage on the screen. TrueScan will pick up faint documents, will also read graphics and maps as they are on the document. TrueScan is software and a card with 2Meg processing memory. Arch Associates price is $1,685 without tax, including tax $1,794.53, price increase of $1,438.82. It is our recommendation to purchase WordPerfect Version 5.0 and TrueScan Software for DeskTop Publishing. uerite Stur•-s C• puter Systems Manager cc: Henry Leroy Staten, Acting Director of General Services SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION if