Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/14/91CONVERSE _- CONSULTANTS a Consulting Engineers and Geologists 3393 East Foothill Boulevard. Suite A Pasadena. California 91107-3112 Telephone (818) 440-0800 Fax (818) 351-1060 September 26, 1990 Hermosa Beach Investment Company c/o Greenwood Development 11726 San Vicente Boulevard Suite 500 Los Angeles, California 90049 Attention: Mr. David Greenwood Subject: FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION Proposed Hermosa Beach Hotel 1302 - 1340 The Strand Hermosa Beach, California CCW Project No. 89-31-359-01 Gentlemen: This report presents results of our Foundation Investigation for the proposed Hermosa Beach Hotel to be constructed at 1302-1340 The Strand, in Hermosa Beach, California. This report was prepared in accordance with our proposal dated August 8, 1989; and addresses only "geotechnical" (foundation) considerations. The proposed site is not within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. However, the Palos Verdes fault approaches to within 2 miles of the site (offshore). Other nearby faults include the Newport -Inglewood fault inland from the site. Significant groundshaking is anticipated at the site, and the site is also susceptible to tsunami, as is most of the Hermosa Beach shoreline. We recommend that the structure be designed to resist seismic shaking as discussed in this report. The proposed hotel can be founded either on conventional spread footings or on a mat foundation which will be at an elevation of approximately 35 feet below existing grade (25 to 30 feet below groundwater). Due to the depth of this structure-tre1ovv'"groundwater, dewatering and excavation support will be an important consideration during construction. Site sands were tested and found to be relatively permeable based on both field and laboratory testing. Significant quantities of groundwater will have to be pumped to adequately dewater the A Whoily Owned Subsidiary of Tho C,nvorca Prn!eccinnai Group 9 Hermosa Beach Investment Company CCW Project No. 89-31-359-01 September 26, 1990 Page 2 hotel excavation. We understand a system of soldier piles and lagging with either crossbiacing and/or tie -backs is currently proposed. Dewatering will • occur below and beyond the shoring such that the shoring will not have to resist,= hydrostatic, pressures. This will cause some settlement of the ground directly 3 ` adjacent to the shoring. The anticipated settlement, and shoring and dewatering scheme will be addressed in greater detail in a separate report. Due to. the relatively permeable nature of the site soils and the relatively high groundwater level, it is recommended to design the subterranean structure to be watertight and to resist hydrostatic uplift and lateral pressures. This will eliminate the need for on-going dewatering of the site. Also, Ion -term dewatering may present a Iiabil , both environmental) and due t for possiit a ubsi ence aroundfie hotel. Lonq-term ewaterin r o -sl e o aminan s" regwnng a pumped groundwater to e either rea e and/or properly disposed. -""'"' +iwwwr.•re�...n..osey,r Thank you for the opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions or if we can be of additional service, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, CONVERSE CONSULTANTS WEST Patrick J. Schmidt Project Engineer PE 44937 Thomas C. Benson, Jr. Senior Engineer GE 2091 Howard A. Sellman, Jr. / Geology Manager EG 154 PJS/TCB/HAS/LTE:wpd Converse Consultants West 4 2 • F No. 131 CER11`'.ZD. ESIGINEERii•!G GEOLOGIST Hermosa Beach Investment Company CCW Project No. 89-31-359-01 September 26, 1990 Page 3 Dist: 4/Addressee 1/Hare, Brewer & Kelley, Inc. Attention: Mr. Ryland Kelley 4/HNTB Attention: Mr. James C. McKenzie, AIA 1/John A. Martin and Associates Attention: Mr. Barry Schindler, SE 1'/Peck/Jones Brothers Construction Corporation Attention: Mr. Charles T. Murphy 1 /Shoring Engineers Attention: Mr. Jason E. Weinstein, PE 1 /Hydroquip Attention: Mr. Jerry King Converse Consultants West April 23, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council May 14, 1991 PRESENTATION OF OUTSTANDING EMPLOYEE AWARD The City of Hermosa Beach Employee Performance Award honors City Employees who have displayed either sustained performance above expected levels or have performed a one-time action which exceeds expectations. Nominations for the award may be made by citizens, City Council Members, department heads and other employees. From the nomina- tions, the Management Team selects the award recipient(s). For the third quarter of Fiscal Year 90-91 (January/March) the Management Team, after considering the nominations, selected the following outstanding employees for recognition: Mary Hull, Secretary: Mary has been with the City since February 1989 in her current position as "Pool" secretary. Mary has clearly demonstrated her value to all City Hall Departments in her willingness to tackle any and all assignments, plus meeting countless deadlines. Most recently Mary assumed the respon- sibilities of the Secretary to the City Manager while Laurie Duke was on medical leave. During that three month temporary assign- ment, Mary was called upon to prepare the Council Agenda, coordi- nate submittal of the various department's agenda items, maintain the City Manager's schedule, prepare City Manager and City Coun- cil correspondence; field all calls to the City Manager's office; and attend to the numerous other "unscheduled" demands which oc- cur daily. Mary rose to the occasion and performed the duties of the position in a most professional manner and was able to main- tain her good humor through it all. Mary is being honored for her action in this particular time of need. Police Officer Tom Thompson: Officer Thompson has been with the City since 1978 and has consistently maintained a high level of performance. In addition to professionally performing his regu- larly assigned duties as a patrol officer, Tom is a highly moti- vated individual and has made fantastic contributions to the com- munity through his efforts in the DARE program and in other re- lated crime prevention programs. In March of this year Tom coor- dinated a Parents night held at the Community Center and through his efforts he was able to identify sponsors who donated food and other items which helped guarantee a successful evening. Tom continually initiates positive actions and is a tremendous asset to the Hermosa Beach Police Department. Tom is being honored because of his exemplary performance in repeatedly taking initia- tive for special programs and his continuous excellent day to day actions. Both Mary and Tom are being presented with a plaque to commemo- rate their selection as "Outstanding Employee". Respectfully Submitted: 1 Robert A. Blackwood Concur: evin B. Northcaft Personnel Director City Manager pers/emp April 22, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of May 14, 1991 ACCEPTANCE OF °JAWS OF LIFE" DONATION AND RECOGNITION OF DONOR The City of Hermosa Beach is pleased to accept the donation of the "Jaws of Life" equipment. The equipment was obtained from Halprin Supply Company at a cost of approximately $8,000 and was made possible by the generosity of a donor who wishes to remain anonymous. The addition of this valuable piece of equipment to the Fire Service will allow rescuers to rapidly extricate individuals trapped as a result of an accident in order to administer medical treatment. Concur e •ectfully Su «miffed, Kevin B. Northcra`, Steve Wisniewski, City Manager Director of Public Safety MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, May 14, 1991, at the hour of 7: P.M. CLOSED SESSION - The closed session was held at 6: P.M. regard- ing matters of Employee Meet and Confer; Personnel matters; mat- ters of potential litigation: pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b); and, matters of litigation: pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Miller vs. City of Hermosa Beach. The session was recessed at 7: P.M. to the regular scheduled public meeting. toj PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - 11a yor .Cam ROLL CALL Present: Creighton, Essertier, Midstokke, Wiemans, Mayor Sheldon Absent: None PROCLAMATION Public Works Week, May 19 to May 23, 1991 Mayor Sheldon presented a proclamation to Anthony Antich, Direc- tor of Public Works, proclaiming the week of May 19th to May 23rd, 1991, as "National Public Works Week", and called upon all citizens and civic organizations to acquaint themselves with the problems involved in providing our public works and to recognize the contributions which public works officials make every day to our health, safety, and comfort. COMMENDATION FOR ABA NATURAL BODYBUILDING AND WHEELCHAIR HANDICAP CHAMPIONSHIPS Mayor Sheldon commended Pete Samra for his dedica- tion in promoting drug-free bodybuilding competitions and en- couraged all citizens to support the promotion of the "ABA Southern California Natural Bodybuilding Championship" and the "American Wheelchair Bodybuilding Championship", both to be held on Saturday, May 18th, 1991, at the Hermosa Beach Community Cen- ter Theatre, with television coverage through E.S.P.N. and our local cable station. _.o..-�•4041OW•v. _. OUTSTANDING EMPLOYEE AWARDS - The City of Hermosa Beach Employee Performance Award honors City Employees who have displayed either sustained performance above expected levels or have performed a one-time action which exceeds expectations. Mary Hull, Pool Secretary: Mayor Sheldon presented a plaque of appreciation and extended the City's thanks to Mary Hull for her work as a "Pool" secretary, and as Secretary to the City Manager for three months while Laurie Duke was on medical leave. Tom Thompson, Police Officer: Mayor Sheldon presented a plaque of appreciation and extended the City's thanks to Tom Thompson for his high level of performance with the Police Department since 1978, and with special programs, most recently with the Dare pro- gram, coordinating and identifying sponsors for a Parents night held at the Community Center. City Council Minutes 05-14-91 Page 7445 ACCEPTANCE OF "JAWS OF LIFE" DONATION - On behalf of the City of Hermosa Beach, Mayor Sheldon accepted with gratitude the donation of the "Jaws of Life" equipment. This equipment was obtained from the Halprin Supply Company at a cost of approximately $8,000 and was made possible by the generosity of a donor who wishes to remain anonymous. The addition of this valuable piece of equip- ment to the Fire Service will allow rescuers to rapidly extricate individuals trapped, as a result of an accident, in order to ad- minister medical treatment. ANNOUNCEMENTS - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Members of the Public wishing to address the City Council on any items within the Council's jurisdiction may do so at this time. (Exception: Comments on public hearing items must be heard during the public hearings.) Please limit comments to one minute. Citizens also may speak: 1) during Consent Calendar consideration or Public Hearings, 2) with the Mayor's consent, during discussion of items appearing under Municipal Matters, and 3) before the close of the meeting during "Citizen Comments". Coming forward to address the Council at this time were: cHoward Longacre - 1221 Seventh Place, concerned with Planning Commissioner Peirce's tenure on the Planning Commission, �- �✓ �-� Wilma Burt - 1152 Seventh Street, v�.u� June Williams - 2065 Manhattan Avenue,,, a r Dave Reimer - 802 Monterey Blvd., Jerry Compton - 832 Seventh Street, Shirley Cassell -- with • - • 611 Monterey 40° rn6"42rdLaff Blvd., concerned Parker Herriott - 224 Twenty-fourth Street,�,�,,, �GNw 421141-4-444 Jim Lissner - 2715 E1 Oeste Drive, eJim Rosenberger - 1121 Bayview Drive, City Council Minutes 05-14-91 Page 7446 SW 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following more routine matters /e=7-2. will be acted upon by one vote to approve with the majority consent 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. * Councilmember requests to remove items from the Consent Calendar. (Items removed will be considered under Agenda Item 3.) * Public comments on the Consent Calendar. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR Action: To approve the Consent Calendar recommendations (a) through (o), with the exception of the following items which were pulled for discussion in item 3 but are listed in order for clarity: (a) Midstokke, (f) (h) , (1) , (k) Midstokke, and (m) Motion C , second E_. So ordered. 7‘111°-11‘fr--6‘.,- ) CO-)) 01 Recommendation to approve minutes of regular meeting the City Council held on April 23, 1991. (b) (c) of This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Coun- cilmember Midstokke for separate discussion later in the meeting. Action: To approve the minutes of April 23, 1991, as Motion Midstokke, second . So ordered. Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants Nos. 36797 through 36940 inclusive, noting voided war- rants Nos. 36807 through 36810 inclusive and Nos. 36828, 36868, 36869, and 36870; and to cancel certain warrants as recommended by the City Treasurer. Action: to approve the demands and warrants as presented. Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. Action: To receive and file the tentative future agenda items. City Council Minutes 05-14-91 Page 7447 C_ -/e • (d) (e) Recommendation to receive and file the April, 1991 in- vestment report. Memorandum from City Treasurer Gary L. Brutsch dated May 2, 1991. Action: To receive and file the April, 1991, investment report. Recommendation to adopt resolution supporting AB 1423 and SB 235 regarding efforts to create markets for recy- clable materials. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director William Grove dated April 15, 1991. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 91-544(0, entitled, ""A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING ASSEMBLY BILL 1423 AND SENATE BILL 235.H, to require producers of packaging containers to utilize specified minimum levels of recy-t cled material in the manufacture of their products. wI c v Y✓--�-- ) 1 Recommendation to approve Chamber of Commerce request for Fiesta de las Artes. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated May 2, 1991. (f) This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Coun- cilmember Midstokke for separate discussion later in the meeting. 7'20 -A -7y / "lAction: To approve the street closures and request from the. Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce to operate the ,.wA.7 Fiesta de las Artes street fair on May 25 - 27, 1991, �y,r -Vot-- and to hold the request for August 31 - September 2, e -41C 1991, until after the joint meeting with the Chamber on July 18, 1991. Motion 'C. second ESo ordered. P‘-c-ti/d fitfsi/tri 1 ‘;‘)-JI oolAA,p‹, -� � 1 Recommendation to receive and file quarterly review CIP program. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Anti dated April 22, 1991. ✓'" Action: To receive and file the quarterly review of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for fiscal year 1990/ 1991, which includes: 1) CIP 85-137: FAU Overlay on Valley, Ardmore, and Prospect; in progress; budget - $1,031,841; 2) CIP 89-141: Street Rehabilitation; in progress; budget - $129,750; 3) CIP 89-142: Sidewalk Repairs; completed; budget - (g) City Council Minutes 05-14-91 Page 7448 $34,542; 4) CIP 90-144: Replace Strand Wall and Walkway; in progress; budget - $446,000; 5) CIP 89-146: Street Median Upgrades; in progress; budget - $10,000; 6) CIP 89-148: Trash Enclosures Downtown; in progress; budget - $10,000; 7) CIP 89-150: Misc. Traffic Signal Improvements; in progress; budget - $20,000; 8) CIP 89-151: Traffic Engineering Program; funding application in progress; budget - $40,500; 9) CIP 89-170: Slurry Sealing; in progress; budget - $337,219; 10) CIP 88-201: Street Lighting Upgrades; on hold; bud- get - $22,000; 11) CIP 88-406: Sanitary Sewer Improvements, Target Area "A": in progress; budget - $1,870,163; 12) CIP 89-506: Various Park Improvements; in progress; budget - $35,300; 13) CIP 88-508: Park Irrigation Rehabilitation; in progress; budget - $25,000; 14) CIP 90-511: Railroad Right -of -Way Parking Lot; in progress; budget - $15,000; 15) CIP 89-512: Basketball Courts; in progress; budget - $94,750; 16) CIP 89-513: Purchase 5 Lots Adjacent to Edith Rod - away Park; completed; budget - $260,000; 17) CIP 89-516: Sixth Street and Prospect Park; in progress; budget - $7,958; 18) CIP 89-517: Recreation Facilities; completed; bud- get - $2,566; 19) CIP 89-518: Recreation Facilities; completed; bud- get - $12,305; 20) CIP 89-601: Fuel Tanks; completed; budget - $4,000; 21) CIP 89-604: Building Improvements at Various Loca- tions; completed; budget - $23,768; 22) CIP 87-606: Police Department Remodel; completed; budget - $8,164; 23) CIP 91-608: City Yard Relocation; on hold; budget - $21,000; 24) CIP 89-609: Modular Furniture/Council Chairs; in progress; budget - $30,000; 25) CIP 89-615: Community Center Fire Alarms; in prog- ress; budget - $10,000; 26) CIP 90-616: Earthquake Reinforcement of Clark Building; in progress; budget - $45,000; and, 27) CIP 89-701: City Parking Lot Improvements; on hold; budget - $15,000. (h) Recommendation to approve realignment of existing 15n sewer main from 20th Street southerly for 360 ft., CIP City Council Minutes 05-14-91 Page 7449 88-406. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated May 7, 1991. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Coun- cilmemberlfictstzkird for separate discussion later in the meeting. /7? ction: To approve the staff recommendation to: approve the realignment of the existing 15" sewer main from 20th Street southerly for 360 feet and require the property owner to pay the full realign- ment costs currently estimated to be $64,000 ($58,000 plus 10% contingency); 2) subject to the approval by the City Attorney, ac- cept easement deeds from the property owner to be recorded, thereby legally locating the new align- ment; and 3) accept a cash deposit in the amount or $64,000 to cover the construction costs of the realignment. Motion , second . So ordered. e- $491-0 / ��'i e --oro Irl' *3 -7 /9-.1J4f In -Am 1) XL- 6 St- ,,6d-1„„(-0( a/c_ (i) (j) Recommendation for selection of separate retirement con- tribution rates for Police and Fire personnel. Memoran- dum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated May 7, 1991. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Coun- cilmember Midstokke for separate discussion later in the meeting. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: 1) select separate retirement rates for members of the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) clas- sified as Safety (Police and Fire); and, 2) authorize the Finance Director to sign the required form from PERS for such selection. Motion , second . so ordered. Recommendation to receive and file report on draft Con- gestion Management Program. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated May 7, 1991. Action: To receive and file the report on the prepara- tion of a draft program by the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC) on the Congestion Man- agement Program, which ties land development with transportation and air quality. City Council Minutes 05-14-91 Page 7450 /26 • (k) (1) (m) Recommendation to approve revised class specification for Deputy City Clerk. Memorandum from Personnel Direc- tor Robert Blackwood dated May 8, 1991. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Coun- cilmember Midstokke for separate discussion later in the meeting. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to approve a revised class specification for the position of Deputy City Clerk. Motion , second So ordered, noting the objection of Recommendation to approve lease agreement between the City and Project Touch for use of Room 3 at the Communi- ty Center. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated May 6, 1991. Action: To approve the recommendation of the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission and staff to: 1) approve the one year lease agreement between the City and Project Touch to lease Room 3 in the Community Center at a rate of $407 per month ($.77 x 529 sq. ft.) from June 1, 1991 through June 30, 1991 and a rate of $423 per month ($.80 x 529 sq. ft.) from July 1, 1991 through May 31, 1991; and, 2) authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. Recommendation to accept and file report on City marquee renovation. Memorandum from Community Resources Direc- tor Mary Rooney dated May 2, 1991. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Coun- cilmember Midstokke for separate discussion later in the meeting. Action: To approve the staff recommendation for the design change to the City.marquee by changing the loca- tion of the City logo from the side to the top of the sign, thus allowing larger letters to be used. Motion , second . So ordered. City Council Minutes 05-14-91 Page 7451 • (n) Recommendation to award bid for purchase of bullet resistant safety vests, and to appropriate the donated $10,000 into the Police equipment account. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated May 6, 1991. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: 1) award the bid for purchase of thirty (30) personal safety vests at a cost of $284 per vest, and twelve (12) tactical safety vests at a cost of $895 per vest, to Long Beach Uniform Supply, the low bidder meeting specifications; and, 2) appropriate the donated $10,000 into the Police equipment account to cover the cost of the tactical safety vests and accessory pockets. V) (o) Recommendation to approve agreement to hire consultant to conduct survey settlement monitoring program for Strand Hotel project. Memorandum from Public Works Di- rector Anthony �A tich dated May 7, 1991. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to au- thorize the Mayor to sign the agreement, entitled, "Pro- fessional Services Agreement", to use Carl Chapman & Associates, Inc. to conduct the survey monitoring pro- gram for Settlement Analysis based on field survey data, for the City of Hermosa Beach, at the Strand Hotel Proj- ect site, contingent upon receipt of a cash deposit by the developer. vv 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES None 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE,/ j/8 DISCUSSION. * Public comments on items removed from the Consent Calendar. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. 5. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DAN'S LIQUORS, 3232 MANHATTAN AVENUE. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 16, 1991, with supplemental information dated May 6, 1991. Supplemental memorandum from Planning director Schubach, dated May 13, 1991 (Continued from April 23, 1991. 1- 1.A,*.. S//v 9/ wl City Council Minutes 05-14-91 Page 7452 r a9 1/ Director Schubach presented the staff report and re- sponded to Council questions. Action: To continue hi item t�eting of June 11, 1991, and to refer it back to the Planning Commis- sion for review and comment. Motion, , second L. So ordered. 6. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS OF A CONDITION- AL USE PERMIT FOR BOCCATO'S GROCERIES, 3127 MANHATTAN AVENUE. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated May 6, 1991. Supplemental letter from Frank Boccato, 3127 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, dated May 8, 1991, with attachment from John B. Murdock, Attorney at Law. Supplemental memorandum from Planning Director Schubach, dated May 14, 1991. Director Schubach presented the staff report and re- sponded to Council questions. ��,�� ) x lie D d- f The public hearing was opened at 8402 P.M., coming forward to address the Council on this matter were: C The ,cy public hearing was closed at Action: To deny the appeal, sustain the Planning Com- mission decision, and to adopt Resolution No. 91-544 , entitled,"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUSTAINING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE City Council Minutes 05-14-91 Page 7453 r PERMIT TO ALLOW OFF -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 3127 MANHATTAN AVENUE, "BOCCATO'S GROCERIES", AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE EASTERLY 20.15 FEET OF LOT 12 AND LOT 14, BLOCK 104, SHAKESPEARE TRACT." Motion , second . So ordered. 7. r PPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 3 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION AT 23 BARNEY COURT/18 & 20 MEYER COURT. Memorandum from Plan- ning Director Michael Schubach dated May 6, 1991. Sup- plemental letter from David R. Suess, 1246 First Street, Hermosa Beach, dated May 8, 1991. Director Schubach presented the staff report and re- sponded to Council questions. The public hearing was opened at 8:3>P.M., coming forward to address the Council on this matter were: r, C -ii &,,,(:‘-.) c-ri (t.„,-,s,AeL%-.) The public hearing was closed at City Council Minutes 05-14-91 Page 7454 • Action: To deny the appeal, sustain the Planning Com- mission decision, and adopt Resolution No. 91-544 , en- titled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUSTAINING THE PLANNING COM- MISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #20822, FOR A 3 - UNIT CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION PROJECT AT 23 BARNEY COURT, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 24, TRAFTON HEIGHTS TRACT." Motion , second . So ordered. Action: To grant the appeal, overturn the Planning Com- mission decision, and adopt Resolution No. 91-544 , RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,' AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #20822, FOR A 3 -UNIT CONDOMINI- UM CONVERSION PROJECT AT 23 BARNEY COURT, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 24, TRAFTON HEIGHTS TRACT." Motion ., second . So ordered MUNICIPAL MATTERS 8. GENERAL SERVICES REORGANIZATION PLAN. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated April 18, 1991, with a supplemental memorandum to approve class specification for Finance Supervisor from Personnel Di- rector Robert Blackwood dated May 8, 1991. (Continued from April 23, 1991 meeting.) City Manager Northcraft presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Personnel Director Blackwood responded to Council questions. C ,7- `ice" J N d Action: To approve the staff recommendation to reor- /e-, ganize the General Services Department, placing Data Processing in the Finance Department, and Parking En- forcement and Animal Control to a division assigned to the City Manager. To approve the supplemental recommen- dation to: 1) amend the personnel allocation for the Finance t, Cm's C./1l de City Council Minutes 05-14-91 Page 7455 7 E ) ( g C 7(:) r e/e, //d-/yA) ' • Department by deleting the 3/4 time Senior Account Clerk position and adding a full time Finance Supervisor position; and 2) approve the class specification for Finance Super- visor with a salary range of $2563 - $3115, and authorize the City Manager to execute the sup- plemental to the Administrative Employees Bar- gaining Unit. Motion , second . So ordered. 9. CONFIRMATION OF PROCEDURE FOR RATIFICATION OF DEMANDS AND WARRANTS. Memorandum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated May 6, 1991. Director Copeland presented the staff report and re- sponded to Council questions. Action: To approve the staff recommendation and adopt Resolution No. 91-5447, entitled, 'IA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE PROCEDURE FOR RATIFICATION OF DEMANDS AND WARRANTS . ” Motion C , second E. So ordered. 10. PROPOSED CODE OF ETHICS FOR CITY EMPLOYEES. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated April 30, 1991. City Council Minutes 05-14-91 Page 7456 c Director Rooney presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to adopt the Code of Ethics for City Employees, and that it be distributed to all current and future employees who work for the City of Hermosa Beach. Motion , second . So ordered. 11. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER City Manager Northcraft reported: 12. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL 13. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: (a) Discussion of non -conforming condominiums - financing issue, requested by Mayor Sheldon. City Council Minutes 05-14-91 Page 7457 • (b) Consideration of review of non -conforming ordinance ex- perience, requested by Councilmemb✓er�Wiemans. 14.1 l ,_>, v .s4'C-Ae2-7, ecommended 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- 5rIc il action tonight. �a • rCITIZEN COMMENTS eP Citizens wishing to address the Council on items within the Council's jurisdiction may do so at this time. Please limit comments to three minutes. Coming forw to address the Council at this time were: Howard Longacre - 1221 Seventh Place, Wilma Burt - 1152 Seventh Street, June Williams - 2065 Manhattan Avenue, 2- or c v) ( - O Dave Reimer - 802 Monterey Blvd., Jerry Compton - 832 Seventh Street, Shirley Cassell - 611 Monterey Blvd.,` Parker Herriott - 224 Twenty-fourt Street, Jim Lissner - 2715 El Oeste Drive, 7`t CJ"' Jim Rosenberger - 1121 Bayview Drive, ADJOURNMENT IN MEMORY OF FORMER CITY EMPLOYEES JOYCE ADAZA AND GAIL KOEBSELL, AND LONG TIME RESIDENT ROY SEAWRIGHT. The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, adjourned in memory of former City employees, Joyce Adaza and Gail Koebsell, and long time resident, Roy,1 50�, Seawright, on Wednesday May 15, 1991, at the hour of _, to a Regular Meeting to be held on Tuesday, May 14, 1991, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. City Council Minutes 05-14-91 Page 7458 r Deputy City Clerk City Council Minutes 05-14-91 Page 7459 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. Meetings are televised live on Multivision Cable Channel 3 and replayed the next day (Wesdnesday) at noon. Agendas for meetings are shown on Channel 3 the weekend before the meetings. Opportunities for Public Comments Citizens may provide input to their elected Councilmembers in writing or oral- ly. Letters on agenda matters should be sent or delivered to the City Clerk's or City Manager's Office. If sent one week in advance, they will be included in the Council's agenda packet with the item. If received after packet com- pilation, they will be distributed prior to the Council meeting. Oral communications with Councilmembers may be accomplished on an individual basis in person or by telephone, or at the Council meeting. Please see the notice under "Public Participation" for opportunities to speak before the Council. It is the policy df the City Council that no discussion of new items will be- gin after 11:30 p.m., unless this rule is waived by the Council. The agendas are developed with the intent to have all matters covered within the time allowed. 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: City offices are open 7 A.M. to 6 P.M., Mon. - Thurs.; Closed Fridays. There is no smoking allowed in the Council Chambers. (over) THE HERMOSA BEACH FORM OF GOVERNMENT Hermosa Beach has the Council -Manager form of government, with a City Manager appointed 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 considered 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 agendas for meetings of the Hermosa Beach City Council. Consent Items ... A compilation of all routine matters to be acted upon by one vote; approval requires a majority affirmative vote. Any Councilmember may remove an item from this listing, thereby causing that matter to be considered under the category Consent Calendar items Removed For Separate Discussion. Public Hearings ... Public Hearings are held on certain matters as required by law or by direction of Council. The Hearings afford the public the opportuni- ty 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. 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 5 days later Council may adopt, reject or hold over the ordinance to a subsequent meeting. Most or- dinances 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 Noon the Tuesday preceding the Regular City Council meeting and request they be placed on the Council agenda. Municipal Matters ... Non-public Hearing items predicted to warrant discussion by the City Council are placed here. Miscellaneous Items and Reports - City Manager ... The City Manager coordi- nates 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. SYM "It takes less time to do a thing right, than it does to explain why you did it wrong." -Longfellow AGENDA REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 14, 1991 - Council Chambers, City Hall Closed Session - 6:00 p.m. Regular Session - 7:30 p.m. MAYOR CITY CLERK Charles W. Sheldon Elaine Doerfling MAYOR PRO TEM CITY TREASURER Kathleen Midstokke Gary L. Brutsch COUNCILMEMBERS CITY MANAGER Roger Creighton Kevin B. Northcraft Robert Essertier CITY ATTORNEY Albert Wiemans Charles S. Vose All Council meetings are open to the public. PLEASE ATTEND. The Council receives a packet with detailed information and recommendations on nearly every agenda item. Complete agenda packets are available for public inspection in the Police Depart- ment, Public Library and the Office of the City Clerk. During the meeting a packet also is available in the Council foyer. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: PROCLAMATION: Public Works Week, May 19 to May 23, 1991 COMMENDATION FOR ABA NATURAL BODYBUILDING AND WHEELCHAIR HANDICAP CHAMPIONSHIPS OUTSTANDING EMPLOYEE AWARDS: Mary Hull, Pool Secretary Tom Thompson, Police Officer ACCEPTANCE OF "JAWS OF LIFE" DONATION PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Members of the Public wishing to address the City Council on any items within the Council's jurisdiction may do so at this time. (Exception: Comments on public hearing items must be heard during the public hearings.) Please limit comments to one minute. Citizens also may speak: 1) during Consent Calendar consideration or Public Hearings, 2) with the Mayor's consent, during discussion of items appearing under Municipal Matters, and 1. 3) before the close of the meeting during "Citizen Comments". CONSENT CALENDAR: The following more routine matters will be acted upon by one vote to approve with the majority consent 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. * Councilmember requests to remove items from the Consent Calendar. (Items removed will be considered under Agenda Item 3.) * Public comments on the Consent Calendar. (a) Recommendation to approve minutes of regular meeting of the City Council held on April 23, 1991. (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 the April, 1991 in- vestment report. Memorandum from City Treasurer Gary L. Brutsch dated May 2, 1991. (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (i) Recommendation to'adopt resolution supporting AB 1423 and SB 235 regarding efforts to create markets for recy- clable materials. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director William Grove dated April 15, 1991. Recommendation to approve Chamber of Commerce request for Fiesta de las Artes. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated May 2, 1991. Recommendation to receive and file quarterly review CIP program. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated April 22, 1991. Recommendation to approve realignment of existing 15u sewer main from 20th Street southerly for 360 ft., CIP 88-406. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated May 7, 1991. Recommendation for selection of separate retirement con- tribution rates for Police and Fire personnel. Memoran- dum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated May 7, 1991. Recommendation to receive and file report on draft Con- gestion Management Program. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated May 7, 1991. (k) (1) (m) (n) (o) 2. 3. Recommendation to approve revised class specification for Deputy City Clerk. Memorandum from Personnel Direc- tor Robert Blackwood dated May 8, 1991. Recommendation to approve tease agreement between the City and Project Touch for use of Room 3 at the Communi- ty Center. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated May 6, 1991. Recommendation to accept and file report on City marquee renovation. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated May 2, 1991. Recommendation to award -bid .for purchase of bullet resistant safety vests, and to appropriate the donated $10,000 into the Police equipment account. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated May 6, 1991. Recommendation to approve -agreement to hire consultant to conduct survey settlement monitoring program for Strand Hotel project. Memorandum from Public Works Di- rector Anthony Antich dated May 7, 1991. CONSENT ORDINANCES. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. * Public comments on items removed from the Consent Calendar. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. 5. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DAN'S LIQUORS, 3232 MANHATTAN AVENUE. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated 4 April 16, 1991, with supplemental information dated May 6, 1991. (Continued from April 23, 1991.) 6. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS OF A CONDITION- AL USE PERMIT FOR BOCCATO'S GROCERIES, 3127 MANHATTAN AVENUE.Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated May 6, 1991. 7. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 3 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION AT 23 BARNEY COURT/18 & 20 MEYER COURT. Memorandum from Plan- ning Director Michael Schubach dated May 6, 1991. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 8. GENERAL SERVICES REORGANIZATION PLAN. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated April 18, 1991, - 3 - with a supplemental memorandum to approve class specification for Finance Supervisor from Personnel Di- rector Robert Blackwood dated May 8, 1991. (Continued from April 23, 1991 meeting.) 9. CONFIRMATION OF PROCEDURE FOR RATIFICATION OF DEMANDS AND WARRANTS. Memorandum from Finance Director Viki { Copeland dated May 6, 1991. 10. PROPOSED CODE OF ETHICS FOR CITY EMPLOYEES. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated April 30, 1991. 11. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER 12. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL 13. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: (a) Discussion of non -conforming condominiums - financing issue, requested by Mayor Sheldon. (b) Consideration of review of non -conforming ordinance ex- perience, requested by Councilmember Wiemans. 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. CITIZEN COMMENTS Citizens wishing to address the Council on items within the Council's jurisdiction may do so at this time. Please limit comments to three minutes. ADJOURNMENT IN MEMORY OF FORMER CITY EMPLOYEES JOYCE ADAZA AND GAIL KOEBSELL, AND LONG TIME RESIDENT ROY SEAWRIGHT. U?»i Fci (PLI,NN)NO ao / N PoRc..C-! i• L yma.s 4M 'mom '1 2 YitS J r l > -/11 I \ 04•6.6"...:A2eLeke ,5-/y-9/ 07 YE -I; e tnm sSalik) piing ri6"friivim POLgdftw 71.9041 3 YR rows _ Ic175" 17i *77 1'78 kli 111 179 1 r 4• '90 111 , •61/ 1-4-1 -9.2 83 , Eizil.e er g '6 187 /943 '89' . 70 I ',V 9.2 , #9'i 'tit Iti III ; ill it/ 1 .11 133 I tip 1 40 -4- I I I I 411 too too .. 44 • , .... 1 ti! -. 1ff " ';1/44.seo; i. - J,-• . -3,HELbot) 0,4 aommo.sma . , " --, •1 1 • - . -.- - . _•__ _1:6-ints, PUM2C67.- .)4(1._ _,,Sti'cW F41...*1-14:12,r._ _14)_..71,11,,S. PARTS 6, i 017,6'1? 1--1,eals; 1 i Illii, - i -i, IM_Si _ / 3‘r,..1-__ ..__ 1611011, ON.). C-911161/S.S/dd 'fl ft ft ! id;i4 )14)11e P,Erie OZ. : 1 i 1 i 1 1 • i ' ! I i . I-1-- 1 1 1 i4A oN NS' Com;rissiD.Jull- G 6OF feWr iS:1511ey//,‘4•._. • 17) y di9ei, PAN 1/3 0/ 9 / . ,,: 34/ , . , e... : i . . I, 1 • j . )4. L - i -- 1H s-fiy/ is-- 7r0 9.670'47- ":" , 7,2- 'inoiv77a it rasnl,s- ly 8 3 yinewaS 1 i I .1 ; /I /9 pip • " y -pi Kr o iv r GE' 1,11. 6 S i 7 1 6' .• oP N Mt 1/4 I Cr Fog. pi_61\..iNii:vG= aorvmfAs/eiros . wHtehi 2 n97-rs • 1 , 1 i , i • , E. . 1 . ) . 1 Yt914 , to& Nor isr ON ' cornmr4s.'rod Foe 6 )6-19.lcs, OF-' ritnie-1-QA/662? 77Mil --Pk)o T&RrY)..sii ! oNfE: FiNhs 771677 `77167 oRkinililmr- qS 136746 VI oLig .TA ,IN al A; Pe/RCi ir/S ,c.ti-S67; 1 Nr hi/3S , ' • 1 r - ' 1 Novo s b*vb1 ' 4 :nie(.. 7-p-pms1 /9,441, f*n of •9 0rti610 Tbil.ms. Fwe. /3-' YbV romt. ;';111•;i111.,„ , fiN/>, • W / MOUT. FlALL. 1: I S ;O.- C:PSU' /2 r or ; girt.* EtTAIT o///F fit4)x Atiy °T1)&* 8 t12)N611.S f,6-1077z)os HIP (.. orr-H . iphyagi. igiielloA),-rthr rtPP6-Negicov-e,57 oFi.gt,sivirietvir, C,oNFI-1C7— DF ;iniraztfar 6><Isrs.; 1 , ' , , , I I i 1i I i i 1 P I f 5-/Y- 9l MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, April 23, 1991, at the hour of 7:38 P.M. CLOSED SESSION - The closed session was held at 6:32 P.M. regard- ing matters of litigation: pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Miller vs. City of Hermosa Beach; matters of potential litigation: pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b); Real Property Negotiations: regarding South School with the Hermosa Beach City School District; and, Employee Meet and Confer. The session was recessed at 7:32 P.M. to the regular scheduled public meeting. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Charles Sheldon, Mayor ROLL CALL Present: Creighton, Midstokke, Wiemans, Mayor Sheldon Absent: Essertier PROCLAMATION Water Awareness Month, May, 1991 Mayor Sheldon presented a proclamation to Terry Tamble, District Manager of the California Water Service Company, proclaiming the month of May, 1991, as "Water Awareness Month". Mr. Tamble stated that water useage was down 30% for the month of March and 20% for the month of April. Anthony Antich, Public Works Direc- tor, reported that there would be a series of videos on water conservation shown on Multivision Cable TV (channel 3) during the month of May. ANNOUNCEMENT Mayor Sheldon announced that item 5, the public hearing would be continued to the meeting of May 14, 1991. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Coming forward to address the Council at this time were: Amy Klein - representing Sheila Miller, concerned with the issue of subsidence and possible lead contamination for the area of the Strand hotel; concerned with the disposition of hazardous wastes; and, concerned that the City adhere to Condition #7 of the building permit requiring a permit of the regional water quality control board, and submitted letter; Parker Herriott - 224 Twenty-fourth Street, feels the City should stop issuance of demolition permits for Strand hotel, and submitted letter; Howard Longacre - 1221 Seventh Place, concerned that Planning Commissioner Peirce has served a total of eleven years on the Commission; con- cerned that Commissioner Peirce has a conflict of interest due to property held in partnership with Mayor Sheldon; and, feels Commissioner Peirce should resign. City Council Minutes 04-23-91 Page 7437 la 1. (a) (b) CONSENT CALENDAR Action: To approve the Consent Calendar recommendations (a) through (h), with the exception of the following items which were pulled for discussion in item 3 but are listed in order for clarity: (a) Midstokke, (e) Mid- stokke, and (f) Midstokke. Motion Midstokke, second Creighton. So ordered. Recommendation to approve minutes of regular meeting of the City Council held on April 9, 1991. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Coun- cilmember Midstokke for separate discussion later in the meeting. Action: To approve the minutes of April 09, 1991, as presented. Motion Midstokke, second Creighton. So ordered. Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants Nos. 36520, and 36617 through 36796 inclusive, noting voided warrants Nos. 36622, 36623, 36624, 36625, 36647, and 36691. Action: To approve the demands and warrants as presented. (c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. Action: To receive and file the tentative future agenda items as presented. (d) (e) Recommendation to receive and file March, 1991 financial reports: 1) Revenue and expenditure report; 2) City Treasurer's report. Action: To receive and file the financial reports for the month of March, 1991 as presented. Recommendation to approve request for 30 -day extension of temporary appointment for two General Services Of- ficers, one Technical Aide, and the Deputy City Clerk. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dat- ed April 16, 1991. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Coun- cilmember Midstokke for separate discussion later in the meeting. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to extend the four positions for thirty (30) days. Motion Midstokke, second Creighton. So ordered. City Council Minutes 04-23-91 Page 7438 (f) Recommendation to authorize call for bids for custodial services for City Hall, Clark Stadium, Base 3 and Police Department. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated April 15, 1991. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Coun- cilmember Midstokke for separate discussion later in the meeting. Director Antich responded to council questions. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: 1) approve the specifications for cleaning City buildings and facilities (including the Clark Auditorium, City Hall, Police Department, and Base 3) and authorize staff to issue addenda as necessary; and, 2) authorize staff to solicit bids for custodial services for cleaning City buildings and facilities for a contract period .of three (3) years renewable for an additional three (3) years with consent of contractor and Council. And, to include bids for the costs of cleaning the Com- munity Center and the jail area. Motion Midstokke, second Creighton. So ordered. Councilmember Creighton requested that the funds from the General Fund, now being used by the Community Cen- ter, be applied directly to the Community Center in or- der for the actual costs to be shown. (g) Recommendation to receive and file informational update on Montrose Chemical Corp. et al, and Simpson Paper Company/Potlatch Corporation claims and authorize staff to join American Communities for Cleanup Equity (ACCE). Memorandum from Risk Manager Robert Blackwood dated April 16, 1991. (h) Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: 1) receive and file the report on the Montrose et al case; and, 2) authorize staff to join American Communities for Cleanup Equity (ACCE) for an annual member- ship fee of $600. Request for authorization to purchase an automatic mail- ing machine. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dated April 16, 1991. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: 1) authorize the purchase of an automatic mailing system consisting of a mailing machine and an electronic rate calculating scale in the amount of $7,156.16 from the successful low bidder, Friden Alcatel; and, City Council Minutes 04-23-91 Page 7439 2 ) appropriate an additional $1,956 from Prospec- tive Expenditures to the General Appropriations - Equipment More Than $500. $5,200 was ini- tially budgeted for this equipment. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES - None 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR DISCUSSION. FOR SEPARATE Item (a), (e), and (f) were heard at this time, however, they are listed in order for clarity. * Public comments on items removed from the Consent Calendar are listed under the appropriate item. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DAN'S LIQUORS, 3232 MANHATTAN AVENUE. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 16,1991. Action: To continue this matter to the meeting of May 14, 1991, renoticing the legal advertisement with the other public hearings. So ordered by Mayor Sheldon with the consensus of the Council MUNICIPAL MATTERS 6. RECOMMENDATION REGARDING ZONING RELATED BALLOT MEASURES FOR THE NOVEMBER, 1991 BALLOT. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated April 17, 1991. City Manager Northcraft presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Coming forward to address the Council on this matter were: Jim Rosenberger - 1121 Bayview, concerned with lack of public input before the measures go on the ballot; Howard Longacre - 1221 Seventh Place, supports placing height measures on the ballot; Wilma Burt - 1152 Seventh Street, does not like advisory measures and objects to the use of initials or words such as "stringline"; and, Jerry Compton - 832 Seventh Street, objects to planning by ballot box. Action: To approve the staff recommendation Number 3, to set a public hearing for further citizen input prior to final action to place these measures before the voters, and to request a full staff report for the City Council Minutes 04-23-91 Page 7440 public hearing. Motion Midstokke, second Creighton. So ordered. Councilmember Midstokke requested that specific wording, giving details of the proposed measures, be included in the legal advertising for the public hearing. 7. RECOMMENDATION REGARDING STATISTICALLY VALID COMMUNITY SURVEY. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. North - craft dated April 18, 1991. Supplemental letter from Gordon H. Kubota, Ph.D., of CIC Research, dated April 22, 1991. City Manager Northcraft presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Coming forward to address the Council on this matter was: Wilma Burt - 1152 Seventh Street, requested that the cost of any service or improvement included in a survey be stated in the question. Action: To direct staff to continue preparation of this item for a decision by the next Council. Motion Creighton, Second Wiemans. So ordered. The meeting recessed at 8:40 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 8:56 P.M. 8. GENERAL SERVICES REORGANIZATION PLAN. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated April 18, 1991. City Manager Northcraft asked the Council for direction regarding the matter as it had not been fully discussed in closed session. Coming forward to address the Council on this matter was: Mike Flaherty - Teamster representative for em- ployees in the Miscellaneous, Administrative, and Supervisory Bargaining Unit; who urged the Council to make a decision and not allow conditions to go on as they have, with positions unfilled and bud- geted items not purchased, but to allow the em- ployees to better serve the citizens by providing them the adequate working space and the direction that is needed. Action: To resume the discussion of this matter in a closed session at the conclusion of the regular meeting, and continue to the meeting of May 14, 1991. Motion Creighton, second Wiemans. So ordered, noting the objection of Councilmember Midstokke, who wanted a decision tonight. City Council Minutes 04-23-91 Page 7441 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS AD- MINISTRATION SERVICES. Memorandum from Personnel Di- rector Robert Blackwood dated April 16, 1991. Director Blackwood presented the staff report and re- sponded to Council questions. In response to a question from Councilmember Midstokke, City Attorney Vose responded that it was legal to nego- tiate the best economical deal possible for the City after a company has been selected because it is a con- tract for services and does not require a formal bid process. He continued that if there were a substantive change in the contract it would come back to the Coun- cil, but not if it were a reduction in cost, only. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to award the City's Third Party Administration of workers' com- pensation claims to Hazelrigg Risk Management Services (H -RMS) and authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a three year contract with H -RMS. Motion Creighton, second Wiemans. So ordered. 10. REVIEW OF COUNCIL PACKET DISTRIBUTION. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated April 17, 1991. City Manager Northcraft presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Coming forward to address the Council on this matter were: Jim Rosenberger - 1121 Bayview, questioned the documentation supplied by the Homeowner As- sociation since the dates of the documents were prior to 1985, and stated that the amount spent by the City to provide the packets was over $7,000. Wilma Burt - 1152 Seventh Street, stated that she was not a Board member of the Homeowner As- sociation; the papers and documentation were with an attorney; the president had not ex- plained what had happened in regard to the State; the president had not been available to call meetings; the bank account was still ac- tive with Ellen Goetz as treasurer; and, the main purpose of the group was to distribute information not to hold meetings. Howard Longacre - 1221 Seventh Place, questioned the term of fraud; questioned the availability of the packet in the Police Department; and, suggested that a chained packet be placed in the Post Office; and, June Williams - 2065 Manhattan Avenue, stated that she had no problem reading the packet in the Public Library; questioned the legality of political activities by a non-profit group; City Council Minutes 04-23-91 Page 7442 and, suggested that the District Attorney's office be contacted to determine if an inves- tigation was warranted. Action: To receive and file the report on City Council packet distribution and establish a Council policy not to distribute packets to individual groups. Motion Creighton, second Midstokke. So ordered, noting the objection of Councilmember Wiemans, who wished to have free packets distributed to interested groups. Mayor Sheldon directed the City Manager to make one ex- ception for the Chamber of Commerce, since they have regular business hours in the City, and allow their packet to continue, on the condition that it be made available in their office for public review. 11. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER City Manager Northcraft reported: 1) a joint meeting between the City Council and the Chamber of Commerce has been scheduled for Thursday, July 18, 1991, at the hour of 7:30 A.M.; 2) the Beach Cities Coalition on Alcohol would like a confirmation of the representative from the Council, the current representative is Councilmember Essertier, who will continue; 3) the Lawn Bowling Open House on Saturday, April 27, 1991, from 10:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M., with all interested community members invited; and, 4) the voting machine was in the process of being installed and would be ready for the next meeting. 12. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) Consideration of date for joint meeting between the City Council and the Planning Commission. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 18, 1991. Action: To approve the date of June 6, 1991, at the hour of 7:00 P.M., for a joint meeting with the Planning Commission, to discuss topics including: 1) RUDAT; 2) Greenbelt parking; 3) Downtown business parking; and, 4) Pacific Coast Highway parking. So ordered by Mayor Sheldon with the consensus of the Council. 13. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Mayor Sheldon noted that the report from the Building Department showed a net dwelling unit change of minus City Council Minutes 04-23-91 Page 7443 ten for fiscal year 1990/1991, indicating that despite the appearance of a great deal of building in the City, the number of buildings was declining. CITIZEN COMMENTS Coming forward to address the Council at this time were: Howard Longacre - 1221 Seventh Place, expressed concern with the Strand hotel and the proposed water discharge rate; June Williams - 2065 Manhattan Avenue, questioned the staff report showing 4,000 fewer parking tickets issued this year than last; Parker Herriott - 224 Twenty-fourth Street, expressed concern with the Strand hotel regarding subsidence, insurance, asbestos, and suggested that the City hire an expert for evaluation; and, Jim Rosenberger - 1121 Bayview Drive, questioned the gift of public funds and the awareness of the Council of the free packet distribution to the Homeowner Association. ADJOURNMENT The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, adjourned on Tuesday, April 23, 1991, at the hour of 10:05 P.M., to a closed session. The closed session reconvened at 10:08 P.M. for the purpose of continuing consideration of personnel matters; Employee Meet and Confer; Real Property Negotiations concerning South School site with the Hermosa Beach School Board: pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8; and, potential litigation: pursuant to Govern- ment Code Section 54956.9(b). The closed session was adjourned at 11:17 P.M. to a Regular Meeting to be held on Tuesday, May 14, 1991, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. r Deputy City Clerk City Council Minutes 04-23-91 Page 7444 FINANCE--SFA340 TIME 14:19:08 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION H CLEARS TRAINING CONFERENCE CONF REG/ELLEDGE/MADDEN--TR375 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 05/14/91 VND ## 'ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ ## ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 5 9/ PAGE 0001 DATE 05/09/91 INV/REF PO ## CHK i# AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 01510 001-400-2101-4317 00180 $240.00 '04725791"'" '----- POLICE - `"-/CONFERENCE EXPENSE- *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** H COUNTRYSIDE INN 03970 HOTEL ADV/M:'""WILLIAMS"---TR373--`"""-"-- 04/25/91- $240. 00 001-400-2201-4316 00290 366.96 FIRE -/TRAINING-. *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** H DOUBLETREE HOTEL HOTEL ADV/ELLEDGE/MADDEN'TR375- $66. 96 03398 001-400-2101-4317 00179 $308.00 04/25/91 - ---`-""POLICE-----------/CONFERENCE EXPENSE *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** H VIRGINIA*ELLEDGE "PER -DIEM -ADVANCE -TR375 04/25/9i - I $308.00 03797 001-400-2101-4317 00178 $103.00 POLICE— - - -7CONFERENCE"EXPENSE_-- *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** r4 H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT PAYROLL/4=16"TO- '4=30-9I H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT PAYROLL/4-16 TO"4-30-91 H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT --""' '-`"-"--PAYROLL/4-16-TO 4-30-91 H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT PAYROLL/4-16 TO 4-30-91 H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT --""----'- -- PAYROLE74-16 TO -4=30-9r $103.00 00243 001-202-0000-2030 00414 $224,872.28 05/02/91 — "- —"""' /ACCRUED PAYROLL: 00243 105-202-0000-2030 05/02/91 00229 $7,777.81 /ACCRUED PAYROLL 00243 109-202-0000-2030 00028 $943.46 05/02791 /ACCRUED -PAYROLL 00243 110-202-0000-2030 00231 $42,254.45 05/02/91 ---- /ACCRUED PAYROLL 00243 145-202-0000-2030 00225 $2,250.30 05102/9T-- /ACCRUED PAYROLL" H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT 00243 155-202-0000-2030 PAYROLL/4-16-TO 4-30-91'" -- "JOS/02/91"' - ' H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT PAYROLC74=16-T04-30=91 00226 $4,027.49 /ACCRUED PAYROLL 00243 160-202-0000-2030 00224 $7,857.86 05/02/9r - T TR375 00375 36803 $0.00 05/08/91 - TR373 00373 36799 $0.00 05/08/91 TR375 00375 $0.00 36802 05/08/91 TR375 00375 36601 I, $0.00-- 05/08/91'Th. I 36804 $0.00 - 05/09/91 $0.00 36804 05/09/91 I 5) 36804 I 14 $0.00-- 05/09/91 $0.00 36804 05/09/91 36804 $0.00" 05/09/91 ' ! .I $0. 00 36804 05/09/91 36804 ,1 /ACCRUED -PAYROLL ------------------$0.00 -05/09/91-"` a4 1b ei FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:19:08 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 05/14/91 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT PAYROLL/4-16-T0 4-30-91 H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT PAYROLL/4-16 TO 4-30-91 VND # DATE INVC ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 00243 170-202-0000-2030 00080 $18,070.22 --05/02/91-- -- - - /ACCRUED PAYROLL - 00243 705-202-0000-2030 05/02/91 00188 $8,051.00 /ACCRUED PAYROLL INV/REF *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $316,104.87 H LOTUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION REPLACE LOTUS SOFTWARE 04032 001-400-4202-4305 00572 $160.50 05/06/92'"""""` PUB WKS ADMIN ' /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** H EILEEN#MADDEN PER DIEM ADVANCE $160.50 03273 001-400-2101-4317 00177 $103.00 TR374- -- 04/25/91 - POLICE /CONFERENCE EXPENSE *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $103.00 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. RETIREMENT/MARCH 91 •H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT RETIREMENT/MARCH 91 00026 001-400-1213-4180 00490 $88,220.84 - 04/23/91-" - RETIREMENT .'---/RETIREMENT .. SYS. 00026 001-400-1213-4180 00491 $17,136.31CR --- -- 04/23/91 - RETIREMENT /RETIREMENT H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. RETIREMENT/MARCH 91 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. RETIREMENT-ADV/APRIL 91-'--" H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT RETIREMENT/MARCH 91 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT 'RETIREMENT/MARCH 91 00026 001-400-1213-4180 00492 $71,855.97CR 04/23/91"'.' RETIREMENT /RETIREMENT - - 00026 001-400-1213-4180 00493 $72,387.52 05/08/91 RETIREMENT - /RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 105-400-2601-4188 01129 $1,013.55 04/23/91 "' - STREET LIGHTING /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS ' SYS. 00026 109-400-3301-4180 00017 $97.24 04/23/91 -- VEH PKG DIST -/RETIREMENT -" H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 RETIREMENT/MARCH 91'` --.--`--"-04/23/91 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. RETIREMENT7MARCH 9I 110-400-3302-4180 00150 $4,294.12 PARKING ENF ''/RETIREMENT' PAGE 0002 DATE 05/09/91 PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 36804' $0.00 -- 05/09/91 $0.00 36804 05/09/91 02094 36805 $0.00 05/09/91 TR374 00374 36800 $0.00 05/08/91 00026 145-400-3401-4180 00123 $58.33 04723/9T- --" DIAL A`-'- 36797 $0.00 05/08/91- 36797 5/08/91-" 36797 $0.00 05/08/91 36797 $0.00 05/08/91 -$0.00 $0.00 36806 05/08/91 36797 05/08/91 36797 -$0.00 -05/08/91- 36797 --05/08/91 ' 36797 $0.00 05/08/91 36797 $0.00 O'/08/91 - i .f J a, 19 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:19:08 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. RETIREMENT/MARCH-91 • PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. RETIREMENT/MARCH 91 --- ." H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. RETIREMENT/MARCH'-9I---- —"- " CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 05/14/91 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 00026 04/23791 - PAGE 0003 DATE 05/09/91 INV/REF PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 145-400-3402-4180 00123 $19.74 ESEA'' /RETIREMENT—" — — 00026 145-400-3403-4180 00070 $17.20 ' 04/23/91"- - V BUS PASS SUBSDY-/RETIREMENT- 00026 155-400-2102-4180 00121 $120.52 —04/23/91 — CROSSING GUARD —%RETIREMENT" H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 RETIREMENT/MARCH 91 "" " - -------- 04/23/91 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. RETIREMENT/MARCH"91 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. RETIREMENT/MARCH 91 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. -RETIREMENT/MARCH-91 160-400-3102-4180 00148 $965.74 SEWER/ST DRAIN /RETIREMENT - 00026 170-400-2103-4180 00022 $4,172.02 04/23/91— SPEC INVESTGTNS" /RETIREMENT 00026 705-400-1209-4180 00072 $236.37 04/23/91"""" LIABILITY INS --/RETIREMENT- 00026 /RETIREMENT 00026 705-400-1217-4180 00072 $304.22 04/23/91 WORKERS' -COMP- 7RETIREMENT-- *** VENDOR TOTAL******n****************************************•********************* H MARK*WILLIAMS -PER DIEM"ADVANCE TR373 H MARK*WILLIAMS REGISTRATION ADVANCE`----TR373 04031 001-400-2201-4316 04/24/91 FIRE $82,915.33 00288 $100.00 /TRAINING 04031 001-400-2201-4316 00289 $75.00 04/24/91 FIRE /TRAINING *** VENDOR TOTAL***•***************************************************************** $175.00 *** PAY CODE TOTAL****************************************************************** R A & E TROPHIES -MISC: CHARGES/APRIL 91 /9645 02744 04/3079I $400.176:66 36797 $0.00 " 05/08/91- $0.00 5/08/91-- $0.00 36797 05/08/91 36797 $0.00 05/0B/91-_. $0. 00 36797 05/08/91 36797 $0.00 05/08/91 $0. 00 36797 05/08/91 36797 — $0: 00 05/08/91 TR373 00373 36798 -" "$0.00'_.._05/08/91` TR373 00373 36798 $0.00" 05/08/91 001-400-4601-4308 00520 $135.89 9870/9845 00042 36811 COMM RESOURCES 7PROGRAM MATERIALS ----" "` ' ' "__ $0. 00- -05/09/91 -' *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R A&B AIR CONDITIONING -SEWER:PUMP-HOUSE ROOF $135. 89 00002 001-400-4204-4309 01974 $125.00 02083 36812 05/02/91 -BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS -- $125.00---_.05/09/91 7 I•, I FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:19:08 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 05/14/91 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** -I PAGE 0004 J DATE 05/09/91 ---T INV/REF PO # CHK # 'I"" AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $125.00. R ADVANCED ELECTRONICS RADIO MAINT/MAY 91 - 30541 R ADVANCED ELECTRONICS RADIO MAINT/MAY•91'` --'30541' R ADVANCED ELECTRONICS RADIO MAINT/MAY 91 - " 30683 R ADVANCED ELECTRONICS 00935 001-400-2101-4201 --.' _' 04/25/91 __..'.._ . POLICE.. 00767 $1,133.20 30541 00048 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 00935 001-400-2201-4201 00215 ------04/25/91 FIRE 00935 110-400-3302-4307 00040 04/25/91 PARKING ENF 00935 REPLACE RADIO ANTENNA - 29022 '" - 03/28/91 110-400-3302-4311 00687 PARKING ENF $283.30 30541 00048 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT'" `'.. -_ $0.00 $314.00 /RADIO MAINTENANCE $112. 51 /AUTO MAINTENANCE-- *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R SCOTT*ALDEN ANIMAL-TRAP-REFUND12046 $1,843.01 30683 00058 36813 05/09/91 36813 05/09/91 36813 $0.00 05/09/91 29022 01644 36813 - $0. 00 05/09/91 03155 001-210-0000-2110 04238 $50.00 12046 02307 36814 04/25/91-! - -/DEPOSITS/WORK"GUARANTEE---------$0.00- 05/09/91- *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $50.00 R CITY OF*ALHAMBRA IN TRUST FOR ANNUAL DUES/RISK MANAGER 04008 705-400-1209-4201 00190 $600.00 -04/30/91- - - "'" "LIABILITY" -INS'_. ---.--/CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT- *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R AMERICAN STYLE FOODS - MISC: CHARGES/APRIL 91 $600. 00 00857 001-400-2101-4306 00967 $120.00 04/30/91 - "' POLICE `-' /PRISONER -MAINTENANCE.'. *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $120. 00 01361 36815 $0. 00 ' 05/09/91- 00045 36816 $0.00-- 05/09/91 R ASPA INSURANCE PLANS 02218 001-400-1212-4188 02070 $115.00 07505-0500464 00061 36817 CITY HEALTH -INS/ -JUN -SEP --00464------04/24/91 -' EMP BENEFITS _./EMPLOYEE -BENEFITS'" "" " $0.00 - 05/09/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R AUTO PARTS CLUB -MOTOR`OIL/CITY-YARD' 56221 $115.00 03714 001-400-4205-4310 00193 $507.85 56221 02022 36818 03/07/91- - EQUIP SERVICE --/MOTOR-FUELS-AND LUBES -` $507.83 ---03/07/91 0 FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 14:19:08 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 05/14/91 PAGE 0005 DATE 05/09/91 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # .AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL **************at***+ **** ►*********** ************** ***************** R AVNET COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES DIGITAL PRINTER PART 35449 $507.85 00714 001-400-2101-4305 01512 $36.13 55135449 01794 04/22/91 POLICE - /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES ;30.89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R BANC ONE LEASING 99 LEASE PMT/MAY 91 . $36.13 02154 001-400-4205-6900 00084 $417.96 bb—01" 05/01/91-. EQUIP SERVICE - !LEASE PAYMENTS 36819 05/09/91 63-5500566-01 00030 36820 $0.00 05/09/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $417.96 R BANC ONE LEASING CORPORATION LEASE PMT/FIRE ENGINE 91 6-001 03422 001-400-2201-6900 --- 04/30/91 FIRE 00141 339,770.24 87-2222016-001 00052 /LEASE PAYMENTS $0.00 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $39,770.24 R BEACH CITIES OFFICE SUPPLY MISC. CHARGES/APRIL 91 -" R BEACH CITIES OFFICE SUPPLY - MISC. CHARGES/APRIL'91 02509 001-400-1141-4305 00125 $29.96 ."-- 04/30/91" .._. CITY TREASURER -/OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES R BEACH CITIES OFFICE SUPPLY MISC. CHARGES/APRIL 91 ------ BEACH __."....`._ BEACH CITIES OFFICE SUPPLY 'MISC. CHARGES/APRIL 9r R BEACH CITIES OFFICE SUPPLY MISC.CHARGES/APRIL 91 02509 001-400-2101-4305 04/30/91 — POLICE 02509 001-400-2201-4305 -04/30/91— FIRE 01513 $95.77 —'/OFFICE'OPER-SUPPLIES 00458 $11.43 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 02509 001-400-4101-4305 00527 04/30!91'—"— --- — '—`PLANNING' 02509 001-400-4201-4305 00656 04/30/91 BUILDING $20.12 /OFFICE-OPER—SUPPLIES-- $14.08 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $171.36 R R.*BENDER 04009 001-210-0000-2110 ANIMAL TRAP REFUND-- . 15709— ` 04/25/91 ._ 36621 05/09/91 j J) 00048 36822 $0.00 05/09/91 00048 36822 $0.00 -"" 05/09/91'- j+ � 00048 36622 $0.00 05/09/91 �. 00048 36822 - $0.00 -"" 05/09/91 00048 36822 $0.00 05/09/91 04234 $50.00 15709 02308 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $50.00 R BERIAN PRINTING SERVICE, INC. 02664 DISASTER FORMS .1918- ---- 03/28/91 001-400-2701-4305 00019 $508.00 CIVIL DEFENSE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 191B 00682 36823 05/09/91 36824 $508.00 05/09/91 j� 'I • FINANCE-5FA340 TIME 14:19:08 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 05/14/91 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R BERIAN PRINTING SERVICE, INC. - BUS CARDS/P.-STOOPS -'---1955 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION -J PAGE 0006 DATE 05/09/91 INV/REF PO # CHK # ' • !; AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 02664 001-400-4101-4305 00526 $42.80 1955 01904 36824 04/02/91'PLANNING' "/OFFICE -OPER SUPPLIES $42.60 "" 05/09/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL****-***************a***********************pit*****-*•***************** R BLICKMAN, INC. THEATER TECH/4/5-TO-4/14 R BLICKMAN, INC. THEATER TECH/4-21-91 $550. 80 03092 001-400-4601-4201 00826 $588.00 04/17/91 -'"' "' COMM RESOURCES "'/CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT - 03092 001-400-4601-4201 00828 $147.00 04/23/91 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $735.00 R RALPH A. *BRASACCHIO, SR. CITE PAYMENT REFUND '40423'-...---- 04/17/91- 04034 110-300-0000-3302 39815 $18.00 /COURT'FINES/PARKING *** VENDOR TOTAL*************************•******************************************* • R BROWNING & FERRIS INDUSTRIES TRASH PICKUP/MAY 91 R BROWNING & FERRIS INDUSTRIES -TRASH PICKUP/MAY 91 $18.00 00155 001-400-1208-4201 00754 $578.37 05/01/91" GEN APPROP /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 00155 05/0//91 109-400-3301-4201 00039 $516.63 VEH PKG DIST /CONTRACT"SERVICE/PRIVAT- *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER REIMB PETTY-CASH/TO-5/6--" -' R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER REIMB PETTY CASH/TO 5/6 -'- R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER REIMB PETTY-CASH/TO 5/6 $1. 095. 00 02016 001-400-1201-4305 00195 $13.95 — — 05/06/91'- "" CITY MANAGER -/OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER REIMB PETTY CASH/TO 5/6 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER REIMB-PETTY-CASH/T0'516 02016 001-400-1201-4317 00250 $25.00 05/06/91 - CITY MANAGER /CONFERENCE EXPENSE 02016 001-400-2101-4305 01511 $21.07 05/06/91 POLICE 02016 05/06/91- 001-400-2101-4310 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 00314 $10.00 POLICE - "/MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 02016 001-400-2101-4312 01701 588.00 05/06/91- POLICE/TRAVEL EXPENSE",--POST- 01869 36825 $0. 00 05/09/91 01871 36825 $0.00 05/09/91 940423 01170 36626 $0.00 05/09/91 00005 36827 $0.00 05/09/91 00005 36827 - 50.00 -.05/09/91- 01592 36829 $0.00 05/09/91 01592 36829 $0.00 05/09/91 01592 36829 $0.00-- 05/09/91- 01592 36829 $0.00 05/09/91 !"I i. ,le 01592 36627 $O. 00 -"' 05/07/91 - .; • • • •i .. ., i ,.: -.t. �, •k •L4 ; i7,t1� \ riM,. r1', 1.; � }n9Mihch 4 . ,4G "9�i�v rt: i 3 •� , „.t- FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14: 19:08 1 I1 �I PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST PAGE 0007 FOR 05/14/91 DATE 05/09/91 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN ## AMOUNT INV/REF PO ## CHK # DATE INVC PROJ ## ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-2101-4316 00743 $28.00 REIMB PETTY--CASH/TO-Z/6 OS/O679T ""'-' POLICE /TRAINING----- GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-2201-4305 00457 $11.12 REIMB PETTY CASH/TO 5/6'`.... "'-"-' ' " 05/06/91 FIRE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 4 5 01592 36829 $0.00 05/09/91 _ 01592 36629 $0.00 05/09/91 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-2201-4309 01070 $20.33 01592 36829 REIMB PETTY-CASH/TO 5/6 05/06/91. "... FIRE -----------/MAINTENANCE MATERIALS-....-_,-` -"- $0.00 05/09/91- R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-4101-4316 00218 $16.50 01592 36629 REIMB PETTY CASH/TO 5/6 05/06/91-. -" - PLANNING-__ - /TRAINING $0.00 05/09/91 r, R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-4102-4305 00127 $17.11 01592 36829 REIMB PETTY CASH/TO 5/6 05/06791 -- PLANNING COMM--/OFFICE-OPER-SUPPLIES $0.00 -05/09/91- ,') 05/09/91 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-4201-4316 00238 $12.00 01592 36829 REIMB PETTY CASH/TO 5/6 -- --------- 05/06/91 BUILDING " -/TRAINING - $0.00 05/09/91 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-4202-4305 00573 $1.80 01592 36829 -REIMB PETTY CASH7T0-5/6 05/06791----------"PUB-WKS`ADMIN--%OFFICE-OPER-SUPPLIES $0.00- .-.-05/09/91 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-4202-4316 00190 $12.00 01592 36829 REIMB PETTY CASH/TO 5/6 -.. .---.''' --'- 05/06/91 PUB WKS ADMIN ._/TRAINING ..- .. $0.00 05/09/91 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-4204-4309 01973 $31.57 01592 36829 - "REIMB PETTY-CASH/TO-5/6 05/06/91"---------- -- BLDG MAINT ------ MAINTENANCE -MATERIALS---------.- $0.00-------05/09/91---j:i R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-4204-4321 00566 $17.12 01592 36829 i"; REIMB PETTY CASH/TO 5/6 - 05/06/91-- -" BLDG MAINT ' ..../BUILDING SAFETY/SECURIT - "' $0.00- 05/09/91 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-4601-4308 00518 $32.78 01592 36829 REIMB PETTY-CASH/TO 5/6 05/06791- COMM RESOURCES -/PROGRAM MATERIALS R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 REIMB PETTY CASH/TO 5/6-"' ----05/06/91- 001-400-6101-4309 01058 $4.25 PARKS - /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0. 00 -05/09/91 - 01592 36629 $0.00 05/09/91 , 17• R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 110-400-3302-4305 00793 $14.53 01592 36829 l., rREIMB PETTY-CASH/T0' 5/6 05/06791 - -' PARKING ENF- /OFFICE-OPER--SUPPLIES----"'-"$0. 00'---05/09/91--I 14. I,, R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 305-400-8148-4201 00010 $7.49 01592 36829 REIMB PETTY CASH/TO 5/6 • ---- -..05/06/91---- ............... CIP 89-148 -"/CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT--._ - $0.00 I. 05/09/91 _ _ R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 305-400-8170-4201 00009 $3.21 01592 36829 H --REIMB-PETTY-CASH/TO-5/6 -05/06/91 CIP 87-170`-----' '%CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00- '05/09/91 'I FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 14:19:08 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 05/14/91 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL********************************sir********************************tzar R BSI CONSULTANTS, INC. PMT 3/SEWER IMPROVEMENT 76226'" i� PAGE 0008 ^� DATE 05/09/91 INV/REF PO # CHK # ' AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $387.83 00630 305-400-8406-4201 00051 $9,530.01 76226 02093 04/17/91 CIP 88-406 - /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $9,530.01 R JAMES*DURGUE 02544 001-400-4601-4201 00827 $65.00 THEATER TECH/4-12-91 04/17/91' COMM RESOURCES- /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $65.00 R R R «. • BUSINESS SYSTEMS SUPPLY 00034 CONTINUOUS PLAIN BOND-- 75074-— .-- 04/30/91' BUSINESS SYSTEMS SUPPLY COMPUTER GREENBAR- PAPER --75069 BUSINESS SYSTEMS SUPPLY COLOR LETTERHEAD ENV -----74590 01870 $0.00 36830 05/09/91 36831 05/09/91" 41. 001-400-1206-4305 00498 $435.88 175074 09573 36832 DATA PROCESSING /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $435.49 05/09/91 00034 001-400-1206-4305 00499 $865.10 175069 09572 36832 04/30/91'----- `"" " DATA PROCESSING—/OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES —""' "' $865.09"'" 05/09/91 00034 001-400-1208-4305 00902 $397.61 04/17/91"'--- GEN APPROP /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,698.59 R CAL STATE UNIV/DOMINGUEZ HILLS TUIT/FALL 91/V. MOHLER --3321 174590 01158 36832 $0.00 05/09/91 03358 001-400-1202-4316 00361 $318.00 567-74-3321 01167 36833 -_."'05/06/91 - FINANCE ADMIN /TRAINING - $0.00 05/09/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $318.00 R CALBO ABM DUES/W. GROVE 02101 001-400-4201-4315 00102 $115.00 04/25/91 BUILDING /MEMBERSHIP *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R $115. 00 00697 36834 $0.00 05/09/91 THE*CALIF PARK Li REC. SOCIETY 00602 001-400-1203-4201 00761 $50.00 JL -91-0407 01359 EMPLOYEE ADS ... .. - 0407 """" 04/12/91 PERSONNEL /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $50.00 $0. 00 36835 05/09/91 R CALIFORNIA MOUNTAIN COMPANY 03996 305-400--8615-4201 00010 $123.20 30883 02068 36836 CCTR FIRE -ALARM PARTS - 30883 "`' 04/16/91". CIP 89-615 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT ___ " $123.20 05/09/91 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:19:08 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 05/14/91 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROD # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** PAGE 0009 DATE 05/09/91 INV/REF PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $123.20 R STATE OF*CALIFORNIA UN -EMP CLAIMS/OCT-DEC 90 339-6 01397 04/10/91 705-400-1215-4186 00084 $162.00 932-0339-6 01174 - UNEMPLOYMENT /UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS $0.00 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $162.00 R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE WATER BILLINGS/APRIL 91 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE WATER DILLINGS/APRIL-91 R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE WATER BILLINGSlAPRIL"91 R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE WATER BILLINGS/APRIL 91 00016 001-400-2101-4303 00042 --- 04/30/91 $13.91 POLICE /UTILITIES" 00016 001-400-3101-4303 00143 $484.02 04/30791-" - MEDIANS /UTILITIES 00016 001-400-4204-4303 00456 $310.87 - 04/30/91- -. BLDG MAINT /UTILITIES 00016 001-400-6101-4303 00352 $792.50 04/30791 -` -' ___.._._- PARKS" __.___...__._._ /UTILITIES *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** CAM -MAR GROWERS PLANTS/ PKG-LOTS- CAM -MAR GROWERS PLANTS/ PKG. LOTS ---- /298 • $1,601.30 00410 36837 05/09/91 36838 $0.00 05/09/91 00410 36838 $0.00 05/09/91- 00410 36838 $0.00 05/09/91 i• 00410 36838 $0.00- 05/09/91 03412 001-400-3101-4309 00100 $532.33 7298 02046 36839 �;;I 04/23791---- 'MEDIANS --`-7MAINTENANCE MATERIALS `- $529.84-------05/09/91 03412 305-400-8148-4201 00009 -" 7298 04/23/91 CAM -MAR GROWERS -. PLANTS/PKG:-LOTS -7298 CIP 89-148 03412 305-400-8506-4201 00015 04/23/91 -- CIP'86-506 $222.02 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $486.85 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R CARE STATION EMPLOYEE MED SER7CARROLL741920 $1,241.20 03972 001-400-1203-4320 00365 $125.00 04/01/91 PERSONNEL- -' -'--/PRE-EMPLOYMENT EXAMS *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $125.00 R. CENTINELA SO. BAY VISA --"" -- APRIL--EXPENSE7WISNIEWSK 03353 001-400-2101-4316 00741 $53.36 04/22791 POLICE -/TRAINING 7298 02046 $220.99 7298 02046 _ $484.57' 36839 05/09/91 36839 05/09/91- 141920 01360 36840 - $0.00- 05/09/91-- 01798 36841 - - ---------$0.00---05/09/91- - -------$0.00-..__ 05/09/91 - l I FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:19:08 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 05/14/91 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R CENTINELA 50. BAY VISA APRIL EXPENSE/BLACKWOOD VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION PAGE 0010 1, DATE 05/09/91 INV/REF PO # CHK # 03353 705-400-1209-4324 00175 $64.02 04/22/91-- " LIABILITY INS "-/CLAIMS/SETTLEMENTS' *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $117. 38 R CHAFFEE MOTORS 02748 705-400-1210-4324 00063 $232.04 REPAIR DAMAGE/HB 9--------5659-- -- 04/23/91 "' ""'- AUTO/PROP/BONDS'/CLAIMS/SETTLEMENTS *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $232.04 R CHAMPION CHEVROLET __MISC.-CHARGES/APRIL 91 R CHAMPION CHEVROLET MISC. CHARGES/APRIL 91 Ii R CHAMPION CHEVROLET --MISC.-CHARGES/APRIL-91 00014 001-400-2101-4311 01142 $604.74 04/30/91--- - POLICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE 00014 001-400-2401-4311 00232 $3.79 '04/30/91 '- " - ANIMAL CONTROL' --/AUTO MAINTENANCE ".- 00014 04/30/91 CHAMPION CHEVROLET 00014 MISC. CHARGES/APRIL-91-------------04/30/91 AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 01358 36841 $0.00 - 05/09/91-- 5659 00976 36842 $232.04 05/09/91 00412 36843 $0.00 05/09/91 00412 36843 $0.00 05/09/91 001-400-3103-4311 00659 $6.59 00412 36843 ST MAINTENANCE- IAUTO-MAINTENANCE" - --"" "' -" """ " $0.00 - 05/09/91 110-400-3302-4311 00688 $401.95 PARKING ENF /AUTO'MAINTENANCE""" *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,017.07 00412 36843 $0.00 , 05/09/91 R CHEVRON USA, INC. MISC. CHCS/MARCH 91"''-_'_"-48800 R CHEVRON USA, INC. WESTNET CHCS/APRIL 91-'-'84419 00634 001-400-2701-4316 00091 $22.87 03/31/91'"'""' CIVIL DEFENSE ' /TRAINING-- 00634 TRAINING`""'' _.. 00634 170-400-2103-4310 00011 $474.22 7920648800 00314 36844 __ $0.00 05/09/91 1417284419 00414 36844 04/24/91- -'"` " '- SPEC INVESTGTNS /MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES " ' -`- $0.00- 05/09/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R COLICH & SONS PROG PMT 2/SEWER-REPAIR-1081"1 02294 04/25/91- $497.09 • 305-400-8406-4201 00050 $237,646.80 10811 02092 36845 CIP 88-406'- /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT ' " " "'' $0.00-- 05/09/91-- *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R COM SYSTEMS, INC ' 00017 001-400-2101-4304 00792 • LONG"'DI5T/POLICE7APR-9I-3397II 04/30T9I- POLICE $237,646.80 $3.29 453975 00417 36846 / 1EL'EPHONE 50. 00--- 05/09/91 1 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:19:08 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST PAGE 0011 FOR 05/14/91 DATE 05/09/91 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $3.29 R COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT MGMT GRP 03792 001-400-1207-4316 00074 $195.00 11070 36847 INSPECTION SEM/FEHSKENS - • 04/24/91 '_. ' - _. BUS LICENSE -/TRAINING $195.00 05/09/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $195.00 R COPY SUPPORT 01729 001-400-1131-4201 00647 $426.93 64 09364 36848 COPIES/HB MUNICIPAL CODE - 64 .__ 04/16/91" CITY ATTORNEY-' /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT " $350.00 05/09/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $426.93 R STEVEN*CRECY 04012 001-210-0000-2110 WORK GUARANTEE REFUND .. 9300-----04/25/91 _. __ - ... .. 04235 $375.00 9300 02303 36849 ---/DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 05/09/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $375.00 R L. N.*CURTIS L+. SON 00850 001-400-2201-4309 01069 $55.83 567 11266 36850 WHEEL CHOCKS/ENGINE 11 • --'"`"' 567 .'"'-`. 04/25/91 `"' FIRE "'/MAINTENANCE MATERIALS " $51.36 05/09/91 R L. N.*CURTIS & SON 00850 001-400-2201-4311 00389 $329.32 76004 11272 36850 EMERG-REPAIR7FIRE-"ENGINE-76004- 04/22/9r---`" FIRE-------`•-7AUTO"MAINTENANCE-`--`- $0.00--'05/09/91- *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $385.15 R DAMES & MOORE 04029 001-210-0000-2110 04226 $1,039.28 015-05417 02048 36851 STRAND"HOTEL REVIEW 0541/ 04109191- /DEPOSITS/WORK- GUARANTEE'" - "" $0.00` "05/08/91- R 5/08/91 -"R DAMES & MOORE 04029 001-210-0000-2110 04227 $780.19 015-05769 02049 36851 STRAND HOTEL REVIEW -.""."`"'05769 ` ` 04/16/91" "'./DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 05/08/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,819.47 R DANIEL FREEMAN MEMORIAL HOSP. 00047 001-400-1203-4320 00364 $400.00 80000162-0017 01362 36852 ANN PHYSICAL/WISNIEWSKI-.__.-0017 ..03/31/91 'PERSONNEL ._...."/PRE-EMPLOYMENT EXAMS "-- $0.00 "05/09/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $400.00 R DATA SAFE 00156 001-400-1206-4201 00839 $157.67 55258 00015 36853 TAPE STORAGE/TO 5-11-91-55258 04/22/91 _ DATA PROCESSING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT- $0.00 05/09/91 F I NANC E•-SFA340 TIME 14:19:08 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 05/14/91 PAGE 0012 DATE 05/09/91 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL************************************arty***********atir******n********* R DECAL MANIA POLICE CAR DECALS $157. 67 02522 001-400-2101-4311 01143 $780.68 1938 04/19/91 POLICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE '' *** VENDOR TOTAL****************************************************.t*************** R DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL CARE & SHELTER COSTS/MARCH 91 30683 $780.68 • 1938 01782 36854 $796.00 05/09/91 00154 001-400-2401-4251 00155 $493.43 30683 00014 36855 04/10/91 ANIMAL CONTROL /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT $0.00 05/09/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $493.43 R RODGER*DEUERLEIN 04013 110-300-0000-3302 39814 $18. 00 CITATION PAYMENT REFUND 61418 04/17/91 /COURT FINES/PARKING *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $18.00 R DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION APR COMPUTER MAINT/P.D. 71091 "" """'""" 961418 01169 36856 $0. 00 05/09/91 00269 001-400-2101-4201 00770 $806.40 267871091 00006 04/15/91'"- POLICE - /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 R DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION 00269 -APR COMPUTER MAINT/P: D. "" 71091---04/15/91 36857 05/09/91 001-400-2201-4201 00216 $537.60 267871091 00006 36857 FIRE /CONTRACT"SERVICE/PRIVAT- $0.00 ""05/09/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,344.00 R EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY 02840 001-400-1208-4201 00755 $269.00 006M36112 00326 IBM COPIER MAINT/MAR 91 - 36112' --"04/07/91—'-'""' -"'"-GEN APPROP.""""".'-'_/CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 R EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY 02840 IBM METER USE/FEB 91 36112 - 04/07/91 36858 05/09/91 ' 001-400-1208-4201 00756 $242.78 006M36112 00326 36858 GEN APPROP /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 05/09/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R EASTMAN, INC. MISC. CHARGES/APRIL 91"- 02514 ' 04/30/91" $511. 78 001-400-1208-4305 00903 $529.05 'GEN APPROP /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $529.05 R EMCON ASSOCIATES RECYCLING SURVEY MAILING 10349-- 00425 $0.00 04030 001-400-4201-4201 00529 $874.35 10549 00695 -" 04/15/91 BUILDING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT ' $0.00 36859 05/09/91 36860 05/08/91 • 1 c. IP' FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:19:08 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 05/14/91 1) PAGE 0013 L DATE 05/09/91 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL **************************************** *************** *********** $874.35 R FIRE SPRINKLER ADVISORY BOARD 03763 001-400-2201-4316 00291 $100.00 11271 36861 SEMINAR REG/P:" OSEKOWSKY 04/23/91 FIRE /TRAINING ., $100.00 05/09/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************* $100.00 R RON*FOX 01007 001-400-2101-4313 00344 $236.25 01287 36862 MEALS/HOTEL/STC -TRAINING 05/02/91- - POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE, STC $0.00 05/09/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $236.25 R FULL MOON CONSTRUCTION 04016 001-210-0000-2110 04229 WORK GUARANTEE REFUND '. --' 16620" _ 04/25/91`-_-_ . . ..- $175.00 16620 02301 36663 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 05/09/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $175.00 R GERBER AMBULANCE SERVICE 02897 001-400-2101-4201 00768 $347.00 13792 01799 36864 PRISONER EMERG SERVICES 13792 04/03/91' _.._. POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 05/09/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $347.00 R PAUL*GREEN 04015 110-300-0000-3843 12762 $50.00 PARKING PERMIT REFUND ------ ------ 04/30/91 -/PARKING PERMITS: ANNUAL v _I *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $50.00 0 R ANDY*GROW 04014 110-300-0000-3843 12761 $50.00 795800 01648 36866 PARKING PERMIT REFUND ---- 95800 04/15/91 '-- - - /PARKING PERMITS: ANNUAL-` $0.00 05/09/91 II *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $50.00 01647 36865 $0.00 05/09/91 • y R CHERYL*GRUSE 04011 001-400-4601-4201 00825 $192.00 14639/14710 01874 36867 SUMMER TRIP REFUND. - "'14710 05/02/91-- - --, COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 - 05/09/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1101-4304 00363 $192. 00 $6.09 00431 36871 TELE CHARGES/APR 91 04/30/91 'CITY COUNCIL YTELEPHONE $0.00' 05/09/91 ;II :0 •• PI FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:19:08 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 05/14/91 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE INVC PROJ # R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 DIRECT DIAL-'CHCS/MAY-91---0200 -05/01/91 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 TELE CHARGES/APR 91 04/30/91 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 -' FAX BILLING/APRIL-91 - -' --"04/30/91 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/MAY 91 -0200 ""05/01/91 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 TELE CHARGES/APR-91 _ " " - - 04/30/91 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/MAY 91 -0200 05/01/91 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 -`TELE CHARGES/APR 91'- ' - '-' 04/30/91 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 FAX BILLING/APRIL 91 04/30/91 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 -DIRECT DIAL- CHGS/MAY 91-0200----05/01/91 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 TELE CHARGES/APR 91 """""' 04/30/91 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 FAX BILLING/APRIL 91 04/30/91 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TRN # AMOUNT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 001-400-1101-4304 00364 $6.38 CITY COUNCIL ' /TELEPHONE _...---- 001-400-1121-4304 00385 $16.89 CITY CLERK /TELEPHONE 001-400-1121-4304 00386 $3.17 CITY CLERK -/TELEPHONE- 001-400-1121-4304 00387 $17.32 CITY CLERK -'-------/TELEPHONE ""-" 001-400-1131-4304 00289 $8.69 CITY ATTORNEY - /TELEPHONE 001-400-1131-4304 00290 $9.11 - CITY ATTORNEY /TELEPHONE - 001-400-1141-4304 00409 $24.53 -- - - ' CITY TREASURER -"TELEPHONE 001-400-1141-4304 00410 $0.66 CITY TREASURER /TELEPHONE - 001-400-1141-4304 00411 $17.32 CITY TREASURER --/TELEPHONE 001-400-1201-4304 00435 $15.06 CITY MANAGER /TELEPHONE INV/REF 001-400-1201-4304 00436 32.89 CITY MANAGER -"TELEPHONE -' 00015 001-400-1201-4304 00437 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/MAY 91 -0200 ---'"-' 05/01/91 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 TELE CHARGES/APR 91 04/30/91 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 FAX BILLING/APRIL 91 04/30/91 - GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 DIRECT DIAL-CHGS/MAY"91 0200" - 05/01791 518. 94 CITY MANAGER """/TELEPHONE 001-400-1202-4304 00447 $59.57 - ' FINANCE ADMIN-" /TELEPHONE 001-400-1202-4304 00448 $5.04 FINANCE ADMIN /TELEPHONE - 001-400-1202-4304 00449 J PAGE 0014 _J DATE 05/09/91 PO # CHK # ' AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 318-0200 00532 $0.00 36871 05/09/91 00431 36871 $0.00 05/09/91 00433 36871 $0.00 05/09/91 318-0200 00532 36871 $0.00 05/09/91 00431 $0.00 36871 05/09/91 318-0200 00532 36871 $0.00 05/09/91 00431 36871 -$0.00 '""05/09/91- 00433 36871 $0.00 05/09/91 318-0200 00532 36871 $0.00 - 05/09/91-- 00431 $0.00 36871 05/09/91 00433 36871 $0.00- 05/09/91 318-0200 00532 36871 $0.00 05/09/91 $52.86 318-0200 00431 36871 80. 00"-'-'"05/09/91 00433 36871 $0.00 . 05/09/91 7 I'I 00532 36871 1 .i FINANCE ADMIN - 1TELEPHONE"--- --' - '-" 50.00 -'---08109/91 4.� I to FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:19:08 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHARGES/APR 91 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED FAX BILLING/APRIL"91 ` R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED DIRECT DIAL CHGS/MAY 91---0200" R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHARGES/APR'91 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED - FAX BILLING/APRIL 91 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 05/14/91 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION INV/REF 00015 001-400-1203-4304 00451 ?35.36 04/30/91" """' "`""``" PERSONNEL--------/TELEPHONE---------- 00015 ERSONNEL-`---"--/TELEPHONE----" ""-'" 00015 001-400-1203-4304 00452 $5.36 - 04/30/91 PERSONNEL /TELEPHONE 00015 001-400-1203-4304 00453 $23.10 -05/01791"'"' .. PERSONNEL /TELEPHONE- 00015 TELEPHONE. 00015 04/30/91 001-400-1206-4304 00334 $141.88 DATA PROCESSING /TELEPHONE 00015 001-400-1206-4304 00335 $1.66 04/30/91 -' DATA PROCESSING /TELEPHONE R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/MAY 91----0200------05/01/91 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHARGES/APR 91 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED FAX BILLING/APRIL-91' R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 'DIRECT 'DIAL "CHGS/MAY"91- =0200 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHARGES/APR 91 ` R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED -"-" FAX BILLING/APRIL 91 001-400-1206-4304 00336 $26.43 DATA PROCESSING /TELEPHONE ...__.. 00015 001-400-1207-4304 00269 $21.47 04/30/91- --' BUS LICENSE--'- /TELEPHONE 00015 001-400-1207-4304 00270 $0.57 04/30/91' BUS LICENSE /TELEPHONE..._ PAGE 0015 DATE 05/09/91 PO # CHK # 3 110 AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP ,, 00431 36871 a $0.00 05/09/91- 00433 5/09/91- 00433 36871 $0.00 05/09/91 318-0200 00532 36871 - $0.00 05/09/91 . 00431 36871 $0.00 05/09/91 i 00433 36871 $0.00 05/09/91 316-0200 00532 $0.00 36671 i 05/09/91 �I I 00431 36871 $0.00* 05/09/91- 00433 36871 $0.00 05/09/91 00015 001-400-1207-4304 00271 $17.32 318-0200 00532 05/01/91 "BUS LICENSE - 'TELEPHONE--' --' -- $0.00 00015 001-400-1208-4304 00123 $9.84 04/30/91-- GEN APPROP /TELEPHONE 00015 001-400-1208-4304 00124 $1.86 04/30/91—'`-' "" GEN APPROP-"""` /TELEPHONE_ R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1208-4304 00125 $9.11 DIRECT DIAL CHCS/MAY 91 -0200 - 05/01/91-"`".- GEN APPROP '_./TELEPHONE_.._. R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHARGES/APR-91 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED DIRECT DIAL CHGS/MAY 91 -0200----- 00015 001-400-2101-4304 00791 $1,316.77 04/30791 POLICE -''`- /TELEPHONE 00015 001-400-2101-4304 00794 $365.95 05/01/91 POLICE /TELEPHONE R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 TELE CHARGES/APR-91 04/30/91 36871 -`"05/09/91_:1 1.1 00431 36871 $0.00 05/09/91 00433 36671 $0.00-- 05/09/91- 316-0200 00532 36871 $0.00 05/09/91 00431 36871 $0100-- 05/09/91 318-0200 00532 $0.00 36871 05/09/91 001-400-2201-4304 00334 $152.81 00431 36871 FIRE - /TELEPHONE $0.00----05/09/91 d : FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:19:08 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 05/14/91 PAGE 0016 DATE 05/09/91 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DATE INVC PROD # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 00015 001-400-2201-4304 00335 $9.11 DIRECT DIAL'CHGS/MAY-91-'-'-0200---"`05/01/91 "' "' """` FIRE "'" !TELEPHONE' R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHARGES/APR 91 00015 001-400-2401-4304 00367 $14.09 04/30/91 ANIMAL CONTROL /TELEPHONE R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-2401-4304 00368 $12.76 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/MAY 91 -0200 -- 05/01/91" " ANIMAL CONTROL /TELEPHONE R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHARGES/APR 91 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED FAX BILLING/APRIL 91 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4101-4304 00450 $66.15 04/30/91-' ` PLANNING - /TELEPHONE -- 00015 001-400-4101-4304 00451 $2.15 04/30/91 PLANNING /TELEPHONE 00015 001-400-4101-4304 00452 $46.99 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/MAY 91 -0200 "`05/01/91 - PLANNING /TELEPHONE R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4201-4304 00412 $100.14 TELE CHARGES/APR-91"-'--'----------- -04/30/91 '-' "' BUILDING """iTELEPHONE`."...... R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED FAX BILLING/APRIL 91 00015 001-400-4201-4304 00413 $5.61 04/30/91" BUILDING' /TELEPHONE - - (_I R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4201-4304 00414 $70.19 ( "DIRECT DIAL CHGS/MAY- 91--'= FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 14: 19:08 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED DIRECT DIAL-CHCS/MAY- 91' 0200--'- R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHARGES/APR 91 - R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED DIRECT DIAL CHGS/MAY'91`"-0200 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHARGES/APR 91'" R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHARGES/APR 91" — — R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED FAX BILLING/APRIL 91 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED DIRECT DIAL CHGS/MAY 91"-".=0200 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHARGES/APR 91 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST PAGE 0017 FOR 05/14/91 DATE 05/09/91 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 00015 001-400-4601-4304 00533 —05/0179r -- 'COMM RESOURCES - 00015 001-400-6101-4304 00322 04/30/91' PARKS 00015 001-400-6101-4304 00323 05/01/91 ._............... PARKS 00015 04/30/91- 00015 04/30/91 00015 04/30/91 00015 05/01791 109-400-3301-4304 00019 VEH PKG DIST - 110-400-3302-4304 00447 PARKING ENF - 110-400-3302-4304 00448 PARKING ENF 110-400-3302-4304 00449 PARKING ENF' 00015 145-400-3401-4304 00086 04/30/91 DIAL A RIDE $26. 43 —%TELEPHONE '---"--- $8. 69 /TELEPHONE $9. 11 /TELEPHONE"-' $10. 00 /TELEPHONE $130. 26 /TELEPHONE $4. 42 /TELEPHONE $109.37 -/TELEPHONE $4. 16 /TELEPHONE -. --f?' INV/REF PO # CHK # I' AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $3,480.49 R FRANK B. *HALL & CO. OF CALIF. OFFICIAL BOND/COPELAND 55022 - 318-0200 00532 $0.00 00431 $0. 00 318-0200 00532 36871 05/09/91 36871 05/09/91 v 36871 v $0.00 05/09/91 00431 $0. 00 00431 $0. 00 36871 05/09/91 36871 05/09/91 00433 36871 $0.00 05/09/91 mai LHIO 318-0200 00532 36871 $0.00 05/09/91 03147 705-400-1210-4201 00072 $500.00 555022 04/05/91 AUTO/PROP/BONDS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $500.00 R HARBOR CITY ENTERPRISES, INC. MISC. CHARGES/APRIL 91 ' 24589----- 03571 04/30/91- 001-400-2101-4311 POLICE 00431 $0. 00 01357 $0. 00 36871 05/09/91 36872 05/08/91 01144 $371.56 24841/24589 00476 36873 /AUTO MAINTENANCE $0.00 05/09/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R HARCOURT BRACE JOVANOVICH, INC - PUBLICATIONS/FINANCE — ..— -- "--- 01770 05/07/91- $371. 56 001-400-1202-4316 00360 $42.80 FINANCE ADMIN - /TRAINING --- *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $42.80 R MICHAEL*HAUGEN REIMB MILES/POST CLASS 00721 001-400-2101-4313 04/22/91-- POLICE 00342 $109. 20 -/TRAVEL EXPENSE, STC v :1 10 01176 $0.00 36874 05/09/91 01285 36875 $0.00 05/08/91 IV [71 • FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:19:08 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST PAGE 0018 FOR 05/14/91 DATE 05/09/91 J VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # ' CHK # ;'j DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $109.20 R VIRGINIA*HOAGLAND SUMMER PROGRAM REFUND 16518 04006 001-300-0000-3826 04/29/91 02268 $15.00 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R ADAM J. *HOLIBER PARKING PERMIT REFUND ------ 72000- - $15.00 16518 01873 36876 40.00 05/08/91 04010 110-300-0000-3843 12765 $50.00 1172000 01655 36877 05/01/91 /PARKING PERMITS:ANNUAL $0.00 05/09/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R HPDUG ANNUAL MEM. /HPDESK R HPDUG MEETING-REG/M.--STURGES $50. 00 03272 001-400-1206-4315 00059 $25.00 04/29/91 DATA PROCESSING /MEMDERSHIP 03272 001-400-1206-4316 00109 $10.00 04/29/91'""--._'."''--.'...'. --DATA PROCESSING -/TRAINING-.-.-._----"-" --'""--'_.. *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $35.00 R INGLEWOOD TRANSMISSION 02095 001-400-4205-4311 00224 $133.75 SHOP VAN/TRANS REPAIR -----4852-----04/05/91 EQUIP SERVICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** * * * R R R INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELECTRIC MISC. CHARGES/APRIL 91"'"- "'- R INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELECTRIC MISC. CHARGES/APRIL 91' ." INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELECTRIC MISC. CHARGES/APRIL' 91 '--- --- INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 02458 001-400-4204-4309 01976 $133. 75 $129. 37 -- 04/30/91 -- '-' ---BLDG MAINT -"-" ' '__/MAINTENANCE MATERIALS -- 02458 001-400-4204-4321 00567 $129.35 /BUILDING SAFETY/SECURIT MISC. CHARGES/APRIL 91 .' 04/30/91'"'-' •- BLDG MAINT VENDOR TOTAL 02458 160-400-3102-4309 00598 $197.86 04/30/91'-"'" SEWER/ST DRAIN -/MAINTENANCE MATERIALS - 02458 305-400-8615-4309 00001 $412.50 04/30/91 - CIP B9-615 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS ******************************************************************** $869. 08 09574 36878 $35.00 05/09/91 09574 36878 -$0.00 05/09/91- 4852 5/09/91- 4852 02062 36879 $133.75 " 05/08/91 00474 36880 $0. 00 05/09/91 00474 36880 $0.00 05/09/91 00474 36880 -$0.00-- 05/09/91 00474 36880 40.00 05/09/91 R INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 04033 305-400-8516-4201 00008 $4,560.00 3194 02050 "LOTS -OF -FUN" PARK RENOV 3194- ""... 04/18/91-.... 'CIP 89-516 . /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT '4,560.00 NOTE: PAYMENT TO INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE FOR LANDSCAPE WEST PER NOTICE OF LEVY DATED 5/9/91 36881 05/09/91 I FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:19:08 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST PAGE 0019 FOR 05/14/91 DATE 05/09/91 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $4,560.00 R INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 00567 001-400-2101-4315 00189 $100.00 00419256010000 01793 36882 DUES/A. ALTFELD 10000' """ 04/15/91 POLICE /MEMBERSHIP $0.00 05/08/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL************it******************************************************* $100.00 R RUTH*JAMES 04028 110-300-0000-3843 12760 $25.00 1566900 01651 36883 PARKING PERMIT REFUND'"- " 66900- - 04/29/91 - /PARKING PERMITS:ANNUAL $0.00 05/08/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $25.00 R KIRK PAPER COMPANY 04027 001-400-1208-4305 00901 $963.00 W32338 01172 36884 COPIER PAPER/STOCK---- -32338 '""" 05/02/91 -- GEN APPROP ,OFF__- OPER-SUPPLIES *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $963.00 R COMMANDER MICHAEL*LAVIN 00792 001-400-2101-4316 00742 $318.00 02405 36885 REIMD TUITION/FALL 91 ... 05/02/91 POLICE- '-..'/TRAINING "' $0.00 05/09/91 R COMMANDER MICHAEL*LAVIN 00792 001-400-4202-4316 00189 $55.00 04007 36885 SEMINAR "REG7A-`ANTICH 04/11/9I- - ` " `PUB -WKS ADMIN- /TRAINING $O. 00 -__05/09/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $373.00 R LINGO INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS 03961 001-400-3104-5499 00055 $2,368.98 A22512 02040 36886 SIGNAL MODIFICATION -KITS -22512 04/30791-- -- ""- TRAFFIC SAFETY /NOW -CAPITALIZED -ASSETS $2,357:91- -05/08/91. *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $2,368.98 R LOMITA BLUEPRINT SERVICE, INC. 00077 001-400-4202-4305 00574 $77.23 04130/91 MISC.. CHARGES/APRIL 91 PUD WKS ADMIN /OFFICE -OPER SUPPLIES *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R LOMITA LUMBER CO. PARK ENTRANCE -SIGN $77. 23 00439 36887 $0.00_`" 05/09/91 02094 305-400-8506-4201 00014 $455.35 1-4759 02079 36888 -4759 04/29791-^-`'"CIP'86-506 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT-----'--.-" $459.85-05/08/91 4101 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:19:08 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 05/14/91 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL************************************************arty****************** ft LONG BEACH UNIFORM CO. REPLACE PARKING UNIFORMS ' PAGE 0020 DATE 05/09/91 INV/REF PO # CHK # I ') AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $455.35 01320 110-400-3302-4187 00284 $2,544.98 05/01/91 PARKING ENF /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************* *******arc*** R LOS ANGELES COUNTY 02648 305-400-8601-4201 00007 UNDERGRND TANK FEE/FY 91 11552 04/25/91-- CIP 86-601 R LOS ANGELES COUNTY UNDERGRND TANK FEE/FY-90 11552 $2,544.98 01621 36889 $2,811.00 05/08/91 $291.00 011552 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 02648 305-400-8601-4201 00008 $123.00 . 011552 06/18/90"'"' CIP 86-601 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** * * * R LOS ANGELES TIMES EMPLOYMENT ADS/APR 91 VENDOR TOTAL 3414. 00 02081 36890 $0.00 05/09/91 02084 36890 $0.00 05/09/91 00213 001-400-1203-4201 00760 $1,118.71 17-009774 00440 36891 09774—'-- '"04/28/91"' '-` 'PERSONNEL' -/CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 05/09/91 ******************************************************************** R LOUIS THE TAILOR, INC. MISC.-CHARGES/APRIL-91- LOUIS ISC. -CHARGES/APRIL91- R LOUIS THE TAILOR, INC. MISC. CHARGES/APRIL 91 LOUIS THE TAILOR, INC. MISC. CHARGES/APRIL' 91 $1,118.71 00079 001-400-2201-4187 00278 $159.75 04/30/91- `"' FIRE "'"''"'" /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 00079 001-400-2201-4309 01073 $145.41 --' 04/30/91 FIRE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00079 110-400-3302-4187 00285 $14.98 04/30/91'""`''' PARKING ENF /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE *** VENDOR TOTAL**********************************************.********************** $320.14 R THE*MARQUIS HOTEL HOTEL/CHIEF'S-EXEC SEM. 04026 001-400-2101-4312 01700 $119.90 05/08/91""" POLICE' ""' -/TRAVEL-EXPENSE 7 POST-- *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R MENTAL HEALTH 04005 001-210-0000-2110 DAMAGE DEPOSIT- REFUND"' -'-'-81096 _ 05/01/91 $119.90 00441 36892 $0.00 05/09/91 00441 36892 $0.00 05/09/91 00441 $0.00 36892 05/09/91 02408 36893 $0.00 - 05/08/91- 04237 5/08/91- 04237 $50.00 81096 02311 "/DEPOSITS/WORK"GUARANTEE ___ _. . _ 30. 00' 36694 03/09/91 • L7 • I FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:19:08 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST PAGE 0021 FOR 05/14/91 DATE 05/09/91 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $50.00 R MICHAELS 03167 001-400-4601-4308 00519 $110.10 3027 00345 36895 I, MISC CHARGES/MARCH 91 -' 3027 03/27/91 COMM RESOURCES -/PROGRAM MATERIALS $0.00 05/09/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $110.10 R MIDTOWN PLUMBING. INC. 04025 110-300-0000-3302 39812 $28.00 949853 01173 36896 CITATION PAYMENT REFUND 49853 ..- - 04/17/91 . /COURT FINES/PARKING $0.00 05/08/91-. *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $28.00 R SCOTT*MILLER 04024 001-210-0000-2110 04233 $1,430.00 74816 02302 36897 WORK GUARANTEE REFUND 74816 04/25/91'` --- - /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 05/09/91 I', 1 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,430.00 1 i .,!J R MOBIL OIL CREDIT CORPORATION 00388 110-400-3302-4310 00143 $47.19 00448 36898 MISC. CHARGES/APRIL 91 04/30/91 -- PARKING ENF /MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES $0.00 05/09/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $47.19 R MONARCH BROOM 00084 001-400-3103-4309 01158 $502.90 8119/8106 00447 36899 MISC. CHARGES/APRIL 91-"-/8106' "' 04/30/91' ST MAINTENANCE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS - $0.00 05/09/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $502.90 R MOORE BUSINESS FORMS 00423 001-400-2101-4305 01510 $679.16 65414569 01795 36900 COMPUTER PAPER/POLICE -'""'14569 _""''" 04/25/91 POLICE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $679.28 05/08/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R NEW PACIFIC LUMBER CO. MISC. CHARGES/APRIL 91 *** VENDOR TOTAL*************************it****************************************** $72.76 $679.16 00606 305-400-8148-4309 00012 $72.76 00449 36901 04/30/91 - CIP 89-148 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 05/09/91 R NORTH SUPPLY TEST SET/COMPUTER CABLES 35/36- -- 04/16/91- 02273 001-400-3104-4309 00674 $257.82 492635/36 02053 36902 TRAFFIC SAFETY -/MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $257.83 05/09/91 ■ w. WPM FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 14:19:08 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 05/14/91 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION •r** VENDOR TOTAL********************************************tzar****•*****************# R KEVIN B.*NORTHCRAFT APRIL EXP/K. NORTHCRAFT R KEVIN B.*NORTHCRAFT APRIL EXP/K. NORTHCRAFT'' PAGE 0022 DATE 05/09/91 INV/REF PO # CHK # ' •'� AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP . $257. 82 02064 001-400-1201-4305 00194 $5.34 04/30/91 CITY MANAGER /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 02064 001-400-1201-4317 00249 $8.00 04/30/91 -- CITY MANAGER /CONFERENCE EXPENSE *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** - • $13. 34 R OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & VOSE 02892 001-400-1131-4201 00646 $10.399.75 LEGAL SERV/MARCH-91 "03/31/91 CITY -ATTORNEY- --./CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT . R OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & VOSE LEGAL SERV/MARCH 91 - 02892 705-400-1209-4201 00189 $125.00 03/31/91 LIABILITY INS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $10,524.75 R EDGAR L.*OVERSTREET CITE PAYMENT REFUND 04023 110-300-0000-3302 39811 $46.00 65661 ' 04/17/91 /COURT FINES/PARKING *** VENDOR TOTAL************************************-****************************-**** $46.00 R PACIFIC FIBRE & ROPE CO.. INC. STREET BANNER CABLES 89805 — 00675 001-400-3103-4309 01156 $131.61 04/17/91 ST MAINTENANCE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R PACTEL CELLULAR — LA MOBILE PHONE CHGS/APR 91 03209 001-400-2101-4304 " 04/30/91 POLICE $131. 61 00793 $929.20 /TELEPHONE *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $929.20 R PAGENET 02487 PAGING SERVICE/MAY 91 14234 05/01/91 R PAGENET PAGING SERVICE/MAY 91------14234 001-400-1201-4201 00114 CITY MANAGER 02487 001-400-2101-4307 05/01/71 — POLICE 02106 36903 $0.00 05/09/91 02106 36903 '! $0.00 05/09/91 02105 36904 $0. 00 05/09/91 02105 $0.00 36904 05/09/91 965661 01171 36905 $0. 00 05/08/91 89805 02051 36906 $131.00 05/09/91 00450 36907 $0.00 05/09/91 $11.50 10514234 00049 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 • I -' 36908 05/09/91 t4' 00281 $185.00 10514234 00049 36908 /RADIO MAINTENANCE" — — $0.00 ---05/09/91 C�, rIwAwos-oFA340 TIME 14:19:06 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST PAGE 0023 FOR 05/14/91 DATE 05/09/91 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 001-400-2401-4201 00286 $11.50 10514234 00049 36908 n PAGENET 02487 001-400-4202-4201~ PUB WKS 00306 �cowrn�c-^^^'`zcs/pn� 10514234 00049 36908 PAGING SERVICE/MAY 91 -14234 05/01/91 ADMIN ' .E^, ,°. $0.00 03/09/91 °°* VENDOR TOTAL *°*°**°*°*******°******°***°*******°**°°*************°°°*******°°°** $219.50 | n pnECIszow ELECTRIC 04022 001-210-0000-2110 04225 $1,375.00 ��oa oz000 oa�o� WORK GUARANTEE REFUND 9286 - 04/25/91 -' /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE *o�oo 05/08/91 ` *** VENDOR TOTAL °******************************************************************* *1.575.00 n REGENTS OF UNIV OF CALIFORNIA 02456 001 -*00-4/01-4316 00217 $185 .00 SEMINAR REG/K. ROBERTSON 22548-- ---04/11/91.- PLANNING -1TRAINING ~r/ °** VENDOR TOTAL °*°°*°*°°***°**v*v°*****°*°°*v°*°******°°*°°~~°v***1o,.no 2254e 01906 $185.00 36910 05/09/91 ['| ^./^/ .~/ e REGISTRAR -RECORDER 00225 001-400-1122-4251 00004 *1.7o�o7 741-G 09359 36911 SIGNATURE VERIFICATION ' 741-0 -' 04/18/91 -' ELECTIONS /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT *o.on 05/09/91 . *** VENDOR TOTAL ****==**=**==********=*****°**=********=****=**=****°°**= *1.702.37 w RI SO � e _:...I:...IsnEnn REPAIR/JAIL DOOR -6549--03/20/91--POLICE -/PRISONER MAINTENANCE cs » s ~^"." 001-400-2101-4306 00966 $95.006549 01771 36912 ' ^ *95.00 05/09/91 -- *** VENDOR TOTAL _ LINDA*RUMERY 04021 001-210-0000-2110 04232 $50.00 15510 02309 ANIMAL TRAP REFUND -15510 04/25/91- - /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 1:, *^* VENDOR TOTAL ****°*********************°***************************************** 36913 05/09/91 $50.00 I n JIMMIE LEE*SHAW 00960 0-01-400-2101-4313 00343 *228.2e / 01286 36914 REIMS MILES/STCo��oo 04/22/91-- POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE, STC $0.00 05/09/91 '| *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** e JowAr*Aw°aI^m 04018 11*oou 1765900 01646 oav�� PARKING pmn�mo penm�r es�uwo--'�a�poo --o�/�mrv�--- 12764$25.00/pAnxIwo psnmzra.AwwuAL *o.ou 05/09/91 • • ,b) FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 14:19:08 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST PAGE 0024 FOR 05/14/91 DATE 05/09/91 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL*******************************************************tat*********** R SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY MISC CHGS/APR—MAY 91 R SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY MISC CHGS/APR—MAY 91 R SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY MISC CHGS/APR—MAY 91 $25.00 00114 001-400-1101-4305 00376 $69.55 05/05/91 CITY COUNCIL /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 00114 001-400-2101-4306 00968 $95.84 05/05/91" POLICE /PRISONER MAINTENANCE 00114 001-400-2401-4309 00169 $62.12 05/05/91 ANIMAL CONTROL /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $227.51 • AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 00560 36916 $0.00 05/09/91 00560 36916 $0.00 05/09/91 00560 36916 $0.00 05/09/91 R PAUL*SMITH 04020 001-210-0000-2110 04231 $500.00 16420 02306 36917 DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND 16420 04/25/91 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 05/09/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $500.00 R SO. CAL SHARPSHOOTER, INC. 02250 001-400-2101-4201 00769 $3,349.44 PRACTICE SHOOTS/POLICE 04/03/91 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $3,349.44 01788 $0.00 36918 05/09/91 i!, ,I R SOUTH BAY FIRE EXTINGUISHER 00113 001-400-2201-4309 01072 $42.80 24841/24589 00461 36919 MISC. CHARGES/APRIL 91 24589 -- 04/30/91 FIRE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 05/09/91 R SOUTH BAY FIRE EXTINGUISHER 00113 001-400-4204-4309 01975 $81.32 24841/24589 00461 36919 MISC. CHARGES/APRIL"91""24589"" —'"04/30/91' BLDG MAINT -" ..-./MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $124.12 $0.00 05/09/91 R SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL COURT 00400 110-300-0000-3302 39813 $373.00 01654 36920 CITATION COURT BAIL 05/01/91" — -/COURT-FINES/PARKING __. $0.00 05/08/91- *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $373.00 R SOUTH BAY NOTICING AND MISC.- CHARGE5/APRIL.-"91` 03882 001-400-4101-4201 00086 $805.00 00478 36921 04/30/91 — PLANNING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT"'-----.. $0.00-" 05/09/91 •J II *** VENDOR TOTAL ***********tt*- *#**sr#**##*#+***#n*******#*******#***#***tr***********sr $880.59 FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 14: 19: 0B PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 05/14/91 PAGE 0025 DATE 05/09/91 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL ***********************************************#**#***** *********** $805.00 R SOUTH BAY VACUUMS VACUUM CLEANER/POLICE "' 03502 001-400-2101-5401 973 --'" 05/01/91 POLICE 00049 $256.80 /EQUIP—LESS THAN $500 **st VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $256.50 R SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO. 00170 001-400-4204-4303 00455 $880.59 MONTHLY GAS BILLS/APR 91 "' 04/30/91 BLDG MAINT " /UTILITIES I_ - R SOUTHERN COUNTIES OIL CO. 03997 WASTE OIL CONTAINER 41628"" -..- 04/22/91 001-400-4205-5401 00024 $349.89 EQUIP SERVICE/EQUIPMENT—LESS THAN $500 *** VENDOR TOTAL **************************.prat.**************************************a R SPECIALTY MAINTENANCE CO SWEEP SERV/MAR 91 - ---- SPECIALTY R SPECIALTY MAINTENANCE CO --SWEEP SERV/MAR-91----------2653 00115 03/31/91 $349.89 973 01800 36922 $256.80 05/09/91 00464 36923 $0.00 05/09/91 141628 02063 36924 $349.89 05/09/91 001-400-3103-4201 00329 $2,647.00 2653 00027 36925 ST MAINTENANCE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 05/09/91 00115 001-400-3103-4201 00330 $54.00CR 2653 00027 36925 03/31791 — ' —" — "ST MAINTENANCE—!CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT---..--.._.-'.-.'-_. $0.00--- 05/09/91--- SPECIALTY 5/09/9F SPECIALTY MAINTENANCE CO 00115 SWEEP SERV/MAR 91 ' ' " 2653 —"' 03/31/91 -- SPECIALTY MAINTENANCE CO SWEEP-SERV/MAR-91.. 109-400-3301-4201 00037 $3,055.00 VEH PKG DIST /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 00115 109-400-3301-4201 00038 $87.50CR 2653 — 03/3179T VEH PKG DIST' `—YCONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $5,560.50 R ST. BERNARD HIGH SCHOOL DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND —16479 04019 001-210-0000-2110 04/25/91 2653 00027 36925 $0.00 05/09/91 2653 00027 36925 $0.00— 05/09/91- 04230 5/09/91- 04230 $500.00 16479 02305 36926 7DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE---.... $0.00".....05/09/91' *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R STATE OF CALIFORNIA FINGERPRINT CHGS/MAR"9I"-9315, $500.00 00364 001-400-2101-4251 00368 $324.00 893159 00023 36927 04112/93—1—" —'—" " -POLICE 7CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT'" --$0.00--05/09/91 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:19:08 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA LEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 05/14/91 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL*********************************************•********************** R SUPERIOR MEDICAL EQUIPMENT MISC. CHARGES/APRIL 91 85379 PAGE 0026 DATE 05/09/91 INV/REF PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $324. 00 00425 001-400-2201-4309 01071 $52.00 04/30/91 FIRE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R DONA*SWETT ANIMAL TRAP REFUND -- 04004 001-210-0000-2110 14751 - - - -- 05/06/91 $52. 00 04236 $50.00 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R TODD PIPE & SUPPLY MISC. CHARGES/APRIL 91 R TODD PIPE & SUPPLY MISC. CHARGES/APRIL'91 $50. 00 00124 001-400-4204-4309 01972 $93.74 04/30/91 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00124 001-400-6101-4309 01057 $136.67 04/30/91" `- "" - PARKS-----------/MAINTENANCE-MATERIALS R TODD PIPE & SUPPLY 00124 MISC. CHARGES/APRIL 91 '"'"--"-"'- 04/30/91 R TODD PIPE & SUPPLY MISC. CHARGES/APRIL '91 160-400-3102-4309 00597 $200.99 SEWER/ST DRAIN /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00124 305-400-8506-4201 00016 $131.71 04/30/91"" - -' - CIP 86-506 - /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT" *** VENDOR TOTAL********************************************************-tt*********** R CITY OF*TORRANCE - '-- AREA "G" SHARE/FY-91-----03323 R CITY OF*TORRANCE MAX PROG SHARE/4TH OTR' --03318 $563.11 85379 00466 36928 $0.00 05/09/91 14751 02314 36929 $0.00 05/09/91 00491 36930 $0. 00 05/09/91 00491 36930 $0.00' -' 05/09/91 00491 36930 $0.00 05/09/91 00491 36930 1., $0.00 05/09/91 00841 001-400-2701-4251 00027 $223.02 103323 01797 36931 04/16/91 - CIVIL -DEFENSE -/CONTRACT'SERVICE/GOVT -- $0.00 05/09/91- 00841 145-400-3402-4201 00160 04/15/91`"'' COMMUTER BUS - $8,758.00 /CONTRACT SERVICES *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R UNI -COM SUPPLY CCTR FIRE ALARM SUPPLIES- 6809 $8,981.02 103318 01914 $0. 00 36931 05/09/91 03861 305-400-8615-4201 00009 $1,572.17 6809 02058 36932 04/20/91 CIP 89-615 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $1,572.23 05/09/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,572.17 CHRISTINE*VANSCRIVER 04017 110-300-0000-3843 36933 PARKING PERMIT REFUND`""" 83900 '"" 04/29/91' /PARKING PERMITS:ANNUAL $0.00 ' 05/09/91 12763 $25.00 1883900 01652 FINANCE-SFA34O TIME 14:19:08 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST PAGE 0027 FOR 05/14/91 DATE 05/09/91 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL ************************** t***************************************** $25. 00 AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP R VARELA'S NURSERY 03773 001-400-6101-4309 01056 $308.16 5827 02073 36934 GREENBELT PLANTS ....... 5827'' 04/22/91 PARKS /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $308.16 05/09/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************* $308. 16 R VERNON PAVING COMPANY 00019 001-400-3103-4309 01157 $206.46 MISC. CHARGES/APRIL 91 344 ' 04/09/91" ST MAINTENANCE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL ********* F************************************* ******************** $206.46 R J. F. *WEBER. CONSULTANT 00134 001-400-1202-4201 00258 $300.00 SERV/GANN INIT LIMIT "'-05/O7/91 -- - FINANCE ADMIN /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT._ *** VENDOR TOTAL**********************************************************•********** $300.00 344 00472 36935 $0.00 05/09/91 , 01179 $0. 00 36936 05/09/91 R WESTERN ENGRAVING 02578 001-400-1101-4305 00375 $77.90 1004380 09367 36937 VOTE SYSTEM NAMEPLATES" 04380'""'.'' 04/12/91" "" CITY COUNCIL /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $74.90 05/09/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL ************* l************************* ******* ******************** $77. 90 R SHIRLEY#WILSON 03984 001-210-0000-2110 04228 $50.00 13586 02310 36938 ANIMAL TRAP REFUND'.'"...... 13586' . ""-' " 04/25/91 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 05/08/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $50.00 R STEVE*WISNIEWSKI 01364 001-400-2101-4312 01699 $77.25 01284 36939 MEALS/CHIEF'S EXEC SEM---- —" —' 04/15/91 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE ; POST $0.00 05/08/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL *********************Fit******************************* **** ********* $77.25 ZAVATSKY BARREL TRASH RECEPTACLES' I 00316 001-400-6101-4309 01055 $321.00 1167 02085 36940 I' 1167...- .05/O2/91- PARKS /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $321.00 05/09/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL **************-***************************************************** $321.00 eF*sF PAY CODE TOTAL****************************************************************** #1F# TOTAL WARRANTS **** ************************************************************ $374;517.87 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE DEMANDS OR CLAIMS COVERED D THE WARRANTS LISTED ON PAGES___7_, O_ INCLUSIVE OF Tine $774. 694. 53 WARRANT REGISTER FOR '57_"4/ --.. . ARE ACCURATI AND FUNARE AV^ LADLE FOR PAYT1LI T THEREOF: ' BY_v`'!"__ _ -r FINANCE ADMINI/�R/9l OR DATE 5j7/ May 6, 1991 Honorable Mayor and For the Meeting of Members of the City Council May 14, 1991 CANCELLATION ON WARRANTS Please consider the following request for cancellation of the warrants listed below. #032470 - 2/13/90 - Terri Edison - $170.00 - Account Number 001- 400-4601-4317. Warrant lost at bank. Payment stopped. #036130 - 2/26/91 - Michael Haugen - $236.25 - Account Number 001-400-2101-4313. Officer Haugen commuted to the training. #036548 - 4/9/91 - Department of Justice - $357.00 - Account Number 001-400-2101-4316 - Department of Justice informed us the tuition was not needed. Concur: Gary B City reasurer Kevin Northc►•ft Noted for fiscal impact Viki Copeland City Manager Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council May 28, 1991 /`"-/1,14," Spy_ 9/ May 8, 1991 City Council Meeting of May 14, 1991 TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Adoption of the 1990 National Electric Code Award of bids for purchase of vehicles for narcotics and patrol Appropriation of funds from Asset Seizure/Forfeiture Fund for purchase and installation of equipment in new narcotics vehicles Award of bid for purchase of computer equipment for Police Dept. Approval of emergency ambulance service agreement with L. A. County 8/20 Gann limit - Appropriations subject to Goal 8 5/16 Options to increasing service level of street sweeping Call for bids - downtown and pier maintenance contract Selection of computer consultant Street Lighting Assessment a) resolution approving report b) resolution setting public hearing Crossing Guards Assessment a) resolution approving report b) resolution setting public hearing Presentation of safety policy (Closed Session) Bid spec. for new telephone system for City offices Greenbelt parking designs - 1 - Building Director Public Safety Director Public Safety Director Public Safety Director Public Safety Director Finance Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Gen. Svcs. Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Risk Manager General Services Director Public Works Director Ic CIP 89-512 Accept Basketball Courts as complete Olympic Torch Run City Mgr. 2/25 Admin. memo on con- sultants Selection of Records Management consultant AQMD ordinance Council 8/14 Review parking on ped- estrian sts./review ways to enforce no parking in front yards South Bay Cycles compliance with CUP Board of Appeals member selection Public Hearings Appeal of approval of CUP for the Lighthouse, 30 Pier Avenue Appeal of Planning Commission denial of CUP for Sportsclub & Restaurant at 1605 PCH June 6, 1991 Joint meeting with Planning Commission June 11, 1991 Rotation of Mayor Hermosa View and Valley School agreements Dispute Resolution Services Lease Renewal Project Touch Lease Renewal (Rm. 11) Status report on Rule XV - Trip reduction plan Public Hearings Ballot Measures Public Works Director Community Resources Dir. City Mgr./Finance City Clerk/Gen. Svcs. Planning Director Public Works Dir. Planning Director City Clerk/Bldg. Dir. Planning Director Planning Director Community Resources Dir. Community Resources Dir. Community Resources Dir. Personnel Director Planning Director June 25, 1991 Funding of Social Service agencies Development of newly acquired lots at Edith Rodaway Friendship Park Status of fire flow improvements 1991-92 budget amendments Public Hearings Public Hearing - Street Lighting Public Hearing - Crossing Guards July 18, 1991 (7:30 a.m.) Joint meeting with Chamber of Commerce Council 2/12 Fiesta cost/benefit study Finance Director Community Resources Dir. Community Resources Dir. Public Safety Director Finance Director Public Works Director Public Works Director August 27, 1991 Approval of agreements between the City and local non-profit agencies Community Resources Dir. September 24, 1991 CIP 89-406, Accept sewer project as complete Public Works Director October 22, 1991 RFP for Traffic Engineer Public Works Director December, 1991 Statistical survey - requested at 4/23/91 meeting January, 1992 Appeal of P.C. denial of request to allow a 2nd story office addition providing less than required off- street parking at 415 Pier Ave. Planning Director ***************************************************************** Upcoming Items Not Yet Calendared Caltrans utility maintenance agrmt. Historic Preservation Ordinance (with Land Use Element) Public Works Director Planning Director ***************************************************************** Initiated by Party Date Council Council Goal 4 City Mgr. 5/8 Discuss financial arrangements on oil project City Manager 5/8 Re. oil project CUP - define "temporary" as relates to height of project Planning Director 5/16 Options to computerize per- sonnel as part of payroll function Finance Director 7/24 3 -hr. vs. 2 -hr. parking meter limit in the downtown (refer to VPD) General Services Director Council 8/14 Council 10/9 Review of standard CUP conditions Planning Dir. Map and time schedule for street sweeping Public Wks. Dir. Ordinance for new Chapter 19 of HBMC entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic" Public Works Dir. City Mgr. 12/17 Photocopiers Public Safety. Director Council 1/22 Research parking cut off in lot at 3rd St. Pub.Wks./Bldg./City Mgr. VPD - lots management contract renewal RFP General Services Director City Mgr. 2/21 RFP for computer system General Svcs. Director Council 2/20 Follow-up procedures to Council items City Manager Conceptual approval of Greenbelt steps Public Works Director - 4 - Council 3/12 Report on permit park- ing program w/imple- menting measures General Services Director Council 3/12 South School Conceptual design Community Resources Dept. 3/27 CIP 89-176 - Call for bids, traffic signal pre-emption City Mgr. 3/25 Amendment of ordinance regulating real estate signs Council Bid spec. for office systems (furniture) City Mgr. 3/26 Revised funding for canine program Council 3/26 Selection of insurance broker Coastal Conservancy Pier grant VPD recommendation on sidewalk scrubber Public Works Director Building Director Finance Director Public Safety Director Personnel Community Resources Dir. General Services Director Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council /U-e//Lt•L 5-iY-9/ May 2, 1991 City Council Meeting of May 14, 1991 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT OF INACTIVE PUBLIC DEPOSITS FOR HERMOSA BEACH Attached is a report of all Inactive Public Deposits for the month of April 1991. Respectfully submitted, Ai L. Ac._"0 AI Gary Brut . c City Tre. urer NOTED: evin Nor hcraf City Manager Id INVESTMENT REPORT - APRIL 1991 INSTITUTION TOTAL DATE OF INVESTMENT DATE OF MATURITY INTEREST LAIF BALANCE 04/01/91 $6,427,000.00 Investment 1,000,000.00 4/18/91 BALANCE 04/30/91 $7,427,000.00 7.775% LACPIF Railroad Right -of -Way Account BALANCE 04/01/91 $ 667,116.73 BALANCE 04/30/91 667,116.73 6.61% CORPORATE NOTES: Ford Motor Credit Co. Investment $ 500,000.00 5/19/88 5/20/93 9.10% U.S. TREASURY BOND: Investment $ 499,326.42 1/03/90 12/31/91 7.71% Investment $1,001,542.12 3/06/90 2/29/92 8.50% Investment $ 500,845.79 3/08/90 2/29/92 8.50% Investment $ 999,492.83 4/20/90 3/31/92 8.763% Investment $1,019,779.01 5/14/90 2/15/93 8.49% Investment $1,023,029.89 9/14/90 6/30/94 8.50% FHLMC: Federal Home Loan Investment INVESTMENT TOTAL SEATTLE 1ST NATL. BALANCE 03/01/91 Adjustment BALANCE 03/31/91 Mortgage Corp. $ 248,733.64 $13,886,866.43 BANK TRUST $ 689,706.32 <161,710.00> 527,996.32 TICOR TITLE INSURANCE CO. BALANCE 3/01/91 Adjustment BALANCE 3/25/91 TRUSTEE TOTAL GRAND TOTAL $ 11,134.01 116.82 11,250.83 $ 539,247.15 $14,426,113.58 Respectfully Submitted, Gary Brutsch City Treasurer /7Z1,/,,t1 3/26/87 3/1/17 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council April 15, 1991 City Council meeting of May 14, 1991 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING ASSEMBLY BILL 1423 AND SENATE BILL 235 MINIMUM RECYCLED CONTENT LEGISLATION RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution supporting Assembly Bill 1423 and Senate Bill 235 which would adjust state and local recycling efforts by helping to create markets for recycled materials. BACKGROUND By 1993, it is conservatively estimated that California will collect for recycling 500,000 tons of glass, 300,000 tons of steel, 3.4 million tons of paper, 30,000 tons of plastic and 150,000 tons of aluminum. Essential to the success of our recycling efforts is the development of stable markets for this collected material. ANALYSIS Assembly Bill 1423 by Assembly Member Michael Gotch (D -San Diego) and Senate Bill 235 by Senator Gary Hart (D -Santa Barbara) are intended to support state and local recycling efforts by closing the loop on packaging waste. By requiring producers of packaging containers to utilize specified minimum levels of recycled material in the manufacture of their products, we will help to assure stable markets for material collected in curbside and other recycling programs. AB 1423 would require manufacturers of glass, steel, bi-metal and aluminum containers to use the following minimum percentages of recycled content in the manufacture of their containers on and after the dates specified below: EFFECTIVE DATE 1/1/93 1/1/96 1/1/99 Flint glass containers 25% 3570 4570 Green, amber & mixed color containers 40% 5070 60% Steel & bi-metal containers 3570 60% 85% Aluminum containers 607 7570 90% 1 a. SB 235 would require manufactures of paperboard and rigid plastic containers to use the following minimum percentages of postconsumer content in the manufacture of their containers on and after the dates specified below: EFFECTIVE DATE 1/1/93 1/1/95 Paperboard containers 50 5070 Plastic containers 1070 2570 Staff believes that this action is appropriate in demonstrating our continued support in a comprehensive recycling effort. Market development for recycled materials also a required objective of the recycling component of the Source Reduction and Recycling Element mandated by the state pursuant to AB 939. Concur: evin B. Northc City Manager Respectfully submitted, C. ole Lockhart Administrative Aide Dept. of Building & Safety Concur: g„ William Grove Director, Bldg. & Safety RESOLUTION 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH SUPPORTING ASSEMBLY BILL 1423 AND SENATE BILL 235. WHEREAS, the City Council of The City of Hermosa Beach is committed to meeting or exceeding the recycling and waste reduction requirements of the California Integrated Solid Waste Management and Recycling Act (AB 939, 1989); and WHEREAS, a key to the long term success of recycling in California depends on a balanced strategy of creating incentives and implementing programs for the collection of recyclables, while stimulating material demand through thoughtful recycled material market development efforts; and WHEREAS, the legislature and Governor in 1989 adopted AB 1305, a successful recycled newsprint market development program mandating minimum levels of recycled content in newspaper; and WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 1423 by Assembly Member Michael Gotch and Senate Bill 235 by Senator Gary Hart would, if adopted establish similar minimum recycled content requirements on all paper, glass, aluminum, steel and plastic containers sold in this state. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby: 1. Convey our support for AB 1423 to Assembly Member Michael Gotch, our assembly and senate representatives, Assembly Member Byron Sher, Chair of the Assembly Natural Resources Committee, and the California League of Cities and County Supervisors Association of California. 2. Convey our support for Senate Bill 235 to Senator Gary Hart, our assembly and senate representatives, Senator Dan McCorquodale, Chair of the Senate Natural Resources and Wildlife Committee, and the California League of Cities and County Supervisors Association of California. 3. Direct our legislative representative to join with representatives of the League of Cities, the County Supervisors Association of California, Sierra Club 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 California, the Planning and Conservation league, and Californians Against Waste in working for the passage of AB 1423 and SB 235. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE DAY OF 1991. PRESIDENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY Carole/resminum May 2, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council May 14, 1991 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REQUEST FOR CITY SERVICES FOR FIESTA RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by staff that Council approve the street closures and request from the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce to operate the Fiesta de las Artes street fair on May 25 - 27 and August 31 - September 2, 1991. BACKGROUND The Fiesta de las Artes has been in existence for 14 years in the City of Hermosa Beach. The fair features artisans, food booths and fundraisers for non-profit and community organizations. The specific requests for the event from the Chamber as well as the requests for City services and equipment are attached for Council review. ANALYSIS The Chamber of Commerce utilizes this event as its primary funding source on an annual basis. The success of the fundraiser which translates hundreds of volunteer hours into dollars has enabled the Chamber to exist and operate autonomously throughout the years. Council has expressed concerns about the past communications between the City and Chamber with regards to billing for City services and the payment for the same. In response to this, Chamber and City staff met on April 10 in an effort to mitigate potential problems. Both groups agreed to provide requests and billing information in a timely fashion prior to the actual event (see attached memo). 1991 will bring about some operational changes in the Fiesta including moving the food booths to Parking Lot C and the addition of a Fiesta (Farmer's) Market on 13th Street. The food booths in Lot C will enable the vendors to have easy access to a generator and to leave their booths up overnight. Resident permit parking will not be impeded. The Chamber of Commerce sees this move as being positive from a operational and sanitary standpoint. Council has requested a cost benefit analysis for the Fiesta from the Chamber and City staff. This item will appear on the agenda at the special City Council/Chamber of Commerce meeting on July 18, 1991. 1 lf The attached information and meetings with City staff reflect the Chamber's conscientious effort to cooperate with all requests on behalf of the City. They have made changes in the event in order to iron out problems from the past (i.e., pedestrian crossings) and have agreed to meet with staff immediately following the first Fiesta to address any new problems that may surface. The Chamber of Commerce requests Council's approval of the street closures for 1991 and will look forward to working with the City in the future to insure the continued success of the Fiesta. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Chamber of Commerce Letter of Request. 2. Memo to Department Heads (April 11, 1991) 3. Crafts Fair Guide Concur: evin :. North/r-ft City Manager 2 Respectfully submitted, Mary C. •oney, Director Dep'. •f Community Resources HERMOSA BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 323 PIER AVENUE/P.O. BOX 404 HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 (213) 376-0951 April 10, 1991 Mayor Chuck Sheldon and Council Members City Hall/Civic Center Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 RECEIVED APR 1 5 1991 TTY Honorable Mayor and Council; The 28th bi-annual Fiesta de las Artes is being planned for May 25, 26 & 27th, and also August 31, September 1 & 2, 1991. The city has traditionally provided space and revised traffic patterns as requested by the Chamber of Commerce to accommodate artists, craftspeople and visitors to the Fiesta. Again, this year we would like to request the use of Pier Avenue from the Strand to Manhattan Avenue and Hermosa Avenue from 10th street to 14th street. As in the past, we plan the closure of 13th street and llth street west of Hermosa Avenue to 20 feet east of the parking lot entrance. We would plan to leave the required space for emergency vehicles. Our Fiesta committee has met extensively with the department heads of Public Works, Community Resources and the Hermosa Police Dept. to go over the layout, logistics and traffic remedys of the fair. We feel that all concerns have been addressed. City support requested: 1. Closure of the above mentioned streets to thru traffic from 6:00 am to 8:00 pm on the three days of the show. 2. Approval for participation by local merchants in sidewalk sales on the show dates. 3. Assistance from Public Works in hanging the signs and banners. 4 4. The Chamber of Commerce will hire a commercial clean-up company to clean the streets daily and fulfill Public Works requirements of scrubbing and steam cleaning. The Chamber of Commerce will supply the City of Hermosa Beach with a one million dollar liability rider. We will cooperate fully with merchants in the affected area to keep as many streets as possible open to provide access to parking lots and businesses. i L r mamm a Page 2 (cont'd) The Chamber, along with the community is proud to present this well known and established event twice a year. The Fiesta brings much positive attention to our beautiful city and attracts over 100,00(7 people. We thank the City of Hermosa Beach and the council for their continued support. Sincerely, BJ Conte Fiesta Coordinator CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH INTER -OFFICE MEMO TO: DEPARTMENT HEADS DATE: 4/11/91' RE: FIESTA DE LAS ARTES FROM: MARY ROONEY ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** Listed below are the details that need to be attended to by City staff in order to accommodate the Memorial Day Fiesta de Las Artes: POLICE DEPARTMENT Prepare cost estimates for Police services and submit to the Chamber by 14/30/91. Provide traffic control and event security services as agreed upon at the meeting (in Fiesta guide). Process amplification permit (Chamber submits). Verify that paramedic access is satisfactory per event layout. Report to Chamber. If deemed necessary by Police Department, issue walkie talkies to Chamber staff for event. Prepare post event billing within 2 weeks of completion of Fiesta. Attend wrap-up meeting on June 13 / Room 12 Community Center/ 9:30 am. GENERAL SERVICES Collect 50 additional signs from the Chamber of Commerce to be distributed to Parking Enforcement Officers during the Fiesta (to post where signs are torn down). Insure proper street closure approvals have been obtained by the Chamber of Commerce. Insure that the proper code be indicated on parking meter signs. (call Chamber with proper number / ask to see their sign order prior to sign printing). Attend wrap-up meeting on June 13 / Room 12 Community Center / 9:30 am. • PUBLIC WORKS Prepare cost estimates for Public Works services and submit to Chamber by 4/30/91. Insure that Chamber arranges a meeting with Specialty Maintenance and Vern Highfield to discuss street cleaning -(use high pressure steam). Chamber to be allowed a 1 week window for job completion. Post banners. Issue a 3220 key to Chamber staff to allow them to open electrical service boxes during the weekend. Post meters on 13th Street. Provide cones and sawhorse barricades to Chamber (they pick-up and return). Provide inventory list for their return (charges?). Insure that electricity is turned on (street services) for the weekend. Prepare post event billing within 2 weeks after Fiesta. Attend wrap-up meeting on June 13 / Room 12 Community Center / 9:30 am. Chamber is responsible to: Provide a list of equipment needs for the City by 4/16/91 Pick-up and return all City equipment Request City approvals as necessary Apply for amplification permit Contract for high pressure steam cleaning for streets Deliver banners to Public Works (complete permit application) Notify neighbors about generator and use of Lot C Post and re -post Pier Avenue meters Provide all signage (i.e., no left turn and meter signs) Deliver 50 printed signs to General services Arrange meeting with Specialty Maintenance Pay for City services as billed Attend wrap-up meeting td; kii , 0 4t...c, Sia W.14 000. zs ea WEEK?nomad 41tur EN May 25,26,27,1991 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Hosted by: Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce. "...fun show. great crowd." "...it keeps getting better.- "...best organized show in the country." Crafts Fair Guide 1990 Managed by: MARK CONTE PRODUCTIONS revision April 4, 1991 Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce Fiesta de las Artes, Memorial Day Weekend May 25,26,27, 1991 Subject: Hermosa Beach Police Department Traffic and Security The following is the result of a very productive meeting held with Commander Anthony Altfeld. In this discussion we touched on a number of areas of concern including vehicle traffic, pedestrian traffic and general security. Commander Altfeld commented very positively about our current security system. Since the inclusion of a professional security organization In our event management program the HBPD are Tess inclined to require increased PD personnel on site during the show hours. HBPD requirements: 1. Patrol: Two uniformed officers will be on site a minimum of 8 hours from 10:00 am to 6:00 pm each day. The cost is $55.00 per hour per officer for a total of $880.00 per day or $2,640 for the three days. 2. Vehicle Traffic: At no additional cost to the Fiesta, the on duty Special Enforcement Officer will monitor traffic in the area between Monterey Blvd. and Manhattan Ave.. Should assistance be required during peak times, the officer on duty will direct traffic. From 5:30 pm to 6:30 pm the officer will definitely be at this location to direct street and vendor traffic at closing time. This officer is not dedicated to the Fiesta but will step in when needed. We will provide two signs to be posted at the Intersection of Manhattan Ave. and Monterey Blvd. at closing time which will read: Fiesta Vendors STAY IN RIGHT LANE ONLY 5:30 pm to 7:30 pm We will also shift two security people from parking lot duty to both intersections keeping them dear of vendor vehicles while they line up for closing time entry to the venue. The security people will also make sure our vendors adhere to the Right Lane requirement. The left lane will be for general traffic, any vendor found in the the left lane will be directed to proceed around the block to the end of the vendor waiting line. Clear intersections and left lanes will eliminate vehicle clogging of the streets at this critical time. The two security people are to be specifically instructed as to their duties, they are NOT to direct traffic. 1 Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce Fiesta de las Artes, Memorial Day Weekend Security, page two The Fiesta committee will pass out flyers to all vendors on Saturday morning explaining the closing time traffic procedures. We will provide two double sided signs to be placed at the intersections of Valley Dr. at Pier Ave. and Valley Dr. at Ardmore. They will read as follows: No Left Turn 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm This will prevent congestion and keep traffic moving rapidly on Pier Ave. This action coupled with the Monterey and Manhattan measures is expected to mitigate much of the traffic problems associated with the closing of the Fiesta. 3. Pedestrian Traffic: Two crossing personnel are required at Monterey Blvd. only from the hours of 12:00 noon to 6:30 pm. 2 .11 04/09/91 Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce Fiesta de las Artes Memorial Day Weekend May 25,26,27, 1991 SECURITY Time Hours Personnel Location Man Hours 9:00 am to 4:00 pm 7 2 Park Lots A & B 14 6:00 am to 8:30 pm 14.5 2 Main Entrance 29 7:00 am to 7:00 pm 12 2 Pier & Beach 24 6:00 am to 8:00 pm 14 1 Hermosa Ave. No. 14 6:00 am to 8:00 pm 14 1 Hermosa Ave. So. 14 12:00 am to 6:00 pm 6 2 Pedestrian Crossing 12 8:00 pm to 7:00 am 11 1 Two Overnights 11 78.5 11 118 *This includes 2 supervisors each day. 1..I4t1•1•�-� • FU LL _DE L L SPONSORED BY THE HERMOSA BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 323 PIER AVE. H.B., CA. 90254 (213) 376-0951 PACIFIC OCEAN BEACH L C= ceocsAs.6wv( X = sec Li ify 4racael e. O �olte 100 20 200 50 0 HERMOSA PIER 10th STREET BEACH DRIvE HERMOSA;11.7 s s c s t C s 0 t a 7777777C CCCCCCCC= 770731S1707CCC BEACH PARKING RLS IRlpl$ 1I ��e7eo7e� 7CCQCC CC079 1a7CCJC1S1==e1 WM VW 7 7 3 3 7 3 Di 0 $r i 111 �s>707ceceec S Cr) BEACH PARKING LOT •C• EEED 000 0 00000 sta 000 000 000 0o0 I Fy'E11-i.1-4�t..y 7� c�7n7—c= cncee—ae CO tLZL CC= C7C .:77 777 - - 1 fR$r ID $ 43 MANHATTAN AVENUE X X • • • 1 -AVENUE MONTEREY BOULEVARD C e 124-0 pnn City of 2lermosa I3eacL a:;;V: �„u.n a,Y.x.. .i ;. - :R0.'ti .v't :...:aris.W: J;.a.i•...•:-.-.tl-.,7:v;:k-. t :.2•,d•r March 18, 1991 Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254.3885 Mr. Mark Conte Mark Conte Productions 212 Yacht Club Way Suite D Redondo Beach, California 90277 Subject: Sidewalk Cleaning After Each Fiesta Dear Mark: On January 7, 1991 we met to discuss the cleaning of the sidewalks in the downtown area after each Fiesta. During our meeting Wes Bush informed me that Wes had previously met with Alana Mastrian-Handman from Specialty Maintenance, about the cleaning of the sidewalks and that the City was not satisfied with the cleaning. Wes Bush then stated that Alana would like to have a meeting with Tony Antich and myself to discuss the cleaning procedure. On January 7, 1991 I called Alana at Specialty Maintenance about the cleaning procedure after the Fiesta and she suggested that we meet and discuss what the City was asking to be done. On January 10, 1991 at 8:00 a.m. Tony Antich the Director of Public Works, and I met with Alana and discussed the cleaning procedure. During the meeting we came to an agreement regarding how the sidewalks in the downtown area need to be cleaned after each Fiesta. Please see attached map. Sincerely your Vernon Highf'el Superintendent of Public Works cc: A. Antich, Director of Public Works A. Mastrian-Handman, Specialty Maintenance K. B. Northcraft, City Manager W. Bush, Executive Director, Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce kttachment 4 PARKING SOLUTIONS . Mark Conte Productions 212 Yacht Club Way, Ste D Redondo Beach, Calif. 90277 Dear Mark, Specialty Maintenance proposes to provide the following services for Fiesta De Las Artes during Memorial Weekend. 1. Sweeping, trash pick-up and removal. 2. Empty trash and replace liners. 3. Cleaning of all food areas 4. Scrubbing food area parking lot. 5. Steam Cleaning sidewalks. 6. Ail supplies provided by SMC. 7. Scrubbing Rae•s Hardware parking lot. Please call if you have any questions. Thanks, Mark Conte Stephanie O'Raidy 2663 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Redondo Beach, California 90278 (213) 536-0162 • FAX (213) 536-9148 ISF 7a 12c: C /e4,VP "y1/,'//a PrcSSUrc. S7c"3A't C /et • /4 kc S L iet,e d VI? k ,bc--. f'd 5 c • C /c3ne (5.57'07P777 %777.71'; / C /c• ,v ?r -r, • •IlIf Llii MANHATTAN sr 11111.11111c H Emu o sA A .: - .4-,- i. •,, ., ...„.,.,......„,., .,,,.-,_ . .. . ,•?..?..: . v,,,,, _ •. e ,,,r;v5c 4 iv•'. -; 1 : 16.:: , ,t :, ' ‚.L - _I:•.;... *.• :14,..;!•::.0.110-4-..”4- -.: ,-, ti 1:1 ,..... - w t ' k Ot. wiel ..., -4 --., tkiput.A. ::... , 5-.4 4.0 • t0.1 Z' ka Li Os 4t ... flo 1 WI 1 • Ij ,... 1,, • MTV 200 - 228 RESTROOMS 00000 i1 < < < iii 1 12141215� - ` 0 000000 0 00 200 201 202 203 204 205 06 207 2081209 210 211 212 213 216 1 12181 00000000 O O BI- PAR F PAP <-\ /1 ENT, f17 f18 :19 :20 f21 P22 P23 P24 f 25 F26 f27 f28 300 - 336 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 317 318 L, 418 4151416 417 400 - 437 1 5001501 1 5021 5031 50415051506 15071508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 Y Y •C ) -0-c> e e "Aft) r R w "le CkaiN 04 Food . Rveat 219 220 221 222 Box 223 2241225 226 227 228 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 1419 1 • 1420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 4 30 429 428 431 432 433 434 435 436 4 37 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 500 - 538 PETTING ZOO Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council April 22, 1991 Regular Meeting of May 14, 1991 THIRD QUARTERLY REPORT OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FY 90-91 Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council receive and file this report. Background: On June 26, 1990, City Council adopted the FY 90-91 Capital Improvement Program and approved re -appropriations to that budget on August 14, 1990. This is the third status report for fiscal year 1990-91. Analysis: The report is organized to show the following for each project: Project description - Project status as of March 31, 1991 Major funding source Approved budget Expenditures as of March 31, 1991 Budget page numbers shown are for the final CIP budget. Respectfully submitted, Lynn A. Terry F.E. Deputy City Engineer oncur: An ,'^ Ant r%ny Antich Director of Public Works lg CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The Capital Improvement Program (hereafter referred to as CIP) is a planning tool for short and long-range capital acquisition and development. It links Hermosa Beach's General Plan and the fiscal planning process to physical development and the highest priority maintenance needs of the City's facilities and infrastructure. It provides the mechanism for estimating capital requirements, identifying appropriate funding sources, scheduling all capital projects over a fixed period, coordinating the activities of various departments to meet completion target dates, and monitoring and evaluating the progress of capital projects. The CIP is a five year plan of capital related revenues and expenditures that is updated one year at a time. Although the CIP constitutes a five year plan, funds are appropriated only for the upcoming year. The CIP (starting with FY 89-90) is designed to be on-going and continuous. The projects for the next four years are based on future needs and revenues, not appropriations. This plan consists of projects that are major expenditures for a specific plan or design of permanent public improvements such as a building, street, sanitary sewer rehabilitation, or acquisition of real property, or major equipment. The purpose of these projects is to: - Implement the General Plan - Preserve public health and safety - Improve the environment - Increase efficient operation of the City - Improve the comfort and enjoyment of residents. The capital projects included in this document span five fiscal years from 1990-1991 through 1994-1995. Total Capital Improvement proposed funding for FY 90-91 is $4.1 million; for FY 91-92, it is $967,532. Projects are presented in this document in seven categories and are organized into the following groups: - Street and Safety Improvements - Street Lighting Improvements - Storm Drain Improvements - Sanitary Sewer Improvements - Park Improvements - Public Buildings and Grounds Improvements - General Capital Improvements 2 The page numbers refer to pages in the Capital Improvement Program where more detail and the funding source can be found. Projects funded from the City's major discretionary fund, the General Fund are so noted. Summary: This Five -Year Capital Improvement Program provides a framework for planning the maintenance and replacement of existing capital equipment and facilities as well as new acquisitions. It is intended to address the highest City priorities for improvement and maintenance of the City's infrastructure while reflecting citizens' needs and wishes with regard to shaping their community. 3 PROJECT STATUS AS OF MARCH 31, 1991 STREET AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS CIP 85-137 FAU. OVERLAY VALLEY. ARDMORE AND PROSPECT Description: Preparation of plans, specifications and estimates leading to the resurfacing of portions of Valley and Ardmore, including the Gould Avenue intersections and Prospect Avenue south of Aviation Boulevard. Status: In progress. On September 25, 1990, City Council entered an agreement with L.A. County for the over- lay project. The County completed the design and advertised for bids on January 22, 1991. The contract was awarded on February 19, 1991 to the Shawnan Corporation in the amount of $609,312. The County costs are estimated to be an additional 35%. The County is scheduling a preconstruction meeting with the contractor at the end of April. Funding: 305 Capital Improvement Fund Budget $1,031,841 Expenditure (as of 3/31/91) $ 29 Budget Page: 42 CIP 89-141 STREET REHABILITATION Description: This project proposes to rehabilitate asphalt concrete and portland cement concrete streets, City-wide. Status: In progress. On September 25, 1990, Council reviewed the pavement management system report which evaluated the condition of all City streets. The Public Works staff is preparing a proposed 5 -year schedule of street improvements in compliance with the report. The funds for this project may be needed to complete the above overlay project, CIP 85-137. Funding: 305 Capital Improvement Fund Budget $ 129,750 Expenditure (as of 3/31/91) $ 13 Budget Page: 44 4 CIP 89-142 SIDEWALK REPAIRS Description: This project proposes to repair deteriorated side- walks, driveways and curbs at various locations, City-wide. Status: Project complete. On September 11, 1990, City Council accepted sidewalk repairs performed by Damon Construc- tion Company at a cost of $347,497 repairing 43,137 S.F. of sidewalk, 5,493 S.F. of driveway & 3,555 L.F. of curb. The construction has been completed for the 89-90 contract which included $20,000 from this year. Staff has completed a field review for new locations in the next fiscal year. Funding: 305 Capital Improvement Fund Budget $ 34,542 Expenditure (as of 3/31/91) $ 34,201 Budget Page: 46 CIP 90-144 REPLACE STRAND WALL AND WALKWAY Description: Preparation of plans & specifications: 1) remove and replace entire Strand wall; 2) remove and replace the Strand walkway from the southern City border to 9th Street & 15th Street to the northerly City border; and 3) the extension of the bike path adjacent to Hermosa Avenue from 35th Street to connect with bike path in Manhattan Beach. Construction: Replace Strand wall & walkway from 15th Street to 24th Street. Status: In progress. During FY 89-90, staff applied to LACTC to obtain funding through TDA, Article 3, Bicycle/Pedestrian facilities. Funding ($446,000 obtained in FY 89-90). On October 9, 1990, Council approved grant application to LACTC to_obtain additional funds. On March 12th, a check in the amount of $405,656 from LACTC was received by the City. This grant, when added to $446,000 already received and $200,000 due next year, is to be used to repair the Strand pedestrian and bike path. The grant results from Council direction in the City's vision to provide services with costs borne by visitors. By avoiding liability and City expense, the grant will improve the financial position of the City. Funding: 305 Capital Improvement Fund Budget $ 446,000 Expenditure (as of 3/31/91) $ -0- Budget Page: 48 5 CIP 89-146 STREET MEDIAN UPGRADES Description: This project proposes new planting and irrigation for street medians at various locations, City-wide. Status: In progress. City staff has completed new plantings on the Gould Avenue center median, on Pier Avenue, on Hermosa Avenue at 27th Street and the downtown area. Additional areas are being reviewed at this time. Funding: 305 Capital Improvement Fund Budget $ 10,000 Expenditure (as of 3/31/91) $ 4,222 Budget Page: 52 CIP 89-148 TRASH ENCLOSURES DOWNTOWN Description: This project proposes to improve the trash enclosures in the downtown area. Status: In progress. The trash enclosure at Lot "A" is being constructed first as a prototype and is under construction at this time. Funding: 305 Capital Improvement Fund Budget $ 10,000 Expenditure (as of 3/31/91) $ 8,140 Budget Page: 56 CIP 89-150 MISCELLANEOUS TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS Description: Preparation of plans and specifications leading to: 1. New type of traffic signal on Pier Avenue allowing egress and ingress for Fire Department emergency vehicles. 2. Relocation of existing pedestrian traffic signal at 18th and Prospect to Valley at 16th Street allowing for school children and pedestrian crossing in front of the school. Status: In progress. Staff has completed revising the plans for the school crossing. The project is in review by the school district and staff is awaiting comments. Construction is scheduled for the 4th Quarter of the fiscal year. Funding: 305 Capital Improvement Fund Budget $ 20,000 Expenditure (as of 3/31/91) $ -0- Budget Page: 58 6 CIP 89-151 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING PROGRAM Description: The following work is proposed: 1. Develop a high accident location and surveillance program using traffic accident data. 2. Conduct a study and develop a detailed residential neighborhood traffic control plan to reduce commuter traffic intrusion. Status: A Grant application was submitted to the State and staff has met with State representatives to discuss project funding. On March 12th, Council approved an agreement with the State for a $40,000 project for high accident location identification and study. The State is processing the State paperwork at this time. Funding: 305 Capital Improvement Fund Budget $ 40,500 Expenditure (as of 3/31/91) $ -0- Budget Page: 60 CIP 89-170 SLURRY SEALING Description: This project proposes slurry sealing asphalt surface streets west of Valley Drive to increase skid resist- ance and prolong pavement life. This work also includes minor repair prior to sealing, crack sealing and spot repairs. Status: In progress. The slurry seal contract was awarded by the City on March 26, 1991. Asphalt Maintenance Company of California has a contract to perform the work at a cost not to exceed $300,000. Inspection and contract administration will be performed by Tierra Engineering Company at a cost not to exceed $22,000. Funding for the project is 100% from the State Gas Tax Fund. Construction is anticipated to start in May 1991 and to be completed by July 1991. Funding: 305 Capital Improvement Fund Budget $ 337,219 Expenditure (as of 3/31/91) $ -0- Budget Page: 64 7 STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS CIP 88-201 STREET LIGHT UPGRADES Description: This project proposes the installation, upgrading and conversion to high pressure sodium lights throughout the City. Status: On hold. The street light poles on the Strand are in the way of the sweeper and the staff is going to redesign the location of the poles into the new Strand wall. Funding: 305 Capital Improvement Fund Budget $ 22,000 Expenditure (as of 3/31/91) $ -0- Budget Page: 70 8 SEWERS/STORM DRAINS CIP 88-406 SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS, TARGET AREA 4 Description: Preparation of plans and specifications leading to construction and completion of deficiencies of sanitary sewers in Target Area 4. Status: In progress. On December 11, 1990, City Council awarded a 180 calendar day construction contract to Colich and Sons in the amount of $1,587,648 and awarded an inspection contract to BSI at a cost not to exceed $62,320. Construction started on March 8, 1991. Over 12,000 feet of sanitary sewer will be rehabilitated at 18 separate locations in the City. Most of the sewer will be replaced with new clay pipe. The project is funded primarily through the 6% Utility Users Tax Fund. The construction work is expected to be completed by August of 1991. Funding: 305 Capital Improvement Fund Budget $1,870,163 Expenditure (as of 3/31/91) $ 3,209 Budget Page: 74 9 PARK IMPROVEMENTS CIP 89-506 VARIOUS PARK IMPROVEMENTS Description: New tree planting, benches, landscaping, irrigation purchases, playground equipment, picnic tables, etc. for Community Resources Commission recommended locations. Status: In progress. The Community Resources Commission recommended: 1) $19,800 to repair/replace fences, gates and windscreens as necessary at Clark Field, the Community Center and parkettes; 2) $4,000 to refurbish the playing field at Valley Park; and 3) $3,000 to assist in the purchase of playground equipment at Valley Park. This work has been completed. On September 10, 1990, City Council approved the Clark Field Lawnbowling fence repairs and structural concrete repairs at the Community Center. This work has been completed. On November 27, 1990, City Council approved the following appropriation and projects: 1. $1000 to purchase storage shed 2. $ 500 to landscape parking lot at 14th/Manhattan 3. $1000 for jogger diversion on Greenbelt 4 $3500 for roofing material at 6th/Prospect historical school building. Status of the above: 1. Work to take place in the 4th Quarter after environmental review. 2. California Conservation Corp currently planting new drought tolerant landscaping. 3. Work Done. Jogger actions to be monitored for 1 month. 4. Coordinating with CCC and the work is to take place in the 4th Quarter. Funding: 305 Capital Improvement Fund Budget $ 35,300 Expenditure (as of 3/31/91) $ 8,835 Budget Page: 78 10 CIP 88-508 PARK IRRIGATION REHABILITATION Description: Restoration of various City Park irrigation systems. Status: In progress. Existing systems have been evaluated and the design is finished for the Community Center lawn area. This item will be scheduled for Council action in May. Funding: 305 Capital Improvement Fund Budget $ 25,000 Expenditure (as of 3/31/91) $ -0- Budget Page: 80 CIP 90-511 RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY PARKING LOT Description: Install a tree -lined parking lot with landscaped parking areas & a driving surface on the railroad right-of-way area between Valley & Ardmore across from City Hall to 11th Street. Approximate dimensions are 70 feet by 560 feet. Design to emphasize Greenbelt theme and pedestrian path ("grasscrete"). Status: In progress. Conceptual design is complete. Three colored renderings to be sent to Parks Commission on April 24th for input and review. Staff is currently working with the West Basin Municipal Water District to get the best type of landscaping to reduce water irrigation needs. Funding: 305 Capital Improvement Fund Budget $ 15,000 Expenditure (as of 3/31/91) $ 2,500 Budget Page: 86 CIP 89-512 BASKETBALL COURTS Description: Install new basketball courts at Clark Field just north of the existing tennis courts. Status: In progress. On November 13, 1990, Council awarded a contract to Hines Construction Company at a cost not to exceed $94,750. Construction started on January 23,1991 and is expected to be completed in mid May. Funding: 305 Capital Improvement Fund Budget $ 94,750 Expenditure (as of 3/31/91) $ 56,030 Budget Page: 87A 11 CIP 89-513 PURCHASE 5 LOTS ADJACENT TO EDITH RODAWAY PARK Description: To purchase the existing five vacant lots adjacent to Edith Rodaway Park which is located between Gentry Street & Hollowell Avenue and bordering on the north side of Prospect Avenue. The park will be expanded to include the adjacent vacant lots within a planned development program. Status: Project complete. The escrow closed on this property March 15, 1991. Funding: 305 Capital Improvement Program Budget $ 260,000 Expenditure (as of 3/31/91) $ 250,217 Budget Page: 88 CIP 89-516 SIXTH STREET AND PROSPECT PARK Description: The scope of work has been amended to provide for the purchase of playground equipment and improvement of the landscaping. Status: In progress. Last Quarter staff purchased and installed a "Wells Fargo" style stagecoach consistent with the theme of the park. This Quarter the improve- ments are to the landscaping. The purpose of the land- scaping renovation is to improve the appearance of the park while conserving and reducing the water needs. This project includes replacement of the lawn areas, the planting of drought tolerant bushes & shrubs and the installation of a new automated irrigation system. The funds for the landscaping are $4,563 and are pro- vided from a State Grant. The park was closed April 9th to permit this renovation and is scheduled to be reopened on Monday, May 20, 1991. Funding: 305 Capital Improvement Fund Budget $ 7,958 Expenditure (as of 3/31/91) $ 3,394 Budget Page: 93A 12 CIP 89-517 RECREATION FACILITIES Description: The scope of work has been amended to include the purchase and installation of playground equipment. Status: Project complete. The funds from this project are being added to CIP project 89-518. Funding: 305 Capital Improvement Fund Budget $ 2,566 Expenditure (as of 3/31/91) $ 2,566 Budget Page: 93C CIP 89-518 RECREATION FACILITIES Description: The scope of work has been amended to provide for the purchase of playground equipment. Status: Project complete. City Council approved installation of the equipment by City staff at the meeting of July 10, 1990. The modular playground equipment was installed at Valley Park during the 2nd Quarter of this fiscal year. Funding: 305 Capital Improvement Fund Budget $ 12,305 Expenditure (as of 3/31/91) $ 12,305 Budget Page: 93E 13 PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS CIP 89-601 FUEL TANKS Description: To bring existing gasoline dispensing at the City Yard into conformance with State law by annual testing for leaks. Status: Project complete. Tanks passed with no leaks. Funding: 305 Capital Improvement Fund Budget $ 4,000 Expenditure (as of 3/31/91) $ 1,613 Budget Page: 94 CIP 89-604 BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS Description: This project proposes construction of Capital Improvements for the following departments: Status: 1. Police Department - Air conditioning in emergency $11,000 services computer room 2. Roof top air conditioner or cooler $6,500 for Police jail area. Project complete. Air conditioning needs for the jail and computer room in the basement have been completed and accepted by the Police Department. Funding: 305 Capital Improvement Fund Budget $ 23,768 Expenditure (as of 3/31/91) $ 15,870 Budget Page: 98 CIP 87-606 POLICE DEPARTMENT REMODEL Description: Demolition and modification of part of existing police facility, remodel of dispatching center. Status: Remodel Project Complete. Items installed were: (1) floor tile in the hallway and copy room; (2) formica laminated plastic on the walls 4 feet high in the main hallway, the exit hallway and the booking room. Still to be installed are blinds on seven windows. Funding: 305 Capital Improvement Fund Budget $ 8,164 Expenditure (as of 3/31/91) $ 5,489 Budget Page: 99A 14 CIP 91-608 CITY YARD RELOCATION Description: This project proposes the relocation of the Public Works maintenance yard in anticipation of oil drilling. This project does not include the cost of land acquisition. Status: On hold. On September 25, 1990, Council awarded a feasibility study to Anthony/Langford to analyze two proposed Public Works Yard relocation sites, at a cost not to exceed $21,000. Activity is pending the results of negotiations with the oil driller. Funding: 305 Capital Improvement Fund Budget $ 21,000 Expenditure (as of 3/31/91) $ -0- Budget Page: 100 CIP 89-609 MODULAR FURNITURE/COUNCIL CHAIRS Description: Plans, specifications and estimates for proposed modular furniture - $ 25,000 and new council chairs - $ 5,000. Status: In progress. Staff is reviewing the purchase of the modular furniture and the new Council chairs. Review and approval by the City Council will be needed prior to any expenditure of funds. The City Council on February 12, 1991, approved the staff to invite bids for furniture in the Finance and City Clerk Departments. The new seating in the Council chambers was to be continued to a subsequent Council action at a later time. Funding: 305 Capital Improvement Fund Budget $ 30,000 Expenditure (as of 3/31/91) $ -0- Budget Page: 102 15 CIP 89-615 COMMUNITY CENTER FIRE ALARMS Description: As recommended by the Fire Department, this project proposes to improve the existing fire alarm system in the Community Center complex which will be connected to the dispatch room in the Police Department. Status: In progress. The upgrading of the system is to be completed by City staff during the 4th Quarter of this fiscal year. Funding: 305 Capital Improvement Fund Budget $ 10,000 Expenditure (as of 3/31/91) $ 4,439 Budget Page: 107A CIP 90-616 EARTHQUAKE REINFORCEMENT OF CLARK BUILDING Description: This project proposes to install a structural steel framework within the Clark Building to comply with current earthquake code requirements due by 1995. Status: In progress. Work on this project to begin in the 4th Quarter. The Building Department and the Public Works Department are preparing an estimate of cost to upgrade the existing structure to meet present needs and codes. This estimate will then be compared to the cost of a new structure to determine if the expenditure of these funds is cost effective. The results will be provided to the City Council for review. Funding: 305 Capital Improvement Fund Budget Expenditure (as of 3/31/91) Budget Page: 108 16 45,000 -0- GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS CIP 89-701 CITY PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS Description: Upgrade City parking lots to include repairing pavement and walls, parking bumpers and new planting. Status: On Hold. The repair work is scheduled to begin in the 4th Quarter of 1990-91. A portion of the project will include work within the VPD. The VPD will provide input regarding the 3 downtown parking lots "A", "B" and "C". Funding: 305 Capital Improvement Fund Budget $ 15,000 Expenditure (as of 3/31/91) $ -0- Budget Page: 112 17 1 1 1 1 PROJECT NO. REVISED AS OF 3/31/91 PROJECT DESCRIPTION STREETS & SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS 85-137 Overlay Valley, Ardmore & Prospect 89-141 Street Rehabilitation * 89-142 Sidewalk Repairs 90-144 Replace Strand Wall & Walkway 89-146 Street Median Upgrades 89-148 Trash Enclosures Downtown 89-150 Misc. Traffic Signal Improv. 90-151 Traffic Engineering Program 89-170 Slurry Sealing STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS 88-201 Street Lighting Upgrades SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 88-406 Target Area 4 PARKS IMPROVEMENTS 89-506 88-508 91-511 89-512 * 89-513 * * 89-515 89-516 89-517 89-518 AMOUNT FUNDED CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC YORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FY90-91 I JUL I AUG I SEP I OCT I NOV DEC I JAN I FEB I MAR I APR I MAY I JUN I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 i I--I--I--I--I--I--I--I--I--I--I--I--I--I--I--I--I--I--I--I--I--I--I--I--t--I--I--t--I--I--I--I--I--I--I--I--I--I--I--I--I--I--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--I--I--I--I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1-'-r—1-1--f-1" 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 }..r. ;..{..}..;..1..} ; {..�..;..1.. f..�.�-•-I 1 i I I I$;: 1 1 1 I } +-1-1-4-1 Various Park Improv. Park Irrigation Railroad ROW Parking Lot Basketball Courts Purchase 5 Lots Adjacent to Edith Rodaway Friendship Park Purchase South School 6th Street & Prospect Park Recreational Facilities Recreational Facilities PUBLIC BUILDINGS & GROUNDS IMPROVEMENTS * 89-601 89-604 * 87-606 91-608 89-609 89-615 90-616 Fuel Tanks Various Building Improv. Police Dept. Remodel Public Works Yard Modular Furn. / Council Chairs Comm. Ctr. Fire Alarm Sys. Clark Bldg. Earthquake Reinf. 1,031,841 129,750 34,542 446,000 10,000 10,000 20,000 40,500 337,219 22,000 1,870,163 24,800 25,000 15,000 94,750 260,000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I }..;..1..{.. . ;..{..E..;..1..}..;..1.. . . 4— —1-4-4-4-4 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ..}..r. ;..1..F..;..1..{..;..ti..{•• ••I..4sa;--1-- 1-4-1—i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 101•••••••+-4-1—+•—i-1—+-4— —1-+-1-1- 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LEGEND PROPOSAL DESIGN BIDDING 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 CONSTRUCTION 1 1 *I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I IA -=+••'1-+-+' 1 i''. I I I - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1}..;..1..{..;..ti..1..-.1..1..}..;..1.. —1--4--1-1---1--1-1—+-1—{—+-1—{ p 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1..x..{.4. ;.. 1..}..;..1..}..x. 1...1..1,..!..1..}.. .1..1...1..1....;..1..{..;..1..1.4..;..1..}..;..1..}..I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -I 1 1 1 1 1 I1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0..:..q.. ...,....f {....1...1..}..;...:..4..1...;..1..1.....1..} {..}. .1..}. ..1..} {..ti....1..F. .1.,f....1...1...1...{..F. .. 7,958 — -4 —1— 4--1.-1— 4---i — 2,566 1 1 1 1 1 12,305 11 I I I 11 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 4,000 1 1 1 1 Imimimionl 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 23,768 imOmmimiI --1-1—+-1— I I I I I ,8,164 21,000 30,000 10,000 45,000 GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 89-701 City Parking Lot Improvements 15,000 * PROJECT COMPLETED —1-4—I—•$—+-+- -1— 1 1 1 ..1..}..;..1..}.... 1...1..1..1..{..}..}..}..}......F..h..r..1....i....1....1..1..1..1..1..}..}..}..}..r..F........r....1...{...;..i..a..�..1..y..1.. {—+-;-1—+- —nliMIIMIIMINIIMIIIIIIMIMIMMUNIMMI 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 111111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111111 1 1 1 1 Ili I I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1111111 � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 REVISED AS OF 3/31/91 szlo) 6-6-fl May 7, 1991 ,f5 -./Y-4/ Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council May 14, 1991 REALIGNMENT OF EXISTING 15" SEWER MAIN FROM 20TH STREET SOUTHERLY FOR 360 FEET CIP 88-406 Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Approve the realignment of the existing 15" sewer main from 20th Street southerly for 360 feet and require the property owner to pay the full realignment costs currently -estimated to be $64,000 ($58,000 plus 10% contingency). 2. Subject to the approval by the City Attorney, accept easement deeds from the property owner to be recorded, thereby legally locating the new alignment. 3. Accept a cash deposit in the amount of $64,000 to cover the construction costs of the realignment. Background: The property owner of the vacant site at 20th and Power Street (commonly known as the Power Street Development) wants to build a new large house over the area where the City presently has an existing 15" main. The construction of any type of house over an existing sewer main is not allowed. In order to be allowed to construct the proposed house, the property owner has requested that the existing sewer main be realigned so that is will not be under the future house. Engineered plans for the proposed realignment have been submitted to the City staff for review. The existing sewer system is planned for reconstruction as part of the on-going sanitary sewer repair contract. Therefore, this realignment could be handled very easily by issuing a change order (for the new cost and new location) to the present contractor. The estimated cost to replace the existing sanitary sewer along the present alignment is $46,000. The total estimated cost of the realignment is $64,000 ($58,000 plus a contingency of $6,000,) which will cover all costs including inspection costs. The incremental cost increase if $12,000. The issues for Council consideration are to approve or disapprove a realignment and how much should each party pay. Analysis: The issues considered by staff in this report are: - 1 - llt 1. Do not approve the realignment. If the sanitary sewer is not relocated, the property owner must redraw the shape of the proposed house or not build and the City can proceed with completing the sewer repair work as planned. 2. Approve the realignment, but hold off on any City construction at this time. This sanitary sewer has already collapsed once during the last six months. Holding off on repairs could expose the City to potential risk. 3. Approve the realignment and do the repair work now. This eliminates potential liability and accommodates the developer's needs. 4. How much should each party pay. The staff is of the opinion that the developer should pay for the total cost of the realignment because the realignment will add value to the private property. The staff recommends a cash deposit of $64,000 be paid by the property owner. Any remaining funds will be returned to the property owner at the end of the construction. Detail Analysis: The total cost of the realigned sanitary sewer is $64,000. The property owners feel they should only be required to pay for the incremental cost due to the realignment. This amount is estimated to be $12,000. The recommended alternative is for the City to allow the realignment so that the property owners would be able to build their house where and in the shape that they want. In exchange, for allowing the realignment, the City should require the property owner to pay the full 100% realignment costs of $64,000 because if the City sewer repair work was not underway at this time, the property owners would be required to pay the full 100% realignment costs. The owners have another choice in that they can change the location and shape of the house. Unfortunately, the staff has been told that the house plans are ready to be submitted to the Building Department if this request is approved. Another alternative is one where both the City and the property owners receive monetary benefits from working together. In this alternative each of the parties would share some percentage of the total costs. An example of this procedure could work in the following manner. The property owners pay for the cost of the additional work - $12,000. Then the City and the property owner each pays a percentage of the reconstruction costs and each receives some savings in cost. Example #1 In this example the property owner pays 100% of the realignment construction costs. $58,000 (-)$12,000 (-)$46,000 Property Owner - Realignment Costs - Additional Costs - Reconstruction Costs Paid by Owner $46,000 (-) $ -0- (-)$ -0- -0- Savings to Owner $46,000 Example #2 City - Original City Costs - Additional Costs - Reconstruction Costs Paid by City - Savings to City In this example the property owner pays the additional costs due to the realignment and both the City and the property owner each pay 50% of the reconstruction costs. $58,000 (-)$12,000 (-)$23,000 $23,000 Example #3 Property Owner - Realignment Costs $46,000 - Additional costs (-)$ -0- - 50% Reconstruction (-)$23,000 Costs Paid by Owner - Savings to Owner $23,000 City - Original City Costs - Additional Costs - 50% Reconstruction Paid by City - Savings to City In this example the property owner only pays costs due to the realignment. Property Owner $58,000 - Realignment Costs $46,000 (-)$12,000 - Additional costs (-)$ -0- (-)$ -0- - Reconstruction (-)$46,000 Costs Paid by Owner $46,000 - Savings to Owner for the additional City - Original City Costs - Additional Costs - Reconstruction Costs Paid by City -0- - Savings to City Summary: Based on the City Council's goal of improving the City's financial picture, it is recommended that the City require the developer to pay 100% of the realignment costs. Alternatives: Alternatives considered by the staff and available to the City Council are: 1. Do not approve the realignment. 2. Hold off on any City construction at this time. This is not recommended. 3. Require the property owner to only pay the additional costs due to the realignment. 4. Require the property owner to pay a percentage share of the realignment costs. Respectfully submitted, Concur: Lynn A. Terry Antony Antich Director of Publlic Works Deputy City Engineer Noted for Fiscal Impact: bLI Viki Copeland Finance Director pworks/ccsrmain evin B. North aft City Manager • EXISTING MANHOLE Iq NEW MANHOLE _ 20 ST PROPOSED REALIGNMENT OF 15" SEWER EXISTING 15" SEWER • L 7/t' ,��� t� NEW «�T M.N MANHOLE PROPOSED HOUSE - 1 n' n EXISTING — ry 15" SEWER L PROPOSED REALIGNMENT OF,15" SEWER I 3iG7`. M. rw NEW � GGW5 M.a MANHOLE EXISTING W`H ~ ,7V-`'Y—L MANHOLE N» ^T 4'E ..-sit' i. :SII n ti, 1/10M d!..\ 111,A\ V.\,v4 of' RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL THIS DEED AND, UNLESS CIj OTHERWISE SHOWN BELOW, MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO: NAME \ STREET ADDRESS CITY, STATE nv L_ Title Order No. _ Escrow No SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT DEED FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is acknowledged, I (WE), IVANO STAMEGNA, JOHN ROCCA, FABIANO CORPORATION, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, AND KAVANAUGH DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION hereby GRANT to the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, a municipal corpora— tion of the State of California, a perpetual easement for public sewer and incidental purposes over, under, across and upon the following described real property in the City of Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California: THAT PART OF LOT 39, TRACT NO. 15546, IN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 334 PAGE 34 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A STRIP OF LAND, 10 FEET WIDE, LYING 5 FEET EITHER SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE MOST NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 39, 5.00 FEET EASTERLY, MEASURED PERPENDICULAR TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE SOUTHERLY, S12°56'35"E, PARALLEL WITH SAID WESTERLY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 146.36 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, S77°18'14"E 58.07 FEET TO A POINT WESTERLY 5.00 FEET PERPENDIC— ULAR FROM THE MOST EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT; SAID LAST-MENTIONED POINT TO .BE HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT "A"; THENCE SOUTH— ERLY, PARALLEL WITH SAID MOST EASTERLY LINE, S12°56'35"E, A DISTANCE OF 140.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, S20°46'49"W 36.02 ' FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT IN THE MOST SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT, 25.00 FEET WESTERLY FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT. ALSO, A STRIP OF LAND, l0 FEET WIDE, LYING 5 FEET EITHER SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE: BEGINNING AT THE ABOVE SAID POINT "A"; THENCE NORTHERLY, PARALLEL WITH SAID MOST EASTERLY LINE, N12°56'35"W 30.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOT 36, SAID TRACT NO. 15546. s, This agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto, and their respective heirs. administrators, executors. successors and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on this day of 19 FABIANO CORPORATION, INC. BY: FABIANO CICCONE- PRESIDENT KAVANAUGH DEVELOPMENT CO., INC. BY: MARK J. KAVANAUGH- PRESIDENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF On this day of in the year 19 before me. the undersigned. a Notary Public in and for said State. personally appeared IVANO STAMEGNA }SS. IVANO STAMEGNA JOHN ROCCA personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person_ whose name to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that _he_ executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF On this day of in the year 19 before me, the undersigned. a Notary Public in JOHN ROCCA suoscribed Notary Public in and for said State. and for said State, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person_ whose name to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that _he_ executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. subscribed Notary Public in and for said State. If executed by a Corporation the Corporation Form of Acknowledgment must be used. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF On this day of } SS. in the year before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in • and for said County and State. personally' appeared F A B I A N O C I C C O N E personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the President, and z 0 cc0 a cc _I O p- 0 0 U y x n O 0 H CHICAGO TITLE CORPORATION personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be Secretary of the corporation that executed the within Instrument. and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the within instru- ment pursuant to its by-laws or a resolution of its hoard of directors. Signature Name (Typed or Printed) Notary Public in and for said County and State F 2467 R 11/82 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SS. On this day of in the year before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in in • and for said County and State, personally appeared MARK J. KAVANIIAGH personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the President, and personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be Secretary of the corporation that executed the within Instrument. and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the within instru- ment pursuant to its by-laws or a resolution of its board of directors. n • Signature (This arca for official notarial se Name (Typed or Printed) Notary Public in and for said County and State F 2467 R.11/82 (This area for official notarial se May 7, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council May 28, 1991 RECOMMENDATION FOR SELECTION OF SEPARATE RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTION RATES FOR POLICE AND FIRE PERSONNEL Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) select separate retirement rates for members of the Public Em- ployees Retirement System (PERS) classified as Safety (Police and Fire). 2) authorize the Finance Director to sign the required form from PERS for such selection. Background The PERS rate for Safety employees has historically been a composite rate. On April 23, 1991, PERS notified the City that separate rates for Police and Fire personnel are now available. The City must notify PERS by June 1, 1991, if separate rates are to be used; otherwise, PERS will assume the City chooses to continue using a composite rate. Analysis PERS indicates that generally, the choice of rates will not affect the employer contribution to be made. For 1991-92, the composite rate is 18.558%; separate rates are 17.801% for Fire and 18.915% for Police. In our case, using the individual rates as opposed to the composite rate results in a savings of approximately $800 for fiscal year 1991- 92. According to PERS, many agencies are not currently reporting Fire and Police contributions separately on their monthly PERS report. For these agencies, using separate rates would increase the time spent on reporting. We have been reporting separately, as instructed by PERS, for many years, so the use of separate rates is an easy change for staff to make. The choice the City makes now will be in effect until 1996. Separate rates will not be available again as an option until that time due to PERS staffing limitations. Since the separate rates give a more accurate picture of the rate for each group, and there is little impact associated with the change, it is recommended that the City select the use of separate rates for Police and Fire personnel. Respectfully submitted, CONCUR: Viki Coeland, Kevin B. Nor craft, Finance Director City Manager 1i May 7, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council May 14, 1991 SUBJECT: DRAFT CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM INITIATED BY STAFF PURPOSE: TO INFORM THE CITY COUNCIL ABOUT THE PLAN VIS-A-VIS THE CITY Background: In June, 1990, the voters passed Proposition 111, and in turn the State Legislature enacted the Congestion Management Program (CMP). Generally, the intent of the measure is to tie transportation, air quality, with land development. The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC) has now prepared a draft program, but has not completed all the details of implementation. Summary: The following summarizes the program: All development projects dating back to July, 1989, must have mitigation if determined to have had a negative impact to traffic congestion. The key element is regional mitigation, there is no intent to control land use. Pacific Coast Highway is, at this time, the only street included in the program in Hermosa Beach. The City is required to maintain the existing traffic condition, level F0, under the program. Cities, not developers, are responsible for paying the cost of mitigation, although cities may impose exactions, and/or use Prop "C" funds. Gas Tax funds from the State will be stopped to cities that do not comply with the program. Mitigation can occur in the region; it need not be within the City limits. There will be a credit program for projects that improve traffic conditions, and maybe cities can trade credits, but not known for certain at this time. 1 There will be a traffic volume cut-off point, where mitigation will need to be implemented, or gas tax funds will be halted, or the City will need to prohibit additional projects. Analysis: Since the South Bay region is already extensively developed, the potential to implement mitigating measures within or outside the City could be difficult. The result could be that this region is financing improvement projects in the developing areas of the county. It is not prohibited at this time. This concern was expressed to LACTC. The implication of this program is that every project needs discretionary review to determine traffic impact and appropriate mitigation. Once a cumulative impact is reached in cases where small projects independently are not an impact, mitigation would need to be implemented. Prop "C" money could probably be used in these cases since exactions would be hard to impose on an individual project. For instance, if 50 new homes were built over time resulting cumulatively in a significant traffic impact, then, the City could fund a mitigation project fundable under Proposition "C". For larger projects, exactions could be imposed. Since both Proposition "C" funding program and the CMP are not in their final form, staff can only suggest possible methods of compliance. CONCUR: Re pectfull ubp1.ttedv Michael Schubach Kevin B. North aft Planning Director City Manager 2 p/ccsrcmp 2‘;e:'///1A-e---0>1"' May 8, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council May 14, 1991 REQUEST TO APPROVE THE REVISED CLASS SPECIFICATION FOR DEPUTY CITY CLERK Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached revised class specification for Deputy City Clerk. Background: The incumbent Deputy City Clerk was on a medical leave since May 1990 and has been placed on an inactive status. During her absence the position has been filled on a temporary basis. The initial appointment of the temporary Deputy City Clerk was for six months, and has since been given three (3) 30 day extensions by City Council. Staff will ask Council for another thirty (30) day extension on May 28, 1991, in order to keep the position staffed until successful recruitment and testing has been accomplished. Recruitment for this position was initiated on April 1, 1991 and closed on April 22, 1991. Advertisements were placed in the Los Angeles Times and the Daily Breeze newspapers. The City received only three (3) applications. Due to the low level of response, the recruitment was cancelled. Staff believes in order to receive an appropriate response the requirements for this position need to be revised; mainly, to change the shorthand requirement from a required ability to a desirable qualification. Since the minutes of City Council meetings reflect actions taken and are not verbatim, the Deputy City Clerk is able to prepare the minutes from notes with any necessary backup provided by either the audio or video recordings. Neither the incumbent Deputy City Clerk nor the temporary employee currently in the position have been called upon to use shorthand in the performance of their duties. By maintaining the shorthand requirement the City severely limits the number of eligible candidates. The ideal candidate is one who is a self-starter with excellent organizational and communication skills who is able to perform with minimum direction. A larger candidate pool will assist in identifying the most qualified candidate available. There is no change in the Bargaining Unit nor to the salary for this position proposed. - 1 - SPS Analysis: The proposed revision to the class specification changes the minimum requirement (as stated above) to take dictation; but does include shorthand or speed writing as a desirable qualification. The Civil Service Board approved this revision on May 7, 1991. Following approval of this revision, recruitment will again comence with the following tentative schedule. Bulletin Posted • Recruitment Closes: Testing May 15, 1991 June 10, 1991 June 25, 1991 Respectfully submitted, 114-/fAm)e,_!/:i.„01;7.4.m. Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Director pers/ccdep 2 Concur: • evin B. NorthcrTt City Manager Elaine Doerfling G' City Clerk Michael Flaherty Chief Union Steward Teamsters Union, Local 911 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Class Specification DEPUTY CITY CLERK Definition Under direction, assists in administering the day-to-day operation of the City Clerk's office. Maintains specialized filing and record systems. Independently responsible for performing difficult and specialized typing, transcription, clerical, word processing and administrative duties. Performs the duties of City Clerk when assigned. Acts as Deputy Registrar of Voters and Notary Public. Assumes and performs related duties as required. Typical Tasks Attends City Council meetings to take and transcribe minutes; informs all outside agencies and City departments involved in an action of the City Council; gives out information interpreting and explaining City records, ordinances, laws and procedures; composes and prepares correspondence and records; revises and/or maintains the official files and records of the City; receives claims and lawsuits served on the City; processes contracts, including monitoring of insurance policies. Revises and maintains City Code of Ordinances; researches files to provide information to City staff, officials, and the public; assists in preparation for and conduct of elections; maintains an index file on all Council actions, ordinances, resolutions, contracts, agreements, encroachments, lien deeds and easements. Supervises publications of legal notices and ordinances and administers contract with newspaper; maintains files and distributes various codes and forms for reports required under the Fair Political Practices Act. Employment Standards Knowledge of: modern office practices and procedures, including filing systems, receptionist and telephone techniques, letter and report writing and office equipment operation; correct English usage, grammar, spelling, vocabulary and punctuation. Ability to: type a minimum of 55 words per minute; plan, lay out, and supervise office procedures and filing and record systems; review work for accuracy and completeness; learn and interpret rules, regulations, laws and processes; make decisions in procedural matters; work effectively with the public and function in situations requiring tact, diplomacy and discretion; understand and carry out oral and written directions; write effectively. Shorthand or speed writing ability is highly desirable. Training and Experience: Any combination of education and experience which would provide the required knowledge and - 1 - abilities. A typical way to obtain these would be: completion of high school with courses in clerical and secretarial duties, and four years of increasingly responsible clerical -secretarial duties involving frequent contact with the public. At least two (2) years of experience should be at office management or executive secretary level. Prior experience in a City Clerk's office or municipal setting is highly desirable. Additional Standards: Must be able to qualify as Deputy Registrar of Voters, Notary Public and be bondable. Must have valid California Driver's license at time of appointment and thereafter. Approved by Civil Service Board: 05/07/91 Approved by City Council .• pers/dep 05/01/91 May 6, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the City Council May 14, 1991 PROJECT TOUCH LEASE AGREEMENT (ROOM 3) RECOMMENDATION The Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission and staff recommend that Council approve the attached lease agreement between the City and Project Touch to lease Room 3 in the Community Center and authorize the Mayor to sign agreement. BACKGROUND Project Touch presently leases Room C, Room 11 and 3 in the Community Center. They have been tenants in the Center since October, 1979. They have served Hermosa, Redondo and Manhattan Beach city's high risk youth and their families for 15 years. Project Touch is a juvenile diversion program whose services include social and educational enrichment, counseling, meals, wilderness challenge camping and stepteen/stepfamily groups. ANALYSIS The lease space for Room 3 is 529 sq. ft. with a monthly rental of $407. ($.77 sq. ft.) This rate will be in effect until July 1, 1991 and then will increase to $.80 sq. ft. or $423 per month. The attached lease conforms to the present square footage rental policy (approved by the Commission January 24, 1990 and by City Council at their March 13, 1990) with all other conditions of the former lease remaining the same. Their residency in the Community Center has been of great value in addressing a vital social service function for Hermosa Beach. Concur: Respectfull Su'tted, Cl':r1 C:,oney, Director . of Community R -sources 7// Kevin B. No thcryl City Manager 1 Marsha Ernst Administrative Aide Dept. of Community Resources 11 HERMOSA BEACH COMMUNITY CENTER LEASE AGREEMENT This Leasing Agreement is made and entered into on this, the 14th day of May 1991 , 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. The Lessee desires to use a portion of the facility on the terms and conditions set out herein. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. TERM. The term of this lease shall be for a period of one (1) year commencing on the 1st day of June ,1991 , and ending on the 31st day of May ,1992 2. DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES. The Lessee is leasing from the City that portion of the facility described as: Room 3 (529 sq. ft.) 3. RENT. Lessee agrees to pay to the City rent ac- cording to the following schedule: June 1, 1991, thru June 30, 1991, $407/mo. $.77 sq.ft. July 1, 1991, thru May 31, 1992, $423/mo. $.80.sq.ft. Payable on the first day of the month. If this lease commences on a day other than the first day of the month, then the Lessee shall pay upon the commencement of the lease the rental on a pro rata basis for the remainder of that month and commence a full rental pay- ment on the first day of the following month. 3A. OTHER CONDITIONS. The following additional condi- tions are agreed to by the Lessee: 1. Lessee shall not mark, drill or deface any walls, ceilings, floors, wood or iron work without Lessor's written consent. 2. No signs or awning shall be erected or maintained upon or attached to the outside of the premises except such signs showing the business of the Lessee. All such signs shall be in accordance with the policy established by the Lessor. 4. USE. The Lessee agrees to use the premises only for the following purpose or purposes: Counseling services And for no other purpose without the express written consent of the City. Lessee also agrees the premises shall not be used in violation of the Depratment 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. 2 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. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Hermosa Beach Community Center Lease Agreement at Hermosa Beach on the day first hereinabove set forth. ATTEST: APPROVE AS. FORM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, a Municipal Corporation, Lessor By CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY DATE: LESSEE: 5 May 2, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council May 14, 1991 CITY MARQUEE RENOVATION RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by staff that Council approve the attached design for the City marquee renovation. BACKGROUND -At the January 22, 1991 meeting, Council accepted a donation from 0 the Chamber of Commerce of $7,000 to repair the existing marquee and to add the Chamber of Commerce logo to the sign. ANALYSIS One of the major problems with the existing marquee, is that it is difficult to read due to the small (6") letters and readerboard size. In attempting to solve this problem, it became apparent that the current design (with City logos on the east side of the sign) restricts the size of the readerboard area which subsequently permits us to use only small letters on the lines. By redesigning the sign so that the City logo is moved to the top and center of each side (two sided) the readerboard can accommodate 10" letters which will greatly improve the visibility of each message. Since the original approval was for the same design, staff wanted to return with this modest change. The suggested modification will enhance the sign both functionally and aesthetically and will greatly improve our ability to "get the word out" to the Hermosa Beach community. Concur: even Nort raft City Manager 1 Respectfully submitted, Mary/C{, 6oney, Director Dep of Community Resources kk 116 5111 .1,\ • I I - e7 -1 -1- HEIM:ISA E3E.AC9 CFiA?.19 ER OF COMMERCE i U N-1 C -Cr -44,1-, m.=-) !-! 1 • ..••*, M- r• a.--- "-C .FZ L. - t'D 1- 7- M. Pr-- I 0 =-.• 1.4 M 1 1 3-4 rm.% 1-4 E. VT" Pr--A-.F' L-0 e51. - L. r-= , ••••• T- ,!=3_ Le - CHIEF NEON SIGN:C11 •J‘• , JJA174:77V/u-e_imv, May 6, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of May 14, 1990 RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD BID FOR PURCHASE OF BULLET RESISTANT SAFETY VESTS TO LONG BEACH UNIFORM SUPPLY AND TO APPROPRIATE $10,000 WHICH WAS DONATED TO ASSIST IN THE PURCHASE OF TACTICAL SAFETY VESTS TO THE POLICE EQUIPMENT ACCOUNT TO DEFRAY THE COST OF THE TACTICAL VESTS RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Award the bid for purchase of thirty(30) personal safety vests at a cost of $284 per vest and twelve(12) tactical safety vests at a cost of $895 per vest to Long Beach Uniform Supply, the low bidder meeting specifications, and 2. Appropriate the donated $10,000 into the Police equipment account to cover the cost of the tactical safety vests and accessory pockets. BACKGROUND: The purchase of the bullet resistant personal safety vests described herein was authorized and funds were appropriated in the 1990-91 adopted budget. Funds for purchase of the bullet resistant 'tactical' safety vests described herein were donated by California Beach, a local business. J►NALY S I S : Several police equipment vendors were contacted in person, by mail, or by telephone and a notice inviting bids was advertised in the Easy Reader on March 14, 1991 for the purchase of approximately thirty(30) personal bullet resistant safety vests over the next 18 month period and for the purchase of approximately 12 tactical vests within the next 12 months. The actual details of each bid are presented as attachments to this report. Personal body armor At the bid opening on April 4, 1991, four (4) vendors submitted bids for personal bullet resistant vests as follows: 1 Discover U.S.A. Louis the Tailor Long Beach Uniform San Diego Police Equipment $316.25 per vest $329.57 per vest $284.00 per vest $360.00 per vest The low bidder meeting all specifications was Long Beach Uniform. Their bid is well within the budgeted amount and staff recommends that they be awarded the bid. Tactical body armor At the bid opening on April 4, 1991, four(4) vendors submitted bids for tactical bullet resistant vests as follows: Entry Vest Narcotic Vest Discover U.S.A. $1,539.92 per vest $860.00 per vest Louis the Tailor $1,681.09 per vest $937.54 per vest Long Beach Uniform $ 895.00 per vest $769.00 per vest San Diego Police Equipment $ 961.58 per vest $861.00 per vest None of the listed bids include the necessary equipment pockets and pouches that are installed on the vests. Staff contacted all of the vendors and determined that Long Beach Uniform had the lowest cost. The low bidder meeting all specifications was Long Beach Uniform. Their bid is well within the budgeted amount and staff recommends that they be awarded the bid. The funds for purchase of these vests were not budgeted. In order to cover the expense for this safety equipment a donation was obtained from California Beach, a local business. Concur: Kevin B. B. 'raft Steve Wisniewski City Manager Director of Public Safety tted, Noted for fiscal impact: Viki Cop land, Finance Director 2 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL The City of Hermosa Beach is soliciting bids from qualified vendors to furnish to the City of Hermosa Beach: 1. Tactical Body Armor for the Police Department Entry Team meeting the following minimum specifications: - Equivalent to the Point Blank Model Hi - Lite 3A (LASD SEB Style) - Outershell to be black in color Approximately 9 of the tactical vests will be purchased within 12 months of bid award. 2. Body armor for Narcotics Officers meeting the following specifications: - Equivalent to the Point Blank Model Hi - Lite Ill (Detective/Surveillance Vests) - Outershell to be black in color Approximately 4 of the vests will be purchased within 12 months of bid award. 3. Personal Body Armor for the Police Department meeting the following minimum specifications: - Equivalent to the Point Blank Model #15 (Class IIA) - San Diego side panel version - Outershell to be navy in color Approximately 30 of the personal vests will be purchased over an 18 month period from the time of the bid award. 1 SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Sealed proposals must be on file in the office of the City Clerk on or before 2:00 on Thursday, April 4, 1991. The City of Hermosa Beach reserves the right to extend any time frame as necessary. No late proposals will be accepted. Late proposals received after the deadline will be returned to the bidder, unopened. Proposals are to be submitted in a sealed envelope with "POLICE BODY ARMOR PROPOSAL" written or typed in the lower left hand corner of the envelope. For additional information and other particulars regarding this bid, contact: Steve Wisniewski Chief of Police 540 Pier Avenue Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (213) 318-0300 EVALUATION OF PROPOSAL A?'D BASIS FOR AWARD 1. The City of Hermosa Beach intends to make an award to the responsible vendor meeting all 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 bidder meeting qualifications and specifications set forth. 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 /or all bids, to waive any informalities, and to split the bid among various vendors. 5. The City reserves the right to purchase the personal body armor on an individual unit basis over the period of -18 months from the date of the award. 2 Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council S -y May 7, 1991 Regular Meeting of May 14, 1991 CONSULTANT FOR SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS FOR THE STRAND HOTEL PROJECT Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Authorize the Mayor to sign an agreement using Carl Chapman & Associates, Inc. to conduct the survey monitoring program for the City at the Strand Hotel site, contingent upon receipt of a cash deposit by the developer. Background: In the Public Works staff report to the Building Department dated November 21, 1990, the Public Works Department recommended that a soil settlement monitor should be paid for, via an up front deposit by the Strand Hotel developer. The monitor should be an independent qualified third party under the supervision and direction of the City. He would implement a monitoring program which would provide for continued public health and safety and help in identifying sources of damage. ANALYSIS: The City staff and the developer have reviewed three consultants to do the survey monitoring. All three consultants are qualified to do the work. The three consultants reviewed and their proposed fees are listed below: 1. Tierra Engineering Company $18,500 2. Carl Chapman & Associates, Inc. $25,000 3. ASL Consultants, Inc. $37,200 The consultant recommended by staff and mutually agreed to by the developer is Carl Chapman & Associates, Inc. The proposed consultant has provided information that they have been involved with other projects where precise elevation monitoring was required and that have been before the State Coastal Commission. 1 Alternatives: Alternatives considered by the staff and available to the City Council are: 1. Reject the proposed consultant and use one of the other consultants. 2. Reject all of the consultants reviewed and talk to additional consultants. Respectfully submijted, L ' n Terry, P.E Deputy City Engineer 2 Concur: ony Antich Director of Public Works TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Pe CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Michael Schubach, Plafini Appeal of C.U.P for 3232 Manhattan Avenue - Dan's Liquor; Revised Resolution of Approval May 13, 1991 Staff recommends that this item be continued to the June 11, 1991 meeting, and in the interim be referred back the Planning Commission for review and comment. Staff has modified the proposed resolution sustaining the Planning Commission's approval as a result of a meeting with the applicant and the City Attorney on May 9, 1991. Since the proposed conditions have been changed the item must be referred back to the Planning Commission. p/memo3 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUSTAINING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OFF -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL, IN CONJUNCTION WITH A DELI & MINI -MARKET, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 3232 MANHATTAN AVENUE, "DAN'S LIQUOR", LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT TWO, AND LOT FOUR, SHAKESPEARE TRACT. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on May 14, 1991, to receive oral and written testimony regarding an appeal of the Planning Commission decision to approve a Conditional Use Permit request, subject to conditions, to authorize the sale of general alcohol and made the following findings: A. The sale of general alcoholic beverages is being conducted in an existing establishment already licensed by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control as well as a mini -market & deli; B. The existing use is compatible with surrounding uses; C. Strict compliance with the conditions of approval will mitigate any negative impact resulting from the issuance of the conditional use permit and will protect the public health, safety and welfare; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California does hereby sustain the Planning Commission's decision to approve a Conditional Use Permit, to authorize the sale of general alcohol, at 3232 Manhattan Avenue, subject to the following: SECTION I Conditions of Approval: 1. The hours of operation shall be limited to between 6:00 A.M. to 2:00 A.M. daily. 2. The business shall provide adequate management and supervisory techniques to prevent loitering, unruliness, and boisterous activities of the patrons on the premises. 3. A sign shall be posted conspicuously and prominently at each exit warning patrons who purchase any and all types of alcoholic beverages that "possession and/or consumption of alcoholic beverages in any public sidewalk, parking lot, beach, and/or any public place is prohibited by law and - 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 subject to citation and fine. The City of Hermosa Beach vigorously enforces its liquor laws" Said signs shall be at least 12" X 14", shall be printed in a large type, permanently maintained, and shall be posted in visible locations. 4. The existing signs are faded with peeling paint and have been damaged by rust. All such signs shall be repaired and repainted and shall be maintained in good condition without damage of any sort, or, alternatively they shall be removed. Any new or replacement signs would be subject to the provisions of the sign ordinance. 5. An employee who is aware of the conditions of this conditional use permit shall be on the premises during business hours. a. The conditional use permit conditions shall be placed on the property in a location where employees can easily read the conditions. 6. A landscape plan, depicting the types and quantity of materials to be used on the site, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director for the purpose of landscaping around the perimeter of the parking area. 7. Clearly visible signs prohibiting loitering, littering, consumption of alcohol on the premises shall be posted in conspicuous locations. 8. Individual containers of beer and wine, 16 ounces or less in size, shall be packaged in clear bags or containers to make the contents of the container visible. 9. The exterior of the premises including parking areas shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner. 10. The trash container shall be enclosed by a 5' by 7' masonry enclosure with a view obstructing front gate. The location and design of the enclosure shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. Other types of materials may be used if necessary where there is a lack of space. 11. The parking spaces must meet the minimum dimension parking requirements of the zoning ordinance and shall be designed to not result in vehicles overhanging into the public right-of- way. A site plan depicting a revised parking layout shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director. The parking stalls shall be striped consistent with the approved site plan. 12. The floor plans shall be as shown on submitted plans and any changes tho the interior fo the purpose of altering the primary use from a market to a different use shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director. Minor modification to the floor plans, including re -arrangement of shelving, displays, counters, or similar items within the market do not need review from the Planning Director. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13. Prior to the conditional use permit being in effect, the applicant shall submit to the planning department, a signed and notarized "Acceptance of Conditions" form. 14. A conditional use permit shall be recorded with the deed, and proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Planning Department. SECTION II Each of the above conditions is separately enforced, and if any of the conditions of approval is found to be invalid by a court of law, all the other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1991, by: PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY p/pers3232 3 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members o the City Council FROM: Michael Schubach, P1 SUBJECT: Appeal of C.U.P for 3232 Man attan Avenue - Dan's Liquor; Revised Resolution of Approval DATE: May 6, 1991 Staff has modified the proposed resolution sustaining the Planning Commission's approval, based on the advise of the City Attorney. The modified resolution contains all the conditions of approval rather than simply referencing the Planning Commission's conditions and reorganizes the conditions into sub -sections. The conditions listed are the same as those adopted by the Planning Commission and are only in a different format. Discussions are continuing with the applicant, and modifications to the Conditional Use Permit conditions will be provided prior to the public hearing on May 14th, and a recommendation to be continued to June 11th will be forthcoming. p/memo3 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION r RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUSTAINING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OFF -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL, IN CONJUNCTION WITH A DELI & MINI -MARKET, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 3232 MANHATTAN AVENUE, "DAN'S LIQUOR", LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT TWO, AND LOT FOUR, SHAKESPEARE TRACT. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on May 14, 1991, to receive oral and written testimony regarding an appeal of the Planning Commission decision to approve a Conditional Use Permit request, subject to conditions, to authorize the sale of general alcohol and made the following findings: A. The sale of general alcoholic beverages is being conducted in an existing establishment already licensed by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control as well as a mini -market- & deli; B. The existing use is compatible with surrounding uses; C. Strict compliance with the conditions of approval will mitigate any negative impact resulting from the issuance of the conditional use permit and will protect the public health, safety and welfare; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California does hereby sustain the Planning Commission's decision to approve a Conditional Use Permit, to authorize the sale of general alcohol, at 3232 Manhattan Avenue, subject to the following: SECTION I Conditions of Approval: 1. The establishment shall not adversely affect the welfare of residents, and/or commercial establishments nearby. 2. The business shall provide adequate management and supervisory techniques to prevent loitering, unruliness, and boisterous activities of the patrons outside the business or in the immediate area. 3. Signs shall be posted conspicuously and prominently at all exits and all check-out stands warning patrons who purchase any and all types of alcoholic beverages that "possession and/or consumption of alcoholic beverages in any public - 1 - sidewalk, parking lot, beach, and/or any public place is prohibited by law and subject to citation and fine. The City of Hermosa Beach vigorously enforces its liquor laws" Said signs shall be at least 12" X 14", shall be printed in a large type, permanently maintained, and shall be posted in visible locations. 4. The existing signs are faded and paint is peeling off the signs as well as areas of obvious rust. The roof sign shall be removed and any other sign, not in compliance with the sign ordinance shall be removed, and all other signs shall be maintained in good condition without damage of any sort. 5. The front portion of the business which faces west onto Manhattan Avenue, is boarded up with faded and badly stained wood. The owner shall repaint or varnish this area to make it more acceptable. 6. An employee who is aware of the conditions of this conditional use permit shall be on the premises during business hours. a. All employees shall be given a copy of the conditional use permit and shall acknowledge by signature that the conditional use permit has been read and understood. 7. There shall be no sale of sexually explicit "X-rated" video tapes, unless a conditional use permit is obtained, as required by the zoning ordinance. 8. A landscape plan, depicting the types and quantity of materials to be used on the site, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director for the purpose of landscaping around the perimeter of the parking area. 9. Clearly visible signs prohibiting loitering, littering, consumption of alcohol on the premises shall be posted in conspicuous locations. a. Individual containers of beer and wine, 16 ounces or less in size, shall be packaged in clear bags or containers to make the contents of the container visible. 10. Measures shall be taken to control loitering on the public sidewalk at all times. 11. The exterior of the premises including parking areas shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner at all time. 12. The trash container shall be enclosed by a 5' by 7' masonry enclosure with a view obstructing front gate. The location and design of the enclosure shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. 13. The parking spaces must meet the minimum dimension parking requirements of the zoning ordinance and shall be designed to not result in vehicles overhanging the right of way. A site plan depicting the revised parking layout shall be submitted 2 for review and approval by the Planning Director. The parking stalls shall be striped consistent with the approved site plan. 14. The police chief may determine that a continuing police problem exists and may require the presence of a police approved doorman and/or security personnel paid by the business. 15. The business shall participate in the "EASY" program, soon to be implemented by the police department. 16. Any changes to the exterior or interior or floor area design shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director. 17. Prior to the conditional use permit being in effect, the applicant shall submit to the planning department, a signed and notarized "Acceptance of Conditions" form. 18. A conditional use permit shall be recorded with the deed, and proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Planning Department. 19. The hours of operation shall be limited to between 7am to 2am daily. SECTION II Each of the above conditions is separately enforced, and if any of the conditions of approval is found to be invalid by a court of law, all the other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable. All signs shall comply with the City Sign Ordinance. SECTION III The Planning Commission may review the conditional use permit and may amend the subject conditions or impose any new conditions if deemed necessary to mitigate detrimental effects on the neighborhood resulting from the subject use. Any violation of the conditions for approval and/or violation of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code may be grounds for the issuance of a citation or public hearing for revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1991, by: PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPRQVED QcS (TO F CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY p/pers3232 3 00.......... a 0.1V.M I ••••L. 0.1t•Out •Y••/ • 8440••• •AV6 t•COt•IC ..A4•• /1...M • •.t. •I0NA40 A 3-991,-• -104.•0 • .084141. . 0844 • 4.•.•.• .• r C••{L + MM1.. , •441 w 7An...1 T.t10o•1 . *A..*CC .• • 4 1•A••'C1 1!. .000•• •Ic•a•• • •.e• ••••N•A. • •1 • • O110T C 1114.84 00010 A 04.4-s• 40w400 O 110$C•MA, J1 • T44r40 S. 11A10N6t•• W OAV11 C. LA4•t4• 0.611040 1 r•110tr M,V041L O. •U••3) •A 0. 4101*• Jt . o•s•rAN• J44t.M 0 GA•WN ••*1-41:0" • 04v•0 . 4.[S4 •[ 443 A A rO4a•-•. • ..i*Y Y 84.4-.c0•t N• 4AMta *001. • AN41 •1.10..441...•• 'AAA•. A .. C••:AN YC.•1. T 407hA0 ••4,C• Oclar•- ▪ .. 0 000• . 001. 0. • T1Vt4 A N1C40.4 TMO0Aa 0 ••000.4070• WILL••M W *084.314 37.0111. tv 00•: 30'1000 00.0••6 84.4. M„ 4940* 90.61► 84.*•,8431 ▪ 40.1[4 J. C0AAt J OMA a. •1I.OW3 1.. 10404 0. 9040.00 O 40.84 T •0001.5 M. MAT*CR,M1 RUTAN & TUCKER ATTO1iNL'S AT LAW A ►•4Tr14'M.• 1NCLUO.N6 •11Or1if'ONAL 300900A- 0144 6ANM Or TME WE6*. twig .400 111 ANTON •OUL[VAAO COSTA M[SA, CAL1rORNIA 02626 CIACCT ALL MA:L TO P. 0. I0X 1090 COSTA MESA. CAL POANIA Sa$a6-I4SO TCL[PMQNC 17.4) 611•$100 (2131 620-706. tC,0000IE■ 17101 346-GOSI 0.0 •84.04 11000..•73) 10 11110..0101 1..0010 W 0*M•4 1.011'10611 N. 100111 .QWC.L 11116••610; May 14, 1991 E t 1001•. . 044.0 0 .030•1t4 OuAt 9 wA4.1V•tt SCOTT • 0.406•.1 0 •C4 .. 0300 ■ 4.000 t 8Ch7l* 930 844.•4 $1010. •..484 60•• {44.10 181-. JI*t• . 9 •[••T • w •1.4071. 11. GU! t0A.L.0 • (11/.4.0•. OAT.O • Q0114•vt 611. 1000,.• M 0 084084.4484 J••N( •40LO4 .ACC• 4044 VAN .1GT(N 10•••01* A. 0013 W.11 .440! M OOLO••LM W .,414 rICMA1L 0. 1'484[0 • Ost•• O OWC• •3*0 N. vO.ntl0 O 4Nr0.0 Small 1T090(N 1 OTTO 9. 017.84 0401:1. 1.4041 N. 8411111 8A P•0'34 0. •L 6 00.846. O 4,4.(1 4 • 4A. 4.141.084 , T•c• Y 0.84840100 1.009 Y 1C•Ot•wA.0 • awl. Y. • T0VCM W s.•tC•t• 1090.4 4•tCAT OAN •L.T(• .Ar164 J anis,* *4101 wt'••t 3AN.t. •.•*401'3 J4410 0. 40U•C CAVI] T WAN* 0A4WN 414000.•1 CAROL'. Ot00*10 J C111.Ir14 i 4.414* 1T0WMT .btt•M.• •AT•.C[ 9 84030-0 RiC•IA10 • .OwtL. A. ►00.1[14 Y.N01 0..111.4 1 VARQUEO 46084 ANN [4.8400.1. 041.640840 406140 1 * 0084116 PNAN0 *3 t•TTUL• 4'44.1 1-40.484 NAVIN 4. PST J0((PM w r0.•ATM OAV1O .a CAA/ISA/al .11 Or sou*u. Honorable Mayor Sheldon and Members of the City Council CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: Conditional Use Permit for Danis Liquor Dear Mayor Sheldon and Members of the City Council: The law firm of Rutan & Tucker represents Ronald R. Duffaut, owner of the property located at 3232 Manhattan Avenue in the City of Hermosa Beach. I am writing to you with regard to your consideration of Conditional Use Permit 90-02 for Dan's Liquor, the business that has properly and lawfully operated at that location for at least 20 years. As you are probably aware, Mr. Duffaut believes that he has the vested right to continua using his property without going through a conditional use permit process. His position on this subject was summarized in my March 13, 1991, letter to your Planning Commission, another copy of which is being provided to you this evening. Your City Attorney has taken a contrary position, asserting the City's authority to amortize out existing uses and to impose the CUP process under City Ordinance No. 86-865. At this point, we are hopeful that a resolution of our differences may be at hand. On Thursday, May 9, 1991, Mr. Duffaut and I met with your City Attorney and Planning Director to discuss the conditions staff is recommending be imposed on the CUP. Staff indicated that they would recommend a number of changes be made to those conditions. Based on those changes, staff further indicated that they would recommend to the City Council that the matter be SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION RU TAN $ TUCKER ATTORNCYf AT LAW • ..••....•.• ...CIO.; •4 •WAIN C•..:0.6010'0•. Honorable Mayor Sheldon and Members of the City Council May 14, 1991 Page 2 referred back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. Mr. Duffaut supports that recommendation. Over the next few weeks, we pledge to working with your staff in an effort to narrow any remaining differences. Hopefully, we will reach the point at which Mr. Duffaut will conclude that his property interests are not materially impaired. Given the potential resolution of Mr. Duffaut's concerns and the staff recommendation to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission, we will reserve any further objections to the CUP until all avenues of settlement and accommodation have been exhausted. Thank you for your consideration. very truly yours, RUTAN & TUCKER -711 Jeffrey Me (Merman JMO:jd Enclosure cc: Mr. Ronald R. Duffaut 9/112/014317-0001/004 •4.14,0 I 40.8.10 •••44, • oo•(• 484. ••C 0(•.0 8888• • ...,•M • 04\ e .;•••• • 00.4•• .(084•00 4 0.0.1. 4408 ••-••.•r• .• •.0+.1. • .801.8 •.\►0.3 • 34.. 10 ••(03001• .•CI .0• • 081•.6• .00.04.04. •,CM.•0 • 1.01 0.011•.88 • 04••,•••• 000(0 C 00010 • 40.4.I• 10.1.0 0 1.011••, 4•.• •.0M.1 0 I. .010. •440.0 C 64gt14• 6►,»000 4. •..t•(• -ICM.t4 • •140,0 100 0. 1140114• 4 r. 1010•1. 0 C•••49.• 1-8. •0\608•, ••OI•• a 1O•(• ••..a . •.(M •t 0886:• • tt•/••. 0,._,80 r ••• C04(0• • rt4 1.0•• • 4.t 4.6.604..•4.•..• ▪ q 4.•1.. (al.0 84,64.4(8• .3.4... ,414,60. Ct80••, • r.. • 3..0084 4018 0 4W1••t4G 0 4 ..16008{ 1.OrAs 0 4.0(4.83':0 •,\.,AM • ••8.1• 100,0,0. ,14,1." •4\.41 •400.1.4 M ••••4.• 1.4411 r 40110 .MIL,. r •1106[ TMOr4. 4. (•401 400N 4. 018.0•11 .., 0400 4 •041110 • as•. 4.001144 RUTAN & TUCKER • •401 ATTORNICv$ AT LAW ,• 14Cu140.1.0 •0O.t1t•014a. C00•O0AT,o04 CEPOliak, SAN• TOwt0. SuiTC ,•00 SI •NTQN 00VLEVAA0 (OStA MCSA, CAU,ORN)A 02•:• DIRECT •6. M418 TO I• 0 0100 ,000 COOT• MESA. CALIr0R04I. OE020-1050 ?Et(OMONt 17141 Oa1.5.00 (21]1 0E0•7500 TELECOP1tt1 I71.1 440'0035 4. •. 0.T8•1 ,.100..•,1, 44.40 4. •C4t1I, 00 1011• •10, 411810.0 • 0401. 1.. ,.0:0"004, M 00.0.4 ,•1111"5/11 March 13, 1991 VIA FACSIMILE (4,11111•• 8 008.0 • .06.4.14 • 84.1 • 0.0.040.1• • +4.01.•..1 •(1.f OM •(0•• 4 •,4.10•( • ,•C• . (001 O .6.4.7 4 .0.4'C000 4.4.. •M.-0 48804 8001 f•Nt• 1...0 44.00 • 1.141••• tarts. • •44•'( •'.• t •4 8.• • 41r. 40.0.14. 114•4.44. \(( • 11,0.4111 4,0 O. •.041•600 ..01 0••,30 0.618 .40$ 8440 B4OTIN 0.1,.10 0 40111 011••(4. • 1441 84.01 •. 00 11 4/(OTN(•M(0 r,CNAt. 0 *wall(' •G01•• 0. 0010 ADAM M. 8884[•• 4101.1• . 00401.01 •• ►•O•q•a0.. 10..ea(1,44. ta••••• •M.'t 1.1•.[14 0. •••O • 4(14•• ••aI,8 LA.•( M • 4.01C. 4 04811(••, 8 11.I 04.411000 1,861 • 14.00104 t(••• • ti••t.••_. •8•00 r 0111141t0 1,1.1(14 • 1••(C•(. la•AM • 1141(8• 040 •e•,1• •40184 4. -• 440(0 4 01.40 OAMI[8 . ,44 44114(1 • 00,14( •A4010 • 04.0 04101401•040.40•• 6.001 • •t 440114 4400,1(1 ♦..0100. •tt•A.1 1.11.4• 14.0,0. 0. r4C44L• 1.4.400 0. 000[.4 4. 0•[01111 014004 OAr,i 4. 11411•0.4D,. 1. •I 40840414 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: Conditional Use Permit 90-02 ("Dan's Liquor") Dear Ms. Ketz and Members of the Planning Commission: The law firm of Rutan & Tucker has been retained by Ronald R. Duffaut, owner of the property located at 3232 Manhattan Avenue in the City of Hermosa Beach. A business known as "Dan's Liquor" has properly and lawfully operated at that location for a number of years. I am informed that considering a Conditional Liquor at your March 19, Duffaut, I respectfully continued for a minimum of investigate the facts and not retained until March until March 19th. I also Council meeting in another the Planning Commission will be Use Permit (CUP 90-02) for Dan's 1991 meeting. On behalf of Mr. request that this hearing be two weeks so that I can adequately law relating to the matter. I was 13, 1991, and will be out of town have a previous commitment (a City city) on the evening of the 19th. If for any reason the Planning Commission elects to proceed on March 19th, I would like to express Mr. Duffaut's opposition to the jurisdiction of the City of Hermosa Beach to require a Conditional Use Permit and opposition to the conditions which your staff has recommended be incorporated RUTAN & TUCKER ATTOAN[v$ AT LAW • ••4'•1•1••• rc. a ••. ••.•... Cvk, CN•C.✓d+f Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Hermosa Beach March 13, 1991 Page 2 into the CUP. A non-exclusive list of reasons for Mr. Duffaut's opposition is set forth below: 1. City Ordinance No. 86-865 which requires a CUP for continued alcohol sales by businesses engaged in that activity prior to the date the ordinance was adopted is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to Dan's Liquor, in that the business is entitled to continue operation without a CUP under California Business and Professions Code Section 23790 and Article XX, Section 22 of the California Constitution. See Mussalli v. City of Glendale (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 524. 2. The uncompensated premises, in rights under 5491. CUP purports to require the removal of the existing sign on the violation of the property owner's Business and Professions Code Section 3. The CUP claims that the property owner is seeking to sell X-rated videos. According to the information provided to me by Mr. Duffaut, this is tactually untrue. 4. Even assuming for the sake of argument that th.CUP requirement were valid, there is no nexus or reasonable relationship between the governmental interest purportedly giving the City the right to require a CUP (alcohol and video sales) and the conditions that the City seeks to unilaterally impose (revised parking layout, trash enclosure, landscaping improvements, signage, facade improvements, etc.). See, e.g., Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 483 U.S. 825 835-837; Rohn v. City of Visalia (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1463; and Libort v. California Coastal Commission (1980) 113 Cal.App. 3d 491, 503. 5. The amortization period in Ordinance No. 86-865 is unreasonably short and provides insufficient time for property owners with existing { RUTAN & TUCKER ATTOANCTS AT LAW • ••••••N• • ..e...••• ••O•BH.•.• co•M•••'O•$ Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Hermosa Beach March 13, 1991 Page 3 vested rights to recover the reasonable value of their lawfully existing uses. See, e.g., City of La Mesa v. Tweed & Gambrell Kill (1956) 146 Cal.App.2d 762, 771 (S -year amortization period for planing mill held unreasonably short where investment had remaining 21 years of economic life and use was appropriate for the area). 6. The City is misusing Ordinance No. 86-865 to require the property owner to make substantial improvements to the premises as a condition to continuation of a lawful use, even though the existing improvements are in compliance with all applicable codes. Mr. Duffaut's property was developed and has been maintained in accordance with all applicable state and local laws and requirements. The property has been properly maintained and does not constitute a public nuisance. Even your staff report indicates that the use is appropriate for the area and that the property does not have any history of police problems. We can find absolutely no justification for the City interfering with the property owner's vested rights through the device of the CUP process. Using the same logic that is apparently being applied to Mr. Duffaut's property, there would be nothing to prevent the City from ordering any property owner -- whether business or residential -- to make any improvements or alterations the City might deem appropriate as a condition to the owner's right to continue use and occupancy of the property. If the City of Hermosa Beach wants to interfere with lawful and vested ownership rights, it is required to pay just compensation. Once again, the legal points raised in this letter are not intended to be comprehensive. On behalf of Mr. Duffaut, I request that the hearing be continued for at least two weeks so that I can properly prepare and present any additional evidence and argument that may support his position. RUTAN 6 TUCKER ATTQ4NCYS AT LAW . y.•a••• . ,WC -.+0 K .•O.1.40►11. :011.14• :w1 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Hermosa Beach March 13, 1991 Page 4 Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, RUTAN & TUCKER Jeffrey M. Oderman JMO: kb cc: Charles S. Vose, City Attorney Mr. Ronald R. Duffaut 7/112/99999-0084/005 e; --->‹,t April 16, 1991 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission April 23, 1991 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP 90-02 LOCATION: 3232 MANHATTAN AVENUE APPELLANT RONALD R. DUFFAUT 3772 KATELLA AVENUE, SUITE 107 LOS ALAMITOS, CA 90720 PURPOSE: TO APPEAL THE CONDITIONS OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT GRANTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR OFF SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL IN CONJUNCTION WITH A MINI -MARKET AT AN EXISTING ESTABLISHMENT ALREADY LICENSED BY A.B.C.. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council sustain the decision of the Planning Commission by adoption of the attached resolution. Background The Planning Commission, at their meeting of March 19, 1991, approved a conditional use permit at the subject location subject to the conditions as recommended by staff, except that all references to adult videos was deleted at the request of the applicant who stated that selling or renting adult videos was no longer desired. For further background please refer to the attached staff report and Planning Commission minutes. Analysis Since this establishment is an existing business with no major history of police problems, according to the Police Department, staff believes the sale of alcohol in conjunction with a mini -market should be allowed to continue subject to conditions imposed by the Planning Commission, which include standard conditions of the zoning ordinance, and conditions relating to parking, the trash dumpster, signs, and landscaping. Also, the conditions include a provision to require that single containers be sold in clear bags and to require the establishment to participate in the about to be implemented EASY (End Alcohol Sales to Youth) program, as requested by the Police Department. 1 5 For further analysis please refer to th- attached staff reports. CONCUR: FITZTgifiSchu:ach Planning Director evin B. Nort craft City Manager L %•AA- .- Ken Ro•ertson Associate Planner Attachments 1. Proposed Resolution 2. P.C. Resolution 91-13 3. P.C. Staff Report 4. P.C. Minutes 3/19/91, 2/19/91 5. Site Map/Site Plan 6. Photographs 7. Correspondence from applicant and City Attorney 8. Public Notice Affidavit p/pcsr3232 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 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUSTAINING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OFF -SALE GENERAL LIQUOR, IN CONJUNCTION WITH A DELI & MINI -MARKET, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 3232 MANHATTAN AVENUE, "DAN'S LIQUOR", LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT TWO, AND LOT FOUR, SHAkESPEARE TRACT. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on April 23, 1991, to receive oral and written testimony regarding an appeal of the Planning Commission decision to grant a Conditional Use Permit request to authorize the sale of general alcohol subject to conditions of approval and made the following findings: A. The sale of general alcoholic beverages is being conducted in an existing establishment already licensed by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; B. The existing use is compatible with surrounding uses; C. Strict compliance with the conditions of approval will mitigate any negative impact resulting from the issuance of the conditional use permit; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California does hereby sustain the Planning Commission decision to approve a Conditional Use Permit, to authorize the off -sale of general alcohol, at 3232 Manhattan Avenue, subject to the conditions as contained in Planning Commission Resolution 91-13. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 23rd day of Apri1,1991, by: PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY -3- p/pers3232 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. 91-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OFF -SALE GENERAL LIQUOR, IN CONJUNCTION WITH A DELI & MINI -MARKET, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 3232 MANHATTAN AVENUE, "DAN'S LIQUOR", LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT TWO, AND LOT FOUR, SHAkESPEARE TRACT. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on February 19 and March 19, 1991, to receive oral and written testimony regarding a Conditional Use Permit request to authorize the sale of general alcohol and made the following findings: A. The sale of general alcoholic beverages is being conducted in an existing establishment already licensed by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control as well as a mini -market & deli; B. The existing use is compatible with surrounding uses; C. Strict compliance with the conditions of approval will mitigate any negative impact resulting from the issuance of the conditional use permit; NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit, to authorize the sale of general alcohol, at 3232 Manhattan Avenue, subject to the following conditions: 1. The establishment shall not adversely affect the welfare of residents, and/or commercial establishments nearby. 2. The business shall provide adequate management and supervisory techniques to prevent loitering, unruliness, and boisterous activities of the patrons outside the business or in the immediate area. 3. Signs shall be posted conspicuously and prominently at all exits and all check-out stands warning patrons who purchase any and all types of alcoholic beverages that "possession and/or consumption of alcoholic beverages in any public sidewalk, parking lot, beach, and/or any public place is prohibited by law and subject to citation and fine. The City of Hermosa Beach vigorously enforces its liquor laws" Said signs shall be at least 12" X 14", shall be printed in a large type, permanently maintained, and shall be posted in visible locations. - - 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 4. The existing signs are faded and paint is peeling off the signs as well as areas of obvious rust. The roof sign shall be removed and any other sign, not in compliance with the sign ordinance shall be removed, and all other signs shall be maintained in good condition without damage of any sort. 5. The front portion of the business which faces west onto Manhattan Avenue, is boarded up with faded and badly stained wood. The owner shall repaint or varnish this area to make it more acceptable. 6. All signs shall comply with the City Sign Ordinance. 7. An employee who is aware of the conditions of this conditional use permit shall be on the premises during business hours. a. All employees shall be given a copy of the conditional use permit and shall acknowledge by signature that the conditional use permit has been read and understood. 8. There shall be no sale of sexually explicit "X-rated" video tapes, unless a conditional use permit is obtained, as required by the zoning ordinance. 9. A landscape plan, depicting the types and quantity of materials to be used on the site, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director for the purpose of landscaping around the perimeter of the parking area. 10. Any violation of the conditions for approval and/or violation of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code may be grounds for the issuance of a citation or public hearing for revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. 11. Clearly visible signs prohibiting loitering, littering, consumption of alcohol on the premises shall be posted in conspicuous locations. a. Individual containers of beer and wine, 16 -ounces or less in size, shall be packaged in clear bags or containers to make the contents of the container visible. 12. Measures shall be taken to control loitering on the public sidewalk at all times. 13. The exterior of the premises including parking areas shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner at all time. 14. The trash container shall be enclosed by a 5' by 7' masonry enclosure with a view obstructing front gate. The location and design of the enclosure shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. 15. The parking spaces must meet the minimum dimension parking requirements of the zoning ordinance and shall be designed to not result in vehicles overhanging the right of way. A site plan depicting the revised parking layout shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director. The parking stalls shall be striped consistent with the approved site plan. 16. The police chief may determine that a continuing police problem exists and may require the presence of a police approved doorman and/or security personnel paid by the business. 17. The business shall participate in the "EASY" program, soon to be implemented by the police department 18. Any changes to the exterior or interior or floor area design shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director. 19. Prior to the conditional use permit being in effect, the applicant shall submit to the planning department, a signed and notarized "Acceptance of Conditions" form. 20. A conditional use permit shall be recorded with the deed, and proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Planning Department. 21. The Planning Commission may review the conditional use permit and may amend the subject conditions or impose any new conditions if deemed necessary to mitigate detrimental effects on the neighborhood resulting from the subject use. 22. Each of the above conditions is separately enforced, and if any of the conditions of approval is found to be invalid by a court of law, all the other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable. 23. The hours of operation shall be limited to between 7am to 2am daily. VOTE: AYES: Comms.Di Monda,Marks,Peirce,Rue,Chmn.Ketz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 91-13 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their 7:;/��-- regular meeting of March 19, 1991 Christine Ketz, Chairperson Michael Schubach; Secretary /1�t_{) , Date p/pers3232 6 SACK cR avND AI/ITER/4i (CONTINUED FROM 2/19/91 MEETING) January 21, 1991 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 19, 1991 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP 90-02 LOCATION: 3232 MANHATTAN AVENUE APPLICANT: PAUL LUONG "DAN'S LIQUOR" 3232 MANHATTAN AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 REQUEST: FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFF SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL IN CONJUNCTION WITH A MINI -MARKET AND TO ALLOW, X-RATED VIDEO SALES, AT AN EXISTING ESTABLISHMENT ALREADY LICENSED BY A.B.C.. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions contained in the attached resolution. Background PROJECT INFORMATION: Zoning: C-1 General Plan: Neighborhood Commercial Lot Size: 4320 sq. ft. Building Size: 2982 sq. ft. Current Use: Preexisting Liquor store; Mini -mkt; Deli & X-rated video sales Parking Spaces: Seven Dan's Liquor is located on the south east corner of MANHATTAN AVENUE at Thirty Third Street. It is a single story building with diagonal parking south of the building. The business is presently operating from 7am to 2am, daily. Dan's Liquor is one of the remaining existing businesses selling alcoholic beverages subject to the alcohol amortization ordinance which have not obtained a Conditional Use Permit. It should be noted this business began the CUP process in January of 1990 but -7- the store was sold this past summer and the subsequent owner has stated he was not aware of the requirements to complete the CUP process. Thus, there has been a lengthy delay. At their meeting of February 8, 1990, the Staff Environmental Review Committee recommended an Environmental Negative Declaration, and recommended that the Planning Commission require the applicant/owner to submit a sign plan that conforms with the present code, along with a new plan for the layout of parking and for a trash enclosure. The Police Department requested that "DAN'S" participate in the soon to be implemented "EASY" program, and to sell single containers of alcoholic beverages in clear plastic bags so that the contents are easily identifiable. Analysis The requested C.U.P. would authorize the continued general alcohol sales at this location. The proposed use of a liquor store\deli seems in tune with the neighborhood usage while operating there for over twenty years. However, the request to sell X -Rated Videos, does not seem appropriate for a business mired in a residential area. Staff is also concerned about the existing diagonal parking layout which results in cars regularly parking over the public right of way. Further, the trash dumpster should be enclosed with an approved masonry enclosure with a screened gate after approval by the Planning Director as to location on the property. It appears the trash container could be located along the west wall just below the storage area in the south most portion of the parking lot. In regards to appearance, the roof sign stating "Dan's Liquor", is no longer permitted and clearly is in a deteriorated condition. Since this business is a neighborhood business, need for this type of sign is minimal, and only detracts from the area. Also, the boarded up front window area (west side), could use sanding and painting. And, in the parking lot, landscaping could be provided along the west wall of the south portion of the property. Otherwise , since this an existing business with no major history of police problems according to the Records Section, staff believes the sale of alcohol and a delicatessen should be allowed to continue subject to the attached conditions, which include c c standard conditions of the zoning ordinance, and conditions relating to parking, the trash dumpster, signs, and landscaping. Also, the recommended conditions include a provision to require that single containers be sold in clear bags, and also, the Police Department has requested that an additional standard condition be included to require alcohol establishments to participate in the about to be implemented EASY program. Staff believes that possibly Adult R -Rated videos might be acceptable in such a business but that X -Rated is out of the question due to close proximity to homes and children, but because of case law, the city can only regulate such uses when they are a minor part of the business. CONCUR: Michael Schubach Planning Director Attachments 1. Proposed Resolution 2. Staff Review Minutes 2/08/90 3. Site Map 4. Application 5. Photographs 6. Public Notice Affidavit p/pcsr3232 9 'Awi\c\1404, Frank McPherson Code Enforcement Officer CUP 90-2 -- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFF -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL AT AN EXISTING ESTABLISHMENT ALREADY LICENSED BY &ftC. AND FOR ADULT VIDEOS AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 31232 ?MANHATTAN AVENUE. DAN'S LIQUOR (CONTINUED FROM MEE1ING OF FEBRUARY 19. 19911 Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated Jannary 21, 1991, and recommended approval of the requested CUP, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This project is located in the C-1 zone, with a general plan designation of neighborhood commercial. The lot size is 4320 square feet, with a building size of 2982 square feet. The current use is as a preexisting liquor store, mini market, deli, and X-rated video sales. There are seven parking spaces. Dan's Liquor is located on the southeast corner of Manhattan Avenue at 33rd Street. It is a single -story building with diagonal parking south of the building. The business is presently operating from 7:00 AM until 2;00 AM daily. Dan's Liquor is one of the remaining existing businesses selling alcoholic beverages subject to the alcohol amortization ordinance which has not obtained a CUP. It should be noted that this business began the CUP process in January of 1990, but the store was sold in the summer of 1991 and the subsequent owner has stated he was unaware of the requirements to complete the CUP process. There has thus been a lengthy delay. At their meeting of February 8, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended an -environmental negative declaration and recommended that the Planning Commission require the applicant/owner to submit a sign plan that conforms with the present code along with a new plan for the layout of parking and for a trash enclosure. The Police Department requested that Dan's Liquor participate in the soon -to -be -implemented EASY Program and to sell single containers of alcoholic beverages in clear plastic bags so that the contents are easily visible. The requested CUP would authorize the continued general alcohol sales at this location. The proposed use of a liquor store/deli seems in tune with the neighborhood usage while operating there for over 20 years. However, the request to sell X-rated videos does not seem appropriate for a business located in a residential neighborhood. Staff is also concerned with the existing diagonal parking layout which results in cars regularly parking over the public right-of-way. - Further, the trash dumpster should be enclosed with an approved masonry enclosure with a screened gate after approval by the Planning Director as to location on the property. It appears the trash container could be located along the west wall just below the storage area in the southernmost portion of the parking lot. The boarded up front window area on the west side could use sanding and painting. Also, in the parking lot, landscaping would be provided along the west wall of the southern portion of the property. Otherwise, since this is an existing business with no major history of police problems according to the records, staff felt that the sale of alcohol and a deli should be allowed to continue, subject to the proposed conditions, which include standard conditions of the zoning ordinance and conditions relating to parking, the trash dumpster, signs, and landscaping. P.C. Minutes 3/19/91 — (o — C Also, the recommended conditions include a provision to require that single containers be sold in clear bags. The Police Department has also recommended a condition to require this business to participate in the EASY Program. Staff felt that X-rated videos might possibly be acceptable in such a business, but that X-rated is out of the question in this case because of the business' proximity to homes and children. However, because of case law, the City can only regulate such uses when they are a minor part of the business. Mr. Schubach noted, however, that the applicants no longer intend to sell X-rated materials. He stated that all conditions related to X-rated videos can be removed; otherwise, there are conditions in the CUP related to the sale and display of such materials Mr. Schubach noted that the applicant's attorney objected to the CUP requirement; however, if the request is approved, the matter can be appealed to the City Council. Comm. Peirce noted that one of the parking spaces overhangs the public right-of-way. to which Mr. Schubach responded by explaining that there is a condition in place requiring that the parking plan be redesigned. City Attorney Yoshinaga stated that his office had received a call from the office of the applicant's attorney requesting a continuance of this matter because he had a conflict and could not attend tonight's meeting. Mr. Yoshinaga noted, however. that his office has previously addressed the concerns raised by the applicant's attorney, and his office has not changed their opinion. He noted that no new issues have been raised at this time. He stated that, in terms of the amortization ordinance, it is within the purview of the Commission to proceed at this time. Public Hearing opened at 8:07 P.M. by Chmn Ketz. Bryan (no last name given), employee of Dan's Liquor. addressed the Commission and stated that the applicant could not be present this evening and would request that this matter be continued for two weeks. He said that no videos are being displayed at this time; however, he had no idea what future plans are for the videos. Public Hearing closed at 8:09 by Chum. Ketz. Mr. Yoshinaga stated that the other attorney did indicate there was a possibility that the applicant would not be present either. Therefore, it was requested that the matter be continued. He noted, however, that this is a properly noticed hearing. and it is within the purview of the Commission to vote on the matter at this time. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue. to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 91-13. with the following changes: to amend Condition No. 8 to state there shall be no adult videos unless a conditional use permit is requested: delete all other references to adult videos. Comm. Peirce was disappointed that the applicant was not present, and that the applicant didn't even notify anyone that he would not be present. He felt the Commission should therefore proceed. He felt that the proposed conditions are reasonable, and they are conditions which have been imposed on other similar businesses. Mr. Schubach explained that staff has carefully studied this matter; further, the City Attorney has advised that it is legal to proceed. He therefore felt it is appropriate to vote at this time. Comm. Rue noted that this matter had previously been continued. He said that the applicants. by not appearing, have waived the right to comment. He stated that. if so desired, the matter can be appealed to the City Council. - 0- P.C. Minutes 3/19/91 c AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Peirce. seconded by Comm. Rue. to add a condition that landscaping be provided. subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director. It was felt that landscaping would be of benefit to the business as well as to the neighborhood. AYES: Comms. Di Monda, Marks. Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. 4. a) 11orandum Regarding Regulation of "Adult" Uses Mr. Yosh • a stated that the document presented to the Commission summariz's State law on adult uses. He continued by discussing the new case law on this matter. He scussed with the Commiss'. • the permitted uses in certain areas and the percentages ailod which can be regulated. He no - d that this is a new area, and the percentages are at tie discretion of the Commission. Mr. ,Schubach explained . . t the issue of adult uses will be addresse�during discussion of the land,,use element revisions. MOTION by Comm.. Rue. seco • • ed by Chmn Ketz, to study (ult uses prior to the land use element discussions. No objectio • - ; so ordered. b) Memorandum Regarding Enfor ment Policy for ; usinesses Without- Conditional Use Permits Mr. •=„Schubach gave staff report dated ch and recommended that the Planning Commission, by minute order, confirm that o • ating businesses without a conditional use permit may remain open while promptly ob a conditional use permit. Mr. Schubach stated that staff has recentl of a new business which opened before permit. d to dec'• e whether or not not to force the closure t obtaining business license and conditional use Mr. Schubach stated that it wouleem reasonable to allow th operation to continue if the use is less intense than the prior use and it is consistent with •ast conditional use permit approvals. Chinn. Ketz noted cone - that businesses would remain in operation •r long periods of time without obtaining a C She therefore felt it would be appropriate to •• •ose a specific time frame during which b . sinesses must file an application to obtain a CUP. Chinn. Ketz stat that, by minute order, the Commission would recommend a ' ne period of no longer than,30 days during which businesses must file for a conditional use pe • 't. c) Proposed. Memorandum to City Council fromYlanning Commission re. Water ruality and/Conservation Mr.Schubach and the Commissioners discussed the issue of using "gray water." �omm. Rue felt that the City should be kept involved in the water conservation issue. —12-- P.C. Minutes 3/19/91 operation to 9:30 AM to 4:00 PM in the outdoor dining area." He noted that one incident wo sufficient to force the restaurant to go to the shorter hours. Public - earing opened at 7:33 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Gilbert Or.. o, 16826 Denker Avenue, Gardena, representing the applicant,Iary Orozco, addressed the ommission and: (1) stated that with the exception of the strip' , all conditions have been met: ) stated that the applicant has read and agrees with,aIl of the proposed conditions; (3) statethat he is aware that one noise violation shall be c tiise to limit the hours of operation on the pa : o. Public Hearing closed at 7: . P.M. by Cham Ketz. Mr. Schubach, in response to estions from Comm. s, stated that since no square footage is being added to this busin - s, no additional par is being required. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions : om Co ue, stated that noise is monitored both on a complaint basis and on a regular enfo me . • . sis. Comm. Rue questioned whether Condition ' o. (a) is too onerous, noting that an isolated instance of patrons becoming too noisy c be c. se for reducing the hours of operation on the patio. Mr. Schubach stated that the C' is interested in c . .. 'c noise problems, not one-time incidences. He noted the im.. : •ce of enforcement. MOTION by Comm. Rue, econded by Comm. Marks, to appro - staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-99, . written. AYES: omnis. Marks, Rue, Chmn. Ketz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm. Peirce Chmn etz stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by ting to • City Council within ten days. CUP 90-2 -- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFF -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL AT AN EXISTING ESTABLISHMENT ALREADY LICENSED BY THE A.B.C. AND FOR ADULT VIDEOS AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 3232 MANHATTAN AVENUE, DAN'S LIQUOR Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 21, 1991, and recommended approval of the requested CUP, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This project is located in the C-1 zone, with a general plan designation of neighborhood commercial. The lot size is 4320 square feet, with a building size of 2982 square feet. The current use is as a preexisting liquor store, mini market, deli, and X-rated video sales. There are seven parking spaces. Dan's Liquor is located on the southeast corner of Manhattan Avenue at 33rd Street. It is a single -story building with diagonal parking south of the building. The business is presently operating from 7:00 AM until 2:00 AM daily. Dan's Liquor is one of the remaining existing businesses selling alcoholic beverages subject to the alcohol amortization ordinance which has not obtained a CUP. It should be noted that this business began the CUP process in January of 1990, but the store was sold in the summer of P.C. Minutes 2/19/91 -- 13 - • 1991 and the subsequent owner has stated he was unaware of the requirements to complete the CUP process. There has thus been a lengthy delay. At their meeting of February 8, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended an environmental negative declaration and recommended that the Planning Commission require the applicant/ owner to submit a sign plan that conforms with the present code along with a new plan for the layout of parking and for a trash enclosure. The Police Department requested that Dan's Liquor participate in the soon -to -be -implemented EASY Program and to sell single containers of alcoholic beverages in clear plastic bags so that the contents are easily visible. The requested CUP would authorize the continued general alcohol sales at this location. The proposed use of a liquor store / deli seems in tune with the neighborhood usage while operating there for over 20 years. However, the request to sell X-rated videos does not seem appropriate for a business located in a residential neighborhood. Staff is also concerned with the existing diagonal parking layout which results in cars regularly parking over the public right-of-way. Further, the trash dumpster should be enclosed with an approved masonry enclosure with a screened gate after approval by the Planning Director as to location on the property. It appears the trash container could be located along the west wall just below the storage area in the southernmost portion of the parking lot. The boarded up front window area on the west side could use sanding and painting. Also, in the parking lot, landscaping would be provided along the west wall of the southern portion of the property. Otherwise, since this is an existing business with no major history of police problems according to the records, staff felt that the sale of alcohol and a deli should be allowed to continue, subject to the proposed conditions, which include standard conditions of the zoning ordinance and conditions relating to parking, the trash dumpster, signs, and landscaping. Also, the recommended conditions include a provision to require that single containers be sold in clear bags. The Police Department has also recommended a condition to require this business to participate in the EASY Program,. Staff felt that X-rated videos might possibly be acceptable in such a business, but that X-rated is out of the question in this case because of the business' proximity to homes and children. However, because of case law, the City can only regulate such uses when they are a minor part of the business. Public Hearing opened at 7:47 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Ronald Duffaut, property owner, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that he has only recently become aware of the CUP requirement; (2) explained that he received the staff report only last week; (3) explained that he has been unable to contact the business owner to discuss this proposal; (4) asked that this matter be continued in order that he might have an opportunity to study the issues and meet with the business owner; (5) explained that the ownership of this property has recently been changed. Mr. Schubach stated that staff has no objection to a continuance as requested by the property owner. P.C. Minutes 2/19/91 Edie Weber, 1201 1 1th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) asked at what point a minor usage of adult videos becomes a major usage; (2) asked who monitors such usage; (3) questioned the ramifications of such a usage. Mr. Lee responded by explaining that case law does not specify an exact percentage as to what constitutes an adult usage. In some instances, 50 percent has been used to categorize an adult usage. Mr. Schubach explained that a code enforcement officer monitors the usage of X-rated videos, and the City can conduct an audit of the inventory if deemed necessary. Mr. Duffaut stated that he will work with the business owner in an attempt to discontinue the use of X-rated videos. Public Hearing continued at 7:54 P.M. by Chinn. Ketz. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Marks. to continue this hearing to the meeting of March 19, 1991, so that the owner can have time to study the matter. AYES: Comms Marks, Rue, Chmn. Ketz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm. Peirce Comm. Rue commented on the parking and asked whether the parking could be done in a parallel fashion as opposed to diagonal. He noted safety concerns over the current diagonal configuration. UK90- 37 / PARK 90-9/ PDP 90-10 -- CONDITIQNAL USE PERMIT. PARKING PLAN. , D PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR AUTO BODY SHOP AND ADOPTION „OF AN FNVIRONINI`ENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1081-1085-1087 AVIATION BOULEVARD. Mr. Schubach gave . i report dated February 13. 1991, and recommended that the Planning Commission approve a proposed CUP, PDP, and Parking Plan„subject to conditions, including limiting the num. - of sex -vice bays to four by adoption of -e proposed resolution. Staff suggested an alternative r-..mmendation that the request be denied, with the finding that the site is inadequate in size for auto body repair and painting business. The City Council, at their meeting of Octo$at 23, 1991, sustained the decision of the Planning Commission, on appeal, to deny a similar requ ecause of concerns that the proposed size of the building was not adequate for storage off,wre lied vehicles, plus work areas and storage of parts. and thereby the exterior parking,16t would inevitably become the area for storage of wrecked vehicles and be an eyesore Although Cou cit denied the request. it directed the applicant to further discuss alte • • • ves with staff to addre their concerns. The applicant has resubmi much larger building than the previous p four. This app and parts stor fender shop the request with a modificationin the plans to construct a proposed interior service area is approximately 57 percent larger al and contains nine service bays rather than the, previously proposed o indicate that the intent is not to satisfy the issues of inadequate vehicle e and outdoor work activities, but instead to build an oversized body and licant has met with staff to discuss the alternative to enlarge the building. Althqugh believes that an even larger building would be possible and that a larger site would be -/5' P.C. Minutes 2/19/91 SHAKESPEARE _ S 2_ C(LA \i(734 / 3 a52 iviner0A) ,u9atii M4 Al hilif4d Ao 1)1_ Ni,111.,i4,2 " PAY TO THE ORDER OF i4/ L'i RONALD R. DUFFAUT 3772 Katella Avenue, Suite 107 Los Alamitos, California 90720 City Clerk Honorable Mayor and City Council CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Gentlemen: Mardi 26, 1991 Re: Appeal 'Y 1991 I wish to appeal to the City Council from the Planning Commission, March 19, 1991, action approving CUP 90-2 with conditions on Dan's Liquor, 3232 Manhattan Avenue, legally described as Lots 2 and 4, Block 118, Shakespeare Tract. Enclosed is a check for the required fees of $463.50. Please notify me of a hearing date that I may make the necessary arrangements. cc: Jeff Oderman RONALD R. DUFFAUT & CO. CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT 3772 KATELLA AVE., STE. 107 598-1371 LOS ALAMITOS, CA 90720 '-= 1«JME HANK LOS ALAMITOS OFFICE 10942 PINE AVENUE LOS ALAMITOS, CA 90720 � ,// fO! 7J/r /e 11'00 566611' I: 2 2 2 21313 1 21:060 20 5 74 7 311' Yours very truly, r C Ronald R. Duffaut-, owner (213) 598-1371 5666 90-2881/1222 $ -jp DOLLARS GARVIN F. SHALLEN BERGER• STAN WOCCOTT• JAMES R MOORE• _ ROBERT 5. BOWER PAUL FREDERIC MAR%• DAVID J. ALESHIRE WILLIAM R. BIEL MARCIA A. FORSYTH RICHARD A. CURN UTT WILLIAM M TICORENA LEONARD A MPEL JAMES L. MORRIS JOHN EL HURLBUT, JR. ANNE NELSON LANPHAR MICHAEL W MELL WILLIAm J. CAPLAN MILFORD W. DAHL. JR. MICHAEL T HORNAK THEODORE I WALLACE. JR.• JANICE L. CELOTTI R. PATRICK A RINGTON• PHILIP D. KOHN RICHARD P. SIMS JOEL D. KUPERBERG MARSHALL 5. PEARLMAN• STEVEN A. NICHOLS ROBERT C. BRAUN THOMAS G. BROCKINGTON ROGER A. GRABLE• WILLIAM W WYNDER EDWARD D. SYBESMA. JR.• EVRIDIKI WICK!) DALLAS THOMAS 5. SALINGER• RANDALL M. BABBUSH ROBERT W. ALBERTS DAVID C. LARSEN• CLIFFORD E. FRIEDEN MICHAEL D. RUBIN IRA G. RIVIN• JEFFREY M. ODERMAN• JOSEPH D. CARRUTH MARY M. GREEN PHILIP M. PRINCE THOMAS J. CRANE JOHN L. FELLOWS III MARK 8. FRAZIER KARIN T. KROGIUS RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS CENTRAL BANK TOWER, SUITE 1400 611 ANTON BOULEVARD COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 DIRECT ALL MAIL TO: P. 0. BOX 1950 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92628-1950 TELEPHONE (714) 641-5100 (213) 625-7586 TELECOPIER (714) 546-9035 A. W. RUTAN 118 8 0-19 721 JAMES B. TUCKER, 5R. 118 8 8-19 501 MILFORD W. DAHL. SR. 11919-19 881 H. RODGER HOWELL 11925-19831 March 13, 1991 VIA FACSIMILE Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ELIZABETH L HANNA DAVID H. HOCHNER DUKE F WAHLOUIST M. KATHERINE JENSON SCOTT R. PINZONE DIRCK J. ED E RICHARD G. MONTEVIDEO MARK SMITH FLYNN LORI SARNER 55ITH JAMES P. FINERTY ERNEST W. KLAT TE, III GUY E. M KATHY FORBATH ESFAHANI LEE M. STRAUS M D. THOMP50N JAYNE TAYLOR KACER HANS VAN LIGTEN MATTHEW K ROS 5 STEPHEN A. ELLIS LARRY H. GOLDBRUM JEFFREY WERTHEIMER MICHAEL 0. TURNER ROBERT 0. OWEN ADAM N. T 5. GOLDFARB A. GOLDFARB •4 PPDFESSIONAL CORPORATION SANFORD SHATZ STEPHEN 8. OTTO F. KEVIN BRAZIL LAYNE M. MELZER PATRICK K. RAFFERTY L. SKI HARRISON STACY 5. BLUMBERG SCOTT M. 5CH0 ENWALD DAVID M. REAVES STEVEN W. SPRECHER SARAH J. KNECHT DAN SLATER PAMELA J. ROBERTS JAMES 5. WEISZ DANIEL L. BRANSTINE JAMES R ROUSE DAVID T. WARD DARWIN K NGHORN CAROL L. DEMMLER JENNIFER L. KURZON STEWART PRESSMAN PATRICK D. MCCALLA RICHARD K HOWELL A. PATRICK MUNOZ DAVID J. GARIBALDI, 111 OF COuNSEL. Re: Conditional Use Permit 90-02 ("Dan's Liquor") Dear Ms. Ketz and Members of the Planning Commission: The law firm of Rutan & Tucker has been retained by Ronald R. Duffaut, owner of the property located at 3232 Manhattan Avenue in the City of Hermosa Beach. A business known as "Dan's Liquor" has properly and lawfully operated at that location for a number of years. I am informed that the Planning Commission will be considering a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 90-02) for Dan's Liquor at your March 19, 1991 meeting. On behalf of Mr. Duffaut, I respectfully request that this hearing be continued for a minimum of two weeks so that I can adequately investigate the facts and law relating to the matter. I was not retained until March 13, 1991, and will be out of town until March 19th. I also have a previous commitment (a City Council meeting in another city) on the evening of the 19th. If for any reason the Planning Commission elects to proceed on March 19th, I would like to express Mr. Duffaut's opposition to the jurisdiction of the City of Hermosa Beach to require a Conditional Use Permit and opposition to the conditions which your staff has recommended be incorporated 0 RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Hermosa Beach March 13, 1991 Page 2 into the CUP. A non-exclusive list of reasons for Mr. Duffaut's opposition is set forth below: 1. City Ordinance No. 86-865 which requires a CUP for continued alcohol sales by businesses engaged in that activity prior to the date the ordinance was adopted is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to Dan's Liquor, in that the business is entitled to continue operation without a CUP under California Business and Professions Code Section 23790 and Article XX, Section 22 of the California Constitution. See Mussalli v. City of Glendale (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 524. 2. The CUP purports to require the uncompensated removal of the existing sign on the premises, in violation of the property owner's rights under Business and Professions Code Section 5491. 3. The CUP claims that the property owner is seeking to sell X-rated videos. According to the information provided to me by Mr. Duffaut, this is factually untrue. 4. Even assuming for the sake of argument that theCUP requirement were valid, there is no nexus or reasonable relationship between the governmental interest purportedly giving the City the right to require a CUP (alcohol and video sales) and the conditions that the City seeks to unilaterally impose (revised parking layout, trash enclosure, landscaping improvements, signage, facade improvements, etc.). See, e.g., Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 483 U.S. 825, 835-837; Rohn v. City of Visalia (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1463; and Liberty v. California Coastal Commission (1980) 113 Cal.App. 3d 491, 503. 5. The amortization period in Ordinance No. 86-865 is unreasonably short and provides insufficient time for property owners with existing RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Hermosa Beach March 13, 1991 Page 3 vested rights to recover the reasonable value of their lawfully existing uses. See, e.g., City of La Mesa v. Tweed & Gambrell Mill (1956) 146 Cal.App.2d 762, 771 (5 -year amortization period for planing mill held unreasonably short where investment had remaining 21 years of economic life and use was appropriate for the area). 6. The City is misusing Ordinance No. 86-865 to require the property owner to make substantial improvements to the premises as a condition to continuation of a lawful use, even though the existing improvements are in compliance with all applicable codes. Mr. Duffaut's property was developed and has been maintained in accordance with all applicable state and local laws and requirements. The property has been properly maintained and does not constitute a public nuisance. Even your staff report indicates that the use is appropriate for the area and that the property does not have any history of police problems. We can find absolutely no justification for the City interfering with the property owner's vested rights through the device of the CUP process. Using the same logic that is apparently being applied to Mr. Duffaut's property, there would be nothing to prevent the City from ordering any property owner -- whether business or residential -- to make any improvements or alterations the City might deem appropriate as a condition to the owner's right to continue use and occupancy of the property. If the City of Hermosa Beach wants to interfere with lawful and vested ownership rights, it is required to pay just compensation. Once again, the legal points raised in this letter are not intended to be comprehensive. On behalf of Mr. Duffaut, I request that the hearing be continued for at least two weeks so that I can properly prepare and present any additional evidence and argument that may support his position. RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Hermosa Beach March 13, 1991 Page 4 Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, RUTAN & TUCKER Jeffrey M. Oderman JMO:kb cc: Charles S. Vose, City Attorney Mr. Ronald R. Duffaut 7/112/99999-0084/005 THOMAS W. STOEVER WILLIAM B. BARR CHARLES S. 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 March 13, 1991 Paul Luong Dan's Liquor 3232 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California 90254 MAR 1. 8 1991 TELECOPIER (213) 4B2-5336 Re: Conditional Use Permit - Liquor Sales in Hermosa Beach Dear Mr. Luong: I have received your letter of March 7, 1991 and wish to clarify that no one in the City is suggesting that you retain an attorney to sue the City of Hermosa Beach. Rather, you have continually questioned the legal authority upon which the City can require Dan's Liquor to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. Both the Planning Staff, enforcement officials and this office have stated that there is ample legal authority upon which the City can require this Conditional Use Permit application. You apparently disagree with the City's position. If you seriously question the legal authority upon which the City of Hermosa Beach is requiring a Conditional Use Permit application, you should obtain independent legal advise. The Hermosa Beach City Code and state law are clear on this issue. The business activity known as Dan's Liquor is required to apply for a Conditional Use Permit and reasonable conditions may be imposed upon the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission or the City Council. Your particular business is not unique, numerous businesses which engage in the sale of alcoholic beverages have also been required to apply for a new Conditional Use Permit. I am not aware of any circumstances which place your business in the position of not complying with the Hermosa Beach City Code. This office will advise the Planning Commission and the City Council to proceed with the Conditional Use Permit hearing and process as set forth by Code. Very truly yours, Charles S. Vose of OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR CSV:ilf cc: Kevin Northcraft, City Manager Michael Schubach, Planning Director & VOSE SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PAUL LUONG DAN'S LIQUOR 3232 MANHATTAN AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 March 7, 1991 Mr. Charles S. Vose, City Attorney City of Hermosa Beach c/o Oliver, Stoever, Barr & Vose 1000 Sunset Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Mr. Vose: RECEIVEi; MAR 1 1991 CITY MGR. 0710E MAR 2t3`991 I am in receipt of your March 4, 1991 letter. I must state that I am quite disturbed by the tone of the letter and your lack of response to my legitimate questions. I strongly disagree with your statement that "this office and the Planning Staff have attempted to respond to your numerous questions". All that both of you have done is state that I have to obtain a Conditional Use Permit because it is required by the municipal code. 'That statement does not address any of my questions in my four letters to you. Please reread the questions in the letters and you will see that this is the case. I must assume that what you are implying in your March 4th letter is that, if I don't like the information (or lack of information) 1 am getting from you and the City staff, I should get an attorney and sue the City, as it is not your responsibility to answer any of my questions. This is extremely disconcerting. As I told you in my previous letters, I am a small businessperson who, with my family, recently purchased the Dan's Liquor business. We all work at the business to make it successful and we do not have a lot of money to get a lawyer, and honestly don't believe we should have to obtain legal counsel. When we bought the business, we had no knowledge of what the CUP was all about, nor was it disclosed to us by anyone that there was such a requirement. I still don't understand the issues and I certainly don't have the money to sue the City, nor do I wish to do that. I don't think it is to anyone's benefit to have to file a legal action against the City. That would cost the City a substantial amount of money to defend the suit, as well as costing my family money that we cannot afford to spend. If I could get answers to my questions from you, it might well avoid such a lawsuit, and would certainly make it easier for me and my family to deal with this problem. Page 2 Mr. Charles S. Vose Hermosa Beach CUP March 7, 1991 I also disagree with your representation that you work for "the City" and, therefore, have no responsibility to me. We pay taxes to the City through the operation of our business, and I think that should entitle us to a reasonable level of service from the local government which we support with our business. That service should include a reasonable level of response from your office. You may work for "the City", but "the City" works for the residents and businesses that make up "the City". We elect the City Council that hires you, and in turn, we should be able to get legal answers from you about issues that impact our ability to do business in the City. You apparently misunderstood my statement that you quoted in your March 4th letter. I am not asking you for legal advice. It is my responsibility to determine our own course of action, with or without legal counsel. What I was asking of you was to provide me with the legal reasons for the City's actions. I addressed specific questions to you which I believe are legitimate and which deserve a response from the City Attorney. They are not "concerns or disputes with respect to the proceedings being followed by the City", as you stated. With or without counsel, we do not intend to accept the CUP until we have answers to my questions. I will again ask that you answer my questions prior to any action being taken on the CUP: 1. The business at 3232 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, was in operation before there were any CUP requirements in the Municipal Code. How can the City force a business, through only a two year amortization period (of which we have never been legally notified of), to comply with a CUP requirement, when the business has legally operated in the zone in which it is located prior to a CUP requirement even being in the Code? 2. We have a legal ABC license to sell alcoholic beverages. It is my understanding that Dan's Liquor has had a legal ABC license to sell alcoholic beverages at this location since before there were any local requirements relating to alcohol, certainly before there were CUP requirements in the City. How can the City force the business, through only a two year amortization period, to comply with a CUP requirement, and force modification of the legal ABC license with additional conditions, when the business has had a legal ABC license prior to any local government zoning requirements relating to the sale of alcohol? 3. Since we have never been legally notified under Ordinance 86-865, are we legally obligated to file for the CUP at this time? Page 3 Mr. Charles S. Vose Hermosa Beach CUP March 7, 1991 4. If the City denies the CUP, and thus puts us out of business, are we entitled to compensation for the loss of our business? 5. Can Mr. McPherson require us to comply with staff conditions recommended on the CUP prior to a public hearing, as he has told me? Can he require us to remove from sale such magazines as Playboy, or the videos, as he has told me? What is his legal authority relating to these requirements he has placed on us prior to the CUP hearing? I am sending a copy of this letter, my previous letters over the past three months, and your March 4th letter to the City Council and Planning Commission. I would appreciate your written response prior to the next Planning Commission meeting. Otherwise, at the March 19, 1991 Planning Commission meeting, I intend to ask the Planning Commission to continue the CUP hearing until such time that my questions are addressed. cc: Hermosa Beach City Council & Planning Commission 2? t THOMAS W. STOEVER WILLIAM B. BARR CHARLES S. 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 March 4, 1991 Paul Luong Dan's Liquor 3232 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California 90254 MAR 1 1 1991 RECEI VEiJ MAR 0 6 19y1 CITY MGR. OFFICE Re: Required Conditional Use Permit Application Dear Mr. Luong: TELECOPIER (213) 482-5336 Following my January 28, 1991 correspondence to you, you transmitted another letter to me inquiring as to the parameters under which the City of Hermosa Beach may require you to proceed with a Conditional Use Permit. At the end of your letter, you stated that you "would like to obtain answers to these questions so that (you) can make a logical determination about what to do." Both this office and the Planning Staff have attempted to respond to your numerous questions. Many of these questions raised legal issues which can only be answered, to your satisfaction, by legal counsel. Neither I, nor the City, can advise you "what to do." At this point, should you have further questions concerning the Conditional Use Permit process, you should retain legal counsel to advise you as to appropriate action. It is my role as the City Attorney to advise the City as to proper proceedings to follow. Should you have concerns or disputes with respect to the proceedings being followed by the City, you should retain legal counsel to advise you of your rights. Should you have further questions after consulting with an attorney, please have your attorney contact me. Very truly yours, Charles S. Vose of OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & VOSE CSV: ilf cc: Kevin Northcraft, City Manager 1536 THOMAS W. STOEVER WILLIAM B. BARR CHARLES S. 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 January 28, 1991 Mr. Paul Luong Dan's Liquor 3232 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (213) 482-5336 JAN 30 1991 Re: Conditional Use Permit - Liquor Store Activity Dear Mr. Luong: Apparently, on two prior occasions you have transmitted letters to me requesting a response regarding a pending Conditional Use Permit on the above referenced business. It has been my understanding that the Hermosa Beach City staff has been working with you and that a hearing on your Conditional Use Permit application would be set before the Planning Commission sometime in February. In your past inquiries, you have requested information concerning the authority under which a Conditional Use Permit is required. You or your representative should review Section 13-5 of the Zoning Appendix for the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. In addition, you should also review Section 10-7, Section 10-8 and Sections 1403, et seq. of the same Hermosa Beach Zoning Code. The above cited Sections provide the authority under which the City of Hermosa Beach may require a Conditional Use Permit for the existing liquor store activity. For your information, Boccato's Groceries has applied for a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to the same Municipal Code sections. Pursuant to state law, the City has a right to impose such conditions that are reasonably related to the specific business activity. In addition to discussing this matter with the City staff, you will have an opportunity to present your views to the Planning Commission at the upcoming public hearing. C OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & VOSE Paul Luong January 28, 1991 Page 2. I hope that the information set forth above is sufficient to answer the questions that you have raised. Should you require additional information, please contact the Planning Department for the City of Hermosa Beach. Very truly yours, Charles S. Vose City Attorney of OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & VOSE CSVilf cc: ,Kevin Northcraft, City Manager Michael Schubach, Planning Director 603 PAUL LUONG DAN'S LIQUOR 3232 MANHATTAN AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 January 15, 1991 Mr. Charles S. Vose, City Attorney City of Hermosa Beach c/o Oliver, Stoever, Barr & Vose 1000 Sunset Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Mr. Vose: I have written you letters on December. 3, 1990 and December 21, 1990 asking for a response regarding the pending CUP on the business I recently purchased at the above address and other zoning issues. To date, I have heard nothing. My case goes before the Planning Commission next month. Unless I receive a response from your office prior to that hearing, it is my intention to ask that the case be continued until such time that I receive a written explanation. I think that is only fair considering the circumstances surrounding this issue, and the fact that I do not understand how or why this is all being required of me. I am enclosing copies of the other letters. I would appreciate your response to both of my letters as soon as possible. Thank you very much for your consideration. Yo r % truly, aul L ng Enclosures cc: Hermosa Beach City Council PAUL LUONG DAN'S LIQUOR 3232 MANHATTAN AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 December 21, 1990 Mr. Charles S. Vose, City Attorney City of Hermosa Beach c/o Oliver, Stoever, Barr. & Vose 1000 Sunset Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Mr. Vose: As you may be aware, Code Enforcement Officer Frank McPherson has required that I proceed with the CUP process or face immediate citation. He did this immediately after receiving the letter I sent to you on December 3, 1990, even 'though I asked for additional time to determine my alternatives. He also put additional restrictions on what I can or cannot sell including what he described as "X" and "R" rated magazines. Can he stop me from selling these magazines? I would again request an explanation from you regarding Mr. McPherson's authority, as discussed in my December 3rd letter, and now also including the h• magazine issue. I would appreciate your response as soon as possible so that I can determine what I should do. Thank you very much. December 3, 1990 i PAUL LUONG I DAN'S LIQUOR 132 MANHATTAN AVENUE naitMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 Mr. Charles S. Vose, City Attorney City of Hermosa Beach c/o Oliver, Stoever, Barr & Vose 1000 Sunset Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Mr. Vose: Hermosa Beach Code Enforcement Officer Frank McPherson appeared in my store last week with a letter written to the previous owner of Dan's Liquor dated February 13, 1990. IIe said this letter obligated me to make certain improvements and to obtain a Conditional Use Permit. He also told me I had to remove some adult videos that we rent and sell. I told him that I did not understand what thi.s was all about since I had just recently purchased the business. I then had Phil Freeland, who I have asked to help me, discuss the matter with Mr. McPherson. IIe did that today and has told me that I should write a letter to you asking mor clarification of the issues before I take any further. actions. Would you please tell me under what authority Mr. McPherson is requiring me to obtain a Conditional Use Permit. Dan's Liquor has been a business here for many years and has a legal ABC license to sell alcoholic beverages under State law. I have also seen a :letter from you to Boccato's Groceries which withheld the requirement of the CUP for that business, presumably because that business has also been in operation legally for many years. Would you please tell me under what authority Mr. McPherson is requiring me to immediately meet the conditions described in the February 13, 1990 letter. The letter only appears to describe certain conditions that the staff would recommend should there be a public hearing for a Conditional Use Permit before the Planning Commission. Would you please tell me under what authority Mr. McPherson in requiring me to remove the adult videos. He said they were not permitted for sale anywhere in -33- i Page 2 Mr. Charles Vose December 3, 1990 the City. Are they banned in all zones in the City as he stated, and, if so, why does Wherehouse Entertainment and other businesses like the Tender Box have adult videos for sale and rental in Hermosa Beach? I would appreciate it if you would answer my questions in writing as soon as possible so that I can determine the appropriate actions I should take. I would also ask that you direct Mr. McPherson to withhold any action against me until these issues are clarified and I have had an opportunity to appropriately respond. Thank you very much for your consideration. cc: Frank McPherson 3 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH I, the undersigned, do dec) are under penalty of perjury that I did on the //1��, day of ,P (_ , 199/ , deposit into the United States Post Office, first class postage prepaid, a copy of the Public Notice attached as Exhibit "A" to each and every person attached as Exhibit "B". I warrant that the persons named on Exhibit_"B" are all the persons required by applicable law to receive the Public Notice attached as Exhibit "A". I understand and agree that it is my responsibility to cause these Public Notices to be made in an aaccurate and timely fashion and agree to hold the City harmless against any liability whatsoever for any defect of said notice or notices. In the event an action is instituted in a court of competent jurisdiction which questions the legality of the Public Notices, then the City may in its exclusive discretion suspend all hearings or cause the cessation of any consturction or of any use which was permitted as a result of a hearing which was held on accordance with the Public Notice. In the event that the court declares the notice or noticing procedure to be effective, then the City may in its exclusive discretion revoke any permits granted and cause any approvals given pursuant to those Public Notices to be declared null and void and I agree on behalf of myself and my heirs, assigns or successors -in -interest to hold the City harmless in connection therewith. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. I have executed this declaration on this the /3-74 day of /-/K't _- , 199 / at Hermosa Beach, California. State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) SS a. On this the �� day of .L v' 'yc& /%�� fel//s'e, , the appeared (l �/7 T7)y satisfactory evidence to be the person(.&) whose name(.s-) suscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. v (frq /;9 (Name) (ti 41,AJ/STel %711L, (Capacity) , 199/ , before me, dersigned Notary Public, personally and proved to me on the basis of (SEAL)! OFFICIAL SEAL LAURICE M. i)UKE Notary Puna ., a• PRINCIPn1 ..:••. .. L. A. COUN$ • My Comm. Exp. Mar. 12, 1993 - 35-- i 'RY PUBLIC CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Michael Schubach, PTn ector SUBJECT: Modified Resolution for the C.U.P. for 3127 Manhattan Avenue - Off -sale Alcohol, Boccato's Market DATE: May 14, 1991 In reviewing all the modifications made to the proposed conditions of approval for this establishment, it was noticed that a standard condition for alcohol establishments with parking lots was inadvertantly left out. It is now included as condition #10. p/memo4 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 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. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUSTAINING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OFF -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 3127 MANHATTAN AVENUE, BOCCATO'S GROCERIES, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE EASTERLY 20.15 FEET OF LOT 12 AND LOT 14, BLOCK 104, SHAKESPEARE TRACT. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on May 14, 1991, to receive oral and written testimony regarding an appeal of the Planning Commission decision to grant a Conditional Use Permit request to authorize the sale of general alcohol, subject to conditions, and made the following findings: A. The sale of alcohol is being conducted in an existing establishment already licensed by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; B. The proposed alcohol use is compatible with surrounding commercial uses and with surrounding residential uses; C. Strict compliance with the conditions of approval will mitigate any negative impact resulting from the issuance of the conditional use permit and will protect the public health, safety, and welfare; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby sustain the Planning Commission's decision to approve a Conditional Use Permit, to authorize the off -sale of general alcohol at 3127 Manhattan Avenue subject to the following: SECTION I Conditions of Approval: 1. The hours of operation shall be limited to between 6:00 A.M. and 2:00 A.M. daily. 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 2. The trash bins shall be enclosed with a material acceptable to the City, or, if it is not physically possible to enclose the bins without losing a parking space, the establishment shall apply for an amendment within six months of acceptance of this Conditional Use Permit. 3. The parking area shall be repaired and re -surfaced and shall be re -striped in the same configuration as exists on the site within 90 days of resolution of the trash enclosure issue. 4. The business shall provide adequate management and supervisory techniques to prevent loitering, unruliness, and boisterous activities of the patrons outside the business on the subject property. 5. Signs shall be posted conspicuously and prominently at all exits and all check-out stands warning patrons who purchase any and all types of alcoholic beverages that "possession and/or consumption of alcoholic beverages in any public sidewalk, parking lot, beach, and/or any public place is prohibited by law and subject to citation and fine. The City of Hermosa Beach vigorously enforces its liquor laws" Said signs shall be at least 12" X 14", shall be printed in a large type, permanently maintained, and shall be posted in visible locations. 6. An employee who is aware of the conditions of this conditional use permit shall be on the premises during business hours. a. The conditional use permit conditions shall be placed on the property in a location where employees can easily read the conditions. 7. The floor plans shall be as shown on submitted plans and any changes to the interior for the purpose of altering the primary use from a market to a different use shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director. Minor modification to the floor plans, including re -arrangement of shelving, displays, counters, or similar items within the market do not need review from the Planning Director. 8. The exterior of the premises shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner. 9. Individual containers of beer and wine, 16 ounces or less in size shall be packaged in clear bags or containers to make the contents of the container visible. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10. Clearly visible signs prohibiting loitering, littering, consumption of alcohol on the premises shall be posted in conspicuous locations. 11. Prior to the conditional use permit being in effect, the applicant shall submit to the planning department, a signed and notarized "Acceptance of Conditions" form. 12. A conditional use permit shall be recorded with the deed, and proof of recordation shall be submitted with the planning department. SECTION II Each of the above conditions is separately enforced, and if any of the conditions of approval is found to be invalid by a court of law, all the other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1991, by: PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 3 7 BOCCATO'S GROCERIES May 8, 1991. Mayor and City Council City of Hermosa Beach I/ ti 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 • it. !I Dear Mayor and City Council: i i ,; MAY08•1991 ab' Clem 6 CD7 °i Hermosa Beach i> f ' I.•.� t My attorney, John Murdock, has advised me to have his March 27, 1991 letter to the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission included in the City Council appeal hearing public record to maintain my legal rights to challenge the CUP, should that be necessary. I am enclosing a copy of that letter and would appreciate it if you would make it part of the public record at, the appeal hearing.. Thank you every much. 11. ' • Yours truly, 4. Frank Boccato Boccato's Groceries . 1. I Enclosure .4. r 3127 MANHATTAN AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 (213) 376-0574 ,t It .! , SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION .1 J TELEPHONE 1:131 471.4783 JOHN B. bitTRDOCK ATTORNEY AT LAW 725 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD • SUITE 402 SANTA MONICA. CALIFORNIA 90401 March 27, 1991 Planning Commission City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3885 Re: Dear Commissioners: Boccato's Groceries CUP Application Hearing Date: April 2, 1991 MAR 27 1991 The following points of law are presented on behalf of- Boccato's Groceries, in opposition to the proposed enforcement of CUP requirements under the Hermosa Beach Zoning Code. Boccato's Groceries has been operating continuously for over 22 years, and has held a valid, uninterrupted liquor license from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) for off -sale general liquor sales in connection with the grocery since prior to the CUP ordinances adopted in Hermosa Beach in Ordinance 86-865. Section 13.5 of the zoning code was adopted in 1986 and ostensibly requires an existing business which sells alcohol to comply with CUP requirements within 2 years or face the consequence that it "shall no longer have the legal authority to sell alcoholic beverages within the boundaries of the City of Hermosa Beach" (5 13.5(A)) or "shall no longer have the authority to operate" (§ 13.5(5)). Initially, we find that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous. It is unclear exactly what the difference is between subsections A and B or whether it applies at all to an existing business which is not already required to have a CUP. Under subsection A, the ordinance applies "to establishments which sell alcohol and fall into any category of use which requires a Conditional use_perinit in order to sell alcoholic beverages in the City of Hermosa Beach." This did not apply to Boccato's, because Boccato's is a food market which was not required to hold a CUP in the C-1 ( § 8-2) zone for off -sale liquor as part of a "food market". CUPS were required only as specified, g.g., in the C-2 zone under § 8-3, or for "liquor stores" in the C-1 zone. Since §§ 8-2 and 8-3 were adopted at the same time as part of Ordinance 86-865, it must be presumed there was an intent to require CUP in C-2 but not for food stores in the C-1 zone. Under subsection (B) of § 13.5, adopted by later amendment, it appears the city intended to require CUPS for the "remaining nonconforming commercial and manufacturing establishments"; however, the language of the ordinance still does not apply to Boccato's Grocery, because it states that it applies to the types of business establishments listed in Article 8 and. Article 9, but then says that "A11 such establishments which do not possess a conditional use permit as required by 6rticle 8 and Article 9 on the effective date of Ordinance No. 90-1041 shall be required to apply ...." The ordinance on its face, therefore, only applies to those establishments which are "required" under Article 8 or Article 9 to have a CUP. If they are required to have one and do not, they must apply. Since an existing food store such as Boccato's in the C-1 zone was not required to have a CUP under Article 8 or Article 9, the requirements of § 13.5(B) do not apply. Nevertheless, the city has sent notices to Boccato's stating that a CUP is required. An ordinance with penalties as severe.as this one must be reasonably clear to the people who are required to comply with it, and this ordinance fails the test under constitutional standards of vagueness. See, g.g., Chalmers V. City of Los Angeles, 762 F.2d 753 (9th Cir. 1985); Gravnedy. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972). Assuming, arguendo, that the ordinance in question applies to Boccato's, the terms of the ordinance require him to apply for and obtain a CUP in order to "have the legal authority to operate" the establishment per § 13.5(A) or "the portion of the establishment" per § 13.5(B). We believe this is invalid because it conflicts with state law directly on point and is preempted. As noted above, Boccato's has a liquor license from the ABC and is within the provisions of California Business and Professions Code §523790, 23800. Under § 23790, a city may regulate new businesses selling alcohol by application of zoning ordinances, but those businesses which'already have a valid ABC license are specifically given the authority to continue in operation under the same "rights and privileges" as long as they meet two conditions set forth in § 23790. The operative language of the code reads as follows: No retail license shall be issued which are located in any territory where the exercise of the rights and privileges conferred by the license is contrary to a valid zoning ordinance of any county or city. Premises which had been used in the exercise of those rights and privileges at a time prior to the effective date of the. zoning ordinance may continue operation under the following conditions: a) The premises retain the same type of retail liquor license within a license classification. b) The licensed premises are operated continuously without substantial change in mode or character of operation. (Id., emph.added). The legislature obviously has created an explicit grandfather clause which protects existing licensees from arbitrary application of new zoning requirements. The statute does not contain any provision authorizing local governments to impose amortization periods or new conditions. Hence, the provisions of Ordinance 86- 865 which purport to regulate or terminate liquor sales which predate the ordinance are invalid under article XX, section 22 of the California Constitution. See, Mussal,i v. City of Glendale, 252 Cal. Rptr. 299 (1988). The city attorney is apparently of the view that merely regulating the conditions surrounding the sale of alcohol, rather than the direct sale of alcohol per ag, is permissible under the preemption doctrine and various cases interpreting the conditional provisions. However, the state legislature has further occupied the field regarding the conditions which may be imposed on retail liquor sales. Section 23800 authorizes the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to place "reasonable conditions" on the retail liquor seller, but only where there is a demonstrated need for the conditions to cure a problem arising from complaints, protests, or proposed revocation of the license. This statute provides as follows: Upon request of the licensee or applicant for a license the department may place reasonable conditions upon retail licensees or upon any licensee in the exercise of r.ettail privileges in the following situations: a) If grounds exist for the denial of an application for a license or where a protest against the issuance of a license is filed and if the department finds that those grounds may be remote by the imposition of those conditions. b) Where findings are made by the department which would lustily a suspension or revocation of a license, and where the imposition of a condition is reasonably related to those findings. In the case of a suspension, the conditions may be in lieu of or in addition to the suspension. c) Where the department issues an order suspending QX revoking only a portion of the privileges to be exercised under the license. (B&P.c § 23800; emph. added). Clearly, under established caselaw regarding preemption, where the state statutes evidence an intent to regulate or occupy a particular concern, local government may not intrude. While it may be argued that local government may have ancillary matters of concern, it is impermissible to intervene directly in those areas reserved for regulation by the state agency. In the above -quoted statute, the authority to impose "reasonable conditions" is granted to the state agency, and, even then, the power is granted only under specified circumstances where evidence exists and findings are made that the conditions are necessary to remove or mitigate demonstrable grounds for a protest or revocation. Since there has been no protest or grounds for revocation of Boccato's liquor license (to the contrary, there are letters of support), and the state agency has not found the need for any conditions to be placed on the sale of liquor, we find it difficult to see how the city can arbitrarily impose a set of fifteen conditions which have no basis in law or fact, and which create unreasonable burdens on the 3 licensee. It is true that cities have been allowed to impose certain restrictions on liquor licensees which are not designed solely to regulate the sale of alcohol. For example, the court approved an ordinance in Berkeley requiring retailers to collect a deposit on all containers of malt beverages and soft drinks. (fie, Park & Bhon Markets Inc City of Berkeley (1981) 116 Cal. App. 3d 78, 172 Cal. Rptr.. 515). In Ainsworth v. Bryant (1949) 34 Cal. 2d 465, an excise tax on retail purchases of alcohol was permissible, when it applied to all other retail items as well as alcohol. In both cases, the ordinances applied across the board to articles other than liquor, and liquor was merely one item subject to the regulation. In contrast, the entire purpose of Hermosa Beach Ordinance 86-865 was, and is, purportedly designed to regulate the sale of alcoholic beverages. The sole justification for the imposition of all of the fifteen conditions listed in Section 10- 8 is that the business establishment is "engaged in the off -sale of alcoholic beverages"; no other businesses are subject to these provisions. Hence, the requirements of § 13.5 and § 10--8, taken together, amount to a_ reQuirement to apply for and obtain a licens. (regardless of the terminology calling it a "CUP") from the city of Hermosa Beach as a prerequisite to the sale of alcohol, under__ specified conditions. If the business fails to apply for and obtain; this license (CUP) by paying the fees and agreeing to the conditions, the consequences purport to be that business "shall no longer have the legal authority to sell alcoholic beverages within the boundaries of the City of Hermosa Beach". This is clearly in conflict with the constitution and the state codes authorizing the business to continue to sell_ alcohol under the same "rights and privileges (en-ioyedl at a time prior to the effective date of the zoning ordinance", per § 23790, supra, or under any "reasonable conditions" imposed by the ABC (not the city) in the event of a protest with evidence and findings warranting the imposition of such conditions, or in the face of findings which might warrant revocation, per § 23800, ZUPrA. The legislature has set forth an entire scheme dealing with the imposition of conditions on the sale of liquor, in §523800-23805, including penalties for violation. The city's application of Ordinance 86-865• is also unconstitutional as applied to Boccato's, a fact which is virtually admitted in the city's staff memorandum. Under the U.S. Constitution, the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment require that businesses not be subjected to arbitrary and unreasonable discrimination in the application of local regulations. This requirement also appears in Cal. Gov't Code § 65852. The city staff's memorandum to the Commission dated June 11, 1990 points out an obvious inequity which cannot be tolerated, yet the problem has not been addressed and is in fact applicable to Boccato's. The memo states as follows: "Also, those uses with currently active C.U.P.'s which were granted in the past often have very different and less restrictive conditions than new C•U,P,'s. Thus, the imposition of conditions on the oldest businesses may create inequities as compared to some newer businesses which are - 4 essentially the same." (emph. added). Boccato's is one of the "oldest businesses" referred to above, and it is in fact now being required to comply with conditions which are mgre restrictive and onerous than those imposed on Alpha Beta, Lucky, or Vons. This is clearly unconstitutional and will be stricken by the courts without hesitation if imposed. On the face of it, Section 10-8 states that the "following conditions shall be imposed on all establishments engaged in the off -sale of alcoholic beverages"; however, the city is not requiring businesses with previously issued CUPs (such as Vons) to meet these 15 conditions, while it is requiring Boccato's - which predates the entire CUP process - to come into compliance or cease operating after a short 2 year amortization. There is no question that this is unconstitutional. In short, the entire scheme whereby Ordinance 86-865 attempts to license the sale of alcohol by imposing conditions is• invalid as presented. It is clearly preempted by state law and is being applied in an arbitrary and discriminating manner. If the city attempts to deny a CUP or enforce its terms by requiring the business to cease the sale of liquor, it will be subject to damages and attorneys fees under 42 U.S.C. s 1983 for a deprivation of property without due process and for unequal enforcement of law. - The city has entered into a field preempted by state law under the guise of zoning, but the issue is clearly one of licensing the sale of alcohol and imposing conditions. Boccato's cannot agree to the conditions for the reasons set forth in a separate letter, and we suggest that a meeting with the city attorney might resolve the matter in an amicable manner. Ver t u y rs, /, cc: Boccato's Groceries $ /J. 5 n B. Murdock May 6, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council May 14, 1991 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP 91-1 LOCATION: 3127 MANHATTAN AVENUE APPELLANT: FRANK BOCCATO BOCCATO'S GROCERIES 3127 MANHATTAN AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 REQUEST: TO APPEAL THE CONDITIONS OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT GRANTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR OFF -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING GROCERY STORE ALREADY LICENSED BY A.B.C. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council sustain the decision of the Planning Commission by tentatively adopting the attached resolution, subject to referral back to the Commission for comment prior to final approval since the conditions have been modified. Background At their meeting of April 2, 1991, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit at the subject location subject to the conditions as recommended by staff. The applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission action on April 9, 1991, contending that the Planning Commission action was illegal. For further background please refer to the attached staff report and Planning Commission minutes. Analysis Staff has met with Mr. Boccato to discuss the conditions to attempt to resolve some of his concerns. Mr. Boccato responded with a specific set of changes that would be acceptable to him. Staff has evaluated his proposal and as a result has modified some of the conditions in response to his suggestions, but not all of his suggestions are acceptable to staff (see attached letter and staff memorandum). 1 Although the modifications result in a further departure from the standard conditions as required by the Article 10 of the zoning ordinance, staff believes it is appropriate since this is an amortization of existing business, and the standards in the code are more directly applicable to new establishments. Since the proposed conditions have been modified since the Commission approval, the new set of conditions must be referred back to the Commission for comment prior to final approval. Also, the format of the conditions has been modified based on the advise of the City Attorney. Please refer to the attached 4/2/91 and 3/5/91 Planning Commission staff reports for the analysis of the conditional use permit request. CO CUR: Michae Schubach Planning Director Kevin B. Northc•a t City Manager Attachments 1. Proposed Resolution of approval, sustaining the P.C. decision 2. P.C. Resolution 91-19 3. Staff memorandum 5/7/91 and Boccato letter 5/6/91 4. P.C. staff reports 4/2/91 and 3/5/91 5. P.C. Minutes 4/2/91 and 3/5/91 6. Appeal letter 4/9/91 7. Correspondence from applicant's attorney 3/27/91 8. Correspondence from applicant 3/27/91 9. Staff Review minutes 1/17/91 10. Site Map 11. Original Application and letter 12. Photographs 13. Public correspondence 14. Public Notice Affidavit r ti, vir,et4--- Ken Robertson Associate Planner a/pcsr3127 - 2 RESOLUTION 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUSTAINING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OFF -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL AND ADOPTION OF A ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 3127 MANHATTAN AVENUE, BOCCATO'S GROCERIES, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE EASTERLY 20.15 FEET OF LOT 12 AND LOT 14, BLOCK 104, SHAKESPEARE TRACT. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on May 14, 1991, to receive oral and written testimony regarding an appeal of the Planning Commission decision to grant a Conditional Use Permit request to authorize the sale of general alcohol, subject to conditions, and made the following findings: A. The sale of alcohol is being conducted in an existing establishment already licensed by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; B. The proposed alcohol use is compatible with surrounding commercial uses and with surrounding residential uses; C. Strict compliance with the conditions of approval will mitigate any negative impact resulting from the issuance of the conditional use permit and will protect the public health, safety, and welfare; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby sustain the Planning Commission's decision to approve a Conditional Use Permit, to authorize the off -sale of general alcohol at 3127 Manhattan Avenue subject to the following: SECTION I Conditions of Approval: 1. The hours of operation shall be limited to between 6:00 A.M. and 2:00 A.M. daily. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. The trash bins shall be enclosed with a material acceptable to the City, or, if it is not physically possible to enclose the bins without losing a parking space, the establishment shall apply for an amendment within six months of acceptance of this Conditional Use Permit. 3. The parking area shall be repaired and re -surfaced and shall be re -striped in the same configuration as exists on the site within 90 days of resolution of the trash enclosure issue. 4. The business shall provide adequate management and supervisory techniques to prevent loitering, unruliness, and boisterous activities of the patrons outside the business on the subject property. 5. Signs shall be posted conspicuously and prominently at all exits and all check-out stands warning patrons who purchase any and all types of alcoholic beverages that "possession and/or consumption of alcoholic beverages in any public sidewalk, parking lot, beach, and/or any public place is prohibited by law and subject to citation and fine. The City of Hermosa Beach vigorously enforces its liquor laws" Said signs shall be at least 12" X 14", shall be printed in a large type, permanently maintained, and shall be posted in visible locations. 6. An employee who is aware of the conditions of this conditional use permit shall be on the premises during business hours. a. The conditional use permit conditions shall be placed on the property in a location where employees can easily read the conditions. 7. The floor plans shall be as shown on submitted plans and any changes to the interior for the purpose of altering the primary use from a market to a different use shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director. Minor modification to the floor plans, including re -arrangement of shelving, displays, counters, or similar items within the market do not need review from the Planning Director. 8. The exterior of the premises shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner. 9. Individual containers of beer and wine, 16 ounces or less in size shall be packaged in clear bags or containers to make the contents of the container visible. t 10. Prior to the conditional use permit being in effect, the applicant shall submit to the planning department, a signed and notarized "Acceptance of Conditions" form. 11. A conditional use permit shall be recorded with the deed, and proof of recordation shall be submitted with the planning department. SECTION II Each of the above conditions is separately enforced, and if any of the conditions of approval is found to be invalid bya court of law, all the other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1991, by: PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 84 CI( GR a1/ND A M TER/4L RESOLUTION P.C. 91-19 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OFF -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL AND ADOPTION OF A ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 3127 MANHATTAN AVENUE, BOCCATO'S GROCERIES, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE EASTERLY 20.15 FEET OF LOT 12 AND LOT 14, BLOCK 104, SHAKESPEARE TRACT. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on March 5 and April 2, 1991, to receive oral and written testimony regarding a Conditional Use Permit request to authorize the sale of general alcohol and made the following findings: A. The sale of alcohol is being conducted in an existing establishment already licensed by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; B. The proposed alcohol use is compatible with surrounding commercial uses and with surrounding residential uses; C. Strict compliance with the conditions of approval will mitigate any negative impact resulting from the the conditionaluse permit and will protect health, safety, and welfare; issuance of the public NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit, to authorize the sale of alcohol at 3127 Manhattan Avenue subject to the following conditions: 1. The hours of operation shall be limited to between 6:00 A.M. and 2:00 A.M. daily. 2. A view obscuring trash enclosure with view obscuring gates shall be provided to enclose the existing dumpsters on the site, with the type of materials, location, and height subject to review and approval by the Planning Director. 3. The parking area shall be repaired and re -surfaced and shall be re -striped in the same configuration as exists on the site. 4. The business shall provide adequate management and supervisory techniques to prevent loitering, unruliness, and boisterous activities of the patrons outside the business on the subject property. 6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 • 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5. Signs shall be posted conspicuously and prominently at all exits and all check-out stands warning patrons who purchase any and all types of alcoholic beverages that "possession and/or consumption of alcoholic beverages in any public sidewalk, parking lot, beach, and/or any public place is prohibited by law and subject to citation and fine. The City of Hermosa Beach vigorously enforces its liquor laws" Said signs shall be at least 12" X 14", shall be printed in a large type, permanently maintained, and shall be posted in visible locations. 6. An employee who is aware of the conditions of this conditional use permit shall be on the premises during business hours. a. All management employees shall be given a copy of the conditional use permit and shall acknowledge by signature that the conditional use permit has been read and understood. 7. The floor plans shall be as shown on submitted plans and any changes to the interior for the purpose of altering the primary use as a market shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director. Re -arrangement of shelving, displays, counters, or similar items need no review. 8. Any violation of the conditions for approval and/or violation of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code may be grounds for the issuance of a citation or public hearing for revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. 9. All signs shall comply with the City sign ordinance. 10. The exterior of the premises shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner at all time. 11. Individual containers of beer and wine, 16 ounces or less in size shall be packaged in clear bags or containers to make the contents of the container visible. 12. Prior to the conditional use permit being ineffect, the applicant shall submit to the planning department, a signed and notarized "Acceptance of Conditions" form. 13. A conditional use permit shall be recorded with the deed, and proof of recordation shall be submitted with the planning department. 14. The Planning Commission may review the conditional use permit and may amend the subject conditions or impose any new conditions based on substantial findings that there are significant detrimental impacts to the adjacent neighborhood as a result of the operation of the business. 15. Each of the above conditions is separately enforced, and if any of the conditions of approval is found to be invalid by a court of law, all the other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable. VOTE: AYES: Comms.Di Monda,Marks,Peirce,Rue,Chmn.Ketz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 91-19 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, at their regular meeting of April 16, 1991. tttt , Michael Schubach, Secretary Christine Ketz, Chairperson /(,li`(Date a/pers3127 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Kevin Northcraft, City Manager, FROM: Michael Schubach,PIa iector i SUBJECT: Response to Boccato's letter of 5/6/91 DATE: May 7, 1991 In response to Mr. Boccato's suggested modifications to the C.U.P. conditions, I believe we can agree with some of the suggestions without sacrificing the integrity of the C.U.P. However, full use of his suggestions would result in a "toothless" C.U.P. document, with vague language, making consistent enforcement even less likely. Referencing the points in his letter I have the following recommendation in regards to his suggestions (condition no. in Council Reso noted in parentheses): 1. (2) OK to change as suggested 2. (3) OK to change as suggested 3. (4) NOT OK: The replacement of "provide adequate management and supervisory techniques" with "take reasonable measures" would reduce the clarity of the provision. Further, staff's language is taken directly from the standard conditions of the zoning ordinance, Section 10-7. 4. (5) NOT OK: The language added by staff to this standard condition was to clarify what's on the sign, and the size. Boccato's proposal leaves enforcement to the enforcement officer's interpretation of "readable" and "prominent." 5. (6) NOT OK: Condition needs to state that an employee or clerk who is aware of conditions be on premises, his suggestion could replace the (a) portion as a way to implement. 6. (7) SHOULD NOT BE DELETED: Could be modified to allow minor modifications of the floor plan without review, but not any that might change the use from a market to something else. 7. (SECTION III) OK to delete: This was the statement that violations are grounds for revocations - more of a notice than a condition 9 8. (SECTION II) OK to delete: This condition just stated that the sign ordinance had to be complied with 9. (8) Boccato agrees to P.C. condition 10. (9) NOT OK: This condition requires clear plastic bags for single containers and has been applied to other similar businesses. Condition originated from the Police Department. 11. (10) Boccato agrees to P.C. condition 12. (11) NOT OK: Don't understand Boccato's concerns - changing a recorded document is rather simple. The difficulty with the City is amending the C.U.P. 13. (SECTION III) OK to delete 14. (SECTION II ) Boccato agrees with P.C. decision - this is the condition/statement regarding separate enforcement of each condition if one is found to be illegal. No comments were made regarding the hours limitations, which I believe should be kept in place. We will rewrite the resolution accordingly, and recommend referral back to the Planning Commission. sir BOCCATO'S GROCERIES 3127 MANHATTAN AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 May 2, 1991 Mr. Charles S. Vose, City Attorney City of Hermosa Beach c/o Oliver, Stoever, Barr & Vose 1000 Sunset Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Mr. Vose: RECEIVED MAY 0 u 1991 CITY MGP. Thank you for meeting with us on April 18th and for discussing the City's position on the CUP process involving my business. Although you are aware that I oppose the CUP process for a number of reasons we discussed at our meeting, including State preemption issues, equity and equal protection issues, and technical inconsistencies in the City's ordinances, I would like to work out a set of conditions that I can live with and possibly avoid litagtion of the matter. You know that the basis for our position on the conditions is our belief that we are not requesting anything from the City, and that the CUP is your requirement, not something we want or need. Therefore, we are basing the acceptance of conditions on our ability to continue to operate our business without a loss of business opportunity or value or a loss of constitutional rights. Based on our discussion yesterday, I would propose the following conditions. 1. (formerly condition #3) The trash bins will be enclosed with a material acceptable to the City, or, if it is not physically possible to enclose the bins without losing a parking space, a variance will be applied for within six months of acceptance of this CUP. 2. (formerly condition #4) The parking area shall be repaired and resurfaced and shall be restriped in the same configuration as exists on the site within 90 days of resolution of the trash enclosure issue (condition #1). 3. (formerly condition #5) The business will take reasonable measures to prevent loitering, unruliness, and boisterous activities of patrons of the business who are outside the business and on the premises. 4. (formerly condition #6) A readable sign shall be posted prominently at the exit of the business telling patrons that the possession and/or consumption of alcoholic beverages on the public sidewalk, parking lot, beach, and/or any public place is prohibited by law. 5. (formerly condition #7) The CUP conditions shall be placed on the property in a place where employees can easily read the conditions required by the City. 6. (formerly condition #8) The condition will be deleted because it unfairly restricts my ability to make legal modifications to my grocery store without the cumbersome and unnecessary approval of the Planning Director. Page 2 Mr. Charles S. Vose CUP Conditions May 2, 1991 7. (formerly condition #9) The condition will be deleted because it is unduly onerous as written and is adequately covered in other sections of the Municipal Code. 8. (formerly condition #10) The condition will be deleted because it is redundent and is adequately covered in other sections of the Municipal Code. 9. (formerly condition #11) This condition will be modified to read, "The exterior of the premises shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner." 10. (formerly condition #12) The condition will be deleted because there is no need for it, nor justification for it in my area of the City. It is also not being applied uniformly throughout the City and puts my business at an unfair disadvantage. 11. (formerly condition #13) This condition is acceptable so long as we agree to the conditions being applied to the CUP. 12. (formerly condition #14) This condition is an unnecessary burden on me, and is unnecessary as the CUP is itself a legally binding document. I am willing, however, to compromise and record a statement that the CUP is in place. I do not want to have the entire CUP and conditions recorded. If the situation with the CUP changes in the future, for example, because of a change in State law, it would be extremely difficult to modify the recorded document without going through a laborous, costly, and unnecessary process with the City. I would ask that the condition be modified to read, "A statement that a CUP exists on the property shall be recorded, and proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Planning Department." 13. (formerly condition #15) This condition will be deleted because the Planning Commission has the right to review any CUP if there is reasonable justification to warrant it. We will not "agree to agree" to new unknown conditions. 14. (formerly condition #16) This condition is acceptable so long as we agree to the conditions being applied to the CUP. It is our understanding from our meeting that you and the City Manager will be suggesting modifications to the CUP conditions. I hope my interpretation of our discussion of the conditions will be helpful and will define my needs, hopefully to preclude litigation of the matter. Yours truly, 1411117 Fran Boccato cc: Kevin Northcraft e. February 26, 1991 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission April 2, 1991 (CONTINUED FROM THE MEETING OF MARCH 5, 1991) SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP 91-1 LOCATION: 3127 MANHATTAN AVENUE APPLICANT: FRANK BOCCATO BOCCATO'S GROCERIES 3127 MANHATTAN AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 REQUEST: FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFF -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING GROCERY STORE ALREADY LICENSED BY A.B.C. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions contained in the attached resolution. Background At the meeting of March 5, 1991, the applicant requested continuance of this item to have more time for his attorney to study,:the isse. Additionally, he requested to drop the portion of the request pertaining to sale of adult videos. The Planning Commission granted the request for continuance and also directed staff and the applicant to take a closer look at the proposed trash enclosure requirement and if it would cause the loss of a parking space. For further background and project information please refer to the 3/5/91 staff report and the minutes. Analysis Staff returned to the site to measure the stalls and the existing trash dumpsters. The stalls are all compact stall dimensions (7'6" X 15') and the trash dumpster extends about four feet from the wall leaving only about 2-3" between the dumpster and the closest stall. It appears that the only way the dumpster can be enclosed without interfering with the tight parking arrangement is if a narrow fence, such as chain link with wooden slats, is used with the gate opening facing towards the sidewalk.. As such, staff continues to recommend that the dumpsters be enclosed -13 - as required by the Municipal Code at their existing location, but that chain link fence with wooden slats would be acceptable. All references to adult videos in the attached resolution of approval have been removed, since the applicant has indicated he does not plan to sell such items. Further, based on concerns of the applicant the staff has altered the wording of many of the recommended conditions and removed some unnecessary conditions. The intent of these conditions has not been changed, as clarification was the main purpose in recognition of the applicant's concern for potential abuse without more specific wording. For further analysis please refer to the attached 3/5/91 staff report. CONCUR: Michael Schubach Planning Director Ken Robertso Associate Planner Attachments 1. Proposed Resolution 2. P.C. Minutes 3/5/91 3. P.C. staff report 3/5/91 w/attachments a/pcsr3127 4. Correspondence February 26, 1991 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 5, 1991 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP 91-1 LOCATION: 3127 MANHATTAN AVENUE APPLICANT: FRANK BOCCATO BOCCATO'S GROCERIES 3127 MANHATTAN AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 REQUEST: FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFF SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING GROCERY STORE ALREADY LICENSED BY A.B.C., AND TO SELL ADULT VIDEOS Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions contained in the attached resolution. Background PROJECT INFORMATION: Zoning: C-1 General Plan: Neighborhood Commercial Lot Size: 3,850 sq. ft. Building Size: 2800 sq. ft. Current Use: Preexisting grocery store Parking Spaces: 5 Boccato's Groceries is located on the southwest corner of Manhattan Avenue and 32nd Street. It is the only use on the lot. The store is open from 9:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday, and from to 10:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. on Sundays. The applicant indicates that the store is open until 12 midnight daily, during the summer. Boccato's is one of the remaining existing businesses selling alcoholic beverages subject to the alcohol amortization ordinance which have not obtained a Conditional Use Permit. At their meeting of January 17, 1991 the Staff Environmental Review Committee recommended an Environmental Negative Declaration, and recommended that the Planning Commission require the applicant to enclose the trash dumpsters behind a view obstructing fence and gate, and to slurry seal and restripe the parking lot. Analysis The requested C.U.P. would authorize the continued general alcohol sales and if approved would also allow the sale of adult videos and magazines. Staff is concerned with the proposal to add adult video sales. The proposed use of a liquor store\video sales could be a dangerous trend for wholesale opening of these type of businesses in establishments that service neighborhoods. Because of the proximity to residences, within a hundred feet, and the possible availability to minors for sale, it is felt by staff that this is not a proper mix of businesses. Also, Section 10-5 of the zoning ordinance states the sale of adult videos should be greater than 100 feet from residential property. According to our City Attorney, since the proposed video sales are only a small portion of the business, incidental to the alcohol sales, the city does not have the authority to deny the sales. As such staff is recommending that any adult video sales must be incidental to the grocery store / liquor sales, and should not represent more than 10% of the sales. Staff's only other concerns are related to the appearance of the parking lot. The existing two trash dumpsters are completely exposed to view and should be screened. Further, the parking lot striping is severely faded and the surface is uneven and in need of repair. Otherwise, since this is an existing grocery store/general alcohol sale business, staff believes the sale of alcohol should be allowed to continue subject to the attached conditions. The conditions are limited to standard conditions of the zoning ordinance, and conditions related to the trash dumpster and the parking lot surface. The standard conditions include a provision to require that single containers be sold in clear bags, and also, the Police Department has requested that an additional standard condition be included to require alcohol sale establishments to participate in the EASY program, ASY stands for Eliminate Alcohol Sales to Youth. ,CONCUR Michael Schubach Planning Director Attachments 1. Proposed Resolution 2. Staff Review Minutes 1/17/91 3. Site Map 4. Application w/ letter 5. Photographs 6. Public Notice Affidavit _ /; //' i i% C Pgblic Hearing closed at 9:09 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Comm. fierce questioned tandem parking in an R-2 zone and asked if Barney and Meyer Courts w ld be considered alleys or streets. Director Schubach responded they were streets but a believed the parking was adequate. Comm. Rue felt the project had been built to condominium specification , the project was on the low endR-2 zoning at 16 dwellings per acre wherea -1 allowed 13 dwellings per acre, that 't fell in the buffer area of commercial at bottom on Pacific Coast Highway and R-1 at e top of the hill, and finally it w a unique project that would not set a precedent. PROPOSED MOTION by Comm. Rue or approval of the-C.U.P. and Tentative Parcel Map *20822 for a 3 -unit condominium con : rsion died fqvllack of a second. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, second by Comm. 'i'Monda to deny a Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map #20522 for a,3 -u t condominium conversion and approve Resolution P.C. 91-21. AYES: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Pierce, Chmn. Ket NOES: Comm. Rue ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Chmn. Ketz stated -that this decision of the Planning Commission .x writing: to the City Council within ten days. The meeting recessed at 9:20 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:29 P.11. e appealed by CUP 91-1 -- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO SELL ADULT VIDEOS AND FOR OFF - SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL iN CONJUNCTION WiTH AN EXISTING MARKET ALREADY LICENSED BY A.B.C_. AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 3127 MANHATTAN AVENUE. BOCCATO'S GROCERIES (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 5. 1991 MEETING). Director Schubach presented the staff report dated February 26, 1991, and recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions contained in the proposed Resolution. At the meeting of March 5, 1991, the applicant requested continuance of this item to have more time for his attorney to study the issue. He also asked that the portion of the P.C. Minutes 4/02/91 request pertaining to the sale of adult videos be dropped as he does not intend to sell C them. The Planning Commission granted the request for continuance and directed staff and the applicant to take a closer look at et the proposed trash enclosure requirement to determine if it would cause the loss of a parking space. The parking stalls are all 7' 6" by 15' and the trash dumpster extends about four feet from the wall, leaving only 2-3" between the dumpster and the closest stall. Therefor, it appears that a concrete block wall would not be practical as it would cause the loss of a parking space; the only possible type of fence would be a narrow fence such as a chain link with wooden slats, with the gate opening facing the sidewalk. Staff continues to recommend that the dumpster be enclosed es required by the Municipal Code. All references to adult videos have been removed in the proposed Resolution as the applicant has indicated he does not plan to sell such items. Further, due to concerns of the applicant, staff has altered the wording of many of the recommended conditions and removed some unnecessary conditions. Public Hearing was opened et 9:34 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Phil Freeland, 315 South Beverly Drive, Beverly Hills, representing the applicant, addressed the commission and presented a petition containing 82 signatures, all in favor of Bocceto's Market, and that they were filing for this C.U.P. under protest Robert Benz, 2901 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and, speaking as a resident of North Hermosa, expressed his appreciation for the services that were offered by Boccato's Market: convenience; neighborhood store; cleanliness; 22 years of service; and a delivery service to shut-ins. He continued that Mr. Boccato should not have to apply for a C.U.P. after 22 years as a conscientious businessman since there were no complaints about his store. Wilma Burt, 1 152 Seventh Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to speak in favor of Boccato's Market and Mr. Boccato, and to speak against the requirement forcing him to apply for a C.U.P. She also questioned why the reference to adult videos was on the agenda, and felt that it gave the wrong impression. Churn. Ketz explained that adult videos had been removed from the Resolution, but it had been used in the legal noticing, and the agenda uses the wording from the legal noticing. Dennis Cleland, 434 - 28th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to speak in favor of Bocceto's Market and asked that nothing be done by the Commission that would force Mr. Boccato out of business. P.C. Minutes 4/02/91 c C Mr. Freeland made his summary and comments on the sixteen (16) conditions in the proposed Resolution: #1) was now deleted; #2) the hours of operation from 6 to 2 were acceptable as those were the hours on the existing A.B.C. license; #3) the conditions on the trash enclosure were unacceptable as (a) it physically would not work as there is only 5" between the durnpster and the parking stall, barely enough room to open a car door, any infringement on that space would eliminate the parking stall, and, (b) it would be ugly and provide no improvement to the existing situation; and, should it become necessary, they intend to apply for a variance in order to maintain the existing parking; #4) would be acceptable as long as the issue is resolved regarding the parking space; 4e5) is a problem in acceptance since there has never been a problem with customers at this grocery store, this type of condition applies to a bar where the customers are drinking on the premises; #6) is not acceptable because the signage is not required by the A.B.C. or the existing; A.B.C. license; it would be cumbersome, impact on limited display space, and obtrusive in the conduct of business; *7) is unreasonable considering the continued number, content, complexity, and scope of the impact of the condition being recommended; and, it infringes on 11r. Bocatto's personnel practices and has no impact on the proper operation of the business; #S) is unacceptable, as the phrase, "...any changes to the interior for the purpose of altering the primary use of the market...", is ambiguous; it does not define what Mr. Boccato can or cannot do in regard to interior remodeling without City approval; does it mean that the building can not be used for anything other than a market without prior approval through the C.U.P. process?; there are a number of legal use for the building other than a market allowed in the C-1zone that do not require a C.U.P. or City approval. We ask that it be removed because of ambiguity; #9) is overly broad and arbitrary and gives the City unfettered discretion and unconstitutional authority to cite or revoke the C.U.P.; violations of the zoning or Municipal code have definite penalties attached if the person or business is proven guilty; revocation of the C.U.P. must be based on reasonable grounds, not just any violation; the condition is totally arbitrary and by agreeing to it (which is what is required by this C.U.P.), Mr. Boccato is giving up basic Constitutional rights; #10) is redundant and therefor unnecessary; #1 1) there is no problem complying with this condition as Eoccato's Market has always prided itself on cleanliness; #12)13 pre-empted by State law; is not a requirement of the A.E.C. license; is discriminatory; how a business packages any item should be a choice of the business; has not been a problem therefor there is no justification for its requirement; -- /9— P.C. Minutes 4/02/91 13) is unacceptable, unless there is agreement by Mr. Bocatto that the conditions are acceptable prior to the action to approve the C.U.P., if the conditions are not accepted the C.U.P. cannot be approved; *14) object to recording an approved C.U.P., should that occur with conditions agreed to by the applicant as that clouds the title to the land and creates a cumbersome problem should the law change or be modified in the future; it puts unnecessary and unreasonable burdens on the property owner; *15) it is arbitrary and unreasonable that the Planning Commission may amend the P.U.C. or add new conditions to it; would not agree to such actions without a public hearing and without agreement to such conditions or amendments; agreement with this condition implies acceptance without any input, and as such is unacceptable; and, '15) as this may be challenged in court, they would not agree to severability. Mr. Freeland continued that they were not applying for the G.U.P., but were being forced to apply and strongly opposed the Commission's approval. In response to Comm. Rue's question of the possibility of smaller trash containers, Mr. Freeland replied that there were two bins there at the present time and were used to capacity, also, that there was no way to open the binds from the ends, they open from the top. C In response to Comm. Marks question regarding space from parking stall, Mr. Freeland replied that there was 5 inch clearance from the parking stall and the bin was approximately 5 feet wide. C - Comm. Peirce asked Mr. Freeland if Mr. Boccato intended to fight the condition requiring the trash dumpster to be enclosed. Mr. Freeland responded that he would not say that; he could only say that i.t is impossible to enclose the dumpster due to space restrictions, but Mr. Boccato would work with the City staff to try to find a solution as long as it did not require losing a parking space. Public Hearing closed at 9:58 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Comm. Rue replied to the concerns expressed by Mr. Freeland regarding the conditions to be imposed, he felt that *3, trash enclosure, was a question of parking versus enclosure and that a compromise could be reached. He did not want Mr. Bocatto to lose a parking space, but he felt that it was the City's right to improve appearances from the street. Regarding '5, he said that there was a proliferation of alcohol related businesses in town and that to be even-handed the City required C.U.P.s, which run with the land and require a new owner to abide with the conditions and provide continuity. — �c— P.C. Minutes 4/02/91 The signs relating to alcohol are needed to try to keep alcohol use off of the beach and the streets, Comm. Rue continued. If the use of the building is changed then the C.U.P. is brought up and must be changed, and that was the rational for the conditions on change of floor plans. The City sign laws must be complied with, he stated, and clear packaging on single containers was a means to address the problem of the proliferation of alcohol use and a larger concern than the store's right to package as it chose. And, finally, regarding recording the C.U.P., it runs with the land and as such is applicable, that all amendments and revocation procedures were public hearings, were legally noticed, and needed substantial findings. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce to approve C.U.P. 91-1, with the following changes: condition No. 1 is deleted; and condition No. 5 should be agreed to by staff and the applicant with the understanding that it is the Commission's intent to remove the visibility of the trash container from the street. AYES: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Pierce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz NOES: None ABSTAIN: ,, None ABSENT: None Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. CUP X40-37/PARK 90-9IPDP 90-10 -- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. PA 111lG PLAN A1HJRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR AUTO BODY SHOP AICD ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1031-05-01/AVIATION BOULEVARD. EUROPEAN BODY SHOP (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 19. 1991 MEETING). Director Schubach presented tstaff report dated Marc 28, 1991, and recommended that the Planning Commission ape 've the propos C.U.P., P.D.P., and Parking Plan, subject to conditions, including limit the ober of service bays to four (4) by adopting the proposed Resolution. Since the last public hearing, the applicant has ret with staff to discuss what information was needed. Staff -• Wised the applicant to o ain detailed specifications ori the spray booth ventilatiprr and filtration system to best ed; the overall building ventilation and filtraji system; and, to contact the Air Quality Management District (AOMD) to ensure c,ompliance with all current standards. Letters hav been received from a spray booth company and the applicant engineer which.provide specifications and details to show a spray booth and building ven 'il-ation system will be installed and state that these meet or exceed the requirements of -the P.C. Minutes 4/02/91 Mr. Schubach asked that the Commissioners provide input on this project, especially in rega t• the overall architectural appearance of the projects. He explained that both project are ide .'cal; however, they were requested as two separate projects. Public :. ring opened and continued at 7:05 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz, who noted t at no one appeared to .eak on either of these projects. / Mr. Lee explainethat it would be appropriate at this time for Commissioners to express their views on the overa . architectural features of the projects so that staff' can discuss the issues with the applicant. Chmn. Ketz commented th the main issues relate to potential view/loss and setbacks. Comm. Rue stated that with • e two lots, he was surprised that the open space was not combined. He noted that overall t coverage is under the,allowed maximum. He felt that the projects could be consolidated, anhat attempts cou . be made to make the projects less intrusive bulkwise. Chmn. Ketz favored staffs suggestion that - re b only one driveway for the projects. Comm. Rue noted that there is no view press a .n ordinance; however, he felt that the views can be made more attractive. He did not el this p • ect, as submitted, takes advantage of the maximum potential view. Comm. Marks asked whether it is ecessary that there be . second means of egress from the third level, to which Mr. Schub. h replied in the -affirmative .nd stated that he would check into the matter further to ensure that that requirement is met. Comm. Peirce stated that 1 four units are identical. He felt that mo : can be done to make the projects more attractive; both to potential owners as well as to the City. MOTION by Comrfi. Rue, seconded by Comm. Marks, to approve staffs r- ommendation to continue the pblic hearing to the meeting of April 2, 1991. AYES: / Comms. Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None CUP 91-1 -- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO SELL ADULT VIDEOS AND FOR OFF -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL IN CONNECTION WITH AN EXISTING MARKET ALREADY LICENSED BY A.B.C. AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 3127 MANHATTAN AVENUE. BOCCATO'S GROCERIES Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 26, 1991, and recommended approval of the conditional use permit, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This project is located in the C-1 zone, with a general plan designation of neighborhood commercial. The lot size is 3850 square feet, and the building size is 2800 square feet. The current use is as a preexisting grocery store. There are five parking spaces. Boccato's Groceries is located on the southwest corner of Manhattan Avenue and 32nd Street. It is the only use of the lot. The store is open from 9:00 A.M. until 9:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday, and from 10:00 A.M. until 8:00 P.M. on Sundays. The applicant indicates that the store is open until midnight daily during the summer. — 71-- P.C. Minutes 3/5/91 Boccato's is one of the remaining existing businesses selling alcoholic beverages subject to the alcohol amortization ordinance which has not obtained a conditional use permit. At their meeting of January 17, 1991, the staff environmental review committee recommended an environmental negative declaration and recommended that the Planning Commission require the applicant to enclose the trash dumpsters behind a view -obstructing fence and gate, and to slurry seal and restripe the parking lot. The requested CUP would authorize the continued general alcohol sales and if approved would also allow the sale of adult videos and magazines. Staff is concerned with the proposal to add adult video sales. The proposed use of a liquor store/video sales could be a dangerous trend for wholesale opening of these types of businesses in establishments that service neighborhoods. Because of the proximity to residences, within a hundred feet, and the possible availability to minors for sale, it is felt by staff that this is not a proper mix of businesses. Also, Section 10-5 of the zoning ordinance states the sale of adult videos should be greater than 100 feet from residential property. According to the City Attorney, since the proposed video sales are only a small portion of the business, incidental to the alcohol sales, the City does not have the authority to deny the sales. As such, staff recommend that any adult video sales must be incidental to the grocery store/liquor sales and should not represent more than 10 percent of the sales. Staffs only other concerns are related to the appearance of the parking lot. The existing two trash dumpsters are completely exposed to view and should be screened. Further, the parking lot striping is severely faded and the surface is uneven and in need of repair. Otherwise, since this is an existing grocery store/general alcohol sale business, staff felt that the sale of alcohol should be allowed to continue, subject to the proposed conditions. The conditions are limited to standard conditions of the zoning ordinance and conditions related to the trash dumpster and the parking lot surface. The standard conditions include a provision to require that single containers be sold in clear bags. The Police Department has also requested that a standard condition be added to require alcohol establishments to participate in the Eliminate Alcohol Sales to Youth (EASY) Program. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, explained that the requirement to screen the trash enclosure is a provision of the municipal code, not the zoning ordinance; however, staff has been including it as a standard condition in CUPs. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce related to what the requirements for the pavement would be if this business were not applying for a CUP, explained that businesses are required by the parking ordinance to maintain their parking lots in a reasonable condition. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Marks, stated that no complaints have been received related to the hours of operation for this business. He noted, however, that several letters have been received from people who oppose this business having to obtain a CUP. Comm. Marks noted that this application had been filed under protest, and he asked for clarification on what this means. Mr. Schubach explained that the applicant was required by the City to apply for a CUP under the City's amortization process within two years of notice. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz. at 7:17 P.M. -z3- P.C. Minutes 3/5/91 Phil Freeland, 315 South Beverly Drive, Beverly Hills, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that the applicant is applying for this CUP under protest because he does not feel it is a legal requirement to obtain the CUP; (2) said the business has been in operation for 22 years and is legally "grandfathered in" because a CUP was not previously required; (3) said that the business has caused no problems in the past; (4) asked for a written legal opinion from the City Attorney related to the legal requirement for obtaining the CUP; (5) said that it is not within the purview of the City to require a CUP for a business already licensed by the State ABC and one which is in operation. Mr. Freeland continued and: (1) discussed the City's reasoning for the CUP requirement; (2) said that this business was licensed by the ABC long before the City applied alcohol sales requirements; (3) said that the business is compatible in its neighborhood; (4) objected to the recommended conditions as suggested by staff, explaining that the applicant feels many of the conditions are unreasonable, especially since this business has been in operation for many years; (5) said that if the CUP is denied because an agreement cannot be reached in regard to the conditions, and the business is subsequently forced to close, it would be a case of inverse condemnation. Mr. Freeland continued and: (1) stated that the City does not have the right to close the business without paying just compensation; (2) stated that he was not certain of the City's position on this matter; (3) asked for a written clarification; (4) asked that this hearing be continued for 30 days so that the attorney for the applicant can further study the matter and determine a course of action; (5) noted that the applicant would like to withdraw the portion of the request relating to adult videos, and all references to adult videos in the CUP, explaining that the applicant has no desire to sell such materials. Comm. Marks asked whether Mr. Freeland or the applicant had met with staff to discuss these issues, to which Mr. Freeland replied that over the past two years they have always maintained that Boccato's is a legally grandfathered use. He said that they have been in contact with City staff over the past two years regarding the requirement that they must apply for the CUP. He also noted that the applicant had received a letter from the City Attorney six months ago. Mr. Freeland stated that the issue is not that the applicant does not understand the requirement; rather, it is that the applicant objects to the requirement. Mr. Freeland, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce regarding which of the specific conditions the applicant disagrees with, stated that the applicant disagrees with all of the conditions, except the one which pertains to maintaining the property in a neat and clean manner. Mr. Freeland, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, explained that they also object to the requirement that the trash area be enclosed. He explained that an enclosure would necessitate the loss of one on-site parking space. He said that since there are only five spaces, the loss of one space would be a substantial impact. He stressed that there is very little on - street parking, and any loss of on-site parking would be quite detrimental to this business. Mr. Freeland, in discussion with Comm. Peirce, stated that there is no way whatsoever to enclosure the trash area without the loss of one parking space. Comm. Marks asked whether the applicant has met with staff to discuss another possible location for the trash, to which Mr. Freeland replied in the negative. He noted, however, that they are open to options. Mr. Lee, in response to a request from Chmn. Ketz, discussed the City's legal stand on this issue. He stated that it is legally appropriate to bring such use within the conditional use permit process as allowed under the amortization ordinance. He stated, however, that since this is a use which was in effect prior to the CUP requirements, the Commission cannot impose conditions so stringent that it would force the business to terminate. He explained, however, — 2s-- P.C. Minutes 3/5/91 that reasonable conditions can be imposed which would mitigate adverse impacts created by the business. Mr. Lee continued by discussing past correspondence between his office that the applicant. He stated that alcohol-related conditions are preempted by State law, and he noted that no conditions in the CUP regulate the actual use of alcohol; rather, the conditions address the environmental issues raised by such use, not the actual sale of alcohol. Mr. Lee stated that the City is on good legal foundation in terms of moving forward with this conditional use permit. He stated that, if so desired by the Commission, his office would prepare additional material on this request. Mr. Lee, in response to a question from Chmn. Ketz, explained what would happen if the CUP were approved, and the applicant did not agree to the conditions. Comm. Rue suggested that the matter be continued so that the applicant and staff can discuss the issues. Public Hearing closed at 7:34 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Comm. Rue encouraged the applicant to come to an agreement with the City and try to come to an understanding of the conditional use permit process. He felt that it is important for the applicant to understand the City's position on this matter. Comm. Peirce felt that the only condition at issue is that relating to the trash enclosure. He did not feel it would be appropriate to have the City Attorney spend a lot of time and money preparing more information. He stated that laws are laws and should be complied with. Comm. Rue noted, however, that it is important for the applicant to understand the procedures. He felt it is worth an effort to reach such understanding to avert potential legal problems in the future. Comm. Peirce stated that he would agree to a one-month delay; however, he stressed that he did not want the City Attorney to spend money on further work. Comm. Marks stated that the only physical problem relates to the trash enclosure. He suggested, therefore, that the applicant meet with staff to resolve that problem. Chmn. Ketz agreed that she would like to see the applicant and staff come to a resolution on this problem. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Marks, to continue this item to the meeting of April 2, 1991, so that the applicant and staff can discuss these issues in an attempt to reach an agreement. AYES: Comms. Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None CUP 90-25 -- CONDITIONAL_USE PERMIT FOR AUTO DETAILING -ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 825 PACIFIC -COAST HIGHWAY, HABASH AUTO DETAILING CONTINUED FROM MEETIN , -OF I274/90. 1/2/91, AND 2/5/91) Mr. Schubach gave staff-rept6 dated February 25, 1991, and recomftrend denial of the requested CUPbas -a on insufficient parking for the combination of the proposed auto Qt and -derailing business. P.C. Minutes 3/5/91 —Z BOCCATO'S GROCERIES April 9, 1991 City Clerk City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear City Clerk: l'. Cit,. Clerk Li Cly 0? Hermosa Beach �. to This letter is to formally appeal to the City Council the April 2, 1991 determination of the Planning Commission to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 91-1 for Boccato's Groceries. I applied for the CUP under protest in order to maintain my administrative and legal remedies and I am appealing the Planning Commission determination for the same purpose. The action the Planning Commission took was illegal, there were no findings to justify the action to approve the CUP or to warrant application of the conditions on the CUP. The Planning Commission failed to address the legal issues raised by my attorney and approved a CUP that is inequitable in terms of the conditions applied and unconstitutional on its face. We request that no hearing date be scheduled before the City Council until after the City Attorney provides a public written legal opinion that specifically addresses each of the legal issues raised in John Murdock's March 27, 1991 letter to the Planning Commission and a determination is made as to the legality of the City's CUP process as it applies to Boccato's Groceries. cc: Planning Director ********* 3127 Manhattan Ave. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (213) 376-0574 r3 R 0 1991 TELEPHONE 12131 451.4793 �a- JOHN B. MURDOCK ATTORNEY AT LAW 225 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD • SUITE 402 SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401 March 27, 1991 Planning Commission City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3885 Re: Boccato's Groceries CUP Application Hearing Date: April 2, 1991 EICiq Dear Commissioners: The following points of law are presented on behalf of Boccato's Groceries, in opposition to the proposed enforcement of CUP requirements under the Hermosa Beach Zoning Code. Boccato's Groceries has been operating continuously for over 22 years, and has held a valid, uninterrupted liquor license from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) for off -sale general liquor sales in connection with the grocery since prior to the CUP ordinances adopted in Hermosa Beach in Ordinance 86-865, Section 13.5 of the zoning code was adopted in 1986 and ostensibly requires an existing business which sells alcohol to comply with CUP requirements within 2 years or face the consequence that it "shall no longer have the legal authority to sell alcoholic beverages within the boundaries of the City of Hermosa Beach" (§ 13.5(A)) or "shall no longer have the authority to operate" (§ 13.5(B)). Initially, we find that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous. It is unclear exactly what the difference is between subsections A and B or whether it applies at all to an existing business which is not already required to have a CUP. Under subsection A, the ordinance applies "to establishments which sell alcohol and fall into any category of use which requires a conditional use permit in order to sell alcoholic beverages in the City of Hermosa Beach." This did not apply to Boccato's, because Boccato's is a food market which was not required to hold a CUP in the C-1 (§ 8-2) zone for off -sale liquor as part of a "food market". CUPs were required only as specified, e.g., in the C-2 zone under § 8-3, or for "liquor stores" in the C-1 zone. Since §§ 8-2 and 8-3 were adopted at the same time as part of Ordinance 86-865, it must be presumed there was an intent to require CUP in C-2 but not for food stores in the C-1 zone. Under subsection (B) of § 13.5, adopted by later amendment, it appears the city intended to require CUPs for the "remaining nonconforming commercial and manufacturing establishments"; however, the language of the ordinance still does not apply to Boccato's Grocery, because it states that it applies to the types of business establishments listed in Article 8 and Article 9, but then says that "All such establishments which do not possess a conditional use permit as required by Article 8 and Article 9 on the effective date of Ordinance No. 90-1041 shall be required to apply ...." The ordinance on its face, therefore, only applies to those establishments which are "required" under Article 8 or Article 9 to have a CUP. If they are required to have one and do not, they must apply. Since an existing food store such as Boccato's in the C-1 zone was not required to have a CUP under Article 8 or Article 9, the requirements of § 13.5(B) do not apply. Nevertheless, the city has sent notices to Boccato's stating that a CUP is required. An ordinance with penalties as severe as this one must be reasonably clear to the people who are required to comply with it, and this ordinance fails the test under constitutional standards of vagueness. See, e.g., Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 762 F.2d 753 (9th Cir. 1985); Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972). Assuming, arguendo, that the ordinance in question applies to Boccato's, the terms of the ordinance require him to apply for and obtain a CUP in order to "have the legal authority to operate" the establishment per § 13.5(A) or "the portion of the establishment" per § 13.5(B). We believe this is invalid because it conflicts with state law directly on point and is preempted. As noted above, Boccato's has a liquor license from the ABC and is within the provisions of California Business and Professions Code §§23790, 23800. Under § 23790, a city may regulate new businesses selling alcohol by application of zoning ordinances, but those businesses which already have a valid ABC license are specifically given the authority to continue in operation under the same "rights and privileges" as long as they meet two conditions set forth in § 23790. The operative language of the code reads as follows: No retail license shall be issued which are located in any territory where the exercise of the rights and privileges conferred by the license is contrary to a valid zoning ordinance of any county or city. Premises which had been used in the exercise of those rights and privileges at a time prior to the effective date of the zoning ordinance may continue operation under the following conditions: a) The premises retain the same type of retail liquor license within a license classification. b) The licensed premises are operated continuously without substantial change in mode or character of operation. (Id., emph. added). The legislature obviously has created an explicit grandfather clause which protects existing licensees from arbitrary application of new zoning requirements. The statute does not contain any provision authorizing local governments to impose amortization periods or new conditions. Hence, the provisions of Ordinance 86- 865 which purport to regulate or terminate liquor sales which predate the ordinance are invalid under article XX, section 22 of the California Constitution. See, Mussali v. City of Glendale, 252 Cal. Rptr. 299 (1988). The city attorney is apparently of the view that merely regulating the conditions surrounding the sale of alcohol, rather than the direct sale of alcohol per se, is permissible under the preemption doctrine and various cases interpreting the conditional provisions. However, the state legislature has further occupied the field regarding the conditions which may be imposed on retail liquor sales. Section 23800 authorizes the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to place "reasonable conditions" on the retail liquor seller, but only where there is a demonstrated need for the conditions to cure a problem arising from complaints, protests, or proposed revocation of the license. This statute provides as follows: Upon request of the licensee or applicant for a license the department may place reasonable conditions upon retail licensees or upon any licensee in the exercise of retail privileges in the following situations: a) If grounds exist for the denial of an application for a license or where a protest against the issuance of a license is filed and if the department finds that those grounds may be removed by the imposition of those conditions. b) Where findings are made by the department which would justify a suspension or revocation of a license, and where the imposition of a condition is reasonably related to those findings. In the case of a suspension, the conditions may be in lieu of or in addition to the suspension. c) Where the department issues an order suspending or revoking only a portion of the privileges to be exercised under the license. (B&P.0 § 23800; emph. added). Clearly, under established caselaw regarding preemption, where the state statutes evidence an intent to regulate or occupy a particular concern, local government may not intrude. While it may be argued that local government may have ancillary matters of concern, it is impermissible to intervene directly in those areas reserved for regulation by the state agency. In the above -quoted statute, the authority to impose "reasonable conditions" is granted to the state agency, and, even then, the power is granted only under specified circumstances where evidence exists and findings are made that the conditions are necessary to remove or mitigate demonstrable grounds for a protest or revocation. Since there has been no protest or grounds for revocation of Boccato's liquor license (to the contrary, there are letters of support), and the state agency has not found the need for any conditions to be placed on the sale of liquor, we find it difficult to see how the city can arbitrarily impose a set of fifteen conditions which have no basis in law or fact, and which create unreasonable burdens on the licensee. It is true that cities have been allowed to impose certain restrictions on liquor licensees which are not designed solely to regulate the sale of alcohol. For example, the court approved an ordinance in Berkeley requiring retailers to collect a deposit on all containers of malt beverages and soft drinks. (See, Park & Shop Markets, Inc., v. City of Berkeley (1981) 116 Cal. App. 3d 78, 172 Cal. Rptr. 515). In Ainsworth v. Bryant (1949) 34 Cal. 2d 465, an excise tax on retail purchases of alcohol was permissible, when it applied to all other retail items as well as alcohol. In both cases, the ordinances applied across the board to articles other than liquor, and liquor was merely one item subject to the regulation. In contrast, the entire purpose of Hermosa Beach Ordinance 86-865 was, and is, purportedly designed to regulate the sale of alcoholic beverages. The sole justification for the imposition of all of the fifteen conditions listed in Section 10- 8 is that the business establishment is "engaged in the off-sale of alcoholic beverages"; no other businesses are subject to these provisions. Hence, the requirements of § 13.5 and § 10-8, taken together, amount to a requirement to apply for and obtain a license (regardless of the terminology calling it a "CUP") from the city of Hermosa Beach as a prerequisite to the sale of alcohol, under specified conditions. If the business fails to apply for and obtain this license (CUP) by paying the fees and agreeing to the conditions, the consequences purport to be that business "shall no longer have the legal authority to sell alcoholic beverages within the boundaries of the City of Hermosa Beach". This is clearly in conflict with the constitution and the state codes authorizing the business to continue to sell alcohol under the same "rights and Privileges renioved] at a time prior to the effective date of the zoning ordinance", per § 23790, supra, or under any "reasonable conditions" imposed by the ABC (not the city) in the event of a protest with evidence and findings warranting the imposition of such conditions, or in the face of findings which might warrant revocation, per §23800, supra. The legislature has set forth an entire scheme dealing with the imposition of conditions on the sale of liquor, in §§23800-23805, including penalties for violation. The city's application of Ordinance 86-865 is also unconstitutional as applied to Boccato's, a fact which is virtually admitted in the city's staff memorandum. Under the U.S. Constitution, the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment require that businesses not be subjected to arbitrary and unreasonable discrimination in the application of local regulations. This requirement also appears in Cal. Gov't Code §65852. The city staff's memorandum to the Commission dated June 11, 1990 points out an obvious inequity which cannot be tolerated, yet the problem has not been addressed and is in fact applicable to Boccato's. The memo states as follows: "Also, those uses with currently active C.U.P.'s which were granted in the past often have very different and less restrictive conditions than new C.U.P.'s. Thus, the imposition of conditions on the oldest businesses may create inequities as compared to some newer businesses which are essentially the same." (emph. added). Boccato's is one of the "oldest businesses" referred to above, and it is in fact now being required to comply with conditions which are more restrictive and onerous than those imposed on Alpha Beta, Lucky, or Vons. This is clearly unconstitutional and will be stricken by the courts without hesitation if imposed. On the face of it, Section 10-8 states that the "following conditions shall be imposed on all establishments engaged in the off -sale of alcoholic beverages"; however, the city is not requiring businesses with previously issued CUPs (such as Vons) to meet these 15 conditions, while it is requiring Boccato's - which predates the entire CUP process - to come into compliance or cease operating after a short 2 year amortization. There is no question that this is unconstitutional. In short, the entire scheme whereby Ordinance 86-865 attempts to license the sale of alcohol by imposing conditions is invalid as presented. It is clearly preempted by state law and is being applied in an arbitrary and discriminating manner. If the city attempts to deny a CUP or enforce its terms by requiring the business to cease the sale of liquor, it will be subject to damages and attorneys fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a deprivation of property without due process and for unequal enforcement of law. The city has entered into a field preempted by state law under the guisemof zoning, but the issue is clearly one of licensing the sale of alcohol and imposing conditions. Boccato's cannot agree to the conditions for the reasons set forth in a separate letter, and we suggest that a meeting with the city attorney might resolve the matter in an amicable manner. 'J fin B. Murdock cc: Boccato's Groceries BOCCATO'S GROCERIES March 26, 1991 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: I wanted to write you this letter prior to the April 2, 1991 continued public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit being required by the City. I want to try and develop some understanding with you about my problems with this CUP process and the conditions being applied by the City. It is my understanding that it is the role of the Planning Commission to fairly and objectively review each matter before the Commission and make a determination that represents the best interests of the City, not just the opinion of the City Staff. I understand that role and respect it. I know the City needs to provide proper zoning standards for various land uses in the City and I respect their right and ability to do that. I also realize that I am just one business in the community which has to abide by reasonable community standards. I intend to and am willing to do that. However, it is quite clear to me that the Planning Commission has been led to believe by the Staff and City Attorney that there are no legal or other type of problems with requiring CUP's of existing businesses after a short amortization period and placing new and restrictive conditions on the operation of the businesses. The attitude is one of "There is no big problem, so why make an issue out of it?" I want to tell you that there is a problem, and it is a significant one. I would like to point out to you that because 20 -some existing businesses have gone along with this CUP process and accepted the attendant the conditions, does not validate the correctness or legality of the process. Nor should one assume that since no one has challenged the City imposed conditions being placed on the 20 -some CUP's, that they are not onerous or unreasonable. I believe the arguments below will substantiate my points. Only one member of the current Planning Commission was on the Commission when the determination was made to require the CUP process for existing businesses selling alcohol. For your information, the 1986 public record shows that the reason that the issue came up in the first place was because of problems with on -sale bars in the downtown area. In order to be able to 3127 MANHATTAN AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 (213) 376-0574 Page 2 "get at" the downtown problem, a whole set of development standards were established which broadened the issue dramatically and subsequently encompassed all existing businesses selling alcohol, whether or not they were a problem. There were no fmdings made at the time, nor are there any being made now that support the need for a CUP or the attendant conditions for existing businesses like Boccato's Groceries. This CUP process was not adopted in 1986 to apply to nor was it intended for a grocery store business. This is some of the background I want to give you on the adoption of this CUP procedure to support the reason that I am opposed to having to apply for the CUP. However, there are other issues that are equally important and which I hope you will consider without prejudice before making a determination on my case. The City Attorney has advised you that you are obligated to approve the CUP, but that you can put reasonable conditions on it, although he has also said that granting a CUP is not a matter of right for the applicant. I find that completely contradictory. Additionally, a CUP application is submitted by an individual who is seeking a permit to undertake some type of business venture not normally allowed in the zone in which they are located. We currently have the right to operate,a grocery store in the C-1 zone and we have a legal ABC license to sell off -sale alcohol at that,location. Boccato's is not applying for anything. We were forced to make the application under threat of citation. This is why Mr. Freeland asked the City Attorney at the last hearing what happens if the CUP is denied? In order to approve a CUP, there must be agreement between the City and the applicant that the CUP and attendant conditions are acceptable. Otherwise, the CUP must be denied so as to not allow the business venture to operate. How can the City Attorney represent that you must approve the CUP, whether or not the applicant is willfully making a request for a right or privilege and whether or not the applicant is agreeing to all conditions? There is no sense to this argument and no logical conclusion to be made from the City Attorney's comments. Constitutionally, you cannot force a business to comply with CUP conditions with which they do not agree to comply with. The conditions have to be acceptable to the applicant or the CUP must be denied. Then the City may try to close the business or take away the alcohol license through the denial of the CUP under the ordinance but the City cannot approve an application with which there is no mutual agreement on the process and conditions. But the City Attorney says you cannot deny the CUP. That is why I raise these fundamental questions. And I would add that the City Attorney has not addressed this or other fundamental questions. He just continues to say the City has the right to carry out this process. Will someone on the Planning Commission ask that the specific issues be addressed? Or is it easier to pass it along to the City Council and subsequently have these issues litigated. It would seem that if the answers can be determined now, it would save a great deal of time and money for everyone. Has the City Attorney addressed the specific questions asked by Mr. Freeland at the last hearing? Please take it upon yourselves to get answers to these questions. Let me pose a specific question to you. If the City denies the CUP and/or apply conditions which I will not agree to because I deem them unreasonable, can the City force me to stop selling alcohol and/or Page 3 close my grocery store? This is not a loaded question. It is the bottom line on this entire issue and it has not been addressed by the City Attorney. My grocery store is an allowed use in the C-1 zone. It does not require a CUP. It is only because I sell alcohol that the City has established this CUP and conditioning process. I have a legal ABC license. Can the City revoke that State authorized license and if they do that and force me to close my business because it is no longer profitable because I cannot sell alcohol as part of that business, am I not losing basic constitutional rights to operate my business and am I not entitled to just compensation for the loss of the business and ability to use the property that I own? That is a technical legal issue which the City Attorney should be able to address. However, what about the ethical and moral question. What have I done as a business in the Hermosa Beach community for the past 22 years to now be required to obtain a CUP which basically says I am not an acceptable use in the area and a negative influence on the surrounding neighborhood unless I have all of the conditions applied to my business? I would answer that question by saying, "Nothing!". There is no justification to warrant this type of treatment. I have provided a good service to the Hermosa Beach community and one which I think is appreciated by the north Hermosa Beach neighborhood. I am sure that when this whole issue started that there was no intention to go after grocery stores. It was only to solve a downtown problem with bats and it got blown all out of proportion. What would be your findings that would warrant the application of the CUP process to my business? You can't just say, "Because we applied it to the other businesses". That is just not a justification, nor is the fact that, even though the other businesses accepted the process, reason enough for Boccato's to agree to this process. There simply is no justification. The whole issue of "grandfathering" has not been addressed by the City Attorney. The amortization period does not deal with the issue of "grandfathering". Boccato's Groceries has been in operation since before the City had CUP requirements. That is not the same issue as the City Attorney is addressing when he says, "The City can require a CUP after a two year amortization period". You cannot apply a zoning procedure such as this to a business that precedes the requirement for the procedure itself, and you certainly can't do it with a two year amortization procedure that has the potential to be a taking of the right for me to continue to operate my business. The issue of fair and equitable standards for all uses has not been addressed by the City Attorney. There are existing grocery store uses in the City including Von's, Alpha Beta, and even Lucky's, which just recently obtained a CUP, which have significantly less restrictive standards applied to the business than are being recommended for Boccato's. This is an unconstitutional abridgment of my right to operate my business in a competitive manner with other grocery stores in Hermosa Beach. Ironically, the public record from 1986 indicates that the City's reason for encompassing all alcohol selling establishments was to provide equal and standardized operating conditions. The City has not done this, even with the recent Lucky's CUP, which, for example, has longer hours of operation and no requirement for packaging single containers of alcohol in a clear plastic bag, than what is being recommended for Boccato's. Page 4 The issue of the legal State ABC license has also not been addressed by the City Attorney. We have no problem with the City applying a CUP and conditions on a new alcoholic beverage license. That is standard zoning procedure. But the process of applying conditions to an existing license is not standard, nor has the ABC stated that they would agree with this procedure if the ABC licensee was not in agreement with the conditions. Please ask the City Attorney to address Business & Professions Code Section 23790 which specifically authorizes my continued operation under my existing ABC license since it was granted prior to the existence of the zoning requirement for a CUP. There is a legal preemption issue here of large proportion. The staff have tried to skirt it by forcing compliance with the alcohol related conditions under the guise of agreement by the applicant in obtaining the CUP. I will not agree to any alteration of my existing ABC license. How does the City Attorney believe the alcohol related conditions can be applied to my ABC license when I will not agree to them unless I deem them reasonable, which the current conditions are not? I would further point out to you that some of the previously applied conditions, deemed reasonable and legal when applied last year to Robert's Liquor were later judged to be illegal in a Superior Court case involving a Pacoima liquor store, requiring your City Attorney to later amend the conditions. This fact only punctuates our point that one should not accept the proposed CUP conditions as less than onerous without careful scrutiny. There are serious problems with the conditions which I will discuss below. There is also something inherently wrong with requiring CUP conditions that must be tested in court to determine their validity. It is expensive and time consuming for both the applicant and the City. It would seem to me that if there was any question about the reasonableness or legality of a condition, it should not be applied. It does not appear that the City takes that attitude but applies an overabundance of cumbersome conditions that are not workable and are certainly questionable in terms of reasonableness and legality. They expect the applicant to challenge them if they don't believe they are reasonable. That is not a fair or just way to operate and I would hope the Planning Commission would view the proposed conditions with these points in mind. Honestly, if I can get a reasonable answer from the City Attorney to this and my other questions in this letter, and he can show me sound legal reasons why I must comply with Ordinance 86-865 and the conditions being recommended by Staff, I will not push this any further. I am not out to be recalcitrant or challenge the City on any question. I sensed that the Commission felt that I was just taking an unreasonable position for the sake of battling the City. That is just not the case. However, to date, not only are my questions about the process not answered, there is a complete unwillingness by the City Attorney to be specific about any of the issues, almost to the point that it seems there is something to hide by his not answering the questions. As well, the response that has been made to date by the City Attorney is contradictory and makes no legal or reasonable sense. I don't believe my position of expecting clear and concise answers is unreasonable at all. With regard to the individual conditions, I will give you specific comments which I intend to share with the City Staff prior to April 2nd, in hopes that you will better understand my position and possibly the Staff will alter its position. Page 5 Although there are a number of different specific reasons why the conditions are unacceptable, I would like to pose a hypothetical scenario to yoti to show you the most pragmatic reason why I cannot accept the conditions, and am totally amazed, that others have apparently been so freely willing to put themselves and their businesses in jeopardy and give up their basic rights. Assume that everyone in the City is reasonable today and would not take advantage of anyone's legal, moral, or ethical right to operate a business in the City. Under those circumstances, it could be possible to argue that the conditions being recommended would never be a problem. However, these conditions require that they be on the deed to the property. They are permanent and binding. Now suppose an overzealous City zoning administrator is hired in Hermosa Beach and the City Council supports their every administrative action. And suppose this City zoning administrator decides to revoke a CUP. The wording of the current CUP conditions is so onerous that the City could put me or any other businessperson out of business with the most flimsy excuse. Now you could say that this could never happen and one always has the legal right to object. Read the conditions carefully. By agreeing to the conditions, one is giving away every legal right to challenge the City, should they attempt to revoke the business's CUP. Worse is, even the smallest infraction of the municipal code, by definition, is reason enough for revocation. It could happen. I will not give up my rights, either because I am "grandfathered" by my existence in business for 22 years or because my rights are guaranteed under the U. S. Constitution. Read the conditions carefully and think about what could happen. For example, if I changed some counter space in the store without obtaining approval of the Planning Director, that is a violation of the CUP and I have no right to challenge an overzealous zoning administrator if they wanted to revoke my CUP. I have no rights under this scenario. Regardless of its hypothetical nature, I am not willing to accept the possibility of ever facing this scenario as a result of my agreeing to the current conditions being recommended by the City Staff. And even if it was suggested by the City that I still had the legal right to challenge the City if they tried to revoke my CUP for some minor violation, I should not have to ever face that burden because of some of these onerous conditions that need not be applied in the first place. The CUP and its attendant conditions are to provide a reasonable operating standard under which a business can operate without threat and the City can be assured that the business will not be a problem. Aside from the other problems with the CUP process described above, this whole conditioning process has gotten completely out of control, with a set of development standards devised that go well beyond "a reasonable operating standard". Please review my comments on the proposed conditions. Page 6 1. The requirement that the establishment shall not adversely affect the welfare or residents, and/or commercial establishments nearby is ambiguous and does not define any specific conditions that can be interpreted or understood in terms of determining what "adversely affect the welfare..." means. We are unwilling to accept such an ambiguous condition. 2. The hours of operation proposed (9:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight) are not acceptable. Although we do not currently open until 9:00 a.m. and currently close at 9:00 p.m.(eccept during the summer), there is no purpose served by limiting the hours of operation. Should we wish to open at 8:00 a.m., there would be no impact on the area in which we are located. We are already allowed to sell alcoholic beverages until 2:00 a.m. (under our existing ABC license) so we will not accept a condition that limits our current legal State license. Further, this condition is discriminatory, in that, other businesses in the City are allowed to be open longer hours than this condition will allow. 3. There is no physical way to enclose the trash enclosures without losing parking on the site. ro - Since there is limited parking already, it is unacceptable for Boccato's to lose a parking space - to accommodate a trash enclosure. Meeting this condition would reduce Boccato's parking by 20%. There is no other location on the site for a trash enclosure. Since parking is so critical to the success of Boccato's business, we cannot accept this condition. Should it be necessary, we are willing to apply for a specific waiver from the zoning code so that we can maintain all of our parking. 4. The requirement that the parking area must be slurry sealed and restriped in the same configuration that currently exists will not work if the trash enclosure condition is required. Additionally, it is our intent to fully resurface the parking area. with new concrete which we believe is the proper way to improve the parking area. Due to the conflict with the trash enclosure issue and the wording which would require us to make an inadequate improvement to the parking area, this condition is unacceptable. 5. The requirement that the business shall be responsible for preventing loitering, unruliness, and boisterous activities of the patrons outside the business or in the immediate area is unreasonable. There has never been any problem of this nature in Boccato's 22 years of operation. This might be a condition for an on -sale liquor establishment (a bar in the downtown) but is not appropriate for a neighborhood grocery store located where Boccato's is. Further, it is unreasonable for the City to expect a grocery store business to control the conduct of people once they are out of the store and certainly not once they are off the property. Boccato's is not authorized as an agent of the law to carry out this function, nor do we wish to, nor should we be required to take on this liability. 6. The requirement for signs relating to the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages is not required by the ABC and is not a requirement of Boccato's current ABC license. Although Page 7 Boccato's Groceries supports the local laws regarding the sale and consumption of alcohol in public places, it is not our role to enforce such laws except as they apply to our ABC license, nor do we have the ability to do that. Further, the requirement is cumbersome, would negatively impact our limited display area and would be obtrusive in the conduct of our business. Therefore, the requirement is not one we are willing to accept. 7. The requirement for an employee to always be on duty who is aware of the CUP conditions and the requirement for requiring acknowledgement of reading and understanding the CUP by all management employees is unreasonable considering the number, content, complexity, scope and impact of the conditions being recommended. This requirement infringes on my personnel practices and has no impact on the proper operation of the business. However, should a limited set of reasonable CUP conditions be approved, we would not object to the condition. 8. Since we are withdrawing our application to sell adult videos, there is no reason for this condition. It should be removed. 9. Condition #9 is similar to Condition #19 and unacceptable for the same reasons. Section "A" is unnecessary, in that we have asked that any reference to the sale of adult videos be removed from our application. Section "B", which refers to "anything illegal for a minor to view shall not be displayed from an area where a minor could view such objects", is vague and ambiguous. There is no definition of terms as to what "anything illegal" means, making it impossible to understand or enforce such a requirement. We will not accept this type of a requirement. 10. The requirement that any violation of the conditions of the CUP and/or violation of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code shall be grounds for an immediate revocation hearing and/or citation is unreasonable. It is overly broad and arbitrary and gives the City unfettered discretion and unconstitutional authority to cite or revoke the CUP. Violations of the zoning code or other violations of the Municipal Code have defined penalties attached, if a person or business is proven guilty. A revocation hearing on a CUP must be based on reasonable grounds, not "any" violation. The condition is totally arbitrary and by agreeing to it Boccato's would be giving up basic constitutional rights. 11. The prohibition against video signs, including window signs, is an infringement on Boccato's right to conduct normal day to day business and, in fact, prohibits the business from its right to advertise. The wording is undefined regarding, whether or not the prohibition relates only to adult videos or to all videos. The City has no authority to limit advertising of video sales or rental so long as it conforms to the City's sign ordinance. The wording of this condition is clearly unconstitutional. 12. The home delivery of videos or magazines prohibition is unacceptable. This condition does not define what videos or magazines are prohibited from being delivered or if this only applies 3 8— Page 8 to adult videos and magazines. The City has no right to make such a prohibition and limit the services that Boccato's provides. Boccato's Groceries has provided home delivery of items since it opened 22 years ago. Such a prohibition would negatively affect Boccato's day to day business operation. This is an unconstitutional abridgement of Boccato's right to freely operate the grocery store business. 13. The requirement that measures shall be taken to control loitering on the public sidewalk is unreasonable, in that, Boccato's has no such problem. Further, we have no responsibility for or ability to do anything to control the activities of people once they are off our premises. We are not an authorized agent of the law to carry out this function, nor do we wish to, nor should we be required to take on this liability. We cannot accept this condition for these reasons. 14. Boccato's has no difficulty with Condition #14, in that we pride ourselves in the neat and clean appearance of the store, both on the inside and outside. 15. The requirement that alcoholic beverages shall only be sold to individuals over 21 years of age isfaunacceptable. By the requirements of State law and our ABC license, we cannot sell alcoholic beverages to individuals under the age of 21. The ABC controls that requirement and has penalties for violations. This is not a local government issue as it is preempted by State law. Boccato's will abide by its legal requirement and obligation under its ABC license and current State law. 16. The requirement that individual containers of alcohol shall be packaged in clear bags is not a current requirement of our ABC license. The wording is vague and ambiguous, in that it includes all individual containers of alcohol in the requirement. The intent of the requirement requires definition, i.e., does it only mean single beers?). The requirement is also discriminatory, in that, it is only being applied to a few businesses in Hermosa Beach. Additionally, how a business packages any item sold in its grocery store should be the choice of the business and not regulated by the City under the guise that the application of the requirement will have a positive impact on the compatibility of the business on the area in which it is located. The issue, creating the supposed need for the requirement, is not a problem in the neighborhood. Therefore, no justification for the requirement can be made. 17. The requirement for participation in the "EASY" program is not acceptable. The program is not defined and, therefore, the relevance of the condition is unknown as it relates to Boccato's business. We object to the term "verified and monitored by the police department". This terminology is ambiguous and provides no specific criteria for verification and monitoring. We are unwilling to accept ambiguous conditions or participate in an undefined program of this nature. Additionally, whatever kind of program this is, it should be voluntary in nature and not Page 9 applied as a requirement, especially when it is not a requirement of Boccato's current ABC license. If it requires attending meetings by employees or taking up business time for some type of training, such a requirement is unreasonable and unconstitutional. 18. Condition #18 is the same as Condition #10. It is unacceptable for the reasons discussed in # 10. 19. The requirement that any change to the exterior or interior design of the building or business shall be approved by the Planning Director infringes on Boccato's ability to conduct a normal day to day business operation. We object to it for the same reasons as we object to condition #9. This condition would require that even the most minor change to the interior of the building, such as moving a counter or fixture would require prior approval. This is an unreasonable condition, in that it gives the Planning Director control over the conduct of business activity that is clearly not in the Planning Director's purview. Additionally, there is no positive impact that the requirement would have that would make the business more compatible with the surrounding area or improve the conduct of the business. 20. The requirement that the CUP will only be effective after Boccato's has submitted a signed and notarized acceptance of conditions form is obviously unacceptable unless there is agreement by Boccato's that the conditions are acceptable prior to action by the City to approve the CUP. There is no need for this condition because if the conditions are not acceptable, the CUP will not be approved by the City. 21. Boccato's objects to recording an approved CUP, should that occur with conditions agreed to by the applicant. This clouds title to the land and creates a cumbersome problem should laws change or be modified in the future. Should the CUP be approved and agreed to by the applicant, it is a binding legal document on its own. There is no need for such a recordation as it puts an unnecessary and unreasonable burden on the owner of the property. 22. The requirement that the Planning Commission may amend the conditions of the CUP or add new conditions is arbitrary and unreasonable. Boccato's will not agree to allowing such actions without a public hearing, and will not agree to agree to such a condition. Agreement with the condition implies that Boccato's would be willing to accept additional conditions without its input or acceptance. Obviously, Boccato's is unwilling to accept this type of open condition. 23. Because the CUP and the conditions may eventually challenged in court, Boccato's will not agree to the severability condition defined in Condition #23. In conclusion, the application of the Conditional Use Permit process on an existing business that has successfully been in operation for many years without any problem with the community or Page 10 the neighborhood in which it is located is a clear infringement on the right of the business to operate in a reasonable manner. Although there is a legal opinion from the City Attorney that says the City is obligated to approve the CUP and can only apply reasonable conditions, the fact of the matter is that these regulations are a taking of business opportunity, and in the case of denial of the CUP, a taking of the business. The City has attempted to sldrt this whole issue by saying that they have the right to apply the CUP and consequent requirements because there is some kind of incompatibility issue involved with the business use in question. No findings can be made supporting any incompatibility of Boccato's Groceries with the surrounding neighborhood or community. Therefore, there is no need for the CUP or the consequent conditions. The incompatibility issue used by the City to justify the CUP requirement is wholly based and substantiated on the control of the sale of alcoholic beverages. The State of California controls and regulates the sale of alcohol by local businesses. They permit cities to apply conditions to new ABC permits, so long as they are reasonable conditions. The proposed resolution to implement the CUP states that the CUP is to allow off -sale General liquor, in conjunction with a market. This is incorrect. Boccato's is already legally licensed to sell alcoholic beverages and has been for many years. Even if the City had the right to add new conditions to an existing ABC license, which we firmly believe they cannot do (in accordance with Section 23790 of the State Business & Professions Code) there are no findings that can be made to substantiate any need for conditions relating to the sale of alcohol at Boccato's. Further, the conditions the City is attempting to apply are unreasonable, arbitrary, and ambiguous, and most have nothing to do with the supposed reason the CUP is being required (control of the sale of alcoholic beverages). Boccato's Groceries is unwilling to agree to the proposed CUP and the recommended conditions, as the CUP and the conditions are currently defined, for the reasons described, and requests that the Planning Commission determine an appropriate, fair and equitable course of action based on my statements in this letter and the letter from my attorney, which you will also receive prior to April 2nd. Yours truly, Frank Boccato BOCCATO'S GROCERIES CUP 91-1 Conditional Use Permit to sell adult videos and for off -sale general alcohol in conjunction with an existing market already licensed by A.B.C. at 3127 Manhattan Avenue, Boccato's Groceries. Mr. Schubach stated that the applicant will be required to enclose the trash dumpster, slurry seal and re -stripe the parking lot. Mr. Grove asked if the zoning code allowed for adult videos in a C-1 zone. Mr. Schubach stated that if the videos are minor in nature, they can't define it as an adult business. c Motion by Mr. Schubach to recommend a negative declaration and recommend that the trash dumpster be enclosed and the parking lot be slurry sealed and re -striped. Second by Mr. Grove. No objection, so ordered. Meeting Adjourned. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Staff Review Committee at their regular meeting of January 17, 1990 Ken Robertson; Chairman Date Its1 ,j0 ALE 1" 50' 59 CODE 4340 FOR PREV. ASSMT. SEE:164-46 SHAKESPE ARE M.B. 9-190 5.6.59 PROJECT ADDRESS Project Name CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 31z. 7 PA A-4 F 1-r iv.) A-eNve (If applicable) RoeGPrro15 C3Roceiti The Ner2TNEa-sr 20 . 15 i=cr r OI . r1Z A-P•fio ,4q -t, uF ,tom r iSL LEGAL DESCRIPTION err; sh/},cESPFi9--E rR►4cr ,45 r 2 M4P yg4,e0oZONING I N 1 JO✓ Cf I tis E/ q o -M4rS, L /4 • Cv ✓N T. APPLICANT INFORMATION: Name (s) f A4JF 1ece-A-TD C-1 Phone 376 -0574- Mailing Address 312.7 /11R+miA-rr,W Are. � *e12/ o.54 )3 A -u+ Applicant's Relationship to Property APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE C) wrue 140474-1-- Applicant's 40a -¢ /PeL (c.Ar7 / F .GD aAJDErt f?olt%1 a ,4-rn 0 L Erre DATE 1 -?-9) PROJECT REQUEST Conditional Use Permit -Commercial Conditional Use Permit -Condominium Number of Units Development Agreement _{L_ Environmental Staff Review Final Subdivision (Parcel/Tract Map) General Plan 2/01 Np rro,r&- 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: DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: C.tt, r/rt c I P � cc� ,� n ,� co 1t�o( RECEIVED BY: JA.N 7 1991 vk c_rk . u (VIAC.XcS41IA5 V ckC cw d 4-0 Ca./. 1 a c_l . i L— ve (attach additional pages if necessary) OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT* We/I FR.4-A/ ' 4. Roccj7 being duly sworn, depose and say that we/I are/am the owner of the property involved in this application and that the fore- going sttements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of our/my knowledge and b ef. Suscribed and worn before me this 7 da of , 199/. in and for the County of Los Angeles, State of California. Own e] -s Address SiT1re ;1-) ce, 5405 Telephone• OFFICIAL sEM. LEE WILKINSON NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY My Canmiaan Exp. Oct 15, 1992 * Signature required from current propel y owner, nod owner in escrow. � r FRANK BOCCATO BOCCATO'S GROCERIES 3127 MANHATTAN AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 January 7, 1991 Mr. Michael Schubach, Planning Director City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mr. Schubach: JAN7 1991 This letter is to provide you with a description of my business, Boccato's Groceries, required as part of the CUP application, which I am filing under protest. Boccato's Groceries has been in operation as a neighborhood grocery store at 3127 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, CA for twenty years. Before I purchased it, it was also a neighborhood grocery store for a number of years. To my knowledge, the business, prior to and under my ownership, has always been a permitted use in the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial Zone and has always had an ABC license. No special entitlements have ever been required for the business. The business operates from 9 AM to 9 PM on weekdays and Saturday and 10 AM to 8 PM on Sunday. During the summer, we are open until 12 midnight, daily. The grocery business is conducted on one level, the ground floor, with storage of merchandise on a loft level above a portion of the ground floor. The parking and loading area is in front of the store. There are five parking spaces. The existing building covers the entire lot except for the parking/loading area. The business has eight fulltime employees including myself and I employee approximately twelve local students as parttime employees with usually four of them working at any one time. The business has approximately 250 customers a day, many of whom are from the immediate neighborhood and walk to the store. Boccato's Groceries is a needed service in the north Hermosa Beach area. We provide personal attention to our customers including grocery delivery to those who need it. We are well-respected by our clientele and we have a loyal group of customers who have shopped at Boccato's for many years. I hope this properly describes my grocery store business. Yours truly, BOCCATO'S GROCERIES FRANK BOCCATO BOCCATO'S GROCERIES 3127 MANHATTAN AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 January 3, 1991 Mr. Michael Schubach, Planning Director City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mr. Schubach: JAN 7 1991 This letter is to accompany my application for a Conditional Use Permit for my grocery store at 3127 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach. I am filing this Conditional Use Permit application under protest. I am being required to do this by the City and am not doing it of my own volition. I do not believe the City of Hermosa Beach has the authority to require the CUP. Under this protest, I hereby reserve the right to take any legal action necessary to preserve any and all4of my rights. I reserve the right to file for a refund of all fees and costs involved in the CUP process. I also reserve the right to decline to agree to any CUP conditions that affect my ability to conduct business in the same manner that I am currently operating or to conditions that are unreasonable or preempted by other governmental authority. I also reserve the right to withdraw this application should I determine that it is in my best interest to do that. Yours truly, Fran Boccato BOCCATO'S GROCERIES JAN 7 1)91 ❑C!! I u R 1 1 1 1 1 Poe ._f• SITE MID rIRST FLOOR FLAN o^_• a V4 • G' t r -- To: Hermosa Beach Planning Commission I am opposed to your requiring a Conditional Use Permit on Boccato's Groceries. They have operated there for over 22 years, providing a needed neighborhood and community service without problem. There is no need to overregulate this business by requiring unnecessary conditions which will negatively impact their ability to conduct their business in a reasonable manner. Signed . Address jali, MAR 4 1991 Aeal,4 $ SGA 0.44 c. , 10251 c 1'3) 37' --7311 To: Hermosa Beach Planning Commission I am opposed to your requiring a Conditional Use Permit on Boccato's Groceries. They have operated there for over 22 years, providing a needed neighborhood and community service without problem. There is no need to overregulate this business by requiring unnecessary conditions which will negatively impact their ability to conduct their business in; a reasonabl, manner. Signed A, AddressT(.}T ) :`,/‘� MAR 4 1991 SUPFLCi'o;E 1 ! AL INFORMATION Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach 1314 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach Ca. 90254 February 27, 1991 4 19(70 Gentlemen: I am opposed to your requiring a Conditional Use Permit on Boccato's Groceries. They have operated there for over 22 years, providing a needed neighborhood and community service without a problem. There is no need to overregulate this business by requiring unnecessary conditions which will negatively impact their ability to conduct their business in a reasonable manner. I have lived at 120 Longfellow Ave. since 1988. (Two houses from the store) I have never had a problem with the way Frank Boccato conducts his business, nor have I had a problem with any of his patrons. Boccato's market has served as a corner stone of the North Hermosa Beach community. Many people desire to live in North Hermosa because of its easy access to services that the market provides. I urge you to please refrain from the unnecessary regulations you are trying to impose on Frank Boccato. The loss of his business will be tremendous loss for the beach community. Sincerely, Ai4 Steven Wolfe 120 Longfellow #B Hermosa Beach Ca. 90254 SUPPLEMENTAL II'J1 ORMATION J To: Hermosa Beach Planning Commission I am opposed to your requiring a Conditional Use Permit on Boccato's Groceries. They have operated there for over 22 years, providing a needed neighborhood and community service without problem. There is no need to overregulate this business by requiring unnecessary conditions which will negatively impact their ability to conduct their business in a reasonable manner. igned Address .fid/ ?:PSG Gri - dr'"` ni^,R 1991 To: Hermosa Beach Planning Commission I am opposed to your requiring a Conditional Use Permit on Boccato's Groceries. They have operated there for over 22 years, providing a needed neighborhood and community service without problem. There is no need to overregulate this business by requiring unnecessary conditions which will negatively impact their ability to conduct their business in a reasonable manner. Signed � Address c 6 _ ��CL GGL2� SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION To: Hermosa Beach Planning Commission I am opposed to your requiring a Conditional Use Permit on Boccato's Groceries. They have operated there for over 22 years, providing a needed neighborhood and community service without problem. There is no need to overregulate this business by requiring unnecessary conditions which will negatively impact their ability to conduct their business in a reasonable manner. --1-vU1 3 g co it ( / Signed Address s 4-1 6(-1)(1. CalifprniaL,rs' is"- - 5 /11._k r�L•I'V-� , 514„ieJ,, zet‘c,,e gia-xx-x4 anvmc:ei LV,ro4.01-01-t .(91 9(4,1.4t;t ata, (,4 %ZZEA•Agtottl e07 (01°4' /1"?1* tki12/0 %Z0414; aorAti 4° .4.0/ tUt, ✓LwVtill eAerr.,c4dp ,,,,i n,.4.✓�./.�.�.�.,L a(.-�..L^� o'er 4.,y (.ele 2 2 ..)ste 1/4/(A,x.t: LAtiA..4Lff-c-1-0-7 czA. 41-p%4,/ 0414 .2tteit 077W1u c•4•cle-' sl24"Qt • L:6.4 ,S:aln) 2A a e04:4. Betty Lou Port -Bender 2831 The Strand Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 5515 Nlelrose Avenue/Hollywood, California 90038-3149/213-467-9999 — 53_ Robert Benz 2901 Manhattan Ave. 10: Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach MAR 5 1991 Re: Application for Condition Use Permit by Boccato's Groceries As a long time resident living near Boccato's Groceries, I request that the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach reassess the need for the requirements associated with the Conditional Use Permit for this business. Boccato's has operated for many years providing a needed service to the community, Arbitrary requiring this business to submit to a litany of unreasonable conditions is not only unwarranted but contrary to the needs of the community, In my opinion, the requirements outlined in the Conditional Permit over step the bounds set by normal governmental prar, Furthermore, some requirements are probably unconstitution.: requirement number 17 dictates that the business owner participate in the EASY program. 1 don't doubt the intentions of the author of this permit. However, the requirement violates the i -,voluntary serv4tude statute of the United States Constitution Requirement 16 mandates that only clear plastic bags shall be to package containers of alcohol. This requirement is not unreasonable and based on incorrect inferences as to the caust_ oublic drinking but the requirement also mandates the use of .east effective biodegradable method of packaging. the sheer subjectiveness of this permit lends itself to abuses from the city bureaucracy. The permit states that the dumpst.ers which are exposed to view should be screened from view. Who is risking this determination? Another subjective observation and associated demand regards the supposed poor condition of the parking. In apparent disregard to the standards of the Civil Engineering Code, the permit mandates the use of slurry seal to alleviate the problem, One regulation mandates that the planning director be given final word on any changes within the owners property. Such a reau'v:ion erroneously assumes that the planning director possesses gee insight to the operation and modificat.ions within the business. The conditional use process was developed to min ;ate nega :e impacts from proposed business activities, There has beer. ,,o negative impacts from the operation of this business. Boccato's Grocery is successful because the business offers a service to the community. The public health, safety and welfare is promoted by the successful operation of this business. Forcing this business to operated under this permit will negatively impact this business and possibly force this business to relocate to escape the draconian regulations within the permit. Therefore, the imposition of this permit on this existing business will negatively impact the area which is contrary to Char -tared goals of the Conditional use Permit Process. Sincerely Yours, Robert Benz (213)37 IJPPLEMENT4L INFORMATION A . i9g1 ii Lrc„1 o4 itsrvr+os& Smell Plan., h to s . 13 t 5 VaAtt� Or, �lc.rmnout,. &. gvas-4 .,ro horn =-4- May ConcLrn ije s41.01514 siAptoott- 13 ;Arta -Fellow Hermosa Qo Sy crank r3occa4e, is (r.cca-4o's Groceries) pa i4t'6h -I4 a+ -i4 e. et41 1I-crrnas-- has reason -1-eb rt ui rc` rr. r. ' occa4-b 4-0 06 iv► a. Coodif-ior a ( Os -,e Perrvti ; sinedt. his btts chess has o tera-fcd h �1‘e are& 45r :Z ears avid has always kten cc xWbf{. wi4I +ht- a14esr businesses and resIciehces 'h ,le.1511bot li oad ha 47‘14ker vyvo lfre. 1 1 5 (Art re4s o,) 4.6 (e._ `% as (L VY1 r -13 o c 46.4-6 -pi ie. 4 r •f- k t_ r i 5 64 s{ I I ascid+ tli.cteos rAckse1/4.2..V1ts L)t-ver, Yah tuts ma 4114 0-C Sekt:t" -fi•cts ciL51-as4e-C-a( rret-kria 1. 13 u5thesSes +114‘4 arc. "c3 retrici•Pa441 erect 11 sinavid 0 br rep; reci 4-t, 0 [ek 14v, A- P 6 0.3w-5 7/4,4.1 cis 7GIZ • . - /66P;e11, 71/YV/ To: Hermosa Beach Planning Commission From: Frank Boccato Subject: Neighborhood Petitions Supporting Boccato's Attached are gZ petitions from Hermosa Beach residents supporting Boccato's position that the CUP the City is requiring and the unreasonable conditions being applied to the CUP are unwarranted and an infringement on Boccato's right to operate a legal business in the City of Hermosa Beach. Please accept the petit' s as Frank BToccato of the public record. March 15, 1991 TO: Hermosa Beach Planning Commission 1=[� i��� ��� ° � ,'' ��� /c�x As a resident of Hermosa Beach living at 260 Longfellow Ave. and one who regularly shops at BOCCATO'S MARKET, I would like the city to acknowledge my strong appeal against your requiring a conditional use permit on the above mentioned business. Boccato's Market offers a wonderful full range of quality services that strongly benefits this surrounding area. It is operated under the utmost professionalism, consciousness, and integrity. For it is the people, the local tax paying residents, who are privileged to have a local market such as this. In regards to your CUP requirement, I fail to see your legal right to do so based on its 22 year existence and excellent track record within the community. What I do see is a dictatorial government that will hurt more than it helps. Furthermore, I also am aware of, and in disfavor with, the many ridiculous conditions being applied. I am referring to accepting unknown requirements to be laid down at in the future. I am referring to the requirement of future modifications being approved by the city. I am referring to clear plastic bags for the purchase of alcohol. All three of the above mentioned impede the flow of this fine community service, but point 3 is especially disturbing. Myself, I use a canvass reusable bag to haul my groceries to help our environment by stopping unnecessary waste. I call it instant recycling, but then again your not familiar with RECYCLING. This is evident by this city's non existent program even though all surrounding cities do. This recycling issue is where your efforts could be appreciated by all. In closing, leave BOCCATO'S MARKET free to operate as it chooses and focus your efforts on something more valuable to the community such as a recycling program. Sincerely: --411.E, "� ^ Ken R. Weller amemmommmemmm 4,11[&,:! v C G City of 21ermosa Teach Betty Lou Port -Bender 2831 The Strand Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mrs. Bender: Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 March ;, 1991 Just a note to acknowledge receipt of your letter of March 5, 1991, regarding a conditional use permit for Boccato's Market. Your letter has been copied to the entire City Council. We appreciate your input on this matter. For your information, all establishments in our City that sell alcohol are required to hold a conditional use permit. The permit protects our residents from from negative impacts and causes all businesses to operate under the same rules. Should applicants contest any condition, they can appeal the matter to the City Council. Thank you for your interest in improving our community. Sincerely, Kevin B. Nort craft City Manager KBN/ld cc: City Council / Planning Department 8181991 • • Ca1ifonia" `! KCAL-• r\ \ J ftECLivtJ MAR u 7 b,, ii7aAJ 1f9/ Uo: )4)&vt-r4-0- e)aX2fOr ao ,e4a-rA 4,r1 idt/1-4esi41 L.t.4; 4 ,4A -&t7 loAAreb 647tu+ sialo , JeveZ-, .96v-d-er ak 4.4/ 9fa at‘idit-Ze 444AS of 1:. -cd e°11i& 2i«;7nA4..Le Betty Lou Port -Bender 2831 The Strand Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 5515 %1elrose Avenue Hollywood, California 90038-3149/213-467-9999 : u) _oJ tel, G '&) k CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH RE: NOTIFICATION LIST FOR: I hereby certify to the best of and addresses of all persons to available assessment roll of the distance of three hundred (300') shown above, and that said list referenced area. Boccato's Groceries 3127 Manhattan Ave (4181-030-015) my knowledge the attached Ownership List contains the names whom all property is assessed as they appear on the latest County of Los Angeles within the project site and for a feet from the project site of property, _legally described as also contains the resident addresses within the same above It is hereby stipulated that the City of Hermosa Beach is not responsible for any portion of this list. I, the undersigned, do declare under penalty of perjury that I did on the 2nd day of May, 1991 deposit in the United States Post Office, first class postage prepaid, a copy of the public notice attached as Exhibit "A" to each and every person attached as Exhibit "B". I warrant that the persons named on Exihibit "B" are all the persons required by applicable law to receive the public notice attached as Exhibit "A". I understand and agree that it is my responsibility to cause these public notices to be made in an accurate and timely fashion and agree to hold the City harmless against any liability whatsoever for any defect of said notice or notices. In the event an action is instituted in a court of competent juristiction which questions the legality of the public notices, then the City may in its exclusive discretion suspend all hearings or cause the cessation of any construction or of any use which was permitted as a result of a hearing which was held in accordance with the public notice. In the event that the court declares the notice or noticing procedure to be deffective, then the City may in its exclusive discretion revoke any permits granted and cause any approvals given pursuant to those public notices to be declared null and void and I agree on behalf of myself and my heirs, assigns or successors -in -interest to hold the City harmless in connection therewith. I declare under penalty or perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. CATHY SCHULTE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS On May 2, 1991, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Cathy Schulte, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged the she executed the same. WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL. SIGNAT —b%— r OFFICIAL SEAL jligh LAURICE M. DUKE j�l�}}'-`� Notary Public CAIlfnrnl• Q•. PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN L. A. COUNTY My Comm. Exp. Mar. 12. 1993 r k\ I.,c LA- "e. MAA./ ‘M- t.w\b-tLS off- c �� � co v� L % A w. .,.e g e c,t t wCro INA- t m u erg Ce v t'k "41/431.5 e. vYte,e`4 ; k.)ue. it Vvt ^'Crlhs� tv'�e�t�- 4'k- '1AA-A.6 li\o"W\ yz) /S 6. CMA SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 1246 First St. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 May 8, 1991 Hermosa Beach City Council Civic Center, 1315 Valley Dr. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Good day, RECEIVED tor I . 1991 This is in reference to the appeal of the denial of CUP for condominium conversion at 23 Barney Court, 18 and 20 Meyer Court, on the agenda for the City Council meeting May 14, 1991. I am in favor of denying the appeal, as staff recommends. Last year in April I wrote in opposition to changing the General Plan here to medium density from low density. A compromise on was finally reached on that issue; however, condominium conversion was never mentioned. In short, I want my low-density, single-family neighborhood to remain that way; that's the quality of life I bought into with my property taxes. I specifically do not trust the City to hold the line at just one condo conversion here, if it is allowed. The self -admitted nonfeasance of the City in taking action on south Prospect traffic issues is a glaring example of how this neighborhood is treated by the Council and staff. In more than three years and two dozen letters, the City has made plain that it has no vision for Prospect traffic (and by extension, the neighborhood). And where there is no vision ... Sincerely, c6a414e44 David R. Suess SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 7 Honorable Mayor Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council May 6, 1991 Regular Meeting of May 14, 1991 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CON 89-6 LOCATION: 23 BARNEY COURT/18 & 20 MEYER COURT APPELLANT/ MICHAEL J. CLELAND APPLICANT: 865 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266 PURPOSE: TO ALLOW A CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION OF THREE EXISTING UNITS Recommendation Staff recommends that the Council sustain the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the proposed conversion by adopting the attached resolution, because of the inconsistency with the General Plan density requirements for the subject site. Alternative If the Council finds merit in the proposal recognizing that the structures already exist and that the potential conversion to owner occupied housing may actually be a benefit to the community, the conversion may be approved pursuant to the state subdivision map act which provides an exemption for subdivisions of air space in existing structures from general plan consistency requirements. Background At their meeting of April 2, 1991, the Planning Commission denied the request by a 4:1 vote, because of the existing structure is inconsistent with the general plan density limitation for the site and does not comply with current zoning standards in regards to density, height, open space, and the front setback. For further background please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report. Analysis Please refer to the Planning Commission staff report for the analysis. 1 CONCUR: Michael Schubach Planning Director evin Nort.craft City Manager Attachments 1. P.C. Staff Report 2. Proposed Resolution sustaining P.C. decision 3. Alternative Resolution of approval 4. P.C. Resolution 5. P.C. Minutes 4/2/91 6. P.C. Staff Report attachments 7. Public Notice Affidavit a/pcsr23 2 (CONTINUED FROM 3/19/91 MEETING) March 13, 1991 Honorable Chairman Members of the Regular Meeting Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 19, 1991 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CON 89-6 LOCATION: 23 BARNEY COURT/18 & 20 MEYER COURT APPLICANT: MICHAEL J. CLELAND 865 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266 REQUESTS: CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION OF THREE EXISTING UNITS of Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the proposed conversion by adopting the attached resolution because the existing three dwelling units are not consistent with the density limitations of the General Plan designation for the subject site and do not comply with current zoning requirements in regards to density, height, open space and front setbacks. Alternative If the Planning Commission finds merit in the proposal, however, recognizing that the structures already exist and that the potential conversion to owner occupied housing may actually be a benefit to the community, the conversion may be approved pursuant to the state subdivision map act which provides an exemption for subdivisions of air space in existing structures from general plan consistency requirements. Background Project Information: Lot Size: Existing Living Area: Unit A: Unit B: Unit C: Existing Parking Spaces: Guest Parking Spaces: 5281 Sq. Ft. 1794 Sq. Ft. 1896 Sq. Ft. 2233 Sq. Ft. 6 w/ 2 in tandem 4, located in setback behind garages The subject property contains two attached units with access from Meyer Court, and a separate detached unit with access from Barney Court. Six enclosed parking spaces are provided for the units in three two -car garages (one of them is a tandem garage). - 3 - The three units were constructed as one development in 1987. This was prior to the City's efforts to bring the area into general plan and zoning consistency. At the time of issuance of building permits for the project the zoning was R-2 and the General Plan was Low Density Residential. Since that time, and after several public hearings at both the Planning Commission and City Council to resolve the zoning and general plan inconsistency, the area bounded by Barney Court and Meyer Court (known as Area 10) was ultimately rezoned and General Plan amended to Specific Plan Area No. 2 (despite the recommendation of the Planning Commission for R -2B zoning and Medium Density Residential on the General Plan). As a result the S.P.A. now serves as both the zoning and general plan designations and the allowed density under the S.P.A. allows a maximum of two units on the subject property. Analysis The zoning code includes a provision that "the planning commission shall require that condominium conversions conform to the current requirements of the city codes, including building codes and Division 2 of this article, and to the general plan of the city" (Section 7.2-30). The existing three units do not conform to current zoning as only two -units are permitted per lot and, as such, are legally nonconforming to zoning density requirements. More critically, the current general plan designation of S.P.A. also has a density limitation of two units per lot, therefore the project is not consistent with the general plan. Additionally, the currently applicable S.P.A. allows the construction of only two detached units per lot, with a 25 foot height limit. The S.P.A. also requires open space and setbacks consistent with R-1 zoning requirements. The existing three units, however, were partially attached and constructed to the then applicable R-2 standards in terms of height, open space, and setbacks. As such the project is nonconforming in all essential elements of the zoning requirements: density; height; open space; and front setbacks. Given all the above inconsistencies, there is clearly adequate grounds for denial. However, Section 7.2-27 of the same ordinance, empowers the planning commission to, among other things: "...vary any and all requirements contained herein with regard to a particular conversion proposal upon a finding that the creation of the proposed condominium conversion will not have the potential to contravene the intent and purposes of this ordinance...." Thus, with a finding that the subject buildings are already in existence and, in terms of the effect on the community, that the conversion of these units to owner occupied housing would be a benefit, it seems that the Planning Commission may be able to find grounds for approval. Furthermore, owner occupancy is one _ _ of the stated goals of the Housing Element of the General Plan (objective no. 24). The inconsistency with the City's General Plan however, presents another obstacle to making findings for approval. The State Subdivision Map Act, Section 66427.2 provides an exemption for subdivision of air space of existing structures from the normally applicable general plan consistency requirements. The City Attorney has advised staff that this general state law provision, therefore, gives the Commission authority to approve the project, but it does not require that it be approved. In sum, the existing structure proposed to be converted is severely deficient in meeting current requirements of the zoning ordinance and is inconsistent with the general plan. Staff believes that the severity of the inconsistencies warrant denial, even though staff generally supports the concept that conversions to home ownership can benefit a neighborhood in that owner occupants are usually more concerned about long term care, maintenance and stability of the property. Further, conversion of existing structures to divided ownership would probably not result in any negative impact on surrounding properties. Otherwise, the application substantially complies with the remaining requirements of the zoning ordinance and the State Map Act :in terms of notification of existing tenants, a tenant assistance plan, and the preparation of a physical report. The submitted plans and documentation, however, do not clearly demonstrate compliance with sound transmission and storage requirements of the condominium ordianance. Staff has included a condition in the alternative resolution that evidence of compliance be provided prior to approal o,(l77t.he final map. '-n Rob rtso OiVCUR :/ Michael'Schubach Planning Director Attachments 1. Proposed Resolution of denial 2. Alternative Resolution of approval 3. Site Map 4. Zoning Analysis 5. S.P.A. requirements for area 10 6. Photographs 7. Description of improvements,rent schedule,notice of intent, and tenant assistance plan 8. P.C. minutes 4/18/89 9. Application 10. Public Notice Affidavit Associate Planner a/pcsr23 RESOLUTION 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUSTAINING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #20822, FOR A 3 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION PROJECT AT 23 BARNEY COURT, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 24, TRAFTON HEIGHTS TRACT. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on May 14, 1991, to receive oral and written testimony on the appeal of the Planning Commission decision to deny the request for a condominium conversion and made the following Findings: A. The proposed map, because of the proposed density of 3 -units, is not consistent with the applicable general plan designation which limits the density on this lot to two units; B. The site is zoned S.P.A. 2, which limits development to two units per lot and to the zoning standards of the R-1 zone, while the subject project is developed to R-2 standards and is therefore nonconforming to the applicable standards of density, height, open space and front setbacks; C. The project does not conform to zoning and condominium criteria and is not compatible with neighboring properties; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California does hereby sustain the Planning Commission's decisions to deny a Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map #20822 for a 3 -unit condominium conversion project at 23 Barney Court. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1991, by: ATTEST: PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California APPI. VIED S T FORM 11 —e4 k_ •kj eTTY A ORNEY CITY CLERK a/pers23 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 ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL RESOLUTION 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #20822, FOR A 3 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION PROJECT AT 23 BARNEY COURT, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 24, TRAFTON HEIGHTS TRACT. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on May 14, 1991, to receive oral and written testimony on the appeal of the Planning Commission decision to deny the requested condominium conversion and made the following Findings: A. The existing structures were constructed in 1987 and, although they are nonconforming to certain current zoning requirements, they were in complete compliance with the development standards applicable at the time they were constructed, and are in compliance with current building codes; B. Approval of this conversion is consistent with the intent and purposes of the condominium conversion ordinance (Section 7.2-15 of the zoning ordinance); C. Pursuant to Section 66427.2 of the State Subdivision Map Act consistency with general plan designations is not necessary for approval of subdivision of airspace in an existing structure; D. The project. otherwise conforms to all condominium criteria and is compatible with neighboring residential properties; E. The overall design, physical condition and amenities of the project provide for livability and safety, and the project will not be a physical or financial burden to the city or neighborhood; 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 F. The project provides an adequate program of tenant purchase and relocation assistance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map #20822 for a 3 -unit condominium conversion project at 23 Barney Court, subject to the following: SECTION I: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with submitted plans; any minor modifications shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. Significant modifications will required review and approval by the Planning Commission. 2. The project shall meet all requirements of the Condominium Conversion Ordinance. a. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions in compliance with the Condominium Ordinance shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the approval of a final map. b. Proof of recordation of approved CC&R's shall be submitted to the Planning Director six (6) months after recordation of the Final Map. c. Evidence of compliance with the requirements of Sections 7.2-23 (Structural Pest Report), 7.2-24 (Compliance with fire protection standards), and Section 7.2-31 (Requirements for preexisting buildings) regarding building structure and safety, including seismic safety„ shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to the approval of the Final Map, and shall also include the following: 1. Sound transmission between dwelling units shall meet the requirements applicable to new buildings (52 S.T.C. rating). 2. Energy insulation standards: The buildings must comply with energy insulation standards of the both the city and state applicable to new buildings to the extent that the following components are thereby required: 1) insulation of attic areas; and, 2) provision of weather stripping and other anti -infiltration treatment. 3. Private lockable storage space of at least 200 cubic feet shall be provided for each unit. d. Two (2) copies of structural plans demonstrating compliance with all the conditions of approval of this 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 Conditional Use Permit, with requirements of all applicable city codes and all requirements of state laws and regulations pertaining to building structure and safety shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director and Director of Building and Safety, prior to approval of the final map. e. The subdivider shall fully comply with the submitted tenant assistance plan, attached herewith. Pursuant to the assistance plan, the written agreement between the city and the subdivider by which the subdivider covenants to carry out the terms of the plan, including the required security bond, shall be executed prior to the approval of the Final map. 3. There shall be compliance with all requirements of the Public Works Department, Building Department and Fire Department. 4. A landscaping plan indicating size, type and quantity of existing and proposed plant materials shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to approval of the final map, and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director a. An automatic landscape sprinkler system shall be provided, and shall be shown on plans. 5. Architectural treatment shall be as shown on building elevations and any modification shall require approval by the Planning Director. . Any satellite dish antennas and/or similar equipment shall comply with the requirements of Section 1227 of the Zoning Ordinance. 7. Conduit shall be installed in each unit for cable television. 8. The address of each condominium unit shall be conspicuously displayed on the front street side of the building with externally or internally lit numbers and the method for illumination shall be shown on plans. 9. Automatic garage doors shall be installed on all garage door openings. For garage doors facing the street with less than a 20 -foot setback roll -up garage doors shall be installed, and maintained. 10. An "Acceptance of Conditions" form shall be executed and submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of any Building Permits. SECTION II Each of the above conditions is separately enforced, and if any of the above conditions of approval is found to be invalid by a 9 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 court of law, all the other conditions shall remain in full force and effect SECTION III The Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map shall become null and void eighteen (18) months from the date of approval unless the map is finaled. The applicant may apply in writing for an extension of time to the Planning Commission prior to the date of expiration of either the Conditional Use Permit and/or the Tentative Parcel Map. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1991, by: ATTEST: CITY CLERK A/PCRS23A PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California 84C/(OR O UN D i114TFR/4L RESOLUTION P.C. 91-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #20822, FOR A 3 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION PROJECT AT 23 BARNEY COURT, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 24, TRAFTON HEIGHTS TRACT. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on March 19 and April 2, 1991, to receive oral and written testimony on this matter and made the following Findings: A. The proposed map, because of the proposed density of 3 -units, is not consistent with the applicable general plan designation which limits the density on this lot to two units; B. The site is zoned S.P.A. 2, which limits development to two units per lot and to the zoning standards of the R-1 zone, while the subject project is developed to R-2 standards and is therefore nonconforming to the applicable standards of density, height, open space and front setbacks; C. The project does not conform to zoning and condominium criteria and is not compatible with neighboring properties; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California does hereby deny a Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map'#20822 for a 3 -unit condominium conversion project at 23 Barney Court. VOTE: AYES: Comms.Di Monda,Marks,Peirce,Chmn.Ketz NOES: Comm.Rue ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 91-21 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meeting of April 2, 1991. > ,;7 / /C -K ---c : ,.' I / " • j -=2%% CON 89-6 -- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP *20822 FOR A 3 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION AT 23 BARNEY COURT. 10 AND 20 MEYER COURT (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 19. 1991 MEETING). Director Schubach presented the staff report dated March 13, 1991, and recommended denial of the proposed conversion by adoption of proposed resolution because the existing three dwelling units are not consistent with the density limitations of the General Plan designation for the subject site and do not comply with current zoning requirements in regards to density, height, open space and front setbacks. The project lot size is 5281 square feet and contains two attached units of 1794 and 1896 square feet respectively, both with access from Meyer Court, and a separate detached unit of 2233 square feet with access from Barney Court. Six enclosed parking spaces are provided in three two car garages (one is a tandem garage), and four guest parking spaces are located in the setback behind the garages. The three units were constructed as one development in 1987. This was prior to the City's efforts to bring the area into consistency with the General Plan and zoning. At the time of issuance of building permits the zoning was R-2 and the General Pian was Low Density Residential. CSubsequently, after public hearings to resolve the zoning and General Plan inconsistencies before both the Planning Commission and the City Council, the area bounded.by Barney Court and Meyer Court (known as Area 10) was ultimately rezoned and the General Pian amended to Specific Plan Area No. 2. As a result the S.P.A. now serves as both the zoning and General Plan designations and the allowed density under the S.P.A. allows a maximum of two units on the subject property. The zoning code require that condominium conversions conform to the current city codes, for which the S.P.A. has a density limit of two detached units per lot, a 25 foot height limit, and open space and setbacks consistent with R-1 zoning. This project of three units, two of which are attached, are constructed to the then applicable R-2 standards in terms of height, open space, and setbacks. As such, the project is non -conforming in all essential elements of the zoning requirements, which is adequate grounds for denial. However, with a finding that the subject buildings are already in existence and, in terms of the effect on the community, that the conversion of these units to owner occupied housing would be a benefit, it is possible that the Planning Commission may find grounds for approval, as owner occupancy is one of the stated goals of the Housing Element of the General Plan. 12- P.C. Minutes 4/02/91 C In sura, the e.isting structure proposed to be converted is severely deficient in meeting current requirements of the zoning ordinance artd is inconsistent with the General Plan. Staff believes that the severity of the inconsistencies warrant denial, even though staff generally supports the concept that conversions to home ownership can benefit a neighborhood in that owner occupants are usually more concerned about long term care, maintenance and stability of the property. maintenance. 4v VI stability .y CJI 1 GI Public Hearing opened at 8:22 P.N. by Chmn. Katz. Dennis Cleland, 434 2 th Street, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission and explained that this. was ars existing 3 -unit apartment complex that was built to condominium standards and it was his belief that it would be a benefit to the City_ and the community if it were allowed to be converted to town house ownership. He also mentioned that part of the code allows a contribution from the owner for the possible approval of a conversion; that he had spoken to members of staff and had offered to contribute equipment or cash to the Senior Citizens if this would be a consideration. Comm. Di Monda questioned why he had not applied for condominiums from the start. Mr. Cleland replied that at the time the project was started, three years ago, the City was starting to rezone and there was consideration of a rnoratoriurn on new construction, so it was felt that it would be better to apply for apartments, build them, and then apply for conversion, since it was felt that the area would be zoned R-2, medium density. And, that the Planning Commission had recommended medium density for the area but had been turned down by the City Council. Mr. Cleland agreed with Comm. Marks that in essence he had taken a gamble and had lost on the ultimate zoning, but at the time, in R-2 zones, if the lot was large enough, three units could be built. He further stated that the project vias designed to blend in with the neighborhood; the detached unit was nearest the single family homes and was only 25 feet in height and the two attached units were next to the R-3 apartments. Mike Meyers, 1 104 First Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and disputed some of the statements made by Mr. Cleland, he stated that at the time the owner was turned down for condominiums, but the City had to allow apartments. He then asked for clarification from Director Schubach who said that this was basically correct. There was case law that the City had to allow apartments as long as they conformed to existing zoning and were ministerial (required only a building permit to go ahead), but condominiums were discretionary and required a C.U.P. so therefore could be denied. Mr. Meyer's continued that he felt the conversion should be denied; the project did not meet any of the existing standards and you don't reward someone who would have only been allowed to build two units if he had originally gone for condominiums, but had built as much as he could as apartments and now asks fora conversion. —/3— P.C. Minutes 4/02/19` 1 1 C or; complimented them on how attractive the new buildings were, and expressed pleasure that the old building was being replaced. He further stated that at the time of building, the project was not out of conformity with the zoning, he and his partners had agreed to the new zoning that now made the project non -conforming. In response to Comm. Rue's question of whether home ownership promoted a better neighborhood, Mr. Meyers replied that he would rather have apartments so that a precedent would not be set. Jerry Burdick, 1106 First Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and expressed his concern that it appeared that Mr. Cleland was offering a bribe in order to have his conversion approved. He stated that he was against conversion approval and felt it would be a giant step backward for the community. Jim Moss, 472 36th Place, Manhattan Beach, investor, addressed the Commission and stated that he had invested in the project in order to own a condominium and become a resident of Hermosa Beach. He felt conversion would enhance the neighborhood by allowing home ownership rather than renters. Steve Harris, 23 Barney Court, Hermosa Beach, investor, addressed the Commission and said although he was not involved in the initial phase of the project, it was his understanding the original request was for condominiums, but that had been rejected. He said that ,at the time of building the project the neighbors had stopped bu and had Comm. Di iLonda asked who the architect was. Mr Cleland replied that Pat Kilian was the original architect of record, but had moved out of town and Jerry Compton was local and had taken over for him. Ruth Brand, 1231 First Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and declared her opposition to the conversion on grounds that it contravened the intent and purpose of City Council Ordinance No. 90-1044; City Council Resolution No. 90-5398; and with three owners it could, at some time, open the City for possible litigation. She further stated that the structure was over the 30 foot height limit; that Barney was a one-way street: and regarding the in -lieu fees, the monies could be better used to make the structure more compatible with the neighborhood, zoning, and S.P.A. Wilma Burt, 1 152 Seventh Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and stressed her opposition to condominiums in a residential area, she stated that in apartments a disruptive tenant could be forced to move but a disruptive owner was there forpver continued the she was incensed that a staff member or a City Kttorneq would suggest that a contribution could be made in exchange for a conversion. P.C. Minutes 4/09/q1 C Comm. Rue asked if Mrs. Burt knew of in -lieu fees for parking and Senior Citizen housing? She replied that she did but did not approve of them. Asst. City Attorney Lee explained that the in -lieu fees were specifically provided within the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code and not a suggestion on any City official's part that would characterize this as a bribe. That it is a section within the City code that allows for conditional approval and considers in -lieu as an offsetting factor to approving a project where the Commission, in its discretion, would find otherwise unique advantages and benefits to the community and provides that such offsetting factors would include, but not be limited to, the addition to the City or the donation to the City, or other public agency or non-profit, of funds for permanent use of Senior Citizen, handicapped, or low and moderate income persons; something that would go into a fund or account of the City to provide housing for people in a category that require it. The in -lieu is allowed as an offsetting factor. Robert Benz, 2901 Manhattan avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to ask if there was a schedule for the in -lieu fees. Asst. City Attorney Lee responded that there was no schedule, the City code said that the number of said donated units or the amount of in -lieu would be established by Resolution r of City Council consistent with the policies of the Hermosa Beach General Plan. Director Schubach explained that the State had laws requiring all cities to provide a certain amount of low and moderate income housing and in -lieu is one of the means by which the state allows this to be done. If a condominium conversion displaces low and moderate income uses, the City can require, as a condition of the conversion, that some units be set aside for low and moderate sale and rental. This was done when the Commodore was converted, the in -lieu was required at that time as a means to offset the social impact of the conversion. L Asst. City Attorney Lee stated that in -lieu was a provision of the code that the Commission may look at as a relevant factor, to be regarded or not, at the discretion of the Commission and in this case it has been offered by the developer as a potential offsetting factor. However, the payment of in -lieu, in no way, entitles the developer to a higher density than that allowed by law. Mr. Cleland finalized by saying that he was the one who had read of the in -lieu fees and suggested their application to staff, in order to offer something to the City beside town homes. The reality is that there are three apartments on the site at this time, conversion will not increase density or parking, and the City will have the benefit of a higher tax base and the new owners will have the benefit of home ownership rather than renting. - P.C. Minutes 4/02/91 Public Hearing closed at 9:09 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Comm. Pierce questioned tandem parking in an R-2 zone and asked if Barney and Meyer Courts would be considered alleys or streets. Director Schubach responded they were streets but he believed the parking was adequate. Comm. Rue felt the project had been built to condominium specifications, the project was on the low end of R-2 zoning at 16 dwellings per acre whereas R-1 allowed 13 dwellings per acre, that it fell in the buffer area of commercial at the bottom on Pacific Coast Highway and R-1 at the top of the hill, and finally it was a unique project that would not set a precedent. PROPOSED MOTION by Comm. Rue for approval of the C.U.P. and Tentative Parcel Map *20822 for a 3 -unit condominium conversion died for lack of a second. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, second by Comm. Di Honda to deny a Conditional Use Permit .E and Tentative Parcel Map #20822 for a 3 -unit condominium conversion and approve Resolution P.C. 91-21. AYES: Comms. Di Honda, Marks, Pierce, Chmn. Ketz NOES: Comm. Rue ABSTAIN: None r ( ABSENT: None f Chmn. Ketz;.stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. The meeting recessed at 9:20 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:29 P.M. CUP 91-1 -- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO SELL ADULT VIDEOS AND FOR OFF - SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING MARKET ALREADY LICENSED BY A.B.C. AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 3127 MANHATTAN AVENUE. BOCCATO'S GROCERIES (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 5. 1991 MEETING). Director Schubach presented the staff report dated February 26, 1991, and recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions contained in the proposed Resolution. At the meeting of March 5, 1991, the applicant requested continuance of this item to have more time for his attorney to study the issue. He also asked that the portion of the P.C. Minutes 4/02/91 29 60' 59 1985 \S� • cO Ao ODE 340 PR EV. ASStAT. SEE: 56 - 29 / 7- TRAFTON H EIGH M.B. 10-169 TRACT NO. 1802 M. B. 20-160 RESIDENTIAL ZONING ANALYSIS Project Address: :17.> 1 GoU1--"r Legal Description: 1141 9. Type of Project: 63,t1N/tArsiTYN No. Units: .3 Property Owner: S .O_.4 c - N Applicant(s): Designer: Cs-WC-- Date s-WC.Date of Plans: 3123 ec-(61 Analysis Prepared by: -v'�- Zoning: **************************************** Si P. A . 2— (2 v n A ?eAr lok' 1 vh►' - p i ;Goo (Ar -TL -1 sem, General Plan Designation: � n•01114._o t') Maximum Dwelling Units per Acre Allowed (DU/AC): R-1 R-2 R-3 13 DU/AC 25 DU/AC 33 DU/AC 1 Dwelling Unit per 1 Unit per 1750 sq. 1 Unit per 1320 sq. Lot Area: 52-81 i E)CLS'n ts--&— Density -Dwelling Units/Acres Maximum Allowable Lot Coverage: 65% Lo t Coverage: Minimum Unit Size: a) 1 bedroom b) 2 bedroom c) 3 bedroom d) 4 bedroom - 900 - 1100 - 1400 - 1600 Units Size(s): Lot ft. of Land ft. of Land sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. 1114 (Xllef 2.7-33 Usable Open Space Required a) R-1 b) R-2 c) R-3 d) R -P - 400 sq. ft. 7570 ground & R -2B - 200 - 200 sq. ft. - 200 sq. ft. , minimum dimension of 10' - 25% balconies, open to the sky sq. ft., minimum dimension of 7' , minimum dimension of 7' , minimum dimension of 7' Condominium developments requires 100 sq. ft. of additional private open space, minimum dimension of 7'. Each condominium development of five (5) units or more requires 100 sq. ft. of common open space per unit. Open Space per Unit: A Required Private: k 400 Tag, E ', Apo 4 CC.: 400 J - c vada Common: (/) Total: 02Q0 oposed a eY0. da.ac--s Z'f 0 3fo v 7-40 36o' V3 121 ************************************** Maximum Allowable Height ee , maximum stories b) R-2 & R -2B - 30 feet, maximum 2 stories c) R-3 - 35 feet d) R -P - 35 feet, maximum 3 stories Condominium developments located along walk streets shall not exceed the maximum height of 25 feet within the front half of the lot. Building Height: 3 dpi Note: Height shall be verified by the Building Department during Plan Check. ************************************* Building Setbacks Where garages or parking stalls front on a public street, the minimum setback shall be 17 feet provided roll -up doors are installed; a minimum of 20 feet shall be required where standard doors are installed. Where garages or parking stalls front on an alley the setback shall be 3 feet, 9 feet , or 17 feet. Setbacks.- continued Required guwy Front: (0/ 1 Side: 4I 4016 *********'c**************k******************** Parking a) Two parking spaces per unit, minimum dimension of 8 1/2 feet wide by 20 feet deep -enclosed, 8 1/2 feet wide by 18 feet -open: //- Total Required: (.o b) One guest space for each two units (round up; e.g. 3 unit site must provided 2 guest spaces) One guest space shall also be required for each on -street parking space eliminated because of new driveways or curb cuts. Total Required: 2— Parking Proposed: a) Spaces - 'b) Guest Parking - Required Proposed Turning Radius Turning Radius - d� ************************************************ Required Sound Insulation Required: mum wall insulation rating between units shall be b) The minimum floor/ceiling shall be 58 STC. d Sound Insulation rating between stacked units •- Ach ' � s� ....„541 di Gla o� Ca -Lit. rc,,u,,p,3S 5 p) - be verified by "'/d�,,, n check. �..,.u- Note: Sound Insulation requirement shall the Building Department during pla Storage Area Required per Units: a) 200 cubic feet of storage area per unit • Storage Area Proposed per Unit Location of Trash Facilities - - Afa r 1 W7Drck-re-0 � ►► 4/0 7-- II01641&-r) Staff Comments: 4144.ca)t4riv;frti dem sl -f7, 44,11 --" SO"Lc"-- - 6- REVISED - January 1991 p/analysis 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. 90-1044 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT BY CHANGING THE "AREA 10" FROM R -2B TO SPECIFIC PLAN AREA NO. 2 AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held public hearings on July 10 and July 24, 1990, and made the following Findings: A. The subject area has inconsistent General Plan and Zoning map designation, and state law requires consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance; B. In order to make the subject area consistent requires either an amendment to the General Plan Map or the Zoning Map; C. Rezoning the subject area as described below will bring the General Plan into consistency with the current zoning; D. Rezoning the subject area will not have a significant impact on the environment as it will lower the allowed density. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby ordain that the zoning map and zoning ordinance be amended as shown on the attached map and described as follows and adoption of an environmental negative declaration: 1. Zone Change from R -2B Two -Family Residential to Specific Plan Area No. 2 the area located between Barney Court and Meyer Court from the south city boundary, to the rear of the lots fronting on Second Street, and legally described as follows: - lots 22-25 and 28-31, inclusive, and a portion of lots 26 and 27, Trafton Heights Tract. 2. The following text shall be added to the zoning ordinance to replace the entire Section 9.62: DIVISION 2. PLAN AREA NO. 2. Section 9.62-1. Authority. This Specific Plan Area is an instrument for implementing the General plan pursuant to Article 8, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Chapter 3, of the State of California Planning and Zoning Law (California Government Code Section 65450 et. Seq.) Section 9.62-2 Location and Description. The subject area is located between Barney Court and Meyer Court from the south city boundary, to the rear of the lots fronting on Second Street Section 9.62-3 Purpose. The purpose of the Specific Plan Area is to set forth the development requirements, standards and permitted uses for the subject area. Section 9.62-4 Permitted Uses and Density. A. Any use permitted in the R-1 (One -Family) Residential Zone B. Two units on a lot provided the units are detached C. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit shall be not less than 2000 square feet. Section 9.61-5 Development Standards A. A minimum of three (3) off-street parking spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit. B. Lot coverage shall not exceed 50%. C. Lots with two street frontages shall have a unit facing each street. D. The maximum height shall be 25 feet with a maximum of two stories. E. All other development standards shall be as set forth in ARTICLE 4. R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE F. All other standards shall be as set forth in the City of Hermosa Beach Zoning Ordinance. 3. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. 4. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 28th day of August , 1990, by following vote: AYES: Essertier, Wiemans, Mayor Sheldon NOES: None ABSTAIN: Midstokke, Creighton ABSENT: None PRESIDENT'o the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California AT EST: do -mo-- alias APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY p/ccorgpa8 • 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. 90- 5398 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN BY CHANGING THE DESIGNATION FOR "AREA 10" AS DESCRIBED BELOW FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO A RESIDENTIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AREA AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held public hearings on July 10, and July 24, 1990, and made the following Findings: A. The subject area has inconsistent General Plan and Zoning map designation, and state law requires consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance; B. In order to make the subject area consistent requires either an amendment to the General Plan Map or the Zoning Map; C. General Plan amending the subject area as described below will bring. the General Plan into consistency with the proposed zoning; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby amend the land use map of the general plan as shown on the attached map and described as follows: 1. General Plan amend from Low Density to Residential Specific Plan Area the area located between Barney Court and Meyer Court from the south city boundary, to the rear of the lots fronting on Second Street, and legally described as follows: - lots 22-25 and 28-31, inclusive, and a portion of lots 26 and 27, Trafton Heights Tract. 2, Amend the text of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to add the following category under the "DENSITY PLAN" for Residential areas as•follows: "SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS: The density for these areas shall be as established by the zoning ordinance. This designation is for purpose of recognizing unique areas of the City for which a standard density designation is not appropriate because of the specific characteristics of the area. Since these -z-- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 specific plan areas are recognized as the General Plan designation for the areas, to change the designation or the standards of the Specific Plan requires an amendment to the General Plan." PASSED, APPROVED, ana AbOPTED this 14th day g. August , 1990. 7/z<! -may L7 PRESIDENT o the, City/ Council atfd" MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY - z6- p/ccrsgpa8 0 ZN° JA Est CURRENT ZONING R -2B CURRENT GP LD' ICF 111 • 1111n IIIR 'IZ%t1 37.18 1.800'' Z 5.14 3Z ZSJi 25./5 j03�o n.o �3 . 59 !d • C Z3 E y �-�- ` I Iii li-W e' 044, 6.:4�f'ti:2;..t t ct,U ca) r *;\,!\ DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS The existing structures being converted to condominiums are 5 years old and require little in modification to conform to the existing condominiums ordinance. The only work anticipated for complete conformance to condo specifications is the designation of existing open space areas to specific units, with the additional of some deck area. The entire 'Projects' consists of three units, two attached off of Meyer Lane and one detached at the Barney Court frontage. The attached units consist of 3 bedrooms 3 1/2 bath units with the detached unit being 3 bedroom plus den, 3 baths. See the attached plans for more specific layout and floor plan information. ;I\N 1 0 ,z RENT SCHEDULE RE: CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION 23 BARNEY COURT 18-20 MEYER LANE 23 BARNEY COURT $2,000 18 MEYER LANE $1,550 20 MEYER LANE $1,700 PER MONTH PER MONTH PER MONTH S AN 1. 0199 R NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONVERT TO CONDOMINIUMS Mr. and Mrs.Dr Adel and Magda Ghatlas 23 Barney Court Hermosa Beach CA 90254 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Ghatlas As you may already be aware it is our intent to convert your apartment to a condominium. The Hermosa Beach City Code (the "City Code") requires that you receive notice of this intent at least 60 days prior our application to the city of Hermosa Beach (the "City") for the permit required for the conversion. We have set forth below a summary of the relevant data about the project. Please contact me as soon as possible should you have any questions. PROPERTY ADDRESS: CURRENT OWNER: PROPOSED SUBDIVIDER: 23 Barney Court Steven Harris Same PROPOSED FILING DATE FOR TENTATIVE MAP: April 18, 1989 PROPOSED FILING DATE FOR FINAL MAP: June 15 1989 APPROXIMATE DATE OF VACATING UNIT IF NOT PURCHASING UNIT: December 15 1989 YOUR RIGHT TO PURCHASE YOUR UNIT: You will be given the first option to purchase your unit at a discount which will equal the approximate fee which would have been paid to a realtor handling the sale (approximately $7,000). YOUR RIGHT OF NOTIFICATION TO VACATE: You will have at least 180 days from your receipt of our notice to vacate your unit if you have elected not to purchase your unit. YOUR RIGHT TO TERMINATE YOUR CURRENT LEASE: You will have the right to terminate your current lease by giving us at least 60 days notice. You may elect to terminate that lease at any time within 30 days of you receiving the notice referred to above. CURRENT RENT POLICY: Your rent shall not be increase for a period of one year from the time of the filing of the request for the permit. JAN 1 01991 OUR PROVISION FOR SPECIAL CASES: If you qualify for special treatment under the City Code we will grant extensions or adjustments as set forth in the City Code. OUR PROVISION FOR MOVING EXPENSES: We shall reimburse you for moving expenses as required by the City Code up to a maximum of $500. We have attempted to set forth all the information you may need to assist you during the conversion process. We stand ready to provide you with any additional assistance. Sincerely Steven Harris Property Owner gwc-intnt-mm -p d TENANT ASSISTANCE PLAN j.A.N 0 1991 A) OPTION TO PURCHASE; LOCATION OF REPLACEMENT RENTAL HOUSING TENANTS SHALL BE GIVEN 60 DAYS TO EXERCISE IN WRITING THE OPTION TO PURCHASE THE UNIT AT A DISCOUNT, WHICH WILL EQUAL THE APPROXIMATE FEE WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN PAID TO A REALTOR HANDLING THE SALE (APPROXIMATELY $7000) IF THE TENANT DOES NOT EXERCISE THIS OPTION, THE SUBDIVIDER OR HIS AGENTS WILL ASSIST IN FINDING COMPARABLE REPLACEMENT RENTAL HOUSING WITHIN THE AREA, INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL RELOCATION ASSISTANCE TO THOSE WHO DESIRE SUCH ASSISTANCE. B) COMPLIANCE WITH STATE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT NO TENANTS SHALL BE REQUIRED TO MOVE FROM HIS OR HER APARTMENT DUE TO THE PROPOSED CONVERSION UNTIL THE EXPIRATION OF THE TWO MONTH PERIOD FOR EXERCISE BY THE TENANT OF HIS OR HER RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL PURSUANT TO SECTION 66427.1(b) OF THE STATE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT (TITLE 7, DIVISION 2 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE) SAID TWO MONTH PERIOD SHALL NOT COMMENCE AS TO ANY TENANT UNTIL SUCH TENANT HAS RECEIVED WRITTEN NOTIFICATION OF ISSUANCE OF THE FINAL PUBLIC REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE, AND SUCH TENANT'S RIGHT TO CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF HIS OR HER UNIT AS A SPECIFIED PURCHASE PRICE FOR SIXTY (60) DAYS FOLLOWING THE DATE OF SUCH NOTIFICATION. C) REIMBURSEMENT FOR MOVING COSTS INCURRED THE SUBDIVIDER OR HIS AGENTS WILL REIMBURSE EACH OF THE TENANT WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FOR COSTS ACTUALLY INCURRED IN RELOCATING FROM HIS APARTMENT DUE TO THE PLANNED CONVERSION TO A COMMON OWNERSHIP UNIT WITH A MAXIMUM OF ONE AND ONE-HALF (1 1/2) TIMES THE UNIT'S MONTHLY RENT, AS WELL AS FOR MOVING EXPENSES ACTUALLY INCURRED, NOT TO EXCEED FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.00). D) EXTENSION OF TENANCY TO COMPLETE SCHOOL TERM THE SUBDIVIDER WILL ASSURE THAT EACH TENANT WHO ATTENDS, WHOSE SPOUSE ATTENDS OR DEPENDANT ATTENDS SCHOOL AT THE TIME THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF TENANCY (AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 66427.1 OF THE STATE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT) IS GIVEN WILL BE GRANTED AN EXTENSION OF TENANCY AS NECESSARY TO PERMIT SUCH PERSON TO COMPLETE THE SCHOOL YEAR, SEMESTER, OR QUARTER WHICHEVER IS THE MINIMUM SCHOOL TERM AS HE OR SHE IS ENROLLED IN AT SUCH TIME. AS USED HEREIN, "SCHOOL" INCLUDES ANY PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OR SECONDARY SCHOOL, COLLEGE, COMMUNITY COLLEGE, UNIVERSITY OR VOCATIONAL SCHOOL. E) BOND NO TENTATIVE MAP OR PERMIT SHALL BE APPROVED EXCEPT UPON THE CONDITION THAT A SECURED, WRITTEN AGREEMENT SATISFACTORY TO THE CITY COUNCIL BE ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE SUBDIVIDER FOR THE BENEFIT OF EACH TENANT, BY WHICH THE SUBDIVIDER COVENANTS TO CARRY OUT THE TERMS OF A TENANT ASSISTANCE PLAN, AS FINALLY APPROVE BY THE COUNCIL. SUCH AGREEMENT MUST BE SECURED BY A BOND OR BONDS BY ONE (1) OR MORE DULY AUTHORIZED CORPORATE SURETIES IN A TOTAL AMOUNT EQUAL TO ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,000.00) MULTIPLIED BY THE TOTAL NUMBER OR UNITS, AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF SAID BOND OR BONDS SHALL BE SECURITY FOR EACH AND EVERY OBLIGATION TO ANY TENANT UNDERTAKEN BY THE SUBDIVIDER IN SUCH AGREEMENT. 1) RELEASE OF SECURITY. THE SECURITY SPECIFIED IN THIS '• SECTION SHALL NOT BE RELEASED EXCEPT WITH THE CONSENT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR ON BEHALF OF THE CITY. SUCH CONSENT SHALL BE GIVEN UPON PROOF THAT THE CONVERSION HAS BEEN COMPLETED EXCEPT FOR PARTIAL EARLY RELEASES AS HEREINAFTER AUTHORIZED. PRIOR TO THE FULL RELEASE, THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE WRITTEN CERTIFICATION TO THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PROJECT THAT ANY POOL OR POOL EQUIPMENT (FILTERS, PUMPS, CHLORINATOR) AND ANY APPLIANCES AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE OWNED IN COMMON BY THE ASSOCIATION SHALL BE IN OPERABLE WORKING CONDITION. 2 PARTIAL RELEASE OF SECURITY. PARTIAL EARLY RELEASES MAY BE GRANTED, NOT MORE THAN ONCE IN EACH SIX-MONTH PERIOD FOLLOWING APPROVAL OF THE FINAL MAP, UPON THE SUBMISSION OF PROOF OF ENTITLEMENT TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR, IN PROPORTION TO THE NUMBER OF UNITS IN WHICH THE TENANTS HAVE EITHER: a) VACATED; b) PURCHASED WITHOUT VACATING; c) WAIVED THEIR RIGHTS PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION. 3) SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH TENANTS. THE RIGHTS OF A TENANT PURSUANT TO THE CONTRACT EXECUTED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY IF KNOWINGLY WAIVED BY A TENANT AS FOLLOWS: a) A WRITTEN AGREEMENT, SIGNED BY BOTH THE TENANT AND THE SUBDIVIDER OR HIS AGENT, IS EXECUTED BY WHICH THE SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED RIGHTS ARE EXPRESSLY WAIVED IN RETURN FOR SUCH SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED CONSIDERATION AS MAY BE MUTUALLY AGREED UPON BETWEEN THE PARTIES. b) THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SUBDIVIDER AND THE TENANT IS EXECUTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE AGREEMENT UNDER THIS SECTION AND SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT THE TENANT HAS READ THAT AGREEMENT AND IS AWARE OF HIS RIGHTS THEREUNDER. c) A COPY OF THE EXECUTED AGREEMENT IS PROMPTLY FILED WITH THE PLANNING DIRECTOR. F) VACATION OF UNITS EACH NONPURCHASING TENANT NOT IN DEFAULT UNDER THE OBLIGATION OF THE RENTAL AGREEMENT OR LEASE UNDER WHICH HE OCCUPIES HIS UNIT SHALL HAVE NOT LESS THAN ONE HUNDRED EIGHT (180) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF INTENT TO FIND SUBSTITUTE HOUSING AND TO RELOCATE. AFTER SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT ANY PROSPECTIVE TENANTS SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF THE INTENTION TO CONVERT OR CREATE A COOPERATIVE OR COMMUNITY APARTMENT PRIOR TO LEASING OR RENTING ANY UNIT, AND ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO THAT TENANCY. G) NO INCREASE IN RENTS. A TENANTS RENT SHALL NOT BE INCREASED FOR ONE (1) YEAR FROM THE TIME OF THE FILING OF THE REQUEST FOR PERMIT UNTIL RELOCATION TAKES PLACE OR UNTIL THE PROJECT IS DENIED OR WITHDRAWN. H) SPECIAL CASES. ANY NONPURCHASING TENANT AGE SIXTY-TWO (62) OR OLDER OR HANDICAPPED OR WITH MINOR CHILDREN IN SCHOOL SHALL BE GIVEN AT LEAST AN ADDITIONAL SIX (6) MONTHS IN WHICH TO FIND SUITABLE REPLACEMENT HOUSING. IF THE COMPARABLE REPLACEMENT HOUSING RENT IS GREATER THAN THE EXISTING UNIT RENT, THEN THE APPLICANT SHALL PAY THE DIFFERENTIAL UP TO A MAXIMUM OF ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100.00) FOR UP TO SIX (6) MONTHS. (ORD. NO. 79-630, - 1,12-18-79) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1120822 FOR A THREE - UNIT CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION AT 23 BARNEY COURT, 18 AND 20 MEYER COURT Mr. Schubach stated that the application submitted does not comply with the filing requirements contained in Sections 17.2-0 through 17.2-23 of the zoning ordinance pertaining to condominium conversions. The applicants have been notified of this oversight, and they are currently working on preparing the appropriate materials. Mr. Schubach explained that tenants must be notified 60 days prior to the application for a permit. This has not yet been done by the applicant. Staff recommended that this matter b'e'continued to a specified date in order to allow the applicant time to complete the application in accordance with the filing requirements for a condominium conversion. Mr. Lough noted that condominium conversions do not arise often. With the 60 -day notification requirement, he suggested that the matter be continued to more than 60 days so that there is adequate time for the applicant to comply. Chmn. Peirce suggested that the matter be continued by June 20, 1989, which is more than 601 days away. He noted that the Commission has no material on this matter at this time. He stated, however, that he would open the public hearing and continue it. Public Hearing opened at 8:27 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, project architect, stated that he has never before done a condominium conversion in this city. He stated that the tenants will be notified as required by the code. Mike Meyers, 1104 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, felt that a builder bought this property; built three apartments; and intended to convert them to condominiums based on the fact he felt they could be sold as individual units. He felt that the applicant is attempting to circumvent the requirements. He noted concern over this happening again in the future, and he did not feel this is fair. Mr. Meyers felt that this item should be renoticed to the surrounding neighbors so that they can attend the next hearing. Sam Edgerton, 1118 2nd Street, Hermosa Street, noted that on April 25, the City Council will be changing the density for this area. He suggested that that will have a direct impact on this project; therefore, he felt that the items should be taken together. Chmn. Peirce suggested that Mr. Edgerton attend the City Council on April 25 to voice his opinion. Mr. Edgerton noted concern over future condominium conversions in the City. Chmn. Peirce stated that, since the Commissioners had no information whatsoever on this project, the matter would not be discussed until the meeting on June 20. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Mr. Edgerton, explained the past actions taken in regard to the density designations. He noted that no density increase would be created by this condo conversion; three units exist, and three units are being proposed. P.C. Minutes 4/18/89 Mr. Compton stated that this is an unusual circumstance. He stated that the property was purchased when the general plan designation for the area was low density and the area was zoned R-2. He explained that general plan changes were upcoming; therefore, the applicant built apartments. He noted that the area was ultimately designated R -2B. Mr. Compton stated that this building is built to all of the condominium ordinance requirements. Public Hearing continued by Chmn. Peirce at 8:37 P.M. to the meeting of June 20, 1989. Chmn. Peirce stated that this matter would be continued to the Planning Commission , meeting of June 20, 1989; Chmn. Peirce commented that it would be reasonable to ask the applicant to renotice this matter. Mr. Compton stated that the matter would be renoticed. TEXT AMENDMENT TO ELIMINATE VIDEO SALES IN THE C-1 AND C-2 ZONES AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 12, 1989. 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. At the time video sale's -,and rentals were added to the permitted use list, it was believed that adult, X-rated tapes could be completely banned. Since these types of tapes cannot be completely prohibited, elimination of the use from the list,is necessary. It is believed by staff that both the C-1 and C-2 zones are in too close proximity to residential development. Other communities'and the County prohibit such uses within hundreds of feet of residential development, although it appears from the most recent court decision, no community can prohibit sales and/or -rental of this type of material within a certain distance as long as it is not the "predominant use." Therefore, video sales and rentals in general have a potential to be more obnoxious and deleterious to the community than other allowed uses in the C-1 and C-2 zones.` N� Staff recommended that the Planning Commission remove video sales and rentals from the permitted use list for the C-1 and C-2 zones. l%" Public Hearing opened and closed at 8:39 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce, since no one came forward to speak on this matter. N� ,, Comm. Rue noted that,tlie resolution refers to only the C-1 zone. Mr. Schubach explained that anything allowed in the C-1 zone is also allowedNin the C-2 zone. He not d,'however, that this resolution does not include the C-3 zone. Comm. �e asked what would happen to any establishment currently selling X\i�d videos ip the C-1 and C-2 zones. Mr.'Schubach noted that there is currently only one such establishment. 37 P.C. Minutes 4/18/89 ' PROJECT ADDRESS rITY OF HERMOSA (EACH 23 BARNEY COURT, 18 & 20 BARNEY COURT 4/tit3 Project Name (If applicable) LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 24, Trafton Heights Tract APPLICANT INFORMATION: Name(s) MICHAEL J. CLELAND Mailing. Address 865 Manhattan Phone ZONING R-2 546-7411 Beach Blvd., MB 90266 Appiciant's Relationship to Property APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE. See Below owner DATE 3/15/89 PROJECT REQUEST Conditional Use Permit -Commercial 320. Conditional Use Permit -Condominium Number of Units 160 x 3 = 480?,00 Development Agreement Environmental Staff Review *Final Subdivision (Parcel/Tract Map) General Plan 1111111. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY- Date of submittal: 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 $1025.00 'DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL Received by: •2.0822 for establishment • three residential connominium uii1Lb. Three existing uni attach additions OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT* We/I MICHAEL J, CLELAND �•• •dMy•Coa' m ExnJ 903tS being uly savor - =-epose�.aa con pages it necessary) orm o curren con.ominium «; o ary u lic- a nornia LOS ANGELES COUNTY ndarc 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 orrect to the best o � • � o r/my knowledge and belief. A Subscribed and sworn before me this Signed 15 th day of March , 1.9 89 OTARY PUBLIC in and for the County of State of California. * Signature required from current Owner's Address: 865 Manhattan Beach Bl'vcl. Manhattan Telephone - 11 •• ilot ntinar 4n ece.rnL,,-s tpo property y owner. - 38 - (7 :mc7c n JcD•11 MEMORANDUM 1111111111Ii imm.DA division of GERALD W. COMPTON _' 111 An Architectural Corporation DATE: MARCH 12, 1991 TO: HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GWC INC. RE: BARNEY COURT CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION • GENERAL PLAN ANALYSIS Chairman & Commissioners: .OR 1 9 1991 Since the City Council has broken their deadlocked vote on the General Plan designation, through the use of an SPA classification, we are again before you with our conversion request. It is our understanding that the City Coucils compromise plan approval was to have allowed for both the local R-1 residents concerns about over building and my clients concerns over his capability to request this conversion under the new zoning and general plan designations, ie SPA Zoning and SPA General Plan. In reviewing our application, the planning staff has identified what they feel are competing general plan goals/objectives and standards in this case. These are, first a stated objective # 21 which clearly favors fostering an increase in individual ownership of dwelling units (see staff report information) ; and second is the obvious density standard which has been established by the SPA to be 2000 sq.ft. per unit with a maximum of two units per lot. The existing project is three units. The argument can be made that since the density has already been established in this case, the over-riding factor to be considered would be the individual home ownership objective, which would clearly be furthered by an affirmative vote even though it does not conform to the density standard. The question in my mind while reviewing this argument was, which holds more weight under the State General Plan Laws, an objective/goal or an established standard? I feel I am able to answer that question using the definitions on page 10 of "General Plan Guidelines" book (see attached). The initial statement says: "State law refers to, but does not define or RANK, "objectives," "policies," "principles," "standards," "plan proposals," and "programs" in the general plan." This statement, I assume, leaves to the descretion of the local jurisdiction to attach "Rank of Importance" characteristics to the different elements of their adopted General Plan, and I sincerely hope you agree that the objective of individual home ownership ranks higher in this case than the density standard which 11 1200 Artesia Blvd., Suite 300, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Tel. (213) 379-8222 Modem/Fax (213) 372-4873 39^ will not be affected by your action since it already exists and is therefore moot in this case. The only positive effect on our General Plan available to you in this case would be approval of the conversion. Conversely, denial would have the negative effect of disallowing individual ownership while having no effect on density. In closing, we feel that the city and neighboorhood has nothing to lose and 3 good homeowning neighbors to gain, with the attendant pride of ownership and long term commitment to the community which many times is found lacking in the rental environment. My client has also expressed an interest in providing an additional incentive for the neighborhood and city residents at large through the possible donation of recreational equipment for the newly acquired Edith Rodaway Park which is the closest openspace recreational area to the conversion location. We feel our request is resonable with an end product that will be a benefit to the community and would urge your approval. Thank you for your attention, Gerald'W. Compton, AIA o_ ; C,.r••_..ti, SS \- U !� MAR 191991 0-,vN.. TC G C C ►� jl — C__ k_D SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Field Report # /i4 Beach Cities Inspections & Consulting, Prepared for til i1/ 1L ETC - C Property Address 1 �` ,? U /til r✓�Lh= `f' ? Inspection Date- /// /9 / Time- 1 7_ rvoot✓' Building Inspection This agreement limits our liability. Please read! -LA ©:'/)'7cJ)9 The purpose of this inspection is to report the general condition of the visible portions of the specified building on the property for your further evaluation and analysis. Because the inspection to be performed is a visual inspection only and does not involve or contemplate the dismantling of any object, equipment, appliance or portion of the premises, no warranties, representations or guarantees are intended or given either express or implied. No warrantee of merchantibility or fitness of purpose is given for any appliance, machinery or improvements. Equipment is considered functioning unless otherwise indicated in this report; however, no method exists for determining how long such equipment will continue to function and no warranties, representations, or guarantees expressed or implied are given or intended. This inspection is limited to the real property and does not include inspection for personal property unless indicated. This inspection does not include inspection for termites, dry rot, fungus, wood destroying pests or organisms, household pests or rodents. This inspection does not include inspection for underground or concealed pipes, electrical lines, sewer lines, and/or septic tanks, soil hazards or conditions, roofing paper below a rock or tile roof, self cleaning ovens, radiant heating, alarm systems, elevators, or concealed or inaccessible portions of the premises, appliances and/or equipment. This inspection and report does not include investigation or opinions regarding easements, conditions of title, zoning, or if existing structures and/or repairs were done pursuant to city or county building permits. As used in this report, "Good" or "Normal" means the item appears in operating condition and does not show excessive wear at the time of inspection; "Fair" or "Adequate" means the item is operating at the time of inspection but may need repair in the near future or shows signs of aging; and "Poor" means the item is in need of present repair or replacement. The liability of Beach Cities Inspections & Consulting fp or its employees, if any, is limited to the contract price for this report. Grounds: © Walks © Walls Q' Fences ❑ Lawn 0 Sprinklers ❑ Pool ❑ Spa ❑ Hot Tub m Decks O Gates 4-42-0 /l(7 . 23 Bii- Good Fair Poor Q ❑ 0 r J ILI C 0 ❑ Trlec(.9 4voo�� ❑ . 0 ❑ ❑ . ❑�� ❑ ❑ J . ❑ ❑ ❑ �� ❑ ❑ ❑ /� ❑ ❑ ❑ NA - Dwelling Description: ❑ SFD ❑ Duplex O Split Level ❑ One Story O Two Story ❑ Three Story Structure: Roof ❑ Shake ❑ Shingles ❑ Built Up Gravel ❑ Tile ❑. Comp Shingles ❑ Mineral Roll Roof ❑ Scuppers ❑ Roof Drains • Gutters Exterior Walls: ❑ Stucco G Wood Siding O Shingles ❑ Veneer Good 0 0 (CIVlNtO0 WAG "P)e-r&ut . 0 Z - S R- Fair Poor ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 O 0 Good Fair Poor ❑ ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ 0 0 ❑ 0 0 3 -7-r 3 -�es o 0 /17104;_7/Z4 -7Z17 -Ft C1-11,-) (... /.411/5 77'(c (-") Windows: ❑ Double Hung ❑ Louvers ❑ Fixed Glass ❑ Sliding ❑ Casement ® Weatherstripping Kitchen: l Floors W Walls Q Ceiling V) Cabinets ca Counters J Garbage Disposal - Dishwasher Rl Microwave ❑ Trash Compactor ❑ Doors O Electrical ❑. Plumbing Laundry: O House CI arage ❑ Sink M Plumbing Connection 0 Dryer Vent O Washer & Dryer O Electrical Good 0 0 0 Good 0 rizr El - 0 Good 0 0 Fair Poor ❑ 0 ❑ 0 0 0 0 Fair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fair 0 0 0 ❑ FSG_ G roc -ki= 23 Btu-RNe% cilar O 5L/DeR5 0 Poor ❑ VW )/ L ❑ a/4 -i- L /I , zx5 C k 0 0 0 0 • 77) 0 Poor 0 0 0 ❑ Living Room: • Walls E. Floor [7 Ceiling LY Doors ❑ Wetbar 6- Electrical ❑ Plumbing Dining Room: l Walls • lam' Floor [l Ceiling ❑ Doors ❑ Wetbar Electrical Plumbing Bedroom #1: Lighting ❑ Outlets D Walls ❑ Floor O Electrical ❑ Plumbing Bedroom #2: Dl Lighting O Outlets Q Walls O Floor ❑ Electrical O Plumbing Good m Good QL10 0 Fair Poor ❑ ❑ 1)2 jy r.c/14-1— i— a, o C A-R_Ipo'r- ❑ 0 D 2 y- Li/A-1_ u ❑ ❑Lih�Z (41-Lii/74,[Vrl/i1, ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ Fair Poor ❑ ❑ C'cc'/43 /x'An 0 D ytimiq ❑ ❑ Leif y L. ❑ 017yl•CiPr��— ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ M= ii r4GtV SiNk1 Good Fair Poor O 0 p 0 0 O 0 7Ptv4- O ,Q 0 (',4,,:2 J O 0 (i17c ✓Nil i ��C�� O ❑ ❑ AI Good ®. 0 B 0 Fai r 0 0 0 ❑ 0 O 0 Poor CA -f' nET Y--0 "'>t—j icy F2'jVV -' C'T Bedroom #3: Good Fair Poor 0 Lighting 0 ❑ 0 0 Outlets 0 0 0 O. Walls 0 ❑ ❑ npyrvn(-L O Floor 0 p 0 (',4-c?;) L 1 • Electrical It ❑ 0 O Plumbing ❑ ❑ 0 Sri 44-3;7-t Bathroom #1: Good Fair Poor lh Lighting a' 0 0 (s.Outlets 0 0 0 d' Walls p 0 ❑i:L(,,--a..- 6 Floor la 0 ❑ 1/itiv C, n Electrical 0 ❑ 0 Plumbing g( ❑ 0 Bathroom #2: Good Fair Poor q Lighting p 0 0 LD Outlets It 0 0 a Walls EI ❑ 0 PgUiii 4IA- © Floor 0 ❑ 0 /i;(Ai L i 0 Electrical Q. 0 ❑ ❑ Plumbing a_ 0 0 Bathroom #3: Good Fair Poor O Lighting (9 0 0 Outlets C11 ❑ 0 0 Walls p 0 ❑ 7)4:7 .,A.,_ l -ice-'- -- L C7 Floor p ❑ 0 �;- -� ,, i/ ; t1 O Electrical 0 p. 0 L%9 Plumbing ❑ 0 0 4.6 13 AP- fj; the) / Attic: Good Fair Poor ❑ Access 0 0 0 rlA ❑ No Access 0 ❑ 0 //i ❑ Stairway Access 0 0 0 �( ❑ Ventilation 0 0 0 ///' ❑ Insulation 0 0 0 �c� D I_P,Ai i ❑ Light 0 0 0 ) . ' ❑ Switch 0 0 0 ' Stairs/ Handrail Good Fair Poor ❑ None ❑ ❑ ❑ 001 Installed Ls' ❑ ❑ Parking: Good Fair Poor O Attached Garage rt.1 0 ❑ Ze /t46,---`/r=r4 *23 2,4A7,1;6--/ /1A-_-) 1},-- z -`ate ❑ Attached Carport 0 0 0 ' /A- ' fr 'i7? f4 5 771NJ),-=-7:-7 Door Opener © 0 0 ❑ Structure 0 0 ❑ a) Driveway P ❑ ❑ i Dwelling/Garage Q 0 0 Doorwith Weather- stripping Foundation: Good Fair Poor ❑ Raised 0 0 0 T'rA*+rul AX.? tf Slab on Grade Q 0 0 C,.4-17.aa` p Concrete 0 0 ❑ Block 0 0 0 ❑ Brick 0 0 0 0 Engineered Fndn 0 0 0 O Ventilated 0 0 0 ❑ Access Door 0 0 0 ❑ Remove Debris 0 ❑ ❑ ; O Light & Switch 0 0 0 4 / My Basement: Good Fair Poor ❑ Walls 0 0 ❑ ❑ Floor 0 0 0 O Ceiling 0 ❑ 0 o Ventilation 0 ❑ 0 o Electrical ❑ 0 0 o Plumbing Fixtures 0 0 0 Mechanical Systems Good Fair Poor Forced Air Unit ] 0 0 Capacity :'10,6t' O Wall Furnace 0 0 0 ❑ Floor Furnace 0 0 ❑ ❑ Baseboard HTG 0 0 0 ❑ Electric HTG 0 0 0 ❑ Air Conditioning 0 0 0 ❑ Wall/Window A/C 0 0 0 I Registers Intact JEI 0 0 0 Thermostat 0 0 d Ducts [7 0 0 El Vents ❑ 0 0 Ci Combustion Air 0 0 0 -/9--th 5 A.-/(1 L(,-,✓ mfr/g c Arm U, :; L. - Plumbing: Good Fair Poor ❑ Water Service m 0 0 lel Copper El 0 0 O Galvanized 0 0 0 O Cast Iron 0 0 0 O Plastic 0 0 0 Drains: Good Fair Poor O Water Service 0 0 0 El ABS p 0 0 ❑ Galvanized 0 0 0 ❑ Cast Iron 0 0 0 ❑ Copper 0 0 0 d Meter Location 0 ❑ . Vents: Good Fair Poor a ABS E- 0 0 ❑ Copper 0 0 0 o Galvanized 0 0 0 o Cast Iron 0 ❑ 0 Water Heater d Gas Capacity CSA L ❑ Electric 0 0 0 Di In House Good Fair Poor a ❑ ❑ '1 0 L e CC:/ -,17,76 R r,f7+ O In Garage w/Stand L Pressure Relief If Vent 0_ Combustion Air Et Secured n 0 0 *-2-34-a-0 ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ISS P_ 'v P --ES L ; r r) A -r ]' ❑ ❑ Electrical Good Fair Poor O Overhead 0 0 0 [2i. Underground 0 0 0 0 Grounded Panel IZ, 0 ❑ 0 Main Disconnect !r7 0 0 ET # of Circuits ] 0 0 I 1 I:I Subpanel f21 0 0 ti) Breakers 0 0 ❑ Fuses 0 0 0 ❑ Romex 0 0 ❑ ❑ Conduit 0 0 0 O Knob & Tube 0 0 0 Inspection Fee: $ �C) Inspector -l EL L- /.(//,./5 Seller Buyer Seller Rep- Buyer Rep- -49 BUILDING INSPECTION REPORT #147 The sound transmission pertaining to the separation wall (party wall) between #18 and #20 Meyer Lane, Hermosa Beach, is in accordance with the approved plans issued to MJC Properties January 1, 1987, and meets the requirements of Chapter 35 (Appendix) of the 1985 Uniform Building Code. So sre. #23 Barney Court, Redondo Beach has no separation walls. All elements concerning the properties are approximately - 4 years old. SBW:jw 1/17/91 '',ILAP a 1991 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH I, the undersigned, do declare under penalty of perjury that I did on the Zhci day of /114y , 199/ , deposit into the United States Post Office, first class postage prepaid, a copy of the Public Notice attached as Exhibit "A" to each and every person attached as Exhibit "B". I warrant that the persons named on Exhibit_"B" are all the persons required by applicable law to receive the Public Notice attached as Exhibit "A". I understand and agree that it is my responsibility to cause these Public Notices to be made in an aaccurate and timely fashion and agree to hold the City harmless against any liability whatsoever for any defect of said notice or notices. In the event an action is instituted in a court of competent jurisdiction which questions the legality of the Public Notices, then the City may in its exclusive discretion suspend all hearings or cause the cessation of any consturction or of any use which was permitted as a result of a hearing which was held on accordance with the Public Notice. In the event that the court declares the notice or noticing procedure to be effective, then the City may in its exclusive discretion revoke any permits granted and cause any approvals given pursuant to those Public Notices to be declared null and void and I agree on behalf of myself and my heirs, assigns or successors -in -interest to hold the City harmless in connection therewith. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. I have executed this declaration on this the S7L4 day of MAY , 199( at Hermosa Beach, California. 3 I36,Aftili Ct, 18 0 zv Meye, State of California County of Los Angeles ) Op this the Lace/ice appeared e/ satisfactory suscribed to executed it. t4 -y, - (lIi6rj (Name) J' f ST2s{'TVG AJ1 (Capacity) SS day of , 199/ , before me, el,__, the under igned Notary Public, personally /46- 7/47e? nd proved to me on the basis of evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) 5 the within instrument and acknowledged that ii WITNESS my hand and official seal. (SEAL) • OFFICIAL SEAL V,47 LAURICE M. DUKE Notary Public . Collto.nia PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN L A. COUNTY r My Comm. Exp Mar. 12.1993. OTARY PUBLIC cec . -00L •%.-00.1 i4 r a r --DLL+• - M Ra •1*_ 1 'Com' /—.--- .-_'.__ ear_•01-r y '--CY, ter•.-! .'-‘18-1- �aM �•.-t• _. - ro 2 o' .0 -tem — .- •.I.+ apo- m -•- -, - o' •'1014.0 74,`w94,x- • 50,10'• F .vr-' JRN�- - r‘03/te02 VC` r ,A."----6- E900 "----6- € e Ell ---6 s— 'e -1.- ax- - H -_: N_- aoo- w -o • -- ca GaQ-e - ye ','- _,*!_i :'O - 1 o. 4 N". -.e "E.'L�..•1889 G'O,-tom. A�-�'•4�. er�'-i1_E6 o 4' 17' o' go •o' 00.00 ono -t 15'.0 00rc.v.a+ C1M,r $19 7110N6Pit 10..71 -- New C0.4o .4110. -'lv0 U9r!� ,a••a T?'1eNr C�O6. 1000 105 CV 40.2W-.4ti — 20 .. 0, f 4 • e .1e1.E --- - eL-oe ucw1 m.,� i 1 co -� -t' ..r, — 004d1ED 44 -re. -. s� 631F $1 EL -0C' -L-6ae-^Jr�c-�• o. -a0-9a-•- _ -.!'P o_ e vea a•' em0•.•-e d'--`" n' C we-ac-va Pa;Oa i7 L" xc� yr ^oma s 1 T E tee ` . 01 •- a • be' s_ aeV,3 C 5' c' JOB ADDRESS: JOB DESCRIPTION: eiwoJer tow, Mw1UH GeovrietoI4 - war. Q.IENr NAME: MUG PF/RFTIOO 1fl F1440111: IRM - 046 -'1411 UrAL DE'CRIPr1ON MO 10-01 LOT$ i4 BLOC!.{ NeI ,l4T1 LOT SIZE leg/. $ 40. Pk' R#O.41" 1.14' Lor .,gar. = get I .,42 . pr. BUILDING OOQIPANC3: WNLSRRUCEION 1YPE Y 7DNINt. wr CDVF34ACF 310!0 4a.F1, BUILDING SU/14, MLA TABUI.ATIOi. UNIT GARAGE LIVING DVQ$ VAT c�� A 360 1794 192 B 360 1899 .I` C 367 2233 s -v ,` orHNJ hrKE uurr t9z5c,VE R AC IL T. .. *20 4 Fr• • M110 ♦ emp PLP. en-.►' H *to F.T. • r$Tlo 1 too no.vwrx *a. FT, •trow? P4 u�SY ,c�1MMuuM zo P4 17311/0+00 4.4.1 e•lie •0.1 JAN 1Qi i z 0 U) Q W z O U 2 cz_ 0 0 z 0 U f - Z :M GERALD R I:e*rr•# J1.L&. mili Icy.#���y�i � , ; :4 1 tt1 it 1 rEiji ' 1 irl,Ali r.. 2 114101i111 ,'' J I1'1111111 ,' 1 jti11ii"1�. I4 f.`4 �V ii !1: • !lipqq111,: 1 Iiiii,fikill 1 Ni1;111 IfF 1'4041401f 0 R I11IiJhtiii1 k 1 T • 1 Ili 11LI 1 e 0 •• r • t# ir 4-- O 0 • • GERALD R. COrPT•■ A.Lt. Q • w> W J 0 0 0 Zo o• I�. r-- • GERALD W CUPT•w r 17.0. PC11Pr 1...19.11" Lli10 I) t1 f J SOUTH ELv Tio I L CBtW W. comma LLL pb no. 1P 464O /COIL I/41•1''d� 1:1`1: . • 4 ,1 �: J 1¢ M-1 F L � \/j �T' 10 N ,),41.. , o • C6tiLl R I:sMPT•■ i.L< Job no. -7e104- DESIGN /cok 642-1,_,L.)64(22/t9-6w.. aU.- erg aftl ec 91 May 8, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council of May 14, 1991 SUPPLEMENTAL TO GENERAL SERVICES REORGANIZATION REQUEST TO APPROVE A CHANGE IN THE PERSONNEL ALLOCATION IN THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT AND CLASS SPECIFICATION FOR FINANCE SUPERVISOR WITH RECOMMENDED SALARY RANGE RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council: 1) Amend the personnel allocation for the Finance Department by deleting the 3/4 time Senior Account Clerk position and adding a full time Finance Supervisor position; 2) Approve the attached class specification for Finance Super- visor with a salary range of $2563-$3115 and authorize the City Manager to execute the attached supplemental to the Administra- tive Employees Bargaining Unit; and BACKGROUND: At this meeting the Council is requested to approve a reorganiza- tion of the General Services Department. The proposed reor- ganization recommends that the Data Processing and Citation Records Processing Divisions be assigned to the Finance Director. The current Personnel Authorization in the Finance Department includes: Finance Director - 1 Accountant - 1 Sr. Account Clerk - 2.75 Account Clerk - 2 The Finance Director is currently directly responsible for the supervision of the personnel in the department. With the pro- posed reorganization, the Director will assume responsibility for two additional divisions with a personnel authorization of six employees (2 in Data Processing, 3 in Citation Records Process- ing, and 1 Administrative Aide). The Data Processing and Citation Records Processing Divisions each have a mid -management level employee who supervises the functions of the division. At present, there is no such level in the Finance Department. The lack of this level position in the Finance Department was raised as a concern during staff discus- sions regarding the reorganization and staff was instructed to analyze this need. Subsequent to development of the proposal to SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION i reorganize the G.S. Department, the incumbent Sr. Account Clerk in the three-quarter position tendered her resignation. Taking advantage of this opportunity, staff prepared a Class Specifica- tion for Finance Supervisor to replace the Sr. Account Clerk position to address the need for the mid -management level posi- tion in the Finance Department. Analysis: The analysis is divided into the following sections: 1) Personnel Allocation Change 2) Class Specification - Finance Supervisor 3) Salary Range 4) Fiscal Impact Personnel Allocation Change It is anticipated that, with the additional assignment of the two divisions, at least 20% of the Director's time will be spent di- recting those functions. Initially, with the current activities of the Data Processing Division which includes the analysis of the existing City computer system, the time commitment will be even greater. The proposed Finance Supervisor position will al- low the Director to assign portions of the responsibility for some of the Finance functions currently performed by the Direc- tor. These functions include budget preparation, audit coordina- tion and preparation of the comprehensive annual financial report along with much of the daily supervision of the department. The duties of the existing Sr. Account Clerk will either be performed by this new position or absorbed by the other personnel in the Department. Staff is also requesting from the City's auditors, Coopers and Lybrand, a proposal to provide a management audit of the Finance Department to review internal controls and identify any opportun- ties for increased economy and efficiency or convenience for cus- tomers. The reorganization presents an opportune time to address the location and duties of personnel. The RFP for audit purposes required set rates to be used for additional services outside the scope of the audit. The FY 90/91 and 91/92 budgets contain an appropriation for management audits. A detailed work plan and cost will be brought to the Council at a subsequent meeting. Class Specification: The attached class specification was developed following a review of similar class specifications from other municipalities and an analysis of the needs of the Department. Following review and approval by the Finance Director and the Union, it was submitted to the Civil Service Board and approved on May 7, 1991. This classification will be included in the Administrative Bar- gaining Unit represented by the Teamster Union, Local 911. Salary Range: It is proposed that the salary range for this position be es- tablished to provide a 15% differential above the existing salary range of the Accountant position. The Accountant is the next lower level position which will be supervised by the Finance Supervisor. The proposed range is as follows: A B C D E 2563 2691 2825 2967 3115 A survey of other cities with a similar classification indicates that the recommended range is approximately 5% below the average salary of those cities. Fiscal Impact: There is an initial overall annual savings in salary and benefits of $51,348 which is the difference between the annual savings from the elimination of the General Services Director position ($68,592) and the increased annual cost of the proposed Finance Supervisor position over that of the current 3/4 time Sr. Account Clerk ($17,244). The increased cost of the Finance Supervisor is a factor of both having this a be full time position as well as the increased sal- ary range. Respectfully submitted, (11X47L4476.41 Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Director Noted: Michael K. Flahert Union Steward rab/finsup Concur: Kevin B. Northcr ft City Manager Viki Copeland Finance Director CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Class Specification FINANCE SUPERVISOR DEFINITION Under direction of the Finance Director, is responsible for the activities and supervision of the Accounting Division of the Finance Department; recommends improvements in financial and ac- counting controls; reviews accounting needs of systems and pro- cedures; supervises and directs the work of subordinates; con- ducts financial analyses and internal audits assigned by the Finance Director; participates in policy and program development activities of the department; and performs related accounting work as required. EXAMPLE OF DUTIES Plans, schedules, supervises, implements, controls and partici- pates in financial management and accounting services, such as budget development, analysis and administration, general account- ing, payroll, accounts receivable, accounts payable and special fund accounting; supervises the internal audit of financial data and records and preparation of cost analyses; makes work assign- ments, sets priorities for, trains and reviews the work of ac- count clerical and professional personnel; explains policies, procedures and objectives of the department to staff by written directive and by oral communications; assists City staff in the development of electronic data processing applications related to financial management; prepares periodic financial and statistical statements and reports; reviews and revises accounting procedures in accordance with governmental accounting standards and audit reports; analyzes financial processes for internal controls; maintains general ledgers for all funds; enters or checks daily cash receipts, disbursements and journal entries; administers accounts receivable, accounts payable, payroll and other related finance programs; carries out special financial or statistical research or analytical studies in the formulation of new policies and in program planning; conducts audits of funds or accounts; develops specifications for and coordinates audits with consul- tant auditors; analyzes audit reports ; develops forms; prepares schedules and gives instructions for annual budget preparation; makes projections of revenue and cash flow; computes and analyzes budget requests; participates in department budget reviews, sug- gesting budgetary strategies and incorporating budget decisions into budget revisions; prepares finance department budget; moni- tors City adopted budget; attends meetings and represents the department; provides information to the public and consults with public to resolve problems and complaints; and performs related work as assigned. May act for the Director in the Directors' absence. GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS Knowledge of: Principles and practices of governmental fund accounting, budget- ing, cost accounting, and financial reporting; State law govern- ing municipal finance including reporting requirements, develop- ment accounting, and the creation and retirement of debt; general and fund auditing principles and procedures; financial analysis and research procedures; principles of supervision and training; data processing as it relates to accounting and finan- cial record keeping applications;. Ability to: Plan organize and direct the accounting and financial record keeping programs of a municipality to meet quality standards and rigid deadlines; prepare clear and concise financial and other written reports; analyze problems, develop sound problem -solving models and arrive at sound solutions to problems; read, interpret and implement complex laws, rules and regulations; operate a cal- culator by touch; operate computer terminals, microcomputers and printers; plan and schedule work assignments, set priorities for, train and evaluate subordinates; understand and carry out oral and written instructions; establish an maintain effective relationships with those contracted in the course of work. Training and Experience: Any combination of training, education and experience which dem- onstrates an ability to perform the duties of the position. A typical way to obtain these knowledge, skills and abilities would be: Three years experience performing professional level accounting, with emphasis in municipal accounting, payroll, accounts payable, accounts receivable, financial analysis and financial reporting with supervisory level experience; and Completion of a minimum two years college level course work lead- ing to completion of a major in accounting, business administra- tion or a closely related field including or supplemented by training in data processing as it relates to finance programs. Approved by the Civil Service Board: 05/07/91 Approved by City Council • pers/finance 05/02/91 A SUPPLEMENTAL TO THE SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 - AUGUST 31, 1991 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AND THE CALIFORNIA TEAMSTERS PUBLIC, PROFESSIONAL AND MEDICAL EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 911 ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYEES BARGAINING UNIT , Effective May 15, 1991, Exhibit "A", the schematic list of class titles and base monthly salary schedule, of the Memorandum of Understanding, Administrative bargaining Unit, is revised to reflect the addition of the Finance Supervisor class and to reflect the following base salary range for the classification of Finance Supervisor: A B C D E 2563 2691 2825 2967 3115 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused their duly authorized representatives to execute this Supplemental Memorandum of Understanding this day of , 1991 Kevin B. Northcraft, City Manager City of Hermosa Beach Michael K. Flaherty, Chief Union Steward, California Teamsters Public, Professional & Medical Employees Union, Local 911 April 18, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of April 23, 1991 GENERAL SERVICES REORGANIZATION Recommendation: It is recommended to approve the reorganization of the General Services Department as depicted on the attached organization chart, to place the Data Processing and related functions in the Finance Department, with the remainder of the department assigned to a division assigned to the City Manager. Background: In December, 1989, the General Services Director Joan Noon re- tired after fifteen years service. In 1989-90, a reorganization task force conducted a study to determine alternative ways of organizing the functions of the General Services Department. Two basic options resulted from that study: 1) to leave the depart- ment essentially as it is and recruit a new director, or 2) to divide the department's functions among the existing departments. At the time, it appeared that the least disruption of the or- ganization would be caused by appointing a new General Services Director. This was accomplished and the director was hired on August 27, 1990. Unfortunately, the uniqueness of the diverse functions of the General Services Department made it difficult for the City to hire someone with those diverse abilities, given the City's ability to pay. As the current director is leaving as of April 30, it appears appropriate to consider the information from the task force study and the conclusions reached from that study. Section 2-14.4, Hermosa Beach City Code, authorizes the City Man- ager to recommend reorganizations to the Council. Analysis: Reorganization. There is new information that the City has now that were not prevalent during the original task force study. For one, it is clearer now that the City's ability to pay does not result in applicants with abilities in the multiple fields of the General Services Department. Further, it is now much clearer that our data processing efforts likely will be decentralizing, with the core integrated computer applications to be focused in the Finance Department. Third, we are now reviewing the options to contract for both Police and Parking Enforcement services, we have an active Vehicle Parking District, and we have several areas of review going on in our Parking Enforcement division. Weighing the results of our experience and of the additional in- formation, the City should proceed with the second alternative of - 1 - the task force recommendation, to divide the functions of the department into appropriate other existing departments in the City. Data processing naturally fits with the Finance Department for the reasons cited above. Telecommunications appropriately should stay with data processing, especially if our future tele- communication lines are utilized both for data processing and voice communications. The decision of where parking enforcement should be assigned is more complex. The advantages to consider the Police Department for such assignment are: the department has an extensive manage- ment level (one Chief and four Commanders) that could absorb ad- ditional responsibilities, and the on -duty Sergeant/Watch Commander could assist supervision of the parking enforcement personnel. Unfortunately, there are much more significant disadvantages to this option at this time. These are: 1) assigning parking enforcement to the Police Department has a history of failure in our City, largely because the inherent problems of a Police Department utilizing all available resources for its highest priority, which is public safety. As a result, parking enforcement does not receive the priority that our parking problems demand. It is for these reasons that the current trend for cities that have large parking issues is to separate parking from the public safety arena. 2) The existing span of control of our Public Safety Depart- ment, which represents approximately 50% of the employees and budget, make it unworkable to consider expanding that broad span of control. Ongoing issues aggravated by the current span would multiply with broadening the span. As- signing parking enforcement to the Public Safety Department would result in one departmenthead having authority over roughly two-thirds of the organization. This would result in a vertical organization with one super department below the City Manager followed by six very small departments. 3) Putting a large civilian enforcement work force under sworn police officers would be placing management responsibilities with personnel for which their career path does not prepare them. This is the wrong direction, as the strong trend in municipal government is to remove civilian efforts from the supervision of sworn employees. These civilian functions can be better managed from disciplines related to their functions by lower compensated, non -sworn employees. For these reasons, I am very comfortable with the recommendation that parking enforcement should not be placed in the Public Safe- ty Department. There are obviously opportunities to provide savings in our Police Department by review of the management levels that can be done independently of any reorganization in- volving parking enforcement. This decision should be reviewed if - 2 - either parking enforcement or police is contracted, as many of the reasons that reorganization in the Public Safety Department will not work would be mitigated. Pending the results of the contracting issue, I am proposing that the parking enforcement division be assigned to the City Manager. This will give me an opportunity to give personal attention to the functional and organizational issues of the department and to learn better the parking related issues in our community. Such a temporary assignment worked well in my former city, and I am con- fident it will work, though it will place a burden on the City Manager's office. If the contracting issue is resolved and no contracting of current functions occurs, then the division ulti- mately should be assigned to a new code enforcement department or an Assistant City Manager position. Other actions. In addition to these basic recommendations, many other options of reorganizing individual functions were con- sidered and reviewed for the Parking Enforcement division. The most difficult one was the placement of the citation processing activity, which has many advantages in being assigned either to Parking Enforcement or the Finance Department. The recommenda- tion is to place it in the Finance Department principally to pro- vide a one-stop citizen counter for parking enforcement and to eliminate cash handling at Base 3. While these recommendations will result in the elimination of a department head's position at considerable savings, additional costs will be required to implement these recommendations suc- cessfully. These include one time costs for remodeling of Base 3, the basement of City Hall, and the Finance Department. Fur- ther, in order for the Finance Director to take on these addi- tional responsibilities, additional staff support will need to be provided that may result in an increase in accounting support, though no new full-time positions are being considered. Finally, more use of consultants will be used to provide techni- cal expertise in areas that will no longer be available to the City via the General Services Director. Despite these additional costs, it is estimated that the minimum annual savings to the City will be at least $40,000. This recommendation results from the original general services reorganization task force recommendations, and the recent input of department heads, General Services supervisors, and the General Services officers. evin B. North raft City Manager KBN/ld 1 GENERAL SERV/CES DEPARTMENT ORGANIZATIONAL CHART CITY MGR. 1 -GENERAL SERVICES COORDINATOR ELIMINATED 3 -SUPERVISORS It-I&I Eri 9 CROSSING SPC I AL : ST GUARDS / TE FINANCE DIR. -COMPUT SYSTEM MANAGER 9 -OFFICERS i 1 -METE MAI VTENA VCE 1ECH. PLUS 7 -SEASONAL OFFICERS . y -CITATION • & RECORD AD INISTRA OR E. oZ 'TE 'r ES ADMIN. AIDE 5—/c/— May —// May 6, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council May 14, 1991 CONFIRMATION OF PROCEDURE FOR RATIFICATION OF DEMANDS AND WARRANTS Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve Resolution No. 91- confirming the procedure for ratification of demands and warrants. Background: The Finance Department submits a demand list of payments being made at each Council meeting. Some checks have already been issued if discounts, deadlines or reservations require immediate payment. This approval cycle means that, for the most part, checks are issued twice a month. The Government Code prescribes procedures for payment of demands in Sections 37202 and 37208 (attached). Summarizing, 1) Checks for payrolls need not be audited prior to payment, but are submitted at the first meeting after the payroll is delivered. 2 3 4 Checks for demands which are certified/approved by the Finance Director as conforming to a budget need not be audited prior to payment. (note: the actual code indicates "City Clerk", however HBMC Sec. 2-22.2 transfers those duties to the Finance Director) Budgeted payrolls and demands may be presented for ratification/approval in the form of an audited comprehensive annual financial report. Exceptions to the above are to be audited prior to approval and shall have an affidavit certifying as to accuracy and availability of funds attached. The Hermosa Beach Municipal Code places responsibility for disbursement of monies and control over expenditures with the Finance Director. Analysis: The demand list is currently presented to Council for approval at each meeting. The majority of the checks are then mailed the following morning. Staff is requesting that the Council confirm the procedure already allowed by the Government Code whereby checks could be issued weekly or as needed, with ratification by the Council at the meeting following check issuance. The certification statement on the last page of the demands and warrants will be altered to certify conformance with the budget as required by Government Code Section 37208 (b). The City Attorney was consulted prior to development of the recommendation and we both concur that ratification at the next meeting is a better alternative than an annual summarized presentation as suggested by Item 3 under "Background". His memo is attached for further clarification. Consistent with City Council Goal #2, Improve Efficiency/ Effectiveness of Operations, staff believes that increasing the frequency of check writing will increase the efficiency/ effectiveness of the accounts payable operation. The flow of work will be smoothed by issuing a smaller number of checks each week, rather than the large numbers of demands that build up between meetings. The change will also eliminate most manual warrants which are generated when immediate payment is necessary. There is more room for error on these manual checks than on the usual computer generated checks and they are more time consuming to issue. (183 manual checks were issued in 89-90) Processing checks on a flexible schedule allows the City to take advantage of all discounts offered and avoids making payments earlier than necessary, which are both consistent with City Council goal #1, Improve Financial Picture. A more flexible schedule also allows timely refund of deposits and payment of other amounts owed. Most discounts offered are 2% within 10 days which is a hard time frame to meet with the current schedule. Lost discounts for 89-90 were approximately $1,600. While this is not a lot of money, the City should take advantage of savings when possible. Staff conducted a survey of fifteen cities to determine current practice in the surrounding cities. As shown by the attached survey, only six cities submit demands to Council for approval prior to check issuance. Three cities do not send demands to Council at all and six send them after issuance as is being recommended. Respectfully submitted, 6:44: Viki Copeland Finance Director Concur: Kevin B. North 'aft City Manager City Treasurer Comments: After careful consideration I agree with this recommendation. My initial concern that the City would lose interest revenue because of the accelerated demand payment has no merit. To the contrary, I think we can better stage payments to take advantage of dis- counts and terms, thereby negating any investment interest lost. Gary L. utsc �' City Treasurer 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. 91 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE PROCEDURE FOR RATIFICATION OF DEMANDS AND WARRANTS WHEREAS, Government Code 37202 and 37208 establish procedures for the ratification and approval of demands and warrants; and WHEREAS, the City desires to take advantage of all discounts available on items purchased; and WHEREAS, the City strives to use the most efficient methods of operation when possible; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California does resolve as follows: SECTION 1. Warrants or checks drawn in payment of demands certified or approved by the Finance Director as conforming to a budget approved by ordinance or resolution or a budget amended by the legislative body, need not be audited by the legislative body prior to payment. Audited demands will be presented to the legislative body for ratification at the meeting subsequent to issuance with an affidavit signed by the Finance Director certifying as to the accuracy of the demands, the availability of funds for payment thereof and conformance to the budget. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 1991. PRESIDENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL, AND MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CL .�_.4, Veie CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY § 37202 CITY GOVERNMENT Title 4 § 37202. Demands; audit; submission; certification Except as provided in Section 37208, the legislative body shall approve or reject demands only after such demands have been audited in the manner prescribed by ordinance or resolution. Such audited demands may be sub- mitted separately or a register of audited demands may be submitted to the legislative body for approval or rejection and shall have attached thereto the affidavit of the officer submitting the demands certifying as to the accuracy of the demands and the availability of funds for payment thereof. (Added by Stats.1949, c. 79, p. 154, § 1. Amended by Stats.1951, c. 1248, p. 3095, § 1; Stats.1970, c. 261, p. 525, § 1.) Historical Note The 1970 amendment substituted the excep- tion at the beginning of the first sentence for "The". Derivation: See Derivation under § 37201. As added in 1949, this section read: "The legislative body shall audit demands." The 1951 amendment rewrote the section in its present form, except as modified by the 1970 amendment. Library References Municipal Corporations 4=1012. C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 2177. WESTLAW Electronic Research See WESTLAW Electronic Research Guide following the Preface. Notes of Decisions made out and verified by fire chief must pass through the hands of the auditing committee in the ordinary course of business. Jackson v. Wilde (1921) 198 P. 822, 52 C.A. 259. A city is not precluded, by its allowance of bills presented for rents accrued under a void contract, from showing that such bills were in excess of the reasonable value of the property. Higgins v. City of San Diego (1896) 45 P. 824, 118 C. 524, modified in other respects 50 P. 670, 118 C. 524. The action of the trustees of a city on the presentation of a claim which they have juris- diction to hear and determine is a judicial act, and, whether right or wrong, is binding on the clerk. McConoughey v. Jackson (1894) 35 P. 863, 101 C. 265, 40 Am.St.R. 53. 3. Actions and proceedings, in general The rejection of a claim against the city by its board of examiners does not affect the right of action against the city on the claim. San Francisco Gas Co. v. City of San Francisco (1856) 6 C. 190. 4. Mandamus Where petitioner had been erroneously fined by city judge under a statute providing a penal- ty for a felony and fine and been paid into city treasury, in view of treasurer's restricted right Actions and proceedings, in general 3 Demands, in general 1 Mandamus 4 Nature and effect of determination 2 1. Demands, in general Under Municipal Corporation Act, § 864, Stats.1883, pp. 266 et seq., declaring that all "demands" against a city or town of the sixth class shall be presented and audited by the board of trustees, etc., though the term "de- mands" was sufficiently broad to include claims for torts as well as on contracts, yet the purpose of the act being that the claim should be audited, which could not apply to claims for torts, the act did not require presentation of a claim for damages for the maintenance of a nuisance as a condition precedent to the plain- tiff's right to sue thereon. Adams v. City of Modesto (1901) 63 P. 1083, 131 C. 501. 2. Nature and effect of determination Under a city ordinance authorizing the fire superintendent to grant a fireman leave of ab- sence with pay during a sickness contracted while on duty, the determination by the super- intendent that a fireman's sickness was so con- tracted is conclusive, and the auditing board has no discretion to disallow the fireman's salary during such lease, though the pay roll as 694 FINANCIAL POWERS Div. 3 to pay out money in the absence of showing that petitioner had presented a claim to city council, that claim had been authorized and a warrant issued thereon directing remission of fine, mandamus would not lie against city trea- surer alone to compel him to remit fine. § 37203 Note 2 Draper v. Grant (1949) 205 P.2d 399, 91 C.A.2d 566. Mandamus is appropriate remedy to require proper officer to examine and audit a claim, but not to interfere with his discretion in ap- proving or rejecting it. Id. § 37203. Demands; warrants for payment; signature Upon allowing a demand or approving a register of audited demands, the mayor shall draw a warrant or warrants upon the city treasurer specifying the purpose for which drawn and the fund from which payment is to be made. The city clerk shall countersign the warrant. The legislative body, by ordi- nance or resolution, may prescribe an alternative method of drawing war- rants and checks. (Added by Stats.1949, c. 79, p. 154, § 1. Amended by Stats.1951, c. 1248, p. 3095, § 2; Stats.1980, c. 770, p. 2286, § 1.) Historical Note The amendment of 1951 added the provision authorizing the drawing of a warrant upon approving a register of audited demands, add- ed the words "or warrants" and added the last sentence relating to an alternative method of drawing warrants and checks. The 1980 amendment deleted a proviso at the end of the last sentence which read: "pro- vided, however, that such method shall require the manual signature of at least one municipal officer who has executed an official bond to the city covering the faithful performance by such officer of the duties of his office". Derivation: See Derivation under § 37201. Forms See West's California Code Forms, Government. Official bonds, see § 1450 et seq. Cross References Library References Municipal Corporations 4s=)897. C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 1893. WESTLAW Electronic Research See WESTLAW Electronic Research Guide following the Preface. Action on warrants 6 - Defective orders or warrants 3 Funds 5 Interest 4 Refusal to issue warrants 2 Registration of warrants 1 Notes of Decisions 2. Refusal to issue warrants Where the board of trustees of a city ap- proved a claim, and ordered a warrant drawn in favor of a member of the equalization board for 15 days' services, in violation of an ordi- nance of the city limiting the sessions of such board to two weeks, and the excessiveness of the claim appeared on the face of the proceed- ings, the allowance of the board was not con- clusive on the auditor, but it was his duty to refuse to issue a warrant therefor. White v. Mitchell (1909) 104 P. 333, 11 C.A. 202. 1. Registration of warrants City was empowered to provide for registra- tion of unpaid warrants and payment thereof in order of registration. Voorhees v. Morse (1934) 34 P.2d 153, 1 C.2d 179. 695 FINANCIAL POWERS Div. 3 § 37208. Payroll warrants or checks; warrants or checks in payment of budgeted demands; audit; ratification and approval (a) Payroll warrants or checks need not be audited by the legislative body prior to payment. Payrolls shall be presented to the legislative body for ratification and approval at the first meeting after delivery of the payroll warrants or checks. (b) Warrants or checks drawn in payment of demands certified or ap- proved by the city clerk as conforming to a budget approved by ordinance or resolution of the legislative body need not be audited by the legislative body prior to payment. (c) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (b), budgeted payrolls and de- mands paid by warrants or checks may be presented to the legislative body for ratification and approval in the form of an audited comprehensive annual financial report. (Added by Stats.1949, c. 79, p. 154, § 1. Amended by Stats.1959, c. 1775, p. 4259, § 1; Stats.1970, c. 261, p. 525, § 2; Stats.1980, c. 770, p. 2286, § 2; Stats.1986, c. 982, § 14.) Historical Note § 37210 The 1959 amendment added the second para- graph in its present form except as modified by the subsequent three amendments. The 1970 amendment, in the first sentence of the second paragraph, inserted "or resolution". The 1980 amendment inserted "or checks" throughout the section; and, in the second sentence of the second paragraph, substituted "warrants" for "warrant". The 1986 amendment inserted subdivision designations; deleted the second sentence of subd. (b) which provided: "Budgeted demands paid by warrant prior to audit by the legislative body shall be presented to the legislative body for ratification and approval at the first meet- ing after delivery of the warrants."; and added subd. (c). Derivation: See Derivation under § 37206. Forms See West's California Code Forms, Government. § 37209. Transfer of city clerk's duties to director of finance; ordinance The duties imposed upon the city clerk by this article may be transferred to a director of finance when such office has been established and the powers and duties thereof defined by ordinance. Such an ordinance shall require the execution by the director of finance of the bond required of the city clerk by Section 36518 of this Code. (Added by Stats.1955, c. 1754, p. 3242, § 1.) Library References Municipal Corporations 4=170. Sovereign immunity study. 5 Cal. L. Rev. CJ.S. Municipal Corporations § 545. Comm. Reports 299, 421 (1963). § 37210. Newly incorporated cities; issuance of temporary nonnegotia- ble notes; repayment Newly incorporated cities that have not received revenues from property taxes may issue temporary non-negotiable notes bearing interest at a rate not exceeding 6 percent per annum to pay lawfully incurred current expenses and 699 City SURVEY RATIFICATION/APPROVAL OF DEMANDS/WARRANTS Submitted to City Council Prior to After Warrant Not Warrant issuance Issuance Submitted Beverly Hills X Carson X Culver City X El Segundo X Gardena X Hawthorne X Inglewood X Long Beach Manhattan Beach X Redondo Beach X Rolling Hills Estates X Santa Monica Torrance Rancho Palos Verdes X Seal Beach X X X X THOMAS W STOEVER WILLIAM B. BARR CHARLES S. VOSE CONNIE COOKE SANDIFER ROGER W. SPRINGER EDWARD W. LEE HERIBERTO E 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: Viki Copeland, Finance Director City of Hermosa Beach FROM: harles S. Vose, City Attorney DATE: March 11, 1991 RE: Requirements for Payment of Warrants TELECOPIER (213) 482-5336 RE0c t , ;:;Thi You have previously inquired as to the minimum requirements for the payments of warrants, specifically the restrictions regarding ratification and pre -approval by the City Council (legislative body). Government Code Section 37202 states, in pertinent part, as follows: . . . The legislative body shall approve or reject demands only after such demands have been audited in the manner prescribed by ordinance or resolution. Such audited demands may be submitted separately or a register of audited demands may be submitted to the legislative body for approval or rejection . . ." There are certain exceptions from this section which are set forth in Government Code Section 37208 which includes the following: "1. Payroll warrants or checks which are required to "be presented to the legislative body for ratification and approval at the first meeting after delivery of the payroll warrants or checks. OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & VOSE Memo to Viki Copeland, Finance Director March 11, 1991 Page 2. 2. Warrants or checks drawn in payment of demands 'need not be audited by the legislative body prior to payment' when certified or approved by the City Clerk as conforming to a budget approved by ordinance or resolution of the legislative body." Furthermore, Section 37203 allows the legislative body, by ordinance or resolution to prescribe an alternate method of drawing warrants and checks. As you are probably aware, Government Code Section 37209 establishes that the legislative body, by ordinance, may transfer the duties imposed on the City Clerk relating to fiscal matters to the Finance Director. The City Council has transferred these duties as set forth in Article IIA of Chapter 2 of the Hermosa Beach City Code. The City of Hermosa Beach has been following a procedure which requires approval by the city council prior to payment on the majority of warrants for many years. Government Code Section 37200 et seq. provides for alternatives to this process. If the City desires to change from its current process of approval and payment of warrants and checks, I suggest that a new procedure be submitted to the City Council by ordinance or resolution for approval. It seems to me that when the City Council, acting as a legislative body, approves a line item budget on various matters, each individual expenditure need not be audited by the legislative body prior to payment as long as the Finance Director certifies that the individual warrant or check drawn in payment of the demand conforms to the approved budget. As set forth in an opinion by a prior City Attorney (Charles J. Post) Government Code Section 37202 does not require Councilmembers to personally audit each demand presented for payment. That is the function of the Director of Finance. It is the duty of the Councilmembers to approve the warrant unless the Councilmember reasonably concludes that approval of the demand is improper. An improper demand is one not budgeted, not appropriated, excessive in amount, submitted by mistake for services not rendered, or otherwise contrary to the law. OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & VOSE Memo to Viki Copeland, Finance Director March 11, 1991 Page 3. Should you desire to proceed with a change in the current warrant process, we should confer again to review the specific process that you would recommend to the City Council. CSV: ilf cc: Kevin Northcraft, City Manager 1732 April 30, 1991 5/--- Honorable ( Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council May 14, 1991 CODE OF ETHICS FOR CITY EMPLOYEES RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by staff that Council adopt the attached Code of Ethics for City employees and that it be distributed to all current and future employees who work for the City of Hermosa Beach. BACKGROUND One of the listed objectives from City Council is to establish a code of ethical conduct for City employees. The intent in doing so was not to infer that there has been a lack of attention by employees to their ethical obligations; rather to convey in a formal sense, the spirit of the organization to new employees as they join the workforce. While there are many formal City policies and ordinances'that effectively address ethical issues already, the Code of Ethics is designed as a tool of communication and not as a tool for disciplinary actions by the organization. Thus while it may serve as a basis for future examination of policies and as a reference point for regulations, it does not in and of itself act as one. ANALYSIS Staff researched other City codes; codes of conduct for professional organizations (i.e., International City Managers Association) and current articles about ethics in formulating the Hermosa Beach Code. An attempt was made to integrate the best and most relevant elements of other codes with what seems to be important to the Hermosa Beach organization (i.e., the citizen as the customer). Thematically, the code seeks to convey a spirit of excellence in service; avoidance of the appearance of impropriety and the importance of upholding the public trust. The Josephson Institute for the Advancement of Ethics (located in Santa Monica) was contacted for advice and information about where a Code of Conduct fits into an ethics program. The Institute sees a Code as a necessary beginning for calling attention to the ethical obligations of public service. The City may want to consider adopting and implementing future ethics programs including a code for elected officials and training workshops for ethical decision making. 1 10 Staff hopes that with Council's support, the Code of Ethics will not only impart important information to the employees but will also provide a source of pride for the organization as a whole in providing the best in service for Hermosa Beach. Other alternatives available to Council include: 1. Revise the Code of Ethics 2. Do not adopt a Code of Ethics 3. Request more information 4. In addition to adopting the Code of Ethics provide funds for ethics workshops and training for employees. Respectfully submitted, Concur: evin B. Northc City Manager ft Robert Blackwood, Director Personnel Department r Nel U1. -T- Michael Michael Flaherty Chief Union Steward Teamsters Local #911 2 Mary . '•oney, Director Dep . of Community Resources CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CODE OF ETHICS As employees working for the City of Hermosa Beach, we are to place the public interest above all else and to serve the people of the community in a manner deserving of their trust. This includes a commitment to excellence in service; a respect for the organization and its property and a responsiveness in accomplishing the objectives set out by City Council. To insure the trust is upheld; employees are to conduct themselves in a helpful and professional manner in the conduct of their duties and to regard the people of Hermosa Beach as customers worthy of the highest level of service and respect. We are obliged to serve the City in the most efficient way possible. This means that employees seek and find cost effective ways to get the job done. While most information about the organization can be shared with the public, employees are to respect and protect any confidential information we may have access to as a result of our position in the City. In public service it is not only important to avoid any outright illegal acts; it is also important to avoid the appearance of impropriety. That is, employees must avoid any acts that would - appear to affect their ability to deliver fair and impartial service. Employees mustnot accept any personal gift, favor, service or anything of value from the public which may affect or have the appearance of affecting work related decisions. Employees are also at an obligation to avoid engaging in any outside business activities that could appear to be in conflict with the faithful discharge of their duties with the City. Employees are not to discriminate unfairly by affording any special favors or priviledges to anyone and not to accept any similar favors from others as a result of employment with the City. City property is purchased at the expense of the taxpayers and must be handled in a safe and conscientious manner. Equipment and supplies are for the completion of work related duties and are not for personal use. City employees are encouraged to participate fully in the spirit of public service. City employees may be assigned as disaster service workers in the event of an emergency. Public employees are highly visible and are expected to avoid actions whether on or off duty that may reflect poorly on the organization. Employees are expected to be loyal to the highest moral principles in conducting their duties with the City and to give a full days work for a full days pay; giving the utmost effort and thought to doing the best job they can do. Through this kind of dedicated service, the City will inspire and maintain the public trust and will serve the community in the best manner possible with the resources available. dCU '" 1 to V1EytC`turr N et t! i±rtrarAii E '1 tt .. ,M+d r7 r.C.S'-p.' L- T�-. 1 `i tp,45;.ZSR 4, A:L..L . �u T 1 L rfl . A E 11 :`'i'•..1 1 69 re` re E P 1 ' H(' E_ mit ice,, l`-